The diet of Pleistocene cave bears (Ursus spelaeus, U. deningeri) is debated extensively. Traditionally, cave bears were thought to be herbivorous, but more recent studies have proposed that they ...were more omnivorous. To test this, their skull morphology and that of their confamilials were analysed using 3D geometric morphometrics. The eight extant Ursidae occupy various dietary niches, which are expected to affect the functional morphology of the skull; the resulting dietary morphospace is used to determine the position of cave bears. Landmarks for 3D digitisation were chosen to reflect functional morphology. Extant and extinct Ursidae were digitised with a Microscribe G2. Generalised Procrustes superimposition was performed on the raw coordinates and allometry removed by regressing these onto the log (ln) centroid size pooled per species. Principal component analyses (PCA) and two-block partial least squares analyses (2B-PLS) were conducted on the regression residuals, and (multivariate) analyses of (co)variance ((M)AN(C)OVA) and discriminant function analyses (DFA) performed on the PC scores. PCA and 2B-PLS differentiate between known dietary niches in extant Ursidae. (M)AN(C)OVA and DFA results suggest that cave bears were herbivorous. Differences in the results between the temporalis and the masseter are seen primarily in the position in morphospace of the extant spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus), probably due to the influence of its premasseteric fossa on the morphology of the masseteric fossa. Additionally, ANOVAs suggest that there was intraspecific variation within U. spelaeus contradicting lineages proposed on the basis of mitochondrial DNA. This variation may be attributable to environmental factors, such as timberline altitude, influencing the cave bears’ diet.
Reported here are the results of a mortality analysis of an
Ursus spelaeus death assemblage from Grotta Lattaia, southern Tuscany (central Italy), excavated in 1939. The Grotta Lattaia cave bears are ...among the latest representatives of the species. The large amount of cave bear remains indicates that the cavern was a lair for hibernating bears which repeatedly, but not necessarily yearly, occupied it. The mortality evidence indicates that deaths occurred primarily during hibernation from violent predation, and, therefore, that the bears had direct interaction with other carnivores. However, no sign of interrelation with humans could be found, even though Middle Paleolithic human remains and tools had been recovered associated with the bear material. Grotta Lattaia can be thus considered an example of cumulative, non-human-caused violent deaths in a hibernation context.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Bear bones and Paleolithic stone artefacts often co-occur in Pleistocene cave deposits of Eurasia, raising the question of how these associations come about and the need for effective methods with ...which to obtain a clear answer. Building upon knowledge of modern bears, I present a method for testing two competing hypotheses about the causes of bear mortality in hibernation contexts. The first hypothesis proposes that age-dependent deaths resulted from non-violent causes (principally starvation), implying that bears' presence in a cave was not linked in time to human activities there. The second hypothesis proposes that random bear deaths in caves resulted from hunting by humans or other large predators, implying a temporal link between them; the expectation of a nonselective age pattern in this circumstance arises from the fact that the individual characters of hibernating bears are hidden from predators. Three elements of the method and its development are presented: (1) a brief review of the biological bases of hibernation-related mortality in modernUrsus, its paleontological consequences, and test expectations drawn therefrom; (2) a detailed, illustrated technique for age-scoring isolated bear cheek teeth based on tooth eruption-wear sequences, developed primarily for cave and brown bears; and, (3) a simple, accurate way to evaluate real cases in terms of contrasting mortality models. The final step is demonstrated by application to a Middle Pleistocene cave bear assemblage (Ursus deningeri) from Yarimburgaz Cave in Turkey, a large collection found in general stratigraphic association with Paleolithic artefacts. The advantages of the method include its ability to (a) handle small samples, (b) use isolated tooth specimens, and (c) evaluate cases simultaneously in terms of idealized age structure models and the variation that normally is associated with each under natural conditions. While the more obvious benefit of bear mortality analysis may be to research on ancient bear demography, the prin-ciples and procedures offered here are equally pertinent to archaeological studies of carnivore-mediated formation processes in cave sites. As is generally true in taphonomic research, however, bear mortality patterns are most effective when used in combination with independent lines of evidence to address questions about assemblage formation.
Full text
Available for:
IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Isotopic analyses of fossil bones of the extinct European cave bear indicate that this animal was a hibernator with the same unusual metabolic processes as some modern bear species. This finding ...provides useful biological and archaeological information on an extinct species, and the methods themselves may prove generally useful in studies of the metabolisms of modern bears, other hibernators, and perhaps of starving animals.
Tens of thousands of palaeontological and archaeological remains were collected by William Pengelly during 19th century excavations of Kents Cavern, but are now widely dispersed between museums. This ...has previously precluded spatial analysis. We have now assembled available museum records into a single database, and, using our previously-reconstructed Pengelly excavation map as a base, we have been able to exploit the unique Pengelly location code to set up a GIS mapping system. This allows, for the first time, the analysis of spatial patterns. In addition, the GIS serves to highlight potential problems of recording or curation in the original data. Here we report on the construction of the GIS system and its first use in the analysis of spatial distribution of bear remains. The maps demonstrate that
Ursus deningeri entered the cave through a now-sealed High Level Chamber entrance at the back of the cave in the middle Pleistocene, whereas
Ursus arctos accessed the cave in the late Pleistocene through the now-sealed Northeast Gallery entrance. The denning areas are reconstructed as Labyrinth/Bear's Den for
U. deningeri and Vestibule/Great Chamber for
U. arctos. Considerable post-mortem re-distribution of the remains of both species is indicated.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Human ancestors (Homo spp.), cave bears (Ursus deningeri, U. spelaeus), and brown bears (U. arctos) have coexisted in Eurasia for at least one million years, and bear remains and Paleolithic ...artifacts frequently are found in the same caves. The prevalence of cave bear bones in some sites is especially striking, as these bears were exceptionally large relative to archaic humans. Do artifact-bear associations in cave deposits indicate predation on cave bears by early human hunters, or do they testify simply to early humans' and cave bears' common interest in natural shelters, occupied on different schedules? Answering these and other questions about the circumstances of human-cave bear associations is made possible in part by expectations developed from research on modern bear ecology, time-scaled for paleontologic and archaeologic applications. Here I review available knowledge on Paleolithic human-bear relations with a special focus on cave bears (Middle Pleistocene U. deningeri) from Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey. Multiple lines of evidence show that cave bear and human use of caves were temporally independent events; the apparent spatial associations between human artifacts and cave bear bones are explained principally by slow sedimentation rates relative to the pace of biogenic accumulation and bears' bed preparation habits. Hibernation-linked behaviors and population characteristics of cave bears, based on osteometric, isotopic, and age and sex structure analyses, indicate that they depended heavily on seasonal food supplies, which were rich in resistant plant materials and cryptic, gritty foods. There is little evidence of direct ecological interaction among Pleistocene humans and cave bears.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
In this paper the author addresses two aspects of the study of (cave) bears in prehistoric (in particular Palaeolithic) art :
In which caves do we find representations of bears ; a survey of the ...literature and important references will be given. 9 articles/books (1933 -2002) and 2 internet sites are mentioned. At least 23 caves contain rockpain-tings or -engravings of bears, and above that, in at least the same number of caves or rockshelters, portable objects representing bears were found. In total more than a hundred representations of bears in general or cave bears in particular are known from the Palaeolithic. Several sites contain so called hunting scenes involving bears.
Also an overview will be given of the main and some recent theories trying to explain these prehistoric pictu¬ res, to interpret their meaning. At least 1 1 theories are mentioned in the literature published since the first discoveries of prehistoric rock art, in the second half of the 19th century, until now. These theories are 1. art for art's sake, 2. religious explanations, 3. totemism, 4. tribal initiation rites, 5. sympathetic magic, 6. structuralistic explanations, 7. information transfer, 8. graffiti and/or pornographic, 9. archaeo-astronomy, 10. stone age sound tracks and 1 1 . shamanism. The author sum¬ marises also 6 arguments why, to his opinion, the interpretation of prehistoric art lacks a solid scientific foundation : 1 . a strong neglect of established and sound scientific principles, 2. over-interpretation and wrong¬ ful generalization, 3. inaccurate dating 4. little solid evidence, only analogies 5. different explanations can exist at the same time 6. imposing our present-day ideas upon our prehistoric ancestors.
Dans cet article l'auteur attire l'attention sur deux aspects de la recherche scientifique des ours (des cavernes) dans l'art préhistorique (en particulier l'art du Paléolithique) : les grottes dans lesquelles nous trouvons des représentations d'ours ; une vue d'ensemble de la littérature et des références importantes est donnée. 9 articles/livres (1933-2002) et deux sites internet sont mentionnés. Au moins 23 grottes contiennent des peintures ou des gravures représentant l'ours, et en plus, dans un même nombre de grottes ou d'abris on a trouvé des objets mobiliers représentant l'ours. Au total, plus de cent représentations d'ours ou d'ours des cavernes sont connues du Paléolithique. Plusieurs sites contiennent des "scènes de chasse".
L'auteur donne aussi un aperçu des théories les plus importantes et les plus récentes essayant d'expliquer ces représentations préhistoriques. Au moins 1 1 théories sont citées dans la littérature depuis les premières découvertes de l'art préhistorique dans la seconde moitié du 20e siècle jusqu'à maintenant. Ces théories sont : 1. l'art pour l'art, 2. les explications religieuses,
3. le totémisme, 4. les rites d'initiation tribale, 5. la magie sympathique, 6. le structuralisme, 7. la transmission d'information, 8. le graffiti et/ou pornographie 9. V archéo-astronomie 10. l'acoustique de l'âge de pierre, 11 .le chamanisme. L'auteur donne aussi 6 arguments expliquant, pourquoi, à son sens, l'interprétation de l'art préhistorique manque de fond scientifique : 1 . une forte négligence des principes scientifiques acceptés et reconnus, 2. interprétation excessive et généralisation injuste, 3. datation imprécise
4. peu de preuves solides, seulement des analogies,
5. plusieurs explications peuvent exister en même temps, et 6. imposer nos idées actuelles sur nos ancêtres préhistoriques.
De Swart Herman W. Cave bears in prehistoric art ; a survey from the literature. In: Cahiers scientifiques du Muséum d'histoire naturelle de Lyon. Hors-série, tome 2, 2004. Actes du 9e symposium international sur l'ours des cavernes.
