The Evolution of Paleolithic Hunting Weapons: A Response to Declining Prey Size

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper by Ben-Dor and Barkai represents another in a series of articles in which the authors advocate the view that the progressive decline in prey size led to changes in the repertoire of hunting weapons and the way of hunting in the Paleolithic. In earlier works, especially those related to the study of the transition from the Lower to the Middle Paleolithic in the Levant, the authors have indeed offered convincing evidence for this hypothesis. However, in this paper, the authors -- with their unifying hypothesis-- encompassed almost all continents and the entire Paleolithic. It is therefore clear that this is not a hypothesis to be tested on a given material, but a generalization that inevitably led to simplification in the interpretation of complex topics such as the evolution of technology and long-term changes in hunting behavior.

In their work, the authors mainly focused on the transition from the Lower to the Middle Paleolithic in Europe and Africa and the transition from the MSA to the LSA in Africa. Therefore, I consider that the discussion of the Upper Paleolithic is redundant (especially since it is not clear which geographic area is considered) since it is not based on the results of the analysis, but on the discussion of certain issues related to prey size and the way of hunting in that period. Therefore, parts of the discussion related to the Upper Paleolithic should be eliminated or minimized, and the same applies to the conclusions related to the entire Paleolithic. After all, the paper does not mention a single example that would refer to artifacts, prey size and hunting methods in the Upper Paleolithic of Europe and Asia.

The paper is very well written, however, the large scale interpretation (the whole Palaeolithic!) and the consequent necessary simplification and reductionism are not productive.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

• We changed the headings structure to Africa and Europe.
• We reworked the figures and table.
• We added a map with site location.
• We corrected all the minor modifications.
• We added a sentence about future directions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the relationship between the shape and size of the lithic tools and the type of animals hunted in each period has been raised on numerous occasions, it is very interesting this type of studies in which the different cause and effect relationships are reflected statistically. 

Material and methods: I would highlight the contribution of the differentiation between NISP and MNI and the problems involved in their assessment depending on whether postdepositional processes, among others, are taken into account. I think it is important not to leave these approaches aside when assessing certain data, and I think it is very appropriate that this is pointed out in the text.

The selection of sites is appropriate for the volume of remains and their chronology, but I miss some table or explanation that lists and counts the number of large herbivore remains analyzed in each site. 

I find very interesting the section 4.4. relating the decrease in prey size and the evolution of cognition. Its exposition is correct but it almost goes unnoticed. Therefore, perhaps this discussion has fallen short, especially if we see that it is an important point in the conclusions, and having been mentioned in the summary of the article. 

Summarizing, I consider that this is an article that will be widely read, especially by young researchers; it is an easily understandable text and it raises interpretations that are being analysed from different points of view, which enriches the vision of the past. 

In Table 1, delete the double space in the paragraph for the first site (Elandsfontein). 

I don't like the design of the blue and orange bar charts. I consider the article to be of great interest and this type of chart is not up to the task from an aesthetic point of view. Moreover, 0% of Bolomor is almost invisible.

Author Response

• We did not discuss further the reasons for using MNI. We felt that the subject is adequately covered for a paper in which the difference between NISP and MNI is not the main issue.
• We listed in Table 1 the total number of MNI in each site.
• We tried to improve the graphic quality of the figures.

Reviewer 3 Report

Miki Ben-Dor and Ran Barkai paper deals with the evolution of Palaeolithic hunting weapons. Specifically, it tries to relate this trend to a progressive decline in prey size. In order to test the abovementioned hypothesis, the authors selected five case studies in Africa and Europe. They focus on megaherbivores in the Acheulean/ESA and MP/MSA periods. Evidence of a decline in megaherbivores' presence and biomass is discussed in view of data related to hunting weapons (i.e., wooden-tipped spears, stone-tipped spears, bows and arrows), which also present a reduction in point size over time. The authors conclude that the changes observed in hunting weapons and strategies were driven by availability and prey size. In fact, this paper analyses a specific sub-hypothesis of a broader contribution previously published by the authors [1]. The large Introduction section gives needed information on the topics under analysis, clearly showing that the authors are aware of the existing bibliography. Materials and Methods presents the case studies and methodologies applied, with an in-depth discussion of the later – relative abundance and relative biomass of megaherbivores. Results are presented according to geographical provenance; this section is divided into Africa, Spain, and France (why not Africa and Western Europe, followed by corresponding sub-divisions?). An interesting discussion follows, beginning by acknowledging the small sample analyzed. Several relevant aspects are then discussed, namely the energetic return and prey size, tipping spear with stone points, developing complex weapon systems, and prey size decline and the evolution of cognition. Finally, the Conclusion succinctly summarizes the main results and proposals. This paper gives a scientific-sound look into interesting topics and debates, with an updated and broad perspective on the matters under discussion. The Figures and Tables need some work, but all are needed and relevant to this approach. The bibliography is updated and comprehensive. Overall, even if some minor modifications are suggested, they are more formal than related to the content of this paper that is of interest, worthy of publication in Quaternary and easily citable among experts. This is an interesting contribute to debates on human evolution.

Minor modifications:

-       Please standardize the way acronyms are used (with or without “.”; e.g., line 83) throughout the paper

-       Table 1. Add geographical provenance and chronology

-       I suggest adding a map with the sites mentioned in the text

-       For comparison purposes, it would be better if the size of the graphs is proportional. For example, in Figure 1, 22% in the upper graph is bigger than 58% in the lower graph. The same would apply to the remaining graphs. Standardize the graphs’ size in a way that the bar relative values are proportional throughout figures

-       Line 299. From 0% to 25%, I would not call it “slight”

-       Figure 5. Orgnac, not Ornac

-       Line 398. Delete the “.” before [

-       Line 434. “we” not “We”

-       Mind the use of italics (e.g. lines 461 a& 482 bos/bison)

-  I suggest adding a small paragraph on the future directions of this line of research.

Author Response

We do not agree with the reviewer that a discussion of the UP is unwarranted because we did not present specific data on the UP. We noted (and now repeat it in the section) that the decline in prey size during the UP is quite accepted. It would have been unnatural to stop the discussion in the MP since there was a change in hunting weapons also in the UP. We note that the other two reviewers did not raise this point.