Journal of Archaeological Science (2001) 28, 1259–1263 doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0703, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on FOCUS: The Scapula Representation could be the Key: A Further Contribution to the ‘Klasies Pattern’ Debate Alan K. Outram Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QE, U.K. (Received 22 March 2000, revised manuscript accepted 2 March 2001) Past discussion on the unusual skeletal part representations at Klasies River Mouth is briefly summarized. Recent discussion in this journal, regarding the ‘‘Klasies Pattern’’, has focused upon the differential destruction of small and large bovid bone epiphyses by carnivore ravaging and density-mediated attrition. Bartram & Marean (1999) argue, from ethnoarchaeological study and consideration of other archaeological sites, that, unless shaft fragments are painstakingly identified, the upper limb bone epiphyses of large bovids will be seriously under-represented. They therefore suggest that the ‘‘Klasies Pattern’’ is likely to be artefact of taphonomic and analytical processes. Klein, Cruz-Uribe & Milo (1999) replied with a defence of the analytical procedures employed during the original Klasies River Mouth analysis. They also state that there was very little evidence of carnivore ravaging at Klasies River Mouth. In this paper, it is pointed out that Bartram & Marean’s (1999) study only considered the humerus, radius, femur, tibia and metapodia. However, in the ‘‘Klasies Pattern’’ it is the scapula that is most notably abundant in the small bovid classes and most notably scarce in the large bovid classes. It is argued that, from the study of bone mineral densities and Brain’s (1981) carnivore ravaging experiment, there is no reason to expect a differentially greater taphonomic destruction of large bovid scapulae. In fact, exactly the reverse may be true. It is therefore argued that at least this aspect of the ‘‘Klasies Pattern’’ must be considered to represent human differential bone transport, rather than an artefact of taphonomic processes.  2001 Academic Press Keywords: FAUNAL ANALYSIS, KLASIES RIVER MOUTH, SKELETAL PART REPRESENTATION, TAPHONOMY, DENSITY-MEDIATED ATTRITION. Introduction T he causes of the ‘‘Klasies Pattern’’ have now been a source of zooarchaeological debate for around a quarter of a century and the subject still stimulates much interest. In Klein’s (1976) report on the faunal remains at the MSA site of Klasies River Mouth, South Africa, he divided up the animals into size classes. These classes were small, small medium, medium, large medium, large and very large (Klein, 1976: 76). These classes are broadly equivalent to Brain’s (1981: 9) classes I (0–23 kg), II (23–84 kg), III (84–296 kg), IV (more than 296 kg) and V (reserved for the giant buffalo, Pelorovis antiquus) respectively. It became clear that there was a disparity between the skeletal part representations for the smaller and larger animals. The smaller classes seemed to be well repre- sented by high-utility, upper limb bones, whilst the large and very large classes seemed to be dominated by low-utility, lower limb bones (Klein, 1976: 87). Klein (ibid.) found an explanation in the ‘‘schlepp effect’’. The ‘‘schlepp effect’’ was an idea formulated by Perkins & Daly (1968) to account for a similar pattern at their Neolithic site of Suberde in Turkey. They had postulated that the large limb bones of sizeable animals were discarded at the kill site and the meat was dragged back in the hide using the still-attached foot bones as handles (ibid.). In his major re-analysis of the Klasies River Mouth material, Binford (1984) argued against this expla- nation saying that the ‘‘schlepp effect’’ went against his observations of hunter-gatherer peoples. Binford (1984) argued that the pattern of large numbers of heads and lower limbs, amongst size class IV and V animals, was indicative of scavenging. These elements, he argued, were the elements that would still be avail- able after big cats had finished with a carcass. He supported his view with detailed study of the butchery marks. He claimed that the butchery of small mammals was consistent with butchery of fresh meat whilst, on the large animals, it looked like the disarticulation of semi-dried carcasses. He further argued, from marrow utility indices he had created for sheep and caribou (Binford, 1978), that the lower limb bones were par- ticularly worth scavenging for their marrow content. He concluded that the hominids at Klasies River Mouth hunted small game but were only capable of scavenging from the carcasses of larger animals (Binford, 1984). Klein (1989) defended his position, pointing out that Binford’s ethnographic studies had only been related to medium sized animals, and that, in considering 1259 0305–4403/01/1201259+05 $35.00/0  2001 Academic Press