Not directly related, isn’t it somewhat strange, grammar-wise?
Not a native English speaker, but I’d thought English grammar would require to put it: Hyenas gathered 9 Neanderthal skeletons, by eating them.
Not a native English speaker, but I’d thought English grammar would require to put it: Hyenas gathered 9 Neanderthal skeletons, by eating them.
Edit: I'm not sure actually right either. It was not the act of eating that transported the bodies; rather the bodies were brought there so they could be eaten.
"Hyenas dragged 9 Neanderthals to a cave to eat them."
My guess is what the author means is, “By preying upon...” which would be correct because dragging them to the cave is part of their predation. “By eating them” implies they were eaten and then, because of the eating, wound up in the cave (say through defecation or inside the stomachs of dead hyenas).
Normal: Hyenas gathered 9 Neanderthal skeletons by eating them.
Move with comma: By eating them, hyenas gathered 9 Neanderthal skeletons.
Normal: I think it will rain later.
Move with comma: It will rain later, I think.>Hyenas gathered, by eating them, 9 Neanderthal skeletons.
Which is even more awkward in actual use, but does make obvious the biggest problem with the sentence: you don't gather things by eating them.
"Neanderthal skeletal remains found in hyena lair". It's simple and straightforward. Explain the why in the article. Don't try to explain everything in a headline.