Churchill-Weapon Technology, Prey Size Selection

Weapon Technology, Prey Size Selection, andHunting Methods in Modern Hunter-Gatherers,Implications for Hunting in the Palaeolithicand Mesolithic

Steven E. ChurchillUniversity of New Mexico

ABSTRACT

The ethnographic and ethnohistoric literature on a global sample of 96 recent hunting peoples wassurveyed to explore the relationships between weapons, prey body-size, and terrestrial hunting techniques.Findings include: (1) an association between the use of hand-delivered spears, large-bodied prey, andhunting techniques dependent on physiographic features and specific terrain types; (2) less dependenceon terrain features in hunting with atlatl-propelled darts, and; (3) use of the bow and arrow withoutregard to prey size or terrain features. Findings also suggest that technologically aided hunting ofmedium-to-large game before the development of long-distance projectile weaponry involved a narrowrange of strategies and limitations of prey choice. The effective exploitation of a wide range of terrestrialmammals characteristic of modern humans occurred after the advent of efficient projectile weapons.

INTRODUCTION

Along with faunal remains, archaeologicallyrecovered components of hunting tools provide avaluable source of information about the subsistencepractices of past peoples. Weapons affect huntingsearch and pursuit times and, ultimately, diet breadth(see Winterhalder 1981; Shott 1990). Prey selection isa function of the range of body sizes the predator cankill and the range of prey speeds the predator caneffectively overtake (Binford 1984). For hominidsbiologically ill-adapted to a predatory niche (i.e.,lacking claws, large fangs, or great speed), weaponsexpand the caprurable prey size range, and, forprojectile weapons capable of "killing at a distance"(see Binford 1984), reduce problems of overtakingswift prey. These factors affect prey selection deci-sions and weigh heavily in search costs for hunters,while the efficiency of the weapons in wounding andkilling prey greatly affects pursuit costs. Weapontechnology makes hunting a workable foraging strate-gy for hominids.

There is a natural congruence between the proper-ties of a particular weapon and the predatory capabili-ties of its users. Delineating the development ofweapons during human evolution is critical to under-

standing hominid predatory behavior and subsistenceand the evolution of technology-as-adaptive strategy.

Unfortunately, interpreting the lithic, wood, andosseous artifact record of hunting tools has not beeneasy. Two complementary lines of research havegreatly added to our understanding. Experimentalwork with bone and stone weapon tips on spears,darts, and arrows has documented their ability to killa variety of animals, provided information about theirranges, and shown the limitations inherent to thesetechnologies (e.g., Frison 1986, 1989; Odell andCowen 1986; Bergman et al. 1988). Use-wear analysis(e.g., Beyries 1984, 1987; Shea 1989a, 1989b, thisvolume; Anderson-Gerfaud 1990) provides additionalinformation about the actual functions of pointedlithics and the origins of composite weaponry. Theethnographic record of recent hunters provides a thirdperspective. Recent hunters employ a wide range ofweapon systems and hunting techniques, and thusprovide the potential for better understanding theinterrelationships among weapon system, huntingstrategy, and prey choice. Information also can begained about the practical, as opposed to experimental,limits of various weapons, and, ultimately, what theoccurrence of various weapons in the archaeologicalrecord indicates about past human behavior.

12 Steven E. Churchill

WEAPON DEVELOPMENT AND HUNTING

Middle Pleistocene to Early Holocene

Pointed wood, lithic, and osseous artifacts com-prise most of the evidence for weapon technology inOld World archaeological assemblages from theMiddle Pleistocene to recent times. To prehistoriansworking in the "man the hunter" paradigm predomi-nant for most of this century, the meaning of theseartifacts was self-evident: they were components of theweapons that early man used in his pursuit of prey(e.g., Bordes 1968). Challenges to this paradigm havequestioned the role of hunting in human evolution(e.g., Binford 1981, 1984, 1985; Brain 1981) and,consequently, have raised doubts about the meaning ofartifacts once thought to represent hunting technology.What, then, is the evidence for technologically aidedhunting in the later Pleistocene and early Holocene,and what does it imply about human predatory capa-bilities during this time? Addressing these questions isimportant before exploring the ethnographic andethnohistorical record of hunter-gatherer behavior.

Sharpened wooden staves, perhaps the earliestspears, have been recovered from several late MiddlePleistocene sites, most notably Clacton-On-Sea (War-ren 1911; Oakley et al. 1977) and Lehringen (Movius1950; Tode 1954). Comparisons with recent hunter-gatherer wooden tools show these staves to be similarin size and design to untipped thrusting spears (Tode1954; Oakley et al. 1977). The association of theseearly spears with large animal remains (esp. Lehring-en) further suggests that they were hunting weapons(but see Gamble 1987). However, reinterpretations ofthe faunal remains from key Middle Pleistocene sites(see Binford 1977, 1987; Binford and Stone 1986;Klein 1987; Villa 1990) have cast doubt upon thecapabilities of Homo erectus and archaic Homosapiens to hunt the large game with which these toolsare found. At present these artifacts only tell us that,by the end of the Middle Pleistocene, hominids werecapable of making and using durable wooden spears;whether they were regularly used in hunting is open toquestion.

The issue of hunting medium-to-large mammals isno better resolved for the Middle Palaeolithic/MiddleStone Age than it is for the Lower Palaeolithic (seeBinford 1984, 1985, 1989; Chase 1988, 1989; Klein1986). Pointed lithics are abundant in archaeologicaldeposits from this period (Levallois and Mousterianpoints from Europe and the Levant; Stillbay andBambata points and Lupemban foliates from Africa),but their function as armatures is uncertain. Bonepoints make their earliest, albeit infrequent, appear-ance in the African Middle Stone Age (Clark et al.1950; Singer and Wymer 1982), although they do notappear in Europe until the early Upper Palaeolithic.

The addition of a lithic or bone point to a woodenspear increases its penetration and cutting ability, andthus its killing power. Experimental work with stone-tipped spears (Frison 1986) and ethnohistorical refer-ences to their use among modem hunters attest to thecapabilities of this weapon to inflict mortal wounds ineven very large animals. Edge-wear evidence (Beyries1987; Shea 1989; Anderson-Gerfaud 1990) and therecovery of a resin haft (Mania and Toepfer 1973)show that, by the Middle Palaeolithic, hominids wereregularly hafting a variety of lithics, including points,to produce composite tools.

Analyses of Middle Palaeolithic points fromLevantine sites report edge-wear and impact damageconsistent with their use as projectile armatures (Shea1988, 1989, 1990, this volume; but see Holdaway1989, 1990). Similar evidence is lacking in pointsfrom European contexts (Beyries 1984, 1987; Ander-son-Gerfaud 1990), which is surprising given thathominids living in periglacial conditions, with feweredible plants, would have required a greater amount ofmeat in their diets than their temperate- and tropical-adapted contemporaries (see Gamble 1986). If huntingwere an important component of subsistence, wewould expect artifacts referable to a weapon functionto be relatively more abundant in colder environments.While this expectation holds for bone points fromAurignacian levels, it does not for pointed lithics fromthe Middle Palaeolithic (Kuhn 1989). The lithic andosseous record of the Middle Palaeolithic/MiddleStone Age seems to indicate that, in some places andat some times during this period, hominids were usingcomposite spears as an aid to protein capture. Under-standing geographical variation in technologicallyaided hunting in the Upper Pleistocene presents aninteresting challenge to Palaeolithic archaeologists.

Near the end of the Middle Palaeolithic, pointedelements began to display morphological featurescharacteristic of later projectile armatures. Thesefeatures occur variably at first, but with increasingconsistency in the Upper Palaeolithic, and include:relatively small size, greater symmetry about the longaxis, basal modification to facilitate hafting, and sizestandardization of the proximal end. If the propertiesof lithic armatures reflect properties of the totalcomposite weapon (Christenson 1986), these designfeatures may reflect a concern for projectile aerody-namics and penetration capability (see Guthne 1983;Christenson 1986; Odell and Cowan 1986). Certainbasal modifications, such as the addition of a stem ortang (evident first in Aterian points, later in Solutreanshouldered points, Teyjat points, and Azilian points)may reflect a concern for positioning the haft material(either sinew or resin) away from the cutting edge toreduce drag and increase penetrating ability (seeGuthrie 1983). Haft drag is a greater problem inprojectiles than in hand-thrust weapons, where muscu-

Modern Hunter-Gatherers 13

Table 1.1. Hunter-gatherer groups by biogeographicalregions.

KoniagNetsilik EskimoPolar EskimoW. Greenland EskimoYukaghir

Arctic (North America and Asia):AleutCaribou EskimoCopper EskimoGilyakIglulik Eskimo

North American Northwest Coast:Alsea QuileuteBella Coola TlingitHupa TolowaKlamath TwanaModoc YurokNootka

Boreal Forest and Northern Deciduous Forest(North America and Asia):

AinuChipewyan (Caribou-Eater)Eastern OjibwaEmo Ojibwa (Rainy River)Kaska (Nahani)Micmac (Souriquois)MontagnaisMistassini CreeNaskapiNorthern Salteaux and PekangekumSlaveSouthern Ojibwa (Katikitegon)

North American Desert/Great Basin:Cahuilla (Desert)Seri

North American Great Plains:ArapahoAssiniboinBlackfootBlood

UteWasho

CrowGros Ventre (Atsina)Piegan (Pikuni)Shoshoni

North American California Indians:Achomawi (Pit River)AtsugewiChumashGabrielenoLuisenoMaiduMi wokMono (Western)NisenanNomlakiPatwin

South American Tropical Forest:AcheAweikoma (Caingang)BororoBotocudo

PornoSinkyoneTubatulabalWappoWintuWiyotYanaLake and North Foothill

YokutsCoast Yuki

CuivaSirionoWaorani

(Table 1.1 continued)

Southern South America:AlacalufTehuelche

Africa:DoroboEfe (Mbuti) and

Bambote PygmyG/wi

Indonesia:Agta (Aeta)Andaman IslandersKubuMlabrai

Australia:ArandaMardudjaraMurnginPintupi

Ona (Selk'nam)Yahgan (Yamana)

Hadza!Kung

PunanRock Vedda ("Wild")SemangSemaq Beri

TasmaniansTiwiYiwara

lar effort of the hunter insures the continued penetra-tion of the point. Standardization of stem width inSolutrean points also may denote a concern for ease ofreplacement of stone tips in costly foreshafts afterbreakage due to projectile use (Straus 1990). Thegreater investment in stone armatures evident in theUpper Palaeolithic may attest to pressure to produceflight-stable, accurate projectiles.

These changes in lithic points, along with increas-ing frequencies of small, symmetrical bone points,might have something to do with the advent of long-range weaponry—a concern for "killing at a distance"—at the boundary between the Middle and UpperPalaeolithic. True long-distance projectile weaponry,in the form of spearthrower (atlatl) and dart, is clearlyestablished for the later Upper Palaeolithic, based onSolutrean atlatl hooks from La Placard and Combe-Sauniere (Breuil 1912; Cattelain 1989), but may havecome into regular use somewhat earlier. While chang-es in the morphology of armatures at the Middle/Up-per Palaeolithic border suggest increased emphasis onprojectile technology, they do not preclude an earlierdevelopment of long-range weapons. The use of large,imperfectly symmetrical Lei lira points as dart tips inparts of Australia (McCarthy 1967; Mulvaney 1969)shows that some dedicated atlatl users are indifferentto the projectile point characteristics discussed above.Given the similarity of elongated Levallois points toLeilira points, it is reasonable to think that they mighthave tipped atlat] darts during the Middle Palaeolithic.Pinpointing the introduction of this weapon requiresrecovery of the spearthrower itself, since even sharp-ened wooden spears serve as adequate darts (seeOakley et al. 1977). The appearance of atlatls in theSolutrean, and their increased frequency in Magda-lenian deposits, may represent nothing more than an


Table 1.2. Mean animal body weights (kg)".

Species

North AmericaElk (Cervus elaphusfTule Elk (C.e. nannodesfMule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)'White-tailed Deer (O. virginianusYMoose (Alces alces)"Caribou (Rangifer larandusfPronghorn (Antilocapra americana)"Bison {Bison bison)0

Mt. Goat (Oreamnos americana)"Muskox (Ovibos moschatus)"Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis)"Wild Boar (Feral Hog) (Sus scrofa)1

Collarded Peccary (Tayassu tajacuY*Coyote (Canis latrans)"Wolf (C. lupus)'Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus)'Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)"Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenieus)"Black Bear (Ursus americanus)'Grizzly Bear (U. arctos)'Polar Bear (U. maritimusfRacoon {Procyon lotor)e

River Otter (Lontra canadensisYMt. Lion {Felis concolorYLynx (Lynx lynx)c

Whitetail Jackrabbit (Lepus townsendiiyBlacktail Jackrabbit (L. californicusYSnowshoe Hare (L. americanusyArctic Hare (L. arcticusyEast. Cottontail (Sylvilagus JloridanusYArmadillo (Cabassous Sp. )m

South and Central AmericaWhite-Lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecan)1

Brocket Deer (Mazama americana)'Marsh Deer (Blastocerus dichotomus)*Pampas Deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticusYHuemul (Hippocamelus bisulcusYGuanaco (Lama guanicoeYVicuna (Vicugna vicugnaYTapir (Tapiros terrestris)1

Spider Monkey (Ateles paniscus)'Woolly Monkey (Lagothrix lagothricha)*Howler Monkey (Alouatta seniculus)'Capuchin Monkey (Cebus apelldfSaki Monkey (Pithecia monachus)1

Squirrel Monkey (Saimiri sciureus)'Crab-Eating Racoon (Procyon cancrivorusYCoati (Nasua nasuaYBush Dog (Speothos venaticus)*Crab-Eating Fox (Cerdocyon thous)'Jaguarundi (Felis yagouaroundi)'Margay (F. wiedifYOcelot (F. pardalisYPuma (Puma concolorYJaguar (Panthera oncaYTayra (Eira barbara)'

xM xF xM&F

360 25g182 153132 52113 76453 350110 8151 42

570 42085 62

340 287143 63

22

4 4169 136

85 4811 93 351 25 51 1

119 121

- 24100 76

3091689295

4029647

49574

314103265

211353

454

153331460

98

67103

2514

3342

1093570

12050

1649873319566338

35894


Species

Giant River Otter (Pteronura brasiliensisYGiant Anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactylaYTamandua (Tamandua tetradactylaYArmadillo (Dasypus Sp.YGiant Armadillo (Priodontes maximusYForest Rabbit (Sylvilagus brasiliensisYPaca (Agouti paca)m

Agouti (Dasyprocta sp.YCapybara (Hydrochaeris hydrockaerisYTucotuco (Ctenomys sp.YCayman (Caiman sclerops)'AfricaGiraffe (Girqffa camelopardalisyOkapi (Okapia johnstonifDik Dik (Madoqua sp.yImpala (Aepyceros melampusfEland (Taurotragus oryxyLesser Kudu (Tragelaphus imberbisyGreater Kudu (T. strepsicerosyGemsbok (Oryx gazelldfSpringbok (Antidorcas marsupialisYSteinbok (Raphicerus campestrisfKlipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragusyCommon Reedbuck (Redunca arundinumyWaterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnusyHartebeeste (Alcelaphus buselaphusfCape Hartebeeste (A.b. caamaYWildebeeste (Connochaetes taurinusYSable Antelope (Hippotragus nigerYRoan Antelope (H. equinus?Bongo (Boocercus eurycerusyPygmy Antelope (Neotragus batestfBlue Duiker (Cephalophus monticoldyBay Duiker (C. dorsalisiYellow-Backed Duiker (C. sylvicultofyBlack-Fronted Duiker (C. nigriJronsYThompson's Gazelle (Gazella thomsonifWater Chevrotain (Hyemoschus aquaticusyBuffalo (Syncerus caffeffForest (Dwarf) Buffalo (S.c. nanus?Cape Buffalo (S.c. cafferfBush Pig (Potamochoerus porcusyG. For. Hog (Hylochoerus meinertzhageniyWart Hog (Phacochoerus aethiopicusyCommon Zebra (Equus quaggayHippo (Hippopotamus amphibiusjPygmy Hippo (Choeropsis liberiensisyWhite Rhino (Ceratotherium simumfAfrican Elephant (Loxodonta africandfForest (Pygmy) Elephant (L.a. cyclotis)h

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)1

Olive Baboon (Papio anubis)'Colobus Monkey (Colobus sp.)f

Common Jackal (Canis aureus^Bat-Eared Fox (Otocyon megalotisyStriped Hyena (Hyaena hyaena^Spotted Hyena (Crocuta crocutai

xM

32___-

43--

1100--

63690100257-

35--

682401681682282352803002--

2510

680

--

230852501475

_-

xF

_29___

_-

40--

700--

5045063170-25--

481801501502002102502403---

1912

480

_180572201360

-1350100060258---_

47147---_

xM&F

2731622718342120

900230557570822142033013135821015915921422326527036226315221158028565070205712351418237

295043501175542081144663

Modern Hunter-Gatherers


Species

15


xM xF xM&F

Lion (Felis Uoj 172 151Leopard (F. pardusj 60 50Swamp Cat (F. chausf 9 5Golden Cat (F. auratayWild Cat (F. sylvestrisy 5 4African Civet (Gvettictis civettajCommon Genet (Genetta genettayMongoose (subfamily HerpestinaefPorcupine (Hystrix sp.f - -Cape Hare (Lepus capensis?Spring Hare (Pedetes capensisyHyrax (Procavia sp.y - -Honey Badger (Mellivora capensisyTree Pangolin (Manis tricuspisyGiant Pangolin (M. gigantedyCape Pangolin (M. temmincldfAntbear (Orycteropus ajefjMonitor Lizard (Varanus albigularis)*Ostrich (Struthio sp.f -Asia and IndonesiaAsian Elephant (Elephas maximusf 2489 3022Tapir (Tapirus indie us)*Sambar (Cervus unicolor)1 162 223Japanese Deer (C. nippon)h 100Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjak)*Axis Deer (Cervus axis)*Chinese Water Deer (Hydropotes inermis)*Lesser Mouse Deer (Tragulus javanicus)1

Lesser Mouse Deer (T. napu)1

Manchurian Elk (Alces alcesf 360 258Gaur (Seladang) (Bos frontalis)*Sumatran Rhino (Didermocerus sumatrensis)1 -Wild Pig (Sus scrofafBearded Pig (5. barbatus)1

Flying Fox (Pteropus vampyrus)1

Flying Squirrel (Petinomys Sp.)1

Bamboo Rat (Rhizomys sumatrensis)1

Leaf Monkey (Presbytis sp.)' 7 6Crab-Eating Macaque (Macaca fascicularis)' 5 3Pig-Tailed Macaque (M. nemestrina)' 10 6Otter (Lutra lutrafCivit (Viverra sp.)1

Brown Bear (Ursus arctos)"Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibeianus)A

Malayan Sun Bear (Helarctos malayanusfTiger (Felis tigris?Malayan Porcupine (Hystrix brachyura)1

Lesser Titil Bonor (Atherurus macrourus)1

AustraliaRed Kangaroo (Megaleia rufay 82 27Wallaroo (Macropus robustus)*Forest Kangaroo (M. giganteusf 91Rock Wallaby (Petrogale penidllata)*Red-Bellied Wallaby (Thylogale billardierifS. Hairy-Nosed Wombat (Lasiorhinus latifronsf-Emu (Dromiceius novaehollandiaef 82 72

16255

7115

1222

2144382

3317663

95

2756318193

15501515

309850900

9180

112748

106

33115046

17883

5540

76

2777

"When only body weight ranges were available, the mean weightwas taken as the middle of the published range. If mean bodyweight for the combined sexes of a species was not published, thenthe average of the means of males and females was used. Preybody weights by biogeographical region were non-normallydistributed, and sample variances covaried positively with samplemeans because of the inclusion of very large animals (elephants,hippos, etc.) in some of the samples. Thus, raw body weight valueswere loglO transformed before averaging. After the construction ofsamples by biogeographical region, weighted means for thecombined global sample were taken for each combination ofweapon system and hunting technique. Pairwise Behrens-Fishert-tests (Fisher and Yates 1963) were used to evaluate differences inmean animal body weights across hunting techniques and weaponsystems. The sequential Bonferroni technique (Holm 1979) wasused to control the inflated family-wide Type I error rates thatoccur with pair-wise testing.bAllen 1940; cBanfield 1974; "Boitani and Bartoli 1983; 'Brain1981; 'Fleagle 1988; 'Hall and Kelson 1959; hH a He north and Diller1980; 'Jameson and Peeters 1988; TGngdon 1971; 'Lee 1979;•Medway 1969; "Meritt 1985; "Redford and Eisenberg 1992; "Ride1970; "Schmidt and Gilbert 1978; 'Serventy and Whittell 1962;'Yost and Kelly 1983 (Average body weights from Yost and Kelly[1983] were obtained by dividing the total capture weight of aspecies [Table 6.1] by the total number of animals captured of thatspecies [Table 6.2].).

increased use of less perishable materials (antler vs.wood) in their manufacture.

Irrefutable evidence of archery in the latestPalaeolithic and Mesolithic of Europe comes from therecovery of partial arrows from Stellmoor at 10,500years BP (Rust 1943) and wooden self bows fromseveral sites dated to around 8,000 years BP (Rausing1967). As with other weapons, identifying the originsof the bow and arrow is problematic. Several smallUpper Palaeolithic points (Font-Robert, Gravette, andel-Wad) would have served well as arrowheads, andthe sophistication of bow design in the EuropeanMesolithic suggests that this weapon system had bythen been in use for some time, perhaps since themiddle of the Upper Palaeolithic (see Bergman et al.1988; Bergman and Newcomer 1983; Bergman, thisvolume).

Regardless of when particular weapons firstappear, it is apparent that, between the Middle Pleisto-cene and the Early Holocene, hominids added newweapons capable of "killing at a distance" (atlatl dartsand the bow and arrow) to their existing arsenal ofshort-range weapons (thrust and thrown hand spears,rocks, sticks, etc.) What does this mean in terms ofsubsistence strategies overall, about hunting behavioritself, and about the evolving capabilities of hominidhunters? With these questions in mind, we can turn tothe ethnographic and ethnohistone literature on recenthunter-gatherer use of hand-delivered and projectileweapons in terrestrial hunting.


THE ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA

Two relationships between hunting technology andhunting behavior are explored in this paper: (1) weap-on system to hunting technique and (2) weapon systemand hunting technique to prey-size selection. Weaponsystem refers to a weapon type plus its method ofemployment (e.g., thrusting spears and hand-thrownspears are considered two different weapon systems).For each hunter-gatherer group, the weapon systemand techniques used in hunting, animals hunted witheach system and technique, and the distance betweenhunter and prey were noted. Weapon systems includedthrusting spears, hand-thrown spears, atlatl-deliveredspears, and bow with nonpoisoned arrows. Huntingtechniques were classified as follows:Disadvantage: includes any technique that limits theescape of an animal or exploits an animal naturallydisadvantaged to gain time or access so that a weaponcan be employed. Game drives were included if theexpressed aim was to force the animal into a handi-capped position in which the weapon was applied.Examples include impeding animals by driving theminto water, deep snow, or mud; treeing an animal orforcing it into a defensive stance with dogs; or attack-ing an animal during hibernation in its den.Ambush: involves instances in which hunters wait inhiding, whether behind man-made blinds or naturalfeatures, for animals to pass within effective range oftheir weapons. Drives were considered ambushing ifthe intent was to force animals past concealed hunters.Approach: includes stalking free-moving animals towithin effective weapon range. The object of approachhunting is to avoid evoking the prey's flight responsebefore the hunter is within effective weapon range.Luring of animals was also included in this category.Pursuit: entails chasing an animal to overtake it andplace the hunter within effective weapon range or toexhaust and thus disadvantage it. With pursuit huntingthe weapon system is used after the animal has takenflight, and, in some cases (running an animal toexhaustion), the flight response is used as an aid tocapture. Pursuit may involve domesticated animalssuch as horses to close the distance between hunterand prey or dogs to keep the animal moving untilexhaustion.Encounter: refers to hunting in which animals aretaken, either jumped from the bush or spotted in trees,as they are encountered. Hunters are often withineffective weapon range when the animal is found andoften do not pursue the animals if they move out ofrange.

Data on hunting behavior was culled from theprimary ethnographic and ethnohistoric literature for96 recent human groups (Table 1.1: bibliographicreferences available from the author upon request).Although the literature does not provide a fine-grained

picture of hunting behavior, it does allow for theestablishment of basic patterns regarding who washunting what, with which weapons, and by whichmethods. The object of this research was to establishbasic associations among weapon systems, huntingmethods, and prey sizes, which could then be appliedto the archaeological record.

Although the aim of the research was patternrecognition, mean prey body weights for differentweapon system/hunting method combinations werecompared statistically to evaluate the relationshipbetween prey size, weapons, and techniques. Hunter-gatherers were grouped by biogeographical region(Table 1.1), and mean prey body weights acrosshunting techniques and weapon systems were calculat-ed for each region (see Table 1.2).

WEAPONS, TECHNIQUES, AND PREY SIZE

Hand-Delivered Spears

Although 95% of the surveyed groups usedspears, only 50% used them in terrestrial hunting;other uses include hunting marine mammals, fishing,warfare, and defense from predators. Thrusting spearsclearly dominate the reported cases of terrestrial spearhunting, while accounts of hand-thrown spears arerelatively rare. Two things are readily apparent aboutmodern hunter-gatherer use of thrusting spears: theyare predominately directed against larger animals, andthey are mostly associated with disadvantaging prey(Table 1.3). The large variances surrounding the meanbody weights for the thrusting spear (i.e., the largestandard errors in Table 1.3) reflect the versatility ofthis weapon with respect to prey size. Animals of anysize can be dispatched by spear, provided the hunterhas the time and close access necessary to repeatedlydeliver well-placed stabs. Because the hunting ofelephant and hippo with hand spears by a few groupsgreatly inflates the mean body weights, sample medi-ans have also been included in Table 1.3. Thesemedians underscore the point that, even though thereis great variability in the size of animals taken bythrusting spear, modern hunters tend to direct thisweapon system at large prey.

The thrusting spear is used primarily as a dis-patching tool after prey have been placed in a disad-vantaged position. Disadvantaging with thrustingspears is also strongly associated with cooperativedrive techniques and use of domesticated animals(mostly dogs) or other technology (such as boats,snowshoes, snares, or other weapons). Only 14 cases(out of 69: a given group may hunt more than onespecies with the same combination of weapon systemand technique, such that the number of "cases" oftenexceeds the number of groups that use a particular


Table 1.3. Mean

Disadvantage

Ambush

Approach

Pursuit

Encounter

TOTAL (alltechniques)

animal body weights" taken

MeanSE

MeanSE

MeanSE

MeanSE

Mean

MeanSE

[Median](N)

[Median](N)

[Median](N)

[Median](N)

(N)

[Median](N)

by various hunting methods:

Thrusting

326.8139.7

197.850.3

-

378.367.1

26.5

283.4101.2

[195.9](33)

[164.3](7)

-

[460.0](5)

(1)

[163.9](46)

thrusting

200.755.0

127.336.2

42.212.2

341.4125.1

26.5

146.242.8

spears vs. hand-thrown spear

Thrown

[163.9](8)

[91.0](5)

[42.2](2)

[277.0](3)

(1)

[74.7](15)

P

0.054

0.843

-

0.752

-

0.006*

17

•All weights in kilograms. • = p significant at family-wide a = 0.05. p-values reflect pairwise comparisons ofweighted means of logged body weights. Key: SE = standard error of the mean; N = number of groups comprisingthe weighted mean (i.e., number of groups that used each combination of weapon system and technique).

method) lacked cooperative drives, dogs, or accessorytechnology. In these cases the hunters required onlysuitable landscape features with which to disadvantagethe animals, most commonly snow drifts, but alsovalleys and swamps—some cases also involved hunterstaking advantage of hibernating bears naturally"trapped" in their dens.

The thrusting spear is associated less frequentlywith ambush and pursuit hunting (Table 1.3). The fewreported cases of ambushing with thrusting spears alsoinvolved either suitable terrain or cooperative hunting,namely driving animals toward concealed hunters.Most ambushing spear hunters used trees, rocks, andother physiographic features for concealment whilewaiting for the animal to come within effective weap-on range. Ambush hunting with thrusting spearsinvolved smaller prey on average than either disadvan-tage or pursuit hunting. Cases of pursuit with thrustingspears involved either the use of horses (to close thegap between mounted hunter and fleeing prey), dogs(to catch the animal and then hold it at bay), or a hotand dry environment where endurance pursuit tacticscould be employed. Only one case of encounterhunting with thrusting spears (peccaries in the SouthAmerican tropics) was noted. No reports of approachhunting with thrusting spears were found.

Reports of hand-thrown spears in terrestrialhunting were relatively rare, and most were found indescriptions of thrusting spear use. This suggests thatthe distinction between these two weapon systems maynot be entirely meaningful. Lack of significant differ-ences in mean body weights between thrust and hand-

thrown spears for most hunting techniques furthersupports this idea (Table 1.3). While there is a non-significant trend for hand-thrown spears to be directedat smaller game, both thrusting and hand-thrownspears are large-animal procurement tools primarilyassociated with disadvantaging and, to a lesser degree,ambush hunting. Both are also short-range weaponsystems (Table 1.4). For these reasons data for thrustand thrown spears were pooled for comparisons withother weapon systems (see Table 1.6). This allowedfor incorporation of accounts of hand-spear use thatdid not specify method of employment (thrust vs.hand-thrown), thus increasing sample sizes for somecomparisons.

The notable difference between thrust and hand-thrown spears involves approach hunting. Both theTiwi (Melville Island, Australia) and Tasmanians werereported to hand throw very thin and light spearsduring approach hunting of wallabies and kangaroo.These two cases are the only reports of hand spearsused with approach hunting techniques.

Atlatl Darts

The atlatl-propelled dart is markedly differentfrom hand-delivered spears. In this sample atlatl dartswere never associated with disadvantage, pursuit, orencounter tactics (Table 1.5). Atlatl spear hunting isassociated with a shift in techniques to ambushing andapproaching much smaller prey. With an averageeffective range of 39.6 m (Table 1.4), the atlatl -delivered dart is a true long-range projectile. It is


Table 1.4. Effective range in meters of various weaponsystems.

Weapon System

Thrusting SpearHand-Thrown SpearAtlatl SpearBow and Arrow

EffectiveRange

Contact7.8

39.625.8

SE

2.25.52.4

N

149

25

animal to cause it to lie down or drop within a reason-able distance. A large number of cervid, bovid, andsuid bones with healed arrow wounds from Mesolithicsites (Noe-Nygaard 1974) attest to the limits of thebow and arrow as a shock weapon against medium-to-large game when the thorax is missed. With encounterhunting, which is primarily directed at smaller prey,the bow and arrow is an effective shock weaponcapable of bringing down an animal struck anywhereon the body.

undoubtedly this feature that makes this weaponsystem effective with approach and ambush hunting.Although the atlatl is in wide use as a marine andwaterfowl hunting tool among Eskimos and as awaterfowl weapon among the agricultural Tarasco ofMexico, all the terrestrial hunting data for this weaponsystem comes from Australia. The small size of allterrestrial game on the Australian continent makes itimpossible to evaluate the relationship between atlatldarts and prey size.

Bow and Arrow

The bow and arrow is used with all the huntingtechniques examined. Average prey body weightsshow a trend towards differentiation of prey size withdifferent techniques (Table 1.6). Except for encounterhunting, the differences are not statistically significant--likely due to the large variances surrounding eachmean (Tables 1.6 and 1.7). The bow and arrow is aweapon conducive to hunting by any technique,allowing the hunter to tailor the technique to thebehavioral characteristics of a given prey species,rather than having the limitations of the weaponsystem dictate the type and size of prey.

With disadvantage, approach, and pursuit huntingthe bow and arrow is used "surgically," directedtowards the thoracic cavity with the goal of striking avital organ and inducing death by hemorrhage. Theability to use it in this way makes the bow and arroweffective against even large game. The need to placean arrow precisely between ribs or behind the shoul-der blade, however, makes for a relatively small targetarea even on large animals (see Guthrie 1983; Frison1986; Friis-Hansen 1990). This is one reason the bowand arrow have a shorter effective distance than theatlatl spear—25.8 m on average. Disadvantage, am-bush, and pursuit tactics may allow the hunter theclose shot necessary to bring down large game or maybuy time to fire repeated shots. With ambush huntingthe arrow is used both as a surgical and a "shock"weapon (causing sufficient tissue damage, regardlessof where it hits, to kill or immobilize in a relativelyshort time). Failing a well-placed, surgical shot, theambush hunter hopes to place enough arrows into the

DISCUSSION

The strong association between hand-deliveredspears and disadvantaging suggests limitations onhunting with this weapon system alone. Disadvantag-ing is highly dependent upon physiographic featuresfor success, requiring natural or man-made traps suchas narrow arroyos, box canyons, corrals, swamps,snow drifts, or bodies of water, or the assistance ofdogs to surround and impede an animal so that thetechnology can be employed. Even ambushing, thoughused much less often, requires physical featuressuitable for concealing hunters until the animal iswithin effective range of the weapon—within 5-10 mfor hand-delivered spears. These terrain features mustnot only be suitable for disadvantaging or ambushing,they also must be located in places where desirablegame animals occur. It is only with pursuit techniquesthat the hand-spear hunter is freed somewhat fromterrain constraints. Chasing animals to exhaustion isnot the most energy efficient means of hunting,however, and may be even less so in colder environ-ments, such as Pleistocene Europe.

The relationship of hand-delivered spears toterrain dependent hunting techniques in northernlatitudes suggests that, prior to the development oflong-range weapons, hunters may have been restrictedto places in the environment where the technology wasmost effective for the hunting of medium-to-large

Table 1.5. Mean prey body weights'-atlatl hunting.

Technique

DisadvantageAmbushApproachPursuitEncounterTOTAL (alltechniques)

Mean

—42.239.8

——

43.1

[Median]

—

[42.2][39.8]

---

[44.7]

10

3

SE

.4

.0

-

.8

-32--

5

'All weights in kilograms. Key: SE = standard error ofthe mean; N = number of groups comprising the weighted

mean.


1 body

MeanSE

MeanSE

MeanSE

MeanSE

MeanSE

MeanSE

weights' taken

[Median](N)

[Median](N)

[Median](N)

[Median](N)

[Median](N)

[Median](N)

by various hunting methods:

Hand Spear

504.1183.9

185.253.1

42.212.2

349.178.0

26.5

324.0104.3

[202.5](37)

[161.8](7)

[42.2](2)

[368.5](4)

(1)

[160.2](48)

hand spears vs

Bow and

230.842.1

131.819.9

170.443.9

200.139.3

23.212.6

151.617.2

. bow and

Arrow

[141.2](18)

[95.5](25)

[101.8](28)

[129.8](15)

[99](7)

[118.8](72)

arrow.

P

0.357

0.077

0.000*

0.025

0.999

0.001*

19

Disadvantage

Ambush

Approach

Pursuit

Encounter

TOTAL

"All weights in kilograms. "Hand spears" = pooled data for thrust and hand-thrown spears. * = p significant at family-wide a = 0.05. p-values reflect pairwise comparisons of weighted means o'f logged body weights. Key: SE = standarderror of the mean; N = number of groups comprising the weighted mean (i.e., number of groups that used eachcombination of weapon system and technique).

terrestrial game. Even cooperative hunting techniquesaimed at driving animals into a disadvantage*! positionor past concealed hunters depend upon appropriateterrain features for success (see Straus, this volume).Cooperative techniques are important because theyallow large-scale harvesting of gregarious animals,whereas disadvantaging and ambushing by one or twohunters alone, using only hand spears, generallyproduces individual animal kills. In addition, selectivepredation of prime-aged animals, which seems tobegin in the Middle Palaeolithic, would most likelyhave required cooperative hunting tactics in theabsence of long-range weaponry (Stiner 1990, 1991).Thus, arguments about the origins of social huntingare important to our understanding of the organizationof hominid subsistence behavior. Nevertheless, untilman-made drive lines or corrals came into use, evencooperative hunters would have been largely depen-dent upon landscape features where they could disad-vantage or ambush animals (see Stiner 1990).

The Tiwi and Tasmanian cases are curious excep-tions to an otherwise robust pattern of hand spearsused with disadvantage, ambush, and pursuit hunting.These cases show that hand-propelled spears can beused as long-range projectiles with approach hunting—although it was only the Tasmanians who threw thespear long distances (30-40 m) (Roth 1890); the Tiwiapproach prey closely before throwing (Goodale1971). If the Tasmanians are excluded, the average

effective distance of the hand-thrown spear drops to5.7 ± 0.9 m (N=13). Hand spears among mostgroups are short-range weapons, whether thrust orthrown, which raises a question about the use of handspears as long-range projectiles. Perhaps hand spearsare inefficient as long-range/approach hunting weap-ons, and the Australian island cases are related tounique circumstances involving prey and environmentcharacteristics that make this technology/huntingmethod combination economical. The inefficiency ofhand-thrown spears may be due in part to problems ofaccuracy. There is very little mention of the accuracyof this weapon in the ethnographic literature, althoughthere is ample evidence from experimental researchthat it is an inaccurate weapon in the hands of anthro-pologists (see Guthrie 1983; Odell and Cowan 1986).Another possibility is that hand spears are inefficientin this capacity relative to other projectile technologiesand that the development of other projectiles supersed-ed the use of hand-thrown spears in most parts of theworld, although, for some reason, not on the islandsaround Australia.

Hand-delivered spears, whether thrust or thrown,are large animal weapons (Tables 1.3 and 1.6). Thismay be because spears are the best tool for dispatchinglarge animals or because the hunting techniquesrequired to take game with hand spears generally workbetter with larger prey. Disadvantaging is moresuccessful with larger prey, since smaller, fleeter


Table 1.7. Statistical comparisons (p-values) of body weights' between bow and arrow hunting techniques.

Ambush Approach Pursuit Encounter Total

Disadvantage 0.1295AmbushApproachPursuitEncounter

"All weights in kilograms. * = p significant at family-wide a — 0.05. p-values reflect pairwise comparisons ofweighted means of logged body weights.

0.20160.5944-

0.43380.00970.0171-

0.0010*0.0018*0.0016*0.0007*

0.0006*0.0000*0.0000*0.0000*0.0064*

animals can more readily escape traps and impedi-ments. Disadvantaging allows a spear to be appliedrepeatedly against an animal incapable of escaping, soeven the largest animals (e.g., elephants) (see Frison1986) can be dispatched once disadvantaged. Am-bushing also may be more effective with larger,slower prey, allowing the hunter more time to place aspear thrust or throw before the animal moves away.Similarly, large game may be the focus of pursuithunting, as respiratory and heat exchange physiologymake larger animals easier to exhaust, at which pointspears can be used to kill them.

Reduced effectiveness of hand spears with smallergame may represent another limitation to huntersarmed only with this weapon. Modern hunters mustoften employ additional technology, such as otherweapons, boats, or snowshoes, in order to disadvan-tage an animal or to exploit one already disadvan-taged. When cases of disadvantaging involving acces-sory technology are compared with cases where spearswere used alone, a significant difference in bodyweight is observed (mean kg body weight of disadvan-taging with accessory technology = 340.5 ± 118.0[median 152.5], N = 55; mean kg body weight ofdisadvantaging without other technology = 894.6 ±438.0 [median 309.0], N = 14; one-tailed p value =0.0170). Disadvantaging without the aid of othertechnology, as likely practiced in the Middle and earlyUpper Pleistocene, is directed at much larger prey.The single-kill focus of this type of spear hunting alsoplaces a premium on larger animals, since prey size isthe limiting factor for caloric return from a singlehunting episode.

The ethnographic evidence suggests that hominidsarmed only with hand spears may have faced con-straints on prey body weight ranges and huntinglocales that limited the productivity of hunting. Itcould be argued that the greater muscularity of Homoerectus and archaic Homo sapiens (Trinkaus 1987)helped them overcome these limitations by allowingthem to hurl spears harder and farther. However,there is limited evidence in the anatomy of Neandertalshoulders that suggests low frequencies of throwing(Churchill and Trinkaus 1990). Whether the same

applies to their contemporaries in other parts of theOld World cannot be determined from the currentfossil record. In any case, it does seem that thedevelopment of true long-range projectile weaponrywould have widened the spectrum of hominid predato-ry abilities. More research aimed at identifying theorigins of long-range weaponry is needed if we wantto understand the predatory behavior of archaicmembers of the genus Homo.

The faunal record for the European late UpperPalaeolithic indicates a broadening of the subsistencebase (Straus 1985; Straus and Clark 1986), mostnotably the inclusion of smaller, more agile alpinegame (Straus 1987a, 1987b, this volume). It is alsowith the late Upper Palaeolithic that we find the firstunambiguous evidence of long-range weaponry in theform of atlatl components (Breuil 1912; Cattelain1989). It is certainly reasonable to think that there isa relationship between the two. The greater effectiverange of an atlatl dart frees the hunter somewhat fromterrain constraints, and stalking in a more openenvironment is possible. Hunting of agile animals likeibex and chamois would have been greatly facilitatedby use of such a long-range projectile weapon system.

The atlatl as used by recent hunters in terrestrialhunting is directed at small-to-medium sized animals.This may be because groups using atlatl-deliveredspears in terrestrial hunting are restricted to areaswithout large mammals. It also could be argued thatthe atlatl was retained in these areas because it is wellsuited for smaller game. The atlatl is an effectivemethod of delivering a spear at high velocity (Ray-mond 1986). Against small-bodied animals, the atlatlspear is an effective shock weapon, but with largegame its utility may be limited. Although atlatl dartscarry a great deal of kinetic energy, and thus penetrat-ing power (Raymond 1986), it may still be necessaryto penetrate the thoracic cavity of a large animal toimmobilize it and minimize pursuit time. It is possiblethat the larger antler harpoon heads and barbed pointsof the European Magdalenian and Azilian represent theefforts of terrestrial hunters to improve the killingpower of their atlatl darts. (Although harpoon headsand barbed points are generally thought to represent


fishing and marine hunting tools [see Andersen 1971;Julien 1982], the association of two barbed points withan adult male moose skeleton at Poulton-le-Fylde[Barnes et al. 1971] shows that they were at leastoccasionally used for terrestrial hunting.) Detachable,barbed harpoon heads will work their way deeper intoa fleeing animal because of its muscular contractions.The addition of grooves along some of these armatureswould have increased hemorrhage (see Rozoy 1978:Fig. 279). These features likely improved weaponeffectiveness by increasing success rates with animalsstruck in the abdomen or hind limbs.

Because of the limited number of contexts inwhich modern hunters use atlatls, it is difficult toassess its effectiveness with large game. Accounts ofatlatl use in the modern record do, however, suggestthat it may be a better tool for smaller animals.Several dedicated marine-hunting atlatl users, such asthe Aleuts (Veniaminov 1840; Shade 1949; Antropova1964) and Koniags (Clark 1974) of southwesternAlaska, used other technology, such as bow andarrow, when hunting medium-to-large terrestrialgame. In fact, when hunting walrus (mean weight ofmales = 1,500 kg; females = 900 kg: Ridgway 1972)on shore, which is thus equivalent to terrestrialhunting, the Aleuts abandoned their atlatl darts infavor of thrusting spears (Veniaminov 1840). Inmarine hunting, atlatl darts represent a highly effectivemeans of delivering a detachable harpoon head thatserves the double function of wounding the animal andaffixing it to a line, often with floats, that helps toexhaust the animal and prevent it from escaping orsinking to the bottom. In hunting either waterfowl ormarine mammals from a boat, the atlatl also hasseveral advantages over the bow and arrow: longrange, slight recoil, and the freeing of one hand tocontrol the boat (Nuttall 1891; Jochelson 1933; Kellar1955; Stirling 1960). In terrestrial hunting its rangeand velocity may not outweigh problems of accuracyin killing large animals. Again, data on the accuracyof this weapon are lacking in ethnographic accounts.Experimental research with this weapon system,however, demonstrates the difficulty of accuratelyplacing shots by even experienced users (Frison1989).

I predict that, when hunting large game, atlatlhunters would have either reverted to hand spears orwould have adjusted their hunting techniques tocompensate for the limitations of the atlatl. Forinstance, disadvantaging would allow for multiplespear shots to be delivered to a single animal, thusincreasing the atlatl's effectiveness against large game.Atlatls may have been used with disadvantaging, usingnatural "traps," in large animal procurement at NorthAmerican Paleo- and Archaic Indian bison kill sites(see Frison et al. 1976; Frison 1978; Stanford 1979).

The bow and arrow allows hunters to harvestconsistently animals of all sizes with a variety ofhunting techniques. The appearance of this weaponsystem in the late Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic(see Bergman et al. 1988; Bergman, this volume) mayreflect pressures to improve hunting success rates,perhaps in response to population growth around thePleistocene-Holocene boundary. It is also possible thatsubsistence diversification in the later Upper Palaeo-lithic (Straus 1985; Straus and Clark 1986) createdpressures favoring the bow. As diet breadth increases,pursuit time averaged across all prey classes mustdecline accordingly or the economic benefit of huntingdeclines (Shott 1990). Increasing projectile accuracy isone way to reduce pursuit time. It is also likely thatthe reforestation of post-glacial Europe favored aweapon that could be used in dense vegetation (Berg-man et al. 1988). Wooden spears were retained byMesolithic hunters (Becker 1945), but, by this time,they were employing multiple weapon systems withmultiple techniques—possibly even involving domesticdogs, as is common among recent hunter-gatherers(see Noe-Nygaard 1974).

Finally, while there is undoubtedly a componentof innovation and invention in the development ofweapon technology over time, the observed patterningin the ethnographic record suggests that the develop-ment of specific weapons in prehistory reflects re-sponses to changing needs or conditions rather thaninevitable technological progress. In many respects thebow and arrow is decidedly superior to the atlatl-propelled dart. It can be fired easily and swiftly froma variety of positions. Accuracy is better with thebow, because aim is usually taken from a stationaryposition (Bergman et al. 1988). Throwing a dart withan atlatl requires a more difficult set of coordinatedbody movements, and the violent motion of the huntermay frighten the quarry (Raymond 1986). However,the bow fires a projectile with less penetrating power(Odell and Cowan 1986; Raymond 1986) and effectiverange than an atlatl-propel led dart. The greater kineticenergy of atlatl darts gives this weapon some advan-tages in warfare, particularly against armor-clad orshield-carrying opponents (see Townsend 1983;Raymond 1986). The atlatl's value in warfare undoubt-edly led to its retention by groups that had turned toother subsistence technologies (e.g., the Aztec)(Nuttall 1891). The weapon superiority view, byassuming to know in advance why hunting technologychanged over time, precludes a serious evaluation ofthe causal factors surrounding weapon development. Itis encouraging that this view is now being tested morerigorously (e.g., Hames 1979; Townsend 1983; Yostand Kelley 1983), as this will surely lead to a morecomplete understanding of the relationship betweentechnology and subsistence behavior.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Robert Franciscus, Trent Hol-liday, John Shea, and Erik Trinkaus for their insight-ful comments on earlier drafts of this paper and forengaging in numerous discussions on this topic. SteveKuhn and Mary Stiner provided countless suggestionsand helped me greatly to clarify my thoughts on thenature of weaponry and hunting in the later Pleisto-cene. Special thanks go to Bryan Curran for hiseditorial support and help in refining this study. I amespecially grateful to Lewis Binford and LawrenceStraus for encouraging me to pursue these issues.

REFERENCES

Allen, G. M.1940 The Mammals of China and Mongolia. New York:

American Museum of Natural History.Andersen, S. H.

1971 Ertebolle kulturens harpuner. KumiJ3-\25.Anderson-Gerfaud, P.

1990 Aspects of behavior in the Middle Paleolithic: Functionalanalysis of stone tools from southwest France. In TheEmergence of Modern Humans: An ArchaeologicalPerspective. P. Mellars, ed. Pp. 389-418. Ithica: CornellUniversity Press.

Antropova, V. V.1964 The Aleuts. In The People of Siberia. M. G. Levin and

L. P. Potapov, eds. Pp. 884-888. Chicago: University ofChicago.

Banfield. A. W. F.1974 The Mammals of Canada. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.Barnes, B., B. J. N. Edwards, J. S. Hallam, and A. J. Stuart

1971 Skeleton of a late Glacial elk associated with barbedpoints from Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire. Nature232:488-489.

Becker, C. J.1945 En 8000-Aarig stenalderboplads i Holmegaards Mose.

Fra National-museets Arbejdsmark 1945:61-72.Bergman, C. A., and M. H. Newcomer

1983 Flint arrowhead breakage: Examples from Ksar Akil,Lebanon. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:238-243.

Bergman, C. A., E. McEwen, and R. Miller1988 Experimental archery: Projectile velocities and compari-

son of bow performances. Antiquity 62:658-670.Beyries, S.

1984 Approche fonctionnelle de la variabilite des differentsfades du Mousterien. These de 3eme cycle, Universitede Paris X, Nanterre.

1987 Quelques examples de stigmates d'emmanchementsobserve's sur des outils du Pallolithique Moyen. In Lamain et I'outil: Manches el emmanchements prehisto-riques. D. Stordeur, ed. Pp. 55-64. Lyon: Travaux de laMaison de 1'Orient.

Binford, L. R.1977 Olorgesailie deserves more than the usual book review.

Journal of Anthropological Research 33:493-502.1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York:

Academic Press.1984 Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth. New York:

Academic Press.1985 Human ancestors: Changing views of their behavior.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:292-327.

1987 Were there elephant hunters at Torralba? In The Evolu-tion of Human Hunting. M. H. Nitecki and D. V. Nitec-ki, eds. Pp. 47-105. New York: Plenum Press.

1989 Isolating the transition to cultural adaptation: An organi-zational approach. In The Biocultural Emergence ofModern Humans in the Later Pleistocene. E. Trinkaus,ed. Pp. 18-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Binford, L. R , and N. Stone1986 Zhoukoudian: A closer look. Current Anthropology

27:453-475.Boitani, L., and S. Bartoli

1983 Simon and Schuster's Guide to Mammals. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Bordes, F.1968 The Old Stone Age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brain, C. K.1981 The Hunters or the Hunted? Chicago: University of

Chicago.Breuil, H.

1912 Les subdivisions du Paleolithique superieur et leursignification. Compte Rendu de la XT^~ Session,Congris International d'Anthropologie el d'ArcheologiePrehistorique (Geneve):5-78.

Cattelain, P.1989 Un crochet de propulseur solutreen de la grotte de

Combe-Sauniere 1 (Dordogne). Bulletin de la SocietiPrehistorique Francaise 86:213-216.

Chase, P. G.1988 Scavenging and hunting in the Middle Paleolithic: The

evidence from Europe. In The Upper Pleistocene Prehis-tory of Western Eurasia. H. Dibble and A. Montet-White, eds. Pp. 225-232. University Museum Mono-graph 54. Philadelphia: The University Museum, Univer-sity of Pennsylvania.

1989 How different was Middle Palaeolithic subsistence? Azooarchaeological perspective on the Middle to UpperPalaeolithic transition. In The Human Revolution: Behav-ioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins ofModern Humans. P. Mellars and C. Stringer, eds. Pp.321-337. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Christenson, A. L.1986 Projectile point size and projectile aerodynamics: An

exploratory study. Plains Anthropologist 31:109-128.Churchill, S. E., and E. Trinkaus

1990 Neandertal scapular glenoid morphology. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 83:147-160.

Clark, D. W.1974 Koniag Prehistory: Archaeological Investigations at Late

Prehistoric Sites on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Stuttgart:Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Clark, J. D., K. P. Oakley, L. H. Wells, and J. A. C. McClelland1950 New studies on Rhodesian Man. Journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute 77:7-32.Fisher, R. A., and F. Yates

1963 Footnote to Table VI. Statistical Tables for Biological,Agricultural and Medical Research. 6* edition. Edin-burgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Fleagle, J. G.1988 Primate Adaptation and Evolution. New York: Academic

Press.Friis-Hansen, J.

1990 Mesolithic cutting arrows: Functional analysis of arrowsused in the hunting of large game. Antiquity 64:494-504.

Frison, G. C.1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. New York:

Academic Press.1986 Mammoth hunting and butchering from a perspective of

African elephant culling. In The Colby Mammoth Site. G.C. Frison and L. C. Todd, eds. Pp. 115-134. Albu-


querque: University of New Mexico.1989 Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on

African elephants. American Antiquity 54:766-784.Frison, G. C , M. Wilson, and D. J. Wilson

1976 Fossil bison and artifacts from an early altithermal periodairoyo trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41:28-57.

Gamble, C.1986 The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University.1987 Man the shoveler: Alternative models for Middle Pleisto-

cene colonization and occupation of northern latitudes. InThe Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives. O.Soffer, ed. Pp. 81-98. New York: Plenum Press.

Goodale, J. C.1971 Tiwi Wives: A Study of the Women of Melville Island,

North Australia. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Guthrie, R. D.

1983 Osseous projectile points: Biological considerationsaffecting raw material selection and design amongPalaeolithic and Palaeoindian peoples. In Animals andArchaeology. Volume 1. Hunters and their Prey. J. Clut-ton-Brock and C. Grigson, eds. Pp. 273-294. BARInternational Series 163. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReports.

Hall, E. R , and K R. Kelson1959 The Mammals of North America. New York: The Ronald

Press Company.Haltenorth, T., and H. Diller

1977 A Field Guide to the Mammals of Africa includingMadagascar. London: Collins.

Hames, R. B.1979 A comparison of the efficiencies of the shotgun and the

bow in neo-tropical forest hunting. Human Ecology 7:21-52.

Holdaway, S.1989 Were there hafted projectile points in the Mousterian?

Journal of Field Archaeology 16:79-85.1990 Mousterian projectile points-reply to Shea. Journal of

Field Archaeology 17:114-115.Holm, S.

1979 A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6:56-70.

Jameson, E. W., Jr., and H. J. Peeters1988 California Mammals. Berkeley: University of California

Press.Jochelson, V. I.

1933 History, Ethnology and Anthropology of the Aleut.Washington: Carnegie Institution.

Julien, M.1982 Les harpons magdaleniens. Supplement a Gallia Prihis-

toire 17. Paris: Editions du Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique.

Kellar, J. H.1955 The atlatl in North America. Indiana Historical Society,

Prehistory Research Series 3:281-352.Kingdon, J.

1971 East African Mammals. Volumes l-lll. London: Aca-demic Press.

Klein, R. G.1986 Review of Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth by

L. R. Binford. American Anthropologist 88:494-495.1987 Reconstructing how early people exploited animals:

Problems and prospects. In The Evolution of HumanHunting. M. H. Nitecki and D. V. Nitecki, eds. Pp. 11-45. New York: Plenum Press.

Kuhn, S. L.1989 Projectile weapons and investment in food procurement

technology in the Eurasian Middle Paleolithic. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 78:257 (abs.).

Lee, R. B.1979 The IKung San. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mania, D., and V. Toepfer1973 Kdnigsaue: Gliederung, Oekologie und mitielpaldo-

lithische Funde der Letzten Eiszeit. Berlin: VEB Deut-scher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

McCarthy, F. D.1967 Australian Aboriginal Stone Implements: Including Bone,

Shell and Teeth Implements. Sydney: Australian Muse-um.

Medway, Lord1969 The Wild Mammals of Malaya and Offshore Islands

Including Singapore. London: Oxford University Press.Meritt, D. A., Jr.

1985 Naked-tailed armadillos Cabassous sp. In The Evolutionand Ecology of Armadillos, Sloths, and Vermilinguas. G.B. Montgomery, ed. Pp. 25-33. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.

Movius, H. L.1950 A wooden spear of Third Interglacial age from Lower

Saxony. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6:139-142.

Mulvaney, D. J.1969 The Prehistory of Australia. New York: Frederick A.

Praeger.Noe-Nygaard, N.

1974 Mesolithic hunting in Denmark illustrated by boneinjuries caused by human weapons. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 1:217-248.

Nuttall, Z.1891 The atlatl or spear-thrower of the ancient Mexicans.

Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Eth-nology Papers 1(3).

Oakley, K. P., P. Andrews, L. H. Keeley, and J. D. Clark1977 A reappraisal of the Clacton spearpoint. Proceedings of

the Prehistoric Society 43:13-30.Odell, G. H., and F. Cowan

1986 Experiments with spears and arrows on animal targets.Journal of Field Archaeology 13:195-212.

Rausing, G.1967 The Bow: Some Notes on its Origin and Development.

Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups.Raymond, A.

1986 Experiments in the function and performance of theweighted atlatl. World Archaeology 18:153-177.

Redford, K. H., and J. F. Eisenberg1992 Mammals of the Neotropics: The Southern Cone. Volume

2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Ride, W. D. L.

1970 A Guide to the Native Mammals of Australia. Melbourne:Oxford University Press.

Ridgway, S. H.1972 Mammals of the Sea. Springfield: C C. Thomas.

Roth, H. L.1890 The Aborigines of Tasmania. London: Kegan Paul,

Trench, Trubner and Co.Rozoy, J.-G.

1978 Les derniers chasseurs: I'Epipaleolithique en France elen Belgique. Essai de synthese. Tome 2. Bulletin Specialde la Socie"te" Arche'ologique Champenoise. Reims: Impri-merie de Compiegne.

Rust, A.1943 Die Alt-und Mitielsieinzeiiliche Funde von Stellmoor.

Neumunster: Wachholtz.Schmidt, J. L., and D. L. Gilbert

1978 Big Game of North America. Harrisburg: StackpoleBooks.

Serventy, D. L., and H. M. Whittell1962 Birds of Western Australia. Perth: Paterson Brokensha.


Shade, C. I.1949 Ethnological Notes on the Aleuts. Unpublished honors

thesis, Harvard University.Shea, J. J.

1988 Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant.Journal of Field Archaeology 15:441 -450.

1989 A functional study of the lithic industries associated withhominid fossils in the Kebara and Qafeeh Caves, Israel.In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and BiologicalPerspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. P.Mellars and C. Stringer, eds. Pp. 611-625. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.

1990 A further note on Mousterian spear points. Journal ofField Archaeology 17:111-114.

Shott, M. J.1990 Stone tools and economics: Great Lakes Paleoindian

examples. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supple-ment 5:3-43.

Singer, R., and J. Wymer1982 The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in South

Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago.Stanford, D.

1979 Bison kill by ice-age hunters. National Geographic155.114-121.

Stiner, M. C.1990 The use of mortality patterns in archaeological studies of

hominid predatory adaptations. Journal of Anthropologi-cal Archaeology 9:305-351.

1991 An interspecific perspective on the emergence of themodern human predatory niche. In Human Predators andPrey Mortality. M. C. Stiner, ed. Pp. 149-185. Boulder:Westview Press.

Stirling, M. W.1960 The use of the atlatl on Lake Patzcuaro, Michoacan.

Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin 173:265-268.

Straus, L. G.1985 Stone Age prehistory of northern Spain. Science 230:

501-507.1987a Hunting in late Upper Paleolithic western Europe. In The

Evolution of Human Hunting. M. H. Nitecki and D. V.Nitecki, eds. Pp. 147-176. New York: Plenum Press.

1987b Upper Paleolithic ibex hunting in southwest Europe.Journal of Archaeological Science 14:163-178.

1990 The original arms race: Iberian perspectives on the

Solutrean phenomenon. In Feuilles depierre: Les indus-tries a pointes foliacies du Paliolithique superieureuropien. J. Kozlowski, ed. Pp. 425-447. ERAUL 42.Liege: University de Liege.

Straus, L. G., and G. Clark1986 La Riera Cave: Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations

in Northern Spain. Anthropological Research Papers 36.Tempe: Arizona State University.

Tode, A.1954 Mammuti&ger vor 100,000 Jahren: Natur und Mensch in

Nordwestdeutschland zur letzten Eiszeit, aufGrund derAusgrabungen bei Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Brunswick: E.Appelhans.

Townsend, J. B.1983 Firearms against native arms: A study in comparative

efficiencies with an Alaskan example. Arctic Anthropolo-gy 20:1-33.

Trinkaus, E.1987 Bodies, brawn, brains and noses: Human ancestors and

human predation. In The Evolution of Human Hunting.M. H. Nitecki and D. V. Nitecki, eds. Pp. 107-145.New York: Plenum Press.

Veniaminov, I. E. P.1840 [Notes on the Islands of the Unalaska District. Volume

3.J Sanktpeterburg: Metropolitan of Moscow.Villa, P.

1990 Torralba and Aridos: Elephant exploitation in MiddlePleistocene Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 19:229-309.

Warren, S. H.1911 First published report and exhibition of the specimen,

May 10th, 1911. Quarterly Journal of the GeologicalSociety 67:xcix.

Winterhalder, B.1981 Foraging strategies in the boreal forest: An analysis of

Cree hunting and gathering. In Hunter-Gatherer ForagingStrategies: Ethnographic and Archaeological Examples.B. Winterhalder and E. Smith, eds. Pp. 66-98. Chicago:University of Chicago.

Yost, J. A., and P. M. Kelley1983 Shotguns, blowguns, and spears: The analysis of techno-

logical efficiency. In Adaptive Responses of NativeAmazonians. R. B. Hames and W. T. Vickers, eds. Pp.189-224. New York: Academic Press.

Documents

Churchill-Weapon Technology, Prey Size Selection