Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Archaeological evidences are still missing: a comment on Fariña et al. Arroyo del Vizcaíno site, Uruguay

2014; Royal Society; Volume: 281; Issue: 1795 Linguagem: Italiano

10.1098/rspb.2014.0449

1471-2954

Rafael Suárez, Luis Alberto Borrero, Karen Borrazzo, Martı́n Ubilla, Sérgio Martínez, Daniel Perea,

Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory

You have accessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Suárez Rafael, Borrero Luis A., Borrazzo Karen, Ubilla Martín, Martínez Sergio and Perea Daniel 2014Archaeological evidences are still missing: a comment on Fariña et al. Arroyo del Vizcaíno site, UruguayProc. R. Soc. B.2812014044920140449http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0449SectionYou have accessComments and invited repliesArchaeological evidences are still missing: a comment on Fariña et al. Arroyo del Vizcaíno site, Uruguay Rafael Suárez Rafael Suárez Departamento Arqueología, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de la República, Magallanes 1577, 11200 Montevideo, Uruguay [email protected] [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Luis A. Borrero Luis A. Borrero IMHICIHU, CONICET, Saavedra 15, Piso 5, 1083 ACA Buenos Aires, Argentina Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Karen Borrazzo Karen Borrazzo IMHICIHU, CONICET, Saavedra 15, Piso 5, 1083 ACA Buenos Aires, Argentina Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Martín Ubilla Martín Ubilla Departamento Evolución de Cuencas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author , Sergio Martínez Sergio Martínez Departamento Evolución de Cuencas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Daniel Perea Daniel Perea Departamento Evolución de Cuencas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Rafael Suárez Rafael Suárez Departamento Arqueología, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de la República, Magallanes 1577, 11200 Montevideo, Uruguay [email protected] [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Luis A. Borrero Luis A. Borrero IMHICIHU, CONICET, Saavedra 15, Piso 5, 1083 ACA Buenos Aires, Argentina Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Karen Borrazzo Karen Borrazzo IMHICIHU, CONICET, Saavedra 15, Piso 5, 1083 ACA Buenos Aires, Argentina Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Martín Ubilla Martín Ubilla Departamento Evolución de Cuencas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed , Sergio Martínez Sergio Martínez Departamento Evolución de Cuencas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed and Daniel Perea Daniel Perea Departamento Evolución de Cuencas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Published:22 November 2014https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0449Fariña et al. [1] suggest the possibility of human presence ca 30 ka in the Arroyo del Vizcaíno site (AVS) (southern Uruguay). This is based mainly on the record of cutmarks made by human artefacts on Pleistocene animal bones. They also inform of the finding of a single tiny stone tool and few other possible lithic artefacts. Nevertheless, their research has serious methodological problems and important interpretative errors.The context is a hydraulic bone concentration on muddy sediments, which is a physical association in the sense that its behavioural significance is not evident [2]. In a site like AVS, secondary, averaged deposits, are to be expected. Fluvial processes such as traction, friction, mixing, deposition and redeposition of different particles, including bones and lithics, should be considered.It happens that 'Time intervals represented by fossils are not necessarily the same as those represented by sedimentary events in fluvial systems' [3, p. 211], and particles continue accumulating for long periods. This is why this kind of bone assemblage is normally averaged. It is true that ' … many, if not most, multi-individual concentrations of disarticulated vertebrate skeletal elements preserved in ancient fluvial channels were derived from a preexisting concentrated source' [2, p. 25], but this does not equal single events. Despite the efforts by Fariña et al. to reduce AVS to a single event, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is an averaged sample. The selection of four Lestodon ribs for dating is not helpful in assuring that they produce independent dates. Under those conditions, it is not safe to pool the results. Fariña et al. accept that more than one taphonomic history is written in those bones, which is an honest way to admit its averaged nature. Indeed, they point out the little evidence for major hydraulic transport deduced from the fossil assemblage, but in the electronic supplementary material, they specify 'The presence of coarse grains must have been due to high-energy events … Those pebbles must have transported as bed load together with the transported bones, perhaps in more than one event'. It is very difficult to make compatible 'little evidence of major fluvial transport' with several events of 'high energy'. The authors include a significant taxonomic list, but from the way the taxonomic data are presented, they cannot be tested in any way because it is not possible to know what material was found in each level (bed 2a, 2b), and this precludes the identification of materials used for dating [1, table S1], besides preventing the taxonomy from being checked.In the end, AVS is a time-averaged bonebed, resulting from a variety of events and processes. The presence of more than 1000 bones and 27 individuals does not fit models of differential transport of vertebrate bones by humans [4], despite the fact that selection by humans is supposed to be the cause of the accumulation. It is not true that San hunter–gatherers 'schlep entire carcasses with masses in excess of several hundred kilograms to more permanent camps' [1, p. 4]. This is supported with reference to the work of Bunn, whose claims were never substantiated with data [5, p. 172]. The bone collection from AVS, including many from one species and few from many others, makes absolutely no sense in terms of human hunting activities. Either most of the Lestodon bones were transported to the site, which is unreasonable, or most of the other two species of ground sloths, and other large animals represented by few bones, were transported to other places, which is also implausible.A 'gourmet' curve for Lestodon? 'Curves marked gourmet represent strategies that select for high frequencies of parts of the very highest value and abandon parts of moderate and low value' [6, p. 81]. From a monitoring perspective what needs to be known is if the bone assemblage is transported or 'abandoned' [7]. Transported bone assemblages generally are represented at sites away from kills, particularly storage sites [6, p. 110]. If it is an abandoned kill site, then there are no expectations of a gourmet curve. There is inconsistency either way.What is AVS, a processing or a kill site? If it is a 'processing' site, then there is little evidence of processing. A mortality profile dominated by prime adults is to be expected at a kill site [8, p. 164] and this is what the authors claim to have found. However, mortality profiles are constructed using tooth eruption-wear of dominant species [8], while Fariña et al. use bone fusion. This makes their results not comparable with data from Stiner or other specialists. Also, the basic problem with adult-dominated assemblages is the bad preservation of the young.On the other hand, it is difficult to accept that 'long distance weaponry' was implicated, given the fact that their evidence for the presence of lithics is dramatically thin and the number (and size) of the presumed hunted animals so impressive. Apparently, this is the basis on which the prime adult mortality profile stands and is normally associated with hunting [8]. Also, in a previous publication it was suggested that the marks on bones were made with silex points, 'which had also a secondary function as scrapers' [9, p. 234]. This makes no sense in terms of the lithics claimed to be associated, which in no way resemble such a tool kit and which are useless for processing 17 individuals of between 4000 and 1000 kg (Lestodon sp.), plus eight individuals of more than 1000 kg (other animals).Fariña et al. [1, p. 5] point out that lithic artefacts at AVS are scarce 'as is usual in South American Pleistocene archaeological sites'. First, one of their examples is the Campo Laborde site, which in fact is not a Pleistocene but a Holocene site [10]. Secondly, the number of artefacts within a site is not related with time, but with function. Thirdly, at other sites like Monte Alegre (Brazil) dated during the Late Pleistocene more than 30 000 flakes and 24 formal tools were found [11]. In fact, abundant rocks (cobbles and pebbles) are available at AVS (bed 2a), as can be seen in [1, figure S5], suggesting that some background noise exists. How many pebbles and cobbles were removed during the excavations? What were their shape, size and material? What were the criteria applied to collect and select the so-called artefacts within the 'natural' lithic assemblage? This important information becomes crucial when only very few artefacts—whose cultural character is not obvious—are recovered along with dozens of alleged butchered animals. Even though the authors recognize that no systematic effort was made to collect lithic materials during fieldwork [1, p. 6], their claim concerning AVS archaeological character calls for a thorough associational, technological and taphonomic analysis of lithics that is absent.There is little information concerning marks not attributed to humans. In their electronic supplementary material, the authors mention few trampling marks. However, in a previous publication many fractures were attributed to trampling and one Lestodon clavicle presented 22 trampling marks at its middle part. Another 65 marks were identified in the bone, including 'several chop marks, sawing marks and scraping marks' [9, p. 234]. The presence of all these marks on a single bone speaks of a complicated taphonomic history, one in which it is difficult to substantiate the identification of some of them as anthropic. There is reference to the 'observed extent of the trampling' and to a 'trampled surface'. Since Behrensemeyer et al. [12, p. 768] clearly remarked 'microscopic features alone are not sufficient evidence to distinguish human-generated cutmarks from the results of trampling', cutmarks at AVS are suspect.There is no need to squeeze sites in order to find a human imprint; when there is evidence it shows, and none has been found so far at AVS.FootnotesThe accompanying reply can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1637.© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.References1Fariña RA, Tambusso PS, Varela L, Czerwonogora A, Di Giacomo M, Musso M, Bracco R& Gascue A. 2014Arroyo del Vizcaíno, Uruguay: a fossil-rich 30-ka-old megafaunal locality with cut-marked bones. .Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132211. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2211). Link, ISI, Google Scholar2Rogers RR& Kidwell SM. 2007A conceptual framework for the genesis and analysis of vertebrate skeletal concentrations. Bonebeds. Genesis, analysis, and paleobiological significance (eds , Rogers RR, Eberth DA& Fiorillo AR), pp. 1–63. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Crossref, Google Scholar3Behrensmeyer AK. 1982Time resolution in fluvial vertebrate assemblages. Paleobiology 8, 211–227. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar4O'Connell JF, Hawkes K& Blurton Jones N. 1988Hadza hunting, butchering, and bone transport and their archaeological implications. J. Anthropol. Res. 44, 113–161. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar5O'Connell JF. 1993Discussion: subsistence and settlement interpretations. From bones to behavior. Carbondale (ed. & Hudson J), pp. 169–178. Center for Archaeological Investigations at Southern Illinois University. Google Scholar6Binford LR. 1978Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar7Thomas DH. 1983The archaeology of Monitor Valley. 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthrop. Pap. 59. Google Scholar8Stiner MC. 1991An interspecific perspective on the emergence of the modern human predatory niche. Human predators and prey mortality (ed. & Stiner M), pp. 149–185. Boulder, CO: Westview. Google Scholar9Arribas A, Palmqvist P, Pérez-Claros JA, Castilla R, Vizcaíno SF& Fariña RA. 2001New evidence on the interaction between humans and megafauna in South America. Publ. Semin. Paleontol. Zaragoza 5, 228–238. Google Scholar10Politis G& Messineo PG. 2008The Campo Laborde site: new evidence for the Holocene survival of Pleistocene megafauna in the Argentine Pampas. Quat. Int. 191, 98–114. (doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.12.003). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar11Roosevelt A, et al.1996Paleoindian cave dwellers in the Amazon: the peopling of the Americas. Science 272, 373–384. (doi:10.1126/science.272.5260.373). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar12Behrensmeyer AK, Gordon KD& Yanagi GT. 1986Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature 319, 768–771. (doi:10.1038/319768a0). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar Next Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited by Mitchell P (2020) Debating Madagascar: A reply to Hansford et al.'s response, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 10.1080/15564894.2020.1771483, 15:4, (603-608), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2020. Borrazzo K (2020) Expanding the Scope of Actualistic Taphonomy in Archaeological Research Actualistic Taphonomy in South America, 10.1007/978-3-030-20625-3_12, (221-242), . Labarca R (2020) Taphonomy of the Pilauco Site, Northwestern Chilean Patagonia Pilauco: A Late Pleistocene Archaeo-paleontological Site, 10.1007/978-3-030-23918-3_8, (123-156), . Navarro‐Harris X, Pino M, Guzmán‐Marín P, Lira M, Labarca R and Corgne A (2019) The procurement and use of knappable glassy volcanic raw material from the late Pleistocene Pilauco site, Chilean Northwestern Patagonia, Geoarchaeology, 10.1002/gea.21736, 34:5, (592-612), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2019. (2019) References A Companion to Anthropological Genetics, 10.1002/9781118768853.refs, (343-443) Krasinski K, Graf K and Burke C (2018) From taphonomy to human ecology: Interdisciplinary contributions by Gary Haynes and his colleagues, former students, and friends, Quaternary International, 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.02.014, 466, (107-112), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018. López Mendoza P, Cartajena I, Carabias D, Prevosti F, Maldonado A and Flores-Aqueveque V (2018) Reconstructing drowned terrestrial landscapes. Isotopic paleoecology of a late Pleistocene extinct faunal assemblage: Site GNL Quintero 1 (GNLQ1) (32° S, Central Chile), Quaternary International, 10.1016/j.quaint.2016.08.017, 463, (153-160), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018. Borrero L (2016) Ambiguity and Debates on the Early Peopling of South America, PaleoAmerica, 10.1080/20555563.2015.1136498, 2:1, (11-21), Online publication date: 2-Jan-2016. Ubilla M and Martínez S (2016) Continental Beds Geology and Paleontology of the Quaternary of Uruguay, 10.1007/978-3-319-29303-5_3, (29-61), . Fariña R, Tambusso P, Varela L, Di Giacomo M, Musso M, Gascue A and Bracco R (2014) Among others, cut-marks are archaeological evidence: reply to 'Archaeological evidences are still missing: a comment on Fariña et al. Arroyo del Vizcaíno Site, Uruguay' by Suárez et al., Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281:1795, Online publication date: 22-Nov-2014. This Issue22 November 2014Volume 281Issue 1795 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0449PubMed:25297857Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1471-2954History: Manuscript received23/02/2014Manuscript accepted09/06/2014Published online22/11/2014Published in print22/11/2014 License:© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Citations and impact Subjectsenvironmental sciencepalaeontology Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad