Contributions of Actualistic Taphonomy to the Archaeological Study of Pseudoartifacts

Authors

  • Karen Borrazzo CONICET, Instituto Multidisciplinario de Historia y Ciencias Humanas. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v13.n1.23846

Keywords:

lithic technology, lithic taphonomy, experimental archaeology, Casa de Piedra de Roselló, Patagonia

Abstract

The increasing interest in understanding and quantifying the effects of postdepositional processes in the formation of lithic assemblages promoted the application of taphonomic approaches that allowed discussing the genesis of patterns considered of behavioral origin (technological, functional). Indeed, those taphonomic approaches showed that different environmental contexts within a region (with their specific combination of agent and processes) possess variable effects on lithic assemblages. Thus, a taphonomic approach to the settings of the archaeological record and to their local and regional dynamic make us aware of morphological and distributional characteristics of the taphonomic background noise (pseudoartifacts). In other words, the systematic incorporation of actualistic taphonomy –including both naturalistic and experimental components- to the archaeological research contributes to building frames of reference that allow refining our interpretations of the archaeological record. This paper presents and compares actualistic and archaeological data obtained from the application of this approach to the study of Casa de Piedra de Roselló site (Chubut, Argentina). I conclude that taphonomic background noise may inflate the representation of the local raw material in the lithic artifact assemblages recovered at the site.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Karen Borrazzo, CONICET, Instituto Multidisciplinario de Historia y Ciencias Humanas. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires

Investigador adjunto del CONICET. Docente de la cátedra de Ergología y Tecnología (Departamento de Cs. Antropológicas, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires).

References

Aschero, C.A. (1975). Ensayo para una clasificación morfológica de artefactos líticos aplicada a estudios tipológicos comparativos. Buenos Aires: CONICET. Ms.

Aschero, C.A. (1983). Ensayo para una clasificación morfológica de artefactos líticos aplicada a estudios tipológicos comparativos. Apéndices A-C. Revisión. Buenos Aires: Cátedra de Ergología y Tecnología, FFyL-UBA. Ms.

Balirán, C. (2014). Trampling, taphonomy, and experiments with lithic artifacts in the southeastern Baguales Range (Santa Cruz, Argentina). Intersecciones en Antropología, 15(3), 85-95.

Barnes, A. (1939). The differences between natural and human flaking on prehistoric flint implements. American Anthropologist, 41(1), 99-112.

Behrensmeyer, A.K. y S.M. Kidwell (1985). Taphonomy’s Contributions to Paleobiology. Paleobiology, 11(1), 105-119.

Binford, L.R. (1977) General Introduction. En L.R. Binford (ed.), For Theory Building in Archaeology (pp. 1-13). New York: Academic Press.

Binford, L.R. (1981). Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press.

Binford, L.R. (2001). Where do research questions come from? American Antiquity, 66, 669–78.

Boëda, E., R. Rocca, A. Da Costa, M. Fontugne, C. Hatté, I. Clemente-Conte, J.C. Santos, L. Lucas, G. Felice, A. Lourdeau, X Villagran, M. Gluchy, M.P. Ramos, S. Viana, C. Lahaye, N. Guidon, C. Griggo, M. Pino, A.M. Pessis, C. Borges y B. Gato (2016). New Data on a Pleistocene Archaeological Sequence in South America: Toca do Sítio do Meio, Piauí, Brazil. PaleoAmerica, 2:4, 286-302.

Bordes, F. (1961). Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. Impriméries. Burdeos: Delmas.

Borrazzo, K. (2011). Tafonomía lítica y pseudoartefactos: el caso de la península El Páramo (Tierra del Fuego, Argentina). Intersecciones en Antropología, 12, 155-167.

Borrazzo, K. (2016) Lithic Taphonomy in desert environments: contributions from Fuego-Patagonia (Argentina). Quaternary International, 422,18-29.

Brueil, H. y R. Lantier (1951). Les hommes de la Pierre ancienne (Paléolithique et Mésolithique). París: Payot.

Carranza Elola, J.J. (2015) Tecnología y tafonomía lítica del sitio quebrada Quereo: metodología para abordar conjuntos líticos ambiguos del Pleistoceno tardío en la costa de Los Vilos. Memoria para optar al título profesional de Arqueólogo. Santiago: Universidad de Chile.

Castro Esnal, A. y K. Borrazzo (2015). Estudios de tecnología y tafonomía lítica en el sitio Casa de Piedra (Aldea Beleiro, Sudoeste de Chubut). PICT2015-2141. Buenos Aires: ANPCyT. Ms.

Castro Esnal, A, M.L. Casanueva, K. Borrazzo, G.L. L’Heureux, L. Gutiérrez, M. Campos, F. Ronco y C.B. Pérez de Micou (2019). Sitio Casa de Piedra de Roselló (SO Chubut, Patagonia, Argentina): Avances recientes y nuevas líneas de investigación. Libro de Resúmenes del XX Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina (pp. 301-305). Córdoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.

Castro Esnal, A., C.B. Pérez de Micou, y M.L. Casanueva (2017). Early Holocene Occupation of the Forest-Steppe Ecotone of Southern South America: Evidence from Casa de Piedra de Roselló Cave (Chubut, Patagonia Argentina). Paleoamerica. doi: 10.1080/20555563.2017.1330102

Crabtree, D. (1972). An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers 28. Pocatello: Idaho State University Museum.

Dorren, L.K. (2003). A review of rockfall mechanics and modeling approaches. Prog Phys Geogr, 27(1), 69–87.

Duvall, J.G. y W.T. Venner (1979). A Statistical Analysis of the Lithics from the Calico Site 5BCM 1500A), California. Journal of Field Archaeology, 9, 455-462.

Ellen, R. y A. Muthana (2010). Classifying ‘Eoliths’: How Cultural Cognition Featured in Arguments Surrounding Claims for the Earliest Human Artifacts as these Developed Between 1880 and 1900. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10, 341-375.

Fariña, R.A., P.S. Tambusso, L. Varela, A. Czerwonogora, M. Di Giacomo, M. Musso, R. Bracco y A. Gascue (2014). Arroyo del Vizcaíno, Uruguay: a fossil-rich 30-ka-old megafaunal locality with cut-marked bones. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences), 281, 20132211. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2211).

Fiedel, S.J. (2017). Did Monkeys Make the Pre-Clovis Pebble Tools of Northeastern Brazil? PaleoAmerica, 3(1), 6-12

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1989). Ethnographic analogues for interpreting modified bones: some cases from East Africa. En Bonnichsen R. y M. Sorg M (eds.) Bone modification (pp. 179–246). Orono: University of Maine - Institute for Quaternary Studies.

Gillespie, J.D., S. Tupakka y C. Cluney (2004). Distinguishing Between Naturally and Culturally Flaked Cobbles: A Test Case from Alberta, Canada. Geoarchaeology, 19(7), 615–633.

Haynes, V. (1973). The Calico Site: Artifacts or Geofacts? Science, 181(4097), 305–310.

Hosfield, R. y J. Chambers (2003). Flake modifications during fluvial transportation: three cautionary tales. Lithics, 24, 57-65.

Lopinot, N. y J. Ray (2007). Trampling Experiments in the Search for the Earliest Americans. American Antiquity, 72(4), 771-782.

Lyman, R.L. (2004). The Concept of Equifinality in Taphonomy. Journal of Taphonomy 2(1), 15-26.

Marean, C. (1995). Of Taphonomy and Zooarchaeology. Evolutionary Anthropology, 4(2), 64-72.

Mason, R.J. (1965) Makapansgat Limeworks Fractured Stone Objects and Natural Fracture in Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 20 (77), 3-16

Nash, D.T. (1993). Distinguishing Stone Artifacts from Naturefacts created by Rockfall Processes. En Goldberg, P., D.T. Nash y M.D. Petraglia (eds.), Formation Processes in Archaeological Context. Monographs in World Prehistory 17, (pp. 125-138), Madison: Prehistory Press.

Peacock, E. (1991). Distinguishing between Artifacts and Geofacts: A Test Case from Eastern England. Journal of Field Archaeology, 18 (3), 345-361.

Pobiner, B.L. y D.R. Brown (2005). Applying Actualism: Considerations for Future Research. Journal of Taphonomy, 3(2), 57-65.

Prentiss, A.M., K.D. Barnett y M.J. Walsh (2016). The Coarse Volcanic Industry at the Río Ibáñez 6 West Site, Chilean Patagonia: assessing Geogenic versus Anthropogenic processes. Lithic Technology, 41(2), 130-138.

Van der Walt, J. y J. Bradfield (2018). The effects of heavy-duty machinery on the formation of pseudo-knapping debitage in Stone Age cultural landscapes. Antiquity, 92 366, 1429–1444.

Wisniewski, A., J. Badura, T. Salamon y J. Lewandowski (2014). The alleged early palaeolithic artefacts are in reality geofacts: A revision of the site of Kończyce Wielkie 4 in the Moravian Gate, South Poland. Journal of Archaeological Science, 52, 189–203.

Published

2020-04-08

How to Cite

Borrazzo, K. (2020). Contributions of Actualistic Taphonomy to the Archaeological Study of Pseudoartifacts. Revista Del Museo De Antropología, 13(1), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v13.n1.23846

Issue

Section

Study of formation processes in lithic assemblages