Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-dqfph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-27T09:27:18.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hunting Strategies in the Central European Palaeolithic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2014

Clive Gamble
Clive Gamble
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now generally recognised that the activity known as hunting is a complex but predictable adaptation of small social units to the variable structure of the environment. In the last decade we have passed from the model of the hunter as a ‘catch-as-catch-can’ opportunist to an appreciation of his ability to exploit resources in both a systematic and efficient manner (Wilmsen 1973; Williams 1974; Jochim 1976). The investigation of how hunting decisions are made has led to a fuller appreciation of the component parts of this particular lifestyle, with the result that attention has shifted from technology, as the principal interest, to considerations of resource exploitation, demography, settlement location, interaction, and mating networks (Higgs 1976; Wobst 1974, 1976). In particular the differing adaptations of hunter-gatherer groups have been examined in relation to variations in the global ecosystem which shows a spatial succession of habitat types, grading from generalised to specialised, between the equatorial tropics and the arctic poles (Harris 1969; Yellen and Harpending 1972). While this is a most convenient framework for predicting many variable features of hunter-gatherer organisation, e.g. territory size and cultural patterning, its extreme generality obscures the options that exist within ecosystems at the smaller scale of local adaptation. Thus, far from confining hunting outcomes to broad eco-determinism, decisions made by hunting bands will be influenced by immediate features of the environment such as the location of grazing areas and the configurations of relief. The outcomes as seen in settlement patterns and demographic arrangements may well resemble, at a local level, the expected pattern as influenced by generalised environmental conditions, while viewed at a wider scale the prevailing environment might be highly specialised (Gamble 1978b, 181). The purpose of this paper is to examine, by means of a case study, a comparative structure for palaeolithic hunting strategies that involved the exploitation of large mammals.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 45 , December 1979 , pp. 35 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, G., Hahn, J., von Koenigswald, W., Müller-Beck, H., Taute, W. and Wille, W., 1976. ‘Die klimatische Veränderung des terrestrischen Lebensraumes und ihre Rückwirkung auf den Menschen’, Zentralblatt für Geologie und Paläontologie II, 5/6, 449–479.Google Scholar
Barker, G. W. W., 1975. ‘Prehistoric territories and economies in Central Italy’, in Higgs, E. S. (ed.), Palaeoeconomy, 111–175. University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bell, R. H. V., 1971. ‘A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti’, Scientific American 225, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berckhemer, F. and Peters, E., 1935. ‘Die Irpfelhöhle bei Giengen a.d. Brenz’, Fundberichte aus Schwaben, N.F. 8, 10–15.Google Scholar
Binford, S. R., 1968. ‘Early upper pleistocene adaptations in the Levant’, American Anthropologist 70, 707–717.Google Scholar
Bosinski, G., 1967. Die Mittelpaläolithischen Funde im Westlichen Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta Köln, Reihe A Band 4.Google Scholar
Clutton Brock, T. H. and Harvey, P. H., 1978. ‘Mammals, resources and reproductive strategies’, Nature 273, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, I., 1976. ‘Les Mallaetes and Mondúver’, In Sieveking, G. de G., Longworth, I. H. and Wilson, K. E. (eds), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, 483–499. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Ewer, R. F., 1973. The Carnivores. Weidenfield and Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
Fraas, O., 1862. ‘Der Hohlenstein und der Höhlenbär’, Jahreshefte Verein für vaterländische Naturkunde 18.Google Scholar
Freeman, L. G., 1973. ‘The significance of mammalian faunas from palaeolithic occupations in Cantabrian Spain’, American Antiquity 38, 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, C. S., 1978a. Animal communities and their relationship to prehistoric economies in Western Europe. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University Library, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gamble, C. S., 1978b. ‘Resource exploitation and the spatial patterning of hunter-gatherers: a case study’, In Green, D., Haselgrove, G. and Spriggs, M. (eds), Social Organisation and Settlement: Contributions from Anthropology, Archaeology and Geography, 153–185. British Archaeological Reports International Series (Supplementary) 47, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hahn, J., 1970. ‘Die Stellung der männlichen Statuette aus demHohlenstein-Stadel in der jungpaläolithischen Kunst’, Germania 48, 1–12.Google Scholar
Hahn, J., 1973. ‘Ausgrabungen eines spätpaläolithischen Rastplatzes in der Spitzbubenhöhle, Gem. Herbrechtigen-Eselsburg, Kreis Heidenheim (Baden-Württemberg)’, In Müller-Beck, H-J. (ed.), Neue paläolithische und mesolithische Ausgrabungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 55–58. Zum IX INQUA-Kongress, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Hahn, J., n.d. Der Hohlenstein im Lonetal (Markung Asselfingen, Kreis Ulm) Mesolithikum und Jungpaläolithikum. Forschung und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Baden-Württembergs.Google Scholar
Hahn, J. and von Koenigswald, W., 1977. ‘Die steinzeitlichen Funde und die Spätglaziale Nagertierschicht aus der kleinen Scheuer am Hohlenstein im Lonetal’, Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 3, 51–75.Google Scholar
Hahn, J., Müller-Beck, H. and Taute, W., 1973. Eiszeithöhlen im Lonetal, Müller & Gräff, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Hardesty, D. L., 1977. Ecological Anthropology. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Harris, D. R., 1969. ‘Agricultural systems, ecosystems and the origins of agriculture’. In Ucko, P. J. and Dimbleby, G. W. (eds), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, 3–15. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Heptner, V. G., Nasimovitsch, A. A. and Bannikov, A. G., 1966. Die Säugetiere der Sowjetunion. Paarhufer und Unpaarhufer. Jena.Google Scholar
Higgs, E. S., 1976. ‘The history of European agriculture—the uplands’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 275, 159–173.Google Scholar
Horn, H. S., 1968. ‘The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's blackbird. (Euphagus cyanocephalus)’, Ecology 49, 682–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jánossy, D., 1963–1964. ‘Letzinterglaciale Vertebraten-Fauna aus der Kálmán Lambrecht-Höhle (Bükk-Gebirge, Nordost-Ungarn)’, Acta Zoologica Academie Scientifica Hungarica 9, 293–331; 10, 139–197.Google Scholar
Jochim, M. A., 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Settlement and Subsistence. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Karr, J. R., 1971. ‘Structure of avian communities in selected Panama and Illinois habitats’, Ecological Monographs 41, 207–233.Google Scholar
Koenigswald, W. von and Schmidt-Kittler, N., 1972. ‘Eine Wirbeltierfauna des Riss/Würm-Interglazials von Erkenbrechtsweiler (Schwäbische Alb, Baden-Württemberg)’, Mitteilung Bayerische Staatssammlungen Paläontologie historische Geologie 12, 143–147.Google Scholar
Koken, E., 1912. ‘Die Geologie und Tierwelt der paläolithischen Kulturstätten Deutschlands’. In Schmidt, R. R. (ed.), Die Diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands, 159–228. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Krukk, H. and Turner, M., 1967. ‘Comparative notes on predation by lion, leopard, cheetah and wild dog in the Serengeti area, East Africa’, Mammalia 31, 1–27.Google Scholar
Lehmann, U., 1954. ‘Die Fauna des “Vogelherds” bei Stetten ob Lonetal (Württemberg)’, Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie 99, 33–146.Google Scholar
Lehmann, U., 1960. ‘Paläontologische Forschung im Lonetal und Brenztal’, Jahreshefte für Karst und Höhlenkunde 1, 105–118.Google Scholar
Lehmann, U., 1969. ‘Die Fauna’. In Wetzel, R. and Bosinski, G. (eds), Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal (Markung Rammingen, Kreis Ulm), 133–167. Veröffentlichungen des staatlichen Amtes für Denkmalpflege A 15, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Mania, D. and Toepfer, V. 1973. Königsaue. Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle, Band 26, Berlin.Google Scholar
McNaughton, S. J. and Wolf, L. L. 1970. ‘Dominance and niche in ecological systems’, Science 167, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müller-Beck, H-J., 1957. Das obere Altpaläolithikum in Süddeutschland Teil I. Bonn.Google Scholar
Peters, E., 1931. ‘Die Heidenschmiede in Heidenheim an der Brenz’, Fundberichte aus Schwaben 6, 1–36.Google Scholar
Riek, G., 1934. Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd Band 1: Die Kulturen. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Riek, G. and Heller, Fl., 1957. ‘Drei jungpaläolithische Stationenam Bruckersberg in Giengen an der Brenz’, Veröffentlichungen des Staatlichen Amtes für Denkmalpflege Stuttgart A2, 3–70.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. S., and Black, M. B., 1976. ‘Subsistence strategy in the Fish and Hare period, Northern Ontario: the Weagamow Ojibwa, 1880–1920’, Journal of Anthropological Research 32, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, G. B., 1972. The Serengeti Lion. University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Seewald, C., 1962. Urgeschichtliche Funde aus dem Lonetal. Ulm.Google Scholar
Straus, L. G., 1977. ‘Of deerslayers and mountain men: palaeolithic faunal exploitation in Cantabrian Spain’, In Binford, L. R. (ed.), For Theory Building in Archaeology, 41–76. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sturdy, D. A., 1972. Reindeer economies in late ice age Europe. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University Library, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sturdy, D. A., 1975. ‘Some reindeer economies in prehistoric Europe’, In Higgs, E. S. (ed.), Palaeoeconomy, 55–95. University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Trusheim, F., 1937. ‘Die diluvialen Tierreste aus der kleinen Ofnethöhle’, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 14, 39.Google Scholar
Van den Brink, F. H., 1967. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Britain and Europe. Collins, London.Google Scholar
Vita-Finzi, C. and Higgs, E. S., 1970. ‘Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine”, PPS 36, 1–37.Google Scholar
Wetzel, R., 1961. ‘Die Hohlenstein im Lonetal’, Mitteilungen des Vereins für Naturwissenschaft und Mathematik in Ulm 26, 21–75.Google Scholar
Wetzel, R. and Bosinski, G. (eds), 1969. Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal (Markung Rammingen, Kreis Ulm). Veröffentlichungen des Staatlichen Amtes für Denkmalpflege A 15, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Williams, B. J., 1974. ‘A model of Band Society’, Memoir of the Society for American Archaeology 29.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, E. N., 1973. ‘Interaction, spacing behaviour, and the organisation of hunting bands’, Journal of Anthropological Research 29, 1–31.Google Scholar
Wobst, H. M., 1974. ‘Boundary conditions for palaeolithic social systems: a simulation approach’, American Antiquity 39, 147–178.Google Scholar
Wobst, H. M., 1976. ‘Locational relationships in palaeolithic society’, Journal of Human Evolution 5, 49–58.Google Scholar
Yellen, J. E., and Harpending, H. C., 1972. ‘Hunter-gatherer populations and archaeological inference’. World Archaeology 4, 244–253.Google Scholar