View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

HAYNES—RECONSTRUCTING HUMAN PREDATIONcarnivores soon after death. A careful examinationof the toothmarks on the bones, the skeletalsectioning, and the range of bone damage mayindicate the timing of the scavenging and the taxaresponsible for it. Examples of useful guides are thepublished reports such as Carson et al. (2000), whichdescribes the effects of bear scavenging on humanskeletons; or Haglund (1991), who described coyotegnaw-damage and feeding sequences as well as otherprocesses affecting modern human bodies.Brain (1981) hypothesized that at least oneAustralopithecus individual represented in the Plio-Pleistocene cave deposits of South Africa was thevictim of leopard predation, based on toothmarkingand breakage of bones. Gargett (1989, 1999) arguedthat many Middle Paleolithic hominid skeletonsin caves were not purposeful burials as ofteninterpreted, but were merely fortuitously wellpreserveddeaths. Some may have been the remainsof humans that were scavenged or even preyed onby carnivores such as cave lions or hyenas. Theseand other archeological examples perhaps faintlysuggest that predation on humans may have beenan ever-present danger in prehistory.CONCLUSIONThere is so much to talk about when referringto human predation that it is an almost overwhelmingtopic to summarize. I have narrowed the themes tojust a few—such as how archeologists distinguishactive procurement (killing) from passiveprocurement (scavenging) of terrestrial mammals,or how the location of cutmarks on animal bonesreveals whether humans were skinning, meatstripping,or sectioning animal carcasses. Manymore themes could have been explored, such asanalytical approaches to interpreting the gearingupactivities and toolkit maintenance of humanpredators, or the archeological methods used tounderstand seasonal shifts in predation patterns.Not discussed here are other predation practicessuch as fishing and whaling, which were importantin human prehistory, too. Shell middens and fishbones in Pleistocene sites indicate that even premodernpredatory humans had an impact on marineecosystems as well as terrestrial ones.As is the case with other topics in archeologicalresearch, the future research agenda includes acontinuing urge to expand and improve the methodscurrently in use in order to eliminate the possibilityof interpretive error caused by equifinality orambiguity. Unfortunately, neotaphonomic andexperimental field studies are now being carried outless often than in the 1970s and 1980s whentaphonomic research burgeoned in archeology. Thereduction is mainly due to funding shortages, butthere is also a sort of complacency that has settledover many archeologists who think that all thenecessary work has been done, and that recipe booksare now available to allow unerring interpretationsof all possible animal bone modifications.Meanwhile, although the methods areimperfect, they do allow archeologists to makewarranted and supportable interpretations of humanpredation even in the most distant past, and theyhelp us to better understand human economies andsubsistence strategies.REFERENCESARENS, W. 1979. The Man-Eating Myth. Oxford University Press, Oxford (U.K.).BEHRENSMEYER, A. K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology, 4:150–162.BEHRENSMEYER, A. K. 1987. Taphonomy and hunting, p. 423–450. In M. H. Nitecki and D. V. Nitecki (eds.), TheEvolution of Human Hunting. Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York.BETTINGER, R. L. 1991. Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. Plenum Press, New York.BINFORD, L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York, 509 p.BINFORD, L. R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological siteformation. American Antiquity, 45:4–20.BINFORD, L. R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York, 320 p.63