## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Semilandmark Models on 2 Curves at U-Section—EFA**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**13 smlm**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**23 smlm**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**33 smlm**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**shape**} \\ \hline  & B\_Hyena** & **Leopard** & **Lion** & **B\_Hyena** & **Leopard** & **Lion** & **B\_Hyena** & **Leopard** & **Lion** \\
**Leopard** & **0.002** & - & - & **0.001** & - & - & **0.001** & - & - \\
**Lion** & **0.001** & 0.094 & - & **0.002** & 0.168 & - & **0.002** & 0.153 & - \\
**S\_Hyena** & **0.001** & 0.010 & 0.036 & **0.003** & 0.229 & 0.831 & **0.001** & 0.223 & 0.789 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**form**} \\ \hline
**Leopard** & **0.003** & - & - & **0.001** & - & - & 0.003 & - & - \\
**Lion** & 0.021 & 0.481 & - & 0.012 & 0.464 & - & 0.013 & 0.431 & - \\
**S\_Hyena** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** & **0.001** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: MANOVA \(p\)-values obtained on the 13, 23, and 33 semilandmark (smlm) models on two curves used to describe the most conspicuous U cross-sections of the carnivore scores, using an EFA approach. Statistical significance (\(p<0.003\)) is marked in bold. These results are important for taphonomic studies, since different carnivores may modify and accumulate bones in archaeopaelontological contexts. Additionally, distinguishing the action of fields and hyenids in archaeological sites is also particularly relevant in order to clarify the anthropogenic access order to animal carcasses in those sites where both human and carnivore action has been recognized. It has been hypothesized that field species may provide ungulate carcasses for human scavenging [8; 17]. In contrast, hyenid species usually consume their prey entirely [67; 68]. Thus, if the main carnivore activity at a specific site can be classified as field-made, there is a possibility that humans may have secondarily intervened, scavenging the skeletal parts previously consumed by fields. On the contrary, if carnivore tooth marks are mainly classified as hyenid-made, this means that the bone assemblage may have been first modified by humans and subsequently scavenged by hyenas. Furthermore, the methodology tested here is able to differentiate between brown and spotted hyenas based on the form of the scores they generate. This is particularly important because both hyenid species are able to produce bone accumulations. It has been proposed that numerous paleontological sites worked as hyena dens both in Africa and Europe during the Pleistocene. Previous research has explored several taphonomic variables in order to distinguish bone assemblages accumulated by different hyenid species, although not without problems, since hyenids may produce similar taphonomic modifications that impede the discrimination among taxa [69; 70]. The application of the seven-landmark method can shed light on these equifinality problems and help discern the action of specific hyenid species at paleontological sites. The generalization of this hypothesis, however, requires additional analyses. Striped hyenas, which were not included in the present study, can also produce bone accumulations. Thus, in order to prove useful to the discrimination among all living and skilled bone-accumulator hyenid taxa, the seven-landmark model needs to be tested on spotted, brown, and stripped hyenas. In addition to the fine-tuning of the already published seven-landmark method [19], in the present study, we have assessed novel models based on semilandards for the characterization and analysis of tooth scores. First, we have explored if the inclusion of a higher number of points provides a better registration of score morphology and, thus, an improvement in carnivore differentiation.