African elephant bones modified by carnivores: Implications for interpreting fossil proboscidean assemblages

Use of meat resources in the Early Pleistocene assemblages from Fuente Nueva 3 (Orce, Granada, Spain)

“…Regarding the action of the giant hyena, the low tooth mark frequencies documented at FN3 are in stark contrast with the damage generated by hyenas when they are the primary agent of carcass modification documented by different authors (Kruuk 1972;Blumenschine, 1986;Villa & Bartram, Fig. 11 Several cut marks of FN3 level 5 on animal size level 3, pelvis of animal size level 5, and indeterminate fragment of level 5 1996; Villa & Soresi, 1998;Faith, 2007;Domínguez-Rodrigo et al, 2015;Haynes & Klimowicz, 2015;Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews, 2017;Haynes & Hutson 2020). This divergence suggests that the action of giant hyena at FN3 was likely more limited than previously envisioned.…”

“…Cut marks demonstrating direct hominin engagement with the remains have been found on Middle Pleistocene elephant carcasses (e.g. Yravedra et al 2010), and this absence of taphonomic alterations is also in stark contrast with actualistic reports of carnivore engagement with elephant carcasses, which tend to present a high number of tooth marks (Haynes & Klimowicz, 2015;Haynes & Hutson 2020). Therefore, this spatial association of lithic finds and coprolites in association with these elephant carcasses may have been fortuitous, resulting from independent episodes that coalesced into a palimpsest through complex site formation processes.…”

“…Moreover, Harstone-Rose (2008, 2011 has argued that Megantereon would have had carcass processing behaviours no more hypercarnivorous than extant felids, which have been shown to generate considerable tooth mark damage (see e.g. Rodríguez-Alba et al 2019 for jaguars;Brain 1969 andArriaza et al 2019 for leopards;or Arriaza et al 2016, Haynes & Klimowicz 2015, and Haynes & Hutson 2020. Furthermore, biomechanical studies of sabretooth dentition suggest that these carnivores would have had no issue making contact with bone surfaces when they were feeding on animal carcasses (Bryant et al, 1995;Harstone-Rose, 2008;2011;Desantis et al 2012).…”

A female woolly mammoth’s lifetime movements end in an ancient Alaskan hunter-gatherer camp

“…When butchering elephants, ribs may be cut unintentionally during primary butchering, but cut marks are rare, in part to prevent dulling cutting implements ( 51 ). Because ribs may bear heavy traces of damage through carnivore feeding on carcasses, including those of elephants, these ribs may also indicate early access to the ribs before carnivore feeding ( 52 ), further suggesting a hunting scenario. Redating of the Swan Point mammoth tusk ( 33 ) showed that she was contemporary with the earliest human occupation of Swan Point, CZ4b.…”

Taphonomic skeletal disturbances in the Sima de los Huesos postcranial remains

“…No evidence of butchery marks (cut or percussion marks) has been documented in the Sima de los Huesos and, therefore, human intervention is ruled out and does not explain the presence of these peeled ribs. In carnivore‐created assemblages, such as lions or hyenas, classic and general peelings have been documented only very sporadically (Haynes & Hutson, 2020; Pickering et al, 2013). In contrast, experimental work with bears and archeological contexts has shown that this type of rib modification is not uncommon following bear activity (Arilla et al, 2014; Blasco et al, 2020).…”