Late Pleistocene Prey Choice

It is often debated whether large game such as mammoth would have been an optimum resource for the Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers of North America. While a mammoth would have provided an exuberant amount of energy in terms of caloric quality, the post-encounter handling cost that comes with frequent mammoth predation would have been quite high. Tracking, bringing down, butchering, and then transporting a mammoth, must have been an incredibly costly endeavored. It is possible that, after the extreme handling cost, the energy return of hunting mammoth may have been less then that of medium size pray like ungulates. Including a wide range of fauna into a diet may have been more desirable subsistence method.

David Byers evaluates this issue by comparing the caloric yield and handling cost of mammoths to African elephants. Using the elephant analog and by creating an estimating encounter rates (based off of body size in relation to prey density), Byers formulates an optimal diet curve for Late Pleistocene hunter. Diet breadth is predicted by analyzing the caloric value based off elephant weight and usable meat. This is coupled with an analysis of handling time and return rates.

It is concluded that the acquisition of megafauna such as mammoth would have been “profitable within a very narrow range of circumstances where such prey were extremely abundant, easily procured, and could be processed at minimal time cost.” It would have been more likely that a wide range of mammals, both large and mid-sized, were utilized. Large, high-ranking game was probably taken when possible, but it was probably never abundant enough to allow for the proposed narrow hunting specialization.

Byers’ empirical method of analyzing Late Pleistocene prey-choice is very intriguing. It puts quantitative data behind ideas that are often only speculated. However, there seems to be an unavoidable potential for error when trying to recreate such non-analog environments and groups of people.

The study emphasizes the importance of encounter rates when discussing diet breadth. Although the body size of an animal may play a large role in prey density, many more environmental factors are involved. It would be reasonable to assume that environmental factors may have resulted in different prey-density in different areas. It is likely that some Late Pleistocene hunters had a larger diet-breadth then others. Also, the handling costs that were estimated through modern ethnographic comparison may be drastically different from that of Pleistocene hunter-gatherers.

In addition, there are many factors that go into diet choice, such as the social stigma of a particular food choice and taste that are impossible to account for when recreating diets of the distant past. If resources were abundant enough, the people of the Late Pleistocene may have had cultural influences that played a role in their diet choice.

Despite the unavoidable problems that come with implementing modern analog, the conclusion that North American Late Pleistocene relied on a wide range of resources is a reasonable one. It seems unlikely that they would focus on only large game—especially when handling cost are so high. Mammoths and other large game may have been a very desirable food source, but that does not negate the fact that other protein sources were probably more abundant and came with lower post-encounter handling costs.

Byers, David A. 2005 “Should we expect large game specialization in the late Pleistocene? An optimal foraging perspective on early Paleoindian prey choice.” Journal of Archaeological Science. 32:1624-1640