Hyenas and hunters: zooarchaeological investigations at Prolom II Cave, Crimea

• Published in: International journal of osteoarchaeology Vol. 10; no. 5; pp. 310 - 324
• Main Authors: Enloe, James G., David, Francine, Baryshnikov, Gennady
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01-09-2000; Chichester, West Sussex :Wiley,1991
• Subjects: Crimea; Middle Palaeolithic; zooarchaeology
• DOI: 10.1002/1099-1212(200009/10)10:5<310::AID-OA562>3.0.CO;2-B
• EISSN: 1099-1212
• ISSN: 1047-482X

Prolom II, a stratified archaeological cave deposit in the eastern Crimean Peninsula, Ukraine, dates back to approximately 135 000–60 000 years ago. Stone tool industries from four human occupation levels are characteristic of the Middle Palaeolithic, typically associated with Neanderthals. In addition to the stone tool artifactual material, there is abundant faunal material, including saiga antelope, horse, bison, hyena and bear. This zooarchaeological investigation examined approximately 3500 specimens of animal bones to discern between natural and cultural modifications, and to elucidate human patterns of exploitation of faunal resources in prehistoric subsistence.
The high proportion of carnivores, particularly hyena, in the fauna suggest that much of the faunal material is present as a result of non‐human agents. Morphological characteristics, such as gnawing marks and punctures, were abundant on most herbivore skeletal elements. Bone destruction patterns were consistent with carnivore and scavenger behaviour, as documented in modern comparative studies. Stone tool cut marks were identifiable under microscopic examination on only six specimens of saiga antelope.
The preliminary conclusion is that the site was occupied alternately by carnivores, primarily hyenas and, occasionally, humans. These occupations were probably short‐term stays. The deep stratigraphic deposits represent accumulations over long periods of time. We cannot assign more than a few of the faunal specimens to human hunting or modification, despite the large number of stone tools present at the site. The densest and highest frequencies of stone tools occurred in the same levels as the greatest frequencies of hyena bones, which are very unlikely to represent human prey. The human contribution to the faunal assemblage appears to be minimal. The entire collection of bones cannot be used to characterize human subsistence. This is consistent with a growing literature that reassesses the role of humans in the accumulation of animal bones in a variety of archaeological and palaeontological sites. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.