Taphonomic data make clear that hominins played the major role in the formation of the faunal assemblage from TD6-2. The tooth marks in the assemblage can be attributed to Tenovin-1 and hominids. It is possible to assign these tooth marks to one actor rather than another (carnivores versus hominids), although this often involves problems of equifinality. Thus, inferences about the interaction between carnivores and hominins based on the presence and frequency of tooth marks must be made with caution as they may be due to a false dichotomy (all cut marks were made by hominins, but not all tooth marks can be assigned to carnivores). There is a growing need to add to the body of taphonomic knowledge through actualistic work undertaken from a uniformitarian perspective. These studies are useful in describing and identifying different types of modifications. However, resolution research frameworks also allow us to assume greater levels of equifinality between marks produced by different agents (see for example the research of Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2009 in relation to the morphological characteristics of cut marks and trampling). Our study has revealed the existence of problems (sometimes severe) in evaluating the frequency and distribution of tooth marks, and hence in assessing their co-occurence with butchering marks.
↧
