区分南非中石器时代的类人猿和棕色鬣狗(Parahyaena brunnea)骨骼堆积物

IF 1.5 2区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY
{"title":"区分南非中石器时代的类人猿和棕色鬣狗(Parahyaena brunnea)骨骼堆积物","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Brown hyenas (<em>Parahyaena brunnea</em>) are often implicated as either contributing to or scavenging faunal remains at archaeological sites in southern Africa. Various criteria have been established to distinguish between anthropogenic and brown hyena accumulations. Brown hyenas regularly feed on other carnivores. It is expected that such hyena assemblages will have a greater diversity of carnivore species, compared to accumulations of humans. We test this notion using anthropogenic accumulations dating to the Middle Stone Age from the Eastern and Western Cape of South Africa, as well as (nearly) contemporaneous fossil brown hyena accumulations from the same region, using a Carnivore Richness Index (CRI). This index measures the richness of carnivore taxa in samples against the richness of ungulate taxa. The results show that CRI values are generally low for faunas from layers and whole assemblages accumulated by hominins. The range is between 0.13 and 0.42 when all the layers are considered together as a whole for individual sites. For fossil brown hyena samples, the CRI values are consistently higher relative to hominin-induced samples with values ranging between 0.40 and 0.52. The results indicate that quantification using the CRI effectively discriminates layers and sites with higher probabilities of brown hyena activity from those of anthropogenic accumulations. Thus, if used in conjunction with other methods such as the carnivore-ungulate ratio, taphonomic modifications and the presence of juvenile hyena remains and coprolites, it will allow for better identification of the agents involved in the accumulation process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48150,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24003493/pdfft?md5=7979c1bfd4d6657f7bd90648251b65f4&pid=1-s2.0-S2352409X24003493-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distinguishing hominin and brown hyena (Parahyaena brunnea) bone accumulations from the Middle Stone Age in South Africa\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104721\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Brown hyenas (<em>Parahyaena brunnea</em>) are often implicated as either contributing to or scavenging faunal remains at archaeological sites in southern Africa. Various criteria have been established to distinguish between anthropogenic and brown hyena accumulations. Brown hyenas regularly feed on other carnivores. It is expected that such hyena assemblages will have a greater diversity of carnivore species, compared to accumulations of humans. We test this notion using anthropogenic accumulations dating to the Middle Stone Age from the Eastern and Western Cape of South Africa, as well as (nearly) contemporaneous fossil brown hyena accumulations from the same region, using a Carnivore Richness Index (CRI). This index measures the richness of carnivore taxa in samples against the richness of ungulate taxa. The results show that CRI values are generally low for faunas from layers and whole assemblages accumulated by hominins. The range is between 0.13 and 0.42 when all the layers are considered together as a whole for individual sites. For fossil brown hyena samples, the CRI values are consistently higher relative to hominin-induced samples with values ranging between 0.40 and 0.52. The results indicate that quantification using the CRI effectively discriminates layers and sites with higher probabilities of brown hyena activity from those of anthropogenic accumulations. Thus, if used in conjunction with other methods such as the carnivore-ungulate ratio, taphonomic modifications and the presence of juvenile hyena remains and coprolites, it will allow for better identification of the agents involved in the accumulation process.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24003493/pdfft?md5=7979c1bfd4d6657f7bd90648251b65f4&pid=1-s2.0-S2352409X24003493-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24003493\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24003493","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

棕鬣狗(Parahyaena brunnea)经常被认为是南部非洲考古遗址中动物遗骸的贡献者或食腐者。已经制定了各种标准来区分人为堆积和褐鬣狗堆积。褐土狼经常以其他食肉动物为食。与人类聚居地相比,预计此类鬣狗聚居地的食肉动物种类会更加多样。我们利用南非东开普省和西开普省可追溯到中石器时代的人类活动堆积以及同一地区(几乎)同时代的棕色鬣狗化石堆积,使用食肉动物丰富度指数(CRI)来检验这一观点。该指数衡量样本中食肉动物类群的丰富程度与无脊椎动物类群的丰富程度。结果表明,人 类积累的地层和整个集合体中的动物群的 CRI 值普遍较低。如果将各个地点的所有地层作为一个整体来考虑,则 CRI 值的范围在 0.13 到 0.42 之间。就褐鬣狗化石样本而言,其 CRI 值始终高于由人引起的样本,介于 0.40 和 0.52 之间。结果表明,使用 CRI 进行量化可以有效区分褐土鬣狗活动概率较高的地层和地点,以及人为堆积的地层和地点。因此,如果与其他方法结合使用,如食肉动物与蜣螂的比率、岩石学的变化以及幼年鬣狗遗骸和桡骨的存在,就能更好地识别参与堆积过程的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Distinguishing hominin and brown hyena (Parahyaena brunnea) bone accumulations from the Middle Stone Age in South Africa

Brown hyenas (Parahyaena brunnea) are often implicated as either contributing to or scavenging faunal remains at archaeological sites in southern Africa. Various criteria have been established to distinguish between anthropogenic and brown hyena accumulations. Brown hyenas regularly feed on other carnivores. It is expected that such hyena assemblages will have a greater diversity of carnivore species, compared to accumulations of humans. We test this notion using anthropogenic accumulations dating to the Middle Stone Age from the Eastern and Western Cape of South Africa, as well as (nearly) contemporaneous fossil brown hyena accumulations from the same region, using a Carnivore Richness Index (CRI). This index measures the richness of carnivore taxa in samples against the richness of ungulate taxa. The results show that CRI values are generally low for faunas from layers and whole assemblages accumulated by hominins. The range is between 0.13 and 0.42 when all the layers are considered together as a whole for individual sites. For fossil brown hyena samples, the CRI values are consistently higher relative to hominin-induced samples with values ranging between 0.40 and 0.52. The results indicate that quantification using the CRI effectively discriminates layers and sites with higher probabilities of brown hyena activity from those of anthropogenic accumulations. Thus, if used in conjunction with other methods such as the carnivore-ungulate ratio, taphonomic modifications and the presence of juvenile hyena remains and coprolites, it will allow for better identification of the agents involved in the accumulation process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
405
期刊介绍: Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports is aimed at archaeologists and scientists engaged with the application of scientific techniques and methodologies to all areas of archaeology. The journal focuses on the results of the application of scientific methods to archaeological problems and debates. It will provide a forum for reviews and scientific debate of issues in scientific archaeology and their impact in the wider subject. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports will publish papers of excellent archaeological science, with regional or wider interest. This will include case studies, reviews and short papers where an established scientific technique sheds light on archaeological questions and debates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信