4.2 Article

Taphonomic signature of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) on bone prey remains

Journal

HISTORICAL BIOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 835-854

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2017.1319830

Keywords

Taphonomy; Aquila chrysaetos; bone accumulator agents; small prey; anatomical representation; breakage; beak marks; digested bones

Funding

  1. Departament d'Universitats, Recerca i Societat de la Informacio de la Generalitat de Catalunya
  2. COFUND programme (Marie Curie Actions) [BP-B00140-2014]
  3. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (MICINN) [HAR2014-55131]
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya [SGR2014-00108]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is one of the most important birds of prey in the Northern Hemisphere. This raptor is used to building large nests in high cliffs to which they return for several breeding years accumulating important amounts of their prey skeletal remains. This makes the golden eagle one of the major predators able to accumulate faunal remains in archaeological sites. Despite this fact, the taphonomic signature of golden eagles has not been properly characterized. Here we present the analysis of ingested and non-ingested faunal remains predated and accumulated by this raptor in two different nesting areas from the Iberian Peninsula. Results show how the faunal taxonomic record may vary depending on the ecological zone. Leporids and terrestrial carnivores are the best represented. The observed anatomical representation, breakage and bone surface modification patterns are discussed for different taxa. The taphonomic pattern varies depending on the type of prey and the origin of skeletal materials (non-ingested vs. pellets). Finally, after comparing our results with marks left by other predators, several characteristic features are noted to recognise golden eagles as agents of animal bones accumulations in the fossil record.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available