Taphonomy of ungulate ribs and the consumption of meat and bone by 1.2-million-year-old hominins at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

Pickering, Travis Rayne; Domı́nguez-Rodrigo, Manuel; Heaton, Jason L.; Yravedra, José; Barba, Rebeca; Bunn, Henry T.; Musiba, Charles M.; Baquedano, Enrique; Martín, Fernando Diéz; Mabulla, Audax; Brain, C. K.

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.09.025

Cited by 75 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anecdotal evidence suggested that other taphonomic agents, including spotted hyenas (Gary Haynes, personal communication, 2013, in [63]), also occasionally peel bones, but to our knowledge it is still relatively uncommon in non-primate-produced faunas (e.g., [63]). Thus, the high frequency of peeling produced by bears was unexpected, especially considering its apparent lack of occurrence in previously studied bear-created faunas, including that from Cantabria, described in great detail by Sala and Arsuaga [56].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

The “Bear” Essentials: Actualistic Research on Ursus arctos arctos in the Spanish Pyrenees and Its Implications for Paleontology and Archaeology

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neotaphonomic studies of large carnivores are used to create models in order to explain the formation of terrestrial vertebrate fossil faunas. The research reported here adds to the growing body of knowledge on the taphonomic consequences of large carnivore behavior in temperate habitats and has important implications for paleontology and archaeology. Using photo- and videotrap data, we were able to describe the consumption of 17 ungulate carcasses by wild brown bears (Ursus arctos arctos) ranging the Spanish Pyrenees. Further, we analyzed the taphonomic impact of these feeding bouts on the bones recovered from those carcasses. The general sequence of consumption that we charted starts with separation of a carcass’s trunk; viscera are generally eaten first, followed by musculature of the humerus and femur. Long limb bones are not broken open for marrow extraction. Bears did not transport carcasses or carcass parts from points of feeding and did not disperse bones appreciably (if at all) from their anatomical positions. The general pattern of damage that resulted from bear feeding includes fracturing, peeling, crenulation, tooth pitting and scoring of axial and girdle elements and furrowing of the upper long limb bones. As predicted from observational data, the taphonomic consequences of bear feeding resemble those of other non-durophagus carnivores, such as felids, and are distinct from those of durophagus carnivores, such as hyenids. Our results have paleontological and archaeological relevance. Specifically, they may prove useful in building analogical models for interpreting the formation of fossil faunas for which bears are suspected bone accumulators and/or modifiers. More generally, our comparative statistical analyses draw precise quantitative distinctions between bone damage patterns imparted respectively by durophagus (modelled here primarily by spotted hyenas [Crocuta crocuta] and wolves [Canis lupus]) and non-durophagus (modelled here by brown bears and lions [Panthera leo]) carnivorans.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

The “Bear” Essentials: Actualistic Research on Ursus arctos arctos in the Spanish Pyrenees and Its Implications for Paleontology and Archaeology

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Type, morphology, number of incisions, location and orientation regarding the longitudinal axis of the bone (oblique, longitudinal, transverse) were listed. Likewise, surface damage occurring during bone breakage was also recorded by detecting percussion pits, notches, impact flakes, counterblows and peeling (White, 1992;Capaldo and Blumenschine, 1994;Pickering and Egeland, 2006;Pickering et al, 2013). As in the case of cut marks, the location and distribution were noted in terms of anatomical area and region (portion and surface).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What happens around a fire: Faunal processing sequences and spatial distribution at Qesem Cave (300 ka), Israel

Blasco

Rosell

Sañudo

et al. 2016

Quaternary International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recently, the presence of human tooth marks has been noted on other aquatic assemblages in archaeological contexts [7]. These marks can be distinguished by their small size and their association with “peeling” damage and crushed edges of bones [57].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Signature of Aquatic Resource Use within Pleistocene Hominin Dietary Adaptations

Archer

Braun

2013

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is general agreement that the diet of early hominins underwent dramatic changes shortly after the appearance of stone tools in the archaeological record. It is often assumed that this change is associated with dietary expansion to incorporate large mammal resources. Although other aspects of the hominin diet, such as aquatic or vegetal resources, are assumed to be a part of hominin subsistence, identifying evidence of these adaptations has proved difficult. Here we present a series of analyses that provide methodological support for the inclusion of aquatic resources in hominin dietary reconstructions. We suggest that bone surface modifications in aquatic species are morphologically distinguishable from bone surface modifications on terrestrial taxa. We relate these findings to differences that we document in the surface mechanical properties of the two types of bone, as reflected by significant differences in bone surface microhardness values between aquatic and terrestrial species. We hypothesize that the characteristics of bone surface modifications on aquatic taxa inhibit the ability of zooarchaeologists to consistently diagnose them correctly. Contingently, this difficulty influences correspondence levels between zooarchaeologists, and may therefore result in misinterpretation of the taphonomic history of early Pleistocene aquatic faunal assemblages. A blind test using aquatic specimens and a select group of 9 experienced zooarchaeologists as participants was designed to test this hypothesis. Investigation of 4 different possible explanations for blind test results suggest the dominant factors explaining patterning relate to (1) the specific methodologies employed to diagnose modifications on aquatic specimens and (2) the relative experience of participants with modifications on aquatic bone surfaces. Consequently we argue that an important component of early hominin diets may have hitherto been overlooked as a result of (a) the paucity of referential frameworks within which to identify such a component and (b) the inability of applied identification methodologies to consistently do so.

show abstract

Taphonomy of ungulate ribs and the consumption of meat and bone by 1.2-million-year-old hominins at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

Cited by 75 publications

References 35 publications

The “Bear” Essentials: Actualistic Research on Ursus arctos arctos in the Spanish Pyrenees and Its Implications for Paleontology and Archaeology

The “Bear” Essentials: Actualistic Research on Ursus arctos arctos in the Spanish Pyrenees and Its Implications for Paleontology and Archaeology

What happens around a fire: Faunal processing sequences and spatial distribution at Qesem Cave (300 ka), Israel

Investigating the Signature of Aquatic Resource Use within Pleistocene Hominin Dietary Adaptations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About