4.5 Article

Leopards as taphonomic agents in dolomitic caves - Implications for bone accumulations in the hominid-bearing deposits of South Africa

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 665-684

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/jasc.1999.0470

Keywords

taphonomy; leopard lair; bone accumulation; faunal analysis carcass damage and disintegration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has been hypothesised that leopards were significant contributors to the bone accumulations of the Plio-Pleistocene hominid-bearing caves of South Africa. Interpretations of leopard activity in these fossil caves were previously based upon reports of modern leopard behaviour in areas of southern Africa that were lacking in caves. In 1991 a leopard lair with an accompanying bone accumulation was discovered in a dolomitic cave on the John Nash Nature Reserve, South Africa. All of the bones in this cave could be unambiguously attributed to the activity of one individual leopard over a 1-year period. The resulting bone assemblage indicates that, when available, leopards will preferentially utilise the deep recesses of caves to the exclusion of trees when feeding, and that the size of prey leopards are capable of capturing, killing and transporting has previously been underestimated. The implications this may have for understanding the accumulation of fossils in the hominid-bearing caves of South Africa are that bones derived from leopards consuming prey in trees probably did not contribute significantly to the assemblages, and further that it is not necessary to invoke sabre-tooth cat involvement for the larger animals found in these assemblages. This modern cave probably represents a more appropriated model for the accumulation of bones int he fossil caves of the Sterkfontein Valley, and the assemblage is being continually monitored to view any and all taphonomic alterations that are occurring.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available