Hyenas and hunters: zooarchaeological investigations at Prolom II Cave, Crimea

Abstract

Prolom II, a stratified archaeological cave deposit in the eastern Crimean Peninsula, Ukraine, dates back to approximately 135000 -60000 years ago. Stone tool industries from four human occupation levels are characteristic of the Middle Palaeolithic, typically associated with Neanderthals. In addition to the stone tool artifactual material, there is abundant faunal material, including saiga antelope, horse, bison, hyena and bear. This zooarchaeological investigation examined approximately 3500 specimens of animal bones to discern between natural and cultural modifications, and to elucidate human patterns of exploitation of faunal resources in prehistoric subsistence.The high proportion of carnivores, particularly hyena, in the fauna suggest that much of the faunal material is present as a result of non-human agents. Morphological characteristics, such as gnawing marks and punctures, were abundant on most herbivore skeletal elements. Bone destruction patterns were consistent with carnivore and scavenger behaviour, as documented in modern comparative studies. Stone tool cut marks were identifiable under microscopic examination on only six specimens of saiga antelope.The preliminary conclusion is that the site was occupied alternately by carnivores, primarily hyenas and, occasionally, humans. These occupations were probably short-term stays. The deep stratigraphic deposits represent accumulations over long periods of time. We cannot assign more than a few of the faunal specimens to human hunting or modification, despite the large number of stone tools present at the site. The densest and highest frequencies of stone tools occurred in the same levels as the greatest frequencies of hyena bones, which are very unlikely to represent human prey. The human contribution to the faunal assemblage appears to be minimal. The entire collection of bones cannot be used to characterize human subsistence. This is consistent with a growing literature that reassesses the role of humans in the accumulation of animal bones in a variety of archaeological and palaeontological sites.

Taphonomic and zooarchaeological implications of spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) bone accumulations in Kenya: a modern behavioral ecological approach

“…The duration of den occupation, which may depend on the availability, quality, and persis tence of den sites on the landscape, could af fect patterns of bone accumulation. Although the issue of the time span represented in a bone accumulation has largely remained un explored both in modern and archaeological contexts, what may be assumed to reflect short-term occupation and rapid bone accu mulation at fossils sites (e.g., Palmqvist and Arribas 2001a) may actually reflect slow longterm processes (e.g., Enloe et al 2000), result ing from either continuous occupation or cy-cles of abandonment and re-occupation. For behavioral ecologists, the few bones spotted hyenas accumulate per year on average in modern dens may seem negligible, but on a paleontological scale four bones collected each year, for example, multiplied across 1000 years would equal 4000 bones in a time-aver aged fossil accumulation.…”

“…How ever, subsequent researchers have document ed bone accumulations of variable size in some dens of spotted (Sutcliffe 1970;Mills and Mills 1977;Henschel et al 1979;Hill 1980Hill , 1986Hill ,1989Brain 1981;Lam 1992;Pokines and Kerbis Peterhans 2007), striped (Horwitz and Smith 1988;Kerbis Peterhans and Horwitz 1992;Horwitz 1998), and brown (Mills and Mills 1977;Skinner et al 1986Skinner et al , 1998Skinner and van Aarde 1991;Lacruz and Maude 2005) hyenas. Despite the conflicting results from early studies, there is now general recognition that hyenas are capable bone accumulators that can play a significant role in the formation of fossil assemblages via active transport and deposition of bones and /or secondary modi fication and dispersal of hominin-discarded remains as documented by modern studies (e.g., Marean and Spencer 1991;Marean et al 1992;Lupo 1995) and inferred in analyses of fossil assemblages (e.g., Klein 1975;Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984;Stiner 1991aStiner ,b, 1992Palmqvist et al 1996;Arribas and Palmqvist 1998;Klein et al 1999;Enloe et al 2000;Ma rean et al 2000;Palmqvist and Arribas 2001a,b;Egeland et al 2004;Dominguez-Rodrigo and Barba 2006).…”

Middle Palaeolithic Cave Taphonomy: Discerning Humans from Hyenas at Arcy‐sur‐Cure, France

“…() complemented this perspective for discerning carnivore and human activities in Palaeolithic archaeological and paleontological sites. Additionally, in the case of the Grotte du Bison, many of these small bone splinters carried substantial surface rounding and etching, typical of hyena digestion as had been seen by the author at Prolom II (Enloe et al ., ).…”

A Middle Palaeolithic bone tool from Crimea (Ukraine)

“…The use of bone retouchers is well attested in the MP archaeological record of the Crimean peninsula (Stepanchuk 1993;Burke 1999a;1999b;Patou-Mathis & Chabai 2003;Patou-Mathis 2004). Two Eastern Crimean sites, Buran Kaya III (Lalourandie & d'Errico 2004) and Prolom II (Stepanchuk 1993), yielded formal bone tools associated with the EUP (Early Upper Palaeolithic), although descriptions of the bone tools from Prolom II are difficult to evaluate as the objects were apparently only analysed macroscopically and the non-utilitarian bone pieces (mostly consisting of perforated phalanges) could result from hyena activity (d 'Errico & Villa 1997;Enloe et al 2000). To date, there exists no convincing evidence for formal bone tools from this region dating to the MP.…”