Re: Olduvai Bed II : lake margin & riverine carcasses accumulated via natural deaths

On Nov 28, 12:53 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Taphonomic perspectives on hominid site use and foraging strategies during
Bed II times at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
CP Egeland & M Domínguez-Rodrigo 2008 JHE 55:1031-52

The faunal assemblages excavated by Mary Leakey in Bed II have, like the
more well-known Bed I assemblages, traditionally been interpreted as the
result of hominid butchering activities in the lake margin & riverine
settings of the paleo-Olduvai Basin.
A re-examination of all of Leakey's Bed I sites has shown : hominids played
little or no role in the formation of all but one of those faunal
assemblages ...

Interesting. Sounds like this was more of a watering hole that drew
in prey and predators during the dry season, possibly leading to a
feeding frenzy. So, although hominids resided nearby, in treed
habitat, they were not hunting or even scavenging. Or, at least, not
necessarily.

We expand upon a previous taphonomic study that provided systematic data for
HWK East Levels 1­2, MNK Main & BK.
In addition, we provide data on HWK East Levels 3­5, FC West, TK & SHK.

- Our data contradict previous interpretations of MNK Main as a hominid
accumulation, but uphold the contention that BK represents a primarily
hominid accumulation reflecting early access to carcasses.

I don't know what they mean here.

- The small & poorly preserved assemblages from FC West & TK are difficult
to link unambiguously to either hominids or carnivores.


- Site MNK Main & HWK East Levels 3­5 appear to be death arenas where
carcasses accumulated via natural deaths &/or serial predation.

Dry season feeding frenzies. Water holes. Inmigrating prey species
desperate for a drink of water. Predators waiting to ambush.

- Site SHK is severely biased by selective retention : little can be said of
its formational history. Nevertheless, no hominid modifications were
documented in this assemblage.

Comparisons with other Olduvai sites indicate a more conspicuous hyena
taphonomic signal during Bed II times than Bed I times, which appears to
mirror the changing configuration of the large carnivore guild.

Interesting. Hominids would have been completely defenseless against
these bear-sized hyena outside of treed habitat.

What activities were being carried out by hominids with the stone tools
discarded at these sites?  Although it seems clear that hominids were
utilizing stone tools to carry out subsistence activities unrelated to
carcass butchery, more excavation & techniques such as phytolith analysis
should be employed to explore alternative explanations.

I suspect these stone tools had mostly to do with holding off the
continuing onslaught of food competitor species that if left unchecked
would deplete the food resources in their locality upon which they
greatly depended to survive the dry season and its predatory
implications. It's interesting to note that these researchers are
realizing that these weapons are not evidence of hominid hunting of
large game, " . . . utilizing stone tools to carry out subsistence
activities unrelated to carcass butchery, . . ."


.

Quantcast