Evolutionary Anthropology 17:158–161 (2008)
BOOK REVIEW
What Have
Taphonomic Studies
Taught Us About
Early Hominin
Behavior?
Breathing Life into Fossils: Tapho-
nomic Studies in Honor of C.K. (Bob)
Brain
Edited by Travis Pickering, Kathy
Schick, and Nicholas Toth (2007)
Gosport, IN: Stone Age Institute Press.
xviii þ 296 p. $74.95 (cloth). ISBN 0-
9792-2761-5.
Deconstructing Olduvai: A Taphonomic
Study of the Bed I Sites
By Manuel Domı́nguez-Rodrigo, Rebeca
Barba, and Charles P. Egeland (2007)
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. xvi
þ 337 p. $129.00 (cloth). ISBN 978-1-
4020-6150-9.
At the beginning of the 1980s, the
publication of several books and
papers1–6 articulated the importance
of taphonomy in the study of human
evolution and, more specifically, of
early hominin foraging behavior. In
reevaluating the fossil evidence at
prominent Plio-Pleistocene sites, two
of these books, The Hunters or the
Hunted? An Introduction to African
Cave Taphonomy, by C. K. Brain,
and Bones: Ancient Men and Modern
Myths, by L. R. Binford, have proven
particularly influential to a genera-
tion of paleoanthropologists and
archeologists. The recent publication
of two volumes attests to the nature
and degree of this influence over the
past quarter century. Breathing Life
into Fossils: Taphonomic Studies in
Honor of C.K. (Bob) Brain is an
edited volume consisting of sixteen
papers drawn from a special con-
ference at the Stone Age Institute.
It includes contributions from re-
searchers such as Behrensmeyer
and Shipman, who were among
V
C 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
DOI 10.1002/evan20175
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com).
those who brought taphonomy to the
attention of paleoanthropologists in
the early 1980s. Deconstructing Oldu-
vai: A Taphonomic Study of the Bed 1
Sites comprises a series of papers by
three main authors. These papers
focus on the faunal evidence from
this celebrated site, the controversy
over which was initially sparked by
Binford’s book, Bones. The authors
of Deconstructing Olduvai conclude
that, among all of the Olduvai sites,
only the faunal assemblage at FLK
22 (Zinj) was accumulated by homi-
nins. They attribute the other Oldu-
vai faunal assemblages primarily to
carnivore activity, with large felids
most active in forming the Bed I
accumulations, but giving way to
hyenas over time. Two of the authors
of Deconstructing Olduvai are among
the contributors to Breathing Life
into Fossils, which also includes
papers by other researchers who have
played prominent roles in the study of
the Olduvai faunal assemblages.
OVERVIEW
The diversity of articles in Breath-
ing Life into Fossils is an appropriate
reflection of the wide impact of
Brain’s pioneering research in
taphonomy. A broad range of per-
spectives is represented in this vol-
ume. In their contribution, Cleghorn
and Marean emphasize the distinc-
tion between ‘‘actualistic taphonomy’’
and ‘‘comparative taphonomy.’’
Actualistic taphonomy requires the
direct observation of the traces pro-
duced by an actor in the formation
of a bone assemblage (terminology
after Gifford-Gonzalez7); this in-
cludes naturalistic and experimental
studies of how carnivores damage
bones and ethnoarcheological studies
of how foragers butcher and trans-
port their prey. Comparative taphon-
omy examines data sets in which the
relationship between an actor and
the resultant traces is typically
inferred because the bone assem-
blage was accumulated in the past
and/or over a long period; examples
include studies of modern and fossil
hyena dens.
One shortcoming of comparative
taphonomy is that it focuses on evi-
dence that is strictly circumstantial.
On the other hand, actualistic
taphonomy cannot assess conditions
that do not occur in the present nor
processes that act over a long period
of time. Brain’s original research
incorporated both actualistic and
comparative taphonomy without ex-
plicitly distinguishing between the
two, and both types of taphonomy
are represented in this tribute vol-
ume. Studies employing the compar-
ative taphonomic approach include
Behrensmeyer’s comparison of natu-
ral bone distribution three decades
apart at Amboseli National Park;
Schick and coworkers’ analysis of a
striped hyena den from Jordan;
Thackeray’s study of the contribu-
tions of hominins and carnivores to
the famous Plio-Pleistocene cave
sites in South Africa; and Krovitz
and Shipman’s comprehensive exam-
ination of damage patterns on the
skulls of immature hominins. Many
of the remaining contributors to
Breathing Life into Fossils employ
the actualistic approach, as do the
authors of Deconstucting Olduvai. I
focus on this approach here, but
before assessing both of these recent
volumes, I believe it will be useful to
consider the different legacies of the
original works by Brain and Binford.
THE HUNTERS OR THE HUNTED?
AND BONES
In revisiting the original interpre-
tations of the faunal assemblages
from Makapansgat and Olduvai,
respectively, Brain and Binford col-
lected a wide range of ethnoarcheo-
logical and ethological data, docu-
menting the activities of pastoralists,
hunter-gatherers, large carnivores,
and other animal species that collect
and modify bone remains. Recogniz-
ing the role of bone density in
explaining the differential survival of
skeletal elements, both researchers
were among the first to conduct sys-
tematic measurements of this vari-
able. Brain’s research established
that the characteristics of the Maka-
BOOK REVIEW
pansgat faunal assemblage could be
attributed to bone density and the
activities of carnivores rather than
hominins, thereby falsifying Dart’s
hypothesis of an osteodontokeratic
culture in which australopithecines
were active hunters. Brain’s study
thus provided a textbook example of
the essential role of taphonomic
research in the study of hominin
behavior. This example has become
one of the most famous cautionary
tales in archeology. The unequivocal
success of Brain’s research justifies
the celebratory nature of Breathing
Life into Fossils.
Olduvai, on the other hand,
remains enigmatic. In Bones, Binford
argued that the multiple association
of bones and stone tools at the vari-
ous Olduvai sites did not represent
the home bases of early hominins.
He remained largely unswayed by
the identification of stone-tool cut
marks on some of the Olduvai faunal
remains. Nevertheless, the question
at Olduvai was not if, but how and
to what degree hominins contributed
to its faunal assemblages. Bones
inspired many researchers to con-
duct ethnoarcheological and actualis-
tic studies in order to address this
issue. However, over a quarter of a
century later, the debate over the
Olduvai fauna remains both unre-
solved and acrimonious. This con-
trast between the legacies of The
Hunters or the Hunted? and Bones
illustrates a simple observation: Even
with the rigorous practice of taphon-
omy, determining the nature of hom-
inin influence on a fossil assemblage
has proven a much more problem-
atic venture than simply confirming
its presence or absence.
OLDUVAI
If one wishes to question the value
of taphonomy in the study of human
evolution, there is perhaps no better
place to look than Olduvai Gorge.
Despite the wide range of actualistic
studies conducted to assess the na-
ture of the Olduvai assemblages,
there is no consensus as to what
happened here. In the late 1980s and
early 1990s, researchers concentrated
on the interpretation of skeletal ele-
ment representation, documenting
how large carnivores disarticulated
and consumed carcasses and how
modern foragers (most notably, the
Hadza) butchered and transported
their prey.8–12 These studies have
proven inconclusive, with different
research groups arriving at contra-
dictory interpretations, a situation
reviewed in Bunn’s contribution to
Breathing Life into Fossils. Subse-
quent studies have focused on the
interpretation of bone-surface modi-
fication, comparing the frequency of
tooth marks caused by carnivores
with that of stone-tool marks
inflicted by hominins.13–16 This ave-
nue of investigation has also failed to
provide any consensus as to how the
Olduvai faunal assemblages were
formed. The Olduvai Landscape Pale-
oanthropology Project (OLAPP, the
accomplishments of which are sum-
marized by Blumenschine and col-
leagues in Breathing Life into Fossils)
has played a central role in the study
of the Olduvai assemblages. These
researchers conclude that, at FLK 22
(Zinj), hominins broke many of the
long bones for marrow after they
had been defleshed by large felids,
whereas at FLK N1–2 hominins had
earlier access to prey carcasses,
obtaining both marrow and large
quantities of flesh. In contrast, the
authors of Deconstructing Olduvai
argue that the faunal assemblage at
FLK 22 was accumulated primarily
by hominin hunters, while large car-
nivores were responsible for most of
the faunal remains at FLK N1–2.
This disagreement has taken on
other dimensions, with the leaders of
the two teams recently embroiled in
a dispute over permission to work at
Olduvai.17 Both groups of research-
ers have relied heavily on actualistic
studies to provide an interpretative
framework for the Olduvai fauna, yet
have arrived at different conclusions.
To a reader, such contradictory
interpretations by two experienced
groups of researchers present a di-
lemma.
Breathing Life into Fossils misses
an opportunity to address these dis-
parities. Of the actualistic taphon-
omy represented in this volume,
some contributions (such as those by
Bunn, Cleghorn and Marean) focus
159
on skeletal element representation;
others (by Domı́nguez-Rodrigo and
coworkers, and White and Toth)
focus on surface modification; still
others (by Blumenschine and co-
workers, as well as Pickering and col-
leagues) incorporate both lines of
evidence. Among those who study
surface modification, Blumenschine
and colleagues stress the importance
of examining carnivore tooth-mark
evidence, Domı́nguez-Rodrigo and
coworkers emphasize the significance
of stone-tool marks, while White and
Toth suggest that many tooth marks
that have been attributed to carni-
vores may actually have been pro-
duced by hominins. Unfortunately,
these contrasting points of view are
not reconciled within this volume. As
a result, after reading Breathing Life
into Fossils, one may recognize the
importance of taphonomic studies
while simultaneously wondering pre-
cisely what such studies have taught
us about early hominin behavior.
Deconstructing Olduvai has many
of the prerequisites of a classic
taphonomic study: a strong actualis-
tic component, the detailed examina-
tion of many different lines of evi-
dence, and the explicit recognition of
the critical issues inherent in creat-
ing an interpretive framework for the
behavior of Plio-Pleistocene homi-
nins. Certain aspects of the authors’
interpretations of the Olduvai fauna
are difficult to evaluate without first-
hand knowledge of these assemb-
lages. Most notably, Domı́nguez-
Rodrigo and Barba argue that many
of the carnivore tooth marks docu-
mented by OLAPP researchers are
actually biochemical marks, a claim
that has been vigorously contested.18
They also suggest that the tooth-
mark evidence on which the OLAPP
interpretations are based is highly
susceptible to equifinality; that is,
many different processes may pro-
duce the same archeological pattern.
However, there are also problems
with the primary line of evidence,
the frequency of stone tool marks,
examined by Domı́nguez-Rodrigo
and coworkers.
First, this frequency calculation is
based on the number of identified
specimens (NISP). As the authors
acknowledge, the use of NISP to
160 Lam
make comparisons between sites and
between modern experimental stud-
ies and archeological data may be
problematic as this measure is sensi-
tive to fragmentation. The use of an
alternate methodology, such as one
that employs GIS to precisely docu-
ment the placement of cut marks
and to quantify the surface area of
the bone fragment19 may provide a
solution to this issue. Second, the
use of experimental studies as mod-
els for early hominin butchery has
been questioned (see Blumenschine
and colleagues in Breathing Life into
Fossils), as such studies are relatively
few and typically involve an archeol-
ogist in the unfamiliar role of
butcher. The use of such models not
only implies that modern researchers
using stone tools represent adequate
analogues to early hominins, but also
assumes a lack of variability in
butchery patterns. It may appear rea-
sonable to expect that early homi-
nins conducted butchery in as effi-
cient a manner as possible. However,
at FLK 22, Domı́nguez-Rodrigo and
coworkers have noted that hominins
left many marrow-rich long bones
unbroken, suggesting that they were
not using these carcasses in an opti-
mal fashion. I suspect that the range
of variation in butchery patterns is
much greater than is anticipated in
these models, especially if one
accounts for the possibility that
hominins, in some cases, may have
used their teeth rather than tools to
strip flesh from a bone.
This brings us to a third problem-
atic issue. Domı́nguez-Rodrigo and
coworkers attribute to hominin activ-
ity only those bone specimens that
exhibit marks made by stone tools.
As noted earlier, in Breathing Life
into Fossils White and Toth question
the assumption that tooth marks are
attributable only to carnivores. They
speculate that early hominins
undoubtedly left tooth marks on
bones. If any of the tooth marks in
the Olduvai assemblages were the
result of hominin mastication, then
the authors of Deconstructing Oldu-
vai and others who have focused pri-
marily on quantifying surface modifi-
cation have underestimated the con-
tribution of hominins to these
assemblages.
Domı́nguez-Rodrigo and colleagues
conclude that, in forming the faunal
assemblage at FLK 22, the Olduvai
hominins had primary access to prey
carcasses through hunting. Other
researchers have suggested that the
Olduvai hominins may have gained
early access to carcasses through
confrontational scavenging, driving
off predators before they had con-
sumed much of their prey.20 In argu-
ing against this possibility, Domı́-
nguez-Rodrigo and coworkers cite
the observation that modern hunter-
gatherers who engage in such aggres-
sive scavenging are successful only
because of their use of bows and
arrows; therefore, this is not a behav-
ior one could reasonably expect of
early hominins. This argument is
problematic for two reasons. If one
is to gauge early hominin abilities
directly through such ethnographic
analogy, one must also note that
among modern hunter-gatherers,
none are known to have regularly
and successfully hunted large game
armed only with Oldowan-type tools.
In addition, because this argument is
not based on the faunal evidence, it
undermines the assertion that tapho-
nomic research provides us with the
ability to reconstruct hominin activ-
ities with any degree of precision.
Drawing inspiration from the
examples set by Brain and Binford,
taphonomic studies have provided
some critical insight into the nature
of the fossil record. Most notably,
they have produced a model for
understanding the differential preser-
vation of mammalian faunal
remains, identifying the parts of the
skeleton that are most resistant to
destructive processes.21–24 At the
same time, actualistic studies have
formed the foundation of much of
our knowledge concerning the avail-
ability of animal resources in mod-
ern African environments. Research-
ers, including the authors of Decon-
structing Olduvai and the
contributors to Breathing Life into
Fossils, generally recognize that nat-
uralistic and experimental studies
cannot simulate the entire range of
relevant ecological variables and that
modern savanna environments can-
not be used as direct analogues to
their Plio-Pleistocene precursors. As
BOOK REVIEW
a result, they have tried to identify
and document general patterns of
behavior, intentionally disregarding
atypical and unusual occurrences.
However, it may be such atypical con-
ditions that best explain the character-
istics of the faunal material at Oldu-
vai.
One important ecological situation
that has not been modeled by actual-
istic studies is noted in both Decon-
structing Olduvai and Behren-
smeyer’s contribution to Breathing
Life into Fossils. This is the occur-
rence of drought. During such times,
large numbers of dead ungulates are
available to scavengers. If the assem-
blage at FLK 22 had been accumu-
lated during a period of drought, this
would explain the evidence of early
access to carcasses by the Olduvai
hominins, as well as the fact that
many long bones were not broken
for marrow. This is likely to be too
simplistic an explanation, coming
from someone who has never seen
the relevant fossils, but it illustrates
the problem that many of these large
fossil assemblages may, in effect, be
palimpsests, representing a long pe-
riod of accumulation with possible
contributions by a range of different
agents. Most large African carni-
vores, and all of those that are gre-
garious, engage in both hunting and
scavenging; meat-eating early homi-
nins probably did the same. The flex-
ible adoption of different foraging
strategies by early hominins and the
regular occurrence of conditions
such as drought, which may be dis-
proportionately represented in the
fossil record,25 complicate our
attempts to gain insight into specific
aspects of early hominin behavior.
While a detailed understanding of
taphonomic processes is necessary in
order to precisely interpret the activ-
ities of early hominins, in many
cases it may simply not be sufficient
for that purpose. However, this in no
way diminishes the importance of
taphonomic studies in our study of
human evolution.
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON
TAPHONOMIC STUDIES
Brain’s own contribution to
Breathing Life into Fossils is, fittingly,
BOOK REVIEW
the volume’s most compelling chap-
ter. He provides a gracious and mod-
est review of his inspirational contri-
butions to paleoanthropology before
concluding with an introduction to
his current research interest, the evo-
lution of the first predatory organ-
isms during the Cambrian radiation.
Brain believes that cranial expansion
in Homo corresponded to the adop-
tion of increasingly complex foraging
strategies, as well as the need to sur-
vive predation by carnivores in new,
open environments. He sees an anal-
ogous situation in the Cambrian, as
the earliest predators adapted to fill
a new niche. This emphasizes what I
believe to be one of the greatest lega-
cies of Brain’s research: that study-
ing the behavior of very different
species offers us immense potential
to understand that of our own. It has
been argued that behavioral variabil-
ity allowed early Homo to adapt to
the changing climatic conditions of
the Pleistocene,26 while the more
specialized hominin genus, Para-
nthropus, became extinct. Of the lin-
eages of large carnivores, some, most
notably the sabertooth cats, did not
survive the Pleistocene. The carni-
vore lineages that did survive likely
exhibited behavioral adaptability
similar to that of a predatory Homo
species. Modern African carnivores
display a range of behavioral vari-
ability that is typically underesti-
mated by paleoanthropologists.27 By
understanding such variability in
successful carnivore lineages, we
may begin to speculate on the differ-
ent ways that early meat-eating hom-
inins adapted to fluctuating environ-
mental conditions while defining a
new ecological niche for themselves.
Actualistic studies that investigate
the entire range of behavior exhib-
ited by modern carnivores may thus
prove more productive to our under-
standing of human evolution than
those that endeavor primarily to
reconstruct specific hominin activ-
ities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Don Grayson, Richard
Klein, Curtis Marean, and Richard
Meadow for their comments. The
ideas in the last paragraph were
inspired by my discussions many
years ago with Craig Feibel, Harry
Merrick, and Charles Nelson, to
whom I remain ever grateful.
REFERENCES
1 Behrensmeyer AK, Hill AP, editors. 1980. Fos-
sils in the making: vertebrate taphonomy and
paleoecology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
2 Binford LR. 1981. Bones: ancient men and
modern myths. New York: Academic Press.
3 Brain CK. 1981. The Hunters or the hunted?
An introduction to African cave taphonomy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4 Gifford DP. 1981. Taphonomy and paleoecol-
ogy: a critical review of archaeology’s sister dis-
ciplines. In: Schiffer MB, editor. Advances in
archaeological method and theory, vol. 4. New
York: Academic Press, p 365–438.
5 Meadow RH. 1981. Animal bones: problems
for the archaeologist together with some possi-
ble solutions. Paléorient 6:65–77.
6 Shipman P. 1981. Life history of a fossil: an
introduction to taphonomy and paleoecology.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
7 Gifford-Gonzalez DP. 1991. Bones are not
enough: analogues, knowledge, and interpretive
strategies in zooarchaeology. J Anthropol
Archaeol 10:215–254.
8 Binford LR, Mills MGL, Stone NM. 1988.
Hyena scavenging behavior and its implication
for the interpretation of faunal assemblages
from FLK 22 (the Zinj floor) at Olduvai Gorge.
J Anthropol Archaeol 7:99–135.
9 Blumenschine RJ. 1986. Carcass consumption
sequences and the archaeological distinction of
scavenging and hunting. J Hum Evol 15:639–
659.
10 Bunn HT, Bartram LE, Jr, Kroll E. 1988.
Variability in bone assemblage formation from
Hadza hunting, scavenging, and carcass proc-
essing. J Anthropol Archaeol 7:412–457.
11 Marean CW, Spencer LM, Blumenschine RJ,
Capaldo SD. 1992. Captive hyaena bone
choice and destruction, the schlepp effect and
Olduvai archaeofaunas. J Archaeol Sci 19:101–
121.
12 O’Connell JF, Hawkes K, Blurton Jones N.
1988. Hadza hunting, butchering, and bone
161
transport and their archaeological implications.
J Anthropol Res 44:113–161.
13 Blumenschine RJ. 1995. Percussion marks,
tooth marks, and experimental determinations
of the timing of hominid and carnivore access
to long bones at FLK Zinjanthropus, Olduvai
Gorge, Tanzania. J Hum Evol 29:21–51.
14 Domı́nguez-Rodrigo M, Pickering TR. 2003.
Early hominid hunting and scavenging: a zooarch-
aeological review. Evol Anthropol 12:275–282.
15 Lupo KD, O’Connell JF. 2002. Cut and
toothmark distributions on large animal bones:
ethnoarchaeological data from the Hadza and
their implications for current ideas about early
human carnivory. J Archaeol Sci 29:85–109.
16 Selvaggio MM. 1994. Carnivore tooth marks
and stone tool butchery marks on scavenged
bones: archaeological implications. J Hum Evol
27:215–228.
17 Dalton R. 2007. War of words erupts over
fossil dig. Nature 448:12.
18 Blumenschine RJ, Prassack KA, Kreger CD,
Pante MC. 2007. Carnivore tooth-marks, micro-
bial bioerosion, and the invalidation of Domı́n-
guez-Rodrigo and Barba’s (2006) test of Oldo-
wan hominin scavenging behavior. J Hum Evol
53:420–426.
19 Abe Y, Marean CW, Nilssen PJ, Assefa Z,
Stone E. 2002. The analysis of cutmarks on
archaeofauna: a review and critique of quantifi-
cation procedures, and a new image-analysis
GIS approach. Am Antiquity 67:643–664.
20 O’Connell JF, Hawkes K, Lupo KD, Blurton
Jones NG. 2002. Male strategies and Plio-Pleis-
tocene archaeology. J Hum Evol 43:831–872.
21 Lam YM, Pearson OM. 2005. Bone density
studies and the interpretation of the faunal re-
cord. Evol Anthropol 14:99–108.
22 Lyman RL. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23 Marean CW, Assefa Z. 1999. Zooarchaeologi-
cal evidence for the faunal exploitation behav-
ior of Neandertals and early modern humans.
Evol Anthropol 8:22–37.
24 Marean CW, Spencer LM. 1991. Impact of
carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological meas-
ures of element abundance. Am Antiquity 56:
645–658.
25 Shipman P. 1975. Implications of drought
for vertebrate fossil assemblages. Nature 257:
667–668.
26 Potts R. 1998. Variability selection in homi-
nid evolution. Evol Anthropol 7:81–96.
27 Lam YM. 1992. Variability in the behaviour
of spotted hyaenas as taphonomic agents.
J Archaeol Sci 19:389–406.
Y. M. Lam
Department of Anthropology
University of Victoria
PO Box 3050 STN CSC
Victoria BC V8W 3P5
CANADA
E-mail: ymlam@uvic.ca