View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V. 8, 2002from transported and residual assemblages, butoften without an awareness of the possibleproblems discussed by Grayson (1984, 1989) orLyman (1994 and references therein). Nevertheless,modeling predation outcomes based on thefundamental zooarcheological quantifications(such as MNI or MAU) often inspires testable ideasabout human hunting strategies, especially whensupported by animal behavior models, foragingtheory, or other kinds of evidence.Economic models that refer to these measuresand to possible yields of meat and carcass byproducts(skins, horns, antlers, bones) usually citetheoretical concepts or possibilities whenreconstructing predation practices. For example,Todd (1991) analyzed Paleoindian boneassemblages from mass kills in the American West(see also Davis and Wilson, 1978; Frison, 1978,1998). Based on bison tooth eruption he determinedthat the killing was done in the late fall or earlywinter. Through analysis of cutmarks and body-partfrequencies, he also found that the carcass butcheringwas a “bulk-processing” pattern that optimized thestorage potential of the lean meat rather than therecovery of bone fats. A human diet consistingexclusively of lean meat is not feasible (Speth, 1990;Speth and Speilmann, 1983), so Todd proposed thatextremely mobile bison hunters were able to survivea meat-heavy diet low in carbohydrates and fatsby consuming the carbohydrates out of butcheredrumens. Thus, the hunters did not need to spendtime processing low-yield plant foods for neededcarbohydrates or high-cost bones for the marrow/fat, and were seasonally specialized predators. Thispattern was not in place in later prehistory, whenmuch more effort went into bone processing andthe storage of fats and carbohydrates.The cost-benefit analysis of classic foragingtheory (Stephens and Krebs, 1986; for summariesand archeological uses, see Kelly, 1995; Bettinger1991) may suggest how human foragers rankeddifferent prey species, and how they may havepursued and processed a range of prey taxa. Butdiet breadth models require quantified data suchas search and handling times and energy yieldsfrom foods, which cannot be measured directlyfrom archeological assemblages. Nonetheless,archeologists are willing to make even roughestimates of these variables based on meat-yieldassessments if they aid in understanding pasthuman predation. The estimates may be based onlayered assumptions about prehistoric animaldistributions, dangers of the hunt, and otherunproven variables, but they are intended to betested against archeological data and often arefertile sources of new ideas.6. Replicative and analogical studies mayprovide evidence about the feasibility (andplausibility) of predation.Another line of evidence that may be helpfulin understanding human predation comes from“replicative” studies where ancient behavior iscopied. Such activities are termed experimentalarcheology. One example would be the manufactureand use of replica prehistoric tools to process animalcarcasses in order to record the suitability of ancienttechnology (see Huckell, 1979, for an example),and to document the places on bones where theFIGURE 7—Opportunistic replicative butchering ofLoxodonta africana (African elephant) carcasses inZimbabwe using steel and stone cutting implements.All animals were killed by government-sanctionedwildlife rangers for management purposes. After thebutchering was complete, bones were carefullyexamined for cutmarks resulting from meatstripping,skin removal, and body sectioning.60