The Faunal Assemblages and Taphonomic Signatures of Five Striped Hyaena (hyaena hyaena syriaca) Dens in the Desert of Eastern Jordan

Examining criteria for identifying and differentiating fossil faunal assemblages accumulated by hyenas and hominins using extant hyenid accumulations

“…For the present study we examined the faunal remains recovered from five active striped hyena dens in the eastern desert of Jordan (Kuhn, 2001(Kuhn, , 2005. We additionally examined faunal remains recovered from four active spotted hyena dens in the Mashatu Game Reserve, Botswana and examined the remains from two spotted hyena dens in the Namib-Naukluft Park, Namibia.…”

“…(1980: 73), noting that these are just four possible modes of collection for this specific site. In particular, hyenas are considered critically important taphonomic agents in the fossil record since they are among the most prolific extant bone accumulators (Henschel et al, 1979;Skinner & Ilani, 1979;Skinner et al, 1980;Skinner & van Aarde, 1991;Lam, 1992;Leakey et al, 1999;Kuhn, 2005;Lacruz & Maude, 2005;Skinner, 2006). Determining whether hyenids played a role in the accumulation of fossil material allows one to interpret not only the relationship of the fauna represented in the accumulation to the external environment, but may also shed light upon the relationship between hominins and hyenids in ancient landscapes, thereby exploring potential evolutionary adaptations in our lineage.…”

“…These have included studies of modern human populations (Brain, 1967), modern hunter-gatherer accumulations compared with those of spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) accumulations (Bunn, 1983), spotted hyena bone modifications (Hill, 1989), studies of both extant and extinct hyena morphology (Brain, 1981) and presumed archaeological hyena den sites (Klein, 1975;Scott & Klein, 1981). Subsequently, specific criteria have been published that are proposed to distinguish between hyena-and hominin-collected bone assemblages (Maguire et al, 1980;Hill, 1984;Binford et al, 1988;Blumenschine, 1988;Cruz-Uribe, 1991;Stiner, 1991;Marean et al, 1992;Marean & Bertino, 1994;Pickering, 2002;Kuhn, 2005;Lacruz & Maude, 2005;Faith et al, 2007;Pokines & Kerbis Peterhans, 2007). Stiner (1991) proposed a single criterion and Cruz-Uribe (1991) put forth six criteria, that together made seven specific criteria that were hypothesised to distinguish whether or not hyenids or hominins were responsible for any particular fossil faunal accumulation.…”

Species identification and decay assessment of Late Pleistocene fragmentary vertebrate remains from Pin Hole Cave (Creswell Crags, UK) using collagen fingerprinting

“…In this case we observed a relatively high number of fauna that are known prey for scavenging hyaena (Bison, Rangifer, Coelodonta, etc.). Therefore it is unsurprising that these are relatively more fragmented as well, as high levels of fragmentation are characteristic of bone accumulations in hyaena dens (Kuhn 2005). The only exception to this observed pattern is the relatively low frequency of horse in the fragmentary assemblage.…”

Variation in tooth mark frequencies on long bones from the assemblages of all three extant bone-collecting hyaenids

“…For precise locations of the Jordan dens see Kuhn (2005) and for study site locations in southern Africa see Kuhn et al (2008). In Jordan the faunal accumulations of five active striped hyaena (Hyaena hyaena) dens were collected and examined in three areas of the eastern desert.…”