¡{·b.'60::S r:
"" \
~
v
-
,f () (;:,~?)
;1 ' ' '\
'."
)
(}-~ .... rv" .)
'a~
--,,;.':,S
b '-" ,//"<..'
BIBLIOTECA UCM
IT I ti
ml~III~~~~I~~llllllm ~~~~II~~I 4900853998
(. C' ' "
l'; \'.,
./ f
,..!
". ,
.2.:\ '...
r~;
t:>,; i{
"
;<,'
Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth
,..:
LEWIS R. BINFORD Depnrtmcnt of Anthropology
University of New México Albuquerquc, New México
1984
@ ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. HARCOURT BRACE rOVANOV[CH. pURLlSHERS
Studies in A rchaeology A complete list ot tilles in this series appears al the end 01 this volume.
Orlando San Diego San Francisco New York Toronro Montreal Sydney Tokvo Sao l'aulo
London .1
;)
, ,~¡
!
I
r ¡ Contents i
COPYRIGHT © 19B4, BY ACADF.MIC PRESS, INC. ALl RIGHTS RESERVEO. NO PART OF THIS PUBlICATIOH Mio)' BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMIlTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL, INClUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDlNG, OR ANY INfORMATION STORAOE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLlSHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS. INC. Orlando, Florida 32887
Uníted Kingdom Edition pubtished by ACADEMIC PRESS. INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24128 Oval ROld, Londo" NWI
List al Figures
ix
Lis! al Tables
xv
Preface
7DX
xvii
Acknowlcdgrncnts Library of Congrcss Cataloging in Publication Dala
l. Problem, Approaches, and the Process of Learning
Binford, Lewis Roberts, Date Faunal remains from Klasies River mouth. (Studies in archaeology) Bibliography: p. lneludes indexe l. Paleolithic period, Lower--South AfricB-Kaapsedrifrivier Valley. 2. Animal remains {Archaeology)--South Africa--Kaapsedrifrivier Valley. 3. Human evolution. 4. Kaapsedrifrivier Valle y (South Africa)--Antiquities. 5. South Africa-Antiquíties. l. Title. 11. Series GN772.42.S6BB56 19B4 573.2 B3-15909 ISBN 0-12-100070-2 (a1k. paper) I'RINTED IN THE UNITEO STATES OF AMERICA fU 115 116 87
987fo54)1\
XIX
The Problcm
1
Approaches to Research 9 The Rcsearch Tactics: Where Do We Seek Insights?
15
2. Klasies River Mouth: A Provocative Case lntroduction
t8
Environmcnts Pasr and Prcscnt ar Klasies River Stone Assemblages of rhe Klasies River Mouth Sites Dating the Events Documented in the Klasies Sites Summary 46
20 JI J8
(3.\ The Klasies Fauna: Approaches to Analysis '--'
Introduction 48 Approachcs ro Desctiption
48
,
,.,
Contente
Evidcnce lor Use of rhc Site by Porcupines Evidcncc for Lcopards 55
Evidcncc for Hyarnas Asscssmcnr of lntcgritv
Tools, We3pom, and Hunnng Aids 254 HOlTIe Bases and the Altruistic Sharing Model of Human Evolution An Altcmative to rhe Central-Place Foraging Model 259 of Hominid Behavior Sorne Fin:!1 Thoughts 264
51
59 63
Units of Obscrvation fH lnformnnon (,uiding Obscrvaticn and Analysis ~liddk' Stone A~l' Auatomicnl-Part l-rcqucncies from Klasics River Mourh Can: 1 77
lntcrprctation of Patterning
65
Referenees
X4
Index
4. A Pattern Reeognition Study Ihc Axial Skch-ron Horn 100 Occipital Condylcs .\bxllbry Ares lccth 104
YY 102 lO.)
Mandiblc 106 Vcrtcbt.rl Column I J 2. Pelvis 122 Ihe.: Appcndicular Skclcton Distinctivv Brcak,lgt' 152 Burning 159 lnrerpreration of Pattcrning 19()
123
165
Summnrv
:>. Hominid Subsistcnce Eeology and Land Use Subsisrcncc Tacrics
192
Klnsics Rivcr Mourh Cave t a Homc Base? 1Ill' Ecologv nf Scnvcnging 20 I
\'(/;lS
Scavcuging and Agc Profilcs The Ecology of Hunring
\'('h;u HaH' \'('e l.camcd from Klnsics? (Í.
197
211
115 Huuring and Age Prufilcs 21 R lmplications of Variable Subsistencc Tactics for Environmcnral Reconstruction and Daring Dating (i{ rhc Site Sequrnct' 24 t Sununary 24_~
225
244
Beyond Klasies River Mouth: Implieations [or Understanding Early Man 1-, Klasics Rivcr Mouth Uniquc? 248 lrnplicurions for our ldcas of rile Pasr 252 Huunug Rccon..idcn-d 253
V"
Contcnts
277
267
255
List of Figures
1.1 A pack-hunting model of carly hominid hfc. 1.2 2.1
1
Clynn Isaac's model for recognition of sirc function. Middle Stonc Age sitcs in southcm Afnca. 19
7
2.2
The sourbcm Afnc.m (0;151, looking easr ncar Die Kcldcrs, Sourh Africn. 22 2.1 Tvuvrk.uumn coavt, showiJl~ locarion of C:\VC'> .tnd rhc grms lopographic serrillg ur Klasics Rivcr Mouth. 23 2.4 2.5
2.6
"Busbm.m hunnng .1 hrrd of hctcrogcncous garue,' by "1: Baincs. 26 Climatic cunditions in winrcr and summcr, as recen ..tructed for a tvpical g1.l(i~l' cpisodc according ro rhc zonal modcl uf van Zindcrcn
Bakkcr. 28 Climmic condirions in winrer ond sumrncr,
,l'¡ reconstrucrcd for a rypical intcrglucial cpisodc according ro rbc zonal model of van Zindcrcn
Bakkcr. 2.7 2.~
2.!.!
JO
Cape buffalo in tvpicnl bu~h covcr. 31 Bush I'ig 1Il hush COVL'f. 31 The rclattonship amoug rhe various vires ~H rhc main vm- ;11 Klasivs Rivcr
Mourh. :),1 2.10 Vertical scction showíng thc n-l.inouslup arnong thc various grotlp" of lcvcls :H the sitcs uf Cave 1, Shcltcr 1A, and Cave 2 at Klavics Rivcr Mourh. 34 2.11 Red h.irtcbccst: cx.uupl e" 01' gr.17.ing unim.tls. 42 2.12 Comparntivc frcqueucics of grasslaud VlTSUS bush-loving vpccics ncross thc mujer cxcavation uní!'; al KL1siC's River Mouth. 43
"
Lis! of Figures
x 2.1.'
Summarv graph of lr'O/lXO ranos as known for shells recovcrcd from various lcvcls ;11 Klasics Rivcr Mouth.
44
.1. I Porcupinc gnawing on thc proximal cnd of an cland U;wrotragus) 3.2
rncracarpal (Cave 1, Levcl 14). 52 Porcnpiue gnawing ovcr ;l rool.inflicred mark
011
a vertebral frugrnenr
(Cave l , l.cvel \41. 55 .LJ Graphic comparisnn bctwccn largc-hovid rcmains frorn Leve! 14 and the combincd frcqucncics Irom 311 orhcr Ievels at Cave 1. 58 .lA
Craphic comparison bcrwecn smnll-bovid rcmains from Leve! 14 versus the comhincd "othcr" levcls ar Cave 1, and rhe control data from leopard lnirs
.1.1
collccrcd by C. K. Brain. 59 Lcg boncs cotlccred hy the aurhor at rhe (iroothrak spotted hvncna den in che No . . "oh nvcr vallcv, 'ihowin~ rypir,ll p,mnm of hrcukagc .md
"
List of Figures
4.5
Dismembcrtucnt-mark placement when rhe mandil-le is cirhcr opcn or closcd. 110
4.6
Hack marks
4.7
(T.wrotragus), III Opcn-mounr (lit marks on the mandiblc of Rapbíccrus,
4.H
Canid fecding 011
.1
puncturcs.
118
4.9
4.10
4.11
011
rhe base (lf thc mandibular condylc 112
secrion of Lumbar vcrrehrue, showinu rhc "polling up" action of rcmoval of rhe reudcrloin. 115 Modern cland (Tallrotragusl vcrrebrac gnawcd hy hyncnn. 116 Modcrn wildcbccsr (Connocbactesí carcasscs fcd upon by both hyacnn and [ackals, showing uppcr breakage on the dorsal spincs and neck hrcakagc of thc ribs. 117 Vcrtcbrne of Pelea {vaalrhcbok}, showing anirnal-tooth
1.6 \.7
1)crail of tooth scoting Otl a scapula. 61 1)c1;111 of cluppcd aud vmoothcd pscudotool prodlH.:ed hy spottcd
4.13 4.15
q¡
hv.tcna. 62 Detail 01' rooth puucturc and scoopcd-our sofr tissuc on ,111 articular
Nunanuut Eskimo rcmoving a rib slab by cracking ir hack againsr thc vcrtcbrae. 119 Marks ínflicred (In rhc pelvis whcn the fcmur is dislocatcd. 125 Dismcmbcrmcnt ntarks on rhc scapuia. 12X Fillcnng marks on ventral surface of rhe scapula. 129
4.16
Cut ruarks on carpals.
end.
4.17
Cutring (he skin down rhe inside of a sheep lego
4.IS
Caribou, shov.. .-ing skin rippcd down onc !eg during skinning
4.19
proccdure. 139 Altcrnativc disiointing strategics whcn the jOll1t is eithcr srift or
guawing.
3.9
óO
63
Comparisnns bcrwcen Richardsons control data aud rnodcl data abour the composition 01' scavcngcd cnrcass popularions. 6X
70 in rbe Nossob Ri\"t:r Valley. 1kcr carcass kd UpOll hy coyotes in Montana. 71 Percentagc of rL'(oven:d hones cxhihiring cut marks (Nunamim control data). 74 Scalc co/llp~uison Jmong spccil's representing diffcrl'nr body-sizc classes llscd in rhis '>tlld)'. 7X LOlllP,HisOIl lit Bin/ortl\ ;llId Kh:ill\ uhuLllioll'i of all;HOlllll:al P,lfts lor brgc-si71' bovids. HJ Compariso n of Billford's ,1Ild Klein's tahulations (lf anatomiol parts for sm,lll h\lvids. H4 COll1p¡Hi'ion of anatomical parts for smalt and largc buvids. !SS Test of Klasics data for evidcnce of hone-pan destruetlon. 87 Rclative frequencies of segmcnts of small bovlds most often inrroduceJ ro the site. 1.)2 Comparison hcrween anatomical p.ut frcqucncies from sm
UO Ruvagcd wildcbccst 3.1\ \.12 \.1.1 \.14
\.15 3.16
3.17 l.1 S .u~
L!.O ~.21
4.\ 4.2
4.3 4.4
4.12
ClrC.1SS
4.14
flexible.
4.20 4.21
4.2.l
I3R
140
!Kullg bushman carrying proccsscd bifl(mg from a kili to a rcsidclllial CHBp. 145 Nharo Bushman earryillg a sreenbok (Rllf1hiccl"IIs) baL"k to (;1I11p.
4.22
135
145
Springh;lrl'!'i being plau.:d 111 all a~·h hcarth in prep¡uatiotl t(lr L"Ookillg by a Masarv,'J Hushman. 14ó Hh."k marks
150
Distal mctat;:¡rsal {roln a busbbllCk (Trd}?e!aplms saiptlfs), showing what are considcrcd ro he hominid rooth marks. 151 IS2 4.25 Tooth puncture on the first pha/anx of aH e1and (1aurotr'lgus). 4.26 Mer;](arpats of small bovids (mostly Raphicel"lls) showillg Iack of j're,lbgc. 156 . ' -27 ~ll't¡lClfJ,¡ds (l( gi;llJt bntt;do (l)clorol'Ís) ,howmg distilll"tin' hn"lkagc patrcrtls. 156 1)7 4.2R Sr lit proxim;ll llH'tatarS¡lls (lf eblld (1tmrotragwL 4.19 Split ll11'[;lpodi,lb rt·lluining in ;l Nunamiut FskilllO 11IIlltillg stand. 158 159 4.30 Sptir phalanges of ebnd (TtlllrotrtlKlIs). 4.31 Roan ;:¡nrcl0re heJd prior ro hring prcp.1rrd for roasring hy N~,lC NY,lC Bushmen. 164
4.24
'~
o
~
o
J
u:
;:¡
".
'" N
~,
.g=
"5
~
"
~ oc ..; ~. e
u
~ E
-¡;
""
"
"u
-c
s-,
"§ .2
::1 e
.~
U
B o:::;;
~e:
~,
~
~
.s: J,
3 u
e-B
.: u >
"E
B
e
"O u
E
u
':j,
.s: J
'J
~
E
B
'"
" .g= u -o
~ c-,
e e
-O
"3 .s " '.,." ~
-O
E
~
M
u,
E...c
"g[, ;:;
'•"' '5 e
i~ e u
.~ ~ ¡:: "c¡
2..~
0;2
-c eM
'r,
o E
-¡; -o
List of Tables
,
3.l 3.2
1
3.3 3.4 3.5 1.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
1
II I I i
I J
I
Porcupinc Gnawing and 'I'tansport Compnrisons S") Compatisons between Levcl 14 and othcr Cave I l.evcls for Rccoguizing
Bias that might Rcsulr from Leopard Use nf rhc Sirr
45 4.6
Fauna] Remains around Nuuamiut Eskimo Ice Lcllars
57 73
79 Tabulation of Klasies Rivcr Mourh Cave I l-auna hy Klein RO Tabulntion of Klasies River Mouth Can- I FaUI1.1 by Binford Rcconstructcd l-rcqucncies Ior Small .utd l.argc govíJs SI) Horn-Core Bases Tahulatcd hy BoJ)' Size lOO Occipital Condylcs Tabul.ircd hy BOlly Sit.t..' \02 Maxillary Dental Ares Tabulated by Bodv Size HU Surnrnary of Loosc Tccrh plus Th05C Rcmaining Encascd in Bony Parts, Tabulatcd by Body Size 105 Frcqucncy Cornpanson among Parts of the Cranium
106
Compnrisons of MAUs lndicatcd by Tccth from rhc Maxilla and
Mandil-le
107
109 4.7 Modificurions to Mandibles, Tabulared by Body Sizc III 4.8 Atlus .md Axis Vcrtebrae, Tabulatcd by BoJ}' Sixc 114 4.9 Thoracic Vcrtcbruc: Spincs Only IIB 4.10 "lhor.tcic Vcrtchrnc: Ccntrums Onlv t21 4.11 Brcakagc of l'roxim.il Ribs aud Orhcr Rih Scgmcnts 121 4.12 Rihs: Cut, Hack, nnd Cnaw Marks 4.1.l l.umb.rr Vcrtchrac and Sacrum: Cut, Hack, and C;lUW Mu-ks [23 4.14 Pclvic l'arrs: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks 124 4.15 Proximal Femur: Cut, Hack, and (inaw Marks .\T
122
List of Tablcs
.\TI
4.16 4.17 4./N 4.19
Distal Fcutur: Cut, Hack, nnd Cnaw Marks 12fl ProximalTibia- Cut, Hack, 3mI Gnaw Marks 126 Distal Tibia: Cut, Huck, and Gnaw Marks 117 Scapuln: Cut, H~llk. and Cnaw Morks 127
4.20
lnflicrcd Marks: Upper-Front l.imbs Carpals: Frequcucy and Modificarion
4.21 4.22 4.l.J 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.2N 4.29
4..JO 4.\1 4.12 .1.1
[JO 134
Proximal Mctacarpals: Cut. Hack, and (inaw Marks
136
Distal Mctacarpals: Cut, Hack, and (inaw Marks 137 Cut Mnrks 011 Tarsals. Distal Tibiac, and Proximal Mctar.tr sals Cm, Hack, ami Cuaw Marks on thc Larger Tarsal Boncs
Cut Marks
rhc Astrngalus and Cnlcancus Mctararsals: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks
142
14-
14H 14Y
DLl
Preface
Frngutcnt Frcqucncies for Mctupodials frorn Four Sprcics 01 Diñcrcnr
Boclv Size 154 Brcakagc l'artcnung of hrst Phalangcs
15S
Frcqucncics of Burucd-Bonc Frugrnents
162
Richardson"s Scavcnging Data Comparcd wnh Klasics l.argc Bovids and Anaktuvuk Dog Yard lflH SUIll1l1
Camivorcs 203 215 5.2 l-rcqucncv of \'(/orn and Unworn Milk pn-mol.rrs .\.3 Crown Hciuhts for Horsc Tecrh from tlu- Mousrcrian Sitc of Combe Lircn.tl 223 21.3 .1.4 Crown Hcights of Scvcrul Spccics from Klasics Rivcr Mourh .1 ..1 Tbe Miuimum Numbcr, of ludividucls by which cach Manuualian Spccics Is Rcprcscnrcd nr Klasics Rivcr Mouth Cave 22H ,.(, Thc Miniuunu Numbcrs 01 ludividuals hy which cach Mauuunli.m Spccics ls Rcprcvcutcd in Klasics Rivcr Mourh CHe 1;\
230
S.7
Thc Mininuun Numbers of lndividu.ils by whicb eaeh Mammalian Spccics
S.N
15 Rcprcscntcd in Klasics Rivcr Mouth Cave I H 232 lnvcntorics Ahstructcd frorn Klcin's Basi( Data Tahk...
214
This book starred as an amele, That it grew is, in Iact, P:lft of thc cxcitcment of this piece of rcscurch. AH rhc observatinns 011 the Klasics [auun wcrc made in Capctown and wcrc rccordcd in my notchooks. No sununarv tabularion or synthcses of data were attempted whilc I was sti!l in África, nor was nny arrcmpr made at such synrheses on rny immrdiarc return. When I dccidcd tu wrirc IIp tlu- Klasics data, I srarrcd to :lSSl'llIhk :111 the observations anaromically, part hy part. I hnd no idea rhar thc pancrning reponed in Chapter 4 was as robusr as it tumed out to be. In [act rhc rclarionslups bctwccn anarouucal part, animal gnawing, burchcriug-mark Ircqucucics, and aH the facrs rhat have provcd so interesring whcn synthesi7.ed for the Klasies Luma came as surprises as rhe descriptive work progrcssed. As each ncwly rccognized pattrrt1 emergcd~ I frequently found myself pursuing literature on subjects nm anticipated as rclevant \'."l1cl1 the work began. This book, then, is the rcsult of a productivc fecdback between thc cfllcrg<.::nt patternin~ of rhe dat'" anJ my thoughts ahout the imp1iclr;ons of the lll'wly rccognil.cd pattcrns for our ideas about i\liddle Stol1l' i\ge hominid bchavior. Tlle rcsult is a book rhar dcvdops an
\:1'111
Prefacc
srimulate controversy. If ir is followed by research instead of by mislcading rhctoric, rhe controversy thar is almost cerrain to nppear could tukc us a long way toward a more accurate undersranding of our evolurionary pasto 1 JITI excited about this book; sorne of the proposals and conclusions may sccrn tu reach too íar "hcyond the data." The rcader may judge and develop rhcse ideas as he or shc wishes. 1 hold the view that conservatism wi!l nevcr lead us to the productive recognition of OUT ignorance nor ro the pursuit of the research needed [Q reduce ir. The arguments presented here are an effort tu move toward borh of the aboye goals.
Acknowledgments
The work reponed here could quite literally nevcr have heril done if it were not for John Parkington and his kind invitation ro me ro visir and work ar the Llnivrrvity of Cape Town, South Africn. John was instrumental in getting me to South África: many other kind colleagues cnhanccd my visir and madc ir onc of thc most memorable cxpcricnccs of my life. To [ohn and ;111 rhc staff and students ar rhc Univcrsity of Cape TOWIl, I am most g.r~ltdlll. Spccifically, the work with the fauna reported hcrc was madr possiblc through the cooperation of Richard Klcin of the Departrncnt of Anthroprilogy, University of Chicago. Richard had prevjously srudicd the Klasies fauna and made the arrangcments for me ro carry out rhe obscrvarions upon which rhis srudy is ha sed. Richard helped get me started and was always helpful when I encountered problems during the work. He introduced me ro Q. B. Hcndey, who also lent his support to my work. In general thc stnff of rhc Sourh African Muscum greatly eontributed to rhc succcss of rny work. 1 O\'\.T ~l very SPCCi;ll thauks tu Mr. E. H. Shaw, who helprd me durill~ my rescnrch ~H the South African Museum in so rn.my wavs. Most of my observations 011 thc fauna werc done alonc; howevcr. 011 sevcr a1occasions, studcnts from thc University of Cape Town went with me ro thc South Africuu lvh¡Sl'UI11 und actually work cd 011 thc boncs. For this assisrancc I am most grateful. During the lasr days of my sray in Sourh África, John Lanham workcd with me nearly al1 thc time and took ;111 the documentary photographs of the Klasies fauna, many of which aprear in this hook. I am most grateful for John's skill and dedication. \"1\
xx
Acknowlcdgmcnts
Back in Albuquerque 1 ha ve been assisted by many of my students: Steve Kuhn, Mary Snncr, and Erik Ingbar read ami commented on sections of rhe manuscript. Ncale Draper and Del Drapcr both have helped with the manuscripl and Del did all rhe lyping. Charles Carrillo did rhe drawings thar appcar here as Figures 3.13 and 5.6. As usual, I have had the SUPP0rl of my departrnent, and jerry Sabloff in particular has been most encouraging. In May 1982 I had rhe opportunity 'o lecture al Bcrkeley and was hosted by Glynn Isaac, F. C. Howell, and William Woodcoek. 1, was largely the result of discussions with Tim White, Owcn Lovejoy, and Glynn Isaac that inspired me lo gel on with my analysis of rhe Klasies dala, which hnd been sirting since my return from South Africa. lt was in the contexr of the stimulation at Berkeley that I saw more c1carly the imporrance of the data ro be rcoortcd here. Clearly many of rhese men will no' welcome this analysis wirh open arms; nevcrtheless, it was in rhe context ot rheir ideas that the imporrance of thcse observations scemed to rest. Finally, a first draft of this manuscript was circulated to Richard Klein, Don Graysou, Tim While, J. Desmond Clark, and F. C. Howell. AII responded with hclpful ami asrute criticismo As a rcsult of thcir suggcstions and crincisms, I substantially rewrore Chapters 1-3, as well as 5. Most of thcse readers will ser rhat I took their suggestions to heart and I have tried to answcr their questions and to elaborare the points rhat they considered underdeveloped in the íirsr draft. Perhaps the only reader who may be a littlc put out hy my failure to heed sorne of his observations is Tim White. Tim has sorne strong opinions ahour the history of ideas in Afncanstudies. I am in agrecmcnr wirh mosr of his views. In spite of my agreernent, however, I lwlicvc that rhc logk' of Il1Y prcscntation in Chaprer I has mcrit, :1I1d cvcn rhougll ir is rruc thar Louis l.cakey hasically always lookcd for carlicr and eatlicr forms of truc mcn, his behavior at the Darwin cenrennial and shortly aftcr thc discovcry of thc Zm¡ floor has not been previously summarizcd. 1 rhink ir was fascinating in spite of the faet that the outcomc (Hamo halJilis) was consistent with his earlier biases. In any event, there are plenty of matcrials for ene intcrested in the intellectual history of Early Man srudics: rny discussion ís not mcant ro be exhausrive. To thesc p<'rsons and all who have soughr ro know rhe past, and who by thcir work havc morivated orhcrs to ger on wirh science, I cxpress my sinccre thanks and,rcgistcr I11Y admiration and respecto
Fauna/ Remains [rom Klasies River Mouth
CHAPTER
1
Problem, Approaches, and the Process of Learning
The Problem Early speculations 011 the evolutionary rransformarion from "apc' to "human" generally took sorne form of functional argumento Por instance,
Carvcth Rcad (1920), arguing befo re ausrralcpitbccinc focsils wcre known, suggestcJ rhat precultura] man wJS a pack-hunting upc subsisting upon moderare- and large-sizc marnmals. He speculared
011
how rool-using mcrn-
bcrs of this pnck would have an advantage. as would rhosc individuals psy chological1y prone tú cooperative behavior. Thcse individuals would develop leadcrship and its complement, a disciplincd group of followcrs (Figure 1.1). Many subsequent wrirers, considering the problem after more knowledge of rhe australopithecines beca me available, nrgued rhar bipcdal locornorion gave rhe hunter a comperitive advantage that preceded rhe evolutionary nppcaraucc oí thc rypicai "human" hrain. Most who pondered thc course of hominid evolution held rhar thc australopithicines represcntcd a rransitional pcriod berween an earfier prehuman form of brain and thc far more complex rnerualiry rhar cnabled humans to dcvelop the culture thar removed them [rom thc animal world. Almost without cxccption, eurlier speculation on rhis hiocultural transforrnation gave an important condincning role ro hunting, which moved our prehuman ancestors into rhe predatory niche. (Fnr a good example of this approaeh, see Etkin 1954.) Scricus
l.
2
Problcm, Approachcs, and the Proccss of Lcarning
¡.
Thc Problcm
3
cre<1tt1res, such as rars, mice, frogs, lizards, birds, fish, a snake and a rorto¡se. plus
thc hones of sorne juvenile pigs and antelope ;lml J juvenile ~i,l1lt ovrich. (Lcakcy 1960:24; emphasis added: © 1%0 by the Umversiry o( Lhi'::lgol
...... " ),
:~. ,,'i'.'J&'H~~ nr ! l.' .'1
Figure 1.1
~.,
..t!1
f"
I
A pack-hunting modcl ni curly hominid Iife.
spcculation 011 thc car!y hominids' survival tactics in ohtaining food frequcntlv touchcd llpOll the possible role of scavenging. For instance, in their provocativo and impurtant cssay, Bartholomcw and Birdsel1 (1953) offered rhe following suggrvtions: lt is difficult, perltap" irnpos ... ihlt" to den-rmine wherber ur not rhe remains of rhe Lrrgc giraffiJ" and l-ovids reportcd frorn che bone breccias (Dart 1940) represcnt kills hy australopirhecincv or rheir sC:lvcnging frorn rhe kills of rhe larger cats. Since few mear caters are lo.nh ro sC;l\'tn¡::e, ;U1J che implementation which would al10w rhe .lllstralnpidll'rilll'S TU kili sllrh LlT¡:l' ;ll1irl];\ls ;.. nnt ;lpP;lTCllt, we suggcst rhat sCl\'l'lIgillg fTorn Th( kills 01 th( brgcr rarni\'orcs mar have bet'l1 systematirally rarried out. iBarrhnloll1Cw ,\lhj Birdsdl 19$3:490)
This sllggestiol1-favoring a "scavcnging" or. more appropriarely, "scrolll1gillg" phasc ovcr rhe gradual shih from a Ilonprcdatory njche ro rhe h<.:havior of rhe predarory hunrer-appealed ro rhose who viewed evolution as rhe playillg our of a gradualisr's belief that one musr crawl before Dne can
walk. A gradualist posirion was adopred by Louis Leakey ar rhe rime oí rhe discovcry oE thc "Zinjamhropus" fossil (now knowll as Australopitheclts
',ol.'ci). ()11 luly 17, 195';1, my wift', working with me at OlduVJi (~or~e in Tang¡lnyik.1 Tcrritnry. fOlllld a fr,lgrnent uf fossil human skull 011 thr slopes ()f the gorge at site H.K I ... \Vhl'll t'Xclvat;ons were carried out, a l1early complete skull of a horninid al1J also a tihi,l were found. These were lying 011 a living floor upon an ancient ':,\lnp site, in ass(Ki,lTioll with nine stone tools ot the OIJO\\.l1l culture Jnd 176 wilste flakes, whkh Il;lJ r~sult~J froTll the manufacture of the tools on the spot.... J\ssociatt'd with rhese tools -;¡nJ f1Jkes werc rhe tossilized bones uf mm1Y SII/¡/lI
ACJk><"(f"
·-rr",,-
The Darwin cenrennial-c-the hundredth anniversary of rhc puhlicariun (1859) of The Crigin ofSpecies-was poised on the edge of a major intellectu al turning point in the argumcnts relating to the evolutionary liistorv of mano The older views were dominant; yet rhe discovery of the "Zmj" floor by Mary and Louis Leakey had recently been made. The sratements by Leakey represent the accommodation of the new facts ro rhe earlier vicws of man (see pcrticularlv Lenkey 1960). Sirnilarly, the sumrnnries by rhe other major rcscarcbcrs dacumcnt niccly the ideas that providcd rhe intcllectual background for a numher of "new" arguments made by Louis Lcakey shortly after the Darwin cenrennial. Leakev's post-Zinj c1aims have intellectually framed early mun research since rhe decade bcginning in 1960. Ar the time of the drama ti, discovcry of the Olduvai material, most students of human evolution hnd rcjccrcd Raymond Dart's (1948) claims thar the australopithecines were predarory hunters,-jusr as rhey rejected, two decades eurlier, his claim rhat the australopithecincs were hominids. Ar thc same time, rhc majority accepted the position. incrcasingly sol idified hy S. \'(1Jshhurn (1959), that hunting wns the crucial bchavioral contcxt in which humanizarion occurred, leading ro that culrurc-bcariog creature we know as modern man, or Horno sapicns sapícns. Critica! to the development of events nor yet discussed was the linkage made in rhe Washhum model hcrwcl'll hipcdalloconlorion, which made pO'isihle the shift lO hutlting, and huntillg, seclI as rhe sdcction conrext thar favored incrcased brain size and the appearance of sllch basic human social characrerisrics
During the 1960s, it was commonly hcld rhar carl)' hOlllinid~' consumption
of small animals, supplemented by scavenging largcr cJreasscs, rcprcscnted a gradual transition berween rhe more apelike nonpredarory niche (lnd [he
.i
Problcm. Apnroachcs, and the Proccss of Lcarning
hunting behavior that was thought ro be the molding condition of our
humanity. Ausrralonnhecus was living on 5m311 reptiles, birds. and small mammals (sucb a~ rodenes}. As well J.S presumablv un roots and frutes.... Onlv in Middle Pleistocene do we fina cvidcnce of a majar change in early man's adaptation ro plains living, and rhis changc involved cooperative hunring-c-a change in Iood-gening behavior of central import.ince ro rhe story of human evolucion. (Carnpbell 1966:201-202; copyright 1: 196ó hy Bernard C. Campbell. Reprinred wirh perrnission Irom Human b1o/utioll [Ncw York: Aldine Pnbhshing Companv.])
Most of thesc points wcre consistenr with thc then-pcrsuasive view of S. \'(.fashburn (\X!ashburn and Lancasrer 1968) reg.irding the imporrancc of hunting as the behavioral context for selection pressures leading to our human condition (see Howell 1965, particularly pp, 64-65), It was within rhe perceived sequence of hunring first, followed by a dcvelopment of the brain. linked with rhe idea that rhe australopithecines werc the trunsitional stage in which hunting was foreshadowcd by rhe casual eating of sma!l animal s and rhc occasionai scavenging of mear from carnivore kills, thar Louis LC~lkey cxpandcd his invcsrigarions ar rhe now-famolls sirc oí rhe Zinjamhropus di'icovery-FLK-22_ During rhe ead)' yeJrs of rhe 1960s, a major shift took pbce in rhe thinking regarJing our hominid evolutionary background. The dara from !\1ary Leakcy's dctailed excavation at rhe Zinj f1aor seemed unequivoca! in pointing ro a more subsrantial role for hunting in the subsisrence base of rhe hominid rcsponsible for the FLK-22 "living floor" rhan would have been prcviollsly anticirared. Animal bones from a variery of large- ro Olediulllsin." bovids wae ... c.lucrl'd in considerable densirv 011 t11l: prl'lIlises; we helrJ no more of baby pigs and birds' e g g s . ' If Olll' acn.'prl'd rhe association of stonc too1s and animal bOlles as illdicators of a living floor, rhen twa inconsi.stencies slTmed evident: (1) Zinjanthropus was relatively small-brained, yer his Sllccess at hunting seemed evidentj (2) if Dne believed rhat increases in brain size were a canse· quence of hunting behavior, rhen his brain should have becn Iarger. In any cvent, Zinjanthropus was nar a "transitional" formo In shorr, there appea red ro be an inconsistency berween rhe dominanr belief about rhe behavúlr,ll nl1llcxts of l·ncepiJalizarioll ,lnd rhc ;ln.:hac()I(lgicllly indiclt<.:d behavior. \'\fhat followed was a complica red series of argumems mounted by l.ouis Lcakl'Y (l9h5), which qllestioned almosr al! aspccts of rhe situarian except his bdief in what was thoughr to be the self-cvidem Illeaning of the associated bOlles and rhe srone tools-namely, rhat these were living floors or home bases referahle to an imagined lifc-style rhat differed little from a warerecl-down picture of modern hunter-gatherer peoples: "ir sceOled nat-
P,ú<JIe, .01,,,r1->.'
u~<&.
~",d fl4f-'¡
1.[-. -vi
.,.•.:tr. c_·Á;<.ft-1
Thc I'roblcm
:¡
ural to trcar these accumulations uf artifacts and fauna! remaius JS bcing 'fossil home sites'" (Isaac 1983:1). Thc arrarcnt incompatibility between the evidencc [or successful hunring and rhe size of the brain of Zmjanrhropus was resolved hy rhe Leakeys' argumcnt thar an actual anccstor oí modern man had Iivcd contcmporaneously at Olduvai. These larger-brained creatures, designated Hamo habilis ("Handy 1\.1311 "), were considered the succcssfui toolmaking hunrcrs who wirnessed the extinction of Zinjanthrcpus. This viewpoint snved rhe original rheorerical scenario, in which hunting and food sbaring wirh rheir attendunr socialization providcd the context of our humanizarion. The thcory liad beco correet; only the inirial view that the australopirbecincs were transitional had been wrong. They were, 00 reconsidcrauon. seen as a collateral linc existing alongside the more adepr habilines who, due ro larger brain sizc, wirh its implicd link ro humanlikc behavior rncrtred thc gcncric status of Horno. Ccrtainly the confidence in the theory was grcatly enhanccd iater, when cornpar atively [arge-hrained habiline spccirncns, such as the famous 1470 skull, were found IR, Leakey 1973), This seeming Sllppott for rhe theory lenr more credence to rhe search by archaeologisrs for earlicr humanlike behaviors. In fact, thcir exisrence evcn appearcd ncassary and plausible, Such, rhen, has been rhe intellectual context for most uf the rccenr work conducted 00 sites of the Plio-Pleisroccoe time houndary. Glynn Isaac, surnmarized rhe sittlation this way: If ,"ve acccpr rhe working hyporhesis rhar ead}" tool-making hominiJs s01ncrimes tr;¡ll~portl'd (ood to eamr~itt'~, or telllpor,1ry home b:t~e~, whcre fhey :tho 1l1Mlc ami
ui:-'Clnkd stollc tools, thcll we faee fhe challen~c of devdoping lllodcls of proh;lhlc socioe<:onomic sym~ms rhat incorporare such behavlor. .. _As wc sce it the pivotal ingrcdiel1t is ,¡(til'l' (ofld-sh,rri1/g, \Vitll sOllle /00,1 hcing tr,ll1SPOrtcd to ,¡ shifting hut wdl-idclllifit·J sparial f¡ll"llS that e,m he tcrmeJ a f¡um(' Il<1s('. In rhl' l'('fsiOllSof thi~ moJel pr'l<.:tieeu by living people~, divisÍfJ11 nf iJ¡'or betwecn !Jlllller-ym'clIger-(ishcrs. who
One can sec rhar these are reasoned arguments of Plristoccnc home hases. They rarionally considcr how different behaviors and properties are mutll-
1. Problem, Approaches, and thc Process DI Learníng
6
ally dependent upon one another and how they mutually eondition the appearance of behavior syndromes. In the scenario given aboye, rhe ooly two charactetistics that really require testing histoncally are bipedal locomotion and the idea thar hominids occupied horne bases. Given these "facrs," all rhe other behaviors are seco as Aowing logically from these precondirions. What is the role of the archaeological record in testing such scenarios oí funcrional reconstruction? The answer is really very simple: ir is to warrant rhc belief in one oc more oí the pivota] conditions from which the remainder of the reconstructive argument proceeds. Only if the early sitcs can be defended as home bases and the animal bones found therein justified as the products of hunting, oc al least the very successful scavenging of large rneaty parts, can the theory of evolutionary cause and effeet be supported. 1 have argued (Binford 1968, 1981, 1983a,b) that the manner of generating linkages between conccpt and experience, theory and observation, dynarnics and statics, is central ro archaeology ; indeed, it is the most critical form of research in which archaeologists can be engaged. I am of the opinion that those archaeologists who sought ro use the archaeological record as a source for resting the consensus theory treating the emergence of a "thinking" rnan, did so gcneraJly in the absenee of any well-thought-out attention to this problern 01 linkage-the problem of middle-range justifieation for the meanings that were attached to archaeological observations. Unquestionably, Glynn .lsaac is theleading archaeologist in this researeh area. He is also the one most dose1y associared with testing-the hunriag, food-sharing, heme-base explanarion of humanization, Bur how has Isaac proeccded to test this theory? Before responding to rhar question, J need to gencralize-and philosophize. Theories can be thought of as trial sratements nbour rhe way dynanucs could he organized. Thus, almost all rhcoretical terms take their rneanings from the other ideas and conceprs within the argument having referenee to causal dynamics. When archaeologists appeal to the empirical world of the archaeologieal record in order to evaluate a theory, rhey must face quite directly the problem rhat theories of history are generally about dynarnics; yet their empirical world-the archaeological reeordconsists of st~1tic, structured arrangcments of malter. Most theorctical tcrms are primarily defined in terms of othcr eoncepts, not in terms of empirical properties. Al! theories address organized interactions and/or mutually conditioning situations conceived to cause or shape the values of several variables. Variahles, as important elemenrs in theories, alrnost always refer tú dynamic phcnomcna or dynamic system-state properties, whieh can be thought of as properties abstraeted from our experiences with the dynamie histories of organized systems.
.Á-DVd,d{ -¡·Jtff {A"'« - h",,~,
f,.;r¡-~
7
The Problcm
If the arehaeologist seeks 'o test a theory by appealing to archaeological íacts, how is this going to be achieved? Theories describe dynamics, conditions of organizcd systems, whereas archaeological íacts are al1 static properties of matrer, Minimally, the arehaeologist rnust operationalize definitions for rhc theoretical terms or variables in the theory, in rhe context properties rhat could be experienced in archaeological statics, In shon, he or she musr argue that there is sorne justification for translating theoretical terms-having referenee to dynamics and particular intellecrual-conceprual frameworks (theories)-into expectations regarding particular arrangements of static archaeological matter. Now, how has Glynn Isaac sought to solve this problcm? His strategy seems to be this: lf we can identify these horne bases in the archaeological record, then by irnplication we have evaluated rhe argurnents regarding the dynamie and causal Iinkages between the behaviors believed to stand behind such phenomena as horne bases, and hence have provided eredenee and support for the theory. Isaac initially offered an operational definition of bome bases as those archaeological sites that exhibit high densities of both animal bones and srone tools. Sites where stone tools were eomrnon but bones rare were identified as quarry oc workshop sires, whereas high bonedensity, low tool-frequeney sites were kili or butcbery sites. Those with low densities of both bone and stone were transitory camps (see Figure 1.2).
OcNbIT..... o ... l50WE
Low
~
~-
M
-'
---
,-
... H
~3
~
...
A~ 04-'1'7'
04-
(. /'7
~
• ",
" • .,1'
v -' .p"" 4-
-<,,~ú
/'
<~
~
(>0
~
~S o •
• w
~ g
.(",1"
-~
.~
~ ~
o#-'
JI
" o' 4-'4-' "l'
.;r" .., y
oc~o
/?¿.
~7
.
,y0_ o
04-- é'~
4f.'
~
Figure 1.2 Glynn Isaac's (19711 model for recognition of sitc function.
R
l.
Problcrn. Approaches. ami (he
PrOl.;CSS
of Lcaming
Here we see a vcry interesting approach ro inference. Specifically, rhe rniddle-range argument is thar if archaeological sircs exist (deñned by concentrarions of stone rools) in association with dense parches of animal bone, rhen rhe heme base is identificd and, by implication, thc entire theory of
hurnanizntion is thougbt ro be strengrhened, Iruerestingly, we already know that such sites existed. In addition, rhe dernonstrarion that sorne sites were 11m home bases in no way disproves the existence of home bases themsclves, nor does ir diminish rhe plausibility oí the investigator's bclief in the cultural efficacy oí foad sharing. communication, and hunting as contexts of selection for the gradual transformation into the human sra te. We havc here a middle-range procedure that is a complete taurology. The archaeological record cunuot ralk back; it can never, regardless of what is found empirically, negatively affect the helief in the sharing hypothesis. This is not scicnce. Minimally, science is the developmcnt of means whereby expcricnce wirh thc world can be used as an arbiter, a means to evaluare our ideas and theorics. Isaac has often reiterated his "theory" and his middle-range [ustification for hclicving it, and the basie structure of thc argument has remaincd unchanged. I have already questioned (Binford 1977b) the accuracy of attriburing al! the propertics of ene of these recognized "living sires" or "homc bases" to the acrions of hominids. I suggesred that Isaac had not treated very attalytically the possibility of orher active agents operating in the past so as to contribute to concentrations of matter that were being interpreted as ji man was the only formanve agent. Mine was an early challenge, though other scientists also had proposed the possibiliry rhat orher agents rnight have.: eontributed lo the.: formatioll of these patches of stone tools and ;lssoei;1ted ohjects. If Wt' are rC;llly going to test theodes abollt the causes for, or the hehavioral contcxts of, our l'vnlution, we must 1ll0VC lO the challenging task of evaluating the mouels-those interpretative conventions permitting liS to convert archaeological observations into statements about the pasto We shoulu be ~hle to test the degree that the cr¡teria we use foc recognizing home bases are indecd unambiguous and are justified independent1y of rhe model they ~re uSl'd to evaluate. For instance, the aperational definitían of a home base gi\"en hy Glynn Isaac does not consider that any other organized conditions of hominid life coulJ result in a relatively dense, c1ustered as sociation of bOlles and sHme tools. In short, for all of Isaac\; commitment lO the method of muhiplc working hypothescs, he has in the past worked from unly one intcrprctativc mode!. To him, the hOllc-stonc assoeiation means home bJses-or, as he is currcntly discu5'iing it, support for the "central placc foraging hyporhcsis" (lsa;1c 19SJb: ll). I visualize the mcthodological chall... ngc .15 one in which wc must conduet the rcscarch necessary 10 diagnose quite direetly the dynamic charac-
Approachcs to Rcsearch
9
reristics of rhe pasto Any synthesis of what IHe was like, or what the nature of the hominid niche consisted of during the early time rangcs. must rest with our ability to develop independent insrruments for diagnosing dynamic characteristics of theoretical inrerest. Our picture of the past must be built up-synthesized, if you will-from the various indcpendcnrly justified readings, oc frameworks for inference, rhar we might obrain frorn the archaeological remains, using our instruments for measurement. Given the importance of the role of hunting in rhe various argurnents of evolutionary functionalism and the importance of associarions between stone tools and animal bones to rhe current conventional methods for inference used by archaeologists, 1 seek to refine ways ro reduce ambiguity. l seek ways of reliably distinguishing hunting from seavanging as the behavioral background for animal bones utilized by mano As we all know, ro desire knowledge is not enough; we must have reliable ways of gaining new knowledge. However, the snpulations of conventional intcrpretative methods are suspect as a basis for inference.
Approaches to Research My job as a scientisr is simply ro be productively engaged in the pursuit of knowledge. 1'0 be acrively involved in a search for knowledgc rneans that we rnust rccognize thc nature of our ignorance. We might cven say that the pursuir of knowledge requires the identification of ignoran ce. Given such a recognirion. OUT goal beeomes the transformation of ignorance iota a bettergroundcd-c-or nt ICJst lcss ambiguous-form of undcrsrnnding: in shoTt, the rendering of ignorance into knowledge. This is a very big arder indeed. How do we go ahollt aecomplishing such a seemingly miraClllolls transforma· tion? In the present work, I am concerned with seeking knowledge about a domain of past human behavior about which most would acknowledge that we are ignorant. In addition, I am concerned with reducing the arnhigllity that might surround certain types of potentially relevant observations. Fi· nally, I am interested in using the knowledge (or c1ues to knowledgc) ncwly generated to enlighten both our prior archaeological observations and our ideas about what the anciem past was Iike. In short, 1 scek one form of knowledgc for the pllrposc of devc10ping mcthods llsdul for 1llakill~ illfereoces from the archaeological record. Whcn Ilcarned archacology, the convcntions used for assigning mcaning to archacological obscrvations wefe not generally undt'T invesrigatlon·. iFiey wcre takcn for grantcd. The only duma in abollt v.,hidl archacologists rcadily admittcd ignorance was the pas!. Archaeologists acknowledged that we needed to know more about this time period or this region or that ro fill
~ \¡ -A'J/""-"-
/(J
l.
Problcm, Approachcs. and thc Proccss ot Lcaming
out our picturc of rhe pasto \Ve investigated rhe past through the archaeological record, which was understood in terms of a series of convenrions. 1 challcngcd this vicw. "'I.rieato suggest that.there were many difl",entcondi·
tions mthe f"'Ost-t:h..1t·i-nigAt.well structure an archaeological.record. Thc pasr realirv nnd ir... archacologicnl remains, when subjectcd to intcrpretntion by archarologists usiug the conventions of the time. would be distorted and misrcprcscnted. I argued that the conventions of rhe dav were most likely
inadequutc, and certainly were clouded by ambiguity (see Binford 1963). Later (Bmford 1981), I strongly criticized man)' suggestions as to how we.aiighr justify inferences to the pasto MI' main rhrust was to point out the t..!:.f!.12. of adopting plausible suggestions as conventions for making infcrences [rorn archaeological obscrvarions about the nnture of rhc pasto Most of the rime, thc itupudcncc of convcnrionniism derives from incompfetc knowledgc. That is, an investigator adopts sorne suggesred counection between one setof condnions and anorher and rhen- assurrtes that thfS-'S\fg~úonis complete and accurate. It is assumcd that the Iinkagc bcrween one thing (the cause) Jlld 3norher (rhe eHect) is unambiguollS (nothing cisc (ould equally Iead to the effect as observed), or the relationship is Ilecessary (the cause always 3nd Ilccl'ssarill' gcnerares the speófied result and norhing cIsc c(luld do so). \'(/hen it is possiblc to dcmonsrrate rhar these assumpriol1s regarding the relarionships hl'rwecn olle cOlldition and another are unfoundrd, ir is al",ays hecausl' Wl' han.' gaillcd knowlcdge rhat was nm available to, or was ignored by, the carlin worker. Given neW knowledge, we C
hoth the "IIeged Iinbges and the adcquacy oi the knowledge previoosly cited as a WarrJnt for helieving thcm. If we are ¡ucky, we mal' make ne,,\' onscrvatiolls ami conceive of new ideas abollt rhe world rhat either render
~- u<-<J-)~¡
i'1.-~"7
Approachcs tu Rcscnrch
11
rhe original suggestion obsclcre, or else permit its elaborarion so as to reduce any arnbiguity uewlv recognizable in the relanonship as originalIy proposcd. The growth of knowledge results frorn an inducrivc process, Ir is wcll established rhar there are no rules rhat ensure accurare inductive arguments. Knowledgc grows largely through an inrcractive proccss pf exploring rhe consequenccs of ideas for experience, At thc sarne time, one keeps :l sharp eye out for implications from experience for the ideas onc is working witb. The death of an estahlished scicnce occurs when intcrprerarive conventions are adopted and used as if .111 our rnerhodological tools for making infercnces wcre adequare, accurate, and completcly informcd. This WJS thc state that I perceivcd in traditional archaeology rnany ycars ago, My ratbcr iconoclastic arrirude eventually rcsuhcd in Bones: Anctent Men and Modem iV1yths (198 t l. In that book, I investigatcd manv convcntions that had ariscn in archaeological pr actice and had scrvcd as interpretative principlcs for constructing a past, Specifically, I was critica! of convcntional'wisdom fjnm the perspective of new knowledge and insights rl'garding the roleof :lil'imals ns eontributors to deposits in which hominid materials were also found. In addition, I wished to explore certain w<1rranting arguments advanced by srudents of fauna as to the significancc oE various types of breakage and forrns of inflicted marks. (n many ways this was a rctrospective criticism, u<;ing rhe perspt'ctives of new data aS \','cl1.1s cxpcriences with hoth animal ;1nJ 1110dcrn human use of prey carcassl'S, Thus ir W;15 also study of rhe impact of new knowledge or ohservations on old interpretative suggestions and convcntions. 1 took the study even further, ro suggest how a growth in knowledge acrually plays J. crucial role in condirioning wh.l[ \Ve an.:ept as a "knowlctlge" of rhe pa<;l, in those prOl.TSSCIl tlur operate lo lllold the ch;¡racter uf thl' ,ln:h;1cological record. During the (Ourse of this fel f()spl'eti\T study, I made a 11l1l11hcr of slIggestions, such as to how ro scck jllstifications for infcrcnl.:es and when we should be skeptical. 1 also poinrcd to forms of argumcnt that have frequently proved ro be inadequatc in rhe faee of TH.'W
knowledge. ] have been surprised by sorne responses ro these discussions in my book. Sorne readers seemingly adopted rny suggestions as conventions ro be used in judging the truth of arguments. Bur this simply cannot be done. As statcd c,lrlicr, new knowlcdge derives from a prncess of in
12
l.
Problem, Approachcs. and rhc Proccss oí Lcarning
Approacbcs to Rcsearch
13
animals, yiclded remarkablc insights when differcnr spccics wcre studied (see, for instance, Sprth J 983 l· This suggestion of broadcr relevance for facts of rconomic anatomy changed my ideas as to how we should proceed in obtaining facts considered adcquate for grounding the methods thar I was engaged in construcring. My original plan was 10 perform comparative studies of separa te species, developing independent scales for each species of inrerest, These scales would havc to be srandardized on a large sample of studied animal s, sccking to inelude in the sample all individual variations in nutrition, age, sex, and subspeeific "racial" conditions thar might conccivably affccr economic
1 ,1111 convinccd that the most productivo clue to ureas of critica] ignorance derives from OUT skills in justifying a ~thy skcpticisrn. I do not
mean a skepricisrn regarding whar we can know-there, we mus! he totally optimisric-c-but a skepticism as to what we think we know and unrlersrand. It is rcasoned skepticism thar leads us ro the productive recognition of the
naturc of OUT ignoruncc. Ir is c1ues tú what we do nor know that provide rhe goals for structuring a research program aimed at reducing OUT ignorance. Stared another W;lY rhe goal of reducing suspected ignorance provides rhe basis for a rational assessmeut of OUT suggestions about how lo pursue knowlcdge. If wc acccpt rhis general proposition, rhcrc are orher implications of importauce. One is that we must be \villing to use rhe knowledge availablc ro us nt any point in time, since it is uuly rclarive ro prior clairns for knowledgc und undcrstanding that we may be skcptical, In turn, ir is skcpricism rhar directs thc search for new knowledge and understanding, and ucncc powcrs OUf Sl1ClTSS in the pursuit of knowledgc. This poinr cannot be ovcrcmphasized. We rnust be willing 10 ride wirh our knowledge of the momcnt, for rcasoned argument from this alleged knowledge actuully accornplishes two rhings: (1) the use of the knowledge establishes rhat rype of knowledge as importanr and worrh having; and (2) given rhe perspective provided by rhe larger argument as to the importance of the cited knowledge, we may better focus our potential skepticisl1l on important areas for investigarian. To illustrate this situatíon, 1 might cite a much earlier study (Binford 1978), in which I reported on facts of economic anatomy established through rhe observatian of three animals-twa sheep and one caribou. I rhen indicated how sueh faets could be used in the deve10pmenr of inferential Illcthods for giving Illcanings to anatomil.:al-part frequcncics obscrvl'J by archaeologists. Thus rny arguments using these "facts" to establish important potcnti;ll roles for stH:h bcts in serving tlll' rl'sc,lfcb l11l'thodology of <1n:hal'ologists. Critics have suggested rhat my three animals were certainly an insufficient samplc to cstablish accurateiy the relative economic values for anatomical parrs of either caribou or sheep, much Icss other species. [ am ccrtainly in agrecment with rhis criticismo A critic may then ask why I was willing to build sm:h cxrensive arguments on such an admittedly poor sampie. The answer is rathcr simple: when I sraned the research, 1 had ooly a v,lAlIe idea as to the significance of such facts. I workl'd to ohtain sufficienr h(l'> of lhe typl' I titen judgl'd important in l'xpioring ml'thmls dcvclopment. I believc my endeavor \Vas quite successful, because I was able ro show a rather startling potemial for such facts. As a sideline ro this research, I became ¡ncreasingly impressed with how sueh secmiogly narrow-focused bcts, using the relative valucs generalized frOIll a sarnple of only three
anaromy.
Thc apparent success of my miserable little sample of duce individuals representing two specics, however, strong\y indica tes that a different mode of research might he more appropríate. Comparative srudy of single individuals from differcnt species ro determine how variable species were in relative economic-anatomical properties acruallv mighr be a better srudy programo If the levels of differentiation are slight among specics, then large samp\es of animal s within a specics might be a wasteful type of study. I bave not yet decided on what I consider to be thc most appropt'iate way of observationally grounding those facts of relativo cconomic anatomy that thus far ha ve proved ro be of great methodological potential. 1 am stil1 in the process oí gainillg so me perspecrive on the problem through the increased application of the faets obtained from rny ohservations on three animals. Needless ro say, more studies of economic anatomy are certainly cal1ed for, hur we cannot really judge how to conciuet sueh studies until we gain so me appreciation for the "grain" or degrec of specificity at which gcneralizatíoll5 should be targeted. Ir is only through the use of "knowlcdge of the moment" rhat we gaio sorne appreciation oí how hest 10 proceed in our 5l:an.:h for additi011al kt1owledgc. This study, rhen, cxemplifies the realities of <;mgoing research. The reader will thus find me periodically appealing te ethnographic or egographic analogy, and employing anecdotal justifieation for aceepring sorne propositions as knowledge. I shall also generalize from smal1 samples and even use poorly controlled observations as operatíonal knowledge. These are al1 appeals to and a use of knowledge of rhe moment, which is quite variable in quality and quantity. Kno w1cdgc of the lIloment is aH that anyonc can use Jr Jny givcl1 time in df:veloping types of argumcnr. The uncertain and temporal grounding of such arguments is what provides the inrellectual contcxt for focusing our health skepticisrn. The argumcnts rhat inductivcly go beyond rhis grounding supply the intellecrual stimulation for the skeptical evaluation of our preseot knowledge. Similarly, the inductive extension of argumenr frequently leads
g-'\) . -.¡.... Lu .i'v...,,,,
!7'"
C!.>.
1,1
Problcm. Approachcs, and thc proccss nf Lcaming
to thc rccognition that we need information and knowlcdge in a different
[cmn from that which grounded [he original argumcnts. This intellectual use of knowlcdge of the rnoment in argumrnr provides the imperus for skeptics' productive work, as well as an equally stimularing framework for sympathetic rescarchcrs who seek ro expand OUt presenr knowledge. Eithcr way wc win, bccausc the pursuir of knowledge itself is our long-rango goal. As ncw knowlcdge aud undersranding are generated by [he intellectual framework, rhe paradigm that guidcd the growrh of knowledge will alrnost certainlv become obsolete, or at least in need of revisión. Only by overstepping rhc sccurc knov v ledge of the moment can wc inductively generare a new
rnorivating fr.uncwork and providc frcsh inrcllcctual contcxt for rhc furrhcr pursuir of knowledge. In thc old concept of the process of scicnce as dcfined by the strict empiricists, one observed the world and rhen sought 1110re and more comprcheusivc "cmpincal lavvs" that would eventually fit inro an accumularing hody of "truth't-c-which eould he regarded as a cornpreheusive and inregrnrcd staremcnt abour the nature of the natural world. But this procedure ultimarely srultified the imagination, which is the best source for inductively gcnerated \~i~,\\'s thut go beyond OUT knowledge of the momento Meanwhile, it demanded thar WL' keep on making observations, prcsumably improving the quality of our knowledge through increasingly refined observation. After all the facts were in, their rrue significancc might be objectively recagniz;}ble; there would be no nccd for our imagination. This empirically oricnrcd procedure is now widely reeognized as both imrossihle and cOllnrerproduetive. Nevcrtheless, when the risk rakers :lll1ong liS do use ollr ill1aginatiofls and arreal to poorly grounded knowlcdge ro builJ al1 intellectual framework to serve OUT goal of kno\\'ledge growth, rhe critics hehavl' as if they still bt'lic\T in a srriet l'lllpirieisr's view of rhe growth of knowlcdgc; they generally try ro knock down rhe new argument by shmving rhat its grounding is weak. Yes, rhe grounding may be weak, but what are the porential g;'\ins for pursuing rhe knowledge required by rhe argumrnr? That is the viral issuc. Whar I am sayíng here is thar a healthy skepticism thar questions prcvailing rhcorics is l10t an attitude of rejeetion. Ir is flOt a posture of falsific:Hioll rhat illtends ro show rhar rhe faers eircd in an indlletivc argument are insllfficicnt ro warrant the conc1usions dr;}wll-\vhich is always (he case for a1l forms of inducrive argument. No, a healrhy skerticism is a prohing and construcrive artirude rhar seeks to identify rhe character of our ignorance as it emerges in forms of induerive argllmcnt. \Vt: then seek ro eonduet rescarch rhar will inerease OUT knowlcdge ahout rhat v(:ry arca that our skepticism has idenrified as perhaps inadeqllate al' amhiguous because of sorne arRumem judgcd impartant at the time. Using such
¡;üf.j; -.. uuU~, .. <:¿~v~
Thc Rcscarch T;lctics:,W!lcrl' Do Wc Scck lnsights;
1:)
process, a general approach to research could never tall into the nonproductive trap of stcrile conventionalisrn that has, I fear, dominated mueh of the history of the sciencc uf archaeology.
The Research Tactics: Where Do We Seek Insights? This volume is-abour .reseeech that secks ro develop ways of cvaloanng thc relativo roles of scavcnging versus huuting in thc subsistcncc tacucs of ancient hcrninids. How do wc do t!lis? ldeally, I would likc ro go out and srudy a group of people who are obtaining a large proportion of their diet by scavcnging. In thar siruanon I could quite directly study thc relationships hctwecn rhe dynamics and the sta tic byproducts remaining from various scavcnging tactics. Unforrunarely, I know of no opportunincs for doing rhis. I íace a situation quite common for archaeologists: I cannot gain a firsrhand knowlcdge of many behavioral and dynamic conditions that charactcnzcd rhe human pasr by studying contemporary homologies 01' analogies. I musr fal! back, then, 011 a differenr approach. I rntlst lIse wh~lt kJ1()\vll'dgc 1 have to tease out Ilew knowledge and understanding. I have previously suggested thar hominid sCl\'cn~t'rs might wdl he expecrcd tú exploit heavily the marrow bOlles ~lI1d pt'rhaps the heaJs remaining on rhe sites of ravaged carcasses (see llinforJ J 9H 1:266, Columns 11 amI 12). I start here by seeking out an archacologiCJ.l G1Se characterized by the propcrtics I suspt'cr as indieative of scavcnging. If slIch a case can be found, rhen I can srudy the fauna in detail, searching for patterning prcviously unSllspecteJ. SUl"h p;,lttl'Tning m,lY be in sueh propcrries as breakagc, inflicred marks, and evidt:nce of animal gnawing. Obviollsly, I do not know what scavenging looks Iike when manifested archaeologically. Ido, however, have considerable knowledge of rhe conditions that pro mote different types of bone breakage, kinds and placements of inflicted marks, J:nd forms of animal gnawing. Clearly, wc must be willing to use rhe available knowlcdge, no matter how Iimited ir may be: otherwise wt' will nc . . cr S('t' new thillgs or ;,lsk m'w qucstions. Thus J can purSlIt' a killd of ;,11tl'fIIatioll or interactive straregy in which I rJkc some kllowlcdgc to hc1p in isolating a provoca ti ve case. I might then study the pmvoGltivc case in tcrms of propt:rries about \.... hich 1 have sorne additiotl~ll knowlcdgc and rh~H I-"S'uspet::r-mighr well implieare tii-agnostic 1'T'Of'ert,es '(l'f"jc3'Vt':ngmg'vtTm'S"'hnnting, ;Tnd"~ ~. In short, I eould work haek alld fonh, using my kllowlcdgc ro guidc my observariolls. and then using my observarions, in a ncwly disccrncd patterning. ro guide my search of contcmporary species for reliab1e under-
/(,
l.
Problem, Approaches, and the Process of Lcarning
standing. The initial rask, therefore, is [Q find a provocative fauna-a fauna characrenzed by a head-and-lower-legs pattern of anatomical-parr dominance. In 1976, Richard Klein published a description 01 the launa from Klasies River Mouth, Sourh Atrica. One of the interesting features of the fau;'a described by Klein was the differenria! frequORGíel;.oíanatomica! parrs recovered from the deposits. Klein introduced ao argument to "explain" rhe differential partern of anatomical-part frequencies observecl among animals of different body size:
.~
~
l"i ~
rhe ratio cf crarnal ro posrcru»¡a! pnrts increases, while the ratio of lirnb-bones ro foor-bones decreascs with rhe size of bovid.... I believe th'J!J;ll~ dtft&e1!ces ... reflect mainly whar Perkins and Daly (1968) have called the fscnlepp effecr~',\lhsic;ll Iy they postulered rhat humero; were likely ro bnng heme srTiaUe..r..anirnals-inhn, but they would probably bring back only selecred parts uf larger anirnals. This is hecause larger animals would be burchered at rhe place of the kiJland the less useful parrs would be lefr rhere. In documennng the operanon of rhe "schlepp effect" at ehc t<1rly holocene ("Neolirhic") hunrers' site of Suberde in Turkey. Perkin-,
\X/har fascinared me about these interpretative arguments is that my experiences with hunting peoples of the contemporary world (Binford 1978, particllbrly pp. 75-90) documcnted a pattern of body·part abandonment rhar was directly opposire to that discussed by Perkins and Daly and JJoptcd hy Klein for the interpretation of his body-p~rt p~ttcrning ~t Klasies River (see also Kehoe 1967:107; T. E. White 1'154:256). Among the Nunamiut Eskimo, the general c:ondirion regaTd-ing---the differential abandonmenr uf body parts is that parts oi low utiHty are mostoften abandoned at killlocations, while parts of increased utllity are~trans ported to living sites. When rhere are transport problems, the most commanly abandoned body parts are the heads and IO\\-'er legs. That is, when rhcrc is a Iargc qllanrity of meat availablc (;lS with ;l larg<>hody-sizc animal), lhe parts mosr frequent!y Idt al rhe kills were the heads ;1l1d lowcr legs (see Binlord 1978:76). These'ar"IM .er~ .pattsthat Klffi""oleS ... ·moshomm(~lly. introduced,e the site .at Kiasie~·R~·M""th· IrnnrhFge"body-si7e auimak! This ohserviltion tilkes on an :ldded inrerest when it is rt'cognin'd lh;1t the pattcrning so frequent!y noted for moocrn hUllrcrs-lhe Jifferenrial abandonment of heads and lower legs at kili sites-does not appear lO be the contexr for rhe accumlllation of large-animal head-and-Iower-Ieg parts
Thc Rcscarch Tactics: whcre Do We Seek Inslghts!
17
inside thc rockshelrers at Klasies River Mouth. Thns this site is almost certainly not a large-mamrnal kili site. Adding to thc intcrcsr is the fact thar Klcin has noted the same body-size-related partcrn of bias at other sites equally difficult ro view as kili sites. Here we have a situation in which the interpreration flies in the face of what we know. Thereforc we have a chance ro learn something: Discovery commences with rhe awarcness of anomalj-, i.e., wuh rhe recngrtinon rhar nature has sornehow violared rhe paradigm-induced expcctanons thar go\'ern normal science. It rhen continues wirh a more or less extended exploranon of rhe area of anomaly. And ir clases only when rhe paradigrn rheorv has he!:n adjusred so rhar tbe anomalous has hecome the expecred, (Kuhn 1'170:52-53)
Perhaps one of the reasons I recognized thc "anoI11J!Y" was rhar other rcsearch had led me to question the conventional wisdom regarding rhe role of hunting in the subsistence regime of early man (see Bmtord 1981 ~ particularly p. 296). kt.any eV@fH, t:his fJattefH'S:8H1:iD4l,ti ~ 18wu)'81i 2n d heaGs is ~il(;~¡ tluhÜA,"rl.!lkel~ .to- u:'ilt'r {rQfP'5fíUWQfjifljrh~.kwslWiQs. The Klasies River Mouth assemblages were an ideal case to study in the absence of actualistically controlled observation on asscmbiages resulting fmm scavenging. First, rhese assemblages werc historically far cnough removed from the Olduvai materials that no amOllnt of advocacy one way or rhe othcr would implicate the assemblages discussed in the Hemes book or argued about in rhe aftermath of its publication (scc BlInn 1982; Freeman 1983; ]saac 1983a ,b). Second , 1 could accept the evidence from Klasies River Mourh as indicarive of the transport of anatomical segmenrs of animals inro a sire by hominids. If scavenging could be sustained as the procuremcnr conrcxr for ¡hese introductions, rhen we would have at least one model for whar the much-discussed home bases shoulJ look like when scavenging was a major contribution ro the d¡et rhere. I have chosen ro study rhe large-mammal fauna from the sires ar Klasies River Mouth in hopes of learning something rhat may aid in the growth of knowledge relevant ro the unambiguous recognirion of scavenging versus hunting from archaeological bOlle assemblages.
t
-, "~ e
~ }
Introductíon
CHAPTER
2
Klasies River Mouth: A Provocative Case
Introduction The South African region is one of the few areas in the world where thcre are well-studied faunal assemblages frorn a wide variety of archaeulogical sitcs. This rcrnatknblc and admirable siruation is largcly the con sequcncc of thc dcdication of a single rcscarchcr, Richard Klcin, of thc Department of Anthropology, Univcrsity of Chicago. For over a decade Klein has beco devdoping a faunal "librarv' that is essentially unparalleled elsewhcrc. A significant result of these efforts has been Klein's recognition of sorne interesting forrns of patterning, for which he has, quite rightly, offered interpretations. Bccausc of Klcin's work, there has gradually emerged a procedure for dcscribing and studying fauna, as well as an interpreta tive model distinctly associared with Klcin's view of the pasto Looking through Klein's publicarions from 1972 to the prcscur makcs an absorbing exercisc: in thcm the dcvelopment of his analytical tactics is well illustratcd. In addition to a dcvclopmcnt of aunlytical srrarcgics, there is an accumulating recognition of pattLTlIing in diftcrcnt propcrtics of fnnnn! nsscmhlngcs uud ¡lItl'lIlbnt hllild~ ing up of intcrpretative arguments. I am particularly interested in a pattern that Klein (1974) recognized and first described from his analysis of rhe Klasics Middlc Stonc Agc (MSA) materials: sorne pns~ihlt' Iirnitations nn [heir huming capabili[ies may be implieJ by the faet that. in COl1tr
19
most docile of [he available large bovids (e1and) and largely ignored rhe (? too dangerous) suids, une or borh species of which were probahly abundanr in rhe vicinity. It is further inreresnng rhat the e1and rernains belong overwhelrningly to adules, while the orher large bovids-the buffaloes-are represenred ro a large extent by young ro very young animals. The cunning and ferocity of the buffaloes (inferred for rhe extinct giant form) would have made [he .rdulrs cxceedinglv Jangerous prey. (Klein 1974:270)
This general picture of rhe patterning observed for the Klasies River Mouth fauna is reiterated (Klein 1975b) with the added suggestion that hunting by man might be a contributing factor to rhe exrinction of sorne African specres. During rhc ininal evcavatinn and prc1iminary rcportiug phase of rhe work at Klasies River, severa! points were made thar werc of extreme importanee. The excavators saw no evidencc for major interruptions in the use of the site spanning very long periods of time, lending thcm to suggest rhat occupation had been essentially a "permanent settlcmcnt." "For hunting-gathering communities to live clase to each other and apparently for generaeions to continue doing so for so great a period uf time suggests unique conditions" (Wymer and Singa 1972:209). Aside from suggesting a kind of M5A sedenrism in a coasral "Carden of Edcn" (ser Binford 1983b for a criricism of this vicw}, this sirc yicldcd rather unequivocal evidence íor the regular exploitation of aquatic resousees (see Figure 2.1 for loeation). One of the common generalizations found in the literature prior to Klein's work at Klasies River was that the systematic exploitation of aquatic resources was a phcnomenon that carne
: AIVQ"'''A.:,
\ ...L.- ~-~"~-.¡') "
ZAM.,A.
#'
-"','~ ,o:f
J
·-·,,---------··-.-..-_';.·~~::..:::i,-.--/ } ~.l f " ZIMt!JA..IIV~ ~o ¡, "'", ,,/ •
!
'.'i-. __/ ;--8or..:svvAN .....,,1
::
f\
,J./
1",_.,'
\ I
/1,
, j L~:~_." ¡"o')' --.-'
A~.,c.A
,'. /
,.-,
/ ea.De..-. ~c.,..YIC-
DlI~.. K.EL.OE.R.~
-KJ-A$Ie:~ R:IV&~
Fi~ure
2.1
MidJle SUme
A~e
W10UTH
si tes in sourhern AfrJca.
20
2.
Klasíes River Mouth: A Provocauve Case
late in human history, and was large1y characreristic only of the Late Pleisrocene (or Upper Palcolíthíc in European terrns). Data presenred by Charles McBurncy (1967) hintcd at rnan's earlier use of aquatic rcsourccs, but ir was the cvidence from Klasies River Mouth rhar forced the recogni-
tión thar early mnn was using aquatic resourccs for a long pcriod of time prior to the Late Pleisrocene. One of the interesring debates surrounding the Klasies River Mouth sites conccrns the age of rhe deposits. Early estimares of agc werc largely dcpendcnr upon thc accepred chronological schcme at the time, couplcd wirh 14C dates. Reasoning from this perspective, the excavators suggested approximately 50,000 years for the span of hominid use of rhc locations. Later studies by Burzer (1978), using more specialized techniques and linking rhe geomorphology and sedimentary data to an undcrstanding of sealeve! changes, suggesred that the M5A occuparions were hetween 70,000 aud 125,000 B.I'. Work by N. J. Sbackleton (1982), using oxygen isotope analysis, cstimatcs thc span of the M5A nssernblagcs as ranging berwecn 30,000 and 130,000 u.r. This span seems to be more in line with other chronologics, and wculd place the shift betwecn MSA and Late Srone Age (LSA) in the South African region at a point in time comparable to analogous shifts to Uppcr Paleolithic typcs of material rernains in other parts of the world. The uncertainries of the chronology have, however, contribured to a further problem. Frngulth[ati h6iili'ft-rd idllailiS "'ele taoveted (16m the KIasi<'8"""" (Singer and Srnith 1969; Singer aod Wyrner 1982). Atleast one rnandible is considered by-....osr-ro-represenr fullr rnodern man, yet the current oaring of the deposits in which it was fnund would rcquire liS to believe that humans oi our type -were present in southern Africa sorne HO,OOO years earlier rhan in orher pans of the wnrld (scC' B<"Jul1lonr 1980). Clearly, the evioence of eoastal rcsource use, rhe dating, rhe fossil eontents, and the base-hne position that Klasies currcntly serves for eomparative purposes (see J. O. Clark 1980) make this a most intriguing area, quite independently of irs provocative faunal patterning. Given a still-re· maining potential for learning as is suggested by the fauna, the Klasies sites take on an even greater interest.
Environments Past and Present at Klasies River I suggest shortly that the deposits yielding archaeologieal rcmains at Klasies River Mourh have been seen primarily as geologieally formed units,
Environrncn ts Post ami Present at Klasícs Rívcr
21
within the framework of which horninids periodically appeared and carried on certain acrivitics on the surfaces of the geologically defined deposirs, This means that tbc overall frnmework, in terms of which rhc hominid actions may be sct into the past, is an environrncnral one bascd on infercnccs from the narural-forrnarion contexts rhat enclosed the archaeological materials. These contexts were, of course, the dynamics of both the gros s and the microenvironmenrs at the site. A knowledge oí the potentia] dynam¡c conditions that might impact the particular sta tic deposits sccn ar Klasics River Mouth furnish the base for reconstructing the pasr environrnenrs, and hcnce provides rhc irnportanr clues to the eeological semng of thc hominids' behavior. In addition, sorne historical knowledge or helief abour changes in past environments has served, and continues to serve, as a hasic and important guidc for dating the deposits.
..
PRESENT ENVIRONMENTAL 5E-ITING
The modern vegetation in the region of the caves at Klasics River Mourh is generally referred to as fynbos (see Day el al. 1979). This terrn designa tes the rather unique rypc of evergreen Mcdircrrancan vegetation found along the coast and into the coasral mountains of soutltwesrern southern Africa. The{~-biO»le,is comparabl-e to thefour other areas of the wcrld where.thc.climare.is Medlrerranean-c-characrereed by cool, moist winrers and hot, dry surnrners. In the Mediterranean region itself the vege· tation is called macchia. Along rhe California coast, partieularly between San Diego and Montcrcy, the analogous biome is chaparral. On the (oast of Chile the vegetatian is named matorral; and in somheen Australia the word heath rdas to a similar biomc. This, then, is not the cnvironmcmal zone rhat one typically imagines whcn thinking of Africa. Perhaps it is worthwhile to place the somhern rip of Africa in a compararive framework, so that its setting may be more realistieally appreciated. The area at Klasies River Mouth (sometimes called rhe Tzitzikamma coasr) is on the same latitude (about 35°S) in rclation to the equator as Myrtlc Beach, 50uth Carolina, on the east coast of rhe lJnited Stares, and rhe Santa Barbara Channel of California on the west coast. 011 lhe otller side of the Paeific, Osaka, Japan, and Sydney, Australia are in similar positions rclative ro the equator; so is Monrevideo in Sourh America. Within the Mediterranean area, rhe north coast of Lebanon and the Norrh African coast arouno Casahlanca are comparable in c1imarl' ami disrance fmm rhe equator. The Klasies River Mouth setting is nat only analogous to California in terms of latitude, but is also very similar in terms of ropographic condirions.
22
2.
Klasícs Rivcr Mouth: A Provocarívc Case
Environmcnts I'ast and Prcscnt
23
Klasics Rivcr
al
rrl\\\t~1\~ "/ ~/I "',! i,':'?,~'¡',~~,~6~~!I"\'~,>!,:Ii/I\,\~C~.\I¡iAd(~,.?\'l/hJ~,,;\¿L I --'----------<.: "'':':'_-~ ~'f::~'~Ce ""k/ .~,\:if.':;; ~ \I/~\\\ , ' é,??IDi' " ~ ~1\\':/:;:'¡"\"'c:-é/~í'i\'
~','""'\i J~
,
"'//1 "'''
I/;1','" 1/ ; .
é
IV,:, "1'
'
'u,
'
-- -
.~;
:-f~~~~?
..--
-
--_,
"1' '1 ..
"
1,
----
-
-
..
--
,z"d,
...,
-----
.. _
...
/
/ /¡
'1__ \
"
1
J) -
'--
JI,
--11,
',( ,,111
',fJ'I("0
' -<,
,_ '-¡,' l 'VI, 1
_-- ,,--_ , ....
TE:R:.~AC.rc
.....
"
----.-......,
Figure 2.2 Thc southcm African Coast, looking cast ncar Die Kcldcrs. South Africa. Note thc rockv outcrops and thc low fynho~ vcgctatíon.
Hrst. thc coast is rocky (Figure 2.2) and drops off sharply ro a deep irnmediarcly offshorc. This means thar fluctuations in the hcighr of sea lcvel could be suhstantinl, but thc horizontal displacement of rhc actual coasr from its
prescnr posirion would he
al
a mínimum. At lcasr al Klasics, this indicares
thar the sea was always relarively close to rhe cave as the crow fijes, but during low-scn-levcl eras sorne c1imbing clown would havc bccn requircd ro gel rhcrc. As with Santa Barbara, there is a coastal mountain rangc parallcling the eoast. At Klasics rhe mountains erest ar an elevation of around 600 m only about 12 km inland frorn the present coast. These mountains are rhe cactcrn tip of thc Cape Foldcd Mounrnins. Thc coaval side of thc mountnins at Klnsics Rivcr Mouth is rcally a series of thrcc narrow rcrraccs (Figure .3). Thc firsr rises ahruptly out of thc sea ro an clcvation of 200 m. This clcvational notch is rnadc ti)) of consta! c1iffs r113r risc from fiO lO about 90 III abovc cur rcnt sea leve]. Variously filling in thc couvolutions of thc "tul-le mountain quartzite," which forms thc bedrock of rhe coastal c1iffs and is also rhe home of the caves thar we will be discussing, are vast coastal-dune formarions. Tbesc gcncrally make up the surface of this firsr topographic notch as we move back from the eoast. Still farther, there is a slightly higher Ilotch with elev;Hions bctwecn 140 and 160 m above sea leve1. Finally, at the hase (lf the 1l1Olllltain range, the last l10tch is at ahollt 275111. The hase of the llHHlIltains is unly ahout 12 km inbnd fmm thc coast. Two rivers drain the arca between the caves at Klasies River Mouth and the base of the lllountains. The Tzitzikamma River picks up most of the runoff fmm rhe mountain pmper. It has it" headwaters 10 the west nf Klasies River ~,t()uth, amI drains southeastward along the base of the motlntains, elltering rhe sea some 5 km rast of the Klasies Ri"er Mouth. The Klasics River e""l'ntially runs along rhe junetion of the first and seeond
K.,LAio11E.6
1~Z.
~E.il
'
I ..... D' ......... OeE""....,
"6CAL.E. 1"-1 METER'-.'$-
o
40=
eooc
12000
,~=
Figure 2.3 Thc Tzitzikamma coast. showing location of caves and thc gross topographic scning al Klasics Rivcr Mouth.
norchcs 011 rbc coasml sidc of rhe rnountains. Its coursc parallcls that of rhe Txirzikannna dmm.rgc (scc Figure 2.3), only ar a lowcr clcvurion, and turns southwest as ir ClltS tbrougb rhe first coastal notch, cascading over falls inro the presently drowned rivcr gorge, locally called Klasics Rivcr Mouth. Today, Klasies River Momh is 011 the eastern margin of the Cape c1imatic province, which is in its more westcrly cxprcssioll characterized by predominantly winter rainfal!. The Klasies River Mouth
24
2.
Klasícs Rivcr Mouth: A Provocative Case
VEGETATION AND ECOL<)(;Y
In spite of rhe fact that rainfall may occur year round
011
the Tzitzikam-
ma coast, the vcgetation is Mediterrancan in chutacter. The most striking characteristic of thc fynbos is thar ir reccives most of its rnoisture coincidcnt with the pcriod of leasr solar radiation, and in turn the grearcsr solar radiation occurs whcn rainfall is least. The planrs therefore are adaprcd to reduce transpiration during dry, warm sea sons, typical1y having hard-surfaced Icaves. Planrs maximizo the reduced solar radiarion during the wet season, being evergreen and yielding a low rate of production. The result is rhar plants of this biomc exhibir a very low turnover rute: that is, the proporrion of ncw cclls uddcd is low rclative to thc arnount of cclls being maiutaincd frorn one )'ear to rhc ncxt. Vegernrion biomes such as the fynhos have sorne metabolic properties in cornmon with high-biomass forcsts, whcrc rhe total amount of production is relatively low but mosr uf ir is maintaincd as incrcased biomass sterns, twigs, and perennial planr tissues. Fynbos is a high-biomass biome relarive ro its rare of production for new cells annually. In general, such biumes are poor places for animal s ro make a living. Animals generally ear new growrh andJor reproductive organs of plants-in short, rhe producti011 of a biorne. The predorninance of plant species for whieh most new growth is transformed imo permanently maintained plant srructure (sueh as branehes) ellsures rhat foad is sparsely disrributed for plant-feeding animals. Environments wirh high biomass relative ro produerion ¡lIst do nor support many animals; rhey support more of rheir OWIl kind instl';'Id. EthllohistoriGll illforlllJtion (sc.:c Parkillgtoll 1972) regarding the uses of rhe fYllhos by reccm peoples show rhar plant foods thar eommonly form a sraplc of hllllter-galhercr cxistt'nce, parriclllarly in subrropical st,ttings. are rclarivcly rare. In facl. there art.: only a very fcw species of knowll consumable pbnrs. SOlTIe of rhc plants yield seeds rhar are useful for their oils but provide little clse. HO\'I/cver, a varicry of fuirs and berries are produced during the surnmer months (Janllary and February). By br the most importanr food plants are those having edible roorS[{Kks. Two rypes are particularly lIseful: rhose having corms like a garden iris. amI tho"'l'luvillg bulbs Iike an onion or shallol. In f~lCt. sollle of rhe most nutririolls of rhe cJible corlTIs are all ITIell1bers of tht: Iridaccac, or various wild rdatives (lf Our garden flower, the iris ..Mosl of rhese pbnts reach l1l;lxilllUm ,iZt' Juring early Slltnmer, ",hile rhe roOt,"hKks ;uc shrivdcd IIp during the winrcr. In general human foods are most available during rhe sumiller monrhs, although rhcsc are rarher sparse l'XCl'pr for the corlTIS and blllbous rbnrs, which could supply a summer staplc. Ir is difficulr to imagine how hOJninids could h~lve lived year-round in rhe coastal fynbos wirhout a sysrcmatic u"e of the n:...,ident animals and coasul resourees.
Environmcnts I'asr and Prcscnt at Klasics Rivcr
25
Grasslands have very diffcrenr ccological propcrtics. They hove quickturnover ranos, in that ver)' litrlc of the annual production is in [act maintained as standing biomass. Thcsc are gencrally cnvironmcnts wbcrc limited raintall coincides with pcaks of solar radiarion. Quick-turuovcr grilssl3nd is commonly found o» well-draiued soil when rainfall is deficient, or on poorly drnincd soil cnjoying moderare rainfall. Although producnon in thc plam comrnunity is high, evaporranspiration is also high, so that rhe ground moisture necded to sustain substantial biomass docs not lasr into rhc cool season. Onc reproductivo stratcgy of plants in such cnvironmcnts is ro grow quickly, produce muny seeds, and then die down ro the roors ; in this way, ver)' [ittle moisture is nccded ro rnaintain thc limirvd biomnss in the root systcm. Anothcr straregy is ro die comnlctcly bUI to rcappcar as a ncw generation of plants rhc next wet season, largely germin:nin{!; from sccds. OIH: mighr think of grasslands, rhen, as cha ractcrizcd by pl.uus thar bebuvc Iike annuals (many are), and high-biomass cnvironrncnts as biomes that behave as if made almost exclusively of pcrcnnial plants. Trecs and shrubs scnd rhcir roots deeply ro maintain a consrant supply of moisturc to rhe aboveground p1ant srrueture and to support the grearer mass of rhcir srrueture. This rneans rhar the lI10isture should gcnerally increase with greater dcpth, needed ro ensure slIHicient mor support for rhe aboveground planr. This oceurs when soil is well drained, partieularly if ir is sandy. When rainfal! occurs, it quiekly penetrares and is absorbed inro the earrh. Evaporation is inereasingly prevenred as rhe water percolares ro grearcr and grearer depth, evelltllally meering the undergroulld water table-whieh means rhar moisture-sceking rof)r~ I1rc inereasin~ly rcw:udcd as rhey wow dOWJlW,1rd. In conrrast, where moderare rainfall oeeurs during the warm season, rhere is a raee for warer tO penetrate rhe sllbstrare bdorc cvaporaring. Fastgrowing plants likc grass generally caprure moisrure near the surfacc. Tht.'fe they quiekly bloom, ro die baek as rhe moisture at the surfal'e is losr borh ro evaporarion and transpiraríon of their own making. J\.1oisrure rherr!ore rarely penerrares tú rhe zone berween the superfically \\lct arcas and the underground water tahle. This rneans rhar there is a generally dry zonc between rhe sudaee and the undergrollnd water table. This dry zone di scouragcs the roots of trces and shrubs, which find Icss J.lld less moisturc as rhey penetrare rhe deepcr levels. The resulr is that grass dominares. fnereases in surnrncr rainfall, so that it far excreJs rhe potential evaporranspiration as regllbred by solar radiJtion, ensurc lnore and more dcep saturJrion, and evemually an area mar he trJ.nsforl11ed into savanna or, with evell more moisture, woodland. This same cxpJllsioll of trces and shruhs with incrcased rainfal! may he enhaneed by increases in winter rainfall, since cvapotranspiration is at a minimum and deep penerrarion of moisrure thercfore more likely.
21>
2.
Klastcs Rívcr Momh: A Provoca ti ve Case
The [ynbos of rhe southern Cape is a relatively high-biomass hiome, rnaimaincd by well-dr.iincd soils and winrer rains. The cornbination of conditions ensures thac moisture penetrares well bclow the surface. so that the deep-seated roots of the shrublike plants are not turned back by a dry, fprbiddillg suhsurface. The presence of surnmer rain and the further reducnon of evnpotranxpiration conditi-med by the c1imatic evenncss along (he coasr cncourngcs high-hiomass vegeration to predominare, as opposed ro
quick-tumovcr grnsslands. (neceases of a winrer rainfal1 regime rend te favor expansión of temperare dcciduous forests-in short, biomes of greater biomass. Reductions in ramfall tend to reduce the overall biornass, but not neccssarily to favor grasslands unless there is a correlated shift to a surnrner rainfal1 pattern. On the north side of the Cape Folded Mountains, there is a very different vegeration province. Today, the tenn mosr commonly used for the biome immcdiately north of the mountnins is karoo. There. the vegctation is sparse, with exrensive bare arcas. Seasonally, depcnding upon the summer rainfall pattern, there may be grass parches. T rees, resrricted generally to
'fr'
,,~,I~(;, ":'~( ; ;J
~,"~\~~I ::¿ji'; -~,"(t
Fj~ure 2.4 "Sllshman hllnting a hcrd oí hl:lctogl'nc()u~ ¡.;amc," hy T. 8aines, Thc w
Environmcnts l'ast ami Prcscnt nt Klasics Rivcr
27
watercourscs, are predorninanrly acacias. Todav rhc karoo, on the interior side of the Cape Folded Mountains, becomes relarivcly lush to rhe east, where it tends to merge with the berrer-watercd grassveld of thc cnstern region. The ideal karoo is charactenzcd by sumrucr rnins and dry winters, and ir supports a fauna typifird by grazing animals, wbosc forrns are well adapted to dry, barren plains with seasonal bloorns of grass. The lnrgeanimal fauna of the interior karoo consists of spnngbok, gcmsbok, wildebeest, and zebra. As rainfall increases eastward-c-and in the mure lush grassland of the southern Transvaal and what is roda y Lesotho ami the Orange Free Srate-c-vasr herds of migratory animals wcrc cncountered, moving seasonaily with rhe grass. The herds are dominnted hy springbok, black wildchcest, zebra, and blesbok (figure 2A) or what Klcin (1976) generally cnlls thc "basrard hartehecst", This is thc wortd of classic African grassland with irs vast herds of migrating animals (for a good carly dcscription, see Inskeep 197i'l: 11-13). Ir is quite literally cut off as une approaches thc Cape Foldcd Mountain range, which separa tes thc summer ruinfull zone from thc coastal wintcr vegctative zone of the [ynbos biomc. Today the learco is a rather forbidding area supporring very little animal Iife. Nevcrtheless, it does represent rhe low-rainfall margins of the summcr-dominated prccipitation zonc, which in its bcrter-watcrcd ..a rcas supports the vast grasslands of subtropical Africa. These, in tum, Sllpport the vast herds of grazing animals that we tend to associate with Africl.
PAST ENVIRONMENTS
In tcrms of undcrstanding past cnvironments, there have been several mndds uSl.'d hy archacologists for interpreting CI1VirOlllllcnts of tl1l.' rast. Pcrhaps (hc first widcly hclJ idea, promoted by Louis Lcakcy in rhc IY.30~, was that therc wece pluvial periods that alternatcd \Vith drier interpluvials. These were thought to correspond to the glacial and intergbcial erisodes uf Europe and the New World. This view was generally abandoned \'\/hen it was realizt'd rhat the c1imaric history of the Pleistocelle was mm.. h Illore complicated rhan previousiy imagined. Bcginning in the L:Hc 1960s, van Zindcren Rakker (1967) hl'g;lll ro popularill' a lllfHIl'1 of (omf:lI.:ting allJ expanding dim:ltic ZOIll'S. This idea was adopted aod e1aborarcd upoo by van Zioderen Bakker (1976), Taokard (1976). aod Taokard aod Rogers (1978). Tbe model was similar ro a bal10011 blowing up and dcflating. During glacial perio&~ (Figure 2.5), when sea levcls were lower, the modern c1imatic zunes W<.TC thought to contraet symmetrically toward the equator. During periods of high sea Icvcl and interglacial-interstadial conditions, the rever se wOllld ht· cxpcctcd, so that
Envinmmcuts t'asr ;llld I'rcscnt al Kl,lsies Rtvcr
111
"
" -2--:
~~
Z!~ u_
0-
" " :;:~
c-"
8•
~Ol • C
~ ~ E .S: EN ,o c u~
.
- > e~ e
•c.g " o
~ S ~-;:J _c ~
o
::o" e u
.-"
ao ~-
"- ec C
~~
8
o
-S';" ~ ~ _ o
~
Ü
l
's. u
~-
Ñ ~ •
\I b -
.~
"ª'u
1111
:::
~
i
~
¡
u
~i'z.
¡:-
29
the modern c1imatic zones wuuld expand ourward from the cquator (Figure 2.6). The picture that emerged from this model was for rhere to be a moveroen! north (toward rhe equator] oí rbe winter rainfall partcrn during glacial máxima, with a corresponding shift even closer ro thc cquator for the zone of summer rainfall. Given the descriprion of environmenrs presentcd here, we would therefore expect more winter rainfall during glacial episodes 011 the interior plateau beyond the Cape Folded Mounrains, where today there is marginal karoo along the edges oí rhe surnrner rainfall zone (see Figure 2.5). Correspondingly, we would expect expansión northward of surnrner rcin-rcgulcrcd grassland at the expense of forested arcas nearer the cquator. This model, if ir is correcr, should permir us ro anticipare so me of the environrnenral condiriuns along the southern Africnn coast: (1) during pcriods of glacial máxima coincidenr wirh lowered sea lcvel, the fynbos should expand beyond the Cape Folded Mountains as winrer-dorninatcd rainfal! patterns shift northward. Correspondingly, grazing animals should he least likely to oceur in coastal sites, which should be dominated by the browsers and mixed feeders. (2) During interglacial-intersradial periods coincident with raised sea levels, the [ynbos should he pushcd back south of rhe Cape Folded Mountains. Thc kamo of today should beco me more lush, wirh grazing anirnals most likely on the sourh coast and thc browsers and mixcd fcedcrs becoming leasr common. Interestingly enough, Richard Klein (1972) has publishcd a most intriguing body of data from Nelson Bay Cave on rhe sourhern coasr just ro the west of Klasies River Mouth. Importantly, rhis sire is locnred 00 thc very edgc of ene of rhe more interesting rernperate-forcst biomcs known on the coasr. In rcccnt times, at lea sr, the rclanvcly high biomnss in thc urca was made possible by thc well-dramed soils and the winter rains. Most of rhc dcposits nr Nclsou Bny CH'e are witbin the rclinhlc muge of He rcchniqm-s. Hisror ically, thc fauna recorded thcre wcrc rhe Cope buffalo (Figure 2.7) bushpig (Figure 2.S) bushbuck, and grysbok, all browsers or strongly mixed feeders, as is the Cape buffalo. These arc rhc anirnals expected in a higb-biomass, metabolically slow biome. Yet the deposits dating bctween 18,500 nnd 12,000 years B.P. corresponding ro the end of the glacial maxirna at thc close of rbe l'leisrocene propcr-demonstrarc that the fauna was in fact largcly mude up of graziog antelopes and cquids: zchrn, wildcbccst. springbok, Jnd bonrebok (3 southcrn analoguc ro rhe rupi of E'1sr Afriea). Here rhen, we sec situarions directly oppositc ro the conditions anticipared by the zonal model rhat prcdicts rhar during glacial maxima thtre would have heen Jn expansion of rbe high hiomass frol1l rhe coasT roward rhe inrerior; and rhar during inrerglacial-intersradials, the intcrior SUI11!TIer rainfall panern would have expanded southward. This would mean more rain in afcas rhar rodJY arc karoo, and perhaps cven a sumiller rain pattern
31
Environmcnts Past and Prcscnt at Klasics Rivcr
" "~
00
-'" .,,-
0-
s
~
~
o
"
"-" ~-"
~
~~
¡
o o
u
"~
~ u "."
" o
~/III
t:~
s
Ñ
o s~
-."
,~ •.,If
-e o
" " S
§ S
~.~
~
~
o
~
N
_
Cape buffalo in typical bush covcr. (Colines)' of J. Ebcrt.l
U
c~~ §" .S"
-
e]
." o
o u o "
u'""
u
~_ ,~u üf;
------..
Figure 2.7
in arcas thar today are rransitional, sueh as the Klnsics región. Farthcr wcst, rhe lower rainfal! of the karoo-like zone would be expectcd along rhe enasto Wc would expecr hrowsing-mixecl-feeder fauna! a ssociations during glacial máxima and grazing animals during inrerglacials. Bur thc facts are jusr rhe reversc: we havc grazing animals during rhe glacial maxjma, and hrowsers and mixcd-fccdcrs in historie times assocíatcd with a high-hiomass tcrnpc-
rarc foresto
U
,\\1
'"
.
~ ~ ~! •
","" M ~
u :;" E "~
..
.~:..:
~
_ ., E a:1
•a
>olIIm
o
<"'
"
.r.'-
"" o
:ea~
1 g
si 11111;;: ,
Figure 2.8
Bushpig in bush covcr. [Courtcsy of
J.
Ehert.]
..Á W?L. 32
2.
~ I~.:i. J"'" 7;..'7'
rA
.,&,
rr":
33
Stone Asscmblugcs of thc Kl.rstcs River Mouth Sites
Klasics Rivcr Mourh: A Provocauvc Case
Based 011 sedimcnrological argument, ir has been suggestcd that during cold intervals rainfall wns reduced on the coast aJong rhe wcstern Cape, with the suggestion rhar this favored grassland! 011 the other hand, along rhe castern Cape thcre is evidence that rainfal1 incrcased during cold peri04s, permirtlng rhe expansion oí deciduous foresrs in ro areas where toda y [ynbos is found (Schalke 1973). This sustains the picture given by Klein's data on fauna. The "reverse" zonal modcl is further supporred by data from Elands
1 ~c.""'E.
Bay Cave (Burzer 1979; Parkingron 1980, 1981; Miller 1981), where rhere is a substanrial grazing fauna associated wirh cold conditions,low sea levels, al the dese of rhe Pleistocene. The pnleocnvirornncntal data as summarizcd from fauna suggesr thut the zonal model is at leasr parrially correcr, but backward as far as southern Aírica is concerncd. During periods oí glacial máxima (low sea leve! and coldcr clinmte), thc interior summer rainfal1 rcgimc apparently cxpandcd southward, favoring grass along the east eoast and reduced rainfal1, pcrhaps of a surnmer pattcrn much like parrs of the karno roday. Alternately, during intcrglacial-jntcrstadial eonditions (corresponding te warmer sea temperaturc, higher sea lcvels, and warmer climare), the summcr rain fall patrcrn contracted norrhward, yielding a partern similar to thar of today, and at times perhaps even moved farther northward of rhe winrcr rainfall patrcru rhan is known roday. The disconcerting implicarion of this situation is that interpretations of glacial versus interglacial conditions surrounding the accumulation of deposirs in whieh archaeological remains are found can be made using eirher thc origil"ul zonal cxpcctanons of thc van Zindcrcn Bakkcr model (Figures 2.S and 2.6) oc its lTIodificd vcrsion, which expeets c1imares ro be the exact oppositl', hased on faunal scqllcnces and their implied c1imaric condirions! MlH.:h of rhe presently ílccepreJ eomparative ehronoJogy for M5A sites in South Africa refleet rhese ambiguities.
-
and dricr settings-in short, a glacial condition
7 .','...
']!
Figure 2.9 River Mouth.
Thc relationshíp among thc various sitos at thc ma¡n site at Klasícs
2.9). Bcfore one enters thc draw from the wcsr tbcrc is a sma!l shcltcr directly ahoye thc prescnt storm beach on the módem coasr nt roughly rhe same elevarion as Cave l; rhis is Shelter lB. Finallv, a "second story" cave is located in the face of rhe rack wirhin the draw, essentially aboye Cave 1 and betwccn ir and Shelter lA at rhe head af the draw. TodJY, there is a shcer rock facc bclow thc mourh of Cave 2, making entry difficult. However, it is beheved that when it W
~
l ~
'1" <>
~
~
caves, Cave 2 and Sheller lA as lhe upper caves (Figure 2.10). In bnth the upper .ites Ihereare-ttorlohurnm-lensesand·.shdeposilS, lypical nf whal can be expecred in b.ddifllP.re....nd-theit>.....ociated·hedside hearlhs, as well '" more eornmunal cooking fcatures (see, for instance, the dcposits descrihed
Stone Assemblages of the Klasies River Mouth Sites
:¡"
Thc Klasies Rivcr Mouth has been wel1-reportcd previousiy (Butzer
1978; Klein 1974, 1975b, 1976, 1979, 1982; Singer and Wymer 1982; Voigl 197.~a.¡'; \'{'Ylller and Singcr ] 972). ~. ah =p 'ifllde' "f jbLke
!jklklS unM 3nitill "8",iarrangcd alnng a V-shaped draw rhat rises approxjmatcly 23 m from irs low point at the mouth of the majn cave (Cave 1) ro rile top of the remnant deposirs at the head of the draw in Shelrer lA (Figure
by Walton 1951). BOlh the upper sites have deposits more commonly fnund
in sm:lll hahitóltion sires known fmm relativdy rn:cnt times. Thesc ash-hulllll~ lensl.'s typically
,tI" -b..."xa.. /;..I~
S,
a<.LA?-
~
~ ~ ~~ J "
34
Stonc ASSCJl1hbgl'.~ ot thc Klasics River Ml)uth Sncs
2. Klasies River Mouth: A Provocatívc Case
c....VE.
z.,
\~~:=". -L. CV~
'5
M.$Am--
'-9
~ ~ J....--HQW/~olJ~
~
/".r:2
"tf'~ "bGl-, ..," ;r
J
~TJt:)-:a1
6 _...T
.....
lA
..$oo.'7~A"""D ..Q6-'~
.l6V&.LJ7
·,I...vr.... t..&v~L..
-.37
--~ve:J-
49{"O
~8 ~.:. ....... ..:..
o
2.
'N METEIll:.<S
...
..
8
Figure 2.10 vertical sccnon showíng thc rclationship among the various groups of lcvcls at che sites of Cave l. Shcltcr lA, and Cave 2 ae Klasics Rtvcr Mouth. [Rcdrawn fmm Singcr and wvmcr I\)H~:Figure 3.1.1
rhe size of rools, an incrcascd use uf raw material exotic to thc site area, and the sysrcmaric prcscnce of cresccnrs (backed picas, in Europcan tcrms) cnd rclarcd forms of worked-blade secrion. The lattcr is seemingly eorrdated
\Virh rhe appcarance of a punch-blade rcchnique of blade production, As in othL'r UppC..'T PalJcolirhi( asscmh1:lgcs, rbere is a marked incrcJsc in l'viJel1ce of personal ornalllellts in the form of osrrich eggshell bcads as wdl as a corrc1:ltC'd il1('fl':lSC il1 pi~ll1enrs, rarriru1:lrly red ocher (sce White [1982J fnr ;i dist:llssioll ot t1H.' llppl'r p:¡f~olithic trans;tion). Equally fascinating was the sequence of k'vds both underneath anJ Jhove the Howiesoll's Poort material s in Shclter lA. Below were a series of beis yielding 3n industry typically called Middle Stone Age. This assClllhlagc yiclds very few shaped tools but large numbers of well-controlled f1:lkc-hlades, gencral1y struck br direet pcrcussion from various forms of bladc cores. Thc rcsult is l1'sually ca1led a POil1tcd (lakc, with sharp COll\'l'rgillg or paralkl Sitll'S. TcdmiCll1y it is a bladc bl'CIUSC it is twin' as long ~1S it is wide. Not uncomrnon are worked poiHts-wel1-sh:1pcd f1ake-hbdcs thar have receivcd sorne dcgree of lateral or basa! retouch, rendering thern sornetimes very plc..'
rr
"""","wiie~I-.
.-
mi.
sei.~
10
.15
tools are scrapers, which are simply flake-blades with retouch somewuere along the margin, and dcnnculates, whieh are mostly microdenricularcs in 3 Bordean systcrn uf clussification. The larter are sirnply scrapers in which rhe rcrouch is not continuous but is churucterized by a series of separare chip removals. Finally rhere are flake-bladcs that have been utilized hut are not / [udged ro have been retouched. They account for around 40 10 of rhc shaped tools. \v ith scrapers and denticulates accounting for abour 50%. Denticulates are gcnerally more enrnmon by a ratio of 1.5 ro l . The rernaining ) 0% is made up of worked points, burins, and borcrs. In othcr MSA sires the levallois rechnique has hcen reportcd. and handaxcs are occasionally reported from MSA contexrs. Varying degrees of hifacial retouch and modificatión h.tve becn employcd for producing somctimcs surprisingly symrnetrical too! forms. Both rhe patterns of regional and chronologieal variability are at presenr poorly known (see Sampson 1974 and Volman 1981). If onc stands wav back and looks at the character of tool assemblages in terms of design properties as they are known to vary \v·ith rool functions among ethnographically docurnenred stone tool technologies, the MSA appears to he only minimallv differentiated fuuctionally. For example, we know thar almost al] the tools and containcrs used by the Ausrrnlia» aborigines werc manufactured from wood. We also know that, ut lcasr in the central Australian descrt. aborigines did not dress hides aud thcy gt..'llcrally did not ilin animals. Cutting rasks werc minimal nnd genera1!y wcre pcrforrned with wat we would typologically cal! utilizcd Ilnkcs. In a similar, very general sensc the stone technology is dOlllinatcd by steep-edged tools comrnonly used as ~ and woodworking tools. COllpled wirh this weTe various rathcr 1ll~1kcshift corc tools, which are largc ;lIld Chllllky anJ \...·l'rc used in obtaining wood (see Hayden 1979). In a ve~y real ~the tcchnology is a scr~)rcr-adzc-dominated industry, wirh varying amollnts of heavydut)' exredicllt tools; cutting tasks werc gencrally carricd out wirll unspcc;aliled flakcs. By way of contrast, in the Great Basin af North America a1l the COlltainers were lllanufactured of basketry, and c10thing ""as made from cither plant fiher ur cut-and-woven sma11-animal skins or hinl fcathers. Skillworking WJS at a minimum. Sorne woodworking was nccdrd to produce throwing sri...'ks, digging sticks. and hows, hut woml W;l"i ;1 r,lrl' part of the tl'chnology, cOlllparcd lO thl' Australian tool kit. Most of the stonc tools were used as portable weapons or far cutting tasks. Thc rcsult is a tool assemhlagc that is dominated by projectilc points and various forms of utilized f1akes, \'.:hich apparently weTe the most comlTIon cutting rool". Reccnt studies by H. J. and J. Deaeon (1980) havc shown a strong correlarion between small (hafted) convex scrapers and the use of leath~ c1orhing,.in Afriea. The Deacons' study confirms a long-hl:ld, intuitive 1111-
1,..i~ ~ r.:!¿;;te.... ¿..!.~:J
.ÁK~,.- ~
adr-~
~;(7 - cef"t
~
)-
~ ~
\
ri'tVJ . -~ r'tu."er .1(,
Klasics Rivcr Mouth: A I'rovocanvc Case
de-standing oí the role al sueh tools in technologies-for instancc, .on the American Crear Plains and in rhe Arctic, In both places. dressed skins were very importanr clothing items, and there also we find rhc small COI1\TX scrapcrs as a majar part oí tool assemblage. 1do nor wish lo imply rhat we undcrstand in functicnal terms rechnologics in general. There are, however, sorne very bread pattcms against which 10 compare rechnologics. The MSA does not appear lo have extensively uscd stone tools for woodworking or for skin-working. Almos! all thc rools are mas! consistent wirh J. variety of cutring and scraping tasks. If one views collections of stone artifacrs with substantial retouch and secondary and tertiary modification as giving dues about rhe use tife of tools Ithar is, how long tools were actually either planned for use or were actually employed as tools), theu the M5A assemblages must rank as very expedicnt, because tools had very short use-lives. One obrains rhe picture of a very regularly prociuccd and cxpediriously used toolkit, most gcncraüy employed in cutring tnsks of modernre-to-Iight duty. Expedienr produerion-that is, tools made for immcdiare use and thcn discardcd aftcr each task-is indicated not only by a lack oí retouch bur also by the rather surprising quantities of stone tooIs and debris relative tú the numbers of bones or shells associated in archaeological levels, In my experiente, this characterizes pre-Upper Pal· eolirhic sites in general, fIJen when presetvation of faunal rcmains is quite
\
/
good.
1
In contrast to the remarkably duB and uninteresting character of the l\15A Iirhics, the stratigraphic distrihution of the typologically M5A mate-
~
1
2.
,,%_j¿ ~sor •..21- JO I-SI\ " "1 • ~ /<'".I!l"
rials relativ(' ro the more interesting and complex Howicson's Poorr variant i~ ,truly f;l\cin;lting. ~nvc'nt·~·~.,..·Mffln"ft cl:¡,I,.t~~f"'~f· narion<>tcmd_......\sec figure 2.10); rhero is _r..Rta~~•.¡...¡",.¡Mm·"f 'lSSl'lnhta~t*lhM*,,-it"lt)~~ftW.dUy,_atf-j.-.a-((';nli' wvds. t~fj:b\, Levcls .36-22 yielJeJ ;l MSA assemhlage (MSA 11). Directly abOl'( > rhesl' were Levcls 21-10 1 \\,hich yielded a Howieson's Poorr assemblage. Then resring stratigraphically on tap of the Howieson's Poort levels were Levels
9-1, whieh yicldcd an M5A assernhlage again (M5A 11I). 5rated another way, i1w'.""'ll
lage f"'m·heve~t ..~ wer<·mosrlik.,. .•b....·lrorn 22-,,6, and Ieastlik..tbose lronr"!.evetstO~21. This is a dassie case of ;lltenuting indu'-;Iries, ;lS Ilorcd hy F, Bordes (1961) for many Middle P;-¡lt'olithic sitl's III wcstCfIl Europl'~ ;md as is also knowll from Middlc Pal-
eolithie sites in rhe Near Easr (see Binford 1982h; Jelinek 1982). Bec;lllse rhe l\.15A assemhlages are rather unspccialized Jl1d generally lack temporal spccificlty, it is difficult ((~C chronologically rhe deposits from the 100\'cr caves and sheltcrs lO those from the upptr sites. "ln'-tne"C<'ise ~<we'1~ rhere was a remnant deposit~ which rcpresenred ;'l cooe formatioll thar had originally ;'lCCl101ul.1ted at rhe mouth of rhe cave and trailed off into
MP.- /j,f;.e./ ~~rl
f't~-~
..
,,,,0
Stonc Asscmblagcs uf thc Klasics Rívcr Mouth Sítcs
.17
the interior of Cave 1, both toward rhe tear and ro rhe wcst (see Figure 2.10). On the wesr, rhe cave's floor and roof converged, lcaving Hule available living space. In none of the remnant lcvels was therc any indicarion of bedding areas as characterized the deposits frorn the upper shelrer, l A. The excavators nored no localized fires or features thar could be recognizcd as modifications of the surface produccd by hominids. The layers oE Cave can best be viewed as the result of geomorphological formarion processes, with rhe hominids fitting their acrivities onto the surfaces as they were modified by such natural processes as erosión and physical accumulation. After an initial period of rather inrense use, resulting in humus-laden occupational soils aud ash lenses near rhe mouth of thc cave where the deposirion was relatively leve! [Levels 38 and 37), thc [ormation of a major cone at the mouth of the cave was starred. This is believed ro be at leasr partially the result of an encroachment of thc massive fan deposit of scree thar forms the prcscnt east side of rhe draw (Figure 2. 9), coupled wirh tumbled deposits coming clown from a secondary fan of occupational debris cenrered in Shelter lA aboye. Irems occurred in this level buried ar .111 angles, suggesting rhat most of rhis rubble was a secondary deposito This
possibly represents rubble deposition ,har lorrned rhe base 01 ,he M5A 11 deposition in Sheltcr lA. This speculation is simply based on a projection of
rhe bedding angle as illustrated in Figure 3.1 ¡5ingcr and WYl11er 1982: 10) of the original site reporto Levcl 16, which resrs on top of the angled rubhlc dcposits of Leve! 17, marks a pcriod of ~and encroachment into the cave, hclieved to represenr blown-in beach sand. 5hel/ w.1s noted as parricularly common in this l('vd, anJ t1:k:H:.'-W;I"i ai It'a~' on'-' Jm,;ali:lJ.tiuII of .humc(1 ~IOIll' ;111<.1 hOlll'S' orar lhe cave rnomh, presumably marking ao active, in situ hearth. Above this sandy levd W;'lS ~ll1orhcr byer, Level 1S, which had 11l1lnerous a~h Icnsl's :lnd cvidcncc nI in sittt accul11l1lations uf borh tools and looJ lkhris. 011 top of this culrurallevel rests another rubble level, Leve! ] 4 1 which is very important hecause it is quite rich in archaeological remains. Unfortllnately, it is difficult ro understand in depositional terms. Ir is Iikely thar this IS mostly redeposited from tumhle or scree accumulating frorn rhe expalIding fan of scree centercd iust in fmm of Shelter 1A, Ir .1lso appcars thar this dcposit W~lS furthl'f l110dified in C~1V(' 1 hy a high-sl';l-levl'l st~lgl', during which the: cave app;ucntly \vas periodically washcd by very high storm-tides, lt is In)' guess rhar Levcl 14 is derivecl partl)' frorn conditions surrounding rhe faH of
large hlocks at 5helter lA, which resr
OH
Level 22 (5hdter IAl. and partly
from rhe conditions n:pn.'sel1tcd by the high rubhk (OIlCelltr:Hiom of l.('vd
22 itsell. Although othe; deposits occur in Cave 1, rhe final kvcl of gn,.lr imerest to us IS Level 13, which has been inrerpreted as mainly accul1lulatcd fmm
2.
.1R
Klasícs Rivcr Mouth: A Provocanve Caso:'
wind-hlown sand. Laced through the sand deposir were small lenses of silr and clay. 1'\0 hcnrths wcre observcd. and no soil developmcnt thar could he rcferrcd ro rhc nccumulatfon of organic dcbris from hominid occupation was noted in rhe dcposit. This leve! has becn intcrprered as "a rypical rcgrcssicna! eolia ni te, recording a falling sea leve! that was initially near rhe cave but uuimately quite distant. A majar glacial-eustanc regression is
~,
b
~
indicared" (Butzer 1982:39). Severa! main obscrvations might now be made in this discussion:
J
1. Alrhough hominids ccrtainly played sorne role in the accumulation uf these deposus, the manner of excavarían. preservarían, and documcntarion rcnclcrs any specific undcrstanding of rhe way rhc homrnids uscd thc land surtaces of Cave 1 a mattcr of speculanon. 2. Thc recogmzed lcvels seem to be clearly geological in origin, and the ccntribution of horninids must be seen as conrained within the geologic evcnts. Thur iS 1 the hominids moved across the surfaces rhat wcrc bcing crcared by nonculmral proccsscs, contriburing ro the contcxt of thc dcposits but not visibly alrenng the ongoing geo-
.~
~
~
logical depositional processes,
,
3. In no sel1sc can we U$e the excavated data from Cave 1 to dis(uss the furmarion processcs of the an.:hacologicaJ record, because the archaeological record is only docurnet1tcd in its formal or compositionJI scnsc Jlld not in ¡ts sitc-structural or Jcposirion:ll Sl'IlSC.
~
Any progrcss rilar we may make in..fuIrhcring our undersranding of rhe pasr will be made, ar least from rhe excavarcd mareriaIs of Klasies River, through a study of rhe popuhtiol1al ch~lr;lererisric'i of the materials indudc:d in the dc:posil cOllsltkrc:d rdc:vJIH lO t1u: bchavior of (he hOlllillids habitanls, ~rud iel! in rclation ro each orhcr and to the history of clima tic evenrs providing rhe r.:ontext for the archaeology.
-{ ,
il
~
Dating the Events Documented in the Klasies Sites In I (}-O, Ri(-1J;¡rd f\killl'uhlishc:d;1 very IlllpOrU11t Il.lPlT thal sOllgllt ro -Sllllltllaril.L' 11l1dlTsranding of rhar time regardillg lhe lvISA. This papt.'r \\'as il11port;lllt hecausc ir was written just hcforc thcrc \\.. as ~l l1l;ljor revolutiol1 in Ihe hisroriell víews on the !\ISt\. Ar the rimc of Kkin"s p;lrt'r, he gellLT'llizcd rhar "rhl'~lVa~l;lhlc l'\'ldl'ncr suggc..·s.ts -tilat tht' Mi·dJI~ Stone Agt'-o-t:"':TOfft-R(;,rn
};,.t. M
AJr~a,s..,h,r(:)adJ..y, CHnt€MoI f'4*1-lftt'mt1O><W'+t:.n.Mtl"Up pl'r
P~\ Ico-li,tb i ¡,;.oíJ~UH-Jrl' ..
(Klein 1970: 123). Shortly af'cr hi.tc.i.wartidc, a rc.volutÁillury..tim<"",k
/
--'f7,-~,j
Dating t1H: EVL:\H'i Documcntcd in thc Klasrcs Sitos
.19
far.;:~.cha'("&gicd~".l!h'UilAfl~F"'fg#liIJ't!tA~" was proposed by Vogel and Bcaumont (1972) and Beaumonr and Vogcl (1972), Thcy suggested rhar the boundary between the /viSA and the LSA was around 37,000 ! B.I'. This is approxirnately the boundary between thc Upper and Middle Palcohthic as known in Europe, rhus rnaking the MSA of southern Africa not contcmporary with the Upper Paleolithic, as gcncr alized by Klein and others. but with the Mousterian of Western Europe. Ir was correspondingly suggcstcd by Beaurnont and Vogel thar the M5A bcg.m somctime earlicr than 100,000 B.P.
'};h¡" (I\ilOllelogiea:l le ¡ odatioll II!'Ini-e•. _lIi ¡tk'fÍ:l¡\lM, ~PMtl~ i. . .'.... AS, beEa.uw..u),e¡luunin.WJ¡ f.1'1I .1ft1i1WOIW' ti ._ t 16 t sircs available for study 1MP8
al thc time of Klein's ]970 review werc acknowicdgcd ro he poorly documenrcd. Howevcr, mosr were considcred consistcnr with thc vicw that the makers of rhe M5A tocls "etC ~26dCi¡4 la miaias (see Klcin 1970: 132). Only shortly after Beaumont ami Vogel advanccd the rcvised chronology for thc MSA, Butzcr argued a compatible earlv intcrprctaticn frorn scdimentary and sea-leve! data as observed at Klasies River Mouth. Berween 1969 and 1973, Burzer (1972, 1973) was eogaged in srudics of thc southern African Cape with a focus on the chronostratigraphy of thc sites ar Nelson Bay and Klasles Ri\"t:r t\:1ollth. Although not puhlished \111tillart'T, by 1973 rhe view was already widc!y cirClllated that rhe Klasics sitl' darcd hack to what i11 rile Frcnch ehronoJogy was rhollght of as tlH.' Riss~ WürJn intrrglacia.! of ,'pproxlm ;ll1d shehns lud I1wir origills in marine ('pisodl's, c(lrrt'~polldillg lo tlle sl'a's LTOSiO!l;llnoh.:b ill~ uf t1H.' coasral bt'droek. BlltzlT : 19'¡~) t'qll:ltl'S rhe lTosio· nal producrioll of the hl\\TI" caves (Caves I and Slle1ter lB) with rhe + 7-111 sea Icvd cOIl'iidcrcd char<.1crcrisrics of rhe marine isotopic Sr;lge St', as dt,fint'd by Shackleton and Opdyke (197 J). Givcn this bcginning poiJlt for rhe 3ccumulation of dcposirs in rhe CJves, Burzer aS'iumes that the strarigraphic accumulalioll in rhe caves and sheltcrs bcgan shortly aftcr rbe formation oí the lowcr ClVt'S alld thar the filling was Jn aeactional proccss Icading
;'~:¡5
t
1
~~tf.¡
.- """ -~ 2. Klasics Rivcr Muuth: A Provocativc Case
toward the presento The physical stratigraphy was additionally evaluared in terms of sand sizcs, evidence for active sea pcnctration of the deposits, and variations in water percolating rhrough and on the deposits. In speaking of Cave 1, Butzer (1978:144-145) states: (j) KRMI-40 represeurs a regressional cave deposit rhar IS cnly slightly vounger rhan a long-ter m sea-leve! of about + 7m. (ii) Levels t 7 and 16 inelude lenncles of rvpical foreshore eolian sand, and arnfically mrroduced beach cobbles are common in 16. This argues for :1 relanvely high, if oscillating sea level, wnh a sand beacb. . {iii) Leve! 14 coincides witb ;1 nsing sea-leve! thnr broughr stcrm-wave actmn directly inro [he cave .. _ . Ir is unhkely rhae tite responsib!e leve! was mor!" than 4 or 5 merers above titar of rbe present.... (iv) Leve! 13 is a typical regressionul eolianite, recording a falling sea level rhar W;lS initially near rbe cave bur uhimately quite disrant. A major glacial-eusratic regression is indicared.
This summarizes the stratigraphy of Cave 1 as ir relates ro the MSA. lt is clear that all thc deposits are considered refernble to higb-sea-level episodcs exccpr Leve! U, which is identified as having occumulared as rhe sea was rctrcating.' AII the dcposirs in Cave 1 bclow Level 13 sllggest high sea it'VcIs-j---there are no deposits recognizable as accumulations between periods of lower sea Ievels. In short, there is no evidence for interruption in accrctional accumuL1tion of deposits during low~sea-level conditions. Nevertheless, Butzer assigns eaeh leve! beginning with Level 40 to successive phases of high oeean temperature, beginning with Stage Se (abollt 125,000 H.P.) Oxygen-isotope curves from the Pacific deep-sea core reported by Shaekleton and Opdyke (1973). This is done in spite of the faet that each deep-sea, warm substage alrernated with a low or colder substage. As poi11tcd out, thcrc were no depositional bcts rder:lhlc ro these coldl'f-Iowt'r sea kvds t1l;H prl'slIlllahly altcrnatcd with lhe warnH:r s,ubslagcs on thc dcep·sea cores. RutZl'r is flllly aW~1r!,:_(lf this, beeallsc he points out that, dfcet, all lhe Jt'posits othn th~ll1 rravertines are rclated ro rebtivdy high sra-Icve!s" (Butzer 1978: 147). Citing supporting evidenee from the form and contents uf deposíts, Butzer (1978:147) eharaeterizes the Klasies sequence in this way: "Marine shells of the tirtoral or sublittoral zone are abundanr in most KRM 1 horilOns, exeept level 40 (due lO parlial decalcifieatíon), and míddle and upper leve! 13 (here rhere are Iand snails but no marine shells.r' These Oh'il'f\";Hiol1s, linkl'll wilh s;l1ld-sizc lbu, ;11\ poilltcd to t'vidClllT ¡ku dl'posíts acclIllluLlted <.ldjaccnt ro high-watrr bCJches (except Leve! 13, which, as BlIlzer has poinred out, probably represents a major lowcring of sea level). Turning ro rhe intcrcsting probleln of the rdationship of rhe Jeposirions in Shelter lA to those in Cave 1, Butzer (1978:147) notes: "In KRM lA shell generally is poorly preserved, but absolute shell quantities also are rc1atívely low." Butzcr then goes on to comment rhat dolphins are ahsenr,
"'n
.. ""..... _~I-O
Danng thc Evcnts Documcntcd in the Klasics Sttcs
41
exccpr for one questionable specimen from Shelter lA. 011 the other hand, rhey were relatively corumon in the Cave 1 dcposits. Both of rhese facts suggest to Burzer less of <.1 coasral marine emphasis in rhc lA dcposits. This tends to support thc view that rhe Shelter lA levels were accumulated over a slightly differeur span of time rhan the mass of Cave 1 dcposits. Ir does not appear that Butzer studied rhe deposirs from Shelter l B, since they are not mentioned in eirher of his papers (1978, 1982) on the sites, In the final repon on the site, however, Singer ano \X!ymer record the following interpretarion: "Tbese layers constirure a straightforward succcssion of occupanoncl deposition commencing on the shingle of rhe 6-8 m raised beach and thus almost certainly relate ro the lowest lcvels of Cave 1, layers 37-40" (Singer and Wymcr 1982:25). This mechanical inferenee of contemporaneity with the lower lcvcls of Cave l do es not eonsider Butzer's inference of a storm beach represcnred at Cave 1 in Level 14. There is no reason why rhe "bcach dcposit" in Shelter lB could not hove been scourcd at rhc rime of wave nctiou or somc othcr high-water evcnt in Leve! 14 of Cave 1. Content analysis docs llot seem to have contrihuted ro the chronological inference by Singer and Wymer. However, it should he pointed our that, like rhe dcposits in Shelter lA, \ Shelter lB Iacks dolphins, and buffalo of both Cape anJ gianr varietics Jre \ nor numerous, although Clpe seal is very common. \ These contents ~other evidenee-high frequencies of double-platform eDres rebrive to irregular and single-platform cores, and the very low frequencies of anifacrs manufactured fmm indurarcd shale (which domi· nates rhe
f4'.-~
~~I e.-¡v,'-{,.k,f
42
2.
Klasícs Rivcr Mouth: A Provocatíve Case
....
.,. --...~'---., ,.-¡:'t'~ll'f~~ ... ".~'\,,' rr.-r.'.• ' ..6 '. ::,:..1' ; .,,; . ','::\\.~"., , " :' " " 7:., " '..,, . ..... ,~ •.~; ','1: ~""_ " ~'
,.,,~
'.~
'........... ."..,.." , 'v~:~: .~ . . . ",' '. ~?t : -: '. ......
.. '
.•
,
,
- '-.-
.""
.....',.
"" ~.. •
Mi,,:-,,"
~
o··,'
1r
•.
.'~
.. :
'.
'.
'.
"
,
Figure 2.11
•
-'.
Ó.
","
N8c W,
.
N8G P.
"'Be
. -
'0
i 1 i: ~
."pe
50
lioO
-re
SO
~
KIlM 1A,-' [JI- ÓHIII..;r~R
16 "M~AIZJII
,
n" however, i&;.BQI'kittg,;,t;Iw~·tft+§; Pirst, rhe levcl of lO rhe highwater stagc represented by rhe inrerglacial rhar we are now expcriencing. How, rhen, do we accollnt for rhe c1early progressive rrend in lowcring on'an telllpt'LItun.:s reconkd in tht, tkep-se:l l'ores, p~Irticlllarly if rhe lowcr tl"lIlpcraturcs;\fe Ihouglll 10 corrcspolltl ro pcriotls of gbcial ~Ktiviry? f\,lore importam, however, rht, numbers of grazing aninl',lls (Figure 2.12) as de· fined by Klcin are dominam in Lcvcls 37-38 Jlld decrease sreadily umil Leve! l4, where rhey srarr ro increase and rhen increase markedly in Leve) 1J, which is idcntified as J low-water substage. Thc ¡nuease in grazing animals associated wirh Leve! 13 is what we would expect, given \vhar we have seen at places likc Nelson Bay Cave ana Elands Bay Cave, where
K.Jf~
W"_D~R. &.T
0><-
C\?lJP>.c,,,'"
V
HO.....\E.1001o..l.',6 Poo~T
)---
1-1
J-17
5P
6"''''''-''''r~jA
"le'" 1-'
Red hancbcest: examplcs of gra:zing animals.
re.ooo
,!,PR,lo.jCóI BA~TAR DH"'R.T~&.":!>T HARTli>f C:E~'-
!
K.1"".u-1
&:,TOc..~NE
G:."~~u ,NO ~PEC.IC~
B~IUIoroK.
I(~M
10070
00Ó
• /J
...<
<JO
.....
K,RU1-L'
isotopic Stage J = Leve! 16-17; isornpic Stagc late e = Level 15; isotopic Substagc carlv Se =: Leve! 14; isotopic Stage 4 = Levcl 13), and because Jeep-sea coros demonstrare a progressive cooling of the seas during rhe early pan of the Uppcr Plcistocene (Substage 5, in which all the Klasies levels are assigucd), We would cxpcct ro find cvidence of two occurrenccs: (J) warm, and bence high-wntcr, substages should be progrcssively lower during the sequen ce of Late Pleistocene cvcnts, and (2) there should be
'$PIEGI&~
PI...
....
high-wmer substages is app;'lrently considered lO be nearly equal
..O
"'.T
81..1'$)04 ~PEc.lr: C ....." 'E <:(~y~..o"-. eu~
)---
1\.
...eucK..-
Bu~ ...
p,c::..
, "
Kuou
K.R:M l·j7,O,C-
~
"10
,
K.~M 1~16
!í
20
I(1l"U-"ir~
-'~
!lt!i.~;':):.: ,:.-
~U6"" o
-"O'_
....
43
Dating (he Evcnts Documcntcd in thc Klasics Sitcs
51'1E:.l-..TE.lit-
"-.\,A.,.....M~An.
6LUP;; DVII<...E R.
•
...
I(,ItM 1- 3' 7
I(RM 1·38
39
COL.O
r
~WAR"""
Figure 2.12 Comparativo frcqucncics oí grassland versus bush-lovíng spccícs across rhc motor cxcavanon units at Klasics Rivcr Mouth. (D,1t,l hom Klcin 1972, 1976,)
gr;lzing nnimnls are 1I10s1 cornmon in [ow-watcr, cold stagcs. Wlur is flor consistent, howcvcr, is the apparent dccrease in graúng animals across the isotopic high-water substages idcntified as 5d-Se, running rhrough ro 5e in Level 14. lt is true thur during high-warcr stagcs (nonglacial] wc should expecr incrcascd írcquencies of browsing animals coincidcnr with expansions of f)mbos-H:mperatc foresrs in rhe Cape ZOIlC, as has heril rhe case in post-Pleistoceno times. Figure 2.12 illustrares the percenr
6re wse -
ft:!;:¡;
q'¡
2.
Klasics Rivcr Mouth: A Provocanvc Case
D,uillg thc Evcnts Docnmcntcd in thc Klnsics Sücs
"The facr tbar grazer dominarcd fossil faunas should be so common probahly rcflects the facr rhat climatic conditions cooler than thc presenr occupied much more of thc Upprr Pleisrocene rhan condirions similar ro present" (Klcin 19~W:257). Yet, at Klasies "grazer" spccies decreased as thc glacial cnvironmcnts were, ir is thought, becoming more scvcre. Clcarly thcrc is a problem here. lt should be pointed out that in renns of fauna, rhc conrents of Shelter J H fir inro this scqucncc either bctwcen l.evels 17 ano 16 or, more likely, contemporaneous with the incrcasingly cold condirions favoring grass-loving species bctwccn Levels 14 and 13, making ir roughly contempomry wirh much of the upper Shcltcr lA sequencc. In orhcr words. the~~"'~f..l,~IJw,,-ili-..p.üuS»Llcganliflg ehe corrcct chronologjca] .placemenr of rhe-cieposi{:So,al' Shelter -:1 B. Uivcn the discussion of the deposirs at Klasies rclativc to the isotopic substages known from deep-seo cores, it was only reasonable to study a number of shells from the Klasies deposirs in rerms uf the lóO/IRQ ranos. Such studies wcre actuully cerned out by N. J. Shackleron on two shells from L5A 1cvds in Shcltcr 1D (nor previously discusseJ herc), which yieldcd ccramics and are bclicvcd to dare around 100 R.e. (Singer and Wymer 1982); one shell (broken) frnm Shel'er lA, Level20; seven shells frnm Cave 1, Level 15; and Ol1e shell from Cave 1, Level38. One additional shell was stlldied (rom Level 12, Shelter lB; and rhree others from Cave 5 (not di scussed here), Leve! 6. The latter four shells were .111 intcrpreted as MSA, though coming fmm separare sites thM are not stratigraphically illxtaposi~ tiOllCd.
deviation from zero, the colder rhe seas during the pcriod of shcll growth. Whar is vcry clear is thar thc L5A shells have a relativcly "wnrm mean value" right at + 1. These shells would record the warm seas of the conrcmpornry era, since the modcrn sea levels were achicved by around 3000-4000 ycars a.c, Clcarly Howicson's Poort represented the coldcst seas or thc most glacial condirions, whereas so-callcd !viSA 11 (Levcl15, Cave 1) is still cunsiderably cooler titan modern condirions. but less cold than those of Howieson's Poort. So far, this fits wirh the srratigraphic inrerprcrations, and picces the Howieson's Poort of Shelter lA as roughly conrcmporary with rhe dcpresscd sea levels of Level13 in Cave 1. Levcl15 (MSA 11I) then rcprcscnts higher-watcr levels but sull c1early glacial conditions relativo tu thc modern siruation. The chronological chfficulty comes when wc look at the isorope data from thc so-called M5A 1. The single shel! from Lcvcl .38 of Cave 1 and the three shells from KRM-S are similar, being just slightly different íroru the mean for the L5A shells that were taken as controls indicative of modern inrerglacial conditions. When Butzer saw this situation, he reasoncd that the only time in the reeenr Pleisrocene past when interglacial conditions has obtained was during the Eem (or Riss-Würm interglacial of the French sequencc) dating <.lrollnd 125,000 years B.P. Ir is tbe facts of a simibrir)' hetween rhe oxygen isotope values for the two shdls from L5A Icvds and rhe four shells from the allcged MSA 1 levels that provide tht, h<1sis for the inferred chronology o( rhe MSA. Although ir is rrue that Shackleton in~ c1uded the shells from Shelter lB in his samplc of MSA l. 1 find ,hat ,he larter has significantly higher isotopic values than are secn for rhe Cave l and Shc1ter 5 samples. This faet Icnds supporr to my carlie-r skcpticism n:g;lrding lhl' aSslllllption by Sillger and Wymcr (Il.JH2) thar Shdrcr lB was conrcmporary wirh the lv15A deposits in Cave 1. 1consider rhe isotopic data SUPPOTt for a remporal placement for Sheltcr lB dcposirs either in late .M5A 1I times, or ahernatively afrer Howieson's Poort. Leaving this detail aside, the curren! chronology for rhe 1\.fSA rests on the accuracy of 160/IRO ratio readings on six shells, t\VO from L5A, and four from the MSA l. Thc construetivc skepticism I advocated in Chapter 1 leads me ro he very uneasy with this chronology, and ro be even more uneasy wirh ¡rs derivarives (Beaumon' 1980; Klein 1980).
Figure 2.13 summarizes the range and the mean fOf standardized IhO/IRQ rarios h(.'rwcen rhe two most exrreme valllcs (suml11crvenillS winrer
(Clllpcratures) (or each sample srudied. In gelleral, the highcr rhe positive
{oIBO, 3_0/00
1[}-1,~
%. To P.D.B. .... z..%a
"-1.%.,
~
6T.... NOARO
o
~~
L~A
'3
B""",~ ////~ / / / / / / . / / / / / / /. lA-lO
///'POOIII:.T
'-"[i~11 M~AI[
16-t2.
-
1
1-38
1
5-6
~
,
HOW1C-SO.... ~
1
I
M6A "X
Figure 2.13
4:)
Surnrnary
¡:.:raph lIf l"O¡llol(l Tatios as
knuwn foc shclls recovereu from various levels at Klasics Rivcr Mouth. Values plottcd are mcans of thc high ..nd low ...alue'> ¡rom cach samplc and the median value for cacho SS = sample size.¡From Shacklcton 1982.)
RADltH:AIUH)N DATES
A toral of 33 He dates wcre obtained on samples from Klasics Rivcr Mourh k'vels. Thesc WeTe all procc:ssed by Gcochroll l.aboratorics, Thc most thal cm he said of rhese dares is that 18 of the 27 dates (exclusive of the 6 dates on the LSA) were maximum dates; that is, the 14C was not prescnr at measurahlc Icvels, suggesting ages for rhe spccimcns grcatcr than ~,,'\l{.
-,r,
A8R:-
y''''' ... Wl-.e
4(,
2.
Klnsics Rivcr Mouth: A I'rovocntivc Case
the clapscd time leve! indicared. Stared another way, rhe . . ast mujority of the spccimcns analyzed by Gcochron were bcvond the range of He dating rcchniques. Three additional danng tests werc run hy the South African Narional Physical Rcsenrch Laboratory ar Pretoria on specimens also analvzcd by Geochron. Two of the three spccimcns had yieldcd finite dates according ro Geochron analysis: yet rhe Pretoria lab reponed maxirnum dates. This al! strongly suggests thar the entire !\,ISA scquence ar Klnsies Rivcr Mouth, inc1uding the M5A IJI levels. dates bcyond rhe measuring capabilitics of rhe 14C method-that is, hdore 40,000 11.1'. This opinion supports thc carlier arguments oí Beaumont and Vogel (1972) rhat the short ehronology for rhc MSA is suspcct. It does not, howcvcr, support rhc particular infcrcnt¡al ehronology that has hcen gcncratcd almost as a series of cunvcntions sincc ir was originally proposed by Burzer: that is, rhc assignment of M5A lcvcts ro various stages of the oxygen-isorope chronology for occrm tcruperarurcs.
Surnrnary Ir is':appu,,",,, ,,,,,,~lt>~,,.,Id>rt_"'~~A.~'\J
Summarv
47
the niches occupied by thc hominids, is tenuous nt bcst. \~le should be seeking instcad ro understand the charactcr of hominid bchavior In Easr Africa, animal bone-, rerovered from rhc world'~ oldesr .Udl.lt'plo¡.:icll sill'S, dating ro berween 1 and 1,5 million years ago, tell us th.u by thcn mear was a regular elemenr in rhe dier (and also thar peop!e had acquircd the trpiclJ1y human babit of leavmg food wuvtc nnd other garbage at <1 repcatedlv nccllpit'd "horuc base"). (Klc¡n 1979:151)
To consider ull the bones accumulared in arducologicll sitcs as thcrc due ro hominid hunting is to assuruc what we seek ro undcrstand. To nssuruc further that hominid hunting too k esscnri.illy a r.mdom snmplc of the animal s availablc in rhe habitat is scemiugly uujnvtificd at any lcvcl. And thcn te assurne that rhe bones acquircd by archacclcgists werc prCSClH by virtue of the past operation of thar "rypically human habit" of lcaving food waste and orher garbagc ut rcpearedly occupied honu- bases is again ro nssurne the verv condition uf land use and behavior that wc seek to investigateo The currcntly prevalent M5A chronology in sourhern Africa is based , unfortunarely, on these "cart-hefore~the-horse" rypcs of assumptions. As has bren pointcd our, this srlldy inrends ro devdop methods for lIndersr311ding hominid sllhsistence practices, It will be illtercsting !ater ro considcr rhe dcgn:c to which any gains in rhis dire(tion affecr rhe almosr plln.:ly clilllatic inrerpretations of specics frcqucncies (sec Klein 1YHO:253) rhat currendy dominate rhe artempts among Africanists to use fauna as a daring medium. I have rried to characterize the situation as archaeologically invesrigarl'd al Kbsics River MOlllh. I !lavc trcated lhe inlcrpretalions devdopnl hy the primary workers 1110st intimatcly involved. My criticisms have heen Iargely limired ro lhe rrohlem of the cross·correlatioll of rhe Icvclsof Shelter 1B ami lo lhe confusing ur conrradie.:tory :ugllmcnts ITgarding envirol1111l'n~ tal corrdates used as a basis for dating rhe dcposits. The Jating as Slllllmarized hcre has heen widcly generalized and used as a basis for cross-correlation with a number of other sites in the southern African arcas (see Bcallmont et al. 1978j Klein 1980; Volman 1981). Thes(' cross-correlationshorh among the sites at Kbsies River Mouth :lllll ;1111011~ sitl's from other rq!,ions- h;lVC scrvcd as t1w h;lSis fOl" dai111s t!l:ll fully modnn 1lI~11l :lppcars earlier in soull1ern Africa rhen in ¡ln)' other pbct' t1111S ';Ir known (scc Beaumont et al. 1978; Righrmire 1979), JnJ that Howicson's Poort industry is J precursor of rhe Upper Palcolithic, (."Omi<,tl'llt wilil the early appearance of fully modern humans in rhe arca. If [ht'SL' cbilllS arl' accurall', and if ar the same rime we can reasollJbly SlISpCct a Sigllificlllt degrcc of scavcngillg 00 the part of rhe Klasies River f\1ourh OCCUpJ!ltS, then rhis sitc truly has rcvolutionary implicarions for our curn:llt Vil'WS of the p~lSt.
iJ¡.'-1j2~~((¿;j
Approachcs ro Descnpnon
CHAPTER
3
The Klasies Fauna: Approaches ro Analysis
It{;?
Introduction 1 have gi"cn the rensons why I cbose to study the Klasies fauna. I have discussed something of the charucrer of rhe site and the previous work that has becn direcrcd roward dcting the deposits and relating the marerials ro other MSA data trom southcrn Africa. Now 1 must deal wirh sorne of the
chamctcristics of thc fauna irsclf hccausc rhe inrcgrirv of thc dcposils musr 11l' ;l'iSt'S\ct! bdorl' thc cuntcut s cm he rclutcd ro homimd bchuvior. In othcr \\'ord~, I must be able ro assess rhe extent LlLma .1re relevant ro
lO
which obscrvations maJe
00
rhe
hominid behavior. J:nd flor lo rhe beh
bonc
Approaches to Description RidlJrd Klein (1976) has previously described the bUlla from this site. Klcin h;¡d sorted the bolH.'s joto boxcs idcntificd by speeics and anatomieal 48
49
parts for rhc site as a wholc. I examined each box in turn, trying ro rcmain as faithful to Klcin's earher study as possiblc. I should point out. howcvcr, there is :1 point uf dis:lgreement~or perhaps it is a more tnctical di{-' ference-in the W;lYS we studied this fauna. Klein tabulared what he calls MNI, or mínimum number of individuals. He considcrs nge esrimatcs of animals at time of death (whethcr bones exhibir diffcrc»r patterns of epiphyseal union , or whether terth exhibir different pattcrns oí crown wea r) when tabulnring whethcr one or more individuals are reprcscntcd hy homologous unaromical parts. Klein also reports the numbcr rcpresentcd by rhe maximum number of parts from the right or left sidc of an animal. That is, if rherc are four lcft caknnc.r and six right enes. he rcports J rninimurn number of six individuak. (Kk-in is roughly following thc proccdurcs as outlmcd by Chaplin (1971 J for reporting minimum numbcrs of individuals.) L-" I Rnngly rritkized ~~ prQ~NY'ru (Binford 1978:67-72, 47H-479~ 19H 1; 1982) I~, in I1lY expcricncc, Ü]~·l){,~ rlo'(i(H'JiJ:cd tFaAl bUAla. "ikHi do nor represent complete individuals that wcrc once tuere (as MNl methods assume), but instcad repre~e-~aIi8d iRtrQQlletiau SilÍ alreaJj',~,,,,,,¡,,..........nm ..,~_t.>mi<:al"'egJnel1""~i!<' either,for,Jurt1:let-_p:rG(;essi1J~:8t0tage+,f)r..for consuuipticn. This means that mnn does not kill an animal, begin earing at rhc mil and eat rhrough ro thc head, and then go off in senrch of another animal. Quite to rbc conrrary, he kills an animal and, depending upon the size and condition of thc prey relarivc to the food demands arnong the consuma population thc hunrcr is scrving.; he burchers the prey differentially, frequently dispDsing of SOIl1C \j'tafts--;1hlgt,cl to he of nuu-ginnl utility hCC;lIlSC rlwir t rnnsport is trouhlcsomc. Or, if Ihl''iI~SLl1lCe is grc.u , he muy rrOl;ess SOlllf pans so ;lS to rCd!ICC lheir bulk. For instance, rhe bul1ter lllav fillet some of rhe nll";lt trom a ha;n arca, and transport only the hilt011~ ot partial1y dricd 1l11';lt strips, Icaving behind the bones of the rear leg. 011 thc other hand, the hunter !llay also makt· very different deci~ions depending on the size and condition of the animals killcd. For eX;lmp1c, tlle Nunamiut Eskimo consider the buy morscls of tissuc within the skul1 to he: highly desirable fare if the ~ll1imal is young and tender. This means that in any living site to which P;lrts are carricd with somc difficlllty, as whell accessible only hy walking, it is almost a ccruinty that the hC:ld., illtrodllCl'd ;ue fmlll young l:¡llvl'S or jm/l'llilt,~. rile hcads ot' adlllt cows and bulls would be either eaten by the hllllters ¡H thc kili si te or abandoncJ unprocessed in the held. Thus the qualily (lf the fooJ. versus the differencl' in size of the part bctween calves and big bulls ensun:s thar the same pan of animals of different age will be tn.';1!l'd diffen:lltial1y. On rhe othn h~lIld, the meJt uf the s~'r from brge, 1ll:UllfC animals will he Ihe pan transponed, wherl'as the shoulders of the young animals are considered to be too stringy to warrant Glrrying so many bones for just a link hit of bad lean meat.
so
3. Thc Klastcs Fauna: Approachcs ro Analvsis
In sbort. m ao· dOrl:i. not.Jlt),fmaUY"'~RSUrnf". Rlf'at-,Jn,3Aiumni,,a,J;ly,,;,compl(,!w,~. He rrunsports and differentially uses auaroutical scgmcnts dismcmbercd from whole animals. The prcscncc of 3. particular scgmcnt at a vire docs not irnply that the cntire animal, anaromically spcaking. was ever thcrc. Hut the assumpnon of equivalence berwcen a part and rhe whole anima] is whar srands bchind anernpts to infer (1) the total mear available to a group of hunters from the !\.1NI reprcscnted by given anaromical parts: 01', cvcn more importantly, (2) thc constitution by age and sex of rhe population of anirnals as killcd from the biased distriburion of anatomical parts from animals of differcnt sex or age. Richard Klcin has sought over thc ycars to dcvclop W~lYS of using propertics of teetb for identifying the age profilc of the animal s represcnted by tecth at archceological sites, wirh the clear suggesrion that the patreming rccoguizcd \.. .-as refcrable ro bias in the pnpuiarion of animals killcd or,dyiñg' ;15 a fnncrion of the hunring stratcgies of thc human group (sec Klein 1982).) I suggc~t thar Klcin's approach is an exrcnsion of the MNI tactics thar seek ro cquatc nurnbcrs of an.uomical parts ro nUlllbers of animal s killed or availablc for conslImption at time of death. My appro;lCh takes nllmbers of anatomical parts .i Ir kl' in" tG ~ál!IOfI M:lo1i'ftt.,íFRfIINUi!'I ••" " . MtJls. -¡.. , [$hnut.'thi,. ·re-f'1lft t -~k-:i-mt:CeM'f}t MNf: (nlillimlllH lllllllhn ()f ('lc11lL'llts) atffl~ (mini11l1111l anilllalllnits). AtiJ.UuIUlJ.l..nwJJbers..of.p1J:m.Cltts. are just that~the minimum numbcr of differellt spccimens rcferahle to a given anatomical pan used in dassifieation. For íl1"itallce, the proximal humerus may be rhe c1ass, and I may seek to
Evtdcncc [ur Use nE rhc Site by Porcupincs
.\ 1
tabulare thc numhers of this unir, yet the proximal hurncri prcsenr may afl be brokcn. My task is then to estimare the minimum number of proximal humeri rcprcscnted by the fragmentary rernains, on rhc assumprion that a complete 01' anatomically recognizable proximal humerus had originally been presenr. In this procedurc. the infcrence berwccn the population of units observed archaeologically and the population that once existed in the past is made ar rhe anaromical segment level rather than al the level of whole animal units. Given rny focus on anatornical segments, I ignore differences between sex, age, and side, sinee rhese are properties of anirnals. A proximal humerus is still a proximal hurnerus, regardless of left-versus-right onentation 011 the animal, 01' the agc or sex of thc animal from which ir was derived. f am cstirnating rninirnurn numbers for the uunromical catcgory designated, for example proximal humeri. This is not to say that age, sex, and side information are not useful, or should not he regularly recorded in studying fauna, only thar -these are not ..i rtnburcs that define minimum numbers of anatornica] elements. Miuimum0iMl;HOUf .miL is a conversión for cornparctivc purposcs in which the anatomy of a living animal is taken as the standard fDr reporting frequencies of mini mal numbers of elements. Since the living animal has two proximal humeri, the rv1NE eount is divíded by two so thing :1I1ima] products. Given such interest, it is important ro be quite confidcnt that the hOlles studied wcre introduced and accumulated as a conseql1l'nce of hominid behavior. h Illust he rt'cognized that lllJny sites tlut yield the lI11:lmbiguolls products of man al so contain products of other agents, particularly 11011hominid carnivores and scavengers, as well as other nonhomínid inlu.hi· tants of caves and proteeted shelters. I have prl'viously (Binford 1981) pointed out the fallacy of accepting the total inventorl' of bOlles recovered fmm a site that yields stone tools as necessarily rcfcrablc exclusivdy ro the behavior of hominids. Nmv, I10W do we ~1s"'ess tht' taphollol11ic íntegritl' of the Klask", materials?
Evidence for Use of the Site by Porcupines Approximately 3°!c, of the faunal elcments counted in m}' study showed evidence of having been gnawed by porcupines. This cvidencc ¡", ncither
52
3. The Klasics Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis
'..
'¡~''i";. i,1i~, .'
-,
_;,
l~~.~,:
~
. 'ti,..
~ ::"
U
,'.: 1':,
....
~¡~;' . \" .
.
.~
'
C-Q
~
'" ~
'~ ~ ~
~~"" ...«, .,.
"' o o e, eo
:>:
,.
"o
° _ . . . "; ..,
.n
3
~o
-
~
1: ;..'] 3 E o z
•"
o
0\ .....
3
~
"T[:;¿
'2;'2 o
" f
l. '
e "'
~ •o. E o
U
t
8~
Porcupinc gn;l\ving on rhc proximal cnd of nn clnnd (T,1{1I0fr"KI151111cu,
l-.npal (Lave 1, l.cve! 14),
subtle nor difficulr ro evaluare. Figure 3.1 illustrares a classic cxarnple of porcupine gnawing. Tablc 3.] surnmarizcs the number and percenrage of MNEs (as nivcn in Tlhle .L\) idcmificd in IllY bnsic Iist of anntomical pan", scpararcd inro thc samc body-size class in rerms ot which thc fauna trom the sire wns studicd. Oppovuc rhe "uumbcr" column for cnch S;II11PIc is rhe pcrccurngc of rhc IOLlI ck-mcnts rilar WlTC gnawcd by porcupinc. Seveml facts are of interesr hcrc. Norte of the bones from the srnall animals werc gnawcd hy porcupmcs. aud only two cxarnplcs wcre noted on bones from bodv-sizc clnss Il (for hody-size classes, see pp. 77-78). Begin. ning with bones from hody-size class 111, the frequcncy of gnawcd bones gcncrally mercases wirh hody size for biased group of anatornical elemenrs. A control hody of data has hc(.'n,.-.dcscrilwd hy Hrnin (19H1:3(2) for collccltons made lmm ;1 porcupilll'!' lai0in tlll' Nossoh Rivn arCil. Therc, rhe l'xdusive agellt of hOl1l' rransprir'tto rhe site \vas the porcupinc. There was an alla[ogous near-avoidancc of hones from very sm;lll animJls. whereas hovid siZl'-dass 11, unlikc rhe situ.ltion at Klasics Ri\'l.'r f\louth, \.... :15 modcrarely well reprcscnted and size class 1II was most commoll. Unfortunately in the Nossob case, animals of hody-size classes IV :llld V were not repre. st'ntcd, ano they were not hclieved ro be generally prrsrnt in the ha hitar.
'"'1
'" -' "' < f-
2
-
.§
ó2~
~22
-
~
e
§.
R
t'
~
" ~
f•e
."
~
<;~~
"
~
e ~
, "'1
ª
-
"
-Q
§
0
e "'~=~ 6 o,¡
v
¡::
,<':1
~
u
0."0
:<~"Oo
~ tl ~ 6 e-
eo
El .. '"
.c '" o "-1: f-< e E e
°
,-..¡
0\
~ ~' ;,
o. ·n o .....
;"1 'n '"']o-:-:q-;q M........ "" lO --
~
OJ <J> C>ot
_" ...o
ª 6
o e o '" ... -e U...aE~ 00' ... o . :::~
~~_.Q.
'nv 0.\0\0 '" o o
::c;8
v
~8~~
'" ,0...>;::
U
~
S] -g
v
6
-O " 0-:; ....... § ..:: -x
"o.
~ -g El ~ o
\O \O 00 ....... ~~~-;qq~~
2
/i:.
o.~
~;;~3 tl<':l:j" ~ o ._ o
%
- v '"" '-
,,;
E~
.......... ,-..¡ M
~""
" ,o
~Cltl'"
LJ
""o.
"'l"i"
""f:~-;-;q~q
,-..¡OO~oO\~o,-..¡IO
u
-Q
"'I'-"¡ ""<"1_
~~
"o
>'~
~
-Q
~
o,
o". -o ." -0-
-e
l'
Pigure 3.1
00 ,-..1
"' -: o .., o ::!1;:;lo
::;,
'o.."t;
",:::l
.
c~
."
<:.J
•
-Q
E o
,.:..¡stt °
ln \O \O .......
H') o >C[M \OOO~~OO"""'\O'C'-"¡ N """ _
~
<:
~~;;C;;X;~
._ ... o.
O>.
'"
'~ <'l'~.~ .. E ~ ...
8
~~:::.-:::..a ... e-, t:: s:: o.
, 'a
e,
3 ~ ;; e
"
6~88·.8
o '" o o '"
"' ;;
'~~~~~ ]~~~a '" '" -.:: ..........
-¡;
o. -c
;
':.J
<'l
.b
1:0 ...
1:0...
~
~
~ ~~ ~
c-: e: o o ...
<'l
V
...
",."
'"
~ o,¡ ~
'!:::'t:::~
~~Vl~~~~~ dJ::.J~Q.o.oo..c :r:>o::::J::>....J....J~
........... " 8 588 :5 ~
~
~
;::l.!l
c-
1:
'"
o,¡
""'-
S4
3.
Thc Klaslcs fauna: Approachcs to Analvsls
I hav.é:..c ollapscd'thc frcquencies of parts tabulated from thc Nossob lair into gros s anatómica] classes (Table 3.1). I have also collapscd thc standard faunnllist rhar I generally use for rhe control population of fauna! remains collectcd from kili sites, or carcasses remaining 011 the land surface after predators and scnvcngers departo These are all compared to the same anatornical d.1sSCS of gnawed bones obscrved at Klasies River Mouth. Ir is very clcar that the bones introduced ro rhe Nossob lair appear to hnve had the surnc eomposition as a popularion of bones remaining on the 1andscape after predators and seavengers had finished (Column 1). This is rnade even more clear when borh rny control data and the Nossob lair data are compared to the similar pereentages for control surface collections of boncs made hy Behrensmeyer and Dechant Boaz (I9HO:85). Stated another way, rhe poreupines are essentially randomly sampling the population of bones available te rhcm for exploitation. This point was made even more cxplicit by Brain's dcmonstration that the hones in rhe Nossob lair from differenr spccics wcrc ncarly identical to the proportions of the animals actually prcscnr in the habitar (see Brain 1981:114-115). Givcn this type of behavior-the random transport and/or gnawing of bones available to rhe porcupines-e-we would expccr variutions in the content of anatornical parts to rcflect directly the composition of the population of boncs from which the porcupines dre\v: their samples. Looking at Table '3.1, Column 4, we immediately note rhar thc percentages of porcupinegnawcd boncs at Klasics Rivcr Mouth are considerably different from those either in the Nossob lair, or in the control population of bones apt to be available to a porcupine for transporto Thcre is a striking inflation of the parts of thc lowcr-frout ami -rcar lcgs rhat havc l-een gnawcd. Thcre is an equally intercsting, abnorrnally low value for vertebral' and pelves. Stated another way, rhc porcupine-gnawed-bonc frcqucncics nr Klasics Rivcr Mouth yicld a hcad-;1I1d-lower-limhs-dolllill;lIcd graph, whcn-as for thc Nossoh luir cnd the control data a head-plus-axial-skeleton-dominated graph is lloted. Given that porcupines sample the bone population available to them, it seems dear to me that the gnawed han es in Klasics River Mouth are not bones introduced to the site by porcupines, but instead are bones selected from rhe sitc for gnawing. After all, the site was selected for study hcullse of irs Ch:U:lctcristic hcad-and-lowcr-Iimhs anatomical-part profilc. C1carly, porcllpincs inhahitcd dH: site, but they secm simply to have uken advantage of the large numhrr of boncs already introduced there. This is further evidenccd by the hone in Figure 3.2, on which the porcupine tooth ll1arks pass O\'l'T marks inflicted on the bone by stone tools. Three sllch examplcs \Vere noted in the asscmblagc of porcupine-gn:lwed bones fram Klasies River MOllth. It ShOllld be pointed out that of the 8-3 porcupine-gnawed bones from
Evídcncc for Lcopards
.'lS
Figure 3.2 Porcupine gnawíng over a tool-ínflicted rnark un a vertebral frngmcnt (Cave 1, Lcvcl 141.
rhe Cave 1 deposits, a1l except 8 were from Leve! 14. üf thcse X, 3 were from Leve! 17b, 3 from Level 16, and 2 from Leve! 15. C1early, thc most significanr porcupine occupation was coincident with the uccumularion of Leve! J 4, which is, as prcviously pointed out, largcly a scconclary dcposir. It may well have accumulated when considerable erosion of the screc dcposirs outside Shcltcr 1A was occurring. AH rhcse conditions suggcst thar 111:1I1'S prCSC1Kl' may llave bccn miuimal during thc accumulution uf this deposito 1 conclude rhat porcupincs did in fact inhabit Klasics Cave 1, primarily during the accumulation of Leve! 14. They do nor seem to have biascd the faunal population by their bone-collcctil1g and -gnawing activities. It is evident that they collected their bones on site from those already introduccd by other agents, and did not slIbstantially modify the character of the faunal assemhlagc recovcrcd from the site.
Evidence for Leopards The cxcavators report thar a nearly completc Icopard skc!L·ton was recovered 011 thc interface benveen Levcls 14 and 15. Klcin (1976:91) lists
~, .~
.'í6
,~.
Thc Klasics Fauna: Approuchcs ro Anulysis
leopard bones of all majar anaromical classcs from Leve! 14. He estimares that there was a minimum oí four individuals represented in the lcvel. This
is consisrcnt with the obscrvations of orhers (Brain 19M 1:81-89) that leop-
.\7
Bvidencc for Lcopards TABLE
Companson bctwccn Lcvcl 14 and Othcr Cave 1 Levels for Rl:l:ognizing Bias That Míght Rcsult from Lcopard Use of thc Sítc-'
ards are commonly rcpresented in faunal accumulations where their íeeding bebnvior is a common source for the deposito Leopards have been nored to brlng prey parts back ro brccding deos and into prorcctcd, sbeltcred loca-
-r,",
' :3 ~
n»
.¿
'r
'-\i L-f
,,
\ '.
'>-~, "-
"
C\"
rions where rhey may spend many oí the daytirne hours. In sueh cases, the luir may be used for many years, yet the actual numbers of accumulated bones may not be irnpressively large (see Bruin 1981:88). Whar funerion the caves and shelters ar Klasies River Mouth may have played for leopards is not clear, but the number represen red in Level 14 strongly suggests rhar Icopards may well have eontributed ro the faunal assernblages, particularly in that lcvcl. Whilc l.evel 14 has a high species COUIlt, thcre are more l-aboons represented thcrc than ar any other leve! in the sire. Ir has bcen wcll vstahlishcd that lcopards do systematically rake baboons. parricularly in thcir sleeping places at nighr (see Brain 1981 :84). Ir woulJ thus appear that the integrtt y of rhe contcnts of Level14 is suspect as regareis relanve spccics frcqucncics.
As a check on thc dcgrce that Leve! 14 dift<:rs from rhc othcr levcls in rhe sirc in relativo auatomical-part frequencies, I prepared Table 3.2 and Figure 3.3 from R. Klein"s (1976; Tablcs 9-13) original lcvel-by-level invcnrories, Thc animals in body-sizc cl.isses IV ano Vare gcucrnllv bcvond the sizc range of normal leopard prcy ("el' Bra¡n 19S2: Figure 97), so it is highly unlikelv rhar lcopard occuparion would aEfeer these faunal frequencies. Thc bOlles from Leve! 14 are compared ro rhe sum of rhe inventories fro ;111 ti\(,: orhn ClVC 1 Icvl'1s. Ihe duractnislic hC;ld-and-lowcr-lill1h patlefll (Jf pJrI prescncc is wtll illusrr:1ted (Figure 3.3). However, rhis patrcrn is more rohl1st in rhe Leve] 14 ~;ll1lplc (han is thc cl~e for the comhincd samplc from the othn CH'e 1 ~"llllp]es. This mean.'; rhm there is norhing uniqul' abour the I.eve] 14 faulla (\ur would differentiate it from rhe remainder uf rhe sire. Turning now ro the comparative graphs (Figure 3.4), in the two smallesr body-size c1asses of hovids-the size range in which most leopard prey \\'ould he l'xpcctcd-wl' note rhe pattcrn of parts rcprcsenrl'll in Levd 14 is not very difkrcnt frolll rh.1t Sl'CI1 for the rcmainder of thl' sirl'. Thc majar dilfcn:lll'c "'n'm,> to h\.· t11;lt, in gcneral, thc hOIl\.''> {lf the slll;llkr .lllim,lb arc k ...... wdl represcnted in l.l've1 J 4 rhan they are in the orhu ¡('veis.That is. the gr;lph of I.(,'vt:! 14 is general1y lower for mast of rhe vcrrebrae, nlt.?rapr,JiJls, ,llld limporranrly) dl'lncnr'i of rhe rear leg, whcreas pHts having high inrrin. . i( 'lurviva] p"tefltial '>CCIll infbtt:J in their nurnhu'>. Thi'> contrast .,rrongly "llggesrs that the 1ll.1jor difference betwel'll Len:1 14 .1IlJ other Inds in Can' \ m.n- l"-c "I)m~ ~¡)rt\n::: .1LlJ nr ditteremiJ] \)r'CLH\\);l c,f J1' J!tr!~;",u1 Jgent
.u
Size clase I and lJ
IV and V
Cuher Uve] 14
Ieveí«
Leve! lJ
Cnher
Ll'opord
ícvels
tnits
----
MNE Anatomical parl
Maxilla Mandiblc Atlas Axis Cervical vertebral: Thoracic vertebral' Lumbar vertcbrac Pelvis Scnpula
Proximal hurncrus Distal humcrus I'ruximal radiocuhitus Distal rudiucubítus Proximal mcracarpal Distal rnctacarral Proximal kmur Distal fclllllT J'rnxilll;¡[ tibi,1 Disul tibia T;ns.l!s Astr'lg.dus C
(/)
29 42 8
s 7 3 4
.,
8 4 1.1 20 10 [8 [1 8
,
2 15
lO Jó [(,
21 Ii 10
% (2)
MNE
.AY 1.00 .19 .12 .[7 .07
8\ [34
.10 .21 .is .10 .31 .48 .24 .43
16 .19
.10 0\ 36 .48 .7, .38
.sO 14 .24
(3)
% (4)
.63 1.00 .04 .07
MNE
%
MNE
'}:,
(S)
(ú)
(7)
IR}
17
.SO
2(,
.76 .21 .IS
2(, SS 8 18
.N .83 .12 .27 .20 .18 .21
21 2.S 1.0 1.0 1.8 1..1
.SR
10 1.\ 1.0
19 1.1 21
1,00 .11 20 [4 .12 .11 .12 .24 .2<) .23 .H
1(, 28
.24 .42
I[
.OH
7 5 4
8 8 1\ 10 3 [5 20 9 .17 20 10 II 2 22 49 28 24 31
.os
.3
06 .11 .07 .11
4 H 34 3 [2
[S
6
.07 .43 .lS .07 .08
4 I
.O[
4 5
(,
10
10
2R
.02
.16 .37 .2[ .18 .21 .07 .21
[
7 (,
.12
09 [2 \H lOO .09
.lS
.[8 12 .03 03 21 .18 12 15
S
.1S
8 4
.24 .12 .IJl)
"2
.06
H 12 14 .18 66 7 H
.,
H
7 8
[6
[O
.IS
11 II
.20 .[ 7
MNL 19)
.7."
05 1.5 1.0 l.S
15
IS JS
% (lO)
Ion .AJ 2\ .2\ .4\ .33 .IY .2\ .38 lli .U 38 .25 ..18 .38 .38 18
.sO
20 2..1 1.0 l.O I.S J.S 1.5
.63 .25 .SO 30 .18
1.7,
.44
3R
"Data for Co!umns 1, .1, S, and 7 taken from K1cin (1976:Tahlt:s 9-13l· Data for Column 9 wcrc ::;Yllthc::;ized from Rrail1 (19H1.'Figurc 90, and "Klipspringl'r ;1nd Class 11 antt'\llpl''' of Tabks
42, 43, ;111l1 ·l·ll.
rhar de\l'rcs small-animal parrs in a b,¡ased m3nn~t. This could he carnivore fccding, bm I Sllspecr rhat is more likefy geotogic sorting. which is certainly expecreJ in Ll'Vel 14, hn.:allse ir has bcell illterprl'tnJ as, ;11 1c.\st in p;ut, ,1 sccondary deposito CompareJ rO the graphs from Leve! 14 is ¡] graph of small-hovjd pJrts
IR
3.
H,
61~1: CI.A""
,,.W
Thc Klasics Fauna: Approaches to Analysis
~lIZ.C C ....-..... 1: ~ 11 A ...'...........
IV ~ V Awu........6
HORN MAIoJO/BLE:-
ArLA6
ATLAó
~O,t;?ACIC
VER'r. VERr.
, ~,
--
6CAPULA
.P}eOX'JMAL HUMe:..eU.:!> D,.::JTAL- HUMEER:U6 OI,:STAL .e'ADIOCUBITT..I.5
CAIi!PAL~ P~OXIMAL ME:.TACA~PAL-
,
P~OXIMA¿ FeÑt'vR
-
77J3/A
C'"A.l...CAVE::U,;$
A":sTR'AGALU6
. ..
P.eOXíMAL- Fe;....,{./~
--
--
~'
3
rQ
A~THAG.ALU<5
10 lO3040506070~Q90JOOX
Craphic compartson bctwccn largcbovíd rcrn.uns Irom Lcvcl Ja and thc ;111 utln-r lcvcls al C1Vt' 1
lIltllbillul /rnllll"rKin {mm
thnt werc rccovcrcd from rhree separare leopard lairs as reported hy Brain (19H J Figures 90 .uid L) 1; I'P. 296-297). Ir is clcar that rhc part bias favoring crnnial parts nt thc expense of scapula and pelvic parts (which dominare thc Klasies data) does not appear manifest in the contrast berween the Leve! 14 small bovids. From this I conclude that rhere IS no recognizablc influence OH thc srnnll-bovid fauual population from Klasies Cave 1, Level14, referahlc ro lcopard fccding. Thc presence of leopards, bowcvcr, certainly suggests th.ir this should be cxpccrcd. lts ;lrr;HCIH abscncc may resr with eirbcr rhe f.ulurc to excavare or thc l"lOor gcologic prcscrvntion of thc arca of thc C;lVC whcrc lcopcrd fccding was u~-?sr common, sincc ir is obscrved thnt the I.umal rcsuhs of h-opanl mcals are not randomly scartcrcd throughour a lair (Bruiu 1YH I :HY) Ir h.1S also bccn noted that lcopards introduce rnuch Icss prcy into hn:edillg lair.., (Brain 1981:144). Consisrcnr wirh this suggcstion Klasics ouy have bl't:ll U'icJ in rhis manner so thar ar least SOIllC of rhe Ieopard rt'mains may dt'rive from rhe actions of hominids, perhaps in seclIfing rhcir sleeping arcas. In aH)' event 1 sec no reason ro quesrion rhe inregrity
TA.e&AL..::S
PKOXIM""L.- M~TArAK&A,-
¡,..-
l.&
DI&TA1-- ME.TA"TA1Z<5AL/~'T. PHAt-AIVGe$
.
-
,_._ .-
-~
7í,e/Á
CALCANEU..::5 Orl-l&~
l1l
r
D/~T""'L. FeMV~ ~XIM""'- 7781A
Z'
o Hgure 3.3
lO.
,
P~OXIM""L- MeTArA..e"&AL..O/.:$7".4oL.- ME.TA"T"""~$AL.I 4 T. 'pHAL,..ANGe-.:S
n
DI6TAL,.. ME.TACARPAL-
DI6TAi-
Or~&~ TA~'-~
'lzI'
PKOXIMAL MErACAKPAL-
...
~ ;;
-
HUME.eU6
OI..::5T~L __R'AD/OCUBlru..::5 CAJ
O
~-
0/.:$,.... .1- FJEMV~ P.eOX/MAL- 7íatA
-
D¡6TAL.- HUMeIieU~ P.eOXINlAL- R'A,cJlOCV8J7"UcS
,
OJ&TAt- METACARPAL-
-
P,eOXIMAL
--
•
b-
VL"Ie.T.
3CAPULA '/
f
PeOXIMAL- ¡(?A..o/OCUI5JTU6
DI67-AL
LUIvISAte PEL-V¡ó
E
L.
VEIieT.
r='EL..VIÓ
~
r~
R/B6
L-u""'~"".e
~
-~
AXI6 VERT: CERVICAL.7J--.fORAC/C VE:JZT.
R/L;r~
t
--
MA>(Il..L.A
MAXILI..A. MANDlel-E-
AX/~ CERVICAL-
59
Evidcncc for Hvacnas
"
2
n d•
sr«
----------
-
-
~
-- -
-
- -
010 ZO&¡40 5060700090100% ~ . L.,E.OPARO
DAT......; _ · L...tEVEL. 14; o-----o=OTHE.R.6
Figure 3.4 Crapluc compnnson bctwccn smallbovid rcmnlns from Lcvcll d versus thc combincd "othcr" lcvcls al Cave L und thc control dnta from lcopard latrs collcctcd
hy c. K. Bram.
of the Klasies deposits relative ro Icopards since leopard fecding scems ro be nor ar al1 in evidence.
Evidence for Hyaenas I havc secn no evidcncc for the role of the hyacna in rhe accumularion of rhc Klasics Rivcr Mouth fauna. Onc would expccr thnt ..l1lY accumulation 011 site woulJ he in rhc conrcxt of h yaeun dcnuiug. 1 h.rvc had the opporrunirv of obscrving eight hyacna den s, six occupicd by hrown hyacna (rhe fonn mast likely to have been prescnt near Klasies Rivl..'r ~t(luth) and two dens of the spotted hyaena. AII of these were excavations into sand, generally at rhe hase of a rree so thar the roots tendcJ to support the IQQÍ. and
IA(~~.,fi,).-CAu
(Oi-¡:;f
60
3.
G
~
Thc Klasies Fauoa: Approachcs lO Aoalysis
Eviden~c
(,]
for Hyacn¡\s
H
\r
~'~~!, ../
li·\ lr'
J' \,
,
·~·t·
A
B
e
r~, 4~
;
o
•••
Figure 3.5 Leg bones cullectcd by the authoc at ¡he Grootbmk spotted hyncna den in lhc Nossob Rlver valky, showing lypicnl p~ttccns 01 bre,lI{,)gc and go.lwing.
~
~,
!~
11
n:nder the den usable lor a substantial period of time. Nevertheless, these excavated dens are not occupied for teally long periods ol time since they do collapse. The result is tllar large assembJages of bOlles do not accumulate arollllc! rhel11 ;lS i~ the Clse when rack fisslIres and cavcs havc been used. Nevertlwles>, I was ablc ro collect a moderare samplc of bones from around dens, ami several things :lre of rdcvanee for assessillg lbe Kbsies F:1Una. As 1 reponed I'rl'l'iomly (l\ildord 1911 1) for wolr dell~, gll;l\vnl holln :lrc ClllllInon un dCII SilCS, particularly h>r the spotrcd h)':lcna, and these may be gnawed extensively (see Figure 3,5 alld rhe dctaí! of the tooth seoring sbown in Figure 3.6), This type oF extensjve gnawing is absent on rhe bOlles ar Klasies. 1repon in a Iarer chapter the gnawed bOlles from Klasies, Thesc are most often bones wirh tooth punctures in soft cancdlolls tissue or mashed :1I1d "scooped,ollr" arcas of rhe soft :uticlllar ends. The occasional tooth ~corillg lloted :lround aniclll'lr cnds is generall)' restrieted ro a few parallel l11arks, tr.lnsvcrse ro [he longirudinal axis of the bone. The extellsive lllouthillg of boncs seen in the hyaena dells js Ilot in evidence ::Ir Kbsies River Mourh. The 11101lthing of l~olles by the hyaena produces heauriflll pseudorools of fonns not seen among woJves and other canids, such as coyore, fox, and dogo Figure 3.5 shows rhe disarticulated limb-.bones collecred at one sporred hyaena den (Groorbrak Den), Figure 3.6 is a derajl of rhe rooth scoring 01'1
~7J, ~ ~i
,';¡
'-
,~
~)~ Figure 3.6
Dct~íl
01 tooth s~oring 00 a s~apula ,howll III Figure .tSlJ.
rhe scapllla in Figure 3.5B and Figure 3.7 is the sll100thcd and worn poinr of broken proximal cnd of rhe radius shown in figure 3.51". This rype of mourhing of bones thar produce higbly polished and chipped edges was not observed at Klasies River MOllth. The U:~ ol anintal gnawing Ilored 011 rhe Klasies bones was consistemly morr;~~.!J.h{) rhat illustrareu in Figure 3.8, which shows a canine puncture ma?r and masbed anu scooped-olll can-19 cellous rissue. (For more informatian, see Maguire and Pemberton j 980);':"-,73
62
3.
Thc KJasíes Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis
Assessmcnt nI [ntegrity
63
~.
,. Figure 3,B Oct.ail of tooth puncturc and scoopcd·ont ~oft tissuc on an ,lfticuJar end-cxamplc of tYPlcal modifications on bOlles !rom KIa~lc~ /{IVCI' Mouth l:xc'lvations.
Final1y, the anatomical-part frequencies at Klasies River are complerely out of Jine with the pnrts most commonly observed in hyaena denso In my sample, horn and skuIJ fragments coupled wirh neck parts were lllost comIllon (for ;ldditional dal;) scc Skinncr el al. f1980i). Ilowcver, lowcr limhs / _1-5 may dominate in somc cases, but these are frequcntly Ic...s fragmellrary than upper-limb bones. As we will see, the mas! intenríonally and extellsively percllssion-Eractured hones Klasies River Mourh are rhose of the lower limbs from medium- to large-body-size animals. In my opinion, the case for hyaena as an agent oE bone aecumulation at Klnsies River Mouth simply cannot bc made.
iJ
Figure 3.7 Dctail ¡hom Figurc 3.5FI of chippcd and sffinothcd pscudotool produccd by spottcd hyacna.
rov~~
L
Perhaps rhe ·most
t(,Yi:l't..!c
cha.r.acteris.tic of hyaena accum-ula~iHns are (1)
;~ Eair proportion oE c¿mplete hones; (2) many bones with one articular end
and a subsrancial secrion oE ,lttached 5haft; (3) a large number of bone-shaft cylinders, as illustr:ued in BinEord (1981: 173; 198201: In); and (4) very fe\V h(>Ilc splinrel's ;111<1 \Cgllll'1HS o{ diaphysis. J\lthougb [¡onc splill[crs were very cOJnmon ar Kla5ies, not onc bone cy/inder was observed. Complete bones were rare and then restricted to che slllallesc hovid spt'cies (a situation opposire ro that in hyaena accuJlluiations) and Illost long hones were hroken near ['he articular ends wirh impaet fractures, ch:uactcristically 1l1adc when abone is broken by percussion r;¡thcr th;¡n gnawed down attricionally the way ¡¡nimals reduce hones (see Bínford [1981: 169-1811 fol' a descriprion).
Assessment of Integrity Clcarly, African porcupines were active in Klasies Cave 1, particularly during rhe period of accumularion of Level 14. They <.:bewed Oll hones, leaving their tellr¡¡!c tooth-inflicted marks. They do nor, hnwcver, appear to have introduced hones ro the deposit Erom sources other than the surrounding archaeological deposits. The comparisons with other known porcupine accumulations c1early indica te a hiased chewing oE parts consistent with rbe anatomical-part-biased archaeological deposits that yield no evidence of
~,-~
(,.J
g ,
i
:~
Thc Klasics Fauna Approacbcs tu Annlysis
porcupincs. In short, tbcy were gnawing on horres already at the sire and wcre not modifying thc popularion throllgh the regular introduetion of parts from nonarchacological sources around the site. Thc cvidcnce for lcopards is provocative, particularly in thc presence of leopard bones rhemselvcs. Interestingly, like the porcupine evidence, this is conccnrrnrcd in Leve! 14. Nevcrrheless, the population of small-bovid parts in Leve! 14 is consistenr with rhe part frequencíes from Ievels nor yielding lcopard parts, and both are different frorn the invenrory of parts thus far documentcd for 5n131I bovids from leopard lairs. The activity of leopards is suspccred bur does not appcar to have impactcd rhe faunal population cxcovated frorn remnant dcposits in Leve! 14. -r--, l'inally, thc cvidcnce for hyaena use of the site as a den iii nil. The resulr of this assessrnenr is thar the faunal conrcnrs of the leve~sexEavated may he taken as pn'dominantly the resulr of hominid behcvior, and any infiuence of orher bone-accumulating agents appears ro be minimal to nonexistenr, and, if prcscnt, large\y restricred to leve! 14.
Units of Observation The archaeologist ohserves ao archaeological deposit in terms of sorne unir, rhe eonrcnts of which
""'\ Wymer 19H2) ¡]Ild Richard Klein (1976). Klcin's publicarion (1976) repons rhe freqllencics of anatomical parts fmm differem hody sizes of animals by Icvd, as gene rally described in the discussiol1s of the site. Klein, howevcr, gl'ncralized fram these observations 3 pattern; namely, that smal! anima\s were representcd br more complete anatomical inventories than wece lhe larger <1nimab. Further, the larger the animal, the greater the proh:lhililr lh;\! il v..'as rl'presenlnl all1\o'it l'xclu"i\Tly hy head and lowl'f Icgs. Thesl' gl'lll'falizJtiolls, \vhil..:h attractcJ me ro the study of Klasies materíal, weCl' offered ¡1S characteristic nf all the unÍts (lf observatíon frum Kbsics Rivcr MOllth. Of UlllrSe, it is possihle that the p;.Hterning described hr Kkin is the c1UIlCC rcsult nf collapsing a numbcr of 1I11like sllhpopulations ioto giant palimpscsts, the combined properties of which are differem from lhe properties (lf any nf íts comrihutors.
Inforrn.mon Clliding Obscrv.uion and Anal ys¡s
6S
Actually, evcn a casual inspection of the rabies prcsenred by Klcin (1976:Tahles 9-13) substantiares his c1aim. The level-by-levcl rahularious show hrtlc vanability in anaromical-parr frcquencics, and nll are bnsically consisrenr with Klein's gcneraliaarions. This is the type uf pattern thar we as archaeologists should be sceking ro recognize (scc my criticisrn of the episodal reconstrucnonisr's view in Binford 198 L:197- 198). A major pattcrn such as that suggeued by Klein's cornparative work demands cxplannrion. If we can understand such a macroscale partcrn, thcn wc are raking a major step forward in our ability to understand something of rhe chaructcr of thc past. Because 1 sought to understand the proccsscs thar operated to creare rhe pattcnning desctihed by Klein, 1 chosc ro use as my initial unir of observation the entirc population of bones rccovcrcd from rhe M5A levcls of Klasies Rivcr Mourh Cave l. My interesr was ro sce if there wcre not sorne additional properrics of rhe nones that could be obscrvcd ro vary in a manner pauerned at the same scalc as geueralized hy Klcin. Kkin had already soned the faunJ from Klasics River Mouth into boxes oí anatornical parts segrcgated by species. I studied these unit . . , species differentiated by body parr. My observations, then, werc in tCflns of lhe analytic units used by Klein for describing the assemblagc composition of the original excavators' units of observation, the Icvels ~lnd squares. The species units were, of course, the unirs in terms of which Klein recognizcd the provocative differential distribution of anaromical parts among spccies of diffcrcnt hody size. My procedure was ro tabubte the frequenc)' oí MNE for ea eh spccies and to make observations on the frequencics of inflicrcd marks. hreakagc, and other clues to rhe pasr history of the bones by species and ,lI\;ltomical-part dasses. Jf I could undcrstand sOll\e of the r:lttcrncd variabilit)' 110tCJ within the fauna\ population in thesc H:rms, :1I1d if lhat variability was correlated with rhe anatomical-part frequency patterning gener:lli7l'd by Klcin, thl'n I might have a foot in the ooor ro evalllilfc the meanings to be attachcd to the pattcrning deseribed by Klcin. This point brings me ful! circle back to a basic issue rai~ed in my introduction-namely, how do we use our available knowledge to guide OUT observations?
lnformation Guiding Observation and Analysis As I h,\Vl' sllggcsteJ, 1-useci-klloce Icdge~Pt:I'¡Hg- the parrs ;lpt to be exploited by humers versus those that are apt to be availahle to a scavenger as a guidc to selecting' thc Klasi'es'River Mourh fauna'a-s- a ~
~rI·-
3. Thc Klasícs Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis
(¡(¡
i
~1
~,
} h
~
f,
<,
~
Given the opportunity to study the fauna, 1 pursued ccrtain systernatic lines of inquiry and rccording, particularly with regard te (1) breukagc of anatomical parts. (2) inflicred marks from tools, (3) inflicted marks from animal reeth, and (4) ~e of burning. These c1asses of phenomena were cbosen becausc 1 alrendy had sorne experience that led me ro believe that in pattcrned combinations of these properties, coupled with anatomical-part frequencics, rherc mighr well rest criteria unambiguously diagnostic of scavcnging. When developing ways ohecogniling"'eavenging'rlrro1Jg1T'tIi~mtIY'óf animal bones, we rnust put into place the contra/s-che known conditions rhat wc use in establishing diagnosric characterisucs indicativo of the acrions in the pasr wc scek ro know. Of fundamental importauce is thc rccognition thar whcn a h~l1-or an)' agent, for thar matter-selccrs and removes anatomical purts from a largcr population. thc proportions prcsent at rhe time of sclection and rhc condition of the parts available for sclccrion inftucncc the numctical forrn of the popular ion selectcd. as welI as thc formal conJirian of rhe pan, in rhar popularion as seen at a brer time. In lessabsrra(r H:rms: When 3 hunrcr kills an animal, the entire complement of anatomical pan is available for sdcction and use by rhe hunte!'. In addition, all the hOlles are in "mint" conditions; rhar i5, Jny modifiC:Hions (l/l rhe bones happcned as a result of the cOlldíriuns experienced by rhe living animal. The hasclíne porubtion available for use by a huntcr, rhen, is a population of bones thar is ullJ110dified by extraneous agenrs and is complete with regard to the anatorny of rhe species hunred. On rhe othcr hand, if an agent is scavenging, it is Iikcly that the anat\. omy of rhe prey individual is Illodificd :lway from ils original form hy virltlc ~\ (lf COllstllllprion anJ trJl1sport of parts by rhe originJI predator, as Wl'1\ <1S by ,\ t.l. J series of other prcdaror-seavengers fced~ng hefore the. scavengcr o.E .in"\ lerest sdcets r~lrrs for use. If we could speclfy rhe gcnerahzed CompOSltlon . : of rhis prcdaror-scavcnger-modified population of anatomical parrs reLmaining at kill-Jeath sires, wc would he in a position to know whar was availahle for use by a late-arriving hominid scavenger. In an earlier stud)' (Binford 1981), I sumrnarizcd informarion then availahle regarding lhe eomposition oí faunal assemhlagcs thar survived rhe carly "r:l~cs of llonhul1l,-lll prcd:ltor-scavenger constll11ption. Sino: rhen a ~ 1 it srlldy hy Ri..: h:lrdson (19XOa,b) supplics :lddirional controllcd obscrvations on a nUlllht:r ot bers of interest. I eOllsidcr Richardson's study oí majar importancc hccausc he observed 89 careasscs ovcr a considerahle period of time, actllally identifying the scavcllgers that fed on the carcasscs. Richardson C'aablishcd hlinds cith<:r adjacent to carcJsscs placcd out as bJit or near natural dcath srtes'SO rh:1I he could observe the visirors to rhe ~and rhe characrer of thcir consumprion, as well as the conseqllences of feeding on
6
f
j,¿v -
u.c.,' ~
_1...1. ", e-J "" S,,<
/-.1,- IV>1""", ~ ) ~f.
reJ·-~f
jnformatinn Cuiding Obscrvarion and Analvsis
ó7
rhe Iorm of thc rernaining boncs. Richardson observed changcs in thc survivorsbip of bonos as a funetion of the duration of exposure ro scavcnger feeding. He also notcd the sequence of modiñcatiou or darnage ro different bony parts in terms of borh the species diffcrcnccs among the observed agents and the intensity and diversity of fceders. T able 4.31 summarizes rhc frequencies of anaromical parts rernaining on the carcass locations obscrved by Richardson aftcr scuvcngers had cea sed to feed. In addition, informarion is supplied regarding rhe percenrage of rhc surviving hones thar show damage in the forms of tooth scoring, pittiug, and scooped-out ureas of cancellous nssue; in other words, recognizable modificnrions typically produccd hy gnawing anirnals (for detailed descriprions. ser Binford 1981: 35-86; Hrain 1981:138-144; Maguire and Pembcrton 1980). Figure ).9 illustrn tes the relarionship between the frequencies of parts rcmaining at the sites of scavenged carcasses, as documcnted by Richardson. and the population of parts rernaimng on sites obviously rcported whcrc primary predators had consumed parrs at the sites of a suecessful kili (Binford 1981:230, Column 2). lr should be clear that there is a strong, positive, curvilillear relationship hetween rhe two s3mples. T-ite-dtfferences:·Pcllect dtfferences rn scak; rhat is, rhe scavenged·carG3SSeS are not as extensively exploited as are the carcasses representing primary kilIs by predators most of rhe rime. On the other hand, the pattern of exploitation is rOllghly thc samt· foc primary prcdarors and secondary scavengers. This gencral1y 1111'ans rhat, for a SClVcnger, a grearer amount of usable food is available at sires of natural death iE the scavcnger can ger there shortly after death, whereas parts of decreasing utiliry will he more ~enerally ohtainablc from kili sitcs produce..! by active prt'lbtor~.
The next step in dcveloping recognition critcria for a populatioll of bones SGI\'cngcd alld suhsequently introdueed as coml'ql1cnces of hominid huming eHorrs illvolves bcing able ro (1) anticipate or dl'll1onstrare the bias in selcctioT1 that the.: <;cavcnger would he forced to follow, givcll the composition of the populJtioll availablc; and (2) dcmonstrare lhe sta te of the p;:¡rrs availablc for selection. \X/hat is the state of rhe bOllcs idcntifiahle by vinlle of toorh marks, brcakage, alld so forth made hcfon: rhe hominid SGlVcnger selected p,-urs fur use? I have in rnind the faet rhar :l. ClfG1SS in all African s(·tting is ratbc!' quickly attackeJ h}' flies, and will :llso he desicc:l.tcd in the gencrally dry scttings. This means that the carcass GlIlnot he disrnel11bercd in rhe same way as a frc'ih carcass, because the rncchanics ¡lre {Otany differenr for J stiff and dry carcass than for J fresh and supplc one. Rclurning ro the original proposition, the basdillc :lvaibblc for use hy a !Jlmta is a poplllarion of anatotllical parts ullll10Jificd by exrrancous agents, and complete as regards rhe anatorny of rhe specics hunted. By way of contrast, ,ve must emphasize that the-'baseH1'lc 'popui-atioll' availahle for
~f?,"I
I,R
3.
%
''''0
~
,
90
'if 2
eA.T
~
2
• .OH
¿4 {)
70
i'J¿'"
60
W~
so
o
40
2 ~ Oc)
~c.
.......;>
I..-Ut.!.
-
eDl"" epii:C
p.e ept-/lc,
.OMe.. A~T.
O
w
(
"
H
O ( JIl<.'
OJ
r;
~
O
z
30 ~
... e •
¡"Te .is,
~ ~ Z -
01
0
,
o
JO
MOD~L-
Ptgure 3.9
ZO
30
D..........- A
40
50
PRED.A.TO'R..
60 KJL..L.
70
eo
90
100"
A~6E.MeL.Ac:..&
Compunsons bctwccn Richardson's 1IYHOl control data and mojel Jata
(Binfnrd 191-\1: Tnblc 'l,OR, COIUIllIl 2) about thc cornposiuon ot~cavl'llgeJ C
tion.
DI{, dist.rl humcrus, DMC, distal metac:npal¡ LJMT, di"I;!] n1l:t
11 (
1,
'f
'lllclIger.;¡ populatiol1 of hOlles gCIH'Lllly IllOdificd al1d rav;lged a»'i~Jn'f'~ete, modthetÍ-;"':fi'i'd"'bt3'St'a
hy l'xtr;lI1COI1~ agcllts anJ surviving as
ilw(.'ntory--ohulMnmfrn+~,. 1 luve alreJJy presented data rhar provide a rcliahle descriprion of thc compositioJl of this biascd baseline population. SluJie~ of wolvc'i in t\la~ka amI (lTIJlnly) !ion kil1s in ccntr31 Africa (Binford ILJH 1), and n~)\v \:;H(a,,~CS in a SOllth African sctting (Tablc 4.31) aH con~ verge to r('intorcl' Ol1e allother in jllstifying the generali7.ation thar preda~ tor-scavellgers gener;lll~' consume prey carcasses in a faidy regular se-
(,9
quence, so that the major differences in rhe anaromical invcntory remaining from predation-scavenging at the kill locations are primarily a funcrion of the intensiry of the feeding and cornpetirion among consumers at rhe sitc. In short, wc can specify fairlv accurately the composition of the parcnt population from which a scavengcr would have to draw his samplc for cirhcr imrnediate consumption or transport elsewhere. (Tbis modcl parent population is sumrnarized in Binford 1981:Table 5.08, Columns 2 and 6.) In addition ro knowing the average form of the population of parts availablc ro a scavenger, we also anticipare the parts within that population that a food sccker would tend to selecr. Stared anorher way, if we know the disrribution of ediblc material on the anatomy of an nngulatc, and we know somcthing abour rhc charactcr of parts apt ro survivc iniria] fccding by nonhominid killers or other scavengcrs, ~n ansieipate rhe characrer of rhe population of parta most ~~k-t!'ly to be systematically recovered by a... hominid .scavenger for use as focd (seo, for instancc, the modcl givcn in Binford 1978: 188, Column 2). Unfortunatcly, as is the case in many situations, thc form of a faunal assemblagc expected from scavenging is not totally unambiguous. There are known cootexts in which modero humans may generare a population of anatornical parts thar dosel)' mimic the cornposition of ;1 population of parts remaining on animal kili sires {see Binford 197H:T~lhlc S.l; and 1981:233), as wcll as derived or rransporrcd samplcs from sucb a population (see Binford 1981 :236). Tbis means that, giVl'll our current levels of understandiug, identification of the products of hunting versus scavcnging cannot resr cxclusively on facrs of assemhlage cornposition. Thcrc must be other propcrtics of assemblages within this idenrifiable class of assemblage forms that, if known, would permit a rcsolurion of arnbiguiries in identifica-
.c.,...."" AV.
eOM. . ePT eOT THORe .DR.C PH • Pt.IlT
wIII
" '("
Infurmatíon Cuiding ObsL'rvation and Analysis
Thc Klasics Fauna: Approaches to Analysis
! I
t-¡'6R
1 had the opportlllliry to observe a numher of ClrC1SSl.'S fmm borh natural dearhs and p~_eda!(2r kill_s in the Nossob River arca of Sotlth Africa and Botswalla",- aS well as ('h;ewhere~;iv1y observarions ')()ughr our properties manifestcd on Done a~5Cmblages that would providc an ohserver with c1ucs to rhe statt' of an anatumical part at rhe time it was transporrcd or sclected for use by a scavcnger. As a result of these experiences, 1 reached two prilll"ip;lll'Ol1dusiol1s: (1) Knivcs are gCIH:rall)' indfcl·tu;ll t(Job for butdll'ring or disJllclllhcring p~lfti;llly dry or scmidesiccatl'd ClfC1SSCS. Thc ski n is more of rhe consistl'ncy of wood than learhcr, and the botlnd condirion of rendons (Figllfl' 3.10) anJ ligamt'nts "freeze" rhe joints, ll1;lking butchcring wirh l'urtjn~ illlpkmcnrs rhrough the poillts of articulariol1 ver)' difficlllt. A combin
3. The Klasics Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis
70
,..
l"~;:
"'. r-:. 4 ·
--
;~';.... :~",,~:
-"~'
-l-'
_"
"-
"
.>-;. ...
.~;
Inform.uion Cuiding Ohscrvation and Analysis
71
. :; . ...r ot. ••;~~~
.......
f!It:,,< V;.; . ~:(.., .... )
.
.' ~';';,,:, .~ ~.
'l :- .:l .í!>"
Figure 3.10
Ravagcd wildchcest carcnsx in tln- Nossob Rivcr vallcv
joints apart in conjuncnon with further hacking preved the mosr effective \Vay of dismembcring stiff,.R.nd.~artially dry scgmcnts of the anatomv. Thc use of a knife for short. MiCÜ-lg cuts was atrnosr totally ineffectual. This means rhat (2) rhe rcmoval of anatornical scgmcnts from a carcass in a drying sta te, prcviouslv fcd upon by other nniruu!s. is ccrrain to result in a
diffcrcnt pattern of cut, huck, and chop marks than will thc butchering of a fresh carcass, evcn if a cleaver-type strategy is used. A furthcr sct uf obscrvanons were made in rhe field: rhc state of rhe carcass at rhe time of scavcngiug will condition whcrc burcbering or the cutung-off of P;lrh will OCCIlr. "lh¡s dismcmbcnucnt Iocus relativo lo thc gro\iS anatomy of a dricd G1rOS$ is different from dismembertnenr points selected whcn faccd wirh ;1 n-l.uivcly complete, írcsh carcnss. l-or cxaruple, Figure 3,11 illusrrarcs a mulc-dcer carcass rhat I observed within thc upper Kootenec drainage of Montana. Ir had been exrensivcly fed upon by coyotes, but was sril! l'sscntially in a scmifrcsh stare in rhe .'len.'lc rhar the hOlle marrow and .'lome of rhe meat wcre stil! usable and had nor yer bcgan to exhibit evidence of putrefaction, although flies were presento Whar should be dl'ar i.'l that, at (his srage, rhe parts tllar had not heen consurned and rav;lged Wl're rhe lowl'f Icgs and fhl' he.al. Tlll' emire hody caviry had heel1 0pcllcd, ;md horh 1ll1lsc1c and soft lisSLll' had heell cOll.'lumeu by rhe coyotes, If I \\'l'ft.' a SGl\'l'llger and deciJed to rt.'lllOVt.' from this carcass parts \Virh a marginal hUI slill-col1slIlllahlc potcntial, I \\'otlld fOCllS my di...memhertllelH strategil's cither at the Jndacarpal-radiu:-, joinr nr 011 the proximal tibia-distal femoral jOillt. BOlles above these points in this Gl~l' (ould be expectt·J ro l'xhilllt toorh rnJrh derived from Gunivore activity, On orher carcasses wherc (ollsumption had not proceedcd quite so far. di"Mrinl1atioll
Figure 3,11
Dccr carcass íed upon bv coyotes in Montana.
mighr be focuscd at the femoral-pclvic articularion and at rhe distal hurnerus-c-ptoxima] radiocubitus juncrion. In ;:Iny cvcur, onc could cxpcct
hacking nnd dlOpping lo be manifcsr beca me rhc tough, atr.tchcd skin and the stiff joinrs would tender a knife essenrially uselcss. Scavenging in the aboye case might also be characrcrizcd by an attempr ro rcmove the head with irs still usable tengue, soft fatty parts bchind the cyes, and in orhcr canccllous fossn of thc skull. Field obscrvations and cxpcrirncnr lcad me ro CXpt'CI th.u if a l()ol-lIsing scavcngcr dismcmhcrcd pan . . rcruaining at sitcs of ravaged carcasses. dismemberrnent marks would he concenttated at articulations gcncrully hclow ends aud surfnccs whcrc cvidcucc of carnivore gnawing might he loca red. In addiuon, those dismemhcrmrllt m:1fks effected on older carClsses would gcnerally be chop and hack rnarks, indil-ative of coping witll .'ltiff and partially desiccatcd skin and tClldon. finally~ cven when a carcass is nor extensively Jricd bur is already stiff, a number ot problems are presented to a butcher. Wln'll hutchering a supplc carcass with tools, rhe joint may be manipulated to cxert pressure on musell'S and tcndol1";, Ihercforc rendering cuttil\~ J rc!arivcly ca,,)' t;lsk. But when a carc;]ss is stiff, the joints are generally f)()lllld-the rissllc has shrunk and lockcd the articulation inro a fixed positj(\I1 , 1l1:\king manipu!arioll of the joint imrossib1c. This means that the orienrarioll of nlts rdative ro the shape of bOlles will gener311y be in regular and dcrermi!lcd places, rarher rhan the more comlllOIl sitllarion in \vhich rhe orient:1tion nf rhe cut "ihifts as the joint is flexed during dismemberrnent. Thcre are many other mechanicll comequences of a stiff versus a supple carcass, which 1 introduce as rhe
r
~
['3;-'ki-f"''''
( J7.d) .72
...... ;{'
~ ~
~
~A'¡-
te 3. Thc Klasics Fauna: Approachcs to Analvsis
spccifics of anatnmy are nddressed. Suffice ir (O say that (1) patterned.properties.of placemeur.and .orienrarioarocur marks should aid in judging tbe I sratc oí the (~§-·aLtht;.lünc,-of,dismembermenr, and (2) disrnemberrnent I uf parts during a scnvcnging cpisode can be cxpecred ro cope rnost oftcn ! with a carcass that is stiff, with relntively inflexible joints. . Observations and ñeld experirnenrs lead me to such cxpectations. Thcre was not, however, a body oí eontrollcd data from known scavenging contcxts to use for descrihing exactly what form these expectations might rakc whcn seco in rerms of starisrical frequencies, as well as clusrcred associations of anatomical parts and rool-crooth-inflicred marks. 011 the orher hand, 1did havc available samples from sorne Nunamuit Eskimo sires where rhe behavioral conrexrs werc known and, in the light of the scavcnging problerns, could he studied to provide J control on what processing of frcsh carcasses looked likc when viewed in terrns of dismembermeru marks and rnarks derived frorn filleting meato Table 3.3 summarizes ohscrvations made on a faunal assl'llIhbge collcctcd at Anakruvuk villnge in Aluska during 1971. This asscmblugc has bcen prcviously dcscribcd (Binford 1978: 123-125, particularly Tablc 3.8, Columus 1 and 2) and represenrs the ... cssentially complete caribou carcasses for parts to be dchris from pruccssing placcd on J~)[ing r¿~~kj. The parts were bcing dismcmbered in anricipation of the part ro he dried. In addition, the parts of grcnrcsr food utiliry were bcing fillcrcd so the mear could he dried in strip fashion. This mcans rhat fillering was conccntrarcd 011 rhe parts of greutest utility as far as mear yields wcre concomed (ser Binford [1978:15-45J for a discussion of thcse poinrs}. Tablc 3.3 summarizes the cut marks obscrved 011 rhe bones recovered from rhis Eskimo disrncmbcrrncnr-fdlenng opcration. Thc marks inflicted :l~ :1 conscqucncc of dismcmbcrrncnt acrs are rubulatcd in Columns 3 ami 4, whcreas the mnrks inflicted during filleting orerations (see Binford f 1981 J t'or ,1 dc... niptioll (Jf the two \.11"'''í.'S uf IIl;\rks) are presel1lcd 011 Columns .' and 6. Figure 3.12 illustrates the rclations between the frequencies of these two c1asscs relative to the gross anatomy of ungulates. Dismemberment marks are concentrat~d 00 the: occipital coodyles and the atlas vertebral', dcriving from t1w..l'cvcring'Qf the head by cutting from the dorsal surface just hchind the skull inio rhe artictllatioll hctwecn the atlas and occipit;ll con~ dyks, Dislllclllhcrlllí.·lll l1I,lrks 3rc also prCSL'1lt in high frClIlIl'lIq' on the pclvc:s, dl'fiving fmm clltting off the dislocated rear leg-something only reaHy possihlc whcn a carcass is fresh, Dismemherment J1l
~~~
o
~~1~0~~~~~~-
~l~~
.
··0
~1~~'n~I'~_~_O_
~~_~~oo
'o
__ o ·····0
~ln~
~oo o
·000
-o
" "
~.=:; o _"~ o 0~
7e.
C~~~O~N.n_~~oo~~_NO_~OO~~I_OM_COO
MM-
_
N~
~:=
~
-" -,; U
"
"~
-e ~
M~IM
ox~oo
OM_CO~OO~OO~~~OOOO~~~rlOOOOCOOO
MO
.
~l~~
·00'
:':.:!
~-o
'0000
MM
~s-c''?
·00
o
OOM -t ,re "'l'"
.
·00000000
--
OM _ _
'·0
~~-o
O~~~M~~~"'l
_
o
M _
~-~M~OO a M - o
o _
E
-~OO o
~
·0'·'·····0···
"O'
·000
"
2:
~ ~
"
E
g '," "
~
'
e
"' 00 ~
"Eo
"s s '=' ':,J~
a
¡;
o,
-e ~ ~ ¡;
-o
Z
-g • ~ u -+
5
,"e
;::¡
-
E --
.Q ~
O~~
e
-"~ "::1 ,,",-, '-'l
,
000
-...
o -t-
~ ~
o
S
'n o _ '"'::
N
-e
~
...,. -
M
o
rr;
'n ::::;
H)
c--l ..... o
N
......
o o o
"'"s ..';
~
~ :§
3
o•
:;:", <-
""'~:<-
-----OH) _
"'
"s § §
~MMMO~~~""'MM~~~~~~~~
--N
MM--
.B
u ~ ~ '" .... OJ_
"-
o
r~~
·C ~O~...,....,.-H)--
tiu
~
""'-t~I~I-_-t...,....,.~\--
-"
~
;;
__
""'O~I"",~'n~ooc--I~I-t~~~OOOOOOO~""''''''~I~lrl~I~I~lrlrl
c.J
.....
;:;.5 -;V; .5 -;:;; .5)( -;:;; .5 -;5 o;¡ -; ~ § § -; p."'g ~ :;; .tl :;; :;; o .l:: >< 1.1..c 2::: i:'l B ... B .- e ... e ... e ... B .... ::: ~..L:: ~~~<~u~~_~~~o~o~o~o~o~~u~o~~~
t; __ -d -;::::;:; c:: c:: ..!t: ~
<1>
~ ...
::
~
~
~..2 El o El o
~
-;
m-;~~~--;S-;z-;~
-;:: ... 5 :;l
<1>
Q.
~
~
,5:~
oo.E ~ fr..... ~ 2 : l .;: C"'C:: .. ", o::!"'C::-;'" ~ E"OE"'OJ:l .......... _~ ..... oo"'P-"'_ ..... :l"'COJP..c:l OJ ............ r'Il
"'>r'Il
::c
MNM_
~
lo<
:;;
~
<":l 00
~
'"
~
•~
"
"5i
~
o.
3. The Klasics Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis
74
DI~M E.M BE.RI
FIl..L..CT' N4
MAR.I(.,s
...;~I
MA.N~/IJ,-e;
My work wirh the Nunamiut Eskimo and compar.uivc studics of other
An..AO
faunal assernblages produced__ JurJlllJy._.!'apient Il1Jn sbow a further relation-
AXI.6 CEii!VICAL- VERT. 7HO~ACIC VE,€T.
"'.:.".,.,.. ,~-
~
R/~~
LVM~""Je
Ve..er.
;:::'EL. VI Ó
3CAPULA .PJi!O>OMAL HUME./i?U.6 DI'::>TAt- HUNfEi<:U6 P.eOXIMAI.- R',A.otOCuSJTUd
DI.¡5TAL. ¡¿'AcuoCueITU.$
CA~PAL:6
..
PKOXIMA'- MeTAcARPAI.-
DI47"""'- ME.TACA~PA' P..eOXIMAI.- Fe;IWu/c' D/doTAL. F~MLlJIl! P~OXNo,"',AL.. 7161A Df~TA4TiI3IA CAL.CANEU.$
A..:STR'AG..... LU6 Oruec
•
' ''''' ''
t:,··.;".:,;,;,·~,,+-··
3 ra
-t-'-' (
,:,<,.< ,,:,; .:;.::"¡ -
O
r.}~
~"..¡JT'".
«O'
rA~l-~
P..eOXINf,A.L,. Me:.TArA~~AL DI&TAL- ME.TA7"AIe~AI PJ-/AL-ANGEf:,:!S )6T. • znii.
..
::v
O
..-<
".~
JI.
.,
~,
+11
O 10 lO~40506070ao90IOO%
t m]
FiJ;urcJ.12 dutu].
7.í
2. Thcre js a direcr relntionship hcrwcen thc placcrncnt and frcqueney of tool-inflicted marks and rhe placement and frcqucncy of fillctiug acts directed at particular anatornical locations.
MARK~7
'"
HORN /vIA)(/.
"le..
Informauon Cuiding Obscrvanon and Analvsis
I'crccnr.rgc of rccovcrcd boncs r xhiluting cut marks [Nunnrniur con-
upper limbs for dryin¡!, :IS srrips, or lcft in a sheet attachcd ro thc sc.tpulu [scc
Rinford [197H J for a dcscription of these actions). Marks inflicteJ on rhe bOlles during fillering operations wcre therefore conccntratrd along rhe dor~ sal spincs of rhe vertebrae, partieularly the thoracie and lumbar vertebral'. Thcse were inflicted at the time of the removal of rhe tenderloin. Orhcrs \"Tn: on the scaplIla, where the mear of rhe shoulder was cut back from the hone, and on the femur, where rhe heaviesr mllsdc mJSS is loeated on rhe cniboll. We may generalizc rhat rhe position and frequency of marks inflicted dllring dismemherrTIent are direet fllnetions of rhe mcchanies of dismcmberment.
1. There is a dirccr relationship bctwcen the placemcflt and frcqucney of rool-inflicred marks and rhe placemem and frequem::y of Jismemhl.:rmel1t aet~ direered ar pallll.:uLu anatomicalloeatjol1s,
ship betwccu rhe foc~:.l~rejl-s~~~_st5~~
1. Wc know sOlllcthing of the form of the population of parrs remainillg at carcasses that \vould be available for selcctioll by a hominid scavengcr. 2. Wc (an assume that feeding is the seavengce's goal, and therefore Ihe selcction of parts from this remaining popul:ttioll wOllld be in tcrllls of food ulilít}'. 3. We know roughly the disrribution of usablc foods on the anatomy nf ungulates, so we can anticipare rhe content of ;1 pnpulation of
3
76
Thc Klastcs Fauna: Approachcs ro Analysts
parrs selected from a known baseline population in tcrms of criteria
of food utility. 4. Expcricnccs wirh cnrcasses have led to thc rcalization thar thc O1Cclianics of drying rarcasses are differcnr rhan thc mechanics of fresh, supple carcasses. This bcing so, we can anticipare sorne differcnces in the kinds of rools regulad y used and the dismernberment tacncs cmployed, as rhey are directly conditioned by the stare of the carcasscs bcing dismcmbered. In nddirion, 1 havc sorne controlled data on cut marks from popuiaticns of animals hunred by man, and a general undcrstanding of human hunring ractics. I know in sorne dcrail rhe difficulty of disrncmbcring a dry C;:1rC1SS. 00 rhe orher hand, I do not know the detnilcd character, or the specific
""i~
,'1
placement, of marks resulring from repeated acts of dismembering dry carcasscs. I also do not know the range of possible alrcmativc ways of solving thc sriff-carcasscs problcm. Pur unother wa y, I cannor go dircctly from rny actual expcrtences ro J rcalistic anticipation of the formal propertics rhat might characrerizc an archaeological assemblage produced as a resulr of repeated ucts of scavcnging, in which rhe agcnts faced all thc problems ol selcction and processing pecufiarities outlined here. In ordcr to develop ao unarnhiguous, expanded ddinition of scaveng· ing th;¡t includl's rropcrtil'S other than those of ~ls.scmblagl' composirioll, I must work from hot" ends. As indicated, I have soughr our acrualisric expericnccs judged ro he rclevanr to the proptrries porenrial1y observahle an.:h:1cologically. \'Vhat is necded now is a gond idea of rhe lorms rhar rhese properric'l ukt Wh<:ll '>t'en in archaeological materials. SilKl' I hnvt' IlO directly controllcd G1SCS-as I did, for ínstancc, with rhe Jismemhermcnr frOIll hunred anim;l1s or from ~1I1imal transporred assemblnges-rhe next besr ,,>tratcgy is to scck out ~lfch'll'ol()gieally n'(o\,(.'red r.lseS thar lll"'l,.'r all the formal propcrril's of a partial dcfinition for Ihe recognirion ot a srav",ngcd assemblage, This type of search considerably narrows rhe potentially releV3nt assemblages that could be stlldied for further insighls intu patrerning possihly dcrivcd from <;cavcnging. A sc!ecrion fraIn this grOllp of provocariv\'.' asseInhl.1gcs cOllld Ihen be made far det:.lilcd study, If, on dl'tailed srudy, rh", fornl:11 prorl'nies of stlch ;tuributes as hrl'ak;lge, anim,ll gllawing, :lnd cllt-mark pbrl'll1cm ;lIld {orms could bl' showll ro he consisrl'llr with the kllowledgc already availahle regarding the general types of pntterns expected \,,'íthín a s(avcnged assemblage, we would have raken a first hig srep to'Vard pro\'iding an cxp¡mdcd definition oí scavenging for lIse in di.lgnosillg orher asscmblages. Cle:.lrly, this srrategy is only providing a watereddown link her\\'een rhe "bear and the footprint" (see Binford 1981 :26-27), bur it does provide derailed information abom parterns in rhe archaeological record in terms of which more actualistic researeh could be planned. 1
Middlc Sronc Agc An.nomical-I'an Frcqucncics frum Klasic-, Rivcr Mourh Cave 1
77
am fuirlv convinced rhat we must work back and forrh betwccn dvnamic and static cxpcrienccs. This is because rny own ficldwork 11;1.'1 shown rcpcatedly rhat, when working in an actualisric conrext. I am frcqucntly unnwarc of the character of srar¡c parrcming: hence, 1 would he unable to scck out really uscful information from acrualisnc expcricnccs. Sinularly, whcn l srudy thc archaeological record for formal partcrning, I alrnosr always see partcrns that are not undcrsrood. We must contiuoally rake knowledge of sratics ro dynamic experienccs, and in rurn bring a knowiedgc of sratics ro rhe scarcli for formal patrerns.
Middle Stone Age Anatornical-Part Frequencies from Klasies River Mouth Cave 1 A numbcr of researchcrs have nored that although it is sometimos difficuir ro idcnrify bones as lo spccies, they can ncverthelcss be assigned to general categorics such as bovíds, and ro different body-size classcs. C. K. Brain (1969,1974) was one of the firsr ro suggest rhe systematic comparison alUong frequcllcies of h()Ilt"S hum differem· h-ody·o;r-ze da~~es. BecllIsc Brain was intnestcd in rhe dil't of diffcrcnt Africlll cHlli\'on:s, he \\';lS v...dl awnrc of differcllces among rhe variOllS earnivores in the pre), ¡"lilf:{C, or the spedfic· size and type of nllimal on which they preferentially preyed. Body size was thoughr tI) be nl1 importanr v;lriahlt\ rcflrcting sOI1Kthing of rhe food-proCurelllellt tactic~ of various preJators. Richard Klein bnsically accepted the size c1as'>c<; rhat Rrain had pre· vious1y ~tlggcsredt wirh rhe added ohsCTI,,;ltioll rh,lt rhe gi:IIH buffalo, PcIonn'IS, ~hOllld pcrhaps he rccognized as repreSt'lltillg;1I1 itltkpendcllt hodysize c1ass bccause it \\"<1~ roughly dauble the sizc of the nniJll:.lls included in Brain's body-sizc cbss IV. The size classcs into which Ihe nllill13ls bl'ing studíed have heen grouped are:
5i;:(' Class ¡ (Small B(wids) C1nss I incllldcs the hlue duikcr. Cape gryshok. alld orihi. These nre ;111 hovids weighing bctwecn [5 and 50 pounds. Thcir size rauge is jnJicated in Figure J. UA. Size Class 11 (Small-Medium Bovids) Cbss 11 accommodares vaalrhd)(lk, mOlll1raín rcedhuck, springbok, and Imshhuck. lhe animals rangt' betwcell 70 and Il O pOlll1ds. lh!.: rdativl' sizc is inJi~ cltcd by the sCllcd figure of a bushbu(k (hgun: J.I3B). Sizc Class Ell (A'kdium--Largc Bot'ids) ClaS\ III indudes animals as small JS approximarely 150 pounds IIp ro animJls approaching 400 pOllnds in body weight. Typicll anim.l!s inelude sOllthern
3.
7H
,
/ ,
"
t
l
I
-"w.
"
,,,
'~W '<....:?\..
" ',,,'
I¡.
I
.'
.t .
¡;
".111"""''' l'
r
¿ '
l(: 1 ~l~>, r.;, ( (L,{ ~\ ._
•
,;.
'"
~.;; r
l. '.
., ,,1.
11 '>-
111'
..t,¡,
e
.~.~-_..~'1i.\-
<:~ .
J/.'
"
i" ~;( !(~.'1
,.i
-'~'.'~,
~,.• '
"
Tabulation of Klasics Rivcr Mouth Cave 1 Fauna by Klcin
Bovid ctass size
J' :\
II I
Smoll-'
~
F
Anatomicul nart
"'-.
(1(iJ .
'
'.' '·1' • -;¡'
\
_.
• /
¡'l' \' '1 ,11 . '.'
.~.. : r/<" i)J '-!l. ~. ,\
,.. ¿y.
f
B
l·
'
• i
,'." ,.
' ) .....' . -'.'
'Y.
79
TABLE .l.4
'iI-!V
I
iCO'''~
E.
Middlc Stonc Agc Anaronucal- Part Fr('4111:mic~ from Klasics Rivcr Mouth Cave 1
Thc Klasies Fauna: Approachcs ro Analysis
" .1 '6 1'1
.
o
Figure 3.13 Scalc comparison among spccies rcprcscnting diffcrcnt bndv-stzc classes uscd in this studv. {Scc tcxt for idcntification of A-f.)
rcedbuck, blue untelope, bastard hartebecst, hartebeest, wildcbeest, ami kudu. This class is rcprcscnrcd by a hluc wildcbccsr (Fi~urcl.l3C) ami thc grcater kudu (Figure l.l.lD), Síze Class IV (/Alrgc Bovids) Animals in c1ass IV are considered large aud includc rile Cape huffalo and the cland (both 2000 pounds). Thcsc are shown on figures 3.IJE and 3,13f, rcspcctively. Size Class V (Very Large BOl'ids) In this analysis, body-sne class V includes only the extincr giant buffalo, Pelorouis, which weighed approximately 4000 pounds. Borh thc earlier study of the Klasies fauna by Klein (1976) and my n-sunlv h;l\l' l'll1plll)'l'd thcsc hody-sizc c.ltq~llrics as importnnr annlyuc unirs. Tabk- 3,4 suuunnrizcs the information tabulntcd hy Richard Klcin (1976) using his ohscrvational convenrions (MNls), and Table 3.5 presenta tlll' S;ll111' m.ucri.rl t.il-ul.ucd hy my obscrv.uioual couvcntiuns (1\INEs uud MAUs). Both tablcs are presented in tetms of lhe f¡ve animal body-size dasscs uscd by Klcin (1976) for describing the fauna in his iIlitial studies,
Hnrn Occipital condylc Maxillary are Maxillary teeth Mandihular rccth Atlas
Axis Cervical vertebrac Thoracic vertebrac Lumbar vcrtcbrac Innomínatc Seapula Proximal humcrus Distal humcrus Proximal radiocubitus Distal radíocubitus Carpals Proximal mctacarpal Distal mctacnrpal Proximal fcmur Distal k-mur Proximal tibia Distal tibia
IV
V
[arge'
Large d
Very Jorge"
%
MNJ
MNI
'J{,
MNI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
27
.50
16
46 10 12 8
.85 .18 .22 .15
35 5
9 9 30
.17 .17 56
9 6 9 21
54 4
lOO .07
46 6
.34 .77 .11 .24 .20 .13 .20 .67 1.00 13
24 10 6
.44 .IR .11
18
..39
8
.17 .l.l
O
O
4
.07
.\
UlÍ
14
.26
13
.24
12
.22 .24 .09 .17
20 6 8
.37 .11 .15
;;
.09
Scrond Jlh,lL11lh~'
.')
.m>
Third phalungc
:;
.Ol)
Astragalus Calcancus Proximal mctatursal Distal meeatarsal First phnlangc
III Medíunv-
MNl
13 5 9
Tarsals
SmaJ/medíum»
11
6 2 4 6 9
12 7 14 2 12 16
8 8 R H H
.04 .09 .13 .20 .26 .15 .31
52
.7.1
~3
71
J.()O
129
15 7 11 9 8 22 41 4 18 11
10 11
21 10
7 9 H
21
H
.10
Ll Ll 7
.I:í .1.1 .11 .31
..sH .06
.25 15 .14 .15 .30 .14 .1Il l.l 11
ID 17
IH 6 19 .H 15 49 49
% (8)
MNI
%
(9)
(IU)
.72 1.00 .06 .10 .10 .OS .08 .l.l .14 .05 .15 ,26
21 47 (,
.45 1.00 .13
2
.04
.12 .38 .38
26
20
15 12
.12 .09 .02 .25
.>
,n
.04
27 12
.,~()
17
2(}
.2.\
.26
32
.4:í
.';c;
.35 .17 .17 .17
22
'>1
,\1
17
.24
41
8
.11 15 .l.e, .1';
ID 27
.42 24 .32 .08
11
.17
11
17
1I
27
.21 .21
27
.21
6
.13
4 2
.09 .04
7
O 1
.02
9
.19
9 4 15
.19 .09 ..12
1.1 6
.2R .13
.1
(Ir,
"
06
1
.02
S 14
,11 .10
10 9 11
.21 .19 .23 .13 .2.\ .13
tí 11 1\ 11
"Stccnbok, nrvsbok. onbi {Klcin 1976:Table 9]. mountuin n-dhok. busbbok {Klc¡u 1976:T¡lhle 1(1) , Bluc antclopc. kudu. hartvbcvst. bastard hartcbccst, wtldcbccst [Klvin llJ76:T,¡bll' 111. rI Cape buff:lIo, l'!¡¡nd IKlcin lY76:Tablc 121. " Giant buffalo (KIl'in 1976:Tablc 131.
1, Spr¡n~h(lk.
.IS
()
.2.1
'"
ce e
15.0 7.0 12.0 4.0 4.9 6.0 10.5 51.5
30 7 12 20
2.0 9.0 8.5 6.5 1l.0 8.5 12.5 3.5 6.0 1.0 0.13 O
_.::'1
'-
O
1.0
6.0
.07 .12 .02 002 O
.24
.04 17 .17 .13 ,21 .17
.0;;
.06 .36 12 02 O
.08 .10 .12 .20 1.00
.23
.14
.29
.56
._::1
,.
.2 L 04 .21
% IJI
,
4
3D 3
O 11 10 11 14 lO 21 21 20 21 18
14 B
4 40
so
23
30 69 4'
,
2""
Y 14 91 229
"
(4)
MNE
90 3.75 0..38 03
10.5
5.5 7.0 5.0 10.5 10.5 100
5.0
2.0 20.0 7.0 4.0 O 5.5
11.5 25.0
6.0
13.5 5.0 70 6.0 5.3
21.0
4.5 4.5 7.0 9.0
15)
MAU
Oh,
436 },1
S.¡
08 .80 .28 .16 O .22 .20 .22 .28 .20 .42 42 40 42 .36 .15 02 02
1.00
.14 .46
12.5
21.0 17.0 7.S 7.0 7.S 3.0 4.75
4':-
4' 34 15 14 60 24 38
7.S
3.5 9.5
2.0 13.0 6.0 7.5 5.8 10.0 8.,
30.5
~.5
17 15 7 19
lO
:l8
4 26 12 15
"A 47 88 "il 19 61
6.8 7.4
4.0 6.0
4 (,
20
t2.S
.28 .24.21
9 237
4.5 23.0 40.0
~.O
4.0
8
MAU IHI
18
MNE l7J
.18 18 .28 .36 M
(6)
""
583 32
24
.15 19 .1S
21 19 09 .1.4 .:16 .53 A3 .19 .18 .19 .08 .12
,.,
41 68 31 39 26 126 112 120
7
14
., '-
20 159 51 50
7 27 .33
.05
35
36 55 55 17
Ll
7
374
..')8
3.5 13.5 12.0 100 15.9 1.5.4 15.0 11.5 7.0 3.5 20.5 34.0 15.5 19.5 13.0 15.75 14.0 15.1
t L.S U.O 3.5 37.0 62.0 16.0 7.0 13.0 7.2 4.2 7.B 8.S 17..0 leí
.25 .31 .21 .25 .23 .24
.SS
.19 .16 .26 Al .40 .20 .1/ .06 .33
22
.06
.14 .28
.L~
1.00 .26 .1/ .21 .12 .07
.ÓO
.19 .1.1 06
( 1I)
¡JO}
23
'Yo (}21 MAU
MNE
1.00 .31 .10 .15 .2417 .19 .24 .76
.23 10 11
191
MNE (/31
296
314 28
16
2 9 II 2 21 9 8 S I 2 6 21 21 14
212 21 4 4 ID 9 12 6 7
858
O 2 6
8.0 39 3.8 3.7
7.0
10.5
10.5
3.0
LO
1.0 4.5 :1.5 1.0 2.1 4.5 4.0 2.5 0.5
3.5
.~.O
O 1.0 3.0 :';.5 22.5 10.5 40 4.0 1.0 0.7 18
(l4)
MAU
V Very Iarge
IV Large
%
17 .16 16
36
.04 .20 .24 .04 .09 .20 .18 .11 .02 .04 13 A7 A7 .31
.16
.13
O .04 .13 .38 1.00 .47 18 .18 09 .03 08
() SI
" A convcnnon was uscd here of 10.1 teeth cquals ene animal umt. This is obviously lower than the 12 cheek tceth that an adule bovid has. Experimental data show that for an "adult" biased populaeion. this is rhc empirícal average of maxillary teeth per individual. ¡, A convennon of 9.4 was used for the mandiblc. smce expertmentallv chis was the best observed-valuc. Thc dífference is probablv relatcd to variauons in che likclihood uf rccoverv for maxrllarv premolars as opposed to mandibular teeth.
Proximal meratarsal Distal mcratarsal Hrst phalange Second phalange Third phalange
Astragalus Calcaneus
37 12 2 O S 4 18 17 13 22 17 25 7 12 8 1 O
(,
42 21 103
3.0 L8.5
29.0
324
Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radiocubrtus Distal radíocubirus Carpals Proximal metacarpal Distal meracarpat Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia Distal tibia
11.0 2.0 11.0 13.0
2l 4 22 136
Hom Occipital condyle Maxillarv are Maxillary teeth« Mandibular rccth l' Mandiblc Atlas Axis Cervical vertcbrae Tboracrc vcncbrae Lumbar vertebrac lnnommarc Scapula 64
12}
AfAU
11J
Anatcsmcal pan
MNE
1II
Medium-losge
11
Small-medium
I
'¡'::l'
Small
Bovuf ctass
Tabulauon ni Klasies Rivcr Mouth Cave 1 Fauna by Bínford
TABLE 3.:1
R2
!' <'~
3.
The Klasícs Fauna: Approachcs to Analvsis
Evcn the causal rcncler will noticc rhat rhcre is J considerable lnck of identity bctwcen the frcquencics (MNls) rabulated by Klein and thc írcqueucies (MAUs) tabulared for the sarne bones by me. For instance. Klein rabulates 129 MNls resprcsented in the large-bovid body-size da" IV ¡Table.lA COIUIllIl 7), whercns 1 report only 62 animal units for the sarnc materia]. Th'is difference is perhaps the most striking between Klein's data and mine. In ordcr to uudcrstnnd such discrepancies, we rnust return [O a comparison (Jf our methods. Consistently, thc ,gl:<'.ll
Middlc
100
SII)llC
%
Il/
ea
/
I
I
I
:A~~~:::
/
/ /
70
/ / /
IÓ j so
/
•
/
/
eMA'lC T"!!..e,.TH
/
,-
/
.¡l 40
•
f
III x
/
l •/. "·/.P~G I'y /
W:30
l··
o
2
I
/ /
2 60
J <í
I
R3
/
~
2
I
I
Bovlo~
)-90
a::> ~ o
A'f.1.' Anarorrucal-Pan Prcqucnctcs frcun Klasics Rivcr Mouth C¡lVI.' 1
20
/
10
o
o
eCAlII::p
61Ze:. eL""'''''' N
o
(ME.DIUM- LARG.E.)
,o
o o
lO
10
MNI Pigure 3.14
~O
40
IN DE.)(,E'Ó-
!SO
;
R_
100%
Cornnarison of Binford's and Klcin's tabulutions ot anarcmical parts
fm largc-sizc hov!,I.;. CARI', curpals, MAND, mandibular; MI\X. mnxrll.uy¡ Pite, proximal radit)(:ubitlb
large (Figure 3,14) and small (Figure 3.15). From this, it is clear that the tablllations are strongly correlated estimares based 011 tceth contrast mosr. while illnominate parts among small animals seel1l
out
100
%
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
H
=A
1
6:j t
I
Órz,e:: CL-A-::S~
O
~ WI
/
50
'1'
:50
O
ec
I
.." " .... .....' .'
2 Zo
•
10
a
./'
.... 11I
""' ..... l'l.
/
•
Z
:J .(
1
10
MNI
ZO
30
40
I"'D~"E~;
SO
R,
EoO
70
K.LEIN
&0
90
100"
Interpretation 01 Patterning Kfciu l·l11ph;l~il.l'd diflcl"l'l1tTS in (he nnatotuic.rl-p.rrt fn-qucnvics ch.rr.ictcristic of small- Vl'rSUS lnrgc-hody-sizc animu!s. My srudy sustaius rhe diffcrcncc aud cvcn amplifics rhc partcrn. Figure 3.16 illnstratcs thc MAUs tubul.ned for ..,111;111 vcrsus brgl' lurvids {rom Kluxics Rivcr ¡\1llUfh Cave 1. A substantinl group of body parts from both lurge and small cnimals are modcrntcly to poorly represcnted in both populations. Thcse appcar to be lincarly and povitively correlated. These parts are rhe atlas; axis; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebrae, as well as thc pelvis-in othcr words. the
/' ./MAX n:ET'"
.v/OT.
~ o
/'
.>
/
.OF ' ; . P F
,ow"':lIJo
O
O
.¿:~
PH.
f
10
MAU
/ .PM' t..:!.-.J~~~
VA
DR.i
I
.~J,O
-
......S T •
.PT·AT_~T ¿
6TUDY
Figure 3.15 Comparison of Bmford's ami Klcín's rabulations of anaromical parts for small bovíds. DRe, distal rndrocubitus, MAND, mandibular; MAX, maxtllarv. PELV, pelvis; SCAP, scapu!a.
/
.p~•
H -
P'E.L...V
e oec
O
ZO
/
./
/
.=~¡""CAy
D
/'
/
./
OH. I I
:y
./ /
!
M .... ""D TII:.,. ....
-:
I
-
U )( :50 Id -
re:e:TH
/
I
u,
/'
-
I I
1Il1L
/'
/ •
70
~ O 5O
/'
-
I
,,O
- It
TEe.TH
/'
O
~
"
/'
•
'/.
4.
I
~ DW
"
/
11I
:J
/'
eloAAt-LO
40
111
90
",
,
I
~
t! ~ ~ ~
70
iL
J
6C~p
li-
P
,
-----e
J
(SMALL)
'ec
ri
lOO %
iI
BOVlo6
85
Intcrprctatíon of l'nttcnung
3. The Klasícs Fauna: Approachcs to Analvsis
K4
40
-:
.-
SO
EoO
70
rNOEXE-:lo-&V'06 ~'Z.E BINF"ORD OATA.
&0
90
e .......!>!>
'00"
m
Figure 3.16 Comparison of auaturnicnl parts for small nnd Iargc bovids. AST, <\5tragalus, A.T, atlas, AX, axis¡ LA.L, calcancus¡ CARP, carpals. CER. cervical vurtchrnc¡ DF, distal fcmur. DH, distal humcrus. OMC, distal mctucarpal. DM1, distal mctatarsal. DRC, distal radiocubírus. DT, distal tihia , LUM, lumbar vcrtcbrac. MAND, rnandrbular¡ MAX, maxillarv. PELV, pelvis; PF, proximal femur¡ PH, proximal humcrus. PMC, proximal mctacarpal. PMT, proximal mcratarsal, PRC, proximal radiocubuus. [,T, proximal ríb¡n, S(-!\I', "";11'111.1; l ..r, j.nd: .trd, ph;lLlIlgl''',
cnnrc axial skclcton cxccpt the head. As h:1S hccu vhown n-pc.urdly. rbvse .m- tlu- P;11'I<; 11};1I couuuonly rcmnin :lftn fcnlillg al prcd.ttor kilI... llnkss therc is intense cornpctition among feeder- (Binfotd IYH 1; Hill 1975, IY79; Mech 1966; Richardson 1990b; Shipman and Phillips-Conroy 1977). It appenrs thar this complete axial skeleron unit was frequcnrly not returued ro the sitc, but whcn this did occur, thc pattern of parts rcturucd was roughly
,'\(,
,~.
Thc
Kla~ie~
Fauna
Arl'nuchc~ tu
Analysis
thc s.unc tor srnull as \\TII as larger animnls. The axial skclcton. proximal nnd distnl fcmnr , proximal nnd distal tibia, and rhe calcancus wcre repte-
. . cntcd. Thccc are r:uts thar would gcncrully rcuuun .uruched bv skin ro a Iighrly rw.tgcd GUC;lSS. Apparcurly, whatvvcr ir is that conditions thc rclauve frequel1rit,-'s uf thcsc purts .tt thc Klasics Can' 1 sirc lll~lY well be comuion ro horh thc !'Ugl' .md small animals. On rhe other hand. parts trequcnt in rhc small-bovid populuriou and only modcrnrclv reprcsented in rhc largehovid popnl.tnon are rhe scapula ami the distal humcrus, rhc mcar-vielding pnrts of rhc uopcr-fronr lcg. Ir ruust be kepr in rmnd that the scapula and uppcr-fronr limh constitutc ouc of thc easiest anaromical scgmcnts for carnivorcs ro dis..r rticulatc {scc figure 3.10). This mcans rhat it is also a pan comrnonlv removed from rhe kill-death sirc by wa ry scavcngcrs (sec Ship111,ln aucl Phillipx-Couro y I"J77; Tnblc 1) and is frequently thc pnrt cornmonlv cachcd bv prcdator-ecavengers. Sume kind of selcctivc use of hody parts i" clcarf y indic.ucd by the courrnvts bctwecn thc two gruphs. The challcngc is ro isolatc tbc sourcc of thc bias, l'arts vcrv conunon in thc large-bovid population and poorly or moderarclv rcprcscnrcd . 1tllOng rhc small bovids "re the mandil-le and mnxil!a (the bcad parts}, as wcll <.11., rarsa!s. astragaluv, metatarsal, phalauges. and distal radiocubirus carpals and mctacarpals: in otbcr words. the [owct-front lirnbbones and rhe lowcr-rcar lcg. Thc forruer is most often butchcrcd through thc shaft of thc radiocuhirus, whereas rhe latter is most often removed by cutting bctwecn the asrrngnlus and the calcaneus. ln short, the bias present among the bones from rhe Iarge animal s i'l the very partern that artracred me lo the study of the material-a partcrn of high head-and-lower-Iimb~bone ffl.·qllellcil''i, the p;1ttl'f11 lhat all a(lU;llistic cvidclKl' suggl'''ted shollld he (llaractl'ristic uf ,) 'iGlvenged asscmhlage. Given the Jim of interprcring rhe diffcrenrial pan frequencies exhibired hctween the animal s of different body size, the first prohlem rhat must be addressed is rhe possible role of differential survival of anaromical parts ·both wirhin J body-size dass and among the dasses compared. I have shown rhar J population of bones subjectcd ro oestructivl' :lgl'nts lllay he so lllodified wirh respect ro surviving pan frcqucncies .hat the original composition of rhe poplllarion may be rendered unrecogni7.Jhle, whercas irs derived form m:1Y he only refLTahle to dw diffl'rl'll!i;ll dm;lhility of the dillnl'llt hOI1l,'\ thclll\elvl's. In tlTlllS of the tests previollsly dcscrihnl (Kinford J 9H I :21 7 - 222). thl.' poplllatioll of hOlles reco\'lTl'd from KL1sies Ri\'t'f Motlth h;lS sllffnnl frum sl'lc(tivl' dl'!ctiollS as ¡1 Illllction of [he rebti\'l' dur¡1hility pf hum's. Fi~ure 3.17 illustrates the sllrvival ratios betwl'cn proximal anJ diswll'lld'l of the hlllllCruS and tihia. For hoth bones, all rhe bUllal popllbtions sllOw rhat they have been Illodificd away from the proporrions present in a livc animal
H7
Intcrprctatinu of Patrcrning
,
100%
/
'0Z" 90
/
/
llleo I(
ZON"" 0"- No DEó,,,",uc:rJON
~70
x
~~
/
1
/
/
A
/
/ /
/
1Il-
O
30
/
/
.
T. . .
/
10
o
...
,.... ..... / T»C
/--e-
I-fISt'" •
--.
e,",~
I
,
10
lO
»>
Tttr .... -
ZONE.
OF
DE::S.TRUCTIOt-.l
e-
T:nr •
---
_.
TU
/_--
0......--I
¿...-----
. /..-/
-¿
-
» > --------
/
/
/
::J I / 4:~
/
/
/
W x 40
8
/
/
/
50 {l-
,
/
j-
•
-----
H:Z::Z:
... ul-l:t. I
I
30
40
SO
EaO
MAU I>JOEXe:.6 -
70
60
90
l00"
D':STAL.- EN06
CLUe:Ó TO 130NE. PR.E:!>E:.R:VATION Figure 3.17 Test nf KlaSIl:S data for evidcncc (Jfbonc·p'Ht destrllctiOl1 H, hUInenls¡ T, tibia, Ruman numerals inllicatc hndy-size dasses,
as a simp1c function of rhe relarive durability of the bone parts themsclves. 50ft hones are poorly reprcsentcd whereas hard, den~l' bones Jrc well rcpresented. Experimental study of rhe hone dCllsiry for slH'l'Jl ;111d carihou from illdividu;lls (lf di IfcriIlg .1gl'S has proVilkd a hody ot' dala tll:lt cm be used lo l'srillutc rhe survival porl'nrial of differcnt bones in the :lIt:ltomy. I h:wl' prl'viou\ly dl'scrihl'd this \\,()rk (Binford 197X:21 0-211; Billt'ord :Ind I:krtram l!.Ji7)
"'''''-r--I.i) ~'t.... of,~
,~.
HH
Thc Klustcs Fauna: Approachcs
tu
Annlvsis
89
Intcrpretaríon al Pancmíng
ing agcnts. This reconstructured assemblage removes the ambiguity crearcd
TABLE ,3.6
by the intcrnction betwccn rhe form of the original population and arrri-
Rcconstructcd Frcqucncics ter Srnall and Largo Bovids"
tional agentv acting 011 thnr population. Tablc 3.6 presents the reconstructed Small hovids
valucs for thc small bovids (Tnble 3.5, Column 2) and rhc Lirgc bovids (Tablc 3.5, COIUIllIl 11). The first condition thut is clarificd by the recen~t~llcti()n is rbar the srnnll-bovid populorion cxhihit'i a segmenta! strucrure thnt mukcs good nn.uomical scnsc. This sepmcural structurc c1carly rcflccts thc anaromical scgments in tcrrns of whrch thc gross anatomy of the small bovids was rreatcd, nnd in turu identifies rhc an.nomical units in terms of
which the boncs
\\TrC
Ana/omita]
Hum Hcad ami uppcr neck
acmnlly introduced ro thc sire.
Jnspection of Table 3.6 shows thar there are basically scven anatomical scgmcnts (sce Binford 1YH I :91-95) that bcbavc as units quanritatively disrincr onc frorn another. Hrst is rhe head-and-uppcr-neck unit, represen red prirnarily bv the mandiblc and rhe atlas and axis vertebrar. The 10\\' frel)UCI1CY of thc cranium within rhis unit, reprcsentcd by maxillury rccth. ma}' indicntc at IC3'ir ~1 pnrtial dcstruction of the cranium in thc ficld hcfore the lu-ad and uppcr ueck werc transporrcd ro the sirc. The ncxt unit is the rhora x and spine. This is the anuromical unir least írequcntly introduccd to rhe sitc. Ir should he rccalled that this is ene of rhc anarornical segments most commonly rcmaimng at abandoned animals kills afta prcdator-cscavl'ngers havc finishcd fccding (scc Binford 19H 1:230). By W:1Y of conttast, thcsc parts wcrc regularlv tr.mspurtcd for storagc by the Nanumiut Eskimo
(Binford 1978:112). In short , lugb [requencies of these parts cornrnonly rcmain where gross consul11ption takes place, or where one is forced ro make hard transport dccisions curying only the parts nf highest mility (sec. tor ill<,(;lIll"t'. my dí\ClI\"iom (lf llilTl' hlltchnillg, Bínfonl 1l)7H:60-6'~). Undcr slIch cOlltingellcics, these parts wUllld be abandolled at procuft.'mcnt locations. It is cll'~lr tlut rhey Wl.'re r~lrc1y introdllccd to Klasics River i\lOUlh. GiVCll \",'hat we kno\V about animal behavior and about human hllnting Illar is Jogisrical1y orgallizcd-rhat is, where food is transported to conSUlllcrS loca red at places other than the locations of procurement-;c \VOllld ,lppear thar primary consllmption of the STllJIl :1l1te!ope did nO( uke place at the Kbsics Rivcr t\'louth site. Thar ¡s, small-boviJ parts werc not ínrroduccd ;1\ compkte :1I1imals hut instl\ld :lS segmcnt . . rl'movni (mm animals killed, :l1ll1 \\Tfl· l'irhn pieCl' hlltchned or p'lrti:ll1y COIl\1l111l'd :11 SllllH..· pbcl' otha thal1 rhe . . ire at Klasies River MOllrh. \X-'hcn \Ve lllTll 10 the segrnent design:1tcd rhe upper-fronf kg. a parteTll of racrical significll1CC is implied. Unlikc rhe spine 'lfld tborax, v.... here ca eh anawmical sllhunit par! is reprcsentcd in rollghly cqu:lI frcqllenóes. the llppcr-front leg is represl'ntl'd /ly scalar freqllencics, wirh the scapula absolutdy 1l1Osr COI1l1110n ~llld (;ach bone lowcr down the lcg represcnred by
\(C,I1JCIl/
Thorax and spinc
Uppcr-front lcg
Lowcr-front lcg
Uppcr-rcar kg
Met;¡poJials Ph,1langes
MAl!
w
".
MAU
'Yo,
(11
(2)
(.1)
(4)
O
Maxilla Mandiblc
13.0 29.0
Atlas Axis
22.1 27.1
Cervical vcncbruc Thoracic vertcbrac Lumbar vertebral' Pelvis
11.4
Scupula Proximal humcrus Distal humeros
Large hodids
123 1l.K
O
O .11
,37.0
.46 .3"; .4.~
62 O 12.0 29.0
1< .20 .19
20.0 lOS 1:1.29
ni
21
IO.6.~
6l.K
30.0 2Vi4
\.00 .4!'l 36
2l..J4 .1:1.0 16.(;7
75 1.67
.12 .03
8.1
.u
IS.0 20.0 B,l?
4.,{
07
ss.z
2S 29 .2S 24 .2.9 .2')
21.S IS.2
A~tragallls
IS.S IH.4H lS.8S 14.8.'1 180 14.YI
Proximal mctatarsal Dist;Ji mct¡ltar~;Jl
9.21 20.0
S.H l.l O
Proximal nuhocubltus Distal radiocubitus l'ruxiruul mcrccarpnl I)i~tal mctucarpal Proximal fcmur Distal fcrnur Pmximal tihia Distal tibia Call'l'lh'lIS
First ]1halan~e Secoml phalan~e ThirJ phalangc
O 40 .67 .1'> .JI .22 .11 17 .11
.23
.38 .18 .16 .22 .91 .:'7
.H .1(;
8..'1
09
27.7
30
218
.1.,
SY.7
.64
., !..l 4.Ll
.SS
Jl .04 .01 .(JO
92.6 92.6 92.6
1.00
IS
47
I.oo 1.00
"Vatues ohtaincd by multiplying Tablc :~.S, Cl.llumns 2 amI II hy values ,given in BinforJ (19RLTah1c .'1.04, Column 41·
dccre'1sing frequl'lll:ies llntil \Ve approach thc proximal radiocubitlls. Thc lattcr is reprcsentcd by only 12(X) of rhc numbcr of scapuLll' in rile population. This rypl' of pattcrn is dcrived from a sclection process in whieh rhe decision ro hurcher off parts of 10\ver food-value varics ~ituatioJ1al1}' with the dccisioll W carry hack the shouldcr or the mcat-yiclding LJPPlT-trollt"Il'~
'JO
3.
Thc Klustcs Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis
unit. This decisión wns cven made wirh respect ro the bones of rhe upper leg, Thc lower-front-Ieg segment, from the radiocuhitus down, is marginally rcprescntcd hy about 12 to 23'X) relutivc to the count of thc scupulac. The low frcqucncies of the distal radiocubitus and disrnl metacarpal is probably a function of variability in survival probabilities associared with small animals not accurarcly .mticipatcd l.y the survival pcrccntages uscd in this
reo msrruction. Among rhc Nunamiut Eskimo. the lowcr-front leg was frcqucmly removed as a unit nnd eirhcr discardcd or consumed in hunting cnrnps and srarions (Binford 1978:62-64). Clcar1y an analogous rcmoval is indicatcd by rhcse data. Ir should be pointed out thar this pattcrned frcquency break bcrween rhe distal humerus and proximal radiocubirus in an equivoca! assemblage is probahly sufficicnr ro suggcst srrongly that human agenrs wcre responsihlc for disrncmhcrmcnt. since anirnals tend tú destroy the proximal humerus and chcw clown thc humeral shafr. lcaving rhe distal hllmcrlls J.ttacht'll ro lhe proximal radim:lIhirus. Thc frequcllcy-pattl:rning characrerisrics of rhe axial unir and rhe upper-front and -rl.'Jr legs scrm anomalous in that the oecupants of the (ave were hunting Ihese small bovids ami rcturnillg the kills (which are casi1y trJnsportable as \\'hole animals) hack to the horne base for consumption. The pattero of parts rctllrned is most Jnalogous to a piecc-IJlttLlJe1"1IlK strategy in which an animal is killcd and only a fcw parts are rctumcd ro the rcsidenrial hase campo Among modcrn hunters with whom I am farniliarthose having a srrong division of labor and typically Jll ethic of sharing hUlltcd foods-piece butchrring is only pranired \\lhen tr:msport of the entire kili is debyed, so Ihal t111' inlrodll(tioll of t1lt' clIlllpll'It, kili :11 ;1 Ialcr lillll' i.., 'lllticipall'd. I'hi.. 11ll';lJlS Ihal in ILTrJls ni ;\llalllmiC;ll-part lru_-1I1L'llcit· . . , l!lis hc!lavior is rcally ol1ly ckarly yisible 311Hmg kill-silL' a
Intcrprt:tatlon uf pnncmíng
91
Before going on with rhc development of an accommodative bchaviorn] model, we musr complete the description of the pattcruing. In this hghr rhc patrcrning mnnifcstcd among thc parts of thc rear lcg is rcally quite intercsting. This is the part of an ungulate with thc grcntcst amount of usablc or consumablc mear (see Binford 1978: 17-19). The patrern is very clear that all boncs of the uppcr-rcar leg were introduced in cqunl írcquencics-e-indicating thar whcn the uppcr-rear legs were introduccd, rhey werc complete upper lcgs disarticulared between the astragalus and thc navicular cuboid, or berwccn the navicular cuhoid and rhc proximal rnatatarsnl. Thcsc complete uppcr-leg units werc carried back ro the sirc, as opposed ro thc siruation with the upper-front leg. which v..'as segmented ro carry only thc scapula back and to removc the humerus in rhe ficld abour SOl};) of the time, Whcnever thc uppcr-rcar leg was introduccd, it was carried back complete. The uppcr-rcar leg was rerurned only abour 25% as commonly as was thc upper-front leg, in spite of the fact rhat thc rear lcgs hnvc more cdible mear. This provoca ti ve bct aprears even more anomalous whell it is rea1ilet! that therc is a greater proportion of the total rcar-Icg meat on thc femur, while 011 the front leg there is a more equable distributiol1 of mear shan,'d between the hUlllerus and the scapula. Put quite simply, if 011e werc making a decision as ro which upper leg ro disarticulate and abandon, while lllJximizillg the amoullt of usable meat rcmaining on a single hone, tlle rear Icg would ct'fuinly he the one chosen and the ft-'mur would hc the hOlle transported. But (he p,Hrern observed among the small-bovid fauna at Kbsics Rivcr Mouth is ¡lISt the oppo<;itc. Uppcr~rear legs were rarely returned to the :-;ite, and \\!ht'll the)' were, they were introduccd as complete upper-Icg segments. ()n rile o\lwr IUlId, rile uppcr-front 1t'~ W:1S the P;lft rno'it cOflllllonly n.:lllrllt:d Itllhr \ilt, ;\lld it W
1. The rathcr robust segmental patterning inlü un;ts disjoilltcd brtwcen JrticuJar surfaces is torally consistC\l1 wich tool-u\ing Iltllllinids JS tlle 1ikely dismembering agellts. 2. The high relative-frcqucl1cy of mandibular
02
3.
Thc K1aSjl':c. Fauna: Approachcs tu Analysis
The larter parts ha ve only moderare utility. Picce burchcring such as this is normally the rcsult of a transportation problem. mcnning rhat the food avnilahlc is prcscnt in grcuter quantirv thnn e..m he carricd by the ficld party. Clcarly wirh su eh small bovids this cannot be the situarion wirh the Klasics animals. In addirion, under condirions of rransport-related piece I~lltchering and thc biascd selection of parts. those gcnerally chosen for lUllsport are the ones of grcarcsr utility. A'tK-mre'S'~~a COllSistelit bias
~
in
fa"'o·r-or'St!~e·kaw;p.w.r.tation,Qt.mod«ate.,.t(J,.,¡na~aLp.ar.t¡
(c.g., the
neck). This could only be expected if rhe parrs of highest utility were not available due to prior consumption at the point of kili hy horninid or orher animal agcnrs. The regular segmcntation of rhe carcass srrongly suggests that orher auimals were not involved in disrnemberment, leading me tu suspcct thar most of rhe SIllJlI animals rcpresenred at Klasies River Mouth wcrc caten by hominids al thc kili or dcath locations prior ro the rerurn of sclccred parts ro thc Klasics River Mouth sire. Thc differences in pattcrning munifesrcd by thc prime .matomical parrs (rear leg and lower hack) is consisrent with a model (scc figure 3.IH) uf the forrnation of rhe smail-bovid population in which ahour 2Y}";¡ of the arumals represented were introduced ro the site "wholc" (frequenrly with the Iower-fronr leg and thc meratarsals plus phalangcs removed), while 75% of the small-bovid animal units were introduccd to the sitc afrer rhe consumprion of prime pares elsewhere, presum-
~~
'n
Intcrprct.uion 1)1 t'au cuung
BOVI06: 61z-e;. CLA-66
ÓIZE- CLA66
I.
"l::SL
HORN
MA>t'I'-'-A_ MAN,O/SLE:-
ATL.Aó
~----
CE.eVICAL
VE~r;
~ACIC VERT. RU!$ó LVM~A~ _ VL"~T. PELVIÓ
SCAPULA
~W:'Jn',-""
P1eOX'IMAL HUME,eu6 DI':::;TAL-'·HuME~U.60 P.eOXIMAL- R ....DIOCUSJ7Vó
D/~TAL RAOJOCU/!JITU6 CAIZPA'-~ PKOXIAAAL- MeTACAKPA.tD/~rAL -Me:.rACAKPAL.P.teOXIMAJ- Fe;M'vli!!.
DN5T.... L
F~MV~
~OXhV.... LD/~rAL-
7í61A
7/131'" _
~__
-z'AL-CAIVEV.6
A.J.rlA,GALv6 OrJ.-le;~ T.A~L-:S
P~OXIM""'L- Me;TArA~.&AL-
o
10
Re::cON6TR.UCTE:.O
zo
3040 50 60 70
eo 90 100%
M A U
I NOE:xe:6
A.. ~~
Figure 3.19
Cumpanson bctwccn unatomicul part frcqucncics hum SIn;]ll and l
bovids {rcconsuoctcd valucsl.
ably at thc kill-find locariou. In any event, prirnarv consumption clsrvvhcrc scerns indicatcd.
Qjí
{' V
20%
14%
"~
1'5 ".
60%
Fi~urc 3.18 Rdativt.' frelllll.:ndcs nf sc,gments ot Slll;l11 duu:d tll the site.
hllViJ~ m()~t
often intw-
Turning now ro thc hody-pnrt frequencies frorn thc largor bovids (Tabh..L6), wc note nn nlmost total conrrast in nll propcrtics of tbc nuatomy represcnted (Figure 3.19). First, thc most common parts are the phaianges and mernpodials-s-parts rhar we have seen ro be commonly ahandoned by Illodnn hUlltt'rs as of marginal utiliry :lnd heJlce \\'orthy of littlt' inveslIllt:nr as br as tr:1nsport is concernt'd. At··Kbsirs Rrver Mouth rhe ..e parts ot.luw- gent::raJ..utility .arc.me.·-PMls mo-st.commonly.illtrl.olduced too the slteJt-Olll.llu;. larger. animals.
U'1'-
(lJt}e1v.., ~"k.> ~v>--~ \),]
3.
The Klasics Fauna: Appronchc-,
tI)
Analp;i'j
Tuming (O the hones of che upper limbs, che meat-yicldiug nuntornica] scgmcnts, we note a sea lar partern for che uppcr-fronr leg with ~l positive hia, in favor of the sea pub ami J scular putrcrn for che uppcr-rcar lea, with che proximal fcmur most common. These rnent-viclding parts. rhe fémur ;lIl~i thc scapula, are reprcscntcd in equal frcquencies. As discussed eorlier. a scalar panern commouly bcrrays a siruatiorutlly conditioncd sclcction of p.u-ts. and in chis case thc !litis IS in favor of che most mear)' parts. As W:15 argucd in the case of che small hovids, a sea lar ser of frcquencies posinvely corrcsponding ro a scalar ser of utility values for the parts (see Binford ]lJ78:23) gcnernily berrays rhe cumulative resulr of numerous piccchutchering episodcs. Thar is, whcre rhere is more mear than onc can transport, ;1 difficulr dccivion is made ro carry only J fcw parts. Thcsc parts are choscu wirh respcct ro maximizing the amount of usablc foud per unir cf wcighr rransported. As was rhe use in the nrgurncnr prcsvnted wirh rcspect lo rhc small animab. rhis patreming is generally rnosr visihit ur kili Iocations bcc.rusc in 1I10sr CISC" rhe strarcgic context in whieh this is cerned out alllollg modcm huutcr-cgarhcrs is one that normally includcs a return ro the C1rCISS and a subscqucnt removal of all rhe usable material ro thc rcsident¡al sitc. When thnr happcns, these Iarer acrs obscurc tite carlicr piccc-butchcring l-chavior in the ovcrall frcqucncics observable nr the rcsidcntial sitc. However, this is net. the case nt Klasles~fver-N+ütlth. Scalnr frequcncics pnsittvely corrclatcd with thc utilit y values of rhc parts are dcmonsrrahlc for thc upper-frour and -rcar lcgs uf rhe large bovids. This could only happen if culling took place prior to inrroducnon of such parts to thc sirc and thc culling was scvcrc-c-thar is, only vny select parts werc transported. This l'xln'l1le 'ic1errivill' flnly :Ipplil''i [(1 fhe ;ldj;l(Cnt 'icgllll'nIS of the IIppcr 1l'g'i sillce, rebtivc lo rht, rcst 01 lhe CHGISS, thl'~c ~clclt parls are rHT
u.fP.-
;t(JL,")~,~, I"~~
Inn-rprct.uron
~
III
9.'i
Pnttrrninu
-a 3 0
~~
•
~,¡¡
l?:Z ZO
..
J xJ
I
I
LEGo
I I 131 ...-1:>
PAR.T~
P MC
l---'DMT PMT eDRC.
~~
DT
2Z Ha
ePRC.OH
G1; 10
•
Z~
ePH pT
.~c..AP
De
•
I
Id 2 :> a( Id 1
pF"
o o
re
ZO
'30
40
'=>0
eo
'70
ClENER.A'- UTI~ITV Figure 3.20
I
TR:AN~POR.T
• •
DMG
rd
~~
I
I
I
I
P ...,...,--
eD
eo
100
' ..... OEX
Front- and rcar-lcg parts of Nunamiut kilI populnnons [Hinford 197H:
Table V'r Column 21 scalcd agaínsr unlity valucs 1197H: Tablc 2.6, Colunm uu. Uf, d¡<,tal kmltl, 1)11, di\l:tl hUll1l'nlo.,; I)Me, di~t:d Illct:1CHp;tl¡ IJMT, disl;t1 Illl'UI:ll"s:lI; DRC j disl;ll ratli()~tlbttllsi I)'J dista] 'ihi;]; 1'/, rroxilll:lllt,tlltll; 1'1 L proxilll¡tl hlllllCllls; I
PHAL, phal:1l1,[;c¡ PMC, proximal mct3carpaL PMT, proximal mctatar"al; PRc. proximal ll1ctacarpal; ['T, pl'Oxim:d tihi;l, SeA!', sClpuLl.
Klasies River Mouth. On the other hD.lld, in marked contrast, lhe freqllcncies of scgments from the venebral columll art inverscly eorrelated with utiJity values at Klasies River MOllrh, as are the rebtive frt'qllcncics of \O\\'C'r-leg parts relativc ro llpper le~s. Thc rel3tive frequcnl'Ícs uf rhe major segmento;; (for instancc, the lower versus uppcr Icgs, or componcnts of the vl'rtebral 1.."1l1l1l1111 Vl,:rSllS lhe heal!) appear lO bc invcrscly I.."orrebted with the VJ111l' uf the parts as potential fonu, whereas within high-yicld scglllcnts~ such ;1$ tht, lIppt'r lcgs, the rclative frequencics of parts aH' positively COffClatt'd \\'ith potl'ntial food yicld. Such a pattern-hi:ls in bvor of P;IftS of rnargitul utility when vicwcd fmm the pcrspt'cri\'l' 01 thc total ;tnatomy versus bias in favor of parts of most utility whcn vicweu hom the ptTSpCCti ve of a particular anatomical scgmcnt of high tllility-Ieads 1ltt' ro the
3.
<.)/0
Intcrprctatino of pnncrning
Thc KI<1siL·~ Fauna Approachcs to Anulysís
conclusion tbar thc animal as a wholc was nor thc population uf parts availablc to thc hominids selecring units for rerurn ro the sitc at Klasies Rivcr Monrh. TI1(' m.mifcsr p:lttern (scc Figure 3.2l) is onc that might he
bcst dcscribcd ;IS "pcnny wisc .md pound foolish." I amconfidcrrrrhat-the cxplanat-i.oJl for.. .t1lÍ.~ paetem reses with tbe.srate.ofthe lar~-anima-l,cMcasses eXploitcd.,h~tht'hemini(·k 111 one sense this is thc cxacr asscmblagc forrn previouslv suggcvrcd aF+eMab~:Mta.-<;sca~·. Mosr often thc parts rcmaining nt a carcass are those of marginal utility, such as lowcr lcgs, and hcnd and nrck parrs. Thesc are rhc parts most comrnonly transponed. Somctimes, bowcvcr. rhc scavcnger might cncounter a rclarively uncxploired carenes from which he could obrain partx of máximum unliry. Hcre wc sec a surprivc. bccausc whcn a largc-unuual cnrcav, that had not bccn cxh.tuvtivclv exploitcd was encountcred, ir was nor rransported complete anJ then shared ar rhe hase campo Instead, rhis large package oí food \\'as pit·(c-blltchcred in ;1 gourmet fashion: only ~ few of rhe choice p3rts wcrc
<~;,~( (edj/407.¿
'l;,
137.
27 "
~ 257. ,~';> /
~' ~ '
t
," ./
.~:~;---
.)
P
'
~.3
/f.3'
'2
~~ ~;.~,
\-';';:]
11%
6%
~~, ti " 8%
h
~'
8%
takcn heme. 1 canuot imagine this typc of patrcm beillg prodnced by 1110<.\ern hunters, hy whom most hunting is camed OUl ro obrain food in packages largcr rhan the single rneal dcrnaud of thc hunrcr. Hunrers carry buck much more mear than they could eat. and this brgc supplv is thcn sharcd wirh orhcr mcmbers of rhe group. If rhis had becn done for thc carcasses from which the high-mcat-yiclding pnrts had been obr ainccl, they shoukl not have been culled wirhin thc high-yidding segments. Tucre should not he an inverse relationship betwcen the high-yicld parrs of rhe axial skelcton such thar thc pelvis and lumbar vertebral' are less wcll rcprescntcd than an..' the scapula and proximal fémur. The conclusión thar sccms inescapable is that in the data from borh thc small and largo bovids. rhc most cornmon units or package 'iizrs of anirn~ll foods introduccd ro the sire were quite small, and prohably were selcctcd for transport after the procurer had fed nt the find location. The small sixc of the selcctcd unit" introduced from high·yicld parts (which wOllld have heen available only if rhe can.:ass was essentially uncxploircd hy othcr J.nimals) indicates rhat rhe planning deprh of the hominids \\'as very shaHow; there was certainly no storage, and perhaps no planning bcyond th~leal for a very small feeding unit rhat pcrhaps was no brger rhan one or two individuals. This srnall consumer-unir character ro rhe pares introduced is supporred hy the biased introduction of lowcr-Ieg parts, segments rhar yield
LE"'''
F-='ONT
onlya few onces of bOlle marrow. Ir seems justifia-ble ro- infer· that hominids- werc ,pr.()bably, killiug .some
smaU'¡'º~itbe,.choi.:e.¡>;,,,,,...u¡"""¡11
"
2 %
Ió %
\'J
IItc..... R.
117-
'íf,\:.J' >
~V
r'~/
14X
'0
1J{,!
/Í
)J )
. '0<,_:/
)'1
Jfc~. _
"
"
-:..:---.--:-
k ,_
(.
i "~/ iJ \
97
/(
d
rr
&9%
Le.G. 6-
CM
\,
\
" ~, "
14%
,"
'
P
', 42%
!~
}
14%
Figurr 3.21 Rl'lativc fn:qucllcics of anatomical scgJl1L'nt~ frum l:ngc bovids iotrodllCL'd ::tí KI¡l~iL'''' River MOllth C:1VC l.
(see
Figure 3.18). Gnly rarely were complere small bovids (gcneral\y minus the lowcr legs) inrroduced inro the site; rhe lllost (OI1lI11011 pr:lClicl' W;lS a hia'icd introductioll (lf the scapllla, from which thc othl'r hum's wirh att;ldH~d meat had generaHy been culled. In short. rhe scgmental1y transponed p:uts were of modl'rart' utility and weTe generally clll1ed inro SIl131l package sizes. Among rhe 1Jrgc animais (see figure 3.21), the most C01llmonly intrnduccd parts were the marrow-yiclding lower Icgs and orher parts of marginal utility, such as the heaJ and ncck, These would be the P:lrtS mosr (ommonly available at carC;1SSCS aln:ady ravaged by other predaror-scavengers. On the other hand, choice mC;1r-yielding parts were occasionally inrroduceJ, bllr likr rhe 111ear-yiclding r~lrts of the sm:1I1 bnvids, these wcrt..' dr:lsrically cl1l1cd illto p;lI"t~ of \Try Stll;lll si/.l' prior to illtrodllction lo the site. If SlKh l'hniCt, parrs were av;úlable, the ncarly complete carcass {lf rhr animal must have been present, yer thl're was no attempt ro rcmove for fllrurc use aH rhe available fuod. lnstl'ad, a gourmet strarcgy was cl1lploYl'd, rt..'wrning only small parts of the choice sl'gments. This del[ pattern is totally incon· sistcnt \\'irh a model of behavior thar imagines l'tlllsi<..krahlt.: planning deprh
{1 ):~
~t
~
.-¡-f )>c<-'o~~ VH
>
~;-t .1
Thr Klasics Puunn Approachcs
tu
Analys¡s
in rhc food-procurcmcnt tuctics and general sh~uing amoug a hand-size
consumcr unir. Thc lack nf plauning dcpth is clcnrly indicatcd. The implications for sharing atuong n-sidcnnal parrners are cirhcr rh.u (1) rhe size of rhe rcsidential unir was ver}' srnall, with OO!}' 1\\'0 or rhree individuals, or (2)
sharing
\\'3S
CHAPTER
not a plnnned practice among rhe membcrs ni a rcstdenrial unir.
4
A Pattern Recognition Study
The Klasies River Mouth fauna was selected for study because, judging from published reports hy Klein (1976), it had al1 rhe provoca tive properties suggesrive of a scavenged assernblage. A more detailed study of anaromical part frequencies. employing corrections for ravaging, provided even more evidence consistent with an interpretation of scavenging, parricularly for rhe
l.irgcr :1I1illl:ll'i rcpn..-a-ntcd. Ikclll'il' it has alrl'ady bccn sllgges!ed rhar a scavengcd assemhlagc should have sorne general charactcristics refcrable to rhe ravaged and drying srate of a carcass apt to be scavenged, 1 now turn ro the exciting rask of reporting on the study of inflicted marks.
The Axial Skeleton 50l11c problems in studying the axial skeleton ;lppcar ro have bcen causcd by col lector hias againsr parts rhat cxcnvntots thonght could nor be idenrified as ro specics. These includcd pnmarily parts from rihs and hroken skulls, and bodics of vcrtebrac. If corrcct, this mc.ms that rhe esrimarcd minirnal numbcr of clcrncnts (~,INEs) should he t.tkcn with somc skcpticism ; however, the relativc frcqucncics of hreakugc, cut mnrks, and orher modificatious on thc parrs actuallv prcscnt should he birl)' rcprcscur.ttivc.
l)1)
4.
100
A Pattcrn Reeognition Study
TAllLE 4.1 Horn·Core Bases Tabulntcd by Body Sizc
CllI mar1<ed
Hocl< marl<ed
MNE
No.
No.
Bovid das.\"
(1)
(2)
% (3)
(Xl
(4)
(5)
I
22
O I O O
O .11 O O
O O 2 4
O O .11 .17
º
0_
º
()
11
9
111
18
IV V
2.~
-.D 72
1
.01
6
.OH
Gnal'led No. 16)
17)
O I I 2 O 4
O .11 .06 .09 O .06
%
Horn In eounting MNEs 1 h
:e,)s
Figure 4.1
Fi!\ure 4.2
Hlppolraglls hum corC5, tllustrating thcir unbrokcn statc.
•
TiI[lrolwXll' horn cores, jlJustrut.i1l1',
tlH:lr ~rlil l:!lI1llitiol1.
I~);"~r 102
/
, \
,
4.
A Pattcm Rccognition Study
fresh hom cores are obvious. Consistent processing of horns for rclarively 5111311 nmounts of hloody pulp suggest a regular use of a ver}' marginal food which was almosr cxclusively extracted from thc animals in thc kudu-ccland size [angl'. The cxtensiveness of this practice of processing hom cores for pulpy fcod is further cmphasizcd by rhe fact thar un odditional 126 frag~ of splir-horn core were not diagnosric of a distincr elernent, bur certainly rcprcscnrcd a considerable pile of debris from the processing of horns by pcrcussion rechniques. Of SOI11(' intercst is rhe fact thur among thcsc nondiagnostic fragments were three thar showcd distinct tooth scarring by gnawing animals, with the additional property of the breakage clearly interrupting rhe pattern of tooth xcarring. This demonstrates that the breaking of rhe hom cores at least in those cases had occurred after the horns had been gnawed by nonhominid predator scavcngers.
un
Maxillary Ares
of animal gnawing indicared for the parts írorn 5111,111 animnls. but thc prescnce of such gnnwing on rhe condyles of rhe bovids from the two largcst body-sizc classes. Among modcrn hunters, cut marks 011 thc condylcs are generally more obvious the larger the animal and are lcss marked thc smaller thc animal. Cut marks are less apparent on small animal, because torque and leverage are more of a meaningful aid in rcmoving the head frorn the articularion with rhe atlas vertebrae. Thc consistcnr lack of cut rnarks 011 the occipital condylcs of the largc animals reflects a diffcrenr contcxt of dismembcrmcnr thun the standard butchering suggested by the marks on the smaller animals. Eqnally striking is the prescnce of animal gnawing, indicated by tooth-scon-d arcas across the occipital condylcs (ser Binford 1981 :46-47 for a dcfinition (lf tooth scoring). This had ro occur after the head was disarticulntrd from thc atlas vertebral'. There were no toorh-scored bones that also cxhibitcd cut marks: therefore, no c1ue rernains on rhese parts to the seqncncc of nccess to the bones for men versus animals.
Occipital Condyles Table 4.2 sununarizes rhe information on the frequency of occipital condyles in rhe asscmblagc togcther with thc information on cut marks, hacking and animal gnawing. In rny expcricncc it has been repeatedly noted that cut marks across the occipital condyles are very common and derive from rhe rernoval of the hcad with cuttiug tools (see Binford 1981:102). Ir is interesting that relalívely high frequt'lh,:il'<; (lf slIch l11arks are notet! for the sl1ull animals in this '-lssclllblage. while no sULh marks were observed on any occipital condyles remaining frorn rhe brger animals. In similarly striking contrast is the lack
I 11 111 IV V
Thc fauna! remains were so extensivcly brokcn that the largcst, mosrrecognizablc unit of the craniurn was the dental are of maxillary leeth
(Tcble 4.3). Aside from the relative frequencies, the single most interesting feature was the cut marks 011 lhe fragmcnts rcrnaining from mcdiulll-sizc bovids, The marks werc all identical to the marks I previously illustrated (Binford
TABLE 4.2
TABLE 4.3
lkcipit,t1 ConJyles Tabulatt:d by Bouy Sizt:
Maxillary Dental Ares Tabulatcd by Bmly Sizc
Cut markcd HUI'),¡ cid"
Maxillary Ares
'\f,\'[ di
1
",
(JI
(,l)
.sO
I .l [)
26
11
..l
~
47
0j¡,
N()
4
.33
11 11 '_1.O'-J
llack IJwrked ,~,;)
(.1)
(:,)
No (r,1
11
11
11
No
Cut marked
GnrllVé'd
(ji, (71
1 11
11
[)
[)
[)
[)
()
()
()
()
11
[)
2
IIH
~
~
1
,;'jO
.l
.06
11
11
Bovitl du,".,
III IV V
Gf/Il\vet!
lfacl< 1l1Orked
%
No
"j,
131
I·JI
('i)
No
'X, (71
MNI, 111
No. (21
22
11
[)
[)
[)
[)
14
[)
()
11 I
()
()
11 11
()
[)
11
11
11
1I
4
"7
[)
[)
[)
(,
O
(_1.07
~ 1
SH
4
()\
'_1_ m
fM
~ ()
[) [)
4.
104
A Pattcrn Rccognition Study
IO.'i
Tecth TABLE 4.4
Surnrnnry of Loose Tecth plus Those Rernaimng Eneaseu in 130ny I'arts, T
MaxJIJae
MNE
MAU
%
MNE
MAU
fX,
Bovid class
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
((,)
1 II
136 92 237 374
13
j"
.)24 229
29 21
436
40
[[[
IV V
-!U R39
11 Figure 4.3
l'll,itioll of cut [ll:lrks "long 11l,lxiliary ICClh.
1981: 11 O, fIgurE 4. 19) as exernplary of heavy-handed butchering of frozen or still carcasse:s: lherc l' ,1 dhlllllliVl" uurk Idl 011 Ihe ,kllllll'oUI.l P,II'IJlld,H l.I1l 111.\('" dllnl\¡\ ti", H'U1()\',,1 01 rhe tll,lIllltble ",hcu rhe eucire uuir " {[(llcn. ~IUCt' rhe he"d \\'irh ,H, ra,h"d 1ll,1I\(ltbl.· " lClllll'i<-rL'lr srife ,1 dt,t'p ,lIlLllong cut is 1l\:H!e {mm rhe iu,en nf th\.. lJhl ....... rln llHl"'l'k' .lIllllj..!. r"l' lIppl'r flp .1l"l':1 ,¡hl)\'L' rhe uppn moLlr~ dlrt'crl} h:H.. k .H:ru~~ che ;l~Ct'IH.lll1g r:lIllUS of 111(: 1ll,\l1dihlc, sc:v(.'rlng rhe Jn;1S};CtCf Jntl~dc COIO~ I'letdy. OI1<'C thi, i, dou~ rhe ll1~ndible 111;1)' he 111;1ll1l'ul:1[ed ,It~hrl)' "nd the Dsk uf remov,ll" JJ);ldL' llluch c""cr. (llinfurd 19l1l,I(9) _
noG~z('.~ut
ObviollSly, rhe careasses blltch.eJ;.ed at Klasies River werc they could well have: been verx~tif0prior ro butchering-partiC;:;T;rly if 1ll:lIlY of rhe :lllilll;lls \\'ere sClVcnged r.1rher rh:ln hllllted. It is of further illll'IT,q Ih,ll lhe ,illgie l'x:lIuplc nf h:1Ck Illark.' 011 Ihl' 1l1.1xilh is in thc sal1le loeatioll as the ClIt Illarks shown in figure 4.3.
Teeth As J prcviollsly Iloted, the unirs in tcnm of whieh bunal assemblages were lTIost likdy cOllstinlted were allatomical scgmellts. After proeessing for
---_.
--- -_ .._---
9 23 .31 8
.Ml
SRl 2JH lRIO
(,2 22.S
j" .lÍ]
food alld during eonsllrnption in the past as well <1s subscqucTlt <1ttrition :lnd breakage we largely reeover fragrnents of anarornical segments actually used in the pa,t, This is perhaps nowhere more evident rban with loose tt'eth, which almost certainly were introduced to the site still seated in rhe rnaxillary and mandibular dental orcs of jaws and heads. Tablc 4.4 SlllTIlll
l'
I I
r
-.r-,
I t'l
eb.. .- cea« , 4, A Panem Recognition Study
y¿.~
Mandíble
107
106
TABLE 4.6
TABLE 4.."
Compartsons of MAUs Indicatcd by Tccth from thc Muxilla and Mandíble
Prcqucncy Cnmparison among Purts of thc Cranium Occipital ccndyíes
Hum
BIJI"id
c1as s
1 and 11
MaxillarF
.\1.oxl11ary
tectb
ares
Maxillary seesh
MIJntf¡hll/ílr leelh
Co/umnl
MAU
AfA (J
(1)
(2)
Cotunvn 2 I.JI
MAU
'Yo
MAU
%
MAU
'X,
MAU
!lo
(JI
(2)
(3)
(41
(5)
(61
(7)
(81
1
1'J
4:';
.43
S.;
.23
22
.24
18
.62
13
1S.5
11
9
21
.57
.77
68 90
.76
11
IV V
21 37
40
20.5
.38
.43 .SK
62
.60
22.'1
",~H
lIi-V ~6
18 2.1.5
processing oí mandiblcs by the Eskimo for a small and nutritionally marginal hit of pulp from rhc base of rhc roots of thc mandibular teeth (Binford 1978:23-32). The fact rhat horns are processcd from relatively large animals (kudu and eland, primarily) is consistenr with rhc view that the large amount of mear from these anirnals was not nvailable to the consumers oí the pulpy contents of the horn cores. 00 the other huud, the lack of horn proccssiug for rhe srnaller animals is consisrcnr witb rhe possibilitv rhat better foods wcre available-c-thc mear of these nnimuls, I :l111 suggesting tha: at leasr sorne crnnia with nttached horns were scavenged from thc dearh sites of moderarely large animal s and were mrroduced ro the sin-, where the horns were proccssed for a vcry marginal food. Thc ncarly rcversed [rcqucncies for mnxrllary ares relarive ro the frequencies of maxillary tccth arnong small and medium-large forms is most rC;lsonanlc seen as reflcctin~ differential break"ge.
Mandible Thfh,ulapdiWe is one of the most common parts in rhe Klasies as,cmblagc. In faet, fo, tbc mcdium (elas< lB) through ,be iarge (elass V) Jllimals it is ahsolutdy·the most,C()mmon<.anatomicttl parto Tahle 4.6 5ummarizes the rclati\"t frc::::quencies of mandihu1:lr JnJ maxillary e\ement5 as indic:ncd by tooth counts. This comparison is uken as an indicatian of rhe relati\e fn:qut.'llcie,,> of mandihlcs versuS craniJ. introduccd to the site. Tht: ratio') shown in Column ? of T able -t.n teH the story nicely..\mang the t\\ll ~n1.1lk~t ~(),Jy-,\zt" (l.1"~e, :\ .1l1d W the nurnh'r'.' 0\ cr.lnia 3fe -t5 and 4Y\,_ n.'~r('.:tiH>\Y. .l~ (OIl1!lllll1 .b .1re n1.1~h.hl~k". lhjo;. ~itu.ltion ,\;:I1.lS in Lwor of mJ.ndIHe:- \\.1" Il()tcd repeJ.ted\y ,1m()n~ the ~LlnJ.miut Eskimo
Bovid claes
m
PO.S
hunters, where mandibles were introduced to sites from fresh kills in numbers exceeding their cxpccred frequencies, givcn objcctivc mensures {)f thcir food value (see Binford 1978: 199). The overall bias in favor of mandiblcs in rhe Klasies data mighr be understood in similar rerrns, but this does not help in understauding why there is a shift in the relative rnnxtlla/mandibulur ratio, seemingly related to body size as illustrared in Tablc 4.6. In data from animal kills <111d dens ir has been norcd thar from rclatively small prcy cnimals, mandibles tc~-t to be far more conunon in animal dens rhan parts of thc cranium, presumably because with vvrv small animals the craniuru was commonly destroyed as a unir at the time predntors originally fcd on small-prey animals (se< Binford 1981 :2.12-2.B; Richardson 1980b). On the other hand, at animal den", thc body-size r:l1lge [rom mcdiurrt ro mcdium-fargc hovids cxhibits u markcd incrc.tsv in thc frcqucncy of crania relativo ro mandiblcs, although mandiblcs nH1tinuc to he abso!utcly the nlOSr C0111111011 pan (lf rht, hcad rcpn..'sented. follO\ving r!liscomparisoll still further, it is 11Olt'd lhat for prcy animals over 85 kg in body weight, parts of the skull wcrc eqll;ll to ar slightly greater than the frcqllency of mandibles in den assemblages (presumably hyaenas were the denning animals in this examplel. A proportional increlsc was also noted for wolves (,ee Binford 1981:Table 5.01, Colllmn 28; and Table 5.03, Colllmns 4-6). 011 rhe orber hand, as body sizc increased bcyond 80 to 85 kg, the ovcrall l1ulllber of hcad parts dccreascd rc1ativc ro lower-Ieg parts at animal denso Thi~ fact suggests to me that, for both hyacna and wolves, the hcad pares from re1atively Iarge prey are most often introdllced from smalJ inJiviJuals (young or immature). Figure 4.4 compares the p<:rcentagc l\1AU for animals of different !"lody size frolll hoth the SW;lrrzklip (Binford 1981:216) al1d Bel1r Crcek (Binford 1981:211) 'lIlimal·dcl1 assemblages \vith the sarne values for the body sizc dl','.¡.... s rcprescmed at Klasies River MOllth. Ir can be seen rhat there is a strikin~ rarallc1 betwcen
-úA",.d7· - ~fo "-' 4. A Pattem Recognition Study
108
'KL.':-
1----- :~v~-::-6WA1C ~ Be.NT 51:".1<.
'00
90
ea
TABLE ..1,7
--l l
""'1""'.0..'-
109
Mandiblc
Modificatinns ro Mandiblcs, Tabulaccd by Rlldy Sizc
Cut marked
~
~
I
~ ~
O
~
ci w
~
nmrkcd
----
O ,-ro W
--
líack
"'' ' ) SOl/-
Bovid class
~
L j ,
401
O
.301 /
L,..
CU"'Vj;FO'" K e J", 1 ~ :-n.J'o'vK.,. ~AN" T;;rl'ot~pOA:.TE
O
zc,/
AN......
A~6C.""'"
ro
L.Aq&.6
I
I
,""o
400
o
°
I 11 111 IV V
'00
Boov
200
WEI
500
600
KIL.OQ~M6
the two data sets. The human curve is lower and covers a much grearer range of body sizes, and ir peaks at a greater body size (130 kg). Neverthelcss, tbc overall character of the curve is strikingly similar. 31
No.
'X,
No
11 )
(2)
(3)
(4)
30 27
.07 04
25
2 1 4
O O O
32
2
.06
.l!
.1
.os
13-"
Figure 4.4 Comparrson bctwecn animal- and hominid-transponcd asscrnblagcs in the rclationship bctwccn body size ami frcqucncy of bcad transporto
This comparison illustrarcs nicc!y thar
MNE
lcast in rhe transport of hcad
parts ba~kto...JLl~ng sires. the occupants of the rocksheltcr at Klasics Rivcr Moutl(beh:i,,'cd Dl way s directly nnalogous ro other predator-sc3vengers transporting head paces back to their denso Such a provocative comparison is further amplified when ir is noted chat the proportions of mandibles ro crania for size c1asses ll! and IV approach rhose abondoned at predator kili sites for prey animals in the sarne body-size range (see Binford 1981: Table 5.02, Column 2). Allthese observations are eonsistent with the view that the removal of head parts from kill-death locations by occupams of Klasies was conducted in c')sellrially the same context as were the removals of parts ro JCIlS by nOllholllinid prcdator scavcngc:rs. Wharever rhe direct conditioning factors standing behind these patterns, it is clcar rhar the size of rhe 3nimal's head is a majar determinent of rhe frequency with which it is transponed. This me<1ns that if size is the majar conditioncr, as it appears to be, then rhis factor will condition rhe removal DE heads even within species, since individuals vary in head size as a funetion of age and sexo lE the transport filter is size, rhen we can expect
10
.16
.07
3 .\ K
GnlJw('(! lJelltllrV
Brcllkogl'
% (5)
No
'X,
/JO.
no.
(6)
(7)
(8)"
(9)"
O O O .09
O O O 3
.09
(i
(i
...1oi
f
...JQ
-'!
-'!
.Oó
S
2~
O O
22 JI
11
04
77
O O 7
22
a This column Indicares thc numbcr of the MNE rcprcscntcd hy thc dcntary arca (haH mandiblcs]. t. This column shows thc numbcr of dcntancs with thc lowcr muruin nf thc rnandiblc brokcn away.
differing age and sex profiles to characterize a population for head parts ranged across species of different body size. This means rhat the age and sex profiles of head parts occurring in a transported assemblagc do not reflect the mortality partero (catastrophic or attritional [Klein 1981 :61; 1982 J), bur insrcud the biased transport of differenr package sizcs away frorn kill-dcath locations. As was the case for processed born cores, we notcd rhar the processing of mandil-les for rhe rruly marginal fond nvailable ;H rhc roots of the mandibular tccth WJS exc1usivdy rcsrricted ro the mcdium-ro-lnrge animals (body-size classes Ill to V). The mandibles of the smal/er animal, are m-ver broken akmg the ventral rnargins of the horizontal mandibular rumus. Equally similar ro the siruation wirh horn cores, it could he argued that with the small animals the quantity of this marginal food is so Iimited that recovery is not worth the eUort. On the other hand, if the medium-to-Iarge animals were being humed, they would supply large quantities of very high quality food and it is reasonable ro wonder why, given so much food, so much eHort was expended to recover this truly marginal morsal? As was the case wirh the hom cores, then: is further evidencc Ihat there was very Hltle high-quality foad available when the large animal parts were processed. Severallines of evidence support this view.ln Table 4.7 it is noted thal cut marks regularly OCCllr on mandibles of borh large and smal1 animals (.05% of sizc classes I and 11, and .09 1Yo of MNE in size das ses IIl-V). Wi,.M is,ntO're·'imefcsling ale rhe djffemrces-i~1c·i'ftd.s.~-marks·oc-QH'",jng'On the smalt-'versus-the~large:"ftnfm&k. Figure 4.5 illustrares rhe placements of
4.
JJ()
I
~
OF"
1~ i
A Pattcrn Rccognition Study
111
HACl<... MARK...6
·~A.c;.E.ME.NT
-JA.W
Mandiblc
WI,H
c..LO~E.D
l
,
...... (l"
~ I
~
PI-A.c;.~Iv4e:..~'" W l , H
Q-~
I
Figure 4.5
<11
:t ~'
~~
~
~~
~~
t
~ '\
..JA.\N
OF:>E.N
Dismcmhcrll1cnt-mark placemcnt whcn the malldihlc is cither oren
cl<1~t:d.
cut marks nared on rhe mandibles from Klasies River MOllth. lt should be c1ear that there are basieall)' two orientations to the cut marks: (1) obligue across the horizontal ramus, wirh a tendency for a concentration of such rnarks on the ventral margins of the masseteric fossa, 01' (2) diagonally across rbe ascending tal11US íust below the mandibular condyle. AII tbese obligue marks are generally inflicted when the mouth is held open during burchering. This is most cornmo¡:¡ly. poss,ible when a f-resh, supple carcassi·s being cut up, On the other hand, when a dry 01' stiff carcass is being butchered, the Jllouth is shur and it is allllost imr()ssí~to oren ir.. When rhis is rhe case, cut mnrks such as the horizontal ones indicated in Figure 4.5 are commonly made running acrms the ram m, impacting the maxillary arc just above the lIppcr thirJ molar (as shown in Figure 4.:\). This is mosr common when the carcass is stiff but not yet dry. When a carcass is dry, dle use of sharp cutting tools, even modern steel knives, is ineffective on the dry and desiccated skin, muscJe, and tendon. When a dry carc~is being dismembered, chopping and hacking and heavy handed G-a~g/with breaking blows is the appropriate procedu re. In addition, J hav,J:., noted that when expcrimentally blltchering carcasses, if the carcass ~, sharp incising Cllts with ul1felouched flakes anJ blades are very effective. When this is done, single smal! V-shaped ClIt marks are common, rUllning sorne distance across a bC)I1e (only interrupted by changcs in surfo.ce shape of the bone). lf retouched f1ake knives are being used, a similar pattern may be seen, hut there may he "hair1ine" parallel sets of marks, represcming rhe impacts on bone of small pe
Figure 4.6
Hack ll1arks on thc base oE [hc mandihu\;1I" condy!c _.~-
---
IT
with a Iarge...hef.!L~Qg0-as on a handax, core scrarer, or orher large biface-one uses a cOl11hillarion of hacking anrl sawing Illotions. These !cave whole scts of short and frcqucntly thick cut marks, many (lf whieh are not exactly p<1rallel and may be separated from one anorher by several millimeterso Thi~ irregularity arises fmm rhe tw¡sting and sJight rcoricnratioll of rhe edge ro the hone surfacc as rhe Iarge tool is sawed and bruised inco the resistant material. This rype of c1usrered and larger searring is well i1Justrated in Figure 4.5. Hack marks fram such treatment were noted on mandibular condyles of eight of the mandibles from medium-Iarge (eland-size) and Jo.rge bovids (size classes IY and V). AII the hack marks and the horizontal cllt·marks illustratcd in Figure 4.6 wcre ohscrved on mandibles of the duce largcst hody·size c1asses (llI-Y). This is very 5trong evidence rhar the larter were dismembered by hominids after the cnrcasses had becomc stiff and dry, not when they werc.: fresh and supple. In adJition, iL WfJS noted in 0.11 cases whcre the CUl l11arks were parallel ro the tooth rows, suggestive of butchering when the jaw was ciosed ;)nd hence rigid, the cut marks were of rhe grouped, short, "set" variety and were not tbe long marks shown in Figure 4.7. These contrasts are taken ro
4.
112
A Pattem Rccognition Study
I
113
Vertebral Column TABLE 4.6 Atlas aotl Axis Vertcbrac, Tabulated by llody Sizc
---
Hack marl<ed
Cut marked
'Í!i-.~~
"
I
MNE
B()Vid cJass
(1)
No. (2)
Gnawed
rXl
No.
'"1"
No.
(3)
(4)
(S)
((,)
(J
O
()
(J
(J
O
O
(J
()
O O .15
O
O
O O
O O O O
º
º
º
º
O O O
O O
O ()
O
()
O O O O
º
()
% (7)
ATLAS
I
7
3
JI 1Il
5
I
IV V
4 7 4 27
O O O 4
12 7
1 O O O
.43 .20
O
O
O
O
AXIS 1
11 JII IV V
6 13
--1 42
Figure 4.7
Optn-mlJunt cut ffi
indic;lle lbe lI~L' of diffcrenr tools when hl1tcherin~ fresb :lnd supr 1e carcasses versus rigid amI prcsuJ110bly parti:llly dcsiccaled orles. Sbarp clltring edges, such as occur on freshly struck flakes, appear lO be the primary instrlllllL'nlS when lhe C;ln;a~ses .He fresh. Whell ri¡.\id,;\ heavy 1001 thal C:ln he used for hacking, bruising, and sa wing seems to hove hcen used. Somerbing like a handax or edge oE a thick core is a likely c::lndidare. As in the case oE other head parts, a1\ tbe animal gnawing noted on mandihles was rdcrahle ro hones of animals in lhe Jarge-size c\asses. This ohservation further supporrs rhe view lhat nonhnminíd scavengers h:ld ravaged the carcasscs of al le:lst some of tbe largcr nnimals.
Vertebral Column CEIt VICAI. VEItTrIlR¡\ E
11 is inleresting that the proportions oE atlas 10 axis (.64%; Table 4.8) are rough\y rbe snme for horh small and large animals. On rbe other band,
º 1
.OS O O O O .02
O
(J
()
O O
º º O
O
rhe orher cervical vertebrac art' more common from anil11<1ls of size c\asses 11 and III (see Table 3.5). There lhe atlas and axis represent only 29"/0 of lhe cervical vertebrae. In the former case, nLlmbers of Sklllls are beíng inttOduced, prcsurnnbly wirh attached atlns and axi~ vertebral' but llnaccompanied by rhe rernainder of rhe neck. Cut rnarks were really only meaningfully noted for rhe small :lnim:ds, supporring rh!: d:lla from rhe occipilal condyks, th;\I only all10ng rhe sl11aller forms was rhe head regularly cu t from the neck. Hacking was not exhibüed on the neck pam. Gnawing was noted on 8% of the cervical vertebral' of size class IV and 20% oE size class V. THO[~AC:IC VERTE~RAE
Becallse very few complete verrehrae were observed, rhe rhoracic spines are descrihed independenrly of the fragmenrs oE vertebral hody (Table 4.9). In my experience wilh butchering marks, one of the most consisrently represented is rlaced rollghly parallel ro the orient:lrion of the verrebral column along the base of the dorsal spincs (see BíllfordJ~_~l: Figure 4.21). These are W:(;)~lK.~d during the removal of rhe endei-roi~ mu~~§, which lie in a long Q.~ndle 9long rhe vertebrae on either side o the spinous processes
4.
1/4
A Pattcrn Rccognition Studv
TABLE 4."
Thoracic Vcncbrac. Spincs Only Brok~1J
Bovíd CliHS
1
11 III IV V
Cut
Hack
Ptom
markl.'d
marked
breokagc
".
n!"
'21'
"
No.
(3)
141
(5)
16 12
.36 .2H .12 .13
O O O
MNC 111
No
44 43 43 1(,
.J..I!
IS6
, Z
-' J6
J.Q .23
1
f
3
U
O
O ,06 ~ .02
No. (6)
O 2 4 6 (,
18
% (7)
O
and Cnawed Nn, (81
O
.0,
O
.09
U
.3R
[
~ .12
f 3
GIH1wed
%
No.
(9)
(10)
O O O .06 ~ .02
O 2 4
% {/ 1J
O .OS .09
7
.44
--ª 21
~ .13
(this rernoval is well il!ustrated 111 Binlord 1978: Figure 2.1). In my control data Erom the Nunamiut Eskimo, cver 50% of the thoracic vertcbrae are rnarked along the base 01 rhe rhoracic spines (see Binford 1981 :Table 4.02). Table 4.9 demonstrutes rhat, like the Nunarniut data, a relatively large numbcr of thoracic spincs are scarred by cut marks at Klasies Rivcr. Of even greater importance is the very high frequencv of spines from animals in the two srnallest hody-size classes (size classcs 1 and 11), in which 36 and 28%, respectively, of the identified spincs were marked. ln conrrast anly 12, 13, and 10%, respectivclv, ()f the spincs from larger body-size animals exhibited cut marks. This contr.tst providcs furrhcr cvidcncc of more dismcmbermenr hy ultting ;1I1101l!!. tluo-' vm.rllcr .uumals. In 11'5 (_'pC'Tiencewlrh-f1etdl'¡"¡"bimllflc!llhlC~'t'4ifl". "'t!"!"'' itn_flftilio'' 'l!liiA; the larger the animal, thc grcarcr rile dcgrcc of dismcmbcrmcnt in rhc field ro facilitare transport. Por instancc, whcn I ¡uve been with hunting p'lrtil's on foot or evcn with pack dogs and an animal ,he size 01 a moose (408-680 kg) \Vas killed, field dismemberment included the disarticulation between the scapula and proximal humerus, as wel1 as oetween the distal radius and the proximal metacarpJ1. On the other hand, when ca ribo u were field-butchered, the Eront leg was comlllan1y disarticulated only between the distal radius 3nd the proxilIIitlllletacarp:tl. ·1~'t"A.lukrl'J-Kc.'.t ..reflcLt that morc-extellsivc fidd hmchcring oi large animals makes possible the transport of "reasonable"·size units when the prey lS very large. This same principle applies ro the axial skeleton. For instance, in ficld-blltchering caribou, it is common to remove the compkte vcrtehrJI colum11 as J unit, whereJs in all the cases I observed of butehering anirnals of sizc uf moose, the vertebra e \.. . ere butchered ioto at least four units: ncck; thoracic; lumbar, with the sacrum remaining attached
115
Vertebral Column
to rhe lumbar verrehrac; and pelv¡c units, with rhc pelvis frequenrl y scparated into twn units, a right and lefr side. This cxpcricnce Icads me ro expcct grcatcr nurnbers of cut rnarks 00 a greater uumbcr of bones from large animals prior ro rhe introducción of parts ro a site of consumprion. We observe the reverse at Klasies River. In the eomparison made he re, cut marks have bcen more common on the small animals and less common on the bones from larger ammals. 1 think rhe conclusion is inescapable that knife butchering was lcss common, the larger the animal. It is unlikely that this would be the case if large animals were being field butchered after being killed by man, or whcn rheir carcasses were still fresh . This intcrpretation is further supported in the case of thoracic remains by a numhcr of additional provocativo and inforrnntive traces rernciuing on the bones. v-ety'p-revocaÜve j:¡ a piOf)dlrLhdf4 iioted~'Whi\e&6tl~R~ 1111' ~ namely, rhar wolves tend also to go sclcctively after the renderloin, but instead of using knives they sin k rheir reeth into the muscle on either side of the thoracic spine, vice down, and pull back. This rcsults in punctures inro rhe spinous process, coupled wirh pulling upward or away from rhe vertebral eolumn. The result of this aetion is the frcquenr hreaking away of the dorsal edge of the spinous process, frequently coupled with tooth puncture or pitting marks along the ridge of the thoracic spinc. Figure 4.8 shows a
..
"',
-'
"\."'1 r:__ \1 """'lIiiiI •
i '
Figure 4.8 Canid fecdin.g on a section nI lumhar vert(:hr;lc, showin.g the "rullin~ up" actio!l uf r('moval of thc tcnderloin.
4. A Pattcm Rccognition Srudv
J 1(,
Vertebral Column
117
J i
·1
Figure 4.9
Modcrn cland lTamotragus) vertebrac gnawcd by hvacna in the Nossob
valley, Sourh Africa -~
''',¡
canid holding down a sccrion of lumbar vcrrebrac anV pulling up along the lumbar dorsal spines. Figure 4.9 illustrares the type oí &-eakage resulting, as observed on thorncic vertebral' of an eiand scavenged by hyaenas. This same eondition is well illustrated hy the dried carcass of a blue wildebecsr that had bccn sClvt'ngnl hy hy.un.rs (Figure 4.10). This rypc of breakage, parallel to rhe vertebral column and localized on the dorsal ridgc of the spine, is tahulated by body sizc in Colurnns 5 and 6 of Tablc 4.9. It is clcar rhat, unlikc cut marks from knifclikc tools, rhis breakage patrern. dingnosric oí carnivore feeding, is most corumon on (he boncs of lnrgc anirnals nnd is absenr on the thoracie spincs of small animals. The frequcncv of this form of breakage is paralled by gnaw marks (similar tú rhose illustrarcd in Binford 1981: Figure 3.32) produced by animals and is reinforced by the rclatively high frequencies oí gnawing indicared 011 the ccntrutu or hodv fraglllcl1ts (Figure 4.1 1) of thor.rcic vcrtchrnc (Tal-le 4.10). Twcnty perccnr oí thc thurncic body fragments showcd evidcncc of gnawing in the fonn of tooth punctures, 100th scoring. or crcnularcd edges of various proccsscs frorn rhc largcst two body-sizc classcs. No such gnawing W;15 cxhihitcd on rhc vcrtcbrac from (he small-body-size animals. This patrern is amplified still further by the evidencc of baek marks inñicted by heavy hacking-chopping actions. As has already been suggested. hacking and
Figure 4.tO Módem wildcbccst (Connochaetesl carcasscs fcd upon by both hvacna and iackals, showing uppcr brcakagc on the dorsal spincs and ncck brcakagc of thc nbs (Nossob Vallcy, South África].
chopping are csscnriallv thc oulv way!'i ro dismcmbcra dry or rigid carcass. While it is possible to dismcmbcr a íresh carcass with a sharp cleaver, a dull bruising chopper is almost irnpossiblc to use in going througb heavy muscle and tendón rhat are frcsh. Judging from the chnractcr of rhe hack rnarks, they were inflicted when (he carcass was relanvely dry and stiff. Tilesefuers .¡jlJÜ,together ro support- the- inference- thar, in the main,- carcassesof the larger animals were nor íresh, and had. been prohably fed upon by non-
4.
¡IR
Vertebral CoJumn
A Pattero Rceogmtion Study
/:í~
119
represent a processíng alternarive of transponed parrs rhar had hecome sriff and panialJy dried Ollr wbile awaiting consumpriol1 in rhe living site ·itself. This is, of COLlTSe, rhe position generally raken by Glynn Isaac (1971:288) and H. Bunn (1982:495), as well as by Mary Leakey (1971:43) with regard to the evidence of carnivore gnawing OH rhe bones from the famous sites ar Olduvia Gorge and, more recemly, ar J
Fi~urc 4.11
Vcncbw
or !'elea (Vaalrhebokl.
showln~ anima]·tooth pUl1ctllrcs.
hominid predator-scavengers rrior to the dismemberment and transpon 01 lIsab1c parts by the hominids back to the site at Klasies River Mouth. The obiecrion could be raised tbat rhe fceding and gnawing of bones by Ilollhominid carnivorc kedcrs could have bccn done 011 site at Klasies River after rhe hominids had abandoned their living place. This view could be cour icd with the denial rhat rbe hacking had ro be done at rhe kilI and could TABLE 4.10 ThOTacie Vcrtebrae: Centrum Only
Cut marked Ihll'id
e/lISS
Hack marked
Gnawed
MNI'.
No.
0.4~
No.
%
No.
(1)
(2)
(a)
(tI)
(!j)
(6)
[
64
[]
(,9
)l[
H<)
IV V
1
.02
o o
;';4
o
o o o
.J.Q
º
_0_ .01
2Hó
1
o o o o 2
o o o o .20
o
% (7)
o
3 8 II
.04 .09 .20
..l
--±Q
24
.08
Figure 4.12 NunamlUt Eskimo rcmoving a rib slab by cracking i t hack a~aJUst the vertebrac. This !caves a distinetivc fracture patlern.
12()
4
A l'attcrn Reccgnition Study
Vertebral Column
ribs to free the slab from rhc vertebrar. This results in a characteristic break coupled with distinctive cut or slicing marks on rhe ventral surfaces of ribs. When rhe carcass is fresh, the ribs crack hack, so that the stress is primarily focused on the neck of the rib; that is, on the short secnon uf bone berween
121 TABLE4.ll
Brcakagc uf Proximal Ribs ami Othcr Rib Segmente
Ccmpleie rib«
rhe head and rhc tubercle ar the articular end of the rib. This brcakage results in thc tiny hcad's remaining atrached ro the rhoracic vertebrae, and rh~ break [ust forward of the tuherc1e rherefore characterizcs thc rib as removed from the cnrcass. With very largc animals this removal of a slab unir is too difficult, and ribs may be removed in units of three or sorucrimes even brokcn back one at a time. Whcn the larrer is the case, there is a torque ser up rclarive to the remaining, unbroken ribs and the break tends to be a very distincrive diagonal break just hnck of thc tubercle, across the costal groove. In horh cases. the brcaks are corrclated with slicing cut marks on the vcntral surfacc of the rib adjacent to the break. On the other hand, when the animal is dry and the tendons attaching rhc ribs ro the vertebra e are desiccared. the proximal end of rhe rib is irnmobile in a vicelike grip of dry rissuc. (f one wishcs ro remove ribs under these conditions, they must be broken and chopped rhrough roughly across the shaft of rhe rib. just distal to the anglc of the rib, since aH rhe attachmcnts ro the vertebral' are in the arca berween the angle and the head 01 the rib. This results in a complete rib head's breaking off just distal to the angle and rernaining atrached to the thoracic verrebrae, with the dismembcred rib unit itsclf having no anatómica] segments of the head attached. T able 4.11 sUlllmarizes the breakage pattero associated with the proxi· mal ribs. as well as a rabularion of other rib segrnents noted in the Klasies ;l'''l'll\ht\~l'. \'\/h:1I is \,(,:ry dl'ar is that proximal rihs \\'ith complete hcads (indicati . . c..· (lf hrt..'Jkage while dry), and broken across the angle (Colul1llls 2 :md 3), are progressivcly more common the larger the animal, whereas heads brokt'n bcrwlx'n the hcad and the tuhercle (indicativc of fresh carcasses disrncmbermcnt) are more frequent the smaller the body size. TWzs¡!mf.l(!,'ion·suppon. ·!he. grt>Winghody"'¡'€ORffilSl6..a.-_ing..-M~~ftrofisisltntlrshd"w"€9idt!ft~'h'8"'¡llgb~~m
membenld-whe...bey>w"",'k<s,'f=lr.nd<,¿"tiff!y,sti#. This inferenee is further supported by the general lack of rib fragmenrs fmm the ¡arger animals. It was nuted among the Eskimo (Binford 1978:151-152) that when rib'i wnc fn:'ih it was common to break them open and ro suck out the small amounts of pulp from rhe interior. 00 the othcr hand, when ribs were dry, this material tended ro be putrid. 1\1111.:h care was then taken not ro break oren rib "hJft" during {he remo\·31 of dr~ me,u or during: the boiling of mear (JIl {he b(mt~. Rib h~'J~l" .1":":l~unt fl'r (-1'\' l,f .111 the' n~ iLl~llKnt~ frpm the three
Bovid class 1
11 III
IV V
AINF (1)
No
22 25 12 8 7 74
10 19
(2)
Hmk.en rih~
% (.1)
No. (4)
'y"
NI)
(5)
1(')
A5
12 6 4 2 I
.55 .24 .3.1 .25 .14
25 7 1 I
.76 .61 .75
~
""
l\.'lid,haft ,cel HJ/1S
.86
Distal ends
'y,. (7) (,~
I~
.19 OH
16 II
0.1
O
..l
.0.1
.17
50
'y"
No. (H)
(9) ~2 ./Í4
.Y2
o .14
..l 46
largest body-size c1asses (lll- V), suggesting rhar rhcsc wcre most likely introduccd attached to the vertebrae rather rhan as separare parts for consumption. Vicwed in another way, there are very few sccrions of rib shaft, suggesting (1) few complete ribs were introduced, and, if rhey were. rhen (2) they were not broken up for consumption (possibly dry and putrid inside). On the other hand, fragments of ribs from rhe shaft and distal ends were more coruruon from animals in the two smallest body-sixe classes (1 and 11), so that rih heads nnly amount to .37% of all thc rib fragrncnts. This differenee must he meaningful beca use rhe recovery eHiciency for larger bones would be expected to be high and small bones low, given rhe large mesh screens that the excavators are reported to have used. '('he s!ory uf Ihe rihs is amplificd whcll Ihe data 011 (lit marks, hacking, and gnawing arl' L"onsidcred (Table 4.12). Hack marks are more common TABLE 4.12
Ribs' Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks Cllt
Bovid
dd'_~
1
11 III
IV V
marked
MNE {lJ
No. 121
22 25 12 8
O
O
O
O .17
7 5~
2
3 4 9
% (.1)
38 S7 .1(,
Hack /lloT/
Gnawed 'X,
% (5)
No. (6)
O O .1
O O .25
O
O
n
"
7S
11 I I
No. (4)
...1
1.1
..'17 22
~
"
(7)
.O~
.1.1 ~ 10.0
4.
122
A Pattcrn gecognitlon Stuuy
TARLE -/..14
TABLE 413
Pclvic Parts: Cut, Hack. and Cnaw Marks
Lumbar Vertebral: and Sacrum: Cut, Hack, and Cnaw Marks CU! II/llrk.ed
cla,\.~
Bodd
MNL (1)
% (3)
No (2)
Jh'ck. mar1<<'d No. (4)
%
(S)
Cut
Cnovvcd No. ((j)
11 1II
IV V
42 42 46
(,
5S
1
.J2
º
200
.14 21 O .02 O 02
9 (1
No.
«
Bovid class
(2)
'"
'l}
'/}
(3)
No. (4,
1 II
21
23
7 1
III IV
19 17
.33 .17 .16 IR
V
O O O II I I
4
O
O
O
(1
O lJ
"
O
O
º
O
,
O N O .29 -.l}
O
24
.12
IJ
16
SACRA
1 II III
IV V
H
3
y
2
4 4 2 27
Il O
" 7
.38
IJ
.22
O
o
o
Il O
I O
1m
1
.2S O .50 .29
.26
2
O O 2 I
" 5
Hack mnrked
MNE
(1
(1
morked
O;"
LUMRAR VERTEBRAE I
123
Thc Appcndiculcr Skeiceon
"n.sO ,2S
LOO .19
than cut marks, and rhe former are restricted to animals uf the three largest body-size classes. As we have noted, hacking and animal gnawing are correlnted aud both are seen as indicarive of thc carcasscs having been scavenged and rigid prior ro exploit;ltion by the hominids for rransporr to their site. This patn-rn is vcrv rohllst ;1Il1Ot1~ thc rih fragmcllls. LUMIIAR VUUHIRAF ANI} SAC/Wl\l
Table 4.13 sununarizes rhe informaríon for borh lumbar vertebrae and sacra. These compromise one of the first body parts to exhibir httle clear patterning regarding th!: placemcnt and relative frequencies of inflicted marks rebti\'e ro hndy size. GTlawing, 011 the other hand, shows a pattero of rebrivdy hi~h frequcllcics (in this case even higher than normal) on the hOTlcS frolll rhe two largcsl boJy-sizc dasscs.
3
...Q
-.l"
iZ
Ró
IS
.17
Cnowed
'1:,
No.
'!;,
(.11
((,)
(7)
11 11 11
II U
II
".17 .01
, (,
II
U
O O ..l~
-.lll 13
marks are sometimes associared with the removal of mear rarher than dismemberrnent, but may also be related ro [he dísrnembemienr of the pelvis
irself into right aud Icfr hulves. Whcn tbc latrer
j"
thr
CISC,
rhe cuts are
generally rather robusto As Table 4.14 demonstratcs, there are quajitativc diffcrences between the cut marks noted on the smaii-size ciasses al bovids. In cddinon, there are twice as rnany marks on bones [rom rhe sma]! hovid class. This may reflect a greatcr numbcr of animals burchered when they were fresh, a condirion rhar we wiH see is also indicated by rhe rypes of marks prescnr. Cerrainly of grcar inrcrcsr are the inflated frequencies for animalgnawed pelvic boncs noted among the large ami vcry large bovids, while such gnawing is abscnr on rhr horres of mcdiurn- and smnller-size anirnnls. With rcgard to the qucstion of whcthcr the gnawing occurrcd prior to introduction of thc parts ro the sire, or wherher anirnals scavenged debris from human consumption after the humans had left the site, rhere is only one bonc, a fragrnenr of ischiurn, thar has both cut marks from stone tools {across rhe body al (he ischium] and roorh marks from animal gnawing (aloog the border between the ischial ramus and rhe ischíal ruberosity). There is no elue in this case as ro which was made first, the rool marks or the animal gnawing.
The Appendicular Skeleton Pelvis Cut marks on the pelvis pans from lhe animals of medium and large size wete .1lmost exclllsive!y across the pubis or along rhe symphysis. These
UPI'ER-1.1t\m BONES
1 treat the upper heavy-musde-mass bones ol the front and rear quarters as a ser in this description.
for
~t fte~)-
r?J
4. A Pattern Rccognition Study
124
The Appcndi cu lar Skclcton
125
TABLE 4.15
Proximal Fcmur: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks
Cut marked
Hack markcd
Cnawed w,_
MNE
No. (2)
Bovid class
(1)
I II
18
IJI
15
IV V
25
O 4
-2
O
II
74
4 I
9
')1"
No,
%
(41
(SI
(6)
(7)
22
O
.09 U
O
O O O O
O I 2 7 I
--1Q
11
IS
(~ú
(.1)
.16
º-.12
No
O O
º º O
O
O
09 .13 2~
PROXIMAL I'Fl\lUR
Among abnosr all rhc animals largcr than the smnll bovids, rhe proximal femur is represenrcd by the femoral head brokcn through the femoral neck so that segmcnts of thc grcater and lesscr trochanccr are comrnonly abscnt. In rny expcricnce rhis is a relatively rafe forrn of breakage, and is nfernble 10 acrs of dismcmberment rather than to breakage of a femur for bonc rnarrow. This typc of breakage is almost exclusively associated with the dismernbcrmcnt of anirnals rhar \...'ere frozcn or animals that for one rcason or anorher, had not been butchered whcn they were still supple. Most human butchers dislocare the femoral joinr by piacing the foor in the crorch of rhe animal and simultaneou si y pulling IIp and rwisring the animal's leg. l hnvc obscrvcd rhis ,1S a regular proccdurc 011 animals as lnrge as a Norrh American moose. This is done hcfore the animal is skirmed, and torces the femoral hcad out of the acerabulum so that la ter, when the rear quartcr is bcing rClllovt.'d, al! rhat is requircd is to cut rhe connective tissue hetween rhe femur and rhe pelvis without having to gouge ioto or around the <.lcctahulum ro scver rhe attachment of rhe femoral head ¡nside rhe
Figure 4.13
Marks inflicted on rhc pelvis whcn thc fcruur is dislO<.:atnl.
marks are generally coupled with marks across rhc grc.ucr trochaurcr or rhc femoral hcad, AH rhe cut marks on the proximal femur of the srnaller animnls \SIZC classcs I nnd 11) wcre of this typc (t1H~S(: are illusttated in Binford 1981:117, mark Fp-5). On the other hand, al! the cut marks observed on proximal femora from animals in size class IV were marks across rhe neck of the fémur, which is most commonly produced when the ball joint has not been previously dislocated. Such marks are frcquenrly produced prior ro levcring a relanvely immobilc joint, when twisred brcakage occurs across the ueck of rhe fernur as previously noted. At Klasies, all cuts across the neck wcre also associated with broken necks. This pattern c1early points ro thc butchering of larger anirnals when [he ioints had not been dislocared and wcre rclanvely stiff at che time of hurchertng. In thc case uf thc proximal fcmur, rhc partcrn prcviously nored of thc nearly exclusive presence of gnawing marks on bones f-om (he animáis in the larger body-sizc classes continúes. This funher strengthens the interpretation that, at the time of burchering with rools, the carea:-;ses of the largcr animals wcrc re1:ltivrly sriff anu had alrL'ady heen fed uron hy carnivorcs. Breakage oí rhe distal femur was almosr exc!usiveiy rhrough the shaft just proximal ro the articular end, as is common among Iarge and smalJ animals, and m..u ks wcrc all of the same type-transvc:rse marks across the posrerior tace just above the condyles (sec Billford 19H1: 117, lll<1rk Fd- L). 'Ihcse marks are inflicted during dismembermcnt (Tahlt- 4.16,1. TlHlA
Thc pattcrn llotcJ for the fcmur conrillucs with elle tihía; rhat ¡5, cut marks are generan)' present 011 bones of both the largc and small animals, hack marks are normally absent, and gnawing is restricteJ ro the bones of
4.
126
A Pattcm Recognition Study
TABLE 4.16
TABLE 4.IH
Distal Fcmur: Cut, Hack. and Cnaw Marks
Cut marked l'vlNL
'Bodd
d(bS
I II
III IV V
(1) 37 40 26 27
---2
1.19
!\'o. (21
Distal Tibia: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks Cnowed
llack morked
%
No.
"'
."
No
'¡:,
(3)
(4)
(:'j)
((,)
(7)
Buvid class 6 2 O 7
¿ 19
.16
05
O .27
~ .14
O O O O
º
O
O O
O O
(J
1
04
O
4
.15
º
1
-.l.!.
6
.04
O
O O
larger animal, (Tables 4.17 and 4.18). UnJike the femur, the kinds of cut marks are essentially rhe same on both large and small animals. All the marks noted 011 the proximal tibia wcrc of one typc (Binford J9Hl:118, Tp-Z}; thar is, marks along the edge of rhe medial tuberosity parallel ro rhe proximal articular surface. Similcrly, all the marks notcd 00 rhe distal ends of the tibia wcre across thc tip of rhe medial malleolus, as shown in Binford (1981: 118, Td-3). No marks related 10 filleting oc the removal of meat were uoted on cithcr the fernur or rhe tibia. SCAPULA
ln rnany ways thc sea pula appears analogous to the pelvis in that of the parts of thc uppcr-front lcg ir cxhibits a biased high frequency of cut oc disrnemberment marks 00 bones from the srnaller-body-size animals (see
1 II
III IV V
Hack marked
MNl:
No.
".{,
No.
'~~
No
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(:i)
((,1
12 21 45 41
3 6 I
O O O O
O O O O
O O O 4
o
8
.14 .29 .02 .20
~
-l
JI
º
º
L
13,
MNE
No.
%
No.
%
No.
n;"
(/)
(2)
(31
(4)
(5i
(6)
(7)
I.l
2
.15
I
11I IV V
10
(,
7
I
.08 ..12 .14 O 211
~
SI
O
JO
º O
(J
4
O
10
.0.1
1. Thirtcen of thc rnarked pieces showed rransverse rnarks just bclow the lip of the glenoid fossa 00 the dorsal surface (see Binford 1981:122, rnark s-n, 2. Eight marks were noted on the ventral surface in an analogous pnxition ; that is, just below the lip of the glenoid fossa. These would be inflicted after the front quarter was removed Irom the animal and the scapula was being disarticulated from the humerus.
Scapula: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks
l i ack; morked
10
.14
O
TABLE 4.19
Cut marke.i
I
19
% (7)
Table 4.J9). Unlike the pelvis, however, there is a relatively high frequency of hack rnarks 011 the scapulae of large-body-size animals. In terms of the types of cut marks, there ís a total conrrasr between the marks on the bones from rhe small body-sizes (elasses 1 and 1I) versus the larger c1asses. Four types of cut marks were observed 011 the scapulae of the small animals.
Proximal Tibia: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks
II
Cnawed
Cut marked
TABLE 4.17
BOI'id class
127
Thc Appcndicular Skclcton
11 O O O O O
Cnawed
11 O O O
O 11 I 1
.29
º
1
_.50 08
O
4
11 O
.05
Cut marked
Cnawed
Haek mosíced
MNE
No
%
No.
'Y"
N"
"'
Bovid class
Ilj
(21
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
I JI
10.1 SO 61
2.1 7
.22
11 O 3 2
O .05
11 O 6
11 O .10
11I IV V
.14 .08
,~S
S 1
.03
7
-l
256
.17
~
.14
, 7
O
06
-12 .03
O
¿ 19
'0
.26
-.2 .07
4. A Pattcrn Rccogniuon Studv
12,~
~ f:-,~ ~ I
./.-
.
129
The Appendícular Skeleton
.
LI- •
{ '~ ·1
'/'1'
1,
~v
i;l" ,,I
\
""...." .. , ;\ Typ,;
-d.-
6-l
1, "
,
"
Figure 4.14 Disrncrnhcrmcnt marks on rhc scapula
3, Six had rather decp parallel marks diagonally across the supraglcnoid tubercle, running from rbe scapu!a norch ro rhe upper edge of the glenoid fossa (scc Figure 4.14). This was a position not previously in my studies of cut marks, Ir is certainly produced when the scapula-proximaJ.humerus joim is heavily f1exed, and the cut is inflicted while cuuing rhe supraspinatus rnusde off the head of rhe hnrncrus. Thc animal would hnve to he quite flexible wbcn such a cut WJS ;nflicted tsec figure 4.14). 4. Three scapul.tc hud small. shorr, cbcvron marks on rhe upper axillary bordcr, roughly opposite thc scapula notch (Biufcrd 1981:122; $-2) undcr thc metacromion oí the scapula spine. Tbcse marks would he inflicred either when the joint was fully extended (not flexed) or during rhc rcmoval of mear from the scapula (e.g., filleting), The contras! to the Iarger-body-size animal could hardly be greater. Fina,:111 tbc marks fin honrs of thc largor .mirmls thnr were inflicred during disllIcmbcrment were hack l1urks, cx('cpt onc rhar was lik<.· Type 1 aboveI1lJrk S-l. The renuining six m:lrks 110ted 011 large-anillla! scapulae were filleting marks, two of which \Vere longitudínal on rhe ventral surface of sea pula blades (sce Figure 4.15), ;1nd rhe rcmainder were longitudínal marks along the infraspinous fossae (Binlord /981:98, 5-3), J think it is fairly certaio rhar rhe~t' fillt·ting marks were inflicted ar rhe 5ife after meat~covered scapulae had been inrroduced. This means thar all rhe dismemberment
Figure 4.15
Filleting marks on thc ventral surfacc of the scapula.
marks observed 00 the large-animal scapulae (except onel were inflicted by choppers, whereas al! those 011 rhc smaller animais wcre inñicred by cutting-slióng rools, Thc dominance of chopping marks corresponds, as repeatedly nored, to the high frequency of animal-gnawed pieces. This (O nrinues ro be true for the scapuia. HUMFRlJS ANO RADIOUJBITLJS
Tablc 4.20 summ.irizcs thc inforrnation rcga-diog cut, huck, and graw marks observed on the articular cnds of the upper-front limb bones. An inreresting pattern is dear. Only one exarnple DE hackiug or chopping was ohserved 011 all [he othcr boncs frorn the upper-front limb. This is in marked contrast ro rhe siruarion with the sea pula, but is similar to the situation with all the bones of the upper-rear leg in which no cxamples of hacking oc chopping were noted OIl the proximal femur down through the distal tibia. Many more cut marks remaining from disrnemberrnent were noted on rhe pelvis and proximal femur of smal1 animals, and a parallel situation is seen with rhe :'C.1PUh1. UnJike rhe sirll<Jrion wirh rhe fear leg, where litrle dífferencc is seen in rhe numher~ of dislllcmbcrmcnt marks on the articular cnds of the upperlimb banes, there is a concentrarian of dismemhcrmcnt marks on the raclius of the srnaJler animals) suggt'5[íng that thcrc was J regubr dis~rticllbrion of the smal1er anímals at the distal humerus-proximal radiaeubitus ¡oint, whereas no sueh regular dismembetment at this ioinr appcars to ch:tracter·
4.
[JO
A Panem Recognition Study
TABLE 4.20 Inflicted Marks: Uppcr-Front Limbs Cut marked
MNE lJovid
cJIlS8
111
No (2)
Cnawed
Had< marked
"'.0
No.
(3)
(4)
% (S;
No. ((,)
% (7)
O 1 O .3
O .25 O .4.1
.!
---.2Q .22
PROXIMAL HUMERUS
I
(,
Il
4
11I IV
4
V
7
..1 2.1
o
o
o
O
O O 2 O 2
O O .29
O O O
O
º.09
º º
O O
O
O
5
o
O O O
º
DISTAL HUMERUS
o
O O O O
6 2 O 7
.16 .06 O .27
O O
O O O O
9 139
-.1
~ .14
O
º
º
1 II
12
.3
.25
o
o
o
14
.1
.21
12 24
4 O
O
O
u
...Q
..3.1 O 0_
O O
.1
11I IV
O O I
--º2
10
.14
º
!
7.1
º--.nl
('
2
III IV V
O O
21
2
.10
11 O O O
n
8
-ª 59
1
...Jl
5
.aH
O O O O O O
o
Il
º
1 II
11I IV V
.17 40
26 27
19
O
O
º
O
O
RADlUS
V
I
O
.04
.t
O .21
O .05
CUBITUS (
"
.14
O O
O
2
2,<;
I
.05
1
-E .10
DISTAL RADIOCUBITUS I II
2 H 15
11I IV
20
V
-1 47
O O
O O
2
.l.i
I
.05 O
º
.3
.06
11 O O O
O
o
n
n
O
O O
O
O O O
n
º º º º O
O
O
l:Jl
rze the larger animals. This pattern complements a shift in rhe relative frequencies of upper- versus lower-limb parts represented from thc srnaliversus [argc-hody-size classes (ser Table 3.6). Gnouwing shows a very mrerestmg.pattern. It is present with increasing frequency on both the scapula and proximal hurncrus of larger anirnals. On the other hand, the distal humerus and proximal radius show Hule animal gnawing, although therc is sorne gnawing on the olccranoo. Gnawing is absent on the distal radiocubitus. Al! in all, gnawing is not a cornmon characteristic exccpr on rile scapula and proximal humcrus. Rones down the leg from this arca of the front limo appear untouched by animals. This is in contrasr to rhe rear leg, where gnawing was a consistenr characrensric on all large-animalupper-limb bones, excepr the distal tihia. Thcrc is very c1early a biased gnawing on the upper-rear leg, It should he pointed out thar this is rhe area of a freshly killed animal thar almost always receives the inicial attention from fecding animals. A lion uSllally ears the hit~dQ~?th~ first, Jollowed hy. ~~.~~rters and lasrly rhc hcad. , .. leopnrds, too ofren ear visceru first. hJ.!~--é.eetah)eiect them and rige-s rcnd ro consume rhe mear from the rump ánd tj,ighs:f'cfore thc mrestmes. (Scballer 1972b:269; «: 1971 by rhe Universitv cf Chi{';lgO) When rbe kili was a domesríc cow or buffalo, rhe tigee bega» to e.it ar rhc rump in all of rhe insrances cbserved, ahhough ir somerimes starred ar rhe neck if ancrher tiger had alreadv OCCUplCJ the preferred place ar rhe hindquarters. t'ichallrr 1967:1lJ7)
If rbe carcass is inract, however, or if the victim is "tiJl alive afrcr being hunred down, rhcy [sponcd hyaenaj-eear gpen the belly and loiJi~ the first parts tu go are usually rhe resricles .or udder .... Once rbe abdomen is opened, rhe enrrails are pulled out and rhe soft parte earen. , .. Ar rhis stage the hyenas begin eanng rhe ahdollllll,ll and leg IlIUsc1cs ;IIIJ the skin ... , Once a large part o( fhe Ill\lscles h;¡s becn cOlhumed, tlle hyerlas are ahle to st;)rt tt'aring uf( legs, anJ Ollt' secs tne (irst anim.ll, rllllllin¡:: off with thdr lnot. (Kn!llk 1972: 116; t 1"J7.! lw Ih e tlniversity (lf Chi(,lgrl)
.25
1
6
Thc Appcndicular Skeleton
O
(See also my summary of aoalogous documents in Binford 1983c.) Tool-inflicted eut marks also exhibit an imeresring distribution. As already J1oted, the marks on the scapulae from [he larger animals were inflicced during fiIJeting, while dismemberment was accomplished by hack~ ing. Dismcmberment marks dominare rhose on the humerus. The two marks noted on rhe proxim~l humerus were aeross the greater trochanter (see Bioford 1981: 123, Figure 4.30c, mark Hp-2). Marks on ,he disral humerus are ~II marks familiar from previous studies. Eight marks were multiple, paralle1 cuts on the margins of [he radial fossa (posterior bce), and 'leven more were transverse marks across the posterior face, just ;lhoye the radi:ll fossa. Three more of the marks \\;crc; transvcrsc 'lcross the tace of the dist:t! condyle. (AII these Jre illusrrated in Binford 1981: 113, Figure 4.30.) These are all marks made on rhe posterior face, just aboye the plane of the radius.
1,12
4.
A Putrcru Rccognitton Studv
They are believed to represent the same Cut, but wirh the joint flexed in differcnt positions. The rransverse cut across the posterior face aboye the radial fossa (Ilinford 19HI:I23, Figure 4.30e, mark Hd-2) is bclieved to havc bccn inflicrcd when t111' joinr was radically flcxcd, as is common on stiff carC:1SSCS. This mark is restricted to bones of Taurotmgus (e1and) representtd in the deposir (size class IV). Of course, this is an animal that has consistenrly yielded evidcncc of having been butchered when stiff. Two additiona! cuts wcre nored in the distal humerus frorn modératebody-size anirnals (sizc classes III and IV). One was the angular mark across the íace of thc medial epieondyle (shown in Binford 1981:123, Figure 4.30f). This IS the same mark illustrated by H. Bunn (1981) on abone from Koobi Fora. This mark is believed to be most commonly produced when the joinr IS flexible and frcsh. No marks of rhis type were noted among bones from the large body-size classes. lr should be pointed out that all rhe marks on the humerus were dismembermcnt marks.
Bones from the small animals (size classes 1 and 11) yielded a similar pattern. Two marks were noted on the lareral facc of the cubitus, diagonaJly placed with respect to the semilun~ noteh (see Binford ]981:125, Figure 4.32a, mnrk Rcp~2). A related dismernE:ierment mark was observed on lhe proximal radius fmm animal s in size c1asses I and 11 (Binford 1981:125, Figure 4.32b, mark Rcp-5). This mark is a eonsequenee of the same disI11cmbcrmcnt tacties :1S rhose summarized for the distal hllmerus. In rnarked eontrast \\Iere the marks reearded far anirnals of the larger hody sizes. Short chevron marks (see Binford 1981: 126-134) are generally inflicled during filleting aperations. Four of these were observed 011 the proximalcnds of radii fmm Jllilllals in síze class 11I, and (lile such m:lrk was obscrved on a Tauratragus radius (sizc c1ass IV), whereas no dismemherment marks were observed on the proximal radius from larger animals. One sm,lll slice 1l1ark W;lS nolcd 011 the apcx, or cl1(l, of lhe ok'crallon but no marks were typically noted around the semilunar notch where dismemberOlcnt is commonly indieated. This pattero Was continued for lhe distal end of the radius from Iarge animals, in whieh one eneircling cut was observed some 5 Cm (2 inches) up the shaft on the medial faee, with a similar mark on lhe posterior faee of lhe shaft at the distal end. In addition, multiple short chevTOns were observed on rhe anterior faee of the distal radius (see Binford 19X ¡: I.B, hgun: 4.39,
1I1,lfk
R..: p-3).
The contrast could BOl be grcatcr: :111 the l11arb 011 bones of smallbody~sizc animals Wl'rl' disml'mberment marks, ",,'hereas aH the marks on rhe bones of t1w )ar¡..:vr 'l1lilll.11s most likdy WCfl' inflíl'led during filleting or rhe remova! of riSSlll' from rhe bOlles. This diHerence is further emphasized when it is noted that all the radius bOlles from the larger-size animals were regularly impaeted with percussion blows on the anterior faee just below the
Thc Appendiculur Skclcton
1.1,1
proximal end of the radius, whereas only 4 of the 26 bones from rhe animals in body-size classcs I and 11 are broken. ln the latter case, ir is common for there ro be a hreak through the shaft approximarely .5 cm (2 inches) aboye the distal cnd of thc mdius. 11 is Iikely thar rhis break W~IS made during dismcmberment rathcr than marrow recovcry, whcrens marrow recovcry
was clearly rhe conrcxt for breakage for the boncs uf thc larger animals. Tbe dismernbermcnt interpretation is further supported by the strong reduction in numbers of distal articular ends from small-bodv-size animals-which were apparently left in the field where the lower lirnbs wcre abandoned. The conclusión to be drawn is that small animals wcre commonly dismembered by cutting through the proximal radius-cdistal hurnerus joint or hy breaking through the shaft of the radius, Corrclared wirh this pattern is a general absence of lower legs in the Klasies sire. I'resumably they wcre regularly abandoned in the field. In marked contrast are the bones from rhe larger animals, in which dismemberrnent by cutting through the articulatiun betwce» thc distal humerus-proximal radiocubitus is sometimes indicated. The major marks remaining 00 the radiocubitus wcre inflicred dunng the removal uf tissue aod the subsequent breakage for marrow. The meat 00 the radiocubirus is minimal, and it seems most likcly thar rhe re1I1oval of tissue was related to rhe preparation nf the bone for marrow fl'mm'al rather than filleting of the upper limb, partieularly since no filh:ting marks were noted on the humerus. The pattcrn of gnawing might be taken a.~ suggestivc that with the: large animals, the front limb was eommonly recovered from kill-death locations in two separa te parts. The scapula with attached proximal humerus was commonly dry ~ll1d stiff, p:uticu]arly on cxposed arl';lS. Chopping atld hacking 00 exposed surfaccs may have been followed by SOllll' fillcting of the meat from the seapula itself. The other unit would be the distal humerus with attached lower-Ieg parts, induding the pha1.lngl·s. GIlJ.wing and ex· posure were )ocalizl'd around breaks through th~ huml'ral shaft, whcreas skin and tissue uf the lower-Ieg parts would have been largely untouehed by carnivores. rhe distal humerus would h:1ve been removed by cutting through the distal humerus-proximal radioeubilus articularion, and then rhe bones of the lower leg suecessively prepared fer marrow extraetion. A similar picture seems to apply to the rear leg. only the mosr Common sq~IIH.'111 rl'covLTl'd ;llld tr;lll:-ipOrh.,d ro tlu' sile was lhe lov"Tr-re,lf kg with attached dist~ll tihiJ.. Brcakage thruugh the tibia! S!J;lft would have bcC'n aecomplished prior to the illtrodUl.:tion of the pan [o the sirc, pcrhars by nonhominit.! pred;nor sClVcngcr.., SIH.."h ;l vicw is s'upportcd by the high proportioll of aninul-gnawed pans of the upper-rear ll'g abovc the distal tibia, parts thar are rather infrequent at the site. This upper~ versus lowcrrear-limb contrast is analogous ro rhe dislal-scapula-and-proximal.hllmerus
4.
ti:
A Pattcrn Rccogninon Studv
versus the lowcr-leg comparison noted for rhe fronr lego A marked coutrast is seen in (he anatómica] part frcquencies of ungnawed upper-leg mearvielding parts, whcrcas large animals are represcnred by low frequencies of gnawed upper-leg parts and high frequeucics of lower-leg parts, al! heavily processed for marrow. \
The most srriking single feature of rhc lower limbs is rhe purtern of bone hreakage characteristic of the bones from the larger animals. Thus rhe dcscriptive task is increased considerably in rhis section, because breakage must he rrcarcd more complcrely, along with cut, chop, and gnawing marks. The tender is alrcady familiar with (he description of inflicted marks, so 1 have chosen to describe thcm first and rhen ro proceed ro discussion of breakage observed ;:llTIOng roetapodials and phalanges. CARI',\LS AND :\U',]¡\C,\RI'ALS
The very 5111:111 carpal bones are apt ro have passed through the t-iuch scteens that wcre reportcdly used for sievmg the deposirs at Klasies River Mouth. Not surprisingiy no carpals are referred to body-size class 1 (small) and only four (not lisred in table) are identified to body-size class 11. 1 think
TABLE UI
Carpnls. Frcqucucv arnl Modíficancn. Fabul.ucd by Hmly Sizc
Bovíd
cltl~·~·
IV
111
11
V
---
------ ----MNE
MKD" MNE
MKD MNE (4) (5)
(1)
(2)
(3)
ScaphniJ
()
()
()
()
Llltl<1tc
O O
O
O
O
()
(J
()
()
()
()
(J
º
()
-
Cunifrlfln (manus) !vbgnlllll plus trapezoiJ Unicctorm ~
MAU
l3S
'Z,(!:~
VNIPOR-AA
~1;'\\\
LVNA~
":sCAPHOIO
M"'~7
'¿"-~\'\F--
T~IE LOWER LIT\lB~
Cdrpa]s
Thc Appcndicular Skclcton
" MKD, MarkeJ (aH modific;ltiO!lsl.
MKlJ MNt. MKD A1NE MKD (l))
(6)
(71
(H)
LJ
()
30
O
4
II
2(, 31
"
3
14
O I
S
(,
(J
lO
[
21
2
4
º
lQ
4
15
S~
(,
[59
S 1.-)
4 II
S.R
15.9
2.1
(10)
O O I
ª S
·F~;tI!;o ~Aq."'UAA (
r~APZ:~OIJ:'
PROX¡AAALA4E"TAC AR'PAI..-
CA~"'AL-:S -1é'1Q>J-iT ANT~RIOR!. Figure 4.16
Cut marks on cnrruls [righr anterior vicwl
it is fair to dismiss thcsc body parrs as biased by the recovcry techniques. Table 4.21 summarizcs rhe frequencics and numbers of modifications noted on carpals, tabulared by body-size class. No chop marks and no gnawed carpa] bones were ohserved. Slicing marks were present bur these tended to be concentrated across (transverse marks) the anterior face of che cuniform, and the fused mangum and trapczoid (figure 4.16). Thesc marks roughly para lid thc anterior edgc of rhe mctacarpal and are marks mosr commonly made whcn a prcssurc flex can be accornplished at chis joint. Once the joinr is forced into a ñexed posinon, a short cut aCfOSS rhe lower anterior face of the bent joint pops the articulation wirh thc proximal mctacarpalloosc so that thr [oint umy be rwisted and the nssuc at thc rear can be cut wirhout impacting bone. lhis procedure results in transvcrse cut marks across the posterior íace oí thc metacarpal, [ust hclow thc lip of tlu- articular surfacc. In my cxpericncc, rhis typc of disjointing is almosr cxclusively associated wirh dismembermenr when rhe upper limb has already been removed from the body and may be rested on rhe ground. The metacarpal is rhen bent down against the radiocubitus , pressure f1exing the articulatíon of the carpus, making a Cllt under such tension quite effective. On the other hand, when rhe lower Jimb is removed while the upper limhs are still attached to the hody, it is more common for a transverse cut ro be made along the medial face jusc below the rim of che proximal metacarpal. The joint is rhen twisted out toward the lateral face and a second transverse cut maJe along the crest of the lateral posterior edge of che articular rimo Tho cut marks 011 ,he proximal metacarpal (Table 4.22) from the two smallest body-size c1asses (1 and 11) are all dismcmberment marks, and are
1.1(,
4.
A Pattcm Rccogninon Study
The Appcndtcular Skclcron
137
TABLE 4.12
TABLE 4.23
Proximal Mctacarpals: Cm, Hack, and Cnaw Marks
Distal Mct acarpals: Cut, Hack. and Gnaw Marks
Cut marked
Cut marked
Cnowed
Hoctc morkcd
Gnaweií
Hack: markcd
-~----
B(Jl'id ctos«
AlN[ 11)
No.
"!<,
No.
".;,
No.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(S)
r{¡)
I 2 2
.20 .IK
[)
11
i 11
III
lO
IV
SO.7
1(,
.32
V
9
..J,
9S.7
JO
.27 ..,1
I
.10
O O I
ª
4
O O O .H
O O O 4 2
.04
(,
02
AlNE
No
Bovid das"
(J)
(2)
O O
I 11
4 10
o
1ll IV V
O O O 9 1 10
% (7)
OK ~
,Oc,
<111 ccunhinations of trnnsvcrse cuts along the medial íacc just below the rim of thc articular surfacc (rhrce cut s), and the remaining four are transvcrse marks across rhe posterior surface [usr below the edge of the articular surface. No rnarks wcrc observed 011 the disralmeracarpals from the smaller auirnals (Tahle 4.23). Bones refcrable to the three largest body-size classes (11I- V) contrast wirh tlie smallcr in a numbcr of ways. Firsr there were hack or chop marks un the proximal ends. Sirnilarly, there was regular anima! gnawing on the large-animal bones. Pinally, while al! the marks nored on rhe small-animal bones were dismembermenr-relared, there were subsrantial numbers of short chevron mn rks 011 largr-animal metacarpais rhar almost cerrainly were iufhctcd during thc n-movnl of skin :lud tivsuc. 'lhcsc cnntrnsts rcflccr differences in the inirial conditions and trcatment uf rhc larger animals versus the smaller-c-a contrast mainrained in the derails of the cut marks. For instance, the cut marks very close ro the joinr betwecn the metacarpal and the srnal1 bones of the carpus are infrequently among the larger animals. Typicllly, there is a transyerse cut mark ahout 2 cm (l ineh) helow rhe lip of the proximal articular surface across the anterior face (three marks ob· served). This condit;on is commonly paired with J mark across the posterior face, :lIso about 2.5 cm beIow the rim of the articular surface (seven marks nbservcd). The S;ll1H.· placcmcllt was noted in :,11 rhe hackcd or chopped cxamplcs. It is helic\'ed that these marks on the shaft helow the articulation be(weell rhe m<.·tacarpal Jnd the carpals is directed toward skinning the joint prcparJ.tory ro disjointin~, primarily with the use of Ieverag<.·, 1fan animal is stiff and the skin is relativdy dr)', it acts as a binding sheath, which must be removed before rhe stiff Jl1d rigid articulation mayo be cracked aparto Onl)' one of the marks ohser\"t,d 011 the larger animals \.. ·as a cut mark across the
17
50
-ª 89
% (.1)
O O O
No
%
No.
;."
(4)
(S)
(())
(7)
O O O
.18
O O O I
~
O
O
.11
.02
O I
o
O
O
10
4
OK
O 5
º---.Oc,
medial tace clase to rhe rim of the articufation, which, as was pointcd out, derived from distnernberment when the lower limbs were supple and still attached to the body, Similarly, only two marks were transverse and clase to the rim across the posterior tace, the typical position of cuts inflicred using a tension flexed joint prior to cutting. Thar rhe larger animals had the tissue removed and were regularly skinned is shown by no less than six exarnples of short chevron marks on rhe anterior [acc of the metacarpal shafr and another three examplcs on the lateral facc at leasr 3.8 cm (1.5 inches] below the articular end. Such marks are well docurnented as produeed during the removal of tissue from the bones, Becnuse there is essentially nothing on a rnetacarpal except skin and hundlcs of rcndon in the po...tcrior groovc, thc shurt chcvrons wcrc most certainly inflictcd during skinning operanons. Skinning of freshly killed animal, is generally accomplished by making an encircling cm around thc distJI ITIctapodial (see Binford 1981: 107) and then a quick incision clown the leg on the inside to the erotch, followed by srripping the skin down the teg (see Figures 4.17 and 4. 18). When an anímal is flexible anJ supple, skinning is compararivcly easy ami necd not be ;tccomplished by short slicing cuts under the skin hetwcctl the U1H.krlying tissue and the fasLia. Such euts are, however, COIllIllOIl whell the skin has dried out-('VCIl if the ski n has hecn soakcd in water t1H.' origin;ll rcndcllcy ro separate at the fascia is no longer maintaincJ-and whcn rhe hone is b<"iIlg c1eaned of attached tissue in preparation to controllcd cracking for the remoyal of marrolV. (See Binford 197H:152-156; 19HI:150-16.l for discussions of de;\I1ing hOlles for marrow LTJ1.:k.ing.) As has been pointed our with so many other properties, the marks and the placernent of marks on the metacarpals is consistent with the processing for marrow of dried and relativdy sriff lower limbs frorn Iarge animals.
4.
lJR
A Pattcm Rccognition Study
Thc Appcndicular Skclcton
~
139
.
~'
'
~¡
r;«
.
.
-'''.'..
.
-.
.:.
~-
Figure 4.IS
Caribou. showing skín rippcd down une lcg dunng sktnuinn proccdurc.
STRA lt::(;y
Figure 4.)7
Cuuing the skin down thc insidc uf a shccp lcg.
TARSALS At'D !\.lETATARS:\LS
A." WJ~ rile case with thc carpals ano metacarpals, the dues to the disrm-mbcrmcnt stratcgics are of prime importancc. There are rhree basic approachcs to the dismemhcrrnenr of the complex joints and articulations betwccn tbe distal ribia and the proximal metatarsal. When an animal is fresh and suppie, the casv disjointing straregy (Strntegy 1) is disarticulation bctwcen the distal tibia and the astragalus. In this situation there are essenrially three cuts thar are made, coupled witb the use of leverage ro accornplish rhis disjointing.
l
]. Thc first cut is across rbc anterior facc of thc astr.rgulus, in rhc anglc of t1H: bcnd of lite leg (Figure 4. 19). This cuts through .1 bundle of rcndons, including the tibialis anterior, as well as a numher of extensor tendons ultimatclv attachcd ro the phalangcs. This cut is írcqucmly the first one made because it is easy ro place given thc normal smnll flcxed angle ar which the leg is positioned whcn ar resto This commonly produces cut marks across the anterior face of the astragulus (Binford 1981: 120, Figure 4.27e, mark TA·l). The same cut may irnpact the calcancus on the medial ridge that articulares with thc lateral face of the astragalus (Binford 1981:] 20, Figure 4.273 and b. mnrk TC-l). This cut mal' be made rcgnrdless of wherher the leg is supplc or rclatively stiff. 2. The ncxt stcp is ro sever rhc calcaneal or achilles tendon, which is attached to the tubcr calós or rhc extreme posterior end of the calcaneus. This aet may rcsult in short, nieklike curs 00 the distal end of the calcaneus, and sornetimes marks ncross the dorsal ridge of the body of the calcancus as the knife irnpacrs bone afrer having cut the tendons (Binford 1981:120, Figure 4.27h and c, mark Te-3).
4. A Partem Recogninon Srudy
,.:JO AJl.TICV"-A.TIOt<..&
OI6,AL- TIB.I ....
jT'O'~~....L-"!t,~
o~
MCTAT.....R 6A\.-
'~
MeDIAL FL-E.)( E.O
c.
\~~ M
LATE.~.A.L
A.
3. If rhe carcass is supple and flexible, the joint can 110W be manipulated into rhe position shown in Figure 4.19B. In rhe flexcd position, cuts may be maje across thc distal tip of rhe tibia (rhc interior or medial 11131leolus). Aftcr this cut, the same type is mndc on rhe exterior or lateral tace of the joint, where the knife may scar the lateral rnallcolns (chis is an unfuscd remnanr end of the fíbula) and may also nick the margins of thc proximal edge of the astralagus. The joint may now be levered apart, resuhing in rhe lateral rnallcolus remaining with rhe distal tibia while all tarsals rema in aniculared and atrached ro the proximal meratarsal. With this type of disarticulation, marks occur on rbe lateral and medial mailcolus, with thc possibility of sorne nicking on rhe medial face of rhe astrugalus orienratcd in a longitudinal oc only slightly diagonal plane. Tbese marks, of course, should covary wich nick marks on the ruber calcis and \virh transvcrse marks across the anterior face of thc asrragalus.
ST/tATFCY
!
E.. o I""-L.
E-XTENDE.D
EXTENOe:.D
141
When the joint is stiff and more difficult tú manipulare, there are two other disjointing strategics:
r~
I{'.(\ "\
Thc Appcndicular Skclcton
D.
\ L,II>..TE:.¡;;::AL--
FLE.Xe.O
2
The second srrategy may be followed when ir is dccmed dcsirabie not ro cut the calcanial tendons and to leave ar leasr the calcancus and astragalus attached to the distal tibia (Figure 4.19). Among modcrn hunters this is commonly done if the mear is to be dried and the hum hung up as a unit. In thac case the calcanial ten don s are used as a hanging hook. The first cuts are generally the sarne as in Srrategy l-c-nameiy, a transverse cut across the face of the anterior astragalus, which may be extended around thc joinr. catching thc rim of the calcaneus 011 (lile sidc and the proximal medial rip uf the navicular cubo id on the medial face. Leverage is rhen used to pull the [oint aparr at the juncture of the asrmgalus-calcancus with the navicular cuboid. The latrer rhen rernains artached ro the proximal metatarsn]. The parts remaining attached to the tibia are as sbown in Figure 4.19C. STRATF(;Y ]
L."'F"'AL.TE:.RNATIVE
L",~
DI~JOINTINq
PROCEDUR.E.6 Fi~urc 4.19 Altl'lnative Jisiointing .~tr
The third srrategy is fol1owed most commonly when rhe ioint is totally inflexible. and/or when the meratarsal is bcing spccificaily disarticulnred for purposes of marrow cracking. A cut is rnade, essennally circling rhe mcdial-anterior-Iatcral face of rhe joint at the plane of articularion betwecn rhe proximal metatarsal with the navicular-ccuboid and thc ecto~ulliform. This resll1ts in transvcrse marks across the tace (lf rhe mcdial-¡ll1tcrior Jnd btl'ral margins of the proximal met3rarsal, as welJ as similar transverse rn~1rks across the navicular cuboid and the cctúcuniforrn. Actual disjointing may he
.M'?u.-~
'"
:.I~
'" ~
~
''''
::.:: ~
__
. '" I r-.__r-. Dr,_r,~
"_D"'~
r-11":<'1 ..... "',::::c::I0"'iO::GNO _N ~.~ N - _ _ Nj_
\D N
§
~
~ ~ c.. e
-e ~
'-lJ
0\"""""'1'-00
~
::;:
..:
2~¿;
~
N ' t j f f ) ....
-\D
~
o
~q~"?""':~
"i:
~lr;q~lr!q
'.1'")
;:; ~
-"
ff)~~-ff) ,"
::J
§~
< NO\t'-_~OO ~ N ..... _ N
..c
S
e
t-
tU
.
'"
~
~ ~
r
.....I - M t ' - > C ~~
.r.
,j
."
cq
.
-
.~
o
~
~
w
f-'
."
g
q
Q
~
<;1
--
~
OOI'- ......
O~::.::
~
~
0\
""'!
a
ff)ff)
o o
"""'":1
o
;;: ~
S
"o
~
~
~
::::
OO_MO
....1,...1
-
~ :::.s
~
~ ~~ o o o o ..... o
...
--
'0
o
1"'1 ~ ~
"'1 ~ ~
"'."
OOfflMO#::'::
~
O~~~O
000 ~~
N
00
"'lo~
~
~ ~
::J
"ª. ""
~
8
tU
o
]
o
~~~ -
~o~~~o
o
~ ~
mear i~ baked under hot ashes nexr ro rhe fire as rhis do('\ 11m dry out rhe mear. Whell the strips oí meat are cooked. rhey ate remon·J and the a~hes <1nd sand beatell off them wirh a sri..:k..... even rhe heads Df most <1llil11JIs are also bakeJ ;lnJ earen.... rhe mear of smaller animals is baked in srecial W;\rS, l'ornlpines, for irlsrance, are covcred with grass which i.. burnt ro singe rhe luir. ... Afrer this the porcllpinl' is baked whok in rhe hur asho:s of a lar~(' fin: whidl i~ Ill"de in a Sh:l!loW trl'lll-h lo olll' sitie 01 rhl' hlltS.... A~.\ rlllc '111 ,lllimals :He skil11\nl amI ni! open a¡,J thcir intestillc\ removrd. An exceprion ro this rule i s maje when rhe }'oung duiker or steenbok are moked. Thcse animals are cookeJ wholc. They are nur skinncd, l10r are the intestincs removed, as youl1g kids li\c 011 Illilk only anJ rhe contents of their inr<;,srilles are flor considcred ... ro be llnJesirJhle.. . TlJrtoises f~ ;He killed wilh a knife ami haked on rhelr h.1Cb III the ho¡ ,\shc~. (SreYIl 1':J?l :2H4)
ª
~I]= ~
~
:"5
z :g
o
~ --< <;1
E Ci a::le U
I
...
E:¡:¡~..g
i~]ll
~~
00 i::~ <"l
<"l
~
6
~
Ci a::le '.J
1'"
<;1
e
-
EE~:l~..g_2.
143
accomplisbed by lcveragc followed by a transverso cut ncross the"posterior face just below the articular surface articulation. Tablc 4.24 summartzes the data from thc tarsa!s, together with data on cut mark frcqucucies frorn rhe distal tibia, as wcll ;1<'; thc proximal metatarsal. Thus the relarivc roles of rhe above rbree strutcgics nuy he asscsscd. Examination of the frequcncy information illustrutcs that among the small animals thc cuts were most commonly made across the distal face of the astragalus also impactmg the navicular-cuboid (Srratcgy 2). This positioning also corresponds to the majar drop in frequcncy berween adjacenr parts that, orher rlnngs being equal, almosr alwavs indicares thc poinr of dismernbermcnt. Clently within size classes 1 ami 11 dismcmberrncnt W;1S by Stratcgy 2. This rcsults in thc calcancus and astragclus ;1:\ wcll as thc lateral malleolus being removed in articularion with the distal tibia. In the case of the small-animal classes, the rncrararsal together with phalangcs and attached navicular cuboid werc discarded prior ro being returncd ro the site. This method of butchering is most cornmon when the ham is to be hung and when there is an attempt to prevent f1ies or extraneous matter from invading the meaty arcas. With this type of burchering, rhe skin rernains firmly gripped around the tarsals and thc rneat of the tibia and the lower femur is covered by skin. 1 have not observed this type of butchering associated with the use of car rying devices such as thar shown in Figure 4.20. Use of potes on which the ham is suspended by the calcanial tendons is a possibiliry, however , animals of size classes 1 and 11 would be small enough ro be carried whole from kili to carnp, much in the manner shown in Figure 4.21. (Sec also an cxccllcnt phowgraph [in Howell J965:187j of J moclcrn Bushman carrying a steenbok obviously burchered in the manner suggcstcd hcre.l Tbe butchering tnctics indicarcd are more likcly relared ro cooking menes. Among huntcrs cooking is commonly accomplishcd in an ash oven:
.... I - r < ' : f f ) " ' ) -
-.
":1"<;1
~
::JI'OD~O~O ~ O~~~~~
::;
~ ~
~
--:J.::5 ~
~
'"
~ ~~~~~ ~.
~
~
Thc Apocndicu!ar Skclcton
N
O. ~
~Irl
~
:::E
I
.,¡- ff:
001(; O 'T.. . . 'r: .. ~~OO~~
~~_X~
"'1 a' I
~I
--<
::J
ir..
_
Cl ~
)I~]llli ~
Cooking in the ski n is not done so much because hunting and garhering peoples are ~ to-;;ting food covered wirh ash. In facr, many foocls are
01
~ . _ Cv",ta.~/
15
4.
144
A Panern Recognition Study
145
Thc Appendicular Skelcton
-
"
Figure 4.20
!Kl1n,C: hushmcn carrving proccsscd bilwtI,I?, from
J
kili tu a residenuul
campo '" ,..:.,'
cooked dircctly in the ash as suggested in the above quote and as is illustratcd in ligurc 4.12. Cooking in the skin preserves nutrient juices and íats thar othcrwise tcnd 10 rcsult in thc roasting pit fbming IIp and the mear drying out, with the attendant 1055 of the fats and oils. This principlc W:lS wcll described many ycars ago by Charles Darwin in Thc Voyage o( the 13cdgle in describiug cooking of mear by thc gauchos of the Falkland Jslands. He: cut off pic:ú'~ ot flesh with rhe skin 011 it, hut withnur t!ll: bones. sufficieut for nur o.peditillll. \Xie ruen TIlde ro out slccrin~'p1ace, and had fOl supper "carne con ctu-rri," or rncat ro,lsled wirh rbe skin on ir. This is as superior ro common heef as vemson is ro rnurton. ;\ l.uge circular pu'cc is takeu from rhe b.ick roavted on rbe cml-cr- with the lude downwords ;md in rhc form Of;1 qUCeT, so that none uf rile gr,wy i, )me lf ;ll1Y wortbv ,¡[damall h.id «unped with liS rh,l[ evcning, "carne con cuero' wrtuour doubt would coon h,lVl' l-een cclehr,¡ted in london (1839: 1<.J1l-19[)
This S;1Il1C blldcd n.'sult (lf cOllking 111C;lt in irs skin is citcd by Sto\\', pJraphrasillg "arly Afnc.m ",plor"" to the dfw tha' the f"et of large allimals such J$ ckrhallts or hippoporamus were cooked in Jsh ovens in their skins, , yiddillg "a dish fit for an emperor" (Stow 1905:60),
1
Figure 4.21
1 •• }"
Nhnro Bushruan carrving a stccnbok IRd{l/Jicl'lIIsIIMtk
tu
camp.
lt is quite likely that the methods of hurchery indicared for the small animals wcrc rclurcd ro cooking procedurrs in which thc llrpcr leg was cooked in its skin. This would often rcsult in the proximal fcmnt's becoming singed and burned in thc process, and as we will scc larcr, in the scction on burning, this is exactly rhe case. The procedure of disjointing animals of sizc d.tss 11I is more akin to thar indicated for the small animals, with the cxceprion rhat more metatarsals are recovered and they show butchering marks. Tatsals from anirnals of sizc c1asses IV and V illustr.uc a pattern thar is differenr from rhe small animais in a number uf importaut \\'JYS. Srrarcgy l (Figure 4.19) is indicared whcncvcr rhc astr;lgalus is removed ....·irh rhc metatarsal rarhcr thnn wirh the tibia. This is particul.u!v cvidcnr in rhc largebody-sizc Jnilll:lls, in which not onl}' rhe a"'trag"llus, hut also rhe ca!rallcllS is attachcd to rhe rnctatarsal aftrr dismembcrment ..1t rhe tarsals. The other importJl1t difference is thar there are many more rnctapodials and fcwer '\.
4.
I,J(,
A Pattern Rccogniríon Srudv
147
Thc Appcndicular Skclcton TABLE 4,2.')
Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks on thc Largcr Tarva l BOlles CUl mortced
80vid
cllls~
tíuck nunkrd
Cnawed
MNE
No
0;',
No,
'};,
No
'"."
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(!J)
({¡)
(7)
NAVICULAR-CUBOI[)
5
1 II
..
III IV
-
V
3 17 .lS
2 1 7 11
.J'
I
6R
21
40 .JJ .41
.31 .13 .31
O
O
()
o
(J
()
o
O .1
u
o
o
O
.O!)
o o
[) [)
O
()
O
3
.04
[)
.IR
(J
(J
O O O O
O O O O O
o
".1
O O .J
(J
()
(J
.1
O
O O O O
ASTRAGALUS ,,~.
1 II IIJ IV
..........
V--..;.y .. ~
17
21 42
68
.J1
V
169
4
Figure 4.22 Springharcs bcing pluccd in an ash hearth in prcparatton for conkíng by a Masnrwa Bushman.
upper-limb parts ar tbc site. This certainly results from the selecrive introducuon ro rhc vireof lowcr-Iimb p.trts with attnched rarsals, whiic rhe upper mcat-yiclding limh boncs wcre ubandoncd bcfore arrival on rhe sitc. In sbort. tberc is a shifr in bias between the small and rhe large animal s. Wirh thc formcr, thc mcr.u.rrsal is abandoncd hcforc int roduction oc, if introduccd, is not proccssed for marrow, whcn-as wirh the largc animuls, the meat-vielding parts are missing at the site and a biascd introduction oE marrow-yielding bones domina tes the frequencics of rear-leg parts. As illustrated, rbe shift in bias is associared with different dismembertnent stratcgics. As Iurther documentnnon of this pattern, Table 4.25 summarizcs the inforrnnnon on cut murks togcthcr wirh hack and graw marks for rhe three larucr tarsal bonos. Unlike
m:1ll}'
of thc earlier comparisons, thcre is a gencr-
al absence of hack marks, and only on rhe posterior end of the calcaneus is rhere any ITIcasurahle animal gnawing. The latter is generally restricted ro Ihe two !arg<"r hody-sizc c1asst's. The actual pbccmenr of cut rnarks 011 the ~lstr~lgalus and GlkanClIs ~ltC sut11l1larizcd in Tahlc 4.26. As showll in Figure 4.19, when the cut marks are low on the astragalus on eirher rhe medial or anterior face, the ¡oint was most likely flexed when
.1 lO 13 12 S 40
..31 .18 .24 24
O .04
º
O
o
()
O O 1
O O
1
~
.02
CALCANElJS
1 II III IV V
25 20 34 31
3
.J1
!
1.11
()
O
I
S
O O .03 .10
~ 04
o O O
º O
º ()
4
.10
0.1
the cut was rnadc, whercas a serniflexed or straight position is indicated when the cuts are across the middle of the astragalus. Ir is very clcar that small animals were more commonly butchered with rhe joint flexed, whereas the larger .lnimals werc dismembered with rhe joinr in a "natural" position-c-that is, thc position rhat the joint assumes naturally when it is aliowed lo dry and become snff (see Figure 4.19). The regular shifr to medial placement strongly indicares (1) removal of the metatarsal wirh atrached tarsals,
and (2) rhe ioint's being rciatively inflexible ar the rime of dismemberment. l\1ETATARSAl
s
Cut marks wcre common on the proximJ.! meratarsals and hack marks were consistently present on rhe meratarsals oí the larger anirnals. Tahle 4.27 surnmarizes the data on modifications noted 011 meratarsal fragments,
":;;
""53::
,
,
I
I
I
~
e
]~-• u 00
000-0
t;-..2---
"
,
"
lJ
"" I "" ec c-
8]t:.
5;:0
,,~
oo-~o
ONI"10
I
TABLE 4.27
Mctatarsals: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw MiHks
Bovíd
clns,~
MNE (1)
I
1
11 III IV V
o
'", -"- "• :¡ o
-e
"" .c • -;; .; " " " g -' '" oc u
5 u
"'~ "'~
11
1'"¡2-"
~
o
"
~ "o'"-
."
o
'~
"
-B" :¡•
-
-
No.
% (3)
(4)
% (5)
No.
%
(6)
(7)
O O 6 11
..l 19
O O .40 .28 .21 .20
O O 1 7 1
9
O O
O O 1 1
O O .05
OS .IH .07 J)9
,)
-:1!.
5
.OS
.In
N')
~
_ ... ,"0-"''''1
"l
marks are clircctly analogous
....1 0 0
f2::: "'~I
o
O O 2 3
o S
o o .14 .12 _0_ .06
o o o 2 1 ,)
o o
o 2
o .11
O .08
o 1
.04
-.JlQ
o
º-.03
.Q.3
3
(1
Most of the cut marks on rhe proximal meratarsal were from dismernbermenr: 65(Yo were transverse marks 00 the anterior face just below the parallel ro the rim marking the transition to the articular surface. These
O""Jo...c"",
u
IV V
12 18 14 26 16 86
ONlI'"JS("l
~~ :¡
""-eS
1II
OOIV)ON
e -c
"o ~"
~ ;;:"
¡
•u
w
<
No.
Cnawed
DISTAL METATARSAL
,u""
-5
Hack markeit
(2)
7 21 15 39 14 96
~
<
Cut morked
PROXIMAL METATAR5AL
o
f-
149
ooo~-
.~
""u
The Appcndícular Skeleton
..... :::82:>
I
I
lo
thosc describcd for thc mctncarpnl. In sizc
class III thc 6 cut marks were of this typc, in class IV, l l were of this type, but in tbrce cases rhere wcrc also short chevrons indicative of fillering on the samc boncs markcd duriug dismembcrmcnt. In thc torgo animal dass. 1. of the 3 marks noted were transverse and just below (he articular rimo AII orher marks werc short cbevrons. generally occurring in pairs locared clown on the anterior lace of the shaft, approximately 5 cm (2 inches) below the articular rimo Of al! the hack marks, 7 were diagonal with respcct ro (he long axis of the bone and placed between 1.25 und 5 cm (.5 and 2 inches) below (he articular surface, This effecr seems to be relared ro hacking througb dricd and rough skin, beca use given such J. placcmcnt, disamculation does not seem to llave been the object. Distal metatarsals had fewer cur-markcd pieces than did thc proximal parts, and a!l wcrc from rnedium to medium-large bovids. In (he case of the two markcd pieces from size class IB, both were transvcrse rrtarks locared up rhe shaft approximarely 5 cm aboye rhe epiphysis and 00 rhe ventral or posterior face of rhe bonc. Thcsc were probably inflicted during skinning.
4.
"50
A Pattcm Rccognitíon Study
Thc Appcndrcular Skclcton
151
\
•
Figure 4.23
II;u:K mnrks aCHlss rhc distal condvlcs of tbc mctncnrpn! of un clnnd
(']"llrol W,\;II~1.
One of the three rnarked pieces frorn size class IV W;1S of this type, whereas the other two were marked across the lateral face of rhe distal condyle, The [atter werc ccrtainly iuflicted while dismcrnhering rhe phalanges from the rncr.uarsal. l lack markx notvd un thc distal l'IH.Is wcn- .rll pbcul ucross rhe distal condyles nnd were ccrtainly inflicted during dismemberment of the metatarsal-first phalangc articulation. figure 4.23 shows a heavy hack mark across the distal condyle of Taurotragus. Gnawing was gcnerallv restricred to boncs of animals from rhe larger body sizes. Onc inreresting spccirnen of hushbuck tíragelapbus scriptusí appcars to have been gnawed by a hominid (Figure 4.24). The preseuce of short chevron marks on the merntcrsal as well as other
Figure 4.24 Distal mctatarsal from a bushbuck ITwj{eJaplws ,<;criprml, sbowing what are considercd to be hominíd tooth marks
skinning marks illustrarcs that care was taken in the skinning of rhe meratarsals, whicb wns also truc for the mctucarpals. Thcsc ucnons are most likely related to rhe prcpararion of the bone for marrow breaking. This interpretation is srill further supported by rhe high frcquency of dismemberment marks nn the articular margins uf the proximal metararsnl. Dismernberrnent at the juncture with the tarsals is a prerequisite ro the easy hreakage of the mctararsal rhrough the proximal end. which is (as will be shown larer in this chapter) rbe characteristic manner of marrow-hone breakage at Klasies Rivcr Mouth. The focus of dismemberment marks 011 thc proximal
4.
152
A Pattern Rccogmuon Srudy
Distinctivc Brcakage
]:')3
teristic breakage of the mctapodials and the pbalangcs from the médium to large nnima!s. This pntrern was nor observcd for
;lI1Y
of rhe othcr long
boncs. Certainly if thc breakagc mechauics responsiblc for thc disrinctive pattern liad hecn cmployed on the orher boncs, it would 11JVC been both idcntifiablc and rccognized. The conclusión is clear that a distinctive pattern
\
of bone brcakage was restricted ro the proccssing of merapodials .md phalanges from thc lurgcr-bodv-sizc nuimals. ~IETA(:i\RPALS
Figure 4.25
Tonth puncturc nn the first phalanx uf an cland ITaurDtrl1,l,:lI,1
metatarsa], as well as at thc point of articulation of the distal tibia with rhe tarsals, most iikely documenrs two separare acts of dismernbertnent-cthe
former occurring in thc field when the lower limb was removed from a carcass, ami the larrer cut made al rhe sirc oE Klasies Rivcr Mouth when the mClatar:::.al was hcing prcparcd for mJrrow cracking.
The third pha1;mge was generally devoid oE marks. Gnawing or tooth PUl1ctun.:s ('ilT hgurc 4.25) wen.: prcs('11t 011 hl'!WCCI1 4 ami 5% of the {irsr and second phalangcs oE the ¡arger allimals.
The processing indicated by the cut and hack marks on the phalanges was almost certainly carried out in rhe site of Klasies, and is most certainly related ro the processing of large-rnarnmallower Iimbs fur marrow, including the phalanges thtmselves (as is shown in the following section on breakage).
Distinctive Breakage Perh:lps one nf the most interesting. zlI1d cert.1inly the most distinctive, pattern rccognizab1c within rhe Klasics River .\louth buna was the charae-
The rnetacarpal is general1y the most robust of the mcrnpodials, with thicker wan~ and a srrongcr proximal articular surfacc. In mnny bovids ir is shorter than rhe metatarsal, and the marrow caviry is smallcr relativc to rhe total nmounr of boue presento Expenments with boucs frcm domcsnc shcep as well as wild caribou have shown rhat, while the two spcctes differ in the size bias favoring meratursals. borh display such a bias. In maturc ccribou the marrow cavity for metatarsals was 51 mi, whereas for rnetacarpals from rhe samc animal ir was only 21 mi (Binford 1978:24-25). Ir is my irnpression. however, that such extreme differcnccs do not particularly characterize the species represented at Klasics River Mourb, alrhough mctatarsals are consistentlv larga. Tablc 4.28 summarizes the frcqucucies oí recurrent fragment rypcs cbscrved among the metncarpals from four spccics reprcsenting the raru;e oí body sizcs prescnr in the rotal popnlation. ¡\ nurnbcr of ex-
tremely provocative patterns are illustrared in rhis tnblc. First, for both meracarpalx and mcrararsais the number ot unbrokcn articular ends is very high from tbc smullcr-body-sizc animals. For instuncc, taking thc complete bones. as well as boncs only brokrn through rhc shaft with considerable scgmcnts of [he shaft rcmaining (as would hc the case.; frolll brcakagc Juring weathering), aH metacarpal bones from Raphiceru:. bll into this c1ass (Figure 4.26). ",,1H.'rcas for Tattrotragus rhere are no Ullllph.·tl' llll'taclTp;lls and onl)' 39'X., of all tlH: proximal cnus of mctacarpals arl' rl'prl'scntcd by COIllplete articular ends. The bOlles from the Iarger animal have bcen exrcnsivdy processed and, as will be shown, broken to a distinctive pattcrn, whereas rhe banes from rhe smaller animals have Ilor been general1y processed for marrow. In addirion ro this striking difference, there is a cons\stcnt differcllce in rhe fr:lgmentation of the proximal and distal ends of the Illetapodials. The proximal enus from rhe large animal.., have been sr1ir :mJ fragmenrcd into segments. Although the metacarpal is generally srl;t into roughly thirds (Figure 4.27), the more slju::nc sh:lpe of rhe proxi!1l:11 I1lctJtars<11 has been split jnro halvcs, fourths, and even into small fragmcnrs reprcsenting essential1y one-fourth ro one-eighrs of the articular sudaec, when vieweu from the proximal elld (sce Figure 4.28). On the othcr hanel, the distal clld" are
TABLE 4.28 ~
Pragmenr Prcqucncres for Merapodials from Four Spccícs of Differcnt Body
"-
Tragelaphust'
Raphicerus-
Metacaroaís Complete bones Proximal cnd Proximal VI Distal cnd Distal ih Total MNE Proxrma! Distal Total MAU Proximal Distal
Metatarsajs Complete bones Proximal end Complete Rear ih Rear lj.¡~i¡~ Lateral 112 Front 1/2 Front IÚ Distal end Complete
e,
o,
One-half Total MNE Proximal Distal Total MAU Proximal Distal
N
3 4 O 2 O
MNE
3 4 O 2 O
N
.45-.60 .5 7 O .-10 O
O 7
3 9 O
Taurorragus-
MNE
"'
N
.UNE
O 7 1 9 O
O 78 .ll 1.00 O
O B 110
O 23 36.7 52 O
52 O
Pclorovie« o'o
O .39
61 .87 O
N
MNE
O I 24
O I 8
8
8
O
O
7
8
5
9
59.7 52.0
9 8
4 4.5
29.85 26.00
4.5 -1.0
3.5 2.S
4
4
.57-.50
2
2
.11
O
3 O O O O O
3
11 5 O 3 1 O
II 5 O
.52
1 O
.24 O 14 .05 O
9 11
O
.43 O O O O O
8 O
8 O
67 O
6 20
6 10
33 .63
o
O O O
3
35
8 19 5 17 18
O
O
O
O
.,
.30 .21 .49 06
S -1 10 2 4 O
.65 .35
6 22
o)
.23
II J 1.5 8 19 2..5
29
J7
9
4 3.3 2 4 O 6 II
7 12
22 18
38.5 26.0
14.0 17.0
3.5 6.0
ILO
19.5 13.0
7.0 85
"'o
SIZC
Giant buffalo: 1814 kg (4000 pounds:
9.0
%
O .11 .89 .89 O
O
.36 .29 .24 .14 29 O .35
65
Distiucuvc Brcakagc
Mcmcarpals oí 5n1<111 bovids (mostiy R(/phicem~l, showtng lack (JI
Figure 4.26 brcakagc.
....
-:--,r'" oh I~';;;-\,~-:':;~, J' ...~l, »:»:
1J':'.~.,
1';'
'~ :' ~ ~i;/'; '.: ,.'I¡.~, l . .'. -c,
Pigurc 4.27 pattcrns.
157
Mcrucarp.rls ot gi;lIH buííalo if'c/orOl'lsl, showing dísunccivc brcakaec
Figure 4.28
Split proximal rncnuarsals of clnnd
ITiwlOtrllgl/\) .
cornmonly unfractured, and if broken they are mosr cammonly splir into halves representing weathering fractures of young (largclv unfused) animal hOlKS. PI11 anothcr w.iy. thc divtnl cnds are uot (Uglllflll(:d durillg proccssing, whcrcas thc proximal end is extensivcly fragmcntcd. Examination of these breukage patterns strongly supports the rcconstruction rhat rile proximal cnds wcre placed 011 an ami! and smashed with a fairly hC~lVY harnmcr. I have obscrved this method of breakagc among tbe Nunamiut Eskimo, particularly in bunting carnps wherc thc lower legs were only partially skinncd prior ro breakmg for marrow. Mcn commonly place the unskinned lower leg next ro the fire. There the hair is singcd, the exposea skin is charred, and of course rhe marrow is warmed in the bone. The smoking lowcr leg is then taken from the firc. aud the chnrred skin is cut nnd scrupcd back from thc proximal end of thc mcrnpudial. Aftcrward. rhe cleaned proximal end is then placed 011 an anvil and hit with a heavy hlow. The scgrncnts of thc proximal end are rhen removed, and rhe split segments of shaft ;)I"C pccled back, because they rcmain artached hy periostium near their distal ends. Tite distal articular end rcmains enea sed in skin and unmcdified by the proccss. Figure 4.29 sbows the splir ;111d "pcclcd back" segmetus of two metatarsals ..v ith rhc sphntcrs rcruaining artached to tbc distal ends, as they were ahnndoncd 011 a Nunamiur hunnng stand. The
4
l:i8
.
~_~%~.~:'] '1' ,P".... ""f' ..¡.'.' ....~.. ~>~.;~.,t::! ':""~"""-'----"" ..
..
c;-"'~"j~-'
.
_.
,
l ' -'.•
"
~
A Patrcm Rccuj;nitinn Studv
"'
•
1
-.
¡.
e-
..,...
'.
l...
'.
«,
...
,.~.
~ l. .., '.~' .~ '...
\
.>,<~jr>':F~·· . 1", •• ~ ~ .
,
:;.
.."':
.-
',_o' ,.
","",.
,~'.
~ ./~ t....:~ ~
.....
c''
.
/'~
~
{\,.
-.
J
' > ..
:'A"' ~'. ~f
,................ _
.'
'. L
..:.
'~.~_-.... :~':,
'l"
"
~
(\
~-
....
~,
~,{
-
..~, ...\,;.-.t. .: 0/.... , \'
.:~ ~··l"'
. .- - '."
'-..J ,'. '\.' r./,.
\ ...:
,;.,.
...
plgure 4.29
~.' .'
'-"", • :
.¡
":".
...•......:,-
I
,
~"'
,.~........
-,
"
t\. '#-.
1.'59
~:;:- __;-} ~:4;1 ;.~~? ~..r.i'.T;· ~. ~. , " , ........'"',... • ....." ~r ''''S'' .: , --..<~ ".._" ~ ' - '",;r ,. .
T¡
.. ,:.. ~.Ji't. ""(C' ".:~.i>. .' .""
~.
_
.. (.{~ ., ~
.', ..'' ' -. . '.; ,,', . s: ~
"~",
•
{-··~.·1
¡
..
Burníng
"\.f'ft; . "}
»,
;
.... , _
""~.'
~~ ~i,r(,
. .,
\/1"~
'l.,
~r1it lllcta¡llIt1ials Jt:ll1ilinin~ in a Nunarmut Eskimll huutinn stand.
observanons on burning (see T able 4.30) are eompletely consisrent with this reconstrucrion of rhc context in which breakage of the metapodials is likelv ro ha..-e oceurred. Figure 4.30 Split phalengcs of ciand (Itlllml ftJxml.
METATARSALS AND PHALANC;ES
Thc breakage of the merararsals is very similar to that of the metacarpals, differing only in the numbcrs of splinters norrnally generated when the proximal cnd is impactcd. This is, of course a function of (he differenee in shape oE [he two r11etapodia/s. The split-shaft brcakagc of the rncrararsais is wcll illustrnred for the bushbuck boncs shown in Figure 4,29. Thc splitting TABLE 4.29
Brcaka,gc Pattcrning of Fírst Phalan~('s'J
rdOTOvis
Taurutragus
T. scriptus
N
MNE
%
N
MNE
%
N
MNE
%
firq 11JwltJllge,~
11)
(2)
(3)
IJ)
IS)
(6)
(7)
(8)
19)
CUlUr!t:te I'roxim,11 cnJ
7 1 U 8 7
7
.41
L6
lA
.14
4
2
32
32
28
4 1
.17
.12
U 4
.76
6.' 68 69
6.'
56
9
.38
.14
30
Distal eml /.' JlfOXUl1a! "2 Ji.,wl cml Tutal MNE Total MAU
enJ
~ 17.0 2.lJ
.24 21
~
m.o
14.13
.31
1 9 L8 21
9 lOS 23.5 2.94
of the bone by impacting on anvils, which appears ro have been the processing srrarcgics for the rnetapodials, is illustrated in a very clear fashion for phalangcs. A cknncd and disarriculated phulange was scarcd 00 an anvil, ventral
.04
38 4S
MNE, mini mal numbcT 01 clcmcnts; MAU, minimaI 3nim¡¡! units (formcrly caBcd
Burning A relJtively smalJ percent;Jgc of hones exhihiteJ cvidcl1ee of burnillg. (n most C3ses the heat hJd not heen sufficient to calcine rhe bone. Srnudging or minor earbonizing of bone surfaces was rhe mosr enmmon for~ noted (see Binlord 19631,
MNII
.1-tr"·../.'. - ",......,..4
/ ~Ó
/1'''''''''~
(~.
1(,()
Jz4
fi
~
..P+ 4.
A Pattcrn R{'cognitinn Studv
abandoncd by hominids, rhere was one very inreresting piece-a proximal
~}.
~ ~
r-,
~
~ ,~
:~
Buming
With regard lo the problem of whether animal gnawing had occurred prior ro the introduction of parts to the sirc or after the SI te had been
"
"
_/",f¡..;/ ~ CA4
,,+
,'.',
, :~
, "'-
)
~ ~
~
~~
femur of Tragelaplms strepsiceros (kudu) that had been gnawed by animals prior ro having been burncd. Of coursc ir could be argued rhar rhe cnrbonizin~ was accidental cnd occurred by virtue uf a fire kindled on rop of a previously uhandoned and scavenged bone. Whilc not impossible, this seerns unlikely in light of thc frequency distribution of burning relarive ro anatomical-parr frequencies. Table 4.30 surnmarizcs the frequencies of burned fragments among those tabulated [rorn the Klasies River Mouth sire. Although ir is clear thar evidence of burning is relatively infrequent on the bones from the Klasies River Mouth site, it is cqually c1ear that it is not ~ , nor docs ir covary with such propertics as numbers uf bone elements (ser anatonucal-part frequency data in Table 3.05). The two parts most consistenrly bumed were fragments of occipital condyle and fragmenrs of proximal femur. I hud prcviously obscrvcd a high incidence of hurned occipital condylcs among !\'1ousrerian faunal assemhlagcs from Franee. In that case, parts of rhe skull (fragmcllts nor scparated or cOllnted regllbrly by Klein) such as rhe mastoid proccss, tl'IlJed ro covary \vith frcqllencics of burned occipital nmdylcs and simple skull fragments. In the 1\lousreri:.m materials, upper rceth were ¡liso frcquemly hl1rned, tending to covary \\'ith occipital condyles and masroid prm::esses. Th-ts"-t1Uming 'PattefA-resuu-s 4fom,·.-tRe -ro-as-ting oí heads minus· -themandible-the m05t common cllstom among the Nunamiut Eskimo, who roast heads in hunting camps and in and around kili· processing ('lmps. There the mandib1c and ílttached tongue were commonly removed (ur tran<;p0rl to the vil1age, whcrc~h the craniul1l was con side red (lf very marginal utility ~lS regards transport inventments. For the latter reason chis orherwi~e margin~ll part was frcquently cOllsumcd in the (icld, not transported ro rcsidential sites. In cases whcrc it \Vas carrieu ro living sites, the tnngue and mandible would have been taken ro the site early in the transport 5cquencc, while the head would have been introduced later, perhaps as pan of rhe last load or trip to the residence fmm the kili. This means rhat usually th~ mandib1c would have been romovcd prior ro the cranium's transporr to rhe living sitc. As lIlentiOlll'd l'~lr1icr, ;1 similar burning p~lttl'rn was noled for lhe Mousteriíln from the sitc of Combe Grenal. This p~Htern was characterisric of red dcer H.'covercd from \X"'ürm 1 deposits and for reindeer recovcred from \Xfiinn II dcposits. In nurked contrast, however, \Vere the burncd bone parts fmm red den ;lJld 110rsc (Lqults), rc(.:ovcred fmm Wiirl11 Il dcposirs. The larrcr two spccies cxhibired no burning of occipital condyles. mJstoid processes, Jnd so forth, bllt illstead had consistent burning of mandibles and mandibular teeth. ;rhis p"3rtern is believed ro result when the complete head
«.¡¡~ . ~J-"~
(tt3
1M
is roasred withattached martdi~}e, This is [he form in which heads are most commonly roastcd among the Kalahar¡ Bushnu-n rodny and in the rcccnt
past (sec Marsb.rll 1976:89-91). Figures 4.31 and 4.32 illustrate a roan anrclope head being prcparcd for roasting among the Nyae Nyae Bushmen campcd at Gaurscha pan, Namihia. Ir is being roasred complete wirh mandib!c in a prcpared roasting pit as shown in Figure 4.32. This procedure would most likelv rcsult in the burning of thc rnargins of the mastoid process, and thc occipital condvles would be less likcly ro rest directly on the hor coals. 1 have similarly observed the Navajo roasting heads of shcep. The heads are cooked COO1plete-i-that is, wirh attached mandible. It wns reponed ro me rhar bones from Navajo sircs whcre heads were roasted commonJy vicldcd rnandiblcs
with burned and charecd undersurfaces. k is particularly interesting thar the partem cthn"fl""p1ucallj¡.<ep<>ned from ehe .South African- area in recent times-is nor-the- parternobserved fin
~
[he Klasies. fauna. Insrcad. a pattcm common to some spccics from Mousterian sircs in Glacial Europe known frorn the contcmporary Eskimo is reprcsentcd, How is this to be understood? I must admit that I do llar know. However, ccrrain characteristics made explicir in these dat~l are clcarly worth investigating in the future. 1'l1e single relcvallt facror common ro the N::1Vajo and the contcmpor~1TY B~lshml'n in rheir merhods of preparing Iargl' ~all1l' is that the complete animal is cOllllllonly llsed up in a very shoft rime amI generally ;lt a single place. No long-term storage is involved, nor is [here much spccializeJ lIse (Ji differenr anatomical parts, as was documented among the Nunamillt. for insUIKe, it is commonly reported [hat ~l1ltl'mpor;lry Bushllll'11 t~'.~l.~l to_ r..~. dllce JnillJa.ls .inr~) four usahle dasscs (),f rnaterials--.. kill, head, Ine;t, Jnd bo;~~-i'he skin J-~d-~¡l~--head ar~-p;~-p-;rl'd ur cooked quite specificall)'. On the other hand, rhe n1(.·~lt is systell1:1tically cut from t!H: hones into strips commonly rderred ro as !Ji/long, and then [he hOlles ;"Irt' processed fur boiling. This means thar rhe marro\\' is nor caren discreteJy hut it is J contributor to the hOlle stl'W. In like fashion, thl' hone marro\V is not caten discretdy among rhe Navajo. They tend ro cook joinh in a variety of stcws, \Vith the long hOlles hutchered through the shnfr. Clearl}', the pattern under discussion is not rrprescntcd at Klasics River Mouth. I would nor cxpec[ this, hecJusc rhere is no rcason ro anticipntL' the use oí boiling straregies in the MSA o( South Africa. '¡-'er there is simibrly no reason ro anticipare such straregies in rhe Würm 11 MOllsteri;1l1 of southcenrral Fr:mcc, whcrc I llave ohserved the "Illodern" hurlling p:utern! Ohviouslj-', tht.'I1, conditiolling factors were at work that \v(,.· have not yet isolated. In rhe case of [hc partern actually observcd :11 KL1sics River Mourh, ir is most analogous to the partero observed among the Nunamiut Eskimo, with rhe exception of the high frequencies of burned femur:-:The propeft),
A~.-.r&.J ~,J
J
.-'
TABLE 4.30 Frequencies of Bumcd-Bone Pragments. Klasies River Mourh Pauna-."
Animal bodv-size ctasses
'"re
¡¡
I
Torals IV
III
V
O'u
No.
%
No.
%
No.
~J,J
3
.17
4
15
1
.sO
11
.22
1
.08
3
.U
1
.09
5
.07
No.
%
No.
%
No
1
.25
2
.22
Hom
Occipital condyle
Mandiblc Atlas Axis Cervical Vertibrae Thoracic Vertcbrac
Lumbar vertcbrac Pelvis Scapula Proximal Humerus Distal Humerus Proximal radiocubitis
Distal radíocubírus Carpals Proximal meracarpal Distal Metacarpal Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia Distal tibia
4
2
.22
.09
2 1
.18 .07
1
.05
1 1
07 14
4 3
.07 .14
4 1 1
.03 .04
1 1 2
.05
1 2
3
.02
.16
1
20
12 5
.16
5 3 5
.04
.07 .13
1
.04
4
.01
2
.07
2
.01
.21
.09
Tarsals Astragalus
Calcaneus Proximal mctararsal Distal mcratarsal Phalanges First e,
"'
Sccond Third
2
.07
.10
.03
.06
" Tceth werc not examined for tlns property. ¡, Pcrcenrage is calculared as rhe proponían 01 the elements in the designated anatomical class which showed evídcnce of having been burned.
r 4.
1(,4
A Pattcrn Rccognttíon Study
Inrcrprceatton of Pattcrning
lbS
_,.. .•
"'~'.Jtr ~..& ...~J" ' ...,•,~MIlP1' ....",::'" .4.. ,,.. #
•. 1 "'''-
~
~
~
!III
Figure 4.31
Roan anrclnpc hcad prior
tu
bcing prcparcd for roasting by NY¡IC Nyac
gushmcn.
rnost characrcrisric of the Nunamiut sysrcm IS that parts are difftrentially trcared. In rhc Nun;HllIlll ,:,I\l' .m.uomical P;¡rts are dilkrl'llti.ll1y eva\u,ltrtl .uul tl1i\ \(;\1" ni cvnluanon i-, mu-ped 011tO díffcrenr places nnd times .... 011 rbe other lmnd, rhe !K\ln~ rnosr rt'Tclinly h.ivc sornu similar understnnding oi thc differentiui unlirv of
Al"K""~orl.in~'¡'......,.i.Inwor-k&,pa,!.iJUll.l:.KlasiJ:sJ!.ivee MOll.h I t ..nm..@s-~WMmedJJ.e~pg.broke."for.bone mélflQW. This
.sample.rcpr
diffcrenrial treatment is al so noted among the Nunamiut. Similarlv, the roasnng of thc heud wirh the mandible removed also represents a diíterential t rc.umcnt of thc twohcnd parts. Thc burniug on the fcmur is mosr likely producrd when ,l complete unskinncd leg i'j roastcd in an ash-ro"lsting {enture.
"'\
This rypc of diffcrcntial trentmcnt is forcsludowed ..11 Klasics River Mourb in thc differenti ..rl rreatmcnt of animals of diffcrenr body size, ,1I1d in rhe clc.u-ly diffcrcntiul trcatment of parts in butchcring: for example, hacking on uppcr-Íimh bones cnd cutting 011 lowcr-limb bones. This Klnsies pattcrn of burning is present in rhe MOllsterian but only among so me animals spccies, Whl'n'::ls otlll'rs show differt:llt p,-lltcrns of burnillg.
-frdJu
¡."'-I~VL
Figure 4.32 antelopc hcad.
Roasnng pit bcing prcpared by Nyac Nvac Bushmcn Ior cookíng a roan
This diversity, corrclated eirher anatomically or with size-variable species, could infortn us about different procuremenr srrarcgies and, hence, ditfcrcnt p,lrh of varying uriliry availablc as a rcculr of the cxccution of diffcrent procurcment strategies. Scavenging would yicld une ser uf anatomical parts from a range of animal species, WhCTC.1S hunting or trapping wouid yield a differcnt assortment oí parts availablc. Such input diversiry and variahility rnay he manifest in processing diffcrcnnarion thar mirnics sorne of the diversity noted in the Nunamiut case, deriving from differences in the time and space utility of parrs obtained under cssennally uniform strategies. This arca for [uture research, if developed well, could be most informanve regarding the organization of early man's subsisrence strategies.
Interpretation of Patterning ANIMAl. GNA\'(.'IN(;
I have reported animal gnawing at Kiasics River Momh under the assllmption rhar tlle gnawing had occurreJ prior ro the recovcry nf the
1(,(,
4.
A Pattcm Rccogniuon Studv
anatomical parts by tbe hominids, and prior to the introduction of bones into the site. 1 delayed the discussion 01 the possibiliry rhat rhe bones had been inrroduced into the site and subsequently scavenged after man had abandoncd rhe Klasics rockshelrer until the dar a from all the anaromical r,rts had becn prescnred individually. This delay was simply ro make possible rhe ciration of the Oyeran patterning in the gnawing as part of an argument that, in fact, rhe boncs had been gnawed prior to their introduction to the Klasies site. Severa! srudies 01 prey carcasses (inc1uding natural deaths that had been scavenged) have been made (Binlord 1981; Hill 1975). Richardson (1980b) provides a fair picture 01 the frequencies of parrs as well as rhe condition of parts 00 kili-dearh sites after nonhuman predaror-cscavengers have led on the carcasses. Table 4.31 combines a sumrnary 01 the dala reported by Richardson, from his study of scavengcrs and the ungulate carcasses remaining after they had completed rheir feeding with data from Klasies and an Anaktuvuk dog yard. Columns 1-3 present invenrories of parts remaining at the kíll sire as well as the frequency of rhose remaining thar were damaged by the scavengers. Column 3 shows rhe pereenrage of parts remaining that were damaged. Colurnn 4 summarizes the percentage of bones exhibiting gnawing among rhe bones of anin1J.ls in size class IV lrom Klasies River (eland-sized animals). Columns 5 and 6 display lhe percemage of surviving hones rhar \Vere damaged during feeding by lions (Column 5) and hyaenas (Colllmn 6), as nbserved hy Richardson. Thcre are several facts of interest here. It should be pointed out that lhere is a CQllSiderable difference in lhe patlern,of damaged bone remaining at a hyaen3,kill-fceding location (Column 6) as opposed to lhal seen on lion kiU. (Co!umn 5). Thcre is mllch greater damage on the long bones whcn hyaenas have been fecding. Similarly, there is greater damage 00 the skull and hOf1ls. (Ridl.udsol1 did not note the former, bU[ I ohservcd this in rhe Nossob River area). These observations lend sorne support to the views of several taphonomisls (e.g., Haynes 1982) lhal we wiU evenlually be ab!e 10 recognize the species responsible for bone accumulations from the distinctive feeding parteros of each. While these ohservations are inreresting, other points of extreme interest are summarized in Figure 4.33 , in which the percentages of bones in lhe variolls all<1tol11ical dasscs fmm Klasies rhat exhibited gnawing are plotted againsr the pt'rcenragcs of damaged bones in similar analOmical cbsscs obscrved by Richardson at known sites of animal predation and sC;lvcnging. For the parts of the axial skeleton plotted on Figure 4.33A, it is obvious rhar rhere is a strong posirive correlation berween rhe two data sers. This means thar rhe relative frequency of gnawing observed among diHerent anaromical parts ar the Klasies site is essentially the same as the re1ative
Imcrprct
lf)7
frequency of animal-damaged parts remaining at carcasscs after nonhumun predaror-scavengers had finished feeding. I considcr rhis to be almost perfect proof that rhe parts at Klasies River Mourh were selecred from a population of anatómica] segments previously gnawed and damaged by predator-scavengers , such as lions and hyaenas. lf a scavcnger had gnawed on the bones after they had been mtroduced into the site at Klasies, I see no way that the pattems of gnawing would mimic patterns thar are essentially conditioned by the sequcnce of dismemberrnent and feeding tactics charactenstic of animals devouring a complete carcass. When scavenging an abandoned human sire, the scavengcrs would have direcr access to already disrnernbered body parts as we!l as parts that had been previously exploited; rhar is, the disrnburion of mcat and muscle characteristic of a whole animal would have already heeu rnodified and/or removed before the scavenger arrived. In addirion, the actual population of parts present would be biased in favor of sorne, whereas orhers would be underrepresented or absent. Thesc facts should ensure thar rhe pattern of gnawiog would be different than when a complete carcass was being devoured or when a carcass's population of bones in different stages of dismemberment and prior use was being scavenged. The simple faets of aceess to cerrain parts would be vastly different for the scavenger arriving ar an abandoned human site. Similarly, the parts that would he attracrive in rerms 01 lood would be very diflerenl lhan when lhe animal faced a complele carcass.
As a parti~t1 control on rhe gnawing and damagc lO parts when a feeding animal has access to already dismembered parts, I studied a sampJe 01 bones collecled Irom a dog-Ieeding area at AnaklUvuk Pass (see Binford and Berrrarn 1977:80, Samp!e 1). The dogs telhered illlliis arca liad heen led anatomical segments that were secondarily butchered at the time of feeding into mcal-sizc 1Il1its for cach dogo The only differencc hetween rhe access ro bone and what mighr characterize a scavenger opportunistically feeding across an abandoned human site is that rhere was something edible on a1l of the parts given lO the dogs-which of course would nor have been true for rhe parrs remaining ar a human site ar rhe time of abandonment. This former fact is perhaps reflected in rhe very high frequencics of animaldamaged bnnes recovered lrom lhe dog areas (see Table 4.31, CO!llmn 7). The percenragcs of damaged bones even exceeded the damage done by leeding hyaena (see Table 4.31, Cotumn 6) in nearly all inslances. The striking differenee in lhe dog-yard dala, however, is lhe equilable damage seen on all bones as compared with the damagc patteros seen by Richardson at his scavenged carcasses. In the latter case, rhe bones of rhe appendicu!ar ske1elon were generally less damaged than were lhe bones 01 the axial skeleton. In a similar manner, the bones of the upper limbs \Vere
-'
TARLE 4.Jl Richardson's Scavengmg Data Comparcd wrrh Klasies Largo Bovrds and Anakeuvuk Dog Yard
~
Klasses bcvíds IV
Richardson 's data»
oe
Hum
Skull Mandible Atlas-axis Cervical vencbrae Thoracic vcrtebrae Lumbar vcrtebrae
Sacrum Innominatc Scapula Proximal hurncrus
Percent gnawed Anaktuv uíc-
'{o of total
MAU
Column 2 Column 1
MAU gnawed
Líon
Hyaena
(2)
(3)
(4)
151
(6)
8.5 O 8.5 45 7.5 8.0 7.5 10.0 11.5 10.0 5.5
55.0 O 550 J2.0 52.0 72.0 65.0 670
14.0 O 9.0 O 8.0 20.0 29.0 25.0 J5.0 26.0 29.0
O 58.0 44.0 20.0
O 7D.0
54.0
25.0 25.0 47.0 49.0 56.0
66.0 75.0 82.0 71.0 O
Surviving
Domagcd
MAU 11)
155 O 15.5 14.0 145 11.0 11.5 15.0 15.0 12.5
u.o
Ricñardson:s data!'
.'13.0
80.0 50.0
56.0 50.0 92.0 62.0 76.0 40.0 8.0
17.0 76.0
28.0 45.0
%
Gnawed (7)
50.0
58.0 73.0 O
¡ Distal humerus Proximal radiocu-
bitus Distal radiocubnus Carpals Proximal meeacarpai Distal metacarpa¡ Proximal femur Distal temur Proximal tibia Distal tibia Tarsals
Astragalus
o:-c
Calcaneus Proximal mcratarsal Distal merararsal Phalanges
11.5 95 10.5 O 8.0 7.5 90 9.5 11.0 11.0 O 6.5 10.5 10.5 11.0 2.5
.5
4.0
1.0
11.0
1.0 O O 1.0 J.3 2.0 2"0
10.0 O O 13.0 37.0 21.0 18.0 O O
O O O O O 5 O
" 1980b: Figure 39. ¡, 1980b: Figures 33 and 34. "Binford and Bertram (1977:80, Table 3.1, Column IVI.
O O O 5.0 O
O 5.0 O O 8.0 8.0 18.0 15.0 29.0 10.0 O 4.0 10.0 J.O 40 3.0
O O O O O 3.0 8.0 O O 3.0 O
O O O 30 O
2.3.0
70.0
J 1.0
90.0
O O O O 14.0 64.0 J2.0 O O O O O 2.0 O
75.0 260 610 82.0 75.0 75.0 84.0 64.0 21.0 41.0 53.0 65.0 820 130
te
'00
p
~ ..o (-
~~
60
.~ ..
1 '"
--1-~--
I-I··(FTJ ~I, \
le:.
I~
i~ /1/~rN-1-11 ~ { p~.--¡l-I r. --:1 se
40
o
~
.. el ~J ~ O
~""AX
30
-
I
ro
.0'
" Z
~8
U
10
ro
.jPH /
o...(
I
~
"
40
OF
6l'-tOWIN<:t
~
O
lYJ DMT
~
•
PT...............~
oec.
DH
/'
FT/'
/~ .'~ AT
___
•
CI!:RY
.• ---
~
MA.NO
HORN
• •
THOR
~c.""'P
•--....
PE.LV
~ 1 30
~
~
C\..Jlo,.~$
(
0." ~
AIoJIMAL.,... a.N .....W1N
KLA~IE..~ R,VE..~ MOUTH CAVE:
~10
• 2-
/
ro
~
DMC
~ 11I 20
_-----1__ +------->- __
~
~
0 _ 1I.:I50 lI. Id '/1 40 11 b.l-
V
~.
E,,Aro.CH ANATOM IC .....L...
01
_
2O
I..... ~T
!
P~RCENTAG!E.
,
P~C
OH
o 1)
~
Dll:Cep
--.-.1----+---+-
10
,
//
",~XO . .
(/
• • • •• p=
fJl
O
.IPF/ /
A)/, ' ....
6
90
~860
__+_+---t--JL-
'
Z II!
.. lo-
_~.~.
,rc~u~/
0
2 a5.1Q.
~1l.E~~~"""
/
~~N::d /
Y)
I
p..qp~N~IGU'¡"'''''R..
/
IT,l-lO~
1
171
100
-'-t--~
_
lntcrprctanon uf Pattcrníng
A Partcrn Rccognition Srudv
A
----1- -+___
~~'o
j ~
4.
íi-
170
1
FiJ.:utl: 4.13 Cllmp;lTisllll l-ciwccn control llilt:l (Richardson llJHO) ami thc glasics trcqucnctcs Iur animal gnawinA un (Al ax ial and (ni appcndit:ubr skclcrons. LOllf;-d'1Shcd linos (in A ami Bl indicare a rclation 01 ídcnriry hctwccu cases¡ short-Jashcd Iinc (in Al shows actual rc latiorisiup. AST, astragalus¡ AT, atlas; AX, axis; CERV, ccrvical vertcbrac. DF, distal temor; DH, distal hurncns. DMC, distal merucarpal: DRC, distal radim:uhitus; DT, distal tibia; HORN, born. LUMB, lumbar vcrtcbrae. MAND, mandíblc¡ PELV, pelvis; PF, proximal fcmur. PH, proximal humcrus. PMC, proximal rnctacarp:t!; PRC, proximal radtocubitus: PT, proximal nb¡a, SAC, sacrum: SCAP, scapula. 11H1R, t\H\I:Hic \'l'ltcl)f;ll', l st. firq rhabn,gt'
more durnaged than wcrc the bones of the 10\Ycr Iimbs. Inspecrion of the data from rhe dog yards shows 110 sueh bias eirhcr with respcct to the axial skcleton or (he upper lirnbs. This is ro be rcferred ro rhe diffcrent patterns of access thar thc dogs experieneed relarive ro (he animals fceding nt carcasses. The dogs can be assurned to have been hungry eaeh time rhey were fed. The parts given ro them were al1 edible, but in each case only rhe particular parts
O O
10 zo 30 40 SO (,O 70 eo 90 PERGENT.......c;,.E. O'" 60N~~ QN......WE.O ~lc:. .........RC~N O......T ......
'00
Figure 4.34 I'crccntagcs of animal dcstrucnon hy anatonucuf part fnr Rtchnrdson's IIYHOj control Jata and a Nunamiut un~ vard. AT, atlas; CERV. cervical vcrtcbrac, DH, distal humcrus. DMC, distal mctuc.m-at. DMT, r..!iSI;1! mccunrs.rf HORN, hom, MAND, mandiblc, PELV, pelvis; PF, proximal Icmur. PRC, proximal mdíocubítus, PT, proximal tibia; SCAP, scapula. THOR, rhorac¡c vcrtcbrac.
given to rhe dog were aeeessible at each discrete feeding. This means that the
dog could not pass IIp sorne parts in favor of others as would be rhe case of anirnals fccding at a carcass in whieh al] parts were simulroncously nvailable and edil-le eH lcast ro SOIl1C cxteut]. These differences between (1) the variahiliry in the parts availablc and their food urility, and (2) the acccssibility of parts by virtue of their separation as opposed to rheir incorporation into rhe functional anntorny of an animal, certainly condition rhe feeding patterns and inrcnsirics by the consuming animal. This is well illustrated in Figure 4.34, in whieh the percenrages of bones present exhibiring gnawing or tooth scoring are plotted for
172
4. A Panero Recognition Studv
Richardson's data from known scavenged carcasses and for rhe bones recovcred from rhe Eskimo dog yard. There is a gencrnlized negative oc inverse relationship between rhe dog yard and the scavengcd curcass data. 1 think this ro be undersrood in terrns of access by gnawing animals ro bones. A dog fed a lower limb and several \rihs dcvours what he has. The less actual food available, the more the dog devours the part ro which he has access. This means rhar rhose dogs receiving a rneal of marginal parts chew on them more intensely than does a betrer-fed dog receiving a grearer bulk of food. 1 do not want to place too mueh emphasis on these data. 1 introduce them sole1y tú warrant the view thar gnawing of bones is a íuncticn of rhe relationships berwcen hungcr and rhe accessibility of food. As hungcr is abated, parts of marginal unhty are ignored (rhc situation ar carcasses). On the other hand, when hunger is present and the foods accessible are of rninimal utiliry, thc feeding animal will simply go after what is available (the yard case). Givcn such an understanding, ir should be very clear that an animal scavcnging an abandoned living sirc would address the parts that happened to be abandoned with sorne edible remnants. It is likely that these would be rhe parts not heavily processed or consistcutlv used by the humanso I think it should also be clear that such pans are nor likely ro have been rhe choice me
Intcrpretatlon DI Pancrníng
17.1
skeleron. For the legs, thc relationship describes a line rhat is linear, with the intercept of the line at the origin of the graph. The slope of thc line is essenrially directly propornonal, so that for each rise on the Y axis there is an identical inerease on the X axis. This, then, means that the data from Klasies River is idenrical in .111 ways ro rhe data frorn Richardson's observations on eareasses for parts of the appendieular skeieton. Ir will be recalled that this was nor the case for parts of the axial skeleron. The line descnbcd by the correlation between the two data sets in rhe laner case intercepted the y axis berween a value of 30 and 40 and rose at an angle, so thar for every unir increase in Y rhere was only about 75% of a unir increase in X. Sra red simply, this means thut rhe axial versus appendicular skclcton appears to have bccn an independent1y sarnpled scgmcnr frorn a single parcnr population. Both, however, were sclected from an original population previously modified by animal gnawing in a manner essenrially idenrieal ro the populanon surnmarized by Richardson. Parts of the appendicular skeleron sclecred were chosen for transport ro Klasies River Mouch in terms of the degree thar animals liad not prcviously eonsumed the parts sclected, a straregy COTllpletely consisrenr with a scavenger seeking mear. On the other hand, the patterns of gnawing on the Iirnb bones at Klasies River are nearly idenrieal to the parreros of gnawing obscrved by Riehardson ar animal·scavenged eareasses. This implics t1lJ.r rhe prior consumption by prcdaror-scavenging animals had nor affl'crcd tht' uriliry foc rhe hominids of rhe lower legs. lt should be clear rhar the edible material being soughr by rhe hominids was nor mear hut bOlle marrow. Thc Iarrer is rarely consul11cd ar kill-death sites by animals. Figure 4.35 iIIustrates the leg of a springbok (Antidorcas marsl
4.
174
A Pattem Recognitíon Study
."
i \
~,'
Figure 4.35 Mmlcrn sprlngbok (Al1Iidorcas) rccovcrcd from a lcopard kill in thc Nossob vnllcv, South Afríca.
sample is identical to the pattcrn noted at kill-death sites after the carcasses had been exhausted by rhe predator-scavengers observed by Richardson. Thc fact rhnr tooth marking on the axial skelcton shows correlated but . . calar diffcrcuccs rclntivc to rhc control data of Richardson, whcrcas the hones of thc limbs show a dircct and ncar-identical pattern in both correlational form and seale, appcars ro me ro be almost unassailable evidence rhar rhe tooth scoring occurrcd at kill-carcasses prior to rhe recovcry of parts in a differential manner (one strategy for meat-yielding parts and another for marrow-yiclding parts) by the hominids. No animal seavenging an abandoned hominid site wauld be eonfronted with such a eomplieated patrem of the parts thar rnau just happened to leave iying around in identical ways each time the site was accessible to seavenging animals! 1 should point out tl1:1t to support the poswhalldollmcllt ;ugllmcnt, we would also l1:1ve to mode! a situation in which each time man leh his living site, the only bones Iying around that were attractive tú scavengers were from large animals (see the consistent pattern in essentially al1 the tables previollsly presented where gnawing is abscllt 011 the bOlles of smaller animals). Therc is still Jn additional set of facts that I have Ilot thus far discussed: the dala from seal hones. I had the opporlunily lo sludy lhe bones of seals
/:wJ. -
i'-"-
~.-~ Ift.,--
4<~r; frrÁ.;"¿¡~
Intcrprctanon oí Pattcming
175
that wcrc recovered from the Klasies River Mouth. Most of thcsc bones were from relanvcly large and marure seals, and on thcrn a consisrcnr parrern of cut marks was ohserved that showed conclusivcly rhat rhese animals were butchcred by mano On the other hund. of a!l rhc bones. only scvcn showed any animal gnawing. In four cases thcre wcrc largc rooth punctures through the phalanges, or minar gnawing on the distal ends of the humerus or on the radius, but no other bones were gnawed. AH gnawing was concentrated on rhe bones of the fronr f1ipper. 1 see no reason why a scavenger eating opportunistically across an abandoned surfacc would never have encountered edible seal bones from the meaty arcas of mature seals previously butchered by hominids. Once again, we would have to imagine rhe hominids eating smaller ungulates and seals to thc poinr of their being unattractive to scavengers, while regularly leavingchoice parts of the larger ungulates with edible remnants! The most econornical as wel1 as the bestinformed interpretation is simply that the hominids were systematically scavenging rhe carcasses of the larger ungulates. This scavcnging generally took place aftcr the orhcr predator-scavengers in rhc arca had completed their feeding nt thc careass. Scavenging consisted of recovering parrs with usable mear when possible, but the most regular practicc was the recovery of marrow-yielding lower legs frorn such carcasses. These large animals were not hunrcd. Hunting or trapping-that is, a dircct procurement strategy-seerns rcstricted to relatively srnall-body-size ungulares, and, as argued earlier, primary consumption of these smal1 animals was not generally conducted at the Klasies site. BREAKA(;r
Bone breakagc seerns most clearly indica tive of {l ) extensive hominid processing of mctapodials and phalangcs from larger animals for bonc marrow; (2) rhc regular processing of hom eores from the tragalaphines (Taurotragus oryx [clnnd), Tragalaphus strepsiceros [grc.ucr kudu]), and Tragalaphus scríptus [bushbuck]) for thc small morscls of cdiblc mattcr contained in the horn-core sinuses; and (3) regular proccssing of mandibular margins nf the larger animals for the smal1 morsels of edible pulp recoverable from along the bases of the mandibular teeth. In addition to the breakagl' rcfcr;lhlc ro hominid hone-proccssing, therc was distinnive brcak;¡ge nf the vertebral' ami ribs in particular, which is rcferahlc ro ravaging by feeding animals. Several points are very important regarding bre;lkagc. Perhaps the first and clearly the most provocative is that there was intcnsc processing for what can onl}' be considered the most marginal food-pulp from hom-core sinuses, and mandibles, as well as marrow from phalanges and metapodials. This processing was regulady carried out on parts recovercd from the largcr
tt«
4
A Pancrn Recogntuon Study
animnis. Grear labor investments were made by the hominids of Klasies Rivcr Mourh in rccovcring smalJ amounts of marginal foods from parrs origiuating in animal s thar, if exploited fresh or killed by the hominids, would hnvc providcd enonnous quantities of lugh-qualiry foods accessible 'cvithout major proccssing. A conclusión sccms inescapable ro me: large quantiries of high-qualitv foods were simply nor available at the carcasses of these large animals. This conclusión is supported by ohservarions on the utilization of the small bovids. Ir rnust be recalled rhar in terms of body-part frequcncies, cut marks, and the absence of animal gnawing, ir seerned clear that these smal1 creatures wcre being exploitcd for meato In addinon to this inferencc. the patrern of mear utilizntion seemed ro have been of a "gourmet" form, where only small and choice parts were regular1y introduced. In like fashion, parts of marginal utiliry on the small animals were not gcneral1y introduced or processcd. This clcarly indicares that, at least when high-qualiry mcat was available, the hominids consumed ir and did not simultaneously proeess and consume parts of low or marginal value. Given that they regularly introduced parrs of very low porential food value from the large animals, the choice mear was most likely not nvailahle. This view is supported by the breakage pattcms on rhe ribs and vertebral' introduced from the large animals. It will be recaited that the regular hreakage 01 the dorsal crests 01 the dorsal vertebral spines, coupled wirh rhc regular breakage of the ribs out sorne 5 cm (2 inchesl from the proximal articular surfaces of the rib (see Figure 4.36), are both consistent with animal fcedmg strategies (evidenced by gnawing), and thc fccding on ar leasr porrially stiff carcasses. It would appcar that tlu- intruductiou to the sitc o{ such parts, prcviously hrokcn by animal feeding, clearly suggcsrs thar small, rerrmant, and ar least partially dried strings oud scctions of tcndcrloin and adhcring mear wcrc the food targcts rcrnaining on rhesc anatómica] parts. The breakage pattern referable to processing of parts is largely a feature of bones from rhe Iarger animals. Processing investments were in anatomical segments rhat could yield at best only small quantiries oI rather marginal foods. This pattero is consistenr with rhe exploitation of Iarge animal carcasscs wherc prime foods were not present or had already been consumed. The /aucr conditioll is ~rrot1gly indieatcd hy rh' distinctive hreakage patICfIIs of the ribs .lnJ dorsal spilll's of the vertebral' (sl'e figures 4.9, 4.10,
4.11 4.16). AH ín JlI, the partern is clear: the hominids were introducing parts of small sil{: f[om the alrC:llly rdativdy dry and hcavily exploited carcasses of brge aninuls, ami rhe limall parts yicld very small amounrs of foad of largc1y marginal valuc. Huming of rhe Iarge forms SCCI11S not tú have been part of rhe hominids' food-getting strategy.
Inrerpretation of Pattcming
177
Figure 4.36 Typical unit of vcrtcbrac and proximal nb surviving aftcr animal fccding: modero wildcbecst ICoTllloc:haetesl fcd upon by hyacna in thc Nossob vallcy, South Africa.
CUT MARK'i AND EVIDENCE 01' DISMEr..lBERl\.lENT
As has bccn puinted out throughout rhc dcscriptions uf thc boJy parts, at least three differcnr forrnation conditions may be signalcd hy rhe posirio» and char:lcter of cut marks: (1) we may recognize dismemberment as op· posed to skinning or fillcring of either muscle or sheathing for bony parts: (2) we may also recognize something of the st<1te of the clrcasses at rime of dismembermcIlt with regard to wherher it i.. supplc ami fresh or sríff, and in an AfriC:lIl cuntext, dl'siccatcd and old; and (3) we may rccognize sOI1H.,thing of rhe dismemberment and processing strategy employcd. AXIAL SKEL.ETON
0;H;1 getleratcd from observatiotls on the ;lxi'll . . kdetoll sigll:11 Ulll'lluivocally the bet rhar rhe slllall animals (smal1 and sm:lll-mediulI1 bovitis) were sclectcd Jnd proccssed in rcrms quite diffcrelltly fmm the mediumthrough large-hody-size animJls.1 have prepared Table 4.32. using the crire-
/
TABLE 4.32
Summary of Inílicted Marks by Sl::C Categorv
Bovid class ~
00
Combineií
IV
Cut marks Hack marks
Dismem-
berment No. /J}
Homs Occipnal condyle Maxrlla Mandiblc
Atlas Axis Thoracic spincs
I 4 O
hlleung
';1"
No.
(2)
(3)
4 I
O
,e
03 3(,
O
O
O O
O O
.05 .33 .05
O O
O O
O
O .,;2
O
.3
O
dismembermem cut ami huck:
Cut morks
28
Gnaw marks
No.
O;"
No.
(S)
(6)
(7)
O O O O
O O O
I O O O
O
O O
O
O
Dísmem-
No.
'"
(B)
(9)
O O
O
No. (11 ¡
O O O O
O
7
O O .18 .09
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O 8
.03
O O
O O
,
tu»
o
4
Hack mates
Tílletíng
berment
O
'};, (12)
o
No. (13)
O
(,
O
O I g O O
O O O O .12
Gnaw No.
"
"
No.
." (lB)
114)
(151
116)
(J7)
.15
.3
07 OS
O
06
15
O
.1
OS 10 O O '<14
.1
m arte»
marks
(,
5
O S
O
()
O
O
()
O
O
.04
1
.15 O .23 19
O O .04
1
.. I O 3 1
Thoracic vertebrae (centruml Ribs Lumbar vertcbrac
Sacrum Pelvis Proximal femur Distal femur Proximal tibia
Distal tibia Proximal mctatarsal
~
~
Distal mctatursal Scapula Proximal humeros Distal humeros Proximal radiocubitus Distal radiocubnus Proximal mccacarpal Distal rnctacarpal
1
5 8 3 9
O O 27 O S 6 O 3 O
'"' Groupcd bccause of ambiguirv.
.01 O .04 .Of, 8 17
10 13 .21
O O
O O
O O
O
O
12
.1-1
O
4 .18 O
.2-1-
O
O O
O
()
()
O O O O
O O O
O
O
O .18 O .10 .26 O .19 O
O 3 O
O O O O O
O O O
O O O
()
O O
O 02
O O
O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O
.3 O .3 O I O O O O O O I O 3 O O I
02
O
.04
1 I
O .04 .01
O
O
O O 03
O O O O
O ()
.10 O
.12 O O .07
O
O
8 O 2
30 O
2 13 O
.20
7
.I'
1"
1
4 11
.09
O O
O
7
.25
10
11 19 .09 .01
7
O O O O .10
()
O
13 .5 I 2 II O O .l
7
.18
.15 18
O O .03 09
O O
6 O O 4
.1 17 ,;
01 .48 O
O O O 9
06
.3 7
O O .09 .08 21 .03
O O I O 4 I
02
O O O O .13 .05 .07 O
O .02 O .05 .01
21 (,
21 S 11
.14 .22 .18
.50 .26
10
.22
(,
.10
-1 -1
.14 .04 .07
S
2 14 I O 4 II
7 10 22
Ó
.02 .IB .31 O .02 O .OS
2 11 1 O 7
4
.05
8
1 19 4
O 1 O
8 8
.01
.52 01
O 09 Ig
.25 .11 32 14 08 .15
.18 .02 .08
.10
uw
4.
A Pnncm Rccognition Study
ria advanccd by sorne of the early srudents of cut marks (Guilday et al. 1962:63)-namely, rhar disrnemberment marks are recognizable by reperitive placcmcnr and "rhar rhere was sorne anaromically dictared reason why a particular mark should occur at any given spot." This Table summarizes by anaromical rart thc frequencies of the cut, gnaw, and hack marks on the -boncs of the large animals (size classes 111 to V) and thc small animals (size c1asses I and 11) as deseribed in the previous descriptive sections. These tabularions are broken clown into columns summarizing marks judged to have been inflicted while dismembering animals, and marks iudged to have been inflicred while filleting or skinning anatomical segments. Figure 437 displays the percentagcs 01 bones marked during dismembermcnt from the Klasies River smal! animals, plotted against the perccntages of marked bones frorn the control population (Table 3.3, Column 4) observed among rhe Nunamiur Eskimo during their spring hunting and meat-drying opcrations. It is clear that rwo parallel, positively correlated linear relationships are indicared. The upper line is described by horns: occipital condyles: atlas and axis vertebrae; the lumhar and thoracic vertebrae; and, from the front leg, the scapula, proximal radiocubitus, and proximal metacarpals: and from rear leg the proximal femur and distal tibia. These are all the parts that exhibir a strong pcsinve correlarion between the two cases. This means that, at least as far as these parts are concemed, the dismemberment strategies of the Nunamiut Eskimo and the hominids of Klasies Rivcr were essential1y the sarne. The only significant difference is that slightly more marks were inflicted 00 most parts by the MSA hominids than by the modero Eskimo using metal knives. The lower linc in Figure 4.37 also describes a posirive eorrelation betwccn thc Nun.uniut data ami the Klasics s01.111 bovids, but ir differs in the fact that many more marks appeared 00 the Eskimo boncs relarive ro marks appearing on thc Klasics fauna. Thc suite of boncs markcd in a similar patrcrn, but gcncrnlly less commonly than the Eskimo bones, were the pelvis, distal femur, proximal tibia, and the proximal and distal metatarsals. Ribs were less commonly marked at Klasies River, as were the proximal humerus. distal radiocubitus, and distal metacarpal. I think ir should be clear that buteheriog and dismemberrnent strategies are ar lcast a partial function of the size of the animal being addressed. Large animals are gencrally scgmcntcd into more units than are vcry small anil11als. Put anorhcr way, rhen' is a package size rhar is a generalizcd target of dismc01bcr01ent. \X!ith very small animals rhis basic package size is achieved wirh less dismcmhcnncnt than wOllld he the case when butehering a large animal. This diffL.rl'ncl' accollnts for the independently distributed but simiIatly correlared patterns seeo in Figure 4.37. This split partero has a number of interesting impliearions. The basic
IRI
Intcrprctatlon of Pancrnlng
.... 50
~OV!D6:
11I
6~z..E c.,.... ~6 1 (~""A.L.I )
>.
j
40
oc:c-___
1 l-
~~
./
s
,/'-'"
.P~
rt 11I > 20
,/'
• •-OT
P;;-e
>(1
.¡{Ha"-
-
AT.
./
D1 III
---- ---
---
»>
,
~P~
pn,
.5C.Acoe
¡,,/
,
10
o".
j;/
AX
~>
PT
."....-
1-/0RtoJ
MANO
LUM8
]
O
O....c ORe PH
o
MT ____ ~
10
..,e
------
2.0
PE.... C.e:. .... TAq ...
'&0
OF'"
150....&6
OlbME...... BE.~ME. .... T
CONTROl- D'O"T.... -
40
SO
WIT"H
MAR,.1(.6
NUNAMIUT
Figure 4.37 Cornpanson bctwccn dismcmhcrrncnt mnrks in ,1 Nunanuut control populatlon nnd from rhc Klostcs Rivcr Mouth small-animnl popul.uion. AT, atlas¡ AX, axis¡ DF, distal fcmur, DH, distal humcrus. DMC, distal mcracarpal. DMT, distal metatarsaf DRC, distal radiocubitus. DT, distal tibia¡ HüRN, horn. LUMB, lumbar vertcbrac, MAND, mandible, OCC, occipital condylc, PELV, pelvis¡ PF, proximal fcmur¡ PH, proximal humerus¡ PMC, proximal mctacarpal¡ PMT, proximal rnctatarsal. PRC, proximal radiocubirus, PT, proximal tibia¡ RIB, rtb, SCAP, scapula¡ THOR, rhorncic vertcbrac.
invesr01ent in dismcOlbermenr was similar between rhe Nunamillr Eskimo and the hominids butchcring small antelope. Stated anothcr way, the dismembermcnr ractics were similar relarivc ro the hasic fl'atures of rhe <1naromy. The only real differeoce scems to be rcfcrahlc ro tlll' diffcrcnccs in body size of the aoimals being butchered. This is strong confirmation of the assumptions upoo which inferences from dismembcrmenr~mark frequency
182
4.
A Pattcrn Rccogniuon Study
parrcmmg are commonly bnsed-c-namcly. rhar these marks are anatomically clustcred in terms of frequency, as a function of the relativo investmenrs (work) made by ancienr butchers in dismembcnng carcasses in WJYS related to gaining usoblc access ro foods that were diffcrentially distributed on the skeleral fmmcwork. High investmenrs would be corre1atcd wirh acts of femoving anaromical parts of high food-yield: hence sueh parts should be targcts of removal more commanly than parts of low yield. This ovcrall pattern is realized in rhe dismembcrment mark frequencies seco among the small mammals at Klasies River. There is little doubr thar the dismcmbertnenr was perforrned in rhe context of strategies aimed at recovcring usable mear frorn rhe carcasses of these smal1 animals. The data from dismernbcrmcnr rnarks are thus internally consistent with the inferences druwn from anaromical-part frequencics of thc small-bovid classes: thc hominids of Klasies River Mouth were exploiring thc srnall bovids for mear. and rhey werc generall)' obtaining the carcnsses frcsh-c-th.n is, prior to thcir bcconnng stiff. This condition is most cousisrcm wirh thcir hnving hcen cither hunred or trapped, or at least killcd by rhe hominids. This view is supportcd by che ncar total lack of caruivore gnawing 011 the bones of thc small bovids. In terms of fillcring marks [see Table 4.31 )-marks inflicred during the rernoval of mear and/or ski n from the bones-rhe pattern among rhe small bovid bones is very clear, Thcse marks are exclusively presem 011 the bones that yicld most mear, andlor which are meehanically difficult to filler: the thoracic spines (removal of the tenderloins), dorsal spines of the lumbar vertebrae (removal of the tenderloins), sacrum (removal of the tenderloins), and thc scapuln (rcmoval of mear smps frorn thc uppcr fronr quartcrs}, Abscnce of such marks from parts of the rcar legs is consisrent with the parteros of burning in which rear legs appear to have bccn frequently cooked as complete t111its in rheir skins. Filleling of huth lhe 'enderloin and the uppcr-fron' quarter may well berray rhe prepararion of billong, or air-dried srripped mear, far future consumption. If so, this suggests very short-term planning and a lack of sh
Intcrprctatíon of Pattcming
183
...... .... R:11!II /
,
so .-4
Id ~
GLA6~
40
~
~
L
:lO
>
~ ~
J
v--
HO.'
10
OMC.
1/
PT./
<,
v':.
r---)"" ccc- •
-·r'é'"';",",p ./ 'PH
...... ,
v/
/
• • os-
./
'--2.
OMT
/
...... -
LU"'ORC '""
o
V <,
OH
/' O
'-3
/ <,
/
Ii?
V I
/
r
/
'-
P~LV
'I'_.PMT
O
:2 rI.
'-
/
1
:>
'<,
TIl
(ME:D IUM~LA ~E:)
V
...
-...... ...... ,
/
6oVIO b: ÓIZE
-
t- '<, ----./V
.,;-_J-_/'- ----r--____
TH~~ s-ec,
-1
- - .....T
r-e,
10
PERCENTAG,E
so
20
OF
40
BONE-6
DIt>MEMaER.MEt-JT
50
WITH
MAR.K.t>
CoNT~OL DATA ...... NU"-JAMIUT Figure 4.38 Comparison betwecn Jismcmbcrmcnt marks in a Nunamiut control pupu!ation and fmm thl: Kla~;ics Rivcr Momh large-animaJ populatioll. AT, atlas; AX. axis; DF, di'ital fcmur¡ DH, Jlstal hume rus; DMC, distal Ill/:ucarpal; DMT. distal md¡)tarsal; DRe, distal raJiocubitus; DT, distal tibia; HüRN, hom; LUMB, lumbar ver· tebrac; MAND, mandiblc¡ OCC, occipital cundylc; PELV, pelvis; PF, proximal kmur¡ PH, proximal humerus¡ PMC, proximal metacarpal; PMT, proximal mctatarsal; PRC, proximal laJiocubitus¡ PT, proximal tibia; RIB, rih; SCAP, seapul;l¡ THOR, thoracic vcnL!)!,IC.
memberlllcnt m;Hks, fillcring marks, and animal gnawing poinr to the same conclusion: small animals were obtained (resh, hurdh:rcd frcsh, and primarily exrloircd fnr meat yields. Turning ro rhe data from the Iarge animals, we obrain a ver)' different picture. figure 4.38 displays rhe re1arionships betwccn rhe dismemberment
IR,)
4.
Interpretation of Panemmg
A Pattern Rccogrution Studv
marks (both cut and hack marks, T able 4.32, Cnlumn 17) and the control data 011 dismcmberruenr {rom the Nunamiut Eskimo (Table 3.3, Column 3). Unlike rhe siruation wirh the small animals, where there was a clcar, correlated relationsbip between the Klasies marerials and the control data, the pattern for the largc mammals is spread al1 ovcr the graph relative to the ~ontr()1 data. Clearlv, any attempt to fit thesc data would yield a strong indicatinn of no relarionship. However, there do aprear to be sorne complicated groupings within thc distribution, so that 'lome sets uf parts appear positively correlared (horn, proximal metatarsal, and ribs), although each is arrayed in a further grouping that appears to be negativcly correlated (proximal metatarsal, proximal tibia, distal humerus, distal femur, occipital condylc, and rnandihle). This type of partitioned dismbution is eommon when onc or more additional factors are contributing lo the parreming and these are not monitored. In shorr, there is a srrong multidimensional set of deterrninants at work aud rhe control data nnly aecuunt for a small pro portio n of the total variance. We may suspect rhar the frequencies of dismemberment marks are conditioncd in this case by considerations other than simple variarions in (1) body size and (2) differental proportions of mear on thc skclctal framework of the largc animals. Given the assumption thnt the arnounr of inflicred marks should correspond ro rhe amount of labor invested in dismemhering, 1 would have to conclude thar dismembermenr of the large bovids and the dismernbermeru of the caribou used as a control ser of facrs reflecting dismemberment for meat were in terms of different goals. This "eoping with other conditions" in the large-animal case is certainly implied in rhe earlier analysis oí anatomical parts, and in thc discussion of gnawing marks. Both of rhcse characteristies werc parterncd so as to strongly suggest (1) biased selection of parts íor marrow rccovery, and (2) eommon recovery of lnrge-bovid parts from carcnsscs prcviously ravagcd by carnivorcs. Both of thcse suggcstions are consistent wirh [he lack of relarionship berween the large-anirnal dismemberrnent-mark frequencies and the control Eskimo data, in which the carcasses had been butchcred fresh to recover maximum amounts of meat. Still further differences belween smal! and large animals were indicated hy fhe cut marks thclllselvcs. It will be recalled that when there was evidence of but..:hering re1ati\-'(.'ly stiff joints. this was exclllsively a property of the large-bovid material. This alonc sllggests that the arnount of labor, and henee numhers uf inflicted marks, might be expected tn vary wirh the degree of dislllembcrrnellt díffieulty, and not only with rhe numbers of disrnembering
•
1-
V
~_X'_-r
100
Z
.,>
<9>!',,'" _-< ~
llJ
~
90
•
IO.!E-
~
70
2
~
Q.
1
e "'''6
/~C.A.P'
~"Z.E CL.A.66
/
m
¡'PMC
lL v so • 0«/ 40
~r!l30
-----¡--
/
11!J
">
I
/
Q Z 60 Oi
~
,
)
Di iJ
IJ I
185
e
!
eOVIO;
MANO
e PM T OMT
I I eo
MAX
jo
eDMC
4-v
o
o~
10
20
...Q< 30
, 40
PERCENTAqE;
50
OF
EoO
70
&0
90
100
13oJ-JE;~
6NAWE:.D Figure 4.39 Compartson bctween frcqucncics al borres heilrin¡.; choppíng dismcmberment marks and boncs cxhibiung gnawing marks. DF, distal fcmur. DH, distal humertls: DMC, distal mctacarpal¡ DMT, distal metatarsal; DRC, distal raJiocubitus¡ DT, distal tibia¡ HÜRN, hUTIl¡ LUMB, lumbar vcrtebraCi MAND, m¡llldibIc¡ MAX, maxilla¡ OCC, occipital condylc¡ PF, proximal femur¡ PH, proximal humerus¡ PMe, proximal mctacarpal; PMT, proximal mctatarsa!; PRC, proxim¡ll raJiocuhitus¡ PT, proximal tibia; RIBS, rihs¡ SCAP, scapula¡ TH.C., rhoracic ccntrum; Tll-.\ thoracic .'Opine.
Figure 4.39 displays lhe relative percentage of disnKmbcrrnent marks that were ..:hoppíng or hack type marks, dispt.1yed against rhe pl:reentagc of lhe bones in each anatomical categury exhibítillg ~mimal gnawing. A very interesting segregaríon results from plotting these properties. First, al the bottom of the graph are the parts on whieh slicing marks are rare or generalIy absent, and hacking-chopping marks are common. It should be nuted
lHó
4.
A Partero Rccognítion Studv
that these are the parts that, with the exceprion of rhe rnandihle, were .111 grouped togethcr when animal gnaw marks were plom-d against rhe control data from Richardson's observations on known scavengcd carCJSSCS (see Figure 4 ..13). Thcsc parts werc undcrrepresented in animal gnawing relativo lo the frcquencv with which ir occurred on the controlled carcasses. Ir was suggesred thar this WJS to be understood in terms of biused sclecticn by the hominids of thosc parts from carcasscs that had not hecn hcavilv mvaged by other scavengcrs. beca use thc only really usable material on these parts was mear. lf other scavengers had already been ar a carcass sufficiently prior tú the arrival of hominids, there is like1y tu be litrle mear left on these parts, Therefore. when hominids did rernove rhese parts, it is likely ro have been at natural dearh sitcs whcrc other predators liad not yet had first shot at the carcass. The data on disrnemberment marks add rmorher provocarivc piece of infonnation. When rhese axial parts were returncd, rhey had almost without cxception becn butchered by heavy-handed chopping tacucs. This is likelv tu huve been the case only if rhe carcass had been paniaJly Jried and stiff prior tu dismembenncnt by the hominids. This is veq' strong confirmation of the view that these meat-yielding parts were recovered from death sites rhat hominids cllcountcred while searching Eor food and nut from kil1s that they themsdves h.ld made. lt should he noteo that there is, in general, ;1 very clean inversc cur· vilinear relationship bctween the frequency of gnawing and dismembermem marks of the clltting variety for the sacrtlm 1 ribs, scapula, proximal metacar· pal, mandible 1 proximnl metatarsal, distal rnctatarsal, and maxilla. Put anothl'r way, sacra, for instaTlce, are apt to have he(,1l JismcmberL'd by hacking Jnd also exhibit substantial ~nJwing marks, whereas maxil1ae are 3pt to be dismembercd hy clltting ~nd to exhibit !10 gnawing Illarks. Mandihlcs and parts nf rhe 11ll't~lp()di;lls are al1 apt only infreqllently to he moderatc1y gnawl'd, yet to have a roughly equal chance of having been dismembered by eíther clltting or chopping. J return to this characteristic when discussing filleling. Groupcd at the hottorn of the graph in Figure 4.39 are rhe proximal ami distal hUIllL'rus, proximal Jnd distal tibi •.l, and proxinul and distal felllur. ThL'se ;lf<.' the uppt'f-lilllh hOlles that would norll1;llly yield the grt'atcst
lntcrprutatiort of Pattcrning
IR7
been shown to exhibir animal gnawing in dircct proportion 10 thar observcd by Richardson at control carcasses obscrvcd whilc bcing ruvagcd. Ncvcrtheless, these parrs are cxclusively marked by slicing cuts, showing thar dismembertnenr was only done wirh knifelike tools thar are, JS pointcd out, only appropriate for cutting still-supple meat. Thar rhis pattern of disrnernbermcnr marks on upper-lnnb borres is relatively rafe (sce Table 4.32, Column 2J, but whcn prcseru the marks are "knife"-inflicted, suggests rhar recovery of mear from fresh carcasses was the goal. This panern of mear recovery from high-yield parrs of rhe upper legs appcars as a gourmet straregy (see Binford 1978), which, as has been pointed out when discussing body parts from small anirnals, is Inconsistent with rhc return of lurge quanritics of available mear to a horne base, \'\1h('n faced with rclanvely unravaged carcasscs of brge animals (rcpresenting sornerimes really vast quanrities of meat), the hominids' response seems to have been ro cat one's fill at the carcass and ro rcrurn occasionally to the home sire with a highly se1ected choice part. This pattern is consistenr with the situacion seen for the small bovids, for which transponed meatyielding parts were second~order parts. The implication is that [irst-arder parts were consumed at the carcass, since it is like1y that if unravaged, meatyielding pans were availabJe frorn the urper~front kg, rcar~lcg meat was also presellt at the carcass. 011 the other hand, al1l0ng the IJrge animal s, cOllsumption at the carC3ss would not neccssarily rcsu\t in first-dlOice parts being unavailable for transporto On the large·bovid bones, chopping and hacking was most common on parts oí the axial skeleton and the scapula. These are parts that would be clcady second-order parts in a standard choice sequence. The chopping and hacking strongly indicate that these parts were stiff at the time of disrnemberment. Intercstingly, such parts were genera1Jy ignored when {resh m('at was availahlc, as is indicated by the slicing marks on the upper~lil11b bOlles, hut were t'xploited when fresh meat was unavailable. 011 these parts carnivores have difficulty in stripping off all the adhering meat because oE the irregular shapes oí the bOlles. Ir is obvious, 1 think, that these parts were introduced from carcasscs that had no substantial quantities of meat left tú oHer. The pattern of exploitJtion seems clear. When large quantities of meat were available, the hominids presumably fed at the carCl~.~ until fuJl, alld occasionally carried h;h.:k ro the Klasics site :J few sclencd pans (a gourmet stratcgy), presumably :lbandoning the rcmaining meat ar the C]fl";lSS. More commonly, howevl'f, they cncountered heavily ravaged C
188
Intcrprctation of Patterning
4. A Pattern Rccognítton Studv
very small grollps indced, and did IlOl intend to stay al rhc sire much beyond onc feeding interval. In eithcr case, rhe implicarían is one of a partero of feeding hebavior vcrj' diffcrent from what would be expccted of modern 111t'11 bebaving as huutcrs and gathcrcrs. An intcresting additional fact is indicated by the distribution displayed in Figure 4.39. Distal ends of merapodials troj 10 have consisrently more cut than hack marks, and the discrepancy is much greater for metacarpals rhan for metatarsals. Proximal metararsals have ayer 60(Yo of inflicted dismemberment marks made by cutting rools as opposed to 45% foc metacarpals, Looking back 011 rhe data on anatomical-part frequencies (Fables 3.4 and 3.S), it will be recalled rhat, among rhe moderate-size animals, metacarpals were introduced tu the site far more frequent1y (han metararsals, which is consisrent with the model of hominids most often scavenging usable parts that were already dismembered from a carcass-that is, picking IIp already loose parrs rather than actively dismembering carC1SSCS. Thc picture I get frorn reviewing the cut marks againsr a picture of the anaromical-part frequencies is thar there is a bias in favor DE (1) parts that require processing-that is, relatively large, fresh food packages in their own ski n conrainers, which can be cooked, or parts that require filleting off the bones if they are ro be cooked in a skin packer or hung over the flamesand (2) parts that require extra processing 10 recover the marrow (such as dry lower-limbs). Tbis latter poinl is furrher amplified by the detaiis from filleting marks. Marks inflictcd as pan of filleting operations are perhaps the most revealing of any characteristics thus far discussed. Figure 4.40 displays the trcqucncics of fillcring utark s from thr lurgc bovidv nt Klnslcs Rivcr Mourh against the control Jara among the Nunamiur Eskimo. Por thc set of bones tunde up of thc k-mur (fillcting uppcr-rcnr leg), scapu]a (fillcring npper-Iront lcg), and thorncic spilll's (fil1cting the tcndcrloin), there is a positivc (orrcla~ tion hetween the Klasics data and the control material, differing only in the gross ftequency of inflicted marks (40-70% of the bones showing marks among rhe Nunamiut fauna known ro have been filleted as opposed to onlr 0- t 0% of the same bones showing filleting marks at Klasies River Mouth). 00 the other hand, rhe bones most commonly showing filleting marks at Kbsit's Rivl'f ;llT bOllC"; th;lI ... lrely, if cvcr, t'xhibit such ll1arks in the control Jata. Partinllarly intercsting in this rt'gard are the rihs and rhe proximal metatarsals ami tnC'tJcarpals, as well as proximal and distal radiocubiti. These are al! bOlles thar have little adhering meat, and, in the case of the mctapodials, no meat at al!. lt is a near certainty that the marks on the lower-limb bones \\'ere inflicted whilc skinning ¡'unes in preparation for marrow cracking. In addition, there is rhe implicatíon that when the bones were skinned in prepaf¡uion ro h.:lving their proximal articular CIHJS smashed on an anvil,
... 50
189
=-r
13ovIO~:
¡J
Ó'Z-E:
J40 ~::l
--
~-,-~
eL.A."'''' III
(ME:OIUM'- LA.~ClE)
30
-l
~'"
O
~
r/.11I
20
~e
~
T.
~
10
11
,Re .Re
J
.~C.AP
\
OMe
o
:!>Pl~
e/
PMT
H(Oo.l\
o
-.,?T
hl
10
P"
os-
~
2.0
PE.R.CEto-.ITAe:.E
30
OF'
CONT~O""
PF'
_
40
BONE.~ WITI-l
O.....- rv-; -
--t- . . . . . . . 50
¡.-/
/
L..'-Jo.l'-'
(:,0
F\LLETlf'J<:c,
'0 MAl<:.K6
Nu ............... U'T
Figure 4.40 Comparison bctwccn fillcnng marks in ;l Nunnmiut control population and nn Iargc bovids from Klasics Rivcr Mouth. DF, distal fcmur. DMe, distal mctacarpal. DMT, distal rnetatarsal, DRC, distal radiocubírus¡ Dr, distal tibia; H, bumcrus¡ LlJMl\, Intubar vcrtcbmc. M, maudiblc, l'P, proximal tcmur¡ PII, pruxunnl humcrus, PMC, proximal mctacarpal¡ PMT, proximal mctatarsul, PRC, proximal radiocubitus, PT. proximal tihi<1¡ RIE, ribo SCAP, scapula. T. SPIN, thorac¡c soíncs.
the skin she:lth was sllpple. On the other hand, relativcly high frequencics of chop and hack marks (Figure 4.39) on the same bones in dismemberment positions strongly suggest that, at the time of marrow cracking, the bones were in a different state than they were at the rime of Jjsmembermcnt. It is possible that these largely desiccated parts, scavenged from the carcasses, \Vere actl1:llly transported to thc Klasics sitc for rr(lcessin~, which illc1uded the soaking of the desiccatcd meat and ski n in water prior to hrcaking oren the lower limbs for marrow. Such a model of behavior would accoullt for the baffling pattero in \'..'hich chopping and hacking werc cornrnonly em~ ployed in dismemberment, whereas cutting and slicing were cornmonly t'mployed in skinning the lower limbs prior ro marro\\" <:r;lcking. In thc C<.l'ic of the rihs, I strongly suspect that most of the filleting marks were inflictcd while relT10ving meat from vertebr.:lc to which broken rih sect;olls adhercd (see Figure 4.36). Checking again5t m)' notes, I ohserve
lWJ
4.
A Pancrn Rccognitíon Srudv
that almosr all the ribs with inflicred marks are shorr sections of proximal rib with filleting rnarks (scrapc striations or short, sawing chevrons) on the dorsal surface wirhin abour 5 cm (2 inches) of the rib head. As described in rhe breakage dnra on tihs. mosr secrions were almost certainly introduced to the site brokcn off, but with proximal ends still adhcnng te thoracic vertcbrae. Thc marks under tbcse conditions are almost certainly inflicted at the same rime marks were inflicted on the dorsal spines of the tboracic vertcbrac. Thc impression one gains from the breakage and inflicrcd marks is that rhese parts werc parriall y dricd and. before filleting, had generally already bccn addrcsscd by gn
Summary This analysis has led ro the recognition of sorne provocative patterning. Fir'\t, there is ;ln overal! partcrn in :mawmical-part freqllcncies, frequency of gll:.IW marks, p,lttcrns of inflictcd dislllclllbcrllll:l1l ,1IlJ fillcting marks, as well as contrastive parteros in breakage of bones-all of which rel! the same story: small "lIlima1« Wl'rc sdcctcd, transported, and proccsscd as cssentially frcsh c"1fcasses not previously ravaged by carnivorcs. These smal! animal s were introduccd inro the site in frequcncies tbat betray a bias favoring mear· yielding parts (scc Figure 3.18). AII the data are consistent with the inferencc that the hominids werc killing the small animals for meato In marked contrast are the large-animal parrs preferenti;'l11y introduced to the site. Tht'large~animal parts are frequently scarred by animal teeth and hcar other c"itlcllcl' of nOllhominid ~llawil1g. Thcy exhibit pattl.'rns of placcment for dislllembcrment and of inflictcd marks Jiffcrcnr rhan rhose seen for the smal! animals. Still further contrasrs are demonsrrable in the frcqllenóe'\ of inflictt'd marks Jnd parts processed for meat, as indicated by fillctillg marks versus marks iodicative of dry carcasses, such as chop marh. 5ratisticall}' spc;:¡king, the exploitation of the large anirnals \\'a5 in favor of anatomical parrs of exccedingly marginal utility, lower-limb banes for marrow, Jnd horo-core sinuses for pulp, as wel1 as the 10wer margins of mandibles-all parrs thar teod to remaio generally unexploited by other
Sumrnarv
191
carnivores at their feeding sites. Considerable processing of these marginal parts was carried out at the sire for what rnusr he vicwed as very small and hard-won tidbirs of food. Rarely, parts from large-animal carcasses werc inrroduccd with the seeming intent of consuming mear. This is indicated by a parrern of slicing cm marks on the upper-limb bones-which are, however, rare at rhe site. This sugggests a gourmet selection of rneat from relatively unravaged carcasses. 011 the other hand, the scapula and segments of rhe axial skeleton were occasionally mtroduced, seemingly scavcnged from already ravaged and dry carcasses. These parts were processed for the adhcring srrings of naruraliy dried meat, and may have evcn hccn occasionally soaked to rcconstirute the adhering mear. Soaking may wcll nccount for rbc scemingly incompatible coincidcnce of both hacking and slicing marks 00 the lower-hmb bones, the latrer presumably inflictcd in preparanon for marrow cracking by a distinctive technique. There seems tú be lirtle doubr that there are two diffcrcnt sets of exploirational tactics indicated by the animal bones at Klasies River Mouth-rhe hunting of smal1 animals and the scavenging of parts from large species. Other data from the marine resources ar the sirc furthcr attest ro rhc casual picking IIp of edible foods along the beach in fronr of rhe sire. We have evidence for hunring, but ir is not at a scale that 1110st would cxpecr for such relatively late hominids. We have abundant evidroce for scavenging, yer in receot years sllch tactics have comlTIonly been dismíssed as unlikely among our earl)' ancestors: I am not trying to ~ay rllat early man never scavenged.... üf olUr~e. ca supplemellt his newly acquired tastc for mear, rhc~(' ~tone-age rncn wlluld luve ~C1.vcn~eJ whcl! dH' reW;lrd W.h wmll! jI alld lhe ri~k~ rtor roo greal. We l!link. howcver. l!l:lt ir is more like1y thar man acquireJ his taste for flesh,like rhe d1ll11panZee anJ rhe babooll. h~' hllfujng small crealure~ for himself. During rhe hirrh season (·alve.~ anJ f'l\\.l)'; are ('asy prey if the huma ,::1n m,lIIage tn nutwit the l11Othe". (V,l!l L1.Wick-Goodall and van L1wick 197U:28-29; from /mWCCllt Ktllcrs ¡'y .I:ll1e and Hugo van Lawick-(;ooJ'1.lI. Copyright 'í) 1970 hy Hu¡..:o and };lIle V:ll1 Lawick-Coodall. ReprinteJ hy permissioll of Houghton r-.tifflin «(Imp:lny.)
It certainly seems to be tcue that scavenging was a regular and perhaps important pan of the subsisrence repertoire of the Klasies River Mouth hominids. Thus lhe exploitation of srnall species and calves and fawns, as sugg('stcd hy van Lawick-GoO(bl1 ami VJIl Lawick, appcars ..lS a surprisingIy late form of bchavior. To gain a slightly more compreileosive view nf the overall patteen of adaptatian practiced by the M5A hominids, lan we consider othcr propcrties of the Klasies data? If so, what are the implicatiolls nf this glimpse into rhe past for the modds many of us are fond of creating;)'i ro the character oE life at the very dawn of OUT entrance on the evolurion;try stage as hominids? To this issue 1 now turo my attentions.
~
.J--"" la~)-/YtUjt,W, ,Ft./ /7n<7><'~"~
.-rJ-;.riA-:
Subsistcncc Tacucs
CHAPTER
5
Hominid Subsistence Ecology and Land Use
Subsistence Tactics ln addrcssing thc tapie of subsistence of Klusics Rivcr Mouth, sorne oí the first things ro be said are rather impressionistic in character. For instancc, the overall behnvior rhar sccms indicared by the fauna! remains is Iwrh;lp'i hcst dUr;l('lcrizl'd ns rígido Thc food-prncurcnn'nt t.rctics S('('lH to
havc heril cxccuted wirh
;1
rcrnurkahle kind of rcpctitivc salllcllq4. This
scems ro he cqunllv true for the chnracter of the consurncr dcmands of rhe hOlllinid grotlp. 1 h;lve comp;tr;1tive n.'fercl1ce to fhe typcs of Iwhavior rhar I have oftcn \\'itllcsscJ among Illodcrn huntcr-gathcrcr pcopit.:s both in the American ATeric and in Australia. I might hcst describe rhe optim:11 behavior I have in mind as a highly skillful adjustment of achievements to goals, as well as adjustlng go~ls to the realities of both mcalls ~vailable and achievrmcnts rcalized. Standing hehind lhis (/exihi/it').! is rhe ahiliry lo plan diffcrin~ racric.~ for 'h.. !lÍl.:villg v;lri;lhk gO:ll", dl'pl'lldillg upon lhe s()(ül dCI1l.l1lds or C(OIlOllli( eondirions of the group at rhe time. 1'hc tactical goals of food producrrs (olltinuousiy change ;lS the perceivcd food dcnullds of lhe grollp change \Vith rcspcCf to fecding s('euril)', size, age struclure, ami so {orth. These adjustments of reillitics 10 dcm~nds, and in turn dcm
¡yJ
er-cgathcrcrs. sharing is ene of the most obvious cxamplcs of rhe adjusnnent of the demaud for food to the amounts of food availahlc. If a largc animal is killed, then the huntcr generally returns as much of thc large animal as possible to the home base, then shares rhe foad out to a large popularion of recipients. The social scale of the sharing unit is al leasr :1 partial function of thc size of rhe food package made availahle. For insruncc. if u huntcr rcturns with only a small rabbir, it is sharcd pcrhaps amoog only bis immediate family. Hcnce the scalc of thc sharing is adjusted to thc size of the food
package available [see Binford 1978: 139-144, 165-1661];: " e This shanng means thar human hunter-garhercrs are nhle to cbsorb. wirhout loss of food, animal s of a wide variety of sizcs ; rhcsc would he equally proccssed and consumed. The patterns of consumption would not necessarily correlate inversely with rhe package sizc, as would he the case if there was no flexíhility in the potenrial size of rhe consumer unir. Put another way, a largo animal would be exploited as extensivcly as a small animal, the only difference being the size of the consurncr unir sharing the food. In contrast, jf rhe consumer unit was inflexible and producers obtained foods in differing package sizes (and no sroragc options wcre available), wr could then expect differing dcgrces of utilizarion or pancms of , consurnpnon to charactcrize specics of different sizes[Large animals would be less exrcnsively exploited, perhaps in tcrms of only thc most choice parts, / r: whereas small animals would be exploited more fully as a function oE their v' , size relativo to the consumer demand of rhe fecding lInitJ Among modcrn humans, in whose societies sharing is a universal option, rhe degrec of exploitation is nor generally variable Jl110ng anunals of diffcrcnr liocly sizc; only thc size of the participntiu]; (OI1<.;lIl11er unit vades. This rncans ihar, from the perspectivo of fauna] uualysis, the package sizes introduccd to J horne hase or consumer locanon (1) may he trcmendously variahle in size, alld (2) al1 sizes mal' he equally eXlL'n~ivdy exploitcd ('ven in lhe abscllcc uf slOragc tcdmiqucs. Only rhe rate nf input ro thc group would be apt to condition how cxtensivdy any given animal would he exploircdthat is, ea ten down to thc last marginal hut ediblc morscl. If for some reason there was a rapid input of largc hody-sized food packages into a group, it rnight nor he able to expand rhe size of the consumer unit sufficiently to ahsorh the glut of resources; and if given no stor;lge options, W'e gotlld ~.I>.tJ.\;\r-;:;;tl.'M,t.tl~OH..wuWJ,.thun-..tcnJ lowar~ a··':.glHlrmer\· panl"nl1tl whicil,margma-l foods would·he abandoru:d.in.- favur_of.-more choice anatom-
w.pans. TJús...,ahility ro adjust rhe sizc of the conSUlTIer unit, and hcncc rhe consumer dcmand for resaurces, to the size of the food packages rhar IHlIst be obtaincd, is just one of the overall strategy characteristics of modern hunter-gatherers.
jÁ! - ~~.,L~~... du:'
Á~. _L4,~_ f'(lt~" 5. Hominid Subsistcncc Ecologv and Land Use
194
Anothcr flexible chatacteristic is that the food procurcmenr work schedule is adjusted to the perceived consumer demando When there is plenry of good food in srorage, bunrers basically do not go hunring. Similarly, if severa! huntcrs havc been sirnultaneously successful and al! shared out so rhc consumcr unir is well provisioned, then rhey do not scriously go ~lInting for a while. (Thcv 1113Y go out into thc ficld ro monitor garue movcmcnts, bur will not l1ofl11311y make a kili unless storage is a real pos-
sibiliry.) Othcr things cqual, rhe hunting schedule is adjusrcd ro the perceivcd dcmnnd for food. In similar Iashion. hunrcrs rend to work wirh a "prcy iruage" that is consisrcnr with thcir pcrception of consumer demando When they go out, thcv know rOllghly thc scale or size of the consumer unirs that they scek to
serve. This mcans tluu rhey know roughly thc rural qu.uuitv of thc food nccdcd. and thcy .uljusr their prey imagc according ro their estimares of consumer dcmand. As a simple example: If I have 110 storngc capacity and han.' only duce pcoplc ro fccd. it makcs 110 SCI1SC ro go dcph.mt hUl1ring! On the orhcr hand, it I have a storagl' porenrial (rhe capabiliry ro frceze rhe mear and conSUllle ir OH'r a considerable period nf time-a gain in time utility from resourcl'S), rhen ir rnigllt well enhance my securiry to take elephanr. To he sure, rhere ;lre opporrunistically taken animals that may somerimes exceed horh rhe "se~Hch image" and the ability of the hunters ro utiJizc the produce (sce, for installce, rhe rcconstrucrion by Adam ¡J 95] ] of ('vcnls rh:H roo k place at rhe nOfrh German sire oi! J g M, sllggcsring thar early 1TI ..1n exploited only parts of al1 e1ephant's rrunk and skull.) Serendipiry would nOl, howcvcr, rule for sllch ev('nts as planned animal drives or majar cooper;aivt, kili", in \\'hich rhe st'Jrch image wOllld hy design always be in t{'rms of brge <.)llOllltitie.. . 1111.:;11. If SlKh (oopcrativ<.' l11a . . . . kills Wl're involveJ, \Ve could cxpecr eH ha (1) an effective storage potcntial, or (2) a rcally largc consumer unir. LKking rhesc eonditions, a gourmet consumption srraregy would 1110'" n:rtaillly rule thl' ll"e ()f oVerablll1da11l I"esoun.:es that might
or
rc"ult
rhl' Jbility to adjust work schedules, search images, and sizes of con sumcr unir'> ensures rh;lt in general Jl110ng hllJHer-gatherers, there is ¡¡trie diffcrentiatioll in the l<.:vcls of exploitarioll ch:lr;lcteristic of J.nimals of diffcrcnt hody Si/T. The only general condition rhat lllight influcnce shifts in rhe levTls of l'xploiurioll \vould he tht, dcgrel' of disjunctioll herween food availablc ;llld C(1I1"Urner dt'mand. lE food gluts occurred bccausc of obtJining \'t'ry brgc animals or large llumbers of animal s ;H once, so that supply cxceeded demand, rllcll \Ve could expecr an adjllstment ro the focal exploita tion uf the 1Il0"tchoice parts of rhe l1le~lt sllpply along \vith an ahandonfTIcl1t nf rhe least dcsirablc p:lftS. Shorr-tcrlll glllts may occur jusr Iike short-tenn shortages. The flexihil-
Subsrsrcncc T acncs
19S
iry of tactics rhar producers may follow permits thc adjustment of menús
to
ends and on occusion. cnds to realiries, ensuring that in the long run rhere are few "excessive" episodcs whcre food is wasted or whcrc consumer straregies reguiarfy eovary with package size differcnccs. Against this backdrop, what seems ro chnrnctcrixc Ihe faunal marerials from Klasies River Mouth Cave 1 with regard ro va rianons in food package size and consumcr strarcgy? Severa! points scern rnost importnnt.
1. Among smJIJ bovids (auimals weighing hctween 20 anJ lOO pounds [9-45.4kg]), complete animals and animals wirh oulv the lower Iimbs removed were inrroduced to the site. Such introductious occurrcd with nbour 26% of rile anirnals of rhe small-boJy-size da,,!'> nprcscntcd at thc site. More commonly, sclccted segrnents of the uppcr-fronr limb wcrc inrroduced, cullcd ro rhc rnost productive or most gourmet choice, the scapula. On thc orhcr hand, thc parrs suspected as yielding cvcn grcater food (uppcrrcar leg) were gencrally not imroduced as culled parts. fluve viewed this situation as most likely rcflecting prilll:uy (onsumptíon at the points of procuremenr must uf rhe rimt:, sincc the introduction of second-ordcr parts cannor rensonably be attributcJ ro scavenging behind other primary pred:ltors, hecause no animal gnawing is evidellt on rhe bOlles oE the 5null animals. Of extreme importallcc is the bct that lower limbs processed for marrow, mJndibles broken for edible pulp, ano in general the introduction fur use oí marginal parts did Ilat characterize the expluitatioll of rhe sm~lll animals at Klasies River Mouth. The hominids behavcd as if there was adcqllate foad available Jnd marginal ridhits cOllIJ he ignored. Neverthek"s, the edih1c part . . (lf a complete G\pe gry"hok (Ihe 1110S1 COI1l1110n srnall bovid) would be about 13 pounds (5.9 kg), and for an upper[ront qllarrer (the Illosr commonly imroduced piccc-hutchered p.lrt) wfluld bt, aroul1d 11 POllllt!S (.6H kg), ;lIld the hcat! arollnd olle pOllnd (.454 kg), These smal1 package sizes certainly suggest thar rhe COnSlll1ler units were very small inJeed and that the planning depth was very short~ rhar is, they generally ate choice parts in spire of the fact thar the qU:lntities available wOllld certainly Ilot last very long. This pattt'rtl Joes no! imply much food sharing, :tnd cert¡]inly docs nm suggesr :111 ;Hrt'lllpr ro use all of the sITIall animal so ;IS ro m'lxilnize Ihc selle uf the cOllsumer pool through sharing. The COnSLlIlll'f ll11its appear ro he individual s mos( oE the time, and very small groups on rhc r:ue occasions when complete and ncar-complete animals were imroJllccd. Sharing Illay have characterized the llnils fecding at the point of prol:urCl11t'llt, hut certainly the transporr of P:lrts back to the cave uoes llor SCClll ro h;1\T heell carried out \Vith the aim of rnJximizing the siZt of the COI1SlIlller unit. Given what w" have seen oí utilization among the slllall anilTI:1Is, we
196
S. Hornínid Subststcncc Ecclogy and Land Use
might be leo ro expect rhar if a largc animal was av.ulahle. there would be an extreme gourmet pattern, with thc choice parrs commonly rcturned and marginal pnrts complerely ignored, beca use a largo animal would provide food for a much larger consumer unir thnn the little Cape grysbok. 011 thc other h.md. if sharing W¡lS extensive and rhe consumer group large, we 'could cxpect that a vcry high percenrage of rhe us.ible foods would he inrroduccd. What pancru is observed? 2. The larger the animal, the more marginal rhe parts that were genernlly introduced to thc sire (see Figure 4.19), Metapodials and parts of the head [rom the larger animals wcre most cornmonlv returned to the sire at
Klnsics. 1 hnvc already presented whar I considcr ro be an ovcrwhclming case favoring thc vicw thar thc parts of lurgc animals wcrc scavenged from thc kili nnd death sites prcviously ravaged by nonhomiuid scavcngers. The anatonucal-purt frequency data, rhe pattcm of animal gnuwing, thc evidence of dismemberment whcn sriff, and rhe proccvsing invesnnentv in very marginal foods sccru (O me compeijing proof th:.lt !vlSA man \\',-lS not huIlting rhese nnimal.s: (1) the larger animals wcre being scavcnged and (2) the package sin's that were rl'gularly introduced to the si te fmm large individuals were ver}' small, perhaps even smal1er than from the small animals. These cOllsisted of Il1ctapodials, which on processing yie1ded only J few ounces of marrow; Trdgelaphine horns processed for the pulp ¡mide the hom sinuses; Il1Jndib1cs that werc proeesscd for small quantities of pulp below the 100th rows; amI, most of the time, partially desiecated parts uf the axial skeleton thar yiclded SOll1C strings of naturally dried meat ¡lIld perhaps skin. (3) In addilioll 10 IwillR S111;1/1, rhe~l' part<¡ ~\ll're also very 1l1;JrRil1¡11 food \()l1rcl'~, These condiriolls a1l support rhc view, obr;lÍneJ from the slllall animals, rhat pa¡,:kagc.: sizes wcre small and introduced in antieipation of individual fl'eders of at best very smal1 consumer unirs. Planning deprh was eenainly very shallow aod the actions werc labor intensive. I might mention rhat rhcrc does not arpear lO have been any attempt 10 provisioll the site nen whcn llll,;lt from the brgc :lI1imals was available, Mear·yiclding parts re· turned ro tht· home site \vere gourmet choiees. This sllggests thar then,' were no well-pbnned scarch or discovery strategies llseJ in locaring carcasses, s\1ch as regubr ohsnvariol1 of vulturcs or ¡ltrClllptS lO loc:ltc <1lld exploir Gtr(¡l~~l'~ hdorc lhey Wl'fl' l'xploited amI lll'ariy l'xh:H1stl'd hy otllcr sel\· cllgers, lhe picturc onc grts is of a hominid taking lidhits from carec:trly in the sl'lluencc of sc.lVcngcr atll'iriofl following a de
was Klnsics Rivcr Mnuth Cave 1 a Hume Base'
11)7
This view of rhe behavior standing behind the fauna! rernains ar Klasies River Mcutbis. ar considerable varianee wirn- rht!"'f'l'CVatI1ng.(JPÍ'nitm thar almost- uuiversaily..ccnsiders alj"'t.he- fauna- lo havereselred from u smgle set of enctics: for cxamp]e, hunnng. For instnnce, noting thv bigher frcqucncy of larger mnmmals n-pn-senred in tcrms of MNls, Klcin gcueraliacs. "l\.15A hunrers preved mninly on medium-ro-large ungulares and gcncr.rlly avoided bcth thc largor carnivores and rhe largcsr, mosr dangcrous hcrbivorcs (rhinoceroscs aud clcphants:" (L977a:120). Clcarly. forKhrn thc fnunn at the site rcsuf froru lrominid huming, which in his vicw had bren filtcrcd rhrougf the "schlepp effect" (Klcín 1976:87; 19XO:229-2)O), thus accounting for thc discrepencies berwecn nnarumical-part Ircqucncics found ur thc sitc and thosc occurring in a living anima]. The citnnon of thc "Lhlcpp effert implics anothcr vicw of rhe past ; narnely, th.u Klasics River Mouth Cave 1 was a hase camp.
Was Klasies River Mouth Cave 1 a Home Base? If \vc accept the functional assoeiarion of stonc fOols and animal bOlles occurring together as ao operational definition of a hOllle base (see Isaac ~70 1971), then certainly Klasies River Mouth Cave 1 W;lS a home base. On the ;- other hand, i{ we rakc a more probing view of what home hases are ~llld what Ihey imply, we may be forced ro diffcrcnt condllsiollS. Home hílSCS are ha"ic lo tilt, kinds of ~ldapt;Hions th.1t we Lan s(.'e ;lIIlOllg Illllst of rhe world's hunting and gathcring peoples known (mm recent times. As Glynn Isaac (1978) has correctly pointed our nUmerous times, home bases imply almost al1 the esscl1tial features of the rc1atively unique set of hehavioral-organizational (eatures characreristie of modern man's way of dealing \Virh his envimnmeot. Mosr fundamentally, homc hases imply provisjoning tacties, Thar is, prodllcers move out jnto the hahirat scckillg ~lnd ohtaining foods that are then transported back ro a l"entral pla(T as a contribution to the provisioning of the group, or at least of rhe individllals living there, There seem lo he two 1ll;ljor componnHs, organi7.;1tionally "ipeakin~. to the idetl of J hOll1l' b:1SC: (J) tllat a group lives some\\'hcre, and (2) rhat rhis group is provisioncd by virtue of the actions of group memhers who aCClllllulate foods prinurily cOllstllTled at rhe living place. A provisiollillg modd of llllllun .'>ubsistl'IlCl' ;lS'>l1me~ sh:ning, and shar· ing gellcrally ¿lSSUllles that produel'rs scck tu obtain food .. in p:lekage sizcs that execcd their individual food demands, other"'i~c rl1cre would he nothing ro slurc, Tbe model of lancl use thar is demonstrably appropri;He lO the
11._
~.
~
(/,A.;) /98
.s
Hununid Subsistcncc Ecologv and LUIlJ Use
Was Klasics River Mouth CaVl: l a Heme Basd
6P"CI""~~ \._~_
~
home base or ccntral-bascd turaging modcl oí subsistence is one in which thc basic lifc spucc of a group is within a sitc-the home buse-c-and produccrs foragc out of tltis lifc sp.tcc into the surrounding cnvironmental "pace in scarch oí foot!s nnd othcr ncccssary provisions (fircwood, water, ctc.). Thc poiutv of procurcmcnt are spco.il-purposcs locaticns or points of exploitation by thc foraging producers. Provisions obtained al such loc.nions are thcn n..' WrJH:J to the homc base, and sharing normally follows. The scalc
of sharing varics wirh thc
JI110unt
jJP
U
..r.E, LOCA"TION~
/
*
"-" ~ 4".• KOP~J _, _"~~'["'~ ,:'\, ~/ L, ;<~~~,~~,~:;,=> '~
,,y ......:.,' 11I; \\-,;~-.:. .•
o
...
'-.::~<1/.'"
--T'~EE...s
.. ;1(..
of provisions obrained nnd rhe conveu-
~)í,.:~':--"
tions oí rhe group as ro what is considercd appropri.rtc 10 share. This mojel of latid use is illustratcd in Figure 5.1, in which the heme
bases are considcrcd the basic life spaccs of thc group, and the home base with its rcsidcnt group is provisioncd by prodoccrs foraging out inro thc envirotuucnt and obraining needed goods at special purpose locarion s, or points whcre provisions are obtained. Thcsc provisions are rhen returued ro rhc borne bJsl', whcrc rhey are processcd aud consumcd. l lomc bases as basic lifc spaccs are thc places where slecping occurs, care uf rhe young and agcd (prorcc-cd lifc spucc) 1S carried out, reproductivo ncts most often occur. and so forrh. My earlicr studics of modern hunrer-gatherers (see Binford 1978, 1982b) h=~howothat horne bases are residentialhebs-of hunting·.nd gathering sysrcms. aud hccause of rhis central or focal role they can he expcctcd ro be quite variable in rheir content from ene occupational cpisode ro the next. First, the variability derives from the organizationn] comptexiry of a home base because so many of rhe basic life functions are ccnrered in such pbces. Food conslllllption, slt'l'ping, sociallift', reproducrioll , and Gue o{ rhe youll~ ;tre a1l1ocalizcd in slI(h pl;l(L"". Se(oJld, [hL'IT is a temporal or sequcntial SOllrce of v;lfiability, which dcri\'c~ from the details of the hisrory of rhe oL'Cup:ltion. AII thl' food pro(urCnll'nt, rrocessing, and transport taetir~ practi('cti by a group v;lry with the mixcs of succcss anJ failure experienred by the grollp \vhile living at the "irl'. Eadl separate occuparion gcnerall~· differs onc from another, in thar, although the sal1le hasir repcrtoire of tactics moy hove heen available for use hy rhe ocrllpants. the particular mix of Sllo.:csses and failures and, in turn, Ihe mix of prim:lfY, sl'condary, and tertiary tarries triggered by differences in hilllrL' r;lIL'S, varil,'s \vith lhe situational cOlldiriolls of the group during the ttrllls of Ih<.' ()culp;nioll. Such respollsive behavioral variability ro perceiwd conditiol1s by the ;1llricnt acrors results in a wide range of contl'J1t variJtions in rhe "lfchacologiCll rCInains at home-base sites. Thcrl,' is . 1 furthcr ('ol11plicltiOIl contributing to sirc colltL'nt v;lri:lbility that Jerivl's from long-tcrm spatial mobiliry (ser llinfordI98.h:.179-386): the way a place is used is rebtive to the placemellt of r},t' horne b
199
I I
.':'¡¡!
irr~~·'~·:>:.': .;"; I\II\\'~" .:
.' ......... i¡l¡li~~~t\ 1~~:c~1
.\\~ ~~~~1
,= •
LAK..E
Figure 5.1
Ho",,",E. BA~E P~OCUR..E..ME-),J,..
LOCATION
~'~-'
/
=
'\
/
B""'6.C LIF"E ,6PAGE
Model of heme-base oc central-plan' lnnd use.
to rhe borne hase, and horh formcr borne bases and orhcr more spccializcd
use locations may changc in rhe way~ they are regubr1y llsed (see Binford 1982b:] 8-20). The ro~itiolling of rhe systcl11 in spacc ensures that rhe content (lf "itcs, p;nticllbrly srnuificd dcposits, will :lppear variahle ólllJ exhibir pattcrns of strurrural-formal diffcrentiation anJ eontent variahility between on:llp3tional episodcs. Thus we Il1:lY arguc (hat, gi\'l'tl sh;lring ;l\ :1 hasic cOmpOllCIJt of home-base living, we should see (1) litrle differcnti;ltion in rhe scalcs of exploitarion evidenced by rhe remains of Iarge and smal/ animals. We could expect sorne accornmodarion in terms of transpon and ahernativc ficld processing of food packages of vastly different sizc, but ¡itrle variation in thc degrecs of cxploitation, sinee the f!exihility afforded by sharing ensures thar the size of the consumer unit is expandable through sharing ro accol11modate Iarge foad pack;}ge~ thar might be intrOlhKed on a regular basis. [f this incre;lse in rhe sharing sc:de 311<.1 hel1rl' «II1SUI11Cr pool is not regular1y possible, then modern huntcrs adjust their search imagcs to food package s appropriate to the consurncr-demal1d units. We shollld nor sec majar differcnces in consul11cr strJtq:W regulady ;lssoó:Hed witll :l1limals of different bouy size lInless rhere is a storagc potclltial. 111 lih: fashion, if we have home b3ses we should expecr (2) subsranrial variahiliry in the archaeological content of horne-base sires, dcriving from rhe sirll:ltiOlul differences
5. Honunid Subsístcncc Ecology and Land Use
200
experienced by the group while carrying out their basic srrategies for procuring food processing and returning ir to the borne base for consumption. As Ycllcn (1977: 135) has noted, rhese sites should he variable even if only in response to differing lcngths of occupational episodes. As already pointed out, the data on processing different animals DE differcnt body size seem ciearly indicative of (1) differing procurement raeties for animals of different size, and (2) biased selecrion of parts fmm the large animals rhar differed greatly from the parrs selected from the smallanimal carcasses. The small animals were burchercd. proccsscd, and transponed with respect to considerations DE the distribution of fresh meat on their skeletons. This may well have been true of the very young individuals from otherwise large species. such as Cape buffalo and l'clorouis, although the bones Irom the very young individuals frorn these species huve not been spccifically analyzcd wirh this question in mind. In marked contrast, the bOIH:s from the Iarge ammals were selccted and processed priruarily in tenns of limircd amounts of bone marrow, marginal foods recoverable from the hcad. and possihly small amounts of naturallv dried mear remaining adhering to parts of rhc axial skclcton after orhcr scavengcrs had exploited carcasses. These condirions imrly two very importanr things abour rhe behJvior of the hominids responsible: (1) rhey appear ro have taken live ::mimals onl}' rarely, and (2) rhese were small animals rbat they could ovcrpower 011 discovery. In shon. there is l10thing in the data from Klasies River Mourh ro suggest technologically aided hunring, or evel1 taetical hunting as sueh. The taking of thcse small hovids and the young of larger animals could have he..·(.'11 done..' quite opportllllistiC
me
Thc Ecology of Scavcngíng
201
stituted by soaking, so that rcmnanr mear could he CUt from the boncs thar had previously hecn ravaged and were dry and stiff. Finally, there is evidence of cooking ar Klasies River Mouth, and this :\ evidence is most provocarive in that ir is intemally cousisteru with the biased preparation of rhe rear lcg, a prime mear-yielding part that can he butchered so to remaillencasedinitsQwllskin.This choice method of food prepararían, which preserved the natural juices of the mear, was almost exclusively conducted on parts of the rear leg-a part rhat as we have seen, was rarely introduced in its mear-yielding form ro the sire. Nevcrtheless, ir received most of the processing artention: head parts were second. Anaronucaily speaking, the meat-yielding parts most cornmonly inrroduccd, such as the scapula and upper-frour lcg, werc not gcnerallv cookcd, This toral pattern is consistenr with a past behavior in which hominids returned food clernents to rhe sirc ar Klasies Rivcr Moutb, not necessarily as provisions for sharing, but as pans iutended for processing. A patrcrn of primary consumption-feeding at the points of procurement, with the oceasional return of parts rcquiring considerable processing ro safe locarions, nccommodatcs the facts at Klasics River Mouth much berrer rhan does a picture of hominids living in home bases and provisioning such places by tactical hunting of large animals. A proeessing focus seems more consistent with rhe facrs than a provisioning Eocus at the site. There are still other reasons for horne-base skepticism. I think ir is likely thar rhe subsistence activiries standing behind the inrroductions of animal foods ro the site can be summarized as:
1. Thc occasional killing and transporr of rncat-yirlding parts inro the site fmm sm¡¡f1 hovids and the YOllng of larga hovids, 2. The scavenging from carcasses of larger bovids, pans oE llsable hur gcncrally m:lrginal urility. These are mainly 1l1:lrrow~yidding lowerlimb bones; hcad parts, inc1uding the horos of tragdaphincs, which werc processed for rhe pulpy coOlents oí horo sinuses; and drietl-our remnanrs of the axial skeleron. AH these parts sccm ro h;:¡ve heen proccssed at the site prior to consumption. 3. Opportunistically collected foods recovered fmm the upper srorm· heaches near the cave. Both collected (shells) and scavenged foods (seals) were inrroduced ro rhe sile.
The Ecology of Scavenging This generalized view of subsisrence of Klasies demands J considerarion of rhe acriviry patteros of the Klasies hominids rcgarding the ways the
f'ellot
E
_1 ~¡'-kd- 1j4 cb
Ir> t
S. Hominid gubsistcncc h[)lo~y and Land Use
202
two differenr cxploit3tion tactics, hunting and scavcnging, wcre organized and diffcrentially executed. In arder to address rhis problem I have sought clues in the charactcr of thc spccies that appcar ro have been huntcd \'L'rSIlS '1 thosc tb.it werc regularly scavcnged. AH the animals [kit scem ro have beco killed or al least ohraincd for lhcir mear are moderare ro smal\ in size, generally nocturnal in their feeding \ activities., and territorial and solitary in their social bchavior. In addirion, they have prefcrcnces for scruh-brush rypcs of covcr and habitar. 011 rhe other hand, rbe larger animals rcguIarly scavenged by Klasies hominids seem ro have in cnmmon a different type of behavioral repcrtoire. They tend to be nocturnal drinkers. l hJVC previously described rile dynarnics of an African water sourcc in a verv dry Kalaharian environmental zonc (Binford 19SJh:62-70), It was notcd that camivorcs (hyaenav and lions) tended ro drink aftcr dnrk and ín thc early hours of the morning. ln addition, they tended 10 focus thcir bchnvior on the watcrholes beginning around sunset and inrcnnirrcnrl y returning during thc nighr. My obscrvations on hunting by these cnrnivorcs suggcsrcd rhat mosr kil!s of thc animal spccics that avoidcd the wurcrholcs occurred away from rhe warerholes at night. What was missing from my cxpcriences was thc iarger-body-size, more social bovids. which generally inhuhited somewhat more moist settings. Porrunarcly, thcrc is a fine srudy by Ayeni of rhe pattems of dnnking by African species at waterholcs in Kenva's Tsavo National P;lrk. A ba~i~' parrern of waterbole nrilizarion dominarcd by "mal! (adulr-size) species during dav-tuuc 0(;00- I800 hours nnd lnrger cpecies at nighr 1800-0600 hours is describcd. The wp;lr.ltinn in times of arrival anJ Jeparture pcaks of waterhole lltilil,lliOll,
¡In' t1"l't1
\O
;\\'l"r.I~\' l"Oilll"idl.'IKt' of prrl"el1t;l~t''' (Jf p;lirt'd "fwcics r()rllbrion~ "1,,,\\' ,ll.l'. hl~-~allll" ;lttaillt'll ;111lt'.l"1He nI lilllc "p.llnll'l·olp¡':icll "('11.1' ;IIHI
r.ltioll .It rhe WOl!L'rholr", (AYl.'lli 1975:.l0S)
Ayetli found nor only th;lt spcl:ies varied sC;1sonally (dry versus wcr sea~ons) in rhcir visirs to waterholes, but that they varied in a most significa11t way in the degree ro which rhe)' visited watcrholcs coinciden rally \Virh carnivorcs. Carnivorcs were, as noted eatlier, mJinly visitors to the warer sourccs during dMklll'SS, Not surprisingly, Ayeni found that the freqllcnC)" of frcshly kil1ed animals (prey) reeordcd in rhe irnmcdiate vicinilY uf lhc w~1tl'rholes was a gCtll'L11 fllllction of the l-oinciticllce of thc prey aninuls drillkillg ar tlll' sallle time" as carnivores, cxcepring of enurse rht: differcntial ahility of tlle CHllivores ro takc ;1I1ill1;lls of very brgc sin'; for cxamp1c, c1t'pilanr'i. T,lhlc 5,1 ';UIllIIl.ni/l''; 1\ycni\; d:1Ll OH dCllsity ni g;lllll' in dll' region. nllmbers of animals of Jiffercnr spccil's n:cordcd as prcy ;uound watcrholcs. and the pcrcenLlges of total drinking visits to a watcrhole that wcre coincidental hctwccn carnivorcs Jnd rhe species considcred. For instanee. if a\l
Thc Ecology of Scavcngtng
203
TABLE s.i Cnincidenr al Apncarancc of Anlmals at waterholcs wuh Carnívorcs. and Thcir Rctanvc Death Retes-
x Cn}lIl1ln 2
Nnmberv 01 nuuvsduals killed near waterbalee
(31
(4)
.11 .44 .04 .06 04
(,
Percentage
Densíiv o[ spccies per km 01 rcad. 1973-1974 (1)
Zebra Elcphant lmpala watcrbuck Kongoni Oryx Buttalo l'ctcrs Gazcllc Warthog Ostrich Ciraffc
Eland Rhinoceros
coíncídence with camivores al
waccmoles 12}
1.127 1.103 0.533 051.1 0.480 0.453 O..B 0 ..103 0.197 0.080 0.070 ¡ ?
.(0
.40 .07 .12 .09 .01 ..18 07 03
O 24 .24
39
Cetumn 1
O .1.1 .02
.01 (1
(J2
I L"I
O O 11 2 4 19 O O O 1 14 O
" Data Irom Aycni (l97S:Tablcs 1 and 5).
drinking visits of a species, such as warthog, werc during hours when no carnivore'> 'A'l'n.· ohs<:f\'l'd ro drillk, I111'J1 Ihe percelll;lge coinddl'l1cl' wtlulJ be OlYr,. On the orher hand, if 40 out of 100 Jrinking cpisodes recorded for e1and were eoillcidcntal wirh hours ;]Iso rccorded for c;lrnivOfcs drinkillg at the warcrholr, the pcrccnrage coincidence would be 40%. lnspection of Table 5.1 demonstrates that thl' frcqucney of animals occurring ;lS prey around the warer sources is a combilll'd funcrion of the number of animals eoming ro rhe waterhole and the levels of coincidl'ncc: fOf these visits with carnivores. Figure 5.2 illustrates this rcbtionshir nieely. Exeept for rhe dephant, which is generally considcreu to be cxempt from heavy predatioll dlle tn its size, the frequellcy of obscrved kills is ;\ line;u fUllctiol1 of dcnsit}'
fl- ~v-vf, "f","'1 5.
204
Hominid Subsistcnce Ecology and Land Use
20
/
·~7
~
.( \
III
Zw
O
OJ III O JI
•
J 11I \0
W""'T"~BVe.1oC..
~~
~~
/
El.......... o
O
V
/~... •
W III ~
ORV)(
:>
KolooJGoo ..... !
•
/
Z
C:tlR..o...F"F"~
-
Hm
o
\ ......P AL-"'-
.10
I NDE:.X WI,-H
OF"
.ZO
C.OINc..IDE:.NCe:.
CAl<:.t....IlVOraE:~
Figure 5.2 Corrclntinn bctwccn frcqucucv of spccic.... as prey and ehcir coincidcncc with cnnuvorcs at w;ltcrllOks.
of animals kilk·d by predators around rhe \v,ltcrholcs. On t1ll' orht:r hand, cland and hufblo are fal' less commoll in rhe environmenr, bur hecausc rhcir acrivity schcdulcs overlap rhar of rhe carnivores, p<.lrticularly in rerms of drinking schcdules, rhey are rhcrdore more commonly killcd around rhe warerhole. This mt:ms tllat in rhe relative frequcncics of species availahle [() a scavenger aroulld warcrholes, one is getting a view of rhe popularion of animals th,1t tcnd ro he nocturnal in both rht.'ir feeding and drinking sched· ules, as wcll ;lS of rht, nUlllericll1y conHlwn and reL.Hivdy Llt-g<:-body-size diurn,ll f<.'cdns who ovcrlap cHni\"oTt,s in rhe 1llorl1in~ :md C\'ening hOllT"i. The sl'l'cit'" Ihat tt'nd lo he exclusi\"l' dil1Tll,ll fn'dlT'i ;1l1d drinkns should only rarely appl"lr in rhe popublion of can:assl'S kilkd hy prcdators ,HtllllH.l a waterholc. As A)'l'l1i poinrs our, Ihe specics th,l{ IClld ro tltilil.l' the \\";ltt.:rholes ourin~ the lby are more apr ro he those tlur dissip3rl'Iwat by panting rarller than rhose that swear. Thcsc spt.'cit·s reno ro h¡wf' gl'nerall~' smaller
Thc h;{llll>:,Y uf Scavcngíng
205
bcdy sizcs and ro he thc specics mosr adapred 10 very dry environmcnral condirions, Thus, in spite oí thcir prescncc in the habitar, rhey would not show up as mujor componenrs of anirnals killed by nocturnal prcdarors around warcrbolcs. This has mejor implicaticns for the type of direcr environmental intcrprerations Klcin (1976: 79-80; J nO:240-24I) rends of make from species frequcncies. Civcn this knowlcdge abour the popularion of animals apt ro be nvailabte to a scavcnger around an African waterholc, we can go hack and examine the specics composition of rhe animafs thar appear to h::1\"I..' bccn scavenged by rhc occupants at Klasies Rivcr Mourh Cave l. Thcsc spccics were thc gianr buffalo tí'clorovis antíouisi. the Cape butfalo (SYI/((>fllS carfa), the cland tl aurctragus nrj'x ), the blue antclopc (1lifJ{JOtragus Icucophaeus), the kudu tTragelapbus strepsicerosv. and tlx- bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). In all cases in which we know thc bchavior oí these anirnals, they tend ro he morning and evening drinkers, or nighttime drinkers, and mosr are bosically nocturnal fccdcrs. In short. rhcsc are the species we could cxpcct to he diffcrenrially killcd adjacenr ro watcrholcs by African nocturnal prcdators. This firs well wirh Klein's repearcd cirnrion oí the íact that thc age prolile 01 Cape buffalo killed hy lions in the Screnget¡ National Park is esscntially the samc as thar observcd at Klasics River Mouth. The patrcru of waterhole prcy also cxplains the general l.tck oí bushpig or warthog at Klasics Rivcr MOUlh, which has so puzzlcd Klcin (1975h, 1976). Ayeni's data (Table 5.1) shows that the pigs are middav dnnkcrs: hence these species rarely appcar as predator mcals around warcrbolcs. Klein has repeatcdly suggesred thar rhe lack of pigs ar Klasies was becausc M5A hominid -, avoidcd hUlHing thcm bccausc rhcy are lbngerolls animals (Klein 1976XJ). On t!lis roinr Klcin is
20ó
5. Hominid Subststcncc Ecologv and Land Use
As a dcmonstranon of this differencc hetween the midday drinkers and the dawn-dusk drinkcrs, I hnve prepared thc graph shown in Figure 5.3. Hcre wc Sl'C thc pcrccntagc of unfused hones for a series of anatomical parts arrauged from lcft to right, so thut parts 011 the lefr are thc parts whieh in {?fher bovids rcnd to fose enrlicsr in thc maturation sequcncc. If al1 rhe animals had bccn introduced as complete skelcrons und there was a single age distribution ro the popularion introduced, thcn we should ser a rclativcly smooth curve rising from left to right across thc grnph with the last two entries hcing roughly equal. This is ncarlv rhe curve rcalized for the nocturnal or morning and evening drinkers, the uagelaphmes clearly suggesring thar thcrc was a unimoda! agc disttibution. not biascd in favor of young animals. evidcnccd in the bones transponed to rhc sire by thc horninids. They had selccrcd boncs in roughly a random fashion wirh rcspect te thc agcs of the animals frorn which the boncs were culled. On the other hand, bones from thc midday drinkers, thc ulcclaphmes, exhibir a very diffcrent profile. Thcrc is a high frequency of unfused boncs from the pelvis as well as thc proximal fcmur and distal femur, whilc there is 30 equallv, extrnordinarily low pcrccntagc of unfused bones of rhe lowcr-limb bones (distal tibia, distal merutarsal. and proximal tibia). Hcre we sce the exploirational pattcrn splir hetween mcat-yieldmg parts inrroduced from very young individuals, nnd rhc non-meat-yielding boncs of the [ower lcgs-c-heavily biascd in favor of adulr animals, Scavenging of thc tragclaphines is consisrenr with rhe view thar rhey were prey of Iions and hyaena t~lken mostly at night around \\'aterholcs, whereas rhe capture or killing of very young <11cc1aphincs hr the hominids would have been accomplished prirnarily during the llJidday hotITs, whclI thL'}' tcud lo drillk :lIld ro coincidc with ol1t' a110ther al wah.:r SOllrces. Sl·vcra1 poims :1Tt· dear: (1) The hominids were essfllrial1y diurna1 srecieo.;. AII Ihe primales ;¡re essenlially diurt131 ami ....re cOllrinue ro he so. OUT eyes certJinly limir the types of activities what \\'e might engage in al night. I Ihink there is little doubt that rhe early himinids werc only active during Ihe Jaytime. (2) The hominids scavenged primarily from Ihe remains of the prey taken near w31cr sourccs by essentially nocturnal killers. This could be done by hominids with no undue exposure ro prcdation if rhey visired water sources dllTing rhe middll' of the day, :lS do rhe daytime drinkns. Thc dara frum Kbsics Rivl'f Motlrh Cave 1 slroll~ly Sll~~cst rhal the 110lllinids rc~u brly llscd :1 s'te Ill'¡lf a water soun.:e also generally llscd by other anim.1ls. The.'IT they ",cl\Tllgnl brge ;l1lilll;tl p;lrts, whidl Wtn' LHn inlrOllllcnl to the Kl.tsies living sitt. To illustrate the Jikcly schedule of J gcneralized hominid relative to other animals he is apr ro have intrracted with in 3n African setting, 1 have supcrimposed the fecding schedules actually recorllt·d for rhe modern gorilla
207
Thc Ecologv ot Scavcnging
6'Z.E
.= .¡¡ bl bl ~
~ ID
-
ru-etION
.-
CL..A~6 Ti_e. ' ......
.......
ec-ee
:m. Mo¡..,n-H~
30-5c&
3&"42.
90
-
"2 70
"2
1¡; Q '"
hI bl ~
~~
~ ~ :J
30
20
ro
o '../ "//bP'"
/
,-'"r-/ :lo'.!"4'b J"tq J ,,11,,'nt/'" »: ,-e ¡(.,.-c Jo.:J A""
~~
Q';<'~
,,"- 4'
_./
./ .,1''-
<J~"'- ~~ i' .:J ,<~,.,J' ,,'-,/' o+',r«4'-<.,1; " ,,'-
4/
vi
.,!'
Figure 5.3 Comparison uf unfused bOl1l' pnccma,gcs bt.'twccn nigh( and day drink· crs, sizc class J1J, from Klaslcs Rivcr Mnurh.
ayer thl' data on w;]terhole visirs collected by Ayeni (1975) {Of a variety of Afric.11l spccics. The p:lttcrn in Figure 5.4 sllggesrs a general pattern ami a nichc for the cady hOl11inids. A likcly sccnario l1light he as follows: lhe hominids awake al sunrise and bl'gin fceding in the e3r1y morn;ng. This feeding ;s likely to have been in scrub-brush habitats a\vay from the normal water sources used by rhe rypical African predators. Fceding rnight gcnerJlly begin to diminish after around 10 o'dock and the hominids approal.:h the major water soun.:t', where rhey resr during midday in the company of other Africall forms that tend ro be rnidday drinkers. During rheir .~tay ar Ihe waterho!c, 11OI11illids SL1Vl'nge edihk part~ from the G1rG1SSCS thar the nocturnal predator.. h;l\'c.' kilkd in the viciniry of tht· w:lIcrhok. Th~'y might 011 ()(..·l.,·:lsioll C,lpll1lT thl' very Y(lllll~ 01 SUIlle.· of tlll' 1lIidd,¡y dril1kcrs (¡¡/celaphines) ¡\t the waterhok. Around I o\:lock, rhe hominids hegin l1Ioving off the walcrhole ;lIld agaill fecd through the woody-hrush ZOl1l'S wherc planr foods are aV.1ilablc and where bWlls as well as Ihe small lloctllrnJI antelope might be encountcred. Finally, in the late :lfteTllOOIl the hominids
s.
208
'" Z
sw
~
O W
>
~
~
G
~~~~,~,~" '00
) - - BU"'_,_'-------
~~
Homimd Subsisrcncc
Eco[lI.~Y
aud Land Use
t>';~~~~~
NOON
--
"'OR1LL ..... ~ R&~rIN~
9
T
\, 80
. ~
R..... '''"0
, 7'
--
'"
-_.. _-- ______.I..
O ~
60
,
6
$
50
e-"-LIVORE.~
40
O
..
30
....
_._---
6..:........ 0"-
".«H /
O
. ~
~
3
to)
•
o
~
Do
•
'1
~--=
/•
F-----------~
,'"
1-- - . _ - -
w,.,........<Xl.
---
~';"':P~Nc:..
z.400
0200 0'00
o-SO<>
0500
oecc
enviroruucnt. how can we build a behavioral modcl for rhe specics in a [ynhos biome bascd on obscrvarions of animals bchavior from '\lllh diffcring environments? I am not saying rhar the ecology of rhe regions are ;llike-c1early they are different-c-but I am suggesting rhar SOI11C of thc l-asic niches, particulnrly those of rhc predarors, are similar. Ccrtainly, too, thc rcquirements of many of the spccics, which are cssentially the same, cunnot he expectcd to chauge from one environrnent ro anorher; only thcir stratcgics of meeting their needs rnight he expected to vary. Perhaps the facr mcsr fundamental to the argument hcre is rhar while lions mny have relanvc!v lurgc rcrrirorics they are essenrially territorial arumals.
0lS00 cr7"'"
',,0"'
O'X>O
Hou~:6
1200 .. 00
OF'
.sce
'400
TH"
lt>OO ''''00
rtoo
'SOO
--- ............. 2.2o:J
ZD<Xo
'900
~100
noo
24I::n
0"'...... -
•
Ln:h pndc confines itself ro a definiré arca in which ih l1ll"ml)t'r~ spend several or in the case ot sume lionesses, rbeir whole life. Thc main requieres tor thc cxistClKC uf a pridc arca are a water source and sufficient pre)' tlmm¡.;1.'o/ll tbe year, cOlldi/lOI/s c:úslill~ in thc «oodlands mili 1l1()1I~ their edKes bur, [or Ihe rnost parr. not un rbc pl.uus. (S(halkr IY72b:Sfí; cmphavis addcd;« ]971 hy thc Univcrsitv of Chil.lgO) Jcmnmcs vary in size, but do not secrn ro change in vrzc 11l1Kh with lime. Whert: rhere are umple numbers of residenr prt·y animals,:1 pndc lhll,llly ocnlpio berween ten and tortv square miles. (Bertram 197H: lOS; Brian Bertrarn, J'lidc (jI l.iol/';. C()p~·righr l' Brian Bertram 1975. Repnnred with thc pc'rmi-vron oj Lh.Hks Suihner'~ Som.) yt;'\r~.
-
~L.ItIl!.PI""'Ct
0400
209
~
~
oiJ
---
EL........... o
''0'1
----
~
:l
'...
Tbc Eeulogy ni Scavcngmg
L.E.Go~NO: PERIOO oF PE.A1<... VI~IT~ Te WA.T~_
c......... c.
Figure 5,4 Gorill¡l fccding rdalivc to urinkin~ by uthcr <1nim<1ls ,lT ¡1Il African wa· tcrhok. Corilla d¡lta from Schallcr (1963: 1471; w,1tcrhl1!c dat,l hum Aycni 097;:3191.
return to a sccure s1ceping place, where ar Sllnset they begin thcir nighttime slcep_ I suggest that the early slceping pl<1ces \\'ollld never be at the watcring pLtn's uf tlll' L1rgely nOl'tllrlull·arnivtlre ,111d tlngllLue spccics, hut \\'ould he in rc!ativc!y protl'clnl arcas ;l\V<.1Y from the water sources, This picture suggests t\\"o lllajor types of special-purposc location: the midday waterholc rl'sr ;trl';l, ~lIld thl' nighttimc protectcd sleep arca. Fceding fmm terrestrial sourCl'S \\'ould l1L' •.:arricd out prim~lrily in the scruh ~lIlJ hrush ZOIll'S hef\\'l'CIl thcst' ~rl'l"iJl-ptlrr()se locations. lhe ohicetioll mar \.. . c11 be raised that the Tzitzik;11ll1113 Coasl is flot the Tsavo g~ll11(' r~lrk of Kcnya, nor is it the dry environments thar l ob'jerveJ in the Nossob Rivcr arca of the Kalahari. Given that ir is such a differcnt
In rhc Screngcti Plain, whcre sorne of the classic hon studics have been conductcd, a very intercsting faet wns noted: thc population of lions does not vary directly with the populations of grassiand-fccding animals, such as wildebccsr and zebra, bur tcnds to he limitcd by thc denviry of residen! garue i:lrgt'!y ruadc uf sCt"lIh-woodland-loving vpccicv. Tite liom do not migrat(' with the herds of grass feeders during thc wet seasoll. True, they may alter thcir patt<.'fI1S of territorial lIse a hicl hut, in gcneral, during the wet seJson when the grass feeders are on the plains, the lions feed primarily on the other animals that remain in che fon.:st-scrub I11Jrgins where the lions also reside. This means that there is a major scasonJlity to the lion preyresident hush·loving speeics during the wet season and a shift to the migratory visitors from the grasslands during the dry seasoll. The Iatter. of course, come ineo th<.' scrub where water and sorne forage is availahlc dming thc dry ~l';lStlll. Althollgh SOlllt' of tlle spccies wOllld be difli'lTlll, ;lIld n'rt;linly the over
210
s.
Hominid Subsisrcncc Ecology and Land Use
ami stalking prcy in cover, particularly tall grass. which incidcntally is the favorite feeding place of rhe Cape buffalo. Both thc Klasics rivcr and the Tzitzikanuna rivcrs would have supplicd (1) watcring sources for both lions and pre)', und (2) tall grass providing foragc for such specics as thc Cape buffalo ~ll1d ambush ca ver for lions. \X/e Jo not know how the hydrology of the two rivcrs varied during the LHt' J'leisrocenc, but rhe hippopcramus is representcd al Klasies Cave 1 continuously through rhe ~.fSA I and 1I levels, and is also presenr in the Shclter lA levels abour 17 (rhe Howieson's Poort and MSA 11; see Klein 1976:77-78). This 3"1105t certainly mcans thar thc rivcrs never completely dricd up, and that thcre were at leasr subsrnntial drv-scason pocls in the rivcrbcds throughout the l.ate Pleistocene, rcpresented by deposirs at Klasies Rivcr Mourh (the low-warer Lcvel fJ and, intcrestingly, the MSA IIlevels in Shchcr I A are pcrhaps exccpnons). In any event, the periods of major accumulation were contcmporary wirh year-round \...'ater sources in the riverbcds, proviJing lions ~lnd prcy wirh re1iable water sources. Such reli:lble water would have "Iso been attractive to scason~ll migrants, particularly during dry 5e;lsons. We can expect thar undcr those conditions the prey of lions wauld shift with variarions in rhe regional water budget. 50 that during the dry season, migranrs raking advamage of rcliable water would be targcted as lion prey. On the other hand, during the remainder of rhe year rhe rcsident animals would supply the locallion pride with fondo In borh cases, rhe customary drinking places along the Klasies and Tzitzikamma rivers would mosr cerrainl)' h~lVe been rhe focus of lion preciation. Ir is quite likely rhar durin~ tht: Late Pleisrocene sequen ce rhe mosr common migranl inro Ihe :Ul\l W:lS til<,' ebnd. i\ccordin~ ro illfoflnation from Dr. J. C. Hillman. TIl<' d:l11d ... givc hitth ro thcit c;llve.~ OVCt a petiod of ¡lpproxil11Jlely fin' months hcginlling in Augusl. wirh peak cllving :1rollnd rhe short r,lill~ il1 Novcmner. Ar th.ll tulle tl1(' lllWS :UT ll"lIallr ouf 011 thl' pbin" ... dutillg tlll' r;lin", whell the :1nilll.lls are COIh:cnltared 011 Ihe gr:\sslands, rhe nursery grollpS l;1ll ger very large .... As rhe plain~ hegin to dry IIp inJanuary and ferruary, however. the large groups hegin In rreak IIp, the eland move inro the ri...er gorges and fecd on more dispersed food items. (Moss 1975: 18.~-184)
Jvtost ohservers have eommented on rhe faet that female eland are mueh more mnhile rhan males and that they tend ro congreg:uc during the pt':tk r;Lill~ 011 t1H' opcn gra,sI.1I1d. WIll'IT tltt,'y givt' hirth ;lJHlmi.1Y he secll in Iarge nurscry herus (see Kinguon 1982: 127-141). At rhe same rime males tend 10 reside IlHlre in river gorges and maintain a Illorl' ':iolitary terrirorial ex;stel1cc. As tite dr)' sea son approaches. rilc congreg.. uiolls nf clalld hre.:lk up into smaller al1J smaller units, displ'Tsing into rhe wnodland and river gorges where rhey feed on a grearer amount of brov.'se. This behavioral
Scavcngmg ano Agc Pretiles
211
pattern is consisrcnr wirh the seasonal appeatancc of clnnd along the coast in the betrer-watered fynbos biome. which supplics a rcliablc source of water during thc dr y sea son on the grasslands ro rhc norrh, or ro thc interior of the Cape Folded Mountains. This partern implies thar during rhe Late Pleistoceno cland young were nor born on the Tzitzikarnmn Coasr: considering body size, thc ycar's calves rhar might enter rhc rcgion Juring the grass· Iand's dry sea son would by then be roo large for thc hominids to takc, given the body-size ranges for which rhey seem to havc bcen succcssful at hunting. We mighr expect that occasionally rhe zebra, wildebeest, and perhaps the bastard harrebeest might appcar south of thc mounrnins as dry-sc.ison migrants. Ir is my gucss that rhe fluctuanons in the frcqucncy of gruss-loving species in the Cape coasral regron (ar least in the contc xt o/ rhe envirenments represenred JI Klasies River) are not necessarily an cxpression of the expansión of grasslands into rhe Cape gcograpbic zone. but instead rhe expansión of a more lush grassland into what is toda y the Karoo. Grass {eeders then more commonly rook to rhe higher biomass Cape lones during the interior dr}' seasons and more commonly showed up on rhe Care as seasonal vi"iirurs. In any cvent, the basic aspects of warerhole dYllamics thal r have norcd (or the Kalaharian zone and has been reported in rhe T~avo arca can be expected to have charactcrized rhe Cape zone, givl'1l rhe prcscnce nf lions and prey. It seems quite likely that this focused conccllrration of lion-killed carcasses at focal drinking spors along rhe Klasies and Tzitzikamma rivers were the primary points for hominid scavenging as manifest in the faunal remains at Klasies Cave 1.
Scavenging and Age Proliles As in the case of Klein's other interpretar ion s, be assullled a hchaviorhunring-i.1nd rhen sought ro interpret the data from rhe sites so as ro be comp:nible wirh that assumption. In rhe case of his agc-profile darJ, he has assllmed hunring and then made an additional assumption regarding ages at lit'ath (Jf rile ;lIlill1;lls rcpresl'l1tl"li in rhe sitcs: "Th{'Y(' is 110 Y/'LlSOII lo sU/'IlOse
that eithl'Y human hehl1l ar diftérelltial dzm¡(lihly seriotts/y biasl'd any age distributioll IJrcsentl'd hcre" (Klcin 1978c:2üJ-204; cmphasis .:lt,hfedl. The'\e two ;¡ssllll1ptions-that all the bones \Vere in sites hy virtlll' (lf the JÚn
acrions of hunting hominids, and rh,l[ hominid bchavior <.lid not hias rhe faunal population so rhar rhe bones in the site actu:1l1y represenred the
212
5. Hommíd Subsistcncc Ecology and Land Use
frequencies of differcnt agcs and specics kil1ed by the hominids-have permirred Klein to use thc bone assernblage for direct infcrences about rbe character of hominid hunting ractics. For instance: The clt'l~lnlrhic mort.tlirv profile rh.n charncterizes el.md (from KI.l~il'S nver mouth (",l\l' 1) ... almost cerr.nnly rcflecrs the srom- '\¡.(C ,lisnl\l'ry rhar (his vpecies is relanvclv l'as)' to drive ovcr diffs or intu other traps (Klein ]'J",y). Sinularlv, the c.rr.istroph¡c morr.rlirv profrk-, rhnt characrenze sorne rclativelv SIll,,1! .intelopcs in the s;lI1H~ dcposu-, . probablv reflecrs human awarencss rhar inclrvidualv of all nges muy be re.ldih- c.rughr in snaree l.rid ,¡long thcir h.1J-,iw;1! runs throuuh the bush (Klein 19}1la). (Klein I~H1.:l5J)
For thc first rime, Klc¡n (1982) scnously considcrs the possibiliry rha: the horninids were sc.ivcnging: he procceds ro offer suggcsrions how one might disringuish hunting from scavenging. He advocatcs the comparison of mortality-agc profiles from archaeological sitcs with those from "non-archaeologicai sires" (Klcin 19R2: 154), presumahly as J. control on rhe censequenLTs of human bchavior as opposcd ru "narure" in eonditioning mortaliry curves. Klcin then points out how hoth "gcneric" forms of agc profilc could derive from hunting, wirh catastrophic curves resulting from animal drives or from indiscnrninatc trapping, whilc attnnoual curves migbt arise from stalking and more individual hunting techniques-hecause "prehistorie pcoplcs were lISU31ly unable to obra!n prime-agc adults of a specics" (Klcin 1982: 154). In spitc of Klein'5 c1aim rhar both curves eould rcsuh from huming. he proposes that "the proportionJtc rcprescntatíon of di(ferent age eL\sscs in a species 53mple from a site provides a means of determin· ing whcther the species was primarily scavcnged or hunted by the people" (Klrin 19H2:1515). In dcmonstraliofl of this suggcstiotl, Klcin compan:s rhe ,1ge profilcs of rhe giant extinct huffalo (Pelorovis) fmm the f.1mous sire of Elandsfontein (set' figure 2. ¡ for locuion) with tlut dcserihcd for I'dofOlIis fmm Klasics River MOllth Cave 1. Figure 5.5 surnmarizes Klein's data fmm these t\\"o sirt·s expresscd in terrns of pereentages uf life span and percelltages of the toral nurnber of individuals assignable lO ea eh age class. Superirnposed oyer hoth is [he idc;llizcd model of huw a "normal" attritional age (l11ort;l!iry) profilc shouJJ ~1ppt'~1f according to Klcin (see K1L,in 1981:figllre 1). SeYeral points "huuld he darificd by this comparison: (l) young individuals are ulldern:presentcd rebli\'c ro the modcl ;lt Elandsfolltcin, \VhCrc~ls (1) young individual s ¡He ovcrrcprcscntcd at K1Jsit,S River Mouth, 011 the orhcr hand, (3) ver)' old indiviJuals are gcneri-ll1y underrepresl'l1tl'd at Klasies. Noting these bets, Kkin offers the following intcrprl"Lltion: "The rcasoll thar very YOUl1 b hufLtlo ¡lrt' proponion ..uel)' Illllch Iess UII1ltl101l al Ebndsfontcin is proh~lhly hecausc the}' were selcctivdy removed from Ihe record hdore burial. primarily hy earnivore feeding" (Klcin 19~2: 156).
21.1
Scavcngmg nnd Agc Proñlcs
J¿
••< .J
~ 0
,o<>
A
~ ~ ~ ~
B
,
O1 W~ ,~
-~.
~
o lO
ZO~40:101>O
~ i~i1 ¡¡
10
eo <¡coo
PE.RCE-NTAt:sE
'l,
..~~'
MOR,.TAL1TY
MOOEL
t\ . -f'h
2
~ 2
!(LEIN'~ ATTR1TlON.A.l-
/ '" t
• w ~ 2 2 W...
~ o so eo rc ID ZO~40
oe-
~9<)1OO
LIFEt>PAN
Figure 5.5 Compunscm bctwccn giant buffa!u (pelrmll·¡<;1 agt' [murrality] profilcs lrom [A] Klasícs Rivcr Mouth and (B) Elandsfontcin populations
Ahhough 1 mighr in general agree with rhis suggestion. it should he pomred out rhar there is clcar evidence in the form of isol.ucd 100ls in association with recognizable denth sites (see Binford 19H3b, Fig. 30) ar Elandsfontcin that wc must also include the possibiliry rhar hominids might well ha ve plavcd sorne role in biasing rhe Elandsfontein data Jgainst very young individunls. Klein. howevcr, ignores rhis possibility, thcll goes Oll to note rhat thc 111m:h ~re.ltt'r proportion of ver~' )"oung buHalo ;l.t "L.qes ((luId rt'snh from scavcnging (mly the K1asie" people cnuld locatt' the Larca<;ses of tllc anirnal.. hl'(un' lhq Wl'H' IO(;Ht"l1 hy rorcl1tial (ol11pl'tiron, parricularlv hyel1,1\ ;lnJ lion,. I.ackin¡.\ thc relevant "pc..:i.11 ~enscs of the~e wmpetirors, it i~ hi¡"hly uI11ikely tht' Klasie~ pcork colllJ loeate carcasses first, anJ from this it m:lY he illferred that the very hi~h proportioll (lf V('rr Y"Il1Jg butblo at Klasies mml rdll'd :lL"rivt' hul1tin¡.:.
ir
(Klein lYH2:1S6-IS7)
Klein's reasoning here is faulry. The biascd exploitatioll of young Jnd slllall buffalo does not require that the hominids find young or 51llall huffalo before cOlllpetitors on a regular hasis; only that \,,'hen they do encountcr usahle parts nf buffalo, they will rernove heads of sl11all (young) animals preferential!y. That a hominid scavenger would hehave in this Illanner is perhaps hest illustrated in Figure 5.6. The drawing was hased 011 a wonderfuI photograph puhlisheJ in Lorna Marshall's provoca tive hook, The !Kung nI Nyae Nyae (1976:90). Ir shows " Bushman woman carrying the hcad 01 a malc wildl'hl'l'.~t, prior to roasting it in an earth OV('l1. It should Ot' ret:alled rhat a wildchl'l:st weighs ólpproximatdy 400 lbs (1 S 1 kg), Now, ji \Ve kcep in mind rhar rhe extinct buffalo Pelorovis is thoughr 10 havc oeen 10 times bigger than the wildebeest shown in Figure 5.6, with horns thnt excccd (;
oJ¡,rv, ~ f>J4" s . 214
5.
~
.g VZ<.V'
Thc h(Jlo~y of Hunnng
Honunid Subsísrcncc Ecoiogy and Land Use
21.'i TABLE 5.2
Frcqucncv of Worn and Unworn Milk Prcmolars hum Klasics Rivcr MOllth and Nclson Bay« Ncíson Hay
Klasies Rsver MOlllh
tsodv size Unworn
Blue anrclopc
Cape buffalo Ciant buñalo
Total
'X,
(Jnl'\.·OTlJ
(lhs)
dp4
dp4
UnwfJrrJ
dp4
Tolal dp4
UIJWI)m
(1)
(2)
(3)
¡,J)
(S)
1(,)
(7)
.100 2000 4000
B lB
lB 32 44
44.0 56.0 B2.0
6 10
16 17 6
JH.O S9.0
., Alter Klc¡n (197H: rabie
-e
':1i
,
.-¡;.
'Y
feer (2
111)
across.
011<..'
Figure 5.6
NY¡H:' Nyac Bushman woman carrvina fh~
hcad of a wildcbccsr ICOTHlOChaetn\'
can only marvel thnr any adult Pelorcwis skulls are
n-presenred in thc site!
I think ir should be clcar that the bias is nor ncccssatily in killing, hut in rbe sizc uf animal heads elecred for transpon back ro che sirc at Klasies River Mouth. Th¡s i-, a situatinn in which tlu- schlcpp cffccr rhnt Klcin is fond (lf cinng \\,;15 most ccrtainly biasing the agl' profilcs agaillst the larger animals. As furthcr support for this inrerprctntion, rhc reader is refcrrcd 10 Figure 4,4, in wlu,.. h ir W:1.<; ShO\\'1l th.u thcrc wns an incrcasiug bias ;lg:linst hcads ;15
the body sizc incn-ascd among specics. This rclcnonship tu body sizes is nowhcre bcttcr dernonstrated, however, than in Klein's own data on the frequency of unworn deciduous fourth prernolars from the three large ungulate species, as shown in Table 5.2. The relarionship between increasing hody size and the transport of increasingly younger animal hcads secms de<1r. Klcin's assumption rh:H rhere is 110 bch;1VioL11 hias in his dau is dc.:Mly nnt justified. I think ir i'i obvious thar rhc age-bi:lseJ gr;lph in Figure 5.5 eould e:lsily arise if a homi· nid was transporting in a biased manner heads af smal1er individuals, How the hOlllinid ohtaincd thcsc hcads is not implied hy sllch age hias. C;ive!1 tl¡;tl \\'l' h;l\'l' ;lln..';ldy delllonsrratcd rhe (lrer~\Ii(l1l (WO separare faunal proeurl'ment srratcgics-killing slllall animals and scavenging carcasses of largc animals-ir seems quite likely that Ihe single agc profile th:1t
o,
C,1I't'
36
4
%
ó7.0
7J.
Klein sceks ro interpret in terms of hunting tactics is, in facr, the combined result of rhe operation of the two separare sets of tactics: killing the young calves and fawns, and scavenging thc carcasscs of adult animals of the sarne species. If so, the collapsing of age data inro specics categorics and secking to interprcr rhe sumrnary age profile, as if it referred ro the accumulated product of a single ser of hunring tacrics, is certain ro be misleading. This problem is further exnccrbated by the bias in transponed hcads. which is fairly clcarly rclated 10 size. Givcn rhese problems, 1 think that Klcin's inrerpretations of hunting ractics and methods bascd 011 age profilcs can he dismissed on merhodological grounds.
The Ecology of Hunting :~j T
What can wc suggcst about rhe hunting strarcgics of food procurcmcnr charactcristic of the Klasies hominids? Any predator operares in terms of the general bodv-sizc range in which ir can reasonably kili, and a prcy-speed range within which it can effectively overtake prey. Hominids are no match in speed for most of the bovids, so the speed range wirhin whieh hominids can be expecred ro operate most effeetivcly is very slow indeed, even when game is ;l[ r<.'st. This is even true whcn lI.''iing tools, sinec stllking is man's. attempt to ger c1osL' enough to wound the ;1Jlimal heforc it is frightellcd into f1ight. ~1osr modt.'rn huntrrs are cssenrially "killing at a distance" while rhe prey is stationary. Wc are jusr nor very f1eet pursuit hUTlters. This mcans rh;H lile g;llllC th:ll hominids \\"ollld ha ve becll most skil1ful ar taking WlTl'CSSelltially stationary. In ;ldditi<1!l to the hunting of statiol1Jry galllc, rht' 110llliniJs must have orcrarcJ most dfcctively against prey of slll.lll to moderare size,
2](,
s.
Hominid SubsistmlT Ecoiogy ano Lana Use
since there is no evidcncc tu favor the view thar rhcy were technologicallv aidcd by effectivc projcctiles or henvy shock wcapous rhat would make operationv againsr large prcy feasible. Ir is true that sm.ill prcdators are capable uf rukiug prt'Y substantiallylarger then themselves if thev are social hunrers, such as rhc Cape hunting dogs or spotted hyacna. Howevcr, thc «Iata prcscntcd hcrc clc.trly indicares a bias in favor of thc rvscntially nocturnal. solitary, and small anrclope when they appear in rhe faunul assemblage in "mear biased" frcqucncics: that is adults that wcre butchcred and transporrcd in terms of J biased selection of meat-yiclding parrs. These anirnals have a modal body size 01 approximatcly l8 kg (40 pounds). This facr alone seems suffiornt to eliminate the idea of hominid "pack hunting" and'or effcctive cooperative hunting with shock weapons. At least during MSA times, the hominids seem to have been taking prev tbat were (1) cssennallv stationary, (1) smal1 in size (abour IH kg), and (3) scattercd and dispersed in hrush and scrub cover during the d:ty. These facts
Wi.· lllig!tt ~enn;lli/e t1ut the kop:lnl is musl effective k¡lIl11g prey ;lrollllJ, or ouly slightly 11llder, irs OWll body wt·ight. Ibsed on the d.lU trom Klasies RivCf ~vlol1th, the animal mosr (Olllmonly tJkell hy rhe hominids for mear was the Cape gryshok, whidl wcighs bctwecll 20 amI 30 pOllnds, or abollt 16 kg. J r!link we can expcct the hominids involved to have been ar leasr as large as the leoparJ, Their (aptllf(.'~kill G1P:lcity scems, however, ro luve been considcrahly less effec-
Thc Ecologv uf Hunting
""
tJ
217
tive than rhat of thc leopard. Physically overpowcring rhe prcy prior to killing ir sccrns to be the besr way of visualizing thc capturing racrics uf the horninids opcruting out of Klasics River Mouth Cave l. The Klaxies hominids seem primarily to have bcen killing starionary animals of a size sufficient1y small for rhem physically ro ovcrpower and hold the prey prior tu killing. What they hunted rhcn, wrrc opportunities to kill. They did nor hunt particular specics as such. Searchiug for oppornmitics ensured thar rhcy would rcgularly kilJ thc YOllng of lnrgc spccies if they fell in thc sizc and situational contcxr of a killing oppornnurv. In this light, an interesting obscrvarion IU5 heen made rcgarding the basic contrasts in infant-onother relationships umong rhe ungulares (Lertt 1974). One basic pattern is called the hide-a-balry str.ucgy, in which thc rnothcr gives birth in solirude and generally in fairly dense vegetation. After birth, the young are left hiding in thc vcgeration while the mother goes out feeding, retllrning at inrervals ro nurse the newborn CJlf. This behavior has been well dcseribeJ by Spinage:
J"
The warerbuck Ll'.'iII is a "hiJer," rcnldill~ hi~klell Juring the firsr 2 to 4 weeks; 1 week~ heillg the average period which 1 ohservt'd. This collr.:ealment is in ;\ rirúll11' scriheJ area, but the fawn Joes nut have a regular "forlll." Ir sirnply hiJes irself in rhe neMesr long grass, or thil'ket whell [he dam leaves il. Dllring the 1wriod of Iyingout thl' fawn is visired on'~' once in 12 hours. ,lnd prohahh OTlh- Ollce ouring the wholc 24 hour5. (Spinagl' 19S2: 122)
lO:
In marked contrast ro the hidc-a-baby strategy is tl1<.' walk-along strategy, in which very shortly after hinh rhe young fawll begins to follow its morher as shc moves abour feeding. The hide-a-bahy strategy is mosr common among the llllRulatcs of snwllt'r hody size ;1Jl({/or the more territorial fmms th;lt illhahit fOTest aTld slTub-hrush hahitars. hmns inhahiting open hahitats, such as the alcclaphincs (wildebeest, hartebecst, topi, cte.), practice \\',1Ik-;11ollg strategies. As I have suggested, the hominids were humil1g for opportunirics, ~md these were rebtively small srationary prey. The very YOllng of the ungulates practicing a hide-a-baby morher-young relarionship would ccrtainly pre· sent themsclves to the hominids as opportuniries. In general, rhese appropriare·size animals would most Iike1y occur in rhe same types of wood· Iímd-hrush habitats in which the hominids rook the small adulr bovids such as r1w gryshok. Seen in r!lis light, tlle corre1Jtion berwecn siz(' uf adult and freqllency of ullworn milk tceth sumlllJrized in Tablc 5.2 makcs ('ven more St'IlSr. The young of the brger spci.'ics, sllch as rhe 4000-pound (1814 kg) Jdu1t Pclorouis. \\'ould only be in rhe Jppropriate "prey-sizc windO\v" for rhe hominids when rhcir young were first ,",om, whereas the YOllng of sllJalkr species mar hah' bct'n within the size rallge of porential prey !onger, during theír
21"
S. Hominíd Subsistcucc Ecology and Land Use
early maturational periodo I would agree, then, wirh Klein's argurnent thar the hominids of Klasics Rivcr werc basicially hunting the very young of a variety of spccies.
1 think ir is fair to gcncralize that modern men capture animals primarily wirh thc aid of traps and garue surrounds. With l-oth of these strm\ egies modcrn man is not dependcnr primarily upon his OWIl phvsical strcngth lo capture the prey Thcrcforc I suggest thnt the cvidence for the taking of Iive prcy al Klasics is biased in favor of small-body-size animals relative lo rhe body size of rhe hominid. Viewed againsr rhe leopard's behavior, this bias is consistent wirh a rnodcl of the hominid first rnpturing prev.
then ovcrpowering ir with his unaided physical strcngth, and afrerward killing the capturcd animal. In addition, the hominid mar have bccn actually runuing away from irate mothers after having capturcd their young. Under such condiuons, thc speed of the hominid would be important only after capturing prey. This would certainly favor the capture of small prey and taking ir in CO"CT, which would conccal the hominids from aroused mothers. lt might even be possiblc that carly hominids escaped with small prey inro trecs. Certainly such behavior would be hindcrcd as a direcr function of increasing prey sizes, and as we hnve bcen, the huminids seern 10 hnvc bcen systcmatic.rlly taking srnall prcy relarive to thcir body size. Thc capturc-carry-cnd-ki!l model of predation suggcstcd here uccommod.:w:s the small body sizes characteristic of both the young of large spccies, ano the aoults of small sp('cies. On the other hand, direet capture wirhout carrying off the prey \vould seemingly be morc Iikcly in situations in which the adults of slllall species were captured. As a further due to hominid hunting taeties, we need to study the size differences between the young of strict hidc-a-hJby spceies versus the adults of the smallnoeturnal species.
Hunting and Age Profiles As in rhe cases already discussed, Klein's interpretations of Klasies data have asslImed hunting ro be rhe tactical means whereby all the bUllal remains ended up in the Klasics River J\1outh site. This is rme for the \'Cry brgl' :l1llm:lk ,1<; \\'l'11 :lS rhe <;tn:lllallim;lls. He has inrcrprcred rhe differcnces noted in his srudil's bl'twl'l'n spccil's, particularly in age pro files, as directiy rcflecting differing hunting tactics. He describes a "carastrophic" age profile lor c1anJ (Tal/rotraRl/s) anJ hushbuck (TraRclaplms scriptl/s) (Klein 1981: Figure 5). He SllggCStS thar rhis is c\'idcnce of animal drivcs and the use of snares by the hominid occupants of Klasies River Mouth. ---rilave already suggested that the e1and werc in thc Klasies Ri\'f:r Mou(h
L,f'~1
?"'-"'" 7
Hunting and Agc Profilcs
J( ~.( ~
100
d
so
iJ ~ ~
80
1"
219
A
B
J
ro tw:: 70
ATTR.ITIO\o.JAL.. ~R:..TAL..ITV
iJ
~
"CO).J"TROL DATA." PE.L..~OVI6 OF'" EL......~D~F"'O"-ITEI~
22- '" ,¡ ÚH
2.0
~~,or~ 10
ao
50 40 '1O "0 '10
ec
~o
100
TQTA.L...c 100% PERCENTAG;E: 0':-
o
lO
20 W"lO '!:oOCoO
<óO% =-100% LIF"E-~Pp...N
Figure 5.7 Companson bctwccn cland (TatmJ1W,lilJs! agc {mortalitv] profilcs frum (A)Klasics Rívcr Mouth and (BI thc attritional profilc for l'd(J(()vis at Elandsfontcín uscd as a control by Klcin (l97Rcl.
site because the hominids scavengcd the carcasscs of nocturnal kills around water sources, perbaps hy lions. Figure 5.7 compares thc nge profilc of the eland from Klasics Cave I wirh thc agc profilc prcwmcd by Klcin as rcpresentarive of un artritional parrern. for í'elorcn'ís from thc xitc of Elandsfontein. Wha( we nO(t is thm tht'fc are morc YOUllg dal1d ;H kbsics than one would expect in a normal ;)ttrition;:d-ueath profik. \Xii..' S~l\"" the SJllle pattern of underreprcsented old, and inflated prime ano young Pl'!oyovis remains at Klasies Rivcr (see Figure 5.5), in spite of the fae( rhar Klein has suggestcd that it was an aaritional rattcrn resulting from hUlTlan hunring of animals in all age dasscs, hut CXpl'fiellcing diffrremial Slleccs<., alllol1g the YOllllg and old eategorics. The data. ho\\'c\'er, do not suppon rhis vicw. In both Pe/orol'is amI 'L11frotr¡1~fls (c!and) lhcrc is a m;uked 11lltkm:presL'llt~ltionof old individuals. I have alrl'ady sllggl'stéd rhat (his repri..'st'IHs a bias against large head-parts and favoring younger and smaller hend-parrs for transport back lO the site at Klasies River ]\/lomh. Put nllother \V~lY, heads are primarily exploited for thcir meat and far. Frcsh carcas ses, whcrc stleh t'dihlc materiaIs were available, were primarily young individunls ;md in many cases they were very young indccd, being ncwhorn animals th;lt h;l(.l been killed hy rhe hominids. Thc size bi<15 in hunting thus ensurcs an age bias favoring young of brge species exploitcd foc mear. 011 the other hand, my d~Ha on the rclative frequcncic'í nf fllsed versus unfused lower-limb bones from the specics beinp, dis(usst,J (figure 5.3) show a bias in the other direetioll, bvoring fully adult or even old individuals. A discrepancy betwcen rhe agc profilcs for (ceth vcrsus age estima tes bascd on epiphyseal fusion is belicvcd lO arise from
220
5.
Hominid Subsisten ce Eculozy and Land Use
tactics standing bcliind rhe cxploitatton of heads versus thc lower limbs. Ar Klasies. hcads are biased in favor of young animals. lowcr limbs are biascd in favor of oldcr animals. Thar derives frorn the bunring of rclativelv helpless young ;lnd the sccvenging of marginal parts (marrow Qones) from the ravaged dearh sires of [arger animal s alrcadv fcd UpO!1 by other predarors 'cund/or scavengers. ter us rerurn to thc argument presented by Klein, namely, rhat eland were rcpresented by more adults and hence constitutcd a carastrnphic agc profilc indica ti ve of mass killing, pcrhaps evcn animal dnvcs by the horninids (Klcin 1975c:213; 1982:153). We have already sccn thar there is a markcd hias ag.unsr old mdividuals for thc parts al rhe head. Ir rernains ro determine if tlu- p.utcrn in rhc young and youlIgt'cl ¡\g:únsr old aninul", JS WJ'i r. The single fa¡,:tor th~H seems ro distínguish rhe two sers of animals is tlLU hoth the eland and wildehecst are best described as l'xtrcmdy nOI11;ldic. mO\'in~ OH'r V~lst an.'as of ¡,:h¡lll~ing pasrure. On theorhcr hand, ,¡JI tlll' othn ¡1Ilil1J;11~ lisrcd are re1atively lerritorial and are L'\cn sOIllL'til1ll·... lk~nibl'd as being rather s('dentary. The ebnd, which are nororiously mohik, hJ\'e beell descrihcd ¡.1S generally giving hirth just shortly after rhe peak rains during the f1ush of new gr~1ss (Moss 1975:1X3). In correlared fashion rhey have heen dcscribcd as occurring in large hcrds durillg rhe wet season \vhen tht'}' fccd off rhe new grJSs. Then rhey break IIp inro srnaller feeding units dispersing inro rhicker
Huntuu; 'IW.I
/i:
A~c
Profilcs
221
vegcration during the dry months, when rhcy hrowsc off thc hrusb aud trees of thc scrub-vcgcration zones (Kingdon 1982: 129). Of coursc, dunng thc lattcr months rhev would not be giving birth. Certainlv the sparsc grass and tbe scrub vegcration of the fynbos planr communirv chnracreristic of rhc area around Klasies River Cave 1 is likely ro have hecn artrnctive ro c1and cnly durmg the dry scason, when rhcy werc dispcrvcd. This would aleo have been thc rime when births would be leasr likely; hencc no hunring of young by hominids. but rhe successful ambushing of eland by lion around relativcly localized water scurces. The sume grass-sccking behavior is characreristic of wildcbccsr (see Sinclair 1977: 177), and as in thc case of cland the )'oung tend ro he born during the peak of the grass production, follnwing thc raius. Civcu ihat wildcbcesr would not br Jikely ro cntcr thc fYl/1JOs scrub vegeration seeking grass, ir is also unlikcly Ih;lt thcv woulJ cnter the zone at rhe rime of calving. In both of rhese ca~L'S, the bias at the site of Klasies (given hominids who hunred young :milllals) is ;lg;1ÍllSr rhe very young, who are unlikcly to be seasonally presem in thc Klasies setting. Calves of rhe ycar are, however, rcpreselltcd ,-1mong the sm;lller rransient Spt"CICS.
On the orher hand, all the species exhihiting inflarcd frequcncies of vny young individuals are species rhat are generally nonnonudic and tcnd tnward territorial behavior. This means rhar rhey would he ycar-round residents of the K1Jsies region and cOllld be expected ro l:alve in tlR' arca. When rhey did, the hominids apparently too k advanragc of rhl'ir rl'brivcly hclpless young. The difference berwccn rhe age profilcs of eland and \vilddu:esr versus ~i¡llll ;llltl Clpt' huffalo, :l'i wdl as hastard hartL'hn''it, is flql ¡hat Ihe forlllt'r \val' hUllrcJ with mass drives and l:urporate hllnting ucrics (yiclJing a catasrrophic ;l~e profilc), whereas rhe !arter were hllllred inltividually yidding an attrititlllal-;¡gc protilc (Klein IlJ7lJ: 15H-159) wilb ;1 hi;15 in (:wor ()f very young. This :malysis sllggests insread rilar (1) t!Jere is a strong hias in all tlle age profiles of large animal s againsr very old iIlJivitiu'lls, distinguishing rhem from the anritional profile as documented by Klein for giam hllffalo 3t Elandsfortcin; (2) there is a very real bias favoring very young individllals arnong the Cape bllfblo, gianr buffalo, Jnd bastan" hartdlcesr; and (3) there is no statistical Jiffcrl'nce hetwccn rhe age profi1c f()r c1and of rhe lile span. Stated anorhcr way, climinating rhe hias against (lId individual s, tht.:re is !lO differencc berweell the dand graph ~llld a COIllIllOIl Jttritional profile! Whar must be explaiJlC'd, rherefore, is not why otH: ser of animals that exhibit :l (;lt~1strophic agC' profilc (e1and and wildchcesr) and anorhcr thar exhibir an artrirional profilc (Cape Jnd gi;.lllt bllffalo plus bJstard har-
222
5.
Homínid Subsisten ce Ecologv and Land U~C
tcbeest) are binsed in favor of very young .mimals, as Klcin
(U5
Hunti ng nnd Agc Profilcs
nssumed.
TABLE 5.3
Thc challcngc is tu explain why al] rhe large animals are biased against verv old individunls, and wlry in addition thc huffulo-cbasrnrd-hartebeesr group is furrhcr hiaved in favor of many vcry young individuáis, while 311 :lCC 1.
223
Crown Hei,ght!" for Horsc Tccrh from thc Mousrcnan Sitc of Combe Cn:Il;JJ"
o/ti
profilcs rcprescnr varying forms ot an attritional pattcru.
, Thc poinr emphasized here is that a single specics may be exploited wirh Jiffcrcnt tactics. In addition, the same tactics-when used 00 animais of differcnt spccics, sex, size, and age-may result in very differcnt fauna! asscmblages JI a given place (see Binford 19S1b). Thus far this discussion of hunting has focused on the diHerential success of the hominids in killing animals of different size regardless oí specics. as well as thc differcnt access thnt hominids had ro the )'oung of transienr spccics if they were resident in rhe [ynbos biome. Both of these forms of cmphasis have taken individual hunting for granted-that is, {he taking of anirnals ene at a time. As previously nored, Klein (1978c:213; 1982:] 53) has suggcsted thar diffcrenr hunting tactics werc perhaps involved. ls therc sorne \\'ay of posuively evaluating rhe alrcmntive argument rhat rhe diffcrcnces werc not rclated to diffcrent access or success of a racric (given differenr spccics' characteristics) bur tu diffcrenr hunting ractics? Ccrtainly thc studv of kili sitcs, hunting facilities, and rhe ovrrJ.1I pattern oí rhe archaeological remains of subsistcncc is a very irnportanr direcrion for future research. Hur now, in the absence of such direcr evidence of huming ractíes, is there sorne way we can use rhe available data ro ;tssess rhe probabiliry rhat the hominids of Klasies River .Mollth practiccd hunting racties that resultcd in the killing of multiple animnls-or making mass kills? L()n~ a~() I 1lIt';l<;urcd t1H: cmwl1 heigl1r<.; (In hor<;c Il:l'lh from rhe MoustcriJn site of Comhe (;rcnal. I IlCvcr sundardizc thc meaSllfelllcnts rclative to controllcd life spans, hut I think it is de:lf thar rhe shortet, fully t'rllptnl ;l(luh tcerh ;He thc more worn ami hellel' reprcscnt oldcr :l11imal" ar de<.lth, Table 5.3 sUlllm;uiz{'s the cro",m-hcighr dau for horsc uppcr second and third molars versus rhe 10wer, or mandihular, second and third molars recovered from t1H: denticulate Mousterian (G ami H) Levris 14- J 6 ar Combe Crena!. Wlut is wl'l1 illustrated is thar 17 (71 '~;.) of the lower-r{'ar teerh are fmm (lid individuals, whcre;t" only 15 (39%) (lf the uppcr (l'Clh ;lrt' frolll old individual'i. This hctrays an ;lge hi;lS in rettlrning parts of thc hcad lO rhe sitc. \'(/hen crani~l with mJxillary teeth WLTe rcrurneJ, they \vcre allllost ;tlways from YOllllg individuals. I ohser"cd rhis s:lme hias JmOI1~ rhe NunJmil1t Eskimo, arnong whorn rhc hC;lds of ;lJUIt anilllals wcre judgcd to be tough and tri yield littk food relativc to their size. On the orhcr hand, mandibles \\-'irh thcir attached lOngnes uk('n fmm adult ~lllil1lals werc cOIl . . idL'fcJ ~l tn.'i.lt and WLTe regu1Jr·
Lowcr Vppcr
--
YO/m;;
2-2.9
3-3.9
4-4.9
SublD!ill
5-5.9
6-(,,9
2 .1
12 7
3
17 1\
I (,
.1 12
.\
7-7, Y
Sutncnal
.l
7
s
21
Tul"l 24 .IR
"In nun
s.
Iy returncd hCC;lUSC of their largcr sizc. This saruc parrcrn sccrns 10 havc chamcrcrized rhe bchavior of rhe Ncandcrthals at thc sitc of Combe Crcnal. Such un age bias among head parts, however, is dcfinitclv not prcsent in rhe Klasies remains. Richard Klcin (1978 :203) has prescntcd inreresting data 011 the relative frequencics of milk denrition (indicarivc of young animals) as well as rhird rnoiars, which are thc last molars ro erupt and hence are indicativc of prime-age ro old individuals, for both mandibular and maxillary teeth. These data make ir possiblc to evaluare whether there is a differential age bias for maxillary.-cranial parrs versus mandihular-ctongue parts. Tablc 5.4 summarizcs these data from Klein. It is very clcar from Tablc 5.4 that there iS!lo agc bias bctween uppcr and lower recth, as was .'leen in the horse remains fmm Combe GrenJ.!. In aH cases at K1Isies there is a strong bias in favor of Im.. . er tceth (;lpproximatcly two m::mJibles were introduccd for evcry cranium). There \'1.'<1.'1 no agc bias betwcen the introduced heads with attached mandihles versus rhe isolated m;¡lldihll.:~. Iso!atcJ mandihlcs Wl'fC drawll from th\.' <;;tllle age popuL1tioll as TABLE
';,4
CIOwn Hci~nts ()f Several Spt:<.:ie!" from Klasies Rivcr Momh",1,
i
~"'-
Old
Total
44
26
(6",
70 1·i\R1
Yotlng
Lower Upper
20
1.\71 1.1
lB]
ll2J
<\4
39
E/and
Cape buffalo
Pdorovis
,t1
1m
ny
O/d
1"(1/(11
Y(Jutlg
(lh/
TO/iI/
32
9
(.221
41 1("1 22
24 1201 1(,
99
1781
1'01 (,0
123 (.(,21 76
UJJ
J22j
40
IS9
YOllIlg
17
S
L7ZJ
@j
..l<)
14
(,,"
19lJ
.. )'(JlIlIg i~ reprcsented milk dentition nf the fourth premolar, <1nd oh/ is TL'presented by ;Jdult third moLlrS. Data frum Klcin 11978: Table 4). ¡, In mm. v.,lllC:s in parcntheses are pCrCl'nt,lgcs (lf young amI olJ witnin each anaromicnl c];Js<;.
22,)
s.
llonnnid Subsistcncc [el'I.,)..;y ami L.1IJJ Use
wcre thc hcads. This suggests to me that nll bcad parts, both crania and mandiblcs. wcrc introduced for thcir mear ;1I1d rhar whether or not heads werc introduccd may havc hcen a mattcr of (1) distante from site. aud (2) sizc of animal. Thcrc is ;1 regular reduction of hias in favor of mandil-les as we go down thc bodv-sizc scqucnce from gianr buffalo (68 l}'0 ) ro eland \(62%). The lack of agc bias bctween head parts may simply rcflect the lack of option... If 1 um faccd wirh an old animal and a young animal ancl can only cury onc animal, I rna y thcn choose thc YOllllg, more tender animal hcnd. On the other hund, jf 1 am rarely íaced vvirh a situarion in whieh I hare multiplr animals availablc ar onc time, rhcn I can 0111)' make cboices among parrs anatomicallv diffcrcntiutul wirhin a single animal. 1 can choose rhe tengue as a more dcsirnblc pan vis-á-vis rhc hcad, but I cannot choose J young instcad of an old rungue. It is rruc tlmr if 1 havc a long-term pcrspcctive on thc procurement of foods 1 could differenrially pass up opportullirics as rhey prestnt thelllselvcs, choo'iing ro exploit J YOllng anima] whcn en(ountered-raking. fur inst~lnce, its hcad-hut at another time passing up the head of iln old animal, raking only irs n13ndiblc. I could get an age bias among allatomieal parts íf (1) 1 had rnulriple animals of differem ages available for exploitation
lmplicntion s (lt Variable Substsecncc Tnctics
22.'i
takcn as adults hy J predctor the size of the hominids cvcn if rhc capture is rechnologically unaidcd. Finallv, the case for the hunting of the young of thc Iarge buffalo-c-both the Cape buffalo and rhe giaur huffalo (Pef01"1'is)seerns supported, whercas seavenging rhc adult forms is nlrnost ccrt.iinly a characreristic of the Klasies hominids. Insrcad of the interpretnnons offered by Klcin, I rhink it is much more likely thar che hominids were prosecuting a single ser of food-procurcment strnregx-s, undiffcrcnnarcd taetieally arnong the specics. They werc (1) hunting very-small-body-size individuals (including thc young of largc species when they wcre available), and (2) scavenging marginal food remains from the ravagcd death sites of animals wirh a hias for lion kil1s around water sourccs during the dry scason, The diffcrcnces nmong thc agc pro files of rhc .inimals mtroduccd to Klasics River Mouth Cave I did not arise from diffcring spccics-spccific hunting rJetics as sllggcsted by Klein, but instcad frorn diffcrcnt stlccess rates for the sarne racties, tcmpered by differcnt behavior pattcrns of differcnr sers of species. It appears that rhere was a "transienr" set reprcsentcd by cbnd, wilJebeest, and probably the orher akelaphincs ;lS wcll, .....,hich appeared in rhe eoastal f)'l1/JOS during rhe dry scasol1. pcrhaps corning from rhe interior vallcys. Grass feedcrs (ommonly disperse ¡uto highn-rainfatl scrub are;lS whcll the grasslands are dry and o\'ergrazcd. Ir is quite rossihlc tllat the exploirarion of rhese spccies is a gooJ seasonal indicator, ;lS wd! :lS perhaps proviJing c1ues ro environmental ~hanges during the coursc uf the archacological aceumulations. Thc other group of specics reprcsents the resident fynbos set of animals. These inelude a1l the smal! ;lllirnals such as hyrax, SII1:111 antclopc sllch as the Cape gryshok, mediulll-..,ize hrow..¡illg Jntdopc ",uel1 as the bushbuck and kuJu, rogcthcr wirh the giant huffalo and Cape buffalo. The Iarger of the resident specics ,,",ere t'xrloited as young dllring lhcir cllvíllg period, wirll rhe smallcr speci..·s e-..:ploitcd more conrinuously 3ml cO!1llllonly as aJulr:-¡ becausc the hominids \Verc ;lpparcnr1y Jblc lO take hJlldily animals l1p lO about 90 pounds (41 kg). The medium-size resident forms appear to have been primarily scavrnged, wherras sorne the mediurn-size tr<1nsient species were exploired while YOllll~.
lmplications o( Variable Subsistence Tactics (Of Environmental Reconstruction and Dating In Chaprer 2 I described the environment of Klasies Rivt.'r MOllth and surnrnarized some of the arguments rhat l13vc bt.'t.'1l ;ldv~lIlced regarding the
226
5.
"u _
Hormnid Subsisten ce Ecology and Land Use
agc of thc sitc cnd its irnportnnce for understanding human evolurion. One issue that tempcrcd rhc ways in which the faunnl facts had been used for infcrrmg environtucuts of the Uppcr Pleisroccnc was che assumptio» nored nbovc thnr hominids hunrcd the animals rccovercd from che archaeological sites. It wnx also gcncr.rlly assumcd rhar pattcrncd changos in species van.ulvilirv among srrurigrnphic units within sires was a direct reflecnon of climarically induced changes in the animal s available for the horninids to use (see Klcin 1980:25.l). I think I have been succcssful in mounting a robust argumcnr lo the effecr that hominids both hunred and scavcnged. Therefore the bones present in many archaeological sires are nor a simple funcrion of the pursuit of a single food-procurcmcnr strarcgy-for cxnrnp]e, hunring. Given that at lcast two major straecgies were involved and thar hunring was a dominanr strarcgv relativo ro scavenging Jmong reeent hunrcr-cgntherer occupants of lhe aren [sce Figure 5.8), WI;' may rcasonablv ask, (l) \,('hen <111l111nder Wh<11 conduions did hunting bccornc domin.uu? and (2) Whar differential effecr do shifrs in stratcgics-c-bunting versus scavenging-c-have for relative species frequcncies in sites thar span sueh strategv shifts? If such shifts could be demonstrnred, rhen the currcnt rendency to intcrprct frequency shifts among species at arcbaeological sires as a direcr mensure of clirnaric shifts would be certainly suspect.
~
Figure 5.8
Trtbcsmen driving lions from a carcass fnr thc purposc of scavcnaing.
The warcrcolor drawing was madc in 1K,F, by C. D Bell.
The percentagec o( gruvvl.md crearures (equids and alcelaplunes) and of crearures preferring more cluscd habitnrs (especially anrelopes ot rhe genera Tragelaptna. Ranbicerus, and Ce/Jhu/o/llms) are roughly comparable between rhe LSA fauna and rhnr from the oldesr ?o.ISA culture srage, MSA I , In rhe MSAstage 11 rhere is an apparcnr dccre.rse in opon country fotlns which 1Il,1)' indi..:;lte an increa~e in rhe ;\I11<)\IIlT nf dmnl vq~l:t,llil!ll. Tlll'rc i~ a markl'll (amI ~t;Hi~tically ~igllir.(,lIlT) imrease in R"pIJiccrtls allJ Tr"gelapIJl/s aml a corresponJing deneas(' in (lpen CO\lntry forms in the Ievels illllllcdiarely ovcrlying 3H!39 in Cave 1. (Kk'in 197(':7H)
What is intercsting in Klein's slatement is that he makes ir very cxplicit Ihat thc majority of the srecies taken as indicators of grassLinds are relk tively Iargc: \vildeheest, h3rt~beest, baslard hartehc('st. These Jre <111 medium-lar~e-hody-size animals of size cbss 11I as llsed in this study. On the orher hana, (\',,'0 of the rhree groups mentioned as indicarive of bush coverCefJha/orhus (blul' duiker), and Rarhiccrus (Cape grysbok)-are both in the snullcst sin' elass (1) of animals, while the third, Traga/afJ!ms, is represClIrl'd hy hushhul..·k, ;1 small-Illl'lliulll-sizl' cl;tss 11 animal, and by kuJu (.1 gellerally rare species), which is equal in size (c1ass 111) to the species eonsidcn:d inJic;ltive of cnvironmcnts where grass is more plentiful. fn eHect, the spceies takcll as indic:ltive of hush cover are smal!, and as \"'l' have scen 'Vere generally humeo or Jr leasr inrroduced to Klasies River Mourh Cave 1 in terms of Illcar comiderations. On rhe othcr hand, rhe species listed as indica-
227
Implícauons of variable Subsistcncc Tuctics
..,;¡
,,;
tivc of grassland scttings are all gcncral1y largor and are rhosc rhat wc llave seen ro have been primarily scavenged, except for thcir YOllng. Clearly, shifts in whar arrear to he climate as monitorcd by the "bushy" spccics could equally rcflect a hcbauioral shift in favor of more hunted foods with no Il('ccssary challgl's in l'llvironlllcnt. This mcallS th;ll il is rcasoll
'"
TABLE
.'j..;
Thc Mirumurn Nurnbcrs oí Indivuíuals bv Which Each Mammahan Spccics Is Rcprescnrcd Klasícs Rivcr Mouth CaVL"J L5A 1
L5A II
--7-12
--1-6
ro ro ce
Horno suplens. Man Paoío urxrnu.s: Chacma baboon Cante mesometos. Black-backed iackal Mellivora capcnsis. Honcv badgcr Aonvx caoensis. Clawlcss Oncr Ccneu.a sp.. Ccnct ííemestes ichneumon. Egypnan mongoosc H. oulverulemus. Cape grey mongoosc Aulax poludmosus. Water mongoose Hvacna brunnea. Brown hycna Felis hbvca. wildcar
M5A IV
13
1
1
'''-.l'''
':"'Pfit'·---h'Ww
d. quagga. QuaAA3 Potamcchoerus porcus. Bushpig Píiacachoerus aettnooícus. Warthog Hippopotamus amplubsus. Híppopotamus Ccnñalophus monucoln. Bluc duíkcr R(lplllcerus melanous. Cape grvsbok Curetna curebi. Onbí Pelea caprealus. vaalnbbok Redunca d. anmdínum. Southern recdbuck R. íalvarutula. Mountain reedbuck Hippotragus Ieucoohoeus. Blue aneelopc Alcc1aphus buselaobus. Huncbccst Damahscus sp.. Bastard hanebeese Connocnaetes sp.. wildebeest Annaarcas sp.. Springbok Tragetaobus scnpws. Bushbuck T. _~I rcpsrccros. Kudu Tourouogus orvx, Eland Svncerus cutter, Cape buffalo PelorOl'ls <.1n!u/uus, Giant huffalo Hvstrix atrieae-ousuclís. Porcupine Georvchus capensis. .'\101c rat Lcpus capensis. Cape ha re Dclphínidac. Dolphins Orhcr Cctacea. Whalcs
re
., From Klcin 1976:TabIe 1.
A15A I
14
15
16
17a
1/.:
1 1
1 1
1/,:
3
1 2
1
1
17b
37
38/39
'1
'1
1
1
1 2
1 7
8
3
"
2
'7'
: CI!!
1
"1:"':
1 1
1,
1 1
1 15 1
S
2
tt'trtl:t"M
4
7
21
14
1
,
2
2 1
1 1
.J
1 1
,
7
3
1
2
.J 4 2 1
1
s 1 1 1 6 2 27 5 13 10 2
2 1
1
4
7
4
2
2
1
1
"1
(,
1
r$e"Mt'
É
1 2
2
1
2
5
,
(,
.J
4
:, 1
1
4 2
1
4
1
1
2
1 1
'''-m\'" " "
:0:1"
2
l'
1 17
S
1 1 1
;'1
2
1 4 20 1
1 1
EL¡UUS
-o '"
M5A JI
:1
I )/I.:cr(J~ lncomss. Hlack rhmoccms
:
thc vunous Hurizuns of
---
2
Ieíis d. caracol. Caraca! í'anchera pordus, Leopard Arctccepholus pussllus, Cape fur scal Miwunxa leonma. Eiephanr scal Loxudonla aíncana. Elcphant Pmcav/¡/ capcnsís. Rock hvrax
-".
In
4
1
s
1 6 1 2 2 2 5
1
2 1 .3 1 12 4 4 1 1
1
1
10
23
3
9 9 3
1 4
, 2
1 1 1 2 7
7
1 2 2 1
2
2
3
1
11 1
"2
2 1 2 8 8 5
?
5
1
"
10 7
2
11 4
11 2
7
2 1
1 :1
M.
.-
TABLE 5.6
'" 'e"'
Thc Minimum Numbers of Individuals bv Which Each Mammalian Spccíes 15 Represented in the Vanous Horizons of Klasies River Mouth Cave l Av Howieson's \1 SA Jll
10-
1-3
.:
5
Horno sopíens, Man
7-9
6
1
í'apia ursmus. Chacma baboon Herpestes pulverulentus. Cape grey
~,~;
re
'"'
1 1
.l
.l
Hippopotamus amphibius, Hippopotamus Rapbicerus melonous. Cape grysbok Pelea caoreolus. Vaalribbak Redunea d. orundmum. Southem reedbuck Hippotragus leucopbaeus. Blue amelape Damaliscus sp., Bastard barrcbeesr Connoebaetes sp., Wildcbeest Tragelapbus scrípius. Bushbuck T. strepsicetcs. Kudu T <1urotragus orvx. Eland Svncerus caíter. Cape buffalo PelOIOVIS antiquus. Giant buffalo Hvsntx aincaeaustralis. Porcupme Delphínídae. Dolphins
(/ From Klein 1976:Table 2.
4
1
1316
1721
2
1 2
;
(,
, "'""'''
'A;
.¡
" " "
1
2
2
1 4 1
1
l 6
1
;
"
'1
I
25
26
32-
27
2829
30
31
33
3.:/
,
3
1
.¡
1
1
S
1
Hb..ftI'h$lW:rWi'EII®t'W
4
4
3 1
6 1
6 2 1
2 3
5
3
"" 3 1
2324
'1
1
1
22
'1
.. ",rrwtefu i@Ií("'t'"
Procavta ccpensrs. Rack hyrax Equus ct. quagga, Quagga
11
2
mongoose Atila»: paíudínosus Water mongoosc Ponttiera pardus. Lcopard Felis 1Ib,VCIl. Wildcat Pelís d. caracol. CHacal ArCIoCCph<1ll1,' p usülús, C;¡PC iur <'<':.11 l.(JX(Jdrllllr/ '¡'''t"an,j. lkph'UH
M5A 11
PUDIt
···.'Ml31fl clli 2
1
1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1
7 4
1 3
1
1
2
1
2 1
1
(,
3
2,12
.'l.
Hominid Subsisten ce
Eetllo~y
and Land Use
rhen seek ro determine if there was coincidenr v.mabilirv thnt
TABLE S.7
The Mínimum Numbcrs of lndividunls by Which Each Mammahan Spccícs I~ Rcprcscntcd III thc Various Honznns of Klasics Rivcr Mouth Caves 111" KHM 1fl-,\fSI\ !
1-3
4
5
(¡
7
8
Arc!U({'fl}¡O!US
.l
2
1
2
.,
2
i'tncavm capensís. Ruck hvrux
.l
3
.,
Y
lO
11
.l
1
Homo
ma bahoon COI1l\ llleWJmel,II',
Black-backcd rackal Asilax pllludirJO.'W'i,
Water mongoosc pmd/u,. Cape fur scul
l'O/¡II1HWhr>l'fll\
2
¡'OT
cus. Bushpi¡.; '1
llippn/lu{lltlJ1lS 11111-
vtnbsus. Hippo potamus Uuphict'Tlls lIlc/aIJ()I1" Cape
2
4
xrvsbok l'elea l'fll'/('()lu." Vaalribhok 2
l/ippfJITOgII_' fe!lenphd<'II\,
Bluc
lope !I/("('Jlh¡Jh/~'
ll//' 1'/11/,111I". Ilanehl'['''1
COlJ/loch"t'les SIl., WilJcbccst TragdllJlhu, scripl L/,';, Bushhuck 1/wrO/l"il,'<:II.' on'x.
12
13
14
J)
4
.";\'nU'nl'· ('ulkr, Cape
buftalo /'c/orovi,s ¡¡/lrú/ull.';, Ci.mt bllEblo lfl'>/Tlx ilfTlc(/e-¡¡¡¡~· Ir,¡{,~,
Porcupinc lI<1rc DdphiniJae, Unl· phins LqJu~ C(/p('lJ~'i~',
" From K!ein I 'J76:Tablc 3.
2
\\';1S
also
refcrablc ro changing environments.
For the first comparison I hove choscn duce spccics. Thc Cape grvsbok is in the smallcst bodv-sizc class (class 1). Earlicr aualys¡s suggcsts chis animal W,-1-" bcing huurcd almost cxclueivclv. This SPCCil'S is convidcrcd endcmic to rhc Cape bionc province (jarvis 1979) and should tlurcfore be a good indicator of ()'l1bos-type covcr rclarive ro grassl.mds. Sinularlv rhc blue antelopc is genernlly considercd tu he endcrruc to thv Cape hiotic proviuce (Klein 19}1O:151), and is thereforc adapred ro thc closcd-to-broken CO\Tr of the (ynhos-type biome. The estimated body weighr of the blue anrelopc is hetween 200 and 3(JO pounds (91-136 kg). placing tt in bodv-sizc clnss 111. The analysis of the frequency of fuscd bOIH.'s (sce Figure 5.3) suggcstcd thar thesc nnirnals cxluhircd an age profilc similar ro elnnd-c-thcrcfore strongly suggcsrivc of having heen scavengrd. The actual [requcncics of anatomical parts also is complcrely consistcnr wirh the argumcnts for rccognizing scavenging prcscntcd here. Fin..111 y, (he eland (Tmnotra,~lfs) is a mixcd feeder and mighr be found in grasslnnds. while during drv scasou ir muy occur in arcas supportive of more "hushy" vegetation and more pcrtnancnt water. This species was chosen becausc ir is clcarly reprcscntutivc of a biased exploitation by scavenging, and rhere is little ro support thc view that its young wcre exploired as live animals (scc rhe discussiouv of :l~t' profilcs and rcfer ro figure 5.7). The pcrtincnr qunntitativc infonnarion 011 thcsc spccie, is summarizcd as lnvenrories I and IJ of Table 5.8. These data an.' plo((ed in Figure 5.9, arranged chrol1ostratigraphically fmm bortom ro top, ear1il'st ro \.:ttest. lt is ohviolls rh:l:t ¡he rercl'llta~e of (:ape gryshok relativc ro the Cape-l'lldclllic blue antelope stcldily incrcascs from the basal Leve! 3~ nI' rhrough Lcvd lS. Pm 3110rher way,;l rt.'gubr remporal trend is c11';lrl~' illdic1tl'd, showing ;1 S((';1dy illLTe.lst.' in 1I1l' IreqUt'Ill')' with which [!le
Eiand
23.1
lmplication-, uf Variable Subsistcucc Tnctics
"111:111, IJlfI1[('t!
ClpC
grrsbok was bcing tah'n rclative ro rhe hllle antelope (rhought to have hccn scavenged) llntil Levds 13 al1(114 are encountered.l.evel13 is the ol1!Y level interprercd by Butzer ,-1S having heen acculllubted during a Ilujor low-warl'r stage, whcn grassbnd spccies would oc expccred ro be 1110re ((l1t11l1011. Leve! 14 is rhe one wirll al1 rhe "othcr" Jgenrs represcl1led ,-llld was <1lso 1ikcly ro have heell eroded, Ir \\'ill be n':(JlIed all rhe othef Inels wert' intcrpreted as having Jcclll11u1arcd during high sea-Ievcl srages and hCllcc reprcscnt episades whcll (ynlms typcs of (hushy) vegct;ltion would have heen 1ll0~t (0111mon on rhe Klasics CO<1sr. The setjUl'nce of high~warer ~ragcs r!tar l1<1vl' heell eqlurl'd \virh tht' variollS leve!";lt K1asies C1ve I are al1 subsragl's in rhe O\'Cul1 isotopic Stagc 5 thoughr tu represent rhe early Upper Pleistocem' (125,000-60,000 11.1'.). Irnnically, if one proiects the OCC;11l 1evcls to tcrrt'"rrial tt.'l11pcrarurc". Ihc
./
TABLE 5.8
Inventones Abstraceed from Klein's Basic Data Tables-
Cave 1
,.re
ínvenuuv
l. 2. J. 4.
37
38
11
Eland Grysbok Total % Eland
O
PB
,
10 4 14
11 100
71
3 11 73
I7A
16
15
14
12 6 18 67
l3
10 14 24
17 II
5 28 82
Shelter lB
Sneuer lA
~
48 56
42
13
LSA
MSA 11
HP
cl
I
,
II
O 3
8
4
9
9
12
20
100
S<J
67
.sS
II
9 9
tu
M5A
--M5A I
18 6 24 75
9 7 16 56
3 4 7 57
3 7 10 70
6 O
7
11 S. Bluc antclope
S
II
7
ó. Grysbok
O
3
7. Total H. 'X, Grvsbok
O
4 15 27
O
4
2 2
I ;
5
10 33
7 6 13 46
"I cl
.J.S
4 14 18 78
6 3
S
14
2
'!
7
8 l2
6 5 11
8
4
21 29
o 4
2 8 10
27
O
SO
21 6 27
O I 1
6 17 35
18 50
8
4
9
2
O
10
4
1 10
lila v. Orvsbok 1u. Bushbuck 1 l. Suhluul
.;iir 1
l",·~,'tt~'ttmfflJJ·~·'.te
-'' _ J:\.[~_-''·~oi_'' ""f:e'ff;;-
r'~-~r"'-.~~;;~"'''-'-!f<''~f:-~~-'1'S,':
-
I 8
«
"l"'úte-' -';;:'~'C--_
'
-
-,"'
IIIb
12. Kudu 13. Blue antelape
O
3 11 14
2 7
1 7 8
19
9 13
17
5 6 11 18
26
31
53
2
2
5 5 7 29
17. Hartebeest
2
I
18. wildebeest
5
14. Subtoral 1S. Grand total 16. % Small (IrIal
O
2
O
O
3
8
4 4
2 2
II
7
12
64
4 4 26 85
20
83
2
8
2
I
2 13 85
1 2 6 67
1 1 2 12 83
10 22 32 31
27 27 54 50
10 37 73
1 9 10 20
O
O
3 3
3
9
c' II
50
67
73
4
I
1 2
14 100
3 7 17 59
1\0
4 17 43
8
II
18
9
4
6
12
10 21
67
52
8 17 53
14 18 22
IV
19. 20. 21. 22.
Basrard hartebeest Subtotal TotallIlb and IV % IIIb (Bushy)
23. 24. 25. 26.
Eland Part Illa total Total % Eland
7
I
2
2
12
15
II
42
93
82
10 80
11 2
10
B
S
13
15 67
4 12 67
2 6 67
8 10 20
el
1 10 11 09
2
O
S
2
V re
co ~
" See Tables 5.6-5.8.
85
12 9 21 57
13
7 30 77
1 4 75
24 75
_"
-
.i'
_
S.
2J6
Homimd Subsistcncc Ecolugy and Land Use
Imphcntions Di v.mablc Subsrstcncc Tncrícs
PEIltC.E.N'T~E OF &tl.Vlo.0K,.
HUNTEO
'0
o
...Id
~o
.. o
'
""
'l'O
IOQ
..,
'00
C'A
y,
l?o
20
"
j
I"~
.],- . JI ti ~
,,.
~
"
.J
I
'0o/.
~
55~.~S55,<57,('>5;55L-
"
,."
1 no[--~--
~
W
JI,'.
~
" ""..
~
.. f' ..."' .....
l.">~", ...
~
A ....IM ....L."b
L-~A~;~-~--";'-~'O.;~~.
R:w:.L....TI~ TCI BLU& ANTEoLOPE,
237
_ •. j~.-----.L_._ L-..L
>O/.. ~L.""~
A .... rE. ... oPL
A Mc;... ~ulll.E. WHE.toJ
1:510ME.
,-~--~ c......... .,.AO"'-
OF'" HUN-nN~
I~
HlE.L.D
CON~T.....""T
~
Figure S.9 Compnnson hctwcen thc frcqucncícs of grvsbok and bluc antelopc among thc vanous lcvels from Cave 1, Klastcs Rivcr Mouth
17 ..
_ ....- -
~7
---4-._
L_
-.1
36.~
L-----1.-_.L._-' HU .... T.WG<.
~K.AVf"j(:..f,.jc.:
PROPOIC.TIO
~
Vt:.lIt..~u~
VE. .... GINQ.. THRV
~u;
OF HUNTIN<\
THE. K..RM C ....v E. 1
~E~UE.NCE..
Figure 5.10 C(}l1lparison bcrwccn ~rys" bok and cl.mds nmonc rbc vanous Icvcls Irum Cave 1, K!;lsies Rivcr Mouth.
:~]
ovcmll wanuth of thc cnvironmcnt should he dccrcnsiug during rhi-, sequcncc and, hcnce, rhe inrerglacial oprima for thc Mediterrunian type of fy"bos vcgetatiou should be correspondingly detcnorating (see Figure 5.09). Neverrhcless, we sce an mercase in Cape grysbok-a [ynbos endcmic! This is only surprising if the levels are dared corrcctly, and if the "reverso" model of climuric change that was suggested hy Klein (1972b), based on rhe fauna frorn the Nelson Bay Cave, is a corred picrurc of clima tic dynamics associated with glacial {hyporherrnic) versus inrerglacial [hypertherruic] conditions in thc Cape. That is, during glacül conditions grussl.ind expnndcd southw.ml, \.. herTao.; during intcrgl:lci:\I.. h'll!uIs t'XP
.~
~)
~r
"
"
1:" ¡ti ~;'
wirb thc linc for grvsbok versus bluc antelope in figure 5.9. Statcd another way, rhe two largc animals, blue anrelope and cland. are positivcl¡ correlated and hencc borb relate ro the smaller grysbok in J similar fashion. The largor animals decrcnse at rhc expense of rhc sutallcr gryshok through rhc Klasies Cave 1 seqlH.:nce until l.cvel 1.1, in which thc l.irge fonus again
bccornc dominanr. Givcn the nrgumcnrs developcd catlier in rhis work, this mcans rhere W."lS a regular increasc in the relativo role of hunting versus scavenging rhrough rhe rnajor pan of the Klasics Cave I scqucnce with the trend Ol1!Y hcing rcvcrsed around l.cvcl U. Thi"i pattc-ru i"i pcrhups cvcn more suiking \\'/11:11 thc Ircqucncics o! the small ;111i1113Is, 'illch as grysbok and bushhllCk, are comhined and expressed against the freqllencies of Illcdi· um-hOlly-sizc forllls. the kudu and bll1c alltc:!ope. in figure 5.11. AH these art cover-lovillg forms and shol1ld hc expected to vary in corre!au'd fashion in response ro environmental changes. Stated another way, in this comparison we are holding environment constant and looking ;lt how hody-sizc preferenccs vary rhrol1gh the Klasies deposits. We obtain a p:lttern vcry similar to rhat ohraincd when \ve compared only gryshok and blue antelope-namcly,that wlut is v:lrying are rhe preferences for ,111imals of diffcrent hody sizc, no! animals at hOllle in diffcrent envíronl1li.'llIs. This finding is cvcn more forcefully demonstratcd in Figure S.11 whcrc there are t\\'O differcnt types of proportional frequencies shown. Rc!ariollship B traces the relariollships between animals (lf mediulll hody-sin' tilar are (ovcr-Ioving spccics. versus those that ;HC gr:ls"bnd-Ioving spccic"i. By holding hody size roughly constant in this compJriSOll, \,-\Ie obLlin a l'ery differcnt pictllrc 01 cllvirol11m:ntal chanp;c thJn was obtained hy Kleill
238
S. Hominid Subsisrence Ecologv and Land Use
lmplícauons (JI v.uioblc Subsistcncc Tactics
-ltlltL. .... TION~rt'P A
bL....., -ION""P411P 8
LÓA~;-r~' 03
~
~
\
V :l: a¿ }o!
~
~
.~
~
, ,~ l
14-
.,.
Figure 5.11 Comparison
07~
07b
J38/".l-lJ~ W
"
10
IZO
ao
40
'!oo "O
~o
&O
'K)
'00
%
hctWI.'CD
thc frcquencics of small antclopc \'Cr~u" eland [Rclationship Al and the pcrcentagc of mcdiurn-sizc untclopc rcprcscnted by bush-loving spccics [Rclanonship BI" among thc various lcvcls from Cave I.~~: Klasies Rivcr Mourh. ~,
(1976), bC(3USC he did not control for body-size biases and S3W thern as rcflecting environmental change (see Figure 2.12). We see a panero of high levels of grass-Ioving species in Leve! 38 and rhen a re1atively stable set of conditions indicared for Levels 37, l7b, 17a, 16, and 14, in which coverloving animal s dominare. In Levels 15 and U thcre were increases in grassloving specics and a marked ¡ncrease shov.'n in the L5A, Several things make this pattcrn most provocative, lf the levels at Klasies Cave I do in (aet span a period of generally dccreasing temperatllres, then the directilln nf the pattern hetwccn Levels .17 ;lnd U is now in line with 1Ill' 1lI001e! '/ut l'XIl(x:h innl'a..,ing gra"island-Ioving forllls assol'i:ltt.'J with colJer ellvirollll1ental conditions, Such a pattern is comistent with the data from NI..'ls(lll Iby Cave (Klcin 1972h) and Elands Bay Cave (Parkinton 1972), in which hoth the dating and the cnvirnnmental correlarion seem sccurc. Given the assumed contemporaneity with a detcriorating environml'llt or one ll10ving in the dirccrion of more glacially dominated dimares (evcn during high-watcr stagcs), this partern is now congruent wirh OUT other knowledgc. This condirion is cssentially consisrent with conditions during isotopic Stages 3, 4\ or 5; or anytime during the Late Pleistocene prior to ti1/.' glacial Illax i 111 11111, which is gcncL1lly considcrcd ro haH' spallllcd lhe pcriod betweell17.000 ;lI1d I~,OO() IU'. Since most would agrcc th;tt th.. . Icvcls undcr cOllsideration date hcyond the practicallimits of I"C_ dating lllerhods, rhis could he anytime hct\vecn 32.000 and ] 28,000 B.r. (see Sh,,-kkton IY75;Tahle 1). If we ClllJsidcr the additional points on the graph (Figure 5.11 )-those for Level 3S indicare a marked dominence of grass-Ioving forms-\\'e might
l~'
:~
"1 ¡~I
r:
';r
2,19
expecr these conditions during any low-water stagc of thc Late l'lcistocenc. The interesting and seemingly baffling point is the bchavior of the L51\. As I havc rcpc.ucdly notcd. rherc has bccn a demonstmtion ar Nclson Bay Cave, Elands Hay Cave, and orhers, thar during the LSA thcrc was an increase in cover-loving forms. This has been taken as coincidcnt wirh rhe warming condirions at rhe close of the Pleistocene nnd thc enser of thc contcmporary dimane rcgimc. Inspecrion of Relationships A and B in figure 5.11 shows that if one accepts the small antelope as indicative of incrccsing cover, then the L5A is in line wirh the clirnatic model; but if onc looks al the médiumsize anrclopcs, then the picrure seems ro be contrury to rhe overall chmatic picrure. This apparent dilemma is clcared IIp somcwhat hy a considcr.uion uf Relationsbip A in Figure 5.11. This line traces rhc rclationship bcrwccn e1and MNIs versus the small, cover-loving unrelope (grysbok and bushbuck). This linc shouid monitor thc rclationship betwcen hunting versus scavenging, with Relationship A rcprcscming scavcnging. What is rnost interesting is that Rclationship A and Relationship B are ver y stronglv correlared. This means that the explciration of cover-Ioving, mcdium-size animals is part of thc scavengmg strategy, whcreas thc cxpkutation of rhe grassland antelope OCCllTS primari!y as a componcnt of thc hunting strarcgy in the 1.15A. Put another way, rhe grass-Ioving auirnnls-c-hnrtchcest, wildcbeest, and bastan" hartcbccst-c-seem to vary with wharcver is com!itioning the relative roles of hunting versus s(avenging, and do not nccessarily hetray directly environmental conclitions. lf this is corred, then the grass-Ioving forms sholllJ be primarily represcnted by young individuals becJuse rhe hunting bias seerns to be cleady jn favor of small prey, whcreas rhe co\'eTloving antelorc scem ro vary in tcrms of scavcngillg hiases, which, as we ha ve St..'l'tl, LIvor brgc-hoJy-sil.c animals. I'rl'slllllahly, tltell, t1ll' (ovt..'r-Ioving antelopt' should bt' prirnarily representeJ hy adlllts, anJ f!le grass-Ioving fonns shollld be primarily represcnted by YOllng, illJl11ature animals. The apparellt trcnd toward decreasing cover-Ioving mediwn-sizl' animal s, which at first gL1nu' seemed to parallel expecutions for ;1 Jeterioratillg or incn:asingly (old ellvironmcllt, is now rccognizahlc as iust allother manifestation of the trend toward increased hunting ..md ..1 more ;111<.1 more marginal role for scavenging throughout rhe Klasics Cave I Sl'llUt.'IKC. This insight hrings us back ro a reconsideration of the serming anomaly of the 15A. I think th,lt 11l0"t 'lf(hal'ologists would ,Iceept as bet rhe sLlIement that the peoplt rcsponsible for the L5A werc hunters cquippcd \vith a technology that WJS cap.1hlc of cffectivcly taking llloJeratc- ro brge-hodysize animals. The l'thnohistoric data, although acknowledging the rok of seavenging (see figure 5.S), clearly depiet it as a very minor ;lIld expl.'dient set of tacrics. Active taking of prey either through huming or rr"Ipping dominatl'd (he strategies for obtaining animal products ,lI11ong the rc1ativdy
2·J()
S
Hominid SUbS1StlllCL' Ecolony nnd Land Use
rcccnt occupants of the región. lt is thcrefore suggcstcd rhar rhe relative proportions bcrwccn mcdium-body-sizr animals versus small-bodv-size animals in thc LSA .rswrnblagc cannor derive from thc samc tacuc.il ClUSC'i a<¡ rheir proportions in the MSA asscmblagc. Th<.' proportions hetwccn mcdiurn to sma!l bodv-size in thc 1.S.\ rnJ~ \dlccr the rcl.uivc roles of trapping versus hunting, and/or a dcnsitv-dcpenclcut rcducrion in landscapc availahle for noncompct.uivc luuuing. After all, dorncstic nnirnals wcrc adopn-d and husbandry \\'as prcscnr in thc Sourhern Cape by around 2000 n.c.. This had ro solve scmc local problcm. Ir is likcly thar, during thc terminal Pleistoceno. population builr IIp as ir did in other rcgjons, and mobility W.1S mcrcasiugly rcsrrictcd. This torced un intcnxificatiou wirh thc regular use of smallcr and sutallcr foud p,lck,lges (scc Hinford 1983h: 195-213 for rhis argumcut). We can vicw rhe increased cxploitarion of small antclopc as wcll as marine rcsourccs nor ;1$ a function of mcrcaved hunting, ns in the MSA situarion, bur JS;1 response to more and more circumscribcd rangcs and rhe related inrcnsificanon in the me of more and more localizcd rcsourccs. Such resourccs are nccessarily smallcr. This would mcun tbar when moderare- lo large-hody-size forms werc raken, rhev wOllld more likdy bc migratory anu "ullearncd" relalive to rhe IO(,-lllubital, or obuillcd through expedition huming. These \\'ould, of course, be the nonlocal, migr
Dunng uf thc S¡tc Scqucncc
>'
:'I¡
",
241
know. Cranting thur variability nmong specics as a dirccr environmentai mensure is inapproprtatc, all rhe currcntlv construcrcd chronologics bnsed on fuuual-cuvironmcnral cquations for thc MSA are strongly suspect. Environmcnral inferences can only be tacilirated througb an inrervcning understanding of rhe srratcgies and tacrics carried out hy the hominids who made use of the resources.
Dating of the Site Sequence
~,
J! "'g:
;,
-:;",'
The fnunal nnalvsis has pcmuncd tlic recognition of sorne vcry inn-rcstmg trends. These trcnds Me bclicvcd lo be behaviornllv directional ond perhaps irreversible, at least in this rcgion. Thc major trend was a steady mercase in the hunting of small-bodv-size auimais throughout the l\15A sequences represenred at Cave 1 (thc exccption being Leve! 13). Therc wns a concomitunt decreasc in scavenging the carcasses of mcdium- to Iargc-bodysize aninuls. Thcre appears lO he a bi.1S in favor of scavenging lhe local medium-sizc antelope, while more grJss-loving animJls of Ihe samc s¡ze seerncd to h;l\"e been more cornmonly hunled, presumahly as YOllllg and ;uvcnile individl1<1ls. The lrend tO\\'ard incrcascd hunting cllsurcd JI1 apparc:nt inneasc in the freqllel1cy of grass-lovin¡; forms Ihrollghout rhe scquence. Accepling lhis trend as general, and nol sitt'-spt>ófic, permits liS lo offer a plausible rdative dJting for lhe strJligraphically discontinllous deposits excavaled from Sheltcr 1A and J B al K1asic'i Rivcr Mouth. The values for the variolls pl'rCl'mages of Ihe lloJ1col1tiguous Icvds arc given in "Llhlc 5Jí. If ooe filS lh<.:se valllcs ro the curves shown in Figures 5,()9-S.ll, ir becolllcs clear t1ut the so-calkd MSA 11 from Shelter 1A is heS! 'H.·collllllodatcd hetwecn I.l'vds 14 and 13 of rhc Cave J scquences. SimiLtrly, Ihe Howieson 's Poort Icvl'1s of Shelrcr lA may wellllJve been :lcculllulared during the maximlllTl loW-W.ltCf pcriod represcnled hy Level [J in tht' C;lVC I sequt'IlCc, whereas M5A 111 of Shclter lA probahly postdates lhe depos;ts of Cave l and may represenr <.1 pcriod of warming lempt'falurcs aftcr :1 pcriod of m;lxilllllm cold ;md hcnce low sea-Irvd. Uf particubr importancl' 10 the argulllel1ts rcgarding lhe rypcs (lf hll~ lll;ll1S r<.'sponsiblc for Ihe depmitions at KLtsics Rivcr ~lol1d1 is the rc1alivc dating (lf the dcposilS from Shelter 1B. Comparisoll of rhc valucs for Ihe various speóes pcrccntages given in T;lble 5.8 dCJr/y imlicates lhal it musl dale during a pcriod of suhstanrial hunting and rebtivcly Httle scavengillgwhich is, as c1n be 'icen in Figure 5.9, aftcr Level16 in lhe CJve 1 seqllcncc. Givcn lhe \'uy low figure for the ebnd/smal1-bush~coverantelope compari· son (Tahlc 5.H, Ro\\' 26), it is mosl likely that lhe dcposits postda!e tht'l.evcl
Summurv
242
S
24,1
Honuníd Subsisrcncc Ecologv and Land Use
13 dcposirs. placing it contcrnporary not wirh M5A 1 of Cave 1, bur wirh M5A III of Shclter ] A. Based on rhc faunal scriarion developed here. the chronological sequen ces for the various depositional zoncs at thc Klasies sites would he frnm oldesr ro youngest: CWI: 1 l.evcls 39, 3S, 37, 17b, 17J, ló, 1.\, Shcltcr L\ MSA 11 (Lcvcls 22-23), Cave 1 Levcl U, Sheltcr lA ,Howicson's Poorr (Lcvcls 10-21), fill ofShcltcr lB, and finaHv MSA 11 from Shcltcr 1A (l.cvcls 1-9). Obviously thcrc mn y he sorne ovcrlap among rhc sct s of levels. This rcinterpreration of the chronology at Klasics Rivcr Mouth removes one uf the very puzzling implications of the sites; namely, the bchcf by the original cxcavators in a very early prcscncc of anarcmically fullv modern mun, and in rhc contemporary prcscncc of ar lcasr two typcs of humans-c-"Ncandcrthaloid' robust form and thc more gracilc "fully modo cm man." This picturc was crearcd for rhe cxcavarors by rheir equation of Shcltcr 1B wirh rhe lowcr levcls of Cave t. The fauna! scriation suggests that nctually rhc conrcnrs of Shelter lB are parrially contemporary wirh or later thnn thc Howieson \; Poorr lcvcls of Sueltcr 1B. The prescnce of J gracilc form approacliing fully modern man at rbis place in rhe scquence is not verv surprising. Rcmoving this cX
the appearance of gracilc, fully modern human forms. At prescnr rhcse are bese considered to be roughly contemporary witb aualogous changos in other parts of rhe world.
Surnrnary lr has been argued that rhrougbour rhe MSA sequencc rccordcd ar Klasies Rivcr Mouth, particulatly in Cave l , thcrc is a trcnd tov vard increased hunting of small game and thc young of largc spccics. with a corre sponding dccrcasc in the dcpendence upon scaveugcd foods obtaincd gcncrally from largcr-bocly-sizc anirna]s. This pattcrn is unrclcnuug rhrough the Cave 1 scqucnces, cxcept for the conrents of Leve! 13, wluch is bclicvcd to have accumulated during a low-water stage and is reportcd ro contain no obvious hearths nor Icnses that can be attrihuted to occupational use of the surface during accurnulation. It is unclea r ar present whethcr rhe low [requency of small animal s (as measurcd by grysbok and busbbuck) is rcfcrablc ro prcscrvariorul bias or sorting in seeondary deposits, or is an aceuratc behavioral indicJtiol1. The very small sample sizc cannor be overlooked in assessing rhe meaning of rhe dcposits' contcnts. 1\11 in all, the patrern as nunifcsr suggt''irs ¡J major temporal rrend rhat may be shown 10 be partially sellsirive to ellvirollmenral changes or topographic setting. The dcmonsrration rhat [here is a strong behavioral shift in rhe relarive roles of hunting versus sl';"lVcnging provides the hasi.. ff)r 'iignifiGlI1t shifts in the rt'!;ltivc freqllencil''i nf V;UiOllS spl'dcs, These shih" h:1Vl' in tilL' past !lecll rcad as a Jircct rdleetioll of environlllCTlral change. 1'his analysis chalknges such merhodologicl1 cOllvenrions, while ar rhe saine time leaves oren rhe possibiliry thar rhe temporal patterning nared herween hunting ¡lIld sCl\lenging may he ~lt kast parri;ll1y respnllsive ro environmental condiriolls. In many cases of culture ehange, a pracrice rhat has been primary may take on more specialized ami restricted roles in rhe overall organization of rhe sysrem as ¡rs prim;uy role is rl'pbccd by a more effeetive ser of altcrnarive racries. This is an area in !leed of investiga tion and represenrs a domain of our ignorance unapprec;ared as long as relarive spcL·il's' freqlll'n(il'~ are cOl1ventionally intnprl'tl'd as simply rcfll'ding climati..: ehange. BeCJllSC the correlarion of c1imaric cpisodes wirh an overall partt'fll of c1imatic flucwation had been rhe major method of daring rhese dep()sirs, the implicJrioll of rhe species' frequencies 10 <1daprivc changt' within rhe homioid niche renders rhe inferred ehronology of rhe deposits ami rhe Jlkg,cd
244
s.
Hominid Subsistcncc Ecologv and Lana Use
evidence for very early, fully modern man in the southern African setting strongJy suspecr, if not total1y obselete.
, What Have We Learned from Klasies? I suprasc rhe most important argumenr ro come from this research is thar rhcre do es seem ro have been a directional trend evidenced al Klasics Rivcr Mouth in the relative roles of scavenging versus hunting. Hunting seerns ro hcvc increased regularly rhrough the majar pan of the sequence at Cave 1 in its contribution to rhe dict of the hominids. This places the vicw of thc MSA in a dvnamic mode. For instancc, thc carlier studics of thc r..lSA noted that thcrc appcarcd ro be considerable interassemblage variability and even th.u rherc W:lS
What Han' \\'c Ll';HIlt'J from Klasrcs!
24,')
resources hy tranxporting sorne into prcrccrcd locations. Clt':lfly thc fond packages introduccd to Klnsies River Mouth were small. Ir is hard to irnagirte them us the baxis for regular food sharillg and thc provisioning of a camp in thc scusc charocteristic of modcrn mano At Klusics Rivrr Mouth , rhe horninids also fcd .tloug the l-cach. As in the case of n-rrestrial foods, they introduced small food units, secrniugly discrcte sbclls. into thc sitc. Pan uf the uneasiness tbnr mnrry of us han' felr when secing the typical pattem of a fuily modern rnan living in base camps far back inro thc Pleistoceno mar be partially relicvcd by thc suagcsuon rhat Klasics was a nighttime slecping site, and a middav water snurcc locution is implied by rhe scavenged parts frorn anirnals likcly to hove l-een killrd by nocturnal pn-dutors ucur ;1 water sourcc, Rcm.uns trom sClvellging mny appear dominan! in thc slccping sire simply bccausc thcy rcquircd proceseing-c-transport bcing not for provisioning a group but simply au accommodntion to thc localization of processing facilincv, tools. and prorcction. Ir appcars 10 me thar wc hnve the opportuniry ro COl11l' lo considerablv more interesnng conclusions abour assernblage vanability in the J\lSA rhan rhar it simply reprcscnts "cbanging fashions" (Volman 1981 :2S9). In rhe pas! rhere was 110 due ro dynamic rrends rhar Illi¡.,dlt lu\'e heen goillg on among lhr homillid popubtions immediatC!~' ancesrral ro the fully Illodern hUlllans rhm appcared in sOllthern AfrÍt.:J I1l..'ar lhe cnd of rhe J\,t5A. I rhink ir is de;:n rhar hUlltillg was increasing, al !casf in the southern Cape provincc. Many nf rhe changes in tcehnology rhar typify the MSA, such as the manl1fadure of bifacial and unifacial poinrs, as we11 as rhe appe~\rance of (frSlTI1l'i or b:lcked knives, herray some spccialil.:\Iilln in 1001 produLtioll anJ il1ll0V;lliotls in tool designo These 1lI11\t be reLlted lo ~(]Illl' lC)ol-lI'ie dClTlands. Ncw demands cm be exp~cted to be associJtcd \vith new behavioral trcllds ami shifts in ;Hbpri\'t' tactics. This plarcs Ihe SClllth African data squan:ly in rhe Jlliddlc of our resourecs rcgardin~ the tascínaring tr;1I1sition from Middle to Uppcr Pa1colirhic. considered in bl'havioral tcrms (sce Rinford 1982a; Me/hrs 1982; White 1982). AltlHllIgh some of liS h"ve IH.'ed major eontrasrs bcrwecn fhe archacology of rhe Midd1c Paleolithic. :lS it i') frrmed in Europe, and rhe Upper Paleolit!lic. 110ne of LIS ner considcrl'd th:lt onc Illajor hasis for some of the conrrasrs might be thal during the MidJIc blt.:olirhic hllllting pbyTd ~l IlHlch-rcduccd ro1c reLnivc to rhe adaptatiolls uf rhe Uppcr Pa1colithic In short, although Illllch atrcm;OIl has been placed on the prohlem of rhe tr;lllsitioll in rhe Northern HCl11isphnc marcri~lls, we never had ;lny ck~ll"-cllr trends rhat werc rhoughr ro pnn'idc rhe dynamic conrext in rerms of which evolution proeecded. I am eOllvinced rhar the Klasies &113 is supplying liS with just such a trend in rhe Soul!lnll Hemisphere. Perhaps rhe most surprising r('sulr of rhis analysis is rhe scclllingly
2<16
s.
Honunid Subsistencc Ecologv arul Land Use
importanr and consistenr role of scavenging among hominids who are, by all Pletstocene standards, very late indeed. What does this imply about adaptivc snarcgie-, characteristic of earhcr African hominids? 15 this a biascd view hy virtue of season al occupation at Klasics River Mourh? Docs rhe [ittle sectiou of temperare environrncnt at the sourhem end of Africa provide ~s with un imporrant control on argurucnts as ro the ecological pressures guiding hominid physicaJ and behavioral evolution as hominid popularions successfully radia red out of more tropical settings?
CHAPTER
6
Beyond Klasies River Mouth: Implications for Understanding Early Man
In rhe introducrion 1 pointed out how ideas rcgarding both rhe contexr of evolutionary changc and thc hisrory of hominid cvolutiou havc l-een phrased in sccnnrios of what was termed euouaionarv [unctionalísm. Most often these argumente were based neither on a knowlcdgc of the sequence of changes thar took place nor on any in-deprh undcrstanding of the evolutionary mcchanisms operatiog to bring abour changos. In rcccnt ycars. wc have bcgun to dcvclop a kind of chronology of changes. Wc know J grcat deal more ahour thc hislOry of hipcdalivm. ,Hui \\T nccd lo "peurl;l\e utuch h-ss about rhc actual lustory ()f ch.mgcs in brain sizc aud facial structurc within the hominid linc. Unfortunately, however, rhe thrust of much archceological research has not been in rhe direcrian of developing rcliable diagnostic methods for recognizing hchavioral charactcrisncs thnr rnnnv have rhought importan! in the conrext of changes leading ro OUT modern condition. I have commented catlier 011 the archaeologist's tendency ro build ruodels and then ro Jrguc thar rhc dora from thc pasr can l-e nccommodurcd to wluchcvcr
modcl the archacologist prcfcrs. Certainly with such :l methodology we will never [carn whar rhe past was likc. lnstead, we only leam how arcbucologists cnn invcnr accomrnodnting arguments or makc ;1 priori uvsutuptions ahout whut thc past was like. Wl'need, instcad, rcliabk- mctunds for dccoding rhe archacologica! record ro obtain an accuratc glimpse of thc past. 2<17
.1."wkR. - -4
('f
r
vh;>j
c..t.-¡,v.t...
2c/.8
(,
Bcynnd KJ,\~il:s Rivcr Mouth: Impllcunons ¡or Understanduu; Earl\' Man
Is Klasies River Mouth Uniquel Bvforc considering rhc implicanons of the Klosics srudy, I think ir is impnrtaur ro nddrcs-, the issuc of hovv general rhc rypcs of infercnccs drawn frorn thc Kl.rsics data might he. If Klasies River Mourh Cave 1 15 a totalJ~ unique sitc or rcprescnts J totally untque adapration. rhcn there are esseu'tially 111; implicatious l-chind the recognition of va riuhiliry in th c bchavior of near-modem man. Tlus is a poinr thar should he appreciarcd. bur certuinlv not one ro excite a greut dcal of discussion. On rhe orher hnnd. if the annlysis prescnred hcre has merir and if Klaxics is nor unique, bur indeed is informativc about more general belmviora! conditious at the time, there are ccrr.unly imponant implications for our cum-nt rhinking ahout earlv mun. Thc tacrics sunuuarizcd here, of scnvcnging couplcd wuh opportunisuc killing of smnll nnimals, were the basic carnivcuous tacties of .bommids hving at Klasic-, as-rrtTnt+y as somctime jusr before ]5,000 ro 40,UOO years :lgO. lhis is 1he rCl"iod (lf time contcmporary \Viril the 1vlo11_"!crian of Emope and the Nelr Ea~r. Ir is removed from rhe Jikways of thr hominid" of (he Plio~PIl'istoCl'llt.' bOllndary hr approximJtcly 1,50o,OOO-I,X()(l,OOO }"cars~ I have nm been describing the archal'oiogicai remains of sol11e "d:1W/l man,'· pr;)([icing
U"'II/illlll
O(fl'JI S('I'CH' úJl/lf¡liulls (,/IJ/i'
conft:rred led tu ~ti1t more rapiJ incrcasc (lf hrain po\\'er, whkh ,lJloweJ tor ~ur\"i\".lJ rhrllll¡.:h [he Oltl'l1 har"h (lHlJiriotls of rhe btl'f I'lei"toct'tlt', Fin;\11\' turrhcr Jt:vdoplnetlh in rhe \,1I1ll' din'ctiolls maje possihle rhe logic, J.¡11¡':L1a~e, ,11lJ culrtlre rhar t11'1rknl rhe elllngerllc of man ;lS WC kno\\" hil11 w!len cotldiriotl\ IWl":lI1\e milJer l1l rhe Nco!hnl1l,d pl'riod. rY"lIllg 14~1;215-2Ih; l'lIll'ha\i\ ,lddnl)
Thl' abo\'l' vlew 01 human evolmioll was symhesized after J rc(cnr meering, in ",hieh a Iarge 1ll1l11ber of seientisrs prcsetlted whar rhey considt'fed the lJlost ur-to-datl.' d:lLl ;md interprct;ltivl.' :lrgull1l'llts ;l\'~1Íbhle bcaring on rhe prohlclll of ho\\' Wl' Gllllt' to he. If rile ahoye vicw is ('ven dO'le ro bl.'ing aecur:w::, rhe sllh~i::.tt:nce behaviHr StIggesroo hcre Eor the occup:lnts of
Is Klnsics R¡ ver Mouth Uniquc!
249
Klasies River Mouth should have been extincr at least sincc the appcarance on the evolutionary stage of Hamo erectus, the "social hunter." Pcrhaps thc Klnsies Rivcr occupants were uniquc and represcnted only a local variuut (a conservative group like rhc early evolurionisrs considcred the Tasrnanians to havc been), or even a rhrowback to forms of bchavior rhar were more general at J much carhcr agc! 1 think au am-mpt ro dismiss rhc Klasies case ,1S al-normal can be denlr with in a varicty of ways. l'crhaps mosr ímport311l is rhe patterning~ Richard Klcin has noted as characreristic of other 1vlSA vires. Klein (1975b) has gencr.iibed that the lnrge-anima] "head and lowcr lcgs" patreru of anaromical-parr [requencics is churactcristic of early living sires, alrhough at the samc rime rhc slTIJII anintals are representcd by 1110re meat-yiclding parts, as at Klasies River Mouth. In spcnking of the important sirc of Border C.1VC, Klcin states: "with regard to the large oovids ... rhey are represenred almost rlltirc!y by parts of the skllll and feet; rheir limb bones and vertdlrac are very rare .... SlIids ami zebra are also characrerized by p-,ltterns oE body part rcpreselltation in which loot and skull bones predominare heavily" (Klein 1977b,24). Other important sourhern African sires exhibir analogoLls parteros (see Thackeray 1979). jlldging from rhe lireraturc, rhe pattern of head ~1I1d lower legs froll1 large animals and more complete an;Homical reprL"~cl1t,ltioll for rhe sl1laller animal s seems to he very general 'lt sites in southcrll Afril-aduring the !viSA, Th.e 3nalysis developed here is also surprisingiy cnnsistent wirh earlier analyses afldthe facts as they ·are increasingly Jppreciatt:d from the early hominid sites {lt Olduv:li Gor~e. Th(' hominid.. ;11 rhe Olduvai sirc'i wt'fe prohably ~cavcllgil1g the S:llllC rangc of anatomieal parts as indicated at Klasies Rj\"er l\louth Cave 1; the onl)' diHerence jo.; they \Vere proce5sing thcm "in c!le fieIJ"-thl' ll1idd'l)'-rcst loeation ne,1I" ;1 water somet'. Thc previous <1llalysis of che OIJuvai sitcs suggcsrcd tl1;I[ rherc was a strong component rl'cogni7"able ;h normal killsitc ;lSSl.'111hlagcs charJcteri')ric of nonhominid predator kills (see Binfard 19H1:273-2HH). lhe presence al a carnivore-killed bonc asscmblage i5 consisrcnt with Ihe midd'ly-resr 10e<1rions discussed here, Similarly, the Jnalysis that J carried out on rhe Oldu\'Zli sites indicared that therc W.1S a residual p.lftern of covarying bOlles, \\'hich wcre tClltativt:/y identified as relared to hominid behavior. The bonrs so idenrified wcre recognized as ba'>ical1y those rhat "yidd only bom:' marrow a~ ediblc materiJl" (BinforJ 19,1{ 1:29 J), ARain, this i~ pcrfectly cOl1sistenl \Virh rhe scavt'ngl'r pattl'fIlS identificd ,H Klasics River Mourh,
i, oI.~O-rr.- ~i cJe.J/ -fr' .M- 1<44L f1.Ld¡¡
6.
2.')0
Bcyond Klasu-s RivCI Mouth: Implícattons Ior Undcrstanding Early Man
Potts 1982; POtlS and Shipman 1981), which in rcrrns of the dcscripnons of spccies dynam¡cs around warcrholcs sbould be prcscnt in subst.uuial qnantirios, givcn thc bone-concentrating bchavior of hyoena around water sourccs (sce Binford 1983b:62-70). Finally, the obscrvation of a high trcQlIcncy of cut rnurks 011 rnetapodrals at Olduvai is complctely consisrcnr
wirh rhc partcrns dcscribed hcrc (see Lewin 1981).
Tbe 'Y'Qsistl'llqr VI
F
ftrOl)~lr
jO
h"turcep
tR@
Old'I"ai~~anJ-t~i+l-f,Q.r-FOOt-toR-·f".;¡.¡u.
frOH] the ..~¡Aar~@S'"~,c~,ttRKtúe-, I:iw.t....addi~
ti_11r ¡m!,""-'»,' .1"ng-te'll1"l'a'-!H)¡ ..,)', OOH.Wt:nLbd",..w.-llilk, K.J.asieS'·anQthe ..ve'¡:f sacienr past. Although the analysis of ancienr European nnd Asían faunas is complicatcd by thc role of camivorcs as contrihutors to thc populations of borres commonly atrriburvd to man (sce Binford 1981 for discussion oí rhis problem), there are sorne provocarivc patrcrns nonthclcss. For instance, the famous sitc of l.az.:trct is characrerized hy a hcad-nnd-lowcr-lcg pnttcrn for thc largl'- to lHoderate-sizc ungulates, \\fherea'i the most-common spccies at the sitl' is f;lhhit (ser De l.llmlcy 1969), Thc seashore setting of Klasies River Mourh dcmands 50m(' (OnIment relativc to the eady seaside site of Terra Amata, ncnr Nicc in Franee. Like Klasies River Mouth, it was 11tH the sea, anJ likc Kbsies there is some evidencc fur the use of aquatic resources. Derailed falll131 data are not available to me, yct it is certainly provoc<1rive to repeat De I.umlcy's comment 011 the fauna: Although tht' vi~ltors did not i~ll()rt~ sm,lll gamc such as L\hhns. and rodents. the l11;¡iorityof the bones rerreselU larger animak These are in ordrr of rhe abundance. th l' ~tag (CCT/'/{s c/ef'I¡,'-'I, thr L'xrincteleph,\llt (1-:/('{111,;5 mcridml'liis), rhe wild hoar (.\,,~ slr!!f"), lhe Ih~·x (,III1"llwx), Merk\ rhitlllsnos (f)/(('wllJiIllH /l/nJ.:i) ~lIlJ fin.111y!lw wild!Jx (llo5 llfimiXcl/llls). Alrhollgh rhe hUllters showed a prderence fUI big g:mw. ,lin' g¡'II!'I·"ily sefcc/cd as lnl'Y //01 fhe "dllfls blll fhe \'llIl/Ig n( e,¡d] Sf1c.-iI'.<. (Ik 1.llllIlvy IY6Y:49; l'll1l'h,l.,i~ addt:dl
One can only wondcr whar rhe rclative frequencies of anatomical parts across an individuJI sizc gradient would look likc. There are still further bcts that rcnder Europcan faunas consistent with many of the argumcnrs presented here, nf which the dispmed characteristics reponed from the Spanish sitL' of Cueva :Mnrin (see Altllll:l 1971:392; Binford 1983c; FreeIllall ll)lUJ provide a fmthn caSl' in point. rj¡ully, rhe d.Ha from Klasics Rivcr Mollth are not anomalolls relative lO ;¡ l1umber of generalizations char have bcel1 previollsly offered regarding !ong-term trenJs in faulIal utilizarion hy African hOl1linids. However, if one hdieves rhar t';uly lllan was an cfketive pn:dator, then the facts of the archaeologicll rt'cord mllst he accommodated in novel Jlld interesting ways. For instance, Garth Sampsol1, speaking of the Acheulian sitcs of somhern Africa, COlllmcnts as foIlO\\,s:
Is Klasics Rívcr Mouth Uniquc?
251
The evideuce suggests rilar large garue anim.rlx provided much 01 rhc Arheulian me.u vupp]v. Wht'rt',l~ rhe hones (JI the [csser game could he ohnuncd by sL".\Vcnging trom camivore kills. the presence of the verv large annnals (prccumed ro he hl·~·(ll\d the hunting rap.tbilitv uf cnrnivores) muse reñect orgaruzcd hlltllillg cnd prob.ibly tr;lppillg bj' 111<111, There i~ no evniencc tor rbe use nf pir tr.ll's iu Acheulian times. l-ur it hn-, been argncd (Clark 195'Jl that rhev musr have [u-rn Il"nl tu kili rhc Luger
animnls.
(S;lI11pSOll
1':174: 12S)
Sampson, in discussing the shifts in fauna] remains indirarcd hy comparing the larcr MSA sitcs with the Acheulian sitcs, sumrn.uizcs the siruation as follows: The ;l\,'lll.lblr fo~sil evidcncc [nim Adwuli.ln ..iet'S hinrsar ,1 l1l,nkl'd vclcctivc hias in hunnng activitics roward the larger .uumals.... The rOl;11 ;lhsl·IlCe of elephaur and rhe extreme scarcuv of rhmo and hippo from I'ietersburg .urd H'Ulllut.l sires mav evcn stlgge~r a shifr in bunnng goal.; in rhc Post Acheufian period. lndced, rhc range of auimnlv tnkeu ar this time would sug~esl a more random ..dl'crjon of ;:tn}' availahlc foodsruHs ;\IlJ ;1 more systemariJ.: exploit;ltion of di{ferelll minoh;\hirars sllrrolllldlllg thesc sites. (S<\mpson 1974:215-2Ifi)
Continlling his comparisons, Sampson furthcr notes incrC3ses in rhe frequencie5 of smaller and smaller species, commentillg that on the assumption that the hUl1tcrs took a random sample of rhe local game poplllation, "a dccrease in rhe numbcr of large spccics in the population woulJ, rherc:fore, be rdlectcd in the hUl1ter's sample" (Sampson 1974:246), Tr;'lc.:ing the trends in faun:t1 remains into still larer time, Sampson notes that in the Wilton illld Oakhurst complexes, "íntensive exploitatioll nf all local food reSOllrCl"'i including a wider range of small animals frol11 difft:rent niches" is indicltn!. IIe furthcr notc."": "Large game animal."i ;lf(.' l10t ahund;1llt at dI(: lisred ,ites" (Sampwn 1974:398). In Sampsoll's work Wl' 'lee the fascinating sitll;lrioll of his postulating traps and orher Jeviccs to accollnr for the assumcJ carly hunters' bias in favor of very large animal s, and then postulating environmelltal changc as the camc of carly man's secmingly increasing exploit.1tion of sn1i.lller and smaller species as we npproach the recent past. The pattern seems clear: rhe very early sites (iargely waterside 'lites) havc brge animal rcmains, and in the MSA we begin to pi(..·k IIp increasing Ilumbers of GlVe Occllp~ltions in which "Illal! SpL'ÓCS rend lo dominale, :lnd in the Klasics Jata the large spccics are rl'prl'sented hy bcad-and-Iower-Ieg-part profiles. finally, with the appC:lr.lncl· nf bchaviorally modlTll m3n, whom \Ve know to l1i.lvC heell hunting, moderatc- to small-bodr-size prey seem lo domin.ltc. The analysis of rhe Klasies data leads us to i!lEer very different me.ll1ings for the demollstrahlc pattern of decrcJsing hominid associatioll \vith Llrge animals, and increasing association nf more recent men with incrcasing numbers of 5mall- to modrrate-hody·size 'lnimals as descrihed by SampsoTl.
'l- &
252
6.
BL')'ond Klasics Rívcr Mourh: Implicauons for Undcrstanding Early Man
Vcry earlv man is probahly most commonly reprcscnrcd by his midday-resr sitcs or feeding locarions. where scavenging rook place. Only wirh rhe increasing numbcr of cave occupations in the M5A do we bcgin ro gct a gfimpsc of thc hominids" slccping locations. This shifr roughly corresponds ro an apparent initial incrcase in the taking of small- to modcrnte-body-sizc -prcy, as discussed hcre for Klasies River Mouth. Fiually, w.ith">behaviofall~' modet:ft.-iMn, sCaN,enslB-g,Nromes,.a,u¡eorubsisteflce,-tseztl(, whereas. hummg assumes more importance-and-is therefereretlected ie-more.modesate-bedysfre-'foNns.
Implications for Our Ideas of the Past lf wc accept Klasies as represenrarivc of art era, the implications of this srudy are several: (1) I have soughr tú develop a sct of methods for inference thar pennit rhe rccognition of hunring versus scavengiog taecicsj (2) 1 have diseussed th\? historical implications of the use of this !1aseent merhodology on the data from the sire of Klasies River !\.10mh; and (3) the inferellces drawn from the
HUN·IIl\:(.: Tllt- ({ISI-.
()J:
lNTEII]( ;ENt:E ANI)
O n tER
FOOIJ-RFLATI:JJ IDEAS ()F EV()LlITIONARY CAUSA'IION
I suggested in the introduction that a common idea Iinked the rise of brge~braincd hOl1linids to a shift lO:1 hunting subsistence strJ.tegy. This shift W:IS commonly eOllsidered to have heen forced on rhe hominids by rheir environmenrallr induccd cntrance into savanna-grassland settings. Huming ",as lhllllght ro bvor coopcrativc nulc hehavior and increased iotel· ligenee, In Vtry simple tcrms, a shift in food-getting strategy tO:1 pn.:uatory set nf radies fayorcd intc1ligellce and a changcd soóality. The ideas abollt sllbsistcnce straregy that I hílve attempted to warrenr as rc1evant ro t\ll' past are I1cithcr new l10r 110ve1. As I pointed Ollt in rhe introJuerory discl1ssiollS, the idea of scavenging WJ.S advanced almosr as early as there was kl10wledge about our early hominid ancestors. Perh:1ps rhe first ccologiGlllr informed suggesrions wete set forth by George Schaller,
~rra,,(kr
253
Hunring Rcconaidcrcd
who wax then dccply involved in rhc invcstigalioll of prcdntorx. Schallcr summcd up his suspicions nicely as follows: l.ikc all pr edatorv, homiruds prohJbly obtained rbeir !1le;11 in rhc ~'a~ic~t ro~~ihlc wav, l-v sLI\'l'llging ami hy killing the young nnd sick w'un r(J~siblc. bur pllrsuing healthy ,1l11I1lah. wht'ü uothing else wav available,. Thc sO\'l'nging and hunting
hominids pnm.ire herir.ige suggcsts th.n rbev were diurual. '
[:\In ccological
openiug cxj.srcd ter a social prcdaror rhnr hunted largc ammals .md scavenged during rile day, an opening rhar an earlv hunnnids mar wdl have hlled. (Slha/ler 1972,1:('X; with pernuvsion from N
i\rneriClt1 Muvcum of Narural Hivrory. 1972.,)
Alrbougb Schallcr W;1S very close te recogniziug rhc p.trticul.u subsistence role that carly hominids might have played in rhc African homcland, even he SCClllS ro have becn giving the early lrominids crcdir for r.iking matute largo gumc. This analysis suggcsts rhar this activitv appcars quite late in hominicl bchavior.il evolution. As in so many cases, I havc found rhe writings of J. Drvmond C1ark ro have an alrnosr uncanny, propbetic charcctcr. He has for m.ury years nnticipared thc rcscarch dircetions needed ro move our undersr.mding of early man away from purc Sptculatioll (see Clark 1965). In the .ue:1 of subsistence research he recently wrote: Sllldjl'~ 01 fllOJ W;l~rc on ~itl'S of proto-hominiJ ;I<.:tiviry "\Iggcq th:lt 1l111<.:h 1)1 ¡he llle;lt W,l" t\Jll~urneJ un rhe "li~ill¡': sitc~" W).' obt.lineJ by ~Clvcl1¡.:illg (Vrh;l 1Y7S). ¡';or the nrly hominids ro be able \0 ,,:olllpere su<.:cesstully wirh ..:arnivnre'i. ir j, pos,ibk d1.lt rhe particular ;¡J;¡ptive nidle Ihey o<.:cupinl \\:1" ,har 01 ··llliJdk·(Itrhe-J.lY SClvell~ers" (S<.:h,dler 1':1;2), (C1ark 19XO:4J)
Obviously, rhe idea of scavtnging playin~ an illlporram role in hominiJ subsistcnce and rhe exploiration of YOllll~ amI small ;11lil1l:l1s has bcell pre· viously LOllo.,idcl'cd, hu! gellcral1y il1 lhe (olltexl o( ¡l gradualist Vil·W of evolurion, in which these srr;ltegies were expected ro he trallsitional hetween a basiL: pLlIIt-h:lscd diet alld OIlC mOfe depeudcnt ttpon Iarge :lllil1l:11 predation. ~a~'" ,,¡lh (Mili Hlul~ ¡ti tR@F@@S§'Úti"Ulth;1twh<1l\vasrhoughtlO be a transitional srrategy, perhaps charactcristic of rhe e<:lrly hominids at the Plio-PleistoecllC: houndary, w~,the,-regtJkfr"Stra~e-g-)'.u-f.\group of hominids living perhaps as law.~~4tf;@O@'1ears ,a@tfJ. Cerrainly any argumcnts rh;)r would seek ro make hunting in the big-game sense of rhe word a majar molding force for ('xplaining ¡nereases in hrain sizc, or the Illorr horhysiolo· gieal sh<1ping of modern man are thadore suspect.
Hunting Reconsidered The trends documenred at Klasies are rrovocarive in a numher of \\'ays: (l) the sitt is in a temperate zone; (2) rcgardlcss of the controvcrsy over
214
ó
Bcvond Klasics Rívcr Mouth: Iruplicanons for Undcrsumding Early Man
daring, ir is certainly late in the Pleistocene; and (3) there 1S a dernonsrrable trcnd toward incrcased hunting and decreased scavcnging. This trcnd nppcars ro he coincide m wirh rhe appearance uf fully modern man in rhe hionnatornical sensc of rhe termo As in other places. rhe appcarancc of fullv modern man is coincident with rhc appeatance of irems of personal ornamentarían and other evidcnce of symbulic behavior. Most earlier argumcnts have tejed ro make hunrmg the behavioral context in which selecrion operared ro bring inro being our humanness-in rhe módem sense of the word. The Klasies data stands as a caution: ls ir possible thar hunting and all that it implies in terms of planning (ser Binford 19823) rnay well be a part of the emcrgencc of our humanncss in a modcrn vense? Meat eating and the cclecr¡c teeding on animals and animal products as cdible products encounrered in the habitar may well have been relarively early and JO importanr preconditioner for hunting as an organized strategv. Nevcrthelcss. omnivorous diet does not make DIle a predatory strategist. ]ust as relativo spccies' frequencies may mean sornerhing very different in rhe LSA than rhe same species frequencies do for the MSA, the presence of animal parts and produets in sites of early man may well indicare ver)' diffcrent forms of organized behavior than have yet been imagined for our anccstors.
Tools, Weapons, and Hunting Aids I havl' strc'ised lhe facrs rhar rhe bunal remains wue cOlIsistcnt wirh thc idl:;) tIJat JllilllJls bl:ing exploiteJ for thdr mear were smal.l; individuals whose hody size was less rhan 90 pounds (41 kg), wirh al1 average rhal appears lo h;lVC heen (oll'ioiderahly less. In addition, lhe individu;lls lahn \Vert.' thl' young of ungulares who Iargdy pracriced ,1 "hiJtr" ::.trJregy, or adulrs whu were solitary, territorial ereatures, most active nocturnally. This means rhar human color vision, operating in rhe Jaytime, was a disrinct advantagc, It loeated stationary, eamouflaged prey that may wcll have been simply ovcrpowered by a hominid killer. No t'vidence for "killing ar J disrancl'," as with spears or more complkateJ projectill'S, seems indicared, Silllilarly, olller clpluring l;lClics, sllch as rraps ami surrollnds. do Ilor sccrn (,:ollsisrent witll the sl'!l..'crive raking of isolated camouflaged prey. The idea rhar tools were invellted in rhe context of hunting seClllS unlikely. They wcre mosr likely invenred ro solve proccssing and procuremcnl rrohlcms, such :J.S rhe n:rnoval of a dried limb from a dcsiecated carcass. They l1lust he seen a~ rechnicll aides in overcorning problcms in feeding, and BOr as somc brcakrhrough making possihle new eharacteristie behaviors. To be sure, rhar happclled bler, but I strongly dnubr such roles for rhe earliesr tools.
Homc Bases nnd tbc Ahnnsnc Sharin¡.; Modcl ot Human Evolutinn
2SS
Home Bases and the Altruistic Sharing Model of Human Evolution In recent vears. certainly the dominanr model of carly hominid life has heen the heme-hase sharing modcl popularized by Glynn Isaac (l978a, b) and adoptcd in rnosr of rhc recent popularist lireraturc (R. Leakey 1981). ~'lII\al~.¡s' 01 the KlasiesRiveeMouth.d..~s"""g5ull{lO
j2?--O
I
257
Hornc Bases and thc Alrruistic Sharing Modcl of Human Evolurion 2Só
(,
Bcvond Klnsics Rivcr Mouth: Irnplicarions for Undcrstaoding Earlv Man
"-~-----;=~~6I,.Le"'~
SCAVEN4¡fl'S
CARJoIIVOAE
_
CARR.YIIII6?
_
,
~--CU""""NG BRUI(JN(;
/
~
r'
4,l-nED1No/
( 11. ~. """ (> ~
~ <0°'-'
HOf04INID CARAYIIVfi
Figure 6.1 sourcc.
•
~
,
Sc.AvtNCSEAS
COME
~t!:-~ dl:~1 1 'tV" ~ 7 ,
~
0._.'o
G?....0
._-.J J
.
C¡aw,,,,.
•
4,r
l
RE~OVE
/3oNfS
,¡P.,-",,~...._
...-.--.....:.h,,~ ~ He»·",,·no, ReHoll6
~
U'~FlJl,.
Sro .....!,s
(~ """ree 8ONU?)
.....
li.ooDS
Rcconstruction of hominíds proccssmg lowcr-Hrnb parts at a water
ri'lJN4S
~-
li,lhle as a justificarion for infercnce. This argumcnt also implicares a nurnbcr of otber rcscarch stratcgies and/or orgumentarivc tacncs curreutlv being cxplorcd by paleolithic archaeologists, For instnnce, Isaac (19H3b) has ad-
vocatcd a vicw of thc c;trly sitc-, as "clynamic rhrough-flo...... systcms"
(.~I'L'
Figure 6.2).
Although I certainly ucknowledgc rhat marry agents may contribute to or modity rhc associarionv generarcd hy hominids at points in their envirenIIlt'1Jt, this pcr:-.¡wdivc ncvcr COltll'S ro grip" wuh a has¡c rrohklll: Huw wc rccognizc a hase camp? Isaac sccms to considcr al! thc altcmativcs .15 argumente of rck-vaucc (Biuford 19lUa: 17S-1 h 1), in which sorne interpretatious llIighr hring iuto qucsrion thc applicuhilit y of thc homc-basc modcl ro
a particular site, bur they ncver actuully hnng inro question nor offer an altcrnative to thc borne-base behavioral modcl of organized hominid landUSl'. For instance, Isaac has recently sununarized what he considers to he multiplc working hyporheses regarding the inrcrprcratioll of demonstrabJe associations of SUH\e rools ;wd bOIlf'S. Hgure 6.3 summarizes these alterna[ive. The {irsr allel"Juti\'l', tfll' "hydr,udic jUlUble:' is certainly ;1 possibiliry and nHdd well be relevant ro sume sites. hur L'stablishing this wOllld nor I1rg;ltive!y imp;lCt rhe idea thar others wcre home h~15es if they could he showll nor ro be hydraulic jumbles. Similarly, his secolld argument, where J "common amenity" is assllllled ro account for t'vidence of hominid acrions and <.:arnivorcs, in no wa}' negares the idea of a horne base. The third alternarive, rile use of "c;ullivore acclllllulatiolls" hy hominids, is simply another form of rhe second alterna tive, in which once again rnJn could he using the place as a home base after carnivores had completed rheir J.C-
Ja-M- ro' ri
Figure 6.2
Clvnn Isaac's 119R3hl"dyoamic flow rhrough rnodcl" of site furmation.
tiviries. In similar fashion, the fifth alterna tive, "central-place furaging," argues thar if hominids positioned horne bases whcre fooJ opportunitics exieted, then tbis in no way precludcs rhe organized use of a homc base. 1\11 lsaac's "aln-rnativcs" appcnr as various cvcnt scqucnccs that couhl
3CCOUllt
eithcr Ior thc placcmcm of J home base or for thc associ.tuon bcrwccn heme-base activiries and the behavior of other animals. Thc implic.ttions of this study discnsscd tlms far could nll he challcnged by convindng demonstr ation that thc interpretutions oí thc Klasics Jata are inappropriate. Similarly, the irnplications about hunting, s<':Jvenging, and even alrernative forms of hominid behavior leading to associarions of srone tools and hominid·modified bOlles are subjecr ot debate, but ir scems to me the methodological implications of my discussion for Isaac's use of rhe home-h::lse modcl are not conringent upon the Klasies an;11ysis per se. Hcre we tace ~l logica! problcm of research t::lctics and :1 problelll of research srraregy. baac cites modern systems as his jllsrificarioll for bclievillg that funcrional associatlOlls between sronc toels Jlld bones mean home hasesthey generally do in modcrn systems. Given Isaac's justification, rhe citarion of the asso<.:Íation is considcred prima bcie evidrnce [hM rhe modern bomcbase form of the system ....'as respon5ible for rhe associ;ltiOll herween stone tool5 and animal bones ohservcd archaeologically. In spirc of Isaac's frequent appe:l! ro the method of "multiple working hyporhcses," he has no
..
~
:2
1
I...
••
e
= ~ ~
\j n~
~I
.!! \ e
.:
~
:1
~
~ E
e
;;
al
•
Cl
r
.~e
!
~ ••
'g. :o
."
~
u
."
U C')
VI
a• ~
~
11
•
e
.~l!
~
.f
~~
~.
al
u
."
iL
f
...:.
~t
." ~
~: -
e
al
U 11)
~
~
:¡;
~ ~
,
3
5 2
~
~
, =
"
;; E
.E o
E ,
-. e
GI
'0'0
tií el> .s
::ID. al
-
"''1.
:o ;; '", ,, .2
~
-g
...
GI e .. GI
GI ~
o
,r;.
>
'c ~
."
U
- .a... ~
.
'alc
.!:!
"5 ." ~
... :%: 'O
-
¡;
'O
e E E
o
lJ
C'I
~
~
~
'c ~
E
.~
et
o
259
premise is attemprcd. In short, the world of (he ancicnt post is accommo-
"
t=
ncbnvior
which thc conclusión is given by the prcmise. and no cvaluarion of thc
1Jfr~~
~ .~
QJ
Homimd
alteruative model rcgarding the way early rnau wns (lr~alliz('d adaptivclv. This mcans that lsaac's argurnent has rhe form of a logical t.uuologv in
~
::1
~.
u
~
An Altcrnarívc In rhc Central-Place Furaging Model r)/
.
e . g . •C;; g "-.-~l
"5 E
.
dared (O his hclicf about organiznriona! form hy virruc oí an intcrprctative convention. In thc devclopmenr of nrchaeological mcthods, it is the validity of che premises Irom which wc start that is crucial. If, as in the case of lsaac's approach, these prcmises are suspcct. then of CO(lfSI.: al! sratcrncnts reasoned frorn rhesc prcnnscs are suspect. I havc offered a set of possihlc hominid behaviots thar coukl yicld regular associarions betwcen stone tools and animal boncv, yct nor imply sharing, homc bases. and m forth. I havc raised rhc spcctcr of .unbiguuy over rhe interpretative convcntions commonly in use, At this point wc nced to explore the possihiliry that still Iurther ambiguitv mny surround rhe facts in disputc-assoeiations of srone too!s and animal boncs-c-hut at thc same rime scek ways to reduce the arnbiguity and therefore pmvide diagnostic criteria for rccognizing onc possible condition from .morhcr. As Gould has 50
cogeruly said: it ~l1~gt'~t~.I false conccpr of how sci<'nce develor«. In this view, nnv ccicncc begill' in the norhiugness of ignoran ce and moves toward truth hy ¡..:.Hhnillg more nud more iufonnntion. cousrructing rbeorics as fans nccumul.rtc. In s\l~·h a world, dcbunking would be primanlv ncgarive. tor it would un!y vluu-k sorne rottcu npplcv from rhc barre' of accurnulating krlowledge. But rhe harre! ot rheorv j, ,llw::1l's fl1ll: scÍl:nces work with el.lborarcJ Lontext\ for explaming (,¡Ch from the very OJ1set. CrealiOlli\t\ biolngy was dead wrunr, ahout tht: origin n( ·~Ill'cit:s, hut Cl1\'ier'~ hr.md of CH\ltionislll W.l~ Ilot ;ln emptit'r or less devclorúl worlJ vjew tlPII Ibr· win\. ~ti('II11· ;ldvanl"cs prirll.lrily hy repbl"ctllt'llI, \lot hy addilioll. 1I !Ile harn:1 is always full, tiJell the rotten ;lrr1es must he d¡'C,HJcd bdm(' hcnn om's can be addeJ. ((;o\lld 19H1:.121-322)
In rccognition that it is (lnly thrnugh the rccogniriotl of alrerll:ltives that we even begin to suspcct what may be a roBrn app1e, I hJVL' attempred ro rhink through an alternarive model of hominid tand-use, which rhen may providr the compararive framcwork for coming ro a ju<.!gmcnt as ro whcther one should replace another in rhe already full barre! of Hu.·thod bcing used daily in rhe interprctation of early mano
'O:%:
e
."
...
.a
An Alternative to the Central-Place Foraging Model of Hominid Behavior Advocare5 of the sharing hypothesis univcrsally ll1ake rhe assumrtion rhat rhe motive for transporting items. particul:uly porential foods, is in
Iek). - ~_
,hcL~
~_"<.- f714pu~,r~tf
tUI¡¡f - eu~2(,()
(J.
Bcvond Klnsics Rivcr Mouth: Imphcnuons íur Undcrstnuding EarJy Mm
order tu sharc wirh otlu-rs. In fact, rhis assumption lc.rds Glynn Isaac und his co-workers ro act as j( rhe heme-hase intcrpretation beco mes self-cvidcnt once nn association of srone rools and animal nones is demonstrarcd. It onljsecrncd pbu~ihlc ro imagine rhe transpon of food bv rhe ñndcrs ro the pl.h.L whcre othcr consumers could shnrc in the finders good fortunc. The im~Iication uf the analysis .irgued for thc Klasics data is rhar transport was more
likcly in tertns uf proccssing motives. Irems rcquiring processiog were
collected opportunisrically in the context of regular tecding at placcs of procuremem. We mighr cvcn imagine th.ir the collection of ítcms rcquinng proccssing would only occur whcn foods 110! requiring proccssing were unavailahlc. If truc, thc rransport of ircms rcqniring proccssmg mJY wcll hClray typcs of food stress that could vary scoson.dlv. In an)' evcnr, once collecrcd, a potentia] food requiring processing wouid he c.irried to thc pbce whlTL' thc pro(cssing could bc rc~ldily pcrformcd. In the case of the ;mim::t1 p.lrts rem;lilling at sitcs of ravaged cart'Jsses, at least Olle processing prerequisitc would he us.1ble hal1l111erS and rrohahly il!!Yi!.;;. Another Jid to proces,<,ing migllt be \\'Jtcr, in which te> soak badly desiceated encasing skin so that clltting tools (ould he used for cxposing the hOlles prior ro breakmg them open for marro\\'. 1'ht' consumptiol1 of n~Hurally dried rissue adhering tu Jlre~ldy rav'lged bOlles could bc facilit;lted by bavjng effcctive scrapt'r-cutting rools far detaching the stringy monds. or \\'ater in which the dry meat could be both washed and recoJlstitutcd _~o that rcmnants (ould be more readily remm"ed. If water was the first major tL't!ler ro hominid movement, fire was almost ceruinly the second and pcrhaps more important tctIK'r. After thc lIse of fire, m:lny othl'r pr()ce'i'i¡n~ optiolls oprl1l'd !lp. 1.. lti ¡,,¡.tAl hwhnuluw~J rol.:, f...·~-~Jil,..:Jl'.·"""'~.. '>-."'mrc.,¡'_.rJa<;o~ • .,.¡, lO-flF...ide w"éWFFJtn; It provjded ·hght ami--h"a-t, ami tt'lolded "·tl)- djse(}lH"a~t· nocturnal rrl'dators snch as the Ieopard
/fro..xs"f (~ I''e~yf¡.M
,Id. ~
r1/...t)¡'U,Yd.",¿
Ieik -~.
i>,~
J\1l Altcmutivc {U thc Ccntral-I'l.«c for.lgin.c; Mude! nf Hnmnud Ikh,IVi
2(,/
poned as coru.uncd llnits--th3t is, in which the skin. .itrcr htHcherillg, sull íunctioncd as au enclosing natural container. Cooking in its own sk in SCT\'cd to preserve thc juices inhercnr in frcsh rucar. Thus. witbout manulucturcd containers, [iumans found containers in rhc form of snull anil1uls thar could be cookcd complete (vce descripricns of cooking rhis wny in Australia in Binford 19X Jb: 16S-169), or parrs could be burchcrcd from Ltrgc animnls rhat prcscrved thiv natural container of skin. The rc.tr kg, hcnd. .111d ncck wcre the mosr obvious units rhat could he cut off, srill I~aving most of rhe mear encnsed in skin. It is 11l)' guess thac it is in thc conrcxr of consuming food proccsscd by cooking thar regular sharing bcgau av a couunnu homiuid social rrait. 1'he prcscncc of a water sourcc in whar \L\S JllOS! likely prun.u-ily a sleeping arca at Klusies Rivcr Mouth lTlar wcll at.:cOl1ll! Ior r\1l' high frequL'n(y of scavcnged ,mimal parts as \\'e1l ~lS parts retllttlcd for cooking. Other sleeping sires, not h;]ving :1vailabk \vater. /llay wdl have a different :1S~ semblage of inrroduced anatomical parts, v:lTying wirh the types of prot.:essing rhat (ould be c.uried out at the sire. Once the assumrtiOll of transport foc shJring is challt'rlged. we can readily rtTognize thar if it is Jccepted as plausible that tLlIl'iport COl/Id he in tenns nf other goals or motives. then the methodologic.11 ch:dlcnge is ro reduce the potential
262
6.
Bcvnnd Klcstcs Rívcr Mouth: Implicarions fur Undcrstnnding Early Man
caves and shelters at Klusies River Mouth is rhat, once the hominids began using this locanon, they used it tenaciously, until the sheltered areas were actuall y fillcd up wirh rhe dcbris from their prior use so that the place was no longcr usahlc as a shelrered location. Cerrainly, throughour rhe period of use resulring in the accumulanon at Cave 1, there does not appear ro I13\"e bccu any change in the way rhe place was used. A Iand-use pattern characrcrized as l'l1trellched and routed mighr be an appropriare way of imagining the mobility dynamics standing behind such an unvarying and tenacious use of spccific plcces. One can imagine a system in which rhcre are cerrain stationary and relarively stable features of thc environment that are of critica] impcrtance ro a hominid group: (1) n water sourcc rhar IS ;1150 an ccologically importanr place to other species; (2) a prorected sleeping place, such as a cave or rocksheltcr, generally away fram rhe normal routes taken by nocturnal pred.itors: and (3) a lithic source of raw maeerials for tools, or items usable direcrly. Berv.. -een these places would be zones, or gener alized settings, where a hommid could cxpecr to find or encounter a variety of foods. The horninicl can then be thought of as feeding among rhe places where there is appropriate slecpmg space, safe drinking, or sources of rnarerials for tools. and so forth. Sorne environrncnts would offcr diffcring dcgrccs of pcinr specificity tu the places cntical ro a horninid's success, In settings where water sources werc plcnriful, though quite diffuse, rheir distribution mighr have had little influence on the routing uf the hominids through rheir habirat. In other setrings, however, the scarciry of water sources mighr have made them critical places, relative to wluch horninids were routed in their movernents ovcr exrrcnn-lv 1()1l~ rniods of rime. Thc ruutcd aspcct of thc systcru, ;IS suggcstcd hcrc, is in recognition that we can imagine a time when hominids did not mJke shelters, and hence wOLlld nor ha ve bt't.'1l ahk ro t'nSllft' aut'qllart' shcltt'r at the salllt' place wherc adcqllate warer might he IOGltcJ. Similarly, they may nor luve had longtcrm planning standing bchind their procuremcllt of raw materials, which among Illodcrn men makes rossible the continllous, coincident, and coterlllillllS distriburion of rools and tasks. Silllilarly, the relationships Jmong the hasir llenls (lf 1ik spare, protl'l.:tcd skeping arcas, restillg ~1reas, food, ;\nJ water cm ht' thollght of as neccssarily rollting the movelllent of the homillid.. ;1111011,1-: rhe . . po!S whne their hasil.: nccds l"Oldd he flllfilled /ly virtlle of rht' pJrtiollar spatial srrucrure within thl'ir t'llvirolllllem. lE tbese spatial1y diHt'rcnti~1ted places did in fact provide diffcrt'nt, critiGllly important mater' . lls and conditions for rhe hominids, rhell the mUlII1R of tht' hominids among these plan's would he cntrcnc!Jcd, HOlllinids \\"ollld IllOVC among the places in
2tíJ
An Altemanvc eo rbc Central-Place Poruging Model of Hominid Bchnvior
ÓPlEc...... I--U6E. Loe....T lo>-J:>
•
(JI
e ...... ,c:.
FEEDI".,H"::il
MAC,NE-T
L..IF"E.
LOCATIOt-.J.
PLACE:
6 ...-..cE:.
Figure 6.4 Routcd fccdmg l.md-usc rundel for car! y horuiuíd snc production. The degree of entrcnchmenr may also vary depcnding upon the [requency of placcs in borne ranges offering roughly cquivalcnr resources or conditions. Fllvironl1lclltal v.ui.ibility wonld dircctly condition diffcn-nt homc-rangc s¡zes ¡lIlJ minor Jiffcrcnces in the regularity with which p1aces would he used. Ir would dircedy condition the combinarions of Jife functinns anJ activiries tbar wOllld /lt' Guried out at ;lny onl' place. Alrhollgh the: moJel ;lcknowlcdges thar environment;l1 variahility can condition very different realizcd patterns of land use, the pattern in any given <.'l1v«1.6l1I1Cl1tal setting would be expected ro be relatively unvarying and tenacious, disruption of tbe r~llrcrn of use bein~ mosr ~en('r;llly a fl'SPOllS<" ro chanp;es in the t'llvironmcnt. The rcslllt of sllch a rnured and cntrcnched a<.bptation is a very ter· r¡torial pattcfIl of bnd ust'. Hominids ......ould m:cupy the sallle hasic range with the same eore area, and thejr movements would be rOlltt'd among the same critically important places. Gnly changcs in th,,' environment or technologieal chan~t's perlllitting them to COllsrnKr rhcir life space in rheir own interesf \\'ould Illodify rhe repetitive, ~llmost roboril: use nf spacc. 1 have modeled this. typt' of system in Figure 6.4, in which the point-specifie plaees providing critical1y important marerials or resources are indica red as speda/-use /ocati()l1S (magoet places), and the basic life space ¡s the range
264
6.
Bcyond Klasíes River Mouth: Implications for Understanding Earlv Man
within which more diffuse resources, partícularly foods, may be cncountered as the hominid moves arnong the spccial-usc [ocations. The sitcs are not places where hominids are constructing or modifying the environment in service oí their vital needs, but instead are the point-specific locations in the local habitar where critically important resources or Iife conditions are available in nature. Because of the crirical importance of these conditions, the use of such locations is regular, repetirive, and frequent. If the creature using these locations is capable borh physically and rnotivationally of carrying rhmgs, then we can expect there to be an incrcasing concenrrution of transported items ar such locations as a function of the regularity with whicb such places are used. Sires, under the condirions of this mode! of land use, are not "central placea," positioned so the hominid group may operare our inro the environment in terms of mohility and labor concerns; rhey are insread focal points in thc environments of the hominids. In one very real sense, we can think of cultural evolution as generating a pattern of unrelenting intcnsificanon of facilities basic to horninid funcrions in increasingly complex corerminus arrangements. The abilities to construct shelters and to use fire made it possible for man ro localize his sleeping activities adjacent ro other critically important materials, such as water or food. With such intensification of functions, hominids beca me less routed among the placcs where nature had placed rhe elements basic ro lite functions. With the technological means now to construct features te meet vital needs, hominids could increasingly position their activities with respect te labor requirernenr, Positioning encouraged the provisioning of central places through the accumulation of materials from the environment rather than the simple placing of life funcrions passively within the habitar, A major point is thar the construction of increasingly portable lifespace perrnitted greater mobility in hominid adaptarions. This mobility permitted positioning strategies commonly associated with a central-place foraging strategy. The implication of portable lite-space in a more general sense is that it permits more flexible and timely responses to ecological pedodicities in both the production and distribution of foods upon which hominids dependo This type of ecological responsiveness is not easily argued for the early time ranges. Economical1y responsivc, goal·directed behavior may well be unique to modero cultural mano Reading this behavior into the behavior standing behind the archaeological sites of ancient hominids couId be a serious error.
Sorne Final Thoughts I have emphasized the mobility tactics of a central-place foraging strategy, and suggested thar it was the gradual obviating of certain environmen-
Sorne Final Thoughts
265
tal limitations on organized behavior that made possible rhe home-base pattern that we see in modero mano 1 am of the opinión thar intelligence was a prerequisite to the technological solution to adaptive problerns. The hominid had to recognize the problem, and then experiment with his knowledge to invent a solution. The selection for intelligence generally had to precede the use of the intelligence in complex problern-solving. Thus, 1 am suggesring that technological innovations and tool use were generally dependent upon high intelligence levels, and were therefore not the fundamental behavioral contexts in which selection for intelligence occurred. The argumenes for selection of large brains and marked intelligence must precede, in general, rhe growrh of technological aids in adaptation, The technical aids did, however, reduce the environmental Iirnirarion on forros of organized behavior, and many of the changes in such behavior that marked the history of the hominids afrer the appearance of tools will be understandable in terms of technologically modified relationships between the species and its environment, altering considerably the overall ecological role that hominids played in their environments and, in turn, the kinds and magnitude of selective pressures affecting them. As was pointed out in the introduction, the consensus view organized against the aggressive-bunter model of early roan was thar of man as a "transitional" scavenger and opportunistic eater of baby pigs and birds' eggs. The transitional model was thought to apply ro rhe human ancestor living at the Plic--Pleistocene boundary. 1 have suggested that the discovery of the Zinjanthropus floor forced a reappraisal. The floor was littered with the bones oí large animals. The Plio-Pleistocene ancesror clearly seemed to have been taking large game. The inference that man was rhe predatory agent responsible for the bones found in association wirh his earliest rools forced the conclusion that our intelligence and our "humanness" had ro have appeared prior ro the time of the Olduvai levels. This was considered a glven. Ever since the dust settled down on the Olduvai excavations, the trend has been to push the processes of humanization further and further into the past. Going hand in hand with this trend has been an awakened understanding of the possible role of sexual selection, and a heretofore unsuspecred role for social behavior in natural selection. Interesting mode1s of evolutionary transformation have been constructed to accornmodate a historical pattero that assumed a hunting strategy, with animal parts transponed ro a central place, presumably for the purpose of sharing with others. Delightful exampIes of this type of model building are Helen Fisher's fascinating book, The Sex Contraet (1983), and rhe "gathering model" of Nancy Tanner (1981). As more such models are built, the archaeologist working essentially with· out any intellectually independent methodology for inference will most cer· tainly accommodate his findings to the beliefs of his choice. I have presented
266
'/
¡.
6. Beyond Klasies Rivcr Mouth: lmplícations for Understandmg Early Man
a methodological approach rhat leads us to conclude that (he sites thar were taken as self-evidenr tesrirnony to hunting, horne bases, and transport for sharing, no longer appear so self-evident in their meanings. In íacr, most oí the Olduvai sites now appear to represent midday-resr locations where scavenged morsels were carried by hominids for processing and the recovery ~~"~ 01 only marginal food tidbirs, The tiny units 01 food indicated hardly qualify as a realistic package to be shared with others in the sense that huming models of sharing generally assume. The picture ar Klasies River Mouth of a hominid living very clase to rhe í era oí behaviorally modern rnan, but behaving in a manner thar does nor appear to be vastly different from the behavior of hominids living 00 the Plio-Pleistocene boundary, is surprising. If nothing else, it brings inro question rhe timing within current evolutionary models designed ro accounr for our humanity. As more researeh is designed and carried out to learn about [he past, we may find thar modifications in OUT evolutionary models wil1 also be in arder. The use oí experience ro evaluate OUT ideas is the basie program of science. Archaeology must, through rhe development of robust inferential methods, make it pcssible for the past tú "talk back" tú our ideas regarding its character. Only when the past can be given a voice to argue with our ideas of its character will we truly begin tú unravel rhe fascinaring processes oí our awn becorning.
References
Adam, K. 1951 Altuna,
Der Waldelefant van Lehringen, eine jagdbeute des diluvialen Menschen. Quartiir 5:75-92.
J.
1971
los mamíferos del yacimiento prehistórico de Mario (Santander). In Cueva Morin; Excavaciones 1966-1968, edited by J. G. Echegaray. and L. G. Freemano Publicaciones del patronato de las cuevas prehistóricas del la provincia de Santander. Pp. 369-400.
Ayeni, j. S. O. 1975 Utilieation 01 warerhcles in Tsavo National Park (easr). East African Wildlife Joumal 13:305-323. Bartholomew, G. A., and J. B. Birdsell 1953 Ecology and rhe protohominids. American Anthrop%gist 55(4):481-496. Beaumonr, P. B. 1980 On rhe age of Border Cave hominids 1-5 Paleontología Africana 23:21-33. Beaumont, P. B., and j. C. Vogel 1972 On a new radiocarbon chronology for Africa sourh of rhe equator. African Studies 31:65-80,155-182. Beaumonr, P. B., H. R. de Villiers, and j. C. Vogel 1978 Modern man in sub-Saharan Africa prior ro 49,000 years EI.r.: A review and evaluation with particular reference to Border Cave. South African [oumaí af Science 74:409-419. Behrensmeyer, A. K., and D. E. Dechanr Boaz. 1980 The recent bones of Amboseli Narional Park, Kenya, in relation ro Easr Alrican Paleoecclogy. In Fossils in the making: vertebrase taphonomy and paleoecoíogy. edited by A. K. Behrensmeyer and A. P. Hill. Chicago & London.Umversiey of Chicago Press. Pp. 72-93.
267
.~
151' 7
268
~ e l¿ "
i
References
Benram, B. Pride of lions. New York-Scnbner. 1978 Binford, L R. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-125. 1962 An analysis of cremations from three Michigan sues. Wiswnsin Archeologist
r.~:" (tj5~ (J(1.1 )
1963
44,98-110.
1968
Archaeologicalrheory and merhod. In New perspeaíues in archaeology, edired by S. R. Binford and L R. Binford. Chicago:Aldine. Pp. 1-3.
1977.1
General imroduction. In For theory building in archaeology, edíted by L R. Binford. New York:Academic Press. Pp. 1-10. Olorgesarlie deserves more than the usual book review. journaJ of An1977b thropological Researcb 33(4):493-502. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York.Academíc Press. 1978 Review of "Remdeer: and Caribou Hunters" by A. E. Spiess. American An1980.1 thropologist 82(3);628-631. 1980b Willow smoke and dcg's tails: hcnter-cgaeherer senlemem svstems and archaeological sire formarion. American Antiquity 45(1):1-17. Bones.ancient men and modern myths. New York:Academic Press. 1981 Comments on R. White's 'Middle/Upper paleolithíc rransmon.' CUrren! An· 1982.1 thropoJogy 23(2):177-181. 1982b The ArchaeoIogy of place.journa/ of AnthropoJogical Archaeology 1( 1):5-31. 1983.1 Working at archaeology. New York:Academic Press. 1983b In pursuit of the pasto London.Thames & Hudson. ,.,'~~ 1983c Reply ro L Preemen. Current Anthropology 24(3):372-376. 1984 Bones of conrennon-.-a reply to Clynn Isaac, American Antiquity 49(1). ln press. Binford, L R., and J. Bertram 1977 Bone frequencies and attritional processes. In For theory building in arcbaeology, edited by L. R. Binford. New York:Academic Press. Pp. 77-153. Binford, L. R., and J. F. O'Connell In press An Alyawara day: che stone quarry. journa/ of Anthropological Anhaeology. Binford L R., and L. Todd 1982 00 .lrguments for the 'butchering' of giant Celadas. CUrrent AnthropoJogy
1''53j~ 1c-¡.-..i k (r-JfM ti&!
2311),108-110. Bonifay, M. F. 1969 Les grands mammiferes découverts sur le sol de la cabane Ach¿uleenne du Lazaret. lo Une cabane Acheu/éenne dans la grotte du Lazaret (Nía). edited by H. De Lumley. Mémoires de la société préhistorique Fran{aise, Tome 7. Paris:C.N.R.S. Pp. 59 Bordes, F. 1961 Mousteriao cultures in funce. Sciena 134(3482):803-810. Brain, C. K. 1969 Faunal remains from rhe Wilton large rock shelter. In Re-excalJation and dt· scription of the Wifton type-site, Albany distria, Eastern Cape by J. Deacon. M. A. thesis, University of Cape Town. 1974 Sorne 5uggested procedures in the analysis of bone accumulations (rom South· em African Quaternary sites. Annals ofthe Transvaal Museum 29:1-5. 1981 The hunters or the hunted? an introduction to African cave taphonomy. Chi· cago/london:Universiry of Chicago Press.
References
269
Bunn, H.
1981
Archaeclogiccl evidence for mear-eanng- by Pho-Pleurocene hcnuruds from Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291:574-577. 1982 Animal bones and archaeclogical lnference. Science 215:494-495. Bunn, H., J. W. K. Harris, G. Isaac, A. Kaufulu, E. Kroll, K. Schick, N. Toril, and A. K. Behrensmeyer 1980 FxJ50: An Early Pleistocene síre in Northem Kenya. Wnrtd Ar~h
1/)"1,1.32
12(2P09-136. Buczer, K. W.
1973 1978
Geology of Nelson Bay Cave, Robberg, South Africa. South African ArchaeologicaJ BuiJetin 28:97-110. Sediment srrangraphy of the Middle Stone Age seqcence at Klasies River Mouth, Tsitsikama Coast, Soutb Africa. South African ArchaeoJogica/ Buiietm
33,141-151. 1979 1982
Commenr on "Irnphcanons of Border Cave skeleral remains for larer Pleiseocene human evoluríon." Current Anthropo{ogy 20:28. Oeomorpbologv and sediment strarigraphy, In The Middle Stcne Age <.It
K/asies Rjver Mouth in South Africa, R. Smger and J. Wymer. Chícago and London, The Uníversiry of Chícego Press. Pp. 33-42. Butzer, K. W., P. B, 8eaumont, and J. C. Vogel 1978 Lirhosrearigraphy of Border Cave, KwaZulu, Sourh Africa: a Middle Srone Age sequence beginning ca. 195,000 B.P. journal of Archaeological Science
D17-341. Butzer, K. W., and D. M. Helgren 1972 Late Cenozoic evolution of rhe Cape coast berween Knysna and Cape Sto Francis, Sourh Africa. Quartenrary Research 2:143-169. Campbell, B. C. 1966 Human Evolution. Chicago/New York:Aldine-Athertoo Press. Chaplin, R. E. 1971 The study of <.Inimal bones (rom archaeological sites. New York/Lendon:Seminilr Press. Clark, J. D. The prehistory of Southern Africa. London:Pelican. 1959 Pleisrocene culture and living sites. In The origin of man-a symposium spon1965 sored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, lnL edittd by P. L DeVore. Chicago:OistributrJ tnrough Current Anthropology. Pp. 108-123. 1980 Early human occupation of African Savanna Environments. In Human ecology in savanna environments. edited by D. R. Harris. London, New York:Academic Press. Pp. 41-71. Dart, R. 1949 The predatory implemental technique of Australopithecus. American Journal of Physical AnthrQPology 7(1): 1-39. Darwin, C. 1839 The VO'Y4g~ of the Beagle. Carden City, New York:Doubleday/Anchor edition, 1962. Day, J., W. R. Siegfried, G. N. Louw, and M. L. Jarman (editors) 1979 Fynbos ecology: a pre1iminary synthesis. Pretoria. South Afrícan National Sáentific Programmes Report No. 40.
/,,1
(JI¡Ji)
Rcferences
270
References
Deacon, H., and J. Deacon 1980 The hafrmg, funetion and dtsrribution of small convex scrapers with JO exampie frorn Boomplaas Cave. South African Archaeological Bulletin 35(13 1): 31-37. 1981 Sorne novel news on Neanderthals. Tbe South African Archaeo{ogica[ Society Newsletter 4(2):6-8. De Lumley, H. 1969 A Paleohrhic camp ar Nice. Scientific American 220(5):42-50. 1975 Cultural evolution in Prance in its paleoecological serring during the Middle
1975b
1976
Pleisrocene. In After tbe Austra[opitb8Cines. edíred by K. W. Butzerand G. LI.
1977
Isaac. The Hague, Paris, & Chicago.Mouton Publishers. Pp. 745-808.
De Lumley, H. (editor) 1969 Une cabane Acbeutéenne dans la grotre du Lazares (Nice) Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Prancaise, Torne 7. París: CN.R.S. De lumley, H., and Y. Boone 1976 les srructures d'habitar au Paléolirbique inférieur. In La prehistorire [rancaise, edited by H. de Lumley. Paris:Édírions CN.R.S. Pp. 625-643. Etkin, W. Social behavior and rhe evolunon of man's mental faculnes. The American 1954 Naturalist 88(840):129-142. Fisher, H. E. 1983 The sex contracto New York:Morrow/Quill. Preeman, L G. More on the Mccstenam flaked bone from Cueva Morin. Current Anthropo/· 1983 ogy 24(3):,~66-372. Gould, S. J. 1981 The mismeasure of mano New York & London:Norton. Guilday, J. E., P. Par-malee, and D. Tanner 1962 Aborigínal butchering techniques at the Eschelman site (36 LA 12) l.ancasrer Counry. Pennsy/vania Archae%gist 32:59-83. Hayden. B. Pa/aeolithic reflections. New Jersey:U.5.A. Humanitíes Press. 1979 Haynes. G. Utilizaríon and skeletal dlsrurbances of Nonh American prey carcasses. Arcti, 1982 35(2),266-281. Frequencíes of spíral and green bone fracrures on ungulare Iimb bones in 1983 modern surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48(1): 102-114.
HiII, A. P. 1975 1979
Taphonomy of contemporary and Late Cenez:oic East African vertebrates. Unpublished Ph.D. díssertarion, Universlty of london. Burchery and natural disanícularion: an invesrigatory technique. American Antiquity 44(4):739-744. and the Edítors of Time-Life Books Early mano New York:Time-Lífe Books.
Howell, F. c., 1965 lnskeep, R. R. 197!'1 The Peopling of Southern Africa. Caperown: D:lviJ Philip.
t.Jj} 1~iJ'tt;"i~1 LL ~5{' / I 1975.
.
The diet of early man: aspects of archaeologícal evidence from l.ower and Míddle Pleistocene sites in Africa. World Archae%gy 2:278-29!'1. Early hominids in action: a commentary on the contribution of archaeology to
1978a
271 understanding rbe fossil record in East Africa. Yearbook of Physica{ Anthropology 19, edited by J. Buetmer-Janusch. Pp. 178-191. Early stone tools-an adaptive threshold? In Prob/ems in economía and social archaeology, edired by f. de G. Sieveking,1. H. Longworth, and K. E. Wilson. London.Duckworth. Pp. 39-47. Stages of cultural elabcration in the Pleistocene. possible archaeologícal indio canoas of rhe development of language capabílníes. In Origins and evoJution of/anguage and speech, edíted by s. R. Hamad, H. D. Srekhs.and J. Lancasrer. Annals oí the New York Academy oí Sciences 280:275-288. Olorgesat/ie: archaeologica/ studies of a Middle Pleistocene lake basín in Kenya. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press. The food-sharing behavior of protohuman hominids. .~cienrific Americ:an
238(4),90-106. Food sharíng and human evolution: archaeological evidence Irom tbe PhoPleistocene of East Afríca. ]ournal of Anthropological Research 34(3): 311-325. 1983a Review of "Bones: Ancient men and modern myths." American Antiquity 48(2),416-419. 1983b Bones in conrention: competíng explanarions for rhe iuxraposinon of Early Pleisrocene artifacts and faunal rernains. In Animals and arc:haeology: Hunters and their prey. edieed by J. Ciutton-Brock and C Grigson. Oxford.Brinsh Archaeologícal Reporta 163: 1-19. Isaac. G. and D. Crader 1981 To whar extent were early hominide carnivorous? An archaeological perspective. In Omnioorous primates; Gathering and hunting in human eootution. edited by R. S. O. Harding and G. Teleki. New York:Columbía Umversiry Press. Pp. 37-103. jarvis, J. U. M. 1972 Zoogeography. In Fynbos ecology: a preliminary synrhesis. edíted by J. Day et al. Pretoria: 50mh African national scientifie programmes report No. 40. Pp. 82-87. Jelinek, A. J. 1982 The Tabun Cave and Paleolithic man in the Levant. Science 216{4553): 1369-1375. Kehoe, T. F. 1967 The Boarding School Bison Drive site. Plains Anthrop%gisr Memoir No. 4. Kingdon, J. 1982 East Afric¡1n mamma/s (Vol. UI, Part e [BovidsJ). London-New York:Academic Press. Klein, R. G. Problc:ms in the study of the Middle Stone Age of South Africa. South African 1970 Archaeological Bulletin 25(99 & 100):127-135. 1972 The late quaternary mammalian fauna of Nelson Bay Cave (Cape Provínce, 50urh ACrica); its ímplications for megafaunal extinctions and environmental and cultural change. Quaternary Research 2(2): 135-142. 1974 Environmem and llubsistence of pr~hi.,toric man in che Southern Cape Provin~, 50uth Africa. Wor/d ArchaeoJogy 5(3):249-284. 1975. Ecology of Stone Age man at the southern tip oC Africa. Archae%gy 28,238-247. 1978b
!'sí;
Reícrences
272 1975b
Middle Stone Age: man-animal relanonships in southern Africa. evidence
1976
from Die Kelders and Klasies River Mouth. Scíence 190:265-267. The marnmalian fauna of rhe Klasies River Mouth sires, Sourhem Cape Province, Sourh Africa. South African ArchaeologícaI Bulletin 31 (123 &
1977a 1977b
1978a
1978b
1978c 1979 19HO
19H1
t
60
19H2
Kruger, F. J. 1979
124),75-9H. The ecology of early man in South Africa. Science 197:115-126. The mammalian fauna from rhe Middle and Later Stone Age (Later Pleisrocene) levels of Border Cave, Natal Province, South Afnca. South A(rican Ar· chaeologícal Bulletin 32:14-27.
Preliminary analysis of the mammalian fauna from rhe Reddiff Srone Agecave site, Rhodesia. Occasional Papers of the Natiunal Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia Series A. Human Sciences, 4(2):74-80. A prelrmmary report on rhe larger mammals from rhe Boomplaas Stone Age cave site, Cango Valley, Oudtshoom district, South Africa. South African Archaeological BuJ/etin 33:66-75. Stone Age predation on large African bovids. [oumat af Archaeological Sci· ence 5:195-217, Srone Age exploitarion of animals in southern Africa American Scientiü 67:151-160. The interpretation uf mammalian faunas from Srone Age archaeologicel sites, with special reference to sites in rhe Southern Cape Provínce, South África. In Fossils in the making: vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology, edited by A. K. Behrensmeyer and A. P. Hül. Chicago & London:University of Chicago Press. Pp. 223-246. Stone Age predation of small African bovids. South African ATchaeoiogical Bulletin 36:55-65. Age (mortaliry) profiles as a means of disnnguishing hunted species from scavenged ones in Stone Age archaeological sites. Paleobiology 8(2):151-158.
Planrecology. In Fynbos ecology: a prelimmarv synthesis, edíted by J. Day et al. Pretoria: South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 40. Pp, 8H-126.
Kuhn, T. The structure of scientific rellolutions (2nd edition) Chicago: University oE Chi· cago Press. Leakey, L. S. B. 1960 The origin of the genus Homo. ElIolution after Darwin (Vo/. II: The ho/ution of Man. edited by Sol Tax. Chicago:University ol Chicago Press. Pp. 17-32. 1965 Facts instead of dogmas on man's origino In The origin of mano Transcript of a symposium sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. Edited by Paul L. Devore. Pp. 3-17. Leakey, M. D. 1971 Ofdullai Gorge (Vol. 3 Excavations in Beds 1 and 111960-1963). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leakey, R. E. 1973 Sku1\1470: discovery in Kenya of the earliest suggestion of the genus Hornonearly three million years old--compels a rethinking of mankind's pedigree. National Geographic 143(6):819-829. The making of mankind. New York:Dutton. 19H1 Lent, P. 1974 Mother-infant relationships in ungulates. In BehallioT of ungulares and iIJ 1970
References
273 relation to management, edited by V. Geist and F. Walther (New Series Nnmber 24) Morges: Intemational Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Pp. 14-55,
Lewin, R. 1981
AAAS briefings: Ancienr cut marks reveal work of prehuman hands. Science 2110372-373.
Lovejoy, C. O. 1981 The origin of mano Science 211(4480):341-350. McBurney, C. B. M. 1967 The Haua Fteah (Cyreneica) and the Stone Age of the South-East Mediterranean. Cambridge.Cambridge Umversiry Press. Maguire, J. M. and D. Pemberton The Makapansgat limeworks grey breccia: hominids, hyaenas, hysrricids or hillwash? Paleontologia Africana 23:75-98. . d
-r-
e
Marshall, L. 1976 Mech, L. D. 1966
¡'"...-(s ,k "",t,. The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge:Harvard University Press. '
' The woíoes of Isle Roya/e. Fauna a{ tbe National Parks of the United States. Series 7. Washington D. c.:U.S. Govemmenr Printing Office.
Mellare, P. 19H2
On tbe Middle/Upper Palaeolirhic transirion: A reply ro White. Curren! Anthropology 23(2):238-240.
Moss, C.
1982 Portraits in the wild (2nd edition). Chícego.Universiry of Chicago Press. Parkington, J. F. 1972 Seasonal mobdiry in the Late Stone Age. African Studies 31:223-243. 1976
Coastal sertlemenr between the mouths of rhe Berg and Olifants rivers, Cape Province. South Africa Archaeological Bulletin 31:127-140. 1980 Time aod place: Sorne observatíons 00 spatial and temporal patterning in the Larer Stone Age sequence in southern Africa. South African Archae%gica/ Bulletin 35(132):73-83. The effeas of eovironmental change 00 the scheduling of visits to the Elands 19H1 Bay Cave, Cape Province, South Afdca. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honor of Dallid Clarke. edired by l. Hodder, G. L1.lsaac. and N. Hammond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 341-359. Parkington. J., and C. Poggenpoel 1971 Excavations at De Hangen. 1968. South African ATchaeological Bulletin 26(101-102),3-36. Perkins, D., and P. Daly 1968 A humen' village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific American 219(5):97-106. Pons, R. B. 19H2 Lower Pleistocene site {omultion and hominid actillities at Oldulla; Gorge. Tanzania. Doctoral thesis, Department af Anthrapology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Potts, R., and P. Shipman 1981 Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. N61ture 291:577-580. Read, C. 1920 The oTigin af man and his superstitions. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
r lb'
Rcfcrcnces
274
t
Ríchardson, P. R. K. 19l:Wa The natural remcual of ungulate carcasses, afld the adaptive fearures af the scavengers tnvoíved. Unpublished masters tbesis. Faculry oí Science, University Di Pretoria, South Melca. ~, 1980b Carnívore damage 00 antelope bones and its archaeclogical implicaticns. Palo eontologia Africana 23:109-125. Rigbrmire, G. P. 1976 Relationships oí Middle and Upper Pleistocene hominids Irorn sub-Saharan Africa. Natltre 260:238-14D. 1978 Human skeíetal remains from [he Southern Cape Province and their beanng 00 che Seone Age prehistory oí Sourh Africa. Quaternary Research 9:211,1-230.
1979
Implicarions oí Bordee Cave skeletal remains for Larer Pleisrocene human evolution. Current Anthropology 20(1);23-35.
fl3'
Sampson, C. G. 1974 The Stone Age archaeology af Sovtbem Africa. New York and London- Academ¡c Press. Schalke. H. J. Tbe upper quarernary of the Cape Flars areas (Cape Prcvince, Sourb Africa). 1973 Scripta Geoligica 15:1-57. Schaller, G. B. 1972a Are you running with me, hominíd! Natural History 81;60-69. 1972b The Sermgeti lion. Chicago.Untversiry oí Chicago Press. Schaller, G. B., and G. Lowther 1969 The relevance of carnivore behavior ro the study ot early horninids. Scutbwestern [cuma! of Anthropology 25(4):307-341. Schitíer. M. Archaeological contexr ano systematic contexto American A71tiquity 37;1561972
165. Shackleton, N. J. :1975 The matigraphic record of deep-sea cores and irs implications for the assessment of glacials, interglacials stadials, and intersradials in the Mid-Pleistoceoe. In After the australopithecines, ediced by K. W. Bu[zer and G. Ll. !saa¡;. The Hague & Paris:Moucon Publishers. pp. 1-24. Strarigraphy and chronology of che KRM deposics: oxygen isotope eviaence.ln \982 The Middle Stone Age al Kiasies River Mouth in South Afrka, edited by Ronald Singer and John Wymer, Chicago:Universiry of Chicago Press. Pp.
\94-199. Shackleton, N. J., and N. D. Opdyke 1973 Oxygen·isorope and palaeomagneric snarigraphy oi ~quatorial Pacific core V28-238: oxygen ¡sorope temperatures and ice volumes on a lOs y~ar and 10" year scale. Quaternary Research 3:39-55. Shipman, P., W. Bosler, and K. L. Davis 1981 Butchering of giant Celadas at ao Aeheulian sire. Current Anthropology
22(3),257-264. 1982 Reply ro Binford and Todd. Current Anthropology 23(1):110-111. Shipman, P., and J. Phillips-Conroy 1977 Hominid tool-making versus carnivore scavenging. American }ournal of Physi· cal Anthropology 46(1);77-86. Sindair, A. R. E. 1977 The African hulfalo: a study of resource limitation of populations. Chicago & London:The Universiry of Chicago Press.
275
References
Sínclair, A. R. E., and M. Norton-Griffiths (editors] 1979 Serengeti: D)'namics of an ecosystem. Chicago.Universiry oi Chicago Pr~ss. Singer, R.• and P. Smith 1969 Sorne human remains associated with rhe Middle Srone Age deposite ar Klasies River, Sourh Afriea. American [aumal of Ph)'sical Anthropology 31:256. Singer, R., and J. Wymer 1982 The Middle Stone Age at Klasies Biver Mouth in South Africa. Uuugo,'Lundon:Universiry of Chicago Press. Skínner, J. D., S. Davis, and G. i1ani 1980 Bone collecring by srriped hyaenas, Hyaena hyaena in Israel. Paleontologia Africana 23:99-104. Spencer. B., and F. J. GiBen 1912 Across Australia (Vol. 11). London.Macrniltan. Sperh, J. D. . 1983 Bison 'kiUs and bone counts: decision making by sncient bu-uers. Chicago & London: Universiry of Chicago Press. Spinage, C. A. 1982 A territorial antelope: the Uganda waterbuck. London & New York.Academic
Press. Sreyn, H. P.
1971
Aspecrsof rhe economic life of sorne nomadic Nharo Bushman Groups. Annafs
01 the South African Museurn 56(6):275-322. Srow, G. 1905
The natioe roces of South Africa. London.Swan Sonnenschein.
Tankard, A. J.
1976
The stratigraphy of a coasral cave and its palaeoclirnatic significance. PaJaeoecology of Africa 9:151-159. Tankard, A. J., and Rogers, J. 1978 Late Cenozoic paleeoenvironrnents on the west coast of southern Africa. Journal of Biogeography 5:319-337. Tanner, N. M. 1981 On becoming human. Cambridge:Cambridge Universiry Press. Thackeray, F. 1979 An analysls of faunal remains from archaeo{ogical sices in sourhern South West Africa (Namlbia). South African Archae%gical Bu/letin 34(129): 18-33. van Lawick-GoQdall, J., and H. van Lawick 1970 lnnocent killers. Boston:Houghron.Mifflin Co. van Zinderen Bakker, E. M. 1967 Upper Pleisrocene and Holocens stracigraphy and ecology 00 the basis oí vegetarion changes in sub*Saharan Africa. In Background to evolution in Africa, edired by W. Bishop and J. O. Clark. Chicago;Universify of Chicago Press. Pp.
125-147. The evolurion of lare'Quat~rnary paleoclimatf:s of southem Africa. Palaeoecology of Africa 9:160-202. Vogd, J. C., and Bcaumollt, P. B. 1972 Revised radiocarbon chronology fur che Stone Age in southern Africa. Nature
1976
·31
237,50-51. Voigt, E. A. 1973a
Scone age mol1usean utilizarlon ar Klasies River Mouth
./..r :::> .¡.p~
.
•
)
au
fA 3/
1M
276
References
1973b
Klasies River Mourh: an exercise in shell analvsis. Buíietín af tbe Transvaal Museum. 14: 14-15.
Volman, T. P.
197H 1981
Vrba, E. S. 1976
f~3~~,i.)
Early archaeoíogical evidence for shellfish collecnng. Science 210;'111-913. The Middle Stone Age in the Southern Cape. Ph.D. dissertation submitred re che Faculty of che Department of Amhropology, University of Chicago, Chicago,lI. The fossil bovidae of Sterkíontrm, Scaarthkrans, and Kromdraai, Tranwaa! Museum Memo;r No. 21. The Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.
Walton, J. 1951
Occupied rock-shelrers in Basutoland. South Afman RuJletin 4(21):9-13. Washburn, S. L. 1959 Speculanons 00 rbe inrerrelanons of che history of rools and biological evolution. In The evolution of man's capacítv for culture. el'!lited by j. N. Spuhler .
Index
Detroinwayne Seate Universiry Press. Pp. 21-31. Washburn, S. L., and F. C. Howell 1960 Human evolunon and culture. Evolution after Donoin (Vol. JI. The evo/ution of man), edired by Sol Tax. Cbicago.Universiry of Chicago Press. Pp. 33-56. Washburn, S. L., and C. S. Lancasrer 1968 The evclution of hunting. In Man the hunter, edired by R. B. Lee and l. DeVore. Chicago:Aldine. Pp. 293-303. White, R. 1982 Rethinking rhe MiddlelUpper Paleohrhrc transinon. Curren: A'1thropology
A
Vol. 23(2IPp. 169-176. White, T. E. 1954
Observancns on the burchenng technique of sorne aboriginal peoples. Nos.], 4,5, & 6. American Antiquity 19(3}:254-264. Wymer, J., and R. Singer 1972 Middle Srone Age senlements on the Tzitzikamma coasr, Easrem Cape Provínce, South Africa. In Man, settlement and urbanism, edited by P. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. Dimblebv. London:Duckworth. Pp. 207-210. Yellen, J. 1977 Arcbaeoícgical approaches to the present.· models for reconurxaíng the pasto New York.Academic Press. Young, J. Z. 19R1 Sorne rentative conclusions. In The emergence o( mm,. edned by J. Z. Young, W. M. Jope, and K. P. Oakley. London.The Roya] Sociery and rhe British Academy. Pp. 213-216.
,
Accornrnodarive argurnenr, 247 model,91 Adam, K., 194 Age profile, 50, 109, 206, 2 JI, 2 J2, 213,
215,218,219 armtional, 109,212,219,221, 222 caeastrophic, 109,211,218, !19, 221,224 Ahemarion of industries, -'6 Altuna, j., 250 Anaktuvuk dog yard, 1(,6 village, 72, 167 Analogy, 15 Analyric strategies, 18 Anatomically rnodem mnn, ], 39, 75, 167, 242,243,245, 24H, 251, 252, 254,
no,
264, 265 Anarorrucal segmente, SO, 70, 82, 88, 91, ':11,105,167,176,195 Animal dens, 106 dnves. 194, ltR, 220, 224, 254 kills, 106 traps, 165, 175, 194, ns. 224, 251, 254
Anomalv, 17 Anvil, 1~'i7, 159, 189, 250 Apollo 11 sire, 19 Aquaric rcsources, 19, zu, 2.4, 41, t'::ll, 20t, 245
Ash depos«, D, 37 oven, 143, 144, 164 Assemblagc cornposinon, 76
Ausrrauan abongmes. 34, j5 tool kit, _'S Australoprrhecines, [,2,3,4, S, 248 Australr'p¡rhecus, 4 Aycni, J. S. 0.,202, 20j, 205, 207, !O>l, 255 B
Backed knives, 245 Bams, T., 26
Banholorncw, G. A., 1 Basetmc population, 67,
ss,
76
Beads, H Beaumonr, 24H
r. S.,
20, .1Y, 45, 46, 47, 240,
Bedding arcas, 33, 37 Bedside bearrhs, 33 Behrensmeyer, A. K., S4
277
278
11lJl')(
Bdl, C. D., 227 BenrCrcek sire, 107 Berrram, B., 209 Berrram, j., 87
Biface, 111 Biltong, 49, IAI, 183 Binford, L. R., 6, S, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 34,36,49, 50, 53, 6(J, 62, 65, 67, 68, 72, 7J, 74, 76, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89,90,91,102,103,104,105,107, 108, 1u, 114, 116, 120, 125, 126, 128, 137, 139, 153, 159, 164,167, 186, 187, 199,202,213,222,240, 245,249,250,255,261 Biome, 24, 236 high-biomass, 24, 26, 27, 211 high producnon, 24 grassland, 25 quick turnover, 25 Birdsell, J. B., 2 Boiling, 161 Bone cylinders, 62 splinters, 62 Bordean ~y~tel11, .H Bordcr Cave sire, 19,46,249 Bordes, F,, 36 Brain, C. K., 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 67. 77,17] Breakcge patrern, 15,66,67,134, In, 175 Bunn, H., 17, 119, 132 Burmng, 1,59, 161, 164 pattem, 160, 161, 164 Bushman, 143, 161 Kalahan, 161 'Kung. 164 Masarwa, 146 Nharo, 145 Nyae Nvae. 161, 164, 165,213.214 Butchering
field, 114 knife, 115 Burchery sitt:s, 7
fresh,67, 70, 72, 76, 110,111, tl~, 120, 138,141,180,18 7 prey, ss, 166 ravaged,15, 70,97,99,112,184, IS6, 201,225, 255, 260 scavenged. J, 67, 99,167,172,173.186 sriff,67, 71, uo, 111, 125, 1J6,I7h supple, 71,110,111,112,124,141 unravagcd, 187, 191 Cape dimane province, 22, 21 I folded belr, 22, 13, 26, 27, 29, 211 Casablancu, 21 Central-place foraging, 8, 198, 259, ló 1, 264 Chaparral, 21 Chaplin, R. E., 49 Chile, 21 Chopper, 117 Clark, J. D., 20, 251, 253 Cleaver, 70, 117 Combe Grenal sire, 160, 222, 223 Consumer demand,49, 192, 19\ 194, 199 location, 193 straregy, 195 unir, 97,193, 194, 1~5, 196 Controls, 66, 7f>. 114, 170, ISO, IH4. IHG, 220 Convennonahsm, 8, 9,10,11, 15, IU, 243, 255,259 Cooking, 145, 161, 182, 196,201,244, 260,261 in the skin, 145, If,O racncs, 143 Core scraper, 111 Corms,24 Crader, 0.,5 Cresccnrs. 34, 245 Crown heighrs, 222, 223 Cueva Morin, Ha Culling, 94, 97, 195,206
Burzer, K. W., 20. 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45,
233
D
e Campbell, B. c., 4 Caprure-carry-nnd-kill rnodcl, 218 CJ.rLas~
dr~', fJ7, 69, 70, 99, 110, 111, 116, 117,
12.0,191,200,254
Oaly, P., 16 Dart, R., 2, 3 Darwin, c., 144 Darwm ccnrcnn¡al. 3 ()'Y, 1- W., 21 Deacon, H. J., 35 Deacon . .I...l~, 248
lndcx
27'J
Definmons, 7 De Hangen sirc, 33 De Lumley, H., 250 Die Keldcrs site, 19, 22 Direcr procurernenr, 175 Disjoinnng srrategy, 70,138, 11'10,181
Diumal dnnkers, 204, 20S, 206 feeders, 204 Division oí labor, 5, 90 Dog yard, 166, 179 Dried meat, 49,176, ISO, 190,191,200, 260
E
Eberr, J., JI Economic anatomy,13 geographv, 191'1 Elands Bay Cave, 32, 42, 238, 239· Elandsfonrein sirc, 19,212,213,220,221 Empiricisrs, smct, 14 Eskimo, 72, 106, 120, 161, 172, 180, 184 Etkin, W., 1 Evolucionar)' funcnonalism, 9, 247 Expended deñnuion, 76 Expedienr production, 36 rools, .H
F Falkland lslands, 144 Feedmg behavior, 186 strarcgy. 176 Filleting, 49, 72, 74, 75, In, 126, 132, 132, 182, 188 marks, 127, 121'1, 129, l.B, 183, 189,190 Fire, 160,260,264 Fisher, H. E., 265 Flexibihty, 192, 193, 194,261
Food glut, 194 sharing, J, 5, 6 shorragc, 194 utihrv. 72, 75, 171 Formation condinons, 77 conkxts,21 proccsses, 37, 50 Freeman, L G., 17,250
Function.u .trgumcnt, 1 Fynbos, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 1.9, 41, 43, 209, 211,221,222,225,233,236
G Garden of Eden. 19 Gautscha P.II1, 161 Gillen, r. j., 34 Could, S. J., 159 Gourmet selection. 'J6, 191, 194, 196 strategv, '017,176,187
Graduali-r posinon, Z Grear B,l~lI1 (Norrh Amenca). 35 Grear Pl.IÚ1\ [Norrh Ameri..:.)), .~h Groorbrak hvaena den, 60, 61 Guilday, j. L, 180 H Habirarron sires, 33 Hammer, 157,260 Handax, 34, 111, 112 Hayden, H., .u Havnes, e., 166,186 Hearth. 37, .18 Hil1, A. P., X5, 166, 11'16 Home base. 4. 5, 6, 7, S, 17,90. 19.1, 196, 197, j(}l'I, 200, 201, 244, 255, 256, 257,2h)
Homo erectus, 248, 249 habilis, 5 Howell, F. c., 3, 4 Howieson's Poort, 33, 36, 45, 47, 210, 230, 241, 242, 244 Huntcr-gatherer,4, 16, so, 90, 93, 143, 188,192,193,194,197,226
Hunrers ambush, 209 pack, 1, 216 pursuit, 209 social,249 Hunnng ..:.lmp, 157, 160 hominid. 197, 211 for opponunines, 200, 217 parriev, 114 schedule, 194 stand, 157 tactical, 76, 200 technlJllI¡':'lCalI)' aided, 200, 216 Hyaena krll, 166
ISO
lnJe"
lnducrive procese, ¡ I reasoning 11, 1J, 14 lnskecp, R. R., 27 lnstrumentv for measurernenr. 9 Inregnrv {lf deposirs, 48, 63 Isaac, G. u., 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 119, 197, 255, 256, 2_~7, 260
J jarvís, J. U. M., 2.H [elinek. A. J., 36
l.corurd lair, 56, 5H. 64 occnpation, 56, 57 Lesorho, 27 Levallois technique, 35 Living fioor, 4 snc, 8,16,49,105,108,111<, 11'J, [60,
172,174,206,253 Logical taotology, 259 Logistical1y organized system, 88 LSA (Late Stonc Agr), 20, 39, 45, 2.1n, 22H,
238, 239, 242, 249
M K
Karoo, 26. 27, 29, 31, 32, 216, 240 Kehoe, T. F., 16 Krll srrc, 4,16,17,49, nfl, fl7, 6S, 86, R8, \10. ':12, '';14,107, IOY, 1.B, 14-', l7J, [74, [%, 212, 249, B5 Kingdon. J., 210 Klein, R. C., 16, 18, 19,27,29,32, .1X, J9, 42,44. 4S, 4n, 47, 48, 49, 50, %, 64, flS. 77, 7X, 79, X3, X4. 99, lO'J, 1':l7, lOS, 210, 111, 212, 21X, 221, 222,
22.1,224,225,226,2.14, 236,2n. 240, 249 Koobi fora, 119, 132 Kootenee dramage, 70 Kruger Park, 216 Kruuk, H., 131 Kuhn, T., 17
L Lancasrer, C. S., 4 Land ILSl', [98 cnrrenchcd, 262, Ud modcl, 197 routcd, 262, 263 Late Srone Age, see LSA Laws. cmpincal, 14 Lazaret site, 250 Lcakey, L S. B., 2, 3, 4. 27 Lcakey, ~L D., 3, 4,119 l.eakcy, R. E., S. 255 Lebanon.27 Lehrmgcn site, 194
Leí/ira, 34 Lent, P., 217
M,;Burnry, C. B. M., 20 Macchía,21 Maguire, J. M., 62. 67 Marginal tood, 102, 105, [01;1,172, 17S, [76, 1R7, 1'J],1%,255 utilirv. 49, 93, 96,172, 190 Marrow bones, 15,220 cracking, 124, 1.17,151,175, lXX, 1H9. 200 rccovctv, LB, 195, 201, 249 rr.msport, 146 Marshall, 1.., 161 Maturation sequence, 206 MAU (minimum animal units}, 50, 5 J, 7M,
80, 82, 87, 93 Mech, 1.. D., gS Midday dnnkers, 207 resr [ocation, 206,207,245,24';1,252, 255, 266 warerbole site, 208 Middlc Palcolithic, 36, 244, 245 Mrddlc rnngc ar¡l;unlt.'m,7 jusnfication, 6 procedure, 8
Mrddlc Srone Age, see MSA Minimum animal units, see MAU Minimum number of elemcnrs, see M NE Minimum number of individuals, ser MNI MNE (minimum number of elemenrs), 50, 51,52, f,S, 78, SO, SJ, 100 MNI {rmrumum number of indlvldu.\I~), 41:7, 50,51,78,82,99, 1<J7, 228, ,n1J.lJ2 Mohihry, 198,264 Montana, 71
lndex
2HI
Mcrtahry patrem, 161 Moss, e. 210 Mousrenan. 160, 16[, 164, 24X MSA (MidJ[e Stone Age), lH, 19,20,32,
35,36,37,38,39,40,45,46,47,48, 77,161,180,191, 196, 197,205,210, 216,228,230,232,240,241,242, 243,244,245,249,251 Multiple working hyporheses, 8, 256, 257
N
Planmng deprh, 97, 98,195, 196,224 long-rerm, 262 shorr tcrm, 182, 187 Pluvial, 27 Poggenpoel, e, 33 Porcupine gnawing, 51, 52, 53, )4, ...... , 0.3 Porta, R. B., 250, 255
Predanonunirnal.Téé Predaror kili, lOS Prey image, 77, 194
Processed hom cores, 102, 109, 175, 196, 20l
Namibie, 161 Natural levels, 64 Navajo, 161
mandtblee, 106, t09, 175, 195, 196,201
Neanderrhal, 223 Neanderthaloid, 242 Nelson Bay cave, 29, 39, 42, 236, 238, 239 Nocturnal drinkcrs, 202, 203 feeding, 202, 103, 109 killers, 206, 255, 260
Nossob lair,54 nver, 52, 60, 69,116,166, 17.1, 174, 177,209 Nunamiut Eskimo, 16,49,72.73,74,90. 106,114,119,157,160,161, 164, 171,180,181, liD, 184, IHR. 189, 222
o Oakhurst cornplex, 251 O'Connell, J., 34 Olduvai Co-ge, 2, 3, 5,17, 119,249,250,
255, 265 Opdyke, N. D., 39, 40 Operarionnl dcfininon, 197 Orange Free Stare, 27 Ornamertts, 34, 242 p Package size, 180 Paradigm, 14, 17 Parkington, J. F., 24, .32, .n Pcmbcrton, D., 62, 67 Perkirrs, D., 16 Permanenr settlernent, 19 Philhp~-Contoy, J., 85, 86, 186 Piece burcbering, 90, 92, 96
Processing facilities, 245 toces, 201 motives, 260 placee, 244 by soakmg, 200, 201, 244, 156, 26() Proiectilc points, 35 Prnvisioning, 188 Pseudorools, 60, 62 Punch blade .., 34 R
Read,
e, 1
Reccnsrructed sssemblage, 88 Reconsrrucnon, 21, 157, 158 Reconstructicnisr, 65
Research tacncs, 257 ResidentiJ.1 sire, 160 unir, 98 Reverse zonal rnodel, 32 Richardson, P. R. K., 66, 67, 68, 85, 107, 166,167,168,169,170,17I,I7l, 173, 186, nl7 Righrm¡re. G. P., 47, 24X Roasnng. 160, 161. 164, lXI
pir, 165 Rockshelrer, 17,32,262 Rogers,
J.,
27
S Sampson, C. G., 35, 250, 251 Santa Barbara, 22 Scavcngcd assemblage. 76, 99 Scavcnging, 2, 6,15.17, t;,f>, 69, 70, 71, 106,122,160,165,167,174,1':lI,
201,101,206,212,213,214,216,
/
" ~
':-",
282
lndex
Scavengmg (nmrinueJ) B l, 23'J. 241, 246, 249, 251, 252, 253,2.\4.255 srage, 2 Schaller. c., UI, 208, 209, 216, 252, 253 SOJlk.., H. [.. \2 S..:hiHcr, 1\1., 50 S..:hkrr effccr, 16, 197,214 Sccopcd-cur Dones, 60, 62 Search im.igc. 194 Serengcri Narionall'Mk,20S plain,20'::! Sex profilc, 50, 109 Sbackleron. N. J., zo, ]'::1, 44, 45, 238
Tankard, A. J., 27 Tanner, N. M., 265 Tasmanians,249 Terra Amate sire. 250
Sharing
ncrns. 264 TrdnsvJal,27 TS;lVO National Park, 202, 20ll, lit Turnover rute, 24 Tzirzikamma coasr, 21, 23, 24, 26, 20H, 209 river, 22, 210, 211
behavior. 40, 98, 1H2, 1'::1.1, 194, 195, 1%, 1'J7. 198,245,266 hypoehcvis, 8, 259 unir, l'Jl Shipman, P., !'I.'i", 86, 186,250, 25S
Shock WC;lpom, 216 Singcr. R., 19,20, .H, 34, 37, 41, 44, 45,
Sleeping arcas. 59, 108, 261 places, 10.11, 244, 252, 260, 261, 262 Smnh, P., 20 South Carolina, 21 Spears. 254 Special-purposc locanons, 198, 199, 20R, 244, 263, 264 Spencer, B., ]4
Sperh, J., 13
Srorage. In r, 1';14. 199 Stow, G., 144 Suberde sire, 16 Subsisrencc rcpcrtoire, 191
Surrogarc rncasure. 240 Swarnklip sitc, 109
T goals, 1"2 rcpcrtorrc. 198
kills, 115
motives, 261 Transponed
assembl.rgc, 109
u Units of observanon, 64 Uppcr Palcolirhrc, 20, 33, 34, 36, ]8, 39,
47,244,245 Use hfe, ]6 Utility indl"<,94 values. 94 V
Van Lawick-Uoodall. J., l'H Van Zindercn Bakker. E. M., 27, 28, .~O,
32,2]6 Vogcl, J. e, 39, 46 Voigt, E. A., 32
Sptnagc, C. A., 217 Steyn, H. P., 14]
Tactic
Wilton cornplex. 251 Wolf den, 60
Thackeray, F., 149 Thcoretical rcrm-, 6, 7 Tocrh-scored bones, 61, [02. 171 Tradirxmal urchacology, 11 T ransitory camp~, 7 Transpon cosrs. 261 filrer, 10H
64 Situanonal conduions, 19S, 199 Skepricism, 1\, 12, 1.1, 14 Skinncr, J. D., bJ Skinning, 100, 124, 137, 149, is r, 188,200
lndex
volman. T. P., ]5, 46, 47, 240, 245 Vrba. E. S., 25.'
w Walk-along srruregy. 217 Waltoll, J., 3") washburn. S. L., ] W.ncrholn, 202, 203, 204, 206, 107, 208, 2S0 \'(/hitc, R., J4 White, T. E., 16
Workshnp sites, 7 WYllJl'r, J., 19,20,32,34, P, 41, 44, 45,
64
2Xl y
Ycllen, j., 200 Young. J. L, 248 Z Zinjanthrnpus, 2, 4, 5, 265 Zonal c1l111'Hi<.: model, 27, 21S, _-.
Thamas F. King, Patricia Parker Hickman, and Gary Berg. Anthropology in Historie Preservation: Caring for Culture'. Clutter Richard E. Blanton. Monte Albán: Settlement Patteros at tbe Ancient Zapotee Capital
STUDIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
R. E. Taylor and Clement W. Meighan. Chronologies in New World Arcbaeology
Consulting Editor: Stuart Struever
Bruce D. Smith. Prehistoric Pattems of Humao Behavior: A Case Study in the Mississippi Valley
Department of AnthropoJogy Northwestern Universíty Evanston, lllinois
Barbara L. Stark and Barbara Voorhies (Eds.). Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations: Tbe Economy and Ecology of Maritime Middle Ameriea Charles L. Redman, Mary Jane Berman, Edward V. Curtin, William T. Langhorne, Nina M. Versaggi, and Jeffery C. Wanser (Eds.). Social Archeology: Beyond Subsistence aod Dating
Charles R. McGimsey 11/. Public Archeology
Bruce D. Smith (Ed.). Mlsslssipplan Settlement Pattems
Lewis R. Bíniord. An Archaeological Perspective
Lewis R. Biníord. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology
Joseph W. Michels. Dating Methuds in Archaeology
J. Bario Amoki Uf and Robert Weddle. Tbe Nautieal Areheology of Padre Island: The Spanisb Shipwrecks of 1554
C. Garth Sampson. The Stone Age Archaeology uf Southem Afríea Fred T. Plag. The Study of Prehistoric ChaDge
Samnos Milisauskas. European Prehistory
Patty Jo Watson (Ed.). Archaeology uf tbe Mammoth Cave Area
Brian Hayden (Ed.). Litbic Use-Wear Analysis
George C. Frisan (Ed.). The Casper Site: ABell Gap Bison Kili on the High Plains
William T. Sanders, JeDrey R. Parsans, and Robert S. Santley. Tbe Basln 01 Mexico: Ecologieal Processes in tbe Evolutioo of a Civilization
W. Raymond Wood and R. Bruce McMillan (Eds.). Prehistoric Man sud Bis Environments: A Case Study in tbe Ozark Higbland
David L. Clork:e. Analytical Arcbaeologist: Collected Papen of David L. Clarke. Edited and Introduced by His Colleagues
Kent V. Flannery (Ed.). Tbe Early Me50american Village Charles E. Cleland (Ed.). Cultural Change and Conüouity: Essays iD Honor of James Dennett Griffin Michael B. Schiffer, Bebavioral ArcheoJogy
i,
Arthur E. Spiess. Reindeer and Caribou Hunters: An Archaeologieal Study
Elizabeth S. Wing and Antoínette B. Brown. Paleonutrition: Metbod and Theory in Prebistorie Foodways
Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild. Prehistory of the Nile Valley
Jahn W. Rick. Prehistorie Huoters of the IIigh Aodes
Michael A. Jachim. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistenee and Settlement: A Predietive Model
Timothy K. Earíe and Andrew L. Christenson (Eds.). Modeling Change in Prehistorie Economies
Stanley Sauth. Metbod and Theory io Historical Archeology
Thomas F. Lynch (Ed.). Guitarrero Cave: Early Mao in tbe Andes
Timothy K. Earle and Janathon E. Erícson (Eds.). Excbange System in Prebislory
Fred Wendorj and Romuald Schild. Prebistory of the Eastern Sabara
Stanley South (Ed.). Researcb Strategies in Historical Arcbeology
Henrí Lavííle, lean-Phillppe Rigaud, and James Sackett. Rock Shelters of tbe Perigord: Stratigraphy aod Arcbaeologieal Suceesston
Jahn E. Yellen. Archaeological Approacbes to tbe Present: Models for Reconstructing tbe Past
Duane C. Anderson and Holmes A. Semken. Ir, (Eds.). The Cberokee Excavatioos: Holoceoe Ecology and Human Adaptations in Northwestem Iowa
Lewis R. Bintord (Ed.). For Theory BuUding in Archaeology: Essays 00 Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling
Anna Curtenius Roosevelt, Panoana: Prebistoric Maize and Manioe Subsístence aloug the Amazon and Orinoco
James N. Hill ami Joel Gunn (Eds.). Tbe Individual in Prehistory: Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies
F ekri A. Hassan. Demograpbic Arcbaeology
Michael B. SchiDer and George J. Gumerman (Eds.). ConservatioR Arebaeology: A Gulde ror Cultural Resource ManaR;ement Studies
G. Barker. Landscape and Sodety: Prebistoric Centralltaly
Lewis R. Bln/ord. Bon..: Anclent Men and Modem Mytbs
!
Richard A. Gou/d and Michael B. SchiDer iEds.}. Modera Material Culture. lbe Arehaeology of U.
Robert 1. Gílbert, Jr. and James H. Mie/ke iEds-], lbe Analysis of Preblstoric Dleu John Hyslop. lbe Inka Road System
Muriel Porter Weaver. The Aztecs, Maya, sud Thelr Predecessors: Arcbaeology of Mesoamerlca, 2nd edldon
Christopher Carr (Ed.). Tbe Analysis of Archaeological Data Structures
Arthur S. Keene. Prehistoric Foragiog in a Temperate Forest: A Linear Program. m1ogModel Ross H. Cordy, A Sludy of Prehlstoric Social Change: lbe DeveJopment of Complex Socletl.. in Ihe Ha.,aüao Islands C. Melvin Aíkens and Takayasu Higuchi. Prehlstory DIJapan Kent V, Flannery {Ed.}. Maya Subsisteoce: Sludles In Memol')' of Dennls E. PulesCoa Dean R. Snow (Ed.). Foundatloll5 of Nortbeast Arcbaeology Charles S. Spencer, Tbe Cuicatlin C.úda sud Monte Albán: A Study of Primuy 8tBte FonnatioD Steadman Upham. PoUties sud Power: An Economic and PoUtical History of tbe Westem Pueblo
Carol Kramer, VilIage Etbnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Puspectlve Michael J. O'Brien. Robert E. Warren, and Dennís E. Lewarch (Eds.). Tbe Cannon Reservolr Homan Ecology Prolect: An Archaeologlcal Sludy of Cullural Adaptatlon. lo the Soulhem Pralrie Peninsula lonathon E. Ericson and Timothy K. Ear!e (Eds.). Coatexts ror Prehistorie Exehange
Merrilee H. Salmon. Pbilosophy .nd Archaeology Vincos P. Steponaitis. Ceramlcs, Chronology, and CommDmty Patterns: Aa Archaeological Sludy at Moundvllle George C. Frison and Dennis J. Staniord. The Agate Basln SJle: A Record of tbe Paleolodlan Occupation of the Northwestera Hlgh Plmns James A. Moore and Arthur S. Keene (Eds.). Archaeologlcal Rammers ud lbeories Lewis R. Bin/ord. Worldng at Arcbaeology WilIiam J. Folan, Ellen R. Kintz, and Lamine A. Fletcher. Coba: A ClassIe Maya MetropoUs David A. Freidel ami Jeremy A. SabloO. Cozumel: Late Maya Settlement Pattems lohn M. O'Shea. Mortuary Variability: An Arcbaeologlcal IovesdgatioD
Lewis R. Bíniord. Faunal Remains From Klasies River Mouth
In preparalioll
I i i
i
A.
