An Evaluation of Landmark-Based Methods to Explore Tooth Score Morphology: A Case Study on Felids and Hyenids  
[PERSON]  
1 Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Ar. Seneca, 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain 1  
[PERSON]  
2 Department of Geology, Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Universidad del Pais Vasco-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU), Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Spain 2  
[PERSON]  
3 Department of Cartographic and Terrain Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School of Avila, Universidad de Salamanca, Hornos Caleros 50, 05003 Avila, Spain 3  
[PERSON]  
3 Department of Cartographic and Terrain Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School of Avila, Universidad de Salamanca, Hornos Caleros 50, 05003 Avila, Spain 3  
[PERSON]  
4C.A.I. Archaeometry and Archaeological Analysis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, [PERSON] 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain 45 GIAP Team, Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology, Placa d'en Rovellat s/n, 43003 Tarargona, Spain 5  
[PERSON]  
3 Department of Cartographic and Terrain Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School of Avila, Universidad de Salamanca, Hornos Caleros 50, 05003 Avila, Spain 3  
[PERSON]  
1 Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Ar. Seneca, 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain 14 Centre of Excellence and the University of the Cambridge,  
the fossil record (i.e., humans or carnivores), but also the specification of carnivore groups and taxa based on the bone surface modifications they generate [8; 9; 10; 11]. For instance, tooth mark dimensions have been analysed by several authors to statistically differentiate the pits and scores produced by different carnivore species [12; 13; 14; 15; 16]. Pits have been described as circular depressions, while tooth scores are elongated marks characterized by U-shaped cross-sections [17; 1]. Both width and length have been recorded on bones modified by different carnivores (e.g., fields, hyenids, cnids, ursids, etc), while considering bone region (e.g., epiphysis versus long bone shaft). For instance, pit and score dimensions have been used to discuss the accumulating agent of bone assemblages from Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania) or Sima de los Huesos (Spain) [12; 13; 14]. The analyses of tooth mark dimensions from the FLR Zinj site (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania) showed that both fields and hyenids modified the bone assemblage [12]. Cut and percussion marks produced by hominins were also recorded on the FLR Zinj bone assemblage [3; 7]. According to the analyses and results obtained, it has been argued that hyenas were the last modifying agent of the ungulate carcasses from the FLR Zinj [12]. Thus, either hyenas may have scavenged ungulate carcasses that were first defleashed by hominins and fields, or hyenas may have just consumed the marrow of bones first scavenged by hominins after a primary consumption by fields [12]. These results imply that early hominins from Olduvai Gorge were not the first taphonomic agents in the consumption change [12]. Further research has demonstrated that carnivore body mass and the location of the tooth mark, i.e., on the epiphysis or diaphysis, determines tooth mark dimensions [15], so that tooth marks inflicted on long bone shafts by small and large carnivores are statistically differentiable [14; 15; 16]. However, both pit and score dimensions overlap among different carnivore taxa. That means that while carnivore size could be inferred from tooth mark dimensions, this same variable cannot be used to determine carnivore taxa. Thus, field and hyenid species could not be differentiated. These results could not support the three-stage model hypothesis (carnivore-hominin-carnivore) for the FLR Zinj bone assemblage [14]. On the other hand, tooth mark frequency or the number of tooth marks inflicted by bone have been also explored in order to determine agency in bone assemblages, and thus, overcome the equifinality biases that tooth mark size could not totally solve.