world. One intriguing explanation, offered specifically for Klasies River Mouth, ... be totally discounted, but there is no reason to invoke it, except for the sake of.
Journal of Archaeological
Science 1989,6,363-38 1
Why does Skeletal Part Representation Differ Between Smaller and Larger Bovids at Klasies River Mouth and other Archeological Sites? Richard G. Kleina (Invited 5 May 1988, revised manuscript accepted8 February 1989) Stone Age (MSA) caves at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa, are well known for fragmentary fossils supporting the hypothesis that anatomically modern humans originated in Africa. They have also provided numerous artifacts and fauna1 remains that bear on the behavior of early modern or near-modern people. The fauna1
The Middle
remains come mainly from bovids exhibiting
a pattern of skeletal part representation
that has become highly controversial. At issueis why, relative to the smaller bovids, the larger ones tend to be more poorly represented by proximal limb bones and better represented
by bones of the feet and skull. The contrast is more than locally interesting,
because it characterizes many other archeological habitation sites throughout the world. One intriguing
explanation,
offered specifically
for Klasies River Mouth,
is that
it indicates that the smaller bovids were mainly hunted, while the larger ones were mainly scavenged. More prosaically, ethnographic and archeological observations summarized in this paper suggest that the contrast is due mainly to differences in carcasssizeas these affect (1) the likelihood that particular skeletal parts will be transported from a carcass to a base camp and (2) the likelihood
that the parts will survive in
identifiable condition. Recently, it has also been suggestedthat the Klasies excavators created the contrast when they discarded bones they thought were unidentifiable. This can never be totally discounted, but there is no reason to invoke it, except for the sakeof argument.
KLASIES RIVER MOUTH, SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION, MIDDLE STONE AGE, SOUTH AFRICAN PREHISTORY.
Keywords:
Introduction In vertebrate paleontology, it is widely recognized that skeletal part representation in fossil assemblages rarely matches anatomical expectations. In virtually every assemblage, disparities reflect selective transport (preferential import or removal of some parts), selective destruction, or both. A problem arises only when it is necessary to determine the importance of each factor in a particular instance. They can be very difficult to separate,
and this is nowhere more true than in assemblages of bones from archeological sites, where the problem is to distinguish the effects of human transport from those of various pre- and post-depositional destructive forces. “Department of Anthropology, Chicago IL 60637, U.S.A.
The University of Chicago, 1126 East 59th Street,
363 0305-4403/89/040363 + 19 $03.00/O
0 1989 Academic Press Limited
364
R. G. KLEIN
Many investigators have simply assumed that human transport was the overriding variable. This was true, for example, of Dart (1949, 1957) with regard to the very uneven representation of different antelope skeletal parts in the Makapansgat australopithecine cave; of White (1952,1953,1954) with regard to differences in skeletal part representation among different-sized species at pre- and proto-Historic Plains Indians sites and with regard to differences in bison skeletal part representation among some of these sites; of Perkins & Daly (1968) with regard to differences in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids at the Suberde Early Holocene (“Neolithic”) site in Turkey; and of Klein (1976) and Binford (1984) with regard to differences in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids at the Klasies River Mouth Middle Stone Age site in South Africa. In each case, the assumption was that the pattern of skeletal part representation mainly reflects a human proclivity to bring the most desirable parts home and to leave others in the field. In each case, little or no explicit attention was paid to the possibility that the pattern may have been created when certain parts were removed (or rendered unidentifiable) by pre- and post-depositional destructive forces. My purpose here is to re-examine the Klasies River Mouth case, keeping in mind that selective transport and selective destruction must both be considered. The basic observation to be explained is a striking contrast between smaller bovids and larger bovids in the degree to which skeletal part abundance departs from anatomical expectations. It tends to be significantly more uneven or discrepant in the larger bovids, and the contrast is more than locally interesting, since it also tends to characterize most other archeological occupation sites where smaller and larger ungulates occur. This paper was partly prompted by a recent attempt (Turner, 1989) to attribute the Klasies case to yet a third variable-excavator bias against the recovery of certain skeletal elements. For anyone who cares to argue it, excavator bias will always be a possibility, but, as I show below, for Klasies and most comparable sites, pre-excavation differential transport and/or differential destruction are far more likely explanations. The Klasies River Mouth Cave Complex
The Klasies River Mouth caves are located at approximately 34”06’S, 24”24’E, near the town of Humansdorp on the southern coast of South Africa (Figure 1). The number of caves involved is partly a matter of definition, since some are immediately adjacent to each other and contain (or contained) overlapping fills. Five more or less discrete caves are distinguished by the numbers one to five, while chambers designated 1A, lB, and 1C occur immediately alongside Cave 1 proper (Singer & Wymer, 1982). Together with the nearby, but somewhat more distinct Cave 2, Caves 1,l A, 1B, and 1C are grouped as the Main Site. The shared designation is intended to emphasize their interconnected depositional history as much as or more than their contiguity. The available artifactual and fauna1 collections come mainly from large-scale excavations conducted in the Main Site by Singer & Wymer in 1967-68 (Singer & Wymer, 1982). There are also much smaller collections from excavations initiated at the Main Site by Deacon in 1984 (Deacon et al. 1986; Deacon & Geleijnse, 1988). Deacon’s main goal has been to clarify the stratigraphic relationships among the components of the Main Site and to provide the firmest possible basis for dating and paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Dating remains problematic, because the principal deposits-those containing Middle Stone Age (MSA) artifacts and associated fauna1 remains-are clearly beyond the 40,000-30,000 year range of conventional radiocarbon dating, and there is no other absolute dating method that can confidently be applied to the site. Still, infinite radiocarbon dates, finite uranium-series determinations, and, above all, correlations of the Klasies geomorphic/sedimentologic record to the global sequence of late Pleistocene
DIFFERENCES IN SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION
365
CAPE PROVINCE
Figure 1. The location of the Klasies River Mouth site complex on the southern coast of South Africa (after Deacon & Geleijnse, 1988: fig. 1).
sea-level and climate change firmly place the MSA layers within the Last Interglaciation and the earlier part of the Last Glaciation, between perhaps 128,000 and 60,000 years ago. The dating is important not just for reconstructing regional prehistory but also for understanding the broad sweep of human evolution. This is because the Main Site has provided some fragmentary human jaw and skull bones that appear to be anatomically modern (Singer & Wymer, 1982; Rightmire, 1984 and in prep.). Tentatively supported by human fossils from other local MSA sites where the stratigraphic provenience is less secure or the fossils are more fragmentary (Klein, 1989; Volman, 1989), the Klasies specimens imply that modern humans already occupied southern Africa at a time when the Neanderthals were the sole inhabitants of Europe. More generally, the Klasies fossils can be used to support genetic evidence that all modern humans derive from a common ancestor who lived in Africa perhaps as much as 200,000 years ago (Cann et al., 1987; Stringer & Andrews, 1988). It follows that the Neanderthals and other contemporaneous
366
R. G. KLEIN
archaic populations were essentially evolutionary deadends, contributing few if any genes to modern populations. The MSA artifacts from the Main Site closely resemble MSA artifacts from other subSaharan sites, as well as artifacts assigned to the broadly contemporaneous Mousterian Industrial Complex of north Africa, Europe, and western Asia. Formal bone implements are all but absent, and the stone inventory is dominated by unretouched flakes and flakeblades. The most common retouched pieces are various kinds of scrapers and points. Singer & Wymer (1982) recognized five successive MSA industries in the Main Site, which they called (from older to younger) MSA I, MSA II, Howieson’s Poort, MSA III, and MSA IV. Volman (1981, 1984) and Thackeray & Kelly (1988) accept this scheme, but emphasize that the industries are not sharply distinguished, with one major exception. This is the Howieson’s Poort Industry, in which the usual MSA points and scrapers are accompanied by numerous well-made segments (“crescents”) and other backed or truncated geometric and nongeometric forms. At several other southern African sites, the Howieson’s Poort caps the MSA sequence, but at Klasies, it is clearly sandwiched between MSA industries that resemble each other more than they do the Howieson’s Poort. It is tempting to relate the appearance of the Howieson’s Poort to the arrival of modern humans, but at Klasies it clearly postdates the oldest apparently anatomically modern fossils, perhaps by 30,000 years. In a way that may prove difficult to demonstrate, it may reflect a regional response to climatic deterioration at the beginning of the Last Glaciation (narrowly defined to comprise isotope stages 4 to 2), roughly 75,000 years ago (Deacon, 1989). The fauna1 remains from the Main Site derive from mammals, birds, occasional fish, and relatively numerous shellfish. Singer & Wymer found very few micromammal bones, but Deacon has recovered large numbers through the use of finer-mesh screens. The micromammals come mainly from thin layers that contain little evidence for human presence, and they were probably introduced by owls which occupied the site when people were absent. The taxonomic composition of the micromammal samples supports geochemical and sedimentological evidence for regional environmental change, but suggests that the Klasies sequence does not encompass a “full glacial” episode like that reflected in samples known to date from the maximum of the Last Glaciation (within isotope stage 2) at other local sites (Avery, 1987). The bones of larger animals support this conclusion (Klein, 1976, 1983a), and they also inform on human behavior, since contextual evidence and damage marks indicate they were brought to the site primarily by people, who probably also introduced most of the shells. The shells (Voigt, 1973; Thackeray, 1988) and the bones of larger mammals and birds (Klein, 1976) that date from the Last Interglaciation (in the broad sense = isotope stage 5) provide some of the oldest evidence in the world for human use of coastal resources. At the same time, the rarity of bones from flying marine birds (versus jackass penguins) and especially from fish suggest that the Last Interglacial (MSA) inhabitants of Klasies utilized coastal resources much less effectively than their Present Interglacial (Holocene) counterparts. These Present Interglacial people made Later Stone Age (LSA) artifacts and were descended from yet earlier LSA populations who supplanted MSA people in the middle of the Last Glaciation, perhaps 40,000-50,000 years ago. In contrast to Last Interglacial (MSA) populations. Present Interglacial (LSA) people not only appear to have fished and fowled far more actively, they also apparently obtained the most dangerous terrestrial prey (buffalo and pigs) far more often and they were apparently the first to exploit (?recognize) a seasonal peak in fur seal availability (Klein, 1989). The relatively primitive subsistence ecology implied by the Klasies MSA fauna is supported at Die Kelders Cave 1, the only other local site that has provided a pertinent MSA fauna, and it is consisent with a sharp contrast between MSA and LSA artifact
DIFFERENCES IN SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION
367
inventories (Klein, 1989). For example, only LSA assemblages routinely contain formal (standardized) bone artifacts, including some which were almost certainly used to fish or fowl. Overall, the artifacts and the fauna together imply that even if MSA people were anatomically modern, their behavior was archaic, at least compared to that of their LSA successors. The lag of behavior behind anatomy may explain why early modern humans did not immediately disperse from Africa-it was perhaps only when they developed modern behavioral capabilities (?between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago) that they were able to displace more archaic people elsewhere. Given everything else that the Klasies MSA fauna implies, we might expect that skeletal part abundance in key food species would reflect relatively limited hunting proficiency, and this is precisely what Binford (1984) concluded. From the particular parts that dominate the large bovid sample, he argued that the Klasies people did not hunt large bovids, but rather scavenged carcasses from which the choicer parts had already been taken by other predators. In 1984, and again more recently (Binford, 1989), he categorically rejected the idea that the pattern of large bovid skeletal part abundance could be related to the size of the animals involved, independent of their economic anatomy. The remainder of this paper is devoted to assessing the merits of Binford’s argument and its principal alternatives. Bovid Skeletal Part Representation at Klasies River Mouth
The fauna of the Klasies Main Site, like that of most other African archeolgical sites is heavily dominated by bovids, and they are the principal species in which skeletal part representation can be meaningfully analysed. On the basis of dentitions, horncores, and relatively complete postcranial bones, I identified 15 bovid species in the Main Site (Klein, 1976,1983a). However, like other investigators, I cannot confidently identify most fragmentary bovid postcranial bones to species, and since the majority of postcranial bones at Klasies are fragments, I described bovid skeletal part representation by size class rather than by species. I defined five more or less discrete classes-small, small-medium, large-medium, large, and very large-which I have also used in other analyses and which correspond closely to the similarity defined size categories of Brain (e.g. 1981), Voigt (e.g. 1983) and others. With particular regard to Klasies, the small bovid bones come mostly from grysbok (Raphicerus melanotis) with some oribi (Ourebia ourebi); the small medium bones come mostly from bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), followed by vaalribbok (Pelea capreolus), mountain reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula), southern reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), and springbok (Antidorcas cf. australis); the large -medium pieces come mostly from blue antelope (Hippotragus leucophaeus), followed by greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), bontebok (Damaliscus dorcas), red hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), and black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnou); the large bovid bones belong mostly to eland (Taurotragus oryx), followed by Cape buffalo (Syncerus cafir); and very large bovid bones come exclusively from the extinct “giant”, long-horned buffalo (Pelorovis antiquus). Table 1 and Figure 2 (top) present skeletal part representation by size class in the bovid sample that Singer & Wymer recovered from the MSA I and MSA II layers of Cave 1. Table 1 lists both the number of specimens (NISP) for each skeletal part in each size class and the minimum number of individuals (MNI) which they must represent. The MNIs were calculated according to the method and assumptions laid out in Klein & Cruz-Uribe (1984). In principle, they are identical to the Minimal Animal Units (MAUs) used by Binford, except that they take side (left or right) into account. Figure 2 (top) presents the MN1 of each skeletal part in each size class as a percentage of the largest MN1 for the class. The MSA I & II sample from Cave 1 is the one on which both I ‘(Klein, 1976) and Binford (1984) concentrated in earlier discussions. It comprises the overwhelming
368
R. G. KLEIN Table 1. The Number of Identifiable Specimens (NISP) for each skeletal part/the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) which the specimens must represent for each bovidsize class in the combined MSA Iand MSA IIsamplejiiom Klasies River Mouth Cave I (Singer & Wymer excavations)
Small Frontlet Occipital condyle Maxilla Mandible Mandibular condyle Atlas Axis Cervical vertebrae 3-7 Thoracic vertebrae Lumbar vertebrae Sacrum Scapula Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radius Distal radius Proximal ulna Distal ulna Carpals Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpal First phalanges Second phalanges Third phalanges Pelvis Proximal femur Distal femur Patella Proximal tibia Distal tibia Lateral malleolus Calcaneum Astragalus Naviculocuboid Cuneiform tarsals Proximal metatarsal Distal metatarsal Proximal sesamoids Distal sesamoids Totals for bones Totals for dentitions Grand Totals
23112
212
24/S 74126 513 1219 lo/lo 1914 5715 5ljll 5/l 98/51 614 36120
816
Smallmedium
Largemedium
916 514 2618 54115
31/18 19/10 127117 157125 60132 23112 9/8 40/8 5114 55jlO 313 65134 414 33116 1519 15jll 1316 l/l 3516 39115 24/l 1 7017 3114 4016 54/11 1714 1214 8/4 1618 48127 26112 44/18 47123 16/8.
212 614 11/9 38/8 3714 72115 411 86/51 815 40120 1116
816
614 15/S l/l o/o 412 513 90 l/l o/o 63114 21/11 23/11 l/l 1419 22116 o/o 28115 18jlO 514 O/O 613 g/7 o/o o/o
412 13/8 1412 311 511 53113 1414 13/8 6/5 14/8 19/13 o/o 24113 18jlO 312 o/o 1416 16/10 o/o o/o
57915 1 98126 67715 1
580/S 1 SO/l5 66015 1
1214 o/o
212
Large
Very large 1719 l/l 59/10 120/30 10/7 8/5
26112 22/l 1 311 l/l
65134 26117 332143 343150 31/19 14/8 13/12 41/8 20/3 4419 712 39117 11/7 54119 68133 28117 56120 911 246138 139/46 79138 252114 151/17 142/19 50/l 1 28/S 2419 26113 916 64126 16/8 89/31 96146 SO/25 34/18 107/41 45122 7015 2213
992134 284/25 1276134
2259146 675150 2934150
529110 179130 708/30
412
212
1613 7/l 3/l
211 l/l
211
1517 1217
412 8/l o/o 4819 2919 18/7 5214 4715 30/4 1013 412 513 515 l/l 814 918 1315 19jlO lOi6 10/s 2117 19/9 5714
8/l
majority of bovid bones recovered at Klasies, all from levels that appear to have experienced approximately the same degree of leaching and other obvious post-depositional destruction. It excludes bones from the Howieson’s Poort and later levels, which tend to be more poorly preserved (more heavily leached). It thus minimizes the likelihood that Table 1 and Figure 2 mix very different patterns resulting from differences in post-depositional history. This is important, because I argue below that post-depositional history plays a
Klasies River Mouth Cave 1 (MSA I & II)
small bovids Frontlet Occipital c;;;g,e
small-medium bovids
large-medium bovids
large bovids
v;~J.~je
-
Mandibular dentition Mandibular cond 18 Y %z Cervical vertebrae 3-7 Thoracic vertebrae Lumbar vertebrae Sacrum SCaplda Proximal humerus Distal humerus Proximal radius Distal radius Proximal ulna Distal ulna Carp& Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpal First phalanses
Proximal sesamoidsl Distal sesamoidsJtMN,
distal limb (N = 35)
,oo%
= 5,)
(MNllOO%
= 51)
(MNllOO%
=34)
(idNIlOO%=
50)
(MNI100%=30)
small-medium bovids Figure 2. Top: skeletal part representation in the five bovid size classesrecognized in the MSA I and II sample from Klasies River Mouth Cave 1 (Singer & Wymer excavations). For each size class, the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) necessary to account for each part is presented as a percentage of the largest MN1 for the size class. The species illustrated for each size class is the dominant one at Klasies. The size differences among the species are somewhat greater than the illustrations suggest. Bottom: the proportional abundance of the skull (mandible and maxilla), proximal limb bones (humerus, radio-ulna, femur, and tibia), and distal limb bones (carpals, metacarpals, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges) in the small-medium and large bovid samples. The abundance of each category was calculated by cumulating the MNIs of the separate parts it contains. For bones whose proximal and distal ends are listed separately in Table 1, the larger MN1 (proximal or distal) was used. For the radio-ulna, the MN1 for the radius or for the ulna was used, whichever was larger. For the carpals, tarsals, and phalanges, the MNIs used were the largest within each category (not the sum of the MNIs for individual elements within each category). The Figure shows that, relative to large bovids, small-medium ones are better represented by proximal limb bones.
370
R. G. KLEIN
significant role in shaping relative skeletal part abundance. Since Table 1 and Figure 2 exclude the Howieson’s Poort bones, they are also less likely to blend patterns that reflect significant differences in human behavior. They could still of course mix or obscure behavioral differences between the MSA I and the MSA II, but these two units exhibit no obvious differences in skeletal part representation when they are considered separately. The key point is that, separately or together, they reveal the same strong contrast in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids. Figure 2 (top) shows that, in general, the smaller bovids are more evenly represented by various skeletal parts, or conversely, that the larger bovids tend to exhibit more discrepancies in abundance among parts. The details of the contrast are complex, but in general, relative to the smaller bovids, the larger ones tend to be better represented by the skull (mainly the teeth and jaws) and especially by the distal extremities (carpals, tarsals, metapodials, and phalanges) and to be more poorly represented by the scapula and proximal long bones (humerus, radius, ulna, femur, and tibia). Figure 2 (bottom) illustrates the difference between the small-medium and large bovids, using the cumulated MNIs for the principal skull parts (mandible and maxilla), proximal limb elements (humerus, radio-ulna, femur, and tibia), and distal limb elements (carpals, metacarpals, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges). Basically the same tendency for larger ungulates to be more poorly represented by proximal limb elements has been observed in archeological samples from many other presumed habitation sites throughout the world. Perhaps most notably, it recalls the contrast in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids that Perkins & Daly (1968) highlighted at Suberde in Turkey and then sought to explain by the now infamous “schlepp effect”. In brief, they argued that smaller bovid parts were more evenly represented because the Suberde people tended to carry smaller carcasses home more or less intact, while they dismembered larger ones in the field, dragging (= “schlepping”) home only the most useful parts. When I first presented the contrast between smaller and larger bovid skeletal part abundance at Klasies (Klein, 1976), I explained it by the “schlepp effect”. In refuting this explanation, Binford (1984) pointed out that it was an after-the-fact, accommodative argument that did not satisfactorily explain why, relative to the smaller bovids, the larger ones were better represented by foot and head bones and not by others. He argued cogently that a more compelling explanation would be rooted in a before-thefact appreciation of the factors that determine what skeletal parts people decide to transport or leave. In his own observations of living Nunamiut Eskimo caribou-hunters, Binford (1978) had found a strong correlation between the meat, marrow, and grease (dietary) utility of a caribou part and the likelihood that it would reach a base camp. Assuming plausibly that the relative utility of various caribou and bovid parts is about the same, he noted that the foot and skull elements that dominate the Klasies large bovid sample are relatively low on the utility scale. He then reasoned that the Klasies people would not have brought these parts home in such numbers, unless they lacked access to higher-utility parts, particularly proximal limb bones. From this, he concluded that the Klasies people did not hunt large bovids, but merely scavenged carcasses from which the more desirable parts had already been removed. Conversely, the more even representation of small bovid parts, including a larger proportion of high-utility elements, convinced him that the people more actively hunted the smaller species. In short, he argued that the contrast in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids reflected important differences in how they were obtained, whether by scavenging or by hunting. On philosophical grounds, Binford’s argument, grounded in a process that has been shown to create disparities in skeletal part abundance, is clearly preferable to the “schlepp effect”, formulated only in response to the observed disparities. Yet in contrast to what
DIFFERENCES
IN SKELETAL
PART
REPRESENTATION
371
Binford and others have argued, he did not demolish the “schlepp effect”, broadly understood to mean that the size of a carcass partly determines which skeletal elements will be transported away from it. To begin with, Binford’s study of the Nunamiut dealt only with a single, medium-sized prey species and thus did not confront the question of whether species size affects transport decisions. Beyond this, in addressing the Klasies case, he ignored the occurrence of the same fundamental contrast between smaller and larger ungulates at most other relevant archeological habitation sites, including, in Africa, both LSA hunter-gatherer sites (as reported, for example, in Klein, 1980 or Klein & CruzUribe, 1987) and LSA pastoralist and Iron Age sites where the small and large species involved are primarily domesticates (Voigt, 1983; Klein & Cruz-Uribe, unpubl.) (Figure 3). This not only precludes scavenging versus hunting as a general explanation, but, more importantly, it suggests that other factors, dependent simply on animal or carcass size, may indeed be relevant. Turner (1989) has proposed one alternative factor that must be considered before all others. This is that the contrast could have been created by systematic bias or discrimination against certain skeletal parts during excavation or recovery. Turner notes that Singer, Wymer, and their co-workers discarded supposedly unidentifiable bones in the field, and that bovid skeletal part representation, as illustrated in Figure 2, is based only on the bones they judged to be identifiable. Turner examined a number of Klasies bones that I boxed as “unidentifiable” and found that they included some possible large bovid proximal limb shaft fragments. This led him to argue that high-utility bones like proximal limb elements are rarer in the large bovid sample not because they were rarer in the site but because the excavators rejected them as unidentifiable. To be plausible, Turner’s argument clearly requires that the “unidentifiable” bones he saw constitute a representative sample of those the excavators routinely discarded. In fact, they kept no such samples, and the bones in question represent a mix of ones they thought a specialist like myself could identify and ones that were irreparably broken from “identifiable” specimens when the collection was shipped first from Klasies to Pretoria and later from Pretoria to Cape Town. In addition, in presenting his case, Turner assumes that in defining what was identifiable (essentially any portion of an epiphysis or a large shaft fragment for all categories excepting ribs for which only epiphyses were routinely kept), the excavators were too conservative, and that they regularly discarded bones that fauna1 analysts would readily identify to skeletal part and taxon. In my experience, excavators who separate supposedly identifiable from nonidentifiable bones usually err in the opposite direction-they assign unidentifiable bones to the identifiable category far more often than they do the reverse. Moreover, they almost never missort bones that are suitable for calculating MNIs or comparable counts that analysts need to assessskeletal part abundance. The “unidentifiable” pieces from Klasies River Mouth that Turner saw would not be suitable for such counts even if they were identifiable. With particular regard to Klasies, my point is that there is no apriori reason to suppose, as Turner does, that the availability of the bones the excavators discarded would materially affect the contrast in skeletal part representation revealed in Figure 2. Finally, and perhaps most important, Turner assumes, without any basis, that the excavators’ policy led them to discard many identifiable larger bovid proximal limb bones, while retaining homologous pieces from smaller bovids. To support his general argument, Turner points to other siteswhere the excavators also discarded supposedly unidentifiable bones and where the pattern of skeletal part representation resembles that at Klasies. In fact, these additional cases provide support only if we agree that unrelated excavators at unrelated sites were commonly biased in the same peculiar way, and it ignores the point that the pattern which their shared bias presumably created, also characterizes most relevant sites where all bones were retained.
Elands Bay Cave pre-pastoralist proximal
. . SKIN (N = 29
__
small-medium bovids
Later Stone Age proximal limb (N = 3)
limb
vdistal limb (N = 16)
large bovids
Boomplaas
Cave A pre-pastoralist
Later Stone Age proximal
sm
limb
large bovids
bovids
Kasteelberg
B pastoralist
Later Stone Age proximal limb
small-medium
Figure 3. The proportional abundance of the skull (mandible and maxilla), proximal limb bones (humerus, radio-ulna, femur, and tibia), and distal limb bones (carpals, metacarpals, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges) in the small-medium and large bovid samples from the pre-pastoralist Later Stone Age layers of Elands Bay Cave and Boomplaas Cave A and from the pastoralist Later Stone Age layers of Kasteelberg B. (See Figure 1 for the approximate locations of the sites). The small-medium bovids are mainly grey duiker (Sylvicapra grimmiu) at Elands Bay, vaalribbok (Pelea capreolus) and mountain reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula) at Boomplaas, and domestic sheep (Ovis aries) at Kasteelberg. The large bovids are mainly eland (Taurotragus oryx) at Elands Bay and Boomplaas and cattle (Bos tuurus) at Kasteelberg. The procedure for calculating the abundance of each skeletal region is described in the caption to Figure 2. The Figure shows that, relative to large bovids, small-medium ones are better represented by proximal limb bones at all three sites. With regard to each size category, the differences in skeletal region representation between sites are probably due largely to differences in bone frag, mentation (greatest at Boomplaas and least at Kasteelberg).
DIFFERENCES IN SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION
313
I argue below that the Klasies people probably did have greater access to high-utility bovid parts than Table 1 and Figure 2 suggest. I have made the same argument with regard to other sites where the faunas exhibit the same basic pattern (Klein & Scott, 1986; Klein & Cruz-Uribe, 1987). However, I think the relative scarcity of high-utility large bovid parts at Klasies and these other sites reflects events before and during burial, not excavator bias, which I see no reason to invoke, except for the sake of argument. In so far as excavator bias has seriously affected the Klasies collection, it is in a very different way than Turner postulated. The excavators used relatively large-mesh screens, and this probably explains the near absence of very small bones, including the sesamoids, terminal phalanges, and smaller tarsals and carpals of the smallest bovids. Clearly, under the circumstances, it would be unwise to rely on these parts in making behavioral inferences from the Klasies fauna. I return now to what I think is the key issue-the extent to which factors related simply to species, or, more precisely, carcass size explain the contrast in skeletal part representation seen at Klasies and many other sites. These factors may be divided between two basic kinds-those that affect the likelihood a part will be transported and those that affect its chances of surviving in identifiable condition. The logical basis for postulating a connection between animal size and the particular parts that people decide to transport is that truly rational decisions must involve not only the food value of a part but also the cost of moving it relative to the cost of processing it in the field (Scott, 1986). As Metcalfe & Jones (1988) have pointed out, Binford’s explanatory model focuses on the value or benefit of a skeletal part and does not explicitly consider associated processing and transportation costs. Yet, it is certainly reasonable to hypothesize that unlike the relative benefit (food value) of a particular part, which may be roughly the same for all species of similar build, the costs of field-processing versus transporting it may vary among species, particularly depending on body size. The processing and transporting behavior of recently observed Hadza hunters in northern Tanzania bears this out (O’Connell et al, 1988). The Hadza tend to strip very large carcasses of their meat and marrow in the field, taking relatively few bones away, and the particular parts they preferentially take away from smaller carcasses differ, depending on the species. Some of the differences may reflect differences in economic anatomy, for example, between equids and bovids, but some almost certainly reflect differences in species size, for example, between impala and local alcelaphine antelopes (red hartebeest and blue wildebeest). In terms of the bovid size classes defined for Klasies River Mouth, the impala and alcelaphines are small-medium and large-medium species respectively, and it is intriguing that from the smaller impala, the Hadza tend to bring home high-utility proximal limb bones more often than they do lower-utility skulls, but for the larger alcelaphines, they do the reverse. Bovids of other sizes are not common enough in the Hadza sample to identify patterns, but at least with respect to these two size classes, Hadza transport behavior clearly suggests the operation of a schlepp effect akin to the one I originally hypothesized for Klasies. The Hadza also tend to bring home alcelaphine and especially impala low-utility phalanges before high-utility limb bones. In the case of the impala, this is clearly because the phalanges remain with the hides, which are highly valued for non-dietary reasons. In formulating the schlepp effect, Perkins & Daly suggested that phalanges might sometimes outnumber limb bones for this reason, though, to produce Perkins & Daly’s pattern at Suberde or the broadly similar pattern at Klasies, the Hadza would have to remove phalanges from larger bovids more often than they do from smaller ones. The available data do not suggest this is the case, and in general, the resemblances between the patterns the Hadza create and known archeological patterns
314
R. G. KLEIN
are overshadowed by the differences. Particularly striking is that cost/benefit considerations in the field lead the Hadza to bring home relatively low-utility vertebrae of impala, alcelaphines, and zebra in preference to nearly all other parts. By comparison, vertebrae of like-sized ungulates are relatively rare at Klasies and comparable archeological sites. I see two possible reasons for this discrepancy, both of which highlight limitations in using ethnographic data, whether Hadza, Nunamiut, or any other, to explain archeological patterns. The first is that the costs of field-processing the same parts may differ depending on the available technology. The Hadza (and the Nunamiut) use steel knives and axes in butchering and food preparation, while the Klasies people used relatively crude stone tools. The Hadza also have a relatively sophisticated boiling technology (Bunn et al., 1988) that may allow them to remove grease and meat from skeletal parts that the Klasies people could not utilize so efficiently. The second, and arguably more likely explanation for the difference between the Hadza and Klasies skeletal part patterns, is that, unlike the Hadza (or Nunamiut) bones, the Klasies bones have suffered from selective attrition in the ground. Differences among skeletal elements in density, size, shape, structure, and morphology mean that some are more likely to be destroyed by post-depositional leaching and profile compaction. Vertebrae, which are relatively soft (Lyman, 1984, 1985), are probably especially vulnerable. Their chances of survival would be particularly limited, if they were extensively fragmented during food-preparation, as they are by the Hadza. The possibility I want to raise now is that, besides a “schlepp effect” broadly understood, differences in bone durability may also partly explain the contrast in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids at Klasies and other sites. By its very nature, this hypothesis will be difficult or impossible to test with ethnographic or historic data, and the case depends largely on two archeological/osteological observations. The first is that the particular parts that dominate larger bovid samples at Klasies and other sites are not only among the least useful parts (from a dietary viewpoint), they are also among the most durable. The relevant skull parts (teeth) are among the densest bones in the skeleton, while the principal foot elements are either relatively dense (carpals and tarsals) or relatively easy to identify (metapodials and phalanges) even when they are highly fragmented. Furthermore, among the generally rarer larger bovid proximal limb bones, the most abundant ones are those (the distal humerus, the proximal radius, and the distal tibia) whose density and early age of fusion makes them especially robust. The second observation is that in the archeological faunas I have studied, skeletal parts of smaller animals tend to be more complete (less fragmented) than those of larger animals. This applies to various categories of parts--especially jaws, limb bones, and foot bones-and is reflected in a tendency for smaller animal parts to be characterized by lower NISP/MNI ratios. Figure 4 illustrates this with the NISPs and MNIs of Klasies smallmedium and large bovids from Table 1. The NISP/MNI ratios of the other size classes also support the point, but were not presented to keep the figure legible. An important corollary, again in the faunas I have studied, is that the difference in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids tends to be clearer in samples that are more highly fragmented overall. I have been unable to determine if this phenomenon is more widespread because many investigators do not report relevant NISP and MN1 counts by skeletal part. I think that, together, these two observations imply that skeletal part representation differs between smaller and larger bovids at least partly because smaller bones are more likely to retain their integrity during butchering and food preparation or during kicking and trampling across the surface of repeatedly occupied sites. Bones that are less damaged before burial are also more likely to survive leaching and profile compaction afterwards,
DIFFERENCES
IN SKELETAL
PART
REPRESENTATION
Number of Identifiable Specimens (NISP)/ the Minimum Number of individuals (MNI) for each skletal part 5
Cervical
vertebrae
15
375
20
3-7
Distal humerus Proximal radius
Naviculocuboid Cuneiform tarsals Proximal metatarsal Distal metatarsal Proximal sesamoids Distal sesamoids
Figure 4. The ratio between the Number of skeletal part and the Minimum Number of resent in the samples of small-medium and layers at Klasies River Mouth Cave 1 (Singer elements tend to be characterized by higher large bovid bones are more fragmented.
Identified Specimens (NISP) for each Individuals (MNI) the specimens replarge bovids from the MSA I and II & Wymer excavations). Large bovid NISP/MNI ratios mainly because the
which means that even a small pre-depositional difference in relative durability will be magnified post-depositionally. This may explain why the contrast in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids tends to be nearly ubiquitous. The Relevance of Damage Marks and Mortality
Profiles
Two additional classes of data are relevant to understanding skeletal part representation at Klasies River Mouth, at least as explained by Binford. These are bone damage marks and mortality (age) profiles. Many Klasies bones bear marks that were almost certainly made by stone tools. Together with the abundance of stone artifacts and hearths (and a paucity of evidence for
R. G. KLEIN
376
MNI = 5.1347 + 10.625 (bulk density) Pearson’s r = ,142 (p = .4619) Swarman’s r = .14 (D = .4579)
MNI = 5.6564 + 0.10253 (food utiliiy) Pearson’s r = 25 (p = .1904) Spearman’s r = ,475 (p = 0119) 60 .“” +
fd?gyy o
x...$a
I .,
.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . &d?
.3
.4
.9
.5
small bovids
. . . . . . . . .. . . .
.6
t
rt
b .7
MNI = 5.0735 + 9.4753 (bulk densky) Pearson’s r = ,132 (p = .4936) spearman’s r= 251 (p = .1641)
60
MNI = 7.0164 + .051309 (food utiltiy) Pearson’s r = ,135 (p = .4853) Spearman’s r= ,285 (p = .1317)
50 40 Q
30
3
10
5
o
, .;c, ,. Pit small-medium bovids .,
tn
.7
I) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MNI = 0.41576 + 26.647 (bulk density) Pearson’s r = .48 (p = .W63)
.2
3
.4
.5
.6
MNI = 12.937 .05094 (food ufility) Pearson’s r = -.16 (p = .4066) Spearman’s r = -.I59 (p=.3906)
large-medium bovids 60
MNI = -9.612 + 79.388 (bulk density) Pearson’s r = ,759 (p = .OOOl) Spearman’s ” r = ,733 (p = .OOOl)
6.
1 ”
MNI = -2.92 + 21.317 (bulk density) Pearson’s r = ,513 (p = .0044) 35
.l23A.5 .6 .7 bulk density
(grams/cubic
bovids
cm)
MNI = 30.623 - 2.68 (food utility) Pearson’s r = -.491 (o = .00691 Spearman’s r = -.545”(p = .0036)
”
““‘I
MNI = 7.601 - ,067 (food utility) Pearson’s r = -.301 (p = .I 122) Spearman’s r = -.558 (p = .0031) 1’” .““‘t
0 102030405060708090loo standardized food utility (%)
DIFFERENCES IN SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION
317
carnivores or other nonhuman bone collectors), these marks confirm that the bones were accumulated primarily by MSA people. Conceivably, the positioning of the marks on various elements would allow a distinction between scavenging and hunting, but at present, it is unclear what positioning to expect in either case (compare, e.g. Bunn & Kroll, 1986 to Shipman, 1986). Independent of cut-mark positioning, however, Binford (1984) has argued that MSA human scavenging is indicated by the occurrence of carnivore-gnaw marks and by bone fractures and hack marks produced when people dismembered large bovid carcasses that were dessicated. However, even if the fractures and hack marks have been correctly interpreted, like carnivore-gnaw marks, they are very rare at Klasies, and they are not evidence that large bovids were routinely scavenged. Mortality profiles are relevant because scavenging will create a profile that is dominated by very young animals and by post-prime adults. This is because the very young and the old are especially susceptible to “natural” mortality (from accidents, starvation, predation, and endemic disease), and it is their carcasses that scavengers are thus most likely to encounter. The carcasses they are least likely to find are those of prime-age (reproductively active) adults, particularly compared to the abundance of prime-age animals in live populations. The mortality profiles of most of the Klasies bovids are dominated by very young and post-prime individuals. This is consistent with the possibility that these species were scavenged, though the very same profiles would be created by human hunters, if, like most other large African predators, they found it easier or less dangerous to hunt very young and relatively old individuals. There is, however, one mortality profile whose implications are unambiguous. This is the profile for eland, the most numerous large bovid in the site. It contains prime-age adults in essentially the same proportion as they occur in live herds, and it is thus totally inconsistent with scavenging. Among all the bovids represented at Klasies, eland are distinctive for their docility and for the ease with which they can be driven, and I have suggested that the Klasies people produced the observed mortality profile by driving whole eland herds over cliffs or into other traps where all animals would die, regardless of age (Klein, 19836). Suitable cliffs exist very nearby. If eland groups near Klasies were as widely dispersed and difficult to locate as they were in most historic African environments, successful drives may have been rare, but the point remains that the species must have been hunted, not scavenged. Detecting Selective Transport and Selective Destruction in Fossil Assemblages
My fundamental argument is that differential transport and destruction, linked to carcass size, probably produced the basic contrast in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger ungulates observed at Klasies and most comparable sites throughout the world. The argument is only weakly supported by historic observations, and more complete support may never be forthcoming, particularly since the destructive processes involved may be difficult or impossible to observe in modern situations. However, Grayson (1988) has suggested a way to pursue the issue further, using fossil data alone. At the very least, Grayson’s method helps to clarify what the basic issue is. Figure 5. The relationships between bulk density and skeletal part abundance (measured by the MN1 for each skeletal part) (left) and between standardized food utility and skeletal part abundance (right) in each of the five bovid size classesin the fauna1 sample from the MSA I and II layers of Klasies River Mouth Cave 1 (Singer & Wymer excavations). The bulk density values, standardized food utility figures, and MNIs were obtained from Lyman (1984), Metcalfe & Iones (1988), and Table 1 (this paper) respectively.
378
R. G. KLEIN
What Grayson recommends is that the abundance of various skeletal parts in a fossil assemblage be plotted first against their density and second against their estimated food value. The purpose is to determine the extent to which abundance has been affected by selective destruction (density) versus selective transport (food value). Selective destruction alone is implied when there is a significant positive relationship between abundance and density (that is, when the most abundant parts tend to be the densest ones), together with a nonrelationship between abundance and food value. Conversely, selective transport is suggested when there is a significant, positive relationship between abundance and food utility (that is, when the most abundant parts tend to be the most useful ones), together with a nonrelationship between abundance and density. Other possible outcomes, such as a positive relationship between abundance and density associated with a negative relationship between abundance and food value, are more ambiguous. The method cannot provide conclusive results, even in nonambiguous situations, since significant positive correlations could be spurious, but it is at least suggestive. Figure 5 presents the relevant plots for the different bovid size classes in the Klasies sample. In each case, skeletal part abundance is represented by MNIs, density by bulk densities from Lyman (1984,1985), and food value by pertinent standardized values of the Food Utility Index (FUI) from Metcalfe & Jones (1988). The FUI measures the same property as a composite food (meat, marrow, and grease) utility index established by Binford (his Modified General Utility Index), but is easier to calculate and understand. The bulk density and food utility values are approximations, based on estimates for (cervid) species whose anatomy closely resembles that of the Klasies bovids. To aid in the evaluation of each scatterplot, Figure 5 also presents the associated regression or trend line and two measures of correlation, each followed by the probability that it differs from zero by chance alone. A trend line that slopes upwards from left to right implies a positive relationship between abundance and density or food value; a line that slopes downwards implies a negative relationship. The steeper the slope, the stronger the apparent relationship. The correlation coefficients-varying between - 1 (perfect negative) and + 1 (perfect positive)-measure the strength of a relationship more objectively. I have presented one correlation coefficient-Pearson’s Y (or the product-moment coefficient), which is numerically related to the trend line, and a second-Spearman’s Y (also known as rho or the rank-order coefficient), which is not. In general, both coefficients provide the same result, but when they do not, Spearman’s r is to be preferred, because it is more appropriate to the statistical/numerical nature of the MNI. The abundance and density plots (Figure 5 left) show that density and abundance tend to be much more closely related in the larger bovids than in the smaller ones. The relationships are positive, and they are thus fully consistent with my hypothesis that differential selective destruction is at least partly responsible for the observed contrast in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger bovids. However, the abundance and food value plots (Figure 5 right) suggest a different result. They tend to exhibit significant negative correlations in the larger bovids, but not in the smaller ones, and they could thus be used to argue almost as strongly in favor of Binford’s hypothesis that the smaller bovids were mainly hunted, while the larger ones were mainly scavenged. In short, the combination of a significant positive correlation between abundance and density and a significant negative correlation between abundance and food value makes the larger bovid plots ambiguous. This kind of ambiguity is in fact expectable, since Lyman (1985) has shown that utility and density are themselves negatively correlated (that is, high utility parts tend to be low in density and vice versa). However, even if the ambiguity were not predictable, I think it can be argued that the abundance/density results are more meaningful, because density probably reflects the likelihood that a skeletal part will survive destructive pressure better than food value
DIFFERENCES
IN SKELETAL
PART
REPRESENTATION
379
reflects the likelihood it will be transported. Using this methodology to separate selective transport from selective destruction should prove more fruitful, when food value can be replaced by an index that measures the costs as well as the benefits associated with transporting different elements. Conclusion
The controversy over the interpretation of skeletal part representation illustrates a much broader philosophical division in archeology between those like Binford, who argue in essence that compelling or conclusive explanations of the archeological record must be based on strict adherence to the uniformitarian (or “actualistic”) principle, and those like myself, who believe that satisfactory explanations can be-perhaps must be-obtained partly from a careful analysis of archeological patterning alone. The uniformitarian principle-that historically observed processes can and should be used to understand the prehistoric past-is undeniable, but it is equally clear that modern or historic observations may not always provide a full appreciation ofprocess and that some processes (for example, post-depositional destruction) cannot be directly observed, except in a trivial way. Based on a combination of uniformitarian and archeological observations, I think that differential transport and differential destruction linked to carcass size provide the most satisfactory explanation for the widespread contrast in skeletal part representation between smaller and larger ungulates exemplified at Klasies River Mouth. However, further exploration of this hypothesis depends on the development of methods to separate the effects of transport from those of destruction. Assuming the hypothesis is essentially correct, satisfactory separation is also vital to explaining why the precise form of the contrast varies among sites. I believe that progress in making the separation depends partly on fresh uniformitarian information-for example, on additional observations of Hadza butchery and bone-collecting-and partly on thoughtful comparisons among archeological samples in a search for correlations between patterns of skeletal part representation and other potentially relevant archeological variables. Acknowledgements
My research on the Klasies River Mouth fauna was made possible primarily by National Science Foundation grants GS-3013 and SOC73-05762. K. J. Edwards, D. K. Grayson, R. L. Lyman, D. Metcalfe, and J. F. O’Connell kindly commented on the manuscript. References Avery, D. M. (1987). Late Pleistocene coastal environment of the southern Cape Province of South Africa: micromammals from Klasies River Mouth. Journal ofArchaeological Science 14, 405421. Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. Binford, L. R. (1984). Fauna1 Remainsjirom Klasies River Mouth. New York: Academic Press. Binford, L. R. (1989). Response to Turner. Journal of Archaeological Science 16,13-16. Brain, C. K. (1981). The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bunn, H. T., Bartram, L. E. & Kroll, E. M. (1988). Variability in bone assemblage formation from Hadza hunting, scavenging, and carcass processing. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7, 412457. Bunn, H. T. & Kroll, E. M. (1986). Systematic butchery by Plio/Pleistocene hominids at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Current Anthropology 5,431452. Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M. & Wilson, A. C. (1987). Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature 325,31-36. Dart, R. (1949). The predatmry implemental technique of Australopithectis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 7, l-38.
R. G. KLEIN
380
Dart, R. (1957). The osteodontokeratic culture of Australopithecus
ajiiicanus. Memoirs of the
Transvaal Museum 10, l-105.
Deacon, H. J. (1989). Late Pleistocenepalaeoecology and archaeology in the southern Cape, South Africa. In (P. Mellars & C. Stringer, Eds) The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,(In press). Deacon, H. J., Geleijnse, V. B., Thackeray, A. I., Thackeray, J. F. & Tusenius, M. L. (1986). Late Pleistocenecave deposits in the southern Cape: current research at Klasies River Mouth. Palaeoecology
of Africa 17,3 l-37.
Deacon, H. J. & Geleijnse, V. B. (1988). The stratigraphy and sedimentology of the Main Site sequence,Klasies River, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 43, 5-14. Grayson, D. K. (1988). Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: the faunas. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 66, l-130. Klein, R. G. (1976). The mammalian fauna of the Klasies River Mouth sites, southern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 31,75-98. Klein, R. G. (1980). The interpretation of mammalian faunas from stone age archaeological sites, with special reference to sitesin the southern Cape Province, South Africa. In (A. K. Behrensmeyer & A. Hill, Eds) Fossils in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,pp. 223-246.
Klein, R. G. (1983a). Palaeoenvironmental implications of Quaternary large mammals in the Fynbos Biome. South African National Scientific Programmes Reports 75,116-138. Klein, R. G. (19836). The stone age prehistory of southern Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology 12,25-48.
Klein, R. G. (1989). Biological and behavioural perspectives on modern human origins in southern Africa. In (P. Mellars & C. Stringer, Eds) The Human Revolution: Behaviouraland Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,(In press). Klein, R. G. & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984). The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Klein, R. G. & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1987). Large mammal and tortoise bones from Elands Bay Cave and nearby sites,Western Cape Province, South Africa. In (J. E. Parkington & M. Hall Eds) Papers in the Prehistory of the Western Cape, South Africa. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series332, pp. 132-163. Klein, R. G. & Scott, K. (1986). Re-analysis of fauna1 assemblagesfrom the Haua Fteah and other Late Quaternary sites in Cyrenaican Libya. Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 515-542. Lyman, R. L. (1984). Bone density and differential survival in fossil classes.Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology
3,259-299.
Lyman, R. L. (1985). Bone frequencies: differential transport, in situ destruction, and the MGUI. Journal of Archaeological
Science 12,221-236.
Metcalfe, D. & Jones, K. T. (1988). A reconsideration of animal body-part utility indices. American
Antiquity
53,486504.
O’Connell, J. F., Hawkes, K. & Blurton Jones, N. J. (1988). Hadza hunting, butchering, and bone transport and their archaeological implications. Journal of Anthropological Research 44, 113-161. Perkins, D. & Daly, P. (1968). A hunters’ village in Neolithic Turkey. Scienti$c American 219(1 l), 97-106.
Rightmire, G. P. (1984). Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa. In (F. H. Smith & F. Spencer, Eds) The Origins of Modern Humans. A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence. New York: Alan R. Liss, pp. 295-325. Scott, K. (1986). Review of Binford (1984). J ournal of Archaeological Science 13,89-g 1. Shipman, P. (1986). Scavenging or hunting in early hominids: theoretical framework and tests. American
Anthropologist
88,27-43.
Singer, R. & Wymer, J. J. (1982). The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DIFFERENCES IN SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION
381
Stringer, C. B. & Andrews, P. (1988). Genetic and fossil evidence for the origin of modern humans. Science 239,1263-1268. Thackeray, A. I. & Kelley, A. J. (1988). A technological and typological analysis of Middle Stone Age assemblagesantecedent to the Howieson’s Poort at Klasies River Main Site. South African Archaeological
Bulletin
43, 15-26.
Thackeray, J. F. (1988). Molluscan fauna from Klasies River, South Africa. South African Archaeological
Bulletin
43,27-32.
Turner, A. (1989). Sample selection, schlepp effects and scavenging: the implications of partial recovery for interpretations of the terrestrial mammal assemblagefrom Klasies River Mouth. Journal of Archaeological Science 16,1-12. Voigt, E. A. (1973). Stone Age molluscan utilisation at Klasies River Mouth Caves, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 69,306-309.
Voigt, E. A. (1983). Mapungubwe: an archaeozoological interpretation of an Iron Age community. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum Monograph 1. Volman, T. P. (1981). The Middle Stone Age in the southern Cape. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Volman, T. P. (1984). Early prehistory of southern Africa. In (R. G. Klein, Ed.) Southern African prehistory andpaleoenvironments. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, pp. 169-220. Volman, T. P. (1989). The Middle Stone Age of southern Africa and the origins of modern humans. The African Archaeological Review 6, (In press). White, T. E. (1952). Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples: I. American Antiquity 17,337-338. White, T. E. (1953). Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples No. 2. American Antiquity 19, 160-164. White, T. E. (1954). Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples No. 3, 4, 5, and 6. American Antiquity 19,254-264.
