Validation of bone surface modification models for inferring fossil hominin and carnivore feeding interactions, with reapplication to FLK 22, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

A critical re-evaluation of bone surface modification models for inferring fossil hominin and carnivore interactions through a multivariate approach: Application to the FLK Zinj archaeofaunal assemblage (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania)

“…Pante et al (2012) recognize this in part when they cite Selvaggio's (1998b) carnivore-to-hominid-to-carnivore model, where tooth mark frequencies on mid-shafts (54.2%) are similar to those reported by them at FLK Zinj. This model implies complete or almost complete defleshing of carcasses by carnivores prior to hominin access.…”

“…Such a paleoecological reconstruction of the site, as a wooded environment close to a spatially-restricted wetland created by a freshwater spring, is not new because it was first proposed by Ashley et al (2010). Domínguez-Rodrigo et al's (2010b) sampling of several thousands of square meters of the paleolandscape surrounding the FLK Zinj site, documented no significant presence of carnivore-modified bones in the environment, which argues against a productive carcass-yielding landscape as would be expected if carnivore presence were as important as suggested by Pante et al (2012). Pante et al's (2012) new interpretations are also contradictory mainly because these authors have not provided an interpretation that could jointly explain the frequencies of tooth, percussion, and cut marks documented at FLK Zinj.…”

“…In recent work, Pante et al (2012) reinstated Blumenschine's (1995) original model that hominins at FLK Zinj were passive scavengers from felid kills. They did so by bootstrapping their former carnivore experimental samples to reduce sample dispersion, adding a new three-patterned model (vultureehominine carnivore [VeHeC]) and comparing the results to their previously criticized interpretation of bone surface modifications from this site (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al, 2007a;Barba, 2006, 2007).…”

“…This model implies complete or almost complete defleshing of carcasses by carnivores prior to hominin access. Furthermore, even if it is generally applied to all carcass sizes by Pante et al (2012), this model can only be applied to small-sized carcasses, which constitute the bulk of Selvaggio's sample. 2 Subsequently, Pante et al (2012) deal with their more problematic type of bone surface modification, cut marks, by ignoring experiments showing how these marks can be used to discriminate primary from secondary access (See review in Domínguez-Rodrigo et al, 2007a).…”

“…Furthermore, even if it is generally applied to all carcass sizes by Pante et al (2012), this model can only be applied to small-sized carcasses, which constitute the bulk of Selvaggio's sample. 2 Subsequently, Pante et al (2012) deal with their more problematic type of bone surface modification, cut marks, by ignoring experiments showing how these marks can be used to discriminate primary from secondary access (See review in Domínguez-Rodrigo et al, 2007a). The high frequency of cut marks at FLK Zinj is difficult to interpret for these authors because it is not possible to know "whether this reflects defleshing of whole muscle masses or only the still attractive scraps that typically remain after mammalian carnivore defleshing..cut mark frequencies have not been shown to be sensitive to the amount of flesh remaining on bones" (Pante et al, 2012: 404).…”