The construction of hunting sceneries: Interactions between humans, animals and landscape in the Antofalla valley, Catamarca, Argentina

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31 (2012) 104–117

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jaa

The construction of hunting sceneries: Interactions between humans,animals and landscape in the Antofalla valley, Catamarca, Argentina

Enrique MorenoEscuela de Arqueología, Universidad Nacional de Catamarca – ISES/IAM, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán – CONICET, Av. Belgrano 300, 4700 Catamarca, Argentina

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 December 2010Revision received 27 October 2011Available online 25 November 2011

Keywords:Hunting landscapeCamelidsSouth-central AndesLandscape archaeologyAntofalla valley

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jaa.2011.10.006

E-mail address: [email protected]

a b s t r a c t

Through the history of human occupation in the south-central Andes, the interactions between south-American camelids and human populations were essential in the social reproduction, being huntingone of the appropriation modes of greater long term. In this sense, the way in which encounters betweenhunters and their preys were materialized becomes a relevant subject in order to understand these inter-actions. That is why in this paper I pretend to show the way in which the landscape were constructedwhere the encounters between hunters and their preys were given. For this, I shall focus in the informa-tion obtained from the intensive and systematic survey developed in the Antofalla valley, located in theAntofagasta de la Sierra Department, Catamarca Province, Argentina. This information has allowed me toidentify a series of structures build with the aim of propitiate the encounter of herds by means of antic-ipating the movements of the animals, searching to obtain near and fixed targets in order to materializethe attack.

� 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction. The story of hunting in South-central Andes

Through history of human occupation in the south-central An-des, the interaction between camelids and human populationswere central in the social reproduction, in relation with the obtain-ing of a series of resources such as meat, leather, bone, tendons,wool, and transport. Among the strategies practiced by humanpopulations in order to appropriate these animals (sensu Ingold,1987), hunting results the most important strategy because of itsrealization in the long term of human occupation of the area, andalso because of its relevance in different social, economic, politicand historical contexts. A multiplicity of investigations has pro-vided information about these populations and the relevance ofhunting in this long historical process which covers approximatelythe last 10,000 years. In this sense, these investigations have pro-posed that during the early and middle Holocene, human popula-tions were characterized by an economy based in camelids androdents hunting and in the exchange of vegetable resources fromlower areas, principally the mesothermal valleys (Aschero, 2000;Elkin, 1996; Martínez, 2003; Yacobaccio et al., 1997–1998). Thearchaeological investigations were able to advance in the charac-terization of hunting strategies, as well as on the patterns of settle-ments and the mobility of these groups. Among these studies it isthe one carried on by Aschero and Martinez (2001) who assure that‘‘the hunting of camelids was the principal subsistence activity, includ-ing during late moments under the full establishment of agricultural

ll rights reserved.

practice (although) hunting and gathering dominated the strategiesof subsistence of most of the history of men in the puna desert, untilherdering and agriculture, as productive ways of subsistence, startedto become preponderant in these economies’’ (Aschero and Martinez,2001, p. 216, author’s translation. Also see Martínez, 2003).

In the same way, Elkin (1996) analyzing the archaeofaunal re-mains of Quebrada Seca 3 (Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca)shows that the camelids were the principal resource of this zonein the puna of Catamarca (Fig. 1). This author proposes the rele-vance of hunting camelids without selecting ages nor sex of thepreys. An important conclusion she arrives at is that ‘‘the camelidspopulations of the Antofagasta de la Sierra basin seem to have sup-ported a hunting pressure through several millenniums without theneed of protecting the animal’s reproduction rate, systematically prey-ing over family groups, the most vulnerable part of the population’’(Elkin, 1996, pp. 134–135, author’s translation).

These authors, together with other investigations in the South-central Andes, have proposed the realization of camelids hunting,being a very important resource due to its caloric input as wellas the use of secondary products such as wool, leather, and bones.In this way the mobility of human populations would also havebeen related with the mobility strategies of troops of camelids inmoments of climate changes, occupying lower or higher ecologicallevels (Fernández Distel, 1974; Gambier, 1981; Núñez, 1983;Yacobaccio, 1991; Yacobaccio et al., 1997–1998).

Around 5500 BP, the process of domestication of plants and ani-mals should have begun, which implies an important modificationin economic, social, political and religious contexts in the local

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2011.10.006

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2011.10.006

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Fig. 1. Antofagasta de la Sierra deparment map where the Antofalla valley is located as well as other sites named in the text (Modified from Aschero, 2000).

E. Moreno / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31 (2012) 104–117 105

populations. This period shows a progressive decrease in theimportance of hunting camelids which Yacobaccio et al. (1997–1998) proposed as a process beginning with a hunting-gatheringeconomy, passing through hunting-domesticating, hunting-herd-ing until reaching a time of herding-hunting. This modificationwould be given in the predominant strategy which is defined asthe one that determines the organizational structure over whichdifferent economic activities are planed and realized. This processimplies a complexity of the hunting-gathering societies, character-ized by aspects such as the reduced residence mobility, territorialbehavior, high population density and presence of bigger groupsof residents, intra-group inequalities, development of ritual prac-tices as a form of social cohesion, as well as a marker of theinequalities and hierarchies (Hocsman, 2006; Yacobaccio, 2001).

Around the start of the 1st millennium a.C. the agricultural-herding societies are definitively established, which conform the‘‘formative period’’ inside the chronology established by the regio-nal archaeology (Olivera, 2001). These societies, in the case of thePuna, have been characterized as small populations dedicated toherding, with a differential grade of agriculture development andwith the input of hunting wild camelids (Vicugna vicugna and Lamaguanicoe) and rodents. In this way the economic organization andtherefore the reproduction strategies of human groups were basedaround the control of the herds, subjecting the other practices tothe development of these activities (Yacobaccio, 2001).

However, information obtained in diverse archaeological inves-tigations, show that this situation was more flexible, where therecan be noted a diverse economical organization, where differenteconomical strategies had a relevant importance at the momentof reproduction of the every day life. Regarding agriculture, Ques-ada (2001, 2007) has developed an investigation in the Antofallaarea, where he shows the agricultural development and the socialscale of work associated to these practices, remarking the impor-tance of this activity. On the other hand, investigations centered

in the arcaheofaunal remains have shown a relative preponderanceof the exploitation of wild camelids, specifically vicuñas, in relationto the already domesticated lamas (Lama glama). These are thecases, among others, of Tebenquiche Chico 1 (Haber, 2006.Revuelta, 2005), Quebrada Seca 3 (Elkin, 1996) and Real Grande 1(Olivera, 1997), in the puna of Catamarca and Huachichocana III(Yacobaccio and Madero, 1992) in the Puna of Jujuy. This allowsme to reflect about the role of hunting of wild camelids in the agri-cultural-herding period, being an economy based on diversifiedeconomic strategies. In this historical context, the relevance of wildcamelids, particularly of vicuñas starts to modify, particularly be-cause of the quality of its wool and its role in the regional articula-tion and in the reproduction of social hierarchies.

Following this imaginary timeline, in the Inka period andaccording to what the historical chronicles show, the vicuñaswould have recovered an important ‘‘economical-ritual’’ role bytaking part of the celebrations of the chaku in honor of the Inka(Puló, 1998, 2000; Ratto, 2003). This ritual consisted in the prepa-ration by the participants of a great circle, in which a troop of vic-uñas was entered and then they were hunted and the flesh andwool were given to the Inka. It seems that this practice had a strongcontrol by the inka state as it is shown in several chronicles andethno-historical investigations (Cieza de León [1553], 1984; Murra,1978; Polo de Ondegardo [1571], 1990).

Later on, during the colonial period (XVI and XVII centuries), thevicuña would have turned in one of the principal resources toaccomplish the payment of tribute by the local populations dueto its characteristics (possible to be changed for metals, raw mate-rial to be transformed into manufactures which could be placed inthe market or object which would be accepted as ‘‘money of theearth’’) (Lema, 2004; Yacobaccio et al., 2007), However this is re-ferred in the narrative construction of travellers of the zone froma deterministic view, where the unique economic option for localpopulations was the subsistence through the vicuña and it was

106 E. Moreno / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31 (2012) 104–117

not thought as a mechanism of articulation of the local societieswith the emerging colonial markets (Haber and Lema, 2006; Lema,2004; Moreno and Revuelta, 2010).

Already in the republican period (XIX Century), the importance ofthe vicuña hunting would continue being central for the local popu-lations, providing a resource which was possible to be exchanged forgoods from other regions. So, the vicuña hunting added to the hunt-ing of other species, would provided a surplus of resources evenmore important than agriculture. This activity supplied resourcessuch as meat, wool and leather. However the principal resourcewould have been the weave of the vicuña which would allow the ex-change for other goods in places such as Cachi (Salta) or San Pedro deAtacama and Toconao (Chile) (Benedetti, 2005). ‘‘The commercial ex-change consists in selling the leathers and wool of the vicuña, llama,sheep and goat leather, and there can be added the animal skins ob-tained of hunting. . . Other products which they exchanged for corn orflour are the woollens which they spin and knit by primitive methodsand which are very appreciated by experts’’ (Catalano 1930 in Bened-etti, 2005, p. 400, author’s translation).

The materialization of vicuñas hunting and its introduction intothe European markets due to the fine quality of its wool, promotedthe realization of an excessive hunt of these animals, causing theban of hunting and marketing of vicuñas wool since approximately60 years in the territory of the Province of Catamarca, as well as inall the areas which own vicuñas in South America. These laws wereestablished because of the claim of different areas because of thekilling of vicuñas due to the high prices of the wool and the totallack of control of this practice (Moreno, in press-a; Puló, 1998,2000; Vilá, 2006).

1 The intensive survey in Antofalla was made in the frame of the research projectsrqueología e historia de la Puna de Atacama: paisajes arqueológicos de la región de

ntofalla’’, Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, and ‘‘Estudiorqueológico de los límites agrícolas de los oasis del área de Antofalla’’, Universidadacional de Catamarca, both directed by Dr. Alejandro Haber

The study of hunting practices

The construction of this long historic journey shows the impor-tance of hunting in the puna context, in relation to changes in so-cial, political or economic contexts, reinforcing the importance ofevaluating the characteristics of this practice. In order to constructthis narration, archaeology has centered itself in three principalanalytical strategies, although not exclusive, two of them withmore development than the third one. The first of these databasesis based in the study of the hunting technology which allows theinterpretation of hunting strategies taking into account the recon-struction of the types of weapons (throwing spears, shuttles andbow and arrows in the context of pre-hispanic South-central An-des), to which can be added the characteristics of the natural envi-ronment and the social relations among hunters. In this waystrategies are constructed such as ambush or wait and the possibleuse of inciters (Churchill, 1993). These strategies were modifieddepending on the weapons used, hand in hand, with changes inthe efficiency, the flight distance or the damage power (Ascheroand Martinez, 2001; de Souza, 2004; Escola, 1987, 2000; Hocsman,2006; Martínez, 2003; Moreno, 2010; Ratto, 2003). The seconddatabase allows the evaluation of the representation of the differ-ent species and reconstructs the strategies used to improve the so-cial reproduction. But this analysis also allows the understandingof aspects such as the different exploitation of skeletal parts, trans-portation, depositation, formation processes, etc. (Elkin, 1996;Haber, 2001, 2006, 2007; Izeta, 2007; López, 2006; Mondini andElkin, 2006; Moreno and Revuelta, 2010; Olivera, 1997; Oliveraand Grant, 2009; Revuelta, 2005; Yacobaccio and Madero, 1992).In the particular case of the area of Antofalla, there is relevantinformation, which comes from the Tebenquiche Chico valleyabout the importance of vicuña hunting in contexts correspondingto the 1st and 2nd millennium a.C., where the representation ofvicuñas reached from 70% to 80% of the identified specimens per

specie (Haber, 2001, 2006; Revuelta, 2005; Moreno and Revuelta,2010).

The third way of analysis, the landscape, has had a minor devel-opment, being remarkable the investigations made by Ratto (2003)in the Chaschuil basin (Department of Tinogasta, Catamarca)where, by means of the realization of surveys in different land-forms and the analysis of the hunting technology, the changes dur-ing the hunting strategies in hunting-gathering and productivecontext are assessed. Another background in which the huntinglandscape is analyzed, was performed by Aschero and Martinez(2001) in Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca. These authors pro-pose hunting models for early moments (8800-6600 BP) basedon an articulation among the design of projectile points, the ethol-ogy of camelids, the topographical characteristics of the environ-ment and the hunter’s interaction. Finally a relevant theoreticaland methodological background for this investigation is the studyperformed by Haber (2003b, 2007, 2009) who proposes an analysisof different types of structures registered in the Archibarca basin(Antofagasta de la Sierra Department, Catamarca), which allowhim to construct a view of the landscape in terms of a trap, wherethe anticipation and the interaction of the shared knowledge be-tween hunters and preys explain the characteristics of the huntinglandscape.

I believe that this last aspect, the landscape, has a relevantpotentiality in order to be able to study the practice of camelidhunting due to it is there where encounters between hunters andpreys take place and leave possible traces to be identified by spe-cific analithical strategies. In addition, this landscape is con-structed, lived and reproduced through the interactions betweenhuman populations and between these and other relevant factorswhich allows the materialization of the encounters. In this waypeople, animals, topography, rocks, gods, weapons, water, wind,etc. are important and necessary aspects so the hunting can takeplace. In order to assess this issue, I will here present the Antofallavalley case, located in the northeast area of the Antofagasta de laSierra department, Catamarca Province, Argentine Republic1. Inthat place an intensive and systematic survey of the whole valleywas made in order to assess the characteristics of the hunting land-scape and the modifications which can be registered using specificanalithical methodologies of archaeology (Moreno, 2010). This sur-vey allowed me to interpret the construction of a landscape relatedto the preparation of spaces which propitiate the encounter betweenhunters and preys, based in the anticipation of the movements of thetroops by the hunters.

In this sense, the landscape is comprehended as a dynamic fac-tor, being used and constructed by human populations, at the sametime that it participates in the maintenance or transformation ofsocial relations (Bender, 1993; Curtoni, 2007; Ingold, 1993; Tho-mas, 1996; Tilley, 1994). The landscape, therefore, may be inter-preted as a place created by people, that it is full of humanactions and meanings. In this way ‘‘. . . living in it, the landscape be-comes a part of us, just as we become part of it’’. (Ingold, 1993, p.154). So, at the same time humans structure, prepare, live the land-scape, construct their identity in relation to the landscape, the as-pects which form it and the other people which share it. In thisway, in the landscape a way of doing the hunting is composedmeanwhile in the body memory these techniques which tend topropitiate the encounter through the anticipation of the movementof the possible preys, are embodied (Haber, 2003a, 2003b, 2007;Haber and Moreno, 2008; Moreno, 2010).

‘‘AAaN


In this frame, hunting must be understood as a social practice;as an action which has political connotations, being this conceptunderstood in a very broad sense; they might produce intentionalor not intentional changes in the social scope (Bourdieu, 1977;Giddens, 1984). In this sense, hunting implies physical concrete ac-tions, such as the weapon manufacturing, the hunting landscapepreparation and the selection of the prey, but at the same time, so-cial actions (as for example the participants of communal hunting)or religious (taboo of hunting certain animals or the ban of huntingsome animals in certain dates or places) give sense to this practice.

Taking into account this statement, in the Antofalla valley anintensive and systematic survey which took into account as wellas the cultural modifications performed by the human groupsthrough time the relevant natural aspects for the conformation ofthe hunting landscape, was developed.

Fig. 2. General view of the Antofalla valley where the characteristic of thelandscape are presented.

The Antofalla valley

The Antofalla valley is located in the north-western area of theAntofagasta de la Sierra Department, Catamarca Province. It is orig-inated in two waterholes located, the bigger one at 4100 metersabove sea level and the smaller one approximately at 3900 metersabove sea level. The watercourse goes down through the valley un-til it gets to the Salar de Antofalla, where it oozes. This character-istic of the hydric regime contributes to the conformation of twobasic forms of distribution of vegetation. On one hand, a concen-trated vegetation formed by marshes, which are characterized fora grass cover which is more or less continuous, associated bystreams of slow water. On the other hand, dispersed vegetationformed by ‘‘tolares’’ and ‘‘pajonal’’. The first formed by thornybushes of the genders Adesmia, Acantholipiam, Baccharis, Fabiana,Senecio and Paratresphia. The ‘‘pajonal’’ is formed by clumps ofgrasses of great forage value, predominating the genders Festuca,Stipa and Deyeuxia (Cabrera, 1957; Elkin, 1992, 1996; Haber,1991; Morlans, 1995).

The Antofalla valley has two well marked slopes, being in someareas very steep and in others fairly smooth, varying between 0and 22%. It was possible to identify some areas which could havebeen used as paths, while other steep slopes are almost impossibleto climb, also because of the characteristic of the sandy soil (Fig. 2).

The Antofalla valley is located in what is called Puna Meridional(Olivera, 1991) or Puna salada (Troll, 1980), formed by a climate ofextreme dryness with summer rains which reach 150 mm per year,strong temperature variations between day and night, low vegeta-tion coverage, topography with steep slopes and high altitudes. Therain is principally snow, mostly occurring in the highest peaks.Nevertheless the micro environmental characteristics of the Anto-falla valley make the human settlement favorable due to the pres-ence of water resources, soils able for agricultural production(Quesada, 2007) and the necessary characteristics for the settle-ment of territories for wild camelids such as water, vegetation,smooth slopes and high rocks used to protection during nighttimes (Moreno, 2010).

Referring to the paleoenvironment information, I do not counton data for the specific area, but there is studies made in nearareas, in which I focus (Fernández et al., 1991; Grosjean, 1998;Markgraf, 1985, Núñez and Santoro 1988, Núñez et al., 1999,2002; Olivera et al., in press; Santoro et al., 1991, Valero Garcéset al. 2003, Ybert, 1991).This studies have allowed to identify thataround the early Holocene (11000-7500 BP) there would have beena period of more humidity and lower temperatures, where thelakes increased their levels, being the rainfalls capable to reachup to 500 mm per year. Around 8700 BP there should have beguna process of decrease of the humidity and an increase of the tem-perature, characteristic of the middle Holocene. Later on between

5500 and 3000 BP the characteristic should have been of erosionalprocesses, which resulted of flood events and colluvial deposits.Starting the year 3000 BP a process of increase of the humiditystarts and has it highest point around 1600 BP. Meanwhile the ac-tual conditions should have been established by mid of the XXCentury.

This valley, traditionally occupied by human populations in thelong term (Haber, 2004, 2006; Haber et al., 2002; Haber andMoreno, 2008; Moreno, 2009, 2010; Quesada, 2007) is todayinhabited by the members of the ‘‘Comunidad Indigena Kolla-Ata-cameña de Antofalla’’, who have reused some productive areas toharvest potatoes, corn, garlic, using irrigation networks to trans-port the water to the plots. They also raise sheep and lamas, repro-ducing traditional forms of relations between people andenvironment and reusing some structures constructed in previousmoments.

Considering all what has been presented until here, the Antofal-la valley is a relevant case in order to assess the hunting strategiesperformed by the human populations along time in order to obtainwild camelids.

The systematic survey in Antofalla

In order to evaluate the characteristics of the hunting landscapein the Antofalla valley a survey was designed covering the wholevalley. To do so, there were performed linear transects, separatedevery 40 meters aiming to identify the distribution and the settle-ment of the evidences (Criado Boado, 1999). The length of transectsand the quantity of people that participated in them changed,according to the environment characteristics and the area wherewere executed. A control factor of the survey was the performanceof systematic sampling (Binford, 1972). In each transect every100 m a sampling of 1 m2 was performed in order to analyze distri-butions in the landscape (Haber, 1999). This samplings aim is toevaluate in detail in the selected area the presence of archaeolog-ical materials that perhaps during the dynamic of the walk might


not have been registered (Moreno, 2010). During the survey threeprincipal aspects were taken into account: the control of transectsand the samplings; the recognition of archaeological samplingunits and the landscape characteristics of the areas where theseunits were located (vegetation, degrees of the slopes, watersources, paths, etc.).

For the evaluation of the sampling units I took three analyticalmacro-categories: structures, dispersion of archaeological materialand isolated findings. However in all the sampling units the follow-ing variables were taken into account: geographic coordinates,approximate dimensions, general description, superficial materialassociated, differentiated according to its raw material (as forexample bone, lithic or pottery) spatial location (its associationwith the characteristics of the environment as for example paths,water, rocks, etc.) and its visual characteristics (visibility, intervis-ibility) (Criado Boado, 1999). In the units where the superficialmaterial was scarce and could be transported, it was collected inorder to be processed in the laboratory. Otherwise it was describedin situ, through a general revision of the characteristics of the iden-tified material. This situation happened only with the dispersionsof lithic material, since the other materials (pottery, glass, bone,wood) could always be collected due to the small quantities ofpieces that formed these dispersions.

During the intensive survey in the Antofalla valley a total of40 km2 was covered through the performance of 660 transects. Iidentified 3301 sampling units which allowed the construction ofthe general characteristics of the structuring of the hunting land-scape. In order to achieve this, I shall start analyzing the identifiedstructures during the fieldwork.

The structures in Antofalla

In the intensive survey of Antofalla I identified a variety ofstructures which refer to different cultural landscapes and histori-cal times. In the particular case here presented, I refer to those

Fig. 3. Different types of trenches registered in

structures which could have played a relevant role in the perfor-mance of hunting. For that I focus in some categories of sites pro-posed by Haber (2003b, 2007, 2009) in the Archibarca basin, takinginto account relevant aspects such as the architectonic features,the topographic location, the visibility, the association betweenstructures and materials and the information given by the peopleof Antofalla. In this way the identified structures are:

Trenches

These are structures formed by stone blocks, in most of thecases in arrow or half moon shape, always located in high zonesin relation to its environment, as for example paths, or slope breaks(Haber, 2003a, 2003b, 2007). They are formed by a simple wallwith an average length of 1.5 m, being the maximal average heightof 0.7 m (Fig. 3). Different constructive forms are observed but theymight always been confused with other rock accumulations andthat is why they are almost imperceptible for the animals. Thesestructures were defined in the northern Patagonia Argentina asparapets (Gradin, 1962). However, the denomination of trenchesrises of how these structures are named by the local people ofthe area (Haber, 2003b; Martínez, 2003). The function of thesetrenches is to give the hunter a place to hide from the possiblepreys. Its functional interpretation was based in the characteristicsof its high location in relation to the environment (Fig. 4), as also inthe constructive form which the hiding presents towards the high-er zone, so that the hunters that were there could hide of the preyslocated in lower locations. Similar structures used nowadays byherders, present the opening towards the lower zone in order toobserve the herds while they are herding and in order to protectthemselves from the climate characteristics, principally the windand the sun. Also the relation between these structures in some re-stricted places is a factor which ground its interpretation related tohunting practices.

the intensive survey of the Antofalla valley.

Fig. 4. 3d image of the Antofalla valley. Each spot represents a trench registeredduring the intensive survey. This image shows the high topographic position ofthese structures (Image obtained from Google Earth�).

Fig. 5. Distribution of trenches registered in the Antofalla valley.


I was able to identify a total of 503 during the survey (Fig. 5).From the whole of the trenches, 370 (73.5%) are located in highzones which present good visibility, at least in 180� towards thelower zones where the preys would be located, obtaining in thisway a good hiding in relation to the position of troops.

Alignments

These are alignments of great dimensions starting from 25 or30 m up to 100 m length (Fig. 6a). They are built by putting med-ium size rocks (0.30 m average size) separated each 5 or 6 m andthat, at the beginning and at the end of them, they present smalllandmarks. They are located crossing depressed zones and theycome together in higher areas, where the landmarks are located.

It is important to take into account that these alignments practi-cally are not observed in the field when one walks near them,but they are clearly identified when one is placed in the higherzones and specially when one is placed in the zone where the land-mark which start the alignments are. I registered a total of 13alignments presenting some of them lithic associated material.

These structures might have functioned as devices to cause thattrying the troops to escape, the relincho, looking downwards, reactin the presence of the alignments avoiding them and changing thedirection; or possibly following the alignments as if they were aroute to escape and in that way the alignments would lead themactually towards the trenches and the hunters (Haber and Moreno,2008). Another possible use is that the rocks that form the align-ments could have been used to locate sticks which would unitethreads or ropes building barriers for the animals. This barrierwould induce the animals not to escape through these places beingobliged to direct themselves towards the zones where the hunterswere located. Finally these structures might have been used asmaterial marks for the hunters, as for example, in order to knowwhen to start the attack, once the animals passed that place.

Table

They are the grouping of rocks whose flat surfaces are placedupwards, of approximately 1 m diameter, prepared in order toslaughter above them the animals without damaging the leathers(Fig. 6b). The name of table and its use is given by the local peopleto this type of structure (Haber, 2003b). I registered in total 19 ta-bles in the Antofalla area. Half of these structures (n � 10) haveassociated cutting edge lithic material which would sustain thefunctional interpretation of these structures.

Landmarks

They are accumulations of rocks of variable sizes and whichcould be useful to point out guide posts in the landscape (in orderto separate territories, grazing areas, etc.), that is why they shouldbe seen from long distances. I identified a total of 149 landmarksalong the whole valley, observing a fairly homogeneous distribu-tion. Most of these landmarks are found located in high areasand very easily visible, as for example slope breaks or in the higherparts of the hills. 78% of the landmarks are visible from long dis-tances. In those cases where they were not noticed from long dis-tances, they were always intervisible; this generates a kind ofalignment which could be marking territories. I have differentiatedtwo basic forms of construction of these kind of structures: onethrough the setting of two or three medium blocks above one ofa bigger size (Fig. 6c), while the other one is constructed settingrocks vertically located and supported with small blocks in its base(Fig. 6d), These structures must have been articulated with differ-ent landscapes because nowadays they are used to delimit thegrazing areas. However, I add them here because of its probableparticipation in the hunting practice due to that I in some casesidentified the association between landmarks and trenches.

Shelters

They are small closed structures, generally circular or semicircu-lar and which could give temporary shelter or a hiding place. Theyare small, reaching an average of 1.5 m of diameter, although therewere structures found up to 3.5 m diameter and an average maximalheight of 0.8 m (Fig. 6e). I identified a total of 254 structures charac-terized as shelters, which are homogeneously located along the val-ley. These shelters are generally associated to lithic or potterymaterial and this is why they might have been used as activity areasduring the stay of one person there. The shelters would have lodged

Fig. 6. Different types of structures registered during the intensive survey in Antofalla. (A) Alignment; (B) board; (C and D) landmarks; (E) shelter; (F) water hiding.


one person only due to its small size, where 92.9% (n = 236) of thestructures present a smaller size than 2 m of diameter. In very littlecases, only 18, the sizes of these shelters were bigger, reaching up to8 � 3 m, making it possible that more people could find shelter inthese structures. Nowadays shelters of these kinds are used in areasnear the marshes in order to let a person look after the animals whilethey graze and in this way find shelter from the wind and the sun.Meanwhile they are taking care of the animals they do other activi-ties, as for example spinning. I have considered these structures inrelation to the construction of the hunting landscape because theymight have allowed one or more hunters to get shelter and performcertain activities such as flintknapping or the observation of thetroops. These structures would show the greater variability of asso-ciation with different practices, as they are used for practices such asagriculture, herding, hunting, etc.

Water hidings

These are structures which take advantage of rocky outcropsand form a type of eave which uses to be closed with some small

rocks, generating an inner space of approximately 0.70 m withpractically permanent shadow (Fig. 6f). In this way by putting a re-cipient with water inside, it will remain fresh. These structures arefound in zones place away from the water sources, being necessaryfor hunters to count on with water because they could not ap-proach the water courses because that would be the areas wherethe possible preys would be. I registered six structures of this type,which in all cases presented pottery pieces inside, which could bethe result of broken containers with water.

These structures form a landscape which would be prepared inorder to materialize the encounter between hunters and preys.Regarding this a question rises about the need of the constructionof this landscape in relation to possible hunting strategies per-formed by different hunter’s populations. In this way, I believethere are two relevant aspects in order to understand this interpre-tation: on one hand the ethology of the potential preys and on theother the characteristic of the weapons used to kill those animals.

Regarding the last of these aspects, I focus in the informationobtained from the projectiles points recovered during our surveysperformed in the Antofalla valley.


The hunting technology in Antofalla

During the survey in the Antofalla valley I identified in total 192projectile points, from which only 19 are complete, in a very poorstate of conservation. Two raw materials were mainly use to pre-pare the projectile points: black basaltic-andesite (65%) and obsid-ian (30%). The first of these raw materials have their sourcing in thezone of the mouth of the Antofalla valley. There is a quarry of greatdimensions where it has been possible to identify evidences of thedifferent stages in the operative chain, starting with nodules, coresand tested nodules up to base forms, debitage and manufacturedinstruments. The obsidian shows two morphological types whichcorrespond to, at least, two different quarries. On one side 20% ofthe whole of the projectile points come from a relative near quarry,located in the Onas valley approximately 15 km from the Antofallavalley. The other obsidian quarry could be located in the Archibar-ca basin located approximately 60 km from the Antofalla valley(Haber, 2003b), This implies the exploitation of raw materials rel-atively near and of very high quality for the manufacture of differ-ent instruments as in this case projectile points (Moreno, 2005,2010)2.

One of the principal aims of the analysis of this set in relation tothe characteristic of the hunting landscape was to evaluate the dif-ferent types of weapons used for the appropriation of the prey. Inorder to analyze the types of weapons I considered two alternativemethodologies: on one side the proposal of Shott (1997) and on theother side the one of Ratto (1994, 2003).

The first of this analysis is based in measuring the length, width,thickness and neck width, relevant variables to difference the func-tion of the weapon types, where the most significant is the last one(Shott, 1997). With this information an equation is applied forshuttle dart and another for bow and arrow, being the higher resultthe one that corresponds with the type of weapon. In the Fig. 7 it isshown the obtained results of the analyzed set, where of the totalof the pieces (n = 192) only 32 could be assigned to some kind ofweapon, from which 24 correspond to shuttle darts while theremaining 8, to bows and arrows (Moreno, 2010).

The second analysis applied to evaluate the type of weapon isbased on the proposal of Ratto (1994, 2003) who state a series ofvariables which measure (a) the reinforcement surface, which iscalculated taking the maximal density of the blade by the widthof the blade in its maximal point of density; (b) the aerodynamics,which is obtained by the sum of various factors: the transversalsection of the piece, the proportion between contour and bladeand the relation between the length of the blade and the maximalwidth of the blade. Due to this measurement perfect, normal,imperfect and not aerodynamic measurements are obtained; (c)the hafting which is calculate in lower measures than 10 mm forbows and sensitively higher for spears and (d) the penetration ob-tained through the angle on plane sight and the section of thepoint.

Only 14 pieces presented all the variables in order to be incor-porated to the analysis. Of this set, five pieces were assigned tobow and arrow, three to throwing spears, three to hand weapon,two to shuttle darts and one specimen could not be assigned toany type of weapon (Moreno, 2010). In Fig. 8 it is shown the infor-mation which allows me the assignment applying thismethodology.

Finally, while integrating both models, a value of 38 projectilepoints assigned to different types of weapons is reached, fromwhich 10 were assigned to bow and arrow, 3 to hand weapons, 3

2 In 2004 we developed a tecno-functional analysis of the raw materials used in thearea of Antofalla, particularly of black basaltic-andesite and obsidian which allowedus to observe a high quality, hardness and ductility for the flintknapping of both rawmaterials (Moreno, 2005).

to throwing spears and 22 to shuttle darts. This allows me to ob-serve the exploitation of different weapons through time, whichhave relatively short shooting distances and with a very low con-trol of the flight path, against the firearms introduced at the begin-ning of the XX Century. These characteristics of the huntingtechnology has a strong relation with the construction of the land-scape because it would need near targets in order to perform theattack and succeed, which would be possible by the preparation gi-ven by the structures presented above.

In order to deepen in the relation between the hunting technol-ogy and the structuring of the landscape I wonder about analyticalstrategies in order to evaluate the association between thetrenches and the projectile points, assuming they were thrownout from behind these structures. So I performed a buffer analysis,where it is possible to graph the incidence area of the projectilepoints from the trenches, taking into account the flight distanceof the first ones, according to the corresponding type of weapon(Fig. 9). The flight distances were taken from Ratto (2003) althoughreduced to the half due to that this author uses flight distance mea-sured as free throw and with modern weapons. By applying thebuffer analysis I observe that 7 projectile points assigned to bowand arrow were found at distances minor to 75 m, while the threeothers did not. For the case of the specimens assigned to shuttledart, of 22 of the specimens, half of them were encountered lessthan 34 m and for the case of the throwing spears only one speci-men was found less than 16 m from some trench (Moreno, 2010, inpress-b). Therefore from the sample of projectile points assigned tosome type of weapon, 50% is found at a flight distance of at leastone trench. This percentage could even increase if certain forma-tion processes are considered which have an important role asfor example the corresponding to the slope gradients, the charac-teristic of the soils or the water resources. However I believe thatthis value shows an important key to understand and deepen inthe relation between hunting structures and the weapons thatwere used.

The other aspect I believe is relevant in order to understand theneed of structuring the landscape is the ethology of the potentialprey. In order to evaluate this aspect I considered studies aboutthe behavior of the vicuñas (V. vicugna) wild camelid which isfound in this area. In this investigation I center in the vicuña forseveral reasons. On one hand because the general research fromwhich this paper comes from, pretends to perform a long termanalysis about the significance of this specie for human popula-tions (Moreno, 2010). On the other hand, because I have got cur-rent information about vicuña’s behavior in the Antofalla areaand not about guanacos, due that the last ones cannot be seennowadays in the zone. Another reason because I center the inter-pretation of hunting practices in relation with vicuñas, is that thefaunistic analysis performed in locations near the Antofalla valleyshowed a major relevance of the vicuña among other species in dif-ferent historic context (Haber, 2001, 2006, 2007; Moreno, 2010;Moreno and Revuelta, 2010; Revuelta, 2005). However, I think itis necessary to deepen in the future the possible implications theguanaco (L. guanicoe) hunting would have in relation to the spacesbuild for that purpose, because they present another kind of socialorganization, movements, fixation of territories, etc. (Pintar, 2008).

The behavior of the prey

The social organization of vicuñas is characterized by the exis-tence of familiar groups, troops of single males and lonely males.In this case I will focus on the familiar groups because some inves-tigations have shown the exploitation of animals of both sexes anddifferent ages which implies the exploitation of family groupsalong time (Elkin, 1996), and also because it is the kind of grouping

Fig. 7. Table showing the measurements used to the analysis of types of weapons using the method proposed by Shott (1997).

Fig. 8. Table showing the measurements used to the analysis of types of weapons using the method proposed by Ratto (1994, 2003).


Fig. 9. Schema of the buffer analysis applied to evaluate the association betweentrenches and projectile points in Antofalla.


which has a daily movement which is complementary to the infor-mation obtained regarding the hunting landscape in Antofalla(Tomka, 1992). However, this does not deny the possibility of per-forming hunting over troops of single males or lonely males. Thefamily groups are defined by a dominant male or relincho, whomaintains and controls the territory, a variable quantity of adult fe-males, young females over one year old and the litters of bothsexes under one year (Bonacic, 2005; Franklin, 1982; Tomka,1992; Wheeler, 2006). The relincho is in charge of taking care ofthe troop, staying alert to possible dangers while the females andthe litters graze and it is who starts the escape if it is necessary.These animals have the possibility of escaping at a very high speedand through steep slopes, so that hunting through persecution, isnot a viable option.

The way of delimit the territories is based in the conformationof dung piles (Bonacic, 2005; Tomka, 1992; Wheeler, 2006). In thisterritory there is a high area included, which is used to rest, takingadvantage preferably of rocky areas which give certain protection,and lower areas with grass and water resource. Their daily move-ment is routine, they sleep in the higher zones and descend duringthe sunlight hours to graze and drink, going back at twilight timeto the rocky areas used to rest (Cajal, 1998; Franklin, 1982; Haber,2003a; Haber and Moreno, 2008; Hoffmann et al., 1983; Koford,1957; Tomka, 1992). Due to the physiology of these animals theymust drink water every day and that is why their movements areinevitably daily made.

The ethologycal characteristics of the possible preys show theneed of the structuring of the landscape in order to promote theencounters and appropriation of certain animals. In this sense, theyare animals which have a routine movement, relatively predictablewho at the same time perceive the predators using different senses(smell, sight, hearing) and they can escape very fast away of prac-tically any obstacle they find. A relevant aspect of these animals isthe special material mark they develop through the dung piles andthe ways recurrently used which materialize the territories of thetroops. The hunting strategy by interception would be the mostappropriate for preys that respond to small groups and of high pre-dictability with patterns of repetitive daily movements (Tomka,1992). In this sense, the structuring of the landscape refers to apreparation of the spaces tending to the materialization of theencounter between hunters and preys. In this way, the construc-tion of a landscape in which it is tried to encourage the encounterthrough hidings of the hunters, would be linked to this aspect(Haber, 2003b, 2007, 2009; Haber and Moreno, 2008 Moreno,

2009, 2010). But the troops do not only perceive their predatorsby viewing them, as other senses like hearing and smelling are alsoimportant factors of perceiving jeopardy and therefore must beconsidered by the hunters. In this sense, the direction of the pre-dominant winds must be considered in order to achieve that smellsand noises direct in the opposite direction regarding the hunter. Inthe case of the Antofalla valley, the dominating winds, due to thetopography of the area, use to rise through the slopes fromthe lower zones, and that is why, again, the high position of thetrenches would be based in this peculiarity of the Antofalla valley.

The hunting landscape

The structures identified in the Antofalla valley show the con-formation of a landscape which refers to hunting practices. In thissense, trenches would be the most important structures at the mo-ment of the encounter, due to that the hunters could be waiting,entrenched behind these structures, the possible preys to go alongthere and start the attack from nearer positions. An aspect thatshows the link between these structures with hunting practice isits topographic high position in relation to its enviroment whichallows a better hiding, and is reinforced with the construction ofthe structure. There is also an important association between theprojectile points and the trenches which would sustain the func-tional interpretation of these structures. I have identified lithicmaterial associated, mainly flakes, potentially used for the manu-facturing of instruments and in some cases debitage. I have alsoregistered a relevant association between these structures whichvary from trenches without association, up to areas where thereare 30 associated structures. The criterion to evaluate the associa-tion between these structures is the possibility of performing theattack from the trenches at the same time and therefore thereshould not be any topographic obstacles which could avoid this sit-uation. In order to visualize with more accuracy the structuring ofthe hunting landscape and the association between structures, Iperformed a topographic survey in the hunting landscape of PlayaNegra.

This zone, located in the lowest part of the valley approximately3400 meters above sea level (see Fig. 5), is characterized by a path,possibly used by troops to climb towards the rest areas, after feed-ing in the marsh of La Orilla (Fig. 10). Above the slopes and almostforming two alignments, 30 trenches are located (Fig. 11). As well,cutting the low section of the path I registered an alignment ofblocks, as well as a small landmark, a board and two piles of blocks(Fig. 12). All the trenches are located approximately towards thesouth, that is, the lowest zone and towards where the marsh ofLa Orilla is located. This landscape where an important quantityof trenches articulate with other types of structures and with thetopographic characteristics of the area, implies a high possibilityof success, as well as an important logistic and the control of sev-eral variables which in other cases would not be necessary.

It is clear that this landscape has been constructed throughtime, starting with the preparation of certain structures and theinteraction between hunters and prey. I do not know the construc-tion’s sequence, as well as if all the structures were used at thesame time or if they were just used once. The register obtained isbased on the final picture and showing practically the biggestexpansion of the hunting landscape, because of the very good stateof preservation of the structures. However, the structuring processof this landscape must have implied a long time for preparationand use, but where the reproduction of the same logic is evident:the construction of trenches in the higher zones which allow thehunters to hide. A key to understand this long term is providedby the projectile points which give information for the construc-tion of a relative chronology. Beginning with the comparison of

Fig. 10. View of Playa Negra path and the position of the trenches identified.

Fig. 11. Topographic survey of Playa Negra hunting landscape.

Fig. 12. Detailed view of the Playa Negra hunting landscape showing theassociation between trenches and the alignment.


the designs of the projectile points with the obtained specimens inother contexts which count with absolute chronologies such as theAntofagasta de la Sierra basin and the northern Chile (De Souza,2004; Hocsman, 2006; Martínez, 2003; Núñez, 1983; Ratto,2003) I was able to identify a variety of designs which correspondto different historic moments, from approximately 9000 AP up tothe 1st millennium a.C., although I count with information abovethe practice of hunting even in historic moments, due to the find-ings of bullet cartridges during the survey of the Antofalla valley(Moreno, 2010). The Fig. 13 resumes some of these designs, as wellas its relative chronological assignment.

The ways toward the traps

From the intensive and systematic survey of the Antofalla valleyI was able to identify the general characteristics of the huntinglandscape, given by certain structures, principally trenches, usedby the hunters to hide from the preys, taking advantage of thecharacteristic of the landscape, particularly the higher zones in

Fig. 13. Different types of projectile points registered in Antofalla. (A) Specimens of projectile point assigned to shuttle darts and to specimens from QS3 (Antofagasta de laSierra) and Tuina (Chile) corresponding to Early Archaic period (Martínez, 2003; Núñez, 1983); (B) Specimens of projectile points assigned to throwing spears, correspondingto specimens placed around 6080 ± 80 BP in QS3 (Hocsman, 2006); (C) Specimens of projectile point assigned to shuttle darts, corresponding to a design placed between3864–4226 BP (Hocsman, 2006); (D) Specimens of projectile points assigned to bow and arrow and to the 1st millennium a.C. (Escola, 1987, 2000; Hocsman, 2006; Moreno,2005).


order to locate these structures. Trenches were also generally asso-ciated in a variable number which would have allowed the partic-ipation of several hunters, increasing in that way the possibility ofsuccess during the hunt. The location of these structures wouldhave allowed the control over other aspects, as for example, thesmell and noises through the location of these structures againstthe direction of the predominant winds. Other structures alsoformed this landscape, related to previous and later momentsregarding the encounter between hunters and preys. Some struc-tures could have served to seek shelters from the climate condi-tions or for certain products, as could be water or firewood. Inthe same way, other structures would be related to later moments,as for example, the boards used for slaughtering the preys. Also,along the valley I have identified lithic instruments and projectilepoints, which also construct and reproduce these sceneries.

To sum up, the scheme of the functionality of the hunting land-scape clearly shows an idea of anticipation of the movements ofprey and in this way decrease or inclusive dilute the adaptiveadvantage which the camelid’s troops have against the hunters(Haber, 2003b, 2007, 2009; Haber and Moreno, 2008). In this sensethe shared knowledge between preys and hunters are relevant. Theanimals should have certain awareness of their predators, whichresult in ways of perceiving jeopardy (as for example the senses)and which install escape strategies, where the advantage of theanimals makes the hunt almost hopeless. The hunters, being awareof this knowledge, have to put into practice, strategies in order toreduce to the minimum the possibility of the troops to perceivejeopardy (Haber, 2003b, 2007, 2009; Haber and Moreno, 2008;Moreno, 2010). This structure where the mutual knowledge isshown has been interpreted by Haber (2003b, 2007, 2009), Haberand Moreno, 2008) in terms of a trap, applying to the concept pro-posed by Gell (1996). In this sense, when to say that a trap ‘‘repre-sents’’ the knowledge, it does not imply the naïve sense ofrepresenting it as a reflex, but that it is in that representation thatthe knowledge condenses in a way that acts actively in the relation.

It is not only that a trap has to be done in a special way so as toanticipate the behavior of the prey, but also the knowledge thatthe prey could have of the hunter, has to be anticipated and, finally,any possible effort has to be made in order to get the prey feel at-tracted (Haber and Moreno, 2008). This traps would also have beenconstructed once and then reused or recondition, but reproducingthe knowledge about the interaction between hunters and preys,which is materialized in each trench and in each hunting scenario.

Conclusion

Through the survey performed in the Antofalla valley, I haveregistered a multiplicity of structures related with hunting, whichform a space tending to propitiate the encounter between huntersand prey. How this situation was achieved? Hunters, which knewthe possible movements of their prey, characterized by a strongpredictability built trenches designed to increase their hidings inhigher positions, on the paths the prey used to go through whenlinking the drinking and feeding zones with the sleeping areas.Through the organization of this landscape, a scenario was builtin which the adaptive capacities of the preys are reduced and hunt-ers get possible nearby targets to be hunted with the technologythey had. In this sense, the identified weapons for this area areshuttles, throwing spears, hand weapons and bows and arrows,in all cases with lithic heads, which have a shooting distance anda capacity to generate relatively low damage, especially in relationto firearms, introduced during the XIX Century (Moreno, 2010, inpress-b). In this sense, the concept of anticipation is central be-cause hunters, knowing the possible movements of their prey, con-structed the space so as to anticipate the troop’s attitudes (Haber,2003, 2007, 2009) and implement the most appropriate strategy inorder to catch the greatest number of prey.

In addition to the trenches, whose functionality and character-istics have been presented and developed here and in other papers


(Haber, 2003, 2007; Moreno, 2009, 2010, in press-b) other struc-tures form these hunting scenarios, such as shelters, alignments,tables, etc. related to former and later moments in the encounterbetween hunters and prey. For example, some shelters located invery high zones, which allowed a complete view in all directions,could have been used to observe the troops and select the areato perform hunting and the tables would have been used to slaugh-ter hunted animals. Therefore, the hunting landscape includedstructures that refer to large time scales. Equally, this temporalhunting scale included the interpretation of the moment in whichthe attack would have taken place, because the location of thetrenches allow to interpret the performing of hunt at late after-noon, because as they locate with the protection towards the lowerzone, hunters would have waited, hidden behind trenches, the mo-ment to attack when the troops returned to their sleeping zones(Haber, 2003; Haber and Moreno, 2008; Moreno, 2010). Further-more, through the comparison of the projectile points registeredduring the survey in the Antofalla valley with samples of othernearby areas such as the basin of Antofagasta de la Sierra, northernChile or the basin of Chaschuil (De Souza, 2004; Escola, 1987, 2000;Hocsman, 2006; Martínez, 2003; Núñez, 1983; Ratto, 2003), I inter-preted a reuse of the same spaces for hunting performance, whichwould allow reproduction of hunting strategies and use of thesescenarios in a long term of human occupation in the Antofalla val-ley (Moreno, 2010, in press-b).

I was also able to focus in the social scale of hunting, which im-plies the performance of individual or group hunting, being thequantity of hunters variable, according to the strategy used.

I must consider some aspects which necessarily will have to bedeepened in the future in order to understand in a better way thecharacteristics of this relevant practice in the history of humanoccupation of this area. For example a very thorough evaluationof different strategies related to the use of different species mustbe performed (Pintar 2008). The identified structures must alsobe analyzed carrying out excavations. It would be also necessaryto deepen about some questions, as for example, when does the at-tack starts? How many people participate? etc.

In brief, camelids hunting in the Antofalla valley has been re-lated to the construction of a scenario tending to anticipate themovements of these troops and to obtain nearby targets with theminor possible movement. These sceneries should have beenreproduced along time, showing the relevance of this practice inthe long term of human occupation in the area.

Acknowledgments

I want to thank to Alejandro Haber for let me start the investi-gations about this problem in the Antofalla valley and his constantadvice. Also to all the student and professionals that participates inthe intensive survey in Antofalla valley, especially to Enzo Acuña,Cecilia Cuello y Leandro D’Amore, as well as to Marion Schwarzen-berger for the translation of this article. Also to the reviewers for allthe precise comments made. Finally to the people of Antofalla forlet me do this research in their lands.

References

Aschero, C., 2000. El poblamiento del territorio. In: Nueva Historia Argentina. TomoI: Editorial Sudamericana. Buenos Aires.

Aschero, C., Martinez, J., 2001. Técnicas de caza en Antofagasta de la Sierra, Punameridional, Argentina. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de AntropologíaXXVI, 215–241.

Bender, B., 1993. Introduction: landscape – meaning and action. In: Bender, B. (Ed.),Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Berg, Oxford, pp. 1–18.

Benedetti, A., 2005. Un territorio andino para un país pampeano. Geografía históricadel Territorio de Los Andes (1900–1943). Unpublished doctoral thesis. Facultadde Filosofía y Letras. Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Binford, L.R., 1972. An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press, New York, NY.

Bonacic, C., 2005. Vicuña ecology and management. International CamelidQuarterly 4 (4), 75–82 (Rysko Pearson, Canada).

Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge (Translate by R. Nice).

Cabrera, A., 1957. La vegetación de la Puna argentina. Revista de investigacionesagrícolas 11 (1), 317–413.

Cajal, J., 1998. Uso de hábitat por vicuñas y guanacos en la reserva de la Biósfera deSan Guillermo. In: Cajal, J., García Fernández, J., Tecchi, R. (Eds.), Bases para laConservación y Manejo de la Puna y Cordillera Frontal de Argentina, FUCEMA-UNESCO. Uruguay.

Churchill, S., 1993. Weapon technology, prey size selection, and hunting methods inmodern hunters-gatherers: implications for hunting in the Palaeolithic andMesolithic. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association4, 11–24.

Cieza de León, P. [1553] 1984. La crónica del Perú. Edition by Manuel Ballesteros.Historia 16. Madrid.

Criado Boado, F., 1999. Del Terreno al Espacio: planteamientos y perspectivas parala arqueología del paisaje. Capa 6.

Curtoni, R., 2007. Arqueología y paisaje en el área centro-este de La Pampa.Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo,Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

De Souza, P., 2004. Tecnologías de proyectil durante los períodos Arcaico yFormativo en el Loa Superior (Norte de Chile) a partir del análisis de puntaslíticas. Chúngara. Special volume. Tomo I, 61–76.

Elkin, D., 1992. Disponibilidad y explotación de recursos en relación al sitioacerámico Quebrada Seca 3, Antofagasta de la Sierra, Puna de Catamarca.Shincal 2: 1-14. Escuela de Arqueología, Universidad Nacional de Catamarca.

Elkin, D., 1996. Arqueozoología de Quebrada Seca 3: indicadores de subsistenciatemprana, en la Puna meridional argentina. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Escola, P., 1987. Las puntas de proyectil del formativo en Puna y Quebradas deAcceso: un estudio tecno-tipológico de cuatro casos de análisis. Unpublisheddegree thesis. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Escola, P., 2000. Tecnología lítica y sociedades agropastoriles tempranas.Unpublished doctoral thesis. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. UniversidadNacional de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires.

Fernández Distel, A., 1974. Excavaciones arqueológicas en las cuevas deHuachichocana, dep. de Tumbaya, Prov. De Jujuy, Argentina. Relaciones de laSociedad Argentina de Antropología VIII, 101–134.

Fernández, J., Markgraf, V., Panarello, H., Alvero, M., Angiolini, F., Valencio, S.,Arriaga, N., 1991. Late pleistocene/Early holocene enviroment and climatesfauna and human ocupation in the Argentine Altiplano. Geoarchaeology 6 (3),251–272.

Franklin, W., 1982. Biology, ecology, and relationship to man of the South AmericanCamelids. In: Mares, M., Genoways, H. (Eds.), Mammalian Biology in SouthAmerican. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 457–490.

Gambier, M., 1981. Asentamiento humano y transhumancia en los Andes Centralesargentino-chilenos. Publicaciones 9. Instituto de Investigaciones Arqueológicasy Museo. San Juan.

Gell, A., 1996. Vogel’s net. Traps as artworks and artworks as traps. Journal ofMaterial Culture 1 (1), 15–38.

Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory ofStructuralism. University of California Press, Berkeley y Los Ángeles.

Gradin, C., 1962. Tres informaciones referentes a la meseta del Lago Stroebel (Prov.de Santa Cruz, Argentina). Acta Praehistórica. Tomo III–IV, 144–149.

Grosjean, M., 1998. Late Quaternary humidity changes in the Atacama Altiplano:regional, global climate signals and possible forcing mechanisms. Zbl. Geol.Palaont. 1 (3–6), 581–592.

Haber, A., 1991. Investigaciones metodológicas en arqueología: el caso del pastoreode llamas. Cuaderno de Humanidades 5, 69–81 (Salta).

Haber, A., 1999. Informe de evaluación de impacto arqueológico de la fase deexploración de la reserva minera Antofalla Este. Centro Editor. UniversidadNacional de Catamarca.

Haber, A., 2001. La domesticación del oasis. Actas del XIII Congreso Nacional deArqueología Argentina. 1, 451–466 (Córdoba).

Haber, A., 2003a. Hunting after Domestication. Paper presented at CHAGS 9.Edimburgo.

Haber, A., 2003b. Informe presentado a la National Geographic Society. MS.Haber, A., 2004. Paisajes de Enclave en el Área de Antofalla, Puna de Atacama,

Segunda Mitad del Segundo Milenio d.C. Report presented at FundaciónAntorchas. MS.

Haber, A., 2006. Una arqueología de los paisajes puneños. Domesticidad, interaccióne identidad en Antofalla. Primer y segundo milenios d.C. Jorge Sarmiento Editor.Universitas Libros, Córdoba.

Haber, A., 2007. Vicuñas and domesticity. In: Gutiérrez, M., Miotti, L., Barrientos, G.,Mengoni Goñalons, G., Salemme, M. (Eds.), Taphonomy and Zooarchaeology inArgentina, BAR International Series 1601. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 59–70.

Haber, A., 2009. Animism, Relatedness, Life: Post-Western Perspectives. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 19 (3), 418–430.

Haber, A., Lema, C., 2006. La pura opinión de Vladimiro Weisser y la poblaciónindígena de Antofalla en la Colonia Temprana. Intersecciones en Antropología 7,179–191.

Haber, A., Moreno, E., 2008. Dos veces en la misma trampa. Notas de arqueologíacasi crepuscular. Paper presented at Jornadas de Arqueología del Área Puneñade los Andes Centro-Sur. Tendencias, variabilidad y dinámicas de cambio (ca.11000-1000 AP). Horco Molle. Tucumán.


Haber, A., Gastaldi, M., Quesada, M., 2002. Arqueología industrial de un enclaveminero salteño en Bolivia, mediados del siglo XIX. Actas de las XVIII Jornadas deHistoria Económica. Mendoza.

Hocsman, S., 2006. Producción lítica, variabilidad y cambio en Antofagasta de laSierra –ca. 5500 – 1500 AP-. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Facultad de CienciasNaturales y Museo. Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

Hoffmann, E., Otte, K., Ponce, C., Ríos, M., 1983. El manejo de la vicuña silvestre.Tomo II. Eschborn. Sociedad Alemana de Cooperación Técnica (GTZ).

Ingold, T., 1987. The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and SocialRelations. University of Iowa Press.

Ingold, T., 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25, 152–174.Izeta, A., 2007. Zooarqueología del sur de los Valles Calchaquíes (provincias de

Catamarca y Tucumán, República Argentina). Análisis de conjuntos faunísticosdel primer milenio A.D. BAR International Series 1612. Oxford.

Koford, C., 1957. The vicuña and the puna. Ecological monographs, vol. 27, no. 2.Museum of Vertebral Zoology. University of California.

Lema, C., 2004. Tebenquiche Chico en los siglos XVI y XVII. Unpublished degreethesis. Escuela de Antropología, Facultad de Humanidades y Artes, UniversidadNacional de Rosario.

López, G., 2006. Resultados del análisis arqueofaunístico de un basural, un recinto yun sector interrecinto del sitio Matancillas 2, Puna de Salta. Intersecciones enAntropología 7, 207–216.

Markgraf, V., 1985. Paleoenviromental history of the last 10.000 years inNorthwestern Argentina. Zentralblatt Fur Geologie Und Paleontologie I: 39-49.

Martínez, J., 2003. Ocupaciones humanas tempranas y tecnología de caza en lamicrorregión de Antofagasta de la Sierra (10000-7000 AP). UnpublishedDoctoral Thesis. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo.Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.

Mondini, M., Elkin, D., 2006. Cazadores-recolectores de la cuenca de Antofagasta dela Sierra (Puna Meridional Argentina): una perspectiva zooarqueológica ytafonómica. Cazadores y Recolectores del Cono Sur. Revista de Arqueología 1,67–79.

Moreno, E., 2005. Artefactos y prácticas. Análisis tecno-funcional de los materialeslíticos de Tebenquiche Chico 1. Unpublished degree thesis. Escuela deArqueología. Universidad Nacional de Catamarca.

Moreno, E., 2009. El paisaje cazador en la quebrada de Antofalla. Antofagasta de laSierra, Catamarca. La Zaranda de Ideas 5, 101–120.

Moreno, E., 2010. Arqueología de la caza de vicuñas en el área del Salar de Antofalla,Puna de Atacama. Una aproximación desde la arqueología del paisaje.Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo.Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

Moreno, E., In press-a. Arqueología, política y recursos. In: D. Angelo (Ed.) Prácticaarqueológica como intervención política. Editorial CIMA. Santa Cruz de la Sierra,Bolivia.

Moreno, E., In press-b. Tecnología de caza en la quebrada de Antofalla,Departamento Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca. In Revista del Museo deAntropología, Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades, Universidad Nacional deCórdoba, Argentina.

Moreno, E., Revuelta, C., 2010. La caza de vicuñas en Tebenquiche Chico (Dpto.Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca). Un acercamiento de larga duración.Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología XXXV, 171–194.

Morlans, M., 1995. Regiones naturales de Catamarca. Provincias geológ icas yprovincias fitogeográficas. Revista de Ciencia y Técnica 2, 1–36.

Murra, J., 1978. La organización económica del estado Inka. Siglo XXI. México.Núñez, L., 1983. Paleoindio y arcaico en Chile: Diversidad, secuencias y procesos.

Cuicuilco. México.Núñez, L., Santoro, M., 1988. Cazadores de la puna seca y salada del área centro-sur

andina (norte de Chile). Estudios Atacameños 9.Núñez, L., Grosjean, M., Cartagena, I., 1999. Un ecorefugio oportunístico en la Puna

de Atacama durante eventos áridos del Holoceno Medio. Estudios Atacameños17, 125–174.

Núñez, L., Grosjean, M., Cartagena, I., 2002. Human ocupations and climate changein the Puna de Atacama, Chile. Science 298, 821–824.

Olivera, D., 1991. El Formativo en Antofagasta de la Sierra (Puna meridionalArgentina). Análisis de sus posibles relaciones con contextos arqueológicosagro-alfareros tempranos del Noroeste Argentino y Norte de Chile. Actas de XICongreso Nacional de Arqueología Chilena. Tomo II: 61–78. Museo Nacional deHistoria Natural, Santiago de Chile.

Olivera, D., 1997. La importancia del recurso Camelidae en la Puna de Atacama entrelos 10.000 y 500 años A.P. Estudios Atacameños 14, 29–41.

Olivera, D., 2001. Sociedades agropastoriles tempranas: El formativo inferior delNoroeste Argentino. In: Berberian, E., Nielsen, A., (Eds.), Historia ArgentinaPrehispánica, Brujas. Buenos Aires, pp. 7–40.

Olivera, D., Grant, J., 2009. Puestos de altura de la puna argentina: Zooarqueologíade Real Grande 1 y 6 y Alero Tomayoc. Revista del Museo de Antropología No. 2,pp. 141–150. Córdoba.

Olivera, D., Tchilinguirián, P., De Aguirre, M., In press. Cultural and enviromentalevolution in the meridional sector of the Puna de Atacama during the Holocene.XIV International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. Belgium.Ediciones BAR.

Pintar, E., 2008. Astiles, intermediarios y sistemas de armas. Cazadores recolectoresdel Cono Sur, Revista de Arqueología, vol. 3. Mar del Plata, pp. 115–128.

Polo de Ondegardo. [1571] 1990. El mundo de los Incas. Edition by Laura Gonzálezand Alicia Alonso. Historia 16. Madrid.

Puló, M., 1998. La vicuña: el oro que camina por los andes. Andes. Antropología ehistoria 9, 243–280.

Puló, M., 2000. Desarrollo sustentable y la realidad social del NOA. Paper presentedat 1� Congreso de Ambiente y Calidad de Vida. Facultad de Tecnología y CienciasAplicadas. Universidad Nacional de Catamarca.

Quesada, M., 2001. Tecnología agrícola y producción campesina en la Puna deAtacama, I milenio d.C. Unpublished degree thesis, Escuela de Arqueología,Universidad Nacional de Catamarca.

Quesada, M., 2007. Paisajes agrarios en el área de Antofalla. Procesos de trabajo yescalas sociales de la producción agrícola. Primer y segundo milenio d.C.Unpublished doctoral thesis. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo,Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

Ratto, N., 1994. Funcionalidad versus adscripción cultural: cabezales líticos de lamargen norte del estrecho de Magallanes. In: Lanata, J., Borrero, L. (Eds.),Arqueología de Cazadores-recolectores. Límites, casos y aperturas, ArqueologíaContemporánea 5, Buenos Aires, pp. 105–120.

Ratto, N., 2003. Estrategias de caza y propiedades del registro arqueológico en laPuna de Chaschuil (Departamento de Tinogasta, Catamarca, Argentina).Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad deBuenos Aires.

Revuelta, C., 2005. Apropiación social y vicuñas. Análisis zooarqueológico de launidad doméstica TC1. Oasis de Tebenquiche Chico – Primer milenio d.C.Unpublished degree thesis. Escuela de Arqueología. Universidad Nacional deCatamarca.

Santoro, C., Baeid, C., Belmonte, E., Roselló, E., 1991. Evaluación de paleoambientesholocénicos y adaptación de sociedades de cazadores-recolectores del áreacentro sur andina. Actas del XI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Chilena TomoII: 25-30. Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Santiago de Chile.

Shott, M., 1997. Stone and shafts redux: the metric discrimination of chipped-stonedart and arrow points. American Antiquity 62 (1), 86–101.

Thomas, J., 1996. Time, culture and identity. An interpretative archaeology.Routledge. Londres.

Tilley, M., 1994. A phenomenology of landscapes. Places paths and monuments.Berg Publishers, Londres.

Tomka, S., 1992. Vicuñas and Llamas: parallels in behavioral ecology andimplications for the domestication of Andean Camelids. Human Ecology 20(4), 407–433.

Troll, C., [1931] 1980. Las culturas superiores andinas y el medio geográfico.Allpanchis phuturinqa XIV(15), 3–55.

Valero Garcés, B., Delgado Huertas, A., Ratto, N., Navas, A., Edwards, L., 2003.Paleohydrology of Andean Saline Lakes from Sedimentological and IsotopicRecords, Northwestern Argentina. Journal of Paleolimnology 24 (3), 343–359.

Vilá, B. (Ed.), 2006. Investigación, conservación y manejo de vicuñas. ProyectoMACS. Universidad Nacional de Luján.

Wheeler, J., 2006. Historia natural de la vicuña. In: Vilá, B. (Eds.), Investigación,conservación y manejo de vicuñas, Proyecto MACS. Universidad Nacional deLuján, pp. 25–36.

Yacobaccio, H., 1991. Sistemas de asentamiento de cazadores-recolectorestempranos de los andes centro-sur. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Facultad deFilosofía y Letras. Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Yacobaccio, H., 2001. La domesticación de camélidos en el Noroeste Argentino. In:Berberian, E., Nielsen, A., (Eds.), Historia Argentina Prehispánica, Brujas. BuenosAires, pp. 7-40.

Yacobaccio, H., Madero, C., 1992. Zooarqueología de Huachichocana III (Jujuy,Argentina). Arqueología 2, 149–188.

Yacobaccio, H., Madero, C., Malmierca, M., Reigadas, M., 1997-98. Caza,domesticación y pastoreo de camélidos en la Puna Argentina. Relaciones de laSociedad Argentina de Antropología XXII–XXIII, 389–418.

Yacobaccio, H., Killian, L., Vilá, B., 2007. La explotación de la vicuña durante elperíodo colonial (1535-1810). El negocio de los cueros y lanas de vicuña. Todoes Historia No. 483, pp. 16–21.

Ybert, J., 1991. Los paisajes lacustres antiguos según el análisis palinológico. In:Dejoux, C., Iltis, A., (Eds.), El lago Titicaca. Sínthesis del conocimientolimnológico actual, Ed. Hisbol. La Paz, pp. 69–79.

Documents

The construction of hunting sceneries: Interactions between humans, animals and landscape in the Antofalla valley, Catamarca, Argentina