2001 Speth & Tchernov (Neandertal Hunting and Meat-Processing in the Near East Evidence from Kebara Cave Israel) (original) (raw)
Related papers
… of human evolution, 2008
Three assemblages of fallow deer (Dama sp.) bones excavated from the early middle Pleistocene (oxygen isotope stage 18) layers of the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel, furnish evidence of systematic and repeated exploitation of complete carcasses by hominins. The excellent state of preservation of the bones and the presence of only minimal signs of carnivore involvement permit an investigation of the role of hominins as the primary agents responsible for the damage to these bones. Hominin expertise in dealing with fallow deer carcasses is manifested by cut marks, percussion marks, and hack marks on the bones. The archaeozoological analysis of the anatomical position and frequency of these marks suggests that carcass processing followed systematic practices that reflect an in-depth knowledge of fallow deer anatomy and a consistent behavioral strategy. These assemblages represent one of the earliest examples of methodological butchering practices in Eurasia. The evidence of carcass processing observed at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov resembles that seen in late Pleistocene sites in Israel, which were inhabited by modern humans. We interpret the Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov data as indicating that the Acheulian hunters at the site (1) were proficient communicators and learners and (2) possessed anatomical knowledge, considerable manual skill, impressive technological abilities, and foresight.
Journal of human evolution, 2007
Understanding the behavioral adaptations and subsistence strategies of Middle Paleolithic humans is critical in the debate over the evolution and manifestations of modern human behavior. The study of faunal remains plays a central role in this context. Until now, the majority of Levantine archaeofaunal evidence was derived from late Middle Paleolithic sites. The discovery of faunal remains from Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel (>200 ka), allowed for detailed taphonomic and zooarchaeological analyses of these early Middle Paleolithic remains. The Misliya Cave faunal assemblage is overwhelmingly dominated by ungulate taxa. The most common prey species is the Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica), followed closely by the mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella). Some aurochs (Bos primigenius) remains are also present. Small-game species are rare. The fallow deer mortality pattern is dominated by prime-aged individuals. A multivariate taphonomic analysis demonstrates (1) that the assemblage was created solely by humans occupying the cave and was primarily modified by their food-processing activities; and (2) that gazelle carcasses were transported complete to the site, while fallow deer carcasses underwent some field butchery. The new zooarchaeological data from Misliya Cave, particularly the abundance of meat-bearing limb bones displaying filleting cut marks and the acquisition of prime-age prey, demonstrate that early Middle Paleolithic people possessed developed hunting capabilities. Thus, modern large-game hunting, carcass transport, and meat-processing behaviors were already established in the Levant in the early Middle Paleolithic, more than 200 ka ago.
Hunting and Scavenging by Early Humans: The State of the Debate
Journal of World Prehistory, 2002
During the last 25 years, there has been a shift towards the belief that early humans were scavengers instead of hunters. This revisionist interpretation has brought a reconciliation with the Darwinian paradigm of gradual progressive evolution that has traditionally guided (and very often, misled) an important part of anthropological thinking. However, empirical support for the scavenging hypothesis is still lacking. Recent data based on bone surface modifications from archaeological faunas suggest, in contrast, that hominids were primary agents of carcass exploitation. Meat seems to have been an important part of Plio-Pleistocene hominid diets. Passive scavenging scenarios show that this kind of opportunistic strategy cannot afford significant meat yields. Therefore, the hunting hypothesis has not yet been disproved. This makes the hunting-and-scavenging issue more controversial than before, and calls for a revision of the current interpretive frameworks and ideas about early human behavior.
Implications of Neanderthal Hunting Technology
2021
The question of Neanderthal hunting technology has been debated for many years. These debates are often conflated with the biases ascribed to Neanderthals as a group. Be that as it may, much of the hunting technology usually assumed to only be had by Anatomically Modern Humans was also utilized by Neanderthals. It has been considered common knowledge that wood was commonly used for the creation of tools and other artifacts throughout the paleolithic period. However, despite the recent discoveries of stone spear tips in Western Europe crafted 185-130 thousand years ago, there remains doubt that Neanderthals used hafting, projectile, and lithic technologies while hunting. This extends to hafting, planning communal hunting, and other hunting strategies that would be deemed “advanced.” Throughout this paper, I aim to show how Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans are actually more similar than different; especially when it comes to their innovation and ingenuity. This is all exhibited in a close analysis of Neanderthal hunting technology.
Cooperative hunting and meat sharing 400-200 kya at Qesem Cave, Israel.
Zooarchaeological research at Qesem Cave, Israel demonstrates that large-game hunting was a regular practice by the late Lower Paleolithic period. The 400-to 200,000-year-old fallow deer assemblages from this cave provide early examples of prime-age-focused ungulate hunting, a human predator-prey relationship that has persisted into recent times. The meat diet at Qesem centered on large game and was supplemented with tortoises. These hominins hunted cooperatively, and consumption of the highest quality parts of large prey was delayed until the food could be moved to the cave and processed with the aid of blade cutting tools and fire. Delayed consumption of high-quality body parts implies that the meat was shared with other members of the group. The types of cut marks on upper limb bones indicate simple flesh removal activities only. The Qesem cut marks are both more abundant and more randomly oriented than those observed in Middle and Upper Paleolithic cases in the Levant, suggesting that more (skilled and unskilled) individuals were directly involved in cutting meat from the bones at Qesem Cave. Among recent humans, butchering of large animals normally involves a chain of focused tasks performed by one or just a few persons, and butchering guides many of the formalities of meat distribution and sharing that follow. The results from Qesem Cave raise new hypotheses about possible differences in the mechanics of meat sharing between the late Lower Paleolithic and Middle Paleolithic.
Scavenging or hunting in early hominids: theoretical framework and tests
American Anthropologist, 1986
Evidence from Bed I, Olduvai, supports the hypothesis that scavenging, not hunting, was the major meat-procurement strategy of hominids between 2 and 1.7 million years ago. Data used to evaluate the hunting and scavenging hypotheses are derivedjom studring cut marks on Bed I bovids, comparing adaptations necessary for scavenging with those of ear& hominids, and a paleoecological reconstruction of Bed I carcass biomass, carnivore guild, and hominid foraging area.
To Meat or Not to Meat? New Perspectives on Neanderthal Ecology
Neanderthals have been commonly depicted as top predators who met their nutritional needs by focusing entirely on meat. This information mostly derives from faunal assemblage analyses and stable isotope studies: methods that tend to underestimate plant consumption and overestimate the intake of animal proteins. Several studies in fact demonstrate that there is a physiological limit to the amount of animal proteins that can be consumed: exceeding these values causes protein toxicity that can be particularly dangerous to pregnant women and newborns. Consequently, to avoid food poisoning from meat-based diets, Neander-thals must have incorporated alternative food sources in their daily diets, including plant materials as well. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 156:43–71, 2015. V C 2014 American Association of Physical Anthropologists In this manuscript, we review traditional as well as more recent approaches for reconstructing the diet in past human populations, and we show how new archaeological discoveries and innovative methods are changing our views of Neanderthal ecology and behavior. We further underline the importance of reconstructing Nean-derthal environments derived from palaeoecological data to better understand and interpret the dietary evidence obtained by these methods. Finally, since the intake of specific foods can be invisible to certain techniques and detect by others, we suggest using a more holistic approach by integrating the findings of more than one method. Such comprehensive analyses would enable the reconstruction of the whole dietary spectrum, which is particularly important for species like Neanderthal, who lived under severe and unstable climatic conditions. Neanderthals are undoubtedly the most studied and best-known group in the human fossil record. Despite that, for more than 100 years since their discovery, research on Neanderthal ecology, subsistence strategies, and diet have received remarkably little attention (Ready, 2010). It is only with the emergence of new archeological disciplines and development of innovative analytical approaches in the 1960s, that scholars began to look at Neanderthal behavior and adaptations to their environment. Methods such as faunal analysis, lithic technology, and taphonomic studies progressively led to a general portrait that defined Neanderthals as a homogenous group, with similar nutritional needs typified by a reliance on the consumption of terrestrial animals. This idea was reinforced by the study of stable isotopes and Neanderthal anatomy. The general robusticity of Nean-derthal skeletons, with relatively short limbs and heavy trunks, has been interpreted as adaptation to cold stress environments that follow the ecogeographic principles of Bergmann's and Allen's rules (e.
Coward, F. and Grimshaw, L. Hunter-Gatherers in Early Prehistory
in 'Investigating prehistoric hunter-gatherer identities: case studies from Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe, eds. Cobb, H., Coward, F., Grimshaw, L. and Price, S. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 141. , 2005
The success of the post-processual critique of processual models of prehistory has led to the development of models of human behaviour that prioritise people and their activities in a social milieu. However, although some aspects of these approaches have crept in to the late Mesolithic, the vast majority of illustrations of such paradigms in archaeology have been post-Neolithic. Why is there no social archaeology of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic? Firstly, the nature of the data is argued to be insufficient both quantitatively and qualitatively to address the lifeways of people in the past. The questions considered appropriate for the study of the Palaeolithic have thus been largely restricted to those considering the economics of subsistence or raw material procurement and lithic manufacture. Secondly, the problem is one of identification; the attitudes of researchers towards post-Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic and Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer (and particularly pre-human hunter-gatherer) populations have meant that the two branches of research are considered fundamentally different. The effect of this process of estrangement of hunter-gatherer archaeology from the rest of the discipline is the establishment of an a-personal Palaeolithic. The pre-eminence of the evolutionary paradigm, which equates change and evolution, identifies the process of evolution as purely a factor of time; change is conditional only on time passing, and is thus virtually unrelated to humans and their activities. The focus of research into Pleistocene archaeology has been at continent-wide geographical scales and geological timescales, which have removed the possibility of accessing personal experiences and actions. In addition, the conception of a culture as a system seeking homeostasis means that change requires external causality – usually, in the Palaeolithic, the environment. This session would like to reintroduce the not-so-radical notion of ‘people’ to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, as creators of the archaeological record, and as inhabitants of the Pleistocene world. How can we access aspects of the prehistoric hunter-gatherer past that would have had meaning for its inhabitants/creators? How does the recognition of hunter-gatherer ‘persons’ in prehistory affect the generalizing, continent- and geological/climatic- scale models of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic which are current in the discipline? We invite papers that use new perspectives to ‘crack open’ the ‘black box’ of hunter-gatherer ‘persons’ of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic to access new perspectives on and understandings of the period.