Bones. Ancient Men and Modern Myths

335 Pages·1981·28.984 MB·English

by  Lewis R. Binford (Auth.)

This is a volume in
Studies in Archaeology
A complete list of titles in this series is available from the Publisher upon request.
BONES
ANCIENT MEN
AND
MODERN MYTHS
Lewis R. Binford
Department of Anthropology
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
With a Foreword by
F. Clark Howell
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers
San Diego New York Boston
London Sydney Tokyo Toronto
I'igurc 4. 42 is from G. I'rison, M. Wilson, and I). J. Wilson,
I'ossil bison and artifacts from an early Altitlicrinal period
arroyo trap in Wyoniing,/1////V////7>', 1976,4], (1 1 7.
Reproduced by permission of the Society for American
Archaeology
Fx tract on p. 203 is from A. J. Sutcliffe, Spotted hyaena:
Crusher, gnawer, digester, and collector of bones, Nature,
1970, 227:1111 Reprinted by permission from Nature .
Copyright 1970 Macniillan .burnals IJniited.
CopYRKJin © 1981, HY Acadi mic Pri ss, In( .
AM. Riems RISIRVI.I).
NO PART 01 THIS PlJHl ICAUON MAY ΗΙ· RII'RODDCI 1) OR
TRANSMin I I) IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY Ml.ANS, ) 1 1( JRONK
OR MI-CHANlCAl , INCLUDING PIIOIOCOPY, RlCORDINCi, OK AN^
INFORMATION SlORAGi: AND R) IRIl VAI. SYSlI M, WlillODI
PERMKS.SION IN WRITINO FROM ΊΙΙΙ PURIISIII R.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
1250 Sixth Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24/28 Oval Road. London NWl 7DX
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Binford, Lewis Roberts, Data.
Bones: ancient men and modern myths,
(Studies in archaeology)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Human skeleton. 2. Animal remains (Archaeology)
3. Anthropometry. 4. Forensic osteology. 5. Bones.
I. Title. II. Series.
GN70.B53 930.10285 81-Ί776
ISBN 0-12-100035-4
ISBN 0-12-100036-2 (Paperback)
PRINTED IN THE UNFTED STATES OF AMERICA
92 93 94 95 96 EB 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
To the memory of David L. Clarke
It is the duty of theoretical hypothesis to outrun fact
so that speculation o'erleaps the present in/ormation
state and points the way, then careful accumulation
of tested data will revise the validity of the
theoretical position, which may then leap ahead
again.
—CLARKE (1972:239)
Foreword
Lewis Binford is probably the most influential Klein, J. A. Maguire, G. Itani and associates, for in­
and stimulative archaeologist in recent years, in stance). A set of analytical procedures has been de­
respect to his insistence on hypothesis testing and vised that seems to afford measures of a variety of
theory building. This book is a continuation of the differences between (nonhuman) mammal osteolog-
best of his previous methodological work and will, ical assemblages in regard to composition of unitary
without doubt, once again redirect archaeological and fragmented body parts, and their respective
and paleoanthropological researches in important condition and preservation.
and useful ways. Ultimately Binford is concerned "with the de­
As always Binford has set a grand task for him­ velopment of diagnostic procedures for recognizing
self, and here he has made a major positive effort to or identifying the agents which might have been re­
advance method and theory in regard to several as­ sponsible for the faunal facts preserved in an ancient
pects of human versus animal subsistence behaviors deposit." I believe he has made substantive method­
and their attendant residues. From his observations ological contributions appropriate toward resolution
on Alaskan Eskimo butchery and meat-processing of this very complex set of problems. These include:
procedures, and his analytical observations on wolf
kills and their lairs, he has recognized a series of • the recognition and differentiation of animal
distinctive ("diagnostic") patterns uniquely com­ (carnivore) and human procedures (behaviors) in
mon to each set of circumstances. This builds on the carcass dismemberment and partitioning
earlier work of Binford and Bertram and of Binford • the elucidation and description of patterns of
(Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology), but extends and bone breakage and explication of degrees of destruc­
amplifies that work very substantially. An increas­ tion ("ravaging") by carnivores (particularly, but not
ingly appropriate corpus of comparative data is exclusively canids)
being afforded by ethnoarchaeological studies in Af­ • the thorough inventory and systematic descrip­
rica (for example, by J. Vellen, D. Gifford, D. Grader), tion of the disposition and character of traces on
by various taphonomic studies (for example, by A. K. bones resulting from human-skinning, butchering,
Behrensmeyer, A. Hill, P. Shipman and associates), and meat-processing practices
and by various studies of carnivore (particularly • the development of analytical procedures (mea­
hyaena den) accumulations (by A. Sutcliffe, R. G. sures) for ascertaining the (expected versus actual)
Xll Foreword
composition of various bone assemblages (drawn tematically for breakage patterns, for survivorship of
from assemblages of known derivation) through the skeletal parts per individual, or even collectively for
employment of several diagnostic indices of the fre­ a particular taxon; and "cut marks" as evidence for
quencies of body parts, complete or in various stages butchery-dismemberment have not been recorded.
of fragmentation/destruction Maps of spatial distributions of such bone-artifact
concentrations have been published, but the record­
Binford has asserted, largely justifiably, that ing of particular taxa and body parts do not enable a
archaeologists-paleoanthropologists have been un­ linkage to be effected between these distributions
duly cavalier in their treatment of bone assemblages and the faunal inventories.
in general, and conjoint artifact-bone assemblages in
The difficulty (and hence limitations] of the
particular. He insists that "claims for the use of tools
faunal summary in the OJduvai Gorge, Volume 3, is
should be supported by the citation of marks pro­
that the overall frequencies of body parts for large
duced by tools." Although there are some notable
mammal species are summarized (p. 276), but there
exceptions in archaeological occurrences of late
is no full breakdown of body parts, or an indication
Pleistocene age (for example, Pincevent), and even
of their preservation for individual taxa. (However,
in Mousterian occupations (for example. La Quina),
A. W. and A. Gentry [Geology, BuJJetin of the British
it is not unreasonable for Binford to take this stance.
Museum of Natural History, 29(4) and 30(1), 1978]
One can only applaud the view that progress is not
have provided relatively full, but still incomplete
''made through discoveries ... which are treated as
body part data for the Bovidae, and these data often
self-evident in their meaning," and that ''basic re­
do not match that tabulated in OJduvai Gorge, Vol­
search makes possible the reliable assignment of
ume 3.) Moreover the limb side is never stated, and
meaning to observations." It is again to the point to
those data are critical to the realistic calculation of
insist that the development and testing of "middle
MNI values.
range theory" is critical to the realization of a scien­
tific study of the human career. It is, unfortunately, Mary Leakey early recognized, and on several oc­
also true that there is substantial "mythology" in casions has stressed, the several sedimentary envi­
paleoanthropology, even "modern" paleoanthropol­ ronments within which these various occurrences
ogy. Hopefully, Binford's position and efforts will are situated, and has also directed attention to their
ultimately provoke others to develop and advance state of intactness or extent of disturbance. Thus, she
methodology appropriate to the resolution of what distinguished "living floors" (largely intact hominid
are clearly real problems in a proper understanding occupation occurrences), possible (hominid) kill
of the past. No one familiar with the state of the art sites, channel fills, and "diffuse" occurrences. Bin­
would deny that there is still much to be learned ford's analyses have been directed toward the eluci­
when (and if) there is substantive progress in the dation of the nature and extent to which a diversity
development of methodology and analytical proce­ of natural as opposed to (or in conjunction with)
dures. hominid factors may have been responsible for these
Binford has sought to analyze Olduvai faunal as­ accumulations. He has been concerned with discern­
semblages, mostly from reputed hominid occupation ing events and formation processes, and thus in the
places, on the basis of published accounts provided degree of resolution afforded by occurrences rela­
by Mary Leakey in Olduvai Gorge, Volume 3 (1971). tive, in part, to their integrity. Binford concludes that
His analyses are bold and imaginative, and the result a diversity of agencies were probably responsible for
provocative in the extreme. However, are his sweep­ the state of these occurrences. He has discerned vari­
ing conclusions justifiable and realistic? There are ous patterns and degrees of bone destruction (and
substantive problems concerning this corpus of preservation), and employing factor analysis has
faunal material; hence there are problems concern­ sought to demonstrate resemblances with modern
ing Binford's efforts at analysis, most of which he analogues, and thereby to infer the role of various
recognizes. Heretofore these assemblages of animal agencies in producing the various accumulations.
residues have not been studied and inventoried sys­ Binford concludes that "the large, highly pub-
Foreword Xiii
licized sites as currently analyzed carry little specific and Ambrona in central Spain. It is worth mention­
intormation about hominid behavior." He believes ing that when those sites were initially excavated
that "arguments about base camps, hominid hunt­ (1961-1963), initially under my direction and sub­
ing, sharing of food, etc. are certainly premature and sequently jointly with L. G. Freeman, no one was
most likely wildly inaccurate." This pretty strong concerned with bone assemblages in any of the ways
statement is probably arguable. However, he does which have become more commonplace 10-15 years
accept as demonstrated "hominid scavenging [of] hence (in fact the Leakey's became concerned with
the kills and death sites of other predator scavengers such matters only in the late 1960s as a consequence
for abandoned anatomical parts of low food utility, of the extensive excavation program at Olduvai
primarily for purposes of extracting bone marrow." Gorge). Unfortunately, and for several complex rea­
This conclusion, if further substantiated, is itself of sons, those faunal collections from the Spanish sites
major significance for understanding the dietary and were never fully analyzed, beyond taxonomic iden­
behavioral adjustments of Plio-Pleistocene homi­ tification, and thus fracture patterns, cut marks, and
nids. Recent studies of bone assemblages, with arti­ details of dismemberment and butchery were only
fact associations, from Koobi Fora (by H. Bunn) and superficially recorded in the field. These faunal col­
from Olduvai Gorge (by R. Potts and H. Bunn) now lections are now relocated and in course of detailed
promise to document in detail the nature and extent study. Renewed excavation (in 1980) at the Ambrona
of hominid butchery practices evidenced at these locality has revealed an abundance of evidence rele­
earlier Pleistocene sites. These researches also do vant to butchery, dismemberment, and bone break­
confirm the complexity of formation processes for age, as well as human manipulation and fashioning
particular hominid "occupation situations," as Bin­ of bone and ivory. Sedimentary processes at this site
ford has concluded. are more adequately understood than before, but the
There has been, and is in progress, a variety of situation is an unusual one (for Europe) and there is
research that should provide substantive data rele­ still much to do.
vant to the resolution of many issues about which There is, in fact, a diversity of research com­
Binford has expressed his profound skepticism. Sev­ pleted, and presumably in course of publication, or
eral monographs (under the editorship of J.-K. Woo) now in progress, which addresses the deficiencies in
on the Homo erectus locality of Choukoutien I are in paleoanthropological studies with which Binford is
preparation and should afford, at last, relevant de­ so intensely—and rightly so—concerned. These
tailed data on those bone assemblages, and— range from the Upper Paleolithic of the U.S.S.R. (and
hopefully—the extent to which they reflect activities western Europe), the so-called "M.S.A." of eastern
of carnivores, early humans, or other agencies, or a and southern Africa, the Mousterian of many parts of
combination of many factors, at that important site. Europe and western Asia, the Acheulian (and its
Claims have already been made (by P. Shipman and facies) of caves in southwestern Europe, and cave
associates) that a distinctive Theropithecus and open-air occurrences in Europe which may, it is
owaldi—^rich occurrence at the Olorgesailie locality thought by some, testify to the initial occupation of
reflects an unusual form of hominid predation (de­ Europe by hominids. In each and all instances these
spite the apparent absence of butchery traces!) rather researches will gain substantially from the analytical
than some other natural catastrophe. A detailed procedures developed in Lewis Binford*s provoca­
study of this and other bone assemblages is currently tive and stimulating book.
being undertaken by Christopher Koch.
Binford offers some pithy comments relative to F. CLARK HOWELL
our own work at the Acheulian localities of Torralba University of California, Berkeley
Preface
This book developed from an article started in of London (Hill 1975). Hill's thesis contained data on
January 1979. I had made observations on wolf be­ assemblage composition for animal kill and death
havior while conducting ethnographic research sites in African settings. Now I had comparative ma­
among the Nunamiut Eskimo of North Central terial for viewing my data in a broader context. I was
Alaska. I though that my observations might be of fascinated to discover that the assemblage composi­
some value to those engaged in taphonomic studies. tion of remains at wolf kill sites in north central
As I searched the literature for some comparative Alaska was essentially the same as the composition
material on assemblage composition, I realized that of assemblages from animals of comparable size in
my data on dens, bone breakage, and patterns of at­ Africa, where the predators were unknown and/or
trition were unique, and that there was more to say variable and the prey—antelopes and equids—so
than originally planned. The paper was then ex­ very different from the caribou of Alaska. I began to
panded to a short book, in which I described butch­ work up the assemblage composition comparisons
ering and butchering marks, and compared marrow between Hill's data and my own, in the process gain­
cracking as performed by man and by animals. I ex­ ing a new appreciation for many of the facts and
panded my literature coverage to deal with Dart's their implications.
arguments, read the fascinating literature treating As I worked on the kill data, I increasingly
Choukoutien, and delved into the German literature wished for some comparative den material. It was at
that clearly foreshadowed the "osteodontokeratic" this point that Richard Klein arrived in Albuquerque
arguments of both Breuil and Dart. As I treated the to deliver several lectures. He had previously sent
problems of pseudotools, butchering patterns as me offprints of many of his articles treating faunal
manifest in bone modification, and George Frison's assemblages from South Africa. Naturally when he
arguments about muscle stripping, I also began to was here we had some intense conversations about
envision some interesting conclusions stemming faunal assemblages. Richard responded to my moan­
from my data and research. These conclusions were ing and groaning regarding the lack of data on ani­
not related to the composition of wolf kills and dens, mal dens. He had dug one! He promised to send me
which now seemed peripheral to the thrust of the an offprint of his report on his return to Chicago. The
"small technical book" developed thus far. Then day it arrived was full of excitement for me, since I
Diane Gifford lent me her copy of Andrew Hill's im­ had already formed some ideas as to what a den
portant doctoral thesis, submitted to the University should look like based on the kill site assemblages
XVI Pre/ace
and the hints I had from my Alaskan material. On I had completed the book up through the first half
inspecting his data, I realized that the assemblage of the Olduvai chapter when Jim Hill and Jan Orcutt
had suffered heavy attrition, and that what the sur­ visited me. They were conducting multivariate
viving bones gave me was more a reflection of the analyses of settlement data at the University of New
relative strength of the anatomical part rather than a Mexico computer center. Jan had an operational pro­
clear picture of the parts transported by animals to gram for carrying out factor analysis. I put together
their dens. Could I reconstruct the original as­ the Olduvai data and Jan made several runs using
semblage using the techniques developed earlier for different assumptions. The fascinating result, which
understanding attrition? (See L. R. Binford and J. in my opinion did isolate pattened consequences oí
B. Bertram 1977.) As will be seen, I was successful, hominid behavior, was totally unexpected. Con­
and the correspondence between the result and the sequently the writing of the last half of the Olduvai
data from the kills was remarkable. With this last chapter and the conclusions was sheer excitement,
comparative component in place there was a kind of rather than the normal labor of finishing a book
closure and a general methodology seen outlined. whose "outcome" has been known for some time.
Clearly what was needed was an application! I chose The writing of this book has been an intellectual
to implement my approach on the important faunal adventure, with several important turning points, as
materials from Olduvai Gorge. I had played ground has been indicated. I am convinced that a basic
earlier with some of the models developed in my methodology has been outlined and that findings of
Nunamiut study (L. R. Binford 1978b) and found that importance have resulted. The methodology is not
there appeared to be some "fits" between my models "clean," and much more information regarding both
and the actual faunal data. My impression at that kills and animal transport of fauna is needed, as is
time, however, was that all the variability in the much better control on the anatomical facts of bone
Olduvai materials was probably referable to density or hardness so important to reconstructing
nonhominid behavior. That is, the fauna was back­ assemblages from surviving elements. I hope that
ground natural to geological deposits in Africa, de­ others will be motivated to join in the research
riving from the continuous action of predators and needed to move from this outline to a robust set of
prey as well as natural deaths in such a fauna-rich methods for giving meaning to the facts of the ar­
environment. chaeological record.
Acknowledgments
In many cases acknowledgments are a kind of out to me my first examples of wolf kills and enum­
formal recitation of normal relationships, in which erated all the characteristics that led him to distin­
an author thanks the typist, the photographer, ac­ guish a wolf kill from one made by his fellow hunters.
knowledges former teachers for inspiration, and While I was working at Anaktuvuk, Bob Stephen­
closes by acknowledging a spouse for putting up son of the Alaskan Department of Fish and Game
with the tensions of writing. This format is germane began his extraordinary study of wolves and the
to my situation, but there is in addition a compli­ Nunamiut knowledge of wolves. This stimulated
cated set of intellectual and technical debts that must considerable interest and discussion of wolves
be acknowledged as extraordinary in the writing of among the Nunamiut hunters with whom I was as­
this book. sociated, and in turn I was the beneficiary. I am par­
With regard to my experience with wolves and ticularly indebted to David Mekiana, who became
the data collected, I owe a very special debt to two interested largely through stimulation from Justice
men who continually prodded me into recognizing Mekiana, who was working closely with Bob
that some of my assumptions were perhaps not war­ Stephenson. David went out of his way to inform me
ranted in working with the tundra fauna of Brooks of evidence of wolf behavior.
Range Alaska. One was Simon Paneack, who played Although the collection of wolf data was largely
skeptic with me as I asked him questions about the my project done in conjunction with ethnographic
faunal materials my crews were regularly recovering work, two members of my crew, Dan and Allison
during the field seasons between 1969 and 1973. For Witter, were untiring in their interest in fauna and
instance, if I described a collection made or field did the nasty job of collecting bones from one of the
observations recorded on fauna from a particular major dog yards at Anaktuvuk. Dan developed the
place, Simon would smile and say, "How you know first stages of the classification of destruction and
it's not Indians or wolves?" He said that to me so modification presented in this book. He also or­
many times that I began attempting to find out what ganized and recorded the marrow-cracking experi­
wolves "looked like" when viewed from the ment, which serve as important controls on the
perspective of fauna. I tried to do the same thing for tool-assisted breakage patterns described here. It is
"Indians" but was not successful. The second man one of my major regrets that Dan could not continue
was Johnny Rulland, who in his quiet way pointed working on the Alaskan materials with me, but