Bone Raw Material Exploitation at the South of South America: The Cerro Casa de Piedra locality By: Vivian Scheinsohn and Marcela Lucero This paper and accompanying slides are licensed with a Creative Commons: Attribution license. Attribution: Vivian Scheinsohn and Marcela Lucero
Bone Raw Material Exploitation at the South of South America : The Cerro Casa de Piedra locality Vivian Scheinsohn Marcela Lucero
Bone raw material exploitation model for Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Southern South America) in Scheinsohn 1997, 2002 Human populations between 7000-4500 BP have knowledge of specific bone properties : not an experimental moment Where and when was that experimental moment?
Cerro Casa de Piedra Ancient bone artifacts Great material conservation favoring bone presence Continuous and prolonged occupation (Aschero et al. 1992 y 2005 among others)
CCP 47 53 Lat. S. y 72 05 Long.O,
CCP5 CCP7
Guanaco (Lama Guanicoe) Huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus)
Cóndor (Vultur gryphus) Ñandú petiso o choique (Pterocnemia pennata)
Paleo environment 900 2000 2200 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10.000 Dry Paleolake Dry Paleolake Wet Dry Paleolake Very Wet
CCP5 First digs at the area (Aschero 1981-1982, Aschero et al. 2005) 9 layers. 1 to 4 contain archaeological remains Rock art Occupations dated from 6700 to 2500 BP Faunal analysis: Herrera 1988 and Cruz 2000 (avian bones) Guanaco dominates over huemul Natural abundance of these species in Cordillera environment. Guanaco: winter captures given newborn absence and sample age profile
CCP7 Long sequence: 19 layers dated between ca.10.600 and 3400 AP Occupational redundancy Space highly structured Multiple activity site Great conservation Rock art (Civalero 1995, 1999 and 2000/2001, Aschero 1996, Civalero et al. 2001, Civalero and Franco 2003, Aschero et al. 2005, among others)
Faunal analysis in CCP7 (De Nigris 2004) Guanaco preference (NISP 31,4 and 55, 1 %). Huemul (0,6 y 5,7%). Stable relationship between those species. guanaco MNI oscillate 1 to 15, Huemul 1 to 2. Preference not explainable for anatomical differences. Is attributed to huemul geographical range and low densities Other species: less 1% except inferior layers where avian bone represent 20%
Faunal analysis in CCP7 (De Nigris 2004) Guanaco: lean meat. Grease and medulla consumption is expected Lack of selectivity over bones associated with meat. Bones without associated meat predominate Dried meat: differed consumption Abundant marks related with consumption (63 and 38,5%).
Avian bone at CCP5 and CCP7 (Cruz 2000 and 2003) NISP= 7 Natural and cultural deposited birds (cutting marks) Low densities: opportunistic exploitation
Methodology CCP7 and CCP5 sample segmentation Three temporal blocks Block I: layers 19 to 9 CCP7 Block II: layers 6 to 3 CCP5 layers 8 to 2 CCP7 Block III: layers 2 to surface CCP5 layers 1 to surface CCP7 10.000 to 7700 7200 to 3800 3600 to present
Sample CCP 5 & CCP7 Bone artifacts. N=45 Human action Bone modifications related with butchering are not considered
Taxa percentages 2% 2% 19% 34% 43% Guanaco Arteodactila Huemul Ave Indet
Porcentaje Taxones - Bloque 1 Block 1 21% 29% Guanaco Arteodactila Huemul 0% Ave 4% Indet 46% Porcentaje Taxones - Bloque 2 Block 2 6% 0% 13% Guanaco Arteodactila 25% 56% Huemul Ave Indet
Cóndor serrated bone - CCP7
Morphological groups 2% 2% 2% 24% 7% 4% 7% 2% 22% 28% Superficie Retocador Epifisis aserrada Hueso decorado Boquilla Mango Punta Ojo Gancho de propulsor Hisopo
Morphological groups for temporal blocks B3 B2 B1 Total Instr. de acción en sup. 3 5 2 10 Punta roma (retocadores) 1 2 10 13 Epifisis aserrada 1 1 1 3 Hueso decorado 1 1 Boquilla 2 2 Mango 2 2 Punta 2 9 11 Ojo 1 1 Gancho de propulsor 1 1 Hisopo 1 1 5 15 24 45
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Morphological groups for temporal blocks B3 B2 B1 Superficie Retocador Epifisis aserrada Hueso decorado Boquilla Mango Punta Ojo Gancho de propulsor Hisopo
Superficial ActionTools (compresores) B1 B2
Marks
Marks
Retocadores (retouchers, flakers) extremo-laterales (Jackson 1989-1990)
Maximal length and width 160 140 120 100 80 60 Longitud Max Ancho Max 40 20 0 mm 0 5 10 15 Mean LM= 112,55 (Jackson=115) AM=23, 33 (Jackson = 27) Standard deviation LM= 34,24 AM= 4,47
B2 Points B1 projectile point? B1
Blunted points Retouchers B1 B2
Marks
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 mm Maximal length and width 0 5 10 15 LM AM Mean LM= 95.68 AM= 12.09 EM=8,05 Standard deviation LM=32, 97 AM=4,51 EM=1,81
Standardized shape on CCP
Haft (mango) B2
Marks
Boquillas Mouthpiece
Atlatl hook Fell Fell Baño Nuevo (Chile) CCP7
Needle eye? B2
Hisopo Brush - B1 Red guanaco painted at CCP5 are from that moment Aschero et al.2005
Serrated epiphysis
Painted bone
Decoration
Discussion Model (Scheinsohn 1997 and 2002) posited that experimental moment required: a) bone raw material variability b) design variability; c) tool metric structure variability (lack of standardization) d) many techniques coexisting as bone properties are unknown
Discussion a) Bone raw material variability Inexistent. Possibly related with animal availability Bone exploitation related with animal consumption (in Tierra del Fuego there were animals exploited after their bones which includes scavenging Scheinsohn 1997 and 2002)
Discussion b) Design variability Higher in B2: 8 morphological groups. Not different from B1: 6 groups. If projectile points are considered: 7.
Discussion c) Metric structure variability Not evaluated: small sample. Morphological standardization on certain retouchers from B1 and B2
Discussion c) Technical variability Lack of variability Techniques which imply big effort to meet objectives attainable by other more economical means : lack of knowledge on bone mechanical properties All this cases in B1 Examples:
Conclusions 1) Most of the requirements could not be evaluated. But, when we can, B1 fits experimentation moment. 2) Not big differences between B1 y B2 3) Both presents much more morphological groups than in other sites from Patagonia 4) Both experimental moments?
Conclusions 5) Prey consumption constrain bone tool production. This situation is given by epiphysis absence in every tool group. Related with breakage patterns for medulla extraction (De Nigris 2004)
Future prospects Microwear experimental program for hafts, retouchers and brushes Tracking of morphological groups detected in other sites of Patagonia Tracking of decoration patterns in other sites of Patagonia
Acknowledgments Teresa Civalero, Damián Bozzuto, Antonella Di Vruno and the others Teresos Mariana De Nigris, Pablo Fernández and Natacha Buc for the seminars on bones Isabel Cruz for her cóndor data Rafael Goñi for data on atlatl hooks in Patagonia ICAZ and local organizers (specially Joaquín Arroyo) and Cancillería argentina Sabrina Leonardt and Florencia Rizzo (UBA students) Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la Ciencia y la Técnicas (ANPCYT) for supporting research at CCP