Prey Body Size and Ranking in Zooarchaeology: Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Applications from the Northern Great Basin

Abstract

<jats:p>The use of body size as an index of prey rank in zooarchaeology has fostered a widely applied approach to understanding variability in foraging efficiency. This approach has, however, been critiqued—most recently by the suggestion that large prey have high probabilities of failed pursuits. Here, we clarify the logic and history of using body size as a measure of prey rank and summarize empirical data on the body size-return rate relationship. With few exceptions, these data document strong positive relationships between prey size and return rate. We then illustrate, with studies from the Great Basin, the utility of body size-based abundance indices (e.g., the Artiodactyl Index) when used as one component of multidimensional analyses of prehistoric diet breadth. We use foraging theory to derive predictions about Holocene variability in diet breadth and test those predictions using the Artiodactyl Index and over a dozen other archaeological indices. The results indicate close fits between the predictions and the data and thus support the use of body size-based abundance indices as measures of foraging efficiency. These conclusions have implications for reconstructions of Holocene trends in large game hunting in western North America and for zooarchaeological applications of foraging theory in general.</jats:p>

Large mammal biomass predicts the changing distribution of hunter-gatherer settlements in mid-late Holocene Alaska

“…Typically, diet selection models find that prey rank correlates with animal body size (Broughton et al, 2011;Byers and Ugan, 2005;cf. Bayham, 1979;Bird et al, 2009).…”

Hide, Tallow and Terrapin: Gold Rush-Era Zooarchaeology at Thompson’s Cove (CA-SFR-186H), San Francisco, California

“…As such, avian distribution and abundance (evenness) may provide evidence of Gold Rush-era subsistence activity during specific seasons of the year. We hypothesize that Gold Rush features 7 and 14 (rapidly deposited and temporally controlled deposits) accumulated during the winter months due to their relative abundance of ducks and geese-a test of evenness will support or refute this hypothesis, in addition to the anatid index calculated by the equation Σ(anatids)/ Σ(anatids+Aves) (see Broughton 1994;Broughton et al 2011).…”

Optimizing Energy - The Epistemology of Primitive Economic Man

“…The mathematical representations of principles related to maxima and minima, least-action, and conservation of the active force or energy, developed primarily in the 17th and 18th centuries to describe the movements and interactions of matter in the nonliving world, deeply influenced deductively-based ideas about human nature and human health patterns in the 19th and 20th centuries. Many of these latter ideas have remained intact in the PEM or optimization frameworks in 21 st century archaeology (e.g., Broughton et al, 2011). PEM was buried in the nutrition sciences 80 years ago, yet schemes involving protein pills and bad carbohydrates continue to capture the imagination into the 21 st century (e.g., see Carpenter, 1994 for protein supremacy arguments reminiscent of Liebig's methods from the middle 1800s).…”

“…A review of the biological and anthropological literature suggests that it does not (Campbell, 1987;Emlen and Emlen, 1975;Gray, 1987;Heider, 1976;Ingold, 2000;Keene, 1983;Pierce and Ollason, 1987;Schluter, 1981;Weiss, 2000). Yet the 21 st century began where the 20 th century left off, with anthropologists and archaeologists continuing to argue that human behaviors are best explained through reductionistic models of efficiency of energy capture (e.g., Broughton et al, 2011;Winterhalder and Smith, 2000). Further, human behaviors that were shown to exist outside of an energy optimization model were argued to represent 'ancillary variables' to understanding why, for example, humans forage for food in specific ways (Winterhalder and Smith, 2000).…”

“…Models that focus only on macronutrients, or that give paramount importance to energy as an explanatory framework (e.g., Broughton et al, 2011) reduce data to the point that meaningful interpretations of the past are an unlikely outcome.…”