A systematic review of animal predation creating pierced shells: implications for the archaeological record of the Old World

Abstract

BackgroundThe shells of molluscs survive well in many sedimentary contexts and yield information about the diet of prehistoric humans. They also yield evidence of symbolic behaviours through their use as beads for body adornments. Researchers often analyse the location of perforations in shells to make judgements about their use as symbolic objects (e.g., beads), the assumption being that holes attributable to deliberate human behaviour are more likely to exhibit low variability in their anatomical locations, while holes attributable to natural processes yield more random perforations. However, there are non-anthropogenic factors that can cause perforations in shells and these may not be random. The aim of the study is compare the variation in holes in shells from archaeological sites from the Old World with the variation of holes in shells pierced by mollusc predators.MethodsThree hundred and sixteen scientific papers were retrieved from online databases by using keywords, (e.g., ‘shell beads’; ‘pierced shells’; ‘drilling predators’); 79 of these publications enabled us to conduct a systematic review to qualitatively assess the location of the holes in the shells described in the published articles. In turn, 54 publications were used to assess the location of the holes in the shells made by non-human predators.ResultsAlmost all archaeological sites described shells with holes in a variety of anatomical locations. High variation of hole-placement was found within the same species from the same site, as well as among sites. These results contrast with research on predatory molluscs, which tend to be more specific in where they attacked their prey. Gastropod and bivalve predators choose similar hole locations to humans.DiscussionBased on figures in the analysed articles, variation in hole-location on pierced shells from archaeological sites was similar to variation in the placement of holes created by non-human animals. Importantly, we found that some predators choose similar hole locations to humans. We discuss these findings and identify factors researchers might want to consider when interpreting shells recovered from archaeological contexts.

Predation in the marine fossil record: Studies, data, recognition, environmental factors, and behavior

“…Millimeter to centimeter-sized (sub)circular holes in shells are created by predators such as drilling organisms (Klompmaker et al, 2017;Kowalewski, 2002), stomatopods (Geary et al, 1991;Pether, 1995), crabs (Fraaye, 1996;Krantz and Chamberlin, 1978;Turra et al, 2005), humans (Kubicka et al, 2017), birds (Cadée, 1994;Harper and Kelley, 2012), fishes (Norton, 1988;Rasser and Covich, 2014), durophagous cephalopods (Klompmaker et al, 2009;Takeda et al, 2016), sharks (Mapes et al, 1995(Mapes et al, , 1989, and mosasaurs (Kauffman and Kesling, 1960;Tsujita and Westermann, 2001). Boring, including by domicile seekers, may cause non-predatory holes (Ebbestad and Tapanila, 2005;Richards and Shabica, 1969;Wilson and Palmer, 2001).…”

“…Thus, identifying a specific predator with high taxonomic resolution can be difficult for a given predation event (e.g., Klompmaker et al, 2016a;Leighton et al, 2013;Pierrehumbert and Allmon, 2018). For example, for the late Cenozoic, Kubicka et al (2017) reported that predatory drill holes and holes produced by humans for body adornments tended to be located in similar…”

Cuentas Y Tembetás Malacológicos De Los Grupos Cazadores-Recolectores Prehispánicos Del Humedal Del Paraná Inferior

“…Siguiendo los criterios de Leonardt (2013) se tuvieron en cuenta: fragmentos abradidos en su contorno, perforados y con fracturas rectas. Si bien sabemos que son amplios los procesos tafonómicos que pueden afectar las superficies de los moluscos imitando modificaciones antrópicas (Kubicka et al 2017, Szabó 2005, consideramos aquellos fragmentos que, por su tamaño, puedan haber sido parte en el proceso de manufactura de los artefactos aquí discutidos. Diferentes organismos generan perforaciones naturales al adherirse a la superficie externa de las valvas, pero esto no implica descartar la posibilidad de que los restos perforados naturalment e hayan sido reclamados para la elaboración de cuentas (Kubicka et al 2017, Szabó 2005.…”

“…Si bien sabemos que son amplios los procesos tafonómicos que pueden afectar las superficies de los moluscos imitando modificaciones antrópicas (Kubicka et al 2017, Szabó 2005, consideramos aquellos fragmentos que, por su tamaño, puedan haber sido parte en el proceso de manufactura de los artefactos aquí discutidos. Diferentes organismos generan perforaciones naturales al adherirse a la superficie externa de las valvas, pero esto no implica descartar la posibilidad de que los restos perforados naturalment e hayan sido reclamados para la elaboración de cuentas (Kubicka et al 2017, Szabó 2005. Consideramos los fragmentos con fracturas rectas que atraviesan las líneas de crecimiento la valva ya que por naturaleza las mismas se fracturan siguiendo aquellas como líneas de debilidad (Szabó 2005).…”

Ocean acidification and molluscan shell taphonomy: Can elevated seawater pCO2 influence taphonomy in a naticid predator–prey system?

“…Gastropod drilling predation is recognized as an important ecological and evolutionary component in marine ecosystems, as drilling gastropods are (and have historically been) important predators of marine molluscs globally (Commito, 1982;Kabat, 1990;Kelley and Hansen, 2003;Harper, 2006;Clements and Rawlings, 2014). The fossil record of gastropod drilling predation is a commonly studied system in palaeoecology (Kabat, 1990;Kowalewski, 2002;Kelley and Hansen, 2003;Harper, 2006;Li et al, 2011), owing to the telltale drill holes that these predators make in the shells of their prey and the high degree of fossil preservation of calcium carbonate shells (Guerrero and Reyment, 1988;Kelley and Hansen, 2003;Grey et al, 2005;Dietl and Kelley, 2006;Clements et al, 2013;Kubika et al, 2017). Such studies use drill holes to infer aspects of predator-prey ecology between drilling gastropods and their prey, and often use relative frequencies of drilled and non-drilled shells to infer predator-prey ecology (Dudley and Vermeij, 1978;Hansen and Kelley, 1995;Kelley et al, 2001;Dietl et al, 2004;Kowalewski et al, 2005;Das et al, 2013).…”