View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

HAYNES—RECONSTRUCTING HUMAN PREDATIONand Later Stone Ages). However, nonselective andselective age profiles may both result underdifferent conditions, depending upon how theanimals die, so other kinds of evidence beyondmere age-profiling must be available to supportan interpretation of scavenging or hunting.Plio-Pleistocene animal bone sites aresometimes interpreted as the result of humanpredation, but absolute proof is often lacking. Siteswith multiple individuals of large mammalian taxabut without clearly associated artifacts may havemortality profiles interpreted to mean that humanskilled the animals. An example is the Nanjing Manmiddle Pleistocene site in China, which yieldedfragmented bones and teeth of several extinct rhino(Dicerorhinus mercki) individuals. No cutmarks orstone tools were associated with the bones (Tong,2001). Tong reasoned that even though the rhinoswere mostly subadults they were so large that noother predator except hominids could haveaccounted for the deaths. Tong also argued that therhinos must have been actively hunted because thebones were not located in any kind of natural trapyet were fragmented and incomplete; thus theymust have been transported from killsites by theagent that had killed them. Unfortunately, theNanjing assemblage was not analyzed in terms ofsuch simple measures of bone survivability as bonedensity—which could explain why certainelements of the entire skeleton were notpreserved—nor in terms of transport utility (fordiscussions of the complex interplay between bonetransport data and differential destruction due tobone density, see Grayson, 1989; Lyman, 1985,1994). Without a fair appraisal of all the potentialattritional processes affecting the skeletons, andall the preserved elements’ utility, the interpretationcannot be confidently accepted that humans aloneaccount for this entire assemblage. An alternativehypothesis is that the bones represent a residualnon-cultural accumulation such as a palimpsestcarnivore densite containing scavenged remainsfrom carnivore kills.5. Economic-return models provide evidenceabout the costs and benefits of predation.A set of analytical measures is available toprovide indirect evidence about the costs andbenefits of predation. These measures are data- andtheory-based—that is, they have been derived fromboth empirical observations and deductions abouthuman needs and abilities. Zooarcheologicalstudies (for discussion of the basic methods, seeHesse and Wapnish, 1985; Klein and Cruz-Uribe,1984; see also Grayson, 1984, and Lyman, 1994for additional discussion) begin with best estimatesof the minimum number and relative frequenciesof bone elements (whole bones with individualnames such as humerus, rib, femur) from animalsof each taxon represented in a cultural assemblage,usually calculated as both NISP (number ofidentified specimens) and MNE (minimum numberof elements). These are counts of bones andfragments that do not have overlapping orduplicated morphological features, and ideally takeinto consideration variations due to age and sex.All whole and partial specimens from each taxonare identified to the level of element name, side ofthe body, and segment of element (proximal, distal,diaphyseal). Using these numbers, an estimate thencan be made of the minimum numbers ofindividuals (MNI of each taxon) represented byall the specimens. An alternative measurementcalled minimum animal unit (MAU) is calculatedby counting the different elements in assemblages(such as, for example, femora, both rights andlefts), then dividing by the number of such elementsin a skeleton (two, in the case of femora—thus 24left femora would be considered to represent only12 animals or animal “units,” thereby providing ameasure of actual yield rather than number ofindividuals killed). Lyman (1994, p. 104–110)discussed the potential differences in terms ofinterpretative implications.Like the utility indices, these measures can beused to determine if human foragers transportedbody parts away from killsites or into homesites,or if the bones of whole animal skeletons weredifferentially “subtracted” through weathering,carnivore ravaging, fluvial action, etc. (seeGrayson, 1984, 1989). These measures have alsobeen used by archeologists to estimate meat yieldsand degrees of carcass utilization by humans, both59