3 Hunting meat and scavengingmaffow?
explanationfor Middle StoneAge
a seasonal
subsistence
at KlasiesRiver Mouth
Alan K. Outram
INTRODUCTION
The interpretationof the Klasies River Mouth ungulate
bone assemblagehas beena major point of controversy
for over a decade.Over this time, therehavebeenattacks
and counter-attackspassedbetweenLewis Binford and
Richard Klein. Just about every major name in the field
has published comment on the issue, but to no clear
re s olv e.
In 1976 Richard Klein publishedhis interpretationof
the Klasies River Mouth faunal assemblage.For the
purposeof studyinganatomicalpart representation
Klein
split the ungulate remains into five animal size ciasses
(Klein 1916, Binford 1984).Class I representedsmall
ungulatessuchas grysbokandthe like, weighingbetween
15 and 50 pounds.SizeclassII referredto smail-medium
ungulateslike springbok weighing up to around 110
pounds.ClassIII were medium-largeungulatessuch as
wildebeest and hartebeestreaching a weight of about
400 pounds.Large ungulates,classIV, represented
eland
and cape buffalo, animals of around 2000 pounds.The
now extinct giant buffalo, Pelorovis, formed the fifth,
4000 pound, class.
Of particular interest was the pattern that emerged
from scrutiny of the anatomicalpart frequencies.There
was a clear disparitybetweensmallerand larger animals.
Size classI and II animals were representedwith a bias
towardsbonesof the upperlimbs, a patternquite common
and expectedfor hunted animals on an archaeological
site. Size class IV and V animals, however, had an
assemblagedominated by elementsfrom the head and
100
iE ge {H e€ s; E
€
g i d E
o
-e
s ex x x 3: EqEE€ : :
FFEF i = = ; ; ;
,
Skelelal Parts
Fig. 3.1 Graph showing the skeleta! part abundances (VoMAU)for size class I and II mammals at Klasies River Mouth.
Figures from Binford (1984, table 3.5).
Hunting meat and scavenging marrow?
l o wer lim bs , whi l s t s i z e c i a s s III a n i ma l s d i s pl ayed
aspectsfrom both the patternsof smail and largeanimals.
Headand foot bonesare of marginal use and preference
in transportingtheseto a site,ratherthan the meat-bearing
upper limbs, seemedalien to the current theoriesof
2l
hunting practice.This strangepattern would have to be
explained.
These patternsare expressedin ierms of Minimum
Animai Units (MAUs), calculatedby Binford (1984),in
g r a p h i cf o r m i n F i g s .3 . \ , 3 . 2 a n d 3 . 3 .
100
70
60
= f , u
\o
frl
30
20
10
S
I
d
c
5
ci
2,
(6
c
i
.E d
o
d
cj
i
;
-d
-o
*
ci
-.-
-'.
ry
c)
i F X s $ Ei i - = : F n . ji r E
S * == $ : i = & 3 i: S ##
R 5 6 E
o
E
9
X
F
F
Fis. 3.2 Graph showing the sketetatpart abundance, ,";:;^:;;:
from Binford (1984, rable 3.5).
size ctass
III mammats at Ktasies River Mouth. Figures
100
90
70
I
I
I
OU
f
I
-
I
= c u
I
\o
I
i-
' -v
I
I
I
a
a
30
10
o- ;'. N:
E
i E X f i f i E != a? E 5 5 33 : = = E E f f ; : F F F € r'i s i =
; g; l s
l
v
1
5
(
!
3I :
g i = [ E B*; e "qE r ;
s##
SkeletalParts
Fig. 3.3 Graph showing the skeletal part abundances (VoMA(J)for size classIV and V mammals at KlasiesRiver Mouth.
Figures from Binford (1984, tabLe3.5).
--
22
ALanK. Outram
Klein found his initial solutionin the "schleppetfect"
developedby Perkinsand Daly (1968) while analysing
the Neolithic site of Suberdein Turkey. A similar pattern
had beenencounteredat this site and expiainedin terms
of method of meat transport.They suggestedthat such
meat was being dragged, or "schlepped" (trom the
Germanverb), back to the site inside the animals' hides,
with the lower leg bones still attached and acting as
handies.This theory neatly explainedthe excessof foot
bones.
The theory attractedmuch criticism and now is largely
considereddiscredited.Binford, in his 1984analysisof
the Klasies River Mouth faunal remains,suggestedthat
the "schlepp effect" went againstall his observationsof
hunter-gatherersocieties.He had recently publishedan
in-depthstudyof the Nunamiut Eskimo peoples(Binford
1978).Those studying the Hadza of Northern Tanzania
(O'Connell et al. 1988, 1990) were similarly deeply
critical. The "schlepp effect" was charged with being
unfoundedand simply convenient.The final blow came
when Alan Turner (1989) drew attentionto the vast
number of bones discardedat the Suberdesite during
excavation.He arguedcogently that this recovery bias
renderedany detailedanalysisuseless.
Binford's (198a) new explanationfor the anatomical
part frequenciesstruck againstthe traditional views of
hominid development.He arguedthat the concentration
on parts of marginal utility in larger animals,the heads
and lower limbs, was indicative of scavenging.His
interpretationwas that size classIV and V animalswere
b e yo nd hom inid hu n ti n g c a p a b i l i ti e s .S i z e c l a s s III
animals, showing both sets of characteristics,were
consideredborderline, and possibly subject to both
hunting and scavenging.It was argued that hominid
scavengingof large animal carcasseswas taking place
after they had been largely eatenout by previous nonhuman hunter/scavengers.
Animal predatorstend not to
eat much from the headand lower limbs; hence,it would
be these that would survive for hominid utilization of
ediblepartssuchas brains,mandibularpuipy tissuesand
bone marrow.
Binford supportedhis scavengingtheorywith evidence
from cut and hack marks found on the bones.He argued,
extremelyconvincingly, that the marks on small animals
areconsistentwith butcheryfor freshmeat.Largeanimals,
on the other hand, showed a pattern consistentwith
disarticulationof lower limbs from stiff, semi-dried,not
freshly hunted carcasses.Such bones show extensive
breakageassociated
with marrow processing.
This is not
the casewith the smaller animals. Furthermore,animal
gnaw marks have been found on larger animals' bones
underlyinglater hominid cut marks^
Klein (1989)defendedhis position,statingthat even
if the "schieppeffect" were no longer acceptablethenthe
answerstill lay with differential transport.He provided
little firm support for the continuation of this view,
however,and Binfbrd's theory seemedmore persuasive.
Very recently, however, an extremely thorough reexaminationof the butcheryevidenceat Klasies River
Mouth (Milo 1998) came up with very different conclusions to Binford. Milo (ibid.) carried out his reexaminationof the bone assemblagewith the aid of a
wide-field stereomicroscope.
He was able to find many
butchery marks that had previously gone unnoticed.
Butchery marks appearedto be just as common on the
high utility elementsof large animals as on the more
distal elementsand there was very little evidence of
carnivore damage.This suggeststhat the Klasies River
Mouth hominidshad first accessto high utility elements
of large animals and, therefore,were probably hunting
them (ibid.). Furthermore,Milo (ibid. p. I23) found the
end of a stonepoint embeddedin the cervical vertebraof
a specimen of Pelorovis. This implies the use of a
projectile weapon and is strong evidence for active
huntingof classV animals.Miio, however,doesnot offer
any convincing argumentwhich could account for the
unusualpatternin the skeletalpart abundances.
A FURTHER PROBLEM WITH BINFORD'S
ARGUMENT
Binford suggeststhat the extractionof marrow from bones
of larger animalswas only taking place with the radius,
metapodialsand phalangesand not with the humerus,
femur or tibia (Binford 1984, 123-160). This raisesthe
questionof why theseuppermarrow-bearingboneswere
ignored if hominid scavengerswere reduced to such
marginalfood sources.Binford's argumentis that lower
limbs were not attackedto the sameextent by previous
non-humanpredator/scavengers,
becauseall the meat is
to be found on the upperlimb bones.This would seemto
be true with regardto meateatingpredators(Brain 1981),
but what we are examining is marrow utilization: the
large marrow cavitiesof theseupper limb boneswould
remain unaffectedeven though the predators stripped
them of their meat.
Furthermore, in his study of carcass consumption
sequences
Blumenschine(1986)arguesstronglyagainst
the idea that marrow-seeking non-human scavengers
would tend to attackjust upper limbs. Although he finds
that not all speciesbehavein the sameway, noneof them
has greater preferenceto starting with the upper limb.
The most common sequenceof marrow consumptionin
animal scavengerswas as follows: femur, tibia. hind
phalanges,metatarsals,humerus,fore phalanges,radius
and finally metacarpals.This order is a mixture of upper
a n d l o w e r l i m b b o n e s . B l u m e n s c h i n e( 1 9 8 6 , 6 5 3 )
concludes:
"... thereis no empiricalbasisfor expectingfoot bones
to be more frequently available to a scavengerthan
upper (defleshed)limb bones from carcassesfed on
initially by non-humancarnivores."
,-
Hunting meat and scavenging marrow?
In addition, the disarticulationmarks Binford cites as
beingfor the removalof the lower limbs would only be
necessaryif the upper limbs remained largely intact.
Theredoes not seemto be a satisfactoryexplanationfor
hominid selectionof lower limb bonesas a resultof the
feeding patternsof previous non-humanpredator/scavengers.It shouldalsobe notedthat the Hadzahavebeen
observedto exploit marrow from all the limb bonesof
u ngulat es( O ' Con n e l le t a l . 1 9 8 8 ,1 3 5 ).
If there is no way of demonstratingwhy hominids
shouldchooseto ignore the potentialfood resourceof
marrowin the upperlimb bonesthenBinford's theory,as
it stands,is severelyweakened.It.is for this reasonthat
I shall go on to considerbone marrow indicesand the
nature of marrow content in different bones of the
skeleton.
appendicular
BONE MARROW INDICES
For his s t udy o f N u n a mi u t h u n ti n g a n d b u t cheri ng
techniques,Binford constructedan index of marrow
utility for different skeletal parts of both caribou and
sheep(Binford 1918, 23-28). He studied several carcassesand calculatedmarrow cavity volume for diffbrent
bonesand analysedmarrow composition.His marrow
utility index was quite complex.It includednot only the
volume of marrow from different bones, but also its
quality and a measureof extraction efficiency. Binford
also made severalmathematicaladjustments.
The complexityof Binford's index hasrecentlybeen
cr it ic is ed ( J one s a n d M e tc a l fe 1 9 8 8 , Ma rs h al l and
Pilgram 1991). Jones and Metcalfe carried out a reexaminationof Binford's marrow utility index asapplied
to the Nunamiut (Jonesand Metcalfe 1988, 415423).
Although Binford had obtained a positive statistical
correlationbetweenhis complex marrow index and the
actual marrow processingdecisionsof the Nunamiut,
Jonesand Metcalfe gaineda higher statisticalcorrelation
by using an index based upon marrow volume alone.
Adding further considerationsto the index did not
strengthenthe match. Marshall and Pilgram, applying
marrow utility indicesto a study of the PastoralNeolithic
site of Ngamuriak,came to similar conclusions(1991,
15 9 ) :
"Part frequenciescan be predictedaccuratelyfrom a
mathematical
modelusingjustmarrowcavityvolume..."
Despite this, it is indeed of some value to the present
studyto considerthe extrafactorsBinford was concerned
with and how he incorporatedthem into his marrow utility
index. Previouscritics of the Binford index have noted
that it was too complex but have failed to examinethe
precise nature and effect of the inclusion of the extra
factorsand also,very importantly, the two mathematical
>-
functionsBinford appliesas a modification. A study of
theseis very revealing.
The marrow cavity volumes calculated by Binford
(1978)show that the upperlimbs, on the whole, contain
the most marrow, yet his marrow utility index greatly
favours the lower limbs. The first modification Binford
makes concerns marrow quality. He maintains that
marrow containinga large amountof oleic fatty acid was
preferredby the Nunamiut. The lower limb bones have
the higheroleic acid content.Betore using this to modify
his index, Binford squaredthe oleic acid data, to have
the effect of "...compressingor lowering the scale of
variability" (Binford 1918,25). In fact squaring has the
oppositeeffect.As a resulthis modification favouredthe
lower limbs even more greatly.
Binford's secondmodification was with regard to
extractionefficiency. This data, if applied as it stands,
has little effect on the overall picture, but Binford first
applieda squareroot to it. Since the lower limbs have
low efficienciesthe squareroot had little effect on them,
but the effect of a squareroot on the high efficienciesof
the upperlimbs was much more drastic.Hence,the lower
limbs were favouredagain.Binford, in fact, admits to "a
biasin informantevaluationin favour of greasequality..."
(1978,26). The final utility index bearsno resemblance
to the original marrow volume figures (Figs. 3.4 and
3.5). Binford's mathematicalmodifications make his
index misleadingand hard to treat as anything other than
his opinionon the matter.This doesnot, however,entirely
discredithis conclusions.
If one comparesmarrow cavity volumes with skeletal
part abundances
for sizeclassIV animals(both standardized as a percentageof their highest values) (see Fig.
3.4), tt is evident that there is little correlation.If Jones
and Metcalfe (1988) and Marshall and Pilgram (1991)
are correct in saying that the choice of bones can be
predicted on the basis of marrow cavity volume, then
Binford's theory explainingthe skeletalpart abundances
at KlasiesRiver Mouth cannot be justified by a marrow
utility argument.
If Binford's marrowutility index (1978)is compared
in a similar manner (Fig. 3.5) there is a notable correlation. It has just been demonstrated,however, that
Binford's index hasbeenmodified far too much to form
an objectivebasisof supportto his theory.For Binford's
theory to remain in any way viable there needs to be
some reasonwhy greaterutility can be assignedto the
marrow of the lower 1imbs.
Binford (1978) talks of marrow with high oleic acid
contentbeingmore desirablein taste.Mere flavour would
not seema strongargumentwhen consideringan adaptation basedaround scavenging.Oleic acid proportion is,
however,not the only possiblereasonfor exploiting the
marrow of the lower limb. Another reason is stronelv
reiatedto seasonality.
ALanK. Outram
1A
LA
r00
90
60
=
J
U
\o
40
30
20
t0
{
a
o
8
E
I
:EI
.
0
-
o
:
#oo
:
:
-
o
<
-
#.
:
_
-
o
o
=- -
<
-
u
-
o
;
s
L
L
o
-
i
.
6
I
;
.
F
o
-
o
o
g
;
_
r
-
:
G
<:
o_
o
N
c
o
_c
0_
SkeletalParts
Fig. 3.4 Graph comparing skeletal part abundancesfor size classIV mammals at Klasies River Mouth with the marrow
cavity volume of caribou elements.Data derivedfrom Binford (1975, table 1.6; 1984, tabLe3.5).
100
90
80
70
60
f
o\
a
20
l
t
l
10
(g
o
!
-
T
+
;
+
U
c
;
U
c
t
J
.:
z
n
3 o -
-
.
o
9
,
a
i
lr
)
n
.
(
!
rr
-
n
.
(
l-
'
:
n
E
-
j
-
^
N
(
L
O
_
o
(
J
o
O
SkeletalParts
Fig. 3.5 Graph comparing skeletal part abundancesfor size class IV mammaLsat Klasies River Mouth with Binford's
Marrow Index for caribou elements. Data derivedfrom Binford (1978, table 1.9; 1984, table 3.5).
!-E
4
F
;
Hunting meat and scavenging marrow'?
RESOURCESTRESSAND SEASONALITY
Work has recently been carried out on variability of
marrowyield in East African ungulates(Blumenschine
andMadrigal 1993).This study is more relevantto this
thanBinfbrd's cariboumarrowindex because
discussion
speciespresentat KlasiesRiver Mouth, and
with
it deals
sample.Blumenschineand Madrigal
a
larger
used
also
of marrow yieldsof differentskeletal
breakdown
a
present
expressed
usefully
in kcal. They noted that
elements,
were
much
more
fat depletedin the upper
animals
sfessed
the
lower
This
in
ones.
effect is in fact quite
than
limbs
(Cheatum1949,
in
zoological
papers
documented
widely
'1981,
1,971,
et
al.
Davis
et
al.
Petersonet al.
Brookes
had
little
zooarchaeological
consideration
1,982).It has
until recently (Speth 1987, Bunn and Ezzo 1993).The
effectis summedup well by Peterson,Allen and Dietz
(1982,550, emphasisadded):
"Fat mobilization was first evident in the limbs of
moosein the femur and humerus,then the tibia and
metatarsus,and finally the radius and metacarpus.
Differencesamong bonescausedby progressivefat
mobilizationwere not as great in mooseas in some
African ungulates (Brookes et al. 1911) and white
tailed deer (Cheatum 1949).Those srudiesindicated
that femur marrow could be fat-depletedand the
animal dead from malnutrition with distal bones still
containing considerabIe fat " .
The importanceof this to the presentstudyhardly needs
to be pointed out! The fat depletionpattern is clearly
visible in Blumenschineand Madrigal's statistics.It is
shown in graphicform in Fig. 3.6, where standardized
calorific valuesof marrow of a stressedand unstressed
animalarecompared.The stressof animalsis commonly
measuredas a percentageof femur fat. In the example,
the relatively unstressedanimal has 63.IVofemur fat, the
stressed
example30.3Vo.Itcanbe seenthatin the stressed
animal the metacarpalbecomesmore important than the
humerus and the metatarsalmore important than the
femur.The middle leg bones(radiusandtibia) remainof
hi ghestval uei n both cases.
The speciesof animal used in this example is a
wildebeest.Unfortunately this is a size class III animal
and,therefore,borderlinein Binford's scavengingtheory.
BlumenschineandMadrigaldid not studyany animalsof
size classIV or V. The patternis, however,likely to be
general.
BlumenschineandMadrigal alsodraw attentionto the
variability of bone marrow yields betweenanimals of
different species,age and sex. Differencesin locomotor
characteristicsare said to be of particularimportance.It
is clear that size classis not the only issue.There is a
need,therefore,for further fieldwork.
Having establishedthe importance of stress to the
study of bone marrow utility, it is now necessaryto
discussthe occurrenceof stressin animals.Stressis often
governedby seasonalclimate.This is very clear in the
EastAfrican Serengetiwheremuch work hasbeencarried
out (H ouston79J9,B l umenschi ne
1987,S peth1987) .I n
the Serengetimostungulatedeathsoccurin the laterhalf
of the dry seasonand most of these are the result of
100
90
80
60
.-.:
( ) t r n
Y
lr
u e a r t nj v
l Z l S t r e s s e dI
-o
o\
40
Humerus
Metacarpal
Femur
Tibia
Metalarsal
Elements
Fig. 3.6 Graph comparing reLativecrtlorific values of bone marrow in the eLementsof stressedanrJ unstressed wildebeest
specimens.Values derivedfrom Blumen,schineand Madrigal (1993, table 5).
Jt)
ALanK. Outram
malnutrition.In fact, stressrelateddeathsaccounttor as
MSA is uncertain.The divide betweenfynbos and Karoo
much astwo thirdsof the entiredeathtoll (Houston1979,
might move in relationto sealevel (Binford 1984, 212 6 6- 261) . T hes e c a rc a s s e sa re c o n s u m e db y m any
37).Binford,baseduponthefaunalremainsat othersites
different hunter/scavengers.
suchas E l and' sB ay C ave(P arki ngton1981,341-359) ,
B lum ens c hine( 1 9 8 1 ,3 8 8 )p o i n tso u t th a tth i s a b und- believesthat KlasiesRiver Mouth might have had "...a
anceof carcasses
in the laterdry seasonmeansthat there
summer rainfall pattern much like parts of the karoo
is little competitionbetweenscavengers.
Around 4070of
today" (1984,32). In interstadials,
however,it would be
carcasses
thereforeremain with scavengeable
resources similar to the fynbos of today, Either way there is the
on them. Since theseanimalsdied of malnutritionthey
distinctpossibilityof seasonalstress.
will display the effects of differential fat depletion,
retainingmost fat in their lower limbs.
Speth(1987) has also examinedhominid subsistence CONCLUSIONS
needsin seasonalenvironments.Str.essed
animalshave
Baseduponthe abovediscussion,
it is my contentionthat
extremelylean meat.If leanmeatis onesonly food source
a new theory for the subsistencestrategiesat Klasies
the body has troublebreakingdown all the protein,which
River Mouth should be considered.I suggestthat size
is far harderto processthan fat. Sucha diet, accordingto
classI and II animalswere huntedand that, in the face of
Speth,is bad for the metabolismandcanresuitin protein
Milo's (1998) butcherystudy, that classIII, IV and V
poisoning.He thereforesuggests
that"...hunter-gatherers an'imalswere also hunted to a certain extent. The
'explanationfor the presenceof excessive
would avoid a high intake of lean meat" (1987,20) and
numbers of
that the "... acquisitionof fat ratherthan meatmay have
lower limb bonesof larger animals (size classesItrI, IV
been more critical" (Speth, 1981,13). Bunn andEzzo
and V), showingsignsof marrow processing,could be
(t993,387) do not considerthis to be so important,and
the need to find fatty marrow to supplementthe hunted
suggestthat a seasonalimbalancein fat intake could be
meat diet in periods of seasonalstress.Therefore, the
made up for by building up a fat reservein less stressed high utility elementsand someof the low utility elements
times.Spethdoes,however,give ethnographic
precedents of large animalsare presentas a result of hunting. More
for the importance of the point he makes.If hominids
distal elementswere introducedto the assemblageas a
were in need of fat in a seasonallystressedenvironment
resultof opportunistscavangingof marrow resourceslefl
they may well havelookedto the lower limbs of scavenge- .
lelind by carnivoresafter they had finished with large
able carcasses.Even if Bunn and Ezzo's opinion that
animalcarcasses.
meat would still be more important were correct, scavI am fully awarethat this argumentsuffersfrom a lack
engedmarrow may still have had a significantrole in the
of fully relevant data, and, as such, it should rernain a
d i e t.
tentativesuggestion.
Thereareseveralareaswherefurther
Clearly all this discussionis relevantto the Serengeti, researchand fieldwork would be of great use:
but is it also relevant to Klasies River Mouth in the
1. Marrow yield variation amongstlarge ungulatesof
Southern Cape? Unfortunately I have not encountered
Africa in relation to stressand anatomicalpart.
any studiesof this areacomparablein zooarchaeological
2. Stress related ungulate deaths within fynbos and
value to thosecarriedout in the Serengeti.
karoo biomes,examinedwith scavengingutility and
The presentecologicalbiome at KlasiesRiver Mouth
degreesof fat mobilization in mind.
is known as fynbos (Binford 1984, Klein 1976, Kruger
3. The availability of non-ungulatefood resources
1979), which can be compared with the coast of Chile,
availableto hominids in fynbos and karoo biomes,
the South Australian heathlandsand even some areasof
examinedwith seasonalityin mind.
the Mediterranean(Binfbrd 1984).The soil tendsto be
4. A better chronology of past environments of the
poor and podsolizedwith a low turnoverof new growth
SouthernCape of South Africa.
(Kr uger 1919, 19 -8 1 ) a n d i s , a s s u c h , n o t g o od for
supportinglarge numbersof ungulates.The temperature I would also like to point out some methodological
seeslittle seasonalvariation(Kruger 1979,Binford 1984)
problems encounteredduring this study. Firstly, it is
but there is a dry season(Kruger 1919,Bigalke 1979,
advisablethat any indicesbe calculatedto reflect specific
8 1 -97) . A c c or ding to Bi g a l k e (1 9 1 9 ,9 4 ), " ...s u mmer measurements,and not be so far modified that they
aridity imposesparticularstresses."Although a precise become meaningless.Secondly,care should be taken
studyneedsto be undertaken,it seemslikely that animals
when classinganimals into size groups becauseof the
might becomesufficiently fat depletedin the dry season large possiblevariationbetweendifferent speciesof the
to make seasonalityan important factor.
samesize in such mattersas bone marrow.
A few miies North, over the CapeFoldedMountains,
the environmentis of karoo type (Binford 1984).Karoo
is an arid-landecosystem(Leistner19J9,109-145)which
Acknowledgements
is likely to exhibit a great deal of seasonalstress.The
I wish to thank PeterRowley-Conwy for his advice and
natureof the Klasies River Mouth environmentin the
for pointing me in the direction of this researchsubiect.
--
Hunting meat and scavenging marrovv?
I wouldalsolike to thankDerekOutram'HelenOutram
on earlierdrafts.
andNick southgatefor theircomments
entirely
my own'
however,
are,
remain
that
Anymistakes
Mouth Sites,SouthernCapeProvince,South Africa. Sottth
African Archaeological Bulletin 3l(123 & 124): 75-98.
Klein, R.G. 1989. Why Does Skeletal Part Representation
Differ BetweenSmallerandLarger Bovids at Klasies River
Mouth and Other ArchaeologicalSites'?Journal of Archaeo l o g i c a lS c i e n c e1 6 : 3 6 3 - 3 8 1 .
Kruger, F.J. 1979. South African Heathlands.In'.Ecosystems
REFERENCES
of the World 9A, HeathLand and ReLated Shrublands,
Bigalke, R.C. 1979. Aspectsof VertebrateLif'e in Fynbos,
DescriptiveStudies.Ed. Sprecht,R.C. Amsterdam:Elsevier
South Africa. in: Ecosystemsof the WorLd9A, Heathlands
ScientificPublishingCompany, 19-81.
and RelatedShrublands,DescriptiveStudies.Ed. Sprecht,
Leistner, O.A. 1979. SouthernAfrica. In: Arid-Land EcoR.C.Amsterdam:ElsvevierScientificPublishingCompany.
systems,Volume 1. Eds. Goodall, D.W. and Perry, R.A.
81-87.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.109-145.
New York:
Binford,L.R. 1978'NtrnamiutEthnoarchaeoLogy.
Marshall,F, and Pilgram,T. 1991.Meat versusWithin-Bone
AcademicPress.
Nutrients: Another Look at the Meaning of Body Part
Biniord, L.R. 1981.Bones AttcientMen and Modern Myths.
in ArchaeologicalSites.Journal of ArchaeRepresentation
New York: Academic Press.
o l o g i c a lS c i e n c e1 8 : 1 4 9 - 1 6 3 .
Binford,L.R. 1984.FaunaLRemainsfrom KlctsiesRiver Mouth.
Milo, R.G. 1998.Evidencefor Hominid Predationat Klasies
New York: AcademicPress.
River Mouth, South Africa, and its Implicatations for the
Binford, L.R. 1985. Human Ancestors:ChangingViews of
Behaviour of Early Modern Humans. Journal of Archae'
their Behaviour. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
ological Science25: 99-133.
4: 292-321.
, . 1988.
O ' C o n n e l l , J . F . , H a w k e s , K . a n d B l u r t o n - J o n e sN
Binford, L.R. 1989. Responseto Turner. Journal of ArchaeHadza Hunting, Butchering, and Bone Transport and their
o l o g i c a lS c i e n c e1 6 : 1 3 - 1 6 .
Archaeological Implications. Journal of Anthropr-.,logical
Blumenschine,R.J. 1986. CarcassConsumptionSequences
R e s e a r c h4 4 ( 2 ) : I l 3 - 1 6 1 .
and the Archaeological Distinction of Scavengingand
, . 1990.
O ' C o n n e l l , J . F . , H a w k e s , K . a n d B l u r t o n - J o n e sN
Hunting.Journal of Human Evolution l5: 639-659.
Reanalysisof Large Mammal Body PartTransportAmong
of an Early Hominid
R.J. 1987.Characteristics
Blumenschine,
the Hadza.Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 17: 301ScavengingNiche. CurrentAnthropoloSy28(4).383-407.
31 6 .
Blumenschine,R.J. and Madrigal, T.G. 1993.Variability in
Outram, A.K. 1994. The AppLicationof Bone Marrow Indices
Long Bone Marrow Yields of East African Ungulatesand
and SeasonalArguments to the Question of DifferentiaL
its ZooarchaeologicalImplications. JournaLof ArchaeSkeletalPart Abundancesat the MSA Site of Klasies River
ological Science20: 555-587.
Mouth, Southern Cape Province, South Africa: Some
Brain, C.K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted?Chicago:
A p p r o a c h e s a n d P r o b l e m s C o n s i d e r e d .U n p u b l i s h e d
Universityof Chicago Press.
dissertation,
University of Durham.
B r o o k e s ,P . M . , H a n k s , J . a n d L u d b r o o k , J . V . 1 9 7 7 . B o n e
Parkington,J.F. 1981.The Effects of EnvironmentalChange
Marrow as an Index of Condition in African Ungulates.
on the Schedulingof Visits to Elands Bay Cave, Cape
SouthAfrican Journal of Wildlift Research7: 6l-66.
Province,South Africa. In'. Pattern of the Past: Studies in
Bunn, H.T. and Ezzo, J.A. 1993.Hunting and Scavengingby
Honor of David Clarke, Ed. Hodder, I., Isaac, G.L. and
P l i o - P l e i s t o c e n eH o m i n i d s : N u t r i t i o n a l C o n s t r a i n t s ,
Hammond, N. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
ArchaeologicalPatterns,and Behavioural Implications.
341-359.
Journal of Archaeological Science20: 365-398.
Perkins,D. and Daly, P. 1968.A Hunter'sVillage in Neolithic
Cheatum,E.L. 1949.Bone Marrow as an Index of Malnutrition
Turkey. Scientific American 219(11): 97-106.
in Deer. New York State Conservation3(5): 19-22.
Peterso.n,
R.O., Allen, D.L. and Dietz, J.M. 1982. Depletion
Davis,J.L., Valkenburg,P. and Reed,S.J. 1987.Correlations
of Bone Marrow Fat in Moose and a Correlation for
and Depletion Patternsof Marrow fat in Caribou Bones.
Dehydration.Journal of Wildlifu Management46(2):541JournaLof Wildlife Management 5l(2): 365-311.
551.
H o u s t o n ,D . C . 1 9 1 9 . T h e A d a p t a t i o n so f S c a v e n g e r sI.n :
Speth, J.D. 1987. Early Hominid SubsistenceStrategiesin
Sinclair,A.R.E.
Serengeti,
Dynamicsof an Ecosystem.Eds.
SeasonalHabitats.JournaLof Archaeolosical Science 14:
and Norton-Griffiths,M. Chicago:Universityof Chicago
t3-29.
Press.263-286.
T u r n e r , A . 1 9 8 9 . S a m p l e S e l e c t i o n ,S c h l e p p E f f e c t s a n d
Jones,K.T. and Metcalfe,D. 1988.Bare BonesArchaeology:
Scavenging:Implicationsof PartialRecoveryfor InterpretaBone Marrow Indices and Efficiency. JournaLof Archaetions of the TerrestrialMammal Assemblagefrom Klasies
ological Science 15: 415-423.
River Mouth. Journal of ArchaeolosicalScience16: 1-11.
Klein, R.G. 1976.The MammalianFaunaof the KlasiesRiver
>-