New Geometric Morphometric Insights in Digital Taphonomy: Analyses into the Sexual Dimorphism of Felids through Their Tooth Pits

Abstract

Recent studies using geometric morphometrics for taphonomy have yielded interesting results, opening new horizons of research in both archaeological and paleontological sites. Here we present the analysis of tooth pits left by male and female individuals of two different carnivore species (Panthera tigris and Panthera pardus) in order to see if sexual dimorphism influences the morphology of tooth pit marks. In the process, 3D-scanning and applied statistics were used. Based on samples derived from two individuals of different sexes, the present results indicate sexual dimorphism in these felid species to not be a conditioning factor of tooth pit morphology.

A 39,600-year-old leather punch board from Canyars, Gavà, Spain

“…Their polygonal outlines, clean edges, and faceted internal surfaces ( Figs. 4 to 6 and Table 1 ) indicate that the agents responsible for their production had a complex morphology incompatible with the action of carnivore teeth producing subconical or ogival pits ( 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 – 9 , 11 , 12 , 17 , 18 , 21 ).…”

“…Morphometric data, i.e., maximum length, width, and thickness, were collected using a digital caliper. Anthropogenic modifications were distinguished from natural ones based on puncturing experiments (see below) and criteria published in the literature, with particular attention to processes that could produce pits and punctures on bone surfaces (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(89)(90)(91)(92)(93)(94)(95). The object was photographed with a Sony A6000 equipped with a Sony E 30-mm F3.5 macro lens.…”

“…Osseous remains bearing punctures have intrigued Palaeolithic archaeologists for decades, and substantial research was undertaken to identify the processes that led to their production and, when made by humans, the context and purpose of their manufacture. Punctures can be produced by nonhuman factors, such as chemical etching, trampling by animals and humans, consumption by invertebrates, and gnawing by carnivores (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Dedicated studies have investigated the mechanisms responsible for natural punctures and how these marks can be distinguished from each other and from those produced by humans (21).…”