International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 10: 281 285 (2000)
PREFACE
Hunting in the Middle Palaeolithic
Introduction
It has become increasingly apparent, as the 20th
century has drawn to a close, that a new
paradigm is emerging among faunal analysts
investigating animal exploitation strategies dur-
ing the Middle Palaeolithic period. Whereas the
1980s and 1990s saw the possible existence of
hominid hunting during the Middle Palaeolithic
heavily debated in the literature (e.g. Binford,
1984; Stiner, 1991, 1994, 1998; contra Chase,
1987, 1988; Klein, 1986, 1987; Patou, 1989;
Marean, 1998; Shea, 1998, inter alia), the issue
today is not whether Middle Palaeolithic people
could hunt, but rather when and how they chose
to hunt.
The research presented in this volume
demonstrates that there are many similarities in
the faunal records of the Middle and Upper
Palaeolithic. More important, perhaps, is the
growing realization that the faunal record bears
witness to more behavioural complexity, espe-
cially with respect to subsistence systems, than
was once thought possible for Middle Palaeo-
lithic people. Many of the papers presented
here were originally presented at a symposium
entitled Reassessing Evidence for Mousterian
Hunting, organized for the International Coun-
cil of Archaeozoology (ICAZ) meetings held in
Victoria (Canada), in 1998. Some of the original
presenters were unable to contribute papers
here, but contributed to the discussions that
motivated me to put this volume together (nota-
bly Stiner, and Cleghorn, presenting a paper by
Marean et al.); some new contributions have also
been added.
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The issue of modernity
The Upper Palaeolithic period has been associ-
ated with the development of modern hunter-
gatherer life-ways (e.g. Gamble, 1986; Chase,
1987; Binford, 1989; Marks, 1989; Stiner, 1991;
Bar-Yosef, 1994; Farizy, 1994; Soffer, 1994), as
well as with the spread of anatomically modern
humans (AMHs) in Europe (e.g. Binford,
1989)possibly at the expense of resident pop-
ulations of Neanderthals. The research pre-
sented in the following papers poses a challenge
to such generalizations. It is readily apparent
that Middle Palaeolithic people (whether Nean-
derthal or AMH) are much more sophisticated
(read modern) in their resource exploitation
strategies and, consequently, in their patterns of
land-use, than previously suspected.
Most of the data presented in this book
concern Neanderthal subsistence systems. The
research presented here, therefore, has a bearing
on our understanding of what it means to be
truly modern, as well as on the issue of the
reasons for the disappearance of the Nean-
derthals. Through an examination of subsis-
tence, we are led to re-examine our assumption
that AMHs are the first truly modern people,
that their evolution is inextricably linked with
the appearance of recognizably modern cultures
in the archaeological record of Europe, and that
modernity begins at the Upper Palaeolithic
boundary.
The fact that this volume adopts a broad
geographical focus, including regions in both
western and eastern Europe, proves useful in
illustrating the wide range of subsistence be-
haviours exhibited by Middle Palaeolithic
282
people under varying conditions. Many of the
contributions emphasize the importance of con-
sidering subsistence patterns in the context of
site taphonomy context (particularly Enloe et al.
and Valensi, this volume), as well as the system
of lithic procurement, the geophysical setting
and climatic variability. Neanderthal subsistence
behaviours varied with the environmental con-
text, as regional syntheses by Patou-Mathis,
Boyle and Conard and Prindiville illustrate. Re-
gional subsistence systems can be expected to
have responded to climatic change and demo-
graphic adjustments necessitated by contact
with other Neanderthal groups or with AMH
groups entering Europe. We have not yet iden-
tified the many causes of variation in Middle
Palaeolithic subsistence systems, but it is
clear now that we have an appreciation of the
behavioural flexibility of Middle Palaeolithic
populations that this is a very promising av-
enue of research for the years to come.
Hunting strategies and selectivity
Predators may hunt opportunistically, i.e. they
may hunt prey as they encounter them, they
may selectively hunt prey chosen for their size,
age, fat content or other desirable attributes, or
they may selectively focus the hunt on a partic-
ular taxon (as with seasonally focused intercept
hunting strategies). It appears that Middle
Palaeolithic hunters could choose at will from
among these strategies, or they could combine
them. For example, Gaudzinskis analysis of
Salzgitter Lebenstedt (Germany) reveals the ex-
istence of a focused, seasonally restricted, long-
term exploitation of reindeer (with systematic
and standardized meat and marrow processing)
at the site. She offers this pattern in contrast to
the pattern for Bison procurement documented
elsewhere (Vereschagin & Kolbutov, 1957;
Zamjatnin, 1961; Jaubert et al., 1990; Hoffecker
et al., 1991; Marcy et al., 1993; Farizy, 1994;
Gaudzinski, 1995; Jaubert et al., 1995; all cited
in Gaudzinski, this volume), i.e. the selective
and focused hunting of prime adult individuals.
Selective hunting of prime-aged deer and ibex
by humans is established for Lazaret Cave, by
Valensi (this volume). Conard and Prindiville
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
A. Burke
find that the remains of larger animals, particu-
larily equids, cervids and bovinae, are more
frequently encountered in Middle Palaeolithic
assemblages in the Rhineland than in assem-
blages from the last glacial cycle. This, the
authors attribute to a long-term pattern of prey
selection.
Analysis of the fauna from Starosele (Burke,
this volume) shows the strong probability of a
mixed hunting strategy. The dominant strategy
is the seasonal, focused hunting of equid herds,
combined with a secondary strategy of encoun-
ter hunting of other taxa, possibly as hunters
waited to intercept their intended prey. Simi-
larly, in their survey of the diverse geographic
and topographic settings within the Rhineland,
Conard & Prindiville find no single regional
pattern of subsistence. However, as the authors
point out multiple, overlapping patterns in hunt-
ing strategies contributed to the archaeological
record.
Middle Palaeolithic faunal assemblages, there-
fore, may reflect either selective (prime-aged
dominated) hunting of prey, the seasonal ex-
ploitation of prey aggregations, or a mixed
strategy.
Patou-Mathis survey of 323 sites from West-
ern and Eastern Europe shows little evidence of
opportunistic (encounter) hunting only. Instead,
selective hunting of one or two species, or
specialized hunting of a single species, is clearly
attested. Interestingly enough, instances of spe-
cialized hunting seem to be more likely during
temperate or maximum cold phases. During the
intervening climatic phases, presumably periods
of crisis from the perspective of human and
animal communities, Neanderthals were capable
of modifying their game acquisition strategies,
which the author feels is reflected in the more
diversified faunal spectra.
Strange bedfellows
Another common thread in many Middle
Palaeolithic sites is the prevalence of repeated,
short-term occupations by a variety of carni-
vores, including humans (e.g. Strauss, 1982;
Gamble, 1986; Brugal & Jaubert, 1991; Stiner,
1991; Fosse, 1995; Boyle, 1998; in this volume
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 10: 281285 (2000)
The Variability of Hunting Adaptations during the Middle Palaeolithic
see Enloe et al. and Valensi). The existence of
swing shifts of carnivores and humans at cave
sites is fairly common and appears to be a very
real distinction between site-use patterns of the
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic (Gamble, 1986).
Enloe et al.s analysis of Prolom II and Valensis
analysis of Lazaret Cave illustrate the necessity
for careful taphonomic study of sites occupied
by more than one predator. An interesting fea-
ture of this kind of locality is that the pattern
of site-use is remarkably stable over long peri-
ods of time, e.g. from about 120 to 60 Ka at
Prolom II (see Enloe et al., this volume). The
locational attributes of these sites clearly had
an enduring significance for both humans and
other predator/scavengers and the continued
study of these sites should help us understand
some of the decision-making processes humans
engaged in when making use of the landscape.
The Neanderthal niche
Directly or indirectly, most of the contribu-
tions to this volume challenge the concept of a
Neanderthal niche (Binford, 1985; Soffer,
1989; Stiner, 1991, 1994), lacking in logistical
planning and time-depth. More precisely, they
challenge the concept of a single Neanderthal
niche.
Logistical complexity and a capacity for for-
ward planning, demonstrated in a seasonally
complex settlement system, are considered the
keynotes of a modern hunting and gathering
lifestyle (Binford, 1989). It has been suggested
that the essential difference between AMHs
and Neanderthals may rest here, and that the
nature of the transition to an Upper Palaeo-
lithic lifestyle lies in the development of com-
plex and specialized patterns of faunal
exploitation (Delpech, 1983; Chase, 1987;
Binford, 1989), larger, more intensively occu-
pied territories, and more mobile resource ex-
ploitation strategies (Marks, 1989; Mellars,
1989, 1996; Rolland, 1990; Bar-Yosef, 1994;
Soffer, 1994).
Several contributors to this volume suggest
that regional land-use and subsistence patterns
during the Middle Palaeolithic could be both
seasonally and logistically complex, however.
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
283
For example, several chapters present evidence
of regional, seasonally restricted foci on gregar-
ious, migratory prey (Gaudzinski, Burke, Hof-
fecker and Cleghorn, Patou Mathis). Burke
argues that the existence of seasonal, selective
hunting speaks of a logistically organized pat-
tern of subsistence in Western Crimea. Similar-
ily, Hoffecker and Cleghorn document a
regional pattern of land-use based on the
planned seasonal exploitation of animal re-
sources in the northwestern Caucasus. This is
not the pattern observed in Italy by Stiner
(1994, p. 381) who also observed variation
with respect to place, but couldnt ascribe it to
organizational or logistical complexity. Earlier
suggestions that Middle Palaeolithic people,
lacking a capacity for regionally complex re-
source exploitation strategies, were relatively
ill-equipped for life in the northern steppe re-
gions of Europe (Soffer, 1989), or occupied
northern regions intermittently (Gamble,
1986), must be re-examined on the basis of
more recent archaeological discoveries, and on
the evidence presented in this volume. This
opens the floor to renewed discussion of the
process of colonization of such regions.
Regional patterns of land-use
Regional patterns of land-use are intimately
tied to subsistence patterns (and raw material
procurement strategies). Contributions by Hof-
fecker and Cleghorn (Caucasus), Boyle (South-
ern France), Conard and Prindiville (Rhineland)
and Patou-Mathis (who adopts a pan-European
focus) all address the issue of regional pattern-
ing in the faunal assemblages. Hoffecker and
Cleghorn piece together the ecology of Nean-
derthals in the northwest Caucasus through an
analysis of seasonal use of the landscape and
the animal resources it contained. Boyle finds
that in the geographically diverse region of
southern France, Middle Palaeolithic subsis-
tence practices were equally diverse. She con-
cludes that Neanderthal people exercised a
strategy of circulating mobility, with dispersed
groups of hunters relocating relatively fre-
quently. Contrary to Hoffecker and Cleghorn,
Burke, and Gaudzinski, Boyle finds little
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 10: 281285 (2000)
284
evidence of sites positioned to take advantage of
migratory prey.
Conclusion
A conclusion that can be drawn from the sum of
contributions to this volume is that the defini-
tion of a Neanderthal niche has to be broad-
ened or, at least, the original formulation of
such a niche has to be understood to represent
only one of a number of possible niches avail-
able to Neanderthal people. The varied contri-
butions to this volume, taken together, indicate
that the concepts of flexibility and adaptability
are key to our understanding hominid subsis-
tence in Europe throughout the Middle Palaeo-
lithic. A common thread in a number of papers
is the use of faunal data (subsistence patterns)
combined with patterns of lithic resource pro-
curement to understand land-use patterns (a
model successfully adopted by Stiner & Kuhn,
1992) situated in a definable environmental con-
text. Hunting patterns, therefore, are used here
as a means of understanding a holistic system of
land-use. Perhaps one of the most valuable les-
sons to be gained from a consideration of the
research presented here is that the interpreta-
tion of subsistence strategies at single sites, or
small numbers of sites, should not be extrapo-
lated to whole regions. Finally, this collection of
papers illustrates the fact that the study of
faunal assemblages from Middle Palaeolithic
sites has much to contribute to our understand-
ing of the evolution of modern, Upper Palaeo-
lithic cultures.
Acknowledgements
The contributors to this volume would like to
thank the anonymous reviewers who worked so
diligently on their behalf. The editor would
particularly like to thank Ann Stirland for her
patience and hard work and Hans-Peter Uerp-
man and Nicholas Rolland (among others) for
sharing their thoughts and experience on the
subject of Middle Palaeolithic research in gen-
eral, and subsistence behaviour in particular.
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
A. Burke
References
Bar-Yosef O. 1994. The contributions of southwest
Asia to the study of the origin of modern humans.
In Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans, Nitecki M,
Nitecki D (eds). Plenum Press: New York; 2366.
Binford LR. 1984. Faunal Remains from Klasies River
Mouth. Academic Press: New York.
Binford LR. 1985. Human ancestors: changing views
of their behavior. Journal of Anthropological Archaeol-
ogy 4: 292327.
Binford LR. 1989. Isolating the transition to cultural
adaptations: an organisational approach. In The
Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural adaptations in
the Later Pleistocene, Trinkaus E (ed.). Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge; 1841.
Boyle K. 1998. The Middle Palaeolithic Geography of
Southern France. British Archaeological Reports
(BAR) International Series 723, Archaeopress: Ox-
ford; 148.
Brugal J-Ph, Jaubert J. 1991. Les gisements paleon-
tologiques Pleistocenes a indices de frequentation
humaine: nouveau type de comportement de pre-
dation? Paleo 3: 1541.
Chase PG. 1987. Specialisation de la chasse et transi-
tion vers le Paleolithique Superieur. LAnthropologie
91: 175188.
Chase PG. 1988. Scavenging and hunting in the
Middle Paleolithic: the evidence from Europe. In
Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, Dibble
H, Montet-White A (eds). University of Pennsyl-
vania Press: Philadelphia.
Delpech F. 1983. Les Faunes du Paleolithique Superieur
dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. CNRS: Paris.
Farizy C. 1994. Changes at the Middle to Upper
Paleolithic transition. In Origins of Anatomically
Modern Humans, Nitecki M, Nitecki D (eds).
Plenum Press: New York; 93100.
Fosse P. 1995. Le role de lhyene dans la formation
des assemblages osseux: 150 ans de controverses.
Paleo 7: 4984.
Gamble CS. 1986. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Klein R. 1986. Review of L.R. Binford: faunal remains
from Klasies River mouth. American Anthropologist
88: 494495.
Klein RG. 1987. Reconstructing how early people
exploited animals. In The Evolution of Human Hunting,
Nitecki MH, Nitecki DV (eds). Plenum Press:
New York; 1146.
Marean CW. 1998. A critique of the evidence for
scavenging by Neandertals and early modern hu-
mans: new data from Kobeh Cave (Zagros Moun-
tains, Iran) and Die Kelders Cave I layer 10 (South
Africa). Journal of Human Evolution 35: 111136.
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 10: 281285 (2000)
The Variability of Hunting Adaptations during the Middle Palaeolithic
Marks A. 1989. Early Mousterian settlement patterns
in the Central Negev, Israel: their social and
economic implications. In LHomme de Neanderthal: La
Subsistance, Patou M, Freeman LG (eds). ERAUL
33: Liege; 115 126.
Mellars P. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeolog-
ical Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton Univer-
sity Press: Princeton.
Mellars P. 1989. Major issues in the emergence of
modern humans. Current Anthropology 30: 349 385.
Patou M-L. 1989. La subsistance et approvision-
nement au Paleolithique Recent. In LHomme de
Neanderthal: La Subsistance, Patou M, Freeman LG
(eds). ERAUL 33: Liege; 11 18.
Rolland N. 1990. Middle Paleolithic socio-economic
formations in Western Eurasia: an exploratory sur-
vey. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeo-
logical Perspective, Mellars P (ed.). Edinburgh
University Press: Edinburgh; 347 388.
Shea JJ. 1998. Neanderthal and early modern human
behavioural variability. Current Anthropology
39S(special issue): 45 78.
Soffer O. 1989. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic
transition on the Russian Plain. In The Human
Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the
Emergence of Modern Humans, Stringer C, Mellars P
(eds). Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh;
714742.
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
285
Soffer O. 1994. Ancestral lifeways in Eurasia. In
Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans, Nitecki M,
Nitecki D (eds). Plenum Press: New York; 110
120.
Stiner M. 1998. Reply to Marean and Kim. Current
Anthropology 39S(special issue): 98103.
Stiner M. 1994. Honor Among Thieves: A Zooarchaeologi-
cal Study of Neanderthal Ecology. Princeton Univer-
sity Press: Princeton.
Stiner M. 1991. An interspecific perspective on the
emergence of the modern human predatory niche.
In Human Predators and Prey Mortality, Stiner M
(ed.); 149186.
Stiner M, Kuhn S. 1992. Subsistence, technology
and adaptive variation in Middle Palaeolithic Italy.
American Anthropologist 94: 1246.
Strauss LG. 1982. Carnivores and cave sites in
Cantabrian Spain. Journal of Anthropological Research
38: 7596.
Ariane Burke
Department of Anthropology,
University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg,
Manitoba,
Canada R3T 5V5
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 10: 281285 (2000)