Adults only? A reconsideration of Middle Paleolithic ‘prime-dominated’ reindeer hunting at Salzgitter Lebenstedt (original) (raw)
The Middle Palaeolithic site Salzgitter Lebenstedt (northern Ger many), excavated in 1952, is weil known because of its well-preservedfaunal remains, dorninated by aduit reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). The archaeological assembiage accumulated in an arctic setting in anearlier part of the last (Weichsel) glacial (01S5-3). The site is remarkable because of the presence of unique Middle Palaeohthic bone tools and the occurrence of the northernrnost Neanderthal rernains, but this paper focuses on an analysis of its reindeer assemblage. The resuits indicate autumn hunting of reindeer by Middle Palaeolithic hominids. After the hunt, carcasses were butchered and in subsequent marrow processing of the bones a selection against young and sub-adult animals occurred. Aduits were clearly preferred, and from their bones, again, poorer marrow bones were neglected. This focus on primeness of resources has been documented in other dornains of Neanderthal behaviour, hut Salzgitter Lebenstedt is the best example yet known in terms of systematic and routinized processing of garne. The Salzgitter Lebenstedt assernblage displays sorne rernarkable sirnilarities to the Late Glacial reindeer assernblages from the Ahrensburg tunnel valley sites. The subsequent review ofthe evidence on subsistence strategies from earher periods of the European Palaeolithic shows that hunting of large mammals may have been a part of the behavioural repertoire of the Middle Pleistocene occupants of Europe from the earlfest occupation onwards. At the same time, it is suggested that these eariy hunting strategies were incorporated in ways of rnoving through landscapes (“settlement systems“) which were different frorn what we know from the middleparts of the Upper Palaeolithic onwards.
Quaternary International, 2012
It is increasingly difficult to defend the existence of an absolute, abrupt break between "simple" MSA/ Middle Paleolithic (Mode 3) technologies or human adaptions on the one hand and those of a more "complex" or "modern" LSA/Upper Paleolithic on the other hand. What went on during both blocks of cultural time was far from uniformity or stasisequite to the contrary. Cultural evolution, as a long, drawn-out, mosaic process, must be disentangled from the question of the purely European replacement of the Neandertals by African-originated Homo sapiens idaltu/sapiens. A brief review of the African and European records points to the arbitrariness of the so-called Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition and to the notion of unilineal cultural evolution. The utility of the "transition" idea is as questionable as is the reality and homogeneity of the MSA/MP and LSA/UP culture-stratigraphic constructs. Variability is more relevant than essentialism in the study of any Paleolithic cultural adaptations; the notion of change with considerable continuity is more appropriate to describe what was going on throughout the late Upper Pleistocene than saltation. Demographic factors are probably more important in understanding many of the important changes that characterized the last 50-70,000 years of the Pleistocene than putative advances in human capacities-mental and linguistic. The growth of human populations during MIS 3 seems to have led to increasingly complex technologies, subsistence intensification, burgeoning social relations mediated through symbolic behavior with material manifestations in "art" and personal ornamentation. The time has come to really acknowledge and grapple with complexity (e.g., multilineality, non-directionality, regional and functional variation) in the development of "modern-type" hunting-gathering adaptations among humans throughout the Old World during the last phases of the Paleolithic, regardless of the 19th-early 20th century labels archeologists may still use to describe classic culture-stratigraphic subdivisions.
It has often been argued that the success and spread of modern humans $50,000 years ago was due to a series of key behavioral shifts that conferred particular adaptive advantages. And yet, particularly during the African Middle Stone Age (MSA), some of these ''modern'' behaviors see only patchy expression across time and space. Recent models have proposed a link between the emergence of modern behaviors and environmental degradation and/or demographic stress. Under these models, modern behaviors represent a form of social/economic intensification in response to stress; if this were the case, signs of subsistence intensification should be more common during periods in which these behaviors are manifested than when they are not. In order to test these models, I analyzed faunal remains from Sibudu Cave (South Africa), focusing on the Howieson's Poort (HP), a phase in which modern behaviors are evidenced, and the post-HP MSA, when classical signatures of such behavior have disappeared. Significant variability in hunting behavior was identified. While much of this variability appears to correspond with changes in the local environment, evidence for resource stress was more common during the HP. The implications of these results to our understanding of the evolution of human culture are discussed.
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.
Introduction: The Study of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Hunting
Archeological Papers of The American Anthropological Association, 1993
Whatever may be the analytic utility of any specific model (Binford's or anyone else's) for the early development of hunting behavior, the broader question of the relationship between behavioral modernity and anatomical modernity at the end of the Pleistocene is a matter of widespread concern within anthropology (e.g., Trinkaus 1989; Mellars and Stringer 1989; Mellars 1990;). Regardless of when technologically assisted hunting may have started, it is clear that hunting was practiced during the later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Whether or not it is uniquely "modern," hunting is undeniably an important part of "modern" human behavior. Because the technology associated with hunting activities became more complex and more elaborated during the course of the Upper Pleistocene, and because the hunting weaponry and the osteological results of hunting form such major parts of the relevant archaeological record, the study of animal exploitation strategies and associated technology provides some of the most direct insights into the development of human societies existing at and immediately following the end of the Pleistocene.
Evidence for close-range hunting by last interglacial Neanderthals
2018
Animal resources have been part of hominin diets since around 2.5 million years ago, with sharp-edged stone tools facilitating access to carcasses. How exactly hominins acquired animal prey and how hunting strategies varied through time and space is far from clear. The oldest possible hunting weapons known from the archaeological record are 300,000 to 400,000-year-old sharpened wooden staves. These may have been used as throwing and/or close-range thrusting spears, but actual data on how such objects were used are lacking, as unambiguous lesions caused by such weapon-like objects are unknown for most of human prehistory. Here, we report perforations observed on two fallow deer skeletons from Neumark-Nord, Germany, retrieved during excavations of 120,000-year-old lake shore deposits with abundant traces of Neanderthal presence. Detailed studies of the perforations, including micro-computed tomography imaging and ballistic experiments, demonstrate that they resulted from the close-range use of thrusting spears. Such confrontational ways of hunting require close cooperation between participants, and over time may have shaped important aspects of hominin biology and behaviour.
… 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.