Variability in Faunal Assemblages: The Influence of Hunting Skill, Sharing, Dogs, and Mode of Cooking on Faunal Remains at a Sedentary Kalahari Community

Abstract

Variability in faunal assemblages from different sites and/or from different time periods is often attributed to economic or taphonomic factors. The role of sharing on faunal remain distributions is compared to other factors that have been suggested to influence these distributions, such as hunting skill. Faunal species and skeletal elements are compared among three hunter—gatherer camps that form a sharing network. These are contrasted with those of two other hunter—gatherer camps located at the same Kalahari community occupied by an unusual family that is a relative isolate in terms of sharing. The effect of sharing on equalizing variation in hunting success as reflected in the faunal remain inventory is explored from the five camps inventoried in 1990. Complicating factors which tend to affect faunal remain frequencies are also examined, such as cooking technique and dogs. All faunal remains visible on the surface of each camp were recorded according to species, element or fragment portion, age (mature or immature), and, when possible, side. At all but one camp, surface faunal remains were recorded both before and after ethnographic observations during the dry season of 1990. In addition to hunting success, all occurrences of sharing and consumption of meat were recorded during these observation periods and those conducted on and off between 1987 and 1992. Although participation in a sharing network obscures differences in hunting skill in the archaeological record, sharing impacts on faunal assemblages in interesting ways that are potentially archaeologically visible. Sharing in strongly egalitarian societies levels unequal hunting skill that could otherwise affect faunal remain frequencies, taxa richness, meat weight, and other indices measured here. In these societies, sharing reinforces social bonding between kin and friends in ways that help unit families from different camps. Zooarchaeologists have become accustomed to high levels of confidence in their inferences about the origins, functions, and responses to stress of animal remains. This confidence rests on the causal and functional links between attributes of these remains and the processes and contexts which generate them. Their investigations are presently moving toward wider inferences about the context and functions of bones in ancient hominids' behavioral systems… Zooarchaeologists now need a different set of inferential strategies than that which characterized their preceding phase of research. (Gifford 1991:215)