Cited by 13Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesArchaeological and Geological Studies

Very human bears: Wild brown bear neo-taphonomic signature and its equifinality problems in archaeological contexts

Rosell, Jordi, Blasco, Ruth, Arilla, Maite, Fernández-Jalvo, Yolanda·2019·Quaternary International

Abstract

Abstract Different agents can lead to similar damage patterns, and different causes can result in the same type of modification. This phenomenon was defined by Lyman (1987) as a problem of equifinality, with which the researcher warned about the risks of making direct systematic correlations. The fact that a specific type of damage cannot be linked to a single actor, behaviour or ecological context is primarily applicable to damage associated with the direct consumption of carcasses. Some carnivores show physical and dental characteristics that could lead to bone modifications potentially like those generated by humans. For example, bears have a bunodont dentition and plantigrade locomotion –the latter allows them to frequently release and use their claws as “hands”. Here, we present the neo-taphonomical study of 17 ungulate carcasses eaten by wild brown bears (Ursus arctos arctos) in the Spanish Pyrenees. Our observations express this equifinal problem due to the similarities between tooth marks and peeling generated by both bears and humans. This fact is especially significant, given that peeling and the combination of this damage with visible tooth marks were primarily associated with the feeding activities of humans and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and only anecdotally with other taphonomic agents, such as spotted hyenas. With this research, we try to show some equifinal phenomena that could occur in Pleistocene faunal assemblages as well, where the presence of both hominids and bears is documented.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.quaint.2019.05.013

Cites

55 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Elkin, 2001, Human and small carnivore gnawing damage on bones. An esploratory study and its archaeological implications, vol. 4, 255
  2. Haynes, 1988, Spiral fractures, cutmarks and other myths about early bone assemblages, Anthropol. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 21, 145
  3. Oliver, 1993, Carcass processing by the Hadza: bone breakage from butchery to consumtion, vol. 21, 200

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Rosell, J., Blasco, R., Arilla, M., & Fernández-Jalvo, Y.
Affiliations
  • Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (ES)
  • Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (ES)
Corresponding author
Rosell, Jordi
Venue
Quaternary International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
517
Pages
67-78
ISSN
1040-6182 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944303965
Cited by
13
References
56
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
7.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quaternary International (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (2017 SGR 836, CLT009/18/00055, 2017FI-B-00096)
  • Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente
  • Federación Española de Enfermedades Raras
  • Generalitat de Catalunya
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
Keywords
brown bear, Ursus arctos arctos, equifinality, tooth marks, peeling, ungulate carcasses, Spanish Pyrenees

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review