I!t:.:.
~
l'~c 4. 42 is frolll G. l-rtson. M. Wil'lm, amI Il 1 Wil'ol1. l-'ossi1 bison ano ¡Hlif"l'!s Irum un c¡¡rly A!till1l'II1l;i1I",r¡"d arroyo trap in Wyol11in~.IIlIlit,lliIY, 1117(,,4 J . ( 1); !ir 17 Repradul,cd hy pCllllb\lon of thc S"dety for A.1I1<'1 han ArcilaCIlI0l-')l
Extnll"( 011 p. 2\1.1 r- fWIII 1\. J. Su!difr,', SI'''!II'd hY;l<'11;I"
Crushcr , gnawr r, lli~."'(l'r, and <"
To the memory of David L. Clarke
1970,227:1111 R'"JlTinlcd hy pc nuission f'rom NI//u!"e
Copyril(111 1970 M"llllill,1ll .11\\111I,lIs I imin-d
COI'YMI(;IIT
©
1 'JK 1, IlY A( "111 MI(
I'Ml ss, INI
AH. RIUII"I!Ó 1\1!ó1 )(VJ 11. NO l'ART 01' TllIS l'lIIllICAlION MAY tll. JU l'IIOHI'1 11> ""
TIIANSMn-IHlIN ANY "ollM OIlIlY ANY MI ANS, 111 [ Il
IN WIlI'l IN(; "'IOM "] m 1'1I1i11SIH
l(
ACADEMIC PRESS, INe.
Orlando, Florida 32881
UlÚted Kin,do," Edillon pllbli,lIld l1y ACADEMIC PRESS, INe. (LONDON) LTD.
:una ()Ya!
Roacl, Loadon NWI
mx
L1braryof Conlrus Ctt¡lo¡lnl in Publicadon Dat¡ Binford, Lewls Roberts, üata. Bones: anclent roen and modern myths. (Studles In uehaeology) Blblloguphy: p. tncruees indexo 1. Human sketetcn. 2. Animal remstns (Arehoteology) 3. Anthropometry. 4. Fcrens¡c osteotcgv. S. eones. 1. Tille. 11. Series. GN70.B53 930.10285 81·1776 ISBN 0-12-100035-4 ISBN 0-12-100036-2 (Paperbaek)
'R ¡"'TH> 1'" TH~ LNI n.I" r ...n·,
'7 "'
,q
", .....,•.RI<·...
It is the duty 01 fheorefical hypothesis lo oulrun foct so Ihal speculcuon o'erlecps Ihe present information stcte ond pomts the woy,lhen careful accumulotion 01 lested data will revise the vchdity of the theoretioo! posltton, which moy then lecp ohead ogain. -CLARKE 11912'239)
é:.'
-
--~-
Contents
Foreword Preface AcknowJedgments List of Figures and TabJes Abbreviations
x¡ xv
xvñ xxi xxvii
Part 1 Documenting a Iong-term archaeologicaI problem: Concepts and observations
1
Chapter 1 Relics lo artifacls and monumenls lo assemblages: Changing conceplual frameworks The Relic and Monument Phase The Artifacl and Assemblege Phase
3 4 6
Chapter 2 Middle-range research and Ihe role of actualistic sludies The Paradigm-c-One's Cuide lo Describlng the World Theory-One's Guide lo Explaining the World
21 23 25 vil
J:!r'
. Contenls
viii
~ ix
Contenta
Part JI
Chapter 5
Middle-range researchIn search of methodology
Assemblage composition: Patterns of association slemming from the behavior of man versus that of beasl
183
New World Beginnings-Man as the Agent Aírtcen Problems end Assemblage Composltlon Other Types of Assemblage Variability Studies of Assemblege Compositíon Ceused by Beests Observenons of Wolves and Therr Behevíor Information on Latr Hehavior tnformetton on Kili Behavinr and Comparísons Control Collections of Animal-Structured Assemhlages Summary
184 189 195 196 197 202 207 210 237
31
Chapter 3 Pallerns of bone modifications produced by nonbuman agents Previous Approaches lo Understendtng the Significan ce of Broken and Modified Bone Skeletel Disarticuiation Tooth Merks
Other sources of Surficial Modificalions un Bone Bone Breakage and Oestruetion by Animals Modifications by Analomical Part Breakage Unrelatecl to Consumption: Trampling and Bone Manipulatioo Bone Modtñcatíons end Methodology
35 37 42
44 49 51
60 77 81
Part III Putting our knowledge to work: Seeking to know the past
243
Chapter 6 Chapter 4 Human modes of bone mediñcation Previous Approeches tu Understanding Broken and Modified Bone The Control Dala Dtsmemberíng Strategy Butchering Marks Cut Marks: Their Forro and Placemenl 00 Specific Bones Chopptng. Bone Breakage and Butchering Techniques Gnawing by Humans Martow-Bone Breakage Control Colleetions Breakaga Related in Other Forms of Bone Processtng Man-to-Man Compansons. or Alternative Human Behavtors Comparing Man and Beest Morphology of Borre Breakege Summary
Applicalion: A new look al Olduvai Gorge 87 88 90 91 96 105 142 147 148
163
Olduva¡ Gorge, a Challenge to Our Methods Analysis of Olduvai Fauna Bvaluaüng rhe Degree of Destruction Suffered by the Olduva¡ Assembleges Assemblage Composltton-cOlduvaí Gorge Surnmary
249 253 256 261 262 278
Chapter 7 General conclusíons
287
166 166 169 171
177
Rejerences Index
297 311
,
Foreword
Lewis Binford is probebly the mosl influential and sttmulatíve ercheeologtst in recen! years. in respeel lo hís insistence on hypothesis testlng and theory building. Thie book is a continuetícn of tha best of his previous methodological work and will, wíthout doubt. once agaln redtrect archaeological and paleoanthropological researches in importanl and 115efu1 waya. As always Binford has set B grand tesk for himselt. and here he has made a major posítíve efforl lo edvence rnethod and theory in regard lo severa! aspects oí human versus animal subsistence behevtors and thetr attendent restdues. From hía observetíons Oh Alaskan Eskimo butchery and meat-processtng procedures, end his analytical observertons on wolf kills and theír letrs. he has recogntzed a series of distinctive [vdiagnostic"] patterns uniquely common to each set of circumstances. This builds on the earlier work of Binford and 8ertram and of Blnlord (Nunomiut Ethnoorchoeology), but extends and amplifies thal work very substantíally. An íncreesingly approprtete corpus of comperettve data ís beíng eíforded by ethnoarchaeologfoal studtes in Africa [Icr example, by 1. vellen. D. Gifford. D. Crader), by various tephonomtc sludies (for example. by A. K. Behrensmeyer, A. nm. P, Shipman and assocíatesj. and by various studtee of camtvore (parlicularly byaena den) accumulations (by A. Sutclíffe. R. G.
Kie¡n. J. A. Maguire, G. Hani and assoctates. for inalance]. A set of analytícal procedures has been devísed Ihat seems to afford measures of a variety of dífferences between (nonhuman) marnmal osteologleal assemblages in regard to composilion of unitary and fragmented body parte. and theír respective condition and preservation. Ultimately Binford is ccncemed "with the development of dlagnostlc procedures for recognízing or identifying the agents which might have been responsible for the faunal facts preserven in an ancíent depoeít." 1 belteve he has made substantive methodologtcal contrtbutíons approprtate toward resolution of thts very complex set of problema. These ínclude: • the recogntuon and differentiation of animal (carnivore) and human procedures (behaviors) in carcess dísmemberment and perttttoning • the eJuddation and descrlption of pettems of bone breakage and explication of degrees of destruction ("ravaging") by camivores (particularly, but not exclustvelv canids) • the thorough inventory and systematic descnpnon of the disposition and cberecter ot traces on bones resultíng from human-skinning, butchering, and meat-processing practices • the development of analytical procedures (measures¡ for ascertainíng the [expected versus actual] xl
,
.. xii composttíon of various borre assemblages (drawn from assembleges of known derivalion) through Ihe employment oC severa) dtegnosttc índices of the frequencies of body perts, complete or in various stages oí fragmentationldestruction Binford has esserted. largely justifiably, thet have been unduly cavelíer in theír treatment of bcne assembleges In general, and conjoínt arlifact-bone assemblages in particular. He insists thet "cleíme for the use of lools should be supported by Ihe cítetíon ef marks produced by 100Is." Although there are sorne notable exceptions in erchaeologícal OCCUITences of late Pleístocene ege {fcr exarnple, Plncevent}, and even in Mousterian occupations Ifor example, La Quina). lt ls not unreasonable for Binford to teke this stence. One can only applaud the vlew thet progress is nol "rnede through diseoveries. . whieh are treated as self-evident In thelr meanlng," and thal "basie research makes possible Ihe reliable asslgnment of meaning to observations." lt ilO agaio lo Ihe polot lo insist Ihal Ihe developmenl aod telOting of "mlddle range Iheory" is critical lo Ihe realization of a scientific sludy of Ihe human eareer. It ls, unfortunalely, also true Ihat Ibere is substantial "mylhology" in paleoanthropology, even "modern" paleoanlhropology. Hopefully. Binford's posilion and efforts will ultimalely provoke others to develop and advance melhodology appropriale lo Ihe resolution of what are clearly real problems in a proper understanding of Ihe pasL No one familiar with Ihe slate of Ihe art would deny Ihat there is sliIJ mueh to be leamed when (and 10 there is subslantive progress in the development of melhodology and analytical proeedures. Binford has soughl to analyze Olduvai faunal assemblages, mostly from reputed hominid oecupation places, on the basis of published accounls provided by Mary Leakey In Olduvai Gorge, Volume 3 (1971). His analyses are bold and imaginative, and the resull provocative In the exlreme. However, are his lOweeping conclusions justifiable and realistic? There are subslantive problems concerning Ihis corpus of faunal material; hence Ihere are problems concerning Binford's efforts al analysis, most of which he reeognlzes. Herelofore Ihese alOsemblages of animal resldues have no! been studied and inventoried sysarchaeologists~paleoanthropologisls
forewurd
tematically for breekege pattems. for survivorship of skeletal parts per individual, oc even collectively for a particular texon: and "cut marks" as evidence for butchery-dísmemberment have nol been reoorded. Maps of spalial dtstrtbuttons of such bone-ertñact concentratíons have been publíshed. but the recording of particular laxa and body parts do no! enable a linkage lo be effecled betwcen theso dislribulions and Ihe faunal inventaries. The difficulty (and hence limitations) of the faunal sumrnary in the Olduvo¡ Gorge, Volume 3. is thal the overall frequencies of body parts for large mammal specíes are summarized (p. 276), bu! there is no full breakdown of body perta, or an indication of Iheir preservallon for individual laxa. (However, A. W. and A. Genlry [GeoJogy, Bulletin of the British Museum of Naturol History, 29(4) and 30(1), 1978] have provided relatívely fuIl, but stil l íncomplete body part dala For the Bovidae, and these dala often do nol malch thal tabulaled in Olduvai Gorga, Volume 3.) Moreover Ihe limb side is never staled, and those dala are critical lo the realilOtic calculation of MNl values. Mary Leakey early recognized, and on several occasions has stressed, the several sedimenlary environments wilhln which Ihese various occurrences are situated, and has also directed attenlion lo Iheir slate of inlaetness or exlenl of dlsturbance. Thus, she distinguished "living f1oors" {Iargely inlacl hominid occupatioo occurrences), possible {hominid) kili sites, channel fills, and "diffuse" occurrences. Binford's analyses have been direcled loward Ihe elucidallon of Ihe nature and exlent to which a diversily of nalural as opposed to (or in conjunction with) hominid faclors may have been responslble for Ihese accumulations. He has been concerned wllh disceroing events and formation processes, and Ihus In Ihe degree of resolution afforded by occurrences rela· tive, In part, lo Ihelr inlegrity. Binford condudes Ihal a diversity of agencies were probably responsible for Ihe slale of Ihese occurrences. He has disceroed vari~ ous pattems and degrees of bone destruction (and preservatlon), and employing faclor analysls has soughl fo clemonslrate resemblances with modero analogues, and thereby lo infer the role of various agencies in producing Ihe various accumulations. Binford eondudes Ihal "Ihe large. highly pub-
A"
forewurd
llcized sites as currently analyzed carry HUlespecific intormation about hominid behavíor." He belteves thal "arguments about base carnps, hominid hunting, sharing of food, etc. are cerlainly premature and most likely wildly ínaccurate." This pretty strong statement ts probably argueble. However. he does accepl as demonstreted "homtnld scavenging 10fJ Ihe kills and death sttes of other predator scavengers for abandoned analomical parts of low food uulíty. primarily for purpnses of extrecttng bone marrow." Thls conclusion, if further substantíated, is itse!f of mejor signifieanee for understanding Ihe dielary and behavíoral adjuslmenls of Plin-Pleístocene hominids. Recenl studíes of bone assembleges, with artifacl assocíatíons. from Koobl Fora (by H. Bunn) and fram Olduvai Gorge (by R. PolIs and H. Bunn) now promise lo document in detaíl the nalure and extent of hominid butchery practices evidenced al these earHer Pleistocene sltes. These researches also do confirm the complexily of formalion processes for particular hominid "occupation situations," as Binfoed has concluded. There has been, and is In progress, a variely of research Ihat should provlde substantive dala relevanl lo Ihe resolulion of many issues abou! which Binford has expressed his profound skeplicism. Several monographs (under Ihe editorshlp of J.-K. Woo) on Ihe Horno erectus locality ofChoukoulien 1are in preparation and should afford, al lasl, relevanl delailed dala on those bone assemblages, andhopefully-the exlent lo which Ihey reflecl activities of carnivores, early humans, or olher agencies, or a combinalion of many facloes, al Ihal importanl site. Claims have already been made (by P. Shipman and associales) thal a distlnclive Theropilhecus owaJdi-rich occurrence allhe Olorgesailie localily reflecls an unusual form of hominid predalion (despile Ihe apparenl absence of butr.hery Iraces!) ralher Ihan sorne olher natural calaslraphe. A delailed study of Ihls and olher bone assemblages is currenlly being underlaken by Chrislopher Koch. Binford offers sorne pilhy commenls relativc lo our own work al Ihe Acheulian localilies of Torra Iba
xiii and Ambrona in central Spain. It ís worth mentioning that when those sttes were ínittally excavaled (1961-1963), initially under my direction and subsequently joinlly with L. G. Freeman, no one was concemed with bone assemblages in any of the ways which have become more commonplace 10-15 years hence (in facl the Leakey's became concerned with such matters only in Ihe late 19605 as a consequence of the extensíve excavetíon program et Olduvet Gorge). Unforlunalely, and for severel complex reasons. those faunal collectíons from Ihe Spantsh sttes were never fully analyzed, beyond texonomíc identíñcetíon. and Ihus fracture patterns. cut marks. and delails of dismembermenl and butcherv were only superficially recorded in the fleld. These faunal colleotíons are now relocaled and in course of detatled study. Renewed excavation (in 1980) al Ihe Ambrona locality has revealed an abundance of evídence relevant lo butchery, dismembermenl, end bone breakage, as well as human manipulalion and fashioning of bone and ivory. Sedimentary processes at Ibis site are more adequalely underslood than before, but the silualion is an unusual one (for Europe) and Ihere is slill much lo do. There is. in fac!. a diveesity of research compleled, and presumably in couese of pubHcation, or now in progress, which addresses Ihe deficiencies in paleoanlhropological sludies with whlch Binford is so inlensely---and rightly so--concemed. These range from the Upper Paleolithic of Ihe U.S.S.R. (and weslern Europe), Ihe so-called "M.S.A." of easlero and soulhern Africa, the Mouslerian ofmany parts of Europe and weslern Asia, the AcheuHan (and lis facies) of caves in soulhweslern Europe, and cave and open-air occurrences in Europe which mayo it is Ihought by sorne, testify lo Ihe Initial occupation of Europe by hominlds. In each and all inslances Ihese researches will gain subslantially from Ihe analytical procedures developed in Lewis Binford's provoca· live and stimulating book. F. CLARK HOWEl.L
Universily of Cali(ornia, Berkeley
.,.....-
•
Preface
This book developed from en eructe started in )anuary 1979. I had made observations on wolf behavior while conducting ethnographíc research among the Nunamiut Esktmo of North Central Alaska. 1 though that rny obeervetíons might be oí sorne value to those engeged in taphonomic studíes. As 1 seerched Ihe literature for sorne comparatíve material on assemblege composilion, 1 reelteed that my data on denso bone hreakage, and psttems of attnuon were untque. and Iha! there was more lo say than ortgtnally planned. The peper wes then expanded lo a short book. in which 1 descrtbed butchertng and butcheríng rnarks. and competed marrow cracking 85 performed by man and by animals. 1 expended my llterature coverage ID deal with Dert'e erguments, read the Iascinattng líterarure treating Choukoutten, and del ved into Ihe German luerature that clearly foresbadowed the "osteodontckerauc" argumenta of both Breuil and Dart. As 1 treated the problema uf pseudotools. butchering petterns as manifesl in bone modification, and Ceorge Fnson's erguments abcut muscle stnopíng. I also begen lo envísion sume Interesting conctustons stemmtng from my data and researcb. These conclusions were nol related lo Ihe compostuon of wolf kills and dens. which now seemed pcrtpheral lo the !hrust of the "smflll tc(:hnical book" developed Ihus far. Then Diane Gifford lenl me her copy of Andrew Hill's importAn! doctoral fhesis, submilleci to the llninrsíly
ofLondon lHilI1975). Hill's thests contained dala on assemblage compostuon for animal kili and death sítes in African setttngs. Now 1 had comparattve rnelerial ínr viewing my dala in a broader context. I was fascinated to dtecover Ihal ~blage'~· tion of remaíns al wolf km sites in nonh 'Cent1'al Alaska was essentially tbe same as the composilion of assemblages from animals of comparable SiZ6 in Africa, where the predators were unknown endror variable and the prey-centelopes and equids-so very differenl from the certbou of Alaska. 1 began to work up tha assemblage composition comparísons between HiIl's dala and rny own, in Ihe process gatning a new eppreclatton for meny of the facts and thetr lmpl ícatíons As l worked on the kili dala. 1 íncreestngly wished for sorne oompereuve den material. lt was al thís point thet Richard KIein arrived in Albuquerque to deliver several lectures. He had prevíously sent me offprints of many of his articles treating Ieunel assemblages from South Arrica. NaturalIy when he was here we had sorne intense conversattons ebout feunal assemblages. Richard responded to my moaníng and groanlng regardlng the lack of dala 00 animal denso He had dug one! He promised to send me an offprint of his report on his relurn lo Chicago. The day il arrived was full of excitement for me, since 1 had already formed sorne ideas as lo whal a den should look [ike based on Ihe kili sife assemblages
..
..&"-
xvi and the bints 1 hed from my Alesken material. On .Inspectíng hts data. 1 realizad thet Ihe assemblage had suffered heevy atlrilion, and Ihal what tbe surviving bones gave me was mora a reñecüon of Ihe reletíve slrength of the anatomícel pert rether than a clear pícture of tbe parls transponed by animals to theír denso Could 1 reconstruct the original assemblage using the lechniques developed earlfer for understandlng attntion? (See L. R. 8inford and J. B. 8ertram 1977.) As wl1l be seen. 1 was successful. and the correspondence belween the result and the data from Ihe kills was remarkable. Wilh this test comparative component in place there was a kind of closure and a general methodology seen outlined. Clearly what was needed. was an application! r chose lo implement my approach on the importanl faunal materials from Olduvaí Gorge. 1 had played around earlier with sorne of the models developed In my Nunamiut study (L. R. Blnford 197Bb]and found that there eppeered to be sorne "fits" between my models and the actual faunal data. My írnpressíon at thet time, however, was that all the variabillty in the Olduvai matertals was probably referable lo nonhormníd behevíor. That ís. the fauna was background natural lo geologtcel deposite In Áfr-ica, deriving from the conlinuous aclion of predators and prey as well as natural deaths in soch a fauna-rich environment.
Peercce
1 had completed the book up through the ñrst half of the Olduva¡ chapter when Jim HilI and Jan Orcutt visited me. They were conducling multivariate analysee of settlement data at Ihe University of New Mexico computer center. Jan had an operatíonal program for carrying oul factor analys¡s. 1 pul together the Olduvai dala and Jan made severa! runs ustng different essumpttons. The fascinaling result. which in my opiníon did isolate paltened cnnsequences of homlníd behevíor. was totally unexpected. Consequently Ihe wrlting of the last half of the Olduvai chapter and the conclusions was sheer excilement, rather than the normal labor of finishing a book whose "outcome'' has been known Ior sorne time. The writing of this book has been an inlellectual adventure, with several importan! turning potnts. as has been indicated. 1 arn convlnced that a basic methodology has been outlined and that findings of importance have resulted. The methodolcgy Is nol "oleen." and much more tntormatíon regarding both kills and animal transport of fauna ís needed, as is much better conlrol on the anatomical facts of bone densily or hardness so importan! to reconstructtng assemblages Irorn survlvíng elements. 1 hope that olhers will be motivaled to join in the research needed lo move from lhis outline to a robust set of melhods for giving meaning lo the facts of the ar· chaeological record.
Acknowledgments
In many cases acknowledgments are a kind of formal recitation of normal relationshíps. in which an author thanks the typist, the photographer, acknowledges formar teechers for ínsptretíon, end closes by acknowledging a spouse for putting up with the lensions of writing. This format is germane lo my situation, bul Ihere is in addition a compli. caled set of intellectualand lechnical debts Ihat must be acknowledged as exlraordinary in Ihe wriling of Ihis book. Wilh regard to my experience wilh wo!ves and Ihe dala coJlecled, 1 owe a ver)' special debllo Iwo men who continually prodded me iolo recognizing thal sorne of my assumptions were perhaps nol warranted in workinR with Ihe tundra fauna of Brooks Range Alaska. One was Simon Paneack. who played skeptic with me as 1 asked him queslions about the fauna] materials my crews were refilularly re¡;overing durmg the Beld seasons between 1969 and 1973. For inslance, if I described a coileclion made or field observalions recorded 00 fauna fram a parlicular pla¡;e, Simon would smile and say, "How you knaw it's nol lndians or wolves?" He said Ihal lo me so many times Ihall began altempting lo find out what wolves "Iooked like" when viewed from Ihe perspective of fauna. 1 tried lo do the same lhing for "Indians" hui was nol successful. The second man was lohnny Rulland, who in his quiel way pointed
out lo me my first examples of wolf kiJIs and enumerated all the charactenstics that led him to dist¡nguísh a wolfkill from ene madeby his fellow huntere. While 1 W85 working al Anaktuvuk. Boh Stephenson of the Alaskan Departmant of Fish and Game began his extraordinary study of wolves and Ihe Nunamiut knowledge of wolves. This stimulated considerable interesl snd discussion of wolves amoog the Nunamiul hunters with whom 1 was associated, and in turo I was the beneficiary. 1 am par· ticularly indebted to David Mekiana, who beca me in/erested largely through slimulalion fram lustice Mekiana, who was working closely with 8ab Slephenson. David went out af his way to ¡nform me of evidence of wolf behavior. Although the collection of wolf data was largely my project done In conjunction wlth elhnographic work, two members of my crew, Dan and Allison Witter, were unliring in Iheir ¡nterest In fauna and did the nasty ¡ob of collecling bones fram one of the majar dog yards al Anakluvuk. Dan developed the first stages of the ciassification af destruction and madification presented in Ihis book. He also oro ganized and recorded the marrow·cracking experiment, which serve as imporlant contrals on the tool-assisled breakage patterns described here. It is one of my major regrAtf¡ Ihat Dan could nol continue working on thA Alaskan malerials wilh me, bul xvii
.. xviii academic consíderetíons as well as a [ob in Australia led him in new directions befare this work on fauna 'ctmld be undertaken from the analyñcal perspectiva. A number of people have been important in conditioning the charecter of tbe final form of this manuscript. AH of the drafted graphs end charts were drawn by Dana Anderson. who never failed lo produce the exacl iIlustration I had in minrl. The tllustrations of bones used in demonstretíng the cut marks (Figures 4.06, 4.11. 4.16, 4.20-4.22, 4.25-4.32. 4.36-4.39,4.48, and 4.53) were all drawn from actual specimens by [udith Browne of Albuquerque. ludy has made a meter contnbutton to the utility and quelíty of this bcok. Mosl of the photographs of bone breakege and modtñcatíon were laken by my daughter. Martha R. Binford. and James Moore. These photogrephs are crucial lo the types of comparative argumente that maka up mueh of the dismemberment and breakage chepters. Martha and Itm spenl long hours propptng up scales. adjusting llghtíng angles. building supports for specimens out of all kinds of Ihings so the engle would be right or the alignment between spectmen and seale would be un the same plane. For this Investment and the fine pietures that resulted (Figures 3.02, 3.10-3.16, 3.18. 3.20-3.30, 3.32, 3.33, 3.40-3.45, 3.51-3.53, 4.50, 4.56, 4.57), I am most grateful. Afler Ihe initial "spree" of picture taking hy Martha and lim. r kept diseovering otber subjects that needed ilIuslralion and Martha took all the additional pholographs unassisled {Figures 3.01, 3.03, 3.05-3.09. 3.17, 3.19, 3.31, 3.34-3.39, 3.463.50,4.14,4.18.4.20,4.241·
A number of people eontributed pholographs that (hey had taken and I requested. This assistance is acknowledged in the following list: Roberl Stephenson, E'igures 5.01, 5.03, 5.04, 5.11: James O·Connell. E'igure 4.43: Jean-Philippe Rigaud, E'igure 4,07.4.10, 4.15,4.16, and 4.41. Through suggestions and actual research, several pImple have helped me cover sorne of Ihe foreign language Iileralure. Miehael Jochim responded lo one oí my cries for help by ~upplyinB copies of artieles from Ihe German literature lha! were not available in Albuquerque. Furlher "id wilh the German Iiterature was provided by Larry Todcl. a stuelent in the anlhropology departmen!. In aelrlition, my friend
Acknowledgmenls
James Finley of the biology department here in AIbuquerque also helped out with sorne translation when my nwn sktlls failed. Iean-Philippe Rigaud duplicaled Iwo Important manuscrtpts unevetlable in Albuquerque, and euggested severa! otber references. Lawrence Straus helped by solving the mystery of severa] French idioma, and he graciously lent me sorne Interestíng end rare articles from the early French Iiterature. F. Clerk Howell c!arified several points for me regardtng Torralba and Ambrona and sent me literatura as a further aid. James ludge helped eonsiderably in tracking clown sorne of the literature treating early man in the New World. Intellectual slimulation and ínspíration during the course of writing thts book carne basically from long telephone cnnversations with Diane Gifford, intense conversatton with Richard Kle¡n. and general díscusstone of the problem wlth Bob víerra. Iohn Pfeiffer, and Stanley South. To those good friends, 1 am sineerely grateful. Severel typtsts were involved in the preparation of thís menuscrtpt. Lisa Edelhoff aga¡n treated my rough draft with gentle and considérate skill. Freddie Height. Marilyn Daily, Ruth Stewart. and Louise McGuff elso prepared major sections of the rnenuscript. Their commitment to a good job ís greatly appredaled. A rough draft of the manuscripl was critiqued by six highly qualified readers: George C. Frison of Ihe Universíly of Wyoming, Diane Gifford of the Universily of California, Sanla Cruz. f. CJark Howell of the University of California. Berkeley. Richard E. Morlan of the Archaeological Survey of Canada, Timothy While ofthe University of California, 8erkeley, and a final unidentified reviewer obviously wilh interests in the New World. These reviewers provided me with a truly impressive bocly of criticism, thal made it possible far me to clear up numerous vague or misleading parts of the manuscript. Their responses forced me to look agaio at the manner and substance of my trealmenl of others' dala or ideas. In adelition. I have added (Iargely in notes) numeraus volunteered pieees of informa\ion that have strengthened the presentation r:omdderably. I cannot thank lhese readers enouRh. I hflve never had such a body of Ihoughlful. r.onslruclive. ami candid r.ritil":ism. To Ihe six who look it seriously anel djrl lneir hesl to find
Jir.'
Acknowlerígmenrs
tbe weaknesses and points that needad clarificatton. l am very grateful. Funding for the fieldwork during the course of which the dala on Alaskan wolf behavíor was ob-
xtx reíned carne from the National Science Foundatíon and the Wenner-Gren Foundation lar Anthropologlcal Research. To these agencies, 1 am most grateful.
/i
,r
,
List of Figures and Tables
Figures Figure 3.01. Punctures made by animal teeth. 45 Figure 3.0Z. Animal-produced pitting and punctures on the distal metapodial. 45 Figun 3.03. Animal-produced extensively pitted bone.
4fi
Figure 3.04. Animal-produced pillad and scored compael bone surfece. 47 Figure 3.05. "Compressor" pttted and seored by animal
teeth. 47 Figure 3.06. Compect borre scored by enfmal teeth. 48 Figure 3.07. "Arte MobUlar" produced by acíds in como pect root rneeses un a shoop jaw from the Bear síte. Anaktuvuk Pass. 50 Figure 3.08. Detall or bone in Figure 3.07. 50 Fillure 3.00. "Cbenneted" beeekage ot bones by antmela 52 Figure 3.10. Highly polished end of a gnawed borre. 52 t'igure 3.11. Pifiad and radially scarred bone, the result of extensiva gnawing. 52 Fillure J.12. "Pressure flaking" on Ihe end of a gnawed bone resulting Irom chipping heck the edge 5J Figure J.1J. Extensively ehtpped-baek edRes of gnawed bcne. 53 "'igure 3.14. Chlpped-back fldges shnwing mtcrodentlculated effect. 53 Figure 3.15. Externel Iace of chipped-haek bona showlng oblique tooth scarnng 53
Figure 3.16. gxtarnal faee of chipped-back bane showing looth scerrlng from "slipping clown" the bane wtth the teeth. 53 Figure J.17. Examples of channeled and chipped-back bones commonly confused with human workmanshíp. 54 Figure 3.18. Rounded edge of gnawed bone. 56 Figure J.19. Collepsed cylinders with dtsttnctive chtpped-back ends. 56 Figure 3.20. Long "longttudínally" spllt fragmenta with denüculated ends. 57 Figure 3.21. Group of "ridge-crtls! removed" f1akestypical or animal gnawíng. 59 Fisure 3.22. Pseudotools produced by animals chewing al rtdges.
59
Flsure 3.23. Delail of poin! on a pseudotool shown in Figure 3.22. 59 Fisure 3.Z4. Animel-gnawed cranium with attached entlers Icaribou). 61 Figure 3.25. Antmal.gnawed paletea (caribou) showtng dtsñncttve channeling and crenuletlon ot thln bone. 61 FIsure 3.26. Crenret dtsc as eommonly produced by gnawing caníds. 62 Figure 3.27. lnitlal deslructlon of sheep mandlbJes by bosh dogs (Iower Iwo) and wolves (upper Iwo). 62 Figure 3.28. Sequence uf caríbou mandibular deetructton by both dogs (Iower two¡ and wolves (uppar fourj. 63 Figure 3.Z9. Wolf mandible [Iower specimen) and dng mandibles (upper specimenl dsstroyed by wolves. acrh sper-imens were recovered frcm wolf denso 64
ul
,
xxiv .
, I
Figure 5.12. Relationship between Alaskan wolf den end ~1I11Jgemblages 223 Fi"uhl5.13. Relafinnship between díscreíe end paltmpsast wolf kili assembiegea. 223 Figure 5.14. Relalíonship between eeconstructed Alaskan wolf den and kili assemblagea. 228 FilUrtl 5.15. Relatlonship between reconstructed díscrete end pallmpsest wolf kili essemblagea. 228 Flsun! 5.18. Camparison between medrum-tc-larga and small ungulstes introduced lo antmal dens-Swartklip reconslructed (aune. 228 FiSure 5.17. Compertson between medium-Io-large and small ungulatss. parls remaining at killlocallons. 229 Figure 5.1B. Comperíson between kills and dens for medlum-to-Iarge anímels. 229 Fisu",5.19. Comparison of mean valuee for remains of large and small animels ebendoned by predators al klllB and Iransported by Ihem to denso 232 FigUl1l5.ZQ. Ccmparlsen of mean values for large antmals found in predator dan, and found abandonad un Nunsmiut Eskimo kili sltes. 233 Fl.¡ure 5.21. RlIlationship between lotal Nunamiul dllperled kllls and Ihe GUI fOl carlbou. 234 Figure 5.22. Relatlonship I:letween mean frequencies for bon8ll of large prey tound in dens and the GUI tor caribou. 235 Fl.¡ure 5.23. Comparison between plIr1stransporte
Lisl of Figures und Trrúles cal parts from FLK N. Levels 1 and 2. and modelad values. 271 Figure 6.08. Relationship between frequencies of aneterrucal parts from FLK N. Level 5. and Aleskan essemhlage Irom Chandler. 271 Figure 6.09. Relationship between frequenctes of anatomícal parts Irom HWK E, Level 2. and modeled values 272 Figure 6.10. Relationship between frequanníes of enatomical parts from DK. Leve] 2, and modeled valúes. 274 Figure 6.1 l. Relalionship betwssn frequencies of analomical perts from FLK. Level t S. and modeled valúes. 275 Figure 6.12. Relationship between factor scores on enetomtcal parts for Iactors 3 end 5. 277
TBbles Table 1.01. SecondllfY bíomess end eslimatad prey accumulaled in vences habiteis 15 Table 3.01. Sequence of natural dismembermenl accordíng lo HilI 43 Tabla 3.02. Size d!strihulion of fragmenls recoverad from ItIkmalaiyak wolf den 58 Tabla 4.01. Factor loadings for analysis of Nunamiut faunal essernblages 93 T.ble 4.02. DistributicJIl of cut mllrks on bones in Uve Nunamlul assemblagas 97 Table 4.03. Dlstribulion of butchering marks on bones from Ihe Mousterien slle of Combe Grenal 99 Tab'" 4.04. Invenlory of described skinning and bUlchering marks 136 Tabla 4.05. Bone spllnlers recovered from six rnarrowcracking experimenls 164 Table 4.06. Frequency dlslribution of impact scara on articulalor ends of long bones l6!> Tabla 4.07. Vltriation in bone breakage for animal· vllrsus human·derived assemblllgllS 174 Table .5.01. Assemblage composition o( Alasklln wolf kills (ceribou MNls) 211 Table 5.02. Andrew Hill's kili assemblage dala from East Africa 214 Tablll .5.03. Richard Kleln's den data from South Africa 216 Table 5.04. Survival percentages for bones of anlmals of different ages 218 Table S.uS. Inventory for Il3semblages plolled in Figures 5.07 and 5.08 220 Table 5.06. RecolIslruclion of originltl Itssemblltge como posilion for Alaskltn samples 225 Table 5.07. Reconslructed ri~n assemblages from .swartkllp 22&
.-
¿;....
T
List of Ftgures und Tubies Tabla 5.08. Summary dala (or human end nonhuman kills and rmnaported hone assembleges 230 Table 8.01. Mary Leakey's classlficalion of Olduvai sites 254 Table 6.02. Andllary facts: Olduvet faunel assemblages 258 Table 6.03. Olduvai Gorge data 254 Table 8.04. Behevíoral rnodels for Olduvai assemblages 266 Table 8.U5. Sorted roteted factor loadings (patlern} for R mode enalysts of Olduvaí sttes 257
xxv Table 8.06. Factor acores for R mode analysis of Olduvai siles 268 Table 6.87. Sorted rotated factor loadíngs [pettern) Iur Q mode analysis of Olduvai ettes 269 Tabla 6.08. Factor scorea for Q mode analysts of Olduve¡ sitas 270 Table 6.09. Comparison of destrucuon estlmales derived Irom factor analysls and the humeros test. 279 T.ble 6.10. lnventones 01 ertífecte recovered from factor 3 aítea, Olduvai Gorge 281
1""
1
*"
I. i
•
1,
.,~
ti
I
;1
Abbreviations
Note: Only the most commonly used cbbrevtctions are Jisted here. ANT Antier SK Skull MAND Mandible MAX Maxilla AT Atlas AX Axis CERV Cervical vertebrae mOR Thoracic vertehrae LUM Lumbar vertebras PF,LV Pelvis SAC Sacrum R Rihs ST Sternum se Scapula H Humerus PH Proximal humerus DH Dislal humerus Re Radio-cubitus PRe Proximal radto-cubnus DRe Distal radlo-rubltus
CARP Carpals
Me Metacarpal PMe Proximal metecarpel DMe Distal metacarpal F Femur PF Proximal femur UF Distal fémur T Tibia PT Proximal tibia DT Distal tibia TAR Tarsals AST Astragalus CAL Calceneus MT Metatarsal PMT Proximal metatarsal DMT Distal rnetatersal PMAL 1 Ftrst phalange PMAL 2 Second pbalange PMAL 3 Thirrl phalunge
xxvii
¡: ,1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------_.- ..,..
J1c'
~~ The focus of this book Is bones. It muy come as a surprise lo sorne thct mosl o{ the behaviorol ideas regcrdjng our ancienl post are dependent 011 the interpretotion of faunal remoins ond depositional context-cnot. as mcst textbooks would leed one to belteve, 510ne 1001s. In fod. in aH the arguments 1 hove reviewed regurding the behovior of ancienl man, almos! 011 aredependent 011 inferences drown ¡rom faunal focts oc focts of ossociotion between fauno and stone 10015. Few jf cny plctures of 'he post are, strictly specking. derived from lnterpretutions o[ stone tools. A study of bones ís, however, not sufficient to c10rify OUT oncient post. We mus! kncw how lo use informalion ond orguruae reseorch. and we musl increcse the reJiability with which we construct the post. f will urgue thct crchceoiogists hove regularly generured a variety of modern myths by vírtue offaiJures
Part 1 Documenting a long-term archaeological problem: Concepts and observations
2
Por! 1. Documenting
(1
Long--Ferm ArchoeoJogicol Problem: Concepts ond Ohservntions
in the inferential procese. Mnny such modern myths hove been genernted by sertous and dedicated urchceologtsts through the interpretation of founaJ mctericls. 1 am reieníng to arguments regcrdlng the churccter of life ct the dtm boundory of our humonity os known jrom the nrchceclogicol remoins of Lower and Middle Pletstccene homlnlds. There is a curren! set of pictures o/ the post: the mighUy elephant hunters of Middle pJeistocene Torralba, the cooperative altruistic sbormg behcvior af the hominids al (he Pletstocene boundary. These unclent rnen are dcplctcd as living in base ccmps. hunting, and in many ways resembling a bond of modern Son speakers o/ the scutbern Africon veldt! Or if you prefer o different view. the myth o/ the killer ape sees our earliest cncestors os successful predators gaining Iheir livelihood from the flesh of other animals und possessing the "küler Instinct." Tllese modero myths abill!! ~ncient man ore bcsed on the interpretation of the bon~Some o/ these vlews may be uccurcte, bu! in the absence of a reliable methodclogy íor giving meaning to bones they must remc¡n myths based 00 judgments, oplnlons. ond in so me cases clear blcses, perhcps motlvuted by politicol or humanislic phílosopbtes of rhe contemporary worJd. II wiJJ become clear thct 1 do not hove new informatian or controJJed data of direct relevcnce lo aH the types of interprefotive myths archaeoJogists hove genercted. For instance, 1 wilJ only menñon in pcsslug the problems invoJved in Interpreñng bone destructlon of human skeletcl material by onimaJs ond other natural agencies, yet this is crucial te evcluctlng the vchdity of argumenls for cannibaJism ond even to the character of "religious" behcvior or the "spirituol life" of cncient mono (See Beroumoux \1958) ond Marshack (1972) for examples of such ¡nterprefive speculation.J Eveo fhe simple recognition o/ intentionaJ burial and tne presence of graveside ritual is not on easy inference. For instonce, (he NeanderthoJ "burial" of Teshik-Tash (Movius 1953) might just as eosily be seeo as the consequence of destruction and sorting of skeletal parts by predotor-scavengers instend of as ritual behavior by the Neaoderthalers. Nevertheless, the arguments to be presented regarding the fenuous contextuaJ assumptions archaeologists frequenlly make, coupled with the lack of controlled information obout bones, render many interpretations strongJy suspect. In short, their stalus as modero myths hecomes more apparent. Chapter 1 facuses on sorne of the assumptions that hove gujded many of the reconstructive ¡n(erences made from archaeoJogicoJ observations. Chapter 2 focuses on the probJems of infereoce thot archaeologists must squarely face i( they hope to increose the accuracy with which the archoeoJogicaJ record is used as a meons to gaining knowJedge of the post. lo essence, this port of the ~ook is concerned wifh two probJems: (a) the understonding of the post tha! we wouJd Jike to improve Ihrough reseorch, and (b) the research strotegies that musl be employed if we hope to achieve increased understanding oI the po~t.
~!
I 11
"
¡, ,;
As ts suggested in the Iille of this book. rny focus is the study of fauna and the interpretations archeeologlsts offer regerdtng data summarized trom observauons on fauna. Although tbe primary interest ís bones and the development of a methodology fm using fauna te ga¡n knowledge of the past. this work gces beyond a mere technical concern for bones. David Clerke (1~7Z: 238) once charactenzed much of rny carlier work as metaphysics: Melaphysics . . the science Di being as such .. Ihe lerm sdence is used in its dassic sense of knowJedge by causes (Runes 1962: 19AI Archaeological melaphysics is lhe sludy and evalualion of the mosl 8eneral calegories i1ndconcepls wilh which arch8eo!oRisls lhink IClllrke 1973: 121. The eJtposure of archBeological melaphysics to critical appraislIlallows liS the self-consciolls capllcily lo consider Ihe possibilities of altering or rejecliog currenl disciplinar)' concepls in favour of o.ll.,rnative forms Thus. 0.1 th., mnment. archlleology is still a disciplinA in which arlifllcls. assemblages. siles. and Iheir conleJtfs lirA irlenlified Ilnd n,Jaled as relics of communilies in a<;<;nrdance wilh rules formullllerl in terms of arlifacl taJtnnomies--lhe Iradilionlll Monteliao parlldiRm IClarke 1973 in Hammond el 01. 1979: \14-951
Chapter 1 Relics to artifacts and monuments to assemblages: Changing conceptual frameworks
In Ihe foregoing sp.nse. Ihis book is directly concemed wilh sorne asper:ls of archaeological 3
h~- ('<):'t h
4
1. ReliGs lo
Artjfact~
cnd
Monumenl.~ fa
metaphyeics. I will advocate the replacement uf sorne besíc ccncepts, and modtñcettone in the conventtonel use of others. In addttíon. 1 will offer certetn methodologtcel suggestlons. which are tnevítably celled for gíven bestc shifts in metapbvsícel perspectiva. In fact, mos! oC Ihe book is concerned with Ihe deveiopmenl of methods' however. the need for such new methods ís only mede olear in tha r:ontext 01 changed perspectivas regarding t~ -chaeolosico.l record and the pas\. 1will be concerned with the concepts crñjcct. cssembicge. site, and bcbítoncn. 1 will attempt to demonetrete Iba! the assumplions about the ercheeologtcel record that stand behind the use of Ihese concepts are frequently misleading; nevertheless, assumptions strongly condition what is considerad to be a problem in need of solution as well as what is considered lo be a justifieble slatement abou! the pest. More specifically, I will be concerned wilh what the archaeological re·cord is Iike and how iI comes lo be so. Given basic conceplualizations about Ihe archaeological record and in turn what the record means for the past, there are linked melhods thel are generally taken for granted. The sludent of a discipline frequently reads and uses Ihe products ofhis predecessors as discrela contribulions from which he picks and chooses ideas and observations lo serve his ends. This activily should be carried out with an eppredation of Ihe inlellectuel hislory of the field so the writings of ear· lier workers may be viewed against generalizslions aboullhe thought of Iheir time. Sorne view of history in the latter sense is needed to provide e pause before the user of Ihe works of others begins selecting ideas and observations for personal purposes snd/or expounding on Ibe value of past work relative lo present points of view. A productive researcher needs a wellfounded sel of ideas regarding the stele of the art both past and present lo undentand why pest workers chose to invest their time as ¡hey did. He or she neros to make judgments as to whol is in facl worlh seeking through researeh effort al the present time. If we gain súch a perspective on how Ihe state of the art changes, Ihen the past deeds that we criticize need not be seen so much as misdeed relative to our contemporary frame of reference but as imporlanl con· fributions necessary lo Ihe genesis of the point of view froro which om critidsm derives.
Assembloges: Chonging
C'l)n('f~plual Fmmeworks
There have been severa! histories (Daniel 1968; WiIley end Sabloff 1980) of tbe atchaeologfcal discipline. None have trnated eíther Ihe fundamental or mctaphysical propositions about the cbaracter of the archaeologicaJ record, or tha sources or assumed "causes" for the properties of the archaeologtcel record to which meaning was frequently attached by the erchaeologtsts. I wil! ettempt to charaderize uur Iield in fundamental Ierrns. that ts. in terms of the basie ideas with which ercheeologtsts have worked. I will altempl to iIlustrale how these ideas and Iheir use have contributed to the current "state of Ihe ar!" while also eonditioning the characler of many problems currently facing archaeologisls. Viewed from a metaphvsical perspective, Ihe discipline has had Iwo ph·ases, set apart Erom one another in terros of the concepts commonly used for treating the phenomena from which archaeologists seek to learn of the past. 1terffi these Iwo periods Ihe re/ic onrl monumenl phase and the ortifoCI and assemb/age phase. If sorne of Ihe current chaJlenges to Ihe tenets of the arlifacl and assemblage phase prove productive, a new phase may be in Ihe making.
The Relie and Monument Phllse ~
The reHc and monument phase of archaeological invesligalion carne firsl and in many ways changed our ideas of Ihe pasl mosl drastically. 11 pushed the Crontiers of human history back from Ihe 4000-year deplh of Ihe biblical perspective to Ihat of man as an anden! resident oí the planet. The intellectual procedures used in accomplishing this were based on two propositions: (o) the definilion ofman as a manufacturer of lools IInd (b) the definilion of lools manufactured by roan as designed or manufaclured to a plan-in shorl, exhibiting pallerned redundancy in form Given Ihese two propositions and the recognition of the existence of slone tools (as opposed lo "thunder slones'" etc.), it was possible for a condusion lo be reached regarding whetber or not lools had been found, given Ihe evidence presenled by sllch men as S~hmerling (183:l) and Boucher de Perthes (1849). Demonstrating the antiquity oC man resled wilh the
,
I!r"~
~
strenglh of the assoctatíon belween tools and extínct animal remains wilhin undisturbed depostts. The recognítton of the "hand of men." as it was frcquently referred to in the early literature, required tbe demonstratíon Ihat a design or plan had been usad in the productlon ofthe ítem (rel¡c¡ or construction Imonumenl} being investtgated. T'he place where Ihe relie or monument was located was important primarily for dernonstraüng ossoctcuons with natural obíects. sueh as the bones of animals. 'I'he lalter provided Ihe basís for chronolcgtcal assessrnont as well as sorne clue lo the nature of the envlronments characlerisfic of the eras when maIl had abandoned his ilems of handiwQrk. The invesligalion of relies in these lerms ramained the primary approaeh in Paleolithic researeh for a considerable number of years. The investigalioIl of monuments was largel)' aIl activity of c1assical archaeologists. or atleasl those interested in Neolithic and more reeent remains. The early procedures were based on assumptions characlerislic of the era in which archaeology began lo emerge. Central among Ihese ideas was Ihal of Ihe Creotor. A dislinclion was made between God's crealions (nafure) and man's crealions lcivilizalions). Tha plans of the "joinf' creators. Gad and man, were lo be seen in patlerning manifest in their separate crealions, nature for God. and relics and monuments for mano However. during {hese early years DE the relie and monumanl era. !he role of God as divine Creator oC nalure was severely queslioned. Wilh the debale over Darwin's unprecedenled insight thal pallerning in nature need no! be mferable to the prior execution of a divine plan, but instead might result from Ihe normal operalion of unplanned processes in nalure itselí, Ihe equation belween God's design or planning and patterning was challenged and largely abandoned. Vet man's role was nol quesfioned. Pat· lerning deriving from Ihe "hand of roan" conlinued to be viewed as a malerial manifeslation of man's plans and creative designs. 11 was in Ihis inteHeclnal context as applied lo monuments Ihal important advances in archaeological techniquF! were pioneered. Changas in method during this period are generally attributed lo two sourr:f>S: (o) cJa.qsieol archaeology (Daniel 196B: 65), whieh emphasized Ihe detailed mapping of ilems
i~
5
The Re/k and Monument Phcse
relative to ene enother. as well as in situ description of what Taylor (1948) would later cell "afñnttíes:" as sources of ínformañon about Ihe past: and (h] monument-oriented reseorch initialed by Pitt-Rivers at Cranborne Chese (published between 1887 and 189B). The tener served as a model for datacollecüng techntques. and formed the bas¡s for a conceptual shift toward Ihe investigalion of "preces." a shift that would be solídtñed in the succeeding arttfect and assemhlage .pericd. 11 is not surprising that the development of technique was the product of monument-orlented research. Excavations within monuments were investigalions within previously identified human constructions, such a hill forl. a long barrow, or a greal palace. Within such complicaled constructions the design or plan of Ihe builders could only be uncovered by eareful excavation and recording ofthe many parts making up Ihe overall conslruclion. The lechniques were not developed or employed lo demonstrale tha! a monument exisled; that was assumed The lechniques were viewed as proeedures permitting or facilitating a more accurale description of the manifest design or plan in terms of which the monument was construcled. Researchers of Ihe relic and monumenl phase worked with several basic ideas and a melaphysical po~i1ion that viewed the subjecl of study (lS things, specifically relics (movable) and monumenls (nol movable). These Ihings were recognizable as relevanl lo man's past by virtue oí Iheir demonstrable organizalion of properties belraying a design or plan that must have been in Ihe minds oftheir makers. For much of Paleolilhic IIrchaeology. Ihese views were coupled wilh lhe Victorian idea of progress, so Ihat temporal Irends in increasing complexily, judgmenls of refinement. or increased intelligenee were taken as direetly reflecling lhe character of Ihe minds or Ihe knowledge available lo those minds for designing or creating Iheir products. The early researchers inlo man's anliquity were concerned with "man" in Ihe generic sense, and lended lo have a single view of man as Ihe crealor of a progressive, unilinear emergenee_ This view is well iJlustraled in the following stalement: Il was about Ihis period-lhe end of the
11181
.:1
;/
I
ij, li :!
cenlury-
Ihal a greallrulh-Ihe inception ofwhich we Dwe lo our
li: 11
IJI¡
-,---
1,;;, te... -.?-fv ,A.¿(-J..,
A'
1 ;Id
ti
t. Relies lo Artifada and MClf1umenls lo Assemb/oges: Chonging Conceptual Frumewcrks
cnlleagues of France-c-begen lo leaven the reseerches . Ihis truth ís simply the recognilion lha! the law of 'change al prosress, which tnñuences al! the worldly eífetre of mano halda true no! only Ior the presenl bul also for pes! Seneralions of mankind. Every generañon has ita own dtsuncttve tesbtons and ideas: ji builds ita hauses, it ttfls lts fíelds. it makes its implements , il writes ita books. ir wears its clothes. and paínts íts pietures in 11 rnanner alightly dífferent frum the generettcn which went betore i11Keilh 1931: 466--489).
In addítíon lo generetton by generetton "progress," enalher idea gradualJy emerged duriog the last part of Ihe nineteenth century: Ihe idea of plural creators: De Morlillel him~elf helped to show Ihal one tl8semblase of Iype-fossils oould be used lo define. no! onlya pariodof archaeologicaJ limein france. bul alsoa nlltlonknown lo wrilten hls"ny .. ,. It was however, in Norlhern Europe and especiallyin Germany . thal archaeologislS finl camelo sea c1!:!arly Ihal assemblages of Iype fossils might characlerizenol only dislincl periods of time, bulalso dislincl nationsor Irlbeswilhin a single perlod. And il was German prehistorians who carne lo terro such recurren! as¡¡emblages of lype fossils "Kulturen"---e word ... Iranslalecl ¡nlo Englishas "cullures" lChilde 1956: 281· These "discoveries" ser (he intellectual stage for the developmenl of !he basic archaeological concepts wilh which we generally continue lo labor today. Cerlainly Ihey provided the basis fOla shifl from Ihe search (or man's place in nalure to Ihe searc.h for an appreciation of man 's ethnoeultural hislory: "The mosl profitable inquiry {ofarchaeologyJ is Ihe search for Ihe origin of epoch-making ideas in order lo comprehend Ihe history of civilizalion 10. T. Mason 1893: 41131."
The Artffact and Assemblage Phase A relie W8S a construeled objed, planned, designed, and manufactured by mano An artifacl, on the other hand, was any object or thing exhibiting properties Ihal appeared to be Ihe results of human adion. Relics and monuments were also things thal
exhibited propertíes of Interest. Classifications and texoncmíes had reference ro varíabilíty in the propentes manifes! amcng these individual units or thlngs. With the conceptual shtft lo artifacls and assemblages a fundamental changa occurred in the character of the baste archaeological units. Arlifacts were recognizable by virtue of their cssoclnüon wíth other objecre. in particular pleces. as well as by vtrtue of a distincl design or evtdence of planning, as was the case with a relk.. Stmilarly. assemblages were only recogntzeble by vírtue of demonstreble patterning in the ossccrcuons among things and c1asses of things at ploces. Although I have not atlempled to cover all the lilerature of the period, it is my impression that Ihe earliesl use oí Ihe eoncept of arlifact (bul nol necessarily Ihe wordl arose in two slighlly different research contexls. The firsl contexl is Ihal of Old World archaeologisls investigating relatively lale remains where items included wilhin human conslructions (monumentsj could be viewed as being there by virtue ofthe hand of man, even though Ihey may not have been manufaclured lo a design or a plan. Under such condilions an ilem or class of items receives ils artifact slatus nol by virtue of formal properties exhibiting "design or planning," bul inslead by virtue of its associalion wilh demonstrable reHcs or monumenls exhibiting unambiguous planning and design within deposils considered lo hove been construcled or at leasl formed "by the hand of man," The second contexl in which the concept of artifacl gained sorne importance was among Paleolithic archaeologisls who frequenlly spoke of recognizing prehistorie "habilations." When such c1eims were made Ihe investigalors tended lo treal Ihe contenls of "deposits" as if they were monumenls construcled by Ihe hand of mano Sorne of Ihe shift lo the metaphysics later associated with the concepts of arlifacl and assemblage is seen in the conlraversv between Ihe proponents of Ihe use of fauna as ü· eriteria for defining eras or periods in man's past. and lheir opponenls, who advocated the c1assification of relic.s and in turn the reeognition of eras by virtue of the constellalion al relíes systemalically found in association at plar;es. By lhe lurn of Ihe cenlury Ihis shifl lo recognizing assemblages was generally adopled. (despite the fael tha! sorne particular relic classes were considered more diagnostic
Thp I\rtifocl ond Assemblnge Phcse
than other fcrms]. In short. "bebítettons" were increasingly Irealed as rnonuments. and the systemat¡o investigation of cave depostts ptoneered earlier was pursued wíth great tntereet. was in the Mousterien ege thet man first made hts horne In caves: Ihe period takes íts name indeed from Ihe cave of Le Mousfier in the velfey of Vezére, Dordogne, where its remains were firsl carefully studted
It
[Sollas 1924:212]. Caves heve been repealedly frequented by groups of m!:!n; during eaeh occupalion broken lmpl",menls, discarded ornamenls. bones left over froro repasls. ashes and olher refuse will be droppad and trodden inlo lhe cave floor.formingQ habilation layeror cullura·slralum (freneh foyer), If Ihe cave be then daserled, ClIYe-earth fal1s fromIhe roofor slala¡;¡rnlle mayform a sterile [ayer. The laller will seal the underlying habilalion layer. bul roay form a floor on whlch man, eYenlulIlly relurning. will deposil a second occupalion layer.. Plalnly lha artifacls and other dala in aaeh deposit conslitute en tlssemblage of assocíaled lypes IChilde1956:59J. The shift lo Ihe treatmenl of a habi1ation as if it were a monumenl braughl an interesting change in !he characler of the criteria used to identify the habitalion. In the earlier periad one recagnized a reHe and/ar a monumen! by virlue of the plan or design manifest in Ihe organizalion of the thing itself. Habilalions weTe not so easily recognized, particularly in Paleolithic research. HabitaHons were instead ídentifiable by a characteristic pattern of association among lhings al a particular place. Thal is, recognttion of habilations was in terms of a diognostic 05sociolion among Ihings al particular places. This provided Ihe basis for a shift nol only in Ihe unils of analysis and synlhesís. but also in Ihe fundamental character of Ihe units of observation. Whal were lhe crileria fOl reeognizing a habitation? They were as folJows: 1. The aggregaled presence of demonstrable re-
Hes in the design sense of Ihe term 2. The associaled presence of animal bones assumed to he indir:ative o( Ihe meals of andent
m,"
J. The associated presence of fire
4. The assor:iafion of the foregoing eiements in a "sheltered" setling. as inside a cave or roáshelter
7
These eharaeteristies provided an operalional definition of a habitefion Ihal was drawn from our contempcrary human experíence of living in hornes or resídences. It W
dt
ui :11
¡¡ I! ,1
; ¡
..,.... 8
1, Heftcs to Artífocls ond Mnnuments lo AsspmtJlup;es: Changing Conceptual Frnmeworks
as eaely as 1823, reportad on the similarily between bone modification observed in depoaits beheved lo have been accumuleted by hyenes and abone expedmentally gtven lo a spotted hyena at a traveling menegerie. 80yd Dawkins. writing during the formalive years ofthe relic and rnonument era, commented un Bucklend's earlim work as worthy ol emulation: Dr. Buc:k1and's method of solving the problem oí 'he ínnoducuon of rema los of so meny and differenl ent. mals tnto so smell 8 spece. ía a model of scientlfic analysis. He arguea (rom Ihe abundance of 'he remains of Ihe hyaenllllTld (roIDthe correspondence of their lee!h with Ihe marks on ,he bones, lIod from 'he quantity of
Ihair coprolites. Ihal the cave was inhabiled by mallY gBnerationsof those animals, and Ihal the gnawed fragments were relks of their prey.. '. He further demonslrated Ihe truth of his conclusions 1»' the crudal exper¡ment of subjecting the leg.bone of an ox to a spotled hyaena from the Cape of Good Hope, in Wombwell's menllgerie. the exact correspondence of one of ¡he fragments of the libia of an ox gnawed by lhe Cape hyaena, with Ihe corresponding bone of lhe bison from Kirkdale,. . The same kind of identity runs through the whole series of bones gnawed by the living and fossil hyaenlls. Dr. Buddllnd's conclusion that the Kirkdale cave was ¡he den of Ihe spolled hyaena (H. crouto) lhal preyed upon the animals ofYorkshire in ancienl limes,¡md Ihat It was undisturbed down to the lime of ils exploration. canllot be disputed. The trelld of the hyoenas in their passage lo ond fro had polished lIome of Ihe bones and jawsscattered on Ihe floor IDswkins 1874:281-2841 The recognition Ihat animals and olher nonhu· man agenls rould modify bones to a pattem prompted sorne early and importanl research designed lo provide recognition criterio for modificalions affected by humans as opposed to other agenls. This was considered Important. since c1aims for "Tertiary man" had been frequently made during the lasl half of the nineteenth cenlury, based nol infrequently on claims lhal bones Ihal had been modified lo a "plan" had been found in early deposils. In fac!. approximately the firsl 50 pages of De Morlillet's famous work Le Préhistórique (1900) are concerned exclusive!y with the recognition of bones morlified hy man as opposed to animals and other agenl~. What I find e)(lremely inleresting is lhe second researeh stralfJgy followed in idenlifying bones modified or inlroduced to deposits by man a~ opposed lo
other agents. Th e most eomman strategv was to sludy the patterníng considercd manifest 00 bones reccvered from hebttattons. Sínce man was res panstble for the deposít he rnust aleo have been raspensible for Ihe pattemlng manifest in and on tts contents! One of the earhest systematic descnptions of modifíed bones recovered in an archaeologtcal setting was Ihat by Henri Martin (1907 -1910). His work is a mixture of salid observauon and descnptlcn. which are sUB useful. and a kind ot speculation that seems Hule more Ihan romanlic faney. Part of the "faney" derives direclly from Ihe assumplions and reasoning Ihal underlay Ihe pallem-recognition studies he conducted. Beeause 1he material he was anal)'z;ing carne from Ihe archaeological sita of La Quina. which was assumed to have been a habitalion, the contents of Ihe site were accepted as being Ihere by the hand of mano Consequently, patterned modificatioos were thought lo be referable lo human behavior. In short, one assumpfion about the charaeter af the archaeo10gical record-that Ihe site was a habitalion-was being used as the control condilion for referring Ihe patterning observed in Ihe conlenls of Ihe deposi1s lo human behavior. This approach is well ilIustrated in one artide by Martin {1906) in which he suggested Ihal a reindeer melapodial Ihal bore the unmislakable impressions of animal teeth demonslrated Ihal Ihe occupanls of Ihe site of La Quina musl have domeslicaled Ihe dog, for in whal other way could Ihe marks made by a beasl occur al a human habitation? Many of Ihe early inlerprelalions of andenl IIfe were thl'! consequences of a similar logic. A good example is provided by the Sirgenstein cave. excavaled just after the turo of the cenlury (Schmidt 1912). of particular interesl was Layer C. which yielded a Mousterian assemblage associaled with large numbers of cave bear bones. This mixing of lools and bones was ciled as evidence thal Ihe cave bear bones did not occur in Ihe context of a den deposit bul in facl represented bears Ihat had baen exploited by man as food (Schrnidl 1912: 165). In addition lo Ihe large quantities of bear bones. there were al leasl two "rodent layers" lhat yielded no cultural materials. On top of Ihe Mousterian materials was a layer yielding Upper Paleolilhir: 10015 associated wilh a flluna dominafed numerically by hyena. Despile whill appears lo me lo 00 provocative
e"""
The Artifuct end Assemblage Pbcse
evidence of a palimpsest depostt, deriving from a variety of events and acttons by both man and antmels. the excavators tnterpreted tha enttre deposit as the result of homíntd behavior. Man selectívely hunted bears end later hyenas! This type of approach was eommon end was not infrequently associated with the claíms for the use of bone as a tool. The irnportant cave of vogelhenj Lit Würtemberg, Germany, is an example. The site was excavated in 1931 by Oustav Rlek, who published a three-volume repcrt [Riek 1934), The cave had not been dislurbed by modern excavations prior to investigation by the archaeologisls. Nurnerous layers were recognized. bul mosl of the bone malerial associated wilh Mousterian tools was recovered from an area described as oval in shape just lo the left and behind the southwest entrance. The largest bones were said to be arranged along the cave walls; the smal1er bones. in Ihe cantero The Mouslerian lools were described as lorgely restricted lo an area 3.5 x 4.0 m, where the artifacts and bones occurred in "c1ose contact." Cave bear, cave hyena. wolf. and cave Hon bones were Ihe most common in this "close association." where the approximately 50 stone tools were recovered. In IIddition to the stone tools. a number oC modified bones designated 10015 were recognized by the excavalors. These were Iisled as seven "bellscrapers," three "hip-joinl-sockel scrapers,,' Iwo "smoothing" lools. and one awl. Bellscrapers have been described as "Ihe libias oi large animals such as Rhinoceros, horse or '.
9 tinn wilh a fauna domíneted by cave beer in Renis I ami both cave bear and cave hyena in Renis Il, Occurríng in both levels but reported lo be more common in Renís II were a number of "worked bone tools." In addition lo the already descrtbed bellscrapers and hip-joinl scrapers were so-callad "fursmocthers.' and "worked" cave beer mandíbles. The identity of IheSE! items as tools has been repeatedly questtoned (WelzeI1969; Zotz 1951:136), neverthelees. the descriptíon ofsuch "10015" Irom levels domínated by hyena and cave beer remains ís interestmg. Sorne of the more irnaginative and fanciful "bone laols" have been described from famous bear cave deposits. Particularly important in this regard is the report on Petershole by K. Hormann (1923). A total of 20 stone tools are reported from three separate depositional levels in Ihe cave. Large numbers of cave bear bones occurred throughoul the deposits in various side chambers. These were described as piled in crevices, on stone slabs. and in interesting combina_ tions. In addition lo lhe cava OOar Ihere were 55 idenlified elements of carnivores from Level l. Cervids, bovids, and horses were represented by only48 identified elemenls (see Htirmann 1923: 137 -138J. Staled anolher way the assemblage was dominated by Carnivora. There were few stone 10015. bul a relatively large number of "worked bones" were reported. One of the more imaginalive forms, "bultons." are ilIus traled as small see/ions of long-bolle cylinder. In addition. Ihere were a number of "bolle knives," described as sectians of bone with chipped retouch along ends or laleral margins; "spearheacls and arrowheads." identifiable by their suggestive shapes only; and finally a number of "worked bones" ex· hibiting radial scarring, lateral ·'relouch." and smooIhing of ends-all of which are indistinguishable from fragments of humeros identified by Kilching as "knives. pounders and scoops." {See Plate 17 in Kitehing [19631 and compare Plate XLVII in Hórmann 11923l.} Many of these sorne "Iypes" of "worked bone" have been reporte<:! from more recently investigaled localions such as RepolustHohle (MotU 1951:23,33-34. Plale XXIII), where the fauna is likewise dominated by Carnivora. Although the Cerman and other North European Iiteralure cerlainly has many I:1xarnples of wha! cal] ~nly be called anlhropocentrisTTJ-lhe assumplion thal if any evidence exists for Ihe presence of homínids everylhing present is Ihe product of
"
1:;
;;E:
¡ji !Ii
l'
1I
,~I
11~i
l! .~¡ I
~ '¡~
:
,
II¡
,. 10
1. Ralles to Arlifor:ls und Monuments lo Assembloges: Chonging Conceptual Frnrnewcrks
homlnid ectíon-c-some very explicit examples come from Great Britain. For tnstence. the famoue Kent's Ca~ in Devonshtre, England. excavated by the Reverend Iohn MacEnery end leter by WiIliam Pengelly, exhibits all the properttes ot having beco primarily a den of cave bears sud then later a hyena lalr [sea tooth counte in Cempbell and Sampson [1971; 15). Mixed with the faunal remetas were Acheulian sud Mousterian tools. The epetíel [ux_--t-aposition wes sufñcíent lo leed Campbell and Sampson {1971: vii) lo suggeat tbat "specielíeed butchertng al htbemaung bears duríng wtnter may
(1907~1910J,
Sehmidt P912), Riek 11934), Andree (1939), Hórmann (1923), and Bachler (1921, 1940). 2. There were dfstmcttve bone too/s cssccrcted with the remotns of cave becrs as weJ1 as evidence jnr the special treotment of cave becrs und theh remcrns. This vlew ergued Ior the extstence of a bear cult and proposttíons were advanced regerdtng the spíntuel characterístícs of Middle Paleoltthtc mano These argumente may have developed Irom views popularized through the work of Schmidl and Wernert (1910). Schmtdt'e work has been summanzed by Sollas (1924), who wrote,
haya been practil..""t!d by the so-called 'unspBCíalized'
A<:heulian hunfers." Tha dominant Une 01reasoning used in defining bolh patterns "diagnostic" of human behavior and assodations ol ltems thal served as the basis for behavioral ¡nferenees was as follows: 1. The argumenl was made that an archaeological sile was a habitation. 2. A habitation was considered a type of monu· ment. 3. The assodaled elemenls within a monument were all Ihere by virtue of the hand of mano Therefore, Q. Any patterning demonstrable within classes of assodated elements was relerable to human actions. b. Any patterning demonstrabJe among c1asses ol 85Sodated elements was refer· able to human acUons. Tftis parlldigm of reasoning permitted sorne "reconstruction" of the past based on observalions made on the archaeological record, and as a result of its use several ideas about the past were gradually solidified. There was, for example, periodic f1irlalion with the idea that man may have made and used bone tools befare he used stone (see De Mortillet 1900:25~54; Menghin 1931). More important lo the futura directions of Paleolithic archaeology were three recurrenl arguments about man's nast: 1. Bone tools were common ond fraquenl components of MiddJe ond, perhups, Lower Poleo/ithic 1001 assembloges. They were recognizable by their shapes, which were suggestive of their uses, liS well as by superficial modificalions and forms oC breakage. Advor.¡Jles of Ihis view were Henri Martin
Of htte years Germany has added i1s contnbulions, and one of the mosl precisely investigated caves of modern times is that of Sirgensteln . the broken boMS of animals ware strewn about. The Cave Besr (Ursus speJoeus).. was by far the eommonest; this animal was tha universal "caretaker" oecupying the cave during the absenee of tha hunters snd reeeiving shorl shrift when they relumad.Jt was also a favorite food,as is shown by the great numbers of bears' bones whieh are massed together near Ihe threshold of the cave as well as plenlifuJly scattered about. No one cave could have supplied so many besrs. and the hunters musl have ransacked the surrounding dislriet in pursuit of Ihem. Mosl of Ihe bones belonged to young animals whieh were. no doubt, an easler prey as well as mole deBcate ealing [pp. 2212231·
In these early works there is Ibe nolion of an almost spedalized hunting of cave bears. In lhe mid1921ls this emphasis or suggestion of a special rela· tionship belween man and cave bear was elaboraled by Bachler (1921,1940) and Hórmann (1923), and the idee of a bear cul! emerged (see Abel 1925). In the words of later wrilers presen\ing "general understandings" of the pas!. Why Neandarlhal man began "unting tha Cave Bear ís not cerlain. It was 11 formidable animal. slanding mOfe thllneighl feat laJl when reared in anger. IInd musl have been a dangerous foe. It also Jived in mueh more lnae.::essible pl!fces than mosl of the Olhergame, Nevertheles'. iI WllS hunted-perhaps lo fulfillan early hunting rllual Discoveryof bear skul1sslacked in a slone ehest in Orachenloch. Swilzerland, supporls lhis idea; Ih.,. heads may have been Itophies IHowel! 1965:1261. In high-I.,.vel eavllS of Swilzerlillld,Bavaria ami Croatia, evidenee exis!s of a cull of beara involvin¡¡: the deposilion of besr skulls and bones in certain raves .. In a
The Arlifoct ond AssemblogePhcse chamber of the Drachenloch in Swítzerlend. a stone ctst had been built lo hnuse stecked bear-skulls; piles of scrted long borres were laid along the walls of fhe cave. Another heep of bcnee contained Ihe skull of a beer
througb whích a lag bone had been Jorcad, the skulJ resting upon two other long bones, eech bone wa~ from
a diffelent beest [Coles and Hlgga 1969:286-2671.
This idea of a spectel celatíonship between man and cave beer seems to have struck a responsive note in modem readers. for almos! all Ilterature treettng the "origine of religión" cites these argumente and pleces particular emphaeís on thesa "important" developments leading lo our "human" status. 3, Ancient man wos [} cannibaJ. Perhaps one of the more inOuential early c1aims for ancient cannibalism was made in the repar! on exca:vations at Krapina (see Gorjanovic.Kramberger 1905). Other aulhors during the same era sounded similar notes [set:! for instance Rutot 1907). These early suggesIions were greatly elaborated both prior to and immedialely after World War n. The cannibalism suggestion was gradually linked with lhe so-called "Cult of Skulls" (Bergounioux 1958; Wernert 1948). For instan.::e, Weiclenreich (1928) describes the Ehringsdorf skull in the following lerms: Ihe frontal area beara undoubted signs of havíng been hil by stone weapons and it can be assumed that Ihis individual had heen murdered. (b) Ihe absenee of Ihe eranial base. no fragmenl of which was conlalned in Ihe block of travertine from which Ihe skull has baen 6)(Iracted, indicates Ihat the skull had been opened to extraet the brain lp. 671 Laler Berckhemer (1934) described the Steinheim skull as having been artificially widened at the base around the foramen "for purposes of extracting Ihe brain." This view was furlher supported by Ihe description of the Monte Circeo skull by Blanc (1939). This important skull was recovered from a small chamber ¡¡nked to several other cave rooms by narrow passages. In all, the complex can be viewed as seven caves. five of which are reported lo have yieJded some MOllsterian remains. Blanc has reportad on this find in numerolls places [1950, 1958, 1961]; the skllll is said lo have been Iying as an isoJaled element surrounded by rocks near the center of a small chamber. Aones of olher animals are reported concenlrated in al least Ihree addiliOllílJ locations
11 within the chember (see Blanc 119581 for a good de-
scnpnon).
,1
The lhree basic ideas just described largely grew from early twentieth-century exceveüona of Europeen "cave" and rockshelter deposita referable to men of the Mousterian era and of more recent times. The excítement of a first glímpse of men considerably earüer than the Neenderthelers carne with the discovery of the slte of Choukoutíen in China. This site was remarkable for Its greet antiqutty, and íbe preeence of importan' fossil hominid rematas. It was also extraordinary in its being a cave deposit that yielcled tools, evidence of fire, and bones in vast quantities; in short, it was viewed as a habitation site in the sense in which the European caves had becn viewed, The methods of interpretation already common in Europe were used to make slalements about man's behavior in the remate past as well as to provide the "control" Cor recognizing patterned produets of man's aneienl handiwork. In 1935 in aslo the Abbé Breuil delivered 8.11 inf1uential paper in which he propasad that there had been an extensive bone tool industry al the ancient Chinese site: Lel's go hack in Ihought, than. fa that dark dawn of the industrial phase of mano We find him or his intelligent ancestor surrounded by animala batter armed by Nature than himself, Iions and bears, with teeth and d8WS. grass-ellters wilh homs and antler~. What more natural lhan to rob fhem of Ihese wellpons to use 8gainst lhem? Ever a hunter. Man hlld around him the ,keletal remains of his víctims, quickly unfleshed by himself, by carnivares and by natural agencies. He also encounlared on his wanderings Ihe east antlers of deer and Ihe carusses of lhe carnivores' prey. Sorne of !ne completed longer bonas made Itxeellenl clubs witn handlllS not ee.sily broken:some of Ibe boneseould in thair natural slale be used for pricking~plercing holes; some larger and flal eould be used as shovels; others which were lonller, ltS levera; yel others whích were shorl and sloul mlght suggest an IInvil or a h8mmero while such as were broad, thin snd trenchan\, when grasped. became scrapers and plane~. When Man. armed with 11 pebble. broke long bones to exlracl the marrow. like a hYllena, they broke in diffprenl WII}'S. Sorne had arlkuhtr ends eonvenient for holding if man wishen to u~e them as lmplements, while the olher enn was pointed. Others. pieces of
I!I l'
'!I~
• "7"
12
1.
Hehcs lo Arlifacfs and Monuments to AssembJalles: Changing Conceptual Fromeworks
diephysea, had ends that could be used as points or chisel, end culting edges which could serve as knives or scnrpers. Vnlike tha hyaena Man often broke the borres Iengthwise lBr8uiJ 1936:57-56; emphaais added).
Here we see the imaginativa picture of bone-uslng hormnids that later captured the fancy ofmany audio ences as the "osteodontokeratic culture" of yet aarlier man advocated by Rayrnond Dart during the 1-950s.However, tha history of ideas dealíng with the Choukoutien material is in itselffascinating, beceuse ir tllustretes opposlng interpretive poínte of view regarding bone too1s, views slill with us today in the old World and increasingly becoming an active issue in New World studias (see Friedman 1980:7). Breuil {1939) studied the animal bones from Choukoutien, and Weidenreich (1941) reported the hominid rernains. In the works of Ihese two men, parallal theses were presented: (o) that an exlensive bone tool industry existed al Choukoutien and (b) Ihal "Sinonthropus," Ihe "man" responsible for bolh stone and bone industry, was a cannibal. The argumenl offered by Breuil was based on Ihe suitability of Ihe shape of abone for use in a given manner, with Ihe inference lhat it would, Iherefore, have been so used, and the modification of bone as evidence Ihal intentional shaping by man was involved. Breuil ciled the presence of rounded and "polished" edges. chipped or tlaked edges, incisions or abrasions on flal surf8ces, and "characteristic" longitudinally broken bone. Weidenreich's argument for the cannibalistic consumption of bone marrow was based on fractures of Sinonthropus long bones. "Long splinters deÍl off lhe shaft longitudinally so Ihal the medullary canal lies exposed" were considered characteristic of the actions of Sinanthropus: "This manner of splitting is generally believed lo be the result of human manipulation carried oul with the aid of implements in order lo exlract the marrow IWeidenreich 1941:751." In the work of bolh Breuil (1939) and Weidenreich (1941] tnere was Ihe clear belief that sorne long-bone breakage pattems were distinclive and even diagnostic ofhuman agency. In addition, Breuil interpreted modified bones as resulting (rom human aclion_ In Ihis era fhere was, however, rclevant research that provided evidence lo the contrary_ Weidenreich
cites a study by Zapfe (1939:761. who experimentally studted the way in whích living camívorea, especially the hyena. cbew long bones, and even ilIustreted how sorne of the broken Sinanlhropus long bones corresponded lo the propertíes cíted by Zapfe as charectertsttc of carnívores. Howevee. he concluded thal "Ihe possibility extsts that the long femur splinlers were not the produet of Smonthropus hirnself. This alternartve. however. seems to me very unlikely Ip. 771." In other words. despite the evtdence. wetdenretch preferred to vtew Sinanthropus as a cannibel! Nearly the same sttuatíon exista with the arguments presented by BreujJ. Wen-chung Pei (1938:1) then director of the Cenozoic Research Laboratory in China, published a very important monograph, largely in answer to Breuil, rightful1y posing the question. "Commenl reconnaltre I-action bumaine sur un debris osseus?" Pei proceeded to present the information available to him as lo the modifications produced by rorlenls and predators, as well as the effects of water, soil chemistry, and soíl lexlure or bones. Pei was convinced Ihat many of Ihe mod¡ficalions cited by Breuil as evidence for human use appeared ret"erable to other agents. After World War TI [1939-1945) many of Ihe prewar argumenls were continued (see Battaglia 1953; Ehrenberg 1959, 1962) regarding the existence of the hear cuH and associated dislinclive "Alpine Mouslerian" (Leonardi 1958). The focus of controversy regarding bone tools was. however, laken out of its regional and provincial contexl with the daims by Raymond Dart (1949) for an osleodontokeralic culture anceslrallo the production of slone tools by our earliest hominid anceslors. Dart's argumenls have been reviewed by Wolberg (19701. These c1aims placed the conlroversy over interpretalion of modified bones al the very roo~s of human hislory and drew Ihe atlention of all regional specialisls as well as a widespread lay audience. Dart's claims for bone tools in lhe australopilhecine sites of South Africa provided paleoanthropology wilh a Ii ...ely and cerlainly imaginative controversy, which has continued to the present lime. Darl's argumenl was very similar to that of Breuil. He ciled the polenlial utiJ ily of Ihe shapes 01' various anatomical parts and Ihen inferred Ihal early man must ha... c taken advantage 01' Ihis potential. Adual
The Arlifoct cnd A$sembloge PhaSe modíñcatíons cited as diagnostic of human acuons includsd an allegedIy distinctive mode of long-bone breakege. the "crack-end-twtst'' method resulting in preshaped bones and spirally fraclured bone spítnters, and (as in the case of Breuíl] varíous abrasions, strtattons. and ínctsíons. as well as chipped or "worked" edges. In addition, Dart made a slrghtly different argurnent. namely, Ihal evídence for rnan's selective use of anatomical perts rested wíth the diíferential frequencies of "useful" parts in the sttes of early mano Thus. for Dart two important seis of Iacts converged: modlñcauons on bones. which were interpreted as produced by man. and the assocíated differential frequendes of anatomica) parts, which were interpreted as resulting from the differential transport of hunted foods lo "man's home." For Dart there were facls of modificolion and foclS oJ assembloge composition, which he believed could be dled as evidence fOf hominid behavior. It is not surprising that. given Dart's claims, olhars would offer as evidence modified andJor broken bones in supporl of the position that 1001-usiog hominids occupied different places other than Africa prior to the developmenl of stone tools. Such c1aims have been made for the paleontological remains from the Netherlands (Luttschwager and von Remmel 1962) as well as Rumania (Nicolaescu-Plopsor and Nicolaescu-Plopsor 1963), Many of Ihese arguments have been seriously challenged (see Feustel 1969, 1970); neverlheless, they persist on the level of "opin¡on." Thal is, specific modificalions are compared. and then the opinion is offered ~hat c1early only aman could have produced the modifications illustrated! With Dart's c1aims we Ide an importanl step away from Ihe propositions that permitted the recognilion of a habilation during the firsl half of the twenlieth century. Mosl important was Ihe absence of stone tools as a criterio n or concomitan! in his sites. He sought lo meel Ihe tool criteria by arguing for Ihe presence of bone tools. Dart, obviously knowledgeable about the earlier work that described morphological patterning among bones assodated with unembiguous slone tools al habilalions, could now appeal to thal patterning to support his daims for the modified and broken bones from his sites as tools. This c1aim lent support to his fmther daim that the sites were hahitalions. thereby justifying in-
13 ferences from tncluded malerials about the behavior of AustmlopHhecus. Dart's case ls of no small sígniñcance. since his early claims for the ancestor status of the Taung skull to modern man had largely been rejecled on morphological grounds. Dart increesingly argued that the eustralopithectnes were protohuman by virtue of behavioroJ cherectenetrcs manífest in the archaeoJogical record. This was the firsl Importen¡ demand íor behovioral informal ion from the orchoeoJogicoJ record of unclent mano Prior to Dert's claims there had been some altempls lo charactenze Iha behavtor of early man. but al no time were the inferred behavioral characleristics considered eilher crucial lo argumenls abaut Ihe sequence of human evolution or central lo the important question of the hislory of "human nature," as was Ihe case for Ihe behavioral daims by Dart 1949, and especially 19571: Ihe innomlnale bone found al Slerkfonlein and Ihe occiput from Makapansgllt hove pruvlded furlher evidence lhat these creatures artlmorec10sely related lo man Ihall lhey are to the ape$ They are prolo-human belng5 and Ihey are the most primltlve hominids of whom we huve knowledge. JI therefore becomes cor~spondingly urgenl that we should elicil fmm those depo~its in which prolo-humans occur alllhe ovoiloble information beor· inR on their manual dexlt'rily and implementa/ inlelJi· gence IOarl 1949:2:emphasis added]. The questions being put to ~he archaeological record of early man in Africa were not hislorieal in Ihe sense of !hose asked by archaeologists working with remeins from more recent periods. They were concerned with fundamental questions about Ihe very nature of "protohuman" behavior; Ihat is, how do we get behavioral information froro the archaeoJogical record? In Ihe conlext of this importanl shift of emphasis and in tum its demands for information about the pas!. sorne important changes began to take place in Paleolithic research. ln the era immediately after World 11 a sel of c1aims was made by Africanists, which foreshadowed a long and importanl sel of arguments relating to Ihe nature of earlv roan's behavior. rhese were the c1aims by Louis a~d Mary I.eakey that Ihey had isolated living floors at the site of Olorgesailie. Both l. Desmond Clark and Merriek Posnansky have expressed Ihe opinion to me thal the search for living
Ww
i
I
'1,
,1
í
:1 ,
I
.,
..L!L:.~."
,.
l. Betícs lo Al1ifocr:s ond Monurnents to Assembieges: Chonging ConCl.!ptuol Fmmeworks
floors was the contributioo of Mary Leekey. who hed hutaperience wilh ','Neolithic" excavations and an tnterest in the use of archaeologtcel techniques to ínvestíeete the "place," rether Ihan just using the place lo recover arufects. Severa! persons have indiceted that the Leekeys' original claíms for living 0001'5 al Olcrgesetlte were besed en the eegument that the sedimenta were fine and hence the geologt-
. -cel processes resuhing in burial were "gentle." Under aucb candillons ODe could expect ttems lo remaio where they were deposited by agents such as thIB homlnids of lh~ early time ranges. This "origi_ nal" argument regarding living floofs is al least partially presented by lsaBC;
°
Olorgesailie wa8 8uilable as tesling groulld bttI;aU5tl arUfac!s could be recovered from fine-grained sediments Ihat had praserved detalled evidences of archaeological assocjations. These could be related lo stratigrapby and to festures 01 the original envirQnmen!. Thls preservalion was in marked contras! lo Ihe sites that hlld yielded most 01 the evidence on whlch the c1llSslc interpretations of Middle Plelstocene culture had prevlously dtlp~ndttrlI19n;11· Despite the facl Ihat Lonis Lea.key reported the Olorgesailie living floors (L. S. B. Lee.key 1946), sorne believe that he did not "realize their ¡mpIILafíons" (Vincent 1918:32), as he viewed Ihem as use· fui for assemblage definition and not so much as .!nueces of behavioral information about Ihe pas!. The view that Ihe Leakeys treated the 5urfaces more as "curiosities" is perhaps supported by referenee lo Isaac's descriptioos of their excavations at Olorg8sIlIille {1971:28·79), which cite pltlfully few records macle by tha Leakeys for excavatíons carried out between 1943 and 1941. \-iore recent work and 8Ctual analY8ls of !he racts from OJorgesaiHe render lhe identificalion of living f100rs lesll and les3 Iikely (see L. R. Binford 1971b: Isaac 1977). Nevertheless. the search for living floors was first prompted by Ihe Leakeys' claims at Olorgesailie. Most dearly iI was in the work of J. Desmond Clark al Kalambo Falls where Ihe techniques of recovery that have fortunately become somewhat standard in Paleolithic resea.rch were originAlly pioneered. Clark states, The lower horizons containlng the artilacts showed liltle evidence Dfdislurbsnce by waler action b~fore burial
and it was apparen! that Ihl! Jilhic and other material Iying on them representad debris from human occupetícn sitas. w~ developed, therefore, a tedmique for excavating tbese "Iloors,' end thelater dislurbad surfaces. fi~I d~n¡n8 off the ovarlyi"$! stertle senos and days and expostng the fluor, or sectíon of ñoor. so that the relatlonshlp of everylhing on it couid be cleerly seen and plotted. In thís way we were eble lo obtem detalls of thp. relationships of the tools. factory waste, natural stcnee. and wood IlIJId so 01 relatiunships between classes 01 snaped tcols. thus supplementing ¡fu:! inlormatten te be obtatned from a sludy 01 Ihe artilacts Ihemselves 11. o. Clark 1969:11-121·
111 Clark's early work geological crileria and facts of site structure such as lhe association of debitage with COTes and anvils appear to hAvehHln the criteria for recognizing a living floor. This approaeh to living·floor recognition is well iIlustrated by Ceoffrey Band's description of these flaors:
The Artifoct cnd Assembloge Phase
exteneíon of the monument concept to hebttatícns and later lo living floors has in my opinion resulted in numerous myths regerdtng man'a encíent pest. "Tools" have been described thal were probably producod by hyanas, cave bears, and cther predatnrs, and the buntíng of such unllkely foods as bvena and cave beer has been cossktered a regular pert of rnan's behavror. The most íncredtble exampla of this Iype of myth making must be the analysis of materials from Pin Hale Cave at Craswell Crags, Derbyshire, which was excavated by Armslrong and studied by Kitching (1963). There Kitching worked with 6985 identifiable bone elements, of which 3197 (46%) were from carnivores and 1061 were from the hyena alone. Mixed among Ihi~ cArnivore-dominaled faunal assemblage were sorne telltale stone tools. These were sufficient to lead Kilching to the interpretalion that everylhing found in Pin Hole WaSin fad the result of hominid actlvity:
Tha floors are only one mone tbid. snd every ,tone is
eilher an artiloc\, Oake, or anvil. The enclmlng sediment, are non-pebbly and on Ihe floors thamselves there are no pebbltls whkh were transported by natural means; they were aU left in their presenl positions by prehisloric mano They are shorp and unworn. nor were Ihey ltpparently moved slgnificanlly from the original positions b¡ Ihe a¡;tion of water They were facto!)' floors in the best sense al lhe tenn (Bond 1969'.2071·
The Iransport of anUre bodies 01 bolh large snd smaU carnivoras jnto the cave or the killing of them while they wore marauding the cave lIccount~ no! only for lhe greot number of Iheir faetal remllins (especially Ihose of tba hyaena) bu! also for Ihe highly elOdedcondillon of ji large number olbone flakes and deciduous teeth [Kilch¡ng 1963:191
F. Clark Howell searehed for living f100rs al Isimila and lalar al Torralbe, and tho Leakeys seBrched for such floors al Olduvai Gorge. In Ibe laller case a new definilion of a living floor was offered; "Ihe occupatiOD debris is found on a palaeosol or old land surlace wilh a vertical distribution of only a lew im.:hes [M. D. Leakey 1911: 258J." This definitioo is very clase lo that which mosl areha8ologists would offer fOl Eln archaeological sil~n aggregation of artifacts (rellcs) on a ¡and surface! The problem, which should be clear, is Ihe degree to which the assumptions governing "interpretation" of a monument are justified with raspee! to such pllu:es as living floors or even habitations as defined by Paleolithic archaeologists. 11 will be recalled Ihat a monumenl is considered a construction produced by man; hence, all the elements, or compollent~ of the constnwtion Can be assumed to be there "by Ihe hand of man," The interprelative justification Ihal went wilh Ihe
AH of these arguments regarding the subsistence base oC the early hominids are based 00 ¡nfereneas frum 8ssociations bctween bones and stone tooh at alleged living sites. To what degree may this assumption be made casnally and how ¡¡kely is such an assumption about the past to represent Ihe past realily~ How "realistic" is Ihe assumplion that associations between stone t001s and bones at a site imply beltavioral io:tegratioo: in the pasl? Given that predation and death are normal eVllnts in any environment. to what extent may Ihe archaeologist expect to find evidence of such events in situations favoring preservation ofbones? This question 18 being invesligated by a number ofresearchers. particularly in Africa. To appreciate the eharacter of this problem, one mus! become familiar wHh sorne basic faels of nature, For inslance, George B. Schaller (1972:396) estlmates théll pred
!
15 150,000 to 200,000 anímals tktlledl ennuelly." In other places predators remove an estimated 9-10% of the total ptey btomass ennuellytscheller 1972:391). As a simple axercise. let us see what such a situation would look like if we essumed that predetcrs are equally successful in all habítats. Table 1.01 presenta summary dala on the emount of secondary biomass that might be expected in different envtronments. aesuming equal success of predalors [not very likely-we can expect that as food density goes down predator effectiveness may be reduced somewhat: certainly there would be a dependence on smaller animals], AIso the amoullt of pr¡"y (dead animals in kilograms} that might be expected in the different habitats per square kilometer. What is clear is tha! we may expect maior annual accumulations of bones in tropical savannas, substanlial accumulatlons in temperate grasslands, and minar accumulations in temperate forests, tropi. cal rain foresls, boreal lorests, and tundra. Just as a demonslration, lel us imagine 8n environment aIong the grsss margins oC s boreal forest such as one might find in central Manitoba, Ganada, Dr in numerous mountaln s¡"ttingll. Let us propase that predator kllls would be roughly the mean of expected values for the
1
,1 .
."
1 l'
TABLE 1.01 Secondory Diomo" ond EsUmoted Prey Accumulated lar
Vorlous Habltat:;;"
Habita'
Amounlol Secondary hiomaS8 prey I:txpectl:td (kglkm'l (kglkm'l
Norlnern or polDr~
Tundra Boreal foresl Temperale c Mixed broadleal fores! Prairie grassland Tropic&ld Aroacía saVll.nna Rain foresl
79.0 '.0
7.1
450.0 3,450.0
40.5 310.5
15,760.0 5.0
1.411:1.4 .45
i
~i'1"'i i"
,"
.18
• Data forllorthetn habitat.from McCullllUgh 1910; datafurtemp«ateand tropical habita'. from bourllen 1963. -u.ta ref..r lo carlbou Of¡ly 'Oata retar lo Ullflulatlll only. ~ Oata refl:tr lo ~nflulatel aOO primatea unly.
;1
,
16
J. Hehes lo Artifoels ond MrmlJments lo
boreal forest and a temperare grassland [155.34 kgl km'). If a depostt eccumuleted over epproxírnetely 10,000 yeers (not an unreesonable estímate for many Pletstocene events). we would expect 155,344 kg of prey during thet penod. Given en esttmeted mean weight oí 222 lb (100.57 kg) for 1)0 edult cenbou (Rangifer tumndus}, we would thereíore expect 1544 individual ceñbou lo heve been depositad over 8 single square kilometer durtng that peeíod oí time, if ceribou were the only prey animals in thet babttet. Obvtously, that is not reelísttc. since many different spedes would be ¡nvolved. Neverlheless, 8S en oh· ject lesson tor Ihe archaeologist, ODe can sea that an impressive amount 01 bones is deposited annuall:v, particularly in a tropical savanna. Given the Iypes 01 geological units archaeologists work with in Pleistocene deposits, we can expect as normal a very large numbar 01included bones, since most geological deposits represent appreciable periods 01 time. Certainly it must be realized that aH places where deaths occur are not equally propitious lor the preservation 01 bone. Recent pioneering work in taphonomy, partieularly by Diane Gifford, K. Behrensmeyer, and A. Hm, has bagun to illuminate the conditioos under whlch preservation is most apt to occur; a quick burial, and either the perpetuation 01 moisture on the bone, or complete desiccation. Stated another way, in situations in which it is perlectly wet, or perfectly dry, and the bone is being bnried, bones are most apt lo be preserved. For aH practical purposes this means that areas being deflated (see Gifford 1977;108-257) or eroded are not good candidates, and areas subject to extremes 01 wet and dry are not good candidates. Lake and slream margins, delta lormations, as well as prolected areas such as caves and rockshelters, are very likely placas. Behrensmeyer (1975b) studied bone distribution and assemblage contenl in several dif· lerent geological contexts. She observed lhat bcme densities were greatest in della environments and least on the floodplain, with channel deposits intermediate. The implications of these observations are Ihat (o) death and predalion result in considerable numbers of animal carcasses beiog scatlered in the envirooment annually, and (bl these carcasses are apt to be preserved in dry or wel conditions where the bones are apt to be buried shortly after deposition. This means that lake, spring, and streBm marsh
ASSf"mblag~s:
Chonging Concepmu! Fmrneworks
,
A"'
~
The ÁrliflJct
cnd AssembJage Phuse 17
margfn deposits and interna! dratnage pockets can be expected 10 vteld considerable quantltíes 01 dead animal remains as a normal condftton. Stated another way. the normal Iuncuontng of a biot¡c cornrnuntty can be expeeted lo yield considerable deposite 01 animal bonas in geomorphological settings conductve to lheir preserveüon. This seems like a reesoneble proposition; nevertheless. the rnethodological tmpltcetíons bave nol been explcred bv arcbeeologtsts. In Ihe New World many death sües 01 Pletstocene elephanls have been recorded and only a few have yielded any evidence 01 human involvement al the time of dealh. The vasl majority of these elephallts have been recorded in the contexts of lake, stream, and spring margin deposits. In fact. this is such a regular patlern Ihat it is quite Iikely that elephants of all types seek bodies of waler when their lemperatures go up; hence the most I;Ommon place of death is in such a marsh-bog setling. This is a normal condBion. The eonditions favoring preservation must be also presenl ifbones depositad as a resull 01hominid aetions are to be preserved. lf Ihere is evidence 01 hominid behavior in a deposit containing preserved bones, the conditions under which lhe deposit was lormed are also Iikely lo be conditions conducive to the preservalion 01 bones derived from the normal patlem oí predator-prey interachon as well as the normal mortality characteristic 01 the setting. Perhaps this point is best made with an exarnple: The existence 01 (o) an active biological community with normal death and predafion rates and (b) a lake margin hag deposit is well documented at the larnous site 01 Torralba in Spain {see Howell 1966}. Witbin tbis site were approxirnately 785 "artilacts," 01 which approximately 174 are lithic debris. These provide exciting evidence lar the participation of hominids in the Middle Pleistocene biotic community, a glimpse 01 which is preserved at Ihe site. Tools at Torralba are restricted to Ihe importanl de· posit designated Hc 01 the "lower grey colluvium." 1 can find no estimates by the researcher as to the length 01 lime during which this deposit accumulated. 1 asked HowelI, and he said that he had no good idea bul that it could nol be more than "several tens of thousands of years." During the unknown span 01 accumulation, at least seven "Ievels" were generated with several additional lenses. Thal is,
land surfeces were dilferentially stabiltzed. permít, ñng the excavators to recognize sequential depostnonal situations. No estimales as to the length 01 time involved in each "stabilization" have been offered. For the entíre sequence representing perhaps "severa! tens 01 thousands 01 yeers" an esttmeted minimum oí 115 (See Howell 1966:121-122) individual animals were recovered from the Torralba levels. Assuming that only 10,000 years ts involved, there would be an average 01 only one dead animal every 87 years. That does not appear excessive as a normal death rale far a normal glacial environmenl! The fauna is interesting in ils composition, in thal it is remarkably stable from level lo level: The grealasl estimaled minimum number of animals for any level is only 15 (Occupation 1). Varialions in speciescompositiondo oeeur from levelto level.bul are no grealer Ihan can be expacled from sampling error alone. The mosl abundan. remains are Ihose of elephants [31 pereenl of individualsJ, allhough lhey are alwoysoulnumbered by Ihe combined10101 of individu_ als of other spacies.... Horses are next most abUndanl [21 percent of individualsJ, followedby cervids (18percenl excluding Dama), bovids (13 pereenl), Dama (6 percenl), rhino (4 pereenl), and birds (3 pereentJ, wilh abouI 2 percenl each of Felis and olher carnivoras [Freeman 1975:6681. What role did man (represented by 611 tools deposite
t
300 loeds would have been required to move al! the meat: 50 able-bodted men would have lo make 6 Irips eech lo carry the 101 to the living site. The amount of meat aclually utlhzsd might heve been constderably smaller than Ihe total available, but lhe figures sttll suggest a relatlvelyhigh group size. Basedon such consideralions, I em inclined lo thínk Ihat the total sree of the cooperatíng social groups which provided the personnel responslblefor the Tcrralba occupaUon resldues wes very large, perhaps on the arder of a hundred tndívíduals al more. Such large populalion eggregetes might hava been feaslble only perlodically 01 seeson. ally, bul it is quite possible, given the undoubled nalural wealth of Ihe region in 66rly mid-Pl6islocene times, thal large human group, were a constant feature of Ihe landscape (Freeman 1975:682J.
i
, ,
~
~; "1
This is a truly remarkable set of conclusions lo draw from the Torralba dala. We are told that the region is one 01 "undoubled natural wealth" (presumably weallh in animalsJ, yet we must assume that none ever died trom· predation or natural causes aronnd the Torralba lake.bog! We are told Ihat nalure operated only when man entered the picture. When man arrived to hu nI enimals cooperatively in large groups. nature also cooperated by preserving a record of these heroic exploits. Yel, when man left. nature stopped and no further preservation, or natural dealhs of Bnimals, occurred! How extraordinary! We are led to conclude thBt. becl,msethere were so many animals represented in "Ievels" with lools, human groups were practicing cooperative hunting drives in which all species over certain sizes were taken time and again in roughly aqual proportions, butehered, and lhe meat transported to consumers living in large groups that were "a conslanl feature 01 the landscape." AmBzing! The researchers at Torralba have operaled with a set 01 assumptions abaut Ihe nature 01 Ihe deposits. as well as abaut the processes in the pasl that resulted in deposit lormation. They have been misguided by the idea 01a living Iloor as a spatial aggregatíon 01 preserved maller, all of which results from human aclions. Given an aggregalíon 01 slone tools-evidence 01hominid behavior-it is assumed that al! olher remains associated wilh the stone tools are also a by-product of human behavior. The researchers of Torralba have certainly made Ihis assumption.
'1I
, 11 ,1
, ,
\!I;:
r~
IIIJ
...,1
~i, '1
1III
I!
11:
¡
i
j,!)
,
A"
~
¡.¡!
1. Relics to t\rtifacls and Mormments lo Assemblcges: Chonging Conceptual FrameworkB
18
Pletetocene archeeologtsts need to ebendon such en approach. They must adopt an epproech that deposils yielding stone tools 88 natural deposíts. recognizing the potenttal sccumuleucn of derivativas from a cross section of biotic adivity in íbe environment oí a loceüon favoring preservatioo. Man is only ODe potentiaJ contnbutor. My discussion up to this poiot has focused 00 Old World metertels and 00 Peleolítbtc research. 1 do not wish lo imply that rny crttíctsrn ís restrir:tad lo such studies. In the New world, argumente over the stgnificance of bone modifications are relatively recent 1 It is true that Webb 8nd DeJarnette {t942:763) suggested, in their "generalized profile" of tbe Flint ereek sbell mound alang tbe Termessee River, Ihal fuere was sn early period characteri:r.ed by worked bone. followed by a Iitbic periad, aud finally by a ceramic periodo However, tbey did not imply tbat bone was the exclusive raw material used in tool manufacture. The latter position, linked with sametimes remarkable daims for Ihe antiquily of man in North Amenea, is a pasition lhat has developed rela· tively recently stemming from work at Old Crow Flats (see Harington et 01. 1975) and excavations by Dennis Stanford (1979b) at Ihe Selby and Dutton sites in Colorado. ISee Canby (1979) for a popular discussion of this materiaL) In addition to the "osleodontokeratic" claims for man in North America perhaps as early as 60,000 years ago (see Canby 1979: 348; Friedman 1980:7). Ihere has been a stepped-up sel of claims regarding the use of bones as expedient lools for butchering. This argument was most forcefully set forth by George Frison (1970) with regard to materíals recovered from the Glenrock Buffalo Jump in Wyoming. Since that time this argument has cer· tainly captured the imaginalion of a number of worken, snd excavalors are now increasingly "seeing" bone tools in Iheir faunal assemblages (sea, for example, lohnson 1978). Slone tools are exciling traces of hominíd parlicipation in an environment, bUI they in no way may be lreated as prima fade evidence ¡hat human behavior is responsible for the deposil in which they llCcur. This is not to say that habitations or living floors do not exis!. They certainly do, and as we kllOw from 'he archaeological record of relatively recent times
vrew
IAn exception IS Merriam.
1906
llnd Pulnam, 190fi.
human behavior mey well be, on occasron. the agent reeponstble for the locauon and conlent of meteríals eematníng from the past. However, this is somethlng that requlres demonstretíon. not something lo be assumed. We need to ebandon the logíc of treating alleged hebítatíons. living ñoors, and living sítes as if they were monuments. The 10Mic is one ot identifying an envelope or container. and then uncritically accepting everythíng wíthín ít as referable to the behavior oí encíent mano A complete reevaluatíon of bes¡c archeeologtcal concepts and the logle associated with their use is in arder. Minimally. let us begin by asserting that an oro choeologicol faet is an accurate observation tha\ caro ries unambiguous information relative to hUIDanhominid behavior. The degree lo whkh an association between two or more Ihinga can be taken as an unambiguous archaeological fad is alleast partial1y conditioned by the character of lhe deposit; that is, by the matrix or "container" 'hat bounds the associa· lion. Most would agree that archaeological remains are items and arrangemenls of maner thal are derived from Ihe operation oC a human-hominid sys· tem of adaptalion. An association between e\ements im::luded in a deposit may be uncritically accepted as archaeological fad only when the deposit or matrix containing Ihe elements in association is ¡Iself an archaeological deposit, and man can be viewed as the egent responsible Car the presence oC both Ihe associations and elements wilhin the deposito ArchaeoJogicl1/ deposits are matrices \oMelher with ¡ncluded remains thal are derivad from Ihe operalion of human~hominid systems of adaptation. That is, the matrix itself is an archaeolop;ical phenomenon. From sites of relatively complex cultural systems. archaeological deposits are common; midden accumulations, mounds composed of collapsed building materid, and mounds specifically conslrucled for the burial ol the dead are a few exampies. Archaealogical deposits may be expected to be Tare and infrequent derivalives of hunler-gatherer adaptalions, since high mobilil)l and relatively low investment in facilities, housing, buildings. and so forth are characteristic of such syslems. It is much more Iikely that archaeological remains will be found wilhin geologicaJ deposils. Geological deposits are buried matrices, Ihe formation of which de·
The Artifact and Assemblage Phase
nves from the operatíon oí geologtcal processes. Matertels wtthín a geologícal deposlt may derive from a wide variety of circumslances and events that occurrad during the deposu's formation, none ofwhich is necessanly representative of a behevíorally ínterrelated set of condutons. Thal ís. en cssoctcñon between two or more elements within a geologtcel depostt in no way ímplíes a systemet¡o. behavíorel. or dynamic relationship between the componente. AIl that is ímpl íed ISa roughly coincidental contextual releucnshíp for the events of which the elements were derivalives. For ¡nstance, the finding of a whale bone and a luna vertebra in a gaological depos. it in no way implies that whales ate tuna or for that maltar that luna ate wheles' Nevertheless, the deposilional contexl of an aquatic environment may be indicated. Geological deposits may be thought af as a kind of grab bag. made up oC samples of by·products of events and enlities that existed or occurred with a given "catchmenl" and during a given period oftima when tha deposit was accumulating. A good exam· pIe is the preserved land surface at Laetoli where dampened volcanic ash hardened to preserve hominid footprinls, depicting a Slral1 by two "early men" across a \and surrace sorne 3.5 million years ago (see M. l..eakey 1979). Also preserved in the "ashen ledger" were trads of elephants, guinea fowl, giraffes. hares, ostriches, and nther animals and insects, as well as planl remains. Are we to assume thal Ihe association of hominid footprinls on the sama land surface wilh those of other animals indicates Ihal the action of the hominidsconditioned both the presence and charader oC the patterning observable in the other foolprints? Was early "man" herding elephants, ostriches, or guinea fowl? This is clearly an absurd question. The footprints and olher traces of pasl events and aclions must be viewed as roughly contemporary but unrelated in any integrated senSe. That is, as far as mulual interachons and "causal"linkages among the events recorded are concarned. none seems indicated. Clearly more jus. tificalion for assuming a behavioral integration among materials associated in a geological deposil is nseded than Ihe simple assm;iation itsc1f.t As a way of placing emphasis on this fact, it is perhaps uSeful lo think about aspecls of pRsl processes or r:ondilions Ihal might result in different kimls of geoJogicfll neposils. For instance. it is
19 perhaps proíttable to ask oureelves about the hístcrical integrity and resolution of eggregetes of matertals etebílteed in depositional aseoctetton throcgh the operatíon of gcologlcal processes. Historical intesrity refers to the degree lo which ínclusíons wlthin the deposü deríved from the same or dífferent dynamic conditions in the pest. For instance, if all the materials in a depoeít derivad from the aelion of homtníds. we could argue thal the deposít had considerable integrity. Sirnilarly, if all the Included material wes referable to the actions of hyenas at a den, predators in killing prey. or the natural deaths of animals. each would command a judgment Ihat the integrity of the deposit was grea\. On the other hand. if all the mentioned agents were represented in a deposit, we would say the deposit had liUle historical integrify. The relative resoJution of an accumulation of materiaIs is to the degree to which items and dasses of maleríals may be referable lo a specifiable and limited, hence unambiguous, set oC events or acUons in the past. Assemblages with high resolution are as· semblages in which all parls are referable to \he set of events or condihons in Ihe pas!. Resolution of assemblages may vary independently of the degree of ¡ntegrUy. For instance, we mighl have a deposit with high integrity in thal all lhe included materials are referable to a single agent-hominids. Yet the events and activities that the hominids participated in might span a considerable period of lime and represent a wide range of different behaviors, which have in eommon only the facl that they occurred in the same place. l Ihink it should be dear lhat ltIJtjjrify refers to tbe,relal.ivehomogen&ity ogeRta-responsible for materittl6'hl.ad~t"" d nlution reters to the relativa homogeneity oj the.events of situationaJ condition8 whose- by-produetnn'e'preserved .in. the-depbsil. The basic idea as to the relative resolution of a population of depositionally associated items has been conceptualized previously. Archaeologists have recognized that deposits yielding archaeological remains might be multicomponent in character, in lhat the deposits derive from the independenl occupalion ofthe location by popula1ions represenling differenl cultures, time periods, Of his\orical eras. Thus. archaeoJogists could speak. of a site having severnl occupational {:omponents.
,
1:
,i,
: 1'1
'!
11•. 1
'1:' ' l. "
~ I:
~ 1, 11
't~i
"rthft.
ti
..,... 20
o
.
·
1. ReJies lo Arlifacts ond Manuments to Assembloges: Chonging Conceptual Fromewarks
In treattng sttee thet were occupationally differentiated within a system. 1 adoptad the term grc¡n (L. R. Binford 1978h:482-483) fa refer fa propertíes oí assemblages. Ftne-grcrned assemblages are those in which all the included ítems. features, and land surfeces relate lo a very few aventa; that ís, all associated archaeologtcel charaderistics of the deposit are the ennsequences of basically the same events. Coorse-grained ossemblages accumulate over a con-atdereble period oí time andJor duríng pertods oí rapid "tumover" of events. resulting in the cssccrcneo of ttems, debris, íeeturee, land surfeces. end the ltke thet were differential partícípants in different events during the course ot the occupetton. Thus, the tenn grojo refers to the relativa contextue! complexity of en assemblage from the perapecuve of events occumng durmg the course of a continuous occupation and derivativa praduction of en archaeologícal essemblage. Recognizing that deposits may be variable in integrity, and in turn in resolutton even given high levels of Integrlty, we must minimoJJy have sorne relíeble means or referring observed palterns of association to potenttally different formation conteds. We must further recognize that the resolution of an assemblage must be assessed at !reveral organizational levels befare meaningful comparisons con be carried out. We may find assemblages lo have low resoluUon because of independent oceupational episodes. or beeause of Ihe relative redundaney in the evenls oe"urring within a given occupalional epi-
sede. These and other díñerences surely contrtbute to differences in content and hence meaning. In later chapters of this book it will be emphasized thet cerntvoree are apt lo generete dísttncttve faunal assemblages in basically Iwo oontexts: at kills. and wilhin and around lairs. These Iwo types of assembiage. as well as contributions from natural deaths. can be considerad as very likely contrtbutors lo the "background" faunal materials occurnng in most any geological depostt where bones have been preserved. As suggested eerlter. preservatlon is most likely in caves and rockshelters and in open deposits aceumulated where burtal was relauvely quick and where moísture was eíther very hígh or very low. I have suggested that most íf not all. locations yielding evídence oí cur Pleistocene anceslors are most likely geolcgícal deposits, not archaeologtcal deposíts as IS commonly assumed. This assessment of the character of our Lower and Middle Paleoltthíc data demands thet we develop means for recognizing the derívattves ol differenl agente and differenl events as conlributors lo the geologlcally associated palímpsests withín which may occur sorne traces of hormníd bebavtor. We can no longer be conlent wilh such tautological condiIions as identifying a habilation or living site by virtue of the presence of reHcs and ather associaled remains-generally bones--and then using the dala from such sites lo prove the nalure of man's horne life or other c.haracteristic behaviors!
In the prevtous chapter t showed thal the essumplions made regarding the condilions under which the archaeologicai record was formed dtrectly condínon the charaeter of inferences about Ihe con tenis of Ihe archaeological record. I showed Ihal we may be frequently incorrect or alleasl highly uncertain about our reconstruclion of the pasto In Ihis chapler I will explore a somewhal more complicaled issue---how we might proeeed so as lo minimize Ihe likelihood of conslructing false piclures of Ihe pasto 1 will be directly conr.ernerl wilh fflsfJarch lar.tics and how we mighl use secure knowledge lo aid in Ihe development of new knowledge or understanding regarding Ihe past. How do we carve out knowledge {rom ignoronce? The challenge lo archaeologisls is simply Ihis: Haw do we proceed? How do we unify Ihe world of archaeologicallhings wilh OUT ideas as lo Ihe character of Ihe pasl? Haw may we use Ihe empirical world of archaeological phenomen() lo slimulale ideas aboUllhe past and at Ihe same lime use Ihese empirical experiences fo evaluale Ihe resulliflg ideas? How can WfJ proceed so as lo develop confidence Ihat OUT ideas I}f Ihe past are informative abolll the aclllal pasl? Wl' flH;C Ihc challenge of scitmce ilself-how lo kecp our fep.t on !he "empirical·' grounrl
Chapter
2
Middle-range research and the role of actualistic studies
ui!: '!I'"'1' I "
21
I I!¡; i
.,... 2. MiddJe-Ronge Hesenrch und the Role 01 Actunhstic Studies
zz which scientific procederes might be profitably Mkkessed--empirical with respect lo what? Theoretice! with reepect to whetv Many ercbeeologtsts accept the argument that the discipline of archaeology needs to edopt a sctenttñc approach, yet they are not »ecessertly in agreement as to the domatn of expertence to which such an approach is to be rnost profitably addressed:
there ís in a aense en "archaeologfcal theory" although it mighl be better characterized as evoJutionary anthropuiogy ... human sud cultural evoluñon is oí such scienlific and intrinsic ínterest thBt ¡here is certainly an "sential nomolhelic role lo be piayad by an::haeologists [W8tson el 01. 1971:1641
In the foregoing view, archaeological theory arldresses a dornaio of pest eVents sud conditions. It is concerned with explainiog why certain evenls and syslems carne into beiog in Ihe pasl. H addresses the dornain that most Iraditional archaeologisls considered lo be their target íor seeking understanding: such interesting problems as the origins oí the slate, the shift to agrieultural production, or perhaps the origins oí culture itselí. Under this view 01 "doing" archaeology, Ihe scl of investigating the archaeological record is viewed as the experimental phase or perhaps the archival phase oí invesligating Ihe past. I have referred to such inleres!s as general research or general Iheory building. By Ihese phrases 1refer to Ihe actions of investigators seeking to explain characteristics of Gultural systems past and presento The domain of ¡nterest is cultural systems. how they vary, and how they may be modified from one form to another. The domain is interaclive. generative. and dynamic. Important, however. is the íael that all knowledge of Ihe dynamics of Ihe past must be inferred: To say Ihal historillns conslruct the pa.st so as nol lo falsify r:erlainIheorelical presupposilions is no!to point to a derecl in historians or inlheir method. Jt is lo focus upan the mellns histarians IISe lo finrl out what hap_ pened. [1 is lo sayo in a somewhal di(ferent way. what has been said berare: !ho! wr. in(l~r the even!s of !he pnsl from lhe evenls lIt 'he presenl by linking them in !t)rm~ of sorne Refiero! printiplf's IKitts 1977,1)7 6f11· If we recognizc lnal science is r.oncerncd wilh cicveloping means fur im:reasing Ollr undcrstanciíng
or observations of nature. Ihis ímplies that sctence is stmulteneously ettempttng to generate understandíng and to sherpen or lncrease the íntormattonal potenttal of our cbservatíons. The archaeologtst investígates pbenomene that he has reason lo belíeve remein' from the past. These lnvestigations are conducted in the present. resulttng in all the observational steternents genereted by arcbeeologtsts being contemporary Iacts. How does Ihe erchaeologtst conven these eontemporary observational stetements or faets into meaningíul statements about the past? The first thing that must be realizad is that Ihis can only be accomplisbed intelleetually or with reeson. Thus there is no way of converting observational statements aboul Ihe present into meaningfnl statements abont the pasl in the absence of a reasoning process. Insofar as archaeology remains a discipline that searehes for an understanding of the past through the use of objects and olher organizatiom; of matter believed lo have been parls of pasl s¡tuations, archaeologisls musl operate as historians attempting to give meaning to observalions on Ihe particular archaeological record being investigated. The accuracy with which we may accomplish Ihe conversion of contemporary observalional stalements into meaningful statements about Ihe pest is a direct funcHon of Ihe character of Ihe reasoning processes employed and Ihe methodology developed for evaluating the products of Ihis process. Our problem is then twofold: (01 We musl know the past by virtue of inferences drawn from knowledge of how Ihe contemporary world works. the principies mentioned by Kilts, and (b) we must be able lo justify the assumption thal Ihese principies are relevanl-Ihat al leasl in lerms of Ihe properties of Ihe principies, Ihe past was ¡¡ke the present; we musl make a uniformilarian assumption. The poinl Ihal we must use general principIes in giving "historical" meaning lo our observalions no longer seems al issue: HistoT~' diff~rs
rrom Ihe generalizlng social sciences only in Ihal ils primary aim is lo eKphlin individual situallons in a1l Iheir comploxilY r81her lhan lo farmulatA gAnerallaws fDT indf'firútely repealable evenls and prm;esses. Tha! ls whlllis mtlanlby saying thal hislory is idiographk. Ihe s(l(:ial science nomolnelil: INall'll1 1%1:547; Elto/l l~n'L:l2-24. 41). This does nDI mean thal hislorians rleny Ih", exiS!f'm;e of genr.ral rulAS:
~.~
The P{]radigm-üne's Cuide lo Di!srribing
the
World
rather Ihey seek to employ Ihem lo gain an undarstandíng of individual (Le.. unique] and non-recurren¡ srruetiuns [Trtggar 1978:26-271.
where do such general prtncíples come from, and how can we be assured of Iheir accuracy and rele~ vanee lo our acfivifies as archaeologists seeking lo explicate the rast? Those who daim that archaeoJogisls should be htstortans and not scíentísts most commonlv edvtse that we should "borrow" our general principles from other nomothetln sciences. The lrouble with this suggeslion is that I know of no nomothetic science aftempling to undersland lhe archaeological record! Many olher "sciences" may be concerned wilh various aspects of human behavior, history. and sociocullural change in which Ihe phenomena studied are events, behavior, or palteming in communicaled Ihoughl. However, Ihe basic phenomena with which we work are (al static, lb) material, and (e) untranslaled into symbols or c1ues to human "thoughts." No other "science" addresses such phenomena. It was Ihe recognition of this fact thal prompted the following stalement wrilten in 1966 and published Iwo years laler: Accepling Spaulding's minima! derinition of what archaeology is. we can go a slap rurther and specify its aim as the explanalion .. of thE! order we observe in !he archaeological record. AlT.haeologlcal theory consist.'! of proposilions and Ils.~umptiuns regllrding the 8rehaeologkal Tlword ilself-Us origins. ils .'laurees ofvllriability, Ihe delerminants oI differences and similarHies in the fnrmlll, spalÍ\11. and lemporal chllraclerislles of arlifllds and featur..s and their inteITtlllllionsnlps lS. R. lJinford and L. R. Hinford 19611:21 Directing altention lo Ihe archaeological record ralher Ihan continuing Ihe self-deceit Ihal we were sludying Ihe past seemed e:enlral to progress. My view was Iha! we could not reconslrucl hisloey unlíl we fin;1 addresscd the problem or how we give meaning lo the arcnaeologkal record [sce L. R. Binford 1968d). Meanings are carried by concepts and ¡¡rgumenls and the arr:hapological record contains only llrrangenllJnls of mfltlN If flrchaeologists are lo know lInything of the PflSI. Ihey musl dcvelop a science. The r10main of this Scif'llce musl be the archacological Hln¡rci pr't !w
Z3 In seektng lo develop a science oí the ercbeeclogical record, are there not sorne fundamental characterísttcs of bcth scíence and the archaeologícet record that we must consider to guido the growth of this scíencev The answer musl of course be yes. One cherectenstíc particulerly lrnportant lo the argumente advocating a science of the archeeologtcal record is that science attempts to eveluete the role and utility of ideas for enhanclng understendíng. Ideas are of course cultural forms: if we view culture as er least referring lo tbe parttcularly human abilily lo gtve meenlng expediently to axpenenee, 10symbol, and in turno view experience through thls conceplual ldiom. science is then eoneemed wilh evaluatlng Ihe ulilily of ¡he cullural lools produeed lL R. Binford 1977a:31. The reference to Ihe "cultural lools" produced is of course to Ihe concepts and ideas in terros of which we conceive Ihe world of experience. If we gain a "knowledge" of the world Ihrough the use of cogniti\'e devices, words, concepts. and ideas, and the world is described in these terms, we musl face the problem of Ihe accmllcy, utilily, and "reality" of such cognitive devices themselves. This is one fundamental problem the scientisl must face. The second problem relales lo the degree lo which we seek knowledge and understanding beyond simple description. We frequently altempt lo understand why the world is the way it appears to be, given Ihe description generaled. Sdentists carry oul their work wilh essenlially two sets of intelIeclual lools: a conceptual frame of reference or paradigm (Kuhn 1962). and various Iheories Ihat seek to explain Ihe world as "known" through the use ofthe paradigm.
,, 1Ir ! I
,I
I :,
d
I!
! i~'lt.
The Paradigm-One's Guide to Describing the Wodd The cognilive frame of reference or paradigm r.oflsists of Ihe ideas and concepls with which we approach experience. These condilion whal one considcrs relevan! to describe or chooses lo discuss as of i!lINesl. One's cognitive frame of reference may he lhoughll!f flS the culture 01' a sdence. It consists of
'i
"d".- ..
J~,
....,....24
2. Middle-.flange Reseorch and Ihe Role of Actucltsuc Studies
the concepts in tarros of which experlence is intellectually esstmílated. Despíte all Ihe defínítional conlroversy (see Masterman 1970]. 1 follow Kuhn (1977) in viewíng paradigm as the tntellectual terms upcn whích une meets expertence. The cheracter of one's frame of reíerence condttíons what te consldered relevan! lo describe, what ís interestíng to dtscuss. and even how we view the world in terms of problema to be salvad, In short, lt ís what we expect Ihe world to be líke. Things become complíceted when we recogntae that we cannot galn 8 direct knowledg8 of Ibe essential properties of Ihe world. Qur cognilion is neilber direct nor objective. bul may be indirect and subjective relative lo OUT beHefs abou! the world (i.e., OUT paradigm). We generally defend our clairns about whal Ihe world is like with inferential acgurnenls. I prefer to call these warranfing arguments; Ihey are argumenls advanced Ihal tend 10 warranl lo others lhe heliefs one has ahout the world. If done in a robust manner, they make one's claims appear plausible, and acceplahle (o alhers. Rarely are such arguments formalized in thal Ihe premises are rarely explicilly stated, so conclusions are warranted hy appeal lo a "common body of knowledge or belief." The more comprehensive Ihe alleged knowledge, or wide· spread the helief serving as Ihe ¡nteHectual conlexl for a warranling argumenl, Ihe more plausible it appears aud lherefore Ihe greater m.p.lihood it has of being accepled. Working wilhin a frame of referenee is similar lo participation in any olhl"r culture; we aceommodate experience through our shared cognilive devices. The facllhal Ihey fadlilah'! Ihis accommodalion appears lo os as proof lhal the world is in fael lhe way we expecl il to be. We may be aslonished Ihal olhers do nol see Ihe world Ihe way we do. Anlhropologisls should be familiar wilh culfural differences and should be fairly comforlable wilh the idea Ihal the nalure of experienee does nol necessarily delermine Ihe nalure of culture. Many persons share idenlical experiences yel ascribe lo Ihem very dinerent meanings; Ihis is essenlially Ihe message of anlhrupology. Cullural man has for alllillle believed thal his beliefs were given by "reaUly" anrl Wl'lre therefore "righl," whereas those of othcr c.ultures werc dearly misguided or "slupirl" {or nol having smJll the "Irulh" inherenl in giVlTll !1xperience.
Arcbeeclogy is perhaps in a íortunete posítton. Although there ts much contemporary "culture" or paradtgmauc bias regardíng the nalure of man and the causes of hiatory, there ís very ltule folk knowl, edge regarding tha formalion of the archeeologtcel record. Thls means thet there is Hule explicit prior developrnent of cognitive devices and frames of reterence for eccommodañng erchaeologice! phenomsna in the literal, static sense of the word. For Ihe further develooment of archeeology, the growlh of a paradigm. developing cognitiva rneans for idenlifying properties of the pasl or diagoosing the archaeological record and Ihereby giving meaning lo Ihe archaeological record, is crucial. Much of Ihe time use of a paradigm is viewed as an acl of identification. Can we identi(y a habilation, a hide scraper, a malrilineage, a base comp. agricullure? Or can we diagnose Ihe funclions of a sile, loo!, or elernent of debris? In most cases we are seekiog an unamhiguous definilion. and realistic concepts wilh which lo parlilion or diagoose Ihe archaeologiclIl record aod thereby generale meaningful statemenls aboul Ihe pasl. AH such inlerprelalions lIre dependenl on a general, accurate, and unambíguous knowledge o( Ihe relatiollship betweeo slatics and dynamics, the formal consequences for organized malter Ihal derive from the operalioo of a dynamic system. In developl'ld sciences, whal is being sought here at Ihe consclous levellhrough "middle-range" research may be laken for granled as paradigmatic: The dislinetion belwpen "empirlcal" and "Iheorelical" may be only a rellltiveone. It is relative hislorieally ... A sclentisl who underlakes the study of a par· licular problem. for example of a biologiCIII oOe. IInd who uses various scienlific íllslruments cOllstru(led un Ihe grounds of differenl physiCIII theories. ís quile aWl:Ire of !he faellhat logelher wilh Ihe t'quipmenl he uses he aceepts also lhese Iheories_ In spile of this fae!.however, he willlreat the statemenls he will formulale by means of these instrumeols as ooservlltional. The ubservalional language is, for him.somelhing already presenl and hlstorieal1y given hy the developmenl of science and commoo know!edge IAmsterdamski 1975:81'\1.
Theory-c-One's
r.uirl~
~
lo Explotning Ihe World
rnodern ercheeologv. Today the archaeological record ls not betng vtewed (by mosl) as a material manifestanon of mental phenomena; íl Is 001 being viewed as a preserved past. il is not beíng viewed as uniquely determinad by history; íts vertebüny ts not beíng viewed exclustvely as a manifeslaliun of past ethntc variability, and so on. As is suggested by Amslerdamski, the instrurnents that permit and Factlitete unamblguous meaningfu! observations musl be developed, demonstrated. and tested , using sctenttñc means. Later. as the scíence of archaeology becomes more malure. lhese "inslrumenls for mea· suremenl" may he laken (or granled and resulls of their use trealed as direcl observalions on Ihe pas!. We are a long way from this level of maturily today. We need lo recognize very explicitly lhe current stale o( the arl and address lhe growlh of a new paradigm as basic and fundaml'lnlaL Recognizing Ihat this is a historica] phase in the growlh of the "new archaeology"- I began using a special lerm for Ihis endeavor: middJe-rangfL resear¡;h or .!!!idd1erange Iheory buildi'!&.l .. Whal we are se Ihrough middle·range research are accurale means of identification, and good inslruments for measuring specified properties of pesl cultural syslems. We are seeking reliable cognilive devices; we are looking for "Rosetta stones" thal permil Ihe accurale conversion from observalion on slatics to sh:ltement about dynamics. We are seeking lo build a paradigmatic frame of refenmce for giving meaning lo seiected charBclel'islics of Ihe ar· chaeological record through a IheorelicalJy grounded body of research. rather Ihan accepling folk knowledge--Iet alone implicit folk knowledge---as the basis for describing the pas!. 7eklng
25 body of infarmalion, induding empirtcu] generalizañons ocout lhe phenomnnrr jo queslion. A theorv rs then
lntended lo provide deeper understandtug by presentinJol those phanomena as manuestattons of cena¡n underlying processes [Hernpel 1977:244: ernphasis mine]
Given thal we have made observattons en the archaeologtcal record, offered sorne generalizañcns about lts pruperlies, and gained considerable experfence with Ihe record, I must now ask Ihe crucial questton: Why ls the archaeologtcal record the way il appears lo be? When we seek lo reason about Ihe "causes" of Ihe world as known, we are atlempting to build Iheories about Ihe world, "Where it is sorne evenl or s)'slem of events Ihal is lo be explained, explanalion has lo do wilh cause [Quine and Ullian 1978:1t1[."
1
111 One very centllll use of "Iheory" involves en epislemic device which is used lo eharaclerize Ihe state-ehange behavior of isolaled syslems wilhin H !Ien'lral dass of phenomena .. one CIIn disr.o,'er lhallhey Ilheoriesl ínvariebly poslulale a c1ass or stales of syslems' change over lime ... and are used lo characterize how natural classes of phenomena would behave if isolaled ISuppe 1977:6581
Theories ar" the key lo the scielllifíe underslandin!l uf empiric:Bl phenomena, and lher are oormally (Ievl'lopeu (J¡II~' whl'ln prevjous reseorch has yielded a
Quite Iilerally, lheories are lhe answers to the "why" queslions of dynamics. They are concerned wilh underslanding variabiJity and how syslems proceed from Olle slale lo anolher. lf we are going lo build a Iheorelically informed paradigm for referTíng observations 00 lhe archaeologícal record lo dynamic condilions in Ihe pasl, where do we begin? It seeros to me we must begín wilh certaio (undamental slalemfmts of "being as such_" The archaeoJogir:ai record is a static conlemporary phenomenon. It is slruclured malter molionless and noninleraclive in terms of Ihe properties of hislorical inleresllo the archaeologist.
'This is l'lssenlially idenlicaJ lo whAI David Clllrke called !!:!.!erprelj~':l~~~· IClllrke 1973:8)and appellrslo be whal Sehiffer (1976) means by behavioru! orcho!'olo¡;¡r (Seealso Sullivan 1978.1
Only 11univflrseof energy eould have no p8st. ¡flhere is maller, struclures gro..... and differenliateaod a pasl can be recognized and parhItJl~' rewnslrucled. [1 is Ihe problem of dllralionless ooll-malter versus enduring mal-
Theory-one's Guide to Explaining the World
il 11.:~ ,
We are concerned wilh organizational properlies of the world. We seek to undersland how Ihe properlies of eotilies and/or evenls were produced in characteristic WBYS:
! ~,
,
'1
,l 1
'1 !' ;1
i'
1I
,1'
1
1 l' l'
1:"
l Ir
,
;i:' 1
An ~l'lr.(lssentiaHy RQl\eKiStP.Rt:--",,-'::W6h...~y: The cUllep.pls and h¡¡nce paradigmalic characleristics of Iradilional archlleolop;y are hp.IiIJVcrl lo be ~sscnlially Ilseless fur
:\\",,:>IUT 11
~.~
~
.
U:::='
--P¿
~/11111
¿ •
!
1
(a) (}y¡~~¿
(7Z4"1'9z f
íJvl"'l.f? - due...¿j,,~
~~~O'~
....,.....--
Theory-c-Gne's Cuide te Explojnjngthe World
2. Mjddle-Rrw8" aesecrcn und the- Rule uf Actunlisnc Studres
.8
ter. . . At ene end of the spedrum is btbltcel chaca. B pest without 8 pest, beceuse no meuer exists \0 convey 'fnformeüon. Al the other end there is only informalion and no dectsions-c-stenc informal ion Iurever (Margalef 1968:971.
The archaeologist ts oí course working with stat¡c informatioo preserved in structured arrangements of metter. Since tbere is no energ v ramainíng: there are no culturally relevan! interactiva relalionships lo be -vóbserved in the erchaeologtcal record. SULhrcletíonshipa existed in the pes! but ceesed when systemserving energy was no longar powering the rearr80gement and modification oC matter-in sharl, once 8 slatic condilion was achieved. In a very essential way Ihe contents oC the arehll.eological record must be viewed as produets of a complex mechanical system of c9usatian. It was mechanical in that lhe fundamental genesis of lhe archaeological slructure is a siluation of forces acting lo modify maller in both its organizational and dislributional properties. Tha archaeological record is a strudure of relationships between Ihe dislribulion and forro of matter as caused by energy souoces acting 00 maner in the pasto In one ver}' important sense, all properties of matter, whether they be chips removed from a flake of flint, rniJl;ing of soil betraying the fonner localion of s pit, pilesof debris from meals, ar the remnants of a construclion such as a mud brick walJ, are the mechanical consequenees of the actioos of forces on mstter. lJ!.s~~ th_~ term cot!sol in the literal sense, thal is, lo express the idea of a ealegary of generii::: connectioos; il refers to the way of producing things. Dr. "something, E, is broughl forth by something else, e, in a necessary ([;Dnstanl and llnique) manoer lBunge 1979:49]." Clearly if we can ¡solale causal relationships hetween things, and if we can understand such relationships in terms oC more general principies of necessity, such as the Iheories of mechanics or sorne other basic science, then we have a slrong warrant for Ihe inference of the cause from the observed effects. We would be building a strang Iheoretically infonned bridge belween properties of Ihe conlemporary archaeological record and characleristics of Ihe dynamic pasto Insofar as our inferences regarding Ihe pasl fefar to Ihe causal relafionships that ablained between
dynarnícs and tts static derivatives. then any altempts to dtscover the cheracter of such causal relauonshtps rnust reasonably be conducted Ihrough the study ot living systerns where hcth dynamics and stat¡c derivativos may be potenlially observed. Taktng as an example the problem outltned in Chapler 1, the identificalion of the agency [energv sou rce] responsíble for generatjng certain pattams remalning in the archaeologfcal record. we might reason as fol. lows: Firsl, we musl attempl lo isolate the differenl agente or torces that might be expected to contríbute to or "cause" a gíven paltern. Secando we would have lo conducl sludies of Ihese agenls or processes in the conlemporary world so as lo develop criteria of rer.ognition. In shorl. we need lo specify critería for recognizing lraces, "signalure palterns" apt lo be preserved in the archaeological record, of Ihe agenls likely to have conlribuled lo deposils in which hominid remains migh! also oceur. The procedure is similar to Ihat painslaldngly worked oul over the years for recognizing lilhir malerials modified by man as opposed to slones modified Ihrough olher natural processes. The problem is one oí pattem recognition linked with the demonslration that Ihe patlem is redundanl and unambiguous, a diagnostic signature thal discriminales one agent or sel of agenls from an01her. 8uch a demonslration must be developed by sludying phenomena activel~' generated in a (:onlemporary setting, since !here must be liUle problem of inference regarding the identify of Ihe agent producing the pallerning or traces that one is demonstrating as a signature paHern sufficient for the unambiguous identification of Ihe agen!. The problem is one similar lo Ihe developmenl of a key identificalion of animals through the sludy of their foolprinls. The persons who develop Ihe knowledge thal per· mits Ihe recognilion of Ihe track, and nence the identificalion of Ihe animal responsible. musJ sludy Ihe footprinls of idenlified animals so thal Ihe relalionship between animal and Irack is a controlled or known relationship. Given such a control in the contemporary world. and given that one is successful in recognizing and dest.ribing d¡agnoslit.: criteria (constan! and unique) belween cause and eHecl, animal ano l"ootprint. lhen when on{1 fJnwunters Ihe diaíl,noslic footprint in Ihe fulure lhe infmenee of Ihe
l!r'~
(~)
prior presence of Ihe indicated animal may be constdered an inference of high probability. For an inference about Ihe past to be of high probability, an eddtttonal proposition must be mel-tha1 the same releüonshlps obtatned in the past as nbtetned in the present between bears and their footprtnts! Here we introduce Ihe Interestlng and irnportant. perhaps crucial, problem erchaoologists must solve-chow do we justify il unifnrmitarian assu!!!.l!,!;ionl This tssue is perhaps well illustrated through a dlscussion of the treatment given the problem by the pioneers of hisloricaJ geology: Lyell's concept of uniformity h6S four majar, and ver}' dlfferent,componen!s: (tI NrJturijffllW!f ate:-ifurllililJ,1 (uoiform) in space-at'ftf time. As Joho Sluart Mili ~howed, Ihis js nol o statement aboul fhe world; jI is 00 a priori cJoim of metho
As was poinled out by Gould, the remaining two senses in which Lyell used the concep! of uniformity were in fact assumptions about the world, existential in characler. One has been lergely suslained by research (Le., geologic change was largely uniform in rale, slow, gradual and sleady, not catadysmic). The olher c1aim was a1so exislential, namely Ihal lhe eorlh has s uniforro coofiguralion, or it has been fundamentally Ihe same since ils formation. Mast would agree thal Ihis has been demonslrated lo be quite false as 8 general descriptive slatement. What is indicated here is thal we musl make unifonnilarian assumplions if we are lo gain any understanding of Ihe pas!. 00 Ihe other hand, when we do so we are making empirical daims aboul Ihe post and Ihese mUst be warranled; Ihey must be subjected to evaluaHon. The degree lo whir.h such uniformitarian assumplions are warranlcd is a measure
1 '7 of the degree lo which our lnferences drawn from knowledge of tbe contemporary world andlor uUT understandíng of tts processes in the form oí theortes and laws are relevan! to the pasto lnsofar as our tnferences regarding the pasl reíer lo the dynamics of the past, these tnferences must be accomplísbed by appeals to principies or knowledge about dynamics and how static properítes preserved in the archaeological record may be derived from dynamics. Since the only access a researcher has to dynamics ls through conlemporary expenence. all research directed toward the develcprnent of principies thal serve lo make possíble inferences aboul the pasl must be conducled with documenled dynamic siluations generally in the presen!. Such knowledge of"conneclions" between slatics and dynamics must derive from experimental research conducted wilh documenled living syslems. Since knowledge of dynamics derives from experience wilh living systems, observations of linkage between statics and dynamics musl be made on living systems. In arder to use these principies of linkage for msking slslemenlS about lhe past, we must make 9 uniformilarian assumption with respecl lo the properties used in inference. In short. we musl assume thal knowledge gained fram actualistic studies is relevanl and applicable to Ihe living syslems oí the pasl. This basic proposition must be true ir inferences employing principies gained Ihrough Ihe study of eontemporary dyosmics are lo be used in inferring the past from palterned statícs. This means lhallhe assumption is alwayscondilional and may be false; thal is. we could be wrong in our judgments regarding Ihe condition shared by systems or entities of Ihe pasl and lhe present. For instanee. any number of "correlates" between sts\ics and dynamics mighl be observed in Ihe modern world. However, the firsl question we musl ask is whether .we are gbseryjng ao jncidence pí cause and effect, or whelher there is simply correlation or coincideoce. The second, and equally imporlanl, question lo be considered is whethe~ posed causalion was also characlerjslic of Ihe pas!. Both queslions must be answered affirmatively before ~aJis.Í(l eb8ePIatioomay",eehst-imlly·serve 8& a,prfilQistlJof iníl1nmces-reR8f.(Hng4he pUlI. Although I basically agree with much of Schiffer's (1972. 1976. 1978) general discussion of ar-
,1 11, 1, 11
il~
!,!I
~'
chaeology and Ihe need for understandtng of formati0I!_processes, I generelly dtsagree with almostaf[;f 'li'i'Ssüggesrroñs as lo how lo solve arcbeeologtcal problema. He faits lo make the critical dtsttncuon belwaen descr-íptlon and explanatton. This is clear as he cites Nagel for "experimental laws" ü.e.. empirical generalízetíons¡ and Hempel for "covenng laws" (i.e.. theoretlcellaws). as íf these were Ihe seme thing [see Schiffer 1976:4). Schiffer alsn argues Ihal "the subject matler nf archaeology ts Ihe relatlonship between human behavior and material culture in all times and placee {p. 41." 1might agree thatthls is one wey of viewing the concerns of middle-range research, bul find it hard lo accepl as Ihe cenlral focus for archaeology since Ihe archaeological record conlains no direct informalion on this subjecl whatsoever! How do we know whal experiences wilh living systems are relevant lo the pasl? This question is parlicularly germane wilh regard lo central issues such as identification. Idenlificalion, as mentioned earlier, is a key issue in archaeology, since it is this "acl" that eSlablishes Ihe language for discussing Ihe pasl, and in turn Ihe language carries meanings and provides the units for logical analysis. ldenlifying things (see Whilehead 1967:144) becomes Ihe acl of translaling from the domain of malter inlo Ihe domain of ideas. It is the identities that bridge the gap hetween lhe past and the presen!. that provide, as Whitehead (1967:159) wOllld say, the "elernal abjects," Ihe "durables," which serve as the basis for recognizing events. fhe basis for analyzing events and recogni2ing transitions from one evenf lo another: Whalever pllsses is an even\. Bul we fínd entities in nature which do nol ptIss. raclors in nature which are without passage will be called obiects ... recogniIlon is reflecled in the intelleet as comparison. but JI is nol Ihe ewnls which aTe compared. Jo'or each p.v"nl is eSIlBnliaJly unique and inwmparable. What are cumpared are the ohjectsand relallons of obieclssiluated in events IWhitehead 1957:124-12sl.
It seeros to me Ihat uniformitarian assumptions function much ¡¡ke in!ellectual anchors, for Ihey provide the "points of knowledge" from whir.h we
may judge tbe extent of our ignorance regardtng propertíes of the archaeologtcal record, Whal are the durable uncbangtng charectertsttcs that the events of the presenl shate wilh the past? As 1 índicated alsewhere [L. R. Binford 1977a:81.
tent with the Initial assumpttons. the premises upon which the tnferences rested. There is en importan! characterislic of al! mferantial argumenta, simply that we can never reoson in o volid monner (rom premrscs a conclusion thcr contradicfs !he premtses wuh which we stort. Thís fact has importan¡ irnplicenons for archaeologfsts:
'0
We mey reasonably ask . whether or not thera are classes of data remaining from the pasl wních might bcttcr suppcrt uniformitatian as surnptíons. In short. are there nol clesses of phenornene avatlahle tu us Ior which a more reltebte sel uf conditiuns might be projected intn the pest Ihan for human behavior per se?1
1. AII our statements about the past are in-
ferences relatíve to observalions made on the contemporary archaeologlcal record. 2. The accurecy of our Inferential construcñons uf the past is dtrectly dependen¡ on the accuracy of Ihe assumptions or premises serving as Ihe basis of our inferential argumenls.
J answered the rbetorícal questton by suggesting Ihal lhe sludy of the spalial slructure or the arrangement of "objecls," in the Whitehead (Ig57:124j sense of the world, would be a useful area for developmenl. I continue lo be of this opinion. On Ihe olher hand, I had suggested Ihal ecological and analomicel characleristics of Ihe species sliU extant with whkh ancient man inlerac1ed were enduring objects for which uniformitarian assumplíons mighl be securely warranted. It is hoped Ihat olhers will elabomte this lisl of domains and pursue middle-range research along as man}' diverse Jines as we may be ab!e lo justify uniformitarian assumptions. 1 began the discussion in Chapler 1 with a clemonstratioll lhal !he "inlerprelalion" of cerlain aro chaeological observalions was dependenl on a basic premise, an assumplíon aboul Ihe conditions in Ihe past surrounding Ihe formalion of lhe deposit wilhin which archaeological remains were recovered. I showed Ihat Ihe assumplion was generally made Ihal man was the agenl responsible for the disposition of aU malerials found in associalion with demonslrable arlifac1s. AH Ihe "interpretations"-lhe postulation of bear culls. cannibalism among early hominid populalions, mass killing of elephanls at Torralba, syslemalic hunting of hyena by Neanderlhalers at Pin Hole shelter-were inferenlial arguments consis-
rhe conclusion we musl draw is Ihat we cannot use eilher Ihe archaeological record or Ihe ¡nferred pasl lo test our premises or assumplions. Quite Iilerally. al! our reasoning is "Iocked in" by our original premises and observationallanguage. lJnless we can lake our premises lo experience and permil experience lo pass judgmenl on Iheir accuracy, we can never gain a critical perspective wilh regard lo out beJiefs aboul Ihe pas!. "Can we presenl hislorical events as instam:es ur confirmation for a law? We cannol if Ihe very law we wish lo tesl has becn presupposed in inferrillg the event IKitls 1977:791." Pul anolher way. since we construcllhe past inferenfíally .....e cannol use our conslruclions lo test Ihe accuracy of Ihe premises Ihat provided the basis for Ihe chara(:lerislics conslrucled Since we cannol use lhe inferred characlerislics of Ihe pasllo lesllh!'! basis for our inferenlial procedures, ho ..... do we develop reliable meons fur knowing lhe past? The answer, as 1have intimaleel, is Ihal wp, must engaBe in middle-range re.~earch. which consisls of aclllalislic sludies designed to conlrol for the relationship belween uynamic properties of the pasl abolll which one seeks knowledge and lhe slalic material properlies comrnon to lhe pasl and Ihe present. Whileheau's "eternal objecls"-in shor!. lhe charaeleristics about which uniformitarian assumplions may be made, Ihose Ihings which lhe presenl shares wilh lhe pas!. These cornmoll Ihings provide the hasis for a Lornparison of Ihe events of Ihe pmsenl wilh Ihe cvelll:- 01 Ihe pasl or evcnls from (Hfferenl limes in I!w ]las!.
lRichard Gould has argued Ihat. I;incesorne characll!Tistics appear unlikely to bridge Ihe present aod the pasl. we should avoid unifurmitarian assumpliolls "The less Ihe archaeologist must dllpend upan uniformitarian assumptions lo iofllr past human behavior. Ihe more valid his explanations will be IR. A. Gould 1978:2551," This is nonsense, in my view, sinee any inferpnee. even a simple identification. lo the pas! mus' make a uniformilarian assllffiplion.
l
The reason that middle-range research must be bastcally aclualislic ís thet only in the present can we observe Ihe bear and the footprtnt together. the coincidence of the dynamic and the static derivattves. In more mature disciplines, where a releuvely sound melhodology and a eophístícated observattonel language exist, it may be possfble lo use inferred conditions ebout the pest as premlses for further tnferences if the inilial premisas servíng as Ihe bas¡s of the original inference are securely documented and "vertfied" at the míddle-range level of research. As illustrated in Chepter 1. this is probably a very rtsky strategy. given the lack of sophislication in conlemporary archaeology. The dependence of our knowledge of Ihe pasl on inference ralher than direcl observalion renders the relationship between paradigm lthe conceptual 1001 of description) and Iheory (lhe conceptual tool of explanalion) vague. it a1so renders lhe "independence" of observations from explanalions frequenlly suspecl and comrnonly standing in a built in relalionship, Ihereby commilting Ihe fallacy of "confirming Ihe consequenl." It is this condition Ihal renders it imperative that our methods for constructing lhe p8!sl be- inlellectllally ¡ndependenl of our lheorias for explaining Ihe pasl That is, Ihe lheories explaining the archaeological record. lhe work Ihal provides our abservational language and conveys meaning lo archaeological phenomena, musl be inlellectually inrlependent of our a priori ideas of lhe past. or our lheories regarding lhe processes responsible for pasl evenls, pallerns of change, or slabilily. ~e range .fheoq¡"mt.lsj...he inklUec-tually; i·ndBP8~'·Clf ~hacry. Middle-range Iheory musl be lesled primarily with documenled living systems. Middln-range lheory Ireals Ihe relationship belween slalics and dynamics, between behavior and malerial derivalives. General theory may be lested using arphenomena meaningfully oper· chaeological ationalized Ihrough middle-range research, Stated anolher wa.,'. ~el1eral Iheory musl be evalualed usin~ instrumenls for rneasuring lhe variables specified in Ihe Ihenry, Thcse inslrumenls musl have been developed indepencienlly Ihrough middle-range reseflrch In lhe absence of melhods for reliably l1lolliloring the variables silid lo be clelerminantly
'), , !I ,
, 1,
!I, ,: :¡,1
J,:
I
,
I
;:;í:
,'t ',.'
!II'
'~'I '
,
~f¡
11, ,
1:'1'" .;
I
•
30
2. Middle-Hange Research und the Role af Actuolislic srudíes
opereuve. no archaeologtcel test of general theory is possible. "rne conc!usion should be clear: Middle-range reseerch. wlth particular emnhasts of theory building, is crucial lo the Iurther development of arcbaeology. We can no! "know" the past without it, end we can-
not evalúate our ideas ebout the pest and why it was the way it appears lo have been wtthout means of monítoríng Ihe eonditions or variables belteved lo be important. Both of these tasks are dependent upon the development of míddle-range research.
I,
'
!'
In Chopter 1 1 argued that a particular set o{ assumptions cbcut the jormctlon 01 depostts that contctned archaeological remoins served as the warrant for further inferences regurding mctericls found in nssoctction with the orchoeological remcins. 1 attempted lo shcw that Paleolithic archaeology developed in a sttuouon where a specific concern [or methodclogtcol resenrr-h was no! seen as sepcrote from research conducted for purposes al learning about 'he post. Interpretetions were lorgely developed post hoc or after díscovertes had been made in the orchoeclogiccl record. These procedures Iorgely ccnslsted a[ using inferences based on ossumptions regording the formation processes cperntlve in rhe post or the condHions responsible [or morphoJogicol properties or potterns of associotion observen in rhe nrchneoJagico/ record. Once snch posl hoc
I
Part II Middle-range research-In search of methodology
¡I .
'1'It i!
"I 1:1J ¡'i '1:~1
il:l
,
~,
f:
1
:1"
'Ii,
,
I¡i' ,·1"
ar
'!'(
•
~ 34
Poli JI. Middln-RunlW R{'.
tntcgroto theso observolions with those of others regarding the behavior af predctor-scovengers. These discussfcns will then provtde the background jor o consideralion of csscmblcge variabilily, thct ís. the determtnants of patterns of ossociuuon omong difjerenl anolomicaJ par!s in terms of animal bebcvlor contrusted with thct of OWIl. From thls 1 wil/ drow sorne inlellec!uol expectctions cbout the behavior of predatorsccvengers. "cnchors" thut we can project into the posl and use fa identijy the conditions Ihu! generaled cerlain conjfgurottons offaunaJ materia/ remclrung for us lo observe todov.
!¡'
:1lilll .a.
11:1: f
~I~
I
The observettons surnmarized in thrs chapter are largely concemed with Ihe modíficatfons that animala. considered strictly as rnechanícal agente. make on bones. That ts. 111m concemed with looth mllrks and patterns of differential destructíon that gnawing animal s are capable of producíng and in facl regulady produce. In all my descrtpuons l am concerned wñh recogntaíng modificalions of bone that are distinctive or otherwtse dtegnosttc of action by nonhuroan agente. I cannol emphasize too mueh that with anirnals most bone modificalion ís etfected by teeth. Teeth are the írnplements and the íaw is a mecha nical device Ior exerttng force; Ihe Iwo constitute a dlstinctive mechanical system. This ís consídered lo be a very non human mechanícal situetíon, in thal man commonly employs a varíety of Irnplements. such as kllives and hammers. end the mechaniral situaticn is one of dtrected culting or tmpacted hammering. For entrnels. the teeth are organizad in whal may be víewed mechanícally ee a vise. These are real differences in the mechanical besrs for human versus nonhuman predator-scevengemodtñcatíon on bones. Most of my descriptions focus on recurren! propeettes belíeved lo refiecl Ihese mecbentcal differences. Obviously animals differ in stae. feeding hebns. the mechanical strength of their jaws. and the destgn of thefr teeth. Nevertheless. they 811 may be constdered animaled vises.1t is expected Ihfl! the baste pat.
Chapter 3
~i ¡ 1,!I: U "
[,1, '1
"1
Patterns of bone modifications produced by nonhuman agents
I'1'1, ñ
as
IU
¡ "
¡
/n-k:~ ""/(YJ. - ,;""~ c>Y'...;t~'f4cb
• 36
3. Pml('rn~
terns of modíñcatton thet en anirnal is mecbantcallv careble of producing are nol goíng te vary 8 great deal from rme species to enother. lt ts more likely that the magnitude of the capabtlíty. and the use of ít. will varv emong spectes. A very strong animal may be abl~ 10 accomplish the destrucnon of large bones but the tecttc oí destruetion ís expected lo be essentially hke that of a smeller animal addresstng a smaller bone. This ls an operating assumption guiding the presentatíon of much of the following materiaLI will remain sensilive lo Ihe possibility lhal lhe assumption is overly simplistir:. The demand thal the bellf and ils footprinl be observed together is only parlially mel for 'he IDa\erials
described. The~ oí the--booef¡..~,iR ~h6 descriptions and iIlulItrations of modifications produced by animals WBre recovered from nine dog yards within th~ village of Anaktuvuk, Alaska. A total of 12,716 bones were observed for patterns of surficial scarring, bone breakagc. and destruetion. An additional 416 recovered from two small wolf dens served primarily to permit lhe assessment of the impression Ihat Ihe pat1erns produced by the domestic dogs were not unique 10 the dogs. The samples from the Anaktuvuk dog yards wefe not collected wilh Ihis particular research aim in mind. The original mo\ivalion was to study in detail Ihe seleclion of parts by Ihe Eskimo for use as dOR food and to monitor any seasonal changes in the feeding strategies (see L. R. Binford and J. B. Bertram 1977: 78-g01. These dog yard samples werc supplemenlal lo actual records of dog feeding and followup studies of the bones remaining al feeding spols after the dogs had been moved away Isee 1. R. Binford 1978b:2B2-265). In addilion, 1 had conducled extensive interviews with Ihe families then keeping dogs regarding their dog-feeding lactics. Thus Ihe sample has a weakness. Man actually inlroduced lhe bones to Ihe dogs after he had killed the animal and transportad Ihe parts to Anaktuvuk. Thal is, aU the characteristics of Ihe bones canool be unequivocally refeITfld exelusively lo Ihe behavior of the dogs. Nevertheless, Ihe characteristks described can be ascribed lo Ihe dogs with Ihe highesl levels of confidence. For inslance, my informal ion no palteros of dog feeding by Ihe Eskimo perndls me to say with confidence thal no bones previously broken for marrow within Ihe viHage were given lo the dogs. The Eskimo generally do nu! fpR.d their dogs "gar-
nJ Bnne ModiJiroljons Prlllilll"ed by Nonhumon
Ag',"I~
bage" or tabie scraps . but whcn this general peuem is vlnlated it ís never with raspee¡ to prcvíouslv brokan long bones. When bones that have been previously "consumed" by humana are gtven lo the doge. they are almos¡ alwavs "women's bones" (see L. R. Binford 1978b:149) or those that have been boiled. These ínclude the neck. Ihoradc vertebree. ríbs. lumbar vertebree, pelvis. aud sr.apu!a. 'I'he only modificalions that might occur lo these bones prior lo roodíücauon by gnawing dogs would be cut marks írorn ects of dtsmemberment. chop marks for sizing the bones to nI in a stew poI. and sometimes "mashed edB!;s" resultill¡;¡; from human chewin¡;; al the margms of lhe bones during consumption. Feediog dogs womeo's bunes is much more common 00 winter sites where the warm bones are viewed as a treal for the dogs. 1 never observed Ihis table-scrap feeding in rny spring or summer dog-feeding records. Generally dogs are fed complp.tu blllr.hering un· its, Ihal is. a complete rib slab. a complete scapula wilh al1ached meat, a complete pelvis, aod so on. In butchering the Nunamiut dismember the body of a prey animal by cutting between the articulator surfaces of Ihe bones. Somelimes multiple bone units will be relurned from the field lo the village. These may be further butc;hered al !he time of dog feeding, bul except in the winler, when the meat is frozen. secondary butchering is the same as primary: dismembermenl by cutting between the bones al the joinls. This means Ihal ¡;¡ingleor mulliple bone unils are whal Ihe dogs receive as food. Thev are almosl never presented wilh previously broken bones. The exception lo Ihis generalization is feeding during winter when meal stored outside is always frozen. Secondary butchering under such conditions is accornplished wilh an ax and it ¡s common to break lhrough the shafts of long bones as a regular dismembermenl strategy. For Ihese Teasons. three of the dog yard samples (see L. R. Binford and J. 8. Bertram 1977:80J listed (samples 1I, 1Il. and IV) in an earlier reporl were eliminated from this analysis Rnd only consulted concerning patlerns of deslruclion of arliculator ends. It should he pointed out that 1have analyzed over 122,000 bones known lo be Ihe result of Nunamiut behavior. I have nol reported any type of modificalion as referable to the dogs Iha! regularly occurred in the known "human sample" (!\ee L. R_ Binford 197Bbl
&'
......-
PrevtousApprocches lo Underslanding lhl' SigniJicance of Broken ond Modificd Bone The sample of dog-modified bones te considerad unambiguously informative ebout dng behavíor wilh raspect to Ihe following properties: (a] surñctal modíñcetíons and lb) pattams of deslruction or breakage of single borre unfts. Prcperties not considered referable lo dog behavíor are (al the relative frequencíes of the bones present and, lb) differentlal destruction due to Ihe accessíbtltty of the different bones-Ihal ¡s. dtsaruculetton hed alreadv been accomphsbed bv rnen befare Ihe dogs gained access lo tha anatomícal parís. so patterns of deslruclion were nol generally condilioned by the patterns of anatomical arrangemenl characleristic of a prey species. Thus the population properties of animal-obtained assemblages cannol be undersloorllhrough the sludy of this materia!. On Ihe other hand. variabilily in moc1ification and destruction of given analomical parts is documented in a reliable manner. Again. I am confident that the properties described are referable to the Betion of dogs. The beBr and the footprint are together wilh regard lo modifications of single bane units. However, 1 cannot USe these data for studying how dogs would modify larger unHs of analomical organizalion, such a~_leg or a whole animaL ~ :...AH ~he'generalizations offerad are wilh regard toJ caribou bone. I will iIlustrate sheep bone occasionally lo indicate Ihal Ihe generalizalions about caribou also ap'ply to sheep. Statcd another way, I am talking about the modification of caribou bone by Eskimo dogs}largely malemiuts-weighing between 55 and 70 lb. I will frequently cite lileralure in whích olher researchers have described similar modifications of either bones from other spedes [horses. bison. etc.) or banes modified by olher Bgents (large cats. hyenas, coyoles, etc.). These references serve lo warrant the opinion thal the modifications produced by dogs may be generalizad lo other species of predator-scavengers and to the bones of olher prey that might be attacked by gnaw_ ing animals.
Previous Approaches lo Underslanding Ihe Significance of Broken and Modified Bone
I
As was shown in Chapler 1, I seriously question many of the daims old World archaeologisls presenled regardin~ \he pas!. However. I concpnlrale on
37
New World erchaeology in Ibis survey beceuse iI provides an ínteresttng case of research mnving 10werd the development of a methodology that. as I will attempl to demonstreta, is largely poorly founded and mtsleedrng. II has the added interest that many of the properties cíted by New World archaeologists have been clted by Africanists and other Old World archaeologists as diagnostic of human behevíor. The very fact tbet many of the seme formal properttes hava been observed in widely separaled places atld with reference lo differitlg lime periods adds to their middle-range research potentia!. If these properties can be underslood accurately, then Ihey are good candidates for strong methodologkal tools, since making secure uniformitarian assumptlons about their meaning is encouraged by Iheir broad spatial and t~mporal distribulions. Most claims for man's use and modification of bones as tools have been based on cited evidcnce of either altered shape or particular modifications such as "flaking," "retouch," "polish," and "abrasion," which were believed to be producls ofhuman action. In addilion there were e1aims made Ihat man broke bones differently from animals. res\llting in distinctive and diagnostic patteros observable among Ihe fragmenls of long bone. As was poinled out earlier. Breuíl {1938:581thought thal roan broke bones "Ion_ gituditlally" whereas animals broke bones transversely. This view was accepted by Weidenreich (1941: 74-77) and ciled as evidence that Sinanthropus was a cannibal. Raymond thIrt (1960) accepted Ihe suggestion of 10ngitudinaHy fraetured bone splinters, and proposed thal this Iype of break. age was accomplished by wedging bone 1001s ioto exposed bone cylinders. thereby splitting the shafts of long bones longiludinally! (for criticism see Feuslel 1969. 1970.) have pictured olher exomples of bontl lnlerpenetro_ ill Ihe memolr on th~ Osleodonlokeratic Culture such as on alllelope co!can¡;,us wedged between the Zygomotic arch and the lateral aspect of a split hyoenB skull. and flekes ofbone or whole bones wedgBd withill other bones. These (l)l;amples are here shown lo be lypi. cal and are now sufficiently numerous lo conslitute ir. refutable cvldence of a systemotic auslralopithecine technique not meff~ly of smashing up skulls bul also 01 split1ing by m(lans of driving olher flakes of bone or whole bones forcibly down lhe shahs of olher bones IlJarl HIfiO:1361. I
tíOIlS
+.....-f l-W1A"j. -
~. to.rr~-t
-y
*~~
., ,
38
J.
Potlerns of Bcne ModificationsProduced by Nonhumcn Agtmts
The femous crack-and-twisl technique of bone fracture was proposed by Dart nüt as a method of fracturing bones for maITOW extractlon. but instead as a meens of tool production, 8 posítton leter adopted by Saclek-Kooros (1972). we were both ígnorent ot the means wbereby primitiva saplent man at Kalbank 15,000 years ago end IhE! sUll more primitiva protoman AustroJopithecus prcrnetheus ebout 1,000,000 years ago al Makapansgat obtained theee spíral blades unti! one Sunday we preservad the femur Irorn Ine family's roest leg of mutton. Th8 following doy he lKitching] brought il lo the laborl'llory, slruck the shaft with the poio! of a stone implement and holding 80ch end of the bone in a hondo
twisted Ihem opar! in opposihl directions. Tha beautiful resultanl spiral blad611 and Ihe poinl oí impact of Ihe stone implement are clearly see".... So the nexl time this Sunday ¡oinl provided ,ames Kilehing wilh a furIher experimental opportunily he simply struck the shafl against Ihe wooden edge of the lable and Iwisted the bone ends contrary wise again and the spiral and pointed results ttnl seen {Dart 1959b:911· ~~y~~al points.s:ho,,!ld_be clY!!fflJ!..IDLm. Experiments have repeatedly demonstrated (L. R. Binford 1978b:152-157; Bonnichsen 1973:14, 1979:37-53) that plltl f etttre resull. from breakins rel8tively mm )yuw:1t is not conditioned by twisling. Twisting may condition two types of situahon; most likely it simply facilitates the separalíon of fractured bone from the periosteum and in no way condílions the pattem of actual breakage. In siluations such as are described by Sedek-Kooros (1972) where a line of minor impacts are made longit\.ldinally along abone, the twisting may actually ensure a longitudinal crack connecting all the small poinls of impacto This is difficult to accomplish and mosl often twisting simply removes or separates fractures that are otherwise held togelher by the periosteum. (See. for in· stance, such fractures indicated in experimenis 19 and 22 IFigure 51 of Sadek-Kooros 11972:3741.) Despite Dart's designalion of Ihe crack-and-Iwisl method as one used in tool produclion. il has been most often cited as a melhod appropriate to the breaking of bone for marrow exlraclion. For instance, as a caption to a very imaginative reconslrucHon of the Iifeways of AustraJopithicus ofriconus in the popular Life Nalure Library book, E"orly Man, by F. Clark Howell (1965), we are lold,
PreviousApnrouches lo Underslat1ding the Significance of Broken and Modified Bone
Cracking and twésting antelope limb bcnes. Ihe Auslralupilhccines estract the edíble lnsides. Late¡ the bones. frequently found with prehuman Iosstls. may haveserved a different purpose: their sharp erigesmade useful tools and weapons [Hnwell 1965:69). Recent New World Htereture. atthougb generally acknowledging that twisling ís not necessarv lo the productíon of spiral fractures. has tended lo suggesl thal spiral fractures themselves are dtegnosno of human behavíor. This view seems to slem from seminal work by Bonnichsen (1973), which builds on two ploneer reseerch experlences with behsviorally modified bones. Bormichsen participaled in a sludy with Zierhut (1967) aimed al Ihe elhnoarchaeological study of bone breakage 8mong Ihe caUlrrg uk:~ Cree. This experience was coupled with the analysis of bones recovered from animal cages al Ihe Alberla Game Fano in an importanl alulIupi to·develop criteria for dislinguishing between bonebroken or modified by man and that broken or modi-fied by animals. Research with Ihe Cree involved repealed demonslrations by the locallndíans as to how bones were broken for marrow (see Bonnichsen t973:Plale 1). A standard melhod was observed 8mong the Cree and Bonnichsen obviously still accepts this Isee Bonnichsen 1979:Plate IV-1) as lhe method wherebv . man break bones for marrow. Bonnichsen's second actualislic experience was in lerms of observations made on bones recovered from Ihe ca¡;;es of a caracal cat, a North China leopard. a Siberian Iynx, and a Siberian tiger (Bonnichsen 1973:14). This lisl is interesling in thal it ineludes no can id or hyena. Mosl observen of cals agree that Ihey are fastidious ealers and modify bones primarily in the course of removing meal from Ihe skeleton rather than during the gnawing sessions more characterislic of canids and hyenas. Large cats have, neverlheless, Iremendous power in Iheir jaws and are capable of shearing bones during Ihe course of meal consumption. (Sea Ihe impressive pholograph in Beard 11979:961.1 AH of Ihe bones ilIusIrated by Bonnicbsen (1973) and attribulable lo ani-' mals at Ihe game farm werc modified by a Siberian tiger, cerlainly a powerful animal. AII of the modifications iJIuslraled are puneture marks on bones of a small animal (sheep). whir-h when broken were simply sheared by Ihe Hger (Bonnichsen 1973: Plate eb. c, d, and f). In one sheep libia illustratecl, however. Ihe proximal end was sheared off ancl a
/.l.~""i -..<.'7 ....~r;.<. <Wt.~
spiral fracture originating at the end of the bone was produced. The last "control" population of bones availeble lo Bonnichsen was a colleclion recovered írom the stte inhabited by the Calling Lake Cree, who had servad as informants for the marrow-cracking demonstrettons. These bones represent gerbage. from a local house. Ihal was subsequently scavengnd by domestíc dogs. Thus, iI was not cleer which egent. man or dog, produced the modiftcetions within th¡s population. Since man obviously crackad bones for marrow, the spíral fracluring within Ihis assemblage was attribuled to man. Only modifications previously described by SulcIiffe (1970) and Miller {1969} as characteristic of animal modificalion were illuslrated as referable lo Ihe dogs. Thu5 the "modero sample" from Ihe Cree was interpreted using previousiy described criteria for recognizing animaJ-modified bone, coupled with Ihe elhnographic experience of marrow cracking among Ihe Cree. which was token as the basis for recognizing bone broken by mano Dnly a single piece of "ambiguous" evidence existed from Bonnichsen's perspectiva: the spirall}' fractured sheep tibia from the Siberian tiger's cage, Sornebanes alterad by animals axhibit spiral fraeturing such as the sheep tibia from the Siberian tiger cage.... Asthis process has nol been wilnessed,the following suggestion is conjeelural. The bone WIlS probably Hrst perforated by the 'eelh at the two oppositional points 11 the epiphyseal end. Al the same time lhe liger pulled out a segmenl whieh terminates in a spirlll hllc, lure IBonnkhsen 1973:t61. Bonnichsen then concludes that tbe long bones are particularly important for recognizing human activity, noling Ihal there is frequently an impaet notch and spiral fractures initialed outward from Ihe notehed loading poinl. In con Iras!. bLlisl0.!!!!..fu!.. 10wJ!!&... charac.~istics as diagnº~ic of animalmodified bone: "(1) toolh perforalion marks. (2) gnawing and scooping oul of cancellous lissue, (3) crunching and splintering, (4) spiral fracluring direcled from Ihe epiphyseal ends. (5) partial digestion [Bonnichsen 1973:241."1
¡
IHow Ihe Ihird chllrllcteristic is different from spirlll fracturing is not lit all dear since this criteria is adopted from Sutdiffe (19íU) and hE' did nol ulilize lhe concept or spiralfracturing
.
39
Bonntchsen was led lo believe that spiral fractures were characterist¡c of bones modified by men, whereas tooth marks. scooptng out. and parfial digestion were charaetenstic nf animal.modified bones. This is imporlanl, stnce Bonnichsen obviously belíeves that man breaks marrow bones by smashing them in midshaft. the "mid-diaphysis smash technique of spiral fracture lBonníchsen 1979:36[." Althougb be admits the posstbílny íhat animals rnight produce spiral fractures originating al the epiphyseal ends. it is quite obvious thal Bonnichsen constders sptrel fracture lo be "artificial." He slales, The raeognition of spirlllly fractured bones has led to the following hypothesis: splrlllly fractured bones are indicative of man's presence and renect patlerned human behavior. This hvpothesis has been used lo guide Ihe analysis of fracl~red faunal remainsfrom the Old Crow Flats palBOnlological assemblages. Two additional hypotheses specify how spirally fractured oonescan be Usedforreoonstrucling prehistoric human behavior pafterns. Hypothesis 1 states' The geogrophi~ dislributions of spirally fraclurad bones may indicale human aclivity localities;and, Hypothesls 2 Slales: Spirally fractutad mammlll bones ¡ndicate the general seleclivily exploited by man [Bonnichsen 1979:69]. Methodologically speaking. thougb Bonnichsen refers lo his propositions as hypotheses there is no way of lesting Ihem using paleontological remains. since Ihey refer to a relationship belween a property remaining today (spirally fractured bone) and an agent inferrad to have been aclive in lhe remote past fman). Since he is attempting to use Ihe spirally fractured bone to prove the ancient presence of man in the New World. only with an accurate and independenl means of monitoring tba ancient presence of man could he tesl his hypotheses. In fact bis hypolheses are used as conventions for giving meaning lo paloontological remains. They serve to ¡ustify his beIief that man was presen! in very early times bul in no way do tbey evaiuate tbe belief. That Bonnicbsen does nol seriously consider predator-scavengers as agenls capable of producing spiral fractures is iIIuslraled by his discussion of possibJe sources of spirally fractured bone: The prehistorie occupants of Old Crow Flatsapparently processed the limb bones of large mammals for "bone
11'
I 1I
!jl
illl I¡ 11
1:ln
.,
'1
I
'" I
:i1 ,
'11' :
ir.
i;
! ji t,
...,........ 40
3, Pcnerns 01BOIlf' Modifil;:llliOnS Prcduced by Nonhumcu Agents grease" end perhaps for tool productlon material. Five bundred Iiñy-five spiraJly fractured limb bones trom :'0 loclllilies suggnst that bone pmcessmg WIIS widely prectlced throughout "the rtets.': ln essessíng spiral fractures, Ihe possibility should no! be rulad out Iha! occasionally enimals broke the¡r Iimb bones in spieal fractures . Three argumenta suggest Iba! íhe majorily of spirally fractured bones Irom Old Crow Plats are bones broken bv man. Of the 1,794 elements collectecl from loco.lily 89, 237 specimens exhíbít aptral fractures .. This figure is much higher than would be expected. if only natural breakege were involved. Secondly. bOlles exhibiHnll spiral fractUteS ¡nelude: marnmothimastodon. horse. caribou. hi_ ron, muskox, elk and maase. Spiral fractures wr.re nol
observed on Ih6 limb elemenls of bear, symhos. saiga antelope. camel, cal, or ground sloth ... and the third argument is; the bones exhibiling spiral fractures Ol;:f:ur on all the majar Jimb bones. lf !he bones were broken only by natural causes. B paltern in which Ihe weakesl limb bones were broken would be expetted (Bon· niensen 1979:77-791. We see here a c1assic argument from elímination and a good illuslration oC ils weaknesses. Two causes have beeo postulated: (a) man breaking bones Car marrow and possíbly for tools and (b) animals aecidently breaking their legs. The laiter is rejected by arguing that accidental breakage oC legs should be rare, and it represents at leasl 13% of lhe observed bones at one location al ald Crow. 1 totally faH lo undersland the logic oC Bonniehsen's second poio!, but the final point argues Ihat aH the major límb bones exhibited spiral fracture though accidental breakage would be expected 00 only the weakest bones. Having rejecfed animals breaking their legs as a cause, we may accept the remaining "working hypothesis" that man was Ihe causal agent. Such loglc only works if oDe has all Ihe possible causes identified and included in the elimination procedure. As will be shown, Bonnichsen did nol have an importan! cause lisled-nonhominid predalorscavengers. Al approximalely the same time Bonnichsen's carly work was done, George Frisan (1970) was sludying Ihe faunal material from Ihe Glenrock Buffalo lump. He excavaled in delail the locations yieldíng slone butchering tools and assodated faunal re· mains, obviously the remaios of a mass kill of bison that had been bulchered and processed for meat by
I~''''''
Previnus Approllches lo Understcndmg the Significance oi Broken ond ModUied Bone
mano Frtson ruede the assumpuon. common in many ou World studies. that the charecterísucs of malertals associated with unquestioned lools rnust also be refereble to Ihe ecuon of man. Therefore, all the paltemed modifications on Ihe bones from Glenrock were inlerpreled as the cnnsequences of butchenng behevíor by mano As I will ilIuslrate throughou! rny discusstons of animal-modified bones. 1 consider the major modtñceuons illustrated and descríbed by Frison [197U) lo have bean the products of scavengtng animals twolves andror coyotes). who presumably Iaasted at Ihe site after man had taken his share from the kills. Near the end of Chapter 1, 1 argued that il seemed extraordinary lo me thal the interpreters of the sile of Torralba made the implicit assumptioll thal nalure slopped excepl when andenl men were on the scene. I pointed oul tha! such an assumption was necessary. since the interpreters refarred aH the faunal conlents of Ihe Torralba deposits lo the aetions of ancien! men! After having reviewed the types of trace.~ carnivores can leave on faunal assemblages, il seems equally amazing to me Ihat of alllhe mass bison kills and megafaunal remeins excavaled by archaeologists from the American Plains, nol one such location is reporled to have yielded evidence of predalorcarnivore behavior! AIl bone modifir:ations and palo lerns of dispersion have been sYlilemalically Ireated as s!emming from human behavior. This situation is truly remarkable, sinee both wolves and coyoles were common, even plentiful. on Ihe American cantinenl unlil relatively recenl limes:
of the scale end distribulion of such features see Davis and Wilson 119781.)I heve searched in veín for discussions of bcne modifiratlon and dispersion referable to !he behavior of nonhuman scavengers al sueh obvtoue ooncentratíons of meato The majority of the patterns of bone deslruction ilIustrated by Frisen (19701 from the Glenrock site may be taken as a c1inic in canid-modified bone. Nevertbeless. I am gelting somewhal ahead of myself. The poinl ts that borres showing pertems of destructíon cheractertsttc of cánida were míxed with humallly modified bones in the assemblages avail· ab/e to Bonnichsen. and at Glenrock canid-modified bones were misinterpreted by Frison as Ihe producl of human actions. Thus. from Ihe perspective of developing melhodolagy, spiral fractures were viewed by Bonnichsen as diagnostic of man and all the modificalioos produced by canids at Glenrock were advanced by Frison as also diagnostic of mano The latter were interpreted as deriving from a particular method of butchering (muscle stripping) postulaled to aceount for many of Ihe modifications, whereas others were viewed as ¡ntenlional modificalion of bones for use as "expediency tools" (Frison 1974). The work of Bonnichsen and Frison provided Ihe conventions for giving meaning lo observed modifications. on bones, the principies later summarizad as follows: 1. "Spirally fraclured bones are indicath:e of man's presence and renecl pattemed human behavior IBonnichsen 1979:691." "Bones that exhibit spiral fraclures from non human sources are usually Ihose brolten afler the bone was dried or hao been parlially decalcifíed, ar borkl;!n when the animal fell or Iwisted ils leg IStanforo 1979a:117)." 2 '"Bone expediency tools (Johnson 1977 and Frison 1974) are manufactured by producing a spiral fraclure anO using Ihe sharp edges of Ihe fracture for butchering or hine-working aclivilies. Hones used as 1001s can be identified by the oceurrence of liny step fraclures, polísh and slrialions on Ihe proximal end of lhe spiral fradure.... Expedience !on[s are \ISU· ally made from long bones. bul ribs. mandibles, scapula and innominate fmgments ware aL~o used IStant'ord 1979B:10RI."
A woUer spent eaeh day in the same muline. In the aflernoon he would ride out and shool two or three buffalo and lace Ihe carcasses with strychnine. The nexl morning he would return lo dress oul Ihe len or twenty victims. One wolfer. Roberl Peck, left ti record of h¡s days in 11 ¡ourna) . Peck mustered out of the IIrmy in 1861.and he and two friends set up a wolf Olmpabout twentv·five miles norlh of Fort Larned. Kansas.Over tne winfer Ihey killfild 3.00n animals: 800 wolves IIml more lhan 2.000coyolas.and Ilboutlml fox ILopez1978: 1781·
If we believe Ihe archaeologisls. we must imagine thal the North American wolves and co}'oles avoided the ed¡ble remeins left by North Americans al such places af> animal lraps and the bison jumps profusely documenled on the Plains. (For sorne idea
Using spiral fraclures. and R variely of surfkíal scarring and bone rnoliific¡¡lions as di;l¡.:nostic of
I
41
fauna! assemblages produced by the hand of man, it ts nol surprtslng: gtven the víew that rnost of the "diagoostic crileria" were probably produced by gnawing entma!s. that a number of modern inyths have begun ro emerge. Using the Bonníchsen-Frison entena for recognizing man and tools. meny erchaeologists have made claims for man's great anIiquity in North America (Bonnichsen 1978, 1979; Canby 1979; Friedman 1980; Harington et cl., 1975: lrving 1978; Irving and Hanngton 1973; Morian 1979: Slanford 1979a). Similarly, there have been c1aims Cor 1001 assemblages lacking stone or other generally recognizable products oC human workmanshíp such Ihat al least sorne workers have entertained (he idea Ihat eariy man in the New World manufactured tools primarily of bone: Irvlng furthar suggested that a sophlsticated Upper PaJoolithic varlely of nint industry is by no mean' essential lo supporl human life in the far north. In fact, bone forms that could have performed all the necessary tasks of hunting, piereing, butehering. skinning. onrl per[Qrating have besn recovered [rom Ihe deposils al Old Crow and elsewhere, adding another dimension of possibility lo Ihe reconslruction of oarly lifeways IHumphrey 1979:viii. parophrasing WiIliam Irvingl This sturly sugges!s heavy lImphasis was placed on bone working in Mid·Wisconsin times. This pattern probably dominated Ihe tool making piclure in many oreas unti! Pleistocene extindion began lo occur.... Man probably responded by developing new lechnologic.al innovations Iho! emphasized the use of lilhic llrtifacls. In líghl of these findings. future early man resaareh . might well be dil't'Cted toword ree¡¡amining existinx Pleistocene psleonlological collactions for evidenl;:e of human modificalion (Bonnichsen 1979:1931
In the hands of generalizing early man enlhusiasls advocBling a particular point of view regarding the peoplinR of the New World, the material from ald Crow Flals is charaderized as "a remarkably sophislicated and specialized bone and anller induslry IBryan 1978:3231," I consider most of ~he foregoíng argumen!s ~_!i. having produced a series of modero mvths. I will átiempt to demonslrate Ihal lo) spira-I fracture is not unique lo man, (b) man does nol generally break bones by Ihe "mid-diaphysis smash lec!mique," (cl
1'1,1
I
ií
I I
,i I
I
.,4.d t: - ~Cv1""'.q.
.--,...-spiral fracture when produced by anímele Is not límíted to BO origio at the distal ends of the bones. [d] tbe inodifications citad by Frison al Glenrock as evídance of muscle stripping are cornmonly produced by gnawlng ceníds. (e) the modíñcatíons citad as criteria for recognizing "expediency tools" are cornmonly produced by nonhominid predetorscevengers. and (f) many of the modíñcettons pra· víously citad as evidence for human modíñcatíon are '-referable to predator-scavengers.
Skeletal Disartieulation There heve been very few studíes of natural skeletal disarticulation. The two that are available are somewhat ambiguous on whether the active agente are decay organísme end chemical processes or whether there has been ectíon by predatorscavengers. In the earlier study eveüeble to me (Toots 1965), it would appeer that the agente of dísarticulation are primarily decay organisms and chemical processes. Toots summarizes his observa· tions as follows: From these observations (he normal coune of dllUlniculation can besummarized approximately aa fol1ows: (1) skull and sorne limbs become disconnacled {ponibly also the atlas), {2) tlbll become loosened and fal! off at leasl from the upper side. [3) Ilmbs stan lo disarticulate Into progressively smaller segrJHlnts unlíl only isolaled bones are lefl [sometimeduring this process lhe lower jaw becomes disconnecled 1,(4) follawing this bul overlapping jls late st8ges, the vertebral calumo S18rts lo dlsarticulate, and (5)afler this haa continued far sorne lime bul befare diSArliculatian of lhe vertebral column ís completed, weathering. ,plinteríng and gradual dlslnlegratian of the bones set in [Toals 1965:381· It is interesting thal Tools attributes Ihe resislence of
Ihe vertebrae to Ihe inlerlocked Iype of articulation and the rapid disarticulation of joints such as Ihe atlas-axis lo their highly mobile character. He further notes that hide and ligaments retard disarliculation and this Is particularly lrue where desication occurs befare decay by virtue of there being very
r~~.- c",/.",.Jq-,
/"k-o
_
~
Skeleto/ DisarticuJalion
J. Pcttems of Bone Modifications Produced by Nonhumon Agents
42
Jtc'.
43
líttle "meat," as is the case with ungulete lower
TABLE 3.01
limbs. In a contrary fasbion, where there ís a concenIration of decomposable tíssue. as in the abdominal aree. chemícel reecttons essocteted with decomposlüon will hasten dísartículetíon of such perts as ríbs. The second study of dísertículetíon is one conducted by Andrew Hill (1975). This investigalor aclually díd a pattern-recognition study based on the comperetíve degrees of disarticulation manifest at a series of deeth sites of DamaJiscus kcrrtgum, or topi. The average adult body weighl of topi is 82 kg or about 180 lb. His findings on the eequence of díserliculation are as follows:
Sequence of Natural Dismembennent AccOrdinll fo HilJ"
1. 2. 3. 4.
Cranium plus alias vertebra Fronl leg Rear leg Basic axial skeleton (cervical, thoracic, lumbar vertebrae: sacrum, pelvis, ribs]
Far inslance, if one can picture competilion among camivores arDllnd a dead animal, then it might well be reasonable to anticipate that skull. mandible. 8nd front leR parls would be most Tikely dragged away from Ihe kili {írst during the early period of competition far parts of Ihe kili amang numbers of carnivores~~ In addilion, we may anlicipate that parts w¡[1 "ride" wilh others as a funclion of their probable
Complemenlary unlt
BasicaIly appendicular skelelon BasicalJyfront legs 1 Forelimb (induding scapula) 2 (Caudal vertebras)"
The eequence [gtven in Table 3.01) Is descríbed in terms of Ihe smaller untt. often B single bone. resulttng Irom the dislrti!::ullUon of a particular íotnt. Becb diserttculenon has been gjven B number. shown on Ibe leít. lndil:ating ita stege in the sequence. Apperentlv simulo teneous disarticulalions ... ere distinguished by supplementary letters. The numbers ln the rtght-hend column tndtcete Ibe next stege et whlcb. Iirst. the named unit and. second. ita cnmplement. are encountered. Thus it mllk.es It possiblete trace througb this aecountthe course of disarticulatlon of a particular par! of Ihe skelelon, such aathe forelimb ... lHiII1979:741]. The hasic sequence of disBrticuiation is head and froñt leg, followed by rear 188, and finally the ele-menta of Ihe axial skeleton-. 'On the basis of these observations, we mighl expect the following anatomical segments lo have slightly ¡ndependent distri· butions under nalural conditions simply as a function of the sequence of likely disarticulation.
Next occurrence nemed unil
Unil (smaller one observed¡
Stage
3
2
3
Scapula
s
4
5 6
(Mandible) Humerus + radius + cubitus (Cranlum + alias)
6 1A
7A 7B
Carpals Metaearpal
6A 13
Humerus Distal phalangea or forelimb Bosirolly reor Iegs Be Hindlimb 9 [proximal phalanges and distal phalanges [frontl) loA (Redtue and ulne] sepárate lOB Femur + tibia l1A Tarsals + metetarsals 11B Phalanges (ínterphalangeal joints as well) 12 femur separates from tibia
7B 8B tOA
IIA
68
and B
6C
8 10B
a 15
1 1
1,1 l2 14
It ItB
II : i 1
Ili I
BasicaIly axial skeleton I
i
13
l' 15 lOA
168 17A
178 leA 18B lOA
188 20 21
(Cranium separates from atlas) (Tarsals) separata from metalarsals Ribs (average value) Thoracic vertllbrae(13) + lumbar + innomínate + sacrum Thoracic vertebme (2) lo 112) Innominate Thoracic vertebrae (13) Lumbar vartebrae (1) + sacrum Lumbar verlebrae (1) lo (6) Sacrum separates from lumbar Thoracic vertebrae (1) Axis Cervical vertebme {3) lo (7)
1:
l' 18 17A
188
"A
18A 18B
18B 17B
lOA 20 21
"Table adoptad fmm Hll1 1979:742. (Tabla oTiglnally tillad "Sequance of Disartlcula!lon in Oamalascus Korrigum"). '[xceptions lo skelala1ltfoupings are indicaled by parenlheses.
sequence of disarticulation. For instance, when the forelimb separales, il is most Iikely Ihal all articu· lated segments of Ihe fronl leg will be dragged off. not jUst sorne desirable or high-yielded elemenl of Ihe fronl lego
I had the opporlunity to observe and record the parts remaining on 24 wolf kilI sites (reported in Chapter 5). The overall paltern observed was genero ally consistent with tha pattern reported by HUI. In several cases there was elear indication that the
l'
,I 44
3. Paltems of Bone Modi/icarions Produced by Nonhuman Agents
wolves had dlsmembered thetr prey by (a] eating thl'EH.lgh tha proximal humerus, therefore dteerficulatiog the scepula. which W8S Ihen deegged off (the otherwtse unmodíñed front leg frcm the míddle of the humeros shaft down remotned ettached to the body by sktn in two cases sud WBS scattered in ntne cases), and lb) cracking the fernur in roughly míd"haft so that the proximal end of the femur remeíned );lfliculated lo the pelvis (however, tha greater Ira-
chantar was eeten away]; the lower rear lag was missing or wídely dispersed around the k.iIl lncation. Mueh lesa common was a break in the Jower thírd of the libial sheet such tbet the complete lower- leg from
the distal third of the tibia clown remaíned artieuJalad, sornetimes with pert or a11 of the toes and hooves míesíng. This meana that the proximal femur and the proximal tibia may remaln essocíeterl with the pelvis. the distal fémur end the proximal tibia may remeín arttculeted. end the distal tibia clown to the foot represente the final segment of the rear leg typico.lly found artlculatad. In the case of the front leg. the most comrnon pettem wes for the scepule to cccut síngly, the proximal end of the humeros to be destrcyed. and the remaining parts of the front leg to remain articuiated. An altl!'rnativp waa fm there to be a spiral break through the lower part of the radiocubitus so that the distal radius was articulated with the carpals, metae8rpaJ. and segments of Ihe fool. Another common segment comisted of the main body oC the shaft oí the radio-cubitus, and tha distal humerus, plus a considerable section of shaft. 1 greatly regret that I did not OJllecl all the bones from the WCllf kills for re'llm to Albuquerque. Al fhe time 1 was intetested in anatomical part survival and did not make systematic notes on either units found in artkulation or the dístribution oí tooth marks., fracture patlF!rns, or nther evidence of carnivote activi/y. 1 saved only bolles exhibilinB extraordinary evidence of earnivote destruetion. Gary Hsynes (1977,1978&, 1980bj has informed me that he has currently underway sn extensive study of wolf kills oC American bison. He expressed the apinion that Ihe paltern o( dismemberment was so regular tha! we might eventually be able to tell how hungry the wolvp.~ werF! snd the size of the Rroup making the kilI simply Crom Ihe patterns of disarticulation and bone dispersion. Thus far, the consistency between my observations and those made 011 ve!")' different •mimal!> in a very differenl seUin~ would tcnd lo
support Ihe idea oC extreme ragulanty end. in tum, índícate that we míght well place sorne confidente in making unlfcrmttenan assumpttons ebout pat. terne of dismemberment when eontemporary patterns are documented more fully.
Toolh Mar.ks Viewing animals as denticulatec( v;~e:::h is obvrous Ihal the lmpiements that ultlmatety modify borres are the teeth. Ignoring for the rncment breakage end actual modíñcattons in bone morphology. J will concentrete on surtrcíal scarring caused by the motíon of animal teeth on and over the surfece of bones. J recogníze four baste types of tooth marking on bone: (o) punctures, (b) pits, le) scores. and (d) furrows. These may be coupled with types of breakaga and when distinctive, this will be mentíoned. Punctures (Figure 3.01} are simply where the bone has collapsed under the tooth. frequently leevíng a fairly olear imprint of the tooth. as in the dorsal [ríght-aíde] view of the distal end of the metacarpsJ shown in Figure 3.02. Fraquently, when the bone ls thin and/or porous, the tooth may penetrare the bone leaving distinctive hales in eaneellous bone [Figures 3.01 and 3.36). On very thin bone, such as Ihe blade oC the scapula, the tooth may penetrate and remove an area of the edge equal to tne surface area of the tooth, producing a crenulated edge (well iIIustcaled in figure 3.40). This effeet has beeo illustrated previously by Bonnichsen (1973:19. Plate 3, item A.j and Shipman and Phillips (1976:171, Figure 1, item
FIGURE 3.01. PuncluM& mude by (lnJmol 16flth,
I¡,I !
1111"
I
,;!
¡'ni
l'
"¡
I
i¡
1,.
'IJI! 1:.
Fj.
Punelures were one ol the l¡rst mod¡(¡caftons made lo bones noted by flarly archaeologists. In fae!, BOllcher de Pecthes. the father of modP-rn prehistory, reported a punctured phalange flOm the site oC Ah. beville (1849:312). Punctured bones were noled wlth inleres! b}' Larte! and erisly and a considerable dis· cussion in Ihe Freneh literalure lollowed the sugges· Iion Iha! these were whistles, Ihe first musical inslrumen!s. The Iiteralure is well summarized by Henri Martín [1907-t9HJ:162-168), one of Ihe firsl to point out Ihar perforaliulls were commonly made on Ihe weakesl surface of abone and to givfJ many
li
1 :1'
'!!
¡!
1,
jlll
li 1
11
!
1II
I:f: 1i' 11I
'l¡¡ :,1
•
1I ' '!,i¡1
l
FIGURE 3.02. Animal-prodllced pitting and punclures on lhe distal metapodial.
"
~~-_a#<j-c.A'l
eA-?
.....-~
./.:Vl7Y/1)~ -c <\ cOiY " ,~
f?/ - f-"j(buueM~¿ 46
l-i
3. Pcttems of Bone Modifkolions Produced bv Ncnhumun J\genls
examples tdentical lo that illustrated here {Figure 3.01. upper speeimen) (see Martin 1907-1910: Platea XXX, XXXI,XXXII). SiRCepunctures ara a fundían of the strength oí the bone relettve lo thc strangth of the animal, í! ís
not surprísíng lo ñnd large end deep puncture marks made by lions and other larga cats. [See, for ínsíence, Bonníchsen 1973:21, Plate 5, ttems A and B; Dert 1949:13; Hill 1980: Figure 6.4; Kitchlng, 1963: Plato .., : Pei 1938: 62. Plata XX!, Iteme 7,8,15, and 16.)
Puncture marks are really the initial steges of furrowin,R-8. tarm edopted From Haynes (1980). That te, If considerable gnawíng occurs.ubvtoue puncture
marks are generally oblíterated as the cancellous ttesue ls gnewed ewev. Gnawing ganerally proceeds foom 10ft to harel bono; the animal attacks the smt cancellaus plU1:s af abone first. As it gnaws, it encounters progressively harder bone {Ihe bone shaftsJ and the same aeUans may result in pitting in that tbe bone ill now strong llnough not to coIlapRe under the gnawing acHon, This pitting ls ilIustrated in Figure 3.02; the bone on the left is ex:tensively pitted, whereas the one on the rlght is ptmclured. Figure 3.03 illustrates in more detaJl the effects oC extensiva pittlog. This is a cemmen conditíon on bones that have been gnawed extensively. I should poiot out that I have observed this only on bones from wolf dens and dog yards. No exomples eí bones so exlonsively gnawed were observed on the wolf kills that 1 will discuss Jaler. PiUiog generally results from gnawing bones rather lhan eatins and pulling meat from the skeleton of an animal, as at a kili. Bone gnawing as suth is rlU'e al Idlls but very common at dens and the "sleeping" places oí canids that 1 have observed.1l ise even less likely at the killsites of large cats (Diane Gífford, personal cornmunica(ionl. Figures 3.04 and 3.05 illustrate Ihe pitted surfllee of a rompacl bone splinler. which if found in Ihe European Middle Paleolithic would be called a 1001 and designated a "campressor." This category was originally described by Martín 0907-1910), who Interpreted it as a campressor or pressure nakee usad in stone 1001 manufacture. The pitting and scocing of Ihe bone was viewed as Ihe resuIt of pushing off flakes of chert during the ael of pressure flahng. Bordes 119Bl :77) has correclly pointed out thllt the very presence of the technique af pressure flaking has nol been established for the Middle Paleolilhic.
rendering lt unlikely thal compressors were used in the suggested manner. Nevertheless, Bordes eccepts these items as tools wíth the warning thet they were more than Iikely scerred while being used in percussto» nakjn~. , heve examined many of Ihese items (approximateiy 134 from tbe slte of Combe Grenal) and in most cases Ihere is no tendency íor thetscerringla be on the end where one would expect il if these ítoms were used as flakerl;. In far:t.l could see no relettonshíp between the placement of pilting (sometimes coupled with scoring as in Figure 3.D4) and the rnorphologv of the spltnter. lt was as if the spttnter was produced after the pitting had been done. These ilems have been widely ilIustrated as Iools. by Bordes (1961:Figure 108, 1968:100, 111, Figures 34 and 39), Semenol' (1964:171-172, 177. Figure 92), Movius (1953:45, figure 12}, and DeLumley (1969:165. Figure 20), among mllny others. Senrin! is the result 01 either lurning the bone against the teeth or dragging the teelh aeross reletively campact bone. The result ls a scarring of tite surface that IScommonly linear. Scodng may on occasion look vory mllch Iike "cut marh" from lItnne tools in that scoring marks may be parellel snd frequently quite clase together. They generally differ from cut marks in Ihat cut marks rarely follow the "eonteur" of Ihe bone, beinS deeper on lhe par!s of
,,'
Tcoth Morks
47
MUR/e
II
2["
111111111 1111111 i I e .. . . fW
and furrowing. The bone is generally soñ enough so thet scoríng rarely resulta from normal gnawiIlg, although il may occur on herder edjacent parts of the bone. FilIeting generelly results in cut marks parellel to the long axis of the bone, whether long bones or flat píeces sueh as the scapula are ínvolved. Scoring Is almos! witnout excepuon transversa lo the long axis of bcnes. eínce it results from turníng the bone egetnet tha teeth ralher then "pullíng'' the teeth elong the bone (Figure 3.06). Actuelly, añer sorne expertenca with cut merks end scoríng. I found few embíguous si/uations, except perhaps where pups had been feeding and their fine pinpoint teath produced a very sharp seoring, sometimes even Ion. gitudinal scortng from tugging and pulling in play and competition for bones. S[;oring has been well íJlulifnlted in the litera/ure. In Breuil (l939) many licored bones from Choukou. tien are ilIustraled (Plale XII, p. 65, Nos. 1.2,3; Plate XXVI, p. 93, No. 5) afthough these are Interpreted by Breuil as evidenee oC human workmanship. Peí (1938) alsc iIIustrates items from Chou)¡outien but recognizes them as the produCl ef animals, principally the hyena {Pei 1938: Plates X. XIII. XIV,and IV, and XX, No. 2J. The foregoing are all good iHustrations of tooth scoring by relatively large clU'nivares. Kitching {l963l iIlustrales numerous scoted
1
'1 i
1'11'
" I '"1,·' ' " i!,"
¡ji /:1 1"1'
FIGURE 3.03. AnimcJl.produced cJdrmsive/y pitted bVDe.
:
I~' . } : 1
íI
¡
il
T !11,¡I
FIGURE 3.04. Animai-produced pitted and scored compacl bone sulface.
shor! curvature and shallower on surfaces with long curvature or sections of bone tending toward fiat surfaces. Another majar difference ls the placement ef cut marks versus seores on bones. Cut marks generIIl1y resoli from three 8clivjlies: (a) skinning, (h) dis. artieulation. and (e) filIeting. Cut marks from skin. ning may occur around the shaft of lower legs and pltalanges and parlicularly along the lower margins af the mandlble ar on the skuIl. These are the only marks that rnighl on oceasion mimic laoth .'Icariog. Cul marks from disarllculation nOnDalIyoccur (a) on Ihe edges, or articulator surfaees. al the ends oflong bones and (b) on the surfaces of vertebrae or pelvie parlt;.These are all areas af relatively soft caneellous bone and ere ept to exhibit puncture marks, piUing,
¡
'"r.1
,
1,
I~
Irl.~lI:,,'
1::1:
FIGURE 3.05. "CDlnpreSSur" pined and scared by ani-
molleeth.
I
f"''''V-
~ ~V!, c-&J& J
'.' "
~ 48
J. Potlerns of Bone Modificolioru Produced by Nonhumon Agenls
Other Seu-ces of SUljiciol Modificotions 00 90ne trated in Frison 1970: Plates 9, 12; Iohnson 1977: figure 11.2, to rnentton only two). Figures 3.42 and 3.43 nicely iIIuslrate furrowing of cancellous tíssue by dogs and by wolves. I made eeverel observettons that may aid in die. linguishing the behavioral context of different types . of scarring by animals. Wolf kills predominantiy ylelded sorne furrowing, relatively common puneture marks, and sorne crenueteted edges: pitting and scoring were much less common. On the other hand, the Eskimo dcg yard assemblages end the wolf den assembíeges yielded extensiva pitling, scoeíng. and more extreme furrowrng. This seems to reeult from the "boredom" chewing of bones in the dens and the dog yerds: meat consumptlon was primarily al the kills. At kills, furrowed destructíon of soft cancellous tissue while meat te still present on the shafts of bones prevente Ihe harder bone adjacenl to Ihe cencellous ttssue from bsoomlng heavily scored or pttted. as ís ilIustrated in Figure 3.43. Stated another way, when rneet is present in considerable quantities, long bones may be furrowed and even pollshed along the graduated edges wilhout correlated puncture marke. plts. or heevy scoring on edjacenl denser bone. Thls may be particular/y true "",hen animals are altempling lo dismember a carcass, as at a kili.
FIGURE 3.06. Compile' bone scored by animal leelh.
bones from what was mas! cerlainly a majar hyena occupation of Pin Hole Cave in England (Plates 5, 6, 7,15). MilIer [1969: Figure 3, hottom, 8nd Figure 4, top) providas gond illuslralions oC tooth-scored bones. as does Haynes (1980: r'igure 1 sud 2j. .Furrowing Is a term 1 have adopted from Haynes (1960) lo refer lo Ihe effect Iha! repealed jaw Belioo with either canines or carnassials produces on reJatively cancellous bone tissue. The result in extreme cases is what Bonnichsen (1973:16), following Sulc/íffe (1970:112). has called "scooping out." In furrowing soft Iissue is removed. leaving 8 "hole" which is graduated up agaios! harder, mOfe compacl bone. The aetion ofthe leeth will sometimes produce undulations on the remaining surface of the eanee!lous tissue, and there are sometimes steplike ir-
regularities where the teeth have vised down in different spols as the bone is mouthed by the animal. This is by far the most common type of damage pro· duced by animals and is the lype thal is presenl even ir animals have given ooly minar allenlion lo Ihe remains under investigation. Examples offuITowing are cammon in Ihe Iiterature (Bonnichsen, 1973: Plates 6A, 6B, 6D; Haynes 1980: Figures 3, 4; ;MilIer 1969: Figure 5; Pei 1938: Plates 12, 20; Sulcliffe 1970;). In the older lileulure, a number of authors have interpreled furrowing as Ihe conseQuence of human modificalion (Breuil 1939: Plate XV, No. 2, 8nd Plate XVI, Nos. 5 and 6; Weidenreich 1939: Plate VIII). In Ihe more recenl literature furrowed pieces have 1men interpreted as Ihe consequences o( butcheriog wilh choppers and "musde slripping" (illus-
Dlher Sounes of Surficial Modificatiohs un Bone lo my discussions Ihus far l have only addressed the issue ofCarnivora versus man as an agenl oEbone modi(ication and surfidal scarriog. As mighl be imagined, Ihere are olher agents thal may syslematicaUysear bones aod othar na/ural conlexls in which bones may become modified. Perhaps the most remarkable of Ihe agents whose modifications of bones may he misfaken for human workmanship is Ihe porcupine. Peí (1938) ilIuslrales numernus bones morlified by Ihe porcupine and olher rodents. Rone ""hisels" reported (rom Hopefield {Singer H15fil. and modified bones from ancienl rlepnsils in China (Hooijer H151). although presenled as ~vidence of human modifkalion, ap-
49 pear to have been modified by rodents. The Hopefield bones are particularly interesting, since Stnger reports en essemblege of "control" specimens recovered from a roek crevíce considered too small and low to have been used by mano Given such condtttons. il was reasoned that the bones within could only have been introduced by entmele. The control assemblage was then competed lo the so-called chisels from Hopefield, and the conclustcn was ruede Ihat animals were Indeed responsible for the modtñcettons on the Hopefield specímens. Lesa settsfactcry claims accompany the studies conducted al Kalkbank (R. [. Mason et al. 1958), 8S well as tbe Israeli Mousterten cave ot Geula (Oart 1967). In both cases rodente had modified the bonee constderablv: nevertheless cloims that humana had mcdtñed them were made. Even more remarkable is the fact that the Kalkbank rnatertel is consídered by Darl and others as a control essemblege providing information on the diagnost¡c propertíes of bone assembleges modtñed by mano No less blzarre c1aims are made by Dorl (1967) for the Geula meteriale. very charectertsttc patterns of gnewíng iuvolvíng parallel tooth merks. productlon of "windows" in the shafts of bones, and extensiva modifications in localized areas, particularly along breaks, are all diagnostic properties. Tha relevanl ilIustrations presentad in Pei (1938), Singer {1956), Oarl (1967), and Bonnichseo (1979) should be consulted for further details. As in the case of Ihe rodenl modifications, Pei (1938) was one of the first to recognize Ihat considerable alterations 00 bone surfaces could result from Ihe solulion of bone surfaees in sorne situations where dense roots covered Ihe bone. Such etching of bone surfaces in conjunction with Ihe presence of plant roots is common in sorne environments (see Figures 3.07 and 3.08). Human agency for modifications most Jikely referable to lhe Jatter conditions has been c1aimed by Bordes (1969) for an "engraved" bone recovered from the Acheulian levels of lhe site of Pech de L'Aze, and by Freeman (1971) for a piece of "Arte Mobiliar" from Mouslerian Level 17 at Ihe Spanish cave of Morin. 80lh bones are des"ribed as havinJj\ a decorative "macaroni" Iype molif (Marshack 1976). Bordes' find has been c1aimed to be Ihe earliest evidence of man's symhoJizing and arlislic ca.pacities: "If my an-
!
i 1" ;11
l" ' l· , ;;
r'
i
Ti'
,
¡
il!! ¡
JI::
,,j ,
..'I' "., 1
,'~
',1
,
"! 1
'j'"
i
f '11' iJ.lj¡
1
l'
¡¡llIm l Ir'
liJI¡~1
I
i! 1
-!!.'H- ~L
""1._-1<e-I_ r~b.,1 4:-~
Y
acne Brt!!okolle and Desteuetion by AnimaJs
elyt¡c resulte Ion Bordes' spectmenl are correct, tbey may change our concept not only of the ortgíns of ert and symbol making. but also of the intellectual and cultural evolutton of Horno scprens [Marshack 1975: 85J," Clatms such as these are certair..ly the basts for modern myths ebout ancient mano
Bone Breakage and Destruction by Animals
FIGURE 3.07. "Arle Mobilior" produced by odds in compact rool mo.ues on
Il'
.~hcep jow from 'he Beur sile, Anokluvuk
Pass.
5.
FIGURE 3.08. nelail
o/ bOIUl in fiRure .1.07.
Many hours oí observatlon of both wolves and dogs revealed a very convtnctng and redundan! bone consumplion strategy, which lea ves a regular pattern in the Faunal hy-products of animal consumptíon. Gnawing animaJs aliad. the ends of long.bones first. They are moet successful in chewing away the sefteet.ertículaíec.end. The softer the articulator end the faster the animals chew them away and expose the cross section of the medullary cevítv. At this point en animal may lick at the end end "scoop out" marrow by turning"'TIie canines around in the cavily and simultaneously Iicking into the cavity. but this is very unsalisfaetory. More commonly the animals attempt to collapse the bone shaft by use of the strong cheek teeth. Given a very resilient bone. the animal rnost commonlv turns it parallel lo the oríentation of the camesstal teeth and altempls lo puncture the crown of the bone eylinder. which results in what I call cnonneJed bones (see Figure 3.09). This effeet is produeed by puncturing the bone baek from Ihe transverse edge. leaving a channel running parallel to tha longitudinal axis of the bone. The animal may proceed in Ihis manner for considerable distance "clown" a bone. In Figure 3.09 Ihe upper bone is the shaft of a long hone, which is c1early scored and chipped along ils edges; the channel is evident. In Ihe lower example. a dorsal spine of a thoracic vertebra, Ihe punclure marks are c1ear. Channeling is unique to animal gnawing and in my experience there are no human proeessing lechniques Iha! result in analogous forms Isee BudJann 1823:276; Sutcliffe 1973:Figures 2. 3. 5; Zapfe 1939:1511 In addition lo lhe "rlirer:l" bi!tl-duwn approaeh. which is mosl common when a msislant bone is en· eounteren.lhe animal may díslurl its face, moving ils
51
jaw lalerally away from the stde where the bone is tnserted in the mouth, and tum its head into the bone remcvtng a splinter along the shaft. Success in thís strategy results in the removal of a substantial ñake parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bone, expostng more of the marrow eavity. Such a fleke is generelly poínted and scarred; the opposite end commonly shows "step fractures" (Figure 3.10). This paltern ts known from many locetíons of ercheeologícel inlerest and ís commonly interpretad as bone modíficaticn by man {Bonnichsan 1978:112, Figures 6a, 6b; Frison 1974:42-43; M. D. Leakey 1971:Figure 36: Stanford 1979a:108. Figures 8, 7). Such fleke removal originating at the broken end of a bone may be coupled wíth polísh as in Figure 3.10. or radíel scarring as in Figure 3.11, and also has been teken as evídence of tool USe. (See Kitching [1963: Figures 5,6 7bl and also Klima et 01. (1962:150. 154. 155. 1571 for examples of radial scarring from a hyena den.) Another characterlstic form of behavior ls what I call "chipping beck" an edge. This ís done by using the strong carnassial teeth. Abone is placed in the mouth parallel to the orientation of the row of teeth and a ridge or protrusíon ís placed between the carnassíals and "mashed off." When the bone ís dense compact bone. the result of this viselíke pressure is an effed very much akín to preesure flaking (Figure 3.12). Small chips are pushed off, resulting in an edge along a break that may be continuously cbípped. showíng all the features of a "microden· tieuIate" in Iithic terminology (see Figures 3.13 and 3.14). Frequeotly associated wlth this characteristically microchipped edge is tooth scoring of the external surfaee of the bone below the chipped edge, As the animal chews on the exposed edge. chips are driven off. When Ihe edge gives way, the large teeth slide along the surface of the bone, resulting in typlcally parallel snd slightly oblique scars below tbe chipped edge. This is well ilIustrated in Figures 3.15 snd 3.16. Channeling is often combined with chipping baek to produce very convincing pseudotools (Figure 3.17), Chipped edRes as iIIustrated in Figure 3.12 are almost inevitably interpreted by arehaeologists as re· touch. Dart (1960:5} ilJuslrated eight ehipped-back nekes from grey breecia at Makapansgat, about which he commenls: "He also prepared feeding
"
1; "
1
1':
\
i·'1
l' "
I~f
1,, ., i i f· I i: ¡i ~ I I
,'
1!r'
1
y 52
3. Putterns of Done Modi!lcalions Produced by Nonhuman Agenls
"._,,- .... ;;".
FIGURE 3.12. "PressuTe f1oking" un lhe end of a gaawed
-·e
.",
FIGURE 3.14. Chipped.bacJe eriges showlng mlcroden'lculored effm:t.
bone resulling ¡ram chipplog back Ihe edge.
11, l
i:
1:.,:
iiL,
i:
Il!!
".;
,
:,;"¡!I:
f
FIGURE 3.09. "Chunne/ed" breokoSe of bones by anima/s. .:
.',
.u: ¡
FIGURE 3.15. Edemal face 01 chipped.back bone sho ....lng obllque roolh scamo,.
FIGURE 3.10. 1IighIy ptlllshed end of a gnawed bone:
flG\JRE :1,11. Pitled und radial/y scarred b(me, the re5u/1 of extensive goawing.
fiGURE
3.13. f....r lensively
lIllawed bone.
f'hippcd
oock
['dges uf
FIGURE 3.16. External fucf! o{ chippoo-back bOlle 5ho....inS 'ooth scurr;ng ¡mm "slipplng down" lhe buRe K-';Ih lhe teetb.
ea
"
1
~+-J~/~~' ~. -
54
(.,UA-¡{;;....)
l
~
(e~~) e:'
-'-<
ti/¡,
~
J. Pcnems of Bone Modificotions Produced by Nonhuman Agenls
---------=Atr.-'--------Bone Breokoge ond Destrucñon by Animols used just as lhey wera. or trimmed at the ends (chíeels. píercers. or points) cr trirnmed along the sides [scrapera]. Plekes of verv big bones were used after being trimmed like nint' n.u.es of the same size and shepe (Choukoulien. Jower levels of Castillo includlng the
Mousterian) [Breui11939:6-71.
FIGURE 3.17. EKomples o{ chunne/ed ami chipped-back bones cornmon/y c01Ifused wllh humon workmanship.
utensUs aud he split bones longitudinally by percussion. He sharpened and pointed by trimming either the broken shaft ¡tseU or Ihe flakes derived froro splitting Ihe bones. He devised and prepared his lools IOart 1960;1371." Needless lo say, the "he" is Austrolopithecus. For soroeaDe accustomed lo work in lithics. 3n encounter wilh a chipped-back bone produced by animal:! will almosl always convince Ihe observer thal he is seeing Ihe work of mano For instance, very salid ohservers of artifacls such as Veyrier and Cambier (1952: 383-385) announced thal they had confirmed lhe manufacture of bone tools during Ihe Lower Paleolithic, illustralinR what
are almost certainly bone flakes chipped back by animals. Earlier researchers had been equal1y impressed. For instance, Breuil (1939) presents numerous examples of chipped-back bone flakes as evj· dance ror the bone 1001 industry al1egedly produced by Sinonlhropus at the site of Choukoutien (Breuil 1939:Plates XVlI1, No. 3, Plate XXII, Nos. 5,6, lIJ. 19, plate XXV, Nos. 9, 11, 131. Breuil stales, Long bones of a1l kinds. chiefly humerus lIfld cannonbones. were Irimmed al !tll1 nreak as chisels or poinls, Ihe convex distal articulatioo !nrmiog 11 handle: from Cnoukoulien to historie times Flakes may have beeo
Recently DeLumley (1969) reportee retouched bones representing 13% of the total tool Industry from the Upper Acheulian síte of Lazaret. Chippedbeck spectmens are well iIlustrated in Figure 17 \1969:121. where ítems 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are extremelv good examples. Figure 18 (1969:164), item 1, ís a fine example thet also exhibits the frequently correlated presence oí both pitting and sconng. It should be poinled out that wolf rematns were found in the cave, as wera coprolites of predators. 1 am confident that there was at least a minar occupation of Lazaret by wolves. Charactenstically. theír remains have been interpreted as the result of human behavior. In New World studies two chlpped-back fragmente. both desígneted ertlfacts, are illustrated by Bonnichsen (1979) from the Old Crow Flats collections. One is called a "bone core" and the second is designated a "mtscelleneous polished and ground bone artifact" (Bonnlchsen 1979: Plate VIlI-8, and plate VIII-24). The most enthusiastic recent advocate of "retouched" bone flake tools in the Paleolithic ís Leslie Freeman, who eomments on his analysis of such "tools" from Level 17 at the cave oCMorin: "If the bone pieces were omilted from the study of recavo ered artifacts, an impressive richness of detail conceming the teehnology of the Mouslerian cave occupants would obviously be los! (FreeIDan 1978:49]." Wilhout taking them up pieee by piece, 1 wiH assert that the chipped pieces iIIustraled by Fraeman (1971, 1978) are c1assic examples of chipped-baek flakes produced by gnawing animals, probably canids. Al! combinalions of telllale praperties are represenled in the Morin Level 17 assemblage: (o) chipping baek with diagonal seoring on the external face of the flake. (h) ehipping back with pitling and/or scorinR on rile same pieee, and (e) lypiealIy denticulahnl eriges. Such combinalions are found wilh pieces lhal are described as "eroded," as if by the aelion of ¡n:irl (Freeman 197B:4fi): Ihese are mosl cerlainly bone frilgments passed in scal. It IS probably not wilhuul siRnificance Iha! both wolf snd
~
55 hyena were idantified {Altuna 1971:380-381}. Fl-
nelly. the "unique" charecter of Level 17 ís commenled on by Altuna as folIows: se nota una clara diferencia entre el nivel 17 (Musleríense) y los nivels del paleohtícu Superior, no solo el la compislclen faunis faunístjce sien también en la composícton de las partes del esqueleto que eperancen. Como hemos índícedo un el comienzo de la parte general, en el nivel 17 el munero de lI'5quirlas de dlafisis excede con cucho al de epifisis que seria de esperar si no hubiera habido una seleccíon intencionada 11971:3851. As will be shown In the fol1owing section, the number of bone epltnters is inversely correlated with the numberof erttculetor.ends in enímel-gnewed.eesemblages. Jusi the reverse is the case in wellpreserved assemblages of humanly modified bnne.
_9r
~Eshed edge~ ar~!Iother .'Y.Pt;l c~!!!l2.teristic ~eakage that animals are capable oí Erod!Jci~.& On
moderately hard bone the animal may vise clown wíth íts teeth, at the same time ttltíng lts head while the opposite end of the bone rests on the ground surface. This produces a double set cf stresses and may result in the breaking off of an edge of the bone. There may be no apparent tooth ímpresstons in Ihe break stde if the leverege is somewhal back of the point where the teeth were Impactad. The edge produced in this manner has sorne of the properttes resultíng from mashíng off the edge of a Styrofoam eup, in Ihat there is a granular eharacter to the surface of the break. In lhe evenl thal a mashed edga is then licked repeatedly, it may oblain a rounded polished appearance and may appear as "use wear" as illustraled in Figures 3.10 and 3.18. Such counded and polished edges are regular elements in both dog yard and wolf den assemblages. However, they are not common~7 in a dog yard population of 866 bone splinters and 267 articulator ends! When a strong animal is chewing 00 a long bone, there are always bipolar characteristics in that the chewing occurs between the two sets of teeth. This Crequently results in what has beeo previously described es pitling. For instance, with the melalarsal i1hlslraled in FiRure 3.17, when the dorsal edge of Ihe bone has beeo chipped back, there are accompanying pits on the opposite side of the bone represenling the impacl of the leeth serving as the anvil fur Ihe action uf the opposile teeth. Such pilting is
1; I
!
!
"
!,
I
l'
:1".t ¡] ,
il.; !'
I !
¡
l
r J. Patlems of Bone Modifications Pmduced by NonhumonAgenfs
58
FiGURE 3.18. Rounded edse on gnowf1d bone.
strtktng on the more cylíndrical long bcnes of the Iemur and the tibia. Pitting occurs typically when an animal ís 81tempting lo collapse a cyhnder: thet ts, it has chewed off the articulator end and ts working 00 the cylínder and the exposed rnarruw cevttv. Al Ihal juncture it ís no! uncommon for Ihe animal repeetedly to place the cylinder al right angles to the carnassial teeth and to vise clown hard in an ettempt lo collapse il. Jf the bone ts dense, there ís a puncturing or splitting on the short are aide oí the bone. Once this occurs Ihe animal begtns chipping beck along the puncture or split, and {he underside of Ihe bone oppostte this split becomes tncreesíngly pitted and heavily scarred. Finally, the animal may be successful in collepsing the cylinder and ene ie left wilh the ímpected scarring on abone that has been split away from the upper chipped surfece. Under the latter conditions one gels very long, Iongttudtnally spttt splínters wilh chfpped and denliculaled edges along one or both ends. This condition is iIluslraled in Figures 3.19 and 3.20, where "worked" points and edges on exceplionally long splinlers are shown. Ironically, what was c1aimed as di.qtinclive of human behavior by Rreuil (1938::18)tufOS out to be diagnostic of animalgnawing when we have conlrol material. Menlion of bon~ splinters necessarily introduces I~!u~roblem uf spirAI fractures and Ihe deKI.e-.to ~ich Ihay
~.
...
Bone Breokoge and Destrucfinn by Animols
51
bone b~a~, as has been suggested by Bonníchsen (1979). I have watched dogs and wolves break caribou bones in their mouths. The resulting splinters have al1 the formal properties of the much discussed splral fracture. The bone splinters and the broken ends of long bonea recovered from the dog yard samples exhtbtt ell the formal chereoterístícs of spirally freo, tured borre. As was poinled oul in my earlier díscussion of these aamples, the long bones were broken by dogs-Eskimos do not Ceed their dogs marrowcrecked bona splinters. In the case of my controlled dog-feeding record (see L. R. Btnford 1978b: 262265), there is no question as lo the stete of the bone at the lime of its being fed 10 !he dogs. Long bones were unbroken. On recovery. 44% of the long bones were broken with a spiral fracture: Ihis was done by the dogs. Broken bones and bone splinters recovered from two wolí dens (described in Chepter 5) charac-
¡
~
FIGUKE :J.20. Long "loRSiludillully" split fragmenls with denticulaled ends.
teristically exhíbited spiral fractures. Broken bones end bone spltnters recovered from the 24 separate kills oE ceeíbou by wolves (lo be reported in Chapter ~I characlerislically exhibited spiroJ fractures. My obseryations afe got unioue. Hill has repeatedly reported Ihal spiral fractures were consistently noled in Ihe faunal coJiections me de by him in Uganrla and Kenya:
fi'(ilJRE
3.19. c"Jltlpsfld
chiPPfld-huck
end.~.
f.ylinders
with
distim:/ife
Spiral frllclures are found lo occur liS 1I result of nalural weathp.ring and cllrnivure lIdivily lhal in Iife are sub;ec!p.d lo lorsional sll"f>ss, such liS humeri and libiae. 11
appeers Iha! the Internal structure of the bona controla the cbarecter of the break {Hill 1976:335; see etso HiII 1980:1411
HílI's coJleclions are areal samples in Ihal they represenl aH Ihe bones remaining on Ihe surface in a given lUea. Mosl, if not aH, Ihe bone modification is considered lo be the result of nalural death and subsequent patterns of attrition by scavengers and wealhering agenls. In mosl ceses the predator is beIieved lo have been a large cat, Iion in particular. Sinr:e Hill dnes nol know with absoluta oorlainl:. t~~. ~'!..
•
" ., \
~;
r 58
Pr."'
'iIJ
3. Pctterns of acne Modificolions Produced by Nonhurncn Agenls
agente responsihle for the bones. those who wish lo ~lieve in the equatíon oí man end spiral fractures tend to dismiss Hill's data as "just a modern sample" where tbe agent must be inferred as in any aro chaeologtcal sítuetton. This sama crítícísm may be leveled al spiral fractures recordad by Shipman and Phillips (1976. 1977), who coüected areal faunal semples from the Awash area ofEthiopia. In both these cases the bear and the footprint are not, strictly speektng. together. hui it ís the optntcn of the reseerchers that the OOllJ' is not far away. They know the áreas in which they worked and find Hule reason lo suspect that man was Involved in any significanl manner as 8 causal contributor to the bone assembleges collected. Zoo studies, wbere the animals ere contained end the parts fed to the anímals are known, are excellent experimental oonditions. There ts no chance that any agent other tban the animal fed in the given cege oould modify the bone alter tt was íntroduced. This strategy WIlS used by Dean Buck1and (1623). Pei (1938), Zapfe (19391, end Bonnicbsen (1973), to meno tion only a few. A current study of this type has been under way for severa) years by Gery Heynes. a greduete student at Catholic University of America (Haynes 1978a, 1978b, 19801. Paleontological studies-that is, the study of fracture patterns from assemblages where roan could not have been a contributing agent-are of utmost im· portance. ODe such study (Myers el 01. 1980) is most provocative. In this study five New World assemblages of fauna were studiad. Four are dated to more than 500,000 yeers ago; (he olclest, to 17 million years. Man could not have played a role in the formahon or modification of these assemblages. Spiral fractures were common in these paleontological faunas. The researchers further noted thal evidence of camivore aclivity was not wel1 documented in Ihe form of looth marks aud other telltale modifications and ooncluded Iha! still another activity of animals, trampling, is apt to have been the cause. I will return to this point later. Of importance allhis poinl is only thal substantial spiral fracturing is iIIustraled from tbese localities and no human could have possibly been responsible. The evidence appears conclusive Ihal animals. both through usiog their jaws and perhaps by trampling the skeletal remains of olher animals. regularly
contribute spírally fracturad bone lo the paleontologleal record. The ccnditíon of splinters remaining at a wolf feeding arca is of sorne interest. First, the smalt spltnters oí bone that are pressured off a bone by the gnawing animal are most commcnly swallowed, resulting in few chips end small bone fragmente rernainlng in a feeding area. The latter. of course. appear in the scaC\...hich occurs concnntrated in ureas of repeeteddefecatton around dens and rendeevous loceuons. around marking spots. scattered peripherally to ktlle, and scettered elcng tratls. Detecetíon is a common marking tecbruque of wolves and is frequently done on prominent rocks eround an animel's territory. I heve observed considerable bone rnncenIrations eround marking spots that result from repeated lcng-term rnarkíng in the same place. Table 3.02 presente summary data on fragment staes racov, erad from the deíeceuon and feed íng areas around a woIf den. An attempt was made to recover every tiny fragment of bone in both instances.
FIGURE 3.23. De'ojJ of poin' on o pseudotool shown in
Flsure 3.22.
,,,i
TABLE 3.02
She Dlstrlbuljon of Frogmenls Recovered fMm lfiJcmalaiyak Wolf Den a
.".
(46 scals)
Not gnawed
Gnawed
Size (cm)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
0.0-0.8 10-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0---4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9
37 29 2J 17 14 3 3 1 O O O
.29 .2J
10 9 8 8 9 1 O O
.22 .20 .18 .18 .20 .02
O O O I
8.0~.9
9.0-9.9 10.0-10.9 11.0-11.9 12.0-12.9 13.0-13.9 14.0-14.9 15.0-15.9
O
O O O O
127
16 .13 .11
.02 .02 .01
FIGURE 3.21. Group uf "ridlle-cresl removed" flokes typieal of onimlll snawjnll·
Feeding area
Defecatlon
O
O O O O O O O
45
"See Chepler 5 IDr I descripliDn af Ibis 8ite
9 13 6 1 2 I O
2 1 O
%
11
.02 14 .21 .31 .14
I
1:
11'
.02 .05
1:
'
"
1I
,I
!i
.05 .02
O
¡i ,.
42
FlGllRE 3.22. Pselldolools produced by rmlmols chewin8
o, ridses. 59
r Illl
3. Pcttems vf BOlle Modifil"()fivlls Producerl by Nonhumnn Agents
Several pettems of ínterest eppear. Ftrst. the vest mejorlty of splintera sud chips observed in scets were under 4.9 cm in length. Basically the eeme size range W8S observed in ungnawed chips and splinters. 00 the other hand, fragmente showmg evidence cf gnawing are certainly aH 011 Ihe large size oí the distrtbution. This makes considerable sense, stnce the small flakes and chips are pressured off by the gnawing animal duriog its reduction oí Ihe bone, end are generally swallowed. Elements oC the bone that show considerable evidence of gnewlng , wben they are broken. preserve areas of contíguous chip removal end scamng. These are larga splinters and therefore will not be swallowed. Thus. when ODe ls dealing wíth an anlmal-gnawed assemblage. evtdence al gnewlng, preesure-Ileked edges. incised scerríng on the outside of the Flake. pítting and abrasion Irom repeeted viselike mesbtng cf abone surCace. end so on will occur on lerge splinters (greater than 4.0 cm in length]: small spllnters will exhtbtt no such modñtcatton. When small chips and splinters are present in large numbers.tbey may sbow stgns of hevtng been eroded by stomech ecíds Iand (hus deposited in feces). (See Kitching [1963:19-22] for a good descripUon of the effed of slomach adds on booe splinters.) One addilional characteristic. which appears to be diagnostic of anirnal.gnawed assemblages. was noled. Animals chew at protrusions of "thin" ridges: 8 bone is placed in Ihe mouth and irregularilies are vised belween the camassials. This action results in pinched-off tuberoiiities ando more importanl. in long splinters lhat are basically triangular in cross secUon. oflen with poinled ends. These splinters de· rive from tbe biting off of ridges such as the pectoral ridge. the supercondyloid ridge on the humeros. the Ubial crest. the linea aspea on the femur. the ventral ridges on lhe metapodíals, and tbe ventral crest of Ihe cubitus (ulna). When sucb ridges or crests break. they are generally too long lo be swallowed and remain as very common poinled "pseudotools." (See Figures 3.21, 3.22, Bnd 3.23.) Forly-three percen! of the gnawed splinters recovered from Ihe den area (Table 3.02) were of this type. 1 have never observed such splinlers in percussion-fraclured assemblages; percussion fractures generally cross such ridges rather than run parallel lo Ihem. Fine examples af very convincing "tools" are iIlustrated in Figures 3.21,3.22, and 3.23.
UC'
'1
Modificolion5 by Allotomic()/ Purt
61
Modifications by Anatomical Part As pointed out eerller. one of the more common argurnents offered regarding the possible use of bones as lools has been based on the "use potentlal" of the shapes of varíous bones. or their shapes as modified through breakage, andlor citations of worked edges ut SUMacas in conjunctlon with either normal or breakage shapes. 1 heve descrfbed in sorne detall the types of edge and surface modrñcetions anírnals are capable of producing during normal bone gnawíng. as well as their distiuctlve breakage paUerning. 1 will now describe the charectertsttc patterns of destrucñon end rnodificatton 1 have observad on ceríbou end sheep bones from the Esktmo dog verde, as well as from the wolf denso In each case where false or suspect 1001 Identíflcations have been made of similar perts. l will ettempt lo idenlify the relevant literatura and cite the problema 1see with the claíme for human modíñcetton. 1have alreedy dernonstrated Ihat gnawíng results in distinctive patterns of scarring and chipping. These condilions are aS50ciated with the pattern of breakage. which has also bean shown to be dislinctive and diagnostic of animal-modified assemblages. Given Ihese general conditioos, iI is not surprising Ihal there are distinctive patterns al deslrucUon as· sociated with the different bones as a funelion of Iheir differences in slrength and overall fonn. The following are observations of patterning in the morphology resulting from animal feeding and gnawing.
FIGURE 3.24. Anlma/.,nawed cronlum witlr ottachetl antlers (carlbouj.
I
l' '
li' '11
;i '1'1
Skull Examples ranged (rom a complete and unmodi· fied skull lo a skull of which only two parts remained-the base around Ihe anllers (Figure 3.24) and the palate with two looth arcs {Figure 3.25}. Animals appear to begin gnawing from the nose inward, removing the face and finally coJlspsing the cranium. }eaving the palale and occipul in Iwo parts. Rarely do the latter two parts exhibit further gnaw· ing. When the sKull is eaten in the manner described. few skull fragmenta rernain at lhe localion of consumption; lhey appear lo have been ingested.
1:
til~1
[1 "
¡ '1
1\ r
!i
FIGURE J.2~. Animul-NnUwl'd IIO/fl/r.s Icoribllu) shnwing t!istindivc chrJnlmling and crr.nu/o/ion 01 'hin bane.
~
, 11
J
T 82
3. Potlerns of Bolle Modificotiolls Pmdu<;;ed by Nonhumon Agents
to form almost perfectly rounded, sballow. saucer líke utenstls." Confident of the hominid workmanshtp 00 such items, Raymond Dart (1962:287) states: sufficlent of the demaged cr mscerded specimens are available lo display .. tbe lechnique by which skulls were spllt transveraely.Le.. by one or more blows delivared probably wilh a scapula or Iower jaw blade on their beses, inlo twc helves . . Each skull half thus formed automatlcatly a CUp or bowl. In creetures sufficienlly large such as the buffalo these bowls. especially Ihe antartor one .. , wtth tte
horns etteched sponlaneously afforded a tripod-like basln in whích lo mash nr trtturate any tough Iype of food.
S"
, 83
Modificotions by AnatomÍ(;aJ Purt
Another commonly citad characleristic of skulls is the so-celled depressed fracture, which Dert popularteed as evidence for the hominid use of tools and the "bludgeon" technlque of hunting. I have not personally observed such fracturas on the skulls examined from the wolf kills, but others report them te be a regular cbaractertstíc of kili and natural deeth assemblages IHill1975; Shipman end Phillips 1976).
MandibJe Animals may meke considerable progrese in the destructíon 01 the mandible. Exactly where the man-
dible ís attacked by animals ís partly a function of differences in mandibular morphology among difIerent spectes. For ínstence. Figure 3.27 iIluslrates patterns 01 initial or minar deatruction oí sheep rnandtbles by wolves (in the upper two examples) and domestíc doga (in the lower two examples). Puncture rnarks of both canine end carnassial teelh are obvious elong the angle of the mandible. In al1 cases, carnívorea were going after the masseter musele. In Figure 3.28, where caribou mandibles are shown. enother condttíon is índlceted. The two lowee exemples were gnewed by dogs, bul the mandíblea had first been strípped of meat before the dogs receíved them. The puncture maro of thelr teeth ap-
In all these cases, there is no reason te sse the "skull bowls' as anything other then the producl ofnormal ettnticn by animals. It might be tnteresttng in thís regard lo reexamine the ibex skull-horn units alIegedly intentionally placed around the Neanderthal child al Teshik·Tash (Movtue 1953:25, 26). FIGURE 3.28. Cranlal disc 05 clJmmonly produced by ,nawJ1I8 canJds.
An alternativa pattern. for young animals sud thoee with llttle lo modérate antier development (including large animals in valvat). begins with Iba chewing back of Iha face area toward Iha antier hase. bul Ihere i8 also similar breakage and chewing back from Iha occiput, leaving El "skull disc" as shown in Figure 3.26. Several points naed be mada abou! Ihe observad pattern~r~~Il _4estrust~2n_~~ºduced _by canids.
The skull disc illustrated in Figure 3.26 is a comman elemenl on many ancient sites. It i5 frequently interpretad as a product al human workmanship. For instanee, Breuil writes, "The frontal cavity between Iha severed homs i5 too often carefully trimmed and wom al Iha edges nol to haya heen utilized. This is seen in the skull caps and human skulls of la Placard and Laugerie Basse, snd perhaps even those at Chou-kou-tien [1939:5j." Kitching (1963:30). wriling sbout the fauna from Pin Hole Cave, where both Mouslerian and Upper Paleolilhic remains are found, commenls, "Amongsl the ten skull fragmenls there are three frontoparietal regions of reindeer Ihal have becn neatly removed from the tops of the skulls
,e
"I "
j¡ ~
FIGURE 3.27. lniliul dedruC#ían af sheep mandib/r..~ by ba!h dags (low~r !wo) (lnd wolves (uppcr twuJ_
FI(iIIRt; 3.28. S~qu,.nct" uf curibuu mandibu/flr deslruction by bo/h dogs (Iuwer two) ond wolves (upper lour}.
....A:..•
T ••
3. Pctterns
pear dlrected at the pulp cavity below tbe molers.
The upper four mandibles were reduced by wolves and the pallern seems to be to remove the engle oí the mandible end then rnove into the pulp cavity. This condition has been observed by others: Broken lower bordare of bovld mendíbles need nol indicote that anything has been "removed." In the natural "non-hominid" conditions, (be lower boeders of bovid mandibles are eventually elmcst always lost. This can arise from the attempts of camrvores to extract the tootb pulp, but more cornmonly tt ts the result of natural weathering. Al leas! une deep crack appeared quite early during the weathering procese parallel lo the horizontal axis of the ramus and the developmenl of thís reeults ultimately in a sharp break. The crack occurs lateral to the mandibular canal. wh.ich is at the ;unction
of the basal and alveolar portions of the mandible is also frequently lost. Breaks... across the diastemic portion are almost universal in the carnivore-treated remains thal I have examined [HiIl 1976:335-3361· The foregoing observation, which is consistent with my field observations, should be contrasted with the following statement:
01 Bone ModjIi¡;otion5
produced by Nonhumon Agenfs
sorne of the more irnaginative interpretalions of bone tool use appearing in the literature: From tha simil¡¡rity between the treetment of these lower jaws of Ihe beer and líen and those of the hyaena and wolf. il ts obvtous that they were all prepsred lo serve a common npptng purpose. Their use as tools is
confirmed by the 1111 around smoolhness of the bone surfaces and tbetr employmenl as bcne 1001 fabricators by the damage to sorne uf Ihe rantne teeth [Kttching 1963:421.
Il1ustrations in Breuil [1939:60-61. Plates IX end X) and Kítchtng (1963: Plates 34 and 35) should be comparad with figure 3.29 where a wolf [lower specimeo) and an Eskimo dog mandible are tllustrated. Both were col1ected from wolf dens: the lower specimen carne from the Itikmalaiyak den reported here and the upper specimen carne from a den visited by Eskimo informants who recovered the jaw for me. The inlerpretation oí puneture marks obvio ously made by Carnivor canines as having been mada by man usiog Carnivora jaws as tools seems lo be Ihe uitimate anlhropocentrism. Such interpretations have been made on several occasions.
Modificolions by Anolomieu! Port
65
vertebrce vertebree heving irregular shapes are most commonly gnawed 00 tbe sptnes and processes. On the atlas, for instan ce. the wings and the margins of the atlantal foramen are commcnly chewed back lo their junc1ure with the dorsal arch [figure 3.30). Not infrequent1y the atlas is cotlapsed intn severa] fragmenls. Puncture marks Irom teeth seem rnost comrnon on vertebeee. next most cnmmon on pelvic elemente. and moderately presenl on skull end toes. Figure 3.31 i1Iustrates nicely the deslruction vartebrae can suffer (the upper right specímen is complete). Cervical vertebrae may have transverse. spinous. and articulator processes gnawed away. Thoracic vertebras have been gnawed somewhatless then cervical vartebrae Irom the sarna siles. Animal marks on thorade vertebrae lake the form of broken and gnawed tips of dorsal spines (see Upp!!r spedmen, Figure 3.32) ando occasionally, punclures on
FIGURE 3.31. Lumbor verlebroe shawins Iypir;a/ effecl.~ of gnow;n8. (Upper right hond specimen is complele.J
Ihe body of the vertebrae. Lumbar vertebrae are not uncommonly altered by having the transverse processes gnawed away. the dorsal spine at!ached (see Figure 3.31) and the articulator process gnawed or punctured by canines.
lt would be absurd lo imagine Ihat the mandibles re·
ceived the !realment that Ibey were given, in order to el';lract tbe marrow, because there is not enough of tbis malerial. if aoy. in aoy ungulate mandible lo ¡ustify the process. The mandibles servad in their frMh. state as choppers. their anterior or diastllmal portions being used as handles and Ih.¡¡ir angles as the cboppers. Afler lheir usefulness in this capacily had ceased. Ibeir lower hender stlllserved as pounders. their !eeth rows .. were graten ar scr~pers (Kitching 1963: 30; see also Breuil 193!'1:19-31, 62. Plate XII.
l'
1
, 1
1
,¡ 1
frison has iIIustrated a mandible "chopper," which was argued to have been used in butchering bisoo. Its description would be basically idenlical with Ihat given by Kitching. (See frison 1970:30, Figure 19; also Frisan el 01. 1978:8, figures 10 and
,..
12.)
As in the case of "skull bowls," Ihe preseoce of "worn" edges and po1ish in Ihe absence of toolh. punctures is nol conclusive evidence Ihal gnawing animals did not produce the modifieations, which are frequently cited as evidem:e for "use" on mandibIes. The mandibles of Carnivorll have allmded the attention of many investigalors and have promplcd
, l'
¡
1'1 1
1I1
I! .•
'
"'I{iURE :1.29. Wol! mondib/f1 (lowf1r spl~dml'nJ fmd doS mondihlf1 (upper specimenJ de.~lroycd by woh·es. 80111 spncimens were rccnvered !rom wnl! den~.
FIGURE 3.30. AlIas ond by dags.
O-'/.i.~
verlebrue heavily Rnawed
FI{.URF. 3.32. Gnowins on eJtlremilie.~, dorsal spinc «nd d;stal and 01 rib.
¡
q
g' 66
1. Pntterns of Bone Modifications Produced by Nonhumcn Agenls
FIGURE 3.33. Tooth notchins o/ rib mU'1lins by wolves.
Modificalions by Anatomicol Part
67
Look at Figure 5.04, where a recently killed caribou is shown. It is cíeer thal the teedtng began in the anal-genital area. resulting in tbe partial desrruction of the pelvis and the subsecuent dísarttculetton ofthe reer legs. which have been pulled beck into Ihe picture by the pbotographer. Several places 00 Ihe pelvis are prime targets for chewing-the dorsal splnes of the secrum, the tltec wtngs or crest. tbe dorsal margins of the pubic tubercle, and the ramus and tuberosity of the tschíum. Figures 3.34 and 3.35 show the pelvis of a sheep upon which dogs have fed. The entíre carcass hed been 1urned over to the dogs by the Navajo owners. This pelvis iIIustrales the chorccrensttc destructioo by a caníd. Comparíson should be made between thís pelvis and those ilIuslraled from tha Glenrock Buffalo Iump {Frisan 1970: Figures l1i and 12J. I think
Rjbs Ribs are most commonly gnewed al the distal ende (Figure 3.32), which may appear to beve been broken rather then gnawed, although "mashed beck'' edges are frequent. When carnívoras disarticulate nbe, they commonly insert their centnes belween the ribs sud pull. This leeves notches in tbe ribs sud may reeult in breekage generally an inch or two out from the proximal end of the rtb: that 15, al the point of maximel curveture as the rib leaves the vertebree. Figure 3.33 iIlustrates ríbs recovered from a single wolf kili site: gnawing has dentlculeted tbe end of the lower example end canina notching is well representad on tha upper ribo
FIGURE 3.35. Ventral view al 5heep pely;, chewed by dOBs.
Pelvis The pelvis is one area where carnivores seemingly preferentially desteoy rnuch bone. First, lt ís an "early larget" for many cemlvores. being ODe of Ihe firsl areas attacked duriog tha fBeding 00 a carCBA. Most prey animals either fall on their sides or drop from a standing posilioo so Ibat their legs are folded under Ihem. Feeding is therefore frequently in¡tialed al the "ham" froro Ihe dorsal Burface or, nol uncommonly, directly inlo Ihe pelvis al the analgenilal area.
FIGURE 3.34. dOS5.
1)00,01 YilJW
01 .~hr,ep
P",yj.~ (;h{~wed
by
very ltttle convinctng ts needed lo conc1ude thal the pctrern 01 destrucucn is identica1. The punclure marks so clearly visible on the sheep pelvis (Figures 3.36 and 3.37) are elso present on the bison pelves but they are interpreted by Frisan (1970:19) as tool marks mede by pointed choppers. Mosl commonly the pelves al Glenrock were broken into halves. and consisted of Ihe acelabulum with both ischium and pubtc branches remaíning E1S stubs. the ílíum was veríoualy destroyed. Figures 3.38 and 3.39 iIlustrale perallel destrucncn of caríbou pelves by wclves and by dogs. The irregular denticulaled sdge where gnawing has oecurred is also scarred wilh puncture marks froro teeth (Figure 3,38). Analogous scar5 were inlerpreted by Frison as "tool marks from sharp-pointed choppers" (Frisan 1970:19). 11 is nol uncornmon for pelvis elemenls lo be brokenor cnl in places analogous to Ihose iIluslraled in
FIGURE 3.38. Ventral view 01 pelvis showlns toolh punclures on the luber coxoe.
!'
!¡ I "
FIGURE 3.37. Dorsal vlew of Pfllvis showlns punclures ond moshed-buck edses 01 the tuber Isehlo.
I
U
T
... _~'------
~
Modificllljons V}' Anulomjl:o/ Part
FIGURE 3.38. Scorlnll. plttlnll, tllld crenu/oled ediles 01 ilium prorJur:ed by dog gIIow1ns.
Figure 3.39. Caribou pelvíc halvee processed by man are frequently broken across the neck oí the iljurn as well as across Ihe branches of the pubis and ischiurn The Jatler breaks are ctean, and although fractures and curves may occur, tha fracturad bones rarely show the dentículeted cberecter seen 00 those gnawed by animals (Figure 3.39). 1 think that the pelves from the Glenrock BuffaJo lump, interpretad as evidence oí use oí choppers and muscle slripping. were simply reduced by gnawíng animals. Pelvíc parts have been interpretad as choppers (Frison 1978:307J. scrapers (Frisan 1970:19). and mortars (Kilching 1963). 1 have reprcduced the statement from Kilching. which becomes informatíve when It is kept in mind that he ts almosl certainly describing alterettons lo bones eñected by the Pleistocene hyena of Europe: The abraded end grooved condilíon of the ecetabuiar cavtties of the 18 rhinocerns innornínale bones shows that sorne. if notall of thern, served as mortera in which fond was pounded and crusbed. . AH Ihe lnncminate bones have had their lschtal and pubic portions removed. and Ihe Iliac porlion remaining forros a handle, eech of which show a higb degree of polish [Kitchíng
1963:lfi).
Scapula Scapula gnawed bv animals have three basic cllaracleristics: (a) Ihe ~cromion llhe proximal tip of Ihe spine} IS chewed away. lb} the coracoid process and the suprt'lglenoid tuberde are generally chewed off, snd fe) lhe edges of Ihe verlebral border will be chewecl to varying degrees such Ihat on occasion the blade of Ihe scspula will be all bul removed. These three fealures are al! well ilIustrated in Figure :).40. It should be noled Ihal Ihe lypicaJ denliculated edge characleristic of gnawed margins is well evidenced in Ihese spedmens. Punclure marks from animal leelh are more common on the margins of the glenold fossa lhan any other surface. 5uch marks produce Ihe crenuJaled edge of Ihe scapula blade. bul Ihe bone is so Ihin Ihal actual puncture marks are no! genP.rally preservcd. Inslead. "circular" segmenfs of Ihe edlile are removed.
FIGURE 3.39. Typir:ol deslructJon of pe/l'is as produced by wolves.
69
Humerus Fragmenls of the humerus have received more attenlion by Ihose attemptíng lo meke a case for bone tools and dtstíncüve forms of "human" bnne breakege than praclically any otber bone in the enetomv. Breuil iIlustraled distal ends of cervid and equtd humer¡ as having been modíñed by the occupants of Choukoutien [Breuil 1939: Plate XIII). Later Darl (1959b) was lo meke a grandor claim for "deggers" fashioned from Ihe humen of bovtds: From the recte presented here 1I ís petent thet the anleJope humarus owed ils prevalence al Makapansgat and íts persislence al Kalkbank. as well as tts dispersion from South Afrir;a lo Peking. in the Fer East and lo Portugal in the Northwest. lo Ihe Iect that il was the mosl generally serviceabla domeslic apphance discovered by Auslrlllopilhecus [DaI11959:1121. In addítíon 10 its shepe and distinctive patlem of breekege.the fact that the proximal ertículetor end of th¡s bone generally has the Ieest survival potential and ls therefore commonly missing from bone assembleges had prompted many ínterpretatiuns. For Instence. in one of the earliesl attempts lo recover behavioral informalion from faunal rematns. Thendore E. whíte states, The hurnsrus shows the greatest discrepancy in Ihe number of Ihe two ends of any of Ihe elemenls. wilh three spedmens ofthe proximal end aod thirly rrom Ihe dislal end. An~'Olle who has Iried IDseparal!!Ihe ScaPUIB and humerus with a Imiteknows thal il is nol easy. el'en in Ihase days of crucible slael, and Ihe ¡ob can be 8&siJy and effeclívely accomplished with a c1uaver. It is deor Ihol o SloneAge cleover would demolish Ihe head orlhe humerus beyond recognilion [1952:338; emphasis minero Many archaeologists have accepled White's argument and inlerpreted Ihe low frequency of the proximal ends as evidence of deslruclion of lhe ¡oiot doring bulchering. "Replicalive" experimenls have even beeo perrormed, showing thal when ane deslroys Ihe proximal humerus, il is deslroyed! Qlhers have butchered animals. showing thal if one works al it hard enough. one can even dismember an animal by puunding on arliculalions such as the proximal humerus. Bul lo be sure, Ihese exerci1'ies have
,'
..
70
3. Pnttems o{ Bonf' Modificalions Pmduced by Nonhulnan Agents
'
~
,.
~.
Modificolions by Anotomica1 Part
j
\.
~
r
...",,--.. .-.. . ~
>.
~, .....
•
;
, , '
-~~
,
11>,'
.-- ,,-', ':..
.
.
lo ,1:
.\.'.::-...... , , .f-";•
r·
\
f'
"
-~~
.... '.~.
..
:r:~; '.,' .;, :/"i _ -~ \ .." "'~"JJ~
_.
.",.-.~.
\'- •.
~~.......
.. l-..¡
';,".
\~,~.,
. ...A"'.
'"'-" , o. '<, " , .....
v•
11' ,
•,
.,
71
.
~ ~< 1\1 -~l
J , , ¡ ; , . '1' '.....'\ -..¡:..." ~
•
, ".",'
.JI- , .. : ". . y , "f ,'... . .I , . '''..
_-<
,
'
."',
~~/,,''¿C
---
"",'
t
"".
f'"
..
\
•
•
,"_
~¡:.-
~,
t'
;::,~~~·>"~i.;/ "'~_. ,,:,;.:..,¿:[:~~~
,
" .' ,-\,. ... ~
\
..,,:.~,
,..'
/,
" '
..
.'
I .'
.'.")
,.' - -
_.:, ,.
FIGURE 3.43. Furrowed and punctul'f!d humeral heod removed by u wo/f while disol'dculatJns tlle Junetion with the scopulo.
_.. . ¿.,-.
FIGURE 3.41. Caribou leg removed ¡rom a meaf cache and eeren by wolves.
around Ihe breBk given 8l scalloped errad [Figure t .14b). They were presumably used in both skinning and flashmg end where bone preservetíon ellowed. weer in Ihe form of 1 polish eppears un the sharp points [Frison
1:
1974:561·
FIGURE 3.40, Scapula gnawed by dogs (center) and by wolves-irote crenulaled edges.
not ebown Ihat men ofthe pasl ever did sueh things. Another argumenl oñered lo account for the common absence of the proximal humerus from archeeologtcel assemblages has been that it was intenlionally deslroyed during the production of a 1001 menufactured from Ihis bone. George Frisen {1970:27] has ergued thallhe humerus "ñesher" was a consistently produced and used 1001 on the North American Plains: anolher use of srnllller humerl was la break off Ihe proximalarliculalor end in such a way Ihallhe edges luve a scalloped appearance. This end was used a& B scraping
tool with wear striations and polish perallel lo the longitudinal axis of the bone [Frison 1910:211·
In later publtcetíons this "1001" is gtven greeter promtnence and has been largely accepted by many early man archaeologtsts as a diagnostic item indico ettve of human involvemenl in the formation of deposits and events. even though stone 10015 and othee evtdence may be la"king. In the Cesper stte report (1974) Frisan slates, The articular surfaces were removed, Ihe cancetlous bone I!ouged Oul and the circurnference of Ihe bone
FIGURE 3.4Z. Typical forms o/ minor destruclion (/ur. rowing) caused by dogs on o/read.~· di.~orlículo'ed PNJXo lmal humeri.
Figure 3.41 illustrates jusi how rapid the destructton of the proximal end of the humeros by animals may be. The right front leg shown had been dragged frorn 8" Eskimo meal cache and "eeten" by wolves in a single aftemoon. The proximal end of the humerus ís completely gane, as ís the proximal end of the cubitus, but the fool and the lower part of the leg are unmodtñed. Figures 3.42 and 3.43 íllustrate eharacteristic steges of deslruclion of the proximal humeros effected by dogs and woives. Deep furrowing and aclual destructíon is generellv initialed on Ihe laleral tuberosuy and the hall bead of the humerus (Figure 3:42, leftj and often resulte in Ihe breaking off ofthe ball erttculetor surface. as shown in Figure 3.43. In both ilIustrations, pitting and dragged puncturing marks are visible along Ihe margins of the furrowed areas. As gnewing continues. all Ihe 50ft lissue on
,1 i
I
7Z
r
3. Pnttern s of Hum! Modifica!íons Produced by Nonhumon A,IIenls
t:!t;.'~
~ Modificalions by J\nalomklll PlIrl
however, is the target element and is Ihen removed from the carease: il rarely remains with tha axial skeleton. Figure 3.44 iIluslrates charactertst¡c "humerus fleshers" produced by wolves and d08S. Similar forros heve been identified from paleonlological assembleges. Good examples ot humer¡ Ihal have been modified by nonhumen agente are gtven by MilIer (1969: Figure 5) and Myers et al. (1980: Figure 2).
Radio-cubitus figure 3.45 iIlustrates a fairly Iypical series of modiflcations produced by gnawing enímals. It will
73 be recalled that the articulalion belween the distal humerus and the proximal radto-cubítus ls a rather durable ene. in that lt comes epert relatively late in Ihe sequence of normal diserticulation. This is reflected in the somewhat ahnormal survival of the proximal end of the radto-cubttus and the typical hreakage paUern iIlustrated (Figure 3.45). The oleeranon ts frequently chewed off and the proximal radius may be punctured and pttted, the distal end is commonly chewed off. As can be sean in Figure 3.45, Ihe distal end frequently shears off, Ieaving an ohllque and pointed seclion of shaft. These may he gnewed and chipped beck and even políshed, resulto ing in pseudo tools of a rather convlncing formo Moat often tbese are interpreted as daggers or plcks. Frí-
FIGURE 3.44. Humerus '1Ieshers" produced by wotves (upper) and dogs (/owerJ.
the proximal end may be removed until the animal begíns lo encounter the barder. denser bone of the diaphys¡s or shaft, as was the case iIluslraled in Figure 3.42. I have dtscussed tbe problem of butchering íha scapula-humerus lotnt previously, but il should be emphasized that oH the so-called diagnostic forms of breekage on the proximal end oí the humerus that have been interpreted as evídence for use as choppers and a "muscle stripping" techntque of butcherlng (compare Figure 3.42 with Figure 1.12 in Frison (197411 are in my opinión normally produced by
animals gnawing through this joínt. As we will see in chapter 5, animals customarily gnaw through this jnlnt on moderate to large prey. so that Ihe scapula is normally essocteted with the axial skeleton. In contrast, human hutcherlng commonly results in the removel of the entlre front quarter, and the dísertículation of the scapula-humerus joint is a secondary dismembering operation. Even in lerge animal bulchering, as I describe for moose in chapter 4, the disarliculaliun of the scapule -humerus jolnt is done flrst. because the scapula may be used for leverage while ji ts still attechcd lo rhe carcasa. The scapule.
II I
FUfllKE :1.45. hpir;(l1 (IIIilllClldf'.,frmlion
nI Ihl' rndin-rubitus.
t l.' I ítl
y 74
J. Puttems of ücne Modifications Produced by Nonhuman Agents
son {1978:104} notes an enelcgous ítem from the Colby site---one 01 the few convincing mammothbutcherlog sttes in North America.
Fragmenta of ungulate metapodials haya sttmu,
In animal-goawed assemblages. cerpels will be eitber present in largely complete form or ebsent. having been completely consumad. The pattern of gnawing ís lo eddress the arttculatíons where the joiot bends. If thís is done, it results in the íngestton of the cerpels. destrucñon ofthe distal radío-cubltus. and marginal tooth scoring oí the proximal end of the metacaepel.
Metacarpol
Femur
Metecarpals are generally chewed in two ways: (o) Tbey may be approached as descríbed for the carpals. When this is the case, the metacarpal te cornmonly abandonad sínce the proximal epíphyaís ís dense sud conteíne Hule grease, whereas the exposed distal end of the radíus contains relatively hígh-queltty marrow. (b) Gnawing may also hegin from the distal end: this is normally initiated by first altacking the foot with ettendant puncturing /Figure 3.0Z} and consumptíon of phalanges. The articulation between the phelenges and the distal metacerpel is short in most unguletes. and therefore a hent joinl is not Ihe approach of most gnawing animals. They typically begin by chewing off the skin and unqual phalanges and th6n work their way up to the loes, gradually approaching the distal end of the metacarpal. Once the cartilaginous area hetween the phalanges has been exhausted, the chewing is generaUy stopped in favor of another bone. The metacarpal is thus commonly found as a complete bone with only minar damage from gnawing. This is particulariy true at IdUs; however, in dens, lairs, and Ihe dog yards of Anaktuvuk, less discriminaling chewing was obvious. Such den-related destruclion in the caribou, where the metacarpal is not a particularly sturdy bone. IS through the shalt, resulting in approximately equal numbers of proximal and distal ends.
75
Modifjcotions by Anctcmrccl Port
leted the imagination of many investigators of the Paleolithic. Such fragments have been cited as prob-
ahly used as daggers and sccops (Dart 1959a, 1959b, 1961), and they have been illustrated from Olduvaí Gorge FLK North Level t (M. D. Leakey 1971: Figure 35) with abraded fractures. Use for digging or perhaps in chopping has been suggested for enelcgous bones from the American Plains (see Fr-isen 1970). As in the majority of other tool cletms. the evidence consists of suggestive breakege and. in the case of the Olduvat material, abrasion and rounding of the edges, which is ínterpreted as use. As we have seen repeatedly, these are properties that rnay be developed in a faunal assemblage without the participation of mano
Carpals
~
At'
FIGURE 3.49, DJ.stal ylew o/ prodmal ldIeep femur showillS tooth punctures and /urrnwl1!S' FIGURE 3.47. Distal femur showinB tooth punctures aJong medial sur/ace o/ Ihe di,,'al condyle.
Figures 3.46 and 3.47 iIIustrate several femoral fragmente Ircm wolf kille and from Eskimo dog
yerds: Figures 3.46 and 3.49 iIIustrate sheep femora gnawed by Navajo dogs after they were fed an entíre cercees during the winter of 1971. Severa! characleristics that are very regular are illustrated: almoet without excepnon the greater trochanter is chewed off the proximal end by the gnawing animals (see
Figure 3.49). Animals may then prcceed to chew through the neck of the femoral beed end f1nally furrow out the entire proximal articuletor end. Figure 3.46 illustrates the distal ende of Iemora removed from wolf kills end these without exceptíon (that ts, of damaged bones) exhibit the furrowed removel of the medial ridge of the trochlea. (Compare this píeture with Figure 8.6 in Frison 11978:3111.1 Both characteristics have been cíted as evtdence for musele stripping as a human butcherlng procedure. Por instance, the following "reconstrucucn" of a hutchering procedure, largely based 00 the ideas ofGeorge Frisan, is given by lohnson: frison poslulaled that processlns of the hind lag besan with loosenins of the palella and removal of Ihe tubar calcls of Ihe calcaneum and the trochanler majar of the femur. This may also have been the pattern on the Llano Estacado as this Iype of damage was common, wilh the exception Ihal Ihe luber calcis was generaly not re· moved. Damage lo Ihe ca1caneum (distal projeclion cracked or broken off) appeared to be from lIttempts lo sever Ihe lateral and middle annular ligaments. Afler this WllS accomplished. the ca1r;aneum would then be free to serve as a handle wilh which to strip vBrious muscles [Johnson 197a:1031.
FIGURE 3.46. Distal femora fram wolf IdUs .~hQwiQ,lllyp icol pom:turins onri furrowil1i1 of thc lrochleo.
FIGURE 3.48. Proximal .~heep femora showlns wnsislenl remoyol of thc sreater trochonter by dORso
It should be noted thal all the "diagnostic" pat· leros af destruclion cited as evidence for musele .~Iripping are commoo in my canid-gnawed as.~(!mblages.
I
1.
I¡ L
1;
:!. ~.
1; li ¡:'
l,1i ~!
I
......
'
76
3. Pcttems uf Bone Modificafions Produ¡;eo by Nunnumon Agents
Tibia By thís time the reeder can probebly anttctpete the types of destructton SUD for the various bones. stnce the pattem is redcndant: biased destructíon of the soft bone parte. particularly the artículator ends of long bones. The tibia is no exceptíon end thís is well illustrated in Figures 3.50 and 3.51. The tibial rrest is generally the Iirst projectíon lo exhibit gnawing, end sínce it is such a prominenl projection it is frequently removed by aligning the bone parallel lo the tooth row end vístng clown with the cemesstal teeth. This produces B semicrenulation when viewed Irom the sirle, as is the case for both spectmens on the right side al Figure 3.50. The left specimen shown in Figure 3.50 rllustrstes a reletively ed-
vanced state of destruction-the en tire proximal end Is removed. 11 should be noted that the proximal ends of the tlbial shaft are chtpped back elong the chaoneled edges. producing a "denticulated" and "retouched" series of edges (Figure 3.511. Typically this level of deslrucHon precedes any majar alterations 00 Ihe distal end. which is comrnonly 10ft aruculeted wlth Ihe tarsals. Ir destruction conttnues. the shaft may be chenneted back and collapsed so as lo leave the distal end with a mini mal segment of shaft attached (note such patterning in Tabla 4.07). When such an advanced stage of destructton is reached. there is an almost invariable pattern of chlpping beck coupled with poltshíng. as shown in Figures 3.10 and 3.12, occurring en segmente of Iho broken ends of the attached shaft. Very similar forms are described by Frisan as tibia choppers (see Figures 1.17 through 1.19 in Frison (1974)), Given my knowledge of animal pattems of bolle destructton. 1 belteve thal il would be unusual for an animal lo attack the shaft of the libia before effectlng sorne modiflcation on the proximal end. This observarían renders it more Itkely that Frison's tibia choppers manufactured Irom the proximal libia are not animal produced. Nevertbeless. the tibia choppers tltustrated in Figures 1.18 end 1.19 (Frisan 19741 would certainly be suspect in an assemblege wheee there was other evídence of animal gnewtng. Examples of "tibia choppers" given by Slanford (1979a, Figures 6 and 7) are textbook examples of enimal-modífied bones.
TarsaJs The most common form of deslruction seen on larsals is Ihe gnawing away of Ihe distal end of Ihe calcaneus [tuber calcis). Puncture marks are occo, sionally seen on alher tarsols but by far Ihe mosl common Iraces of animal gnawing are on the (;alGaneus.
MetatarsaJ
FIGURF. 3.50. Differenl views o/ animal
'he proximal libia.
de.~lrurl¡'m
on
Pallcrns of meta!arsal deslruclion are verv similar to thosc noted for Ihe metacarpal. lo Ihe d08 yard sampJe fmm Anakluvuk. Ihere were numbfJTS of
Brellkage UnroJoleo lo ConsumpUon: Trompling and Bone Manipulalion
77
FIGURE 3.51. Typical odvallced riestructjuII 01 th!.' proximal tibia showinS challnaling nnd chippinS bnck.
melalarsals that wera channeled almost Ihe complele length of the bone. with the channeling having started al Ihe proximal end [the lower four specímens in Figure 3.52). 1 have not seen 5uch systemati. cally channeled specimens fram either fhe wolf dens al Ihe kills (see Figure 3.171. I suspect tha( the dogs gnowed the bones in this fashion largely in response lo having been fed already disarticulaled lower legs. because Ihe ooly area not covered by skin is the proximal end, and I have observed the dogs preferentially slar( ealing al Ihe exposed end. The paltern of consumption described for the melacarpa\ is belleved lo be more common among "wild" animals consuminS Iheir own prey. Neverlheless. Darl (1967;120/ illusIrales sorne nearly identical specimens from a Mousterian assemblaRe recovered in Israel. Figure
3.53 shows the distal ends of melatarsaIs recovered from wolf dens and the channeling is obvious. The specírnen at tbe lower righl is channeled and there are punclure ffiarks and pilting on the opposite side. As pointed out for the metacarpals, Ihese are classic eXBmples of "scoops" as iIlustrated by Dart (1959B, 1959b, 1961).
1
111
I
I I
Breakage UnrelatOO to Consumption: Trampling and Bone Manipulation Thus far 1 have discussed bone breakage as if lt occurred primarily during consumption and carcass
~.,
.
78
3. Pctterns of Bone Modifico!ions Produced by Nonhumcn Agents
..
&
Breekege Unre/ated lo Consumption: Trompling and Bone MonipuJotion
79
tools manufactured or used by man. A recent "experimental" butchertng of an elephent was conducted by severa! persone interested in bone tools teee Park 1978) as a demonstration that tools manufactured from elephanl bone could be used in hutcheríng an elephant. This teern oí expenmenters. led by Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian staff concIuded that an e\ephanl could indeed be butchered with tools manufectueed from íts own bones (Parir: 1978:94).
FIGURE 3,53.-"'ol{ deslrut;/ion on distol melolorso/s, commonly citad pseudotoo/s.
FIGURE 3.!SZ. E"treme channelins of metatarso" by lethel'f!d dtJgs.
dismemberment by animals. OC course Ibis is not tbe case, and the aeoheeolcgtet must be continuously Bware oí the possibility Ihat alher agents and con· lexts of breakage may candítion what he OI she observad. C. K. Brain (1967bj was one oí tha firsl to poiot to tha important role that trampling might play in botb breakage and the production oí pseuclotools. Diane Gifford {t977) has made important observa.tions on tha role oí lrampling by large animals. particuJarly fOI bones depositad along tha margins oí bodies oí waler. This is oí considerable importance when behaviorlll c1aims such as those macle by L. S.
B. Leekey (1968) ere constdered. In describing his materials from Fort Teman, Leekey stetee, Ihere Bre In Iha &lime deposit, and at the same level, small areas oC fossils where the bones have been broken up, and where Ihe damase indudes excelltll'll examples of depressed fractures of Ihe types usually associated with "a blunt instrumenl" 11968:5261· Leakey then goes on lO say, The available evidence preSllnled there, Iherefore. slrongly suggests thal lhe llpper Miocene hominid
Kenyapilhecus wickeri was alreedy maklng use of 'Iones to break open animal ,kulls in order lo get al Ihe breln and bones to get at Ihe marruw 11968:5201. AH the breakege descríbed by Leekey is assantíally of the same type observed by Diana Gifford as derived from the trampling of exposed bone by living animals. The interesfed researcher should compare Leakay's photographs, particularly Figure 3, with lhose presented by Gifford (1977: Figures 6871).
Prom both the Old World (Biberson and Aguirre 1965) and the New World (Bonnichsen 1978; Irving Bnd Haringlon 1973), there have been daims that
"worked" or "modified" elephant bone represents
Such cletms rnust be weíghed ageinst reseerch findings where actual controlled conditions have been sought: thst Is. where the condtüons of formation or production of traces or remeíns are known end one seeks to recogntee d íagnostic characteristics of those conditioos. Such controlled research has been provtded by two sourcae (Cae 1978, 1980: Dnugles-Hamiltnn and Douglas-Hamilton 1975) regerdtng elephents and the possible condilions of breekege and modiftcation dtrectly referable to the taphonomic conditions of elephant death, dísertículation, and burial. Oí particular importance is the work of Malcolm Cae (197B), who actually took the paíns to observe what happens to en elephant carcass after death. He observad in detail the progresa of decey end tha scettertng of the rematas of elephents that díed natural deaths. The deeth sttes of elephents are under certetn condítíons sttes of violent ecttvtty. Coe observed that "the large petch of disturbed ground around most corpses observed (diameter) indtcated that death was usually protracted after collapse [1978:77J." Falling and protrected thrashtng (Coe 1978:77) by an elephent ís cartainly a condition that could result in green-bone fractures. The deeth sttee of elephants are apparently Irequently visitad by living elephents. who tremple exposad bone and disperse such bones by knocking them ebcut with theír tusks and even kíckíng them. Cae (1978:761 observed crushing oí rib bones from trampling, presumably by elephants, approximately ayear after the control animal's death. Another interesting comment by Cae is as follows: The sitelelalfemsin9 still persist 00 aHsites 9tudied flve years after the allímsl's dealh, Long bones and situlls have been scallererl up to 100 m. flOm the d¡,olh 9He by alher elephofl!S while smaller bones have been chewed ¡nlo smal1 frllgments by hyoenlls.... Siteletons Iying in
! ·1
i I 1
I
I
j ',r:'
-
r J. Potterns of
Bom~ M'odificolions Prnduced by Nonhllman Allenls
88 Ihe cpen and subjected lo greet diurnal temperature el(tremes are severely físsured and flaked tCoe 1976:79; emphasis mine l.
In arder lo gaín sorne appreciation for ¡he magnttude of dtememberment and scattering that can occur al an elephent death sne. the inlerested reader is raferred lo the remarkable ccílecuon of photographs of e\ephants in various states of decay and dispersión pubhshed by Beard (1979). Of particular importanee lo those interpreting breekage of elephanl bcne ts the mysterious e"cilement elephants exhibí! over the bones of deed alephanta. The following description illustrates Ihe behavior of elephants toward lhe bones of their dead:
tively infrequent. Thev suggest tbet tramplrng R'Nl.y well nave been a major cause of the reletively 18r8e nurnber of spiral fraclures and other mod#ications. They experimented with a wealhered bone: "We have found that slighlly weathered hnnes break quite easily bul sttll exhihit the charactertstíc spiral breakage pattem of íresh "green" bone [Myers el (JI. 1980:4871."
These researchers Illustrete Gonvincing spiral fractures produced by trampllng the bones of a cow thaí had been weathered under natural conditions and approached weathering steges designaled No. 1 or early No. 2 in Behrensmeyer's (1978) study of bone weathenng. This research opens up a malar pos!'>ible source of bone modifications unrelated lo human activ'ity Ihat has receivl'd very Hule researeh altention. This may be particularly important to a They aH began Iheir delailed olfaclory examinaBan. number of c1aims regarding the human involvement Sorne pieces were TOcked gently ta IInd fro with Ihe in Ihe modificalion of elephant bone. Biberson and farefee!. Dlhers were knocked togelher wilh a wooden Aguirre (1965) attempled lo duplicate pallerns of dank. The lusks exclted immediate Interest; Ihey were breakagc among elephanl bones recovered from the picked up, mauthed, and passed [rom elephanl lo important site of Tort8lba. Bonnichsen's (1978, elephen!. Orle immalure male Iifled the heavy pelvis in hi, lrunk 9.nd cllITied it forfifly yards befare dropping it. 1979) analysis of alleged tools from the Old Crow Anolher slllffed \wo l"ibs inlo his moulh and revolved Flals locality places slrong emphasis on modified them dowly as if he were tasting the surface with his elephanl bone. He cites a number of elepnant bone longue. The skull was roHed over by one elephant arlel" f1akes Ihat have aIl the properties of having beeo anolher. To begin wilh on\y the lal"gest individuals removed by percussion techniques analogous to collld gel near Ihe skeleton. ,ueh was Ihe erush. lithic reduclion strategies. Similar forms have been Boadeceala Ilamedelephantl arriving late pushed lo Ihe reported by Slanford (1979a, Figures 8, 12). Noted as cenler, pickPd up olle of the lusks, Iwiddled il for a companions lo these finds are a number of elephant minute or so. Ihen carried it away. wilh Ihe blunt end in bone "cores" from which f1akes have beco removed her moulh. The rest oflhe group now followed. mllnyof Ihero earrying pieees o{ the sKeleton which were al! (Bonnichsen 1979:101-129). Morlan (1981), after redropped wilhin aboul a hundred yards lOouglasstudying the faunal remains (rom old Crow Flats. Hamillon and Douglas-Hamillan 1975:2391 hes basically accepted the argumenl that Ihe modifiu!otions of bones (including spiral fractures) This hehavior, coupled with direcl trampling as (rom animals smaJler than elephants may well be noted in the studies by Gifford (1977), could cerreferable lo the actions of predator-scavengers. He tainly he expecled ID generate bone breakage. Dehas dismissed Ihe role of trampling and bone manpanding on the candition of Ihe bones heing Iram· ipulation by elephanl!'> as nol likely 10 produce plad Of manipulaled, green-bone or spiral fraclures "poinl loading," that is. localized impacl scars. He might be regularly expected. conc1uded thal Ihe carnivores Ilre loo small essenParticularly germane to Ihis point is Ihe pretialJy lo address effedively eiephant bone, and Ihat viously ciled work by Myers et 01. (1980). TR~ (ractured elephant bones. particularly specimens f. J' P f..pl Q j L eA 8S well as exhibiling "poi ni loading." are the product úf pollshed, chipped, and otherwise modified bone in human modificalion and there(ore tools. No ,.ritideposits where"nnm had,c,ei tsMj plsjld I'RJ tMI!F1n ci!'>m of this argumenl is vet available. Neverlheless, fhe;.'actlUnrulation·'~'l't\d'ffihRf§. Of more interesl. the dismissal of trampli~g and bone manipulatio n however, is their observation ,hal evidence for remains en opinion totally unsupported by empirical predator-scavenger relaled modificalions was rela-
-.,..
..1&.:"- •
sone Modificotions ond Methodology
material: thus Morlan's argument ís not a valíd argument from eltrntnetíon, a point 1 will tale up somewhat laler.
Bone Modificatioos end Methodology Throughout Cbepter 1 1 illustreted case after case of ímagtnatíve inlerprelatíon COf observattons made en Ihe archaeologtcel record. Must of the lime m}' aim was to demonslrate a hidden assumplionnamely. that man was the egent responstbte for the particular modifications or associalions being "interpreted" in behavloral lerms. Both Ihe premise as lo the identity of Ihe agenl and the interpretalions offered as to the condilions in Ihe past responsible fur the characler of the Ihings observed in the archaeological record were, in Chapler 2, shown lo he inferencfls. In Chapter 2 it was also argued thal aU our ubservational language and the means available lo us Cor in(erring lhe past from observalions on the archaeological record had to be rooted in experience: There are two ways of regarding concepts. both of which. are necessary fo Ilnderstanding. The first is that of logicalanalysis. Il answers fhe queslion. how do concepls and jud~menls depend on eaeh ol"er? !n answerBut this ing it we are Dn comparalively safe ground. seeurity is pllrchllsed al lhe price of emptiness of conlenl. Concepls can only acquire contenl when !hey are connected. however indirnr.lly. wilh sensible experil'llee.. no logleal invesligallon can rl'\'eal lhis conner.lion. íl can only be experienr,ed [Einslein 1947:4711
It was argued that middle-range research with Ihe aim of developing t1'JJiable melhods for inferring (he ¡:tasi had, Iherefore. fo be raoled in aclualislic sludies. This chapler has reviewed certain claims Ihat others have made regarding Ihe meaning lo be atteched lo properties o( modified bone. Calegorically speaking, lhc daims cenlered on Ihe degrce lo which lhere are d islinclivc forms oC bone bmakilge referable exclusively lu Ihe aclions a( mano aml on Ihe degree lo .....hich pallerned modificalions observed on various bone could be reterred lo mndificatinns produced by num in orrler lo tuiC thl" halles as lools.
81 The advocates of "osteodontokeratíc" (Dart 1957), "protoltthtc" (Menghin 1931), "pre-paleol íthic' [Nícolaescu-Plopsor and Ntcolaescu-Plcpsor (1963), a dísttncttve bone-using culture "Alpinas Palaolithlkum" {Bachler 1940). or more recently an early and continuously irnpurtant bone technology in the New World (Irving and Harington 1973) generally imagine bone modified by man as having many íaatures in common with ltthtc technology (Bonnichsen 1978). Th¡s analogy has served archeeology poorly for severa! reasons. It ís true thal many of the modifications observad in bone are the result of fracture dynemícs. or the mecbentcs of impact leedIngs or pressure loedíngs. as are the basíc dynamics of lithic fracture. Both materials m8Y be studied in terms oC Ihe same general questions regarding the physics o( fraclure. However, in nature there is a fundamental difference: Lilhies are apparenlly regularly used by only mano 11 is true that lilhies may become (ractured in a variely of inanimate, mechanical conlexls in nature: pounding of stones on beaches, in friclion "cauldrons" in rivers. as a result oC sluffing off and falling ofrocks from cave ceiling8, cliff (aces, and Ihe m.e. In aH these conlexls the stones being subjected to fracturing forces are being modified as forees act on objecls and the orientation of the objects is generally free lo V8ryindependently of the direclions of impacl forces. lf nol, the coincidence oí orienting forces and (racture is relalively random. producing rare and irregular combination~ of fracture palteros Ihal stalistically form a componenl of a more comprehensive pattero a( random breakage configuralion. This is in marked contrast lo slones modi(jed by man, who orients the stone ..nd directs the impacl so thal a regular pattem of orientalion Cor both the piece being acted upon and the direclion of aclion or impact loadiog is maintained, resulting in distinctive and palterned modificalions in the slone being acled upon. Such'patterning generally permits the discrimination betwfW!n tools produced by man and slones modified in nature. Trans· ferring this opprooch lo bones cloes not work, For unlike slones, bones are regularly manipulated mechanically by animals olher lhan mano The resull is a paltero of regular. mechallically produced modificalion in bone Ihat shares Ihe configuration of redundanl impfH~ting or luading relative lo redundanl orienlaliull. resultin~ in chipped edges. pieees
~.~
~ 82
3. Puttema af Bone Modificalians Produced by Nonhuman Agenls
that have multiple flakes originating at a common ímpect eurrece, múltiple ñekee removed in redundan! ortentetíon. both with regard to the dtrectton of impact and tbe orienlation of impacting to tha prior shape of tbe píece. ln Iact. ell the patterntng contigo urations of tools are seen. These are trua enetogues. in that tbe formal configurations have many things in common with stone tools but the causes may be quila diíferent. No! seriously conetderíng th¡s. many have argued that they are homologues; that ts. roan was using his documentad knowleclge of mechanics on both slene and bone, er in sorne cases only on bone, and producing artifacts. Arguments frOID anal· ogy ossume Ihe causes oC analogous characteristics are Iha same. This is nol !roe for fracture patterns on bone versus stone. Failing lo w(;ognize the strong analogi<:al component to resear(;h reasoning, sorne researchers have thougbt tha( they could gain a greater undershmding oí tbe lIignificance oí modified bone by conducting experiments with the mechanics oí bone fracture. A numbar oí detailed and "controlled" studies have been aimed at increasing our understanding of the properties of bone that (;ondilion íls fraclure potenlial when mechanically manipulated .(soo particularly Bonnichsen 1973, 1979). Although these are interesting and the knowledge gained can be used, lhey in no way infonn us about Ihe causes, in the proximal sense, of the loading agents responsible for bone breakage. Nor do they provide us with any criteria for recognizing such agents. Yat these were ocluolistic sludíes. They were "experimental archaeaiagy" of a relatively elabarate farm. How cauld Ihey nal provide us with methods? The answer, af course, is lhat too overall procedure one uses does not ensure suecess. One must ask productive queso tions and one must succeed ín gaining adequale control5 over experimental observations lo be able lo relale Ihem accurately to "causes." Making irrelevant observations, in terms of either the accurale isalation of causes or characteristics nol observable in Ihe archaeologieal record, will not contribute toward Ihe development of usable archaeological methodology. Thís is a major problem ~.iJ!l many so-called ethnoarchaeological sludie. They are simply malerially orienlen elhnographies and do nol attempt seriously eilher lo isolale causes or demonstrate Ihe neees,>ary relationships between
Bone Modifica!ion5 and Melhodolagy
"bears" of tnterest and "toctprínts'' actually recoverable from the archaeological record. My approech has been very consciously aimed al not falling into Ihe trap of belíevlng that íf a study is actualísttc. it must be useful. I sought lo obtetn control ccllecttons of bones known lo have been rnodtfied by anímals and to describe and ldenufy the effects when the causal egents were known. 1 have used the spectmens whose properties could be unambiguously referred lo animal manipulation to demonstrata the ambiguily of rnany tníerences made by others. 1 think 1 have demonstrated thal spiral fractures are nol unique lo man; Ihat spiral fracture when produced by anímals is not limited lo an origin at the distal ends af the bones; that modifications ciled by Frisan at Glenrock as evidence of muscle stripping are commonly produced by gnawing canids: and Ihat the characteristic modifieations commonly ciled for recognizing "expediency tools" are regularly produced by nonhominid predalor-scavengers; and Ihat, finaI1y, many of Ihe modífications cited as evidence of human modification and 1001 use are refer· able to predator-scavengers. My interests go beyond the evaluation of specific ideas to archaeologieal melhodology in general. Are there guidelines for research Ihal, if more explicitly underslood, could reduce Ihe numbers of mvths generaled by archaeologists? 1think Ihis mus! b~ an5wered affirmatively since archaeologisls have. in fact, had very HUleexperience in Ihe research area of methodological development. For the mosl part, Iraditional archaeology did nol recognize midcllerange research as a doma in distinet from general research. Methods grew up largely as a series of ae· cepled conventions for giving meaning lo the aro chaeological record. Methods "accumulated" out of Ihe mosl common research situation faced by Ihe archaeologisl, in which he recognizes patterning in the archaeological-paleontologir;al record and must faee the ¡nlriguing problem of whal the pattern means. For on!y with a solution to Ihis problem can the archaeologist converl contemporary panero observations into meaningful slatemenls aboullhe past. Most often this problem is faeed by Ihe archaeologisl after he or she has oeseribed Ihe patlerning (frequenlly in a seelian labeled "IYIlOlogy" or "slatislical analysís"l. Once palterns of association,
coveeíeuon, and so en heve been establísbed. the archaeologtst may then wrtte an interpretattve sectton. This is where the ercheeologtst may build a model of the past or offer opíntons as lo what condítíons in the pest "ceused'' the propertles summerized. This ís what 1 refer to as a post 'roe cccommoduñve argumento Surnmarizing Ihen, this is a situation whera one has isolated petterntng (Ihe effeets) and seeks lo use imagination to envísíon the condrttons that. if Ihey had beppened. would account for Ihe propertles seen [the causes). The way one werrants Ihis construction of Ihe past may be eomplicaled and draw on considerable knowledge, even theory, from other fields. Nevertheless, lhe degree of fil between ¡he ímagined condilions and the obseMled properties in Ihe archaeological record is nol a test of the oeenraey of lhe argumenl. Mosl perSons are knowledgeable enough to invenl a siluation that, if true, would account for the observed facls. In order lo convinee others, a number of warranl. ing arguments are frequently proposed. Sorne are de. signed lo demonstrale thal the suggestion is plausible and not totally unrealistic. This is Ihe role in which ethnographic analogy is cast by Thompson (1956:329): "He must test his conclusion by demon. slraling Ihat an artifact-behavior correlation similar lo the suggested one is a common occurrence in ethnographic reality." However, the degree of plausibi/ity is no! sufficient to establish probobility. Probability ís frequently argued in Ihe form of an argumenl from eJimination. ARGUMENT FROM ELlMINATION
Argumenl5 from eliminalion have two basic premises: (o) AH the polenlial causes are known and Iisled and lb) al! but one of those lisled are not the cause of the phenomenon in question. Therefore, the remaining cause is considered lo be Ihe correct one. lf one could not juslify Ihe premise lhal all Ihe possible causes were lisled, Ihen Ihe conclusion Ihat the cause nol eliminaled !hrouRh rejeclive argumenl is Ihe correel one conld not he sustained. For instance, 1 mighl argue !hal Ihe causes of a particularly inleresling pile of rocks could be (a) that it had been marle by spacemen, (b) that il had been r:onslruded byead, ann(e] lhal il had been prodllced by geological aclion. [ rilen miRhl proceed lo eliminale alterna-
83 ttves a and b through warrented argument. end Iherefore conclude that the pile of rocks was produced by geologtcel aelion. I would be very apt tu be wrong: sínce there ís no reason to belteve thet all of the potential causes hed been Iisted in the first place. Of course, in arder to construct such a Iist we would have lo understand causatíon, amí íf we had such understendtng we could certainly devise a more powerful end Informativa eveluetíve procedure. Argumenl from elirnination wes the form impl íed by Bonnichsen's rejeclion of the alternative Ihat the spiral fractures observed at Old Crow Flats had been caused by animals breaking their leg5. His is a very common way of warranling an opinion regarding a preferred post hoe accommodative argument. Normally one uses imagination and an accumulated knowledge lo think ol all !he possible situations Ihal might have accounted for Ihe observations made. One Ihen offers an opinion as to which is considered mosl likely by denigrating all but the preferred argumen!. This seems to be wha! many researchers mean by Ihe "method of multiple working hypotheses." This is a fonn of warranting argument for one's opinions, but il is in no way sufficient for providing us with methods of ¡n(erenee. 1 must add Ihat for an argument from elimination to be valid, one musl have available unambiguous means for monitoring the alleged "causes" and therefore a way of aetually detennining the degroo of parlicipalion by a suggested cause in a system of pasl delerminaey. In lraditional archaeology Ihe argumenl from eliminalion was used as a form of warranting argument for one's beliefs about the pas!. In Ihe new archaeology, it should function more to warrant one's melhodological research: "A valid propo· sition can only be refused Ihrough hypolhesis test· ing. However, when faeed with va lid alternatives, one can evaluale in prohabilislic terms Ihe relative slrenglh of alternatives and make decisions as to how lo invesl research lime IL. R. Binford 1972a:571."' ARGUMENT FROM WANTOF EVIDENT ALTERNAT1VES
A particularly interesting form of argument from elimination is one where only one possibility can be imagined. Mosl l~ommonly Ihis argumenl lakes Ihe form Ihal "only man could do thar." It is generally
,~.
84
3. Penems of Bone Modifications Produeed by Nonhuman Agents
executed by citlng complex or regular patterned mcdtñcettons in nature. which seern self-evident in their manífestatlon of design or planning: "1 suppose that these bcne breeks could come about wíthout human íntervenuon.... But Ihe broken mammoth leg bones we've found-nothing could do thet excap! humane hurling rocks {quole from Dennís Sta»lord published in Canby 1979:3541." Commenting on thls fOfID uf aegument. two distinguished prolessors of log¡c stete. Argument trom want of evtdent aitemañves Is, however. ene of the most abuslld argumen! forms. Often when we "jump lo condusian~" we are ahusing il; W6 leap al Ihe nrsl Ilxplanatory hypothesis tha! COffil!S to mind without duly surveying Ihe field IQuint> llnd UI· Iian 1978:120-1211.
This form of argumenl is so easily abused beca use only one alternative is recognized. The only positive form of argument is offered with regard lo allerna· tives, which are rejected, so Ihere is no direct evidence Ihal can be offered in support of (he conclusion. This is the form of argument used by Von Oaniken (1969) to c1aim extraterrestrial involvement in lhe history of culture. Quine and Ullian (1978:121) comment germanely on this poi ni: "Indeed arguments of Ibis kind (argumenl from want of evident alternalives) are a favorite device of charlatans, if not absoluleiy indispensable lo Ihem." I think Ihal il should be clear fhal, although Ihese forms of argumenl may appear impressive aud even convincing lo many, unless Ihey are aclually execuled with means ror measuring Ibe alternalive causes or actually evaluating the relalive conlribuIioos of differing variables said lo have been active in a "conditioning" sense, the enlire exercise rernaios a form of polemics and is in no way an epislomological procedure. It slands as a ser of ranked opinions, not a stalemenl oí probable determinacy. The techniques frequenlly employed in demonslralinglhe plausibility of a post hor:accommodative argumenl are usually suspecl. As menlioned earlier, Thompson suggesled Ihe citation of ethnographic precedent. Whal if there is no elhnographic cilaticln relevant lo Ihe paHerning you observe? This 15 parlicularly important when considerin~ Ih~ very early eras of hominid expf'rience. It is ¡¡Iso common wilh
respect to the types of pattems erohaeologtsts müy observe. Such things rarely prompt commenls Irom ethnogrepbers and historians. We have a fíne exampie of Ihis situalion in the work of George Frisan al Glenrock (1970). Frisan observed a large number of petteened modifícations in bone. There were no detailed descriptions of such Ieatures in the etbnographíc record. He mede the assumption Ihal man was the causal egent. He Ihen invented a set of conditions that. íf they had happened in the past. were belíeved lo accommodate all the "facts" of bone modtñcetíon. Uslng his exceptíonel knowledge of animal anatomy and manual tool use, Frisen tmegmed a procederé far butchering using "expedient bone tools." largely choppers and f1eshers, Cor muscle stripping {he animals. The patterns of bone modificalion noted al Glenrock could Ihen be underslood as resulling Crom chopping loose muscle attachmenls on bones, as well a5 wear patterns and intenlional modifications made in shaping and using bones as lools in Ihis operalion. Frison Ihen engaged in aclualislic research,~ licalive experiments. That is, Frison (1974) actually bukhered a bison using Ihe proceduces he had imagined and concluded Ihal his model was wel1 conceived in {hal the properties expecled lo result Crom his imagined operalions did in Cad resull. Olhers Ihen adopled his model oC butchering as a methodological device for giving meaning lo spedfied properties of Ihe acchaeological record. O{her researchers began finding expedienl tools and evidence íor musde stripping. A melhodology was being molded by lhe adoption of a 5el of conventions Cor giving mean· ins lo properties of the archaeological record based on Ihe Cailhplaced in an individual's work. The replieativa experiment showed that Frison's knowledge and judgmenl used in developing his model oC Ihe pesl was sound. It showed Ihal his model of Ihe pasl was plausible. JI in no way demonslraled Ihat it was aecurate! As poinled out earlier, Oart condueted ceplicative experimenls together wilh Kitching. concluding Ihal Ihe uack-and Iwist melhod of breaking bone was responsible for spiral fractures. and he was wrong Sadek-Kooros (1972) enndueted replicative experimenls ano concluded thal man intenlionally broke bones lo a paltero for use as lools, and she was mosl cerlainly wrong. George Frison conf!ucled replicat¡ve fJxperiments wilh rcgard In his ideas abOlll mus-
"
Bone Modifieotions rmd Methodology ele stripping as a mode ofbulchering and ccncluded that in Iect he could muscle slrip a bíson and símulate the pattems of bone breakage and destruction noted in prehlstoric assemblages. 1 argue that he is most líkely wrong. Recently there have been severa! "replicative" elephant buteherings (see Huckell 1979; Park 1978). One of these was led by Oennis stenfcrd, who is very interested in illustrating that an elephanl eould be butchered with 1001.'1 manufaclured from its own bones (Park 1978:94). Under the epislomology being criticized,~.. ive experlments provide an evaiuation of the [udgment of the person who proposed the original model oC the pes!. If one can produce the effects by fol1owing a procedure proposed in explanation oC cerlain observed properlies, Ihen Ihe proponenl's knowl~ge and skill in Ihinking are demonslrated. We could Ihen place sorne confidence in Ihe argument because oC Ihe demonslraled skill oC Ihe advocale in anticipating Ihe consequences oC certain operalions. The demonslration of plausibilily, eilher Ihrough Ihe cilalion oC elhnos;aphic procedent or through rl'plicative experirnenl eoupled wilh warranling ar. guments by elimination as a linked batlery of laclics, wasused by many archaeologisls lo convinee people lhal their views of the past were correcl. These taclies primarily serve lo demonslrate competenee: The final judgmenl of any Ilrchaeologist's cultural re. conslruclion musl theterorebe basad on ltn appraisal of his professional competence.and pllrticularly lh!! qualily of Ihe subjectivf! conlribulion lo Ihal compelence. Our presenl ml!lhod of assessing Ihe role oi lhis subjec. tive elemenl by an apprlllsal of lhe inlelleclual honesty of the arehaeologisl who milites (he inferenees is cer11Iinly inadequllte. Bu!. lhere dot's nol seem to be any praetil:al means of greatly improving the situa_ lion We can only hope for improvemenls in !he mathodsuf measurinA Ihe amount of failh we place in an inrij~'idual's work IThompson 1951"'131-332]. Isu¡,:sesled long ago lL. R. Binford 1968b: 16-17) ¡halthere musl be ways olhar than Ihose adopted by lraditional archaeologists for evaluating archaeolog_ ical argumen!. Herf'! I add Ihe suggeslion Ihal Ihere musl be research enrleavors designad sPf!cifically far the devc10pmenl oí infeffJnlilll me!hods. and Ihese IAnnot be easily eVHluatedusin,¡¡Ilrchlleological dala nar cal! they be s¡mpl~' adopled fmm "respected"
85 archaeologtsts. This rneans thal tnducttve erguments developed post hoc lo account for petternlng observed in Ihe ercheeologícal record must be Irealed as provoeative ideas in need of evcfucuon. Only after they have been eveluated can they be ceunously adopted as observanonel lenguage. or ínterpretatíve conventions, or methods for giving meaning to the pasto I suggest that middle-range reseerch progresses by virtue of the eccumulauon of knowledge !hal in faet permita one to use an argument by elimination properly. Jf actualistic research con be cited sbowing thal wha! is ob.'lerved in Ihe archaeoJogical record is not refemble to a suggesled cause. then one bosis for myth making will be eliminated. We must conlinuously Cocusour allenlion on the properties 01 Ihe archaeological record and, in turn, COCUs our iroaginalions on those observed propertiep>. Once we have generaled a post hoc accornmodalive argument, our research task is specified. How can we investigale Ihe idea advanced as lo Ihe context 01causalion for specified properlies oC !he archaeological record? Where in Ihe COnlel1lporary world or the domain oC recorded dynamics can I seek experiance facilitating Ihe modeling oC causes Cor a particular pattem ob. servable in the archaeologieal record? This is Ihe firsl Question. The nexl question one must ask is Ihis: Even iC one can ¡solale such a souree oC enHghlenmenl, how ambiguous are Ihe properties for which one is seeking a causal understanding? Thet ¡s, are aH Ihe possible causes lisled? This is a necessary condition (or an argumenl from elimination. Not only musf Ihe researcher face Ihe possibility of the ambiguily oC Ihe pallerns as observed in Ihe archaeological record, bul he or she must also faee the equally crucial question oí Ihe relevance oí actualistic understanding lo Ihe pest. Can we make uniformitarian assumplions from our contemporary underslanding regarding Ihe production oC properlíes thal appear to be common lo Ihe pasl and Ihe present? These are aU complicaled problems tha! must be faced in order lo develop a slrong methodology aorl ereale an unambiguous observational language for Ihe science of archaeology. Failure lo arldress Ihem when making melhodological c1aims will genprally conlribulc to Ihe building oC modero myths ralher Ihan lo Ihe gcowfh of archaeologicaJ science.
"VP.....-------""'A~,.;- - - - - - - - - - - - , 32
Pllr111. MiddJe...f!onge Heseurch-e-ln Senrch
oIMelhodoJogy
Prlrf JI. Mjdrll~-Ran,l¡fl Heseurcb-c-ln Senrch
of Mcthodology
behavioral characterislics of the ngents that ensure the uniqueness of the prcperñes descnbed. The majority of materiaIs described in the following three chepters were collected during a 4-year study of the use of onimals and anima} produets by the Nunamiut Eskimo of north central Aloska. (See L. R. Binford 1976, 19780, 1978b, 1979, 19BO; L. R. Binford ond}. B. Bertrom 1977; and L R. Binford ond N.}. Chcsko 1976 for reports on this reseorch.] The focus of the Nunnmiut study was the relationship between thetr hunting ond consumer stmtegies as execured in funclionoJly and seasanally differing sites (L. R. Binford 197Bb) and the faunaJ remains al those sñes. The study wcs middle range in choracter, aimed at developmg methods for recognizing sites of vorying funcuon from faunol remains. Chapter 3 summorizes a considerable body of cbservcñons on bones modified by animaJs. As indicoled in Chopter 1, mony controversial cloims regarding the nalure of the POS! hove been inferences from observations on broken and modified bone. 1 wi/J revlew sorne af the "in terpretative Jiterature" where faunal remains have been central to crgumenls abouI the post. This material is presenred because the contents of Chopter 3 ore germone lo (hese orguments, bu! olso because my knowledge ofthese arguments has guided much of my ohservation on bone. As Dorwin is credifed (Cohen and Nagel, 1934: 197) wilh having said; "How odd if is that anyone should not see that aH observation musl be for or ogoinsl sorne view, if il is fo be of any service." Chopter 3 treats o number of the properties of bone modificotian about which a vos, number of inferences regarding the post hove been prompted. Since 'here hm'e beeo so many claims, much of this chopter will appeor negotive. J will s}'s· temoticoJly cite properties of bane breakage coupled wilh surficiaJ modifications produced by either dogs or wolves ond compare lhem to specimens or condifions thal others hove cited as evidence [or humonhominid modification or manufacture. Although it ip; quite true that much af this chapter appears la be concerned wilh discrediting the inferences made by others, 1 am simultoneously presenting descriptive malerial in sufficient delaiJ lo provide a bosis for lhe identificarion af lhe agenls responsible for modificalions thal may be of inleresl in future research. In a very real sense 1 hove alreody written a book on the topic covered in Chopter4--what men do with bones. As you might imagine, 1 wiJI draw heoviJy on Ihis previously pubJished moterial, but sorne new facts will be presented. My orientafíon is one of comparing human behavior wilh animal behavior on the one hond, and evaluoting claims a!her orchaeoJogisls hove made regarding Ihe meaning to be attached lo certain formol potterning in ossemblag:es of modified bone on lhe other. Chapter 5 is concerned with rhe central probJem of the book, the. djagnostic.differences betw.een banas modified by man ond !hose modifie,d by onimols. 1 will present sorne original ohservalions on wolf hehovior and
Interpretnñons were offered and judged "probable" or plausible they frequently become conventions whereby additionaJ observations nt new sltes were lnterpreted. Grodually o myth wcs built up about the post. The rnyth conststed of inferences drown from unevaluated premises ond Its very scale o/ ccceptcrtce graduolly became further justification for beJief in the myth. Unfortunately this remoins one o/ our dominant "methodologies." In Chopter 2 the point wos made that we necd to de velop mefhodologies cnd observational lungucge through mlddle-mnge resecrch. This reseurch was envisioned as Iorgely uctucllsuc. where controJJed information about causes and ejfects could be evaluoted experientclly rather than inferentialJy, as has been Ihe common pructlce. Methodolcgicc! resenrch requires that both the becr ond the footprint be observable. Methodological resecrch in service of crchoeclogy must normalJy be conducted with living systems [ethnocrchceoiogyl or enes in which the refevcnt dynamics hove been recorded (historicol orchceclogy] or where the relevanl dyncmlcs may be replicoted (experimental orchaeology). The polnt of view cdopted here Is thct octuolislic studfes or middle-ronge reseorch is crucial to orchoeology and should be conducted from the perspective of the archoeological record. We ore not studying material "residues" (R. A. Gould 1980:250-251) or "behavioraJ correlates" from the perspective of the ongoing living system. This view contrasts mork· edly wilh Ihat of Schiffer (1976), Rothje (1979), and StiJes (1977), who seek o science of material culture, or reJationships between behavior and material culture. 1am not suggesting that studying contemporory syslems from a materialist's perspective should not be done, oniy thal doing so is nol archaealagy; it is ethnogrophy and as su eh faces very different method%gical and intellectuoJ problems. Stated another woy, we are not aUempting to specify the relotionships between "behavior" in any exhoustive sense and material remoins. Instead, we are attempting to understond lhe deter~inants of patterning and various struclural properties of the archaeoJogical record in arder lo leorn about lheir post. Jt was suggested in Chapter 1 Ihot we need methods for assessing the inlegrity (the number of identily of Ihe ogents tha! aeted in the post to produce the deposit being invesfigoted) ond the resoJution of a deposit (lhe number of and redundancy in Ihe events represented by the deposits). Tbe bulk ef this book is concemed'tN1tfnhedevelopmfmi.t>f'11t9tftods for identifying ~·thf!·agent and ·the beh('lvjm'tlI_'c'Orrte-xt'~ predator""Scavenger' "cohtrfhut1on~-,·to poltrottthft'-'ontt"J"atetmtotogiunl depoS'its. This is basicolJy o prohlem in identificotion. Fol/owing the suggestions developed in Chapter 2 l wiIJ describe acquired properties of bones and patterns of assemblagf! variability that are referable lo known agen!s. l will atlp.mpt to justífy Ihol sorne properties are uniquelv referoble to specific agents, and will sUMest sorne of the
1
33
1:1':
Ir'
,i'.:!I:
,il ¡ ¡:j:
"I';¡ 1 1
"'!
1'11
: I, 1:[. 1 1, '1'
l•
~
,:,
'1'.
1:
i
1
1
1
i¡ i' I ', 1 ¡ r, 11,'
'1
¡¡I
i
1
¡.
,; J"
!I;'
·I~I,
:t 1
1:
1,,1
lil
i,
Éc'
88
3. Pañems
The task Di giving meaníng to observetlcns ís very dlfficult. We saw in Chapter 1 how "control" was obtained by inferring the identity oí a causal agent Irom an aseocratíon with tdenttñeble tools. That assurnption provided so intellectual anchor. Patterning observed in assodated thíngs was then reíerred to the behavtor of the rnferred common agent. Bones beceme Iood, trequenctee of specíes became stalemente of dtetery preferences or hunting strategies. Patterned rrmdificatícns en bones became tools. In this chapter we haya seen how "control" was getned by ustng argumenl from analogy for forms of patteming observed erncng stone tools and bones and assuming thet analogoue petternlng was referable lo Ihe same causal condíuons. That was wrong. We S8W how replícatíve experiments and ínedequate ettempts to tnvesugate alternative suggesttons coupled with elímtnattons by "opinion" served to justify tbe use of conventtcns. such as spiral fracture equals man, ar expediency tools equal rnen. or destrcved trocbenters and proximal humeri equal musele strtpplng. We must expiare ways of increasing
of Bone Modificalions Produced by Nonhumen Agents
our eccuracy end reliability in making inferences to the past. Tradítional erchaeology did not reccgntze the need for, nor even the possibilily of developíng. middle-range research. Traditional approaches are demonslrably tnadequete. It seems lo me that the method ot rnost rapid progress ... ís going lo be lo sel down explicitly al each step jusi whal the quesüon te. and what all the alterneUves are. and then lo set up crucial axpertments to Iry lo dtsprove sorne.... When wbole groups of us begin lo
concéntratelike thet I belteve we may, see ... tncreases in the rete of scientific understanding [Platt 1964:3521.
Postscript ~ Since th¡s chepter was written I have learned of an argument startlng in Australia regarding Ihe agents responsíble for abone assemblage unaccompanied by stone tools (Archer. Crawf14rd, & Merri lees 1980).
Assuming thet one can ettríbute lo the hand of man all remains in a deposit essocíated with accepted artifacts was shown lo be a common methodologieal error in my revíew of literatura presented in Chepter 1. Incorrectly identifying the agent respensible for modifications on bones was a problem emphasized in Chapter 3. In this chapter I will demonstrale that Ihe assumption of monocauselity has been a common error associated with the interpretation of bonee modified by mano Here the ercheeologíst observes properties of the archaeologtcel record. for instance modífíed bone. and assumes that all the modtüceuons arose from a single behavior. such as butchering, merrow cracking, cr tool producríon. In most cases we may expect that bones and other archaeological remains had alife history during which they were componenls of a cultural system. Differing aclions were taken wilh respect lo Ihe materials and in turo they were altered differenlially, depending on Ihe characler of Iheir Iife histories. We must view an item, fealure, or sile as being the accumulative resull of numbers of differenl acUons and events such thal the overall morphology of Ihe material remains carries information about many different modifying conditions-not a single causal evenl bu! a sequence of causal processes. With respect lo bone Ihis view has nol generally characterized Ihe analysis of archaeological remains.
Chapter 4 Human modes of bone modification
/: 1
1
!1
87
I if
.,,,¡ ~
.
*,.., 4. Human Modes o/ Bone Modifkolion
88 Aside from thts ontologtcal point regardtng aroheeclogtcal materials, 1 will continua with rny methodological lnterests. 1 will explícate entena for recognizing the agents responsibJe for materials that might be Iound etther in association with unquesttoned tools or remetns oí hominids themselves, or independently. Tha! te. although my goa1sare methodological they are also fecused 011 the geoer!c dífferences between men sud oíber animals in Iheir pat. terns of modifying bone. For this reason. in the materials lo be presentad I will rnake no attempt lo dtscuss tbe designs or the tecbníques actual1y used by man in Iha production oftools from bones. 1am soleIy concerned with morlifications ¡unidad 00 bone as a by-product oflhe explaitatian of animal foods by mano In one sense J am only inleresled in Ihose aclions man perforros in solving proMems Ihal musl also be solved by olher animals in Ihe utilization and consumplion of prey species. I am furlher limiting myself lo a concern wilh Ihe lechniques lIsed in dismembermeot and meat removal, and the lechniques used in breakin!! bones for the recovery of bone marrow. Within Ihis dornain 1 will address the problem of maldng uniforrnitarian assumplions about Ihe mate· rial derivativas of human behavior thal may be observed actualistically. What is the role of ethnoarchaeology and ethnographic analogies in middlerange research? With respecllo the specific subjects covered, the available infarmalion is by no means balanced. Followin!! a survey of previous researeh and a discussion of Ihe dala 1 will be appealing lo in my descriptive discussions of human use of bone in a food contexl, I will begin Ihe descriptive seclions wilh a dis· cussion of dismembering stralegles. This is, regeetlably, a very shorl section despite much discussion in the lilerature ofbulchering lechniques. 1wiH Ihen lum my atlenlion to cut marks on bones, whicn are more commonly referred lo as butehering marks. This is a long, delailed seclion summarizing Ihe descriplive lilerature as known to me and presenting new material. It will be painfully c1ear Ihat HUle i[lformation is available on this suhjecl I will add lo Ihe available malerial by presenting the grouped dala from Ihe Mouslerian levels al Gambe.,Grenal cxcavaled by Franc;ois Bordes (see Bordes 1972). as well as the data from lhe Kakinya site exc8vated durinK
11,
e ,:f.J.J.. el"
\,
~
,\ e
{ V J.'j _.
'. 'j.,
~,;,.-\
Ju
my work with the Nunemiut Eskimo (see L. R. Blnford 1978b:374). The relaüvely few ceses of descnbed materíels are drawn from a remarkably wide geographical and temporal range: Iwo Mouslerian cases. a case from eastem Nnrth America during tbe Early Historie periodo a Mississippian site from Missouri, several Plains btson kili sttes. a Plaíns antelope klll síte. and my materials from the Bskimo. Over al! Ihis material 1 will be able lo damonstrate a kind of remarkeble redundancy in the plaeemenl of cut marks and their particular forms. Thus, 1 will venture sorne empirical generalizations about human patlerns of butchertng end the telltale marks remaining from Ihe use of cutling 1001s in aceomplishing this lask. "The plausibility of a hypothesis depends largely on how compatible Ihe hypothesis is wilh out being observers placed at random in Ihe world IQuine and Ullian 1978:74J." The diverse nature of Ihe samples gives sorne plausibilily lo Ihe generalizations offered. Finally. I will discuss marrow cracking as il has been described by others and as I have witnessed and documenled jI among Ihe Nunamiut Eskimo. Much of my discussion will center not so much on the production of generalizations but on the degree lo which premalure generalizations by others have misled analysis in the past. I wil! make a pies for Ihe colleclion of more informalion on Ihis subjoct and offer sorne suggestions regarding formal atlributes !hal might wel1 prove useful in fulure melhodological developments for dislinguishing the hand of man from Ibe jaws of animals.
Previous Approaches to Underslanding Broken and Modified Bone Reviewing earlier research on human modifications in bone shows thal sorne of Ihe earlies! research was on cul marks and surfidal modifications resultiog from man's use of 1001s in butchering (Martin 1906:10). This eMly worlc was nol, to my knowledge, followed up un'i) relalively recenlly (Guilday n.d.; Guilday el nI. 1962: Parmalee 19(5). Mosl of lhis work is sound and provides ll~able case .'iludíes of hulche'ing marks.
-:U
f
,1"
\
PrevicusApproochesID UnderslondingHrnken und Modified Bone Most of the reseerch orienled toward the "recenstructton" of prehistoric butehering practice stems directly from the seminal work ofTheodore E. White (l9S2. 1953a, 1953b, 1954, 1955). White suggested a number of post hoc accommodetíve modele lo explain the differenlial frequencles of anatomical parts revealed tbrough the eareful anatomical identification of bones recovered from archaeological sitas. These models took Iwo baste forms, postuletmg {o) Ihe differenlial trensport or abandonmenl of anatomleal perts in the context of bunting logistics, and [b] the destructron of anatomice! parls durlng the bUlchering process, wbich was beavily modl'lled on the assumplion of regular use of large choppers and heavy cleaver-like lools and bafted mauls. Butcher· ing practiees Were generaIly considered lo vary elhnically [see Wood 1962) and to be a eharacleristic thal could be used for Iradng the culture history of differenl elhnic groups. Typical of tbe post hoc modeling of Ihe butehering proeedure is the following statemenl from one of White's early papers 00 Ihis subject: The humerus ShOW5 the greatest discrepllncy in the number of the 'wo ends of any of lhe elements ... Anyone who htls triad lo separate lhe sCtlpula and humerus wilh B knlfe knows thal it is not easy. even in lhese dllYs of crucible slee!. IIlld lhe ¡oh ClIn be ellsily and effectively ar.complished wilh a cleavllr. It is clear Ihal a Stone Age deaver would demolish lhe head of Ihe humerus heyood recognition. further culting up of Ihe forelimb appears to have beeo lIccomplished by smash· ing the radius and metacarpal near the middie as the ends are usuaUyenlire [White 1952:338}. Here we see the post hoe accommodation Df a butcbering model lo the patterns of breakage and bone deslruction observed in an archaeological assemblage. It is assumed Ibal tbe bone destruction resulted Crom butebering activities. White's posl hoc argumenls were general1y adopled. For a number of years reading an archaeological site report that ineluded a summary of faunal remains was Iike read· ing a litany. Wbile's posl hoe argumenls were invoked lo "explain Ihe arcbaeoJogical facts" and Ihereby inlerpret Ihe pas\. 11 ls interesling in Ihís regard Ihat Thomas Kehoe reporled Ihal his ínformanis as well as historieal aceolmls ¡ndieale: "The limbs were cut up al Ibe joinls, nol Ihrough Ihe
89
bones ... there was culting through the scapulahumeros joinl /Kehoe 1967:69-711." As menfioned eartíer, there is running through the Plaíns literatura a very strong "normattve" bias. Such dtscrepenctes as tbe one Kehoe reportad, elhnohislorical information indicative of a prncedure eonlradictory lo the post hoc model. are frequently trealed as evidence for "cultural difterences" between the peoples responsible for the Iwo sourees of Informeuon. There hes been little altempt lo determine experimentally. ethnoarchaeologtcettv. or from historie records íf there are any siluational correlales of alternative bulehering slralegles (see L. R. Binford, 1978b:87-90¡. Little attenlion bas been given lo delermining if there are diagnostic properties that might permit Ihe archaeologists lo diseriminale differing slralegies, or if Ihe arehaeological faels far which posl hoe interprelalions bave been offered did in fael derive Croro butchering activilies! I will relurn for a moment to one of my inilial poinls, namely Ibal Ihe bones recovered from asile may hava undergone a number of differing event sequences during which modificalions could have been made prior lo Iheir having entered Ihe archaeologieal record. In the last chapte.r 1 argued fhat the bison bones excavaled by George Frison al the Glenrock Buffalo Jump had becn modified by scavenging animals, presumably after the site was abandoned by mano In that siluation sorne of the propertif'!s of the bone probably derived frOI1l Ihe bulchering activities of humans and sorne {rom tbe scavenging 8clivities of Ihe animals. lf we recognize that bones may be differenlially acfed upon by men in various contexts, and thal the same acts con· ducled in different conlexts may be carried out in different ways, the "interpretative" picture becomes even more unclear. EtRR98n:1. eh8iel' .,._h (l.. R. Binford 1978b; Yellen 1977a) thal provided new information on butchering practices general!y also included informalion on mOre Ihan just butchering. Indeed Ihe studies also included deseriplions of "animal pro· cessing" such thal the life histories of bones EUld their accumulation of properties were empirically i1. lustrated. This knowledge has not yet prompled research leading fo eefinemenl of methods for analyzing faunal remains relative lo butchering practices,
~ :~
¡
r,
)
ni '1.-'
r 90 Befare dtscussmg the potenüel of such reseerch as 1 see it, il ts necessary lo revtew studíes aímed al understanding properñes cf bones deríved from rnerrow cracking sud other p-ocessíng steps such as bone greese manufacture, bone ¡uice productíon. and ~~rend~i!1--8 oí bone ínto dir~tlx con..§umable formo I haya already mentioned the replicatíve expen-
4. Human Morles of Bone Modificalion
ege- As will be pointed out in the various parta of
thís chapter treattng different bone-modifying actions. these properues have generallv been viewed monoceusallv, We need methods for discriminating dtñerent bone-modifying situations one from enotber. many sucb situatrons may well be reflected morphologically in a single bone assemblage.
menta by Dart and Kitchíng (Dart 1959) as they relate
to the "proof" of argumenta in favor oC a distinctive . mode cf human bone breekage, the ceeck-end-twíst method. lt is hard lo believe that there eppeer to haya heen no ethnographic accounts of bone breakage by man available to reseerchers al that time. To rny jnowledge, Ihe first epeciñc study aimed al understanding marrow-bone breakage was the study mentioned earlier by Zíerhut (1967) and participeted in by Bonnich~en (1973). In terro' of published eccounts the work oí loho Yellen [1977a) among the Dobe !Kung provided anothar eccount of bone breakege, but no deteiled descriptive informetion regarding the morphology of the derivative fragments. Little analytical attention was given to discríminating fragments produced during different processing phases of !Kung bone use. My own re,earchers among the Nunamiut (t978b) presented sorne de'criptions of marrow-bone breakage but 1 did not appreciate al the time the naed to obtain conbollad samples for purposes of recognizing properties that derived from one phase of bone use snd breakage versus another. 1 was interested in assemblage composilion snd the differenlial use and survivorship of hone elements in differenl contexts where bones were used and manipulated. That is, 1 viewed my research tesk as Ihe identification of the functíon of a site from the overall configuration of liD assemblage. II WlJS nol until laler that I began lo worry about morphological properties of broken bone as clues ID specific behaviors. One experimenlal study (Sadek-Kooros 1972, 1975), one replicalive exercise (Bonnichsen 1979), and two patlern-recognition studies of erchaeologicel bone (Lyrnan 1978; Noe_Nygaard 1977) basically complete Ihe Iist of research available lo the studenl of patterned bone breakage. What emerges from this brief survey is thal with the exception oí research on "butchering practices" there has in Eacl beeo very Hule argument regarding the meaRing to be atteched to pallerns ofbone break-
The Control Data The new material s lo be presented in this chapler suffer from having not been collected with the specific questiolls addressed in this chapter in mind. With only minor exceptions lhe ethnoarchaeological observations were all made belween 1969 and 1972 while I was carrying out fieldwork among the Nunamiut Eskimo. As part of lhe Nunamiut study much lime was invesled in observing butchering and lhe dismem· berment of caribou and moose especially but mountain sheep and bear as well. In all, the hones remaining on the sites of over 400 butchering episodes were recorded. Detailed step-by-step observations of butchering procedures were made on 37 separateacts ofbutchering animals conducled by the Nunamiut Eskimo. I personally field butchered 13 animals under Eskimo supervision using differenl tools and strategies so I could leam the problems associated with different taclics. Much of this work has been presenled (L. R. Binford 1978b) and will only be discussed here in relation to animal behevior' or in the contexl of illustraling variable petterns of bone breakage associaled with different butchering lacHes. ~iIl make use of several well-documented Eskimo bone assemblages to ilIustrate relative frequendes of cut marks, and as comparative dala relative to animal-produced assemblages. AIl these assemblages have been previou!lly described and reported and Ihe reader will be referred to the appro· priate pages in my earlier book for the behavioral documentalion. Importanl lo my Eskimo research was a knowledge of the techniques and procedures used in breakiog marrow bones and processing bone for other
__ _ --I!f;-'
Dlsmembenng Slrulell.~' purposes. sucb as rendertng bone grease. At the time the observations were made from which data will be drewn. [ was not thinkíng of the marrow cracking in terms of comparisons wilh bones broken by animals nor was 1 rhtnktng in terms of animals otber than canbou. which was the terget specíes of my research among the Nunamiut. That ts. I was trying 10 generalize about cerfbou, not aboul the variety of animals relevant to interpreting the remaíns al Dld Crow Flals or Olduvet Corge or other interesting Pleretocene sites. My marrow-cracking investigations were designed to provide a baseline for evaluating whelher or no! arttculetor ends from caribou long bones had buen either destroyed or removed from sites. I was concl."rned with establishing an estímate for the expecled number of splinters and chips produced by bone-breaking Eskimos per long-bone articulator end. Thus a series of marrowcracking evenls were conducted during which en Eskimo woman and aman broke a series of long bones using lhe repertoire of techniques normally employed by the Nunamiut. The aim was to establish sorne estimate of the differences between splinter to arliculator end ratios for different bones of the caribou anatomy. AH splintcrs, chips, and articulator ends were saved and catalogued from two such controlled situalions. In four other available samples aH lhe breaks were produced during marrow processing. but I do not know the exact anatomical composítion of Ihe populalion ol bones broken. What is lackiog in alJ these samples is control over the actual breaking tactics and tlJe resulting bone splinters. 1 was asking population questions regarding the properties of aggregale assemblages in my fieldwork. Whal we would Iike to know is the characler of aoy diagnostic morphologicaJ properties referable to different methods of bone breakage. Unfortunately, we do nol know Ihese Ihings.
Dismembering Sfralegy Man using tools is capable of actually taking an animal apart lo suit his purposes. That is. he is not dependent on the nalural slrengths of the articulaliaos and the amounts of connective tissue lo sepa·
91 rete parts Ihat then may be differenliaJly used or consumed, as in Ihe case with predetor-scavengers. This is not to say that the amounts of muscIe and the character of connecttve tissue do not condition men's selectíon of perts or the tacttcs he used Icr dismemberment: they most certainly do. The point ts thet the particular anatomicel sets that man manipulates are conditioned by how he dismembers a carcase. which in tum is condtttoned by its intended use. Several workers have recorded the way dlfferent efhnic groups perttuon the anatomy oí animals, particularly ungulates. Diane Gifford (1977) recorded the bas¡c units nf the anatomy into which four separate African groups partitioned Ihe anatorny and 1 have recorded actual hutchering data for the Navajo and the Nunamiut Eskimo (L. R. Binford 1978b; L. R. Binford and J. B. Bertram 1977) lohn Vallen (1977a, 1977b) has observed butchering and hence the characler of segments generated by Bushmen. Figure 4.U1 compares the ways in which these groups partition the anatorny of animals during butchering Several poinls are of interesl; 1. AH groups ideally separate the head from Ihe
neck between lhe occipital condyle and the atlas vertebra. 2. AH groups except Ihe Navajo separate the nack from the remainder of the vertabrae 3. AH groups separate the front leg from the axial skelelon. Those that furlher parlition the front leg into upper and lower segments generaJly disarticulate between Ihe carpals and the distal radio-cubitus. 4. Al! groups separate tbe rear leg from the verlebrae: however, there is considerable variability in the degree to which half Ihe pelvis is left attached to the rear leg as opposed to the axial skeleton. In all lhe ethnographic cases recorded where either axes. adzes, Of large c1eaver-lype knives were used in bulchering, the pelvis anrlJor sacrum were bUlchered off with lhe rear leg. Where small knives were used, the pelvis andlor sacrum were butchered off with the lumbar vertebrae or as a separale lInit distind from the rear leg. 5. Al! groups generally treat the spinal column wilh ribs and brisket distinct from the other
~ ~I ~I ~
<w~1 <,
~ ..
.~
~
lfo ltl)~ f
1, I
I í
I1 .1
1¡
•
.JS:"" •
92
4. Human Modes of Bone Modifjcalion
"'!CAMBA
""'ASAI
I
CAPIlIN[ IOASSANnCH
KALlNJMO
I
aDVINE QA$SAN(TCHI
NAVAJO
NUNAMIUT
SI
Djsmembering Strategy
93
nenls such as house. meat rack. end dump; onIy site totals were utílteed. Tbtrty-one variables represento ing the anatomical parts ltsted in Table 4.01 were used in the anelysie. Values used were percentages of maximum MNI, or the ratio of the variable tabu-
Ieted in MNIs dívtded by the maximum MNls observad for 80Y variable in each assemblage. This procedure ensured that there would be no variance contnbuted to the malrix by differences in popuJalion size among the cases. A BMD factor enalvtíc program
TARLE 4.01
CERVICAL VEliT
Factor Loadin,s for AnoJy&fs o/ Nunamiut FounaJ Assembla,es
FIles Factcrs
SlERNU.. fHOl'IACIC VERlo
Anatomical part
1
2
3
-.13 -,12 -.39 D9 .2'
02 -.03 -.04 -.40 -.26
-.11
•
","[A LUMBAR VEIH
LOWEIl LUMBAR VERT. SAtF!UM
PELVIS FEIlIIUR
TIBIA TARSALS METATARSALS
"HAUNGES SCAPULA
HUMERUS RADIO_ CUBITUS CARPALS METACARP.llS PHAlANGES
FIGURE 4.01. Dismemberment pror:rJretl by vorious elhnlc groups durlng butcherillll.
majar poruons of the anatorny, but there is considerable variability in the way the thorex and spine section is butchered clown into smeller uníts. Most. bu! not all, butcher the rihs end sternum off as independent untts. Sorne of the vartabtlíty tlluetreted in Figure 4.01
is ltkely to be relatad to degrees of cognitiva speclficity-that ís. the leve! of díscrtmínetíon et which ínforments perceíved that the question was directed. In the case of observed butchering, there ís a kínd of normative "Ievellng." in that under sorne condítíone the Nunamiut and the Navajo díscrímínated down to elements even ñner than those indio catad for the Kalinjmo. Taking this problem into consideralion, there is a fair degree of corre·
spondence among the ethnic groups in the elements intc which the anatomy is partitioned. Although provocatíve. these data are either normativa or besed on informant information and as such are suspect as gutdes to actual variobility that might be generated under specific condmons. To obtain a cleerer pícture of the elements of the anatomy that might be expected to be treated as units and as such perhaps to have tndependent histories under conditions of human uttltaatíon, a factor enalysts W8S carríed out on 64 unedited assemblages of anatomical parts col1ected among the Nunamiut Eskimo. These were basically all the assembleges reportad in Binford {l978bj minus dog yards. When 1 sav the assernblages are unedtted. thls rneans that assemblages were nol broken down into subcompo·
1 AntIer 2 Skullimaxilla :> Mandtble o( Atlas/axis vertebree S Cervical vertebras 5 Thoracic vertebras 7 Lumbar vertebsee 8 Sacrum 9 Pelvis 10 Sternum 11 Ribs 12 Scapula 13 Proximal humerus 14 DIst81 humerus 15 Proximal radte-enbttus 15 Distal redlo-cubítus 17 Carpals 18 Proximal rnetacarpels 19 Distal metacarpals 20 Proxlmel fémur 21 Distal Iemur 22 Prolllrnal tibia 23 Distal tibi81 24 Tarsal! 25 Astragalus 26 Celceneos 27 Proximal metetersat 28 Distal metateraal 29 First phalanga 30 Seconrl phalange 31 Third phalange
.Q1
.09 -.02
-.19
.07
.22
-.16 .00 -,03
30
-BS
-.42 -.51 D5 09 02 05 21 .10
.94
.Q1
.07
-.05 .02 -.12 .05 .31 -.21 -.31
19 06 .15 -,28 -.08
.13
.11
.03 -.04 -.16 -.18
.08 33 .08 .14 .24 .8' .83 .78 .'9 .15 .39 .29 .50 .3' .08 .05 .08
.87 .85 .63 .28
.44
.11
.41
.18 .37 .05
-.14 -.22 .00 .01
.81
•••
.72 .39 .35
-.07 .12
.07 .0' -.21 .09 -.26 -.20 -.17 -.15 -.13 -,12 -.06
-.oa
.41
-.19 - .02 -.12 -.22 -.09
.73
.12
.03
-.07
-.01
-.10
.07 .0'
.08
.24 .22 17 21
-.02 .12
-.00 .10
.16 .17 -.10 .42 23 25
-.oa
11 .41 .89 .94
-.05 -.04 -.05 .01
.90
-.08 -.10 .38 -.40 -.36 .05 -.02 .02 .30 -.32 -.10 .30 -.05 -.01 -.09 -.30 .08 -.66 -.60
-., -.63
.91
BS
e
5
.14
-.11
.05 -.06 -.01 .53 .17
.13 -.04 .02 19 .21
.14
-,04 .09 -.07 -.01 -.01
-.14 -.12 .09 -.03
-.17
.23 .0' -.11 -.27 -.15 .01 .02 .23 -.03 .19 06 -.19 .21
--.03 -.14 .2' .52
.05 .04 -.12 -.08 -.12 -.36 -.41 -.56 -.75 -.51 -.63 -.06 -,09 -.11
1
I I
I
Cornmunality
825 Thorax and
splne
82.7
746
Upper
Upper
reer leg
front leg
66.7
and
'00'
652 Head and
podials
"OCk
88.9
end
8" Tersels and
upper
metatllrsal
Metacarpal neck
NOTE:
Factor dillMnostics shuwn in itali!.;.
Ir
~
.4' 4. Human Modes of Bone Modifiootion
94
lb
was employed using orthogonal rotatton option. The results as indicated by factor lcadíngs are summarizad in Table 4.0l. There is a seven-factor solution with a cleer eigenvalue "jump" between the seventh factor (eigenvalue 1.56) sud the next factor (eigenvalue 0.97). The cumulative percentage of variance BCcounted for by the seven Iectors is 75.2%. The commualities for each factor are given in Table 4.01. This solutlon appeers very clean and ís technically a robust pattem-recognttíon etetement. This solution is provocativa sud rnost informativa, given what is known ebout Nunamiut treatment of animals. OC even greater ínterest are the differencee between the anetomtcal segments Ihal beI~ I.J haya independently in the Nunamiut data and the ~/ natural diearticulation sequence (see Tsble 3.011
i/ ..,
Dismembeting Stmtegy
95
documented by Hill (1975). Of particular interest is Ihe fact that the thorex and vertebrae group behave logelher (factor 1) with the exceptton of the cervical vertebme. The letter are demonstreted lo intégrate wilh tbe skull and mandible (factor 5). This pattern of covanatlcn ls most unlikely among assemblages where "neturel" processes of disarticulation domtnete. Reference lo Table 3.01 illustrates that the cranium with alias vertebra is disarticulated from the remaínder of Ihe neck quite early (step 6) in the sequence of decreestng organizalion, and the neck separares Irom Ihe thorect¡c vertebras al ebout the same time Ihe ribs begin lo seperete tstep 16). This means Ihal under natural condínons elernents IhRI disarficulate al aboul tbe seme time are mosl apl lo end up essocíeted end such a paltern ís in strong contrest with that noled in the Nunamiut dala. Other
FIGURE 4.03. Johnny Rulland holding strlpped unít: IOnJals and 1001,
fiGURE 4.02. Johnny Rulland .dripp;ng lendon bundle Imm me,apodial.
interesting petterns of organized or parallel "determinance" are the grouping of phalanges with Ihe carpals end tarsals (factor 4). This pettern derives from charactertstícs of Nunamiut processíng of bones for marrnw (see L. R. Binford 1978b:148j. The foot ís removed by servering the altachmenls on the dorsal fece of the metapodial between the articuletlon of its distal end with the phalanges. The Ioot ís then held in one hand end tha distal end of Ihe melapodial te g¡:lfSpé'd)in the other. The sheath of tendons nmntng in ff{e ventral channel of the cannon bone is strtpped up to Ihe proxp~~L-ena uf Ihe hone. Cuts are then made between Ih~e;lfiJ~nd Ihe bone. resulting in Ihe removal of the c~ or tar· sals aHached lo Ihe ten don sheath, which in luro is atlflched lo Ihe phalanges. The enfire unil is Ihen disposed of. (See Figures 4.02 and 4.lJ3.) Finally, the
independent dístrtbutíons of the metatersels and the metacarpals 8S well as Iheir independence from Ihe upper leg segments of both the rear and forelimbs clearly reflectthe independenl processing of marrow as opposed lo meet. and the differential quality of front versus rear quarter "marrow" durtng periods of poor nulrilion among the cenbou. 1 do nol offer the Nunamiut data as an example of human palterning only lo tllustrete Ihat human use of anatomical elemente is apt lo heve certain redundant pettems. to evidence sorne spectalízed usege. as in the differences between marrow- and meal· yielding parts. and to be segmentally grouped in lerms ofuse consideralion. The conlrasl must he kept in mind wilh processes of"natural" dismemberment as documenled by Hill {1976:151). In the contrasts rest diagnostk criteria.
4t.~
..
C4iIl1 4. Human Modes of Bone Modificafion
98
XLVII,
xivru. LJ.
Cut Saw, and Chop Marks from Nunamiul Eskimo Sites L h-.-.......d the .fMmM-'m*rials
TABLE 4.02
Djlllribulion o/ CUI Marks Oll Bones in Five Nunomlul Assembloges"-" Kakinye cartbou --_._--Anatomical part
MNE
MKU
%'
(1(
('1
(31
Kakinya sheep
Rulland caríbou
AntIer" FIGURE 4.04. Cut morlcs observed on block beor ot 'he Eschelman .lite. (Repi'Oduced with permJuion from GujJ· doy et al., 1962.)
Skull Mandible
(4)
(5)
%. (6)
(71
(8)
%' (9)
O
,00
3
2
O 1
.00 .5U
6 14
1
1.00
O
O
.(JO
7
O 1
.00
O
O
.00
3
.20
O
o
.00
6
O
.00
.oo
1 O
1
.50
2 O 1
.50 00 00
33
O
00 .00 .00
1 3 4
o
00 ..13
31 18
3
.75
26
.50
8
2
.25
22
00 00 00 .00
5
1
8 O 1
O O O
20 .00 .00
13 15 7 7
64 40 .43
o
00
O
O
O 6 ::1
00 ,46
1 1
.23
2
O O 1
2
.18
1
08
2 10
Lumbar vertebras
5
Pelvis Ríbs Stemum
7
Scapula
4 8 13 13 11 12
5 4
o
1
1
00 .25
(J
1
O
18
1
.00
2
Distal humeros
Carpals Proximal metacarpal
muscle slripping, primarily wilh bone choppers, was a basic dismemberment slrategy. I have made pr;mary observations on two seis of faunal data for {he purpose of isolaring and tabulat· ing cut marks or butchering traces on bone. The earIiesl observations were made in 1968 on !he fauna from the Mouslerian levels at the rockshelter of Combe Grenal excavatecl by F. Bordes and located in Ihe Dordogne Valley of soulh central France. The faunRI material flOm this site represenls the behavior of Neanderlhal man between roughly 90,OUO and -10,000 years ago. The second set of observations was
o O 2
14
Distal metecarpal Proximal femur Distal femur
Proximal libia Distallihia Tarsals Astragalus Calcaneus Proximal metatarsal
Dis1al ml'!talarsal First phalange Second phalange Third phalanRe
O O
O
1
00 .06 .3J .4.1
20
6
3(1
2
O O
14
7
SU
3
1
12 21
1 2
.06 .10
5 15
O
.00 00 33 .00
1
.07
El
1 5 ::1 O O
10 10 9
4
6
O
.[JO
3
O
O
,40 00
4
.00
4
.11
4
R
.13
3
3 2
1
42 35
1 O O
.00 .00
O O
.Ofi
1
O O
O
8 8 6
.00
31
.00 .00 .00
6 6 3
.50 .00
O O O O
.00
00
O O
O
uu
(12)
(13)
[14/ (151
,------------
.00
3
14
(10)
1,00 :13
Axis Cervical vertebras Thoracic vertebran
.14
MNF. MKD %' MNE MKD %.
o
2 O 2 9 2 ::1
Bear sile sheep ,-------
MNE MKD
3
O 3 6 1 1 5 O O 2
2
.00 1 (JO .33 .67 .00
3
Proximal redrocubitus Distal radío-cobttus
FIGURE 4.05, Cut marlu observed on whiteloil deer al ,he EscheJmon sife. fReproduced with perndssion /mm Guildoy el al.. 1962,/
O 4.5
Atlas
Proximal humeros
1962:631."
1
4.5 6
Bear site cartbcu
-----_._-
MNE MKO
------.---
In North America, the Iírst systematic study of butcheríng marks thet 1heve been able lo loeate was done by Guilday et 01. (1962) on Iaunal remains from an Early Historie stte from Pennsyívente (the Eschelman site]. This study provídes sorne guidelines Ior Investigating butchering marks: "To qualify as a butchertng merk two cnterta were applied: fl} repetition in spectmen after specímen al precisely the same locatton on the bone: (2) thal there was sorne analomically dictaled reason why a particular rnark should occur at any given spot IGuilday et al. Severet Quite useful conventtons o( presentation and descrtptton were íntroduced in Guilday el al. (1962). For tnstance. the use of skeletal silhoueltes as a graphic wey of presenting data 00 bulchering marks is notable. These aulhars were feirly syslema. tic in presentiog quentitative dala from theír observatioos on lhe American black. bear. Fairly complete quantitalive data were given (ar whitetailed deer and pnn:tically none were glven (or elk. Figures 4.04 and 4.05 are reproduced rrom Ihis seminal sludy and íl· lustrate the anatomical "hot spols" where butcher· ing marks were systematically observed. Considerable allention has been given lo traces oí butchering by Georga Frisan (see Frison 1970). Most of Frison's work has been with Ihe remains ofbison al kili sites and hence should reflecl Ihe aclivities oí primary butcheting and processíng for Iransport. Fri!;on pioncered Ihe study of bone brellkage as ti clue to butchering hehavior and has argued that
97
made in Alburquerque on ñve assembleges of bone collected in Alaska from behaviorally documentad Nunamiul Esklmo sites. I will describe the lalter observatíons Iirst , since I consider them lo he the most behaviorally documented of the descrtpttve material eveüable.
Butchering Marks When man butchers 3D animal, he leaves traces of bte cutttng and chopping aetivities. Few recera studies hsve heen made of Ihese traces, although such marks were B subíect oí early Dld World studtes. In a study seemtnglv "befare i1s lime," Henri MBrtin (1907-1910) considerad in detail traces oí skinnlng. evteceeatton, díserttculatíon. end ñllettng. as well as the fracture and burníng oí bones. He íllustratad nicely the traces made by stone 1001s 00 the fauna from the famous Mouetenan site of La Quina. These photographe remain sorne oí the best pub. lished exarnples cf cut marks made by stone tools. {Sea, Ior Instanca, Martin 1907-1910: Figures XLIV,
Hutchertng Mnrks
00 .00 .00
.00
.00 .00
14 12
21 744 21 24 2fi 22 31 25 43 11 10 10
1 33 6 1_00 5 3 O 1 24
.36 .43 .00 .17 .73
4 11 6 2 9 2 ::1
o 4.5
.00 1.00
J
.33
4
.80
8 5 3 5 13 O 6
O
.00
O
.[JO
.00 .22 .42 .27
.10
fi.43 5 .42
o
2 4.5
.12
.to
3 10
.13 .12 ,45
9 1
6
46
O
.00
3
.50
3 6 7 5
3 1 2 1
1.00 .17 .29 .20
7 28 10 12
1 2
.14 05
1
.tn
O
.00 .00
U J
O 1
.33
.19 04
2 4
.50 .25
2
fi5
13
2
.18
7
1 1 O O
20
O 1 5
.00 10 .25
7 8 8
toO 95
O O
.00
36
77
O
.00 .00
33 32
.00
.00 .00 1 13 000 O .00 O .00 O .00 O
'MN'[ ~ m;nlmal nllmher of elaman!1 in each anlltomj~al calagory: MKO = numb!l1' mllTkedby cut marh 'Valullll far pelvis, lK:apuJe.an<1 varlebraa mal' well be deOalad. aince there weS much dog gnllwing on thMe parla. whieh deslroytl<1 anatomi· ca! p'opertias and eould have obscure<1b"tcherillll ml.ks. cValuas were ilalidud if over 20% uf Ih.. elemento examinad ahowad butchllrlnll marks 'Elements w..r.. ollty Hate<1 when base of Intl ... was stillaU..r.hllrllo skulf
,;
cuw-~<w.,
4. Human Mode-s af Horre Modificalion
98 ell the essembleges 1 heve evaüeble for sludy bul they are all Ihal haya been studíed in detall under good lighls and laboratory conditions. Table 4.02 summanzes Ihe obeervettons on butchenng traces from the five populations observad. Thía surnmary treats-only the frequency-ef such marks, regardless of-form.oo difierenl elemente of.the enetomv. The infcrmatiun provídes a clue lo where lo lo'ok for butchering merks, and aleo tndícatee the ateas of tbe anatorny that were mcst cornmonly alterad or preserve traces of butchering activity. Italicized percenteges highlight such anatomlcal ereas (values were italicized if over 20% of Ihe elements examined showed butchering marks]. Two factors are of ínterest here. First, there are some'~(Úscrepancies between ihe butchering mark distribution end the descriptions of butchering that 1 reponed in sorne detall. (L. R. Binford 1978b:48-6IJ. In none of the field-butchering demonstrattons did 1 observe arry cutting or dísmemberment of the skull, yet in these essembleges oH the skulls show sorne evidence of havíng been butchered tnto subunits. Since the essembleges are all from residentiol sttes. thís further processing of the skull must have taken place during preperation for consumptíon. Thís same condttíon is true for the pelvis. In the fieldbutchering eplsodes 1observed. the pelvis was never reduced to subelements, bul in all five assemblages 40-50% of pelves showed evidence ofbeing reduced to subelements. The actual percentage is probably larger, since most pelvic pans ended up in dog yards on these sites and hence suffered cons.iderable gnawing damage. which may well obscure butchering marks. The secoRd item of interest is tha presence of longitudinal cut marks in the super- snd infraspinous fosaae of aIl sheep scapulae from the 8ear site (Table 4.02 and Figure 4.06). It seemed c1ear to me that these marks derived Crorofilleting the meat from the scapJlla, an activity nonnally associated with drying meal. (Sea the fillets hanging on the drying rack in L. R. Binford [1978b:101, Figure 3.9j.) 1 then examined sorne of the scapulae from spring sites, such as Tulugak Late Site 2A (Binford 1978b:2D5-213l, where I knew drying was taking place, and found that 83% of the scapulae remaining with blades exhibited such marks, lending strong support to the relationship suggested between this Iype of cul mark and the dryinR of meaL
Butchering Marks
99
the síte contenta, since during 13 years of excavaticn Bordes fol1owed traditional prccedures relativa to the colleclion of fauna! materials, instructing his crew lo save only teeth. articulator ends. and ~ges in the beliefthat rtbs.Iong-bone spl intera. vertebrae. srnal l fragmente of skult. scapula blades. and pelvíc parta other than the acelabulurn were not suítable for spectes identification. In sorne cases, 1
heve listad vertebras or ribs but the absolute MNE should not be treeted seriously only the percentega modtñcattons. Summary data on butcberlng marks are gtven in Tabla 4.03. For additional comparativa data see Parmalee (1965:25). There is clearly a~l{lr pattern to the dim.ibu. !L0n and frequencyof cut marks on bones at the.&.i.llL Zf Combe Gr_enal. For Ihe Ihree specles examined
TABLE 4.03
'1 ",'
..
\
~\
~ ,-.: ~
'L 1
:'
~.l
\l
/'
/
C",;'o;"
~lt 1;
I
.::::-:. ,~
~i:§
.
Analomical par!
_.
Maxilla MlIndible
\
_.,
',7 ,.' -
EQuus cobolhr~ (horse)
Iaurochs]
__
-
;)' ':
Bo~ primigenius
/
~I~'
f.:f' ."Jl1.1 I~"
Dislribution 01 Butcherins Murks on Bones Imm 'he Mousterion Site DICombe Grenul"
./,' -; 1.·
Righl FIGURE 4.06, Morks typically proolu:ed durinS the re-
moval 01 lDeot lralD the scopula,
This observation moves uso in the direction of discussing the actual (orm and placement of cut marks. a subject 1 wish lo delay further discussion of unti! . data have b een presenled . addilional comparatlve
Marks on Stone Tool Bufchered Animals from Combe Grenal The Nunamiut qs,emblages rfWl~t. animals dismembered withmetaLlooJs.. It is quite reasonable to s~specl Ihat butchering strategies woulcl be responsive to the charac!eristics of the lools available d PI . ,. 'ded for use. A goo elslocene companson IS provl by the fauna from Combe Grena!. The MNEs reported should not be taken as an unbiased representalion of
(1]
MNE
----
Scapula Proximal humeru s Distal humerus Proximal radio·cubitus Distal radio-cubitus Carp..ls Pro~imal melacarpal Di51al metacarpal Pro~imal femur Distal femur P~Oxim~l.'ibia
Dlslal lIbIa Tarsals A slragalus r..¡¡!cfmeus Proximal metatarsal Di~lal m61atarsal Firsl phalange Second phalange Third phalange Total
(relndeer¡
(2)
{3}
(4)
(5)
(6)
MKD
%"
MNE
MKD
%"
3
100
2 7
5
O 86
-
3
AlI.. Axi5 lnncminate Rib~
Rongiferlatundus
2 1 4 lO 10 3
1 2
10 20
(7)
(6)
{9)
.
MNE MKD %" - - - - - - _ . ..-._---
__
4 Z7
_1 Z3
2Z
2 4
+
50
10 4 6 4 7 11 2
7 61
3 6
43 10
44
4
9
1 25 39 25
3 3 1
12
2
33
1
14
3
27
85
8 4
3
Z
76
O
O
1
4
30
O
O
O
6
Z 3 2
17
3
43
3
7
18
27
1
6
11
14 9 59 3
9
1 2
2 4
4 2
7 7 5
9
1
6
43 34
3
2 2
6
1
13
17
12
J 12
6 4
1 68
6
9
147
40 48 46 93 90 23 931
63
"MNE = míoimal, numbar of alem..nts in Nch anatornical calagory notconverted la MNls: MKD = numbar marked by cul marks. "'alues wera ,Iahc'l'erl if o"er zn".. or tha",lem..nts!!xaminad shnwP.
,é:.'
100
•
"t.J<"'~
~ ~t'
" ".~'7 <. ' ...
J
".,
,T_.".-
101
Humcn Modes oj • • " . . .
I
.~,'
FIGURE 4.07. Morb by srone íools 00 tire tace of reinde"" mondlbJe. fFrum the Mousterlan site uf Abrí Van/re:;'. excavoled by}. P. HigQud.}
(80S primigenius, Equus cobnllus, end Rongifer rorundus). the par! most cornmonly yielding cul marks is the mandibie. Marks O" ¡he IDllndible tend to be slígbtly obltque incised merks on the inside of the ruendible generally opposíte the M2 tootb [see Figure 4.07). The marks are believed to originale from the undersíde of the mandíble and lo be related lo the severtng of the mylohyoid muscle during the removal of Ihe tengue. Figure 4,08 iIIustrates a Nunamiut butcher going in underneath the mandíble and removing the tengue of a male certbou prior to the removal of the mandible from the skull. The next most common cut mark is around the lip of the ecetabulum (Figure 4.22). Marks enctrclmg the acetabulum are presumahly made éunng the cutting of the iliofemoral and tscbtofemoral ligaments, which tend lo encase the coxal articulation. A minar type of cut mark. observed is al rtght angles to the lip of (he acetabulum and is believed to bave resulted from the ínserttcn of the cutting instrument into the acetabuJum to cut the ligamenl of the fomoral head afler the coxal articulation ts díslocated. Anotner type of cut mark was conststentlv observed on the distal humeros and on Ihe proximal radio-cubilus
.. ,
~~
"1
1••• 010
/
I I
I I
¡
.. , ....
I /
/
! i
I
••"'{ I
/
I
/
/
/ /
I
/
I
/
I I
I
1 1
10
·.n1l
/
I
~
I 1
. - _ ..... ,
,/
.!.c/T .~ /·.....c
.1lH\
\
. .. . .. .. .. .. " . . u
D CIIl.DT
I
01OC1 .....,
• D' IOH
.T
D'
a[A~
...
SITE -CA~IBOU
TABLE402.COL'~
FIGURE 4.09 Re'aUolIship betweell frequendes 01 cUI marks 011 brmes Imm Ihe MOllsteriarf sitf! uf Combe Gre· nol ond lho'
Masko.
FIGURE 4.10. Murks of stone tO(lls 011 base 01 reindeP-r Qlltler. (Fmm Ihe MOllsterian site of Combe Grellal, excovoled by F. Bordt'Ii.}
{Figure 4.31). This was a trensverse cut mark acrees the lower part of the coronoid foesa and the olecranon fossa on the distal humeros. Cul marks were common on the otecranon. generally nmning across the procese. I will not describe all the cut marks observad al Combe Grenal here, stnce the point of presenting the material is simply to demonstrete that there ls enetomtcal c1ustering of merks. Figure 4.09 compares the retndeer from Combe Grenal wilh the caribou from the Bear stte as to the relations between Irequency and plecement of butchering marks. Blemente from Combe Grenal that exhibil high frequencies of marks relative lo the Bear stte material are the mandible, entler bases (Figure 4.10), and thescapula.l have already mentioned the Mousteríen mandibular cuts. As for the cuts around the base of the antlers. it should be poínted out that all the antlers observad in the Mousteriao material were splke antlers ofvery young individuals. Circular cut marks were seen around Ihe base of the antlers in over half of Ihe cases (See Figure 4.11). I have previously noled that such cuts were mosl common on Nunamiut siles occupied by spedal task groups enRaged in fall hunling of young animals for use as wlnler c1olhing. It should also be pointed out Ihat the Nunamiul ski n the head with such eare only
\i 1
U
lPr""
4. Human Modns of Hone Modificolion
102
Butcher-ing Morks
when the skin is destinad for the manufacture of where the .head of the cartbou is used for the lho~d)if the parka In a similar vetn tha very earIy study of cut rnarks by Henri Marlin (1907-1910:229) reports considera. ble numbers of marks described as "ineisions eir_ cu/arie des members." a cut mark encircllng abone that was interpretad as having arisen in Ihe context of skinning animals. This same tvpe of mark has been consistently recogoized by modern workers. The tnterestlng difference ís that from the Mousterian materials reported by Martin most cuts uccurred on phalanges, whereas recent studies of bíson (Frleon 1971; wheat 1979) remeíns and other forms show this to be common 00 metepodíal bones end relalively rare on phalanges. In rny expertence with the Nunamiul, starung lo
Morks ftom skinnln;. 5-4
yark~
lO' skin an animal by making an encircling cut around the metapodiaJ or sornettmes the lower tibia and/or radio-cubitus WIlS almosl always associeted wilh bulchering aclivities al a múltiple kill , where the primary concern was with meat , not skins. On the other hand, when late surnmer-early {all hunts were conducted specifically wilh an eye lo obtaíntng yearling calves or calves oí the year for theír skins, il was 001 uncommon for Ihe butcher to take pains in skinning out the Ioot. ínittattng the ínside leg cul from the hoof. This would heve the effecl oí rendering cut rnarks 00 the phelanges rether than the shafts of lower leg bones. The butchers explained that the lower leg skin served as essential componente in the manufacture of mukluks (skin bootsj and skin socks. The mainlenance of the natural conformation of the skin al the animal's foot was essenñel lo providing
(a)
Mork, from culling off the heod, 5-1
/
/
ji 1:
:
( b) nGURE •. 11. Cul marks observed
011
skulls: (o) PQslerior,ond (bJ ventral
r~. view.~.
FIGURE 4.12. BUlcherins sr:hoof. ímn Willer beins inslructed on how lu dísoríícuiete
I lh~
fool from the melapodial.
I
,
104
.
4. Humen Mcrtes of Bane Modificotion
CutMarks: Their Form nnd Placement on Specific Bones
105
• , ¡:
posterior tace into the lotnt between the articulator surtaces of the two bones end severíng most of the Iígaments connecting the two bones (oblrque end ercuate pcpltteel. anterior and posterior cructate. anterror and posterior meníscofemorel llgaments). This strategy leeves a pair of telltale Iraces: a sel uf semicircular cut merks around the lateral tntercondylar tubercles of the proximal tibia {cut Tp-t . Figure 4.Z6) and cut marks on the medial surface of the lateral condyle of the distal femur. The Iatter marks sometimes exlend partway inlo the íntercondylar fossa {cut Fd-3, Figure 4.25). In a similar way. the dísertículetíon of the íoot from the distal metepcdtel is eccompliehed by the Nunamiut by lnseeting the polnt of a melal ~to the nexed joint. as shown in Figure 4.1TNicis$ on the posterior condylar spines result. Thiftechnique of inserting a knife point into the [olnt is probably inappropriate for stone tools sínce stresses are set up on the flat sides of the blede. Such stressas would render a snep break likely with storte tools but not with metal It is my impression thet with stone tonls Ihe most common stra!egy couples more superficial cuts wtth fhe application of leverage lo dislocate a [oint. as ls tllustreted in Figure 4.13. By ustng a dtslocancn techntque. less scerrtng of the articulalor ends of bones is Iikely. The Hgaments are stretched end exposed. so they may be cut directly. Perhaps this contrast accounts for sorne of Ihe othar inflaled cut mark frequencies on articulalor surfaces of long bones in the Nunamiut malerials. Thus Car, I have been speaking primarily of the distribution of butchering marks on Ihe skeleton: however. Ihe foregoing discussion leads naturally into a discussion of the formal properties of the cul marksand their specific placemenl on bones. Befare taking up this issue.1 should emphasize Ihat a popu1alion of moderale-sized animals butchered by man using stone tools can be expected to yield evidence ofsuch butchering in the form of cut marks, regardless of Ihe Iypes of culting lools used.
the ímplement used lo accomplish the tesk. In both the form end placement ofmarks I hope to document vertabtlíty thet may be reliably referred to known forms of butchenng ectfvtty as wel1 as to known forms of tools. Of course what is desired is the specificalion of díagnosuc characterístícs of cut marks that may serve as the bests for robusl tnferences ebout the charac!er of past acttvtttes and types oC lools.
.....
..'
•
\
-
FIGURE 4.13. Butcherlnll 5chool. Don WJnel' bejn8 Instrucled jn the use olleverag!! as o butchering oid.
the propar shapes fOf use in farmiog lbe instep area of the sock Of boot. Pechaps there is one 8uch similar concern standing behind the time-consuming ac· tions of skinning out tha fool indicated by (he Mousterian cemaios. Other ~ characteristically noted on the Nunamiut bones relatad lo Ihe carnoval of Ihe head &oro Ihe neck. TypicaJly lhere were marks across the ventral sunace of the occipital condyle (see Figure -4.11) a
