Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths

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'" TH~ LNI n.I" r ...n·,

'7 "'

,q

", .....,•.RI 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
, 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
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{'. 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

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.

~, .....

•

;

, , '

-~~

,

11>,'

.-- ,,-', ':..

.

.

lo ,1:

.\.'.::-...... , , .f-";•

r·

\

f'

"

-~~

.... '.~.

..

:r:~; '.,' .;, :/"i _ -~ \ .." "'~"JJ~

_.

.",.-.~.

\'- •.

~~.......

.. l-..¡

';,".

\~,~.,

. ...A"'.

'"'-" , o. '"~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 analogiary 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 !oollimal rifiJht, lateral view

ProllimolrifiJhI, onterior view

Prollimol,ioM, mediol vitw

(a'

lb>

le'

Td-l

PrOllimol rifiJht, ventral vie. lO}

Tp-I

.Td-3

Diltollln,

Distal

1,,,,

mldio) vi,.

omlflot vi,.

(o)

10

OIIIOII,n. IotlfOl vi. .

lO)

proximal tibia runa transversely across the posterior margin of both the lateral end medial condyles [Tp2). Thts merk is observed relaüvely rarely and it may be coneídered as an alternativa to the cut thal runs across the condyles or just aboye them 00 Ihe posterior face of the dislal femur {Fd-f , Figure 4.25d}. The distal tibia appears te yield a very redundant pattern of tnfltcted marks regardlees of time period or geographical location. The marks I will describe bave been reported from every faunal assemblage I have consulted, from the Mousterten to the Historie perlad and from Europe as wel1 as the New World. By far, Iha most common mark ís illustraled in Figure 4.26 (e and f, cut Td-3). This mark Is tnñtcted by cutting ecross the anterior face of the distal tibia when the leg Is outstretched or stratght. The resull ís a merk across the anterior fece of tha libia (Td-3) that generally conttnues ecross the faca of the lateral maleolus. final1y intersecting the calcaneus (Figure 4.26, a and b. Tp-t]. If this movement ís somewhet lower, the marks may tntersect the anterior face of the estregalus at essentially midpoint, as shown in Figure 4.27e. In such a silualion the knife may "turn the comer" and mark the medial face of the astragalus (Figure 4.271) al the eeme time rnerkmg the medial side of Ihe distal tuberositv of the libia (figure 4.26e). Rarely there may be ~ prominent mark across the articulator surface ofthe distal tibia on the smooth promineot ridges that caotact the astralagus. This results from a kind of swiping cut as the joint is disarticulaled after the euts just described have been made. The dismemherment of the tibia-tarsa} joiot was one of the aoatomical areas given special attention by Henri Marlin in his seminal study of butchering marks. He supplies delailed descriplions of marks observed io Ihe Mouslerjan fauna as well as accurale reconstructions of the dismemberment procedure (Henri Martin 1907-1910:251-274). TARSALS

~ ....

T'-2

~ Oiltol ri9ht, ventral vie.

Ihl FlGIJRF. 4.26. Mol'ks inflk'ed

UIJ

'he tibia dUl'illg dismemberment.

The foregoing description touches upon al! Ihe common marks observed on larsals (Figure 4.27) except one, cul TC-3, which appears on the dorsal surface of the calcaneus just posterior to Ihe point (lf articulation wilh the astragalus. This mark has been frequently intArpreled as deriving from the cuUing of the lendon attachmenl of lhe gastrocnf!mius muscle

119

et the tuber caleta or the posterior end of the calcaneus. In my experíences with the Navajo, where the carcass te hung [see L. R. Binford and [, B. Bartram 1977:92-93), and with the Nunamiut where the completad upper rear leg is commonly hung on dryíng racks in cool seasons. enother action is belteved to produce cut marks on the dorsal ridge of the calcaneus. In both ethnographíc cases the tissue between the shañ of the tibia and the ettachment of lhe tendon at the tuber calcis ts cut with a knife to fadj¡tate inserting a rope or a gambrel for hanging the rear leg ür the cercees for further butcheríng. This cul "for hengtng" was observad to resull In marks illustrated here as TC-3 (Figure 4.27. b and el. lo light of thís cbservetton it is interesting that this mark is regularly reported 00 bison bones Irom the Jurgens síte (Wheat 1979:66, Figure 32, medial view), and antelope bones from the Eden-Farson site (Frisan 1971:284, Figure Jr). An alternative method of disartieulating the tibia from the metatarsal is to make the cuts at the ínterIece between the tarsels end the proximal metatersel. whtch results in marks trensversely oríented around the joinl, scarring the medial surfece ecross the intemal cunieform or on the medial margin ol the proximal metatarsal. On the anlerior face, marks may occur on the navicular.cuboid (Figure 4.28, TNC-1) as well as the anterior face of Ihe intemal cunieforrn lTE-l) and the mar~in of the proximal metatarsal lMTp-1). Laterally, marks may occur on the proximal articutator margin of the proximal metatarsal and Ihe lateral face of Ihe navicular-cuboid. These marks may frequeotly occur together with Ihose just described, since the removal of Ihe metatarsal for marrow processing commonly involves the rernoval of Ihe aUached tarsals, as is shown in Figures 4.02 Bnd 4.03. The combinatian of marks from both points of disarticulation is likely to be a good clue lo al least some of Ihe functioos ofthe site, since the processing of marrow bones is normally associaled with served meals rather than sna"king in hunting camps and the Iike as is the case among Nunamiut. Similar differences in processing may well characterize other peoptes as well. METATARSALS

As has beeo indicated, encircling marks atong the margins of the proximal end oí the metatarsal can be

•..

4. Human Mcdes o/ Bcne Modificaliol1

120

~

7 TC-'

,"

121

Cut Morks: Their Form ond Plccementon Specific Bonos

---1\ 1

,\i

! MTd-l

MTd-1 ...

"TC-I

-1-.

Lel! CakO(lfHa, lot,rol vte...

Left coltoneus, dorsal vi...

medial vie.

(o]

(bl

I C]

Le" colCClneus,

Lallrol y¡.w

Llfl diJIOI mllotorJol, on1160' vi.w

M.dlol vi••

(91

(h)

ti)

~Td-3

re-t

~ .:. ' /1

j':'-

,~'

"---'

~

~ ~.

LeU astrogolus, onteior vi, ..

Le" astrQ9(l1us. m'diol vi,...

(d 1

(.1

(O

nGURE ".Z7 Morks produced on 'he 'arso/! ond th'e me'a'arsol during dlsmembernrenl.

expected on the lateral (MTp-3), anterior (MTp-l), and medial (MTp-2) faces. These rnay be produced during primary and or secondary butchenng. 00 the distal end of the metatersal. marks relaüng to dismembermenl can be expected acreas the ventral face of the enndyle. as is shown in Figure 4.27 Sorne nicks mey occur along Ihe maegtns of the intercondyiar channel (MTd-3). Such marks are pro-

Venlrol vil"

(]) FIGURE 4.27. (continued)

,

lateral vi,...

Lttt Q$I'oQolus,

~

TA-2

ducad when a knife is inserted directly into the jclnt (see Figure 4.12). II ls my ímpreseton that this rnethod of díserticulation is more common with metal lools and that marks in other localions can he expected if stone tools were being used. Most Jikely, euts with stone tools should be coneenlrafed 00 the anterior 115 well as Ihe lateral and medial faces jusi ebove tha eprcondyles. In mosl cases such marks can

be expected lo have been inflieled durtng secondary butchenng and processtng for rnarrow rather then duríng primary dtsmernberment. SCApULA

Primary bulcheting traces 00 !he scepula {Figure 4.29) seem to be restrictad lo merks that encircle the glenoid cevíty. There is a tendency for Ihe marks to be 00 Ihe lateral tace and lo exhíbit sorne concentraIion at the cng¡n of the tríceps brachia. Analogous cuts may orr-ur up the scepule around the neck. Dísrnemberment al thís joinl ís most oommonly a secondary butchering operation. unless the animal ls quite large. This means that considerable numbers of innided marks 00 Ihe scapula in Ihe area around the

glencid cevíty are mostlikely lo be seen in localions of consumptton. unless there Is prccesstng for drying, or in sttuatíons where relatively large entmals are being butchered and the parts are desttned for trensport rather than processíng: HUMERUS

As in the case of cut marks en the scapula. few marks on the proximal humerus (Figure 4.30) can be releted to initial butcbenng. When rnerks do occur they are coneentrated in basically Iwo locettons and occasionally in a thtrd. Mosl eommon are short marks on 'he lower "llp" of !he condyle [Hp-I}, as seen in the postertor aspecr. The next rnost frequenl is a mark on the apex of the lateral luberosily com·

4. Human Modas of Bone Modifka!hm

122

Lolero! r",berosily

proximal end of the humerus with choppers seems a strange wasle of time and effort when two simple cuts and a [ittle leverage are all Ihal are needed lo dlajoint Ihe bones in questíon. If the proximal humeros exhibits rélatively few cut merks. probably beceuse of the ease wtth which

Colco.neUI

Astrogolus Navicular cubold culmor~

"l=S)(

H/C-l

EctocullllifOl'm

';;'

TE-t

'''/.-"-

\

\

r

MTp-3 '

~.

\ '~,

Anterior vilw ot rill"t tar.u. FIGURE 4.Z8. The arficulatlon 01 the forsol, with lbe mefattJNtJl.

Righl proaimal, meltial vie....

monly located 00 Iba posterior Iece. The merks 00 Ihe lateral tuberosíty and tbe marks 00 the scepula al theanterior rnargin oí the glenoid cavity are believed la be made al the sama time by a simple cut orlgtnattng 00 the anterior sirle oí the jotnt wilh the joint artieuJaled in a faírly stretght fashíon. A transversa cut is simply made into the íoínt frcm the front. resultfng in the knlfe impacting bone 00 the lateral tuberoeíty and along the anterior lip of the margio lo the glenoíd cevity. Afiar the joínt te cut into from Ihe fronl, an anelogous cut is made from the rear. resultíng in marks on the lip of the humeral condyle [Hp-f] as well as along Ihe posterior margin cf the head oC the scapula. These cuts can be made very quickly. The dismemberment of thís [oínt is reteüvely easy. since the condyle ts large and the joínl ts rether flexible. Leverege ís used to greet edventege in seperettng the scapula from the proximal humerue. As wtll be descnbed later, this lotnt ís commonly sepereted from Ihe cercase prior to the removel al the scapula wben large animals are being butchered. Th¡s strategy permita the use of the scepula as an anchor and provídes Ieverage for dislocettng the jotnt. Argumenta about tbe dífflculty of disjointing tha scapula from the humeros seem odd to me, as do proposals ebout tbe use of choppers. Deslroying the

RiqM prQ.imol, pOlle'ior vie....

lo)

Right prolimol, lalDrol vi,....

lb)

le) ":' 1,"

rj

~, ':\

'1

Oblique Hd·2

J~,

t,'"".'~\~l· "

Hd-4

..~\

"1 ,~r

H(lI-2

Hd-'~, H'-2

(-::.. . .J8

-HeH

Right dislal, lolerol vre....

cnterier vie.

Right di'lol, medial vi.....

Id)

l.)

l' )

R;ghl distal,

S-Z "¡-"'.

5-1

Righl

FIGURE 4.29. Marks produced dismembermenl.

0fI

the Kapula durlns

Right dislal, venlrol vi'" (9)

FIGURE 4.30. Marlcs produced on the hume"" during dlsmembermenl.

! ¡,

,

I

\l.

'~'~

Proximal riQht

4. Humen Modes of Borre Modificalion

'24

the joíot may be disartículated, the distal hurnerus generally sports a consisten! and numerous collectíon of cut rnarks. The rncst common mark is 00 nr 8GroSS the medial face 01 (he distal hurnerus (Hd-2). The second most common mark te a short mark 00 the prominenl ridges of the anterior Iace of the artículator surface (Hd-l). These two cut marks are beIieved lo result from the sama cutung motion, which also produces the marks along Ihe margín oí the radius (Figure 4.32, RCRp-5). The knífe ís run trensversely ínto the jotnt and turnad inward 8CroSS the medial face DE Ihe distal bumerus. somettmes even penetreung lo the medial Iace of the olecranon {RCCp-3). This is generally done with the leg fairly well extended or stratght. The second cut commonly employed in dtsiocattng the humerus from the radiocubitus is a diagonal cut mede bestde the lateral face of the distal humerus. impacting bone 00 the Iece of the olecrenon jusi besíde the semilunar notch (RCCp-2). This cut makes possible a twisting of the ertículetíon inward toward the body and may also be accompanied by slight twisting of the lower leg or at least the shaft ofthc radío-cubnue. This has the effect of "ecütng" the arttculetton out of the socket obiíqueIy toward the body. Once thts level of disJocation ts echíeved il is a simple matter to cut Ihe remaining strings of ccnnecttve tissue and sepárate the bones. Thís technlque essumes that {he body is warm end the jcints are flexible. When the body is stiff andlor Irozen, a shghtly different method may be employed. The first task. making the lolm flexible, is accomplíehed by cuttíng down from the rear between the olecrenon end posterior surface of the distal tibia. Thls cut ts Irequently essociated wtth an attempt to flex the íotnt as much as possible at Ibe sorne time the cuts are bemg made, resulttng in a series oí short cut rnarks along the dorsal crest of the olecrenon and elong the margins oí the olecrannn fosse. which is. of course. on the posterior face of the distal humerus (see Figure 4.31). Once these cuts are made and the joint Is flexed. butchenng may proceed as befare. However, I have observed bulchers following Ihis procedure and Ihere is somelhing of a lendencv lo make tbe cuts across the anterior face jusi above· Ihe articulalor condyles of Ihe distal humerus ralher Ihan below them. as is the case with warm animals. When Ihis is done Ihe leg is sil!! nexed, and if Ihe "comer is lurned" Ihe knife runs across the medial face of Ihe dislal condyle. resulting in obliquely

RCp-5

~

prod~ced ...hen cuttio9 io from Ihe reee 00 "slif'" joiot&

Marks

ecs-e

/

Humeeue

ctecrencn

RCp-2

,,

i

,1

," Cubitus-t-

-tt--

I I

!

,': I

Rodius

./

I

,

,

1:\1

I

il

r iI,

;1\,

ii i'

I, i 1,

! /'

,, ,

r

lotef"olyl,.

Int.rior l/l••

(a)

Medial wítw

lb)

(e)

,'¡'

Olltoll,tI

I

¡

,

Right lalefol I/i,.

FIGURE 4.31. The QrliculotJon berween t1te tllstcd humeros cmd the pro:rimol rodio-cubilus, showins marles produced durinS dismembermenl.

¡ \

"

oriented cul marks (see Fi,Rure 4.3of). These oblique marks may be somewhal higher up on lhe condyle. almosl at the "neá." Such a placemenl of marks, coupled with marks on the dorsal ridge of Ihe oJeeranon and alons the margins of Ihe olecranon fassa,

RCd-l~

)~'

~-RCd-2

Inltríor ~ie.

lot.rOI vie.

(d)

le)

FfGL'RE 4.32. Mario; pmduced 00 Ihe rodio-eubitu, durioS dismembermenl.

:,J

.:'~r

4. Human

126 betrays the butchering of th¡s [olnt when lt is flexed, which is most common when the animal is stiff. Sliffness may be reiated lo Ihe dismemberment being part of secondary butcherlng acttvtttes. or lo scheduling problema al mass kills. In this regard it is interesting that the marks ülustreted from the Eden-Farson sile (Frison 1971:264, Figure 3a-d] all exhíblt ratber oblique cut marks high up near the neck of the distal humeros. Earlier in this chapter 1 potnted lo other evidence that seems lo indicale the butchering of stiff or frozen antmals al that stte. It is equally interesting that the "stíff joínt" patlern of butchery seems indicated al the Jurgens site (Wheal 1979:64, and Figure 31). I would guess tha! secondary bUlchering took place. wilh disjointing occurring aner meal Was filleted from essenliaJly complete front legs. Disjoinling was most likely relaled lo marrow procuremenl after the joinls were both stiff and dry. RADIQ-ClJB1T1JS Most of the (;ut marks occurring on the proximal end of Ihe radio-cubitus (Figure 4.32) have been discussed in Ihe comse of considering the distal humerus The distal radio-cubitus frequently exhibits marks across its anlerior face, right along the edge of the arliculalor surface, Alternalívely, marks may occur only on Ihe slyloid praccss, indicaling Ihat Ihe cut was made lower down and lllans Ihe lateral face, impacllnR the carpals ralhl'lr than the edge of the distal raoio-cubitlls, The lalter marks are more commono On the inferior face of the articulator surface Ihere may be transverse marks on the prominenl ridges, These derive from Ihe insertion of the knife into the joint afler il is partially dislocated. CARPALS

Cul marks may occur on any of Ihe exposen faces of Ihe various carpal bones bul are mllch more common along lateral and medial fau~s. wilh far fewer occurring on Ihe anterior ano posterior laces. George Frison (1970:12j describes the .~ullrces of marks nn the hison carpals from lhe Clenrock site, a very gaael description uf buldwril1g of Ihis joinl: "Of lhe ulnar carpills and ffH]¡al cilrllals. 4:1% of Ihe fOfnwr anrl

Morlf'.~

of Bnne Modjfjmrion

39% of the latter bear cut marks. This is slill a corn. mon method of butchering in Ihe field and after cuttíng in this rnanner . . the foot muy be snepped off [Frisen 1970:121." Whal Frison ls descrtbing ls a simple patr of cuts. une across the arlic.ulalion on Ihe inaíde marktng the medial of "radial carpals." and another across tha lateral fece marking the "ulnar carpals" and nol infrequently the slyloid process of the dislal redío-cubttus. Once such cuts are made Ihe íotnt is "snapped" in half by pushing in or pullíng oul on the joint. as is tllustrated in Figure 4.13. METACARPAL

Essenlially the .'lame marks noted for Ihe metatar· sal can be expecled on the metacarpaL

Cut Mcrks: Their Form and Ptocemenr on Speclfic sones

ütsen-Cbubbuck site-WheaI1972) are all Instances of primary butchertng aclivilies. We might think of primary hutchering actívtties as thcse that are timad or scheduled with respect to the killing activítíea. whereas secondary butohenng andror proeessing activilies are timad or scheduled with respect to achieving (he goals of plactng meat inlo storage andlor dislributing and preparing it for consumption. Secondery butcberíng normally consiste of further segmentatton of the parts generated al the lime of primary butchering , and/or ñlletlng prtmartly appendicular parta. 1 have never heard or seen documenled filleting aclivities connucled with regard to any axial skeletal parls exceptlhe lower lumbar vertehrae and pelvis. Thus we can generally expecl an overlay of marks deriving from filleting lo be reslricled lo Ihe lumbar verlebrae. lhe pelvis, and the

127 leg bones. Even in those cases where filleling is conducted at locattons of primary butchermg. as al a kili síte. ít is a second-stage activity; animal s are field butchered into bas¡c analomical segrnents. which are then filleted. This means that the charecter of the segments condtttons to sorne extent ~he degree lo which fiHeting marks will overlay or , alternahvely, be the only marks remaining from butchertng on certaln parts. 1 have observed numerous ects of ñlleñng carrted oul by the Nunamiul Eskimo and the firsl ímpresston is that tt is done very quickly and with seemingly Hule efforl. For instance, Figure 4.33 shows !he bones of Ihe rear leg lying beside Ihe meat removed during fiHeling. This filleling was done by bulcher in lhe field so rapidly thal 1 did not have time lo adjusl my camera and take a picture before he

PHALANGES

I have rarely observed marks on Ihe phalanges. This experience is held in common with most of Ihe other North American researchers observing Ihe properties of cul marks. On Ihe other hand, Henri Marlin (1907~1910) reporled numerous cul phalanges from Ihe Mousterian sile of La Quina. I ha ve suggesled earlier Ihat these cuts derive primarily from skinning when pains are being laken lo skin out the fool in greal detail. This is done among the modern Eskimo only for oblaining skins from which soeks and shoes are manufactured. This is almosl exclusively a faH and early winler aetivily among !he Nunamiut Eskimo.

FiIle!ing Marks Slrie!lv speaking. the marks previonsly described for Ihe Ihorar;ic and lumbar verlebrae associaled wilh Ihe removal of the lenderloin are derived from filleling (Figure 4.211. Onl' rnight also argue Ihalthe re· moval of ¡he tongue (Figure 41lR) is ao acl of fillel· ing, Bolh of Ihese acliolls lIre eommon]y eonducled as parl of primflry bUlt;hcring aclivitie~. Filleling for lransport as illuslratt~tj by Binfonl Ll!.l.J~j;l:2?9La¡¡d describe!! lIlllong tlw lJolm !KUll,& ,IYellen 197"". 2791. amI as practit:r~d amung grollp~l:i¡-FtYiog·oul mass kills for purpOSt'S nt RPrH'raling lar¡.w quanlitie5 of sloragl~ lnl'ar (as was prohabtv lhp silua!ioll al the

Fll;IIKt: 4.:1:1. HU,'I.·.I j,'","r

l.l'in~ 1J1'~ifft.

I/w ml'al"l'u",,,,¡J (r..m 11", ,·"ur

Il'~.

j

•...',.

4. lIumun Modes of Bone ModifiC(ltion

128 finished me ktng his cuts and rarnoved the ñllets. The situation Hlustrated is rather rnrnmon-c-the butcher is aware lha\ ñlletíng will be the next step. and no transport problerns extst {e.g., ñllettng is to be done in (he seme place). Segmenting of the legs is rarely done during priruary butchering; tha! ts, the lower Iegs are rarely removed separately. Instead Ihe l,mtire leg is removed and it ts Ihen ñlleted and disposed of, a complete or nearly complete leg rernaining lergely arriculated. This sítuatton is Wl!\1 ttlustreted in Figure 4.34, whare arttculated front legs mtnus the scapule (see L. R. Binford l1978b:l 00] ter a dtscusston of the treatment of the scapula by the Nunamiutl are shown jusI alter having been Filleted. The ccnsequences of th¡s behavtor at processtng locations is frequently apile of nearly complete articulated legs. as ts shown in Figure 4.35.

Cut Mnrks. Their Form nnd P/ocemen! on S¡.It'óJ'k Eones

129

Deplcted here are the parts that were Wleled (or drying from 11 carihou killed earlíer (see L. R, Bínford 11978b:223-2281 for a descrlption of thís episede}. 1 am strongly suggesting that mere wil1 he dtagnosttc pattems of articulation, panems of part association. and spatial features thal will covary wifh disf inctive palterns of mfhcted marks when íilletíng is a mejor cr dorninaut activily al asile Thís is an argumenl to be developed at another lime, since my majar concam here is to describe the marks thet derívu from Iilleting. The ñrst fact lo emphasize is Ihal ñlleung marks are ulmost exclusively longttudtnellv orienled with respect to the bones on which they appear. The very act of filleting dlctutes this patlern. stnce Ihe butcher ts essentíally rernoving the bcne from the mess of meat around il and Ihis íe best achieved by cutting

Ma~s

H(jlIRE 4.;14, fhmt k~~ ~hflwn ~hortly after t:fImpfl~lirm uf fiJIf~tim:,

nf h~g,~ remoíníng al

along tha bone and rolltng back the meal so lhe bone tan be pulled free frnrn the rneat. There are generally Iwo types of cuts: la} inilial long: longiludinally orienled. bone-exposing cuts, and lb) shorler, more oblique [uls mad{l lo the unrierside uf lhe exposed bone to free il frum Ihe mass of meal amilor sever muscle insertions. Gi\'l'f\ such a slr¡¡legy, il is nol ~lITprising lo see lon~ilutlinally orienled cul marks anri llhorler. more obliquely orienlfJd marks along Ihe poslerior Uf rvi, ..

l. I

untrol Yi. ..

R;9ht holf, dorlol vi,,,,

(a)

(b)

Righf hall,

Lelt onf,rior vi, ..

la)

P5-6

lb)

Pro~¡ma!

tibio

FIGURE 4.36. Morks produced 011 the pelvis doring fllletJns·

tered where the shape oí the bone is irregular and where there are numerous muscle ínserttons. lrregularity in shape is most eommon in the lmmediete area of the artículetcr ends. hence we can expect a numbee of short cut marks in the area of the "neck" between the epiphysis proper and the linear shaft of the dtapbysts. As anyone who has carved mea! knows, it Is where bones are irregular in shape that there is Ihe mosl problem Coc Ihe cerVet. This is equally true Coc filleling. hence we can expecl many

marks concentreted in tossae oc around indentalíons in the bone such as the area along the lateral síde of Ihe tibie! crest. Figure 4.37 illustrates marks known lo have been produced on the proximal eods of upper rear leg bones during fllleting by Nunamiut Eskimo.Jt should be cleer that Ihe marks are (o) generally obltque. lb) generally located on the "neck'' of tha bone. and (e) cornmonly in recessed pteces where one would have to cul the meal out ralher than slrip it behind a smoolh cut.

Tp-4

T,·,

\;

't,

_~

Righl anterior vi, ..

Right m'diol vi...

le)

Id)

fiGURE 4.37. Mark, produced on 'he proJ(imal end.~ 01 upper .".ur leg bones during [iIleUng.

.,

Aro'

4. Human Mode~

132

----Pro~jmol

nf Done Modifir.nrioll

""IlII

rillht ,odio-cubihll

Distal riOM 'emur Pro~¡mot 'ioh!

hum.ruI

Hp-4

Posterior vi....

RCp-6

RCp-7

\

Loterol vi,w

~/

Distolleft mllol(l'501

MlidilJI yiew

Loterol vil"

Anl.rl~

Distolleft tibio

vii"

M.diol vil"

~,'

~~1

0;"01 left rodio·cubi'u,

'\

1

\\

1\\1 O;IIGI ri",tll humerU$

Td-4

I

,i

~': A,,,,ter;or view

JI:'

.....

Anterior víe ...

FIGURE 4.38. Marks produced on Ihe distol eods 01 mar les Inmes durirtlJ fillefinR·

RCd-3

Anterior view

Mediol vil"

Anterior vil'"

~l\

~ Lorero! vilw

FIGURE 4.39. Marks produced on {ront les bODes durioJl¡illetlng.

raa

-----------.. Jir..'

134 Albuquerque a total assemblage of bones from a known fillefing operaüon. so 1 cannot provide rehable ínformatíon 00 Ihe frequency of such marks. However. it was my impression that they were produced 00 a relettvely small number of the bones actually {ilIeted end that Ihe frequency increased as Ihe limbs belng fil1eted were superñcíally drted. rnaklng the "thin" ends such as the distal radío-cubítus and the distal tibia tougher and more díffícult to penetrate for startlng the filleting operatíon. The literatura is relenvely süent on these types of marks. and when they are descrtbed they are rarely recogntzed Ior their speclf¡c signíftcance. Rather. they are rnost often lumped with dismemberment marks as "butchering marks." An exceptton in this regard was Henri Martin {1907-1910J, who called them "rnarks of evisceration" and correctly identíñed sorne of the short oblíque "chevrons" occurring on long-bone fregments as being produced duro tng the removel of the meat (see Martín 1907-1910: Plate LX, No. 2, and Plate Nos. 2, 3, and 6). No such fiUeting marks were reported Irom the- Eschelman stte (Gllilday el al. 1962). Símüarly. Frisan (1970) cited no such marks from the Glenrock stte, nor were they noted (Frisan 1971) et the Eden-Farson stte. 1 observed only ene example in the Mousterian matertals from Combe Orenel-.-e distal radío-cubltus from Level K (Quina Mousterian). On the other hand, these marks have been described from the Jurgens site (Wheat 1979: Figures 31. 32), where they were lumped with marks of dismemberment, breakage, and other characteristics that the author thought related to butchering.

Marks Produced during the Prepafation of Ports for Consumption One of the most common methods of preparing parts for consumption is in fact filleting, particularly when the meat is to be bailed or used in a stew. This introduces sorne ambiguity into Ihe significance of fiUeting marks. This ambiguity is fnrther exacerbated by the fact that when leg bones are prepared for marrow cracking they are typically "cleaned," which consists of cutting off adhering secHons of meat or tendon that would modify the way the bone

4. Humun Mudes

a! Hone Modifica/ion

would break when impacted with a percusston blow. Figure 4.40 shown lean Rulland cleaning marrow bones prior lo their bcmg cracked for marrow. with a woman's knife or ulu. Thi~'''deemHg of merrow bcnesproduces shcrt parallel cutaieeks essenríelly Indtsttngutsheblefrorrrthe ftHefhig-h...-erb i1lustrated in Figures 4.37-4.39. However, much attention ís gtven to the metapodíals, distal radío-cubttus, and distal libia, all bones thal yield eíther no rneat or very Httle. This rneans that "ñllettng marks" may well be abundant en the metepodtals. bones not eesíly conceived of as having been ñlleted! It ts interesting that loe Ben Wheat observed this at the [urgens stte. and commented as follows:

Cut Morks: Their Form ond Plncemeru on Specifk BOlles

135

1",,·¡r,.i-IU.

Ltght diagonal cuts were found on a number of bones including rnetapodíals. 1I is not Iikely that Ihe cuts on rnetapodlals were assoctared with filleling meet. sínce there is very Hule maat on such bones. so perhaps sorne olher reeson must be found for these cut marks [Wheat 1979:711.

Cleaning the bones of segmente of meat and tendon is nol aU that is done prior to cracking. Toe ~~jg.AAntro1kld·bll8Bkage.,~~bonas is the remcvalot the-penosteure-írrtbe-eeee-ee-be ¡JI The Nunamlut invariably do this by scraping it back with the edge of a knife. a rough surface on a hammerstone, or almost any handy crude scraping too1. This means fhat lonsitudinal sg8tch8§ and striatio/p (Figure 4.41) along the shaEls of long banes are commonly produced when bones are prepared for cracking during marrow processing. Such marks are noted in Mousterian assemblages. My notes record 18 examples (striated bones) from the site of Com~ Grenal, but the fragments of long-bone shaft were not saved at this site, so the parts where most such siria· tions would be expeeted were in fact never systemat. ically examined. Henri Martin (1907-1910: Figure LXII, Nos. 1, 3, and 5) reporls examples from La Quina. Most analysts do not examine aH the long· bone splinters for such marks, hence there is Uttle mention of this type of mark in the literature. Modifications other than those jusI described may occur as a result ofvarious forms of food preparalio n. Howa part is trealed (filleted or not), what size it is reduced lo befare consumplion, and how it is reduced, [chopped, cut. broken, etc.) are all variable strategíes that relate lo the methods of food prepara-

_.d.

FIGURE 4.41. Slriations on bone believed lo hove been produced duro ing removal 01 Ihe periOSleum. On top 01 Ihe sfriotJons is pllting beJieved lo have been produce(1 by gnawing animals, (Found in rhe Mouslerian site 01Combe Grenal by F. 8fJrdes.)

FIGURE 4.40. Jean Rullond cleaRing malTOw bones lar cracking.

.'

4. Human Modes nf Bone Modljtcution

13. ñon. For ínstance. whether something ís bmled. roested. nr eaten raw, and the types Dí contatners used in food preperatton, as well as the methods used (stone boilíng versus dtrect boiiing , etc.] can be expected to iecve subtJe traces diagnostic nf eccb. Researching these dífferences is no! the subject oí thte díscussíon: retber.J have been concerned with presenttng descrtpnve tnformatíon regarding the traces thet tool-using man might be expected lo have left on bones when he hunted and killed. This information might serve lo distinguish the acttons oí

tool-ustng man trom Ihe carnivorous actlons of cther anímals. Traces referable lo sktnning: dismemberment, filleling for transpon. and marrow consumption are al! perhaps relevant. It ts hoped that enough has been demonstrated regarding pauemtng in cut marks lo encourage others lo describe tbetr material, so as to beg¡n the tesk of developtng a Iarger corpus oí comparative malerial for study and use in tbe furo ther specíñcetton of dtagnostic cherectensttcs reliably relerabie tu specifíc actions carried out in the past. {See Table 4.04.)

Cut Markli: Their Form ond Ptocemenr on Specifit; senes

Code number"

ln~ento'Y o/

Codo number"

Described Sklnnlng afta' Bllrcherins Marks a Activity producing mark

Part end description

So


w.J,huJ-

.....

~~=? k~,~ &