human activities and site formation at modern lake margin foraging camps in kenya

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18, 397–440 (1999)Article ID jaar.1999.0337, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Human Activities and Site Formation at Modern Lake MarginForaging Camps in Kenya

Diane Gifford-Gonzalez

Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064

Kathlyn M. Stewart

Zooarcheology, Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station D, Ottawa K1P 6P4, Canada

and

Natalia Rybczynski

Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Box 3170, Duke University Medical Center,Durham, North Carolina 27710

Received February 9, 1998; revision received June 3, 1998; accepted January 20, 1999

Interpretation of archaeological sites with predominantly freshwater fish and reptile remainshas been impeded by lack of documentation of how humans process such vertebrates, of bonemodifications resulting from such handling, and of physical characteristics of sites produced bythese activities. We report on 19 contemporary foraging camps on the shore of Lake Turkana,Kenya, with the creation, abandonment, and resulting faunal assemblages of 7 of these moreclosely described. Variable processing activities created a range of site structures but cross-assemblage regularities in patterns of bone surface modification and element frequencies areperceptible. Most sites were very large, with special-purpose activity areas peripheral to themain residential area. Site structure and size depended mainly on specific subsistence activitiescarried out and features of the camp locale rather than upon the number of occupants orduration of occupation. Sites can be classified as base camps or as fish production camps, withconsistent differences in site structure and bone assemblage characteristics. © 1999 Academic Press

Key Words: ethnoarchaeology; zooarchaeology; butchery; site formation; fish; reptile; Africa;Lake Turkana.

INTRODUCTION

Sites containing aquatic vertebrates arecommon in the later archaeological recordof Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas (e.g.,Barthelme 1981; Bleed 1992; Brewer 1991;Butler 1993; Casteel 1976; Colburn et al.1991; Gautier and van Neer 1989; Koch1995; Morales Muniz 1993; Peters and vonden Driesch 1993; Schalk 1977; Stewart1989; van Neer 1986; Wing and Brown1979). Most such sites derive from Meso-lithic, Late Stone Age, or other late Pleis-tocene or Holocene settings and can be

397

assumed to be associated with anatomi-cally modern humans, among whomaquatic resource exploitation is uncontro-versial. However, fish and reptile remainshave been found in late Pliocene throughto the Late Pleistocene African archaeo-logical locales, including Senga 5A at LakeRutanzige (Harris et al. 1990), sites atOlduvai Gorge (Auffenberg 1981; Leakey1971), and Lake Turkana (Leakey et al.1996). This has raised the question ofwhether premodern hominids were re-sponsible for accumulating and commin-

0278-4165/99 $30.00Copyright © 1999 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

398 GIFFORD-GONZALEZ, STEWART, AND RYBCZYNSKI

gling them with remains of terrestrial ver-tebrates and artifacts at such sites.Clarifying this issue has been impeded bylack of knowledge of human acquisitionand processing of freshwater vertebratesand of resulting modifications to theirbones as well as of physical characteristicsof aquatic foraging camps that might dis-tinguish them from natural accumulationsin similar environments.

One step toward understanding sucharchaeological sites is studying present-day aquatic foraging camps. This articlereports on 19 such camps, 18 created byDassanetch people on the northeasternside of Lake Turkana, Kenya, and one byTurkana fishers on the lake’s western side(Fig. 1). Sixteen were documented by Gif-ford-Gonzalez in the early 1970s (Gifford1977) and represent the range of site typesDassanetch people were creating in onegeomorphic zone during the study period(see Gifford 1978, 1980 on differences insite function relative to location). TwoDassanetch fishing camps (FC1, FC2) sur-veyed by Stewart (1989, 1991) in the late1980s lay in or immediately adjacent toGifford-Gonzalez’s survey area and pro-vide detailed observations on fish bonemodification. Analytic work on modifica-tions and element frequencies in the fish(Stewart 1989, 1991; Stewart and Gifford-Gonzalez 1994) and reptile (Rybczynski etal. 1996) bone assemblages from thecamps has been previously reported. Thisarticle describes the human activities, re-sulting spatial distributions, and assem-blage structures at the camps.

Our combined data were gathered withdiffering research goals, limiting therange of analyses possible. At only a fewsites did we directly observe the activitiesthat produced patterning in the bone as-semblages, while the preponderance ofsites were created before our fieldwork.

FIG. 1. Map showing L

Nonetheless, we believe our observations,like the first ethnoarchaeological studiesof mammal assemblages, can serve as abaseline against which to compare othercontemporary and archaeological assem-blages and as a departure point for devel-oping more detailed actualistic researchon fish and reptile exploitation.

We begin with background on the re-gion and peoples who created the sites; onsite location; and observed procurement,processing, consumption, and disposal offish and reptiles. In an appendix wepresent detailed data on seven camps asillustrations of results of such activities interms of site structure, bone element rep-resentation, and bone modification pat-terns. The next section discusses generalpatterning of evidence useful in distin-guishing aquatic foraging camps archaeo-logically, with a brief comparative discus-sion of fish remains from Olduvai Gorgesites.

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

Lake Turkana (formerly Rudolf) is anonoutlet African rift lake approximately265 km in length and averaging 80 m indepth, lying mainly in northern Kenya,with its northern end in southern Ethiopia(Fig. 1). The lake displays dynamic fluctu-ations in its level, with annual variationsof 0.5–1.0 m in concert with seasonal run-off from the Ethiopian highlands, but itsaverage annual level has varied around20 m over the past 75 years (Beadle 1981)and has been in a regressive phase sincethe end of the 1960s (Butzer 1971). In thespan from 1968 to 1988 covered in thisarticle, the lake varied at least 1.5 m inlevel, subsiding from a high stand in thelate 1960s to ever-lower levels through the1970s and 1980s and exposing many hect-

e Turkana survey sites.
ak

399LAKE MARGIN FORAGING CAMPS

(neGzsldgbwacatnftfc(l(t

E

tpafeLBsucpd

ag

wosltt1kottttppIanraabj

rbtDbawcriu

cbwftmmtw


ares along low-gradient littorals surveyedby Gifford-Gonzalez and Stewart.

During the study, larger terrestrial spe-cies in the littoral zone included lion (Pan-thera leo), leopard (Panthera pardus, re-stricted to tree-lined major ephemeralrivers), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena),spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), aardwolfProteles cristata), black-backed jackal (Ca-is mesomelas), Egyptian mongoose (Herp-stes ichneumon), topi (Damaliscus lunatus),rant’s gazelle (Gazella granti), common

ebra (Equus burchelli), hare (Lepus capen-is), and ground squirrel (Xerus rutilis). Theittoral was intermittently visited byesert-adapted Grevy’s zebra (Equusrevyi) and beisa oryx (Oryx gazella beisa),ut the most common ungulates were theater-dependent topi, Grant’s gazelle,

nd common zebra. Common reptile spe-ies were freshwater terrapins (Pelusiosdansonii), Nile softshell turtles (Trionixriunguis), and Nile crocodiles (Crocodylusiloticus). Lake Turkana supports a fishauna of 33 genera, but only six inshoreaxa regularly appeared in the inventoriesrom human sites: Nile perch (Lates niloti-us), which can weigh up to 200 kg; tilapiaOreochromis niloticus); Nile catfish (Clariasazera); tigerfish (Synodontis schall); labeoLabeo houri); and the young of a deepwa-er catfish (Bagrus bayad).

thnographic Background to the Site Sample

Eighteen of the 19 camps surveyed inhis study were created by Dassanetcheople, pastoralist-cultivators who speakn Eastern Cushitic language and liverom the lower Omo River valley in south-rn Ethiopia to the northeastern shores ofake Turkana in Kenya (Almagor 1978;utzer 1971; Carr 1977). During our fieldtudies, most Dassanetch lived on prod-cts from their sheep, goats, and cattle,ultivated sorghum and legumes, wildlants, fish, and lake reptiles. In times ofrought, the Dassanetch received no food

id from national governments or non-overnmental organizations.Some Dassanetch lacked livestock andere called gal dies, or “fisherman” bythers in their tribe, a term denoting lowocial status (Gifford 1977, 1978). Gal diesived in their own settlement just north ofhe international border, where they prac-iced intensive cultivation. In the early970s, gal dies men ranged along some 80m of the northeastern lake shore in dug-ut canoes, hunting and fishing more in-ensively than pastoral Dassanetch, whilehe women, children, and older men ofheir families remained at the home set-lement. A similar foraging strategy wasursued by other recently impoverishedersons from the pastoral settlement at

leret (Fig. 1), who created some campsnalyzed in this article. In 1974, much ofortheastern Lake Turkana was incorpo-ated into Kenya’s Sibiloi National Park,nd fishing and hunting were bannedlong some 60 km of shore formerly usedy gal dies. Our 1970s survey was made

ust before creation of the park.Site 105 of this study differed from the

est, being a large temporary camp set upy pastoralist families from the Ileret set-

lement. Its layout was typical of pastoralassanetch defensive settlements, and itsone assemblage included many domesticnimal remains, discussed in detail else-here (Gifford-Gonzalez 1989) and not re-

apitulated here. However, fish and lakeeptile bones in the Site 105 assemblagendicate that even pastoral Dassanetchsed such wild foods (Table 1).The people who made these foraging

amps were thus not “hunter-gatherers,”ut members of a food-producing societyho, due either to long-standing historic

actors (gal dies) or to more recent misfor-une, were obliged to forage for wild ani-

als along the lake margin. As such, theyay have been less efficient in acquiring

he wild animal and plant resources thanould have been groups descended from

tm

G

rcehO1b(1Dsacfiala

TABLE 1


generations of people subsisting primarilyby foraging.

One camp reported here (AS1) was cre-ated on the western side of the lake nearthe settlement of Kalakol by men of theTurkana ethnic group. Most Turkana areby preference pastoralists, but some livealmost exclusively by fishing, producingfor both subsistence and commercial mar-kets. At the time of our research, Turkanapeople had more contact with interna-tional aid and development organizationsthan did the Dassanetch. The AS1 fishersobserved and interviewed by Stewartwere in fact members of a fishing cooper-ative which marketed dried fish outsidethe local community. They were less mo-bile than gal dies, lived in a village nearheir fishing camp and used commercially

anufactured nets to catch fish.

Site Sample Characteristics; a Similar Table ABut Subsequent Changes in F

Site No

Distanceto shore(meters) Fish MNI Other MNI

01 330 2L 58REP, 9MAM02 1 1C, 1L 1REP, 1MAM,

1AVE03 100 1S, 1Ci 2REP04 1 2C, 20L, 1S, 1Ci 11REP, 4MAM05 1 5C, 26L, 1S 54REP, 6MAM06 300 1B, 33C, 11L, 10Ci 7REP, 8MAM07 1 2C, 6L 24REP08 400* 1S 1REP, 2MAM09 1 1L 2REP, 1MAM10 9 3B, 3C, 10L 8REP, 2MAM11 10 1L 2MAM15 70* 4C 6REP18 1200* 1C 8REP, 2MAM20 400 13C/B, 2L, 4Ci 41REP, 1MAM,

1AVE22 1 1L 2REP, 1MAM105 1000 10C, 6L, 4Ci 13REP, 21MAMAS1 60 4S, 4L, 5Ci, 2Ot 2REP, 1AVEFC1 2 17C, 2S, 5L, 67Ci not countedFC2 30 1C, 2L, 18Ci, 1Ot NoneFossil

shoreTransect 18 CYP, 12 CHR,

226 SIL, 387 PER,2 TET

Unknown

Recentshore

Transect 7 CYP, 10 CHR, 122SIL, 214 PER

Unknown

Note. *Sites formed before 1970; B, Bagrus; C, ClaCypriniformes; CHR, Characiformes; SIL, SiluriformAves; MAM, mammal; REP, reptile; N/A, not applicduration of most recent occupation is given.

ear and Animal Acquisition

The standard Dassanetch fishing andeptile hunting tool kit was a spear and lessommonly a detachable-head harpoon withither a broad, flat spear blade or a metalook as the armature. No nets were used.ne was given to the men who created Sites

0 and 20 by photographer Robert Camp-ell in 1972, and this soon fell into disrepair

R. Campbell, personal communication973). Given their poverty, gal dies and otherassanetch people who foraged along the

hore had no access to illegal, expensive,nd locally rare firearms. Other gear in-luded kerosene tins, used to carry meatlleted from larger animals and to boil fishnd reptiles, knives (often homemade fromarge nails or archaeologists’ survey stakes),nd occasionally a panga, or bush knife. Be-

ared in Stewart and Gifford-Gonzalez (1994),Systematics Are Noted Here

Occupation typeand duration

Area(m2) Fish NISP/m2

OtherNISP/m2

repeat/unknown 875 N/A N/Arepeat/5 days 3825 N/A 0.04

single/unknown 29 N/A N/Arepeat/unknown 7000 0.08 0.10repeat/unknown 5000 0.80 0.90single/35 days 1800 N/A N/Arepeat/unknown 3300 0.20 0.20unknown 784 N/A N/Arepeat/unknown 500 N/A N/Arepeat/7, 2 days 1575 N/A N/Asingle/0.5 day 6 N/A N/Aunknown 7 N/A N/Aunknown 300 N/A N/Asingle/4 days 391 0.90 1.50

single/unknown 400 N/A N/Asingle/42–56 days 8400 0.05 0.40repeat/1 day 108 3.40 4.10repeat/unknown 200 13.00 N/Arepeat/1 day 12 1.60 1.60natural land surface 44,940 0.06 Unknown

natural land surface 44,940 0.04 Unknown

; Ci, Cichlid; L, Lates; Ot, other; S, Synodontis; CYP,; PER, Perciformes; TET, Tetraodontiformes; AVE,e, no NISP available. For repeated-occupation sites,

ppeish

riases

abl

as(ihonf

shdplcadamaaotabzla

bGsttt1eamsttteesoesofhthDmo


cause there were no trading posts in theregion in the 1970s, the latter were rarecommodities that even affluent Dassanetchhad difficulty obtaining. Pangas owned bythe foraging groups were gifts from film-makers and foreign researchers.

Informant interview indicated that ha-bitually used foraging sites would be sit-uated near good inshore fishing grounds,close to sand bars used for basking bycrocodiles, and/or within reach of sloughswhere terrapins were likely to estivate. Tocatch fish, men would stand or walkslowly in the shallows of good fishinggrounds, searching for surface distur-bances that belied presence of a fish, thencast their spears. Gifford-Gonzalez didnot closely monitor rates of fishing return,but these appeared highly variable; espe-cially on windy days when the water sur-face was disturbed, these tactics producedmeager results. Robert Campbell (per-sonal communication, 1973) reported toGifford-Gonzalez that a group he traveledwith and filmed for a week caught no fishfor three consecutive windy days andlacked any supplemental food. However,Sites 10 and 20 reflect a much richer takeper day (see below).

To take crocodiles, soft-shell turtles,and very large Nile perch and catfish, galdies parties with dugout canoes used an-other strategy. While some men poled thecanoes a few meters offshore, otherswalked parallel to them on land, attempt-ing to trap crocodiles basking on sandbarsand turtles and large fish pursuing prey inthe shallows between canoe and shoreand dispatching them with spears.

Gal dies informants said that hippopot-mus were hunted using the same generaltrategy, an event documented at Site 02Figure 1) by photographer Bob Campbelln 1972 (personal communication 1973). Aippo kill was the best possible outcomef a gal dies foraging expedition, as itsutritional contribution eclipsed those

rom all other taxa. Meat and fat would be

tripped, dried, and transported to theome settlement. Hippo hunts involvedetachable-head harpoons with line-and-alm trunk floats and cooperation of at

east three canoes. By informants’ ac-ounts, such kills were made at consider-ble risk to the hunters. Hippos can makeevastating attacks on land and in water,nd informants said that harpooned ani-als could haul canoes into deep water

nd sound. A successful hunt was in factn extraordinary occurrence, achievednly through fortuitous encounter withhese rare and wide-ranging animals. Inll the Dassanetch littoral sites surveyedy Gifford-Gonzalez in a 16-km-longone, spanning at least 8 years’ accumu-ation, only four hippopotamus individu-ls were represented (Gifford 1977).Terrestrial mammal meat was obtained

y capturing very young topi, oryx, andrant’s gazelle, probably by direct pur-

uit, although informants were reticent onhis point, and by scavenging adult vic-ims of lion kills, mainly common zebra,opi, oryx, and Grant’s gazelle. During973–1974, lions were killing zebra in pref-rence to other ungulates in the studyrea (Gifford 1977), making relativelyore carcasses of this species available for

cavenging. Dassanetch informants statedhey would not use carcasses of animalshought to have died of disease. In con-rast to Hadza foragers’ aggressive pre-mption of carnivore kills (e.g., O’Connellt al. 1988, 1990), Dassanetch informantstressed they would approach lion killsnly after the lion was considered to haveaten its fill, a practice that may havetemmed from their lack of firearms orther means of defending themselvesrom attack by predators, such as Hadzaunters’ poison-tipped arrows. Lions in

he area showed little inclination to fleeuman beings they encountered on foot.assanetch foragers also collected mam-al bones from the landscape for making

rnaments and tools. These raw materials


often came from animals that had diedmany months prior to the creation of thesites to which they were transported.

Fish Processing Practices

Stewart’s interviews with Turkana andDassanetch fishers documented standardhandling of perciform fish (cf. Stewart andGifford-Gonzalez 1994). (1) To avoid in-jury to hands during processing, dorsalspines were cut off and discarded early inbutchery. (2) Body was scaled either witha knife or a large perch operculum (gillcover bone). (3) Lateral muscle masseswere filleted for boiling. (4) Fish was gut-ted and intestines reserved for consump-tion. (5) Fish body was then cut into fivesegments for cooking: head plus firsttrunk vertebra (gill arches removed, fila-ments kept for stewing, balance dis-carded); vertebral segment (dorsal fin toanterior to anal fin); vertebral segment(anal fin to anterior caudal peduncle); ver-tebral segment (anterior to posterior cau-dal peduncle); tail.

Turkana informants noted that all bodysections except the head were usuallyboiled until the meat fell from the bones,and the resulting stew eaten with boiledmaize meal, a commodity to which they,but not the Dassanetch, had trading ac-cess. If maize meal were not available, allthe fish sections would have been roasted.Large fish heads were split lengthwise onthe underside by cutting anterior to thecleithra, spread apart, and placed to roastdirectly on the fire. In consuming roastedlarger fish heads, braincases were brokenin half and neural tissue extracted andeaten. Turkana fishers roasted tilapia andother smaller fish whole for immediateconsumption.

RESEARCH METHODS

Field Documentation

Sixteen camps were documented byGifford-Gonzalez in 1973 in a total-cover-

age, on-foot survey of 16 km of littoralplain between the Il Allia River at thenorth end of Allia Bay and Koobi Fora(Fig. 1). Sites 03, 10, and 20 (Fig. 1) werecreated during her fieldwork. She visitedSites 10 and 20 repeatedly during occupa-tion and interviewed the inhabitantsabout food procurement and processing.Two other sites (06 and 105) were aban-doned a month before Gifford-Gonzalezbegan fieldwork and could be docu-mented through follow-up interview.

Physical setting, features, and artifactsat each camp were recorded on sketchmaps or by piece plotting, and sites werespotted on aerial photographs taken of theregion in 1970. For occupied camps, gearin use and daily increments of food werenoted, as were artifacts abandoned whenthe foraging group left. Bones at Sites 02,03, 04, 06, 08, 10, and 20 were identified toelement, side, species and body size in thefield, and piece plotted and left in place toassess the effects of postabandonmentprocesses. Each fish bone in the very largeassemblages at Sites 01, 05, 07, 09, 11, 15,18, and 22 was not enumerated. Elementsdeemed most durable (for fish: quadrates,hyomandibulars, opercula, and cleithra)of each taxon were counted, and the mostnumerous left or right element was to es-timate for MNI. Thus, no NISP statisticsare available for fish at these sites(Table 1).

At the three camps surveyed by Stew-art, detailed notes were made on modifi-cations to the fish bones. Bones from AS1were collected and identified at the Na-tional Museum of Kenya, while thosefrom the other camps were identified andleft in the field. Stewart’s interviews withfishers at FC1 and AS1 focused on butch-ery and other processing practices; theFC1 camp assemblage was reported in de-tail in Stewart (1991).

Distance of each camp from the con-temporary lake shore was noted (Table 1),but a caution must be inserted. Gifford-


Gonzalez’s sample included sites that,from the condition of the mammal bones,were 5 to 7 years old when surveyed (Gif-ford 1984). Sites with such weatheredbones usually lay far from the shoreline in1973 but near abandoned strand lines cutby the lake high stand documented in aer-ial photographs taken in 1970. At the timeof their creation these sites may thus havebeen much closer to the lake than whendocumented in 1973 and are so noted inTable 1.

Areal densities of bones were calculatedas NISP/Camp Area (square meters), butthe means of estimating site area shouldbe described. Those surveying ethno-graphic sites face the problem of definingthe outer limits of a site, since humanactivities may disperse rare items far awayfrom the densest concentrations of mate-rials. Gifford-Gonzalez stopped mappingitems either where the density of bonesapproached that of the natural “back-ground” of bones on adjacent land sur-faces (the practice for older sites) or, in thecase of more recently occupied sites,where she encountered the last bone ele-ments that could clearly be related to ele-ments in denser areas of the site. Thesebones were distinguished by virtue theirfreshness, presence of human modifica-tions, or anatomical associations with car-casses of animals documented in thedenser concentrations.

One of Gifford-Gonzalez’s mapped oc-currences, Site 20, was buried in fluvialsediments in 1974 and the core area laterexcavated the same year (Gifford andBehrensmeyer 1977). Recovered boneswere reanalyzed by Stewart (Stewart andGifford-Gonzalez 1994) and Rybczynski(Rybczynski et al. 1996).

To obtain samples accumulated withouthuman agency, Stewart (1991) undertookquadrant and transect surveys of modernand fossil fish bones on littoral land sur-faces east and west of the lake.

The NISP and MNI were reckoned for

fish and reptile species by methods de-scribed in Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984).For fish from FC1, FC2, AS1, and Site 20,proportions of cranial, axial, and epaxialelements were calculated. Cranial ele-ments are defined as those anterior to thevertebral column, including cleithralbones and mandibular elements, axial el-ements are defined as vertebral elementsonly, and epaxial as fin elements. Gifford-Gonzalez did not closely enumerate epax-ial elements in her survey, and these havebeen excluded from most counts in thisarticle, though enumerated for the exca-vated Site 20 sample.

Stewart recorded evidence for burningand cutmarks on fish bones from her threestudied sites. Gifford-Gonzalez recordedburning, breaks, and hackmarks on fishand reptile bones from Site 10 and 20, butdid not make the same detailed analysis ofother sites’ bones as did Stewart andRybczynski for AS1, FC1, and Site 20.

In 1992–1993, Rybczynski reanalyzedthe 2960-specimen assemblage excavatedfrom the Site 20, and she documented el-ement, portion preserved, side, taxon, sizecategory within the taxon, and modifica-tions. Following Stewart’s and Gifford-Gonzalez’s earlier practice, elements weregrouped into cranial, axial, and epaxial forfish and into cranial, axial, and appendic-ular for reptiles. For the crocodiles andturtles, cranial elements are defined as allbones anterior to the first cervical verte-bra, axial elements include vertebrae andribs, and appendicular bones include pec-toral and pelvic girdle elements plus limbbones. Because of their functional associ-ation with spinal elements during han-dling by humans, chelonian carapace andplastron elements and crocodilian dermalscutes were included in the axial category.

Rybczynski calculated NISP and MNIfor Site 20 bones as had Gifford-Gonzalezand Stewart, but she made separate MNIestimates for each size category within ataxon. Her aim was to produce estimates


most comparable to Gifford’s original, an-imal-by-animal field tally of individualscollected by the camp inhabitants (Giffordand Behrensmeyer 1977). Size-groupedMNI estimates normally produce highertotal MNI numbers than do pooled ele-ments of a taxon (Grayson 1984). Rybczyn-ski determined the Minimum Number ofElements (MNE) by including only ele-ments 50% or more complete. This dif-fered from Gifford-Gonzalez’s approachto MNE, which involved noting every rec-ognizable portion of an element and thenexcluding complementary portions thatmight have derived from the same ele-ment (e.g., proximal versus distal humeralends of similar size from a given taxon)from the final MNE count.

Following Stewart’s earlier methods withLake Turkana fish bone assemblages (cf.Stewart and Gifford-Gonzalez 1994), Ryb-czynski noted three types of bone modifica-tion to fish and reptile elements from Site20: burning, cut, and slice marks. As definedhere, cut marks do not penetrate deeplyinto the bone, whereas slice marks sheardeeply into or entirely through an element.

Taxonomic diversity was calculated, us-ing Simpson’s Index (Simpson 1949; Peet1974): D 5 1 2 E(p2), where p 5 the relativeabundance of species, measured on a scaleof 0 to 1, based on the calculated MNI sta-tistics.

CASE STUDIES IN SITE ANDASSEMBLAGE STRUCTURE

The Appendix details the spatial orga-nization, associated artifacts and features,observed prey processing techniques, andresulting characteristics of bone assem-blages at seven of the best-documentedcamps in our study sample. This com-prises five Dassanetch aquatic foragingcamps from the Gifford-Gonzalez survey,plus one Dassanetch and one Turkanacamp from Stewart’s research. This sec-tion documents the range of physical out-comes of variable foraging behaviors of

one cultural group (plus one Turkanasite). Dassanetch sites include a veryshort-term “snack site,” single and re-peated occupation camps, and a large an-imal butchery locale. Data are presentedon a case-by-case basis, detailing whenknown the progressive development ofsite structure.

Discussion

This section reviews patterns of sitestructure, assemblage element frequen-cies, and bone modification apparent inthe aquatic foraging camps detailed in theAppendix and others in the study sample.We attempt to link observed patterning inthe sample data to the human choices thatcreated them and to factors underlyingthose choices.

Site location and animal resource exploita-tion. Locations of the aquatic foragingcamps are clearly related to food re-sources exploited, with priority to themost predictable rather than the poten-tially highest yielding resources. Around67% of camps lay within 100 m of theshoreline and another 17% of older sur-veyed sites were probably within thesame distance of the lake when created(Table 1, Fig. 1), totaling 84% of the sites.Only 42% of the camps lay near sedgestands, yet all but one repeatedly occu-pied site lay near them, which agrees withinformant interviews on camp site prefer-ences. Fish breed, go through their earlystages of growth, and hunt in the shelterof Lake Turkana’s restricted patches ofinshore vegetation (Hopson 1982). YoungNile perch (,25 cm length) prefer vege-tated areas that afford them protectionfrom predators, and larger perch, them-selves ambush predators, lurk in areas oflimited visibility, using vegetation orrocky overhangs for concealment (Hopson1982:1294). The littoral between KoobiFora and Allia Bay has only a few rockoutcrops, and stands of aquatic vegetationare thus especially important predation


zones for larger Lates. Concentrations offish species in sedge stands would there-fore be a rich and predictable source offood. Site 20 testifies to exploitation of an-other locally concentrated taxon, estivat-ing terrapins in a slough.

At camps observed while occupied, noplant foods were gathered and eaten. Theonly evidence for plant processing camefrom unidentified nut shells at Site 03 andsedge tuber debris at Site 06. Pastoral Das-sanetch informants described sedge tu-bers as famine food, a source of carbohy-drates when other foods failed in droughtyears (Gifford 1977). Sedge tubers can beroasted in coals, peeled and eaten orroasted, ground into meal, mixed with wa-ter, and boiled. The latter process requiresgrinding equipment normally quarried,shaped, and used by Dassanetch women.No grindstones were observed at any ofthe all-male camps but were encounteredat Site 06, where a woman did live. Sedgetubers could have been consumed simplyby roasting and peeling, but no such gath-ering debris was observed at Sites 10 and20, despite the former’s proximity to asedge stand. Thus, the dominance of fau-nal remains at the sites appears to reflecttheir dietary dominance rather than theoutcome of preservational bias.

Among sites created or reoccupied in1973, where the effects of taphonomic de-letion of bone would have been compara-ble, considerable variation exists in pro-portions of fish, reptile, and mammalremains. Fish comprised 40% or more ofthe total numbers of individuals at themajority of sites in the sample, but pro-portions ranged from 2.8% at Site 01 to100% at FC2. Moreover, fish MNI andNISP markedly dominated those of rep-tiles only at the three special-purpose fishproduction camps (AS1, FC1, FC2).

Chelonians and crocodiles accountedfor MNI equal to or greater than that offish at half the 18 Dassanetch aquatic for-aging camps. Reptile MNI outnumber fish

MNI by $2:1 in 46% of the 1973 sample(Table 1). Reptiles’ use of specific littorallocales according to set daily or seasonalschedules, from crocodiles’ daily baskingon sandbars to terrapins’ dry-season esti-vation in sloughs, make them spatiallyand temporally predictable resources forhuman foragers. Some forager campswere located primarily to exploit thesespecies, as was the case at Site 20, andolder sites may have been situated withsimilar motivations.

Mammal remains were much rarer atthese camps, but this must be viewed inlight of both Dassanetch scavengingmethods and environmentally condi-tioned potential yields. In contrast to car-cass-scavenging opportunities in thehigher-biomass Serengeti (cf. Blumen-schine 1988), the East Turkana littoralshowed situationally high availabilities offresh flesh and neural tissue in lion-killedcarcasses. During seven months in 1973–1974, Gifford-Gonzalez (1984) monitoredabout 45 natural wild ungulate deaths inthe site survey area discussed in this arti-cle. With these carcasses, the “window” ofscavenging opportunity was more oftenclosed by swift natural mummificationthan by consumption by nonhuman scav-engers.

In her taphonomic analysis of ungulatecarcasses in the area, Gifford-Gonzalezfound traces of human scavenging on twolion-killed zebras, which contributed meatand body segments to Sites 10 and 20,respectively (Appendix). In both cases,flesh had also been stripped from somebody segments for transport in a con-tainer, and the meat yields were thusgreater than would be implied by the ze-bra bones carried to the sites. Fullyfleshed limbs that would remuneratetransport were rare among the scavenge-able animals, as lions had usually con-sumed the upper hind- and forequarters.Container transport permitted efficientcollection of meat scraps from partly con-


sumed body segments. The effects of the6-year drought also militated against longbone transport in 1973–1974, in that wildmammals’ marrow reserves would havebeen much reduced.

Three sites occupied in 1973 (Sites 06,10, 20, Appendix) did include body seg-ments of adult zebras or larger antelopes.At Site 10, one zebra limb bone wasbrought in and broken open; the craniumwas also transported and the brain ex-tracted. At Site 20, a zebra hind limb wascarried back for defleshing, but none ofthe long bones were fractured. As notedabove, the Site 06 foraging camp con-tained both fragments of adult antelopesand bones from two very young ungu-lates, probably direct prey of the site oc-cupants (Gifford-Gonzalez 1984, 1989).

The mummified zebra at Site 10 illus-trates the complexities of trying to discernhominid bone accumulations from thosebuilding up on the same land surfaces bynatural processes. Evidence for its lack ofbehavioral association with the rest of theassemblage as a food animal might in-clude lack of human modifications to itsbones (in contrast to the remains of thescavenged zebra bones at Site 10). How-ever, given the low rates of occurrence ofhammerstone impact and cut mark “sig-natures” on bones, it is moot if these ele-ments could be distinguished as nonfoodremains. Long bones of this zebra re-mained unbroken until well-weatheredand broken by trampling several years af-ter death (Gifford-Gonzalez 1984). Refitsand analysis of fresh versus weatheredbreak surfaces might suggest that the as-semblage was such a palimpsest.

Meat and neural tissue from scavengedmammals would provide a major nutri-tional input to the foragers who madethese camps. However, these deaths werepredictable in neither time nor space, andthey apparently had little influence on sitelocation. During the span monitored byGifford-Gonzalez, lions in the Koobi Fora–

Allia Bay littoral were habitually killingprey in at least two “kill arena” locations,but foraging camps were situated neithernear these locales nor near sites of theknown scavenging events, which were upto 3 km from camp.

In sum, taxonomic composition ofaquatic foraging camp assemblages reflecta restricted and opportunistic sampling ofspecies encountered in the aquatic andterrestrial portions of the littoral zone.Sites were often situated to maximizechances of encounter with fish and reptilefood species. Scavenging opportunitieswere intermittent and apparently did notdictate choices in site location. Differencesin taxonomic proportions among assem-blages thus reflect the situationally vari-able feeding opportunities and strategiesemployed at individual foraging camps.

One may ask which aquatic or terres-trial resources among those obtainedwould offer the highest nutritional returnsand which therefore might be preferen-tially sought out in foraging or consideredwhen situating camps. Figure 2 presentsvalues for fat, protein, and kilocalories per100 g of flesh for horse, species of catfishand perch, European freshwater turtle,green sea turtle, and American alligator.These taxa are proxies for African catfish,perch, terrapin, crocodile, and zebra, forwhich food composition values could notbe obtained. The figure shows that fish donot form a unitary category in terms ofnutritional yields. Catfish offer substan-tially more fat than do perch species andshould therefore be higher-ranked prey incircumstances where both taxa are avail-able to foragers with a fat-poor diet, aswere the persons who created the LakeTurkana sites. Crocodilians offer rela-tively high fat returns but more impres-sively, much as many calories per unit offlesh than do fish, chelonians, or even thehorse. It should be noted that the rela-tively low fat content of reptile flesh re-flects the focus of food composition anal-

f


yses of muscle rather than viscera, whereboth chelonians and crocodilians storelipids. Horse flesh, while offering a com-parable level of fat to that of catfish andcrocodilians, is not a significantly highersource of protein than former and is muchless so than the latter. These data suggestthat actualistic research on relationshipsbetween key nutrient yields versus taxo-nomic abundances of aquatic vertebrates,and the relation of both to site location, ismerited. However, our dataset lacks therequisite detail on abundances of aquaticspecies to explore this topic.

As noted at the beginning of this article,the lifestyle documented here is not truly“hunter-gatherer,” although the siteswere created by foraging for wild species.The carbohydrate-poor intake of male galdies foragers must be seen in light of thearm produce-heavy diets of gal dies

women and children at the home settle-ment. The seemingly hit-or-miss fishingmethods observed are probably bestviewed not simply as far short of optimal

FIG. 2. Fat (gm/100 gm), protein (gm/100 gm)species (Scherz and Senser 1989; USDA 1998), fUSDA 1998), freshwater turtle (Scherz and Se1985), alligator (Pennington and Church 1985), aproxies for related African taxa, for which no fo

offtake but as serving two other, simulta-neous purposes. First, the fishing expedi-tions kept one age/sex group of consum-ers (adult males) away from thecarbohydrate stores of the gal dies women,children, and the very old. Second, fishand reptiles taken sustained the partieswhile they searched for richer resources:large reptiles, well-fleshed mammalskilled by lions, and, optimally, hippopot-amus. Mass drying of fish seen at FC1 andFC2 could be seen as a governmentallytolerated attempt on the part of the gal diesto cope with the new National Park’s anti-hunting policies by providing some ani-mal protein for their home settlement.

Site densities, areas, and site structure. The1973 Koobi Fora–Allia Bay survey revealeda relatively dense landscape sample offoraging camps on about 20 km2 of littoral,averaging one site every kilometer alongthe shore (Fig. 1, Table 1). Known lengthsof camp occupation varied from the snackstops of a few hours (e.g., Site 03) throughshort term (1–7 days, Sites 10 and 20) to

d kilocalories per 100 gm available from catfishhwater perch species (Scherz and Senser 1989;r 1989), green turtle (Pennington and Churchorse (Pennington and Church 1985), serving ascomposition data are available.

, anresnsend hod


longer term (1–8 weeks, Sites 06, 105). Ap-proximately half the camps were repeat-edly occupied by different successive for-aging groups at named locales known toall fishers.

Most repeatedly occupied camps (Sites02, 04, 05, and FC1) had constructed facil-ities. Primarily these were low, semicircu-lar windbreaks of local stone used to shel-ter from the prevailing offshore windswhile sleeping or to protect hearths fromthe same winds. One camp had a pole andsedge thatched shelter. At other locales(Sites 01, 06), inhabitants took advantageof natural vegetation for sheltered sleep-ing and cooking areas. Some single-occu-pation sites, such as the original occupa-tion of Site 10 and Site 20, had no shelterother than modest variations in surfacerelief.

In sites observed in use, large fish, soft-shell turtles, and crocodiles tended to bebutchered away from the main loci ofcooking and daily activity. Spatial segre-gation of large fish and reptile processingparallels previously recorded cases of noi-some or dangerous work being carried outin areas peripheral to the central residen-tial space of camps (e.g, Yellen 1977; Bin-ford 1978; O’Connell 1987).

Given the cautions expressed in ResearchMethods, estimated areas of the foragingcamps varied tremendously, from about6 m2 (Site 06) to 8400 m2 (Site 105, Table1). Repeatedly occupied foraging campstended to have greater areas than short-term and single occupation camps, prob-ably as the result of the gradual build-upof a palimpsest of butchery areas withinthe orbit of repeatedly used hearths andwindbreaks. Exceptions are Site 09, a verysmall repeated-occupation site with anarea falling among the single-occupationsites, and Site 06, a single-occupation sitefalling among the larger, repeatedly occu-pied sites (Table 1). Site 09 was occupiedat least twice, the second occupation beinga short “snack stop” by canoeists on their

way south to Site 04 in the autumn of 1973.Duration of the earlier occupation is un-known; in any case, the cumulative scatterof bones at the site was relatively small.Much of the areal extent of Site 06 re-sulted from use of far-flung shrubs as fish-drying racks. Thus, variation in site sizecan be seen as a product of site function inrelation to natural features that con-strained or conditioned certain activities.

Such functional relationships arethrown in sharper relief by Site 105, thepastoral camp, which had the largest areaof all sites in this sample, even withoutincluding two related bone scatters undershade trees outside the settlement’sfences (Table 1). This camp was very dif-ferently organized than were the foragingcamps, its size inflated both by the num-ber of inhabitants, with 33 households inresidence, and by livestock, whose 29 pensmake up about 70% of the site’s area. Thepens also constrained and structured dailyactivities at the site, and the distributionof wild and domestic animal bones re-flects the influence of site structure onpreliminary carcass subdivision, culinaryprocessing, and refuse disposal (Gifford-Gonzalez 1989).

The highest NISP/m2 ratios for thesesites far exceed those of the natural landsurface assemblages surveyed (Table 1).Such densities appear to be distinctive oflocalized human processing activities.However, the lowest areal density ratiosfor camps in the sample overlap withthose of natural land surfaces (Table 1).Our combined dataset thus contradictsStewart’s earlier (1991) assertion that arealfrequencies of bones by themselves candistinguish hominid from natural accu-mulations. Nonetheless, at more areallyextensive sites such as Site 04, smallerclusters of bones (large animal butcherylocales and hearth drop and toss zones)are in fact very high density. Thus, a func-tionally oriented exploration of bone clus-ters within such large spatial distributions

sTatt

maiottecaavfibmpm1taaradh

tchgombst


may prove more profitable in evaluatinghominid agency than simply calculating asingle bone element density statistic forthe entire site area.

Functional variations in fish processing andassemblage formation. The sites in ourample of aquatic foraging camps at Lakeurkana showed great diversity in sizend internal organization, but two func-ional types were discerned: (1) short-termo long-term base camps, where the main

purpose of activities was to support thedaily subsistence of the foraging party,and (2) fish production camps, where the

ain purpose of activities was to obtainnd preserve fish in surplus to the forag-ng party’s daily needs for transport tother locales, augmented by meals duringhis work. The goals of fish-processing ac-ivities influenced site structure and fishlement representation patterns of eachamp type. Some sites in our sample, suchs Site 06, may comprise mixtures of thesectivities. The Turkana site, AS1, was ob-iously a production camp, where localshers processed fish as a commodity toe sold or exchanged in articulation with aodern commercial system. However,

reservation en masse does not require aodern commercial system (cf. Butler

993; Hayden 1994), and we may expecthat such assemblages were regularly cre-ted in later prehistory, where storage wascommon practice. At FC1 and FC2 (not

eported here), gal dies foragers acquirednd preserved fish above that of theiraily requirements to transport to theirome settlement.Fish-production camps in our sample,

hough repeatedly occupied, lacked theonstructed facilities (stone windbreaks,uts, sun shades) and the spatially segre-ated rest and artifact manufacture zonesf base camps. Reptiles and mammals,ajor assemblage components in most

ase camps, were absent from the mostpecialized site, AS1, and in low propor-ions at FC1.

Fish-production camps were also dis-tinguished from base camps by bone ele-ment frequencies. Whether short or longterm, base camps are characterized byprocessing, consumption, and discard offish bones on-site or in the immediate vi-cinity. Body segmentation in butchery anddestruction during culinary processingcaused shifts away from element repre-sentation in the typical perciform skele-ton. Figure 3 shows cranial-to-axial pro-portions of perciforms in our assemblages(see also Table 2). At two short-term basecamps (Sites 10 and 20), relatively moreperciform vertebral elements in propor-tion to cranial elements survived. Fishproduction camps FC1 and AS1 displaymuch lower frequencies of perciform ver-tebrae, the result of transport away ofbackbones off-site in dried fish bodies.Site 06, with at least one fish-drying locus,resembles AS1 almost exactly, althoughwe cannot dismiss the possibility of equi-finality of effect due to the sampling prob-lems discussed earlier.

Figure 4 shows a more variable patternof element representation in the siluri-form component from different foragingcamps. Siluriform vertebral elementswere rare to totally absent at fish-produc-tion camps FC1 and AS1, and they arenearly absent from Site 06, where, basedon the same evidence outlined for perci-form elements, transport away from thesite in dried axial body segments is a pos-sibility. The natural fragility of catfish ver-tebrae combines with human culinaryprocessing (specifically, roasting of bonesin split axial segments) to render catfishvertebrae more fragile. However, amongthe base camps, differences in handlingproduced substantial variation in catfishvertebrae frequencies. In comparison toother camps, Site 20 has unusually highproportions of vertebral to cranial ele-ments, while Site 10, produced by thesame persons during the same season,had no vertebrae in evidence and resem-


bles many of the other sites in the area(Figure 4, Table 2). Documentation of pro-cessing activities at the two sites is notsufficiently detailed to explain this differ-ence, which might result from deletion ofcranial elements or vertebral elements byoff-site discard, destructive processing, ortransport to the next site occupied.

FIG. 3. Perciform cranial and axial proportioamong site data): Sites 10, 20, 06 FC1, and AS1;Turkana land-surface-survey modern and fossi

Variations in fish body segment repre-sentation at foraging camps are thusclearly linked to differences in handling,most specifically, whether selective pres-ervation and transport of body segmentstook place. Patterns seen in our sampleare very similar to those Butler (1993) de-scribes for element frequencies of sockeye

(epaxial elements excluded for comparabilityrage perciform body; and Stewart’s (1991) Lakene assemblage data.

nsavel bo

TABLE 2

Af


salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka, a perciform)at human processing sites versus a naturalpoint-bar accumulation. The point bar ac-cumulation displayed slightly increasedproportions of axial to cranial, relative tothe sockeye skeleton. Human processingsites, depending upon whether they were

Cranial and Axial Element Frequencies NISP and R

Sample

S

NISP

Typical skeletonCranial 62Axial 83

Site 06Cranial 681Axial 5



FC1Cranial 460Axial 22

AS1Cranial 28Axial 0

L. Turkana land surfacemodern bone

Cranial 304Axial 70

L. Turkana land surfacefossil bone

CranialAxial

FLKNN-Level 3, OlduvaiCranial 304Axial 34

FLK-Zinjanthropus, OlduvaiCranial 75Axial 10

BK, OlduvaiCranial 135Axial 11

Note. Average skeleton for each taxonomic group:S1; Stewart’s (1991) East Lake Turkana modern and

ossil fish assemblages from FLKNN-Level 3; FLK-Z

locales at which crania were processed foroil or those to which segmented axial skel-etons were transported, were dominatedby either axial or cranial elements. In hisethnoarchaeological research with mar-ket-oriented South Asian fishers, Belcher(1994) notes that fish to be dried were

tive Frequencies for Siluriform and Perciform Fish

Taxon

riforms Perciforms

% NISP %

42.8 60 69.057.2 27 31.0

99.3 597 93.40.7 42 6.6

100.0 81 57.90 59 42.1

77.3 22 47.822.7 24 51.2

95.4 1137 81.24.6 264 18.8

100.0 247 91.10.0 24 8.9

81.3 1046 68.218.7 487 31.8

82.0 40.718.0 59.3

89.9 2 04.810.1 20 95.2

88.2 0 0.011.8 10 100.0

92.5 4 80.007.5 1 20.0

e Turkana ethnoarchaeological Sites 06, 10, 20, FC1,sil bones from littoral land surface samples; Olduvainthropus level, and BK.

ela

ilu

Lakfos

inja


handled differently than were those to besold fresh (equivalent to fish consumedimmediately at our sites). As with ourcases, vertebral columns stayed in the

FIG. 4. Siluriform cranial and axial proportiocomparability): Sites 10, 20, 06 FC1, and AS1; aTurkana land-surface-survey modern and fossi

dried bodies and left processing areas.Belcher (1994) also notes size-dependentdifferences in butchery of Osteichthyes,which includes perciform fish. In

epaxial elements excluded for interassemblageage perciform body; and Stewart’s (1991) Lakene assemblage data.

ns (verl bo

clstdwwiaer

bthnlia1tftilrmbictltpte

Tonatv2tre

pttb1(silph

dmnsdpalcctapMciwndo


Belcher’s study, he reports that fish .25m were processed in similar ways toarger fish handled by Turkana and Das-anetch fishers: gills, entrails, fins, andails were removed early in butchery andiscarded. In fish .1-m long, the headas detached and both it and the bodyere marketed. In Belcher’s socially strat-

fied context, culinary processing variedccording to the access of different socio-conomic classes to higher or loweranked body segments.

Distinguishing human from natural fishone accumulations. A substantial litera-ure exists on distinguishing effects ofominids on mammal bones from those ofonhuman agents (cf. Lyman 1994), but

ittle has thus far been published on sim-lar distinctions for fish bones. We (Stew-rt 1991; Stewart and Gifford-Gonzalez994) have previously specified three dis-inctions between human and naturallyormed fish bone assemblages: (1) whenechnology limits foragers’ access to thenshore zone, resulting assemblages are ofimited taxonomic diversity and sizeange, compared to natural littoral accu-ulations; (2) hominid processing marks

ones in ways preservable in archaeolog-cal assemblages; and (3) hominid pro-essing creates skeletal element propor-ions differing from those of naturalittoral assemblages. We discuss each inurn, including related research and theossibility of discerning such modifica-

ions in assemblages handled by premod-rn hominids.The living fish fauna in modern Lake

urkana has a taxonomic diversity indexf .83 (Stewart 1991). Diversity indices foratural fish bone assemblages in Stew-rt’s East and West Lake Turkana littoralransects were .76 and .78. Taxonomic di-ersity indices calculated for Sites 06, 10,0, FC1, and AS1 (where appropriately de-ailed numeric data existed) were .43–.62,eflecting the fishers’ inshore fishing strat-gy. Premodern hominids would be ex-

ected to have even more limited abilitieso prey on aquatic species. Prey size selec-ivity also distinguishes human assem-lages. As reported by Stewart (1991:18–9) for FC1, fishers selected medium-sized30–85 cm) cichlids and catfish; smallerize classes of the same species occurredn much lower proportions than in naturaland surface assemblages. We would ex-ect similar selectivity among premodernominids.Modifications to fish bones inflicted

uring processing clearly distinguish hu-an-generated assemblages. Any homi-

id with a cutting tool would encounterimilar anatomical challenges when han-ling fish as a food; cutmarks may be ex-ected to occur in similar locations. Stew-rt’s observations suggest that crania ofarger (.30 cm total length) fish, espe-ially braincases, should be checked forutmarks. However, some body segmen-ation observed in our study was in prep-ration for cooking and might not be ex-ected in sites antedating the use of fire.oreover, cuts occur in very low frequen-

ies in assemblages produced by anatom-cally modern humans. Cutmarks inflictedhile segmenting the body and extractingeural tissue from the braincase are pre-ictable in location, but their low rate ofccurrence in our samples (Site 20: ,1%;

FC1: 8.1%; AS1: 4%) suggests that an ex-tensive sample must be examined whenassessing hominid agency. Low frequen-cies of cuts and slices are not restricted tothe Lake Turkana sites. Of 2722 identifi-able fish elements in the fauna from thelate prehistoric McIntosh Site (25BW15) inNebraska, reported by Koch (1995), nonedisplayed cutmarks.

Burning due to roasting is distinctive ofhuman processing and was present on asmuch as 20% of elements from some sites;in our sample, larger fish heads andsmaller whole fishes were prepared in thismanner. Koch (1995) notes that 13% of allcharred bone elements at the McIntosh


Site was from black bullheads (Ictalurusmelas), a catfish taxon, the fish averagingno more than 0.5 kg, a size likely to beroasted whole by Lake Turkana fishers.Burning is likely to render fish bone morefragile in the face of destructive processes,as it does mammal bone (Stiner et al. 1995;Nicholson 1993; Taylor et al. 1995).

Fish braincase fragmentation is espe-cially distinctive of hominid agency in theLake Turkana camps. An average of 50%of braincases in base camp assemblageswere fractured, while braincases in natu-ral land surface assemblages from thesame littoral zones displayed less than 2%fragmentation (Stewart 1991:20). Becausebraincase breakage requires only an un-modified stone or piece of wood, it iswithin the abilities of any hominid han-dling a fish, though Stewart’s observa-tions indicate that isolation of the brain-case is facilitated by cutting tools.

Skeletal element frequencies in all hu-man-generated fish assemblages differedfrom those of natural land surface assem-blages. Figure 3 shows the proportionalelement representation for cranial and ax-ial elements in an average perciform body(e.g., Lates, Oreochromis) and in the landsurface assemblages surveyed by Stewart(1991) in comparison to perciform cranialto axial proportions at foraging camps (seealso Table 2). Proportions of perciformcranial-to-axial elements in land surfaceassemblages differ only slightly fromthose of the perciform body, suggestingthat natural taphonomic effects in and ofthemselves do not substantially skewthese proportions. By contrast, human-processed assemblages display strong de-viations from the land surface pattern, butvariably from site to site, as discussedabove.

Among catfish, greater divergencesemerge between proportions of vertebrae inthe body and those in recent bones on landsurfaces (Fig. 4, Table 2), reflecting a greaternatural vulnerability to attrition of catfish

vertebrae (see Appendix, Site 10). Human-processed fish assemblages present an evenstarker contrast with the original cranial:ax-ial proportions (Fig. 4, Table 2), reflectingcombined effects of inherent fragility andhuman processing on vertebrae.

Comparisons with fossil fish bone assem-blages. Stewart (1991, 1994) has examinedfossil fish remains at several OlduvaiGorge sites for evidence of human modi-fication, comparing them to the naturallydeposited land surface assemblages offish bones at Lake Turkana. Three Oldu-vai site fish assemblages, FLKNN Level 3,FLK-Zinj, and BK, differed from naturallydeposited assemblages in several charac-teristics. FLKNN-3 and FLK-Zinj are inter-preted as lake shore assemblages, whileBK is a channel site. It was suggested thatpredators, possibly hominids, were re-sponsible for the assemblages.

Further examination of the Olduvai fishassemblage data was done in light of thedata on modern human fish processingpresented here. Fish elements were notabundant at the FLK and BK sites, thoughmore numerous at FLKNN-3. Perciformelement numbers are very low comparedwith numbers of siluriforms (Table 3); BKhad only five cichlid elements. Due tosuch low numbers of perciform bones,comparisons could only be made onlywith the siluriform component.

Results in terms of body segment rep-resentation and bone surface modifica-tions are equivocal, highlighting the diffi-culties in discerning hominid agency inthe absence of fire-aided culinary process-ing, of large-scale acquisition and pro-cessing, or obvious features and facilities.A brief review of the assemblages delin-eates these problems.

Percentages of siluriform cranial to axialelements at all three Olduvai sites arevery similar, with roughly 90% cranial to10% axial across the three assemblages,despite differences in their respective sed-imentary contexts (Fig. 5, Table 2). These

TABLE 3

PO


proportions depart from those of the typ-ical siluriform skeleton (Fig. 5), as was thecase for all human and natural land sur-face assemblages at Lake Turkana. Thisprobably reflects in part the inherent fra-gility of siluriform axial elements dis-cussed previously. The loss of axial ele-ments is not so extreme as at several of theethnoarchaeological sites at which fishprocessing for transport occurred (AS1,Site 06) or where the cause is unknown(Site 10), but the BK1 assemblage ap-proaches FC1 in proportions (Fig. 4). OnlySite 20 has cranial-to-axial proportionsapproaching those of the Olduvai sites.

However, given that the Olduvai as-semblages have undergone diagenetic ef-fects not affecting our ethnoarchaeologi-cal samples, the most apt comparison maybe the body segment proportions amongfossil bones encountered on the Lake Tur-kana littoral land surfaces in Stewart’stransects (Fig. 5, Table 2). Proportions ofsiluriform cranial:axial elements in theLake Turkana fossil land surface assem-blage are remarkably similar to those inthe three Olduvai sites (Table 2, Fig. 5)and display such internal homogeneity.This may bespeak the overriding influ-ence of regional taphonomic processes onstructuring bone assemblages of similartaxa.

Interpreting the causes of these pat-terns is moot for a variety of reasons. Thehominids who might have handled thefish bones at the Olduvai sites lacked fire,

Numbers of Identified Specimens (NISP) and Mercentages Representation for Clarias, a Catfish (Slduvai Gorge Sites FLKNN-3, FLK-Zinj, and BK

Site

Clarias

NISP MNI

FLKNN-3 605 87FLK-Zinj 97 10BK 170 39

Note. Data from Stewart (1994).

thus eliminating a major cause of in situdestruction of siluriform postcranial ele-ments, and they may be assumed not tohave engaged in intensive surplus pro-duction of dried fish. On the other hand,transport of fish axial segments—the morerewarding and less potentially hazardoussections of catfish bodies—away from abutchery locale would not have been be-yond capabilities of hominids accepted tohave transported mammal body seg-ments. Nothing in the assemblages them-selves definitively argues for or againsthominid versus purely taphonomic (pos-sibly postdepositional) influence on bodysegment frequencies.

Unfortunately, bone surface modifica-tions are not informative in this regard,because of their low incidence of occur-rence and ambiguous nature. Surfacemodifications were observed by Stewarton only two fossil elements in the threeOlduvai assemblages, a frontal bone and adermethmoid bone, both from the BK site.The modifications could be interpreted aseither toothmarks, presumably from a car-nivore, or cutmarks made by hominids(Stewart 1994). The low rate of modifica-tion does not in and of itself rule out hom-inid handling, given the low rates of inci-dence of cutmarks on the modern fishbone assemblages analyzed by Stewart(see above).

Patterned effects of reptile processing. Ourobservations on modification to reptile el-ements require evaluation in light of more

mum Numbers of Individuals (MNI), with Theiriform) Genus, and Cichlids (a Perciform Family) at

Cichlids

% NISP MNI %

6.0 135 14 14.03.3 13 2 16.78.6 7 5 11.4

iniilur

888


samples; however, one other case of turtleprocessing accords with ours in some as-pects. Charring of turtle shells appears tobe a hallmark of modern human handling.Koch (1995) reports high rates of charringon terrapin shell elements in the McIn-

FIG. 5. Siluriform cranial and axial proportiocomparability): Sites FLKNN-Level 3, FLK-Zinj,and Stewart’s (1991) Lake Turkana land-surface

tosh Site fauna: 50% of all burned verte-brate elements derived from three speciesof freshwater turtle (NISP 5 191; MNI 56), which comprised only 3% of assem-blage MNI. Bison, representing about 4%of MNI of the same fauna (NISP 5 593;

epaxial elements excluded for interassemblage, and Olduvai Gorge; average siluriform body;rvey modern and fossil bone assemblage data.

ns (BK-su

Sad

ttcabitectttnca(tw

adtofsasdoTsrptccp

rts

qmhclLdebmeBivtsuca

offzvpaawtnepm

ttkuimgnOsthl


MNI 5 32), had a charring rate of only 3%.lices on the carapace and hypoplastronre also likely outcomes of human han-ling that could predate the use of fire.We believe it unlikely that site-func-

ional variations in processing would sys-ematically affect reptile element frequen-ies as they do fish. Given their lowerbundances, crocodiles are less likely toe subjects of mass processing, and even

f subject to preservation and transport,he condition and frequencies of their el-ments is unlikely to be distinctive. Ac-ording to their size, crocodiles may beransported gutted but otherwise whole orheir meat may be filleted and dried forransport. Defleshing for drying shouldot differ from defleshing for immediateooking. Terrapins are cooked whole andre most conveniently transported wholeand alive) to another locale. Thus, in con-rast to fish, selective removal of elementsith dried reptile meat is unlikely.

CONCLUSION

The Lake Turkana landscape sample ofquatic foraging camps contributes to un-erstanding the location, internal organiza-

ion, and faunal assemblage characteristicsf sites dominated by nonmammalianauna. Size variation among the sampledites was more a function of subsistencectivities and of physical features of the cho-en locale than of numbers of inhabitants,uration of occupation, or amount of boner other occupational debris produced.hough fish bones numerically dominateuch freshwater sites, the role of aquaticeptiles, a more spatially and temporallyredictable food resource, should be inves-

igated further. Scant nutritional data indi-ate reptiles have higher fat yields than per-iform fish, but this requires more ex-loration.Systematic human handling of fish and

eptile bodies from initial butcheryhrough cooking is reflected in bone as-emblage characteristics. Element fre-

uencies from different fish body seg-ents proved an indicator not only of

uman handling but also of differing pro-essing goals. Human processing alsoeaves distinctive bone modifications. Asyman (1993) has suggested is the case foreer, cut marks may be rare and ephem-ral on fish bones, but understanding theody size ranges and anatomical regionsost likely to be handled with cutting

dge facilitates the search for such traces.raincase breakage, like hammerstone

mpacts to mammal long bones, may be aery common diagnostic hominid signa-ure. Reptile processing merits further re-earch to establish whether apparent reg-larities in damage, especially amonghelonians, are diagnostic of hominidgency.Data on impacts of human handling

nly make sense when compared to thatrom same the taxa in contexts not af-ected by humans. We recommend thatooarchaeologists analyzing freshwaterertebrate assemblages follow the exam-les of Butler (1993) and Stewart (1991)nd collect taphonomic comparison setss part of their research designs. Like-ise, it is important to undertake longi-

udinal weathering and other tapho-omic investigations of fish and reptilelements in differing environments toarallel those now in the literature forammals.Our study has implications as well for

he spatial scale of sampling of prehis-oric locales. While archaeologists todaynow the relevance of “empty spaces” tonderstanding the organization of activ-

ties at sites, the areal extents docu-ented in the Lake Turkana ethno-

raphic sample fall outside areasormally opened by excavations.’Connell (1995) recently stressed this

ame point, calling for much more ex-ensive lateral excavation of sites. Suchoped-for reform in excavation practices

eaves the problem of how to analyze the


many extant archaeological samples thatprobably sample the denser end of thebone frequency spectrum at much largersites. Useful comparisons might bemade with ethnoarchaeological datasetsfrom the highest areal densities only.However, some site-structural topics,such as analyses of spatially segregatedtask sequences, may not productively beaddressed by such samples. Furtherwork with contemporary sites may elu-cidate this issue.

APPENDIX: DETAILED SITEDESCRIPTIONS

Site 02: A Repeatedly Occupied Localewith Hippo Butchery Episode

In the early summer of 1972, a gal diescanoe party killed a young hippopotamusin the lake near Site 02, a repeatedly oc-cupied locale (Fig. 1). They hauled its car-cass out of the water at the campsite andsegmented it to strip and dry its flesh fortransport home (Bob Campbell, personalcommunication 1973, film footage). Workparties handled the body sections from3 m to 10 m apart, creating discrete, ana-tomically coherent bone clusters with lit-tle “fill” between them. A stone-linedhearth was renovated and used for imme-diate food consumption, around whichbuilt up a lay cluster of hippopotamusforelimb bones and ribs. The site had twopreexisting low windbreaks made fromgastropod conglomerate sandstone thatserved as sleeping shelters from thestrong offshore winds that blow most ofthe year. When surveyed by Gifford-Gonzalez a year after the butchery, somefresh fish and reptile bones lay in thespaces between the hippopotamus bones,the result of later occupations (Fig. 6).

Site 03: A Very Short-Term Camp

Site 03 is a very short-term, single-oc-cupation “snack stop,” at which disparatefoods were processed and consumed

(Figs. 1 and 7). Located on the northeast-ern bank of a small ephemeral stream thatcut through an abandoned 1970 back-beach bar, it was about 100 m from theshore when encountered in October, 1973.Animal remains at the camp were fresh,indicating very recent occupation, proba-bly by a gal dies canoe party who hadpassed Koobi Fora 2 days before. Bones, acut wooden staff 1.5 m long, a branchabout 1 m length, and shorter lengths offirewood lay around a hearth with threehearthstones used for supporting a cook-ing container. Nutshells of an indetermi-nate species lay south and east of thehearth (Fig. 7).

Despite an NISP of only 16, five animaltaxa are represented. Fragments of a ga-zelle-sized mammal rib are probable foodremains, as are two vertebrae, four fore-and hindlimb bones, and a scute (dermalbone) from a small crocodile, reflectingtransport into the site of at least the rep-tile’s postcranial skeleton. A cranial frag-ment of a Synodontis fish was also presentin the scatter. Two specimens, a well-dried softshell turtle carapace about 30 cmin diameter and a tilapia operculum, areprobably artifacts. Gifford-Gonzalez sawsimilar carapaces used as food platters byDassanetch people in other settings.Stewart observed opercula used as fish-scaling tools at AS1; the presence of thissingle tilapia element in proximity to fishscales (Fig. 7) suggests a similar use here.Though an ephemeral camp, Site 03 bearshallmarks of human use, not only in thepresence of artifacts and hearth, but alsoin admixture of so many species’ remainsin such a small assemblage.

Site 10: A Short-Term Base Camp

History

Site 10 was created November 5–11,1973, by eight impoverished Dassanetchmen who, though not from the gal diessettlement in Ethiopia, followed a similarforaging pattern. The men were working

o(cah(u


their way south from Ileret to the richfishing grounds of Allia Bay (Fig. 1). Campwas set up at the lake’s edge on a flatexpanse of dry, hard silts covered byclosely cropped of spike grass (Sporobolusspicatus). No trees grew within a kilometer

f the site, but a large stand of sedgesCyperus sp.) lay about 8 m north of theamp’s central area. The camp was set upround a mummified zebra carcass thatad been there since September, 1974

Fig. 8). The stiff body was occasionallysed as a chair.

FIG. 6. Plan of Site 02, a repeatedly occupied cwindbreaks and hearth existed before 1972 but

The foraging party carried a kerosenetin, a fish net in poor condition (photog-rapher Bob Campbell’s gift from 1972), agourd container, one carved woodenheadrest/stool per man, three empty foodtins, and several spears. One such spearwas tipped with a sharpened end of anoryx horn sheath and the other with alargely unmodified iron nail. The menalso had one detachable-head harpoonwith several wooden shafts, an oryxsheath foreshaft, and a hook-shaped ironhead. One panga, or large bush knife, and

p with 1972 hippopotamus butchery. Sandstonery event.

amche


a smaller, homemade metal knife werealso shared among members of the group.Abandonment debris included batteredquartz cobbles collected from the land-scape and used as hammerstones onmammal and fish bones. The discardedgourd and headrest shown in Fig. 8 werein fact left at Site 10 during a second oc-cupation, when the party moved backnorth through the area and built the shel-ter at the camp during their stay. The shel-ter was burned by National Park person-nel about a month after it was built.

Notes on site activities are relativelycoarse grained. Sites 10 and 20 were set upat the beginning of Gifford-Gonzalez’sfieldwork, and their makers were wary ofpersons who might communicate withgame wardens, with whom they had al-ready had unfriendly encounters. Shetherefore opted to stay at the camps forshorter intervals and to ask fewer ques-tions than she might have, had she beenmore in the confidence of the inhabitants.

FIG. 7. Plan of Site 03, a

While camped at Site 10, the party fished,hunted lake reptiles, scavenged mammalmeat, collected oryx horn sheaths and woodfor making harpoon foreshafts and shafts,and carried on tool making and food pro-cessing at the camp. Over the 7 days thecamp was occupied, the men obtained 21fish. Eight individual Bagrus, netted in deepwater by the research vessel Halcyon, weredonated by Gifford-Gonzalez. A Nile perchover 1 m long and a Clarias catfish 1.2 m inlength were taken with spears, as were sev-eral of the smaller fish. Three crocodiles andfour terrapins were caught, and portions ofat least four ungulates were collected: thoseof a lion-killed zebra and a large bovid werescavenged for food, and oryx horn sheathswere acquired for tool making. Maize mealdonated by Gifford-Gonzalez was con-sumed for 2 days, but no other vegetablefoods were known to have been eaten. TheSite 10 assemblage was identified andmapped in place on November 19, 1973,

ry short-term snack site.
ve


eight days after the group moved south andset up the Site 20 camp.

Processing Activities and Site Structure

Site 10 underwent substantial arealexpansion during a single occupationepisode. Functional considerations, es-pecially food processing, influenced theextent and nature of the bone and arti-fact distribution. It should be reiteratedthat the shelter with sitting area in Fig. 8was built during a second, 2-day occu-pation by the same foraging party asthey returned north. Thus, it did not

FIG. 8. Plan of Site 10,

constrain the location of activities dur-ing the initial occupation. Since no treesor shrubs grew in the area, shade wasnot a consideration in situating thecooking and work areas.

During the first 3 days, two hearthswere used (lower center of Fig. 8), onewith three hearth stones to support thekerosene tin “pot,” the other used toroast fish body segments. Over thisspan, fish and reptiles were caught; fishcranial and vertebral segments surroundthe hearths. Broken ribs of a large bovidof unknown provenience lie near thehearths and in a toss zone west of them.

hort-term base camp.
a s


During the time Sites 10 and 20 werecreated, Gifford-Gonzalez carried outher on-foot survey of older camps andmonitored all new ungulate deaths inthe survey area for a longitudinal tapho-nomic study (cf. Gifford 1977; Gifford-Gonzalez 1984). She was therefore ableto ascertain the actual animals fromwhich scavenged zebra elements weretaken at both Sites 10 and 20. However,the bovid which contributed these ribs,either an oryx or a topi, was not locatedin her survey.

A large Nile perch (Lates niloticus) wasacquired during this time and underwentprimary processing about 20 m northwestof the hearths (Fig. 8), close to the stand ofsedges. In its spatial segregation from themain zone of food consumption, work,and rest, the Lates processing area resem-bles activity loci noted in ethnoarchaeo-logical studies of larger mammal process-ing (see Discussion). It was gutted, itsepaxial (fin) spines cut off and discarded,

FIG. 9. Site 10 catfish (Clarias lazera) head andon hearth.

its gills and branchiostegel elements de-tached and discarded, and the body thencut into sections. Its tail and one gill coverunit were taken to the hearth withoutstones, where it was roasted with the largecatfish taken the same day (Fig. 9). TheNile perch’s postcranial segments wereroasted on coals of the other hearth, andsome of its cranial elements were disartic-ulated and boiled in the kerosene tin. Thelarge catfish was gutted and decapitatedin the fish-processing area and the headand body were roasted on the stonelesshearth. Small and medium-sized fish of alltaxa were boiled in the kerosene tin.Northeast of the hearths lay by-productsof harpoon shaft and foreshaft manufac-ture (Fig. 8).

On the fourth day of the occupation, forreasons unknown to us, a third hearth wasset up 25 m northeast of the first two (Fig.8), the hearth stones moved to it, and cu-linary processing thenceforth focusedaround it. By-products of culinary pro-

ile perch (Lates niloticus) opercular unit roasting
N

lswe1

lpbtsstcitdsg


cessing and ad hoc tools used in extractingtissue from bones were dropped near anddiscarded in a toss zone around thehearth. Debris included cranial fragmentsof a zebra scavenged from a lion kill, re-mains of at least two terrapins, fish cranialbones and vertebrae, two battered quartzcobbles, and two oryx horn sheaths.About 16 m to the west of this hearth, acrocodile-processing area developed,where lay discarded skulls, in one casewith scutes of the back skin still attached,and other bones (Fig. 8).

A cluster of hind-leg bone fragments ofthe scavenged zebra lay about 19.5 msouthwest of the third hearth (Fig. 8), min-gled with the cranium of an oryx, bovidbones, and fish and turtle bones. A quartzcobble lay about 2 m south of this boneconcentration. It is possible that this areais a peripheral processing area first cre-ated when the original hearths were inuse but utilized for the entire span of siteoccupation.

Effects of Processing Activities on the BoneAssemblage

The Site 10 faunal assemblage reflectsboth prey choice and processing activitiesin its species composition, bone preserva-tion, and modifications. Proportional rep-resentation of taxa by MNI are generallysimilar to those of the fish and reptileindividuals documented as taken, exceptin the case of the donated Bagrus (Table 4).Two to four individuals of this taxon wereremoved from the camp when the groupleft to forage farther south.

Although all fish were brought into thesite whole, skeletal element representa-tion in the remnant assemblage departedmarkedly from natural skeletal frequen-cies. Moreover, different species and bodysizes within species were variably affectedby preliminary processing and culinaryhandling, with moderate to heavy attritionof bones in certain body segments. Moststriking was the absence of siluriform ver-

tebrae (Table 5) in the sample; catfish axialbones were seen in units being roasted atthe site, so these elements were not dis-carded before the fish were brought to thesite. Stewart (1991) noted similar but lessextreme biases against siluriform verte-brae in modern land surface collectionsand in fossil assemblages unaffected byhominids (Table 2, Fig. 4), probably re-flecting the inherent fragility of these ele-ments. Culinary processing by humans,especially exposure to fire, likely exacer-bates the intrinsic fragility of catfish ver-tebrae, rendering them more prone to de-struction by consumption or postdiscardtrampling. It is also possible that somecatfish axial segments were dried withvertebrae in and transported away fromthe site. Catfish cranial elements werepreserved, but attrition was also consider-able (Table 5).

Perciform skeletal element representa-tion reflects differences in processing oflarge versus small individuals with thesame anatomy. Though bones of the largeLates were roasted in their body segments,cranial and vertebral fragments appear tohave been equally affected by culinaryprocessing. Elements of fish .30 cm totalength occur in proportions generally re-embling those of the perciform skeleton,ith more cranial and fewer vertebral el-

ments (Stewart & Gifford-Gonzalez994).By contrast, for perciforms ,30 cm total

ength, about 92% of the cranial elementsredicted from the number of fishrought to the site are missing, and ver-

ebrae dominate. Perciform fish of thisize range are well represented by cranialpecimens at other sites in the sample, sohe paucity of cranial elements at Site 10annot readily be explained by invokingnherent bone fragility. Selective migra-ion of bones into the site’s sediments, asocumented with Site 20’s loose, sandyubstrate (see next section), is unlikely,iven Site 10’s hard lacustrine silts. Bones

TABLE 4


trampled at Site 10 were more liable to bedamaged or destroyed than to deposited.

Waste disposal was not observed dur-ing visits to the camp but some evidencesuggests that bones were dumped into thenearby stand of sedges. When Gifford-Gonzalez revisited Site 10 2 years later,the lake level had dropped and the sedgestand was dry and dead. Poorly preservedfish and reptile bone fragments lay amongthe sedges. These may have been bones

Taxa Represented at Sites 06, 1

Taxon

Site 06S

Skeletal analysisOriginal

take

NISP MNI MNI

N % N % N % N

Labeo 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Bagrus 2 0.4 1 1.4 8 29.6Clarias 120 24.4 32 43.2 3 11.1Synodontis 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Siluriformes

indet. 0 0.0 18 24.3 0 0.0Oreochromis 72 14.7 10 13.5 0 0.0Lates 183 37.3 2 2.7 .4 14.8 13Perciformes

indet. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Pisces

indet. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Crocodylus 6 1.2 1 1.4 3 11.1 1Pelusios

(terrapin) 9 1.8 3 4.0 4 14.8Equus

burchelli *58 11.8 1 1.4 *2 7.4 1Damaliscus

lunatus **,†17 3.5 3 4.0 0 0.0Oryx

gazella **6 1.2 2 2.7 **2 7.4Gazella

granti 12 2.4 1 1.4 0 0.0Bovidae

indet. *6 1.2 n/a n/a 1 3.7 1Aves

indet. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Note. Original number of individuals taken is giveNISP, not original surface survey, since many speccarapace) were recovered as dissociated elements†includes neonate scavenged or hunted for food; #pr

from Site 10 but were in too poor condi-tion to lift for study. Smaller perciformfish at Site 10 were cooked by boiling, andour experience with preparing specimensin this size range indicates that cranialbones dissociate almost immediately inboiling water. Subject to longer stewing,dissociated bones that collected at the bot-tom of the container could be dumped enmasse.

All Lates skulls at Site 10 were frag-

nd 20: Species NISP and MNI

10 Site 20

letal analysisOriginal

take Skeletal analysis

SP MNI MNI NISP MNI

% N % N % N % N %

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 0.3 2 4.72.0 2 6.7 3 4.8 60 2.3 2 4.71.5 7 23.3 13 20.6 345 13.0 13 30.20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 26 1.0 n/a n/a0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 59 2.2 3 7.0

68.8 10 33.3 2 3.2 0 0.0 0 0

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 46 1.7 n/a n/a

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 334 12.6 n/a n/a7.5 3 10.0 4 6.4 449 16.9 5 11.6

2.0 4 13.3 40 63.4 1329 50.0 16 37.0

7.5 1 3.3 *1 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

2.0 2 6.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

8.5 1 3.3 0 0.0 1 (0) 1 2.3

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 (0) 1 2.3

f known. Site 20 data are excavated fish and reptilens originally enumerated as articulated units (e.g.,cavenged for food; **scavenged for tool making;nt originally.

0, a

ite

Ske

NI

0430

007

0

05

4

5

0

4

0

7

0

n, iime. *sese

TABLE 5

e


mented, displaying the damage associ-ated with extracting neural tissue ob-served by Stewart (1991) at the Turkanacamp AS1; some siluriform crania wereintact. Cutmarks were not noted in the1973 analysis, and the bones were tooweathered at later checks to assess suchmodifications.

Longer Term Taphonomic Observations

Condition of fish, reptile, and mam-mal bones at Site 10 was checked in 1976,1978, and 1980. Disintegration of fishbones was noted within the first 2 years(Fig. 10), and reptile bones of even thelargest crocodiles were also in poor con-dition (Fig. 11), compared to mammalbones, which were at Weathering Stages1 and 2 in 1976 (cf. Gifford-Gonzalez1984). A similarly swift rate of fish bonedegeneration was seen at Site 06, situ-ated on a very different substrate (seeSite 06 below). The largely intact mum-mified zebra carcass ultimately was dis-articulated by carnivore consumers afterheavy rains in March, 1974, and its re-mains were scattered through the Site 10bone distribution. None of its boneswere broken, nor did they bear any hu-man processing marks, however, pres-ence of these elements would presentinterpretive challenges (see Discussion).

Sites 10 and 20: Body Segment RepresentationProportional Element Representation in the

Body Segment: Cranial

Taxon MNE %

Site 10 Siluriformes 105 100.0Site 20 Siluriformes 163 63.7Average Siluriform Elements 62 49.6Site 10 Perciformes 81 57.9Site 20 Perciformes 22 25.3Average Perciform Elements 83 63.4

Note. Expressed as percentages of bone elemennumeration of epaxial elements (see Methods).

Site 20: A Short-Term Base Camp

History

Site 20 was created on November 11,1973 by the same foraging party of eightwho had camped previously at Site 10. Itlay 5.5 km south of Site 10, in a small deltacomplex of an ephemeral stream, the IlArap Mehto, about 400 m inland from theextant lake shore (Fig. 1) and behind aremnant beach ridge of the 1970 lake highstand, then dissected by the Arap Mehtodistributary channels. The men stayed atthe camp for 4 days, abandoning it to headsouth to the Allia Bay area on November15. Gear brought to Site 20 was the sameas that used at Site 10, with additionalharpoon shaft items made at the previouscamp.

During their 4 days’ stay at Site 20, theparty obtained 12 catfish (Clarias), four ti-lapia, and two Nile perch and importedthe Bagrus carried from Site 10. Manymore reptiles were obtained here than atSite 10. The party dug 40 estivating terra-pins (Pelusios adansonii) from a mudslough near the lake and caught four croc-odiles. They also scavenged meat fromtwo zebras killed by lions. Processing andcooking was not closely documented atthis camp, although daily increments offish, reptile, and mammal foods were

Siluriform and Perciform Fish, Compared toerage Skeleton of Each Taxonomic Group

Axial Epaxial Total

NE % MNE % MNE %

0 0 N/A 0 105 100.08 18.8 45 17.5 256 100.00 48.0 3 2.4 125 100.02.1 59 N/A 0 140 100.04 27.6 41 47.1 87 100.07 20.6 21 16.0 131 100.0

MNE), by body segment. Note that Site 10 lacks

inAv

M

46422

ts (


noted during brief visits. Large and smallcatfish were roasted rather than boiled.The hind leg of one zebra and meat fromthe forequarters of another were pro-cessed.

The Site 20 bone assemblage wasmapped and identified in the field on No-vember 16, the day after the camp wasabandoned. Site 20 was inundated in lateMarch and early April, 1974 by a succes-sion of flood events in the Arap Mehtodrainage. Materials in the main channelwere carried off by vigorous flow, whilethose on the channel edges and side chan-nels were capped in finer grained silts andeffectively cemented in place by a fewdays’ drying in sunny weather before thenext, more vigorous flood event buriedthe site completely. In August, 1974, Gif-ford-Gonzalez excavated the center of thesite (Fig. 12) and analyzed the recoveredbone assemblage (Gifford and Behrens-meyer 1977). Bones in the side channels

FIG. 10. Site 10: Nile perch (Lates niloticus) h(white bar 5 1 cm).

were largely in the same places and ori-entations as when originally mapped, dueto their initial capping in late March. Afew elements along the main channelmargin showed evidence of hydraulictransport and reorientation (Gifford andBehrensmeyer 1977).

The excavation revealed additional in-formation on site formation, as previouslyreported by Gifford and Behrensmeyer(1977). The recovered assemblage wasabout 40% larger than that originallymapped on the surface, even though theexcavated area was less extensive. Thetaxonomic composition remained thesame as in the initial surface inventory,but fish ribs, pterygiophore spines, and finrays were much more common in the ex-cavated sample. Because these elementswere encountered within the sandy matrixcapped by the flood event silts, it was in-ferred that they migrated into the loosesite substrate during occupation of the

andibular; weathering after 2 years’ exposure
yom

“l

at

E

rasoeae(Rabe

va


camp due to trampling by the occupants(see also Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1984).


The Site 20 camp was set up at thejunction of the Arap Mehto’s main chan-nel with two side channels, all of whichoffered open sandy substrates amidstspike grass tussocks (Fig. 12). Most ofthe bone was concentrated in drop andtoss zones around a single hearth. Threecooking pot supports of gastropod con-glomerate sandstone were gatheredanew at this location; low outcrops of thestone about 2 km south were the proba-ble source of the Site 20 hearthstones.The sandy side channel west of thehearth was a rest area, kept relativelyfree of large bone debris and furnishedwith a large lake weed (Potamogeton sp.)

pillow” (Fig. 12). The scavenged zebraeg and flesh lay at a meat-drying area

FIG. 11. Site 10: crocodile (Crocodylus niloticubar 5 1 cm).

bout 10 m up the main channel fromhe central site scatter.

ffects of Processing Activities andDepositional Events on the BoneAssemblage

The excavated 2960-specimen fish andeptile assemblage was studied by Stew-rt and Rybczynski, permitting compari-on of fish bone modifications to thosebserved by Stewart among Turkana fish-rs at the AS1 site. Rybczynski’s detailednalysis of the reptile bones permits gen-ralizations about handling of these taxa.This article reports data presented inybczynski et al. 1996, but uses a differentpproach to aggregation of elements intoody segments and hence displays differ-nt statistics.)Like Site 10, this is a relatively low-di-

ersity fish assemblage, reflecting the for-gers’ focus on a few prey species, but,

cute; weathering after 2 years’ exposure (white
s) s

rMpntsaotte


like Sites 03 and 10, the mix of mammal,reptile, and fish taxa is remarkable, espe-cially given the 4 days’ duration of accu-mulation. Table 4 shows that the assem-blage is dominated by Pelusios, accuratelyeflecting the original take. The Crocodylus

NI calculated from the excavated sam-le was higher by one than the originalumber documented. Whether this is due

o incorporation of “background” landurface bone in the excavated sample or ton error in estimating the number of croc-diles in 1973 is unknown. Fish MNI sta-istics are generally representative ofhose caught (Table 4). A single specimenach from bird and mammal classes were

FIG. 12. Plan of Site 20

recovered. These were weathered andmay represent “background” bone in thearea, since neither were originally enu-merated in the surface documentation ofthe site in November, 1973. Only 7.9% ofthe excavated specimens from Site 20were entirely unidentifiable.

Skeletal element representation at Site20 shows similar trends to those at Site 10(Table 5). Siluriform vertebrae were un-derrepresented, but not to the same ex-treme degree as at Site 10. Nearly all fishcranial elements derived from catfish,about 29% of which were broken in halfand another 14% more heavily frag-mented. Comparing the number of catfish

short-term base camp.
, a

caMce

Pcbmemtis

TABLE 6


cranial elements predicted from the indi-viduals actually taken to their NISP in therecovered sample (adjusting for area ex-cavated), deletion of about 61% of theoriginal complement is apparent. As atSite 10, smaller perciform cranial ele-ments were underrepresented relative tovertebrae (Table 5).

Again, like the Site 10 bones, taxon andsize conditioned frequencies of variousmodifications to Site 20 fish and reptilebones. Most of the burned fish bones werefrom siluriforms, consonant with the ten-dency to roast catfish, but not perciformsseen at Site 10 and at AS1 (Table 6). Cutsand slicing marks on Site 20 fish boneswere virtually nonexistent (Table 6), con-trasting with FC1 and AS1. This may be aproduct of the lower proportions of perci-forms at Site 20, which taxa most com-monly bear cut marks at the other sites(Stewart and Gifford-Gonzalez 1994).

Pelusios MNI in the excavated assem-blage account for only 40% the originalnumber of 40 individuals taken or the 39enumerated in the 1973 surface mapping(Table 4). [To check this result, Rybczynski

Sites 20, FC1, and AS1: Frequencyon Body Segments of Sil

Site 20

Siluriform Perciform Silu

439 105

Modification NISP % NISP % NISP

BurningCranial 80 87.9 0 0.0 5Axial 3 3.3 6 100.0 3Epaxial 8 8.8 0 0.0 0S Burnt 89 20.3 6 7.6 8

Cut/SliceCranial 0 0.0 1 100.0 1Axial 0 0.0 0 0.0 0Epaxial 0 0.0 0 0.0 0S Cut 0 0.0 1 1.0 1

Note. cf. Stewart (1991).

Taxon

NISP

calculated the MNI by two methods: enu-merating appendicular elements and bysumming carapace plate elements andthen dividing by the average number ofplates found in an average single carapace(48). Both methods produced the same es-timate.] Some corrections for excavationsampling and fluvial transport should bemade. Mapped specimens that lay outsidethe excavated zone (MNI 5 14; Fig. 12)were not retrieved, nor were those origi-nally in the main channel (MNI 5 4) andarried off in the first flood event (Giffordnd Behrensmeyer 1977). The predictedNI based on carapace count for the ex-

avated area is thus 21, whereas the recov-red sample yielded a MNI of 16.Because mapping and enumeration of

elusios had taken place after culinary pro-essing and discard, this 25% difference isest attributed either to scavenging ani-als (jackals showed an active interest in

xcavated bones during the 1974 dig) or,ore likely, to hydraulic transport during

he more vigorous of several flood eventsnundating the whole site. Whole terrapinhells are very stable in flowing water and

urning and Cut plus Slice Marksform and Perciform Fish

FC1 AS1

rm Perciform Siluriform Perciform

102 1995 32 616

% NISP % NISP % NISP %

62.5 85 60.7 1 100.0 75 77.337.5 17 12.1 0 0.0 3 3.10 38 27.1 0 0.0 19 19.67.8 140 7.0 1 3.1 97 15.7

100.0 75 77.3 0 0.0 14 26.40.0 3 3.1 0 0.0 37 69.80.0 19 19.6 0 0.0 2 3.81.0 97 4.9 0 0.0 53 8.6

of Buri

rifo

TABLE 7

(S


tended to bury themselves in substrateduring flume experiments (Gifford andBehrensmeyer 1977). However, dissoci-ated turtle shell segments have high sur-face-area-to-volume ratios, placing themin Voorhies Transport Category I, themost likely to be carried away in flowingwater (Voorhies 1969; Behrensmeyer 1975;Rybczynski et al. 1996).

Modifications to reptile bones variedaccording to species, though both terra-pins and crocodiles had relatively highrates of charring. Pelusios bones accountedfor 44.6% of the total site NISP but 54.1%of all burned specimens; the vast prepon-derance of burned terrapin elements werecarapace and plastron segments (Table 7).Terrapins were roasted whole in the fire,their plastrons then cut or pried apartfrom their carapaces, leaving most of theinternal muscles and organs in the bowl-like upper shell.

Slices rather than cuts occurred on 5%

Site 20: Location and Frequencies of Burn, Slice,Crocodylus) Bones, Given as the Number and Percegments and Total and Percentage of Modification

Terrapin

1321

Modification NISP

BurningCranial 2Axial 698Appendicular 13S Burnt 713

CutCranial 0Axial 0Epaxial 0S Cut 0

SliceCranial 0Axial 68Appendicular 0S Slice 68

NISP:

of terrapin elements, the greatest absolutenumber of such marks in the assemblage,and were concentrated on the upper andlower shells (Table 7). Since shells lacknourishing tissues on their exteriors, slicemarks testify to forcible opening. Forty-five were on carapace segments and 23 onplastron elements. This proportion maybe misleading, because slice marks on thecarapace tended transect several adjacentbones, which then dissociated after dis-card and were counted individually,thereby inflating the rate of slice marks oncarapace elements. Slices on plastronsclustered on the lateral section of the hy-poplastron, where it forms a bridge to thecarapace, so that one act of cutting pro-duced a single mark.

As with terrapins, crocodile specimenstended to bear a somewhat disproportion-ate share of burning, comprising 15% ofassemblage NISP, but 23% of all burnedbones (Table 7). Burning was concen-

d Cut Marks on Terrapin (Pelusios) and Crocodiletages of Modifications within the Respective BodyOverall NISP for Taxon

Taxon

Crocodile

449

% NISP %

0.3 121 26.997.9 151 33.61.8 10 2.3

54.0 282 62.8

0.0 0 0.00.0 22 62.90.0 13 37.10.0 35 7.8

0.0 1 33.300.0 1 33.30.0 1 33.35.1 3 0.7

anento

1

solecatoifdbbc

ddtcqflnre

ns

H

aGpofKlfmtawb0a

TABLE 8


trated on cranial and axial (including der-mal scutes) bones, nearly evenly dividedbetween the two, with only 2% encoun-tered on appendicular segment bones(Table 7). High burning rates on thesebones poses interpretive questions thatwere not dealt with by interview or obser-vation. Discard of crania and scutes earlyin butchery has been described for thesame foraging party at Site 10. Crocodileheads have virtually no muscle and verylittle neural tissue within a thick brain-case, so they do not repay the handlingeffort of cooking and breaking. The Site 20cranial bones may have been burned toreduce their attractiveness to scavengerspatrolling the area.

Contrasts in occurrence of slices andcuts on bones of Crocodylus versus Pelusiostem from the differing size and anatomyf the taxa (Table 7). Crocodiles, particu-

arly larger individuals, must be butch-red into segments and/or filleted forooking. While relatively rare, cut marksre more common on crocodile boneshan on those of other taxa (Table 7), mostn vertebrae and probably inflicted dur-

ng filleting. Slice marks, reflecting force-ul cutting, occurred on only three Croco-ylus bones. Once their tough hide isreached, even large crocodiles’ legs cane disarticulated by leverage and selectiveutting of connective tissue.

Site 20: Comparison of Body Segment RepresentatioCompared to Proportional Element Representation

Taxon (MNE)Percen

cranial (M

Site 20 Terrapins (1172) 0.4 (5)Average Terrapin elements (102) 2.2 (2)Site 20 crocodile (200) 3.4 (7)Average crocodile elements (667) 0.3 (2)

Note. Expressed as percentages of bone elements

Deletion of terrapin cranial and appen-icular skeletal elements may reflect theirestruction during cooking and consump-

ion (Table 8). The inflation of crocodileranial elements relative to their fre-uency of occurrence in the skeleton re-ects dissociation of the multielement cra-ia and mandibles after burial andecovery of their constituents as isolatedlements.The recovered mammal bone reflects

either type nor amount of mammal tis-ue obtained.

A Longer-Term Foraging Camp: Site 06

istory

Site 06 was created over 6 weeks in Julynd August, 1973, just before Gifford-onzalez began her fieldwork, by an im-overished Dassanetch couple. Informationn the inhabitants, their equipment, andoraging practices was provided by Kamoyaimeu (personal communication, 1973),

eader of the National Museums of Kenya’sossil search team. Gifford-Gonzalez

apped the bones and identified them inhe field November 13–15, 1973, leaving fishnd reptile elements in place to monitoreathering and collecting most mammaloned for further modification analysis. Site6 was the only site in the sample not cre-ted by an all-male foraging party, and

or Terrapins (Pelusios) and Crocodiles (Crocodylus),the Average Skeleton of Each Taxonomic Group

Body segment

)Percent

axial (MNE)Percent

appendicular (MNE)

93.3 (1093) 6.3 (74)78.3 (72) 19.5 (18)77.6 (155) 19.0 (38)97.0 (647) 3.7 (18)

E) by body segment.

n fin

tNE

(MN


some aspects of site organization and gearreflect the presence of a Dassanetchwoman.

Gear noted by Kimeu included a smallfish net, a spear and/or a harpoon, a metalknife, a cooking pot, and a crude grindingstone from poorly consolidated localsandstone, apparently used to processsedge roots, some of which still lay next toit when mapped. Information on acquisi-tion and processing of animals is lackingand can only be inferred from the remainsthemselves. The man was said to set hisnet mornings at a small inlet of the lakenear camp and to check the sky for vul-tures circling lion kills (Kamoya Kimeu,personal communication, 1973). Two adulttopis are represented by some body seg-ments, probable results of scavenging. Aneonate to 2-week-old Grant’s gazelle anda 2- to 12-week-old zebra foal are repre-sented by bone fragments from nearly allbody segments. Each probably was ac-quired by direct predation, since bone of

FIG. 13. Photograph of Site 06, showing sheltehearth.

such small individuals would readily havebeen consumed by carnivores as small asjackals (cf. Gifford-Gonzalez 1989).


The site’s structure was determined inpart by its location on a flat-topped, stabi-lized sand dune some 20 m above and 300 minland from the shore line, where, in con-trast to the littoral, dune vegetation in-cluded a Salvadora persica tree and some lowshrubs.

Two aspects of internal organization setSite 06 apart from other foraging camps inthe 1973 sample. First, the central focus ofactivities was a shelter dug in the loosesand under the weeping willowlikeboughs of the Salvadora tree (Fig. 13). Sit-ting areas and bone scatters lay in themorning and afternoon shade of the tree.One hearth lay in the morning shade area(Fig. 13). Second, the space under the

nder Salvadora persica tree, morning shade with
r u


tree’s boughs was organized similarly to aDassanetch house, which women con-struct and maintain. To the left as oneentered was a hearth with three hearth-stones; Dassanetch women customarilyplace the hearth “on the side of women”to the inside left of the doorway (Gifford1977; Gifford-Gonzalez 1989). The grind-stones and sedge roots were found in thisside of the shelter.

To the northwest of the domestic spacelay an area for working on oryx hornsheaths gathered from the landscape (Fig.14). A shrub about 20 m north of the treewas the focus of fish processing and servedas a drying rack, its location contributing

FIG. 14. Plan of Site 06, a longer-term basebones.

substantially to the overall dimensions ofthe site (Fig. 15).

Effects of Processing Activities on the BoneAssemblage

Fish taxa at Site 06 are more diversethan at other sites (Table 4), not unexpect-edly, given that the longer duration of stayincreased chances of sampling more spe-cies. As at Sites 10 and 20, the speciesrepresented at Site 06 all littoral-adapted,including the small Bagrus, as juveniles ofthis species spent their early developmentinshore (Hopson 1982).

Siluriform cranial element representa-

mp, showing features, artifacts, and mammal
ca


tion is similar to that in the Site 10 as-semblage. However, element frequen-cies for perciforms at Site 06 differsubstantially from those at Sites 10 and20. Perciform vertebral elements arevery underrepresented relative to Sites10 and 20 (Table 2). Alternative explana-tions for this difference may be pro-posed. First, Gifford-Gonzalez did notcount individual vertebrae in articulatedrows left in the field. In later analysis, anaverage number of vertebrae per rowwas estimated based on site photos, andthis tactic could have underestimatedthe actual number present at Site 06.Second, lack of vertebrae may result

FIG. 15. Plan of Site 06, showing features, aconcentration of fish bones north of shelter are

from drying and transporting perchbodies away from the camp. The FC1and AS1 camps (see below) were gearedto dry fish for transport to other locales.There, axial segments were split anddried with vertebrae left in and whenthese were taken from the sites, mostvertebrae were deleted from the localassemblage. Similar activities on a morelimited scale at Site 06 may have had asimilar effect.

About 58% of the fish braincases at Site06 were broken into anterior and posteriorhalves, in the same brain-extraction pat-tern documented at other sites. About halfthe broken skulls were Nile perch and the

acts, fish and reptile bones. Note shrub with
rtifa.


balance were catfish species; none of thesmall Oreochromis (formerly Tilapia) skullswere broken.

Fish bones at Site 06 were monitored byGifford-Gonzalez for 10 years after theinitial mapping. Ten years after exposure,even the largest Nile perch bones on thesite surface were on the verge of disinte-gration (Fig. 16). Crocodile bones werealso in advanced states of weathering (Fig.17). By contrast, vertebrae of the neonateGrant’s gazelle were at Behrensmeyer’s(1978) Weathering Stages 3 and 4. De-tailed information on mammal bone mod-ifications can be found in Gifford-Gonza-lez (1989).

FC1: A Dassanetch Fish-ProcessingCamp

In 1985, Stewart documented FC1, aDassanetch fishing camp, on the samesection of littoral surveyed by Gifford-

FIG. 16. Site 06: Nile perch (Lates niloticus) qubar 5 1 cm).

Gonzalez (Fig. 1). It contained about 2600bones distributed over 10 by 20 m (Stewart1991). The site was not observed duringoccupation, but Stewart interviewed galdies fishermen on their processing prac-tices. As at foraging camps documentedby Gifford-Gonzalez, the FC1 fish faunawas a restricted range of perciforms andcatfish (Table 1). In contrast to all Das-sanetch sites but Site 06, the FC1 assem-blage had very low frequencies of largerfish vertebrae (Table 2), as was the case atthe Turkana AS1 fish-drying camp. Thissupports informant-based testimony thatFC1 was predominantly a fish-dryingcamp.

Burning (Table 6) was concentrated onanterior elements of large fish skulls, re-flecting roasting of heads and parallelingthat seen at AS1 (see below). Elementsfrom smaller fish generally showed differ-entially higher rates of burning than did

ate; weathering after 10 years’ exposure (white
adr


those of larger fish (ca. 20% versus ca. 6%,respectively). Catfish elements had lowburning rates, but as at other sites char-ring was equally represented on cranialand vertebral bones, reflecting differenthandling of siluriforms and again raisingthe possibility of burning-mediated de-struction of vertebrae.

Cuts were noted on about 4% of fishbones at FC1, nearly all on those of cich-lids (Table 6). Most lay on the lateral re-gions of the skull, reflecting disarticula-tion of cranial units from the braincase,and on the posterior of the braincase, re-flecting detachment of head from verte-brae. As at other sites, body size condi-tioned the occurrence of cutmarks; onlyone cut was noted on fish ,30 cm totallength (Fig. 17).

AS1: A Turkana Fish-Processing Camp

Table 6 presents data from AS1, pub-lished and discussed in greater detail in

FIG. 17. Site 06: crocodile (Crocodylus niloticu(white bar 5 1 cm).

Stewart (1991) and Stewart and Gifford-Gonzalez (1994). Vertebral elementswere very rare, especially for siluriformelements, where deletion by transport ofbackbones away from the site in driedbody sections may have exacerbated in-place destruction by roasting. Burningoccurred on about 11% of fish bones, inpatterns similar to that in the FC1 as-semblage, with most on anterior cranialelements of larger perciforms, reflectingthe roasting of fish heads for immediateconsumption while drying the rest of thebodies.

All cuts and slices in the AS1 assem-blage were on bones of Nile perch over100 cm long. This size class lacked mostvertebral elements, precluding evalua-tion of cuts on that body segment. About70% of cutmarks in the extant axial sam-ple were shallow, fine striations near themidline on ribs, suggesting inflictionduring filleting. Deep slices were rarer

humerus; weathering after 10 years’ exposure
s)

Barthelme, John W.


and clustered on rib shafts, suggestingdamage during preliminary sectioningof the body into segments. The nextdensest concentration of cutmarks wasin the cranial area, primarily on postcle-ithral elements, where 17% of specimensbore cuts on distal ends, probably madeduring detachment of the head. Three ofthe remaining seven cuts and slices onAS1 fish bones lay on the parasphenoid,on the ventral side of the braincase: theywere deep and probably reflect attemptsto hack into the neural cavity ventrally.The balance of cuts lay on various bodysegments, presumably made while sec-tioning the body.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research by Gifford-Gonzalez and Stewart wasundertaken with permission of the Office of the Pres-ident of the Republic of Kenya and under sponsor-ship of the Trustees of the National Museums ofKenya. Funding for Gifford-Gonzalez’s original fieldresearch came from a U.S. National Science Founda-tion Grant and a National Defense Act (Title IV)Fellowship; later visits were funded by the L. S. B.Leakey Foundation. She thanks Loriano Kesia, An-drew Kilonzo, Jack Kilonzo, Juma Hassan, RichardLeakey, Bernard Mangoka, and Michael Mehlmanfor their invaluable help with fieldwork and ac-knowledges the late Glynn Isaac’s material supportand unfailing encouragement. Funding for Stewart’sresearch was provided by the Social Science andHumanities Council of Canada. She thanks KayBehrensmeyer, Mohamed Issahakia, Meave Leakey,Richard Leakey, Harry Merrick, and the Koobi ForaField School for facilitating her field research.Rybczynski thanks Stewart Peck, Hans Damman,and George Carmody (Carleton University) as wellas her parents, for commenting on her work. Weacknowledge the anonymous reviewers of this articlefor their advice. We thank the gal dies and Das-sanetch fishers of Ileret and Lobang’ole and the Tur-kana fishers of Kalakol for their cooperation.

REFERENCES

Almagor, Uri1978 Pastoral partners. Affinity and bond partnership

among the Dassanetch of Southwest Ethiopia.Manchester, Manchester Univ. Press.

Auffenberg, W.1981 The fossil turtles of Olduvai Gorge, Tanza-

nia, Africa. Copeia 3:509–552.

1981 Late Pleistocene-Holocene prehistory of thenortheast of Lake Turkana, Kenya. Ph.D. dis-sertation, University of California, Univer-sity Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Beadle, L. C.1981 The inland waters of tropical Africa. Longman,

London.

Behrensmeyer, Anna K.1975 East Rudolf paleoecology. Bulletin Museum of

Comparative Zoology 146:473–578.1978 Taphonomic and ecologic information from

bone weathering. Paleobiology 4:150–162.

Belcher, William R.1994 Butchery practices and the ethnoarchaeol-

ogy of South Asian fisherfolk. In Fish Exploi-tation in the past, edited by W. van Neer, pp.169–176. Annales du Musee Royal del’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques, no

274, Tervuren.

Binford, Lewis R.1978 Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press,

Orlando.

Bleed, P.1992 Ready for anything: Technological adapta-

tions to ecological diversity at Yagi, an EarlyJomon community in southwestern Hok-kaido, Japan. In Pacific northeast Asia in pre-history: Hunter–fisher gatherers, farmers, andsociopolitical elites, edited by C. M. Aikensand S. N. Rhee. Washington State Univ.Press, Pullman.

Blumenschine, Robert J.1988 An experimental model of timing of homi-

nid and carnivore influence on archaeolog-ical bone assemblages. Journal of Archaeolog-ical Science 15:483–502.

Brewer, Douglas J.1991 Fishing in prehistoric Egypt: Inferences

from faunal remains. In Beamers, bobwhitesand blue points. Tributes to the career of Paul W.Parmalee, edited by J. R. Purdue, W. E. Klip-pel, and B. W. Styles, pp. 333–340. IllinoisState Museum, Springfield.

Butler, Virginia1993 Natural versus cultural salmonid remains:

Remains of the Dalles roadside bones, Co-lumbia River, Oregon, U.S.A. Journal of Ar-chaeological Science 201:1–24.

Butzer, Karl W.1971 Recent history of an Ethiopian Delta. Research

paper no. 136, Department of Geography,University of Chicago, Chicago.

Carr, Claudia J.1977 Pastoralism in crisis: The Dassanetch and their

Ethiopian lands. Research paper no. 180, De-

partment of Geography, University of Chi- Hayden, Brian


cago, Chicago.

Casteel, Richard W.1976 Fish remains in archaeology. Academic Press,

San Francisco.

Colburn, Mona L., Lucretia Kelly, and JulianneSnider

1991 Redear sunfish in the Late Holocene of Illi-nois. In Beamers, bobwhites and blue points.Tributes to the career of Paul W. Parmalee, ed-ited by J. R. Purdue, W. E. Klippel, and B. W.Styles, pp. 67–79. Illinois State Museum,Springfield.

Gifford, Diane P.1977 Observations of modern human settlements as

an aid to archaeological interpretation. Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, Uni-versity Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1978 Ethnoarchaeological observations on natu-ral processes affecting cultural materials. InExplorations in ethnoarchaeology, edited byR. A. Gould, pp. 77–101. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.

1980 Ethnoarchaeological contributions to the ta-phonomy of human sites. In Fossils in themaking, edited by A. K. Behrensmeyer andA. P. Hill, pp. 93–106. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Gifford, Diane P., and Anna K. Behrensmeyer1977 Observed formation and burial of a recent

human occupation site in Kenya. QuaternaryResearch 8, 245–266.

Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane1984 Taphonomic specimens, Lake Turkana. Na-

tional Geographic Research Reports. 1976Projects, pp. 419–428.

1989 Ethnographic analogues for interpretingmodified bones: Some cases from East Af-rica. In Bone modification, edited by R. Bon-nichsen and M. Sorg, pp. 179–246. Institutefor Quaternary Studies, University ofMaine, Orono.

Harris, John W. K.1978 The Karari industry. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-

versity of California, University Microfilms,Ann Arbor.

Harris, John W. K., Peter G. Williamson, P. J. Morris,Jean de Heinzelin, J. Verniers, Daniel Helgren,Randy V. Bellomo, Gregory Laden, T. W. Spang,Kathlyn Stewart, and Martha J. Tappen

1990 Archaeology of the Lusso Beds. In Evolutionof environments and hominidae in the AfricanWestern Rift Valley, edited by N. T. Boaz, pp.237–272. Virginia Museum of Natural His-tory, Martinsville.

1994 Competition, labor, and complex hunter–gatherers. In Key issues in hunter–gatherer re-search, edited by E. S. Burch, Jr. and L. J.Ellanna, pp. 223–239. Berg, Providence.

Hopson, Anthony J.1982 The biology of Lates niloticus in Lake Tur-

kana. In Lake Turkana. A report on the findingsof the Lake Turkana Project 1972–1975, editedby A. J. Hopson, pp. 1285–1303. OverseasDevelopment Office, London.

Klein, Richard G., and Cruz-Uribe, Kathryn1984 The analysis of animal bones from archeological

sites. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Koch, Amy

1995 The MacIntosh fauna. Plains Anthropologist40(151):39–60.

Leakey, Mary D.1971 Olduvai Gorge, vol. 3 excavations in Beds 1 and

2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Leakey, Meave G., Craig S. Feibel, R. L. Bernor, JohnM. Harris, Thure E. Cerling, Kathlyn M. Stewart,G. W. Storrs, Alan Walker, L. Werdelin, and A. J.Winkler

1996 Lothagam: A record of faunal change in thelate Miocene of East Africa. Journal of Verte-brate Paleontology 16(3):556–570.

Lyman, R. Lee1993 A study of variation in the prehistoric butch-

ery of large artiodactyls. In Ancient peoplesand landscapes, edited by E. Johnson, pp.233–253. Texas Tech University, Lubbock,TX.

Morales Muniz, Arturo1993 Where are the tunas? Ancient Iberian fish-

ing industries from an archaeozoologicalpoint of view. In Skeletons in her cabinet.Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock, edited by A.Clason, S. Payne, and H.-P. Uerpmann, pp.135–141. Oxbow Monograph, Oxford.

Nicholson, R. A.1993 A morphological investigation of burnt ani-

mal bone and an evaluation of its utility inarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science20(4):411–428.

O’Connell, James F.1987 Alyawara site structure and its archaeologi-

cal implications. American Antiquity 52:74–108.

1995 Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory ofbehavior. Journal of Archaeological Research3(3):205–255.

O’Connell, James F., Kristen Hawkes, and NicholasBlurton-Jones

1988 Hadza scavenging: Implications for Plio-Pleistocene hominid subsistence. CurrentAnthropology 29:356–363.

Peters, Joris, and Angela von den Driesch iour. Journal of Human Evolution 27(1–3):229–


1993 Mesolithic fishing at the junction of the Nileand Atbara, southern Sudan. In Skeletons inher cabinet. Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock,edited by A. Clason, S. Payne, and H.-P.Uerpmann, pp. 75–83. Oxbow Monograph,Oxford.

Rybczynski, Natalia, Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, andKathlyn M. Stewart

1996 The ethnoarchaeology of reptile remains ata Lake Turkana occupation site, Kenya. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 23(6):863–867.

Schalk, R. F.1977 The structure of an anadromous fish re-

source. In For theory building in archaeology,edited by L. Binford, pp. 207–249. AcademicPress, New York.

Stewart, Kathlyn M.1989 Fishing sites of North and East Africa in the Late

Pleistocene and Holocene. Environmentalchange and human adaptation. British Archae-ological Reports 521. Cambridge Mono-graphs in African Archaeology, Oxford.

1991 Modern fishbone assemblages at Lake Tur-kana, Kenya—A methodology to aid in rec-ognition of hominid fish utilisation. Journalof Archaeological Science 18(5):579–603.

1994 Early hominid utilisation of fish resourcesand implications for seasonality and behav-

245.

Stewart, Kathlyn M. and Diane Gifford-Gonzalez1994 An ethnoarchaeological contribution to

identifying hominid fish processing sites.Journal of Archaeological Science 21:237–249.

Stiner, Mary C., Steven L. Kuhn, Stephen Weiner,and Ofer Bar-Yosef

1995 Differential burning, recrystallization, andfragmentation of archaeological bone. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 22(2):223–237.

Taylor, R. E., T. D. White, and P. E. Hare1995 Geochemical criteria for thermal alteration

of bone. Journal of Archaeological Science22(1):115–119.

Voorhies, Michael R.1969 Taphonomy and population dynamics of an

early Pliocene vertebrate fauna, Knoxcounty, Nebraska. University of Wyomingcontributions to Geology. Special paper no. 1.

Wing, Elizabeth and A. B. Brown1979 Paleonutrition. Academic Press, New York.

Yellen, John E.1977 Archaeological approaches to the present: Mod-

els for reconstructing the past. Academic Press,New York.

human activities and site formation at modern lake margin foraging camps in kenya

Documents