Long distance tool stone transport in the Argentine Pampas

Flegenheimer, Nora

doi:10.1016/s1040-6182(02)00202-1

Cited by 76 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By the end of the Pleistocene the Río de la Plata was a few kilometers wide (Cavallotto et al, 2002), similar to or slightly more in some areas than the current lower course of the Uruguay River (up to 12 km, Figure 8). Therefore, it was relatively easy to cross near its mouth and/or using simple navigation devices, as many authors have suggested (Cavallottoet al, 2002) (Flegenheimer et al, 2003). The limestone outcrops are within 100 -150 km from Luján and Tigre Counties (Martínez et al, 2015), areas where FTPPs were recovered in north Buenos Aires.…”

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, 1% of the flakes of the assemblages from Cerro La China (1, 2 and 3) and Cerro El Sombrero (Abrigo 1) were made of silcrete, most of them related to bifacial thinning (Flegenheimer et al, 2003). It has been suggested that this raw material would have reached the southern Pampasthrough social interaction networks (see the discussion in Flegenheimer et al, 2003). A summary of the silcrete findings in this area was written recently by (Nami, 2016b).…”

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Paleoamericans in Northeast Argentina

Loponte¹,

Carbonera²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present a brief synthesis of the record of Fell or Fishtail points found in northeast Argentina, including the first two records for Misiones province. To date, 11 pieces have been identified in the region, which demonstrate techno-morphological similarities with specimens recovered in different areas of South America, which are linked to Paleoamerican groups of the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. Although these points are still scarce in this area, this is probably due to the lack of research and issues related to archaeological visibility. These new records increase the density of findings of these early hunter-gatherers on the South American Atlantic slope.

show abstract

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Final Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paleoamericans in Northeast Argentina

Loponte¹,

Carbonera²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This topic was introduced to modern Pleistocene-Holocene transition procurement studies in Uruguay by Flegenheimer et al (2003). The discovery of bifacial artefacts and flakes made with a reddish cherty material in surface and stratigraphic assemblages dated between 11,000 and 10,000 BP in the Argentinean Pampean region (Tandilia Range) (see Figure 2), led the authors to develop a survey of potential sources.…”

Section: The Early Hunter-gatherers Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A macroscopic-and petrographic thin-section-based comparison with samples taken at three utilised silicified limestone sources from southern Uruguay confirmed this region as the source area for these artefacts, implying a transport distance of between 400 and 500 km (see Figure 3 4-C). Long distance transport could have implied extended social networks between early hunter-gatherers of the Southern Cone (e.g., Borrero & Franco 1997;Favier Dubois et al 2009;Flegenheimer et al 2003;López Mazz et al 2015;Suárez 2011b;Suárez in press).…”

Section: The Early Hunter-gatherers Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studies of indigenous lithic procurement in Uruguay and their implications for Southern Cone archaeology

Batalla

2016

JLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Being a territory with several minerals and rocks suitable for knapping and grinding, Uruguay offered a lithic-rich environment for past indigenous cultures in the Southern Cone of South America. In this paper, a history of lithic procurement studies in Uruguay is presented. Three main periods are discriminated, paying attention to authors' theoretical and methodological contributions to the field. Firstly, a period with general mention to raw materials utilised by indigenous groups, including those historically known, is recognised at least since the last decades of the nineteenth century. Secondly, a period involving description of lithic resources available at a national scale as well as the first detailed observations of lithic sources and possible means of procurement can be distinguished between the 1950s and the mid-1980s. Lastly, beginning with salvage archaeology in the eastern region, the current period of research (i.e. the last thirty years) is characterised by contextualising lithic procurement within issues of lithic technological organisation and settlement patterns of indigenous groups. The current period of studies has involved two different approaches: 1) technological analysis of lithic artefacts and comparison of raw material with previously-published geological data; 2) utilisation of field survey data that locate and map lithic resources, and characterisation of visual (macroscopic, microscopic, or both macroscopic and microscopic) and geochemical components of these resources. Within the latter, studies can be further arranged according to the main temporal framework used to contextualise research problems. On the one hand, questions involving lithic procurement of early hunter-gatherers (who arrived ca. 12,000 BP) since the end of the 1990s have included surveys of potential and utilised sources, the first thin-section-based petrographic studies and the distinction of different local, regional and long-distance procurement strategies. On the other hand, cultural changes since the Middle Holocene have framed lithic source survey studies to answer questions of resource accessibility for coastal groups during sea level changes, as well as for other now-diverse groups such as the lowland moundbuilders. Finally, considerations for future research are made by reconsidering recent developments alongside the history of lithic procurement studies in Uruguay.

show abstract

“…Aunque la mayoría de las puntas de proyectil tipo "cola de pescado" en Sudamérica proceden de contextos sin cronología conocida, aquellas asociadas a depósitos fechados se localizan en la transición Pleistoceno-Holoceno (Politis, 1991;Flegenheimer et al, 2003). En Patagonia, este tipo de puntas de proyectil han sido registradas en las localidades de Cueva de Fell, Pali Aike (Bird, 1993), Cueva del Medio (Nami, 1985-6), Tres Arroyos 1 (Jackson, 2002;Massone, 2004), Piedra Museo (Miotti, 1995), Los Dos Amigos Oeste (Miotti et al, 2010), y de forma aislada en Estancia Pali Aike (Nami, 1994), Cerro Iturbe (Jackson, 2004) y en colecciones (Bahamondes & Jackson, 2006).…”

Section: Comentariosunclassified