Abstract Trophic level, which serves as a basic determinant of the evolutionary pathway of animals, including humans, emerges as, primarily, a product of relative energetic returns and food items availability. The concept of trophic level flexibility during the Paleolithic period for the highly adaptable human species represents a prevailing paradigm in the field of paleoanthropology. This paradigm largely relies on the observed variability of trophic levels among recent hunter-gatherer societies. We examine various methodological aspects involved in using ethnographic quantitative data as an analogical source for reconstructing the energetic returns of humans during the Paleolithic period and, consequently, their trophic level. By analyzing datasets from several studies, we highlight potential limitations that may arise when applying such analogies. In the past we argued that Paleolithic humans preferred to acquire the largest available prey. This assertion met with objection, based on ethnographic analogies. In addition to pointing out the limitations to the validity of such analogies, we propose that archaeofaunal records provide detectable reflection of prey ranking and thus their relative energetic returns without the need for detailed numerical reconstruction of energetic returns based on the ethnographic record. We introduce the Kakwani Concentration Index, originally developed in Economics to measure directionality and strength of inequality, as a measure of directionality and strength in the size ranking of prey in Archaeological assemblages to test preference for large prey. We propose that the paradigm of flexibility is based on adaptations that occurred following the Late Quaternary Megafaunal Extinctions during and after which prey size availability patterns have markedly changed. In contrast, as evidenced by the technological persistence of simple hunting tools and assemblages with large herbivores throughout the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, subsistence strategies likely centered on large prey, which can be deduced by the lack of composite projectile hunting tools for a substantial portion of human evolution. The paper re-emphasizes that ethnoarchaeological analogies should be treated as testable hypotheses, and they may hold potential validity for behaviors that exhibit cross-cultural correlates. Ultimately, it suggests that no such correlates are present in some influential hunting energetic returns and human trophic level reconstructions. We argue that the technological, ecological and cognitive non-analog features of ethnographic energetic returns datasets are too great to be predictive of the Paleolithic nutritional pattern.
Ben‐Dor et al. (Tue,) studied this question.