¡{·b.

'60::S - v
~
r:
;1 ' '
"" \
,f () (;:,~?)
'\ BIBLIOTECA UCM
IT I ti
'." )
(}-~
rv-
" .)
.... 'a~
--,,;.':,S ,//"<..'
b '-"
ml~III~~~~I~~llllllm
4900853998
~~~~II~~I
(. C' '
"

Faunal Remains
l'; \'., ./ f ". ,
,..!
.2.:\ '...
r~; t:>,; i{ " ;<,' 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 Orlando San Diego San Francisco New York London
Toronro Montreal Sydney Tokvo Sao l'aulo .1
A complete list ot tilles in this series appears al the end 01 this volume.
;)
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

List al Figures ix
Lis! al Tables xv
Uníted Kingdom Edition pubtished by
ACADEMIC PRESS. INC. (LONDON) LTD. Preface xvii
24128 Oval ROld, Londo" NWI 7DX
Acknowlcdgrncnts XIX

Library of Congrcss Cataloging in Publication Dala

l. Problem, Approaches, and the Process of Learning
Binford, Lewis Roberts, Date The Problcm 1
Faunal remains from Klasies River mouth. Approaches to Research 9
(Studies in archaeology) The Rcsearch Tactics: Where Do We Seek Insights? 15
Bibliography: p.
lneludes indexe
l. Paleolithic period, Lower--South AfricB-- 2. Klasies River Mouth: A Provocative Case
Kaapsedrifrivier Valley. 2. Animal remains
{Archaeology)--South Africa--Kaapsedrifrivier Valley. lntroduction t8
3. Human evolution. 4. Kaapsedrifrivier Valle y Environmcnts Pasr and Prcscnt ar Klasies River 20
(South Africa)--Antiquities. 5. South Africa-- Stone Assemblages of rhe Klasies River Mouth Sites JI
Antiquíties. l. Title. 11. Series Dating the Events Documented in the Klasies Sites J8
GN772.42.S6BB56 19B4 573.2 B3-15909 Summary 46
ISBN 0-12-100070-2 (a1k. paper)

(3.\ The Klasies Fauna: Approaches to Analysis

I'RINTED IN THE UNITEO STATES OF AMERICA '--'
Introduction 48
fU 115 116 87 987fo54)1\ Approachcs ro Desctiption 48

,
,., Contente Contcnts V"
Tools, We3pom, and Hunnng Aids 254
Evidcnce lor Use of rhc Site by Porcupines 51 255
HOlTIe Bases and the Altruistic Sharing Model of Human Evolution
Evidcncc for Lcopards 55
An Altcmative to rhe Central-Place Foraging Model
Evidcncc for Hyarnas 59
of Hominid Behavior 259
Asscssmcnr of lntcgritv 63
Sorne Fin:!1 Thoughts 264
Units of Obscrvation fH
lnformnnon (,uiding Obscrvaticn and Analysis 65
~liddk' Stone A~l' Auatomicnl-Part l-rcqucncies Referenees 267
from Klasics River Mourh Can: 1 77
lntcrprctation of Patterning X4
Index 277

4. A Pattern Reeognition Study

Ihc Axial Skch-ron YY
Horn 100
Occipital Condylcs 102
.\bxllbry Ares lO.)
lccth 104
Mandiblc 106
Vcrtcbt.rl Column I J 2.
Pelvis 122
Ihe.: Appcndicular Skclcton 123
Distinctivv Brcak,lgt' 152
Burning 159
lnrerpreration of Pattcrning 165
Summnrv 19()

:>. Hominid Subsistcnce Eeology and Land Use

Subsisrcncc Tacrics 192
Klnsics Rivcr Mourh Cave t a Homc Base?
\'(/;lS 197
1Ill' Ecologv nf Scnvcnging 20 I
Scavcuging and Agc Profilcs 211
The Ecology of Hunring 115
Huuring and Age Prufilcs 21 R
lmplications of Variable Subsistencc Tactics for
Environmcnral Reconstruction and Daring 225
Dating (i{ rhc Site Sequrnct' 24 t
Sununary 24_~
\'('h;u HaH' \'('e l.camcd from Klnsics? 244

(Í. 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
List of Figures

1.1 A pack-hunting model of carly hominid hfc. 1

1.2 Clynn Isaac's model for recognition of sirc function. 7
2.1 Middle Stonc Age sitcs in southcm Afnca. 19
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 "Busbm.m hunnng .1 hrrd of hctcrogcncous garue,' by "1: Baincs. 26
2.5 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
2.6 Climmic condirions in winrer ond sumrncr, ,l'¡ reconstrucrcd for a rypical

intcrglucial cpisodc according ro rbc zonal model of van Zindcrcn

Bakkcr. JO
2.7 Cape buffalo in tvpicnl bu~h covcr. 31
2.~ Bush I'ig 1Il hush COVL'f. 31
2.!.! 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

"
x
Lis! of Figures
List of Figures
"
4.5 Dismembcrtucnt-mark placement when rhe mandil-le is cirhcr opcn or
2.1.' Summarv graph of lr'O/lXO ranos as known for shells recovcrcd from closcd. 110
various lcvcls ;11 Klasics Rivcr Mouth. 44 4.6 Hack marks 011 rhe base (lf thc mandibular condylc
.1. I Porcupinc gnawing on thc proximal cnd of an cland U;wrotragus) (T.wrotragus), III
rncracarpal (Cave 1, Levcl 14). 52 4.7 Opcn-mounr (lit marks on the mandiblc of Rapbíccrus, 112
3.2 Porcnpiue gnawing ovcr ;l rool.inflicred mark 011 a vertebral frugrnenr 4.H Canid fecding 011 secrion of Lumbar vcrrehrue, showinu rhc "polling up"
.1
(Cave l , l.cvel \41. 55 action of rcmoval of rhe reudcrloin. 115
.LJ Graphic comparisnn bctwccn largc-hovid rcmains frorn Leve! 14 and the 4.9 Modern cland (Tallrotragusl vcrrebrac gnawcd hy hyncnn. 116
combincd frcqucncics Irom 311 orhcr Ievels at Cave 1. 58 4.10 Modcrn wildcbccsr (Connocbactesí carcasscs fcd upon by both hyacnn and
.lA Craphic comparison bcrwecn smnll-bovid rcmains from Leve! 14 versus the [ackals, showing uppcr breakage on the dorsal spincs and neck hrcakagc
comhincd "othcr" levcls ar Cave 1, and rhe control data from leopard lnirs of thc ribs. 117
collccrcd by C. K. Brain. 59 4.11 Vcrtcbrne of Pelea {vaalrhcbok}, showing anirnal-tooth
.1.1 Lcg boncs cotlccred hy the aurhor at rhe (iroothrak spotted hvncna den in puncturcs. 118
che No . . "oh nvcr vallcv, 'ihowin~ rypir,ll p,mnm of hrcukagc .md 4.12 Nunanuut Eskimo rcmoving a rib slab by cracking ir hack againsr thc
guawing. óO vcrtcbrae. 119
1.6 1)crail of tooth scoting Otl a scapula. 61 4.13 Marks ínflicred (In rhc pelvis whcn the fcmur is dislocatcd. 125
\.7 1)c1;111 of cluppcd aud vmoothcd pscudotool prodlH.:ed hy spottcd 4.14 Dismcmbcrmcnt ntarks on rhc scapuia. 12X
hv.tcna. 62 4.15 Fillcnng marks on ventral surface of rhe scapula. 129
q¡ Detail 01' rooth puucturc and scoopcd-our sofr tissuc on ,111 articular 4.16 Cut ruarks on carpals. 135
end. 63 4.17 Cutring (he skin down rhe inside of a sheep lego I3R
3.9 Comparisnns bcrwcen Richardsons control data aud rnodcl data abour the 4.IS Caribou, shov.. .-ing skin rippcd down onc !eg during skinning
composition 01' scavcngcd cnrcass popularions. 6X proccdure. 139
70
UO Ruvagcd wildcbccst ClrC.1SS in rbe Nossob Ri\"t:r Valley. 4.19 Altcrnativc disiointing strategics whcn the jOll1t is eithcr srift or
3.1\ 1kcr carcass kd UpOll hy coyotes in Montana. 71 flexible. 140
\.12 Percentagc of rL'(oven:d hones cxhihiring cut marks (Nunamim control 4.20 !Kullg bushman carrying proccsscd bifl(mg from a kili to a rcsidclllial
data). 74 CHBp. 145
\.1.1 Scalc co/llp~uison Jmong spccil's representing diffcrl'nr body-sizc classes 4.21 Nharo Bushman earryillg a sreenbok (Rllf1hiccl"IIs) baL"k to
llscd in rhis '>tlld)'. 7X (;1I11p. 145
\.14 LOlllP,HisOIl lit Bin/ortl\ ;llId Kh:ill\ uhuLllioll'i of all;HOlllll:al P,lfts lor 4.22 Springh;lrl'!'i being plau.:d 111 all a~·h hcarth in prep¡uatiotl t(lr L"Ookillg by a
brgc-si71' bovids. HJ Masarv,'J Hushman. 14ó
\.15 Compariso n of Billford's ,1Ild Klein's tahulations (lf anatomiol parts for 4.2.l Hh."k marks <lcross the disul londy!cs of tlll' IlH:tacup;¡1 (lf all CLltld
sm,lll h\lvids. H4 C/i.wrolragtls). 150
3.16 COll1p¡Hi'ion of anatomical parts for smalt and largc buvids. !SS 4.24 Distal mctat;:¡rsal {roln a busbbllCk (Trd}?e!aplms saiptlfs), showing what
3.17 Test of Klasics data for evidcnce of hone-pan destruetlon. 87 are considcrcd ro he hominid rooth marks. 151
l.1 S Rclative frequencies of segmcnts of small bovlds most often inrroduceJ ro 4.25 Tooth puncture on the first pha/anx of aH e1and (1aurotr'lgus). IS2
the site. 1.)2 4.26 Mer;](arpats of small bovids (mostly Raphicel"lls) showillg Iack of
.u~ Comparison hcrween anatomical p.ut frcqucncies from sm<lll Jnd largc j're,lbgc. 156
1,00·id, (rl·1.:01lSrnlCtcd ,,¡¡llles). 9.1 . ' -27 ~ll't¡lClfJ,¡ds (l( gi;llJt bntt;do (l)clorol'Ís) ,howmg distilll"tin' hn"lkagc
L!.O !'rO!l(- ami rL',l1-·lq~ p,l1"tS nI Nlllumiur kilI P()I'\lbl10n~ ~(,lkd ag'lin"t patrcrtls. 156
urility v;ltlle~. 1.)5 4.2R Sr lit proxim;ll llH'tatarS¡lls (lf eblld (1tmrotragwL 1)7
~.21 Hxbti\'c frcqlll·lIt.."il" (lf ;llUtoll1il',ll Sl'gllll'llh fnlll1 L~rgl' bovid" 9(,
4.19 Split ll11'[;lpodi,lb rt·lluining in ;l Nunamiut FskilllO 11IIlltillg
lli/JIlotr"glff. horn cures, illmtrating riteir unbroken 'Utl'.. 101
4.\ stand. 158
Ti.lIfrol,.,'J,:tlS hOrtl cores, i1lusrrating their split (ondiI10H. 101
4.2 4.30 Sptir phalanges of ebnd (TtlllrotrtlKlIs). 159
4.3 Positiol\ of cut marks Jlong tllJxillary teeth. 104 4.31 Roan ;:¡nrcl0re heJd prior ro hring prcp.1rrd for roasring hy N~,lC NY,lC
4.4 Cornparison het\\'Cen anim.:ll- and hominid-transported assrlllhL1ges in the Bushmen. 164
n..'btionship bl't\\'C'l'll body sizc and frequcnl'Y (lf hcad tr<ltlsport. 108
 ~,
'~ '"
N
B
o:::;; .g=
U
~
~ ~e:
.s:
J,
.~
::1
e
3 "§
u
e-B .2
s-,
-c
.: "u
u
> "
"E
B
""
-¡;
~
"O E
u
e ~
u oc ..;
E
u
~.
~,
e
.s:
':j, "
J ~
'J "5
" .g= u
J
o
o

~
e
e
-o
~
'"
B
E
"3 .s "
c-,
~
u:
". ~
-O
'.,." -O
;:¡
E
~ -c
eM
-¡;
-o
o
E
u,
M
"g[, ;:;
E...c
'•"' '5
e
i~
e u
.~ ~
2..~
¡:: "c¡
0;2
'r,
 List of Tables

3.l Porcupinc Gnawing and 'I'tansport Compnrisons S")

,
1 3.2 Compatisons between Levcl 14 and othcr Cave I l.evcls for Rccoguizing
Bias that might Rcsulr from Leopard Use nf rhc Sirr 57
1 3.3 Fauna] Remains around Nuuamiut Eskimo Ice Lcllars 73
3.4 Tabulation of Klasies Rivcr Mourh Cave I l-auna hy Klein 79

II 3.5
1.6
Tabulntion of Klasies River Mouth Can- I FaUI1.1 by Binford
Rcconstructcd l-rcqucncies Ior Small .utd l.argc govíJs SI)
RO

4.1 Horn-Core Bases Tahulatcd hy BoJ)' Size lOO

I 4.2 Occipital Condylcs Tabul.ircd hy BOlly Sit.t..' \02
I 4.3 Maxillary Dental Ares Tabulated by Bodv Size HU
i Surnrnary of Loosc Tccrh plus Th05C Rcmaining Encascd in Bony Parts,
4.4
Tabulatcd by Body Size 105

I
J
45
4.6
Frcqucncy Cornpanson among Parts of the Cranium 106
Compnrisons of MAUs lndicatcd by Tccth from rhc Maxilla and
Mandil-le 107
I 4.7 Modificurions to Mandibles, Tabulared by Body Sizc 109
III
4.8 Atlus .md Axis Vcrtebrae, Tabulatcd by BoJ}' Sixc
4.9 Thoracic Vcrtcbruc: Spincs Only 114
4.10 "lhor.tcic Vcrtchrnc: Ccntrums Onlv IIB
4.11 Brcakagc of l'roxim.il Ribs aud Orhcr Rih Scgmcnts t21
4.12 Rihs: Cut, Hack, nnd Cnaw Marks 121
4.1.l l.umb.rr Vcrtchrac and Sacrum: Cut, Hack, and C;lUW Mu-ks 122
4.14 Pclvic l'arrs: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks [23
4.15 Proximal Femur: Cut, Hack, and (inaw Marks 124

.\T
.\TI
List of Tablcs

4.16 Distal Fcutur: Cut, Hack, nnd Cnaw Marks 12fl

4.17 ProximalTibia- Cut, Hack, 3mI Gnaw Marks 126
4./N Distal Tibia: Cut, Huck, and Gnaw Marks 117
4.19 Scapuln: Cut, H~llk. and Cnaw Morks 127
4.20 lnflicrcd Marks: Upper-Front l.imbs [JO
4.21 Carpals: Frequcucy and Modificarion 134
4.22 Proximal Mctacarpals: Cut. Hack, and (inaw Marks 136
4.l.J Distal Mctacarpals: Cut, Hack, and (inaw Marks 137
4.24 Cut Mnrks 011 Tarsals. Distal Tibiac, and Proximal Mctar.tr sals 142
4.25 Cm, Hack, ami Cuaw Marks on thc Larger Tarsal Boncs 14-
4.26 Cut Marks rhc Astrngalus and Cnlcancus
DLl 14H Preface
4.27 Mctararsals: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks 14Y
4.2N Frngutcnt Frcqucncies for Mctupodials frorn Four Sprcics 01 Diñcrcnr
Boclv Size 154
4.29 Brcakagc l'artcnung of hrst Phalangcs 15S
4..JO Frcqucncics of Burucd-Bonc Frugrnents 162
4.\1 Richardson"s Scavcnging Data Comparcd wnh Klasics l.argc Bovids and
Anaktuvuk Dog Yard lflH
4.12 SUIll1l1<lrV of lnflicred Marks hy Size Carcgory 17H
.1.1 Comcidcnral Appcaranccs of Anirnals at \'(iaterho!e, with
Camivorcs 203
5.2 l-rcqucncv of \'(/orn and Unworn Milk pn-mol.rrs 215
This book starred as an amele, That it grew is, in Iact, P:lft of thc cxcitcment
.\.3 Crown Hciuhts for Horsc Tecrh from tlu- Mousrcrian Sitc of Combe
of this piece of rcscurch. AH rhc observatinns 011 the Klasics [auun wcrc
Lircn.tl 223
21.3 made in Capctown and wcrc rccordcd in my notchooks. No sununarv
.1.4 Crown Hcights of Scvcrul Spccics from Klasics Rivcr Mourh
.1 ..1 Tbe Miuimum Numbcr, of ludividucls by which cach Manuualian Spccics tabularion or synthcses of data were attempted whilc I was sti!l in África,
Is Rcprcscnrcd nr Klasics Rivcr Mouth Cave 22H nor was nny arrcmpr made at such synrheses on rny immrdiarc return. When
,.(, Thc Miniuunu Numbcrs 01 ludividuals hy which cach Mauuunli.m Spccics I dccidcd tu wrirc IIp tlu- Klasics data, I srarrcd to :lSSl'llIhk :111 the observa-
ls Rcprcvcutcd in Klasics Rivcr Mourh CHe 1;\ 230 tions anaromically, part hy part. I hnd no idea rhar thc pancrning reponed
S.7 Thc Mininuun Numbers of lndividu.ils by whicb eaeh Mammalian Spccics in Chapter 4 was as robusr as it tumed out to be. In [act rhc rclarionslups
15 Rcprcscntcd in Klasics Rivcr Mouth Cave I H 232 bctwccn anarouucal part, animal gnawing, burchcriug-mark Ircqucucics,
S.N lnvcntorics Ahstructcd frorn Klcin's Basi( Data Tahk... 214 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 liter-
ature 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 bc-
havior.
Tlle rcsult is a book rhar dcvdops an <lrgulllcllt abo{lt thc"hehavioT nI
Middle Stone Agt.' hominicls; these argumcnts luve strong impact on 1lI;l1lY
(ol1tcmporary ideas about the course of human l'\'olution. Thc impact is
both I1lcthodologic11 and substantive. The suggcstiolls th;lt are presl'llted
regarding the factors th:1t shaped our OWIl humanity are llt:w ami certain to

XI'ii
 Prefacc
\:1'111

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 get-
ting 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 Anthropril-
ogy, 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
Fauna/ Remains [rom Klasies River Mouth
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 re-
sponded 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
 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 knowl-
edge of rhe australopithecines beca me available, nrgued rhar bipcdal loco-
rnorion gave rhe hunter a comperitive advantage that preceded rhe evolu-
tionary 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 condincn-
ing role ro hunting, which moved our prehuman ancestors into rhe predato-
ry niche. (Fnr a good example of this approaeh, see Etkin 1954.) Scricus
 2 l. Problcm, Approachcs, and the Proccss of Lcarning
¡.
...... "
),
:~.
,,'i'.'J&'H~~
nr !
l.'
.'1 ~., ..t!1
Figure 1.1 A pack-hunting modcl ni curly hominid Iife.
spcculation 011 thc car!y hominids' survival tactics in ohtaining food fre-
qucntlv 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 horni-
nid 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",,-
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
The Darwin cenrennial-c-the hundredth anniversary of rhc puhlicariun
(1859) of The Crigin ofSpecies-was poised on the edge of a major intellec-
tu 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.
f" I
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 Ray-
mond Dart's (1948) claims thar the australopithecines were predarory hunt-
ers,-jusr as rhey rejected, two decades eurlier, his claim rhat the aus-
tralopithecincs were hominids.
Ar thc same time, rhc majority accepted the position. incrcasingly sol id-
ified hy S. \'(1Jshhurn (1959), that hunting wns the crucial bchavioral con-
tcxt in which humanizarion occurred, leading ro that culrurc-bcariog crea-
ture we know as modern man, or Horno sapicns sapícns. Critica! to the
development of events nor yet discussed was the linkage made in rhe Wash-
hum 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 <lS
rhe division of lahor, food sh;,uing herwecll adlllr males and fcmales, and ;]
growillg dcpcndcllce llpon informacion rransmitted rhrough Icarning. This
position was summarilcd by Washburn and Howcll (1960:49) at ,he Dar·
win centenllial meeting in Chicago as follows:
It would now arpear, however, that the large size uf the hr;l;n of cert,l;lI hominids
was a relatively late Jevelopmellt and th.u the hrain evolved dlle to new ~clc.:tion
pressures ,lftcr hipclblism .1tlJ consequent IIp011 the use uf too1s. The tool-llsin~,
ground-living, hllming way of life createJ the Lu~~ hUIll;111 hr;lill r:lther th,\l1 ;1
l<lrge-hr:linnl m,l11 Jiscovcring certJ.in new ways (11 life. Tln: <\llthors bdieve thls
conc!usion is the most important reslllt (lf the reeent lossil lHJminid di..,:overics ;lnJ
is (lile which canies far-rcach;ng implicatiolls for the interrrl't;ltioll (1f 1l\lIlun
behavior .1I1J its origino (1--' 1960 by the Uni\'er~ity of Chic;lgO)
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 Olediulll-
sin." 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 . ' - socioe<:onomic sym~ms rhat incorporare such behavlor. .. _As wc sce it the pivotal
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 ap-
pea red ro be an inconsistency berween rhe dominanr belief about rhe behav-
úlr,ll nl1llcxts of l·ncepiJalizarioll ,lnd rhc ;ln.:hac()I(lgicllly indiclt<.:d be-
havior.
\'\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->.' ~",d fl4f-'¡ 1.[-. -vi .,.•.:tr. c_·Á;<.ft-1
u~<&.
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 hunr-
ing and rhe size of the brain of Zmjanrhropus was resolved hy rhe Leakeys'
argumcnt thar an actual anccstor oí modern man had Iivcd contcmpo-
raneously 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 thco-
ry liad beco correet; only the inirial view that the australopirbecincs were
transitional had been wrong. They were, 00 reconsidcrauon. seen as a col-
lateral 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 en-
hanccd 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
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'clI-
ger-(ishcrs. who <He preferentially fernale, i~ virmally univf'rsaJ. lhe system C\I1llot
operate wlthollt sorne simple eqtlipmellt 311d tools. namcly eonrainns tor (";lrrying
food anJ knives ro cut up carcasses. The whole compiex is interWr1l1ecteU with ,\11
eVlllmionary change in anatomical locomotor arrangernent.., namely hipedalisl1I,
which fadlitates carryillg things about. A social sysrem involving ex~·h:lIlge of
cncrg\- in rht' forrn (lf tr:tIl-.portcd (olld pllts ;¡ premiullI I1n the ,lbility to ex<.:h;lng-e
inftltln.ltion ~lmllll.lkl· .lrr.lngl'rnents rC~~lrJing futurc rnOVl.'rnellts Ilf ~rtlllp Jll\'!11-
t-ers (Isaac 1976a-J, 197H). h also inne:1ses rhe import:wce of rq~llbril\g social
re1ations JlIlong individllals. Al[ rhese influenees l1light be expel-tcd ro favor rhe
evolutioll<uy dcvdopmcllt of :In effective l'omll1llllication sysTt'II1, sllch ;¡s pro-
to1angllage. (I";l,ll" anu Cr,lder 19.1l I :90-91; nfigilLll empha,,;..;' 19X1, ColllllJhia
Universitv Pre.~s. Reprintnl 11Y permission.j
One can sec rhar these are reasoned arguments of Plristoccnc home hases.
They rarionally considcr how different behaviors and properties are mutll-
 6 1. Problem, Approaches, and thc Process DI Learníng The Problcm 7

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 loco-
motion 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 gener-
ating 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 opin-
ion that those archaeologists who sought ro use the archaeological record as
a source for resting the consensus theory treating the emergence of a "think-
ing" 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 re-
seareh 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 philo-
If the arehaeologist seeks 'o test a theory by appealing to archaeological
íacts, how is this going to be achieved? Theories describe dynamics, condi-
tions of organizcd systems, whereas archaeological íacts are al1 static prop-
erties of matrer, Minimally, the arehaeologist rnust operationalize defini-
tions 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 arrange-
ments 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 bone-
density, 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
•
", ...
-'
~- ~
04-
(. /'7 A~
04-'1'7'

sophize. Theories can be thought of as trial sratements nbour rhe way dy- ~3 -<,,~ú
" • .,1' v -'
~ .p"" 4-
nanucs could he organized. Thus, almost all rhcoretical terms take their <~
/'
~
rneanings from the other ideas and conceprs within the argument hav- (>0

ing referenee to causal dynamics. When archaeologists appeal to the empiri- ~

cal world of the archaeologieal record in order to evaluate a theory, rhey
must face quite directly the problem rhat theories of history are generally
~S
• w
o •
about dynarnics; yet their empirical world-the archaeological reeord- ~ g .(",1"
consists of st~1tic, structured arrangcments of malter. Most theorctical tcrms
-~ .~
~ ,y0_
o
are primarily defined in terms of othcr eoncepts, not in terms of empirical ~ ~7
.04-- é'~
properties. Al! theories address organized interactions and/or mutually con-
ditioning situations conceived to cause or shape the values of several vari-
ables. Variahles, as important elemenrs in theories, alrnost always refer tú
dynamic phcnomcna or dynamic system-state properties, whieh can be
JI " o'
4-'4-' "l'
.;r" .., y
oc~o
o#-' /?¿.

4f.' ~

thought of as properties abstraeted from our experiences with the dynamie

histories of organized systems. Figure 1.2 Glynn Isaac's (19711 model for recognition of sitc function.

.Á-DVd,d{ -¡·Jtff {A"'« - h",,~,

f,.;r¡-~
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 con-
centrarions 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 selec-
tion 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 em-
pirically, 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 [ustifi-
cation 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 so-
ciation 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 con-
duet the rcscarch necessary 10 diagnose quite direetly the dynamic charac-
~ \¡ -A'J/""-"-
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 read-
ings, oc frameworks for inference, rhar we might obrain frorn the archae-
ological 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 in-
ference used by archaeologists, 1 seek to refine ways ro reduce ambiguity. l
seek ways of reliably distinguishing hunting from seavanging as the behav-
ioral 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 con-
ventional 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 better-
groundcd-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~ ill-
fereoces from the archaeological record.
Whcn Ilcarned archacology, the convcntions used for assigning mcan-
ing 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
 /(J l. Problcm, Approachcs. and thc Proccss ot Lcaming
out our picturc of rhe pasto \Ve investigated rhe past through the archae-
ological 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 knowl-
edgc. 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<ln see in rerro~
spcct th<lr <l spuriolls or amhiguous link was m<lde herween f\\"'O condirions.
Retrospecrive criticism is thus made possib!e by <l growth in our knowlcdge.
Pro~rl''i~ in ,,(il'ne<.' luprl'lls nec;wsl' clITio\l<; pcopk are willill~ to risk
suggest;ol1S as the 1l:11U!T of link<lges alllong v:lfiol1s lorms 01 phl'1101lH'11:1.
Thes(' hypotheses ;uc rhen av:lilable for rest..'arch, to he in\'csrigated as to
whethcr the k,nuwledge th.H served origil1<llly to \V:lrrallt the link;1ge was
adequate and accur:Hc. ~lost of the rime wcJindth.-at the.oFiginalpremises
\ ....eFij pºqrl.x...fIDw.ded (see Binford 1983c). Howcver, such a judgment can
only be rcnJered by virtue of bringing to bcar increased knowledge and
understanding relativc 10 the original suggestions. In eHect, we succeed in
our pursuit of knO\vlcJgc as we proceed along. Ihis is commonly how we
learn: we ;Ul' prompted hy ;1 hold compJniotl w!lo slIggests that his knowl·
edge is adt'l/uate 10 warrallt .1 proposition thar links allcgcd CHlSC<; and
cffccrs. Pt'rhaps \Ve Jrc skcptical of rhe suggested linkagc, or he/ieve thar the
kno\\'k-dge eitnl ;1.<; a \varrant for accepring the hI'pothesis i.. inade<.]l1.1tl'.
Given slKh a fOel!5 of suspectcd ignorallce, wc rhen commence ro investigare
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 conven-
tions 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 convcn-
tions that had ariscn in archaeological pr actice and had scrvcd as interpreta-
tive principlcs for constructing a past, Specifically, I was critica! of convcn-
tional'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 argu-
ments 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;¡rac-
ter 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<!uctive n'asoning,
<lnd 1know of no (ollventions that mal' he followcd to enslIrc unamhiguous
and accurate conclusions to be drawn inductively. My discussions regarding
proct'dllrc ;1tld the hisrory of failllrts in argumcnt \Vcre offcrcd not ,15 con-
ventions for judging the accuracy of an inductive argument, bllr instcaJ as
guides ro healthy skepticism. We must identifI' arcas of suspected ignorJnce
hefore we can rarionally procecd or design rcsearch aillll'li at redu<.:Íllg rhis
Ignor:lnce.

12 l. Problem, Approachcs. and rhc Proccss oí Lcarning
1 ,1111 convinccd that the most productivo clue to ureas of critica] igno-
rance 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 implica-
tions 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 skcpri-
cism 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 ac-
cornplishes 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 knowl-
edge, 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 inferen-
tial 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 insuffi-
cient samplc to cstablish accurateiy the relative economic values for ana-
tomical 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 sam-
pie. 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
g-'\)
!7'"
. -.¡.... Lu .i'v...,,,,
13
Approacbcs to Rcsearch
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 consid-
ered adcquate for grounding the methods thar I was engaged in construcr-
ing. My original plan was 10 perform comparative studies of separa te spe-
cies, 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
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 indi-
viduals 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 ego-
graphic 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
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 sym-
pathetic 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 frame-
work, rhe paradigm that guidcd the growrh of knowledge will alrnost cer-
tainlv 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 com-
prcheusivc "cmpincal lavvs" that would eventually fit inro an accumularing
hody of "truth't-c-which eould he regarded as a cornpreheusive and inre-
grnrcd 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 recag-
niz;}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 knowl-
cdge 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 argu-
ment 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 <ln opcn-minded
¡;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 nonproduc-
tive 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 re-
maining 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 prc-
viously 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, howev-
er, 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 knowl-
cdge, 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:r-
ries 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 domi-
nance.
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 "ex-
plain" rhe differential partern of anatomical-part frequencies observecl
among animals of different body size:
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 ... re-
flect 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-, <lnd
.~ Daly showed specifically that larger bovids tended [O be represented dispropornon-
arely by rheir foor-bones versus leg-bones just as at Klasies. They postulcted thar
rhe Suherde people discarded many larger bovid limb-boncs at the kili site_~. bur
~ hrought baá the fect eirher as handles in the skins (used as carrying colltainers lor
l"i che mt'a1?) or bcclllse rhe ft'el were p.trticularly valued, perhaps as SOlIrCt'~ uf
sinews for sewing. le is possible rhae une or the ()[her explanation for a dispropor-
eionately high representatioll of larger bovid feet also penains to Klas;es. (Klein
~ IY7.,BH)
\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 most-
often abandoned at killlocations, while parts of increased utllity are~trans­
ported to living sites. When rhere are transport problems, the most com-
manly 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 ... ·moshom-
m(~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
t
rcsearch had led me to question the conventional wisdom regarding rhe role
of hunting in the subsistence regime of early man (see Bmtord 1981 ~ particu-
-,
~
"-
larly p. 296). kt.any eV@fH, t:his fJattefH'S:8H1:iD4l,ti ~ 18wu)'81i 2n d heaGs is e
~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 re-
moved 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 ani-
mals inro a sire by hominids. If scavenging could be sustained as the pro-
curemcnr 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.
 Introductíon 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

2
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
CHAPTER (inferred for rhe extinct giant form) would have made [he .rdulrs cxceedinglv Jan-
gerous prey. (Klein 1974:270)

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 archae-
ulogical sitcs. This rcrnatknblc and admirable siruation is largcly the con se-
qucncc of thc dcdication of a single rcscarchcr, Richard Klcin, of thc De-
partment of Anthropology, Univcrsity of Chicago. For over a decade Klein
has beco devdoping a faunal "librarv' that is essentially unparalleled else-
whcrc. A significant result of these efforts has been Klein's recognition of
sorne interesting forrns of patterning, for which he has, quite rightly, offered
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 im-
portanee. 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 hunt-
ing-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 re-
sousees (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
\
: ZAM.,A. ...L.- ~-~"~-.¡')
" #'
AIVQ"'''A.:, J -"','~ ,o:f
·-·,,---------··-.-..-_';.·~~::..:::i,-.--/ } ~.l
f " ZIMt!JA..IIV~ ~o •

interpretations. ¡, "'", ,,/

Bccausc of Klcin's work, there has gradually emerged a procedure for ! '.'i-. __/
;--8or..:svvAN .....,,- 1
dcscribing and studying fauna, as well as an interpreta tive model distinctly :: ,J./ \I
associared with Klcin's view of the pasto Looking through Klein's publica- f\ 1",_.,' /1,
rions from 1972 to the prcscur makcs an absorbing exercisc: in thcm the
dcvelopment of his analytical tactics is well illustratcd. In addition to a , j L~:~_." ¡"o')'
--.-' A~.,c.A ,'. /
dcvclopmcnt of aunlytical srrarcgics, there is an accumulating recognition of ,.-, / ea.De..-.
pattLTlIing in diftcrcnt propcrtics of fnnnn! nsscmhlngcs uud ¡lItl'lIlbnt hllild~ ~c.,..YIC-
ing up of intcrpretative arguments. I am particularly interested in a pattern
that Klein (1974) recognized and first described from his analysis of rhe DlI~.. K.EL.OE.R.~
Klasics Middlc Stonc Agc (MSA) materials: -KJ-A$Ie:~ R:IV&~ W10UTH
sorne pns~ihlt' Iirnitations nn [heir huming capabili[ies may be implieJ by the faet
Fi~ure 2.1 MidJle SUme A~e si tes in sourhern AfrJca.
that. in COl1tr<tst to btcr pcoples in the area. they concemrateJ th('ir attention on the

18
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 link-
ing rhe geomorphology and sedimentary data to an undcrstanding of sea-
leve! 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 analo-
gous 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 eom-
parative 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 condi-
tions 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' be-
havior. In addition, sorne historical knowledge or helief abour changes in
past environments has served, and continues to serve, as a hasic and impor-
tant 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 worth-
while 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 al Klasics Rivcr 23

rrl\\\t~1\~ "/ ~/I "',! i,':'?,~'¡',~~,~6~~!I"\'~,>!,:Ii/I\,\~C~.\I¡iAd(~,.?\'l/hJ~,,;\¿L I

~1\\':/:;:'¡"\"'c:-é/~í'i\'
""k/ .~,\:if.':;; ~ \I/~\\\
, ' é,??IDi' " ~ , ~','""'\i J~
"'//1 "''' I/;1','"
1/ ; .
é / / /¡ '1__
\

"'':':'_-~
IV,:,
1
"

~'f::~'~Ce
' 'u, --_, " "1' '1 .. ',(
--'---- -------<.: 1, "1' J) - JI, --11, ,,111
' ---- ',fJ'I("0
-- - - - .. ..., .. _ '-- ' -<,
'-¡,' l 'VI,
,_
1

.~;

-- ----- ... _-- ,,--_ ,

:-f~~~~?
..-- -
.... .....
,z"d, TE:R:.~AC.rc "
----.-......,

Figure 2.2 Thc southcm African Coast, looking cast ncar Die Kcldcrs. South Af-
rica. Note thc rockv outcrops and thc low fynho~ vcgctatíon.

Hrst. thc coast is rocky (Figure 2.2) and drops off sharply ro a deep irnmedi-
arcly offshorc. This means thar fluctuations in the hcighr of sea lcvel could
be suhstantinl, but thc horizontal displacement of rhc actual coasr from its K.,LAio11E.6 ~E.il
prescnr posirion would he al a mínimum. At lcasr al Klasics, this indicares 1~Z. ' I ..... D' .........
OeE""....,
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 parallcl- "6CAL.E. 1"-1 METER'-.'$-

ing the eoast. At Klasics rhe mountains erest ar an elevation of around 600 o 40= eooc 12000 ,~=

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 motln-
tains, 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
Figure 2.3 Thc Tzitzikamma coast. showing location of caves and thc gross topo-
graphic 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 <lnl1ual1y reccives
ahollt 7S0 mm of rainfall with a late alltllmn-carly winr('r maximlllll, al-
though rain Illay occur rhroughout rhe year. The t('mpt'rature variation is
not great, with a mean temperature of the cnldest month (jul}') of 14.2°C
(S7.3°F), while the warmest months (january and Fehruary) average 200C
(67.T'F). As can he scen, this is a very lITliform clim;lte in that it docs not
suffer great temperature extremes seasonally. This c1imatic eVelll1e~s is co!l-
ditioned by the ocea!l~ the interior arcas north of tite Cape Folded Moun-
tains are gt'ncral1y ('xcluded from the tempercd cOlldirio!ls on the CO~lSt.
 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 radia-
tion 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. Ani-
mals 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 produe-
rion ¡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 consuma-
ble 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 roor-
S[{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 quick-
turnover ranos, in that ver)' litrlc of the annual production is in [act main-
tained 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. Evap-
oration 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. Fast-
growing 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 s-
couragcs 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 evap-
orranspiration 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 rain-
fall, 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 reduc-
non 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 differ-
ent vegeration province. Today, the tenn mosr commonly used for the bio-
me 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<ltcrcolor urawin¡.; shows hlack wildcbcest, zebra, /lstrich, .md wh.lt arrear to he bastard
h;nteoccsL This is the association of animals found in ,he :~1IJs.we11 tu the north and cast
Ilí the Tzitzikamma coasL
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 lnrge-
animal fauna of the interior karoo consists of spnngbok, gcmsbok, wild-
ebeest, 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 dcscrip-
tion, 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. Nev-
crtheless, it does represent rhe low-rainfall margins of the summcr-domi-
nated 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 bal-
10011 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 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 move-
roen! north (toward rhe equator] oí rbe winter rainfall partcrn during glacial
máxima, with a corresponding shift even closer ro thc cquator for the zone
111 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
""
-2--:
~~
is marginal karoo along the edges oí rhe surnrner rainfall zone (see Figure
Z!~
u_
2.5). Correspondingly, we would expect expansión northward of surnrner
0- rcin-rcgulcrcd grassland at the expense of forested arcas nearer the cquator.
" "
:;:~
c-" This model, if ir is correcr, should permir us ro anticipare so me of the
8• environrnenral condiriuns along the southern Africnn coast: (1) during pcri-
~Ol
• C
ods of glacial máxima coincidenr wirh lowered sea lcvel, the fynbos should
~ ~
u~ expand beyond the Cape Folded Mountains as winrer-dorninatcd rainfal!
E .S:
EN
,o c
- >
e-
. 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
~ e
•c-
.g with raised sea levels, the [ynbos should he pushcd back south of rhe Cape
" o Folded Mountains. Thc kamo of today should beco me more lush, wirh
~ S
~-;:J
_c grazing anirnals most likely on the sourh coast and thc browsers and mixcd
~ o fcedcrs becoming leasr common.
::o"
e u
.-" Interestingly enough, Richard Klein (1972) has publishcd a most in-
ao ~- triguing body of data from Nelson Bay Cave on rhe sourhern coasr just ro
"- ec
C
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
8 o
-S';"
~ ~
_ o
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.
~ Ü 's.
u Hisror ically, thc fauna recorded thcre wcrc rhe Cope buffalo (Figure
l ~-
Ñ ~
• u
2.7) bushpig (Figure 2.S) bushbuck, and grysbok, all browsers or strongly

~i'z.
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 max-
\I b irna 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.
- .~ i springbok, Jnd bonrebok (3 southcrn analoguc ro rhe rupi of E'1sr Afriea).
<! "ª'u ~ Here rhen, we sec situarions directly oppositc ro the conditions antici-
1111 ::: ¡ pared 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
 Environmcnts Past and Prcscnt at Klasics Rivcr 31

"

"~
00
-'"
.,,-
0-

s ~

o
"-"
~

"
~-"
~ ~~
¡ o o
u
~ u
"~
"."
" o

~/III
t:~ Ñ
so
s~

.r.'-
"-
" o
:ea~
-."
,~ -e o
•.,If -
§ S
>olIIm

~.~ ~ Figure 2.7 Cape buffalo in typical bush covcr. (Colines)' of J. Ebcrt.l
" "
~
S
o
o
~ N
_ U

<"'
c~~
- 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
§" .S" Wc would expecr hrowsing-mixecl-feeder fauna! a ssociations during glacial
e]
." o máxima and grazing animals during inrerglacials. Bur thc facts are jusr rhe
o u
o " reversc: we havc grazing animals during rhe glacial maxjma, and hrowsers
u'""
u
and mixcd-fccdcrs in historie times assocíatcd with a high-hiomass tcrnpc-
~_ ,~u rarc foresto
------.. üf;
U
" ",""
M ~
'" ,\\1 :;" E
..
u
.~:..:
"~
~
~ ~
~! •
.
_ ., E
a:1 •a 1
g
si 11111;;: ,

Figure 2.8 Bushpig in bush covcr. [Courtcsy of J. Ehert.]

 ..Á W?L. - ~ I~.:i. J"'" 7;..'7'
rA .,&, rr":
2. Klasics Rivcr Mourh: A Provocauvc Case Stone Asscmblugcs of thc Kl.rstcs River Mouth Sites 33
32

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 peri-
04s, 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
Bay Cave (Burzer 1979; Parkingron 1980, 1981; Miller 1981), where rhere
is a substanrial grazing fauna associated wirh cold conditions,low sea levels,
and dricr settings-in short, a glacial condition al the dese of rhe Pleisto-
cene. 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 tempera-
turc, 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 de-
posirs 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.
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 jbLk-
e
!jklklS unM 3nitill "8",iarrangcd alnng a V-shaped draw rhat rises approx-
jmatcly 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
1
~c.""'E.
7
.','...
']!
Figure 2.9 Thc relationshíp among thc various sitos at thc ma¡n site at Klasícs
River Mouth.
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
l 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
'1"
rock facc bclow thc mourh of Cave 2, making entry difficult. However, it is
<>
beheved that when it W<lS oecupied a talus deposit in froru of the cave lTIouth
~ .~ along the raek bcl' ro form a continuOlls deposi~ with rhar of Shclter lA.
For ease of discussion we may spcak of Shclter 1R and Cave 1 as rhe lower
~ 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
:¡" 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 <fuLdown along a rack wal! in a fashion similar
to bedding areas (sueh as rhe excavated bedding areas ar the sire of De
t~H Hangen IParkington and Poggenpoel 1971 1).
Thcse ash and hlllTIus.-.deposirs yieldcd an asscmhlage known in rhe
Somh African lirerarllre as This is partinllarly interesting
beca use it has been generally considered the earliest Upper Paleolithic type
of indusrry in southern Afriea. Ir is characterized hy a general reduction in

,tI" -b..."xa.. S, ~
/;..I~<I a<.LA?- ~ ~ ~~
J "
 34 2. Klasies River Mouth: A Provocatívc Case Stonc ASSCJl1hbgl'.~ ot thc Klasics River Ml)uth Sncs .15

c....VE. z., tools are scrapers, which are simply flake-blades with retouch somewuere
along the margin, and dcnnculates, whieh are mostly microdenricularcs in 3

\~~:=".
-L. CV~ '5
M.$Am--
'-9 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
~ ~ J....--HQW/~olJ~ removals. Finally rhere are flake-bladcs that have been utilized hut are not
~ ~TJt:)-:a1 /
[udged ro have been retouched. They account for around 40 10 of rhc shaped

;r "tf'~
/".r:2
"bGl-, ..,"
J
6 _...T .....

..$oo.'7~A"""D ..Q6-'~
lA
tools. \v ith scrapers and denticulates accounting for abour 50%. Denticu-
lates 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 re-
ported from MSA contexrs. Varying degrees of hifacial retouch and modifi-
catión h.tve becn employcd for producing somctimcs surprisingly symrnetri-
.l6V&.LJ7 cal too! forms. Both rhe patterns of regional and chronologieal variability
·,I...vr.... ~8
are at presenr poorly known (see Sampson 1974 and Volman 1981).
t..&v~L..
If onc stands wav back and looks at the character of tool assemblages
-.37 ~.:. ....... ..:.. 'N METEIll:.<S
--~ve:J- 49{"O in terms of design properties as they are known to vary \v·ith rool functions
o 2. ... .. 8 10 among ethnographically docurnenred stone tool technologies, the MSA ap-
pears to he only minimallv differentiated fuuctionally. For example, we
~
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 know thar almost al] the tools and containcrs used by the Ausrrnlia» aborig- )-
fmm Singcr and wvmcr I\)H~:Figure 3.1.1 ines werc manufactured from wood. We also know that, ut lcasr in the

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 as-
sClllhlagc 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'rg-
illg 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 sorne-
times very plc..'<l';ing. Thcse are very similar to the leilira rhat have hern
obscrvcd in manufacture hy the central descrt Australians (see Binford and
()'Connel1, in press; Spencer and Gillen 1972), for whorn they have served
;1S knivcs, spearpoints, amI were edged for picks. Among the other shaped
~
central Australian descrt. aborigines did not dress hides aud thcy gt..'llcrally
did not ilin animals. Cutting rasks werc minimal nnd genera1!y wcre pcr-
forrned 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 tcchnol-
ogy is a scr~)rcr-adzc-dominated industry, wirh varying amollnts of heavy-
dut)' 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 COll-
tainers were lllanufactured of basketry, and c10thing ""as made from cither
plant fiher ur cut-and-woven sma11-animal skins or hinl fcathers. Skill-
working 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-

"""","wiie-
~I-. .- rr sei.~
mi. 1,..i~ ~ r.:!¿;;te.... ¿..!.~:J
.ÁK~,.- ~
adr-~
~;(7 - cef"t

.1(, 2. 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 rechnolo-
gics 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 cut-
ring 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-
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\,
1 ,,%_j¿ ~sor
•..21- JO I-SI\
" "1 • ~ /<'".I!l"
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<ruo1. asscrnl>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;-¡l-
t'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
f't~-~ .. ,,,,0
MP.- /j,f;.e./
~~rl
ri'tVJ . -~ r'tu."er
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 avail-
able 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 sur-
faces as they were modified by such natural processes as erosión and physi-
cal 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 impor-
tant 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
 .1R 2. Klasícs Rivcr Mouth: A Provocanve Caso:' Dating t1H: EVL:\H'i Documcntcd in thc Klasrcs Sitos .19

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
far.;:~.cha'("&gicd~".l!h'UilAfl~F"'fg#liIJ't!tA~" was proposed by
;'~:¡5
Vogel and Bcaumont (1972) and Beaumonr and Vogcl (1972), Thcy sug-
gested 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

b 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
Palcohthic as known in Europe, rhus rnaking the MSA of southern Africa
not contcmporary with the Upper Paleolithic, as gcncr alized by Klein and

~ indicared" (Butzer 1982:39).

Severa! main obscrvations might now be made in this discussion:
others. but with the Mousterian of Western Europe. Ir was correspondingly
suggcstcd by Beaurnont and Vogel thar the M5A bcg.m somctime earlicr

J
.~
1. Alrhough hominids ccrtainly played sorne role in the accumulation
uf these deposus, the manner of excavarían. preservarían, and docu-
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
t
1
1MP8

~
mcntarion rcnclcrs any specific undcrstanding of rhe way rhc homr-
al thc time of Klein's ]970 review werc acknowicdgcd ro he poorly docu-
nids uscd thc land surtaces of Cave 1 a mattcr of speculanon.
menrcd. Howevcr, mosr were considcred consistcnr with thc vicw that the

~
2. Thc recogmzed lcvels seem to be clearly geological in origin, and the
makers of rhe M5A tocls "etC ~26dCi¡4 la miaias (see Klcin 1970: 132).
ccntribution of horninids must be seen as conrained within the geo-
Only shortly after Beaumont ami Vogel advanccd the rcvised chronol-
logic evcnts. Thur iS 1 the hominids moved across the surfaces rhat
ogy for thc MSA, Butzcr argued a compatible earlv intcrprctaticn frorn
wcrc bcing crcared by nonculmral proccsscs, contriburing ro the
scdimentary and sea-leve! data as observed at Klasies River Mouth. Berween
contcxt of thc dcposits but not visibly alrenng the ongoing geo-
1969 and 1973, Burzer (1972, 1973) was eogaged in srudics of thc southern
logical depositional processes,
African Cape with a focus on the chronostratigraphy of thc sites ar Nelson

,
3. In no sel1sc can we U$e the excavated data from Cave 1 to dis(uss the
Bay and Klasles Ri\"t:r t\:1ollth. Although not puhlished \111tillart'T, by 1973
furmarion processcs of the an.:hacologicaJ record, because the ar-
rhe view was already widc!y cirClllated that rhe Klasics sitl' darcd hack to
chaeological record is only docurnet1tcd in its formal or composi-
what i11 rile Frcnch ehronoJogy was rhollght of as tlH.' Riss~ WürJn intrrgla-
~ tionJI scnsc Jlld not in ¡ts sitc-structural or Jcposirion:ll Sl'IlSC.
cia.! of ,'pproxlm<ltely 125,000 B.P. This infcrcllcc was made based on
Any progrcss rilar we may make in..fuIrhcring our undersranding of rhe pasr Butzer's ¡ntcrpretarions of ancient sea-levels at Kiasies Rivcr !\lourh. These
-{ 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
were matched ro the oxygen-isotope curves derived from deep-sea eores
<'~ol1sid(:r('(1 ;'s p:lrtiullarly 'it'llsitive inJicators of ~Iaci;dly rdalt'd (l(l';lI1 [('ll\-
, dc:posil cOllsltkrc:d rdc:vJIH lO t1u: bchavior of (he hOlllillids habitanls, ~rud­ pc.ratutc,.....·Ft'Sulting chrormlogical 5clteme ~hee",·witle¡y·published

il iel! in rclation ro each orhcr and to the history of clima tic evenrs providing
rhe r.:ontext for the archaeology.
(Beaumont el al. J 97R; Butler J 978, 1982; Klein 1976). The interpretat;"n
was ralller simple: (1) It was arglled thar Cave 1 settlclllent was gcncr~llly

~ carlicr rhan that of Shdtcr 1A. Ir should be poinrcd out rhat rherc is no
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
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' ..
};,.t. M (Klein 1970: 123). Shortly af'cr hi.tc.i.wartidc, a rc.volutÁillury..tim<"",k
/
srratigraphic jllsrification for rhese assumprious (see figure 2.10). At no
paint was the stratigraphic sequence frorn these sitcs physically inrerdigi-
tated. This l11eJns thar the chronological cross-correlatioll was an ínfcrellce
from othcr type~ of llol1str;Hibraphic data. (2) It WJS :lsslll1l(.'d th:lt the cwe!>
;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

--'f7,-~,j
~~tf.¡ .- """ -~
2. Klasics Rivcr Muuth: A Provocativc Case
<lO
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 epi-
sodcs 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 accrc-
tional accumuL1tion of deposits during low~sea-level conditions.
Nevertheless, Butzer assigns eaeh leve! beginning with Level 40 to suc-
cessive phases of high oeean temperature, beginning with Stage Se (abollt
125,000 H.P.) Oxygen-isotope curves from the Pacific deep-sea core re-
ported 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 cold-
l'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, "'n
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'pos-
íts 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 Jeposi-
rions 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,
.. ""..... _~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 succcs-
sion 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-plat-
form eDres rebrive to irregular and single-platform cores, and the very low
frequencies of anifacrs manufactured fmm indurarcd shale (which domi·
nates rhe <lssemblages fmm Cave 1) as opposed lO high frcqueneics of quartz
thar lloll1il1;1tc lhe )--Iowiesoll 's !loort indllsl ríes of S\1l'lter 1A-aH lead olle
to he very slIspicious of the chronological inferenccs m;:¡dc for Shelter 1B.
Such comparisons, whílc llar conclusive-hecausc we do not know v,,'har
condirioned thl' propertil:s hcin~ cOl1lpared-suggest lhat GllIrion should he
cxercised WhCll considcring Shclrer lB as conrcmporalleous "..,¡th rhe carly
Icvels of Cave 1.
If the Butzer chronology is correet, as well as the arguments abour
environmental dynarnics presenred earlier, rhere are eertain conclllsíons rhar
may be reasonably anticipated.
1. If all tilt· Icvds rqJrt'Sl'1lt warm (hi~h-watcr) sugl'S, the l'llviroll-
mcnts on rhe coast should be various manifestatiom of the present winter-
dominatcd rainfal1 pattern, with its eorrelated high-biomass environment
(fynbos-to-rcmr~rJ.te forestlíke biomes) supponing prinuríly browscrs anJ
mixcd-feeders.
2. lf rhe sequence of high~water stages are correcrlr equ3ted ro the
deep·sea isoropic events by Butzer (isotopie Stage Sd-Sc = Levcls 40-37;
f4'.-~ ~~I e.-¡v,'-{,.k,f
 Dating (he Evcnts Documcntcd in thc Klasics Sitcs 43
42 2. Klasícs Rivcr Mouth: A Provocatíve Case

--...~'---., .,.
,.-¡:'t'~ll'f~~ ... ".~'\,,'
.... ~U6"" '$PIEGI&~

•.~; . ','::\\.~".,
~'

'. ::,:..1'; .,,; , " :' "" 7:., " '..,, . -re
..... ,~ ~""_ "
o '0 20 "10 ..O 50 lioO SO <JO 10070
rr.-r.'.• ' ..6
,.,,~ '.~
N8c W,
','1:
, "'.T
'...........
.. '

."..,.." , 'v~:~:
.• , ,

.~ . . . ",' '. ~?t : -: '.

"" ~..
......
.....',. o··,'

.'~
•. '. '. '. " .
N8G P.

"'Be ~
PI... &:,<!>TOc..~NE

- '-.-
•
Mi,,:-,," 1r -"O'_
. I(1l"U-"ir~ ..... 00Ó re.ooo 5P

K,RU1-L' G:."~~u ,NO ~PEC.IC~

~
."" .. : .... -'~ • /J W"_D~R. &.T
,!,PR,lo.jCóI 0><-

!lt!i.~;':):.:
B~IUIoroK. BA~TAR DH"'R.T~&.":!>T
,:.- , • -'. Ó. "," - ....
! HARTli>f C:E~'-
KIlM 1A,-' [JI- ÓHIII..;r~R C\?lJP>.c,,,'"
...< 16 "M~AIZJII V
K.1"".u-1 , 6"''''''-''''r~jA
HO.....\E.1001o..l.',6
Poo~T
"le'" 1-' 81..1'$)04 ~PEc.lr: 1\.
C ....." 'E <:(~y~..o"-.
Figure 2.11 Red hancbcest: examplcs of gra:zing animals.
I(~M 1-1

K.~M 1~16
)---
)---
eu~ ...eucK..-
Bu~ ...
Kuou
p,c::.. ," 51'1E:.l-..TE.lit-
"-.\,A.,.....M~An.
6LUP;; DVII<...E R.
K.R:M l·j7,O,C-
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
K.Jf~ J-17
• ...
I(,ItM 1- 3' 7
Jeep-sea coros demonstrare a progressive cooling of the seas during rhe early I(RM 1·38
pan of the Uppcr Plcistocene (Substage 5, in which all the Klasies levels are 39
COL.O r ~WAR"""
assigucd), We would cxpcct ro find cvidence of two occurrenccs: (J) warm,
and bence high-wntcr, substages should be progrcssively lower during the Figure 2.12 Comparativo frcqucncics oí grassland versus bush-lovíng spccícs
sequen ce of Late Pleistocene cvcnts, and (2) there should be <In overall trend across rhc motor cxcavanon units at Klasics Rivcr Mouth. (D,1t,l hom Klcin 1972, 1976,)
in favor of incrcasing numbcrs of grazing animals (Figure 2.11) over the
span of LIte Pleistoceno evcnts docurncnrcd at Klasics Rivcr Mourh. In gr;lzing nnimnls are 1I10s1 cornmon in [ow-watcr, cold stagcs. Wlur is flor
short, wc should scc :l progn:ssive trcud of incrc.rving grazillg anirnals with consistent, howcvcr, is the apparent dccrease in graúng animals across the

!í
~
cach succcssive high-sea-Ievel substage unril rhey dominare the remains in
Lcvcl U, which is desigll:lrcd a IOW-V,i~lH:r suhsr;lge, and hcuce a cold
periodo
~'f)h'!Ic ."pe
n" however, i&;.BQI'kittg,;,t;Iw~·tft+§; Pirst, rhe levcl of
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 expan-
sions of f)mbos-H:mperatc foresrs in rhe Cape ZOIlC, as has heril rhe case in
post-Pleistoceno times.
high-wmer substages is app;'lrently considered lO be nearly equal lO rhe high-
Figure 2.12 illustrares the percenr<lge of eover-Ioving animals (busilpig,

i
water 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
grysbok, hushbuck, mounrain reeclollck, oribi, va~llrhehok, kudu) versus
grass-Ioving anilllals (hllll' antdope, bJ.srard hartehecst, ;J11d wildcbccsr,
springbok, hancbeesr, and quagga). Based 011 the talll1~\. \Ve wOllld cxpcct
each successive high-warer srage ro have been progrcssivciy warmn and
more dominated hy incrcasing .1mounrS of winter rainfall umil Leve! 14,

1 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
where rhe onser of cold conclirions would be indica red, reaching ~\ maximlllll
in Leve! n, which is acknowlcdged ro be a low-water st~IgC.
Ir cannot be overemphasized rhat rhis overall pattt.'rn is at variance with
rhe more general views of c1irnare change for rhe l'arly Upper Pleisroccnc:

i:
~ 6re wse - ft:!;:¡;
 q'¡
2. Klasics Rivcr Mouth: A Provocanvc Case D,uillg thc Evcnts Docnmcntcd in thc Klnsics Sücs 4:)

"The facr tbar grazer dominarcd fossil faunas should be so common proba- deviation from zero, the colder rhe seas during the pcriod of shcll growth.
hly rcflects the facr rhat climatic conditions cooler than thc presenr occupied Whar is vcry clear is thar thc L5A shells have a relativcly "wnrm mean value"
much more of thc Upprr Pleisrocene rhan condirions similar ro present" right at + 1. These shells would record the warm seas of the conrcmpornry
(Klcin 19~W:257). Yet, at Klasies "grazer" spccies decreased as thc glacial era, since the modcrn sea levels were achicved by around 3000-4000 ycars
cnvironmcnts were, ir is thought, becoming more scvcre.
a.c, Clcarly Howicson's Poort represented the coldcst seas or thc most glacial
Clcarly thcrc is a problem here. lt should be pointed out that in renns of condirions, whereas so-callcd !viSA 11 (Levcl15, Cave 1) is still cunsiderably
fauna, rhc conrents of Shelter J H fir inro this scqucncc either bctwcen l.evels
cooler titan modern condirions. but less cold than those of Howieson's Poort.
17 ano 16 or, more likely, contemporaneous with the incrcasingly cold
So far, this fits wirh the srratigraphic inrerprcrations, and picces the Howie-
condirions favoring grass-loving species bctwccn Levels 14 and 13, making
son's Poort of Shelter lA as roughly conrcmporary with rhe dcpresscd sea
ir roughly contempomry wirh much of the upper Shcltcr lA sequencc. In
levels of Level13 in Cave 1. Levcl15 (MSA 11I) then rcprcscnts higher-watcr
orhcr words. the~~"'~f..l,~IJw,,-ili-..p.üuS»Llcganliflg ehe
levels but sull c1early glacial conditions relativo tu thc modern siruation.
corrcct chronologjca] .placemenr of rhe-cieposi{:So,al' Shelter -:1 B.
The chronological chfficulty comes when wc look at the isorope data
Uivcn the discussion of the deposirs at Klasies rclativc to the isotopic
from thc so-called M5A 1. The single shel! from Lcvcl .38 of Cave 1 and the
substages known from deep-seo cores, it was only reasonable to study a
three shells from KRM-S are similar, being just slightly different íroru the
number of shells from the Klasies deposirs in rerms uf the lóO/IRQ ranos.
mean for the L5A shells that were taken as controls indicative of modern
Such studies wcre actuully cerned out by N. J. Shackleron on two shells
inrerglacial conditions. When Butzer saw this situation, he reasoncd that the
from L5A 1cvds in Shcltcr 1D (nor previously discusseJ herc), which yieldcd
only time in the reeenr Pleisrocene past when interglacial conditions has
ccramics and are bclicvcd to dare around 100 R.e. (Singer and Wymer
obtained was during the Eem (or Riss-Würm interglacial of the French
1982); one shell (broken) frnm Shel'er lA, Level20; seven shells frnm Cave
sequencc) dating <.lrollnd 125,000 years B.P. Ir is tbe facts of a simibrir)'
1, Level 15; and Ol1e shell from Cave 1, Level38. One additional shell was
hetween rhe oxygen isotope values for the two shdls from L5A Icvds and
stlldied (rom Level 12, Shelter lB; and rhree others from Cave 5 (not di s-
rhe four shells from the allcged MSA 1 levels that provide tht, h<1sis for the
cussed here), Leve! 6. The latter four shells were .111 intcrpreted as MSA,
inferred chronology o( rhe MSA. Although ir is rrue that Shackleton in~
though coming fmm separare sites thM are not stratigraphically illxtaposi~
c1uded the shells from Shelter lB in his samplc of MSA l. 1 find ,hat ,he
tiOllCd.
larter has significantly higher isotopic values than are secn for rhe Cave l
Figure 2.13 summarizes the range and the mean fOf standardized
and Shc1ter 5 samples. This faet Icnds supporr to my carlie-r skcpticism
IhO/IRQ rarios h(.'rwcen rhe two most exrreme valllcs (suml11crvenillS winrer
n:g;lrding lhl' aSslllllption by Sillger and Wymcr (Il.JH2) thar Shdrcr lB was
(Clllpcratures) (or each sample srudied. In gelleral, the highcr rhe positive
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,
{oIBO, %. To P.D.B. 6T.... NOARO
the curren! chronology for rhe 1\.fSA rests on the accuracy of 160/IRO ratio
3_0/00 .... z..%a "-1.%., o ~~
readings on six shells, t\VO from L5A, and four from the MSA l. Thc con-
struetivc skepticism I advocated in Chapter 1 leads me ro he very uneasy
1[}-1,~ ~ '3 L~A with this chronology, and ro be even more uneasy wirh ¡rs derivarives (Beau-
B""",~ ////~ / / / / / / . / / / / / / /. ///'- , mon' 1980; Klein 1980).
Figure 2.13 Surnrnary
lA-lO 1 HOW1C-SO.... ~
POOIII:.T
¡:.:raph lIf l"O¡llol(l Tatios as
knuwn foc shclls recovereu RADltH:AIUH)N DATES

'-"[i~11 M~AI[
from various levels at Klasics
Rivcr Mouth. Values plottcd
16-t2. - 1 A toral of 33 He dates wcre obtained on samples from Klasics Rivcr
are mcans of thc high ..nd
1-38 1 I M6A "X
low ...alue'> ¡rom cach samplc
and the median value for
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
5-6 ~ cacho SS = sample size.¡From the 6 dates on the LSA) were maximum dates; that is, the 14C was not
Shacklcton 1982.) 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 ana-
lvzcd 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 partic-
ular infcrcnt¡al ehronology that has hcen gcncratcd almost as a series of
cunvcntions sincc ir was originally proposed by Burzer: that is, rhc assign-
ment of M5A lcvcts ro various stages of the oxygen-isorope chronology for
occrm tcruperarurcs.
Surnrnary
Ir is':appu,,",,, ,,,,,,~lt>~,,.,Id>rt_"'~~A.~'\J<Itl!llt,,I'!1"A1'rli'!l
dlEioW<l.' ...........II.ow, Reliable daring has pushed rhe L5A back ro
around 20,000 U.I'. Sorne sequences, such as Klasíes River Mouth and per-
haps Border Cave (Beaumonr 1980), suggesr rhar much 01 rhe M5A repre-
sented at leasr in rhosc deposits is older than the 14C merhods are able to
1l1(';lSUH' rdi;lhly.
Ikcallsc of the ahsenLT of a reliahle dating l11erltod, in South Afrícan
arcll'lcologieal cireles the cOI1\'l'ntion arose of assigning levels from key
arL'haeo!ogkal sitl'~ lo stagl's ami sllhSlagcs of 111(' PkisloCl'lle clim;Hic se-
quencl', as known by oxygcn-isotopic evaluations of Jeep-sea eores extracr-
cd from the ocean hottoms, Therc is no hasis for this I11crhod rhat 1can sec
excepr rathcr nonspecific ide:l.s ahollt whar terrestrial environrnenrs should
have heen like during cold versus warl1l stages (st'e Klein 1980). In all cases
of archacological seqllellces rre:ued in rhis manncr, rht, sites lack polien
rc(ords, so lhe clim:llic inlcrprl't:ltiolls art' madt, (111 st'diml'nrologiG11
grollllds :llld/ot' (111 lhe h:lsis of inkrctlL'l'S ¡mm lhe Llllll:\! rl'l1lains (sel'
parriclllarly Beaulllont l't ¡ll, 197H; Kltin 1980; Vol11lJn 1981),
In my opinion tltcsc SChe11l:llic intcrprdarions art' esscntial1y :l. waste of
lime hecallsc (1) we do I10T kno\\' rhe dUL1Lrt'r of lhe processes derermining
dimalic change, alld (2) lhe .1SSlIlllpriol1 t1lJr vari:lhilitr in faunal remains is
a simple reflecrion of lht' population of animals ~l\';lihlhle in rhe gross en-
vironmellt, lInfiltered hr the redllliqucs of procurc1l1enr and rhe character of
iJ¡.'-1j2~~((¿;j
47
Summarv
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 investi-
gateo 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 invesrigar-
l'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 Slllllma-
rized hcre has heen widcly generalized and used as a basis for cross-correla-
tion with a number of other sites in the southern African arcas (see Bcall-
mont et al. 1978j Klein 1980; Volman 1981). Thes(' cross-correlations-
horh 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 indus-
try is J precursor of rhe Upper Palcolithic, (."Omi<,tl'llt wilil the early ap-
pearance 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.

CHAPTER
The Klasies Fauna: Approaches ro Analysis
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 lO which obscrvations maJe 00
LlLma .1re relevant ro hominid behavior. J:nd flor lo rhe beh<lvior of other
bonc<Kcumuhlting ~1I1illlals. In additioll, I nccd ro darify my proccdures for
observarion and recording of rhe fauna.
Thc asscssmcnt of the integrity of rhe deposit can only be made afta
rhe bu na has becn observed and rabulated-whil"h means rhat it is essen-
tially a conclusion about the fauna. Nevertheless, the logic of presentaríon
dcmands rbar rhe readcr be assured which agent Ihe facrs reter ro. Th~1t ¡s,
\n' Ill'l'd ro c1arify rhe intl'grity of tlll" blln;ll assetnhlage bdoH' procccding
lo the dcscriprioll al1l1 analysis uf fae!s t1wught to infofm 3bom hominid
heh~l \'ior.
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
Approachcs ro Descnpnon
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{-'
3 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 epi-
physeal union , or whether terth exhibir different pattcrns oí crown wea r)
when tabulnring whethcr one or more individuals are reprcscntcd hy homol-
ogous 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 num-
ber of six individuak. (Kk-in is roughly following thc proccdurcs as outlmcd
by Chaplin (1971 J for reporting minimum numbcrs of individuals.)
It{;? 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
rhe 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.
 Evtdcncc [ur Use nE rhc Site by Porcupincs .\ 1
so 3. Thc Klastcs Fauna: Approachcs ro Analvsis

tabulare thc numhers of this unir, yet the proximal hurncri prcsenr may afl
In sbort. m ao· dOrl:i. not.Jlt),fmaUY"'~RSUrnf". Rlf'at-,Jn,3Aiumni,,a,J;ly,,;,com-
be brokcn. My task is then to estimare the minimum number of proximal
pl(,!w,~. He rrunsports and differentially uses auaroutical scgmcnts dis-
humeri rcprcscnted by the fragmentary rernains, on rhc assumprion that a
mcmbercd from whole animals. The prcscncc of 3. particular scgmcnt at a
complete 01' anatomically recognizable proximal humerus had originally
vire docs not irnply that the cntire animal, anaromically spcaking. was ever
been presenr. In this procedurc. the infcrence berwccn the population of
thcrc. Hut the assumpnon of equivalence berwcen a part and rhe whole
units observed archaeologically and the population that once existed in the
anima] is whar srands bchind anernpts to infer (1) the total mear available to
past is made ar rhe anaromical segment level rather than al the level of
a group of hunters from the !\.1NI reprcscnted by given anaromical parts: 01',
whole animal units. Given rny focus on anatornical segments, I ignore dif-
cvcn more importantly, (2) thc constitution by age and sex of rhe population
ferences between sex, age, and side, sinee rhese are properties of anirnals. A
of anirnals as killcd from the biased distriburion of anatomical parts from
proximal humerus is still a proximal hurnerus, regardless of left-versus-right
animals of differcnt sex or age.
onentation 011 the animal, 01' the agc or sex of thc animal from which ir was
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
derived. f am cstirnating rninirnurn numbers for the uunromical catcgory
designated, for example proximal humeri. This is not to say that age, sex,
by tecth at archceological sites, wirh the clear suggesrion that the patreming
and side information are not useful, or should not he regularly recorded in
rccoguizcd \.. .-as refcrable ro bias in the pnpuiarion of animals killcd or,dyiñg'
studying fauna, only thar -these are not ..i rtnburcs that define minimum
;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 numbers of anatornica] elements.
Miuimum0iMl;HOUf .miL is a conversión for cornparctivc purposcs in
ro cquatc nurnbcrs of an.uomical parts ro nUlllbers of animal s killed or
which the anatomy of a living animal is taken as the standard fDr reporting
availablc for conslImption at time of death. My appro;lCh takes nllmbers of
frequencies of mini mal numbers of elements. Since the living animal has two
anatomical parts <lt face value, fully recognizing that nlJ.n mal' \.. 'ell select 01'
proximal humeri, the rv1NE eount is divíded by two so th<lt the freqllency of
process anatomicJ.l ~t'gmcms differentll" This means that we mal' see one
the e1emt'nt is expresscd in animal units for compar;Hive purpose5. I am Bot
Jge or sex bias prcscnt in one anatomical part, but perhaps a different bias
suggesting that MAU in any way implies the nutnber of anímals that were
3ssoci3ted with another parto This situation is a texrbook cxample of the
acrually killed lo aceoullt for the fauna studied, My intcrcst is not in how
failure of Klein and others to investigate the formatíon processes (see
much meat was available lO an allcient group, or even in their hunting
Sdliffl'r 1972) of the archaeologic<ll record. They have instead assumed a
biases. [t is rather in their proeurement, transport, processing, and (on-
direct relationship bctwcen agc nI' scx oias in archaeological remains as
slll11ptioll tactics when u'>ing :1I1ima] products.
rdcrring lIn:llllhigl1oll'ily ro agc or SL'X bi;hl''i in rhl' dcath populatioll of rhe
Given such interest, it is important ro be quite confidcnt that the hOlles
animals reprl'sented. Similarly, frequellcies of a given anatomical part from
studied wcre introduced and accumulated as a conseql1l'nce of hominid
an animal han' hcel1 ;lcccptcd ;1S rcprcscl1ting the prior preSl'lKl' ;1t lhe sitl'
behavior. h Illust he rt'cognized that lllJny sites tlut yield the lI11:lmbiguolls
of thl' complele allllllal.
My Sludies of hunter-gatherers (Binford 1978) and nonhllman preda- products of man al so contain products of other agents, particularly 11011-
hominid carnivores and scavengers, as well as other nonhomínid inlu.hi·
tors (Binford 1981) clearly illustrate that these assumptions are not justifi-
tants of caves and proteeted shelters. I have prl'viously (Binford 1981)
ah1e as general (onditions. Such direct equatiolls mal' not he taken for
pointed out the fallacy of accepting the total inventorl' of bOlles recovered
prantcd WhCll making inferences from archaeological observations. Many
othl'f sclective dt.'cisions and situations affecting the frequency and/or vis-
fmm a site that yields stone tools as necessarily rcfcrablc exclusivdy ro the
¡bility of ;ln;1tomicll P;1rts stand hctwcen che 3fchacological record as ob- behavior of hominids.
"LT\Td ;IIH.I Ihose ;lllim;lls Ih;1I, in Ihl'ir death. served as SOUfces for tlR' parts Nmv, I10W do we ~1s"'ess tht' taphollol11ic íntegritl' of the Klask", mate-
heillg studied. r d~@l~!! reft:'tf'lns, f ha 11 decided te ,educo sin ?mH8ni~r ef rials?
1'1P~"aMB:"'lttO.l8li:?>.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 ('lc-
11lL'llts) atffl~ (mini11l1111l anilllalllnits).
Evidence for Use of the Site by Porcupines
AtiJ.UuIUlJ.l..nwJJbers..of.p1J:m.Cltts. are just that~the minimum numbcr of
Approximately 3°!c, of the faunal elcments counted in m}' study showed
differellt spccimens rcferahle to a given anatomical pan used in dassifiea-
evidence of having been gnawed by porcupines. This cvidencc ¡", ncither
tion. For íl1"itallce, the proximal humerus may be rhe c1ass, and I may seek to
 52 3. The Klasics Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis

'¡~''i";. i,1i~,
.' -, '.. _;,
~
c~
00 ,-..1 ° _ . . . "; .., .n 3
"' -: o .., o ::!1;:;lo
." ~o
l~~.~,:
~
::- <:.J ::;,
"
'o.."t;
C-Q

-
~
U ~
. 'ti,.. ",:::l '" ~
•"
~~""
...«, .,. . '~ ~ ~
"'
o oe, eo
1: ;..'] 3
E o 0\ ..... 3 ~ "T[:;¿ o".

,'.: 1':,
.~
~¡~;' .
\" .
....
.
' ,.
:>: "o o
z
-e
"o
-o
."
-0-
" ,o
>'~
,,;
~
l' '2;'2 o, "'I'-"¡ ""<"1_
""f:~-;-;q~q
"'l"i" o.~
E~
"o.
o
~;;~3
ó2~ tl<':l:j"
~ o ._ o

" f
l. ' "'
e
~
.§ - ~22
-
~
-Q ,-..¡OO~oO\~o,-..¡IO
.......... ,-..¡
"'~=~
e
<l)

S] -g6
,<':1 o,¡

~
~~ ~""
~ M
e ~ u 0."0
•o. §.
v <U <':1
~Cltl'"
¡::
E
o u ~ -g El ~
U
R , :<~"Oo
t -Q t' \O "'1
\O o
00 .......
~~~-;qq~~
eo ~ tl ~ 6
~ "O
'" iil
8- ~ e- <U :..>
~ " v El .. '"
~
~
.c '" o "-1:
Pigure 3.1 Porcupinc gn;l\ving on rhc proximal cnd of nn clnnd (T,1{1I0fr"KI151111cu,
l-.npal (Lave 1, l.cve! 14),
'"'1

'"
-'
<
"'
f-
2
f-
."
•e
~
<;-
~~

"
-
"
-Q

§
<r; ,-..¡
___ 00 'C!
o.oo""''C!~
° o. ·n
..... o <rl' 'C!
-t '"''
f-< e E e

o ~;El Ji1:0 ~
~

_" ...o
OJ <J>
o
C>ot
ª
6
e e :::~

% o '" ... -e
~ U...aE~
subtle nor difficulr ro evaluare. Figure 3.1 illustrares a classic cxarnple of 2 00' ... o .
LJ ~~_.Q.
porcupine gnawing. Tablc 3.] surnmarizcs the number and percenrage of 0 0\ ;"1 'n
M........ "" lO -- '" o o
'nv 0.\0\0
""o.
6 '"']o-:-:q-;q
MNEs (as nivcn in Tlhle .L\) idcmificd in IllY bnsic Iist of anntomical pan", ::c;8
~ ~' ;,
v <u
scpararcd inro thc samc body-size class in rerms ot which thc fauna trom the - v '"" '-
'" ,0...>;::
~8~~
,.:..¡stt
sire wns studicd. Oppovuc rhe "uumbcr" column for cnch S;II11PIc is rhe
pcrccurngc of rhc IOLlI ck-mcnts rilar WlTC gnawcd by porcupinc.
ª
/i:. -O

U
.......
- " 0-:;
§ ..:: -x
- •
-Q
E
o
ln \O \O .......
_ ~ N
H') o >C[M
\OOO~~OO"""'\O'C'-"¡
"""
° ~~;;C;;X;~
._ ... o.
~~:::.-:::..a
O>. '"

Seveml facts are of interesr hcrc. Norte of the bones from the srnall ... e-, t:: s:: o.
<: '~ <'l'~.~ 8
animals werc gnawcd hy porcupmcs. aud only two cxarnplcs wcre noted on .. E ~ ...
1:0... 1:0 ...
<U

bones from bodv-sizc clnss Il (for hody-size classes, see pp. 77-78). Begin. 6~88·.8
ning with bones from hody-size class 111, the frequcncy of gnawcd bones "'
;; o '" o o '"
,
gcncrally mercases wirh hody size for biased group of anatornical elemenrs.
'a
e,
-¡;
o.
'~~~~~
~ ~
]~~~a
A control hody of data has hc(.'n,.-.dcscrilwd hy Hrnin (19H1:3(2) for collcc- 3 -c ~ ~~ ~ '" '" -.::
.......... ",."
; c-: e: ........... "
~ ~ ~ '" o,¡
ltons made lmm ;1 porcupilll'!' lai0in tlll' Nossoh Rivn arCil. Therc, rhe
~
;;
':.J
<'l
.b
o
...
o <'l
V
'!:::'t:::~
...
~
o,¡ ~
'"
8 588 :5
l'xdusive agellt of hOl1l' rransprir'tto rhe site \vas the porcupinc. There was
~~Vl~~~~~
;::l.!l ""'-
e c-
an alla[ogous near-avoidancc of hones from very sm;lll animJls. whereas dJ::.J~Q.o.oo..c
hovid siZl'-dass 11, unlikc rhe situ.ltion at Klasics Ri\'l.'r f\louth, \.... :15 modcr- " :r:>o::::J::>....J....J~ 1:
arely 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.
S4 3. Thc Klaslcs fauna: Approachcs to Analvsls Evídcncc for Lcopards .'lS

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 ana-
tornical 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 con-
tent of anatornical parts to rcflect directly the composition of the population Figure 3.2 Porcupine gnawíng over a tool-ínflicted rnark un a vertebral frngmcnt
of boncs from which the porcupines dre\v: their samples. Looking at Table (Cave 1, Lcvcl 141.
'-
3.1, Column 4, we immediately note rhar thc percentages of porcupine-
gnawcd boncs at Klasics Rivcr Mouth are considerably different from those rhe Cave 1 deposits, a1l except 8 were from Leve! 14. üf thcse X, 3 were
either in the Nossob lair, or in the control population of bones apt to be from Leve! 17b, 3 from Level 16, and 2 from Leve! 15. C1early, thc most
available to a porcupine for transporto Thcre is a striking inflation of the significanr porcupine occupation was coincident with the uccumularion of
parts of thc lowcr-frout ami -rcar lcgs rhat havc l-een gnawcd. Thcre is an Leve! J 4, which is, as prcviously pointed out, largcly a scconclary dcposir. It
equally intercsting, abnorrnally low value for vertebral' and pelves. Stated may well have accumulated when considerable erosion of the screc dcposirs
another way, rhc porcupine-gnawed-bonc frcqucncics nr Klasics Rivcr outside Shcltcr 1A was occurring. AH rhcse conditions suggcst thar 111:1I1'S
Mouth yicld a hcad-;1I1d-lower-limhs-dolllill;lIcd graph, whcn-as for thc prCSC1Kl' may llave bccn miuimal during thc accumulution uf this deposito
Nossoh luir cnd the control data a head-plus-axial-skeleton-dominated 1 conclude rhat porcupincs did in fact inhabit Klasics Cave 1, primarily
graph is lloted. Given that porcupines sample the bone population available during the accumulation of Leve! 14. They do nor seem to have biascd the
to them, it seems dear to me that the gnawed han es in Klasics River Mouth faunal population by their bone-collcctil1g and -gnawing activities. It is
are not bones introduced to the site by porcupines, but instead are bones evident that they collected their bones on site from those already introduccd
selected from rhe sitc for gnawing. After all, the site was selected for study by other agents, and did not slIbstantially modify the character of the faunal
hcullse of irs Ch:U:lctcristic hcad-and-lowcr-Iimhs anatomical-part profilc. assemhlagc recovcrcd from the site.
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 Evidence for Leopards
sllch examplcs \Vere noted in the asscmblagc of porcupine-gn:lwed bones
fram Klasies River MOllth. The cxcavators report thar a nearly completc Icopard skc!L·ton was
It ShOllld be pointed out that of the 8-3 porcupine-gnawed bones from recovered 011 thc interface benveen Levcls 14 and 15. Klcin (1976:91) lists
 ~, .'í6 ,~. Thc Klasics Fauna: Approuchcs ro Anulysis Bvidencc for Lcopards .\7
.~
leopard bones of all majar anaromical classcs from Leve! 14. He estimares TABLE .u
that there was a minimum oí four individuals represented in the lcvel. This
Companson bctwccn Lcvcl 14 and Othcr Cave 1 Levels for Rl:l:ognizing Bias That Míght Rcsult
is consisrcnt with the obscrvations of orhers (Brain 19M 1:81-89) that leop- 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 Size clase
brlng prey parts back ro brccding deos and into prorcctcd, sbeltcred loca- IV and V I and lJ
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 Cuher Cnher Ll'opord
Uve] 14 Ieveí« Leve! lJ ícvels tnits
-r- 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 MNE % MNE % MNE % MNE '}:, MNL %
' :3 not clear, but the number represen red in Level 14 strongly suggests rhar Anatomical parl (/) (2) (3) (4) (S) (ú) (7) IR} 19) (lO)
Icopards may well have eontributed ro the faunal assernblages, particularly
~

n» Maxilla 29 .AY 8\ .63 17 .SO 2(, .N 21 Ion

.¿ in that lcvcl. Whilc l.evel 14 has a high species COUIlt, thcre are more Mandiblc 42 1.00 [34 1.00 2(, .76 SS .83 2.S .AJ

'-\i L-f
'r 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
Atlas
Axis
8
s
.19
.12
(,
10
.04
.07
7
5
.21
.IS
8
18
.12
.27
1.0
1.0
2\
.2\
,,
\ '.

thcir sleeping places at nighr (see Brain 1981 :84). Ir woulJ thus appear that Cervical vertebral: 7 .[7 I[ .OH 4 .12 H .20 1.8 .4\
the integrtt y of rhe contcnts of Level14 is suspect as regareis relanve spccics Thoracic vertebral' 3 .07 8 .os .3 09 12 .18 1..1 .33
'>-~, Lumbar vertcbrac 4 .10 8 06 4 [2 14 .21 .7." .IY
"-
frcqucncics. Pelvis ., .21 1\ .11 H \H .18 .SR 10 .2\

"
C\"
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
Scnpula
Proximal hurncrus
8
4
.is
.10
10
3
.07
.02
34
3
lOO
.09
66
7
1,00
.11
1.\
1.0
.38
lli
Figure 3.3 from R. Klein"s (1976; Tablcs 9-13) original lcvel-by-level in-
vcnrories, Thc animals in body-sizc cl.isses IV ano Vare gcucrnllv bcvond
Distal humcrus
I'ruximal radiocuhitus
1.1
20
.31
.48
[5
20
.11
[S
[2
6
.lS
.[8
H
., 20
[4
05
1.5
.U
38
Distal rudiucubítus 10 .24 9 .07 4 12 H .12 1.0 .25
the sizc range of normal leopard prcy ("el' Bra¡n 19S2: Figure 97), so it is Proximal mcracarpal [8 .43 .17 .43 I .03 7 .11 l.S ..18
highly unlikelv rhar lcopard occuparion would aEfeer these faunal frequen- Distal rnctacarral [1 16 20 .lS [ 03 8 .12 15 .38
cies. Thc bOlles from Leve! 14 are compared ro rhe sum of rhe inventories
fro ;111 ti\(,: orhn ClVC 1 Icvl'1s.
Proximal kmur
Distal fclllllT
8
, .19
.10
10
II
.07
.08
7
(,
21
.18
[6
19
.24
.2<)
IS
JS
.38
18
Ihe duractnislic hC;ld-and-lowcr-lill1h patlefll (Jf pJrI prescncc is wtll J'rnxilll;¡[ tibi,1 2 0\ 2 .O[ 4 12 1.1 .23 20 .sO
Disul tibia 15 36 22 .16 5 15 21 .H 2..1 .63
illusrr:1ted (Figure 3.3). However, rhis patrcrn is more rohl1st in rhe Leve] 14 T;ns.l!s lO .48 49 .37 1.0 .25
~;ll1lplc (han is thc cl~e for the comhincd samplc from the othn CH'e 1 Astr'lg.dus Jó .7, 28 .2[ S .1S 1(, .24 l.O .SO
~"llllp]es. This mean.'; rhm there is norhing uniqul' abour the I.eve] 14 faulla C<llcancus [(, .38 24 .18 8 .24 28 .42 I.S 30
(\ur would differentiate it from rhe remainder uf rhe sire. Proximal mct,H¡lfsal 21 .sO 31 .21 4 .12 [O .IS J.S .18
.IJl) 11 .20 1.5 3R
Turning now ro the comparative graphs (Figure 3.4), in the two small-
esr body-size c1asses of hovids-the size range in which most leopard prey
Distal metat<trsal
Phalangcs
Ii
10
14
.24
10
2R
.07
.21 "2 .06 II .[ 7 1.7, .44

\\'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
"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. Thc Klasics Fauna: Approaches to Analysis Evidcncc for Hvacnas 59

61~1: CI.A"" IV ~ V Awu........6 ~lIZ.C C ....-..... 1: ~ 11 A ...'...........

•
H, ,,.W HORN

MAXILI..A.
MA>(Il..L.A
--

-~
MANDlel-E- MAIoJO/BLE:-
ATLAó
ArLA6
AXI6

r~
AX/~
VER'r. CERVICAL.- VERT: b-
CERVICAL-
~O,t;?ACIC VERr. , 7J--.fORAC/C VE:JZT.
R/L;r~ R/B6
LUIvISAte VL"Ie.T.
L-u""'~"".e VEIieT. L. E

~ ;;
PEL-V¡ó
r='EL..VIÓ
-- ~, - -

-
6CAPULA 3CAPULA
P,eOXIMAL HUME.eU6
.P}eOX'JMAL HUMe:..eU.:!> f '/
D,.::JTAL- HUMEER:U6
-- D¡6TAL.- HUMeIieU~
P.eOXINlAL- R'A,cJlOCV8J7"UcS
PeOXIMAL- ¡(?A..o/OCUI5JTU6
OI,:STAL .e'ADIOCUBITT..I.5
CAIi!PAL~
P~OXIMAL ME:.TACA~PAL-
-
,
-
OI..::5T~L __R'AD/OCUBlru..::5
CAJ<tPAL6
PKOXIMAL MErACAKPAL-
'lzI'

OJ&TAt- METACARPAL- DI6TAL,.. ME.TACARPAL- n l1l

P~OXIMA¿ FeÑt'vR , O ... lO.
P.eOXíMAL- Fe;....,{./~
D/~T""'L. FeMV~ r
0/.:$,.... .1- FJEMV~
P.eOX/MAL- 7íatA
~- ~XIM""'- 7781A

-~
DI67-AL 77J3/A DI6TAi- 7í,e/Á
CALCANEU..::5
C'"A.l...CAVE::U,;$
A":sTR'AGALU6
Or~&~ TA~'-~
-- ,
A~THAG.ALU<5
Orl-l&~ TA.e&AL..::S
PKOXIM""L.- M~TArAK&A,- l.&
¡,..-

--
P~OXIM""L- MeTArA..e"&AL..- ~'
O/.:$7".4oL.- ME.TA"T"""~$AL- DI&TA1-- ME.TA"TA1Z<5AL-

.
'pHAL,..ANGe-.:S

..
.I 4 T.
Z' .
PHAt-AIVGe$ /~'T.
2
sr«
n d•

3
rQ
,_._ .- - " ---------- - -
~ -- - - - -
010 ZO&¡40 5060700090100%
o 10 lO3040506070~Q90JOOX
~ . L.,E.OPARO DAT......; _ · L...tEVEL. 14; o-----o=OTHE.R.6
Hgure 3.3 Craphic compartson bctwccn largcbovíd rcrn.uns Irom Lcvcl Ja and thc
lIltllbillul /rnllll"rKin {mm ;111 utln-r lcvcls al C1Vt' 1 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.
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 favor-
ing crnnial parts nt thc expense of scapula and pelvic parts (which dominare of the Klasies deposits relative ro Icopards since leopard fecding scems ro be
thc Klasies data) does not appear manifest in the contrast berween the Leve! nor ar al1 in evidence.
14 small bovids. From this I conclude that rhere IS no recognizablc influence
OH thc srnnll-bovid fauual population from Klasies Cave 1, Level14, refera-
hlc ro lcopard fccding. Thc presence of leopards, bowcvcr, certainly suggests

t
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
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 oppor-
runirv 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, gener-

~
Ieopard rt'mains may dt'rive from rhe actions of hominids, perhaps in seclIf-
ing rhcir sleeping arcas. In aH)' event 1 sec no reason ro quesrion rhe inregrity ally at rhe hase of a rree so thar the roots tendcJ to support the IQQÍ. and

IA(~~.,fi,).-CAu (Oi-¡:;f
 60 3. Thc Klasies Fauoa: Approachcs lO Aoalysis Eviden~c for Hyacn¡\s (,]

G H

~
\r
~'~~!,
../

li·\
lr'
,
J' \,
·~·t·
r~, 4~
;
A e o
•••
B

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.

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 Clllll-
Inon 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 Figure 3.6 Dct~íl 01 tooth s~oring 00 a s~apula ,howll III Figure .tSlJ.
~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 rhe scapllla in Figure 3.5B and Figure 3.7 is the sll100thcd and worn poinr of
lllouthillg of boncs seen in the hyaena dells js Ilot in evidence ::Ir Kbsies
~ River Mourh.
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
~, The 11101lthing of l~olles by the hyaena produces heauriflll pseudorools observed at Klasies River MOllth. The U:~ ol anintal gnawing Ilored 011 rhe
!~ of fonns not seen among woJves and other canids, such as coyore, fox, and Klasies bones was consistemly morr;~~.!J.h{) rhat illustrareu in Figure 3.8,

11
dogo Figure 3.5 shows rhe disarticulated limb-.bones collecred at one sporred which shows a canine puncture ma?r and masbed anu scooped-olll can-19
hyaena den (Groorbrak Den), Figure 3.6 is a derajl of rhe rooth scoring 01'1 cellous rissue. (For more informatian, see Maguire and Pemberton j 980);':"-,73

~7J, ~ ~i
 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 com- iJ
Illon (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
Figure 3.7 Dctail ¡hom Figurc 3.5FI of chippcd and sffinothcd pscudotool produccd upper-limb bones. As we will see, the mas! intenríonally and extellsively
by spottcd hyacna.
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
rov~~ hyaena as an agent oE bone aecumulation at Klnsies River Mouth simply
Perhaps rhe ·most t(,Yi:l't..!c cha.r.acteris.tic of hyaena accum-ula~iHns are (1)
L ;~ 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
cannot bc made.

cylinders, as illustr:ued in BinEord (1981: 173; 198201: In); and (4) very fe\V Assessment of Integrity
h(>Ilc splinrel's ;111<1 \Cgllll'1HS o{ diaphysis.
J\lthougb [¡onc splill[crs were very cOJnmon ar Kla5ies, not onc bone
Clcarly, African porcupines were active in Klasies Cave 1, particularly
cy/inder was observed. Complete bones were rare and then restricted to che
during rhe period of accumularion of Level 14. They <.:bewed Oll hones,
slllallesc hovid spt'cies (a situation opposire ro that in hyaena accuJlluiations) leaving their tellr¡¡!c tooth-inflicted marks. They do nor, hnwcver, appear to
and Illost long hones were hroken near ['he articular ends wirh impaet
have introduced hones ro the deposit Erom sources other than the surround-
fractures, ch:uactcristically 1l1adc when abone is broken by percussion
ing archaeological deposits. The comparisons with other known porcupine
r;¡thcr th;¡n gnawed down attricionally the way ¡¡nimals reduce hones (see
accumulations c1early indica te a hiased chewing oE parts consistent with rbe
Bínford [1981: 169-1811 fol' a descriprion).
anatomical-part-biased archaeological deposits that yield no evidence of

~,-~
 (,.J
:~ 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
g 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
i 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 <lre considercd to c analytic purposes to be poten-
tia1ly mcaningful. 111 general, excavators seek "natura'" units, sllch as geo-
morphologicai eomponents oc inferred deposltiona! steata as basic units of
ohservarion. In addition, 1ll31lY rxcavators lIse arhitrary rderenec llllih,
"ud'!' as s'Iuan'" oc levds, in t('cms of which n:cord,s uf plaCClllcllt toe the
contents uf deposits are generally kept. This was tcue during rhe excavarían
(J( Klasil..·s RivCf MOl1lll, ;lnd in rhe initi:ll analyses by rhe cxcavators (Singcr
""'\ 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 mate-
ríal, 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 sllhpopula-
tions 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 episo-
dal 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 . . , spe-
cies 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 ~<trget fM ~tudy-;
~rI·-
 (¡(¡ 3. Thc Klasícs Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis
Given the opportunity to study the fauna, 1 pursued ccrtain systernatic lines
of inquiry and rccording, particularly with regard te (1) breukagc of ana-
i tomical parts. (2) inflicred marks from tools, (3) inflicted marks from ani-
~1
mal 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
}
h
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
f,
<,
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 inftu-
~
cncc 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 less-
absrra(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 com-
plete 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
6
,\ 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 re-
Lmaining 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
f
~ 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. Richard-
son 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
j,¿v - u.c.,' ~ _1...1. ", e-J "" S,,< reJ·-~f
/-.1,- IV>1""", ~ ) ~f.
jnformatinn Cuiding Obscrvarion and Analvsis ó7
rhe Iorm of thc rernaining boncs. Richardson observed changcs in thc sur-
vivorsbip 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 pro-
duccd 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 popula-
tion 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 SClV-
cnger, 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 ~f?,"I
in selcctioT1 that the.: <;cavcnger would he forced to follow, givcll the composi-
tion 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 differ-
enr 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
 (,9
I,R 3. Thc Klasics Fauna: Approaches to Analysis Infurmatíon Cuiding ObsL'rvation and Analysis

%
''''0
, quence, so that the major differences in rhe anaromical invcntory remaining
from predation-scavenging at the kill locations are primarily a funcrion of
~ 90 .c.,...."" the intensiry of the feeding and cornpetirion among consumers at rhe sitc. In
eA.T AV.
'if short, wc can specify fairlv accurately the composition of the parcnt popula-
2 tion from which a scavengcr would have to draw his samplc for cirhcr
~ • ~c. .......;>
2 imrnediate consumption or transport elsewhere. (Tbis modcl parent popula-
.OH I..-Ut.!. tion is sumrnarized in Binford 1981:Table 5.08, Columns 2 and 6.)
¿4 {) 70 eOM. . ePT
.DR.C PH • Pt.IlT
eOT THORe
- In addition ro knowing the average form of the population of parts
wIII availablc ro a scavenger, we also anticipare the parts within that population
i'J¿'" 60 eDl"" epii:C that a food sccker would tend to selecr. Stared anorher way, if we know the
" '("
p.e
disrribution of ediblc material on the anatomy of an nngulatc, and we know
W~ so ept-/lc, somcthing abour rhc charactcr of parts apt ro survivc iniria] fccding by
2 ~ .OMe.. nonhominid killers or other scavengcrs, ~n ansieipate rhe characrer of
Oc)
o A~T. rhe population of parta most ~~k-t!'ly to be systematically recovered by a...
40
O hominid .scavenger for use as focd (seo, for instancc, the modcl givcn in
w Binford 1978: 188, Column 2).
( " 30 Unfortunatcly, as is the case in many situations, thc form of a faunal
H
O (
assemblagc expected from scavenging is not totally unambiguous. There are
~ ... e • known cootexts in which modero humans may generare a population of
JIl<.' ¡"Te anatornical parts thar dosel)' mimic the cornposition of ;1 population of
OJ .is, parts remaining on animal kili sires {see Binford 197H:T~lhlc S.l; and
r; ~
~ ~ 1981:233), as wcll as derived or rransporrcd samplcs from sucb a popula-
Z - tion (see Binford 1981 :236). Tbis means that, giVl'll our current levels of
O z 01 ,
understandiug, identification of the products of hunting versus scavcnging
0<l o JO ZO 30 40 50 60 70 eo 90 100"
cannot resr cxclusively on facrs of assemhlage cornposition. Thcrc must be
MOD~L- D..........- A PRED.A.TO'R.. KJL..L. A~6E.MeL.Ac:..&
other propcrtics of assemblages within this idenrifiable class of assemblage
Ptgure 3.9 Compunsons bctwccn Richardson's 1IYHOl control data and mojel Jata forms that, if known, would permit a rcsolurion of arnbiguiries in identifica-
(Binfnrd 191-\1: Tnblc 'l,OR, COIUIllIl 2) about thc cornposiuon ot~cavl'llgeJ C<HU<;" poru-
LuilJIlS.I\ST, astragalus¡ AT, ;ltl<1s; AX , axis; CERV, ccrvua! vvrtvhrnc, I)F, di ...tul fcmur.
tion.
1 had the opportlllliry to observe a numher of ClrC1SSl.'S fmm borh
DI{, dist.rl humcrus, DMC, distal metac:npal¡ LJMT, di"I;!] n1l:t<lt:nsn]; DRC, distal
radiocuhitus¡ D1', distal tibia; H r humcrus; LUM, lumbar vertehrac; M, mandiblc; PELV, natural dearhs and p~_eda!(2r kill_s in the Nossob River arca of Sotlth Africa
pelvis; PF, proximal femur; PH, proximal humcrus¡ PMC, pwximal metac3rpal; PMT, and Botswalla",- aS well as ('h;ewhere~;iv1y observarions ')()ughr our properties
proximal mctatarsal; PRC, proximal racliocubitus¡ PT, proximal tibia; RIB, ribs; SCAP, manifestcd on Done a~5Cmblages that would providc an ohserver with c1ucs
~C3rula; 1SI, first rhalall~c
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
11 ( 1, 'f 'lllclIger.;¡ populatiol1 of hOlles gCIH'Lllly IllOdificd al1d rav;lged prilll"ip;lll'Ol1dusiol1s: (1) Knivcs are gCIH:rall)' indfcl·tu;ll t(Job for butdll'r-
hy l'xtr;lI1COI1~ agcllts anJ surviving as a»'i~Jn'f'~ete, modthetÍ-;"':fi'i'd"'bt3'St'a ing or disJllclllhcring p~lfti;llly dry or scmidesiccatl'd ClfC1SSCS. Thc ski n is
ilw(.'ntory--ohulMnmfrn+~,. 1 luve alreJJy presented data rhar provide a more of rhe consistl'ncy of wood than learhcr, and the botlnd condirion of
rcliahle descriprion of thc compositioJl of this biascd baseline population. rendons (Figllfl' 3.10) anJ ligamt'nts "freeze" rhe joints, ll1;lking butchcring
SluJie~ of wolvc'i in t\la~ka amI (lTIJlnly) !ion kil1s in ccntr31 Africa (Binford ! I wirh l'urtjn~ illlpkmcnrs rhrough the poillts of articulariol1 ver)' difficlllt. A
ILJH 1), and n~)\v \:;H(a,,~CS in a SOllth African sctting (Tablc 4.31) aH con~ t-¡'6R combin<lrioll 01 hal'king ;lIld twisring is thc tcchniquc rbat experimcntal1y
verge to r('intorcl' Ol1e allother in jllstifying the generali7.ation thar preda~ works best 011 sriff and dry carcasses. The llse of a ,;mal1 hatchct or a
tor-scavellgers gener;lll~' consume prey carcasses in a faidy regular se- machetc fpr hilcking ;H thc dricd tClldon, and rhen t\vistitlg ;111<.1 pulling thc
70 3. The Klasics Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis Inform.uion Cuiding Ohscrvation and Analysis 71

,..
l"~;:
-"~'

-l-'

"'. r-:. 4 ·
_"
;~';.... :~",,~:

"-
"
.>-;.
... .~; .
--
:;

. ...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 car-
cass at rhe time of scavcngiug will condition whcrc burcbering or the cut-
ung-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
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 artic-
ulations gcncrully hclow ends aud surfnccs whcrc cvidcucc of carnivore
gnawing might he loca red. In addiuon, those dismemhcrmrllt m:1fks ef-
fected on older carClsses would gcnerally be chop and hack rnarks, indil-a-
tive of coping witll .'ltiff and partially desiccatcd skin and tClldon. r ~
finally~ cven when a carcass is nor extensively Jricd bur is already stiff, ['3;-'k-
a number ot problems are presented to a butcher. Wln'll hutchering a supplc i-f"''''
carcass with tools, rhe joint may be manipulated to cxert pressure on mus-
ell'S and tcndol1";, Ihercforc rendering cuttil\~ J rc!arivcly ca,,)' t;lsk. But

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...mem-
hertllelH 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
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
 7e. ( J7.d) .- ~A'¡- te

72 3. Thc Klasics Fauna: Approachcs to Analvsis

spccifics of anatnmy are nddressed. Suffice ir (O say that (1) patterned.prop-

erties.of placemeur.and .orienrarioarocur marks should aid in judging tbe ~~~ ~~1~0~~~~~~- ~~_~~oo ~oo
__ o - o
I sratc oí the (~§-·aLtht;.lünc,-of,dismembermenr, and (2) disrnemberrnent <fi§: o
~l~~
. ··0
~1~~'n~I'~_~_O_
'o
~ln~
·····0 ·000
I uf parts during a scnvcnging cpisode can be cxpecred ro cope rnost oftcn
...... ;{' ! with a carcass that is stiff, with relntively inflexible joints.
-o
. Observations and ñeld experirnenrs lead me to such cxpectations. "
~.=:;
"
o _"~ C~~~O~N.n_~~oo~~_NO_~OO~~I_OM_COO
MM-

~
N~ _
Thcre was not, however, a body oí eontrollcd data from known scavenging o 0-

contcxts to use for descrihing exactly what form these expectations might ~:=
rakc whcn seco in rerms of starisrical frequencies, as well as clusrcred asso-
000 M~IM O~~ ox~oo
ciations of anatomical parts and rool-crooth-inflicred marks. 011 the orher <f~ MO ~l~~ ~-o ~~-o ;::¡
e . ·00' ·00 '0000 ·00000000
hand, 1did havc available samples from sorne Nunamuit Eskimo sires where -g
rhe behavioral conrexrs werc known and, in the light of the scavcnging ~ -e •
~

- a
~
problerns, could he studied to provide J control on what processing of frcsh -"
-,;
-"~
,
"::1 ,,",-,
E --
OM_CO~OO~OO~~~OOOO~~~rlOOOOCOOO ¡;
carcasses looked likc when viewed in terrns of dismembermeru marks and U '-'l MM --

rnarks derived frorn filleting meato Table 3.3 summarizes ohscrvations made " ~s-- ~
u
~ on a faunal assl'llIhbge collcctcd at Anakruvuk villnge in Aluska during "~ -+
1971. This asscmblugc has bcen prcviously dcscribcd (Binford 1978: .Q OOM
-t ,re "'l'" OM
_ _
O~~~M~~-
~"'l _ o M _ o _ ~-~M~OO
a M - - o
~ -~OO
o "'
00

~
~ c''? :':.:! o . '·0 ·0'·'·····0··· "O' ·000 ~
123-125, particularly Tablc 3.8, Columus 1 and 2) and represenrs the 5
o,

dchris from pruccssing ... cssentially complete caribou carcasses for parts to be E "Eo
placcd on J~)[ing r¿~~kj. The parts were bcing dismcmbered in anricipation ,"e -e ~
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
Z
-o
~ ¡;

"s s '='
':,J~' -... o -t- ~ ~ o S 'n o _ '"':: N -e ~ ...,. - M o rr; 'n ::::; H) c--l ..... o N ...... o o o "'"s
fillering was conccntrarcd 011 rhe parts of greutest utility as far as mear yields ~ e
2:
~
~
..';
3
"
wcre concomed (ser Binford [1978:15-45J for a discussion of thcse poinrs}. ~ :§ o•
Tablc 3.3 summarizes the cut marks obscrved 011 rhe bones recovered
from rhis Eskimo disrncmbcrrncnr-fdlenng opcration. Thc marks inflicted "
E
:;:", -----OH) __
""'O~I"",~'n~ooc--I~I-t~~~OOOOOOO~""''''''~I~lrl~I~I~lrlrl "s
:l~ :1 conscqucncc of dismcmbcrrncnt acrs are rubulatcd in Columns 3 ami 4, <-
""'-t~I~I-_-t...,....,.~\-- r~~
§
whcreas the mnrks inflicted during filleting orerations (see Binford f 1981 J
',"
g -"
" §
t'or ,1 dc... niptioll (Jf the two \.11"'''í.'S uf IIl;\rks) are presel1lcd 011 Columns .'
and 6.
~

""'~-
:<-
~O~...,....,.-H)--
_ --N
·C
~MMMO~~~""'MM~~~~~~~~
MM-- MNM_ ,5:-
Figure 3.12 illustrates the rclations between the frequencies of these
two c1asscs relative to the gross anatomy of ungulates. Dismemberment
.B -; .....
~
~
•~
~ u ~ ~ oo.E ~ fr..... ~
marks are concentrat~d 00 the: occipital coodyles and the atlas vertebral', "- '" .... <U 2 : l .;: <Tl <Tl <Tl -; ~ "
dcriving from t1w..l'cvcring'Qf the head by cutting from the dorsal surface just tiu
15..0....
OJ~"O
::: .. ~
~"'u..cUfr....
e2.9:lr3<Tl;:l
;:lOJ"'CuOJuS .. .E
<Tl
"'00
r3~c.JC::0l:
OJ ... I;>C"'C::
~~
"5i
~
hchind the skull inio rhe artictllatioll hctwecn the atlas and occipit;ll con~ "'o ~ E"OE"'OJ:l .. ",
.......... _~ ..... o::!"'C::-;'"
oo"'P-"'_ .....
~
~>OJ_
c.J "'>r'Il :l"'COJP..c:l OJ ............ r'Il

dyks, Dislllclllhcrlllí.·lll l1I,lrks 3rc also prCSL'1lt in high frClIlIl'lIq' on the ::c -;:: ... 5 m-;~~~--;S-;z-;~<Il--;~--;Sl!p.-a
;; t; __ -d ~..2 El
;:;.5 -;V; .5 -;:;; .5)( -;:;; .5 -;5 o;¡ -; ~ § § -; p."'g ~
o.
o <1> ::
pclvc:s, dl'fiving fmm clltting off the dislocated rear leg-something only -;::::;:; c:: ~ ~ ~ o El o :;; ~ ~
.tl :;; :;; o .l:: ~ ~ ~ ~

reaHy possihlc whcn a carcass is fresh, Dismemherment J1l<lrks are abo "' c:: ..!t: ~
>< 1.1..c 2::: i:'l B ... B .- e ... e ... e ...
...
~~~<~u~~_~~~o~o~o~o~o~~u~o~~~
:;l
<1> Q.
B .... ::: ~..L::
lo< :;;
<":l 00 '"

conccntrated h('twccll the distal humerus and the proximal r,ldioclIhitllS,

and bct\\Tl'1l rhe di"tal fcmur and proximal tibia. Thcsc are, in fact, the
points of disl11embcrment ohserved during field hutchcring. Dismemher-
ment was .:lLTOmplished at these joints and then the meat filleted off the
74 3. The Klasics Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis Informauon Cuiding Obscrvanon and Analvsis 7.í

FIl..L..CT' N4 DI~M E.M BE.RI "le.. 2. Thcre js a direcr relntionship hcrwcen thc placcrncnt and frcqueney
MAR.I(.,s '" MARK~7 of tool-inflicted marks and rhe placement and frcqucncy of fillctiug
HORN acts directed at particular anatornical locations.
/vIA)(/.
MA.N~/IJ,-e; ...;~I
An..AO
My work wirh the Nunamiut Eskimo and compar.uivc studics of other
AXI.6 faunal assernblages produced__ JurJlllJy._.!'apient Il1Jn sbow a further relation-
CEii!VICAL- VERT.
7HO~ACIC VE,€T. "'.:.".,.,.. ,~- ~ ship betwccu rhe foc~:.l~rejl-s~~~_st5~~<l[Uy\:hoscn for dismembermcnt and rhe
R/~~ food utility of parts being processed for transport and use. This principie
LVM~""Je Ve..er. applies equally ro dismcmberrnenr and rhe parts sclccrcd for processing.
;:::'EL. VI Ó
3CAPULA such as the rcmoval of mear in a filleting operation. Actions such as fijlcting
.PJi!O>OMAL HUME./i?U.6
will be conccnrrnted on the anatómica! parts yiclding the grcatcst amount of
DI'::>TAt- HUNfEi<:U6
P.eOXIMAI.- R',A.otOCuSJTUd desired oroducr. This rclationship was well iIIustrated in Figure 3.12, in
DI.¡5TAL. ¡¿'AcuoCueITU.$ which the concenrrared frcquencies were c1early uudcrstandablc in rcrms of
CA~PAL:6

•
..
PKOXIMA'- MeTAcARPAI.- the uriliry of rhe parts being acrcd upon, such as thc rcnclerloin, rhe shoul-
DI47"""'- ME.TACA~PA'­ der, and the ham in the case of fillermg. Thc frcqucncicv of fillcting marks
P..eOXIMAI.- Fe;IWu/c'
D/doTAL. F~MLlJIl! ' ''''' ''
t:,··.;".:,;,;,·~,,+-··
,:,<,.< ,,:,; -t-'-' ( ".~
..-< may prove to be evcn more directly understandablc rhan the butchering
P~OXNo,"',AL.. 7161A partern, as shown by dismcmbcnnenr marks. The grcatcr sccurity of rhc
<D4-~
Df~TA4- TiI3IA .:;.::"¡ -
CAL.CANEU.$ r.}~ O relarionship hetwcen cutmark frequencies and proccssing mvcsrmcnr de-
A..:STR'AG..... LU6 ~"..¡JT'". JI. rives from the faet thar dismembertncnt may oecur in different stages, and
Oruec rA~l-~
«O' O ., may reflecr contingcncy-based decisions about transpon sornewhat inde-
~,<t
P..eOXINf,A.L,. Me:.TArA~~AL­
DI&TAL- ME.TA7"AIe~AI­ pendently of the simple decisions about what ro use if faccd with a complete
PJ-/AL-ANGEf:,:!S
•
)6T.
znii.
::v carcass. This I11cJns thar sorne or manv infticred dismcmbcrmcnr marks Illay
I
.. 3 ra refer to a serie" of rransport or selecnve decisions mude prior tú processing.
+11 As a result, the relationship hetween disrnernbermcnt and filleting marks
O 10 lO~40506070ao90IOO%
may appear partially incompatible, depending UPOIl the drsmcrnbcrrncnt
FiJ;urcJ.12 I'crccnr.rgc of rccovcrcd boncs r xhiluting cut marks [Nunnrniur con- ami dispos:ll or abaudonun-nr dccisions mndc prior to lil1cling. 111 .my CVt'111,
t m] dutu].
the proccssiug traces in thc form of tool-inflicted matk s should inform us
regarding thc selccrion of .urarornicul pnrrs for recovcrv ami transpon. aud
upper limbs for dryin¡!, :IS srrips, or lcft in a sheet attachcd ro thc sc.tpulu [scc rhc rro..::('~sillg of sclcctcd p'lrrs fm lIse.
Rinford [197H J for a dcscription of these actions). Marks inflicteJ on rhe A-s·can'be-'Seen, we have-'some guideljne~ asctfltht'-t~1¡if-{)j tmrrrrm
bOlles during fillering operations wcre therefore conccntratrd along rhe dor~ that,we mightseck from a faunal assemblage in order tHi-denti.fy·tlleT'{~­
sal spincs of rhe vertebrae, partieularly the thoracie and lumbar vertebral'. quences of hunted versus sca:vell~-QM@mW~;'
Thcse were inflicted at the time of the removal of rhe tenderloin. Orhcrs The knowJedge basis from whieh I hope ro develop infercntial mcrhods
\"Tn: on the scaplIla, where the mear of rhe shoulder was cut back from the for idenrifying scavenging is roughly as follows:
hone, and on the femur, where rhe heaviesr mllsdc mJSS is loeated on rhe
cniboll. 1. Wc know sOlllcthing of the form of the population of parrs remain-
We may generalizc rhat rhe position and frequency of marks inflicted illg at carcasses that \vould be available for selcctioll by a hominid
dllring dismemherrTIent are direet fllnetions of rhe mcchanies of dismcmber- scavengcr.
2. Wc (an assume that feeding is the seavengce's goal, and therefore
ment.
Ihe selcction of parts from this remaining popul:ttioll wOllld be in
1. There is a dirccr relationship bctwcen the placemcflt and frcqucney tcrllls of food ulilít}'.
of rool-inflicred marks and rhe placemem and frequem::y of Jismem- 3. We know roughly the disrribution of usablc foods on the anatomy
hl.:rmel1t aet~ direered ar pallll.:uLu anatomicalloeatjol1s, nf ungulates, so we can anticipare rhe content of ;1 pnpulation of
 76 3 Thc Klastcs Fauna: Approachcs ro Analysts Middlc Sronc Agc An.nomical-I'an Frcqucncics frum Klasic-, Rivcr Mourh Cave 1 77

parrs selected from a known baseline population in tcrms of criteria am fuirlv convinced rhat we must work back and forrh betwccn dvnamic
of food utility. and static cxpcrienccs. This is because rny own ficldwork 11;1.'1 shown rcpcat-
4. Expcricnccs wirh cnrcasses have led to thc rcalization thar thc O1C- edly rhat, when working in an actualisric conrext. I am frcqucntly unnwarc
clianics of drying rarcasses are differcnr rhan thc mechanics of fresh, of the character of srar¡c parrcming: hence, 1 would he unable to scck out
supple carcasses. This bcing so, we can anticipare sorne differcnces really uscful information from acrualisnc expcricnccs. Sinularly, whcn l
in the kinds of rools regulad y used and the dismernberment tacncs srudy thc archaeological record for formal partcrning, I alrnosr always see
cmployed, as rhey are directly conditioned by the stare of the car- partcrns that are not undcrsrood. We must contiuoally rake knowledge of
casscs bcing dismcmbered. sratics ro dynamic experienccs, and in rurn bring a knowiedgc of sratics ro
rhe scarcli for formal patrerns.
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 Middle Stone Age Anatornical-Part
placement, of marks resulring from repeated acts of dismembering dry car- Frequencies from Klasies River Mouth
casscs. 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
Cave 1
actual expcrtences ro J rcalistic anticipation of the formal propertics rhat
A numbcr of researchcrs have nored that although it is sometimos
might characrerizc an archaeological assemblage produced as a resulr of
difficuir ro idcnrify bones as lo spccies, they can ncverthelcss be assigned to
repeated ucts of scavcnging, in which rhe agcnts faced all thc problems ol
general categorics such as bovíds, and ro different body-size classcs. C. K.
selcction and processing pecufiarities outlined here.
Brain (1969,1974) was one of the firsr ro suggest rhe systematic comparison
In ordcr to develop ao unarnhiguous, expanded ddinition of scaveng·
alUong frequcllcies of h()Ilt"S hum differem· h-ody·o;r-ze da~~es. BecllIsc Brain
ing th;¡t includl's rropcrtil'S other than those of ~ls.scmblagl' composirioll, I
was intnestcd in rhe dil't of diffcrcnt Africlll cHlli\'on:s, he \\';lS v...dl awnrc
must work from hot" ends. As indicated, I have soughr our acrualisric
of differcllces among rhe variOllS earnivores in the pre), ¡"lilf:{C, or the spedfic·
expericnccs judged ro he rclevanr to the proptrries porenrial1y observahle
size and type of nllimal on which they preferentially preyed. Body size was
an.:h:1cologically. \'Vhat is necded now is a gond idea of rhe lorms rhar rhese
thoughr tI) be nl1 importanr v;lriahlt\ rcflrcting sOI1Kthing of rhe food-pro-
properric'l ukt Wh<:ll '>t'en in archaeological materials. SilKl' I hnvt' IlO di-
Curelllellt tactic~ of various preJators.

""i~ rectly 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
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, PcI-
onn'IS, ~hOllld pcrhaps he rccognized as repreSt'lltillg;1I1 itltkpendcllt hody-

,'1 formal propcrril's of a partial dcfinition for Ihe recognirion ot a srav",ngcd

assemblage, This type of search considerably narrows rhe potentially rele-
V3nt assemblages that could be stlldied for further insighls intu patrerning
possihly dcrivcd from <;cavcnging. A sc!ecrion fraIn this grOllp of provoca-
riv\'.' asseInhl.1gcs cOllld Ihen be made far det:.lilcd study, If, on dl'tailed srudy,
size 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
rh", fornl:11 prorl'nies of stlch ;tuributes as hrl'ak;lge, anim,ll gllawing, :lnd gryshok. alld orihi. These nre ;111 hovids weighing bctwecn [5 and
cllt-mark pbrl'll1cm ;lIld {orms could bl' showll ro he consisrl'llr with the 50 pounds. Thcir size rauge is jnJicated in Figure J. UA.
kllowledgc already availahle regarding the general types of pntterns ex- Size Class 11 (Small-Medium Bovids) Cbss 11 accommodares vaal-
pected \,,'íthín a s(avcnged assemblage, we would have raken a first hig srep rhd)(lk, mOlll1raín rcedhuck, springbok, and Imshhuck. lhe ani-
to'Vard pro\'iding an cxp¡mdcd definition oí scavenging for lIse in di.lgnos- mals rangt' betwcell 70 and Il O pOlll1ds. lh!.: rdativl' sizc is inJi~
illg orher asscmblages. Cle:.lrly, this srrategy is only providing a watered- cltcd by the sCllcd figure of a bushbu(k (hgun: J.I3B).
down link her\\'een rhe "bear and the footprint" (see Binford 1981 :26-27), Sizc Class Ell (A'kdium--Largc Bot'ids) ClaS\ III indudes animals as
bur it does provide derailed information abom parterns in rhe archaeologi- small JS approximarely 150 pounds IIp ro animJls approaching
cal record in terms of which more actualistic researeh could be planned. 1 400 pOllnds in body weight. Typicll anim.l!s inelude sOllthern
7H 3. Thc Klasies Fauna: Approachcs ro Analysis Middlc Stonc Agc Anaronucal- Part Fr('4111:mic~ from Klasics Rivcr Mouth Cave 1 79

'~W -'~'.'~,
TABLE .l.4

,
/, "
I I¡. " ',,,'
I '<....:?\.. .~.~-_..~'1i.\- "~,.• ' Tabulation of Klasics Rivcr Mouth Cave 1 Fauna by Klcin

l
<:~
¡; .

t .t Bovid ctass size

-"w. ".111"""''' J' :\
" . r II III
,,, .' l' '
¿
J/.' " I SmaJ/- Medíunv- IV V

(L,{ ~\
l(: 1 ~l~>,
r.;, (
~;( !(~.'1
i"
I
'iI-!V
~
Anatomicul nart
MNl
Smoll-'

(1)
%
(2)
medíum»

MNJ
(3)
MNI
[arge'

(5)
'J{,
(6)
MNI
(7)
Large d
%
(8)
Very Jorge"

MNI
(9) (IU)
%

E.
iCO'''~ F "'-.
Hnrn
Occipital condylc
._ (1(iJ Maxillary are
Maxillary teeth 27 .50 16 .34 52 .7.1 ~3 .72 21 .45
~.;; ¡'l' \' '1 ,11 . '.' Mandihular rccth 46 .85 35 .77 71 J.()O 129 1.00 47 1.00

.~.. :
•
,;. '" ,.i . ' ,\ l· '
Atlas 10 .18 5 .11 15 21 H .06 (, .13
l. '.
r '.' '·1'
• -;¡' _. ,.. ,'." ,. • i 2 .04
., ,,1.
11 '>- 111'
..t,¡, \
• / r/<"
¿y.

i)J '-!l.
f
~."
' ) .....' . -'.'

.1 'Y. . Axis
Cervical vertebrac
Thoracic vertebrac
12

9
8
.22
.15
.17
11
9
6
.24
.20
.13
7
11
9
.10
.I:í
.1.1
Ll
Ll
7
.10
.10
.OS
6
4
.13
.09
'6 1'1 Lumbar vcrtcbrac 9 .17 9 .20 8 .11 ID .08 2 .04
e B o Innomínatc
Seapula
30
54
56
lOO
21
46
.67
1.00
22
41
.31
..sH
17
IH
.l.l
.14
7
O ()
.IS

Figure 3.13 Scalc comparison among spccies rcprcscnting diffcrcnt bndv-stzc class- Proximal humcrus 4 .07 6 13 4 .06 6 .05 1 .02
es uscd in this studv. {Scc tcxt for idcntification of A-f.) Distal humcrus 24 .44 18 ..39 18 .25 19 .15 9 .19
Proximal radiocubitus 10 .IR 8 .17 11 15 .H ,26 9 .19
Distal radíocubitus 6 .11 6 .l.l 10 .14 15 .12 4 .09
rcedbuck, blue untelope, bastard hartebecst, hartebeest, wild- Carpals O O 2 .04 11 .15 49 .38 15 ..12
Proximal mctacarpal 4 .07 4 .09 21 .30 49 .38 1.1 .2R
cbeest, ami kudu. This class is rcprcscnrcd by a hluc wildcbccsr
Distal mctacnrpal .\ UlÍ 6 .13 10 .14 26 20 6 .13
(Fi~urcl.l3C) ami thc grcater kudu (Figure l.l.lD), Proximal fcmur 14 .26 9 .20 7 .1Il 15 .12 .1 (Ir,
Síze Class IV (/Alrgc Bovids) Animals in c1ass IV are considered large Distal k-mur 13 .24 12 .26 9 l.l 12 .09 " 06
aud includc rile Cape huffalo and the cland (both 2000 pounds). Proximal tibia 12 .22 7 .15 H 11 .> .02 1 .02
Thcsc are shown on figures 3.IJE and 3,13f, rcspcctively. Distal tibia 13 .24 14 .31 27 .,~() ,n .25 S ,11
Tarsals 5 .09 2 .04 12 17 2(} .2.\ 14 .10
Size Class V (Very Large BOl'ids) In this analysis, body-sne class V 9 .17 12 .26 32 .4:í .';c; .42 10 .21
Astragalus
includes only the extincr giant buffalo, Pelorouis, which weighed Calcancus 20 .37 16 .35 22 '>1 ,\1 24 9 .19
approximately 4000 pounds. Proximal mctatursal 6 .11 8 .17 17 .24 41 .32 11 .23
Distal meeatarsal 8 .15 8 .17 8 .11 ID .08 tí .13
Borh thc earlier study of the Klasies fauna by Klein (1976) and my First phnlangc ;; .09 R .17 11 15 27 .21 11 .2.\
n-sunlv h;l\l' l'll1plll)'l'd thcsc hody-sizc c.ltq~llrics as importnnr annlyuc Scrond Jlh,lL11lh~' .') .m> H .17 11 .l.e, 27 .21 1\ .13
unirs. Third phalungc :; .Ol) H 17 1I .1'; 27 .21 11 .2.1
Tabk- 3,4 suuunnrizcs the information tabulntcd hy Richard Klcin
"Stccnbok, nrvsbok. onbi {Klcin 1976:Table 9].
(1976) using his ohscrvational convenrions (MNls), and Table 3.5 presenta 1, Spr¡n~h(lk. mountuin n-dhok. busbbok {Klc¡u 1976:T¡lhle 1(1)
tlll' S;ll111' m.ucri.rl t.il-ul.ucd hy my obscrv.uioual couvcntiuns (1\INEs uud , Bluc antclopc. kudu. hartvbcvst. bastard hartcbccst, wtldcbccst [Klvin llJ76:T,¡bll' 111.
MAUs). Both tablcs are presented in tetms of lhe f¡ve animal body-size rI Cape buff:lIo, l'!¡¡nd IKlcin lY76:Tablc 121.
dasscs uscd by Klcin (1976) for describing the fauna in his iIlitial studies, " Giant buffalo (KIl'in 1976:Tablc 131.
 TABLE 3.:1

Tabulauon ni Klasies Rivcr Mouth Cave 1 Fauna by Bínford

Bovuf ctass '¡'::l'

I 11 1II IV V
Small Small-medium Medium-losge Large Very Iarge
ce
e
MNE AfAU % MNE MAU Oh, MNE MAU MNE MAU 'Yo MNE MAU %
Anatcsmcal pan 11J 12} IJI (4) 15) (6) l7J IHI
""
191 ¡JO} ( 1I) (}21 (/31 (l4) () SI

Hom 2l 11.0 .2 L 4.5 .18 18 ~.O .23 23 t L.S .19 O O O

Occipital condyle 4 2.0 04 Y
" 4.5 18 8 4.0 10 leí U.O .1.1 2 1.0 .04
Maxillarv are 22 11.0 .21 14 7.0 .28 9 4.5 11 3.5 06 6 3.0 .13
Maxillary teeth« 136 13.0 ,.
._::1 91 9.0 .36 237 23.0 ..')8 374 37.0 .ÓO 858 :';.5 .38
Mandibular rccth l' 324 29.0 .56 229 21.0 M 436 40.0 1.00 583 62.0 1.00 212 22.5 1.00
Mandiblc 30 15.0 .29 2"" 13.5 S.¡ },1 t2.S .31 32 16.0 .26 21 10.5 .47
Atlas 7 7.0 .14 , 5.0 20 4 4.0 .10 7 7.0 .1/ 4 40 18
Axis 12 12.0 .23
, 70 .28 (, 6.0 .15 Ll 13.0 .21 4 4.0 .18
Cervical vertcbrae 20 4.0 .08 30 6.0 .24- 47 "A .24- 36 7.2 .12 ID 1.0 09
Tboracrc vcncbrae 64 4.9 .10 69 5.3 .21 88 6.8 17 55 4.2 .07 9 0.7 .03
Lumbar vertebrac 42 6.0 .12 4' 6.0 .14 "il 7.4 .19 55 7.B .L~ 12 18 08
lnnommarc 21 10.5 .20 23 11.5 .46 19 ~.5 .24 17 8.S .14 6 .~.O .13
Scapula 103 51.5 1.00 so 25.0 1.00 61 30.5 .76 35 17..0 .28 7 3.5 .16

Proximal humerus (, 3.0 .06 4 2.0 08 4 2.0 .05 7 3.5 .06 2 1.0 .04
Distal humerus 37 L8.5 .36 40 20.0 .80 26 13.0 .33 27 13.5 22 9 4.5 .20
Proximal radiocubrtus 12 6.0 12 14 7.0 .28 12 6.0 .15 24 12.0 .19 II :1.5 .24
Distal radíocubirus 2 1.0 02 B 4.0 .16 15 7.5 19 20 100 .16 2 1.0 .04
Carpals O O O O O O :l8 5.8 .1S 159 15.9 .26 21 2.1 .09
Proximal metacarpal S _.::'1
'- .0;; 11 5.5 .22 lO 10.0 ,-
., 51 1.5.4 Al 9 4.5 .20
Distal meracarpat 4 2.0 .04 10 5.0 .20 17 8., 21 50 15.0 .40 8 4.0 .18
Proximal femur 18 9.0 17 11 5.5 .22 15 7.S 19 .,
'- 11.5 .20 S 2.5 .11
Distal femur 17 8.5 .17 14 7.0 .28 7 3.5 09 14 7.0 .1/ I 0.5 .02
Proximal tibia 13 6.5 .13 lO 5.0 .20 19 9.5 .1.4 7 3.5 .06 2 LO .04
Distal tibia 22 1l.0 ,21 21 10.5 .42 4':- 12.5 .:16 41 20.5 .33 6 3.0 13
Astragalus 17 8.5 .17 21 10.5 42 4' 21.0 .53 68 34.0 .SS 21 10.5 A7
Calcaneus 25 12.5 .24 20 100 40 34 17.0 A3 31 15.5 .25 21 10.5 A7
Proximal meratarsal 7 3.5 .07 21 10.5 42 15 7.S .19 39 19.5 .31 14 7.0 .31
Distal mcratarsal 12 6.0 .12 18 90 .36 14 7.0 .18 26 13.0 .21 16 8.0 36
Hrst phalange 8 1.0 .02 3D 3.75 .15 60 7.S .19 126 15.75 .25 314 39 17
Second phalange 1 0.13 002 3 0..38 02 24 3.0 .08 112 14.0 .23 28 3.8 .16
'" Third phalange O O O 4 03 02 38 4.75 .12 120 15.1 .24 296 3.7 16

" 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.
 R2 3. The Klasícs Fauna: Approachcs to Analvsis Middlc SII)llC A'f.1.' Anarorrucal-Pan Prcqucnctcs frcun Klasics Rivcr Mouth C¡lVI.' 1 R3

Evcn the causal rcncler will noticc rhat rhcre is J considerable lnck of 100 %
I I I I I I I :A~~~:::
identity bctwcen the frcquencics (MNls) rabulated by Klein and thc írcqueu- /
cies (MAUs) tabulared for the sarne bones by me. For instance. Klein rabu- /
)-90 Bovlo~
lates 129 MNls resprcsented in the large-bovid body-size da" IV ¡Table.lA a::> /
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. ~ ea /
In ordcr to uudcrstnnd such discrepancies, we rnust return [O a comparison /
(Jf our methods. o 70 /
Consistently, thc ,gl:<'.ll<t~i&ren~"'fI_l"""'bulatiW1s",,\Ud Il/ /
Klcin~~-are""¡n.4tM:mS~~i't;;4b8sed 8~rh. Klciu soughr ro estimare the ~ /
minimal numbcr of animals that would have died ro account for the teerh 2 60 / / eMA'lC
T"!!..e,.TH
variable. in tcrms of agc, righrs and lcfrs, ami specific idcnrificarion. For IÓ / •
insmncc, if one irumarure right and four adult left third-premolars were j so /
observcd. Klcin would cntcr an !\lNI estimare of five animals. My approach /
,- /
would lead ro JIl csrirnate of 2.5 maxilla or skulls, thc clcmcnr I bclieve ro
havc becn most likely sclccted by past hurnnns for transpon and introduc-
.¡l 40
f •
III
non ro ;1 si te. If pl'Op/c of thc past had in íact introduccd splir skulls for sorne x /
reusen from four .idulrs. thc differences hetweeu right and Icft are not
W:30
l •/.
known ro makc any diffcrcucc in terms of consumcr goods represented.
Tbey would as consumer ¡.!;oods he equivalcnr ro two complete skulls, which
is rhc rvpc of informarían I scck: How did people make transporto process-
o
2
20
"·/.P~G
/ o
l·· eCAlII::p

61Ze:. eL""'''''' N
J o o
ing, and consurnpuon dccisions with regard to V;UiOllS scgrncnts of un ani-
111 al's ,-l11~ltOI11 y?
<í 10
/
I'y (ME.DIUM- LARG.E.)

There is nnothcr rcason for differences between Klein's data and mine.
2 ,o

He docs nor use fractional t'otNI estimares, whereas 1 use fractional MAU
o
o 10 lO ~O 40 !SO 60 70 ~o <lO 100%
c-aimatcs. lf 1 han' (ln]y onc proximal humcrus, ir is lisn-cl us 0.5 animal R_
MNI IN DE.)(,E'Ó- ; K-LE.'''l ÓTUDY
units, whcrcas Klciu would scc ir as representing at lcast onc dcad animal.
This plays a considerable role in generating diffcrenccs hetwccn our summa- Pigure 3.14 Cornnarison of Binford's and Klcin's tabulutions ot anarcmical parts
ry counts. Bt'G1USe Klcin ncvcr considcrs rhar a proximal fcrnur from onc fm largc-sizc hov!,I.;. CARI', curpals, MAND, mandibular; MI\X. mnxrll.uy¡ Pite, proxi-
k'vd and onc from <lflothcr level, takefl rogetlll'r, rcprcsel1r ol1ly 01ll' animal mal radit)(:ubitlb

unit, he S('eS the two femur heads [lS rcprcscnting at ICilst rwo anirnals kilkd
;lt diffcrcnt times. Thus, when adding rhe l\.1Nls fmm two sc:par:He levels,
!' <'~ (-:-n\'o proximal fcmur heads would sum ro two individllals, whneas my
, I1lcthod would produce <l MAU of only one individual unir. This difference
contriblltcs strongly to SOIllC of the differcnccs IHltl,:d "ll1l<l11g Ollf respective
data sets.
Our mcrhods, whe11 lI11dcrstood. are in fact differing ways of looking ar
the S:lI11C reality, that is, fLlgn1l'nury and parríal hOlll'S froll1 fr;lgt11l'lltary
. ll1d parti:11 "lIl.11omil's t''\prl'ssed in tCfms ot . 1 4..'olllplctl· :111d cOllvcnil'ntiy
segmented anatol1lY. To illustrare rhis point, I h:lve plotted my pereentage
índices against rhe indices from Klein's MNls for c\\'o hody-size ciltegories,
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 out
mosr. while illnominate parts among small animals seel1l <lIso ro he consid-
erahly differl'nt. I sllspecr t1ut Klcill did not go through the stcp of estil11:lt-
ing MNEs as opposcd w simply eounting the fragmcnts of recognizable
innominares in arriving at his estimates. In an)' evento thcrc are differenccs
bcrwl'ctl the tahubtions th;lt are ro he l'xpccfcd, givcll tllt' t1ifkrcllt convcll-
tions llseJ in observJrions 'lIH.I rt:porting. Thcsl' diffcrt:llrcs rl"mlr in diffcr-
em tabular figures. Howcvcr\ the overall pattern of survivor"ihip at Klasil'S
seems lo be reflected well by hoth approaches.
 Intcrprctatíon of l'nttcnung 85
K4 3. The Klasícs Fauna: Approachcs to Analvsis

100 % I , I , I I I 1 =A
H lOO %
-----e
6C~p
, ,
iI
I
6:j
t 'ec
BOVlo6
Órz,e:: CL-A-::S~
(SMALL)
I
~
J
O
90

ec
I
I
-

li-
P
ri 70
t!
~ ~
",
~
,,- 70
I -
O
iL O I
~ DW
~ WI " I
J

'1'
50

40
/ /'
/'
/'
/'
eloAAt-LO
" TEe.TH
- It
~ O 5O
u,
1Il1L
I
I
/
./
-:

/
/

/'
:y
M .... ""D
TII:.,. ....

./
11I
'/. • /'
/ .... 11I
U
-
OH. !
./ /
111 :50 /'
/ )(
Id -
:50 I
I .>
/
/

/'
/'

O ./' D .=~¡""CAy

.." "
• ""' ..... l'l. re:e:TH ./MAX n:ET'"
2 Zo Z ZO .p~• .v/OT. / -
•
....
/ • P'E.L...V
H - .OF ' ; . P F ......S T •
.PT·AT_~T

.....'
~
o
.-
:J :J ,ow"':lIJo -:
4. 10 ¿ .¿:~ /
~
a
O
.'
e oec
10 ZO 30 40 SO EoO 70 &0 90 100"
.(
1 O
O
PH.

DR.i

10
f

VA
I
.PM'
t..:!.-.J~~~
.~J,O 40 SO EoO 70 &0 90 '00"

MNI I"'D~"E~; R, 6TUDY

K.LEIN
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.
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
MAU rNOEXE-:lo-&V'06 ~'Z.E e .......!>!> m
BINF"ORD OATA.
Figure 3.16 Comparison of auaturnicnl parts for small nnd Iargc bovids. AST, <\5-
tragalus, 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, proxi-
mal 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 Intcrprctatinu of Patrcrning H7

thc s.unc tor srnull as \\TII as larger animnls. The axial skclcton. proximal 100% ,
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 rcla-
'0Z" 90 /
uve frequel1rit,-'s uf thcsc purts .tt thc Klasics Can' 1 sirc lll~lY well be com- llleo /
uion ro horh thc !'Ugl' .md small animals. On rhe other hand. parts trequcnt j- / ,
in rhc small-bovid populuriou and only modcrnrclv reprcsented in rhc large- I( ZON"" 0"- No / /
DEó,,,",uc:rJON
~70 /
A
hovid 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 x /
uppcr-fronr limh constitutc ouc of thc easiest anaromical scgmcnts for car-
nivorcs 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 Ship- 1 /

111,ln aucl Phillipx-Couro y I"J77; Tnblc 1) and is frequently thc pnrt corn- 50 / /
{l-
monlv cachcd bv prcdator-ecavengers. Sume kind of selcctivc use of hody W
x 40
/ / ---
/ » > --------
parts i" clcarf y indic.ucd by the courrnvts bctwecn thc two gruphs. The /
1Il- /
challcngc is ro isolatc tbc sourcc of thc bias, O / / »>
l'arts vcrv conunon in thc large-bovid population and poorly or moder-
8 30
/ ¿...-----
_.
.
arclv 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 ::J I / . /..-/
TU
Tttr .... -

radiocubirus carpals and mctacarpals: in otbcr words. the [owct-front lirnb- 4:~ / -
-¿
bones and rhe lowcr-rcar lcg. Thc forruer is most often butchcrcd through
T. . . /_-- ZONE.
DE::S.TRUCTIOt-.l
OF

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
10

I
0......---
o
...
/--e-
10
,.... .....

I
T»C
/

lO
I-fISt'"

e,",~
•
--.
T:nr

30
• •
... ul-l:t.
I

40
-----

SO EaO 70
e-
H:Z::Z:

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 com-
position 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
60 90 l00"
MAU I>JOEXe:.6 - 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) <lnd willuse rhese figures lo corre(t the 'lurviving popubtlon
for the dfcl'ts of .!".avaging agents. By dividing rhe obsl'fved !\ilAU hy rhe
experimentally establisht'd survival pcrcemage (Binford 19H 1:2IX), \Ve oh-
tain an estilll;lle of the MAU origillJl1y present prior ro rhe a(tiotl by r<lvag-

"'''''-r--I.i) ~'t....
of,~
 ,~. Thc Klustcs Fauna: Approachcs Annlvsis Intcrpretaríon al Pancmíng 89
HH tu

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 Large hodids
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- MAl! w
". MAU 'Yo,
~t~llcti()n is rbar the srnnll-bovid populorion cxhihit'i a segmenta! strucrure Ana/omita] \(C,I1JCIl/ (11 (2) (.1) (4)

thnt mukcs good nn.uomical scnsc. This sepmcural structurc c1carly rcflccts
Hum O O O O
thc anaromical scgments in tcrrns of whrch thc gross anatomy of the small
Hcad ami uppcr neck Maxilla 13.0 .11 ,37.0 40
bovids was rreatcd, nnd in turu identifies rhc an.nomical units in terms of
Mandiblc 29.0 .46 62 O .67
which the boncs \\TrC acmnlly introduced ro thc sire. Atlas 22.1 .3"; 12.0 .1'>
Jnspection of Table 3.6 shows thar there are basically scven anatomical Axis 27.1 .4.~ 29.0 .JI
scgmcnts (sce Binford 1YH I :91-95) that bcbavc as units quanritatively dis- Cervical vcncbruc 11.4 1< 20.0 .22
Thorax and spinc
rincr onc frorn another. Hrst is rhe head-and-uppcr-neck unit, represen red Thoracic vertcbrac 123 .20 lOS .11
prirnarily bv the mandiblc and rhe atlas and axis vertebrar. The 10\\' fre- Lumbar vertebral' 1l.K .19 1:1.29 17
Pelvis ni 21 IO.6.~ .11
l)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 Uppcr-front lcg Scupula 6l.K \.00 2l..J4 .23
Proximal humcrus 30.0 .4!'l .1:1.0 .38
lu-ad and uppcr ueck werc transporrcd ro the sirc. The ncxt unit is the 16.(;7
Distal humeros 2Vi4 36 .18
rhora x and spine. This is the anuromical unir least írequcntly introduccd to
Lowcr-front lcg Proximal nuhocubltus 75 .12 IS.0 .16
rhe sitc. Ir should he rccalled that this is ene of rhc anarornical segments 1.67 .03 20.0 .22
Distal radiocubitus
most commonly rcmaimng at abandoned animals kills afta prcdator-cscav- l'ruxiruul mcrccarpnl 8.1 .u B,l? .91
l'ngers havc finishcd fccding (scc Binford 19H 1:230). By W:1Y of conttast, I)i~tal mctucarpal 4.,{ 07 ss.z .:'7
thcsc parts wcrc regularlv tr.mspurtcd for storagc by the Nanumiut Eskimo Uppcr-rcar kg Proximal fcmur IS.S 2S 21.S .H
(Binford 1978:112). In short , lugb [requencies of these parts cornrnonly Distal fcrnur IH.4H 29 IS.2 .1(;

rcmain where gross consul11ption takes place, or where one is forced ro Pmximal tihia lS.8S .2S 8..'1 09
Distal tibia 14.8.'1 24 27.7 30
make hard transport dccisions curying only the parts nf highest mility (sec. .1.,
Call'l'lh'lIS 180 .2.9 218
tor ill<,(;lIll"t'. my dí\ClI\"iom (lf llilTl' hlltchnillg, Bínfonl 1l)7H:60-6'~). SY.7 .64
A~tragallls 14.YI .2')
Undcr slIch cOlltingellcics, these parts wUllld be abandolled at procuft.'mcnt IS ., !..l .SS
Met;¡poJials Proximal mctatarsal 9.21
locations. It is cll'~lr tlut rhey Wl.'re r~lrc1y introdllccd to Klasics River Dist;Ji mct¡ltar~;Jl 20.0 Jl 4.Ll 47
i\lOUlh. First ]1halan~e S.H .04 92.6 1.00
Ph,1langes
GiVCll \",'hat we kno\V about animal behavior and about human hllnting Secoml phalan~e l.l .01 92.6 I.oo
Illar is Jogisrical1y orgallizcd-rhat is, where food is transported to con- ThirJ phalangc O .(JO 92.6 1.00
SUlllcrS loca red at places other than the locations of procurement-;c \VOllld
"Vatues ohtaincd by multiplying Tablc :~.S, Cl.llumns 2 amI II hy values ,given in
,lppear thar primary consllmption of the STllJIl :1l1te!ope did nO( uke place at
BinforJ (19RLTah1c .'1.04, Column 41·
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 abso-
lutdy 1l1Osr COI1l1110n ~llld (;ach bone lowcr down the lcg represcnred by
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 popula-
tion. 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'~
 91
'JO 3. Thc Klustcs Fauna: Approachcs to Analysis Intcrprt:tatlon uf pnncmíng

Before going on with rhc development of an accommodative bchaviorn]

unit. This decisión wns cven made wirh respect ro the bones of rhe upper leg,
model, we musr complete the description of the pattcruing. In this hghr rhc
Thc lower-front-Ieg segment, from the radiocuhitus down, is marginally
patrcrning mnnifcstcd among thc parts of thc rear lcg is rcally quite intercst-
rcprescntcd hy about 12 to 23'X) relutivc to the count of thc scupulac. The
ing. This is the part of an ungulate with thc grcntcst amount of usablc or
low frcqucncies of the distal radiocubitus and disrnl metacarpal is probably
consumablc mear (see Binford 1978: 17-19). The patrern is very clear that
a function of variability in survival probabilities associared with small ani-
all boncs of the uppcr-rcar leg were introduced in cqunl írcquencics-e-indi-
mals not accurarcly .mticipatcd l.y the survival pcrccntages uscd in this
cating thar whcn the uppcr-rear legs were introduccd, rhey werc complete
reo msrruction.
upper lcgs disarticulared between the astragalus and thc navicular cuboid,
Among rhc Nunamiut Eskimo. the lowcr-front leg was frcqucmly re-
or berwccn the navicular cuhoid and rhc proximal rnatatarsnl. Thcsc com-
moved as a unit nnd eirhcr discardcd or consumed in hunting cnrnps and
plete uppcr-leg units werc carried back ro the sirc, as opposed ro thc sirua-
srarions (Binford 1978:62-64). Clcar1y an analogous rcmoval is indicatcd
tion with the upper-front leg. which v..'as segmented ro carry only thc
by rhcse data. Ir should be pointed out thar this pattcrned frcquency break
scapula back and to removc the humerus in rhe ficld abour SOl};) of the time,
bcrween rhe distal humerus and proximal radiocubirus in an equivoca! as-
Whcnever thc uppcr-rcar leg was introduccd, it was carried back complete.
semblage is probahly sufficicnr ro suggcst srrongly that human agenrs wcre
The uppcr-rcar leg was rerurned only abour 25% as commonly as was thc
responsihlc for disrncmhcrmcnt. since anirnals tend tú destroy the proximal
upper-front leg, in spite of the fact rhat thc rear lcgs hnvc more cdible mear.
humerus and chcw clown thc humeral shafr. lcaving rhe distal hllmcrlls
This provoca ti ve bct aprears even more anomalous whell it is rea1ilet! that
J.ttacht'll ro lhe proximal radim:lIhirus.
therc is a greater proportion of the total rcar-Icg meat on thc femur, while
Thc frequcllcy-pattl:rning characrerisrics of rhe axial unir and rhe up-
011 the front leg there is a more equable distributiol1 of mear shan,'d between
per-front and -rl.'Jr legs scrm anomalous in that the oecupants of the (ave
the hUlllerus and the scapula. Put quite simply, if 011e werc making a deci-
were hunting Ihese small bovids ami rcturnillg the kills (which are casi1y
sion as ro which upper leg ro disarticulate and abandon, while lllJximizillg
trJnsportable as \\'hole animals) hack to the horne base for consumption.
the amoullt of usable meat rcmaining on a single hone, tlle rear Icg would
The pattero of parts rctllrned is most Jnalogous to a piecc-IJlttLlJe1"1IlK strat-
ct'fuinly he the one chosen and the ft-'mur would hc the hOlle transported.
egy in which an animal is killcd and only a fcw parts are rctumcd ro the
But (he p,Hrern observed among the small-bovid fauna at Kbsics Rivcr
rcsidenrial hase campo Among modcrn hunters with whom I am farniliar-
Mouth is ¡lISt the oppo<;itc. Uppcr~rear legs were rarely returned to the :-;ite,
those having a srrong division of labor and typically Jll ethic of sharing
and \\!ht'll the)' were, they were introduccd as complete upper-Icg segments.
hUlltcd foods-piece butchrring is only pranired \\lhen tr:msport of the
()n rile o\lwr IUlId, rile uppcr-front 1t'~ W:1S the P;lft rno'it cOflllllonly n.:-
entire kili is debyed, so Ihal t111' inlrodll(tioll of t1lt' clIlllpll'It, kili :11 ;1 Ialcr
lllrllt:d Itllhr \ilt, ;\lld it W<l'i t11(l~1 cOlllltlOllly illtrodllt.Td :lltcr heing ndlcd lo
lillll' i.., 'lllticipall'd. I'hi.. 11ll';lJlS Ihal in ILTrJls ni ;\llalllmiC;ll-part lru_-1I1L'llcit· . . ,
the 1110st produ(tive single bone-rhe scaplll;¡. Thl' pattl'fll of rhl' rare incro-
l!lis hc!lavior is rcally ol1ly ckarly yisible 311Hmg kill-silL' a<o;selllhlages in
ductiol1 {lf the rnetapodials Jlld plulangl's is tot;ll1y (ollsistclll wirh rhe
which the ,lIlticipated futl]fc tr.lIlsport did not takc place. Sill(c this is arare
practices of lllodcrn hllllters, V',..hcrt, thl'rt' is <l bi<1\t't1 <.lballllorlll1t.'llr or (011-
sitllatioll, the piccc-hutchcn:d e<)Jlrrihmioll is rardy visihle in basc-camp
sumprion of these low-yield parts in the fidd ncJr thc: kili or huntlng loea-
faunal populatiol1s, hecause mosl of Ihe time lhe usable parts of the kill
tion. (See Binford [1978:62-64] for a de~cripti(lll of the bia'ied ahandon-
would have heen introcluced eventually.
For the results of piece hurchrring ro he as ohviolls and visihle as is ment of lower-leg parts at kilI sites.)
Given vII,hat is known about animJl anatomy ami the trJllsport of
seemingly the case at Klasies River, il \\'ould h:lVc lo be ..1 rcgutu action.
anatomical parts hy both hUITIJns and Jnimals. the pattlTllS manifrstt'd hy
This \\'ollld imrl~· that the humers regulJrly h,ld a tr;lIlsport prohlcm, which
tht. sl11a11-ht)\'id bollt,'i \t.'t'IllS quite slraightf(HWa1'll:
\t'l'IllS highly lllllikdy, because the hovids heing di\Cll\St't1 ;UT ,0 ,m~111 t1ut

the)' can he carrieti easily hy a single individual (sec hgure 4.21). The only
1. The rathcr robust segmental patterning inlü un;ts disjoilltcd br-
othcr colltext in which I can imagine a regular and pattcrnetl biJsed intro-
twcen JrticuJar surfaces is torally consistC\l1 wich tool-u\ing Iltlllli-
ductioll of meat-yiclding pMts from the uppcr-fronl leg is if the consump-
nids JS tlle 1ikely dismembering agellts.
lion of the choin' parts of the carcass haLl takcll pbce at the kili Of point of
2. The high relative-frcqucl1cy of mandibular <lnJ uppcr-ncck P;lftS
procUfclllent. Under thesc conditions. transport of pJrts from the kili would
along with an absolute bias in favor of tht, scapllla bctLl)'S a hiascd
he hiased ill fJvor of parts of seconoary importance, which the shoulder
introduction of these anatomical segmellts lO the sltc.
ccrtainly is, relative to the rear leg.
 02 3. Thc K1aSjl':c. Fauna: Approachcs tu Analysis Intcrprct.uion 1)1 t'au cuung 'n

The larter parts ha ve only moderare utility. Picce burchcring such as BOVI06:
this is normally the rcsult of a transportation problem. mcnning rhat the ÓIZE- CLA66
61z-e;. CLA-66 I.
food avnilahlc is prcscnt in grcuter quantirv thnn e..m he carricd by the ficld "l::SL
party. Clcarly wirh su eh small bovids this cannot be the situarion wirh the HORN
MA>t'I'-'-A_
Klasics animals. In addirion, under condirions of rransport-related piece MAN,O/SLE:-
I~lltchering and thc biascd selection of parts. those gcnerally chosen for ATL.Aó
~----

lUllsport are the ones of grcarcsr utility. A'tK-mre'S'~~a COllSistelit bias CE.eVICAL VE~r;
in fa"'o·r-or'St!~e·kaw;p.w.r.tation,Qt.mod«ate.,.t(J,.,¡na~aLp.ar.t¡ (c.g., the ~ACIC VERT.

~ neck). This could only be expected if rhe parrs of highest utility were not RU!$ó
LVM~A~ _ VL"~T.
available due to prior consumption at the point of kili hy horninid or orher PELVIÓ
SCAPULA
animal agcnrs. P1eOX'IMAL HUME,eu6
~W:'Jn',-""

The regular segmcntation of rhe carcass srrongly suggests that orher DI':::;TAL-'·HuME~U.60

auimals were not involved in disrnemberment, leading me tu suspcct thar P.eOXIMAL- R ....DIOCUSJ7Vó
D/~TAL RAOJOCU/!JITU6
most of rhe SIllJlI animals rcpresenred at Klasies River Mouth wcrc caten by CAIZPA'-~
hominids al thc kili or dcath locations prior ro the rerurn of sclccred parts ro PKOXIAAAL- MeTACAKPA.t-
D/~rAL -Me:.rACAKPAL.-
thc Klasics River Mouth sire. Thc differences in pattcrning munifesrcd by P.teOXIMAJ- Fe;M'vli!!.
thc prime .matomical parrs (rear leg and lower hack) is consisrent with a DN5T.... L F~MV~
~OXhV.... L- 7í61A
model (scc figure 3.IH) uf the forrnation of rhe smail-bovid population in D/~rAL- 7/131'" _ ~__
which ahour 2Y}";¡ of the arumals represented were introduced ro the site -z'AL-CAIVEV.6
A.J.rlA,GALv6
"wholc" (frequenrly with the Iower-fronr leg and thc meratarsals plus pha-
OrJ.-le;~ T.A~L-:S
langcs removed), while 75% of the small-bovid animal units were intro- P~OXIM""'L- Me;TArA~.&AL-
duccd to the sitc afrer rhe consumprion of prime pares elsewhere, presum-

~~
o 10 zo 3040 50 60 70 eo 90 100%
Re::cON6TR.UCTE:.O M A U
I NOE:xe:6

A.. ~~
Figure 3.19 Cumpanson bctwccn unatomicul part frcqucncics hum SIn;]ll and l<lr~t.'
bovids {rcconsuoctcd valucsl.

ably at thc kill-find locariou. In any event, prirnarv consumption clsrvvhcrc

scerns indicatcd.
Turning now ro thc hody-pnrt frequencies frorn thc largor bovids
"~

Qjí {' V 1'5 ".

(Tabh..L6), wc note nn nlmost total conrrast in nll propcrtics of tbc nuat-
omy represcnted (Figure 3.19). First, thc most common parts are the pha-
ianges and mernpodials-s-parts rhar we have seen ro be commonly ahan-
doned by Illodnn hUlltt'rs as of marginal utiliry :lnd heJlce \\'orthy of littlt'
20% 14% 60% inveslIllt:nr as br as tr:1nsport is concernt'd. At··Kbsirs Rrver Mouth rhe ..e
Fi~urc 3.18 Rdativt.' frelllll.:ndcs nf sc,gments ot Slll;l11 hllViJ~ m()~t often intw- parts ot.luw- gent::raJ..utility .arc.me.·-PMls mo-st.commonly.illtrl.olduced too the
duu:d tll the site. slteJt-Olll.llu;. larger. animals.
U'1'- (lJt}e1v.., ~"k.> ~v>--~
Inn-rprct.uron III Pnttrrninu 9.'i
\),] 3. The Klasics Fauna: Appronchc-, tI) Analp;i'j

Tuming (O the hones of che upper limbs, che meat-yicldiug nuntornica] ~ -a 3 0

I I
~~ I I I I I
I
scgmcnts, we note a sea lar partern for che uppcr-fronr leg with ~l positive I
•
~,¡¡ 131 ...-1:>
P ...,...,--
hia, in favor of the sea pub ami J scular putrcrn for che uppcr-rcar lea, with TR:AN~POR.T
che proximal fcmur most common. These rnent-viclding parts. rhe fémur •
DMG
LEGo PAR.T~
;lIl~i thc scapula, are reprcscntcd in equal frcquencies. As discussed eorlier. a
scalar panern commouly bcrrays a siruatiorutlly conditioncd sclcction of
rd •
P MC

p.u-ts. and in chis case thc !litis IS in favor of che most mear)' parts. l?:Z ZO
.. l---'DMT
As W:15 argucd in the case of che small hovids, a sea lar ser of frcquencies J PMT

posinvely corrcsponding ro a scalar ser of utility values for the parts (see xJ eDRC.
Binford ]lJ78:23) gcnernily berrays rhe cumulative resulr of numerous piccc-
hutchering episodcs. Thar is, whcre rhere is more mear than onc can trans-
~~ DT

port, ;1 difficulr dccivion is made ro carry only J fcw parts. Thcsc parts are 2Z
choscu wirh respcct ro maximizing the amount of usablc foud per unir cf
Ha ePRC.OH
ePH .~c..AP
wcighr rransported. As was rhe use in the nrgurncnr prcsvnted wirh rcspect G1; 10 • pT De
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
Z~ • pF"

alllollg modcm huutcr-cgarhcrs is one that normally includcs a return ro the

Id 2 I
:> -
C1rCISS and a subscqucnt removal of all rhe usable material ro thc rcsident¡al a(
sitc. When thnr happcns, these Iarer acrs obscurc tite carlicr piccc-butchcring Id 1
l-chavior in the ovcrall frcqucncics observable nr the rcsidcntial sitc.
However, this is net. the case nt Klasles~fver-N+ütlth. Scalnr frequcncics
~~ o
o re ZO '30 40 '=>0 eo '70 eD eo 100
pnsittvely corrclatcd with thc utilit y values of rhc parts are dcmonsrrahlc for
ClENER.A'- UTI~ITV ' ..... OEX
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 Figure 3.20 Front- and rcar-lcg parts of Nunamiut kilI populnnons [Hinford 197H:
culling was scvcrc-c-thar is, only vny select parts werc transported. This 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;
l'xln'l1le 'ic1errivill' flnly :Ipplil''i [(1 fhe ;ldj;l(Cnt 'icgllll'nIS of the IIppcr 1l'g'i
DRC j disl;ll ratli()~tlbttllsi I)'J dista] 'ihi;]; 1'/, rroxilll:lllt,tlltll; 1'1 L proxilll¡tl hlllllCllls;
I
sillce, rebtivc lo rht, rcst 01 lhe CHGISS, thl'~c ~clclt parls are rHT<icnl onl} PHAL, phal:1l1,[;c¡ PMC, proximal mct3carpaL PMT, proximal mctatar"al; PRc. proximal
~lhollr 2sn~, ;lS cOllllllollll' as phalangcs, ll1ctacarpal; ['T, pl'Oxim:d tihi;l, SeA!', sClpuLl.
Ler llle pbcc Ihis pallerJl in some pcrspectivl'. In sitl's whcre l"lllling Jus
heell (Jb~erved, the population of parts aV;lilablc fur selcction wa~Jlly
Klasies River Mouth. On the other hD.lld, in marked contrast, lhe freqllcn-
rile I.:ompktc animal, so thar culling procccJed \vith rcspcct lO the rdative
cies of scgments from the venebral columll art inverscly eorrelated with
propl'fties of the animal as a wholc. Ir clllling \'.'as pracliceu, the femur
utiJity values at Klasies River MOllrh, as are the rebtive frt'qllcncics of
would be sclccrcJ over the shouldcr alld rhey both would he carricd ro rhe
\O\\'C'r-leg parts relativc ro llpper le~s. Thc rel3tive frequcnl'Ícs uf rhe major
c\:cll1sioll of rhe lo\\'er legs and phalanges. Thc resulr at a sirl' where clIl1ing
segmento;; (for instancc, the lower versus uppcr Icgs, or componcnts of the
h;ld ol"l..·urred wOllld Iw ;1 scalar Sl,.'t of bOlle freqlll'ncie:-. l'orrd:lted with
vl'rtebral 1.."1l1l1l1111 Vl,:rSllS lhe heal!) appear lO bc invcrscly I.."orrebted with the
111l';lo.,urnl lllilily value 101' lhe pans in l]lll,\tioll. "l'l1i . . silll;Hioll is illustr-ttcd
VJ111l' uf the parts as potential fonu, whereas within high-yicld scglllcnts~
in Figure 3.20. in which tl1t' frequcncics of frollt and rcar kg-honcs rema in-
such ;1$ tht, lIppt'r lcgs, the rclative frequencics of parts aH' positively COffC-
ing 011 NLlIl:lllliur kili sitl's are plotted :lg~tinst rhe utilíty valucs for those
latt'd \\'ith potl'ntial food yicld. Such a pattern-hi:ls in bvor of P;IftS of
S;l111e hOlle..,.
rnargitul utility when vicwcd fmm the pcrspt'cri\'l' 01 thc total ;tnatomy
'I1i'e:cl<"rly,S<.., .....-...,""..... I,;jo.,..¡~_ _ j,-_uq.QÍ.parts
versus bias in favor of parts of most utility whcn vicweu hom the ptTSpCC-
and their,mtli-IY· valul's. Statt,J anorhcr wal', what \vas c;uril'd away was
ti ve of a particular anatomical scgmcnt of high tllility-Ieads 1ltt' ro the
positivcll' corrcL1ted witll the utility valllcs like the upper-leg P;)rts st't'n :11

u.fP.- ;t(JL,")~,~,
I"~~
 97
<.)/0 3. Thc KI<1siL·~ Fauna Approachcs to Anulysís Intcrprctatino of pnncrning

takcn heme. 1 canuot imagine this typc of patrcm beillg prodnced by 1110<.\-
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 ern hunters, hy whom most hunting is camed OUl ro obrain food in pack-
ages largcr rhan the single rneal dcrnaud of thc hunrcr. Hunrers carry buck
Rivcr Monrh. TI1(' m.mifcsr p:lttern (scc Figure 3.2l) is onc that might he
much more mear than they could eat. and this brgc supplv is thcn sharcd
bcst dcscribcd ;IS "pcnny wisc .md pound foolish." I amconfidcrrrrhat-the
wirh orhcr mcmbers of rhe group. If rhis had becn done for thc carcasses
cxplanat-i.oJl for.. .t1lÍ.~ paetem reses with tbe.srate.ofthe lar~-anima-l,cMcasses
from which the high-mcat-yiclding pnrts had been obr ainccl, they shoukl not
eXploitcd.,h~tht'hemini(·k 111 one sense this is thc cxacr asscmblagc forrn
have been culled wirhin thc high-yidding segments. Tucre should not he an
previouslv suggcvrcd aF+eMab~:Mta.-<;sca~·. Mosr often thc
inverse relationship betwcen the high-yicld parrs of rhe axial skelcton such
parts rcmaining nt a carcass are those of marginal utility, such as lowcr lcgs,
thar thc pelvis and lumbar vertebral' are less wcll rcprescntcd than an..' the
and hcnd and nrck parrs. Thesc are rhc parts most comrnonly transponed.
Somctimes, bowcvcr. rhc scavcnger might cncounter a rclarively uncx- scapula and proximal fémur.
The conclusión thar sccms inescapable is that in the data from borh thc
ploired carenes from which he could obrain partx of máximum unliry. Hcre
small and largo bovids. rhc most cornmon units or package 'iizrs of anirn~ll
wc sec a surprivc. bccausc whcn a largc-unuual cnrcav, that had not bccn
foods introduccd ro the sire were quite small, and prohably were selcctcd for
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
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
{1
available only if rhe can.:ass was essentially uncxploircd hy othcr J.nimals)
):~
~t
indicates rhat rhe planning deprh of the hominids \\'as very shaHow; there
was certainly no storage, and perhaps no planning bcyond th~leal for
<~;,~(
(.
Jfc~.
(edj/407.¿ i
"~/ iJ \ 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
_ /Í r'~/ F-='ONT LE"''' supporred hy the biased introduction of lowcr-Ieg parts, segments rhar yield
'l;, 137.
27 "
onlya few onces of bOlle marrow.
Ir seems justifia-ble ro- infer· that hominids- werc ,pr.()bably, killiug .some
smaU'¡'º~i<l&cbut, w"~.l!"R_"*.-.....mng>tbe,.choi.:e.¡>;,,,,,...u¡"""¡11 (see
~ 257. 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

"
)J introductioll (lf the scapllla, from which thc othl'r hum's wirh att;ldH~d meat
rr
~' ~
' "
"
d
t

," ./
-:..:---.--:-
.~:~;---
)
.) 14X 2 % Ió % &9%
had generaHy been culled. In short. rhe scgmental1y transponed p:uts were
of modl'rart' utility and weTe generally clll1ed inro SIl131l package sizes.

k
117- Among rhe 1Jrgc animais (see figure 3.21), the most C01llmonly intrnduccd
. '0<,_:/
,_ '0 parts were the marrow-yiclding lower Icgs and orher parts of marginal
'íf,\:.J'
>
P h
~'
/(
\'J IItc..... R. Le.G. 6- 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
~.3
'

'2 /f.3'
8% CM 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
)'1 ' illto p;lI"t~ of \Try Stll;lll si/.l' prior to illtrodllction lo the site. If SlKh l'hniCt,

~V
1J{,! 11% 6%
ti 14%

',
"

P
,"
}
!~ 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
"
8% 42% 14% 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·
Figurr 3.21 Rl'lativc fn:qucllcics of anatomical scgJl1L'nt~ frum l:ngc bovids iotro-
sistcnt \\'irh a model of behavior thar imagines l'tlllsi<..krahlt.: planning deprh
dllCL'd ::tí KI¡l~iL'''' River MOllth C:1VC l.
~ .-¡-f )>c<-'o~~ > ~;-t
VH .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 implica-

4
tions 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)
CHAPTER
sharing \\'3S not a plnnned practice among rhe membcrs ni a rcstdenrial unir.

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 skcpti-
cism ; however, the relativc frcqucncics of hreakugc, cut mnrks, and orher
modificatious on thc parrs actuallv prcscnt should he birl)' rcprcscur.ttivc.

l)1)
100 4. A Pattcrn Reeognition Study

TAllLE 4.1

Horn·Core Bases Tabulntcd by Body Sizc

CllI mar1<ed Hocl< marl<ed Gnal'led

MNE No. % No. (Xl No. %
Bovid das.\" (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 16) 17)

I 22 O O O O O O
11 9 I .11 O O I .11
111 18 O O 2 .11 I .06
IV 2.~ O O 4 .17 2 .09
-.D 0_
V
º
() O O
72 1 .01 º
6 .OH 4 .06

Horn
In eounting MNEs 1 h<lve focused on horn bases where there is sorne Figure 4.1 Hlppolraglls hum corC5, tllustrating thcir unbrokcn statc.
segment of auhering skull, or on hom tips where there is no ambiguity as to
the U¡út representatíon of a single horno The bases acmally turned out to be
the most diagnostic fragmem (Table 4.1).
Two faets me provocarive Úl this tabulation. Firsr che small-bovíd c1ass
is wclJ represellted and tbese <lre commonJy unmouified and unbroken smal!
horns; relatively kw horn bases referahle to the smalt-medium- and medi-
um-size bovids are presento Second, al1d equally important, is the bct that
these horll corcs ¡lrc rarcly brokcn (whell observed, they were allllost cx-
clllsively kuuu horns) anu survi vc in the 3ssembl3ge a~ esscntia lIy complete
cores (only 0.07%, v,,'ere split by percllssion imp¡lCr). Figure 4.1 ¡lIustrates
the typiC11 st¡ltc ill which che hortls frOll1 the lllouer:lte-hody-síze animals
occur in the <lssemblage. On 2 of the J 8 examples of brokell hom cores
there are massive hack marks at the base of rhe hom, obviously made with a
heavy chopping instrument. This is commonly associated in my experience
with lhe rCl1lOval of horl1s or anrlers al1d is ullJ'e!areu LO skinning <letivities of
fresh carcasses.
111 Ilwrked cOlltr;\st to the hom eores oF the Illoder;lle-size <lnimals are
lhc horn corl'Jr;lgll+~'Jlts frOIll ebss IV sjze aniJ1lals, most of whieh are in bet
1aurotragf.(/állldJ h~rtl cores. These, withoul exception, have been inten-
Ilonally sphl''0-p_en-l~y hl;<I vy pereussJOn blows, prcsumabJy ro recO\'er the
5111<111 alllOllnl of pulpy tissue from the inside of the clVity near che proximal
cnd of che hurll coreo Figure 4.2 ¡Ilustrares the paltern of hn:akage :lnu
shows also the reblionship of the impacr blows ro rhe pulp eavity within rhe Fi!\ure 4.2
•
TiI[lrolwXll' horn cores, jlJustrut.i1l1', tlH:lr ~rlil l:!lI1llitiol1.
hom cores. These are large horns, and rhe heavy blows required to split the
:e,)s
I~);"~r
102 4. A Pattcm Rccognition Study Maxillary Ares
un

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.
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 small-
er 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 rela-
lívely 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
Maxillary Ares
Thc fauna! remains were so extensivcly brokcn that the largcst, mosr-
recognizablc 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 marked lfacl< 1l1Orked Gf/Il\vet!

Cut markcd llack IJwrked GnrllVé'd

0j¡, (ji, MNI, No. % No "j, No 'X,

'\f,\'[ N() No ,~,;)
No
(21 131 I·JI ('i) fM (71
HUI'),¡ cid" di (JI (,l) (.1) (:,) (r,1 (71 Bovitl du,"., 111

11 [) [) [) [) 11
I 1 I .sO 11 11 11 11 1 22
11 () () 11
", 14 [) ()
11 .l .33 [) [) [) [) 11
() [)
4 1I I ()\
111
IV 26
[)

11
11
11
()

11
()
[)
()
2
()

IIH
III
IV "7 [) [) [) 11 11 11
V ..l ~ '_1- ~ ~ 1 ,;'jO V (, O (_1- ~ '_1_ ~
[)

47 4 .O'-J 11 11 .l .06 SH 4 .07 1 m () [)

104 4. A Pattcrn Rccognition Study Tecth IO.'i

TABLE 4.4

Surnrnnry of Loose Tecth plus Those Rernaimng Eneaseu in 130ny I'arts, T<lbulated by
Ilody Size

MaxJIJae MandibJes

MNE MAU % MNE MAU fX,

Bovid class (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ((,)

.)24

j" j"
1 136 13 29
II 92 9 229 21
[[[ 237 23 436 40
IV 374 .31 .Ml SRl (,2 .lÍ]
V -!U 8 2JH 22.S
R39 lRIO

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)
ObviollSly, rhe careasses blltch.eJ;.ed at Klasies River werc noG~z('.~ut
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
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 rnaxill-
ary and mandibular dental orcs of jaws and heads. Tablc 4.4 SlllTIlll<lrizes
rhe MNEs (in this case, malldib\es <lnd rnaxillae) indic:ued by the loose
teeth, when differenees in age ond differential frequencies of specifie teeth
are ígnored. Since teeth are sorne of the rnost resistent ollatomieal elements
to destruetion, they may be frequently taken as fairly reliable esrim:ltors for
tbe numhers of jaws and crania that had been introdueed to the slte.
Thc il1(orlllatiol1 fron1 Tahlc 4.4 I1l<lY be llsed in ,,'vera! W<1ys. 1[owev-
er, first it is perhaps appropriate ro use the dara on !oose tel'th from the
m:lxill:l ;15 a control in looking :lt the other p:lrrs recoglliz<lble froill the
crallia. Table 4.5 sUlTIm¡\rizcs the comparisons of p:lrrs of Ihe craniulTI. It is
elear that tbe occipital eondyles and the maxillary teeth ¡\re essentially iden-
_ tieal in tbeir proportions from smalllO rnediurn-large aninds. On tbe otber
hand, rhe bom eores are considerably better represented among tbe smo\!
animals. This is whor one would expect if rneot-yielding parts were heing
transported ro the living site; narnely, rhe larger the animal, the grcater the
likelihood of ,1h¡\lldolling the horns :lt 01' nC:1I' thl' lo(;ltiOIl of proCl1tC\l1Cllt
(see liinford 1978:59-64), On the other hond, Eor ve:ry small ¡ll1im::t1:; thar
eould be transported whole with ease, horns would be normally introdueed.
As has already been lloted, the horos of mediurn and particularly medi-
um-large anirnals have heen processed for recovering an edihle pulp frorn
[he core eavity, whereas the small anim:ll hom eores h;:¡ve not heen so l'
I
r
-.r-,
proeessed. This must rnost eertainly be a very marginal food at bese Con<;e- I

quently, we would expect that regular processing for slleh <l food would be I t'l
As J prcviollsly Iloted, the unirs in tcnm of whieh bunal assemblages
were lTIost likdy cOllstinlted were allatomical scgmellts. After proeessing for done only when better foods were in low supply. This is an:llügous ro the

---_. --- -_ .._---

 eb.. .- cea« , y¿.~

4, A Panem Recognition Study 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 MaxillarF .\1.oxl11ary Maxillary MIJntf¡hll/ílr

ccndyíes tectb ares seesh leelh Co/umnl
Hum
MAU AfA (J Cotunvn 2
MAU 'X, MAU !lo Bovid claes
MAU 'Yo MAU % (1) (2) I.JI
(41 (5) (61 (7) (81
BIJI"id c1as s (JI (2) (3)
1 13 1'J 4:';
S.; .23 22 .24 18 .62 11 9 21 .43
1 and 11 1S.5 .43
m 21 40 .SK
lIi-V 11 .38
20.5 .57 18 .77 68 .76 IV 37 62 .60
~6 2.1.5 90 V PO.S 22.'1 ",~H

processing oí mandiblcs by the Eskimo for a small and nutritionally margin-
al 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 ani-
mals (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 fre-
quencies 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 5um-
marizes 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
hunters, where mandibles were introduced to sites from fresh kills in num-
bers 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 origi-
nally 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 mcdi-
urrt 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<:r-
centagc l\1AU for animals of different !"lody size frolll hoth the SW;lrrzklip
(Binford 1981:216) al1d Bel1r Crcek (Binford 1981:211) 'lIlimal·dcl1 as-
semblages \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 Mandiblc 109

108

TABLE ..1,7
'00

1----- :~v~-::-6WA1C 'KL.':- --l Modificatinns ro Mandiblcs, Tabulaccd by Rlldy Sizc

~ Be.NT 51:".1<.
90

ea
""'1""'.0..'- l Cut
--
líack
~ marked nmrkcd GnlJw('(!
O ,-ro ---- lJelltllrV Brcllkogl'
~ MNE No. 'X, No % No 'X, /JO. no.
W Bovid class 11 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)" (9)"

"'' ' )
I
~
~
SOl/- I 30 2 .07 O O O O 2~ O

~
401
O
L
,
j 11
111
IV
27
25
32
1
4
2
04
.16
.06
O
O
3
O
O
.09
O
O
3
O
11
.09
22
JI
(i
O
7
(i
O .301 / V .l! .1 .os .\ ...1oi f ...JQ -'! -'!
~ zc,/
O CU"'Vj;FO'"
~
L,..
e J", 1
:-n.J'o'vK.,. ~AN" T;;rl'ot~pOA:.TE
AN......
K 13-" 10 .07 K .Oó S 04 77 22

ci
w ro
A~6C.""'" L.Aq&.6 I I a This column Indicares thc numbcr of the MNE rcprcscntcd hy thc dcntary arca
(haH mandiblcs].
~ o
t. This column shows thc numbcr of dcntancs with thc lowcr muruin nf thc rnandi-

200 ,""o 400 500 600 blc brokcn away.

'00
°
Boov WEI<Il ....."T" IN KIL.OQ~M6
Figure 4.4 Comparrson bctwecn animal- and hominid-transponcd asscrnblagcs in
the rclationship bctwccn body size ami frcqucncy of bcad transporto
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). Neverthe-
lcss, tbc overall character of the curve is strikingly similar.
This comparison illustrarcs nicc!y thar 31 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 pat-
terns, 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
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 man-
dibular 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. A Pattcrn Rccognition Study Mandiblc 111
JJ()
I OF" HACl<... MARK...6
~

1~ ·~A.c;.E.ME.NT
-JA.W c..LO~E.D
WI,H

l ,
......
(l"

~
I

~ PI-A.c;.~Iv4e:..~'" W l , H ..JA.\N OF:>E.N

Q-~
I
Figure 4.5 Dismcmhcrll1cnt-mark placemcnt whcn the malldihlc is cither oren
<11 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 Figure 4.6 Hack ll1arks on thc base oE [hc mandihu\;1I" condy!c IT<ltrrotra.~lIsl.
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
_.~- ---
with a Iarge...hef.!L~Qg0-as on a handax, core scrarer, or orher large bi-
butchered, the Jllouth is shur and it is allllost imr()ssí~to oren ir.. When face-one uses a cOl11hillarion of hacking anrl sawing Illotions. These !cave
rhis is rhe case, cut mnrks such as the horizontal ones indicated in Figure 4.5 whole scts of short and frcqucntly thick cut marks, many (lf whieh are not
are commonly made running acrms the ram m, impacting the maxillary arc exactly p<1rallel and may be separated from one anorher by several millime-
just above the lIppcr thirJ molar (as shown in Figure 4.:\). This is mosr terso Thi~ irregularity arises fmm rhe tw¡sting and sJight rcoricnratioll of rhe
common when the carcass is stiff but not yet dry. When a carcass is dry, dle edge ro the hone surfacc as rhe Iarge tool is sawed and bruised inco the
use of sharp cutting tools, even modern steel knives, is ineffective on the dry resistant material. This rype of c1usrered and larger searring is well i1Jus-

:t and desiccated skin, muscJe, and tendon. When a dry carc~is being dis-
membered, chopping and hacking and heavy handed G-a~g/with break-
ing blows is the appropriate procedu re. In addition, J hav,J:., noted that when
trated 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
~' expcrimentally blltchering carcasses, if the carcass ~, sharp incising (size classes IY and V). AII the hack marks and the horizontal cllt·marks

~~ Cllts with ul1felouched flakes anJ blades are very effective. When this is illustratcd in Figure 4.6 wcre ohscrved on mandibles of the duce largcst
done, single smal! V-shaped ClIt marks are common, rUllning sorne distance 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
~~
across a bC)I1e (only interrupted by changcs in surfo.ce shape of the bone). lf
when they werc.: fresh and supple.

t
retouched f1ake knives are being used, a similar pattern may be seen, hut
In adJition, iL WfJS noted in 0.11 cases whcre the CUl l11arks were parallel

~~
there may he "hair1ine" parallel sets of marks, represcming rhe impacts on
bone of small pe<lks 01' unaligned high points on the cutting edge. On the ro the tooth rows, suggestive of butchering when the jaw was ciosed ;)nd
other hand, when relJtively stiff (and frozen) me<lt and tendon are being hence rigid, the cut marks were of rhe grouped, short, "set" variety and
addressed, the smalJ sharp cutting implemenrs afe ineffective. However, were not tbe long marks shown in Figure 4.7. These contrasts are taken ro
~ '\
 I
4. A Pattem Rccognition Study Vertebral Column 113
112

TABLE 4.6

Atlas aotl Axis Vertcbrac, Tabulated by llody Sizc

---
Hack
Cut marked marl<ed Gnawed

'Í!i-.~~ I MNE No. rXl No. '"1" No. %

" B()Vid cJass (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) ((,) (7)

ATLAS
I 7 3 .43 (J O () O
JI 5 I .20 (J (J O O
1Il 4 O O (J () O O
IV 7 O O O O O O
V 4
27
O
4
O
.15 º
O º
O º
O º
O
AXIS
1 12 1 .OS O O O O
11 7 O O O O () O
JII 6 O O O (J O O
IV 13 O O O () O O
()
V --1
42 º
1
O
.02 º
O ()
º º
O O

Figure 4.7 Optn-mlJunt cut ffi<lrks no the mantlible of Rapl11ceru"
indic;lle lbe lI~L' of diffcrenr tools when hl1tcherin~ fresb :lnd supr 1e car-
casses 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. Some-
rbing 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 rav-
aged 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,
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 inttO-
duced, prcsurnnbly wirh attached atlns and axi~ vertebral' but llnaccom-
panied 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 sl11all-
er forms was rhe head regularly cu t from the neck. Hacking was not exhib-
üed 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. A Pattcrn Rccognition Studv Vertebral Column 115
1/4

TABLE 4." to rhe lumbar verrehrac; and pelv¡c units, with rhc pelvis frequenrl y scpa-
rated into twn units, a right and lefr side.
Thoracic Vcncbrac. Spincs Only
This cxpcricnce Icads me ro expcct grcatcr nurnbers of cut rnarks 00 a
Brok~1J greater uumbcr of bones from large animals prior ro rhe introducción of
Cut Hack Ptom and parts ro a site of consumprion. We observe the reverse at Klasies River. In
markl.'d marked breokagc Cnawed GIH1wed the eomparison made he re, cut marks have bcen more common on the small
MNC No ".
No. n!" No. % Nn, % No. % animals and less common on the bones from larger ammals. 1 think rhe
" (7) (81 (9) (10) {/ 1J conclusion is inescapable that knife butchering was lcss common, the larger
Bovíd CliHS 111 '21' (3) 141 (5) (6)
the animal. It is unlikely that this would be the case if large animals were
44 16 .36 O U O O O O O O being field butchered after being killed by man, or whcn rheir carcasses were
1
.0, .OS
11
III
43
43
12
, .2H
.12
O
O
O
O
2
4 .09
.3R
O
U
[
O
O
.06
2
4
7
.09
.44
still fresh .
This intcrpretation is further supported in the case of thoracic remains
IV 1(, Z .13 1 ,06 6
J.Q f ~ (,
~ f ~ --ª ~ by a numhcr of additional provocativo and inforrnntive traces rernciuing on
V .J..I!
IS6
-'
J6 .23 3 .02 18 .12 3 .02 21 .13 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
(this rernoval is well il!ustrated 111 Binlord 1978: Figure 2.1). In my control the thoracic spine, vice down, and pull back. This rcsults in punctures inro
data Erom the Nunamiut Eskimo, cver 50% of the thoracic vertcbrae are rhe spinous process, coupled wirh pulling upward or away from rhe ver-
rnarked along the base 01 rhe rhoracic spines (see Binford 1981 :Table 4.02). tebral eolumn. The result of this aetion is the frcquenr hreaking away of the
Table 4.9 demonstrutes rhat, like the Nunarniut data, a relatively large dorsal edge of the spinous process, frequently coupled with tooth puncture
numbcr of thoracic spincs are scarred by cut marks at Klasies Rivcr. Of even or pitting marks along the ridge of the thoracic spinc. Figure 4.8 shows a
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 proxi-
-' "\."'1 r:__
\1 """'lIiiiI

•
mal humerus, as wel1 as oetween the distal radius and the proximal metacar-
pJ1. On the other hand, when ca ribo u were field-butchered, the Eront leg
i '
was comlllan1y disarticulated only between the distal radius 3nd the proxi-
lIIitlllletacarp:tl. ·1~'t"A.lukrl'J-Kc.'.t ..reflcLt that morc-extellsivc fidd hmchcr-
ing 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 com-
pkte 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 Figure 4.8 Canid fecdin.g on a section nI lumhar vert(:hr;lc, showin.g the "rullin~
least four units: ncck; thoracic; lumbar, with the sacrum remaining attached up" actio!l uf r('moval of thc tcnderloin.
J 1(, 4. A Pattcm Rccognition Srudv 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 break-
age 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 Figure 4.tO Módem wildcbccst (Connochaetesl carcasscs fcd upon by both hvacna
frequcncv of this form of breakage is paralled by gnaw marks (similar tú and iackals, showing uppcr brcakagc on the dorsal spincs and ncck brcakagc of thc nbs
(Nossob Vallcy, South África].
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). chopping are csscnriallv thc oulv way!'i ro dismcmbcra dry or rigid carcass.
Twcnty perccnr oí thc thurncic body fragments showcd evidcncc of gnawing While it is possible to dismcmbcr a íresh carcass with a sharp cleaver, a dull
in the fonn of tooth punctures, 100th scoring. or crcnularcd edges of various bruising chopper is almost irnpossiblc to use in going througb heavy muscle
proccsscs frorn rhc largcst two body-sizc classcs. No such gnawing W;15 and tendón rhat are frcsh. Judging from the chnractcr of rhe hack rnarks,
cxhihitcd on rhc vcrtcbrac from (he small-body-size animals. This patrern is they were inflicted when (he carcass was relanvely dry and stiff. Tilesefuers
amplified still further by the evidencc of baek marks inñicted by heavy .¡jlJÜ,together ro support- the- inference- thar, in the main,- carcassesof the
hacking-chopping actions. As has already been suggested. hacking and larger animals were nor íresh, and had. been prohably fed upon by non-
 Vertebral CoJumn 119
¡IR 4. A Pattero Rceogmtion Study

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
/:í~ (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<oobi fora.1 wilJ have
more ro say about this possibility as the atgumenr from the Klasies River
Mouth bone colJecrion progresses. Obviously tbis study was done with rhis
problem in mind.

Rms

Duriúg rhe course oE my srudies of hllnring, blltchering, and COtlSlIlllP-

tion of animal products hy living peopies, I learned a nUlllbcr of things
a39.lll-..b.fe~kage ~~rphol.ogy and us~ oE rihs. Most Cq!~11l101lIy the ribs are
(jemov~.9_ di1[(ng ll1Itwl fJdd burchenng as a unlr-(l~b slab:rand rbls IS
accomplished by breaking rhe rib unir back or up ag'¡jín;;c' rhe vertebrae
(Figure 4.12) and chen by cucting aJong the ventral surface oE rhe broken

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 Hack marked Gnawed

MNI'. No. 0.4~ No. % No. %

(1) (2) (a) (tI) (!j) (6) (7)
Ihll'id e/lISS

[ 64 1 .02 o o o o
[] (,9 o o o o 3 .04
)l[ H<) o o o o 8 .09
IV ;';4 o o o o II .20
2 .20 ..l --±Q Figure 4.12 NunamlUt Eskimo rcmoving a rib slab by cracking i t hack a~aJUst the
V .J.Q
2Hó º
1
_0_
.01 24 .08 vertebrac. This !caves a distinetivc fracture patlern.
12() 4 A l'attcrn Reccgnition Study Vertebral Column 121

ribs to free the slab from rhc vertebrar. This results in a characteristic break TABLE4.ll
coupled with distinctive cut or slicing marks on rhe ventral surfaces of ribs.
Brcakagc uf Proximal Ribs ami Othcr Rib Segmente
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 Ccmpleie Hmk.en l\.'lid,haft
rhe head and rhc tubercle ar the articular end of the rib. This brcakage rib« rih~ ,cel HJ/1S Distal ends
results in thc tiny hcad's remaining atrached ro the rhoracic vertebrae, and NI)
AINF No % No. 'y" 'y,. No. 'y"
rh~ break [ust forward of the tuherc1e rherefore characterizcs thc rib as Bovid class (1) (2) (.1) (4) (5) 1(') (7) (H) (9)
removed from the cnrcass.
With very largc animals this removal of a slab unir is too difficult, and 1 22 10 A5 12 .55 25 (,~ I~ ~2
ribs may be removed in units of three or sorucrimes even brokcn back one at 11 25 19 .76 6 .24 7 .19 16 ./Í4
III 12 ~ .61 4 .3.1 1 OH II .Y2
a time. Whcn the larrer is the case, there is a torque ser up rclarive to the
IV 8 .75 o
""
2 .25 I 0.1 O
remaining, unbroken ribs and the break tends to be a very distincrive diago- V 7 .86 I .14 .0.1 .14
..l ..l
nal break just hnck of thc tubercle, across the costal groove. In horh cases. 74 .17 50 46
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 largest body-size c1asses (lll- V), suggesting rhar rhcsc wcre most likely in-
of rhe rib is irnmobile in a vicelike grip of dry rissuc. (f one wishcs ro remove troduccd attached to the vertebrae rather rhan as separare parts for con-
ribs under these conditions, they must be broken and chopped rhrough sumption. Vicwed in another way, there are very few sccrions of rib shaft,
roughly across the shaft of rhe rib. just distal to the anglc of the rib, since aH suggesting (1) few complete ribs were introduced, and, if rhey were. rhen (2)
rhe attachmcnts ro the vertebral' are in the arca berween the angle and the they were not broken up for consumption (possibly dry and putrid inside).
head 01 the rib. This results in a complete rib head's breaking off just distal On the other hand, fragments of ribs from rhe shaft and distal ends were
to the angle and rernaining atrached to the thoracic verrebrae, with the more coruruon from animals in the two smallest body-sixe classes (1 and 11),
dismembcred rib unit itsclf having no anatómica] segments of the head so that rih heads nnly amount to .37% of all thc rib fragrncnts. This dif-
attached. ferenee must he meaningful beca use rhe recovery eHiciency for larger bones
T able 4.11 sUlllmarizes the breakage pattero associated with the proxi· would be expected to be high and small bones low, given rhe large mesh
mal ribs. as well as a rabularion of other rib segrnents noted in the Klasies screens that the excavators are reported to have used.
;l'''l'll\ht\~l'. \'\/h:1I is \,(,:ry dl'ar is that proximal rihs \\'ith complete hcads '('he s!ory uf Ihe rihs is amplificd whcll Ihe data 011 (lit marks, hacking,
(indicati . . c..· (lf hrt..'Jkage while dry), and broken across the angle (Colul1llls 2 and gnawing arl' L"onsidcred (Table 4.12). Hack marks are more common
:md 3), are progressivcly more common the larger the animal, whereas
heads brokt'n bcrwlx'n the hcad and the tuhercle (indicativc of fresh car-
TABLE 4.12
casses disrncmbermcnt) are more frequent the smaller the body size.
TWzs¡!mf.l(!,'ion·suppon. ·!he. grt>Winghody"'¡'€ORffilSl6..a.-_- Ribs' Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks
ing..-M~~ftrofisisltntlrshd"w"€9idt!ft~'h'8"'¡llgb~~m­
Cllt marked Hack /lloT/<cd Gnawed
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 MNE No. % No. % No. 'X,
Bovid dd'_~ {lJ 121 (.1) (4) (5) (6) (7)
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 1 22 O O O O O O
small amounts of pulp from rhe interior. 00 the othcr hand, when ribs were 11 25 O O O O 11 n
dry, this material tended ro be putrid. 1\1111.:h care was then taken not ro III 12 2 .17 .1 .25 I .O~
break oren rib "hJft" during {he remo\·31 of dr~ me,u or during: the boiling IV 8 3 7S .1.1
of mear (JIl {he b(mt~. V 7 4 S7
38
"
...1 ..'17
I
~ ~
5~ 9 .1(,
Rib h~'J~l" .1":":l~unt fl'r (-1'\' l,f .111 the' n~ iLl~llKnt~ frpm the three
1.1 22
" 10.0
 Thc Appcndiculcr Skeiceon 123
4. A Pattcrn gecognitlon Stuuy
122

TARLE -/..14
TABLE 413
Pclvic Parts: Cut, Hack. and Cnaw Marks
Lumbar Vertebral: and Sacrum: Cut, Hack, and Cnaw Marks

Cnovvcd Cut morked Hack mnrked Cnowed

CU! II/llrk.ed Jh'ck. mar1<<'d
O;" MNE No. « No. '1:, No. '!;,
MNL No % No. % No. '" ((,) (7)
((j) 'l} Bovid class '/} (2) (3) (4, (.11
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S)
Bodd cla,\.~

1 21 7 .33 O II 11 U
LUMRAR VERTEBRAE .17 O U 11 O
II 23 1
(, .14 O O O O 11 O
I 42 III 19 3 .16 O II
N
11
1II
42
46
9
(1 O
21 (1
(1
O
lJ "
(1 O
IV
V
17
...Q -.l"
IR
iZ
II
I ".17 ,
(, ..l~
-.lll
IV 5S 1 .02 O O
O
16
, .29
-.l}
Ró IS .17 I .01 II 13
V .J2
200 º
4
O
02 º
IJ O 24 .12

SACRA marks are sometimes associared with the removal of mear rarher than dis-
1
II
H
y
3
2
.38
.22
IJ
o
O
o
.2S
O
O
2
"n.sO memberrnent, 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
III 4 Il Il I
O I ,2S generally rather robusto
IV 4 O O O
.50 LOO As Table 4.14 demonstratcs, there are quajitativc diffcrences between
V 2
27
"
7
1m
.26
1
2 .29
"5 .19 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
than cut marks, and rhe former are restricted to animals uf the three largest we wiH see is also indicated by rhe rypes of marks prescnr.
body-size classes. As we have noted, hacking and animal gnawing are corre- Cerrainly of grcar inrcrcsr are the inflated frequencies for animal-
lnted aud both are seen as indicarive of thc carcasscs having been scavenged gnawed pelvic boncs noted among the large ami vcry large bovids, while
and rigid prior ro exploit;ltion by the hominids for rransporr to their site. such gnawing is abscnr on rhr horres of mcdiurn- and smnller-size anirnnls.
This patn-rn is vcrv rohllst ;1Il1Ot1~ thc rih fragmcllls. 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
LUMIIAR VUUHIRAF ANI} SAC/Wl\l
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
Table 4.13 sununarizes rhe informaríon for borh lumbar vertebrae and
(aloog the border between the ischial ramus and rhe ischíal ruberosity).
sacra. These compromise one of the first body parts to exhibir httle clear
There is no elue in this case as ro which was made first, the rool marks or the
patterning regarding th!: placemcnt and relative frequencies of inflicted
marks rebti\'e ro hndy size. GTlawing, 011 the other hand, shows a pattero of animal gnawing.
rebrivdy hi~h frequcllcics (in this case even higher than normal) on the
hOTlcS frolll rhe two largcsl boJy-sizc dasscs.
The Appendicular Skeleton
UPI'ER-1.1t\m BONES
Pelvis
1 treat the upper heavy-musde-mass bones ol the front and rear quar-
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 ters as a ser in this description.
for ~t fte~)- r?J </had4
C

124 4. A Pattern Rccognition Study The Appcndi cu lar Skclcton 125

TABLE 4.15

Proximal Fcmur: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks

Cut marked Hack markcd Cnawed

w,_
MNE No. (~ú No ')1" No, %
Bovid class (1) (2) (.1) (41 (SI (6) (7)

I 18 4 22 O O O O
II II I .09 O O I 09
IJI 15 O U O O 2 .13
IV 25 4 .16 O O 7 2~
I Figure 4.13 Marks inflicted on rhc pelvis whcn thc fcruur is dislO<.:atnl.
V -2
74
O
9
º--
.12 º º
O O 11
--1Q
IS

PROXIMAL I'Fl\lUR
Among abnosr all rhc animals largcr than the smnll bovids, rhe proxi-
mal 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
<lcetabulum at the (olJPa tapitis. If this procedure is not fol1owed) cut marks
around the !ip of rhe acetabulum are almost always present (see Binford
1981: figure 4.22, marks PS-7 and 9). II ,he ioin' is dried and essentially
immohilc, the ll10st comlTIon tcchniquc is 10 cut thwugh the tissuc and lever
the joint as if sccking tu dislo(ate ir, n:sulting in a fraerure through the neck
uf thl: fcmur. This is the pattcrn of hrc:'lkage- most common among the large
animal s rccorded in Tahle 4.15. Severing the rear quarter when the femur
has bccll disloCJlCd is corrcbtcd witll Jiagollíll cut lTl;1rks across the lateral
fa(c of the body uf the ilium, as \\'ell as analogolls marks aerass lhe;: bod)' of
the ischillm (see Figure 4.13). As no red ear1ier, (hese are exclusively (he
types of marks observed on the peivic parts from the small animals. Such
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 in-
terpretation 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
126 4. A Pattcm Recognition Study
Thc Appcndicular Skclcton 127

TABLE 4.16
TABLE 4.IH
Distal Fcmur: Cut, Hack. and Cnaw Marks
Distal Tibia: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks
Cut marked llack morked Cnowed
Cut marked Hack marked Cnawed
l'vlNL !\'o. % No. "'
." No '¡:,
'Bodd d(bS (1) (21 (3) (4) (:'j) ((,) (7) MNl: No. ".{, No. '~~ No %
Buvid class (1) (2) (3) (4) (:i) ((,1 (7)
I 37 6 .16 O O O O
II 40 2 05 O O O O 1 12 3 .14 O O O o
III 26 O O O (J 1 04 II 21 6 .29 O O O O
7 4 III 45 I .02 O O O O
IV 27 .27 O O .15
¿ IV 41 8 .20 O O 4 10
V ---2 ~ 1 -.l.!.
1.19 19 .14 º
O ºO 6 .04 V ~
13,
-l
19
JI
.14 º
O º
(J
º4
L
.0.1

larger animal, (Tables 4.17 and 4.18). UnJike the femur, the kinds of cut
Table 4.J9). Unlike the pelvis, however, there is a relatively high frequency
marks are essentially rhe same on both large and small animals. All the
of hack rnarks 011 the scapulae of large-body-size animals.
marks noted 011 the proximal tibia wcrc of one typc (Binford J9Hl:118,
In terms of the types of cut marks, there ís a total conrrasr between the
Tp-Z}; thar is, marks along the edge of rhe medial tuberosity parallel ro rhe
marks on the bones from rhe small body-sizes (elasses 1 and 1I) versus the
proximal articular surface. Similcrly, all the marks notcd 00 rhe distal ends
larger c1asses. Four types of cut marks were observed 011 the scapulae of the
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 small animals.
uoted on cithcr the fernur or rhe tibia. 1. Thirtcen of thc rnarked pieces showed rransverse rnarks just bclow
the lip of the glenoid fossa 00 the dorsal surface (see Binford
SCAPULA 1981:122, rnark s-n,
2. Eight marks were noted on the ventral surface in an analogous
ln rnany ways thc sea pula appears analogous to the pelvis in that of the
pnxition ; that is, just below the lip of the glenoid fossa. These would
parts of thc uppcr-front lcg ir cxhibits a biased high frequency of cut oc
be inflicted after the front quarter was removed Irom the animal and
disrnemberment marks 00 bones from the srnaller-body-size animals (see
the scapula was being disarticulated from the humerus.

TABLE 4.17
TABLE 4.19
Proximal Tibia: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks
Scapula: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks
Cut marke.i l i ack; morked Cnawed
Cut marked Haek mosíced Cnawed
MNE No. % No. % No. n;"
BOI'id class (/) (2) (31 (4) (5i (6) (7) MNE No % No. 'Y" N" "'
'0

Bovid class Ilj (21 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

I I.l 2 .15 11 11 O 11
11 I 10.1 2.1 .22 11 O 11 11
II 10 I .08 O O O
JI SO 7 .14 O O O O
11I 10 (, ..12 O O I .05
3 .05 6 .10

,
IV 7 I .14 O O 1 .29 11I 61 S .08
V O O O IV ,~S 1 .03 2 06 O .26
~ 1
SI JO 211 O º
O 4
_.50
08 V
256
7 -l
.17
~
.14 7
-12
.03
¿
19
-.2
.07
 The Appendícular Skeleton 129
12,~ 4. A Pattcrn Rccogniuon Studv

~
f:-,~ ~ I
./.-

. '~
{
·1 . LI- •
'/'</
¡"f;~'
,', .,.ti'
, >1'
1, ~v
i;l"
,,I
1,

Typ,;
-d.-
\
""...." .. , ;\
"
" ,

Figure 4.14 Disrncrnhcrmcnt marks on

6-l rhc scapula Figure 4.15 Filleting marks on thc ventral surfacc of the scapula.

3, Six had rather decp parallel marks diagonally across the supra-
glcnoid tubercle, running from rbe scapu!a norch ro rhe upper edge
of the glenoid fossa (scc Figure 4.14). This was a position not pre-
viously 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 axill-
ary 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 above-
I1lJrk 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
marks observed 00 the large-animal scapulae (except onel were inflicted by
choppers, whereas al! those 011 rhc smaller animais wcre inñicred by cut-
ting-slióng rools, Thc dominance of chopping marks corresponds, as re-
peatedly nored, to the high frequency of animal-gnawed pieces. This (O n-
rinues 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 upper-
limb 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·
[JO 4. A Panem Recognition Study Thc Appcndicular Skeleton l:Jl

TABLE 4.20 rze the larger animals. This pattern complements a shift in rhe relative
Inflicted Marks: Uppcr-Front Limbs
frequencies of upper- versus lower-limb parts represented from thc srnali-
versus [argc-hody-size classes (ser Table 3.6).
Cut marked Had< marked Cnawed Gnouwing shows a very mrerestmg.pattern. It is present with increasing
No. %
frequency on both the scapula and proximal hurncrus of larger anirnals. On
MNE No "'.0 No. %
the other hand, the distal humerus and proximal radius show Hule animal
lJovid cJIlS8 111 (2) (3) (4) (S; ((,) (7)
gnawing, although therc is sorne gnawing on the olccranoo. Gnawing is
PROXIMAL HUMERUS absent on the distal radiocubitus. Al! in all, gnawing is not a cornmon
I (, o o o O O O characteristic exccpr on rile scapula and proximal humcrus. Rones down the
Il 4 O O O O 1 .25 leg from this arca of the front limo appear untouched by animals. This is in
11I 4 O O O O O O contrasr to rhe rear leg, where gnawing was a consistenr characrensric on all
IV 7 2 .29 O O .3 .4.1
large-animalupper-limb bones, excepr the distal tihia. Thcrc is very c1early a
.!
V ..1
2.1
O
2
º-
.09 º º
O O 5
---.2Q
.22 biased gnawing on the upper-rear leg,
It should he pointed out thar this is rhe area of a freshly killed animal
DISTAL HUMERUS
thar almost always receives the inicial attention from fecding animals.
.17 6 .16 o O o O
A lion uSllally ears the hit~dQ~?th~ first, Jollowed hy. ~~.~~rters and
1
II 40 2 .06 O O O O
O O O O lasrly rhc hcad. , .. leopnrds, too ofren ear visceru first. hJ.!~--é.eetah)eiect them and
11I 26 O O
O O rige-s rcnd ro consume rhe mear from the rump ánd tj,ighs:f'cfore thc mrestmes.
IV 27 7 .27 O O
(Scballer 1972b:269; «: 1971 by rhe Universitv cf Chi{';lgO)
V 9
139
-.1
19
~
.14 º
O º
O º
O º
O 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
RADlUS tiger had alreadv OCCUplCJ the preferred place ar rhe hindquarters. t'ichallrr
1 12 .3 .25 o o o O 1967:1lJ7)
II 14 .1 .21 O O .1 .21 If rbe carcass is inract, however, or if the victim is "tiJl alive afrcr being hunred
11I 12 4 ..3.1 O O O O down, rhcy [sponcd hyaenaj-eear gpen the belly and loiJi~ the first parts tu go are
IV 24 O O I .04 O O usually rhe resricles .or udder .... Once rbe abdomen is opened, rhe enrrails are
u ...Q º--.nl ! --º2
V
7.1 10
0_
.14 º I .t .05
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
CUBITUS anim.ll, rllllllin¡:: off with thdr lnot. (Kn!llk 1972: 116; t 1"J7.! lw Ih e tlniversity (lf
( (' 2 .14 O 11 o n Chi(,lgrl)
Il 8 O O O O 2 .25
III O O O O 1 2,<; (See also my summary of aoalogous documents in Binford 1983c.)
IV "
21 2 .10 O O I .05 Tool-inflicted eut marks also exhibit an imeresring distribution. As
O 1 -E
V
-ª
59
1
5
...Jl
.aH O º
O 6 .10
already J1oted, the marks on the scapulae from [he larger animals were
inflicced during fiIJeting, while dismemberment was accomplished by hack~
DISTAL RADIOCUBITUS ing. Dismcmberment marks dominare rhose on the humerus. The two marks
I 2 O O 11 O o n noted on rhe proxim~l humerus were aeross the greater trochanter (see
II H O O O n O O Bioford 1981: 123, Figure 4.30c, mark Hp-2). Marks on ,he disral humerus
11I 15 2 .l.i O O n O are ~II marks familiar from previous studies. Eight marks were multiple,
IV 20 I .05 O O O O paralle1 cuts on the margins of [he radial fossa (posterior bce), and 'leven
V -1
47 º
.3
O
.06 º º º º
O O O O
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) repre-
senttd 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 modérate-
body-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 dis-
I11cmbcrmcnt 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 dismemher-
ment 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 dismember-
Olcnt 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 small-
body~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 hack-
ing 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 lowcr-
rear-limb contrast is analogous ro rhe dislal-scapula-and-proximal.hllmerus
ti: 4. A Pattcrn Rccogninon Studv Thc Appcndicular Skclcton l3S

versus the lowcr-leg comparison noted for rhe fronr lego A marked coutrast
'Z,(!:~ VNIPOR-AA

~1;'\\\
is seen in (he anatómica] part frcquencies of ungnawed upper-leg mear-
vielding parts, whcrcas large animals are represcnred by low frequencies of LVNA~
gnawed upper-leg parts and high frequeucics of lower-leg parts, al! heavily
":sCAPHOIO
processed for marrow. M"'~7
\
'¿"-~\'\F-- (
·F~;tI!;o ~Aq."'UAA
r~APZ:~OIJ:'
T~IE LOWER LIT\lB~
PROX¡AAAL-
A4E"TAC AR'PAI..-
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 CA~"'AL-:S -1é'1Q>J-iT ANT~RIOR!.
must he rrcarcd more complcrely, along with cut, chop, and gnawing marks.
Figure 4.16 Cut marks on cnrruls [righr anterior vicwl
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. 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
CARI',\LS AND :\U',]¡\C,\RI'ALS
on carpals, tabulared by body-size class.
The very 5111:111 carpal bones are apt ro have passed through the t-iuch No chop marks and no gnawed carpa] bones were ohserved. Slicing
scteens that wcre reportcdly used for sievmg the deposirs at Klasies River marks were present bur these tended to be concentrated across (transverse
Mouth. Not surprisingiy no carpals are referred to body-size class 1 (small) marks) the anterior face of che cuniform, and the fused mangum and trap-
and only four (not lisred in table) are identified to body-size class 11. 1 think czoid (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,
TABLE UI a short cut aCfOSS rhe lower anterior face of the bent joint pops the articula-
tion wirh thc proximal mctacarpalloosc so that thr [oint umy be rwisted and
Carpnls. Frcqucucv arnl Modíficancn. Fabul.ucd by Hmly Sizc
the nssuc at thc rear can be cut wirhout impacting bone. lhis procedure
Bovíd cltl~·~· results in transvcrse cut marks across the posterior íace oí thc metacarpal,
[ust hclow thc lip of tlu- articular surfacc.
11 111 IV V
------ ----- --- In my cxpericncc, rhis typc of disjointing is almosr cxclusively associ-
MNE MKD" MNE MKD MNE MKlJ MNt. MKD A1NE MKD ated wirh dismembermenr when rhe upper limb has already been removed
Cdrpa]s (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (71 (H) (l)) (10) 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
ScaphniJ () () () () LJ () 30 O 4 O
O 2(, 3 carpus, making a Cllt under such tension quite effective.
Llltl<1tc
Cunifrlfln
(manus)
O
O
O
()
O
(J
O
()
II
14 I 31 "
S (,
O
I 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
!vbgnlllll plus () () () (J lO [ 21 2 4 ro be made along the medial face jusc below the rim of che proximal meta-
trapezoiJ
carpal. The joint is rhen twisted out toward the lateral face and a second
4 15
Unicctorm S 4
ª
(J

º º
() lQ
~ S~ (, [59 1.-) II S transverse cut maJe along the crest of the lateral posterior edge of che
MAU S.R 15.9 2.1 articular rimo
Tho cut marks 011 ,he proximal metacarpal (Table 4.22) from the two
" MKD, MarkeJ (aH modific;ltiO!lsl. 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 Hoctc morkcd Cnowed Cut marked Hack: markcd Gnaweií
-~----

AlN[ No. "!<, No. ".;, No. % AlNE No % No % No. ;."

B(Jl'id ctos« 11) (2) (3) (4) (S) r{¡) (7) Bovid das" (J) (2) (.1) (4) (S) (()) (7)

I i I .20 [) O O O I 4 O O O O O o
11 11 2 .IK O O O O 11 10 O O O O I 10
III lO 2 .10 O O O o 1ll 17 O O O O O O
IV SO.7 1(, .32 I 02 4 OK IV 50 9 .18 I .02 4 OK
V
..J, .H 2
-ª 1 ~ O
V 9
9S.7 JO
.27
..,1 ª
4 .04 (,
~
,Oc, 89 10 .11
O O
5
º----
.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 dif-
ferences 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
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 ;tc-
complished 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 dis-
cussions 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.
lJR 4. 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 l

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 essen-
rially three cuts thar are made, coupled witb the use of leverage ro accorn-
plish rhis disjointing.
]. 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 Thc Appcndicular Skclcton 141
,.:JO

AJl.TICV"-A.TIOt<..&
OI6,AL- TIB.I .... jT'O'~~....L-"!t,~
'~
o~
3. If rhe carcass is supple and flexible, the joint can 110W be manipu-
MCTAT.....R 6A\.- lated 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 11131-
leolus). 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 disar-
ticulation, marks occur on rbe lateral and medial mailcolus, with thc pos-
MeDIAL
FL-E.)( E.O
sibility of sorne nicking on rhe medial face of rhe astrugalus orienratcd in a
longitudinal oc only slightly diagonal plane. Tbese marks, of course, should
c. covary wich nick marks on the ruber calcis and \virh transvcrse marks across
the anterior face of thc asrragalus.
When the joint is stiff and more difficult tú manipulare, there are two
other disjointing strategics:

I{'.(\ r~ ST/tATFCY 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 trans-
verse cut across the face of the anterior astragalus, which may be extended
LATE.~.A.L­
M E.. o I""-L.
E-XTENDE.D
around thc joinr. catching thc rim of the calcaneus 011 (lile sidc and the
EXTENOe:.D
proximal medial rip uf the navicular cubo id on the medial face. Leverage is
A. \
D. rhen used to pull the [oint aparr at the juncture of the asrmgalus-calcancus
L,II>..TE:.¡;;::AL-- with the navicular cuboid. The latrer rhen rernains artached ro the proximal
FLE.Xe.O metatarsn]. The parts remaining attached to the tibia are as sbown in Figure
4.19C.
STRATF(;Y ]
L."'F"'- L",~
The third srrategy is fol1owed most commonly when rhe ioint is totally
inflexible. and/or when the meratarsal is bcing spccificaily disarticulnred for
AL.TE:.RNATIVE DI~JOINTINq
purposes of marrow cracking. A cut is rnade, essennally circling rhe mcdi-
PROCEDUR.E.6 al-anterior-Iatcral face of rhe joint at the plane of articularion betwecn rhe
proximal metatarsal with the navicular-ccuboid and thc ecto~ulliform. This
Fi~urc 4.19 Altl'lnative Jisiointing .~tr<ltegies for the ¡dt leg whcn thc ioint is either resll1ts in transvcrse marks across the tace (lf rhe mcdial-¡ll1tcrior Jnd btl'ral
~tiff or flcxihIL---ml't<ltarsal, tar~al. and distal tihia articu]¡ltiuns.
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~
'" __ "_D"'~
. '" I r-.__r-. Dr,_r,~ ir.. .,¡- ff:
N Thc Apocndicu!ar Skclcton 143

accomplisbed by lcveragc followed by a transverso cut ncross the"posterior

face just below the articular surface articulation.
'"
~
~
~~_X~
~Irl
::J
~
~
I . . . 'r:
001(;
~~OO~~
.. O 'T.- O.
~ 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 metatar-
sal. Thus the relarivc roles of rhe above rbree strutcgics nuy he asscsscd.
Examination of the frequcncy information illustrutcs that among the
''''
::.::
~
r-11":<'1
_N ~.~
'"
..... "',::::c::I0"'iO::GNO
N - _ _ Nj_ \D
N
small animals thc cuts were most commonly made across the distal face of
the astragalus also impactmg the navicular-cuboid (Srratcgy 2). This posi-
tioning also corresponds to the majar drop in frequcncy berween adjacenr
"'1
~I I ~ ~~~~~
::JI'OD~O~O
~ O~~~~~
.r.
~
parts that, orher rlnngs being equal, almosr alwavs indicares thc poinr of
a'
--< ~. ::;

. .... I - r < ' : f f ) " ' ) -

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.
~ ~
:::E ~ .....I - M t ' - > C ~~ -\D o ;:; In the case of the small-animal classes, the rncrararsal together with
§ ~ ~ ..: 2~¿;
N ' t j f f ) ....
~q~"?""':~ "i: ~
phalangcs and attached navicular cuboid werc discarded prior ro being
~ -e -. §~ returncd ro the site. This method of butchering is most cornmon when the
~ ~
c.. ~ ::J ..c ham is to be hung and when there is an attempt to prevent f1ies or extra-
--:J.::5 '-lJ 0\"""""'1'-00 ~lr;q~lr!q S
e
":1"<;1
~
::;:
ff)~~-ff)
,"
< NO\t'-_~OO
~ N ..... _ N
'.1'")
t-
e
tU neous matter from invading the meaty arcas. With this type of burchering,
~
."

~ ~
-"
,j
~
.
'"

~
rhe skin rernains firmly gripped around the tarsals and thc rneat of the tibia
and the lower femur is covered by skin.
cq
~
-
<;1
Q
~ OOI'- ...... O~::.::
q 0\
""'!
ff)ff)
"""'":1
a
tU
1 have not observed this type of butchering associated with the use of
r .~ ~ ~ o o o o S car rying devices such as thar shown in Figure 4.20. Use of potes on which
o
- ~
~
-- ~
~
"o
~
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
w ~ OO_MO ~ ~ ~~ '0 ~ from kili to carnp, much in the manner shown in Figure 4.21. (Sec also an
f-' :::: ....1,...1 :::.s o o o o ..... o o ::J
"ª.
-

."
~
g ~ ... --
""
cxccllcnt phowgraph [in Howell J965:187j of J moclcrn Bushman carrying
a steenbok obviously burchered in the manner suggcstcd hcre.l Tbe butcher-
ing tnctics indicarcd are more likcly relared ro cooking menes.
;;:
8
~ 1"'1
~
~
OOfflMO#::':: "'."
~
N
00
~~
000
o o
] ~
~
Among huntcrs cooking is commonly accomplishcd in an ash oven:
mear i~ baked under hot ashes nexr ro rhe fire as rhis do('\ 11m dry out rhe mear.

"'1
~ O~~~O "'lo-
~ ~o~~~o ~~~ ~I]=
~
ª 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
:"5 porcllpinl' is baked whok in rhe hur asho:s of a lar~(' fin: whidl i~ Ill"de in a Sh:l!loW
z trl'lll-h lo olll' sitie 01 rhl' hlltS.... A~.\ rlllc '111 ,lllimals :He skil11\nl amI ni! open
E 6 ~ a¡,J thcir intestillc\ removrd. An exceprion ro this rule i s maje when rhe }'oung
:g Ci ~~ Ci ~
o
~
a::le 00
i::~
a::le <;1
e
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
--<
<;1
U
I ...
- -
<"l <"l
'.J
1'" - Cl
_
contents of their inr<;,srilles are flor considcred ... ro be llnJesirJhle.. . TlJrtoises f~ 15
E:¡:¡~..g EE~:l~..g_2. ~ ;He killed wilh a knife ami haked on rhelr h.1Cb III the ho¡ ,\shc~. (SreYIl 1':J?l :2H4)

i~]ll )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.~/
 Thc Appendicular Skelcton 145
144 4. A Panern Recognition Study

" -
Figure 4.20 !Kl1n,C: hushmcn carrving proccsscd bilwtI,I?, from J kili tu a residenuul
campo
'"
,..:.,' 1 •• }"

cooked dircctly in the ash as suggested in the above quote and as is illus-
tratcd 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\\', pJra-
phrasillg "arly Afnc.m ",plor"" to the dfw tha' the f"et of large allimals
Figure 4.21 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 metatar-
sals 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 meta-
tarsal rarhcr thnn wirh the tibia. This is particul.u!v cvidcnr in rhc large-
body-sizc Jnilll:lls, in which not onl}' rhe a"'trag"llus, hut also rhe ca!rallcllS is

1
attachcd to rhe rnctatarsal aftrr dismembcrment ..1t rhe tarsals. The other
such J$ ckrhallts or hippoporamus were cooked in Jsh ovens in their skins,
importJl1t difference is thar there are many more rnctapodials and fcwer
, yiddillg "a dish fit for an emperor" (Stow 1905:60),
'\.
I,J(, 4. A Pattern Rccogniríon Srudv 147
Thc Appcndicular Skclcton

TABLE 4,2.')

Cut, Hack, and Gnaw Marks on thc Largcr Tarva l BOlles

CUl mortced tíuck nunkrd Cnawed

MNE No 0;', No, '};, No '"."

80vid cllls~ (1) (2) (3) (4) (!J) ({¡) (7)

NAVICULAR-CUBOI[)
1 5 2 40 O O O ()

II 3 1 .JJ o (J () o
III 17 7 .41 O u o [)

.. IV .lS 11 .31 .1
o o
.O!) o
O
[)
()

- V .J'
6R 21
I

ASTRAGALUS
.13
.31 3 .04 [) O

1 17 .1 .IR (J O o (J
II 21 lO ".1 O O O (J
,,~.

.......... IIJ 42 13 ..31 O O O O

V--..;.y .. ~ IV 68 12 .18 O
O
O
O
.J
O
.04

4
V .J1
169
S
40
.24
24 () (J
º
.1 .02

Figure 4.22 Springharcs bcing pluccd in an ash hearth in prcparatton for conkíng by CALCANElJS
a Masnrwa Bushman. 1 25 () O O O o ()

II 20 O O o O O O
III 34 I .03 O O O O
upper-limb parts ar tbc site. This certainly results from the selecrive intro- IV 31 3 .10 O O 1 .10
~ 1 ~
ducuon 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
V .J1
1.11
!
S 04 º
O º
() 4 0.1

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 intro-
duccd, 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 illus-
trated, rbe shift in bias is associared with different dismembertnent strat-
cgics. 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
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, where-
as the larger .lnimals werc dismembered with rhe joinr in a "natural" posi-
tion-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 place-
ment 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,
 , , The Appcndícular Skeleton 149

":;;
""53::
.~
ooo~-

I I TABLE 4.27

Mctatarsals: Cut, Hack, and Gnaw MiHks

I
~

e ]~-- Cut morked Hack markeit Cnawed

""u • u 00
t;-..2--- 000-0
No. No.
"
lJ " , Bovíd clns,~
MNE
(1)
No.
(2)
%
(3) (4)
%
(5) (6)
%
(7)

PROXIMAL METATAR5AL

"" I
"" ec c-
8]t:. oo-~o I I 1
11
III
7
21
15
O
O
6
O
O
.40
O
O
1
O
O
OS
O
O
1
O
O
.05
IV 39 11 .28 7 .IH 1 .In
,)
V 14 ..l .21 1 .07 -:1!.
5;:0
,,~ ONI"10 o
96 19 .20 9 J)9 5 .OS

~ DISTAL METATARSAL
o
¡ o o o o o
,u""
w •u 11
12
18
O
O o o o 2 .11
'", -"- - "'~ 1II 14 2 .14 o O o (1
-e
"" e
o
"• :¡
"'~ OOIV)ON
- IV
V
26
16
3
o
.12
_0_
2
1
.08
-.JlQ
1
o
.04

º--
.c • -c
" " S .03
-;; 86 .06 ,) .Q.3 3
.;
'"
-'
"
g
oc
<
f-
<u
~
o 1'"¡2-" ONlI'"JS("l

-5 Most of the cut marks on rhe proximal meratarsal were from dismern-
"o ~" " bermenr: 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'"- N') ~ ....1 0 0 marks are clircctly analogous 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,
5
u but in tbrce cases rhere wcrc also short chevrons indicative of fillering on the

"
o
'~

-
~~ O""Jo...c"",
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
-B" :¡
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
"'~I
f2::: ,"0-"''''1
_ ...
I 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, disamcula-
tion 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
""-eS
I
u
..... :::82:> two markcd pieces from size class IB, both were transvcrse rrtarks locared up
o rhe shaft approximarely 5 cm aboye rhe epiphysis and 00 rhe ventral or
"l
posterior face of rhe bonc. Thcsc were probably inflicted during skinning.
"50 4. A Pattcm Rccognitíon Study
• Figure 4.23
(']"llrol W,\;II~1.
II;u:K mnrks aCHlss rhc distal condvlcs of tbc mctncnrpn! of un clnnd
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 metatar-
sal-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
151
Thc Appcndrcular Skclcton
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 mera-
tarsals, 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 dismember-
ment marks nn the articular margins uf the proximal metararsnl. Dismern-
berrnent 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
152 4. A Pattern Rccogmuon Srudy
\ of bone brcakage was restricted ro the proccssing of merapodials .md pha-
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, includ-
ing 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-
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
langes from thc lurgcr-bodv-sizc nuimals.
~IETA(:i\RPALS
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 irnpres-
sion. however, that such extreme differcnccs do not particularly character-
ize the species represented at Klasics River Mourb, alrhough mctatarsals are
consistentlv larga. Tablc 4.28 summarizes the frcqucucies oí recurrent frag-
ment 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 (Fig-
ure 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 COIll-
plete 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 essen-
tial1y 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 SIZC

Raphicerus- Tragelaphust' Taurorragus- Pclorovie«

o'o
Metacaroaís N MNE "'o N MNE "' N .UNE N MNE %
-
Complete bones 3 3 .45-.60 O O O O O O O O O
Proximal cnd 4 4 .5 7 7 7 78 B 23 .39 I I .11
Proximal VI O O O 3 1 .ll 110 36.7 61 24 8 .89
Distal cnd 2 2 .-10 9 9 1.00 52 52 .87 8 8 .89
Distal ih O O O O O O O O O O O O
Total MNE
Proxrma! 7 8 59.7 9
Distal 5 9 52.0 8
Total MAU
Proximal 3.5 4 29.85 4.5
Distal 2.S 4.5 26.00 -1.0

Metatarsajs
Complete bones 4 4 .57-.50 2 2 .11 O O O O O O
Proximal end
Complete 3 3 .43 11 II .52 9 o)
.23 S ., .36
Rear ih O o O 5 5 .24 11 II 29 -1 4 .29
Rear lj.¡~i¡~ O O O O O O 35 J 1.5 .30 10 3.3 .24
Lateral 112 O O O 3 3 14 8 8 .21 2 2 .14
Front 1/2 O O O 1 1 .05 19 19 .49 4 4 29
Front IÚ O O O O O O 5 2..5 06 O O O
Distal end
Complete 8 8 67 6 6 33 17 J7 .65 6 6 .35
One-half O O O 20 10 .63 18 9 .35 22 II 65
Total MNE
Proximal 7 22 38.5 14.0
Distal 12 18 26.0 17.0
e,
Total MAU
o, Proximal 3.5 ILO 19.5 7.0
Distal 6.0 9.0 13.0 85
<Crysbok: 9.07-13.6 kg (20-30 poundsl.
h Bushbuck: 68 kg (150 poundsl.
e Eland- 907 kg llOOO poundst.
,1 Giant buffalo: 1814 kg (4000 pounds:
 Distiucuvc Brcakagc 157

Figure 4.26 Mcmcarpals oí 5n1<111 bovids (mostiy R(/phicem~l, showtng lack (JI
brcakagc.

-:--,r'" oh I~';;;-\,~-:':;~,
.... Figure 4.28 Split proximal rncnuarsals of clnnd ITiwlOtrllgl/\) .

cornmonly unfractured, and if broken they are mosr cammonly splir into
1J':'.~., J' ...~l, »:»: halves representing weathering fractures of young (largclv unfused) animal
'~ :' ~ ~i;/';
1';'
hOlKS. PI11 anothcr w.iy. thc divtnl cnds are uot (Uglllflll(:d durillg proccss-
ing, whcrcas thc proximal end is extensivcly fragmcntcd.
'.: ,.'I¡.~,
l . .'.
Examination of these breukage patterns strongly supports the rccon-
-c, struction 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 ex-
posea 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 un-
mcdified by the proccss. Figure 4.29 sbows the splir ;111d "pcclcd back"
Pigurc 4.27 Mcrucarp.rls ot gi;lIH buííalo if'c/orOl'lsl, showing dísunccivc brcakaec
segmetus of two metatarsals ..v ith rhc sphntcrs rcruaining artached to tbc
pattcrns.
distal ends, as they were ahnndoncd 011 a Nunamiur hunnng stand. The
 Burníng 1.'59
4 A Patrcm Rccuj;nitinn Studv
l:i8

. • • I

..
,P"....
c;-"'~"j~-'
~_~%~.~:'] '1'
""f' ..¡.'- l ' -'.•
"'
..
¡
1
{-··~.·1
_ ,
' > ..

. _.
.' ....~.. ~>~.;~.,t::! ':""~"""-'----"" .. , " ~
',_o' ,.
.. (.{~ .,

.', ..'' ' -. . '.; ,,', .

~ ,.~. ~. ~
:'A"'
~'. ~f
"~", -. ¡. ~ l. .., T¡ ~:;:- __;-} ~:4;1 ;.~~? ~..r.i'.T;· ~.
e- '.~' \ ~. - , " , ........'"',... • ....."
.~ ~r , --..<~
s:
..,...

l...
'. «,
...
:;.
'.

,
.>,<~jr>':F~··
. 1",
'...

•• ~ ~
.."':
"
. ".._"

-,
~ '
''''S''
,.~........
- '",;r

","",.
.:
,. .
~"'<t',~:-o.".",,-,,,,4.L.,
,,~< .... '\'
/'~
~
, :~""I
{\,. "
~
(\
~,
.... ~,{ -

.. ,:.. ~.Ji't. ""(C' ~.' .' -. J .:~ ~··l"' ..~, ...\,;.-.t.

".:~.i>. .' '-"", • : .: 0/.... , \'
."" t\. '#-. .¡ ..... . . .- - '." .' ~- "\.f'ft; . ;
.- ...•......:,-
,~'. ":". c''
'-..J ,'. '\.' r./,.
\ ...: ,................ _ '. L
..:.
"}
""~.'
», .... , _

~ ./~ ,;.,. '~.~_-.... :~':, ~~ ~i,r(,

t....:~
~
... 'l"
. .,
\/1"~ 'l.,

plgure 4.29 ~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.
METATARSALS AND PHALANC;ES Figure 4.30 Split phalengcs of ciand (Itlllml ftJxml.

Thc breakage of the merararsals is very similar to that of the metacar-

of the bone by impacting on anvils, which appears ro have been the process-
pals, differing only in the numbcrs of splinters norrnally generated when the
ing srrarcgics for the rnetapodials, is illustrated in a very clear fashion for
proximal cnd is impactcd. This is, of course a function of (he differenee in phalangcs. A cknncd and disarriculated phulange was scarcd 00 an anvil,
shape oE [he two r11etapodia/s. The split-shaft brcakagc of the rncrararsais is
ventral <ulc clown, and impaclcd 011 thc ventral surfacc of thc proximal cnd
wcll illustrnred for the bushbuck boncs shown in Figure 4,29. Thc splitting
with a ha mmer. Small phalangcs seem to have bren suppnrted by holding
the distal end while impacting the proximal cnd. 1.arger bones from l arger
TABLE 4.29 animals scem to have bcen less ofren held or supportcd. and impuct was
Brcaka,gc Pattcrning of Fírst Phalan~('s'J more commonly rcndered 111 rhe center of the shaft (T:.lble 4.29).
The fraCfIJfCd parts rcsultmg from this ¡n(erreo stratcgy are IOIlRüudi·
T. scriptus Taurutragus rdOTOvis
nally spl;t phalanges (figure 4.30), longitudinally 'plit articular ends, as
MNE % N MNE % N MNE % well as complete proximal and Jistal articular ends with transverse or
N
(2) (3) IJ) IS) (6) (7) (8) 19) obl;que breakage lhrough lhe shalr.
firq 11JwltJllge,~ 11)

.41 L6 lA .14 4 4 .17

CUlUr!t:te 7 7
2 .12 32 32 28 1 1 .04
I'roxim,11 cnJ 1
9 .38
Distal eml U U .76 6.' 6.' 56 9
38
Burning
4 .24 68 .14 30 L8 9
/.' JlfOXUl1a! enJ 8
.31 21 lOS 4S
"2 Ji.,wl cml 7 ~ 21 69 ~ A relJtively smalJ percent;Jgc of hones exhihiteJ cvidcl1ee of burnillg. (n
Tutal MNE 17.0 m.o 23.5
2.lJ 14.13 2.94 most C3ses the heat hJd not heen sufficient to calcine rhe bone. Srnudging or
Total MAU
minor earbonizing of bone surfaces was rhe mosr enmmon for~ noted (see
<l MNE, mini mal numbcT 01 clcmcnts; MAU, minimaI 3nim¡¡! units (formcrly caBcd Binlord 19631,
MNII

.1-tr"·../.'. - ",......,..4
/ ~Ó /1'''''''''~
 (~. _/",f¡..;/ ~ CA4<Ud.> ~ ..P+
1(,() 4. A Pattcrn R{'cognitinn Studv
Jz4
fi 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
" abandoncd by hominids, rhere was one very inreresting piece-a proximal
femur of Tragelaplms strepsiceros (kudu) that had been gnawed by animals
~}. prior ro having been burncd. Of coursc ir could be argued rhar rhe cnrboniz-
in~ 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
r-,
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 ele-
~
ments (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 Nuna-
, miut 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, per-
) contributor to the hOlle stl'W. In like fashion, thl' hone marro\V is not caten
haps 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 pro-
cesses, 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-"~
Buming 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
(tt3 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 ob-
served the Navajo roasting heads of shcep. The heads are cooked COO1-
plete-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 Mous-
terian 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 contcmpo-
r~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
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 south-
cenrral Fr:mcc, whcrc I llave ohserved the "Illodern" hurlling p:utern! Oh-
viouslj-', tht.'I1, conditiolling factors were at work that \v(,.· have not yet iso-
lated. In rhe case of [hc partern actually observcd :11 KL1sics River Mourh, ir J
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
 .-'

TABLE 4.30
Frequencies of Bumcd-Bone Pragments. Klasies River Mourh Pauna-."

Animal bodv-size ctasses

Torals
'"re I ¡¡ III IV V
No. % No. % No O'u No. % No. % No. ~J,J

Hom
Occipital condyle 1 .25 2 .22 3 .17 4 15 1 .sO 11 .22
Mandiblc
Atlas
Axis
Cervical Vertibrae
Thoracic Vertcbrac
Lumbar vertcbrac
Pelvis
Scapula
Proximal Humerus
Distal Humerus
Proximal radiocubitis 1 .08 3 .U 1 .09 5 .07

Distal radíocubírus
Carpals
Proximal meracarpal
Distal Metacarpal
Proximal femur 4 .22 2 .18 1 07 4 .16 1 20 12 .16
Distal femur 1 .07 1 14 3 .21 5 .09
Proximal tibia
Distal tibia 2 .09 1 .05
Tarsals
Astragalus
Calcaneus 4 .10 1 .05 5 .04
Proximal mctararsal 1 .07 1 .03 1 .07 3 .03
Distal mcratarsal 2 .14 1 .04 2 .13 5 .06
Phalanges
First 2 .07 3 .02 1 .04 4 .01
e,
Sccond
Third
"' 2 .07 2 .01

" 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. A Pattcrn Rccognttíon Study Inrcrprceatton of Pattcrning lbS
1(,4

_,.. .•
"'~'.Jtr
....",::'" .4..
#
,,- ..
•. 1 "'''-
~
~..&
...~J" ' ...,•,~MIlP1'
~ ~

!III

Figure 4.31 Roan anrclnpc hcad prior tu bcing prcparcd for roasting by NY¡IC Nyac Figure 4.32 Roasnng pit bcing prcpared by Nyac Nvac Bushmcn Ior cookíng a roan
gushmcn. antelopc hcad.

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
<l11atoJllil;d p.uts hUI Ihis is mapped onro persou-, dilft'Tcllti,l1\y rLllu.ltcJ in such
rerms .IS kiuship ,1\~'Ki;\ti()n. (Binford 1975:U,l)
Al"K""~orl.in~'¡'......,.i.Inwor-k&,pa,!.iJUll.l:.KlasiJ:sJ!.ivee MOll.h
.sample.rcpr I t ..nm..@s-~WMmedJJ.e~pg.broke."for.bone mélflQW. This
diffcrenrial treatment is al so noted among the Nunamiut. Similarlv, the
roasnng of thc heud wirh the mandible removed also represents a diíteren-
tial 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, hack-
ing 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 ani-
mals spccies, Whl'n'::ls otlll'rs show differt:llt p,-lltcrns of burnillg.
This diversity, corrclated eirher anatomically or with size-variable spe-
cies, 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 anatom-
ical 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

-frdJu<k (11/) -~......

¡."'-I~VL
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 possi-
ble 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 introduc-
tion 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 distinc-
tive feeding parteros of each.
While these ohservations are inreresting, other points of extreme in-
terest 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<ltion of Pattcrníng 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 char-
acteristic 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 de-
voured or when a carcass's population of bones in different stages of dis-
memberment 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 animal-
damaged 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

Ricñardson:s data!'
Klasses bcvíds
~
oe Richardson 's data» IV Percent gnawed
Anaktuv uíc-
Surviving Domagcd Column 2 '{o of total
MAU MAU Column 1 MAU gnawed Líon Hyaena % Gnawed
11) (2) (3) (4) 151 (6) (7)

Hum 155 8.5 55.0 14.0 O O 54.0

Skull O O O O 58.0 7D.0 50.0
Mandible 15.5 8.5 550 9.0 44.0 25.0 66.0
Atlas-axis 14.0 45 J2.0 O 20.0 25.0 75.0
Cervical vencbrae 145 7.5 52.0 8.0 56.0 47.0 82.0
Thoracic vcrtebrae 11.0 8.0 72.0 20.0 50.0 49.0 71.0
Lumbar vcrtebrae 11.5 7.5 65.0 29.0 92.0 56.0 O
Sacrum 15.0 10.0 670 25.0 62.0 17.0
Innominatc 15.0 11.5 .'13.0 J5.0 76.0 76.0 58.0
Scapula 12.5 10.0 80.0 26.0 40.0 28.0 73.0
Proximal hurncrus u.o 5.5 50.0 29.0 8.0 45.0 O

¡ te

Distal humerus 11.5 .5 4.0 O O 2.3.0 70.0

Proximal radiocu- 95 1.0 11.0 5.0 O J 1.0 90.0
bitus
Distal radiocubnus 10.5 1.0 10.0 O O O 75.0
Carpals O O O O O O 260
Proximal meeacarpai 8.0 O O 8.0 O O 610
Distal metacarpa¡ 7.5 1.0 13.0 8.0 3.0 O 82.0
Proximal femur 90 J.3 37.0 18.0 8.0 14.0 75.0
Distal temur 9.5 2.0 21.0 15.0 O 64.0 75.0
Proximal tibia 11.0 2"0 18.0 29.0 O J2.0 84.0
Distal tibia 11.0 O O 10.0 3.0 O 64.0
Tarsals O O O O O O 21.0
Astragalus 6.5 O O 4.0 O O 41.0
Calcaneus 10.5 O O 10.0 O O 53.0
Proximal mcratarsal 10.5 O O J.O O O 65.0
Distal merararsal 11.0
o:-c Phalanges 2.5 O
5 5.0
O
40
3.0
30
O
2.0
O
820
130

" 1980b: Figure 39.

¡, 1980b: Figures 33 and 34.
"Binford and Bertram (1977:80, Table 3.1, Column IVI.
 lntcrprctanon uf Pattcrníng 171
4. A Partcrn Rccognition Srudv

íi-
170
100

'00
A
--1-~--
p
~
(-
..o ----1- -+___ I-I··(FTJ
~I, \ I (/
0
fJl
~
90

lYJ DMT
_
•
p=
DMC
• • ••
~
~~ -'-t--~ FT/'
PT...............~ •
p..qp~N~IGU'¡"'''''R.. 01 CI!:RY

/~ .'~
.• ---
60 _
/
/ ~1l.E~~~""" 2 a5.1Q. •
oec. AT ___
• • ~c.""'P

~860
~
~~'o .~ ..
IT,l-lO~
DH
•--....
THOR
I~

_~.~.
le:.
,rc~u~/
/'
MA.NO PE.LV
1 '"
j ~ ~~N::d /
1
O HORN
0
1I.:I50 _
Y)
.jPH
i~ /1/~rN-1-11
, ,
/
lI.
se Id '/1 40
40 __+_+---t--JL- 11 b.l-
~ { p~.--¡l-I
.IPF/
~ 1 30
or.
.. el
~--:1
30 ~""AX - '

A)/, ' .... //

/
2O
~ 11I 20
~J ro I 6 ",~XO . . .0' ~. V ~-
~ O
~
~
Z II! o...( ( 10
_-----1__ +------->- __
0."
Dll:Cep
.. lo- • 2-
" Z
10
--.-.1----+---+- P~C

~8
/
OH
I..... ~T O
o 1) ! I
U 10 ro ~ 40
"

~ O ~ ro
P~RCENTAG!E. OF E,,Aro.CH ANATOM IC .....L...
6l'-tOWIN<:t AIoJIMAL.,... a.N .....W1N<it
KLA~IE..~ R,VE..~ MOUTH CAVE:
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 ver-
tcbrac. DF, distal temor; DH, distal hurncns. DMC, distal merucarpal: DRC, distal
radim:uhitus; DT, distal tibia; HORN, born. LUMB, lumbar vcrtcbrae. MAND, mandí-
blc¡ PELV, pelvis; PF, proximal fcmur. PH, proximal humcrus. PMC, proximal rnctacar-
p: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 10 zo 30 40 SO (,O 70 eo 90 '00
C\..Jlo,.~$ PERGENT.......c;,.E. O'" 60N~~
QN......WE.O - ~lc:. .........RC~N O......T ......
1 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 separa-
tion as opposed to rheir incorporation into rhe functional anntorny of an
animal, certainly condition rhe feeding patterns and inrcnsirics by the con-
suming animal. This is well illustrated in Figure 4.34, in whieh the percenr-
ages 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 re-
covcred 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 receiv-
ing 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 hu-
manso I think it should also be clear that such pans are nor likely ro have
been rhe choice me<lt-yielding parrs in rhe anatomy, or rhe parts rhar repre-
sent rhe idenricJI fccding biases of a predatory animal fceding on a complete
carcass or a careass sequenriatly scavenged. Referring again ro Figure
4.33A, we see rhar rhe relarive frequency of gnawcd bones from rhe axíal
skeleton are rhe same as noted ar carcasses known ro have been killed
and/oT fcd upon by nonhuman predaror-scavengers. The major dífferenee
belw('ctl rhe two sers of Jara rcsrs in rhe fael rhar fllr c\'ery gnawcd bOlle in
rhe Klasies sample, rhere were rhree and a half ro (OUT sueh bones showing
gnawing at the GltG1SSl'S ohscrvcd by Richardson, Givcn rhat rhe axial·
skeleron pans csscllrially yicld only mear as an cdihle producr, ir is nor
surprising rhar, it thc hominids were recovering mear-yielding parrs (rom
previously killed and seavenged carcasses, they would seleet rhose rhar had
Ilot been heavily devoured already; rhar is, rhey would choose carcasses and
and parts from carcasses thar srill had usable mear-henee carcasses below
rhe me;:¡n as far as prior animal eonsumption was eoncerned.
I tmll IW\V to wh:1I I ,:oll"idn lo he evell Slrllllgn l'vidl'llCC rhall thar
from rhe axial skelcton-the data from rhe appenJicubr skelcroll, as sumo
marized in figure 4..BB. Likc rhe axial skelcron, rht're is a clear positivc
relationship hetwecn the rdarive frequeocies of gIla\ving 00 different ana-
tornical parts from Klasies River Mouth and such frequcneies observed ar
carcasses by Richardson. However, alrhough rhe relarionship is as srrong, ir
is nor the same as was observed between rhe rwo dara sers for rhe axial
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 observa-
tions 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 popula-
tion. Both, however, were sclected from an original population previously
modified by animal gnawing in a manner essenrially idenrieal ro the popula-
non 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 COTll-
pletely 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 con-
sumption 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<pialis)
(har was obsnvn! being caten by a IcoparJ in rhe Nossob Hivcr Val1ey. This
hone was a1l rhar remained hanging in rhe tree approximarely 7 months
after rhe observations on rhe lcopard feeding. Whar is denr is rhar the
leopard fractured rhrough rhe humerus shafr (sume roorh scoring is visible
on rhe brokcn secrion of rhe humeral shafr), bur rhe joints of rhe leg below
the center of ,he bumeral shaft were lef, untouched by the leopard. Tbis
pattern is repcared over and over again in whieh the 100ver limbs remaining
ar kill-dearh sires wirh rheir marrow yielding bones gener<.llly leh un-
rOllehed by predaror-seavengers. (See Brain 1982:25, Figures 19 and 21, as
wcll as p. lOS, Fi~l1n's IfH ;IIH.1 104.) This I1wans 111:11 tltnc ;Ut' few lim;ta-
rions 011 rhe rccovcry of marrow-yidding lower Iimhs by hominids bcrwcell
dcarh amI whl'l1 dangerous putrifiearion or desiccarioll scrs in. Evcll hC;l\,y
scavenging hy \'lIlrures need not rendn rhi.~ resourcc ull;lttr;tetive ro hOll\i-
nid scavcngcrs. Because this rcsourcc could be used by hominids ;]ftcr orhcr
predaror-scavellgers had essenrially finished exploiting a carcass, rhe par-
(em of large-earnivore-scavenger roorh-marks on Iimb honcs in rhe Klasies
 174 4. A Pattem Recognitíon Study
."
i through the phalanges, or minar gnawing on the distal ends of the humerus
\
~,'
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 correla-
tional 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 aban-
doned 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 par-
rern 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
or on the radius, but no other bones were gnawed. AH gnawing was concen-
trated 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 pre-
viously 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 best-
informed 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 strat-
egy-seerns rcstricted to relatively srnall-body-size ungulares, and, as argued
earlier, primary consumption of these smal1 animals was not generally con-
ducted 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 mar-
row; (2) rhc regular processing of hom eores from the tragalaphines (Tau-
rotragus oryx [clnnd), Tragalaphus strepsiceros [grc.ucr kudu]), and Trag-
alaphus scríptus [bushbuck]) for thc small morscls of cdiblc mattcr con-
tained in the horn-core sinuses; and (3) regular proccssing of mandibular
margins nf the larger animals for the smal1 morsels of edible pulp recovera-
ble from along the bases of the mandibular teeth. In addition to the break-
agl' 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 Inrerpretation of Pattcming 177

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 crea-
tures 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 intro-
duced 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 ani-
mals. 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 Figure 4.36 Typical unit of vcrtcbrac and proximal nb surviving aftcr animal fccd-
sorne 5 cm (2 inchesl from the proximal articular surfaces of the rib (see ing: modero wildcbecst ICoTllloc:haetesl fcd upon by hyacna in thc Nossob vallcy, South
Figure 4.36), are both consistent with animal fcedmg strategies (evidenced Africa.
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 CUT MARK'i AND EVIDENCE 01' DISMEr..lBERl\.lENT

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 car-
casscs wherc prime foods were not present or had already been consumed.
The /aucr conditioll is ~rrot1gly indieatcd hy rh' distinctive hreakage pat-
ICfIIs 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.
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'lluiv-
ocally the bet rhar rhe slllall animals (smal1 and sm:lll-mediulI1 bovitis)
were sclectcd Jnd proccssed in rcrms quite diffcrelltly fmm the medium-
through 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 dismem-
Cut marks Cut morks bermem
cut ami
Dismem- Hack Gnaw Dísmem- Hack Gnaw huck:
berment hlleung marks marks berment Tílletíng mates marks m arte»
-
No. ';1" No. No. O;" No. '" No. o , No. '};, No. o
No. No. ."
" "
/J} (2) (3) ,e (S) (6) (7) (B) (9) tu» (11 ¡ (12) (13) 114) (151 116) (J7) (lB)

Homs I 03 O O O O I .03 O O O O (, .15 .3 07 (, .15

Occipnal condyle 4 3(, O O O O O O O O O O O O .1 OS O O
Maxrlla O O O O O O O O 4 .18 O O I OS O O 5 .23
Mandiblc .3 .05 O O O O O O 7 .09 O O g 10 S 06 15 19
Atlas 4 .33 O O O O O O O O O O O O () O O O
Axis I .05 O O O O O O O O O O O O () O O O
Thoracic spincs O O 28 .,;2 O O O O 8 .12 .1 '<14 1 .04 1 .04

..
Thoracic vertebrae (centruml I .01 O O O O .3 02 O O O O 2 01 21 .14 2 .01
Ribs O O O O O O O O 1 .04 8 30 13 .48 (, .22 14 .52
Lumbar vertcbrac 3 .04 12 .1-1 O O .3 .04 I .01 O O O O 21 .18 I 01
Sacrum 1 .Of, 4 .2-1- O O O O O O 2 .20 S .50 O O
Pelvis 1 8 .18 7 .I' 1" 1 02 11 .26
Proximal femur 5 17 O O O () I 03 4 .09 O O O O 10 .22 4 09
Distal femur 8 10 O O () O O O 11 .18 O O O O (, .10 II Ig
Proximal tibia 3 13 O O O O O O 7 .25 O O O O -1 .14 7 .25
Distal tibia 9 .21 O () O O O O 10 11 O O O O -1 .04 10 .11
Proximal mctatarsal O O O O O O O O 13 19 7 .10 9 .13 S .07 22 32
Distal mctatursal O O O O O O O O .5 .09 () O .3 .05 1 .02 8 14
Scapula 27 .18 3 02 O O O () I .01 6 06 7 .07 19 .IB 8 08
Proximal humeros O O O O O O I .10 2 .15 O O O O 4 .31 2 .15
Distal humeros S .10 O O O O O O II 18 O O O O O O 11 .18
Proximal radiocubitus 6 .26 O O O O 3 .12 O O 4 .09 I .02 1 .02 1 .02
~
Distal radiocubnus O O O O O O O O O O .1 .08 O O O O O
~
Proximal mccacarpal 3 .19 O O O O O O .l .03 17 21 4 .05 Ó .OS 7 .08
Distal rnctacarpal O O O O O O I .07 7 09 ,; .03 I .01 4 .05 8 .10

'"' Groupcd bccause of ambiguirv.

uw 4. A Pnncm Rccognition Study Intcrprctatlon of Pancrnlng IRI

ria advanccd by sorne of the early srudents of cut marks (Guilday et al. .... 50
1962:63)-namely, rhar disrnemberment marks are recognizable by reperi-
tive placcmcnr and "rhar rhere was sorne anaromically dictared reason why 11I
~OV!D6:
6~z..E c.,.... ~6 1
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
j 40 (~""A.L.I )

c1asses I and 11) as deseribed in the previous descriptive sections. These 1 oc:c-___ ---
»>
tabularions are broken clown into columns summarizing marks judged to l-
---- ---
AT.
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 dismem- s .P~
,/'
,/'-'"

bermcnt from the Klasies River smal! animals, plotted against the perccnt-
ages of marked bones frorn the control population (Table 3.3, Column 4)
rt ./
11I
observed among rhe Nunamiur Eskimo during their spring hunting and > 20
~P~
• •-OT
,
pn,
meat-drying opcrations. It is clear that rwo parallel, positively correlated
D1 P;;-e .5C.Acoe

linear relationships are indicared. The upper line is described by horns: ¡,,/
occipital condyles: atlas and axis vertebrae; the lumhar and thoracic ver- >(1
.¡{Ha"-
~>
PT
III ,
tebrae; 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 be-
- 10

AX
j;/
o".

1-/0RtoJ
."....- MANO
tween the two cases. This means that, at least as far as these parts are LUM8
] O MT ____ ~ ..,e
concemed, the dismemberment strategies of the Nunamiut Eskimo and the
hominids of Klasies Rivcr were essential1y the sarne. The only significant
O....c ORe PH
------
difference is that slightly more marks were inflicted 00 most parts by the
o 10 2.0 '&0 40 SO

MSA hominids than by the modero Eskimo using metal knives.
The lower linc in Figure 4.37 also describes a posirive eorrelation be-
twccn 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 ani-
l11als. 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 simi-
Iatly correlared patterns seeo in Figure 4.37.
This split partero has a number of interesting impliearions. The basic
PE.... C.e:. .... TAq ... OF'" 150....&6 WIT"H
OlbME...... BE.~ME. .... T MAR,.1(.6
CONTROl- D'O"T.... - 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 meta-
tarsaf DRC, distal radiocubitus. DT, distal tibia¡ HüRN, horn. LUMB, lumbar ver-
tcbrac, 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 dis-
membermcnr ractics were similar relarivc ro the hasic fl'atures of rhe <1nar-
omy. 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 Intcrprctatíon of Pattcming 183

parrcmmg are commonly bnsed-c-namcly. rhar these marks are anatomically

clustcred in terms of frequency, as a function of the relativo investmenrs
/
...... .... R:11!II
so , -
(work) made by ancienr butchers in dismembcnng carcasses in WJYS related
to gaining usoblc access ro foods that were diffcrentially distributed on the .-4
6oVIO b: /
-...... ...... ,
'<,
skeleral fmmcwork. High investmenrs would be corre1atcd wirh acts of ÓIZE GLA6~ TIl '-
'- I
V
femoving anaromical parts of high food-yield: hence sueh parts should be Id (ME:D IUM~LA ~E:)
P~LV

targcts of removal more commanly than parts of low yield. ~ 40

'-3
This ovcrall pattern is realized in rhe dismembcrment mark frequencies V /
seco among the small mammals at Klasies River. There is little doubr thar
the dismcmbertnenr was perforrned in rhe context of strategies aimed at 1
... 'I'_.PMT
/ /
recovcring usable mear frorn rhe carcasses of these smal1 animals. The data :> ~
r
from dismernbcrmcnr rnarks are thus internally consistent with the in- O V
<,
ferences druwn from anaromical-part frequencics of thc small-bovid classes: :2 1/ <,
<, PT./

v':.
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 rI. / r---)"" ccc- •
:lO L ...... , ./
thcir bcconnng stiff. This condition is most cousisrcm wirh thcir hnving ~ OH

hcen cither hunred or trapped, or at least killcd by rhe hominids. This view > / / • • os-
Ii? v/ '--2.
-·r'é'"';",",p
./
is supportcd by che ncar total lack of caruivore gnawing 011 the bones of thc
small bovids. v-- HO.' 'PH
OMT /

~
10
In terms of fillcring marks [see Table 4.31 )-marks inflicred during the OMC. ...... -
rernoval of mear and/or ski n from the bones-rhe pattern among rhe small t- '<, ----./V
bovid bones is very clear, Thcse marks are exclusively presem 011 the bones ~ /' .,;-_J-_/'- ----r--____
that yicld most mear, andlor which are meehanically difficult to filler: the
thoracic spines (removal of the tenderloins), dorsal spines of the lumbar J O LU"'ORC
'""
TH~~ s-ec, - - .....T -1
r-e,

vertebrae (removal of the tenderloins), sacrum (removal of the tenderloins), o 10 20 so 40 50

and thc scapuln (rcmoval of mear smps frorn thc uppcr fronr quartcrs}, PERCENTAG,E OF BONE-6 WITH
Abscnce of such marks from parts of the rcar legs is consisrent with the DIt>MEMaER.MEt-JT MAR.K.t>
parteros of burning in which rear legs appear to have bccn frequently
cooked as complete t111its in rheir skins. CoNT~OL DATA ...... NU"-JAMIUT
Filleling of huth lhe 'enderloin and the uppcr-fron' quarter may well Figure 4.38 Comparison betwecn Jismcmbcrmcnt marks in a Nunamiut control
berray rhe prepararion of billong, or air-dried srripped mear, far future pupu!ation and fmm thl: Kla~;ics Rivcr Momh large-animaJ populatioll. AT, atlas; AX.
consumption. If so, this suggests very short-term planning and a lack of 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·
sh<lring, bec<luse rht.,sc were very smJII animals indeed. H sharing had been
tebrac; MAND, mandiblc¡ OCC, occipital cundylc; PELV, pelvis; PF, proximal kmur¡
widesprcad, such sm,lJl animals wOllld likely have bren sl13red out for con- PH, proximal humerus¡ PMC, proximal metacarpal; PMT, proximal mctatarsal; PRC,
sUl11prlon. with no surplus available for drying, proximal laJiocubitus¡ PT, proximal tibia; RIB, rih; SCAP, seapul;l¡ THOR, thoracic
Howt'v(,.'r, filkling out of rhe rcndcrloin ami rhe scaruh 1ll,1Y nor be vcnL!)!,IC.

relared cxclusively to preparation of biltong. These are borh ¡lTcas rhar

eaonor be butchcrcd out because rhere is a proreetive layer oí skin around
the meat. Ski n is only 00 one side of rhe scapula, and \"'ould be impossible to
burcher out of rhe tenderloin arca so as ro encase ir in skin. Filletiog ma)' be
an alternative procedure in preparation for cooking \vhen roasring in rhe
skin is nor feasible. In any event, al1 the data from anaromieal parts, dis-
memberlllcnt m;Hks, fillcring marks, and animal gnawing poinr to the same
conclusion: small animals were obtained (resh, hurdh:rcd frcsh, and pri-
marily 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. A Pattern Rccogrution Studv Interpretation of Panemmg 185

• .,> V
marks (both cut and hack marks, T able 4.32, Cnlumn 17) and the control 1- 100
<9>!',,'" _-< ~
~_X'_-r
data 011 dismcmberruenr {rom the Nunamiut Eskimo (Table 3.3, Column 3). Z , I -----¡-- 1
Unlike rhe siruation wirh the small animals, where there was a clcar, corre- llJ )
lated relationsbip between the Klasies marerials and the control data, the ~ 90 e "'''6
pattern for the largc mammals is spread al1 ovcr the graph relative to the Di • /~C.A.P'
~ontr()1 data. Clearlv, any attempt to fit thesc data would yield a strong iJ
indicatinn of no relarionship. However, there do aprear to be sorne compli- IO.!E- / -
cated groupings within thc distribution, so that 'lome sets uf parts appear
positively correlared (horn, proximal metatarsal, and ribs), although each is ~ 70 /
arrayed in a further grouping that appears to be negativcly correlated (prox- 11!J / ~"Z.E CL.A.66
imal metatarsal, proximal tibia, distal humerus, distal femur, occipital con-
dylc, and rnandihle). This type of partitioned dismbution is eommon when
Q Z 60
Oi ¡'PMC
m
eOVIO;
onc or more additional factors are contributing lo the parreming and these lL v so • MANO
are not monitored. In shorr, there is a srrong multidimensional set of deter-
rninants at work aud rhe control data nnly aecuunt for a small pro portio n of
0«/
the total variance. We may suspect rhar the frequencies of dismemberment IJ I 40 ! e PM T

marks are conditioncd in this case by considerations other than simple "> e OMT
variarions in (1) body size and (2) differental proportions of mear on thc
skclctal framework of the largc animals. ~r!l30 I
Given the assumption thnt the arnounr of inflicred marks should corre- 2
~ eo
I
spond ro rhe amount of labor invested in dismemhering, 1 would have to MAX

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"
~
Q.
jo eDMC

4-v o
in the large-animal case is certainly implied in rhe earlier analysis oí anatom- o ~..?'_
o~<Y~-l1
. __ví_,)..!'i ...Q< ,
ical parts, and in thc discussion of gnawing marks. Both of rhcse characteris-
o 10 20 30 40 50 EoO 70 &0 90 100
ties werc parterncd so as to strongly suggest (1) biased selection of parts íor
marrow rccovery, and (2) eommon recovery of lnrge-bovid parts from car- PERCENTAqE; OF 13oJ-JE;~
cnsscs prcviously ravagcd by carnivorcs. Both of thcse suggcstions are con- 6NAWE:.D
sistent wirh [he lack of relarionship berween the large-anirnal dismember- Figure 4.39 Compartson bctween frcqucncics al borres heilrin¡.; choppíng dismcm-
rnent-mark frequencies and the control Eskimo data, in which the carcasses berment marks and boncs cxhibiung gnawing marks. DF, distal fcmur. DH, distal
had been butchcred fresh to recover maximum amounts of meat. humertls: DMC, distal mctacarpal¡ DMT, distal metatarsal; DRC, distal raJiocubitus¡
Still further differences belween smal! and large animals were indicated DT, distal tibia¡ HÜRN, hUTIl¡ LUMB, lumbar vcrtebraCi MAND, m¡llldibIc¡ MAX, max-
illa¡ OCC, occipital condylc¡ PF, proximal femur¡ PH, proximal humerus¡ PMe, proxi-
hy fhe cut marks thclllselvcs. It will be recalled that when there was evidence
mal mctacarpal; PMT, proximal mctatarsa!; PRC, proxim¡ll raJiocuhitus¡ PT, proximal
of but..:hering re1ati\-'(.'ly stiff joints. this was exclllsively a property of the tibia; RIBS, rihs¡ SCAP, scapula¡ TH.C., rhoracic ccntrum; Tll-.\ thoracic .'Opine.
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 disrnember- Figure 4.39 displays lhe relative percentage of disnKmbcrrnent marks
ing <lcts as when fresh, surple earcasscs are being addressed. Consistenr with that were ..:hoppíng or hack type marks, dispt.1yed against rhe pl:reentagc of
rhe degrce of diffieulry as a function of different earcass statt"S as a con di- lhe bones in each anatomical categury exhibítillg ~mimal gnawing. A very
tioncr was the bct that inflictcd marks from heavy-hanJed chopping ae· interesting segregaríon results from plotting these properties. First, al the
tions arc common on the bones of the large animals. When appearing on bottom of the graph are the parts on whieh slicing marks are rare or gener-
limb hones, sueh marks almost cenainly betray a dry and desiccared state. alIy 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 an-
othl'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'at-
cst <l1l\()lIl1t of meat. The (luly hcavy llleat-yidding par( l10t rrpre'\l'nteJ is
rhe sC.lpula, \vhich, ~1'\ \Ve have sc.'eJ1, hc:l1avl's with thl' ;lxial skrll'fOl1 hoth in
rcrms of gnawing frequl'ncy (figure 4.33), ami incitience of chopping (Fig-
un' 4.39). Thi~ is consistent with the rept':Hed observar ion that the scapulJ is
one of rhe firsr bones ro be dismcmbered by fceding .lnimals. (See Binford
19HI; Hayncs 19H2;27I; Hill 1979;742; Rich;misoll 198(h; alld Shipmall
and Phillips-Cot1foy 1977.)
The meat-yic1ding bOlles dustered at the bottOlll of Figure 4.39 hJve
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. Ncvcrthe-
less, these parrs are cxclusively marked by slicing cuts, showing thar dis-
membertnenr was only done wirh knifelike tools thar are, JS pointcd out,
only appropriate for cutting still-supple meat. Thar rhis pattern of disrnern-
bermcnr marks on upper-lnnb borres is relatively rafe (sce Table 4.32, Col-
umn 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 strar-
egy (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 (rcpre-
senting 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 meat-
yielding parts were second~order parts. The implication is that [irst-arder
parts were consumed at the carcass, since it is like1y that if unravaged, meat-
yielding 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 substan-
tial 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 rcmain-
ing meat ar the C]fl";lSS. More commonly, howevl'f, they cncountered heav-
ily ravaged C<lrcass pans and, with sorne processinR (soaking and/or break-
ing open rhe hones, mandibles, and sorne horn corcs), thcse marginJI parts
could be made lO yield sorne tidbits 01 lood.
These tactics betray a very short-term planning and an almost "stim·
ulus-response" structure of behavior, Sllch strategies are inconsistent with
a mode! of provisioning the occupants of the site, unless thc occupants were
188 4. A Pattern Rccognítton Studv Intcrprctation of Patterning 189

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
... 50

¡J
~-,-~
13ovIO~:
Ó'Z-E:
=-r
eL.A."'''' III
--

-l
111t'11 bebaving as huutcrs and gathcrcrs.
An intcresting additional fact is indicated by the distribution displayed
J40 (ME:OIUM'- LA.~ClE)

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 dis-
~::l 30
~'"
memberment marks made by cutting rools as opposed to 45% foc metacar- O
pals, 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, metacar- r/.11I 20 ~e
pals 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. ~ 10
T. :!>Pl~ e/
11 PMT
Thc picture I get frorn reviewing the cut marks againsr a picture of the
,Re
.Re
¡.-/
/
anaromical-part frequencies is thar there is a bias in favor DE (1) parts that

J
.~C.AP

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 o
\
OMe
H(Oo.l\ -.,?T hl
P"
~ os- PF'
_ --t- . . . . . . . L..'-Jo.l'-'

the bones if they are ro be cooked in a skin packer or hung over the flames-
and (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,
o 10 2.0 30 40 50 (:,0 '0
PE.R.CEto-.ITAe:.E OF' BONE.~ WITI-l F\LLETlf'J<:c, MAl<:.K6
CONT~O"" O.....- rv-; - Nu ............... U'T
Figure 4.40 Comparison bctwccn fillcnng marks in ;l Nunnmiut control popula-
tion 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 radi-
ocubitus, 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'm-
ployed 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
 4. A Pancrn Rccognitíon Srudv
lWJ
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 ver-
tcbrae. 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<lwing carnivorcs nnd/or cnrrion-fceding hirds. Givcn
thcse conditious, the vertebruc with atrachcd rib cnds were 1110st likely
introduced with parches of adhering and partially dried meat, which re-
quircd picking off the bones or evcn soaking. Consumption was of small
strips and strings uf narurally dried meat, possibly sometirnes reconstituted
by soaking. Beforc rhis inrcrpretation is secure, we need sorne control data
00 the processing for consumptiun of dried meat from anatomical parrs
such as rhc thoracic verrebrae,
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 placc-
ment for dislllembcrment and of inflictcd marks Jiffcrcnr rhan rhose seen
for the smal! animals. Still further contrasrs are demonsrrable in the frc-
qllenóe'\ 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, howev-
er, 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 al-
ready ravaged and dry carcasses. These parts were processed for the adhcr-
ing 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 exploi-
rational 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 supple-
mellt 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.W-
ick-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 Law-
ick-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 surprising-
Iy 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 propcr-
ties 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><'~"~
CHAPTER
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 in-
stancc, 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 achievr-
mcnts 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 adjust-
ments of reillitics 10 dcm~nds, and in turn dcm<lnds 10 rcalities, is perhaps
nowhcre hettcr illustrated than in the area of the differential use by modern
hunter-gathcrcrs of animals of differenr body size. Among modern hunt-
]92
~ .-rJ-;.riA-:
Subsistcncc Tacucs ¡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
5 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 ob-
tained foods in differing package sizes (and no sroragc options wcre avail-
able), 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 op-
tion, 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 exploircd-
that 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~"
194 5. Hominid Subsistcncc Ecologv and Land Use
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. Similar-
ly, 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 per-
ceivcd 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 ex-
ceed 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 coop-
er;aivt, kili", in \\'hich rhe st'Jrch image wOllld hy design always be in t{'rms
or
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
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 dif-
fcrcnt 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 re-
moved 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 inrro-
duced, cullcd ro rhc rnost productive or most gourmet choice, the scapula.
On thc orhcr hand, thc parrs suspected as yielding cvcn grcater food (uppcr-
rcar leg) were gencrally not imroduced as culled parts.
fluve viewed this situation as most likely rcflecting prilll:uy (onsump-
tíon 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 COI1l-
1110n 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 cer-
tainly 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 gener-
nlly 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 ana-
tonucal-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 cOllsist-
ed of Il1ctapodials, which on processing yie1ded only J few ounces of mar-
row; 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 care<lsSCS as
he happl'ns to encounter thCIll, r::lther than ln<lking;l cOllcerted efforr to find
and l'xplnit l':lrclssl':'>c:trly in the sl'lluencc of sc.lVcngcr atll'iriofl following a
de<lth or kilI. Whcll sud, high-yidd GlrG1SSCS \\'ere CnCOlll1tereJ, ho\\'tver,
they wcre not l'xtensiveiy t:xploited. High-yield gourmet parrs \\'cre OCCJ-
sionally returncd lo rhe site, possibly for cooking,
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 (rhi-
noceroscs 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 ac-
counting 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-organiza-
tional (eatures characreristie of modern man's way of dealing \Virh his en-
vimnmeot. 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 noth-
ing 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 199

~
6P"CI""~~ \._~_
U ..r.E, LOCA"TION~
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 pro-
duccrs 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 ex-
KOP~J _,
,:'-
~~""f~:--
\, ~/ - L,
"-" ~ 4".•
_"~~'["'~
;<~~~,~~,~:;,=>
'~<Ió';'~r ',\.;' . _-(~ ;. ..; "c", , .
., ,., ..•,~
."" i, \'---"L~
o *
ploitation by thc foraging producers. Provisions obtained al such loc.nions ," \\'\~~¡-;.'
' \\-,;~-.:.
,,y ......:.,'
11I; .• ... --T'~EE...s
are thcn n..' WrJH:J to the homc base, and sharing normally follows. The scalc '-.::~<1/.'"
of sharing varics wirh thc JI110unt of provisions obrained nnd rhe conveu- .. ;1(..
tions oí rhe group as ro what is considercd appropri.rtc 10 share. ~)í,.:~':--"
This mojel of latid use is illustratcd in Figure 5.1, in which the heme I
bases are considcrcd the basic life spaccs of thc group, and the home base I
with its rcsidcnt group is provisioncd by prodoccrs foraging out inro thc .':'¡¡!
envirotuucnt and obraining needed goods at special purpose locarion s, or irr~~·'~·:>:.': .;";
I\II\\'~" .:
points whcre provisions are obtained. Thcsc provisions are rhen returued ro .\\~ ~~~~1 .' ......... ,=
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 i¡l¡li~~~t\
1~~:c~1 • =
Ho",,",E. BA~E
P~OCUR..E..ME-),J,..
LOCATION
agcd (prorcc-cd lifc spucc) 1S carried out, reproductivo ncts most often occur. ~'~-'

and so forrh. / LAK..E '\ / B""'6.C LIF"E ,6PAGE

My earlicr studics of modern hunrer-gatherers (see Binford 1978,
1982b) h=~howothat horne bases are residentialhebs-of hunting·.nd
jJP 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<lse. As
home bases are 1ll00'ed, the econornic geography o{rhe .u e . l changcs relati,'c
Figure 5.1 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 archae-
ological content of horne-base sires, dcriving from rhe sirll:ltiOlul differences
200 5. Honunid Subsístcncc Ecology and Land Use
experienced by the group while carrying out their basic srrategies for pro-
curing 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 rae-
ties for animals of different size, and (2) biased selecrion of parts fmm the
large animals rhar differed greatly from the parrs selected from the small-
animal carcasses. The small animals were burchercd. proccsscd, and trans-
poned 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 adher-
ing 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<llly as the hominids harpcncd lO cncollntcr
fheln whilc fccdi11g through nrllshy cover Juring the day. Thc dara on rhe
biascd introduction of fronr-Icg parts {mm the small :lnimals is srrong evi-
Je..'/KC that most COflSlIlllption took place out in rhe..' fi(.'ld, ~U1d only parts leh
over were regulad y returned to rhe site at Klasies Rivcr Mourh. ~luch
primary consumption seems ro have occurred ar poinrs (lE procurement.
Such an inrerpretation is also consistent wirh the character oE rhe parrs
introduccd ro the site from the largcr animals. In almost a11 cases, the
iOleoduccd parts were suhje..'ctcd ro subsrantial processing prior to consump-
rion, In 11l.1ny C¡lSCS, the lowcr limbs were dismcmbcreJ while stiff and
desiccltcd, rcr appcar 10 havc been skinncJ while soft JIlJ supple. I have
suggcsted rhat this could only take place if the lower Iimbs were removed
from partially dL".'iiccated skeletons and then carried ro a warer source where
rhey were sOJked prior tob"EÍ'ng-p\TOcessed for marrow. This same condition,
reconstituting through sOJ.king, inight well stand behind the heavy-handed
hack marks on rhe parts ol me axial ske1etoll from large animals, which are
also commonly carnivore-gnawed. These parts could also have been recon-
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 prepara-
rían, 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 consump-
tion-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 lower-
limb 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 considera-
rion of rhe acriviry patteros of the Klasies hominids rcgarding the ways the
f'ellot E _1 ~¡'-kd- 1<u>j4 cb Ir> t<Vtel
S. Hominid gubsistcncc h[)lo~y and Land Use Thc Ecology of Scavcngtng 203
202

two differenr cxploit3tion tactics, hunting and scavcnging, wcre organized TABLE s.i
and diffcrentially executed. In arder to address rhis problem I have sought Cnincidenr al Apncarancc of Anlmals at waterholcs wuh Carnívorcs. and Thcir Rctanvc
clues in the charactcr of thc spccies that appcar ro have been huntcd \'L'rSIlS Death Retes-
'1 thosc tb.it werc regularly scavcnged.
Percentage Nnmberv 01
AH the animals [kit scem ro have beco killed or al least ohraincd for coíncídence
Densíiv o[ spccies Cetumn 1 nuuvsduals
lhcir mear are moderare ro smal\ in size, generally nocturnal in their feeding per km 01 rcad. with camivores x Cn}lIl1ln killed near
\ activities., and territorial and solitary in their social bchavior. In addirion, 1973-1974 al waccmoles 2 waterbalee
they have prefcrcnces for scruh-brush rypcs of covcr and habitar. 011 rhe (1) 12} (31 (4)
other hand, rbe larger animals rcguIarly scavenged by Klasies hominids
Zebra 1.127 .(0 .11 (,
seem ro have in cnmmon a different type of behavioral repcrtoire. They tend
Elcphant 1.103 .40 .44 O
to be nocturnal drinkers. l hJVC previously described rile dynarnics of an lmpala 0.533 .07 .04 O
African water sourcc in a verv dry Kalaharian environmental zonc (Binford watcrbuck 051.1 .12 .06 11
19SJh:62-70), It was notcd that camivorcs (hyaenav and lions) tended ro Kongoni 0.480 .09 04 2
drink aftcr dnrk and ín thc early hours of the morning. ln addition, they Oryx 0.453 .01 O 4
Buttalo O..B ..18 .1.1 19
tended 10 focus thcir bchnvior on the watcrholes beginning around sunset
l'ctcrs
and inrcnnirrcnrl y returning during thc nighr. My obscrvations on hunting Gazcllc 0 ..103 07 .02 O
by these cnrnivorcs suggcsrcd rhat mosr kil!s of thc animal spccics that Warthog 0.197 03 .01 O
avoidcd the wurcrholcs occurred away from rhe warerholes at night. What Ostrich 0.080 O (1 O
was missing from my cxpcriences was thc iarger-body-size, more social Ciraffc 0.070 24 (J2 1
Eland ¡ .24 I L"I 14
bovids. which generally inhuhited somewhat more moist settings. Por-
Rhinoceros ? 39 O
runarcly, thcrc is a fine srudy by Ayeni of rhe pattems of dnnking by African
species at waterholcs in Kenva's Tsavo National P;lrk. " Data Irom Aycni (l97S:Tablcs 1 and 5).
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 drinking visits of a species, such as warthog, werc during hours when no
lltilil,lliOll, ;IIHI ;\\'l"r.I~\' l"Oilll"idl.'IKt' of prrl"el1t;l~t''' (Jf p;lirt'd "fwcics r()rllbrion~ carnivore'> 'A'l'n.· ohs<:f\'l'd ro drillk, I111'J1 Ihe percelll;lge coinddl'l1cl' wtlulJ
¡In' t1"l't1 \O "1,,,\\' ,ll.l'. hl~-~allll" ;lttaillt'll ;111lt'.l"1He nI lilllc "p.llnll'l·olp¡':icll "('11.1' be OlYr,. On the orher hand, if 40 out of 100 Jrinking cpisodes recorded for
r.ltioll .It rhe WOl!L'rholr", (AYl.'lli 1975:.l0S) e1and were eoillcidcntal wirh hours ;]Iso rccorded for c;lrnivOfcs drinkillg at
Ayetli found nor only th;lt spcl:ies varied sC;1sonally (dry versus wcr the warcrholr, the pcrccnrage coincidence would be 40%.
sea~ons) in rhcir visirs to waterholes, but that they varied in a most signifi- lnspection of Table 5.1 demonstrates that thl' frcqucney of animals
ca11t way in the degree ro which rhe)' visited watcrholcs coinciden rally \Virh occurring ;lS prey around the warer sources is a combilll'd funcrion of the
carnivorcs. Carnivorcs were, as noted eatlier, mJinly visitors to the warer number of animals eoming ro rhe waterhole and the levels of coincidl'ncc: fOf
sourccs during dMklll'SS, Not surprisingly, Ayeni found that the freqllcnC)" these visits with carnivores. Figure 5.2 illustrates this rcbtionshir nieely.
of frcshly kil1ed animals (prey) reeordcd in rhe irnmcdiate vicinilY uf lhc Exeept for rhe dephant, which is generally considcreu to be cxempt from
w~1tl'rholes was a gCtll'L11 fllllction of the l-oinciticllce of thc prey aninuls heavy predatioll dlle tn its size, the frequellcy of obscrved kills is ;\ line;u
drillkillg ar tlll' sallle time" as carnivores, cxcepring of enurse rht: differcntial fUllctiol1 of dcnsit}' <InJ coincidenee at the w;Hnholcs. This mcans rllat for a
ahility of tlle CHllivores ro takc ;1I1ill1;lls of very brgc sin'; for cxamp1c, scavcnger exploiling animal remains around <1 W;lIlThoh.', the GlTC1SSeS
availahlc to ir \\'illllorl11;ll1y he ;1 fUllCtioll nf tlle ntllllhn" of porcnti;11 prey
c1t'pilanr'i.
T,lhlc 5,1 ';UIllIIl.ni/l''; 1\ycni\; d:1Ll OH dCllsity ni g;lllll' in dll' region. :lnd thl'ir drillking sdll'dulcs rebtin: ro lhe drillking amI ;ll(l"ity schedu!es
nllmbers of animals of Jiffercnr spccil's n:cordcd as prcy ;uound watcrholcs. of the prcdators,
and the pcrcenLlges of total drinking visits to a watcrhole that wcre coinci- It should he clear that although impab, kongoni, oryx, and zehra ;lre
dental hctwccn carnivorcs Jnd rhe species considcred. For instanee. if a\l all mUl'h more common in thc environment, they Jre rare in the poplllatioll
 fl- ~v-vf, "f","'1
204 5. Hominid Subsistcnce Ecology and Land Use Thc h;{llll>:,Y uf Scavcngíng 205

20 / 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

\
~
.(
III
·~7 show up as mujor componenrs of anirnals killed by nocturnal prcdarors
around warcrbolcs. This has mejor implicaticns for the type of direcr en-
vironmental intcrprerations Klcin (1976: 79-80; J nO:240-24I) rends of
Zw O
El.......... o
O
make from species frequcncies.
Civcn this knowlcdge abour the popularion of animals apt ro be nvail-
OJ abte to a scavcnger around an African waterholc, we can go hack and
III O
JI
J 11I \0 • /
V 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
W""'T"~BVe.1oC.. were thc gianr buffalo tí'clorovis antíouisi. the Cape butfalo (SYI/((>fllS car-
~~ fa), the cland tl aurctragus nrj'x ), the blue antclopc (1lifJ{JOtragus Icuco-

~~
phaeus), the kudu tTragelapbus strepsicerosv. and tlx- bushbuck (Trag-

/~... •
elaphus scriptus). In all cases in which we know thc bchavior oí these
W anirnals, they tend ro he morning and evening drinkers, or nighttime drink-
III ers, and mosr are bosically nocturnal fccdcrs. In short. rhcsc are the species
~
ORV)(
we could cxpcct to he diffcrenrially killcd adjacenr ro watcrholcs by African
:> KolooJGoo ..... ! nocturnal prcdators. This firs well wirh Klein's repearcd cirnrion oí the íact
Z /
C:tlR..o...F"F"~
• that thc age prolile 01 Cape buffalo killed hy lions in the Screnget¡ National

o
- Hm

\ ......P AL-"'-
.10
I NDE:.X OF" C.OINc..IDE:.NCe:.
WI,-H 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.:r-
holes 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
.ZO
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 war-
thog 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 <llmost cl'rtainly corrcct. hut the hOll1inids ;lIso
seemingly ¡lvoidcd hllnting all animal s whose sin' l'xcl'eded ,lhour YO
pounds (40.8 kg). The scheduling explanarion for pig ahscnce ar Klasics is
furrher substantiatcd by rhe bOlles of anirnals falling into sin' c1ass 11I. In
this group are borh species thar visit warerholes primarily ;H dusk and dawn
(kudu and Ilippotragus), as well as essentially lllidd~lY visirors such as
gemshok, wildebeesr, h:1rteheesr, and basrard harrcbeest. It is intcresting
rhar the anatomical-parr írequcncies for the diurnal drinkers (hasrard har-
reheesr, wildchcl'sr, and hartebcest) tend roward rhe parrcrn of mear exploi-
tarion desnihed for the smaller animals. Thc only difftTcnú' is flut upper-
rcar legs are sOlllc\vh,u more reguLlfly representcd th:l11 is Ihe case for the
STl1<l1l ;lllimals. On the orher hJlld, the..: kudu, hushhuck, ;lIld hlul' anrclope
,lTe all more cOllll1lonly rcprl'sented by rhe head and !OWt.T ll'g p;Hrcrn wc
havc norcd for rhe largcr animals. Thesc we kllO\\' to he drinkcrs whose
schedules overlap rhar of rhe carnivores.
20ó 5. Hominid Subststcncc Ecologv and Land Use Thc Ecologv ot Scavcnging 207

As a dcmonstranon of this differencc hetween the midday drinkers and 6'Z.E CL..A~6 :m.
the dawn-dusk drinkcrs, I hnve prepared thc graph shown in Figure 5.3. ru-etION Ti_e. ' ...... Mo¡..,n-H~
Hcre wc Sl'C thc pcrccntagc of unfused hones for a series of anatomical parts .= - .- ....... ec-ee 30-5c& 3&"42.

arrauged from lcft to right, so thut parts 011 the lefr are thc parts whieh in 90
.¡¡ -
{?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 bl "2
age distribution ro the popularion introduced, thcn we should ser a rcla- bl ~ 70
tivcly 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
~ ID "2
nocturnal or morning and evening drinkers, the uagelaphmes clearly sug- 1¡; Q '"
gesring thar thcrc was a unimoda! agc disttibution. not biascd in favor of hI bl ~
young animals. evidcnccd in the bones transponed to rhc sire by thc horni-
nids. They had selccrcd boncs in roughly a random fashion wirh rcspect te
~~ 30

thc agcs of the animals frorn which the boncs were culled. On the other ~ ~ 20

hand, bones from thc midday drinkers, thc ulcclaphmes, exhibir a very :J ro

diffcrent profile. Thcrc is a high frequency of unfused boncs from the pelvis o
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 /
,-'"r-/ "//bP'" ./
,,"- 4' _./ .,1''-
<J~"'- ~~
(distal tibia, distal merutarsal. and proximal tibia). Hcre we sce the exploira- :lo'.!"4'b J"tq J " ,,'- 4/ vi
tional pattcrn splir hetween mcat-yieldmg parts inrroduced from very young ,,11,,'-
-e ¡(.,.-
nt/'"
-c
»: ,-
Jo.:J A"" .,!'
i' .:J ,<~,.,J'
,,'-,/' o+',r-
«4'-<.,1;
individuals, nnd rhc non-meat-yielding boncs of the [ower lcgs-c-heavily ~~ Q';<'~
biascd in favor of adulr animals, Scavenging of thc tragclaphines is con-
sisrenr with rhe view thar rhey were prey of Iions and hyaena t~lken mostly at Figure 5.3 Comparison uf unfused bOl1l' pnccma,gcs bt.'twccn nigh( and day drink·
night around \\'aterholcs, whereas rhe capture or killing of very young <11- crs, sizc class J1J, from Klaslcs Rivcr Mnurh.
cc1aphincs 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. ayer thl' data on w;]terhole visirs collected by Ayeni (1975) {Of a variety of
Sl·vcra1 poims :1Tt· dear: (1) The hominids were essfllrial1y diurna1 sre- Afric.11l spccics. The p:lttcrn in Figure 5.4 sllggesrs a general pattern ami a
cieo.;. AII Ihe primales ;¡re essenlially diurt131 ami ....re cOllrinue ro he so. OUT nichc for the cady hOl11inids. A likcly sccnario l1light he as follows: lhe
eyes certJinly limir the types of activities what \\'e might engage in al night. I hominids awake al sunrise and bl'gin fceding in the e3r1y morn;ng. This
Ihink there is little doubt that rhe early himinids werc only active during Ihe feeding ;s likely to have been in scrub-brush habitats a\vay from the normal
Jaytime. (2) The hominids scavenged primarily from Ihe remains of the prey water sources used by rhe rypical African predators. Fceding rnight gcnerJlly
taken near w31cr sourccs by essentially nocturnal killers. This could be done begin to diminish after around 10 o'dock and the hominids approal.:h the
by hominids with no undue exposure ro prcdation if rhey visired water major water soun.:t', where rhey resr during midday in the company of other
sources dllTing rhe middll' of the day, :lS do rhe daytime drinkns. Thc dara Africall forms that tend ro be rnidday drinkers. During rheir .~tay ar Ihe
frum Kbsics Rivl'f Motlrh Cave 1 slroll~ly Sll~~cst rhal the 110lllinids rc~u­ waterho!c, 11OI11illids SL1Vl'nge edihk part~ from the G1rG1SSCS thar the noc-
brly llscd :1 s'te Ill'¡lf a water soun.:e also generally llscd by other anim.1ls. turnal predator.. h;l\'c.' kilkd in the viciniry of tht· w:lIcrhok. Th~'y might 011
The.'IT they ",cl\Tllgnl brge ;l1lilll;tl p;lrts, whidl Wtn' LHn inlrOllllcnl to the ()(..·l.,·:lsioll C,lpll1lT thl' very Y(lllll~ 01 SUIlle.· of tlll' 1lIidd,¡y dril1kcrs (¡¡/-
Kl.tsies living sitt. celaphines) ¡\t the waterhok. Around I o\:lock, rhe hominids hegin l1Ioving
To illustrate the Jikcly schedule of J gcneralized hominid relative to off the walcrhole ;lIld agaill fecd through the woody-hrush ZOl1l'S wherc
other animals he is apr ro have intrracted with in 3n African setting, 1 have planr foods are aV.1ilablc and where bWlls as well as Ihe small lloctllrnJI
supcrimposed the fecding schedules actually recorllt·d for rhe modern gorilla antelope might be encountcred. Finally, in the late :lfteTllOOIl the hominids
 208 s. Homimd Subsisrcncc Eco[lI.~Y aud Land Use Tbc Eeulogy ni Scavcngmg 209

~~~~,~,~" NOON
t>';~~~~~ enviroruucnt. how can we build a behavioral modcl for rhe specics in a
'"
Z
sw
'00
) - - BU"'_,_'------- ~~ "'OR1LL ..... ~
R&~rIN~
--
[ynhos biome bascd on obscrvarions of animals bchavior from '\lllh diffcr-
ing environments?
I am not saying rhar the ecology of rhe regions are ;llike-c1early they
~ 9
are different-c-but I am suggesting rhar SOI11C of thc l-asic niches, particulnrly
O \, T
W
those of rhc predarors, are similar. Ccrtainly, too, thc rcquirements of many
> 80 of the spccics, which are cssentially the same, cunnot he expectcd to chauge
~
~
G 7'
,
R..... '''"0

--
.
~

-_.. _-- ______.I.. '" from one environrnent ro anorher; only thcir stratcgics of meeting their
needs rnight he expected to vary. Perhaps the facr mcsr fundamental to the
O
argument hcre is rhar while lions mny have relanvc!v lurgc rcrrirorics they
~ 60 '... EL........... o --- are essenrially territorial arumals.
,
6 ''0'1 ~

Ln:h pndc confines itself ro a definiré arca in which ih l1ll"ml)t'r~ spend several
$ ---- yt;'\r~.

~--=
50 or in the case ot sume lionesses, rbeir whole life. Thc main requieres tor thc

/•
e-"-LIVORE.~
~ 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.
:l 40
not un rbc pl.uus. (S(halkr IY72b:Sfí; cmphavis addcd;« ]971 hy thc Univcrsitv of
~
O 6..:........ 0"- Chil.lgO)
oiJ
.. 30 _._--- .... F-----------~ Jcmnmcs vary in size, but do not secrn ro change in vrzc 11l1Kh with lime.
".«H / Whert: rhere are umple numbers of residenr prt·y animals,:1 pndc lhll,llly ocnlpio
O
'1 ,'" berween ten and tortv square miles. (Bertram 197H: lOS; Brian Bertrarn, J'lidc (jI
.
~ <O)
• w,.,........<Xl.
1-- - . _ - -
l.iol/';. C()p~·righr l' Brian Bertram 1975. Repnnred with thc pc'rmi-vron oj Lh.Hks
Suihner'~ Som.)
~ to) --- -

3 In rhc Screngcti Plain, whcre sorne of the classic hon studics have been
~
•
Do
o
z.400
~';"':P~Nc:..
0'00
0200
o-SO<>
0400
0500
oecc 0lS00
cr7"'" O'X>O
',,0"'
.. 00
1200
.sce
'400
''''00
lt>OO
rtoo
'SOO
--- .............
'900
~L.ItIl!.PI""'Ct

ZD<Xo
~100
2.2o:J
noo
24I::n
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
Hou~:6 OF' TH" 0"'......
L.E.Go~NO: i:lrgt'!y ruadc uf sCt"lIh-woodland-loving vpccicv. Tite liom do not migrat('
- PERIOO oF PE.A1<... c......... c. with the herds of grass feeders during thc wet seasoll. True, they may alter
• VI~IT~ Te WA.T~_

thcir patt<.'fI1S of territorial lIse a hicl hut, in gcneral, during the wet seJson
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.
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 prey-
return to a sccure s1ceping place, where ar Sllnset they begin thcir nighttime resident hush·loving speeics during the wet season and a shift to the migra-
slcep_ tory visitors from the grasslands during the dry seasoll. The Iatter. of course,
I suggest that the early slceping pl<1ces \\'ollld never be at the watcring come ineo th<.' scrub where water and sorne forage is availahlc dming thc dry
pLtn's uf tlll' L1rgely nOl'tllrlull·arnivtlre ,111d tlngllLue spccics, hut \\'ould he ~l';lStlll. Althollgh SOlllt' of tlle spccies wOllld be difli'lTlll, ;lIld n'rt;linly the
in rc!ativc!y protl'clnl arcas ;l\V<.1Y from the water sources, This picture over<l11 organization of the ecos)'stelll along the Tl.it7:ikalllllla COJst would
suggests t\\"o lllajor types of special-purposc location: the midday waterholc cercainly be different, the telllpo of st'asonJI variJhiliry and th<.' rehltionship
rl'sr ;trl';l, ~lIld thl' nighttimc protectcd sleep arca. Fceding fmm terrestrial bervo.Ten ;l rcsidCllt prcdator (the lion) and rcsidl'llt prt'y (rhe hush-Ioving
sourCl'S \\'ould l1L' •.:arricd out prim~lrily in the scruh ~lIlJ hrush ZOIll'S he- species sLlch as the Cape bufblo, kudu, hllle antelope, hushhuck, Jlld hllsh-
f\\'l'CIl thcst' ~rl'l"iJl-ptlrr()se locations. pig) WJS prohahly Ilot vastly different from the rrl'd;1t()r~prTY rclationship
lhe ohicetioll mar \.. . c11 be raised that the Tzitzik;11ll1113 Coasl is flot the in many other environrncnts.
Tsavo g~ll11(' r~lrk of Kcnya, nor is it the dry environments thar l ob'jerveJ in Lions are esscnriJlly nocturJlnl feeders, as alreJdy noted, Thcy are also
the Nossob Rivcr arca of the Kalahari. Given that ir is such a differcnt not very suecessflll pursllit humers, heing much more sllcccssful at al11hush
 s. Hominid Subsisrcncc Ecology and Land Use
210
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 tar-
gcted 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: consider-
ing 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 enviren-
ments 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 hchavior-
hunring-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
JÚn
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
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 Scavcngmg nnd Agc Proñlcs 21.1

frequencies of differcnt agcs and specics kil1ed by the hominids-have per-

mirred Klein to use thc bone assernblage for direct infcrences about rbe J¿ ••<
.J ,o<>
~ 0 A
character of hominid hunting ractics. For instance: B
~ ~ ~
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 O1
!(LEIN'~ ATTR1TlON.A.l-
is relanvclv l'as)' to drive ovcr diffs or intu other traps (Klein ]'J",y). Sinularlv, the W~
c.rr.istroph¡c morr.rlirv profrk-, rhnt characrenze sorne rclativelv SIll,,1! .intelopcs in • w / '" t MOR,.TAL1TY MOOEL

~ 2
,~

the s;lI1H~ dcposu-, . probablv reflecrs human awarencss rhar inclrvidualv of all -~.

2 -
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)
W...
~
~ 2
2 t\ . -f'h
~
For thc first rime, Klc¡n (1982) scnously considcrs the possibiliry rha: o lO ZO~40:101>O 10 eo <¡coo o so eo rc
ID ZO~40 ~9<)1OO

the horninids were sc.ivcnging: he procceds ro offer suggcsrions how one 'l,
PE.RCE-NTAt:sE oe- LIFEt>PAN

might disringuish hunting from scavenging. He advocatcs the comparison of

..~~'
mortality-agc profiles from archaeological sitcs with those from "non-ar-
chaeologicai sires" (Klcin 19R2: 154), presumahly as J. control on rhe cense-
quenLTs of human bchavior as opposcd ru "narure" in eonditioning mor-
taliry 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 "pre-
historie 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(fer-
ent 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).
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
i~i1
¡¡ thc 111m:h ~re.ltt'r proportion of ver~' )"oung buHalo ;l.t "L.qes ((luId rt'snh from
scavcnging (mly ir
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¡.:.
(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 wonder-
fuI 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 . - ~ .g VZ<.V'<t..eeJ
214 5. Honunid Subsísrcncc Ecoiogy and Land Use Thc h(Jlo~y of Hunnng 21.'i

TABLE 5.2

Frcqucncv of Worn and Unworn Milk Prcmolars hum Klasics Rivcr MOllth
and Nclson Bay«

Klasies Rsver MOlllh Ncíson Hay C,1I't'

tsodv size Unworn Total 'X, (Jnl'\.·OTlJ Tolal %

(lhs) dp4 dp4 UnwfJrrJ dp4 dp4 UIJWI)m
(1) (2) (3) ¡,J) (S) 1(,) (7)

Blue anrclopc .100 B lB 44.0 6 16 JH.O

Cape buffalo 2000 lB 32 56.0 10 17 S9.0
Ciant buñalo 4000 36 44 B2.0 4 6 ó7.0

., Alter Klc¡n (197H: rabie 7J.

, Figure 5.6 NY¡H:' Nyac Bushman woman carrvina fh~
.-¡;.
'Y hcad of a wildcbccsr ICOTHlOChaetn\'
feer (2 111) across. 011<..' 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 ungu-
late 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.
o,
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 car-
casses of largc animals-ir seems quite likely that Ihe single agc profile th:1t
-e
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
':1i 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'CSSell-
tially 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 noctur-
nal. solitary, and small anrclope when they appear in rhe faunul assemblage
in "mear biased" frcqucncics: that is adults that wcre butchcred and trans-
porrcd 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
<He most consistent with a strategy that requires rhe hominid to catch and
hold the prey whilc it is killcd. Killing and wOllnding prey with fang and
claw while ,:he prey is still mobiJe does not secm to be a realistic behavioral
model, givcn rhe smaller size of rhe prey relative ro the body size of rhe
hominids, which was certainly aboye 18 kg.
rhe bchavior of the leopard is imeresting to consider rc1ative ro rhe
record of predation scemingly indicated at Klasies River Mouth. The leop-
ard is essentially a solitílry killer, taking gamc priJ11~lrily by stealth and skill
in stalking and ambush. Ir may vary in weight bet\vcen 50 and 80 kg (110
and 180 pounds). George Schaller describes nicely the prey of the leopard:
Arnllng rhc I.\r~l· prl'Y i!t'lIls WCT{' Thornsol1'.; ~.l/dk WhKh w('i~h ar I11ml 2\ kg,
rn·dhlll.k (,(, kí.\, 111111,11,1 64 kg. ;IIHI (,r.1I11 \ gan'lJl: I() kg. . In .IJdilioll. ,llu\l.de
ropi <lnJ h,\rrdlt'est weighing ,lbout 109 anJ 12.6 kg rt'spccrivdy. were killeJ, ;IS
W.Is .\ Yl';lrling rn,¡k wiltlL-hú'st wl'ighing all cstim.ltl'd 130 k¡.:. "llIuk ,\lIJ Turner
( I '}ú 7) rt'portl'll ,1 yt'Mlin¡.\ tupí, '1 yt';lrlillg fCllIak wildl"hl'l:SI ;mJ ;ltl .Idult ft'llule
wildeheest amllng thcir Lirge kilk Other prey collsislrJ uf slIlJ\l sper.:ies or the
),OIlflgof Llrge ones. Leoparos seem to prefer prey in rhe 20 tll 7() kg size category
..... ith an Ilppcr limit at abollt 150 kg, t.....o ro three times the weight of rhe CJt it"elf.
Scventy·ei~IH p~rc~llt nf the prey in Kruger r,¡rk COllsisted of impal;¡ (1"4 k~) anJ
i'it'luar (1':lA'}) uoted that lllmt nf ir Joes Illlt l'xcenl rhe weight 01 ;l kop;lrJ.
{S,·h"lIt'T I':I72h:2':11: le' 1'}n by the UIlI\'crsit\ uf Chir.:ago)
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 (Olll-
monly 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 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 oppor-
nmitics 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
tJ 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 Iying-
out 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 strat-
egy, 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 com-
mon 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 appropri-
are·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 Pcl-
orouis. \\'ould only be in rhe Jppropriate "prey-sizc windO\v" for rhe homi-
nids 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 Hunting and Agc Profilcs 219

early maturational periodo I would agree, then, wirh Klein's argurnent thar J( ~.( 100
the hominids of Klasics Rivcr werc basicially hunting the very young of a
~ d so
A B
variety of spccies. 1"iJ 80
J
1 think ir is fair to gcncralize that modern men capture animals pri-
marily 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
ro
~ ~
iJ
tw::
70

~
ATTR.ITIO\o.JAL.. ~R:..TAL..ITV
"CO).J"TROL DATA."
PE.L..~OVI6 OF'" EL......~D~F"'O"-ITEI~

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 behav-
ior, 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 actu-
ally 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 uccom-
mod.: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 homi-
nid 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 re-
mains 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
22- '"
,¡
ÚH 2.0
~~,or~
10 ao 50 40 '1O "0 '10 ec ~o 100 o lO 20 W"lO '!:oOCoO
TQTA.L...c 100% <óO% =-100%
PERCENTAG;E: 0':- 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 rcpre-
sentarive of un artritional parrern. for í'elorcn'ís from thc xitc of Elandsfon-
tein. 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 mate-
riaIs 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

L,f'~1
?"'-"'" 7
 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 help-
less 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 horni-
nids (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 youlIg<Hlult eland do in facr differ
from a normal artritional-age profile. This qucstion may be answered by
comparing thc youngcr half of the eland age graph-rhar is, thc section that
represenrs animals thar have l:omplered up lO 60% of dleir life span-with a
c()mp<H~lhle segmcnt of rhe control example of an anritiOlul-age profile as
pn:scnted by Klcin. I cakubted a l:hi-squarc valllc for lhe t:omparison be-
tween rhc control ,-1gC profile of l'c/nyovis from Ebnd$fortein (Klein 1982)
alld the dalld Jata ¡mm Klasies Rivcr Mouth (Klcill 1978c:205) and found
a slll1llllary chi-sl)uare value of 5.92 for five degrces of freedom. A valur this
large could be expected to arisc by chance alol1L' at [e,-1sr 40 rimes out of 100
randofll cvcnts. By rhe convenrions Bormally used by statistici3ns, rhere is
no signific;lnr diffcrcncc berwcen the eland frcquencies and rhe control "ar-
tritiona!" dara as prcsented hy Klein for Pelorovis from Elandsfonrein. In
other v.mrds, the eland graph fram Klasies River Mourh is J. norrnJ.1 attri·
tional graph hia'>t'cl ¡\g:únsr old aninul", JS WJ'i <lIso rhe Gl'iC for the bufblo
Tl'lIlains frolll the S;\llle sitl'. -rile only diffcrL'nce llL'l\\'l'Cn rbe graphs is rhe
inflated frequcncy of very young buffalo reprcsenrcd at Klasies Rin~r
Moulh. This has ;1IrL,;tdy hn'n snggcsrl'L1 lo arise hl'Clll"l' of the killing of the
ver)' YOllllg hufblo by KL.1Sics hominids. Ir i'l inrcresting rhar rht.: sarne age
bias f¡1\'oring \'ery young animals, does not rypify the eland or rhe wilde-
bee"ir, although it is clcady characteristic of rhe giant buffalo, Cape buffalo.
and hastard hartehee'>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 the-
orhcr 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 gener-
ally 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 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 rela-
tivcly localized water scurces. The sume grass-sccking behavior is charac-
reristic 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
/i: 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 tn-
ward territorial behavior. This means rhar rhey would he ycar-round resi-
dents 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 yidd-
ing 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 <lnd the:
control attritioJl;ll 3gC profilc for giallt buffalo in rhe a~c (;ltcgorics frol1l ()
to 60'X> 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 Hunti ng nnd Agc Profilcs 223

tcbeest) are binsed in favor of very young .mimals, as Klcin (U5 nssumed. TABLE 5.3
Thc challcngc is tu explain why al] rhe large animals are biased against verv Crown Hei,ght!" for Horsc Tccrh from thc Mousrcnan Sitc of Combe Cn:Il;JJ"
old individunls, and wlry in addition thc huffulo-cbasrnrd-hartebeesr group
is furrhcr hiaved in favor of many vcry young individuáis, while 311 :lCC o/ti YO/m;;
1. profilcs rcprescnr varying forms ot an attritional pattcru. 2-2.9 3-3.9 4-4.9 SublD!ill 6-(,,9 7-7, Y Sutncnal
5-5.9 Tul"l
, Thc poinr emphasized here is that a single specics may be exploited
wirh Jiffcrcnt tactics. In addition, the same tactics-when used 00 animais Lowcr 2 12 3 17 I .1 .l 7 24
of differcnt spccics, sex, size, and age-may result in very differcnt fauna! Vppcr .1 7 .\ 1\ (, 12 s 21 .IR
asscmblages JI a given place (see Binford 19S1b). --
"In nun
Thus far this discussion of hunting has focused on the diHerential
success of the hominids in killing animals of different size regardless oí Iy returncd hCC;lUSC of their largcr sizc. This saruc parrcrn sccrns 10 havc
specics. as well as thc differcnt access thnt hominids had ro the )'oung of chamcrcrized rhe bchavior of rhe Ncandcrthals at thc sitc of Combe Crcnal.
transienr spccics if they were resident in rhe [ynbos biome. Both of these Such un age bias among head parts, however, is dcfinitclv not prcsent in rhe
forms of cmphasis have taken individual hunting for granted-that is, {he Klasies remains. Richard Klcin (1978 :203) has prescntcd inreresting data 011
taking of anirnals ene at a time. As previously nored, Klein (1978c:213; the relative frequencics of milk denrition (indicarivc of young animals) as
1982:] 53) has suggcsted thar diffcrenr hunting tactics werc perhaps in- well as rhird rnoiars, which are thc last molars ro erupt and hence are
volved. ls therc sorne \\'ay of posuively evaluating rhe alrcmntive argument indicativc of prime-age ro old individuals, for both mandibular and maxil-
rhat rhe diffcrcnces werc not rclated to diffcrent access or success of a racric s. lary teeth. These data make ir possiblc to evaluare whether there is a differ-
(given differenr spccics' characteristics) bur tu diffcrenr hunting ractics? ential age bias for maxillary.-cranial parrs versus mandihular-ctongue parts.
Ccrtainly thc studv of kili sitcs, hunting facilities, and rhe ovrrJ.1I pattern oí Tablc 5.4 summarizcs these data from Klein.
rhe archaeological remains of subsistcncc is a very irnportanr direcrion for It is very clcar from Tablc 5.4 that there iS!lo agc bias bctween uppcr
future research. Hur now, in the absence of such direcr evidence of huming and lower recth, as was .'leen in the horse remains fmm Combe GrenJ.!. In aH
ractíes, is there sorne way we can use rhe available data ro ;tssess rhe proba- cases at K1Isies there is a strong bias in favor of Im.. . er tceth (;lpproximatcly
biliry rhat the hominids of Klasies River .Mollth practiccd hunting racties two m::mJibles were introduccd for evcry cranium). There \'1.'<1.'1 no agc bias
that resultcd in the killing of multiple animnls-or making mass kills? betwcen the introduced heads with attached mandihles versus rhe isolated
L()n~ a~() I 1lIt';l<;urcd t1H: cmwl1 heigl1r<.; (In hor<;c Il:l'lh from rhe m;¡lldihll.:~. Iso!atcJ mandihlcs Wl'fC drawll from th\.' <;;tllle age popuL1tioll as
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 TABLE ';,4
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 CIOwn Hci~nts ()f Several Spt:<.:ie!" from Klasies Rivcr Momh",1,

and third molars versus rhe 10wer, or mandihular, second and third molars E/and
Pdorovis Cape buffalo
recovered from t1H: denticulate Mousterian (G ami H) Levris 14- J 6 ar
Combe Crena!. i
~"'- Yotlng Old Total YOllIlg O/d 1"(1/(11 Y(Jutlg (lh/ TO/iI/

Wlut is wl'l1 illustrated is thar 17 (71 '~;.) of the lower-r{'ar teerh are
Lower 44 26 70 32 9 41 24 99 123
fmm (lid individuals, whcre;t" only 15 (39%) (lf the uppcr (l'Clh ;lrt' frolll old
(6", 1.\71 1·i\R1 1781 (.221 1("1 1201 1'01 (.(,21
individual'i. This hctrays an ;lge hi;lS in rettlrning parts of thc hcad lO rhe Upper 20 1.1 ,t1 17 S 22 1(, (,0 76
sitc. \'(/hen crani~l with mJxillary teeth WLTe rcrurneJ, they \vcre allllost lB] ll2J L7ZJ @j UJJ J22j
<\4 39 1m ..l<) 14 (,," 40 IS9 19lJ
;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
.. )'(JlIlIg i~ reprcsented ny
milk dentition nf the fourth premolar, <1nd oh/ is TL'pre-
sented by ;Jdult third moLlrS. Data frum Klcin 11978: Table 4).
relativc to their size. On the orhcr hand, mandibles \\-'irh thcir attached ¡, In mm. v.,lllC:s in parcntheses are pCrCl'nt,lgcs (lf young amI olJ witnin each
lOngnes uk('n fmm adult ~lllil1lals werc cOIl . . idL'fcJ ~l tn.'i.lt and WLTe regu1Jr· 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 pcrspcc-
tive 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 <lt the same tilne (forming the popu1Jrion in terms
of which choiees wcre made), or (2) therc was considerahle time depth to
the dccision-making framework providing a tcmporally ';deep" set of op-
portunirics ¡llTIong which ehoiees eould be made. Thc absenec_ of a~e bias
bcr..veen mandibles and erania for aH the species for which data 3rt' a,·ail·
able is taken JS strong eviuence rh<lr (l) ,:lI1imals were exploited by lhe
Kbsies hOl11inids onc ar a timc (rhcrc "'erc no mass kills or dcarh poptlla-
tiollS av;¡i1ahlc fur l'\rloitarion), ami (2) that the pblllling dcpth in tnms of
which the hominids exploired CarClsses was ver)' shJllow, being e5sentially a
"rhing of ,he mOI11CI1I." DecisiollS Wl'fe l11;llle in rerll1s of imlllcdiate con-
tingl'nócs, sueh as dist¡lIlcC from site, srate of the eareass, and nurnhers of
persons exploiting rhl' careass, and l10t re1ative to potential opponunitics
not irnmediatcly :lrparent.
This eonc1usion buffers the argurnent previously made regarding rhe
bck of a cltastrnphic ;l~C profile for rland and wildebeest. I rhink that I
have aecountcd for the patterns of differcntial age represented among the
spú·ic"i di<;l'tl"i"icd hy Kkill. Tlle ;l.<;SlIl11ptio!ls Ill;Hlc hy Kkin--llamdy, rhat
,!Jere Voi¡lS 110 "hulll.m bias" (kkin I 97Xc:203-2(4) amI rhar ;111 the remaith
wcre hUI1Il"d hy hOl1linids (Klein 1976:R7; 19RO:229-2.10)-docs no' ap-
pear justificcl. Similarly, the postllbtion of Illass ,1Ilirnai drives lO aecount
f()r rll<: d,llld lbt,l (Kkin 1978; ] 981: 153) dnc., not appe¡lr warranted, nm
dnes the slIggt'_<;tion rhat the "eatastrophic morraliry profile" of the smal!
antelope imply the use of SIl<.1res. The linle animals He smal1 enough to be
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) hunt-
ing 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 differ-
cnr sers of species. It appears that rhere was a "transienr" set reprcsentcd by
cbnd, wilJebeest, and probably the orher akelaphincs ;lS wcll, .....,hich ap-
peared 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 conrinu-
ously 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. 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
"u _
Implícauons of variable Subsistcncc Tuctics

~
227

sites. It wnx also gcncr.rlly assumcd rhar pattcrncd changos in species van-
.ulvilirv among srrurigrnphic units within sires was a direct reflecnon of cli-
marically 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 pre-
sent 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 Figure 5.8 Trtbcsmen driving lions from a carcass fnr thc purposc of scavcnaing.
species at arcbaeological sires as a direcr mensure of clirnaric shifts would be The warcrcolor drawing was madc in 1K,F, by C. D Bell.
certainly suspect.
The percentagec o( gruvvl.md crearures (equids and alcelaplunes) and of crearures
tivc of grassland scttings are all gcncral1y largor and are rhosc rhat wc llave
preferring more cluscd habitnrs (especially anrelopes ot rhe genera Tragelaptna. seen ro have been primarily scavenged, except for thcir YOllng. Clearly,
Ranbicerus, and Ce/Jhu/o/llms) are roughly comparable between rhe LSA fauna and shifts in whar arrear to he climate as monitorcd by the "bushy" spccics
rhnr from the oldesr ?o.ISA culture srage, MSA I , In rhe MSAstage 11 rhere is an could equally rcflect a hcbauioral shift in favor of more hunted foods with
apparcnr dccre.rse in opon country fotlns which 1Il,1)' indi..:;lte an increa~e in rhe no Il('ccssary challgl's in l'llvironlllcnt. This mcallS th;ll il is rcasoll<lhlc to
;\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
seek ways uf Illollitorillg l'ach possibility, behavioT ami ellvironmcllt, indc-
CO\lntry forms in the Ievels illllllcdiarely ovcrlying 3H!39 in Cave 1. (Kk'in 197(':7H) pendently of [he other.
1have reproduced data from Tahles 1,2, and .l of Klein's (1976) study
What is intercsting in Klein's slatement is that he makes ir very cxplicit of the Klasics Rivcr Mouth fauna, so that rhe basic data discussed here are
Ihat thc majority of the srecies taken as indicators of grassLinds are relk readily available, and the same data llsed by those making c1imaric in-
..,;¡
tively Iargc: \vildeheest, h3rt~beest, baslard hartehc('st. These Jre <111 medi- ,,; ferences (Tahles 5.5-5.7).
um-lar~e-hody-size animals of size cbss 11I as llsed in this study. On the ldeally I would like to hold body size constant and then compare
orher hana, (\',,'0 of the rhree groups mentioned as indicarive of bush cover- species that were apt to have been hunted (small) with those Ihar wae apt lo
CefJha/orhus (blul' duiker), and Rarhiccrus (Cape grysbok)-are both in have been scavl'l1gcd (1arge). Because theTe is a strong alltocorrclarion be-
the snullcst sin' elass (1) of animals, while the third, Traga/afJ!ms, is repre- IWCl'n hody size ami procuremcnt strategy, my approa(h lll11st sl'ek 10 hold
sClIrl'd hy hushhul..·k, ;1 small-Illl'lliulll-sizl' cl;tss 11 animal, and by kuJu (.1 habitat prefeTencc l,,;onstJnt. For instance, I might look al animals who :lre
gellerally rare species), which is equal in size (c1ass 111) to the species eonsid- considercd grassland "ipecies and rhen compare species within eaeh set th:1I
cn:d inJic;ltive of cnvironmcnts where grass is more plentiful. fn eHect, the differ m;1rh'dly in hody size across stratigr;tphic time. Thesc chrono-stLlt-
spceies takcll as indic:ltive of hush cover are smal!, and as \"'l' have scen 'Vere ig.raphic comparisons wOllld seek to determine whl'thcr there is any jusrifi"
generally humeo or Jr leasr inrroduced to Klasies River Mourh Cave 1 in cation for rhe idea that food-procurement strategies might proporrionally
terms of Illcar comiderations. On rhe othcr hand, rhe species listed as indica- vary rhrough time. After we know rhe nature of such paulTning, \\'C could
 '"

TABLE .'j..;

Thc Mirumurn Nurnbcrs oí Indivuíuals bv Which Each Mammahan Spccics Is Rcprescnrcd In thc vunous Hurizuns of
Klasícs Rivcr Mouth CaVL"J

L5A II L5A 1 M5A IV M5A JI A15A I

--- ---
7-12
---
13 14
1-6 15 16 17a 17b 37 38/39

Horno suplens. Man 1/.: 1 1 1/,: '1 '1

ro Paoío urxrnu.s: Chacma baboon 1
ro
ce
2 1 3 1 1
Cante mesometos. Black-backed iackal
Mellivora capcnsis. Honcv badgcr 1 1
Aonvx caoensis. Clawlcss Oncr 1 2 1 1
Ccneu.a sp.. Ccnct :1
ííemestes ichneumon. Egypnan mongoosc 1
H. oulverulemus. Cape grey mongoosc 2
Aulax poludmosus. Water mongoose
Hvacna brunnea. Brown hycna
Felis hbvca. wildcar
Ieíis d. caracol. Caraca! 1 1 1
í'anchera pordus, Leopard 1 4 1 1 1 1 1
Arctccepholus pussllus, Cape fur scal 7 8 3 20 S 17 4 4 7 4
Miwunxa leonma. Eiephanr scal 1
Loxudonla aíncana. Elcphant 1 1 1
Pmcav/¡/ capcnsís. Rock hvrax 1,
I )/I.:cr(J~ lncomss. Hlack rhmoccms
2
" 2
S 15
1 "1
(, 2
1
2

-".
: '''-.l''' ':"'Pfit'·---h'Ww '7' 1 : CI!! "1:"': tt'trtl:t"M :0:1" '''-m\'" " " É r$e"Mt' ? M.
EL¡UUS d. quagga. QuaAA3 1 1 1 1
Potamcchoerus porcus. Bushpig ;'1 1 1 2 2
Píiacachoerus aettnooícus. Warthog 1 2
Hippopotamus amplubsus. Híppopotamus 1 2 4 1 2 1 2 5 1
Ccnñalophus monucoln. Bluc duíkcr
R(lplllcerus melanous. Cape grvsbok
2
1
l'
7 21 14 , (, .J 4
Curetna curebi. Onbí 1 1
Pelea caprealus. vaalnbbok 2 2 2 1 :, 1
Redunca d. anmdínum. Southern recdbuck 1 1 1 1 2 2
R. íalvarutula. Mountain reedbuck 1 1 1 2 3 1
Hippotragus Ieucoohoeus. Blue aneelopc 4 s 4 6 7 7 11
Alcc1aphus buselaobus. Huncbccst , .J 2
1
1 "2
Damahscus sp.. Bastard hanebeese 1
Connocnaetes sp.. wildebeest 1 1 2 2 2 5
Annaarcas sp.. Springbok 1 2 1
re Tragetaobus scnpws. Bushbuck 1 6 s 2 .3 1 1 2
'"
-o T. _~I rcpsrccros. Kudu
Tourouogus orvx, Eland 1 .J
2
27 10
5
23 12
1 2
8 "
10 11
Svncerus cutter, Cape buffalo
, 7 4 5 3 9 4 8 7 4
PelorOl'ls <.1n!u/uus, Giant huffalo 2 13 1 9 4 5 11 7
Hvstrix atrieae-ousuclís. Porcupine
Georvchus capensis. .'\101c rat
3 1 1 10
2 ,
4 3
1
1
1
2

Lcpus capensis. Cape ha re

Dclphínidac. Dolphins 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
Orhcr Cctacea. Whalcs 1 1 :1

., From Klcin 1976:TabIe 1.

 .-

TABLE 5.6

Thc Minimum Numbers of Individuals bv Which Each Mammalian Spccíes 15 Represented in the Vanous Horizons of
Klasies River Mouth Cave l Av
'"
'e"' Howieson's
\1 SA Jll PUDIt M5A 11

10- 13- 17- 23- 28- 32-

1-3 .: 5 6 7-9 11 16 21 22 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 33 3.:/

Horno sopíens, Man 1 '1 '1

í'apia ursmus. Chacma baboon 2 2 1
Herpestes pulverulentus. Cape grey 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 1 .l
1
.l , ; (, I 3 , 1 .¡ 1 1 S 1
l.(JX(Jdrllllr/ '¡'''t"an,j. lkph'UH

~,~;

.. ",rrwtefu i@Ií("'t'" "'""'''

'A; Hb..ftI'h$lW:rWi'EII®t'W ···.'Ml31fl clli
Procavta ccpensrs. Rack hyrax 4 1 .¡
Equus ct. quagga, Quagga
Hippopotamus amphibius, Hippo-
" " " 1
4
3
1
6
1
4 2

potamus
Rapbicerus melonous. Cape grysbok 1 6 2
Pelea caoreolus. Vaalribbak 2
Redunea d. orundmum. Southem reed- 1 3
buck
Hippotragus leucopbaeus. Blue ame- 2 5 3 1 1
lape
Damaliscus sp., Bastard barrcbeesr
Connoebaetes sp., Wildcbeest
Tragelapbus scrípius. Bushbuck
T. strepsicetcs. Kudu
"" 1
1
1 1 1 3
T <1urotragus orvx. Eland 1 3 1 l
re Svncerus caíter. Cape buffalo 2 1 4 " 1 6
;
1
1
7
4
1
3
1
1
(,

'"' PelOIOVIS antiquus. Giant buffalo

Hvsntx aincaeaustralis. Porcupme
1 1
1
2
1
1 2

Delphínídae. Dolphins '1

(/ From Klein 1976:Table 2.

2,12 .'l. Hominid Subsisten ce Eetllo~y and Land Use lmplication-, uf Variable Subsistcucc Tnctics 23.1

The Mínimum Numbcrs of lndividunls by Which Each Mammahan Spccícs I~
Rcprcscntcd III thc Various Honznns of Klasics Rivcr Mouth Caves 111"
Homo <opicns. Man
]lapio lIT~ill!l';. Chac-
ma bahoon
COI1l\ llleWJmel,II',
Black-backcd rackal
Asilax pllludirJO.'W'i,
Water mongoosc
pm-
Arc!U({'fl}¡O!US
d/u,. Cape fur scul
i'tncavm capensís.
Ruck hvrux
l'O/¡II1HWhr>l'fll\ ¡'OT
cus. Bushpi¡.;
llippn/lu{lltlJ1lS 11111-
vtnbsus. Hippo
potamus
Uuphict'Tlls
lIlc/aIJ()I1" Cape
xrvsbok
l'elea l'fll'/('()lu."
Vaalribhok
l/ippfJITOgII_' fe!len-
phd<'II\, Bluc <lntl'-
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.
Eiand
.";\'nU'nl'· ('ulkr, Cape
buftalo
/'c/orovi,s ¡¡/lrú/ull.';,
Ci.mt bllEblo
lfl'>/Tlx ilfTlc(/e-¡¡¡¡~·
Ir,¡{,~,
Porcupinc
LqJu~ C(/p('lJ~'i~',
lI<1rc
DdphiniJae, Unl·
phins
" From K!ein I 'J76:Tablc 3.
TABLE S.7 rhen seek ro determine if there was coincidenr v.mabilirv thnt \\';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
KHM 1fl-,\fSI\ ! animal W,-1-" bcing huurcd almost cxclueivclv. This SPCCil'S is convidcrcd en-
1-3 4 5 (¡ 7 8 Y lO 11 12 13 14 J)
dcmic 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
.l 2 1 2 ., 2 .l 1 suggcsrivc of having heen scavengrd. The actual [requcncics of anatomical
parts also is complcrely consistcnr wirh the argumcnts for rccognizing scav-
.l 3 ., 2
enging 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.
'1 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
4 2
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
2
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 "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
4 2 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 epi-
sades whcll (ynlms typcs of (hushy) vegct;ltion would have heen 1ll0~t (0111-
mon 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 Sneuer lA Shelter lB

,.re
~
---
ínvenuuv 38 37 PB I7A 16 15 14 13 LSA MSA 11 HP M5A tu M5A I

l. Eland 11 10 , 12 l3 10 17 cl I , II 18 9
2. Grysbok O 4 3 6 5 14 II O 8 4 9 6 7
J. Total 11 14 11 18 28 24 48 3 9 12 20 24 16
4. % Eland 100 71 73 67 82 42 56 100 S<J 67 .sS 75 56
11
S. Bluc antclope S II 7 7 6 4 8 4 2 II 9 3 3
ó. Grysbok O 4 3 6 5 14 21 o 8 6 9 4 7
7. Total 5 15 10 13 11 18 29 4 10 17 18 7 10
H. 'X, Grvsbok O 27 33 46 .J.S 78 27 O SO 35 50 57 70
lila
v. Orvsbok O 4 6 14 21 O 8 4 9 7
1u. Bushbuck 2 I "I 3
S
2 8 6 I 2 O 1
6
O I
1 l. Suhluul 2 ; cl '! 7 l2 27 1 10 4 10 « 8

.;iir 1 l",·~,'tt~'ttmfflJJ·~·'.te -'' _ J:\.[~_-''·~oi_'' ""f:e'ff;;-

-
r'~-~r"'-.~~;;~"'''-'-!f<''~f:-~~-'1'S,':
'
"l"'úte-' -';;:'~'C--_ - -,"' _" - .i' _

IIIb
12. Kudu O 3 2 1 5 O 2 O O 3 1 O O
13. Blue antelape 5 11 7 7 6 4 8 4 2 II 9 3 3
14. Subtoral 5 14 9 8 11 4 10 4 2 14 10 3 c'
1S. Grand total 7 19 13 17 18 26 37 7 12 18 20 9 II
16. % Small (IrIal 29 26 31 53 64 85 73 20 83 22 50 67 73
IV
17. Hartebeest 2 I 2 8 2
18. wildebeest 5 2 2 2 I 1 4 I 2
19. Basrard hartebeest 1 1 3 1
20. Subtotal 7 I 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 O 7 2 4
21. TotallIlb and IV 12 15 II 10 13 6 12 6 10 14 17 S 17
22. % IIIb (Bushy) 42 93 82 80 85 67 83 67 20 100 59 1\0 43
V
23. Eland 11 10 B 12 13 10 27 el 1 8 II 18 9
re 24. Part Illa total 2 S 4 9 7 22 27 1 10 4 10 6 8
co 25. Total 13 15 12 21 30 32 54 4 11 12 21 24 17
~

26. % Eland 85 67 67 57 77 31 50 75 09 67 52 75 53

" See Tables 5.6-5.8.

 2J6 S. Homimd Subsistcncc Ecolugy and Land Use Imphcntions Di v.mablc Subsrstcncc Tncrícs 237

PEIltC.E.N'T~E OF &tl.Vlo.0K,. HUNTEO A ....IM ....L."b

R:w:.L....TI~ TCI BLU& ANTEoLOPE, L-~A~;~-~--";'-~'O.;~~. '0o/.
o '0 ~o .. o '<o "" 'l'O IOQ .., '00
~ JI,'. I ~

...Id C'A

l.">~", ...
.. f' ..."' .....

~
55~.~S55,<57,('>5;55L-

~ l?o j "

y, I"~ .],- . JI
20 " ti
~
,."
" ""..
<Ii
1 no[--~--17 .. _ ....- -

~
~ ,,.
W ~7 ---4-._

~ -.1 L_ L-----1.-_.L._-'
" ,-~--~
36.~
.J _ •. j~.-----.L_._ L-..L
Figure S.9 Compnnson hctwcen ~K.AVf"j(:..f,.jc.: HU .... T.WG<.
>O/.. A .... rE. ... oPL c......... .,.AO"'- thc frcqucncícs of grvsbok and bluc ante- Figure 5.10 C(}l1lparison bcrwccn ~rys"
~L.""~

PROPOIC.TIO ~ OF HUNTIN<\
A Mc;... ~ulll.E. OF'" HUN-nN~ lopc among thc vanous lcvels from Cave Vt:.lIt..~u~ ~u; VE. .... GINQ.. THRV bok and cl.mds nmonc rbc vanous Icvcls Irum
WHE.toJ 1:510ME. I~ HlE.L.D CON~T.....""T 1, Klastcs Rivcr Mouth THE. K..RM C ....v E. 1 ~E~UE.NCE.. Cave 1, K!;lsies Rivcr Mouth.

:~]

ovcmll wanuth of thc cnvironmcnt should he dccrcnsiug during rhi-, se-
qucncc 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 associ-
ated with glacial {hyporherrnic) versus inrerglacial [hypertherruic] condi-
tions in thc Cape. That is, during glacül conditions grussl.ind expnndcd
southw.ml, \.. herTao.; during intcrgl:lci:\I.. h'll!uIs t'XP<llldcd northwnrcl into
what is toda)' blroo-rype vegctíltion. lf the grysbok is raken as an index lO
more dosed COYlT :1S in f'V11hns or tempcralc forc"it conditiom, rhen c1e.IrI~·
(~.dVl·1l (orrc(r dating) Ihe h'l1bos :1ppcars to he c:\panding ~lS rhe \\'¡Irlll
(hyperthermal) conditions are dereriorating. 1'his i5 the reverse of the pJt-
tem inferred fmm the Nelson Bay data, yet is a pattern generally sl1pporting
the original zonal moJel of van Zinderen Bakker (1967: 144). C1e;lrly.
things ;Ht: complicatcd.
I think rhe graph if Figure 5.9 is hes! understood as in incrcase in the
role of huntcd foods ;ltHI ;1 (orrcspondil1g dcCrC;lSi.· in the role of s.. . :wcnged
foods during t1H..' span (lf timc reprcsenred by the Cave 1 dcposits. AS;1check
on the possibility rh;lt the blue antelope !llay not he a good monitor of
SGI\Tllging strarq~ii.·s, Figure 5.10 shows the rclationship hen.. .·ccn the frc-
qucn(y of Clpe gry,,¡'ok, ("ollsidcred as a hullt(:d ani1l1;11, and tl1l' dand.
hdit'\"ed to he an UIlJtllbiguous index ro rJll' role of scavcnging. Ir is clear
that l!li.· hile on Figure S.I O shows ;1Il ,lllllost pcrfect positive relationship
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¡ corre-
lated 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
~r 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 compari-
1:"
¡ti son 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 ante-
lope-namcly,that wlut is v:lrying are rhe preferences for ,111imals of diffcr-
ent 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!arioll-
ship 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 2,19

-ltlltL. .... TION~rt'P A

expecr these conditions during any low-water stagc of thc Late l'lcistocenc.
bL....., -ION""P411P 8

LÓA~;-r~' , ,~ 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,

03
.~ ~ l 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
~
~ \ 14-
condirions at rhe close of the Pleistocene nnd thc enser of thc contcmporary
V .- dimane rcgimc. Inspecrion of Relationships A and B in figure 5.11 shows
:l: that if one accepts the small antelope as indicative of incrccsing cover, then
a¿ ,.
Figure 5.11 Comparison hctWI.'CD the L5A is in line wirh the clirnatic model; but if onc looks al the médium-
}o! 07~ thc frcquencics of small antclopc \'Cr~u" size anrclopcs, then the picrure seems ro be contrury to rhe overall chmatic
eland [Rclationship Al and the pcrcent-
~ 07b picrure. This apparent dilemma is clcared IIp somcwhat hy a considcr.uion
agc of mcdiurn-sizc untclopc rcprcscnted
~ by bush-loving spccics [Rclanonship BI" uf Relationsbip A in Figure 5.11. This line traces rhc rclationship bcrwccn
J38/".l-lJ~
W " e1and MNIs versus the small, cover-loving unrelope (grysbok and bush-
among thc various lcvcls from Cave I.~~:
10 IZO ao 40 '!oo "O ~o &O 'K) '00 % Klasies Rivcr Mourh. ~, buck). 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 corre-
lared. This means that the explciration of cover-Ioving, mcdium-size ani-
(1976), bC(3USC he did not control for body-size biases and S3W thern as mals is part of thc scavengmg strategy, whcreas thc cxpkutation of rhe
rcflecting environmental change (see Figure 2.12). We see a panero of high grassland antelope OCCllTS primari!y as a componcnt of thc hunting strarcgy
levels of grass-Ioving species in Leve! 38 and rhen a re1atively stable set of in the 1.15A. Put another way, rhe grass-Ioving auirnnls-c-hnrtchcest, wil-
conditions indicared for Levels 37, l7b, 17a, 16, and 14, in which cover- dcbeest, and bastan" hartcbccst-c-seem to vary with wharcver is com!itioning
l~'
loving animal s dominare. In Levels 15 and U thcre were increases in grass- the relative roles of hunting versus s(avenging, and do not nccessarily hetray
loving specics and a marked ¡ncrease shov.'n in the L5A, directly environmental conclitions. lf this is corred, then the grass-Ioving
Several things make this pattcrn most provocative, lf the levels at forms sholllJ be primarily represcnted by young individuals becJuse rhe
Klasies Cave I do in (aet span a period of generally dccreasing temperatllres, hunting bias seerns to be cleady jn favor of small prey, whcreas rhe co\'eT-
:~
then the directilln nf the pattern hetwccn Levels .17 ;lnd U is now in line "1 loving antelorc scem ro vary in tcrms of scavcngillg hiases, which, as we
with 1Ill' 1lI001e! '/ut l'XIl(x:h innl'a..,ing gra"island-Ioving forllls assol'i:ltt.'J ¡~I ha ve St..'l'tl, LIvor brgc-hoJy-sil.c animals. I'rl'slllllahly, tltell, t1ll' (ovt..'r-Ioving
with colJer ellvirollll1ental conditions, Such a pattern is comistent with the antelopt' should bt' prirnarily representeJ hy adlllts, anJ f!le grass-Ioving
data from NI..'ls(lll Iby Cave (Klcin 1972h) and Elands Bay Cave (Parkinton fonns shollld be primarily represcnted by YOllng, illJl11ature animals. The
1972), in which hoth the dating and the cnvirnnmental correlarion seem apparellt trcnd toward decreasing cover-Ioving mediwn-sizl' animal s, which
sccurc. Given the assumed contemporaneity with a detcriorating environ- at first gL1nu' seemed to parallel expecutions for ;1 Jeterioratillg or in-
ml'llt or one ll10ving in the dirccrion of more glacially dominated dimares r:
';r cn:asingly (old ellvironmcllt, is now rccognizahlc as iust allother manifesta-
(evcn during high-watcr stagcs), this partern is now congruent wirh OUT tion of the trend toward increased hunting ..md ..1 more ;111<.1 more marginal
other knowledgc. This condirion is cssentially consisrent with conditions role for scavenging throughout rhe Klasics Cave I Sl'llUt.'IKC.
during isotopic Stages 3, 4\ or 5; or anytime during the Late Pleistocene This insight hrings us back ro a reconsideration of the serming anomaly
prior to ti1/.' glacial Illax i 111 11111, which is gcncL1lly considcrcd ro haH' of the 15A. I think th,lt 11l0"t 'lf(hal'ologists would ,Iceept as bet rhe sLlIe-
spallllcd lhe pcriod betweell17.000 ;lI1d I~,OO() IU'. Since most would agrcc ment that the peoplt rcsponsible for the L5A werc hunters cquippcd \vith a
th;tt th.. . Icvcls undcr cOllsideration date hcyond the practicallimits of I"C_ technology that WJS cap.1hlc of cffectivcly taking llloJeratc- ro brge-hody-
dating lllerhods, rhis could he anytime hct\vecn 32.000 and ] 28,000 B.r. size animals. The l'thnohistoric data, although acknowledging the rok of
(see Sh,,-kkton IY75;Tahle 1). seavenging (see figure 5.S), clearly depiet it as a very minor ;lIld expl.'dient
If we ClllJsidcr the additional points on the graph (Figure 5.11 )-those set of tacrics. Active taking of prey either through huming or rr"Ipping
for Level 3S indicare a marked dominence of grass-Ioving forms-\\'e might 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 ani-
mals 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-dcpen-
clcut 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(,-lllub-
ital, or obuillcd through expedition huming. These \\'ould, of course, be the
nonlocal, migr<ltory, grassland feedcrs 1 which in eitha C:lSC would occasioll-
al1y cntcr the ClpC proVillCl" pcrhaps during dry condirions trom rhe kamo
and lhe grassbnd~ lO the: north, or would bc introuuccd by logisrically
organizcd cxpedirions into rhar area.
[n any event, rhe rdarivc frequencics of simibr spt'cies can be cxpl'cted
to exhihir 1Jl:Hh'd variahiliry betwccn liw LSA ;Iml thl: MSA, ref1ccfi\"l' of
diffnenccs ill tllt, organization of sul1sistcllce slratcgics. The degrt'l' chal
specics-fretlu\.'IH:)" data also fl'flect differences in.environll1l'nIS is somclhing
th;\t Clll110r be [(:;1d dircctly bur must he \.'valuat\.'d by secking ro control for
diffcrent variahles with surrogale IlH::asures, as I 11.1\'C nicJ ro do in this
discllssion.
The conclusioll is clear: the patterns for hotlt .i'vtSA and LSA in relati\"C
spccies freqllellLi<.:s ar<.' dominanliy n:f1ecti\'1..' oí hominid ecology and not
~ross t'll\'irol1t1lCllUI condirions per St'. T!lis (ltKllIsion h~lS Ilwjor illlpliG1-
liolls for hurh the (o1l1p.lr;uivt· LhwllOlogy ot the l\tSA allll LSA hlll .1lso
;l1lP;ld'o IIw (IlrtTlll ;1ttcmpls ItI \it'w cOlllp'll"<lti\'t' LU11Ial freqUL'I1LICS bl'-
IweCIl vcry diffcr<"IH l"colypes a ... surrogate, direel 1ll<.:;lSlHC'i of environlllen-
tal dyn;lIl1ics (sce Beanmotlt 19HO; Klcin 19XO; V()lm~1I1 1981). \'Ve do not
kno\\" ho\\" lhe hOlllillids were t'xploiting lhe grassttnd (aun.1 in a grass1and
setting. !-lo\\' does (lile comparc the hi'lsed t;lking ot YOllllg, \Vilh httle or no
scavenging of sll(h animals as \\'ildehecst JI1J bastard h;utcheesl. as 'icell in
lhe Cape sctting, Wilb exploilative Llctics in the grassvclt? \'Ve Silllply Jo not
Dunng uf thc S¡tc Scqucncc 241
know. Cranting thur variability nmong specics as a dirccr environmentai
>'
:'I¡ mensure is inapproprtatc, all rhe currcntlv construcrcd chronologics bnsed
", on fuuual-cuvironmcnral cquations for thc MSA are strongly suspect. En-
vironmcnral inferences can only be tacilirated througb an inrervcning under-
standing of rhe srratcgies and tacrics carried out hy the hominids who made
use of the resources.
Dating of the Site Sequence
The fnunal nnalvsis has pcmuncd tlic recognition of sorne vcry inn-rcst-
mg 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
J! concomitunt decreasc in scavenging the carcasses of mcdium- to Iargc-body-
size aninuls. Thcre appears lO he a bi.1S in favor of scavenging lhe local
"'g: 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 appar-
c: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 ex-
;, cavaled 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 Howie-
son '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 scavengillg-
which 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

242 S 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 re-
moves 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<lmple from rhe seeming mixrure of rohusr and
gracile remains c1aimed for rhe Klasies sire leaves only the remains reíeral1!r
to Levd ]4 (CJve 1), which;s almost certainly derived from scree, and is at
Ieasr parrially a sCcolld;lry dcrosit contemporary w¡lh, or ¡usr slightly
YOllllger (on average) than, rhe Howieson's Poart Icvels of Shclter lA. Hav-
ing modern forms of humans associated wirh levels thar yielJ cvidcnLe for
personal ornamentation is not surprising.
Thus f:1r I han' ,lvoidcd Il1l'ntiolling ;lIlY l'''limJIl'S as ro thl' ahsolllll' ;lgl'
of Ihc deposits. As was pointed out t'arlicr (ChJptcr 2), t111' (lnly dara cired lO
jllsrify tht, dating nf rhe lowcr Ieveb of Cave] ro the isoropic Srage 5d-5e
daring approximardy ]25,000 11.1'. rests with rhe comparative data on
If'O/PIO rarios measllred for six shells-two hom rhe I.SA deposits and
four from rhl' .MSA 1. Borh rhe datJ base and rhe infercl1ces as 10 rhe
meaning of similariries provide a mosr tenUOllS bJsis for daring. If \ve dis-
miss the compar¡~olls herween L5A and MSA [ u'O/ISO rarios, we h;we no
hJs;s for rcndering al! e~rimare of ahsolurc age, 1'here is simply no factual
ha~js for <ln)' posirivc claims for grear antiqllity of rhe graci1c human re-
1I1:tillS Ilor 01 rhe illdll<;fri;ll L1l:ies cl\1nlllowieson\ )100ft heyond the ber
tlLH the)' apparently date beyond rhe re1iablc range uf I~C rncrhods. This
means thar tht,y are cssenrially older rhan 35,000 years~ which does nor
dcm;lnd any extraordinary role for [he Sourh Africlll region in rhc hisrory of
rhe aprearancc ot fully l110dern mano 'lhe dara inJiote increJsed huntill~,
rl'chnologicll changes thar may well he re1ared ro hUllting tcchnology, :lnd
Summurv 24,1
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 in-
creased hunting of small game and thc young of largc spccics. with a corre
sponding dccrcasc in the dcpendence upon scaveugcd foods obtaincd gcncr-
ally 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 tem-
poral 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 environlllCTl-
ral 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'd-
ing 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 homi-
oid niche renders rhe inferred ehronology of rhe deposits ami rhe Jlkg,cd
 244 s. Hominid Subsistcncc Ecologv and Lana Use
What Han' \\'c Ll';HIlt'J from Klasrcs! 24,')

evidence for very early, fully modern man in the southern African setting
resources hy tranxporting sorne into prcrccrcd locations. Clt':lfly thc fond
strongJy suspecr, if not total1y obselete.
packages introduccd to Klnsies River Mouth were small. Ir is hard to irnag-
irte 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
, What Have We Learned from Klasies? 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
I suprasc rhe most important argumenr ro come from this research is
when secing the typical pattem of a fuily modern rnan living in base camps
thar rhcre do es seem ro have been a directional trend evidenced al Klasics
far back inro thc Pleistoceno mar be partially relicvcd by thc suagcsuon rhat
Rivcr Mouth in the relative roles of scavenging versus hunting. Hunting
Klasics was a nighttime slecping site, and a middav water snurcc locution is
seerns ro hcvc increased regularly rhrough the majar pan of the sequence at
implied by rhe scavenged parts frorn anirnals likcly to hove l-een killrd by
Cave 1 in its contribution to rhe dict of the hominids. This places the vicw of
nocturnal pn-dutors ucur ;1 water sourcc, Rcm.uns trom sClvellging mny
thc MSA in a dvnamic mode. For instancc, thc carlier studics of thc r..lSA
appear dominan! in thc slccping sire simply bccausc thcy rcquircd procese-
noted that thcrc appcarcd ro be considerable interassemblage variability and
ing-c-transport bcing not for provisioning a group but simply au accom-
even th.u rherc W:lS <In alrernation of industries, but therc was no cluc ro
modntion to thc localization of processing facilincv, tools. and prorcction. Ir
what this vanabilirv might reflecto
appcars 10 me thar wc hnve the opportuniry ro COl11l' lo considerablv more
ls rhc apparcnt interruption in the hunting trend seemingly indicated
interesnng conclusions abour assernblage vanability in the J\lSA rhan rhar it
during the low-warer conditions suggested for Leve! 13 in Cave 1 and che
simply reprcscnts "cbanging fashions" (Volman 1981 :2S9).
Howieson's Poort of Sheltrr lA a c\ue? I have noted previously thar Middle
In rhe pas! rhere was 110 due ro dynamic rrends rhar Illi¡.,dlt lu\'e heen
Palcolithic asscmhlagcs in European sitcs trnd to remaio re1acively stable
goillg on among lhr homillid popubtions immediatC!~' ancesrral ro the fully
over long acclllllulatory periods and then to change coincidentally with Illodern hUlllans rhm appcared in sOllthern AfrÍt.:J I1l..'ar lhe cnd of rhe J\,t5A. I
evidcnce of mJjor environmcntal change. Although there is ~1 coinciden ce to
rhink ir is de;:n rhar hUlltillg was increasing, al !casf in the southern Cape
such changes, therr is rarely any correlation bctween the type of environ·
provincc. Many nf rhe changes in tcehnology rhar typify the MSA, such as
mcnt (see Binford 1982a). I have always thought this represented spariJI
the manl1fadure of bifacial and unifacial poinrs, as we11 as rhe appe~\rance
rcpositioning of rhe h1l1d·use pattcrn in response ro environment:11 changes,
of (frSlTI1l'i or b:lcked knives, herray some spccialil.:\Iilln in 1001 produLtioll
hllt clll1lmonly wilh liltlt, t.:hal1~c in rfll' org:ltIizatioll ()f th..: ad:lpr;lliol\ IIa
anJ il1ll0V;lliotls in tool designo These 1lI11\t be reLlted lo ~(]Illl' lC)ol-lI'ie
se. The altertlatiull uf industries as wcll as the hn:ak in thl' hunring trend
dClTlands. Ncw demands cm be exp~cted to be associJtcd \vith new behav-
Sten in the Klasies seqllence may wel! represent <ln J.nalognlls situation, wirh
ioral trcllds ami shifts in ;Hbpri\'t' tactics. This plarcs Ihe SClllth African data
rhe .tdded possibiliry rhar rhe nld repositioning o;;rraregy was still going on
squan:ly in rhe Jlliddlc of our resourecs rcgardin~ the tascínaring tr;1I1sition
eoincidcnr with a major rrcnd in ada prive reorganizariun and increased
from Middle to Uppcr Pa1colirhic. considered in bl'havioral tcrms (sce Rin-
rcliance on hUllrl'd foods,
ford 1982a; Me/hrs 1982; White 1982). AltlHllIgh some of liS h"ve IH.'ed
The imprcssioll thar many of us have h<1d, rhat rhe site-use p:1trcrns of
major eontrasrs bcrwecn fhe archacology of rhe Midd1c Paleolithic. :lS it i')
the Middle Paleolirhie were fundarncntJlIy different fmm rhose of rhe Upper
frrmed in Europe, and rhe Upper Paleolit!lic. 110ne of LIS ner considcrl'd th:lt
Paleolirhic mar be cnlighrened by the suggcstions made here rh:1t sires like
onc Illajor hasis for some of the conrrasrs might be thal during the MidJIc
-K.lasK:s weTe nor·hasl' üJJUpS in,thc tradirional sense o{.,·¡he tl"rm, They may
blt.:olirhic hllllting pbyTd ~l IlHlch-rcduccd ro1c reLnivc to rhe adaptatiolls
h;lve hccn flll1l:lioll;llly spl'l.:itil.: pL1t.:cs. The midd;lY walcrholc site Jl1d rhe
uf rhe Uppcr Pa1colithic In short, although Illllch atrcm;OIl has been placed
nighrrilllc prorel.:rcd s1t:eping sitc may have been just Ihat-special-use area".
on the prohlem of rhe tr;lllsitioll in rhe Northern HCl11isphnc marcri~lls, we
whil.:h were nor provisiollcd like base camps. MLlCh fCl'ding could \vcll haH'
never had ;lny ck~ll"-cllr trends rhat werc rhoughr ro pnn'idc rhe dynamic
takcn place at rhe poillts of food procuremenr. Ollly if special proeessing
conrext in rerms of which evolution proeecded. I am eOllvinced rhar the
prior to eonsumprion was needed-sueh as soaking, breaking open, Jnd
Klasies &113 is supplying liS with just such a trend in rhe Soul!lnll
cooking-would food he transported ro appropriate processing pl;¡ces. In
Hemisphere.
addirion. r!lerr may luve been an ;urcmpr to extend rhe fecding potenrial of
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
CHAPTER 6
~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?
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 evolution-
ary 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 archceologi-
cal 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 arcbucolo-
gists cnn invcnr accomrnodnting arguments or makc ;1 priori uvsutuptions
ahout whut thc past was like. Wl'need, instcad, rcliabk- mctunds for dccod-
ing rhe archacologica! record ro obtain an accuratc glimpse of thc past.

2<17

.1."wkR. - -4<t.~
('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 <l way of life ar the very bcginnings of our ahility ro recognize
human dLU<lCrnistics. 1 have bt:l'l1 dcscribing the hunal remains fmm
homlnids wllo h~lVe, in f<.lcl, been suggesrl'J 10 be ;lll;lt()l1li(;lll~' illLiis-
tingllishablc fmm horll fllJly modcfIl lTlan anJ rheir immediatl' pn:deccssors
(scc Bea1111lont 1980; Dt'acon 1981 j Jlld Rightmire 1979). These \\tere clear-
Iy hominids who should have been enjoying the fruits of our mid~Pleistocene
cVollltionary progress:
thl' drv (lllhllti"I1\ dell'rlllllll'l1 rhl' ;1,1<lj1ti'lll 01 ;\ P;lrtl,lIly tl'frl'\lri-,ll IIIr ;111.1 tht
t:.ltillg olml';l!, /Ir\t <1\ p,lrt\ 01;\ lIIixed diet. -/i.'l' AII.<tr,¡/o/lit!Jaillcs ,III,{ SlIf.-h IY{1CS
,IS /(N,\1 14;'0 )""/'I"CS<'lIf ,{Ji., '-/,Igl', wherher or not rh('y .!n' on ri1l' dircd line of
11111ll;1I1 ;11Kl'\try. U"'II/illlll <lIJOIII flVO millillll .",,<tr.< ",1;",1/,/1, ',II,idl" 1'<11"."/11,1; ./!Id
tlJe dJdllgn in lIJe In,fin ,lIId clldv(¡'illCS /¡y I/-/ú<l.. t/¡e
O(fl'JI S('I'CH' úJl/lf¡liulls (,/IJ/i'
/)(Jlllillids llec'/lIIc wá,11 !Jlmlers, $/11'1, ,/s Horno erectu.;, lISillg illI/¡!i'mnl(s, sh,/rillg
Ihc {1md/lCls o/ f!J1' ql/csf ¡in (ood ,md dCl'I'lopillK ,1 slm/,Ie Otl!III"t'. -llll' ;Idvantage\
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:vdop-
lnetlh 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 consid-
t'fed the lJlost ur-to-datl.' d:lLl ;md interprct;ltivl.' :lrgull1l'llts ;l\'~1Íbhle bcar-
ing 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
i, oI.~O-rr.- ~i cJe.J/ -fr' .M- 1<44L
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<1-
rions 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 mate-
riJl" (BinforJ 19,1{ 1:29 J), ARain, this i~ pcrfectly cOl1sistenl \Virh rhe scav-
t'ngl'r pattl'fIlS identificd ,H Klasics River Mourh, <llld arc the parts that
should regubrly appear ar a midday-rl'st site. There JfC nuny other charac-
reristics, slleh as rhe reponed high frequency of hY3('IU-damaged bones (sec
f1.Ld¡¡
2.')0 6. 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 qnan-
tirios, givcn thc bone-concentrating bchavior of hyoena around water
sourccs (sce Binford 1983b:62-70). Finally, the obscrvation of a high trc-
QlIcncy of cut rnurks 011 rnetapodrals at Olduvai is complctely consisrcnr
wirh rhc partcrns dcscribed hcrc (see Lewin 1981).
Tbe 'Y'Qsistl'llqr h"turcep tR@ Old'I"ai~~anJ-t~i+l-f,Q.r-FOOt-toR-·f".;¡.¡u.
VI F ftrOl)~lr jO 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 compli-
catcd by thc role of camivorcs as contrihutors to thc populations of borres
commonly atrriburvd to man (sce Binford 1981 for discussion oí rhis prob-
lem), there are sorne provocarivc patrcrns nonthclcss. For instance, the fa-
mous 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; Free-
Illall 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:
'l- &<a-7~
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 com-
paring the larcr MSA sitcs with the Acheulian sitcs, sumrn.uizcs the sirua-
tion 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 assump-
tion 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.

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 in-
creasing 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-bedy-
sfre-'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 <lhove two phases of rhis study rdlcct a llumber of key
iSSlles regarJing rhe current slate of palcoanthropological infcrenees ílhour
life in the ancierlt past, and substamially impact a number of ideas abour rhe
past thar may be misguiding the way cvolutionists approach tbe problem of
llnderstanding our hcritage. In light Di rhe diverse narure of the implica·
tioos, I break this final chapter into a number of sections, each treating a
slighrly different implic.1tion that 1considcr important.
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. Hum-
ing ",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
Hunring Rcconaidcrcd 253
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<lIUr,d iístorv, Vol. XI, No, ~; (ol'nil--':ht thc
í
i\rneriClt1 Muvcum of Narural Hivrory. 1972.,)
Alrbougb Schallcr W;1S very close te recogniziug rhc p.trticul.u subsis-
tence 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 nntici-
pared 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·(It-
rhe-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 preda-
tion.
~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 np-
pcars 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 orna-
mentarían and other evidcnce of symbulic behavior. Most earlier argumcnts
have tejed ro make hunrmg the behavioral context in which selecrion oper-
ared 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 brcak-
rhrough 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<t-fur
theinfereeee..oía-,tYJle--9t&t€)" located adjacent to a water sonrcc, rftatwm#d.
in no sense 'bec·'(t·'home·-base, This is of coursc the midday-rcst lorntion,
already discussed. where the hominids would have had access to carcasses
previously ravagcd by nocturnal prcdators-c-animals thar wcre esscntinlly
dusr-to-dawn drinkers and feeders, The famous sircs of Olduvai Gorge
imrnediately present themse1ves as possible examples of sueh locations. My
earlicr analysis of the Olduvai sites suggested that sorne of rhe patterned,
bone-frequency configurations at those sites were indistinguishable from
carnivore kili sites (Binford 1981 :281-282), The Klasies data suggesr that
hominids at such water-source locations would be scavenging an associa-
tion of species that Ayeni's data identify as those most likely lo be killed by
large nocturnal predators around a water source.
In a similar fashinn, my analysis of Klasics Rivcr MOllth Icads ro rhe
conclusion thar hominids were scavenging margin'll f(JoJs from prcviously
ravaged eareasses, The dara fmm Olduvai Gorgc indicare uncquivocally
rhar hyaenas ravaged many of rhe bones remaining on the Olduvai sites (see
Potts 1982; POlts and Shipman 1981), The dala initially reported from
01duvai are also eonsisrcnt with rhe d;)lJ reported from Kbsies Rivcr
Mouth-m:1llY of the rool lIlarks wcrc inflictnl 011 111ctapodials ;llId orher-
wise non-meat-yie1ding parts. This observation is eonsistent y...ith my obser-
valions on rhe "unexplainccl" high frequency of lowcr·limh nones on the
Olduvai sites (sec BinforJ 1981:278-2S8, particubrly p. 2H 1). lt sccms
Iikely rhat most of the Olduvai sites represent rhe aceumulalion of bones
deriving from overlapping use of the sa111e spors by lions, hyaena, hominids
(see Figure 6,1), and ungulates.
The convention that has been used over and over again, that a eo-
occurence of stone rools and high bone-densities betrays a home base (see j2?--O
Isaac 1971 :282-2R7), no longer scems renablc. A rnidday-rest loeation, I
where bones scavenged fmm rhe carcasses of orher carnivore's prey were
carried short disranees for proccssing as marrow bOlles, results in an asso-
ciation of stone lOols and lltilized bones, bur rhis is almost certainly nor a
home bJse. Thi~ argllment has a major set of implications for rhe inferenrial
merhods cmployed by many archaeologisrs. lt is clear rhar if !TIY argument
regarding midday-resr locations can be sustained, rhcn rhc convention thar a
funetional assnciation bcrwecn stone tools and animal bones can be taken as
indicative of a home hase (S c1early renderecl ambiguous and, as such, unre-
 Hornc Bases and thc Alrruistic Sharing Modcl of Human Evolurion 257
2Só (, Bcvond Klnsics Rivcr Mouth: Irnplicarions for Undcrstaoding Earlv Man

"-~-----;=~-
~6I,.Le"'~

SCAVEN4¡fl'S Sc.AvtNCSEAS
CARJoIIVOAE CARR.YIIII6? _ _ ._-.J J COME RE~OVE
~--CU""""NG , ~t!:-~ /3oNfS
BRUI(JN(;

r'
•
.
dl:~1 1 'tV" ~ 7 ,
~ , ~ C¡aw,,,,. ,¡P.,-",,~...._
...-.--.....:.h,,~

4,l--
/ nED1No/
( 11. ~. """ ~
•
4,r ~
0._.'o
~
(>
l

~ He»·",,·no,
ReHoll6
<0°'-' U'~FlJl,. Sro .....!,s

~
(~ """ree 8ONU?)
HOf04INID G?....0
CARAYIIVfi

Figure 6.1
sourcc.
Rcconstruction of hominíds proccssmg lowcr-Hrnb parts at a water
.....
li.ooDS

li,lhle as a justificarion for infercnce. This argumcnt also implicares a nurn-
bcr 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 enviren-
IIlt'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 argu-
mente of rck-vaucc (Biuford 19lUa: 17S-1 h 1), in which sorne interpreta-
tious 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 land-
USl'. 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-
ri'lJN4S
~-
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 hases-
they generally do in modcrn systems. Given Isaac's justification, rhe citarion
of the asso<.:Íation is considcred prima bcie evidrnce [hM rhe modern bomc-
base form of the system ....'as respon5ible for rhe associ;ltiOll herween stone
tool5 and animal bones ohservcd archaeologically. In spirc of Isaac's fre-
quent appe:l! ro the method of "multiple working hyporhcses," he has no

Ja-M- ro' ri
 .. ~ .

~
An Altcrnarívc In rhc Central-Place Furaging Model r)/ Homimd ncbnvior 259
:2 1
e =
~

I... ~

••
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
which thc conclusión is given by the prcmise. and no cvaluarion of thc

\j n~ 1Jfr~~
premise is attemprcd. In short, the world of (he ancicnt post is accommo-
dared (O his hclicf about organiznriona! form hy virruc oí an intcrprctative

. convention. In thc devclopmenr of nrchaeological mcthods, it is the validity

e

"5
E
~I
. g
•C;; g "-.-~l
.

~.
.!! \
.:

-
~
e
::1
~

~
.~l! e ~
~
~
:¡;
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
~ ~

u
:1
! ••
.~ .f
~.
,
regular associarions betwcen stone tools and animal boncv, yct nor imply
sharing, homc bases. and m forth. I havc raised rhc spcctcr of .unbiguuy

~~
al
~ ~ Cl
a• u
." 3 over rhe interpretative convcntions commonly in use, At this point wc nced
E
.~e r e
'g.
al
:o
;;
~
•
~
~t
iL
...:.
-."
~

f
5
~
2
~
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
~

."
."
u 11
• ~: e
al
,
= criteria for rccognizing onc possible condition from .morhcr. As Gould has
U
C') ~
VI - U
11)
"
;;
E
50 cogeruly said:
.E 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,
o
E
, dcbunking would be primanlv ncgarive. tor it would un!y vluu-k sorne rottcu npplcv

"''1. from rhc barre' of accurnulating krlowledge. But rhe harre! ot rheorv j, ,llw::1l's fl1ll:

-.
QJ scÍl:nces work with el.lborarcJ Lontext\ for explaming (,¡Ch from the very OJ1set.
:o CrealiOlli\t\ biolngy was dead wrunr, ahout tht: origin n( ·~Ill'cit:s, hut Cl1\'ier'~
<lJ ~ ;;
t= e GI '", hr.md of CH\ltionislll W.l~ Ilot ;ln emptit'r or less devclorúl worlJ vjew tlPII Ibr·
<lJ GI ~
,r;. win\. ~ti('II11· ;ldvanl"cs prirll.lrily hy repbl"ctllt'llI, \lot hy addilioll. 1I !Ile harn:1 is
-g '0'0 o ,,
GI e > always full, tiJell the rotten ;lrr1es must he d¡'C,HJcd bdm(' hcnn om's can be
tií .. GI 'c
~
.2 addeJ. ((;o\lld 19H1:.121-322)
::ID. ."
el> al
U In rccognition that it is (lnly thrnugh the rccogniriotl of alrerll:ltives that
.s
- .a...
~ we even begin to suspcct what may be a roBrn app1e, I hJVL' attempred ro

-...
'alc
E
.
'O
'c ~
.~
~

~
~
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

¡;
et
.!:! 'O:%:
"5
."
e
o
E
e
." ...
.a
~ An Alternative to the Central-Place
...
'O E
o Foraging Model of Hominid Behavior
-
:%: lJ
C'I 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(,()
2(,/
J\1l Altcmutivc {U thc Ccntral-I'l.«c for.lgin.c; Mude! nf Hnmnud Ikh,IVi<ll
(J. Bcvond Klnsics Rivcr Mouth: Imphcnuons íur Undcrstnuding EarJy Mm

poned as coru.uncd llnits--th3t is, in which the skin. .itrcr htHcherillg, sull
order tu sharc wirh otlu-rs. In fact, rhis assumption lc.rds Glynn Isaac und his
íunctioncd as au enclosing natural container. Cooking in its own sk in SCT\'cd
co-workers ro act as j( rhe heme-hase intcrpretation beco mes self-cvidcnt
to preserve thc juices inhercnr in frcsh rucar. Thus. witbout manulucturcd
once nn association of srone rools and animal nones is demonstrarcd. It onlj-
containers, [iumans found containers in rhc form of snull anil1uls thar
secrncd pbu~ihlc ro imagine rhe transpon of food bv rhe ñndcrs ro the pl.h.L
could be cookcd complete (vce descripricns of cooking rhis wny in Australia
whcre othcr consumers could shnrc in the finders good fortunc. The im-
in Binford 19X Jb: 16S-169), or parrs could be burchcrcd from Ltrgc animnls
~Iication uf the analysis .irgued for thc Klasics data is rhar transport was
rhat prcscrved thiv natural container of skin. The rc.tr kg, hcnd. .111d ncck
more likcly in tertns uf proccssing motives. Irems rcquiring processiog were
wcre the mosr obvious units rhat could he cut off, srill I~aving most of rhe
collected opportunisrically in the context of regular tecding at placcs of
mear encnsed in skin. It is 11l)' guess thac it is in thc conrcxr of consuming
procuremem. We mighr cvcn imagine th.ir the collection of ítcms rcquinng
food proccsscd by cooking thar regular sharing bcgau av a couunnu homiuid
proccssing would only occur whcn foods 110! requiring proccssing were
unavailahlc. If truc, thc rransport of ircms rcqniring proccssmg mJY wcll social rrait.
1'he prcscncc of a water sourcc in whar \L\S JllOS! likely prun.u-ily a
hClray typcs of food stress that could vary scoson.dlv. In an)' evcnr, once
sleeping arca at Klusies Rivcr Mouth lTlar wcll at.:cOl1ll! Ior r\1l' high frequL'n-
collecrcd, a potentia] food requiring processing wouid he c.irried to thc
(y of scavcnged ,mimal parts as \\'e1l ~lS parts retllttlcd for cooking. Other
pbce whlTL' thc pro(cssing could bc rc~ldily pcrformcd. In the case of the
sleeping sires, not h;]ving :1vailabk \vater. /llay wdl have a different :1S~
;mim::t1 p.lrts rem;lilling at sitcs of ravaged cart'Jsses, at least Olle processing
semblage of inrroduced anatomical parts, v:lTying wirh the types of prot.:ess-
prerequisitc would he us.1ble hal1l111erS and rrohahly il!!Yi!.;;. Another Jid to
ing rhat (ould be c.uried out at the sire.
proces,<,ing migllt be \\'Jtcr, in which te> soak badly desiceated encasing skin
Once the assumrtiOll of transport foc shJring is challt'rlged. we can
so that clltting tools (ould he used for cxposing the hOlles prior ro breakmg
readily rtTognize thar if it is Jccepted as plausible that tLlIl'iport COl/Id he in
them open for marro\\'.
tenns nf other goals or motives. then the methodologic.11 ch:dlcnge is ro
1'ht' consumptiol1 of n~Hurally dried rissue adhering tu Jlre~ldy rav'lged
reduce the potential <lmbigllity. In other words, we lI1LISt dndop W;lYS oí
bOlles could bc facilit;lted by bavjng effcctive scrapt'r-cutting rools far de-
recognizillg lIn;lmhiguously (not passing jlldgmcllt OH what is most likcly;
taching the stringy monds. or \\'ater in which the dry meat could be both
sec Binford Il.JX3c) transport-processing phcl101llcll on from Ir.. 1l1<;-
washed and recoJlstitutcd _~o that rcmnants (ould be more readily remm"ed.
port-sharing. While I have already suggested some rcst'arch directiom rclat-
If water was the first major tL't!ler ro hominid movement, fire was almost
ing to {()od~paáage siu's, o[her rt'scar(h dirc(tions C:lll ccrtaillly be recog-
ceruinly the second and pcrhaps more important tctIK'r. After thc lIse of
Ilizcd ;ll1d devclopcd,
fire, m:lny othl'r pr()ce'i'i¡n~ optiolls oprl1l'd !lp. 1.. lti ¡,,¡.tAl hwhnuluw~J
If we call rC<.bonably imagine contcxts ot transport thar Jo not imr1y
rol.:, f...·~-~Jil,..:Jl'.·"""'~.. '>-."'mrc.,¡'_.rJa<;o~ • .,.¡, lO-flF...ide sharing, can \\"t.' im:lg;ne plausihle hominid bnd-use pattl'rns th;lt do nor
w"éWFFJtn; It provjded ·hght ami--h"a-t, ami tt'lolded "·tl)- djse(}lH"a~t· nocturnal
rt'quire cl'lllral-p];¡ce-f()ra~iHg fornls lit org:mil.cd h;lhiLlt use? I dlÍnk 111<.'
rrl'dators snch as the Ieopard <lnJ h)lolCIIU.
EarJr,"regu¡ar~-use. oLfiH;s...w~mQs.t certóli~ep.cuQoot~upOR ...Jlw.i¡;p..
answer is a rcsounding )'cs!
Ir scems "lO tntthat theft! :are scv~-raLducs- to~dlC.duf.adc.r''"()tearly
ta1uing .dire--ar the slccping-site. This could have bern donl' by various firc-
hominidadaptation implied by the datJ frol11 Klasit's Rivt:r Muuth, I have
banking techniques. the mosr likely of which was silllply to cova up glo\\'-
noted earliL'f th ..lt there is a surprising Iat.:k of fkxibility -lndic:.lted by the
ing eoals with ;lsh so they could rem¡lin active for long periods of timc.
redundancy of the dcposits laid down over rebtivdy lon~ periods u{ time. In
Rckindling W ..IS a simple matter of uncovering: the emhers and adding furJ.
markt'd contL1Q. 1, h;1\'e tricd to ~how ho\\', :lIllOllg llIodcrn IllllHl'T<'; and
Wh<"11 TllO\"ing to diffcrl'lll <.;kerillg lncltions. sl1lOuldl'Ting firehr;lllds proha-
gathenT<';, dilll..T1"I11i'll P()~ili()llil1g olll1r life fllllrliolls uf ;1 group withill Ihe
hly \\'l'n" tLl1l\llur!rd. ror (ooking to hL' rt· .... ogllizcd ;IS :1 pnlccs~il1g :lheTll.l-
overall gcogr:lphicl\ range u~ed hy th,lt grollp is Jone Ltirly commonly. al1\t
tin:. it had to result {rom cxpcrilllCIlLltioll with fitt,. On-.:c fire \\"3S undn-
it <.-hanges the economic lItility ot plat.:cs relativC to the Hew po~ition of the
stuod, itellls judgt.'d :lppropriatc ro this form of pron'<.;sing \\'ould have had
systcm within its r~lIlg(" (s('e Billford jlJX2h, 19~"L1). This clI1 he Hl1derswod
to hl' transponed lO Ihe IOGlti()1l of the tirc-tbe slccping loGltioll. sincc fire
pani;llly as changes in the transport costs t1Ut l11ight dLU:lctl'rize Ihe me oí
nuking \\":1,<, no! ,1 Jikd~- optiOll opCll to diurnal fccding parties.
places hy hominids when [hey changc rheir positioll in h;lbitat.
Dara fmm Kbsies Rivcr are most ronsistcllt ,virh the view thar parts
What st'cms dcar fmm the vase accumulation of deposits ~lt th<.' v;lriol1'i
processed hy cooking were llIainly Jnatolllic;¡l llnits thm could be transo

/fro..xs"f (~ I''e~yf¡.M ,Id. ~ Ieik -~. i>,~

r1/...t)¡'U,Yd.",¿
262 6. Bcvnnd Klcstcs Rívcr Mouth: Implicarions fur Undcrstnnding Early Man An Altemanvc eo rbc Central-Place Poruging Model of Hominid Bchnvior 2tíJ

caves and shelters at Klusies River Mouth is rhat, once the hominids began ÓPlEc...... I--U6E. Loe....T lo>-J:>
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 charac-
rcrized 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
• FEEDI".,H"::il LOCATIOt-.J.
a hommid could cxpecr to find or encounter a variety of foods. The horninicl
(JI MAC,NE-T PLACE:
can then be thought of as feeding among rhe places where there is appropri-
ate slecpmg space, safe drinking, or sources of rnarerials for tools. and so
forth. Sorne environrncnts would offcr diffcring dcgrccs of pcinr specificity e ...... ,c:. L..IF"E. 6 ...-..cE:.
tu the places cntical ro a horninid's success, In settings where water sources
Figure 6.4 Routcd fccdmg l.md-usc rundel for car! y horuiuíd snc production.
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 The degree of entrcnchmenr may also vary depcnding upon the [re-
critical places, relative to wluch horninids were routed in their movernents quency of placcs in borne ranges offering roughly cquivalcnr resources or
ovcr exrrcnn-lv 1()1l~ rniods of rime. conditions. Fllvironl1lclltal v.ui.ibility wonld dircctly condition diffcn-nt
Thc ruutcd aspcct of thc systcru, ;IS suggcstcd hcrc, is in recognition homc-rangc s¡zes ¡lIlJ minor Jiffcrcnces in the regularity with which p1aces
that we can imagine a time when hominids did not mJke shelters, and hence would he used. Ir would dircedy condition the combinarions of Jife func-
wOLlld nor ha ve bt't.'1l ahk ro t'nSllft' aut'qllart' shcltt'r at the salllt' place wherc tinns anJ activiries tbar wOllld /lt' Guried out at ;lny onl' place. Alrhollgh the:
adcqllate warer might he IOGltcJ. Similarly, they may nor luve had long- moJel ;lcknowlcdges thar environment;l1 variahility can condition very dif-
tcrm planning standing bchind their procuremcllt of raw materials, which ferent realizcd patterns of land use, the pattern in any given <.'l1v«1.6l1I1Cl1tal
among Illodcrn men makes rossible the continllous, coincident, and coter- setting would be expected ro be relatively unvarying and tenacious, disrup-
lllillllS distriburion of rools and tasks. Silllilarly, the relationships Jmong the tion of tbe r~llrcrn of use bein~ mosr ~en('r;llly a fl'SPOllS<" ro chanp;es in the
hasir llenls (lf 1ik spare, protl'l.:tcd skeping arcas, restillg ~1reas, food, ;\nJ t'llvironmcnt.
water cm ht' thollght of as neccssarily rollting the movelllent of the homi- The rcslllt of sllch a rnured and cntrcnched a<.bptation is a very ter·
llid.. ;1111011,1-: rhe . . po!S whne their hasil.: nccds l"Oldd he flllfilled /ly virtlle of r¡torial pattcfIl of bnd ust'. Hominids ......ould m:cupy the sallle hasic range
rht' pJrtiollar spatial srrucrure within thl'ir t'llvirolllllem. lE tbese spatial1y with the same eore area, and thejr movements would be rOlltt'd among the
diHt'rcnti~1ted places did in fact provide diffcrt'nt, critiGllly important mate- same critically important places. Gnly changcs in th,,' environment or tech-
r' . lls and conditions for rhe hominids, rhell the mUlII1R of tht' hominids nologieal chan~t's perlllitting them to COllsrnKr rhcir life space in rheir own
among these plan's would he cntrcnc!Jcd, HOlllinids \\"ollld IllOVC among the interesf \\'ould Illodify rhe repetitive, ~llmost roboril: use nf spacc. 1 have
places in <lllllost 11l1varyillg parteros, by virtllC ot rhl'tt' being no wa)' oi modeled this. typt' of system in Figure 6.4, in which the point-specifie plaees
altering the sratial structure of these aiticJI condiriol1s and materials ro providing critical1y important marerials or resources are indica red as spe-
serve their 0\\'11 nceds. da/-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 cncoun-
tered 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 carry-
ing 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 unrelent-
ing 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 inten-
sification of functions, hominids beca me less routed among the placcs where
nature had placed rhe elements basic ro lite functions. With the technologi-
cal means now to construct features te meet vital needs, hominids could
increasingly position their activities with respect te labor requirernenr, Posi-
tioning encouraged the provisioning of central places through the accumula-
tion 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 life-
space perrnitted greater mobility in hominid adaptarions. This mobility per-
mitted positioning strategies commonly associated with a central-place for-
aging strategy. The implication of portable lite-space in a more general sense
is that it permits more flexible and timely responses to ecological ped-
odicities in both the production and distribution of foods upon which homi-
nids 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 strat-
egy, 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 homi-
nid 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 suggesr-
ing that technological innovations and tool use were generally dependent
upon high intelligence levels, and were therefore not the fundamental be-
havioral contexts in which selection for intelligence occurred. The argu-
menes 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 understand-
ing 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 exam-
pIes 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 References
'/ appear to be vastly different from the behavior of hominids living 00 the
Plio-Pleistocene boundary, is surprising. If nothing else, it brings inro ques-
tion 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. Adam, K.
1951 Der Waldelefant van Lehringen, eine jagdbeute des diluvialen Menschen.
Quartiir 5:75-92.
Altuna, J.
1971 los mamíferos del yacimiento prehistórico de Mario (Santander). In Cueva
Morin; Excavaciones 1966-1968, edited by J. G. Echegaray. and L. G. Free-
mano 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

1980
Science 74:409-419.
Behrensmeyer, A. K., and D. E. Dechanr Boaz.
The recent bones of Amboseli Narional Park, Kenya, in relation ro Easr Alrican
151'
7
Paleoecclogy. In Fossils in the making: vertebrase taphonomy and paleoecoí-
ogy. edited by A. K. Behrensmeyer and A. P. Hill. Chicago & Lon-
don.Umversiey of Chicago Press. Pp. 72-93.

267

.~
 268 References References 269

Benram, B. Bunn, H.
1978 Pride of lions. New York-Scnbner. 1981 Archaeclogiccl evidence for mear-eanng- by Pho-Pleurocene hcnuruds from 1/)"1,1.32

~
i Binford, L R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-125. 1982
Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291:574-577.
Animal bones and archaeclogical lnference. Science 215:494-495.
e l¿ " r.~:" (tj5~ 1963
An analysis of cremations from three Michigan sues. Wiswnsin Archeologist
44,98-110.
Bunn, H., J. W. K. Harris, G. Isaac, A. Kaufulu, E. Kroll, K. Schick, N. Toril, and A. K.
Behrensmeyer
(J(1.1 ) 1968 Archaeologicalrheory and merhod. In New perspeaíues in archaeology, edired 1980 FxJ50: An Early Pleistocene síre in Northem Kenya. Wnrtd Ar~h<Nulogy
by S. R. Binford and L R. Binford. Chicago:Aldine. Pp. 1-3. 12(2P09-136.
1977.1
General imroduction. In For theory building in archaeology, edíted by L R. Buczer, K. W.
Binford. New York:Academic Press. Pp. 1-10. 1973 Geology of Nelson Bay Cave, Robberg, South Africa. South African Archae-
1977b Olorgesarlie deserves more than the usual book review. journaJ of An- ologicaJ BuiJetin 28:97-110.
thropological Researcb 33(4):493-502. 1978 Sediment srrangraphy of the Middle Stone Age seqcence at Klasies River
1978 Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York.Academíc Press. Mouth, Tsitsikama Coast, Soutb Africa. South African ArchaeoJogica/ Buiietm
1980.1 Review of "Remdeer: and Caribou Hunters" by A. E. Spiess. American An- 33,141-151.
thropologist 82(3);628-631. 1979 Commenr on "Irnphcanons of Border Cave skeleral remains for larer Pleiseo-
1980b Willow smoke and dcg's tails: hcnter-cgaeherer senlemem svstems and archae- cene human evoluríon." Current Anthropo{ogy 20:28.
ological sire formarion. American Antiquity 45(1):1-17. 1982 Oeomorpbologv and sediment strarigraphy, In The Middle Stcne Age <.It

1''53j~ 1-
1981 Bones.ancient men and modern myths. New York:Academic Press. K/asies Rjver Mouth in South Africa, R. Smger and J. Wymer. Chícago and
1982.1 Comments on R. White's 'Middle/Upper paleolithíc rransmon.' CUrren! An· London, The Uníversiry of Chícego Press. Pp. 33-42.
thropoJogy 23(2):177-181. Butzer, K. W., P. B, 8eaumont, and J. C. Vogel
c-¡.-..i k (r-JfM 1982b
1983.1
The ArchaeoIogy of place.journa/ of AnthropoJogical Archaeology 1( 1):5-31.
Working at archaeology. New York:Academic Press.
1978 Lirhosrearigraphy of Border Cave, KwaZulu, Sourh Africa: a Middle Srone Age
sequence beginning ca. 195,000 B.P. journal of Archaeological Science
1983b In pursuit of the pasto London.Thames & Hudson. D17-341.
,.,'~~ 1983c
ti&! 1984
Reply ro L Preemen. Current Anthropology 24(3):372-376.
Bones of conrennon-.-a reply to Clynn Isaac, American Antiquity 49(1). ln
Butzer, K. W., and D. M. Helgren
1972 Late Cenozoic evolution of rhe Cape coast berween Knysna and Cape Sto
press. Francis, Sourh Africa. Quartenrary Research 2:143-169.
Binford, L R., and J. Bertram Campbell, B. C.
1977 Bone frequencies and attritional processes. In For theory building in arcbaeol-
ogy, 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.
1966
Chaplin, R. E.
1971
Human Evolution. Chicago/New York:Aldine-Athertoo Press.

The study of <.Inimal bones (rom archaeological sites. New York/Len-

don:Seminilr Press.
/,,1 (JI¡Ji)
Binford L R., and L. Todd Clark, J. D.
1982 00 .lrguments for the 'butchering' of giant Celadas. CUrrent AnthropoJogy 1959 The prehistory of Southern Africa. London:Pelican.
2311),108-110. 1965 Pleisrocene culture and living sites. In The origin of man-a symposium spon-
Bonifay, M. F. sored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, lnL
1969 Les grands mammiferes découverts sur le sol de la cabane Ach¿uleenne du edittd by P. L DeVore. Chicago:OistributrJ tnrough Current Anthropology.
Lazaret. lo Une cabane Acheu/éenne dans la grotte du Lazaret (Nía). edited by Pp. 108-123.
H. De Lumley. Mémoires de la société préhistorique Fran{aise, Tome 7. 1980 Early human occupation of African Savanna Environments. In Human ecology
Paris:C.N.R.S. Pp. 59 in savanna environments. edited by D. R. Harris. London, New York:Academ-
Bordes, F. ic Press. Pp. 41-71.
1961 Mousteriao cultures in funce. Sciena 134(3482):803-810. Dart, R.
Brain, C. K. 1949 The predatory implemental technique of Australopithecus. American Journal
1969 Faunal remains from rhe Wilton large rock shelter. In Re-excalJation and dt· of Physical AnthrQPology 7(1): 1-39.
scription of the Wifton type-site, Albany distria, Eastern Cape by J. Deacon. Darwin, C.
M. A. thesis, University of Cape Town. 1839 The VO'Y4g~ of the Beagle. Carden City, New York:Doubleday/Anchor edi-
1974 Sorne 5uggested procedures in the analysis of bone accumulations (rom South· tion, 1962.
em African Quaternary sites. Annals ofthe Transvaal Museum 29:1-5. Day, J., W. R. Siegfried, G. N. Louw, and M. L. Jarman (editors)
1981 The hunters or the hunted? an introduction to African cave taphonomy. Chi· 1979 Fynbos ecology: a pre1iminary synthesis. Pretoria. South Afrícan National Sá-
cago/london:Universiry of Chicago Press. entific Programmes Report No. 40.
 270 Rcferences References 271

Deacon, H., and J. Deacon understanding rbe fossil record in East Africa. Yearbook of Physica{ An-
1980 The hafrmg, funetion and dtsrribution of small convex scrapers with JO exam- thropology 19, edited by J. Buetmer-Janusch. Pp. 178-191.
pie frorn Boomplaas Cave. South African Archaeological Bulletin 35(13 1): 1975b Early stone tools-an adaptive threshold? In Prob/ems in economía and social
31-37. archaeology, edired by f. de G. Sieveking,1. H. Longworth, and K. E. Wilson.
1981 Sorne novel news on Neanderthals. Tbe South African Archaeo{ogica[ Society London.Duckworth. Pp. 39-47.
Newsletter 4(2):6-8. 1976 Stages of cultural elabcration in the Pleistocene. possible archaeologícal indio
De Lumley, H. canoas of rhe development of language capabílníes. In Origins and evoJution
1969 A Paleohrhic camp ar Nice. Scientific American 220(5):42-50. of/anguage and speech, edíted by s. R. Hamad, H. D. Srekhs.and J. Lancasrer.
1975 Cultural evolution in Prance in its paleoecological serring during the Middle Annals oí the New York Academy oí Sciences 280:275-288.
Pleisrocene. In After tbe Austra[opitb8Cines. edíred by K. W. Butzerand G. LI. 1977 Olorgesat/ie: archaeologica/ studies of a Middle Pleistocene lake basín in Ken-
Isaac. The Hague, Paris, & Chicago.Mouton Publishers. Pp. 745-808. ya. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press.
De Lumley, H. (editor) 1978a The food-sharing behavior of protohuman hominids. .~cienrific Americ:an
1969 Une cabane Acbeutéenne dans la grotre du Lazares (Nice) Mémoires de la 238(4),90-106.
Société Préhistorique Prancaise, Torne 7. París: CN.R.S. 1978b Food sharíng and human evolution: archaeological evidence Irom tbe Pho-
De lumley, H., and Y. Boone Pleistocene of East Afríca. ]ournal of Anthropological Research 34(3):
1976 les srructures d'habitar au Paléolirbique inférieur. In La prehistorire [rancaise, 311-325.
edited by H. de Lumley. Paris:Édírions CN.R.S. Pp. 625-643. 1983a Review of "Bones: Ancient men and modern myths." American Antiquity
Etkin, W. 48(2),416-419.
1954 Social behavior and rhe evolunon of man's mental faculnes. The American 1983b Bones in conrention: competíng explanarions for rhe iuxraposinon of Early
Naturalist 88(840):129-142. Pleisrocene artifacts and faunal rernains. In Animals and arc:haeology: Hunters
Fisher, H. E. and their prey. edieed by J. Ciutton-Brock and C Grigson. Oxford.Brinsh
1983 The sex contracto New York:Morrow/Quill. Archaeologícal Reporta 163: 1-19.
Preeman, L G. Isaac. G. and D. Crader
1983 More on the Mccstenam flaked bone from Cueva Morin. Current Anthropo/· 1981 To whar extent were early hominide carnivorous? An archaeological perspec-
ogy 24(3):,~66-372. tive. In Omnioorous primates; Gathering and hunting in human eootution.
Gould, S. J. edited by R. S. O. Harding and G. Teleki. New York:Columbía Umversiry
1981 The mismeasure of mano New York & London:Norton. Press. Pp. 37-103.
Guilday, J. E., P. Par-malee, and D. Tanner jarvis, J. U. M.
1962 Aborigínal butchering techniques at the Eschelman site (36 LA 12) l.ancasrer 1972 Zoogeography. In Fynbos ecology: a preliminary synrhesis. edíted by J. Day et
Counry. Pennsy/vania Archae%gist 32:59-83. al. Pretoria: 50mh African national scientifie programmes report No. 40. Pp.
Hayden. B. 82-87.
1979 Pa/aeolithic reflections. New Jersey:U.5.A. Humanitíes Press.
Jelinek, A. J.
Haynes. G. 1982 The Tabun Cave and Paleolithic man in the Levant. Science 216{4553):
1982 Utilizaríon and skeletal dlsrurbances of Nonh American prey carcasses. Arcti,
1369-1375.
35(2),266-281.
Kehoe, T. F.
1983 Frequencíes of spíral and green bone fracrures on ungulare Iimb bones in
1967 The Boarding School Bison Drive site. Plains Anthrop%gisr Memoir No. 4.
modern surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48(1): 102-114.
HiII, A. P. Kingdon, J.
1975 Taphonomy of contemporary and Late Cenez:oic East African vertebrates. 1982 East Afric¡1n mamma/s (Vol. UI, Part e [BovidsJ). London-New York:Aca-
Unpublished Ph.D. díssertarion, Universlty of london. demic Press.
1979

Howell, F. c.,
Burchery and natural disanícularion: an invesrigatory technique. American
Antiquity 44(4):739-744.
and the Edítors of Time-Life Books
!'sí;
Klein, R. G.
1970 Problc:ms in the study of the Middle Stone Age of South Africa. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 25(99 & 100):127-135.
1965 Early mano New York:Time-Lífe Books. 1972 The late quaternary mammalian fauna of Nelson Bay Cave (Cape Provínce,
lnskeep, R. R. 50urh ACrica); its ímplications for megafaunal extinctions and environmental
197!'1 The Peopling of Southern Africa. Caperown: D:lviJ Philip. and cultural change. Quaternary Research 2(2): 135-142.
1974 Environmem and llubsistence of pr~hi.,toric man in che Southern Cape
t.Jj} 1~iJ'tt;"i~1 LL The diet of early man: aspects of archaeologícal evidence from l.ower and Provin~, 50uth Africa. Wor/d ArchaeoJogy 5(3):249-284.
~5{' / Míddle Pleistocene sites in Africa. World Archae%gy 2:278-29!'1. 1975. Ecology of Stone Age man at the southern tip oC Africa. Archae%gy
I 1975. Early hominids in action: a commentary on the contribution of archaeology to 28,238-247.

.
 272 Reícrences References 273

1975b Middle Stone Age: man-animal relanonships in southern Africa. evidence relation to management, edited by V. Geist and F. Walther (New Series Nnm-
from Die Kelders and Klasies River Mouth. Scíence 190:265-267. ber 24) Morges: Intemational Union for the Conservation of Nature and
1976 The marnmalian fauna of rhe Klasies River Mouth sires, Sourhem Cape Natural Resources. Pp. 14-55,
Province, Sourh Africa. South African ArchaeologícaI Bulletin 31 (123 & Lewin, R.
124),75-9H. 1981 AAAS briefings: Ancienr cut marks reveal work of prehuman hands. Science
1977a The ecology of early man in South Africa. Science 197:115-126. 2110372-373.
1977b The mammalian fauna from rhe Middle and Later Stone Age (Later Pleisro- Lovejoy, C. O.
cene) levels of Border Cave, Natal Province, South Afnca. South A(rican Ar· 1981 The origin of mano Science 211(4480):341-350.
chaeologícal Bulletin 32:14-27. McBurney, C. B. M.
1978a Preliminary analysis of the mammalian fauna from rhe Reddiff Srone Agecave 1967 The Haua Fteah (Cyreneica) and the Stone Age of the South-East Mediterra-
site, Rhodesia. Occasional Papers of the Natiunal Museums and Monuments nean. Cambridge.Cambridge Umversiry Press.
of Rhodesia Series A. Human Sciences, 4(2):74-80.
1978b A prelrmmary report on rhe larger mammals from rhe Boomplaas Stone Age
cave site, Cango Valley, Oudtshoom district, South Africa. South African
-r-
e
Maguire, J. M. and D. Pemberton
The Makapansgat limeworks grey breccia: hominids, hyaenas, hysrricids or
hillwash? Paleontologia Africana 23:75-98. . d
Archaeological BuJ/etin 33:66-75.
Marshall, L. ¡'"...-(s ,k "",t,.
1978c Stone Age predation on large African bovids. [oumat af Archaeological Sci·
ence 5:195-217,
1976 The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge:Harvard University Press. ' r lb'
Mech, L. D. '
1979 Srone Age exploitarion of animals in southern Africa American Scientiü
1966 The woíoes of Isle Roya/e. Fauna a{ tbe National Parks of the United States.
67:151-160.
Series 7. Washington D. c.:U.S. Govemmenr Printing Office.
19HO The interpretation uf mammalian faunas from Srone Age archaeologicel sites,
with special reference to sites in rhe Southern Cape Provínce, South África. In
Mellare, P.
Fossils in the making: vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology, edited by A. K.
19H2 On tbe Middle/Upper Palaeolirhic transirion: A reply ro White. Curren! An-
thropology 23(2):238-240.
Behrensmeyer and A. P. Hül. Chicago & London:University of Chicago Press.
Moss, C.
Pp. 223-246.
1982 Portraits in the wild (2nd edition). Chícego.Universiry of Chicago Press.
19H1 Stone Age predation of small African bovids. South African ATchaeoiogical
Bulletin 36:55-65. Parkington, J. F.
Seasonal mobdiry in the Late Stone Age. African Studies 31:223-243.
t 60 19H2 Age (mortaliry) profiles as a means of disnnguishing hunted species from scav- 1972
enged ones in Stone Age archaeological sites. Paleobiology 8(2):151-158. 1976 Coastal sertlemenr between the mouths of rhe Berg and Olifants rivers, Cape
Kruger, F. J. Province. South Africa Archaeological Bulletin 31:127-140.
1979 Planrecology. In Fynbos ecology: a prelimmarv synthesis, edíted by J. Day et al. 1980 Time aod place: Sorne observatíons 00 spatial and temporal patterning in the
Pretoria: South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 40. Pp, Larer Stone Age sequence in southern Africa. South African Archae%gica/
8H-126. Bulletin 35(132):73-83.
Kuhn, T. 19H1 The effeas of eovironmental change 00 the scheduling of visits to the Elands
1970 The structure of scientific rellolutions (2nd edition) Chicago: University oE Chi· Bay Cave, Cape Province, South Afdca. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in
cago Press. Honor of Dallid Clarke. edired by l. Hodder, G. L1.lsaac. and N. Hammond.
Leakey, L. S. B. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 341-359.
1960 The origin of the genus Homo. ElIolution after Darwin (Vo/. II: The ho/ution Parkington. J., and C. Poggenpoel
of Man. edited by Sol Tax. Chicago:University ol Chicago Press. Pp. 17-32. 1971 Excavations at De Hangen. 1968. South African ATchaeological Bulletin
1965 Facts instead of dogmas on man's origino In The origin of mano Transcript of a 26(101-102),3-36.
symposium sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Perkins, D., and P. Daly
Research. Edited by Paul L. Devore. Pp. 3-17. 1968 A humen' village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific American 219(5):97-106.
Leakey, M. D. Pons, R. B.
1971 Ofdullai Gorge (Vol. 3 Excavations in Beds 1 and 111960-1963). Cambridge: 19H2 Lower Pleistocene site {omultion and hominid actillities at Oldulla; Gorge.
Cambridge University Press. Tanzania. Doctoral thesis, Department af Anthrapology, Harvard University,
Leakey, R. E. Cambridge, MA.
1973 Sku1\1470: discovery in Kenya of the earliest suggestion of the genus Horno- Potts, R., and P. Shipman
nearly three million years old--compels a rethinking of mankind's pedigree. 1981 Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. N61-
National Geographic 143(6):819-829. ture 291:577-580.
19H1 The making of mankind. New York:Dutton. Read, C.
Lent, P. 1920 The oTigin af man and his superstitions. Cambridge:Cambridge University
1974 Mother-infant relationships in ungulates. In BehallioT of ungulares and iIJ Press.
 References 275
274 Rcfcrcnces

Sínclair, A. R. E., and M. Norton-Griffiths (editors]

Ríchardson, P. R. K. 1979 Serengeti: D)'namics of an ecosystem. Chicago.Universiry oi Chicago Pr~ss.
19l:Wa The natural remcual of ungulate carcasses, afld the adaptive fearures af the
Singer, R.• and P. Smith
scavengers tnvoíved. Unpublished masters tbesis. Faculry oí Science, University
1969 Sorne human remains associated with rhe Middle Srone Age deposite ar Klasies

t
Di Pretoria, South Melca. River, Sourh Afriea. American [aumal of Ph)'sical Anthropology 31:256.
~, 1980b Carnívore damage 00 antelope bones and its archaeclogical implicaticns. Palo
Singer, R., and J. Wymer
eontologia Africana 23:109-125.
1982 The Middle Stone Age at Klasies Biver Mouth in South Africa. Uuugo,'Lun-
Rigbrmire, G. P. don:Universiry of Chicago Press.
1976 Relationships oí Middle and Upper Pleistocene hominids Irorn sub-Saharan
Skínner, J. D., S. Davis, and G. i1ani ./..r :::>
Africa. Natltre 260:238-14D.
1980 Bone collecring by srriped hyaenas, Hyaena hyaena in Israel. Paleontologia .¡.p~
1978 Human skeíetal remains from [he Southern Cape Province and their beanng 00
Africana 23:99-104.
che Seone Age prehistory oí Sourh Africa. Quaternary Research 9:211,1-230.
1979 Implicarions oí Bordee Cave skeletal remains for Larer Pleisrocene human Spencer. B., and F. J. GiBen
1912 Across Australia (Vol. 11). London.Macrniltan.
evolution. Current Anthropology 20(1);23-35.
Sperh, J. D.
Sampson, C. G.
1974 The Stone Age archaeology af Sovtbem Africa. New York and London- Aca- . 1983 Bison 'kiUs and bone counts: decision making by sncient bu-uers. Chicago &
dem¡c Press. London: Universiry of Chicago Press.
Spinage, C. A.
Schalke. H. J.
1973 Tbe upper quarernary of the Cape Flars areas (Cape Prcvince, Sourb Africa). 1982 A territorial antelope: the Uganda waterbuck. London & New York.Academic
Scripta Geoligica 15:1-57. Press. . • )
Sreyn, H. P. au
Schaller, G. B.
1972a Are you running with me, hominíd! Natural History 81;60-69. 1971 Aspecrsof rhe economic life of sorne nomadic Nharo Bushman Groups. Annafs fA 3/ 1M

fl3' 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. Scutb-
Srow, G.
1905
01 the South African Museurn 56(6):275-322.

The natioe roces of South Africa. London.Swan Sonnenschein.

western [cuma! of Anthropology 25(4):307-341. Tankard, A. J.
Schitíer. M. 1976 The stratigraphy of a coasral cave and its palaeoclirnatic significance. PaJ-
1972 Archaeological contexr ano systematic contexto American A71tiquity 37;156- aeoecology of Africa 9:151-159.
165. Tankard, A. J., and Rogers, J.
Shackleton, N. J. 1978 Late Cenozoic paleeoenvironrnents on the west coast of southern Africa. Jour-
:1975 The matigraphic record of deep-sea cores and irs implications for the assess- nal of Biogeography 5:319-337.
ment of glacials, interglacials stadials, and intersradials in the Mid-Pleistoceoe. Tanner, N. M.
In After the australopithecines, ediced by K. W. Bu[zer and G. Ll. !saa¡;. The 1981 On becoming human. Cambridge:Cambridge Universiry Press.
Hague & Paris:Moucon Publishers. pp. 1-24. Thackeray, F.
\982 Strarigraphy and chronology of che KRM deposics: oxygen isotope eviaence.ln 1979 An analysls of faunal remains from archaeo{ogical sices in sourhern South West
The Middle Stone Age al Kiasies River Mouth in South Afrka, edited by Africa (Namlbia). South African Archae%gical Bu/letin 34(129): 18-33.
Ronald Singer and John Wymer, Chicago:Universiry of Chicago Press. Pp. van Lawick-GoQdall, J., and H. van Lawick
\94-199. 1970 lnnocent killers. Boston:Houghron.Mifflin Co.
Shackleton, N. J., and N. D. Opdyke van Zinderen Bakker, E. M.
1973 Oxygen·isorope and palaeomagneric snarigraphy oi ~quatorial Pacific core 1967 Upper Pleisrocene and Holocens stracigraphy and ecology 00 the basis oí vege-
V28-238: oxygen ¡sorope temperatures and ice volumes on a lOs y~ar and 10" tarion changes in sub*Saharan Africa. In Background to evolution in Africa,
year scale. Quaternary Research 3:39-55. edired by W. Bishop and J. O. Clark. Chicago;Universify of Chicago Press. Pp.
Shipman, P., W. Bosler, and K. L. Davis 125-147.
1981 Butchering of giant Celadas at ao Aeheulian sire. Current Anthropology 1976 The evolurion of lare'Quat~rnary paleoclimatf:s of southem Africa. Pal-
22(3),257-264. aeoecology of Africa 9:160-202.
1982 Reply ro Binford and Todd. Current Anthropology 23(1):110-111. Vogd, J. C., and Bcaumollt, P. B.
Shipman, P., and J. Phillips-Conroy ·31 1972 Revised radiocarbon chronology fur che Stone Age in southern Africa. Nature
1977 Hominid tool-making versus carnivore scavenging. American }ournal of Physi· 237,50-51.
cal Anthropology 46(1);77-86. Voigt, E. A.
Sindair, A. R. E. 1973a Scone age mol1usean utilizarlon ar Klasies River Mouth <aves. South A/,ican
1977 The African hulfalo: a study of resource limitation of populations. Chicago & }ournal of Sdence 69:306-309.
London:The Universiry of Chicago Press.
 276 References

1973b Klasies River Mourh: an exercise in shell analvsis. Buíietín af tbe Transvaal
Museum. 14: 14-15.
Volman, T. P.
197H Early archaeoíogical evidence for shellfish collecnng. Science 210;'111-913.
1981 The Middle Stone Age in the Southern Cape. Ph.D. dissertation submitred re
che Faculty of che Department of Amhropology, University of Chicago, Chi-
cago,lI.
Vrba, E. S.
1976 The fossil bovidae of Sterkíontrm, Scaarthkrans, and Kromdraai, Tranwaa!
Museum Memo;r No. 21. The Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.

f~3~~,i.)
Walton, J.
1951 Occupied rock-shelrers in Basutoland. South Afman RuJletin 4(21):9-13. Index
Washburn, S. L.
1959 Speculanons 00 rbe inrerrelanons of che history of rools and biological evolu-
tion. In The evolution of man's capacítv for culture. el'!lited by j. N. Spuhler .
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
Vol. 23(2IPp. 169-176. A Anomalv, 17
White, T. E. Accornrnodarive Anvil, 1~'i7, 159, 189, 250
1954 Observancns on the burchenng technique of sorne aboriginal peoples. Nos.], argurnenr, 247 Apollo 11 sire, 19
4,5, & 6. American Antiquity 19(3}:254-264. model,91 Aquaric rcsources, 19, zu, 2.4, 41, t'::ll, 20t,
Wymer, J., and R. Singer Adam, K., 194 245
1972 Middle Srone Age senlements on the Tzitzikamma coasr, Easrem Cape Age profile, 50, 109, 206, 2 JI, 2 J2, 213, Ash
Provínce, South Africa. In Man, settlement and urbanism, edited by P. Ucko, 215,218,219 depos«, D, 37
R. Tringham, and G. Dimblebv. London:Duckworth. Pp. 207-210. armtional, 109,212,219,221, 222 oven, 143, 144, 164
Yellen, J. caeastrophic, 109,211,218, !19, no, Assemblagc cornposinon, 76
1977 Arcbaeoícgical approaches to the present.· models for reconurxaíng the pasto 221,224 Ausrrauan abongmes. 34, j5
New York.Academic Press. Ahemarion of industries, -'6 tool kit, _'S
Young, J. Z. Altuna, j., 250 Australoprrhecines, [,2,3,4, S, 248
19R1 Sorne rentative conclusions. In The emergence o( mm,. edned by J. Z. Young, Anaktuvuk Australr'p¡rhecus, 4
W. M. Jope, and K. P. Oakley. London.The Roya] Sociery and rhe British dog yard, 1(,6 Aycni, J. S. 0.,202, 20j, 205, 207, !O>l,
Academy. Pp. 213-216. village, 72, 167 255
Analogy, 15
Analyric strategies, 18 B
Anatomically rnodem mnn, ], 39, 75, 167, Backed knives, 245
242,243,245, 24H, 251, 252, 254, Bams, T., 26
, 264, 265 Banholorncw, G. A., 1
Basetmc population, 67, ss, 76
Anarorrucal segmente, SO, 70, 82, 88, 91,
':11,105,167,176,195 Beads, H
Animal Beaumonr, r. S., 20, .1Y, 45, 46, 47, 240,
dens, 106 24H
dnves. 194, ltR, 220, 224, 254 Bedding arcas, 33, 37
kills, 106 Bedside bearrhs, 33
traps, 165, 175, 194, ns. 224, 251, 254 Behrensmeyer, A. K., S4

277
278 11lJl')( lndcx 27'J

Bdl, C. D., 227 fresh,67, 70, 72, 76, 110,111, tl~, 120, Definmons, 7 Function.u .trgumcnt, 1
BenrCrcek sire, 107 138,141,180,18 7 De Hangen sirc, 33 Fynbos, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 1.9, 41, 43, 209,
Berrram, B., 209 prey, ss, 166 De Lumley, H., 250 211,221,222,225,233,236
Berrram, j., 87 ravaged,15, 70,97,99,112,184, IS6, Die Keldcrs site, 19, 22
Biface, 111 201,225, 255, 260 Direcr procurernenr, 175 G
Biltong, 49, IAI, 183 scavenged. J, 67, 99,167,172,173.186 Disjoinnng srrategy, 70,138, 11'10,181 Garden of Eden. 19
Binford, L. R., 6, S, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, sriff,67, 71, uo, 111, 125, 1J6,I7h Diumal Gautscha P.II1, 161
34,36,49, 50, 53, 6(J, 62, 65, 67, 68, supple, 71,110,111,112,124,141 dnnkers, 204, 20S, 206 Gillen, r. j., 34
72, 7J, 74, 76, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, unravagcd, 187, 191 feeders, 204 Could, S. J., 159
89,90,91,102,103,104,105,107, Cape Division oí labor, 5, 90 Gourmet
108, 1u, 114, 116, 120, 125, 126, dimane province, 22, 21 I Dog yard, 166, 179 selection. 'J6, 191, 194, 196
128, 137, 139, 153, 159, 164,167, folded belr, 22, 13, 26, 27, 29, 211 Dried meat, 49,176, ISO, 190,191,200, strategv, '017,176,187
186, 187, 199,202,213,222,240, Casablancu, 21 260 Graduali-r posinon, Z
245,249,250,255,261 Central-place foraging, 8, 198, 259, ló 1, Grear B,l~lI1 (Norrh Amenca). 35
Biome, 24, 236 264 E Grear Pl.IÚ1\ [Norrh Ameri..:.)), .~h
high-biomass, 24, 26, 27, 211 Chaparral, 21 Eberr, J., JI Groorbrak hvaena den, 60, 61
high producnon, 24 Chaplin, R. E., 49 Economic Guilday, j. L, 180
grassland, 25 Chile, 21 anatomy,13
quick turnover, 25 Chopper, 117 geographv, 191'1 H
Birdsell, J. B., 2 Clark, J. D., 20, 251, 253 Elands Bay Cave, 32, 42, 238, 239· Habirarron sires, 33
Boiling, 161 Cleaver, 70, 117 Elandsfonrein sirc, 19,212,213,220,221 Hammer, 157,260
Bone Combe Grenal sire, 160, 222, 223 Empiricisrs, smct, 14 Handax, 34, 111, 112
cylinders, 62 Consumer Eskimo, 72, 106, 120, 161, 172, 180, 184 Hayden, H., .u
splinters, 62 demand,49, 192, 19\ 194, 199 Etkin, W., 1 Havnes, e., 166,186
Bordean ~y~tel11, .H location, 193 Evolucionar)' funcnonalism, 9, 247 Hearth. 37, .18
Bordcr Cave sire, 19,46,249 straregy, 195 Expended deñnuion, 76 Hil1, A. P., X5, 166, 11'16
Bordes, F,, 36 unir, 97,193, 194, 1~5, 196 Expedienr Home base. 4. 5, 6, 7, S, 17,90. 19.1, 196,
Brain, C. K., 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 67. 77,17] Controls, 66, 7f>. 114, 170, ISO, IH4. IHG, production, 36 197, j(}l'I, 200, 201, 244, 255, 256,
Breakcge patrern, 15,66,67,134, In, 175 220 rools, .H 257,2h)
Bunn, H., 17, 119, 132 Convennonahsm, 8, 9,10,11, 15, IU, 243, Homo
Burmng, 1,59, 161, 164 255,259 F erectus, 248, 249
pattem, 160, 161, 164 Cooking, 145, 161, 182, 196,201,244, Falkland lslands, 144 habilis, 5
Bushman, 143, 161 260,261 Feedmg Howell, F. c., 3, 4
Kalahan, 161 in the skin, 145, If,O behavior, 186 Howieson's Poort, 33, 36, 45, 47, 210, 230,
'Kung. 164 racncs, 143 strarcgy. 176 241, 242, 244
Masarwa, 146 Core scraper, 111 Filleting, 49, 72, 74, 75, In, 126, 132, Huntcr-gatherer,4, 16, so, 90, 93, 143,
Nharo, 145 Corms,24 132, 182, 188 188,192,193,194,197,226
Nyae Nvae. 161, 164, 165,213.214 Crader, 0.,5 marks, 127, 121'1, 129, l.B, 183, 189,190 Hunrers
Butchering Cresccnrs. 34, 245 Fire, 160,260,264 ambush, 209
field, 114 Crown heighrs, 222, 223 Fisher, H. E., 265 pack, 1, 216
knife, 115 Cueva Morin, Ha Flexibihty, 192, 193, 194,261 pursuit, 209
Burchery sitt:s, 7 Culling, 94, 97, 195,206 Food social,249
Burzer, K. W., 20. 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, glut, 194 Hunnng ..:.lmp, 157, 160
233 D sharing, J, 5, 6 hominid. 197, 211
Oaly, P., 16 shorragc, 194 for opponunines, 200, 217
e Dart, R., 2, 3 utihrv. 72, 75, 171 parriev, 114
Campbell, B. c., 4 Darwin, c., 144 Formation schedule, 194
Caprure-carry-nnd-kill rnodcl, 218 Darwm ccnrcnn¡al. 3 condinons, 77 stand, 157
CJ.rLas~ conkxts,21
()'Y, 1- W., 21 tactical, 76, 200
dr~', fJ7, 69, 70, 99, 110, 111, 116, 117, Deacon, H. J., 35 proccsses, 37, 50 technlJllI¡':'lCalI)' aided, 200, 216
12.0,191,200,254 Deacon . .I...l~, 248 Freeman, L G., 17,250 Hyaena krll, 166
 ISO lnJe" lndex 2HI

l.corurd Mcrtahry patrem, 161 Planmng

lnducrive lair, 56, 5H. 64 Moss, e. 210 deprh, 97, 98,195, 196,224
procese, ¡ I occnpation, 56, 57 Mousrenan. 160, 16[, 164, 24X long-rerm, 262
reasoning 11, 1J, 14 Lesorho, 27 MSA (MidJ[e Stone Age), lH, 19,20,32, shorr tcrm, 182, 187
lnskecp, R. R., 27 Levallois technique, 35 35,36,37,38,39,40,45,46,47,48, Pluvial, 27
lnstrumentv for measurernenr. 9 Living 77,161,180,191, 196, 197,205,210, Poggenpoel, e, 33
Inregnrv {lf deposirs, 48, 63 fioor, 4 216,228,230,232,240,241,242, Porcupine gnawing, 51, 52, 53, )4, ...... , 0.3
Isaac, G. u., 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 119, 197, 255, snc, 8,16,49,105,108,111<, 11'J, [60, 243,244,245,249,251 Porta, R. B., 250, 255
256, 2_~7, 260 172,174,206,253 Multiple working hyporheses, 8, 256, 257 Predanonunirnal.Téé
Logical taotology, 259 Predaror kili, lOS
Logistical1y organized system, 88 N Prey image, 77, 194
J LSA (Late Stonc Agr), 20, 39, 45, 2.1n, 22H, Processed
jarvís, J. U. M., 2.H
Namibie, 161
238, 239, 242, 249 hom cores, 102, 109, 175, 196, 20l
Natural levels, 64
[elinek. A. J., 36 mandtblee, 106, t09, 175, 195, 196,201
Navajo, 161
M Processing
Neanderrhal, 223
K M,;Burnry, C. B. M., 20 facilities, 245
Neanderthaloid, 242
Macchía,21 toces, 201
Karoo, 26. 27, 29, 31, 32, 216, 240 Nelson Bay cave, 29, 39, 42, 236, 238,
Maguire, J. M., 62. 67 motives, 260
Kehoe, T. F., 16 239
Krll srrc, 4,16,17,49, nfl, fl7, 6S, 86, R8, Marginal placee, 244
Nocturnal
\10. ':12, '';14,107, IOY, 1.B, 14-', l7J, tood, 102, 105, [01;1,172, 17S, [76, 1R7, by soakmg, 200, 201, 244, 156, 26()
drinkcrs, 202, 203
1'J],1%,255 Proiectilc points, 35
[74, [%, 212, 249, B5 feeding, 202, 103, 109
utilirv. 49, 93, 96,172, 190 Prnvisioning, 188
Kingdon. J., 210 killers, 206, 255, 260
Marrow bones, 15,220 Pseudorools, 60, 62
Klein, R. C., 16, 18, 19,27,29,32, .1X, J9, Nossob
42,44. 4S, 4n, 47, 48, 49, 50, %, 64, cracking, 124, 1.17,151,175, lXX, 1H9. Punch blade .., 34
lair,54
flS. 77, 7X, 79, X3, X4. 99, lO'J, 1':l7,
200
nver, 52, 60, 69,116,166, 17.1, 174,
rccovctv, LB, 195, 201, 249 R
lOS, 210, 111, 212, 21X, 221, 222, 177,209
22.1,224,225,226,2.14, 236,2n. rr.msport, 146
Nunamiut Eskimo, 16,49,72.73,74,90.
Read, e, 1
Marshall, 1.., 161 Reccnsrructed sssemblage, 88
240, 249 106,114,119,157,160,161, 164,
Maturation sequence, 206 Reconsrrucnon, 21, 157, 158
Koobi fora, 119, 132 171,180,181, liD, 184, IHR. 189,
MAU (minimum animal units}, 50, 5 J, 7M, Reconstructicnisr, 65
Kootenee dramage, 70 222
Kruger Park, 216 80, 82, 87, 93 Research tacncs, 257
Mech, 1.. D., gS ResidentiJ.1
Kruuk, H., 131 o
Midday dnnkers, 207 sire, 160
Kuhn, T., 17
resr [ocation, 206,207,245,24';1,252, Oakhurst cornplex, 251 unir, 98
255, 266 O'Connell, J., 34 Reverse zonal rnodel, 32
L warerbole site, 208 Olduvai Co-ge, 2, 3, 5,17, 119,249,250, Richardson, P. R. K., 66, 67, 68, 85, 107,
Lancasrer, C. S., 4 Middlc Palcolithic, 36, 244, 245 255, 265 166,167,168,169,170,17I,I7l,
Land ILSl', [98 Mrddlc rnngc Opdyke, N. D., 39, 40 173, 186, nl7
cnrrenchcd, 262, Ud ar¡l;unlt.'m,7 Operarionnl dcfininon, 197 Righrm¡re. G. P., 47, 24X
modcl, 197 jusnfication, 6 Orange Free Stare, 27 Roasnng. 160, 161. 164, lXI
routcd, 262, 263 procedure, 8 Ornamertts, 34, 242 pir, 165
Late Srone Age, see LSA Mrddlc Srone Age, see MSA Rockshelrer, 17,32,262
Laws. cmpincal, 14 Minimum animal units, see MAU p Rogers, J., 27
Lazaret site, 250 Minimum number of elemcnrs, see M NE Package size, 180
Lcakey, L S. B., 2, 3, 4. 27 Minimum number of individuals, ser MNI Paradigm, 14, 17 S
Lcakey, ~L D., 3, 4,119 MNE (minimum number of elemenrs), 50, Parkington, J. F., 24, .32, .n Sampson, C. G., 35, 250, 251
l.eakcy, R. E., S. 255 51,52, f,S, 78, SO, SJ, 100 Pcmbcrton, D., 62, 67 Santa Barbara, 22
Lebanon.27 MNI {rmrumum number of indlvldu.\I~), 41:7, Perkirrs, D., 16 Scavcngcd assemblage. 76, 99
Lehrmgcn site, 194 50,51,78,82,99, 1<J7, 228, ,n1J.lJ2 Permanenr settlernent, 19 Scavcnging, 2, 6,15.17, t;,f>, 69, 70, 71,
Leí/ira, 34 Mohihry, 198,264 Philhp~-Contoy, J., 85, 86, 186 106,122,160,165,167,174,1':lI,
Lent, P., 217 Montana, 71 Piece burcbering, 90, 92, 96 201,101,206,212,213,214,216, ':-",
/

"
~
282 lndex lndex 2Xl
Scavengmg (nmrinueJ) Tankard, A. J., 27 Wilton cornplex. 251 y
B l, 23'J. 241, 246, 249, 251, 252, Tanner, N. M., 265 Wolf Ycllen, j., 200
253,2.\4.255 Tasmanians,249 den, 60 Young. J. L, 248
srage, 2 Terra Amate sire. 250 kills, 115
Schaller. c., UI, 208, 209, 216, 252, 253 Thackeray, F., 149 Workshnp sites, 7 Z
SOJlk.., H. [.. \2 Thcoretical rcrm-, 6, 7 WYllJl'r, J., 19,20,32,34, P, 41, 44, 45, Zinjanthrnpus, 2, 4, 5, 265
S..:hiHcr, 1\1., 50 Tocrh-scored bones, 61, [02. 171 64 Zonal c1l111'Hi<.: model, 27, 21S, _-.
S..:hkrr effccr, 16, 197,214 Tradirxmal urchacology, 11
Sccopcd-cur Dones, 60, 62 T ransitory camp~, 7
Search im.igc. 194 Transpon
Serengcri cosrs. 261
Narionall'Mk,20S filrer, 10H
plain,20'::! motives, 261
Sex profilc, 50, 109 Transponed
Sbackleron. N. J., zo, ]'::1, 44, 45, 238 assembl.rgc, 109
Sharing ncrns. 264
behavior. 40, 98, 1H2, 1'::1.1, 194, 195, TrdnsvJal,27
1%, 1'J7. 198,245,266 TS;lVO National Park, 202, 20ll, lit
hypoehcvis, 8, 259 Turnover rute, 24
unir, l'Jl Tzirzikamma
Shipman, P., !'I.'i", 86, 186,250, 25S coasr, 21, 23, 24, 26, 20H, 209
Shock WC;lpom, 216 river, 22, 210, 211
Singcr. R., 19,20, .H, 34, 37, 41, 44, 45,
64
Situanonal conduions, 19S, 199
u
Skepricism, 1\, 12, 1.1, 14 Units of observanon, 64
Skinncr, J. D., bJ Uppcr Palcolirhrc, 20, 33, 34, 36, ]8, 39,
Skinning, 100, 124, 137, 149, is r, 188,200 47,244,245
Use hfe, ]6
Sleeping
arcas. 59, 108, 261 Utility
indl"<,94
places, 10.11, 244, 252, 260, 261, 262
Smnh, P., 20 values. 94
South Carolina, 21
Spears. 254 V
Special-purposc locanons, 198, 199, 20R, Van Lawick-Uoodall. J., l'H
244, 263, 264 Van Zindercn Bakker. E. M., 27, 28, .~O,
Spencer, B., ]4 32,2]6
Sperh, J., 13 Vogcl, J. e, 39, 46
Sptnagc, C. A., 217 Voigt, E. A., 32
Steyn, H. P., 14] volman. T. P., ]5, 46, 47, 240, 245
Srorage. In r, 1';14. 199 Vrba. E. S., 25.'
Stow, G., 144
Suberde sire, 16
Subsisrencc rcpcrtoire, 191 w
Surrogarc rncasure. 240 Walk-along srruregy. 217
Swarnklip sitc, 109 Waltoll, J., 3")
washburn. S. L., ]
T W.ncrholn, 202, 203, 204, 206, 107, 208,
Tactic<ll 2S0
goals, 1"2 \'(/hitc, R., J4
rcpcrtorrc. 198 White, T. E., 16

STUDIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Consulting Editor: Stuart Struever
Department of AnthropoJogy
Northwestern Universíty
Evanston, lllinois
Charles R. McGimsey 11/. Public Archeology
Lewis R. Bíniord. An Archaeological Perspective
Joseph W. Michels. Dating Methuds in Archaeology
C. Garth Sampson. The Stone Age Archaeology uf Southem Afríea
Fred T. Plag. The Study of Prehistoric ChaDge
Patty Jo Watson (Ed.). Archaeology uf tbe Mammoth Cave Area
George C. Frisan (Ed.). The Casper Site: ABell Gap Bison Kili on the High Plains
W. Raymond Wood and R. Bruce McMillan (Eds.). Prehistoric Man sud Bis
Environments: A Case Study in tbe Ozark Higbland
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,
Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild. Prehistory of the Nile Valley
Michael A. Jachim. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistenee and Settlement: A
Predietive Model
Stanley Sauth. Metbod and Theory io Historical Archeology
Timothy K. Earle and Janathon E. Erícson (Eds.). Excbange System in
Prebislory
Stanley South (Ed.). Researcb Strategies in Historical Arcbeology
Jahn E. Yellen. Archaeological Approacbes to tbe Present: Models for
Reconstructing tbe Past
Lewis R. Bintord (Ed.). For Theory BuUding in Archaeology: Essays 00 Faunal
Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling
James N. Hill ami Joel Gunn (Eds.). Tbe Individual in Prehistory: Studies of
Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies
Michael B. SchiDer and George J. Gumerman (Eds.). ConservatioR Arebaeology:
A Gulde ror Cultural Resource ManaR;ement Studies
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
R. E. Taylor and Clement W. Meighan. Chronologies in New World Arcbaeology
Bruce D. Smith. Prehistoric Pattems of Humao Behavior: A Case Study in the
Mississippi Valley
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
Bruce D. Smith (Ed.). Mlsslssipplan Settlement Pattems
Lewis R. Biníord. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology
J. Bario Amoki Uf and Robert Weddle. Tbe Nautieal Areheology of Padre
Island: The Spanisb Shipwrecks of 1554
Samnos Milisauskas. European Prehistory
Brian Hayden (Ed.). Litbic Use-Wear Analysis
William T. Sanders, JeDrey R. Parsans, and Robert S. Santley. Tbe Basln 01
Mexico: Ecologieal Processes in tbe Evolutioo of a Civilization
David L. Clork:e. Analytical Arcbaeologist: Collected Papen of David L. Clarke.
Edited and Introduced by His Colleagues
Arthur E. Spiess. Reindeer and Caribou Hunters: An Archaeologieal Study
Elizabeth S. Wing and Antoínette B. Brown. Paleonutrition: Metbod and
Theory in Prebistorie Foodways
Jahn W. Rick. Prehistorie Huoters of the IIigh Aodes
Timothy K. Earíe and Andrew L. Christenson (Eds.). Modeling Change in
Prehistorie Economies
Thomas F. Lynch (Ed.). Guitarrero Cave: Early Mao in tbe Andes
Fred Wendorj and Romuald Schild. Prebistory of the Eastern Sabara
Henrí Lavííle, lean-Phillppe Rigaud, and James Sackett. Rock Shelters of tbe
Perigord: Stratigraphy aod Arcbaeologieal Suceesston
Duane C. Anderson and Holmes A. Semken. Ir, (Eds.). The Cberokee Excava-
tioos: Holoceoe Ecology and Human Adaptations in Northwestem Iowa
Anna Curtenius Roosevelt, Panoana: Prebistoric Maize and Manioe Subsístence
aloug the Amazon and Orinoco
F ekri A. Hassan. Demograpbic Arcbaeology
G. Barker. Landscape and Sodety: Prebistoric Centralltaly
Lewis R. Bln/ord. Bon..: Anclent Men and Modem Mytbs
! In preparalioll
Richard A. Gou/d and Michael B. SchiDer iEds.}. Modera Material Culture.
Robert 1. Gílbert, Jr. and James H. Mie/ke iEds-], lbe Analysis of Preblstoric
lbe Arehaeology of U. Dleu
Muriel Porter Weaver. The Aztecs, Maya, sud Thelr Predecessors: Arcbaeology John Hyslop. lbe Inka Road System
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 Pu-
spectlve
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

I
lohn M. O'Shea. Mortuary Variability: An Arcbaeologlcal IovesdgatioD
Lewis R. Bíniord. Faunal Remains From Klasies River Mouth

ii
i
A.