Glass and stoneware knapped tools among hunter-gatherers in southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego

Abstract

Abstract

The Archaeology of Contact in Southern Patagonia: Some Issues to be Resolved in the Southwestern Forest

“…These differences area explained as a result of a number of key factors interacting with one another to varying extents in the mainland. 32 This is, the introduction of the horse as a resource exploited in many ways by native people since the XVIII century, 59,60 the integration of commercial networks based on local resources such as guanaco (Lama guanicoe, the main prey of indigenous groups) into a newly imposed political economy of Capitalism, changes in original home range sizes, settlement and demographic patterns of mobile hunter-gatherers, [53][54][55][56][57][61][62][63] as well as the establishment of European settlements, sheep farms and indigenous reserves since the XIX century.…”

“…The incorporation of new raw materials, particularly glass, stoneware and metal, into the manufacture of traditional indigenous weapons has been so far one of the main ways of exploring these changes. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] These exotic materials were obtained by local indigenous groups, highly mobile hunter-gatherers (although they were less and less mobile with the advance of the European colonization), 33 through a wide variety of contact situations with Europeans, 34,35 after the Spanish arrival at the southern Atlantic coast of Patagonia in 1520. 36 The current spatial distribution of archaeological remains on mainland southern Patagonia indicates that most of the artifacts manufactured on these new raw materials, especially glass, are recorded in archaeological sites located on the eastern steppes, and to a lesser extent within the western mountain forests or the transition zone between forest and steppe ( Figure 1).…”

Nuevos artefactos en el “Nuevo Mundo”. La introducción de cultura material alóctona en contextos arqueológicos indígenas en Fuego-Patagonia durante el proceso de contacto (siglos XVI al XX)

“…Nuevos artefactos en el "Nuevo Mundo"... y, posteriormente, de los estados-nación sudamericanos ha sido abordado por la antropología, la etnohistoria y más recientemente, por la arqueología (Belardi, Carballo Marina, Nuevo Delaunay y De Angelis, 2013; Boschín y Nacuzzi, 1979;Buscaglia, 2015;Carballo Marina, Belardi, Espinosa y Ercolano, 2000-2002Funari y Senatore, 2015;Gómez Otero, 1989-1990Goñi, 2000;Goñi y Guráieb, 1996;Manzi, 1996;Martinic y Quiroz, 1989-1990Martinic y Roehrs, 1991;Nacuzzi, 2005;Nuevo Delaunay, Belardi, Carballo Marina, Saletta y De Angelis, 2017;Palermo, 1986;Saletta, 2015;Saletta y Fiore, 2018a;Saletta y Sacchi, 2019).…”

“…Se destaca que el 52% de los 70 sitios analizados en este trabajo tienen presencia de artefactos en materias primas alóctonas, lo que señala que la ausencia de dichos materiales no puede ser utilizada de manera fiable como un indicador cronológico de sitios pre-contacto. La datación permite tener la certeza de la adscripción temporal de sitios que no presenten materiales europeos (Nuevo Delaunay et al, 2017;Saletta, 2010Saletta, , 2013Saletta y Fiore, 2018a;Saletta y Sacchi, 2019;Vázquez et al, 2011).…”

“…En las cuatro regiones, el vidrio y la loza fueron incorporados como sucedáneos de los recursos líticos (Nuevo Delaunay et al, 2017;Saletta, 2015;Saletta y Fiore, 2018a;Saletta y Sacchi, 2019). El vidrio no reemplazó a ningún material sino que se adicionó como un tipo más de materia prima para la producción de morfologías tradicionales (Saletta y Fiore, 2018a;Saletta y Sacchi, 2019).…”