I!t:.:.
~
l'~c 4. 42 is frolll G. l-rtson. M. Wil'lm, amI Il 1 Wil'ol1. l-'ossi1 bison ano ¡Hlif"l'!s Irum un c¡¡rly A!till1l'II1l;i1I",r¡"d arroyo trap in Wyol11in~.IIlIlit,lliIY, 1117(,,4 J . ( 1); !ir 17 Repradul,cd hy pCllllb\lon of thc S"dety for A.1I1<'1 han ArcilaCIlI0l-')l
Extnll"( 011 p. 2\1.1 r- fWIII 1\. J. Su!difr,', SI'''!II'd hY;l<'11;I"
Crushcr , gnawr r, lli~."'(l'r, and <"
To the memory of David L. Clarke
1970,227:1111 R'"JlTinlcd hy pc nuission f'rom NI//u!"e
Copyril(111 1970 M"llllill,1ll .11\\111I,lIs I imin-d
COI'YMI(;IIT
©
1 'JK 1, IlY A( "111 MI(
I'Ml ss, INI
AH. RIUII"I!Ó 1\1!ó1 )(VJ 11. NO l'ART 01' TllIS l'lIIllICAlION MAY tll. JU l'IIOHI'1 11> ""
TIIANSMn-IHlIN ANY "ollM OIlIlY ANY MI ANS, 111 [ Il
IN WIlI'l IN(; "'IOM "] m 1'1I1i11SIH
l(
ACADEMIC PRESS, INe.
Orlando, Florida 32881
UlÚted Kin,do," Edillon pllbli,lIld l1y ACADEMIC PRESS, INe. (LONDON) LTD.
:una ()Ya!
Roacl, Loadon NWI
mx
L1braryof Conlrus Ctt¡lo¡lnl in Publicadon Dat¡ Binford, Lewls Roberts, üata. Bones: anclent roen and modern myths. (Studles In uehaeology) Blblloguphy: p. tncruees indexo 1. Human sketetcn. 2. Animal remstns (Arehoteology) 3. Anthropometry. 4. Fcrens¡c osteotcgv. S. eones. 1. Tille. 11. Series. GN70.B53 930.10285 81·1776 ISBN 0-12-100035-4 ISBN 0-12-100036-2 (Paperbaek)
'R ¡"'TH> 1'" TH~ LNI n.I" r ...n·,
'7 "'
,q
", .....,•.RI<·...
It is the duty 01 fheorefical hypothesis lo oulrun foct so Ihal speculcuon o'erlecps Ihe present information stcte ond pomts the woy,lhen careful accumulotion 01 lested data will revise the vchdity of the theoretioo! posltton, which moy then lecp ohead ogain. -CLARKE 11912'239)
é:.'
-
--~-
Contents
Foreword Preface AcknowJedgments List of Figures and TabJes Abbreviations
x¡ xv
xvñ xxi xxvii
Part 1 Documenting a Iong-term archaeologicaI problem: Concepts and observations
1
Chapter 1 Relics lo artifacls and monumenls lo assemblages: Changing conceplual frameworks The Relic and Monument Phase The Artifacl and Assemblege Phase
3 4 6
Chapter 2 Middle-range research and Ihe role of actualistic sludies The Paradigm-c-One's Cuide lo Describlng the World Theory-One's Guide lo Explaining the World
21 23 25 vil
J:!r'
. Contenls
viii
~ ix
Contenta
Part JI
Chapter 5
Middle-range researchIn search of methodology
Assemblage composition: Patterns of association slemming from the behavior of man versus that of beasl
183
New World Beginnings-Man as the Agent Aírtcen Problems end Assemblage Composltlon Other Types of Assemblage Variability Studies of Assemblege Compositíon Ceused by Beests Observenons of Wolves and Therr Behevíor Information on Latr Hehavior tnformetton on Kili Behavinr and Comparísons Control Collections of Animal-Structured Assemhlages Summary
184 189 195 196 197 202 207 210 237
31
Chapter 3 Pallerns of bone modifications produced by nonbuman agents Previous Approaches lo Understendtng the Significan ce of Broken and Modified Bone Skeletel Disarticuiation Tooth Merks
Other sources of Surficial Modificalions un Bone Bone Breakage and Oestruetion by Animals Modifications by Analomical Part Breakage Unrelatecl to Consumption: Trampling and Bone Manipulatioo Bone Modtñcatíons end Methodology
35 37 42
44 49 51
60 77 81
Part III Putting our knowledge to work: Seeking to know the past
243
Chapter 6 Chapter 4 Human modes of bone mediñcation Previous Approeches tu Understanding Broken and Modified Bone The Control Dala Dtsmemberíng Strategy Butchering Marks Cut Marks: Their Forro and Placemenl 00 Specific Bones Chopptng. Bone Breakage and Butchering Techniques Gnawing by Humans Martow-Bone Breakage Control Colleetions Breakaga Related in Other Forms of Bone Processtng Man-to-Man Compansons. or Alternative Human Behavtors Comparing Man and Beest Morphology of Borre Breakege Summary
Applicalion: A new look al Olduvai Gorge 87 88 90 91 96 105 142 147 148
163
Olduva¡ Gorge, a Challenge to Our Methods Analysis of Olduvai Fauna Bvaluaüng rhe Degree of Destruction Suffered by the Olduva¡ Assembleges Assemblage Composltton-cOlduvaí Gorge Surnmary
249 253 256 261 262 278
Chapter 7 General conclusíons
287
166 166 169 171
177
Rejerences Index
297 311
,
Foreword
Lewis Binford is probebly the mosl influential and sttmulatíve ercheeologtst in recen! years. in respeel lo hís insistence on hypothesis testlng and theory building. Thie book is a continuetícn of tha best of his previous methodological work and will, wíthout doubt. once agaln redtrect archaeological and paleoanthropological researches in importanl and 115efu1 waya. As always Binford has set B grand tesk for himselt. and here he has made a major posítíve efforl lo edvence rnethod and theory in regard lo severa! aspects oí human versus animal subsistence behevtors and thetr attendent restdues. From hía observetíons Oh Alaskan Eskimo butchery and meat-processtng procedures, end his analytical observertons on wolf kills and theír letrs. he has recogntzed a series of distinctive [vdiagnostic"] patterns uniquely common to each set of circumstances. This builds on the earlier work of Binford and 8ertram and of Blnlord (Nunomiut Ethnoorchoeology), but extends and amplifies thal work very substantíally. An íncreesingly approprtete corpus of comperettve data ís beíng eíforded by ethnoarchaeologfoal studtes in Africa [Icr example, by 1. vellen. D. Gifford. D. Crader), by various tephonomtc sludies (for example. by A. K. Behrensmeyer, A. nm. P, Shipman and assocíatesj. and by various studtee of camtvore (parlicularly byaena den) accumulations (by A. Sutclíffe. R. G.
Kie¡n. J. A. Maguire, G. Hani and assoctates. for inalance]. A set of analytícal procedures has been devísed Ihat seems to afford measures of a variety of dífferences between (nonhuman) marnmal osteologleal assemblages in regard to composilion of unitary and fragmented body parte. and theír respective condition and preservation. Ultimately Binford is ccncemed "with the development of dlagnostlc procedures for recognízing or identifying the agents which might have been responsible for the faunal facts preserven in an ancíent depoeít." 1 belteve he has made substantive methodologtcal contrtbutíons approprtate toward resolution of thts very complex set of problema. These ínclude: • the recogntuon and differentiation of animal (carnivore) and human procedures (behaviors) in carcess dísmemberment and perttttoning • the eJuddation and descrlption of pettems of bone breakage and explication of degrees of destruction ("ravaging") by camivores (particularly, but not exclustvelv canids) • the thorough inventory and systematic descnpnon of the disposition and cberecter ot traces on bones resultíng from human-skinning, butchering, and meat-processing practices • the development of analytical procedures (measures¡ for ascertainíng the [expected versus actual] xl
,
.. xii composttíon of various borre assemblages (drawn from assembleges of known derivalion) through Ihe employment oC severa) dtegnosttc índices of the frequencies of body perts, complete or in various stages oí fragmentationldestruction Binford has esserted. largely justifiably, thet have been unduly cavelíer in theír treatment of bcne assembleges In general, and conjoínt arlifact-bone assemblages in particular. He insists thet "cleíme for the use of lools should be supported by Ihe cítetíon ef marks produced by 100Is." Although there are sorne notable exceptions in erchaeologícal OCCUITences of late Pleístocene ege {fcr exarnple, Plncevent}, and even in Mousterian occupations Ifor example, La Quina). lt ls not unreasonable for Binford to teke this stence. One can only applaud the vlew thet progress is nol "rnede through diseoveries. . whieh are treated as self-evident In thelr meanlng," and thal "basie research makes possible Ihe reliable asslgnment of meaning to observations." lt ilO agaio lo Ihe polot lo insist Ihal Ihe developmenl aod telOting of "mlddle range Iheory" is critical lo Ihe realization of a scientific sludy of Ihe human eareer. It ls, unfortunalely, also true Ihat Ibere is substantial "mylhology" in paleoanthropology, even "modern" paleoanlhropology. Hopefully. Binford's posilion and efforts will ultimalely provoke others to develop and advance melhodology appropriale lo Ihe resolution of what are clearly real problems in a proper understanding of Ihe pasL No one familiar with Ihe slate of Ihe art would deny Ihat there is sliIJ mueh to be leamed when (and 10 there is subslantive progress in the development of melhodology and analytical proeedures. Binford has soughl to analyze Olduvai faunal assemblages, mostly from reputed hominid oecupation places, on the basis of published accounls provided by Mary Leakey In Olduvai Gorge, Volume 3 (1971). His analyses are bold and imaginative, and the resull provocative In the exlreme. However, are his lOweeping conclusions justifiable and realistic? There are subslantive problems concerning Ihis corpus of faunal material; hence Ihere are problems concerning Binford's efforts al analysis, most of which he reeognlzes. Herelofore Ihese alOsemblages of animal resldues have no! been studied and inventoried sysarchaeologists~paleoanthropologisls
forewurd
tematically for breekege pattems. for survivorship of skeletal parts per individual, oc even collectively for a particular texon: and "cut marks" as evidence for butchery-dísmemberment have nol been reoorded. Maps of spalial dtstrtbuttons of such bone-ertñact concentratíons have been publíshed. but the recording of particular laxa and body parts do no! enable a linkage lo be effecled betwcen theso dislribulions and Ihe faunal inventaries. The difficulty (and hence limitations) of the faunal sumrnary in the Olduvo¡ Gorge, Volume 3. is thal the overall frequencies of body parts for large mammal specíes are summarized (p. 276), bu! there is no full breakdown of body perta, or an indication of Iheir preservallon for individual laxa. (However, A. W. and A. Genlry [GeoJogy, Bulletin of the British Museum of Naturol History, 29(4) and 30(1), 1978] have provided relatívely fuIl, but stil l íncomplete body part dala For the Bovidae, and these dala often do nol malch thal tabulaled in Olduvai Gorga, Volume 3.) Moreover Ihe limb side is never staled, and those dala are critical lo the realilOtic calculation of MNl values. Mary Leakey early recognized, and on several occasions has stressed, the several sedimenlary environments wilhln which Ihese various occurrences are situated, and has also directed attenlion lo Iheir slate of inlaetness or exlenl of dlsturbance. Thus, she distinguished "living f1oors" {Iargely inlacl hominid occupatioo occurrences), possible {hominid) kili sites, channel fills, and "diffuse" occurrences. Binford's analyses have been direcled loward Ihe elucidallon of Ihe nature and exlent to which a diversily of nalural as opposed to (or in conjunction with) hominid faclors may have been responslble for Ihese accumulations. He has been concerned wllh disceroing events and formation processes, and Ihus In Ihe degree of resolution afforded by occurrences rela· tive, In part, lo Ihelr inlegrity. Binford condudes Ihal a diversity of agencies were probably responsible for Ihe slale of Ihese occurrences. He has disceroed vari~ ous pattems and degrees of bone destruction (and preservatlon), and employing faclor analysls has soughl fo clemonslrate resemblances with modero analogues, and thereby lo infer the role of various agencies in producing Ihe various accumulations. Binford eondudes Ihal "Ihe large. highly pub-
A"
forewurd
llcized sites as currently analyzed carry HUlespecific intormation about hominid behavíor." He belteves thal "arguments about base carnps, hominid hunting, sharing of food, etc. are cerlainly premature and most likely wildly ínaccurate." This pretty strong statement ts probably argueble. However. he does accepl as demonstreted "homtnld scavenging 10fJ Ihe kills and death sttes of other predator scavengers for abandoned analomical parts of low food uulíty. primarily for purpnses of extrecttng bone marrow." Thls conclusion, if further substantíated, is itse!f of mejor signifieanee for understanding Ihe dielary and behavíoral adjuslmenls of Plin-Pleístocene hominids. Recenl studíes of bone assembleges, with artifacl assocíatíons. from Koobl Fora (by H. Bunn) and fram Olduvai Gorge (by R. PolIs and H. Bunn) now promise lo document in detaíl the nalure and extent of hominid butchery practices evidenced al these earHer Pleistocene sltes. These researches also do confirm the complexily of formalion processes for particular hominid "occupation situations," as Binfoed has concluded. There has been, and is In progress, a variely of research Ihat should provlde substantive dala relevanl lo Ihe resolulion of many issues abou! which Binford has expressed his profound skeplicism. Several monographs (under Ihe editorshlp of J.-K. Woo) on Ihe Horno erectus locality ofChoukoulien 1are in preparation and should afford, al lasl, relevanl delailed dala on those bone assemblages, andhopefully-the exlent lo which Ihey reflecl activities of carnivores, early humans, or olher agencies, or a combinalion of many facloes, al Ihal importanl site. Claims have already been made (by P. Shipman and associales) thal a distlnclive Theropilhecus owaJdi-rich occurrence allhe Olorgesailie localily reflecls an unusual form of hominid predalion (despile Ihe apparenl absence of butr.hery Iraces!) ralher Ihan sorne olher natural calaslraphe. A delailed study of Ihls and olher bone assemblages is currenlly being underlaken by Chrislopher Koch. Binford offers sorne pilhy commenls relativc lo our own work al Ihe Acheulian localilies of Torra Iba
xiii and Ambrona in central Spain. It ís worth mentioning that when those sttes were ínittally excavaled (1961-1963), initially under my direction and subsequently joinlly with L. G. Freeman, no one was concemed with bone assemblages in any of the ways which have become more commonplace 10-15 years hence (in facl the Leakey's became concerned with such matters only in Ihe late 19605 as a consequence of the extensíve excavetíon program et Olduvet Gorge). Unforlunalely, and for severel complex reasons. those faunal collectíons from Ihe Spantsh sttes were never fully analyzed, beyond texonomíc identíñcetíon. and Ihus fracture patterns. cut marks. and delails of dismembermenl and butcherv were only superficially recorded in the fleld. These faunal colleotíons are now relocaled and in course of detatled study. Renewed excavation (in 1980) al Ihe Ambrona locality has revealed an abundance of evídence relevant lo butchery, dismembermenl, end bone breakage, as well as human manipulalion and fashioning of bone and ivory. Sedimentary processes at Ibis site are more adequalely underslood than before, but the silualion is an unusual one (for Europe) and Ihere is slill much lo do. There is. in fac!. a diveesity of research compleled, and presumably in couese of pubHcation, or now in progress, which addresses Ihe deficiencies in paleoanlhropological sludies with whlch Binford is so inlensely---and rightly so--concemed. These range from the Upper Paleolithic of Ihe U.S.S.R. (and weslern Europe), Ihe so-called "M.S.A." of easlero and soulhern Africa, the Mouslerian ofmany parts of Europe and weslern Asia, the AcheuHan (and lis facies) of caves in soulhweslern Europe, and cave and open-air occurrences in Europe which mayo it is Ihought by sorne, testify lo Ihe Initial occupation of Europe by hominlds. In each and all inslances Ihese researches will gain subslantially from Ihe analytical procedures developed in Lewis Binford's provoca· live and stimulating book. F. CLARK HOWEl.L
Universily of Cali(ornia, Berkeley
.,.....-
•
Preface
This book developed from en eructe started in )anuary 1979. I had made observations on wolf behavior while conducting ethnographíc research among the Nunamiut Esktmo of North Central Alaska. 1 though that rny obeervetíons might be oí sorne value to those engeged in taphonomic studíes. As 1 seerched Ihe literature for sorne comparatíve material on assemblege composilion, 1 reelteed that my data on denso bone hreakage, and psttems of attnuon were untque. and Iha! there was more lo say than ortgtnally planned. The peper wes then expanded lo a short book. in which 1 descrtbed butchertng and butcheríng rnarks. and competed marrow cracking 85 performed by man and by animals. 1 expended my llterature coverage ID deal with Dert'e erguments, read the Iascinattng líterarure treating Choukoutten, and del ved into Ihe German luerature that clearly foresbadowed the "osteodontckerauc" argumenta of both Breuil and Dart. As 1 treated the problema uf pseudotools. butchering petterns as manifesl in bone modification, and Ceorge Fnson's erguments abcut muscle stnopíng. I also begen lo envísion sume Interesting conctustons stemmtng from my data and researcb. These conclusions were nol related lo Ihe compostuon of wolf kills and dens. which now seemed pcrtpheral lo the !hrust of the "smflll tc(:hnical book" developed Ihus far. Then Diane Gifford lenl me her copy of Andrew Hill's importAn! doctoral fhesis, submilleci to the llninrsíly
ofLondon lHilI1975). Hill's thests contained dala on assemblage compostuon for animal kili and death sítes in African setttngs. Now 1 had comparattve rnelerial ínr viewing my dala in a broader context. I was fascinated to dtecover Ihal ~blage'~· tion of remaíns al wolf km sites in nonh 'Cent1'al Alaska was essentially tbe same as the composilion of assemblages from animals of comparable SiZ6 in Africa, where the predators were unknown endror variable and the prey-centelopes and equids-so very differenl from the certbou of Alaska. 1 began to work up tha assemblage composition comparísons between HiIl's dala and rny own, in Ihe process gatning a new eppreclatton for meny of the facts and thetr lmpl ícatíons As l worked on the kili dala. 1 íncreestngly wished for sorne oompereuve den material. lt was al thís point thet Richard KIein arrived in Albuquerque to deliver several lectures. He had prevíously sent me offprints of many of his articles treating Ieunel assemblages from South Arrica. NaturalIy when he was here we had sorne intense conversattons ebout feunal assemblages. Richard responded to my moaníng and groanlng regardlng the lack of dala 00 animal denso He had dug one! He promised to send me an offprint of his report on his relurn lo Chicago. The day il arrived was full of excitement for me, since 1 had already formed sorne ideas as lo whal a den should look [ike based on Ihe kili sife assemblages
..
..&"-
xvi and the bints 1 hed from my Alesken material. On .Inspectíng hts data. 1 realizad thet Ihe assemblage had suffered heevy atlrilion, and Ihal what tbe surviving bones gave me was mora a reñecüon of Ihe reletíve slrength of the anatomícel pert rether than a clear pícture of tbe parls transponed by animals to theír denso Could 1 reconstruct the original assemblage using the lechniques developed earlfer for understandlng attntion? (See L. R. 8inford and J. B. 8ertram 1977.) As wl1l be seen. 1 was successful. and the correspondence belween the result and the data from Ihe kills was remarkable. Wilh this test comparative component in place there was a kind of closure and a general methodology seen outlined. Clearly what was needed. was an application! r chose lo implement my approach on the importanl faunal materials from Olduvaí Gorge. 1 had played around earlier with sorne of the models developed In my Nunamiut study (L. R. Blnford 197Bb]and found that there eppeered to be sorne "fits" between my models and the actual faunal data. My írnpressíon at thet time, however, was that all the variabillty in the Olduvai matertals was probably referable lo nonhormníd behevíor. That ís. the fauna was background natural lo geologtcel deposite In Áfr-ica, deriving from the conlinuous aclion of predators and prey as well as natural deaths in soch a fauna-rich environment.
Peercce
1 had completed the book up through the ñrst half of the Olduva¡ chapter when Jim HilI and Jan Orcutt visited me. They were conducling multivariate analysee of settlement data at Ihe University of New Mexico computer center. Jan had an operatíonal program for carrying oul factor analys¡s. 1 pul together the Olduvai dala and Jan made severa! runs ustng different essumpttons. The fascinaling result. which in my opiníon did isolate paltened cnnsequences of homlníd behevíor. was totally unexpected. Consequently Ihe wrlting of the last half of the Olduvai chapter and the conclusions was sheer excilement, rather than the normal labor of finishing a book whose "outcome'' has been known Ior sorne time. The writing of this book has been an inlellectual adventure, with several importan! turning potnts. as has been indicated. 1 arn convlnced that a basic methodology has been outlined and that findings of importance have resulted. The methodolcgy Is nol "oleen." and much more tntormatíon regarding both kills and animal transport of fauna ís needed, as is much better conlrol on the anatomical facts of bone densily or hardness so importan! to reconstructtng assemblages Irorn survlvíng elements. 1 hope that olhers will be motivaled to join in the research needed lo move from lhis outline to a robust set of melhods for giving meaning lo the facts of the ar· chaeological record.
Acknowledgments
In many cases acknowledgments are a kind of formal recitation of normal relationshíps. in which an author thanks the typist, the photographer, acknowledges formar teechers for ínsptretíon, end closes by acknowledging a spouse for putting up with the lensions of writing. This format is germane lo my situation, bul Ihere is in addition a compli. caled set of intellectualand lechnical debts Ihat must be acknowledged as exlraordinary in Ihe wriling of Ihis book. Wilh regard to my experience wilh wo!ves and Ihe dala coJlecled, 1 owe a ver)' special debllo Iwo men who continually prodded me iolo recognizing thal sorne of my assumptions were perhaps nol warranted in workinR with Ihe tundra fauna of Brooks Range Alaska. One was Simon Paneack. who played skeptic with me as 1 asked him queslions about the fauna] materials my crews were refilularly re¡;overing durmg the Beld seasons between 1969 and 1973. For inslance, if I described a coileclion made or field observalions recorded 00 fauna fram a parlicular pla¡;e, Simon would smile and say, "How you knaw it's nol lndians or wolves?" He said Ihal lo me so many times Ihall began altempting lo find out what wolves "Iooked like" when viewed from Ihe perspective of fauna. 1 tried lo do the same lhing for "Indians" hui was nol successful. The second man was lohnny Rulland, who in his quiel way pointed
out lo me my first examples of wolf kiJIs and enumerated all the charactenstics that led him to dist¡nguísh a wolfkill from ene madeby his fellow huntere. While 1 W85 working al Anaktuvuk. Boh Stephenson of the Alaskan Departmant of Fish and Game began his extraordinary study of wolves and Ihe Nunamiut knowledge of wolves. This stimulated considerable interesl snd discussion of wolves amoog the Nunamiul hunters with whom 1 was associated, and in turo I was the beneficiary. 1 am par· ticularly indebted to David Mekiana, who beca me in/erested largely through slimulalion fram lustice Mekiana, who was working closely with 8ab Slephenson. David went out af his way to ¡nform me of evidence of wolf behavior. Although the collection of wolf data was largely my project done In conjunction wlth elhnographic work, two members of my crew, Dan and Allison Witter, were unliring in Iheir ¡nterest In fauna and did the nasty ¡ob of collecling bones fram one of the majar dog yards al Anakluvuk. Dan developed the first stages of the ciassification af destruction and madification presented in Ihis book. He also oro ganized and recorded the marrow·cracking experiment, which serve as imporlant contrals on the tool-assisled breakage patterns described here. It is one of my major regrAtf¡ Ihat Dan could nol continue working on thA Alaskan malerials wilh me, bul xvii
.. xviii academic consíderetíons as well as a [ob in Australia led him in new directions befare this work on fauna 'ctmld be undertaken from the analyñcal perspectiva. A number of people have been important in conditioning the charecter of tbe final form of this manuscript. AH of the drafted graphs end charts were drawn by Dana Anderson. who never failed lo produce the exacl iIlustration I had in minrl. The tllustrations of bones used in demonstretíng the cut marks (Figures 4.06, 4.11. 4.16, 4.20-4.22, 4.25-4.32. 4.36-4.39,4.48, and 4.53) were all drawn from actual specimens by [udith Browne of Albuquerque. ludy has made a meter contnbutton to the utility and quelíty of this bcok. Mosl of the photographs of bone breakege and modtñcatíon were laken by my daughter. Martha R. Binford. and James Moore. These photogrephs are crucial lo the types of comparative argumente that maka up mueh of the dismemberment and breakage chepters. Martha and Itm spenl long hours propptng up scales. adjusting llghtíng angles. building supports for specimens out of all kinds of Ihings so the engle would be right or the alignment between spectmen and seale would be un the same plane. For this Investment and the fine pietures that resulted (Figures 3.02, 3.10-3.16, 3.18. 3.20-3.30, 3.32, 3.33, 3.40-3.45, 3.51-3.53, 4.50, 4.56, 4.57), I am most grateful. Afler Ihe initial "spree" of picture taking hy Martha and lim. r kept diseovering otber subjects that needed ilIuslralion and Martha took all the additional pholographs unassisled {Figures 3.01, 3.03, 3.05-3.09. 3.17, 3.19, 3.31, 3.34-3.39, 3.463.50,4.14,4.18.4.20,4.241·
A number of people eontributed pholographs that (hey had taken and I requested. This assistance is acknowledged in the following list: Roberl Stephenson, E'igures 5.01, 5.03, 5.04, 5.11: James O·Connell. E'igure 4.43: Jean-Philippe Rigaud, E'igure 4,07.4.10, 4.15,4.16, and 4.41. Through suggestions and actual research, several pImple have helped me cover sorne of Ihe foreign language Iileralure. Miehael Jochim responded lo one oí my cries for help by ~upplyinB copies of artieles from Ihe German literature lha! were not available in Albuquerque. Furlher "id wilh the German Iiterature was provided by Larry Todcl. a stuelent in the anlhropology departmen!. In aelrlition, my friend
Acknowledgmenls
James Finley of the biology department here in AIbuquerque also helped out with sorne translation when my nwn sktlls failed. Iean-Philippe Rigaud duplicaled Iwo Important manuscrtpts unevetlable in Albuquerque, and euggested severa! otber references. Lawrence Straus helped by solving the mystery of severa] French idioma, and he graciously lent me sorne Interestíng end rare articles from the early French Iiterature. F. Clerk Howell c!arified several points for me regardtng Torralba and Ambrona and sent me literatura as a further aid. James ludge helped eonsiderably in tracking clown sorne of the literature treating early man in the New World. Intellectual slimulation and ínspíration during the course of writing thts book carne basically from long telephone cnnversations with Diane Gifford, intense conversatton with Richard Kle¡n. and general díscusstone of the problem wlth Bob víerra. Iohn Pfeiffer, and Stanley South. To those good friends, 1 am sineerely grateful. Severel typtsts were involved in the preparation of thís menuscrtpt. Lisa Edelhoff aga¡n treated my rough draft with gentle and considérate skill. Freddie Height. Marilyn Daily, Ruth Stewart. and Louise McGuff elso prepared major sections of the rnenuscript. Their commitment to a good job ís greatly appredaled. A rough draft of the manuscripl was critiqued by six highly qualified readers: George C. Frison of Ihe Universíly of Wyoming, Diane Gifford of the Universily of California, Sanla Cruz. f. CJark Howell of the University of California. Berkeley. Richard E. Morlan of the Archaeological Survey of Canada, Timothy While ofthe University of California, 8erkeley, and a final unidentified reviewer obviously wilh interests in the New World. These reviewers provided me with a truly impressive bocly of criticism, thal made it possible far me to clear up numerous vague or misleading parts of the manuscript. Their responses forced me to look agaio at the manner and substance of my trealmenl of others' dala or ideas. In adelition. I have added (Iargely in notes) numeraus volunteered pieees of informa\ion that have strengthened the presentation r:omdderably. I cannot thank lhese readers enouRh. I hflve never had such a body of Ihoughlful. r.onslruclive. ami candid r.ritil":ism. To Ihe six who look it seriously anel djrl lneir hesl to find
Jir.'
Acknowlerígmenrs
tbe weaknesses and points that needad clarificatton. l am very grateful. Funding for the fieldwork during the course of which the dala on Alaskan wolf behavíor was ob-
xtx reíned carne from the National Science Foundatíon and the Wenner-Gren Foundation lar Anthropologlcal Research. To these agencies, 1 am most grateful.
/i
,r
,
List of Figures and Tables
Figures Figure 3.01. Punctures made by animal teeth. 45 Figure 3.0Z. Animal-produced pitting and punctures on the distal metapodial. 45 Figun 3.03. Animal-produced extensively pitted bone.
4fi
Figure 3.04. Animal-produced pillad and scored compael bone surfece. 47 Figure 3.05. "Compressor" pttted and seored by animal
teeth. 47 Figure 3.06. Compect borre scored by enfmal teeth. 48 Figure 3.07. "Arte MobUlar" produced by acíds in como pect root rneeses un a shoop jaw from the Bear síte. Anaktuvuk Pass. 50 Figure 3.08. Detall or bone in Figure 3.07. 50 Fillure 3.00. "Cbenneted" beeekage ot bones by antmela 52 Figure 3.10. Highly polished end of a gnawed borre. 52 t'igure 3.11. Pifiad and radially scarred bone, the result of extensiva gnawing. 52 Fillure J.12. "Pressure flaking" on Ihe end of a gnawed bone resulting Irom chipping heck the edge 5J Figure J.1J. Extensively ehtpped-baek edRes of gnawed bcne. 53 "'igure 3.14. Chlpped-back fldges shnwing mtcrodentlculated effect. 53 Figure 3.15. Externel Iace of chipped-haek bona showlng oblique tooth scarnng 53
Figure 3.16. gxtarnal faee of chipped-back bane showing looth scerrlng from "slipping clown" the bane wtth the teeth. 53 Figure J.17. Examples of channeled and chipped-back bones commonly confused with human workmanshíp. 54 Figure 3.18. Rounded edge of gnawed bone. 56 Figure J.19. Collepsed cylinders with dtsttnctive chtpped-back ends. 56 Figure 3.20. Long "longttudínally" spllt fragmenta with denüculated ends. 57 Figure 3.21. Group of "ridge-crtls! removed" f1akestypical or animal gnawíng. 59 Fisure 3.22. Pseudotools produced by animals chewing al rtdges.
59
Flsure 3.23. Delail of poin! on a pseudotool shown in Figure 3.22. 59 Fisure 3.Z4. Animel-gnawed cranium with attached entlers Icaribou). 61 Figure 3.25. Antmal.gnawed paletea (caribou) showtng dtsñncttve channeling and crenuletlon ot thln bone. 61 FIsure 3.26. Crenret dtsc as eommonly produced by gnawing caníds. 62 Figure 3.27. lnitlal deslructlon of sheep mandlbJes by bosh dogs (Iower Iwo) and wolves (upper Iwo). 62 Figure 3.28. Sequence uf caríbou mandibular deetructton by both dogs (Iower two¡ and wolves (uppar fourj. 63 Figure 3.Z9. Wolf mandible [Iower specimen) and dng mandibles (upper specimenl dsstroyed by wolves. acrh sper-imens were recovered frcm wolf denso 64
ul
,
xxiv .
, I
Figure 5.12. Relationship between Alaskan wolf den end ~1I11Jgemblages 223 Fi"uhl5.13. Relafinnship between díscreíe end paltmpsast wolf kili assembiegea. 223 Figure 5.14. Relalíonship between eeconstructed Alaskan wolf den and kili assemblagea. 228 FilUrtl 5.15. Relatlonship between reconstructed díscrete end pallmpsest wolf kili essemblagea. 228 Flsun! 5.18. Camparison between medrum-tc-larga and small ungulstes introduced lo antmal dens-Swartklip reconslructed (aune. 228 FiSure 5.17. Compertson between medium-Io-large and small ungulatss. parls remaining at killlocallons. 229 Figure 5.1B. Comperíson between kills and dens for medlum-to-Iarge anímels. 229 Fisu",5.19. Comparison of mean valuee for remains of large and small animels ebendoned by predators al klllB and Iransported by Ihem to denso 232 FigUl1l5.ZQ. Ccmparlsen of mean values for large antmals found in predator dan, and found abandonad un Nunsmiut Eskimo kili sltes. 233 Fl.¡ure 5.21. RlIlationship between lotal Nunamiul dllperled kllls and Ihe GUI fOl carlbou. 234 Figure 5.22. Relatlonship I:letween mean frequencies for bon8ll of large prey tound in dens and the GUI tor caribou. 235 Fl.¡ure 5.23. Comparison between plIr1stransporte
Lisl of Figures und Trrúles cal parts from FLK N. Levels 1 and 2. and modelad values. 271 Figure 6.08. Relationship between frequencies of aneterrucal parts from FLK N. Level 5. and Aleskan essemhlage Irom Chandler. 271 Figure 6.09. Relationship between frequenctes of anatomícal parts Irom HWK E, Level 2. and modeled values 272 Figure 6.10. Relationship between frequanníes of enatomical parts from DK. Leve] 2, and modeled valúes. 274 Figure 6.1 l. Relalionship betwssn frequencies of analomical perts from FLK. Level t S. and modeled valúes. 275 Figure 6.12. Relationship between factor scores on enetomtcal parts for Iactors 3 end 5. 277
TBbles Table 1.01. SecondllfY bíomess end eslimatad prey accumulaled in vences habiteis 15 Table 3.01. Sequence of natural dismembermenl accordíng lo HilI 43 Tabla 3.02. Size d!strihulion of fragmenls recoverad from ItIkmalaiyak wolf den 58 Tabla 4.01. Factor loadings for analysis of Nunamiut faunal essernblages 93 T.ble 4.02. DistributicJIl of cut mllrks on bones in Uve Nunamlul assemblagas 97 Table 4.03. Dlstribulion of butchering marks on bones from Ihe Mousterien slle of Combe Grenal 99 Tab'" 4.04. Invenlory of described skinning and bUlchering marks 136 Tabla 4.05. Bone spllnlers recovered from six rnarrowcracking experimenls 164 Table 4.06. Frequency dlslribution of impact scara on articulalor ends of long bones l6!> Tabla 4.07. Vltriation in bone breakage for animal· vllrsus human·derived assemblllgllS 174 Table .5.01. Assemblage composition o( Alasklln wolf kills (ceribou MNls) 211 Table 5.02. Andrew Hill's kili assemblage dala from East Africa 214 Tablll .5.03. Richard Kleln's den data from South Africa 216 Table 5.04. Survival percentages for bones of anlmals of different ages 218 Table S.uS. Inventory for Il3semblages plolled in Figures 5.07 and 5.08 220 Table 5.06. RecolIslruclion of originltl Itssemblltge como posilion for Alaskltn samples 225 Table 5.07. Reconslructed ri~n assemblages from .swartkllp 22&
.-
¿;....
T
List of Ftgures und Tubies Tabla 5.08. Summary dala (or human end nonhuman kills and rmnaported hone assembleges 230 Table 8.01. Mary Leakey's classlficalion of Olduvai sites 254 Table 6.02. Andllary facts: Olduvet faunel assemblages 258 Table 6.03. Olduvai Gorge data 254 Table 8.04. Behevíoral rnodels for Olduvai assemblages 266 Table 8.U5. Sorted roteted factor loadings (patlern} for R mode enalysts of Olduvaí sttes 257
xxv Table 8.06. Factor acores for R mode analysis of Olduvai siles 268 Table 6.87. Sorted rotated factor loadíngs [pettern) Iur Q mode analysis of Olduvai ettes 269 Tabla 6.08. Factor scorea for Q mode analysts of Olduve¡ sitas 270 Table 6.09. Comparison of destrucuon estlmales derived Irom factor analysls and the humeros test. 279 T.ble 6.10. lnventones 01 ertífecte recovered from factor 3 aítea, Olduvai Gorge 281
1""
1
*"
I. i
•
1,
.,~
ti
I
;1
Abbreviations
Note: Only the most commonly used cbbrevtctions are Jisted here. ANT Antier SK Skull MAND Mandible MAX Maxilla AT Atlas AX Axis CERV Cervical vertebrae mOR Thoracic vertehrae LUM Lumbar vertebras PF,LV Pelvis SAC Sacrum R Rihs ST Sternum se Scapula H Humerus PH Proximal humerus DH Dislal humerus Re Radio-cubitus PRe Proximal radto-cubnus DRe Distal radlo-rubltus
CARP Carpals
Me Metacarpal PMe Proximal metecarpel DMe Distal metacarpal F Femur PF Proximal femur UF Distal fémur T Tibia PT Proximal tibia DT Distal tibia TAR Tarsals AST Astragalus CAL Calceneus MT Metatarsal PMT Proximal metatarsal DMT Distal rnetatersal PMAL 1 Ftrst phalange PMAL 2 Second pbalange PMAL 3 Thirrl phalunge
xxvii
¡: ,1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------_.- ..,..
J1c'
~~ The focus of this book Is bones. It muy come as a surprise lo sorne thct mosl o{ the behaviorol ideas regcrdjng our ancienl post are dependent 011 the interpretotion of faunal remoins ond depositional context-cnot. as mcst textbooks would leed one to belteve, 510ne 1001s. In fod. in aH the arguments 1 hove reviewed regurding the behovior of ancienl man, almos! 011 aredependent 011 inferences drown ¡rom faunal focts oc focts of ossociotion between fauno and stone 10015. Few jf cny plctures of 'he post are, strictly specking. derived from lnterpretutions o[ stone tools. A study of bones ís, however, not sufficient to c10rify OUT oncient post. We mus! kncw how lo use informalion ond orguruae reseorch. and we musl increcse the reJiability with which we construct the post. f will urgue thct crchceoiogists hove regularly generured a variety of modern myths by vírtue offaiJures
Part 1 Documenting a long-term archaeological problem: Concepts and observations
2
Por! 1. Documenting
(1
Long--Ferm ArchoeoJogicol Problem: Concepts ond Ohservntions
in the inferential procese. Mnny such modern myths hove been genernted by sertous and dedicated urchceologtsts through the interpretation of founaJ mctericls. 1 am reieníng to arguments regcrdlng the churccter of life ct the dtm boundory of our humonity os known jrom the nrchceclogicol remoins of Lower and Middle Pletstccene homlnlds. There is a curren! set of pictures o/ the post: the mighUy elephant hunters of Middle pJeistocene Torralba, the cooperative altruistic sbormg behcvior af the hominids al (he Pletstocene boundary. These unclent rnen are dcplctcd as living in base ccmps. hunting, and in many ways resembling a bond of modern Son speakers o/ the scutbern Africon veldt! Or if you prefer o different view. the myth o/ the killer ape sees our earliest cncestors os successful predators gaining Iheir livelihood from the flesh of other animals und possessing the "küler Instinct." Tllese modero myths abill!! ~ncient man ore bcsed on the interpretation of the bon~Some o/ these vlews may be uccurcte, bu! in the absence of a reliable methodclogy íor giving meaning to bones they must remc¡n myths based 00 judgments, oplnlons. ond in so me cases clear blcses, perhcps motlvuted by politicol or humanislic phílosopbtes of rhe contemporary worJd. II wiJJ become clear thct 1 do not hove new informatian or controJJed data of direct relevcnce lo aH the types of interprefotive myths archaeoJogists hove genercted. For instance, 1 wilJ only menñon in pcsslug the problems invoJved in Interpreñng bone destructlon of human skeletcl material by onimaJs ond other natural agencies, yet this is crucial te evcluctlng the vchdity of argumenls for cannibaJism ond even to the character of "religious" behcvior or the "spirituol life" of cncient mono (See Beroumoux \1958) ond Marshack (1972) for examples of such ¡nterprefive speculation.J Eveo fhe simple recognition o/ intentionaJ burial and tne presence of graveside ritual is not on easy inference. For instonce, (he NeanderthoJ "burial" of Teshik-Tash (Movius 1953) might just as eosily be seeo as the consequence of destruction and sorting of skeletal parts by predotor-scavengers instend of as ritual behavior by the Neaoderthalers. Nevertheless, the arguments to be presented regarding the fenuous contextuaJ assumptions archaeologists frequenlly make, coupled with the lack of controlled information obout bones, render many interpretations strongJy suspect. In short, their stalus as modero myths hecomes more apparent. Chapter 1 facuses on sorne of the assumptions that hove gujded many of the reconstructive ¡n(erences made from archaeoJogicoJ observations. Chapter 2 focuses on the probJems of infereoce thot archaeologists must squarely face i( they hope to increose the accuracy with which the archoeoJogicaJ record is used as a meons to gaining knowJedge of the post. lo essence, this port of the ~ook is concerned wifh two probJems: (a) the understonding of the post tha! we wouJd Jike to improve Ihrough reseorch, and (b) the research strotegies that musl be employed if we hope to achieve increased understanding oI the po~t.
~!
I 11
"
¡, ,;
As ts suggested in the Iille of this book. rny focus is the study of fauna and the interpretations archeeologlsts offer regerdtng data summarized trom observauons on fauna. Although tbe primary interest ís bones and the development of a methodology fm using fauna te ga¡n knowledge of the past. this work gces beyond a mere technical concern for bones. David Clerke (1~7Z: 238) once charactenzed much of rny carlier work as metaphysics: Melaphysics . . the science Di being as such .. Ihe lerm sdence is used in its dassic sense of knowJedge by causes (Runes 1962: 19AI Archaeological melaphysics is lhe sludy and evalualion of the mosl 8eneral calegories i1ndconcepls wilh which arch8eo!oRisls lhink IClllrke 1973: 121. The eJtposure of archBeological melaphysics to critical appraislIlallows liS the self-consciolls capllcily lo consider Ihe possibilities of altering or rejecliog currenl disciplinar)' concepls in favour of o.ll.,rnative forms Thus. 0.1 th., mnment. archlleology is still a disciplinA in which arlifllcls. assemblages. siles. and Iheir conleJtfs lirA irlenlified Ilnd n,Jaled as relics of communilies in a<;<;nrdance wilh rules formullllerl in terms of arlifacl taJtnnomies--lhe Iradilionlll Monteliao parlldiRm IClarke 1973 in Hammond el 01. 1979: \14-951
Chapter 1 Relics to artifacts and monuments to assemblages: Changing conceptual frameworks
In Ihe foregoing sp.nse. Ihis book is directly concemed wilh sorne asper:ls of archaeological 3
h~- ('<):'t h
4
1. ReliGs lo
Artjfact~
cnd
Monumenl.~ fa
metaphyeics. I will advocate the replacement uf sorne besíc ccncepts, and modtñcettone in the conventtonel use of others. In addttíon. 1 will offer certetn methodologtcel suggestlons. which are tnevítably celled for gíven bestc shifts in metapbvsícel perspectiva. In fact, mos! oC Ihe book is concerned with Ihe deveiopmenl of methods' however. the need for such new methods ís only mede olear in tha r:ontext 01 changed perspectivas regarding t~ -chaeolosico.l record and the pas\. 1will be concerned with the concepts crñjcct. cssembicge. site, and bcbítoncn. 1 will attempt to demonetrete Iba! the assumplions about the ercheeologtcel record that stand behind the use of Ihese concepts are frequently misleading; nevertheless, assumptions strongly condition what is considerad to be a problem in need of solution as well as what is considered lo be a justifieble slatement abou! the pest. More specifically, I will be concerned wilh what the archaeological re·cord is Iike and how iI comes lo be so. Given basic conceplualizations about Ihe archaeological record and in turn what the record means for the past, there are linked melhods thel are generally taken for granted. The sludent of a discipline frequently reads and uses Ihe products ofhis predecessors as discrela contribulions from which he picks and chooses ideas and observations lo serve his ends. This activily should be carried out with an eppredation of Ihe inlellectuel hislory of the field so the writings of ear· lier workers may be viewed against generalizslions aboullhe thought of Iheir time. Sorne view of history in the latter sense is needed to provide e pause before the user of Ihe works of others begins selecting ideas and observations for personal purposes snd/or expounding on Ibe value of past work relative lo present points of view. A productive researcher needs a wellfounded sel of ideas regarding the stele of the art both past and present lo undentand why pest workers chose to invest their time as ¡hey did. He or she neros to make judgments as to whol is in facl worlh seeking through researeh effort al the present time. If we gain súch a perspective on how Ihe state of the art changes, Ihen the past deeds that we criticize need not be seen so much as misdeed relative to our contemporary frame of reference but as imporlanl con· fributions necessary lo Ihe genesis of the point of view froro which om critidsm derives.
Assembloges: Chonging
C'l)n('f~plual Fmmeworks
There have been severa! histories (Daniel 1968; WiIley end Sabloff 1980) of tbe atchaeologfcal discipline. None have trnated eíther Ihe fundamental or mctaphysical propositions about the cbaracter of the archaeologicaJ record, or tha sources or assumed "causes" for the properties of the archaeologtcel record to which meaning was frequently attached by the erchaeologtsts. I wil! ettempt to charaderize uur Iield in fundamental Ierrns. that ts. in terms of the basie ideas with which ercheeologtsts have worked. I will altempl to iIlustrale how these ideas and Iheir use have contributed to the current "state of Ihe ar!" while also eonditioning the characler of many problems currently facing archaeologisls. Viewed from a metaphvsical perspective, Ihe discipline has had Iwo ph·ases, set apart Erom one another in terros of the concepts commonly used for treating the phenomena from which archaeologists seek to learn of the past. 1terffi these Iwo periods Ihe re/ic onrl monumenl phase and the ortifoCI and assemb/age phase. If sorne of Ihe current chaJlenges to Ihe tenets of the arlifacl and assemblage phase prove productive, a new phase may be in Ihe making.
The Relie and Monument Phllse ~
The reHc and monument phase of archaeological invesligalion carne firsl and in many ways changed our ideas of Ihe pasl mosl drastically. 11 pushed the Crontiers of human history back from Ihe 4000-year deplh of Ihe biblical perspective to Ihat of man as an anden! resident oí the planet. The intellectual procedures used in accomplishing this were based on two propositions: (o) the definilion ofman as a manufacturer of lools IInd (b) the definilion of lools manufactured by roan as designed or manufaclured to a plan-in shorl, exhibiting pallerned redundancy in form Given Ihese two propositions and the recognition of the existence of slone tools (as opposed lo "thunder slones'" etc.), it was possible for a condusion lo be reached regarding whetber or not lools had been found, given Ihe evidence presenled by sllch men as S~hmerling (183:l) and Boucher de Perthes (1849). Demonstrating the antiquity oC man resled wilh the
,
I!r"~
~
strenglh of the assoctatíon belween tools and extínct animal remains wilhin undisturbed depostts. The recognítton of the "hand of men." as it was frcquently referred to in the early literature, required tbe demonstratíon Ihat a design or plan had been usad in the productlon ofthe ítem (rel¡c¡ or construction Imonumenl} being investtgated. T'he place where Ihe relie or monument was located was important primarily for dernonstraüng ossoctcuons with natural obíects. sueh as the bones of animals. 'I'he lalter provided Ihe basís for chronolcgtcal assessrnont as well as sorne clue lo the nature of the envlronments characlerisfic of the eras when maIl had abandoned his ilems of handiwQrk. The invesligalion of relies in these lerms ramained the primary approaeh in Paleolithic researeh for a considerable number of years. The investigalioIl of monuments was largel)' aIl activity of c1assical archaeologists. or atleasl those interested in Neolithic and more reeent remains. The early procedures were based on assumptions characlerislic of the era in which archaeology began lo emerge. Central among Ihese ideas was Ihal of Ihe Creotor. A dislinclion was made between God's crealions (nafure) and man's crealions lcivilizalions). Tha plans of the "joinf' creators. Gad and man, were lo be seen in patlerning manifest in their separate crealions, nature for God. and relics and monuments for mano However. during {hese early years DE the relie and monumanl era. !he role of God as divine Creator oC nalure was severely queslioned. Wilh the debale over Darwin's unprecedenled insight thal pallerning in nature need no! be mferable to the prior execution of a divine plan, but instead might result from Ihe normal operalion of unplanned processes in nalure itselí, Ihe equation belween God's design or planning and patterning was challenged and largely abandoned. Vet man's role was nol quesfioned. Pat· lerning deriving from Ihe "hand of roan" conlinued to be viewed as a malerial manifeslation of man's plans and creative designs. 11 was in Ihis inteHeclnal context as applied lo monuments Ihal important advances in archaeological techniquF! were pioneered. Changas in method during this period are generally attributed lo two sourr:f>S: (o) cJa.qsieol archaeology (Daniel 196B: 65), whieh emphasized Ihe detailed mapping of ilems
i~
5
The Re/k and Monument Phcse
relative to ene enother. as well as in situ description of what Taylor (1948) would later cell "afñnttíes:" as sources of ínformañon about Ihe past: and (h] monument-oriented reseorch initialed by Pitt-Rivers at Cranborne Chese (published between 1887 and 189B). The tener served as a model for datacollecüng techntques. and formed the bas¡s for a conceptual shift toward Ihe investigalion of "preces." a shift that would be solídtñed in the succeeding arttfect and assemhlage .pericd. 11 is not surprising that the development of technique was the product of monument-orlented research. Excavations within monuments were investigalions within previously identified human constructions, such a hill forl. a long barrow, or a greal palace. Within such complicaled constructions the design or plan of Ihe builders could only be uncovered by eareful excavation and recording ofthe many parts making up Ihe overall conslruclion. The lechniques were not developed or employed lo demonstrale tha! a monument exisled; that was assumed The lechniques were viewed as proeedures permitting or facilitating a more accurale description of the manifest design or plan in terms of which the monument was construcled. Researchers of Ihe relic and monumenl phase worked with several basic ideas and a melaphysical po~i1ion that viewed the subjecl of study (lS things, specifically relics (movable) and monumenls (nol movable). These Ihings were recognizable as relevanl lo man's past by virtue oí Iheir demonstrable organizalion of properties belraying a design or plan that must have been in Ihe minds oftheir makers. For much of Paleolilhic IIrchaeology. Ihese views were coupled wilh lhe Victorian idea of progress, so Ihat temporal Irends in increasing complexily, judgmenls of refinement. or increased intelligenee were taken as direetly reflecling lhe character of Ihe minds or Ihe knowledge available lo those minds for designing or creating Iheir products. The early researchers inlo man's anliquity were concerned with "man" in Ihe generic sense, and lended lo have a single view of man as Ihe crealor of a progressive, unilinear emergenee_ This view is well iJlustraled in the following stalement: Il was about Ihis period-lhe end of the
11181
.:1
;/
I
ij, li :!
cenlury-
Ihal a greallrulh-Ihe inception ofwhich we Dwe lo our
li: 11
IJI¡
-,---
1,;;, te... -.?-fv ,A.¿(-J..,
A'
1 ;Id
ti
t. Relies lo Artifada and MClf1umenls lo Assemb/oges: Chonging Conceptual Frumewcrks
cnlleagues of France-c-begen lo leaven the reseerches . Ihis truth ís simply the recognilion lha! the law of 'change al prosress, which tnñuences al! the worldly eífetre of mano halda true no! only Ior the presenl bul also for pes! Seneralions of mankind. Every generañon has ita own dtsuncttve tesbtons and ideas: ji builds ita hauses, it ttfls lts fíelds. it makes its implements , il writes ita books. ir wears its clothes. and paínts íts pietures in 11 rnanner alightly dífferent frum the generettcn which went betore i11Keilh 1931: 466--489).
In addítíon lo generetton by generetton "progress," enalher idea gradualJy emerged duriog the last part of Ihe nineteenth century: Ihe idea of plural creators: De Morlillel him~elf helped to show Ihal one tl8semblase of Iype-fossils oould be used lo define. no! onlya pariodof archaeologicaJ limein france. bul alsoa nlltlonknown lo wrilten hls"ny .. ,. It was however, in Norlhern Europe and especiallyin Germany . thal archaeologislS finl camelo sea c1!:!arly Ihal assemblages of Iype fossils might characlerizenol only dislincl periods of time, bulalso dislincl nationsor Irlbeswilhin a single perlod. And il was German prehistorians who carne lo terro such recurren! as¡¡emblages of lype fossils "Kulturen"---e word ... Iranslalecl ¡nlo Englishas "cullures" lChilde 1956: 281· These "discoveries" ser (he intellectual stage for the developmenl of !he basic archaeological concepts wilh which we generally continue lo labor today. Cerlainly Ihey provided the basis fOla shifl from Ihe search (or man's place in nalure to Ihe searc.h for an appreciation of man 's ethnoeultural hislory: "The mosl profitable inquiry {ofarchaeologyJ is Ihe search for Ihe origin of epoch-making ideas in order lo comprehend Ihe history of civilizalion 10. T. Mason 1893: 41131."
The Artffact and Assemblage Phase A relie W8S a construeled objed, planned, designed, and manufactured by mano An artifacl, on the other hand, was any object or thing exhibiting properties Ihal appeared to be Ihe results of human adion. Relics and monuments were also things thal
exhibited propertíes of Interest. Classifications and texoncmíes had reference ro varíabilíty in the propentes manifes! amcng these individual units or thlngs. With the conceptual shtft lo artifacls and assemblages a fundamental changa occurred in the character of the baste archaeological units. Arlifacts were recognizable by virtue of their cssoclnüon wíth other objecre. in particular pleces. as well as by vtrtue of a distincl design or evtdence of planning, as was the case with a relk.. Stmilarly. assemblages were only recogntzeble by vírtue of demonstreble patterning in the ossccrcuons among things and c1asses of things at ploces. Although I have not atlempled to cover all the lilerature of the period, it is my impression that Ihe earliesl use oí Ihe eoncept of arlifact (bul nol necessarily Ihe wordl arose in two slighlly different research contexls. The firsl contexl is Ihal of Old World archaeologisls investigating relatively lale remains where items included wilhin human conslructions (monumentsj could be viewed as being there by virtue ofthe hand of man, even though Ihey may not have been manufaclured lo a design or a plan. Under such condilions an ilem or class of items receives ils artifact slatus nol by virtue of formal properties exhibiting "design or planning," bul inslead by virtue of its associalion wilh demonstrable reHcs or monumenls exhibiting unambiguous planning and design within deposils considered lo hove been construcled or at leasl formed "by the hand of man," The second contexl in which the concept of artifacl gained sorne importance was among Paleolithic archaeologisls who frequenlly spoke of recognizing prehistorie "habilations." When such c1eims were made Ihe investigalors tended lo treal Ihe contenls of "deposits" as if they were monumenls construcled by Ihe hand of mano Sorne of Ihe shift lo the metaphysics later associated with the concepts of arlifacl and assemblage is seen in the conlraversv between Ihe proponents of Ihe use of fauna as ü· eriteria for defining eras or periods in man's past. and lheir opponenls, who advocated the c1assification of relic.s and in turn the reeognition of eras by virtue of the constellalion al relíes systemalically found in association at plar;es. By lhe lurn of Ihe cenlury Ihis shifl lo recognizing assemblages was generally adopled. (despite the fael tha! sorne particular relic classes were considered more diagnostic
Thp I\rtifocl ond Assemblnge Phcse
than other fcrms]. In short. "bebítettons" were increasingly Irealed as rnonuments. and the systemat¡o investigation of cave depostts ptoneered earlier was pursued wíth great tntereet. was in the Mousterien ege thet man first made hts horne In caves: Ihe period takes íts name indeed from Ihe cave of Le Mousfier in the velfey of Vezére, Dordogne, where its remains were firsl carefully studted
It
[Sollas 1924:212]. Caves heve been repealedly frequented by groups of m!:!n; during eaeh occupalion broken lmpl",menls, discarded ornamenls. bones left over froro repasls. ashes and olher refuse will be droppad and trodden inlo lhe cave floor.formingQ habilation layeror cullura·slralum (freneh foyer), If Ihe cave be then daserled, ClIYe-earth fal1s fromIhe roofor slala¡;¡rnlle mayform a sterile [ayer. The laller will seal the underlying habilalion layer. bul roay form a floor on whlch man, eYenlulIlly relurning. will deposil a second occupalion layer.. Plalnly lha artifacls and other dala in aaeh deposit conslitute en tlssemblage of assocíaled lypes IChilde1956:59J. The shift lo Ihe treatmenl of a habi1ation as if it were a monumenl braughl an interesting change in !he characler of the criteria used to identify the habitalion. In the earlier periad one recagnized a reHe and/ar a monumen! by virlue of the plan or design manifest in Ihe organizalion of the thing itself. Habilalions weTe not so easily recognized, particularly in Paleolithic research. HabitaHons were instead ídentifiable by a characteristic pattern of association among lhings al a particular place. Thal is, recognttion of habilations was in terms of a diognostic 05sociolion among Ihings al particular places. This provided Ihe basis for a shift nol only in Ihe unils of analysis and synlhesís. but also in Ihe fundamental character of Ihe units of observation. Whal were lhe crileria fOl reeognizing a habitation? They were as folJows: 1. The aggregaled presence of demonstrable re-
Hes in the design sense of Ihe term 2. The associaled presence of animal bones assumed to he indir:ative o( Ihe meals of andent
m,"
J. The associated presence of fire
4. The assor:iafion of the foregoing eiements in a "sheltered" setling. as inside a cave or roáshelter
7
These eharaeteristies provided an operalional definition of a habitefion Ihal was drawn from our contempcrary human experíence of living in hornes or resídences. It W
dt
ui :11
¡¡ I! ,1
; ¡
..,.... 8
1, Heftcs to Artífocls ond Mnnuments lo AsspmtJlup;es: Changing Conceptual Frnmeworks
as eaely as 1823, reportad on the similarily between bone modification observed in depoaits beheved lo have been accumuleted by hyenes and abone expedmentally gtven lo a spotted hyena at a traveling menegerie. 80yd Dawkins. writing during the formalive years ofthe relic and rnonument era, commented un Bucklend's earlim work as worthy ol emulation: Dr. Buc:k1and's method of solving the problem oí 'he ínnoducuon of rema los of so meny and differenl ent. mals tnto so smell 8 spece. ía a model of scientlfic analysis. He arguea (rom Ihe abundance of 'he remains of Ihe hyaenllllTld (roIDthe correspondence of their lee!h with Ihe marks on ,he bones, lIod from 'he quantity of
Ihair coprolites. Ihal the cave was inhabiled by mallY gBnerationsof those animals, and Ihal the gnawed fragments were relks of their prey.. '. He further demonslrated Ihe truth of his conclusions 1»' the crudal exper¡ment of subjecting the leg.bone of an ox to a spotled hyaena from the Cape of Good Hope, in Wombwell's menllgerie. the exact correspondence of one of ¡he fragments of the libia of an ox gnawed by lhe Cape hyaena, with Ihe corresponding bone of lhe bison from Kirkdale,. . The same kind of identity runs through the whole series of bones gnawed by the living and fossil hyaenlls. Dr. Buddllnd's conclusion that the Kirkdale cave was ¡he den of Ihe spolled hyaena (H. crouto) lhal preyed upon the animals ofYorkshire in ancienl limes,¡md Ihat It was undisturbed down to the lime of ils exploration. canllot be disputed. The trelld of the hyoenas in their passage lo ond fro had polished lIome of Ihe bones and jawsscattered on Ihe floor IDswkins 1874:281-2841 The recognition Ihat animals and olher nonhu· man agenls rould modify bones to a pattem prompted sorne early and importanl research designed lo provide recognition criterio for modificalions affected by humans as opposed to other agenls. This was considered Important. since c1aims for "Tertiary man" had been frequently made during the lasl half of the nineteenth cenlury, based nol infrequently on claims lhal bones Ihal had been modified lo a "plan" had been found in early deposils. In fac!. approximately the firsl 50 pages of De Morlillet's famous work Le Préhistórique (1900) are concerned exclusive!y with the recognition of bones morlified hy man as opposed to animals and other agenl~. What I find e)(lremely inleresting is lhe second researeh stralfJgy followed in idenlifying bones modified or inlroduced to deposits by man a~ opposed lo
other agents. Th e most eomman strategv was to sludy the patterníng considercd manifest 00 bones reccvered from hebttattons. Sínce man was res panstble for the deposít he rnust aleo have been raspensible for Ihe pattemlng manifest in and on tts contents! One of the earhest systematic descnptions of modifíed bones recovered in an archaeologtcal setting was Ihat by Henri Martin (1907 -1910). His work is a mixture of salid observauon and descnptlcn. which are sUB useful. and a kind ot speculation that seems Hule more Ihan romanlic faney. Part of the "faney" derives direclly from Ihe assumplions and reasoning Ihal underlay Ihe pallem-recognition studies he conducted. Beeause 1he material he was anal)'z;ing carne from Ihe archaeological sita of La Quina. which was assumed to have been a habitalion, the contents of Ihe site were accepted as being Ihere by the hand of mano Consequently, patterned modificatioos were thought lo be referable lo human behavior. In short, one assumpfion about the charaeter af the archaeo10gical record-that Ihe site was a habitalion-was being used as the control condilion for referring Ihe patterning observed in Ihe conlenls of Ihe deposi1s lo human behavior. This approach is well ilIustrated in one artide by Martin {1906) in which he suggested Ihal a reindeer melapodial Ihal bore the unmislakable impressions of animal teeth demonslrated Ihal Ihe occupanls of Ihe site of La Quina musl have domeslicaled Ihe dog, for in whal other way could Ihe marks made by a beasl occur al a human habitation? Many of Ihe early inlerprelalions of andenl IIfe were thl'! consequences of a similar logic. A good example is provided by the Sirgenstein cave. excavaled just after the turo of the cenlury (Schmidt 1912). of particular interesl was Layer C. which yielded a Mousterian assemblage associaled with large numbers of cave bear bones. This mixing of lools and bones was ciled as evidence thal Ihe cave bear bones did not occur in Ihe context of a den deposit bul in facl represented bears Ihat had baen exploited by man as food (Schrnidl 1912: 165). In addition lo Ihe large quantities of bear bones. there were al leasl two "rodent layers" lhat yielded no cultural materials. On top of Ihe Mousterian materials was a layer yielding Upper Paleolilhir: 10015 associated wilh a flluna dominafed numerically by hyena. Despile whill appears lo me lo 00 provocative
e"""
The Artifuct end Assemblage Pbcse
evidence of a palimpsest depostt, deriving from a variety of events and acttons by both man and antmels. the excavators tnterpreted tha enttre deposit as the result of homíntd behavior. Man selectívely hunted bears end later hyenas! This type of approach was eommon end was not infrequently associated with the claíms for the use of bone as a tool. The irnportant cave of vogelhenj Lit Würtemberg, Germany, is an example. The site was excavated in 1931 by Oustav Rlek, who published a three-volume repcrt [Riek 1934), The cave had not been dislurbed by modern excavations prior to investigation by the archaeologisls. Nurnerous layers were recognized. bul mosl of the bone malerial associated wilh Mousterian tools was recovered from an area described as oval in shape just lo the left and behind the southwest entrance. The largest bones were said to be arranged along the cave walls; the smal1er bones. in Ihe cantero The Mouslerian lools were described as lorgely restricted lo an area 3.5 x 4.0 m, where the artifacts and bones occurred in "c1ose contact." Cave bear, cave hyena. wolf. and cave Hon bones were Ihe most common in this "close association." where the approximately 50 stone tools were recovered. In IIddition to the stone tools. a number oC modified bones designated 10015 were recognized by the excavalors. These were Iisled as seven "bellscrapers," three "hip-joinl-sockel scrapers,,' Iwo "smoothing" lools. and one awl. Bellscrapers have been described as "Ihe libias oi large animals such as Rhinoceros, horse or '.
9 tinn wilh a fauna domíneted by cave beer in Renis I ami both cave bear and cave hyena in Renis Il, Occurríng in both levels but reported lo be more common in Renís II were a number of "worked bone tools." In addition lo the already descrtbed bellscrapers and hip-joinl scrapers were so-callad "fursmocthers.' and "worked" cave beer mandíbles. The identity of IheSE! items as tools has been repeatedly questtoned (WelzeI1969; Zotz 1951:136), neverthelees. the descriptíon ofsuch "10015" Irom levels domínated by hyena and cave beer remains ís interestmg. Sorne of the more irnaginative and fanciful "bone laols" have been described from famous bear cave deposits. Particularly important in this regard is the report on Petershole by K. Hormann (1923). A total of 20 stone tools are reported from three separate depositional levels in Ihe cave. Large numbers of cave bear bones occurred throughoul the deposits in various side chambers. These were described as piled in crevices, on stone slabs. and in interesting combina_ tions. In addition lo lhe cava OOar Ihere were 55 idenlified elements of carnivores from Level l. Cervids, bovids, and horses were represented by only48 identified elemenls (see Htirmann 1923: 137 -138J. Staled anolher way the assemblage was dominated by Carnivora. There were few stone 10015. bul a relatively large number of "worked bones" were reported. One of the more imaginalive forms, "bultons." are ilIus traled as small see/ions of long-bolle cylinder. In addition. Ihere were a number of "bolle knives," described as sectians of bone with chipped retouch along ends or laleral margins; "spearheacls and arrowheads." identifiable by their suggestive shapes only; and finally a number of "worked bones" ex· hibiting radial scarring, lateral ·'relouch." and smooIhing of ends-all of which are indistinguishable from fragments of humeros identified by Kilching as "knives. pounders and scoops." {See Plate 17 in Kitehing [19631 and compare Plate XLVII in Hórmann 11923l.} Many of these sorne "Iypes" of "worked bone" have been reporte<:! from more recently investigaled localions such as RepolustHohle (MotU 1951:23,33-34. Plale XXIII), where the fauna is likewise dominated by Carnivora. Although the Cerman and other North European Iiteralure cerlainly has many I:1xarnples of wha! cal] ~nly be called anlhropocentrisTTJ-lhe assumplion thal if any evidence exists for Ihe presence of homínids everylhing present is Ihe product of
"
1:;
;;E:
¡ji !Ii
l'
1I
,~I
11~i
l! .~¡ I
~ '¡~
:
,
II¡
,. 10
1. Ralles to Arlifor:ls und Monuments lo Assembloges: Chonging Conceptual Frnrnewcrks
homlnid ectíon-c-some very explicit examples come from Great Britain. For tnstence. the famoue Kent's Ca~ in Devonshtre, England. excavated by the Reverend Iohn MacEnery end leter by WiIliam Pengelly, exhibits all the properttes ot having beco primarily a den of cave bears sud then later a hyena lalr [sea tooth counte in Cempbell and Sampson [1971; 15). Mixed with the faunal remetas were Acheulian sud Mousterian tools. The epetíel [ux_--t-aposition wes sufñcíent lo leed Campbell and Sampson {1971: vii) lo suggeat tbat "specielíeed butchertng al htbemaung bears duríng wtnter may
(1907~1910J,
Sehmidt P912), Riek 11934), Andree (1939), Hórmann (1923), and Bachler (1921, 1940). 2. There were dfstmcttve bone too/s cssccrcted with the remotns of cave becrs as weJ1 as evidence jnr the special treotment of cave becrs und theh remcrns. This vlew ergued Ior the extstence of a bear cult and proposttíons were advanced regerdtng the spíntuel characterístícs of Middle Paleoltthtc mano These argumente may have developed Irom views popularized through the work of Schmidl and Wernert (1910). Schmtdt'e work has been summanzed by Sollas (1924), who wrote,
haya been practil..""t!d by the so-called 'unspBCíalized'
A<:heulian hunfers." Tha dominant Une 01reasoning used in defining bolh patterns "diagnostic" of human behavior and assodations ol ltems thal served as the basis for behavioral ¡nferenees was as follows: 1. The argumenl was made that an archaeological sile was a habitation. 2. A habitation was considered a type of monu· ment. 3. The assodaled elemenls within a monument were all Ihere by virtue of the hand of mano Therefore, Q. Any patterning demonstrable within classes of assodated elements was relerable to human actions. b. Any patterning demonstrabJe among c1asses ol 85Sodated elements was refer· able to human acUons. Tftis parlldigm of reasoning permitted sorne "reconstruction" of the past based on observalions made on the archaeological record, and as a result of its use several ideas about the past were gradually solidified. There was, for example, periodic f1irlalion with the idea that man may have made and used bone tools befare he used stone (see De Mortillet 1900:25~54; Menghin 1931). More important lo the futura directions of Paleolithic archaeology were three recurrenl arguments about man's nast: 1. Bone tools were common ond fraquenl components of MiddJe ond, perhups, Lower Poleo/ithic 1001 assembloges. They were recognizable by their shapes, which were suggestive of their uses, liS well as by superficial modificalions and forms oC breakage. Advor.¡Jles of Ihis view were Henri Martin
Of htte years Germany has added i1s contnbulions, and one of the mosl precisely investigated caves of modern times is that of Sirgensteln . the broken boMS of animals ware strewn about. The Cave Besr (Ursus speJoeus).. was by far the eommonest; this animal was tha universal "caretaker" oecupying the cave during the absenee of tha hunters snd reeeiving shorl shrift when they relumad.Jt was also a favorite food,as is shown by the great numbers of bears' bones whieh are massed together near Ihe threshold of the cave as well as plenlifuJly scattered about. No one cave could have supplied so many besrs. and the hunters musl have ransacked the surrounding dislriet in pursuit of Ihem. Mosl of Ihe bones belonged to young animals whieh were. no doubt, an easler prey as well as mole deBcate ealing [pp. 2212231·
In these early works there is Ibe nolion of an almost spedalized hunting of cave bears. In lhe mid1921ls this emphasis or suggestion of a special rela· tionship belween man and cave bear was elaboraled by Bachler (1921,1940) and Hórmann (1923), and the idee of a bear cul! emerged (see Abel 1925). In the words of later wrilers presen\ing "general understandings" of the pas!. Why Neandarlhal man began "unting tha Cave Bear ís not cerlain. It was 11 formidable animal. slanding mOfe thllneighl feat laJl when reared in anger. IInd musl have been a dangerous foe. It also Jived in mueh more lnae.::essible pl!fces than mosl of the Olhergame, Nevertheles'. iI WllS hunted-perhaps lo fulfillan early hunting rllual Discoveryof bear skul1sslacked in a slone ehest in Orachenloch. Swilzerland, supporls lhis idea; Ih.,. heads may have been Itophies IHowel! 1965:1261. In high-I.,.vel eavllS of Swilzerlillld,Bavaria ami Croatia, evidenee exis!s of a cull of beara involvin¡¡: the deposilion of besr skulls and bones in certain raves .. In a
The Arlifoct ond AssemblogePhcse chamber of the Drachenloch in Swítzerlend. a stone ctst had been built lo hnuse stecked bear-skulls; piles of scrted long borres were laid along the walls of fhe cave. Another heep of bcnee contained Ihe skull of a beer
througb whích a lag bone had been Jorcad, the skulJ resting upon two other long bones, eech bone wa~ from
a diffelent beest [Coles and Hlgga 1969:286-2671.
This idea of a spectel celatíonship between man and cave beer seems to have struck a responsive note in modem readers. for almos! all Ilterature treettng the "origine of religión" cites these argumente and pleces particular emphaeís on thesa "important" developments leading lo our "human" status. 3, Ancient man wos [} cannibaJ. Perhaps one of the more inOuential early c1aims for ancient cannibalism was made in the repar! on exca:vations at Krapina (see Gorjanovic.Kramberger 1905). Other aulhors during the same era sounded similar notes [set:! for instance Rutot 1907). These early suggesIions were greatly elaborated both prior to and immedialely after World War n. The cannibalism suggestion was gradually linked with lhe so-called "Cult of Skulls" (Bergounioux 1958; Wernert 1948). For instan.::e, Weiclenreich (1928) describes the Ehringsdorf skull in the following lerms: Ihe frontal area beara undoubted signs of havíng been hil by stone weapons and it can be assumed that Ihis individual had heen murdered. (b) Ihe absenee of Ihe eranial base. no fragmenl of which was conlalned in Ihe block of travertine from which Ihe skull has baen 6)(Iracted, indicates Ihat the skull had been opened to extraet the brain lp. 671 Laler Berckhemer (1934) described the Steinheim skull as having been artificially widened at the base around the foramen "for purposes of extracting Ihe brain." This view was furlher supported by Ihe description of the Monte Circeo skull by Blanc (1939). This important skull was recovered from a small chamber ¡¡nked to several other cave rooms by narrow passages. In all, the complex can be viewed as seven caves. five of which are reported lo have yieJded some MOllsterian remains. Blanc has reportad on this find in numerolls places [1950, 1958, 1961]; the skllll is said lo have been Iying as an isoJaled element surrounded by rocks near the center of a small chamber. Aones of olher animals are reported concenlrated in al least Ihree addiliOllílJ locations
11 within the chember (see Blanc 119581 for a good de-
scnpnon).
,1
The lhree basic ideas just described largely grew from early twentieth-century exceveüona of Europeen "cave" and rockshelter deposita referable to men of the Mousterian era and of more recent times. The excítement of a first glímpse of men considerably earüer than the Neenderthelers carne with the discovery of the slte of Choukoutíen in China. This site was remarkable for Its greet antiqutty, and íbe preeence of importan' fossil hominid rematas. It was also extraordinary in its being a cave deposit that yielcled tools, evidence of fire, and bones in vast quantities; in short, it was viewed as a habitation site in the sense in which the European caves had becn viewed, The methods of interpretation already common in Europe were used to make slalements about man's behavior in the remate past as well as to provide the "control" Cor recognizing patterned produets of man's aneienl handiwork. In 1935 in aslo the Abbé Breuil delivered 8.11 inf1uential paper in which he propasad that there had been an extensive bone tool industry al the ancient Chinese site: Lel's go hack in Ihought, than. fa that dark dawn of the industrial phase of mano We find him or his intelligent ancestor surrounded by animala batter armed by Nature than himself, Iions and bears, with teeth and d8WS. grass-ellters wilh homs and antler~. What more natural lhan to rob fhem of Ihese wellpons to use 8gainst lhem? Ever a hunter. Man hlld around him the ,keletal remains of his víctims, quickly unfleshed by himself, by carnivares and by natural agencies. He also encounlared on his wanderings Ihe east antlers of deer and Ihe carusses of lhe carnivores' prey. Sorne of !ne completed longer bonas made Itxeellenl clubs witn handlllS not ee.sily broken:some of Ibe boneseould in thair natural slale be used for pricking~plercing holes; some larger and flal eould be used as shovels; others which were lonller, ltS levera; yel others whích were shorl and sloul mlght suggest an IInvil or a h8mmero while such as were broad, thin snd trenchan\, when grasped. became scrapers and plane~. When Man. armed with 11 pebble. broke long bones to exlracl the marrow. like a hYllena, they broke in diffprenl WII}'S. Sorne had arlkuhtr ends eonvenient for holding if man wishen to u~e them as lmplements, while the olher enn was pointed. Others. pieces of
I!I l'
'!I~
• "7"
12
1.
Hehcs lo Arlifacfs and Monuments to AssembJalles: Changing Conceptual Fromeworks
diephysea, had ends that could be used as points or chisel, end culting edges which could serve as knives or scnrpers. Vnlike tha hyaena Man often broke the borres Iengthwise lBr8uiJ 1936:57-56; emphaais added).
Here we see the imaginativa picture of bone-uslng hormnids that later captured the fancy ofmany audio ences as the "osteodontokeratic culture" of yet aarlier man advocated by Rayrnond Dart during the 1-950s.However, tha history of ideas dealíng with the Choukoutien material is in itselffascinating, beceuse ir tllustretes opposlng interpretive poínte of view regarding bone too1s, views slill with us today in the old World and increasingly becoming an active issue in New World studias (see Friedman 1980:7). Breuil {1939) studied the animal bones from Choukoutien, and Weidenreich (1941) reported the hominid rernains. In the works of Ihese two men, parallal theses were presented: (o) that an exlensive bone tool industry existed al Choukoutien and (b) Ihal "Sinonthropus," Ihe "man" responsible for bolh stone and bone industry, was a cannibal. The argumenl offered by Breuil was based on Ihe suitability of Ihe shape of abone for use in a given manner, with Ihe inference lhat it would, Iherefore, have been so used, and the modification of bone as evidence Ihal intentional shaping by man was involved. Breuil ciled the presence of rounded and "polished" edges. chipped or tlaked edges, incisions or abrasions on flal surf8ces, and "characteristic" longitudinally broken bone. Weidenreich's argument for the cannibalistic consumption of bone marrow was based on fractures of Sinonthropus long bones. "Long splinters deÍl off lhe shaft longitudinally so Ihal the medullary canal lies exposed" were considered characteristic of the actions of Sinanthropus: "This manner of splitting is generally believed lo be the result of human manipulation carried oul with the aid of implements in order lo exlract the marrow IWeidenreich 1941:751." In the work of bolh Breuil (1939) and Weidenreich (1941] tnere was Ihe clear belief that sorne long-bone breakage pattems were distinclive and even diagnostic ofhuman agency. In addition, Breuil interpreted modified bones as resulting (rom human aclion_ In Ihis era fhere was, however, rclevant research that provided evidence lo the contrary_ Weidenreich
cites a study by Zapfe (1939:761. who experimentally studted the way in whích living camívorea, especially the hyena. cbew long bones, and even ilIustreted how sorne of the broken Sinanlhropus long bones corresponded lo the propertíes cíted by Zapfe as charectertsttc of carnívores. Howevee. he concluded thal "Ihe possibility extsts that the long femur splinlers were not the produet of Smonthropus hirnself. This alternartve. however. seems to me very unlikely Ip. 771." In other words. despite the evtdence. wetdenretch preferred to vtew Sinanthropus as a cannibel! Nearly the same sttuatíon exista with the arguments presented by BreujJ. Wen-chung Pei (1938:1) then director of the Cenozoic Research Laboratory in China, published a very important monograph, largely in answer to Breuil, rightful1y posing the question. "Commenl reconnaltre I-action bumaine sur un debris osseus?" Pei proceeded to present the information available to him as lo the modifications produced by rorlenls and predators, as well as the effects of water, soil chemistry, and soíl lexlure or bones. Pei was convinced Ihat many of Ihe mod¡ficalions cited by Breuil as evidence for human use appeared ret"erable to other agents. After World War TI [1939-1945) many of Ihe prewar argumenls were continued (see Battaglia 1953; Ehrenberg 1959, 1962) regarding the existence of the hear cuH and associated dislinclive "Alpine Mouslerian" (Leonardi 1958). The focus of controversy regarding bone tools was. however, laken out of its regional and provincial contexl with the daims by Raymond Dart (1949) for an osleodontokeralic culture anceslrallo the production of slone tools by our earliest hominid anceslors. Dart's argumenls have been reviewed by Wolberg (19701. These c1aims placed the conlroversy over interpretalion of modified bones al the very roo~s of human hislory and drew Ihe atlention of all regional specialisls as well as a widespread lay audience. Dart's claims for bone tools in lhe australopilhecine sites of South Africa provided paleoanthropology wilh a Ii ...ely and cerlainly imaginative controversy, which has continued to the present lime. Darl's argumenl was very similar to that of Breuil. He ciled the polenlial utiJ ily of Ihe shapes 01' various anatomical parts and Ihen inferred Ihal early man must ha... c taken advantage 01' Ihis potential. Adual
The Arlifoct cnd A$sembloge PhaSe modíñcatíons cited as diagnostic of human acuons includsd an allegedIy distinctive mode of long-bone breakege. the "crack-end-twtst'' method resulting in preshaped bones and spirally fraclured bone spítnters, and (as in the case of Breuíl] varíous abrasions, strtattons. and ínctsíons. as well as chipped or "worked" edges. In addition, Dart made a slrghtly different argurnent. namely, Ihal evídence for rnan's selective use of anatomical perts rested wíth the diíferential frequencies of "useful" parts in the sttes of early mano Thus. for Dart two important seis of Iacts converged: modlñcauons on bones. which were interpreted as produced by man. and the assocíated differential frequendes of anatomica) parts, which were interpreted as resulting from the differential transport of hunted foods lo "man's home." For Dart there were facls of modificolion and foclS oJ assembloge composition, which he believed could be dled as evidence fOf hominid behavior. It is not surprising that. given Dart's claims, olhars would offer as evidence modified andJor broken bones in supporl of the position that 1001-usiog hominids occupied different places other than Africa prior to the developmenl of stone tools. Such c1aims have been made for the paleontological remains from the Netherlands (Luttschwager and von Remmel 1962) as well as Rumania (Nicolaescu-Plopsor and Nicolaescu-Plopsor 1963), Many of Ihese arguments have been seriously challenged (see Feustel 1969, 1970); neverlheless, they persist on the level of "opin¡on." Thal is, specific modificalions are compared. and then the opinion is offered ~hat c1early only aman could have produced the modifications illustrated! With Dart's c1aims we Ide an importanl step away from Ihe propositions that permitted the recognilion of a habilation during the firsl half of the twenlieth century. Mosl important was Ihe absence of stone tools as a criterio n or concomitan! in his sites. He sought lo meel Ihe tool criteria by arguing for Ihe presence of bone tools. Dart, obviously knowledgeable about the earlier work that described morphological patterning among bones assodated with unembiguous slone tools al habilalions, could now appeal to thal patterning to support his daims for the modified and broken bones from his sites as tools. This c1aim lent support to his fmther daim that the sites were hahitalions. thereby justifying in-
13 ferences from tncluded malerials about the behavior of AustmlopHhecus. Dart's case ls of no small sígniñcance. since his early claims for the ancestor status of the Taung skull to modern man had largely been rejecled on morphological grounds. Dart increesingly argued that the eustralopithectnes were protohuman by virtue of behavioroJ cherectenetrcs manífest in the archaeoJogical record. This was the firsl Importen¡ demand íor behovioral informal ion from the orchoeoJogicoJ record of unclent mano Prior to Dert's claims there had been some altempls lo charactenze Iha behavtor of early man. but al no time were the inferred behavioral characleristics considered eilher crucial lo argumenls abaut Ihe sequence of human evolution or central lo the important question of the hislory of "human nature," as was Ihe case for Ihe behavioral daims by Dart 1949, and especially 19571: Ihe innomlnale bone found al Slerkfonlein and Ihe occiput from Makapansgllt hove pruvlded furlher evidence lhat these creatures artlmorec10sely related lo man Ihall lhey are to the ape$ They are prolo-human belng5 and Ihey are the most primltlve hominids of whom we huve knowledge. JI therefore becomes cor~spondingly urgenl that we should elicil fmm those depo~its in which prolo-humans occur alllhe ovoiloble information beor· inR on their manual dexlt'rily and implementa/ inlelJi· gence IOarl 1949:2:emphasis added]. The questions being put to ~he archaeological record of early man in Africa were not hislorieal in Ihe sense of !hose asked by archaeologists working with remeins from more recent periods. They were concerned with fundamental questions about Ihe very nature of "protohuman" behavior; Ihat is, how do we get behavioral information froro the archaeoJogical record? In Ihe conlext of this importanl shift of emphasis and in tum its demands for information about the pas!. sorne important changes began to take place in Paleolithic research. ln the era immediately after World 11 a sel of c1aims was made by Africanists, which foreshadowed a long and importanl sel of arguments relating to Ihe nature of earlv roan's behavior. rhese were the c1aims by Louis a~d Mary I.eakey that Ihey had isolated living floors at the site of Olorgesailie. Both l. Desmond Clark and Merriek Posnansky have expressed Ihe opinion to me thal the search for living
Ww
i
I
'1,
,1
í
:1 ,
I
.,
..L!L:.~."
,.
l. Betícs lo Al1ifocr:s ond Monurnents to Assembieges: Chonging ConCl.!ptuol Fmmeworks
floors was the contributioo of Mary Leekey. who hed hutaperience wilh ','Neolithic" excavations and an tnterest in the use of archaeologtcel techniques to ínvestíeete the "place," rether Ihan just using the place lo recover arufects. Severa! persons have indiceted that the Leekeys' original claíms for living 0001'5 al Olcrgesetlte were besed en the eegument that the sedimenta were fine and hence the geologt-
. -cel processes resuhing in burial were "gentle." Under aucb candillons ODe could expect ttems lo remaio where they were deposited by agents such as thIB homlnids of lh~ early time ranges. This "origi_ nal" argument regarding living floofs is al least partially presented by lsaBC;
°
Olorgesailie wa8 8uilable as tesling groulld bttI;aU5tl arUfac!s could be recovered from fine-grained sediments Ihat had praserved detalled evidences of archaeological assocjations. These could be related lo stratigrapby and to festures 01 the original envirQnmen!. Thls preservalion was in marked contras! lo Ihe sites that hlld yielded most 01 the evidence on whlch the c1llSslc interpretations of Middle Plelstocene culture had prevlously dtlp~ndttrlI19n;11· Despite the facl Ihat Lonis Lea.key reported the Olorgesailie living floors (L. S. B. Lee.key 1946), sorne believe that he did not "realize their ¡mpIILafíons" (Vincent 1918:32), as he viewed Ihem as use· fui for assemblage definition and not so much as .!nueces of behavioral information about Ihe pas!. The view that Ihe Leakeys treated the 5urfaces more as "curiosities" is perhaps supported by referenee lo Isaac's descriptioos of their excavations at Olorg8sIlIille {1971:28·79), which cite pltlfully few records macle by tha Leakeys for excavatíons carried out between 1943 and 1941. \-iore recent work and 8Ctual analY8ls of !he racts from OJorgesaiHe render lhe identificalion of living f100rs lesll and les3 Iikely (see L. R. Binford 1971b: Isaac 1977). Nevertheless. the search for living floors was first prompted by Ihe Leakeys' claims at Olorgesailie. Most dearly iI was in the work of J. Desmond Clark al Kalambo Falls where Ihe techniques of recovery that have fortunately become somewhat standard in Paleolithic resea.rch were originAlly pioneered. Clark states, The lower horizons containlng the artilacts showed liltle evidence Dfdislurbsnce by waler action b~fore burial
and it was apparen! that Ihl! Jilhic and other material Iying on them representad debris from human occupetícn sitas. w~ developed, therefore, a tedmique for excavating tbese "Iloors,' end thelater dislurbad surfaces. fi~I d~n¡n8 off the ovarlyi"$! stertle senos and days and expostng the fluor, or sectíon of ñoor. so that the relatlonshlp of everylhing on it couid be cleerly seen and plotted. In thís way we were eble lo obtem detalls of thp. relationships of the tools. factory waste, natural stcnee. and wood IlIJId so 01 relatiunships between classes 01 snaped tcols. thus supplementing ¡fu:! inlormatten te be obtatned from a sludy 01 Ihe artilacts Ihemselves 11. o. Clark 1969:11-121·
111 Clark's early work geological crileria and facts of site structure such as lhe association of debitage with COTes and anvils appear to hAvehHln the criteria for recognizing a living floor. This approaeh to living·floor recognition is well iIlustrated by Ceoffrey Band's description of these flaors:
The Artifoct cnd Assembloge Phase
exteneíon of the monument concept to hebttatícns and later lo living floors has in my opinion resulted in numerous myths regerdtng man'a encíent pest. "Tools" have been described thal were probably producod by hyanas, cave bears, and cther predatnrs, and the buntíng of such unllkely foods as bvena and cave beer has been cossktered a regular pert of rnan's behavror. The most íncredtble exampla of this Iype of myth making must be the analysis of materials from Pin Hale Cave at Craswell Crags, Derbyshire, which was excavated by Armslrong and studied by Kitching (1963). There Kitching worked with 6985 identifiable bone elements, of which 3197 (46%) were from carnivores and 1061 were from the hyena alone. Mixed among Ihi~ cArnivore-dominaled faunal assemblage were sorne telltale stone tools. These were sufficient to lead Kilching to the interpretalion that everylhing found in Pin Hole WaSin fad the result of hominid actlvity:
Tha floors are only one mone tbid. snd every ,tone is
eilher an artiloc\, Oake, or anvil. The enclmlng sediment, are non-pebbly and on Ihe floors thamselves there are no pebbltls whkh were transported by natural means; they were aU left in their presenl positions by prehisloric mano They are shorp and unworn. nor were Ihey ltpparently moved slgnificanlly from the original positions b¡ Ihe a¡;tion of water They were facto!)' floors in the best sense al lhe tenn (Bond 1969'.2071·
The Iransport of anUre bodies 01 bolh large snd smaU carnivoras jnto the cave or the killing of them while they wore marauding the cave lIccount~ no! only for lhe greot number of Iheir faetal remllins (especially Ihose of tba hyaena) bu! also for Ihe highly elOdedcondillon of ji large number olbone flakes and deciduous teeth [Kilch¡ng 1963:191
F. Clark Howell searehed for living f100rs al Isimila and lalar al Torralbe, and tho Leakeys seBrched for such floors al Olduvai Gorge. In Ibe laller case a new definilion of a living floor was offered; "Ihe occupatiOD debris is found on a palaeosol or old land surlace wilh a vertical distribution of only a lew im.:hes [M. D. Leakey 1911: 258J." This definitioo is very clase lo that which mosl areha8ologists would offer fOl Eln archaeological sil~n aggregation of artifacts (rellcs) on a ¡and surface! The problem, which should be clear, is Ihe degree to which the assumptions governing "interpretation" of a monument are justified with raspee! to such pllu:es as living floors or even habitations as defined by Paleolithic archaeologists. 11 will be recalled Ihat a monumenl is considered a construction produced by man; hence, all the elements, or compollent~ of the constnwtion Can be assumed to be there "by Ihe hand of man," The interprelative justification Ihal went wilh Ihe
AH of these arguments regarding the subsistence base oC the early hominids are based 00 ¡nfereneas frum 8ssociations bctween bones and stone tooh at alleged living sites. To what degree may this assumption be made casnally and how ¡¡kely is such an assumption about the past to represent Ihe past realily~ How "realistic" is Ihe assumplion that associations between stone t001s and bones at a site imply beltavioral io:tegratioo: in the pasl? Given that predation and death are normal eVllnts in any environment. to what extent may Ihe archaeologist expect to find evidence of such events in situations favoring preservation ofbones? This question 18 being invesligated by a number ofresearchers. particularly in Africa. To appreciate the eharacter of this problem, one mus! become familiar wHh sorne basic faels of nature, For inslance, George B. Schaller (1972:396) estlmates théll pred
!
15 150,000 to 200,000 anímals tktlledl ennuelly." In other places predators remove an estimated 9-10% of the total ptey btomass ennuellytscheller 1972:391). As a simple axercise. let us see what such a situation would look like if we essumed that predetcrs are equally successful in all habítats. Table 1.01 presenta summary dala on the emount of secondary biomass that might be expected in different envtronments. aesuming equal success of predalors [not very likely-we can expect that as food density goes down predator effectiveness may be reduced somewhat: certainly there would be a dependence on smaller animals], AIso the amoullt of pr¡"y (dead animals in kilograms} that might be expected in the different habitats per square kilometer. What is clear is tha! we may expect maior annual accumulations of bones in tropical savannas, substanlial accumulatlons in temperate grasslands, and minar accumulations in temperate forests, tropi. cal rain foresls, boreal lorests, and tundra. Just as a demonslration, lel us imagine 8n environment aIong the grsss margins oC s boreal forest such as one might find in central Manitoba, Ganada, Dr in numerous mountaln s¡"ttingll. Let us propase that predator kllls would be roughly the mean of expected values for the
1
,1 .
."
1 l'
TABLE 1.01 Secondory Diomo" ond EsUmoted Prey Accumulated lar
Vorlous Habltat:;;"
Habita'
Amounlol Secondary hiomaS8 prey I:txpectl:td (kglkm'l (kglkm'l
Norlnern or polDr~
Tundra Boreal foresl Temperale c Mixed broadleal fores! Prairie grassland Tropic&ld Aroacía saVll.nna Rain foresl
79.0 '.0
7.1
450.0 3,450.0
40.5 310.5
15,760.0 5.0
1.411:1.4 .45
i
~i'1"'i i"
,"
.18
• Data forllorthetn habitat.from McCullllUgh 1910; datafurtemp«ateand tropical habita'. from bourllen 1963. -u.ta ref..r lo carlbou Of¡ly 'Oata retar lo Ullflulatlll only. ~ Oata refl:tr lo ~nflulatel aOO primatea unly.
;1
,
16
J. Hehes lo Artifoels ond MrmlJments lo
boreal forest and a temperare grassland [155.34 kgl km'). If a depostt eccumuleted over epproxírnetely 10,000 yeers (not an unreesonable estímate for many Pletstocene events). we would expect 155,344 kg of prey during thet penod. Given en esttmeted mean weight oí 222 lb (100.57 kg) for 1)0 edult cenbou (Rangifer tumndus}, we would thereíore expect 1544 individual ceñbou lo heve been depositad over 8 single square kilometer durtng that peeíod oí time, if ceribou were the only prey animals in thet babttet. Obvtously, that is not reelísttc. since many different spedes would be ¡nvolved. Neverlheless, 8S en oh· ject lesson tor Ihe archaeologist, ODe can sea that an impressive amount 01 bones is deposited annuall:v, particularly in a tropical savanna. Given the Iypes 01 geological units archaeologists work with in Pleistocene deposits, we can expect as normal a very large numbar 01included bones, since most geological deposits represent appreciable periods 01 time. Certainly it must be realized that aH places where deaths occur are not equally propitious lor the preservation 01 bone. Recent pioneering work in taphonomy, partieularly by Diane Gifford, K. Behrensmeyer, and A. Hm, has bagun to illuminate the conditioos under whlch preservation is most apt to occur; a quick burial, and either the perpetuation 01 moisture on the bone, or complete desiccation. Stated another way, in situations in which it is perlectly wet, or perfectly dry, and the bone is being bnried, bones are most apt lo be preserved. For aH practical purposes this means that areas being deflated (see Gifford 1977;108-257) or eroded are not good candidates, and areas subject to extremes 01 wet and dry are not good candidates. Lake and slream margins, delta lormations, as well as prolected areas such as caves and rockshelters, are very likely placas. Behrensmeyer (1975b) studied bone distribution and assemblage contenl in several dif· lerent geological contexts. She observed lhat bcme densities were greatest in della environments and least on the floodplain, with channel deposits intermediate. The implications of these observations are Ihat (o) death and predalion result in considerable numbers of animal carcasses beiog scatlered in the envirooment annually, and (bl these carcasses are apt to be preserved in dry or wel conditions where the bones are apt to be buried shortly after deposition. This means that lake, spring, and streBm marsh
ASSf"mblag~s:
Chonging Concepmu! Fmrneworks
,
A"'
~
The ÁrliflJct
cnd AssembJage Phuse 17
margfn deposits and interna! dratnage pockets can be expected 10 vteld considerable quantltíes 01 dead animal remains as a normal condftton. Stated another way. the normal Iuncuontng of a biot¡c cornrnuntty can be expeeted lo yield considerable deposite 01 animal bonas in geomorphological settings conductve to lheir preserveüon. This seems like a reesoneble proposition; nevertheless. the rnethodological tmpltcetíons bave nol been explcred bv arcbeeologtsts. In Ihe New World many death sües 01 Pletstocene elephanls have been recorded and only a few have yielded any evidence 01 human involvement al the time of dealh. The vasl majority of these elephallts have been recorded in the contexts of lake, stream, and spring margin deposits. In fact. this is such a regular patlern Ihat it is quite Iikely that elephants of all types seek bodies of waler when their lemperatures go up; hence the most I;Ommon place of death is in such a marsh-bog setling. This is a normal condBion. The eonditions favoring preservation must be also presenl ifbones depositad as a resull 01hominid aetions are to be preserved. lf Ihere is evidence 01 hominid behavior in a deposit containing preserved bones, the conditions under which lhe deposit was lormed are also Iikely lo be conditions conducive to the preservalion 01 bones derived from the normal patlem oí predator-prey interachon as well as the normal mortality characteristic 01 the setting. Perhaps this point is best made with an exarnple: The existence 01 (o) an active biological community with normal death and predafion rates and (b) a lake margin hag deposit is well documented at the larnous site 01 Torralba in Spain {see Howell 1966}. Witbin tbis site were approxirnately 785 "artilacts," 01 which approximately 174 are lithic debris. These provide exciting evidence lar the participation of hominids in the Middle Pleistocene biotic community, a glimpse 01 which is preserved at Ihe site. Tools at Torralba are restricted to Ihe importanl de· posit designated Hc 01 the "lower grey colluvium." 1 can find no estimates by the researcher as to the length 01 lime during which this deposit accumulated. 1 asked HowelI, and he said that he had no good idea bul that it could nol be more than "several tens of thousands of years." During the unknown span 01 accumulation, at least seven "Ievels" were generated with several additional lenses. Thal is,
land surfeces were dilferentially stabiltzed. permít, ñng the excavators to recognize sequential depostnonal situations. No estimales as to the length 01 time involved in each "stabilization" have been offered. For the entíre sequence representing perhaps "severa! tens 01 thousands 01 yeers" an esttmeted minimum oí 115 (See Howell 1966:121-122) individual animals were recovered from the Torralba levels. Assuming that only 10,000 years ts involved, there would be an average 01 only one dead animal every 87 years. That does not appear excessive as a normal death rale far a normal glacial environmenl! The fauna is interesting in ils composition, in thal it is remarkably stable from level lo level: The grealasl estimaled minimum number of animals for any level is only 15 (Occupation 1). Varialions in speciescompositiondo oeeur from levelto level.bul are no grealer Ihan can be expacled from sampling error alone. The mosl abundan. remains are Ihose of elephants [31 pereenl of individualsJ, allhough lhey are alwoysoulnumbered by Ihe combined10101 of individu_ als of other spacies.... Horses are next most abUndanl [21 percent of individualsJ, followedby cervids (18percenl excluding Dama), bovids (13 pereenl), Dama (6 percenl), rhino (4 pereenl), and birds (3 pereentJ, wilh abouI 2 percenl each of Felis and olher carnivoras [Freeman 1975:6681. What role did man (represented by 611 tools deposite
t
300 loeds would have been required to move al! the meat: 50 able-bodted men would have lo make 6 Irips eech lo carry the 101 to the living site. The amount of meat aclually utlhzsd might heve been constderably smaller than Ihe total available, but lhe figures sttll suggest a relatlvelyhigh group size. Basedon such consideralions, I em inclined lo thínk Ihat the total sree of the cooperatíng social groups which provided the personnel responslblefor the Tcrralba occupaUon resldues wes very large, perhaps on the arder of a hundred tndívíduals al more. Such large populalion eggregetes might hava been feaslble only perlodically 01 seeson. ally, bul it is quite possible, given the undoubled nalural wealth of Ihe region in 66rly mid-Pl6islocene times, thal large human group, were a constant feature of Ihe landscape (Freeman 1975:682J.
i
, ,
~
~; "1
This is a truly remarkable set of conclusions lo draw from the Torralba dala. We are told that the region is one 01 "undoubled natural wealth" (presumably weallh in animalsJ, yet we must assume that none ever died trom· predation or natural causes aronnd the Torralba lake.bog! We are told Ihat nalure operated only when man entered the picture. When man arrived to hu nI enimals cooperatively in large groups. nature also cooperated by preserving a record of these heroic exploits. Yel, when man left. nature stopped and no further preservation, or natural dealhs of Bnimals, occurred! How extraordinary! We are led to conclude thBt. becl,msethere were so many animals represented in "Ievels" with lools, human groups were practicing cooperative hunting drives in which all species over certain sizes were taken time and again in roughly aqual proportions, butehered, and lhe meat transported to consumers living in large groups that were "a conslanl feature 01 the landscape." AmBzing! The researchers at Torralba have operaled with a set 01 assumptions abaut Ihe nature 01 Ihe deposits. as well as abaut the processes in the pasl that resulted in deposit lormation. They have been misguided by the idea 01a living Iloor as a spatial aggregatíon 01 preserved maller, all of which results from human aclions. Given an aggregalíon 01 slone tools-evidence 01hominid behavior-it is assumed that al! olher remains associated wilh the stone tools are also a by-product of human behavior. The researchers of Torralba have certainly made Ihis assumption.
'1I
, 11 ,1
, ,
\!I;:
r~
IIIJ
...,1
~i, '1
1III
I!
11:
¡
i
j,!)
,
A"
~
¡.¡!
1. Relics to t\rtifacls and Mormments lo Assemblcges: Chonging Conceptual FrameworkB
18
Pletetocene archeeologtsts need to ebendon such en approach. They must adopt an epproech that deposils yielding stone tools 88 natural deposíts. recognizing the potenttal sccumuleucn of derivativas from a cross section of biotic adivity in íbe environment oí a loceüon favoring preservatioo. Man is only ODe potentiaJ contnbutor. My discussion up to this poiot has focused 00 Old World metertels and 00 Peleolítbtc research. 1 do not wish lo imply that rny crttíctsrn ís restrir:tad lo such studies. In the New world, argumente over the stgnificance of bone modifications are relatively recent 1 It is true that Webb 8nd DeJarnette {t942:763) suggested, in their "generalized profile" of tbe Flint ereek sbell mound alang tbe Termessee River, Ihal fuere was sn early period characteri:r.ed by worked bone. followed by a Iitbic periad, aud finally by a ceramic periodo However, tbey did not imply tbat bone was the exclusive raw material used in tool manufacture. The latter position, linked with sametimes remarkable daims for Ihe antiquily of man in North Amenea, is a pasition lhat has developed rela· tively recently stemming from work at Old Crow Flats (see Harington et 01. 1975) and excavations by Dennis Stanford (1979b) at Ihe Selby and Dutton sites in Colorado. ISee Canby (1979) for a popular discussion of this materiaL) In addition to the "osleodontokeratic" claims for man in North America perhaps as early as 60,000 years ago (see Canby 1979: 348; Friedman 1980:7). Ihere has been a stepped-up sel of claims regarding the use of bones as expedient lools for butchering. This argument was most forcefully set forth by George Frison (1970) with regard to materíals recovered from the Glenrock Buffalo Jump in Wyoming. Since that time this argument has cer· tainly captured the imaginalion of a number of worken, snd excavalors are now increasingly "seeing" bone tools in Iheir faunal assemblages (sea, for example, lohnson 1978). Slone tools are exciling traces of hominíd parlicipation in an environment, bUI they in no way may be lreated as prima fade evidence ¡hat human behavior is responsible for the deposil in which they llCcur. This is not to say that habitations or living floors do not exis!. They certainly do, and as we kllOw from 'he archaeological record of relatively recent times
vrew
IAn exception IS Merriam.
1906
llnd Pulnam, 190fi.
human behavior mey well be, on occasron. the agent reeponstble for the locauon and conlent of meteríals eematníng from the past. However, this is somethlng that requlres demonstretíon. not something lo be assumed. We need to ebandon the logíc of treating alleged hebítatíons. living ñoors, and living sítes as if they were monuments. The 10Mic is one ot identifying an envelope or container. and then uncritically accepting everythíng wíthín ít as referable to the behavior oí encíent mano A complete reevaluatíon of bes¡c archeeologtcal concepts and the logle associated with their use is in arder. Minimally. let us begin by asserting that an oro choeologicol faet is an accurate observation tha\ caro ries unambiguous information relative to hUIDanhominid behavior. The degree lo whkh an association between two or more Ihinga can be taken as an unambiguous archaeological fad is alleast partial1y conditioned by the character of lhe deposit; that is, by the matrix or "container" 'hat bounds the associa· lion. Most would agree that archaeological remains are items and arrangemenls of maner thal are derived from Ihe operation oC a human-hominid sys· tem of adaptalion. An association between e\ements im::luded in a deposit may be uncritically accepted as archaeological fad only when the deposit or matrix containing Ihe elements in association is ¡Iself an archaeological deposit, and man can be viewed as the egent responsible Car the presence oC both Ihe associations and elements wilhin the deposito ArchaeoJogicl1/ deposits are matrices \oMelher with ¡ncluded remains thal are derivad from Ihe operalion of human~hominid systems of adaptation. That is, the matrix itself is an archaeolop;ical phenomenon. From sites of relatively complex cultural systems. archaeological deposits are common; midden accumulations, mounds composed of collapsed building materid, and mounds specifically conslrucled for the burial ol the dead are a few exampies. Archaealogical deposits may be expected to be Tare and infrequent derivalives of hunler-gatherer adaptalions, since high mobilil)l and relatively low investment in facilities, housing, buildings. and so forth are characteristic of such syslems. It is much more Iikely that archaeological remains will be found wilhin geologicaJ deposils. Geological deposits are buried matrices, Ihe formation of which de·
The Artifact and Assemblage Phase
nves from the operatíon oí geologtcal processes. Matertels wtthín a geologícal deposlt may derive from a wide variety of circumslances and events that occurrad during the deposu's formation, none ofwhich is necessanly representative of a behevíorally ínterrelated set of condutons. Thal ís. en cssoctcñon between two or more elements within a geologtcel depostt in no way ímplíes a systemet¡o. behavíorel. or dynamic relationship between the componente. AIl that is ímpl íed ISa roughly coincidental contextual releucnshíp for the events of which the elements were derivalives. For ¡nstance, the finding of a whale bone and a luna vertebra in a gaological depos. it in no way implies that whales ate tuna or for that maltar that luna ate wheles' Nevertheless, the deposilional contexl of an aquatic environment may be indicated. Geological deposits may be thought af as a kind of grab bag. made up oC samples of by·products of events and enlities that existed or occurred with a given "catchmenl" and during a given period oftima when tha deposit was accumulating. A good exam· pIe is the preserved land surface at Laetoli where dampened volcanic ash hardened to preserve hominid footprinls, depicting a Slral1 by two "early men" across a \and surrace sorne 3.5 million years ago (see M. l..eakey 1979). Also preserved in the "ashen ledger" were trads of elephants, guinea fowl, giraffes. hares, ostriches, and nther animals and insects, as well as planl remains. Are we to assume thal Ihe association of hominid footprinls on the sama land surface wilh those of other animals indicates Ihal the action of the hominidsconditioned both the presence and charader oC the patterning observable in the other foolprints? Was early "man" herding elephants, ostriches, or guinea fowl? This is clearly an absurd question. The footprints and olher traces of pasl events and aclions must be viewed as roughly contemporary but unrelated in any integrated senSe. That is, as far as mulual interachons and "causal"linkages among the events recorded are concarned. none seems indicated. Clearly more jus. tificalion for assuming a behavioral integration among materials associated in a geological deposil is nseded than Ihe simple assm;iation itsc1f.t As a way of placing emphasis on this fact, it is perhaps uSeful lo think about aspecls of pRsl processes or r:ondilions Ihal might result in different kimls of geoJogicfll neposils. For instance. it is
19 perhaps proíttable to ask oureelves about the hístcrical integrity and resolution of eggregetes of matertals etebílteed in depositional aseoctetton throcgh the operatíon of gcologlcal processes. Historical intesrity refers to the degree lo which ínclusíons wlthin the deposü deríved from the same or dífferent dynamic conditions in the pest. For instance, if all the materials in a depoeít derivad from the aelion of homtníds. we could argue thal the deposít had considerable integrity. Sirnilarly, if all the Included material wes referable to the actions of hyenas at a den, predators in killing prey. or the natural deaths of animals. each would command a judgment Ihat the integrity of the deposit was grea\. On the other hand. if all the mentioned agents were represented in a deposit, we would say the deposit had liUle historical integrify. The relative resoJution of an accumulation of materiaIs is to the degree to which items and dasses of maleríals may be referable lo a specifiable and limited, hence unambiguous, set oC events or acUons in the past. Assemblages with high resolution are as· semblages in which all parls are referable to \he set of events or condihons in Ihe pas!. Resolution of assemblages may vary independently of the degree of ¡ntegrUy. For instance, we mighl have a deposit with high integrity in thal all lhe included materials are referable to a single agent-hominids. Yet the events and activities that the hominids participated in might span a considerable period of lime and represent a wide range of different behaviors, which have in eommon only the facl that they occurred in the same place. l Ihink it should be dear lhat ltIJtjjrify refers to tbe,relal.ivehomogen&ity ogeRta-responsible for materittl6'hl.ad~t"" d nlution reters to the relativa homogeneity oj the.events of situationaJ condition8 whose- by-produetnn'e'preserved .in. the-depbsil. The basic idea as to the relative resolution of a population of depositionally associated items has been conceptualized previously. Archaeologists have recognized that deposits yielding archaeological remains might be multicomponent in character, in lhat the deposits derive from the independenl occupalion ofthe location by popula1ions represenling differenl cultures, time periods, Of his\orical eras. Thus. archaeoJogists could speak. of a site having severnl occupational {:omponents.
,
1:
,i,
: 1'1
'!
11•. 1
'1:' ' l. "
~ I:
~ 1, 11
't~i
"rthft.
ti
..,... 20
o
.
·
1. ReJies lo Arlifacts ond Manuments to Assembloges: Chonging Conceptual Fromewarks
In treattng sttee thet were occupationally differentiated within a system. 1 adoptad the term grc¡n (L. R. Binford 1978h:482-483) fa refer fa propertíes oí assemblages. Ftne-grcrned assemblages are those in which all the included ítems. features, and land surfeces relate lo a very few aventa; that ís, all associated archaeologtcel charaderistics of the deposit are the ennsequences of basically the same events. Coorse-grained ossemblages accumulate over a con-atdereble period oí time andJor duríng pertods oí rapid "tumover" of events. resulting in the cssccrcneo of ttems, debris, íeeturee, land surfeces. end the ltke thet were differential partícípants in different events during the course ot the occupetton. Thus, the tenn grojo refers to the relativa contextue! complexity of en assemblage from the perapecuve of events occumng durmg the course of a continuous occupation and derivativa praduction of en archaeologícal essemblage. Recognizing that deposits may be variable in integrity, and in turn in resolutton even given high levels of Integrlty, we must minimoJJy have sorne relíeble means or referring observed palterns of association to potenttally different formation conteds. We must further recognize that the resolution of an assemblage must be assessed at !reveral organizational levels befare meaningful comparisons con be carried out. We may find assemblages lo have low resoluUon because of independent oceupational episodes. or beeause of Ihe relative redundaney in the evenls oe"urring within a given occupalional epi-
sede. These and other díñerences surely contrtbute to differences in content and hence meaning. In later chapters of this book it will be emphasized thet cerntvoree are apt lo generete dísttncttve faunal assemblages in basically Iwo oontexts: at kills. and wilhin and around lairs. These Iwo types of assembiage. as well as contributions from natural deaths. can be considerad as very likely contrtbutors lo the "background" faunal materials occurnng in most any geological depostt where bones have been preserved. As suggested eerlter. preservatlon is most likely in caves and rockshelters and in open deposits aceumulated where burtal was relauvely quick and where moísture was eíther very hígh or very low. I have suggested that most íf not all. locations yielding evídence oí cur Pleistocene anceslors are most likely geolcgícal deposits, not archaeologtcal deposíts as IS commonly assumed. This assessment of the character of our Lower and Middle Paleoltthíc data demands thet we develop means for recognizing the derívattves ol differenl agente and differenl events as conlributors lo the geologlcally associated palímpsests withín which may occur sorne traces of hormníd bebavtor. We can no longer be conlent wilh such tautological condiIions as identifying a habilation or living site by virtue of the presence of reHcs and ather associaled remains-generally bones--and then using the dala from such sites lo prove the nalure of man's horne life or other c.haracteristic behaviors!
In the prevtous chapter t showed thal the essumplions made regarding the condilions under which the archaeologicai record was formed dtrectly condínon the charaeter of inferences about Ihe con tenis of Ihe archaeological record. I showed Ihal we may be frequently incorrect or alleasl highly uncertain about our reconstruclion of the pasto In Ihis chapler I will explore a somewhal more complicaled issue---how we might proeeed so as lo minimize Ihe likelihood of conslructing false piclures of Ihe pasto 1 will be directly conr.ernerl wilh fflsfJarch lar.tics and how we mighl use secure knowledge lo aid in Ihe development of new knowledge or understanding regarding Ihe past. How do we carve out knowledge {rom ignoronce? The challenge lo archaeologisls is simply Ihis: Haw do we proceed? How do we unify Ihe world of archaeologicallhings wilh OUT ideas as lo Ihe character of Ihe pasl? Haw may we use Ihe empirical world of archaeological phenomen() lo slimulale ideas aboUllhe past and at Ihe same lime use Ihese empirical experiences fo evaluale Ihe resulliflg ideas? How can WfJ proceed so as lo develop confidence Ihat OUT ideas I}f Ihe past are informative abolll the aclllal pasl? Wl' flH;C Ihc challenge of scitmce ilself-how lo kecp our fep.t on !he "empirical·' grounrl
Chapter
2
Middle-range research and the role of actualistic studies
ui!: '!I'"'1' I "
21
I I!¡; i
.,... 2. MiddJe-Ronge Hesenrch und the Role 01 Actunhstic Studies
zz which scientific procederes might be profitably Mkkessed--empirical with respect lo what? Theoretice! with reepect to whetv Many ercbeeologtsts accept the argument that the discipline of archaeology needs to edopt a sctenttñc approach, yet they are not »ecessertly in agreement as to the domatn of expertence to which such an approach is to be rnost profitably addressed:
there ís in a aense en "archaeologfcal theory" although it mighl be better characterized as evoJutionary anthropuiogy ... human sud cultural evoluñon is oí such scienlific and intrinsic ínterest thBt ¡here is certainly an "sential nomolhelic role lo be piayad by an::haeologists [W8tson el 01. 1971:1641
In the foregoing view, archaeological theory arldresses a dornaio of pest eVents sud conditions. It is concerned with explainiog why certain evenls and syslems carne into beiog in Ihe pasl. H addresses the dornain that most Iraditional archaeologisls considered lo be their target íor seeking understanding: such interesting problems as the origins oí the slate, the shift to agrieultural production, or perhaps the origins oí culture itselí. Under this view 01 "doing" archaeology, Ihe scl of investigating the archaeological record is viewed as the experimental phase or perhaps the archival phase oí invesligating Ihe past. I have referred to such inleres!s as general research or general Iheory building. By Ihese phrases 1refer to Ihe actions of investigators seeking to explain characteristics of Gultural systems past and presento The domain of ¡nterest is cultural systems. how they vary, and how they may be modified from one form to another. The domain is interaclive. generative. and dynamic. Important, however. is the íael that all knowledge of Ihe dynamics of Ihe past must be inferred: To say Ihal historillns conslruct the pa.st so as nol lo falsify r:erlainIheorelical presupposilions is no!to point to a derecl in historians or inlheir method. Jt is lo focus upan the mellns histarians IISe lo finrl out what hap_ pened. [1 is lo sayo in a somewhal di(ferent way. what has been said berare: !ho! wr. in(l~r the even!s of !he pnsl from lhe evenls lIt 'he presenl by linking them in !t)rm~ of sorne Refiero! printiplf's IKitts 1977,1)7 6f11· If we recognizc lnal science is r.oncerncd wilh cicveloping means fur im:reasing Ollr undcrstanciíng
or observations of nature. Ihis ímplies that sctence is stmulteneously ettempttng to generate understandíng and to sherpen or lncrease the íntormattonal potenttal of our cbservatíons. The archaeologtst investígates pbenomene that he has reason lo belíeve remein' from the past. These lnvestigations are conducted in the present. resulttng in all the observational steternents genereted by arcbeeologtsts being contemporary Iacts. How does Ihe erchaeologtst conven these eontemporary observational stetements or faets into meaningíul statements about the past? The first thing that must be realizad is that Ihis can only be accomplisbed intelleetually or with reeson. Thus there is no way of converting observational statements aboul Ihe present into meaningfnl statements abont the pasl in the absence of a reasoning process. Insofar as archaeology remains a discipline that searehes for an understanding of the past through the use of objects and olher organizatiom; of matter believed lo have been parls of pasl s¡tuations, archaeologisls musl operate as historians attempting to give meaning to observalions on Ihe particular archaeological record being investigated. The accuracy with which we may accomplish Ihe conversion of contemporary observalional stalements into meaningful statements about Ihe pest is a direct funcHon of Ihe character of Ihe reasoning processes employed and Ihe methodology developed for evaluating the products of Ihis process. Our problem is then twofold: (01 We musl know the past by virtue of inferences drawn from knowledge of how Ihe contemporary world works. the principies mentioned by Kilts, and (b) we must be able lo justify the assumption thal Ihese principies are relevanl-Ihat al leasl in lerms of Ihe properties of Ihe principies, Ihe past was ¡¡ke the present; we musl make a uniformilarian assumption. The poinl Ihal we must use general principIes in giving "historical" meaning lo our observalions no longer seems al issue: HistoT~' diff~rs
rrom Ihe generalizlng social sciences only in Ihal ils primary aim is lo eKphlin individual situallons in a1l Iheir comploxilY r81her lhan lo farmulatA gAnerallaws fDT indf'firútely repealable evenls and prm;esses. Tha! ls whlllis mtlanlby saying thal hislory is idiographk. Ihe s(l(:ial science nomolnelil: INall'll1 1%1:547; Elto/l l~n'L:l2-24. 41). This does nDI mean thal hislorians rleny Ih", exiS!f'm;e of genr.ral rulAS:
~.~
The P{]radigm-üne's Cuide lo Di!srribing
the
World
rather Ihey seek to employ Ihem lo gain an undarstandíng of individual (Le.. unique] and non-recurren¡ srruetiuns [Trtggar 1978:26-271.
where do such general prtncíples come from, and how can we be assured of Iheir accuracy and rele~ vanee lo our acfivifies as archaeologists seeking lo explicate the rast? Those who daim that archaeoJogisls should be htstortans and not scíentísts most commonlv edvtse that we should "borrow" our general principles from other nomothetln sciences. The lrouble with this suggeslion is that I know of no nomothetic science aftempling to undersland lhe archaeological record! Many olher "sciences" may be concerned wilh various aspects of human behavior, history. and sociocullural change in which Ihe phenomena studied are events, behavior, or palteming in communicaled Ihoughl. However, Ihe basic phenomena with which we work are (al static, lb) material, and (e) untranslaled into symbols or c1ues to human "thoughts." No other "science" addresses such phenomena. It was Ihe recognition of this fact thal prompted the following stalement wrilten in 1966 and published Iwo years laler: Accepling Spaulding's minima! derinition of what archaeology is. we can go a slap rurther and specify its aim as the explanalion .. of thE! order we observe in !he archaeological record. AlT.haeologlcal theory consist.'! of proposilions and Ils.~umptiuns regllrding the 8rehaeologkal Tlword ilself-Us origins. ils .'laurees ofvllriability, Ihe delerminants oI differences and similarHies in the fnrmlll, spalÍ\11. and lemporal chllraclerislles of arlifllds and featur..s and their inteITtlllllionsnlps lS. R. lJinford and L. R. Hinford 19611:21 Directing altention lo Ihe archaeological record ralher Ihan continuing Ihe self-deceit Ihal we were sludying Ihe past seemed e:enlral to progress. My view was Iha! we could not reconslrucl hisloey unlíl we fin;1 addresscd the problem or how we give meaning lo the arcnaeologkal record [sce L. R. Binford 1968d). Meanings are carried by concepts and ¡¡rgumenls and the arr:hapological record contains only llrrangenllJnls of mfltlN If flrchaeologists are lo know lInything of the PflSI. Ihey musl dcvelop a science. The r10main of this Scif'llce musl be the archacological Hln¡rci pr't !w
Z3 In seektng lo develop a science oí the ercbeeclogical record, are there not sorne fundamental characterísttcs of bcth scíence and the archaeologícet record that we must consider to guido the growth of this scíencev The answer musl of course be yes. One cherectenstíc particulerly lrnportant lo the argumente advocating a science of the archeeologtcal record is that science attempts to eveluete the role and utility of ideas for enhanclng understendíng. Ideas are of course cultural forms: if we view culture as er least referring lo tbe parttcularly human abilily lo gtve meenlng expediently to axpenenee, 10symbol, and in turno view experience through thls conceplual ldiom. science is then eoneemed wilh evaluatlng Ihe ulilily of ¡he cullural lools produeed lL R. Binford 1977a:31. The reference to Ihe "cultural lools" produced is of course to Ihe concepts and ideas in terros of which we conceive Ihe world of experience. If we gain a "knowledge" of the world Ihrough the use of cogniti\'e devices, words, concepts. and ideas, and the world is described in these terms, we musl face the problem of Ihe accmllcy, utilily, and "reality" of such cognitive devices themselves. This is one fundamental problem the scientisl must face. The second problem relales lo the degree lo which we seek knowledge and understanding beyond simple description. We frequently altempt lo understand why the world is the way it appears to be, given Ihe description generaled. Sdentists carry oul their work wilh essenlially two sets of intelIeclual lools: a conceptual frame of reference or paradigm (Kuhn 1962). and various Iheories Ihat seek to explain Ihe world as "known" through the use ofthe paradigm.
,, 1Ir ! I
,I
I :,
d
I!
! i~'lt.
The Paradigm-One's Guide to Describing the Wodd The cognilive frame of reference or paradigm r.oflsists of Ihe ideas and concepls with which we approach experience. These condilion whal one considcrs relevan! to describe or chooses lo discuss as of i!lINesl. One's cognitive frame of reference may he lhoughll!f flS the culture 01' a sdence. It consists of
'i
"d".- ..
J~,
....,....24
2. Middle-.flange Reseorch and Ihe Role of Actucltsuc Studies
the concepts in tarros of which experlence is intellectually esstmílated. Despíte all Ihe defínítional conlroversy (see Masterman 1970]. 1 follow Kuhn (1977) in viewíng paradigm as the tntellectual terms upcn whích une meets expertence. The cheracter of one's frame of reíerence condttíons what te consldered relevan! lo describe, what ís interestíng to dtscuss. and even how we view the world in terms of problema to be salvad, In short, lt ís what we expect Ihe world to be líke. Things become complíceted when we recogntae that we cannot galn 8 direct knowledg8 of Ibe essential properties of Ihe world. Qur cognilion is neilber direct nor objective. bul may be indirect and subjective relative lo OUT beHefs abou! the world (i.e., OUT paradigm). We generally defend our clairns about whal Ihe world is like with inferential acgurnenls. I prefer to call these warranfing arguments; Ihey are argumenls advanced Ihal tend 10 warranl lo others lhe heliefs one has ahout the world. If done in a robust manner, they make one's claims appear plausible, and acceplahle (o alhers. Rarely are such arguments formalized in thal Ihe premises are rarely explicilly stated, so conclusions are warranted hy appeal lo a "common body of knowledge or belief." The more comprehensive Ihe alleged knowledge, or wide· spread the helief serving as Ihe ¡nteHectual conlexl for a warranling argumenl, Ihe more plausible it appears aud lherefore Ihe greater m.p.lihood it has of being accepled. Working wilhin a frame of referenee is similar lo participation in any olhl"r culture; we aceommodate experience through our shared cognilive devices. The facllhal Ihey fadlilah'! Ihis accommodalion appears lo os as proof lhal the world is in fael lhe way we expecl il to be. We may be aslonished Ihal olhers do nol see Ihe world Ihe way we do. Anlhropologisls should be familiar wilh culfural differences and should be fairly comforlable wilh the idea Ihal the nalure of experienee does nol necessarily delermine Ihe nalure of culture. Many persons share idenlical experiences yel ascribe lo Ihem very dinerent meanings; Ihis is essenlially Ihe message of anlhrupology. Cullural man has for alllillle believed thal his beliefs were given by "reaUly" anrl Wl'lre therefore "righl," whereas those of othcr c.ultures werc dearly misguided or "slupirl" {or nol having smJll the "Irulh" inherenl in giVlTll !1xperience.
Arcbeeclogy is perhaps in a íortunete posítton. Although there ts much contemporary "culture" or paradtgmauc bias regardíng the nalure of man and the causes of hiatory, there ís very ltule folk knowl, edge regarding tha formalion of the archeeologtcel record. Thls means thet there is Hule explicit prior developrnent of cognitive devices and frames of reterence for eccommodañng erchaeologice! phenomsna in the literal, static sense of the word. For Ihe further develooment of archeeology, the growlh of a paradigm. developing cognitiva rneans for idenlifying properties of the pasl or diagoosing the archaeological record and Ihereby giving meaning lo Ihe archaeological record, is crucial. Much of Ihe time use of a paradigm is viewed as an acl of identification. Can we identi(y a habilation, a hide scraper, a malrilineage, a base comp. agricullure? Or can we diagnose Ihe funclions of a sile, loo!, or elernent of debris? In most cases we are seekiog an unamhiguous definilion. and realistic concepts wilh which lo parlilion or diagoose Ihe archaeologiclIl record aod thereby generale meaningful statemenls aboul Ihe pasl. AH such inlerprelalions lIre dependenl on a general, accurate, and unambíguous knowledge o( Ihe relatiollship betweeo slatics and dynamics, the formal consequences for organized malter Ihal derive from the operalioo of a dynamic system. In developl'ld sciences, whal is being sought here at Ihe consclous levellhrough "middle-range" research may be laken for granled as paradigmatic: The dislinetion belwpen "empirlcal" and "Iheorelical" may be only a rellltiveone. It is relative hislorieally ... A sclentisl who underlakes the study of a par· licular problem. for example of a biologiCIII oOe. IInd who uses various scienlific íllslruments cOllstru(led un Ihe grounds of differenl physiCIII theories. ís quile aWl:Ire of !he faellhat logelher wilh Ihe t'quipmenl he uses he aceepts also lhese Iheories_ In spile of this fae!.however, he willlreat the statemenls he will formulale by means of these instrumeols as ooservlltional. The ubservalional language is, for him.somelhing already presenl and hlstorieal1y given hy the developmenl of science and commoo know!edge IAmsterdamski 1975:81'\1.
Theory-c-One's
r.uirl~
~
lo Explotning Ihe World
rnodern ercheeologv. Today the archaeological record ls not betng vtewed (by mosl) as a material manifestanon of mental phenomena; íl Is 001 being viewed as a preserved past. il is not beíng viewed as uniquely determinad by history; íts vertebüny ts not beíng viewed exclustvely as a manifeslaliun of past ethntc variability, and so on. As is suggested by Amslerdamski, the instrurnents that permit and Factlitete unamblguous meaningfu! observations musl be developed, demonstrated. and tested , using sctenttñc means. Later. as the scíence of archaeology becomes more malure. lhese "inslrumenls for mea· suremenl" may he laken (or granled and resulls of their use trealed as direcl observalions on Ihe pas!. We are a long way from this level of maturily today. We need lo recognize very explicitly lhe current stale o( the arl and address lhe growlh of a new paradigm as basic and fundaml'lnlaL Recognizing Ihat this is a historica] phase in the growlh of the "new archaeology"- I began using a special lerm for Ihis endeavor: middJe-rangfL resear¡;h or .!!!idd1erange Iheory buildi'!&.l .. Whal we are se Ihrough middle·range research are accurale means of identification, and good inslruments for measuring specified properties of pesl cultural syslems. We are seeking reliable cognilive devices; we are looking for "Rosetta stones" thal permil Ihe accurale conversion from observalion on slatics to sh:ltement about dynamics. We are seeking lo build a paradigmatic frame of refenmce for giving meaning lo seiected charBclel'islics of Ihe ar· chaeological record through a IheorelicalJy grounded body of research. rather Ihan accepling folk knowledge--Iet alone implicit folk knowledge---as the basis for describing the pas!. 7eklng
25 body of infarmalion, induding empirtcu] generalizañons ocout lhe phenomnnrr jo queslion. A theorv rs then
lntended lo provide deeper understandtug by presentinJol those phanomena as manuestattons of cena¡n underlying processes [Hernpel 1977:244: ernphasis mine]
Given thal we have made observattons en the archaeologtcal record, offered sorne generalizañcns about lts pruperlies, and gained considerable experfence with Ihe record, I must now ask Ihe crucial questton: Why ls the archaeologtcal record the way il appears lo be? When we seek lo reason about Ihe "causes" of Ihe world as known, we are atlempting to build Iheories about Ihe world, "Where it is sorne evenl or s)'slem of events Ihal is lo be explained, explanalion has lo do wilh cause [Quine and Ullian 1978:1t1[."
1
111 One very centllll use of "Iheory" involves en epislemic device which is used lo eharaclerize Ihe state-ehange behavior of isolaled syslems wilhin H !Ien'lral dass of phenomena .. one CIIn disr.o,'er lhallhey Ilheoriesl ínvariebly poslulale a c1ass or stales of syslems' change over lime ... and are used lo characterize how natural classes of phenomena would behave if isolaled ISuppe 1977:6581
Theories ar" the key lo the scielllifíe underslandin!l uf empiric:Bl phenomena, and lher are oormally (Ievl'lopeu (J¡II~' whl'ln prevjous reseorch has yielded a
Quite Iilerally, lheories are lhe answers to the "why" queslions of dynamics. They are concerned wilh underslanding variabiJity and how syslems proceed from Olle slale lo anolher. lf we are going lo build a Iheorelically informed paradigm for referTíng observations 00 lhe archaeologícal record lo dynamic condilions in Ihe pasl, where do we begin? It seeros to me we must begín wilh certaio (undamental slalemfmts of "being as such_" The archaeoJogir:ai record is a static conlemporary phenomenon. It is slruclured malter molionless and noninleraclive in terms of Ihe properties of hislorical inleresllo the archaeologist.
'This is l'lssenlially idenlicaJ lo whAI David Clllrke called !!:!.!erprelj~':l~~~· IClllrke 1973:8)and appellrslo be whal Sehiffer (1976) means by behavioru! orcho!'olo¡;¡r (Seealso Sullivan 1978.1
Only 11univflrseof energy eould have no p8st. ¡flhere is maller, struclures gro..... and differenliateaod a pasl can be recognized and parhItJl~' rewnslrucled. [1 is Ihe problem of dllralionless ooll-malter versus enduring mal-
Theory-one's Guide to Explaining the World
il 11.:~ ,
We are concerned wilh organizational properlies of the world. We seek to undersland how Ihe properlies of eotilies and/or evenls were produced in characteristic WBYS:
! ~,
,
'1
,l 1
'1 !' ;1
i'
1I
,1'
1
1 l' l'
1:"
l Ir
,
;i:' 1
An ~l'lr.(lssentiaHy RQl\eKiStP.Rt:--",,-'::W6h...~y: The cUllep.pls and h¡¡nce paradigmalic characleristics of Iradilional archlleolop;y are hp.IiIJVcrl lo be ~sscnlially Ilseless fur
:\\",,:>IUT 11
~.~
~
.
U:::='
--P¿
~/11111
¿ •
!
1
(a) (}y¡~~¿
(7Z4"1'9z f
íJvl"'l.f? - due...¿j,,~
~~~O'~
....,.....--
Theory-c-Gne's Cuide te Explojnjngthe World
2. Mjddle-Rrw8" aesecrcn und the- Rule uf Actunlisnc Studres
.8
ter. . . At ene end of the spedrum is btbltcel chaca. B pest without 8 pest, beceuse no meuer exists \0 convey 'fnformeüon. Al the other end there is only informalion and no dectsions-c-stenc informal ion Iurever (Margalef 1968:971.
The archaeologist ts oí course working with stat¡c informatioo preserved in structured arrangements of metter. Since tbere is no energ v ramainíng: there are no culturally relevan! interactiva relalionships lo be -vóbserved in the erchaeologtcal record. SULhrcletíonshipa existed in the pes! but ceesed when systemserving energy was no longar powering the rearr80gement and modification oC matter-in sharl, once 8 slatic condilion was achieved. In a very essential way Ihe contents oC the arehll.eological record must be viewed as produets of a complex mechanical system of c9usatian. It was mechanical in that lhe fundamental genesis of lhe archaeological slructure is a siluation of forces acting lo modify maller in both its organizational and dislributional properties. Tha archaeological record is a strudure of relationships between Ihe dislribulion and forro of matter as caused by energy souoces acting 00 maner in the pasto In one ver}' important sense, all properties of matter, whether they be chips removed from a flake of flint, rniJl;ing of soil betraying the fonner localion of s pit, pilesof debris from meals, ar the remnants of a construclion such as a mud brick walJ, are the mechanical consequenees of the actioos of forces on mstter. lJ!.s~~ th_~ term cot!sol in the literal sense, thal is, lo express the idea of a ealegary of generii::: connectioos; il refers to the way of producing things. Dr. "something, E, is broughl forth by something else, e, in a necessary ([;Dnstanl and llnique) manoer lBunge 1979:49]." Clearly if we can ¡solale causal relationships hetween things, and if we can understand such relationships in terms oC more general principies of necessity, such as the Iheories of mechanics or sorne other basic science, then we have a slrong warrant for Ihe inference of the cause from the observed effects. We would be building a strang Iheoretically infonned bridge belween properties of Ihe conlemporary archaeological record and characleristics of Ihe dynamic pasto Insofar as our inferences regarding Ihe pasl fefar to Ihe causal relafionships that ablained between
dynarnícs and tts static derivatives. then any altempts to dtscover the cheracter of such causal relauonshtps rnust reasonably be conducted Ihrough the study ot living systerns where hcth dynamics and stat¡c derivativos may be potenlially observed. Taktng as an example the problem outltned in Chapler 1, the identificalion of the agency [energv sou rce] responsíble for generatjng certain pattams remalning in the archaeologfcal record. we might reason as fol. lows: Firsl, we musl attempl lo isolate the differenl agente or torces that might be expected to contríbute to or "cause" a gíven paltern. Secando we would have lo conducl sludies of Ihese agenls or processes in the conlemporary world so as lo develop criteria of rer.ognition. In shorl. we need lo specify critería for recognizing lraces, "signalure palterns" apt lo be preserved in the archaeological record, of Ihe agenls likely to have conlribuled lo deposils in which hominid remains migh! also oceur. The procedure is similar to Ihat painslaldngly worked oul over the years for recognizing lilhir malerials modified by man as opposed to slones modified Ihrough olher natural processes. The problem is one oí pattem recognition linked with the demonslration that Ihe patlem is redundanl and unambiguous, a diagnostic signature thal discriminales one agent or sel of agenls from an01her. 8uch a demonslration must be developed by sludying phenomena activel~' generated in a (:onlemporary setting, since !here must be liUle problem of inference regarding the identify of Ihe agent producing the pallerning or traces that one is demonstrating as a signature paHern sufficient for the unambiguous identification of Ihe agen!. The problem is one similar lo Ihe developmenl of a key identificalion of animals through the sludy of their foolprinls. The persons who develop Ihe knowledge thal per· mits Ihe recognilion of Ihe track, and nence the identificalion of Ihe animal responsible. musJ sludy Ihe footprinls of idenlified animals so thal Ihe relalionship between animal and Irack is a controlled or known relationship. Given such a control in the contemporary world. and given that one is successful in recognizing and dest.ribing d¡agnoslit.: criteria (constan! and unique) belween cause and eHecl, animal ano l"ootprint. lhen when on{1 fJnwunters Ihe diaíl,noslic footprint in Ihe fulure lhe infmenee of Ihe
l!r'~
(~)
prior presence of Ihe indicated animal may be constdered an inference of high probability. For an inference about Ihe past to be of high probability, an eddtttonal proposition must be mel-tha1 the same releüonshlps obtatned in the past as nbtetned in the present between bears and their footprtnts! Here we introduce Ihe Interestlng and irnportant. perhaps crucial, problem erchaoologists must solve-chow do we justify il unifnrmitarian assu!!!.l!,!;ionl This tssue is perhaps well illustrated through a dlscussion of the treatment given the problem by the pioneers of hisloricaJ geology: Lyell's concept of uniformity h6S four majar, and ver}' dlfferent,componen!s: (tI NrJturijffllW!f ate:-ifurllililJ,1 (uoiform) in space-at'ftf time. As Joho Sluart Mili ~howed, Ihis js nol o statement aboul fhe world; jI is 00 a priori cJoim of metho
As was poinled out by Gould, the remaining two senses in which Lyell used the concep! of uniformity were in fact assumptions about the world, existential in characler. One has been lergely suslained by research (Le., geologic change was largely uniform in rale, slow, gradual and sleady, not catadysmic). The olher c1aim was a1so exislential, namely Ihal lhe eorlh has s uniforro coofiguralion, or it has been fundamentally Ihe same since ils formation. Mast would agree thal Ihis has been demonslrated lo be quite false as 8 general descriptive slatement. What is indicated here is thal we musl make unifonnilarian assumplions if we are lo gain any understanding of Ihe pas!. 00 Ihe other hand, when we do so we are making empirical daims aboul Ihe post and Ihese mUst be warranled; Ihey must be subjected to evaluaHon. The degree lo whir.h such uniformitarian assumplions are warranlcd is a measure
1 '7 of the degree lo which our lnferences drawn from knowledge of tbe contemporary world andlor uUT understandíng of tts processes in the form oí theortes and laws are relevan! to the pasto lnsofar as our tnferences regarding the pasl reíer lo the dynamics of the past, these tnferences must be accomplísbed by appeals to principies or knowledge about dynamics and how static properítes preserved in the archaeological record may be derived from dynamics. Since the only access a researcher has to dynamics ls through conlemporary expenence. all research directed toward the develcprnent of principies thal serve lo make possíble inferences aboul the pasl must be conducled with documenled dynamic siluations generally in the presen!. Such knowledge of"conneclions" between slatics and dynamics must derive from experimental research conducted wilh documenled living syslems. Since knowledge of dynamics derives from experience wilh living systems, observations of linkage between statics and dynamics musl be made on living systems. In arder to use these principies of linkage for msking slslemenlS about lhe past, we must make 9 uniformilarian assumption with respecl lo the properties used in inference. In short. we musl assume thal knowledge gained fram actualistic studies is relevanl and applicable to Ihe living syslems oí the pasl. This basic proposition must be true ir inferences employing principies gained Ihrough Ihe study of eontemporary dyosmics are lo be used in inferring the past from palterned statícs. This means lhallhe assumption is alwayscondilional and may be false; thal is. we could be wrong in our judgments regarding Ihe condition shared by systems or entities of Ihe pasl and lhe present. For instanee. any number of "correlates" between sts\ics and dynamics mighl be observed in Ihe modern world. However, the firsl question we musl ask is whether .we are gbseryjng ao jncidence pí cause and effect, or whelher there is simply correlation or coincideoce. The second, and equally imporlanl, question lo be considered is whethe~ posed causalion was also characlerjslic of Ihe pas!. Both queslions must be answered affirmatively before ~aJis.Í(l eb8ePIatioomay",eehst-imlly·serve 8& a,prfilQistlJof iníl1nmces-reR8f.(Hng4he pUlI. Although I basically agree with much of Schiffer's (1972. 1976. 1978) general discussion of ar-
,1 11, 1, 11
il~
!,!I
~'
chaeology and Ihe need for understandtng of formati0I!_processes, I generelly dtsagree with almostaf[;f 'li'i'Ssüggesrroñs as lo how lo solve arcbeeologtcal problema. He faits lo make the critical dtsttncuon belwaen descr-íptlon and explanatton. This is clear as he cites Nagel for "experimental laws" ü.e.. empirical generalízetíons¡ and Hempel for "covenng laws" (i.e.. theoretlcellaws). as íf these were Ihe seme thing [see Schiffer 1976:4). Schiffer alsn argues Ihal "the subject matler nf archaeology ts Ihe relatlonship between human behavior and material culture in all times and placee {p. 41." 1might agree thatthls is one wey of viewing the concerns of middle-range research, bul find it hard lo accepl as Ihe cenlral focus for archaeology since Ihe archaeological record conlains no direct informalion on this subjecl whatsoever! How do we know whal experiences wilh living systems are relevant lo the pasl? This question is parlicularly germane wilh regard lo central issues such as identification. Idenlificalion, as mentioned earlier, is a key issue in archaeology, since it is this "acl" that eSlablishes Ihe language for discussing Ihe pasl, and in turn Ihe language carries meanings and provides the units for logical analysis. ldenlifying things (see Whilehead 1967:144) becomes Ihe acl of translaling from the domain of malter inlo Ihe domain of ideas. It is the identities that bridge the gap hetween lhe past and the presen!. that provide, as Whitehead (1967:159) wOllld say, the "elernal abjects," Ihe "durables," which serve as the basis for recognizing events. fhe basis for analyzing events and recogni2ing transitions from one evenf lo another: Whalever pllsses is an even\. Bul we fínd entities in nature which do nol ptIss. raclors in nature which are without passage will be called obiects ... recogniIlon is reflecled in the intelleet as comparison. but JI is nol Ihe ewnls which aTe compared. Jo'or each p.v"nl is eSIlBnliaJly unique and inwmparable. What are cumpared are the ohjectsand relallons of obieclssiluated in events IWhitehead 1957:124-12sl.
It seeros to me Ihat uniformitarian assumptions function much ¡¡ke in!ellectual anchors, for Ihey provide the "points of knowledge" from whir.h we
may judge tbe extent of our ignorance regardtng propertíes of the archaeologtcal record, Whal are the durable uncbangtng charectertsttcs that the events of the presenl shate wilh the past? As 1 índicated alsewhere [L. R. Binford 1977a:81.
tent with the Initial assumpttons. the premises upon which the tnferences rested. There is en importan! characterislic of al! mferantial argumenta, simply that we can never reoson in o volid monner (rom premrscs a conclusion thcr contradicfs !he premtses wuh which we stort. Thís fact has importan¡ irnplicenons for archaeologfsts:
'0
We mey reasonably ask . whether or not thera are classes of data remaining from the pasl wních might bcttcr suppcrt uniformitatian as surnptíons. In short. are there nol clesses of phenornene avatlahle tu us Ior which a more reltebte sel uf conditiuns might be projected intn the pest Ihan for human behavior per se?1
1. AII our statements about the past are in-
ferences relatíve to observalions made on the contemporary archaeologlcal record. 2. The accurecy of our Inferential construcñons uf the past is dtrectly dependen¡ on the accuracy of Ihe assumptions or premises serving as Ihe basis of our inferential argumenls.
J answered the rbetorícal questton by suggesting Ihal lhe sludy of the spalial slructure or the arrangement of "objecls," in the Whitehead (Ig57:124j sense of the world, would be a useful area for developmenl. I continue lo be of this opinion. On Ihe olher hand, I had suggested Ihal ecological and analomicel characleristics of Ihe species sliU extant with whkh ancient man inlerac1ed were enduring objects for which uniformitarian assumplíons mighl be securely warranted. It is hoped Ihat olhers will elabomte this lisl of domains and pursue middle-range research along as man}' diverse Jines as we may be ab!e lo justify uniformitarian assumptions. 1 began the discussion in Chapler 1 with a clemonstratioll lhal !he "inlerprelalion" of cerlain aro chaeological observalions was dependenl on a basic premise, an assumplíon aboul Ihe conditions in Ihe past surrounding Ihe formalion of lhe deposit wilhin which archaeological remains were recovered. I showed Ihat Ihe assumplion was generally made Ihal man was the agenl responsible for the disposition of aU malerials found in associalion with demonslrable arlifac1s. AH Ihe "interpretations"-lhe postulation of bear culls. cannibalism among early hominid populalions, mass killing of elephanls at Torralba, syslemalic hunting of hyena by Neanderlhalers at Pin Hole shelter-were inferenlial arguments consis-
rhe conclusion we musl draw is Ihat we cannot use eilher Ihe archaeological record or Ihe ¡nferred pasl lo test our premises or assumplions. Quite Iilerally. al! our reasoning is "Iocked in" by our original premises and observationallanguage. lJnless we can lake our premises lo experience and permil experience lo pass judgmenl on Iheir accuracy, we can never gain a critical perspective wilh regard lo out beJiefs aboul Ihe pas!. "Can we presenl hislorical events as instam:es ur confirmation for a law? We cannol if Ihe very law we wish lo tesl has becn presupposed in inferrillg the event IKitls 1977:791." Pul anolher way. since we construcllhe past inferenfíally .....e cannol use our conslruclions lo test Ihe accuracy of Ihe premises Ihat provided the basis for Ihe chara(:lerislics conslrucled Since we cannol use lhe inferred characlerislics of Ihe pasllo lesllh!'! basis for our inferenlial procedures, ho ..... do we develop reliable meons fur knowing lhe past? The answer, as 1have intimaleel, is Ihal wp, must engaBe in middle-range re.~earch. which consisls of aclllalislic sludies designed to conlrol for the relationship belween uynamic properties of the pasl abolll which one seeks knowledge and lhe slalic material properlies comrnon to lhe pasl and Ihe present. Whileheau's "eternal objecls"-in shor!. lhe charaeleristics about which uniformitarian assumplions may be made, Ihose Ihings which lhe presenl shares wilh lhe pas!. These cornmoll Ihings provide the hasis for a Lornparison of Ihe events of Ihe pmsenl wilh Ihe cvelll:- 01 Ihe pasl or evcnls from (Hfferenl limes in I!w ]las!.
lRichard Gould has argued Ihat. I;incesorne characll!Tistics appear unlikely to bridge Ihe present aod the pasl. we should avoid unifurmitarian assumpliolls "The less Ihe archaeologist must dllpend upan uniformitarian assumptions lo iofllr past human behavior. Ihe more valid his explanations will be IR. A. Gould 1978:2551," This is nonsense, in my view, sinee any inferpnee. even a simple identification. lo the pas! mus' make a uniformilarian assllffiplion.
l
The reason that middle-range research must be bastcally aclualislic ís thet only in the present can we observe Ihe bear and the footprtnt together. the coincidence of the dynamic and the static derivattves. In more mature disciplines, where a releuvely sound melhodology and a eophístícated observattonel language exist, it may be possfble lo use inferred conditions ebout the pest as premlses for further tnferences if the inilial premisas servíng as Ihe bas¡s of the original inference are securely documented and "vertfied" at the míddle-range level of research. As illustrated in Chepter 1. this is probably a very rtsky strategy. given the lack of sophislication in conlemporary archaeology. The dependence of our knowledge of Ihe pasl on inference ralher than direcl observalion renders the relationship between paradigm lthe conceptual 1001 of description) and Iheory (lhe conceptual tool of explanalion) vague. it a1so renders lhe "independence" of observations from explanalions frequenlly suspecl and comrnonly standing in a built in relalionship, Ihereby commilting Ihe fallacy of "confirming Ihe consequenl." It is this condition Ihal renders it imperative that our methods for constructing lhe p8!sl be- inlellectllally ¡ndependenl of our lheorias for explaining Ihe pasl That is, Ihe lheories explaining the archaeological record. lhe work Ihal provides our abservational language and conveys meaning lo archaeological phenomena, musl be inlellectually inrlependent of our a priori ideas of lhe past. or our lheories regarding lhe processes responsible for pasl evenls, pallerns of change, or slabilily. ~e range .fheoq¡"mt.lsj...he inklUec-tually; i·ndBP8~'·Clf ~hacry. Middle-range Iheory musl be lesled primarily with documenled living systems. Middln-range lheory Ireals Ihe relationship belween slalics and dynamics, between behavior and malerial derivalives. General theory may be lested using arphenomena meaningfully oper· chaeological ationalized Ihrough middle-range research, Stated anolher wa.,'. ~el1eral Iheory musl be evalualed usin~ instrumenls for rneasuring lhe variables specified in Ihe Ihenry, Thcse inslrumenls musl have been developed indepencienlly Ihrough middle-range reseflrch In lhe absence of melhods for reliably l1lolliloring the variables silid lo be clelerminantly
'), , !I ,
, 1,
!I, ,: :¡,1
J,:
I
,
I
;:;í:
,'t ',.'
!II'
'~'I '
,
~f¡
11, ,
1:'1'" .;
I
•
30
2. Middle-Hange Research und the Role af Actuolislic srudíes
opereuve. no archaeologtcel test of general theory is possible. "rne conc!usion should be clear: Middle-range reseerch. wlth particular emnhasts of theory building, is crucial lo the Iurther development of arcbaeology. We can no! "know" the past without it, end we can-
not evalúate our ideas ebout the pest and why it was the way it appears lo have been wtthout means of monítoríng Ihe eonditions or variables belteved lo be important. Both of these tasks are dependent upon the development of míddle-range research.
I,
'
!'
In Chopter 1 1 argued that a particular set o{ assumptions cbcut the jormctlon 01 depostts that contctned archaeological remoins served as the warrant for further inferences regurding mctericls found in nssoctction with the orchoeological remcins. 1 attempted lo shcw that Paleolithic archaeology developed in a sttuouon where a specific concern [or methodclogtcol resenrr-h was no! seen as sepcrote from research conducted for purposes al learning about 'he post. Interpretetions were lorgely developed post hoc or after díscovertes had been made in the orchoeclogiccl record. These procedures Iorgely ccnslsted a[ using inferences based on ossumptions regording the formation processes cperntlve in rhe post or the condHions responsible [or morphoJogicol properties or potterns of associotion observen in rhe nrchneoJagico/ record. Once snch posl hoc
I
Part II Middle-range research-In search of methodology
¡I .
'1'It i!
"I 1:1J ¡'i '1:~1
il:l
,
~,
f:
1
:1"
'Ii,
,
I¡i' ,·1"
ar
'!'(
•
~ 34
Poli JI. Middln-RunlW R{'.
tntcgroto theso observolions with those of others regarding the behavior af predctor-scovengers. These discussfcns will then provtde the background jor o consideralion of csscmblcge variabilily, thct ís. the determtnants of patterns of ossociuuon omong difjerenl anolomicaJ par!s in terms of animal bebcvlor contrusted with thct of OWIl. From thls 1 wil/ drow sorne inlellec!uol expectctions cbout the behavior of predatorsccvengers. "cnchors" thut we can project into the posl and use fa identijy the conditions Ihu! generaled cerlain conjfgurottons offaunaJ materia/ remclrung for us lo observe todov.
!¡'
:1lilll .a.
11:1: f
~I~
I
The observettons surnmarized in thrs chapter are largely concemed with Ihe modíficatfons that animala. considered strictly as rnechanícal agente. make on bones. That ts. 111m concemed with looth mllrks and patterns of differential destructíon that gnawing animal s are capable of producíng and in facl regulady produce. In all my descrtpuons l am concerned wñh recogntaíng modificalions of bone that are distinctive or otherwtse dtegnosttc of action by nonhuroan agente. I cannol emphasize too mueh that with anirnals most bone modificalion ís etfected by teeth. Teeth are the írnplements and the íaw is a mecha nical device Ior exerttng force; Ihe Iwo constitute a dlstinctive mechanical system. This ís consídered lo be a very non human mechanícal situetíon, in thal man commonly employs a varíety of Irnplements. such as kllives and hammers. end the mechaniral situaticn is one of dtrected culting or tmpacted hammering. For entrnels. the teeth are organizad in whal may be víewed mechanícally ee a vise. These are real differences in the mechanical besrs for human versus nonhuman predator-scevengemodtñcatíon on bones. Most of my descriptions focus on recurren! propeettes belíeved lo refiecl Ihese mecbentcal differences. Obviously animals differ in stae. feeding hebns. the mechanical strength of their jaws. and the destgn of thefr teeth. Nevertheless. they 811 may be constdered animaled vises.1t is expected Ihfl! the baste pat.
Chapter 3
~i ¡ 1,!I: U "
[,1, '1
"1
Patterns of bone modifications produced by nonhuman agents
I'1'1, ñ
as
IU
¡ "
¡
/n-k:~ ""/(YJ. - ,;""~ c>Y'...;t~'f4cb
• 36
3. Pml('rn~
terns of modíñcatton thet en anirnal is mecbantcallv careble of producing are nol goíng te vary 8 great deal from rme species to enother. lt ts more likely that the magnitude of the capabtlíty. and the use of ít. will varv emong spectes. A very strong animal may be abl~ 10 accomplish the destrucnon of large bones but the tecttc oí destruetion ís expected lo be essentially hke that of a smeller animal addresstng a smaller bone. This ls an operating assumption guiding the presentatíon of much of the following materiaLI will remain sensilive lo Ihe possibility lhal lhe assumption is overly simplistir:. The demand thal the bellf and ils footprinl be observed together is only parlially mel for 'he IDa\erials
described. The~ oí the--booef¡..~,iR ~h6 descriptions and iIlulItrations of modifications produced by animals WBre recovered from nine dog yards within th~ village of Anaktuvuk, Alaska. A total of 12,716 bones were observed for patterns of surficial scarring, bone breakagc. and destruetion. An additional 416 recovered from two small wolf dens served primarily to permit lhe assessment of the impression Ihat Ihe pat1erns produced by the domestic dogs were not unique 10 the dogs. The samples from the Anaktuvuk dog yards wefe not collected wilh Ihis particular research aim in mind. The original mo\ivalion was to study in detail Ihe seleclion of parts by Ihe Eskimo for use as dOR food and to monitor any seasonal changes in the feeding strategies (see L. R. Binford and J. B. Bertram 1977: 78-g01. These dog yard samples werc supplemenlal lo actual records of dog feeding and followup studies of the bones remaining al feeding spols after the dogs had been moved away Isee 1. R. Binford 1978b:2B2-265). In addilion, 1 had conducled extensive interviews with Ihe families then keeping dogs regarding their dog-feeding lactics. Thus Ihe sample has a weakness. Man actually inlroduced lhe bones to Ihe dogs after he had killed the animal and transportad Ihe parts to Anaktuvuk. Thal is, aU the characteristics of Ihe bones canool be unequivocally refeITfld exelusively lo Ihe behavior of the dogs. Nevertheless, Ihe characteristks described can be ascribed lo Ihe dogs with Ihe highesl levels of confidence. For inslance, my informal ion no palteros of dog feeding by Ihe Eskimo perndls me to say with confidence thal no bones previously broken for marrow within Ihe viHage were given lo the dogs. The Eskimo generally do nu! fpR.d their dogs "gar-
nJ Bnne ModiJiroljons Prlllilll"ed by Nonhumon
Ag',"I~
bage" or tabie scraps . but whcn this general peuem is vlnlated it ís never with raspee¡ to prcvíouslv brokan long bones. When bones that have been previously "consumed" by humana are gtven lo the doge. they are almos¡ alwavs "women's bones" (see L. R. Binford 1978b:149) or those that have been boiled. These ínclude the neck. Ihoradc vertebree. ríbs. lumbar vertebree, pelvis. aud sr.apu!a. 'I'he only modificalions that might occur lo these bones prior lo roodíücauon by gnawing dogs would be cut marks írorn ects of dtsmemberment. chop marks for sizing the bones to nI in a stew poI. and sometimes "mashed edB!;s" resultill¡;¡; from human chewin¡;; al the margms of lhe bones during consumption. Feediog dogs womeo's bunes is much more common 00 winter sites where the warm bones are viewed as a treal for the dogs. 1 never observed Ihis table-scrap feeding in rny spring or summer dog-feeding records. Generally dogs are fed complp.tu blllr.hering un· its, Ihal is. a complete rib slab. a complete scapula wilh al1ached meat, a complete pelvis, aod so on. In butchering the Nunamiut dismember the body of a prey animal by cutting between the articulator surfaces of Ihe bones. Somelimes multiple bone units will be relurned from the field lo the village. These may be further butc;hered al !he time of dog feeding, bul except in the winler, when the meat is frozen. secondary butchering is the same as primary: dismembermenl by cutting between the bones al the joinls. This means Ihal ¡;¡ingleor mulliple bone unils are whal Ihe dogs receive as food. Thev are almosl never presented wilh previously broken bones. The exception lo Ihis generalization is feeding during winter when meal stored outside is always frozen. Secondary butchering under such conditions is accornplished wilh an ax and it ¡s common to break lhrough the shafts of long bones as a regular dismembermenl strategy. For Ihese Teasons. three of the dog yard samples (see L. R. Binford and J. 8. Bertram 1977:80J listed (samples 1I, 1Il. and IV) in an earlier reporl were eliminated from this analysis Rnd only consulted concerning patlerns of deslruclion of arliculator ends. It should he pointed out that 1have analyzed over 122,000 bones known lo be Ihe result of Nunamiut behavior. I have nol reported any type of modificalion as referable to the dogs Iha! regularly occurred in the known "human sample" (!\ee L. R_ Binford 197Bbl
&'
......-
PrevtousApprocches lo Underslanding lhl' SigniJicance of Broken ond Modificd Bone The sample of dog-modified bones te considerad unambiguously informative ebout dng behavíor wilh raspect to Ihe following properties: (a] surñctal modíñcetíons and lb) pattams of deslruction or breakage of single borre unfts. Prcperties not considered referable lo dog behavíor are (al the relative frequencíes of the bones present and, lb) differentlal destruction due to Ihe accessíbtltty of the different bones-Ihal ¡s. dtsaruculetton hed alreadv been accomphsbed bv rnen befare Ihe dogs gained access lo tha anatomícal parís. so patterns of deslruclion were nol generally condilioned by the patterns of anatomical arrangemenl characleristic of a prey species. Thus the population properties of animal-obtained assemblages cannol be undersloorllhrough the sludy of this materia!. On Ihe other hand. variabilily in moc1ification and destruction of given analomical parts is documented in a reliable manner. Again. I am confident that the properties described are referable to the Betion of dogs. The beBr and the footprint are together wilh regard lo modifications of single bane units. However, 1 cannot USe these data for studying how dogs would modify larger unHs of analomical organizalion, such a~_leg or a whole animaL ~ :...AH ~he'generalizations offerad are wilh regard toJ caribou bone. I will iIlustrate sheep bone occasionally lo indicate Ihal Ihe generalizalions about caribou also ap'ply to sheep. Statcd another way, I am talking about the modification of caribou bone by Eskimo dogs}largely malemiuts-weighing between 55 and 70 lb. I will frequently cite lileralure in whích olher researchers have described similar modifications of either bones from other spedes [horses. bison. etc.) or banes modified by olher Bgents (large cats. hyenas, coyoles, etc.). These references serve lo warrant the opinion thal the modifications produced by dogs may be generalizad lo other species of predator-scavengers and to the bones of olher prey that might be attacked by gnaw_ ing animals.
Previous Approaches lo Underslanding Ihe Significance of Broken and Modified Bone
I
As was shown in Chapler 1, I seriously question many of the daims old World archaeologisls presenled regardin~ \he pas!. However. I concpnlrale on
37
New World erchaeology in Ibis survey beceuse iI provides an ínteresttng case of research mnving 10werd the development of a methodology that. as I will attempl to demonstreta, is largely poorly founded and mtsleedrng. II has the added interest that many of the properties cíted by New World archaeologists have been clted by Africanists and other Old World archaeologists as diagnostic of human behevíor. The very fact tbet many of the seme formal properttes hava been observed in widely separaled places atld with reference lo differitlg lime periods adds to their middle-range research potentia!. If these properties can be underslood accurately, then Ihey are good candidates for strong methodologkal tools, since making secure uniformitarian assumptlons about their meaning is encouraged by Iheir broad spatial and t~mporal distribulions. Most claims for man's use and modification of bones as tools have been based on cited evidcnce of either altered shape or particular modifications such as "flaking," "retouch," "polish," and "abrasion," which were believed to be producls ofhuman action. In addilion there were e1aims made Ihat man broke bones differently from animals. res\llting in distinctive and diagnostic patteros observable among Ihe fragmenls of long bone. As was poinled out earlier. Breuíl {1938:581thought thal roan broke bones "Ion_ gituditlally" whereas animals broke bones transversely. This view was accepted by Weidenreich (1941: 74-77) and ciled as evidence that Sinanthropus was a cannibal. Raymond thIrt (1960) accepted Ihe suggestion of 10ngitudinaHy fraetured bone splinters, and proposed thal this Iype of break. age was accomplished by wedging bone 1001s ioto exposed bone cylinders. thereby splitting the shafts of long bones longiludinally! (for criticism see Feuslel 1969. 1970.) have pictured olher exomples of bontl lnlerpenetro_ ill Ihe memolr on th~ Osleodonlokeratic Culture such as on alllelope co!can¡;,us wedged between the Zygomotic arch and the lateral aspect of a split hyoenB skull. and flekes ofbone or whole bones wedgBd withill other bones. These (l)l;amples are here shown lo be lypi. cal and are now sufficiently numerous lo conslitute ir. refutable cvldence of a systemotic auslralopithecine technique not meff~ly of smashing up skulls bul also 01 split1ing by m(lans of driving olher flakes of bone or whole bones forcibly down lhe shahs of olher bones IlJarl HIfiO:1361. I
tíOIlS
+.....-f l-W1A"j. -
~. to.rr~-t
-y
*~~
., ,
38
J.
Potlerns of Bcne ModificationsProduced by Nonhumcn Agtmts
The femous crack-and-twisl technique of bone fracture was proposed by Dart nüt as a method of fracturing bones for maITOW extractlon. but instead as a meens of tool production, 8 posítton leter adopted by Saclek-Kooros (1972). we were both ígnorent ot the means wbereby primitiva saplent man at Kalbank 15,000 years ago end IhE! sUll more primitiva protoman AustroJopithecus prcrnetheus ebout 1,000,000 years ago al Makapansgat obtained theee spíral blades unti! one Sunday we preservad the femur Irorn Ine family's roest leg of mutton. Th8 following doy he lKitching] brought il lo the laborl'llory, slruck the shaft with the poio! of a stone implement and holding 80ch end of the bone in a hondo
twisted Ihem opar! in opposihl directions. Tha beautiful resultanl spiral blad611 and Ihe poinl oí impact of Ihe stone implement are clearly see".... So the nexl time this Sunday ¡oinl provided ,ames Kilehing wilh a furIher experimental opportunily he simply struck the shafl against Ihe wooden edge of the lable and Iwisted the bone ends contrary wise again and the spiral and pointed results ttnl seen {Dart 1959b:911· ~~y~~al points.s:ho,,!ld_be clY!!fflJ!..IDLm. Experiments have repeatedly demonstrated (L. R. Binford 1978b:152-157; Bonnichsen 1973:14, 1979:37-53) that plltl f etttre resull. from breakins rel8tively mm )yuw:1t is not conditioned by twisling. Twisting may condition two types of situahon; most likely it simply facilitates the separalíon of fractured bone from the periosteum and in no way condílions the pattem of actual breakage. In siluations such as are described by Sedek-Kooros (1972) where a line of minor impacts are made longit\.ldinally along abone, the twisting may actually ensure a longitudinal crack connecting all the small poinls of impacto This is difficult to accomplish and mosl often twisting simply removes or separates fractures that are otherwise held togelher by the periosteum. (See. for in· stance, such fractures indicated in experimenis 19 and 22 IFigure 51 of Sadek-Kooros 11972:3741.) Despite Dart's designalion of Ihe crack-and-Iwisl method as one used in tool produclion. il has been most often cited as a melhod appropriate to the breaking of bone for marrow exlraclion. For instance, as a caption to a very imaginative reconslrucHon of the Iifeways of AustraJopithicus ofriconus in the popular Life Nalure Library book, E"orly Man, by F. Clark Howell (1965), we are lold,
PreviousApnrouches lo Underslat1ding the Significance of Broken and Modified Bone
Cracking and twésting antelope limb bcnes. Ihe Auslralupilhccines estract the edíble lnsides. Late¡ the bones. frequently found with prehuman Iosstls. may haveserved a different purpose: their sharp erigesmade useful tools and weapons [Hnwell 1965:69). Recent New World Htereture. atthougb generally acknowledging that twisling ís not necessarv lo the productíon of spiral fractures. has tended lo suggesl thal spiral fractures themselves are dtegnosno of human behavíor. This view seems to slem from seminal work by Bonnichsen (1973), which builds on two ploneer reseerch experlences with behsviorally modified bones. Bormichsen participaled in a sludy with Zierhut (1967) aimed al Ihe elhnoarchaeological study of bone breakage 8mong Ihe caUlrrg uk:~ Cree. This experience was coupled with the analysis of bones recovered from animal cages al Ihe Alberla Game Fano in an importanl alulIupi to·develop criteria for dislinguishing between bonebroken or modified by man and that broken or modi-fied by animals. Research with Ihe Cree involved repealed demonslrations by the locallndíans as to how bones were broken for marrow (see Bonnichsen t973:Plale 1). A standard melhod was observed 8mong the Cree and Bonnichsen obviously still accepts this Isee Bonnichsen 1979:Plate IV-1) as lhe method wherebv . man break bones for marrow. Bonnichsen's second actualislic experience was in lerms of observations made on bones recovered from Ihe ca¡;;es of a caracal cat, a North China leopard. a Siberian Iynx, and a Siberian tiger (Bonnichsen 1973:14). This lisl is interesling in thal it ineludes no can id or hyena. Mosl observen of cals agree that Ihey are fastidious ealers and modify bones primarily in the course of removing meal from Ihe skeleton rather than during the gnawing sessions more characterislic of canids and hyenas. Large cats have, neverlheless, Iremendous power in Iheir jaws and are capable of shearing bones during Ihe course of meal consumption. (Sea Ihe impressive pholograph in Beard 11979:961.1 AH of Ihe bones ilIusIrated by Bonnicbsen (1973) and attribulable lo ani-' mals at Ihe game farm werc modified by a Siberian tiger, cerlainly a powerful animal. AII of the modifications iJIuslraled are puneture marks on bones of a small animal (sheep). whir-h when broken were simply sheared by Ihe Hger (Bonnichsen 1973: Plate eb. c, d, and f). In one sheep libia illustratecl, however. Ihe proximal end was sheared off ancl a
/.l.~""i -..<.'7 ....~r;.<. <Wt.~
spiral fracture originating at the end of the bone was produced. The last "control" population of bones availeble lo Bonnichsen was a colleclion recovered írom the stte inhabited by the Calling Lake Cree, who had servad as informants for the marrow-cracking demonstrettons. These bones represent gerbage. from a local house. Ihal was subsequently scavengnd by domestíc dogs. Thus, iI was not cleer which egent. man or dog, produced the modiftcetions within th¡s population. Since man obviously crackad bones for marrow, the spíral fracluring within Ihis assemblage was attribuled to man. Only modifications previously described by SulcIiffe (1970) and Miller {1969} as characteristic of animal modificalion were illuslrated as referable lo Ihe dogs. Thu5 the "modero sample" from Ihe Cree was interpreted using previousiy described criteria for recognizing animaJ-modified bone, coupled with Ihe elhnographic experience of marrow cracking among Ihe Cree. which was token as the basis for recognizing bone broken by mano Dnly a single piece of "ambiguous" evidence existed from Bonnichsen's perspectiva: the spirall}' fractured sheep tibia from the Siberian tiger's cage, Sornebanes alterad by animals axhibit spiral fraeturing such as the sheep tibia from the Siberian tiger cage.... Asthis process has nol been wilnessed,the following suggestion is conjeelural. The bone WIlS probably Hrst perforated by the 'eelh at the two oppositional points 11 the epiphyseal end. Al the same time lhe liger pulled out a segmenl whieh terminates in a spirlll hllc, lure IBonnkhsen 1973:t61. Bonnichsen then concludes that tbe long bones are particularly important for recognizing human activity, noling Ihal there is frequently an impaet notch and spiral fractures initialed outward from Ihe notehed loading poinl. In con Iras!. bLlisl0.!!!!..fu!.. 10wJ!!&... charac.~istics as diagnº~ic of animalmodified bone: "(1) toolh perforalion marks. (2) gnawing and scooping oul of cancellous lissue, (3) crunching and splintering, (4) spiral fracluring direcled from Ihe epiphyseal ends. (5) partial digestion [Bonnichsen 1973:241."1
¡
IHow Ihe Ihird chllrllcteristic is different from spirlll fracturing is not lit all dear since this criteria is adopted from Sutdiffe (19íU) and hE' did nol ulilize lhe concept or spiralfracturing
.
39
Bonntchsen was led lo believe that spiral fractures were characterist¡c of bones modified by men, whereas tooth marks. scooptng out. and parfial digestion were charaetenstic nf animal.modified bones. This is imporlanl, stnce Bonnichsen obviously belíeves that man breaks marrow bones by smashing them in midshaft. the "mid-diaphysis smash technique of spiral fracture lBonníchsen 1979:36[." Althougb be admits the posstbílny íhat animals rnight produce spiral fractures originating al the epiphyseal ends. it is quite obvious thal Bonnichsen constders sptrel fracture lo be "artificial." He slales, The raeognition of spirlllly fractured bones has led to the following hypothesis: splrlllly fractured bones are indicative of man's presence and renect patlerned human behavior. This hvpothesis has been used lo guide Ihe analysis of fracl~red faunal remainsfrom the Old Crow Flats palBOnlological assemblages. Two additional hypotheses specify how spirally fractured oonescan be Usedforreoonstrucling prehistoric human behavior pafterns. Hypothesis 1 states' The geogrophi~ dislributions of spirally fraclurad bones may indicale human aclivity localities;and, Hypothesls 2 Slales: Spirally fractutad mammlll bones ¡ndicate the general seleclivily exploited by man [Bonnichsen 1979:69]. Methodologically speaking. thougb Bonnichsen refers lo his propositions as hypotheses there is no way of lesting Ihem using paleontological remains. since Ihey refer to a relationship belween a property remaining today (spirally fractured bone) and an agent inferrad to have been aclive in lhe remote past fman). Since he is attempting to use Ihe spirally fractured bone to prove the ancient presence of man in the New World. only with an accurate and independenl means of monitoring tba ancient presence of man could he tesl his hypotheses. In fact bis hypolheses are used as conventions for giving meaning lo paloontological remains. They serve to ¡ustify his beIief that man was presen! in very early times bul in no way do tbey evaiuate tbe belief. That Bonnicbsen does nol seriously consider predator-scavengers as agenls capable of producing spiral fractures is iIIuslraled by his discussion of possibJe sources of spirally fractured bone: The prehistorie occupants of Old Crow Flatsapparently processed the limb bones of large mammals for "bone
11'
I 1I
!jl
illl I¡ 11
1:ln
.,
'1
I
'" I
:i1 ,
'11' :
ir.
i;
! ji t,
...,........ 40
3, Pcnerns 01BOIlf' Modifil;:llliOnS Prcduced by Nonhumcu Agents grease" end perhaps for tool productlon material. Five bundred Iiñy-five spiraJly fractured limb bones trom :'0 loclllilies suggnst that bone pmcessmg WIIS widely prectlced throughout "the rtets.': ln essessíng spiral fractures, Ihe possibility should no! be rulad out Iha! occasionally enimals broke the¡r Iimb bones in spieal fractures . Three argumenta suggest Iba! íhe majorily of spirally fractured bones Irom Old Crow Plats are bones broken bv man. Of the 1,794 elements collectecl from loco.lily 89, 237 specimens exhíbít aptral fractures .. This figure is much higher than would be expected. if only natural breakege were involved. Secondly. bOlles exhibiHnll spiral fractUteS ¡nelude: marnmothimastodon. horse. caribou. hi_ ron, muskox, elk and maase. Spiral fractures wr.re nol
observed on Ih6 limb elemenls of bear, symhos. saiga antelope. camel, cal, or ground sloth ... and the third argument is; the bones exhibiling spiral fractures Ol;:f:ur on all the majar Jimb bones. lf !he bones were broken only by natural causes. B paltern in which Ihe weakesl limb bones were broken would be expetted (Bon· niensen 1979:77-791. We see here a c1assic argument from elímination and a good illuslration oC ils weaknesses. Two causes have beeo postulated: (a) man breaking bones Car marrow and possíbly for tools and (b) animals aecidently breaking their legs. The laiter is rejected by arguing that accidental breakage oC legs should be rare, and it represents at leasl 13% of lhe observed bones at one location al ald Crow. 1 totally faH lo undersland the logic oC Bonniehsen's second poio!, but the final point argues Ihat aH the major límb bones exhibited spiral fracture though accidental breakage would be expected 00 only the weakest bones. Having rejecfed animals breaking their legs as a cause, we may accept the remaining "working hypothesis" that man was Ihe causal agent. Such loglc only works if oDe has all Ihe possible causes identified and included in the elimination procedure. As will be shown, Bonnichsen did nol have an importan! cause lisled-nonhominid predalorscavengers. Al approximalely the same time Bonnichsen's carly work was done, George Frisan (1970) was sludying Ihe faunal material from Ihe Glenrock Buffalo lump. He excavaled in delail the locations yieldíng slone butchering tools and assodated faunal re· mains, obviously the remaios of a mass kill of bison that had been bulchered and processed for meat by
I~''''''
Previnus Approllches lo Understcndmg the Significance oi Broken ond ModUied Bone
mano Frtson ruede the assumpuon. common in many ou World studies. that the charecterísucs of malertals associated with unquestioned lools rnust also be refereble to Ihe ecuon of man. Therefore, all the paltemed modifications on Ihe bones from Glenrock were inlerpreled as the cnnsequences of butchenng behevíor by mano As I will ilIuslrate throughou! rny discusstons of animal-modified bones. 1 consider the major modtñceuons illustrated and descríbed by Frison [197U) lo have bean the products of scavengtng animals twolves andror coyotes). who presumably Iaasted at Ihe site after man had taken his share from the kills. Near the end of Chapter 1, 1 argued that il seemed extraordinary lo me thal the interpreters of the sile of Torralba made the implicit assumptioll thal nalure slopped excepl when andenl men were on the scene. I pointed oul tha! such an assumption was necessary. since the interpreters refarred aH the faunal conlents of Ihe Torralba deposits lo the aetions of ancien! men! After having reviewed the types of trace.~ carnivores can leave on faunal assemblages, il seems equally amazing to me Ihat of alllhe mass bison kills and megafaunal remeins excavaled by archaeologists from the American Plains, nol one such location is reporled to have yielded evidence of predalorcarnivore behavior! AIl bone modifir:ations and palo lerns of dispersion have been sYlilemalically Ireated as s!emming from human behavior. This situation is truly remarkable, sinee both wolves and coyoles were common, even plentiful. on Ihe American cantinenl unlil relatively recenl limes:
of the scale end distribulion of such features see Davis and Wilson 119781.)I heve searched in veín for discussions of bcne modifiratlon and dispersion referable to !he behavior of nonhuman scavengers al sueh obvtoue ooncentratíons of meato The majority of the patterns of bone deslruction ilIustrated by Frisen (19701 from the Glenrock site may be taken as a c1inic in canid-modified bone. Nevertbeless. I am gelting somewhal ahead of myself. The poinl ts that borres showing pertems of destructíon cheractertsttc of cánida were míxed with humallly modified bones in the assemblages avail· ab/e to Bonnichsen. and at Glenrock canid-modified bones were misinterpreted by Frison as Ihe producl of human actions. Thus. from Ihe perspective of developing melhodolagy, spiral fractures were viewed by Bonnichsen as diagnostic of man and all the modificalioos produced by canids at Glenrock were advanced by Frison as also diagnostic of mano The latter were interpreted as deriving from a particular method of butchering (muscle stripping) postulaled to aceount for many of Ihe modifications, whereas others were viewed as ¡ntenlional modificalion of bones for use as "expediency tools" (Frison 1974). The work of Bonnichsen and Frison provided Ihe conventions for giving meaning lo observed modifications. on bones, the principies later summarizad as follows: 1. "Spirally fraclured bones are indicath:e of man's presence and renecl pattemed human behavior IBonnichsen 1979:691." "Bones that exhibit spiral fraclures from non human sources are usually Ihose brolten afler the bone was dried or hao been parlially decalcifíed, ar borkl;!n when the animal fell or Iwisted ils leg IStanforo 1979a:117)." 2 '"Bone expediency tools (Johnson 1977 and Frison 1974) are manufactured by producing a spiral fraclure anO using Ihe sharp edges of Ihe fracture for butchering or hine-working aclivilies. Hones used as 1001s can be identified by the oceurrence of liny step fraclures, polísh and slrialions on Ihe proximal end of lhe spiral fradure.... Expedience !on[s are \ISU· ally made from long bones. bul ribs. mandibles, scapula and innominate fmgments ware aL~o used IStant'ord 1979B:10RI."
A woUer spent eaeh day in the same muline. In the aflernoon he would ride out and shool two or three buffalo and lace Ihe carcasses with strychnine. The nexl morning he would return lo dress oul Ihe len or twenty victims. One wolfer. Roberl Peck, left ti record of h¡s days in 11 ¡ourna) . Peck mustered out of the IIrmy in 1861.and he and two friends set up a wolf Olmpabout twentv·five miles norlh of Fort Larned. Kansas.Over tne winfer Ihey killfild 3.00n animals: 800 wolves IIml more lhan 2.000coyolas.and Ilboutlml fox ILopez1978: 1781·
If we believe Ihe archaeologisls. we must imagine thal the North American wolves and co}'oles avoided the ed¡ble remeins left by North Americans al such places af> animal lraps and the bison jumps profusely documenled on the Plains. (For sorne idea
Using spiral fraclures. and R variely of surfkíal scarring and bone rnoliific¡¡lions as di;l¡.:nostic of
I
41
fauna! assemblages produced by the hand of man, it ts nol surprtslng: gtven the víew that rnost of the "diagoostic crileria" were probably produced by gnawing entma!s. that a number of modern inyths have begun ro emerge. Using the Bonníchsen-Frison entena for recognizing man and tools. meny erchaeologists have made claims for man's great anIiquity in North America (Bonnichsen 1978, 1979; Canby 1979; Friedman 1980; Harington et cl., 1975: lrving 1978; Irving and Hanngton 1973; Morian 1979: Slanford 1979a). Similarly, there have been c1aims Cor 1001 assemblages lacking stone or other generally recognizable products oC human workmanshíp such Ihat al least sorne workers have entertained (he idea Ihat eariy man in the New World manufactured tools primarily of bone: Irvlng furthar suggested that a sophlsticated Upper PaJoolithic varlely of nint industry is by no mean' essential lo supporl human life in the far north. In fact, bone forms that could have performed all the necessary tasks of hunting, piereing, butehering. skinning. onrl per[Qrating have besn recovered [rom Ihe deposils al Old Crow and elsewhere, adding another dimension of possibility lo Ihe reconslruction of oarly lifeways IHumphrey 1979:viii. parophrasing WiIliam Irvingl This sturly sugges!s heavy lImphasis was placed on bone working in Mid·Wisconsin times. This pattern probably dominated Ihe tool making piclure in many oreas unti! Pleistocene extindion began lo occur.... Man probably responded by developing new lechnologic.al innovations Iho! emphasized the use of lilhic llrtifacls. In líghl of these findings. future early man resaareh . might well be dil't'Cted toword ree¡¡amining existinx Pleistocene psleonlological collactions for evidenl;:e of human modificalion (Bonnichsen 1979:1931
In the hands of generalizing early man enlhusiasls advocBling a particular point of view regarding the peoplinR of the New World, the material from ald Crow Flals is charaderized as "a remarkably sophislicated and specialized bone and anller induslry IBryan 1978:3231," I consider most of ~he foregoíng argumen!s ~_!i. having produced a series of modero mvths. I will átiempt to demonslrate Ihal lo) spira-I fracture is not unique lo man, (b) man does nol generally break bones by Ihe "mid-diaphysis smash lec!mique," (cl
1'1,1
I
ií
I I
,i I
I
.,4.d t: - ~Cv1""'.q.
.--,...-spiral fracture when produced by anímele Is not límíted to BO origio at the distal ends of the bones. [d] tbe inodifications citad by Frison al Glenrock as evídance of muscle stripping are cornmonly produced by gnawlng ceníds. (e) the modíñcatíons citad as criteria for recognizing "expediency tools" are cornmonly produced by nonhominid predetorscevengers. and (f) many of the modíñcettons pra· víously citad as evidence for human modíñcatíon are '-referable to predator-scavengers.
Skeletal Disartieulation There heve been very few studíes of natural skeletal disarticulation. The two that are available are somewhat ambiguous on whether the active agente are decay organísme end chemical processes or whether there has been ectíon by predatorscavengers. In the earlier study eveüeble to me (Toots 1965), it would appeer that the agente of dísarticulation are primarily decay organisms and chemical processes. Toots summarizes his observa· tions as follows: From these observations (he normal coune of dllUlniculation can besummarized approximately aa fol1ows: (1) skull and sorne limbs become disconnacled {ponibly also the atlas), {2) tlbll become loosened and fal! off at leasl from the upper side. [3) Ilmbs stan lo disarticulate Into progressively smaller segrJHlnts unlíl only isolaled bones are lefl [sometimeduring this process lhe lower jaw becomes disconnecled 1,(4) follawing this bul overlapping jls late st8ges, the vertebral calumo S18rts lo dlsarticulate, and (5)afler this haa continued far sorne lime bul befare diSArliculatian of lhe vertebral column ís completed, weathering. ,plinteríng and gradual dlslnlegratian of the bones set in [Toals 1965:381· It is interesting thal Tools attributes Ihe resislence of
Ihe vertebrae to Ihe inlerlocked Iype of articulation and the rapid disarticulation of joints such as Ihe atlas-axis lo their highly mobile character. He further notes that hide and ligaments retard disarliculation and this Is particularly lrue where desication occurs befare decay by virtue of there being very
r~~.- c",/.",.Jq-,
/"k-o
_
~
Skeleto/ DisarticuJalion
J. Pcttems of Bone Modifications Produced by Nonhumon Agents
42
Jtc'.
43
líttle "meat," as is the case with ungulete lower
TABLE 3.01
limbs. In a contrary fasbion, where there ís a concenIration of decomposable tíssue. as in the abdominal aree. chemícel reecttons essocteted with decomposlüon will hasten dísartículetíon of such perts as ríbs. The second study of dísertículetíon is one conducted by Andrew Hill (1975). This investigalor aclually díd a pattern-recognition study based on the comperetíve degrees of disarticulation manifest at a series of deeth sites of DamaJiscus kcrrtgum, or topi. The average adult body weighl of topi is 82 kg or about 180 lb. His findings on the eequence of díserliculation are as follows:
Sequence of Natural Dismembennent AccOrdinll fo HilJ"
1. 2. 3. 4.
Cranium plus alias vertebra Fronl leg Rear leg Basic axial skeleton (cervical, thoracic, lumbar vertebrae: sacrum, pelvis, ribs]
Far inslance, if one can picture competilion among camivores arDllnd a dead animal, then it might well be reasonable to anticipate that skull. mandible. 8nd front leR parls would be most Tikely dragged away from Ihe kili {írst during the early period of competition far parts of Ihe kili amang numbers of carnivores~~ In addilion, we may anlicipate that parts w¡[1 "ride" wilh others as a funclion of their probable
Complemenlary unlt
BasicaIly appendicular skelelon BasicalJyfront legs 1 Forelimb (induding scapula) 2 (Caudal vertebras)"
The eequence [gtven in Table 3.01) Is descríbed in terms of Ihe smaller untt. often B single bone. resulttng Irom the dislrti!::ullUon of a particular íotnt. Becb diserttculenon has been gjven B number. shown on Ibe leít. lndil:ating ita stege in the sequence. Apperentlv simulo teneous disarticulalions ... ere distinguished by supplementary letters. The numbers ln the rtght-hend column tndtcete Ibe next stege et whlcb. Iirst. the named unit and. second. ita cnmplement. are encountered. Thus it mllk.es It possiblete trace througb this aecountthe course of disarticulatlon of a particular par! of Ihe skelelon, such aathe forelimb ... lHiII1979:741]. The hasic sequence of disBrticuiation is head and froñt leg, followed by rear 188, and finally the ele-menta of Ihe axial skeleton-. 'On the basis of these observations, we mighl expect the following anatomical segments lo have slightly ¡ndependent distri· butions under nalural conditions simply as a function of the sequence of likely disarticulation.
Next occurrence nemed unil
Unil (smaller one observed¡
Stage
3
2
3
Scapula
s
4
5 6
(Mandible) Humerus + radius + cubitus (Cranlum + alias)
6 1A
7A 7B
Carpals Metaearpal
6A 13
Humerus Distal phalangea or forelimb Bosirolly reor Iegs Be Hindlimb 9 [proximal phalanges and distal phalanges [frontl) loA (Redtue and ulne] sepárate lOB Femur + tibia l1A Tarsals + metetarsals 11B Phalanges (ínterphalangeal joints as well) 12 femur separates from tibia
7B 8B tOA
IIA
68
and B
6C
8 10B
a 15
1 1
1,1 l2 14
It ItB
II : i 1
Ili I
BasicaIly axial skeleton I
i
13
l' 15 lOA
168 17A
178 leA 18B lOA
188 20 21
(Cranium separates from atlas) (Tarsals) separata from metalarsals Ribs (average value) Thoracic vertllbrae(13) + lumbar + innomínate + sacrum Thoracic vertebme (2) lo 112) Innominate Thoracic vertebrae (13) Lumbar vartebrae (1) + sacrum Lumbar verlebrae (1) lo (6) Sacrum separates from lumbar Thoracic vertebrae (1) Axis Cervical vertebme {3) lo (7)
1:
l' 18 17A
188
"A
18A 18B
18B 17B
lOA 20 21
"Table adoptad fmm Hll1 1979:742. (Tabla oTiglnally tillad "Sequance of Disartlcula!lon in Oamalascus Korrigum"). '[xceptions lo skelala1ltfoupings are indicaled by parenlheses.
sequence of disarticulation. For instance, when the forelimb separales, il is most Iikely Ihal all articu· lated segments of Ihe fronl leg will be dragged off. not jUst sorne desirable or high-yielded elemenl of Ihe fronl lego
I had the opporlunity to observe and record the parts remaining on 24 wolf kilI sites (reported in Chapter 5). The overall paltern observed was genero ally consistent with tha pattern reported by HUI. In several cases there was elear indication that the
l'
,I 44
3. Paltems of Bone Modi/icarions Produced by Nonhuman Agents
wolves had dlsmembered thetr prey by (a] eating thl'EH.lgh tha proximal humerus, therefore dteerficulatiog the scepula. which W8S Ihen deegged off (the otherwtse unmodíñed front leg frcm the míddle of the humeros shaft down remotned ettached to the body by sktn in two cases sud WBS scattered in ntne cases), and lb) cracking the fernur in roughly míd"haft so that the proximal end of the femur remeíned );lfliculated lo the pelvis (however, tha greater Ira-
chantar was eeten away]; the lower rear lag was missing or wídely dispersed around the k.iIl lncation. Mueh lesa common was a break in the Jower thírd of the libial sheet such tbet the complete lower- leg from
the distal third of the tibia clown remaíned artieuJalad, sornetimes with pert or a11 of the toes and hooves míesíng. This meana that the proximal femur and the proximal tibia may remaln essocíeterl with the pelvis. the distal fémur end the proximal tibia may remeín arttculeted. end the distal tibia clown to the foot represente the final segment of the rear leg typico.lly found artlculatad. In the case of the front leg. the most comrnon pettem wes for the scepule to cccut síngly, the proximal end of the humeros to be destrcyed. and the remaining parts of the front leg to remain articuiated. An altl!'rnativp waa fm there to be a spiral break through the lower part of the radiocubitus so that the distal radius was articulated with the carpals, metae8rpaJ. and segments of Ihe fool. Another common segment comisted of the main body oC the shaft oí the radio-cubitus, and tha distal humerus, plus a considerable section of shaft. 1 greatly regret that I did not OJllecl all the bones from the WCllf kills for re'llm to Albuquerque. Al fhe time 1 was intetested in anatomical part survival and did not make systematic notes on either units found in artkulation or the dístribution oí tooth marks., fracture patlF!rns, or nther evidence of carnivote activi/y. 1 saved only bolles exhibilinB extraordinary evidence of earnivote destruetion. Gary Hsynes (1977,1978&, 1980bj has informed me that he has currently underway sn extensive study of wolf kills oC American bison. He expressed the apinion that Ihe paltern o( dismemberment was so regular tha! we might eventually be able to tell how hungry the wolvp.~ werF! snd the size of the Rroup making the kilI simply Crom Ihe patterns of disarticulation and bone dispersion. Thus far, the consistency between my observations and those made 011 ve!")' different •mimal!> in a very differenl seUin~ would tcnd lo
support Ihe idea oC extreme ragulanty end. in tum, índícate that we míght well place sorne confidente in making unlfcrmttenan assumpttons ebout pat. terne of dismemberment when eontemporary patterns are documented more fully.
Toolh Mar.ks Viewing animals as denticulatec( v;~e:::h is obvrous Ihal the lmpiements that ultlmatety modify borres are the teeth. Ignoring for the rncment breakage end actual modíñcattons in bone morphology. J will concentrete on surtrcíal scarring caused by the motíon of animal teeth on and over the surfece of bones. J recogníze four baste types of tooth marking on bone: (o) punctures, (b) pits, le) scores. and (d) furrows. These may be coupled with types of breakaga and when distinctive, this will be mentíoned. Punctures (Figure 3.01} are simply where the bone has collapsed under the tooth. frequently leevíng a fairly olear imprint of the tooth. as in the dorsal [ríght-aíde] view of the distal end of the metacarpsJ shown in Figure 3.02. Fraquently, when the bone ls thin and/or porous, the tooth may penetrare the bone leaving distinctive hales in eaneellous bone [Figures 3.01 and 3.36). On very thin bone, such as Ihe blade oC the scapula, the tooth may penetrate and remove an area of the edge equal to tne surface area of the tooth, producing a crenulated edge (well iIIustcaled in figure 3.40). This effeet has beeo illustrated previously by Bonnichsen (1973:19. Plate 3, item A.j and Shipman and Phillips (1976:171, Figure 1, item
FIGURE 3.01. PuncluM& mude by (lnJmol 16flth,
I¡,I !
1111"
I
,;!
¡'ni
l'
"¡
I
i¡
1,.
'IJI! 1:.
Fj.
Punelures were one ol the l¡rst mod¡(¡caftons made lo bones noted by flarly archaeologists. In fae!, BOllcher de Pecthes. the father of modP-rn prehistory, reported a punctured phalange flOm the site oC Ah. beville (1849:312). Punctured bones were noled wlth inleres! b}' Larte! and erisly and a considerable dis· cussion in Ihe Freneh literalure lollowed the sugges· Iion Iha! these were whistles, Ihe first musical inslrumen!s. The Iiteralure is well summarized by Henri Martín [1907-t9HJ:162-168), one of Ihe firsl to point out Ihar perforaliulls were commonly made on Ihe weakesl surface of abone and to givfJ many
li
1 :1'
'!!
¡!
1,
jlll
li 1
11
!
1II
I:f: 1i' 11I
'l¡¡ :,1
•
1I ' '!,i¡1
l
FIGURE 3.02. Animal-prodllced pitting and punclures on lhe distal metapodial.
"
~~-_a#<j-c.A'l
eA-?
.....-~
./.:Vl7Y/1)~ -c <\ cOiY " ,~
f?/ - f-"j(buueM~¿ 46
l-i
3. Pcttems of Bone Modifkolions Produced bv Ncnhumun J\genls
examples tdentical lo that illustrated here {Figure 3.01. upper speeimen) (see Martin 1907-1910: Platea XXX, XXXI,XXXII). SiRCepunctures ara a fundían of the strength oí the bone relettve lo thc strangth of the animal, í! ís
not surprísíng lo ñnd large end deep puncture marks made by lions and other larga cats. [See, for ínsíence, Bonníchsen 1973:21, Plate 5, ttems A and B; Dert 1949:13; Hill 1980: Figure 6.4; Kitchlng, 1963: Plato .., : Pei 1938: 62. Plata XX!, Iteme 7,8,15, and 16.)
Puncture marks are really the initial steges of furrowin,R-8. tarm edopted From Haynes (1980). That te, If considerable gnawíng occurs.ubvtoue puncture
marks are generally oblíterated as the cancellous ttesue ls gnewed ewev. Gnawing ganerally proceeds foom 10ft to harel bono; the animal attacks the smt cancellaus plU1:s af abone first. As it gnaws, it encounters progressively harder bone {Ihe bone shaftsJ and the same aeUans may result in pitting in that tbe bone ill now strong llnough not to coIlapRe under the gnawing acHon, This pitting ls ilIustrated in Figure 3.02; the bone on the left is ex:tensively pitted, whereas the one on the rlght is ptmclured. Figure 3.03 illustrates in more detaJl the effects oC extensiva pittlog. This is a cemmen conditíon on bones that have been gnawed extensively. I should poiot out that I have observed this only on bones from wolf dens and dog yards. No exomples eí bones so exlonsively gnawed were observed on the wolf kills that 1 will discuss Jaler. PiUiog generally results from gnawing bones rather lhan eatins and pulling meat from the skeleton of an animal, as at a kili. Bone gnawing as suth is rlU'e al Idlls but very common at dens and the "sleeping" places oí canids that 1 have observed.1l ise even less likely at the killsites of large cats (Diane Gífford, personal cornmunica(ionl. Figures 3.04 and 3.05 illustrate Ihe pitted surfllee of a rompacl bone splinler. which if found in Ihe European Middle Paleolithic would be called a 1001 and designated a "campressor." This category was originally described by Martín 0907-1910), who Interpreted it as a campressor or pressure nakee usad in stone 1001 manufacture. The pitting and scocing of Ihe bone was viewed as Ihe resuIt of pushing off flakes of chert during the ael of pressure flahng. Bordes 119Bl :77) has correclly pointed out thllt the very presence of the technique af pressure flaking has nol been established for the Middle Paleolilhic.
rendering lt unlikely thal compressors were used in the suggested manner. Nevertheless, Bordes eccepts these items as tools wíth the warning thet they were more than Iikely scerred while being used in percussto» nakjn~. , heve examined many of Ihese items (approximateiy 134 from tbe slte of Combe Grenal) and in most cases Ihere is no tendency íor thetscerringla be on the end where one would expect il if these ítoms were used as flakerl;. In far:t.l could see no relettonshíp between the placement of pilting (sometimes coupled with scoring as in Figure 3.D4) and the rnorphologv of the spltnter. lt was as if the spttnter was produced after the pitting had been done. These ilems have been widely ilIustrated as Iools. by Bordes (1961:Figure 108, 1968:100, 111, Figures 34 and 39), Semenol' (1964:171-172, 177. Figure 92), Movius (1953:45, figure 12}, and DeLumley (1969:165. Figure 20), among mllny others. Senrin! is the result 01 either lurning the bone against the teeth or dragging the teelh aeross reletively campact bone. The result ls a scarring of tite surface that IScommonly linear. Scodng may on occasion look vory mllch Iike "cut marh" from lItnne tools in that scoring marks may be parellel snd frequently quite clase together. They generally differ from cut marks in Ihat cut marks rarely follow the "eonteur" of Ihe bone, beinS deeper on lhe par!s of
,,'
Tcoth Morks
47
MUR/e
II
2["
111111111 1111111 i I e .. . . fW
and furrowing. The bone is generally soñ enough so thet scoríng rarely resulta from normal gnawiIlg, although il may occur on herder edjacent parts of the bone. FilIeting generelly results in cut marks parellel to the long axis of the bone, whether long bones or flat píeces sueh as the scapula are ínvolved. Scoring Is almos! witnout excepuon transversa lo the long axis of bcnes. eínce it results from turníng the bone egetnet tha teeth ralher then "pullíng'' the teeth elong the bone (Figure 3.06). Actuelly, añer sorne expertenca with cut merks end scoríng. I found few embíguous si/uations, except perhaps where pups had been feeding and their fine pinpoint teath produced a very sharp seoring, sometimes even Ion. gitudinal scortng from tugging and pulling in play and competition for bones. S[;oring has been well íJlulifnlted in the litera/ure. In Breuil (l939) many licored bones from Choukou. tien are ilIustraled (Plale XII, p. 65, Nos. 1.2,3; Plate XXVI, p. 93, No. 5) afthough these are Interpreted by Breuil as evidenee oC human workmanship. Peí (1938) alsc iIIustrates items from Chou)¡outien but recognizes them as the produCl ef animals, principally the hyena {Pei 1938: Plates X. XIII. XIV,and IV, and XX, No. 2J. The foregoing are all good iHustrations of tooth scoring by relatively large clU'nivares. Kitching {l963l iIlustrales numerous scoted
1
'1 i
1'11'
" I '"1,·' ' " i!,"
¡ji /:1 1"1'
FIGURE 3.03. AnimcJl.produced cJdrmsive/y pitted bVDe.
:
I~' . } : 1
íI
¡
il
T !11,¡I
FIGURE 3.04. Animai-produced pitted and scored compacl bone sulface.
shor! curvature and shallower on surfaces with long curvature or sections of bone tending toward fiat surfaces. Another majar difference ls the placement ef cut marks versus seores on bones. Cut marks generIIl1y resoli from three 8clivjlies: (a) skinning, (h) dis. artieulation. and (e) filIeting. Cut marks from skin. ning may occur around the shaft of lower legs and pltalanges and parlicularly along the lower margins af the mandlble ar on the skuIl. These are the only marks that rnighl on oceasion mimic laoth .'Icariog. Cul marks from disarllculation nOnDalIyoccur (a) on Ihe edges, or articulator surfaees. al the ends oflong bones and (b) on the surfaces of vertebrae or pelvie parlt;.These are all areas af relatively soft caneellous bone and ere ept to exhibit puncture marks, piUing,
¡
'"r.1
,
1,
I~
Irl.~lI:,,'
1::1:
FIGURE 3.05. "CDlnpreSSur" pined and scared by ani-
molleeth.
I
f"''''V-
~ ~V!, c-&J& J
'.' "
~ 48
J. Potlerns of Bone Modificolioru Produced by Nonhumon Agenls
Other Seu-ces of SUljiciol Modificotions 00 90ne trated in Frison 1970: Plates 9, 12; Iohnson 1977: figure 11.2, to rnentton only two). Figures 3.42 and 3.43 nicely iIIuslrate furrowing of cancellous tíssue by dogs and by wolves. I made eeverel observettons that may aid in die. linguishing the behavioral context of different types . of scarring by animals. Wolf kills predominantiy ylelded sorne furrowing, relatively common puneture marks, and sorne crenueteted edges: pitting and scoring were much less common. On the other hand, the Eskimo dcg yard assemblages end the wolf den assembíeges yielded extensiva pitling, scoeíng. and more extreme furrowrng. This seems to reeult from the "boredom" chewing of bones in the dens and the dog yerds: meat consumptlon was primarily al the kills. At kills, furrowed destructíon of soft cancellous tissue while meat te still present on the shafts of bones prevente Ihe harder bone adjacenl to Ihe cencellous ttssue from bsoomlng heavily scored or pttted. as ís ilIustrated in Figure 3.43. Stated another way, when rneet is present in considerable quantities, long bones may be furrowed and even pollshed along the graduated edges wilhout correlated puncture marke. plts. or heevy scoring on edjacenl denser bone. Thls may be particular/y true "",hen animals are altempling lo dismember a carcass, as at a kili.
FIGURE 3.06. Compile' bone scored by animal leelh.
bones from what was mas! cerlainly a majar hyena occupation of Pin Hole Cave in England (Plates 5, 6, 7,15). MilIer [1969: Figure 3, hottom, 8nd Figure 4, top) providas gond illuslralions oC tooth-scored bones. as does Haynes (1980: r'igure 1 sud 2j. .Furrowing Is a term 1 have adopted from Haynes (1960) lo refer lo Ihe effect Iha! repealed jaw Belioo with either canines or carnassials produces on reJatively cancellous bone tissue. The result in extreme cases is what Bonnichsen (1973:16), following Sulc/íffe (1970:112). has called "scooping out." In furrowing soft Iissue is removed. leaving 8 "hole" which is graduated up agaios! harder, mOfe compacl bone. The aetion ofthe leeth will sometimes produce undulations on the remaining surface of the eanee!lous tissue, and there are sometimes steplike ir-
regularities where the teeth have vised down in different spols as the bone is mouthed by the animal. This is by far the most common type of damage pro· duced by animals and is the lype thal is presenl even ir animals have given ooly minar allenlion lo Ihe remains under investigation. Examples offuITowing are cammon in Ihe Iiterature (Bonnichsen, 1973: Plates 6A, 6B, 6D; Haynes 1980: Figures 3, 4; ;MilIer 1969: Figure 5; Pei 1938: Plates 12, 20; Sulcliffe 1970;). In the older lileulure, a number of authors have interpreled furrowing as Ihe conseQuence of human modificalion (Breuil 1939: Plate XV, No. 2, 8nd Plate XVI, Nos. 5 and 6; Weidenreich 1939: Plate VIII). In Ihe more recenl literature furrowed pieces have 1men interpreted as Ihe consequences o( butcheriog wilh choppers and "musde slripping" (illus-
Dlher Sounes of Surficial Modificatiohs un Bone lo my discussions Ihus far l have only addressed the issue ofCarnivora versus man as an agenl oEbone modi(ication and surfidal scarriog. As mighl be imagined, Ihere are olher agents thal may syslematicaUysear bones aod othar na/ural conlexls in which bones may become modified. Perhaps the most remarkable of Ihe agents whose modifications of bones may he misfaken for human workmanship is Ihe porcupine. Peí (1938) ilIuslrales numernus bones morlified by Ihe porcupine and olher rodents. Rone ""hisels" reported (rom Hopefield {Singer H15fil. and modified bones from ancienl rlepnsils in China (Hooijer H151). although presenled as ~vidence of human modifkalion, ap-
49 pear to have been modified by rodents. The Hopefield bones are particularly interesting, since Stnger reports en essemblege of "control" specimens recovered from a roek crevíce considered too small and low to have been used by mano Given such condtttons. il was reasoned that the bones within could only have been introduced by entmele. The control assemblage was then competed lo the so-called chisels from Hopefield, and the conclustcn was ruede Ihat animals were Indeed responsible for the modtñcettons on the Hopefield specímens. Lesa settsfactcry claims accompany the studies conducted al Kalkbank (R. [. Mason et al. 1958), 8S well as tbe Israeli Mousterten cave ot Geula (Oart 1967). In both cases rodente had modified the bonee constderablv: nevertheless cloims that humana had mcdtñed them were made. Even more remarkable is the fact that the Kalkbank rnatertel is consídered by Darl and others as a control essemblege providing information on the diagnost¡c propertíes of bone assembleges modtñed by mano No less blzarre c1aims are made by Dorl (1967) for the Geula meteriale. very charectertsttc patterns of gnewíng iuvolvíng parallel tooth merks. productlon of "windows" in the shafts of bones, and extensiva modifications in localized areas, particularly along breaks, are all diagnostic properties. Tha relevanl ilIustrations presentad in Pei (1938), Singer {1956), Oarl (1967), and Bonnichseo (1979) should be consulted for further details. As in the case of Ihe rodenl modifications, Pei (1938) was one of the first to recognize Ihat considerable alterations 00 bone surfaces could result from Ihe solulion of bone surfaees in sorne situations where dense roots covered Ihe bone. Such etching of bone surfaces in conjunction with Ihe presence of plant roots is common in sorne environments (see Figures 3.07 and 3.08). Human agency for modifications most Jikely referable to lhe Jatter conditions has been c1aimed by Bordes (1969) for an "engraved" bone recovered from the Acheulian levels of lhe site of Pech de L'Aze, and by Freeman (1971) for a piece of "Arte Mobiliar" from Mouslerian Level 17 at Ihe Spanish cave of Morin. 80lh bones are des"ribed as havinJj\ a decorative "macaroni" Iype molif (Marshack 1976). Bordes' find has been c1aimed to be Ihe earliest evidence of man's symhoJizing and arlislic ca.pacities: "If my an-
!
i 1" ;11
l" ' l· , ;;
r'
i
Ti'
,
¡
il!! ¡
JI::
,,j ,
..'I' "., 1
,'~
',1
,
"! 1
'j'"
i
f '11' iJ.lj¡
1
l'
¡¡llIm l Ir'
liJI¡~1
I
i! 1
-!!.'H- ~L
""1._-1<e-I_ r~b.,1 4:-~
Y
acne Brt!!okolle and Desteuetion by AnimaJs
elyt¡c resulte Ion Bordes' spectmenl are correct, tbey may change our concept not only of the ortgíns of ert and symbol making. but also of the intellectual and cultural evolutton of Horno scprens [Marshack 1975: 85J," Clatms such as these are certair..ly the basts for modern myths ebout ancient mano
Bone Breakage and Destruction by Animals
FIGURE 3.07. "Arle Mobilior" produced by odds in compact rool mo.ues on
Il'
.~hcep jow from 'he Beur sile, Anokluvuk
Pass.
5.
FIGURE 3.08. nelail
o/ bOIUl in fiRure .1.07.
Many hours oí observatlon of both wolves and dogs revealed a very convtnctng and redundan! bone consumplion strategy, which lea ves a regular pattern in the Faunal hy-products of animal consumptíon. Gnawing animaJs aliad. the ends of long.bones first. They are moet successful in chewing away the sefteet.ertículaíec.end. The softer the articulator end the faster the animals chew them away and expose the cross section of the medullary cevítv. At this point en animal may lick at the end end "scoop out" marrow by turning"'TIie canines around in the cavily and simultaneously Iicking into the cavity. but this is very unsalisfaetory. More commonly the animals attempt to collapse the bone shaft by use of the strong cheek teeth. Given a very resilient bone. the animal rnost commonlv turns it parallel lo the oríentation of the camesstal teeth and altempls lo puncture the crown of the bone eylinder. which results in what I call cnonneJed bones (see Figure 3.09). This effeet is produeed by puncturing the bone baek from Ihe transverse edge. leaving a channel running parallel to tha longitudinal axis of the bone. The animal may proceed in Ihis manner for considerable distance "clown" a bone. In Figure 3.09 Ihe upper bone is the shaft of a long hone, which is c1early scored and chipped along ils edges; the channel is evident. In Ihe lower example. a dorsal spine of a thoracic vertebra, Ihe punclure marks are c1ear. Channeling is unique to animal gnawing and in my experience there are no human proeessing lechniques Iha! result in analogous forms Isee BudJann 1823:276; Sutcliffe 1973:Figures 2. 3. 5; Zapfe 1939:1511 In addition lo lhe "rlirer:l" bi!tl-duwn approaeh. which is mosl common when a msislant bone is en· eounteren.lhe animal may díslurl its face, moving ils
51
jaw lalerally away from the stde where the bone is tnserted in the mouth, and tum its head into the bone remcvtng a splinter along the shaft. Success in thís strategy results in the removal of a substantial ñake parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bone, expostng more of the marrow eavity. Such a fleke is generelly poínted and scarred; the opposite end commonly shows "step fractures" (Figure 3.10). This paltern ts known from many locetíons of ercheeologícel inlerest and ís commonly interpretad as bone modíficaticn by man {Bonnichsan 1978:112, Figures 6a, 6b; Frison 1974:42-43; M. D. Leakey 1971:Figure 36: Stanford 1979a:108. Figures 8, 7). Such fleke removal originating at the broken end of a bone may be coupled wíth polísh as in Figure 3.10. or radíel scarring as in Figure 3.11, and also has been teken as evídence of tool USe. (See Kitching [1963: Figures 5,6 7bl and also Klima et 01. (1962:150. 154. 155. 1571 for examples of radial scarring from a hyena den.) Another characterlstic form of behavior ls what I call "chipping beck" an edge. This ís done by using the strong carnassial teeth. Abone is placed in the mouth parallel to the orientation of the row of teeth and a ridge or protrusíon ís placed between the carnassíals and "mashed off." When the bone ís dense compact bone. the result of this viselíke pressure is an effed very much akín to preesure flaking (Figure 3.12). Small chips are pushed off, resulting in an edge along a break that may be continuously cbípped. showíng all the features of a "microden· tieuIate" in Iithic terminology (see Figures 3.13 and 3.14). Frequeotly associated wlth this characteristically microchipped edge is tooth scoring of the external surfaee of the bone below the chipped edge, As the animal chews on the exposed edge. chips are driven off. When Ihe edge gives way, the large teeth slide along the surface of the bone, resulting in typlcally parallel snd slightly oblique scars below tbe chipped edge. This is well ilIustrated in Figures 3.15 snd 3.16. Channeling is often combined with chipping baek to produce very convincing pseudotools (Figure 3.17), Chipped edRes as iIIustrated in Figure 3.12 are almost inevitably interpreted by arehaeologists as re· touch. Dart (1960:5} ilJuslrated eight ehipped-back nekes from grey breecia at Makapansgat, about which he commenls: "He also prepared feeding
"
1; "
1
1':
\
i·'1
l' "
I~f
1,, ., i i f· I i: ¡i ~ I I
,'
1!r'
1
y 52
3. Putterns of Done Modi!lcalions Produced by Nonhuman Agenls
"._,,- .... ;;".
FIGURE 3.12. "PressuTe f1oking" un lhe end of a gaawed
-·e
.",
FIGURE 3.14. Chipped.bacJe eriges showlng mlcroden'lculored effm:t.
bone resulling ¡ram chipplog back Ihe edge.
11, l
i:
1:.,:
iiL,
i:
Il!!
".;
,
:,;"¡!I:
f
FIGURE 3.09. "Chunne/ed" breokoSe of bones by anima/s. .:
.',
.u: ¡
FIGURE 3.15. Edemal face 01 chipped.back bone sho ....lng obllque roolh scamo,.
FIGURE 3.10. 1IighIy ptlllshed end of a gnawed bone:
flG\JRE :1,11. Pitled und radial/y scarred b(me, the re5u/1 of extensive goawing.
fiGURE
3.13. f....r lensively
lIllawed bone.
f'hippcd
oock
['dges uf
FIGURE 3.16. External fucf! o{ chippoo-back bOlle 5ho....inS 'ooth scurr;ng ¡mm "slipplng down" lhe buRe K-';Ih lhe teetb.
ea
"
1
~+-J~/~~' ~. -
54
(.,UA-¡{;;....)
l
~
(e~~) e:'
-'-<
ti/¡,
~
J. Pcnems of Bone Modificotions Produced by Nonhuman Agenls
---------=Atr.-'--------Bone Breokoge ond Destrucñon by Animols used just as lhey wera. or trimmed at the ends (chíeels. píercers. or points) cr trirnmed along the sides [scrapera]. Plekes of verv big bones were used after being trimmed like nint' n.u.es of the same size and shepe (Choukoulien. Jower levels of Castillo includlng the
Mousterian) [Breui11939:6-71.
FIGURE 3.17. EKomples o{ chunne/ed ami chipped-back bones cornmon/y c01Ifused wllh humon workmanship.
utensUs aud he split bones longitudinally by percussion. He sharpened and pointed by trimming either the broken shaft ¡tseU or Ihe flakes derived froro splitting Ihe bones. He devised and prepared his lools IOart 1960;1371." Needless lo say, the "he" is Austrolopithecus. For soroeaDe accustomed lo work in lithics. 3n encounter wilh a chipped-back bone produced by animal:! will almosl always convince Ihe observer thal he is seeing Ihe work of mano For instance, very salid ohservers of artifacls such as Veyrier and Cambier (1952: 383-385) announced thal they had confirmed lhe manufacture of bone tools during Ihe Lower Paleolithic, illustralinR what
are almost certainly bone flakes chipped back by animals. Earlier researchers had been equal1y impressed. For instance, Breuil (1939) presents numerous examples of chipped-back bone flakes as evj· dance ror the bone 1001 industry al1egedly produced by Sinonlhropus at the site of Choukoutien (Breuil 1939:Plates XVlI1, No. 3, Plate XXII, Nos. 5,6, lIJ. 19, plate XXV, Nos. 9, 11, 131. Breuil stales, Long bones of a1l kinds. chiefly humerus lIfld cannonbones. were Irimmed al !tll1 nreak as chisels or poinls, Ihe convex distal articulatioo !nrmiog 11 handle: from Cnoukoulien to historie times Flakes may have beeo
Recently DeLumley (1969) reportee retouched bones representing 13% of the total tool Industry from the Upper Acheulian síte of Lazaret. Chippedbeck spectmens are well iIlustrated in Figure 17 \1969:121. where ítems 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are extremelv good examples. Figure 18 (1969:164), item 1, ís a fine example thet also exhibits the frequently correlated presence oí both pitting and sconng. It should be poinled out that wolf rematns were found in the cave, as wera coprolites of predators. 1 am confident that there was at least a minar occupation of Lazaret by wolves. Charactenstically. theír remains have been interpreted as the result of human behavior. In New World studies two chlpped-back fragmente. both desígneted ertlfacts, are illustrated by Bonnichsen (1979) from the Old Crow Flats collections. One is called a "bone core" and the second is designated a "mtscelleneous polished and ground bone artifact" (Bonnlchsen 1979: Plate VIlI-8, and plate VIII-24). The most enthusiastic recent advocate of "retouched" bone flake tools in the Paleolithic ís Leslie Freeman, who eomments on his analysis of such "tools" from Level 17 at the cave oCMorin: "If the bone pieces were omilted from the study of recavo ered artifacts, an impressive richness of detail conceming the teehnology of the Mouslerian cave occupants would obviously be los! (FreeIDan 1978:49]." Wilhout taking them up pieee by piece, 1 wiH assert that the chipped pieces iIIustraled by Fraeman (1971, 1978) are c1assic examples of chipped-baek flakes produced by gnawing animals, probably canids. Al! combinalions of telllale praperties are represenled in the Morin Level 17 assemblage: (o) chipping baek with diagonal seoring on the external face of the flake. (h) ehipping back with pitling and/or scorinR on rile same pieee, and (e) lypiealIy denticulahnl eriges. Such combinalions are found wilh pieces lhal are described as "eroded," as if by the aelion of ¡n:irl (Freeman 197B:4fi): Ihese are mosl cerlainly bone frilgments passed in scal. It IS probably not wilhuul siRnificance Iha! both wolf snd
~
55 hyena were idantified {Altuna 1971:380-381}. Fl-
nelly. the "unique" charecter of Level 17 ís commenled on by Altuna as folIows: se nota una clara diferencia entre el nivel 17 (Musleríense) y los nivels del paleohtícu Superior, no solo el la compislclen faunis faunístjce sien también en la composícton de las partes del esqueleto que eperancen. Como hemos índícedo un el comienzo de la parte general, en el nivel 17 el munero de lI'5quirlas de dlafisis excede con cucho al de epifisis que seria de esperar si no hubiera habido una seleccíon intencionada 11971:3851. As will be shown In the fol1owing section, the number of bone epltnters is inversely correlated with the numberof erttculetor.ends in enímel-gnewed.eesemblages. Jusi the reverse is the case in wellpreserved assemblages of humanly modified bnne.
_9r
~Eshed edge~ ar~!Iother .'Y.Pt;l c~!!!l2.teristic ~eakage that animals are capable oí Erod!Jci~.& On
moderately hard bone the animal may vise clown wíth íts teeth, at the same time ttltíng lts head while the opposite end of the bone rests on the ground surface. This produces a double set cf stresses and may result in the breaking off of an edge of the bone. There may be no apparent tooth ímpresstons in Ihe break stde if the leverege is somewhal back of the point where the teeth were Impactad. The edge produced in this manner has sorne of the properttes resultíng from mashíng off the edge of a Styrofoam eup, in Ihat there is a granular eharacter to the surface of the break. In lhe evenl thal a mashed edga is then licked repeatedly, it may oblain a rounded polished appearance and may appear as "use wear" as illustraled in Figures 3.10 and 3.18. Such counded and polished edges are regular elements in both dog yard and wolf den assemblages. However, they are not common~7 in a dog yard population of 866 bone splinters and 267 articulator ends! When a strong animal is chewing 00 a long bone, there are always bipolar characteristics in that the chewing occurs between the two sets of teeth. This Crequently results in what has beeo previously described es pitling. For instance, with the melalarsal i1hlslraled in FiRure 3.17, when the dorsal edge of Ihe bone has beeo chipped back, there are accompanying pits on the opposite side of the bone represenling the impacl of the leeth serving as the anvil fur Ihe action uf the opposile teeth. Such pilting is
1; I
!
!
"
!,
I
l'
:1".t ¡] ,
il.; !'
I !
¡
l
r J. Patlems of Bone Modifications Pmduced by NonhumonAgenfs
58
FiGURE 3.18. Rounded edse on gnowf1d bone.
strtktng on the more cylíndrical long bcnes of the Iemur and the tibia. Pitting occurs typically when an animal ís 81tempting lo collapse a cyhnder: thet ts, it has chewed off the articulator end and ts working 00 the cylínder and the exposed rnarruw cevttv. Al Ihal juncture it ís no! uncommon for Ihe animal repeetedly to place the cylinder al right angles to the carnassial teeth and to vise clown hard in an ettempt lo collapse il. Jf the bone ts dense, there ís a puncturing or splitting on the short are aide oí the bone. Once this occurs Ihe animal begtns chipping beck along the puncture or split, and {he underside of Ihe bone oppostte this split becomes tncreesíngly pitted and heavily scarred. Finally, the animal may be successful in collepsing the cylinder and ene ie left wilh the ímpected scarring on abone that has been split away from the upper chipped surfece. Under the latter conditions one gels very long, Iongttudtnally spttt splínters wilh chfpped and denliculaled edges along one or both ends. This condition is iIluslraled in Figures 3.19 and 3.20, where "worked" points and edges on exceplionally long splinlers are shown. Ironically, what was c1aimed as di.qtinclive of human behavior by Rreuil (1938::18)tufOS out to be diagnostic of animalgnawing when we have conlrol material. Menlion of bon~ splinters necessarily introduces I~!u~roblem uf spirAI fractures and Ihe deKI.e-.to ~ich Ihay
~.
...
Bone Breokoge and Destrucfinn by Animols
51
bone b~a~, as has been suggested by Bonníchsen (1979). I have watched dogs and wolves break caribou bones in their mouths. The resulting splinters have al1 the formal properties of the much discussed splral fracture. The bone splinters and the broken ends of long bonea recovered from the dog yard samples exhtbtt ell the formal chereoterístícs of spirally freo, tured borre. As was poinled oul in my earlier díscussion of these aamples, the long bones were broken by dogs-Eskimos do not Ceed their dogs marrowcrecked bona splinters. In the case of my controlled dog-feeding record (see L. R. Btnford 1978b: 262265), there is no question as lo the stete of the bone at the lime of its being fed 10 !he dogs. Long bones were unbroken. On recovery. 44% of the long bones were broken with a spiral fracture: Ihis was done by the dogs. Broken bones and bone splinters recovered from two wolí dens (described in Chepter 5) charac-
¡
~
FIGUKE :J.20. Long "loRSiludillully" split fragmenls with denticulaled ends.
teristically exhíbited spiral fractures. Broken bones end bone spltnters recovered from the 24 separate kills oE ceeíbou by wolves (lo be reported in Chapter ~I characlerislically exhibited spiroJ fractures. My obseryations afe got unioue. Hill has repeatedly reported Ihal spiral fractures were consistently noled in Ihe faunal coJiections me de by him in Uganrla and Kenya:
fi'(ilJRE
3.19. c"Jltlpsfld
chiPPfld-huck
end.~.
f.ylinders
with
distim:/ife
Spiral frllclures are found lo occur liS 1I result of nalural weathp.ring and cllrnivure lIdivily lhal in Iife are sub;ec!p.d lo lorsional sll"f>ss, such liS humeri and libiae. 11
appeers Iha! the Internal structure of the bona controla the cbarecter of the break {Hill 1976:335; see etso HiII 1980:1411
HílI's coJleclions are areal samples in Ihal they represenl aH Ihe bones remaining on Ihe surface in a given lUea. Mosl, if not aH, Ihe bone modification is considered lo be the result of nalural death and subsequent patterns of attrition by scavengers and wealhering agenls. In mosl ceses the predator is beIieved lo have been a large cat, Iion in particular. Sinr:e Hill dnes nol know with absoluta oorlainl:. t~~. ~'!..
•
" ., \
~;
r 58
Pr."'
'iIJ
3. Pctterns of acne Modificolions Produced by Nonhurncn Agenls
agente responsihle for the bones. those who wish lo ~lieve in the equatíon oí man end spiral fractures tend to dismiss Hill's data as "just a modern sample" where tbe agent must be inferred as in any aro chaeologtcal sítuetton. This sama crítícísm may be leveled al spiral fractures recordad by Shipman and Phillips (1976. 1977), who coüected areal faunal semples from the Awash area ofEthiopia. In both these cases the bear and the footprint are not, strictly speektng. together. hui it ís the optntcn of the reseerchers that the OOllJ' is not far away. They know the áreas in which they worked and find Hule reason lo suspect that man was Involved in any significanl manner as 8 causal contributor to the bone assembleges collected. Zoo studies, wbere the animals ere contained end the parts fed to the anímals are known, are excellent experimental oonditions. There ts no chance that any agent other tban the animal fed in the given cege oould modify the bone alter tt was íntroduced. This strategy WIlS used by Dean Buck1and (1623). Pei (1938), Zapfe (19391, end Bonnicbsen (1973), to meno tion only a few. A current study of this type has been under way for severa) years by Gery Heynes. a greduete student at Catholic University of America (Haynes 1978a, 1978b, 19801. Paleontological studies-that is, the study of fracture patterns from assemblages where roan could not have been a contributing agent-are of utmost im· portance. ODe such study (Myers el 01. 1980) is most provocative. In this study five New World assemblages of fauna were studiad. Four are dated to more than 500,000 yeers ago; (he olclest, to 17 million years. Man could not have played a role in the formahon or modification of these assemblages. Spiral fractures were common in these paleontological faunas. The researchers further noted thal evidence of camivore aclivity was not wel1 documented in Ihe form of looth marks aud other telltale modifications and ooncluded Iha! still another activity of animals, trampling, is apt to have been the cause. I will return to this point later. Of importance allhis poinl is only thal substantial spiral fracturing is iIIustraled from tbese localities and no human could have possibly been responsible. The evidence appears conclusive Ihal animals. both through usiog their jaws and perhaps by trampling the skeletal remains of olher animals. regularly
contribute spírally fracturad bone lo the paleontologleal record. The ccnditíon of splinters remaining at a wolf feeding arca is of sorne interest. First, the smalt spltnters oí bone that are pressured off a bone by the gnawing animal are most commcnly swallowed, resulting in few chips end small bone fragmente rernainlng in a feeding area. The latter. of course. appear in the scaC\...hich occurs concnntrated in ureas of repeeteddefecatton around dens and rendeevous loceuons. around marking spots. scattered peripherally to ktlle, and scettered elcng tratls. Detecetíon is a common marking tecbruque of wolves and is frequently done on prominent rocks eround an animel's territory. I heve observed considerable bone rnncenIrations eround marking spots that result from repeated lcng-term rnarkíng in the same place. Table 3.02 presente summary data on fragment staes racov, erad from the deíeceuon and feed íng areas around a woIf den. An attempt was made to recover every tiny fragment of bone in both instances.
FIGURE 3.23. De'ojJ of poin' on o pseudotool shown in
Flsure 3.22.
,,,i
TABLE 3.02
She Dlstrlbuljon of Frogmenls Recovered fMm lfiJcmalaiyak Wolf Den a
.".
(46 scals)
Not gnawed
Gnawed
Size (cm)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
0.0-0.8 10-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0---4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9
37 29 2J 17 14 3 3 1 O O O
.29 .2J
10 9 8 8 9 1 O O
.22 .20 .18 .18 .20 .02
O O O I
8.0~.9
9.0-9.9 10.0-10.9 11.0-11.9 12.0-12.9 13.0-13.9 14.0-14.9 15.0-15.9
O
O O O O
127
16 .13 .11
.02 .02 .01
FIGURE 3.21. Group uf "ridlle-cresl removed" flokes typieal of onimlll snawjnll·
Feeding area
Defecatlon
O
O O O O O O O
45
"See Chepler 5 IDr I descripliDn af Ibis 8ite
9 13 6 1 2 I O
2 1 O
%
11
.02 14 .21 .31 .14
I
1:
11'
.02 .05
1:
'
"
1I
,I
!i
.05 .02
O
¡i ,.
42
FlGllRE 3.22. Pselldolools produced by rmlmols chewin8
o, ridses. 59
r Illl
3. Pcttems vf BOlle Modifil"()fivlls Producerl by Nonhumnn Agents
Several pettems of ínterest eppear. Ftrst. the vest mejorlty of splintera sud chips observed in scets were under 4.9 cm in length. Basically the eeme size range W8S observed in ungnawed chips and splinters. 00 the other hand, fragmente showmg evidence cf gnawing are certainly aH 011 Ihe large size oí the distrtbution. This makes considerable sense, stnce the small flakes and chips are pressured off by the gnawing animal duriog its reduction oí Ihe bone, end are generally swallowed. Elements oC the bone that show considerable evidence of gnewlng , wben they are broken. preserve areas of contíguous chip removal end scamng. These are larga splinters and therefore will not be swallowed. Thus. when ODe ls dealing wíth an anlmal-gnawed assemblage. evtdence al gnewlng, preesure-Ileked edges. incised scerríng on the outside of the Flake. pítting and abrasion Irom repeeted viselike mesbtng cf abone surCace. end so on will occur on lerge splinters (greater than 4.0 cm in length]: small spllnters will exhtbtt no such modñtcatton. When small chips and splinters are present in large numbers.tbey may sbow stgns of hevtng been eroded by stomech ecíds Iand (hus deposited in feces). (See Kitching [1963:19-22] for a good descripUon of the effed of slomach adds on booe splinters.) One addilional characteristic. which appears to be diagnostic of anirnal.gnawed assemblages. was noled. Animals chew at protrusions of "thin" ridges: 8 bone is placed in Ihe mouth and irregularilies are vised belween the camassials. This action results in pinched-off tuberoiiities ando more importanl. in long splinters lhat are basically triangular in cross secUon. oflen with poinled ends. These splinters de· rive from tbe biting off of ridges such as the pectoral ridge. the supercondyloid ridge on the humeros. the Ubial crest. the linea aspea on the femur. the ventral ridges on lhe metapodíals, and tbe ventral crest of Ihe cubitus (ulna). When sucb ridges or crests break. they are generally too long lo be swallowed and remain as very common poinled "pseudotools." (See Figures 3.21, 3.22, Bnd 3.23.) Forly-three percen! of the gnawed splinters recovered from Ihe den area (Table 3.02) were of this type. 1 have never observed such splinlers in percussion-fraclured assemblages; percussion fractures generally cross such ridges rather than run parallel lo Ihem. Fine examples af very convincing "tools" are iIlustrated in Figures 3.21,3.22, and 3.23.
UC'
'1
Modificolion5 by Allotomic()/ Purt
61
Modifications by Anatomical Part As pointed out eerller. one of the more common argurnents offered regarding the possible use of bones as lools has been based on the "use potentlal" of the shapes of varíous bones. or their shapes as modified through breakage, andlor citations of worked edges ut SUMacas in conjunctlon with either normal or breakage shapes. 1 heve descrfbed in sorne detall the types of edge and surface modrñcetions anírnals are capable of producing during normal bone gnawíng. as well as their distiuctlve breakage paUerning. 1 will now describe the charectertsttc patterns of destrucñon end rnodificatton 1 have observad on ceríbou end sheep bones from the Esktmo dog verde, as well as from the wolf denso In each case where false or suspect 1001 Identíflcations have been made of similar perts. l will ettempt lo idenlify the relevant literatura and cite the problema 1see with the claíme for human modíñcetton. 1have alreedy dernonstrated Ihat gnawíng results in distinctive patterns of scarring and chipping. These condilions are aS50ciated with the pattern of breakage. which has also bean shown to be dislinctive and diagnostic of animal-modified assemblages. Given Ihese general conditioos, iI is not surprising Ihal there are distinctive patterns al deslrucUon as· sociated with the different bones as a funelion of Iheir differences in slrength and overall fonn. The following are observations of patterning in the morphology resulting from animal feeding and gnawing.
FIGURE 3.24. Anlma/.,nawed cronlum witlr ottachetl antlers (carlbouj.
I
l' '
li' '11
;i '1'1
Skull Examples ranged (rom a complete and unmodi· fied skull lo a skull of which only two parts remained-the base around Ihe anllers (Figure 3.24) and the palate with two looth arcs {Figure 3.25}. Animals appear to begin gnawing from the nose inward, removing the face and finally coJlspsing the cranium. }eaving the palale and occipul in Iwo parts. Rarely do the latter two parts exhibit further gnaw· ing. When the sKull is eaten in the manner described. few skull fragmenta rernain at lhe localion of consumption; lhey appear lo have been ingested.
1:
til~1
[1 "
¡ '1
1\ r
!i
FIGURE J.2~. Animul-NnUwl'd IIO/fl/r.s Icoribllu) shnwing t!istindivc chrJnlmling and crr.nu/o/ion 01 'hin bane.
~
, 11
J
T 82
3. Potlerns of Bolle Modificotiolls Pmdu<;;ed by Nonhumon Agents
to form almost perfectly rounded, sballow. saucer líke utenstls." Confident of the hominid workmanshtp 00 such items, Raymond Dart (1962:287) states: sufficlent of the demaged cr mscerded specimens are available lo display .. tbe lechnique by which skulls were spllt transveraely.Le.. by one or more blows delivared probably wilh a scapula or Iower jaw blade on their beses, inlo twc helves . . Each skull half thus formed automatlcatly a CUp or bowl. In creetures sufficienlly large such as the buffalo these bowls. especially Ihe antartor one .. , wtth tte
horns etteched sponlaneously afforded a tripod-like basln in whích lo mash nr trtturate any tough Iype of food.
S"
, 83
Modificotions by AnatomÍ(;aJ Purt
Another commonly citad characleristic of skulls is the so-celled depressed fracture, which Dert popularteed as evidence for the hominid use of tools and the "bludgeon" technlque of hunting. I have not personally observed such fracturas on the skulls examined from the wolf kills, but others report them te be a regular cbaractertstíc of kili and natural deeth assemblages IHill1975; Shipman end Phillips 1976).
MandibJe Animals may meke considerable progrese in the destructíon 01 the mandible. Exactly where the man-
dible ís attacked by animals ís partly a function of differences in mandibular morphology among difIerent spectes. For ínstence. Figure 3.27 iIluslrates patterns 01 initial or minar deatruction oí sheep rnandtbles by wolves (in the upper two examples) and domestíc doga (in the lower two examples). Puncture rnarks of both canine end carnassial teelh are obvious elong the angle of the mandible. In al1 cases, carnívorea were going after the masseter musele. In Figure 3.28, where caribou mandibles are shown. enother condttíon is índlceted. The two lowee exemples were gnewed by dogs, bul the mandíblea had first been strípped of meat before the dogs receíved them. The puncture maro of thelr teeth ap-
In all these cases, there is no reason te sse the "skull bowls' as anything other then the producl ofnormal ettnticn by animals. It might be tnteresttng in thís regard lo reexamine the ibex skull-horn units alIegedly intentionally placed around the Neanderthal child al Teshik·Tash (Movtue 1953:25, 26). FIGURE 3.28. Cranlal disc 05 clJmmonly produced by ,nawJ1I8 canJds.
An alternativa pattern. for young animals sud thoee with llttle lo modérate antier development (including large animals in valvat). begins with Iba chewing back of Iha face area toward Iha antier hase. bul Ihere i8 also similar breakage and chewing back from Iha occiput, leaving El "skull disc" as shown in Figure 3.26. Several points naed be mada abou! Ihe observad pattern~r~~Il _4estrust~2n_~~ºduced _by canids.
The skull disc illustrated in Figure 3.26 is a comman elemenl on many ancient sites. It i5 frequently interpretad as a product al human workmanship. For instanee, Breuil writes, "The frontal cavity between Iha severed homs i5 too often carefully trimmed and wom al Iha edges nol to haya heen utilized. This is seen in the skull caps and human skulls of la Placard and Laugerie Basse, snd perhaps even those at Chou-kou-tien [1939:5j." Kitching (1963:30). wriling sbout the fauna from Pin Hole Cave, where both Mouslerian and Upper Paleolilhic remains are found, commenls, "Amongsl the ten skull fragmenls there are three frontoparietal regions of reindeer Ihal have becn neatly removed from the tops of the skulls
,e
"I "
j¡ ~
FIGURE 3.27. lniliul dedruC#ían af sheep mandib/r..~ by ba!h dags (low~r !wo) (lnd wolves (uppcr twuJ_
FI(iIIRt; 3.28. S~qu,.nct" uf curibuu mandibu/flr deslruction by bo/h dogs (Iuwer two) ond wolves (upper lour}.
....A:..•
T ••
3. Pctterns
pear dlrected at the pulp cavity below tbe molers.
The upper four mandibles were reduced by wolves and the pallern seems to be to remove the engle oí the mandible end then rnove into the pulp cavity. This condition has been observed by others: Broken lower bordare of bovld mendíbles need nol indicote that anything has been "removed." In the natural "non-hominid" conditions, (be lower boeders of bovid mandibles are eventually elmcst always lost. This can arise from the attempts of camrvores to extract the tootb pulp, but more cornmonly tt ts the result of natural weathering. Al leas! une deep crack appeared quite early during the weathering procese parallel lo the horizontal axis of the ramus and the developmenl of thís reeults ultimately in a sharp break. The crack occurs lateral to the mandibular canal. wh.ich is at the ;unction
of the basal and alveolar portions of the mandible is also frequently lost. Breaks... across the diastemic portion are almost universal in the carnivore-treated remains thal I have examined [HiIl 1976:335-3361· The foregoing observation, which is consistent with my field observations, should be contrasted with the following statement:
01 Bone ModjIi¡;otion5
produced by Nonhumon Agenfs
sorne of the more irnaginative interpretalions of bone tool use appearing in the literature: From tha simil¡¡rity between the treetment of these lower jaws of Ihe beer and líen and those of the hyaena and wolf. il ts obvtous that they were all prepsred lo serve a common npptng purpose. Their use as tools is
confirmed by the 1111 around smoolhness of the bone surfaces and tbetr employmenl as bcne 1001 fabricators by the damage to sorne uf Ihe rantne teeth [Kttching 1963:421.
Il1ustrations in Breuil [1939:60-61. Plates IX end X) and Kítchtng (1963: Plates 34 and 35) should be comparad with figure 3.29 where a wolf [lower specimeo) and an Eskimo dog mandible are tllustrated. Both were col1ected from wolf dens: the lower specimen carne from the Itikmalaiyak den reported here and the upper specimen carne from a den visited by Eskimo informants who recovered the jaw for me. The inlerpretation oí puneture marks obvio ously made by Carnivor canines as having been mada by man usiog Carnivora jaws as tools seems lo be Ihe uitimate anlhropocentrism. Such interpretations have been made on several occasions.
Modificolions by Anolomieu! Port
65
vertebrce vertebree heving irregular shapes are most commonly gnawed 00 tbe sptnes and processes. On the atlas, for instan ce. the wings and the margins of the atlantal foramen are commcnly chewed back lo their junc1ure with the dorsal arch [figure 3.30). Not infrequent1y the atlas is cotlapsed intn severa] fragmenls. Puncture marks Irom teeth seem rnost comrnon on vertebeee. next most cnmmon on pelvic elemente. and moderately presenl on skull end toes. Figure 3.31 i1Iustrates nicely the deslruction vartebrae can suffer (the upper right specímen is complete). Cervical vertebrae may have transverse. spinous. and articulator processes gnawed away. Thoracic vertebras have been gnawed somewhatless then cervical vartebrae Irom the sarna siles. Animal marks on thorade vertebrae lake the form of broken and gnawed tips of dorsal spines (see Upp!!r spedmen, Figure 3.32) ando occasionally, punclures on
FIGURE 3.31. Lumbor verlebroe shawins Iypir;a/ effecl.~ of gnow;n8. (Upper right hond specimen is complele.J
Ihe body of the vertebrae. Lumbar vertebrae are not uncommonly altered by having the transverse processes gnawed away. the dorsal spine at!ached (see Figure 3.31) and the articulator process gnawed or punctured by canines.
lt would be absurd lo imagine Ihat the mandibles re·
ceived the !realment that Ibey were given, in order to el';lract tbe marrow, because there is not enough of tbis malerial. if aoy. in aoy ungulate mandible lo ¡ustify the process. The mandibles servad in their frMh. state as choppers. their anterior or diastllmal portions being used as handles and Ih.¡¡ir angles as the cboppers. Afler lheir usefulness in this capacily had ceased. Ibeir lower hender stlllserved as pounders. their !eeth rows .. were graten ar scr~pers (Kitching 1963: 30; see also Breuil 193!'1:19-31, 62. Plate XII.
l'
1
, 1
1
,¡ 1
frison has iIIustrated a mandible "chopper," which was argued to have been used in butchering bisoo. Its description would be basically idenlical with Ihat given by Kitching. (See frison 1970:30, Figure 19; also Frisan el 01. 1978:8, figures 10 and
,..
12.)
As in the case of "skull bowls," Ihe preseoce of "worn" edges and po1ish in Ihe absence of toolh. punctures is nol conclusive evidence Ihal gnawing animals did not produce the modifieations, which are frequently cited as evidem:e for "use" on mandibIes. The mandibles of Carnivorll have allmded the attention of many investigalors and have promplcd
, l'
¡
1'1 1
1I1
I! .•
'
"'I{iURE :1.29. Wol! mondib/f1 (lowf1r spl~dml'nJ fmd doS mondihlf1 (upper specimenJ de.~lroycd by woh·es. 80111 spncimens were rccnvered !rom wnl! den~.
FIGURE 3.30. AlIas ond by dags.
O-'/.i.~
verlebrue heavily Rnawed
FI{.URF. 3.32. Gnowins on eJtlremilie.~, dorsal spinc «nd d;stal and 01 rib.
¡
q
g' 66
1. Pntterns of Bone Modifications Produced by Nonhumcn Agenls
FIGURE 3.33. Tooth notchins o/ rib mU'1lins by wolves.
Modificalions by Anatomicol Part
67
Look at Figure 5.04, where a recently killed caribou is shown. It is cíeer thal the teedtng began in the anal-genital area. resulting in tbe partial desrruction of the pelvis and the subsecuent dísarttculetton ofthe reer legs. which have been pulled beck into Ihe picture by the pbotographer. Several places 00 Ihe pelvis are prime targets for chewing-the dorsal splnes of the secrum, the tltec wtngs or crest. tbe dorsal margins of the pubic tubercle, and the ramus and tuberosity of the tschíum. Figures 3.34 and 3.35 show the pelvis of a sheep upon which dogs have fed. The entíre carcass hed been 1urned over to the dogs by the Navajo owners. This pelvis iIIustrales the chorccrensttc destructioo by a caníd. Comparíson should be made between thís pelvis and those ilIuslraled from tha Glenrock Buffalo Iump {Frisan 1970: Figures l1i and 12J. I think
Rjbs Ribs are most commonly gnewed al the distal ende (Figure 3.32), which may appear to beve been broken rather then gnawed, although "mashed beck'' edges are frequent. When carnívoras disarticulate nbe, they commonly insert their centnes belween the ribs sud pull. This leeves notches in tbe ribs sud may reeult in breekage generally an inch or two out from the proximal end of the rtb: that 15, al the point of maximel curveture as the rib leaves the vertebree. Figure 3.33 iIlustrates ríbs recovered from a single wolf kili site: gnawing has dentlculeted tbe end of the lower example end canina notching is well representad on tha upper ribo
FIGURE 3.35. Ventral view al 5heep pely;, chewed by dOBs.
Pelvis The pelvis is one area where carnivores seemingly preferentially desteoy rnuch bone. First, lt ís an "early larget" for many cemlvores. being ODe of Ihe firsl areas attacked duriog tha fBeding 00 a carCBA. Most prey animals either fall on their sides or drop from a standing posilioo so Ibat their legs are folded under Ihem. Feeding is therefore frequently in¡tialed al the "ham" froro Ihe dorsal Burface or, nol uncommonly, directly inlo Ihe pelvis al the analgenilal area.
FIGURE 3.34. dOS5.
1)00,01 YilJW
01 .~hr,ep
P",yj.~ (;h{~wed
by
very ltttle convinctng ts needed lo conc1ude thal the pctrern 01 destrucucn is identica1. The punclure marks so clearly visible on the sheep pelvis (Figures 3.36 and 3.37) are elso present on the bison pelves but they are interpreted by Frisan (1970:19) as tool marks mede by pointed choppers. Mosl commonly the pelves al Glenrock were broken into halves. and consisted of Ihe acelabulum with both ischium and pubtc branches remaíning E1S stubs. the ílíum was veríoualy destroyed. Figures 3.38 and 3.39 iIlustrale perallel destrucncn of caríbou pelves by wclves and by dogs. The irregular denticulaled sdge where gnawing has oecurred is also scarred wilh puncture marks froro teeth (Figure 3,38). Analogous scar5 were inlerpreted by Frison as "tool marks from sharp-pointed choppers" (Frisan 1970:19). 11 is nol uncornmon for pelvis elemenls lo be brokenor cnl in places analogous to Ihose iIluslraled in
FIGURE 3.38. Ventral view 01 pelvis showlns toolh punclures on the luber coxoe.
!'
!¡ I "
FIGURE 3.37. Dorsal vlew of Pfllvis showlns punclures ond moshed-buck edses 01 the tuber Isehlo.
I
U
T
... _~'------
~
Modificllljons V}' Anulomjl:o/ Part
FIGURE 3.38. Scorlnll. plttlnll, tllld crenu/oled ediles 01 ilium prorJur:ed by dog gIIow1ns.
Figure 3.39. Caribou pelvíc halvee processed by man are frequently broken across the neck oí the iljurn as well as across Ihe branches of the pubis and ischiurn The Jatler breaks are ctean, and although fractures and curves may occur, tha fracturad bones rarely show the dentículeted cberecter seen 00 those gnawed by animals (Figure 3.39). 1 think that the pelves from the Glenrock BuffaJo lump, interpretad as evidence oí use oí choppers and muscle slripping. were simply reduced by gnawíng animals. Pelvíc parts have been interpretad as choppers (Frison 1978:307J. scrapers (Frisan 1970:19). and mortars (Kilching 1963). 1 have reprcduced the statement from Kilching. which becomes informatíve when It is kept in mind that he ts almosl certainly describing alterettons lo bones eñected by the Pleistocene hyena of Europe: The abraded end grooved condilíon of the ecetabuiar cavtties of the 18 rhinocerns innornínale bones shows that sorne. if notall of thern, served as mortera in which fond was pounded and crusbed. . AH Ihe lnncminate bones have had their lschtal and pubic portions removed. and Ihe Iliac porlion remaining forros a handle, eech of which show a higb degree of polish [Kitchíng
1963:lfi).
Scapula Scapula gnawed bv animals have three basic cllaracleristics: (a) Ihe ~cromion llhe proximal tip of Ihe spine} IS chewed away. lb} the coracoid process and the suprt'lglenoid tuberde are generally chewed off, snd fe) lhe edges of Ihe verlebral border will be chewecl to varying degrees such Ihat on occasion the blade of Ihe scspula will be all bul removed. These three fealures are al! well ilIustrated in Figure :).40. It should be noled Ihal Ihe lypicaJ denliculated edge characleristic of gnawed margins is well evidenced in Ihese spedmens. Punclure marks from animal leelh are more common on the margins of the glenold fossa lhan any other surface. 5uch marks produce Ihe crenuJaled edge of Ihe scapula blade. bul Ihe bone is so Ihin Ihal actual puncture marks are no! genP.rally preservcd. Inslead. "circular" segmenfs of Ihe edlile are removed.
FIGURE 3.39. Typir:ol deslructJon of pe/l'is as produced by wolves.
69
Humerus Fragmenls of the humerus have received more attenlion by Ihose attemptíng lo meke a case for bone tools and dtstíncüve forms of "human" bnne breakege than praclically any otber bone in the enetomv. Breuil iIlustraled distal ends of cervid and equtd humer¡ as having been modíñed by the occupants of Choukoutien [Breuil 1939: Plate XIII). Later Darl (1959b) was lo meke a grandor claim for "deggers" fashioned from Ihe humen of bovtds: From the recte presented here 1I ís petent thet the anleJope humarus owed ils prevalence al Makapansgat and íts persislence al Kalkbank. as well as tts dispersion from South Afrir;a lo Peking. in the Fer East and lo Portugal in the Northwest. lo Ihe Iect that il was the mosl generally serviceabla domeslic apphance discovered by Auslrlllopilhecus [DaI11959:1121. In addítíon 10 its shepe and distinctive patlem of breekege.the fact that the proximal ertículetor end of th¡s bone generally has the Ieest survival potential and ls therefore commonly missing from bone assembleges had prompted many ínterpretatiuns. For Instence. in one of the earliesl attempts lo recover behavioral informalion from faunal rematns. Thendore E. whíte states, The hurnsrus shows the greatest discrepancy in Ihe number of Ihe two ends of any of Ihe elemenls. wilh three spedmens ofthe proximal end aod thirly rrom Ihe dislal end. An~'Olle who has Iried IDseparal!!Ihe ScaPUIB and humerus with a Imiteknows thal il is nol easy. el'en in Ihase days of crucible slael, and Ihe ¡ob can be 8&siJy and effeclívely accomplished with a c1uaver. It is deor Ihol o SloneAge cleover would demolish Ihe head orlhe humerus beyond recognilion [1952:338; emphasis minero Many archaeologists have accepled White's argument and inlerpreted Ihe low frequency of the proximal ends as evidence of deslruclion of lhe ¡oiot doring bulchering. "Replicalive" experimenls have even beeo perrormed, showing thal when ane deslroys Ihe proximal humerus, il is deslroyed! Qlhers have butchered animals. showing thal if one works al it hard enough. one can even dismember an animal by puunding on arliculalions such as the proximal humerus. Bul lo be sure, Ihese exerci1'ies have
,'
..
70
3. Pnttems o{ Bonf' Modificalions Pmduced by Nonhulnan Agents
'
~
,.
~.
Modificolions by Anotomica1 Part
j
\.
~
r
...",,--.. .-.. . ~
>.
~, .....
•
;
, , '
-~~
,
11>,'
.-- ,,-', ':..
.
.
lo ,1:
.\.'.::-...... , , .f-";•
r·
\
f'
"
-~~
.... '.~.
..
:r:~; '.,' .;, :/"i _ -~ \ .." "'~"JJ~
_.
.",.-.~.
\'- •.
~~.......
.. l-..¡
';,".
\~,~.,
. ...A"'.
'"'-" , o. '<, " , .....
v•
11' ,
•,
.,
71
.
~ ~< 1\1 -~l
J , , ¡ ; , . '1' '.....'\ -..¡:..." ~
•
, ".",'
.JI- , .. : ". . y , "f ,'... . .I , . '''..
_-<
,
'
."',
~~/,,''¿C
---
"",'
t
"".
f'"
..
\
•
•
,"_
~¡:.-
~,
t'
;::,~~~·>"~i.;/ "'~_. ,,:,;.:..,¿:[:~~~
,
" .' ,-\,. ... ~
\
..,,:.~,
,..'
/,
" '
..
.'
I .'
.'.")
,.' - -
_.:, ,.
FIGURE 3.43. Furrowed and punctul'f!d humeral heod removed by u wo/f while disol'dculatJns tlle Junetion with the scopulo.
_.. . ¿.,-.
FIGURE 3.41. Caribou leg removed ¡rom a meaf cache and eeren by wolves.
around Ihe breBk given 8l scalloped errad [Figure t .14b). They were presumably used in both skinning and flashmg end where bone preservetíon ellowed. weer in Ihe form of 1 polish eppears un the sharp points [Frison
1:
1974:561·
FIGURE 3.40, Scapula gnawed by dogs (center) and by wolves-irote crenulaled edges.
not ebown Ihat men ofthe pasl ever did sueh things. Another argumenl oñered lo account for the common absence of the proximal humerus from archeeologtcel assemblages has been that it was intenlionally deslroyed during the production of a 1001 menufactured from Ihis bone. George Frisen {1970:27] has ergued thallhe humerus "ñesher" was a consistently produced and used 1001 on the North American Plains: anolher use of srnllller humerl was la break off Ihe proximalarliculalor end in such a way Ihallhe edges luve a scalloped appearance. This end was used a& B scraping
tool with wear striations and polish perallel lo the longitudinal axis of the bone [Frison 1910:211·
In later publtcetíons this "1001" is gtven greeter promtnence and has been largely accepted by many early man archaeologtsts as a diagnostic item indico ettve of human involvemenl in the formation of deposits and events. even though stone 10015 and othee evtdence may be la"king. In the Cesper stte report (1974) Frisan slates, The articular surfaces were removed, Ihe cancetlous bone I!ouged Oul and the circurnference of Ihe bone
FIGURE 3.4Z. Typical forms o/ minor destruclion (/ur. rowing) caused by dogs on o/read.~· di.~orlículo'ed PNJXo lmal humeri.
Figure 3.41 illustrates jusi how rapid the destructton of the proximal end of the humeros by animals may be. The right front leg shown had been dragged frorn 8" Eskimo meal cache and "eeten" by wolves in a single aftemoon. The proximal end of the humerus ís completely gane, as ís the proximal end of the cubitus, but the fool and the lower part of the leg are unmodtñed. Figures 3.42 and 3.43 íllustrate eharacteristic steges of deslruclion of the proximal humeros effected by dogs and woives. Deep furrowing and aclual destructíon is generellv initialed on Ihe laleral tuberosuy and the hall bead of the humerus (Figure 3:42, leftj and often resulte in Ihe breaking off ofthe ball erttculetor surface. as shown in Figure 3.43. In both ilIustrations, pitting and dragged puncturing marks are visible along Ihe margins of the furrowed areas. As gnewing continues. all Ihe 50ft lissue on
,1 i
I
7Z
r
3. Pnttern s of Hum! Modifica!íons Produced by Nonhumon A,IIenls
t:!t;.'~
~ Modificalions by J\nalomklll PlIrl
however, is the target element and is Ihen removed from the carease: il rarely remains with tha axial skeleton. Figure 3.44 iIluslrates charactertst¡c "humerus fleshers" produced by wolves and d08S. Similar forros heve been identified from paleonlological assembleges. Good examples ot humer¡ Ihal have been modified by nonhumen agente are gtven by MilIer (1969: Figure 5) and Myers et al. (1980: Figure 2).
Radio-cubitus figure 3.45 iIlustrates a fairly Iypical series of modiflcations produced by gnawing enímals. It will
73 be recalled that the articulalion belween the distal humerus and the proximal radto-cubítus ls a rather durable ene. in that lt comes epert relatively late in Ihe sequence of normal diserticulation. This is reflected in the somewhat ahnormal survival of the proximal end of the radto-cubttus and the typical hreakage paUern iIlustrated (Figure 3.45). The oleeranon ts frequently chewed off and the proximal radius may be punctured and pttted, the distal end is commonly chewed off. As can be sean in Figure 3.45, Ihe distal end frequently shears off, Ieaving an ohllque and pointed seclion of shaft. These may he gnewed and chipped beck and even políshed, resulto ing in pseudo tools of a rather convlncing formo Moat often tbese are interpreted as daggers or plcks. Frí-
FIGURE 3.44. Humerus '1Ieshers" produced by wotves (upper) and dogs (/owerJ.
the proximal end may be removed until the animal begíns lo encounter the barder. denser bone of the diaphys¡s or shaft, as was the case iIluslraled in Figure 3.42. I have dtscussed tbe problem of butchering íha scapula-humerus lotnt previously, but il should be emphasized that oH the so-called diagnostic forms of breekage on the proximal end oí the humerus that have been interpreted as evídence for use as choppers and a "muscle stripping" techntque of butcherlng (compare Figure 3.42 with Figure 1.12 in Frison (197411 are in my opinión normally produced by
animals gnawing through this joínt. As we will see in chapter 5, animals customarily gnaw through this jnlnt on moderate to large prey. so that Ihe scapula is normally essocteted with the axial skeleton. In contrast, human hutcherlng commonly results in the removel of the entlre front quarter, and the dísertículation of the scapula-humerus joint is a secondary dismembering operation. Even in lerge animal bulchering, as I describe for moose in chapter 4, the disarliculaliun of the scapule -humerus jolnt is done flrst. because the scapula may be used for leverage while ji ts still attechcd lo rhe carcasa. The scapule.
II I
FUfllKE :1.45. hpir;(l1 (IIIilllClldf'.,frmlion
nI Ihl' rndin-rubitus.
t l.' I ítl
y 74
J. Puttems of ücne Modifications Produced by Nonhuman Agents
son {1978:104} notes an enelcgous ítem from the Colby site---one 01 the few convincing mammothbutcherlog sttes in North America.
Fragmenta of ungulate metapodials haya sttmu,
In animal-goawed assemblages. cerpels will be eitber present in largely complete form or ebsent. having been completely consumad. The pattern of gnawing ís lo eddress the arttculatíons where the joiot bends. If thís is done, it results in the íngestton of the cerpels. destrucñon ofthe distal radío-cubltus. and marginal tooth scoring oí the proximal end of the metacaepel.
Metacarpol
Femur
Metecarpals are generally chewed in two ways: (o) Tbey may be approached as descríbed for the carpals. When this is the case, the metacarpal te cornmonly abandonad sínce the proximal epíphyaís ís dense sud conteíne Hule grease, whereas the exposed distal end of the radíus contains relatively hígh-queltty marrow. (b) Gnawing may also hegin from the distal end: this is normally initiated by first altacking the foot with ettendant puncturing /Figure 3.0Z} and consumptíon of phalanges. The articulation between the phelenges and the distal metacerpel is short in most unguletes. and therefore a hent joinl is not Ihe approach of most gnawing animals. They typically begin by chewing off the skin and unqual phalanges and th6n work their way up to the loes, gradually approaching the distal end of the metacarpal. Once the cartilaginous area hetween the phalanges has been exhausted, the chewing is generaUy stopped in favor of another bone. The metacarpal is thus commonly found as a complete bone with only minar damage from gnawing. This is particulariy true at IdUs; however, in dens, lairs, and Ihe dog yards of Anaktuvuk, less discriminaling chewing was obvious. Such den-related destruclion in the caribou, where the metacarpal is not a particularly sturdy bone. IS through the shalt, resulting in approximately equal numbers of proximal and distal ends.
75
Modifjcotions by Anctcmrccl Port
leted the imagination of many investigators of the Paleolithic. Such fragments have been cited as prob-
ahly used as daggers and sccops (Dart 1959a, 1959b, 1961), and they have been illustrated from Olduvaí Gorge FLK North Level t (M. D. Leakey 1971: Figure 35) with abraded fractures. Use for digging or perhaps in chopping has been suggested for enelcgous bones from the American Plains (see Fr-isen 1970). As in the majority of other tool cletms. the evidence consists of suggestive breakege and. in the case of the Olduvat material, abrasion and rounding of the edges, which is ínterpreted as use. As we have seen repeatedly, these are properties that rnay be developed in a faunal assemblage without the participation of mano
Carpals
~
At'
FIGURE 3.49, DJ.stal ylew o/ prodmal ldIeep femur showillS tooth punctures and /urrnwl1!S' FIGURE 3.47. Distal femur showinB tooth punctures aJong medial sur/ace o/ Ihe di,,'al condyle.
Figures 3.46 and 3.47 iIIustrate several femoral fragmente Ircm wolf kille and from Eskimo dog
yerds: Figures 3.46 and 3.49 iIIustrate sheep femora gnawed by Navajo dogs after they were fed an entíre cercees during the winter of 1971. Severa! characleristics that are very regular are illustrated: almoet without excepnon the greater trochanter is chewed off the proximal end by the gnawing animals (see
Figure 3.49). Animals may then prcceed to chew through the neck of the femoral beed end f1nally furrow out the entire proximal articuletor end. Figure 3.46 illustrates the distal ende of Iemora removed from wolf kills end these without exceptíon (that ts, of damaged bones) exhibit the furrowed removel of the medial ridge of the trochlea. (Compare this píeture with Figure 8.6 in Frison 11978:3111.1 Both characteristics have been cíted as evtdence for musele stripping as a human butcherlng procedure. Por instance, the following "reconstrucucn" of a hutchering procedure, largely based 00 the ideas ofGeorge Frisan, is given by lohnson: frison poslulaled that processlns of the hind lag besan with loosenins of the palella and removal of Ihe tubar calcls of Ihe calcaneum and the trochanler majar of the femur. This may also have been the pattern on the Llano Estacado as this Iype of damage was common, wilh the exception Ihal Ihe luber calcis was generaly not re· moved. Damage lo Ihe ca1caneum (distal projeclion cracked or broken off) appeared to be from lIttempts lo sever Ihe lateral and middle annular ligaments. Afler this WllS accomplished. the ca1r;aneum would then be free to serve as a handle wilh which to strip vBrious muscles [Johnson 197a:1031.
FIGURE 3.46. Distal femora fram wolf IdUs .~hQwiQ,lllyp icol pom:turins onri furrowil1i1 of thc lrochleo.
FIGURE 3.48. Proximal .~heep femora showlns wnsislenl remoyol of thc sreater trochonter by dORso
It should be noted thal all the "diagnostic" pat· leros af destruclion cited as evidence for musele .~Iripping are commoo in my canid-gnawed as.~(!mblages.
I
1.
I¡ L
1;
:!. ~.
1; li ¡:'
l,1i ~!
I
......
'
76
3. Pcttems uf Bone Modificafions Produ¡;eo by Nunnumon Agents
Tibia By thís time the reeder can probebly anttctpete the types of destructton SUD for the various bones. stnce the pattem is redcndant: biased destructíon of the soft bone parte. particularly the artículator ends of long bones. The tibia is no exceptíon end thís is well illustrated in Figures 3.50 and 3.51. The tibial rrest is generally the Iirst projectíon lo exhibit gnawing, end sínce it is such a prominenl projection it is frequently removed by aligning the bone parallel lo the tooth row end vístng clown with the cemesstal teeth. This produces B semicrenulation when viewed Irom the sirle, as is the case for both spectmens on the right side al Figure 3.50. The left specimen shown in Figure 3.50 rllustrstes a reletively ed-
vanced state of destruction-the en tire proximal end Is removed. 11 should be noted that the proximal ends of the tlbial shaft are chtpped back elong the chaoneled edges. producing a "denticulated" and "retouched" series of edges (Figure 3.511. Typically this level of deslrucHon precedes any majar alterations 00 Ihe distal end. which is comrnonly 10ft aruculeted wlth Ihe tarsals. Ir destruction conttnues. the shaft may be chenneted back and collapsed so as lo leave the distal end with a mini mal segment of shaft attached (note such patterning in Tabla 4.07). When such an advanced stage of destructton is reached. there is an almost invariable pattern of chlpping beck coupled with poltshíng. as shown in Figures 3.10 and 3.12, occurring en segmente of Iho broken ends of the attached shaft. Very similar forms are described by Frisan as tibia choppers (see Figures 1.17 through 1.19 in Frison (1974)), Given my knowledge of animal pattems of bolle destructton. 1 belteve thal il would be unusual for an animal lo attack the shaft of the libia before effectlng sorne modiflcation on the proximal end. This observarían renders it more Itkely that Frison's tibia choppers manufactured Irom the proximal libia are not animal produced. Nevertbeless. the tibia choppers tltustrated in Figures 1.18 end 1.19 (Frisan 19741 would certainly be suspect in an assemblege wheee there was other evídence of animal gnewtng. Examples of "tibia choppers" given by Slanford (1979a, Figures 6 and 7) are textbook examples of enimal-modífied bones.
TarsaJs The most common form of deslruction seen on larsals is Ihe gnawing away of Ihe distal end of Ihe calcaneus [tuber calcis). Puncture marks are occo, sionally seen on alher tarsols but by far Ihe mosl common Iraces of animal gnawing are on the (;alGaneus.
MetatarsaJ
FIGURF. 3.50. Differenl views o/ animal
'he proximal libia.
de.~lrurl¡'m
on
Pallcrns of meta!arsal deslruclion are verv similar to thosc noted for Ihe metacarpal. lo Ihe d08 yard sampJe fmm Anakluvuk. Ihere were numbfJTS of
Brellkage UnroJoleo lo ConsumpUon: Trompling and Bone Manipulalion
77
FIGURE 3.51. Typical odvallced riestructjuII 01 th!.' proximal tibia showinS challnaling nnd chippinS bnck.
melalarsals that wera channeled almost Ihe complele length of the bone. with the channeling having started al Ihe proximal end [the lower four specímens in Figure 3.52). 1 have not seen 5uch systemati. cally channeled specimens fram either fhe wolf dens al Ihe kills (see Figure 3.171. I suspect tha( the dogs gnowed the bones in this fashion largely in response lo having been fed already disarticulaled lower legs. because Ihe ooly area not covered by skin is the proximal end, and I have observed the dogs preferentially slar( ealing al Ihe exposed end. The paltern of consumption described for the melacarpa\ is belleved lo be more common among "wild" animals consuminS Iheir own prey. Neverlheless. Darl (1967;120/ illusIrales sorne nearly identical specimens from a Mousterian assemblaRe recovered in Israel. Figure
3.53 shows the distal ends of melatarsaIs recovered from wolf dens and the channeling is obvious. The specírnen at tbe lower righl is channeled and there are punclure ffiarks and pilting on the opposite side. As pointed out for the metacarpals, Ihese are classic eXBmples of "scoops" as iIlustrated by Dart (1959B, 1959b, 1961).
1
111
I
I I
Breakage UnrelatOO to Consumption: Trampling and Bone Manipulation Thus far 1 have discussed bone breakage as if lt occurred primarily during consumption and carcass
~.,
.
78
3. Pctterns of Bone Modifico!ions Produced by Nonhumcn Agents
..
&
Breekege Unre/ated lo Consumption: Trompling and Bone MonipuJotion
79
tools manufactured or used by man. A recent "experimental" butchertng of an elephent was conducted by severa! persone interested in bone tools teee Park 1978) as a demonstration that tools manufactured from elephanl bone could be used in hutcheríng an elephant. This teern oí expenmenters. led by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian staff concIuded that an e\ephanl could indeed be butchered with tools manufectueed from íts own bones (Parir: 1978:94).
FIGURE 3,53.-"'ol{ deslrut;/ion on distol melolorso/s, commonly citad pseudotoo/s.
FIGURE 3.!SZ. E"treme channelins of metatarso" by lethel'f!d dtJgs.
dismemberment by animals. OC course Ibis is not tbe case, and the aeoheeolcgtet must be continuously Bware oí the possibility Ihat alher agents and con· lexts of breakage may candítion what he OI she observad. C. K. Brain (1967bj was one oí tha firsl to poiot to tha important role that trampling might play in botb breakage and the production oí pseuclotools. Diane Gifford {t977) has made important observa.tions on tha role oí lrampling by large animals. particuJarly fOI bones depositad along tha margins oí bodies oí waler. This is oí considerable importance when behaviorlll c1aims such as those macle by L. S.
B. Leekey (1968) ere constdered. In describing his materials from Fort Teman, Leekey stetee, Ihere Bre In Iha &lime deposit, and at the same level, small areas oC fossils where the bones have been broken up, and where Ihe damase indudes excelltll'll examples of depressed fractures of Ihe types usually associated with "a blunt instrumenl" 11968:5261· Leakey then goes on lO say, The available evidence preSllnled there, Iherefore. slrongly suggests thal lhe llpper Miocene hominid
Kenyapilhecus wickeri was alreedy maklng use of 'Iones to break open animal ,kulls in order lo get al Ihe breln and bones to get at Ihe marruw 11968:5201. AH the breakege descríbed by Leekey is assantíally of the same type observed by Diana Gifford as derived from the trampling of exposed bone by living animals. The interesfed researcher should compare Leakay's photographs, particularly Figure 3, with lhose presented by Gifford (1977: Figures 6871).
Prom both the Old World (Biberson and Aguirre 1965) and the New World (Bonnichsen 1978; Irving Bnd Haringlon 1973), there have been daims that
"worked" or "modified" elephant bone represents
Such cletms rnust be weíghed ageinst reseerch findings where actual controlled conditions have been sought: thst Is. where the condtüons of formation or production of traces or remeíns are known end one seeks to recogntee d íagnostic characteristics of those conditioos. Such controlled research has been provtded by two sourcae (Cae 1978, 1980: Dnugles-Hamiltnn and Douglas-Hamilton 1975) regerdtng elephents and the possible condilions of breekege and modiftcation dtrectly referable to the taphonomic conditions of elephant death, dísertículation, and burial. Oí particular importance is the work of Malcolm Cae (197B), who actually took the paíns to observe what happens to en elephant carcass after death. He observad in detail the progresa of decey end tha scettertng of the rematas of elephents that díed natural deaths. The deeth sttes of elephents are under certetn condítíons sttes of violent ecttvtty. Coe observed that "the large petch of disturbed ground around most corpses observed (diameter) indtcated that death was usually protracted after collapse [1978:77J." Falling and protrected thrashtng (Coe 1978:77) by an elephent ís cartainly a condition that could result in green-bone fractures. The deeth sttee of elephants are apparently Irequently visitad by living elephents. who tremple exposad bone and disperse such bones by knocking them ebcut with theír tusks and even kíckíng them. Cae (1978:761 observed crushing oí rib bones from trampling, presumably by elephants, approximately ayear after the control animal's death. Another interesting comment by Cae is as follows: The sitelelalfemsin9 still persist 00 aHsites 9tudied flve years after the allímsl's dealh, Long bones and situlls have been scallererl up to 100 m. flOm the d¡,olh 9He by alher elephofl!S while smaller bones have been chewed ¡nlo smal1 frllgments by hyoenlls.... Siteletons Iying in
! ·1
i I 1
I
I
j ',r:'
-
r J. Potterns of
Bom~ M'odificolions Prnduced by Nonhllman Allenls
88 Ihe cpen and subjected lo greet diurnal temperature el(tremes are severely físsured and flaked tCoe 1976:79; emphasis mine l.
In arder lo gaín sorne appreciation for ¡he magnttude of dtememberment and scattering that can occur al an elephent death sne. the inlerested reader is raferred lo the remarkable ccílecuon of photographs of e\ephants in various states of decay and dispersión pubhshed by Beard (1979). Of particular importanee lo those interpreting breekage of elephanl bcne ts the mysterious e"cilement elephants exhibí! over the bones of deed alephanta. The following description illustrates Ihe behavior of elephants toward lhe bones of their dead:
tively infrequent. Thev suggest tbet tramplrng R'Nl.y well nave been a major cause of the reletively 18r8e nurnber of spiral fraclures and other mod#ications. They experimented with a wealhered bone: "We have found that slighlly weathered hnnes break quite easily bul sttll exhihit the charactertstíc spiral breakage pattem of íresh "green" bone [Myers el (JI. 1980:4871."
These researchers Illustrete Gonvincing spiral fractures produced by trampllng the bones of a cow thaí had been weathered under natural conditions and approached weathering steges designaled No. 1 or early No. 2 in Behrensmeyer's (1978) study of bone weathenng. This research opens up a malar pos!'>ible source of bone modifications unrelated lo human activ'ity Ihat has receivl'd very Hule researeh altention. This may be particularly important to a They aH began Iheir delailed olfaclory examinaBan. number of c1aims regarding the human involvement Sorne pieces were TOcked gently ta IInd fro with Ihe in Ihe modificalion of elephant bone. Biberson and farefee!. Dlhers were knocked togelher wilh a wooden Aguirre (1965) attempled lo duplicate pallerns of dank. The lusks exclted immediate Interest; Ihey were breakagc among elephanl bones recovered from the picked up, mauthed, and passed [rom elephanl lo important site of Tort8lba. Bonnichsen's (1978, elephen!. Orle immalure male Iifled the heavy pelvis in hi, lrunk 9.nd cllITied it forfifly yards befare dropping it. 1979) analysis of alleged tools from the Old Crow Anolher slllffed \wo l"ibs inlo his moulh and revolved Flals locality places slrong emphasis on modified them dowly as if he were tasting the surface with his elephanl bone. He cites a number of elepnant bone longue. The skull was roHed over by one elephant arlel" f1akes Ihat have aIl the properties of having beeo anolher. To begin wilh on\y the lal"gest individuals removed by percussion techniques analogous to collld gel near Ihe skeleton. ,ueh was Ihe erush. lithic reduclion strategies. Similar forms have been Boadeceala Ilamedelephantl arriving late pushed lo Ihe reported by Slanford (1979a, Figures 8, 12). Noted as cenler, pickPd up olle of the lusks, Iwiddled il for a companions lo these finds are a number of elephant minute or so. Ihen carried it away. wilh Ihe blunt end in bone "cores" from which f1akes have beco removed her moulh. The rest oflhe group now followed. mllnyof Ihero earrying pieees o{ the sKeleton which were al! (Bonnichsen 1979:101-129). Morlan (1981), after redropped wilhin aboul a hundred yards lOouglasstudying the faunal remains (rom old Crow Flats. Hamillon and Douglas-Hamillan 1975:2391 hes basically accepted the argumenl that Ihe modifiu!otions of bones (including spiral fractures) This hehavior, coupled with direcl trampling as (rom animals smaJler than elephants may well be noted in the studies by Gifford (1977), could cerreferable lo the actions of predator-scavengers. He tainly he expecled ID generate bone breakage. Dehas dismissed Ihe role of trampling and bone manpanding on the candition of Ihe bones heing Iram· ipulation by elephanl!'> as nol likely 10 produce plad Of manipulaled, green-bone or spiral fraclures "poinl loading," that is. localized impacl scars. He might be regularly expected. conc1uded thal Ihe carnivores Ilre loo small essenParticularly germane to Ihis point is Ihe pretialJy lo address effedively eiephant bone, and Ihat viously ciled work by Myers et 01. (1980). TR~ (ractured elephant bones. particularly specimens f. J' P f..pl Q j L eA 8S well as exhibiling "poi ni loading." are the product úf pollshed, chipped, and otherwise modified bone in human modificalion and there(ore tools. No ,.ritideposits where"nnm had,c,ei tsMj plsjld I'RJ tMI!F1n ci!'>m of this argumenl is vet available. Neverlheless, fhe;.'actlUnrulation·'~'l't\d'ffihRf§. Of more interesl. the dismissal of trampli~g and bone manipulatio n however, is their observation ,hal evidence for remains en opinion totally unsupported by empirical predator-scavenger relaled modificalions was rela-
-.,..
..1&.:"- •
sone Modificotions ond Methodology
material: thus Morlan's argument ís not a valíd argument from eltrntnetíon, a point 1 will tale up somewhat laler.
Bone Modificatioos end Methodology Throughout Cbepter 1 1 illustreted case after case of ímagtnatíve inlerprelatíon COf observattons made en Ihe archaeologtcel record. Must of the lime m}' aim was to demonslrate a hidden assumplionnamely. that man was the egent responstbte for the particular modifications or associalions being "interpreted" in behavloral lerms. Both Ihe premise as lo the identity of Ihe agenl and the interpretalions offered as to the condilions in Ihe past responsible fur the characler of the Ihings observed in the archaeological record were, in Chapler 2, shown lo he inferencfls. In Chapter 2 it was also argued thal aU our ubservational language and the means available lo us Cor in(erring lhe past from observalions on the archaeological record had to be rooted in experience: There are two ways of regarding concepts. both of which. are necessary fo Ilnderstanding. The first is that of logicalanalysis. Il answers fhe queslion. how do concepls and jud~menls depend on eaeh ol"er? !n answerBut this ing it we are Dn comparalively safe ground. seeurity is pllrchllsed al lhe price of emptiness of conlenl. Concepls can only acquire contenl when !hey are connected. however indirnr.lly. wilh sensible experil'llee.. no logleal invesligallon can rl'\'eal lhis conner.lion. íl can only be experienr,ed [Einslein 1947:4711
It was argued that middle-range research with Ihe aim of developing t1'JJiable melhods for inferring (he ¡:tasi had, Iherefore. fo be raoled in aclualislic sludies. This chapler has reviewed certain claims Ihat others have made regarding Ihe meaning lo be atteched lo properties o( modified bone. Calegorically speaking, lhc daims cenlered on Ihe degrce lo which lhere are d islinclivc forms oC bone bmakilge referable exclusively lu Ihe aclions a( mano aml on Ihe degree lo .....hich pallerned modificalions observed on various bone could be reterred lo mndificatinns produced by num in orrler lo tuiC thl" halles as lools.
81 The advocates of "osteodontokeratíc" (Dart 1957), "protoltthtc" (Menghin 1931), "pre-paleol íthic' [Nícolaescu-Plopsor and Ntcolaescu-Plcpsor (1963), a dísttncttve bone-using culture "Alpinas Palaolithlkum" {Bachler 1940). or more recently an early and continuously irnpurtant bone technology in the New World (Irving and Harington 1973) generally imagine bone modified by man as having many íaatures in common with ltthtc technology (Bonnichsen 1978). Th¡s analogy has served archeeology poorly for severa! reasons. It ís true thal many of the modifications observad in bone are the result of fracture dynemícs. or the mecbentcs of impact leedIngs or pressure loedíngs. as are the basíc dynamics of lithic fracture. Both materials m8Y be studied in terms oC Ihe same general questions regarding the physics o( fraclure. However, in nature there is a fundamental difference: Lilhies are apparenlly regularly used by only mano 11 is true that lilhies may become (ractured in a variely of inanimate, mechanical conlexls in nature: pounding of stones on beaches, in friclion "cauldrons" in rivers. as a result oC sluffing off and falling ofrocks from cave ceiling8, cliff (aces, and Ihe m.e. In aH these conlexls the stones being subjected to fracturing forces are being modified as forees act on objecls and the orientation of the objects is generally free lo V8ryindependently of the direclions of impacl forces. lf nol, the coincidence oí orienting forces and (racture is relalively random. producing rare and irregular combination~ of fracture palteros Ihal stalistically form a componenl of a more comprehensive pattero a( random breakage configuralion. This is in marked contrast lo slones modi(jed by man, who orients the stone ..nd directs the impacl so thal a regular pattem of orientalion Cor both the piece being acted upon and the direclion of aclion or impact loadiog is maintained, resulting in distinctive and palterned modificalions in the slone being acled upon. Such'patterning generally permits the discrimination betwfW!n tools produced by man and slones modified in nature. Trans· ferring this opprooch lo bones cloes not work, For unlike slones, bones are regularly manipulated mechanically by animals olher lhan mano The resull is a paltero of regular. mechallically produced modificalion in bone Ihat shares Ihe configuration of redundanl impfH~ting or luading relative lo redundanl orienlaliull. resultin~ in chipped edges. pieees
~.~
~ 82
3. Puttema af Bone Modificalians Produced by Nonhuman Agenls
that have multiple flakes originating at a common ímpect eurrece, múltiple ñekee removed in redundan! ortentetíon. both with regard to the dtrectton of impact and tbe orienlation of impacting to tha prior shape of tbe píece. ln Iact. ell the patterntng contigo urations of tools are seen. These are trua enetogues. in that tbe formal configurations have many things in common with stone tools but the causes may be quila diíferent. No! seriously conetderíng th¡s. many have argued that they are homologues; that ts. roan was using his documentad knowleclge of mechanics on both slene and bone, er in sorne cases only on bone, and producing artifacts. Arguments frOID anal· ogy ossume Ihe causes oC analogous characteristics are Iha same. This is nol !roe for fracture patterns on bone versus stone. Failing lo w(;ognize the strong analogi<:al component to resear(;h reasoning, sorne researchers have thougbt tha( they could gain a greater undershmding oí tbe lIignificance oí modified bone by conducting experiments with the mechanics oí bone fracture. A numbar oí detailed and "controlled" studies have been aimed at increasing our understanding of the properties of bone that (;ondilion íls fraclure potenlial when mechanically manipulated .(soo particularly Bonnichsen 1973, 1979). Although these are interesting and the knowledge gained can be used, lhey in no way infonn us about Ihe causes, in the proximal sense, of the loading agents responsible for bone breakage. Nor do they provide us with any criteria for recognizing such agents. Yat these were ocluolistic sludíes. They were "experimental archaeaiagy" of a relatively elabarate farm. How cauld Ihey nal provide us with methods? The answer, af course, is lhat too overall procedure one uses does not ensure suecess. One must ask productive queso tions and one must succeed ín gaining adequale control5 over experimental observations lo be able lo relale Ihem accurately to "causes." Making irrelevant observations, in terms of either the accurale isalation of causes or characteristics nol observable in Ihe archaeologieal record, will not contribute toward Ihe development of usable archaeological methodology. Thís is a major problem ~.iJ!l many so-called ethnoarchaeological sludie. They are simply malerially orienlen elhnographies and do nol attempt seriously eilher lo isolale causes or demonstrate Ihe neees,>ary relationships between
Bone Modifica!ion5 and Melhodolagy
"bears" of tnterest and "toctprínts'' actually recoverable from the archaeological record. My approech has been very consciously aimed al not falling into Ihe trap of belíevlng that íf a study is actualísttc. it must be useful. I sought lo obtetn control ccllecttons of bones known lo have been rnodtfied by anímals and to describe and ldenufy the effects when the causal egents were known. 1 have used the spectmens whose properties could be unambiguously referred lo animal manipulation to demonstrata the ambiguily of rnany tníerences made by others. 1 think 1 have demonstrated thal spiral fractures are nol unique lo man; Ihat spiral fracture when produced by anímals is not limited lo an origin at the distal ends af the bones; that modifications ciled by Frisan at Glenrock as evidence of muscle stripping are commonly produced by gnawing canids: and Ihat the characteristic modifieations commonly ciled for recognizing "expediency tools" are regularly produced by nonhominid predalor-scavengers; and Ihat, finaI1y, many of Ihe modífications cited as evidence of human modification and 1001 use are refer· able to predator-scavengers. My interests go beyond the evaluation of specific ideas to archaeologieal melhodology in general. Are there guidelines for research Ihal, if more explicitly underslood, could reduce Ihe numbers of mvths generaled by archaeologists? 1think Ihis mus! b~ an5wered affirmatively since archaeologisls have. in fact, had very HUleexperience in Ihe research area of methodological development. For the mosl part, Iraditional archaeology did nol recognize midcllerange research as a doma in distinet from general research. Methods grew up largely as a series of ae· cepled conventions for giving meaning lo the aro chaeological record. Methods "accumulated" out of Ihe mosl common research situation faced by Ihe archaeologisl, in which he recognizes patterning in the archaeological-paleontologir;al record and must faee the ¡nlriguing problem of whal the pattern means. For on!y with a solution to Ihis problem can the archaeologist converl contemporary panero observations into meaningful slatemenls aboullhe past. Most often this problem is faeed by Ihe archaeologisl after he or she has oeseribed Ihe patlerning (frequenlly in a seelian labeled "IYIlOlogy" or "slatislical analysís"l. Once palterns of association,
coveeíeuon, and so en heve been establísbed. the archaeologtst may then wrtte an interpretattve sectton. This is where the ercheeologtst may build a model of the past or offer opíntons as lo what condítíons in the pest "ceused'' the propertles summerized. This ís what 1 refer to as a post 'roe cccommoduñve argumento Surnmarizing Ihen, this is a situation whera one has isolated petterntng (Ihe effeets) and seeks lo use imagination to envísíon the condrttons that. if Ihey had beppened. would account for Ihe propertles seen [the causes). The way one werrants Ihis construction of Ihe past may be eomplicaled and draw on considerable knowledge, even theory, from other fields. Nevertheless, lhe degree of fil between ¡he ímagined condilions and the obseMled properties in Ihe archaeological record is nol a test of the oeenraey of lhe argumenl. Mosl perSons are knowledgeable enough to invenl a siluation that, if true, would account for the observed facls. In order lo convinee others, a number of warranl. ing arguments are frequently proposed. Sorne are de. signed lo demonstrale thal the suggestion is plausible and not totally unrealistic. This is Ihe role in which ethnographic analogy is cast by Thompson (1956:329): "He must test his conclusion by demon. slraling Ihat an artifact-behavior correlation similar lo the suggested one is a common occurrence in ethnographic reality." However, the degree of plausibi/ity is no! sufficient to establish probobility. Probability ís frequently argued in Ihe form of an argumenl from eJimination. ARGUMENT FROM ELlMINATION
Argumenl5 from eliminalion have two basic premises: (o) AH the polenlial causes are known and Iisled and lb) al! but one of those lisled are not the cause of the phenomenon in question. Therefore, the remaining cause is considered lo be Ihe correct one. lf one could not juslify Ihe premise lhal all Ihe possible causes were lisled, Ihen Ihe conclusion Ihat the cause nol eliminaled !hrouRh rejeclive argumenl is Ihe correel one conld not he sustained. For instance, 1 mighl argue !hal Ihe causes of a particularly inleresling pile of rocks could be (a) that it had been marle by spacemen, (b) that il had been r:onslruded byead, ann(e] lhal il had been prodllced by geological aclion. [ rilen miRhl proceed lo eliminale alterna-
83 ttves a and b through warrented argument. end Iherefore conclude that the pile of rocks was produced by geologtcel aelion. I would be very apt tu be wrong: sínce there ís no reason to belteve thet all of the potential causes hed been Iisted in the first place. Of course, in arder to construct such a Iist we would have lo understand causatíon, amí íf we had such understendtng we could certainly devise a more powerful end Informativa eveluetíve procedure. Argumenl from elirnination wes the form impl íed by Bonnichsen's rejeclion of the alternative Ihat the spiral fractures observed at Old Crow Flats had been caused by animals breaking their leg5. His is a very common way of warranling an opinion regarding a preferred post hoe accommodative argument. Normally one uses imagination and an accumulated knowledge lo think ol all !he possible situations Ihal might have accounted for Ihe observations made. One Ihen offers an opinion as to which is considered mosl likely by denigrating all but the preferred argumen!. This seems to be wha! many researchers mean by Ihe "method of multiple working hypotheses." This is a fonn of warranting argument for one's opinions, but il is in no way sufficient for providing us with methods of ¡n(erenee. 1 must add Ihat for an argument from elimination to be valid, one musl have available unambiguous means for monitoring the alleged "causes" and therefore a way of aetually detennining the degroo of parlicipalion by a suggested cause in a system of pasl delerminaey. In lraditional archaeology Ihe argumenl from eliminalion was used as a form of warranting argument for one's beliefs about the pas!. In Ihe new archaeology, it should function more to warrant one's melhodological research: "A valid propo· sition can only be refused Ihrough hypolhesis test· ing. However, when faeed with va lid alternatives, one can evaluale in prohabilislic terms Ihe relative slrenglh of alternatives and make decisions as to how lo invesl research lime IL. R. Binford 1972a:571."' ARGUMENT FROM WANTOF EVIDENT ALTERNAT1VES
A particularly interesting form of argument from elimination is one where only one possibility can be imagined. Mosl l~ommonly Ihis argumenl lakes Ihe form Ihal "only man could do thar." It is generally
,~.
84
3. Penems of Bone Modifications Produeed by Nonhuman Agents
executed by citlng complex or regular patterned mcdtñcettons in nature. which seern self-evident in their manífestatlon of design or planning: "1 suppose that these bcne breeks could come about wíthout human íntervenuon.... But Ihe broken mammoth leg bones we've found-nothing could do thet excap! humane hurling rocks {quole from Dennís Sta»lord published in Canby 1979:3541." Commenting on thls fOfID uf aegument. two distinguished prolessors of log¡c stete. Argument trom want of evtdent aitemañves Is, however. ene of the most abuslld argumen! forms. Often when we "jump lo condusian~" we are ahusing il; W6 leap al Ihe nrsl Ilxplanatory hypothesis tha! COffil!S to mind without duly surveying Ihe field IQuint> llnd UI· Iian 1978:120-1211.
This form of argumenl is so easily abused beca use only one alternative is recognized. The only positive form of argument is offered with regard lo allerna· tives, which are rejected, so Ihere is no direct evidence Ihal can be offered in support of (he conclusion. This is the form of argument used by Von Oaniken (1969) to c1aim extraterrestrial involvement in lhe history of culture. Quine and Ullian (1978:121) comment germanely on this poi ni: "Indeed arguments of Ibis kind (argumenl from want of evident alternalives) are a favorite device of charlatans, if not absoluleiy indispensable lo Ihem." I think Ihal il should be clear fhal, although Ihese forms of argumenl may appear impressive aud even convincing lo many, unless Ihey are aclually execuled with means ror measuring Ibe alternalive causes or actually evaluating the relalive conlribuIioos of differing variables said lo have been active in a "conditioning" sense, the enlire exercise rernaios a form of polemics and is in no way an epislomological procedure. It slands as a ser of ranked opinions, not a stalemenl oí probable determinacy. The techniques frequenlly employed in demonslralinglhe plausibility of a post hor:accommodative argumenl are usually suspecl. As menlioned earlier, Thompson suggesled Ihe citation of ethnographic precedent. Whal if there is no elhnographic cilaticln relevant lo Ihe paHerning you observe? This 15 parlicularly important when considerin~ Ih~ very early eras of hominid expf'rience. It is ¡¡Iso common wilh
respect to the types of pattems erohaeologtsts müy observe. Such things rarely prompt commenls Irom ethnogrepbers and historians. We have a fíne exampie of Ihis situalion in the work of George Frisan al Glenrock (1970). Frisan observed a large number of petteened modifícations in bone. There were no detailed descriptions of such Ieatures in the etbnographíc record. He mede the assumption Ihal man was the causal egent. He Ihen invented a set of conditions that. íf they had happened in the past. were belíeved lo accommodate all the "facts" of bone modtñcetíon. Uslng his exceptíonel knowledge of animal anatomy and manual tool use, Frisen tmegmed a procederé far butchering using "expedient bone tools." largely choppers and f1eshers, Cor muscle stripping {he animals. The patterns of bone modificalion noted al Glenrock could Ihen be underslood as resulling Crom chopping loose muscle attachmenls on bones, as well a5 wear patterns and intenlional modifications made in shaping and using bones as lools in Ihis operalion. Frison Ihen engaged in aclualislic research,~ licalive experiments. That is, Frison (1974) actually bukhered a bison using Ihe proceduces he had imagined and concluded Ihal his model was wel1 conceived in {hal the properties expecled lo result Crom his imagined operalions did in Cad resull. Olhers Ihen adopled his model oC butchering as a methodological device for giving meaning lo spedfied properties of Ihe acchaeological record. O{her researchers began finding expedienl tools and evidence íor musde stripping. A melhodology was being molded by lhe adoption of a 5el of conventions Cor giving mean· ins lo properties of the archaeological record based on Ihe Cailhplaced in an individual's work. The replieativa experiment showed that Frison's knowledge and judgmenl used in developing his model oC Ihe pesl was sound. It showed Ihal his model of Ihe pasl was plausible. JI in no way demonslraled Ihat it was aecurate! As poinled out earlier, Oart condueted ceplicative experimenls together wilh Kitching. concluding Ihal Ihe uack-and Iwist melhod of breaking bone was responsible for spiral fractures. and he was wrong Sadek-Kooros (1972) enndueted replicative experimenls ano concluded thal man intenlionally broke bones lo a paltero for use as lools, and she was mosl cerlainly wrong. George Frison conf!ucled replicat¡ve fJxperiments wilh rcgard In his ideas abOlll mus-
"
Bone Modifieotions rmd Methodology ele stripping as a mode ofbulchering and ccncluded that in Iect he could muscle slrip a bíson and símulate the pattems of bone breakage and destruction noted in prehlstoric assemblages. 1 argue that he is most líkely wrong. Recently there have been severa! "replicative" elephant buteherings (see Huckell 1979; Park 1978). One of these was led by Oennis stenfcrd, who is very interested in illustrating that an elephanl eould be butchered with 1001.'1 manufaclured from its own bones (Park 1978:94). Under the epislomology being criticized,~.. ive experlments provide an evaiuation of the [udgment of the person who proposed the original model oC the pes!. If one can produce the effects by fol1owing a procedure proposed in explanation oC cerlain observed properlies, Ihen Ihe proponenl's knowl~ge and skill in Ihinking are demonslrated. We could Ihen place sorne confidence in Ihe argument because oC Ihe demonslraled skill oC Ihe advocale in anticipating Ihe consequences oC certain operalions. The demonslration of plausibilily, eilher Ihrough Ihe cilalion oC elhnos;aphic procedent or through rl'plicative experirnenl eoupled wilh warranling ar. guments by elimination as a linked batlery of laclics, wasused by many archaeologisls lo convinee people lhal their views of the past were correcl. These taclies primarily serve lo demonslrate competenee: The final judgmenl of any Ilrchaeologist's cultural re. conslruclion musl theterorebe basad on ltn appraisal of his professional competence.and pllrticularly lh!! qualily of Ihe subjectivf! conlribulion lo Ihal compelence. Our presenl ml!lhod of assessing Ihe role oi lhis subjec. tive elemenl by an apprlllsal of lhe inlelleclual honesty of the arehaeologisl who milites (he inferenees is cer11Iinly inadequllte. Bu!. lhere dot's nol seem to be any praetil:al means of greatly improving the situa_ lion We can only hope for improvemenls in !he mathodsuf measurinA Ihe amount of failh we place in an inrij~'idual's work IThompson 1951"'131-332]. Isu¡,:sesled long ago lL. R. Binford 1968b: 16-17) ¡halthere musl be ways olhar than Ihose adopted by lraditional archaeologists for evaluating archaeolog_ ical argumen!. Herf'! I add Ihe suggeslion Ihal Ihere musl be research enrleavors designad sPf!cifically far the devc10pmenl oí infeffJnlilll me!hods. and Ihese IAnnot be easily eVHluatedusin,¡¡Ilrchlleological dala nar cal! they be s¡mpl~' adopled fmm "respected"
85 archaeologtsts. This rneans thal tnducttve erguments developed post hoc lo account for petternlng observed in Ihe ercheeologícal record must be Irealed as provoeative ideas in need of evcfucuon. Only after they have been eveluated can they be ceunously adopted as observanonel lenguage. or ínterpretatíve conventions, or methods for giving meaning to the pasto I suggest that middle-range reseerch progresses by virtue of the eccumulauon of knowledge !hal in faet permita one to use an argument by elimination properly. Jf actualistic research con be cited sbowing thal wha! is ob.'lerved in Ihe archaeoJogical record is not refemble to a suggesled cause. then one bosis for myth making will be eliminated. We must conlinuously Cocusour allenlion on the properties 01 Ihe archaeological record and, in turn, COCUs our iroaginalions on those observed propertiep>. Once we have generaled a post hoc accornmodalive argument, our research task is specified. How can we investigale Ihe idea advanced as lo Ihe context 01causalion for specified properlies oC !he archaeological record? Where in Ihe COnlel1lporary world or the domain oC recorded dynamics can I seek experiance facilitating Ihe modeling oC causes Cor a particular pattem ob. servable in the archaeologieal record? This is Ihe firsl Question. The nexl question one must ask is Ihis: Even iC one can ¡solale such a souree oC enHghlenmenl, how ambiguous are Ihe properties for which one is seeking a causal understanding? Thet ¡s, are aH Ihe possible causes lisled? This is a necessary condition (or an argumenl from elimination. Not only musf Ihe researcher face Ihe possibility of the ambiguily oC Ihe pallerns as observed in Ihe archaeological record, bul he or she must also faee the equally crucial question oí Ihe relevance oí actualistic understanding lo Ihe pest. Can we make uniformitarian assumplions from our contemporary underslanding regarding Ihe production oC properlíes thal appear to be common lo Ihe pasl and Ihe present? These are aU complicaled problems tha! must be faced in order lo develop a slrong methodology aorl ereale an unambiguous observational language for Ihe science of archaeology. Failure lo arldress Ihem when making melhodological c1aims will genprally conlribulc to Ihe building oC modero myths ralher Ihan lo Ihe gcowfh of archaeologicaJ science.
"VP.....-------""'A~,.;- - - - - - - - - - - - , 32
Pllr111. MiddJe...f!onge Heseurch-e-ln Senrch
oIMelhodoJogy
Prlrf JI. Mjdrll~-Ran,l¡fl Heseurcb-c-ln Senrch
of Mcthodology
behavioral characterislics of the ngents that ensure the uniqueness of the prcperñes descnbed. The majority of materiaIs described in the following three chepters were collected during a 4-year study of the use of onimals and anima} produets by the Nunamiut Eskimo of north central Aloska. (See L. R. Binford 1976, 19780, 1978b, 1979, 19BO; L. R. Binford ond}. B. Bertrom 1977; and L R. Binford ond N.}. Chcsko 1976 for reports on this reseorch.] The focus of the Nunnmiut study was the relationship between thetr hunting ond consumer stmtegies as execured in funclionoJly and seasanally differing sites (L. R. Binford 197Bb) and the faunaJ remains al those sñes. The study wcs middle range in choracter, aimed at developmg methods for recognizing sites of vorying funcuon from faunol remains. Chapter 3 summorizes a considerable body of cbservcñons on bones modified by animaJs. As indicoled in Chopter 1, mony controversial cloims regarding the nalure of the POS! hove been inferences from observations on broken and modified bone. 1 wi/J revlew sorne af the "in terpretative Jiterature" where faunal remains have been central to crgumenls abouI the post. This material is presenred because the contents of Chopter 3 ore germone lo (hese orguments, bu! olso because my knowledge ofthese arguments has guided much of my ohservation on bone. As Dorwin is credifed (Cohen and Nagel, 1934: 197) wilh having said; "How odd if is that anyone should not see that aH observation musl be for or ogoinsl sorne view, if il is fo be of any service." Chopter 3 treats o number of the properties of bone modificotian about which a vos, number of inferences regarding the post hove been prompted. Since 'here hm'e beeo so many claims, much of this chopter will appeor negotive. J will s}'s· temoticoJly cite properties of bane breakage coupled wilh surficiaJ modifications produced by either dogs or wolves ond compare lhem to specimens or condifions thal others hove cited as evidence [or humonhominid modification or manufacture. Although it ip; quite true that much af this chapter appears la be concerned wilh discrediting the inferences made by others, 1 am simultoneously presenting descriptive malerial in sufficient delaiJ lo provide a bosis for lhe identificarion af lhe agenls responsible for modificalions thal may be of inleresl in future research. In a very real sense 1 hove alreody written a book on the topic covered in Chopter4--what men do with bones. As you might imagine, 1 wiJI draw heoviJy on Ihis previously pubJished moterial, but sorne new facts will be presented. My orientafíon is one of comparing human behavior wilh animal behavior on the one hond, and evaluoting claims a!her orchaeoJogisls hove made regarding Ihe meaning to be attached lo certain formol potterning in ossemblag:es of modified bone on lhe other. Chapter 5 is concerned with rhe central probJem of the book, the. djagnostic.differences betw.een banas modified by man ond !hose modifie,d by onimols. 1 will present sorne original ohservalions on wolf hehovior and
Interpretnñons were offered and judged "probable" or plausible they frequently become conventions whereby additionaJ observations nt new sltes were lnterpreted. Grodually o myth wcs built up about the post. The rnyth conststed of inferences drown from unevaluated premises ond Its very scale o/ ccceptcrtce graduolly became further justification for beJief in the myth. Unfortunately this remoins one o/ our dominant "methodologies." In Chopter 2 the point wos made that we necd to de velop mefhodologies cnd observational lungucge through mlddle-mnge resecrch. This reseurch was envisioned as Iorgely uctucllsuc. where controJJed information about causes and ejfects could be evaluoted experientclly rather than inferentialJy, as has been Ihe common pructlce. Methodolcgicc! resenrch requires that both the becr ond the footprint be observable. Methodological resecrch in service of crchoeclogy must normalJy be conducted with living systems [ethnocrchceoiogyl or enes in which the refevcnt dynamics hove been recorded (historicol orchceclogy] or where the relevanl dyncmlcs may be replicoted (experimental orchaeology). The polnt of view cdopted here Is thct octuolislic studfes or middle-ronge reseorch is crucial to orchoeology and should be conducted from the perspective of the archoeological record. We ore not studying material "residues" (R. A. Gould 1980:250-251) or "behavioraJ correlates" from the perspective of the ongoing living system. This view contrasts mork· edly wilh Ihat of Schiffer (1976), Rothje (1979), and StiJes (1977), who seek o science of material culture, or reJationships between behavior and material culture. 1am not suggesting that studying contemporory syslems from a materialist's perspective should not be done, oniy thal doing so is nol archaealagy; it is ethnogrophy and as su eh faces very different method%gical and intellectuoJ problems. Stated another woy, we are not aUempting to specify the relotionships between "behavior" in any exhoustive sense and material remoins. Instead, we are attempting to understond lhe deter~inants of patterning and various struclural properties of the archaeoJogical record in arder lo leorn about lheir post. Jt was suggested in Chapter 1 Ihot we need methods for assessing the inlegrity (the number of identily of Ihe ogents tha! aeted in the post to produce the deposit being invesfigoted) ond the resoJution of a deposit (lhe number of and redundancy in Ihe events represented by the deposits). Tbe bulk ef this book is concemed'tN1tfnhedevelopmfmi.t>f'11t9tftods for identifying ~·thf!·agent and ·the beh('lvjm'tlI_'c'Orrte-xt'~ predator""Scavenger' "cohtrfhut1on~-,·to poltrottthft'-'ontt"J"atetmtotogiunl depoS'its. This is basicolJy o prohlem in identificotion. Fol/owing the suggestions developed in Chapter 2 l wiIJ describe acquired properties of bones and patterns of assemblagf! variability that are referable lo known agen!s. l will atlp.mpt to justífy Ihol sorne properties are uniquelv referoble to specific agents, and will sUMest sorne of the
1
33
1:1':
Ir'
,i'.:!I:
,il ¡ ¡:j:
"I';¡ 1 1
"'!
1'11
: I, 1:[. 1 1, '1'
l•
~
,:,
'1'.
1:
i
1
1
1
i¡ i' I ', 1 ¡ r, 11,'
'1
¡¡I
i
1
¡.
,; J"
!I;'
·I~I,
:t 1
1:
1,,1
lil
i,
Éc'
88
3. Pañems
The task Di giving meaníng to observetlcns ís very dlfficult. We saw in Chapter 1 how "control" was obtained by inferring the identity oí a causal agent Irom an aseocratíon with tdenttñeble tools. That assurnption provided so intellectual anchor. Patterning observed in assodated thíngs was then reíerred to the behavtor of the rnferred common agent. Bones beceme Iood, trequenctee of specíes became stalemente of dtetery preferences or hunting strategies. Patterned rrmdificatícns en bones became tools. In this chapter we haya seen how "control" was getned by ustng argumenl from analogy for forms of patteming observed erncng stone tools and bones and assuming thet analogoue petternlng was referable lo Ihe same causal condíuons. That was wrong. We S8W how replícatíve experiments and ínedequate ettempts to tnvesugate alternative suggesttons coupled with elímtnattons by "opinion" served to justify tbe use of conventtcns. such as spiral fracture equals man, ar expediency tools equal rnen. or destrcved trocbenters and proximal humeri equal musele strtpplng. We must expiare ways of increasing
of Bone Modificalions Produced by Nonhumen Agents
our eccuracy end reliability in making inferences to the past. Tradítional erchaeology did not reccgntze the need for, nor even the possibilily of developíng. middle-range research. Traditional approaches are demonslrably tnadequete. It seems lo me that the method ot rnost rapid progress ... ís going lo be lo sel down explicitly al each step jusi whal the quesüon te. and what all the alterneUves are. and then lo set up crucial axpertments to Iry lo dtsprove sorne.... When wbole groups of us begin lo
concéntratelike thet I belteve we may, see ... tncreases in the rete of scientific understanding [Platt 1964:3521.
Postscript ~ Since th¡s chepter was written I have learned of an argument startlng in Australia regarding Ihe agents responsíble for abone assemblage unaccompanied by stone tools (Archer. Crawf14rd, & Merri lees 1980).
Assuming thet one can ettríbute lo the hand of man all remains in a deposit essocíated with accepted artifacts was shown lo be a common methodologieal error in my revíew of literatura presented in Chepter 1. Incorrectly identifying the agent respensible for modifications on bones was a problem emphasized in Chapter 3. In this chapter I will demonstrale that Ihe assumption of monocauselity has been a common error associated with the interpretation of bonee modified by mano Here the ercheeologíst observes properties of the archaeologtcel record. for instance modífíed bone. and assumes that all the modtüceuons arose from a single behavior. such as butchering, merrow cracking, cr tool producríon. In most cases we may expect that bones and other archaeological remains had alife history during which they were componenls of a cultural system. Differing aclions were taken wilh respect lo Ihe materials and in turo they were altered differenlially, depending on Ihe characler of Iheir Iife histories. We must view an item, fealure, or sile as being the accumulative resull of numbers of differenl acUons and events such thal the overall morphology of Ihe material remains carries information about many different modifying conditions-not a single causal evenl bu! a sequence of causal processes. With respect lo bone Ihis view has nol generally characterized Ihe analysis of archaeological remains.
Chapter 4 Human modes of bone modification
/: 1
1
!1
87
I if
.,,,¡ ~
.
*,.., 4. Human Modes o/ Bone Modifkolion
88 Aside from thts ontologtcal point regardtng aroheeclogtcal materials, 1 will continua with rny methodological lnterests. 1 will explícate entena for recognizing the agents responsibJe for materials that might be Iound etther in association with unquesttoned tools or remetns oí hominids themselves, or independently. Tha! te. although my goa1sare methodological they are also fecused 011 the geoer!c dífferences between men sud oíber animals in Iheir pat. terns of modifying bone. For this reason. in the materials lo be presentad I will rnake no attempt lo dtscuss tbe designs or the tecbníques actual1y used by man in Iha production oftools from bones. 1am soleIy concerned with morlifications ¡unidad 00 bone as a by-product oflhe explaitatian of animal foods by mano In one sense J am only inleresled in Ihose aclions man perforros in solving proMems Ihal musl also be solved by olher animals in Ihe utilization and consumplion of prey species. I am furlher limiting myself lo a concern wilh Ihe lechniques lIsed in dismembermeot and meat removal, and the lechniques used in breakin!! bones for the recovery of bone marrow. Within Ihis dornain 1 will address the problem of maldng uniforrnitarian assumplions about Ihe mate· rial derivativas of human behavior thal may be observed actualistically. What is the role of ethnoarchaeology and ethnographic analogies in middlerange research? With respecllo the specific subjects covered, the available infarmalion is by no means balanced. Followin!! a survey of previous researeh and a discussion of Ihe dala 1 will be appealing lo in my descriptive discussions of human use of bone in a food contexl, I will begin Ihe descriptive seclions wilh a dis· cussion of dismembering stralegles. This is, regeetlably, a very shorl section despite much discussion in the lilerature ofbulchering lechniques. 1wiH Ihen lum my atlenlion to cut marks on bones, whicn are more commonly referred lo as butehering marks. This is a long, delailed seclion summarizing Ihe descriplive lilerature as known to me and presenting new material. It will be painfully c1ear Ihat HUle i[lformation is available on this suhjecl I will add lo Ihe available malerial by presenting the grouped dala from Ihe Mouslerian levels al Gambe.,Grenal cxcavaled by Franc;ois Bordes (see Bordes 1972). as well as the data from lhe Kakinya site exc8vated durinK
11,
e ,:f.J.J.. el"
\,
~
,\ e
{ V J.'j _.
'. 'j.,
~,;,.-\
Ju
my work with the Nunemiut Eskimo (see L. R. Blnford 1978b:374). The relaüvely few ceses of descnbed materíels are drawn from a remarkably wide geographical and temporal range: Iwo Mouslerian cases. a case from eastem Nnrth America during tbe Early Historie periodo a Mississippian site from Missouri, several Plains btson kili sttes. a Plaíns antelope klll síte. and my materials from the Bskimo. Over al! Ihis material 1 will be able lo damonstrate a kind of remarkeble redundancy in the plaeemenl of cut marks and their particular forms. Thus, 1 will venture sorne empirical generalizations about human patlerns of butchertng end the telltale marks remaining from Ihe use of cutling 1001s in aceomplishing this lask. "The plausibility of a hypothesis depends largely on how compatible Ihe hypothesis is wilh out being observers placed at random in Ihe world IQuine and Ullian 1978:74J." The diverse nature of Ihe samples gives sorne plausibilily lo Ihe generalizations offered. Finally. I will discuss marrow cracking as il has been described by others and as I have witnessed and documenled jI among Ihe Nunamiut Eskimo. Much of my discussion will center not so much on the production of generalizations but on the degree lo which premalure generalizations by others have misled analysis in the past. I wil! make a pies for Ihe colleclion of more informalion on Ihis subjoct and offer sorne suggestions regarding formal atlributes !hal might wel1 prove useful in fulure melhodological developments for dislinguishing the hand of man from Ibe jaws of animals.
Previous Approaches to Underslanding Broken and Modified Bone Reviewing earlier research on human modifications in bone shows thal sorne of Ihe earlies! research was on cul marks and surfidal modifications resultiog from man's use of 1001s in butchering (Martin 1906:10). This eMly worlc was nol, to my knowledge, followed up un'i) relalively recenlly (Guilday n.d.; Guilday el nI. 1962: Parmalee 19(5). Mosl of lhis work is sound and provides ll~able case .'iludíes of hulche'ing marks.
-:U
f
,1"
\
PrevicusApproochesID UnderslondingHrnken und Modified Bone Most of the reseerch orienled toward the "recenstructton" of prehistoric butehering practice stems directly from the seminal work ofTheodore E. White (l9S2. 1953a, 1953b, 1954, 1955). White suggested a number of post hoc accommodetíve modele lo explain the differenlial frequencles of anatomical parts revealed tbrough the eareful anatomical identification of bones recovered from archaeological sitas. These models took Iwo baste forms, postuletmg {o) Ihe differenlial trensport or abandonmenl of anatomleal perts in the context of bunting logistics, and [b] the destructron of anatomice! parls durlng the bUlchering process, wbich was beavily modl'lled on the assumplion of regular use of large choppers and heavy cleaver-like lools and bafted mauls. Butcher· ing practiees Were generaIly considered lo vary elhnically [see Wood 1962) and to be a eharacleristic thal could be used for Iradng the culture history of differenl elhnic groups. Typical of tbe post hoc modeling of Ihe butehering proeedure is the following statemenl from one of White's early papers 00 Ihis subject: The humerus ShOW5 the greatest discrepllncy in the number of the 'wo ends of any of lhe elements ... Anyone who htls triad lo separate lhe sCtlpula and humerus wilh B knlfe knows thal it is not easy. even in lhese dllYs of crucible slee!. IIlld lhe ¡oh ClIn be ellsily and effectively ar.complished wilh a cleavllr. It is clear Ihal a Stone Age deaver would demolish lhe head of Ihe humerus heyood recognition. further culting up of Ihe forelimb appears to have beeo lIccomplished by smash· ing the radius and metacarpal near the middie as the ends are usuaUyenlire [White 1952:338}. Here we see the post hoe accommodation Df a butcbering model lo the patterns of breakage and bone deslruction observed in an archaeological assemblage. It is assumed Ibal tbe bone destruction resulted Crom butebering activities. White's posl hoc argumenls were general1y adopled. For a number of years reading an archaeological site report that ineluded a summary of faunal remains was Iike read· ing a litany. Wbile's posl hoe argumenls were invoked lo "explain Ihe arcbaeoJogical facts" and Ihereby inlerpret Ihe pas\. 11 ls interesling in Ihís regard Ihat Thomas Kehoe reporled Ihal his ínformanis as well as historieal aceolmls ¡ndieale: "The limbs were cut up al Ibe joinls, nol Ihrough Ihe
89
bones ... there was culting through the scapulahumeros joinl /Kehoe 1967:69-711." As menfioned eartíer, there is running through the Plaíns literatura a very strong "normattve" bias. Such dtscrepenctes as tbe one Kehoe reportad, elhnohislorical information indicative of a prncedure eonlradictory lo the post hoc model. are frequently trealed as evidence for "cultural difterences" between the peoples responsible for the Iwo sourees of Informeuon. There hes been little altempt lo determine experimentally. ethnoarchaeologtcettv. or from historie records íf there are any siluational correlales of alternative bulehering slralegles (see L. R. Binford, 1978b:87-90¡. Little attenlion bas been given lo delermining if there are diagnostic properties that might permit Ihe archaeologists lo diseriminale differing slralegies, or if Ihe arehaeological faels far which posl hoe interprelalions bave been offered did in fael derive Croro butchering activilies! I will relurn for a moment to one of my inilial poinls, namely Ibal Ihe bones recovered from asile may hava undergone a number of differing event sequences during which modificalions could have been made prior lo Iheir having entered Ihe archaeologieal record. In the last chapte.r 1 argued fhat the bison bones excavaled by George Frison al the Glenrock Buffalo Jump had becn modified by scavenging animals, presumably after the site was abandoned by mano In that siluation sorne of the propertif'!s of the bone probably derived frOI1l Ihe bulchering activities of humans and sorne {rom tbe scavenging 8clivities of Ihe animals. lf we recognize that bones may be differenlially acfed upon by men in various contexts, and thal the same acts con· ducled in different conlexts may be carried out in different ways, the "interpretative" picture becomes even more unclear. EtRR98n:1. eh8iel' .,._h (l.. R. Binford 1978b; Yellen 1977a) thal provided new information on butchering practices general!y also included informalion on mOre Ihan just butchering. Indeed Ihe studies also included deseriplions of "animal pro· cessing" such thal the life histories of bones EUld their accumulation of properties were empirically i1. lustrated. This knowledge has not yet prompled research leading fo eefinemenl of methods for analyzing faunal remains relative lo butchering practices,
~ :~
¡
r,
)
ni '1.-'
r 90 Befare dtscussmg the potenüel of such reseerch as 1 see it, il ts necessary lo revtew studíes aímed al understanding properñes cf bones deríved from rnerrow cracking sud other p-ocessíng steps such as bone greese manufacture, bone ¡uice productíon. and ~~rend~i!1--8 oí bone ínto dir~tlx con..§umable formo I haya already mentioned the replicatíve expen-
4. Human Morles of Bone Modificalion
ege- As will be pointed out in the various parta of
thís chapter treattng different bone-modifying actions. these properues have generallv been viewed monoceusallv, We need methods for discriminating dtñerent bone-modifying situations one from enotber. many sucb situatrons may well be reflected morphologically in a single bone assemblage.
menta by Dart and Kitchíng (Dart 1959) as they relate
to the "proof" of argumenta in favor oC a distinctive . mode cf human bone breekage, the ceeck-end-twíst method. lt is hard lo believe that there eppeer to haya heen no ethnographic accounts of bone breakage by man available to reseerchers al that time. To rny jnowledge, Ihe first epeciñc study aimed al understanding marrow-bone breakage was the study mentioned earlier by Zíerhut (1967) and participeted in by Bonnich~en (1973). In terro' of published eccounts the work oí loho Yellen [1977a) among the Dobe !Kung provided anothar eccount of bone breakege, but no deteiled descriptive informetion regarding the morphology of the derivative fragments. Little analytical attention was given to discríminating fragments produced during different processing phases of !Kung bone use. My own re,earchers among the Nunamiut (t978b) presented sorne de'criptions of marrow-bone breakage but 1 did not appreciate al the time the naed to obtain conbollad samples for purposes of recognizing properties that derived from one phase of bone use snd breakage versus another. 1 was interested in assemblage composilion snd the differenlial use and survivorship of hone elements in differenl contexts where bones were used and manipulated. That is, 1 viewed my research tesk as Ihe identification of the functíon of a site from the overall configuration of liD assemblage. II WlJS nol until laler that I began lo worry about morphological properties of broken bone as clues ID specific behaviors. One experimenlal study (Sadek-Kooros 1972, 1975), one replicalive exercise (Bonnichsen 1979), and two patlern-recognition studies of erchaeologicel bone (Lyrnan 1978; Noe_Nygaard 1977) basically complete Ihe Iist of research available lo the studenl of patterned bone breakage. What emerges from this brief survey is thal with the exception oí research on "butchering practices" there has in Eacl beeo very Hule argument regarding the meaRing to be atteched to pallerns ofbone break-
The Control Data The new material s lo be presented in this chapler suffer from having not been collected with the specific questiolls addressed in this chapter in mind. With only minor exceptions lhe ethnoarchaeological observations were all made belween 1969 and 1972 while I was carrying out fieldwork among the Nunamiut Eskimo. As part of lhe Nunamiut study much lime was invesled in observing butchering and lhe dismem· berment of caribou and moose especially but mountain sheep and bear as well. In all, the hones remaining on the sites of over 400 butchering episodes were recorded. Detailed step-by-step observations of butchering procedures were made on 37 separateacts ofbutchering animals conducled by the Nunamiut Eskimo. I personally field butchered 13 animals under Eskimo supervision using differenl tools and strategies so I could leam the problems associated with different taclics. Much of this work has been presenled (L. R. Binford 1978b) and will only be discussed here in relation to animal behevior' or in the contexl of illustraling variable petterns of bone breakage associaled with different butchering lacHes. ~iIl make use of several well-documented Eskimo bone assemblages to ilIustrate relative frequendes of cut marks, and as comparative dala relative to animal-produced assemblages. AIl these assemblages have been previou!lly described and reported and Ihe reader will be referred to the appro· priate pages in my earlier book for the behavioral documentalion. Importanl lo my Eskimo research was a knowledge of the techniques and procedures used in breakiog marrow bones and processing bone for other
__ _ --I!f;-'
Dlsmembenng Slrulell.~' purposes. sucb as rendertng bone grease. At the time the observations were made from which data will be drewn. [ was not thinkíng of the marrow cracking in terms of comparisons wilh bones broken by animals nor was 1 rhtnktng in terms of animals otber than canbou. which was the terget specíes of my research among the Nunamiut. That ts. I was trying 10 generalize about cerfbou, not aboul the variety of animals relevant to interpreting the remaíns al Dld Crow Flals or Olduvet Corge or other interesting Pleretocene sites. My marrow-cracking investigations were designed to provide a baseline for evaluating whelher or no! arttculetor ends from caribou long bones had buen either destroyed or removed from sites. I was concl."rned with establishing an estímate for the expecled number of splinters and chips produced by bone-breaking Eskimos per long-bone articulator end. Thus a series of marrowcracking evenls were conducted during which en Eskimo woman and aman broke a series of long bones using lhe repertoire of techniques normally employed by the Nunamiut. The aim was to establish sorne estimate of the differences between splinter to arliculator end ratios for different bones of the caribou anatomy. AH splintcrs, chips, and articulator ends were saved and catalogued from two such controlled situalions. In four other available samples aH lhe breaks were produced during marrow processing. but I do not know the exact anatomical composítion of Ihe populalion ol bones broken. What is lackiog in alJ these samples is control over the actual breaking tactics and tlJe resulting bone splinters. 1 was asking population questions regarding the properties of aggregale assemblages in my fieldwork. Whal we would Iike to know is the characler of aoy diagnostic morphologicaJ properties referable to different methods of bone breakage. Unfortunately, we do nol know Ihese Ihings.
Dismembering Sfralegy Man using tools is capable of actually taking an animal apart lo suit his purposes. That is. he is not dependent on the nalural slrengths of the articulaliaos and the amounts of connective tissue lo sepa·
91 rete parts Ihat then may be differenliaJly used or consumed, as in Ihe case with predetor-scavengers. This is not to say that the amounts of muscIe and the character of connecttve tissue do not condition men's selectíon of perts or the tacttcs he used Icr dismemberment: they most certainly do. The point ts thet the particular anatomicel sets that man manipulates are conditioned by how he dismembers a carcase. which in tum is condtttoned by its intended use. Several workers have recorded the way dlfferent efhnic groups perttuon the anatomy oí animals, particularly ungulates. Diane Gifford (1977) recorded the bas¡c units nf the anatomy into which four separate African groups partitioned Ihe anatorny and 1 have recorded actual hutchering data for the Navajo and the Nunamiut Eskimo (L. R. Binford 1978b; L. R. Binford and J. B. Bertram 1977) lohn Vallen (1977a, 1977b) has observed butchering and hence the characler of segments generated by Bushmen. Figure 4.U1 compares the ways in which these groups partition the anatorny of animals during butchering Several poinls are of interesl; 1. AH groups ideally separate the head from Ihe
neck between lhe occipital condyle and the atlas vertebra. 2. AH groups except Ihe Navajo separate the nack from the remainder of the vertabrae 3. AH groups separate the front leg from the axial skelelon. Those that furlher parlition the front leg into upper and lower segments generaJly disarticulate between Ihe carpals and the distal radio-cubitus. 4. Al! groups separate tbe rear leg from the verlebrae: however, there is considerable variability in the degree to which half Ihe pelvis is left attached to the rear leg as opposed to the axial skeleton. In all lhe ethnographic cases recorded where either axes. adzes, Of large c1eaver-lype knives were used in bulchering, the pelvis anrlJor sacrum were bUlchered off with lhe rear leg. Where small knives were used, the pelvis andlor sacrum were butchered off with the lumbar vertebrae or as a separale lInit distind from the rear leg. 5. Al! groups generally treat the spinal column wilh ribs and brisket distinct from the other
~ ~I ~I ~
<w~1 <,
~ ..
.~
~
lfo ltl)~ f
1, I
I í
I1 .1
1¡
•
.JS:"" •
92
4. Human Modes of Bone Modifjcalion
"'!CAMBA
""'ASAI
I
CAPIlIN[ IOASSANnCH
KALlNJMO
I
aDVINE QA$SAN(TCHI
NAVAJO
NUNAMIUT
SI
Djsmembering Strategy
93
nenls such as house. meat rack. end dump; onIy site totals were utílteed. Tbtrty-one variables represento ing the anatomical parts ltsted in Table 4.01 were used in the anelysie. Values used were percentages of maximum MNI, or the ratio of the variable tabu-
Ieted in MNIs dívtded by the maximum MNls observad for 80Y variable in each assemblage. This procedure ensured that there would be no variance contnbuted to the malrix by differences in popuJalion size among the cases. A BMD factor enalvtíc program
TARLE 4.01
CERVICAL VEliT
Factor Loadin,s for AnoJy&fs o/ Nunamiut FounaJ Assembla,es
FIles Factcrs
SlERNU.. fHOl'IACIC VERlo
Anatomical part
1
2
3
-.13 -,12 -.39 D9 .2'
02 -.03 -.04 -.40 -.26
-.11
•
","[A LUMBAR VEIH
LOWEIl LUMBAR VERT. SAtF!UM
PELVIS FEIlIIUR
TIBIA TARSALS METATARSALS
"HAUNGES SCAPULA
HUMERUS RADIO_ CUBITUS CARPALS METACARP.llS PHAlANGES
FIGURE 4.01. Dismemberment pror:rJretl by vorious elhnlc groups durlng butcherillll.
majar poruons of the anatorny, but there is considerable variability in the way the thorex and spine section is butchered clown into smeller uníts. Most. bu! not all, butcher the rihs end sternum off as independent untts. Sorne of the vartabtlíty tlluetreted in Figure 4.01
is ltkely to be relatad to degrees of cognitiva speclficity-that ís. the leve! of díscrtmínetíon et which ínforments perceíved that the question was directed. In the case of observed butchering, there ís a kínd of normative "Ievellng." in that under sorne condítíone the Nunamiut and the Navajo díscrímínated down to elements even ñner than those indio catad for the Kalinjmo. Taking this problem into consideralion, there is a fair degree of corre·
spondence among the ethnic groups in the elements intc which the anatomy is partitioned. Although provocatíve. these data are either normativa or besed on informant information and as such are suspect as gutdes to actual variobility that might be generated under specific condmons. To obtain a cleerer pícture of the elements of the anatomy that might be expected to be treated as units and as such perhaps to have tndependent histories under conditions of human uttltaatíon, a factor enalysts W8S carríed out on 64 unedited assemblages of anatomical parts col1ected among the Nunamiut Eskimo. These were basically all the assembleges reportad in Binford {l978bj minus dog yards. When 1 sav the assernblages are unedtted. thls rneans that assemblages were nol broken down into subcompo·
1 AntIer 2 Skullimaxilla :> Mandtble o( Atlas/axis vertebree S Cervical vertebras 5 Thoracic vertebras 7 Lumbar vertebsee 8 Sacrum 9 Pelvis 10 Sternum 11 Ribs 12 Scapula 13 Proximal humerus 14 DIst81 humerus 15 Proximal radte-enbttus 15 Distal redlo-cubítus 17 Carpals 18 Proximal rnetacarpels 19 Distal metacarpals 20 Proxlmel fémur 21 Distal Iemur 22 Prolllrnal tibia 23 Distal tibi81 24 Tarsal! 25 Astragalus 26 Celceneos 27 Proximal metetersat 28 Distal metateraal 29 First phalanga 30 Seconrl phalange 31 Third phalange
.Q1
.09 -.02
-.19
.07
.22
-.16 .00 -,03
30
-BS
-.42 -.51 D5 09 02 05 21 .10
.94
.Q1
.07
-.05 .02 -.12 .05 .31 -.21 -.31
19 06 .15 -,28 -.08
.13
.11
.03 -.04 -.16 -.18
.08 33 .08 .14 .24 .8' .83 .78 .'9 .15 .39 .29 .50 .3' .08 .05 .08
.87 .85 .63 .28
.44
.11
.41
.18 .37 .05
-.14 -.22 .00 .01
.81
•••
.72 .39 .35
-.07 .12
.07 .0' -.21 .09 -.26 -.20 -.17 -.15 -.13 -,12 -.06
-.oa
.41
-.19 - .02 -.12 -.22 -.09
.73
.12
.03
-.07
-.01
-.10
.07 .0'
.08
.24 .22 17 21
-.02 .12
-.00 .10
.16 .17 -.10 .42 23 25
-.oa
11 .41 .89 .94
-.05 -.04 -.05 .01
.90
-.08 -.10 .38 -.40 -.36 .05 -.02 .02 .30 -.32 -.10 .30 -.05 -.01 -.09 -.30 .08 -.66 -.60
-., -.63
.91
BS
e
5
.14
-.11
.05 -.06 -.01 .53 .17
.13 -.04 .02 19 .21
.14
-,04 .09 -.07 -.01 -.01
-.14 -.12 .09 -.03
-.17
.23 .0' -.11 -.27 -.15 .01 .02 .23 -.03 .19 06 -.19 .21
--.03 -.14 .2' .52
.05 .04 -.12 -.08 -.12 -.36 -.41 -.56 -.75 -.51 -.63 -.06 -,09 -.11
1
I I
I
Cornmunality
825 Thorax and
splne
82.7
746
Upper
Upper
reer leg
front leg
66.7
and
'00'
652 Head and
podials
"OCk
88.9
end
8" Tersels and
upper
metatllrsal
Metacarpal neck
NOTE:
Factor dillMnostics shuwn in itali!.;.
Ir
~
.4' 4. Human Modes of Bone Modifiootion
94
lb
was employed using orthogonal rotatton option. The results as indicated by factor lcadíngs are summarizad in Table 4.0l. There is a seven-factor solution with a cleer eigenvalue "jump" between the seventh factor (eigenvalue 1.56) sud the next factor (eigenvalue 0.97). The cumulative percentage of variance BCcounted for by the seven Iectors is 75.2%. The commualities for each factor are given in Table 4.01. This solutlon appeers very clean and ís technically a robust pattem-recognttíon etetement. This solution is provocativa sud rnost informativa, given what is known ebout Nunamiut treatment of animals. OC even greater ínterest are the differencee between the anetomtcal segments Ihal beI~ I.J haya independently in the Nunamiut data and the ~/ natural diearticulation sequence (see Tsble 3.011
i/ ..,
Dismembeting Stmtegy
95
documented by Hill (1975). Of particular interest is Ihe fact that the thorex and vertebrae group behave logelher (factor 1) with the exceptton of the cervical vertebme. The letter are demonstreted lo intégrate wilh tbe skull and mandible (factor 5). This pattern of covanatlcn ls most unlikely among assemblages where "neturel" processes of disarticulation domtnete. Reference lo Table 3.01 illustrates that the cranium with alias vertebra is disarticulated from the remaínder of Ihe neck quite early (step 6) in the sequence of decreestng organizalion, and the neck separares Irom Ihe thorect¡c vertebras al ebout the same time Ihe ribs begin lo seperete tstep 16). This means Ihal under natural condínons elernents IhRI disarficulate al aboul tbe seme time are mosl apl lo end up essocíeted end such a paltern ís in strong contrest with that noled in the Nunamiut dala. Other
FIGURE 4.03. Johnny Rulland holding strlpped unít: IOnJals and 1001,
fiGURE 4.02. Johnny Rulland .dripp;ng lendon bundle Imm me,apodial.
interesting petterns of organized or parallel "determinance" are the grouping of phalanges with Ihe carpals end tarsals (factor 4). This pettern derives from charactertstícs of Nunamiut processíng of bones for marrnw (see L. R. Binford 1978b:148j. The foot ís removed by servering the altachmenls on the dorsal fece of the metapodial between the articuletlon of its distal end with the phalanges. The Ioot ís then held in one hand end tha distal end of Ihe melapodial te g¡:lfSpé'd)in the other. The sheath of tendons nmntng in ff{e ventral channel of the cannon bone is strtpped up to Ihe proxp~~L-ena uf Ihe hone. Cuts are then made between Ih~e;lfiJ~nd Ihe bone. resulting in Ihe removal of the c~ or tar· sals aHached lo Ihe ten don sheath, which in luro is atlflched lo Ihe phalanges. The enfire unil is Ihen disposed of. (See Figures 4.02 and 4.lJ3.) Finally, the
independent dístrtbutíons of the metatersels and the metacarpals 8S well as Iheir independence from Ihe upper leg segments of both the rear and forelimbs clearly reflectthe independenl processing of marrow as opposed lo meet. and the differential quality of front versus rear quarter "marrow" durtng periods of poor nulrilion among the cenbou. 1 do nol offer the Nunamiut data as an example of human palterning only lo tllustrete Ihat human use of anatomical elemente is apt lo heve certain redundant pettems. to evidence sorne spectalízed usege. as in the differences between marrow- and meal· yielding parts. and to be segmentally grouped in lerms ofuse consideralion. The conlrasl must he kept in mind wilh processes of"natural" dismemberment as documenled by Hill {1976:151). In the contrasts rest diagnostk criteria.
4t.~
..
C4iIl1 4. Human Modes of Bone Modificafion
98
XLVII,
xivru. LJ.
Cut Saw, and Chop Marks from Nunamiul Eskimo Sites L h-.-.......d the .fMmM-'m*rials
TABLE 4.02
Djlllribulion o/ CUI Marks Oll Bones in Five Nunomlul Assembloges"-" Kakinye cartbou --_._--Anatomical part
MNE
MKU
%'
(1(
('1
(31
Kakinya sheep
Rulland caríbou
AntIer" FIGURE 4.04. Cut morlcs observed on block beor ot 'he Eschelman .lite. (Repi'Oduced with permJuion from GujJ· doy et al., 1962.)
Skull Mandible
(4)
(5)
%. (6)
(71
(8)
%' (9)
O
,00
3
2
O 1
.00 .5U
6 14
1
1.00
O
O
.(JO
7
O 1
.00
O
O
.00
3
.20
O
o
.00
6
O
.00
.oo
1 O
1
.50
2 O 1
.50 00 00
33
O
00 .00 .00
1 3 4
o
00 ..13
31 18
3
.75
26
.50
8
2
.25
22
00 00 00 .00
5
1
8 O 1
O O O
20 .00 .00
13 15 7 7
64 40 .43
o
00
O
O
O 6 ::1
00 ,46
1 1
.23
2
O O 1
2
.18
1
08
2 10
Lumbar vertebras
5
Pelvis Ríbs Stemum
7
Scapula
4 8 13 13 11 12
5 4
o
1
1
00 .25
(J
1
O
18
1
.00
2
Distal humeros
Carpals Proximal metacarpal
muscle slripping, primarily wilh bone choppers, was a basic dismemberment slrategy. I have made pr;mary observations on two seis of faunal data for {he purpose of isolaring and tabulat· ing cut marks or butchering traces on bone. The earIiesl observations were made in 1968 on !he fauna from the Mouslerian levels at the rockshelter of Combe Grenal excavatecl by F. Bordes and located in Ihe Dordogne Valley of soulh central France. The faunRI material flOm this site represenls the behavior of Neanderlhal man between roughly 90,OUO and -10,000 years ago. The second set of observations was
o O 2
14
Distal metecarpal Proximal femur Distal femur
Proximal libia Distallihia Tarsals Astragalus Calcaneus Proximal metatarsal
Dis1al ml'!talarsal First phalange Second phalange Third phalanRe
O O
O
1
00 .06 .3J .4.1
20
6
3(1
2
O O
14
7
SU
3
1
12 21
1 2
.06 .10
5 15
O
.00 00 33 .00
1
.07
El
1 5 ::1 O O
10 10 9
4
6
O
.[JO
3
O
O
,40 00
4
.00
4
.11
4
R
.13
3
3 2
1
42 35
1 O O
.00 .00
O O
.Ofi
1
O O
O
8 8 6
.00
31
.00 .00 .00
6 6 3
.50 .00
O O O O
.00
00
O O
O
uu
(12)
(13)
[14/ (151
,------------
.00
3
14
(10)
1,00 :13
Axis Cervical vertebras Thoracic vertebran
.14
MNF. MKD %' MNE MKD %.
o
2 O 2 9 2 ::1
Bear sile sheep ,-------
MNE MKD
3
O 3 6 1 1 5 O O 2
2
.00 1 (JO .33 .67 .00
3
Proximal redrocubitus Distal radío-cobttus
FIGURE 4.05, Cut marlu observed on whiteloil deer al ,he EscheJmon sife. fReproduced with perndssion /mm Guildoy el al.. 1962,/
O 4.5
Atlas
Proximal humeros
1962:631."
1
4.5 6
Bear site cartbcu
-----_._-
MNE MKO
------.---
In North America, the Iírst systematic study of butcheríng marks thet 1heve been able lo loeate was done by Guilday et 01. (1962) on Iaunal remains from an Early Historie stte from Pennsyívente (the Eschelman site]. This study provídes sorne guidelines Ior Investigating butchering marks: "To qualify as a butchertng merk two cnterta were applied: fl} repetition in spectmen after specímen al precisely the same locatton on the bone: (2) thal there was sorne analomically dictaled reason why a particular rnark should occur at any given spot IGuilday et al. Severet Quite useful conventtons o( presentation and descrtptton were íntroduced in Guilday el al. (1962). For tnstance. the use of skeletal silhoueltes as a graphic wey of presenting data 00 bulchering marks is notable. These aulhars were feirly syslema. tic in presentiog quentitative dala from theír observatioos on lhe American black. bear. Fairly complete quantitalive data were given (ar whitetailed deer and pnn:tically none were glven (or elk. Figures 4.04 and 4.05 are reproduced rrom Ihis seminal sludy and íl· lustrate the anatomical "hot spols" where butcher· ing marks were systematically observed. Considerable allention has been given lo traces oí butchering by Georga Frisan (see Frison 1970). Most of Frison's work has been with Ihe remains ofbison al kili sites and hence should reflecl Ihe aclivities oí primary butcheting and processíng for Iransport. Fri!;on pioncered Ihe study of bone brellkage as ti clue to butchering hehavior and has argued that
97
made in Alburquerque on ñve assembleges of bone collected in Alaska from behaviorally documentad Nunamiul Esklmo sites. I will describe the lalter observatíons Iirst , since I consider them lo he the most behaviorally documented of the descrtpttve material eveüable.
Butchering Marks When man butchers 3D animal, he leaves traces of bte cutttng and chopping aetivities. Few recera studies hsve heen made of Ihese traces, although such marks were B subíect oí early Dld World studtes. In a study seemtnglv "befare i1s lime," Henri MBrtin (1907-1910) considerad in detail traces oí skinnlng. evteceeatton, díserttculatíon. end ñllettng. as well as the fracture and burníng oí bones. He íllustratad nicely the traces made by stone 1001s 00 the fauna from the famous Mouetenan site of La Quina. These photographe remain sorne oí the best pub. lished exarnples cf cut marks made by stone tools. {Sea, Ior Instanca, Martin 1907-1910: Figures XLIV,
Hutchertng Mnrks
00 .00 .00
.00
.00 .00
14 12
21 744 21 24 2fi 22 31 25 43 11 10 10
1 33 6 1_00 5 3 O 1 24
.36 .43 .00 .17 .73
4 11 6 2 9 2 ::1
o 4.5
.00 1.00
J
.33
4
.80
8 5 3 5 13 O 6
O
.00
O
.[JO
.00 .22 .42 .27
.10
fi.43 5 .42
o
2 4.5
.12
.to
3 10
.13 .12 ,45
9 1
6
46
O
.00
3
.50
3 6 7 5
3 1 2 1
1.00 .17 .29 .20
7 28 10 12
1 2
.14 05
1
.tn
O
.00 .00
U J
O 1
.33
.19 04
2 4
.50 .25
2
fi5
13
2
.18
7
1 1 O O
20
O 1 5
.00 10 .25
7 8 8
toO 95
O O
.00
36
77
O
.00 .00
33 32
.00
.00 .00 1 13 000 O .00 O .00 O .00 O
'MN'[ ~ m;nlmal nllmher of elaman!1 in each anlltomj~al calagory: MKO = numb!l1' mllTkedby cut marh 'Valullll far pelvis, lK:apuJe.an<1 varlebraa mal' well be deOalad. aince there weS much dog gnllwing on thMe parla. whieh deslroytl<1 anatomi· ca! p'opertias and eould have obscure<1b"tcherillll ml.ks. cValuas were ilalidud if over 20% uf Ih.. elemento examinad ahowad butchllrlnll marks 'Elements w..r.. ollty Hate<1 when base of Intl ... was stillaU..r.hllrllo skulf
,;
cuw-~<w.,
4. Human Mode-s af Horre Modificalion
98 ell the essembleges 1 heve evaüeble for sludy bul they are all Ihal haya been studíed in detall under good lighls and laboratory conditions. Table 4.02 summanzes Ihe obeervettons on butchenng traces from the five populations observad. Thía surnmary treats-only the frequency-ef such marks, regardless of-form.oo difierenl elemente of.the enetomv. The infcrmatiun provídes a clue lo where lo lo'ok for butchering merks, and aleo tndícatee the ateas of tbe anatorny that were mcst cornmonly alterad or preserve traces of butchering activity. Italicized percenteges highlight such anatomlcal ereas (values were italicized if over 20% of Ihe elements examined showed butchering marks]. Two factors are of ínterest here. First, there are some'~(Úscrepancies between ihe butchering mark distribution end the descriptions of butchering that 1 reponed in sorne detall. (L. R. Binford 1978b:48-6IJ. In none of the field-butchering demonstrattons did 1 observe arry cutting or dísmemberment of the skull, yet in these essembleges oH the skulls show sorne evidence of havíng been butchered tnto subunits. Since the essembleges are all from residentiol sttes. thís further processing of the skull must have taken place during preperation for consumptíon. Thís same condttíon is true for the pelvis. In the fieldbutchering eplsodes 1observed. the pelvis was never reduced to subelements, bul in all five assemblages 40-50% of pelves showed evidence ofbeing reduced to subelements. The actual percentage is probably larger, since most pelvic pans ended up in dog yards on these sites and hence suffered cons.iderable gnawing damage. which may well obscure butchering marks. The secoRd item of interest is tha presence of longitudinal cut marks in the super- snd infraspinous fosaae of aIl sheep scapulae from the 8ear site (Table 4.02 and Figure 4.06). It seemed c1ear to me that these marks derived Crorofilleting the meat from the scapJlla, an activity nonnally associated with drying meal. (Sea the fillets hanging on the drying rack in L. R. Binford [1978b:101, Figure 3.9j.) 1 then examined sorne of the scapulae from spring sites, such as Tulugak Late Site 2A (Binford 1978b:2D5-213l, where I knew drying was taking place, and found that 83% of the scapulae remaining with blades exhibited such marks, lending strong support to the relationship suggested between this Iype of cul mark and the dryinR of meaL
Butchering Marks
99
the síte contenta, since during 13 years of excavaticn Bordes fol1owed traditional prccedures relativa to the colleclion of fauna! materials, instructing his crew lo save only teeth. articulator ends. and ~ges in the beliefthat rtbs.Iong-bone spl intera. vertebrae. srnal l fragmente of skult. scapula blades. and pelvíc parta other than the acelabulurn were not suítable for spectes identification. In sorne cases, 1
heve listad vertebras or ribs but the absolute MNE should not be treeted seriously only the percentega modtñcattons. Summary data on butcberlng marks are gtven in Tabla 4.03. For additional comparativa data see Parmalee (1965:25). There is clearly a~l{lr pattern to the dim.ibu. !L0n and frequencyof cut marks on bones at the.&.i.llL Zf Combe Gr_enal. For Ihe Ihree specles examined
TABLE 4.03
'1 ",'
..
\
~\
~ ,-.: ~
'L 1
:'
~.l
\l
/'
/
C",;'o;"
~lt 1;
I
.::::-:. ,~
~i:§
.
Analomical par!
_.
Maxilla MlIndible
\
_.,
',7 ,.' -
EQuus cobolhr~ (horse)
Iaurochs]
__
-
;)' ':
Bo~ primigenius
/
~I~'
f.:f' ."Jl1.1 I~"
Dislribution 01 Butcherins Murks on Bones Imm 'he Mousterion Site DICombe Grenul"
./,' -; 1.·
Righl FIGURE 4.06, Morks typically proolu:ed durinS the re-
moval 01 lDeot lralD the scopula,
This observation moves uso in the direction of discussing the actual (orm and placement of cut marks. a subject 1 wish lo delay further discussion of unti! . data have b een presenled . addilional comparatlve
Marks on Stone Tool Bufchered Animals from Combe Grenal The Nunamiut qs,emblages rfWl~t. animals dismembered withmetaLlooJs.. It is quite reasonable to s~specl Ihat butchering strategies woulcl be responsive to the charac!eristics of the lools available d PI . ,. 'ded for use. A goo elslocene companson IS provl by the fauna from Combe Grena!. The MNEs reported should not be taken as an unbiased representalion of
(1]
MNE
----
Scapula Proximal humeru s Distal humerus Proximal radio·cubitus Distal radio-cubitus Carp..ls Pro~imal melacarpal Di51al metacarpal Pro~imal femur Distal femur P~Oxim~l.'ibia
Dlslal lIbIa Tarsals A slragalus r..¡¡!cfmeus Proximal metatarsal Di~lal m61atarsal Firsl phalange Second phalange Third phalange Total
(relndeer¡
(2)
{3}
(4)
(5)
(6)
MKD
%"
MNE
MKD
%"
3
100
2 7
5
O 86
-
3
AlI.. Axi5 lnncminate Rib~
Rongiferlatundus
2 1 4 lO 10 3
1 2
10 20
(7)
(6)
{9)
.
MNE MKD %" - - - - - - _ . ..-._---
__
4 Z7
_1 Z3
2Z
2 4
+
50
10 4 6 4 7 11 2
7 61
3 6
43 10
44
4
9
1 25 39 25
3 3 1
12
2
33
1
14
3
27
85
8 4
3
Z
76
O
O
1
4
30
O
O
O
6
Z 3 2
17
3
43
3
7
18
27
1
6
11
14 9 59 3
9
1 2
2 4
4 2
7 7 5
9
1
6
43 34
3
2 2
6
1
13
17
12
J 12
6 4
1 68
6
9
147
40 48 46 93 90 23 931
63
"MNE = míoimal, numbar of alem..nts in Nch anatornical calagory notconverted la MNls: MKD = numbar marked by cul marks. "'alues wera ,Iahc'l'erl if o"er zn".. or tha",lem..nts!!xaminad shnwP.
,é:.'
100
•
"t.J<"'~
~ ~t'
" ".~'7 <. ' ...
J
".,
,T_.".-
101
Humcn Modes oj • • " . . .
I
.~,'
FIGURE 4.07. Morb by srone íools 00 tire tace of reinde"" mondlbJe. fFrum the Mousterlan site uf Abrí Van/re:;'. excavoled by}. P. HigQud.}
(80S primigenius, Equus cobnllus, end Rongifer rorundus). the par! most cornmonly yielding cul marks is the mandibie. Marks O" ¡he IDllndible tend to be slígbtly obltque incised merks on the inside of the ruendible generally opposíte the M2 tootb [see Figure 4.07). The marks are believed to originale from the undersíde of the mandíble and lo be related lo the severtng of the mylohyoid muscle during the removal of Ihe tengue. Figure 4,08 iIIustrates a Nunamiut butcher going in underneath the mandíble and removing the tengue of a male certbou prior to the removal of the mandible from the skull. The next most common cut mark is around the lip of the ecetabulum (Figure 4.22). Marks enctrclmg the acetabulum are presumahly made éunng the cutting of the iliofemoral and tscbtofemoral ligaments, which tend lo encase the coxal articulation. A minar type of cut mark. observed is al rtght angles to the lip of (he acetabulum and is believed to bave resulted from the ínserttcn of the cutting instrument into the acetabuJum to cut the ligamenl of the fomoral head afler the coxal articulation ts díslocated. Anotner type of cut mark was conststentlv observed on the distal humeros and on Ihe proximal radio-cubilus
.. ,
~~
"1
1••• 010
/
I I
I I
¡
.. , ....
I /
/
! i
I
••"'{ I
/
I
/
/
/ /
I
/
I
/
I I
I
1 1
10
·.n1l
/
I
~
I 1
. - _ ..... ,
,/
.!.c/T .~ /·.....c
.1lH\
\
. .. . .. .. .. .. " . . u
D CIIl.DT
I
01OC1 .....,
• D' IOH
.T
D'
a[A~
...
SITE -CA~IBOU
TABLE402.COL'~
FIGURE 4.09 Re'aUolIship betweell frequendes 01 cUI marks 011 brmes Imm Ihe MOllsteriarf sitf! uf Combe Gre· nol ond lho'
Masko.
FIGURE 4.10. Murks of stone tO(lls 011 base 01 reindeP-r Qlltler. (Fmm Ihe MOllsterian site of Combe Grellal, excovoled by F. Bordt'Ii.}
{Figure 4.31). This was a trensverse cut mark acrees the lower part of the coronoid foesa and the olecranon fossa on the distal humeros. Cul marks were common on the otecranon. generally nmning across the procese. I will not describe all the cut marks observad al Combe Grenal here, stnce the point of presenting the material is simply to demonstrete that there ls enetomtcal c1ustering of merks. Figure 4.09 compares the retndeer from Combe Grenal wilh the caribou from the Bear stte as to the relations between Irequency and plecement of butchering marks. Blemente from Combe Grenal that exhibil high frequencies of marks relative lo the Bear stte material are the mandible, entler bases (Figure 4.10), and thescapula.l have already mentioned the Mousteríen mandibular cuts. As for the cuts around the base of the antlers. it should be poínted out that all the antlers observad in the Mousteriao material were splke antlers ofvery young individuals. Circular cut marks were seen around Ihe base of the antlers in over half of Ihe cases (See Figure 4.11). I have previously noled that such cuts were mosl common on Nunamiut siles occupied by spedal task groups enRaged in fall hunling of young animals for use as wlnler c1olhing. It should also be pointed out Ihat the Nunamiul ski n the head with such eare only
\i 1
U
lPr""
4. Human Modns of Hone Modificolion
102
Butcher-ing Morks
when the skin is destinad for the manufacture of where the .head of the cartbou is used for the lho~d)if the parka In a similar vetn tha very earIy study of cut rnarks by Henri Marlin (1907-1910:229) reports considera. ble numbers of marks described as "ineisions eir_ cu/arie des members." a cut mark encircllng abone that was interpretad as having arisen in Ihe context of skinning animals. This same tvpe of mark has been consistently recogoized by modern workers. The tnterestlng difference ís that from the Mousterian materials reported by Martin most cuts uccurred on phalanges, whereas recent studies of bíson (Frleon 1971; wheat 1979) remeíns and other forms show this to be common 00 metepodíal bones end relalively rare on phalanges. In rny expertence with the Nunamiul, starung lo
Morks ftom skinnln;. 5-4
yark~
lO' skin an animal by making an encircling cut around the metapodiaJ or sornettmes the lower tibia and/or radio-cubitus WIlS almosl always associeted wilh bulchering aclivities al a múltiple kill , where the primary concern was with meat , not skins. On the other hand, when late surnmer-early {all hunts were conducted specifically wilh an eye lo obtaíntng yearling calves or calves oí the year for theír skins, il was 001 uncommon for Ihe butcher to take pains in skinning out the Ioot. ínittattng the ínside leg cul from the hoof. This would heve the effecl oí rendering cut rnarks 00 the phelanges rether than the shafts of lower leg bones. The butchers explained that the lower leg skin served as essential componente in the manufacture of mukluks (skin bootsj and skin socks. The mainlenance of the natural conformation of the skin al the animal's foot was essenñel lo providing
(a)
Mork, from culling off the heod, 5-1
/
/
ji 1:
:
( b) nGURE •. 11. Cul marks observed
011
skulls: (o) PQslerior,ond (bJ ventral
r~. view.~.
FIGURE 4.12. BUlcherins sr:hoof. ímn Willer beins inslructed on how lu dísoríícuiete
I lh~
fool from the melapodial.
I
,
104
.
4. Humen Mcrtes of Bane Modificotion
CutMarks: Their Form nnd Placement on Specific Bones
105
• , ¡:
posterior tace into the lotnt between the articulator surtaces of the two bones end severíng most of the Iígaments connecting the two bones (oblrque end ercuate pcpltteel. anterior and posterior cructate. anterror and posterior meníscofemorel llgaments). This strategy leeves a pair of telltale Iraces: a sel uf semicircular cut merks around the lateral tntercondylar tubercles of the proximal tibia {cut Tp-t . Figure 4.Z6) and cut marks on the medial surface of the lateral condyle of the distal femur. The Iatter marks sometimes exlend partway inlo the íntercondylar fossa {cut Fd-3, Figure 4.25). In a similar way. the dísertículetíon of the íoot from the distal metepcdtel is eccompliehed by the Nunamiut by lnseeting the polnt of a melal ~to the nexed joint. as shown in Figure 4.1TNicis$ on the posterior condylar spines result. Thiftechnique of inserting a knife point into the [olnt is probably inappropriate for stone tools sínce stresses are set up on the flat sides of the blede. Such stressas would render a snep break likely with storte tools but not with metal It is my impression thet with stone tonls Ihe most common stra!egy couples more superficial cuts wtth fhe application of leverage lo dislocate a [oint. as ls tllustreted in Figure 4.13. By ustng a dtslocancn techntque. less scerrtng of the articulalor ends of bones is Iikely. The Hgaments are stretched end exposed. so they may be cut directly. Perhaps this contrast accounts for sorne of Ihe othar inflaled cut mark frequencies on articulalor surfaces of long bones in the Nunamiut malerials. Thus Car, I have been speaking primarily of the distribution of butchering marks on Ihe skeleton: however. Ihe foregoing discussion leads naturally into a discussion of the formal properties of the cul marksand their specific placemenl on bones. Befare taking up this issue.1 should emphasize Ihat a popu1alion of moderale-sized animals butchered by man using stone tools can be expected to yield evidence ofsuch butchering in the form of cut marks, regardless of Ihe Iypes of culting lools used.
the ímplement used lo accomplish the tesk. In both the form end placement ofmarks I hope to document vertabtlíty thet may be reliably referred to known forms of butchenng ectfvtty as wel1 as to known forms of tools. Of course what is desired is the specificalion of díagnosuc characterístícs of cut marks that may serve as the bests for robusl tnferences ebout the charac!er of past acttvtttes and types oC lools.
.....
..'
•
\
-
FIGURE 4.13. Butcherlnll 5chool. Don WJnel' bejn8 Instrucled jn the use olleverag!! as o butchering oid.
the propar shapes fOf use in farmiog lbe instep area of the sock Of boot. Pechaps there is one 8uch similar concern standing behind the time-consuming ac· tions of skinning out tha fool indicated by (he Mousterian cemaios. Other ~ characteristically noted on the Nunamiut bones relatad lo Ihe carnoval of Ihe head &oro Ihe neck. TypicaJly lhere were marks across the ventral sunace of the occipital condyle (see Figure -4.11) as well as related transversa. cut marks aerass Iha ventral surfaee of the anterior wings of the atlas vertebra. 80th marks derive from sevar· ing Iha head from the neck fsee L. R. Binford t978b:354, FiBure 7.11}and are very common on Ihe Nunamiut tnalerials. The frequency among Mousterian maleríals ís unknown since the only parts regularly saved from the skull wen' Ihe maxil·
'
lary dental ares, rendering examinatlon Cor this cut mark impossible. Th8-Moosferian materlitl' sh~~~lr>fr~en· des, of .cut.marks-areumithe' head af,tM HElJRlla. Such IDa,," were-l'a1'8 orab&anl {rom the Nunamiut material, but eoromon on bear bones frQnLthe Eschelman site reported by GuHd8Y el al. (1962: Figure 2). The meaning of Ihis difference is not e1esr lo me. Bones in the Nunamiut material that exhibil higher frequencies relative to Combe Grenal materials are dislal femur, proximal tibia. proximal and distal humerus, proximal radio-cuhitus. and distal metatarsal (See Figures 4.25, 4.26, and 4.32.) Al least sorne of these difference.'l are in my opinion relatad to the use-of melal tools in hutchering. For ínslance, Ihe procedure for disarticulating the femur from !he tibia involvas inserting Ihe poin! nf a knife from !he
Cut Marks: Their Form and Placemenl on Specific Bones The morphological selting and !he form of a cut mark will vary sornewhat wilh Ihe type of work belnR conduded when Ihe marlo: was produced and
ME'! AL VERSUS STONE TOOLS
The faunal materials I colleoted among the Nunamiut Eskimo were from animals butchered with metal tcols. The data I collected from the Moustertan site of Combe Grenal are reCerable to bulchering actlvitíes conducted with stone tools. Unfortunately, al rhe time 1 collected the Mouetenen data I was not very knowledgeable about butchertng and waa not aware of the propertíes of cut marks made with metal tools. Thls meens that a wellinformed and comparebly collected body of data that mighl elucidate díñerences between stone end metal tools ís not available at presento I heve made cerfain observetíons that mey etd in differentialing the two but certainly more reliable entena of recognttton could be develcped if control materials were available (see Walkerand Long 1977). Masl of the cut marks made on bones with melal tools are almost,hiirl1i:ie in size. They afien appear to haYa been cut irttt'llhe bone from Ihe side, or ohliquely.leaving an overlapping small "shelf'" oCbone tha! romains in place. For this reason cut marks produced by metal knives are very hard lo .'lee when one looks direclly down on abone (see Figure 4.14). Of course this visibility varies with Ihe pressure applied and is probably an inverse function of how well honed Ihe knife rnighl be. In addition lo having Ihis diminutive "sliced" look, Ihe marks are generally long, resullíng from cuts running across Iissue for considerable dislances. Cutting with slone tools requires a much less conlinuous aclion, more of a series of short paraUe] ~trokcs. Also. mosl stone tools, particularly ones that are relouched. do nol have straighl or single-plane cutting edges. Marks from stone tools !end to be short. occurring in groups of parallel marks. und lo have a more open cross seclíon. Thev also have a more ragged appearance when viewed from Ih!" topo Cut marks undoubledly
1: I
·VV\/~
J
tJUV.Jl
~
t +
rt.;
t\ ("" ~Ú ~ .}Ii:> ;,,; ~p
,'.:1-
'1-
."
:r\¡'
í
f"
l,"" '"
I~
(1J-;)
l
~,w.)
.. .
,
.,~
:¡; \:. t;':'
I! /""""~_ h..; ~
-,
~
'.~ '.~
r'
...
1"
1.
h
.--..:.)
. .,..,
,..t- ..
~
H'r
ar .,.,.
J»
1
(J·.1l_" ).,""
;>~Of.,.,J't.-'''' ,~,,,
4. Human Modes of aone Modification
108
or storage, which normally involved sttll further dismembermenl, and {d] marrow consumption. It ls true that marrow consumption may accompany skinning and initial dismemberment, butthis is recognizable BS consumption of parts Ihat yield marrow but little else, such as lower Iimb bones. Marrow removal fram meat-yield ing bone norrnally takes place añer the rernoval of meat ter consurnption or storage. This normal sequence implies that cut marks eccumuleted 00 bones will vary with the stage of processíng reeched prior lo abandonmeot of the bones and will vary in dicgnostlc ways regerdtng the plecement of en assemblage in a logisticalconsumption sequencB. Since I am eoncemed with documenting properttes thet may be investigated foc their diagnost¡c valué in seeking a behavioral knowledge of the pasto it ls perhaps useful to describe in generic terms the types of cut marh Ihat can be expeeted from different stages of processing of an animal by mano
Skinning Marks There are actuaUy very few places on Iha anatomy where Ihe manipulalion 01 the skin brings Ihe
Cut Marks: Their Form and Plncement 00 Specijic Bones
butcher in direct conteo with bone. The two places where this te mosl Iikely are the lower legs and the lwu!.. I have already mentioned that cuts derived from skinning actívtttes have been noted enclrcllng the sheñs of lower Itmb bones. Such cuts have been observed on the lower tibia, the shaft of the metatarsal (Figure 4.16J, and the phalanges. Analogous placement has been noted 00 the front leg, the distal segment of Ihe shaft of the redío-cubítus. tha metacarpel, and the phalanges. This encircling cut is generally one of the ñrst to be made and is basically the "point of enlry" for the skinrung of Ihe animal. Subsequent cuts normally originate al such en encircling cut and extend down the medial face of the leg to the body of the animal. Cut marks may result from thts action. The second place where the skin is essentíally stretched over boDe ís on the head. There are severa] places where one might expect cut marks if the head is in fact skinned oul: around Ihe base of the antlers (Figure 4.1 t) or horns, somewhat less commonly around Ihe eaes, and around the moulh. particularly in Ihe "chin" area of Ihe mandibJe. As noted previously. skinning for skins differs &om skinning as a stage of butchering. WheD Ihe
FIGURE 4.14. Chal'Octeristic marks produced by metal
knives Ilsed In blltcherin,l,
'.'"
produced by stone tools are shown in Figure 4.15, whera abone from the Mousterian site of Abri Vaufrey (excavated by J. P. Rigaudl is shown.
:B~
'A
~ ~1 ~\
\.~
Placement of Cut Mllrks Many have recognized that cut marks derive from different stages of processing en animal. Since such slages normal1y resul' in an accumulation of marks. sorne traces of earlier snd more fundamenlal slages of processing remain on Ihe bones as they are sub· jecled 10 more exlensiva processing during Ihe sequence of acHans beginning wilh the procuremenl of theanimal and terminating wilh 'he abandonment of Ihe lasl elemenls of the skelelon. This sequence is almosl ahl.'a}'s {al skinning, (bl dismemberment.l el filleling for either consumplion
j\~\ O-
,i
~
&A :5) "(f " ' h
"
I
Il
.~
C,lm,,'
FICIlIRF. 4.15. Char(u:INj~'ir: m(Jrk~' pr(lfluc¡'d by slane
loob
u.~ed
in bUlcherin".
\ \
't
/MTd-'
.cJ.; Ü\
FIGURE 4.16. Marks indiral¡l-r. af likinning activities.
107 skins are destinad for use in clcthtng manufacture. the animal ís skinned out fairly ccmpletely. resulting in cuts around the phalanges. around the entlers. and on the chin area of the mandíble (sea frisan 1970:11J. These basic marks are índtceted as No. 1 in Figure 4.04 and Nos. 24, 1, and 3 in Figure 4.05. Good ilIustrations of Ihe cut marks in the phalangeal ereas are given by H. Martín {1907-1910}: Platea XLV. No. 1, Plate LIX. Nos. 1. 2, 3,4, and Plate LlX, No. 6 show an enctrclfng cut eround a metepcdial.
Dismemberment Mcrks By fer sorne of the more distindive cut marks derive from the dísmemberment phase of processing an animal by tool-using mano In most cases dísmemberment consisls of disBrticulalion; hence, cut mBrks are associated wilh points of articulation. SKULL
I have observed ooly two Iypes of cut marks that may be exclusively referred lo the dismembennent stage of processing. The most common, as well as the most reliably referable to the dismemberment stage, are marks remaining from the removal of Ihe heBd from the nock aOO from lhe removal of Ihe mandible andior tongue from the skull. Figure 4.11 iJlustrates Ihe characteristic transverse cut marks on Ihe ventral surface of the occipital condyles (S-l). Corresponding transverse cuts occur on Ihe anterior ventral sUrface of the atlas vertebra (Figure 4.20). In sorne cases the head seems to have been removed by Bcting on the articulation between Ihe atlas and axis vertebrae. wilh this stralegy marks may occur on Ihe posterior ventral face of Ihe atlas and on the anterior ventral face of the Bxis.This patlem is well ilIustrated by Frison for antelope (197t:264 Figure 3aa-dd) Bnd is indicated by Henri MBrtin (1907-1910: Plale XLVII. No. 61 for the Mousteriao site of La Quina. In my experience this melhod was employed by Ihe Nunamiul on frozen carcasses or 00 aoimals Ihat had remained in Ihe field focsorne time between Ihe tima of death and the inHial bulchering and had therefore become very stiff. lInder Ihe lalter conditions lhe most mobile joinl is Ihat belween Ihe alias and axis, snd "break·
,.'
4. Human Mcdes of gene Modificatíon
J08
FIGURE 4.17. Caribou duY sbowlng the mus' common method o/ removing the QJIrlers.
Cut Morks: Their Form cnri Plocement un
S~cifir:
Rones
tng the head loase" by pulling it around using the entlers as a lever is sure lo be easíer when the axisatlas [oínt ts penetrated. On occaston. primary butchenng may ¡ndude the removal of the antlers. particularly if tha head is lo be returned to camp and limited rneans of transportation are avetlabte. This task can be rather formidable if ene does not have axes. saws, DI other heavy-duty tools. In the abeence of such 100110 Ihe cranium ls usually broken around the base of the antlers and the antlers are removed. Breaking the skull case is rnuch eester than atlempting lo cut through the antlers. Figure 4.17 illustrates the resulte of thís stretegy. AH the antier bases reccvered from the Mousterlan stte of Combe Grenal exhiblted edheríng segmente of the ekull, índícatíng that thay had been removed this way.The Nunamiut frequently place heeds in caches and segment them into perta appropriate to cooktng on removal from Ihe caches. For fall-killed canbou. (he head is nurmally frozen when ít is butcherad. so the Eskimo use s SItW lo split it ínto two parts. The nose of alarge bull mighl be cut offhefare Ihe head is split snd prepared independentiy and differenlly froroIhe split halves oflhe head. Figure 4.18 shows a bull hesd sawed in half righl down Ihe medial tine from front lo back. Since many heads are secondarily bulchered when frozen, thera is a distinclive mark left on Ihe skull from a particular cut made during Ihe removal of lhe mandible when Ihe entire unit is frozen. Since Ihe head with attachad mandible is complelely stiff, a deep and long cul is made from Ihe insert of Ihe masseler musde along Ihe upper lip area aboye Ihe upper molars direclly baek aeross the ascending ramus ofthe mandible. severing the masseler muscle oompletely. Once Ihis is done the mandible may be manipulaled slightly and Ihe lask of removal is made much easier. Figure 4.19 shows a bull caribou skull with cut-off nose, and Ihe distinctive deep cut aboYe and parallel lo tha upper molars. MANDIBLE
FIGlJRF. 4.18. Coribou dw/l cuf in hal! ond wilh 'hl~ nQSC removed.
There are two seis of cul marks Ihat may Dccur Somewhal independenlly of one enolher. Slrictly speaking, Ihe disarlil:ulalion of the mandible from lhe skull is Ihe anly dismembermenl ae!: however, temoval of Ihe tangue is commanly execuled during
J09
initial butchering retber than during meat dislribution or al the stage of preperatlon of parts Ior consumplion. The Ierger the animal, or the more rtgtd the carcass has become. the more difficult ít ís lo remove the mandíble. Therefore, more cut rnarks are generally assocíeted wilh larger animals or with animals of almosl eny stze that heve not been butchered immedialely after death. For ínstence. tbe moose jaw shown in Figure 4.14 is from the same animal shown during butcheríng in Figure 4.44.1 observed in great detall the removal of tha mandible from thís animal as compared lo analogous removals from caribou. Whal dtstrngulshed the removel of the mcose mandíble was the process of fiJIeling in sttu. The masseter muscle was cleened off the mendfble as well as stripped off tts insertion poínts on the skull. This resultad in cut marks eround the edges of the massetertc fossa and longitudinal cul marks completeJy across the fossa. In conjunction with these cuts was a diagonal cut on the maxiJla just behind Ihe third molar (sea Figure 4.19 and Frisan 1971:264, Figure 3ft). Once the majar muscle had been removed, cuts were made againsl the inferior surface of Ihe mandibular condyle, Than the mandible was mechanically manipuJaled and essantially pried loase from Iha skufl with small cuts of connective tissue accompanying Iha pulling away of the mandible. This seems to be Iha same procedure described by Frisan (1971:265, Figure 3, w-z, ff) fm butchered antelope from lhe Eden-Farson site, Wyoming: "The axtent and depth DE Ihe culs do not appear to have been necessary to cut Ihrough Ihe jaw musclas alane [Frisan 1971:2631." The saemingly "unnecessarily" deep culs, the concenlralion of Ihe cut marks al the axjsalias erticulalion of Ihe neck, and the large-animal strategy of removing the mand¡ble leed me to suspect Ihal primary butchering look place afler rigor mortis was advanced ami/or Ihe animals were partly frozen, When the longue is removed while tha mandibla iR slm aHachad lo tha skull marks are usually innieted on Ihe medial margins of the mandible jusI below Ihe Ihird and fourth premolars. Thesa are generally produced in conjunclion with severing Ihe mylohyoid muscle, which tands to free Ihe lateral margins of the longue so it may be cut free al ils "rool" (see f"igure 4.08).
,~""
4. Humen Mcdes
110
01 ucne Modi/icolion
Cut Morks: Their Form cnd P/ocement on Speci/Jt; Bones
111
Clltmarkt eV-1
Ventral yje'N
FIGURE 4.19, Corlbou skuJl wlllt aese removed ond distlndJve burc1lerlns mork obove Ilte molors.
CERVICAL VERTEBRAE Aside from the cut marks ínñícted during tbe remcval of tbe head from the neck (Figure 4.20), little dismemherment of tbe neck proper is conducted duriog the primary butchering of mosl animals. Sorne marks may be inflicted on tbe sixth cervical vertebra if ibe neck is butchered off from the spinal column {see Henri Martin 1907-1910: Plate XLVI, Nos. 6 and 7]. When frozen carcasses are being butchered, an ax or othar massive tool may be usad resulting in chop marks somatimes al Iha axis ver-
tebra andlor lite sixth cervical vertebre. Most such marks are inflícted during secondery butchering eccompanylng meat distribulion or during food preperetíon.
THORACIC VERTi'.BRAE
There are basically three operations that may result in marks on Ihorade vertebrae (Figure 4.21) during primary butchering: segmenting Ihe vertebrae, filleliog Ihe tenderloio (TV-2). and removing the rib
slabs from the spínal colurnn (TV-5j. Witb rnoderetesized animals the segmenteñon of Ihe venebree normally takes place between the second and third thorectc vertebrae and the thirteentb and fourteenth Ihoradc vertebras (cut 18, Figure 4.05). In most cases this segmentation tekes place eñer tbe removal oí tbe tenderlotn or eye roest. (See L. R. Binford [1979:49 Figure 2.11 for en illustretion of the tenderlotn betng removed.) The strippíng back of Ihe tenderlotn is made possible by long cuts made along the body of Ihe muscle, freeing it from the dorsal spínes (Figure 4.21, TV-2) oí the thoracíc and lumbar vertebree. as wellas from the superior surfeces of the ,ios (Figure 4.05, cut 20) end theír erttculettons with the vertebrae or the transverse processes of Ihe lumbar vertebree. Cut marks resulting from the laller operation are commonly oriented treneversely or slightly obliquely lo the dorsal splnes of the thoracíc vertebree. These transversa cut marks are shown in Figure 4.21, as are a minor set of modifications that resull fram inserfing Ihe knife and innichng marks 00 the dorsal spines between the verlebrae during Ihe segmenlation of the spinal columo. Arlhur Spiess (1979:291) has suggestcd lhaí this method or bulchering is made possible by Ihe use of
Clll marks ev·'Z
FIGURE t.zo, Cu' marks an 'he atlas vel1ebro produ&eri when severing the head from .he IIeck.
metal kníves with long (6-inch) blades. This optnton is besed on an ínccrrect idea of the butcheríng procese. since the roas! is not cut loase from the nb atlachments but Is instead stripped along the sheath of sinew as 1 have illustrated (L. R. Binford 1978b: Figure 2. t l. It is further besed 00 en Incorrect idea of the tools usad by good field butchers. The Eskimo use the terms young men's kmves and old men's knives. Young man's knives are considerad nonfunetíonel for butchering and rether silly, being selected by young boys returníng from boerdlng school who have heen impressad by Euro-American culture in the "lower 48" but know nothing about butchering. These are the long-bleded kntves Spiess imagines in use by the Nunamiut! Given Spíess's opinion it ís rather ironie that the cut marks origtnaung during the course of removing the tenderloin are sorne of the most common merks recorded. I have observed them on thoradc vertebrae from Levels K, L, and 52 at Combe Grenal; Henri Marhn /1907-1910) reports at leasl ooe spedmen from La Quina. They are cited in almost all tha reported assemblages where cnt marks were noted from prehisloric bison hunters' sites on the American Plains [sea Frison 1970:22. Figure 14; Frison et al.
,.
"
. 113
Cut Morks: Their Form and Plccement on Specific Bones
'a
>
-
1976:53: Otlbert 1969:290; Wheat 1979:67, Figure 33g).
~]
E~ ~.!~ 8E~
7¿f:J
-
LUMBAR VERTEBRAE
PELVIS AND SACRUM
In rny expenence. most of the marks that regularly occur on the pelvis or the saerum [Figure 4.22) derive from secondary hutchering C8.ITied out during
D
g ~
'C oo
e "§
~ 11•
'ii
"~
•
~
•
,e
1i •
;;
."
~
~
~ on
~~> U·¡: t-
-s -s• § -e
!· ,
~ o
a
;; U
~
::
::!e
"¡¡:
'"
As prevíously lndícated. marks somettrnes occur along the trensverse processes oc at the base of the dorsal sptnes. These marks derive from Ihe removal of the tendertotn (see Wheat 1979:67, Figure 33h).
RlBS AND STERNUM
There are generally three locetlons for cut rnarks inflicted on Ihe ribs and stemum during primary butchertng. Transversa marks, derived from the cemoval of the tenderlotn. oceur along Ihe dorsal SUffaee of the rib just [o the side of the proximal end of the rib (cut 20 in Figure 4.05). The secand most eommon mark resulte from cuttlng off the distal end of a rfb during tha dismemberment of the stemum frcm the ríbs. The last place where cut marks may occur ts across the ventral surface of the rib, clase 10 the proximal rib head or sometímes across the articulator bead. This cut derives from the removal of a rib sleb from the spinal column. Normelly the rnethod te lo enter the rib cage by severing the distal ends of the ribs from the brtsket. Attachmenls are relatively soft and cartilaginous in cherecter and may be reedtly cut with even a dull instrument. A cut is then made down between the seoond end thírd rfbs. Fcr a detallad descriplion of this butchenng step see L. R. Binford (1978b:53, 54, 95). Next the slab of attachad ribs ís pulled up sberply. generally resultíng in breaking off the rib haads egetnst the vertebree. Once the rtbs are snapped back. the knife is ron along the break severing ttssue along the ventral surface. It ís this acuon that resulte in cberecterísttc transversa or slightly oblique mark.s un the ventral surfaee of ribs very clase lo the proximal erttculator end. Thís ls an andenl technique: Henr¡ Martín [1907 -1910:233, Plate LVm, Nos. 10, 11, 12) descrtbed in detetlthts exact cut en many rtbs recovered from the Mousterian site of La Quina. I observad thís cut on 10% 01' the nb heeds saved at Combe Crenal. Il IStnteresttng that this mark is nol reported frOlTl lhe Norlh American Plains siles.
ss-e
I li,
"."\
..Jtl' ~
il
./
i
I
Venlral vi'w, ri~hlhalf
FIGURE 4.ZZ. Cut marJcs choMclerislk.eJlly prodlJced an the pelvis during dismemberment.
.$r¡¡"'''1lr .. ~1:
.3
'a\
~
q'f]I" •
i
-.,
..Ji!c'
114 meet distribution oe during the processtng of perts far etther storage ur consumption. Marks Inflicted duriog primary butchering are generally concentrated just anterior or posterior of the acetabulum socket on the ventral foce oí the pelvis. These marks are prcduced duriog Ihe removel oí the rear leg from the axial skeleton. The animal ís commonly resung on its back ur slighlly turnad lo one side. The foot oí the butcher te pleced in the crotch oí Ihe animal end the leg ís then pulled and lwisted over egaínst the foot. resulting in the díslocatíon oí the artículation belween the head oí the femur and Iba ball socket oí the pelvis (acetabulum). Once the leg is dislocated. the knife is usad lo cut oblfquely into the flesh from the obvíous fossa between the tissue oí the abdominal wall and the muscles of the leg. The knife Is run nbliquely down and lo the reer. frequently contect-
4. Human Modes of Bone Modificotion
115
Cut Marks: Their Porm ond Placement en Specifk Bones
ing bone, while orientad Iransversely to the ventral surface of the pelvis jusI anterior lo the aeelabulum [the move resulta in cut PS-7, Figure 4.22). An analogous cut commonlv begíns in the rear along Ihe "potnt" produced by the extenston of the isehial tuberosity and runs obliquely down and anteriorally over the "arrn'' of the tschíum. lmpaetíng the bone transversely on the Ischíel body just below the marsin of the aeetabulum (cut PS-8) (See Figure 4.23.) These Iwo initial cuts (Figure 4.24) may then be supplemented by tlssue-severlng euts eround the drsloceted femcral-pelv¡c arttculetton. resulting in enclrcllng marks around Ihe ecetebulum andJor en the heed of the femur, or more eornmonly on the greater trochanter oí the proximal femur. Sometimes the cuts may be made inside the ecetebulum in arder to sever the femoral ligament.
¡'!
FIGURE 4.24. Cur marl(.~ on Ihe pelvis produced while di!imemberinS Ihe rear le, /rom the pelvis.
when tbe secrum ts dtsartículated from the pelvis during primary butchertng (most eommonly done with lerge anirnals], there may be a Irirnming of the lateral margins of Ihe sacrum. resulung in cut marks longnudtnally clown the iliae wings (PS-1 Table 4.04).
FIGURE 4.23. Eskimo bukher removins fhe rear IflR010 curibou rull in 'he monDer fha' lem'es ,hr. mark.~ .'ihawn in Fi,lure 4.24.
There has recently appeared in Ihe Americanisl llterature considerable dtscussíon oí butchering procedums. Ihe mos! influp.ntiai of which is certainly the work ofCeorl'le Frison (1970, 1971, 197E1]. Frison has arKued lar ti musde-slripping procedure, in which choppers are used lo fr¡>c the inseMions of
muscles from Ihe bone: the insertion is used as e handle to pull the body of the muscle from the animal. Little cutttng wíth a knife is ímegtned when this proposed procedure is tollowed. The argumenl hes been very widely accepted (see Agenbroed 1978; johnson 1977, 1978: Wheal 19791 as a documented "fact" of North American Plains Indian behavior. The procedure as descnbed by Frlson Involves the slripping of rouscles from the rear leg and the ehopping off al inserlíons on Ihe pelvis prior lo the disarIiculation al Ihe femur-pelvis articulation. If that was Ihe case. Ihem would be no need to make Ihe
•
118
4. Human Modas of Bone Modification
cuts that, as 1 have indicated, would yield marks PS·7 and PS·8 as well as PS-9, slnce all these marks
derive from severing the muscles 01 tbe rear leg duríng the act of dísertículattng the head of tbe femur from the ecetebulum. In Ihis regerd it ts tnteresttng tha! tbese mares are dccumented al a number of the sttee where muscle stripping is saíd lo have been the dominant method of butchertng (Frison 1970:16, Figure 8a-b; Wheat 1979:66, Figure 32, lateral view]. Frisen comments on the leck oí ertículetton betwecn the pelvis and the femur al the Casper site as follows: Wilh only two excepttone. the h811d of the Iemur
W!lS
nlDl.Oved Irom the acetebulum. This is no! loo rliffkult
wíth the flash stripped awey. The leg need only be glven sharp jerk usjng the hump formed by the chnpped-eff trochanter rnajor as a Iulcrum lo lever the head of the femur from the ecetabulum socket IFrison 1974:411.
1:1
In all faimess, the merke dtscussed prevícusly are not ídenttñed al the Casper síte. Nevenheless. Frison'e modal Foreccounttng for the dtseruculetíons of the femur ts what he had in mind ut the sitos where ¡he marks are present. Needless lo say, 1 coMider Ihese marks (;onc1usive eviclence that muscle stripping as describecl by Frison was nol being condueteJ. I wíll treal in more de/aH lho evidence for musc1e slripping io cliseussions lo follow regarcliog choppiog techniques and breakage patteros.
Cut Morks:Their Form ond PJocemenl
tions. Cenerelly. tbe proximal libia and the distal fémur rometn articulsted after inlttal fip.Jrl butcbering end prior lo meat distribution or the preperetton of meet ter eonsumption. Under sorne spectñc condiuons. where there are euher large body sizes or wbore rnultipie idUs incrl?Bse the bulk of ñeldbutcbered meet that musl be trsnsported. dísarticulation of tbe femoral-ttbíel erttculanon may be accomplished during early butcheríng stages. Tbere are basícslty two general loceucns where cut marks occur on the distal end of the femur. There may be a mark oriented aeross the posterior surface just above the lateral and medial condyles (Figure 4.25dl, A seeond and somewhat more ccmrnon location IS across the trochlea or the peteller surface OJl the anterior face (Figure 4.25e), These merks arise from the ínsertton of a knife behind the patelle with a cut generAlly dtrected downward. so tha( (he patella is removed with the proximal tibia ínsteed of the distal Iemur as ene rntght imagine. Releted to the dísarticulaüon of thts [oínt with metal knives as descnbed earlier, a characteristic mark [Fd-3) is produced on Ihe medial face Df the lateral ecmdyle (Figure 4.25f). This is general1y produced when the poi ni of a metal knife is inserted inro th.e join! and !urned around the intercondylar lubercles of the proximal libia.
on Spedfic Bones
117
Pmximallefl, pOSlerior Yie.
Anterior vie.
(a)
lb)
Pro~imalleft,
TIBIA FEMUR
lo many cases the removal of the rear quarter couplecl wilh the removal of the lower limb is Ihe only Belion teken during primary hulchering. In al! my experieoces with ¡he butchering of animals, even relatively large aoimals, the rear leg Is dislocaled from Ihe hall sockel al Ihe acetabulum prior to the insertion of the knifo and Iha severing of Ihe conOl~c tive tissue between lhe mea! of Ihe t1pper leg and !he musc1e atlachmenls in the pelvic area. It is during Ihe lalter operation Ihat marks may be ioflicled on Ihe neck of the femur (Figure 4.25a, b, cut Fp.l), 00 thf! hall of the femoral he~d (Fp-2), encitcling Ihe margin of lhe femoral head (Fp-3). as weJl as on bolh lrochanlers. Marks on Ihe grealer Irochanlerare more eommon (Fp-5).
Cul marks 00 the dislal eod oE the femur are most often prmluced dUling secondary butchfJring ac-
f\e.."-M":"'~JO \,
'\I.OJA
'\:'.X'l\? (1
",,';;>\('"
')1,
U eL; \
GÍ~
", <,' ,'o ~J$. J~t \
VMe,,!
Circular parallel marks around ¡he intercondvlu tubercles (Figure 4.26dl of the proximal tibia-are produced al lhe same time as the marks on the inler· nal face of lhe distal femur (Fd-3), Thal is, a knife is inserted from the rear of the Hbial-femoral joiot and rotaled around the inlercondylar lubereles (Tp-1), simultaneously producing marks around the tubereles and on Ihe interrlal face of Ihe lateral epicondyle of the fernur (Fd-3). This mark (Tp-Il is shown in Figure 4.26, b snd d.1t is mosl often produced when butehering is done wilh mpta! knives, bul at leas! one example has been reported from a prehislmic North American site, the Jurgens site (Wheal 1979:56). This QCCUrTence can be taken as clear el'i· dence that disarticulation can be accomplished wilh slone lools by inserfing the cutting implement be(wcen the articulalor surfaces uf the tibia ~md femur. The only olher cut mark re¡;:ularly noled on Ihe
I ¡,u ~:''\Qb~'I !l"~ ,,,el
,,{.I ' \ ' ,
0;'101 riQM, M'diOI ~ide
(e)
Oi"ol,iglll, P051erior Yie...
OiSIOI (¡qM,
(d)
(. )
Lolerlll side
,,: ,
j'
Ois/1I1 riQht Yenlrol view (1)
FIGURE 4.l5. Morks pl'Oduced on Ihe ff'mur durins dismemberment.
)
J.
~
fr' Tp-2
Tp-2
CutMarks:Their Form and Placement on Specificsones
J>!oollimal rifiJht, lateral view
ProllimolrifiJhI, onterior view
Prollimol,ioM, mediol vitw
(a'
lb>
le'
Td-l
PrOllimol rifiJht, ventral vie. lO}
Tp-I
.Td-3
Diltollln,
Distal
1,,,,
mldio) vi,.
omlflot vi,.
(o)
10
OIIIOII,n. IotlfOl vi. .
lO)
proximal tibia runa transversely across the posterior margin of both the lateral end medial condyles [Tp2). Thts merk is observed relaüvely rarely and it may be coneídered as an alternativa to the cut thal runs across the condyles or just aboye them 00 Ihe posterior face of the dislal femur {Fd-f , Figure 4.25d}. The distal tibia appears te yield a very redundant pattern of tnfltcted marks regardlees of time period or geographical location. The marks I will describe bave been reported from every faunal assemblage I have consulted, from the Mousterten to the Historie perlad and from Europe as wel1 as the New World. By far, Iha most common mark ís illustraled in Figure 4.26 (e and f, cut Td-3). This mark Is tnñtcted by cutting ecross the anterior face of the distal tibia when the leg Is outstretched or stratght. The resull ís a merk across the anterior fece of tha libia (Td-3) that generally conttnues ecross the faca of the lateral maleolus. final1y intersecting the calcaneus (Figure 4.26, a and b. Tp-t]. If this movement ís somewhet lower, the marks may tntersect the anterior face of the estregalus at essentially midpoint, as shown in Figure 4.27e. In such a silualion the knife may "turn the comer" and mark the medial face of the astragalus (Figure 4.271) al the eeme time rnerkmg the medial side of Ihe distal tuberositv of the libia (figure 4.26e). Rarely there may be ~ prominent mark across the articulator surface ofthe distal tibia on the smooth promineot ridges that caotact the astralagus. This results from a kind of swiping cut as the joint is disarticulaled after the euts just described have been made. The dismemherment of the tibia-tarsa} joiot was one of the aoatomical areas given special attention by Henri Marlin in his seminal study of butchering marks. He supplies delailed descriplions of marks observed io Ihe Mouslerjan fauna as well as accurale reconstructions of the dismemberment procedure (Henri Martin 1907-1910:251-274). TARSALS
~ ....
T'-2
~ Oiltol ri9ht, ventral vie.
Ihl FlGIJRF. 4.26. Mol'ks inflk'ed
UIJ
'he tibia dUl'illg dismemberment.
The foregoing description touches upon al! Ihe common marks observed on larsals (Figure 4.27) except one, cul TC-3, which appears on the dorsal surface of the calcaneus just posterior to Ihe point (lf articulation wilh the astragalus. This mark has been frequently intArpreled as deriving from the cuUing of the lendon attachmenl of lhe gastrocnf!mius muscle
119
et the tuber caleta or the posterior end of the calcaneus. In my experíences with the Navajo, where the carcass te hung [see L. R. Binford and [, B. Bartram 1977:92-93), and with the Nunamiut where the completad upper rear leg is commonly hung on dryíng racks in cool seasons. enother action is belteved to produce cut marks on the dorsal ridge of the calcaneus. In both ethnographíc cases the tissue between the shañ of the tibia and the ettachment of lhe tendon at the tuber calcis ts cut with a knife to fadj¡tate inserting a rope or a gambrel for hanging the rear leg ür the cercees for further butcheríng. This cul "for hengtng" was observad to resull In marks illustrated here as TC-3 (Figure 4.27. b and el. lo light of thís cbservetton it is interesting that this mark is regularly reported 00 bison bones Irom the Jurgens síte (Wheat 1979:66, Figure 32, medial view), and antelope bones from the Eden-Farson site (Frisan 1971:284, Figure Jr). An alternative method of disartieulating the tibia from the metatarsal is to make the cuts at the ínterIece between the tarsels end the proximal metatersel. whtch results in marks trensversely oríented around the joinl, scarring the medial surfece ecross the intemal cunieform or on the medial margin ol the proximal metatarsal. On the anlerior face, marks may occur on the navicular.cuboid (Figure 4.28, TNC-1) as well as the anterior face of Ihe intemal cunieforrn lTE-l) and the mar~in of the proximal metatarsal lMTp-1). Laterally, marks may occur on the proximal articutator margin of the proximal metatarsal and Ihe lateral face of Ihe navicular-cuboid. These marks may frequeotly occur together with Ihose just described, since the removal of Ihe metatarsal for marrow processing commonly involves the rernoval of Ihe aUached tarsals, as is shown in Figures 4.02 Bnd 4.03. The combinatian of marks from both points of disarticulation is likely to be a good clue lo al least some of Ihe functioos ofthe site, since the processing of marrow bones is normally associaled with served meals rather than sna"king in hunting camps and the Iike as is the case among Nunamiut. Similar differences in processing may well characterize other peoptes as well. METATARSALS
As has beeo indicated, encircling marks atong the margins of the proximal end oí the metatarsal can be
•..
4. Human Mcdes o/ Bcne Modificaliol1
120
~
7 TC-'
,"
121
Cut Morks: Their Form ond Plccementon Specific Bonos
---1\ 1
,\i
! MTd-l
MTd-1 ...
"TC-I
-1-.
Lel! CakO(lfHa, lot,rol vte...
Left coltoneus, dorsal vi...
medial vie.
(o]
(bl
I C]
Le" colCClneus,
Lallrol y¡.w
Llfl diJIOI mllotorJol, on1160' vi.w
M.dlol vi••
(91
(h)
ti)
~Td-3
re-t
~ .:. ' /1
j':'-
,~'
"---'
~
~ ~.
LeU astrogolus, onteior vi, ..
Le" astrQ9(l1us. m'diol vi,...
(d 1
(.1
(O
nGURE ".Z7 Morks produced on 'he 'arso/! ond th'e me'a'arsol during dlsmembernrenl.
expected on the lateral (MTp-3), anterior (MTp-l), and medial (MTp-2) faces. These rnay be produced during primary and or secondary butchenng. 00 the distal end of the metatersal. marks relaüng to dismembermenl can be expected acreas the ventral face of the enndyle. as is shown in Figure 4.27 Sorne nicks mey occur along Ihe maegtns of the intercondyiar channel (MTd-3). Such marks are pro-
Venlrol vil"
(]) FIGURE 4.27. (continued)
,
lateral vi,...
Lttt Q$I'oQolus,
~
TA-2
ducad when a knife is inserted directly into the jclnt (see Figure 4.12). II ls my ímpreseton that this rnethod of díserticulation is more common with metal lools and that marks in other localions can he expected if stone tools were being used. Most Jikely, euts with stone tools should be coneenlrafed 00 the anterior 115 well as Ihe lateral and medial faces jusi ebove tha eprcondyles. In mosl cases such marks can
be expected lo have been inflieled durtng secondary butchenng and processtng for rnarrow rather then duríng primary dtsmernberment. SCApULA
Primary bulcheting traces 00 !he scepula {Figure 4.29) seem to be restrictad lo merks that encircle the glenoid cevíty. There is a tendency for Ihe marks to be 00 Ihe lateral tace and lo exhíbit sorne concentraIion at the cng¡n of the tríceps brachia. Analogous cuts may orr-ur up the scepule around the neck. Dísrnemberment al thís joinl ís most oommonly a secondary butchering operation. unless the animal ls quite large. This means that considerable numbers of innided marks 00 Ihe scapula in Ihe area around the
glencid cevíty are mostlikely lo be seen in localions of consumptton. unless there Is prccesstng for drying, or in sttuatíons where relatively large entmals are being butchered and the parts are desttned for trensport rather than processíng: HUMERUS
As in the case of cut marks en the scapula. few marks on the proximal humerus (Figure 4.30) can be releted to initial butcbenng. When rnerks do occur they are coneentrated in basically Iwo locettons and occasionally in a thtrd. Mosl eommon are short marks on 'he lower "llp" of !he condyle [Hp-I}, as seen in the postertor aspecr. The next rnost frequenl is a mark on the apex of the lateral luberosily com·
4. Human Modas of Bone Modifka!hm
122
Lolero! r",berosily
proximal end of the humerus with choppers seems a strange wasle of time and effort when two simple cuts and a [ittle leverage are all Ihal are needed lo dlajoint Ihe bones in questíon. If the proximal humeros exhibits rélatively few cut merks. probably beceuse of the ease wtth which
Colco.neUI
Astrogolus Navicular cubold culmor~
"l=S)(
H/C-l
EctocullllifOl'm
';;'
TE-t
'''/.-"-
\
\
r
MTp-3 '
~.
\ '~,
Anterior vilw ot rill"t tar.u. FIGURE 4.Z8. The arficulatlon 01 the forsol, with lbe mefattJNtJl.
Righl proaimal, meltial vie....
monly located 00 Iba posterior Iece. The merks 00 Ihe lateral tuberosíty and tbe marks 00 the scepula al theanterior rnargin oí the glenoid cavity are believed la be made al the sama time by a simple cut orlgtnattng 00 the anterior sirle oí the jotnt wilh the joint artieuJaled in a faírly stretght fashíon. A transversa cut is simply made into the íoínt frcm the front. resultfng in the knlfe impacting bone 00 the lateral tuberoeíty and along the anterior lip of the margio lo the glenoíd cevity. Afiar the joínt te cut into from Ihe fronl, an anelogous cut is made from the rear. resultíng in marks on the lip of the humeral condyle [Hp-f] as well as along Ihe posterior margin cf the head oC the scapula. These cuts can be made very quickly. The dismemberment of thís [oínt is reteüvely easy. since the condyle ts large and the joínl ts rether flexible. Leverege ís used to greet edventege in seperettng the scapula from the proximal humerue. As wtll be descnbed later, this lotnt ís commonly sepereted from Ihe cercase prior to the removel al the scapula wben large animals are being butchered. Th¡s strategy permita the use of the scepula as an anchor and provídes Ieverage for dislocettng the jotnt. Argumenta about tbe dífflculty of disjointing tha scapula from the humeros seem odd to me, as do proposals ebout tbe use of choppers. Deslroying the
RiqM prQ.imol, pOlle'ior vie....
lo)
Right prolimol, lalDrol vi,....
lb)
le) ":' 1,"
rj
~, ':\
'1
Oblique Hd·2
J~,
t,'"".'~\~l· "
Hd-4
..~\
"1 ,~r
H(lI-2
Hd-'~, H'-2
(-::.. . .J8
-HeH
Right dislal, lolerol vre....
cnterier vie.
Right di'lol, medial vi.....
Id)
l.)
l' )
R;ghl distal,
S-Z "¡-"'.
5-1
Righl
FIGURE 4.29. Marks produced dismembermenl.
0fI
the Kapula durlns
Right dislal, venlrol vi'" (9)
FIGURE 4.30. Marlcs produced on the hume"" during dlsmembermenl.
! ¡,
,
I
\l.
'~'~
Proximal riQht
4. Humen Modes of Borre Modificalion
'24
the joíot may be disartículated, the distal hurnerus generally sports a consisten! and numerous collectíon of cut rnarks. The rncst common mark is 00 nr 8GroSS the medial face 01 (he distal hurnerus (Hd-2). The second most common mark te a short mark 00 the prominenl ridges of the anterior Iace of the artículator surface (Hd-l). These two cut marks are beIieved lo result from the sama cutung motion, which also produces the marks along Ihe margín oí the radius (Figure 4.32, RCRp-5). The knífe ís run trensversely ínto the jotnt and turnad inward 8CroSS the medial face DE Ihe distal bumerus. somettmes even penetreung lo the medial Iace of the olecranon {RCCp-3). This is generally done with the leg fairly well extended or stratght. The second cut commonly employed in dtsiocattng the humerus from the radiocubitus is a diagonal cut mede bestde the lateral face of the distal humerus. impacting bone 00 the Iece of the olecrenon jusi besíde the semilunar notch (RCCp-2). This cut makes possible a twisting of the ertículetíon inward toward the body and may also be accompanied by slight twisting of the lower leg or at least the shaft ofthc radío-cubnue. This has the effect of "ecütng" the arttculetton out of the socket obiíqueIy toward the body. Once thts level of disJocation ts echíeved il is a simple matter to cut Ihe remaining strings of ccnnecttve tissue and sepárate the bones. Thís technlque essumes that {he body is warm end the jcints are flexible. When the body is stiff andlor Irozen, a shghtly different method may be employed. The first task. making the lolm flexible, is accomplíehed by cuttíng down from the rear between the olecrenon end posterior surface of the distal tibia. Thls cut ts Irequently essociated wtth an attempt to flex the íotnt as much as possible at Ibe sorne time the cuts are bemg made, resulttng in a series oí short cut rnarks along the dorsal crest of the olecrenon and elong the margins oí the olecrannn fosse. which is. of course. on the posterior face of the distal humerus (see Figure 4.31). Once these cuts are made and the joint Is flexed. butchenng may proceed as befare. However, I have observed bulchers following Ihis procedure and Ihere is somelhing of a lendencv lo make tbe cuts across the anterior face jusi above· Ihe articulalor condyles of Ihe distal humerus ralher Ihan below them. as is the case with warm animals. When Ihis is done Ihe leg is sil!! nexed, and if Ihe "comer is lurned" Ihe knife runs across the medial face of Ihe dislal condyle. resulting in obliquely
RCp-5
~
prod~ced ...hen cuttio9 io from Ihe reee 00 "slif'" joiot&
Marks
ecs-e
/
Humeeue
ctecrencn
RCp-2
,,
i
,1
," Cubitus-t-
-tt--
I I
!
,': I
Rodius
./
I
,
,
1:\1
I
il
r iI,
;1\,
ii i'
I, i 1,
! /'
,, ,
r
lotef"olyl,.
Int.rior l/l••
(a)
Medial wítw
lb)
(e)
,'¡'
Olltoll,tI
I
¡
,
Right lalefol I/i,.
FIGURE 4.31. The QrliculotJon berween t1te tllstcd humeros cmd the pro:rimol rodio-cubilus, showins marles produced durinS dismembermenl.
¡ \
"
oriented cul marks (see Fi,Rure 4.3of). These oblique marks may be somewhal higher up on lhe condyle. almosl at the "neá." Such a placemenl of marks, coupled with marks on the dorsal ridge of Ihe oJeeranon and alons the margins of Ihe olecranon fassa,
RCd-l~
)~'
~-RCd-2
Inltríor ~ie.
lot.rOI vie.
(d)
le)
FfGL'RE 4.32. Mario; pmduced 00 Ihe rodio-eubitu, durioS dismembermenl.
:,J
.:'~r
4. Human
126 betrays the butchering of th¡s [olnt when lt is flexed, which is most common when the animal is stiff. Sliffness may be reiated lo Ihe dismemberment being part of secondary butcherlng acttvtttes. or lo scheduling problema al mass kills. In this regard it is interesting that the marks ülustreted from the Eden-Farson sile (Frison 1971:264, Figure 3a-d] all exhíblt ratber oblique cut marks high up near the neck of the distal humeros. Earlier in this chapter 1 potnted lo other evidence that seems lo indicale the butchering of stiff or frozen antmals al that stte. It is equally interesting that the "stíff joínt" patlern of butchery seems indicated al the Jurgens site (Wheal 1979:64, and Figure 31). I would guess tha! secondary bUlchering took place. wilh disjointing occurring aner meal Was filleted from essenliaJly complete front legs. Disjoinling was most likely relaled lo marrow procuremenl after the joinls were both stiff and dry. RADIQ-ClJB1T1JS Most of the (;ut marks occurring on the proximal end of Ihe radio-cubitus (Figure 4.32) have been discussed in Ihe comse of considering the distal humerus The distal radio-cubitus frequently exhibits marks across its anlerior face, right along the edge of the arliculalor surface, Alternalívely, marks may occur only on Ihe slyloid praccss, indicaling Ihat Ihe cut was made lower down and lllans Ihe lateral face, impacllnR the carpals ralhl'lr than the edge of the distal raoio-cubitlls, The lalter marks are more commono On the inferior face of the articulator surface Ihere may be transverse marks on the prominenl ridges, These derive from Ihe insertion of the knife into the joint afler il is partially dislocated. CARPALS
Cul marks may occur on any of Ihe exposen faces of Ihe various carpal bones bul are mllch more common along lateral and medial fau~s. wilh far fewer occurring on Ihe anterior ano posterior laces. George Frison (1970:12j describes the .~ullrces of marks nn the hison carpals from lhe Clenrock site, a very gaael description uf buldwril1g of Ihis joinl: "Of lhe ulnar carpills and ffH]¡al cilrllals. 4:1% of Ihe fOfnwr anrl
Morlf'.~
of Bnne Modjfjmrion
39% of the latter bear cut marks. This is slill a corn. mon method of butchering in Ihe field and after cuttíng in this rnanner . . the foot muy be snepped off [Frisen 1970:121." Whal Frison ls descrtbing ls a simple patr of cuts. une across the arlic.ulalion on Ihe inaíde marktng the medial of "radial carpals." and another across tha lateral fece marking the "ulnar carpals" and nol infrequently the slyloid process of the dislal redío-cubttus. Once such cuts are made Ihe íotnt is "snapped" in half by pushing in or pullíng oul on the joint. as is tllustrated in Figure 4.13. METACARPAL
Essenlially the .'lame marks noted for Ihe metatar· sal can be expecled on the metacarpaL
Cut Mcrks: Their Form and Ptocemenr on Speclfic sones
ütsen-Cbubbuck site-WheaI1972) are all Instances of primary butchertng aclivilies. We might think of primary hutchering actívtties as thcse that are timad or scheduled with respect to the killing activítíea. whereas secondary butohenng andror proeessing activilies are timad or scheduled with respect to achieving (he goals of plactng meat inlo storage andlor dislributing and preparing it for consumption. Secondery butcberíng normally consiste of further segmentatton of the parts generated al the lime of primary butchering , and/or ñlletlng prtmartly appendicular parta. 1 have never heard or seen documenled filleting aclivities connucled with regard to any axial skeletal parls exceptlhe lower lumbar vertehrae and pelvis. Thus we can generally expecl an overlay of marks deriving from filleting lo be reslricled lo Ihe lumbar verlebrae. lhe pelvis, and the
127 leg bones. Even in those cases where filleling is conducted at locattons of primary butchermg. as al a kili síte. ít is a second-stage activity; animal s are field butchered into bas¡c analomical segrnents. which are then filleted. This means that the charecter of the segments condtttons to sorne extent ~he degree lo which fiHeting marks will overlay or , alternahvely, be the only marks remaining from butchertng on certaln parts. 1 have observed numerous ects of ñlleñng carrted oul by the Nunamiul Eskimo and the firsl ímpresston is that tt is done very quickly and with seemingly Hule efforl. For instance, Figure 4.33 shows !he bones of Ihe rear leg lying beside Ihe meat removed during fiHeling. This filleling was done by bulcher in lhe field so rapidly thal 1 did not have time lo adjusl my camera and take a picture before he
PHALANGES
I have rarely observed marks on Ihe phalanges. This experience is held in common with most of Ihe other North American researchers observing Ihe properties of cul marks. On Ihe other hand, Henri Marlin (1907~1910) reporled numerous cul phalanges from Ihe Mousterian sile of La Quina. I ha ve suggesled earlier Ihat these cuts derive primarily from skinning when pains are being laken lo skin out the fool in greal detail. This is done among the modern Eskimo only for oblaining skins from which soeks and shoes are manufactured. This is almosl exclusively a faH and early winler aetivily among !he Nunamiut Eskimo.
FiIle!ing Marks Slrie!lv speaking. the marks previonsly described for Ihe Ihorar;ic and lumbar verlebrae associaled wilh Ihe removal of the lenderloin are derived from filleling (Figure 4.211. Onl' rnight also argue Ihalthe re· moval of ¡he tongue (Figure 41lR) is ao acl of fillel· ing, Bolh of Ihese acliolls lIre eommon]y eonducled as parl of primflry bUlt;hcring aclivitie~. Filleling for lransport as illuslratt~tj by Binfonl Ll!.l.J~j;l:2?9La¡¡d describe!! lIlllong tlw lJolm !KUll,& ,IYellen 197"". 2791. amI as practit:r~d amung grollp~l:i¡-FtYiog·oul mass kills for purpOSt'S nt RPrH'raling lar¡.w quanlitie5 of sloragl~ lnl'ar (as was prohabtv lhp silua!ioll al the
Fll;IIKt: 4.:1:1. HU,'I.·.I j,'","r
l.l'in~ 1J1'~ifft.
I/w ml'al"l'u",,,,¡J (r..m 11", ,·"ur
Il'~.
j
•...',.
4. lIumun Modes of Bone ModifiC(ltion
128 finished me ktng his cuts and rarnoved the ñllets. The situation Hlustrated is rather rnrnmon-c-the butcher is aware lha\ ñlletíng will be the next step. and no transport problerns extst {e.g., ñllettng is to be done in (he seme place). Segmenting of the legs is rarely done during priruary butchering; tha! ts, the lower Iegs are rarely removed separately. Instead Ihe l,mtire leg is removed and it ts Ihen ñlleted and disposed of, a complete or nearly complete leg rernaining lergely arriculated. This sítuatton is Wl!\1 ttlustreted in Figure 4.34, whare arttculated front legs mtnus the scapule (see L. R. Binford l1978b:l 00] ter a dtscusston of the treatment of the scapula by the Nunamiutl are shown jusI alter having been Filleted. The ccnsequences of th¡s behavtor at processtng locations is frequently apile of nearly complete articulated legs. as ts shown in Figure 4.35.
Cut Mnrks. Their Form nnd P/ocemen! on S¡.It'óJ'k Eones
129
Deplcted here are the parts that were Wleled (or drying from 11 carihou killed earlíer (see L. R, Bínford 11978b:223-2281 for a descrlption of thís episede}. 1 am strongly suggesting that mere wil1 he dtagnosttc pattems of articulation, panems of part association. and spatial features thal will covary wifh disf inctive palterns of mfhcted marks when íilletíng is a mejor cr dorninaut activily al asile Thís is an argumenl to be developed at another lime, since my majar concam here is to describe the marks thet derívu from Iilleting. The ñrst fact lo emphasize is Ihal ñlleung marks are ulmost exclusively longttudtnellv orienled with respect to the bones on which they appear. The very act of filleting dlctutes this patlern. stnce Ihe butcher ts essentíally rernoving the bcne from the mess of meat around il and Ihis íe best achieved by cutting
Ma~s
H(jlIRE 4.;14, fhmt k~~ ~hflwn ~hortly after t:fImpfl~lirm uf fiJIf~tim:,
nf h~g,~ remoíníng al
along tha bone and rolltng back the meal so lhe bone tan be pulled free frnrn the rneat. There are generally Iwo types of cuts: la} inilial long: longiludinally orienled. bone-exposing cuts, and lb) shorler, more oblique [uls mad{l lo the unrierside uf lhe exposed bone to free il frum Ihe mass of meal amilor sever muscle insertions. Gi\'l'f\ such a slr¡¡legy, il is nol ~lITprising lo see lon~ilutlinally orienled cul marks anri llhorler. more obliquely orienlfJd marks along Ihe poslerior Uf <.Inlerior surfaces of 10nR-bolle diaphyses. Goon P-Xilll1ples of long, longitlldinally oricnled filleting marks are seen on Ihe scaplllll in FiRure 4.06. Similar marks are shown on Ihe pelvis illl1slraleri in Figure 4.3fi, Thp fillcling marks indir:aled in Fifi\lIre 4.:U; wp-re ohSl'rVI~d (Jn knowl1 filleter! SpucinlPns l:(JIJ¡!cll~d ¡¡mong lIw NII!l'lflliul Fillf'1 ing (l1¡¡rb (lll bOllPS nf 1111' lf~g are much
a praressiUR íocotian aftcr fille/iug.
sborter and are rarely exclusively longitudinal. as ls shown in Figures 4.06 and 4.36, Long, Iongiludi. nallv orienled cuts are made bUI these tend lo be m¡¡de along the sides of Ilw bont' relative lo Ihe orientalion of the part during filleling operalions. Musl commonly, Ihe legs resl nat dming filleling operalions, eilher on Ihe lateral or medial "sides" rclalive lo lhe living animal. This means Ihal cllls will appear along Ihe anterior anri poslerior faces of Ihe hone when viewed in analomir.al orienfation. Knives are fIln along fhe "edge" of Ihe bone anri do not, slrictly speaking. produr.e cul m¡¡rks; irregular longitudinal sha!low sCfillches may be prorluced. but an° relalivelv rare. Mu<:h more common are shorl cul m¡lrks freqlHmllv ¡nadt~ ubliquely lo lhe longiludinal ¡¡spl'd of lhe bolle anri cOllcenlri11t'd nn uolh thp anterior ami po~lerior !;l('es. Sur.h tl\:trks will be clus-
...
4t~~
.
4. Human
130
Morle~
of Bnae Modification
.~
¡'i
Cut Marks: Their Form cnd Plccemenj on Specíjic nones Figure 4.38 illuslrales the distal ends of rear leg bones with merks derivad from filleting operations. A vetv diagnostic patlern. one 1 call short chevrons. is cleaely indicated. Thesa are paíred clusters of short paral/el cuts obliquely oriented and originating from opposlte sides of the bone. These are generally more ccmmon on the distal ends of bones where tbere are muscle Inserttons. as in the case of the distal tibia and perticulerly the distal radto-cubttua. They are less common on the bones of the upper leg such as the humerus and femur. The bone that tends
131
lo exhibí¡ mosl such culs is the redío-cubttus. and as ís e1ear thts is the bone where the articulation wif h the humerus is characterized by the rnost irregular and crevtce-Iíka areas. making filletiog very difficult. Figure 4.39 shows the Iocatton of marks Inflieted on Ircnt leg bones during known sttuattons of meet filleling; the patlern ís generally the same on all the bones. The rnarks tend lo be very superficial, rarely deep: 00 freshly fiJIeted bones they are only visible as cuts through the perioeteum lhat did no! penetrate the bone. Unfortunately, 1did not relurn lo
Pro~ima' f,mUf
Fp-7
Fp-9
Left j)ollerit>rvi, ..
l. I
untrol Yi. ..
R;9ht holf, dorlol vi,,,,
(a)
(b)
Righf hall,
Lelt onf,rior vi, ..
la)
P5-6
lb)
Pro~¡ma!
tibio
FIGURE 4.36. Morks produced 011 the pelvis doring fllletJns·
tered where the shape oí the bone is irregular and where there are numerous muscle ínserttons. lrregularity in shape is most eommon in the lmmediete area of the artículetcr ends. hence we can expect a numbee of short cut marks in the area of the "neck" between the epiphysis proper and the linear shaft of the dtapbysts. As anyone who has carved mea! knows, it Is where bones are irregular in shape that there is Ihe mosl problem Coc Ihe cerVet. This is equally true Coc filleling. hence we can expecl many
marks concentreted in tossae oc around indentalíons in the bone such as the area along the lateral síde of Ihe tibie! crest. Figure 4.37 illustrates marks known lo have been produced on the proximal eods of upper rear leg bones during fllleting by Nunamiut Eskimo.Jt should be cleer that Ihe marks are (o) generally obltque. lb) generally located on the "neck'' of tha bone. and (e) cornmonly in recessed pteces where one would have to cul the meal out ralher than slrip it behind a smoolh cut.
Tp-4
T,·,
\;
't,
_~
Righl anterior vi, ..
Right m'diol vi...
le)
Id)
fiGURE 4.37. Mark, produced on 'he proJ(imal end.~ 01 upper .".ur leg bones during [iIleUng.
.,
Aro'
4. Human Mode~
132
----Pro~jmol
nf Done Modifir.nrioll
""IlII
rillht ,odio-cubihll
Distal riOM 'emur Pro~¡mot 'ioh!
hum.ruI
Hp-4
Posterior vi....
RCp-6
RCp-7
\
Loterol vi,w
~/
Distolleft mllol(l'501
MlidilJI yiew
Loterol vil"
Anl.rl~
Distolleft tibio
vii"
M.diol vil"
~,'
~~1
0;"01 left rodio·cubi'u,
'\
1
\\
1\\1 O;IIGI ri",tll humerU$
Td-4
I
,i
~': A,,,,ter;or view
JI:'
.....
Anterior víe ...
FIGURE 4.38. Marks produced on Ihe distol eods 01 mar les Inmes durirtlJ fillefinR·
RCd-3
Anterior view
Mediol vil"
Anterior vil'"
~l\
~ Lorero! vilw
FIGURE 4.39. Marks produced on {ront les bODes durioJl¡illetlng.
raa
-----------.. Jir..'
134 Albuquerque a total assemblage of bones from a known fillefing operaüon. so 1 cannot provide rehable ínformatíon 00 Ihe frequency of such marks. However. it was my impression that they were produced 00 a relettvely small number of the bones actually {ilIeted end that Ihe frequency increased as Ihe limbs belng fil1eted were superñcíally drted. rnaklng the "thin" ends such as the distal radío-cubítus and the distal tibia tougher and more díffícult to penetrate for startlng the filleting operatíon. The literatura is relenvely süent on these types of marks. and when they are descrtbed they are rarely recogntzed Ior their speclf¡c signíftcance. Rather. they are rnost often lumped with dismemberment marks as "butchering marks." An exceptton in this regard was Henri Martin {1907-1910J, who called them "rnarks of evisceration" and correctly identíñed sorne of the short oblíque "chevrons" occurring on long-bone fregments as being produced duro tng the removel of the meat (see Martín 1907-1910: Plate LX, No. 2, and Plate Nos. 2, 3, and 6). No such fiUeting marks were reported Irom the- Eschelman stte (Gllilday el al. 1962). Símüarly. Frisan (1970) cited no such marks from the Glenrock stte, nor were they noted (Frisan 1971) et the Eden-Farson stte. 1 observed only ene example in the Mousterian matertals from Combe Orenel-.-e distal radío-cubltus from Level K (Quina Mousterian). On the other hand, these marks have been described from the Jurgens site (Wheat 1979: Figures 31. 32), where they were lumped with marks of dismemberment, breakage, and other characteristics that the author thought related to butchering.
Marks Produced during the Prepafation of Ports for Consumption One of the most common methods of preparing parts for consumption is in fact filleting, particularly when the meat is to be bailed or used in a stew. This introduces sorne ambiguity into Ihe significance of fiUeting marks. This ambiguity is fnrther exacerbated by the fact that when leg bones are prepared for marrow cracking they are typically "cleaned," which consists of cutting off adhering secHons of meat or tendon that would modify the way the bone
4. Humun Mudes
a! Hone Modifica/ion
would break when impacted with a percusston blow. Figure 4.40 shown lean Rulland cleaning marrow bones prior lo their bcmg cracked for marrow. with a woman's knife or ulu. Thi~'''deemHg of merrow bcnesproduces shcrt parallel cutaieeks essenríelly Indtsttngutsheblefrorrrthe ftHefhig-h...-erb i1lustrated in Figures 4.37-4.39. However, much attention ís gtven to the metapodíals, distal radío-cubttus, and distal libia, all bones thal yield eíther no rneat or very Httle. This rneans that "ñllettng marks" may well be abundant en the metepodtals. bones not eesíly conceived of as having been ñlleted! It ts interesting that loe Ben Wheat observed this at the [urgens stte. and commented as follows:
Cut Morks: Their Form ond Plncemeru on Specifk BOlles
135
1",,·¡r,.i-IU.
Ltght diagonal cuts were found on a number of bones including rnetapodíals. 1I is not Iikely that Ihe cuts on rnetapodlals were assoctared with filleling meet. sínce there is very Hule maat on such bones. so perhaps sorne olher reeson must be found for these cut marks [Wheat 1979:711.
Cleaning the bones of segmente of meat and tendon is nol aU that is done prior to cracking. Toe ~~jg.AAntro1kld·bll8Bkage.,~~bonas is the remcvalot the-penosteure-írrtbe-eeee-ee-be ¡JI The Nunamlut invariably do this by scraping it back with the edge of a knife. a rough surface on a hammerstone, or almost any handy crude scraping too1. This means fhat lonsitudinal sg8tch8§ and striatio/p (Figure 4.41) along the shaEls of long banes are commonly produced when bones are prepared for cracking during marrow processing. Such marks are noted in Mousterian assemblages. My notes record 18 examples (striated bones) from the site of Com~ Grenal, but the fragments of long-bone shaft were not saved at this site, so the parts where most such siria· tions would be expeeted were in fact never systemat. ically examined. Henri Martin (1907-1910: Figure LXII, Nos. 1, 3, and 5) reporls examples from La Quina. Most analysts do not examine aH the long· bone splinters for such marks, hence there is Uttle mention of this type of mark in the literature. Modifications other than those jusI described may occur as a result ofvarious forms of food preparalio n. Howa part is trealed (filleted or not), what size it is reduced lo befare consumplion, and how it is reduced, [chopped, cut. broken, etc.) are all variable strategíes that relate lo the methods of food prepara-
_.d.
FIGURE 4.41. Slriations on bone believed lo hove been produced duro ing removal 01 Ihe periOSleum. On top 01 Ihe sfriotJons is pllting beJieved lo have been produce(1 by gnawing animals, (Found in rhe Mouslerian site 01Combe Grenal by F. 8fJrdes.)
FIGURE 4.40. Jean Rullond cleaRing malTOw bones lar cracking.
.'
4. Human Modes nf Bone Modljtcution
13. ñon. For ínstance. whether something ís bmled. roested. nr eaten raw, and the types Dí contatners used in food preperatton, as well as the methods used (stone boilíng versus dtrect boiiing , etc.] can be expected to iecve subtJe traces diagnostic nf eccb. Researching these dífferences is no! the subject oí thte díscussíon: retber.J have been concerned with presenttng descrtpnve tnformatíon regarding the traces thet tool-using man might be expected lo have left on bones when he hunted and killed. This information might serve lo distinguish the acttons oí
tool-ustng man trom Ihe carnivorous actlons of cther anímals. Traces referable lo sktnning: dismemberment, filleling for transpon. and marrow consumption are al! perhaps relevant. It ts hoped that enough has been demonstrated regarding pauemtng in cut marks lo encourage others lo describe tbetr material, so as to beg¡n the tesk of developtng a Iarger corpus oí comparative malerial for study and use in tbe furo ther specíñcetton of dtagnostic cherectensttcs reliably relerabie tu specifíc actions carried out in the past. {See Table 4.04.)
Cut Markli: Their Form ond Ptocemenr on Specifit; senes
Code number"
ln~ento'Y o/
Codo number"
Described Sklnnlng afta' Bllrcherins Marks a Activity producing mark
Part end description
So<
Skull Transversa cul on occipital condyles skull spllt inlo left and rlgbt halves Transverse chops acrees crentum ebove end below the antlers or horns Cuts circ1ing the Mse of antlers
SO,
Hole pounded into the fronlal llrea
'-6
Cut on maxilla just above third molar
S-7
Nose cut off
s-i S-2 S-'
M-1 M-2
M-' M-'
M-s M-6
4.11
Guilday el 01. 1962; Figure 2
Food preperation Dismembering,
4.18 4.17
Guilday el al. 1962; Figure 7
Skinning
'rrensverse cuts ecross posterior ventral surface oí alias Transversa cut ecrcss anterior ventral surface ot axis Longitudinal spltttíng of vertebrae
Dismembering (stiff body) Dismembering (stiff body)
4.20
CY·5
Transversa chopping of axis
Dismembering
CV-6
Transverse cutting or chopping of aixth vertebrae
Oismembering
CV-2 CV.J
Diagonal cul on medial surface 00low P-3 and P-4 Diagonal cut on Ihe laleral face behind the third molar Transvarse cut on the inferior sur· face of the mandibular condyle Longitudinal cul across masseleric fossa _O,
TV-'
Killing, food preparalíon Dismembering
TV-' 4.10, 4,11 No' shown 4.19
Martin 1907-1910' Figure XLIII. Nos. 9. 10 Frison 1970; 24
TV'
Frisan 1971: 263; Guilday el al. 1962: Figure 2; Pannale-e 1965: Figure 1
TV-5
4.19 RS-l
Skinning Dismembering
No' shown No! shown
Dismembering [lon8 u e) Dismembering
No' shown 4.07
Dismemberinll
No' shown No' shown
Dismemberinll
Guildey el al. 1962: 65
RS-2
Guilday el aj. 1962; Figure 2 Parmalee 1965: Figure t; David 1972: 317 Wheal 1979: Figure 33b
Martin 1907-1910: Figure XLVIII, Nos. ]-:. Wheal 1C¡79: Figure 33c _._ •. _ .
RS-J
RS·4
Wheat 1979: Figure 3c
_
{continued)
Figure number
4.20
TV-,
coneumptíon
Actlvity pro-
dudng mark
Dlsmemharíng
Rererences'
Ihsrnembering
Consumption
Mondible Transverse cul on Ihe inferior surface of Ihe mandibular symphasis Marks across the masseteric fossa
Figure number
Part and
--_ ..descrrptton Cervrcn! venebme Transversa cuts ecross the proximal ventral surface of atlas
CV·1
CV-' TABLE 4.04
137
TABLE ".04-Conlinued
PS-t
Thomcic vertebme Transversa chop or cut merks along dorsal spine intn or between cenIra of eeccnd and Ihird vertebras Longitudinal cut along base and lower part of the dorsal spine Transverse cut ecross Ihe inferior surface of the cenlrum TranS\'erse chop or cut marks along dorsal spine inlo or belween centra of thirteenth lo fourteenth vertebrae Longiludinal marh iusl below Ihe articulalor processes Rlbs ond slernum Marks along superior surface just lateral lo the rib head Dislal ends of Ihf' rlbs cut off
Transverse cul on ventral rib surface jusI lo Ihe side of Ihe rib head Marks on Ihe venlral surface of slemum plales Pelvis nnd socrum Sat:r\lm Irirnmed down laleral edges
,
No' shown No' shown No' shown No' shown
Dtsmembertng
No' shown
Filleling tenderloin Dismembering (ribs) Dismembering
4.21 No! shown No' shown
R6farenGtlli'
Guilday el al. 1962: Figure 2; Martin 1907-1910; Plata XLVII. Nos, 3,4. 5 Martin 1907-1910: Plale XLVlI, No. 6; Parmalee 1965: Figure 1 Frisen 1971: Figure aee-dd Parmalee 1965; Figure 1
Martín 1907-1910: Plete XLVI, No. 7,64
Frisan 1970: 20-21, Figure 14; GiIbert 1969: 290; wheat 1979: 67 Guilday el al. 1962; Wheal 1979: Figure 33,11
Dismembering (ribs)
4.21
Wheat 1979: Figure 33,11
Filleling (tenderloin) Dismembering (ribs from briskel) Dismembering [ribs)
No! shown No' shown
Marfin 1907-1910; Plala XLII, No. 5
No' shown
Frison 1971: 265
Filleting
No' shown
Secanoary buh:hering
No! shown -------_._--
(continuadl
.&"
4. Human Modas of Bcne Modificotion
138
üode
PS-Z PS-3 PS-4
PS-5 PS-6 PS-7 PS-8
PS-9
PS-I0
Fp-l
Fp-2
Fp-3 Fp-4 Fp-5 Fp-6 Fp-7 Fp-8
Fp-9 Fd-1 Fd-2 Fd-3
Activity produelng mark
Part and descriplion
Figure number
Marks msrde the acetabulum
Dismembering
No' shown
Marks serosa the lateral tace or tbe pubis Ischtattc apine Irimmad off
FilIeting
4.36
Cut or chop Ihruugh. the pubic sympbasis Cut 8CtoSS deep fossa in fronl of 8l:lIlabulum Marks ebove the acetabulum on arm oí Iltum Marks below acetabulum on arm oí lsch.ium Marks ctrcltng the rim of the acetabulum Marks below ecerabulom en arm oí pelvis Femur Marks on the neck oí the femur
Cut Morks: Thetr Fnrm ond Plocemenl on Speclfic Bones
139
TABLE 4.04-Conlinued
TABLE 4.04-Confinued
number'
......
.,
Code number"
References" Gullday et al. 1962; Figure 2
Fd-4 Fd-5
Dismembering
Guilday el 01. 1962: Figure 7
Filleting
4.36
Guilay et 01. 1962, Figure 2
Dismembering
4.22
Wheat 1979: Figure 32
Dismembering
4.22
Tp-1
Tp-2
Tp-3 4.24 4.22
Dismembering
4,20,4.22.
Tp-4
Martín 1907-1910: Plate L. No. 12; Frison 1970: Figure 8a-b
Dlsmembarlng Marks on the hall of femur head D1smembering Marks cfrcling the margln of rhe fernur head Filleling Transversa marks on lesser trochantar Dismembering Transversa merks on lateral surface of greetee trochanter FiIleting Short marks in the fossa elong tbe neck of the femur Filleling Short rnarks on the neck of greater trocnanler, anlltrior face FilJatíng Short "chevron" marks, both !ransverse and oblique. below the necl of lhe femur both 1¡¡leraland medllll faces Longitudinal mark on upper shaft of fJlleHos femur Dismembering Transverse aeross posterior surface jusI above condyles D1smemberi nll Nick marls on upper marglns of Ihe patellar surflllce--Irochlea Dismembering I.ongiturlinal mar\:.alollS lhe lateral face nf Ihe medial condyle
4.25
Tp-5 Td-1
4,24
Dlsrnemberlng
Short "chevron" marks obltquely grcuped Shcrt oblique merks on the anterior face above petellar surface
Activity producing merk
Figure number
References-
Fillettng
4.38
Filletlng
4.38
Ifismembanng
4.26
Disrnembering
4.26
Filleting
4,37
FiJleting
4.37
FiIleting
4.37
Drsmembering
4.26
Dismembering
4.26
Dlsmemberíng
4.26
Filleting
438
wheet 1979: Figure 33
Dismembering
4.27
Martín 1907-1910: 231-273 Guilday el al. 1962: Figure 7 Frisan ]970: Figure 8c, d. e
Dismembering
4.27
Dism",mbering
4,27
Dismemhering, filleting Filleling. hanging carcasa Dismembering
No! snown 4,27
Oismemharing
4,28
Wheat 1979: Figure 33
David 1972: 317
No' shown 4.36
Dlsmembering
Part end description
Martín 1907-1910: PIMe L. Nos. 8, 9,10,11; Guilday el 01. 1962: Figure 2
Td-2 Td-3
4.25 4,25 Td-4 4.25 4.25 TA-1 4.37
Wheal 1979; Figure 33
4.37
Wheat 1979: Figure 33
TA_2
4.37
David 1972: 319
TC-t
4.37
Wheat 1979: Figure 33
4.25
Guilday el o/. 1962: Figure 2
TC-2
TC-3
TE·, 4.25 TIIle-! 4,25
Tibio Marks on or around inlercondylar tuberclea-c-partir-uiarly the lateral o", Mark ecross the posterior íece of the Iateral and medial coodrtes Shorl oblique rnarks un the lateral tace of tbe tibial crest Obhque marks on medial tace just below the arliculator suriace Longitudinal merks 011 the upper tibial shaft T'ransverse merks acrees medial malleolus and íust ebove on distal tibia Transversa mark ecruss Inferior asttculetor suríace Teensverse cut ecross anterior face between the dorsal peojectlcn and the medial malleolus Short "chevmns" on the anterior face of the distal libia
'rcncts (Astraglllus) transverse mark at margina of the anterior fece. midway on Ihe bone [Astragalus] marks across medial face midway on the bOlle (f'.aicalleusj marks along ¡he proximal margin of Ihe lateral face Marks llcross dislal end lhlber clllr.is) Marks 011 dorsal chest midway be· lween luber calcis 8nd thearticulator surface (Eclocunl!\form) lmnsverse mark along maq~in r¡f anterior face (Nllvlculllr-clIhnid) trllnSVf'rse mar~ al:ross laleral and or lIuterior fllt;e
Guilday el oJ. 1962: Figure 2
Wheat 1979: Figure 33
Guilday et 01. 1962: Figures 2, 7
Guilday el 01. 1962: Figure 7; Frisan 1970: Figure 8
4,28
~-~
lnmlinuedj
(conlinul'rl¡
~
-.
..d,...'" .aa.
4. Humen Modes of Bone Modifkolí()l1
140
Cut Morks: Thelr Form ond P!ocemen/ en Specific Bones
TABLE 4.04--Conlinued
Cod. number~
Pan and description
TARLE 4.04-Conl;nued
Activity producing rnark
MTp-l
MetatorsoJ Transversa mark acron anterior face oí proximal condyle
Dismembering
MTp-2
Trensverse mllrk 00 the marg¡n oC
Dismembering
MTp-3 MTd-l MTd-2 MTd-3 MTd-4
S·]
S·, S·,
S·,
Hp-l
Hp-2 Hp·3 Hp-4
Hp-S
Hd-1 Hd-2
medial fece 'rransverse mark on the margin of lateral face Traneveese merk across posterior fece of both condyles Circular mark around the distal shañ Nlcks along mergtns of tntercon. dylar channal Shcrt "chevron" marks obllquely c!usterad on taterel end medial creets. anterioe espect SeopuJo Marks along inferior border of condyle andlor at arigin of tríceps beachía Merks along the nack of the scapula Longitudinal marks along hase uf spína in both the supra- and infrasplnous fossae Longltudtnel marks up and down the medial Iece of the scapula Humeros Maeks alang the border of Ihe "Iip' of balt. concenlraled on the posterior ed8e Marks on the ape" of the lateral tuberosity Marks on the laleral far.e of the necio. jusi below Ihe lateral luberosily Short "chevron" mnrks obliquely oriented along eresl below the exlemalluberosity al ¡nserlion of leres minar Sllort "chevron" rnarks obliquely oriented on medial face below Ihe head Transverse marks across anlerior articulator face Transverse marks across medial surface
141
Figure number
code
Rl:lferences"
4.28
Hd-J
wheer 1979: figure 33
Hd~
Dlamembering
No' shown 4.28
Dismembering
4.27
Wheat 1979: Figure 33
Hd-ó
Skinning
4.16
Martin 1970-1910: plale LlX, No. 6: Gullday el al. 1962: Figure 7
Hd-7
Dismembering
4.21
Filleling
4.38
Hd·5
Wheal 1919: Figure 33 RCp-l RCp-2
Dismembering
4.29
Martin 1907-1910: Plate XLn, No 1, PIole XLIX. Nos. 1, 2, 3; Cullday el 01. 1962: Figure 2 Guilday el al. 1962: Figure 7 Frisen 1971: 265; Wheal 1979: Figure 31
RCp-3 RCp-4
Dismembering FiIleting
4.29 4.06
Filletlng
No! shown
Whea11919: Figure 31
4.30
Marlin 1907-1910: Plate XLIX. No 4: Gullday et al. 1982: Figure 2
RCp-1
ParmaleE! 1965: Figure 1
RCd-l
Dlsmembering
Part and desortptton
number"
Oismembering
4.30
Dlsmemberlng
4.30
FilIeting
4.39
Filleling
4.39
Dismembering
4.30
Dismemberlng
4.1S,4.30
RCp-~
Marks 00 the upper margms of 'he elecranon fossa Marks 00 the ventral edge oí the lateral condyle Transversa mark ecroes anterior face above ertícutator end Oblique sheet "chevrcn" marka c1uslered on neck of distal end on the anterior face Longitudinal mark along medial eres! of shaft Hcdfc-cubñus Transverse mark inside semilunar noteh Diagonal mark ecross lateral surface of olecrenon Diagonal mar!:. across medial face uf alecranon Marks on upper margin of medial semilunar notch Transversa merks on anterior margln of radial tubercaues
Activüy producing mark
Figure number
Referenees'
Dismembering (stiff body) Dismembering
4.30,
Whea11979: Figure 31: David
4.31 4.30
Whellt 1979: Figure 31; David
Dismembering
4.30
Marttn 1901'--1910: Plale XLIX, Nos.
Filleting
4,39
Wheat 1979: Figure 31
FiIleting
4.39
Dismembering
4.32
Dismembering
4.32
David 1972: 311 Guilday et al. 1962: Figure 7; David 1972: 311 Guilday el 01. 1962: Figure 2
1972; 317 1912:3\7 5 ••
Dismembeeíng
4.32
Dismemberíng
4.32
Dismemberlng
4.31, 4.32
Frisan, 1910 Figure 8,f.9; David 1972: Figure 199-2; Wheat 1979: Figure31; Parmalee 1965: Figure
Cluetered oblique "cbevrcn" marks belo w lateral and medial tuberosruee on anterior tace. of radius Short longttudínal marks along posterior eresl of Ihe cubítus Tmnsverse mark across Ihe anterior face alon81he arliculalor circum· fetenee Tmnsverse rnarks across Ihe 51ylold process
FlIletlng
4.39
Wheal 1979: Figure 31
FiIletlng
4.39
wheat 1979: Figure 31
Dismemberlng
4.32
Dismembering
4.32
Transverse marls on Ihe inferior articulalor surfa¡;e Shorl diagonal "chevron" marks on anterior face
Dismembering
4.39
FiIleling
4.39
Wheat 1979: Figure 31
Dlsmembering
No' shown
Wheal 1979: FigurE! 31
1
RCp-6
RCd·2
RCd-3 RCd-4
Guilday el nI. 1962: Fi8ure 7: David 1972: 317
--(eoolinlledl
C·]
Corpols Transverse cut along articulalor margín of "ulna carpal" (os pyramldal)
Martin 1907-1910: Plate L, Nos. 2.3,4: Guilday el al. 1962: Figure ,
-----(eontrouad)
.'
4. Humon Modos
142
DI Bnne
~Iodifk(ltion
TABLE 4.04-Contínued Code
number"
MCp-l
Med-l MCd-2
MCd-3
MCd-4
Part end descnptlon
Metocarpol Transversa mark along anterior llrtJculalor margfn Circular cut around distal shaft Transversa mark across posterior face of both condyles Transversa mark across anterior faca of both condvlee Short "chevron" marks on lateral and medial cresls of tba anterior face
Chopping ond Bone Breckcge os Butchering Techmques Metal tools leave rather obvious marks, 85 Wel·
Activity produolng mark
Figure number
Dismembering
NoI shown
Skinning
4.16
Dismembering
NoI shown NoI shown NoI shown
Dismembering Filleting
References'
Cutldey el 01. 19f¡Z: Figure 7
Guilday el 01. 1962: Figure 7 ""h881 1979: Fgiure JI
bourne has suggested: hcwever. George Frison P970, 1971) has suggested that bones were commonly used as chopping 10015 in the butchertng of North American bison. Such implements leave less obvíous marks and. as he has suggested, chopping results in more distinctive breakage of bones than any obvious chop marks as referred to in the descriptíon of African lron Age metertals. Figure 4.42 [Frtson et al. 1976:52) nicely summarizas the butchertng-related damage inferred by the authors from the condítton of the blson bones at the Hawken site in Wyoming. Twenly-nine different modifications of bone are indicaled, and oniy 5 are
143 cut merks: the remaining 24 are sorne form of breakage believed lo heve been produced during butchering. The most extensiva end detetled discussion of Frison's muscle-strippíng argument is perheps contained in his Glenrock (Frison 1970) reporf Butchering was aecomplished by processes of chopping, crushlng, brsaklng. and cutting muscle origins IInd tnseruons end then stripping tbe muscles . . the procesa as described here ts a reconeteucttcn Ircm Ihe wrtter's interpretation oí the evídence of butehering activity found en Ihe borres and then Blpplying th¡s ro the anatomy of the buffalo along with 11constderatíon of the tool assembfegn u~ed [Frisón 1970:12J.
• After Ihl! labia WIlI compiled lleamed of an excellent sludy of cutrnerks by Van Den Drlesch and Bceseneck (1975). This work ahould be
ccnsulted . • p .. proximaL d '" dlltal. . RefurellCfls lII"ll only lo lllustr8Uons of mark in question.
Chopping and Bone Breekage as Butchering Techniques The role of "choppíng" and the use of heavy tools in butcheríng are points of "covert'' controversy among many tnterested in the tools prehtstortc man used for butchering. Early in the archaeological Iiterature il W8S nol uncommonly assumed that large "core lools" such as hand axes and cleavers were used in butchery. A most provocative study by J. D. Clarx and C. V. Haynes (1970) iIlustraled Ihal, in tenns of actual palteros of association between (0015 and dismembered animal carcasses, Paleolithic butchering and meat.processing equipment consisted predominantly of small numbers of light-duly tools, cutting naxes, and small scraping tools, plus onlya few of Ihe largar elements (J. D, Clark and C. v. Haynes 1970:409). These findings as well as other experiences have led me to expect UUle if any majar "chopping" in mosl butchery. Certainly, Ihis is a bias on rny parl from having observed so many episodes of primary butchering among what mighl be described as the maslers of small-lool butchery, Ihe Nunamiut. Observations among Ihe Navajo (see L. R. Binford and l. B. Bertram 1977:91-93) and reports by colleagues who have worked among conlemporary African groups affirm Ihe use of the ax. adz, or pango (a big "bush hife"). indicating that chopping and
the use of heavy tools ís a distinct bulchering style, which may well heve hed counterparts in the Paleoltthíc. This view has been recently set forth anew (Iones. P. 1980). The foliowing quote by an analysl of an African Irun Age faunal essemblage may provide the reeder wlth sorne feeling for the contrasl between butchering by chopping versus tbe butcheríng by cuUing as described from groups like the Nunamiut (see L. R. Binford 1978b:47--64): Definite pattems of chopping, tulling and battering were visible on many bones. These are mosl c1earlyevi· dent on bones of calUe and labras. Sludy of !hese bones suggested Ihe pllttern of dismemooring of carCllsses. 001" lined below. Horns of catlle were chopped from the cranium. skolls were chopped open for the brains, mandibles wera snapped off to remove the tongue, hind Iimbs were re· moved by means of a c1ean blow Ihrough Ihe femur head. ;oints of meat were separated out by means of chopping blows concentrated al limb articulations. Raw meal was usually stripped off by mli!8nS of chopping blows which left shallow chop marks along the lli!ngth of bones. often concentrated al musde arliculations due lo Ihe difficully of ehopping lhrough tough tli!ndon. Bones were eommonly dell for marrow by means of ehopping blows delivered at the distal end allhough 11 few were Cfllcked. probably with slones [Welbnurne 1975:12-131.
~~
<», ~ "
"
\I/"l,,;LH
~". o
"
.. .
tf? @
"
•
FIGURE 4.42. Plocemenl af cul marks on bison bone from tlUt Howkf!fl flite: (1) sowing mads on ventral border 01 manrlibie; (2) t:l1lshinS ond breakinA of sacrum: (3) t:l1lminA and bJ"Mkin, of aiecronon; (4--5) choppln, off larerol amI mediol tuberosilles of humeros; (6) bnmking of scopula: (7) brealdn, o/ ventm} bronche8 of cen-icol.: (8--9) choppln, mIo troehleo IJndbreoking off mujortrochonteroflemur: (101 breGlein, ofthe pelvl8: (JJ) chopplng o!ftubttr OOJroe: (12) brealins o/ hvn.llvel'8e processe8 ollumbul'8: (U) bife mGrb from cuttin, baele museles: (J4) breallns ...ln,s of the ollas; 115)knlfe marb fram cutlin, 100000e lonlue: (16-17) cruming ond brealeing mandlble: (18) brealeinA hyoid bone; /J9-20, clrappinll ond crushins ro separo'e vertebral column; (21) breaking and chopping IDOSe dorsal spines: (22-23) choppinS ond breaking of rib8: (24) breollns r:alcaneus; (25) knife marb on culcaneu8 ond asIrtJlltrlus; (26) bntakins distal end of libia: (27) knife marks on di810lrorliu,-ulna; {2B} breaking off di8!ol rodius-ulna: (29) long oone breakoge lar marrow. (Reprodueerl with perrnluioll fmm Fri,on et al., J976:52.)
..K'
lOO
1 have dífñculty wlth this argument. First. many of the bones ilIustrated in the Clenrock report (Figure 98, b. e-h, j-o; Figure lOe, h. i , 1:Figure l1a, b. e, f, k; Figure 12) are in my axperíence identical with animal-gnawed bones. Second. the patterns of assemblege composition given in 'rebles 1 and Z are consístent with a faunal essembtage thet has suffered from attrttton: Ior tnstence, the proximal humerus and the proximal tibia are consistently represented by fewer examples than are the distal ends. (Sea Brain [1969J and L. R. Binford end J. B. Bertram 119771 for a diacusston of survtvel probabilities.)I fínd It extremely difficult to imagine a mass kili butchering sita being avoicled by predatorscavengers aner man left, so Ibal all bone modifications at such a site were exdusively referable to human achon. Yet Frisan has inlerpreled all aUrition and breakage as a resull of human butchering, and has reconsum;led a form of butchering to accommodate alllhe obvious attrition. Figures 3.3-4 and 3.35 illustrate a sheep pelvis, from a Navajo winter site [L. R. Binford and J. B. Bertram 1977), that has beeo gnawed by dogs. IlIuslratad in Figure 3.39 are carihou innominates Ihat have been gnawed by wolves. It is certainly difficult to distinguish Ihese bones from those cited by Frisan as evidence for muscle-stripping butchering techniques. (Sea Frison 1970:17-18, Figures 11 and 12). Fimdly, the assemblage composition at Glenrock is consislent with a kilI butchering site where anatomical elements were being removed, ralher than a site where meal was baing processed off the bones for transport (see L. R. Binford 197Bb:475-476). Extensive muscle stripping would only make sense if one was aUempting to reduce weight by removing meat from the bones and in turn abandoning Ihe bones. As pointed out, (he bones from the mosl meat-bearing parts were nol abandoned al Glenrock! I am left with the condusion that I agree with Frison that nmscle slripping is one way of butchering that could weJl have been practiced. and we must attempl lo find diagnoslic criteria far its recognition. 1 musl remain skeplical thal the facts from Glenrock and other siles supporl Frison's interpretation. In later reports, Frison acknowledges thal "r.arnivores can and do chew off musde attachments on a cateass and it is necessary to be able to recognize Ihe difference belwep,n ones Ihal were rflmoved as Ihe í ,
4.
Human Modes of Bone Modifico/ion
result of bulchering process and those removed by
resultan! [secnndary] butchaJlng untts lnduded er-
cernívores [Príson 1974:281." His reconstruction of butchenng events et the Casper stte (Frisan 1974) is
Hculattng proximal and distal ends of long bones and
much more conststent with my experíencee, end many of the types of breakage of which 1 was skepü. cal al the Olenrock site are either not present al Casper or they are not feetured in Frison's recenstruction. Al! in all, it ís my judgmenllhal great cara must be exercised in using Frison's butche-tng model. Breakage patlems coupled with anatomical segmentalion and cut marks have served as Ihe basis fm Frison's reconstruction. Less satisfaclorv dala have servad as the basis for reconslrucling a-bulchering procedure exdusively from breakage pslterns (see Lyman 1978J. This interesling paper begins analysis agaínsl a backdrop of previous research in which il was largely postulated Ihal butchering had been ae· complished in Ihe southeastern Washinglon Stale area almost excJusively by breaking bones. "Appar. ently there is Iiule discernible evidence that bulchering the carcass induded a cutting process ILyman 1978:21." Guiding Lyman's analysis were the following principies: Brumley (1973, p. 241 believesthBtthe ways alld places in whieh a bOM is brokellreflecí Ihe melhods IInd purposas of the brcakage. Gralltill8 Ihis the osteo· archlleologill! examines tha archaeologiclll bone assemblllge to define butcherin,R llnils. Butchering unils are determined by eXBmination of bone units, braahge pBtterns and bone groups. Abone unUis defined asany fragment of bone. Brellkage patterns are defined as Ihe eommon poinls of frllclure. Abone group i50 defined os the Bssemblage of bone units representing a pllrticulor skelelal elemenl, such a5 a right femur or a left radius. Boneullits,breakage pa\lerns, IInd bone groups are con· sidered to be altribules of Dutchering [Lyman 1978:4J.
lOS
Choppin.'l and Bone Brecknge os Butchering Techníques
associated ligaments and tendons, end the long bone shaftand ils essoeíatsd musculature (meat)... Ihe jomts were laid asida, if nol discarded, and later bailad to makesoup or prccessed forany remetmng marrow.The bone shafland lis meat was cooked as a untt. the maat overlappingthe bone ends such Iha!the bone was insulated from the fire if roested over an open fire. These butchering and cocklng pmcesses would resull in the types of bone unlts. bone groups. and breakagapenems described aboye [Lyman 1976:221. This novel inlerpretation assumes thal cutting is usad to go through the meal exposing Ihe bone. However, Ihe butcher Ihan shifls to a hammer and bludgeons his way Ihrough Ihe bone, achieving a disarticulation. If correct, Ihis would certainly
.\
/
,
suggest that the aboriginal peoplee of the southeastern pert of Washinglon Stete were truly "culturally unique."
,_----
f'
•
-
Lyman's procedure was lo describe each skeletal element (e.g., scapula, femur, melacarpal) in tarms of the "bone uníls" into which il had been broken and Ihen present the frequancy of each unil in differenl archaeological populalions. No attention was given ta cut or chop marks. wilh the implication Ihat none were presento Afler this information was summarized, an inlerpretatioIl was offered: butcherin.ll consisted of smashjn~ Ihwugh Ihe limbsjust proximaland dislal to Ihe joilllsof the long bones.The
"
I have observed the Nunamiut us~ bludgeons'tc break leg bones. particularly frozen bañes, but such a techmoue was only used on lower Iegs, where little muscle sheathed the bone. More specíficelly. hludgeons were used in breaking Ihe distal tibia just aboye the articulator end, and the distal radiocubttue: less commonly they were used íust below the proximal ends of the metapodials. Among the Navajo 1 beve observed ribs and transversa processes ofthe lumbar vertebrae broken offduring butchering wilh sn ax. Among Australian aborigines, 1 have observed a bludgeon-specifically, a Ihrowing stickused to break Ihe ribs loase from the vertebrae (Hg. ure -4.43).In bolh cases ofbulchering with bludgeons
,,!
I Alyowara
AlI.~/rolian usins o
'hrnwins S,if:k
O.~ D bludSf'on in
1 ¡
butcherlng.
'
i. .
J'
&
4. Human Modes of BoneModification
148 or using a chopping techníque, the stee of the animal was reletíveiy smatl (e.g., sheep end kengerooj. Among the Nunamiut, when a larga animal is butchered. slightly differenl tecbntquee are used, which employ more leverage and more díslocetíon of jctnts coupled with cutting rether Iban chopping. For instance. Figure 4.44 shows a íemale rncose partially butchered by a Nunamiut hunter and his stster. The animal weighed approximately 780 lb end was completely butchered with 8 penknife. Sorne butchering dtñerencee, which were obvtoue accommodetíons to the síze of the animal, relate lo the removal oí the front leg, Iha removal of tha ribs, and Ihe segmenting of the vertebrae. The "large-animal" stmlegy of front leg carnaval WIIS to strip the muscles from the humeros by c:uttillg insertiolls at the humerus-radio-cubitus ¡oinl away
....
FIGURE 4.44. PurliuJly
from the humeral shaft. As the proximal humerusscapule articulation was approached, two rether quid. cuts were made "ínsíde" the stripped muscles and around both the lateral and medial sides of the ertlculation. Once these seemingly superficial cuts were made, the butchers foot was placed on the dorsal surface of the scepule-humerus joint. The foreleg was then given a rohust twtst away from and then back toward the body, eastly disloceting the íoínt. Once thís wes done. several minor cuts of connective tíssue freed the forelimb from the shoulder. The scapula was then removed from !he thorex by cutling between the lateral surfece oEthe rlbs and the medial lJurface of the scapula. which freed it handily as is the normal case when the entire fronl leg is removed from smaller animals. lt will be recalled that with carioou and sheep the
hulch~rfld femule mUfJSfl.
Gnawing by Humons technique of rib eemovel is lo cut Ihe distal ends of the ribs from the brisket. sepárate the main rib slab Ircm !he ñrst twn rtbs, which normally remain altached to the first two Ihoracic vertebrae. and !hen grasp the rib slab elong its distal margin and pull up smartly. breakíng the rib heeds at their point of artículation wilh the vertebrae. [See L. R. Btnford [1978b:48--60.94-971 for further butchering descriptions.) With the moose and with large bear that 1 have observed. the fcregctng technique was alterad. The first five ribs of Ihe slab (ribs 3-8) were broken off at the proximal ends one al a lime, which resultad in a very oblique break yietding a very poinled broken proximal end ol the ribo Once the smllller ribs were approached, Ihe butcher grasped the distal margin ol the rib slab and broke it back all at once, as is Ihe normal rnelhod with smllller animals. Once Ihe breaks were produced, the knife was mn between Ihe breaks as the slab was pulled up and il was removed as a unit. The final accommodation of the Nunamiut bulch· ering technique to body size was in tbe segmentation of the vertebrae. The '-nife was used ID cut ioto the articulalion between the sacrum and Ihe lastlumbar vertebra. Once sorne of Ihe conoective tillsue was severad, Ihe en tire spinal column with attached pelvis WIIS placed uprighl. with Ihe posterior end of Ihe pelvis resting 011 Ihe ground. The hunler Ihen leaned down on Ihe vertebral column while pushing forward, pladog a strain on the articulalion between sacrum and lumbar vertebra. This normally resulted in cracking Ihe articulation. permitting adhering connective fissue to be cut readily with a small knife. This same technique was used in segmenting the calumn between the thoracic and lumbar verlebrae. These and alher accommodations lo body size rnakeit appear unlikely Ihal "chopping" is a stralegy Ihat is necessarily related to large size, as is frequently suggested. Conversely, as has been men· Honed, in my few ethnographic experiences wi!h Ihe tedmique it was used on relatively smallllnimalssheep and bngaroo. The assumplion that the use oE chopping tech· niques was widespread has been largely foslered by lur.ctional inferences from lools thal subsequent research, such as Ihal melllioned earlier by J. n. Clark and C. V. Haynes (HJ70], has cerlaioiv l:Bst in doubr FinalJy. Ihe f1%unlJltion of chopping W{lS (l post hoc
"7 means of accounting Ior missing borre elements by the "fether" of bulchering analysís twhtte 1952, 1953a. 1953b, 1954, 1955). The conlinuatíon of thís ínterpretetíva tradition by Frisan (1970, 1971, 1974, 1978) and other Plaíns ercbeeologtsts [see lohnson 1977, 1978) fosters the view that chopping was e major butchering slrategy. As has been iIlustrated in Chapter 3, many of the missing bones Ihet White explained away by a "destructíon through butchertng wtth B chopper model' were probably not preserved archaeologically because of consumptton by bcth wild and domesttc canids. Similarly. mallY of the faels of destruction cited by Frison and others as evidence for chopping may well be gllawing destruclion by canids. As will be shown. many of the patterns of bone breakage cited by White (1953b. 1954. 19551 and Frisan el al. (1976j as well as Lyman (1978) as evidence for chopping as a butchering tactic could easily be seen as Ihe consequence of breaking bones for marrow, or, in the case of Lyman, pounding bones for bone ¡¡rease. It is clear lhat chopping is documented to have been used in butchering animaJs, but there is no methodology adequate for recognizing the cansequences of this IIICUC, in either forms of breakage or bone destruction, that is nol ambiguous ami subject lo alternative inlerprelation. This is an arel' in need of stroog melhodological development.
Gnawing by Humaos Wolves, dogs, hyenas, and other nonhuman car· nivores do not have a monopoly on Ihe ael of gnaw· ¡ng. Humans can, and most cerlainly do, gnaw bones. Although bone gnawing by modem man is relatively rare in the inlensive sense documenled earlier for Ihe canids, we mighl expect some of our earlier ancestors to have engaged in somewhat more enlhusiaslic gnawing, particularly during the very early time ranges when many different food· preparation techniQues were not yet developed or used and parlicularly when our aneeslors were lak· ing Iheir firsl sleps toward regular hunling and meat consumplion . Are Ihpre ways of dislinguishing belween bones
:1
0vC.~ C$lf "V«x ~,,7 i /w..) .,{.""~. - ""'t.&r'
~
.&
148 gnawed by humane and thoee gnawed by animals? As 1sud rny students continúe to enelyze the control data collected among the Nunamiut, perticuleely faunel matertels recovered from houses end from undoubted human use ccntexte. 1 feel coníídent that 1 will be able lo provide al leas! sorne descriptiva data reletíve lo the pattems oí borre modiítcatlon sud rleslrucllon generated by gnawing Eskimos. 1 have mede sorne ethnographic obeervettons thet may aíd in Ibis work. For Instence. It was noted previously (L. R. Binford 1978h 151-52) that gnawing and "sucking" oí short secttons of ribs was 11 fairIy como mcn Be! where fresb meat W8S beíng consumad, but when dry andfor frozan meal WIIS beiog eaten steps were generally taken lo preven! breakage oí 5uch parts as ribs, since aven Iba small amOllot of blood and "marrow" in such bones is genarally not very 8ppetizing. The gnawing and sucking on r¡b "lItblets" (sectiom of r¡b mnging from 2 to 6 inches in length) is almost exclusively restricted to the ends of Ihese tablets. Scoring, punctures, Ofpitting along the lateral margins of ribs wefe never observad. This is certainly different from what canids do to ribs where they regularly crenulate the edges, as is sbown in Figure 3.33. In addition to ribs, 1 have regularly observed buman gnltwing on dorsal spines of tboracic vertebrae, proximal margins of the scapula, snd variDUS very "soft" bones of yonog individnals. In tbe few iocidences where I have observed the con seQuences of this goawing io any detail, the pittiog and tha "mashing back" of edges is fairly cornmon. Punctures were rare aod scoring was never obsenred. This ls an area where diagnostic properties might well be developed through direct cJ(perimentation with modem subjects. However, Ihe gnawing would haYa to be dlreded and conlrolled for the slrength of the subjects and they could not be allowed to selacl what they wanted lo gnaw. Inslead, theexperimenter would have to jnstrud his subjecls lo gnaw assigned anatomical parts in specified ways so as lo obla¡n as complete a picture as possible as lo wbat is possible and Iikely under differenl conditions. 1 feel it is highly unlikely that a normal homlnid pattern of consumption would inelude gnawiog to Ihe exlenl that iI would mimic the consequences of Ihe elassic carnivore's behavior, as is documenled in Chapter 3. Neverlheless. we need dala on Ihis problem befare
4. Humen Modes af Bone Modifkolion
Mcrrow-Bone Breakage
tooth modtñcetions on bones can be assigned lo nonhumen egents in a totally relteble rnanner.
the stones. the midshaft te thus suspended between the srones. The bone is then struck in the middle. usíng Ihe blunt end uf 11 amali IDe. Wilh anly one or two vertical . bíowe Ihe bone ís broken tnto two major beivas: duríng this operatlon a few srnall fragments or chips uf bone are generally detached fram the poinl 01 impact [Zierhut
Marrow-Bone Breakage
1967:34-351.
149 one or severel conlrollooblows(wilh cbtuse point of the hammerstone] adrninlstered on Ihe medial andJorlateral surfece ciose to the midpoint of the sbaft. followed by Iwisting the distal epípbyels. The use of lesther or cloth wrappad around the hammerstone or around the bone being fracturad helpad reduce the shattering effect of Ihe impect. control the force af the blow and regulate the extent of the fracture [Sadek-Kocros 1972:3711
As indicated in Chepter 3, pettems of bone breekage have served as focal poínts of concern for many who have ettempted to recogmze human occupatíons when convínclng evidence in the Iorm of slone tools was lackiog. I have thus far ergued that th!! crack-and-twist method is nol essential to sp:tl:eUiactull!. This optJf:fi'ili' ra:be'~.tu"i¡_I~~· "_81.~. Similarly, the position Ihal SpifBI fracture itself was a characteristic diagnostic of man has beeo dispalled by my discussions of bone free· tUfe by animals and olher agents. Neverlheless, man does characteristicaUy break bone for marrow, and we would like to lmow if thera are properties thltl would permil us lo recognize bones broken by man as opposed to other agents, or bones broken by rnao in the context of butchering as opposed to IDarrow eJ(trBction or perhaps olher conlexls such as 1001 manufacture. As mentioned earlier, a study of marrow-bone breakaga by Zierhut (1967) with follow-up observations by Bonnichsen (1973) is to my knowleclge the first specifie behavioral observatioo made 00 Ihis subject. The observations by Zierhut were among Ihe CaUing Lake Cree Indians of Canada. The observa· tions were made in Ihe "yard" of a permanent resi· dance where bones of moose had been introdueed from hunting successas in the local area.
These ethnographtc experiences impressed Bcnnícbsen lo the poinl thet he seemíngly accepted the Cree behavior as being the cherectertsñc mathod of merrow-bone breakage. Bonnichsen (1976:36) relers to this as Ihe "rnid-diaphysis smesb technique of spiral fracture." It should be pointed oul Ihat although no olhar elhnographic descriptions were apparenlly available, the actualistic sludies of Sadek-Kooros (1972) c1early indicaled ways of breaking bones other Ihan that observed amang Ihe Cree. Sadek-Kooros (1972, 1975) conducted sorne fairly extensive experiments in bone breaking; however, the overall thrust of her research was a "replicative experiment" designed loargue in favor of abone 1001 assemblage at 'aguar Cave, Idaho. She slates, During IhE! identification of the Artiodllclylll. a consisleney in the shape and fracture paltems 01 many fragmants. particularly among Ihe long bQnes. was noted. While il is nol inconceivable Ihal hane would tend lo frscture along Unes of least resishmce,that ¡s. following in!laren! slresses and slraíns ... yet Iha possibility existed that such pllllerning reflected purposerul fracluring aiml:!d st oblalning spacificshepes ISadek·Kooros 1972:3691·
The parlicular pattern Ihat atlmcled Ihe laguar Cave research was whal my field crew in AJaska referred lo as "bayonet" breaks, described as fallows:
Tha meal is finl strípped from the hanes from whlch marrow is to he blken. Onu Ihis is accomplished Ihe bones are thrown on or next la Ihe coals of an open file. They are healad in Ihis manner for a very short time, being lumad over occlIsionlllly lo prevent burning. The Indians relale Ihat this procedure makes thll bones aasiar to break. Likewlse.fresh bones break more ~5i1y thltn do dry bonas. Nexl Ihe bones are taken {rom the coaJs and allowed lo coal. Meanwhile Iwo large oval stonas are placed on the groond about 8-10 i!lches spart. Whan Ihe bone is cool enough lo handle, il is placed so (hat Iha proximal and distal ends fl~st upon
6 metatarsal bone relainiflg one epiphvsis. usually the disfal epiphysi~. fractured regularly ~CfOSs the enl;re posterior or antflriorsurface at specific dislam;:es fram Ihe epiphysis retainad, Ilmi hsving a shaft at leasl J limesas long as il was wide on Ihe surface apposad to Ihesurfa<;;e fractured ISadek"Kooros 1972 ;:1711
This type of break was oblalned by placing the metatarsal on an anvil (see Sadek-Koaros 1972: Figures 1, 2, 3) and hilling it, wilh
Although thi& hiihn'!flle was of primary ínterest lo Sadek-Kooroe since ít permitt9d her to approximate the forro of breakage she had charectensncetly seen in her archaeological rernains. it is of sorne interest thet she reccgnízed two cther Iypu. oí !radur~ in addition to spiml fracture: green-slick fraclure, produced when lhe bone was slruck across a stone anvil or another bone, and tronsverse fracture produced when lhe bone was broken by bendins down bolh ends across a slone anvil, another hone, the eJ(perimenler's knee, and so on. Now, although Sadek.Kooros docs nol report the delails regarding the fracture procedures that were foUowed. it is clear that they were suecessful ways of breaking abone, even Ihough they did not yield Ihe forms in which Sadek·Kooros was interested. Could 1argue about Ihe way men of the past broke bone by malching paHerning in an archaeological site with the debris prodllced ~y Sadek-Kooros using "green-stick" and "transverse" bone·breaking procedures? Would Ihis be an argumenl from analogy? If we are attempting to develop methods far distinguishing bone broken by humans from that broken by animals. are we not interesled in underslanding the range of variability that human bone-breaking might lake? Is not Sadek-Kooros human? Is it nol reasonable Ihat lhe tactics she usad to yleld palterns of bona breakage differenl from a elassic spiral fraclure are also Iikely lo have been employed by other humans at olher times? I think we must answer yes lo al! these questions! Workers like Bonnichsen would apparently answer no, since lhe only lechnique discussed ar considered as characteristic of human fraclure by him was Ihal performed by the Calling Lake Cree, the "mid-diaphysis smash techniQue of spiraJ fraclure lBonnichsen 1979:361." Is the only form of valid arBument from analogy elhnoRra:phic? ~!!em~~~ describe ~n_~~~_~~l~~th.~~~.~
'1
~/ - ~"'" I~f ~
.-r-:
&
4. Human Modes 01 Hone Modificalion
150 ~.i':!-J._h!i:~e__º_bserved the Nunamiut Eskirno
break marrow ~ones. J will place theee descriptions in the sftuatfonal orsystemic context in which !hey were most often observad. 1might unmrnent al thís point that in my previolls descriptions I mentioned thet the Nunam h 1 ( 'JlflslC ~M:!+¡t,&. .__ gktxts (L. R. Binford 1978h:153), but Imada no systemettc attempt eíther lo survey rny notes sud extrae! the detaíls 01 these differences or to mennon the total renge of bonebreaking behevtor that I hed in fact wuneesed. 1 was very intent on treetíng butchering in detetl bu! al the time ít did not occur to me la treet bone breaking with equal attentíon. 1was enemptíng lo understend interassemblage variabílity in faunal remains considerad from ao anatomical perspective. I was simply not asking the questions that 1 am now posing regarding the relationships between the morpholog~' ofbroken bone and the tlH::tícs used in bone breaking. In many of the following descriptions 1 do not have the bear and Ihe foolprint together; most of the time 1 observed Ihe bear-Ihe behavior of the Eskimo--but 1 did not think to record its footprint, the resulting patlerns oíbone modification.ln short, much ofwhat is to follow is ethnography, not ethnoarchaeology. i
t" re
Marrow Cracking during Butchering Episodes It is not uncommon for a butcher to crack leg bones open while engaged in butchering. A como ment that is frequently made is that you can teH the nutritional state oí the animal by examining Ihe bone manow. In spring and doring 88l"ly summer, when nutritional conditions of caribau are generalIy poor, a bUlcher may break the front leg just aboye the distal articulator end of the radio-cubitus. This is done before skinning and whHe lhe leg is fully articulated to the animal. The procedure is to grasp the front leg, bringing Ihe foot and metapodíiiTtOrest on one's Ic.nee. while standing behind the front leg fadng the of the animal. With the left hand the foot is pulled upward and forward; the butcher is still bearing down on the leg against the knea, In the right hand Ihe butcher has a bludgeh~ (frequentiy the lower leg of anolher caribou). w Ich is used lo deliver a heavy blow down and on the poslerior edge of
teaa
the lateral side of the distal radius. One blow Is generally aIl Ihal ís naeded. A skinning knlfe is then used to cut tbrougb the sk¡n and tendon al the break, freeing the artículated lower leg (phalenges. metacarpal, carpels. and distal radlo-cubitus]. which is tossed to the side after the marrow ís removed from tbe distal end of the radfus. On the other hand. if the break was loo high. resultlng in a eonairierable length of diephyeis remaining on tbe distal end, the butcher might use the handle nf his skínning knífe and stnke at a protruding sectícn of dlapbys¡s. wifh the intent of drivlng off a flake longitudinally down along the bone. thereby exposing more of the marrow cavíty. Under normal conditions, the break remaining DO Ihe diaphysis oí Ihe radius and arm of the cubitus is vel}' sharp and dagger-like, with a classic spiral moving up and over !he posterior of the face of the radius. The lower leg would be left allhe butchering site and the upper part of the front quarter would be transported to the residential location or to a cache from which it would later be ¡nlroduced to a residen· tial location. The results of breaking through the front leg during bulchering are well recorded in the inventories of anatomical parts remaining on kili butchering locations (see L. R. Binfmd 1978b:76), where without exception the discrepancy belween the frequency of proximal and distal ends of abone in the front leg is greatesl for Ihe radio-cubitus. Less commonly, Ihis same behavior may be directed toward Ihe lower third of Ihe distal tibia wilh the intenl of removing the lower rear leg (phalanges. melalarsal, tarsals, and distal tibiaj. At least among the Nunamiut, cracking Ihe tibia is considered more of an indulgence and is only done when the butcher desires to eat good marrow. It is not a "testíng" technique like breaking the radius. The only difference in the way lhe tibia is treated is that I have observed iI broken after skinning; in fact my notes indicate in 79% of Ihe cases 111 out of 14) Ihe rear leg had beeo skinned prior to breaking the tibia for marrow. Otherwise Ihe procedure ofbone fracture was essentially the sama as for the radio-cubitus. On Ihe other hand. removal of marrow was more extensive and more atlention was given to modifying the shaft remaining atlached lo Ihe animal. For ¡nstance, in 3 oul of 14 cases, after the lower leg had been removed by cut-
Marrow-Bone Breckoge
tíng Ihe tendons and tissue eround the break, the butcher walked to a nearby rock and hit the protruding fractured end oí the distal tibia on the rock. The compect blob of marrow from inside the distal tibia fell out neetly onlo the rock. Tha butcher picked it up. putttng it into his mouth as he tossed the lower leg lo (he síde. In 5 out of 14 cases the butcher par. tiafly fUleted the mear from the tibia. leaving it attached to the mass al unñlleted meat en the femur. This had the effect of expostng the main pert ol the tibial shaft up te the poínt al which {he shaft wídens. just below the proximal end of the tibia. The butcher Ihen screped the proximal surface of the tibial shaft and slruck a blow directed at the proximal face of the tibia about halfway between the previous break and the proximal end. In all 5 cases a classic spiral fracture deveJoped, running in both directions so that several splin!ers could be pried up and the "hot dog" shaped section of marrow Iifted from the bone as a single unit. The fracture tended to disappear into the uncleaned proximal end of the tibia still surrounded by substantia1 quantities of tissue al the point of articulation with the distal femur. In all but one case Ihe bUlcher then picked up a tabular stone or a lower le8 secHon to use as a bludgeon. The slump oí the broken tibia was then held and pounded with the bludgeon on the fracture. Several subslantial blows were delivered, the bludgeon was tossed to one side, 8nd the fracture was examined to determine if loase splinters had been produced. The knile hlade was inserted in the end of (he bone and used as a lever until a section of bone gave way. Then Ihe blade was run down the outside of lhe bone along the indicated crack removing the periosteum a10n8 the crack. The bone splinter was then bent outward, generally ¡eaving Ihe proximal end of Ihe splinter stiB attached to the proximal end of the tibia by the periosteum and alher lissue. The bent-away spllnter "door" then permilted the easy removal of Ihe marrow in the proximal end ol the tibia. The proximal articulalor end wilh bent-away 5plinlers still adhering was left with the heavy muscled "ham." which was eilher later {ilIeted or carried away as a unit to a residential lacation. If any further marrow was eaten during bulchering it was almost invariably done during a resl and Ihe metatarsal WijS the target bone. Fracluring of the
151
metetersal under these condttíons was eesentially done in the sama way that il ts normally done in hunting cemps and stands and will be described in that conlext.
Marrow Cracking in Hunting Stands and Camps A3 I heve deomonstreted, consumption of bone marrow ís a common snacking strategy in hunting campe and stands (L. R. Binford 1978b; 179-191). The most consístent terget of this consumptíon is the metatarsal. 1 observed 61 cases of breakage for marrow of the metatarsal in this contexto The first point to be made is that bone-breaking strategies in the field are variable. unlike Ihe situation in residential camps where a redundant set of bone-breaking pattems was evident. The variability in field sites is primarily conditioned by the contexl. Mosl consumption in hunting camps and stands is snacklng and is done quite expediantIy and as a par· tial function of the soclality of the moment, when several people are snacking and talking logether. Dnder such condidons, one looks about both fm a source ol snacks as well as t001s for processing bone. Tha occupants Díthese field camps, are usually men, and the knives they regularly carry expedientlyserve to break marrow bones; the blade is held and Ihe bone is struck with lhe knife handla. Figure 4.45 shows the deaned marrow bones of a rear leg together wlth an anvil, a stone hammer, and the skinning knife commonly carried by today's hunters. when a skinning knife is not used for breaking matrow bones, an elongated stone such as the ene illustrated (Figure 4.45) is used. The anvil. although sometimes used as such, more commonly serves as a working surface on which marrow recovered from 8. bone may be placed or accumulated prior lo con· sumption. It may also serve for tapping Ihe marrow out of sorne articulalor ends. Typically the marrow bone is c1eBnedto lhe stale i1Justrated in Figure 4.45 before it ls hroken. This will vary, however, with whelher snacking is a leisure activity earried out 00Iween work episodes (such as butchering, hunting, Of transporting field·butchered parts to storage or lo Ihe residence) or
1
I
.~
l~ "
~_u,-A-«Ar ~ ~ >
w.J,huJ-
.....
~~=
ix~e .
4. Human Modes o/ BOlle ModifiClllion
152
,
Marrow·Bone Breckcge
with a small suck or. if the knife handle ís being used asa hemmer. with the blade of the knife. Somelimes the broken distal end may be tapped on tha anvil so fhe marrow will pop out. Thís may result in "retouch" 00 the apex of the bayonel break. The distal end wíth ettached large sectton of díaphys¡s. or bone shaft, is Ihen normetly reversed in the hand so Ihe proximal end oí the bone te most distonl from the body if it Is a left metetersal: a nght matetersal would be posítíoned with Ihe distal end away. The reason for thís is that Ihe lateral side of a caribou rnetatarsal ís much wider and slopes obJiquely up te the fluted crest on the anterior face of the bone. II is elcng the flat faee at tts juncture with the anterior chennel thet a series of quiek blows are dírected. Usually three hits about 2 inches aparl are sufficient to crack Ihe "crest'' ofthe metetersal into a
153 series of bone platas. whieh can then be picked off since Ihey normally edhere to the bone by virtue of small segmente of ussue. 1 use the term plates sfnce the thíckness of a caribou metatarsal is nol great and the thickness ts uniform over mueh of the shaft. If Ihe blows are deltvered with the flat side of a hammerstone or wilh a knlfe handla wrapped with a smelltutt of sk¡n. the blows are dtñuse and have the effects of "depressing" oul bone platea mueh Itke Ihe segrnents oí bone compostng a "depressed fracture" of the skull or other large bone. Mosl of the time there are few lf any impael notcbes or classic properttes of a percussíon poinl ímpact with tbis melhod of cracking the metatarsal. The remains of the shaft are elso quite dtstmctíve. generally exhibiling verv angular profile of fracture, as shown in Figure 4.48. lf the metetersal is disartieulaled from the tersels. the
FIGURE 4.45. Bones ond tools "sed in Nunamiul marrow crocldnR·
engaged in cther tasks. Under the letter condttíon the bone may be broken while articulated lo others. or it may be even broken while it is only partially skinned. Under normal condíttons of snacklng , when other ecttvttíes are not being conducted, the bcnee will be cleened as shown in Figure 4.45 and placed up clase lo tbe coels of the fire lo be warmed befare betng crBcked. A metalarsal is Iypically grasped by a righl.handed man in the left hand. while Ihe hammer is held in Ihe right. The bOlle would be held slightly lurned outward so Ihal if 'he melalarsal is from Ihe left Ihe wide ridge 8100g Ihe junc:tion ofthe posterior and medial faces of Ihe bOlle would be uppermost. lf a right melatarsal is being cracked the posterior and lateral faces of Ihe bOlle would be uppermosl and aligned to receive!l blow. The hammer is held in lhe
right hand end a blow is struck clown on the aligned "ridge" ebout 21/¡ - 3 luches back from the distal end of the bone. Figure 4.46 shows [ohnny Rulland holding the stone hammer and metatarsal in the proper posttlon for striking the bone. Figure 4.47 ebows the spiral fracture resulting from the neck-directed blow: the distal end is twísted off. since the peetosteum held the bones together after the fractures from the hammer impaet developed. TypiGally what happens js Iha! the fracture runs down into Ihe artieulator end on Ihe surfaee exposed to Ihe blow and runs away and up Ihe bone on Ihe face opposite Ihe impael area. This results in a poinled or shart "bayonet" projec· Iion of diaphysis along Olle side on the distal end of the bone. The marrow cavily in the dislal end of the melatarsai is smooth and Tlol webbed eaoeellous lissue. Any marrow insirle !he distal end is picked out
FIGURE
4.46. Dcmonstrolion of impac' olJgllmelll for bOlle and hommer when a m{'lolonool ;5 being froclured.
..
.e-: 154
"
Human Modes of Bone Mndi!klllioll
RiQht metatarsal, ¡aleral lace
[~~:~ Le" metocorpal, m'dial tcce
.-. <
~ \,
l'
't:
fiGURE 4.47. TwJSfillB off spiroJly frocturerJ dislal end of a merafoFSaJ.
proximal end may be split with segmenta of the proximal articulator surlace edhertng to vertous bone platee and spltntees. Once the fracturad bone eplínters and pletes are picked off the bone. the marrow ts removed. normally by díggtng tt out with a stick or with Iba knife blBde as ts shown in Figure 4.49.
Another bone sometimes broken for marrow in bUDtiog cernps and stands ts Ihe metaceroal. In GBribou thts ís structurally a very different Iype oí bone In that the díephysís is much thícker then in Iha metetersel, and the rnerrow cavily ís much smaller. The bona is shorter than the meteterset and it Is much more symmetrical in cross sectlon. Itjs prepered in Ihe same manner as the metetarsel but it i8 broken somewhat differently. The posttton of the bone relativa 10 the hand-held hammer is the same as
iIlustrated in Figure 4.46. However, tbe blow ts generally delivered with 11 more rounded portien of tbe hammer and with more force, so a point of impaet about three-querters of an ineh in diameter is produced. The blow is dtrected somewhat lower on tbe síde of the bone. Generally, before the distal end is twísted off a seeond blow ts directed along the same side of the bone about z inches in from the distal end of the bone. Both of these blows develop clesstc Impact scars ringed wíth small. incompletely fracturad ñny impaet chips (see Figure 4.48). When twísted eñer the second hlow, the bone may well fall into beaically four preces: a splintered sechon of the ano tenor crest of Ihe diaphysis, the distal end.fhe proximal end, and a sertlon of the posterior face of the díaphys¡e. This is a hard bone, so that most of the díagnosttc properties of poin! impact such as dts-
-
.--
~ ~~ ~ ._~~
_---.co RiQhlmelat
~ \. , -, ,
,,,..,, tece
-~--
__--- ~$5~>G~~ -- ~~. ,- ,. ~~ ---;¡ -.....A 8
¡,
-
~
'~(;;.~ -~ ~ . ." 'W'--' -'. \ '
-." zrio/,..:-
I~-
.;_
~
I
--r¡~~~-=-
~,_-,,
:¿~~-..~~~~
.
~
------~
Alllllrlorlace, lett metatars
Postll"or . f
=
m""
FIGURE: 4.4e. Impact and fracture patlerns typicul uf mefapodiuls broken for
JmI1TOW.
lO'
IJ"uoP. - --48<'" ~.
A...
4:" - «j-.I
_-á-'.
~
I
157
Marrow-Bone Breakage 4. Humen Modes of Done Modification
156
......
'"_0,. ~
"''1/'
,.,,"
. . . . '~ ..J "
"
"i/;
FIGURE 4.49. Removing marrow from
me proximal secliQn 01 a broken melatarsol.
ttnct tmpact notchee remeín 00 the fragments ot the diaphysis. As in Ihe case of the metatarsal, Ihe proximal end may sometimes splil out with Ihe sections nf diaphysis. Variability arises in the degree oC cleaning and Ihe degrea lo which bones are disarticulated from adjoining bones. It Is nol UDcommon to lee the lower reer les of 8 caribou- phlcettup clOl'Ie lo Ihe-tire fur warming pl'ior lo skinnlng, sometimea witt\ the -fool snd larsal stiU articulated. Once Ihe bone Is warmed, Ihe skin oC Ihe central par! oí Ihe anterior BurJace may be removed sud a series ofblows directed o.loog Ihe ¡uoctnre oí Ihe latefal lace sud the anterior nute, resulting in Ihe plates and thin bone splinlers described for the other melhod of cracking bones. These will be pulled up and commonly allowed lo rernain aHached by lIssue at the proximal or dislal
ende of the bone. A window ts thereby exposed and warm marrow may be dug out. The result is 6 rnetatarsal wilh a Iypically angular fracture profíle along Ihe central part ofthe diaphysis bul with proximal and distal ends remaining arliculated with the fool and larsals respectively. Somewhat more commonly Ihe {oot will be disllrticulated and the bundle of tendon Ihal runs aloog Ihe posterior surface of!he metalarsal will be pulled up lo its altachment al Ihe tarsals. The exposed dislal end of Ihe metatarsal will be Irealed in the same manner as a complelely deaned bone. The only difference is that Ihe proximal end remains articulBted with Ihe tarsals and assodaled with the fool bones, which are atlached al Ihis time lo Ihe lendon bundle (see Figure 4.03). The men explained thal Ihey used Ihe harnmeron-bone lechnique in Ihe field because it Is easily
done standing up, it ls easily done so thal articulator ende and the desíred maITOW do nol fall to the ground, and Ihey do not have to clean the bone perfectly or heve it totaUy disarticulated. The last Iwo characteristics are importanl -elettve to the techo ntques normally used by women (or processing marrow bones in residential cemp sñuatrons. Men in the fieId may sometlrnes crack bcnes other then the metepodtals. When thts is done they normally ímpect the bones on the sidee. ettber lateral or medial, with hemmers as was done Inr the metepodíels (an exceptton ís the proximal fémur, which 1 will describe Ieter when I dtscuss strategtes employed in the reaidential camps). They always impact the bones on the neck area jusi ebove the artículator end. With bones such as the distal femur end tha distal tibia. they may impact the bone up lo 4 nr 5 inches from the erttculetor surfece. aimlng for a long bayonet break. which exposes the medullary cavíty but does not crack the end off the bone. The letter musl be twteted apart given the aUachments of the peñosteum. This ensures that the ertículetor end does not fall to the ground or otberwíse gel "out of hend." Bones with dense díaphyses such as the libia !end to break with cteen "percussion" relatad properties, yielding splinters with clean lmpact notches (Figure 4.50). When meat is being cut from (he bones in the ñeld for purposes of eüher field drying or weight reductton for transporl, complete legs or melor aruculeted segmenn may be Iying around. with the meet removed. Nol uncommonly a butcher oc persnn engaged in filleling the rneet may greb one of Ihese arliculaled but filleled legs and praceed lo crack bones-generally those of Ihe uppec leg such as the humerus, ar Ihe libia and femur-by slriking Ihem obliquely in cenler shaH while Ihe bone resls on an anvil. The bone is (hen twisled aparl and (he marrow is dug out from Ihe remaining Iwo ends. This cesults in frequenl arliculalions of dislallibia and proximal remur oc proximal melalarsal wilh tarsals and distal libia, cleariy indicaling Ihal Ihe bones were nol disarticulaled prior lo hMing been broken in miclshaft foc marrow. As stated flarlier, bones impacted in miclshaft lend lo show df:!veloped impacl nolehes and classic spiral fractures. when Ihis slrategy is used. the imlwct is nearly o/W
fiGURE 4.50. Pernnsion impoct notch on lonll-bone
,pllnter.
streíghten out the joints and placa abone on an anvíl wllh anterior or posterior facas uppermost.
Marrow Cracking during MeaJs in Residenüc! Sites --Most of the time marrow bones are filleted by Ihe women while they are preparing rneals. and the bones are atorad for later processtng in large groups. On sorne occestons. bcwever, rnarrow bones may be served at a meal (see L. R. Binford 1978b:145. 146). When Ihis is done Ihey are almost always eaten by men or al least broken by men, although women may receive choice morsels from their male relatives. Somelimes an oid woman will break her own marrow bonesaround a household hearth, and when Ihis is done (1 is almos! always dona in "male style," Ihat Is, using a harnmer lo impact the bone held in Ihe hai;ld. It was explained that Ihis ensured Ihat the ends did nol fall lo Ihe ground or in the hearth, since Ihis is generaJly done in fronl of diners inside a winler house. An alternative melhod is sometimes IIsed ¡nside hOllses when Ihe marrow bones have been warmed in a slew and are very warm and slippery. This is Ihe "on-anvil" technique, where the bone resls on an anvil----cornmonly one of Ihe large slones surrounding the hearlh-and is impacted
~/¡d 1/- ¡ek-, t..~ _.J!c'
4iiiiIII 158 with a hammer. Hones broken in thls manner are seeted 00 the anvíl in a stable fashion and do no! slip arnund. Bones commonly seated 00 the posterior or anterior faces are distal metapcdtals. distal radiocubitus. and the distal tibia. ThsS8 are almos! always impacted 00 the posterior or anterior faces rather than 00 the lateral or medial faces. as is more common when the bone is held in the hand end impactad with a hammer al en oblique engle lo the bone. The latter ortentetíon biases the break in favor of B cleestc spiral fracture. which ir done well will run up the cevíty exposing a considerable portien. Impactlng on the posterior or anterior faces tends lo shatter the bone or produce a complex depressed fracture (common with the radio-cubitus and metapodials) or a complex bipolar fracture more Iikely wlth the dístel tibia. Removal oí the artioulator ends in this fashion commonly resulta in an unbrcken section of the shaft of the bone in the forro of a cylinder (particularly with the femur and tibia), whích te then Creed of its marrow by pushing the "hot dog" out wíth a small stick or sometimes a sheep rib bone. Many women are more comfortabla with the cn-anvtl technique and 1 have seen it employad by them at large migration hunliog slands (sea my descriptions oC behavior at Anavik aod Anaktiqtauk (L. R. Binford 1978b: 171-1781l. Regardless of whether the hammer-onbone tel::hnique ar Ihe on-anvil technique is used, the impal::t8are slill direcled al the neck ares of the bone jUst below Ihe arliculalor ends.
Processing of Marrow Bones by Women in ResidentioJ Camps Most marrow-bone breaking in residential eamps is done by women during intense processing sessions (SBe Figure 4.51 l. Commonly Ihe marrow bones ara col1el::ted for several days and then processed al! at once. Occasionally when large quantities of bones ate available, as during migralion hunting aclivities. massive quantities may be processed alance. Typically a skin is placed on the Aoor or ground, depending where Ihe processing occurs (normally outsidel. Do Ihe skin is placed a conlainer for the marrow and en anvil slone, and Ihe bones lo be crack.ed are pUed nearby. The woman is sealed al Ihe
4. Human Modas 01 Bone Modi/icalion
FIGURE 4.51. Mass uf bones oWlJllins crack;ns by Anaktuvuk women durlng "gong" processlns for JnalTOw.
edge of the skin, which serves as a drop cloth. Mosl of the time Ihe bones have been previously cleaned bul sorne minor c1eaning may take place prior lo cracking. Actual breaking of the bones is done by striking rhe bone down on a handheld "hammer." The hammer tool is called a kootoh- and has beeo illuslraled previously (see L. R. Binford 1979J. It ¡s typicallya natural tabular secHon of local Hmeslone. relatively squate or Ihicker on one side than the olher. This means thal by a shift in orientatioo, Ihe kootoh can impact a bone as a point, a very thin ridge. or a very broad, fiat face. It may also be shifted from Ihe lefl lo Ihe right hand (if Ihe woman is righl-handed) and used as a hammer io Ihe male fashion if needed. When womeo break marrow bones in residential locations, 'hey are concemed wilh breaking Ihe bone so Ihal Iillle compact and dense diaphysis remains atlached 10 Ihe articulalor ends, which willlaler be used in Ihe making of bODe grease on bone juice. There is a secano cOllcern: namely,
159
Murrow-Bone Brecknge thet the bones be broken so thet the marrow remaíns "oleen," thet ís. free of impact chips commonly driven lnto the marrow when the dense bone of the stuLft ís ímpecred. Both of these concerns are served bystriking sorne erttculetor ends as close as possíble lo the polnt al which cancellous ttssue merks the transition from the medullary eavity lo the arüculetor end. Such cancellous tíssue is typically found in both ends of tbe femur, Ihe proximal tibia, and the proximal humeros. On the otber hand, reletívely srnooth tener surfaces are characteristíc of the distal humerus, distal libia, proximal and distal redtus. and proximal and distal metapodial. In caríbou, the metatersal end the distal radius are reletívely thín-walled and may be broken by impact crushíng the erea jusi aboye the distal artículator end. This results in few ímpect chips and only depressed platee, which can be picked off the marrnw. Only the distal tibia, proximal radtue. distal humerus, and metacerpal are charactertzed by smooth inner surfaces of the medullarv cavttv. and thick and dense adíacent diaphyses. Th~se bones are ofless utility as grease bones beeause of their densily. The degree to which Ihey will be broken close lo Ihe end is Iherefore related to Ihe quanlily of bones available for rendering grease. For instance, if many bones are available, as in the case oí Figure 4.51, lhese bones will be struck obliquely in the secUon of shaft judged lo be mosl perfectly round, since obliquely impacting Ihese with eilher Ihe hammer-onbuneor bone·ofl·hammer technique, as ilIustraled in Figure 4.46, tends to produce c1ean spiral fractures running bolh directions wilh Iittle impact notching and hence Ihe driving of chips inlo the marrow. Marrow conlained in Ihe longer unborken secHon of the dislal tibia, for instance, may be dug out; oceasion· ally the spirally fraclured end may be lapped on an anvil. knocking Ihe marrow free. If this is the strategy employed. Ihe dense bones, dislal tibia. dislal humeros. proximal radius, and ends of Ihe metacarpal would nol be pracessed for grease wilhout further reduction of the diaphysis. The lalter would be done as part of processing articulalor ends for grease rendering, ralher Ihan as part o( Ihe marrow-processing aclivities. The technique of bone-on-hammer cracking very clase to Ihe arIiculator end lea ves very dislindive Iypes of breaks as well as impacl areas.
FEMUR Figure 4.52 tllustrates an Eskimo woman about to strike the proximal end oí the fémur on the hand-held harnmer-envtl. Ftgure 4.53 shows the type of break that resulte from a blow of this kínd. The proximal end ís broken off, with HUle attached diaphysis. Hints of slíght depreesed fracturing of the thinwalled bone are still vísíble at the upper end of the break. Impact Is ínveriebly on the enteríor face of the proximal femur, just between the femoral head and the greater trochenter. The fracturas are generally oleen and have sorne of the properties of heving been snapped off rather than spírally fracturad.
FIGURE 4.52. Proximal femur about tu be hit ocras," a hond-heJd anviJ.
.~
,~, ~
~
Marrow-Bone Breokage
~ 3 12~.~
~~ 2 0
•
o
1
l§ ~j ~l
~
1
1
]
}
161
The distal end is impactad as shown in Figure 4.54;that ts, obliquely across the band-held anvil jusi behind Ihe distal articulalor end. Impact is normally on the lateral surfece. The curvature ís relatively sllght on thís surface and a massive impact zone ís developed with sorne of the properties of a depressed fracture, with numerous small chips erranged in radial "tters" around the znne of impact (see Figure 4.53). A short spiral fracture normally comes up from Ihe impact zone around the shaft on tbe side away from the persono The person cracking the bone ís then left holding the cylindrical segment of the femoral sheft if the spiral fracture does not intercept B fracture produced when the proximal end was bro-
1 ~
•
""
! i ~
• J.
~..
i~ ~ .~
M'l::
;'0
~.'
~:¿;~ .-&/
-
§
~
E
i:
FIGURE 4.55. Pushing marrow ¡rom a femaral cylinder with a marrow pusher.
J "•'"
~
~)l ~ __
g
i5
.~
~.
-e
-, i~ ~ -. i" .!
'1-
i
ken. In the letter case the femoral shaft would essentially break open in the hand. If this does not happen. marrow from the cylinder is pushed out (see Figure 4.55) end the marrow from the cavity of the distal end ís dug out both wilh a stíck or somettmes a more substantial rnerrow pusher, such as a lower sheep ribo
S ~
-. ::L.
TIBIA
FIGURE 4.54. Distal femur alignfld ayer hand-held oswtl jU8/ befare
;~-""'
....... ~
impacto
The tibia is normally held by the distal end and struck across the hand-held hamrner-anvil so the impact is received 00 the posterior fece just below
4-\)o'X-....l. -
01.(...,,< ~~,~
4. Human Modes of Bone ModijkarÍl¡n
16Z the condyles. As is the case with the femur, thís bolle Is relatively thin in this area and depressed fractures remain along the margins of the actual fracture. Typtcelly 811 the bone on tbe posterior face is broken away, leaving cnly a pointed projection of the Iibial crest. The bolle ís then reversed in the hend end the distal end oí tha bone ís etruck clown ecross the hammer-anvil epproximately 2 loches hade from the distal end oí the bone.Hthe impact ís done well, the distal end ís snapped off and falls lo the floor below the envti. Classíc spiral fractures are not so clearly represented with thís method. If the bone ís particularly rohust it may be impactad across Ihe corner oí a stationary anvil resting on Ihe ground. In aoy event, more Of less straight across but jagged breaks are nonnalIy the resulto The tibia is senerally more ir· regular in section than the femur, so it is not uncommon to impact an unfractured cylinder using tbe koofoh as a hammer, splitting lhe cylinder and thereby exposing Ihe marrow. HUMERUS The humerus is a shorter bone than either Ihe tibia or the femur, yet the distal end is very hard and dense. For this tellson the distal snd is normal1y broken off firsl. The strategy used is simílar to that used for the distal tibia, except that the dital end is almost always seated on a stationary anvil, medial face down, and impacted with the kaotoh used as a hammer Oh the lateral face directly on Ihe ridge marking the anterior from the lateral face af Ihe bone (see Figure 4.53). A strong bipoiar pattern of scarring is cornmonly visible on the broken end. The bone treated in this manner does not normally have a very distinctive spiral fracture. Instead, a jagged transverse fracture is common. The bone is teversed in the band and the proximal end is then impacted obJiquely down on a hand·held hammer-anvil so Ihe blow is lo the medial face of the bone just below the lip of the large proximal articulator condyle. Sometimes (his is cracked off, using Ihe same strategy as for the distal end, sinee (he butcher already has the hammer in the righl hand and the anvil is in use. When this is the case, the bone is sealed on the anvil wilh the edge resting acrass Ihe laleral foce and the impact is deliverad lo Ihe medial face just below Ihe artículator surface.
XliV'>? k~,~ &
RAOIO-CUBITUS
Fracturins of the radío-cubnus.ts more dírectly related to the degree oí prevtous cleentng of lissue from the bone then holds true for eny other marrow bone. 1 have already mentioned thet it may be frequently broken durtng butchenng. This bone is rarely served in restdentíal sítes. since it is consídered " ~ " lo break ínside the bouse. Ifthe bone is cleaned the lechnique ts to stríke Ihe distal end of the bone down on the hand-held anvil oriented obliquely, as was shown for the metapodials (see Figure 4.46). Impaet is generally slightly on one side, although it msy sometimes be on the anterior face back about 1!h inches from the dislal end. The distal end usually breaks off rather transversely when this strategy is used, although the break may be somewhat jagged. The bone will then be reversed in Ibe hand and impacted 0(1 the hand· held hammer·-anvil aH along Ihe anterior face ofthe radius, beginning very clase to the articulator surface, and then hit at aboul l-inch intervals down the shaft of the radius. Blows are generally jusi slightly off center bul slill tend to be on Ihe anterior face of the bone. This mode of fracturing has the effect of breaking Ihe proximal end of the radius off very short. Wilh matUte animals Ihe posterior face of Ihe ladius remains altached to the cubitus, snd impact searring may be overlapping down short sections of the margins of the fractures on the body of Ihe bone remnants Marrow is primarily conlained in the medullary cavity of the body or shaft of long bones. This shaft is shaped like a eylinder, so access to the medullary cavity and hence the marrow is facililated by col· lapsing or fracturing the cylinder longitudinally. 'PWLLSiBi 1I hus in lb n'erofJ'lns b PO b te tnyrtm'piúOfde lOOlt:v aeeass "" M16 If one simply breaks a long bone through the center shaft, Ihen one must dig out tha marrow, which is very Iime-consuming and not very satisfac· tory. or proceed to break the bone agaio, 10ngitudinally, to expose the contained marrow. This results in curved fractures on short splinlers. The most likely bone form discarded is an articulator and with very Htlle attached diaphysis. This is not fhe form of bone breakage that is generally cited as deriving from marrow-bone breakage and Ihe crack-and-twist method. Breaking bones far lIH1rroW results in cer-
Morrow-Bone Breako¡¡e
tain very regular patterns as observed among the Nunamiut Eskimo. That what the Nunamiul do is indeed a general strategv has been confirmed for me by the examinahon of many fauna! assemblages from many dífferent time perlods and piaces where tntenuonel breakage by man is not in questton. The breakege strategy generally mvolves percussion impacto whether it be (o) with a hammer on a hand-held bone, (b) with Ihe borre nn a hand-held orrigid anvtl. or (e) wilh a hammer while the bone re resting on an anvíl. Regardless of the loading tacttcs used. the Iarget Impact zone on abone ts generally the same. rhe marrow bone to be cracked is generally h"ld by lhe most robusl articulator end and initial impact is just below the neck of the moce compect articule.tor end. This initial heavy blow normal1y results in considerable fractures developed through the shaft of the bone, and the resul1ing splinters are peeled baek., as they mey be held in place by the periosteum. This peeling back exposes the cylinder of bone marrow, which, if the animal is in good nutritionel condifion, can be picked up and either ealen or added fo an aceumulating pije of marrow. If the inHial impact did not produce fractures extending the length ofthe bone shaft, secondary impacts are mede along the basa of the neck o( the opposite end. The force of these impaets are generally less than the initial im· pael fhat froctured off the opposite articulator end. These more modest impacls fracture the bone so ~plinfers may once again be peeled or struck off lhe cylindrical shaft. This strategy of direcling percussion impacts to Ihe neek of the long bone (Ihe area direclly below the articulator end) results in many long-bone splinters and isoleted artieulator ends with little attached diaphysis.
¡¡¡gil"'' ,
Control Collections As mentioned earlier, these descriptions are cul· loofrom behavioral observations made while Eskimo were breaking marrow bones, and 1 did not make a practice of gathering lhe bones 1 observed being cracked. Part of Ihis failure on my part was from nol knowing at Ihe time what patterning had been observed in the archaeologk,al record lo which my ob· sefvations mighl be of relevance. For ¡nslance, at the
~~,-
le>-
~"'-í"h
163 lime of my fieldwork, 1 was unaware of Frison's argument about bcne choppers. 11 therefore nevar occurred to me to tnspect in detail the bones 1 saw crecked for merrow during butchering when the butchers hit the apex of spiral fractures on a rock tu dislodge the marruw. In Iect. the potentlal imporlance of this act dtd not really regis1er untñ I beceme awere of Frison's observations. J took it for grented. stnce I can remember discusstng marrow cracking with Kent Flannery and he reoorted that this was a common act in the Near East. In order lo shake the marrowout of Ihe shafl of the bon", the villifgers seem lo have tapped !he broken end againsl a nltrd surface. The brollan l:Idges of sorne limb bones shaw a resultanl chipplng whích (allhough irregular) almosl always rasemblesper(;usllion technlqua~ on flinl. Dr.Junius Bird of Ihe AmericanMuseumof NaturalHis· tory reporls Ihal he observed Ihe Tndians of Patagonia using the technique of marrow removal when he visited Ihem in the 1930's. Al thal time he noted the scale·Jike "'retollen" produced on Ihe broken edges of Ihe bone This "retoueh" al50 oecurs on gazelll~ bones fran! AH Kosh (see Fig. 123c, ellHole el al. 1969:2911 This illustrates that when one is studying living peoples one simply does not know what is relevant wilhout a detaHed knowledge of the paflerning that has been recogniZ6d in the archaeological record and, even more important, patterning for which interpretative c1aims have been made_ 1 did not ignore marrow cracking, however, since 1 do have a number of colleclions o( bone known to have been cracked for marrow and about which 1 have considerable informanl information, although 1 did not witness !he bone breaking. From a series of such informant-documented assemblages, sorne of lhe properties of bone fragmen(s generated by the tscties described can be demonstrated. Im~¡et SCBes froro hiltin the bone durin marrow crae ¡og are guite istmctive. Firsl, they are a mosl a ways at a single impact point, which results in driving off short bul rapidly expanding flakes inside the bone cylinder. At the point of ilnpad the bone may be nolched, in that a crescent-shaped notch is produced in Ihe fraclure edge of the bone. (See Figure '1.50.) These have the appearance of Claetonian notches in the Bordean laxonomy of lithic fracture but are somewhal smaller given the eylindric~l nature of the bone. I h
,
..6:," 164
rectly sirle by slde. This makes a greet deal oC sense. stnce the nntches are only produced when the loading successfully breaks the bone. If that happens there is no further need for fracturing al that exect spot. Any addilional hilling 01 the bone will be along an unfraclured surface. The frequency of such impael nctches (Figure 4.50) in a marrow-creekad assemblage Is indicated in Table 4.05, which presents the ebaervad frequencies of splinters [diephysís fragments exceeding 2.9 cm in Iength) with Impact notcbes in populations oC bcne splinters from six control sampJes collecled al Anaktuvuk. lt should be cleer Ihal the production of percusston impacl scars on the diaphysis is a regular phenomenon and can be expected lo exhlbit dístínctíve numerical pettemíng depending on the ímpact tactíos usad and the size and morphology of tbe bones beíng broken. For ínetence. in samples 1. 3, and 4, where there is a bias in favor oí metepodíels. there ls a slight reduction in the percentege of bone spl inlers exhjbitíng impact notching. Thís is conststent wilh the earlier observations that fracturing, particularly of the metatersal, was more like producíng a series of depressed fractures from yieldíng bone plates Iecking impacl notches. On the other hand, essembleges known lo heve conteíned more upper Iimb bones such as the femur, tibia, and humerus clearly exhiblt a hígher frequency of ímpect-notched bone splinters. Comparative study of Ihe frequendes of impacl nolches is believed to be a fruitful approach lo d is. linguishing between fraclured bone derived from animal versus human aclioos. Obviously the impacl scars are nol exclusive lo bone splinters. They regularly occur on arliculalor ends and io distinctive places, since Ihe placemenl of blows is a regular phenomenon varying with Ihe morphology of bones and only minimally wilh Ihe loading slralegies. Impact nolches as ilIustraled in Figure 4,50 are Ihe scars remaioing after a section of bone has been removed by virtue of impacto There is another type of impact scar that commonly occurs when impacl is over a wide surface, when impacl is on a surface "backed" by caocellous tissue, or when Ihe bone IS exceedingly strong or dense and thick. This is whal I have lermed a spJintered and depressed margin (see Figure 4.53), Morphologically speaking. this is cornrnonJy seen aloog a fraclure where Ihere ma)' be sorne srnall segments of de-pressed surface surrounded by a kind of roselle of very small "chi ps" Ihal have (ractured on Ihe surface
4. Human Modes
of Bone Modjfjrmíon
~
TABLE 4.05 Q
Bone Splinlers Recovered ¡rom SiK MQTrow-Crockins EKpeTiments Unscarred splfnters No. ----
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6
312
Totals
742
59 B3 50 114
14.
Sample 1
Sarnple 2 Sarnple 3
Sarnple 4
Samples 5 and 6
• ~
lrnpact-notrhnd eplínters
% No. % ----._--.86 10 14
.84
za
.63 63
30 B'
.1B .15 .1B .17 .17
63
147
.17
.B' 85
12 9
~
69 75 59 136 17. 37B 889
Ó
Z
"••
~
~
ti
~
- -
s
-NNNi'-
NO"'Nt--
"'N_
~
i'-a;¡",,,,,,, Q'l
e
O'JO
~
N"'''' . .
.... ce r_
N_N
1-
<1'
N<&>
_~,
Z
e
Z
N ... ", ...
O"'O_N
000"'''''
0
.... O " ' ' ' ' ' N
N_ ... O ...
... 0 0 _
.
"I'
"'''1''''''';2
"'
"' ... 0 " ' ' ' '
NOON
OON"''''
.... ONO'"
N ... ON'"
_ N Ot--N_O
.........
"''''~
,
lj
.~
~
-:j
-\l
"'1
~
.~ I
ó
1,,' ~
j t
} ~
.~
•
]
.•.
:giS ...
~
~
~ ~ ~~
z
Z
~~~t--::;
N O""'" <1' ",
Q
N
100N
000""'"
.~
f
-•ti i, -a
"] ~
~ ~
~
~ ~
ii !
~
~,3.;
" E 11
.e
Z "
-g ~
1!
il
• ti !-e ~
o"
Q
, 1
] !
~ ¡
:"e,
~I
~
NOO
Q
Sample desr-rfpttons From the Mask site [sea L. R. Binford 1978b, 178 -tAl); representa the acuvutes of severa] hunters durlng a 2day perlod: blased in favor uf metapodíais From marrow-cracktng demonslrations Ireported in L. R. Binford 1978b: 155) From the Kongumuvuk falJ hunling stand (L. R. 8inford 1978h: 357);rep. reseets the activities of lwo hunters during one eveníng Bones seved Iur study by the women of an E&ldmo household during ApriJ 1971; fre&hly Idlled animals introdUcRn during Ihe lasl two days oflbe colleclion; hiased in favor oí melapo· diaJs; relalive lo samples 5 nnd 6 Bones saved by Ihe head of an Eskjmo household over a considerable period of lime during lale fall and earJy winler; represent household consumplion of marrow hones largely froro stored meal; biased in favor of upper limh parls (femur. tibia, humems)
of Ihe bone; the chips rernain atlached because Ihe fraclures are nol carded Ihrough Ihe bone. This is well ilIustraled in Figure 4.53. (This patlern was firsl described by H. Martin 11910).) Table 4.06 summarizes Ihe frequendes of bolh irnpacl nolches and depressed margins observed in Ihree popuIalions of rnarrow-cracked bones collecled arnong Ihe NUDo.-
ti
e
"'NO .... ce
Z
Tolal splinters
~
NOOOO
Z "'''''0 ... ",
o
o Z
"'
"'ON ...
~
..
-g
~
~ "<
•
~
e.. ;
~ ... ~ ~.=~-
~~~~ª§ t: o;; ~";; -;;-g 8~g~~(I)
g¡
~
I ........ N
.
.... OON'" N
...
-;1
-~
~
Ol
~.~~~~°-oOí __
Ol
a EB .!::o;o;l:3 i5.CiiSc':o..e ~ ~ E
·-;Oi·_·~-g VJ
ii
2
o
E
~.= u"g
041
Ol
.f!! ......
~,.g~ E-;~
_E.c "~~~~~~ .c: ._ ._ ..
..;i--.~
.... aaao..
~ j; •
·•
~J , ;¡ ~
~
H~H ~
" E
~
5
¿
".i::i.b ..
'O~~~S .... a>a> .... .8 ; ....... ~ 61'1.1:1:'"
g'=~~:a 11
~ iii iii ~
o o; al al t
';f'?'(l'{l'(l
165
¡.::;-wA t...'d
-.e« 1Z«-dI
,~"
•
4lIllI 166
4. Human Modes of Bone Modificalían
miut Eskimo. I have arrenged the arttculetor ends into three baste groups ranging From those with very canceltous Intertcrs through Ihose with smooth but thin-walled m8ITOW cevtttes to those with thtck and dense bul smooth interior marrow cavities....
111 ' o.b-.
rr1._L I
1
tila: diG ¡¡3M:::':: ::616 a "f' tb t
I
kh.í'.
uf h .. bLla
M.' -,~ Mik"dRLg±8~ Several things are of tnterest in this tableo Reviewing the lotals il is cleer that moving clown the teble from cancellous 10 smooth end thick íntenors there ls a correleted íncraase in the percentege ot articulator ends exhibiting dislincl and oleen impact notches. Only 8% were observed among the ends ¡udged cancellous, whereas 1B% of those ¡udged lo have thkk and smoolh marrow cavities 9l1ihibiled impact nolches. Conversely. only 9% of Ihe Ihid:. and smoolh ends exhibited marginal depressions from points of impacl, wheroos 37% of Ihe cancellous snds e",hibited such scars. There are several implications of Ihese dala. Clearly Ihe more cancellous lissue Ihere is forming an "undersurface" lo Ihe bone. Ihe more evidence of direcl impact there is remainiog on Ihe bone. Similarly.lhe more dense and compact the bone, Ihe deaner the fracture and Ihe leros direcf evidence of impacllhere is. Perhaps Ihis iB nol as indicltlive a correlation as it might appear, since good examples of marginal depressions and "chip roselles" are in evidence on sorne long-bone seclions froro biso" bone iJIustrated by Frisan (1974: 301. Figure 1.13b, 1.24; 1976: 307. Figure 8.213). Similarly. Ihe bovid bone impacled by Bonnichsen (1979: PIale IV-2, No, 10) experimentally wilh the "mid-diaphysis smash lechnique" c1early shows Ihe chip roseltes, and the impacl depression characlerislic of my more cancellous bones. This arrect may be more a funclion of Ihickness Ihan of bone densily. In any event. the evidence from impacling bone is common on articulalor ends, accurring on over 35% of lhe lolal number examined. As indicated earlier, Ihe placemenl of these impacl treces is regular. occurring in Ihe same lacalions relalive lo Ihe morphology of Ihe dirrerenl bones. 1 think il is dear Ihal Ihe combination of Ihe disposition and frequency of impacl scars, on both articulalor ends and diaphysis fragments. coupled with Ihe breakage morphology of Ihe arliculalor ends, should correlate well with Ihe overall marrow-bone-breakage laclics. t
Breakage Related to Other Forma of Bone Processing Prevtous descrtptíons extst regardíng the use of bones in renderins bone Srease (L. R Binford 1978b:157-163; Leechman 1951) and bone ¡uice ¡L. R. Hinford 1978b:163-1651. In hoth processes the bones carryíng grease and fa! in the cells of cancel]ous tissue are pounded as lo increese the surtace araa of tbe bone exposed. These fragmenta are then botled. thereby rendertng off the greese. Splítting and ctherwise pulvertatng articulalor ends is an inlegral parl of this processinil. bul as we have seen il is essentially never a consequence of marrow-bone breakaile (with the occasional exception of Ihe prox· imal metapodials). I have previously discussed al sorne length how one can idenlify lhe consequences of Ihis behavior (see L. R. 8inford 1978b:t57-165).
Meo-to-Man Comparisons, or Altemative Human Behevion Given Ihe cenlral problem of diagnosing variabilily in bones, one of the grealesl sources of variabilily is mosl Iikely lo be Ihe differenl ways man has developed for accomplishing similar things. Clearly, if we are going lo compare man to animals, consideralion of Ihis polential variability is crudal. I have by no means described 1311 the alternativa laclics which the Nunamiut are capable of perforroing. The slighl accommodations of lechnique lo the differenl anatomical properties of Ihe marrow bones, Iheir degree of articulalion. and Ihe degree of previous c1eaning, aU lead us lo expecl Ihal breaking Ihe bones of larger animals. or bones from animals with differenl analomical properties. would be accommodated by modificalions in technique. In addition lo the responsiveness of the Eskimo lo properties of Ihe bones. Ihere is a correialed response to the situation in which the activity is carried out. For inslance, ooe informanl poinled out that using Ihe hand-held anvil inside a winler honse during a meal might result in bone fragmenls or articulalor ends going inlo Ihe fire or someone's lap. or it would jusI be considerad
Mon-to-Man Comparisons, or Alternalive Human Benovtors
messy and "ímpoltte." On the other hand, ustng a hammer or an on-anvtl technique inside a house did nol carry these rtsks. Similarly, men in hunling stende repeatedly told me thet ustng the hammeron-bone stralegy was possible standing up end one díd nol run the risk of having ends of bones, marrow, and splinters fall to the ground and get dírty. Men also laughed and pclnted out that finding an anvil and spreading a drop cloth was nct whal you did while sitting around a ñre with friends! Finally, it should be potnted out tha! there ts an ínteractíon between ene sel of conditions of tecttce and another. The amount of diserticulation and prevtous c1eaning of bones is ap! lo be much less in a hunting camp or sland. This is also where stand-up lechniques of bone breakage are more appropriate. This means that there will be sorne oorrelations belween technique used and fracture patterning Ihal are nol Ihe direcl result of lhe character of Ihe technique. bul instead derive from Ihe characteristic coincidences belween degrees of prior bone preparation and Ihe conditions influencinil the type of lechnique used. This lype of inlerection should encourage archaeologisls greatly, sinee the slrenglh of such inleraetions for conditioning Ihe resulling morphological properties ofbroken bone should be slronil and primarily informative of Ihe role of different Iypes of sites in the overall roettlement-Iogistical system. This. if true. has slrong potential for methodological development. These descriptians will, 1 hope. prompl the imsilination of erchaeologisls to consider Ihe nature of lhe variables man is responding to when behavinil in such a way as to produce differenl morphological palterns in broken bone. Doing Ihe lalter is Iheory building and is Ihe basis for building a reliable sel of melhods for giving meaning lo the archaeological record, It is beilinninil lhe inleresting task of explllininil cultural differences and similarilies. ay liU) f • 1ft, Ihe IIl!h g 4ltiV d '¡p'ieAs by Zierhut (1967) and 800nichsen (1973) p"........ , 'eb S dassffl .. ¿"SsniFe¡ f b b • One gets Ihe impression thal the CalHng Lake Cree break bones by Ihe "mid-diaphysis smash lech· nique" everywhere and at aH times. in hunlinil camps. in the house. snacking 00 marrow bone while walking along a foresl Irail, while butchering animals. and so on. They do iI Ihal way nol because il helps lo aceomplish a given lask in a given selting. but beeause they are Galling Lake Cree! My guess is
167 that thís ímpresston was structured by the ínvesügetors and not by the Calhng Leke Cree. My guess ts elso Ihal the Cree rarely eet marrow wlth meels in the house. thet Ihey assumed the eonlexl from the place where the quesñons were asked. and their demonstratíons were more reminlscences of things from the pest than actíons daily performed. Whal was demonslraled by the Cree was probably roughly equivelent to the Eskimo's "bone on hand-held anvil" stretegy, generally performed in restdenttal eamps. 1further guess that the marrow was tntended lo be added lo a stew in small quanlities and not lo yield a lerge quentíty, as was most Eskímo women's bone processing. Par! of my reasons for lhinking Ihese thinils relates to my experiences as a young boy in Appalachia. 1 was lauilhl to break marrow bones by my ilrandmolher in a manner similar to what Zierhul (1967) describes for Ihe Calling Lake Cree, except we invariably used an ax. You miilht call our technique the "kindling wood technique" slthough it meets 1311 Ihe criteria for Ihe "mid-diaphysis smash technique" Ihal has so enamored Bonnichsen (1979:54. Plale IV-ti. Slanley Soulh and I once discussed how we were taught lo break matrow bones up in lhe eastern mounlains. Slanley said the fírsl time he was told to lale a big beef bone oul and "break il up" because "Unde so-and-so was coming who really Iiked bone marrow" was a real learning experience. Slan said he went out to the woodshed and put Ihe big bone down wilh each end resting on a split section of 10il and gava a mighly swing with lhe butt end of lhe ex. The bone went flying off inlo the woodpile. He tried ailain and the same thing happened. He then turned the ax around and hit Ihe bone rnidshaft wilh the bit of the a", and the bone broke nicely in half. bul one end new up and hit the roof of Ihe woodshed. Although my experiences were largely the same. 1 had been told by rny grandmolher always lo hit Ihe bone in Ihe rniddle wilh Ihe bit oí Ihe "old dull ax out by Ihe stump hamess." This was an ax used for culting rools when stumps were being pulled by amuJe leam. It was always well polished from having been driven inlo the soil and fairly dull from having hil so many slones. 1 had also been lold not lo hit il as hard as a piece of firewood "because it mighl fly up and hit you in Ihe head." Chmrly 1had no knowledile of bone analomy: an)' bone given us was trealed in Ihe sarne fashion. Similarly we cerlainly had no knowledge of
Jf!f:"
•
4lIllI 168 fracture mechanics oc arry understanding of Ihe relationships belween bone anatomy, tmpactlccatton. oc strength of loading, as is illustrated by Eskimo behavior. We jusi learned that ir we hit it too hard it might "fly up and hit U5 in the heed." In short. we used our knowledge of chopplng kindling wood to fracture bones. Although I ha ve ergued egaínst Ihe analogy with ltthtcs as a guide lo differentiating between animal and humanly broken bones. c1early the knowledge used by tbe Eskimo wes more akin lo Ihe knowtedge needed in lithics reducüon and 1001 manufacture than to that needed in kindling cutting with un 8Jl;! The kindling-wood strategy Ihat I learned as a youog boy, which Zierhul (19671 and 80nnichsen (1973) observad amnog Ihe Calling Lake Cree. and which 1 observed amoog the Navajo (see L. R. Binforo 8nd J. B. Berlram 1977:94), appears to bea prepUlltion tachnique altlociated- with- nrlatively. aect.ntary peoples using boiHng ss 'en IIIJ1'1$f exclusive technique of food pntparation: It appears lo he modeled on Ihe mechanics of cutting kindling wood with an ax rather Ihan on an understanding of the fracture mechanics of the bone ilself and Ihe rela· lionships of impact to bone morphology. Both Ihe apparenl model for the lechnique and the contextual features common to Ihe Cree, Navajo, and Appalachia suggest Ihal this is a very poor ethnographic analagy fOl modeling the behavior of higgame hunters, men of the Pleistocene. or foc distinguishing the products of men from the products of animals. I am nol suggesting Ihat we substitute Ihe almosl certainly incomplete descriptions (rom Ihe Nunamiul Eskimo as our generalized configurational model of marrow cracking. Instead I am suggesling that we attempl to understand why one group of people does Ihings one way and another does similar Ihings in differenl ways. In short, explaining cultural differences and similarities is our iob. If we cannol do this we cannot develop means for reBably giving meaning lo our observalions. For instance, in a very important seminal sludy of marrow cracking. Ihe fragmenl morphology at the famous siles of Stac ['..arr and Kongenmosen was compared wilh Ihose from Iwo olher wel1 known Mesolilhic sites from norlhern
4. Human Modes of Bone Modi!kalJon Europe [Noe-Nygaard 1977). The author cleerly demonstretes thal the morphology of fragments remaining on the Slar Carr site ís similar lo thet et Kongenmosen. end both differ from the fragmenr morphologv characleristie of the Praestelyngen and Muldbjerg J sites. At Star Cerr long bones tended lo he broken in midshaft wilh most of the dleph ysis remaining attached to the articulator ende. By way of contrast. at the sites of Preestelvngen and Muldbjerg I the bones seem lo have been crecked for marrow usíng a technique thet directs Ihe irnpact in the area of the artículator ends. similar to that generally descrtbed bere for the Eskimo. In Iact. comparíson of the iIluslrations {Noe-Nygaard 1977: Figure 8) and Ihe specimens illustraled here (see Figure 4.53] strongly suggests Ihal similar techniques were used by Ihe Eskima in residential eamps and Ihe occupants oC Praestelyngen and Muldbjerg 1. On Ihe other hand, Ihe materials iIIustraled from Slar CaIT evidence hreaks similar lo those produced in the hutchering of Crozen careasses ralher than those produced in marrow recovery. The low frequencies of femurs (Noe-Nygaard 1977:222} are consistent with a kili bulchering location or a {ield camp (see L. R. Binford 1978hl. Similarly, Ihe low Irequencies 01 the proximal humerus relative lo the distal humerus plus Ihe reported presence of femoral cylinders strongly suggesl lhal Ihe remains from Slar Carr were ravaged by predalor-scavengers. The tolality of Ihe differenees noted belween lhe four sites strongly suggests a majar contrast hetween residential loeations and special-purpose sites related lo hunting 10gistics. These approaches lo underslanding Ihe dUferences contrast wilh the more Iraditional view: Differem;:es in ms«ow fracturing technique between various cultureS refleel different methods of preparing food and may therefme rened differences in culnnal level. such as aceramic a~ opposed to ceramic cultures. JI may thus be possible lo use Ihe character of Done splilling as an ecoslratiRrltphir.al 1001 INoe-Nygaard 1977:2351· Clearly we need lar more delailed pattemrecognilion .'ltudies. designed to elucidale Iracture palterning, of archaeological bone assemblages. In sorne cases we can oblain "controls." in Ihat Ihe
Comparing Mon and Becst specíes can be reliably identífled end any currelatíons with body stze or with bone density can be Investlgated. Stnularly. where we have good reeson to place sorne faith in our functional interpretations 01 sttee. sueh as blson jumps and kili sttes versus residential locatíons. or processing áreas eseocíated with bison kflls, we may beg¡n to determine how sensitive fracture patteming is to site functional dífferences. Similarly, if we can ga¡n control ovar "season of occupancy," we can beg¡n to ínvesttgate the degree lo which butchertng strategy may be altered lo "bone breakage" versus "[otnt cutting" during seasons of extreme cold. We have not even begun lo investigate the potentia! information aboul Ihe past baing earried in Ihe archaeologicel record by sueh mundane and unspectacular Ihings as broken bones. As inleresting as such implicetions for fulure study may be, our real interest hece is with criteria that mighl dislinguish bones broken by meo Irom those fractured by nonhuman predator-scavengers.
Comparing Man and Beast I have thus lar developed a number of conlrasts, such as eul marks from lools versus !ooth-scoring marks. Impact fracturing from the use of tools in bone breaking has been conlrasted lo Ihe gradual destruction of 50ft parls by the progressive weakening of hones and their col1apse under animal persislence. Slanding behind these conlrasls is the recognition tha! animals and man may well dismember a skelelon differently because each aels under differenl mechanical conslraints. There is Jittle chance Ihan an observer of madi· fied bone would confuse cul marks inflieted during dismembering or filleling by man using lools with Ihe action of animals. It was noted Ihal cut marks are coneentrated on arlieulator surfaces and are relatively rare as transver~e marks on long bones excepl whem encircling marks may betray skinning activilies. Jt was suggesled thal cut marks from slone tools are mosl commooly made with a sawing molion resulting in short and frcquenlly mulliple bul roughly
189 parallel marka. Such marks are generally cheraclerized by an open cross sectíon. Another cherectenst¡c of cut marks derived Irom the use of stone tools is that they rarely follow the contours of the bone on which they appear. That ts. the cut does not show equal pressure in depresaíons and elong prurninenl ridges or across the are of a cylinder. In alrnost all ways. the marka of animals' teeth are sornewhat different. They commonly follow the contours of the bone's surfece. as is well illuslrated in the specimen shown in beautíful color by National Geogrophic (Canhy 1979:356) cíted as evidence of rnan's presence al the site of Tagua Tagua in Chile. The caption reads, "Deliberately fraclured and engraved with parallel strokes. a horse leg bone was found in a natural trap. . This is almost a type specimen of looth seoring by gnawing animals! Tooth marks may frequently lake the form of a depressed or rnashed Hnes, as appears to be Ihe case on the bone from Chile. On many of Ihe wolf specimens, Ihe loolh rnark under magnificalion appears as a "cracked" 5urface scar rather Ihan as a cut or incision in Ihe bone as is Ihe case particularly with metal tools. Claims for the use 01 lools should be supported hy the cilation of rnarks produced by lools.l Admittedly, distinguishing belwefln toolh scoring and cut marks is sometimes difficult. but the attempt rnust be made. For instanee, increases in the amounl and densily of scoring and pitting are noted around areas thal have been partialIy destroyed or furrowed, parlicularly 8round long-bone shafts when the arlieulalar end has been partially deslroyed by gnawing. This association of scoring wilh paltems 01 destruction is not lo be expecled when roan dismem· bers an animal with lools. More cornmonly the modifications produced by Rnimals have been inler1) musl emphasizB lhst I am speaking of a subslanlial populalion of animals and nol a single animaL) am sIso "hedging" on the size of lhe populalion. for if one exdurles Ihe mandible lhe highesl proporlion of marked bones is 30..... 0% of Ihose presenl in Ihe Mouslerian sample ¡.'lee Table4.03). On lheolher hand, around 50%were marked in some dasses represenled in lhe modern Nunamiul maleriltl (see T;¡ble4.02) Obviously in small samples we could ex" p('cl some examples ofhumanly butc:hered animals exhibilin!! rew ir any marked bones.
...
A·'
-----~------170
4. Human
peeted as either intenttonal modification oCbone for use as tools nr attritional modíñcetton from the bone's having been used as a too1. The use and production of bcne tools haya nol been discussed here, for eeveral reasons. Most importan! is the fact thet quite literally this ís frequently the "bone of conténtícn," the tnterpretetton of uncerteínty. If 1 Receptad
everything that has been clted as a tool sud proceeded to describe it, then elmost al1 the documentad modíñcetíons produced by enimals would haya been descnbed. Do Ihe albar hend, ir 1 had demanded tha same actualistic controle. the bear end the footprint seen together, as the baste for descríbíng bone tools "cheractensttcelly produced" by human egents. then 1 would face the unlikely uni{armitarlan assumption Ihat conlemporary patterns of manufacture and use were Ihe same as in tha pasl! We are not lalking aboul products generaled because of "intrinsic" mechanical and behavioral constraints or Iimitations on the way a bone can be modified, as is likely to be the case of animal modificalion. Human tool design and use are responsive lo situa· tion, mechanical needs, and the character of knowledge, equipment, and raw materials available. Tool production is responsive to tool need and recognized oplions, among other things. We know Ihat the range of tool needs, the character of knowledge, available equipment, and accessible raw materials are certalnly different and representative of a different range oí variability today than would hava been the case at different periods in man's pas\. Wilhoul knowing the things we seek to know about Ihe pasl. we could nevar guess whal con· temporary experiences mighl be directly relevant to eilber a specific archBeological case or all tbe past taken in a generic sense. We connot ossert thot we understond the very phenomenon we seek to understand in arder to achieve a method for its study! Argumenls about bone 1001 use and manufacture musl be arguments from elimination. where alterna· tive explanations are syslematically eliminated Ihrough the use of a robusl and informed melhodol· ogy. Even after we have narrowed the idenlity oí the causal agenl to mano Ihe question Ihen remains as to what man did wilh the item and why he made il in Ihe manner observed. For instance. I have made frequent reference lo Ihe facl Ihal animals produced modified bones Ihat were to me indislinguishable from whal have been called fleshers by Frisan lt97BI
IM
.-
CA--..
f"Ír
Mcdesof Bane Modification
and others. In Ihis case I am questíontng the identity oí the causal egent. On the other hand. Frisan has repaaledly noted a pattern of modtñcatíon on the fractured ends of long bones at eeveral bteon kili butchering sites. He has ínterpreted theee as choppers used expediently in Ihe butchertng process (see Frison 1974: 51-56, 1978: 301-316}. Lagree thet many of the uems iIlustraled by Frison have no direct enalogues in enímal-modttted assembleges. Vague similarities can sometimes be found for sorne bones with dense shafts such as the distal tibia, hui 1 have been unable to ñnd anything similar lo the proximal tibia and proximal femur choppers iIIustraled by Frison. My experiences with butchering and expedíent marrow eating by butchers while engeged in work, as well as Iunius Bird's experiences in Palagonia as reported by Flannery. {Hole el al. 1969:291J suggesl Ihat the same patterns of modification Frison observed on his choppers might derive from striking the broken ends of fraclured bones clown on hard surfaces during marrow removal. This is the type of problem to which experiments can he direcled. For ¡nstance, in the case of Frison's post hoc interpretative model regarding chopper use. abone could be used in the manner envisioned by Frison. Similarly, an identical bone could he treated in the manner described for marrow cracking. The consequences oí the Iwo separate acts could be compared, both could be compared to the archaeological bone, and one of the alternatives could. it is hoped, be eliminated. There is stiU anolher research approach. the ap· proach Ihal stresses the "integration of imowledgs" as a criteria of plausíbiJjty. For instance, as long aS there was reason lo believe Ihat ancient men on the Plains muscle stripped animals as a normal butchering stralegy. then Ihe use and presenee of choppers were inlernally consistenl with tha facts cited as evidence for muscle slripping. I have seriously queslioned the degree lo which the (acts cited in support of the muscle-stripping argument are referable to human action. Mosl of the forms of hone destruction inlerpreted as evidence of musde slripping are seemingly indistinguishable from animal-ravaged faunal material. If this is Ihe case, then there should be no necessary correlation between choppers and Ihe alleged evidence of musde stripping. Carrying oul such comparalive studies would almost certainly
Morphologr of Bone Breakoge result in the recognítíon of previously unrecogntzed patterning in the ercheeclogtcal record. These petterns then would present us wilh new challenges and potentíel sources of new ínformetíon regarding the pest. Knowledge gained through such prompted reseerch> than would mcreese the strength of our methodology and in tum our scíenca would grow in both knowledge and sophistication. The problem of surficial modification, although ccmplícsted. is relatívely minor comparad lo the problem of argumente thet cite structurel modificalions and breakage petterns as causally referable lo human agente. Most cletms for human causalñy have reference to overall morphology or the presence of obvious postmortem modificalions on bones, such as polish or abrasions considered indicative of use. It sooms lo me thal hefore interpretations are offered for sucb modifications one must attempt lo assess the relativa role of different agents as general contribulors lo Iha populations ofbones from which such "inleresling" items mighl be singled oul. Arguing for human modification of a particularly inleresling ilam abstracted from a populalion of otherwise exc1usively animal-modified bone is not very convincing. This is critería ofthe "integral ion of knowledge" somewhat reversed and used as a procedural suggesUon for research. Are thete nol properties of populations Ihal mighl he evalualed lo provide the conlext for looldng at the charactaristics of particular items? The following section presents a compilalion of sorne properties of humanly modified faunal assemblages lhal contrast in a generic sense with properties of assemblages produced by animals.
2What 1 have called here prompled research is similar to what RichardGould calls the orgument by anomoly. 1 recognize thal when we are surprised Of observe unexpected things. we should investigale(see L. R. Binford1972b:115]. InIhis 1 concur with Gould. Thlll this in IIny way iSII more epistomologically "convincing epproech then !he u~e of analogy" (R. A. Gould lCl80:138) is sheer n[)nsen~e An ergumenl from analogy is 11 form of inductive argumen!. Gould's argumenl byonomalyis nol a form af Ilrgumenl but a guide lo asking inleresling QlIestions. The answers to such queslions maybe given !hruughIIfgUmenls from analogy. which is exar:tly whal (;oulJ doe~ in his e¡¡omple of "anomlllous" rllw material usage al PUlllUljorplI (~ee R A. Gould HIBO: 153-1SfiJ. despite his di~c1ailllers.
171
Morphology oí Bone Breakage The degree to whích bones have been chewed and fed upon conditions the character of the survívíng faunal Inventory. However, tbe pettem of bone gnawing is redundant and reeults in a characteristic pettem of bone destructíon. This pettem was ñrst described during rny AJaska ñeldwcrk by Dan Witter, who was given the task of studying the bcnes remeíníng in eeveral well-documented dog yarda in Anakluvuk village. Later. when I worked over my documentation of wolf ktlls. it beceme olear that the same types of destruction were presento There is a fairly regular sequen_ce lo Ihe destruction of bones by both wolves and doss. The redunailncy in the chewing strategy results in there being very distinctive pattems to surviving long.bone parts. A general c1assifícation of Ihes e parts was worked out by Dan Witter, and his terminology will be adopled here. 1. ArticuJotor end (Figure 4.56, spedmens on
left side): the articulator end when Ihera is a broken diaphysis just below the epiphysis of a bone. That is, Ihe articulalor end has been bro. ken offimmedialely below the "head" or in the neck of lhe bone, with HUle attached diaphysis. 2. End plus shonk (Figure 4.56, middle speci. men): Ihe articul8tor snd with aHached diaphysis complete lo approximately halfway between Ihe lwo ends. 3. End plus shaft (Figure 4.56. specimens on righl side}: 8n articulalor end with tha aHached complete diaphysis ranging from half the lenglh of the hone as far as the neck at the opposile end. The bone is essentially complete except fer Ihe opposite end. 4. Cylinder (Fisure 4.57): the central parl of long bones or segments thereof. minus Ihe articulotor ends. The behavior that produces Ihis Iype of parl is simply Ihe altemate gnawing away of Ihe articulator ends leaving segments oflhe long-bone shaft remaining as a cylinder.
It should be noled that as Ihe bone i8 reduced by gnawing Ihere is a correlaled destruction of anatomy. Abone preserved as a dislal articulalor end plus shaft (Figure 4.56. righl sida) is rartlly as "de-
I
,0',:.
172
4. Humnn Modt->s uf HOJW Modifinrfiun
1
- - - _..........
M"fph"¡,,g.l'
(JJ
_-----------.
Honr- Ilruukug,·
173 erv 01" marrow by ruan is il pr(l{:l'SS that n-sul¡s in morphologn.al ch,Hlges but dou.~ nct necessarífy rusult in aurttion. 2. Animal gnawing ts ti sequeritial prot.ess rasulting in a progres-uve development 01' deslrllclivp pat. terniug tha t has 1\ signalure qualñv cormiatnd with [hu patter-n of breakage Exploitafion of bunes for mnrrow bv mnn is a diruct proccss su eh Ihil( tllHre i::. no necnssarv correlaüon hetwccn the morphotogv uf breakage and the pattem of survivorship in humparts.
t'If;(IRE4.51. Cdiflllr'/","_I ¡/iU#'Ul,OI' produ(;/ gnawin.'l'.
"! animal
stroyed" un the distal ond as ls a distal aruculator end when both the shaft anrl shank have bonn removed. Tl:o I hi!ifj!l9tlCJ f" p *6 ll'iUllJ¡. '~W&..,J,.¡I,o,~ ,!
tlCI TRt: 4.51j, f:'flmpl,,~ ../ difl"n'lll ,/l'~rI'~' JI! Im-1I1w¡w ffl~ flltim(l/_~n"wf~d ¡.. nI: I""w._.
t~·.¡_ 'l¿;W:iz: O•. Téll..i1fl 4.07 summarizes data from the wolf Io.ills. three tlf}fJ, .vanl samples. and lWfI ass(~lllhlagp.s IHm;pssed by man as \0 Ihe f(~IHlivl~ frequcncie.s uf idenlifiable IOll~-bonp. parls representing difieren! slages of Im~iibge Uf ssivt: dell'liotl [)f cerlain parls fmm 11](' ilss('rnhlllgl~. lirf'alaW~ nf b01W for 1111' n~CllV-
Given too!s. man is able lago dlrectly lo thu turget of explottauon. If skíllod. he first cleans lh" bune so control of oercussio» (smaíntained {seo L R. Binford 197Hb:152-157). and Ihen usmg a hammer or anvil breaks the bcne generally [ust beiow the head or aruculator end nf the bone. RfJgardless of Ihe varying skills involved and the Iact t hat tbere are different ways of addressing the bcne wlth percussion tools. tbe pctru bf'ing made is not altered: breakaga is accomplished by lo()l.~ directly. and is nct dependeut on weakeníng the bone thruugh the successive destrur-tion of parts. as is the case with gnawtng. Figure 4.58 illustratss the relntionship between percfJnlage Irequencies of broken bone parta as tabulaled in Tahle 4.07. columns 2 and 14, for Ihe wolf kills disp laved againslllw sample from Ihe Kakinya 'lile. columns 12 ami 24. There are many examplcs uf hi¡¡h percentnge values rol' arliculetor ends in lhe Kakínva sarnp!r- ano correspondf ng low values in the wolf kill sample. Conversely. lhme are high percentage valúas íor arficulntor euds with aHached shafts and shanks in the wolf kili populafion and corresponding low valúes in the Kakinva sample. The basir: rlislribulion is uf an indirecll'oissoll form with a separale dump of arliculalor ends Ihal show moderale lo high valum; in Ihe wolf kili sample. These are bolh ends oflhe fmnur. Ihe proximal metatarsal. the proximal libia. Ihe dislal humerus. amI Ihe distal radio-cubiluf'l. '1'0 .~Iatv lhe 1.J
..8""'
4. Human Modes of Bcne Modificolion
17' TARLE 4.07 VariatloR In BOlle Breaka8e
lar An/mols and
Human-dcrived assemblages
Sod r
Sod 3
Sod 2
Wolf kill&
Anavik stand
Kakinya sita
MNI
'"
(1)
(2)
1.0 .5
.40 .20
PlOximal + shaft Complete Total Distalonly utslaJ + shank Di!ltal + shafl Complete
Total Hadio-cubitus Proximal only
Proximal + ehenk Proximal + shañ COmplele Total
Dlstalonly Distal + shlnk Distal + shaft Complete
Total Metacarpal Proximal only
Proximal + shank Proximal + shaft Complete
Total Distalonly Distal + shank Distal + sbaft Complete
Tolal
D08 yarda
Wolf kills
----
MNI (1)
'"
MNI
i')
(5)
'"
(51
MNI 1')
(51
(9)
'"
MNI
(ID)
(lt)
.50
.5
1.00
4.0
'"
'"
(12)
Analomical pert
Sod 2
Human-derived assemblaglOl5
SO
Sod
MNI
%
MNI
%
MNI
114)
115)
'"
MNI
113)
116)
(17)
(18)
{19)
41
10
.67
1.5
1.00
1.0
5 1.5 5 1.5 .5 5 3.5
31
J
Alllllvik stand
Kakinya sue
MNI
%
MNI
%
121)
\22)
123)
\24)
1.0
1.00
'5 .5
----% 120)
Femur
Humerus
Proximal unly Proximal + ebenk
'7>
Human·Del'ived Assembla¡es
----
Anetomícel par!
MorphoJo&Y of Bone Breakage TARLE4.07-Continued
Dog yarda
MNI
~
1.0 1.5 .5 2.5 5.' 1.0 9.5
.40 .05 .26 .58 .11
5 1.5 '.0 '.0 6.0 15 .5 1.0 2.0 4.5
.06 .1' .50 .25
.5 10 15 1.5 '.5 15 1.0 5
.0' .18 .27 .45
a '.5
.33 .11 .22
44
.21 .16 .09 .45
1.5
1.00
Proximal only Proximnl + shank
Proximal + shafl 2.0 2.0 .5 1.U 1.' 20 5.0
1.00
.5 1.0 .5 25 4.5
.11 22 11 .56
1.0 .5 2.5 40
10 20 30 .40
O 2.0 5 10
5 5 5 20
.t4
.14 .t4
.57
25
ra
.20
.5 1.5 2.5
20 80
2.0 20
e.e
.31
10
.01
1.5 5.0 5.5 5.0
1.00
1.0 10 5.0 1.0
COffiJlh!te
.5 5
1.00
.H .H 71
5 10
.5 .5
.50 50
1.00
1.5 15 2.0 5.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
.30 30 .40
.33
.86
Total .83 .0'
Distalonly Distal + shank
Distal + shaft Complete
6.0
.5 .0' .29 .32 .2'
4.0 5.5 .5
10
.86
1.5 1.5
Tolal Tihio .25 .25
Proximal only Proximal + shank
t.n 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.00
.H
14 .29 .71
14 .14 .14
1.5 5
.30 10
,O 5U
60
t4 43
15 .5
1,00
1.0 1.0
.s
.14
1.0
.e,
r.o
1.00
9.0 '.5 2.0
...
.06
.zs .21
.33
14 .5 5
15 1.00
1.0
2.5
.71
1.0 3.5 15 '.0 '.0 1.0
.29
'.5
3.0
1.00
'.0
1.00
'.0 3.0 .5
.88
1.0 4.5 .5
.90 .10
Proximal + shaft 5 '.5 4.0
.33 .89
Complete 6.0 5.0
11.0
.50
Total Melalarsal Proximal only Proximal + ,hank
5 .5 15 1.5 2.5 .5 60
5.0
.5'
3.0
.5 '.0 6S
.DO
.50
Proximal " sheft CompMe
1.0 5 3.0 45
22 11 67
TUlllJ
1.00
Distalonly Distal + shenk
Distal + shaft .5 4S
.11
Complete 5.0 1.0
5
1.00
.19 .43
17.0
3.:;
63
.50
n.n
35
.5
15 1.5
.57 .H .2'
1.5 3.0 40 '.U
15 5 5 10 3.5 50
2.5 25 1.5
2.5 4.5
1.00
.38
.63
10 2.0 .5
1.0 15
.33
.57
Tolal Dístalonly Distal ... shank Distal + shafl Complete Total
.5 '.5 3.0
05 66
.21
35
10 30
1.00
67
.5 .25 25 42
1.0
1.00
06
1.0 .5
.50 .50
10
1.0 10
O
3.5 .70
15 5.0
.30
ro
.33 .H .50
r.e
J.OO
.,
3.5
.5 3.0
.14
.
13.5
.5 .33
.11 .22 5'
3.0
30 5.0
5.0
5.0 1.00
1.00
2.5
.63
15 40 1.5 1.0
.38
1.5 4.0
.38 .24
38
{continued)
~~_Q( ~~__ [i~~L~o~~_p! r~~~~!l.!l~~_~~
!he producti~!1_?L~n.J:bEn~ ql~(Figure 4.57): nafa on cylinderlt and ...pl inters are gtven in Chapter 5, Table 5.01. Figure 4.59 tllustretes the relenonehtp between the numhet oí bone spttnters pet MNI from tbe wolf kills (díscussed in Chepter 5) and Ihe pero
centege oí (he maxtmum number of artículetor ends that could have been present but were in fact missing (24 in the case Df Idlls oí single eatmals minus tbe nurnber present divided by 24). There is clearly a postttve linear relationshlp between the number of spltnters and the ertículetor ends that were mísstng.
A tota!l different sítuetton holds for sttes where liumaos were res onsi a for a essem ege. cept in CRse-¡; where therc waa menu ecture o oue grease or bona [uíce (Intentíonal destrucnon of articulator endsj. Ihere wes a fairly constent relattonship between the number of bone splinters end the
number of erttculeto- ends present 00 the site when correcttons were made for the number of complete bones and the number nf shafts and cyl índers (see L. R. Binfcrd 1976b:157, 464, Table 9.1). Another Interestmg relationship ís demonstrated in Figure 4.60, where the number of splinters is dis-
.
,-:---.,
'7.
4. Human Mod!'s nf Ronr Mndifiration
00
,
!
"j:
.
00
ro
'O
'0
"
;~
oo~ ••, .. ro.
~;¡!'f'
:::O,.
..
_.
t:
,~
~gh
~
•.'
__....
40
<el
e.,
.,
,~,
60
~8 ~¿'P"C'
~~
.'
'O
~,
~
~
~
'~
""'\ l' ro
M
~
'o JO
",
20
'.@\.
"l'
~
~
'.
played egaínst the numbers of cylinders per MNI [taken from Table 5.01). It is cleer that a strong posítive linear relationship is indicated up lo ao approx¡mate value oC55 splinters per MNI. Al tha! poin! Ihe trend is reversed and the number oC cylinders is redueed in ao apparent linear fashion with further increases in the numbers oC splinters. This simply reflects tha! cylinders are Olle oC Ihe "lasl slage" forms
O"
~ ...
".
x :lO
40
~O
60
70
Bo
so
I
to be produced by gnawing animals; hence breakage íncreeses as the animal progresses in the reduction of abone to a cylinder. Figure 4.61 lllustrates the converse of this relalionship. namely Ihal the number of cylinders per MNI decreases as the proportion of Ihe arliculalor ends represenled by complete bones increases. The more the destruction. the more cylinders and the fewer complete bones there are. In lurn, the more the deslruction of bones per se,
.,
!
,o
.'
10
E~o ~~
.'
..,
,
If,
'"
J'."
•"'..' .l ".. •
g 00~ll
"o
,:;..'"
'''' .. ::;
o" 20
.;
~o"~."
.'
'~.
30
20
l' I~
-lO· 40--;0-60 70 80 % UTICUlA .. n.o:; "":;S'NG
'O
"'~~ .'4
o~
@,
'u
oc'
-0'1
.'
" '10 100
FIGURE 4.59. Relationshjp betwoon number 01 bone spllnrers per MNl and lhe percenlage 01 articulotor ends potentlally present thot were in lod mis.~ing. (Numbers relate to column,~ in ToMe 5.01.)
,
'O
20
.'
JO
40
~o
60
70
80
lA - (ZE + GlJ(y)
where
C1l.IND[IlS¡ ...NI
.00
':1
=
e
FIGURE 4.60. ReJotlonship between number 01 bane spJlnters ond bone eyUnders per MNl. (Numbers reJate lo columns In TaMe 5.01.}
'tD 'DO
cn'~O€~S/"'N'
FIGURE 4.61. Relotionship belween the percenlage of total artjeulator eRds reprP.senled by completp. btJnli's(Ind the numbcr 01 cylinders per MNI. (Numbcrs relate ta (;u/· umn.~ in Tablc 5.rn,)
_--
177
n,
----,--¡¡-.20
UK'NVA SITE
AGURE 4.58. Relatlonship between breokase /I-equenc:ie. al the Kaldnya slre (human} and on Ihe AJask"n wolf Idlls (animal).
•
\~'
'0 O
.'
'" " ," ',.
", I
Of
TABLE 4.01, COLS 'l ANO 24
:~'
5ummory the more spltnters remain. For instance, uslng the methods found so successful for estlmating the expected number of bone spltnters present on asile given a count of the articulator ends from humanly broken bones. we obtain sorne surprising results . The total nurnber oí artículator ends observed in the combtned semple of wolf kills was 145, of whích 50 were artículator ends 00 complete bones. Thera wcre thus 95 broken artículator ends. Using this figure in the formula worked out previously (L. R. Binford 1978b:157),
oo
'00
- . _ ..
number of bone sphnters x = expected A = number of broken erttculator ends E = number of cylinders (Table 5.01) G = number of ends plus shaft (Tahle 4.07) y = constant oí relevance. in this case Z.85 or the mean number of splinlers produced per arliculalor eod when hones are broken for marrow Substitutiog io this equation the foregoing dala, we oblain Ihe following results: x
= 195 - (15Z - 43)] = (-100) (2.R5) = -285.0 splinlers
(2.85)
lo short, no splinlers are expe~led given Ihe surviv¡og population, yel we observed 1119! This ¡Ilustrales nicely Ihal the splinlers are related primarily lo whal is no longer presenl in Ihe animal-gnawed assemblage, whereas in Ihe humanl}' borken as· semblage the splinters are relaled lo wha! remains as uodestroyed articulalor enos. I feel confidenl Ihal I have demonstraled that in an animal.gnawed Iissemblage we may partition Ihe assemblage into hasieally two componen'ssplinters and cylinders-which vary in thtJÍr frequencies primarily with regaro wilh what is no /onger presenl in Ihe form of articulator ends or complete bones. Complete bones vary positively with shaíls and arliculalor ends represenlin¡;¡; the elemcnls or survivurs not atta~ked by Ihe gnawing animals.
Summary
In Chapler 1 J suggested Ihat in the earliest days oí archaeologrcal reseerch the paradigmatic view constdered there te be Iwo "creators"--God, the molder oí neture. and mano the molder of culture and cwítízauon. Eorly argumenta regarding evldence for men's antiquity developed the position that tha pettemed modifications observad on sorne slones could not have heen produced "in natura" and had therefore to be a consequence of the hand of mano Incorrect judgments were made in the early days uf archaeologrcal research as lo what forma of patterning nature was incapable of productng. This ignorance of nalure led to the spurious esetgnment of many things to the hand of mano In most cases this seme siluation can be víewed as responsible for íneccurate ínterpretatíons of modified bones as tools, spiral fractures as only produced by men. and many other such inaccurate or at best ambiguous assignments of meaning to bone modificalions. In Chapter 2 1 suggesled that as far as middla-range research is concerned, we are seeking lo isolale causal relalionships belween energy sources and modifications in malerial things. If we can galn a causal undersland· ing of certain relalionships. then Ihere is established a relotionship of necessity between the cause and the effect. When such a necessary relationship can be established then Ihe inference of the cause when effecls are observed IS particularty secure, When the early researchers into man's antiquity addressed the subjecl of stone tools, the comparisons were belween one agent-hominids-and ather inanimale nalural forces Ihal might alter slones. The difference belween palterned goal.directed behavior of man and the accumulation of modifications thal were the resull of non-goal-direcled sequendng rendered Ihe recognition of stone lools largely unambiguous. The crilerion of '·manufaclured lo standards" or repetitively "produced in the same way" served for recognizing human products in slone. A relationship of necessily was implied between complex sequential modification oí matler to a paltern and man as Ihe actor. This was largely correcl for stone 1001s, since man is essenlially unique in his use of stone as a raw malerial for the produclion of lools. Sinee Ihis relalionship belwcen bear anrl foot·
~
,
,.'"
17. print was essentially one of necessity DI uniqueness in natura, we nave been Iergely successful inferriog actions by men. (Ihe beerj. from his stone tool products {the footprinl). A tacttcel analogy with lithic studíes ts probebly the basis for mcst of out íneccurate interpretations al bone tools. As Illustreted in Chapter 3 nonhominid animals regularly modify bcnes: they manipulate both bones and prey antmels in ways that result in regular, eequenñelly generated. and pattemed modifications. These mcdtñcañons extend from individual bonos through units 01 larger anatomical organization to complete faunal populations. Man is nol relatad lo patterned sequential modificatioo of fauna! material in a unique or necessary way, as is Ibe case with lithic materials. Failure to take into consideratioo alternative causal sources of patterned modificatioos noted 00 bones further exacerbated the probIem rooted io the assumption Ihal a1l things found in association with stone tools couId also be attribuled lo Ihe hand of mano 5uch an argumenl seemed particularly secure when those aS50ciated things exhibited pattern rnodifications, which were taken to indicate "manufaclurad to standard s" or "produced in a standard way." In Chapter 3 1 spenl sorne time illustrating how many patterned properties of modified bones, citad by olhers as evidence for human modificalion or use, were in fact regularJy produced by animBls. 1 at· templed to Brgue that many of the modifications were nacessary consequences of the anatomy of an animal's jBw, such Ihat if modificalions wera lo be made Ihey would inevitably be made in cartaln ways. 1 soughl to iIlustrate Ihal an animal tearing apart a skeleton was limited to a certain sequence and lo e given strategy by virtue of the constraints on Ihe use of jaws as the animal's basic mechanical device for carrying out work on bones and carcasses. Thal is, 1 have attempted to at least suggesl sorne of Ihe uDique. or necessary, linkages between gnawing ani· mals and their products. In Ihis chapter, I have explored sorne of our knowledge regarding the ways man manipulates and modifies bones. A\though our knowledge is surprisingly sparse, ~~gene~!,!~.ations seem in arder. Perhaps the most important point to be ma'{'f(;1s that abone may take on properUes from a number of sequentially independent acts. Treating all Ihe
4. Human Modes of Bone Modification
morphologtcal properties as if they were referable lo a single hístortcal episode or behevtor ís a majar error. We need informed and detetled dtagnosttc criteria for recognizing properties that deríved from independent acts in the pest. This should be olear with regard te separating consequences of animal bebavíor from thet of humana but it is equally trnportant to be able lo recognize derivativas oí díñerent human ectíons. Of equal ímportence to the recognltíon oí mubtpie causes ís the realization thet similar properttee such as pattems of bone breekage may be produced in a number of differenl contexts. Breekege may occur in the cootexl of bulchering, in Ihe contexl of field snacking for marrow. in the context oí residential processing oí marrow bones, and so forth. Trelll· iog all breakage as referable lo butchering. or marrow cracking, or any other single behavioral conlext by convention is a major error. lo the absence of lruely diagnostie means for recognizing the consequences of one context of breakage from another. interpratation by wnvenlion will certainly lead lo myth making. In terms of dístinguishing properties generated by animals versus charll.cterislics referll.ble to hom· inid lI.ctions, a common stralegy has been to seek characteristics thll.t might be generically referable to "human" behavior. We have seen Ihis with the daims oí uniqueness for Ihe crack·and·twist method of bone breakll.ge. Ihe longitudinal breakage oí long bones, spiral fracture. pressure "flaking" of bones, polishing, striatioos, and the Iike, whieh have all been considered by sorne lo be diagnostic of hominid behavior. Can we cite such diagnosHc properties based on the studies and knowledge reported here as necessary consequences of hominids achng upon bones? We might ask initiBlly whether there are any general poiots of contrast between what we know of human behavior and whal we know of animal behavior. In this we musl answer lhal Ihere are provocative differences. Man ls not limited lo Ihe physical manipulalion of maleriallhings with a single mechanical device, jsws. Man conceived in very simple terms as a tool user can manipulate physicallhings with a variety af mechanical devices Ilnd in lenos of a number of mechanical principies. Although man is capable of
Summcry
rendering a wíde variety of pattemed modíñcatíons 00 bones it ís suggested that hís primary strategy ís cutting, not tearing and pulling, and hamrnering , not víslng down on obíects. Aoimals menípulate bones and carcasses by Iilerally teariog them down structurally. This pattem ís ene of gradual weakening and with íts altendant sequenttal modtñcatíon of weakened locations results in accumulated patterns of both surñcíel and structural modtñcañon of bones. Man's slrategy could be cheracterízed as direct. Using cutting tools he can echleve dternembermenl or Hlleting directly wlthout firsl weakening the joiols Ihrough an altrilional or destructive preliminary process. Animals cannot do Ihis, except perhaps where Ihe prey or bone being manipuIated lB much smaUer Ihan Ihe size of the jaws of Ihe active animal. Uslng percussion lools, man can break bones directly without Cirst weakening them through the gradual destruction of their morphology prior to brealdng. In a very general sense, the more an animal acts on abone the more it is modified, and stroctural destruction is an inevitable consequence of Ibis acIion. Man may dismember a careass, prepare the meal for consumplion. and break the bones for marfQW without necessarily deslroying bone material. He may break it and dissipale the anatomical slmcture but he does nol deslroy it, only renders it into smaller pieces. As o normative slalement the conlrosl of animols as bone deslro}-'ers and meot "teorers," with men as bone breokers ond meat cutters, is probobly stotisticoJ/y occurole. This is whal I hava referred to as an empirical generalization or an inductive argument from enumeralion [sae L. R. Bin· ford 1978a). It is quite probable Ihal Ihis is an accu· rate generalization and could be restated to meel a\l of Schiffer's (1976) crileria as a "law" lo be used in archaeological inference. It would nol leed llS to a secure knowledge of Ihe pasl, simply because there isno condition of necessily shown to be determining the cuslomary actions o{ man as generalized. Man can produce bone lools by destroyiog sequenlially snd lo a paltero segments of bone morphology-hence the ambiguily between animalgnawed bone and pseudolools. Man can butcher animals using bludgeoning lechniques and techo niques designed lo weaken Ihe anatomicai slructure of an animal gradually so Ihat the reslllts may look very mllch lika the deslruclion caused by ani-
179
mals gnawing apart a cercess-c-thís ís certainly tllustrated by Frtson's work. It ts elso proved by Frison's replicative experimenta for there at leaet man did mimic Ihe producte of scavenging antmals. Men's flexible mechanical capabilities made poseíble through the Use of toola render the spectñcatíon of any relationship of neceeeíty between man concetved of as btclcgtcel species and the products of his work almosi impossible. Man could under cero tain condtttons replicete any mechanical consequence of eíther other animals' behevíor or ectíon by physícal forees. We can imagine sítuetíons in which tool-u5ing man might be forced lo such destmctive chopping lechniques for disarticulating Ihe humerus from Ihe scapula resulting in the deslmction of Ihe proximal humerus (see Frison 1970; White 1953a; and many others). We can imagine situations in which 100I-using man might avan pick up abone previousIy modified by an animal. for inslance, a so-called humeros "flesher" (see Frisan 1974) and use it as a flesher! Certainly replicative a;ll;perimeoters have done Ihis or in sorne cases they have made facsimiles of such bones and used them successfully. Why not early man? The flexibility of our own researchers to invent accommodalive models for all the forms of deslruclion 1have shown to be regularly produced by animals is sufficienl in itself to show Ihat man could do these Ihings; there is no linkage of necessity between man and a partieular foolprint in Ihis case. Man seems lo be capable oí, mechanieally speaking. producing traces on bones that could mimic any other "natural" footprint thus far known. I would Iherefore suggest Ihat Ihe empírical generalization offered, although not particularly usefui for interpreting the producls of human behavior, can serve as a useful guide in the research designo for inslance, if one observes a pattern of bone de· stroction and knows that destruction is the normal consequences of animal behavior, one should view as one's task Ihe disproof of the proposition that animals were responsible for the observed pattern. One approach might be to demonstrate the pattern to exist independently of recognized evidence of ani· mal behavior Isuch as toolh scoring; pilting; chipping back; production of chipped-end. longitudi. nally fraclured diaphysis fragmenls; cylinders; scooped out soft cancellous ends of long bones; and billen off bone prolrusions such as Ihe grealer
,~.~
180 trocbanter on the fémur]. Failure to follow this stretegv is probably basic lo the errors made by Frison (1970) as well as that of Stanford (1979a) et the Selby and Dullon sttes end most of the workers at Old Crow Flats [Bonníchsen 1979). One might suspecl Ihal tbe reversa strategy might prove helpful when a pattern of bona breakage or rnodíficatíon by percussíon ís noted. Namelv.knowing that breekege te a normal consequence of human bebevtor. ene should víew as one's task Ihe disproof of the prcposíIion that man was responslble. This ís a much more dífficult tesk. slnce we heve alreedy suggested that man is cepeble of producíng modíñcetíons that can mimic mosl of Ihe effects of any natural process. In arder lo do lhis, we would have to have exbaustive knowledge of alllhe possi. ble modifications on bone of which "nature" was capable, and then have performed sufficient middle-range research to permil us to differentiate aH these possible modifications from their nalural analogues. For instance, it can be shown Ihat animals regulady produce spiral fractures, Spiral fractures seem to be the cbaracteristic resull of at least sorne types of impact loading of bones, The very presence of spiral fractures suggests that animals may also modify bones in ways Ihat produced al least sorne formal consequences similar to impact loading. For inslanee, 1 ha\le seen puoctures in bone shafts Ihat if Ihey had been seen in isolation from the remainder of Ihe assemblage, would compare favorably with impacl nolches known lo resuH from Ibe use of hammer in breaking marrow bones. Similarly, the patterned modification 1 described in Chapter 3 as "mashed edges" bears many morphological similarities to the impacl roseltes or "depressed frac· tures" produced by harnmers on thin-welJed bones. We have a few studies of the breakage morphology snd descriptions of the statistical dislribution of fonos of scarring both from impact and from culling on different segments of animal analomy. We do nol yel have similar statistical descriptions {allhough Hill [1980] has made a slarl in Ihis direclion) regard. ing the placement and patlerns of associalion be· tween scarring and differing anatomical markers on prey animals. These delailed descriptive maleríals are needed and may eventually serve lo permil ralher specific identifications of agents. We do oot ha ve
4. Humen Morles of Bone Modificafion
this cepebtlity at Ihe present time because the actualistic middle-range studíes have not been con. ducted. This problem is perhaps well illustrated by the current work of Richard Morlan (1981), mennoned in Chapter 3. Morlan has correctly dismissed many of the clairns that man was the causal agent of rnodtfied bones recovered from the Old Crow Flats locality. However, as a consequence of his research he further documented a pettem of hreakage previously noted by Bonnichsen (1978, 1979), the patlerned flaking and fracturing on segments of bones from exttnct elephants. Morlan has correctly sought the recognition of patterning manífest in ltems from deposits remaining from the pasto This is fundamental and an essential part of archaeological research. Having established that a paltem exists, we musl face Ihe question of what it means. Morlan has rea· soned Ihat the bones of elephanls are loo large to have been modified in this relatively robust manner by carnivores, and that the patterníng is too redundant lo be the result of acddents of nature. There· fore, he has interpreled these bones as evidence for man's participalion in Ihe events represenled in Ihe admitled paleonlological deposits at Old Crow. The reader wiJI undoubledly recognize this as a c1assic argument from eliminalíon. 11 might also be recalled that for such an argumenl lo be correct the assumption musl be met Ihat aH Ihe possible causes have been lisled and aH but one eliminated. To whaf degree do you think we are capable of Iisting all Ihe possible cause of broken and flaked elephant bones? Given out currenl ignorance of taphonomic condilioos surrounding the burial of elephant bones in differing circumstances, it is impossible to meel Ihe criteria for a valid argument from elimination. What is needed is middle-range research aimed allearning aboul elephanl bone taphonomy. This would in· dude actualislic sludies of dead elephant carcasses and the behavior of other animals in the presence of elephant bones (the effects of trampling, tossing bones around as is recorded far elephants theroselves, and so on). Research mighl also look at known paleontological assemblages where the presence of man can be Hlled out on historieal grounds to see if such ilems occur io assembla~es known lo be unrelated to human action.<;. AII such studies must be done by us. As staled earlíer 1 know (lf llO olher sci-
$ummary ence concerned with explaining properties of Ihe archaeologícel record. 1 discussed in sorne delail Bonnichsen's (1973. 1979) use of ethnographic expenence among Ihe Calling Lake Cree as the bas¡s for identifymg a "human" pattem of marrow cracking. The weakness of this approach is that one cannot argue for there being a necessary connection between man considered as a biological specles and cracking bones by the "rniddiaphysis smash technique" or butchertng bison by "muscle stripping" etc. Equally cleer ís the fael thet men could and did break bones by other techniques. Men uf the past may or may not have bulchered animals usíng Frtson's technlques, yet man ts clearly capable of doing so. as demonstrated by Frisan. AH forms of arguments from analogy must attempt to justify an assumption of necessi!y. If research sufficienl to establish a necl?ssary conneclion had been conducted, then an argumenl from analogy would not be needed. This means that aH arguments from analogy are subjeet to error. as are any other purely indicative arguments. J suggest Ihal as long as such arguments serve as Ihe basis fer a melhod of in· ference as was developed 8rollnd Frison and Bon· nichsen's work. then we operale with a sel of conventions for "knowing" the past Ihat have not been subjected to scienlific investigalion. This procedure tesults most commonly in modern mylhs. The traditional archaeological procedure was to invest¡~ate the archaeological record and seek to documenl patterníng (pattern-recognition studiesl. Once patterns had been recognized. then one in· vented a post hoc accommodative argumenl, which if true would account for the patterning observed. If il appeared plausible and consistenl with whal was oonsidcred to be our general knowledge of man and nalure, Ihen Ihe post hoc argumenl would gradualJy
181 be accepted and become part of archaeological theory. lo short. a convention would grow up such that when ene observad the palteming origlnally isolated by the inilial researcher one would interpret lt [Le.. gtve meaning to it] by reetettng the original post hoc argument. "Reliability testtng" normelly consisted, under such ctrcumstences. of poínting out how well Ihe Iacts lil the Iheory! Thts is unecceptable: we musl have middle-range research. Implied in the metenals preaented thus far ís a principie that has not generally cheracterízed traditional epproaches. the implication Ihat a pattem that may be recognteed by an ercheeologtst can Irequently be expected to be the accumuiative consequence of a variety of causal conditions. Presenting a single scenario of the past as an accommodative aro gument for Ihe palteming observed is Iikely to be wrong, since the constituents of Ihe pattero are likely to have arisen from different "causes'· and lo be combined in characteristic ways in terms of slill additional determinant conditions. Gillen such ex· pectations, míddle-range research musl pravide Ihe diagnostic 10015 for analysis of pallerning, thereby providing information about a wide variety of past condítions, ralher than the "one pattern, one interpretation" form of most traditional archaeologícal ínference. One might reasooably ask at this point that if we cannol establish a peltern of bone modification unambíguously referable to man, why study the faunal products of man aod seek greater understanding of his highly variable behavíor? The answer to this is simply Ihallhe basic lask of anthropology-of which archaeology IS a part-is lo seek an understanding of man's variable cultural behavior, to explain cultural símilarilies and dífferences.
..>i~' :'I.\~,ur ,~
"~ Ir -:....~/ ~
:,
--::-'r.2
-.!
.... ,.,:l-lj:...';J.- ....
< -- . .
;;.0 ....
,
....
Assemblage composition is a relatively new domaín of reseerch. Wilhín lithic studtes Ihe rnost common epprcech in the past has been cberacterteed by Sackett (I968J as "the attempt lo equate erttfect fossils. cultural stages. and geologtcal horizons as narrowly as poseíble into mecbanical systems whose parte erttculated wtth almosl robonc precleíon [Sackett 1968:661." As Sackelt potnts out, the comparatíve study of Ihe full range of asaociated líth¡c metertals. en assemblsge. has been an tnnoveuon largely referable lo Francots Bordes and his colleagues in France. 1 suggest that Ihere was a secondary center of develcpment in Africe stemmíng largely from the lnf'luanca of J. D. Clark. F. C. Howell, and Maxine Kieindienst (see Vincenl 11978J for an ínstghtful survey of Africanists' research). The eerlíest descdptton of a faunal assemblege presentad as analomical par! frequencíes. of which I arn awere. was the lruly seminal wnrk of Alfred Rus¡ (1937. 1943, 1958) and his collaborators Walter Krause (19371 and Walter Kollau (Krause and Kollau 1943). lo these remarkable archaeological studtes the fauna was described in detall and the relative frequencies of analomical parts were summarized for larga reíndeer populations. These studtes have been influenlial in a number of fields. for instano- in the sludy oí stte structure as acknowledged by André Lerui-Dnurhan and Michel Bréztllnn (1972:2461 in
Chapter 5 Assemblage composition: Pattems of association stemming from the behavior of man versus that of beast
'83
l
...
dr~
18.
5. Assrmblog!l Composilion: Pcttems of Associotion Strrnmil1g from !he BchIJvior uf Mon versus Thal uf Beost
their ptcneenng work at Pincevent. Despíte the innoveüve prtoríty that the wcrks of Rust. Kreuse. and
Koltau certainly enjoy in the hístory of archaeology, it was While's work [1952, 19538, 1953b, etc.] that
had an impact on the fieid so significan! that studying Iaunal assamblagea in torms of anatomtcal perta
became a common approach. As will be described later Dart's wnrk had a similar impact 00 old world studies.
New World Beginnings--Man as the Agent In North America lhe carlies! work 00 assemblage composilion viewed frorn the perspeclive of anatomical parts was done by Theodore White (1952, 19538, 1953b, 1954, 19551. The principies for interpreting differential frequendes among anatomical parts were slated in one of White's earliest p8pers: Thll accompanying lable shows discrepancills which Cllnnolbe Ilccounled for by accident of pn~servation. It is difficult to escape Ihe inferenee tha! lhe parls eilher were not broughl into camp, as with the Choracie vertabrae. or Ihal they were mutilaled beyond recognítion while cutting up Ihe carcus, Le.. tha proximlll end of the humerus ¡White 1951:3371. White considered variability in analomical part frequencies lo be referable primarily to differences in bulchering practices and secondarily lo Ihe dif· ferential abandonment of analomical parls in the conlext of hunting logistics. He also mentioned the selective use of bones as tools. As discussed earlier, mosl of White's argumeols were posl hoc accommodations to accouo! for Ihe patterns of anatomical variability noled in his samples. His model ofprehisloric butchering ¡nduded an assumption of lhe regular use of large chopping and hacking lools and a simple assumption of site functions-villages versus kili sites. Afler While's ¡nilial work, Ihere were several comparalive sfudies of faunal assemblages. One of the earliest oneS was concemed primarily wilh recognizing "ethnie marker.~" in "butchlJrinR practices" (Wood 1962). Following this early comparison Ih~re was a considerable hody of informalíon compara-
lively summanzed in the report un the Boarding Schoo! Bison Orive stte [Kehoe 19B7} end Bonfíra Shelter (Oibble and Lorrain 1968). Both reports provided revtews of ethnohistortcal and ethnographic sources on bison procurement. descripüons of the sites including sumrnartes uf anatomícal part frequenctes by p-oveníence unit. and fairly cornplete comparisons of 'he authors' meterlels with previously published assembleges. In both cases most of the assemblages available for comparison were from the "víllages" studied by White. This meanl thal Ihere was concern Cor the mirror-image argumenls Ihal were implied by While's inferences regarding how kill siles should look. As one mighl imagine, there were sorne reasons for confirming and sorne for rejecting White's arguments. Nevertheless. in both cases there was a large body of variability, Ihe causes of which were not apparent. There was sorne indulg. ing in posl hoc argumentation. but in general there was a kind of glossing over ,he variability; a "what can you say?" atlilude was expressed, Although it was nol discussed al the time, the demonstraled variability signaled thal things were nol as simple as a patterned conlrast belween kili sites on Ihe one hand and villages on the other. Roughly conlemporary with ¡hese comparative studies on the American plaios, which were largely using White's melhods. Ihe first "exporls" oC White's procedures to olher areas of the world appeared. By 1969 White's procedures had been applied in the Near Easl and. as we will see. in Africa. Perhaps the most bizarre argument lo surface was published by D. Perkins and P. Daly (1968) regarding a "Neolithic" sile in Turkey [see also Daly 1969). Oddly enou~h this is perhaps Ihe besl-knowll argumenl regardinEl fauna. These authors have been called Ihe discovers oC Ihe "schlepp effec"" The schlepp effecl has becn caller! a "Iaw" by Mike Schif· fer (1976:Z1j.lt ís. however, not a law but a post hoc accommooative argumen! thal seems lo have very liule to recommend i1. It is not based on elhnographic analogy; il is sheer accommodative [anlasy, yel il has served as Ihe interprelative basis for a number of argumenls aboul fauna. Af{:haeolo~isls wor\cingacl'aleo·¡mfian siles in lhe New Worlrl have ~h(Jwn tha!. il nnly a few parls af a bisan sll
New
World Regillnillgs-Man as the A~enl
pennsnent c:amp lo which the hunters brought back meat from animals they harl kílled and butcbered elsewhere. lf on the contrary mas! of the btsons bolles are present. the síte is prcbebly a "kili" arte lo which tbe successful hu nters surnmoned therr families [Perkíns and Daly 1%8:104).
The ñrst thíng wrong with this prcoosttíon is its assumptíon that all sítes are either kills or restdances. It also assumes thal decisions lo transpon hones and proeess mear are always made in the same wey[e.g.. we alwavs fillet meal, we always transport only filleted meat). and Ihal Ihe decision lo transport animal parts is not conditioned by either dislance to be covered or the quantily of meal to be Iransporled. A more detailed inlerprelative model was invented by Perkins aod Daly lo accommodale Ihe specific facts thev observed in a Turkish site of Ihe sixly·fifth century B.G. They observed that bones from the feet and lower legs of cattll! were more common in Ihe site Ihan were Ihe hones of the upper 1",. When a Suberde hunling party killed a wild ox. t!ley apparenfly butchered il on Ihe spol and used Ihe animal's own hide as a conll'liner for earryin¡¡: Ihe meat home. They evidently slripped the forequarlers and hindquarters of meat and Ihrew the leg bones awa)' They appareolly lefl the feel Illtllched lo Ihe hide. ptlrhaps because Ihe feet mll(ie convenient hl'lodlesfor dragRingIhe meal-fllJed nide. Perhaps Ihey also valued Ihe feel; this parl of lhe animal contllins useful sinew~ Ilnd has been called "the hunler's sewing kit." We ha\'e named the disparity between (he number of cllltle foo! bones and leg bones Ihat resulted tram this treatment of the prey the "schlepp effec\," after Ihe Germ..n verb meaning lo drag /perkins and Dal)' 1968:104[. Nowit ig very clear lhat lhe feet and lower Jegs yield tillle if sny meat. A "principie" thal had also guided Plains faunal interprelation from Ihe very beginning was thal man aeted differently loward par!s thal yielded low food relurns per unil weight. For instanre, While slales. "Because oftheir greater weighl the skull, scapula, pelvis, and melapodials of the bison were not transported as far as the correspondingelemcnls in Ihe deer and anlelope and were lefl althe kili [While 1954;2561." ff Parkins and Daly had trealed the Plains Iiteraturemore fully Ihey would have realized lhat the two
185
basic propostttons were in conñtct in their case: The number of bnnes was relatively small bUI tboee bones present ware from low-util íty parts-cyet they belteved they were excavatíng a resldentíal stte. They ígnored the more baste propositlon regardirtg transport , nemely that one preterenüally moves lo pomts of consumption perts with high meat yield per unit welghf and thev Invented a "just-so story" to eccommodate the Iacts and still preserve Iheir beIiefs that (a) these were Neohth¡c hunters and lb) il was a residential sue or village. This Is mytn moking of !he firs! order. The amazing thing is Ihal people adopted the schlepp effecl as a melhodological principIe. For instanca, the small cave of Palegawra (approximately 5 m deep and 6 m acrossJ. sorne 70 m aboye lhe valley Ooor, was ínlerpreled as a "residential site" by vir!ue of Ihe implicalions of Ihe schlepp eífect. The relalively high proportion of numoers of individuo als which would have been counted on the basis of mandibles and distal bones oI !he limbs. as compared with maxillae and more proximal bones of Ihe limbs, is apparent the disproportion of Ihese bones we altrib· ute to "sehlepping" . !he favorite bUlcheting lechniques with a dead ungulale seems lo have been to skin it where iI IeU,leaving the feet and mandibles (iess often Ihll maxillae also) in the s\cio.The meal was then cul off Ihe carcass and plled on Ihe spread skin, after which Ihe feet and j8W provided hanrlles for sometimes dragging. and sometimes carrying Ihe load hack to the cave. This ellplanation fjts the faets as we find them al Pategawra [Turnbull and Reed 1974:136-137). Again. lo imagine Ihe past in this manner is sheer rnyth. The piclure of the ancient Zarzian hunters dragging and pulling a skin full oC meat 70 ro up to Ihair "residence" is probably as realistic as imaElining the meal being transported lo Ihe cave by andent aslronauls. The Cacts al Palegawra had been "fit into" Ihe assumed site Iypology of residences and kili sites. The hequencies given for Palegawra. although nol well described, appear much more comparable to Ihose reported by Raymund Wood (1968) from Vista Shelter. In a very importanl paper, Wood explored the idea of orElanizationally more complex subsistence-seltlemenl sysfems. Wood argued Ihal the faunal remains oC deer and bison found in Vista Shelter had to be viewed as
....
Re-
186
5. Assemblage ComposHion: Pnnerns of Associuljon gtemnung Irom the Behnvlor uf MUl> versus Tha! of Becst
derivad from Ihe acttvttíes of hunting parties ortginating in Ierge permenent agricultura! settlemente miles away from the nunttng grounds in which the shelter was Ioceted. In addilion to suggesñng that there could welI be other Iypes of sites with other ohsrectenstíc faunal assembleges. Wood's study pulnted to facts Ihat had frequently
been ignorad in eerher studies: "All deer and btson humeri and redil are fragmentary, Ihe shañ having beea shattered by heevy blows, leevlng onty the articular ends naarly íntect. ThA stubs ot the shafts aften show pitting resulting {rom these blows IWood 1968:1751," In tenns oC the descriptions presented here, the pits mentioned by Wood were most certainly impact depressions. Wood
Perhaps the most crucial objection Ihat bagan to
be voiced regerdtng White's methods had rererence ro hís assumption about preservalion. While had ac-
knowledged thet the counts of bone perta might be suhject te verietton as a result of dtñerences in presarvatíon. but suggeeted that each part hed an equal chance of belng preserved. so Ih{' MNI ratíos would be an eccurete reñectton of the parts origfnally presenl on the sile (While 1952:337)·lohn Cuílday [n.d, and personal oornmunicationJ voiced the pesstmtstfc vtew thet all the variabilily in anatomical part frequeodes was related to Ihe differenlial destruetion of anatomical parts by "village dogs." This was essentially the resealeh environment during which imporlanl work by loe Ben Wheal was initlated. Wheat was finding the unmistakable remaios of bison thal had boon driven inta a small arroyo. Unlike lhe site dug by Kehoe, 0lsenChuhbuck appeared lo represent a single episode. Thc resolution of Ihe depo~i1 was high, in Ihat only a few sequentially related events were representad, uncomplicated by Ihe buildup ofremains from many events, almost certainly the case at Ihe Boarding School site (Kehoe 1967). Wheat's excavation strategy was sufficient to permil the recognHion ol sorne very important associalions in (he deposit. As we e"r..avaled 'he bone depo&il we finf uncovered Ihe upper layer G
New Wor!d BelólJrlOlngs-Man
as
rhe Age/11
and in tha anatomical associaüons belween the recognized units and their vertical dísposttton within the narrow arroyo. Wheat's ínterpretation of this pattem was justified by cínng generalizations sdvenced after an extenetve survey of the ethnohistorieal sources descrtbtng Plains butchering procedures. (Sea Wheat (19721 fur a review of Ihis Itterature.) In shcrt. wheet's tnference as lo rhe behevíorel meaning of his ñndlngs and in turn hís reccnstrucüon of the butcheríng prccedure used over 8501) yeara ago at Olsen-Chubbuck was a classlc argument from elhnographic Bnalogy: "jt seem.~ reasonable to assume thal the Paleo-Indians foHowed the same initial steps in bulchering that Ihe Plains Indians did in recent times IWheal 1967:501." Que uf the steps in the prot.;edUHJ as describecl elhnohislorically was the removal of Ihe "blanket of flesh." Direclly under the ~kin of Ihe backwas a laver of lender mea\, Ihe "blankel of flash"; when Ihis was stripped away. the bison's forelegs and shoulder blades could be cut free e¡¡posíng lhe highly priled "hump" meato Ihe ríb cage and Ihe body cavi!y IWheat 1967:50J. This model of Ihe pasl was strikingly different from the model of butchering presented by While, whete tbere was an assumption of regular use of chopper!> aud deevers with the consequent destrueIion of analomical parls during butchering operalions. No 5uch picture was presented by Wheal's work. One obtained the impression thal the butchering was primarily done by eulting Ihrough the joints, and dJOpping aud smashing were nol so abviously practiced. The nexl most important development in Plains research was lhe work of George Frison (1970}, previously cited. His ¡nteresl in butchering praclicell waS slated from the very onsel of his analysis of Ihe Glenrod. Buffalo lump, but his approach was different from that of eíther White and his "followers" such as nihble and Lorrain (1968) Bnd Kehoe [1967), or loe Ben Wheal (1967) who was working wilh ethnohistory and units of articulBtion. Frison (1970:8-1O} msde basicaJly tWD argumenls: (at that alllhe marks or modifications on the bones al Ihe Glenrock jump had been produced by Ihe "tools" remaining at the sile. and (b) Ihat tools were recognized by virtue oí a patterned form of breakage, a
187 petterned Iorm of structural modification, and/or a patterned Iorm of surñctal scerring. Thís leads directly to tha correlafAd argument cf there hF!ing many bone Iccis al Glenrock. 1 have alreedy Ireated Frison'a work al Glenrock in sorne detetl.It Is cleer lo me that the btson bones at Glenrock had been ravaged by predatcr-scavengers. Many of the modifications and much of the dístruction manifesl on the bones wes a censequence oi nonhuman animal behavíor. Frison, however. opereung on Ihe assumption that aU modifica\ions were human, invented a post hoc accornmodative argument-muscle stripping executed largely wilh bone too1s. Frison's knowledge of bolh 1001 mechanics and animal anatomy !Ierved lo ensure thal his model was in fact fcosible. When he butchorcd bison in a replicalive experimenl. he col.lld produce many of the modifications observed on bones al Clemod. This demonstration was convincing to bolh Frison Rnd many olhers. Among a group of largely Plains and early man enthusiasts the replicative experimenl hecame an epistemologicsl clevice. A c1assic statemenl heard al meetings in reply lo someone's sUBgeslíon as to how Ihings were done in the pasl was Ihe quip. "How msny limes have you done that?" If the answer was "never" Ihen a knowing glance drculated among lhe in-group and Ihe person snd his jdea were dismissed as being not worthy of further discusslon (see the exchauge between St
188
5. Assemhlcge Cumposilion: Pnñern s uf Associofion Stemming írom tho Rf'holior ur Moa versus Tho! uf Baos!
ensure that the people of the past did thtngs in similar ways? To argue thet they did ts lo argue from egographic enciogy. 1 For ínstance. George Frisen dtscussed his reconstruotíon oí butchering, which was based 00 his irnegtnatton and replicative experiment. relativa to Ihe reconstructíons thet Ice Ben Wheat had oñered for Olsen-Chubbuck based 00 ethnogrephíc analogy. Reasoning from egographíc enatogv. Frison (1970:4Q) discussed wheat's "blanket of Ilesh": It is diffic;ult lo understand wbet thte so cetled "blanket of flesh" migh! refer lo unless iI is the thin iayer of ñesh thal edheres lo Ihe hide during skinning. Actual butch·
ering of buffalof8ib; lo revealanylhing Ihal salisfiedIh¡, description. It was nol possibllltofind any way lo "worl. Up under" any blwhl ofllesh lo removeIhe fronl q\lllflen jFrison 1970:401. Ido not doubt that Frisan could nol find the blanket of flesh but it was not because such a blanket did not exist; it was simply because Frisan did not know how to butcher a bison in the appropriate manner. See, for instance, my iIIustratians of the "blanket of flesh" removed by the Nunamiut Eskimo when butchering far drying (Binford 1978b:95, Figure 3, 2). Cerlainly a bison could be butchered in an analogous fashion. If we take knowledge of our "wlture" as the basis for knowledge in general. or as Ihe standard for judging what is plausible or possible. then we commit the worse kind of ethnocentric error. Unfortunately, the approach ol Frisan has tended lo somewhat dominale faunal studies in the iI am in no wsy implying that practical experience,
familiarity wilh one's sub;ect matler, and raplicative axper· imenls arEl nol of value lo a researcher in an educational senS6. ThllY are very importanl IIndshould be slrongly en· cou[aged. I am only suggeslingthal ji would be 11 very rare Ihing iodead if any of us could become "completely edu· celad" by such self-teaching tactics. I would be verysl.eplicel of the claim that tlllY one experl was knowledgeeble about Ihe full range of behavior Ihal ffillnkind in general had perfeclp.d and execuled in diffp.ring drcumslances, many of which are cerlaln lo be unapprecialed by Ihe single individual WOl"king from even a very complele knowledge uf his ¡J8rlkula[ experiences.
Americanisl literatura in recent years. Assemblage vartabtlíty Ireated in terrns of analomical part freo quenctes has not been sludied recently on the Pleins even at the pattem-recognttton lovel of rasearch. Those who have tended to be unimpressed by Frison have quietly sided wlth loe Ben Whp.al. For Instance. a student at a Platns universlty only test year SIlnauneed te me that "we don'l study anatomical part frequencies or breakagu. we study the artículated segments of the anatomy as a clue lo butchering practíces.:' Anolher studenl at the sarna university confided that "we think loe Ben Wheal was rigbt about Plains butchering." l must admit thal 1 loo "Ihink loe Ben Wheat was right" and lhat muscle stripping probably new'r was performed on the Plains, at least not in Ihe manner invented by Frisan. In Ihis case ethnographic analogy is likely lo be much more relaible than egographic analogy. The sad faet is, however, thal anatomical part frequencies can reveal much more Ihan just bulchering practices. In facl, Ihey probably reveal very Httle directly about butchering practices per se. since cul marks, palterns of articulation, and patlerns nf context association are all apt to yield more direct information about bulchering Ihan are relative frequencies of analomical parts. White's original assumption thal the absence of certain parls was referable lo Iheir destruction during butchering now no longer appears plausbile as a general conditíon. lt became clear thal Ihere are maoy pattems; in fact, almost every new assemblage described and compared-for example. Woud (1962), Dibble and Lorrain (1968), and Kehoe (1967)-had unique properties. This wide range of variability was hard lo ae· commodllte to the simple model of seltlemenl Ihal White and other early students offaunal assemblages lended to imagine. The major methodological implicalion of the sludy of anatomica! part frequendes for New World studies was simply Ihat one could lell the differenee between kili and residenlial sites. lo fact there was little difficulty in accomplishing Ihis lask on the American pJains when bison was Ihe major animal involved. 11 roa)" be that this banal characterislie of the melhodological implicaliolls of studyinR faunal assemblages contribuled lo the lack (Jf inleresl Ihal seems lo have characlerized the work of the 19705
AfrJcan Problems cnd Assemblage Composition
African Problems and Assemblage Composition Only several years afler the works of White had turned the attenlion of sorne New World archaeologísts toward Ihe potenttal of anatomícal part frequenctes as sources of informatioo. Raymond Dart (1957) published a very important study in which he deseribed properties of the Makapansgat fauna from the perspective of enatomícal part Irequencies. Dart had previously argued from patterns uf breakage, partícularly of baboon skulls. thet Auslrolapithecus was a hunter, and that Ihe faunal remains in the deposits from which the early fossils had been obtaioed were "kitchen.middens" (Dar! 1949:2). The 1957 report on his sludies of the fauna frorn Makapansgal included a tabulation of relative frequencies of anatomical parls. The variability in parl frequencies noled by Dar! was interpreled as deriving from Ihe selective removal of bones from kills far use as tools by Austrolopilhecus. The disappearance of lails was probablydve to their use as signals and whips in hunling oulside Ihe cavern. Caudal and olher vertebrae may also have disappeared becaus.. of the polentiat value of !heir bodies as projp.cliles and Iheir pTor.esses liS ¡..vers and poinls ... femoTa IInd libiae would be lhe heavieslclubs lo use oulsidp. Ihe cavp.rn. thal is prnbably why Ihese bones are Ihp. leasl r.:ommon. Humeri are Ihe commonesl of Ihe long bones: probtlbly because Ihey would be the mosl f.Onvenienldubs for Ihe women-folk and children lo use al home IDart1957:851. Although Ihese inlerprelalive arguments appear mylh-like today, Ihey were central in prompting a great deal of imporlanl research. As pointed out ear· lier, it was largely Ihe daims of Raymond Darl regarding Ihe nature of the behavior of the early hominicls Ihal demanded Ihal behavioral queslions be answl;lred using archaeological remains. Actualistic resear<.h was prompted by alternative arguments su~h as Washburn's (1957) Ihat Ihl;l earl" hominids had 1I0t accumulall;ln Ihe neposils bul WPTl;l in.~fean present by virtue of having been prey lo wnalever prenalor-sr.avpnger was responsible fm Ihe deposits. Argumenls over lhrJ rtgent respomible fm lhe depo-
189 síts, the criteria for recognizing tools, and what would be acceptable evídence of eerly hominid hunling were all questícne thet stemmed from the controversy surrounding Dert's clatms. This ís a very differenl intel/ectual envirooment from one that seeks lo answer questions such as these: Was the Mousterlen the cultural encestor of Ihe Aurignacian? Out of whlch "tradltlon." Clactonian or Acheulian, did the Quina Mousterian develop? lnstead of traditional historlcal questtons. the researchers of early man were faced with controversy regarding the charaoter of the early hominids' behavior, and Ihey had to seek answers through means that were outside the dornain of traditional archaeological re· search procedure. 1 can remember leaching das!les on Lower Pleistocene materials in the early 1960s and pointing out that although 1 thought Dart's post hoc arguments, such as the one just quoted, were sheer fantasy, the patterning he demonstrated at Makapansgat was ioteresting and essentially unan· swered. That is, we did nol have reliable methods for interpreting such patterning. Why were the anatomical part frequencies al Makapansgat so different from the frequencies in a living animal? Here was a classic pattern-recognition sludy. Whal we needed was middle-range research to investigate the causes of such palterning. lf we isolated the causes we mighl have !he basis for a powerful set of archaeological methods. The Makapansgat fauna seemed to me lo he a critically r.hallenging phenomenon. For instance, I had bl;lcome accustomed lo archaeologists "discovering" new paneros in thearchaeologícal record but in most cases 5uch palterns were cited as distinclive of Ihe people who produced them. There was no reason to view Ihem as "slrange" or unexpecled since, aíter all. cllllures varied-we all know this. On the other hand, the daims of Dart were dif(eren\. He was comparing the frequendes of anatomir:al parls observed in the archaeological record to "expecled" ([equendes derived from a knowledge of lhe anatomy of animals. When the observed differed {rom Ihe expected he demanded an explanationwhat behavior, events, or causal condifions could have "happened in híslory" lo produce Ihe dif· ferences belween lhe expocled conditioll and Ihe observed facts? He was ¡¡ble to make a uniformilarian assumplion mgllrding the analomy of animals. He
l
,~, ~
190
5. A55emblage Composítíon: Pottern5 01 A550cilllioCl Sternming lrom ¡he Behal'ior of Mnll venus That 01 Beast
was eble to eay wilh sorne confidence what the frequencíes oí enetomlcal parts had been all tbose thousands of years before. He wes therefore eble to esk a very specific questíon about sorne events tha! we knew had to have taken place. namelv those events that resultad in Ihe modificatíon of the anatomical part trequenctes away from the known prior condíuon. It is true tbat essentially the serna etructural sttuatlon cheractertzed the earlter arguments by Tbeodore whíte. But there was a díñerence. White phrased the comparison as a basís lar recogn¡zing cultural differences. It was ViAWed as a way oC monitoring "ethnic history," and specific explanations were not demanded as to the bahaviors responsibla for the dilferences. It is true that a number of post hoc argumenls were offftred. bul one 1I0t Ihe impressíon Ihat the truth of 5uch arguments was not as important aS the demonstration of cuhural differences, as was suggested in the comparative studies by Wood (19112) and Dibble and Lorrain (1968). This was 01 course Ihe procedure of traditionaJ archaeolagy; patterning varied hecause it reflected cultural differences. Tha culture varied as a fundion of the acddenls of history, The relationships hetween behavior snd the arehaeological record were not a real1y serious concern. Darl's argumenl demonded o behaviorol evoluotjon. He was saying that the anatomical parts varied lrom the expecled frequencies because of spedfic behaviors carríed out by spe· cinc agents, and that these behaviors were distinc· tive to Ihose agenh, the early hominids. Controversy here had to be wilh behavioral models, not vague "historicaI" models. as to which archaeologically defined unil influenced another or where certain traits were invented and where they diffused. In Ihe Dart case ODe had lo argua over (a) how hominids behaved and (b) what archaeological feets were un· ambiguous indicetors of slleh behaviors. This was Ihe intellectual c!irnate of New ArchaeoJogy, 8nd hardly anyone recognized it! Neverlhelp.ss. reSf!arch shifted rapidly to aclUalistíc studies. There was a major sel of research pushes with contemporary primate studies, and Washburn and DeVore were inslrumenlal in slarling what mi¡¡ht be called "ntodern" hunler-gatherer research consciously considered of relevance lo underslanding something aboullhe chanH.:ler of early hominid life-
ways. (Sea the introduclory statament to Mon the Hunter [Lea and Devore 10081·) Qne of the eerltest reseercb "spin-offs" from Dert's cJaims Iocused on the behavior of the African porcupíne. Based en analogy with Dert's cletms for bone tools at Mekepansgat, similar claíms were made for ttems from the Hopeñeld site: Ronald Sínger (1956) reported thet those "tools'' could be understood as products of gnawing by the Africlln porcupine. Dart (1958) ccuntered by ñrst illustratlng ethnographieaily documented bone tcols. showing Ihat man did use bone for tools, and then iJlustraling alleged bone tools from a site excavated by R. ¡. Mason called Kalkbank (R. J. MaSOIl et 01. 1956). This site was dated by carbon·14 and by Ihe style of the few stone tools found there to around 15,000 yeal5 ago. Dart and Kilching daimed there to be a very large number of bone lools present, arguing lhal the loealion was a living site in an area where tbele was Iinle available stone, therefore the occupants had used bone as a raw material for 1001 produclion. They recognlzed !hat the Africen poreupíne has been active in modifying the bones at Kalkbank (over 25% of the total bones were considered pore:upine gnawed) but they insisted that this gnawing took place after the bOlles had been brokcn or otherwise modifil"d by mano In many cases modification prior to porcupine alteration d()es seem to have baen Ihe case. The question remainad, who broke or modified the bones befure lhe poreupinc did its wark~ Of course Dart and Kitching argued that man did. They illuslrated spiral fractures and longitudinally splil banes, which may well have been broken by man or by predatur-scavengers for marrow. Darl ano his companion assumed that man broke {he banes in ¡he observed manner in order lo obtain tools (see Dar{ 1958). In addilion, Ihey interpreled the observed dilferenlial freI.Juency of anotomic.al parts as ari.~ing from selectivity on the parl of man in relurning parls oE polential use as tools lo hís living site. Later Hendey and Singer(1965j reported on a porcupine lair as weH as the conlenls of !ln adjaeent sile occllpied periodically by mano lt was noted Ibat there was a major difference in the degree of fragmentalion characleristic of lhe banes (mm lhe human sile versus Ihuse flum the procupinc lair. The olhpr point of conlras! was in Ihf! frelluency of idf!nlifiablp. porcupille gnawing-.3% in IhfJ human site, bul an iro-
African Problems (lnd A5semhloge Cnmposttfnn
pressíve 60.0% of (he bcnes in the prccuplne ette. Ihis tnterest in the African porcuplne as an egent of both bone modification and bone accumulation conlinues today (see Brain 1980). This, however. is getting somewhat ahead of the story. AHhough Ihe pcrcuprne conecversv led to the study of contemporary behavíoral dynamics of porcupines. the methodology that I suggested as the only one reetly appropriate to beginning middlerange reseerch. the studies of more dírect relevence lo essemblege composttton vtewed Irom 'he perspective of anatomical part frequendes. were carried out by C. K. Brain. Brain's research directIy addressed ~wo importanl questions: What caused Ihe differenHalfrequencies of anatomical parts observed by Dart (Brain 1967b. 1969, 1976b)? What agent was responsible for the accumulafion of Ihe deposHs al sorne of lhe sltes yleldillg early homlnld bones (Brain 1968, 1970, J976a, 1980F Brain carrled out actualistic studies oI modern leopard behavior and observed a number of distinctlve eharaClerlsllu: tllat (;UnVillCed him thal, al leasl al the site of Swartkrans, leopards. not Ihe early hominids, had been Ihe agents responsible ror ae;. cUffiulating Ihe faunal deposits. The study that did [llore tu l:hange Ihe direetioll of llluch Aldean reiearch than almost any olher was his e!hnoarchaeological study of the faunal assemblages occurring at contemporary Hollenlot vilJages {Brain 1907b, 1969. 197Gb). In this actualistic setting Oraln was able lo oblain a number of contra/s: 1. the Hottentot were goal herders; a11 animals killed for food were initially presenl on the site as romplete animals. 2. Once Ihe Hottentol were finished with the bones Ihey were discarded aboul Ihe camp and free roaming dogs scavenged the garbage. 3. Collections from Ihese sites yielded populalions oE bunes Ihat ""ere exlremeJy variable io lhe relative Irequencies of anatomical parts represented.
Sra;o rcm>aned Ihal since Ihe completo skololon had been presenl to begin wilh, Ihe differential frequency could nol be due lo selective inlroduc1ion lo Ihe site, as [)art's ar¡.:umcnls would demando Inslead Ihny had lo be duc lo r1ifforonlial dolotion fmm tho populalion, Arain nofp.rl Ihal lhe bonp.s Ihal were underrepresenled were soft aod characteri7.erl by
191 cancellous ttssue. He argued that the sequence of eptphysíal unten would differenliaIly eñect the susceptibility of a parl fo destrucnon gtven a variable eged populatíon. He then prcposed that the differenttel destmctíon of anetomtcel parts as 8 funenon of theír tntnnstc strengtb by me hee roamtng doge of the Hottentot camp was responsfble for the differential enatomtcal part Irequenctes. Bratn next compared his Hottentot goet samples to the relatíve frequendes reportad by Dart fram Makapansgat, demonslralíng an impresetve simílarity: The evidence of tha Kuisab Rivar Soal bonalJ slronsly which Dart encounspedal explanation. Artificial seleclion of certain skaletaJ pal1s netld no! be postulaled. Ir for instanca, antelope were hunled as they carne lo drlnk at a waterhole in the entrance of Ihe cave and w~re Ihen con8umad by aUSlnllopithednes l:md 5cavenging carnivores. a considerable bone accumulation eould have been built up in Ihe lower parls of lhe cavetrl. The bonfl'l preserved would haya btlen those oosl abie tu SU1Vi\'8 Ihe deshudlve lrelltm8nt tu which they had been subjecled 11969:221. SU8Se¡Í! thl1t the di¡proportlons leJed do, In fael. nol require any
This is a classic piece of middle.range research. 8rain was able lo gain inform&lional coolrol over Iho dynamic candítions in terms of which fhe bone assemblage was modified. No selective introduction of parts eharacterized the situation. Yet theresult was 8 highly variable set of differentlal froquencios for the anatomical parls remaining on the siles. This had lo derive from a series of deletions from the assemblage. Brain then went on to seek an understand· ing oE !he factoi"S conditioning the removal PfQ_ cesses. One could almost datect a great sign of relief coming lrom aarly man research teams in Africa. Isaac (1971) considorod Ihe problem of Darl's ciaims for Makapansgat solved and in no need 01' further study. Brain's findings were gladly inemporated inla Ihe discussion of 01duvai Gorge (M. D. Leakey 1971:275-281). Mary Leakey begins her discussion of fauna by poinling out Ihat Ihe disproporlionale frequencies of parls of Ihe skeleton had long becn a "puzzling feature" Ihal had never "been satisfactor. Uy explained in Ihe pas\.o' She then summari:zp'l Brain's Hullentol work and concludes, "There is thus a combination of human and scavenger activity
•
192
5, Assemblnge Compositioo; Potterns of assoctction Stemming jrum rhe Behavior Df Mon versus That af Beas1
similar fa conditions al eerlv living sttes where hyeenas and ether ecevengers are known lo heve gnawed the bones discarded by the hominid populaticn 1M.D. Leekey 1971:2771." Thls conclusíon incorporales en mteresttng assumption ebout Olduvai Corge. namely that the destruction of anatomícal parls al her "living sites" by hyenaa and others occurred after the homtntd populatíon had díscarded the bones. Presumably Ihis would be eñer the site was abEmdoned~how does Mary Leekey know this" A tabla of compartson is presentad illustrating a combined sample froro Dlduval Gorge, Iha MlIkapansgat bovids, and the Hottentol goal sample. lt is concluded (hat they are all very similar, and although minor contrasts are eviden! Leakey is comfortable with the conclusion that aH are the result of essentially the same causal conditions: human utili:r.ation, with subsequent scBvenging by prndator--scavengers. L.eakey does not consider the added assumption that the animals present were originally complete skeletons, or that Brain's work iIIustrates no faunal characteristics referable to human utilizalion in 50 fae as differential anatomical part frequencies are wncemed, How can one distin· guish an assemblage ofbones ravaged exclusively by animals from one where man had played a role? No one had addressed this question. Man's role was being assumed in aU the interpretations, both of Makapansgat by Brain (1969), and Olduvai Gorge by Mary Leakey (1971). We had no procedure for recognizing the consequences al man's behavior, particularly if one discounted spiral fractures, as was done by Mary Leakey (1971:277-278). Was man bringing whole animals back to his living sites alter successfui hunts? Ol course this is what one would have to imagine if Mary Leakey's arguments were accepted. Al least Brain had the animals coming to Makapansg8t and being killed on the site; no such convenienl reasons seem¡ed available to account for complete animals on the "living siles" of the early hominids al Olduvai Gorge! This implicalion of adopling Brain's argument seems lo have been conveniently overlooked. The next majordevelopment in the ongoing sludy of assemblage variabilily from an African pt'irspective carne from the work of Calhy Read-Martin and Dwighl Read (1975). They ar~ued Ihar sorne insighl eould be Rained on the Makapansgal siluation by
comparing the profile of anetomfcel part frequencíes from the North German sttes originally reponed by Rust's collaboretcrs Krause (1937) and Krause and Kollau (1943) with the Makapensgat proñle. Preservatlon was reporled lo be excellenl at the German sitas of Slellmoor and Meiendorf. 1 wculd agree. There appears to be no suggestlon thal anv postdepositiunal destructive process was al work In the German sítes. The faunal assemblages seem to represent unmodífied primary depositicnal assemblages. The character of the German fauna was Interpreted as represenling primary butchering near the km location as welJ as Ihe foad consumed in support oí the hunling group whiJe they engaged in Ihe hunlingbutchering. The variable anatomicel part frequencies on the German siles were interpreled in a way similar lo the models argued in the American literature: Differential frequencies of anatomical parts reflected differential Iransport or abandonmenl of anatomical units in the contexl of hunting logistics. Comparisoo of the German sites with Makapansgal revealed thal in the latter site scapulae, pelves, sorne vertebrae, and ribs were rela1ively underrepresenled. On the othar hand, heads and sorne parts of the front limbs were relatively more abundant. II also appeared thal Iimb sections were introduced lo !he MakapansglJ! JocaUon after having been disarticulated froro Ihe pelvis or Ihe scapula. These comparisons were made despite Brain's demonslralion of a slrong set of correspondences between the profile of parl frequencies at Makapansgat and Ihe ravaged assemblage froro the Hollenlol villages. There was strong support for the recognition ol the Makapansgat assemblages as having suffered considerable destructive allrilion, and no such evidence of r1eslruction was characteris· tic of Ihe assemblages from Ihe Gormao siles. Thal there was a difference belween Mak.apansgal and Ihe Cerman sites wes dear. That Ihe difrerences were referable to the original composition of the assemblages was nol clear. The ravaged charader of Ihe Makapansgat assemblage had becn convincingly demonslraled by Brain. The llnravaged charaeter of Ihe German assemblages seemed not in dispule. ThllS Ihe difference in composiUon between Ihe assemblages could derive from destructive agents operative on Qoe and nol operafive on the olher assemblage. This was nol considered, Ano{her differonce not considered hy Read-Martin and Read was
Afrkun Probiems onrl t\ssemb/o8" Composítion
the argument that Ihe original compoetuon of the Makapansgat essemblage had been complete skeletons. The deposilional character of the German sttes was nol that of complete anirnals. bul accordlng to Read-Marlín and Read (1975) was a biased abandonmenl of parts near a kili sile coupted wilh parts consumad whíle the hunttng party was living there. This difference ulone could account for frequency contrasts. but ít was not considered. Read-Marlín and Read took the differences batween Makapansgat and the German sues at face value snd considerad e8ch lo be refp.rable to a differenl sel of behaviors on Ihe part of {he human-hominid occupants: inslead of assuming Ihal ltnimllls sC8venged fram hominid kiJ/s. ir is hypoth6sizerl Ihal hominids sCllvenged fromIhe kills af Cllrnívores, a bellarand more comprehensive explanolion of Ihe MIlKapllnsgat remoios. and one more in );eeping wilh Darl's workand with ocologlral principIes.. scavellging australo_ pithecines brought back the lightest and mosl valuable bovid remains in lerms of their meal, mllrrow, or polenlial use as 10015. Cranial fragmenls are overrepresenled because these are lhe parls mosl afien ¡efl by carnivoresand by scavengers such as hyaenas and vultuces IRead-Marlin and Read 1975:3631 This was a case of atlempling lo reach conc!usions about the pas! in the absence of a melhodology. Following Read-Marlín and Read's publicalion, 1 presented a considerable body of informalion based on elhnoarchaeological study of fauna among Ihe Navajo and among the Eskimo (L. R. Binford and l. B. Bertram 1977), My \\'ork in both places c:onfírmed Ihe impressive abilily of gnawing dogs lo deslray bones and therefore lo distorl Ihe relalive frequencies of anatomical parts so Ihal the surviving populaIion bore liule resp-mblance to Ihe composition Ihat existed prior to Ihe section of the dogs. 1 carried research 00 lile differenlial slrength of bone a step beyond Iha work of Brain Bnd showed a strang relationship between bone density and the survival of bonf'.5 gnawed by dogs. II was further showed that bone density varied with lhe malurational age of animals: tnerefore, the characlerislic profile of bones SlJrlriving after having been rava~ed by Ihe same dogs wil1 be vastiy differenl if the prey acted llpon are of differenl ages. One cauld Iherefore expeel to observe r1ifferences in Ihe relalive frequendes of
193
analomicol parts survívlng even if all behevícrat conditlnns were Idenrir-al except for the age composition of Ihe animal popuiation being ected upon by altrilional agents. Using an eleborate curve-fitting slrategy that sought the best fu among a series of age-variable popuiattons, we were able to account lar apprnxirnateiy 79% of the varíance in the Makapansgal population. At Ihe time 1 was imprcssed, anri tended lo view the fit as reasonable, particularly since the Makap¡¡nsgal population was made up of a variely of species and our models had been based exclusively on sheep. Accepling the unaccounled-for variance as "noise," r viewed Braio's argumenl thal Ihe original composition of Makapansgal fauna had been complete animal skeletons thal had becn ravaged by predator-scavengers as reasonable. This was essential1y where Ihe African situarion had been left regarding the inlerpretation of faunal assemblage variabilily from early hominid siles until the presenl sludy. Although the "eady" materials were largely left alone during Ihe late 1970s, there was 8 stepped-up series of comparatíve studies done on more recenl materials. Richard Klein has syslematically sludied a large number of faunas from importa nI archaeologi. cal sites in Soulh Africa (Klein 1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1IJ77, 1978a, 197Bc, 1978dj. He has made sorne innovalioos in faunal analysis and in tum has recognized sorne interesting palterns. Of particular inlerest are the differences he consistently noled belween Ihe surviving analomical parls of animals of different size. This pattern was firsl ciled in his analysis of fauna from Ihe Klasies River mouth siles (Klein 1976a). Klein noled rhat among small and small fa roedium bovids scapulae, pelvic parts, mandibles, and parts of !he upper legs both fronl and rear were commonly represented in the sites, but vertebrae and lower leg parts were less well represented. This makes perfecl sense in terms of economizing argumenls slressing Ihat Ihe mosl usable parts wiII be Iransported to living siles and parts of marginal utility will be differentially discarded al kill siles. If such ralional behavior was manifest with respeel to the small animals we could expecl it to be even more obvious with large animals, which would present an ellen grealer Iransport problem. Klein has syslematically observed jusllhe reverse: "the ralio of crunial
4r
5.
194
A.ssembro~e ccmccenroo: Patterns of AssodotjQfl Stemmmg from
the Behuvinr 01 Mon versus Thut 01 Becst
termine what scevengtng actuetly looks Hke when lo postcranial parts íncreases whtle the ratio of ltmbseen in fauna! frequendes, we might gain a very difbones to foot bones decreases with tncreesed síze of ferent piclure of man's adaptatlon to the African setbovtd [Kletn 1976a:87\." Klein "tnterpreted" this ting phenomena by appeal to the schlepp eUect of Pero A.s can be seen, we have had essentially 30 years kins and Daly l\968], while pointing out thet in hís of research treating assemblege variability in sttes the people aleo increased the number of skulls anatomtcel part frequendes. Much of this work has introduced at the same lime they wete introducing proceded reletively independently in Mrica. in the feet and not introducing parís with substanlial meaty Norlh American Platns. and to sorne extent in the yield! Another ínterestlng fact ebout the large bovids Near East among workers tnterested in the origins of at the Kla:sies River mouth sites is that they are agriculture. Work started with essenhally two quite mostly Cape buffalo and the extinct giant buffalo, different paradigmatic assumptlons- whtte's ptoneer both of whtca are predorninantly represented by work assumed thal assemblage variability was refervery young individuals and individuals of advanced able to lo) differential butchering practices, (b) difage (Klain 1976a:83). in terms of contrast, the bovids fecenbal transport or abBndonmenl of anatomical of small lo medium size ware almost exdUsively parts between kili sites and residentiallocations, and prime adult individuals. Bolh patterns-skulls aud {el Ihe differential traflsport of sorne selecl parts ior feel from young and old large animals and the use BS tools. In Africa, Raymond Darl viewed the meat-yielding bones froro hovids of small to medium differential frequencies of anatomical parts as having body size-have now been documented for Nelson derived from the biased introduclion of bones into Bay Cave (Klein 1977:23), Border Cave (Klein 1977). living sites for use as lools. He too recognized a basic Boomplaas (Klein 1978c). Buffelsk!oof (Klein dichotomy between residential ¡¡ites and kili sites, 1978d). es wel1 as Klasies River (Klein HI76a). bul his majn focus was on residential sites. Klein's persistence in analysis and study has reIn Americanist studies Ihere was a growing sulted in sorne very important pattern-recognition awarenesS that preservation was no\ uniform with work (well surnmarized in Klain 1980). What these respeet to bones, as had been assumed earlier, but pattems mean has been largely interpreled by Klein was in faet differential. That is, aU bones subjected to from arguments of others, sucb BS the schlepp effect. the same destructive conditions wou!d not survive or his Bttemp1 to recognize differences between kill equal1y. lt should be noted that this "awareness" and residential sites. Alternativa srguments and atarose through observation on contemporBry dogs tempts to warrant viewpoints through arguments (Guilday), through consideration of possible consefrom elimination have nol characterized mueh of queTlces of ethnographically documented behavior Klein's work 1hus lar. For instance. sorne of the ideas (Pillaert 1969), and as a result of direct ethnographic advaneed by ReBd-Martin Bnd Read largely derived observBtion (Lyon 1910). In addition there was arel· from comparative ethnogrBphic study should atively quick accumulation of a compBrative library perhaps be investigBted. They point out that a model of archaeologically investigated sites illustrating of scavenging is no\ inconsistent with documented thal the paUerns were highly variable. There was behavior of modern hunters (Woodbum 1968: J. E. sorne exploralion of the idea that the simple Yellen, personal eommuniClltion). Not only is it dichotomy, between kili site and residential site WBS plausible, but the scavenging of kills by olher predperhaps somewhat naive (Wood 1968); and then, reBtors ""ouId roughly limit Ihe uSBble parts lo those search essentially stopped on this subjecl. that tended to be abandoned by otber predators, renIn Alrica there was a very differenl pattern. There dering such behavior recognizable. As we will sea, was no initial rush to comparative study. For many these parts are nol uncommonly heads and lower ye ars the Makapansgal fauna remained unique. Gislimbs {Read-Martin and Read 1975:3(3). A model of cussion centered around the degree to which other scavenging is also consislen! wilh lhe age bias in the animals could have produced Ihis fauna. In Alriea large bovids tmany very young and very old indithe work of ona man provided the model for reviduals). AH in BlI,a scavenging model makes more search. C. K. Brain sought lo gain control over the sense Ihan does the schlepp effect. 1f we could de-
Other Types
of Assemb/nge
dlI
'
VoriobilHy
role of differential preservetton through his study of contemporery Hottentot peoples and thelr faunal debris. Simultaneously he studied the behevtcr and the fauna! consequences oí African anírnals. initially leopards (Brain 1968) and later porcuptnes (Brain 1980). Brain not only worked lo obtain recognnícn criteria for antmel-generated assemblsges. hut elso moved in the dtrection of investigaling the causes of differenlial bone preservation. Because there was a large segment of the Africanisl communrty that generaJly disagreed wilh Dar\. there was an emphasis on the study of enimal-produced essembteges. and this bias continues although not so marked as perhaps during Ihe early 19705. Vou might say that my work and the work of sorne Near Easlern researchers {perkins and Daly 1968) has been largely "spin-off researeh" in Ihal the original problems thBt prompled Ihe research on Ihe Ameri· can Plains, ami in Africa, were not Ihe majar motivators for either my work or thBI of olhers who began to explore faunal assemblage variability in other areas. Certainly my own work was motivalBd by the implications of the Americanisl research. For instance, when I went to France in 1968 to study the faune ol Combe Grenal, I had a vBgue idea Ihat site functions should be manifest in faunal assemblage variabilily. This WBS a projection of the Plains arguments regarding kili versus residential siles. J arrived in France with a copy of the then very new study by Kehoe (1967}. I hoped Ihat I could use {aunal variability to inform me Bboul the causes of lithic assemblage variahility. It took me sorne time lo realize thBt we had insufficienl knowledge as to the causes of variBbilily in faunal assemblages. and could nol use Ihe palterning seen at Combe Grenal as a methodological device for learning about the behavioral contexts in which the stone 1001 as· semblages were generaled. It was at that juncture Ihall ("..ame to adopt many of the positions presented in Chapler 2, namely Ihat middle-range reseBrch was crucial and Ihal we hBd to do it ourselves, since no o\her {¡eld sougbt to explain facts of Ihe archaeological record. In addition. ir was cJear to me thal explBining Ihe facts of the Brchaeological record consisted of understanding Ihe dvnamic conditions Ihal produced those facts. In short·. we had to do !lthnoarchaeological and experimental studies. I went to study Ihe Nunamiul Eskimo in 1969. We now have a
195
vast body of behavtorally controlled material (L. R. Binforcl 1978b} that should leave little doubt that the model of Ihe past that admilted only residential and kili sitas was extremely nalve. l am of the opinion thet the beginnings of a methodology have been worked out for identifying stte functíons. at leas! with regard lo hunting logisucs. We need at least as much research investment in the behavioral censequences of anímal-generated feunal assernbleges.
Other Types of Assemblage Variability I have focused on assemblage variability considered excJusively in terros of anatomical port frequencies. Clearly this is not Ihe only property of assemblages. We could study assemblages froro the perspective of their frequency composition in lerms of different species, different ages of the different spedes, or a number of other zoological properties. Sludies of this type have been conducted for B long time. Tile composilion of assemblages in lerms of species frequencies is mosl commonly interpreted as a reflection of environmental eomposilion. Much of the current work in taphonomy js concerned with the degroo lo which paleontological assemblages. even assemblages referable to Ihe actions of a single species. are representative of the frequencies of species in the surrounding habitat (see Hehrens· meyer and Dechant-Boaz 1980, Brain 1980, and particularlyGifford 1981). There is, however. another possible conditioner of species frequencies, and Ihal is Ihe bias of predator-scavengers for exploiling prey niches ralher thBn taking a random sample of prey in the habitat. Important work of direct relevance to Ihe problem of identifying differenl predator-scavengers products has been done by Vrba (1975, 1960). af very great importance is a provocative observation by Richard Klein (1976a, 1980)lhal carnivore species. in terms of both number of species and numbar of individuals, Ilfe much more common in animal den assemblages IhBo in other types of eilher human or paleontologicBI assemblage. This supports my observations that animal-produced pseudotools claimed from European sites are more common from levels and sites
4
#'
196
5. Assemb!0l!c Compositinn: PIl!l('rns
úf Associllljull
where carnivore remains are extraordinarily cornmono This appears to he true of the famous site of Choukoutien, and probebly applíes to other such 10catíons as wetl. For ínstence. the femocs burial cave of Teshik-Tash {Movius 195:11 appears lo have been an animal den for a considerable period of lime. To what degree are the evidences of ritual cited at this slte referable lo the behavior of anímals" The widesprcad use of European caves by nonhominid predator-scavengers ls well illuslrated by lhe iollowing genenlization regll.rding Europe<Jn siles: "The nalure of Ihe site controls to sorne exlent the nature of the fauna. Cave siles, far example, are often rieh in carnivore remeins out of aH proportion to Ihe abundance of the ereatures in the wild IEvans 1978:36J." In fact. two discussions of hunter-galherer subsislence settlement strategies during the Paleolithic ofGermany were almosl certainly .oled astray" by Ihe old assumplion of Ihe monument and relic era Ihal things found in lIssodation with tools showing the hand of man were siso referable lo Ihe acHons of meno Gamble (1979:39) aceepts the numerous predators (sometimes representing 45% of Ihe faunal remains exclusive of cave bear) as largely the prey of human hunlers. He noled that siles wilh high frequencies of predalors tend to be small caves and roekshelters that a'60 generally yield rele.tively small artifacl assemblage¡;. He eontrasts such sites wilh large arehaeological sites in the region lhat are numerically dominated by herbivore remains. in an altempt lo obtain a "regional" perspeetive on the huntíng stralegies of andent mano It is very Iikely Ihat he is primarily contrasting the behavior of earnivores wilh the behavior of meno In anolher study Gamble (1978) is concerned with the ehanges in both resource utilization and setllemenl Ihrough a time sequence. He clearly demonstrated thal there is a major change betwccn Ihe Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic seen as a unit and the subsequenl Magdalenian in palteros of faunal association. The sites of the earlier time period have large numbers of carnivores, whereas Ihe Magdalenian has very few. Gamble con· sidered Ihis to be a measure of human behavior. I strongly suspect that il refers to the patterns of interaction between eompeting predalors-man and others~in Ihe region. Our inability, or in manv cases our faHura to try, lo recogrdze thu cOllsequences of
Stemming frum the R('hnvil>r nf Mon versus Thlll of Beus!
hominirl bchavior as npposed lo that of other anlmals conünues lo eusure that our vtews of men's past are largely dtstorted mylhs. Paunal asserobleges have been studied in terms of the relative frequeneies of animals of different ages. This has bee» a common strategy arnong researchers sooking, lo recogntze domeslicated as opposed lo wild animals exploited by anctent meno These studíes [sec Luapfin 1969, 1971: Duces 1969: Híggs and larman 1972) all make a basic assurnptíon regarding the exploitatlon strategíes of hunters: The ba~ic hypolhesis is Ihlt pre_agricultura\ man will have ~xploited resources in a "natural," Ll!., r~ndom. fashionand thallhB incre8sed control over his resoun:eS given by domeslicalion a\lows plannetl cropping, which will be seen in Ihe form of exploitation patlems which devialefrom Ihe nalural rannom one llliggs and ¡arman 1912:7). Despite the fael Ihal the proposition is phrased as a hYPOlhesis, no attempl has been really made lo lest i1. It is like the hypothesis of Bonnichsen (HI79) regarding spiral fraclure; it is in fad a convention used to ascribe meaning to pll.tterned observations made on Ihe archaeolngieal record. The use of l\lis convenlion led the lale Erir. Higgs to recognize evidence for domesticalion in the Paleolithic of Europe! 8uc:h conclusions were reaehecl because there was no understanding regarding Ihe faclors tha! conditioned Ihe differenlial frequencics of animals of variable age appearing as debris from huntergathercr adaptalions. In lhe abscnce of underslanding of causal processes. many myths are generaled. 1 have made no attempl lo survey Ihis Iiterature. althollgh il is extensive and in need of critical review. 1 will reslricl furlher dis(;ussion to assemblage variabilily conceived in terms of analomical parl frequencifJs.
Studies of Assentblage Composition CBused by Beasts ¡nlerest in assemblages generated by animals certainly grew out of Ihe eonlroversy surrounding Raymonrl Darl's work. An early argllment aboullhe Makapansgat fauna was Ihal il had been produced by hyenas. One 01" the carliesl "rcl:enl" sturlics {sr.e Dart
Observcuoos o/ Wo!ves and Their Hehuvíor
1956 for rnview] Irealing the degree to which animals. epectñcatlv hvenas, eccurnulete bones al a den was clone by Hughes (1954). He observed a den excavaled in a soft substrate in whích no bones or fecp.s were depositad. This reseerch was really done in the cnntext of answering the question as lo whether animals actually accumulated bones in thelr lairs end denso As late as 1970 the accuracy uf lhe claim that animals actually eccumuleted bones was still in doubt. Sutcliffe's work (197U) seemed to pul this questton lo rest wilh an unequivocal yesoSubsequent research has been more oriented 10ward obtaining samples of animal·generated faunal populatlons. Andrew Hill collected faunal remains from two African locales (HilI1975). Shipman and Phillips (1976, 1977) made collections from slill anolher area. Diane Gifford has iniliated time-series studies of carcasses lo determine wha! Ihe sequence and inlerrelationships between disarlkulation ami bone modification might be. These sluoies have nol }'el been completed. A number of hyena den sturlies have been conducted (Henschel el al. 1979: Owens and Qwens 1979) ami we look forward lo more that art! currently under way by HiIl and by Bunn (Glynn Isaac, personal communicationj. Faunal assemblages have been eollected by Behrensmeyer and Deehanl-Boa7. \1960) bul have not yet been reporled in terms of analomical part frequencies. Alfhough we can certainly Jook forward to a large body 01' malerials in 'he Mar fulure. Ihe only sludy J,lublished lo dale thal addresses Ihe problem of recognizing the behavior of animals as opposed lo thal of humans is Ihe work of Andrew HilI. In his thesis, HiIl (1975) sought to identify assemblages as Iypical of human behavior and conlrast Ihem with assemblages assignable lo animal behavior. In Ihis he chose whal was at the lime one of the few widely available descriptions of a fauna! assemblage dearly referahle lo human behavior, thal ¡rom Olsen-Chuhbuck reponed by Wheat (1972). Wilhout understanrling what made it dislinctive, archaeolog(sls accrilp!ed jI RS ontologically "human" in ils composilion ano othar characlerisljcs. Ironically. the Olsen-Chubbuek Site is one where (a) there was a mass overkill and In) the animals were proeessl'Jd for !ranspor\ by removing Ihe meat from the bones. These condiliol1s ensureo Ihat Ihe mea! was removed frorn !he parls nI' h;~hesl ulilily and lowest weight-to-surfa¡;e-arr!H ralios. resulting in
197 the btased abendonment at the site of bones from parts mosl desirabl~ for consumpñon. The asseroblege tberetor« looked rnuch like an animal kili assernblage where consumptíon had been on the spot. Hill's comperísone made iI appear that mnu behaved much like antmals. The "search" Ior typical or ontologícally cnarectenstic asscmblagse when there te líttle understandíog of what cnndirfona theír form, other than a vague suspíclon thet iolrinsic properties of the egent are responsible. ts just a sltghtly modiñed version of lhe Iradilional archaeological assumplion that variabilily is referabl e to differences in Ihe persons or agents producing the assembJages. Thal is, assemblage differences are referred to elhnoeultural differenees among meno Things are not Ihal simple. We mus\ understanrl the proeesses thal condition differences and similarities before we may give meaning lo them reliably. This is another way of saying whal was stressed in Chapter 2middle-range research is of necessity rooted in actualistic sludies, studies of dynamic phenornena. This normally means studies of conlemporary living syslems. 1 have already studied in delail a tremendous range of variahility as it was generoled by the Nunamiul Eskimo (L. R. Binford 1976bl. Although Ihe variability produeed by mHn in this case appears almost overwhelming, there was patlernil1g and there was sorne redunrlancy in Ihe types of paUerning produced correlated wilh the Iypes of setting. !he structure of the site. and a wide variely of olher conditions. In that sludy. I was inlerested in Ihe dynamics of the behavior Ihal stoad behind Ihe assemblages. In a similar way it is imporlant lo begin the laslt of understanding, from a behavioral perspeclive. lhe slructure of bone popu!ations prorluced by animals. As a step in this direction. I will presenl summary informarion on Ihe bchllvior anrl trealmenl of prey by wolves.
Observations of Wolves and Their Behavior The ObSl!rvfltiollS presented here wP.re made duro ing a field invesliga!ion among the Nunamiut Eskimo. illland huntl'Ts of carihou. The Nunamiul Uve fll the drainHge diVIde of !he Rrooks Range of norlh
-------''--------------411III ,.':~
198
·
,,_ ¡i.N'mll/uA" CrJlJlf",<;JIIOW 1'(111"'''' nI i\.'s,wiulioll SI"mmiug ¡mm rl", 1I,'hrJViof ,,1 M(l1l \ "f,'IIS 'I'11
central Alaska. Majnr segments of the An:t¡c r-aribou herd bíannuattv move turough thís area from their wínter range in the foreste lo l!lR south , lo the sumrner feeding arcas on the tundra \0 rhe north (seo L. R Hlnfonl 1!J7Rb:l:l. Figure 1.1). Mus! of the wolvcs oí the (;l'utral Hrooks Renge nre datk hr own 10 LIad; a lesser numher are gray. and 1 have obsurvud an elbruo WlJJr un sevcral occastons. Of Ihose killed hy the Nunamiut dunng the winter of ]970-1!"l71 [five uidividuals. three males and Iwo femalesl. the average weight was /J7 lbs. Dunug the fieldwork in and around the Anaktuvuk Pass atea. I spotted 23 single wolves and 8 packs. Of the packs obscrved the muan size was fi.:m animals with the smallest group being 2 animals ami the largesl 11; a total of 51 anirnals with the smallesl group being 2 anlmals ami the largest 11; a total ol 51 animals were observad in packs. I observed onlv ono Kili by a pack. but cerne upon feedíng wolves 011 twu otber occasions. I had the opportunity to examine in sorne detall two wolf dens and made ubservations on :U¡wolf kilI and feeding siles.
Dens and Loirs In earlier sludies almosl any repealedly used loca\ion was caBed a den_ Fur instance, what Hughes (1954) called a den was aclual1y a nest area wbere young pups were bom ami kept while lheir eyes were slill ciasen. I will rontinue lo use rlen lo refer lo Ihis type of sil!'._ However. 1 musl dislinguish beIween a den and a ¡oir: the lalter is the (;Cnlrlll place where yaung 10caJize lheir aclivilies and where adult wolves spenrl most of Iheir lime adjal:enl to a den. Lairs generally consist of two arcas. a traHie ¡¡rea and a defe(:alion urea; thl:' olJer animals tend to muve away from the cure activity mne of the lair fm defecatiun. In t1w Brouks Rallge of Alaska most d~(ls are dug into SUlllh-ffldn¡;: cut banks and slopes; hnwever, Ihere are a fe..... rm:kshelters and caves in Ü1P. Iimestone lhat occasionally serve as denso In lhe immediate area of Anaklllvuk, mus! (:aves or rocbhelters are quite high along lhe mountain slopes and th!! Eskimo report thal wolves prefm lll"wer place whl!m they can "run" out inlo lhe vallev Iw\tf'T" Hobl'rl (J, .slt~phenson. who has (;lJndlll:ll!d I~xlen si ve Slllrlips oi wolves in tlw AnakllJVuk an~'l. fl'port.~. aod m_v diw('\ obsvrVillillns as wl.'II11S Ih')"l~ lIf
T
OhSf~rv(!I'(lns 1>1' W"lves (!!ld Thf'lr Hl'havior
199
f ntonnauts confirm. lhal wolves dig burrows (ur un-
largc other animal burrows¡ in sand and day and make use of fisstlres i1lstono subst ratos fnr 1heir dens IStephenson
A rockshdll'r dnrl w,,~ visill~d durio¡.: a h(~li(':;lpler St1fv(~'y nf sile.~ llll ¡llnl~ 17. 1n72, According 10 infor-
H(aIRE !UIl. Wu/ves r,,/oxiIlR (I!« manIs tnis shelter (Figure 5.1l2) had bt>en llsed as a den many vean;
rt.'fldI'ZI·(JU.~ pninl.
fflll. immedialelv inside lhe shelter. There was an irregular "nomO' among these blocks. and Ihis was Ihe level on which lhe solution challlbers io Ilw back passc(l inlo the rack, Alon¡.l thfJ west wflll oftlw .shdll'r was a substantial accumulation of sheep dung. alHi hetweell a large hlock ni toof faH ann the east wflll WflS a slorw caim. probahly buill as a temporary meat cflflw, 11 \:\lt1!
200
5. AssembJoge Composttion: Putterns of Associotion St~mmjng (rom the Behovior nI Moo versus Thot uf Reos!
Ohservctfnns of Wolves ond Their 8ehavior impossible no attempt was made te collect bolle splinters or lo search for small bones. This collectíon is not very lnformative as a pieture of the actual population of bones thal musl have been present in this stte. Only excevatíon could produce such an assemhlage. Nevertheless. the differences belween the character of superficial bones rematníng along Ihe talus versus those inside the entrence are probably indicative of real dtñerences between a "Iatríne" sample and one from the gnawing-rasting area of a lair.
WQLF DEN NEAR THE MOUTH CREEK
bone 8100g the talus deposit had Ihe appesranee oí the remaios of scal. Considerable washing oC this surfaee had gone 00 sinee Ihe site was used, so Ihe telltale "bone meal" was no! evident. Bone inside and amoog the houlclers at Ihe entrence was more heavily gnawed and appears to be the remains of parts inlroduced and gnawed bul no! ¡ngested. The inventor)' Dí bone recovered trom Ihis den is 85 follows: 1. Tolus depos;l: Two astragalus. three tarsals, five carpals. olle distal tibia, five halves oí the distal articulator condyles oí met8pC1dials. and saven phalanges {two ungual. two secand, snd three firsl). all oí Dall sheep, were recovered. In addilion there were first phalanges, seven sesamoids, three mandibular teeth, and one distal end of a calcaneus of
caribou. Four maxillary teeth of sheep were also noled. No attempl was marle to colleet bOllesplinters since there had been obvious washillg and vege· tation was fairly developed al the mouth of the shelter. 2. Entrance deposit: Five half.ribs, one tibia with the proximal articulator end ehewed away, one prox· imal metatarsal plus shaft with attached calcaneus, with heavy chewing on the distal end of Ihe cal· caneus, were on Ihe rocks at the entrance. One cranium of a female caribou with attached but heavily gnawed antlers was partially buried under sheep dung. AlIlhese bones were heavily weathered: there were developed longitudinal cracks and superficial checking. ¡nside the shelter were considerable ae· cumulalions of relatively recent sheep dung and evidence of recent washillg. Since excavation was
or ITIKMALAIYAK
In a south-feclng sandbank that is heavily windswept is a den entrence lust behind a slumped ptle of sand representíng a collapse of the benk in the nol too distant past. Animals anter the den by goíng between the bank and the slumped earth. There is a slíght cverhand to the bank al this potnt. and an exceveted hole back ínto the sandbank. The entrence ís approxímately 20 inches in dtameter and the chamber curves away to the eest and down. Probing the curvad inner chamber with a fishíng pole indiceted that the chamber was then ebout 10 feet long and vaned in width in the nest eree from about 2 to over 4 feet in width. There were no seats, bones, or other organic debris inside the ehamber. AIl bone debris and scals were around the entrance. Scats were generally concentrafed in front of the slumped bank; the bones were localized in the open. in the area just before Ihe path moved into the narrow walk between lhe bank and the slump. Collected in tne bone area were the articulated hom cores of two DalJ sheep (Dvis dalli) with ato lached segments of Ihe frontal. A fragment of the occiput and 27 additional fragments of parietal ami fronlal bone were noted. Dne maxillary are with bolh rows of upper teeth in place and 17 isolated teeth. 3 half-mandibles, 1 nearly complele radio·cuhitus with the olecranonlargely gnawed away. 1 proximal radiu-cubitus with gnawed and raniaJly scarTP.r1 brokf!n midshaft, and the olecranon essentially gnawed away, and 1 metacarpal wllh gnawed away dorsal ringf! just helow lhe proximal articul
201
with short ettached erees of shañ, 1 distal tibia with atteched shaft. 1 distal tibia heevtly gnawed and with only short segments of ettached dtaphysís. 1 complete rnetetarsal. 1 distal metetersel with attached shaft, and 2 proximal metetarsel fragmente rounded out the cctiectton of sheep bones. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) were represented by the occíput of a larga bull, 7 gnawed secnone of what appeared to be a CDW'g antier (one very polished), 5 very small rlb fragmenta. 11 ísolated maxillary teeth. and 7 mandibular teeth. In addttton, there were 6 first phelanges. 4 second phalenges. 2 third phalanges, 2 complete metecarpel with gnawed distal end, 1 proximal metacerpal wilh ettached sheñ. 1 distal tibia with attached shaft, 3 celcanet with gnawed distal ends, 1 astregalus. and 1 proximal metatareal with attached shaft. Other ammels represented et the den induded moose (Alces olees): one heavily gnawed scapula, and one distal tibia with attached sheff marmol (Marmota coligata): one complete skull with attached mandíble: ground squirrel (CiteJlus undulotus): f¡ve complete skulle. three with attached mandibles end no other remains: ptarmtgan (Lcgopus sp.]: üve complete wings (proximal humerus mísstng on a1l examples--otherwise como plete): domestic dcg {Ccrus famiJjaris): one heavily gnawed mandible. In the area where defecation had occurred regularly, 46 scals were sUB complete. These were collected and laken apart in arder to obtain size ínformation on the induded splinlers. These dala are summarized in Table 3.02. Collecled in Ihe area of the scats and remaining from wealhered scats were lhe following recognizable anatomical parts: 16 isolaled teeth (t2 mandibular and 4 maxillary), 13 ·'roots" or broken bases of mandibular teeth, all of caribou; 7 uogual phalanges oC sheep, 4 third phalanges, 2 secund pnalanges, 1 first phalange, 8 carpals, 3 fragments of distal condyle {rom mela podials,2 femur heads, and 3 astragslis. In addition, recognizable concentrations of fish bone and small rodenl bone, considerable quantities of bolh caribou and sheep hair, snd sorne bird bone occurred in !he area. There were larga quanlilies of VNY small bone fragments, almos! Ihe oonsistency of bone meal, bOlle cnips ann splinlers, as well as canceJlous bone chunks il1 substantial numbers.
".'10
202
5. Assemblcge Composilion: Polterns of Assodolion Stemming from the Behovior of Mon versus That of Beos!
The den may be described as axhibiting en 8Ssemblage dominated by skulls, teeth, feet, and lower limbs for the large to moderate-stee memmels: srnall rodente were represeoted by skulls only, and bírds by wíng bones only. There were two rather distinct spatiallocalizations, a feedíng erea outaide the den sntrence, and a defecetton Brea just to the eest of the entrence and feeding eree. The latter locetíon wss cherecteeteed by large quantities of smal1 chips. spltnters. bone-meal-like concentrations o[ small bone "nuggets," and relettvelv large numbers of ehunks of eaneelious tissue. In sddition, there were occasional phalanges, roots of broken \eeth. rodenl bones, fish seales. and mueh associated hair. lt should be pointed out that this assemblage is an accumulation of debris from a number of years ofuse snd Ihe loestion may have been DCcupied first by foxes. Informants knew of this den having been used for 81 leasl seven separate spring births of pups.
Ioformation
00
Latr Bebavior
t was unable lo observe directly the behavior of wolves in lairs. How8ver, I did interview Eskimo hunters wha had much experience in bolh seeking out wolf deos and in observing wolf behavior. Most Eskimos were of the opinion thal most {whole} banes in dens were introduced by Ihe pups snd juvenile animals. They were also quick to comment that many small bones wauld be inlroduced to s lair assemblage in aduh feces. Informants recognized that there would be a diversity of faunal remains at a lair with a fair representation of small game. This was considerad to be a funcHon of both season and the fad Ihat ¡he predator was "Ielhered" during the lime that the pups were very young. "When tbe mother had to slay close she could only hunt around Ihe den and lhen she would mostly only find liule animals." Sorne variety in the sJIlall mamma!s and rodenls could also be introduced by the pups themselves, who begin killing smal1 marnmRls and rodents nearly as soon as they can move around.ln addition, the Eskimo melltioned "play hunting" by the young. A pup may pick up rocks, slieK'l, and bones from kills tlnd dealh s¡l~s lhat may be in the Brea of Ihe lair, and
others will chese Ihem and "compete" over sucb itams rnuch as adulta compete over perts at a kili. Such items are transported to the lair and may be played over by the pups and subsequentlv gnawed by both pups and adujts. Almost all informants mentioned thet wolves in lates. particularly femeles during the first weeks uf the pupa' lives. compuletvely chew bones. The taphonomic potential of wolf laírs seema best estí. maled slmply by tha slabHity of suttable dennlng ateas in caves, rocksbelters. and ñssures. Stated another way, reuse of locations as lairs appears to be a function of Ihe degree to which dens do nol collapsr.. Therefore, substantial lair accumulations can be expected in caves and rockshelters. Although the accumulation of bones at lairs by predators was recognized early in the history of cave research {Buckland 1823]. mosl discussion has cenlered on the hyena: The hyena playsan importanl role as abone collector,to the benefit of Ihe paleontologiSI. Allhough it will muti· late Ihe bones. it always leaves Ihe leeth intact tmd sys· temllticallythey are Ihe mosl important part ofthe skeleton. As a result the activitles of hyenas in Ihe European caves have been of greal Imporlance for our knowledge of the Ice Age snd lis fauna_ The hyena ilseif ia one 01 the mosl commonly found fossi! mammalsand the evo· lulionary history ollhe family Hyaen¡dae is thus comparatively well known IKurtan 1968:631. The spol1~d hyena oT cave hyena {Crocula croculo. lis Dile of Ihe best-known fossi! mllmmllls 01 the lee Age. The spedes is represen1ad in most European bone caves and in sorne, used as dells for thousands of years, bones of the cave hyena occur in prolusion. A famous cave of this Iype is Kirkdale Cave in Yorkshire. described by William Buckland (1823) 8uckland showed Ihat lhe enormoua accumulation of hyellabones resulted fromcontinuous use ofIhe caveas a living 'lite by the hyenas over a very long period Here are foulld remains of hyenas (lfall ages fromnewborn to senile IInd in addition Iheir characterislic feces and the bones of Iheir prey. Anolher British hyena cave wilh a rich hyenB stratmn of t"·EmmiBn date is TomewIon Cavein south DevonIreckonedlo have yielded more Ihan 20,00U hyena teelh). while Kenl's Cavern in Tor' quay conlains all lmmensely rieh hyena stralum ofm ore recenl date, 4-Wurm. On the contint>nt several hyena caHS are known amI al IAlIal one-----Ihe Tell{alslucken at E!!!!f!llburp; in AlLslrill~is of lhE' same da5s (Kurlen Hlfill,fi91
Informolion on Loir Behovior Other predators [with the exception of the Ice Age cave beer] do not seem te produce the spectaculer bone accumulations atlribuled to tbe hyena nor do other preoator lairs appeer domtnated by remains of the occupents, parfícularly the young and old, as ts tbe case with both Ihe cave bear and the hyena. Two faetors may well contribute lo this. First. hyenas are baslcally nocturnal and stay holed up much of the dey. Dens and lairs may serve Ihis funcñon, resulting in much more conttnuous use of 6 lair by hyenas Ihan by canids who prtmartly use them only when Ihe young are born. An additional behavior or species difference between hyenas and canids is in the care of Ihe young. Canids Vl'Jfy quickly begin tak.ing the young out lo kills for feeding, and dens are abandoned quickly. lt appears from Ihe Iiterature that this is nol so much the case with hyenas. where the young stay around the den for up to 6 months: many suffer severe malnutrition because of the ranging aclivilies of the fernales: During the dry season, Serengeti hyenes may havll lo Iravel mom lhan 50 km from their dan lo the nellresl concenlraJlons of game. and fernale hyenas leave lheir slJcklingclJbsfor several days on end. Al Ihis time, cubs are nol infrequently emaciated and have belln found dead near the entrance oí the den tKruuk 1970:3701. In addition. the cubs appear to attempt to slay in the den as long as possible. When Ihey are juveniles and young aduhs, Ihey may return rapidly to dens when threatened or woundp.d while compeling over food. Despite Ihe longtime recognilion by palean. tologists that hyenas accumulate bones at dens and lairs, no direct field studies were made until very recenlly. Even 61 the presenl time Ihere are no very complete field descriptions of hyena dens and lairs. Hans Krlluk has made the foltowing observalions regardin!! lhe introdudion of bnnes to hyena lairs: Hyenas also do nol carry any substanlilllaIDounlof food 10 their cubs; lhey may occasionally take Hbone or a head along. but this sel'ms comparable lo laking 11 lo Iheir Iyin~·up place. where lhey Clln chew íl in pl'HCe l.lIbs may r:hew lhese hits. but on\y after the orip;inal owner h~s finishf'l1 with them. Dlr!l'r cllbs are more l¡keJy 10 carry bones \0 Iheir den than allult.~. They sonwtimes lake lh{)m clown Iheir hales but they are IISII·
203 ally left In Irom of the den, or in the entrence ... but this does nol often happen: iI may be more commonamong brown hyenas [Pienaar J969)... Hyenasrerely defecate near the den; they usuelly go al leeet 20 m away lo deposit their droppings and walk beck lo the den agllin [Kruuk 1972:243-244J. Suldiffe had excevated paleontologícal deposite in Greal Britaín that were generally reccgnlzed as hyene leirs, and as in most other Eurnpean occurrences from the Pleistocene these deposite were Jargely dominated by the remains of the hyenas themselves. These observaHons led Sutcliffe to seek knowledge of the bone-accumulating activities of conlemporary Afriesn hyenas. The result is certainly the most provocalive natural hislory observalion available to date: In the Queen Elizabath Park, Uganda, two burrowa in alluvial sedimenl. were compl"'lllly excavaled. The first was of simple plan with a single terminal chamber. aboul 'hree faet blllow ground level, opening into Ihe surface by a trilurcating tunnel. A few frl'lgmenls of bones of anttlIopesand of a juvenile hippopotamus Wllre found in Ihe access tunnel. The terminal chamber was emply except for Ihe wmplete skeleton ola baby spol· led hyena and one dropping. The second lair was more complicaled, having a cenlral chamber ... and a series of lunnels leeding lo al least len openings silualed around íl. The lunnels contained nUrnerous bone remains. including akulls ofbaby hippopolamus, warthog and kob, bonas ofbuffalo, a humeros of a baby elephant and a fraRment of a skull oC a baby hyaena. Many of these remains were splintered and gnawed. 1also inspected Iwo further hyaena laira, aear K8jiado. Kenya. 60th were natural horl~ontal cracks in lava which apparentIy extended ~ome dislanca ;nlo Ihe rack. but were loo low for human exploralion beyond about 15 feet. Bolh tunnels confainad substantlal quanlUías of bones tinclllding domestic donkey, cow and dog).... In Ihis lair were also oslrich bones. par! 01 an ostríeh 9Jl,g. a human jaw.Ihree human craniaand a few ofher human remains A great quantily of bonll frag. menls were slrewn aboul outside .. local Masei vil· lagers ... expressed {he opinion thal Ihe human skulls had heen carried lo Ihe lair from Kajiado hospital cemetery, abO\lt two and a hlllf miles away. An inspeclinn oflhe r.{)melery showed Ihal manyof Ihe graves hlld indead becn plunnerlld by hyaenas and ¡hal there were innumllrllble splintered human bone Ífl'lgmenls scaltered ar
'v.''''
204
5. AssembJoge Composit!on: Puttems uf I'\swón¡i"" Sternrmng [mm the Ilehm'ior of Mon
I think there can be little douht thet the accumulation of bones in latrs ts a natural condition and une thet may playa considerable role in tho formatton
prccesses of rnany deposite in caves and rockshelterso as well as in sorne open-air deposíts. Several points are worthy of emphasis here. Pírst. my dala 00 wolf 18"~. end ohaarvatinns en hyena tates. all tndícete that bones are introduced to such Iocattons in low frequencies. Any substantial accumuletton of bones in a Ialr context mus\ have cccurred ovar a suhslantial pertod of time, Such an accumulation ts a palimpsesto or the aggregated result of numerous smell Independent events. In addition. there is provocative evídence in the form oí Eskimo informant ob~ervations, naturalists' obseIVatians, and faunal assemblages that stable locations, such as caves and rockshelteTS, may well have a successional history; different animal forms may make a location attractive toother forros, and thereby set up the possibility of natural succession in its use. For ¡nstance, the Eskimos who provided infOrtnat\on to me on wolf behavior were of the opinion lhat foxes originally dug the holes in soft substrates and wolves moved in laler, enlarging the holes. Slill laler, porcupínes moved in. Their presence tended to discourage further use by bolh foxes and wolves, since the quills commonly lert in the chambers and passageways could be very painful when picked up by canicls and could even cause death. Kruuk observed thal most hyena dens were not originally dug by hyenas: "1 do not know whelher hyenas ever stan an enlirely new den: in every case I watched, there was always sorne beginning of a hole already Ihere, made by warlhogs, springhares, jackals. or olhers \Ktuuk 1972:2421·" It is hard lo imagine Ihe complex inleraction that might well characterize a cave or rockshelter In Pleislocene Europe, where there were bears 1ersus spelaeus and Ursus orelos), wolves (Canis lupus/, foxes. (Vulpe~ sp.¡, ¡Jnd felines (felis Jea, Felis speJaeus. FeJis pnndu,~ et{;.J. In addilion Ihere werv hyenas (Crocuto crocuto and Cratuto speloeoj, Iynxes {Lynx speloeasJ. and wolverines (GuJos gula). Several different Carnívora may well have participated in complex types of sllcce~sionHl inlnrac_ lion al caves an.1 rockshelters. and lh~re werH also a large number of birds. slIch as owls, and rodenls, sueh as rahbits, ground squírrels, marmots ami pur-
V<:l"lUB
Th(ll of Btl
ouptnes, who would jnln in by addtng theír conlribulíans to ttle paltmpsest that we mav see loday as the cave or shaltar depoalt. For instance. archaeologists workíng in the caves and rockshelters of the Dordogne reglen Dí Frunce bave observed that during the excavation season the shelter will be abandoned by birds, particularly the nwls, but when Ihe dtg clases clown and the crew departs Ihe bircls return and begtn adding their unmtetakable contrtbuttons to the deposite below. Add to this panorama of como peting occupants for caves and rockshelters that intaresting animal, man, and the stage is set for sorne of th.~ most complicaled palimpsest depostts one can imagine. So the next slep is lo imagine IhE! periodic appearance ofman and his use of the same caves and rockshehers Ihat have offered sheller to olhtlI 811imals. Clearly the addition of man as a polenlial contributor to the palimpsest deposits presenls Ihe aro chaeologist with formidable interpretative problems -nl1mcly, how do wo roliably relate evidence of hominid presence, in the [(lrm o[ pilher stone tOúls or skeletol remoins. to the other debris thal make up the depoS"it? Whal melhods do we use in under~lI!l1rting man's rnl*! in the formalion proces ses of the deposit? Unfortunalely, mosl often archaeologists have na methods, or have nol even seríously considered Ihe problem. [nstead. as we have seen earlier, if evidence of homínids was presenl, archaeolo¡;¡;islS assumed that aH olher remains spatially assodated wilh the haminid remaillS had also been inlroduced into the deposil by hominids. Hunting Behavior ofWolves and Their Feeding
Behavior at Kills Qne Ilti Mhl {,;onciude from Ihe preceding discussian Iha\ \he prehistorian need be B.ware of animals as polential contributors only to caves and rackshellers deposits where artifacts have been TP.covered_ This is 001 lhe case. Animals aTl' equal\y capahle of confribuling lo open sile dfJposils in romplical ed and confusing wavs. The mosl enmmon predal orscavenger aclivily Ihat may eonlribule lo deposilS is IhA aclual killíng of anill1als bv wolves and olher prcdalors WigunJ ;¡.03}. I{epealed kills over sllhslnnlial períods of lime may resull in a background of faunal remains dis-
Inf(Jrlllolion (JO Lnrr Hel1avi(Jr
mOOse.
Ai, view (lf wolves feeding on
205
Q
youllS
tributad over the landscape lhat reuches au lmpressive magnitude. depending on Ihe environmenlal condilians favoring burial and preservalion. In many cases bones of prey may be lransported by carnivOft's and laler moved A:gain and accumulated by naturol agents, parliclllarly waler. Subslantial accumula_ lions may build up as nalurally aggrega\ed bones derived from idUs by predators, or nalural dealh populations thal may have been scavenKed. How dn we distinguish such an acculllulalion Irom one resultíng fram human or hominid behavior? Finding Ihe answer lo Ihis queslion must begin with behavioral observations on animals and comparisons with man to delermine if there are diagnoslic differenct's. I was fortunate lo observe several episodes of wolves killing and/or feeding on their prevo These episudm; are desl:Ilbed nex!.
Episode One (Augusf 1969) Foue caribou were observed moving soulh alon~ Ihe wesl edRe of Tulugak Lake, and sorne clistancE! behind were four wolves following al a )eisurely
pace. (The ground had approxtmateiy 22 tnches of new snow. yet Ihe temperalure was only 26"F and Ihe SUn was out.¡ 1 observed two wolves leave the group as the carihou approached the north end of the lake and [ could not see where they were goíng: The other lwo continued lo íollow the caribou but increesed the¡r pace slightly along the edge ot the lake and graoually began \V overteke the canbou. who connnued moving at a steedy pace. As Ihe caribou approeched the south end of the leke the two wolves in pursuit spceded up and the carjbou responded by breaking ínto a runo At the south end of the lake ts a series of moralnes and eskers thal had remained windswepl during the snow of the pfI'!Vions sl:'veral days. As Ihe caribou cresled the fin;t moraine al Ihe end of the lake Ihe ather two wolves carne into view running froro Ihe west allop speed toward the caribou. As Ihe caribou shifled lo Ihe elllil in response. running along Ihe snowfree margin of Ihe monlne Ihe two wolves who had been following began aUacking Ihe upper left rear leg of one animal. When the caríbou swung ils head to the left, Ihe Iwo wolves that were approach. in¡;¡; from the wesllumped for Ihe neck and ear region on Ihe righl side. With all four wolves atlacking, tbe caribou ran only approximalely 50 yards befare being brouRht down. lt fel! to ils lnees first. then rolled over away from the wolve¡;, who had It flrmly by lhe neck on Ihe right side. Once the earihou wenl down, it roUed down the moraine out of view. By Ihe lime I could approach from the east side of thp valley moving along thlJ talus so 1 could gain a view, Ihe walvE!S were already feeding on lhe carihou, a yearling calf. Two wolves were concen· tratinE in the "stomach" area, tearing at the walls of the belly while Ihe olher two were tearing Al thl'! wounds in the left rear leg. I was unable to stay oul all day watching the wolves but I did come out to the "víewing spot" tbree times during the day (Ihe kili was early in the morning). Each time Ihe four wolves were either feeding al the carcass 01 Iying up along the moraine in the sun. seemingly sleeping. The fol· lawing morning 1 wenl out to see Ihe k.iII and no wolves were in sighl. However.1 could nol see well to Ihe west of Ihe kili, so l made no allempl to approach il. AroUlld four-thirly I agaín wenl aullo observe lhe kilI. and Ihis lime all four wolves were lying in a dispersed manner along the moraine,
IJ
k~~
206
5. Assembrage Gomposition: "olleros uf Assocmtlon Stemmtng from the Behuvinr of Mon versus Thct of Beosl
ohewtng un bonee thet they had dragged away from the ímmediate kili area. 1 returned again around ten in the evening, and stH! all four wolves were near the area of the ktll, Iying along the moraine chewing on bones. From my positíon, it was clear thet the 81:.e1eton had been largely dísarttcuteted and dragged ebout by this time; remaining near the place of the original kili were Ihe neck vertebrae with attached skull. The morning of the third dey there were no wolves al Ihe kili, although many ravens were around the kili feeding. Similarly al noon, no wolves were sean; bul once again 8round four-thirty two wolves were observed neM tha carcass chewing on bones. This was the lasl time 1observed WOlV8S al the kill. EPISODE TWO (JULY 19n)
During a helicopt8r survey of the mountain areas to the west of Anaktuvuk viIlage we spotted a pack of seven wolves feeding on WhBI appeared to be the carcass oi two different animals. Laler, however, whlln the site was investigated from the ground, it was found to be the disarticulated remains of e single very large bull caribou. Sorne time Jatar we walked into the locatlon so it could be recordad end while on the kili observed whal appearad to be Ihe same paek resting in the edge of a small willow stand approximately 1 mile from Ihe kili. I observed tha pack feeding for about 2 hours. During this time the pat· tem was for en animal lo move leisurely into the central kili area and sniff parts Ihat were scattered around Ihe basic thorade and neck section. Aftar several tums around the kilI area, tbe wolf would very slowly dra8 a parl off to the periphery of the kili area, lie down, snd begin gnawing the bone or partially ar!iculaled section Ihat had been dragged to !he edge. Sametimes a single wolf mighl work on 8uch a par! far 8S long as an hour. Frequently, when alher wolves wauld move into Ihe central are8, others would get up, sniff, tail wag, and moYa around sorne; then they wauld relum to the gnawing of "their" pieces. EPfSODE THREE [JUNE 1972)
While going he(ween Anakluvuk village and our camp al Tulugak Lake 1 decided lo walk the high trail along Ihe loe of Ihe mountain lalus belween
Anavik and Tulugak Lake. As I approached Akvalutak Creek [see L. R. Binford 1978h:1731 l saw a moose feeding in the upper edge of the willows growing along the creek. 1 dectded to approach as silently as poseíble. slaying well to Ihe east of the willaws in arder lo gel a good picture of the mocee wlth my long lens. I was able lo approech the eest erige of the willows along the upper lalus of the mountetns. about 300 m from the moose. As 1 was setting up to take plctures [ notlced Ihrough the viewfinder (a 350-mm lens) a dark object be!ween me and Ihe moose crouched in Ihe very edge of Ihe wilIows. It beca me c1ear thal the objecl was a very large grizzly bear crouched within 50 yards of Ihe feeding moose. With an explosive dash the bear ran at the moose from Ihe rear, and Ihe moose began mnning; however, Ihe bear overlook Ihe moose in shar! order and hurled its full weight on the rear haunches while reaching farward wilh ils frant paws Cor the neck oi Ihe moose. As Ihe weight of!he bear buclded the rear legs oithe maose, its head jerked up and back al the same lime the bear grabbed the neck and pulled backward. The moose and Ihe bear crashed to Ihe ground and the moose never moved again. The bElar moved around the head and neck area of the mQose biting and learing the head area as if to ensure that Iha moose was dead. After a few moments of Ihis, Ihe bear moved off, defecated, and Ihen lay down licking ils paws far approximately 20 minules. It Ihen gol up and vialently tore open Ihe belJy area with its fronl c1aws and hegan feeding on the viseera and chewing and learing inlo Ihe upper thigh and pelvis area. By this time ravens had aro rived and were circling and sitling around Ihe kili area. 1 bagan to get very chillv from sitting so stiB, and decided to go on into ca~p and relurn the fol· lowing day lo observe the feeding. The kili had oc· cuned al aboul nine in the evening and 1 had golten lo bed about two in Ihe moming. By the time I had breakfast and inspected Ihe excavations al the Palan· gana site il was len the following morning. 1 wenl south to the lap of Akvalutak Creak and, much lo my surprise, as I approached from Ihe norlh expecting lo sea a bear, Ihree wolves bolled from Iha maose carcass and ran west inlo the willows. Clearly, 1 had becn detected. I rclrealed narth for aboul a half-mile and Ihen moved upslope and walked south agatn along the high talus. watching Ihe kili wilh the long
Informll1ivn on Kili Behavior {lnd Cnmparisons
lens. Shortly, the wolves returned and began feedtng directly on the still articulatad moose body. They fed for approximalely an hour and a half and then slowly moved up lo the head nf the creek and began cllmbíng up the talus almost lo the spol where 1had original/y seen the moose the previous day. They lay around on large rocks in the sun and epparently wenl lo sleep. Ilhen returned lo camp and on subsequent days never saw any addttionel ectton al the kili except the feeding of the ubiquitous ravens.
207
Having experieneed these episodes, 1 was in a better position to ask queslions of the Eskimo hunters who had wilnessed ruany wolf kills during Iheir Uves. They generally agreed Ihat Ihe behavior of wolves was very regular bolh in killing and in feeding. They suggesled thal the level of exploHation of a kili by wolves varied with Ihe season, which in turn was related to game density in Ihe area. During summer, the sea80n when all Ihe deseribed episodes occuned, the Eskimo agreed thal Ihe diel of wolves was largeJy ptarmigan (Lagopus sp.). Arctic ground squirrel (CiteJlus undulalus), grayling {Thymallus arcticusj, and occasionally sheap (Ovis dalJi). Caribou and moose were rare elements of diel in the summer mountains. Because of the scarcily of large game in the summer, the Eskimo wece of Ihe opinion Ihal wolves spent more lime feeding on large game kills, pertieularly feeding much more exlensively on bones aíter Ihe flesh hed been consumed. During spring end fall, when caribou are migraling Ihrough Ihe passes of Ihe Brooks Range. in the opinion oí Ihe Eskimo Ihe wolves rarely disar!iculaled the skelelons o( prey 8nd fed almos! exclusively on flesh, frequently leaving the animal completely arlículated and only defleshed in Ihe slernum, abdominal, and rump areas (see figure 5.04). The Eskimo generalized Ihal Ihe more extensively Ihe wolves fed on a kili the more dispersed Ihe bones and Ihe more disarliculalecl the skelelon becomes. They agread thallhe feeding behavior of wolves at a kili might be juslifiably divided inlo a communal
phase and a solitary phase. Feeding on ñesb prior to the baste dtsarüculatton of the skeleton W8S Ihe eommunal phase. where all wolves fed directlv on lhe body. After Ih¡s. Ihere was a sleep or rest pe~iod. lf the wolves returned, the kilI was then gradually dlserticulatad end tbe parts dragged off lo a perimeter around the kili where eech wolf fed un the bones individually (Figure 5.05).l This second phese of feeding was where most bone destructíon and díserticulation cccurred. The emount of this second phase behavior varied with Ihe size of (he feeding group relative lo the size of the kill and the game densitv, whieh tended lo vary seasonally. The Eskimo agreed Ihat Ihe degree oí skeletal destruclion was relaled lo the size or age of the prey in addition lo the number of feeding animals. Figure 5.06 shows a woIf kili as it looked Iwo years after the kili. A majar difference belween kili and lair assemblages is thal a large contribulor of Ihe assemblage at a lair is bone contained in scal. AIthough scals are presenl around kills, they are dispersed and mosl cornmonly deposited after initial feeding. Anolher contrast with kills is that there is a diversily of faunal Temains at a lair; bolh large game and Nllalively small game are typically induded. As we have seen, this is a function of season and Ihe fael that Ihe predator's hunting range is restricled lo the area around the den when Ihe pups are very young. For Ihese reasons a wide variety of small mammals and radenls are general1y presenl in the la ir assemblage. In midsurnmer the pups begin play hu nling, killing small game and rodenls. Remains of wolves themselves may aIso be found in lair assemblages. Tbe Eskirno have obs&lVed thal when Ihey hsve killed pregnanl wolves there are almosl always more fetuses Ihan there are pups in en average ¡¡tter. 11 is Ihe belief of the Eskimo Ihat Ihe molher wolf cleans up!he birlh chamber, eating the afterbirth, and any stillhom yaung together with the bloodv soil associaled with the birth. It was furlher obser~ed Ihal female wolves may at least parlially eat pups Ihal die at a later date. The Eskimo believe Ihat Ihis is lo keep Ihe babies from ealing a sick pup and calching Ihe "death." Another source of wolf bones at lairs is Ihe untimely collapse of Ihe nesl orea resulting in (he dealh of both female and young. One
2The readN should eonsult Mer.h (19661 for adriitional observations on wolf behavior.
'Importanl observaliolls on Ihis aspect of feeding huye bllen recenlly madR hy Mogoull 1979.
Information on Kili Behavior and Comparisons :z
J
,? ..
Z08
5, AssembJoptl Compusition: Pllllerns uf Associoliol'l Slfrnrning trom the Behovior uf Man
\'t'fSUS
Thot of Beost
-, ,- "'-
, '"
~
t
-.
'1>
1
1
~~ .,"',
·;.;.·,tI·~·
~ ~',
'" ~"
.,
".,.
.-':..
~
j'
,~
.~,.-./
..~
~ .'<
. •
..
P>-..
~
~
] ~
¡
.~
•
3
~
\
, o
~
...
~
~ .1"
i •l>
~
~
i
~
~
i
Q
~
a
"a '= '" ~
\. .--
~ ~
!
•
.... \ '
,-
¿¡
- . .."- •
~
~
r
ii•
]
FIGURE :'1.04.
informant was of the belief thet old Jemales also [reqlllml\y die giving birth. when that ts the case the Eskimo believe that the den stte ís abandoned by the family end either Ioxes or porcupines may then move in. "Wolves woold not 80 there until sornebody else cleans up good:' One of the cheractertsüc actíons of pups al a lait is a kind of play competition similar to the competíuon that goes en among adults at a kili. This play competítícn may focus on practically any items that a young wolf may pick up in the area around the laír. Racks, sticks, and bones frorn ktlls and death sttes that may be in tho arce of thc la¡r are transportad to the Iair and played over by tbe pups: thev are subsequently gnawed by both pops and adults. This behavior resulle:; in the introduction lo Ihe
death ettes. These ínclude teeth of large mammals, mandtbles. parts of skulls. and ¡solBted fragmenta such as the acatabulurn. Bnnes inlroduced as Iood and part of the dtspersion of parte normally cherecterísnc of a kilI may well be conditioned in theír feequency by the likelthood of disarticulation given sorne competition cver the carease. In addition to structural contrasts belween kills and laírs. there are stíuattonal faclors that differenlially condilion the Iurtner pertícipatton of kills in subsequent natural processes. wotves tend to Iollow rather regular peths in Iheir huntmg fravp.lR and during wtnter mese ere normellv determinp.d by the distribution of ice. They trevel on the Irozen rlvers and ecruss lakes. In addítion lhey have frequently beell observed lo follow prey long dislances. wailinR,lo allack \ullH ümy Mt'. un ic",. rhe Eskimo reporl thal tne claws of the wolf enable him
"~ ~
-'
~
-'
:>.•
" ,.'"-'o
~
•¿
:;¡
""
.
~
~
I
"" " ?--
..
,
•
210
5. Assemb/age Composftlon: Pcnerns of ASlladotion Sternming trom the sehcvtoe of Mon versus Thot of Benst
FIGURE 5.06. Wolf klll as il appeared at time of record;n8·
quickly lo outrun a caribou or moose 00 ice, wherees 00 snow of modérate depth a wolf has great difficulty keeping up and generelly follows in the prey's tracks. The result ís an "ice bias" in winter wolfkills. Come spring breakup ot the rivers and the melting of lakes, the bones from winter kills are cornmonly swept away by the violen! spring rivera or dropped neatly lo the bottom of lakes. Ice-rafted bones are apt lo be substanlially modíñed duriog transport, sínce the flow cf ice chunks is fas! and vtolent. Melting around bones is differential since they are dark. and they are therefare frequently partially exposed while being swept along by the spring rivera. 1 have personally observed (a) bones Crom my previaus summer camp, (b) a foollocker full of cooking gear, and (e) a lenl togelher with poles, rafled down Kon· gumuvuk Creek (see L. R. BinCord 1978b:173) in Ihe spring of 1972. The bones Ihal were reeovered in a backwaler alung wilh Ihe lenl and Ihe shatlered foollocker were crushed and broken wilh typical spiral fractures; in fael, one large sheep horn was complelely shearerl off al Ihe tip, leaving whal appeared lo be an ¡ntenlional cul allhe lip uf Ihe horno This is
nol Ihe place to enter into an extended dtscusston of taphonomlc processes in polar and neer-poler setlings where there is violent meIling and associated flooding. Enough has been indicaled to illustrate thet bones may be moved and redeposited, and thet modifications may well result in "fresh bone" breeks. chipping, or crushíng. This, however. is getting sllghtly eheed of the story. More importan! than consídertng the faclors affecting the Iranspart and modifícattons ofbones by natural agente is the establishment of a general understanding as to the oceurrence of bone deposíts that have nol been transo ported. I think ít can be reasonably concluded that predetors do eccumulete bones in lairs and denso In addi, tion it is clear that predetors and scavengers do produce populations of bones as a result of thetr normal participation in the ecosystem. Both condítíone may be cotenmnous with human or hominid behavíor, resulting in the spatial essocíatron of items derived from both hominid -human actions and nonhuman predator-scavenger behavior. It is to the latter lask that the remaínder of this chapter ís direcled. 1address the tnterestíng questíon of what a populatíon of bones generated by anímels under different behavioral contexts does in fectlook like. 1 am concerned with tha degree lo which there are dísttnctíve propertíes that mlght permit the tdentification of the agent and the behavioral context.
Control Collections of Animal-Structured Assemblages
Control Colleclions oi Animal-Slructured Assemblages TARtE 5.01 Assemblage CQmpQsitiQn Qf Alaskan WQJf KiIIs (CarlbQu MNlr
Wolf kili síte inventaries (MNls)b (2)
(I)
Skull Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical verlebrae Thoracíc vartebraa
Lumbar vertebras Pelvis Ribs Scapula Proximal humerus Distal hurnerus Proximalradto-cubltus Distal radto-cubttus Carpals Proximal metecarpal Distal metacarpa! Proximal fémur Distal fémur Proximallibia Dislal tibia
100 80 29 20
1.00 50
1.00
.29
.50 .50 .50 .50 .50
(5)
(6)
(7)
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
.36
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
.60 .57
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1,00 1.00
(6)
50 .50
1.00
.61
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
50 50
.50
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 .50 .50
.50 .50
.50
Celceneus
.50
1.00
.50
.50 .50
1.00
1.00
1.00
50
.50 50 .50 .50 1.00 .50
1.00 .50 .50 .50 .50
.50 50 .50 .50
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
.20 .79 1.00 .39 50
.64 60
1.00 .57 .50
.50 .50
.50 .50
50
1.00
.50 .50
.50 50
.50
.50
1.00 .50
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
.50 .50 1.00
.50 .50
.50 .25
.12
.25
.25
25
.25
50 .38 25 .12
(10)
.50
1.00
.50
(9)
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
50 .50 50 .50 50 .50 50 50
Second phalange 'rhírd phalange
(4)
79
1.00 1.00
50 50 .50
Proximal metatarsal ruste! melatarsal First phalange
1.00
.50
Aslragalus
Tarsals
(3)
lOO
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
.50
50
Site lotals Splintera
Dala available al the present time are from 24 individual wolf kills of caribou, Iwo very smalI wolf den assemblages described earlier in Ihis chapler, and Ihe Benl Creek den assemblage. Informants were aware of a series af wolf dens that had been dug into a bank up Benl Creek. Several years befare the collec. lion was made the hank cullapsed and Ihe wolves abandoned Ihe localion. Whal remained was an accumulated scalter oC banes on a small gravel bar directly in front of where Ihe wolves had previously denned. This scatler represenls an accumulatian of bones from an unknown number of years, deposited
211
CyJinders Complete bones Articulator ends on complete bones Arliculator ends Percenta!!e oí ends complete Pernmlage of arlicula1m ellOS missing
33 4 O
21 2 2
5 1 5
4
lO
56 5 O
4 O
25 3 1 2
O
11
6
16
6
O
50
63
O
54
58
33
75
60
100
41 4
O
1 2
11 16 54
---------~.
7
71 3
83 1
6 12
O
O
9
16
4
O
22
75
O
33
63
63
--'--
lOO
- --_.'.
(continuedl
..
'
212
5. Assemblage Cnmpnsitfon- Putterns af Associotion Stemming Ircm the Bfhavior of Mcn versus Tho! af Beust
------
--_.
-
Wolf kili site inventaries (MNIs)"
----- - - - (11)
(12)
(13)
114)
Ríbs Seapula Proximal humeras Distal humerus Proximal radío-cubnus Distal rad¡o-cubilus Carpals Proximal metecarpal Distal rnetacarpal Proximal Iemur Distal femur Proximal tibia Distal tibia 'rersals Astragalus Celcaneus Proximal metatersal Distal metatarsal Ftrst phelange Second phalange Third phalange
Site totals Splinters Cyl'nders Complete borres Articulator errds on complete bones Arttcularcr ends Percentsge 01 I'flrlS complete Percentage (lf articulator ends rrassmg
(lo.)
1.00
50
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
100 .60
.79
.26
1.00
'O
60 1.00
1.00
.50 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00
(16)
(17)
1.00
50
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0U LOO
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
-----
_.
(18]
(19)
(20)
50
50 llJU
1.00 .60
1.00
1.00 1.00
60 .71
1.00 1.00
1.aO
1.00 1.00
LIlO
.50
50 1.UO
,,';11
.'0
,O
50
'O
.50
.50 .50
50 .50 .50
.50 .50
1.00
.50
r.oo
.50
.50 1.00
.50 .50
50
1.00
\.00 .50
50 50
.50
.50 1.00
1.00 1.0U
.,,0
----------
(21)
(22)
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .20
(2 31
(24)
Bent Creek den
---
(25)
(26)
11.0 18.5
80.0
(27)
.50
50
l.UO
50 50 J6
Skull Mandjble Atlas Axis Cervical vertebrae Thoracic vertebrae Lumbar vertebrae Pelvis Ribs Scapula Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radlo-cubitus Distal radio·cubitua Carpala Proxtmsl metacarpal ntstal metacarpal Proximal fémur Distal ¡emur Proximal libia Distal libia 'rersets Astragalus Calcaneus Proximal metatarsel Distal rnetatarsal Ftrst phalange
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.60 .•0 100
1.00 1.00 LOO
.60 l.00
100
.66
50
50
12.0 17 .0 12.8 12.15 15.6 23.0 10.8 12.0
1.00
.50
.50 50
50
2.5 9' '.0 45 3.5 55 55 7.0 35 5.0
1.00
1.00
11.0
.50 .50
50 50 .50
5.5
1.00 1.00 50
50 50
.50 .50 50
'"
.50 .50 39 12
Seccnd phalange
5.0
.50
50 .50 50
Third phalange
11.0 41.0 15,0 20.0 15.0 24.0 24.0 30,0 15.0 22,0 4B,1l 22.0 24.0 24.0
55 6.5 '5
37.U
Vi]
t
1.87
so
48.0 52.0 74.0 36.0 53.0 68.0 100.0 47.0 52.0
1.5
20.0
ru 60 7.0
12.0 12.5
66.0 89.0
9 5
66.0 36.0
6' 29 1.7 9.5 O
6.0 35 14,0 10.5
6' '5
,O
2.1 12.0 68.0 O 57,0 250 100.0 75.0 46.0 32.0
100
71.0
95 2.0 3.0 2.0 6.5
3.25 2.25
68,0 14.0 21.0 14.0 61,0 36.0 32.0 36,0 50.0 29.0 23.0 15.0
10
7.0
'O
'.5 50 7.0 '0
Chandler La ke kili
----
(28)
-----
1.00
¡,(JO
Total wolfkills
Wolf kill eite inventaries (MNls)b
------
- - - - _ ..-
--------- -------
-
Skull Mandible Atlas Axis Cervtcal vertebrae Thoracie venebrae Lumbar venebree Pelvis
213
TABLE 5.01-Conlinued
TABLE 5.01_Continued -
Control Collecfjons of AnjmoJ-Slruclured Assemblo.lles
(29)
'.0 6.0 2.0 2.0
.a 3 .6 3.5 .5 '.0 .5 35 3.0 1.5 5.5 6.5 75 .5 .5 .5 '.5 6.5
7.5 6.5 10.5 '.5 6.3 5' '.2
(30\
38.0 57.0 19.0 19.0
2.0 3.0 6.0 33.0 5.0 38.0
5.0 :13.0 29.0 14.0 52.0 81.0 71.0
5.0 5,0
5.0 43.0 62.0 71.0 62.0 100.0 810 60.U
51.0 40,0
Site totals 45 5
62 5
56
O
u
O
•
74
2 O
•
1 5
63
•n
JO
7
O
O
O 71 ----
toe
1\10
1
" "'
16
1
66
55
3
e
"
O
O
O
•
73
2
O
12
1
n
55
25
26
96
100
lOO
50 -----
96
---
Spltnters C.:ylindcrs Complete bunes Articulator ends on complete bones Articu lator ends Percantags, of ends complete P"rcentage of arfinulator ends mi5sing
10 1
67
s
O
•
43
5
'"
" O
"5
\00
15
16
2
6
63
O
O
92
1119
u
10
12
69 3
75
25 50
34
':Avera~l~ we\llhl nr adult ,,""f>uu in 111.. Ardll: II..rd is 222 lb 1100.91 kg) AII "-INls arncakulated 8' "lI1Un!'r! in RinfonJ 11~17Ab: 69-72. 471\.4791.
(1
214
·.._"._,.,~_"_. __,,_ ~_.,., ..,_""..l
in Iront of a den and in the defecatioo area to ene síde. 1 made no etternpt te ccllect bone splinters, etnce 1 suspected sorne bias from washing and treneport al this Iocetton. Inventory data on Ibis sample are given in Table 5.01. Another collecücn wes mede neer the south end oí Chandler Lake from a suríace scetter cCbones thet informants eesured me were the remains a[ wolf kills. lt was suggested that the re-
mains "might' represen! wolf kills made over sbout a ro-veer periodo t was not convinced that Eskimokílled anímels were not aleo represented and thet mere might not be an additional bias introducad by the neerbv lake sorface. whi.c.h would neve beco ice during rnost of the kili eplsodes. BOY bones remaining there would have gone to the hottoID of the lake 00 melting.
#'
-------------_.
..
217
Conlrol Coilecñcns 01 Anjmo}-Slruetured Assemblages
216
5. Assemb/oge Composilion: Patterns of Assodation Stemming from the Behavior af Man versus Thal of Beas!
TABLE 5.03 Richard Kleln's Den Dato from SCHJth Africa" Swtlrtklip den assamblages
Analomicai part Skull Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical vertebrae Thoracíc vertebral! Lumbar vertebrae Pelvis Rlbs Scepule Proximal humarus Distal humerus Proximal redto-cubnue Distal radio-cubltus Carpals Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpal Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal libia Distal tibio Tltl'5llls ¡\~tragalus
Calcaneus proximltl melatorsal Distal metolarsal First phalange Second phalange Third pholange MNI in sample Body weighl (kg]
Springbok
Reedhuck
Topi roan. sable
wíldebeest
Kudu, alend
Grysbok
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(t(
79.0 100.0 43.0 50.0
45.U
100.0
67.0
100.0 60
100.0
45.0 45.0
21.0 70
13.0 5.0
14.0 50.0 7.0 50.0
111.0 26.0 3.0
440 2B.O 33.0 7.0 7.0 14.0
14.0 64.0
3.0
55.0 100.0
10.0 17.0 7.0 7.0
10.0 48.0 3.0
10.0 O 17.0 17.0 7.0 '.0 7.0
14.0 7.0 17,0 21.0 34.0 10.0 24.0 21.0 41.0 310 17.0 17.0 17.0
29 12
43.0 36.0 14.0 43.0 500 7.0 21.0 29.0 29.0 7.0 140
""
43.0 43.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 14
."
21.0
21,0
50.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 10,0 5.0 20.0 O
11.0 6.0
60.0
11,0
30.0
6.0 16.0
13.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 130 18,0 13.0 5.0 5.0 50
20.0 50.0 50.0 10.0 40.0 20.0 90.0 10.0 40.0 600 40.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
36 37
10 62
lB.O 50
50.0
44.0 4.0 19.0 4.0 78.0
37.0 52.0 14.0 70.0 100.0 7.0 26.0 19.0
89.0 7.0 37,0 33.0 41.0 41.0 11,0 11 ,o 11.0
27 128
27.0 9.0
18.0 90 18.0 64.0 5.0 9.0 90 73.0
73.0 100.0 27.0 82.0 91.0 18.0 27.0 18.0 640 27.11 55.0 64.0 45.0 64.0 27.0 27,0 27.0
t1 200
"Dala ftom Klein HIn
wolf kills; that ¡s, individual ¡;aribou were killed and Ihese are the bones remaining in the area after wolves had fed and abandoned the carcass. Hill's data are areal samples: tha! is, they are allthe bones remainingon the surface in ¡> given sample afea and the inrerence is made that animals killing as well as the scavenging of natural deaths waS the dynamic
contex! of their having been dispersed ayer the land surface. This is similar ID my Bent Creek and Chandler samples. Klein's dala derive from the excavadon of a deposit where 'here is no evidence of man, and the inference has been made Ihal animals were responsible for !hu accumulation. This deposil has been inlerpreted as a den assemblage.
Before begtnníng the díscussíon of these assemhlages. it is perhaps important lo outline sorne of the analylical problems that must be faced in companng fauna! assembiages. particularly in enempting to document díagnost¡c patterning in !he faunal remains of both animal and human activilies. When víewing an assemblage, ínterpretatíon consísts nf identifying the egents and the behevíore! context of the agents' ectívtues that brought into being the particular assocíauon of bones remaining. This stetement of the problem assumes that Ihe assocíetíon is bebavtoraliy meaningfuJ end the result of single agents behaving relenvely consisteotly. Dealing realistically with the latter assumption will be the subject of my laler analysis of a number of well-known erchaeoiogtcal assembleges. For the moment I simpiy went to treat in realistic terms the ecttvttíes of entmels that differentially contnhute to the composítíon of aesemblages. There are basically lwo acttons thet animals are capable of perfcrming that condtnon the composítion of assemblages eernalnlng for us to observe: (o) the transport of bones and (bl (he destruction of bones. If we are to understand and accurafely idenlif}' Ihe behavioral contexl of the accumulation of bone deposits, We musl understand the feclors conditioning the selection of anatomicel parts for transport and the levels of rerlundancy in the pallerns of bone rernoval frorn km siteS. For instance, we wish lo recognize whether we are dealing with en assemblage that has been transpoI1ed or wilh a residual populalion, that is, what remoins afler other parts are transportad. Further complicating Ihe matler may be the presence andJor absence of destruction L"oupled with transport as well as different levels of destruction in different sellings How do we beg;n unraveJing such a complicated sel of possibJe conditions? I think we musl begin with understanding destruetion, since that is the ares Ihet has received mosl research up uolil Ihis lime (see Brain 1969 as well as I... R. Binford and J. B. Bertram 1977). It ls apparent that lhe survival polential al a given bone subjected to destructive agents is a funclion of its strength or simple ability to resisl destructive agents. EarHer work showed that this resislance lo destruction was monitored by measures of bone density. In {act, the probability of abone surviving attack by destructive agenls was measured
and a thírd-order equetton wes generated expertmentally: Ihal is, en the basis offitting an equatíon lo a eet of dala for which the actual survívorshíp waa known. as were the bone densitles of the parts subIected lo destructtve egents. The equañon Iha! ts beIieved best to approximate the relenonshlp between bone densily and survíval probebtlnres is reproduced heff' from rny eerlíer work [L. R.Binfcrd and J. B. Bertram 1977:138):
Survtval percentage = -352.778 + 1050.4{d) 100B.69(d Z) + 332.Balld 3) where d = bone denslty of the element oí ínterest. Table 5.04 summerizes the valúes of the survival probabilities (percenlages) calculated for eech bone element using the equatton and the dala on bone density given prevlously (L. R. Bínford end ,. B. BerIram 1977:109) for a 6- and a so-month-old sheep. as welJ as a 2%-year·old caribou. Simple tnspectícn of the reble reveals twn points: {a) The percentage of bones surviving afler being addressed by a destruclive agent is much greater in old animals (columns 5 and 7) and relatively ¡nsignificant in young animals (column 1). and lb) sorne bones survive beller than olhers regardless oí age le.g., the scapula, Ihe distal humerus, the mandible. and Ihe distal tibia). Two bones, the humerus and the tibia, are particularly diagnoslic oflhe action of destructive agents. Clearly there is a consistenlly grea! difference in survival polentíal belween the proximal and distal ends ol Ihe hUmerus. and a smaller bul nonelheless consislent difference between the proximal and distal ends of the tibia. These conditions can be seized upon for purposes oí díognosing the relative role bone destructlon plays in modifying an assemblage, Whal seems elear (rom Figure 5.07 ls lhat thera is a differentiation indicated by Ihe humerus 00Iween assemblages subjecled to destruction and those no! subjeeted todeslruction. This pir.ture is not so elesr for Ihe libia (Figure 5.08). It is lrue Ihat all assemblages suffering destrucfion of parts (al1helow lhe diagonal line snd most nondestroyed assemblages fall along Ihe diagonal. (See Table 5.05 for invenlory of sssemblages.) However, there is an overlap, with sorne nonravaged assemblages mixed with Ihe ravaged assemblages below Ihe diagonal line. This condilion arose from the differential
#' . 218
5. Assemb/age Composítton: Petterns of Associolion Stemmlng {mm the Behovior uf Man versus That of Beost
Control Collections
i2iII
oIAnimoJ-Structun'd AssembJagt's
TABLE5.04 SUrvJlltJl PercentOlles /or Bones of IIJdma/" of Differenl ABes" Caribou
Shecp Mean value 6 + 90 months
6 months
---_ ..
Anetomtcal par!
Skull Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical vertebres Thorecíc vertebrae Lumbar vertebras Pelvis Ribs Sr:apula Proximal humeros Distal humerus Proximal radio-cubitus Distal redo-ccbítus Carpals ProJllmal metacarpal Distal metecarpal Proximal fémur Distal Iemur Proximal tibia Distal tibia Tarsals Astrallalus Calcaneus Proximal metetereal Distal metetersat Firsl phalenge Second phalange Third phalanlle
[1)
90 months --.-
•j! 30 months --
47.7 [2)
J
SP
73.8
SP
SP
[3)
[4)
[5)
[6)
87.51 [7)
•"
69.62
80.0
~
87.57
100.0 71.0 54.0
64.0 100.0
69.6 73.8
94.0 100.0
31.0
41.0
42.5 32.3
58.0 44.0
41.0
26.1
35.0
29.9
40.0
37.9
51.0
17.7
39.0 39.0 42.0
56.6
80.0
16.7
41.0
20.7
26.0
24.6
21.7
50.0 O 46.0 42.0 31.0 12.0 27.0 43.0 26.0 41.0 3S.0 26.0 24.0 15.0 32.0 32.0
60.8 710 59.9 58.8 44.4 26,6 22,5 30.7 43.0 33.98 30.53 54.6 48.1 41.9 49.9 27,6
82.0
100.0
31,41 43.18 76.95 22.28 47.64
10.0 81.0 80.a 6a,O 36.0 30.0 47.0 58.0 46.0 41.0 74.0 62.0 57.U 66.0 38.0 30.0 170
19.1
14,89
17,Ob
100.0 100.0 76.9 51.2 35.26 43.2 76,97 51.21 r 47,24' 100.0 84.0 80.0 87,6 4:1.4 32,1 21.0 15.0 11.0
SI,21 35.99 43.38 22.32 31.40 JO.66 35.05 31,05 22.32 62.36 35.05 31.40 31.40 35.99 35,26 15.0 11.5 6.75
S8.0 41.0 50.0 25.0 36.0 35.0
39.0 47.7 11.1:1 17.0 17,0 16.1
16.1
O 19.8 17.7 11.8 1.9 9.7 18,2 9.1 16.75 13.81 9.12 8.08 3,70 12.1 12.1 12.1 6.0 6.0 6.0
••;o¡
-
SP
SP
SP SP
•o w "
aa.c
aa.i
13.0 13.0 13.0
12.5 10.0 90
14.0
12.0
100.0 100.0 73.2 47.5 35. t 43.6 59.6 100.0
62,15 47.24 27.53
31.0 36.0 49.0 68.0 25.0 54.0
"o
J
~ o ;:
RATIO VALUE OF DISTAL HUME RUS
0."0...., .... 0'''''.'0 "''' ••" .. , • "0.' "", .,," "" 0""0<"0' fiGURE 5.07. ReloUonship betwfren lrequencles 01pt'OJlimol humerus ond distal humeros in o series o{ known ussembJoges (listed by nember in Toble 5.05).
'0",'
•
iD
."
'0
~
~
§•
?O
~
"
/
..
.,
/e¿ e{.
.0
/e•• e"/ • 0<
'O.
/
/
O
•>
e,{" roJ/ e" /
.0
•" " ~ J
///
...... "\""'' ' ..
C
O
have never fouod empirical support for lhe argument Ihat the humerus was butchered Ihrough the shaft Claims have heen made far destruction of the prox, imal .articulator end during hutchering, bulthis is of course destruction .and what is of interest here. lt is suggested that proportional plots of the standardized
frequendes for the proximal versus the distal humerus be used as the bestc dtagnost¡c techniQue for essesstng the degree of destructron of bone perts an assemhlage has sulfered. Figure 5.09 demcnstrates the control assemblage from Alaska. Hil/'s (1976) African data, and Kleín's (1975) data. J( is clear thal bcth Klein's data ftom Ihe Swartklip animal den and my Alaskan assemblages have suffered attrítíon at the hends of destructive agente, presumably hyena and wolf, respectívely. On the other hand, Hill's assemblages from animal kills aU cluster in or 00 the margtns of the graph area where "pristine" assembiages are expec1ed. This placemant suggests zero to very mioimal destruction of bone in these essembleges. The difference between HiIl's data end Klein's-pristine versus rev. eged assemblages-mighl be releted lo differences between den and kíll asaemblages except for the Iact thet the wolf kilIs ere clearly within the reveged distribufion. As a further confirmatíon of the diagnosis uf pristine versus ravaged assembJeges the dtetríbutton of proximal versus distal tibia was ploUed (Figure 5.10).
40.0
3S.0 25.0 71.0 40.0 36.0 36.0 41.0 40.0 17.0 13.0 10.0
·sr", !urvival pl:!f<;anlas", (Ihe parcenlasa of oMlIlnal number expacled lo !llrvivej ·o.,n$lly for caMboll proximal humafUs.ramll9!ured!inca ll9rliar sluóy. Is 1,01 'Error dl$covared in Tabla 3,9 (Binlord ,nd Berlram 1977: (109), Oen5i!yshould read 141 for dlslal femur. 1.38 for proximal tibia
breake.ge and butchering of the libia, which is particularly common when animals are ttozen. Under such conditions disarticulation of the lower leg is achieved by breaking through the tibia shaft so that the two ends of the bone are differentialJy transported. The result is the mix seen in Figure 5.08. 1
'"
:
"9
.,.
111
.{¿., ~ ... ~~~ ... ~,., ~~~
(.':::1)..0'('.......... -o '0
. . .,' .0
'o
...
o' .0
o'
~O"
-- ---
o.
.0.00"
.0
"U·.uo"O"
10
10
RATIO VALUE Of DISTAL TIBIA O . .o-. «
• ..... o
O. U.UU
"H .. o
'"
..
uo.. o.
FIGURE 5.08. ReJatlondlp between lrequencM' 01proxjlRal tibia and distal UblQ In (l series 01 known ossembJages(1i""d by number in Tole S.OS}.
The pristine character of HiIl's assemblages is supported by the data on the tibia, where his assemblages faH along the diagon.al in a more convíncíng feshion than for the humerus. Slmilarly, the Alaskan deta all appeer as ravaged assemblages as before; however, Klein's data distribute somewhat differently. The large animals all unambiguously appeer as ravaged assemblages but the three small bovíds eíther appeer ambiguous or clearly withín the zone of pristine essemblages. A gümpse at Figure 5.09 shows that even with the humerus Klein's column 1 [grysbok) and coJumn 3 (roodbuck.) could be interpreted as ambiguous. Thus it is quite clear that Ihe degree to which the faunal rem.ains of a species are destroyed by carnivores is no! a simple function of whelher ooe is viewing a kili or a transported den assemblage. This nol a very practical generalization, since in the materia).s compared the destruction by wolves at kills is most lik.ely related lo the obsence of competitors. As noted in the behavioral descriptions. the wolves tend to feed, sleep. and then retum to the kilI, dragging off elements of the skeleton lo peripheraJ "gnawing" areas where Ihe destruction takes place. In addition to this unmolested exploita-
.é"~"
zzo
1
5. AssembJoge Composilion: Putterns uf Assocronon Stemming [mm the gehcvior nf Moo versus Thol of BeaSl
TABLE 5.05 lnve"tol}' o/ Assembloges PIQlled
00
Control Co'Iecnons
..
of AnimoJ-Slruttured Assembloges
Figures 5.07 Gnd .';.08
Assembluges known ro hove suffered destructzon 1 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Ana\r.luvuk dog yaed, fall1970 [Bínfnrd and Bertram 1977: 8U, Table 31. column 2) Anaktuvuk dog yardclate fall1970 (Binford and Hertram 1917: 8U. Table 3.1, r.olumn 4) Ana\r.luvuk dog yard, wmter 1971IBinford and Berttam 1977' 80, 'reble 3.1. calumo 6) Anakluvuk dog yarrl, wlnter 1971 (Sinford and Bertram 1977: 80. Table :t.i, columo 8) Anaktuvuk dog yard, spring 1971 [Binford and Berlnm 1977: BO. Table 3.1. enlumn 10) Anakluvuk dog yard. late sprlng 1971 (Binford and Bertram 1977: 80. Table 3.1, culumn 12) Navajo winter sheep assemblage [Bmford and Bertram 1977: 101. Table lS. calumn Z) Navajo sumraer sheep assemhlage [Bmtord and Bertram 1977: lot. Tahle J.S, column 4) Rullend dogs (Binford 1978b: 207. Table 5.9, column 6) Kongumuvuk high summer hunllng camp (Binford 1976b: 270. Table 6.6, column 5) Amalgamation sne dog yard [Binford 1978b: 322. Table 6.21, column 6)
/ /
/
->:~b--- ~,.---
Assembloges known not lo hove suffered destruction
':~;.
12. 13. 14. 15.
Fall dispersed kills (Binford 1918b: 16, Tabte 2,6, colurnn 2) Winler dispersed kítls (Binford 1978b: 76, Table 2.8. colurnn 4) Spring dtspersed kills [Binford 1978b: 16, Table 2.6, cclumn 61 Sumrner dispersed kills (Binford 1976b: 76, Table 2.6, cclumn 8) 16. Anllvik sprtng kili site (Binford 1976b: 76, Table 29. colurnn 2) 17. Anakllqlauk sprlng kill site (Binford 1916b: 78, Table 2.8, column 4) 18. Ice cellar proca5sing area (Binford t918b: 1Z4, Table 3.7, column 2) 19. Ice cellar spring c\ean-oul (Bínford 1978b: 124, Table 3,7, column 4) 20. Contants of ice cellqrs, 1911 (Binford H178b: 126, Table 3.8, column 2) 21. Contents of ice cellars, 1972 (Binlord 1978b: 126, Table 3.8, column 4) 22, Anavik sprinll hunting stand (Binford 1978b: 176, Table 5.1, column 2) 23. Anakliqllluk hunting stand (Area A) (Binford 1976b: f76, Table 5.1. colurnn 4) 24. Anakliqtauk hunling stand [Area DJ(Binford 1978b: 176, Table 5_1, colurnn 6) 25. Mask site IBinford 1978b: 160, Table 5.3, columll 4) Z5, Rulland TllJugak residential sile (Binford 1976b: 207, Table 5.9, column 4) 27. Big Surround kili site IBlnford 1978b: 237, Table 5.16, column 2J 28. Long Rope cairn (8inford 1976b: 237, Table 5,16, column 4) 29. SUe 41 caim (Binford 1978b: 237, Table 5_16. column w! 30. 1971 village invenlory [Binford 1978b: 259, Table 6.1. column n] 31. Sita 17 hunting camp IBinford 1976b; 322, Table 6.18, column 2) 32. Schoolteacher residential site (Binford 1978b: 322, Table n.21. column 2/ 33. Amslgamlltion residential site (Binford 1976b: 322. Table 6,21. column 4) 34, Akmo¡lik residential site (Binford 1978b: 322, Table 6.21, column 12) 35. Big Happy hunling stand (Binford 1976b: 351. Table 7,1, column 4) 36. Unle Happy huntlng sland (Binford 1976b: 351. Table 7.1. column 4) 37. Rulland fsll residenhal site (Binford 1916b: 376, Teble 7.11, column 10) 38. Kakinya fal! residentlal site (Dinford 1976b: 3Bt. Table 7.13. wlumn 161
tion oC Ibe kili by Ihe wolves, there is 80 addilional behavior that Ihe Eskimo report, a behavior Ihal would certainly contribule lo Ihe destruetion oC bones al the kili, This i5 the feeding of pups and young at the kili. It is reported that when a female wolf begins huoting after having whelped she will
huot in the immediale area of the deo. Jf she is successful she will secure Ihe kili from any competilors and Ihen by howling alerl the juveniles as lo her local ion. Tha juveniles then either carrY ar guide the pups from Ihe den lo Ihe kili location ~here they all feed under the walcbful eya of lbe female. Later in
//0' / o"
__
..
~ -~,~--...... -~---
RATIO VALUE OF DISTAL HUMERU5
• " 0_ "",.,
,
o
"
""MOC'G', "'C< '0'
" •••. , oor
ro.,
E
'o,
, • ,,'
'0" '"M.'" .,.". 'O C"lOM. ""'O""Q," '. ".," FIGURE 5.09. Relotionshlp between frequencJes uf the
proximal and di,<¡lal humeros in the control osserrrb/oges fmm AfrJco ond Ala.dca.
j
the summer and early fall the molher rnay take the juveniles and pups away from the den lo a rendez· vous spol where the young remaio "playing" whiJe the female hunls. (See Figure 5.11.) Again she will howL allowing the juveniles lo find her easily and guide Ihe pups to Ihe kilI. It is lit Y underslanding [hat in Afríea eompetilors are commonplace. sueh thalthere is mueh grealer transporting of parls away from kills so as ta reduce face.to·face competition among animals fighling over a kilI. Second.lhe field reporls suggesl that amonR hyena, and presumably Cape dogs, juveniles are nol fed at Ihe kills where they would be easy prey themselves for compeling carnivores. The result of these major contrasts in (he "soc1ology" of prl'dation belween wolves in Alaska where campelilors are few and various predalors in Afríca where compelilion is variable bul generally high compared lo Alaskan sellings, is Ihat meal is boit(ld atlhe km. but laler in Africa parls are systematically dragged off ¡transported) to "safe" spols away from Ihe kili proper and gll
221 Alaska there are open area rendezvous locations {as in Figure 5.11} where bone accumulatians rnay occur.It is m)"guess thet the degree of'bone destructicn at the kili will be an Inversa function of the intensity of competítton among predalor-scavengers. In tum there may well be differences emnng specíes in the way young and juveniles are fed tbet are responsive lo the competitive environmeot.1t ts my optnton that for African metertals the "greb and run" stretegy ís and wes most ccmmon. resulting In a pattern amular to thet índtceted here in the Afriean material. Namely, there Is evídence of Iransport of perts away from kills hut líttle evidence of in sttu destrucríon of bone parts remaining et kili sttes per se. 00 the other hand, there may well be bone scatters concentreted in vegetetíon end nthar "protected" locationsdeposils resulting from the accumulation of trensported parts.-In additon there are lairs where ravaged assemblages are the rule as Is the case with Klein's material It is proposed that one of the diagnostic differences belween residual fauoal remains of kilI 10calions and transported remains, either at lairs or as
~
~
'0
•"
"
J
~'"''
g• 00 • •o• " •
" ~
/
.
/.
/
/
o'
// /
'o .0
/
\)//<:(, / /
/
~ -o J
~
//
.... O'MODO "'uO'o. • • uU.<'o,
o"
F
/
/ /
J'~ //
o';" - lO
..
" y .10 //
/,/
..."
':0 ,
•• 0 'o
'0
,:~:;••Q:- "' "'YO "o. "KM'''"
'"
00
'O~
RATIO VALUE OF OISTAL TI81A •
o
' " . . . . . . . . . M....... ' " . " SO'
.',,'
00". '''lE '0'
• ... 1M' 0'''_ ,.". ,o, ."..... , ••". 'O 'O'UMM 0"'0."'0" ,. ,••". FIGURE 5,10. lte/ofiQn!ihip belween frequencies af proximal libia ond di,~(ul tiblu in fhe control ossembloges from Africa ond Ala.~ka.
.,
Ar'-~
222
5. Assemb/oge Composñtcn: pctrems of Associolion Stemming from the Behcvíor 01 Mari versus Thot 01 aecst
bere we must reconstruct the original essemblege from the surviving bones in the raveged assemblagee. Hcwever. thi.s requtres e transforrnation of the data and the skeptic may object to such a radical treatment. la Ihere not sorne way we may obtetn a picture of transport wilhout resortíng to a transformetton of the cbsarvatíonal data? The answer ís "not really." However, because al} the Alaskan assemblages are shown to be ravaged, we may bold destmcnon constent and compare theae eseemblages dírectly. as a way to gatn a first appreciation for the character oí the perts transported. This strategy rney be línked with R surnrnary of generelízeuons that others beve offered regarding Ihe charecter of parte remaining at kills. Fcr tnetence. Shipman and Phil-
I
(1
rendr.zvous site.
palhnpsests of scattered bone, will be the relative evidence of bone destruction from gnawing. Tbis wiU be manifest not only in survivorship, as demonstrated here, but also in the formal modificBtions made on \he bone surviving. Furrowing, chipping back, channeled breakage, cylinders of long bones, tooth puncture marks, bone scoring, and the like wil\ be grealest in den assemblages, maderale in palimpsests of transported bone, and least evident in residual remains a\ killlocalions or scavenged death loeations. Transport of bone by earnívores as índicated here ís related lo competition at the source of food as well as to behavior related to the reertog of tha young_ In arder lo oblain a picture of whet was traospoJ1ed by carnlvores lo Iha dens documented
..
,. -e-"."-,
/
..."
I
"
I
z.
~~
I
/
~
00
I. c• o• I
"O
1
~--'"
~~
I
I
.00c l
I
J¡~
f
f
~~
!O
I
I
.:',c
l'
I
/
/ .... T
.u. / /
/1
/
\:"'f"':'o:~,>"
I
/
"
/ /
J
'0-'0
¡
/ /
/
/
/
I
l •••
I I
/
I I
/
o• •
¡ ¡
/
-
This comparison suggests that units oí transporl are majnr anatomical segmenta. These do appear in• versely related belween kills and dens, but the individual bones making up any one anatomioal segment are positivety relatad wtthtn each set. Further insight may be supplted by a comparison belween the two kili assemblages, one e summary inventory of bones remetnlng at díecrete kílls, and the other a palimpsest population oí bones distrihuted in a gtven area where horres were not assigoable lo particular dead anlmals. Figure 5.13 tllustratas the relalionship between theee samples. Structurally epeestng. the retationship between the two assemblages eppeers Similar to the compilrison betwaen dens and kills! However, exemínatíon ofthe delails reveals sorne interesling differences. To the left is a distributioo that represeots parts relatively eomman io the Chandler sample compared wilh the monitored kills. These are the lower parts of both rear and frOnl legs. In the canter IS en arfay of
/
I
/,// .c..
l
,
..... I
JI
/
1/
.. ..
ribs.
,
I I
I .~,to"'~" I ••• 11 1 1/ .... ~t,j .00/
I
__ "
'/'/'//,."
I
'o
scepula. (b)lhe sceoule. (e) the complete rear leg, (d) the skull wilh oceasionally attached atlas ver. tebre and mandible, and (e) the axial ekeleton plus
'//.~,"O) )" ,/
.'RO,/" ,. / ••••e,.,. O"c , . , . I ,.".u,. ,. I
Qur data on 'he diaarticulation of anlmala obsarvad Imrn tna time of death suggest thet thts assumption ts trua of limba, akulls, and mandibles. but not of ribs and veftebrae. Wlth the axceplíon of the fint two cer11\cal vertebrae, which ll\ay be transported wilh the akull, disarticulated vertebrae and ribs of\ell. remain al the kili site [1976:1701.
fIGURE. 5.11. WoJves 011
223
oo. /
líps [19761 state,
Tbis observation was made as part of a study of carcasses and bone remains oecurring 00 the surface in Awash Natíonai Park in Elhiopia. They follnd thal anatomical parts remaining at kill!l in the 80-90% level WBre skulls, mandibles. vertebrae, ribs, and pelves, whereas limb-bones were only represented by 69.9% and scapulae by 67.6% ol the total potentially presen\. (See Shipman and Philli.ps 1976:170. Table 1.) Logically speaking. a transported assemblage should look like the "opposite" of Ihe nontIansported assemblage; \hat is, it should be the proportionlll inverse of the parts that were not trans' ported. The Bent Creek den assemblage, when plotted against my wolf km data, should therefare exhibit sn inverse or indirecl and unidimensional relationship. Figure 5.12 ílIustrates lhe actual relalionship be.\ween the kili and den assemblages, and it ¡s elear tha\ my "Iogical" expectations are not met in any particular. No clear unidimen'>ional relationship is shown. no indirecl rela~ionship indicated. Pomts are scaltered all over the graph, but when we begin grouping Ihese by basil.:analomical unils believerl 01
Centro! Col/ections of Animal-Struc!ured AssembJoges
.cu. /
I
;!
/
'.00"/ .0
.0
.n
.R
feO
WOLF l
FIGURE 5.12. ReJat10nship bfltwee" Musko" woJf den alld kili assembJases.
importance in animal kili transport situations, namely lhe axial sketeton minlls the skull and upper neck and the appendicu\ar skeleton. sorne regularity -, appears. The axis vertebra through Ihe pelvis plus 'O'j. ¡ / 00"'\ , I the ribs appears as a positively Correlated array to the ~ / I right oí the graph. In the center of lhe distributiol1 is ;' I Ihe mandible, atlas vertebrae. scapula, Bnd Ihe com/0"" • ....c I / I plete rear leg: to the left of the scatter is the skull and ~ 'o I .ah I " Ihe complete front leg plus phalanges. Each subset is ~"': I I I I posilively and linearly distributed. Whal we see is 08 "~."'.l' .,.../ / I Ihat at least in Ihis contrast eertain anatomical units "") '" ¡ appear to be inversely COITelated: skulJ, front leg. ·--'8 glCi and phalanges more frequenl in the den assemblage , w /;01 / .... and less frequent in the kili. On the olher hand, ~il \~_ ...." ... ,," _• • • J, / " .0.'/ bones making up 6ach subset are positively eoITe- ~4 XI I " •••c" / . . ........ lated. Similarly. the mandible, scapula. and rear leg % o are nearly equally represented in Ihe Iwo as>0 // ".0"" /1 / semb[ages, and as in the previous situation the bones ... ~ / II .CUIII makiog up the subset in each population are posi\ • • • • • •, • ... 1 1".. /" o..... ./ .... _·r:tto......... lively correlated. FinalJy, Ihe axial skeleton is very common in the kili and less welI represenled in the " WOLF I(ILLS TorAL den. Once aMain Ihe bones making up the suhset are TABL[ ~.06, COL 2 posilively carrelalea. What Ihis means is thal units
"¡
..<"
.c.. . //
"1\ ._,' //
•
"¡I /
j'" , ',. "....,., ..'"".._,, , ,", I
/"
..
---..., /".. . . - ....
,,//''''.... /1".......
fiGURE 5.13. Rela'ioRship belween palimpsf'sl woJf kili ossemb/uges.
_ _ ....,
•..w}
/" . . . . /
dj~cre'e
aRd
l
ZZ4
s.
,-"."_,~'_" ._._.,",-~-~,<-_",,~._l
the mandtble. the skull, and the upper parte of both front end rear legs. The axial skeletcn including pelvis sud ribs distributas as an array lo the rtght as in the previous companson, ilIustrating thet as an anatomtcal unit the axial skeleton is more common in the populetton of discreta animal cercesses. Thus, unlike the eegrnentenon illustrated in the krfl-den comparíson {Figure S.12}. here the segmentaticn ís tnto three subsets: lo) lower lega. (b) upper legs includtng scapula plus SKU 11 or mandible, and (e) axial skeleton. This patterning SU888Sts that there is a scattering effeet sueh that bones 01 the extremttíee become more widely dispersad than other anatcrnícal untts. What we appeer lo be seeing here are tbe bones that ternain in the gnawtng erees around the typtcet wolf kill teee Figure 5.05); hones remetntng at the kilI proper are generally missing in the Chandler assemblage. The pettern of transport among Ihe wolves is not díñerent with regard to perts. 11 slmply dirfers In seale or distanees moved away from the kill location. In sorne kills the parts of the lower leg may be moved less than 15 m, and when ll. known situation is present such "short transport" may be seen as part of the residual bone populalion at a kili. On the olher hand. under sorne eonditlons (e.g., high Y/iods 00 the lake ice), bones may be transported into protecled environmental seHings {disseeted terrain of low willow growlh al Iha soulh end of the lake} aod Iherefore separated from lhe killlocation proper. In Afriean settings where eompelilion is high it will be inleresting lo delermine if a similar pattern of transport is recognizable, and to what degree parts ¡nlrodueed into dens are different from parts seattered through attempts of individual animals to feed unmolested. In order to accomplish this comparison we must reeonstruet lhe African assemblages from the Swartklip den so direcl eomparisons may be made to the unravaged kill data. This was success· ful1y accomplished previously (Binford 1978bl by dividing the percentage ratio of eaeh bone in an as· semblage array by ils survival pereentage. providing Bn estimate of the original frequeney in Ihe pristine assemblage. This sounds relatively straighlforward; however, Ihe real survival pereenlage for a given bone element in a given assemblage is a function of the speeies and Ihe age struclure of Ihe original populalion. (See L. R. "inford and J. B. 8ertram {19771 for a demonstration of this point.)In Ihe case of the control assemblagfJs, we laek analysis oi Ihe
ege stmcture and we do not have measured bone dansttíes for any of the African specíes betng com, pared. On the essumptton that there ts sorne relationship between body síze and skeletal structure. I wiU use Ihe survtvel percentages for ceetbou for all animals oí moderete to larga síze. These inelude topi, waterbuck, zebra, wüdebeest. kudu , and elend (for simplidly identified in tablee end figures as "lerge prey"). For the small bovíds-c-grysbck. springbck, reedbuck. geeette. and oribi-c-I will use survival percentages denved Irom studtes of sheep j'rable 5.04). 1 do not have age-ccntrolled data for certbou, so it wi\1 be ímpossible to adjust for ege variability with the larger antmals. However, for the small bovids sorne "fitting" to aeeommodate poesíble differences of ege strueture among the populelions ís possíble. Estimates of the compoeitíon of the original assemblege befare the differential destruction of parts by animals are given in Tables 5.06 for Ihe Alaskan data and Table 5.07 far Ihe Swartklip Afriean dala. These estimales were obtained as previously indi· cated by dividiog the observed frequencies (expressed in percentage ralios of the mosl common part) by the fractional survival percentage as summarized in Table 5.04. Comparison between the original assemblage es· timates for lhe Alaskan sample proves very instructive. Comparisons analogous to those made earlier (Figures 5.12 and 5.13) are given in Figures 5.14 and 5.15. Several points of contrasl are obvio\.ls. First, what appeared as a series of linear positive relation· ships in Ihe raw dala now appear as extreme poisson relationships. What is frequent in a den Dr trans· ported assemblage is infrequent in the kili as· semblage. Our earIter expeetations far mirror·image relationships between kills and transported as· semblages (as at lairs and in "scallered" ar derivative palimpsest Bssemblages) are now realized. Why did the raw data comparisons {ail to exhibit these properties? The answer is that, when ravaged ilSsemblages are compared, patterning that derives from the differential deslruction of parts dominates the frequendes. Regardless of lhe form of tha original population, the surviving populations are similar in Iheir pallern of differential survival, This condition aceounls for the faet that positive linear corrala· tions were observed among elemenls of anatomical segments thíll seero lo have beeo Ireated as indepen-
~~
Control ColJeclions
..
------------<1
of AnimaJ-Structured Assembl(lg~s ZZ5
TABLE 5.06
ReconstrucUon uf Orillimll A.uembJoge ComposWon for Afosku Somplfls
Wolfkills
Bent Creek
'reble 5.01. col 26
Col. 1
'reble 5.01. tal 28 x
188.0
Table 5.04. col. 7
(1(
19"7.22
(Z(
TabJe 5.04. col 7
(3(
('(
(5(
60.0 60.0 7J,24 137.04 170.97 168.89 113.64 188,0 96.3 963 647 70.69 85.37 40.0 60.0 66.67 68.58 37.5 85.71 88.0 67.61 55.0 66.67 66.67 90.24 50.0 64.71 61.54 70.0
32.0 42.0 39.0 73.0 91.0 100.0
x
Table 5.04. col. 7 Anatomjcel part
Skull Mandtble
Alias Axis Cervical verlebrae Thoracic vertebres Lumbarvertebras Pelvis Rrbs
Scapula Proximal humerus Distal humeros Proximal radio-tubitus Distal radio-cubitus Carpals Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpal Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia Oíslal tibia Tarsals Astragalus Ca!caneus Proximal mellltllrslll Dístallllellltarsal f>lrst phlllllnge Secorld phalllnge Third phlllange
sn.n 100.0 51.0 51.0 34,0 37,0 45.0 21.0 32.0 35.0 36,0 20.0 45.0 47.0 36.0 29.0 35.0 35,0 48.0 260 34.0 33.0 37.0
dent units rega.rdless of the relalionships among Sueh segmenls [see Figures 5.12 and 5.13). Theeffeet of differenlial survival is removed in the eompariSons shown in Figures 5.14 and 5.15 and Ihe struc. lural differenees and similllrilies among the original assemblages are revealed. This is a Very importanl observation aod one Ihal essenlially renders the inlerpretalions lack Bertram and 1 offered regarding Ihe Makapansgal fauna open to being seriously wrong [L. R. Binford and J. B, Bertram 1977). This also "explains" why the campari-
' j
Chandler
107.5 89.0 92.96 66.67 19.35 5.83 24.49 77.27 ? 105.56 147.06 172.41 182.93 92.0 128.0 197.22 194.29 35.0 60,0 56.0 85.92 900 88.89 100.0 121.95 72.5 135.29 123.08 70.0
Col. 3
55.0 45.0 47.0 34.0 10.0 3.0 12,0 39.0 54.0 75.0 87.0 93.0 47.0 65.0 100.0 99.0 18.0 30.0 28.0 44.0 46.0 45.0 51.0 62,0 37.0 69.0 62.0 35.0
Table 5-01. col. JO x
30. 57.0 26.7 35.2 6.5 8.3 16,3 37.15 20.0 70.4 29.4 56,9 70,73 28.0 208.0 225.0 203.0 12.5 14.3 20.0 60.6 155.0 197.0 172.0 243.9 202.5 352,0 392.0 400.0
Col. 5 2100 (6( 8.0 14,0 7.0 9.0 Z.O
20 '.0 9.0 5.0
18.0 7.0 14.0 16.0 7.0 52.0 56,0 51,[l 30 '.0 5.0 15.0 39.0 49.0 43.0 61.0 51.0 88.0 98.0 100.0
sons belween Hottentol goats, Makapansgal, and Olduvai Gorge (M. D. Leakey 1971: 277) appeared so similar. If two assemblages that are essentially oppo. sites of one another ..sn be rendered similar by attri. lional agents, raw data comparlson among as. semblages uncorrected for attrition. when it can be reasonably suspeeted, clearly becomes a meaning. less exercise The nature of Ihe relationships between 8 Iransported and a kilI assemblage Is clear. lo kills the axial skeleton is mos! variable. with sorne elements
,~'
226
5. Assemblogp. Composition: Pcttems of Association Stemming from Ihe Behnvíor of Man versus Thut of Beas!
TABLE 5.07 Rf!condructed Den Assembloses {rom Swartklip
Skull Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical vertebrae 'rhorectc vertebrae Lumbar vertebrae Pelvis Ribs Scapule Proximal humeros Distal humerus Proximal radio-cubilus Distal rado-cubítua Carpals Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpal Proximal fémur Distal Iemur Proxlmallibia Distal tibia Tersats Astragalus Calcaneus Proximal metatarsal Distal metatarsal First phalange Seoond phalange Third phalange
{IJ
79.02 135.5 23.53 52.63 26.82 23.41 26.0 81,63 14.49 16.45
,
28.38 28,91 15.77 26.32 31.11 45.6 20.6 55.68 68.78 62.27 21.69 57.28 42.08 147.48 140.27 100.0 100.0 100,0
Reedbuck
Springbok
Grysbok
Anatomical pert
Col. 1 147.48
--
Control Coñecnons of Animal-Structured AssembJoges
227
TABLE s.nz-c-Ccnunued
---------"---
Table 5.03, col. 1 x Table 504. col. 4
..
-----
----"
Table 5.03. col. 2
Table 5.03, col 3
x Table 5.04, col 4
{2J
--54.0 92,0 16.0 36.0 18.0 16.0 18.0 55,0 10.0 11.0
19.0 20.0 11.0 18.0 21.0 31.0 14.0 38.0 47.0 42.0 15.0 39.0 29.0 100.0 95,0 6'LO
68.0 68.0
beíng ccmmon such as the thoractc and cervical vertebree and tbe pelvis. In transported assembleges components oí the appendicular skeleton are most variable with elemente of the extremities being most common. We can thínk of a structural dichotomy, with residual kili populations dominated by axial skeletal parts and derivativa {transported) assemblages dominated by appendiculer parts. In the Alaskan data there are at leest two types oí derived assemblages: (a) the scatter. which ts
{3J
113.51 135.5 101.1 154.08 80.46 23.41 37,0 65.03 33.82 B2,24 140.0 106.84 73.13 81.08 52.63 191.11 162.87 20.6 68.78 94.99 53.11 15.18 33.41 ,,8.12 1,,4.68 194.57 123.5 123,5 123.5
Top¡
x Table 5.U4, col. 4
Col. 5 135,5
(4J
{5)
{6J
e.o 17.0 30.0 79.0 100.0 63,0 63.0 63.0
64.69 135,5 18.82 65.05 49.81 16.72 47,0 44.22 14.49 34,54 30.0 16.36 13.61 24.77 30.08 71.11 52.12 14.71 42.58 16,38 14.65 17.35 19,09 26.05 64.75 58.82 29.41 29.41 29.41
-
._.-
48,0 100.0 14.0 48,0 37.0 12.0 35.0 33.0 .11.0 2".0 22,0 14.0 10.0 18.0 22.0 52.0 36.0 11.0 31.0 12.0 11.0 13.0 14,0 19.0 48.0 43.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
domíneted by extremíttes such as lower límb bones and phalanges, and lb} dens. which are cherecterízed by leg bones. including upper límh parte. and more skulls. The degree to which observetíons represent general conditions te perheps besl lndiceted by a como parison of Ihe African dala on kills and dens. Table 5.07 summarizes the reconstructed essemblages, or our estimates as lo the original composition of the fauna] assemblages inlroduced to the animal den et
x
Table 5,03, col. 5
Tabie 5.04, col. 7
Col. 7 166,67
Anatomical part
{')
{8)
Skull Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical vertebrae Thoracic vertebran Lumbar vertehrae Pelvis Ribs Scapula Proximal humerus Distal humeros Proximal radío-cubltus Distal radío-cubítus Carpals Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpel Proximal femur Distal fémur Proximal tibia Distal tibia
125.0 100.0 70.42 18.52 32.26 27.78 40.82 11.36 20.0 37.04
12.0 22.0
103.45 121.95 60.0 80.0 138.89 142.86 25.0 114.29 80.0 126.76 25.0 111.11 166.67 97.56 150,0 117.65 117.65 117.65
62.0 73.0 36.0 46.0 83.0 86.0 15.0 69.0 48.0 76.0 15.0 67.0 100.0 59.0 90.0 71.0 71.0 71.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , _..
Tarsals
Astragalus Celceneus Proximal metatarsai Distal metatarsal First phalange Second phalange Thtrd phalenge
Kudu + eland
Wildebeest
----~-
Table 5.03. col. 4
Col. 3 194,57
58,0 70.0 52.0 79.0 41.0 12.0 19.0 44.0 17.0 42.0 72.0 55.0 38.0 42.0 27.0 98.0 84.0 11.0 35.0 49.0 27.0
+ roan + sable
- - - _.......
--"----
x Table 5.04, col. 7
~~-._-------"._--
75,0 60.0 42.0 11.0 19.0 17.0 24.0 '"0
Swarlklip. Figure 5.16 compares the profiles for the reconstructed assembleges of small versus rnedium and large ungulares. Important differences in the way anlmals transporl parts of large versus small animals are tllustrated. The large-animal graphs support the generelteatíon made from the Alaskan data with the exceptton Ihat the heed was less commonly transported. That ís. parts of the axial skeleton are nearly nonexistenl in the den essemblage. As ts the case with the Alaskan data, lower extremities
{9J
._._-------83.75 44.0 36.62 61.11 22.58 19.44 28.57 50.0 16.0 35.19 23.53 134.48 90.24 104.0 56.0 194.44 285.71 17.5 74.29 76.0 125,35 17.5 102.78 91.67 100.0 102.5 64.7 64.7 64.7
Table 5.03, col. 6 Col. 9 285.71 (10) 29,0 15.0 13.0 21.0 80 '"0
10.0 18,0 60
12.0 8"0
47.0 32,0 36.0 20.0 68.0 100.0 M 26.0 27.0 44.0 60
36.0 32.0 35,0 36.0 23.0 23,0 23.0
x Table 5.04, col. 7 (111
Col. 11 260.0 (12)
-----_.- --
56.25 45.0 38.03 16,67 58.06 25.0 36.73 72.73 20.00 16.67 52.92 125.86 178.05 200.00 106.0 227.78 260.00 45.0 77.14 72.0 90.14 67.5 152.78 177,78 109.76 160.0 158.82 158.82 158.62
22,0 17.0 15,0 6"0
22.0 10.0 14.0 28.0 8"0 6"0
20.0 48.0 68.0 77.0 42.0 88.0 100.0 17.0 30.0 28.0 35.0 26.0 59.0 68.0 42.0 62.0 61.0 61.0 61.0
of the front leg as well es substanlial numbers of the upper front leg parts minus tha scapule are constelently representad and are absolutely domtnant. The extremttíes as well as the upper Iimb elements of Ihe rear leg are highly variable, occasionally apprcechíng the levels echteved by the front leg. This te the same condition observed in the wolf den essemblege al Bent Creek (Figures 5.12 and 5.14), The front leg (which, it will be recalíed. is the first lo be disarticulated from Ihe skelelon) ís the rnost conststently rep-
.....
,
5. Assemblnge Composñíon. Porterns !1{ Association Slemming irom the Behuvjor of Mon versus Thm or Beust
228
.
'O'
'.0'
o
4"..
W
" "
t,
o
•Oz" u
"
~8O
"1 --
w" o~~
~.
""LV
,I
.
o w e
1
I I I
u
I
SI\!
~
~
w"
I ""] \
Uw
00
,u
-,
Om "" oo~
."
."e"'
"oc.
M:.~
....~' .,.
"cae ..,-__ ._
Ol • •
ai ~....,
/
_.-.'.---". .. /o"". ,.e.
u •• Au
.0.' .tA." ,.." ~
s""
,:i"
.OPO
"O
•"
~~
"~ Oc
~
ControlCottecuons of AnimaJ-Slruetured Assemb/0.lles
'''I't~. e,,,• ,co .. "
'0
MANO
I
""
I
\
...
,,~
.'M ••• "-.
___
c~
...0
.t~_
_.~\'\;
__
e
,~~~
.C.'
o
...",
BENT CREEI< DEN ASSEMBLAGE . RECONST~UCTED TABLE 5D6,COL.4
FIGURE !I.14. Re/ollonship befween reconstrncted Aloslun wolf den olld kilI ossemblages.
ro
20
30
~o
~
60
1(]
80
,O
---~
50
40
SO
60
60
70
80
90
70
10
90
reo
UlULE
rAeLE S.02,COl.?
O::.--~
-=
.
/¡:r
d- .............
O~III
fAlLE S.02,C01. (11
-"'- "':>0
"""
20
SO
?"-
,,"C
0<:: _ _
----:¡:
D1 lA'
0=.::""-
AST
CAL PMT OMT
p-
4---'....
-------;:JO --c'
PHAL I
,
,/'
2
FIGURE 5.15. Relalionship between renmstrueted dis-crete and palimp5c5t walf kili assemblages.
'0
40
~----
PMC
4.~'"
CHANOLER ASS(MBLAGE - RECQN$TRUCTED TABLE 506,COL.6
100
'O
~-
MEOIUM -LARGE ANIMALS (1
20
CARP
o ~L---c-c.c,-----------.-,---
'oo
10
PRe ORe
.,,"Al'
~
.
100
PH OH
.
."
so
2 ....
TABlE S02,COL ,•
se
....,
::'\." . .....,;,.. •• C
"
....
""""~
"[LV P
I .,
m
"
..
LUM
,,~
se
.0
''''llE 506.COl 2
C [RV THOR
I e..
50
C"'''IlOU~'''' ~
"
I
20
229
SMALL ANIMALS
FIGURE 5.17. Comparison between medium-Io-Iarse ond small ungulares, parls remaining al killlaeuliontl.
100
se
., " U,.
MAND
'OPI
........... r...I LE ~07,COL I
'---
CERV T"'OR
,
'-- ~-;..~ ::e:~'~~7,COl 2
PELV
se
"
PH OH
,"
.". "
....
---- _ ~
~ooo. tLUO 'ABLE507,COL,2
PMC DMC
"or
Pl DT
-----,-,'
TAA AST
CAL PMT ,,"l
PHAL I
, 2
""-
"EEOIlUC" TAlLE 501.COL 6
SP~IflGIO~ TAlLE 6.07, COL.
f:.....
'0
~.
•
W. PHV
===
~~_-
00<
,
CA~.
'., o., "er
«"
~
~
"' or
X<:.:. --~ __ x ~
'" ." 'oc
ir
o., '"' P.A, ,,
•
,
j
.
~
~,
_-==o
p:'"
:~::~;¿~~~~~~.: ,
"se '" ~
SMALL ANIMALS MEDIUM- LARGE ANIMALS fiGURE 5,16. Comparison between meciium.to-l"rge and ¡¡medl ungulates introdueed la animal dr.ns--SwartkJlp re· r:onslrueted fauna.
'0
'HO~
,_X~_
,,
'0
ceev
---='"' ...---x~------ ---.,,;
PRC ORe CARP
.0
~D
~
<.
o.~,
'"'''''",'''
<X:=-_:.'" .> .-Al ¡ ~.
MEDIUM-LARGE ANJMALS
FIGURE 5.18. Comparison b"tween kills und dens for m.dium,'~la",. anima',_
resented in the den eesemblege. A very different pattem is evident for the small animals. There are greatee numbers oí mandibular and neck perts. As for large animals, thoracic and lumbar vertebras as well as nbs are rareo Pelves end scapulae are moderately representad, unlike (he situation for large animals. The front and rear lega are aboul equally variable, with the lower Iimbs dominaling the parte Introduced and Ihe upper limb bones moderately repreeented. Igooriog the Ieg perta, which are structuraily similar, the di(ference appears fa be in the transportability of dtsmembered elemente oCthe axial skeleton. mandible, neck. pelvis. and scapula. aH parte tbet regularly rema¡n al the kili sttes of Ierge animals. The best way to appreciate the rnirror-image pat. tamíng between transponed assemblages and residual kili site essemblages is to compare rhe Swartklip palterning with Ihat from documented kill site assemblages. Figure 5.17 surnmertees Ihe cbservotíorml data of Andrew Hill for small end mecliuml large animals and the inverse o( the patterning demon:>traled by the reconslrucled Swartklip as-
.'
23.
5. ASI>embJage Composition: Pctrems of Association Stemmmg from thl" Behovior 01 Man versus Tnol of Benst
I
TABLE 5.08 A bl Summary Dolo lar Human cmd NonhurmJn KJlls and Transported 80ne ssem 0SC.Ii
!
Ammal-produced assembJlIges .
---
-
Anatomical pert
(7)
ji
92.25
(31
(41
Mandible Atlas Axis Cervical vertebrae Thoracic venebree Lumbar-vartebraa Pelvis
Rtba Scepula Proximal humerus Distal humeros Proximal rlldio-eubitus Dista! radio·cubitu~ Carpals Proximal metaearpal Distal metacarpal Proximal femur Dtstal fémur Proximal tibia Dist.1 tibia Tarsals Astragalua Celceneus Proximal metatarsal Dista.l metatarsal First phelange Second pbalange Third phallmge
51.0 760 54.75 70.0 62.75 56.75 57,75 77.5 36,25 51.75 365 41.75 36.5 2575
-
65.0 100.0 70.0 900 80.U 73.0 74.0 99.0 46.0 66.0 47.0 54.0 47.0 33.0
-38.0
29.75 25.0 29.0 31.5 38.0 44.75
37.0 40.0 49.0 57.0
30.75 25.25 38.0 31.25 17.25 17.25 17.25
39.0 32.0 49.0 40.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
32.0
-
45.25 34.25 29.25 18.0 14.75 9.25 15.0 23.0 8.0 23.5 29.25 61.0 66.5 49.0 43.75 84.75 92.25 14.0 38,75 32.75 49.75 23.25 51.75 62.75 49.5 56.25 56.0 54.25 47.5
-
Dens
----
-
Col. 3
---
Skull
KiIls
Dans
---
(11
Human-produ<:;ed assemblages [cerihou]
Small prey"
Kills ji
231 TABLE S.oa-Conlínued
-----
------
Large prey"
CoL 1 76.0
Control ColJections of Animol-Struetured Assembhrges
_Col. 5
--.
ji (5)
97.33 ('1
-
--
---
49.lJ
37.0
37.0
85U1
67.0
az.c
40.67 31.67 26.33 27.0 6:UJ 97.H 20.67 54.0 3167 47.:13 36.0 24.33
42.0 27.0 26.0 65.0 10n.0 21.0 55.0 33.0 41W
18.33 23.33 33.3 22.33 3633 44.0
19,0 24.0 34.0 23.0 37.0 45.0
200 16.0 10.0 16.0 250 '.0 250
aa.o /i6.0 72.0 53.0 47.0 92.0 100.0 15.0 42,0 36.0 54.0 25.0 56.0 "'.0 54.0 61.0 61.0 59.0 51.0
38.0
san
az.n 250
-
24.33 13.67 420 37.67 B.O 6.5 50
25.0 14.0 43.0 39.0 BO 7.0 5.0
X (7) ---
53.33 87.33 27.:n 54.33 32.00 13.33 24.0 44,0 27.33 26.00 38.68 293:1 22.67 23.67 2233 57U 51.0 12.0 34,f17 36.0 26.67 12.0 47.2 26.0 75.67 79.33 51.0 51.0 51.0
KiIIs
-----
---.t~ 6733 (B)
Anatomical pert
--
61 100.0 31.0 62.0 37,0 15.0 27,0 50.0 31.0 3U.0 44.0 34.0 26.0 27,0 26.0 65.0 58.0 14.0 400 41.0 31.0 14.0 54.0 30.0 87.0 91.0 56.0 58.0 58.0
S!c.ull Mandlble AlIas Axis Cervical vertebral:! Thoracic vertebrae Lumbar vertebras Pelvis Ribs Scapula Proximal humerus Distal humeros Proximal radío-cubitus Distal radio-cubitus Carpals Proximal metecarpal Distal metacarpal Proximal Iemur Distal fémur Proximal tibia Distal tibio Tarsals Astragalus Calcllneus Proximal rneretersaí Distal rnetatersal Firaí phalangB Second phalanp:e Thlrd phalange
'Larga prey = canbou. zebra. topr. aeble. roa... wlldebeest. kudu. elend. and walerbuá. ·Small prey '" gazplle. reedbuck, orib¡. grysbok. and sprlngbok
Residantial
--
Col. 9 85.0 (9)
85.0 68.7 40.0 38.6 36.4 19.4 23.4 22.2 16.9 16.4 14.9 16.7 19,4 26.5 35.8 40.2 42.9 97 10.8 15.7 2IJ3 25.0 25,6 25.6 28.1 28.8 41.6 41.6 41.6
(101
(11]
100.0
3.5 3.5 24.2 24.2 26.0 87.9 62.8 66.9 100.lJ 61.0 71.5 71.5 69,7 69.7 60.9 51.9 51.9 72.6 726 72.2 71.0
81.0 47.0 45.0 43.0 23.0 26.0 26.0
ae.o 19.0 18.0 20,0 23.0 31.0 47.0 47.0 50.0 110 13.0 18,0 24J) 29.0 30.0 30.0 33.0 34.0 49.0
4'-10 4!l,0
0704
67.4 67.4 54.4 54.4 38,7 38.7 38.7
Transport8d
GUI~
------
rCUld -
---
Col. 12
•
-'-5-
Sheep
{12)
Catibau
(13)
Shoop
(t4)
Certbou
flS)
(16)
117)
20.0
25.74
27.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 33.0 27.0 27.0 40.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47,0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 100.0 97,0 730 60.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 73.0 73.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
11.65 35,6 45.5 55.33 46.49 38.9 81.51 100.0 45.06 29.50 29.31 15.18 15.16 5.00 6.37 6.79 7938 80.58 22.71 23.41 6,64 6.64 7.27 6.02 8.46 4.33 4.10 3.49
30 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 7U 7.0 7.0 7.0 70 7.0 70 7.0 15.0 14.S 110 90 8.5 B.5 85 11.0 11.1I
Y.O 90 9.fI
'l. R. Binforll H178b' 71. 'Obtained hy sublradinll culumn~ 14 and [5 fmm tOO and standardlzlng. 'VoJuPnblainad from CI8S~ aums of Tables 5 01. 5.02, ond 5.03. 'IJijld (rum 1.. R. Blnford t97eb, 711, column 10 "IlotaIrnm L. R. Binford 197M>: 2,,9. columll 6 'Dala fmm l. R. Hinfmll 1978b::lll1. eolUlnll 9
j
Analomiclllly based modela
17.49 13.69 23.56 29.64 35.71 45.53 32.05 47.89 49.77 43.47 30.23 29.58 16.77 1782 5.51 8.24 8.83 96.32 100.0 27.57 29.46 11.20 11.23 12.40 15.03 16.24 3.52 3.03 1.85
90.98 91.94 66.95 57.68 46.47 55.69 63.59 19.25 O 57.18 7J.37 73.56 88.27 87.68 96.86 97,44 97.01 21.58 20.21 80,43 79.71 97.16 97.11> 96.69 95.73 95.7] 99.57 99.81 100.00
93.12
67.86 77.77 71.71 65.61 55.59 69.35 53.18 51.26 57.69 71.21 71.86 84.94 63.87 96.42 93.64 93.04 1.72 O 73.91 71.98 90.62 90.59 89,4 66.71 85.48 9B.45 98.96 100.flO
1
232
5. AssembJllge Composition: Pcnems of Assodolion Slemming from the Behcvfor Df Mo" versus Thot of Benst
semblages. (For a cleerer demonstrenon sea Figure 5.18.) For the small animals we note essemblagee dominated by mendíbles and pelves, with neck parts poorly representad [these were well representad in the den assemblages]. It ts aleo interesting thet the fron! leg. the part most consfstently representad in transportad essemblages. is only moderately representad, and then parts of Ihe upper les rather Ihan the extremítíes commonly appear. gxtremíttes are most variably representad by the Jower reer leg, which was observad lo be rnost variable in the den assemblage. For medium or large anirnals, Ihe mírror-ímage effect is most strtktng in that when axial skeleton parts are common, appendicular parts ere rareo When leg parts are [ound, tbey are mosl commonly front leg parts. The reBder sbould keep in mind Ihe remarkable circumstances of these comparísons. The Swartklip assemblage is an ancienl excavated assemblage from South AIrica, which has been "correcled" usiog anatomical information ob· tained from domeslíc sheep and Arctíc caribou. This is ancient corrected data compared to modem obser~
20
~o
30
50
60
70
lO
90
vetíonel data independently collected in Easl Africa. The structural fit between the two ls remarkable. 1 take this fit as slrong support for the position that ínductive generelizaticns may be confidently mede from these dala. Since generalízatton appears jusuñed. 1 have calculated the mean values (Table 5.08) for large and small animal aasemblages as a slatement of central tendency for kills and transported aesemblegee as clessee. These summary data provide a very eesy way of comparing the residual end transported com, ponente of skeletons. For instance, the mirror-image charncter of kili and den assemblages is clearly indicated in Ihe summary data for medium lo large animals illustraled in Figure 5.18. The overall similarity of den versus kíll assemblages is shown when such assemblages are compared by body size class, as in Figure 5.19. Tbe surnmarized contrasts can be taken as first approximalions for the diagnoslic recognition 01 residual versus Iransported assemblages produced by animals. ~
10
to
10
40
50
o-- - - __
"
'''!lH ~08.COL
"" LOM '""" ,
ti".,
.0--
o
_-0-----:.-::.-0
t. _
CERV
70
0<',-----o-_~
F'ELV
~
~
100
_:: ~ __.-_-_- -= -=--=..0
SMALL PREY
MANO
~
$IIIALL PIlEY
........... TA6LE5,08,COL8
_
-o-;~-: :.~-.o
0-.:0:::': .:
""
Ó.
0<:::--:;o"
'" '"' O"'
,,-
CARP
'M' OM'
d
" "" "'" '" '" 'M'
-.(y~~
,$Y
,"-.
LARGE PllEY t ...ILE 5.0S,COL 2
''Q,~,
~
L---
-o -~'
pu,
o::.~~
-" ~." ~~Q" ~--
OM' PHAL I 2
,
.............. L ..."GE TA8LE ~08,COL 4
0::' ,~ _
0..-_--::: ~----------<>. ___ -.:o
0-----
Ó Ó
PARTS ABANDONEO ON KILLS
PARTS INTROOUCEO
ro
DENS
FIGURE 5.19. Campar/san af meon values for remains of 1urge and smalJ onimals abandoned by predalOf'Sal IdUs and lransporled by them lo denso
--
A"
Conlml Coilecnons
of AnimoJ-Slructured Assemb/oges
The importan¡ questton must now be coostdered. Are such aesembtage types distinctive to animals. and can we dtsünguish assemblages generaled by man from those generaled by nonhuman predatorst Answering this question musl res! initially wtth an nptnion, nernely the degree lo which there are in fact assemblage types distinctive of animals and then in turn the degree to whích there are essemblege types dísttncttve of human behavior. Using such an opinion, we may Ihen address the question as lo the dtagnostíc propernes 01 aach that would permil unambigucus and accurate recognition. 11 should be clear by thís time that, besed on the data available from widely differcnt areas and dealing wilh dilferenl predalors (wolf and hyena) as well as prey (a large list), it appears thal there is in faet a regular and redundanl pauern to Ihe consumplion and transport of anatomical parts by nonhuman predalorseavengers, resulting in regular and relatively unambiguous assemblage Iypes. My earlier studies of launal assemblages (L. R. Binford 1978b) from a single hunting society yielded very different types of condusions. It was observed Ihal there were many assemblages forms produced by a single society. Cerlainly there was nolhing Ihat eould be recognized as a distinctively human assemblage. The factors that conditioned this varo iability were found to be numerous; men responded to many situational variables that conditioned the characler of assemblages produced in differing logistica!. social, and systems state condilíons. Upon ceflectíon, Ihis very responsiveness may well be eharacleristic of bumans, since in the animal assemblages such responsiveness appears largely re· stricted to (o) the level of competitiol1 among predalor-scavengers and (bllhe bulk or size of Ihe P&rts available for transporto For inslance, front leg P&rts are more commonly present in dens and scalters, and Hill's observations (1976:143-145) show !hat tbe front leg becomes dismembered earliest in Ihe dismemberment sequence. In addition, the differential frequencies of parts from large versus small animals illustrate nicely thal the selection of parts transported is a simple lunction of whal ls accessible. and wbat is feasible given Ihe size of the predator-scavenger versus Ihe prey. It would also appear Ihat transported parts are Ihe consequences of either marginal competition by subdominanl
233 predetor-ecevengers or Ihe sequentíal scavenging of abandoned kills. Th¡s suggestion derives frnrn the faet that 1a 1 parls representad in transponed assemhlages have been constderebly dtsmembered prior lo transport. and (b) they are conststently perts of relatively low food value. In Iect. thís point is so strikingly a characteristíc of the animal essembleges thal their uanspcrted or den assemblages are most like human kü! essembleges where rational chotees dtcteted the differential abandonment of parts of marginal utility. This is well tlíustrated in Figure 5.20, where the accumulated lolal of parte ebendoned on approximalely 277 individual canbou kills by Nunamiul Eskimo is displayed against the mean values for medium to large prey found in predalor dens, as given in Table 5.08, column 4. Ihe overall structural similarity ls cIear. The major difference between Ihe two is Ihal the den assemblage is more radically variable Ihan is the Nunamiul kills graph, where relatively smoolh Irend Iines are characteristic. More particularly, the den has higher frequencies of more marginal elements Ihan do the human kili sites. with the exception of the head and neck; as we have seen this is variable with predator-prey body size relationships such that the head and neck of smaller prey are much more common than those of larger prey.
, . " . " ' " ' . , ' >,é 10
'" ""
M~N~
.0
.0
~
CERV '~OR
40
>O
..c-~;:O
00
'0
tO
10
lOO
T.'U!.OII.
•
""
PEi.V
,"".
.."",
'\,
b.,,,,, __ ,,
,"e
rup
'"' "" "",," '" '" '"' '"' , ,
'~
~,
P~"'L
,
'.,
1.- -"
:.
FIGURE S.%O. Comparison 01 mean valU65 10" lorge animol5 found in predato,. dens and lound abandonad on NU1IamiuIE'skimo kifl sile~.
,,'
234
I
5. Assemblcge Composiliow Putterns DIAssoctcuon Stemming [rom the Behuvinr oI Mon versus Tha! of Beost
In rny eeelter studíes of Ihe economic enetomy oí sheep end caribou and the way Nunamiut Eskimo employ knowledge oí this anatomy. one tnterestlng cbaractensüc was noted and models based on Ihe enatomy had lo be modíñed to eccount for tt. Th¡s was Ihe phenomenon oí ridíng , mentioned in Chepter 3: íf en enetomtcal elemenl ot high utility was selected for transporto ettacbed cr erttculeted elements of Iesser utility would be transponed with the selected element es long as the package síze remained within 8 gtven trensport tolerance (eee díscuesíon in L. R. Bínfnrd 1978b:271-273). This condilíon implies a number of fects. The degree of dismemberment al the kili is a dírect function of the antícípeted transport problema and schedule. Therefore, trensport chotees were mede among butchering segmenta of the anatomy rather than among bas¡c anatomícel elements as if the animal were completely dtsmembered prior to maktng transpon dectsíone. Given these "fects" the stnct anatomical seales of utility fgeneral utility index, L. R. Binford 1978b:73) for difierent elements of the anatomy segmented prirnarily in terms of individual bones or groups thereoC (the lumbar, thorade, and lower cervical vertebrae were treated as seIs rather than as individual bones). had to be modified to aceommodate the rmdity that decisions were made in terms of Sets oC bones and thal elements of low lo minor ulility frequently rode along with elemenls of high ulility. (See L. R. Binford 1978b:72-75.) It is just this characteristic thal is absent from the animal den assembJages. This fundamental difference is perhaps best iIlustrated by comparing the distributions of the mean den alisemblages and the Eskimo kili population with the general Ulility index (GUI) developed earlier from the analytical study af the anatomy of sheep and caribou. Figure 5.21 illustrates the interesting phenomenon of riding characteristic of the bones af the leg remainíng on Eskimo kills. lt is elesr thal the femur and seapula dislribute as componenls of an ¡nverse curvilinear dislribution-nameiy, the higher the food utHity of the part, the lower ils frequency in Ihe kili site population. On the olher hand, the remaining bones af both legs form an underrepresented subdistribution relative lo the Ulilíty index such Iha! fewer elemenls of low utility are present as a curvilinear fundion af the onatomicol distance away from the high utility parl (Ihe femur or the
..
,, ,,
'" I
~
"
I
J
,,
"
,, ,
o w ~Q
~~ "u
0_
'; ~
';',i~~\
<w zJ
.cA." \ \ .';;~,
," '" ·~lc·.A'\ ," "1 z~
•o J
~
o
"
¡
::1
:l
\ \\ ." .. \ \
"\':;".':~.?:, .'u~ "-
,..~' •••, ~o''- _ "-t'.~·~:"
:':'0':
~0"
---=-__,,
--c-__~_ __ --c--.._~_ __
."."
tARIBOU GlJI TABLE 508. COL. 15
fIGURE 5.21. ReJationshlp &etwee.n toral Nunamlut dis· persed kiJIs ond rlze GUI IQr cotibou.
scapula-humeros). These were simply parts Ihat "rade" with parts of high utilily selec1ed for Iransporl lo analher locatioo for consumption. Anolhet way of viewing this situation is in lerms of dismembermen!. 11 was found amang Ihe Eskimo Ihal Ihe degree of anatomical disorder as measured by dismembermenl rafios (see L. R. Binford 1978b:64-69, 251, 420) was a direcl funclion of the degree to which an animal had been used or consumed. Typically hunlers kill an animal and field butcher il into several parts. These are Ihen carried ultimalely to a consumer localion, where Ihe parts are furlher dismembered into units appropriate to differing foad· preparation techniques. The aet of eating further disarliculates end dismembers the anatomicel parts. Finally, processing of parls for bone grease or marrow may further dissipale Ihe anatomical organization present in the living animal. Thus, Ihe greatest disorganizalion occurs at the sites of consumption, nol al killlocations or locations of procurement. This of course assumes the very human cbaracteristic af food sharing, sleeping, and eating in base camps. It appears thal the general principies involved in underslanding the degr~s of anatomical organiza· tian relative lo conslJmption also apply to predator-
Control Co1Jections af Aninllll·Strucfured Assemblages
scevengers: Major anatomícal dieorganization can be expected al the primary place oí consumptlun. For nonhuman predators. the primary place of consumptíon is the kili site. Any parts removed from the kili añer the dominanl predator completes his Ieedlng will be (a) analomical parls of minor food velue. and lb) parte dtsmembered or dísertículated as a con sequence of prior consumption that was centered on !he kili after 8 successful hunt by the nonhuman predetor. We therafore do not expect much evidence of riding, stnce low-utiHty parts heve been separated from htgh-uulttv parte during consumption. An assemblage trensported by scavengers away from a predator kili site should therefore be antíctpated by the lnverse general ulility index (L. R. Binford 1978b:73), whereas parts ebendoned by human hunters at a kili site should be anñcipated by the tnverse modified general utihty index (L. R. Binford 1978b:72J. The dífference is referable lo the fact that nonhuman predators primarily consume prey al the kili site, whereas human predators primarily consume prey al a base camp where "dependents" tend lo be localized. Also. Ihe selectian of parls for transport lo human consumers from a bulchered bul unconsumed carcass is made from sets ofbones rema ining analomically organized as a simple funclion of decisions as lo the size of Ihe unils that can be transported. This is in contrasl to the scavenger. who picks up parls remaining from acts of consumplion, residual elements Ihal are generally present in inverse anatomical frequencies lo high-íood-value parts. In shorl. they are removed as discrete elements rather tban as components oC a set in which a highfood-value part is the focus of transporto Figure 5.22 illustrates Ihe relalionship between the mean medium-Iarge prey den assemblage and the general utilily index. Clearly Ihere is an inverse curvilinear dislribution, wilh sorne "noise" contrib. uted by the phalanges. carpals, and tarsals, as well as the al1as and axis vertebrae. The phalanges. carpals. and tatsals are aH Hule bones and in my experience Ihey are commonly swallowed whole. They mll.Y be passed complele in Ihe feces of predator-scavengers, bul Ihey may also be dissolved beyond recagnition in Ihe diRestive tract (parlicularly Ihe small larsal and carpal bones, which are consistently underrepresented in Klein's Swarlklip assemblages bul rel·
I.."-" '" ", -,,-,-".i
"~"',,'
235 O~
'00
~
-.
w e
,
90
.\~C
"
\
z
\
...,
." ªB. "r' }:c,:;':E:, ... ," ~~ ·c'." \ e
·CAC
.
"w w" N" -<
I•• ~Al' .0'" '
.0
\
~
\
\\
~~
'0,
.,..
\
A1.
".. \
,
~
oo.
'~u.o ..,
...
'u'"
oc.
"-
,Ol,"
'
.".. '>''"0.. •• "
"L_. <
"
CAR160U GUI
TABLE 508,COLl5
FIGURE 5.22. Relotionshlp befween meon frequencies lar bones al lorse prey lound in dens ond the GVl /ar enribau.
assemblages). It is my guass Ihat Klein's sample does not inelude bone froro the defecation area around Ihe original Swartklip den. which is where most of these small bones mighl be e'lpected to oc· curoThe "noisy" behaviar of the atlas and axis stems from the fact Ihat 1 trealed Ihese verlebrae individuaUy in rny analomical studies and in my experience with animal dismembermenl they actually ride with the skull and cervical verlebrae, respectively. That is, the alias more cnmmonly rides with the skull and Ihe axis more commonly rides with the cervical verlebrae. Given this knowledge, I have altered Ihe general ulility index for Ihe atlas by multiplying the value of Ihe sk.ull by 2 and the value oí the cervical vertebrae by 1 and dividing by 3. The same procedure was used for Ihe axis, with the exception Ihat Ihe double weighling was in favor of Ihe cervical vertebrae. Table 5.08 gives the general ulilíty index as altered for Ihe alias and axis in both direct and inverse forms. I turn now lo Ihe interesting queslion oE Ihe relaIionship belween what men carry away froro a kili for consumption elsewhere and what animals leave al a kili after consumplion. Does the interesling op·
S. ASl/amblage Compasillon: Pctrems 01 Associctscn SIemming from the Behctvior of Men versus That of Doosl
2.8
posltlon conunue to hold between animal and human assemblegesj In short. is what men carry away similar lo what an'amals abendon al kil[s? A partial answer is supplied by Figure 5.23, where íhe mean for the documentad animal kili sita assemblages (Table 5.08, column 2) is plotted agaínst Ihe frequencíes of parte actually transponed by the Eskimo to Anaktuvuk vtllsge and placed in storage duríng fhespring of 1972 (Table 5.08, column 13). 11 is clear that toe overall structure of Ihe two populatíons ts similar. Neveetheless, tbere are differences Iba! may well be important for distinguishing between the two contexts:
.,. ..." ."
.
,00 I
w
~
eCUO
~
eIT
a..
." a.8 o. !!:cri
~/
(.T"O........
/ •• c
e',' •• ,1
e....
-o '0
.0'
-,
.0' I I
I
.0 ~,..;
i~
.W· .-------
.,.
W·
OIOC'
::,
e
( ....
" " <, ~
."
<,
C l '
e.""
~,
o,~
I .,. I
, . ' e •• oc
1. An underrepresentation of the femur relativa to the tibia et animal kills, presumably repre-
senhng destruction duriog dismemberment or biased removal durlng competitive feeding (sae also Figure 5.21). 2. An underrepresentation of the proximal humerus and the distal radio·cubitus at animal kills, presumably deriving from their destruc· tion during dismemberment by biting lInd gnawing 3. More pelves and fewer ribs al animal kills,
..
.".
'0
~- ---1
MA~O
l).
C(RV
_
T~OR
"" P'L. "" '" ""o",
'o
lo
00
'00
... A.~
.~
CARIBOU GUI TABLE 50B.COL,15
FlGURE 5.24. RelaflonJhip between parts remainlf18 al the "averose" kili slte lor large.sized prey and the GUI lor caribou.
with the reverse pattero for human-transported materials. 4. Relatively high frequendes of head and neck parts at animal hUs. with greatiy reducen numbers of these parts in human.transporten assemblages. These differences are believed to be the conseqllenee of Iwo conditions:
,,1;!T'
1. Animal kills are largely dispersed as a fune·
}"";:;,, ' h••• oorlO •
'"'
e"
U~.
."' O"'
t
"
""' "' ,,"
'" '"' O"'
-z -'0
"O
.....L MILl' , . . . . . O•• COl'
---..
,,
PIl.l'
.o
"""lo'" ••
,
,",U"U" ,C.L'.
"LL'O'
-~
(
J
r.r" LARGE ANIMALS
FIGURE 5.23. Compari.~o" betwcen parts traflsponed lor storage at Anak'uvuk IImage and mean valuell lor parls abondaned on predator kiJIs.
tion of Ihe relative strength of articulations. Neeks, for example, remain aUachad to thoracic vertebrae on animal kills but mey be removed with euUing tools in human conlexts. 2. There is a size-related probabilily lo parts being dispersed or transported from Rn animal 'Kili, whereas man may generate appropriatesize unils through conlrolled dismemhermen t using lools. These eonlrasting proparties are perhaps seen more c1early when Ihe predalor kili assemblage is arrayed againsl Ihe general utility index (Figure 5.24). In this display a generalizad positive and linear relation-
237
Summary
ship ts tndícated. with sorne interesting "noisy" parts: the femur, ríbs, scepula. thoracíc vertebeee. and proximal humerus. whích are underrepresented relalive te other parts as arranged relativa lo the general utility indexo These are high-food- v alue perts end we might víew thetr moderate frequeneies at kills in eeveral ways. Pírst. the femur is demonstrably overrepresented in the den assemblages, suggesttng that if a predator ís harreseed he may well secura the choice part and withdraw for consumption under celm. protected. noncnmpatit¡ ve condítíons. This postulated behavíor mighl well account for Ihe minar underrepresentetion of the thoraclc vertebrae and ribs, parts ept to be artículeted early in a sequence of consumpuon as would be the scapule and proximal humeros. elso marginal1y underrepresented. Whatever Ihe behavioral basis for the moderate occurrence of the highest utility parts in Ihe animal kiH assemblages. it is clear that, as in Ihe earHer comparison, what man Iransporls animaJs generollr Jaove behind and what anima/s laave al a kjJJ mon general/y transports. This behavior is understandable in terms of the locus of consumption. Animals do the major part of their consumption al the kili, wherBe!i man transports the consumable parts aWIlY from the kili to a eamp or residence. Since dismemberment and differential destruction of parts associated with eonsumption occur prior lo the transport of parts by animal s, and man makes transport decisions befare consumption and related dismemberment and dealruclion, it has been argued that diagnostic differences betwcen the faunal assemblages generaled by animals versus men can be expected. Transported assemblages such as lhose found in animal dens are enlicipated quite well by the inverse general ulility index, whereas the un· transported human enalogy-the kili site-is antidpated by Ihe inverse modified general utilily index. The laner was developed lo Ilccommodate Ihe particularly human eharacteristic of riding, Ihal is parts of lower utility moving with parts of higher utility. since consumption-related or complete dismemberment does not take place at a human kili site. There is a similar opposilion between analogous assemblages of partfl remaining al predator kills versus the parts introduced by men in lo base camps.
Summary Dtagnosíng Iormatínn processes operatíve in the paat as well as the agente responaíble for the bones incIuded in deposite appeers quite feesíble. On the other hand, our current knowledge of variebílíty as generated by man appears elmost overwhelming in tts diversity [see Binford 1978h). More confusing ís Ihe fact that man is cepable of generating faunal assemblages very similar lo those genereted by other anlmals. As more studíes are conducted, the díversity in assemblage composition as documentad for man wll1 almost certainly grcw. Despitethis tncrease in knowledge of d tversity there ís no reason lo belleve that any of it necesscnly represents the form of patterning our earhest hominid anceetors generated when they took their first exploratory steps into the world of meat eating, scavenging, and predation with the attendant generation of faunal assemblages. What has been forcefully demonstrated, once again, is tha1 man's bahavior is extremety variable and re· sponsively flexible to external conditions. With re· gllrd to behaviorally generaled phenomena such as faunal assemblages, one cannot expect to understand the variability in terms of Aristotelian ideas of "for· mal causation." These assemblages are not the way they are because of the humanness inherent in Ihem. Yau might say the di...ersity itselfmay be referable to the hurnanness of Iheir production, but this ls of Bttle aid in diagnosing a given case. It should be cIeal by now that Ihere appears liule chance of recogniziog generalized formal causes for diagnosing man as the exclusive agenl of faunal remains perseved lo us from al\ limes and places. In my earlier sludy of Nunamiut behaviar 1 demonstrated over and over agaio Ihat en assemblage was the vectoral sum of a numher oí strategy decisions end their Iinked behllviors. Redundancy in patteming was a function of renundancy in the colerminus al a number of similar eonditioning and or causal determinants. Assemblages were not similar because each had a eommon cause, but inslead because of having been conditioned by a similar configuralion of numeraus causal faclors. Many of tha same delermiOlmls frequently conditioned very dUferent looking assemblages because of playing differ· inR "roles" in Ihe ovemll causal configuration. Our
.....
'
za8
Summary
5. J'\ssemb/ogll Composition; Pcnerns of Associotion Stemmíngfrom the Behcvtorof Man versus That of aeest
task in facíng such a sttuetton Is the recognilion of the dímenstons of determínecy and ways of measuring theír various "strengths'' in the overall configuralions of determinant conditions. We should never ínvent a particular scenertc to accomrnodate eech unique combínetíon. Our job ls the analysis of petterníng. nol the accornmodation of each uníque form to a unique situalional picture of the pest. A very ímportant reseerch step musí be added to the old procedure of pattern reccgnítion followed by post hoc accommoderíon or Interpretetton. We mus! seek ways of analyzing the patterning for purposes of isolating the number and identily of delerminants thet ected to generate the observed pattern. Only after we can identify the determinant can we even hope lo begin the difficult task of "reconstructing" the character of the past from the remnant effects of past dynamics. In the case of faunal assemblages, part of Ihe analytical strategy must be the ability to recogRize unambiguously Ihe effecls of action by nonhominid agents. As we saw in the last chapt8r, Ihere does appear to be an impressive degree of redundancy among faunal assemblages producad by various nonhominid predator-scavengers operating on a variety ofprey forms. It also appears quite possible to spedfy diagnostic formal causes or essential characlerislics referable to nonhuman predator-scavengers as the a8ents responsible for certain faunal assemblages. This possibilily is slrongly suggested by the comparative studies presenled in this chapter. It would appear tha! we can make strong uniformitarian assumplions about nonhominid predator--scavenger behavioras a cause ofredundanl patterning in faunal assemblages. The necessary relationship between the animal-the bear-and its footprinl, particular formal characteristics of faunal assemblages, seems to ba referable to Ihe analomical Iimitalions of these animals for performing certain mechanical tasks. In short, the necessary conneetion arises as a resull of biological conditioners or limitations on the animals' behavior. No such limitalion seems operative with respect to tool-using man viewed in a generic sense. Our knowledge of human behavior indicates much greater variability, and even sorne behador that mighl appear very similar to non human prad-
tlnued. Insteed. new pettern-recognítton studies were conducted by Wheat on anatomical segmenta. and by Frison nn bone deslruction and modíñcenon. In turn new interpretative arguments were offered and each reseercher tended to gutde "fcllowera'' in the procedures worked out by Ihemselves. Earlier pettem-recognttnm procedures. for ínstance. those developed by White and expended by Wood (1968), Dibble end Lorraín (1968), and Kehoe 1196/}, were largely ignored. This seems to be a classic example of Ihe type of "one-síded" or Incomplete erchaeological reseerch that I (L. R. 8inford 1968a, 1968b) argued egaínst in the late 1960s. 1 suggested that archaeology largely operated as íf it díd not need lo evalute the arguments edvenced about the pas!.
etors. 1 think we would be foolísh to attempt to rnake uníformtterten essumpttons to all times and places about the documenled patterns ofhuman behavtcr as rnanifest in animal bone assemblages. It is very difficult indeed to imagine whal the behavior of the eerlv hominids might have been. or how iI mighl compare with thal of modero humens. or encient nonhominids íoe Ihat matter. One Ihing that we might well anttcípate. particularly sínce tbere eould be sorne ambíguíty between animal assemblages and modern human assernbleges. ls that lsolettng the oheracterístícs of faunal assembleges. which are referable lo very early hominids, represente a methodologtcel challenge not apilo be as simple as developíng contrasts belween animal behavíor and human behavior. The histories of research as summarized here provide an inleresting sel of contrasts relalive to my earHer arguments that aclualistic studies are cenlri11 to furthering our abililies as archaeologists to know wilh confidence certain things about the pas!. American research clear\y exhibited greal skill in patlern-recognition studies. White's (1953a, 1953b) study of analomical parls clearly was a major ad· vanee in recognizing palterning preserved in archaeological malerials. While oUered provocative post hoc argumenls to accommodale the facts as he had observed them. These argumenls cited several diUerent causes of variability: 1. Differential destruclion of anatomical parts
during bulchering 2. Differenlial abandonmenl of analomical parts doring Iransport of meat between killlocations and residential locations 3. Biased inlroduction of sorne parts to residen· tial sites for Use as 100ls White'g pattern-recognition procedures were followecl and assemblages of fauna described in a number of later studies. The resull was Ihe description of increasing variely in assemblage compasition. There was also sorne increasing uneasine.'ls thal aH the causes of variabilily had nol been specified, particularly regarding differential preservation. Then, there was a seeming lack of ¡nterest expressed and no investigalion of the '·causes" for observed patterning was .'ltarled: liule comparative work con-
In stressing indul:\ion l'lnd Ihe drawing of sound inference, then, the slress fl'llIs on Ihe psychological issue, ... ofhow lo ffil'lke meaningfulslalementsabout arcnaeological feffiains and what they representfoom the pas!. Whal is argued here is lhat the gent!Talion of infl:lfenCeS regarding awarBness of as greal a range of variabilily in socioculturalphenomena as posslblel'lnd the dlation of analogy to living peoples are nol belittled here, lhe maln point ... is Ih81 independent means for leslinR propositions8bout the past must be developed. Such means must bll considerablv more rigorous than evaluating an aulhor's .. profess·ional competence or intellectual honesty IL. R. Binford 1968a:171. This faBure even to recognize Ihe role of evaluating ideas was derived direclly from Ihe canons of traditional archaeology so well summarized by Raymond Thompson: "The final judgment of any ar· chaeologisl's cultural reconstruction must Iharefore be based on an appraisal of his professional compelence [Thompson 1956:331[." Given this viewpoint, Ihe tradilional aro chaeologisl would not be concerned wilh evaluating his ideas per se, only with performing in such a way as lo enhance his professional status. Given a growlh in professional competence, Ihen, one's ideas would be both accepted and adopted by appeals to one's authority. The enlire epislemology of tradilional archae. ology was a complicaled se! of role convenlioos considered appropriate to Ihe status of Ihe archaeologist. lf an archaeologisl performed weU in these roles.
1
za9 competence was gradually established and his ideas would be taken seriously. Eventually they might be eccepted by virtue of "esteblíshed" competenca. Epislemology was linked to the socíclogy of Ihe field. Truth was the natural result oí a person performing wel1 in a soctotogtcel sense! What were sorne of the gutdelínes for establishing one's competence? 1. "The importance of the erchaeolcgtee's par-
ticular skills and víews in the recognition of the indicativa quality has been particularly emphasized lThornpson 1956:331J." This is simply the ability to recognize patterníng in tha archaeological record. Palterning has "indicat. ive potential" and the ability to recognize this is important in the eyes of tradmanal archaeologists. There was an additional emphasis on the skills of a traditional archaeologist as a typologist, one who had the ability lo speeify patterning in material things. "Competence" or "status" was certainly enhanced when a typology was adopted by others or when new forms of patterning were discovered, as was the case wilh White's recognition of patlerning in faunal as.'lemblage variability. The number and variety of new patterns recognized was considered a measure of one's professional compelence: 2. "These same faculties are employed ... first in the search for analogou8 data, and then in Ihe demonstration of the nature, of the relationship between Ihis malerial and the archaeological evidence [Thompson 1956:3311." Here Thompson gives us anather criterion far assessing professional competence--schalarship. Scholarship is the ability to recover from the litera. lure of history, ethnohistory, and archaeology evidence for similarities and differences. Similarilies between archaeologically reeovered material and Ihings described in !he Iiterature are related as formal analogies: What l'lctuaJly happens is Ihat he I:ompnes an arUfact Iype whkh is derived from archaBologkal d8ta with a similar type in 11 known lifesilulltion Ifthe resembl8nce in lhe form of lhe two arlifaCIIVpl"" ill reasonablyclose, he ¡nfers that Ihe archlleologil:BI type shares the tech-
,
. ''
,
240
5. Assemblage Composition: Palterns af Assocrcñon Sternming from the Behavior of Men versus Thot of Beost
ntque. behavíor, or nther culturalactivlty which 18USUally associated with Ihe ethnograpbic type (Thompson 1956:329].
Prudence was the watchword Ior ínterpretíng aro cheeologícal remaíns. Sínce the besíc criterion for judging whether an tnterpretatíon was warrented rested with the degree to which one could document en ethnographic analogy, it was c1ear that víews of the pest would be directly linked and limited to the information OT knowledge that was by chanca preservad ethnographically end/or hístorícelly. ODe could not demonstrete professional competence through speculatlon or by demonstratlng imaginativa ínsígbt. The latter was what was cíted by the frequent derogatory remark that someone's argumeot was "only theory." Professional reputatioos could only suffer froro iodulging in "theoretical" discussion: 3. "The sensitivity for the indicative quality is not an uncanny and inexplicable ability which only certain gifted individuals possess. Rather, it is Ihe comblnation of Iheinvestigator's anthropologicol background or tmining, his archaeological experience, which is often called familiarity with Ihe material, and his in· tel/ectual capacity [Thompson 1956:328; em· phasis mine]." This final criterion for judging one's professional competence may be translated into practical terms in a variety of ways. In the field of archaeology as I was introduced to il, the criterion of "the investigator's aothropological background" was best seen as the prejudged quality of the school from which the io· vestigator was graduated. Ir one was from a "good" school. then ooe's background was assumed to be also "good." The criterion of "archaeological experience" is best translated into several separate criteria. Clearly the amollnt of experience was of ulmost importance. This ensured that the older one was the gmater one's "competence" and hence the more sage one'S words. Young people should be "seen and nol heard." The character of an investigator's experience was also of importaoce. To speak with authority, one had lo have had extensive field experience in the area of mlevance to the discussion. For inslance, I can re-
1
member frequent comments after I wrote "Post, Pletstocene Adaptetíons'' (Binford 1968c) to the etfect that such a paper should not be taken seriously atnce "after all he has never even been lo [armn." One should not attempt statements ebcut things not seen. touched. counted. and otherwise "com, municated with" quite díreotly. This meent that for ell practica! purposs careers were forced into more and more provincial molds. One reelly gained very líttle competence capital by moving from one area to another. This also meent that the only Itterature of useful relevance to one's competence rating was the ethnographic and hístortcel literature of one's own local area. "Why should 1read about Eskimos when 1 study Plains archaeology? After a1l Eskimos are not analogous to the Arikara or Mandan!" The final implication was that one should not re· ally talk aboul the past, since it could not be experienced. AH one could do "safely" was to orfar generalizations about the archaeological record it· self. Speculation as to what it all meant was left to barroom conversation. Truth viewed as a natural consequence of career success diclated that middle-range msearch played no role whatsoever in archaeology. We were assured of endless digging, taxonomic redefinition, and very "safe" inlerpretations from ethnographic analogy. Against this backdrop Joe Ben Wheat's work was prudent, basad as it was on elhnographic analogy and clearly representing a demonstration of his ability to dig and to recognize patterning. What is important is thal this patterning was different and had not been previously discussed. George Frisan attempted a real innovalion. What better authority for warranting an inference regarding bison hunting, or butchering, or rustic living than to say that YOll had shared the experiences, and done the things being inferred. Egographic analogy became the fina! appeal to authority. Traditional archaeology moved along, never evaluating ideas, only people. Change proceeds at roughly the tate of generational replacement. olher things being equaL and the charae· ter of Ihe fie!d during any one generation is largely slylistically dominated by severa! "authorities." Their approaches to the field are like any other fad, being dropped as new "mentors" establish their "professional compelence" and their particular styles of archaeologir:al discourse. This slate of the
_."-- --- -
4q
Summury
art in American archeeology Is certaínly the reason that no rniddle-range reseerch was conducted to evalute the argumenta of While, to seek an understand. ing of the patterníng observed, or to build constructively from the contributions of eolleagues. In Africa, the sttuatíon was somewhat more rough end ready. How does one argue from ethnographic analogy to the behavior of Australopithecus? How does ene cope with controversial or even "recklese" arguments when they are advanced by the recognized authorities in the ñeldj This book started with a dedícetíon to David Clarke and a dtscusston of erchaeologtcal melaphysics. In ettemptíng to characterize the "state of the ert" in Africa, for ínstence, relativa te North America it occUtred to me that they differed signifi. cant1y in wbat David Clarke (1973) referred to as "innocence." In several places 1 have suggested that the paradigm shift to a behavioral coneero for the causes of the archaological record was a shift that occurred in Africanists' studies in the late 1950s. I see this largely as a response to the behavioral claims of Raymond Dart that was consistent with interest in learoing something about the behavior of oUt earliest ancestors. This shift was an "innocent" shift in that the questions flowed naturally from the research and did not fol1ow a major call for "new directions" or any philosophical discussions of what archaeology was and where it should be going. Aclualistic studies were initiated as the "obvious" things to be done. On the other band, in North America there was a clear "Ioss of innocence" regarding the overall character of the field of archaeology beginning in Ihe late 1950s and continuing through the early 1970s. This 10ss was so fundamental and basic that there was a seemingly endless debate over procedure, definilions, concepts, and goaIs. Nothing seemed to flow naturally from the questions being ínvestigated, since Ihe questions were largely self-conscious questions regarding the field Hself, not its subject matter of interest~the pasl. 80th of these states are considered counter· productive. Mricanist studies must lose their inno· eence. From an American perspective, regardless of one's disciplinary bias, many of the arguments of(ered by leading Africanists seem painfully innocent. At the same time these researchers seem to ap-
1
241 preciate the role of middle-range research and the ímportance of actualísttc studies. 00 the uther hand many Americanists' studtes. while spouting forth anything but "innocence," show an amazing Ieck of methodological insight and rarely exhibit any appreciation for the role of middle-range research. Egographic analogy ís offered as preferable to ethnographic enelogy. Others may claim to evoíd analogy completely and seek "anomaly" as a meens to understandíng! Still others claím to avoíd inferential methods and to seek direct empirical knowledge of the pasl. Finally, others claím that scíence ís ímproper in archaeology since man beheved with free will; therefore explanation in any scientific sense is frnitless. Africa is long on innocence, and methods; America is short on innocence and short on methods. There is an implied set of conclusions emhedded in this study. Under tradilional ideas of archaeology the field was thought to be advanced by increased exploration in the archaeological record. Digging more sites, increasing the documentation of field observations, piece plotting finds, saving bones, and so forth, aH these advances in observational strategies were taken as indisputably good. lt is true, as 1 have frequently emphasized, that until we have recognized a pattern in the archaeologica! record, we cannot be expecled to carry out middle-range research seeking to clarify its meaning. 1 have also pointed oul that when we do carry out middle-range research, we most often find that we have not recorded the "facts" of the archaeological record in usable ways. MBny times this is not just a matter of format in reporting. It frequently implicates the more important area of field recording. We cannot go back and record facts that were destroyed through excava· tion, nor can we go back and recover things that were discarded as irrelevant at the time of excavation (e.g., hone splinters nint flakes, caroon samples). "Who would discard carboll samples?" 1 would have to reply almost all the archaeologists working before the perfection of carbon-14 methods of analysis. The object lesson is the same for any methodology that might be developed through middle·range research. Unlil we have methods, we really do not know what faets are usefu!. Archaeology must progress by virtue of methodological development alternating with its application. The lauer exposes to us new forms of
•
242
5.
Assembfcge Compositíon: Pctterns of Associa!ionSlemmingfrom the Behuviur of Mon versus Thal of Becst
patterning, which then prompts more míddle-renge research, and so un. Al any ene time the Iield might be considerad pattern rich and method peor; and al other limes tt appeers method rich end short on new knowledge of the arcbeeologtcal record. We are method poor. Traditional archaeology did DOt recognize míddle-renge reeeerch as par! of the field, or as even necessary to the field. We have a backlog of ínvestigettcns of the archeeclogtcel record that are almost certetn lo preve ínedequete once we have developed methods for relíably giving meaning to aro chaeologtcal phenomena. The facts demanded by the
methods are almos! certaín lo have been overlooked or recorded in ambiguous ways. rendering the "dala" from even our best excavattons relalively useless. We need lo discourage continuous exploratory exccvcrron al Ihe present time. It will almost certainly preve a waste of the resourees in the archaeologrcal record. Wa need a concentrated effort on mtddle-range reseerch. We need lo develop whole new methodologtes. If successful. new excavalions will yield information never draamed of by contemporary excevatíon-onented ercheeologtsts.
In Part 1 of this book 1 dlscussed the Jimitations of rhe use of urchoeologicoJ observotions for the development of methodology. In Part ll, 1 excmrned in sorne detoil the chcmctertsñc potterns of bcne modification and dístrlbutlon that might render recognizoble the octions of non human predctcr-sccvengers os opposed to hominids os ccntributors to assembloges yielding archaeoJogicaJ remoins. 1 discussed the Ioglc of middie-rnnge resecrch, and then proceeded to execute. through actuaJistic study, resecrch designed to yield relevnnt informoñon. In thls part of the book we roce a very different problem, a question that wcs asked eorher but never cnswered: How do we curve out knowledge from ígnoruncej Having dlscussed whot constitutes relevant information for the deveJopment of method, and having engoged in such reseorch. I now wish to oddress rhe important question of how we use
Part 111 Putting our knowledge to work: Seeking to know the past , 1.1
j:
243
----------------4
I
244
Part lfI. Putung Our Knowledge lo Work: Seekin.ll lo Know the Posl
secure knowledge te elucidate conditions or events in the post cbout whlch we destre knowledge. In shcrt, how do we develop research methods? We now foce squorely the proceduroJ challenge of how te use ccntempornry knowledge fa lnvesñgcte situotíons ond conditioos of which we hove no direct experience. How do we use our observationol lcngucge, and our secure inteJJectuaI "cnchors" fa probé a post the chcrccter of which is unknown te us? It has been pctnted out many times thct there were likeJy to hove been forrns of cultural systems extant in the post, as weJJ os sietes of systems ond condíttons of humanity, that ore not even vcguely represented in the modero world (see, e.g., S. R. Binford 19680; Freemon 1968; R. A. Gould 1980). How do we proceed, using only a secure knowledge of octuolistic experience te reccgnrze ond dícgnose cccurctely events and condñíons thct ore no lcnger represented in the world of cur experience? This is o chullenge in the oreo generally referred te os the "context of díscovery." Unñl Quite recently phiJosophers of science tended to concern themselves with the context of justification or conjfrmcñon (see Suppe 1977:716). Ideas were treated as "received" ond one concemed oneseIf wjfh evaluating lhem after they had been generated (see HempeJ 1965:6). One good reasonfor this avoidonce was that jf was nof clear how generalizafions couJd be offered regarding the various ways scientists proceeded in their ottempts ot díscovery. The apparent lock of susceptíbility to formal sysfemization led to the suggesHon that "archaeologists should be concerned more wifh how to justify their concJusions and less with how to generate them [Sullivan 1978:185J." 1consider this position to be shortsighted and self-defeatingfor practicing archaeologists. We must mole decisions and design research strategies. We must therefore mtionaUy consider and discuss ways Ihat we can use our secure knowledge to tease our ignorance for new insights and ideas. One very importont strategy is conducting middle-range research itself. This is well ilJustrated in the ideas generoted by archaeologists about the choraeter of the post, such as Frison's (197D) muscJe stripping with bone tools model, or Perkins and DaJy's (1968) schlepp effect model, or Brain's whole-animal model of the Makapansgat post. Each of these was on innovative post hoc accommodative orgument that wos offered to explain specific archaeoJogicol observations. As such they were fantasy, generally unsupported by middle-range research. If such arguments were adopted, as methods, as secure procedures for inference, as has been done by many-Stonford (19790) and Johnson (1978) on Ihe Plains, Klein f1976a) with his use of the schJepp effeet to explain his African data, and rny Dwn acceptonce of Broin's whole-animal model for Makaponsgat in the face Df at least 25% unexpJaine.d variance--we are on fhe road to
die Pcrt HI. Putling Our KnowJedge lo Work: Seektng te Know the Posl
myth mcking.! The intemctíon between post hoc arguments as to what the post was like ond scientific Investígnñcns lo evaluate componente of such crguments is ct Jecst one valuabJe context in which knowledge has the chcnce of being refined and accumulated. It is Ihis interaction thut has ensured that resenrch treating the problem of the choracter of ecrly hominid behavior has been sorne of the most progressfve in orchceology. 1 term ir progressive beca use the investment in middle-range research through actuolistic field sfudies has been high. Conducting middle-ronge research itself, however, is not enough. One must be ab1e to use the knowledge gained through such studíes to design research procedures that wiJI be Jikely to yield more provocctlve observetlons of relevcnce to the post. As an exomple, 1 wiJI tole the research previously reviewed regording differential bone preservetlon. Broin's middle-range work established the role of differential presenration and began to explore something of its causes. He did not provide us with a set of methods. My work in conjunction with Jock Bertrorn (1. R. Binford and J. B. Bertrarn 1977) carried further the middle-range research storted by Bmin. We perhaps refined the argumenls obout the properties of bone that conditioned its susceptibiHty to destruction, and isoloted some of the factors that conditioned the distribution of this property in a population of onimals (e.g.• the age structure of the population acted upon by destructive ogents). We did not develop practicol methods for using this informotion to isolate other sources of variabiJity Of causes thot moy have also conditioned the character of archaeologicoJly importont faunal assembJages. We were in the posifion of knowing rather securely one source of potentiol voriobility in faunal nssemblages. We did not know how to use Ihis information os nn aid for isolating other causes that may well hove olso operated on an assembJage in the post. This sHuation was seen in the tendency ofAfricanists to note the sirnilarities amnng assemblages, presumably deriving from their all hoving been subjected to various destructive agents, and therefore dismiss lhe "unpatterned" variobiJity remojning as "noise" (as in the case of my work with BertfOm (L. R. Binford and /. B. Bertram 1977) or as in the case of Mary Leokey's treatment ofthe Olduvoi fauna discussed in Chapter 6). The point is that assembJages generaJly hove multipIe causes. We must use our knowledge of sorne causes Jinked to Iheir diagnostic effeets much as is done in chemical Qualitative anoIysis. Given on unknown we perform various tests with eoch, eliminating known eJements or compounds fram the unknown material. That ¡s, we continuolJy breok the unknown down into recognizabJe constituents. By this eJiminative procedure we increasingly isolate our lit i~ only when post hoc orgumenl rernains unevalualed and its prior existence is citli!d as o ills1ifir:atíon for subsequent US!' lh~t conventioos arise and rnyths become eslabJLqhed
~ 245
I 246
Purt llJ. Putting Our Knowledge to work. Seeking lo Know the Post
Igncmnce. The resldue from our use of knowJedge thct should recelve our research attention eventually appears uncomplicated by the constituents obout which we aJready hove sorne understanding. This is essentiaJJy Joho S. Mill's canon 01 residues: "Subduct from nny phenomenon such part as is known by prevlcus inductions te be the effect o/ certctn cntecedents, and (he resldue of the phenomencn is the effects of (he remaining antecedents [MilJ 1850:233)." This seems to me to be particuJarly appropriate to a situaUon in which we suspect thct hominids contributed to un assembJage, toe Instnnce by virtue of there being stone tools in a deposito We are 0150awore thct cther agents probably contributed to the deposit, as in Mary Lenkey's recogniñon (1971:277) that other predotor-sccvengers aeted on the assembJages ct OJduvai Gorge: "hyaenas and other scnvengers are known to hcve gnawed the bones." If we can use our knowledge of anima1-generoted assemblages as welJ as anima1-modified bones to eliminate their contrfbutlcn to rhe Olduvai assemblages as documented in the field, we may gcln thereby a dearer, unduttered picture of the characteristics of the fauna that are referable to the behavior of hominids. This is the overoll methodology 1 wiJI attempt to deve10p using the knowJedge generated through middJe-ronge reseorch into animal behovior and its conseQuences. J do noi wish to imply that tha methodology being explored here is the onJy one or even the best one. It is, however. o methodology that has the merit of decreasing the chonce thol we wjJJ make George Frison's and Raymond Dort's error and deveJop post hoc occommodative arguments to "expJain" in human terms facts thot were generated by gnawing animals. The procedure does not ensure that we will nof err in our reconstruetions of the past, but it does tend to offer some insuronee ogainst reeonstructions based on facts irrelevont to hominid behovior. The reader may see some simiJarities between my adoption of MilJ's method of residues, and the "method of muHiple working hypofheses" and "arguments from elimination" mentioned elsewhere in Ihis book. Jt is true thot they aH have some eJements in common, porlir:uJorly MilJ's approach and thal of Chamberlin's (1965) method of mulliple working hypotheses: an adequate explanation often involvas tha coordinatlon of severalllgem;ies. which enhn inlo Ihe combined resull in varying proportions. Tha trua axplllnatiofl is Iherefore necessorily comp[p.x _. we are so prone toaltributea phenomenon lo a singl8 cause.lhal. when we find en agency present, we are liable to rest satisfied therewith. and htilla rccognize Ihal it is bul ane factor, and perchance a minor faclor, in Ihe accomplishmenl of Ihe lolal result IChamberlin 1965:7561.
In this sen se, this entire book is an exercise in the method of mulfiple working hypotheses-that is, in the sense of recognizing tha! multiple causal agents and conditions ore JikeJy to influence the forros in which
-
.s:-' Pcrt IIJ. Putting Our Krrowledge lo Work: Seeking to Know the Pust
we see both things and associotions of things derlved from the crchceological record. 10m seeking methods that wilJ permit the assessment of the relative roJes of different agents andlor causes. In short, I am seeking ways of measuring the contributions of different agents and causes. This is very different from the way that the term multíple working hypotheses is used by sorne. Not uncornrnonly we hecr the daim thot the method of multiple working hypctheses is beíng used when an mvestigutor cites severo! possible causes-"it could be the work of lions, It could be the work of hominids, it couJd be the work of spcce men, it could be an occidental cccurrence of ncture," and so en. The investigator then employs urt crgument from elimination to warrant his opinion as to which cause is correct. This ís (] Jdnd of Quid and dirty probabilistic evaluation for purposes of offering an opinion bcsed on the general "knowledge" avaHcble. This is not a conclusion arrived at through the application of scientificolly faunded methods designed to mecsure the effects of specified causes. We need the laUer type of capobility; anyone can offer oplruons based on almost ooy Jevel of knowledge ondlor ignorance. The method of mu/tiple working hypofheses is a powerjul scientific procedure, and it is not to be confused with the method of opinionated eJimination of biased guesses. Disproof is a hard doctrine. If yau have a hypothesis and 1 have another hypothesis. evidently one of them must he eliminllled. The scientisl seems lo have no choice bul to be eilher saft-headed or disputatiaus IPlatl 1964:3:'0J.
247
Contemporary Views of the Early Hominids In the beginning cf this book 1 pointed out thet early dlscusston regarding Ihe archaeological stgntñcence of bones lergely centered 00 the questíon of the "cultural" status al ea-ly homlníds and the behavícr in which they engeged. As it was then, so tt te today. Whal was early man Iike? Did he hunt hís food? Did he live in banda? Did he share food, did he ... , did he. We want to know what OUT ancestors were like and how they ltved. We also want to know the {orces et work that molded our ancestors so that we "modero men" were the evolutionary outcome. lt has beeome rather fashionable to engage in speculations as to the answers to these basic behavioral questlcns. 11 is equally ínterestíng that the speculations about our pasl ehampioned by Olynn Isaac (1971. 1975a, 1975b. 1976, 1978a and bj llave íncreastngly been eccepted as the "orthodox" view of hominid behavtorel evolunon tsee. for ínstance. tbe aeceptance of Iseec's posttíon by Richard Leakey and Roger Law¡n (19771 and Grahame Clark [19770. Iseac's vlew has been stated many times and resls wilh the speciñcatíon ol poinls of behavíoral contrest between modern man and modern greal apea. After sorne of ¡he behavioral contrnsts that tender
Chapter 6 Application: A new look at Olduvai Gorge
Z49 I
,!
,~
6. Applicution: A New Look uf Olduvoi Gorge
Z50 man unique are specíñed. this question ís asked: How and when did such behavtors arise? Here is one of Ieeac'e lista of hehavinral contraste' (Isaac and Isaac 1975:31):
+
+
Speech communication Manufacture and use oí tools. squíprnent. and structures Food sharing and collectíve responsíbility for subststence Propensity te consume animal protein [importance of hunting and fishing) Dlvtslon of labor among age, sex. and other clesses Organization of verted daily movement around a lemporarily fixed location (home base or campsite) Existence of family units consisting of pairbonded male(s) and female(s} plus children Involvemenl in symbols, ornament, and art Observance of de!ailed rule syslems end codes that regulate the mode of execution of almost all individual and social functions
Having phrased Ihe question of hominid 00havioral evolution in terms of Ihe hehavimal contrasts betwoon man and great apes, Isaac and Isaac {1975a:32) !hen asks themselves the interesting question, "In what mder and wilh whal dynamic inlerrelalionships have these differences hetween the human and the chimp phyletic lines arisen?" In answer to Ihis question, Isaac proposes a "model" of hominid behavioral evolution wilh two basic steps. Those behaviors Ihat we would generally recognize as "culture" (e.g., those dependent upon or consistent with speech-Ianguage, Ihe use of symbols and !he behaviors such capacities facililale, "insight and eunning." "technical ingenuily") are viewed as having arisen during the Middle Pleis!ocene, between 1 million snd 100,000 years ago. Much earlier, during the Miocene-Pliocene from lBehaviorson the !islIlla! leaveclear-cut archaeologícal traces are idellliried wilh all aslerisk:{hoselhat can be reasonably securely inferred, albeil indireclly, are marked wilh a p1U5: Ihe olherg, which art' nol ycl
8.10 lo 3.0 million years a80, basir and importanl
changas are imagined: The model entails the concept that the present condition of mankind incorporates two tiers of evoluticnery change: the Iirst consisls of an edepnve complex with the following set uf mutually reinforcing ingredientsblpedalísm. Ihe carrying of roed and tmplements. verted tool rneklng and ustng. huntíng, food collecting, food sharing, dlvisiun of labor, organizetion of movements around a home base [Isaacand Isaac 1975:331· This model ia a speculation as lo what the pasl was like. U is conjectural history and involves no lheoretical arguments that I can recognlze. As has baen pointed out many times, archaeological observatíons are contemporory obseevenons. They are observations made by the archaeologist during Ihe excavalion or recording of a location yielding archaeological remains. Tu move from these contemporary descriptive stalemenls aboul Ihe archaeoloilical record to stalemenls aboullhe past we must ilive meaning lo the observalions made on Ihe archaeologieal record. We do this Ihrough argumenls regarding Ihe proeesses Ihal brought the archaeological record in lo being. That is, if we can accurately relate the facls of Ihe archaeological record lo Ihe eonditions in Ihe pasl thal would have generated these faets, then we have succeeded in giving historieal meaning to the eonlemporary facts. When we have a conjeclural model of Ihe past as has been presen!ed by Isaac, we must have sorne robusl archaeological methods (see L. R. Binford 1968a) if we are lo succeed in evalualing il. Thal is. we musl observe archaeological remalns of relevance to the evenls poslulated and then employ a reliable methodology for giving meanings lo Ihese facts as a way of gaining sorne idea if Ihe conjectured past is anything like Ihal pasl as in fad it occuITed. For Isaac, Ihe keys lo the archaeological remains of relevance are locations yielding the earHesl slone lools, since tool use and manufacture make up one componenl of Ihe postulated behavioral syndrome. Now we would expecl sorne developmenl of melhod and flt leasl sorne strang arguments regarding recognition crHeria for Rssessing Ihe degree lo which all the olher postulated behaviors in Ihe "model" were in faet eharacteristic of the hominids Ihat leH !he early
...
Ccntempomry vrews of the Early Hominids stone tools. My search of Ihe literalure has tumed up only ene associatlonal íect. whieh Isaac and others cite in support of their belref that the archaeologtcel record supports their cnnjectured historv of human evolution. This facl ís the association cf stone tools with bcnes of anímals. Given thts simple assncíation. the followmg argumente are generally made: 1. Meat eanng was regularly practtced and per-
sistent hunting almos¡ cerlainly look place (Isaac and Isaac 1975:17). 2. Localitíes at which both dtscerded tools and bone refuse accumulaled are more readily explaíned as hume bases in the distinctive sense (Isaac and Isaac 1975:17). 3. The consumplion of food at a home base involves transpoettng food frum the place where it W¡¡S obtained. The quantilies that can be estimated suggest thal far more food was Iransporled Ihan was needed for feeding infants; thus exlensive food sharing seems an inevilable conclusion (Isaac and Isaac 1975:17). The Isaac's argumenls are dependent on Ihe accuracy of !he assumption Ihallhe inlegrity of the deposils is great-more importan!. lhat hominids were equally responsible for the presenee of lools and animal bones in these geologico/ deposils. In addilion, his argumenls are d¡o,pendent on the impJicif Dssumplion tha!, given Ihe accuracy of Ihe inlegrily assumption, Ihe resululion of Ihe deposils was high; namely, Ihat lhe "assemblages" derived from Ihe actions of hominids al a given location were highresolution assemblages rather Ihan a palimpses! of many differenl event episodes in which hominids participated. Basically no methods beyond wishful Ihinking have heen appHed lo the Early Pleislocene sites for evalualing Ihe degree to which Ihe foregoing assumptions are waITanled or Ihe degree lo which Ihe models are realistic. Mary Leakey h¡¡s al leasl shown an awareness of the problem and offered sorne minimal criteria for accepting or rejecling a givlJn deposit as an "occupaIional floor." She assigned Ihe sites at Olduvai lo four basic dasses (see M. D. Leakey 1971:258): t. Living f/oors, the occupational debris found
on a paleosol or old land surface wilh a vertical dislribuliOll of only a few inches
251 2. Bulchering cr kiIJ sltes. arlifacts essocíeted wilh the skelelon of a large mammal or with a group of smaller mammals 3. Sites with diffused material, artífacts and faunal rematns dtstrtbuted through a considerable depth of a clay or Iíne-grained tuff 4. River ond streem chonnel sites, where hominid debris has beeome incorpcrated in the fillíng of a former nver or stream channel What ts interesting is the mixture of criteria and essumptions. River and streem channel sttes are recognized by geologlcal crileria for idenlifying Ihe formalion processes of Ihe deposito Sttes with diffused material are simply localions with a certain formal set of properties cheracterísttc of Ihe dapoaíts. with no identification of either the geological or behavioral context of formation. Nevertheles5, bulchering or kili sites and living floors are recognized by virlull of infetences about the formation proCl'lsses responsiblefor Ihe conlenl and assodational patlerning wilhin Ihe deposil. First of all, Ihere have been no Bttempls lo treal or even seriously discuss Ihe prohlems of potential variabUity in Ihe integrity !ludiar resoJution of the so ealled living siles. AII Ihe facls gleaned frorn the deposits interpreted as living siles have served as the basis for making up "jusi-so stories" ahout our hominid pas!. No altention has been given 10 Ihe possibilily thal many of Ihe facls may well be referable lo Ihe behBvior of nonhominids. Second. Ihe complex problem of resolution and Ihe characler of Ihe behavioral regime in lerms of which hominids mighl generate archaeological remians has not been addressed. For instance, Ihe "jusi-so stories" produced lo date by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin (1977:116-t17, 1978:8-12), as well as Gtynn Isaac (1976:484-485), have all adopted an abstracted idea of a gathering ond hunting way of Jife largely based on generalizations offered by Lee and DeVore (19681. (See R. Leakey and R. Lewin [1978:94-1251 regardiog Iheir experiences wifh Ihe Dobe !Kung Bushmen.) Ethnographic generalizations have sim· ply been projected inlo Ihe pas!. A student of mine, afler reading Leakey and Lewin (1978). commen!ed Ihal the only Ihing hominids had nol yel developed al 2 million years ago was the stock market! Very
.:-"í.. -. '..-'~ (iii\'"< cl-!');~ 1\11H
--,.-
•
I
252 simply, the researchers have a generalized idea as to whal the pest was [íke sud they have then cccommcdcred 811 the archaeological-geological faels lo Ihis idea. This is not exactlv science. There are no methode for giving meanlng lo Ihe erchaeologtcal observations thet are independenl of interpretativa arguments arrarad by Ihe investigators. In short. they have no míddle-renge Iheory and. in tum, no way of evaluating their ideas ahout the past other than tesis of plausibility and the fit between ideas sud lnterpreted observcuons. We ahould all know that observetíons may be "interpretad" in almost 8UY way that suits our btases. The development of approaches whose purpose is Ihe identification of the ogents responsible ror tha presence and condition ofthe bones found in association with remains of hominid hehavior is the first step in the necessary assessment of the infegrily of an ancient deposit yielding traces of hominid behavior. When we focus on isolating the condilions under which a deposit containing archeeolagical remains of interest was produced, we similarly must face squarely the problems of the chal'8cter af the behavioral regime of the hominids themselves and the possible behavioral eontexts in lerms of which archaeologieal traces might be generated. For instance. the very idea of a site or living floor assumes condilions in the past for which Ihere is no demonstralion.ln fact, il essumes tha very "knowledge" we would like lo oblain from the archaeological remains. Did early man sleep on Ihe ground and consume food al a "base." or did he simply range, consuming food where it was found and sleeping in the Ireell 811 do mosl other primates? Site and living floor identifications preliuppose Ihat concenlrations and aggregalions of archaeological and other malerials are only praduced bv manoAre there nol other eonditians of depasilion ihal could result in aggregations of considerable density found on old land surfaces? The answer must be a resounding yes. Paleonlologicallocations commonly exhibil vasl degrees of variability in Ihe relalive density of bones and in their pattems of aggregation in geological deposils. SimilarIy, extreme patterns of variability wilh regard lo size and helerogeneity of inclusions in geologh.:al deposits occur by virtue of normal depoliilional processes. Given such conditions we must have diognostic criterio for recognizing Ihe rlerivolives nf hnminid
6. Appliculion: A New Lookal 01duvoi Gorge behm'ior of mterest as il moy be dtsnncnve jrom thot of cther cmmc!s. ln this study 1 heve developed arguments as 10 the significance of formal variability, bolh in the survival canditillns of bones and in assemblage cumposition. It is proposed that these argumente may be used for diagnosing two espects of problems of archaeologleal remains found in ~eologic81 deposits. 1. 1 have shown tha! there ts a baste difference in the rnenner cf destructíon and modificalion seen for bones damaged by animal consurnpücn versus those resulting from the human recovery of rnarrow through the use of tools. kmves, and hammers. 2. 1 have shown Ihallhe behavior oC human hunters and nonhuman predator-scavengers IBaves ti dislinetive pattero of assemblage composition related to the lacotion of consumption. somewhat independenl of the species involved. That ¡s, where consumption lakes place is a more powerful condilioner oC assemblage composition than who Ihe consumar might be. The second point was manifest by Ihe ralher remarkable liimilarily between the population of anatomical parts transported for consumption by Eskimo huntBrs and that remaining at kili sites where non human predators consumed prey. Similarly, Ihe parls transo ported under conditions oC competition by nonhuman predators were strongly analogous to the marginal parts abandonad by human hunlers at Ihe kili. These findings ilJustrate that Jocus of primal)' consumption is Ihe basic conditioner of assemblage composilion far anatomical parts of prey even when the predators are as differenl as man, wolves, hyenas, and Iions. This mean.,>lhat Ihe ano/ysis of the condition of the hones in on assembloge moy permit the identificolion of Ihe ogents responsible for iI, but the ossemblo~ composilion in terros of relative frequencies of anatomicol partli betmys the context of {ood consumption by the agents. These approaches carry the following implicalions: 1. lf man was living in base comps ond hunting onimals, we would expecl him lo Iransporl parts of high utility, resulting in Ihe introduclion to the base carop of an assemblage analogous lo lhe parts consumed by other predalars at kili sites and inlroduced
Dlduvc¡
Gorg~, Il
Gh(lllen¡;¡e to Our Methods
by modero human hunters to residences-in short. an ossemblage that rs antlcípated by the GUI or the MGUI (as developed in L. R. Binford 1978b) presented here in Table 5.08. 2, 11 mon wcs living in base camps and sccvenging animal íood from the kills of other predators, we wnuld expect hím lo transport perts of low utility as do other competítfve oredator-scevengers. resulttng in the tntroductícn to bese campe of essembleges of parta antidpated basícally by the ínverse GUI. 3. If tcol-using man wos hunling animoJs bul nol consuming in base comps, we would expect "human kills" lo look ltke other nonhuman kills of prey with the possíble exception of Ihe traces of dismemberment stralegies and bone-breakage lechniques that would betray Ihe use of 10015. 4. lf tool-using mon wos scavenging but nof consuming in base comps, we would expect such "transporled" faunal assembleges lo look like those oí olher predalor-scavengers but lo exhibit distinctive bone-breakage pallerns deriving from the basic differem;es between a hammer and a vise as Ihe ler.hnical means of gaining access lo the medullary Gavily of long bones. In the conlexl of the foregoing reasoning, r will address Ihe importanl assemblages reported from Olduvai Gorge.
Olduvai Gorge. a Challenge to Our Methods r have chosen lo altempl lo use Ihe method of residues on the Oldu\'oi Gorge faunal materíais. The analysis will be forced lo depend olmosl exclusively on facts of assemblage composilion. since no published descriplions of bone breakage. modificalion, or surridal scarring exisf.2 Tha banes have been saved and perhaps fulure studies of characlerislics of bone modification can be used to eva[uale sorne of the argumenls lo be developed here. My analysis is further weakened by Ihe need lo make cerlain assumpIions regArding Ihe anatomical \lroperlies aetually referred lo by sorne of lhe "c.alE~Rories" usad in labuJilfing the assemblages reported by Mary LeIlkey lStlll
ptlSl~r.rlpt
atlhe end of
thi~
chapter.
253 (1971:27B. Tabla 8).~ Desplte these weeknesses. my analysls will rapresent Ihe application of a methodology developed from control informatíon obtalned in actualistic studtes. 1 will follow a pmcedure destgned la minimize ambiguity. The eerlíer analysis of assemblage ccmpositicn {Chapter 5) clearly indicated that the differences between enímel-produced assembtages and sorne humenly generaled aseemblagee were by no means great. when víewed strietly from the perspectivo of assemblage composítíon, so 1 have chosen lo follow a conservatíve set oí research tacttcs. The enalysis is set up 50 that reveged aseemblages serve as the models for analysis. It has already been shown Ihal deslruction tends to obscure original differences between assernblages. Most of the assemblages in Olduvai Gorge are demonstrably ravaged. If we could reconstrucl Ihese assemblages using good dala on Ihe survival palential of bones from African anlelopes, we mighl be able to isolate addiHonal facts potentially referable to the behavior of Ihe early hominids. We do not have such reliable middle· range research information, so 1 have analyzed raw informatian againsl normalive models of animar behavior to determine if Ihere were any facts not ano licipaled by Ihe known patterns of animal behavior. Mary Leakey, in her report on the excavaHons wilhin Olduvai Gorge conducted between 1960 and 1963, rel:Ognized that all Ihe locations were not geolagically similar and c1assified Ihe investigaled sites inlo Ihe four basic c1asses as discussed earlier (see M. O. Leakey 1971:258). Table 6.01 summarizes Ihe sites in Olduvai Gorge as evaluated by Mary Leakey as to Iheir "character," BK is considered to be a "derived" deposit where the malerials have been redeposiled from their former local ion. Clearly it is not Iikely to exhibit anyIhing but gross raso/ulion ond its integrity is nol apt lo be great. Similarly, deposits described as diffuse malerial represented ilems scattered through considerable depths of deposil, 41j~ feet al MNK Main (M. D. Leakey 1971:137) and 2 feel at HWK Easl
-llaltempled (o oblain r.iarificalian regarding Ihis lable IhrOllgh correspondente 51'nl lo the Intemaliona! Louis Lellkey Memorillllnslitute tor African Prehislory. bul never rm:eivon answers lo mv letlers.
6. Appliclltion: A New Look al Oiduvu¡ Corge
254
FLK NN LEVEL 3
TABLE 6.01 Mal')' Lf'/okey's Classiflr:a'ion 01 Olduvai S¡tesfl
Living floo="'_
Olduvai Corge, (l Chollenge ta Our M'ethods
Díffuse material
Kili sites ::::_::::
DK Level 3 ¡DK 3)
FLK North Level B [FUI:; 61
FLK NN Level 1 (NN 1)
FLK North Deinolherjum Leve!
_
DK Leve! 1 (DK 1) DK Leve] Z (DK Z)
Channel fill
BK II (SK 11)
FLK NN L",vel 2 (NN 2)
FLK NN Level 3 [NN 3] FLK 22 Zin¡onfhropus Level (ZINJ)
FLK Leve! 13 (FLK 13] FLK Leve] 15 (FLK 15) FLK North Levels 'h (FLK Y~l FLK North Level 3 (1"LK 3) FLK North Level 4 (Fl.K 4) FLK North Leve! 5 (FLK 51 HWK Eas! Leve! 2 (HWK 2) HWK Eas! Levels 3-5 (HWK 3-5) MNK H. 13 (MNK H13) MNK Maln (MNK MAIN) Fe west Tuff (Fe TUFF)
HWI( Easl Level f (HWK 1) EF -HR (EF -HR) Fe wee. Ftoor (fe FL)
TK Upper Hoor (TK UF) TK Lower Flaor (TI( LFI
"Abbl'llViations used in figures Ind sorne of ¡he Ilbl811ITelIiven in psrernheses
Leveís 3, 4, and 5 (p. 96). Such díffuse scetters mus! represent numbers of differenl event episodes, and the longer a deposit is occumulating the /ess inlegrity il is apt lo exhibir. Both condilions of integrily and resolution are dependent on tha rate of accumulation, in that the longer it takes the deposit to form Ihe grealer tbe number of events apt fo be recorded in Ihe deposit and, in turn, the greater Ihe number of agents apt to be represenled by events. Siles classified as living floors and kill sites are those where integrity is expecled to be great and the resolution relativel)' unambiguous. Let us examine lhe excavators' observalions regarding Ihese important issues. DK LEVEL 3
Materials found in DK Level 3 are reported in a context of the margins of a permanent body ofwaler. Nalural dealhs and "waler's edge" behavior of nonhominids such as waler birds. fish. and crocodiles are clearly presenl and are so interpreled by the excavalors [see M. D. Leakey 1971:24). Also found were artifacts, an enigmalic stone circle, and "other" faunal malerials. To whal degree is Ihe ¡¡ssodation betwflen slone lools, a slone circJe, and
"other" fauna-Iargely bovids-indicative of homíntd behavior? Is it Iikely Ihal one would find "other" fauna in deposits formed at the margins of bodies of water? The answer musl be yes. In fact. iI is one of the mosllikely places to find preserved faunal material derived from both natural deaths and predators' prey. Such deposils are common paleontological contexls and are recorded today (see HiIl 1976). The behavioral significance of the stone circle derives from the belief thal il occurs in a living site. The stone artifacts offer no direct clues to the events in which hominids participaled. We are Jet! with what is mosl certainiy a deposit of dubious inlegrity. and we hove no idea as to Ihe choraeteroflhe reso/ution. However. for there to have been 4600 teeth shed by juvenile crocodiles 1M. D. Leakey 1971:249) in an area of approximately 255 m l . the deposit cerlainly did not accumulale overnighl. In faet, a considerable period of time appears fa be represented. In a deposit of dubious inlegrily, how do we decide whal is a meoningfu/ associalion? This question has nol beeo addressed. Nevertheless. lhe lerreslrial faunal assemblaga is believed to be Ihe food of the hominids who made the tools and who lived in the "shelter" indkated by Ihe stone drde. This is al! unsupported.
Th¡a is frequentJy referred to as lhe "tortoise floor," stnce a number of tortolses (17 in all] oceurred in largely undispersad individual clusters 00 the old land surface. This sile is additionally important since it yíelded remains of hominids tbemselves. As in the case of DK Level 3, Ihis stte is a deposit eccumulated along the margios of a majar body of water. Fish bones were cbserved in considerable concentreuons. reminiscenl of fish trapped in smaU pools as the weters of a Ieke recede during the dry season. Amphibians were common. as were birds and rodents. Numerous coprolites "together with tooth marks on sorne of the bones-including the hominid nght parietal and astragalus-indicate that scevengers were active 1M.D. Leekey 1971:43]." Finall y. the excevetors observe Ihat with tha exception oí ene small eeectmen found intact wíth Ihe vertous parte in posítton. the remaíns of the more complete tortoises were scettered over ereas 2-3 feel in diemeter. Cereful scrutíny of the raeapace and plestrunfragmentshas been cerried out. but apert froma Very few smaJl indenllltions, such as could have been caused by a poinled slone. no signs oí dllmage are visible. It sooms likely Ihal the shells were nol broken apen bul fell apart afler lhey had lain in Ihe open for a time 1M. D. Lellkey 1971:25tl, Fitting these pieces together, we note o. location along the margins of a majar body of water (which presumably fluctuates in leve! 1. where a normal "marsh" fauna is indicl!led, where sorne tortoises died, where camivores were active, and where man was present. In short. Ihe integrily of the deposit is minima/. Regarding resolution, the accumulalion of 17 tortoises and their remains in isolated dusters suggesls that the deposit was no! disturbed greatly by nalural agents such as water but represents suffi. cient time for 17 torloises to die natural deaths in a relatively smalJ areD. One gains Ihe impression thal nof nearly as much time passed during the developmenl of Ihe accumulalíon al FLK NN Level 3 than was Ihe case al DK Level 3. However, this is simply my impression and there is no clear measure of relative time represented by th e deposif. It shnuld be pointed out thal the bovids occurring in the deposit are reported lo be
255 lergely of the genus Kobus, which iodudes waterbuck and reedbuck, both animals that are elrnost constantly near permanent water (M. D. Leakey 1971:250. These are, of course. the animals most likely either to die or to be teken as prey in such a setting, addíng further support to the assessment that the deposit Iecks integrity and the level of resolution for Ihe included material ís c1early suspect. There is. therefore. no justificalion for the interpretation of eseoctettons in this deposit as deriving excluslvely from the action of horntntds. FLK NN LEVEL1
This is descrsbed as a scatter of ertífects and bones where there is noted to be poor preserveuon of the animal bones [see M. D. Leakey 1971:44). No further information is given to substanliate the classíñcetíon as a living floor. FLI< 22 ZINJANTHROPUS LEVEL
This is the famous Zinjanthropus "floor" where Ihe first associations between hominid bones, arIifacts, and animal remains were found in East Africa. As on the other living floors described, amphibians, birds, and rodenh are reported to be common On the other hand, {ish are relatively rare bul present, as are crocodile teeth. A species of slug recovered from Ihe floor is similar lo forms living in evergreen forests wilh greater than 35 inches of rain per year and whera mists are common (M. D. Leakey 1971:252). AH in all, the deposit, as the others thus far described, appaars to have formad oear a body of water and in this case where vegetation was relatively dense. Thus, as in the otber cases, a natural background of remains of animals inhabiting the margins of a lake are present, with no implication of hominids being responsible for their presence in the deposit. As for evidence of other agents contribufing lo Ihe character of the deposit, Leakey stales, "A number of indented looth marks nn sorne of the bone fragments, such 0.5 might be caused by the larger scavflnging animal s, suggests that Ihe bones on the Ooor may have been broken by scavengers as weIl as by the hominids 1M. D. Leakey 1971:501." Thus, we have al leas! a natural backgroundconlributions by scavenging animals in addilion to
~.-
258 contributions by homíntds. This ts not exactly a high-Integrtty essemblege. As far as resolutíon goee, there are no clues pubhshed by the excavators. Therefore. as in most of the other cases. there ís no justificatioo for the interpretatian of assocíettons within this deposit as necessartly deriving from the behevícr oí hominids. HWK EAST LEVEL 1
This ís descrtbed as a peleoscl thet has been eroded into a sculptured surface (see M. D. Leakey 1971; 69). Neverthelese. the materiais scattered 00 the surfece oí thís eroded peleceol are considered in place. Little ts actually said ebout this Iocatíon except lha! Ihe "proportions oí bones belonging to Ihe various faunal gTOUpS followed Ihe paHern typical oí Oldowan living f100rs (p. 254)." Assessments of integrityand resolution are impossible given the information provided.
6 Applic
there was an unusuallv dense concentretton oí quanz dehitage. suggesting an in-place dislribution of lithic debr¡s. TI< LOWER FLOOR
The only comrnent here regarding the status of the assemblege was that evervthing was found on a single horizon (M. D. Leakey 1971:174). In commenting on bcth TK locattons. Mary Leakey sta tes. it is perhaps signitlcant thal the faunal remains and a proportion oí the errífacts from Ihis site are weathered. mdtcatlng Ihat they were exposed on the surface longar than usual befcre being buned and so were posstbly displaced from their nrigtnal posilions 1M D. Leakey 1971:2611. Thus, as was the case for Ihe FC lacation. Ihe living Ooors at bolh TK locations cannot be laken as exhibiting high resolulion nr integrity and, therefore, Ihe meaning of associations is undear.
re WEST, FLOOR This deposit is described as a dense aggregation of malerial wilh a low frequency of faunal materiaL In addilion, it was observed that no heevily rolled artifacts or bones \w6re observedl yet a proportion of both is eilher weathered or abraded to sorne elltent end is not in the mint-fresh cORdillon usually seen in materialon Bed [ living floors n S81lms possible that here, in common with the majorilyof Bed 11 sites, there has beensornedisplaeemenlof the material by water aelion 1M. D. Leakey 1971:1571· Thus. Ihe excavators point lo a derived composition for remains on Ihis Ooor. Such deposits are not likely to exhibit a high degree of integrily or resoluIion.
This review of the Information supplied by Ihe excavalors is nol encouraging, regarding Ihe inlerpretatlon of associations observed wilhin the living noor deposits as necessarily having anylhing lo do with Ihe hominids. Neverlheless, such observalions as have boon made leave the siluation ambiguous, since it is conceivable thal hominids could have been the agents responsible for al leasl sorne of Ihe fauna found in association with Ihe lools. Perhaps sorne of the ambiguity may be reduced by applying sorne of the knowledge of agent-related breakage described in Chapter 3 to the malerials recovered from Ihe Olduvai \ocations,
Analysis of Olduvai Fauna TK UPPER n.o<JR This deposit is describecl as resting on Ihe eroded surface of a clay deposit overlain by a tuff. As in many ofthe assemblages frOID Bed n, faunal remains relatlve to numbers of artifacts were low. No basic (;Qnsideration of the problems al integrity or resolution are louched upon in Ihe published descriptive material. As regards resolution, it was noted lhal
It was found in our earlier analysis of wolf kills and dog yards Ihat when animal consumption was responsible for the absence of articulator ends, Ihere was a positive and linear relationship between Ihe number of long-bone splinters observed in the assemblage and Ihe percentage of articulalor ends polenlially present that were in rael missing-in this
JY!r.'
Analysis of Olduvai Fauno
case the máximum MNI for each sample multiplied by 24 [the number in a single animal), with the total number of articulator ends cbserved subtracted. The remaínder ts then divided by the total number potentially present. Te determine if this ís the case using the data from the Olduvai ts not possible, since the numbers of long-bone spltnters were not counled as such. Nevertheless, there ís a category of "tndetermtnate fragments" (M. D. Leakey 1971:256, Table 3), which presumably íncluded most ofthe long-bone splínters but is likely to tnclude skull, pelvis, scepule. and ríb fragmente that are too small for referral lo either anatomícel part or taxa. Data converted from Leakey's Tablas 3 and 8 (M. D. Leakey 1971) are summarized in Table 6.02 for the assemblages from Olduvai Gorge. Figure 6.01 illustrates the relationship between the percentage of articulator ends missing from lhe total potentially present plotted againsl Ihe number oí indeterminate fragments per MNI for each sample. We nole immedialely that ¡ustead of a single linear positive correlation, as was observed among the control data from Ihe wolf kills, tbere is a complicated segregalion of cases into essentially three groups. The fint is a cluster corresponding to the positive pattern observed among the wolf cases. This ¡neludes FLK North Level 5, MNK Main, and MNK H. 13 as well as Fe West, Tuff and Floor. In these cases deletion oí arliculator ends is corre!ated with increases in unidentified bone. suggesling consumplion on Ihe spol by agents destroying articllialor ends. As we have seen, Ihis is most common when animals are the destructive agents. The second grouping isolates caBes exhibiting negative correlatioos belween the numbers of arliculator ends missing snd tIle numbers ofunidentified bones. That is. as there is an increase in Ibe numbers of missing ends fhere is a proportional decrease in the numbers of unidentified bone fragments. This condilion could only arise if there was differential Iransportalion of Ihe parts in question. Either the articulalor ends were destroyed befare being introduced to Ihe sites, or Ihey were removed from Ihe ¡ocation 10gether wilh allached shafts. This geoup of sites ap· pears splil inlo two :mbgroups consisling oí FLK Levcl 2 HWK Easl Leve! 1, and FLK NN Level2, sud Ihen a larger sel consisting of FLK North Levels l/Z.
257 FLK North Level a, FLK Nortb Level a. FLK Leve113, FLK Level j.S, HWK Easl tevels 3-5, HWK East Level 1, FLK NN Level r. and FLK NN Level 3. The Ihird cluster íncludes the relalively unique sites BK Il end the 2inj Iloor: bcth of these are chaeacterized by a considerable percentege 01 missing articulator ends but a truly tmpressíve quanlity of tndetermínete fragmente. Sorne extraordinaey condíüons of bone destructíon are índíceted al these Iwo locettcns. In the eerlier studíes of bone breakage produced by animals tt was found that the productícn of shañ cylinders was a cherecteristíc by-product of animal bone gnawing. 11 was eleo found that the number of cylinders produced by gnawing wolves par MNI increesed with the number of lcng-bone splinters up to a poiot of about 6 cylinders and 55 splinlers per MNI. With further increases in Bplinters Ihere was a reversal and Ihe oumber al cylinders was thereafter regularly reducad (see Figure 4.60). This reversal simply represented a threshold in the sequence of bone destruction typical of animals: first Ihe destroction oí articulalor ends, then the chipping back and channeling of long-bone shafts with the production of cylinders, and, finally, the eollapse of cylinders, which represents the most advanced slage of destruclion. Splinters as by-products oí destrnction increased with cylinders up until the slage of eylinder collapse and then cylinders were reduced ioto splinterso Figure 6.02 ilIustra!es lhe relationship belween indeterminale fragmenls 1M. D. Leakey 1971:256) and ilems listad in the faunal tables as limb-bone shafts (p. 276). For such shafts to be identifiable as to laxa they are masl certainly relatively complete, and iíthey are relalively complete Bnd lacking articulalor ends, lhey are most likely lo be cylinders. What is clear in Figure 6.02 is that the threshold destruction observed among the wolf kili data is essentially duplicated in the Olduvai data for the following assemblages: MNK H. 13, Fe West. Tuff. MNK Main, FLK North Levels 112, 3, 4, 5, 6, HWK Easl Levels 3-5, FLK NN Level 1, FLK Levell5. What appears to be a parallel dislribution with the number of eyUnders inflaled is represenled by RK 11, Fe West, Floor, HWK Easl Level 1, FLK NN Levels 2 3, as well as FLK Level13. This situation could arise if Ihe MNI for the maximum parl undereslimales the MNI aclually rep· resented, therefore giving the appearance of an in-
6. Application; A New 1..001. al Olduvoi Gorge
258
Arllllysfs of Oldllvai Fauna
¡ABU: 6.0Z AndJltlty Facts: Oleluvai Fauflld AssembluBes
liLE 6.02-Continul!d ---- - - -..
TI<
---Upper
Lower
BK 11
Floor
(J)
1')
Floor 13)
15.7ti 1. MNI of mosl eommon part'' 2. Numberofarticulatorends(ol 190.46
44.66 3. Number of articulator ends on complete bones 23 4. Pereentage of total articulator ende en complete bones 5 Arttculator ends expected 1378.24 .50 6. Percenlage expected erticulator ends mtsstng 181.18 Number of e)(pectedarttculator ends missing 97.16 8. Number of cyllndere" 1594 9. Number 01' unidentified
HWK East Levels
MNK
Fe Wesl
1.53
13.0 6.011
9.84 1.9
.47
19
(4)
Floor (51
Matn (61
H. 13 17)
3-' 16)
a (9)
\ 1'2 (lO) !1)
11.28
36.72
.74
1.91 6.0
5.0
o
o
n.06
1.50
104.24
7.90
4.02 30.36
32,42
1.96
1.78
.3]
.25
.06
6.45 7.68),32 54.80 96.7414.2
.49
Anlculator endslMNI Missing endsJMNI CylindenlMNI Unidentified fragments IMNI
4.38 12.06 19,62 1un 6.16 2.0 101.14 (35.7a)
.73
26.86
45.84 .87
39.84
3.03 13.02 151 (161)
17.76 313.44
."
.67
,
13
(15)
(16)
44.78
16.!.lZ
77.27
25
.20
ieo.ic
55
96.48 154.8 189.1217.68 380.64 192.0 .55
.69
.76
.49
15 (7)
35.01 669
281
50
50
O t.15
0.49 200.54 24,.44 25.68'1.17 54.11
95.24 32.72
193.96 51.011
6612 100.0 4.91 43
23
6,43 17.57 8.51
3.14 6.16 20.86 17.24 6.76 1.59 19.06 174.32
7.98 16.02 2.68 66.54
527 7.55 18.13 16.45 1.22 O 90.0 10.1
92,38
------
J (19)
z
3
(20]
(21)
\-1 (22)
(23)
3.97 33,56
6.22 7668
5.48 45.72
2.42 11.64
14.19 140.96
8A8 88.86
10.85 4042
13.32
o
47.7
40.2
.54
"
O
t.z
\-3 (24)
a.se
84.72
33.1&
5.04 409
13.07 137.26
57.12
4.04
13.72
2662
.65
66
48,72 61.88 7.94 19045
80.06 1694
37
.19
3l
66
.55
313.68 95.28 149.211 131.52 58.08 340.56 203.52 .65
56
49
176.72 61.72 71.6 25.511 4.05 2:1.06
.65
.60
.59
.56
85.8 46,44 199.66 114.66 29.04 o 11.92 11.3
48
3"
85
12.26')14
15.5 3.19 3.57
11.72~66
3.28 171
202
1039
85
42
113
11.36 12.64 3.41
12.1 11.9 4,09
12.06 11.94 3.14
15.24 8.37 876 15.63 1.43 4.84
IU2 158 3.36
20.24
25.25
63,9
15.29 10.61
22.42
2420
15
40
13.63 8.45 12.33 10.::111 15.55 11.67 1.96 1.02 3.8
C.DO
¡j.13
ltnder production and, as noted in our earlier studíes. this ís only true for assemhlagee destroyed and broken by gnawing animals. The actual dislributlon shown in Figure 6.03 is suggestíve oí the operatlnn of addtttonel conditioners among the Olduvet assemblages than was noled among the wolf kili materíals. There are at teest two, and probably three, subpopulauons Indicated in Figure 6.03: o ne subpopulattcn exhíbíte a higber cylínder-to-completebone reiationship. which appears Io be slightly curviUnaar. This could happen if Ihere was sorne body si1.eor bone density re\uted bias manifest in the indio cated assemblages. Thal is, broken bones with detached arliculalor ends might be either destroyed or sorted relative to bolh complele bones and cylinders. sin~e Ihe shafts of bones are very dense. This would have Ihe effecl of increasing Ihe number oí cylinders
DK Levels
-------
Z2 Zinj (lBJ
.-------
5.56
.39 .67 rz .34 390.24 133.44 95.04 120.90
."
45
12.16 209.2 50
36.0
"lnfcrrnetton from M. D. Leak&y197t, 276. Table e. as 5ummarizBd in Table fiO~ "lnformeuon fmm M D. Leakey 1971' 276. Table 8. {ltmb-bone Mlarls]
ñated cyltnder count per MNI. As in the prevíous comperíson. the Zinj floor stands out uniquely with an extreme count of indeterminate Iregments. The final breakage comparison concerns the relatíonehíp between destruction as meesured by the percentage oí the total erttculetor ends that occur as componente cf complete bones plotted egatnst the number of cylinders per MNL This comparison is shown in Figure 6.03. What is ímmedialely claar {compare to Figure 4.61} is that the same general relationship is observed among the Olduvai assemblages as was noted among the animal-gnawed assemblages. As the percentage of the total arliculator ends presant tha! occur on complete bones goes up, the number of cylinders per MNl decreases. This relalionship supporls the argumenl thal destruetion is related lo cy-
s (14)
-----------
FLK NN Levels
----
4
16.26 196.26
-------
41
6
RQtios
..
\131 8.0 96.76
15.66
27
5.94
_-
-
FLJ< Levels
27.M 30.76
Iragments"
10. 11. 12. 13.
3 (12)
~S.12
58.28
-------
FLK North Levels
-----
2.97
.82
25'
-- - - - - - - - -
Tu"
..
B·'
--~
la5.16
l15
3.78
1HI 8.34 4.81 15.66 19.19 53
1454" 9.93 14.07 .64
10.48 13.52 1.33
6.43 21.72
ltma1ionfmm M. D. Le.llkey 1971: 2Sfi, Tabla J. ündeterrmnare rrallrn"nl~l ili for TK f1oor~. IIror OK levels 1-J
and complete bones and hence the proportions of complete bone erttculator ends relatíve to those occurrfng as broken componente wtthtn en assemblege. Boíh condilions would have Ihe effecl of displecing upward the distribution of cyllnders per MNI reletíve to the number of articulator ends atteched lo complete bones. These three comparisons (Figures 6.01--6.03) of the relationships between breakage indicators among Ihe Olduvai assemblages wilh similar indicators among the conlrol assemblages are quite revealing. Fin!. the relationships in Figure 6.01 i\lustrale that sorne faclors are condilioning the relalionsnips between unidentified fragmenls and Ihe number of missing arliculalor ends other Ihan simple consumplion of articulalor ends. as was the case in Ihe Alas-
kan metertals. It Is suggested tha! misstng articulator ends in the Olduvai assembleges have either been trensported away by predetor-scaveogers or íntroduced by the same from ktlllocetíons. At1 the Olduvai assembleges except FLK North Levels 112, FLK North Level 5, MNK Main, Fe West, Floor and Tuff, and MNK H. 13 appear to be "selected'' assemblages. in that parts havs been either deleted írom or selectively introduced to Ihe local ion. 80th BK Ji and the Zinj floor at FLK 22 stand out as extraordinary cases in Ihat the production of unidenlified fragments is very high relative lo the number oí arliculator ends presenl; Ihat is, abnormal destruclion seems to have laken place al Ihese sites. In the analylicat comparison iUustrated in Figure 6.02, where the numbers of unidenlified fragments is
..
--~-
6. AppJicuCion: A New Lock 01 Diduvor Gorge
280
,,-----"\
•" ~ Z
~
.~
t I " "--_.-' " )
'"
/
'" "
gÑ
O/l
.""
'u"
...,.
/~_
/
/
'"
"g
.
U
.....
/
.'0
/
"w ~2 O"
/
/
110
~~ ~~
/
~,,/
1::. e~
.. .....
(·"D
100 ,
/ /
~
X\ -,," 111
/
.. e
/
/ /
,
/
/
-,
-,
.n.' -,
\
.,..
'L"""., ••••
O"'
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. n~.,
i
'.0O'l
G
..
.W O"
1-:101
~C.
~~~
!5!~a
:a!loI ui I-ll:LoJ
eh.'
.~
00
00
\
n~ \
:,., -:»;
.,01
(.Ut' .H.....'
."u' ,,,
\
\ .H.o< I-%~ ..,._ .'L'" \ ~~I- lO /' .H.;, .~:~~~ .. -, " ~Ji: ...... '1 ' . ' . ".• ' ' ' ,•• u ...... "'!i!) ta, \ .IONJ \ "foc.. ,."11 LoJ , <, - .
,.H.. •.• \
'c
,
".,
\
\
-,
Z61
no clear-cut "causes" were suggested. In the final ccmparíson. animal destruction was cleerly índiceted bul Ihe levels of destrucüon were different among severa! subsels of the Olduvai sample. Nevertheless. the majorily of the Olduvai sítes fell on the same linear and negative dtstrtbutíon as did the wolí kili materials. These tests support the argument that the breakage palterning is consisten! wilh thot produced by gnawing enímals. In the case of ccmparíson 1 {Figure 6.01), the deviation oway from the control materials is itself consístent with animal behavior, nemeiy. transporting anatomical parts. Only in tha case of comparisons 2 and 3 are factors indicated that are not recognizable at this poínt
fUH,
'.0
'.0
,¡,o
FIGURE 6.03. Relution&hip between !he perc.mloBe of
TABLE 6.02, ROW 6
Evaluating the Degree ef Destruction Suffered by the Olduvai Assemblages
011 articulo'or ends represented by complele b¡mes und the number of r:ylinders per- MNI /ar sites in 0ldu'Voi Gorge.
~
~ ¡
~.
displByed againsl tha number oí Iimb-bone shafts. believed fo be cylinders, a distrihution somewhat different from lhat ob!lerved in the highly controlled wolf kili material is sean. From one perspective, Ihere appears lo be a ser of Olduvai cases tha! actually follow the distribution seen in the wolf data; these ¡nelude MNK H. 13, Fe West, Tuff, MNK. Main. FLK North Levels 1--6, FLK Lave! 13, FLK NN Level 1, and HWK East Levels 3-5. A llubsel of sites con· sisting of HWK East Levels 1 and 2, FLK NN Levels 2 and 3. and FLK Level 13 have relBlively high fre· quencies of cylinders with corresponding low frequencies af unidentified splinters. This CQuld accur if ona was observing an animal-lmnsported and gnawed assemblage minus lJ defecatian area. Also standing oul are the Zinj fioor at FLK 22, BK 11 and Fe Wesl, FloQr, where Ihere are very high frequencies of unidentified fragments as well as relatively high frequencies of cylinders. This could occur if there was high breakage of nonlimb bone parts such IUI skuUs, pelvic parts, and vertebrae, or if there was "harnmer" breakage of sorne bones as well as sorne
.'oc')
NUM8[R 01'" CYLINOERS/MNI TABLE 6.02. ROW 12
'"
FIGURE 8,01. Relationshlp between !he pen:enrage o/ expected orticu/otor ends wlaich ore missing o"d thf! counl of unldentified fro,men/!. per MNI lar sites in Olduval Gorge.
"
,.... ,. ---_/
•....,0
~
.,. OF ARTICULATOR EflI)S WHICH ARE MISSING
'o
oc ... '0
l/)
.'L'• .... ! . \ . . . . ,.
/
.........
"
actívíty of gnawing animals as mighl occur in assernbleges with low integrily. In any event, there does appear to be sorne infernal differentiation among the Olduvet assemblages nol sean among the control wolf kili assembleges. suggesting more complicoted formolion processes. The final analytical display of the Olduvai materlals (Figure 6.03) supports Ihe foregoing conclusion but adds more information. First. there appear fa be seveml poroJlel distributions that betrey a similar reletionshlp between variables bul differing relative strengths Ior the¡r operation in different sítuations.
EIIIlJuufjns the Degree af Destruelion Suffered by the Oiduvc¡ Assembloges
E~
"- "-
Sa:o
.;;:;~
••
"-
.'0];
"-
~'j z.
~~
'."
o
"-
fu"
...", ..,.
""
i
"-
')
.........
.,,~
/
/
>
.... >1.
.....
"-
.oc'e ' " "'---
/
/
/
/
/
" L ¿),,:::..:','" ' //
/.~.o ,-o
//
..... / •• ~~:,
•o .:u'.. ~""'--:c:-=--,:-:--:-:---c /
•• 0 ..
" . . . . . .0
lOO
NUMBER OF CYU"IOERS/MNI TABLE 60l, FlQWT2
FIGURE 6.02. Relationship belwe~n the eounl o/ unirlenfl/ied /ragment5 per MNI ORd the Rumber o/ eylinden per MNI /or sites in O/tlu'Vu; Gurge,
Nevertheless, each is a negativa relotionship demon· strating that destruclion of bones is related to cylin. der production Bnd, as noted earHer. Ihis is only lrue for assemblages broken and gnawed by animals. The actual factors conditioning Ihe relative "power" of Ihis relalionship as indicaled by Ihe parallel distributions are a matter for sptlculation at this point. The diagnostic lests (or bone-breakage patteming al! support the view Ihat Ihe pattem of breakage (given that limb-bone shafts in Leakey's tables can be equated with cylinders) is consislent with the patlerning produced by gnowing animals. Nevertheless, alltests show lhal the actual formalion processes are more complicated Ihan those observed among the wolf kllls, with the clear implication thal alher con· dilions \Vereaffecting the relationships invesfigoted. What Ihese conditions mighl be was nol clear from the tests. It was suggested thal in Ihe case of the comparison shown in F'iRure 6.01 transport of anotomicol parls was modifying Ihe distribution. In the case of the comparison shown in Figur!'! 6.02. inordinate breakage ofbones was indicaled for sorne sites and high frequencies of cylinders Corolhers, bul
In Ihe prevíous comperísons. f was concemed wilh Ihe degree lo whích penerne of bone destruction and breakege were indícative of Ihe acUons oi nonhominid predator-scavengers versus lool-using hominids as Ihe agents responsible for Ibe assemblages. In this section 1 am concerned wilh the relative levels of destruction different assemblages have suffered. In Ihe previous seclion it was found thol comparisons belween Ihe proximal and dislal ends of Ihe humerus aud the tibia permitted a fairly reliable estimate oC assemblages that hod suffered deslrucfion. Figure 6.04 illuslrales the relotionships betwoon proximal and distel ends of the humerus, and Figure 6.05 iIluslrales the frequency relation· ship between the proximal and dislal tibia. lt /leeros quite clear that most a( the assemblages have suffered destruclion. However, a few (DKI-1, Fe West. Tuff, MNK H. 13, HWK Easl Level 2) See'm to have suffered IUtle if any destruclion. FLK North Level 6 and Zin; appear lo have suffered sorne bul not really high levels of destruclion as is characteristic ofmost assemblages. In the tibia comparisons, sites TK L,F. FLK NN Level 2. FLK North Level6, DKI·3, ond fLK Level 13 exhibit a similar profile of deslruction, which seems much less thon lhaf oC olher as· semblages. It is interesting thal FLK NN Level 2 and
,,.''''
~ 6, Application: A New Look 01 Olduvoi Gurge
262
FLK North Level 6 were noted eerlter as sítes where ltttle evídence of hominids was present. and NN Level 3 WBS described as a síte wbere undislurbed carcasses are seemíngly well documented. Lower frequencies of distal tibiae in such sttuatíons rould result from transport away oí lower leg parts when the tibia ts broken through the shett. The esümates of destructton will help guíde the need for correcttng nr -reoonstructíng" assemblages using survival percentages as a way of obtaíníng an trnpresston of whal was present prior lo destructton.
"o
" ~
~
~
~o O"T~UC"OM
. . , . O'
\
"
~.
!
·
.Q
~
"
",
Assemblage Composition-Olduvai Gorge
OISTAL HUhlERUS
FIGURE 6.04. Relf1!ionship belween !he frequftodes 01 proximal hume",s ond didol humeros lar sHes in Old· uvuí Gorse.
00
" e iii
"~
.... Q'''O ''''''VC''.''
\
l.
~
•
•o•
.0" .n"" /
/
" "
/
/
o
.... ~ '?'"~''"''' /
/'
.--
/ _--/.... lO
"
/
o
",,'
,.HU
M. . . . .'"
H' D' oU'"vC""_ '0
~
._.:~~:::
"& ....
••
.0
DISTAL TIBIA
FIGURE 6.05. Relolionshlp hetween the frequencies 01 proximul tibia and distal tibio lar si'es in Olduvai Gor8~·
In treating the information from the importanl sites of Olduvet. severel eharactertstícs of these dala musl be cited as extremely limiting. For tnstence. frequency data en anatomical perts are gtven in Table 8 ofLeakey (1971:276). bul there is no information provided as to whal was in Cact cnunled. We do not know to what observations the labulation refers. Is the inCormalion referable to the frequency of bone fragments assignable lo rhe tabular dasses, or is the frequem;y ¡"formarion a strict labulalion of Ihe elements Iisled? For example, when the proximal humerus is Iisted, do Ihe frequencies refer lo the numbers of proximal humeri, or does it simply mean the numbers of fragmenls of proximal humeri? If the former, sorne analysis relative lo the differential surviva!. consumplion, and lransporl of anatomical parls is possible. Jf Ihe laller, Ihe siluation is horribly confused, since breakage patlerns condiHon the frequencies and no such direct analysis can be conducled. II is roy guess Ihat in fact the siluelion is even more confused, that for e calegory such as complete libiae Ihe number of complete tibiae was actually reported. bul for a category like proximal femur Ihe fragmenls of proximal femora were counted. There are olher serious problems with the faunal information reported from Olduvai. There is one calegory Ihallists "isolaled teelh," and two others, mandible and maxilla, which mosl certainly inelude leeth. Since 1 am all but certain thal the laller Iwo categories tabulale fragmenls of Ihe anatomically designated parls, Ihere is no way of knowing how many leeth remain sealed in Ihose elements. Since il
lissemb/age
Composition~OJduvai
Gorge
seems likely thet fragmenta are tebulated and the letter frequencies are condilioned by breakage as well as by the aclual number of anatomical parts present, there ts no way of directly converting the information gíven ínto meaningful stetements about the frequencies of head parts presenl in the essemblages. That ís, neither teeth. mandtbles, nor maxillae may be meaningfuIly esñmated from the data given. Despite these truly Impressive problema, I have Iransformed the data from Table 8 in Leekey (1971:276) into MNI estimales. That ís, 1 have converted the percentage data back inlo counls and Ihen divided the count by the number of parls for each calegory present in the anetomv of an ungulate.s Several steps were needed in many cases in arder lo accomplish th¡s conversion. For Instence. in obtaining a count for the proximal humerus 1 ñrst had lo multiply the total for the stte by the percentege for proximal humerus: then I had to do the same thíng for complete humerus and add the two resulta in order to obtain a total counl for the proximal ends present. More difficult conversions were needed for teeth, where 1 have used estimalors lo approximale Ihe number of leelh induded in mandibular and maxillary fragmenls. To obtain the estimators, 1 consulted the complete invenlories of analomical parts that 1 made for Ihe fauna from Ihe Mousterian site of Combe Grenal in France. In these inventories each mandibular and maxillary fragmenl was lisled 10gether with an inventory of Ihe leelh still remaining in the fragment. I found that for the site of Combe Grenal as a whole, ineluding parts from reindeer (Rongifer torandus) and red deer (Cervus e/ophos), Ihere was an average of 2.14 leeth remaining in eaeh mandibular fragmenl and 2.50 teeth wHhin maxillary sockets. Thus, each value of the mand¡ble and maxilla was multiplied by 2.14 and 2.5 respectively to oblain an estimale of Ihe number of leeth represented by such fragmenrs. This lotal was then added to the total for isolated reelh lo oblain an eslimale for Ihe lolal number of leeth presenl. The laller value was divided by :14, the lolal number of teelh characterislil;: or mosl ungulales, lo obtain sorne eslimale for Ihe numbers of heads represented in Ihe assemblaglJ. 'For 11
dis[;us.~ion
1197Ilb:69-7Z).
or MNI f:Akullllions, S(!P. L R. Binford
263
Table 6.03 summarizes all Ihe ínfnrmatíon deemed usable for monitoring essemblages composttion among tha Olduvai sttes. as expressed in MNI estimates. Each site has two columns. The ñrst presents the MNl esttmate for each anatomical part. and the second presents the percentege ratio (thal is, the MNI for the part dívíded by the MNI for the most frequent part). Such values are arreyed between O and 100 bul are not "percenteges'' in the sense that the array is constratned. That ís, no degree of freedom is losl by expresstng the relatíve Irequencíes in ratio form, bul Ihe probiem of differential sample size ís elminaled sínce all cases are slandardized as a ratio scele dtstnbuted belween O and 100. For comparativa purpeses. the mean velues for large and smalI animals remaining at kills and introduced lo dens (Table 5.08) was converted to the seme formal as the Olduvai data and multiplied by the survtvel percentages given in Table 5.04. This permits the dtrect comparison between populations of fauna modified by animals and those remaining in the depo&ils al Olduva¡ Gorge. (See Table 6.04.) lt was decided Ihat, rather Ihan proceed through a case-by-case comparison, sorne grouping strategy mighl be both timesaving and informative. For this reeson, a factor analysis in bolh Ihe "R" and "Q" modes was performed on Ihe informalion presented in Table 6.03. To eliminale Ihe problem of known curvilinear relationships, the dala as presented in Table 6.03 were transformed to lag values for each enlry. In addilion. al! values less Ihan 1 were raised lo a value of 1 (this ineludes zeras) so Ihal no negative log values appeared in the malrix. In the case of bolh "R" and "Q" mode analysis, squared multiple correlation coefficients were placed in the diagonal cells rather than leaving Ihem unaltered. A standard eigenvalue cutoff value of 1.0 was used. A varimax rolation was performed and a Biomed program {BMD P4M, GREGION-195K) was used. Table 6.05 presenls Ihe faclor loadings for Ihe "R" mode of analysis for Ihe four factors extracted. A knowledge of lhe relalionships belween anatomical parts and Iheir relative survival polential (see L. R. Binford and l. B. Berlram 1977) leads me lo inlerprel the firsl factor as a survivorship factor; thal is, Ihe parts listed (sr.apula, proximal radio-cubilus, promimal melalarsal, proximal libia. dislal femur, dislaltibia, proximal metacarpaL verlebrae, and ribs)
.....
"
G~~
._~-
6. Applicalion: A New Look or Otduvc¡ Gorge
264
265
Assemb/oge Composiuon-c-Oiduvnr Corge rABLE s.na-c-Conunued
TABLE 8.03
Oldavld GlJI3il DtJf"
BKII
.
--MNI Anatnmlcal par!
--Teeth Pelvis Scapula Ribs Vertebree Proximal humeros Distal humeros PToximal radío-cubltus Dlatal radlo-cubitua Proximal malacarpal Distal mllllacar",,1 Proximal ,,,mur Dlatal femur PToximal !lbla Diatal tibia Proximal mllltatarsal Ois181 metetarsal
1'1
1"
15.69 1313 1379
100.0 63.0 88.0 39.6 23.0
6.' 3.5~
LJ 15,76
e." e.e 10.51 6.57
...
a.e '.6
14.45 12.48 7.22
.
"
"
.
1"
1"
1"
1"
2.12 2.97
" .r"
1.52 1.53 I.D
100,0 100.0 85,0 10.0 12.0
UlI
LO
100.0 52.0
JO
61
".0
MNI
l"
.0<
29.0 87.0 42.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 92.0 79,0 46,0
MNJ
MNI IJ'
r.o
100.0
MI
Lower Flcor
Upper Floor
I.D
.JO
e
11
t.s
is
" "" ." r.o
"JO
l.,
MNK
FCW",
TI(
l.,
z.o
.s .s
26.0 26.0
s
26.0
o
57.0
i
MNI
ra
."
.s
.s
.0<
31.0 31.0 310 85,0
F1~
."" e
,
..
31.0
(12)
1000 860 68.0 16,0 11.0
1106 112 1068 1.54 2,13
100.0 62.0 82.0 12,0 16.0
ea.n
S.55 ¡,55 1.65 U3 113 l.58 2,14 l.14 5.98 !.97 299
42.0 42.0 290 520 39.0 20,0 16.0
66,0
"
.s
e.e
t.o
68.0 68,0 68.0
.s
O,
10
.11 11
e
.s 28,0
5
.e
.
1101
."
MNI
• --MNI
.
Analomical par!
(29)
(30)
Teeth Pelvls Scapula RIb. Vertebrae Proximal humeros DIstal humerue Proxill\l.l redjo-cubitus DIstal radlll-cubitus Proximal m"lacarpal Distal melacarpal Proximal femur Dlatal r"mur Proximal tibie. Distal tlbit Proximal metatarsal Di,tal metetareei
537 3.97 3.44 3.38 3.42 1.59 3.97 3.44 3.71
97.0 71.0 62,0 61.0 62.0 2',1.0 71.0 6Z,0 87.0 81.0 90,0 29.0 57.0 43.0 52,0 81,0 100.0
..,
5.03 1.59 3.18 L18 2,91 4.50 556
MNI
".
MNI
(32)
(33)
"
43.0 38,0 640
1,36
1.51 2.52
is .66
"
s.o 17.0 13.02 1000 640
...
2.48
.".aa o
o
o
1.97 1'017 1.02
2.S2 O
6<'
'.9<
3.96 2,52
o
O
o
101 2,02 3,03 1.01
26,0 51.0
o
u
71,(1
26,0
e
o 0.51 1.54
,O<
4.46 O
MNI
(15)
net
.sa
61,0 33.0
3.14 .89 4.02
78.0 22.0 100.0
aa ia
15.0
rs
e.o
.1J
"" ."
33,0 33.0 33.0
.09
t
33.0 100.0
."
•• ü
18.0
o
o
1.45 1.45 1.45
36,0 36.0 16.0 47.0 41.0 22.0 11.0 11.0 72.0 36.0 22.0
'9 '9
" ." es aa.e
.
----.
MNt
[141
2.90 1.45 99
FLK North Levels t
----
re.e 46.0 69.0 23.0
..
a
MNI
~
..
.
MNJ
.
Zlnl·
MNI
..
i ~l
.
(34)
{35}
(36\ llj
(38)
27.0
13.07 11.26 10.74 8.97 1,42 3.58 9.21 9,21 3.07 5.63 3.56 3.07 4.09 3.07 IU9 8,19 7.68
100.[1 :11 88.0 82,0 t6 69.[1 26.0 Jll 21.0 O 70.0 na 70.0 46
73.0 63,0 37.0
9' 490 11.0
"
O 39.0 39.0 20.0 78.0 O O 10.0 31.0 100,0 88.0
o
" "
no
I
43.0 27.0 23.0 31.0 23.0 63,0 63,0
.11 t7 16 91 49 J'I
17
59.0 00
•.u 22.0
o 51.0 37.0
o 61.0 24.0 37,0 24,0 12.0 24,0 100.0 76.0
2
MNI
.
MNI
"
MNI
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(281
6.45
100.0 60,0 20.0
3.71 5.44 2,44
47.0 69.0 31.0 160 19.0 12.0 61,0 72.0 72.0 67.0 50.0 19,0 12,0 19.0 88.0 100.0 26.0
13,9) 34.31 27.25
39.0 97.0 77.0 22.0 17,0 17.0 66.0 63.0 40.0 63.0 54.0 28.0 37.0 34.0 100.0 97,0 60,0
6.05 21,0 6.07 2.44 2.85
380 100.0 29.0 12n 14.0
6.78 6.55 4.36 .JO 2,23
85.0 82.0 55.0
1078 1277 9.87 1.38 1.92 1.16 10.45 8.13 4.07 13.35 7.55 4.65 6.39 3.49 12.77 16.26 9.87
61\.0 7'l.0 61.0
J9 LJ 1,12 1.88 t .•
'6 2.08 1.82
"J.M.sa sa LJ
"'.6 3.12
..
t az 15
iz o 29.0 22.0 40.0 32.0 28.0 81,0 56.0 80
6.38 5.70 5.70 4.88 3,94 1.50
..
'" , ..
20.0 40.0 40.0 48.0
1,50
7.88 2.07
'.0< 6.05 6.06 23.21 22.2 14.13 22.2 19,17
9.09 13.12 12.11 3532 34.31 21.19
zo
L' 15.86 7,93 3.73 12.13 8.87 '.2 5,13 3,73 11.2 8.87
76.0 38.0 18.0 58.0 42.0 20.0 24.0 16.0 530 42.0 33.0
z.o
o e.e 4.73 3,27 5.09 6.55 2.91
'M
OO., 36,0
MNI
..
r-a
l·'
MNI
"
MNI
.
(45)
(46)
JO<
59.0 39.0 77.0 45.0 10.0
4.37 3.33 5.48
80,0 61.0 100.0 56,0 60.0
2.42 .95 2.00
100.0 39.0 83.0 33.0 30.0 20.0 O 20.0 20.0 20.0
]4,19 9.78 9.76 2,79 2.83 1.63 10.84 8.88 5.42 8.13 1,05 2.17 3.79 1.63 11.92 5.42
100.0 69.0 89.0 20,0 19.0 11.0 78.0 61.0 38,0 57,0 50.0 15,0 27,0 110 84.0 38.0 27.0
o 0.40 2,21 2.21 5.22 181
9<' 39.0 100.0 87.0 O
"
36.0 36.0 8"'.0 29.0
"z.o
12.0
0<.' 50.0 25.0 82.0 48.0 29,0 39.0 21.0 79.0 100.0 61.0
OK Levela
J
(44)
6.'
0<.'
2.91
(U)
100.0
o 10(HI 59.0 41,0
1.-46 2.18
JO<
(42)
'"
•.o 28.0
82.0 36.0 46.0 18.0 27.0
(41)
.eo
.
(19)
[401
6.22 5.82 2.41 6.22 5.42
MNI
(18)
(39)
2.41 4.81 2.81
.
(17)
FLK NN Levels
ie
(311
.
'-5
(13)
."
J'
FU< Levela
ra
HWK East Levuls H.13
MNI 11 11
51
L5
Maln
'.09 3.31
"
357
'.00
1.43 3.81 1.43 1.43 1.43 0.9S 2.36 0,95 ü
9' 65.0 91.0 26.0 70.0 26,0 260 26.0 11.0 43.0 17.0
o
" "o 1J
." ee ."u
u
.95
"o
20,0 39.0
Q
n
1.52 0.95
o f13.0 39.0
a.e
l.'
--MNI
.
(47)
(481
7.77
92.0 52.0 48.0 27.0 23.0 19,0 100.0 29.0 29,0 48.0 26.0 41.0 62.0 52,0 62.0 67.0 S6.0
•• ." 2.27 1.93 I.S7 8.48
"
2.' 4.09 2.52 3.46 S.34
...
5.34 5.65 4.71
,~
6. Appljcalion: A New Look al Olduvai Corge
266
..
267
AssembJage Composition-Olduvoi Ccrge
TABU: 6.04
TABLE 6.05
8ehovioral Models [or Olduvaí A&,sembloses"
Sorted Rolaled Factor Loadings (Patlem) for "B" Mnde Analysis af Olduvoi Sltes Scavengcd
Ravaged Lerge prey. kili model
Large prey,
den model
._--
Smali prey. kili model
Small prey. den model
Large prey. ktll modal
MNI
ee.a
MNI
Col. 3 39.7
MNI
Col. 5 77.9
MNI
Col. 7 70.3
MNI
Col. Q 72.2
MNI
Anatomical pert
(I(
(2(
(J)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(6)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Teeth Pelvis Scapula Ribs Vertebrae Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radio-cubitus Distal radio-cubitua Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpal Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia Distal tibia Proximal rnetatarsal Distal metatarsal
64.5 68.2 27.9 9.1 23.4 6.2 24.2 14,9 12.9 10.7 8.7 11.6 11.0 9.5 31.8 15.6 12.5
95.0 100,0 41.0 13.0 34.0 9.0 36.0 22.0 19,0 16.0 13.0 17.0 16.0 14.0 47,0 23.0 18.0
39.7 20.2 127 2.0 5.0 5.0 35.4 27.3 24.5 30.5 32.3 5.6 13.6 82 35.3 20,3 225
100.0 51.0 32,0 5.0 13.0 13.0 89.0 69.0 1$2,0 77.0 81.0 14.0 34.0 21.0 890 .')1.0 57,0
61.0 77.9 45.1 5.8 14.5 J.2 38.3 28.8 14.6 5.5 10.9 193 10.3 14.9 32.6 15.9 11.3
78.0 100.0 58.0 7.0 19.0 4.0 49.0 37.0 19.0 7.0 140 25.0 13.0 19.0 42.0
711.3 35.2 21.3 7.6 8.9 J.9 23.8 18.1 14.2
100.0 50.0 30.0 11.0 13.0 6.0 34.0 26.0 20.0 24.0 34.0 10.0 23.0 21.0 28.0 41.0 34.0
72.2 52.6 38.J 23.5 41.0 33,1 38.4 39.5 27.4 35.2 29,5 .6 O 35.9 41.3 42.1 33.8
100.11 73.0 53,0 33.0 57.0 46.0 53,0 55.0 38.0 49.0 41.0 1.0 O 50.0 57.0 58.0 47.0
89.0 46.3 JO.8 12.7 24.4 11.9 41.3 34.5 41.5 33,4 32,2 7 O 18.3 50,6 35.2 33.8
Col. 1
Dertvuñon Composilion Reference
"sr = ,JlIrvival
x
of lerge prey. kílls. x Sp Table 5,08, col. 2, x Table 5.04. col. 7
pllro;;entalle: lGUI
=
:lt of large prev. denso x SP Table 5.06, col. 4, )( Table 5.04, 001. 7
200
15,0
)::of small prev. kllls.
x sr Table 5.08. col. 6, )( Table 5.04, col. 4
17,}
23,9 6.9 15.9 14.8 19.7 28.7 238
~ of small prey. dens. x SP Table 5.08, col. 8, x Tabla 5.04 col. 4
}t of large prey, kills x IGUI Table 5.08, col. 2, x Table 5.08, col. 17
Factura
Transpon model Col. 11 89.0 112) 1000 520 35.0 14.0 27.0
n.O 46.0 39,0 47.0 38,0 36.0 1.0 O 21.0 57.0 40,0 38.0
IGUI (caribou) x SP Table 5.08, col. 17. )( Table 5.04, col. 7
lnverse general uliHtyindex
are all parts that are likely to vBry considerably as a function of the level of destruction experienced by en assemblage and, in eddition, are parts thal roughly scale from high lo low in the range of bone densities characteristic of young and old animals. Factor 2 appears to be those parts that most likely betray residual remains at an animal site, whereas factor 3 groups parts most Iikely to co-occur by virtue of having been transported away from animal ldlls-in short, parts diagnostic of transported assemblages. Factor 4 appears lo be those elements tha!
covary in the presonce of Ibe others listed that most consistently monitor large body size or old animals. This factor is interpreted as an age indicator for the prey animals represented in an assemblage. A further warranl for the foregoing interpretativn is provided by the faclor scores as distributed among Ihe cases that provided Ihe data matrix. Table 6.06 summarizes the faclor scores for the factor solulion summarized in Table B.OS. Of particular importance is thal faclor scores for factor 1 interpreted as a survivorship faclor exhibit
Analomical part Scapula Proximal redto-cubttus Proximal metatarsal Proximal tibia Distal femur Distal tibia Proximal metacarpal Vertebrae Ribs Teeth Pelvis Oístal metacarpal Proximal femur Distal radio-cubttua Distal humerus Proximal humerus Distal metapodial
Number
1
aa
.877 .803 .746 .729 .718 .699 .694 .644 .501
28 36 14 33 35 JO 25 24
21 22 31 J2 2. 27
28 37
O .256 O .478 .299 .414 O O
2
,351 .396 .414 O O O O .527 .421 .837 .806 O O O .290 .250 .499
3 O O O O ,585 O ,264 .317 O O .296 .722 .678 .518 O .443 .327
4 O .303 O .370 O .364 .250 O O O O .436 O O .846 O O
no very consístent pattern wilh respect to the four known cases of destroyed essembíeges inc1uded wlthín the metrtx. the den and kili modele lor large end small animals (rows 25-28, Table 6.05), 11 will be recalled that a11 four cases were modified bv survival percentages prior to beíng usad in Ihe analys¡s. 00 the cther hand, factor 2, destgnated a diagnoslic for kili sites, exhibits sorne of Ihe highest factor loadings on the two kilI site cases and, equally inleresling, shows low or negative values on the den assemblages. Likewise, faclor 3, interpreted as diagnostic of transported assemblages. exhibits consistently high scores for th!': Iwo control den assemblages and a negalive value on the smal1 kili assemblages. This nice fit is clouded by an ambiguous value on the large body-size kilI. For the body size factor (4) Ihe only positive score is on the large den sample. which is certainly Ihe most distinclive borly-size assemblage. 1 am confidenl Ihat the "R" mode analysis has re(;ognized meaningful patlerning and Ihat Ihe interpretation of Ihe unrlerlying struclure is very dose to being accurate. It now is of sorne interes! lo inverl
the data matrix and perforro a "Q" mode analysis for purposes of clustertng the cases and thereby permltting the recognttlon oí essembtege types for the Dlduvat sttes. Table 6.01 summarizes the factor loadíngs thal resulted from the .'Q" mode anelysís. As can be seen. a ñve-tector solution was ohtained with the majoríty of cases loadíng on the ñrst factor. Not only do large numbers of Olduvai cases group on factor 1, but so do all the model data cases, the large and small body-slze examples of hoth animal kills and dens. What the latter hava in common is thet they have been equally transformed bv the survival percentages as a means of estímeting what they would look Iike had they been reveged by destructíve agente. By extension, end by virtue of Ihe "R" moda resulte. factor 1 ís interpreted as the survivorship cluster. However. a HUle more information ís cerríed in that the model cases for dens [transportad assemblages) exhíbít consistently higher loadlngs than do the control cases for killa. This most certainly means that the Olduvaí cases clustered wlth hígh loadings on factor 1 ere transported: that is, Ihey are most analogous to the animal den essemblages of the control cases. These are FLK North Levels, 3, 4, and 5, HWK East Levels 3-5, MNK Main, FLK North and %. and BK 11. Factor 2 is the most mteresung in thet it exhibits moderare loadings on the den assemblage modele and zero values on the kili modele. suggestíng that tbese are transported assemblages but differ from those offactor 1 in that they are not heavily modified by destructive agents. Grouped 00 this factor are HWK East Level2, FLK NN Level2, MNK H. 13, FLK North Level 6, and Fe West, Tuff (compare this to undestroyed cases indicated in Figures 6.04 and 6.05), Factor 3 exhibits no meaningful loadings on the control cases oí large and small animal dens and kills. Assemblages from FLK Levels 13 and 15 and FLK NN Level 3 are most discretely ¡oaded on Ihis factor. No obvious meaning can be given to Ihis grouping at Ihis time; however, its polential sigoifi. cance is inleresting since it obviously is telling us about something nut anticipated by the animal be· hm'ior models. Faclor 4 exhibits moderate loadings an the models of animal kills wilh the hiRhest loading 00 Ihe large kili data, which are clearly mast distinctive.
•
6. Applicolion: A New Look (JI ülduH!; Gorga
288 TABLE 6.06
FuclOl" SCOl'U8 lor "R" Molle Alurlys1s o/ Olduval Sitas" Fectors
Cht-square values Number HWK 3-5 HWK2
HWK 1
V¡ fLK3 FU<'
FLK
FLK 5 F'LK 6 FLK 13
1 2 3
• 5
6 7 8
•
FLK 15
10
Zlnj
11
12 NN 1 NN 2 13 NN 3 DK 1-1 15 DKI-2 16 DK 1-3 17 81< 11 18 TiC UF 19 TK LF 20 FC TUFF 21 re fL 22 MNK MAIN 23 MNK Ht3 LG KILL MODEL 25 LG DEN MDDEL 26 SM KILL MDDEL 27 SM DEN MDDEL 26
"
"
(df= 17)
(df = 4)
1.068 .903
.369
.144 .650
.237
.699 1.146 .:]76 .763
1.428 1.310 .442 1.011
1.146 1.098 1.452 .422 .967 .312 1.471 1.460 1.402 1.452 .393 1.414 .638 1.019 .9132 .770
.321 292 .490 .412
.119 .524 1.489 .806 .136
.044 .242 .124 3.975 162 .611 .219 5.377 1.501 3.456 2.617 .222 1.273 .107 .339 .218 .718
(dI = 13) 1.263 1.082 9.901 .761
.764 1.371 .455 .836 1.410 1.465 9.536 1.308
1
2
.921
-.422 .544 .037
-.668 .551 1.035 -.533 .530 576 .737
.028
-.379
'"
-.201 -.512
.836 -.161
1.238 .847
vea
-.004
.351 1.185 -1.949 -1.023 .325 .377 -.400 393 -.1J6 .591 .409 .601 -.757 -2.116 .765 -2.801 .196 -.657 .889 .463 -.036 1.397
.035
.030
-.865 -1.435 .315 -.003
1.424
.633
-.114
1.398 .676 .S02 1.076 .341 .268 1.447 .771
.502 .217 025 .839 .356 -1.691 -.208 -3.580 -.416 .319 -1.808 -.613 .290 .170 -.546
.446 1.458 .611 1.307 1.218 .786
-.726 .712
•
-.166 -.099
1.421 .412 .500 .022
1.094
3
039
1.117 .100 -.564 .237 -3.859 1.077 .35< 1.356 .538 .533 .873 -.453 .581 .220
.462
.212
289
end cases in ways thal are conststent with the con. trole that were built into the analysrs. that ís. the modal essemblages for prey of both large and small size remaining as residual perts et kills and transported by animals to denso In the "Q" mode resulta, factor 1 is a groupíng of assemblages that have suffered considerable ettrttíon et the hands of bonedestructiva egents. with a bias in this group in favor of aseembleges that have been transportad, or den forms of essemblage. Elements diagnost¡c of these assembleges are the extremítíes ofthe rear leg in particular. Factor 2 desígnates transported essembleges thet have not suffered much aUrition and are front-
leg biased. Factor 3 is a grouping ol assemblages in terms of sorne characterístíc not modelad in the enimal behavior cases. Fectors 4 and 5 are kili or residual faunal assemblages thet have nct suffered heevy attrition. Factor 4 is btesed toward lower rear leg parts whereas faclor 5 ís cherecteeízed by more upper front leg perts. The factor solutícns are robust, and the groupings of aites are, in my opinion, quite secura in terms of dtegnosttc criteria. This permita me to analyze several cases, eech taken as representative cf a class of essemblege isolated by Ihe factor analysis. Analyzing assemblages in terrns of compositional cherec-
.606 .297
.283 -,Z32 .778 .266 -4.092 .540 1.175 .567 -1.495 .330 942 .446 -,740 962 -1.206 .952 - .753 -1.082
• EIItlm.-tedlactor so;;ol"N and MahallnobJ. dblancea {eh! lqullNIa] from ftlIehel.., lo tnecentrold of all ¡;ase! for anllio.r dlla (df '" 17j, factor '<:Gres (df ,. 4). "lid thelr difJerlll\C1lldf ,. 13) Each chi-equare value hB8been divided by ib dellFileof frfledum.
Olduvet sítes grouped on this factor are PLK 22, or the Zinj f1oor, Fe west, Flonr, and DKI-1. Factor 5, líka factor 4, axhíbíts moderete loadings on the model kili assernblegea. díffenng only in the sllghtly higher valúes for the small animal comnbutions. Only FLK NN Level 3 is Joaded on lhis factor. As a 'lauree of still furlher information, the factor scores for the above "Q" mode solulion are sum· mBl'ized in Table 6.08. Inspection of Ihe faclor scores supports the interpretations offered thus faro The suggestion that factor 3 represented patteming nol modeled by Ihe
As!>embJageCompositioll-Olduv(l¡ Gorga
animal control dala ts further elucídeted by recognizing that the scapule. ribs, proximal radío-cubítue. proximal metacarpal. and Ihe bonea of the tibia through the proximal metetersel are contríbutíng most to the deftntuon al the factor. These are all parta tha! might be expected lo ride if relatively large seclions of leg were being transported or deleted from an as~mblage. The scapula is one of the Cirst bones to be disarticuiated in a nonnal sequence and is one that is normally consumed relafively early in an animal consumption sequence. The factor analysis has grouped both variables
TABLE 6.01 SoHed Rolated Factor LOtJdinss (p.,ttem) lo,. "Q" Mode Ana/yris o/ Olduvai Sltes
fllctors
FLK 5 FLK 4 HWK 3-5 FLI< 3 MNK MAIN FLK V~ LG DEN MODE!. BK 11 SM DEN-MODEL DI< 1,2 NN 1 SM KILI. MDDEL DK 1-3 HWKl LG KILL MODEL HWK2 NN 2 MNK H13 fLI< 6 fLI< 15 FLK 13 NN 3 Fe TUfF FU( 22 FClFL DK 1-1 n.:: UF TK LF
Number
1
2
3
3B
.950 .891 .663 .856 ,652 .610 .606 .80J .799 .731 .726 .101 .697 675 .573 .401 360 O .529 .369
O O O O O O .414 O .389 .423 O O O .484 O .809 .755 657 .614 O O
O O O O .274 252 O .370 O .262 O O O .271
37 32
36
54 35 57
•• " " "'"se 5.
58
. 33 ó5
JO
"'" "" 45
O O
53
O .394 .418
46 56
U
51
.284
VI'
10.508
()
U
.546 .365 O O O .389 3.764
O
O
'"
O O 862 .663 .64J -627 .325 U
O O
,390 3.076
• O O O O O O O .J06 ,J04 O .329 .389 .264 O .557 O O O O O O O O .706 676 .499 U
,366 2.417
5 O O O O O O O O O .261 O .469 O O .517 O O
O O O
O 590 .339 O O O O O 1.279
-~-----..-
.......
6. Applica/ion: A New Look ot Olduvn¡ Gorga
270
(df = 5)
1 2
.941 .941
1106
.666
.798
1.008
3
941 .941 .941 .941 941 .941 .94t
.911 1.014
.714
vertebree Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radío-cubuue Distal redto-cubnus pmxtmal metacarpaí Distal metacarpal Proxtmal femur ürstat femur Proximal tibia Distal libia Proximal metatarsal DlslBl metatarsal
•
5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
13 14
15 16 17
.941
.941 .941 .941 .941 .941 .941 .941
....e
5
2
(df = 16)
(d! = l1J
----'---.927 1,013
.540
663 099 751
-2.033
1.136 .306
-1063 -2.353
-.103 .166
1.262
.753
.736 1.213
1208 1.035 .818
.185 -.129
1,244
.804
.339 289 .480 1.070 .919
1.594 .490 .339 .435 .780 2.177
.645 1.146 1.215 1.171 1.015 .379
.781
1.553 .594 1.360 .235 .355
teristics as clUBS to both the identlty of the agents and tbe behevtor responslble for the assemblages is OUT next tesk. Fxcros 1 ASSEMBLAGES
As has been satd. these seem to have suffered considerable attritlon and exhtbtt their greatest stmtleríttee to the den mcdels, thet ia, animaltransported assembJages. Since (he Olduvai assamhlages load on the factor somewhal higher thlln do Ihe den data, 1 irnmediately suspected thal !hese were faunal scatters and were analogous lo the assemblage from Alaska conected at Chandler rather than true animal dens or lairs as known from Swartklip. Inspection of Table 6.03 for the dominant charaeteristics of assemblages from FLK Norlh Levels 4 and 5, the two most "Iypical" for the faclor, shows that they are assemblages heavily dominated by lower limb parts. This facl furlher supporls the impression that lhese are faunal scatfers, or back· ground distributions Df anatomical parls removed lrom kills hy animals lo avoid compelilive confrontalions and to increase Ihe comfort of eating. Experi-
.207 .593 .036
.059 -.461 -.854 .833 .467
~
-2.361 -1.378 -.791 -.200 .109 .333
.n.'
.• "1 "N
-.313 -.384
.935 1.072 -.392
1.466 1.172 871
-c.aes
1,008 .408 -.378
360 1.215
-.064 -.052
-.461 1.28Z
-1.448
-1.478 -.755 -.170 .486 .964
.58 -1.949
Figure 6.08 tllustretes the relationship between FLK North Level 5 and the sample from Chandler in
Alaska.
Fectors
Number
271
....,
'00,
Chi-square valoes
q
Assemblage Composñfcn-c-Olduvu¡ Gorge
TABLE 6.08 Factor SCorell lor "Q" Mude AlIalysls o/Olduval Sltes
Teeth Pelvis Scepula Ribs
~.,
-
-1.308 -1.467 -.457 -.314 - .3.13
-.487 .367 .955
1.206 1.404
-.060 -.542 1.127
.0911 547 .081
W· >" tlJO
"" ;=8"
.."""
.
'o~
"<
,
""
"
."
••oc
..... .... ... "1•. . .. .. . . .. .. . " ,
.052 !i29
ence wítb the Alaskan material showed that these seperated perts were those most heevtlv gnawed and destrcyed by anímals. (Sea the descrlption of wolf gnewtng behavtor al tbe time of the "second Ieedtng" in Chapter 5.) Such heavy destructíon ts cleerly mdíceted for the assembleges grouped in factor 1. As discussed earuer. an assembtage trenspcrted by animals is most Hkely lo he epproxímeted by the f nverse general utility index, end if subíect to destructíon. the latter must be modified by the survtval pl'lrcentages. Figures 6.06 and 6.07 illus!rale the rela· tionship belween FLK North Level 5 and FLK Norlh Levels 1/2 and the model described (values are sumo mari2ed in Table 6.04) as modified by the survival percenlages ol caribou (medium-large sized animal). Several things are of interes! in these dislri· butions. First, bolh are very similar in Ihat the bulk of Ihe assemblage is related lo the model in a sleeply linear fashion. Second, in both cases Ihe temur and metapodials 8ppear overrepresenled, whereas teeth, representing head parts, are underrepresenled. This type of situation. where a transported assemblage is biased in lerms of lower exlremilies. was seen previollsly in the Chandltlr assemblage from Alaska.
,
'"
"'C
~~
.774 -.644
-.466 -.693 .197 -1.562 -2.048
oc• • 0'"
""'1
'0'
••
MOOEL • IGUI X SURVIVAL PERCENTAGC (CARIBOU) TABLE 6.04, COL 12
FIGURE 6.1Nl. Relationship between rhe frequendes of anatomíl:al parts from FLK N, Leveí 5, and mode/ed v«l. ues.
'00,
S l/)N
"N w
.. .
'o
~5 "'"
""
~á
~:
''''
._n.'.
-' .~.
-......... .,. .~
,
.0'"
So
.~.
;;j '.
~~
A strong correleüon is tndíceted. which ís positiva and moderalely curvilinear wilh only two parte falling off the curve as underrepresented in the FLK North Leve] 5 assemblege-c-the distal metetersal and dístal metecerpal. Thls is almost certeínly releted lo breekege. as shown by the fact that the third highest entry lar "metapodíels. indeterminate" lisled in the Olduvaí tablea (M. O. Leakey 1971:276) is for the sample from FLK 5. 1 interpret Ihis to mean thet broken parts of metepodíels that could not be eccurately esslgned the front versus back legs are tebuleted in the "Indeterminate" cetegory. lf correct. il is not surprislng to find Ihese parts underrepresented in the "determínate" dasses. 1 am quite conñdent. by virtue of fects of assemblage composítíon breekaga and cherecterístíc attrition, that the factor 1 faunal essemblages as grouped in Table 6.06 are background scctters or palimpsests of faunal elements dispersed largely by predatcr-scevengers. There ís nothíng presenl in these essemblagss as known that suggests in any way dislinctive ecttvíty by hominids.
.0 .'
. " .",.....
.~.
'.
..101
.• " .. .. .. ..
"
".
MODEL • IGOI X SURVIVAL Pf:RCENTAGE {CAFlIBOUl TABLE 6.04, COL. 12
FIGURE 6.07. Relationship between frequencies of ullGtomicol ports fmm f'LK N. Levels 1 and 2, ond mode/ed volues.
10
'"
.0
CHANOLER TABLE 5.01, COL 30
FIGURE 6.08. Relotionship betwtrt!n frequenr:les of unofomical fUlrls /roro FLK N, Leve.l 5, and Alaskan as8emb/o,e !mm ChandJer.
" " " " , & '. 6. Applícolion: A
272
Np.w
Look 01 Olduvo¡ Gorgp.
".
lt seems rnost Jikely thet the bulk of the feunel material ís behavíorally unrelated lo the associated lools in these depoaíts.
"
.,. I
,
I
FACTOR 2 ASSEMBLAGES
This ís a rnost provocative grouping of assemblages. It indicates a strong similarity between both levels where relatlvely complete anatomice! artieulatioos were noted (FLK North Level e and HWK East Level 2) as well as Ihe cnly reportad ossembJoge nct associoted wilh too/s (FLK NN Level 2). Two very smal1 assemblages thal seem lo represen! dífferent contexts are also grouped on thts factor: MNK H.13 and FCWest, Tuíí. 1 mentíon that they seem out oí place in thet Ihe assembleges with the highest loadings are generally descnbed 85 reletlvelv unbrokan, well-preserved faunas, wherees the latter two are described as poorly preserved end essoctated with many very srnall íngmenls oíbone, presumably the by-product oí bone wealhering. The overall characler oí the factor as judgad by the factor scores relativa lo !he analomical parts indicates that Ihese assemblages have not suffered heavy attrition by bone·destructive egents. The reports oC poor preservation and many srnall splinters seem inconsistenl with this al firsl consideration. However, if the fauna is poorly preserved as a funclion oCexposure and weathering, then destruction is a Cunction nol necessarily oC Ihe slrenglh of Ihe anatomical parts but instead of Iheir position on the surface and relative speed oC buda!' If Ihe latter were in fact the circumstance, then Ihere would be no necessary preservation relaled pattern of variability directly correlated with relative beme densities, as is the case when there is an active destruction of parts by gnawing animals and the like. In addition to the preservalion-versus~destruclion possibility, the two anomalous assemblages are very small indeed and could well be strongly biased by virtue of Iheir small counts. Returning to tha larga assemblages, they are most certainly representative of a "transported" condi~ tion. This is well iIlustrated by the lruly remarkable fit between the assemblage from HWK East Level 2 and the inverse general utility index for medium- lo large-sized animals (caribou) ilIustraled in Figure 6.09. The relationship is positive and curvilinear
N~
-., I
'
Wo
~~
I
.~,
I
WW
DT.
'm ••
I
J
%"
I
....,,
J" ;0.
....
~DM
, ' J".o
/
..
........
,q 'lO ~~ q
',..
.,,€"' , /
... 10
~
,q
10
/
.000
• •M ....
" •• ,
.
'0
MODEL • IGUI CARIBOU
TABLE
5.08, COL. 17
FIGURE 6.09. Relotionship between freqDendes of anotomical parfs fmm HWK E, Level 2, ond modeled valDes.
such that parts of low lo marginal utility are well represented, whereas parts of high to moderale util· ity are poorly represenled. This is precisely the model thal anticipated the parts introdllced to animal dens. It ShOllld also be emphasized that Ihis model is very clase lo tbal which anticipales the parts abandoned by modero Eskimo hunters at kili sites after Ihe "choice" parts have been Temoved to a base campo In fact, in Ihe HWK East Level 2 assemblage, the extremities ofthe lower legs are slightly underrepresenled and, as I have indicaled earJier, modern hunlers often remove Ihe lower leg parts in excess of Iheir obvious utility as "riders" with more valuable upper leg parts. Even mom provocative is Ihe facl thal Ihese assemblages have nol been ravaged. This is Olle of the marks of difference belween an animal kili and a human kili: Animals consume al Ihe kili and al leasl sorne destruction lakes place Ihere. The deslruction may be minimal al Ihe kili proper where mainly meal is con· sumed. whereas bones that are gnawed and sub· jecled to heavy deslruction are generally dragged away from the kili proper. Man using tools dismembers a kili and transports Ihe mosl usable foad away
273
Assembloge Composilion-ülduvoi Gcrge
so that HUle actual destructíon ís effected on the parts remetntng al a kili. Desptte all these provocative observetíone that appear to warrant inferences of hominid-related ectívítíes. such tnferences appear to be directly at odds with the excavators' observatíone: 1. Sita FLK NN Level 2 yielded no stone tools or other evtdence of hominid activity. 2. Site FLK North Level 6 is interpretad as a site "where an elepbent was cut up by early man [Leakey 1971:641." 3. The depostts at HWK Easl Level 2 were descrtbed as yielding toole "scettered at random" through 6Y:z feet of depostt (M. D. Leekey 1971:93). Large coprolítes of hyena and lioneized animals were regularly presento In the lower pert of the deposít was a mínor concentretion oí fauna largely represanting the remaíns of an elephanl together with arlieuleted parts of a Deinothenum. In Ihe upper part oí Ihe deposil was anolher concenlration of relaled parls oí a rhinoceros.
The faunal ramains analyzed includad Ihe large marnmal parts as well as Ihe smaUer bovids and equids that oceurred in Ihe deposils as background faunal remains. Whal is almosl certainly representad here is Ihe dealh slte oC several large mammals 10ge!her wilh background scatters of olher (mainly bovid) ramains. The accumulalion is a true palimpses!, differing from those of factor 1 in that Ihe large· anima! remains added to the scatter biased Ihe lotal in lhe direclion of "moderate" value anatomical elements (inspect M. O. Leakay 1911: Figures 32 and 47 and this bias becomes clear). In addition. Ihe assemblages are no! heavily ravaged, which is what mosl distinctively separates Ihem from those of factor 1. Burial was relatively rapid and inilial deslruction al the kill-death site was minimal (as was Ihe case in Hill's kili site matarials from modern Africa). Which of Ihe many differenl events, agents, and episodes "recorded" in these geological palimpsests did man participale in? 1 think it is interesting thal in all three distributions iIIuslrated by Mary Leakey (1971: Figures :}2 and 47J Ihe slone tools are nol concenlraled or spatially c1usteTed wilh the bones of Ihe large animals Iha! have been inlerpreled as the largels of the hominids' aelions at Ihe siles. In fact,
the tools are c1ustered with the scatter of largely bovtd remains in all cases. In short. the stone tools are parts of the seme background palimpsest distributíon (relative lo other large-mammal death locations] within whích the bovid rematas occur. Both appear to be unreleted to the death assemblages of the large animals. It ts provoceuve lhat the slone tool dtstríbutton al the now famous "híppo" site at Koobt Fora also exhibits a dispersion patlern such thal the tnols are dislribuled Independently of the bones within the scetter recorded. Stated another way, where the tools are found there are few bones and where the bones are found in high density there are few, if any, tools {sea Isaac 1978}. It is tempting lo see the two situations as similar-a death locatton of a iarge mammal superimposed on a vague scatter of both bones and lools in a situation of eccreuonerv geologtcal deposítton. The result ís a deposit of lo';" inlegrity end low resolutton. which provídes no warranled reason for ínferrtng behavioral eonnecIions between spatially associated things. FACTOR 1 KILLS
lt is rny opinion that several sites loaded on factor 1 are grouped because they share a pattern derived from bone destruction. This is iIlustrated by the facl Ihal the models for both kills and dens are loaded on factor 1. Four Olduvai assemblages, OKI-2, DK Level 3, FLK NN Level 1, and HWK Easl Level 1, are ar~ ranged with the kilI site models on factor 1 and are therefore believed lo be more like Ihose models. Fig· ure 6.10 iIluslrates the relationship between Ihe rav· aged model {Table 6.04, column 6) from small· animal kills and the part frequencies from Ihe site of DKI·2.1t is c1earthe fit is impressive, being a positive convex curvilinear relationship between the data and Ihe model with only the pelvis beiog underrepresenled in any anomalous manner. FLK NN Levell is an imporlant assemblage since it was recovered from one of Ihe living f100rs (M. D. Leakey 1971:2581. Yet only a very small tool assemblage was recovered (five lools and Iwo f1akes) 8nd Ihe living floor inlerprelation seems somewhal equivoca! judging from Leakey's discussion (pp. 43-44). DKI·2 is clearly a palimpsesl DI moderala cieplh exhibiling no obvious ¡ulema! slructure (p. 25).
. A.o,,--~'
~
27.
6. Application: A New Look QIOJduvai Gorge
.
,
.. ..
w .' ¡j~ ~u
....
.~.
~rj " OW ~
~rlV.
....
'j ., W
... ... ... ....
" "
"
.
. . . .?
"~OIlT
." ... roo . .. .. . .'''' .VUT
"
.. ..
"
..
SMALL PREY KILL SITE TABLE 6.04, COL 6
FIGURE 6.10. RelotionJhlp between freqlJencles of anofomictd parts ¡mm DI(, l.eveI2, and mode/ed values.
FACTOR 3 ASSF.MBLAGES
Thís Factor 3 groups two assemblages, FLK Levels 13 snd 15, with a major loading also on F'LK NN Level 3. This js 3D interesting factor, since there Bre no significant loadings from aoy of the model assemblages for animal kills or dens. This suggests thal we are seeing sorne organizational faefs that are Dutside tbe range oC candítioos currentIy documentad for animal behavior. lnspections oC Tabla 6.03 shows lha! these assemblages are nol dominated either by lower legs. as is common with animal.transported assemblages, or by head and axial skeleton parts, as is common 8t animal kills. Instead. the distal humarus, distal tibia, and scapula appear as the most common elements 00 the three sites in order of Iheir loadings. In addi!ion to this difference, FLK Levels 13 and 15 exhibit an odd pat· tern of absence for distal melapodials. FLK NN Level 3 shares this properly for Ihe metatarsals. This is almosl certainly a pallern of destruction nol seen previously in eilher animal contexl or in modero human contexts. The analysis indicates thal these assemblages are something special and share little with nonhominid animal assemblages. This view is suppvrted by Ihe excavalors. who nole thal at FLK
Level 15 "sorne of the marnmalian limb bones show olear indications of battering and smeshing [M. D. Leakey 1971;59J." This is the onJy assemblage jrum Olduvai Gorge where such ah observcuon wce reportad. AH of these observations, from both my analysts and the stetements by the excavators. converge te suggest th.at we are seelng Ihe faunal consequences of homíníd behavíor or et Ieest sorne behevíor not documented for other animals. From my experience wifh the faunal materials of the Nunamiut Bskímo. I íound that essernblages dominated by upper limb bone elements are generally second-order assemblages. That is, they repre, sent a selectíon of parts from a population already strongly biased away from the proporttons cherec, tensttc of a living animal. Such eseemblages were found lo be cherecterístíc of human subststence in humíng campa and stettcns where anatomical parls bad been selected and transponed from a kili and tntroduced tn the camp, where a second selectíon was then mede Ior use in the campo There were many other contexts of Eskimo logtsttcet-consumptíon ac, tívttíee where second-order assemblages were com, mono Wbat might be sorne reasonable contexts where early hominid populations would behave in such a way as lo produce a second-order assemblage? The answer is relatively clear: lf hominias scavenged usobJe parts from animol kills atter the majar predatoc--scavenger compelition was over, lhe parts recavered would be o second-order assembloge. In arder to determine if the assemblages grouped by factor 3 could be antidpated by a "scavenger model," the mean kill assemblage for large animals as presented in Table 5.08. colurnn 2. was multiplied by the IGUI (inverse general utility index) and stan· dardized as presented in Table 6.04, column 10. Figure 6.11 ilIustrates the relationship belween Ihis "scavenger" model and the frequencies of parts re-covered at site FLK Leve115. I consider this distribution eXlremely diagnoslic in that lhere are clearlv two di8lributions, one low and linear and one high and convex curvilinear. The low and linear distribution is positiva and groups teelh (which monitor the headl, the pelvis, and the vertebrae. These are the axial ske/etol elements. which most commonly remojo orticuJaled at animal kiJ1s. In the high and curvilinear distribulion are all parts of Ihe appendicular skeleton plus ribs. wilh the only meal-yielding part of any significance being the
275
AssembJoge Composrñon-c-Oiduvoi Gorgl'
.
\
..
I
.P.e \
-.•• " .J...i
"o
~'":
.e
"' •""
"-w
W
data. as well as the apparent contrast between the biased removal of elreedy disarticulated parts versus parts Hkely to heve remained articulaled et a kill . 2. The scevengtng was the simple picking up of díserticuleted parts and thetr transpon to anothar location lor consumptlon. No dismemberment by hominids seems inrilcated.
lO,
'00,
I
I I I
0'3
,
OC>
'" J
..... ".'
"" ;
00
.. ..
/
/
J
, /
//
''' ... 0.....-.....-/
.<" ,
.
-
///
••,..
..
.
//
/.(l!lt
/ / .....v
....~ ....-.0:,..., ee
.
••
MOOEL FOR SCAVENGEO ANIMAL ktLL LARGE X IGUI, TABLE 6.04,COL.IO
cu.
fiGURE 8.11. Ifelolionship between frequencies uf onolumh:ol pol1s from FLK. Leve/IS. ond modeJed vol· ues.
scapula. This is an extremely provocative pattern. It shows that the articulated axial pans typically re· maining at animal kills are underrepresented in a correlated and systematic fashion, whereas the appendicular skeleton elemenls, most likely to be disarticuJated and scattered about an animal kili, are overrepresented in a correlaled snd systematic fashion. I think it is highly unlikely that such a fit to a data-based model with such a diBgnoslic pattern could occur if the contextual ldentilication was totally spurious. 1 am Quile confident that factor 3 represen/s ana!omical parls selecled trom an already "consumed" and scavenged animal kiJl as evi· denced by the underrepresentation of the axial skele· Ion. This type 01 systemalic secondary selection is nol thus far documented for nonhominld predalorscavengers. If early hominids were scavenging predator kills and natural death sites in a manner yielding Ihe foregoing pattero, two conditions musl have obtained: 1. The scavenging took place after most other predalor-scavengers had already abandoned Ihe sile. This is shown by the model, which anticípates Ihe
The second point seems warranted by the contrast between the axial and appendicular skeleton 8nd the continuity between anatomice! elements, wilh Ihe posstble exceptton of the distal metapodials whose ebsence appears enomalous. Put enotber way, the scavenging seems to have been of portable parts present al an animal kili rather than after the butchering of body segmenta to facllitate trensport as in a "human" model. 1 will return to ti díscuseton 01 sorne 01 the implications of tbese findiogs alter I have completed discussing the Olduveí essemblagee. FACTOR 4 ASSEMBLAGES
Is a groupíng of sítes thet share moderete loadings on botb the large aJ'ld small kills of prey wilh the large animal data most similar to the cases. lt is likely lhat Ihls is also a grouping of assemblages that are largely unravaged except as indicated by componían loadings on factor 1. The sites grouped by factor 4 are the Zinj floor (FLK 22), Ihe floor at site Fe, and level DKI-l. This ls a very impressive grouplng. placing in juxlaposition sites from the lowest part of Bed 110 the middle part of Bed 11. Not only is this Ihe case, but the mosl important 2ioj floor 18 included. The latter captured the imagination oí both professionals and laymen almost from the first days of its discovery. This was the first demonstrated association belween a hominid. tools, and launa. This was the sought-after situation Ihat, it was hoped, would provide the needed cines to Ihe character of man's subsislence behavior and perheps even something aboul other behaviors. Nol only was the association presenl, but the material was from what appeared lo be a single land surface. Everything appeared appropriate to inlerpret tbis as a living floor; there was even sorne speculation about the internal layoul of the site and where the brush "houses" might have been placed (see M. D. Leakey 1971:260). In our earlier review of the observations by eXC8vators, it was noted that there was at least a
"
~
276
"[ake mergtn' background oí naturaUy occurring fauna, reptiles. and bírds. in addítíon lo concrete avldenca Ior the action of relatively large predators. plus the tools evidencíng tbe presence of hominid ecttvtttes. We heve a minimum of two conlexts-generalized by-products ofa lake margin habítat and specific epísodes of actíon by bolh nonhominid end hominid agents. The number of events end the redundancy nf (he episodic ccntnbutíons [the resoluttnn of the eseemblage¡ were not cleer. That numbers of dlfferent situational contexts are repreeented on the Zinj finar is supported by the enalysls summeríaed in Tabla 6.06 where ji Is lo be noted that moderate factor loadings for the Zinj finar occur 00 factors 1, 2, and 3. in addition lo a domlnant loading on factor 4. This Is the mosl heterogenaous or situationalIy mixed site, 8S judged from the factor analysis, within lhe studied sel from Olduvlli Gorge. Sorne subset al the assemblage is rllVaged in a pattern suggestive of nonhominid consumption: A scavenged natural death of animab appears represented, as does sorne transporte
6. t\pplication: t\ New Look 01 Olduvoi Gorga
ecevengers." It will be recalled thet what anímals tend to leeve et kili sites is generally what modern human hunters tend 10 trensport lo base campe. What happened on the Zinj Iloor? Using the contrasta previously listed [see Tables 6.03 and 6.071, the Zinj flcor ís cheractenzed by (a) hígh frequencies of heeds. [b] more pelves than rtbs. (e) low frequencies of the proximal humeros end the distal radio-cuhítus, and (d)low frequencies of the femur relattve to the tibia. These are wíthout exceplion charecteristics of animal ki/ls rather than trensponed human essembleges. lt Is hard to imagine homtntds dismembering a kili by eating tbrougb and therefore consuming the proximal humeros and the distal redro-cubítus. Similarly. it is dttñcult lo ptcture the abendonment of Ihe fémur in favor of the tibia if hominids were transporting game to base camps. These facts are more impressive if il is Tecalled that heads are common but femora are rare, with the same being true for the pelvis-rib contrast, properties more charaeteristic of kills (see Figure 5.13). [think il can be said unequivocally that what is represented are animal kills thal man may be partially exploiling after the olher predator-scavengers have abandoned tha location. Prior utilization is indicated by tbe general residual pattern. particularly by low frequencies of lower fronllegs relative ta rear legs. It will be recalled that the front leg is Ihe first lo become dismembered and therefme is subject to early sesttering by predalor-scavengers. The frequencies al the Zinj site (see M. O. Leakey 1971: Table 53, column 36) show that such scattering hlld most likely taken place. Factor 4 is recognized as a kili assemblage af anatomical parts with all the characleristics of carcasses either killed and consumed in additiol1 to having been scavenged by nonhominid ptedatorscavengers. There is also a provocative Iink8ge betwoon factor 4 and factor 2 in the mirror.image patteming with respect ta tha distal metalarsal. This is taken as suggestive of hominid behavior and is therefore viewed ·as evidence for sorne u¡¡lization of the abandaned kills by hominids on the sita.
Aupmblage ComposiJJon-OJduvaí Gorge
(see Table 6.061 and appeers ta be a kilJ stte variant where scapuia end ribs as well as parts of the reer leg are less common relativa to other parts of the axial skelelon as well as the upper front leg. OnJy ene stra. FLK NN Level 3 talso loaded heavíly 00 faclor 3) ís designated as diagnostico Inspecuon af Ihe factor scores Ior faclors 3 and 5 [Tabla 6.081 shows that they appear lo be inverse images of one another. Figure
This is a factor delined by leeth, pelvis, and ver tebrae wilh minar eonlributions from parts af Ihe froI1lleg. JI is also assimilated to Ihe kili s¡te models
6.12 illustrstes the relattcnshíps between the scores for Iactors 3 and 5. There appears lo be an uneorreJalad scatter made up of the rtbs, scapuía. proximal and distal ends of the humerus. proximal rnetacarpal, proximal redto-cubnus. as wellas Ihe distal tibia plus the proximal metatarsal, proximal tibia. and the distal fémur. In addítton. a posilive relationship is indicated for the distal metatarsal and metacarpals.
.------------
,"
• P"C
//
ceo /
/
'"
e
",
/
/
-,
"
R11S
/
00
-
<,
.PRC
/
/
f
""'"
"
\
\
\ \ \
I
I
00
.
i'l
..
w -'
\ e
PI'"
"
..o I
I
\
\
W
/
""
;!
""-
¡;¡ w
'"O "!'!
\ I
'"
\
'W
/
/
"" "
_"
//
-------
/
'"
.-------.
//
,//-:(u , / / eORC
'" .," " 1-
......, PtlV·
/
/
'"
// ,//
/
"1.00
/
/
//
_//// //
·1.80 /
r
.~"y/
-------
/
_2.00(to ..
/
//
/
·'.0
/
//
// /
/
/
....... / /
/
,"
I
/
/
/
-00
-200
re e
/
O
~
/
/
~
'"o FACTOR 5 ASSEMBLAGES
277
.-- .... I.eo
-1.&0
-'.0
120
·'.00
·'0
·eo
·.0
'10
10
.0
"
ao
100
1.10
FACTOR 5 (SCORESI, TABLE 6.08 FIGURE 6.12. Relalion.~h;p between {uctor 8core8 un onotornkul purts lar {ocIaN 3 and 5.
1.• 0
'-eo
,,&-'
~
.78 proximal íemur. distal radío-cubttus. vertebrae. teeth, end pelvis. The latter ls exactly the grouping within the low and linear reletionship indícated between the data from FLK Leve115 (site dtegnosttc of factor 3 and OUT model for scavenged animal killssee Figure 6.11). This similarity clinches the understanding oí factor 5 as a remnant kili assernblage from which elements deñnítive oí factor 3 were scavenged , presumably by hominids. The reason the two Iectors do not appear as the two ende oí a single bipolar factor ís most ltkely the destructton oí parts by the homlntds. particularly parts al Ihe opposite ends of the long bonas previously paTlially destroyed by animals, that ¡s. Ihe harder ends. The letter behavior would render a lack of correlation between hominid "ravaged" assemblages and the survival percentages. Thus Ihey are nol assimilaled to factor 1 and after secondary destruclion by homioids the source and the derivative are no looger complemeotsry but appear as independent "factors." 111m mosl confident of the interpretaHans of cases grouped by analysis. lo addition to the implications for Ihe recognition of palterning Ihat can be referred to behavlor not characteristic of nonhuman predator-scavengers, the interadion betw6en the pattemlng renders Ihe contextual interpretation of behavior rather secure. For in¡¡tance, the compound loading of factor 5 and factor 3 for the assemblage from FLK Level15 answers Ihe nagging question raised by the factor 3 interprelation: Did the hominid scavengers Iransport body parts back lo a base camp fae consumplion? The co-occurrence of factor loadings for both 3 and 5 00 Ihe most diagnostic assemblages, FLK Level 15, iIIustrates nicely Ihat the scaveogers who "processed" the parls indicaled by factor 3 did so al the same place where they obtained the parts (indicated by high loadings forfactor 5), namely adjacenl lo the kill-death site abandoned by nonhominid predator-scavengers.
Summary Griteria for diagnosis MIre employed using pallems of breakage snd levels of destruclion. Several characlerislics of the Olduvai assemblages were recoRnized. Many of the assemblages were missing
6. Applicolion; A Npw Lock al Olduvai Garge
parte. not primarily beceuse of destructton of parts in situ but rather because of parts havmg been íntroduced or deleted from assambleges through transport. A patterned arrangement of assemblages, from those relatively complete lo those suffering attrition, was recognized as nearly identical to a distnbution noted for wolf kili essembleges. Tha¡ is. penems of survivorshíp and destruction of long-bone elementa were essentially identical to thosa of the control material. suggesting that the agent ot destructton when active was an animal destrcytng bones through gnawing rather then aman breaktng bones open ter rnarrow. As a clue to the relatlve levels of destruction the assemblages had suffered, tests were made (Figures 6.04 and 6.05) and it was recognized tha! assemblages DK[-l, FC West. Tuff, MNK H. 13, HWK East Leve! 2, FLK Norlh Level 6 and the Zinj floor were not heavily deslroyed in the manner characteristic of animal-related patterns of destruction, thal is, destruction oí parts in reJalion lo Ihe hardness of the bone. Given the informatioo. it became clear Ihat models of transported assemblages and reconslrucIions of ravagad mode!s of most of Ihe assemblages would be nceded if successful comparisons were to be made hetween models based on known animal and human behavior and Ihe Olduvai cases. 11 was decided to perform a multivariate analysis aimed at recognizing a grouping o( cases (a "Q" mode analysis) so Ihat modeling could be carried out for representative cases taken as examples of seis of assemblages rathar than modeling each case. A factor analysis in both modes was performed and in· teresting pal!erning was recognized. resulting in the recognition offive groups of cases (factors in Ihe "Q" modelo As an aid to the interpretation of the factor analysis, the model assemblages for !he modero data on animal dens and kills for both large and smal1 prey as modified by survival percentages were included as "cases" in the original data matrix. lt should be clear tha! three different approaches to analysis have been carried oul on the same dala base. Confidence in the condusions could be increased by congruence or agreemenl between melhods. as well as being influenced by Ihe relative "power" of each approach taken individually. As regards the relevance of analylical approaches developed in this book. !he data from Olduvai had not been sludied in detail (or cut marks; breakage
a
Summory
279
palterns were not reported; and even relative survivorship of sorne elements was not unambiguously reported. The rnost complete dala derived from a modífied list oC anatomícal parts usable for lnterassemblage compertsons: hence, lhe techníque of lnteressemblege compensen developed in Chapter 5 waa ccnsídered the most "powerful" prccedure feasíble. Any support that míght be forthccming from breekege petternlng and meaeures of destructíon would only be eupportíve and not conclusive in any way, given the minimallevels of reporting for these important dasses of facls at presento Sorne supportíng conclustons were recognized using different rnethods. ror instance, using the lechnique of comparíson between the proximal and distal ends of the humerus as a dUe to relative levels of destruction, basically two classes of assemblage were recognized: destroyed and nol deslroyed. In the "Q" mode factor analysis only factor 2 clearly indicated little or not destruction. given that factor 1 grouped assemblages thal had suffered heavy attri· tion. Factors 3. 4, and 5 were somewhat ambiguous in that Ihey assimilated kill site models or appeared
as índependem groupings. Since the kill and den models were rnodified as ravaged essembleges. there could be sorne htghly patterned end expected forms of anímal-related destruction (deletion of parts relatlve te bone densttyj and it would not appeer as an rndependent dtagnostic in the factor analysis. Table 6.09 tllustrates the relationship belween destructíon as tsolated in the factor analysis and as indicated by the simple humerus test. lt is clear that the two approaches to enalysís support ene enother end. therefore, render the accurate identification of reletívely destrcyed versus nonravaged essemblages more llkely. Thts type of diagnostic analysis renders the modeling of assemblages easier, since important properties can be assessed in ways olher than by trial and error. Wilhout any doubt, the most powerful enalysis was the modeling of assemblages judged representa. tive of the five and a half sets of cases isolaled as internally similar by the "Q" mode factor analysis. The den-associated assemblages grouped by factor 1 were found to be best approximaled by the inverse general utility index developed from anatomica!
TABLE 6.09
Comporison 01 Desfrvction Estimates Derlvr.d from Factor AnaJysis and Ibe Humeros Tes'
I
Humeros test Deslruction Factor analysis Maximum
destruclion (factor1)
InvBntory F'LK 'Iz FLK 3 Ft.K 4 FLK 5 NN t
DK 1·2 BK 11 TK UF' TK LF MNK MAIN
Counl
11
No destruction
Invenlory
Counl
Tatal
O
11
ZINI
2
6
Fe l1.JFF MNI H13 HWK2 FLK fi
4
5
6
22
Nona
DK 1-2 Minimal destruclion (faclors 3. 4.5)
FL'" 13 n.K t5
No
NN 2
r1eslru¡;;tioTl [fAl:\nr 21 Total
Fe FL NN 3
4
1
11,
oK 1-1
$~""
-....... 280
studres ot sheep and cartbou (L. R. Binford 197Bbj. This model had lo be further modified by the survíval percenteges for bones of moderare- 10 lergesízed animels (L. R. Binford and J. B. Bertram 1977). This modtñcetton WBS found lo accommodate the data from FLK North Level 5, as well as FLK North Leve} 112, fairly well except there was an underrepresentation uf heads and sorne overrepresentatíon of Ihe femur and metapodials. The latter conditions were observed earlier in a wnlf-transported assemblage from Alaska (Chandler). Comparison with the Chandler assemblege demonstreted a very good flt Indeed, strongly supporting tbe inference from the mcdel thet these were transported essembleges that had suffered heavy enrítton from gnawing. Thís is a common sltuatian whare bones are dragged off from a kili under conditions of competition at Ihe kills. The Olduvai factor 1 cases are faunal paJimpsests created by animals dregging bones of low food utility away from kili locatioos. If man was involved, he was behaving indistinguishably from ather animals and no extraordinary "human-Iike" behaviors are justifiably referred lo these assemblages. Modeling factor 2 cases was inleresting since no destruction was indicaled and Ihey were assimilaled to den models by the faclor analysis. This is particularly interesting since the only case judged lo be a kili site by the excavators is grouped here, In addition, HWK East Level 2, a mixed deposit that conlained parts of large animals in essentially arllculaled aITangemenl (a characlerislic commonly cited as indicative of a kili site), is also included on this faclor. Still more inleresting is the fact Ihat FLK NN Leve) 2, the only raunal assemblage reported from Olduvai that was not associated with slone tools, appears also in Ihis grouping. The associatioo of slone tools with largely articulaled skeletal parls, as al site FLK Norlh Level 6, is generally cited as evidence supporting the view thal early Pleistocene hominids were regularly hunting. There area small number ofPlio-f'leistocenesites .....here Ihe partlybroken.up carcassaf a sin¡¡:le largeanimal has been found wilh artifads seallered araund. These are indistinguishable rram sites lermcd bUlehery sites by the arehaeoloRists . J aro inclined to think Ihat the hominids wme hunters,although they may havt' piraled amI scavBrlRed other animals' kills Ilsaac 1!l7f>:4991,
6. AppUeotion: A NewLookof Oiduvu¡Gorge I think tt te of extreme importance tbet Inr the sites Inciuded in thís study the analyaís shows that the bones largely ignored by the tnvestígators. bovtd bones in the case of FLK North Level 6 as well as the others in the semple. are demonstrably background essembleges tha! asaimilate to a den model differing from those of factor 1 only in the relenve degrees of destruction. The other íect of extreme importance is that the etone tools are physically assocteted with the background fauna and essentially inversely correlated wilh treqoencíes of bones remaíntng Irom recognizable megefeuna. This lack of physical assoctetton ts a striking cherectertsttc of the so-called hippo butchery stte at Koobt Fora (eee Isaac 19788). Thls new look provides a very djfferent ptcture. namely Ihat the speed of desposttton and hence the preservation of fairly intact skeletal segments is a characleristie of Ihe geological formalion Ihal also accounts [or the lack of destruction af the back· ground fauna as well. WhAtwe are seeing is Ihe same depositional context indicaled for the sites grouped by factor 1: only the rates of deposition and hence burial are much greater. resulting in the preservation of large animals in al least partial articulation and Iherefore inhibiting destruction oC background faUna by both animals and weathering. The slone tools in these deposits are, however, no less components of palirnpsests and appear to have been deposited most commonly with the background fauna or at least independenlly of Ihe larger, more romanlic types of animal remains. These ore nat hominid bUs of large animols. Factor 2 grouped three vary inleresting assemblages, aH small, which mighl well indicate considerable integrily Bnd resolutian. Models for the fauna iIlustrate nicely Ibat these are second-order faunal assemblages. Of even more inleresl, they are shown to be biased secand-order assemblagesi nemely. two distributions are indicated when the data are plolted against a second-order model drawn from anatomical studies. The assemblage is biased against parts of Ihe axial skeleton, the very parts that are most likely lo remain articulated and Ihe center of attenlion for ather predalar-scavengers. What were selected producing Ihis second-arder assemblage were the part5 mos! qui"kly disarticulaled and mosl likely lo have hecome sr.attered around Ihe si te of a kili by nonhominid predators. The regular
Summary bias agaínst axial perts demonstratas that butchering was not golng on prior tu the selection of parts for removal. presumably by haminids. The Iact thal the second-order assemblage model is based on the inverse general uliJity index means that the brosed selecuon wcs in favor of pcrts of Iecst toad utility. These would. of course. be the parts generally lgnored by other predator-scevengers. The most common bones in these cssemblcges ore those Ihal yield anly borre marrow as edible material. The factor analysis isulatad these Ihree assemblages as structurally irnportant and very similar in camposition. The modelíng illustrated them lo hava properties tbet have never been observad among nonhuman predator-scavenger assemblages. thus qualifying them as very likely derivatives of hominid behavior. The analysis, very clean end un. ambiguous (see Figure 6.11) ilIustrates a bias !hat is only consistent with the removaJ oí essentialIy marrow-yielding bones from Ihe already ravaged kills of olher predator--scavengers. These observatíons are cansistent with the fact Ihat Ihe only assemblage reported from Olduvai Gorge that was described as showing clear evidence of "ballering and smashing" appeBrs in this group. ing. There is still furlher evidence as to the nature of Ihe behavior that occurred al the faclor 3 sites. Table 6.10 summarizes Ihe 1001 assemblages recovered from the three sites grouped by this factor. What il; very obvious is Ihal the assemblages are dominated by percllssian lools or hammersi cutting lools are all but absent. 1 Ihink it can be said with sorne confidence thal we are seeing in Table 6.10 the materials used as hammers for breaking mArraw bones. The degree lo which Ihese are tools in the sense oC designed and produced ¡tems is questionable. AlIlhe chipping and modified edges could be the accidential by-product of using a hammer lo break samething else (bones1. ft is interesting in this regard that the assemblages from FLK NN Levell, as well as HWK Rast Level 1 sites, grouped with rav. aged kills on factor 1, also yielded assemblages with Iittle debitage, dominated by large Hems seemingly used as hammcrs. This suggesls thal Ihe behavior of the hominids al locations of animal kills was essenlially the same as seen here when sorne bones have becn dragged off from Ihe kili aíter il has been exploiled by other animals.
281
TABLE
6.10
inventarie!; af Arli!acts Rer:overed !rom Faclar 3 Sites, Olduvai Gorge" FU;
NN 3
15
1J
Total
Group total
111
(2)
(J}
(41
(5)
2 O 1
1 2 O
2 2
5 4 2
Percusston tools
Choppers Anvils Polyhedron Hammerslones Nodules end blocks Heavy-duly SCrap{lfB Lighl dUly flakes DebHage
2 7
I
2 2
O
O
O
3 11 1
O 1
O
2
1
9
4
L
~
\ 11
"Dala hum M. D. Leakey 1971: 44. 59
80th factors 4 and 5 were assimilated to predator
kili sites in the factor analysis. 80th exhibited properties Ihat permitted their identificatian as residual populations al a kilI site rather fuan as parts transported to a base camp in mare "human" fashion. The importanl assemblages froro the Zinj floor. Fe West, Floor, and level1, at DKI were grouped on factor 4. As Car as Zinj and Fe Wesl, Flaor, are concerned, Ihe factor Elnalysis showed Ihem lo be moderatively distributed on several factors, strongly indicative of a palimpsest or a behaviorally complex assemblage. Observations by the excavators point clearly to evidence of many differenl Bgents being involved at the location and therefore tip the scales in favor of a complicated palimpsest wilh Htlle integrity and resolution. There is desr evidence of hominid involvment in exploiting faunal elements presumably presenl as a consequence of the behavior of other agents. big cats and hyenas being most Iikely. JI seems to me thal one majar conclusion is juslifiad from the foregoing analysis: The large, highly publicized sites as currently analyzed carry HUle specific information aboul hominid behElviar. It might be possible. using detailed sludies ofbraakage morphology and associalion, to isolate those c1usters
..-&~'~
...... 282
oí material referable lo homínid behavior 00 a ñoor such as Zinj; however. given its demonstrably low íntegrtty end resolutton. erguments about base campa, hominid hunting, shering of food , and SQ forth are certainly pramature and most likely wildly tnaccurete. The only c1ear pícture obratned is that of a hominid scavenging the kills and deeth sites of other predator-scavengers COI abandoned anatomical parls oflow food utility, pnmarily for purposes oC extractlng bone marrow. Sorne removal of rnarrow bones Irom kills is indíceted. bul there Is no evidance uf "carrying food heme." Transport of tbe scavenged parts away (rom Ihe kili site lo more protected ¡acatiaos in a manDer identicai lo Iha! oC al! alher scavengers is aH Iha! Olle need imagine lo ae· counl for Ihe unambiguous facts preserved in OlduvaL The analysis of these assemblages through the applications oC mullivariate techniques in the context of a method oC residues se! oC tactic!! ilIustrates perhaps mortl than anything else Ihe potential oC the approach advocated. We can now restudy these assemblages with sorne hope of recognizing pa!lerning in breakage ar surCidal modification that mosllikely derives Crom hominid behavior uncomplicated by the actions oC other agents. We have sorne chance here oC recognizing pallerning that might well contrasl with breakage patterns produced by nonhominid agents. thereby providing the beginning clues in the important task oC developing a "signature" for early horninid bone breakage. We cannot be cerlain, since our methods for isolating these assemblages are nol totally unambiguous, bul the study oC these isolated assemblages is a better research bet tban projecling Nunamiut bonebreaking behavior into the past as representative oC "human" bone breakage, or of inCerrjng "humanness" from assemblages for which Ihere is no justifieation Cor altributing lhem to a single hominid agent. The potential feedback characteristic of applying a rnethodology and then investigating the archaeological record in new ways is well represented here. Most oí the patterning isolaled by rny tacties aS well as my arguments as to its implications for the pasl have already been summarized. I must stress Ihat this is nol to be thought of as a conc1usion bul as the first step in the analytieal treatmenl of remains from the dawn oC our evolutionary beginnings. We must begin the importanl proeess of imeracting with
6. Applicotion: A New Look 01 Olduvai Gorge
the materials remaining to us from the pasto This ínterectton sbould be ongcing. so that as new íntermenen becomes avatlable from actualistic studies that can be reasonebly projected inlo the past, new pattern-recognition síudies can be conducted. Intellectual anehors used lo tease out patterning from the overall aggregate of Iects remaining lo us can be anticípated as more míddle-renge work ls completed. The use of "knowns" lo permit the lscletton of residual pattarniug can then be studted uneomplicated by facts that reasonably appear to refer to actions ar events of no d ireel relevance to haminids. Information gleaned froro sueh controlled patternrecognilion studies may be then furlher studied both actualistieally if possible and cerlainly distributionally and correlationally among Ihe assemblages available Crom Ihe pasto If actualistie studies are possible, new methods may be developed; if only archaeologieal studies are possible, new patterning in need of melhodological investigation wi\l be uneovered. Thls slud~' does nol even begin to answer aH the important questions regarding the eharacteristic behaviors of our early hominid ancestors. It sirnply represents the beginnings of productive researeh into these questions. lt should c1ear Ihe air of many of Ihe conventions that have misguided our views of lhe pasl for sorne time, and refocus out attention on the important issue of carving knowledge out oC ignoranee. With regard lo "c1eaning the air" of conventions, 1 think a number oC things can be stated with sorne certainly. The fomous Olduvoi sites ore nol living floors. They vary in the degree lo which they represenl slabilized land surfaces. The more stabilized the ancient land surCaces, Ihe greater the likeJihood Ihal the integrity and resolution oC materials oceurring on those land surfaces are very low. In general this fact has nol been apprec:ialed. The interpretation of deposits as living floors pennitted the trealment oC the contents oC Ihose deposits as jr one were dealing with a monument; it was assumed Ihat lhe eonten!s of Ihe provenienee unit were thera "by Ihe hand of man." Pladng Ihe prob113m of identification at the level of the provenience unit ensures Ihat the conlentS of "identified units" r.arry implieations for hominid behavior. I refer lo this as a configuralional inference. It is an inferenee made aboul a unil, a eonfiguration 01
Summory
pbenomena. believed te represenf a derivatíve of pest organized dynamics. It ls an ínference about a unít within whieh essocíattons are essumed lo be meaníngful [n an a priori sense regarding whal one wants lo know ebout the pasto This rney be bctb a Iogtcel and a tactical error. It ís a loglcel error in that if we wish to learn when and under what condtuone rnan begen to live in base campe, essumlng such eamps as a methodclogtcel devtce ensures that we are ínvolved in a hopeless tautology. Also. the cetterla for recogmtton were not developed for the unil beíng identified, Instead they are developed for one of the items within Ihe unit-stone lools. The idenlification of the unit then becornes an inference from association of fhis identifiable elass of things with a certain geologieal eontext {e.g., a palensol). Tool use on a slabilized land surface does nol ensure Ihat man lived in base eamps or even carried out localized activities on living floors! If is on this point of identifying observational units Ihall am in tactical disagreemenl wilh Miehael Schiffer (1976), who adovcates a stralegy of "proveníenee identification." As pointed out, Ihis can be very powerful if wel1 informed by middle-range researeh, bul the laeties Sehiffer iIIustrates are ones of coneept formation with Iitlle attention to Ihe development of operational deCinilions Cor Ihe concepts. For inst8nee, are all unbroken pols indicative oC"de facto garbage," and all deposits eontaining broken and typologically heterogeneous materials "secondary refuse'·? Regardless of these problems, Schiffer's approach is directly Iinked wifh excavation in volumetric unils rather than with removal oC the matrix and the plotting of Ihe provenience of things within the matrix. Exeavation by units of matrix volume assumes that things associated in a given volume oC similar matrix were deposited under similar "formation" conditions. This is establishing unils within whieh assodations are considered meaningfui by stipulation. In my opinion. where we do nol ha ve wellestablished melhods for inference backf'd by subslanlial middle-range researeh. we must procp-ed with a pattern-recognilion strategy, ralher Ihan a stipulalive slrateg}'. In lerms of exeavation proee· dure, a pattern-recognition s\rategy seeks to record properties of both matrix and illdusiolls parlieularisIically; Ih
283
a.ny spatial patterning between things and their matrices. Quite Iilerally, we are documenting Ihe archaeologtcal record so as to permit the recognítton of struclural relatíonshtps between the matrix and íts inclusions. Stipulative strategtes assume the exístence of patterning and also essume that the observer is skillful enough to ísolete it unambiguously through the use of good field [udgrnents. This ís a tradilional approech where our understanding of the pesr hinges on the competence of the field excevetor and his judgments rather than on methods derived from reseerch dírected toward understanding the archaeological record. The latter researeh would permit us to evaluate the utilily of differing analylieal and observational taetics quite independently of the subjective skills oC Ihe excavator. The traditional stipulalive lItrategy is the old approach oC rnonument arc:haeology, where the matrix ilseU was considered to exist by the hand oC man; there{ore, its contents were reCerable lo lhe same formation condilions as the matrix. Isolation of difCerent Cormalion episodes then becomes en art mano iCest in tbe exeevalor's ability to recognize the historieally meaningCul "provenienca units" considered lo be directly reCerableto pasl formalion episodes. This is a classic paradigmatic exercise in which a series 01 post hoc aTgumenls as to Ihe meaning oí mBlrix variability encountered during exeavalion are adopted as conventions for Ihe reeognition of provenienee types. The meaning given to sueh units represents configurational inferenee, and conditions the meanjng Ihat may be reasonably assigned lo Ihe contenls of such units (see Sehiffer's [1976:133-139) discussion of provenienees and analylic:al units, partieularly treafing Ihe problem of "floor" definHion.jpp. 136-137]).
It was Ihis very problern Ihat led me lo suggest Ihat, at least during the early years of sdentific development. methodological growth should be moted in adualistk researeh where the bear and its footprinl can be unambiguously related to one another. If we ea.n develop robust methods for giving meaning to archaeologieal ob!!ervafions, then Ihe use oC such ·'secure" inferenees as control for further pattern· recognition sludies may be a powerful means of expanding our knowledge oC the archaeologieal record. Until we have such rohust rnelhods however, using provenier.ce idenlificalion tadies largely represents
,~"
284
judgments and opinions as it ls peacüced. Our procedures for giving meaníng te the archaeological record should be based on more reliable end less subjecttve ractícs. There is another tactic. which we might call "conIrol once removed," which derives from tecttce of provenience identification. Thls is the tactlc that. it W8S ergued, led to a rníeleadíng set of "methcds" used in sorne Americanist reseercb-cthet is, seeking a methodology through pattern-recognition sludies conducted on malerials about which an inferred meaning has elready been esstgned. The work of Frison at Glenrock (1970) was 8 good example. The configurational inference was made, namely that Ihe deposit wa.s Ihe consequence of human behavior. Then a pa.ttern-recognition study was conducted of bone modifications on ¡nelusions and a very distinc· live pattern was described. This pattem was Ihen accepled as diagnostic of human behavior a.nd as sueh was employed as a melhod for reeognizing Ihe hand of man in other assembJages. We have seen thal Ihe eonfigurational inference was almost certainly WfOng and the patterning recognized was almost cerlainly referable to the action of scavenging animals. We musl not!aH into the trap of odopting a post hoc argumenl os a methodologicaJ convention and nsing iI to ascribe mooning direclly to the archaeological record. This has been a major weakness oftraditional archaeology, in thal it recognized no explicíl role for methodological research. Methods were simply conventions thal were gradually adopted by virtue of having been used by "prominent" meno The use of configuralional inferences has not only misled Ihe sludy of inelusions within identified proveniences. bul has also had adverse effecls on comparative studies making use of "assemblages" or Ihe eontents of "idenlíHed" provenienees.s For insllmce. if patlerning was recognized among sueh 'This problemwas recognh:ed by Schiffer(1976), but he viewtld the solution as resting wilh his "insighl"lhat man deaned up his sites and did nol alwllYs 111l1ve everylhing where he had used il. Schifrerproposed¡hat we¡;:ive up Ihe "false principIes" of the New Archlleology. whil::h allegedlyexpocllld eVl:!rylhing in the archacological recordlo be dislribuled and assacillted as íf lhe living system had been miroculously slopped in mid "process" by sornecalastrophic evenl (see Schiffer HI7fi:12-13). This is of course nonsense
6. Apphcutfon: A NewLook al OlduvoiGorge -Identtñed" untts.fhen post hoc argumente as to the meaning of sueh patterntng would be directly conditioned by the impllcatlona of the ongmal videnüñnatiun." For example. íf I identify the assemblages from Olduvai as living floor unils, then any patterning that might be recognízed among such unlts would be necesserily modeled in terms of Iectors conditioning differences among living pleces. This is a fine exarnpie of the potnt made in Chapler 2, narnely thet we can never reason in a valid manner from premises lo a conclusion thet wouJd contradicl the premíses with whieh we start. lf we start with the premíse that the condition af formetion was a group of homlníds living al a particular place,lhen we can never reason from Ihal premise to a conclusion that would cantradict the premise: our model must be aboul faelors that differentially condition the behavior of hominids living al differenl plaees. This is exactly whal was done by Spelh and Davis (1976). They assumed Ihat the eomposilion of Ihe Olduvai faunal assemblages was the consequence of hominid behavior. Given Ihis assumption, lhey compared Ihe assemblages summarized ¡nto relative frequencíes of Carnivora, tortoises. and bovids lo seasonally summarized ethnographic data from the !Kung and Glwi Bushman. They were able lo show Ihal in Ibe Bushman a5semblages, lorloises tended lo occur in rainy season assemblages, whereas hunling of bovids wilh few lortoises present was a pattern characleristic of Ihe African dry season. A very similar dicholomy was noled in the faunal assemblag es from Olduvai Gorge. There were assemblages wilh subslantial numbers of tortoises and there were olhers dominaled by bovids. The latter type of assemblage was most eommon, leading the aulhor:; fo Ihe conclusion Ihat mosl of the sites in Oldu\'ai Gorge were dry season "occupatioos"! In conc1usion, the archaeological record fram Olduvai Gorge probablyrefleclsonly parl af the tolal seltlement sy~tem of Ihese early hominids. During Ihe rainy season Ihe Olduvai hominios either moved to nellrby areas Ihal havll nol been sllmpleo.or more probably, as parl of Iheir seasanal round th",y abandoned Ihe areaof Ihe Gor¡;:e enlirely 15pelhand Davis 1976:445). Let liS look al Ihis situalion slightly differently. Are all assemblages of predominantly bovirl remuios
..
Summury
fhe ccnsequences of hominid hunters? The answer is absolutely nor. Bone assemblages from Afriea in almcst any context are predominantly bovid eematna relativa lo tortoíses and earnivores. HiII's (1976) fauna was predominantly bovid ramains. Behrensmeyer's fauna was predominantiy bovid remaine, as was Klein's fauna at Swartklíp. and so on. Thus there ls no necessary relationship between bovíd remetes and dry seascn hunting by hominida. Jt remains for us to ask ir there Is any neceseary relationshlp between tortoise remains and rainy seeson homioid hunttng. although we know less ebout the contexl of occurrenee of torloise remaios. One of Ihe few observalions 00 torloises is by Richard Klein (1978a) with regard lo Ihe fauna from "Cutting 10" al Elandsfontein IHopefield):
Fossil tonoisa r¡¡¡mains are exlremely abundanl al Elandsfonlein, and their frequency appears lo vary independantiy of the rrequencies of mammal bones 8nd arUfllcls. suggestinll that. by llnd latlle, the lortoise remains are presenl for different reasons. I lhink they probably represenl mainJy nalural mortali!y IKlein 1978a:77-781. In this judgmenl I would cancnr with Klein. For instance, examination of Ihe map af finds supplied by Mory Leakey (1971: Figure 20J for FLK NN Level3 reveals Ihe 10r1oise remains to be distributed in essentially nine separate localizalions, strongIy suggesling the dealh sites of differenl lorloises. There is no demonslrable assaciation belween lorloise locali2ations and 10015. ar olher banes for that matter. This ·'floor" also has a localizalion of bovid remains in Ihe northem projection of Ihe excavalions, consisling mainly of ribs, mandibular and maxillary parls. as well as sorne verlebrae. This seems indicative of Ihe remains of a kili or nalural dealh si te of a bovid. In both Ihe lorloise and bovid remains the dislribulíon has Iha characler of a plain sel of differing episodes wilh Ihe nalural deaths of several lartaises being situalional1y unreiated lo Ihe orher faunal remains or lo the few associated "tools." This is Ihe paltem indicated by Klein for Elandsfontein. Unforlunalely Ihe olher sile in Olduvai from which large numbers of torloise remains are reporled. MNK skul1 site of H. 13 Isee M. D. Leakey 1971:257). was nol mapped so as lo doclJmenl Ihe local ion of Ihp. lorloise remains (see M. D. Leakey
285
1971: Figure 58). Nevertheless. bovíds and tortoiees are part of the natural world cf African fauna. Bovíds can be expected lo be common in almost any type of faunal assemblage. The presence of tortoíses 10gether with bovids does not necesserfly imply homíníd behevíor. Such an argument from ethnographtc analogy lo the Olduvaí essembleges only makes sense if you meke the prior essumpnon that the Olduvai assembleges were hominid produced. The fad thet there is such a good flt between tha Oíduvat dala and the Bushman dala in no way proves that the causes were the same. This ís líke the situation with ony alher posl hoc model-if the fit had not been good. then the analogy would not have been "impressive" or appeared plausible. The fit must be good for the argument from analogy to appeor plausible. but plausibility does not prove cousotion. This example perhaps demonstrales Ihe alNesorne "power" of a paradigm. If we accept Ihe inHial identifieation of a provenience unil, then Ihere is onlya Iimited and 10gicalIy constrained sel of implications to Ihe "fads" summarized from Ihe provenience unil. The eharacler Df the implications are established not by Ihe observations. but by lhe assumptive identifieation of the unit from whieh the facts are summarized from observalions. This technique ofusing paradigmatic lactics lo identify a uni! in lhe archaeological record as lo the conditions of its formalion is what r previously referred lo as Ihe slretegy of configurational inference. If one is aecurale in the use of Ihis stralegy, it can be very powerful in lhat recognition of Ihe behavioral conditions under which a deposil is formed permits lhe con tenis of thal deposil lo be considered in an integrated manner. Each componenl of the deposit can be evaluated as lo ils functiDnal role in Ihe processes Ihal conditioned the formation of Ihe deposito In Ihe aforementioned case Ihe bones beeame food "faels," Ihe variability in specíes became "facls" of seasonal variability in diel. and so on. In a very real sense Ihe context of relevance was established for the material contenls oC Ihe deposits, hence the implieative conlexts ware eslablished and lherefore the character of Ihe inference Ihal could be drawn were basically eslablished. In order lo do Ihis correclly we musl have comprehensive knawledge of Ihe various contexts of formalion far oolh archaeological and geopaleonlological deposits as well as Ihe eombinalions
--... '88 el such processes. Alehocgh thís may be 8 goal 01 míddle-renge reseerch. lt is certainly not a capability Iba! we currently possess. Attempting lo use the taco tic of ccnñguretícnel Inference al Ihís stege of our tgncrence regerdtng deposttíonel oc formetton processes (see Schiffer (1971) for the tníttel usage el Ihis term] seems lo me 10 be self-defeating and cerlain lo contribute lo the generatlon el more mvths. Given our curren! state of knowledge regarding the ercbeeclogtcal record, our excavetton procederes mus! be consisten! wíth analytical approaches and therefore mus! cmaist of point provenience strategies until we know something ol Ihe range 01 structural patteming in Ihe archaeological record iha! may in Cad carry "configurational" meanings. Similarly, we must use analytical tactics in middlerange research and the evaluation oC deposils in at· tampting to gain 8n understanding oC patteming in different constituents oC the deposits considered quite independently oC the associations that might exist within the deposlts. This approach recognizes that man may frequently contribute lo deposits, but not necessarily create them.
Postscript 1 Between the time oC my writing and Ihe time oC my review oC the page prooCs (Febroary 6, 1981), two important articles have appeared (Bunn, et al. 1980, and Lewin 1981) which bear directly on the arguments in Ihis chapter. In addition I have had privileged access to two additional articles which are currently in press and will most likely be published around the time ofthe appaarance of tbis book. These are "Arehaeologieal Evidence for Meat Ealing by Plio-Pleistoeene Hominids from Koobi Fora, Kenya and Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania" by Henry T. Bunn and "Cutmarks Made by Stone Tools on Bones from OIduvai Gorge, Tanzania" by R. Potts and P. Shipman, bolh subIOitted lo Nature for publicalion. lt should be pointed out Ihat this is an exlraordinary level of publieation and aelivily illustraling nieely how exciling the field of early hominid arehaeology is al tha present time. These publications represent Ih e firsl materials
6.
Application: A New Look al Olduvoi Gorge
made available on the importan1 subject of surñctal marking on bones Cromthe ímportant sítes at Olduvai Gorge and at Koobt Fora. Aetualistic studies were conducted by both H. Bunn and Potts and Shipman lo prcvtde recogniticn critería useful in distinguishing cutmarks made with etone tools from tooth scoring and other forros of modtñcatton. Both reseercbers report thal the unambtguous recognition of stone tool cutmarks te possible as is the recognition of tooth scoring produced by gnawing anímels. Potts and Shípman studied 12 levels Irom Dlduve¡ Oorge. while Henry Bunn studíed nína assemblages from the Koobi Foca area and four from Olduvai Gorge with a particular emphasis On FXJj 50 at Koobi Fora and FLK 22 Zinj at Olduvai Gorge. Bunn ellamined bones both for surtidal marks but also foc the traditiaoalIy controversial properties of bone breakage. At FLK Zinj .. over 400 bones show dam&ge atlribl.ltuble to chewing by medium sized C(lrnivores, and this damage potentially obscures sign~ of prior hammerslone breakage by hominids. This sequence o( evanh is suggested because over 500 bone flakas, sorne of which probabiy resulled from breakagl! by hominids haya been identifled in lhe assembiage IBunn, in press, emphasis mine). This seems to be a feeble attempt to salvage or save the conventiooal inlerpretation that all the Caunal remains were deposited al the Zinj loca.tion by the hominids. The ad-hoc auxiliary hypothesis (.'lee Popper 1965:80-84) thal earnivore activity must be subsequent to hominid aclivity is eertainly holding onto the conventional view o( this as a living fioor produeed by hominids by a very thin thread ¡ndeed. One wonders why carnivores should consistenlly chew bone.'! previously broken for marrow by hominids? I would imagine that the ehewing by Ihe carnivores would most likely be related to Iheir altempts lo obtain food! Particularly exciting is the iIlustralion of what I consider to be unambiguous dismembering marks on the medial face of a dislal humerus from Koobi Fora site FXli 50 dated lo approximalely 1.5 miUion years a.go. Bunn's iIlustrations (Bunn, el. al., 1980, Figure 4b; Bunn, in press. Figure 2) should be compared to Figures 4.15 and 4.:10 in Ihis book. The form of Ihe marks and Iheir placement are in my
.dic'
~
Poslscript 2 opinion unquestionably referrable to hominids using lools to dismernber tbe joint in questícn. AIso quite interesting ls Ihe observation that most of Ihe marks interpreted as inflicted by tonls ore not dismemberment marks. They are seemingly mostly transversa: merks on the diaphysis of shafts of limb bones. lt is hard to imagine these as deriving from dismembermenl. It is mueh more likely that they arose during the breaking of already dismembered bones for marrow. When lower limb bones or bones remaining from meat consumption bv carnivores ara exploiled for rnerrow. one of the fi'rsl problems is Ihe partially dried and very tough adhering lissue. In addifion, the perioslieum is very lough and ¡ncreases in strength with Ihe size of Ihe animal. Even on fresh bones c1eaned oC skin and tendon, Ihe periostieum can be difficult lo pull aparl after bones are broken. Much morecommonly Ihis is cut and scraped off. al least along the intended impact surface before atleIOpting to break Ihe bone. This "c1eaning" of Ihe bone results in incisions if lower Iimbs are skinned and may also result in scrape IOarks aeross the sUrfaee of periostieum removal. It is quite provocative that. 01 the 23 IOarks interpreted by PaUs and Shipman as 1001 inflieted, only 4 are on articular ends and 17 ore 00 long bOlle shoft frngments. In addition, marks were identified on a scapula blade and on a rib fragment. This bias in favor of marked diaphysis indicates to me Ihal most use of tools was in the task oC marrow recovery and only a very mini· mal use for dismemberment. Sorne few ma.rks may be the result of scavenging remnan! morsels oC meat from bones remaining 00 predator kills and sites of natural deaths. The biased distribution of tool· inflicted marks was suIOIOarized al a recent nalional meeting as follows: "They've aho found extenslve cUlmarks on fossil horse limbs (rom Qtdllvai at a poinl where virtually no mellt would be presento only lendons and s1r::in," he addlld "Eilher Ihese creaturl!S weren', smart Bnough to 1r::now where the meat Willl, which is unlikely. ar Ihey were interesled in somethinll olhar Ihan meal. One can only speeulale whallhey were after" [Lewin HI81:J73, quoling Isaacl. The arguments presented in this chapler anticipate just such a dislribution. This is most encouraging. lt is equally gralifying to hear from the researchers
.87 currently "closest" lo the early hominid materf als the following: [Bloth hominlds and other animals modíñed the bones in these assemhlagas. Therefore we cennot attríbute Ihe observad pattsms of faunal and skeletel representation sclely lo hominid ecttvüy [Potts &: Shtpman, 1961. p. 5). It seems clear that the formation of these early archasologtcal sltes Involved a complex interpley of sevcral key Iactors . the excavated metertals cannot therefore be viewed as simple. complete récords of hominid ecüvttíes al the slte [Bunn. 1981, p. 61.
Postscrlpt 2 In November, 1980, I had Ibe opportunity to see sorne of Ihe faunal remains from the important Russian site on the island of Jersey, La CoUe de Saint· Brelade, excavaled over an exlended period e( time by Charles McBurney (see McBurney & Callaw, 1971). On the occasion of my visit to the archaeology laboratories at Cambridge University, Mrs. McBurney, lCatharine Scott, and Peler Callow al! shared with me 8 very exciting moming looking al the massive bones oí young mammo!h and rhinoceros recovered from the site. 1 must admH I had gone to the laboratory preparad to see the lelltale evidenee of predatorscavengers. I was both surprised ond obsolutely fosdnafed when l observed no evidence of nonhominid predotor-scaven,lilers. While at Ihe .'lame time 1 was able to point to very convincing evidence of both dismembermenl of Ihe megafauna (a cut in Ihe .'lame place, as was iIluslrated by Bunn, el. al.. 1980, Figure 4b. and in this volume, Figures 4.15 and 4.30, was observed on the distal humeros of a young mllmmoth as well as other dismemberment marks) and filleHng of meato (There were long-filleting ma.rks down the length oC Ihe massive rhinoceros scapula.) These filleHng marh were alillned rnuch as those ilIustroted in Figure 4.06 of Ihis volume. Judging (rom Ihe disposition of the bones on Ihe site, it would appear that alter filleHng the bones were stacked in an out-of-Ihe-way place (sea Scoll 1980) near Ihe localion where processing ofthe meat had occurred as a kind of insurance "cache." While these observations are oC interest, the majar point
"
--.. 288 of mentioning these materials 15 because of the neture of the cut marks themselves. My impression was ofvery wlde marks. almos! as if mar/e by a chlseledged tool. quill' unlike the small "V" shaped "sl¡ctng marks" desc:ribed by Potts end Shipman (in press) as cherecterísttc of cut marks produced by stone tools. The marks 00 the Cotte de Saint-8reiarle
--:?'"
6. ApplicnU()ll' A Ncw Loo/... III Olduv(Jj Cur,",'
fauna should he sludied in sorne detall stnce iI fs rny impression tbet they would no! "fil Into" the díagnost!c scheme proposed Ihus far for recognízing the marks of stone tools. yet. judging frorn their placement. they were almosl certalnly produced by toot-ustng hominids.
Thls book has been about methodology. It has been primarily concerned with documenting empírlcal conditions thet are thought te be redundan¡ in their pallerning end general in their relevanee. The underIying message goes beyond a strtct concern for methodoJogy, however: A science Ural Jaeks robus! methodology ccnnot opemte as a science. In the ab. sence of reliable methocls il cannot evaluate the ideas that are aet forth about tha subject malter of Ihe ñeld, and that is, of COUTse, ils functíon. l have touchod upon the ideas of the Abbé Breuil regarding the historical signifir,anee of his observattons DO the fauna of Choukouuen. Similarly, 1 have treated {he ideas of Raymood Dan eegardtng tbe stg , níñcanca for the pes! of his observalions DO the fauna from Mekapensgat. In like fashton, 1 have discussed ideas set Iorth by George Frison as lo the signlftcance (in terms of past behavton of certaln patterned observetíons he rnade on fauna from Ihe Glenrock Buffalo [ump and later extended lo other dala sets. Ftnally, 1 have allempled a fairly systemat¡c applícetion of botb knowledge and melhods developed here lo the tmportant ideas set forth by Clynn Isaac and beratded by Richard Lcakp.y as the [ast word in íhe inlcrpretation of our e<Jrly hornlnld aocestors' behavior. In 1111'se ¡¡ad ulher examples wherc 1 have boen crilir:at nf the mfJflllings that archeeologtsts have gtven lo ubsurvatious mnde un the arr:haeologi_
Chapter 7 General conclusions
'"
.--.
.--:~"
1 ,
290
7. Cene-n¡ Ccnclusrons
General COj!(;lll~i()n$
I
291 cal record, 1 hava been able to do so because of the development of both a body of knowledge and an understendíng of procese that. when consistently utilizad. permiUed me lo (a) see pattemlng others had not seen nr (b) understand the signíficance of patterning as referable lo processes no! imagined or considered relevanl by those whose ideas [
cntíctzed. 1 have suggestad befare that meaninga come from us and, as I see ít, there are only lwo beslc ways for this 10 happen: (a) by convenuon and lb) by appeal lo a highly confirmad body of knowledge about the oature oC Ihe world and how jI works. The fine line between Ihe two is sometimes hard (o recognize since lhe warranting arguments offered for Ihe adoption oC a convention are frequently phrased as if Ihe justification was based on a theorelicaJly supported body of underslanding. The developmenl of robusl methodology has been advocated as the need for middle-ronge Iheory (L. R. Binford 1977a). Middle· range lheory provirles us wilh Ihe lools for giving meaniog to observalions of inleres!. For inslance. when an astronamer exposes a special film Ihraugh a lelescope aimed al a distanl slar and oblains a spectral array of the differenl colors, the patlerning and relative dominance of Ihe speclrum by differenl colars representing different wavelenglhs permillhe aslronomer to estimele Ihe rale al which a slar or other bady in Ihe galaxy or beyond is moving away from U~. something of ils distanr.e away, and so on. How can we give such meanin8 to these observalions of color and arrangemenl? We can do so only because we underslanri lhe processes as summarized by theories aboul the condilions and inlera~tions between masses and energy sources Ihat cause speclral change. Insofar as our unders/unding of these processes is aecurale ond complele. we are oble lo Sive me
tomarte of Ihe dynerntcs of Ihe universe and the phencmena we use for dtegnosíng ils condilions. The reader may well ask why 1have not offered an example from tbe scíence of arehaeology, for after all 1 heve prevíously urged the developrnent of explanalory theories (Binford 1968b), which of course argues for there beíng a necessary connecñon between specífted causes and effects lnsofar al; we can independently monitor the causes and effects, we can evalúate the claíms of "necessíty" quite directly. This sttuatton would of course also allow us lo evalúate the accuracy of Ihe umformítarten assumption dírectly. Although Ihis slralegy is feasible iI presupposes Ihe prior exislence of instrumenls for measuring or moniloring bolh Ihe alleged causes and the effec!s. Thal is, il presupposes an operational set of instrumenls for measuremenl specific to Ihe properties ciled as both causes illld effects by Ihe Iheory In short, Ihis is a slralegy of a mature science and archaeology has not yet reached such levels of maturily in mosl impartant areas. As an example oí Ihis slrategy Ihe development of C-14 analysis is noleworthy. There was a robust body of theory regarding the relationships between living organisms. almospheric C-14 and rates of degeneration of Ihe radioactive ¡sotope. There are c1ear implicalions for measuring time eiapsed since an organism was alive. Given such a Iheory and a means of measuring Ihe amount of Ihe radioactive isolope of carbon rema ining in a derivative of a living organism, one cauld estimale Ihe time elapsed since Ihe dealh uf the organism. One eould infer this e1apsed lime by measuring the radioisotope quanlilalively. The brislleeone pine (see Renfrew 197::1) provided a means of directly evaluating one DE Ihe uniformilarian assumptions nel;essary lo Ihe original developmenl of Ihe technique and il was found lo be inadequale, bul al Ihe same lime iI provided Ihe basis for estimaling Ihe pasl variahilily in almospheric C-H, rend",ring Ihe unirormilarian assumplion regarding Ihal particular conslant unnecessar}'. Most archaeolol!;islS use (;-14 as a means uf "dating," rarely viewing il as an inferenlial means of estimaling ",lapsed time. In this case IhfJ product of theoreticaJly based scienlific reseaTl:h has moved inlo a paradigmalic fllnclion for (he an:haeologist. Given Ihal Ihe rescareh WHS sound Hnd llw Ilwory robusl. a maj~t.advaJl(;e in nwlhod was ar.hi!:ved for Ihose inlereslcd in llnderstanding the pas!.
Of impartance in thís exarnple ts the fael that Ihe theory that serves lo werrant the inference of elapsed lime ls íntellectually Independent of argumenta that may be made about the age uf sorne rematna, Ihe dllraliOfl al" SOrne hislorical entsode, ami so on. T'hls is a crucial characteristit of mtddle-range theortes: they must be Imeltectually independent of the argumenls about Ihe phenomena Ih",y are used lo enlighten. In addition to inlelleclual indcpendence from thecries of historical procese. middle-range researeh must be strenuously tested. since inaccuractes can lead lo spurious problem recognltlon and inar.r.urale deseription of Ihe pas!. Ad hoe middle-range theory is never acceplable and rare/y ever corree!. For inslanee. the arguments generalecl by Frison as to Ihe aetions responsible for patterning in Ihe faunal remains observed al Plains bison siles were invenfed lo aecommodate a parlicular sel of observations The behavioral reconslruc_ tions offered by Isaac for Ihe [aels from the early hominid sites in Africa were also invenled lo ae. commodate a particular set of observalions. Al! such post hoc accommodations remain parlicular, and if exlended, as in Ihe case of inlerprelations of faunal malerials found at Lubbock talle (lohnson 1977. 1978). beeome Conventions unlested bul accepled as Irue becliuse of Iheir plausibility ¡¡nd somelimes simply bet.:ause of resped for Ihe person pmposing them. Obviously Ihey will be plausible if they are in fact inventeo la aecounl for given [aets. If done by a person whose judgment we respect, as in the case of Frisan, Ihen they hecome integraled ¡nlo Ihe methodology of Ihe field and become commanly ar.knowledged convenlions for giving meaning to observalions. In Ihe case of Isaae's arguments, for example, if we accepl his convenlion Ihal an associalion belween slone lools and helerogeneous faunal remains means a base (;amp (see Isaac 1975e:17j and a base eamp means sharing, Ihen aH archaeological siles {locations where Ihere is an associalion of lools ano hetcrogeneous fauna) will confirm !saae's bclief thal sharing was the critica) faclor thal made us m"n! This type of laulology r{!sults from Ihe adoplion of a convenlional melhodology ralher than one thal demands a well-establisherl underslandinR of Ihe processes Ihal bring inlo being lhe observaliOl1S, which are in lum assigned meaninRs. A major source of cOllventinns has been the posl hoe argumenls 01 ~rominenl resPIlf(;hcrs. t Inder Ihe
canon s 01 treduíonal arcbaeology, reconstructions of the past were considerad lo be the cnnsequences 01' inteñfgence and compe!ence on the part of arcbaeologíst. The pasl as known through erchaeologreal research was then the past as imagined by a series of men considerad to be both competan¡ and tntellectually qoalíñed lo inlerpret their findings. Sinee familiarily with the dala was mnsidered ro ensure good Interpretnncn. rarely were Ihe dala of a prominenl person reanalyzed or otherwlse argued from by other workers. After ail , who was more familiar wñh the facts? This resulled in the growth OV8r lime of a body ofunderslanding Ihat can only be rlescribed as an accumulalion of "mylhs by prominenl roen" regardillg the pasl. Men were evalualed. no! ideas. Perhaps lhe most striking example of this situalion 15 the commonly accepled understanding of the sile of Choukoulilln. Mosl any lexlbook tells liS Ihal the men of Choukoutien eooked meal over hearlhs, predominanlly ale venison, bu! aIso ate elephanls, rhinoceroses, beavers, bison, and wild pigs, and on occasion one anolher. Evidence far the use of fire was summarized by Teilhard de Chardin in BJaek (1933:57) as so (l}(tensive as lo need no ftlrther commenl! In Ihis judgment 1 musl agree bu! the evidence hardly juslifies the picture one gels from lextbooks, of eady man sealed arauno his hearlh masling meal and carrying on a fireside chal. The thickest la}'erofesh. in the upper-middle part oflhe cave depo~it. JS up lo six melers dP.e'p. Slone 'ools and fossilized small vertebrates-rats and bals-were nu. merous in Ihis laypr. sometimes indeed formíng Ihpir Ilwn loyers. The alih rlepu~it here is nol in pilr~. blll sprearl oul in even Illyerll. apparently lhe rl'!'ulf of waler movement. In Ihe lower'middle part of Ihecave deposit. Ihe ash IlIyer is Ihicker nrar Ihe sourh waH. Al ils moximum.il is f'our meler dl"Pp. "was around the fringe oflhís ash layerthat mosl01'he human fossílsand slone 1001s were IIIlt'arlhed ILan·Po 1975:34: emphasis addedl. That mitll was a eannibal as evidenced by pattems of hOOl! ueslruelion al C.hrmkoulien is a slandard parl of lhe myth uf lhe pasl thal is passed on to each sludent generation: Al!the humnn .~kuJl~ fromChoukoulienhave been carefuJlv opl'tll'dIhrolJ)i!h thp. base. presumablylo exlrae! the ilraiu IISPAms likp.ly lhal Ihe L'houkoutien peop1e w",re
--.....292
7. General Cnnctusrons
- - - - - - - - - - '...-:~.
-- -----
q
General Ccnclusions
293 canníbals and perhaps headhunters. We tend lo thtnk of rnrmíbalism as 11 bestial and Inhuman precttce. but in fact nothtng better demonstreres the humanity of the Chouk.oulien peuple. Among living penples. canntbalísm 15 never 11 matter of nutrition, no animal. human al non human. eats its dead lor food. Rather. il is a solemn ritual act, scmeumes lo express Iamily piety IOWlITd Ihe deceased 01 magtcally lo impar! Ihe de· ceased's spirit eod qualities lo the living. VVe may be confident thet the atmosphere of Choukouuen during the cannibal meal was closer lo mass than lo Mcuonetd's lIolly and P!og 1976:Hi9]. One other aspeel of Choukoutien deserving caromenl is lhe evidence IJfr.annibalism. No! 11singleskull {rom this
had ¡m 8Hached face. mosl of !he cranial remalns were mixed up with ashes, animal bones, and nlher refuse, and there is evidence that the base of each skulJ Ilad been pried open lo get al the brain IWenke 1980:1531. aile
The canniblllism inlerpretlltion W8S offered despite the fac! thal allhe lime the following facls were known: On top of the reddlsh mud deposit is a layer of coarse sand, evidence of a big "ood in Ihearea. When lhe nuod recedad, cave·dwp.llin¡¡ Chinese hyenas. an extlnct species, were the firsl visitors. This sandy layer has yíelded El ¡arge number ofhyena skeletons and a layer of coproliles.or fossilized dung. These hyen!tshad Ihe digo linclive habit of eJl;(:felingllt a fixed spol. tneir power· fui jaws and lee!n eould crack and chew even lhe h9rdesl 8nimal bones, . Peking !nan look over the cave nol long !tfter these hyenas. Bis bones and Ihose of other animals,as well as his lools uf bone and slooe and traces of his use of fire ore fu he found in this Joyer ILan·Po 1975:9:emphasis addedl 1 have already indicated how gnawing animals typically chew oul Ihe face of prey early in Ihe con· sumplion sequence of Ihe skull. In fac!. in cervids the remains of a cranial seclion analogous lo !he skuJls of Peking man is considered diagno.~lic of nonhominid animal skull deslruction ¡see Figures 3.24 and 3.26). For a parlicularly graphic illustration of whal gnawing animals can do lo a human face, see Beard (1979:277), for Ihe picture of a human killed and parlially consumnd by animals. In Iight or the argumenls presenled here Ihe interpretations of Choukoulien should stand out as
sorne of Ihe more imaginalive myths crcated about early man. That the Investtgetors were most likely wrong and developed post hoc argumente from very HUle informalion and a great deal of romemrc imagination is not necessanly to be regretted or even criticized. What is regrettable, end npen to strong criticism. Is that 45 years have passed and research aimed al cvaluattng thetr ideas has nol heen tnt. tteted. testead. the argumenta cited as warranting their inlerprelalions have sorneumes servad as "methods" for others seeking to draw inferences aboul the pasto Dart [1957) cited Breuíl's work on alleged bone 100ls as juslificalion for his interpreta· Hons. Blanc [1950) cited Weidenreich's work at Choulwulien as support fm his interpretabon of cannibalism in European siles. The myths go on. One of Ihe gTeal virlues of science is Ihal il is considered lo be self·corrective: 1l 8ppeals lo no special revel8tion or aulhority .H cIaims no infallibility, bul relies upon Ihe melhods of developing ano !es1ing hypo!hBses for assured condu· sions. The eanans uf inquiry ¡Uf' themselves diseovereíl io lhe process uf refloclioo, anr! many themselves become modified in Ihe cnurse of study. The melhod makes possible the noling and corrl"clion of errors by cootinued applicallon uf itseU ¡C"hen and N!tgel 1934:395-3961 11 should be generally clear that no such self· correcliva characteristics have been evidenl in the study of eatly mano Advances have generally been mad", through discoverie:s of new materíals and not by virlue af Ihe successive growth of knuwledge that general\y accompanies the use of scientific melhods. We dasperalely need to abandon the lechnique of evaluating men and adop! the slralegy of evaJualing ideas. I have attempted lo describe in relevant detail the consequences of animal behavior fm the distribulion and association of analomical parts, breakage, and survlving morphology of bones remaining as byproducts of predalor-scavengl"t behavior. 1have conIrasted, when possible, Ihis behavior wilh Ihat af humans in accompHshin¡; similar lasks. By Ihis approach I have soughll0 recognize dia¡;nostic characteristics Ihal can be used lo Inf:llfify faunal assemblages lhal derive from nonhorninirl behavior
and dtstingulsh them from assemblages wilh properties referable lo the behavior of man and by in. Ierence hominids. Durtng the course of these im'es_ tigations. I have atlempled lo point lo rnaccurate. or al best ambiguous, interpretatmns of Iaunal facrs offered by other researchers. Thts has nol been done oul of churlishness but as an object Jesson lo archaeologisls. It ts so very ea.~y lo mtsreed the recte of tha archaeological record end thereby distorl our ideas of man and the pasto Such dislortions have been common in the pest and are conlinllously heing made by archaeologisls operaung in the absence of a justifiable methodology for giving meaning lo archaeological observalions. In demanding a processual undersfanding af how Ihe record of Ihe pasf was constiluled. 1 have emphasized Ihe fact Ihal deposils yielding traces of human-hominid behavior can be expected lo bf! helerogcneous in lhe identity of Ihe agenls produciog the lraces preserved, as well as in lhe avents or episodes recorded in fhe deposito rt was suggesled Ihat archaeological deposits are relatively rare and are commonly B derivalive of recenl complex cullural systems. For mosl of man's hislory as a hunler~ gatherer. we can expect archaeoJogical remains to occur as inclusions within geolugical deposils. Under such conditions ir is totally unwarranted fo assume thal whaf is associated wilh undisputed archaeological remains is also a derivativa of human-hominid behavior andlor derives from Ihe sama evenls or episodes Iha! resulted in the deposi. lion oE Ihe archaeologicaJ remains. Eslablishing and warranling thal associations signify ¡ntegraled behavior is one of the more difficult tasks facing Ihe researcher of early mano I have brieOy touched upon many ideas and argumen!s concernÍllg Ihe characler of life in the ancien! pesf Iha! are almosl certainly false by virlue of !he failure of Ihe persons offering the interpretation fo treal seriously the problem thal correlalion (associallon) does nol necessarily imply causalion (behavioral ¡nlegration in Ihis casel. 1I is relaliveJy easy to demonstrale thal !he role of lhe nonhominid predator-scavengers as conlributors lo deposits in which OCCur Iraces of hominid behavior has been generally overlooked an<'f in many cases IInrealistically denied. The cases of bone lools from Choukoulien, Makapansgat. and many German caves and rockshelters a~ good examples. The fanci.
ful ínterpretettons of deposits such as Torralha. Cueva Mor¡n. and Ptn Hule Cave in Great Britain should stand as reminders that in Ihe absence of pro. cessual understanding accommodattve fantasy has been pessed off as knowledge. Allthe argllmenls for cannibalism among early hominids are almosl certetnly baeed on essocíatlons and morphological rnodifications of bones made primarily by nonhorninid predalor-scavengers. Thls Is almosl certe¡n for Ihe case of Cboukoutíen {see Lan-Pn 1975:91. When ene reflecte on statements such as the followíng. one can only wish lhal Ihe invesligators had been more concerned wilh details of conlexf and association and less wilh imagined romance: Al La Caune dll l'Arago. Ihe anterior part of a hUlTlan skull lay upside duwn on a Vl!ry r¡eh prehistoric !ivinl\ site, sku/l·cap down. jaw bane in Ihe airo h hlls been lefl by ITllln in fhe midsl of 11 heap of rhinoceras. horse, au. roch. deer and ibex bones. The Oesh had been stripped away beforl! ji was lert fhere and lhe bllck part of lhp. skull hao been removed. A flake was fuund in Ihe skull cllvill'. Ir is no! impossible Ihat lhe skull may have been apened in ornar lu exlrae! Ihe brain p¡¡rhllpS durinR ritual proceeoings [I)eLumle}' 1975: p. 7991. Almosl certainly mosl of !he argumenls aboullhe ritual significance of cave bears in the life of Neanderfhal man are equaJly fancifu!' The "evidence" has bp.en considered by recent authorities (see Kurlen 1976: Koby 1953) with the conslusion Ihal natural condilions accounled for /he modifications on bear bones Ihal had been cited as evidence for much undisciplinad speculation leading lo Ihe modero rnylhs of bear cul!s and Middle PaleoJithic religiosity. We have a greal deal lo 1earo, and from a melhodologkal perspeGlive, Ihe biggesllesson is to give up our anlhropoGenlrism. We musl critically seek underslanding as lo Ihe role of nonhominid agents and condilions as contribulors lo the geological palimpsests wilhin which the earliesl evidence of hominid behavior occurs. As a Irial demonstration of bolh Ihe applicalion of my methods and Ihe need for such systematic applicalions. I have analyzed sorne of the imporlant dala reported from Oldul'ai Gorge. I have demonstrated what will mml cerfainly become a poinl of controversy-a new and perhaps "untlallering" \iiew regaroing lhe nalur~ of Ihe 1001 use among the
.~3'
7. ¡;I'Ilf'r(J1 Conc!uSiOll.'
294 hominids uf the Plio_PhJistoc(1ne bOUlldary. Th¡s víew was rnedc possible by tbe appli¡;alion al a
methodologr to él body oí observations. There was no simple accornrnodalion of ideas lo the obsei'lalions. A gcod mcthodology must be uncomprornisiog Dnly then is me qua\ily of lile results referablc lo the quality oí the melhodology. When "jusi-SO glories" el1d inlelleclual sleight of nend are the baste Ior meking s\alements as to what Ihe pest was like. 0118 can only attack thc logre and the persons making such argume nts. When él methodo\ogy is \he basis for staleme nts aboul Ihe past. it is possible lo research Ü18 methodology ilsell amI to uncover lts weal<.nesse5 and perfeet ¡Is strengths. Progress is mado undef such conditions, wtlCreas in Ih!! absence of melhod-
alteruative argllmenls Ihat could he offered tu aceounl far \hc sume f'act s For inslance. sorne of the patteming tsoleted in my analvsis. t1mugh dearl\' outside the range of the currenlly rloclIrncnled antmal_producen assPlllblages. could be Ihe consequenccs nf w(ller hdl"l5port [seo Hl,hrens,neyP.r 1975a: voorhie s 19tm) biasing anlma\-~cneraledbone poputattons. ur perhaps il could be the reslll t oí other processes nol ycl cunsid{)rt~d. Althougb my suggestíor» as lo Ihe signifiUlllCI'J uf patteeutng recognized in Ihis sludy may be viewed as slarling points for further reseaTLh, the¡e have been sorne argumenls presented in evaluatiun of ioference s previDUsl:--' ma{1e. Ihal appcar to be ralher
condus ive. There is no evidence supporling fhf' ideo Ihol lhe hom¡nlds wen~ removing foon fmlll Ihe }ocurion oJ ology only persons' repulations are reshuffled. The methodology outlined has led to certain collprocuremenl lo a base cllmp for rOl1sumption. In fact, Ihe covarianl pallernin~ among anatomical elusion s ahoul the charecter of Ihe pos\' importantly parls shows thal the parls selected by hominids for aboul the behavior or our early hominid ancestors. use were \a\o:.en hum already cunsumed ¡¡nJ aban· 'rhe plctuH' une gains from th~ :malysís of Ihf1 olddoned carcasses: Ihe coincidem:e ofbolh Ihe residual uvai malerials is a far cry from many of Ihe romanti(; pietures thal have bren advanced (see, for instance, component!' of such an animal kili and Ihe rtlodified olernenls Ilserl hy the hominids al lhe same site demArdrey 1976; R. Leakey and R. l.ewin 1977; 1978). ts onstra les nicely Ihal consumption was al Ihe place of This analysis seems lo iustif~' seveféll statemcfl procuremen1. No evidence JOI basf' r.omps exisls. aboul our early hominid ancestors: Similarly, Ihe or~tlmenl thol food wos shared is 101. They were scavellMing Ihe consumed kills and loJly vnsupporlerl. 11 is hard lo imagine the sharing scavenging death sites uf animal s ailer mos\ of of hny morsels of bone marrow. For sharing lo beIhe olher predator-scavengers had abandoned c.ome a regular behavior. Ihe food package musl al the cafcass and sr-al\eren sorne of lIs parts. leasl exceed in si7-e the amoun\ a single individual 2. The parts scavcnRed were primarily leg bones mi!!hl consume al a single sitting. 1 ¡un firmly conthat appear to have already had the meat revin¡;ed lhal sharing wa5 imporlanl il\ human evolumoved, or they were lower leg bones thal had tion annl am equally convincenlha t it was a canseHule meal presenl lo begin with. quence of shifls 'o 'he huntinjl, of animal foods, par3. The majar, or in many l":asesIhe only, usableor licularly animals of moderale lo larRe sizp.. There is edible parts consisted of bone marrow. no evidence supporting Ihe orgumcnt Ihat the 4. Horninids were using hammer tools lo break hominids 01 OldlJVni Gurge v.'~ffl hunlin~ The most open the leg bones and Ihereby expose the uscomrnonly ciled evidel"lcc. such as Ihe nlephant "\c.iII" able matrow. al FLK North Level 6. the Deinolherium "kili" al Al! of the foregoing statements are essentially FLK, and perhaps Ihe large semiarticulated animals al HWK r:asl Le\'e\ 2, as weH (lS Ihe "hippo" localion post hoc accommoda\i.ve argumen ts offered tu aeal Koobi Fora. are a1l most liltely n~lural dcalh 10{:3 t;OUl1 for patlerI1iJlg isolated in this sluOy. As sueh t \inlls. As poillled oul, the lools al Ihe "kills" in Oldthey are not cnopoints of rcsearch bul shoulo be uvai and KeKJbi Fora are localized largely indepenpoints ofbeginning. These suggestions reRardim~lhe dl1ntlv of lhp. bolles from animaís said lo have been charaeter of the pasl musl be evaluated and lhc evalualion musl rest wilh the per{(~t.:l\ol\ uf mc~hQdl> killed. In fado the In01s art' lJlDSl corTImonly assodaled wilh lhe bOlles uf l)[)vids, ami it is very haro fOf unambiguously reco~nizing Ihe producls of hominids as clistinc\ [rom other agenls. lt musl also lo "rgllP Ihal 1\H'SI~ \Iones WI're in ttJl~ sHc hy virlUe of rest wilh lhe devHlopment of means for evaluaqng
General Concjuslons
the same events that resultad in the presence of the large anlmnlcaroasses Por many years the problem of what tha selecuve context for the initial use of 100ls was ltke end in turn whallhe earliesl too\S werr used Ior has recetved sorne speculatlvu auenuon. Argumente recentlv advancad regardtng earlv tool use have been accnmrnodated to the Fanciful word ptctures tbat Ardrey, Isaac. end Leakey aud l.ewin have painled of our
early ancestors. Robert Ardrey. the advocete of the hunüng hypolhesis, slales, so !!ver~' ~Ieclivp. pressuH' favonlti thnse of us whu mo.~1 reliably could sland ereel and mo\'e on Iwn fool. jusI as il favored Ihose newly frped hands thal rould mosl ably wielrla Vl'l'lIpOn, Pl'rhaps liS nllT rapaLÍlil>s inuf'l.Isetl WIl used our weapons 1101 entirply lo rlcfcnd ourselves, bul 00 oecasion lo knockdown a sw.all, slnw animal and so sUPv1emenlour rliel uf fru jIwilh orld bits of meall ArrlrllV 1!17fl:4:1 l.
Glynn lsaac, lhe advocate of Ihe sharing hypolhcsis. pictllres thecúnle:x( oftool use as follows Whal abouI slone lools? Our aJ1C:eslors. like ourselves, cou\f1 probably break up tl'lc boo\' of it smllll IInirnlll.as chimpanzees duowilh nolhinM bul their h.andsIInd leelh lt is hltrd lo visualizp Ihem or UfO. howcver. eoling ~h~ meRI of an p.lephanl. a hippopolllmlls or sorne olher laq,{1' animal withouI the aid of a eutting implement. As Ihl' archaeolol\icill cvidence demonslrates abuI1danlly, thl' prolohumAns nf E"st Afril:a nol Doly know how lo pr<)dun' such slone f1akes h~' pen:ussjon. bul also fOIlIlf1 Ihem so uselullha! lhl'}'carrierllhe rllW mlllerials neeried lo m~ke Ihe implemenls w¡Ih Hwm from place lo place lIsaac 1!l7f1:lfIll Richard l..eakey artd Roger Lewin. popularizers of other peoplp's ideas, re-cr~ate the contexl of early slana 1001 US{1 Uf: follows: Beclluse diflerenl slicks arf' more I'ffec:til'ewhen Ihey are relali\'ely sharp. the ear!y hnminids probably Suoll le:lrned lo whlt!le hrllnr.hcs In 11 poinl, usillK ,lonO': f1akl's they happened lo come a(:f[JSS From !herr il is bul a shnrt ifllellrelual IrHp lo manuflldure a eutlinl{ ('r1jl,e by breakin~ oor SluJJt> in half by srriking il ¡¡Rainsl¡¡nolheT or, mom(:rudely, by smaahinl\ it l"lhe I\r<,u"d. TI", polnt Í"lHrl' lÍ"lnURl': is Ihalllu~ ¡irsl sronll-loDIII'r.hnolngv w;¡~ very prohatlly needrd In fashion olhl'r lnols nf 10"000 IJ{. l.eakl'Y and R. Lewin HI7tU421
295 We are told that the ñrst tools were weapons íor defensa and ktlttng prey. kruves tor cutting up large animals, or tools used for shaping more important tcols of wood. AH these argumenta were inventeo lo lil lhe auíhor's beliefs. Ardrev belleves in the "ktller-apes": Isaac in a kind of middle-c1ass genteel protohumen who shared his food. took care of his Iamily, and was on his way lo being emotionally and intellectually "human": for Leakov and Lew¡n. hominid life was an impoverished proíectton Into tbe past ofRichard Lee's ideas aboul the !Kung Bushmen What behavioraJ conlext for Ihe earliesl use of lools i~ indÍl;dteu by liJe faunal analysis performed here' One of the inleresling generalizatíons Ihal biologists often make abaut the ecological relatíonships among species living in the same habital is lhal no two species occupy identical niches. Anolher wmmonly noted phenomenoll is thal spedes OCcupying nearly irifmtic.al hahitals are relalad to ano another in a sometimes inlriguin¡;¡ly complex "foad web." In most situalions where we have multiple spedes occllpying very similar habilals, we find thal Ihoy eal complemenlary compunenls (lf UélSiclllly lhe samefood sources. For instance, sorne grazers feed on Ihe seed heaos. olhers feed on lhe larga leav~. and sli\l otbers crop Ihe young growlh of Ihe same grass specics. When we view such situalions from an ecological perspective, most successful adaptive diversificatíons amon~ species are accomplished by one species living on lhe entropy froro anothl'r spedes' adaptalion. The long and complicaled succession from lop predator 10 Ihe low\y Oiplera larva js essentiallya slory of who eats what another missed, iMnorad. orabllndOl1cd. Almosl all tlilrlier disl:usslons of ear)y hominirl aoaptations have essenlially seen a shift lo either scavellging or hunling as a direel competili"p. confronlaliotl between horninids anll other predalor-scavengers. fr hypothesis." pul things 111is way: If we were incapable ofki lling large prey Ilnimals such liS wi[¡jebeesl :lnd wlllf'fhud, lhen how were we Cllpableof stealing lhl'ir relllains from Iheir rl!i:hlful aor. more r1anl{erolls killcrs? If we hall b!!en cOJH:erned with unly a ff!wsrra\, b<Jn('~. l!len luck could aCCOllnl for it HuI Ihe
-
,~q'
.96 lmpresslve eccumulattons al early hemtmd living sttes musl indicare either that we had been even more edept thieves than we are today, or that rhe graat carrtivures in those limes were unaccou ntsbly lazy al guarding theír ktl!s tArdrey 197617[
The analysis of the meterials rernaining from our ancestral edeptattons suggests no suoh confrontelions or need for poslulating "taey'' carnívores. Our encestors were simplv takíng advantage of matter abandonad end'or ignored by other animals. No confrontafions need have occurred. for our anceslors were simpJy moving i.n on "wasle" and "enlropy" from Ihe predator-scavenger adaptations already in operation. The smaIl morsels of such waste would have broughl our anceslors inlo situatiolls of face-toface compelition wilh nolhing more Heree than perhaps a Diplera larva! The opposable thumb and the configuralion af the hand made possible Ihe use of a slone as a hammer lo gain aceess lo abandoned liny morsels oí food. In fact. aecess lo bone rnaCfOW by harnmer-wielding hominids was probably more di· reet and effoctive Ihan any olher, save perhaps Ihe legendary jaws of Ihe hyena. In compeHtion for bone marrow.early hominids hadun advanlage. Eeological suecess is beslowed upon Ihose with advantages. The selting one can imagine Cor early 1001 use is jusI Ihal 100J use in which available slones were used lo break bones. The percussion. however, a1so broke Ihe slones, particularly when used in eonjunC:lion with an anvil. Over Ihe millenia our hominid anceslors leamed something of percussion lechniques and evenlually used this knowledge in 1001 manufacture and for Ihe production of lools olher Ihan hammers. I slrongly doubl Ihal tool manufaclure as opposed lo paHemed breakage was a eharacteristic of hominid modifieation of Iilhics until we begin lo see design charaeleristies in lilhic ilems in Lower Sed 11 al olduvai GorKe. ¡ suspecl Ihal increased scavenging of meal from carcasses is a behavioral Irend and may well relale to inereases in Ihe "flake 1001"componenl (lf Ihe early industries, as well as increases in Ihe frequency oflarger animals seen Ihrough Ihe Olduvai sequenee. When one employs a regular set of seavengiog slralegies aimed al recovering meato il is quite likely thal Ihere would be a numerical shift loward larger animals. in Ihat Ihe larger Ihe body size Ihe grealer Ihe likelihoocl of meal remaining available to a larger numbeT of scavengers. induding hominids.
7. Gent>TlIfConc1usjons
J am convínced that huntlng as an imporlant contribution lo a human adaptation ts a part ofoue hislory that must be understood in terms of the radiañcn of
"men" out of Africa. I can see no setecttve context for hunting lo heve artsen as an organized componenl of a hominid adaptalion wilhin the Afriean "homeland." In fact, I would be verv surprised lo find that hunting played an importanl role in most Mriean adaptations unlil after the appearance of the bow and arrow. Although these "hunches' are Interesttng , th¡s is not the place fOf a return lo sheer speculation. The questtons I beve raised regarding the currenlly accepted ideas about early man are perhaps suffieenl to justify Ihe need for Ihe developmenl of rohusl middle-range Iheory and to follow up the researeh leacls c1arified by Ihe applieations of a IDPlhodoJogy.The imaginative researeher should appreGiate Ihal many of the arguments presenled here that slem direclly from my attempt lo apply a naseent melhodology demand furlher Iypes of researeh. which h¡lVe not Ihus farbeen eonducled. For inslanee. no syslematic analyses on Ihe inlernal spatial struc· lure of lhe dislributions carefully plotted by Mary Leakey have been earried oul.lt is true Ihat Milla Ohel (1977) has made sorne provocative observations isolating sorne loeations of probable hominid aclivity. but Ihe details oflhe faunal eJemenls represented in such ¡ocaHI¡es are nol available. Similarly. Ihe comparalive study of assoeiations belween debitage ciusters on Ihe f100rand seatters of larger tools mighl well yield inleresling faets, yel these studies have nol been made. Even the minor atlempls Ihal have been made proeeecled from the assumplion thal inlernal differenlialions noled wilhin Ihe dislribulions referred lo inlemal differentiations and spedalized spacewilhin hominid siles (seeOheI1977j.11 appears mueh more likely thal most such differential dislribulions and Ihe apparenl struclure on Ihese "floors" derive from Ihe compounding of manv differenl episodes and agents, eaeh conlributing sÜghlly differenl materials having slightly differenl spalial properties. For instance, the concenlralion ofbroken bone on the Zinj floor (see M. D. Leakey 1971: Figure 24) is mosl Iikely referable lo homini{k Zinj himself is more likely Ihe scavenged hody of a hominid deposiled independenlly or {he marrow-cracking episode indicated by Ihe bone and lithic debris concenlration. Similarly. Ihe scattered bones frequently referred lo as periphcral lo Ihe sile are probably a normal paleon-
Genero! Conclusions
tologtcal background of alterad bones from natural deatb sites and kills by predetors. We need lo pay mueh more attenuon lo Ihe actual structura of spafial patteming emong elements that are fairly reliably referred lo hominid behavíor. II te in such patterntng that dtegnosttc evidence fcr imporlant behavlors such as sharíng end the use of heme bases wiJI 00 developed. Methodologícal development is needed in the domain of stte structure lo aíd borh in the separation of the differant eplsodes and agente that may contnbute to a deposit and in the recognftíon of evolUlionarily imporlanl behaviors. In acldition lo development of new domains of research such as site slruelure. Ihere are olhar needs. Almosl all Ihe control populations. and control sludies (sueh as those on bone densityJ remain in the "eneouraging" slage. Thal is. enough work has been done fm us to be eneouraged Ihat we are on Ihe track
297 ofvaluableand usefu! knowledge. hut nct enough has been done lo render out eurrent knowledge very secure. Mueh more baste research ís needed lo perfeel methods for knowtng the past. We have had fae loo much of what r tend to think of as the National Ceographic approach lo research. That is the view thet progresa Is made Ihrough díscovertes [preferably photogen¡c ones) that are treeted as selí-evídent in theír rneentng.In facl jusI the reverse ís the case. Baaíc reseerch makes possible the reliable assignment of meaning lo observatíons. Withoul sueh reseerch. discoveries simply serve as Ihe stimulus for modeen myth making. We have had quite enough of thal.1t is lime we gol down lo Ihe difricull and perhaps nol so phologenic lask ofearrying out the basic research Ihal will make possible the move from Ihe age ofmylhs lo Ihe era of underslanding.
--
$--
References
Abel, o 1926
How Neanderthal man hunted ceve bears in Ihe Dragon's Cave near Mlxnltz, Austna. NatumJ Hfstcry 26:252-256. Agenbroad. L. D. 1978 The Hudson-Meng sfte- An Alberta bíson kili in the Nebrasko High Plcms. Washillgton, D.C.:Universily Presa of Amertce. Altuna, l. 1971 Los mamiferos del yacimiento prehistorícn de Morin. In Cueva Morin Exccvcctones 1966-1968, by G. Bchegaray el al. Santander: Patronato de las Cuevas Prehistóricas. Pp. 371-397. Amsterdamski. S. 1975 Between experience and metaphystcs. Boston Studles in the Philosopny of Science 35. 80stonReidel. . Andree. J. 1939 Der etszeültche Mensch in lkutschlond und saine ku/luren. Stuttgart.Enke. Archer. M.. M. Crawford. and D. Merrilees 1980 lnctetons. breakages. and charrtng. sorne probably { • ~'" man-made, In fossil bones from Memmcth Cave. western Australia. Akhermga 4 (1-2):1 15-13l. , Ardrey. R. 1976 The hUnting hypolhesis: A personni concrusron concprning the evojufioncry nature ofmun. New York.Atheneum Bachler, E 1921 Dos Dmehen/oeh vil Viitlis im Tnmintule. 2445 M.lJ.M liad serne Bedeutung als paléon-
/55
..
1
194(]
tologtsche funstliUe und prt\hlstorlsche Niederlessumg eus der Aitllleinzeil (Plllaolilhikum) in Schweizerlande. Swilzerland:SI. Gall. Pp. 1-144. Dos Alpine P{ljoolithikutn der Schwere. Monogrephíen zur Ur-und Frühgeschlchte der Schwetz. Bd. n.
BaUaglia, R. 1953 Le osea Iavorete della cevema Pocala Nella Venezia Guiulia e i1 problema del "Mosterlano Alpino Bu/Jelino di Po/entologio Italiana 8(6):5-
3'Beard, P. H. 1979 The end o/ rhe gcme. Carden CUy, N.Y.:Doubleday. Behrensrneyer, A. K. 1975a Taphonorny and paleoecolegy in the homlnid fossil record. In Yaarbook ofPhysiool Anthropol. ogy 19, edtted by l. Buettner-Ianusch. Pp. 36-50. 1975b The tephoncmy and paleoecology of PlloPletstocene vertebrare assemblages eest of Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Bul/aUn of the Museum of Como percnve Zoolog}' 146(10):473-578. 1978 Taphonomic and ecologic information fram bone weetheríng. PoleobioJogy 412):150-162. Behrensmeyer. A. K., and D. E. Dechant.Bnaz 1980 The recen! bones of Amboseli Park , Kanya. in releuon lo East Afrícen paleoecology. In Fossils in the moking: Vertebrrrte tophonomy ond po/eoecoJosy, edited by A. K. Behrensmeyer end A. P. Hill. ChtcagnUnivetsity of Chicago Press. Pp. 72-92. 299
References
300 Behrenemeyee. A. K.. D. westem. end D. E. Dechent-Boae 1979 New perspectivas in vexebrete pelececology from a recen! bone essemblage. PoJeobioJogy 5(1):12-21.
Berckhemer, F. 1934 Der Steinheimer Urmensch und die Tlerwelt seines Lsbensgebtetea. Nalurwiss Monolschrift der Deutschen Nulurkundever 47/4). Stuttgert. Berountoúx, F. M.
1958
"Spirltualité" de I'homee de NéandeJ1al. In Hunder1 lahre Noonderthaler 1856-1956. editad by G. H. R. von Koenígswald. Utrecht, The Netherlands:Wenner Oren Founderíon for Anthropological Research. Pp. 151-165 Blbarsan, P., and E. Aguirre 1965 Experiences de lalile d'outils préhlstoriques dan des os d'elephant. Quafernorio 7:165-183. Binford, L. R. Ut67 Smudgll pita end hide smoking: The use of anal. ogy In archo8olOllical reasDning. American Anliquily 3Z(11:1-12. 1968a Archasological perspectives. In New prespeclives in archaeology, editad by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford. Chicago:Aldine. Pp. 5-32. 1968b Archllleolog1cal Iheory 9.nd mslhod. In New perspectives in Archaeology, adited by S. R. Blnford and L. R. Binford. Chica!lo:Aldine. Pp. 1---3, 1963c Posl·Pleislocene ad8ptations, In New perspectives in urchue%gy, edited by S. R. Binfard and L. R. Binfard. Chicago:Aldine. Pp. 313-341. 1968d Sorne comments en historieal venus processual archaeology. Southwestern fournol of AnthmpoJogy 24:261-215. 1912a Archaeological re9.soníng and smudge plts-revlsited, In An Orch080/ogicu/ perspective, by L. R, 8lnford. Nl!wYork:Seminar Press. Pp. 52-58. t912b Conlemporary model building: Paradigms and Ihe currenl stete oi Paleolithic l8search. In Models in orchoeology, editad by D. L. Clarke London:Melhuen. Pp. 19-166. 1973 Interassemblage v8riabilily-lhe Mouslerian and Ihe"functional argument." In Theellplonotion of culture chunge, adited by C. Renfrew. Lon_ don:Duckworth. Pp. 227-254 1916 Forty-soven trips: A casestudy in the cha1'8cter of some formation ptoee3Ses of Ihe archaoological record, In Conlribulions to onthropology: The interior peoples of northern t\loska, ediled by E, S. Hall, Ir. Nalionol MusllUm of Mon, Mercury Series (Paper No. 49). Ottawa:Nationlll Museum of Canadll. Pp. 299-351 1911a General inlruduclion. In For Iheory building in orrhaeolog}". edited by L. R. Binford. New York:Academí¡; Press. Pp. 1-10.
I1-'1
1911b Historica! archeeology: Is it hiatcrlcal or IU"ohaeologlcelj In Histoncct archaeology and the Importonce of maler;al lhings, edtted by L. Ferguscn. Society for Hístortcel Al't:haeology, Special Publtcettnn No. 2. Pp. 13-32. 1911c Olorgesallíe deserves more Ihan the usual book revtew fournal of Anthmpologica/ Researeh 33{4):493-502. 19188 Dímenstonal analysis of behevlor and sita structure: Learmng Irom en E8kimo hunting stand. American An!iquity 4.1(3):330-361. 1918b Nunomuit elhnoorcnaeology. New York: Acedemic Press. 1979 Organiullon and formatlun processee. lookingat cureted technologies. fournal of Anlhropologieal Research 35(3):255-Z13. 1980 wñlow smoke and dog's lails: Hunter-getherer settlement systems and archaeological sita formatíon. American Anliquily 45(1):4-20. Binford. L. R., and l. B. Bertram 1977 Bone frequencies-end altrilional proc158ses. rn For tbeoIJ' building in orchaeoJogy, edllad by L. R. Binford. New York:AClIdemic Press. Pp. 11'5'
Binford. L. R., IInd S. R. Binford 1966 A prelimtnary analysis offuncUonal vllrillbility in lhe Mousterian of LevlII10is facies. American AnthropoJogist 68 [2j:236-295. Blnfard, L. R., and W. J. Chasko 1916 Nunllmiut demographic history: A provocative CllS!! In Demographic onthmpology. editad by E. B. W, Zubrow. Albuquerqup.:University of New Maxico Press. Pp. 63-143, Binford, S. R. 1968a Ethnographic dllta Ind understandlng the Pleistocene.ln Mon Inehunler. editad by R. B, Leeand l. DeVore. Chic-ago·Aldinll. Pp. 214-215. 1968b A stroclural eomparison of disposal of Iha dead in Ihe Mousterian and Uppar Psleolithlc. Southwestern ¡ournal of Anlhropology 24 [2}:139-1 54. Blnford, S. R., and L. R. Binford (Editors) 1968 New perspectives in orehae%gy. Chícago:AIdine. Black, n. (Editor) 1933 "'ossn man in China: The Choukoulian cave depos!ls wilh a synopais of our present knowledge of (he Late Cenozoic in China. Memoir of !he Geological Survey of ChIno Series A., 11. Blane. A 1939 L'Homma fossile du Monte Circen. L'Anlhropologie 44 :25.1-264. 1950 Was Ncanderlhlll man e rilual cannlbal? Evidence from the CllVIJ of CiJ'{;en which points to a grim praclke common lo the head-hunlers of today
...
Ji'r'
.... References
301 and the cave-men of prehístory. Jn lJ/ustroted London News 216(5184):292 1958 Torre in Ptetra, Seccopestora, Monte Circ!HJ: On the paSilion uf the Moustertan in the Pleistccene sequence of the Reme area. In Hundert fonre N8(¡ndertnu}er 7856-1956. ediled by G. H. R, VDn Koentgewald. Utrecht. The Nelheriands:Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropologh;;al Research Pp. 161-114. 1961 Sorne evidence lar the ideologies of early manoIn Sociu/ life of eorJy mcn. editad by S. L. Washbum. Viking Fund Publicalions in AnlhropoIogy 31. Pp. 119-136. Boaz, N. T., and A. K. Behrensmeyar 1916 Hominid laphonomy: Transport of human ¡kelatal par!s in an Irtificial fluvietfle environ_ mento American ioumaí of Physicol Anthropol. lI.!!.\-· 45(1):53-60. Bond. G.
Bourliere. F. 1963 Specific feeding hlbils of African carnívoros. Afnccn Wild Life 17[1):21-21. 1966 Observatíons on the ecology of sorne Jarge African mammals. In Africlln ecology ond human evoiurton, editad by F. e. HowelI and F. Bourliere. Chicago:Aldine. Pp. 43-54. Bre¡n. C. K.
1967a ücne weathering and Ihe problem of bona pseudo-tocls. South Afticofl lournoJ of Science 63:97_99, 1967b Hotlelltot food remems and their maarling in the interprelatlon al fcestl bone snemblages. Scien, litic Pepe-s of the Nomib Desen Reseoreh Slation No. 32:J-11 1968 Who killed the Swartkrans ape-man? South Africon Museum Bullelin No. 9:121-139, 1959 The eontribution ofNamib Desert Hotlentots loan underslanding of auslralopllhecine bone ac1969 The gaDJogyoftha KIlambo Falls prehistoric site. In Kalombo Folls Prehistoric Sile. Vol. 1, by J- D. cumulations, Scielltific Popers 01 Ine Nomib Desert Reseurch Slotion No, 39:13-22. Clark. Cambridge:Cambridge University Prass. Pp. 191-213. 1910 New {¡nds at Ihe Swartknms austraJopithecine Bonnichsen, R site. Nolure 225:112_1 t19. 1916a A ra-lntarpretatioll of tha SWllrtkrens lIite and its 1973 Sorne operational "pacts of human and animel , bone elterelion. In Mammalian osteoremains, Soulh Africon /ourllol of Science 72:141-146. lIrchae oJo8Y: Norlh America, editad by M. Gil1916b Some principIes in the interpretalion af bone acber': Columbia, Miss.:Missouri Archeeological "I . Soclety. Pp. 9-24 cumulations lI8socillted wilh man.ln Human ori_ gins: Louis Leokey and the Eas' Africon evidence, 1975 On {auRIll analysls and Ihe australopithecines. Currenl AnfhropoJogy 16(4):635-636. edited)by G. L/, Isaac snd B. R, McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.:Benjamin. Pp. 97-116. 1918 Critical arllumenls for Pleistocene artifacts from 1980 Soma criterla for the recognition of bonelhe Old Crow Basin, Yukon: A preJiminary 8late_ man\. In Earl.\-' mon in Amerka, fram a circum_ collectlng sgBncies in African caves. In Fossils in Pad/ic perspective, adiled" by A. L. 8ryan. EdIhe muhflg: Verlebrole tophonomy Olld monlon:Archaeo1ogiOllJ Researchel'$ Interna_ poleoecoJogy, adited by A. K. Behrennnayer and tional. pp. 102-116. A. P. Hlll. Chicogo:University of Chicago Press. Pp. 107-130, 1919 Pleistocene bone technology In the Beringian ReBreuJl, H . ~5fJ fugium. A.rchoeologicol Survey of Conado Poper, :.<.. /' Mercury SerieN (P8per No, 89). Ollawa:Nellona] 1932 Le f"u et I'industrle de pierre al d'os dans le gise., lb' Museum of Canada. menl du "Sinanlhropus" a Chou Kou Tien. VAn. BordlllJ. F. thropolos:ie 42:1-17. 1961 Typologie du Paléolithique oncien el moyen. 1938 The usaofbone implamenls in theOld Paleolithic Publicatíons da l'Inslitut de PréhlsloJre de J'UnlpE'riod. AnUquity 12:56-67. v9f.ité da BordeaulC, Memoir No. 1. Bor1939 Bone 8nd anller industry of tba Choukoulhm deaux:lmprlmerias Dalmu. Sinonlhropus site. PaJueontologio Sinica, n.S. D., 1966 The Old Stone Age. New York:World Univarsity No. 6. Paking. Library. McGraw-HiJl. Brooks, R, H. 1969 O. pereé Moustarian et os gravé AcheuléBlI du 1961 A compsralive analysis of bone from locality 2 Pech da l'Azé 11. Quolernaria 11:1-6. (C1-245), Tule Springs. Navada. Nevada Stole ]972 A tole 01 /wo caves. New York:Harper a Row. Museum AnlhropoJo8icol Popers No, 13;402_ Boucher de Perthes, M. 411. 1849 AfltiquitesceJtiques andAnlediluviennf'S, Vol.!. Brumley. ,. H. Parls. 1973 Quantitsllve methods in the analysis ofbulchared
>S".g
/~/"i'
A-'
Hejerences
302 faunal ramatns: A suggestad appmech. ArchceoJogy in Montanj] 14(1):1-40.
Bryan. A. L. 1978 An overvtew af Paleo-American prehistorv from 8
I
eírcum-Pectñc perspectiva. In Early mnn in America, from (1 circum-Pocific psrspecfive, ediled by A. L. Bryan. Bdmonton.Archeeologfcal Res8archers lntemettonel. Pp. 306-317. Buckland. W. 1823 Reliquioe DiJuviolloe; or, observotions on the.o'. ganie ramcíns contoined in caves, fissures, ll'nd diluvial grtlvel, ond en emer geologiccl phenomeno nttesting !he odians af (] universal de/uge. l.ondon: Joho Munay. New York:Arno Press. [Reprinted 1918). Bunge, M. 1979 CausoJity und modern setenes (300 rev. ed.}, Naw York.Dcver. BunD, H. T. In Archaeologica! evidence for meal-esting by PHapress Pleistocene h.ominids &om Koobi Fora, Kenya and Dlduvll.i Gorge, Tan:r.ania. Submllted to Nature Bunn, H. T., J. Harris, G. L. Isaat:. Z. Kaufulu, E. Kroll. K. St:hick, N. Toth. 5: A. K. Beh.renameter 1980 FxJl 50: An Early Pleistocene Site In Northern Kenya. World An:.;hoe%gy 12{Z):109-136. CampbelL l. B., and C. Stunpson 1971 A new analysls of Kent's Cavern, Devonshire, En· gland. Universily ofOregon Anthropologico/ Popers No. 3. Canby, T. Y. The search for the first Americans. Nationol Geo1979 grophic 156\31:330-363. Chamherlin, T. C. 1965 Tbe method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 148 [3671):754-759. Chaplin, R. E. 1969 The use of non-morphologlcal crileria in the study 01 anImal domestlcation from bones found in archauologicat sltea. In The domesticolion ond exploifolion ofplontsond onimols, editad byP. l. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago:Aldine. Pp. 231-245. 1971 The sludy of onimol bones /rom archoeologicol sJles. New York:Seminar Press. hi ' de , V. G. Pieclng together Ihe pos/. Naw York:Praeger. 1956 Clark, G. 1977 World prehistory In new perspective (3rd edj. C8mbridge:Cambridge Univenily Press. Clark, J. D. 1969 Ka/ambo Falls prehistoric site, Vol. 1. Cambridge:Carnbrldge University Press.
-:¡.
2b"
t
K
clarr.,). D. end C. V. Haynes 1970 An elephant butchery site et Mwanganda 's village, Karonga, Malawi. and us relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archoeology 1:390-411. Clarke. D. L. 1972 Review of explanatton in archaeology. An explicitly sctenuñc approach. Anliquily 46,237-239. 1973 AJ"ehaeology: The Ion of innocence. Antiquily 47:6-18 Clevelend. G. C. 1976 Experimental replication oí butchered Artiodactyla bcne wilh spedal referance to archeenlngical features et 45 FR s.tn Preliminory crchceologtcoi invesligotions al the MiIler stre. Strcwberry lslcnd, 1976, by G. C. Clevelanrl et 01. Project Report No. 46. Pullman, Washington:Washington Archaeological geseerch Center. ene;M. Th.e decomposltion of elephant eateaSses in the 1978 Tsavo (East) Natlonal Pari.. Kenya. Journa/ 01 Arid Environments l(1):71~6. 1980 The role of modern ecologiclOl sludtes in the reconstruction of paleoenvironments in subSaharan Africa. In Fossils in the making: Verte· brote tophonomy and poleoeeology, editad by A K. Bahrensmeyer and A. P. Hill. Chicago:Universily of Chicsgo Press. Pp. 55-ti7. Cohen, M. R., and E. Nagal 1934 An introduclion to logie ond scientifie melhod. New York:Harcourt, Brace. Coles. l. M., and E. S. Higgs TheorchoeoJogyofoorJy mano NewYork:Praeg er. 1969 Coon, C. 1962 The origin of roces. New York:Knopf. Crader, D. C. 1974 The effects of !eavengers on the bona material from a large mammal: An experiment conducted amongthe Bisaof1heLuangwa Va11ey,Zambia.1n Erhnoarchoeology, edited byC. B. Connan andC. W. Clewlow. Monograph 4. Los Angeles:lnstitute o( Archaeology, Universily of California. Pp. 161-173. Daly, P. Approaches lo faunal analysis. American An1969 liquity 34{2):146-153. Daniel, G. 1968 One hundren years of Dld World prehistory. In One hundred years of anlhrop%gy. editad by l· O. Brew. Cambridge. Mass.:Harvard UnlVersHy Press. Pp. 57-93. Dart. R. A. Thl" predalory implemental technlque of Aus1949
f
a
References
303
teulcptthecus. American Journal of PhysicoJ Anthrapology 7(1):1-39. 1956 The myth of the bone-acccmuletíng hyena Americon Anlhrop%gist ,58(1):40--62. 1957 The osteodonlokeratic culture af Australopilhecus prometheus. Memoir of the Transvaa/ Museum No. 10. 1958 The minimal bone-breccia conlent of Makapansgal end the euatrelopttheclne predalory habtt Americen Anthropologist 60[5):923-931. 1959a An "australopithecine" scoop from Herefordshlre Na!ure 163:844. 1959'0 Furlher light on australoplthecine humeral and femoral weapuna. American Icumcl of Physical Anlhropology 17(1):87-94. Tbe bone tool-manufacturing ability of Aus1960 lrolopilhecus prcmetheus. American AnIhropologis! 62(1):134-143. An auatralopilhecine scoop made from a righl 1961 AustraJopilhecus upper arm bone. Noture 191 :372-373. 1962 From cannon-bone scoops lo skull bowls at Makapansgal. American 10urnoJ of Physicol An· thropology 20(3):Z87_Z95. 1967 Mausterian osteodonlokeratic objects norn Geulll Calle (Haifa.lsrael). Qualamaria 9:105-140. David, F. 197'Z Annexe m. Témoins Dsseux. In F'ouilles de Pincevenl, essai d'analyse ethnogrll.phique d' un habitat Magdalénien (La section 36). by A. Leroi-Gourhan et M. Brblllon. Paris:EdiUons du Centre Natlonal de la Recherche Scientifiqua. Pp. 295-J21l. Davls, L. B., and M, Wilson [Edilors) 1978 Bison procuremanl and utllizalion: A symposium. Plains AnlhropoJogist Memoir No. 14. Dawkins, W. B. 74 Cave hunting, resoorche~ on Ihe evidence of coves respecting Ihe eorly inhubitants of Europe London:Macmlllan. Lumley, H. 1969 Une cabone Acheuléenne dons Jo Grofle du Lazare!. Memoirs de la Soclété Préhistorique Fran!;8ise. Tome 7. Paris:Société Préhistorique Fran!;8lse. 1975 Cultural evolution in France in ils paluoecologi_ cal setting during the Middle Pleistocene. In Afler Ihe ousrrnlopithecines. ediled by K. W Butzar and G. L1. ¡seac. The Hague:Moulon. Pp
E
745~08.
De Mortillet. G. El. A.
1900
Le Préhistorique, OriEtine el Antlquité L'Homme \3rd oo.). Paris:Sehleicher Freres.
de
mbble. D. S.• and D. Lurrain 1968 Bonfire Shelter: A stratlfíad bíson kili slte, Val Verde Counly, Texas. Texas Memoriol Museum. MisceHaneous Popers No. 1 Douglas-Hamílton, l., and D. Douglss-Hamilton 1975 Among Che eiephunts. New York:Viking. Duces, P. 1969 Melhodology and results of the study of Ihe eerliest domesttcated animals in the Near East (Palestine). In The dcmesñccñcn and expfoita, !ion of p/onts and animals, edited by P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby. Chicego.Aldíne. Pp. 265Z75. Ehrenberg, K. 1959 Die ureennchen Fundstellen und Funde in der Salznfenhoble, Stelermark. ArchaeoJogia Aus_ mece 25:8-24. 1962 Uber wenere urzeltliche Fundstellen und Funde in del Salzofenhohle. Steíermerk. Archaeologia Auslrioca 32;1-Z2-267. 1971 El Hueso Trabajado Mus!eriense de Cueva Morln. In Cueva Morin Excavaciones J966-1968, by G. Echegaray el aL Santander:Patronato de las Cuevas Prehistóric&S. Pp. 135-161. 1973 El Musteriense. In Cueva Morin Excavaciones
.Le'
References
304
1975
1976
1969, by G. Echegafay et 01. Santender.Petronetc de las Cuevas Prehistéríces Pp. 15-140. Acheulian sitas and stratigraphy in Iberia end the Mahgreb. In Afler the uustraJopilhecines. editad by K. W. Butser and G. Ll. Isaac. The Hague:Mouton. Pp- 661-743 Mousteríen worked borre from Cueva Morin (Santander, Spain): A preliminary dascription. In Views of (he pcsr, editad by L. G Freeman. The Hague:Mouton. Pp. 29-51
Freeman, L. G., and K. W. Butzet 1966 The Acheulean etanon al Torralba [Spain]: A progresa reporto Quatl'!rnorl(l 8:9-21. Friedman, K. 1980 Stone 01 bona? In Ody88eY, edfted by M. Ambrosino. BostonPublíc Broadcastlng Assocíetes.
P.7. Frisan, G. ,O 1970 TheGlenrockBuffaloJump,48C0304 PloinsAn· , thropologist Memoir No. 7. 1971 Shoshenaan entelope procurement ln the Upper Green River Basín, Wyoming. Ploins AnthropoloSisl 16(54):258-284. 1978 Prehisloric hunfers of fhe HISh Plains New Ywk:Academic Press.
J.
Frison, G. (Editor) /1.'"4 The Cllsper Jite: Ii Hell Gopbison km on the High '(,1:1 Ploilll. New York:Academic; Presa.
fI
Frison. G.. M. Wilson, and D. J. Wllson 1976 Fo.sil blson and artlfael. from a[l early AUilhermal periad arroyo trap in Wyamlng. American AnliquHy 41(1):28-57. Gamble, C. 1978 ResoulCe exploitation and the apatial patternlng of hunter..-gathertlrB: A case sludy. In SocJol orsonizolion ond ¡;eitJernent: Contributions from onthropoJogy, archaeolog.l' ond goosrophy, edited by D. Green, C. Haselgrove. and M. Spriggs. Oxford:Brilish Archaeological Reporls. Pp. 153~185. 1979 Hunting sltelegies in the Central European PalllOlithíe. Proceedinss 01 the PNlhisforic SocieIY"'5:35-52. Glfford. D. P. 1977 Observatlons of modero human seltlements as an aid fo erchllaological inlarpretllllon. Ph.o. dls· !8rtllllon, Univ6rslty of California, BerkelllY. 1978 Elhnoarchaeological obs6!'Vetions of nalurll.l proceB9Illl affecting culturll.1 meteríaIs. [n Explorolions in ethnoorchoeology, ediled by Richard A. Gould. Albuquerque:Universily of New Ml,Ixico Prtlss. Pp. 77-101.
Ethnoarcheeologtcal contríbouons to the taphnnomy ol human sitas. In Fossils in the mokmg: Vertebrule tophonamy ond puleoecolos.y. edíted by A. K. Behrensmeyer and A. P. Hill Chicago.Untverstty afChicago Press. Pp. 93-106. 1981 Taphonomy and peleoecology: A critical revíew of aruhaeology's sister disciplines. In Advcnoes in ot(."haeologil;;o/ method cnd Iheory, Vol. 4. editen by M. B. Schlffer New York.Acedemtc Press. Gilbert, B. M 1969 Sorne espects of dtet end butcheetng teehniques among prehistoric lndians in South Dakota. Ploins Anthropologist 14(46):277-294. Gorjanovlc-Kramberger, K. 1906 Der diluviale Mens<.:h van Krapina in Kroatien. Ein Beilros zur PoloonlhropoJogie. Studlen uber die sntwícklungsmechanjk des prlmatenskelettes mil bescnd. Berucks Anthropologie un Deseeodenzlehre Liar. I-XI. WiesblldenHereusgeg van O Walkhoff. Pp. 59-277. Gould, R. A. 1976 Beyond analasy in ethnoarehallOlogy. lo EJtplorotioos in ethnoorchoeolo8Y. edited by R. A. Gould. Albuqutlrque:Universily of New Mexico
Re/eTenees
305
1980
1960
P~".
f "'fa
{.iving archoeology. Cambrldge:Cambridge Universily PraliS.
Gould. S. J. 1977 Evar since Danvin: Reflections in nolurul history. New York:Norton. GuUday, J. n.d. TheBuffolo sile (46PU31), PulnomCounty. West Virginia. Pitlsburgh. Pa.:CllJ'm!gie Museum (on file). Guilday, J. E., P. Parmalee. and D. Tllnner 1962 Aboriginal butchering techniques al Ihe EschaJ, man slle (36LA12), Laneasler County. Pennsyl. vllnia. Pennsylvonio ArchoeoJogist 32:59-83. Guilday, l. E., and'D. P. Tannar 1962 Animal remains from the Quaker Stale Rockshelter (36VE271 Venango County, PennsyJvanill. Pennsy/vonio ArchoeologisI32(3-4). Whole No. Hammond. N (Editor) 1979 Ano/ylicol AKhaeologisl: Colla<.:led papers ol David L. Clarke. London and New York:Academic Pre&ll. Haringlon. C. R., R. Bonniehllen. and R. E. Morlan 1975 Bones say man lived in YuJcon 27,000 yeers ago. Conedian GeogrophicaJ fournaJ 91 :42-48 Haynes, G. 1976e Excavation of a smell Virginia cave. Bullelin of the An:hocoJogico/ Soriely of Virginia. 32(3): 37--41.
1976b Morphologlcal damege and 1Ilteratlon lo bone: Laboralory experlmenls. (¡eld studíes, end aoo studíes. AMQUA: Abstrocls aflhe Fifth B¡"nnial Meeting. Edmonlon. P. 210. 19BI) Evldenca of cerruvors gnawing on Pleistocene and Recent meromallan bones. PoleabioJogy 6(3):341-351. Hempal, C. G. Aspects o/scienti/ic exp/on
1977
1975
15"+ 197' />42..
1979
f~'f 1980
Taphenomy of eonlemporary and Late Cenozolc ElIst African vertebrales. Ph.O. dissertation. Uni_ verslly ol London. London. England. On camivore and weotherlng darnllge lo bone. Currenl linthropology 17(3):335-336. Bulehery and Natural disarUcullllíon: an investl. galory Tl,Ichnique. American Anliquity 44(4): 739-7"'.
Early poslmorlem damage lo Ihe ramlllns of sorne eonlemporary East AfrlClln mammals. In Fossils in the moking: Vertebrate lophonomy ano pa1eoecology, l:tdiled by A. K. Behl'1msmeyer and A. P. Hill. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Pp. 131-152. Hole, F., K. V. Flannery, and ¡. A. Neely 1969 Prehislory IInd human ecololfY of the Deh LUrll.n Plain. an earfy village sequence from Khuzlslan. Iran. Memoirs af the MUlleum 01 Anfhropology, Universily of Michlgon No. 1. Hooljer. D. A. 1951 On Ihe supposed l!\Iidence of tIllrly man in Ihe Middle Pleilltocene (Ir ~oulhwesl China. Southweslern Tournnl of Anthropology 7(11:77-81 HOrmann. K. 1923 Die Pefflrshtihle bei Veldlln in Millelfrllnkcn.
NoturhiBtorische GeseJ1schofl ZU Nuernberg: Abhondlungen, Grobungsberichle der An. Ihropologischen Sektion 21:125-153. Howell, F. C. 1965 EarJ)' mano New York:Time-Life Books. 1966 Observations on Ihe earliar pheses of the European Lower Paleolithic. American An_ thropoTogjsr 66(2):B8-201. Huckell, B. B. 1979 Of chipped Slone lools, elephants, and Ihe Clovis humera. Ploins Anfhropologist 24(85):177-169. Hughea, A. R. 1954 Hyenea versus australopilheclnes as agente of bone accumulatlon. Americon lournaJ of Ph)'Si. cal Anfhropology 12:467-486. Humphrey. R. L. 1979 Forward. In Pre-L/ano cultures oflhs Ameriros: Parado}(es and possibi/ities, edited by R. L. HUmphrey and D. Stallford. Washington. D.C.:AnthropoJogical Society of Washinglon. Pp. v-tx. ¡rving. W. N 1978
Pleisloc:ene archaeology in easlern Berlngia. In Early mon in Americo. {rom o cireum-Pocific perspective. editad by A. L. Bryan. Edm()nton:ArehallOloglcel Researchers l[liematlonaL Pp. 9610lo Irving. W. N., and C. R. Haringion UPPer Pleislocene radlo-carbon dated arllfacls 1973 from tha northern Yukon: Man in Beringla 27,000 years ago. Science ]79:335-340. lS11ae, G. LI. 1971 The dlet of tIllrly man: Aspe<.:ls alllrchallOlogical evidence from Lower and Middle Pleislocene siles In Africa. World Archoeology 2:278-298. 1975a Early horninlds In acllon: A commenlary on the contributlon of ar<.:haeolosylo underslandlng: Ihe fossil record in Easl Africa. Yeorbook of Physical AnlhropoJogy 19, edile. Pp. 275-26B
.8-'
308
Hejerencea
1971
O/orgesaiJie: Archaeologil::al sludies of (1 Middle Plelstccene Jake besin in Kerlya. Cbtcegc and London:University of Chicago Press. 19789 The Iocd-shertng behavior of protohuman homtntds. Scíenlific American 238(4):90-106. 1978b Food sharing end human evolutícn. Archaeological evldence from the Plto-Pleletocena of Easl Afrlca. 'oumal of AnthropoJogicol Reseorch 34(3):311~J25.
Isaac. G. U., and B. Isaac 1975. Atrrca. In Varielies ot culture in the Old World, editad by Roben Sligha. New York:St. Mertín's. Pp. 8-48. jobnson. E. 1977 Animal load [MOUrceS of Paleolndlans. The Museum 10urnoJ, Vol, XVII (Poleolndion Lifewoys). Lubbock, Texae.weet Texas Museum As-
sadalion. Pp. 65-71. Paleolndian blson procurement snd butchllring pattems on Ihe Llano Estacado. Plcdns AnthropoJogisl Memoir No. 14:98-105. lolly, C. f.. and F. Plog 1976 PhysicoJ oIllhrop<Jlogy and orchoeologv. New York:Knopf. 1978
)one~.
P. R
1980
Experimental bukhery wilh modero stone tools and Its relevance for Palaeolithic archeeolollY. Wor/d Archoeology 12(2):153-165. Iones, R. (Editor) 1875 Reliquioe Aquitonicar: by E. Lartel ond H Christy. Being conlrioolions lo lhe orchae%gy and pa/eonl%gy of Perigord ond the odjoining provinees of Southern France. Paris:R. 'ones. Kehoe, T. F. 1967 Tha B08rdlngSchool BIson Orive sitl!. PI<JinsAnInrop%gis! Memoir No. 4. Keilh, Sir A. 1931 The <JntiQuily of mono Vol. 2. Philadelphia;Lip. pincott. Kilching, l. W. 1963 Bone, looth, rmd horn lools of Poloeolithie mon: I'\n <Jceounl of the osleodontokeratic discoveries in Pin Ho/e Cave, Derbyshire. Manchester En_ gland:Manchester Universily Press Kitts, O. B. 1977 The structure of geo'ORJI Dallas:Southern Methodist University Press. Klein, R. G. 1973 lce.ARe hunCers of the Dkraine Chicago:UniverS¡ly of Chkago Press. 1975 PaleoanlhropoloRical implications of Ihe nonarchaeologkal bune assemblage from Swarlklip 1.
southweslern Cape Provínce. Scuth Africa. Qualernaf}' Researeh 5:275-288. 1976a The mammalian fauna ofthe Klasies ríver mouth sltes. snuthern Cape Provtnce. South Africa. South African Archceclogtcci BuJletin 31 :75--98. 1976b A preliminary repon on the "Middle Stone Age" open-elr aíte of Duinefontein 2 (Melkbosstrand, southwestern Cape Provtnce. South Africa) South Africon Arehao%gical HuI/aUn 31 :12-20. 1977 The mammaJian fauna from the Middle and Laler Stona ....ge [Later Plelstocena] levels of Bordee Cave, Natal Provínce, South Africa. South Africon ArchoeoJogical Bulletin 32:14-27 1978a The fauna and cvsrell interpretaticrt of the "Cuttlng 10" Acheulean site at Elandsfunteín (Hopeñeld]. southwestem Cape Prcvtnce, South Africa. Quoternor)" Resooreh 10:69-83. 1978b Preliminary analysis of Ihe mammalilllo fauna from the Redcliff Slone Age cave site, Rhodesie. Occosionol Popers ofthe Notionol Museums ond Monuments of Rhodesla Series A. Human Sci(!nces 4[2):74-80. 1978c A preliminaryreport on fhe larger mammals from lhe Boomplass Slona Ag6 cave sile, Gango Vallay, Oudtshoorn Dlstricl, Soulh Africa. Sou!h Afrlean Archoeologleol Bulletin 33:66-75. 1978d The vertehrate fauna from Ihe Buffelskloof roek sheller. Soulh Afrlean Archoeologico/ Bulletin 33:35-38 1980 The inlerprelation of mamrnalian faunas from Stone Age archaeological sites, wilh sped81 reference lo sites in Ihe southern Cape Provlnee, South Africa. In FossHs in the making, ediled by A. K. Behrensmeyer 8nd A. HUI. Chicago:UniversUy of Chieago Press. Pp. 223-246. Klima, B., R. Musil, and l. lelinflk 1962 Der flrfotschung der Hóhle Svédl1v sll1l, 19531955. Anthropos 13. 8mo: Krajske. Kohy, F. E 1941 Le "charriage a sec" des o~Sllments dans les cavernes. Ec%gle und GeoJogy He/vet 34. 1953 Les sol-disant inslromenls o~seUIl: de paleolithique alpin el la charriage a sec des os de I'ours des cavernes. Verhandfg. d. Nalsurfor<;<;h. Gesellschift in Basel, Vo!' 54. Krause, W. Dieeis1.eillichen Knochenfunde von Meiendorf. 1937 In Dos oltsteinleilliche Rentier;liger/oger Meiendorf, by A. L. RUst. Neumllnsler:Karl Wllchhollz. Pp. 48--til. Krlluse. W., and W. Kollau 1943 Die sleinzeitliChl'n Wirballierfaunen VOl) StlJllmour in Holstein In Víe o/t-und mitte./stein·
Referenees leillichen Furnie ven Stellmoor, by A. L. Rust. Neumüns!or:Karl wachholtz. Pp. 49-59. Kruuk, H.
1970
1972
lnterectíens between populations of epotted hyenas [Crocutc crocutu erxben] and Iheir prey spectes. In Animol populalions in re/<Jtion to thelr jood resources. edüed by A. watscn. Oxford:Blackwell. Pp. 359-374. Thl'!spoñed hyenu. A study of predation ond so. rio/ behavior. Chicago:University of Cbtcego Prlls~.
Kuhn, T. S. 1962 The btsrorícal structura of sclentíñc discovery. serenes 136:760-764. 1977 Seeond thoughts on paradigms. In The structure of scientific theories (2nd ed.]. editad by F. Suppe. Urbane.University of nnnots Press. Pp. 459--482. Kurlen, B. 1968 P/eisloeene mammals of Europe. Chicago:AI_ dine. 1976 The cave beor story: Life ond death of o vanished ~ animal. New York:Columbia liniversily Press Len·Po. C. 1975 The cave home of Pelios m<Jn. Peking:Forelgn Languages Press. Leakey, L. S. B. 1946 A prehistorian's paradise in Africa: Early Slone Age sites at Olorgesailie. muslmted Londoll Nf'ws. Oclober 5. 1968 Bone smashing by Lale Miocene Homi¡¡idae. Notura 218:528-530. Leakey, M. D. 1971 O/duvoi Gorge. Vol. J: Excovations in Beds lansl /11960-196.1. Cambridge:Camhridge Universily Press. 1979 Footprinls in Ihe ashes of time. Nalionol Geogmphic 155 (4):446--457 Leakey, R. lInd R. Lewin Orillios. New York:Oullon. 1977 1978 People af lhe /ake: Mankind llnd Its beginning. Garden City, N.Y.:Anchor PresslOoubleday. Lee. R.. and 1. DeVore (Editors) Mon rhe hunter Chicago:Aldine. 1968 Leechman. D 1951 Aone grease. American AntiQuily 16(4 ):355-356. LeonardL F HI"a Temoiganges de l'homme de Neandertat dans I·Jtalie de Nord. In Hunrlert /nhre NMnderthaler 1856-1956, editetl by (;" R von Koenigswalrl. lltrer.hl. Ihe Netherland~:Wl'o!lcr (;mn Founda. tion for Anlhropo!ololil:a/Rcscarr.h. Pp 2:11-252
307 Lerol-Courhan, A., and M. Brltzillon 1972 FouiJIes de Pincevenl, esset d'anelyse ethno. graphique d'un hahilal Magdalénien (La secnon 36). Paris:Edillons du Centre Nallonal de [a Recherche Scientíñqua. Lewín, R. 1981 AAAS bneñngs: Andent cut marks rsvee! work of prehuman handa. Science 21] :372-373. Lopez, B. H. 1 / O 1978 Uf wolves and men. New Yod:::Scribner's. t" 'y Luttschwager. J., end A.. C. von Bemmel ! 1962 Uber van Hominiden bearbeitete knochenfunde aus dem oberen VilIafranchien In den Ntedeelenden. Heaufortia 9:139-144.
r
Lyman. R. L 1978 Prehisloric butchering techniques In the lower Granile Reservoir. soulheastem Wa~hinglon
Lyon, P 1970
I
//'5
,/~
Tebiwa 13:1-25.
Dlfferentlal bone destruction: An alhnogrllphic example. American Antiquity 35(2):213-215. Magoun, A. J. 1979 Summer ,cltvenging llCtlvity in northeaslern Alaska. In Proeeedlngs of the Firs! Conferonce on Scientiflc Reseoreh in Ihe Notiona/ Pllrks. (Volurne 1), edited by Robart M. Linn. WlIlIhington: National Pllrk Service, Departman! of Interior. Pp. 335-340. Mafllalef, R. 1968 Perspective in ecologica/ theory. Chicago:University of ehicago Press. Marshad.. A. 1972 The rools of civilizo!ion. New York:McGraw-Hlll. 1975 Exploring the mind of lceAge mono National Ce0Rraphic 147(1):65-89. 1976 Sorne implicalions of the Paloolilhic symbolic evidence for the origin of language. In Drigins and evoJurion of languoge ana speeeh, ediled by S. R. HarMd, H. O. Sleklis, and J. Lancasler. Annals of the New York Academy of Sdences, Vol. 280. Pp. 213-239. Martin. H. 1906 Présentatlon d'ossement de renne pertant des lé. sions d'origine humaine el animlllle. Bulle'in Sociélé Préhis!orique- dll Franee 3:365-397 1907 - Recherches sur I'evolution du Mousterien dans le 1910 ~isement de /0 Quina (ChClrente). VolumeInduslria D~seuse. Paris:Schleicher Freres. 1910 La percussion osseuseelles t'squilles qui en déri· vent. ell:pp.rimeolalioll. Bul/erin Sacíelé Prohis. lorique- de Franee 7:299~304. Mason, O. T. 11193 The birlh or invenlion.ln AnnuoJ Repor1. Smilh-
I 1''1/,
-308
.é'"
References sonñm
lnslilution
for
%692.
Washington.
D.C.:Smilh~onian lnstitutlon.
Masón, R. J., R. A. 0811. and J. W. Kitching 1958 Bone tools al the Kalkbenk Middle Stone Age síte and Ihe MalopanSllat australopitheclne localjty,
centra!
Transveal.
ArchoeologiroJ
BuJlelin
8[51):85-116. Mestermen, M. 1970 The nature of 11 paradígm. In Crurcnm and the growth o/ knowleége. editad by 1. Leketos and A. Musgrav6. Clmbridge:Cambridge Uníversíty Prass. Pp. 59-89. McBurney, C. B. M. and P. Callow 1971 The Cambridge excevauone al Le. CoUe de SaíntBrelade. Jersey-A preJiminary reporto Proceed¡ngs 01 the Prehtetonc Society 37121:167-207.
Md::ullough. O. R. 1970 Secondary pmductícns ofbJ,dll and mammals. In Anolysi¿¡ 01 temperole toresl ecosystems. editad by D. E. Ra¡ehlll. Ecological Studies, Vol. t. Heidelberg. Pp. 101-130. Mech, L. D. t966 The wolves of Isle Roya/e. Fauna oCthe Natlonal Pub of toe Uniled States, Flluna Series 1. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Governmenl Prlntlng OfCice. Menghin. Q. 1931 Weltgeschichte der SteiIlzeir. Vienna:Anlon Schroll. Merriam. J. e. 1906 Recenl cave exploration In CaIiCornla. Ameri(:an AnthropoJogisl n.s. 8(2}:221-228. MilI. l. S. 1850 A syslem o/loXic. New York:Harper. MllIer,C. ¡. 1969 A sludy of culs. grooves, and olher marks 011 reeenl and fossil bone, 1: Animal toolh m8rks Tebiwo 12111:20-26. 1975 A study oCeuts, groDves and olhar marks on re· cent and fossil bone. 2; Wealherlng craeks. fraclures, spllnlers and oloer slmllar n81ural phenomen8. In LHhic techrlOlogy: Making and using stone loo/s. edited by E. H. Swanson. Chicago:Moulon. Pp. 211-228 Milis. M. G. L. ltnd Milis. M. E. l. 1919 An 8nalysis ofbones collected al oyaena breeding dens in the Gemsbok Nalionai Park. In AnnoJs of Ihe Tronsvllo/ Museum. 30(14):145-- I:.3. Morlan,R.E. 1978 Early man in norlhern Yukon Terrilory: Perspoctives as of 1977. In f,'or/y mon in Americo. {mm o círcum'P(Jcí{ic perspecti~'I", edited oy A. L. BrYltn.
Edmonton:Arehaeological xeseereheee Internatíonal. Pp. 78-9!]. 1919 A stratigraphic Iramework for Pletetccene ertifacts from Old Crow River. northem Yukon Territory. In Pre-L1ono cultures of the AmencusPcmdoxes und possibi/ities, edited by R.L. HUmphrey and D. Slanford. Washington, nG;An· thropntogtcal Society of Washington. Pp. 125145. 1980a Evidence fOl atona artifac!e in the Early Wisconsin or northem Yukon Territory. Peper delívered al lhe 13th annual meeting ot the Canadíen Archaeologlcal Assocleüon, Seekatoon. 1980b Taphonomy as an aid te archaeological recennaissance and interpretatton: An example from northern Yukon Territory. AMQVA: Abstraets of ths Sixth Biennial Meeting. Oeono. 1961 Tephuncmy end archaeology in Ihe Upper Pleielocena of norlhern Yukon Terrilory: A glimplle of toe peopling oí Ihe New World. Archoeologico/ Survey 01Conodo. Mef(;ury Series [Paper No. M). Oltawa:Natlonal Museum of Canada. Motll, G von M. 195t Die repolusl-hohle be Puggau [Stehmnark) und ihre eiu:eitlichan Bewooner. Arenae%gio Au-
t
leo
~trioca 8:1~1.
Movius. H. M., Jr. 1953 Tbe Mousterian cave of Teshik·Tash, southeasl· ern Ul':bekistan,centr81 Asia. Americon Schoo/ of Prohlslork Res6
t "r
-p../"
Hejerences uvaí. Beds Lend 11: An experimental sludy. [outtia' of Field ArchaeoJogy 4:423-433. Owene, D. D.. end M. J. Owene 1979 Communal denning end clan assocteünns In brown hyenas (Hyeno brunneu, Thunberg) of the central Kelahar¡ Desert. Africon JOUtno/ of Eco/_ 08Y 17:35--44.
Ozegovie, F. 1958
Die bedeutung der Entaekurng des Diluvialen Menchen von Krapina In Krceñen. In Hundert Jahre NeonderthoJer 1856 -t956. edited by G. H. R. von Koentgswald. Utrecht, The Netherlands:Wenner.(;ren Foundation for AnIhrapologlcal Research. Pp. 27-32.
Park, E.
"
1
, ,,, , 978 The Glnsberg ceper: Hacking it 88 In toe Slone T. ASIl. Smithsonion 9(4):85-96 Permalee, P. W. 19B!]
Pai, W. C.
Toe food aeonomy of Archaic lInd Woodland peoplas at the Tick Craek Cave site, Missourl. Missouri Archoeologist 27 I1J:1-34.
Le Roledas animaux et des causes naturaBes dans l e C8ssure des os. Paloeonfolosico Sinico, n.s. D.• No. 1. PeHng. \ Parkins, D., 8nd P. Daly
1938
1968
A hunlers' village In Neolilhlc Turkey. Scienfific American 219(5):91-106. Pienltar, U. de V. 1969 Proda/or-prey relationships amongsl the I"Ber mammals of Ihe Kruger Nalional Pltrk. Koedoe /2:108-176. Pillaert, E. E. 1969
Faunal remalns from the MiJlville slte (47GT53l. Granl County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Archoeolosist 50(21:93-1D8.
Plalt. ,. R. 1964 Strong inference. Seience 146 (3642):347-353. Popper. K. R. 1965
The l!lgic of sdentific diseovery. New York: Harper and Row. Posnansky. M 1959 A HopeFounlain siteal Olorgesallie, Kenya Col. ony. Sou!h ;'\frican Archoeologicol Bullelin 14(55):83-90. PoUs, R. and P. Shipman In Cutmarks mada by slone lools on banas from press Olduvai Gorge. Tanzania. Submltted to Na/ura Puln&m, F. W. 1906
Evidence of lha wOlk of man on objects from Quafemary eaVe!l in C'.alifornia American Anlhropolo¡¡i~t. n.s. 8(2):229-235.
30+8.~4,
Qulne, W. v .. end J. S. Ullian The web of be/ief (2nd ed.). New York:Rando 1978 House. RathJe. W. L. 1919 Modem material culture sludles.ln A.dvances in
S.d.k.Kooro•. H. 1912
Primitiva bone fracturlng: A method of research. American Antiquity 31[3J;369-:lB2. 1975 Intenlional fracturing of bone: Desolpfion of criteria. In ArchaeozooJogical Studie!. edited by A. T. Clason. Amsterdom:North Holland Publishing. Pp. 139-15{1 Sehaller, G. B. 1972 The Serenllefi /Ion: A sludy of prodolor -prey reJo_ !iom, Chicogo:Universlly of Chicago Press.
2&".. .p.e
j 1'-( -, I
a
3tO
References
Schaller. G. B., and G, Lowtber 1969 The relevance of cemtvore behavior to the study oí early hominlds. Southweslern Iournel of AnthropoJogy 25:J07~341. Sehiffer, M. B. 1972 Aechaeologtcel conlext and systemic contexto Americon Antiquily 37:156-165. 1976 BehoviomJ archoeology. New York:Academic Presa. 1978 MethodologlcaJ ¡OUBS In ethnoarchaeoiogy. In ExpJorotions in ethnoarchoeology, editad by R. A. Gould. Albuquerque:Unlversity of New Mexico Press. Pp. 229-247. Schmerling, D. 183.1 Hecherehes sur les cseements fossiles deocuverts
dans les ccvemes de lo prcvtnce de Liege.
f
~.,
Lioge:privately published. Schmtdt, R. R. 1908 Die neuen peleeolíthlschen Kulturstaetten der Schwallbl&<;hen Alb. Archiv fUr Anlhropolugie, V{:jlkerfoTs<:hung und ka/anio/en KultufWlmdel 235:Pp. 62-711912 DJe diluvio/e Voneil Deutschlands. Stuttgort:E. Schweizerbartsche Verlatl' Naetll'lle &; Dr. Sproes8ar. Schmidl. R. R., aod P. Wl'lm"rt 1910 Die archaeolotlischeo EinschlullS8e der Loossslalion Achenheim. 1: Elsass und die palaeolithischeo kulturen des Rheintailoesses. Prehistorische Zeitsl:hritt 1(314):339-348. Suedende· Berlin:Verlall der Praehistorischen Zeltschrift. K. Scoll. 1980 Two hunting episodes of Middle PaleoHthic age at La Colle de Saint-Brelade. lersey (Channel lslands). Wodrl Archae%gy 12(2):137-152. Sameoov, S. A. 1964 Prehisloric technology (tnmslated by M. W. Thompson). Bath. England:Adams snd Oart. Shipm.lln. P. 1975 ImpliC9lions of drought for vertebrate fossil as,amblagas. Noture 257:667-668. Shipmsn, P.. and J. E. Phiilips r 1976 On scavenging by hominids and other carnivores :¡:t Curren! Anthropology 17(11:170-172. 1977 Hominid tool-making versus carnivores scavenging. American !oumol of Physico! Anlhropology 46(IJ:77-86. Singer. R. 1956 The "booe tools" from Hopefield. American An· thropoJogist 56:1127 -1134. Sollas. W. J. 1924 Ancienl hunten ond fheir modern represen/olives (3rd ed.). London:Macmillan
Speth, J. D.. and O. D. Davis 1976 Seasonel variability in 1!8rlyhominid prealllían. Scrence 192:441--445. SpilllJS.A. E. 1979 Reindeerond caribou hunters. An orchoeologicaJ study. New York eud London:Academic Press. Stanford. D, 1979a atson kili by Ice Age hunters. Nolionol Geogrophic 155(11:114-119. 1979b The s~by and Dutton sitea: Evidence for 11possible pre-Clovís occupatinn of the High Plains. In Pre-Llcno cultures of the Americos: Pcrcdoxes ond possibi/ifies. edited by R. L Humphrey and D. Staniord. Washingtofl, O.C.:Anthropological Society of Washinilton. Pp. 101-123. Stephenson. RO" and L. lchnson 1972 WoJf repcrt Volume X. Project Progress Report. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoretton, Project W·17·3. Iuneeu, AllIska:AllIsh Depertment of Fish and Cerne. SIi1es. D. 1977 Ethoollrchoeology: A discussion of methoos and applications. Man 12:67-103. Sullivao. A. P. 1978 Inference and evidenee in archaeology: A disnlssion of fhe conceptual problems. In Advonces in orchoeoJogicol methad ond theory, Vol. 1. edited by M. B. Schiffer. New York:Acadernic Press, Pp. 163-222. Suppe, F. 1977 Afterword~1977. In The struC!ure of scienfific fhearies (2nd 00.1. edited by F. Suppe. Urbana:University of Illinais Press. Pp. 617-730.
r
Sutcliffe, A. l. 1970 Spotted hyena: Crusber, gnawer, digeSler.and eolleclor of bones. Noture 227 '1110-11 13 1973 Similarity ofbones and antlers 8f18wed by deer human artifacfs. No!ure 246:428--430. Taylor, W W 1948 A study of arehaeology. American Anfhropologis! Memoir No. 69 Thomas. D. H. 1971 00 dlstinguishing n{ltural from cultural bane In 8rchaeological sites. American Antiquity 36(3):366-371. Thompson. R H 1956 The subjective element in archaeological in. ference. Sourhweslern !ournal of Anthropology 12(3):327-332, Toots. H. 1965 Sequence of dlsartirulalion in mammlllian skeletoos. Vniversity of Wyoming Confributions in Geology 411p7-39.
References
!
r
3tt
Trtgger, B. C 2 ~ 1976 Time ond frodifions. New York.:Columbia Uni_ versity Presa. Turnhull, P. F., and C. A. Reed 1974 The fauna from the Terminal Plela/ocene of Palegawra Cave. a Zarzian cccupetton site in northeestem Iraq. Fieldiona Anthropology 63(3):61-146. Uerpmann, H. P
Animal bone bonds and eeonomicllrcha60logy: A critica! study al "osteoarchaeological" rnethod. World ArchoeoJogy 4{.l):307-3J2. Veyrier, M.. and J. Combíer ]952 L'Industrie osseuse Mouslerienne d6 la Orctte Neron a Soyons (Ardeche). L'Anthropologie 56:363-385. vtncent. A. S. 1978 East meets west: An analysis of the deve!opmenf of eerly men studies in East Afr[ca 1919-1976 Honours Thesis-c-Bachelor of Arts. Australian Natlona! Univ6rsity. Canbe"a. Acr. Von Daniken. E. 1969 Choriots otIhe gods? New York:Bantam. Van Oen Orleseh, A. and J. Boessneck 1975 Sl;hnittspuren en neolithischen Tierknochen. Germanio 53:1-23. Voorhies. M. R. 1969 Taphonomy and population dynllmics of an Early Pliocene vertebrale fauna. Knox County, Nebraskll. Universily of Wyoming Contributions fa Ceology. Specilll Paper No. l. Pp. 1---69. Vrbo, E S 1975 Sorne evidence of ehronology and paleoecology at Sterkfontein. Swartkfaans. and Kromdraai from the fossil Bovidae. Noture 254:301_304. 1960 The significanee ofbovid ramains as indiClllors of environment and preoalion pafterns. In Fossils in Ihe moking: v'erfebrufe tophonomy ond poleoecology, edUed by A. (( Behrensmeyer and A. P. Hill. Chicago:University of Chirago Press. Pp. 247-271, Walker, P. L., and J. C. Long 1977 An experimental study of !he morphologilAll 5 characteristics oftool marks. American Anliquity 42(41:605-616. Washburn. S. L 1957 Australopilhllcíne,: The hunlers or the hunled? American AnthropoJJJgj.~!59:612-614. Watson, P. J.• S A. LeBlanc. and C. L. Redman 1971 E'
f
lo
, z.z
,aA«
Webb. W. S.. end D. L. Defarnetta 1942 An archaeclogical survey of Ptckwíck Basin in the adjecent pcrttnns of the atetes of Alobama, Mississippt.and Tennessee. Bureou of Amerkon Efhnolosy BuJletin No. 129. Washington, D.c.:Smithsonian InsfituHon. Weidenreich, F 1926 Ver Schodelfund von Weimer.Ehringsdorf. lena. 1941 The extremity bones of Sinonfhropus pektnensls. Polaeonfologio Stnlcc, n.s. D.. No. 5. Peking. Welbourne. R. G 1975 Tautswe Irun "'ge eíte: Its yield of bcnas. Botswona Notes ond Récords 7:1-16. Wenke. R.]. 1960 Polterns in prehistory. New York and Oxford:Ox_ ford Univenity Presa. Wemert. P. 1946 Le cuIte des Crines 8!'Époque Peléchthíque. In Histojre Gtlnérole des ReJigions, Vol. 1. sous le direclion de M. Gorce et R. Mortier. Paris:A. Quil.
,...
Wetzel. R. 1969 Ku!turknochlln und Knochenkultur. In Di" Bocksteinchmiede im Loheta. byR. Wetzel andG. BOAlnllki. Veroffenlichungen des 5f8ttichen Amles fUrDenklmllpnege. Reihe A. Heft 15. Teill. Stuttgart:Verlag Muller and Graff. Pp. 75-132. Wheat. J. B. 1967 A Paleo-Indian bison kili. Scienfifil: American 216(t1:44~52.
1972
The Oben-ehubbuck Site: A PaJeo-lndlan bison kilI. Sociely for Amerkon Archoeology, Memoirs
No 26. 'J,. The Jurgens site. Plaios Anthropologist Memoir1 ~q No. 15. ( I White, T. E. 1952 Ohservations on Ihe butchering techniques l'"6l sorne aboriginal peopleS.1. Amencon Antiquity ..-' I 17(4):337-336. 1953a A method of calculating the dielary percenlageof various food animllls utllized by aborlginal peoples. American Antiquity 16 (4J:396-398. 1953b Observations on the butehering technique of sorne Aboriginal peoples, No. 2. American Antiqllify 19(2):160-164 1954 Ohservafions 00 the butehering technique of sorne ahoriginal peoples. Nos. 3, 4. 5. and 6 Amerimn I\ntjQuily 19(3/:254-264. 1955 Observations on the bUlehering techniques of someaboriginal peoples. Nos. 7. 6. aod 9. Ameri· con 1\ ntillllify 21 (2):170-176
1
1979
Off
)
é"
312
Hejerences
Whilehead, A. N.
1957
,
The concept oi narure. Ann Arbor:Univflrsity of Michi88n Preas.
(2& 1!ni'
Scíence and Ihe modern world: Lowell Lecturas. 1925. New York-Free Presa.
Wllley, GR., and). A. Sabloff 1980 A histOlyof Americonorchaeology (Znded.). San Frenctsco.Preeman.
"ll¡
r
Wolberg, D. L.
1970
The hypothesized 06leodontokeratic culture oí the Australopilbecinae: A 10011: al Iba evtdence
and
Ihe
opinions.
Curren¡
Anlbrapology
1l(1):2J--J7.
Wood. W. R. 1962 Notes on the bison bono Irom the Peul Brava, Huff, and Demery sitas (Oaha reservcírj. PJoins Anthropolo8hl"l7117J:201~204.
1968
Missisetppían hunting and butcheling pettems: Bone from the ViRla Shelter, 23SR20. Missouri American Antiquity 33(2):170-179.
Waodbum. J. e, 1968 Comment.ln Mon the hunler, editad by R. B. Lee and 1. DeVore. Ehicago.Aldine. P 342. Yallen. l. E. 1977a Archaeologicol uppreeches fo lhe preseru: Models tar reccnstructlng rhe post. New Yotk:Academic Press. 1977b Cultural patlerning in faunal remains: Evtdanca from the !Kung Bushmen. In Experimente] crchueclogy. edited by Il.Jngeraoll. J.E. Yellen.end W. Macdonald New York.Columbia University Presa. Pp. 271-331. Zapfe. M. 1939 Lebensspuren der eiszeilJichflD Hóhlenhyéne: Die urgenschictliche Badeutung der Lebensspuren knochenfressender Raubtiere. Paleobiologica 7:111-146. Zierhut, N. W. 1967 Bone breaking actrvíttes of the Calllng Lake Cree . .Jo Alberto Anlhropologisll:33-36. / Zolz, L. F. 1951 Altsleinzeílkunde Miltelellropoli. Stuttgart:Enke
h2.('
Index
.'¡4f
• AbbevillE! sile. 44 Ahri Vaufrey site, 100, 106 Acheulllln, 10,49, 55, 189 Actuelistic studtas, 21. 27, 29, 32, 38, 81. 82. 84, 85. 88, 149, 170. 180, 189,190.191.197,238,241,243, 244, 245, 253. 282, 283 Adzes. 91, 142 Agenbroad, L. D., 115 Aguirre, E.. 79, 80 Akamba,92 AIi Kosh sita, 163 Altuna, 1.. 55 Alyewara, 145 Amphlbians.255 Amsterdamski. S., 24, 25 Analogy, 81. 112, 83, 86, 88, t49. 168, 171,178,180. 18t. 184, 187. 1118. 239,240,241, 285 Andree, l., 9, 10 Animellraps,40 AnteJope, 38. 69, 88, 107, 109 Antlers, 60, 62. 109, 200, 201 Anvil,149.151,153,157, 156, 161,162, 166,167,173 Ape. 13 Appalachia, 167. 168 Appendicular skeleton. 223, 226, 274. 275 Archaeological deposlt. 18, 20
Archaaologicallheory. 23, 288. 289 "Argument by anomaly," 171. 241 Argumenl from elimination, 40. 83, 65, 170,160. 24B, 247 Argument from enumeretíon, 179 Argumenl from want of evídent alter, nativas, 83 Arikara, 240 Armstrong. A. L., 15 "Arte Mobllillr," 49, 50 Assemblage, 4. 5. 6, 7. lO, 14, 20, 89 Assemblage ccmposítlon, 13,89,90. 183,191. 237, 252, 253, 262. 271. 279 Assemblaga vlIriabilily. 33, 150, 192. 194,195.197 Associañons. 5, 6,18,19,20,95,256, 281. 282, 283, 191 Assumplions. J7, ai. 28. 29, 81, 86, 160,251 Astralagus, 200, 201 Al/as. SBe olso Neck, 42, 68, 94, 107, 233, 235 Audrey, R.. 292. 293. 294 Aurígnaeían, 189 Australian Aboriglnes, 145 Auslrlllopithacine, 12, 13, 37, 38, 54, 69, tea. 191, 241 Axes. 91.109, 110. 142, 144, 167 Axial skeleton. 91, 223, 224, 225, 232, 274,275.2110.281 Axis, 42, 72, 107,235
B Beboon, 189 Bechler, E., lO, 81 Beckground SCII.llers, 271 Base cemp, 2. 24, 234. 235.231.253. 276, 276, 281, 282. 283, 269, 292 BII.ttaglia. R., 12 Bayone! break. t49. 152, 153, 157 Bear, 11, 40, 64. 96, 104, 147, 203, 204, 206, 291 Bear cuh, 10, 12, 26, 291 Beerd, P., 38, 40. 290 Baavar. 289 Behrensmeyer. A. K., re, 80, 195, 197, 285. 292 Herckhemer, F., 1 t Berountoux, F. M .. 2, 11 Bertram, l., 33, 3B, 91, 119. 142. 144, 168,193,217.218,224,225,245, 263, 280 Blberson. P., 79. 80 Biblical perspectiva, 4 Binford, L R., 14, 20, 23, 28, 33, 36. 38, 56,83,85,86,89, 91. 92, 95, 98. 104,111.113.119,126,128,142, 144,147,148. ISO, 151, 158, 164, 165, 16B,168, 171, 173.175, 177, 178.179,188. 193.195,197,198, 210,213,217,218.224,231,233. 234,237,239,240,250.253,263, 260. 268
ara
Ato'
Index
315
Index
314 Binford. S. R" 23, 244 Hinmess. 15 Bipular fracture, 158, 162 Bird. /., 163, 170 Birds, 254, 25~, 276
e
Celceoeus. 200. 201 Calling Lake Cree, 38. 39, 148. 149. 167. 168, lIU atson. 40. 44, 64, 67. 84. 85,89. 96, 119, Camel,40 Campbell. J. B., 10 143.166,165. HI6, 187, 1&8. 289 Canby, T. Y., 18.41, 84,169 BiSQn [umpe. 40. 88. 96, 119 Cantel. 38, 41, 4ti. 66. R2, 147, 2lJ3. 204 Blad.. D. 289 Cannibalism. 2, 11. 12. 28, 37. 289, 290 Hlanc, A., 11. 2.90 Cannanbones, see Melo.podials "Blankel of flash," 187. 188 Carmen oí residues. 246 Bload.148 Boarding School Btson ürtve site, 184. Cape buffalo, 194. 203 Cape dog. 15, 221 186 Earnivora. 9, 11, 12, 15. 20, 40, 42. 47, Boeaaneck, J., 142 49.63,511,64,67,80,144.147,180, Bond, G" 14 Booe Breakage, 88, 96. llfl, 142-147, 19B, 205, 255. 284, 294 Caracel cal. 38 169,171-177 Hone dansíty. 217. 295 Carbon-14, 241, 288 Bone greese, 40. 90, 91,147, 158, 166. Cenbou. 8, te. 37,40, BO,62, 63. 66. 69, 91,95,97.99,100.101.103,107, 175.234 128.144,146.153.159,197,198, Bcne [uíce. 90, 158, 166. 175 Borres ofmargínal uulily. 193, 233, 234, 201,205,206,207,209.210,211, 216,218,230.231,234,21'>3,272, 252.253,272 Bonfire Sheher sus. 184 280 Bonníchsen. R.. 38, 39, 40, 41. 44, 48, Earpals. 43, 44.74,91,94,95, 150, 200. 48,49,51,55.56,58,79.80,81. 82, 235 83,90.148,149. 166,167,168,180, Ceeper stte. 70, 116,144 181.196 Castillo sile, 55 Boomplaas ette. 194 Cattle, see Bovtd Bordes. F., 46, 49, 51,68,96,99, 163. Cause, 4, 25, 26. 27, 32, 40, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 170, 171, 177. 178, 180, 183 Boucher de Parthes. M., 4, 7, 44 lIU, 189. 192, 195, 196, 237, 238. 245,247,261,285,288,291 geusllere. F., 15 govíd. 8. 9. 17,64,69,86.99,142,193, Cave, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.15,16,20.198,202 194, 203, 219, 254, 255, 280, 264. 291 285,292 Cave bear, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 203, 294 8rain,C. K" 78, 144, 191.193, 194, 195. Cervical. 43, 65, 110, 233, 235. 236 217,244.245 Cervids, 9, 11, 17, 96,185,186.290 B1"tIuil, H., 11,12,37,47.48,54.56,62, Chamberlin, T. 246 64,69,287,290 Chenneled bones. 51, 52, 54. 76, 77, 78, Brezillall. M., 183 222,257 Brískat. 91, 147 Chllplin, R. E., 196 Brumley, l. H.. 144 Chuko, N. ,.. 33 Br)'an, A. L., 41 Cheetah, 15 Buckhmd. W., 7, 8, 51, 58, 202 Childe, V. G., 6, 7 Buffelskloof site, 194 Chimpanzee, 293 Bunge, M .. 26 Chipped back edge. 51, 53, 54, 55, 56. BUlln. H., 197, 242 73,76,77.80,81, 179. 222. 257 Bushmo.n, see !Kung "Chip roselt!'!s," }t'4. 166 Butchering practices, 183, 164. 166, Cflop marks. 36, 110, 144 187,188,194
c..
Choppers. 89, ae. 115, 122, 142. 143, 184. 187 Choukoulien stte, 11, 12. 47, 54, 55. 62. 69,196.287,289.290.291 Christy, H., 44 Ciadonian, 169 Claclonian notches. 163 Clark. G., 249 Clark, ,. O.. 13, 14. 142. 147. 183 Ch.rke, D. L. 3. 25, 241 Classical archaeology. 5 Clevers, 69, 89, 'JI. 142. 187 Coe. M, 79, 80 Cohen. M. R" 33, 290 eolby ene. 74 Ú1les, J. M .. 11 Collapsed cyltnder. 76 Combe Granal site. 4B. 86, 'J6, 98, 101. 104,105,11 t • 113, 134. 195, 263 cometer. J., 54 Compelence. 84, 85, 23'J, 240, 263, 289 eoncepl íocmeuon. 283 Configurlllional Inference, 282, 283, 284. 286 Conjectual htstory. 250, 257 Consumer stres. 234, 235, 252 Control condilions. 79, 82, 66, 90, 148, 163_166,168,169,170,195.221, 224,253,259,283,284.295 Convenlions. 4, ]2, 39, 41. 82, 84, 66, 96,178.181.196,239,245,282, 284, 286, 289 Coprolile5. 6. 55, 255. 273, 290 Coyoles, 37, 4
Culting H1 stte. 285 Cylinder, 51. 56,158,163,168,169, 173,174,175. 176, 177. 179,222. 257.258,259.261
Douglas-Harmlton. l., 79 Drachenloch Site. 10, 11 Drying meet. 98, 121. tae D\ICOS, P., 196 uuuon Site. 18,160
D
E Daly, P., 184, 165. 194, 195. 244 Daniel, G" 4, 5 Dart, R. A" 12, 13,37.38.46,49,51.54, 62,63,69.74,77,81,84,90,184. 189,100.191,193,194,195,196, 241,246,267.290 Darwln. 5, 33 Dassenetch. 92 David, F., 136. 138, 140, 141 Davís. L. B., 41.187. 284
e.,
Dawkjns , W. B., 8 Death sltes. 79, 80, 273, 275, 276, 278. 282,265,292, 295 Dechant-Boaz. D. E., 195. 197 Deer. see Cetvtds "de fecto gtlrbage," 283 Detnotherium, 273 Delemeíte. D. L., 18 Delta Flet sample. 214 Delia Pond sarnple, 214 DeLumley, R, 46, 55, 291 DeMorlellet. 6, 8, 10 Den. see Lair Den model, 270. 274, 280 Denuculated edge. 44. 76 Depressed fracture, 62. 78. 153, 158. 159,161. 162,164,166,180 Deaign, 5, 6. 7, 84, 86 Devore. r.. 190, 251 Diagnoslic crtterte. 252, 279 Dibble, D, S., H14. 187, 188, 190, 239 Dtsernculeuon. 42. 43, 47.66, 207,234, 235,237.275 Ijtsmemberrnent, 36. 44, 80. 68. 90, 91, 94,96,106.107-126.142. '69, 179, 275
Diptera. 293, 294 Division of labor, 250 I)o~, 8, 33, 39. 4Q, 51, 56. 63. 64, 67, 71, 7:1,77,78,144,141.169,171,191. 193. H14, 201. 221 Oog yard, 36,411,55,56.74. 7fl, 92, 98, 171,173,256 Donkey.203
Economic anetomy. Z34 Eden-Farson slte. 109. 1 Hl. 126, 134 Ehrenberg , K" 12 Ehringsdorf, 11 Einstein, A., 61 Eland. 216, 224, 226, 230 Elanclsfonlein site, 2a5 Elephant. 16, 19,40,79,80,64,85.180. 187.203, 273, 289. 292, 293 Elephant huntars , 2, 28 Elk,96 Elton, G. R., 22 Emptrical generaltaatmns. 28, 86. 178, 179,244 znvtscerenon. 96, 134 gpístomology. 239 gschelmen stte. 96, 104, 134 Elhnic history. 190 Elhnic markers. 184 Ethnic variability, 89. 91 Ethnoarchaeology, 32, 38. 82. 88, 89, 90,149,150,191,195,193 gvens. l. 196 Expedienl 1001s.18, 41. 42. 82, 84, 170 Experimenlo.lllrchaeology, 32. 69, 148, 149,170.179.195.217
c..
F Faclor anaiysts. 92, 93, 263, 268, 269, 270, 278, 279, 260, 261 Fagen. B. M., rae Pelines. 204. 281 Fernur, 43. 44, 74-75, 104. 114, 116. 131,144.151,157,159-161, 164. 168,173.180.234,236,237.262, 263, 270. 276, 280 Feustel, R. 13. 37 Fillelíng. 96, 98. 106,109,126-134. 151. 157. 109, 179. 185 Fire. 7.11.17. 1411, 151. 156.166, 289, 290
Fish. 254, 255 Flannery. K., 163, 170
Fltnt Creek Shell Mound sne. 18 foad sharing, 234, 250, 251, 27b, 282, 289. 292, 293 Forelimb. 43, 44,72,89,9\.95,150, 185. 192,232. 233 Pormañon prccesses. 28. 31, 79, 204. 237.251.260,261.283,286 Forl Teman slte, 78 Fax, 204, 208 Fracture mechanícs. 168 Freeman. L. G., 17,49,55.244 "Free will," 241 Friedman, K .. 12, 18 Frtson. G.. 18, 40, 41,42.49,51,64,66, 67,69.70,71,72,73,74,75.76,82, 84,89,96,107,109, 111. 115, 116. 119,126,134,136,137,141,143. 147.163,166,170.179.180,181, 187,166.239,240.244.284.287, 289 Funowing, 44, 47. 48, 49, 71, 74, 75, 169. 222
G
c..
Oamble, 196 Ceeelíe. 163. 214. 224, 230 General Prtnciples. 22,23.26,27.185, 193. 234 General Ulility Index [GUI), 231,234, 235, 236, 253 Geulo. cave stte. 49 Gifford, D. P., 16. 46. 76, 79. 80, 91, 195, 197 Gilbert, B. M" 113, 137 Girane. 19 Glenrock Buffalo [ump stte. 16.40,41, 42,66,67,69.82,84,89,126,134. 143.144,167,284,287 Gnawing, 35. 36. 37,38,42,46.49,51, 56,58,59.60.64,65.72,73,74.76, 82.98,147-148.\69.171,173,176, 177.178,179,193,200.222,246, 257,258,261. 270, 272. 278, 280, 290 Goat. t91, 192 "Going native," 187 Gorjanovlc-Krambeger. K., 11 Goulrl, R, A.. 28, 32. t71, 244
. ,.,'
,.
k'
Index
316 Gould, s. J.. 27 Grain, 19, 20 Grayllng, 207 Grp.p.n bone fracture. 36, 79, 60, 148, 149,210
Grouncl squterel. 201, 204. 207 Grysbok, 216, 219. 224, 226. 230
GuildllY, J.. 88. 96. 104.136, 137. 138. 139.140,141. 142, 186, 19" Guinea foul. 19
Glwl,284
H Habltatlon,4,6, 7.8,10, 11.13, 14.15. 18,20,24
Hemmer. ISO, 151,152,153,156,157. 158,159,162,167,173,179,180, 260,281,292,294
Hsmmerstone, 149 Hammond, N., 3 Here. see RAbbit Hnrmgton, C. R., 16,41,79, SI Hawken ette. 143 HBYOes,C. V., 142, 147 Haynes, G .. 44, 46, 48, 58 Hearth, 157, 28Y
Hempel. C. G.. 25. 244 Hendey, Q. B., 100 Henschel. l. R.. 197 Higgs, E. S.• 11, 196 Htgh utl1lty parta. 234, 235, 237,252 HiII, A. P" 16, 42. 43, 46. 56, ~7. 56. 63, 64,94.95,180,197,214,215.219, 229,233,254, 285 Hindlimb (see seerquartar]. 43, 44, 185. 223 Hippopotamus, 203, 293 Htstorlens, 22. 23 Historleal archeeology. 32, 69 Hale, F., 163. 170 Home base. see oJso LívinR sne. 250, 251, 252 Heotjer. O. A.. 49 Homemllker,7 Hopefleld aíte. 4Q, 190 H6rmlluI"l, IC., 9. 10 Horse, 9,17, 37,40, 99, 169, 291 Hottenlot. 191. 192. 195, 225 HoweU, F. e., 10, 14, 16, 17. 38. 183 Huckell, B. B., 85 Hughes. A. R.. 197, 198 Hulle. F., 9
Humeros. 43. 44, 54, 56,60.69-73,89, 101,104.121. 122. 123. 144, 159, 162,164.168,173,174.119.184, 186,217.218,219.221. 236, 237. 261, 262, 274.279 Humphrey. R L., 41 Hunting oamps. 119. 151-157. 158, 167, 166, 186.274 Hunttng lngtstícs. 164. 165 Hyena, 8. 9. to. 11, 12, 15, 19. 28, 37. 38,47,48.55,64.69,79.147.192. isa, 196, 202, 20:\. 204. Zl9. 221. 233.246.252,273,281,290
turgees ene. 110, I1n, 1:14 Iust.so story. 251. 292 K
Kalambo FalJs slte. 14 Kelingmo.92 Kalkbank site, 38, 49. 69. 190 Kangaroo. 147 Kenyaplthecus. 79 Kaoteh. 158. 162 Kehoe, T. F" 89. 184, res. 1117. 188, 195,239 Kent's Cave sne. 10. 202 Keílh, /1.. 6 eu¡ ModAl. 267. 274. 276 KIli síte, 20, 43. 44, 46. 49, 57. 63. 77, 88,96,103,115,119,126,127,144. Ibex.291 150,169,170.171.173,174,175. lce-raíted bone. 210 177.184.185, 193. 1~. soe. 209. Inductlve generalbeettons , s,,",," Empíri_ 210,211-213.223,225,231.251. cal. 232, 239 254,263,267,274,275,276,278. IMGUI-lnverse Modified General tnu282 ily Index , 237 Kindling wood tcchruque, 167 lmpect chips, 154. 159, 161, 163. 1M Impact scars [notch]. 39, 80.111, 82, 153, Ktekdele Cave sita, 8, 202 Kjh:nen middens, 189 154,156,157, l59, 160,163. 1M. Kítchíng. l. W., 9. 15. 38, 46.47, 51, 62, 180 64.09,84,90 IUlItM.:llllce.241 Kills, D. 8 .. 22, 29 Innomlnete. see Pelvis Klestes River Mouth süe. 193. 194 Instruments íor measurement, 25, 288 Kletndíenst. M., 183 Inlegralion cf knowledge. 170, 171 Klelu, R. G.• 193. 194. 195. 215. 210, Integrtw. 19, 32, 251, 252. 2~3. 254. 219,221,235,244,285 255,256,273,281,282 IClima. 5. R., 51 Inversa General Utllity lndex, (IGUIJ, Kob.203 231,235,237.270,272,274,279, Koby, F. 1-:., 291 281 Kotlll.u, W., 183, 184, 192 lron Ase snes. 16& Kongenmosen sne. 168 Irving, W. N" 41. 79. 81 Koobi Fora slte. 273. 280, 292 Isaac, B.• 250, 251 Krapina site, 11 Isaac. G. L. t., 14, 191. 197, 249, 250. Kreuse. W.• 183. 184. 192 251,273,280,287,289,293 Kruuk. H.• 203. 204 Kudu, 216, 224, 226, 230 Kuhn, T. S" 23, 24 Kuieeb River sttes. 191 !Kung San, 2, 90, 91, 92. 126. 284, 293 Jeckals, 204 Kurten. 8 .. 202. 291 Jaguar Cave aíte, 149 [arman. M. R.. 19& Jarmo sile. 240 L lohoson. E.. 18,41. 49. 75.115.147, La r.alHlf'! ele l'ArRlln s¡le. 2~1 187.244,289 Laetali site, 19 lohnson, L.. 198 Lairs aoimal den. 8, 9. 10,19,20,49,74. [olly, e 1.. 290 77.51,55.51>.58,60,64.190,195, Iones, P. R" 142
Indel(
317
tse. 198,208,210,223.225,226. 233,234,263,267.274.278 Len-Po. 289, 291 La Placard stte. 62 La Quina site, 8, 96. 107. 111. 113. 189 Larlet. E" 44 Laugerie 8a'511 síte, 62 La ws. natural, 27 Lazare! site, 55 Leakey. L. S. B., 13. 14, 78. 79 Leakey. M. 0..13, 14, 19,51,74.191, 192.245, 246, 251. 253. 255. zsn. 25 7,262,263,273,275, Z85, 292 Leakey, R. 249. 251, 267, 292, 293 Lee. R., 251. 293 Leechmen. D.. 166 Le Moustier aíte, 7
c..
Leonerd 1, F.. 12 Leopard. 15,38,191,195 Lp.rni-Gnurh a n. A .• 163 Leveraga. 105.113.114, 122, 124,146 Lewtn, R., 242. 249,251.292,293 Lindentaler ene. 9 ti o n . 9, 10. 11.17,46.56,64.247,252, 273 Living f1oor.13. 14.15, 17.16, 20. 251, 252, 254, 256, 273, 275. 282, 263. 284.291.294 Livillg sita, lOO, 192, 193 Living systerns. 26. 27, 28. 29, 32. 197,
2"
Logisllcai sequence. 108 Long bones, 41 Longitudinal fracture. 12. 37. 54, 56. 57.178,179.190,200 Long. 1, c.. 105 r.opee. B. H .. 40 Lorrain. O.• 184, 187, 166,190,239 "LoS5 of ¡nnocence," 241 Low ulilily plHts, 185, 281, 262 Lubbock Lake sita, 269 Lumbar verlebrae, 36, 43, 65, 91, 113, 127. 147. 220, 234 Luttschwager. ).. 13 Lyell. Sir c.. 27 Lyman. R. L.. 90. 144. 145, 147 Lynx. ae. 204 Lyon. P 1" 194
Magdalenian. 196 Mekepansgat site, 13. 38, 51. 69, 189, 190, 191,192,193.194,196,225. 244,287.291 Mammolh, see Elephant Mandan. 240 Mandiblefl, 41. 43. 63----fi4, 94, 101, 107, 109-110,193,208,217,222.223. 229.232, 263 Margalef, R., 26 Marmor, 201, 204 MaTTOw. 11, 12. 38. 39, 40. 51, 56, 79. 87,86.90,95,106,119,121. 126, 14 2, 147, 148 - 169 , 179 , 252, 278 , 281,282.292.294 Marrow cracking. 134-1311. 148-169, 190
Martow pueher. 158.161 Marshack, A., 2, 49. 51 Mertin, H., 8, 10, 44, 46. 68, 96, 103, 107,110.111, 113. 119.134,136, 137.138.140,141,164 Mashed edge. 55. 148, 180 Mesen, Q. T., 6 Masan. R J.. 49. 190 Masterman. M .. 24 McBumey, C.. 242 McCullough. U. R., 15 Meal ealing, 251. 282 Mech, L, D.. 207 Melendorf ette. 192 Menghin. D., re. 61 Merrlam, 1, c.. 18 Metac8rpal, 43. 44.74.89,107. 126, 144, ]50. 154, 155. 174. 201. 263. 266.271.277 Metal'hysics, 3.4,5.6.241 Metapodísls. 45. 54, 60. 95, 103. 104, 134,150.157,158,159,164,200. 270.274.275, 280 Melaloraals. 43. 79, 95. 104.107. 119. 149. ISO, 1St. 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 164. 173. 200. 201. 21>:1. 2611. 271. 274. 276, 277 Methodalo¡;¡y. 3. 4, 29. 32.37.41. 82. 83,64.65, 81l, 147. 167, 170, 171, 16R. 191, 193. Hl5. 241. 242, 243, 241>.250,25.1,282.283.264,287. 2a8, 289. 291. 292. 294 Melhod of residu(!s, 25:1. 282
M
Mid-d\llphysir.r.mllsn 11'r.hniqul!.19, 41,
MaAsRi, 92. 203 Ma¡;F.nery.) .. 10
149.166.167,161 Middle.range research. 21. 24, 25, 26 29.30, n, J:l. 37. 81. 82. 85, MI, 88,
177 • 16 0 . 181 , 18 9 , 19 1. 195. 19 7 , 240, 241. 242. 243, 244. 245, 246, 252, 282, 283, 286. 288. 289, 294 Mlddle Paloolithk. 196,291 (MGUI) Modified General Utility Index. 235,253 Miller, G. l.. 39, 48. 73 Mill,l· S., 27,246 MIllville site, 166 Minlmum number of indivlduals, 17, 97.99, 174, 175, 176.186, 211, 213, 214,257,256.259.263 Mississippian ette, 88 Monocausaltry, 87, 90 Monte Clrceo eae. Monuments, 3,4, 5,6, 7,10, 14. 18,196, 282, 283 Mocee. 40, 72.109.148,147.148.201, 207 Morían, R. E.• 41, 80, 81, lt10 Mottl. G.. 9 Mausterian, 7,8,9, lO, 11, 12,49,55. 62.77.68,96.101.103.104.105, 106,107,109.113,119,134.169, 189.263 Mov\us, H. M., 2, 46. 62. 196 Muldbjerg I sjte. 168 Multiple worktng hypothesis, 40, 83, Z46,247 Murchison FlIlIs--Uganda, 215 Muscle strlpping , 41. 42. 46. 69. 75. 62. 84.85,96, 115, 116, 143, 144. 170, 181.187.186.244 Mus~ ox, 40 Myers. T, p.. Sil. 73. 80 Myths, 1, 2. 15, 32. 41, 51, 62. 85, 178, 181,165.189,196.245.286.289. 290. 291, 295
l'
N Negel. E.. 22, 28. 33, 290 NationaJ Oeograph¡c. 295 Navajo. 66, 74, 91. 92,119, 142,144 145. 168. 193 NOVillO SlImmer sil\:!, 220 Navaio Wll"ller stte. 220 NeanderthaJ. 2,10,11. 2862.96.291 Neck. 36. 91. 94, 104. 206. 229. 233. 2.15. 231'> Nelson Hay Cave sita. 194 Neolilhic, 5, 14,164 New archaeology. 83, 190.284
1..
A·'
Index
318 Nícolaescu-Plopsor, C. s., 13, 81 Noe-Nygaard, N" 90, 166 Normetive vtew. 92.167,179 Nunarnlut Eskimo. 33, 36, 88, 90, 91, 92.93,94,95,96.98,101.103.104, 105,109,119,127,128,129,130, 142,148,147,148, 150, 157, 164. 166,166.169,195,197,198,233, 234, 237,274,282 Nunamiut sues. 220 .Anaktiqlauk site, 158. 199,200 Anakluvuk Village, 36, 74. 76, 164. 171,198,206,236 Anavik site, 158. 174,175,206 Akvlllulak, 206 Bent Creek Den, 210, 213, 216. 222, 225,226,227,235 Chandler Leke Kili, 213, 214, 216, 223,225.210.271,280 Itíkmaletyak Den. 201 Kakinya stte. 88, 97, 165, 173, 174,
175 Kongumuvuk Creek, 210 Kongumuvuk Fall Hunting ette. 164. 220 Kongumuvuk Summer hunling
cemp.uzo Mask elte. 164, 220 Palangana site, 206 Rullend site, 97. 165, no Tulugek Lske 2A. 96, 205, 220
o Observath:mallanguage, 24. 28. 29, 32. 243 Occupettoes. 19 Ohel. M. Y.. 294 Old Crow Ftats, 16,39.40,41,55.80. 8J. 91.160 Olduval Gorge sttes. 14, 74, 91,191. 192,225,245.249,253,257.258, 259, 260, 262. un. 264. 265, 266. 267,268,275.276,276,281. 284, 291. 292. 294 BK 11. 253, 254. 257,259.260,267 DK LeYll\ 1, 254, 261. 268, 273, 275.
FC WestTuff, 254, 257,259,260,261, 267,272.278 FLK North Leve11l2, 254. 257, 259, 260,267,270,280 FLK North Levet a. 254, 257, 260, 267 FLK North Levete. 254, 257, 260. 267, 270 FU( North Level 5, 254, 257, 259, 260,267,270,271,280 FLK North Detnothertum. 254. 292 FLK North Level ü, 254, 257, 261, 267,272,273,278,280.292 FLK Level ta. 254. 257. 260, 261, 267.274 FLI< tevel is. 254, 257. 260, 267. 274,218 FLK 22 Zinl, 254, 255, 258. 259. 260. 261,268,275.276,278,294 FLK NN Level t. 254, 255. 251. 260, 213,281 FLK NN Level 2, 254, 257. 260, 261, 267.273, 280 FLK NN Leval a. 254. 255, 251, 262, 267.268,277,285 HWK East-t , 254. 256. 257. 260, 272, 281 HWK East Level 2,254,260,261.272, 278,280.292 HWK East-a, 254, 257. 260 HWK East.e, 254 HWK EIIst·5, 254 HWI( East Levels 3-5, 254, 257, 260, 267 MNK Main. 253. 257. 259, 260, 267 MNK H. 13, 254, 257, 259, 260, 261, 267,272,278,285 TI( Upper Floor. 254, 256. 26\ DIsen·Chubbuek slte. 127, 186. 187, 188 Dlorgesailíe site, 13, 14 "On-Anvll" technique. 157, 158, 159 Operatíonal definition. 283 Oribi. 215, 224, 230 Oslemlontokeratic. iz. 18, 37.61 Ostrich. 19,203 Owens, D. D" 197 Owls.204 Ox, see Bovid
278 DI( Level 2. 254 DK Level 3, 254, 255, 261, 273 EF·HR,254 Fe West-Floor. 254. 256, 257. 259. 260, 266. 275
p Pale¡;:awra Cave site. 185 Paleoanthropology,12
Paleoindian, 184, 187 Peleoluhíc, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14. 17.3 t. 32, 41,4&.74.81 Paleontologicei assoctauon. 195 Palimpsesl, 9. 20. 204. 222. 223, 228, 251,271,273,280.281 Panldigm,.1, 4, 10, 23, 24, 25, 177, 194, 241. 285 Park, E" 79.85, 187 Parmalle, P. W.. 88. 136, 137, 140 Patterning, 5, 6, 8, 13, 34, 44, 81, 82, 84, 85,86,88,89, 95, 149. 1&3, 168, 171,179,160,186,187,186, 194, 19&.238.267,278.282.287,288, 289,292, 295 Pattern racognttlon. 7. 8. 42, 90, 94, 168.171,180,161.186,187,188, 169,194,195,196.197,237,238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 278, 281. 282,
"4
Petterns. elgneture. 26, 173, 177, 178. 282 Pech de l'Aze aíte. 49 Pai, W. C" 12,46,47,48.49,58 Pelvis, 36. 41, 43, 44, 66-69, 80.91,98. 99. 113~t16, 127, 129, 147, 192. 193.222,223,224,226,232,236. 257,274,276.278 Pengelly, W" 10 Parkins. D., 184, 185, 194, 195. 244 Peterebóhle eñe. 9 Phalenges. 43. 74, 94, 99, 103, 107, 126, 150, 200. 201. 223, 235 Phillips, J, E., 44, 58, 63. 191.222 Pigs, 289 Ptece plottmg , see Puint Provenience Pieneer. U., 203 Pilla~rt, E. E., 186, 194 Pincevent sile, 184 Pin Hole Cave sne. 15, 28, 48, 62. 291 PIHing, 44, 45. 46, 47, 51, 60, 71. 148, 169,179 Pítt-Rivers. L. c., 5 Plait, 1. R.. 86, 247 Plog. F., 290 Point provenlence, 241. 283, 286 Polished edge, 76, 80, 171, 176 Popper. K., 242 Porr.upine, 49, 190, 191, 195. 204. 206 Posnansky, M.. 13 Post hoe aceomodative argumao\, 31. 83,84,85,89,147,170,181,184, 1ft7. 18!l. 190, 2:18, 244, 245, 246, 252, 28:!, 284, 285, 289, 290, 292
lndex Potte, R., 242 Praestelyngen ene. ]68 Pressure flaking, 51. 53, 179 Progresa. 5, 6 Prompted research. 171 Provenience unit, 282 Pseudo tocls. 15, 59, 60. 73, 76, 79, 179, 195
envtl.u i bullons.9 chisels, 11,12.49 choppers. 76, 84. 163, 170 clubs, 11 oompressor, 46, 47 dagger, 73, 74 flaying 1001. 9 fiesher, 70. 72,84,170,179 fur smoother, 9 hammers. 11 kntves. 9 levara, 11 picks. 73 ecocps, 9, 74.77 ecrapera. 9, 11 shovels. 11 spearheads.9 tankards.9 Ptarmigan, 201, 204, 207 Puncturee. 44-45, 49. 56, 63, 65, 67, 69, 76, 148, 222 Puntutjarpa eñe, 171 Putnem, F. W., 18
Q Quine, W. V., 25, 84, 88
319 Raad. O.. 192, 193, 194 Recognntoo criteria, 195, 233 238,250, 283 Reedbuck, 215, 216. 224, 226, 230, 255 Raed. C. A., 185 Retndeer. see Carlbou Ralettcn ofneeessity, 177, 176. 181, 288 Rendezvous sttee. 198, 199, 221,222 Renfrew, C" 288 Reltc. 3. 4,5,6.7.8,14,20.196 Renis Cave, 9 Replicalive experíment. 69, 79. 82, 84, 85. 66, 90, 179, 187. 188 Repolust Hóhle ene. 9 Reptiles, 276 Resídentíal siles.98, 150, 151, 157, 158, 167,168,169,165,186,231 Resldual Kili sne essemblage. 217.221. 222. 224. 226, 229, 232 Resolutlon. 1'c1, 32, 186, 251, 253, 255. 256.273,276,281,282 Rhinoceros, 9, 17, 289. 291 Rtbs. 36,41.42,45,66,79.80,91,94, 99,110,113,146.147,146,158, 192,200,222.223,224.236.237, 257,263.266,274,276,277 "Rtdíng" of bone paets. 234, 235, 237, 272 Riak, G., 9, 10 Rlgaud. /. ph., 100, 106 Roan, 216, 226, 230 Rodents. 202, 204. 207. 255 Rulland. Iena. 134. 135 Rulland, John, 94, 95. 152 Runes, D. O" 3 Rus!. A. L., 183. 184, 192 Rutot. A.. 11
•
s
Rabhtt, 19, 204
Sable, 216. 226. 230 sebíorr. J" 4 gackett. J- R.. 183 Sacrum, 43. 66, 91. 115,147 SlIdek·Koores, H., 36, 84. 90. 149 Sampsoll, C .. 10 Saws, 109 Seapula, 36, 41. 43. 44, 69, 72, 89. 98, 99,104,121. 122. 129. 144, 146, 148.192,193,217.222.223,229. 234,237,257,263.268.274.275. 276.277 Scal. 55, 58. 60. 200, 201, 207
Radial scerrtng. s. 51 Radío-cubítus, 4.1, 60, 73-74. 89, 91. 101,103.104,107,124,126,131, 134,150.158,159,162-163,173, 174.201. 234, 263. 268, 276. 277, 278
Ralhie, W. L., 32 Ravaged assemblage, 170, 171~180. 187,192.193.219,217.222,224, 253.267,272.273,278.279.281 Ravens. 205. 206, 207 Rp.lId·MlIrlin. C" 192, 193, 194
.....
Scavenger mude!' 253, 274, 293 Scavangfng stretegy. 194, 293 Schaller, G. B. 15 Schíffar, M. B., 25, 27,179,184,283, 284. 286 "Schlepp effect," 184, 185, 194, 244 Schmerling, D" 4 Schmidt, R. R., 8, 10 Sctence. 287, 288. 290 "Scooped out," 46, 51, 179 Scoring, 44, 46, 47,49, 51. 148, 169, 179,222 Scott, K., 242 "Secondary refuse, 283 Second-nrder assemblage. 274, 280, 28! Selbv süe. 18, 180 Self,'eorreclive procedurs, 290 Semenov. S. A., 46 Settlemant system, 167, 185 Sheep, 38, 39, 60, 63, 66, 67, 75, 97, 96, 144,146,147,158,199.200,201, 218.232.234,280 Shipman. P., 44, 58, 63, 197, 222. 242 Sinantbropus, 12, 37. 54 Singar, R" 49. 190 Sirgenstein Cave stte. 8, 10 Site funclion, 90. 169, 195 Site structure. 183, 295 Skinning marks. see eut marks Skulls, 42,43. 60-63.64. 79. 60, 91, 98, 99,101. 102, 104, 107-109, 142, 192. 194,208, 222, 223. 233. 235, 257.263,270 Skulla. cuH of, 11 Sloth,40 Socral ectences. 22 Sollas, W. J" 7, 10 Socth. S., 167 Spatial structure. 28, 294 Spaulding, A. e, 23 Speculatíon. 249, 250 Speth. l. D.. 284 Spíess. /1._ E" 111 Spirltl fraclure, 13, 38, 39. 40, 41, 42, 44.56.57.58,80,82,84.148.149. 151,152,158,159,161, 162. 163, 177,178,180.100.192,196,210 Springbok, 216, 224, 226. 230 Springhares. 204 Slanford. D., 18,41,51,76.79,80,84, 85,180,187,244 State of lhe arl. 4, 241 Slar Carr site, 168
JIr.'
320 Steinheim síte, 11 Stellmoor site, 192 Slephenson, RO., 198 Sterkfonteln ene. 13 Sternum, 113
Stiles. D.. 32 gtipulatíon. 283 Stone Boiling, 136 Storage. 106, 114, 127.236 Suberde ette. 185
SuUtvllif, A. P" 25, 244 Suppe, F., 25, 244 Survível percentege. 217,218,224, 253. 267,270,278
Survival potennet. bone, 217 Sutcliffa, A. J., 39, 46, 51.197,203 Swartklip sita, 215, 216, 224, 226, 228,
lnde"
Tomewton ceve. 202 Torralba 291
ene. 2.14, 16,
17. 28, 40, 80,
Tortotses. 284, 285 Tradltíonal archaeology, 22, 24,82.83, 85.86. 181, 190, 197, 239. 240, 241, 242,289 Trampling, 58, 77, 79, 80, 180 Transportad bone aseemblege. 226, 229,230,232,233,237,259,266, 267,270,272.274,275,276,278 Transverse fracture, 149 Trigger. B, G., 23 Tune Iísh, 19 Turnbull. P. F., 185 Type fossfl. 6 Typologist. 239
229.232,235,270,285 Swartkrens aíte, 191
u T
Tagua Tagua ette. 169 Taphonomy, 79, 160. 195, 202, 210 Tarsals, 43, 76, 94, 95,150,153.156, 157,200,235
Taung eíte. 13 Tautology. 283, 289 Taylor. W. W., 5 Teeth. 263, 270, 274, 276
Tetlherd de Chardin, P" 289 Teshik·Tash site. 2. 62. 196 Teufelslucken slte, 202 Theory. 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 83, 167,289 Thnmpsun, R. H., 83, 84, 85, 239, 240 Toots. H., 42 Thoracic vertebra, 36, 43, 110-113, 147,148,18-4,226,229,234,237 Tibia, 43, 44, 56, 76. 103, 104, 105, 107, 116,118,119,131,134.144,150, 151, 157, 158. 159, 161-162. 164, 173,200,201,217,221. 236, 261. 263, 268, 274 Tiger. 38, 39 Tengue, 101, 109 Toolmaker, 7 Toothmarks, 35. 44-al. 169 TopL 42, 214, 216. 224, 226, 230
Uniformitarian, 27, 28, 29, 37, 44. 85. 88,170.189,238,288 Upper Paleeljthíc, 8, 55, 62, 196 Ulllan;]. S., 25. 84, 88
v Venlson.289 Vertebra, 42, 65-66, 91, 99. 146, 147. 192, 193, 222. 228. 229, 234, 263, 274, 278 veyner. M., 54 vincent, A. S., 14, 183 Vista Shelter site, 185
vogelbed elte. 9 Van Bemmel. A. c.. 13 von Daniken. E., 84 Von Den Dneech. A.. 142 vcorbtee. M. R.. 292 vrbe. E. S., 195
Warrenting argument, 24, 27, 28, 31, 83.85.247.251. 266, 288, 289. 290, 291 Werlhog, 203, 204 Washburn, S. L., 189, HIO Waterbuck, 215, 224, 230. 255, 293 webb, W. S., 18 Weidenrich, F., 11, 12, 37, 290 Welboume. R. G" 142, 143 Wenke. R. J.• 290 Wernert, P., 10. 11
Wetzel. R., 9 Whale,19 wheet. J. B., 113, 115, 116, 126, 127, 134,136,137,138.139,140,141, 142,186,187,188.197,239,240 While, T. E., 69, 89. 147, 179, lB4, 185, 186.189,190,239,241 Whitehead. A. N., 28, 29 WildebBBst, 216, 224. 226, 230. 293
Wílley, G. R., 4 Wilson, M., 41,187 Winter house, 166, 167 Willer, O.. 104, 171 Wolberg, D. L., 12 Wood, W. R.. 89, 184, 185, 186, 188, 190, 194. 239 Woodburn. J. 194 Wolf, 9, 33, 40, 43, 44, 49, 51, 55, 56, 63, 64.67,68,71,73,144,147,169, 171,197,198,202,204,207,2M, 216,219,233,252,257,258,270 Wolverines,204
e..
v Yellen.
I. E.. 89, 91,126,194
z
Vultures, 193
w walker. P. L.. 105
Zapfe, M .. 12, 51, 58 Zarzian, 185 Zebra, 142, 214, 224, 230 Zlerhut. N. W., 38, 90. 148, 149, 167, t68 zeta. L. F., 9
~
