Plant use intensification among hunter-gatherers in the Diamante river basin, Argentina

Before Farming 2011/2 article 2 1

Plant use intensification among hunter-gatherers in theDiamante river basin, Argentina

Carina Llano

Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael, Parque Mariano Moreno (5600) San Rafael, Mendoza, Argentina

[email protected]

Gustavo Neme

CONICET-Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael, Mendoza, Argentina

[email protected]

Catalina Teresa Michieli

Instituto de Investigaciones Arqueológicas y Museo “Prof. Mariano Gambier” FFHA Universidad Nacional de San

Juan, address please

[email protected]

Keywords

Archaeobotany, intensification, hunter-gatherers, west-central Argentina

Abstract

Archaeologists have become increasingly interested in understanding the conditions under which resource

intensification occurs. In the case of vegetal foods, the process often ends with the adoption of agriculture. In this

article we explore wild plant resource intensification using archaeobotanical information from three sites located

in the upper Diamante river basin, Mendoza province, Argentina. The area was populated by humans ca 8000 BP

and the first evidence of wild plant exploitation in the regional archaeological record appears ca 3000 BP. Re-

source intensification is evaluated using return rates for plants recovered from the sites in the study area. The

results show the exclusive use of high ranked plants during the beginning of the occupation with an increase in

diet breadth over time. In addition, a comparison of the return rates of wild plants and domesticates indicates that

agriculture appears in the study region coincidently with the initiation of low return (low rank) plant exploitation.

1 Introduction

In the last several decades archaeologists have be-

come increasingly interested in explaining resource

intensification within hunter and gatherer societies

(Ames 1994; Jones 1997; Lourandos & Ross 1994;

Marquardt 1986; Raab 1996; Gremillion 2004). Inten-

sification could be understood as a process under

which there is an increase in productivity per unit of

land. Currently these increases imply an increase in

the investment of labour (Binford 1999:6; Lourandos

1985:389; Holly 2005; Holdaway et al 2008; Johnson

& Hard 2008). From an archaeobotanical perspective

intensification processes can be evaluated using a

variety of indicators such as diversification in the use

of plant resources, use of plants with lower perform-

ance, use of seeds that require processing technolo-

gies, expansion of exchange networks (incorporating

non-local goods), changes in the frequencies of taxa

exploited, and getting fruits for consumption from both

the mesocarp and the seed (ie, undomesticated fruit

in the region Geoffroea decorticans, Ximenia

americana). The condition under which intensifica-

tion occurs is a matter of debate and explanations

emphasise factors such as population pressure,

social circumscription and environmental changes

(Beaton 1991; Bettinger 1991; Janetski 1997; Keeley

1988; Kelly 1991:152–153). In addition to

archaeobotanical data, evidence for the intensifica-

tion process has been sought in faunal data, settle-

2 Before Farming 2011/2 article 2

Plant use intensification between hunter-gatherers in the Diamante river basin, Argentina: Llano et al

ment patterns and technological records (Broughton

1994a; 2004; Wohlgemuth 1996; Janetski 1997;

Grayson 1991; Bettinger 1991; 2001; Holly 2005;

Dean 2007).

For our study region of west-central Argentina, an

intensification process has been proposed based on

a decline in the hunting of large game (guanacos), an

increase in the proportion of smaller animals in the

diet, increased processing costs (more processing

equipment), reduced mobility and an increase in long

distance exchange networks (Neme 2002; 2007,

Neme & Gil 2008). Discussions among researchers

working in the region have in the last decade focused

on how to interpret the evidence for intensification

derived from archaeofaunal data, the biogeography

of resource distributions, the impact of biogeographic

barriers and climate change on resource availability

(Neme 2002; 2007; Neme & Gil 2008a; 2008b). This

research suggests a gradual process of intensifica-

tion probably linked to an increasing population den-

sity that finally leads to the incorporation of marginal

environments with populations relying more on

smaller animals with lower return rates1 (Neme 2007;

Neme & Gil 2008a). However, other researchers do

not agree with this model, arguing that the database

could be skewed by non-behavioural factors such as

taphonomic biases in preservation (Borrero 2002).

There is scarce archaeobotanical data available

in west-central Argentina (Hernández et al 1999;

Hernández 2002; Llano 2010) and for this reason the

use of wild plants has not been included in regional

discussions about intensification and their importance

for hunter gatherers. For southern Mendoza, most of

the archaeobotanical data refers to the use of do-

mesticated rather than wild plants (Semper & Lagiglia

1968; Lagiglia 1999). More recently, the discussion of

domesticates (especially maize) has incorporated

stable isotope (carbon and nitrogen) data (Gil 1997–

1998; Gil 2005; Gil et al 2006). West-central Argentina

is considered to be the southern boundary of pre-

hispanic agriculture (Lagiglia 1968; 1981; 1999; Gil

1997–1998, 2003; Neme & Gil 2008a). As a result, it

is an ideal location to explore how domesticated

plants were introduced into the hunter-gatherer con-

text and why these foods did not spread south into

Patagonia (macrobotanical remains and isotope in-

formation show that maize was not an important re-

source in Patagonia [Gil et al 2006]).In this paper we

introduce macrobotanical data from three archaeo-

logical sites located in the upper Diamante river val-

ley from the southern Mendoza region (figure 1). Us-

ing these data we analyse the intensification model

proposed for the region (Neme 2007), and suggest

alternative explanations for the introduction of domes-

ticates to the region.

2 Intensification & farming

Most archaeological studies of hunter-gatherer re-

source intensification have focused on groups living

in arid and temperate environments (Holly 2005;

Yaccobaccio 2003; Neme 2007; Holdaway et al 2008;

Johnson & Hard 2008; Rhode 2008). In these envi-

ronments, intensification involves expanding the diet

breadth, but expending more time in the processing

of secondary or lower ranked resources. There may

be a reduction in the search time but the handling

and processing costs are higher (Bettinger 2001;

2010; Broughton 1994b; 1997; 2004; Holly 2005;

Neme 2007).

Archaeological research carried out in different

parts of the world has documented a general decline

in return rates over the last several thousand years.

This decline reflects the increasing harvest of smaller,

less productive, and hence ‘lower-ranked’ food re-

sources (Basgall 1987; Bettinger 1991; 2001; Bouey

1987; Broughton 1994a, 1994b; Wolgemuth 1996;

Janetski 1997; Raab et al 1995; Gremillion 2004;

Rhode 2008). In this situation, wild plant intensifica-

tion may include pressing, leaching, grinding or parch-

ing wild seeds, which take more work to collect and

grind than previously utilised resources. Not surpris-

ingly, the domestication and cultivation of plants has

received considerable attention as an obvious exam-

ple of intensification (eg, Johnson & Hard 2008;

Winterhalder & Goland 1997; Barlow 2002). The

changing abundance and diversity of wild foods used

trough time can help us to evaluate the timing of the

transition from hunting and gathering to farming, in-

forming us of when and where domestication was a

necessary strategy to supplement hunter-gatherer

economies (eg, Barlow 2002, Gremillion & Sobolik

1996). In this sense, prehistoric foragers were forced

to farm when the availability of key wild resources

(higher return rate) declined due to climate change,

ecological disaster, or harvest pressure caused by

prehistoric populations.

In the later Holocene archaeological record of

southern Mendoza there is evidence of a major de-



Figure 1 Map showing the southern Mendoza region and the archaeological sites included in this paper



cline of larger prey, especially guanaco (Lama

guanicoe), an increase in diet breadth, changes in

the procurement and use of lithic resources, and in

some parts of the region the use of domesticated

plants (Neme 2007; Neme & Gil 2008a). However,

the role of wild plants in this process has not been

studied.

Domesticated plants are well represented in the

archaeological records of southern Mendoza province

since ca 2200 BP. Domesticates recorded in the re-

gion are presented in table 1 with a detailed radiocar-

bon chronology of the direct dates on plants. The ear-

liest record was found at the site of Gruta del Indio ca

2200 BP (Lagiglia 2001) and after ca 1000 BP the

distribution of domesticates expanded with Zea mays

as the most ubiquitous species (Gil et al 2006). Re-

cent studies of staple carbon isotope (δ13C) and rates

of dental caries from southern Mendoza show high

spatial and temporal variability in the prehistoric diet,

but domesticates never played an important role

(Novellino et al 2004; Gil et al 2006; Gil et al 2011). On

the contrary, except for isolated cases (eg, individuals

from Gruta del Indio or Cañada Seca sites) most of

the variability can be explained by the isotope values

of wild resources from the region (Gil et al 2006; Llano

& Ugan 2010).

3 The environmental setting, archaeological

context & ethnobotanic record

Central and southern Mendoza province, located be-

tween 33–37° S and 70–67° W, is characterised by its

environmental diversity. In geomorphological terms it

includes the Andes cordillera in the west, a piedmont

fringe extending along the mountain front, and a large

plain (lowlands) to the east (Gonzalez Díaz & Fauqué

1993; Abraham 2000). The area is drained by the Dia-

mante, Atuel and Grande rivers (Dessanti 1956, 1978;

Gonzalez Díaz 1972). The climate is characterised as

semiarid, with annual precipitation that ranges be-

tween 900 mm in the west and 250 mm in the east

(Abraham 2000). Large seasonal variations are due

to elevation and continental conditions (Cappitanelli

1972). Plant communities of several phytogeographic

provinces (eg, Monte, Patagonia, Altoandina) are dis-

tributed following both altitudinal and latitudinal gra-

dients (Cabrera 1976; Roig 1972; Roig et al 2000;

Ruiz Leal 1972; Mare et al 1985; Morrone 2001). In

this context, the high Diamante river valley belongs to

a transitional area between Patagonia and Altoandina

phytogeographic units characterised by

nanophanerophyte communities such as Adesmia

pinifolia, A. obovata and the grasslands of Poa

holciformes, Stipa spp.

The ethnobotanic record of plant use among abo-

riginal societies includes the use of xeric species as

foods, medicines, dyes, fodder, building material and

fuels (see Ladio & Lozada 2009). The most useful

plant families are the same as those which dominate

this phytogeographical region, such as Fabaceae,

Asteraceae, Zygophyllaceae and Anacardiaceae. As

found in other arid zones (eg, Almeida et al 2005;

Gragson 1997) human use of trees, shrubs, and un-

derground storage organs is more frequent than the

use of herbs.

Ethnohistoric information (Michieli 1978; 1983)

indicates that wild plants represent a significant com-

ponent of the diet for many hunter-gatherer groups.

The abundance of these resources functioned as di-

etary supplements and as sustenance buffers in pe-

riods of seasonal scarcity (Ladio & Lozada 2009).

Hunter-gatherers used diverse species such as

algarrobo (Prosopis flexuosa), molle (Schinus

polygamus), and chañar (Geoffroea decorticans) for

preparing drinks and food (Michieli 1978; 1983). Sev-

Site Level Chronology Material Lab Code

El Carrizalito 015/025 530±35 Charcoal AA-73209025/050 650±32 Zea mays AA-73212025/050 2332±32 Charcoal AA-73211

Alero Montiel 015/020 407±35 Charcoal AA-73206025/040 1081±60 Zea mays AA-73210040/050 2239±34 Charcoal AA-73207070/080 1840±34 Charcoal AA-73208

El Mallín 040/060 8886±46 Charcoal AA-73231060/080 1563±37 Lagenaria sp. AA-85700100/120 8435±46 Charcoal AA-732052º Half 8301±77 Human bone AA-73215Indet 1483±37 Chusquea culeuo AA-85701

Table 1 List of the archaeological sites with domesticated plant remains from southern Mendoza



eral authors have pointed out the great cultural and

nutritional importance of these plants (Ragonese &

Martínez-Crovetto 1947).

The archaeological record shows changes in the

spatial and temporal variability in wild plant use in the

region (Neme & Gil 2008). These shifts are consid-

ered to be signals of the intensification process

underway in the second half of the later Holocene ca

2000 BP (Hernández et al 1999; Neme 2007; Llano

2010). In archaeological terms the Diamante river

basin is scantily studied and the only available infor-

mation comes from the mountain area where little

archaeological research has been conducted

(Gambier 1979, 1980; 1985; Lagiglia 1997; Neme

2007; Durán et al 2006). The oldest occupation is ca

9000 BP in the mountain valleys. However, most of

the archaeological samples were radiocarbon dated

to the last 3000 years (Gambier 1985). The highest

elevations, located along the Chilean-Argentinean

border, were occupied only during the last 2000 BP

(Durán et al 2006) after the rest of the region had

been populated. This expansion of humans into pre-

viously unoccupied zones complements data from

southern Mendoza province for a late population in-

crease (Neme 2002; 2007; Neme & Gil 2008). Con-

currently there was an increase in the diversity of wild

animal exploitation (previously focused on big game)

and the appearance of the first domesticated plants

in the archaeological record (Gambier 1985; Llano

2010).

Based on the limited information retrieved at the

sites of El Carrizalito, Alero Montiel and El Mallín

(Gambier 1979), Gambier characterises the archaeo-

logical sites in the mountains as belonging to peri-

ods when pottery was utilised. Furthermore, the au-

thor demonstrates that climatic conditions and alti-

tude made agriculture impossible (Gambier 1979:25).

However, maize grains were recovered in some ar-

chaeological sites located in caves (Gambier 1979).

The presence of this domesticate indicates that it was

brought from lower elevation camps or obtained by

exchange with others groups.

4 The sites, their archaeobotanical record &

chronology

The clustered cave sites, El Mallín, Alero Montiel and

Gruta el Carrizalito, share environmental and

geomorphological features (caves). Gambier exca-

vated these sites in 1979 which constitute the only

direct empirical evidence we currently have available

for understanding dietary plant use in the Diamante

basin (Gambier 1979). Unfortunately, the recovery

techniques and analysis of post depositional proc-

esses were not to a standard we would expect today

which means the data are not of the highest quality.

However, some useful observations were made about

the treatment of plant resources in the different as-

semblages such as charred seeds and processing

marks (Prosopis sp., Schinus polygamus, Chusquea

culeuo, Zea mays). These observations help us to

recognise the anthropogenic origin of much of the

samples. The rest of the archaeological record, how-

ever, was never analysed and this is the reason why

we cannot use this evidence (lithic, pottery and

archaeofauna) to discuss some of the proposed

ideas or to generate predictive models.

El Mallín is located near the Diamante River, at an

altitude of 2200 masl (figure 2). The dimension of the

cave is 7 m deep with a maximum width of 5m and a

height of 2.48 m. Four units with varying sizes were

excavated with a total surface area of 35 m2. Two 3 x 2

m units are located in the deeper part of the cave (A

and B) and the other two 2.45 x 1.70 m units are in the

narrowest eaves (C and D). Five radiocarbon sam-

ples obtained from El Mallín place the occupations

between 8886±46 and 1483±37 years BP (table 2).

This constitutes the oldest archaeological site in the

Diamante basin region (Neme & Gil 2009). The scant

archaeobotanical record of El Mallín consists of frag-

ments of pumpkin (Lagenaria sp.), basketry

(Poaceae), lechuguilla (Diplolepis hieronymi) andFigure 2 Plan views of the archaeological sites



cane (Chusquea culeou) (table 3). The mesocarp of

Lagenaria has a red color indicating a possible use

of the fruit as a container. Chusquea (mountain bam-

boo) remains also show signs of use as pigments

and as tools for engraving.

El Carrizalito is located on the left bank of the Dia-

mante River at 1650 masl. The dimensions of the

cave reach a depth of 8.90m and 5.80m in width, with

a maximum height of 2.65m (figure 2). Two units, A

and B (2.5 x 2.5m) were excavated and the sequence

was radiocarbon dated from 530±35 to 2332±32

years BP (table 2). The archaeobotanical record of

Carrizalito includes macroremains of wild and do-

mesticated plants (table 3). The plant remains recov-

ered are ethnographically documented as being used

for food, dye, tools, rituals, among other purposes

(Ladio & Lozada 2009). The most represented taxon

is Schinus polygamus (pepper tree), followed by

Prosopis sp. Another species of wild plant recovered

with use evidence is Maihueniopsis darwinii that has

an edible tuber which use has been recorded in cur-

rent and past communities (Nacuzzi & Perez de Micou

1984; Casamiquela 1996; Ladio 2001). Some seeds

of domesticated plants (Zea mays and Lagenaria sp.)

appear in the upper layers of the excavation. One was

charred suggesting its use as food and a Zea mays

seed was directly dated by AMS to 650±32 BP (table

2).

The site of Alero Montiel is located on a basalt

volcanic tap next to Carrizalito Creek, which flows to

the Diamante River. According to data recorded by the

author, the dimensions of the cave are 8 m wide by 3

m deep. The field work was based on the excavation

of two 2.50 x 2.50 m units and one unit of 1.25 x 1.25 m

(figure 2). The chronology of the site covers the last ca

2200 BP (table 2). Only four archaeobotanical taxa

were recovered: a corn cob, cacti epidermis, molle

endocarp (Schinus polygamus), and mesquite

(Prosopis alpataco). The latter shows clear evidence

of human use such as tapered ends and signs of

carbonisation. It may have been used to make fire

and/or to re-sharpen stone tools (table 3).

5 Sample size, taphonomy & taxa

representation

Human occupation of the high valley of the Diamante

River began around 9000 BP. As mentioned earlier,

the problems related to the excavation make it highly

probable that some of the botanical remains were

lost during field work by the use of inappropriate sieve

size and the selective recovery of remains. However,

the presence of human processing traits, such as

burned seeds, non-local plants (domesticates and

Chusquea culeu) the abundance of lithics, bones, and

pottery indicate that most of the items recovered from

the samples were transported to the site by humans.

Site Level Chronology Material Lab Code

El Carrizalito 015/025 530±35 Charcoal AA-73209025/050 650±32 Zea mays AA-73212025/050 2332±32 Charcoal AA-73211

Alero Montiel 015/020 407±35 Charcoal AA-73206025/040 1081±60 Zea mays AA-73210040/050 2239±34 Charcoal AA-73207070/080 1840±34 Charcoal AA-73208

El Mallín 040/060 8886±46 Charcoal AA-73231060/080 1563±37 Lagenaria sp. AA-85700100/120 8435±46 Charcoal AA-732052º Half 8301±77 Human bone AA-73215Indet 1483±37 Chusquea culeuo AA-85701

Taxon Kg/Hr Kcal/Kg Kcal/Hr

Schinus polygamus1 1 3100 3214Prosopis sp. 2.41 3600 8665Maihueniopsis darwinii 9 650 5850Opuntia sulphurea 1.8 1150 2070Zea mays2 1100

1 Data from Llano and Ugan (2010).2 Data from Barlow (2002). The slash and burn

Table 2 Dates from El Mallin, Carrizalito and Alero Montiel

Table 3 Mocrobotanical remains identified from high Diamante river valley archaeological sites



The macrobotanical samples from the three sites

were combined into two assemblages due to small

sample size. To assign material to each assemblage

we used excavation units as they were found in the

original bags and the radiocarbon ages. These exca-

vation units include mainly levels of 20 cm in each

cave. The first assemblage includes remains from

3000 to 1500 BP (oldest sample from El Carrizalito)

and the second assemblage covers the last 1500 BP

(younger samples from El Carrizalito and all sam-

ples from El Mallín and Alero Montiel).

Using the total amount of identified specimens

(n=64 in the later assemblage) and n=678 in the older

assemblage), the results show an important differ-

ence in the number of taxa between both assem-

blages (figure 3). Schinus and Prosopis were used

intensively during the earlier period, and after that a

number of other plant taxa (including domesticates)

were incorporated into the diet, showing an increase

in diet breadth. This increase in the number of taxa

through time could not be explained as a product of a

sample size bias. On the contrary, the oldest and less

diverse assemblage has the biggest sample (n= 678),

and the younger and more diverse assemblage has

the smaller sample (n=65). Moreover, the younger

sample is the better preserved which means that

taphonomic factors cannot account for differences in

taxa representation.

6 Diversity & return rate

If we review the sequence in which taxa appear, we

see that the first species are those with higher caloric

return rates (Prosopis sp. and Schinus polygamus)

that constitute an attractive resource for human sub-

sistence (Llano & Ugan 2010). In terms of calories

Prosopis seeds are nutritious with approximately 13%

protein, 4% fat and 84% carbohydrate. Their net re-

turn rate is 3600 kcal/kg. Schinus polygamus is ap-

proximately 8% protein, 4% fat, and 90% carbohydrate

with a return rate of 3100 kcal/kg. After 1500 BP the

exploitation of Schinus and Prosopis continued, but

other wild taxa with lower return rates began to ap-

Figure 3 Taxa frequency by assemblage



pear in the record and none exceeds 2000 kcal per

hour (Maihueniopsis, Opuntia). During the same pe-

riod, domesticated plants also appear and we will

return to this topic later.

The diversity index is one of the most commonly

used calculations to reveal the process of intensifica-

tion among plant or animal resources (Grayson &

Delpech 1998; Barlow 2002; Broughton 1994a;

1994b; Neme & Gil 2008a, 2008b; Wolverton et al

2008). As the local population increases or resources

decrease, then the diet breadth becomes broader with

increased plant diversity (Winterhalder & Goland

1997; Barlow 2002; Kelly 1995; Wolgemuth 1996).

We calculated the plant diversity index for both as-

semblages (3000–1500 years BP and 1500–400 year

BP). The diversity values indicate that the oldest as-

semblage (including only El Carrizalito) has the low-

est value, a Shannon-Wiener index of 0.15. The latest

assemblage shows a marked increase in diversity

with a Shannon-Wiener index of 1.08.

Another traditional way to evaluate intensification

processes has been the use of indices to measure

changes in the exploitation of large prey. The most

widely used is the Artiodactyla index that measures

the relative proportion of this resource in different as-

semblages (Szuter & Bayham 1989; Lyman 1994;

Grayson 1991; Wolverton 2008; Neme & Gil 2008a).

As a comparable way of comparing archaeobotanical

data we calculate a High Return Rate Plants Index

(HRRPI) (Llano 2010), which measures the relative

proportion of high return rate plants into the assem-

blages in relation to the rest of plant taxa. HRPI= Σ

P1+P

2+

/ ΣP

1+P

2+P

3+…P

n were P

1 is the first ranked,

P2 is the second plant in the rank.

The group of high return rate plants includes the

first three highest ranked plants Schinus, Prosopis

and Geoffroea (all of them with more than 3000 kcal

of return rate per hour). The rank we used was devel-

oped by Llano and Ugan (2010) and includes the main

plant resources from the southern Mendoza region.

The return rate is based on reported caloric gains

(kcal) per hour required to collect and process each

resource after it has been encountered by the forager

(Simms 1987); search times are not included (table

4). Wild resources are listed in rank order with those

yielding the highest gross caloric return rates at the

top, corresponding to the unit (kcal/hr) (Llano & Ugan

2010). To calculate the HRRPI we divide the sum of

two (Schinus and Prosopis) of the three highest re-

turn rate plants by the sum of all taxa remains (the

first two in this case, because there is no Geoffroea in

this area).

The results of the HRRPI are presented in figure 4

and they show that prior to ca 1500 years BP only

those plants with a high return rate were used by

hunter-gatherers. On the contrary, after 1500 BP the

proportion of high return rate plants represents no

more than 50% of the total number of macrobotanical

remains. This result shows not only an increase in

diet breadth, but the incorporation of lower return rate

plants with higher processing costs.

7 Farming vs foraging in the Diamante

basin: the appearance of domesticates

Two of the more important questions about the pres-

ence of domesticates in the region are when and why

these taxa were incorporated into the diet. The re-

sults presented in this paper are in agreement with

the data from other archaeological sites in southern

Mendoza province (eg, El Indígeno and Rincón del

Atuel) in terms of the age of the first appearance of

domesticates (after 2000 BP). In the Diamante basin

the earliest direct date is ca 1500 BP for Lagenaria

and ca 1000 BP for Zea mays. To address the ques-

tion of why domesticates were incorporated into the

diet we use the chronology of the domesticates and

the timing of the appearance of lower ranked wild

plants. We then consider the results of the resource

Taxon Kg/Hr Kcal/Kg Kcal/Hr

Schinus polygamus1 1 3100 3214Prosopis sp. 2.41 3600 8665Maihueniopsis darwinii 9 650 5850Opuntia sulphurea 1.8 1150 2070Zea mays2 1100

1Data from Llano and Ugan (2010).2 Data from Barlow (2002). The slush and burn

Table 4 Experimental return rates



Figure 4 High return rate plant index (Llano 2010)

Figure 5 Comparison of caloric return rates for foraging and farming in the Southern Mendoza province (data from Barlow 2002, Llano & Ugan2010, Llano 2010). 1 Return rate values for consuming fresh (without processing cost). 2 Return rate values considering processing cost

ranking and compared the data of wild resources

against those calculated by Barlow (2002) for the cost

of domesticates in different agricultural systems. As

figure 5 shows some of the regional wild plant re-

sources are highly comparable in rank with the return

rates for domesticated plants. These data suggest

that domesticates were adopted because they were

higher ranked than some of the wild foods. From an

optimal foraging theory perspective, the appearance

of the first domesticates coincides with the introduc-

tion of low ranked wild plants. According to the type of

agricultural practice that is performed, the maize re-

turn values are approximately 1500 to 50 kcal/hr

(Barlow 2002). According to these values, the intro-

duction of domesticated plants appears in the diet

after wild plants with similar return rates ca 1000 BP.

At this time, wild plants with values between 800 and

1800 kcal (Opuntia sulphurea, Pterocactus tuberosus,

Maihueniopsis darwinii, Condalia microphylla, among

others) were utilised.

As mentioned, the impact and significance of the

first cultigens in the region are a matter of debate (Gil



1997–1998; Gil et al 2006; Gil et al 2011). Southern

Mendoza is the boundary between Patagonian hunter

gatherers and agricultural societies to the north-west.

As a generalisation, the form and intensity of interac-

tion along such economic and social frontiers will

vary locally and over time (eg, Simms 1986; Head-

land & Reid 1989; Layton 2001; Layton et al 1991;

Winterhalder & Goland 1997). In boundary areas like

the Diamante valley, it is possible that all or nearly all

domesticated plants at sites attributed to hunter-gath-

erers were acquired by exchange (Simms 1986; Head-

land & Reid 1989; Layton et al 1991; Spielman & Eder

1994). We would expect the incorporation of domes-

tic plants to have had a small initial impact on the

hunter-gatherers’ economy (Wills 1992). For this rea-

son, the regional archaeological record shows a mix

of different subsistence strategies during the same

time period, which makes it difficult to discriminate

clearly between hunter-gatherer and farmer strate-

gies. One way around this problem is to integrate

different lines of evidence (eg, faunal, isotopic and

technological) that allow us to assess the real impact

and significance of domestic plants in the hunter-gath-

erer economy. The most commonly relied on data in

southern Mendoza until now have been derived from

faunal assemblages and more recently from stable

isotope analyses of diet (Neme 2007; Neme & Gil

2008; Gil et al 2010; Gil et al 2011). Our research

expands the regional framework to include a previ-

ously neglected area and source of data on intensifi-

cation, namely plants. The results support the hypoth-

esis that there was an increase in the use of plants

with high processing cost, both wild and domesti-

cated in the late Holocene.

The archaeofaunal record and other lines of evi-

dence (lithics, settlement patterns, and pottery) sug-

gest that an intensification process took place around

2000 BP in the southern Mendoza region (Neme 2007;

Neme & Gil 2008a). This process was not only re-

lated to the use of new and more costly resources but

also to the occupation of more marginal environments.

These included the driest areas and the higher alti-

tudes of the Andes at a time when the rest of the re-

gion was already populated and exploited (Gil 2005;

Neme 2007). Also, faunal diversity starts to increase

after 2000 BP while the importance of big game prey

(guanaco) declines (Neme & Gil 2008b). Other

changes seen in the technology are arguably associ-

ated with this intensification process. The frequency

of grinding stones increases in sites dated to later

than 2000 BP, and at the same time pottery appears

in the region as well the bow and arrow (Neme 2007).

These various lines of evidence point to increased

extraction costs just at the time when the use of wild

plant resources increase in their diversity. The previ-

ous neglect of the archaeobotanical record has meant

that regional models of intensification have been in-

complete. As shown here, the macrobotanical record

of three caves from the high Diamante river valley pro-

vide complementary data that support other lines of

evidence and redress the balance between faunal

and floral signals of intensification.

The increasing importance of the plant for human

subsistence in the region was not only related to diet.

Some of the identified species were used for in tool-

making (basketry, instruments) and the presence of

Chusquea culeou (used as arrow shafts) from the

other side of the Andes (south central Chile) or north-

ern Patagonian Mountains, reinforces the importance

of such resources for the human population. The time

when domesticates first appear indicate that this new

resource was incorporated into the diet only when the

most costly plants, with lower return rates were used,

suggesting that the domesticates were incorporated

in the face of dwindling options.

8 Conclusions

Many archaeobotanical and ethnobotanical studies

have demonstrated the potential of optimal foraging

theory for understanding changes in plant exploita-

tion through time (Wohlgemuth 1996; Winterhalder &

Goland 1997; Barlow 2002, Gremillion & Sobolik

1996; Gremillion 2004; Rhode 2008). Some of these

studies agree that diet breadth will expand (with its

increased processing costs) only when the main and

preferred resources become scarce, and thus, agri-

culture will be one of the last options to be adopted.

This paper discusses the use of plants on the south-

ern frontier of South America by foragers and sup-

ports the predictions of foraging theory. The data show

an expanded use of lower ranked wild plants and by

inference increased extraction costs and growing

pressure on higher ranked resources. Even though

the region was occupied for the last 9000 years there

is no macrobotanical evidence of plant use in the Dia-

mante basin region until 3000 years ago. Wild plants

as a food resource only start to be exploited in the late

Holocene and their dietary importance and range in-



creased with time and so did their costs. The record

also indicates that wild and domesticated plant re-

sources were used for a range of different purposes

(food, dye, tools). At the beginning of the late Holocene

the use of plant resources only included less costly

plants with higher return rates (Prosopis and Schinus),

and after 1500 BP the range was expanded to include

those plants with much lower caloric return rates. At

the same time domestic plants (Zea mays and

Lagenaria) were incorporated into the diet. The intro-

duction of domesticates occurred at a time of in-

creased costs in obtaining resources, and they pre-

sumably offered a valued source of calories. The

impact of domestics on local livelihoods and their

caloric contributions both warrant further research.

The macrobotanical evidence supports Neme’s

(2007) earlier hypothesis that a process of resource

intensification was underway between 2000 and 1500

BP. Inevitably, the intensification model presented here

will need to be refined and revised as data accumu-

late and others lines of evidence become available.

This integrated approach provides a framework for

assessing long term patterns and variability in the

adoption of agriculture by hunter-gatherers.

Acknowledgements

Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y

Tecnológica PICT IDAC-ICES 2007 610. National Sci-

ence Foundation grant Nº0754353. To the reviewers

who helped us to improve substantially the first ver-

sion of the manuscript.

Endnotes

1 The difference between the amount of energy ofeach resource (net gain) less the cost associatedto exploit them (Bettinger 1991).

References

Abraham, EM 2000. Geomorfología de la provinciade Mendoza. In Abraham ME & RodríguezMartínez, F (eds) Recursos y problemasambientales de zona árida. Primera parte:provincias de Mendoza, San Juan y La Rioja.Tomo I: Caracterización ambiental.: Mendoza:IADIZA:29–48.

Almeida, CFCBR, Silva, TCL, Amorim, ELC, Maia,MBS & Albuquerque, UP 2005. Life strategy andchemical composition as predictors of theselection of medicinal plants from the Caatinga(Northeast Brazil). Journal of Arid Environments.62:127–142

Ames, Kenneth M 1994 Northwest Coast: ComplexHunter-Gatherers, Ecology, and Social Evolution.Annual Review of Anthropology 23:209– 229.

Basgall, ME 1987. Resource Intensification amongHunter-Gatherers: Acorn Economics inPrehistoric California. In Isaac, BL (ed) Researchin Economic Anthropology, Vol 9. Greenwich CN:JAI Press:21–52.

Barlow, R 2002. Predicting Maize Agriculture amongthe Fremont: An Economic Comparison ofFarming and Farming and Foraging in theAmerican Southwest. American Antiqui ty67(1):65–88.

Beaton, JM 1991 Extensification and Intensificationin Central Cal i forn ia Prehistory. Antiqui ty65(249):946–952.

Bettinger, RL 1991 Aboriginal Occupation of HighAltitude: Alpine Villages in the White Mountainsof Eastern California. American Anthropologist93(3):656–679.

Bettinger, RL 2001. Holocene Hunter-Gatherers.In Feinman, G & Price, TD (eds) Archaeology atthe Millenium: A Sourcebook. Location?:PlenumPress:137–195.

Bettinger, RL 2010. Hunter-Gatherer Foraging FiveSimple Models . New York: El io t W ernerPublications, Inc.

Binford , L1999. Time as a Clue to cause?Proceedings of the British Academy 101:1–35

Bouey, PD 1987. The Intensification of Hunter-Gatherer Economies in the Southern North CoastRanges of California. In Isaac, BL (ed) Researchin Economic Anthropology, 9. Greenwich, CT: JAIPress:53–101.

Borrero, L 2002. Arqueología y BiogeografíaHumana en el sur de Mendoza (Comentariocrítico). In Gil, A & Neme, G (eds) Entre Montañasy Desiertos Arqueología del sur de Mendoza.Buenos Aires: Sociedad Argentina deAntropología:195–202.

Broughton, J 1994a. Late Holocene resourceintensification in the Sacramento Valley: Thevertebrate evidence. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience (21):501–514.

Broughton, J 1994b. Declines in mammalianforaging efficiency during the late Holocene, SanFranc isco Bay, Cal i fornia. Journa l ofAnthropological Archaeology 13:371–401.

Broughton, J 1997. W idening diet breadth,declining foraging efficiency, and prehistoricharvest pressure: ichthyofaunal evidence fromthe Emeryville Shellmound, California, Antiquity71: 845–862.



Broughton, J 2004. Prehistoric human impact onCalifornia birds: evidence from the Emeryvilleshel l mound avi fauna , W ashington DC:Orni tholog ical Monographs 56, AmericanOrnithologists Union.

Cabrera, A 1976. Regiones Fi togeográf icasArgent inas . Enc ic lopedia Argent ina deAgricultura y Jardinería, II (1). Buenos Aires: EdAcme.

Capitanelli, R 1972. Geomorfología y Clima de laprovincia de Mendoza. Geología, Geomorfología,Climatología, Fitogeografía y Zoología de laProvincia de Mendoza, reedición especial delsuplemento del vol. XIII del Boletín de la SociedadArgent ina de Botánica . Min ister io deMendoza:15–48.

Casamiquela, R 1996. Proyecto etnobotánico dePatagonia. Pr imer informe. In Suárez, E,Fortunato, R, Elechosa, MA, Casamiquela, R,Saavedra, E & Timmermann, B (eds) Aspectostécnicos, Culturales, Políticos y Legales de laBioprospección en Argentina. Argentina, Chile,México: Latin American International CooperativeBiodiversity Groups Program:89–134.

Dean, R 2007. Hunting Intensification and theHohokam “collapse”. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 26:109–132.

Dessanti, R 1956. Descripción geológica de laHoja 27c Cero Diamante. Buenos A ires:Ministerio de Comercio e Industria de la NaciónBoletín 85.

Dessanti, R 1978. Descripción geológica de laHoja 28b Malargüe. Buenos Aires: Ministerio deEconomía Secretaria de Estado de Minería.Boletín 149.

Durán, V, Neme, G, Cortegoso, V & Gil, A 2006.Arqueología del área natural protegida Lagunadel Diamante (Mendoza, Argentina). Anales deArqueología y Etnología Volumen especial N61:81–134.

Gambier, M 1979. Investigaciones arqueológicasen la región del Alto río Diamante, Provincia deMendoza. San Juan: Publicaciones del Institutode Investigaciones Arqueológicas y Museo 5.

Gambier, M 1979. Notas de campo de MarianoGambier. Inst i tuto de Invest igac ionesArqueológicas y Museo “Prof. Mariano Gambier”de la Universidad Nacional de San Juan.

Gambier, M 1980. Excavaciones en la Gruta de ElManzano, Río Grande-Mendoza. Boletín delMuseo de Ciencias Naturales y AntropológicasJuan Cornelio Moyano (Mendoza) 1:45–55.

Gambier, M 1985. La Cultura de Los Morrillos. SanJuan: Instituto de Investigaciones Arqueológicasy Museo.

Gil, A 1997–1998. El significado de los cultígenosprehispánicos registrados en el Sur mendocino.Discusiones en torno al límite meridional de laagricultura andina. Relaciones de la SociedadArgentina de Antropología XXII–XXIII:295–318.

Gil, A 2003. Zea mays on the South AmericanPeriphery – Chronology and Dietary lmportance.Current Anthropology 44(2):295–300.

Gil, A 2005. Arqueología de la Payunia (Mendoza-Argentina) El poblamiento Humano en losorígenes de la Agricultura. Oxford: Bri t ishArchaeological Reports International Series:1591.

Gil A, Tykot R, Neme G & Shelnut N 2006. Maize onFrontier Isotopic and macrobotanical data fromCentral-Western Argentina. In Staller J, Tykot R &Benz B. (eds) Histories of Maize. New York:Academic Press:199–214.

Gil, A, Neme, G & Tykot, R 2011. Stable isotopesand human diet in central western Argentina.Journal of Archaeological Science 1331–1340.

González Díaz, E 1972. Descripción geológica dela hoja 27d san Rafael. Ministerio de Industria yMinería subsecretaria de minería boletín 132.

González Díaz, E & Fauqué L 1993. Geomorfología.In Ramos, V (ed) Geología y Recursos Naturalesde Mendoza. Relator io de l XII CongresoGeológico Argentino I:161–172.

Grayson, DK 1991. Alpine faunas from the WhiteMountains, California: adaptative change in theLate Prehis tor ic Great Bas in? Journa l ofArchaeological Science 18:438–506.

Grayson, D & Delpech, F 1998. Changing dietbreadth in the Early Upper Palaeol i thic ofSouthern France. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 25:1119–1129.

Gragson, T 1997. The use of underground plantorgans and its relation to habitat selection amongthe Pumé Indians of Venezuela. EconomicBotany 51(4):377–384.

Gremillion, K 2004. Seed processing and theorigins of food production in eastern NorthAmerica. American Antiquity 69 N2: 215–233.

Gremillion, K & Sobolik, KD 1996. Dietary Variabilityamong Prehistoric Forager-Farmers of EasternNorth America. Current Anthropology 37:529–539.

Headland, T & Reid, L 1989. Hunter-gatherers andtheir neighbors from prehistory to the present.Current Anthropology 30:43–65.

Hernández, A 2002. Paleoetnobotánica en el Surde Mendoza. In Gil, A &Neme, G (eds) EntreMontañas y Desiertos Arqueología del sur deMendoza. Buenos Aires: Sociedad Argentina deAntropología:157–180.

Hernández, A, Lagiglia, H & Gil, A 1999. El registroarqueobotánico en el Sitio Agua de los Caballos-1 (San Rafael, Mendoza). Anales de Arqueologíay Etnología. N° 54–55:181–203.

Holdaway, S, Fanning, P, & Rhodes, Ed 2008.Chal lenging intens i f ica t ions: human-environment interact ions in the Holocenegeoarchaeological record from western NewSouth Wales, Australia. The Holocene 18, 3:403–412.



Holly, DH 2005. The Place of “Others” in Hunter-Gatherer Intens i f ica t ion. AmericanAnthropologist :207–220.

Janetski, J 1997. Fremont hunting and resourceintensif ication in the eastern Great Basin.Journal of Archaeological Science 24:1075–1088.

Johnson, A & Hard, R 2008. Exploring TexasArchaeology with a Model Intensification. PlainsAnthropologist 53:137–153.

Jones , TL 1997. Lakes and EstuariesReconsidered: A Comment on LacustrineResource Intensification in the Southern SantaClara Valley, California. Journal of California andGreat Basin Anthropology 19(2):281–288.

Keeley, LH 1988. Hunter-Gatherer EconomicComplexity and “Population Pressure”: A CrossCultural Analysis. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 7(4):373–411.

Kel ly, RL 1991. Sedent ism, Sociopol i t icalInequality, and Resource Fluctuations. In Gregg,S (ed) Between Bands and States. Carbondale:Southern I l l inois Universi ty Center forArchaeolog ica l Invest igat ions OccasionalPublication 9:135–158.

Ladio, A 2001. The maintenance of wild edible plantgathering in a Mapuche community of Patagonia.Economic Botany 55 (2):243–254

Ladio, AH & Lozada, M 2009. Human ecology,ethnobotany and traditional practices in a ruralpopulation of the Monte region, Argentina:resilience and ecological knowledge. Journal ofArid Environments 73 (2):222–227

Ladio, AH, Lozada, M & Weigandt, M 2007.Comparison of traditional wild plant knowledgebetween aboriginal communities inhabiting aridand forest environments in Patagonia, Argentina.Journal of Arid Environments 69:695–715.

Lagiglia, H 1968. Secuencias culturales del CentroOeste Argentino: Valles del Atuel y Diamante.Revista Científica de Investigaciones 1 (4):159–174.

Lagiglia, H 1981. Problemática del precerámico ydel proceso de agriculturización en el CentroOeste argentino. Notas del Museo Municipal deHistoria Natural de San Rafael:73–93.

Lagiglia, H 1997. Arqueología prehispánica delAtuel y Diamante. Revista del Centro deIntegración Territorial 2: 29–46.

Lagig l ia , H 1999. Nuevos fechadosradiocarbónicos para los agricultores incipientesdel Atuel. In Marín, CD (ed) Actas del XIICongreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina;III:239–250.

Lagiglia, H 2001. Los Orígenes de la Agriculturaen la Argentina. Historia Argentina Prehispánica.Tomo II. Dirección Eduardo Berberian & AxelNieisen..Córdoba, República Argentina: EditorialBrujas:41–82.

Layton, R 2001. Hunther-gatherers , their

neighbours and the nation state. In Panter-Brick,CP, Layton, R & Rowley-Conwy, P (eds) HunterGatherers: an Interdisciplinary Perspective.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:292–321.

Layton, R, Foley, R & Wil liams, E 1991. Thetransition between hunting and gathering and thespecialized husbandry of resources. CurrentAnthropology 32:255–274.

Llano, C 2010. Aprovechamiento de los RecursosVegetales entre las Sociedades Cazadoras-Recolectoras del Sur de Mendoza. UnpublishedPhD thesis . Universidad Nacional delCOMAHUE. Bariloche.

Llano, C & Ugan, A 2010. Rendimiento Económicode plantas silvestres del sur de Mendoza: valoresnutricionales, costos de manejo e interpretacióndel regist ro arqueológico. Tradic iones yTransformaciones en Etnobotánica. InPochettino, ML, Ladio, A & Arenas, P (eds) RedIberoamericana de Saberes y Prácticas Localessobre el Entorno Vegetal . CYTED-RISAPRET:44–48.

Lourandos, H 1985. Intensifications and Australianprehistory. In Price, TD & Brown, JA (eds)Prehistoric hunter-gatherer the emergence ofcultural complexity. Orlando, FL: AcademicPress:385–423.

Lourandos, H & Ross, A 1994. The Great“Intensification Debate”: Its History and Place inAustralian Archaeology. Australian Archaeology39:54– 63.

Lyman, R 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mares, MA, Morello, JH & Goldstein, G 1985. TheMonte desert and other subtropical semi-aridbiomes of Argentina, with comments on theirrelation to North American arid areas. In Evenari,M, Noy-Meir, I & Goodall, D (eds) Hot Deserts andArid Shrublands. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science:203–237.

Marquardt, WH 1986. The Development of CulturalComplexity in Southwest Florida: Elements of aCritique. Southeastern Archaeology 5 (1):63–70.

Michiel i , CT 1978. Los Puelches. San Juan:Publicaciones Nº 4. Instituto de investigacionesArqueológicas y Museo.

Michieli, CT 1983. Los Huarpes Protohistóricos.San Juan: Inst i tuto de Invest igac ionesArqueológicas y Museo, Facultad de Filosofía,Humanidades y Artes, Universidad Nacional deSan Juan.

Morrone, JJ 2001. Biogeografía de América Latinay el Caribe. M&T–Manuales & Tesis SEA, vol. 3.Zaragoza.

Nacuzzi, LR & Peréz de Micou, C 1984. Losrecursos vegetales de los cazadores de lacuenca del río Chubut. Cuadernos del InstitutoNacional de Antropología. 10:407–423.

Neme, G 2002. Arqueología del alto valle del río



Atuel: modelos, problemas y perspectivas en elestudio arqueológico de las regiones de alturadel sur de Mendoza. In Gil, A & Neme, G (eds)Entre Montañas y Desiertos: Arqueología del Surde Mendoza. Buenos Aires:.Publicaciones de laSociedad Argentina de Antropología:65–84.

Neme, G 2007. Cazadores-Recolectores de alturaen los Andes Meridionales. Oxford: Brit ishArchaeological Reports International Series1591

Neme, G & Gil, A 2008a. Faunal Explotation andAgricultural Transitions in the South AmericanAgricul tural Limit. International Journal ofOsteoarchaeology 18:293–306.

Neme, G & Gil, A 2008b. Biogeografía Humana delos Andes Meridionales: TendenciasArqueológicas en el sur de Mendoza. Chungara,Revista de Antropología Chilena. 40(1):5–18

Novellino, P, Gil, A, Neme, G & Durán, V 2004. Elconsumo de maíz en el Holoceno tardío del oesteargentino: isótopos estables y caries. RevistaEspañola de Antropología Americana. Vol. 34:85–110.

Raab, LM 1996. Debating Prehistory in CoastalSouthern California: Resource Intensificationversus Political Economy. Journal of Californiaand Great Basin Archaeology 18(1):64–80.

Raab, LM, Porcasi JF, Bradford, K & Yatsko, A 1995.Debat ing Cultural Evolut ion: RegionalImplications of Fishing Intensification at EelPoint, San Clemente Island. Pacific CoastArchaeological Quarterly 31(3):3–27.

Ragonese, AE & Martínez Crovetto, R 1947. Plantasindígenas de la Argentina con frutos o semillascomestibles. Buenos Aires Min. de Agric. de laNación, Dir. Gral. de Lab. e Invest., Inst. deBotánica – Publicación Técnica N° 9 (NuevaSerie), de la revista de Invest. Agric. t.I, N° 3:147–216.

Rhode, D 2008. Dietary plant use by middleHolocene foragers in the Bonneville Basin,western North America. Before Farming [onlineversion] 2008/3 article 2

Roig, F 1972. Geología, Geomorfo logía,Climatología, Fitogeografía y Zoogeografía de laProvincia de Mendoza. Inst i tu to deInvest igac iones de las zonas ár idas ysemiáridas. Reedición especial del suplementodel vol XIII del Boletín de la Sociedad Argentinade Botánica de Mendoza:49:80.

Roig, FA, Martínez Carretero, E & Méndez, E 2000.Mapa de vegetación de la Provincia de Mendoza.In Abraham, EM & Rodríguez Martínez, F (eds)Argentina Recursos y problemas ambientalesde la zona árida. Primera parte, Tomo II, Atlas

básico. Programa de Cooperación para laInvestigación, Junta de Gobierno de Andalucía -Universidades y Centros de Investigación de laRegión Andina Argentina

Ruiz Leal, A 1972. Los confines boreal y austral delas provincias Patagónica y Centralrespectivamente. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 13:89–118.

Semper, J & Lagigl ia, H 1968. Excavacionesarqueológicas en el Rincón del Atuel. RevistaCientífica de Investigaciones 1 (4): 89–158.

Simms, S 1986. New evidence for Fremontadaptative diversity. Journal of California andGreat Basin Anthropology 8: 204–216.

Simms, S 1987. Behavioral ecology and hunter-gatherer foraging: an example from the GreatBasin. Oxford: British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 381.

Spielman, K & Eder, J 1994. Hunters and farmers:then and now. Annual Review of Anthropology23:303–323.

Szuter, C & Bayham, F 1989. Sedentism andprehistoric animal procurement among deserthorticulturalist of the North American Southwest.In Kent, S (ed). Farmers as Hunters. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:80–95.

Wills, W 1992. Plant cultivation and the evolutionof risk-prone economies in prehistoric Americansouthwest. In Gebauer, B & Price, TD (eds)Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Madison:Prehistory Press:153–176.

Winterhalder, B & Goland, C 1997. An evolutionaryecology perspective on diet choice, risk, and plantdomestication. In Gremillion, K (ed) Plants,People, and Landscapes: Stud ies inPaleoethnobotany. Tuscaloosa: University ofAlabama Press:123–160.

Wohlgemuth, E 1996. Resource intensification inprehistoric central California: Evidence fromarchaeobotanical data. Journal of California andGreat Basin Anthropology 18: 81–103.

W olverton, S 2008. Harvest pressure andenvironmental carryng capacity: an ordinal-scalemodel of effects on ungulate prey. AmericanAntiquity 73 (2):179–199.

Wolverton, S, Nagaoka, L, Densmore, J & Fullerton,B 2008. White-tailed deer harvest pressure &within-bone nutrient exploitation during the mid-to late Holocene in southeast Texas. BeforeFarming [online version] 2008/2 article 3.

Yacobaccio, HD 2003. Procesos de intensificacióny de domesticación de camélidos en los AndesCentro-Sur. Actas del III Congreso Mundial sobreCamélidos. Potosí, Bolivia:211–216.

Documents

Plant use intensification among hunter-gatherers in the Diamante river basin, Argentina