Qi (2003) long distance tool transport argentina flegenheimer et al

Quaternary International 109–110 (2003) 49–64

Long distance tool stone transport in the Argentine Pampas

Nora Flegenheimera,*, Cristina Bay !onb, Miguel Valenteb, Jorge Baezac, Jorge Femen!ıasd

aCONICET- Museo Municip. de Necochea, CC 275, 7630 Necochea, ArgentinabUniversidad Nacional del Sur, 12 de octubre y San Juan, 8000 Bah!ıa Blanca, Argentina

cFacultad Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educaci !on, UruguaydMuseo Arqueol !ogico de Canelones, Uruguay

Abstract

Tools manufactured from a characteristic reddish siliceous rock are present in low frequencies in most early Pampean assemblages

in Argentina. They are bifacial tools, including fishtail projectile points, bipolar products, and flakes. They have been found in both

excavated assemblages dated between 10,000 and 11,000 BP, and in surface sites. Surface collections from Uruguay also include

fishtail projectile points manufactured on this rock.

Petrographic analyses were carried out to determine stone provenance. Archaeological artifacts from the Argentine Pampas, and

macroscopically similar nodules obtained from secondary deposits in Uruguay were analyzed. The rock used for the artifacts is

composed of a siliceous very fine homogeneous mass that is nearly isotropic, and is characterized by recognizable remains of

organisms, including silicified gastropods. The samples obtained from deposits in central and southern Uruguay have similar

microscopic characteristics. Many of these deposits were exploited as indigenous quarries.

Therefore, this reddish rock was transported from Uruguay to the Argentine Pampas by societies who inhabited the region during

the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. Within this context, we discuss the social meaning of this long distance tool stone transport and

propose that it was a result of human interaction networks.

r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Studies on human occupations in the ArgentinePampas region during the Pleistocene/Holocene transi-tion have proliferated during the last two decades.Through this advance in research, a richer and morecomplex image of the early Pampean inhabitants isemerging. One of the subjects receiving attention is toolstone selection and use. Selection and use of tool stonehas been analyzed mainly from information gathered atlocalities in the Tandilia Range (Bay !on et al., 1999;Flegenheimer and Bay !on, 1999; Valverde, 2000;Mazzanti, 2001). The more frequently used rocks inthese early assemblages are immediately available andlocal. However, other rocks were infrequently utilized aswell. In this paper, we will focus on a tool stone which ispresent less frequently in the early regional assemblagesand which has been assigned to a long distance origin.Implications for this tool stone transport will also beanalyzed.

The study of raw material provenance associated withthe Pleistocene/Holocene transition time periodthroughout the Americas is currently an active issue ofresearch. Lithic studies have matured enough to takeadvantage of the interpretative potential of provenancestudies in the analysis of social decisions regardingdifferent realms including strictly economic issues, socialrelationships, or even symbolic behavior.In about 40 early sites of late Pleistocene-early

Holocene age described for the Southern cone, acquisi-tion of tool stone is also mostly immediately availableand local. However, exceptionally long distance trans-port of bifaces and obsidians has been reported (Crivelliet al., 1996; Borrero and Franco, 1997; Borrero, 1999;Mena et al., 2000). This pattern differs from thatdescribed for North America during the same age wherelong distance transport of large proportions of theassemblages is common and has been used to infergroup movement (for example, Goodyear, 1989;Meltzer, 1989; Anderson, 1990; Tankersley, 1991).In Argentina several recent studies on long distance

tool stone transport are based on obsidian. Thesestudies are mostly centered in the Northwestern and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 54-2262-436539.

E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Flegenheimer).

1040-6182/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

PII: S 1 0 4 0 - 6 1 8 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 0 2 - 1

Patagonian regions, involving both hunter-gatherer andagricultural societies. In the Northwest an importantnumber of distribution studies are the basis fordiscussing lithic production systems, direct access, socialinteraction networks and the role of exchanged domesticgoods (Escola et al., 1994; Lazzari, 1997; Scattolin andLazzari, 1997). In Patagonia, both regional circulationand long distance transport of obsidian have beenrecorded and studied within the framework of theorganization of lithic technology (Civalero, 1999;Molinari and Espinosa, 1999; Stern, 1999, 2000; Sternand Franco, 2000).Lithic resources in the province of Buenos Aires, in

the Argentine Pampa, are highly localized. Therefore,people necessarily had to transport tool stone within theregion throughout the entire span of hunter-gathereroccupation. Rocks have been transported for hundredsof kilometers employing different strategies of tool stonemanagement (Gonz!alez de Bonaveri et al., 1998;Mart!ınez, 1999). Orthoquartzites from the Tandiliarange were the main rocks transported, while othersecondary rocks have been transported from Tandilia,Ventania, the coast, or unidentified sources. As well, insome late Holocene assemblages a few artifacts of exoticraw materials have been recorded and interpreted asresulting from long distance transport. These cases areorthoquartzites from Tandilia in the La Pampa province(Ber !on, 1999), and obsidian and crysocola of unknownorigin in the Interserrana and Salado Areas (Crivelliet al., 1987-88; Gonz!alez de Bonaveri, 2001).Here, we will describe a case of long distance

transport for early occupations of the Pampean regionbased on artifacts manufactured using a reddishsiliceous rock. We have tried to find a potential sourcefor this rock while working on the lithic resource base inBuenos Aires. During surveys in the Tandilia ranges, arock with some macroscopic similarities was identified ina conglomerate of Precambrian age (Barna and Kain,1994). After microscopic analysis, this rock was foundto be very different from the archaeological tool stone.We now know that the archaeological raw materials areyounger, as they contain fossils of early Tertiary age.Thus, the previous attempt to assign a source location tothis rock was erroneous.The observation of fishtail points from Uruguay

flaked on a macroscopically identical rock prompted usto look further north for its origin. We therefore carriedout a field survey, and recognized a reddish siliceousrock outcropping in Uruguay where it is abundant inquarries and workshops.A sample of tool stones collected at Uruguayan

quarries was subjected to petrographic analysis. Resultswere then compared with the results obtained on thearchaeological artifacts from the province of BuenosAires and their significance for the early occupation ofthe region is evaluated.

2. Early assemblages in the Argentine Pampa Region

The early peopling in the Pampean Region has beenrecorded in the Tandilia ranges and the plains. Sitescorresponding to the Pleistocene–Holocene transitionwith and without faunal remains have been excavated(Politis and Madrid, 2001) (Fig. 1). At the moment 14sites present early dates. Only six of these have yieldedfishtail projectile points, and five have some preservationof bone remains and yield both extinct and modernfauna (Fig. 2). These sites exhibit great intersite varia-bility, and lithic assemblages differ from one site toanother, indicating differences in activities carried outand possibly also with respect to the social actors whooccupied them.As mentioned, tool stone source location has been an

important subject of current research in the province ofBuenos Aires. At these early sites, the most frequentlyused tool stone acquisition is local and immediatelyavailable, respectively found within a radius of40–10 km from the site or less than 10 km (Flegenheimeret al., 1999). Among the other rocks utilized in smallproportions, silicified dolomite originates at identifiedsources in the Tandilia Ranges and metaquartzitesoriginate at the Ventania Ranges. The reddish siliceousrock stands out among the infrequently used rocks dueto its characteristic color and texture.We will here use as a case study the excavated early

assemblages from localities Cerro La China (Sites 1, 2and 3) and Cerro El Sombrero (Abrigo 1 and Cima) inthe Tandilia Range. Artifacts recovered as surfaceremains at Cerro El Sombrero also are considered.The earliest occupations at these localities have beendated to about 10,000–11,000 yr BP (Flegenheimer andZ!arate, 1997). The following is a general description ofthe assemblages, highlighting aspects relevant for thisresearch.Tool types commonly represented at the sites include:

fishtail or Fell’s Cave Stemmed projectile points, sideand transverse scrapers, gravers, knives, denticulates,endscrapers, scraper planes, notches, burins, and a widerange of retouched flake tools which are typologicallyunidentified. These collections currently include 112fishtail points and preforms (Flegenheimer, 1999).Pecked and ground complete and fragmented tools werealso recovered, corresponding to small spheroids, as wellas a discose stone that exhibits an engraving.Most of the artifacts have been flaked on rocks from

the Tandilia range. Among these rocks, the mostfrequent are highly selected local orthoquartzites ofthe Sierras Bayas Group (Fig. 3) from 30 to 60 km to thewest of the sites. The Sierras Bayas Group stones werechosen for their quality and color (Flegenheimer andBay !on, 1999). In smaller proportions, immediatelyavailable poor quality orthoquartzites of the BalcarceFormation and quartz were also used. Both are found in

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Flegenheimer et al. / Quaternary International 109–110 (2003) 49–6450

a radius of 10 km from the sites. These two orthoquart-zites, of different flaking quality, follow differentproduction trajectories. Local orthoquartzites, whichcomprise the main tool stone, were used to manufacture

both unifacial and bifacial artifacts. Although the sitesare not too far from the sources, a concern for tool stoneoptimization is evident. The raw material was trans-ported as cores, blanks and probably tools. The initial

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Map of study area showing early Argentine Pampa sites, surface fishtail points from Uruguay and tool stone provenance. Quarries of reddish

silicified limestone of Queguay: (1) Punta Arroyo San Mart!ın, Soriano. (2) Estancia Fagalde. (3) Paso de Berget, R!ıo Santa Luc!ıa, Canelones,

Florida. Surface fishtail projectile points from Uruguay: (4) and (5) R!ıo Negro Medio (Tacuaremb!o and Durazno Departments): 41 points. (6) Rocha

Department: 8 points. (7) R!ıo Negro Department: 5 points. (8) Artigas Department: 5 points. (9) Cerro Largo Department: 4 points. (10) Maldonado

Department: 4 points. (11) Paysand!u Department: 3 points. (12) Canelones Department: 2 points. (13) Colonia Department: 2 points. (14) Flores

Department: 2 points. (15) Salto Grande Department, 2 points. (16) Treinta y tres Department: 1 point. Early sites in the Argentine Pampa: (17)

Cerro El Sombrero, Cima and Abrigo 1. (18) Cerro La China 1, 2 and 3. (19) Los Helechos. (20) Alero Los Pinos. (21) Burucuy!a. (22) Cueva Tixi.

(23) Cueva El Abra. (24) La Amalia, site 2. (25) La Brava. (26) Paso Otero 5. (28) Arroyo Seco, site 2. Quarries of Sierras Bayas Group

Orthoquartzite: (27) Arroyo Diamante.

N. Flegenheimer et al. / Quaternary International 109–110 (2003) 49–64 51

reduction must have occurred elsewhere as there are fewcortical flakes on these local rocks. Non-bipolar coresare characteristically small, worn out and sometimeshave even been flaked on an anvil to make the most useof the raw material. Also, the transport of bifaces hasbeen inferred and bifacial thinning flakes have beeneventually used as blanks (Flegenheimer, 2001). Bipolarflaking has been applied as a way of making use of smallpieces of rock or of recycling tools. Maintenance andrecycling of fishtail projectile points has been reported.All this does not mean that the whole assemblages areworn out: complete tools and medium sized flakes havealso been discarded. Immediately available rocks wereused expediently on most occasions, as artifacts aremainly unifacial, large or medium sized, commonly with

cortex and cores presenting a few random flake scars.An example of these different trajectories of immedi-ately available and local tool stone can be inferred fromthe different frequency of cortex in the flakes (Fig. 4). Inthese assemblages, the ratios of bifacial artifacts varyfrom site to site between 50% and 4%, and that ofbipolar cores between 50% and 0%. Table 1 showsartifacts flaked on the reddish siliceous rock from sitesat Cerro La China and Cerro El Sombrero.Of the 13 artifacts with retouches on the reddish

siliceous rock, most (10) are biface fragments or bifacialtools, and one is a bipolar fragment, which couldcorrespond to a recycled tool (Fig. 5). Only two of theartifacts are small unifacial tools. Flakes are very scarce,currently amounting to 20, and have been recovered at

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Dates of early sites in Buenos Aires and Uruguay. Dates considered as doubtful by the authors were eliminated. The presence of fishtail

points at the sites is indicated.

Fig. 3. Flakes from Cerro La China (S 1, 2 and 3) and Cerro El Sombrero (Abrigo 1) according to their raw materials.

N. Flegenheimer et al. / Quaternary International 109–110 (2003) 49–6452

Cerro La China S3, Cerro El Sombrero Abrigo 1 andCima. Flakes from Cima are not included in Figs. 3, 4and 6, as total flake count has not been completed. Allthe flakes recovered are small thinning or resharpeningflakes, and most are bifacial thinning flakes.This group of artifacts is very different from the

overall assemblage recovered at these sites whereunifacial tools predominate. Flakes corresponding toboth initial and final reduction have been recovered, butbifacial reduction flakes only amount to 8% of thesample (Fig. 6). Clearly, artifacts on the reddish siliceousrock represent a distinct production trajectory. Cha#ınes

operatoires on this rock are among the longest onesregistered. Most artifacts have undergone bifacialproduction and many are recycled. Also, no initialproduction flakes have been found and cortex is veryscarce. No cores of reddish siliceous rocks wererecovered, but the presence of a fragment of a largebiface indicates that bifaces might have been used ascores. Tools developed on bifacial reduction flakes usingthis lithology have not been reported. Three tools fromCerro El Sombrero-Cima display heat damage, but wethink this is not due to thermal treatment. They areeither surface remains or were found in shallow deposits.As fires are currently common at the site, they mighthave produced damage on these artifacts.Artifacts on reddish siliceous rocks have also been

reported at other early sites in the region. At Paso Otero5, dated to 10,190 and 10,450 yr BP, a fishtail pointflaked on the same reddish siliceous rock wasfound associated with extinct Pleistocene megafauna(Mart!ınez, 2001). Mazzanti (1999) mentions yellow,reddish, green, brown and translucid siliceous rocks atTixi, Los Pinos, Cueva Burucuy!a and Cueva la Bravafrom occupation levels dated between about 9000 and10,500 yr BP. According to Mazzanti (pers. com. 1999),

reddish varieties could be similar to those described inthis paper. Furthermore, a surface fishtail point on thesame rock has been reported from San Cayetano(Politis, 1991; Fig. 2C). All these sites lie within adistance of 150 km from Cerro la China and Cerro ElSombrero.Recently, a complete biface on this rock was found

among other artifacts in a surface site in a plowed fieldabout 35 km to the east of the studied sites. It is similarto the fragment found at Cerro la China Site 1, and isuseful in providing an idea of what the fragment foundat Cerro La China Site 1 might have looked like(Fig. 5A and F).

3. Fishtail points from Uruguay

In Uruguay, early dated assemblages are still scarceand few sites correspond to the Pleistocene–Holocenetransition (MEC, 1989; Hilbert, 1991; Austral, 1994;Su!arez Sainz, 2000). This probably is result of thehistory of research in the region, as surface fishtailprojectile points are commonly found throughout thecountry (Fig. 1). Also, another assemblage has beenconsidered to represent a very early occupation only onmorphological grounds (B !ormida, 1964; Taddei, 1964).Therefore, our information consists mostly of reportedsurface finds of fishtail projectile points (Figueira, 1892;Cordero, 1960; Schobinger, 1972; Meneghin, 1977;Bosch et al., 1980; Politis, 1991; Su!arez Sainz, 2000;Nami, 2001) and unpublished finds located in amateurcollections. Also, we have observed that most largearchaeological collections contain at least a few speci-mens (Museo Colonia, Collection Oliveira at MuseoNacional de Antropolog!ıa, Collection Taddei at MuseoMunicipal de Canelones). Up to the moment, a total of82 surface fishtail points have been recorded, and atleast 23 have been flaked on the reddish or pink siliceousrock (Fig. 7). The localization for the majority of thesepoints is known, and most have been found in thecentral part of the country, in the R!ıo Negro basin(Fig. 1).The fishtail points in both the Argentine Pampas and

Uruguayan collections exhibit most of the characteristictraits of the type as described by Bird (1969). Most havebeen manufactured using flake blanks of approximatelythe same thickness as the finished product. Some havebeen fluted either on one face or both. Marginal grind-ing of the stem edges and base are very characteristic.Other authors have described morphological and

technical characteristics of fishtail projectile pointsfound in different regions of South America. The pointsexhibit similarities throughout the continent, includingbasal thinning and fluting as has already been discussed(for example, Mayer-Oakes, 1986; Gnecco, 1994; Nami,1997, 2001; Politis, 1991). Regarding fluting, both the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 4. Presence of dorsal cortex on flakes from Cerro La China (S 1, 2

and 3) and Cerro El Sombrero (Abrigo 1) according to raw materials.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table1

ArtifactsonreddishsiliceousrockfromCerroElSombreroandCerroLaChina

Site

Number/

collection

Type

State

Length

Width

Thickness

Surface

Comment

LaChinaS1

35/381

Biface

Transverse

fracture

45

61

9Redluster

Plano-convexsection,nearlycomplete

bifacialreduction

35/120

Bifacefragment

Severalfractures

38

11

6Redluster

Probablyrecycled,couldcorrespondto381

35/119

Retouchedflake

Complete

16

27

7Redluster

Withsmallportionofcortex

LaChinaS3

35/3/20

Bipolarproduct

splinteredpiece

Complete

18

20

10

Redluster

Couldberecycledartifact

35/3/969

Retouchedflake

Complete

26

24

6Redluster

Withsmallportionofcortex

35/3/1800

Bifacialblank?

Transverse

fracture

36

36

10

Pinkopaque

Crudelyflaked

ElSombrero

cima-excavation

S12/303/3

Bifacialscraper

Complete

32

18

7White-redluster

Totallyretouched,possiblyrecycledbiface

S12/204/13

Bifacialfragment

Severalfractures

18

17

4Redluster

Strongheatdamage

ElSombrero

Cima-surface

No.153

Bifacialblank

Transverse

fracture

34

18

9Pinkluster

Slightheatdamage

No.127

Recycledpoint

Transversestem

fracture

29

21

7Yellow/pink,

luster

Slightheatdamage.Recycledasconcave

distaledgeandstraightlateraledge

No.151

Bifacialtool

Transverse

17

11

4Redluster

No.150

Bifacialtool

Complete

22

19

4Pinkluster

Heatdamage.Probablyrecycledtool

Collection

Noseda

Bifacialtool

Transverse

fracture

16

22

Redluster

Roundedpointtip?


Argentine Pampa and Uruguayan collections includeperforms and those with fluting are especially useful fordiscussing platform preparation and flaking technique.In a very few specimens, we have observed that theplatforms are not always centered (Fig. 8C and D).Thus, in specimens with fluting on both faces, such asthe preform illustrated in Fig. 7D, channel flakes are notsymmetrical but slightly offset, producing a thickercentral portion in the stem. With this strategy, anextreme thinning of the section is avoided. This trait wasfirst observed on a preform from Cerro El Sombrero byB. Bradley (pers. com., 1997). The detail in theasymmetrical placement of platform preparation forfluting is present in both regions. At the moment we donot have quantitative data from other regions in SouthAmerica, and do not know the distribution of thismanufacturing trait. Also, the existence of completebifacial production on large bifaces is being discussed as

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 5. Artifacts from Buenos Aires sites on reddish silicified limestone of Queguay: (A) Fragmented biface from Cerro La China1. No.35/1/381. (B)

Bifacial scraper from Cerro El Sombrero, Cima. No. S12/303/3. (C) Probable recycled fishtail point from Cerro El Sombrero, Cima with heat

damage. Surface No.127. (D) Fragmented bifacial artifact from Cerro El Sombrero Cima. Surface, Collection Noseda. (E) Bifacial thinning flake

from Cerro El Sombrero, Abrigo. No.C.10/87. (F) Biface found in surface site in the Tandilia Ranges.

Fig. 6. Relative frequency of bifacial thinning flakes at Cerro La

China (S 1, 2 and 3) and Cerro El Sombrero (Abrigo 1).


a manufacturing process for both regions. Large pointsin the Pampas possibly were manufactured from bifaces(Flegenheimer, 2001), and a similar idea has beenproposed in Uruguay (cf. Nami, 2001; Su!arez Sainz,2001). In Uruguay, the presence of unifacial fishtailpoints also has been recorded, and in Buenos Airesscarcely retouched points have been found (Fig. 8A andB). In both regions, the manufacturing technology usedto produce fishtail projectile points was very flexible,and several cha#ınes operatoires were being used at thesame time.

4. Reddish siliceous rock: macroscopic and petrographic

descriptions

The following descriptions refer to geological andarchaeological samples. The geological samplesdescribed were obtained from quarries in secondarydeposits in Southern Uruguay and from outcrops atMeseta del Fresco, La Pampa province. The archae-

ological samples are two flakes from Cerro ElSombrero-Cima, Buenos Aires province. In all caseswe include both a macro and microscopic description.Finally, the samples are compared and similaritiesassessed (see Table 2).

4.1. Samples from El Fresco Formation, La Pampa

province

These samples were collected by Ber !on (1999).According to their mineralogic composition, these rockscan be classified as silicified limestones. They arecharacterized by a brecciated structure with angular tosubrounded fragments, the presence of structures oforganic origin, spherulithic quartz, quartz/chalcedonymicrogeodes, and the replacement of carbonates bysilica (Fig. 9). Melchor and Casad!ıo (1997) describe thepresence of similar characteristics in silicified peloidalgrainstone belonging to facies V of the Eocene El FrescoFormation in the Province of La Pampa. Due to the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 7. Fishtail points on reddish silcrete from Uruguay. (A) Fishtail point from R!ıo Negro,Uruguay, Collection Vera de Claret (redrawn from

Fig. 16 in Bosch et al. 1980). (B) Resharpened fishtail point from Laguna Blanca, Uruguay, Collection Oliveras (redrawn from Fig. 18 in Bosch et al.

1980). (C) Fishtail point found at Ea. Fagalde, published as No. 32 by Bosch et al. (1980).


similarities mentioned above we assume the samplescollected by Ber !on correspond to this Formation.

4.2. Geological samples from Uruguay, collected at

quarries

The samples exhibit a complete replacement of theoriginal material by silica, which has not allowed thepreservation of evidence regarding the original rockcomposition. They also include valve fragments, circularstructures assigned to gyrogonites of charophytes(Fig. 10A), quartz/chalcedony microgeodes, and detritalgrains. Therefore these samples can be considered assedimentary silicified limestone.The macro and microscopic characteristics of the

samples correspond to those of the silicified limestonesof the Queguay (Calizas del Queguay), related to theMercedes and Asencio Formations (Bossi et al., 1975;Mart!ınez et al., 1997). The age of these deposits has beenthe subject of discussion, and different authors assignthem either to the Upper Cretaceous (Bossi andNavarro, 1991) or to the Paleocene (Mart!ınez et al.,1997) based on their fossil content. Similar deposits arealso mentioned in the province of Entre R!ıos andCorrientes, Argentina (Gentili and Rimoldi, 1979).

4.3. Samples from archaeological sites of the Argentine

Pampa region

These samples can be considered as silicified lime-stone, exhibiting the complete replacement of originalmaterial by silica and the presence of quartz/chalcedonymicrogeodes, circular structures assigned to gyrogonitesof charophytes (Fig. 10B), valve fragments, and struc-tures assigned to gastropod transversal sections (Fig. 11).When comparing the archaeological samples with

those obtained from El Fresco, La Pampa, the presenceof specimens of gyrogonites of charophytes is particu-larly diagnostic (Fig. 10A and B). These fossils areneither reported nor have been observed in the samplesfrom El Fresco. The presence of quartz grains with wavyextinction would have their provenance in the meta-morphic area of Uruguay, and would not be found inthe area of El Fresco. Macroscopic observation of boththe Uruguayan and the archaeological raw materialsindicates a close match. The different varieties recovered(pink, red, opaque, lustrous) at Cerro La China andCerro El Sombrero are all present in the Uruguayansources.We consider that the results of this comparison

should be tested through the analysis of more samples

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 8. Fishtail points from Uruguay and the Argentine Pampa. (A) Scarcely retouched unifacial point from Uruguay (redrawn from Fig. 17 in

Bosch et al. 1980). (B) Scarcely retouched point from Cerro El Sombrero, Abrigo 1, No. C 7/134. (C) Broken fluted preform of fishtail point. Note

asymmetrical placement of flute from Paso del Puerto, Collection Taddei, Museo Arqueol !ogico de Canelones. (D) Broken fluted preform of fishtail

point. Note asymmetrical placement of platform for second fluting from Cerro El Sombrero, Cima, No. S12/401/2.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table2

PetrographicdescriptionoftoolstonesamplesfromElFresco,UruguayandarchaeologicalflakesfromBuenosAires.DiagnosticsimilaritiesfromUruguayanandarchaeologicalsamplesare

highlighted

Samples

GeologicalsamplefromElFrescoform

ation,La

Pampaprovince

GeologicalsamplefromQueguayform

ation,

SouthernUruguay.Secondary

deposits

Archaeologicalflakes

fromCerro

ElSombrero,

Cima

Macroscopicdescription

Color

Brownishredtopinkorgray

Brownishred,pinkordarkgray

Red,brownishredtopink

Fracture

Perfectconchoidalfracture,locallyirregular

Verygoodtoperfectconchoidalfracture

Perfectconchoidalfracture

Luster

Greasyluster

Greasyluster

Greasyluster

Structure

Brecciatedstructure

Homogeneousstructure

Partiallybrecciatedstructure

Organicremains

Fragmentsofsilicifiedmolluskvalves

Fragmentsofsilicifiedgastropodvalves,circular

structuresupto0.7mm

Fragmentsofsilicifiedmolluskvalves,circular

structuresupto0.5mm

Observations

Quartz/chalcedonymicrogeodes,presenceof

boxworkswithFe-oxides,inclusionoflithic?

detriticgrains

Quartz/chalcedonymicrogeodes,darkstains

relatedtooxidesformdendriticstructures

Discoloredzonesassociatedtoboxworks.Quartz/

chalcedonymicrogeodes

Microscopicdescription

Texture

Microcrystalline

Microcrystalline

Cryptocrystallinetomicrocrystalline

Structure

Finebrecciated,lithicfragments?Quartz/

chalcedonymicrogeode,spherulithicquartz

Homogeneous,quartz/chalcedonyMicrogeodes

Siliceousveryfinehomogeneousmass,quartz/

chalcedonymicrogeodes

Replacementmineralogy

Strongsilicification,mosaicstructureandfibrous

chalcedony.Hematite?

Strongsilicification,mosaicandfibrous

chalcedony

Mosaicaggregateofveryfinechalcedony,or

partially,opalinprocessofrecrystallization

Organicremains

Unidentifiedmolluskvalves

Unidentifiedmolluskvalves(gastropods).

Completespecimensofgyrogonites

ofcharophytes

Unidentifiedmolluskvalves(gastropods).

Completespecimensofgyrogonites

ofcharophytes

Originalrock

Micriticormicrospariticcalcite

Donotobserve

Donotobserve

Observations

Feldsparandquartzdetriticgrains.Hematite?

Quartzdetriticgrainsandfeldsparpresentwavy

extinction

Quartzdetriticgrainspresentwavyextinction

Classification

Silicifiedlimestone

Silicifiedlimestone?

Silicifiedlimestone?


from geological sources, especially from the El Frescoarea in La Pampa province and the outcrops from EntreR!ıos and Corrientes provinces. However, no earlyarchaeological sites have been reported from theseprovinces.

5. Reddish silicified limestone quarries in Uruguay

The reddish silicified limestone is commonly found inprimary and secondary deposits in Western, Central(R!ıo Negro basin), Southern (Santa Luc!ıa basin) andNortheastern Uruguay (Baeza, 1987). These rocks havebeen described as silicified limestones with intensesilicification processes, which sometimes produce lime-stones and silcretes, including gastropod fossils. In thelocal archaeological literature this tool stone has beendescribed as ‘‘caliza silicificada’’ or ‘‘carneolita’’, similarto chert.We visited three localities where this reddish silicified

limestone is available and a fourth in which it was usedas a tool stone. At localities where it is available, thesource includes both flakeable and non-flakeable rocks,as well as several colors of silicified limestone. All theselocalities are associated with prehistoric workshops.At Paso de Sena, this tool stone is one of several rocks

included in the alluvial sediments of the ArroyoMiguelete. A complete fishtail projectile point on atranslucent siliceous rock was collected from the site(Collection Mr. N. Berton), which includes a variety ofother artifacts. In another locality with several work-shops (Balneario Punta del San Mart!ın), the reddishrock crops out, and constitutes one of the componentsof a conglomerate. The densest workshop we visited is ata third locality, Estancia Fagalde (situated at Route No.3, km 154). Here the silicified limestone exhibits several

colors, andis one of a number of rock types included asclasts in a conglomerate. A fishtail point on a pinkvariety of this tool stone was recovered at the site andhas been deposited at the Museo Municipal deCanelones (Fig. 7C). The fourth locality (ArroyoPiedras Blancas), is a surface site where we observed avariety of flaked artifacts. Some of the tools and coresare on red and pink varieties of the silicified limestone.At the quarries and associated workshops, we

observed clasts with opaque external surfaces or with acharacteristic luster. Many are covered by a calcareouscortex. At all sites the sizes of the clasts vary betweenvery small (unflakeable) up to 50 cm in length. Theirquality as a tool stone depends mostly on the quantity of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 10. Thin sections of archaeological and geological samples, 10�magnification. Note close similarities between both samples. (a)

Archaeological flake from Cerro El Sombrero, Cima. The circular

structure corresponds to a gyrogonite of a carophyte. (b) Geological

sample obtained at Uruguayan quarries. The circular structure

corresponds to a gyrogonite of a carophyte.

Fig. 9. Geological sample from El Fresco: valve fragment and

spherulithic quartz, 5�magnification.


inclusions and fissures and on the degree of weathering.Artifacts and debitage are manufactured on all theavailable tool stone varieties, and the reddish silicifiedlimestone was abundant and easy to collect at thesesites. Although, fishtail points had been previouslycollected at two of these sites, in our short visit we didnot find evidence to assign any of these three workshopsto an early age.

6. Discussion

In summary, the reddish silicified limestone tools arescarce but exist in most early archaeological assemblagesin the Argentine Pampas. They reflect a curatedstrategy, and are mainly bifacial tools including fishtailprojectile points. This is demonstrated both by the tools,which are bifacial, and by the flakes, which are scarceand small. The evidence presented indicates that the rawmaterial must have been transported as retouchedartifacts or blanks. We think that many of thetransported artifacts were bifaces, which could haveserved several functions (Kelly, 1988). We have foundboth bifaces and fragments of bifaces recycled as othertool types such as scrapers. Although we do not haveevidence of the use of bifaces as cores, such use isexpected. Tools also show a strategy of maximization ofraw material: some are recycled or worn out and nolarge debitage is found.In this paper we propose southern Uruguay as the

source area for the reddish silicified limestone basedupon the petrographic characteristics of the rock andthe presence of fishtail projectile points in both regions.Petrography of archaeological samples from the pro-vince of Buenos Aires indicates a strong similarity with

raw material obtained in quarries in Uruguay. As well,fishtail points, with technical characteristics similar tothe ones from Buenos Aires, are frequent in surfacecollections from Uruguay. Therefore the provenance ofthis tool stone from Uruguay is sustained by twodifferent lines of evidence, one based on petrographicand the other on archaeological data. Applying thesesame criteria, the other sources have been eliminated aspossible sources of raw material (Meseta del Fresco inLa Pampa province, the outcrops in Entre R!ıos andCorrientes provinces and the conglomerate in Tandiliain Buenos Aires province).We therefore propose that the ‘‘reddish siliceous

rock’’ found in the early Argentine Pampa contexts canbe assigned to the same type of rock that thearchaeologists in Uruguay call ‘‘caliza silicificada’’,‘‘carneolita’’, or silicified limestone. As this name istoo inclusive, we suggest the rock in our case can beidentified as ‘‘reddish silicified limestone of Queguay’’.The distance between Southern Uruguay and the

early sites in Buenos Aires is about 400–500 km and thearea is characterized as plains. Therefore, the onlygeographical barriers that the people who transportedthe tools would have encountered are rivers. The widestof these, the R!ıo de la Plata, presented conditions verydifferent from the present during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. About 11,000 years ago the marinecoast was located several kilometers further to the east.Therefore, the R!ıo de La Plata, which today is a wideestuary, was limited to a channel discharging eastwardsfrom the present inlet, very close to the headlands of thecontinental slope. From 11,000 to 6000 years ago the seaadvanced progressively towards the present level (Urienand Ottmann, 1971; Cavallotto et al., 1999). Conse-quently, the question arises whether this river waswaded or crossed by navigation during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. Recently, the possibility of watercraft use by early American populations during this timeis being considered (Lepper, 2000).Finally, what does this tool stone transport mean

from a prehistoric perspective? Four possibilities can beconsidered:

* An initial group of colonizers moving from the northinto the Argentine Pampa brought part of theirtoolkit with them;

* one group of people inhabited a large territoryincluding both the Argentine Pampa and SouthernUruguay, discarding artifacts during their periodicmovements;

* different groups living respectively in the ArgentinePampa and Uruguay had sporadic contact, duringwhich artifacts occasionally circulated; or

* different groups of people living respectively in theArgentine Pampa and Uruguay maintained regularsocial relations through which goods circulated.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 11. Archaeological flake from Cerro El Sombrero, Cima which

exhibits a transversal section of a gastropod replaced by quartz,

magnification 5� .


Ideally in the first case, we would expect older datesfor the sites with fishtail points in Uruguay. Sites withthese assemblages have not been found in stratigraphiccontext, but some sites, mentioned above, with datescorresponding to the Pleistocene–Holocene transitionhave been reported (see Fig. 2). The currently availabledates from early occupations in both regions are thesame. However, even if we had more dates, the currentaccuracy of radiocarbon assays would not allow forsufficient detail to solve this issue. As recently described(Fiedel, 1999), in radiocarbon dating there is amethodological uncertainty for ages between 12,500 to10,000 BP, due to plateaus and jumps in the calibrationcurve. In addition, depending on the rhythm ofcolonization, an expansion over 400–500 km could havebeen accomplished in a short time, and might be‘‘invisible’’ to archaeological and radiometric datingmethods.We would also expect to find whole assemblages or a

great portion of them developed on a variety of rawmaterials transported from Uruguay. We would notexpect a tool type selection: rather, both unifacial andbifacial tools should be represented. Such is not the case,as raw materials have been transported very selectivelyand tool types are restricted. Although the case oftransport presented in this paper could be similar to thesituation described by Borrero and Franco (1997),resulting from exploration of new territories, we wantto emphasize two differences. On the one hand, inprevious papers we have suggested that the earlyArgentine Pampa sites do not correspond to the veryfirst occupation of the territory, due to the highlyselective use of the landscape and lithic resources(Flegenheimer et al., 1999). On the other hand, Borreroand Franco (1997) proposed their model for Patagonia,an area with plentiful raw materials. This is not the casein the province of Buenos Aires. This argument is alsorelevant for discussion of the second possibility.In discussing the possibility of a large territory

throughout which only one group of people movedbetween Uruguay and the Argentine Pampa, we musttake into account its lithic resource base. The existenceof exotic tool stone varieties has been discussed byMeltzer (1989) who has emphasized the difficulty ofrecognizing the difference between exchange and directaccess, except for very particular cases. In mostsituations, interpretation confronts problems of equifin-ality. In our case, the group would have occupied a largeterritory, within which it had periodic direct access toareas with different raw material availability. Thisterritory would include the area of Uruguay south ofR!ıo Negro, which presents a great richness, variety andavailability of flakeable tool stone. Once one crosses theR!ıo de la Plata, the area of the Salado basin inArgentina is completely devoid of lithic resources. Thisplain extends for some 400 km until the Tandilia ranges,

where at least one rock of good quality for flaking isfound (Sierras Bayas orthoquartzites). Under thesecircumstances, one would expect that people movingaround within their territory transported complete andportable toolkits from Uruguay, the area of the best,more abundant and varied raw materials, and discardedthem once they were worn out, near the Tandiliaquarries. Also, the better rocks within the territorywould have been preferred as a tool stone for the morestandardized and longer use-life instruments. Neither ofthese expected results occurs. Artifacts corresponding tothe whole toolkit have not been discarded in Tandilia,nor were a great variety of rocks transported, nor arelarge proportions of the long-use life instrumentsdeveloped on the reddish silicified limestone ofQueguay.The third possibility implies the existence of different

groups that had sporadic contacts. As we mentionedabove, the availability of good quality raw materialsin Southern Uruguay is high. One can find variousrock types, and the silicified limestone is presentin several colors. If the rock traveled as a result ofisolated encounters, one would expect different rocktypes and colors from Uruguay in pampean assem-blages, without any evidence for selection. However,our case, with about 1% of the assemblages on apeculiar tool stone of only red or pink color, selectedamong other possible rocks at the quarries, indicatesthat a certain regularity in the encounters must haveexisted. Also, for this selection to exist the informationabout the existence of distant valued goods must beshared within the group. So, this third possibility has avery low probability as the reddish silicified limestonehas been found in most early sites excavated up to themoment.Therefore, we think that the last possibility, involving

different small groups inhabiting different territories butsharing information and goods, is the most probable.Soffer (1991), working on East European UpperPaleolithic groups, developed the idea that the presenceof exotic materials used to fashion items of personaladornment can be interpreted as resulting from regionalinteraction networks. In the case of exotic lithics, sheproposes that either they were obtained by individuals inthe course of long distance visits, or through regionalinteraction networks in groups with limited residentialmobility. Also, the existence of social systems ofinterregional interaction has been discussed by Gamble(1994) based upon several archaeological traits: sharedinformation, repeated association of utilitarian and non-utilitarian artifacts of similar design of widespreadgeographical distribution, and raw material transport.In South America, Dillehay (2000) has suggested thatexchange network systems developed between 11,000and 10,000 years ago, and that within them, both ideasand cultural styles traveled for long distances. Here we

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Flegenheimer et al. / Quaternary International 109–110 (2003) 49–64 61

present a case for the long distance transport of goods,previously missing from the South American informa-tion (Dillehay, 2000). The relevance of Paleoindianinteraction and mating networks as a means ofmaintaining reproductive viability of small groups hasbeen recently stressed (Anderson and Gillman, 2001).The importance of these networks in organizing thesubsequent, more densely populated human landscape ismentioned, when they probably were useful to keeppeople apart most of the time or cooperate whennecessary.In our case, apart from recording transport of raw

material between both regions, we have also observedtechnological similarities. The reduction sequences offishtail points at Cerro El Sombrero and Cerro La Chinaare similar to those observed in collections fromUruguay. For example, many fishtail points aremanufactured from flake blanks, stem abrasion is acommon trait, and fluting is present in low proportions.We have even observed a peculiar feature in bothregions regarding the placement of the nipple for fluteextraction, which is not centered. Furthermore, in thetwo regions flexible manufacturing sequences were inuse, and these sequences are the result of both simpleand complex cha#ınes operatoires. Elsewhere, we havediscussed that the presence of non-utilitarian artifactsassociated with these points, such as the discoidalstones, reinforce the existence of shared designs andtechnical knowledge (Bay !on and Flegenheimer, 2000).Nami (1997) has also proposed that technicalinformation was transmitted among different groupswith fishtail points, based on cases from SouthernPatagonia.We think that other non-technical information also

was shared among the same people. In the ArgentinePampa collection not all the points had the samefunction (Politis, 1998). Points exhibit tremendous sizedifferences, as well as the variability mentioned above inthe manufacturing process. Due to the variable sizes, wecannot infer the same function for all ‘‘fishtail points’’,yet they possess a similar morphology. We thereforethink that shape had a social meaning (Bay !on andFlegenheimer, 2000) which was shared in both regionsand even further beyond.We therefore propose that the long distance transport

we have described must be considered within theframework of social interaction networks. Several mainquestions arise as issues for a future agenda. The first arespatial concerns: do other early South Americancontexts exhibit indicators of open social networks aswell? Can we recognize the existence of exotic rocks,coming from the Pampas, in Uruguay where the lithicresource base is abundant and varied? Another questionis time related: how did these open social systemsevolve? When did they change to more territorialsystems?

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by grants PIP 0390/98 andUNS-SECYT 24/I062. We would like to thank DianaMazzanti and M !onica Ber !on for allowing us to use theirinformation. The Fagalde family, Mr. Berton and Mr.Barrag!an generously allowed access to their lands andcollections. We also acknowledge all other owners ofprivate collections who have permitted their studythroughout the years. Fig. 7C is redrawn from originalsupplied by Mr. Meneghin. We wish to thank ourreviewers Marcel Kornfeld and Willy MengoniGo *nalons and our colleagues Gustavo Mart!ınez,Cristina Scattolin, Gustavo Barrientos, Federico Islaand Marcelo Z!arate who have all provided usefulsuggestions and Clive Gamble for his encouragement.Joan L !opez Pueyred !on reviewed our English.

References

Anderson, D., 1990. The paleoindian colonization of Eastern North

America: a view from the Southeastern United States. Research in

Economic Anthropology 5 (Suppl.), 163–216.

Anderson, D., Gillman, C., 2001. Paleoindian interaction and mating

networks: reply to Moore and Moseley. American Antiquity 66 (3),

530–535.

Austral, A., 1994. La campa *na de en el sitio Paypaso, R!ıo Quarai,

Departamento de Artigas, Rep !ublica Oriental del Uruguay.

Proceedings XI Congreso Nacional de Arqueolog!ıa Argentina,

San Rafael, p. 355.

Baeza, J., 1987. El aprovechamiento de las materias primas l!ıticas en

grupos prehist !oricos. Proceedings of the Primeras Jornadas de

Ciencias Antropol!ogicas en el Uruguay, Montevideo, pp. 9–13.

Barna, A., Kain, S., 1994. Una fuente potencial de aprovisionamiento

l!ıtico en el Cerro El Sombrero. Partido de Lober!ıa (Pcia. de Buenos

Aires). Revista del Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael XIV,

206–208.

Bay !on, C., Flegenheimer, N., 2000. Tendencias en el Estudio del

Material L!ıtico. Paper Presented at the Segunda Reuni !on Inter-

nacional de Teor!ıa Arqueol !ogica en Am!erica del Sur. Olavarr!ıa Ms,

unpublished.

Bay !on, C., Flegenheimer, N., Valente, M., Pupio, A., 1999. Dime

c !omo eres y te dir!e de d !onde vienes: la procedencia de rocas

cuarc!ıticas en la Regi !on Pampeana. Relaciones de la Sociedad

Argentina de Antropolog!ıa XXIV, 187–235.

Ber !on, M., 1999. Contacto, intercambio, Relaciones Inter!etnicas e

implicancias arqueol !ogicas. Soplando en el viento. Actas de las III

Jornadas de Arqueolog!ıa de la Patagonia, Neuqu!en-Buenos Aires,

pp. 287–302.

Bird, J., 1969. A comparisson of South Chilean and Ecuadorian

‘‘Fishtail’’ projectile points. Kroeber Anthropological Society

Papers 40, 52–71.

B !ormida, M., 1964. Las industrias l!ıticas pre-cer!amicas del Arroyo

Catal!an Chico y del R!ıo Cuareim. Revista di Scienze Preistoriche

19 (Fasc.1-4), 195–232.

Borrero, L., 1999. The prehistoric exploration and colonization of

fuego-patagonia. Journal of World Archaeology 13 (3), 321–351.

Borrero, L., Franco, N., 1997. Early patagonian hunter-gatherers:

subsistence and technology. Journal of Anthropological Research

53, 219–239.

Bosch, A., Femen!ıas, J., Olivera, A., 1980. Dispersi !on de las Puntas de

Proyectil Pisciformes en el Uruguay. Paper Presented at Tercer


Congreso Nacional de Arqueolog!ıa y Cuarto Encuentro de

Arqueolog!ıa del Litoral, Centro de Estudios Arqueol !ogicos,

Montevideo, pp. 245–261.

Bossi, J., Navarro, R., 1991. Geolog!ıa del Uruguay. Departamento de

publicaciones de la Universidad de la Rep !ublica, Montevideo,

966pp.

Bossi, J., Ferrando, L., Fern!andez, A., Elizalde, G., Morales, H.,

Ledesma, J., Carballo, E., Medina, E., Ford, I., Monta *na, J., 1975.

Carta Geol !ogica del Uruguay. Direcci !on de Suelos y Fertilizantes

M.A.P., Montevideo, p. 32.

Cavallotto, J.L., Violante, R., Parker, G., 1999. Historia evolutiva del

R!ıo de la Plata durante el Holoceno. Proceedings of XIV Congreso

Geol !ogico Argentino, Salta, pp. 508–511.

Civalero, M.T., 1999. Obsidiana en Santa Cruz, una problem!atica a

resolver . Soplando en el viento, Actas III Jornadas de Arqueolog!ıa

de Patagonia: Neuquen- Buenos Aires, pp. 155–164.

Cordero, S., 1960 Los charr !uas. Editorial Mentor, Montevideo,

333pp.

Crivelli, M.E., Silveira, M., Eugenio, E., Escola, P., Fern!andez, M.,

Franco, N., 1987–88. El Sitio Fort!ın Necochea (partido de General

Lamadrid, provincia de Buenos Aires). Estado actual de los

trabajos. Paleoetnol !ogica IV, 39–53.

Crivelli, M.E., Pardi *nas, U., Fern!andez, M., Bogazzi, M., Chauvin, A.,

Fern!andez, U., Lezcano, M., 1996. La Cueva Epull!an Grande

(Prov. de Neuqu!en). Praehistoria 2, 155–265.

Dillehay, T., 2000. The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory.

Basic Books, New York.

Escola, P., Vazquez, C., Momo, F., 1994. An!alisis de procedencia de

artefactos de obsidiana: v!ıas metodol !ogicas de acercamiento al

intercambio. Revista del Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael

XIII (1/4) I parte, 307–311.

Fiedel, S., 1999,. Older than we thought: implications of corrected

dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity 64 (1), 95–115.

Figueira, J., 1892. Los Primitivos Habitantes del Uruguay. El Uruguay

en la Exposici !on Hist !orica Americana de Madrid, Montevideo,

pp.121–219.

Flegenheimer, N., 1999. Vista una, vistas todas? Las ‘‘colas de

pescado’’ de la Cima de Cerro El Sombrero. Paper presented at the

XIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueolog!ıa Argentina C !ordoba, pp.

353–354.

Flegenheimer, N., 2001. Biface transport in the Pampean Region,

Argentina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 18, 21–22.

Flegenheimer, N., Bay !on, C., 1999. Abastecimiento de rocas en sitios

pampeanos tempranos: recolectando colores. In: Aschero, C.,

Korstanje, A., Vuoto, P. (Eds.), En los Tres Reinos: Pr!acticas de

Recolecci !on en el Cono Sur de Am!erica. Ediciones Magna

Publicaciones, Tucum!an, pp. 95–107.

Flegenheimer, N., Z!arate, M., 1997. Considerations on radiocarbon

and calibrated dates from Cerro La China and Cerro El Sombrero,

Argentina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 14, 27–28.

Flegenheimer, N., Amick, D., Bay !on, C., 1999. Early Strategies of

Raw Material acquisition and use in the Southern Cone. Paper

Presented at the 62nd SAA Annual meeting, Nashville, 2–6 April.

Gamble, C., 1994. Timewalkers: the prehistory of global colonization.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Gentili, C., Rimoldi, H., 1979. Mesopotamia. Segundo Simposio de

Geolog!ıa Regional Argentina 1, 200–201.

Gnecco, C., 1994. Fluting technology in South America. Lithic

Technology 19 (1), 35–42.

Gonz!alez de Bonaveri, M.I., 2001. Uso del espacio y circulaci !on de

bienes en la cuenca inferior del Salado. Arqueolog!ıa 10, in press.

Gonz!alez de Bonaveri, I., Fr"ere, M., Bay !on, C., Flegenheimer, N.,

1998. La organizaci!on de la tecnolog!ıa l!ıtica en la cuenca del Salado

(Buenos Aires, Argentina). Arqueolog!ıa 8, 57–69.

Goodyear, A., 1989. A Hypothesis for the use of cryptocrystalline raw

materials among Paleo-Indian groups of North America. In: Ellis, C.,

Lothrop, J. (Eds.), Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use.

Westerview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 1–10.

Hilbert, K., 1991. Aspectos de la Arqueolog!ıa en el Uruguay. In: Ava

Materialien, Vol. 44. Verlag Philipp Von Zabern-Mainz Am Rhein,

Germany.

Kelly, R., 1988. The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity 53 (4),

717–734.

Lazzari, M., 1997. La econom!ıa m!as all!a de la subsistencia:

intercambio y producci !on l!ıtica en el Aconquija. Arqueolog!ıa 7,

9–50.

Lepper, B., 2000. Beyond ‘‘Clovis and Beyond’’, Current Research in

the Pleistocene, Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas

A & M University, College Station, Texas Vol 17, pp. vii–ix.

Mart!ınez, G., 1999. Tecnolog!ıa, subsistencia y asentamientos en el

curso medio del R!ıo Quequ!en Grande: un enfoque arqueol !ogico.

Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, La Plata, p.406.

Mart!ınez, G., 2001. An!alisis preliminar del sitio Paso Otero 5 ( !Area

Interserrana Bonaerense). Implicancias para las ocupaciones

tempranas de la Regi !on Pampeana. Cuadernos del Instituto

Nacional de Antropolog!ıa y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Vol.

19, Buenos Aires, in press.

Mart!ınez, S., Veroslavsky, G., Verde, M., 1997. Primer registro del

paleoceno en el uruguay: paleosuelos calc!areos fosil!ıferos en la

cuenca de Santa Luc!ıa. Revista Brasileira de Geoci#encias 27 (3),

295–302.

Mayer-Oakes, W., 1986. El Inga A Paleo-Indian Site in the Sierra Of

Northern Ecuador. Transactions of American Philosophical

Society 76 (4), 1–235.

Mazzanti, D., 1999. Ocupaciones Humanas Tempranas en Sierra La

Vigilancia y Laguna La Brava, Tandilia Oriental, provincia de

Buenos Aires. Proceedings of XII Congreso Nacional de

Arqueolog!ıa Argentina, Vol. III, 22–26 september 1997, Laplata,

pp. 149–155.

Mazzanti, D., 2001. Human settlements in caves and rockshelters

during the Pleistocene–Holocene in the Eastern of Tandilia Range,

Pampean Region, Argentina. In: Miotti, L., Salemme, M.,

Flegenheimer, N. (Eds.), Ancient Evidence for Paleo South

Americans: from where the South Winds blow. CSFA and A-M

Texas University Press, Texas, in press.

Melchor, R., Casad!ıo, S., 1997. Hoja Geol !ogica 3766–III La Reforma,

Provincia de La Pampa. Secretar!ıa de Miner!ıa de la Naci !on,

Buenos Aires, pp. 1–57.

MEC (Ministerio de Educaci !on y Cultura), 1989. Misi !on de Rescate

Arqueol !ogico de Salto Grande, Vol. 2, First part, Montevideo,

Uruguay p. 609.

Meltzer, D.J., 1989. Was Stone Exchanged among Eastern

North American Paleoindians? In: Ellis, Ch., Lothrop, J. (Eds.),

Eastern Paleoindian lithic resource use. Westview Press, Boulder,

pp. 11–39.

Mena, F., Lucero, V., Reyes, O., Trejo, V., Vel!asquez, H., 2000.

Cazadores tempranos y Tard!ıos en la cueva Ba *no Nuevo 1, margen

occidental de la estepa centropatag !onica (XI Regi !on de Aisen,

Chile). Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia Serie Cs. Hs. 28,

173–195.

Meneghin, U., 1977. Nuevas Investigaciones en los yacimientos

del ‘‘Cerro de Los Burros’’. Tim !on Press, Montevideo,

Uruguay.

Molinari, R., Espinosa, S., 1999. Brilla tu, diamante ‘‘loco’’. Soplando

en el viento, Actas III Jornadas de Arqueolog!ıa de Patagonia,

Neuqu!en-Buenos Aires, pp.189–198.

Nami, H., 1997. Investigaciones actual!ısticas para discutir aspectos

t!ecnicos de los Cazadores-recolectores del Tardiglacial: El pro-

blema Clovis-Cueva Fell. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia 25,

151–186.

Nami, H., 2001. Consideraciones tecnol !ogicas preliminares sobre los

artefactos l!ıticos de Cerro de los Burros (Maldonado, Uruguay).

ARTICLE IN PRESSN. Flegenheimer et al. / Quaternary International 109–110 (2003) 49–64 63

Comunicaciones Antropol!ogicas Museos Nacionales de Historia

Nacional y Antropolog!ıa 21, 1–24.

Politis, G., 1991. Fishtail projectile points in the southern cone of

South America: an overview. In: Bonnichsen, R. (Ed.), Clovis:

Origins and Adaptations. Center for the Study of the First

Americans, University of Maine, Orono, pp. 287–301.

Politis, G., 1998. Arqueolog!ıa de la infancia: una perspectiva

etnoarqueol !ogica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 55 (2), 5–19.

Politis, G., Madrid, P., 2001. Arqueolog!ıa Pampeana: Estado actual y

Perspectivas. In: Berberi!an E, Nielsen, A. (Eds.), Historia

Argentina Prehisp!anica. Vol. II, Editorial Brujas, pp. 737–814.

Scattolin, M.C., Lazzari, M., 1997. Tramando redes: obsidianas al

oeste del aconquija. Estudios Atacame*nos 14, 189–209.

Schobinger, J., 1972. Nuevos hallazgos de puntas cola de pescado, y

consideraciones en torno al origen y dispersi !on de la cultura de

cazadores superiores Toldense (Fell 1) en Suram!erica. Atti del XL

Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti. Roma-Genova,

Rome, pp. 33–50.

Soffer, O., 1991. Lithics and lifeways-the diversity in raw material

procurement and settlement systems on the Upper Paleolithic East

European Plain. In: Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.),

Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers.

Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 221–234.

Stern, C., 1999. Black obsidian from Central- South Patagonia;

Chemical characteristics, sources and regional distribution

of artefacts. Soplando en el viento, Actas III Jornadas de

Arqueolog!ıa de Patagonia, Neuquen-Buenos Aires, pp. 221–234.

Stern, C., 2000. Fuentes de los artefactos de obsidiana en los sitios

arqueol !ogicos de la cuevas de Pali Aike, Fell, y Ca *nad !on La Leona,

en Patagonia Austral. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, Serie Cs

Hs 28, 251–263.

Stern, C., Franco, N., 2000. Obsidiana gris verdosa veteada de la

cuenca superior del r!ıo santa cruz, extremo sur de patagonia.

Anales Inst. Patagonia, Serie Cs Hs 28, 265–273.

Su!arez Sainz, R., 2000. Paleoindian occupations in Uruguay. Current

Research in the Pleistocene 17, 78–80.

Su!arez Sainz, R., 2001. Paleoindian components of Northern

Uruguay: new data for early human occupations of the Late

Pleistocene and Early Holocene. In: CSFA(Ed.), Ancient evidences

for Paleo South Americans: from where the South Winds Blow.

Texas A-M University Press, Texas, in press.

Taddei, A., 1964. Un yacimiento precer!amico en el Uruguay. Baessler-

Archiv, Neue Folge, Vol. XII. Berlin, pp. 317–372.

Tankersley, K., 1991. A geoarchaeological investigation of distribution

and exchange in the raw material economies of clovis groups in

Eastern North America. In: Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.),

Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers.

Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 285–304.

Urien, C.M., Ottmann, F., 1971. Histoire du Rio de la Plata au

Quaternaire. Quaternaria 14, 51–59.

Valverde, F., 2000.Variabilidad de recursos l!ıticos en dos sitios

paleoindios de las sierras de Tandilia oriental, Provincia de Buenos

Aires. Paper Presented at the II Congreso de Arqueolog!ıa de la

Regi !on Pampeana, Mar del Plata, p. 43.


Documents

Qi (2003) long distance tool transport argentina flegenheimer et al