Hyaenids, felids and canids as bone accumulators: Does the natural history of extant species support zooarchaeological inferences?

Abstract

Mammalian carnivores may be important agents of prehistoric bone accumulations. Taphonomic analyses of bone assemblages used for specific assignment usually include information on feeding, breeding, denning and even defecating ecology of extant species. Here, we review literature for the Hyaenidae, Felidae and Canidae families of carnivores, focusing on the ecological and behavioural traits that are commonly used as criteria to assign bone accumulations to specific carnivores, and whether these correspond to the present behaviour and ecology of extant species. We found a total of 93 records where 12 species (9 extant species) of these families were considered as bone accumulators in archaeozoological sites. Hyaenidae was the group most often cited, followed by Felidae and Canidae. Crocuta crocuta was by far the species most often cited as a bone accumulator. Most bone deposits assigned to carnivores (84.9%) were found in underground cavities, and to a lesser extent in non-cave deposits (15.1%). The use assigned to the sites was mainly as a den (29.5%) or breeding den (29.5%), followed by prey depot (16.2%), feeding shelter (12.4%), and to a lesser extent a hunting place (7.6%), with some remarkable differences among families. Coprolites were also found in 53.8% of cases.The behaviour of present hyenas may be similar to that of prehistoric ones as they commonly use underground dens, defecate inside of them and frequently accumulate prey remains. On the other hand, even though present canids are more often recorded than felids using underground dens and accumulating prey, the latter are more often recorded as prehistoric bone accumulators than the former. The behaviour of only one present species of canid (V. vulpes) and other a felid (P. pardus) matches the one presumed for prehistoric individuals of such species in relation to bone and scat accumulation. The role of the remaining species as bone and scat accumulator agents in prehistoric sites remains questionable due to differences in their present behaviour. Therefore, many assignments of bone accumulation to specific carnivores are based on assumptions, which did not coincide with the present natural history of the species. Our review also highlights the absence of records of small species as prehistoric bone accumulators.