Archaelogy, Paleoindian Research and Lithic Technology in the Middle Negro River, Central Uruguay

Archaeological Discovery

2013. Vol.1, No.1, 1-22

Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ad) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ad.2013.11001

Archaelogy, Paleoindian Research and Lithic Technology in the

Middle Negro River, Central Uruguay

Hugo G. Nami1,2

1CONICET-IGEBA-Instituto de Geofísica Daniel A. Valencio (INGEODAV), Department of Ciencias

Geológicas, FCEN, UBA, Ciudad Universitaria, Pab. II, (C1428EHA), Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires,

Argentina

2National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., USA

Email: hgnami@fulbrightmail.org

Received June 10th, 2013; revised July 10th, 2013; accepted July 17th, 2013

bution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

The Negro river is the most important inner fluvial course in Uruguay. Its basin, mainly the middle

portion, has produced an unusual archaeological record characterized by a significant evidence of Pa-

leoindian remains. Systematic archaeological research allowed conducting a number of field and labora-

tory activities. The identification of Paleoindian vestiges and buried sites was a significant focus of this

investigation. The advances on surveys and excavations in Los Molles and Minas de Callorda sites are

reported. Different dating methods yielded the first dates in the area and diverse technological analyses on

lithic artifacts allow recognizing the existence of unreported techniques and reduction strategies.

Functional studies with special attention to Paleo-South American vestiges permitted to identify diverse

micro-wear clues. Finally, the role of river basins in the peopling of the eastern part of the southern cone

and the hypothesis about the origin of the fishtail pattern is discussed.

Keywords: Paleoindian; Lithic Technology; Fishtail Points; South America; Southern Cone; Uruguay

Introduction

One of the most intriguing topics of the archeology of the New

World is the human colonization and spread through the con-

tinent. This subject has been the focus of interest since very early

in the archaeology of the Americas. In this sense, archaeologists

frequently speak of the “First Americans”, “Early Man”, “Paleo

Americans” and, “Paleoindian” as the earliest stage in the so-

cio-cultural history of the Americas in which the hunter-gath-

erer societies lived during the Late Wisconsin Ice Age.

In the history of the field of the First Americans studies, the

southern cone (Republics of Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and

south of Brazil) of South America has played an important role

since the end and early XIX and XX centuries respectively (e.g.

Ameghino, 1918; Bird, 1938, 1946; among others). One of the

historical landmarks occurred just after the Clovis and Folsom

finds in North America. In fact, in southern Chile, during the

1930s Junius Bird discovered in the Fell and Pali Aike’s caves

“fishtail” or Fell projectile points associated with the remains of

Pleistocene fauna. Furthermore, Paleo-South American sites

with “fishtail” points were dated at ca. 11.000 - 10.000 uncali-

brated radiocarbon years before present (~11 - 10 kya hereafter,

Nami, 2007; Politis et al., 2008, Steele & Politis, 2009).

A number of investigations in South America reported simi-

lar Paleoindian artefacts in different places, mainly in the

southern cone. In the Republic of Uruguay, “fishtail” points

were reported since the end of the XIX century. Recent inves-

tigations on Paleoindian lithic assemblages from this country

show many similarities with other places in Central and South

America (Nami, 2007, 2010a).

In the eastern part of the southern cone, dividing the south

from the north of the country, the Negro River is the most im-

portant inner fluvial course of the Uruguay Republic. Origi-

nated north of Bage city at about 70 km from the boundary of

Uruguay and Brazil, it flows west across its entire width to the

Uruguay River, the natural western border with Argentina. In

Uruguayan territory, its drainage basin size is 70.714 km2 with

a total length of 750 km. In its middle basin, the river is

dammed near Paso de los Toros city, creating the Rincón del

Bonete dam—also called the Gabriel Terra—that, with a

surface of about 1500 km2, is one of the largest reservoirs in

South America (Figure 1).

The archaeology of the Negro River has produced an unusual

record. Particularly, Paleo-South American remains were re-

covered as isolated finds or in archaeological sites. Thus, this

region becomes a very important locale to perform systematic

research. Despite its richness and significance, is little known

archaeologically and there is notable lack of methodical exca-

vations and laboratory research to clarify the peopling, ar-

chaeological process, and chronology of this important area.

Systematic Paleoindian investigations by the author began in

Uruguay at the end of the 1990s; since then various activities

have been conducted and reported on terminal Pleistocene top-

ics (López et al., 2001; Nami, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2008,

2010a; Cavalloto et al., 2002). The identification of Paleoindian

sites with stratigraphic evidence has been a significant focus of

the research goals. Therefore, a long-term project was started in

the basin of the Rio Negro (Nami 2007, 2009, 2010a; Nami &

H. G. NAMI

Figure 1.

(a) Map of the Negro River basin and location of recorded sites (after

Femenías et al., 2011). (b), (c) Schematic section, stratigraphy and

hypothetical development of LM site related with the Negro River level

fluctuation due to the Gabriel Terra dam construction, (b) Site location

in relation with the pre-dam Negro River, (c) Current level of the river

and remaining LM site after partially destroyed by the alluvial erosive

process (except when is clearly expressed all the photographs and

drawings are by the author).

Castro, 2010, 2012; Femenías et al., 2011), which had been the

focus of archaeological interest during previous years (e.g.

Taddei, 1969, 1980; Baeza et al., 2001; Baeza, 2005). The evi-

dence in the Negro River basin is highly important to deepen

our knowledge of several archaeological issues. Research in

this area is vital to understand the Uruguayan socio-cultural

history, and particularly its relationships with other areas of

South America. It also permits discussion of major theoretical

and analytical issues in the human colonization, archaeological

process, chronology and paleoenvironment of this part of the

New World. Hence, this paper reports varied recent investiga-

tions performed in Uruguay, and mainly in the middle Negro

River, focusing diverse archaeological topics with special at-

tention on Paleo-South Americans hunter-gatherers, mostly

from the technological perspective.

Archaeological Field Work

Exploration, Surve y s and Site Record

The Gabriel Terra dam, which was inaugurated in 1945,

raised the river level ~15 - 20 m (Figure 1(a)). As shown in

historical images from the first decades of XX century, the river

was characterized by the existence of riverbanks of varied

thickness, sand dunes and wide beaches along the shores (Fig-

ure 2). Despite the width of the river, during the pre-dam times,

certain places were not deep and used as pasos to cross it (Fig-

ures 2(a) and (b)). Currently, sand dunes are consolidated

mainly by eucalyptus forest, and due to from the formation of

Rincón del Bonete Lake (RBL), the original landscape was

strongly modified; hills became islands and a number of small

like fiords, bays and inlets were formed.

A large amount of modest permanent or intermittent water

courses also characterize the region. An active fluvial erosive

process is currently disturbing the buried sites existing in the

highest river terrace and hills along its old course. Hence, a

number of sites are impacted and destroyed by the water action

and continuously revealing archaeological artefacts (e.g. Figure

1(c)). These finds in old sand dunes and in the post-dam eroded

deposits has caused the proliferation of different kind of col-

lectors. Some of them, who are aware of their scientific value,

carry out surface collections when the water level falls in the

river and lake. When they look for archaeological remains, they

carefully record their finds and allow professional archaeolo-

gists to study them. In this physiographically complex area,

they have been helpful in identifying Paleoindian surfaces and

stratigraphic sites. Also, the lithic artefacts collected by them

are useful for discussing diverse regional typological and tech-

nological topics.

Figure 2.

Historic photographs showing diverse images of the Negro River

before dam construction, (a), (b) natural paso (pass) of the river near

de Paso de los Toros, ca. 1920, (c), (d) Riverbanks and beaches

during the bridge construction on Route 5 in 1927. The arrow points

the location of EP site, (e), (f) ferry crossing the river before the

bridge, (g) construction of the G. Terra dam and the river coast with

sand dunes and plains observed in the landscape, ca. 1935-1940.

Photographs: (a), (b): L. Laurenti, (g) unknown author.

H. G. NAMI

Despite the rich archaeological record, the archaeology of the

Negro River basin was mainly constructed from a traditional

perspective and surface evidence. Hence, it was imperative to

search for sites with stratigraphic deposits that allowed to un-

derstand the regional archaeological process from a contempo-

rary viewpoint. With this goal, surveys and explorations were

carried out. Geographical information system was used to pro-

duce a regional site record along its basin. The documentation

was performed on the basis of our own work, and was aug-

mented by data from field notes by the amateur Uruguayan

archaeologist Antonio Taddei and information provided by

collectors living in the region (Femenías et al., 2011). Most of

the sites show vestiges of Holocene occupations, but indubita-

ble Paleoindian remains were encountered on the surface of

pre-dam sand dunes and eroded deposits along the post-dam

basin (Taddei, 1980; Nami; 2001a, 2007; Nami & Castro, 2010,

2012; Femenías et al., 2011).

Fieldwork was mainly performed in the middle Negro River

area at Tacuarembó and Durazno departments. As seen in the

following sections, detailed studies on lithic artifacts curated at

museums and private collections across the country were also

performed. In the case of latest Pleistocene finds, once the ori-

gin of the artifact was documented the sites were visited and

explored to evaluate their potential to provide stratified material.

Because of the lack of careful archaeological research in the

region, it was crucial to perform in-depth excavations at the

sites that showed buried remains. This activity was imperative

because they are disappearing due to the fluvial erosion and the

surviving sites on the riverbanks are continuously affected by

water level fluctuations. Several localities and sites yielded

diverse kinds of Paleoindian surface finds. They were visited

and after evaluation, Minas de Callorda (MC) and Los Molles

(LM) showed stratigraphic sections with intact deposits despite

alluvial erosion, with potential to discover Paleoindian levels.

Consequently, they are in the process of systematic excavation.

Both are large sites, about 1 km long, located on the current

shoreline of the river. Due to the intensive erosive process,

hundreds of archaeological artifacts from sedimentary deposits

are exposed on the surface during the river’s ebb. The most

notable finds are projectile points, including Paleoindian fishtail,

pisciform, Fell’s cave or just Fell specimens, and other signifi-

cant vestiges that deserve attention. Pleistocene faunal remains

were also collected in several places of the Negro River basin.

They were carefully studied and significant results from the

activities are reported in the following sections.

Geo-Archaeological Considerations

A large uninterrupted grassland extends from southern Brazil,

through Uruguay and Argentina. Despite regional variations,

there are major physiographical features, plants and animals.

Two main recognized sub-regions are respectively located at

northeast and south of La Plata River: the fields of southern

Brazil and Uruguay, and the Argentinean Pampas (Politis, 2002:

33). The Uruguayan territory is a typical peneplain with com-

plex undulations. The bedrock consisting of old rocks of di-

verse origin, is exposed among undulated sediments, and covers

the central and southern part of the country. In this scenario, the

area under study is characterized by hills of Mesozoic basalts of

the Arapey formation ([Figure 2(d)], Bossi, 1966; Bossi &

Navarro, 1998). There, the river develops a meandering system,

and the fluvial valleys are covered by variable thickness of

terminal Pleistocene-Holocene alluvium.

Continental floodplain alluvial depositions in Uruguay were

studied by several authors (e.g. Antón, 1975; Bossi, 1966,

Ubilla, 1996, 1999; Ubilla et al., 2011; Martínez & Ubilla,

2004). They reported extensive sedimentary silty deposits with

different brown and green tonalities called Sopas-Dolores

(Panario & Gutiérrez, 1999), or Dolores Formations (Martínez

& Ubilla, 2004) characterizing the terminal Pleistocene sections

in the country. By comparison with similar deposits in southern

Brazil, Antón (1975) suggested that Sopas might be dated at

~12.8 - 15.0 kya. Radiocarbon dates from bone and wood sam-

ples belonging from Sopas-Dolores yielded dates of ~11.6 - 10

kya in southern and midwestern Uruguay (Ubilla, 1996, 1999;

Martínez & Ubilla, 2004; López Mazz et al., 2003-2004). This

geological unit shows some similarities to the Lujanense, a

useful horizon marker for the Late Pleistocene and Early Holo-

cene of the Buenos Aires province, Argentina (Tonni et al.,

2003; Toledo, 2011). From paleoecological, chronological and

stratigraphical perspectives, the megamamals appearing in

Sopas-Dolores show similarities with southern Brazil and the

Argentinean Pampas, which exhibit great extensions with bi-

omes of open vegetation (Bombín, 1975). Sopas-Dolores is

highly interesting from an archaeological viewpoint because it

contains evidence of Pleistocene fauna and potential about the

earliest settlers. Overlying this formation, there are Holocene

deposits that generally were referred to recent alluvium (Antón,

1975; Bossi, 1966; Bossi & Navarro, 1998). Therefore, this

regional sequence must be characterized in detail from a sedi-

mentary and chronological viewpoint. Hence, data presented

here becomes an initial attempt to build a chrono-stratigraphy

in the area.

Most exposures along the Negro River show both formations.

However, at the railway bridge on the river, a section of about

2-3 m thick shows the described brown clay and a gray sandy

alluvium deposit. However, overlying the lower level, there is a

black clay layer that might be comparable to a “black mat”

(Haynes, 1968). In some localities (e.g. Larraechea, Colares)

this dark deposit overlies the basalt bedrock1. It is worth men-

tioning that eastern Uruguay, between 10 - 6.6 kya, was char-

acterized by the establishment of wetlands that formed black

peats (Iriarte, 2006). Also, in the southern cone this sort of very

dark layer was observed in a number of locations, especially in

the Lujanense-Platense transition dated at ~12 - 10 kya (Tonni

et al., 2003; Toledo, 2005, 2011). The presence of these black

levels with high organic content suggests a climatic change to

humid conditions (Iriarte, 2006; Toledo, 2011). In southern

Brazil and southeastern Uruguay this is suggested by several

lines of evidence including pollen (Behling et al., 2002; Iriarte,

2006), diatoms (Moro et al., 2004) and phytoliths (Iriarte,

2006).

Excavations and Chronology

As previously stated, MC and LM are currently being exca-

vated. MC is located on the riverbank at Durazno department

(32˚51.90'S, 56˚25.30'W), 400 m south of the mouth of its ho-

monymous creek. This site is continuously yielding artefacts

from the sedimentary deposits exposed on the surface in the

course of the river’s ebb. More than one hundred projectile

points; among them four Paleoindian specimens were recovered

1A similar situation was recently observed at Lavalleja Department in

southern Uruguay.

H. G. NAMI

(Figures 3(c)-(f)). During the 1990s, Baeza and associates

(2001) carried out an excavation identifying a single Holocene

archaeological component. The newly excavated area is located

on the highest terrace of the river, about 70 m west of it, and

has slightly different stratigraphy. Excavations were carried out

by following the natural strata and using artificial 5 cm levels.

Every artifact was plotted along its horizontal coordinates, and

given a depth measurement below datum. Short profiles were

drawn along each grids line.

At MC the upper archaeological component was found at the

transition between levels I and II, the second component in the

lower portion of level III, and the lower at the top of level IV.

The upper component showed scattered lithic artifacts, mainly

debitage. The middle one is characterized by the presence of

diverse types of end scrapers, among them an unusual bifacially

flaked piece and others made on short blades used as blanks,

along with microblade cores, early stages of biface manufacture,

and stemmed projectile points (Nami, 2007: Figure 3(a)) that

may belong to an archaeological component similar to that

identified by Baeza and associates (2001). Remains from the

lower archaeological level exhibited sharp technological dif-

ferences from those of the upper ones. A remarkable broken

fluted base was found in this level (Nami, 2007: Figure 3(c)). It

is made on a red silicified limestone by pressure flaking that

left parallel flake scars on one face; on the other face there is a

sort of flute obtained from its basal portion. As it will seen

below, in the region there are excellent examples of fluted pro-

jectile points. The majority of the remains from the top of level

IV exhibited strong weathering, differing in this respect from

the artifacts from the lower portion of layer III. This level

probably is a Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene occupation

(Nami, 2007).

LM (32˚48.32'S. Lat. 56˚33.45'W. Long.) is located on the

mouth of Los Molles creek in the Negro River at Tacuarembó

department. Thought the years, hundreds of flaked stone arti-

facts from the eroded deposit were recovered along the shore

and the river that destroyed part of the site and the riverbanks

(Figures 1(b), (c)). Among them, more than one hundred pro-

jectile points including fishtail pieces (n = 2, Figures 3(a), (b))

were found. In the excavated surface, the deposit thickness

varies between a few cm to about 1.5 m. Despite that there are

finds in layer II, archaeological levels with abundant remains

start at ~0.90 - 1.00 m from datum. The more notable one is the

one from located at ~1.15/1.20 m at the base of level III and the

other in the upper part of level IV at ~1.25/1.30 m from datum.

From a technological viewpoint there are notably differences

between them. Actually, lithic remains in level III show unifa-

cial tools (end and lateral scrapers) roughly made on white

chalcedony available in the site and diverse kinds of denticu-

lates. Instead the lower level displays delicate side scrapers and

bifacial reduction strategies manufactured on highly selected

cherts. Hence, it is likely that they represent different pre-ce-

ramic hunter-gatherers.

A similar stratigraphy with four levels has been identified at

both sites: I, the present vegetal humus surface; II, a gray sandy

layer; III, a mottled sandy-loamy to loamy gray mottled deposit;

and IV, a hard brown clay overlying basalt bedrock that may be

comparable to Dolores-Sopas Formation (Figures 1(b), (c )). In

the excavated area of MC, the bedrock lies ~0.60 - 0.70 m be-

low the current soil surface while in LM, the deposit is thicker,

ranging from ~1 to ≥2 m depth. Level IV also represents the

relict of a fully developed soil that suggests a period of non-

Figure 3.

Fishtail projectile points found in different locales in the middle Negro

River. (a), (b) LM, (c)-(f) MC, (g)-(o) AC, (p) EP, (q)-(r) RBL, (s) Los

Espinillos, (t)-(v) Colares. (q) Photo by U. Meneghin.

deposition and landscape stability (Holliday, 1985). Level II

and III looks like the gray Holocene Platense litho-stratigraphic

unit observed in the Argentinean pampas (Ameghino, 1918;

Tonni et al., 2003; Toledo, 2011).

The age of the LM deposit was determined by varied meth-

ods. Different materials were used to perform radiocarbon dat-

ing. Level II under the present vegetal humus yielded two small

samples of charcoal from H3 and I3 squares. They were sub-

mitted for standard radiocarbon dating at Gliwice Radiocarbon

Laboratory, Institute of Physics (Silesian University of Tech-

nology, Poland). Both samples (Gd-30118 and Gd-3020) indi-

cated that the charcoal was “modern”. The measured radiocar-

bon concentration in percent of modern carbon shows relatively

high value (133.97 ± 0.61 and 136.5 ± 1.2) of the so called

“bomb effect”. Therefore, using the CALIBomb program

(Reimer et al., 2004a, 2004b) both samples may be dated on

1962 A.D. or 1976-1978 A.D. Then, they are useful to know

that in the thinnest part of the sedimentary deposit, level II was

affected by the incorporation of modern material in the upper

archaeological deposit.

Despite the above mentioned samples, a characteristic of MC

and LM is that neither contains old bone nor charcoal for

radiocarbon essays. Instead, a sample of sediment belonging

from the upper part of level IV at 1.10/1.11 m deep was sub-

mitted for AMS dating. Its analysis yielded a 4650 ± 30 B.P.

H. G. NAMI

(KI-5081) or 3525 - 3355 CAL B.C. (Reimer et al., 2004a,

2004b). It also was calibrated using the CalPal-2007HULU

(Weninger et al., 2010; Weninger & Jöris, 2008) program

available on the web. The following calibrated dates were ob-

tained: 3442 ± 54 CAL B.C., 5392 ± 54 CAL B.P., and 68%

range 5338 - 5446 CAL B.P. Such date was obtained from the

humic acid fraction of the sediment, which tends to provide

more reliable ages for this kind of material (Pessenda et al.,

2001). However, this date yielded the apparent mean residence

time (MRT) of the soil (Scharpenseel, 1971; Scharpenseel &

Schiffmann, 1977) which is the mixing of the young organic

carbon with the oldest from earlier stages of pedogenesis (Stein,

1992). Consequently, the MRT indicates that the deposit was

open to organic material deposition during ~5 kya. This date

may be considered as a minimum age, because MRT is a sig-

nificant factor that must be taken into account when dating soil

organic matter (Schapenseel, 1971; Scharpenseel & Schiffmann,

1977; Stein, 1992; Wang & Amundson, 1996).

Additionally, sediments were also dated with optically

stimulated luminiscence (OSL) method (Feathers, 1997, 2003).

For this purpose, one sample was taken in the transition be-

tween the lower and upper parts of level III and IV respectively.

A 10 cm long and 5 cm diameter cylindrical plastic container

was carefully pushed vertically into the sediment. The sample

was submitted and processed at the Luminiscence Dating Ar-

chaeology (University of Washington). The sample is mixed,

having some younger grains and some older grains. At any rate

the younger and the older grains give ages of 4.9 ± 0.5 kya and

9.1 ± 0.8 kya respectively (Feathers & Nami, 2012). The latter

one confirms that level IV belongs to the terminal Pleisto-

cene/Early Holocene deposit. The age of level III agrees with

the AMS results, meaning that the archaeological component

from that horizon belongs to the Middle Holocene. On the other

side, the archaeological vestiges embedded in the transition of

level III-IV and upper part of IV is an early Holocene occupa-

tion that used stemmed projectile points in the weaponry (Nami,

2007: Figure 3(a)).

Paleomagnetism was also employed to establish a relative

chronology of the stratigraphic sections (Barendrest, 1984).

Two vertical paleomagnetic samplings were performed to study

the geomagnetic field (GMF) directions in MC and LM. To

collect samples, cylindrical containers (2.5 cm long and 2.0 cm

diameter) overlapping each other by about 50 percent were

carefully pushed into the sections (see Nami, 2012a: Figure

2(b)). Their strike and dip were measured using a Brunton com-

pass and inclinometer; they were consolidated with sodium

silicate after removal and numbered from top to bottom. De-

spite that paleomagnetic analysis is in progress, preliminary

observations may be reported. Actually, some samples from

MC and LM show normal and intermediate polarity directions

far from the present dipolar field, suggesting the presence of the

anomalous GMF behaviour observed across the southern cone

during the terminal Pleistocene and early, middle and late

Holocene (Nami, 2012a, 2012b). In other words, anomalous

GMF directions in the sampled sites suggest that they were

recorded during the early and middle Holocene (Nami, 2012a,

2012b). Therefore, they reinforce the ages reported above with

AMS and OSL dating.

Sites of Paleoindian Interest

In addition to LM and MC that yielded fishtail points (Fig-

ures 3(a)-(f)) in the area there are a number of localities (e.g.

Colares, Riachos de Corrrea, El Tala, among others) where

Paleoindian artifacs were found (Figures 3(t)-(v), 4(j)). After

evaluation, the following are those sites considered the most

significant because they recently yielded new data on the topic.

Arroyo Cacique (AC, Tacuarembó Department), is currently

submerged beneath the Rincón del Bonete Lake. When the

water level falls, however, a small island about 200 by 800 m

with archaeological remains emerges. When these episodes

happen, it is visited by collectors and relic hunters. Among

many remains, AC yielded diverse terminal Paleoindian finds

that were partially reported (Nami, 2007: Figure 4; 2009; Nami

& Castro, 2010). This site produced a significant number of

fishtail projectile points. The totality of the studied sample (n =

10) is depicted in Figures 3(g)-(o), 9h and the following sec-

tions. The broken and extremely resharpened points suggest

that they were probably brought to the site on foreshafts, and

that repair of weapons was one of the activities performed there

(Nami, 2009). An interesting find in AC is a stemmed point

with a straight blade and stem borders (Nami, 2012c: Figure

22e) that resembles the El Inga variant observed in Ecuador

(Mayer-Oakes, 1986a, 1986b). Surprisingly, fishtail contexts

from the southern cone also enclose other forms of lithic heads

resembling El Inga points (Nami, 2012d). As seen above, this

site yielded a number of unifacial tools (n = 5) that by virtue of

strong typological and technological features are attributed to

the Paleoindian tool kit (Nami, 2007). Bones remains are rare in

the archaeological sites from the middle Negro River; however,

some dental pieces of a camelid (probably Lama guanicoe)

were found at AC.

El Puente (EP, Durazno Department) is located on the river-

banks of the Negro River at about 100 m east from the Route 5

bridge where there is a small portion of described latest Pleis-

tocene/Holocene deposit. Currently, buried artifacts were ob-

served in a small area, probably the relict of a larger site situ-

ated in the ancient banks of the river that, as illustrated was

different than today (Figures 2(c)-(d)). Like LM, it is affected

by the river’s fluctuations and archaeological remains are con-

tinuously eroded. There, lithic debitage and stone tools were expo-

sed; among them, a clear fishtail projectile point (Figure 3(p)).

No significant archaeological deposit was identified for excava-

tion.

Los Espinillos (LE, Tacuarembó department) located on the

riverbank of the Negro River at about 20 km Paso de los Toros

city. This site provided artifacts probably belonging to the

eroded alluvial deposit. Lithic debitage and a few shaped im-

plements were found, among them a highly resharpened fishtail

point and a non-used biface (Figures 3(s) and 4(p)), probably

an early stage of the manufacturing sequence of this sort of

projectile point (Nami, 1997a, 2003, 2010a).

Jorge O. Femenías (JOF, Tacuarembó department) is located

on the riberbanks of the Cañada del Estado creek near San

Gregorio de Polanco village. There, a Paleoindian lithic assem-

blage consisting in three fishtail specimens (Figures 5(a)-(c)),

unifacial tools (n = 3, Figures 5(d)-(f)), and remains of extinct

fauna were found, among them Glyptodon sp., ground sloths

and other Pleistocene animals. As seen in Figure 5(g), remar-

kably is a bone with scratches that preliminary might be compa-

rable with cut marks (Lupo, 1994; Todd et al., 1997; among oth-

ers). As a part of the Paleoindian archaeological research perfor-

med in Uruguay (Nami & Florines, 2012), this is a highly promis-

ing site concerning Paleoindian occupations in stratigraphy, and

H. G. NAMI

Figure 4.

Fell points and early stages of manufacture from the middle Negro

River and other Uruguayan locales. (a)-(c) Carpintería creek, (d) un-

known origin, (e) Laguna Blanca, (f) Paso Talavera (Photo E. Me-

neghin), (g) Vejigas Creek, (h) Cacique Grande creek, (i) San Gregorio

de Polanco beach, (j) El Tala, (k) Tres Arboles creek, (l) Unknown

origin, (m) Durazno (close-up of the impact fracture in the rectangle,

Photo J. Femenías), (n) Arenera Ferrando (Colonia), (o) Yi river (Photo

U. Meneghin), (p) Los Espinillos.

is currently in the process of field research by archaeologists

Florines, Toscano and the author.

Investigations on Stone Tool Technology

The area under study shows an abundant and remarkable

lithic record of flaked and ground stone remains traditionally

classified in terms of intuitive morphological typologies. De-

spite the important quantity and quality of stone tools existing

in the region is the notable lack of in-depth studies from a con-

temporary viewpoint; hence, this kind of artifacts deserves

analysis from new methodological perspectives developed dur-

ing the last decades. These tools were left by the different

hunter-gatherers living in the area during the last 11 kya. An

important number of artifacts may be used to discuss some

issues of archeological relevance from the technological and

functional viewpoints. Consequently, in order to deepen our

Figure 5.

Paleoindian lithic remains and extinct fauna bones from JOF site. (a)-(b)

Fishtail points, (c) possible fisthail preform, (d)-(f) unifacial tools, (g)

extinct fauna bone showing the detail of the probably cut mark in the

rectangle.

understanding of these topics, detailed observations on re-

markable terminal Pleistocene and Holocene artifacts per-

formed are given as follows.

Paleoindian Remains

1) Fishtail points. In Central and South America, the most

conspicuous Paleoindian find is the “fishtail points (Bird, 1969;

Bird & Cooke, 1979; Mayer-Oakes, 1963, 1986a, 1986b;

Ranere & Cooke, 1995; Nami, 2010a, 2012c, 2012d). Tradi-

tionally the “stereotype” (sensu Mayer-Oakes, 1986b: Figure 2)

of a fishtail point is a shouldered stem piece with broad train-

gular or lanceolate blade of convex edges; the stem usually

shows concave edges and base (e.g. Figures 3(d)-(e), (i)-(j),

(q), 4(k)-(l)). However, the advancement of research reveals

that, as showed in Figures 3-5, they were accompanied by a

significant dimensional and morphological variability, involv-

ing both “classic” specimens and other forms (Nami, 2012c,

2012d).

Terminal Pleistocene archaeological remains are abundant in

Uruguay, among them unequivocal Fell points that are

wide-spread in comparison to other parts of South America.

They were encountered since the end of the XIX century (Fi-

gueira, 1892) and currently, more than 120 specimens were

recorded and photographed by Jorge Femenías. Additionally,

new specimens were found and identified by the author in the

last years (e.g. Figures 3(b), (d), (g)-(h), (m)-(p), (r)-(s), 4(a),

H. G. NAMI

(d), (h), (i), (k), (n), 9(i)-(j)). In the Southern Cone of South

America, they were systematically dated at ca. 11 - 10 kya

(Nami, 2007; Steele & Politis, 2009). This diagnostic artefact

has been recovered on surface sites all across Uruguay, but the

main concentration is in its central part, especially in the Negro

River basin. Their study has allowed advancing in the knowl-

edge of its morphological variability, technology and function

(Nami, 2009, 2010a, 2011a; Nami & Castro, 2010, 2012). Pa-

leoindian specimens have been found by collectors along the

deposits eroded by the river and RBL, but in many cases their

precise location was not registered so their interpretation must

be used with caution. Despite of recovery by non-professionals,

this sort of data may be used to gather valuable technological

information from several viewpoints (Femenías et al., 2011).

These kinds of finds are useful to discuss technological and

functional topics; some of them allow knowing the original Fell

point form. Actually, entire pieces with little or no resharpening

allow knowing their range of variation and original morphology

which is very rare in Central and South America (Nami, 2010a:

Lam. I-II; 2012c: Figures 19, 20). Actually, most fishthail

points across South America are resharpened pieces (Nami,

1998; 2000; 2012d). In this sense, a remarkable piece (Figure

4(k)) was found in an unknown place at the Tres Arboles creek

basin and sold in early 2007 to its current possessor, Mr. S.

Bálsamo. Due to its exceptional condition it was carefully

studied from a technological perspective. In this way, it was

observed that before the final pressure shaping that left short

retouches was made, it was nicely thinned by soft percussion

flaking until an advance stage preform with a non-patterned

flake removal sequence (Callahan, 2010). In South America

these sorts of pieces with broad blade were found at El Inga

(Bell, 1965: Figures 10(d)-(e), 11(l)-(m); Nami, 2012d: Figures

16(b)), 17(b)), La Crucesita (Schobinger, 1971), Fell’s cave

(Bird & Cooke, 1979: Figure 12H; Emperaire et al., 1963: Fig-

ure 21, 3-4, Pl. VI: 1, 3), among others. The fishtail original

morphology is also visible in other specimens found in the RBL

area. One of them is a remarkable specimen made on a very

fine reddish chert (Figure 3(q)). It shows details of the final

shaping by short pressure retouches after a careful bifacial

flaking by soft percussion. Morphologically, they are similar to

several specimens found in Uruguayan locales, such as Boicuá

creek (Cordero, 1960: Figure 45), middle Negro River (Bosch

et al., 1980: #1; Nami, 2010a: Lam. II: g, l). Another piece from

the same area that apparently does not show resharpening is

illustrated in Figure 3(r). Made on a very fine red chert, it is a

broken lanceolate blade lacking the stem and shows that it was

bifacially thinned by soft percussion flaking previous to the

final shaping by pressure. A number of pieces with lanceolate

narrow blades came from EP, AC, Carpintería creek, Durazno

department, Arenera Ferrando in Colonia and JOF (Figures

3(m), (p), 4(b), (m)-(n), 5(c)). They display a remarkably simi-

larity with those found at Fell’s cave, Cueva del Medio and

Tagua Tagua, Chile (Bird, 1969: Figure 5(d), (o)-(p); Nami,

1985-1986: Figure 6; 1987: Figure 16(a); Nuñez et al., 1994:

Figure 5(b)); Estancia La Suiza 1, San Luis (Laguens et al.,

2007); Los Cobres, Salta (Patané Aráoz & Nami, 2012) in Ar-

gentina; Montenegro, south Brazil (da Silva Lopes & Nami,

2011); Pikimachay cave (Mac Neish et al., 1980: Figures 2, 3

upper row right), PV23-130 site (Briceño Rosario, 1999: Figure

17, 21-22), Je996L9 site (Maggard and Dillehay, 2011: Figure

4.5 left) in Perú; Ilaló region, Ecuador (Bell, 1965: Figures

10(a)-(c); Nami, 2012d: Figure 19b), among others. Finally,

during the last few years it was possible to confirm that aside

from convex forms, variation in Fell blade borders also enclose

straight forms (Figures 3(k), 9(h); Nami, 2012c: Figure 24(i)).

In this sense, remarkably is a small exemplar from AC with a

well-made fishtailed stem, but with straight borders blade (Fig-

ure 9(h)).

Research advances on pisciforms from Uruguay allowed

identifying exceptional pieces. Until recently, the largest known

complete points with no or little resharpening barely exceeded

6 - 8 cm long (Nami, 2011a). Recent explorations at Arroyo

Vejigas, a tributary of the Santa Lucía River in south Uruguay,

allowed finding an exceptional broken fishtail point suggesting

the original length may have been 13 - 15 cm (Figure 4(g)).

Another specimen that it is also among the largest Fell points

known from South America is complete without indications of

resharpening is illustrated in Figure 4(l). Both pieces have

rounded shoulders, a morphological variant among fishtail

specimens. They exhibit symmetrical and longitudinal biconvex

cross-sections and bifacial flake scars produced by soft percus-

sion flaking up to a very advanced perform stage to thin the

blank, a strategy often used in the production of large fishtails

(Nami, 2010a: Figures 3(q), 4(g), (j)-(l), 5(a)). The process was

finished using short retouch no deeper than 1 cm from the

edges that regularized the preform. This manner of obtaining

the final form by using short retouches on thin flakes or biface

performs might be considered a Fell stylistic feature (Bird &

Cooke, 1979; Nami, 1997a, 2003, 2010a). Both edges of the

stem show strong abrasion, a common attribute of pisciform

heads. Another outstanding piece is the fishtail miniature re-

cently recovered south of San Gregorio de Polanco beach (Fig-

ure 4(i)), which was studied before it was sold to a collector. It

is made on a very thin flake with very small retouch (~1 - 2 mm)

that regularize the form. Similar exemplars that match with

mini Fells were recently identified and found in the AC area.

One of them was found in the AC site (Figure 3(g)) while an-

other one belongs to Cacique Grande creek site located at about

2 km from AC site (Figure 4(h)). Both are also tiny points

made with short pressure retouch on very thin flakes, probably

the waste of bifacial flaking. Miniatures were probably used as

toys (Dawe, 1997; Politis, 1998) and, like other ones from

South America, several of them show abrasion around their

perimeter, likely to avoid injuries in the children (Nami, 2007).

Then, based on specimens previously described, Figures 4(i),

(g) and (l) depict one of the smallest and largest Fell specimens

known in the continent. Worth mentioning are other small sized

fishtail points that may have other functions than children toys

are exhibited in Figures 9(h), (i).

As expected, the original form observed in Figures 3(q)-(r)

and 4(k)-(l) varies very much due to resharpening (Goodyear,

1974; Callahan, 1981: Figures 17, 18; Bradley & Stanford,

1987). As previously reported, it was a recurrent behavior

among early foragers (Nami, 1998, 2000, 2009, 2012c, 2012d).

Like many fishtails from Central and South America, pieces

found in the region shows diverse degree of this behavior al-

lowing to know their “life story” from the unused finished

product to its rejection (e.g. LM, AC, Los Espinillos, Figure

3(b), (f), (o)). Resharpening is detectable when the blade form

and symmetry is highly modified (Figures 4(c) and (e), (f));

retouch does not follow the remaining original pattern that fin-

ished the product and/or the borders are strongly rounded or do

not have enough mass to continue the task (3(b), (f), (o)). Here,

according to the lack of mass in the blade that allows continu-

H. G. NAMI

ing the resharpening may be catalogued as: 1) low or minimum,

when the blade was a little modified in its symmetry (Figure

4(j)); 2) medium, when despite the blade modification there is

some mass to continue the tool’s useful life (Figures 3(c), (i),

(j), 4(e), (f)); finally, 3) intense, maximum or saturated, when

the blade does not have enough mass to bear continued re-

sharpening, this being the reason many pieces were discarded

(Figures 3(b), (f), (o), 4(c)); Nami, 2012d). Like in other sites

of South America, beyond the Negro River, resharpened pieces

are widespread in Uruguay, such as those near Balneario La

Tuna (Canelones department) and Paso Talavera on the Negro

River (Figures 4(e), (f)). Similar resharpening behavior is visi-

ble in other Fell specimens in Central and South America, such

as Belize (Lohse et al., 2006: Figure 4(b)), Panama (Bird &

Cooke, 1978: Figures 4(a), (b)), Ecuador (Nami, 2012d: Fig-

ure 24), Argentina (Nami, 2007: Figure 1(b), (c)), and Chile

(Bird & Cooke, 1979: Figure 12(e); Nuñez et al., 1994; Figure

5(a)). As suggested in the previous paragraph, resharpening was

an important phenomenon in fishtail point curation. However,

its dimensional and morphological variations (mainly the lan-

ceolate variety) are not only a result of this practice such has

been suggested by some authors (e.g. Suárez, 2003, 2009).

Morphological variability in Fell points may be due to different

uses in social and subsistence strategies employed by the fora-

gers who produced them. It is also worth mentioning that fish-

tailed lithic points are just parts or “tecno-units” (as defined by

Oswalt, 1976: 38) of a more complex hafted system. Curation

of this kind of implements (e.g. projectile tips, knives and other

tools) is a generalized behavior in traditional technologies,

particularly among Homo sapiens hunter-gatherer societies

where lithic tools are parts of a highly valuable hafted imple-

ment (Keeley, 1982). Hence, resharpening is not only caused by

the risk and uncertainty of not finding raw materials in unex-

plored and unknown territories (e. g. Franco, 2002; Castiñeira

et al., 2011). This strategy may be caused by multiple social

and cultural variables that involve saving time and energy in

obtaining raw materials, investing work in manufacture and

preservation of valuable goods, among others.

The majority of pisciform finds in the region were discarded

by diverse causes. In addition to extremely resharpened pieces,

many displays fractures occurred by use, mainly by impact.

Despite the fact that from the functional perspective fishtail

points are versatile artifacts that might have been employed in

different ways, this fact indicates that several of them were

used as projectile tips. Actually, the impact fractures are noto-

rious (Raup, 1976; Newcomer, 1980; Bergman & Newcomer,

1983; Frison, 1989; Dockall, 1997; Dumbar, 2012; among oth-

ers). By this manner, some exhibit deep flake scars originated

in the tip, such as visible specimens depicted in Figure 4(m);

sometimes, they have fractures in coup de burin in the blade

and the edges, respectively originated in the tip and base;

caused by the action of bipolar forces during the collision (New-

comer, 1980; Witthoftt, 1968; Lavallée et al., 1985: Pl. 13-14).

These sorts of fractures are observable in the specimens found

at MC and AC (Figures 3(e), (m)). As experimentally observed

in fishtailed pieces and, displayed in Figures 3(a), (k), (n), and

(p), transversal fractures in different blade and stems locations

are also provoked by impact (Dumbar, 2012: Figure 8.7).

Considerable efforts have been made to understand the fish-

tail manufacturing process from archaeological and experimen-

tal perspectives (Nami, 1997a, 2001a, 2003, 2010a, 2010b,

2011b). Like many other South American Fell points, a number

of analyzed specimens were manufactured on thin flakes used

as blanks (i.e. Figures 3(p), 4(b), (d)). Some specimens seem

to be flaked entirely by pressure flaking (e.g. Figures 4(b), (d),

(h)); others, were mostly flaked on one face by percussion and

with short pressure retouches on the other one (Bosch et al.,

1980: #17); while, others were partially thinned by careful bifa-

cial soft percussion flaking (Figures 3(q)-(r), 4(k)) or, such as

the larger ones, using bifacial reduction stages of manufacture

before the final shaping (Figures 3(q), (r), 4(g), l, 5(a)). These

observations are supported by early stages of biface manufac-

ture finds in Paleoindian contexts in Uruguay (Nami, 2001a).

Bifaces that show the fishtail point reduction sequence are rare

in South America (Briceño Rosario, 1999; Nami, 1998, 2001a,

2012d). However, in Uruguay there is important data allowing

to understand different steps of this process. South of the coun-

try, in Maldonado department, Cerro los Burros locality pro-

vided clues on early stages of biface reduction, preforms and

fishtail points (Meneghin, 1977; Nami, 2001b). Also, Paso del

Puerto site in the Negro River basin (Taddei, 1980) have

yielded data on this topic (Nami, 2001a). Despite that in the

area under study there are very many early stage bifaces show-

ing bifacial reduction strategies employed during the Holocene,

some biface finds along with fisthtail points might probably be

early stages of their manufacture. This is the case of a non-used

stage 4 (in the sense of Callahan, 1979) biface found at Los

Espinillos site (Figure 4(p); Nami & Castro, 2012). Nearby the

Negro River, recent finds on the Yi River, allowed to recognize

a fluted perform that fit in the Fell reduction sequence as iden-

tified by archaeological and experimental data (Nami, 1997a,

2001b, 2003, 2010a, 2011a, 2012d; among others). As depicted

in Figure 4(o), it was made on a very fine red chert that exhib-

its a bevelled platform prepared for fluting after being bifacially

thinned by soft percussion flaking. Further, preforms showing

variation of platform preparation for fluting were found at Paso

del Puerto and Cerro los Burros (Nami, 2001a: Figures 1(c)-(e),

2001b: Figure 6(a)). In this case, it was performed by bevelling

the basal edge, or by isolating a nipple in the middle of the

bevel (Nami, 2001a: Figure 1(c)). Remarkably, fluting prepara-

tion has a strong similarity with other fisthail preforms from

South America, mainly from Ecuador (Nami, 2003, 2012d:

Figures 12-15), and also, with other Paleoindian fluted points

from North America (Callahan, 1979; Frison & Bradley, 1980;

Nami et al., 1996; Nami, 1999).

A few finished products display excellent examples of true

fluting. Actually, a number of Uruguayan specimens show

flutes nicely obtained on both faces of the stem (Figure 3(q)).

The above mentioned piece from RBL has two long flutes

reaching almost the middle of the artifact. Another piece fluted

on both faces is the highly resharpened specimen found by

Taddei on the Negro River at Paso Talavera (Figure 4(f);

Bosch et al., 1980: #17). In this case the longest flute was in-

vaded by the retouch resulting from reshaperning. Despite that

is a rare phenomenon, there is a fluted point that does not fit

within fishtail morphology. It is an exceptional stemmed

shouldered point with straight stem and blade edges belonging

from RBL (Figure 9(g)). It might probably be considered as a

medium resharpened Fell point and/or one of its variations, a

fact that was also observed in other South American regions

(Nami 2012c, 2012d). Out of Uruguay, among other examples

of fluting in fishtail points were observed in Belize (Lohse et al.,

2006: Figures 3(a), (d); Pearson & Bostrom, 1998; Nami,

2010a: Lam. I a); Ecuador, at El Inga (Bell, 1965: Figures

H. G. NAMI

10(d)-(e), (h), 11(b), (e)-(h), j; Mayer-Oakes, 1986a: Figures 37,

38, 41, 43; Nami, 2010a: Lam. I h-i; 2012d: Figures 16, 18, 25);

Perú, PV-23-130 site (Briceño Rosario, 1999: Figure 17, lower

row right); central Brazil (Nami, 2010a: Lam. I k; 2011: Figure

1(c)); Argentina, at Cerro El Sombrero (Flegenheimer & Zarate,

1990; Nami, 2010a: Lam. II ll); Colipilli (Nami, 1992a, 1997a:

Figure 6(C)); Piedra Museo rockshelter (Nami, 1997: Figure

6(A)); and Chile, at Fell’s cave (Emperaire et al., 1963: Figure

21: 1-2, Pl. VI: 2, 4) and Quebrada Santa Julia (Jackson et al.,

2007: Figure 5).

Finally, Paleoindians used diverse rocks for manufacturing

Fell points, mainly sandstone, quartzite, rhyolite, quartz, and

flint-like materials. Particularly, colorful cherts, especially red-

dish stones, suggest that they were highly selective with colours

for making their lithic assemblage (Flegenheimer & Bayón,

1999). In fact, a high number (n = 23, 54.76%) of the fishtail

sample (n = 42) reported here are made with rocks of reddish

tones (Figures 3(a)-(c), (g)-(l), (n), (p)-(q), 4(a), (b), (e),

(k)-(m), 5(a), (b)). A similar fact that occurred with the unifa-

cial tools depicted in Table 2 and Figures 5(d)-(e) and 6(a)-(d).

Despite its varied degrees of workability, Paleo-South Ameri-

cans also used crystal quartz for making Fell points (Figures

3(o), (t)). Beyond flaking qualities, early hunter-gatherers were

probably visually attracted by the tones and translucently of

certain stones of their landscape. Table 1 depicts salient infor-

mation concerning origin, raw materials, condition and signifi-

cant technological and dimensional data of the fishtail points

reported in this paper.

2) Unifacial stone tools. In the Southern Cone, lithic assem-

blages accompanying fishtail points were produced using bifa-

cial, unifacial, bipolar, and prepared-core techniques, a fact

probably related with raw-material availability and technologi-

cal organization (Andrefsky, 1994). While the assemblages

from sites located far from high-quality sources are character-

ized by bipolar flaking and small stone tools, those from sites in

areas where raw materials were available such as those from

Patagonia have large unifacial tools (Nami, 2007). This fact

occurred at Piedra Museo, Cueva del Medio and Fell’s cave

(Figures 6(k)-(l); Bird, 1946, 1988; Nami, 1987a, 1994, 2012a;

Miotti & Cattáneo, 1997). By virtue of striking technological

and typological similarities, several pieces found at fishtail sites

in the Negro River might also be considered part of the Pa-

leoindian lithic assemblage. Remarkable unifacial implements

(knives and side-scrapers) have been found at AC, JOF and

Vejigas-Pilatos creeks in the Canelones department (Figures

6(g)-(j) Meneghin & Sánchez, 2009, pers. obs., 2009). Like

many fishtail points, they are also manufactured on highly se-

lected red chert, a stone commonly used by early hunter-ather-

ers in this part of the continent. Flake-blanks of these tools

show careful platform preparation with diffuse bulbs and lips

(e.g. Figure 5(d), 6(a)-(d), (f)-(l)), suggesting the use of some

kind of strategy for preparing cores and detaching flakes using

a variation of soft percussion flaking (Nami, 2006). Depictions

of some of these tools are illustrated in Figure 6. Also Table 2

describes relevant attributes concerning origin, raw materials

and dimension of each artifact showed in this paper.

3) Discoidal stones. This is another diagnostic Paleo-South

American artifact. They were firstly found at Pali Aike, Fell

and Los Toldos caves in southern Patagonia (Bird, 1938: Figure

27, 28; 1946, 1970). Specifically in Uruguay, the area under

research contributes with additional data regarding the artefac-

tual similarities shared by Late Pleistocene foragers living in

the southern cone of South America. During the last decades,

discoidal stones were found in a number of sites in Argentina

and Chile. Artifacts clearly matching these kinds of remains are

found in the RBL area and other localities of Uruguay. They

have strong morphological and technical similarities with those

specimens reported from Pali Aike, Fell and Los Toldos caves

Table 1.

Salient morphological and technological attributes of the Fell points reported in this paper. Note: All the measurements are given in mm, *: Not given,

/: Separates the maximum thickness present in a minor portion of the piece and the minimum that prevail in the totality of the artifact, S/L:

Site/Locality, L: Lengh, W: Width, T: Thickness, (): indicates fractured piece, †: Not observable, ††: Not measurable. The blank was only reported

when was clearly observed. Measurements of pieces 18, 28 and 29 were taken from Bosch et al. (1980).

Count S/L Origin Condition Raw Material L W T Stem

lenght

Stem

width Resharpening Blank Figure

1 LM Known Fractured Red Chert 40.9 27.7 9.6 22.0 16.8― Flake 3a

2 “ “ Entire “ 24.5 18.6 7.6 16.8 18.7Maximum † 3b

3 MC “ “ “ 39.9 27.3 7.2 16.0 19.9Medium † 3c

4 “ “ “ Altered chert 43.3 21.8 7.6 18.7 13.3― † 3d

5 “ “ Fractured Gray chert (36.2) 20.0 7.7 (18.0)― ― † 3e

6 “ “ Entire Yellow chert 26.7 19.3 4.8 15.0 14.3Maximum † 3f

7 AC “ “ Pale red chert 23.4 11.9 2.6 7.6 7.1 ― Flake 3g

8 “ “ “ “ 40.1 23.8 6.0/7.515.2 (15.7)― Flake 3h

9 “ “ “ Red chert 50.3 28.0 6.7 19.4 19.2Medium? † 3i

10 “ “ “ “ 43.9 26.8 6.6 19.8 19.9Medium Biface3j

11 “ “ Fractured “ (43.8) 23.8 7.2 19.2 (17.4)― † 3k

12 “ “ Entire “ 56.2 28.4 5.7/6.520.2 20.2Low Flake 3l

H. G. NAMI

Continued

13 “ “ Fractured

Brown

sandstone (42.1) (19.0)8.6 †† †† ― † 3m

14 “ “ “ Red Chert (17.0) 21.9 6.2 †† 21.9 ― † 3n

15 “ “ Entire Cristal quartz 27.5 18.8 7.8 14.2 13.9Maximum † 3o

16 “ “ Fractured Brown chert (42.3) 17.4 6.2 13.8 11.0 ― † 9h

17 El Puente “ “ Chert (35.8) 19.9 5.6 14.9 16.9― † 3p

18 RBL Unknown Entire Pale red chert 62 31 6 * * None Biface3q

19 “ “ Fractured Red Chert (57.3) 31.3 5.4 †† †† ― Biface3r

20 Los

Espinillos Known Entire Pale brown

chert 30.5 20.9 7.2 20.3 19.8 Maximum † 3s

21 Colares “ Fractured Crystal quartz(22.1) (19.1)6.6 19.2 17.2― † 3t

22 “ “ Entire Gray chert 44.4 28.7 5.1 16.1 18.6None

Thin

flake 3u

23 “ “ “ White chert 51.0 29.8 7.2/8.115.3 16.5Low Biface3v

24 Arroyo

Carpintería Unknown “ Pink chert 58.1 24.4 8.7 16.2 16.7― † 4a

25 “ “ “ Red Chert 47.5 21.6 6.1 17.6 16.0None

Thin

flake 4b

26 “ “ “

Traslucent white

chalcedony 30.1 26.4 6.5 21.6 21.2 Maximum † 4c

27 Unknown “ Fractured

Reddish brown

chert (45.6) 26.4 5.2 †† †† None Thin

flake 4d

28 Laguna

Blanca * Entire Reddish chert 40 28 4.5 * * Medium † 4e

29 Paso

Talavera * “

Pale brown

chert 32 22 5 * * Maximum † 4f

30 Arroyo

Vejigas Known Fractured Brown chert (76.1) 66.3 9.6/10.626.4 30.4― † 4g

31 AC2 “ Entire Red chert 26.8 17.6 4.5 11.4 14.0― Thin

flake 4h

San Gregorio

de Polanco

beach

Unknown “ Reddish chert 19.8 13.2 4.5 6.8 8.5 ― Thin

flake 4i

33 Boca del

Tala Known Fractured Chert 59.0 29.4 8.3/9.515.8 15.2Low Biface4j

34 Tres Arboles Unknown Entire Red and black

chert 65.3 36.3 8.2 21.0 20.6― Biface

on flake4k

35 Negro

River? “ “ Red chert 138 58 8 25 21 ― Biface4l

36 Durazno “ “ Reddish chert 60 23 6 20r 16 ― † 4m

37 Arenera

Ferrando Known “ Pale red chert 55 23 5.5 13.5 14.0None † 4n

38 JOF “ “ Reddish chert 57.6 37.3 6.6/7.222.6 20.4Medium? Biface5a

39 “ “ Fractured Red chert (43.1) 27.1 8.2 20.0 ― ― † 5b

40 “ “ “ Gray chert (104.9)39.3 8.7/9.2― ― ― Biface5c

41 Palmar de

Porrúa Unknown Entire Yellow chert 33.7 18.1 7.4 15.0 11.9― † 9i

42 “ “ “ “ 39.6 20.6 6.4 13.6 14.0 ― † 9j

H. G. NAMI

Figure 7.

Discoidal stones from Uruguay. (a)-(b) RBL, (c) unknown origin, (d)

La Palomita, (f) Lopeteguy I, (g) Lopeteguy II, (h) Los Ciervos, (a)-(c):

Same scale. (c), (e)-(h) photo U. Meneghin.

perimeter and both faces. Near the study area, a number of

Paleoindian vestiges were found in the La Palomita site in Yi

River basin: one of them is another discoidal stone (Figure

7(d)) which was found along with a Fell point. Remarkably,

this piece was made with alveolar basalt, the rock employed to

produce the discoidal stones from Dos Amigos site and Fell’s

cave (Bird, 1970; Miotti et al., 2010; pers. obs., 1997, 2009).

By courtesy of avocacional archaeologist U. Meneghin, Fig-

ure 7(c) exhibits another specimen found in an unknown place

in Uruguay. Interestingly enough, in early 1970s, a similar

specimen made of sandstone (~80 by 25 mm wide and thick-

ness) was found by Mr. Tabaré Flangini on the shores of La

Plata River at Playa Verde beach, located at the foot of Cerro

los Burros and close to Urupez Paleoindian site (Flangini, 1972;

Meneghin pers. com., 2008, 2012).

Figure 6.

Samples of unifacial tools found in sites with fishtail projectile points in

the southern cone. (a)-(f) AC site in the Negro River basin, (g)-(j) Ar-

royo Vejigas in the Santa Lucia River basin (slightly modified after

Meneghin and Sánchez 2009: Plates VII and IX, k-l) Fell’s cave

(Chile).

as well as the Dos Amigos open air site in Patagonia and Cerro

El Sombrero in the Argentinean Pampas (Bird, 1970; Flegen-

heimer & Zárate, 1990; Miotti, 2010; Miotti et al., 2010). Noto-

rious pieces were found across Uruguay (Meneghin, 2011)

which are illustrated in Figures 7(d)-(g). They were found at

Cerro Los Burros archaeological locality (Meneghin, 2000: Fig.

VI-VII: 2011: Lams. III-IV), Lopeteguy I and II (Tacuarembó

River), Talavera Island (Negro River), La Palomita (Yi River)

and Los Ciervos (Santa Lucía River). The latter one was found

embedded in a stratigraphic level dated at 10.140 ± 50 year BP

(Beta-301006, López Romanelli 2012: 7). The finds from the

Negro River are depicted in Figure 7 and Table 2. They belong

to RBL and one of them exhibits pecking around its perimeter

and some flake-scars that originated from the edge of one face

(Figure 7(a)); they were probably caused by the pecking proc-

ess during manufacture. Similar attributes are observed in the

discoidal from Cerro El Sombrero that shows a small concavity

of ~19 mm wide in the center of the flat surfaces (Flengeheimer

& Zárate, 1990: Figure 1). The discoidal from Los Ciervos also

shows some pecking in the center of the flat surfaces.

Flake-scars are also present on some pieces across the southern

cone, such is the case in the Lopeteguy I specimen and the one

from Los Toldos. It is worth mentioning that the flakes ob-

served in the latter were detached after the final shaping (Bird,

1970: Figure 1(a)). A second specimen from the Negro River

basin, illustrated in Figure 7(b), was carefully pecked in its

From the manufacturing perspective, based on available evi-

dence, personal observations and information provided by

other scholars on different reduction sequences of pecked,

ground and polished artefacts (e.g. Olausson, 1982-1983), it is

possible to hypothesize that this sort of discoidal stones might

have been made with previous stages of percussion flaking.

Furthermore, the flaked surfaces were pecked and finally,

grinding was performed on some pieces. Its function is un-

known and subject to speculation (Jackson & Méndez, 2007). It

is worth noting that these kinds of artifacts are very rare in hu-

mankind history. However, in the southeast of the United States;

there were discoidal stones of diverse morphology from ar-

chaeological and ethno-historical contexts, specifically the

biscuit and barrel style that resemble the Paleoindian finds were

used as a game artifact “chungke” or “chunkey” (DeBoer, 1993;

Anonymous, 2006).

Post-Paleoindian Technology

1) Prepared Flake Cores. In South America, artefacts show-

ing evidence of Levallois-like core preparation and its varia-

tions have been reported in several localities across the south-

ern cone (Nami, 1992b, 1997b; Morelo, 2005; among others),

very near Uruguay, in Misiones province, NE Argentina (Nami,

1995). Interestly, in the middle Ngro River there are also these e

H. G. NAMI

Table 2.

Salient morphological and technological attributes of the Holocene lithic artifacts from the middle Negro river area reported in this paper. Note: All

ments are given in mm, L: Length, W: Width, T: Thickness, (): indicates fractured piece.

the measure

Paleoindian artifacts

Origin Artifact L W T Figre Raw Material u

JOF Un103 39.9.ifacial tool Red chert 8.3 2 5d

JOF “

AC “

Red chert

“

48.7

157.3

25.8

83.2

5.8

6a 14.

10.

Weathed chert 7.

RBL Discoidal Stone Sandstone 74.2 71.0 35.7 7a

R “

Holo cts

Colares Co 101 91.1 58.4 8a

Yellowert

Unifacl tool

nretoucd flake B

APaleert

Baygorriarea

Silic 12.1

nretoucd blade

Rt 1012.

B 1210.

White

Riachos deorrea Wert

Bevele

Stemmt

Cerro Co

Balt 62.10a

Ma 62.10

R “

Bristlistone

Areján

enticular Stone Graite

RBL “ Basalt 74.2 73.2 46.7 10i

AC “ “ (53.2) 25.8 8.9 6b

AC “ “ (46.3) 39.5 8.2 6c

AC “ “ 83.1 39.7 1 6d

AC “ 73.3 40.5 11.1 6e

MC “ re88.2 45.1 9/6.7 6f

BLBasalt 65.5 66.9 42.0 7b

cenifae art

reYellow chert 1.

irulegui “ Gray chert 87.2 85.9 42.5 8b

RBL “ /gray ch60.7 46.4 58.4 8c

RBL “ Gray chert 3.6 83.9 47.1 8d

RBL U

Red chert

rown chert

77.7

85.0

41.0

78.5

10.1

21.0

C3 Unifacial tool brown ch71.8 29.9 9.6 8g

a“ Brown chert 68.5 56.0 11.4 8h

AC “ ified sandstone72.3 35.6 8i

rroymírezo Ra“ Gray chert 84.6 32.3 7.3 8j

LM UheRed chert 45.4 24.5 7.0 9k

LM K

AC “

nife edish cher

lack chert

3.8

2.5

78.0

48.7

MC “ quartizite121.2 56.5 12.3 9c

C“ athered che105.4 67.8 10.0 9d

Arenal Taján d point Petrified wood 69.1 33.2 7.7 9e

Arenal Taján “ Red chert 54.2 28.8 8.0 9f

RB site ed poin“ 50.5 25.3 7.7 9g

ardozBeveled point “ 62.4 26.5 7.1 9k

AC B

Mercedes area

ola Stone

“

rble

63.6

65.7

63.3

62.4

BLBasalt 58.5 56.7 54.8 10c

Boca del Tala ng “ 72.9 70.2 58.7 10d

nal Ta“ “ 65.7 57.7 55.7 10e

Tambores area“ “ 98.8 (93.1) 30.3 10f

Hernandorena “ “ 57.0 56.7 49.5 10g

RBL Ln74.1 73.8 34.9 10h

H. G. NAMI

kinds of prepared cororphologicalar be-

ing plano-al and transversal sections with

trikingrms in the periter. Partial or totaial and

facts

ighly developed lithic technology.

the same locale which are illustrated in Figures 9(b)-(d); one of

es. They are mlly simi

convex in longitudin

platfosmel unifac

bifacial flake removal is also a common feature. As depicted in

Figure 8 and Table 2, prepared core variability encloses those

resembling a classic Levallois-like and centripetal, bifacial and

unifacial discoidal forms (e. g. van Peer, 1992; Dibble & Bar-

Yosef, 1995). Most of them were rejected by diverse causes.

Figure 8(a) illustrates a turtle back core in early preparation

stage that shows raw material flaws (change of texture and

alveolus) making further flake detachment impossible. This fact

is also visible in the specimen illustrated in Figure 8(b), show-

ing very many impurities consisting in inclusions of soft mate-

rial in the chert. Another rejected core exhibits fissures across

its volume (Figure 8(d)). The specimen illustrated in Figure

8(c) shows the scar of a detached flake after preparation. A

clear product obtained from these cores shows the flake scars

resulting from the preparation of a plane striking platform

which is displayed in Figure 8(f). The ventral face exhibits a

pronounced bulb and a large eraillure flake, suggesting the use

of hard percussion flaking (Figure 8(f)). Tools made with these

blanks are diverse kinds of side-scrapers and knives (Figures

8(e)-(i)). They show uniform thickness and were very nicely

made by a careful flaking that regularized the useful edge.

2) Blade technology. At MC tools made on blade-like blanks

and cores resulting from their detachment were identified in the

middle archaeological level (Nami, 2007). Similar arti

ere also found in other sites of the area and places in Uruguay

(Figures 8(j)-(m); Meneghin, 1977). In fact, at the Vejigas-

Pilatos creek in the Santa Lucía river basin there are patches

with surface archaeological finds alternating Paleoindian con-

texts with fishtail points and large unifacial tools as well

stemmed Holocene projectile points and blade-tools (Figures

8(l)-(m)); Meneghin & Sánchez, 2009: Figure VIII). Prelimi-

nary, and from a technical viewpoint by comparison with other

blade and micro-blade assemblages from other parts of the

southern cone, these artifacts may be obtained using direct per-

cussion flaking (Nami & Bellelli, 1994; Nami, 1996a). Blades

were employed as blanks for manufacturing diverse unifacial

tools (Figures 8(j), (l)-(m)).

3) Bifacial knives. Along with the described cores and unifa-

cial tools, hunter-gatherers living in the study area during early

and middle Holocene had a h

fact, besides the prepared core techniques, they used careful

bifacial thinning strategies for manufacturing stone implements.

In the region there are delicate finished products-projectile

points, knives and other tools-reduced by excellent bifacial

flaking. Notably there are large bifacial knives that, after being

thinned by soft percussion flaking, were finished by short pres-

sure retouch. Depictions of this kind of tool are given in Figure

9 and Table 2. A remarkable piece belongs to the eroded de-

posits of LM site, probably bearing from the archaeological

component found in the transition between levels III and IV. It

was made on a flake-blank of reddish chert with yellow tones.

Close-ups in Figure 9(a) show that it was made employing a

non-patterned flake removal sequence (Callahan, 2010: Table 1)

with flake-scars that reach the centre of both faces. Bifacial

thinning flakes recovered in the lower level at LM site show

that Early Holocene knappers performed a careful bifacial

flaking by isolating platforms and using soft percussors. A

similar technique of manufacture is visible in other pieces from

Figure 8.

Examples of core and blade strategies used in some places of Uruguay

during the Holocene. (a)-(d) Prepared cores, (e)-(i) flakes and unifacial

stone tools made on flake-blanks detached from this sort of cores,

(j)-(m) Blades found on different lithic assemblages from Uruguay.

(j)-(k) middle Negro River, (l)-(m) Santa Lucía River basin. (e)-(m):

Same scale.

observed on Holocene stemmed projectile points

hose morphological variability must be investigated in detail

them displays a double beveled cross section (Figure 9(b)),

probably a sub-product of resharpening (Sollberger, 1971;

Creel, 1991: 44). Another hypothesis is that in the bifacial

knives, bevelling may be intended to obtain an asymmetrical

edge with lower values and sharper penetrating angles. Beveled

edges were

(Figures 9(e)-(f), (k)). Despite that beveled points were identi-

fied outside Uruguay in Península Mitre (Tierra del Fuego) and

Piedra del Aguila (Neuquén) in Argentina (Nami, 1986, 1987b),

this kind of edge treatment is a rare feature in South America.

Finally, similar bifacial knives belong to other neighbor locali-

ties, for example, southern Brazil (Miller, 1987: Figure 11(c);

Schmitz, 1987: Figures 16(c), (d)). Interestingly, the beveled

knife depicted in Figure 9(b) shows that it was bifacially

thinned by using edge-to-edge and/or overshot thinning strategy

previously identified in Solutrean and Clovis assemblages by

Stanford and Bradley (2012).

4) Ground implements. The eastern and southern part of the

Southern Cone is characterized by the use of a very distinctive

hunting weapon called boleadora or bola stone. In certain

places, it was still in use when the Europeans arrived, and fur-

thermore by the gauchos during historical times. The boleadora

H. G. NAMI

Figure 9.

Bifacial Holocene artifacts from the study area. (a)-(d) Knives, (e)-(j)

Remarkable projectile points. (e)-(f) and (k) Beveled, (g)-(h) Stemmed

with bodies of straight borders, (i) (j) Small Fell. (a)-(d) and (e)-(i):

Same scale.

is a thrown weapon consisting in one to three cords tied t

extremes; although there are a number

the early Holocene to historical times. Bolas stones

re widespread through the Uruguayan territory, crossing the

ina and

rounded stones in their

of shape variations (Métraux, 1949; González, 1953).

Archaeological evidence shows that this artifact was broadly

used from southern Brazil and NE Argentina to Tierra del

Fuego since

northern frontier in south Brazil. In the middle Negro River,

lithic assemblages with boleadoras were not dated. However,

by comparison with dated contexts from NE Argent

uthern Brazil (Rodríguez, 1998; Rodríguez & Cerutti, 1999;

Schmitz, 1987, 1990) they were likely used during the mid-

dle/late Holocene, when occurred the intensification of pecking

and ground techniques2. Their presence is a significant techno-

logical addition, reflecting changes of hunting strategies in the

region. Some specimens are illustrated in Figures 10(a)-(c)

showing delicacy in manufacture by pecking and grinding ap-

plied on soft to hard stones, such as sandstone, basalts and

granite (Figures 10(a)-(c)) and sometimes on marble (Figure

10(b)), a stone with quarries present in this country, mainly in

the south at Maldonado department. Further, if this rock came

from Europe, it implies that bolas belong to the post European

conquest, probably during the XVII to XIX centuries. Among

the bolas stones there is a special variation mostly consisting of

round objects with a varied number of protrusions in their pe-

rimeter, and for this reason they were commonly called rompe-

cabezas (Cordero, 1960) or bolas erizadas (bristling balls,

[Baeza et al., 1980]). Like the round bolas many also display a

channel called “waist” around their perimeter which was used

to bind the bola in the cord (Figures 10(a)-(c), (e)). Some of

them show the striae left by the abrasive process used in this

procedure (Figure 10(d)) while others exhibit polishing (Fig-

ure 10(f)). This sort of artifact is widespread from Salto Grande,

in the Uruguay River to the west (Cordero, 1960: Figure 30), to

the Atlantic coast in the east (Baeza et al., 1980). Crossing the

northern border there are bristling pieces in the state of Rio

Grande do Sul in southern Brazil (Schmitz et al., 1971) reach-

ing the Maldonado department in southern Uruguay (Cordero,

1960: Figure 34). An interesting functional topic arises from

these artifacts concerning their use just as a hunting weapon or

some kind of prestigious object that played some social role

among their owners. Likely, by the invested work in the manu-

facture and their rarity in the archaeological record, their func-

tion was related with the second alternative.

Lenticular stones are another remarkable ground implement

which are widespread in the area (Figures 10(h)-(i)). These

Figure 10.

Examples of pecking and ground Holocene artifacts. (a)-(c) Bola stones,

(d)-(g) Bristling stones, (h)-(i) Lenticular stones. (a)-(c) and (h)-(i):

Same scale.

2The Urupez archaeological site, located in Maldonado, yielded an archa-

eological component with bolas stones recently dated at 2.9 kya (Meneghin,

pers. comm. 2013).

H. G. NAMI

artifacts of unknown function, have circular forms with bicon-

vex cross sections. In general, their sizes are about 60 - 70 mm

and 20 - 40 mm width and thickness respectively. In their early

manufacture stages, percussion flaking was used, such as at

Hernandorena archaeological locality. Percussion marks around

the perimeter and surfaces suggest that some of them were

probably recycled or occasionally used as hammer-stones

(Figure 10(h)). These kinds of pieces were recorded all across

Uruguay and the Entre Ríos province in northeastern Argentina

(Serrano, 1932).

5) Raw material sources. Regionally, there are diverse raw

material sources which are available as primary and secondary

sources (Luedtke, 1979). About 2 km to the north of MC,

around Rincón del Bonete dam two quarry sites were identified.

They were named Rincon del Bonete 1 (RB1) and 2 (RB2)

respectively (Nami, 2007). RB1 shows extensive secondary

deposits of pebbles of diverse petrography and colors, ranging

from 5 to 20 cm in diameter, among them ordinary-to-very-

high-quality cherts. RB2 is a primary source characterized by

exposures of tabular nodules of silicified limestone. Similar

stones are found through Uruguay and also in Entre Ríos prov-

ince in Argentina. Diverse experiments (Nami, 2010a, 2013)

using this kind of rock showed that they have good to-very-

good flaking qualities, ranking 3.5 on Callahan’s (1979) lithic

grade scale (see also Luedtke, 1994: 86-87) and their flaking

quality also improves with heat treatment (Nami, 2010a). Iso-

lated exposures of small crystal quartz were observed in some

places, such as Colares and Cacique creek area (Nami, 2009)

Primary sources of small nodules of about 5 - 10 cm of white

are embedded in the basalt bedrock located in the

tain pieces are reported. In this

A microwear study on fishtail points is in progress (Nami &

ry results indicate that some of them,

tio

ization through time. Actually,

Paleoindian and early Holocene artefacts seem to be curated

formal flake and core technologies. There are differences be-

chalcedony

sites of the region, particularly in MC and LM. This shows bad

to regular flaking qualities due to the change of texture, fissures

and cleavage planes running through the nodules (Nami, 2013).

Microwear Analysis

In order to determine the precise nature of some artefacts and

to deepen our understanding of the stone tool function at the

Negro River, systematic microwear analysis using microscopes

is being performed on the lithic assemblages (Nami & Castro,

2010, 2012). A significant number of artefacts are being ana-

lyzed using this methodology. However, in this paper some

preliminary observations on cer

endeavor, a careful examination with the naked eye to identify

the morphology of the macro-technological attributes produced

by manufacture was firstly performed; furthermore, the mor-

phological damage on the edges was identified using a 80x

triocular stereoscopic magnifying glass with a zoom lens. Fi-

nally, use-wear analysis was done using the “high power” ap-

proach following the methodology developed by Keeley (1980).

Polishing intensity and striations were analyzed with a UNION

metallographic microscope with magnification between 100×

and 300×. Paleoindian unifacial tools from AC (Figures 6(b),

(c)) show that in spite that these artifacts came from an under-

water site, their edges and ridges do not show water alterations

such as rounding by water abrasion, salt deposit, or an opaque

patina (Nami & Castro, 2010). The generalized luster, however,

suggests some wind polishing with sand. The tool exhibited in

Figure 6(b) shows non-intensive generalized luster on the en-

tire surface and small striations with perpendicular orientation

to the functional edges, indicate that it was used to scrape an

unidentified hard substance (Nami & Castro, 2010: Figure 1(f)).

Both edges of the implement observed in Figure 6(c) have

polishing striations and a few semi-lunar flakes that suggest the

tool was used with a longitudinal action for cutting a hard sub-

stance, probably bone (Nami & Castro, 2010: Figures 1(g)-(h)).

Castro, 2012). Prelimina

in parts of the shoulder and the stem, show microscopic

leather-like polishing that might be attributed to leather or a

similar substance, probably the cord or sinew used to bind the

points into the foreshaft. Their position suggests that the bind-

ing was made where the polishing is observed, in other words,

up to blade-stem junction and shoulder. This fact, reinforces

previous assessments based on macroscopic observations that

edge abrasion on the stems edges imply that hafting was made

to the blade-stem intersection (Nami, 1985-1987). The surface

of the stem shows a coarse micro-topography and has patches

of black residues. The coarse micro-topography suggests the

use of an adhesive substance covering the whole stem, while

the black patches are probably the residue used to glue the

points in the foreshafts. Another likely Paleoindian artifact

analyzed is a biface found near a fishtail point at Los Espinillos

(Figures 3(s), 4( p)) that exhibits natural edges and only rem-

nants of platform preparation by abrasion; hence, it was not

used. By it size, this piece perfectly fits within an early stage 4

of manufacture of fishtail projectile points, such as has been

observed archaeologically and experimentally proposed (Nami,

2001b, 2003, 2010a, 2012d).

Discussion

In summary, investigations in Uruguay are yielding new data

on several topics related with the regional and continental ar-

chaeological process occurred during the last 11 ky. In this way,

excavations at LM and MC are providing evidence to under-

stand the chronology and archaeology in the middle Negro

River, and the morphological and functional differences be-

tween the Early and Middle Holocene lithic assemblages. Addi-

nally, studies on private collections allow to discover previ-

ously unidentified fishtail pieces and flaking strategies, besides

also going into depth in diverse aspects of the regional lithic

technology since the terminal Pleistocene. In this sense, high-

lights of lithic strategies and techniques involve prepared

flake-core and blade technology, refined bifacial thinning and

well-made flaked and ground implements. Bolas stones, mainly

the bristly pieces, biconvex discoids and projectile points are a

technological link with other surrounding areas, mainly with

southern Brazil and Northeastern Argentina.

A remarkable feature is that most sites are located near the

mouths of small creeks, such as the AC, MC and LM, a fact

that agrees with previous observations of similar assemblages

from the region (Schmitz, 1987; Rodriguez, 1998, 2001). MC

and LM might be considered as long term base camps. Both

shows high densities lithic tools and debitage, and are situated

on landforms allowing views of surrounding landscape, pro-

viding access to water, fuel, good quality flaking materials as

well animal and vegetal and other significant resources for

survival (Dillehay et al., 2011: 36).

The observed transformations between Late Pleistocene,

Early and Middle Holocene tools kits and artifacts may reflect

change in technological organ

H. G. NAMI

tween Middle and Late blages; the latter show

expedient and informal

me region were collected in

litis et al., 2011; Politis & Bonomo, 2011). Towards

the south, at the Quequén River basin, evidence of fishtail oc-

cupations was found at rtínez, 2001). South of

the Argentin

Holocene assem

tools made on nodules of chalcedony

available in the sites’ vicinity, suggesting a more expedient

technology with different mobility (Binford, 1979). The inten-

sification of ground stone implements also suggests a techno-

logical change.

On the other hand, research in the area is crucial to produce

new data on the earliest hunter-gatherers, and hence, to discuss

the regional colonization process. Despite that finds of Paleo-

South American remains are abundant all across Uruguay; the

Negro River provides the highest amount. By its size, this water

course probably resulted attractive for the early hunter-gather-

ers that colonized the southern cone. In this sense, the Uru-

guayan archaeological record must not be viewed as a local

phenomenon. The evidence is increasingly showing that certain

periods of the Uruguayan archaeological process is bound with

other areas of South America, mainly with southern Brazil and

Argentina. Conspicuous fishtail finds in southern Brazil and

Uruguay is fitting with the regional Late Pleistocene archaeo-

logical record that emerges from intense investigations per-

formed in the last decades in the Southern Cone (Politis et al.,

2008; Salemme & Miotti, 2008; Miotti et al., 2012; Nami,

2012c). During the terminal Pleistocene, the current Uruguayan

territory was part of the continental dispersion of the foragers

that used fishtail points in their weaponry across South America.

Despite that most Paleo-South Americans data belongs to sur-

face finds, the available evidence shows that during the last

millennia of the Pleistocene, Fell foragers occupied the current

Uruguayan territory. Undoubtedly, certain technological simi-

larities are shared with contemporaneous groups in other areas

of the continent; such as “fishtail” projectile points, discoid

stones, and unifacial stone tools.

Except Urupez site, located in southern Uruguay which

yielded two clear fishtail pieces from a context dated at ~11.6

and 10.6 kya (Meneghin, 2004, 2006; pers. comm., 2012; Nami,

2007, 2008), there is no other stratified site with this kind of

evidence. However, in the west of the country on the Uruguay

River, El Tigre and Isla de Arriba sites produced uncalibrated

14C ages spanning the timeframe of Fell occupations. The for-

mer yielded a date of 10,420 ± 90 years BP (Kn 2531, Hilbert,

1985, 1991: 15), while the latter one was dated in 11,200 ± 500

(Guidón, 1989) years BP. No diagnostic projectile points were

found at either site; however, they might be considered contexts

without projectile points of the same system, reflecting Pa-

leoindian inter-site variation (Nami, 1996b, 2007).

Across the Uruguayan northwestern border in southern Bra-

zil, at RS-I-69 (Laranjito) site a level with six dates ranging

between 10.2 and 10.8 kya yielded five stemmed points, one of

them matches the fishtail morphology (Miller, 1987: Figures

13(a), (e); Nami, 2012c: Figure 27(a)). Coincidently, RS-I-69 is

located in a flood plain deposit from the banks of the Uruguay

River, the natural border between Brazil, Argentina and Uru-

guay. It is worth mentioning that open air sites are disturbed by

a number of geological processes (Butzer, 2008). The integrity

of the archaeological record in sites located in the flood plain

deposits of significant watercourses, such as the Uruguay river

and its tributaries in northwestern Uruguay, might be affected

by the disturbing effects of alluvial processes existing in that

kind of high energy rivers (Ferring, 2000: 95). It is known that

in certain places of this area, extinct fauna, archaeological re-

mains and metal objects may be found at the same strati-

graphic level (F. López, pers. com. 2003; J. Femenías, pers.

com. 2006; A. Sánchez, pers. com. 2009). Interestly, in the area

a fishtail point was found near Salto along with ceramic re-

mains in a surface site in Salto Grande (Bosch et al., 1980: #29).

Additional Fell points from the sa

lto Grande and Arapey area (Hilbert, 1991: Figures 23, 3),

the mouth of Boicuá creek (Cordero, 1960: Figure 45), Los

Pinos (Suárez & López Mazz, 2003: Figure 4(b), (c) and 6),

Pay Paso locality (Suárez 2009: Figure 6.2) and Isla Itacumbú

(Suárez, 2011: Figure 3(a)). Just in front of the Uruguayan bor-

der, also along the Uruguay River, fishtail points were found at

the surface of Santa Lucía site (Serrano, 1932: Lam. XV: 11)

and near Monte Caseros in Argentina (Nami, 2007: Figures

1(b), (c)).

Conclusion

The Negro River basin was a significant fluvial course for

human settlement in terms of both its basin size and quantity of

archaeological remains. River basins in eastern South America

are providing stratified and surface sites dating to the time span

of Fell points. Also, the Santa Lucía River basin in southern

Uruguay shows a terminal Pleistocene paleoecological envi-

ronment with data of Fell hunter-gatherers (López et al., 2001;

Meneghin & Sánchez, 2009; Nami, 2011a). The area nearby the

current mouth of La Plata River, which during that time period

had a narrow course, likely similar to the present Uruguay

River (Cavalloto et al., 2002; Nami, 2012c: Figure 5). In its

basin, Urupez and Cerro Los Burros yielded data to understand

the earliest human occupation observed in the region. Urupez

produced evidence of a fishtail campsite (Meneghin, 2004;

2006; Nami, 2008) and Cerro los Burros, is a rhyolite quarry-

workshop that reveals early stages of manufacture and fishtail

points (Meneghin, 1977; Nami, 2001a). Finally, in the South-

west, in addition to the exemplar found at Real San Carlos

(Bosch et al., 1980: #31) there is a new Fell point find in the

Colonia department (FIG. 4n) witnessing the presence of these

early hunter-gatherers near the shores of La Plata River, cur-

rently a major bio-geographical barrier.

Crossing this estuary, other important water courses yielded

Paleoindian records in Argentina. Actually, during the terminal

Pleistocene a chain of lagoons existed in the current Luján

River basin, northeastern Buenos Aires province (Toledo,

2011). There, evidence of a Fell point was found in Luján (Ze-

ballos & Reid, 1876; Lehman-Nietsche, 1907; Nami, 2012c:

Figure 15(b)). Also, the Arroyo Frías site provided one of the

few human skeletal remains in the southern cone dated at about

10 kya (Po

Paso Otero 5 (Ma

e Pampas, in the Patagonian region of the Deseado

iver basin in eastern Santa Cruz province showed a number of

sites date to the time frame of the Fell hunters: at Los Toldos

and El Ceibo caves (Cardich, 1987), Piedra Museo rockshelter

(Salemme & Miotti, 2008), Casa del Minero, and Cerro Tres

Tetas caves (Paunero, 2000; Paunero et al., 2007). On the

southern tip, the Chico River basin in the Pali Aike volcanic

field, Paleoindian occupations were found at Fell and Pali Aike

caves (Bird, 1946, 1988).

At the same time, a similar pattern of river basin utilization

has been observed in Eastern USA (Dunbar, 2012) and by

Snarskis (1979) in Central America. Therefore, based on the

locales mentioned above, it is evident that watercourses were

H. G. NAMI

important places for the earliest human occupants in eastern

North and South America. As such, the Negro River basin

might be one of the dispersal “routes” for the colonizers’ bands

while foraging the landscape. Also, is possible that at that time,

the current continental shelf was used for the colonizers

diaspora from north to south and from east to west (Nami,

2001c). This kind of environment facilitated movements during

the colonization of northeast South America (Anderson & Gil-

lan, 2000). In fact, the presence of numerous Paleoindian re-

mains in the eastern part of the southern Cone, leads to reflect

rers who used the Fell pattern. In fact, there are

fis

issues related with the human migration across eastern South

America. Actually, first it was thought that the Pacific coast and

the Andean Cordillera in western South America were the

dispersal “route” of earliest settlers (Sauer, 1944; Mayer-Oakes,

1963; Schobinger, 1987); however, there are fishtails finds in

El Cayude, Los Planes de Giosne and Margarita island in

Venezuela (Jaimes, 1999; Nami, 2010a: Lam. If; 2012c: Figure

19(f); Szabadics Roka, 2010), Cuyuní River in British Guyana

(Evans & Meggers, 1960: Pl. 8d; Nami, 2012c: Figure 19(g)),

and east-central and southern Brazil (Schobinger, 1974; Politis,

1991; da Silva Lopes & Nami, 2011). As reported above, fish-

tail are conspicuous finds in Uruguay, Buenos Aires and,

eastern part of Santa Cruz provinces in Argentina. In con-

sequence, they reveal and suggest that the eastern part of South

America and the Atlantic slope was an additional “route”

during the colonization diaspora. Possibly the sources of water,

especially lakes and rivers were the favorite places for these

early foragers.

Finally, as mentioned above, many fishtail points from Cen-

tral and South America display true flutes. This distinctive

technical feature allows to discuss issues about their relation

with fluted points from North and Central America (Willey,

1966; Bryan, 1991; Politis, 1991; Nami, 1997, 2005, 2010a;

Morrow & Morrow, 1999; Faught, 2006; among others). Actu-

ally, the flinknapping techniques employed to manufacture

fluted points are highly specific and are generally thought to

imply “genetic” relationships between the hunter-gatherers that

produced these artefacts. These affiliations may be true relative

to the North American fluted points, but the stratigraphic rela-

tionships between the unfluted/fluted points of South America

and the coincident temporal occurrence of fluting between the

two hemispheres creates a highly interesting archaeological and

anthropological problem. Thus, to elucidate this question, an

in-depth comparative and experimental study considering clas-

sic western Clovis and Folsom from the Great Plains, and Fell

reduction sequences was conducted. Results from this investi-

gation conclude that except the fluting, there are many technical

and morphological differences among those patterns (Nami,

1997, 2003, 2005, 2010b, 2011b). However, beyond fluting

there are other technological features suggesting that hunter-

gatherers who made the “fishtail” points might not only be

related with North American Paleoindian but to the Upper Pa-

leolithic hunter-gatherers as well. In fact, the generic technical

attributes and shapes in stone and bone technology3 might im-

ply a historical or social relationship among the first foragers

that participated in the peopling of the Americas. In this regard,

the South American Paleoindians that used Fell projectile

points represent another member of a global family sharing

Upper Paleolithic technological knowledge used in their previ-

ous homeland (Nami, 2005, 2010b, 2010c). In this sense, cur-

rently there are more clues that allow thinking about the origins

of hunter-gathe

htail pieces in North America that despite certain technical

and morphological differences, fit with similar ones in Central

and South America. Several locales along the eastern coast of

North America yielded fishtail lanceolate points finished by

short pressure retouches on blanks partially or totally thinned

by bifacial percussion flaking. Referred to by different names

according the presence/absence of fluting, retouch morphology

and locality of finds (Faught, 2006; Dunbar, 2012), they are

found in Maryland (Lowery et al., 2011), Alabama (Futato,

1996: Figure 15.2), Georgia (Anderson et al., 1990: Figures 21,

22), Florida (Purdy, 1981; 2008: Figure 21(c)) and Texas (Red-

der, 1985: Figure 2(G)). In general, their morphology matches

the lanceolate variant of fishtail point found in Mexico

(Lorenzo, 1953; Santa María & García Bárcena, 1989: Figure

40), Belize (Hester et al., 1983), Guatemala (Coe, 1960), Costa

Rica (Swauger & Mayer-Oakes, 1952; Snarskis, 1979: Figures

2, 3; Sheets, 1994), Panamá (Bird & Cooke, 1979: Figures 6(a),

(b); Nami, 2012c Figure 19(c), (d)), Venezuela (Jaimes, 1999;

Pearson & Ream, 2005; Szabadics Roka, 2010), Ecuador (Bell,

1965: Figure 10(b)-(c); Nami, 2012c: Figure 21(c)), and other

South American localities (Nami, 2012c: Figure 21). A fish-

tailed “Clovis” and a fishtail point were found in the same

stratigraphic layer at Los Grifos cave in Mexico (Santa María &

García Bárcena, 1989: Figure 41), a fact that also occurred in

Turrialba site in Costa Rica (Snarskis, 1979: Figures 2, 3),

Madden Lake in Panama (Bird & Cooke, 1979: Figures 4 and 6)

and Los Planes de Giosne and El Cayude in Venezuela (Jaimes,

1999; Szabadics Roka, 2010). Interestingly, the areas of major

distribution of fluted points in North America are located in the

eastern part (Anderson & Faught, 1998). Consequently, a plau-

sible hypothesis is that the origin of the Fell pattern might be

related to Paleoindian fishtailed pieces located along the eastern

coast of North America, mainly in the southern states sur-

rounding the Gulf of Mexico and entered to South America via

Mexico and Caribbean continental shelve. The mutation or

transformation towards the Fell pattern and its varieties might

be in relation with some sort of environmental or social causes.

Of course, problems of chronology, reliable stratigraphic re-

cords and dispersion timing (Faught, 2006) must be solved in

order to arrive at consistent conclusions.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the Museo Nacional de Antropología de

Uruguay for having sponsored my archaeological research in

Uruguay; to A.Toscano, director of the museum, for his con-

stant support and help; to A. Florines for his constant support,

help, and counsel in different aspects of this research; to S.

Bálsamo, J. Bálsamo and V. Carbalho for their invaluable help

and support during the fieldwork at LM; to W. and Y. Aizpún,

N. and R. Barreto, D. Cramet, M. de las M. Cuadrado, and H.

Sansone for their help during the excavations at MC; to U.

Meneghin, Fundación de Arqueología Uruguaya, for facilitating

the study of diverse aspects of the artifacts depicted here; to A.

De Grossi and M. Albano for allowing us to work on their land;

to H. Erlenkeuser (Leibniz-Labor für Altersbestimmung und

Isotopenforschung, Universität Kiel Leibniz-Laboratory for

Radiometric Dating and Stable Isotope Research, Kiel Univer-

3Among the bone artifacts made by the hunter-gatherers that used fishtail

oints, there are beveled base bone points of excellent manufacture. They

were found in the lower levels of Fell´s cave (Nami, 2010c: Figure 4; pers.

obs., 1994; 1997).

H. G. NAMI

sity) for his help during the processing of the radiocarbon data;

to J. Feathers at the Luminiscence Dating Archaeology (Uni-

versity of Washington) kindly provided the OSL date; the Uni-

versity of Buenos Aires and CONICET (PIP-114-200801-

00344) for their continuous support; to S. Bálsamo, W. Aizpún,

V. Carbalho, S. Garrido and M. Albano for their help in the

study their collections; and especially to S. Bálsamo for his

continuous data input, kindness and generosity. This paper was

partially written during my stay at Dumbarton Oaks (Harvard

University) and the National Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution (Wa. D.C.).

REFERENCES

Ameghino, F. (1918). La antigüedad del hombre en el Plata. Buenos

Aires: La Cultura Argentina.

Anderson, D. G., Jerald, L. R., & O’Steen, L. (1990). Paleoindian

period archaeologty of Georgia.

Anderson, D. G., &istribution of fluted

y of Georgia. Athens: Universi

Faught, M. K. (1998). The d

paleoindian projectile points: Update 1998. Archaeology of Eastern

North America, 26, 163-188.

Anderson, D. G., & Gillan, J. C. (2000). Paleoindian colonization of the

Americas: Implications from examination of physiography, demo-

graphy, and artifct distribution. American Antiquity, 65, 43-66.

doi:10.2307/2694807

Andrefsky Jr., W. (1994). Raw-material availability and the organiza-

tion of technology. American Antiquity, 59, 21-34.

doi:10.2307/3085499

Anonymous. (2006). Discoidal stones.

Antón, D. (1975). Evolución geomorfológica del norte del Uruguay.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca. Dirección de Suelos y Ferti-

lizantes. Montevideo: Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca.

Baeza, J. (2005). El poblamiento aborigen. In A. B. Pintos (Ed.), Río

Negro-historia general I (pp. 59-68). Montevideo.

Baeza, J., Bosch, A., Femenías, J., de Bosch, M. M., Pinto, M., & de

Pinto, S. V. (1980). Informe sobre la zona costera Atlántica de Cabo

Polonio. In III Congreso Nacional de Arqueología. Anales. Monte-

video: CEA.

Baeza, J., Femenías, J., Suárez, R., & Florines, A. (2001). Investigación

arqueológica en el río negro medio (Informe preliminar). In Arqueo-

logía uruguaya hacia el fin del milenio (X Congreso Nacional de

Arqueología, Colonia del Sacramento, 16-19 de junio, 1997) (pp.

285-295). Montevideo: Asociación Uruguaya de Arqueología.

Barendrest, R. W. (1984). Using paleomagnetic remanence & magnetic

susceptibility data for the differentation, relative correlation and ab-

solute dating of quaternary sediments. In W. C. Mahaney, (Ed.),

Quaternary dating methods (pp. 101-140). Amsterdan: Elsevier.

Behling, H., Arz, H. W., Pätzold, J., & Wefer, G. (2002). Late quarter-

nary vegetational and climate dynamics in southeastern Brazil, in-

ferences from marine cores GeoB 3229-2 and GeoB 3202-1. Pale-

ogregraphy, Paleocli 227-243.

doi:10.1016/S0031-0

matology, Paleoecology, 179,

182(01)00435-7

Bell, R. (1965). Archaeological investigations at the site El Inga,

Ecuador. Quito: Casa de Cultura.

Bergman, C. A., & Newcomer, M. H. (1983). Flint arrowhead breakage:

Examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Journal of Field Archaeology,

10, 238-243.

Binford, L. R. (1979). Organization and formation process: Looking at

curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 35, 255-

273.

Bird, J. (1938). Before magellan. Natural History, 28, 16-28.

ird, J. (1946). The archeology of Patagonia. In J. H. Steward (Ed.),

Handbook of South American Indians 1 (pp. 17-24). Washington

, DC:

(1 “fishtail” projec-

ciety Papers, 40, 52-71.

Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology; Bulletin 143,

Smithsonian Institution.

969). A comparison of south Chilean and Ecuatorial

tile points. Kroeber Anthropological So

(1970). Paleoindian discoidal stones from South America. American

Antiquity, 35, 205-208. doi:10.2307/278152

988). Travels and archaeology in south Chile. In J. Hy(1slop (Ed.),

Buos de Panamá.

rovincia de Buenos Aires (Argentina), Uruguay e Río

Brola de

Sudamérica. Boletín de Arqu-

B for a cross-disciplinary geoarcha-

geomorph.2008.07.007

Iowa City: Iowa University Press.

ird, J., & Cooke, R. (1979). Los artefactos más antig

Revista Nacional de Cultura, 6, 7-29.

ombín, M. (1975). Afinidade paleoecologica, cronológica e estrati-

gráfica do componente de megamamíferos na biota do Quaternario

Terminal da p

Grande do Sul (Brasil). Comunicaçỡes do Museu de Ciệncias da

PUCRGS, 9, 1-28.

osch, A., Femenías, J., & Olivera, A. (1980). Dispersión de las puntas

líticas pisciformes en el Uruguay. III Congreso Nacional de Arqu-

eología. Anales. Montevideo: CEA.

Bossi, J. (1966). Geología del Uruguay. Montevideo: Universidad de la

República.

ossi, J., & Navarrro, R. (1998). Geología del Uruguay. Montevideo:

Universidad de la República.

Bradley, B., & Stanford, D. J. (1987). The Claypool study. In G. Frison,

& C. Todd (Eds.), The Horner site. The type site of the Cody cultural

complex (pp. 405-434). Orlando: Academic Press.

iceño. R. J. G. (1999). Quebrada Santa María: Las puntas c

pescado y la antigüedad del hombre en

eología PUCP, 3, 19-39.

utzer, K. W. (2008). Challenges

elogy: The intersection between environmental history and geomor-

phology. Geomorphology, 101, 402-411.

doi:10.1016/j.

sen, & K. L. Turnmire (Eds.), Clovis. Origins and adapta-

st Ameri-

th America, 7 (1), 1-180.

h.D.

(2ference. In H. G. Nami

pp. 561-659). Buenos Aires: Edi-

Coldos y El Ceibo (Provincia

22.3.335

Bryan, A. L. (1991). The fluted-point tradition in the Americas. One of

several adaptations to late plesitocene American environments. In R.

Bonnich

tions (pp. 15-33). Corvallis: Center for the Study of the Fir

cans.

allahan, E. (1979). The basics of biface knapping in the eastern fluted

point tradition. A manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts. Ar-

chaeology of Eastern Nor

(1981). Pamunkey housebuilding: An experimental study of late wood-

land construction technology in the Powhatan confederacy. P

Thesis, Washington DC: Catholic University of America.

010). Flake removal sequence and cultural in

(Ed.), Experiments and interpretation of traditional technologies:

essays in honor of Errett Callahan (

ciones de Arqueología Contemporánea.

ardich, A. (1987) Arqueología de Los T

de Santa Cruz, Argentina). Estudios Atacameños, 8, 98-117.

astiñeira, C., Cardillo, M., Charlin, J., & Baeza, J. (2011). Análisis de

morfometría geométrica en puntas cola de pescado del Uruguay.

Latin American Antiquity, 22, 335-358.

doi:10.7183/1045-6635.

uman peopling of South Amer-

C60). A fluted point from highland Guatemala. American

Cavalloto, J. L., Violante, R., & Nami, H. G. (2002). Late pleistocene-

holocene paleogeography and coastal evolution in the mouth of the

Rio de la Plata: Implications for the h

ica. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 19, 13-16.

oe, M. D. (19

Antiquity, 25, 412-413. doi:10.2307/277529

ordero, S. (1960). Los charrúasC. Montevideo: Editorial Mentor.

Creel, D. (1991) Bison hides in late prehistoric exchange in the sou-

thern plains. American Antiquity, 56, 40-49. doi:10.2307/280971

Silva, L. L., & Nami, H. G. (2011). A new fishtail point find from da

ress. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511793790.003

south Brazil. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 28, 104-107.

awe, B. (1997) Tiny arrowheads toys in the toolkit. Plains Anthro-

pologist, 42, 303-318.

DeBoer, W. R. (1993). Like a rolling stone: The chunkey game and

political organization in eastern North America. Southeastern Ar-

chaeology, 12, 83-92.

ibble, H. L., & Bar-Yosef, O. (1995). The definition and interpreta-

tion of Levallois technology. Madison: Prehistory Press.

Dillehay, T. D., Stakelbeck, K., Rossen, J., & Maggard, G. (2011).

Research history, methods, and site types. In T. Dillehay (Ed.), From

foraging to farming in the Andes: New perspectives on food produc-

tion and social organization (pp. 29-41). Cambridge: Cambridge

University P

H. G. NAMI

Dockall, J. E. (1997). Wear traces and projectile impacts: A review of

the experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of Field Ar-

chaeology, 24, 321-331.

Dumbar, J. S. (2012). The search for paleoindian contexts in Florida

and the adjacent southeast. Ph.D. Thesis, Tallahassee: The Florida

State University.

Emperaire, J., Laming-Emperaire, A., & Reichlen, H. (1963). La grotte

Fell et autres sites de la région volcanique de la Patagonie chilienne.

Journal de la Société des Américanistes, 52, 167-254.

doi:10.3406/jsa.1963.1996

Evans, C., & Meggers, B. J. (1960). Archeological investigations in

British Guiana. Washington DC: Bureau of American Ethnology

Paleoindian archaeology. A

183). Gainesville: University Press

Bulletin 177, Smithsonian Institution.

aught, M. K. (2006). Paleoindian archaeology in Florida and Panama.

In J. E. Morrow, & C. Gnecco (Eds.),

Hemispheric perspective (pp. 164-

of Florida.

eathers, J. K. (1997). The application of luminescence dating in Ame-

rican archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 4,

1-66. doi:10.1007/BF02428058

(2003). Use of luminescence dating in archaeology. Measurement Sci-

ence and Technology, 14, 1493-1509.

doi:10.1088/0957-0233/14/9/302

Feathers, J., & Nami, H. G. (2012). Luminiscence dates of sediments

from Los Molles Site.

Femenías, J., Nami, H. G., Florines, A., & Toscano, A. (2011). GIS

archaeological site record and remarks on paleoindian finds in the

. New York: Kluver Academic/Plenum

F In El

tocene, 6, 12-13.

. Vuoto (Eds.), Los tres reinos: Prácticas de reco-

Fos líticos atri-

n espacio, de los correspondientes a otras

Fr clovis weaponry and tools on

Rio Negro River Basin, Central Uruguay. Current Research in the

Pleistocene, 28, 98-101

Ferring, C. R. (2000). Goarchaeology in alluvial landscapes. In P.

Goldberg, V. T. Holliday, & C. R. Ferring (Eds.), Earth sciences and

archaeology (pp. 77-106)

Publishers.

igueira, J. H. (1892). Los primitivos habitantes del Uruguay.

Uruguay en la exposición histórica americana de Madrid (pp. 121-

219). Montevideo: Imprenta Artística Americana de Dornaleche y

Reyes.

langini, T. (1972). Un yacimiento precerámico en la zona de Playa

Verde (dpto. de Maldonado). Montevideo: CEA.

Flegenhemier, N., & Zárate, M. (1990). Paleoindian occupations at

cerro El Sombero Locality, Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Cur-

rent Research in the Pleis

Flegenheimer, N., & Bayón, C. (1999). Abastecimiento de rocas en

sitios pampeanos tempranos: Recolectando colores. In C. Aschero, M.

A. Krostanje, & P

lección en el cono sur de América (pp. 95-107). S. M. de Tucumán:

Magna Publicaciones.

ranco, N. V. (2002). Es posible diferenciar los conjunt

buidos a la exploración de u

etapas del poblamiento? El caso del extremo sur de la Patagonia,

Werken, 3, 119-132.

ison, G. C. (1989). Experimental use of

African elephants. American Antiquity, 54, 766-784.

doi:10.2307/280681

ison, G. C., & Bradley, G. (1980). Folsom tools and technology at the

Hanson site.

New York: Academic Press.

c southeast (pp. 298-314). Tusca-

Gs áreas de dispersión y tipos.

Universidad Eva Perón (Sección

GThe brand site: A techno-functional study of a

e Educación y Cultura.

HSteele, D. G., & Eaton, J. D. (1983). Fluted projectile

henden Archäeologie, 7, 447-561.

Futato, E. M. (1996). A synopsis of paleoindian and early archaic

research in Alabama. In D. G. Anderson, & K. J. Sassaman (Eds.),

The paleoindian and early archai

loosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.

onzález, A. R. (1953). La boleadora. Su

Revista del Museo del Museo de la

Antropología, N. S.), 4, 133-292.

oodyear, A. C. (1974).

dalton site in northeast Arkansas. Arkansas archeological survey.

uidón, N. (1989). Descripción de los sondeos y las excavaciones. In

Misión de rescate arqueológico de Salto Grande (pp. 434-458).

Montevideo: Ministerio d

Haynes, V. T. (1968). Geochronology of a late quaternary alluvium. In

R. B. Morrison, & H. E. Wright (Eds.), Means of correlation of late

quaternary successions (pp. 591-631). Salt Lake City: Utah Press.

ester, T. R.,

point from Belize, Central America. Lithic Technology, 11, 29-34.

ilbert, K. (1985). Archäelogische fundplätze des Río Uruguay, tigre

und des Mandiyú, Republik Uruguay. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen und

Vergleic

Hilbert, K. (1991). Aspectos de la arqueología en el Uruguay. Main Am

Rheim: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Holliday, V. T. (1985). Archaeological geology of the Lubbock Lake

site, southern Highplains of Texas. Geological Society of America

Bulletin, 96, 1483-1492.

doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1985)96<1483:AGOTLL>2.0.CO;2

iarte, J. (2006). Vegetation and climate change since 14,810 14C yr

B.P. in southeastern Uruguay and implications for the rise of early

formative societies. Quaternary Research, 65, 20-32.

ckson, S. D., & Ménde

Jaz, M. C. (2007). Litos discoidales tempranos

en contextos de Patagonia. Magallania, 35, 43-52.

doi:10.4067/S0718-

ckson, D., Méndez, C., Seguel, R., Maldonado. A., & Vargas, G.

(2007). Initial occup

ation of the Pacific coast of Chile turing late

pleistocene times. Current Anthropology, 48, 725-731.

doi:10.1086/520965

mes, A. (1999). NuevJaias evidencia

s de cazadores recolectores y apro-

ximación al entendimiento del uso del espacio geográfico en el

noroccidente de Venezuela. Sus implicaciones en el contexto

suramericano. Arqueología del Área Intermedia, 1, 83-120.

eeley, L. H. (1980). Experimental determination of stone tool uses: A

microwear analysis. London: The University of Chicago Press.

982). Hafting and retooling: Effects in the archaeo(1logical record.

American Antiquity, 47, 798-809. doi:10.2307/280285

aguens, A., Pautassi, E. A., Sario, G. M., & Cattáneo, G. R. (2007).

ELS1, a fishtail projectile point sit

e from central Argentina. Current

Research in the Pleistocene, 24, 55-57.

ehmann, N. R. (1907). Nouvelles recherches sur al formation paLm-

peane et l’homme fossile de la République Argentina. Revista del

Museo de la Plata, 14, 143-488.

avallée, D., Michèle, J., Wheeler, J., & Karlin, C.L (1985). Telarma-

chay: Chasseurs et pasteurs préhistoriques des Andes. Paris: Institut

français d’études andines. IFEA-Association pour la diffusion de la

pensée française.

Lohse, J. C., Awe, J., Griffith, C., Rosenswig, R. M., & Valdez Jr., F.

(2006). Preceramic occupations in Belize: Updating the paleoindian

and archaic record. Latin American Antiquity, 17, 209-226.

doi:10.2307/25063047

López, F., Femenías, J., & Nami, H. G. (2001). Fell evidence and new

data on late-pleistocene landscape from Canelones, Uruguay. Cur-

rent Research in the Pleistocene, 18, 41-44.

López Romanelli, F. (2012). El yacimiento “Los Ciervos”: Hallazgos

paleontológicos y arqueológicos en sedimentos de la transición

pleistocenoholoceno (Depto. de Lavalleja, Uruguay). Orígenes, 11,

1-16.

López Mazz, J., Gascue, A. A., & Moreno, R. F. (2003-2004). La

prehistoria del este de Uruguay: Cambio cultural y aspectos am-

bientales. Anales de Prehistoria y Arqueología, 19-20, 9-24.

Lorenzo, J. L. (1953). A fluted point from Durango, Mexico. American

Antiquity, 18, 394-395. doi:10.2307/277113

Lowery, D., Wah, J., & Rick, T. (2011). Post-last glacial maximum

dune sequence for the “Parsonburg” formation at Elliott’s island,

Maryland. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 28, 134-135.

uedtke, B. (1979). The identification of sources of cLhert artifacts.

American Antiquity, 44, 744-757. doi:10.2307/279116

(1994). An archaeologist’s guide to chert and flint. Los Angeles: Insti-

tute of Archaeology, University of California.

upo, K. (1994). Butchering marks and carcass acquisition strategies: L

Distinguishing hunting from scavenging in archaeological contexts.

Journal of Archaeological Science, 21, 827-837.

doi:10.1006/jasc.1994.1080

Mac Neish, R. S., Nelken-Terner, A., & Vierra, R. K. (1980). Introduc-

tion. In R. S. Mac Neish, R. K. Vierra, A. Nelken-Terner, & C. J.

Phagan (Eds.), The prehistory of the Ayacucho basin, Peru. Vol. III,

Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

H. G. NAMI

Maggard, G., & Dillehay, T. (2011). El Palto phase (13800-9800 BP).

In T. Dillehay (Ed.), From foraging to farming in the Andes: New

perspectives on food production and social organization (pp. 77-94).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511793790.005

artínez, G. (2001). “Fishtail” projectile points and megamammals:

New evidence fro

m Paso Otero 5 (Argentina). Antiquity, 75, 523-

528.

artinez, S., & Ubilla, M. (2004). El cuaternario en Uruguay. In

Cuencas sedimentarias de Uruguay: Cenozoico (pp. 195-227). Mon-

tevideo: DIRAC, Facultad de Ciencias.

Mayer-Oakes, W. (1963). Early man in the Andes. Scientific American,

208, 117-128. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0563-116

986a). El Inga. A paleoindian site in the sierra of northern Ecuador. (1

M010). Fishtail points: First

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 76, 1-335.

(1986b). Early man projectile points and lithic technology in the Ecua-

dorean sierra. In A. Bryan (Ed.), New evidence for the pleistocene

peopling of the Americas (pp. 281-294). Orono: Center for the Study

of the Early Man.

Meneghin, U. (1977). Nuevas investigaciones en los yacimientos del

“Cerro de los Burros,” Montevideo: Imprenta Timón.

(2000). Artefactos líticos elaborados por picado y abrasión del Cerro de

los Burros (Yacimiento II), Uruguay. Comunicación Antropológica

del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Montevideo, 20, 1-24.

(2004). URUPEZ. Primer registro radiocarbónico (C-14) para un

yacimiento con puntas líticas pisciformes del Uruguay. Orígenes, 2,

1-30.

(2006). Un nuevo registro radiocarbónico (C-14) en el yacimiento

Urupez II, Maldonado, Uruguay. Orígenes, 5, 1-7.

(2011). Observaciones sobre algunos artefactos líticos discoidales

registrados en el Uruguay. Orígenes, 10, 1-32.

Meneghin, U., & Sánchez, A. (2009). Hallazgo de artefactos líticos y

megafauna en el cauce de los arroyos Vejigas y Pilatos (Depto. de

Canelones, Uruguay). Origenes, 8, 1-24.

Métraux, A. (1949). The boleadoras. In J. Steward (Ed.), Handbook of

South American Indians (pp. 229-263). Washington DC: Smithson-

ian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143.

iller, E. T. (1987). Pesquisas arqueológicas paleoindígenas no Brasil

Ocidental. Estudios Atacameños, 8, 37-61.

Miotti, L., & Cattaneo, R. (1997). Lithic technology at 13000 years ago

in southern Patagonia. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 14, 62-

65.

iotti, L., Hermo, D., & Terranova, E. (2

evidence of late-pleistocene hunter-gatherers in Somuncura Plateau

(Rio Negro Province, Argentina). Current Research in the Pleisto-

cene, 28, 22-24.

Miotti, L., Salemme, M., Flegenheimer, N., & Goebel, T. (2012).

Southbound. Late pleistocene peopling of Latin America. Corvallis:

Center for the Study of the First Americans.

Morello, F. (2005). Tecnología y métodos para el desbaste de lascas en

el norte de Tierra del Fuego: Los núcleos del sitio Cabo San Vicente.

Magallania, 33, 29-56. doi:10.4067/S0718-22442005000200004

Moro, R. S., de Mattos, B. C. E., de Melo, M. S., & Schmitt, J. (2004).

Paleoclimate of the late pleistocene and holocene at Lagoa Dourada,

Paraná State, southern Brazil. Quaternary International, 114, 87-99.

doi:10.1016/S1040-6182(03)00044-2

orrow, J. E., & Morrow, T. A. (1999). Geographic variation in fluted M

projectile points: A hemispheric perspective. American Antiquity, 64,

215-230. doi:10.2307/2694275

Nami, H. G. (1985-1986). Excavación arqueológica y hallazgo de una

punta de proyectil “Fell I” en la Cueva del Medio, Seno de Ultima

Esperanza, Chile. Informe Preliminar. Anales del Instituto de la

Patagonia, 16, 103-109.

(1986). On a beveled point from Tierra del Fuego. Flintknapping Di-

gest, 3, 7-9.

(1987a). Cueva del Medio: Perspectivas arqueológicas para la Patago-

nia Austral. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 17, 71-106.

(1987b). Lithic technology from South America (IV): More comments.

Flintknapping Digest, 4, 2.

(1992a). Nuevos datos en relación a las puntas de proyectil paleoindias

encontradas en el Cono Sur (Neuquén, Argentina). Palimpsesto.

Revista de Arqueología, 1, 71-74.

992b). Noticia sobre la existencia de técni(1 ca “Levallois” en Península

(1 nica del

(1 éplica de las micro-

(1 New assessments of early human occupations in the southern

olectores del tardiglacial: El problema Clovis-Cue-

ales del Instituto de la

ne,

esearch in the Pleistocene, 17, 104-

ropology,

Mitre, extremo sudoriental de Tierra del Fuego. Anales del Instituto

de la Patagonia, 21, 73-80.

994). Reseña sobre los avances de la arqueología finipleistocé

extremo sur de Sudamérica. Chungara, 26, 145-163.

996a). Observaciones experimentales sobre la r

hojas y lascas de arista de Piedra del Aguila 11. Præhistoria, 2, 113-

125.

996b).

cone. In T. Akazawa, & E. J. E. Szathmáry (Eds.), Prehistoric mon-

goloid dispersals (pp. 254-269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

997a). Investigaciones actualísticas para discutir aspectos técnicos de

los cazadores-rec

va Fell. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 25, 152-186.

997b). Más datos sobre la existencia de núcleos preparados y lascas

predeterminadas en la Patagonia Austral. An

Patagonia, 25, 223-227.

998). Technological observations on the paleoindian artifacts from

Fell’s cave, Magallanes, Chile. Current Research in the Pleistoce

15, 81-83.

999). The folsom biface reduction sequence: Evidence from the Lin-

denmeier collection. In D. S. Amick (Ed.), Folsom lithic technology:

Explorations in structure and variation (pp. 82-97). Ann Arbor: In-

ternational Monographs in Prehistory.

(2000). Technological comments of some paleoindian lithic artifacts

from Ilaló, Ecuador. Current R

107.

(2001a). New data on Fell lithic technology from Paso del Puerto, Río

Negro Basin, Uruguay. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 18, 47-

50.

(2001b). Consideraciones tecnológicas preliminares sobre los artefactos

líticos de Cerro de los Burros (Maldonado, Uruguay). Comunica-

ciones Antropológicas de los Museos Nacionales de Historia Natural

y Antropología de Montevideo, 3, 1.

(2001c). Paleoindian archaeological evidence and two cases of land

bridges in southern South America. In W. W.-S. Yim, & A. R. Chi-

vas (Eds.), Continental shelves during the last glacial cycle (pp.

43-45). Hong Kong: Department of Earth Sciences, University of

Hong Kong.

(2003). Experimentos para explorar la secuencia de reducción Fell de la

Patagonia austral. Magallania, 30, 107-138.

005). Primeros pobladores: Arqueología y experimentos para ex-

plorar los comienzos de la diversidad socio-cultural americana. In

Diversidad cultural. Múltiples miradas del presente (pp. 19-41).

Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios Argentino-Canadienses.

(2006). Experiments to explore the paleoindian flake-core technology

in southern Patagonia. In J. Apel, & K. Knutsson (Eds.), Skilled

production and social reproduction. Aspects on traditional stone tool

technologies (pp. 69-80). Uppsala: Uppsala University, Societas Ar-

chaeologica Upsaliensis (SAU) & The Deparment of Archaeology

and Ancient History.

007). Research in the middle Negro River Basin (Uruguay) and the

paleoindian occupation of the southern cone. Current Anth

48, 164-176. doi:10.1086/510465

(2008). Paleomagnetic results from the Urupez Paleoindian Site,

Maldonado Department, Current Research in the Pleisto- Uruguay.

Paleo-Southamericans. Current Research

tudy. In H. G. Nami (Ed.), Experiments and interpretation of

(2010c). Late pleistocene technology in the new world: Bone artifacts

cene, 25, 40-43.

009). Crystal quartz and fishtail projectile points: Considerations on

raw materials selection by

in the Pleistocene, 26, 9-12.

010a). Tecnología paleoindia de Sudamérica: Nuevos experimentos y

observaciones para conocer la secuencia de reducción Fell. Origenes,

9, 1-40.

(2010b). Experiments to understand North and South American late

pleistocene lithic reduction sequences: An actualistic and compara-

tive s

traditional technologies: Essays in honor of Errett Callahan (pp.

203-253). Buenos Aires: Ediciones de Arqueología Contemporánea.

from Cueva del Medio and other sites in the southern cone of South

H. G. NAMI

America. In A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, & V.

Scheinsohn (Eds.), Ancient and modern bone artefacts from America

to Russia. Cultural, technological and functional signature (pp. 279-

(2gaciones actualístico-experimentales para aproximarse

Patagonia. In A. Mor-

(2 nomalous

(2l último milenio del pleistoceno en el cono sur

odalités d’occupation de l’Amé-

en Sudamérica. In E. Boëda, M. Farias,

the Pleistocene, 27, 25-28.

ección de Cultura,

Pntal Uruguayan Ceno-

M. Del Giorgio. (2007). Investigaciones

(pp. 577-588).

ene, 15, 34-37.

P-

iocarbon, 43, 595-

esport and London: Bergin & Garvey.

t human skeletons from the Argentine

Histori-

Pos sobre el “Hombre

Pology. Gainesville:

nos Aires: Editorial Planeta.

286). Oxford: BAR International Series.

011a). Exceptional Fell projectile points from Uruguay: More data on

Paleoindian technology in the southern cone. Current Research in

the Pleistocene, 28, 112-116.

011b). Investi

a la tecnología paleoindia: Comparación de las secuencias de

reducción Folsom-Lindenmeier y Fell de la

gado, J. B. Preysler, & D. G. González (Eds.), La investigación expe-

rimental aplicada a la arqueología (pp. 97-103). Ronda: Universidad

de Granada-Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

012a). New detailed holocene paleomagnetic records with a

geomagnetic field behavior in Argentina. Geoacta. Revista de la

asociación argentina de Geofísicos y geodestas, 37, 83-116.

012b). Paleomagnetic results from Argentinean Patagonia: New evi-

dence for the holocene geomagnetic excursion in southern South

America. In Geological Epochs. Academiaedu Publishers. In press.

012c). Arqueología de

de Sudamérica, puntas de proyectil y observaciones sobre tecnología

paleoindia en el nuevo mundo. In E. Boëda, M. Farias, & A.

Lourdeau (Eds.), Peuplement et m

rique du sud: L’apport de la technologie lithique/Povoamento e

modalidades de ocupação humana na América do Sul: A contri-

buição da tecnologia lítica. France, In press.

(2012d). Secuencias de reducción bifaciales paleoindias y puntas Fell

en el valle del Ilaló (Ecuador): Observaciones para comprender la

tecnologia lítica pleistocénica

& A. Lourdeau (Eds.), Peuplement et modalités d’occupation de

l’Amérique du sud: L’apport de la technologie lithique/Povoamento

e modalidades de ocupação humana na América do Sul: A

contribuição da tecnologia lítica. France, In press.

013). Experimental observations on some non-optimal materials from

southern South America.

ami, H. G., & Bellelli, C. (1994). Hojas, experimentos y análisis de

desechos de talla. Implicaciones arqueológicas para la Patagonia

centro-septentrional. Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de Antropo-

logía y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, 15, 199-223.

ami, H. G., Norton, M. R., Stanford, D. J., & Broster, J. B. (1996).

Comments on eastern Clovis lithic technology at the Carson-

Conn-Short site (40BN 190), Tennessee River Valley. Current Re-

search in the Pleistocene, 13, 62-64.

Nami, H. G., & Castro, A. (2010). New paleoindian finds and micro-

wear analysis at Arroyo Cacique Site, Tacuarembó Department,

Uruguay. Current Research in

(2012). Recent paleo-southamericans finds, technology and microwear

analysis from the middle Negro River, Uruguay.

ami, H. G., & Florines, A. (2012). Paleoambiente y arqueología

paleoindia en la cuenca del rio Negro: Relevamiento y evaluación del

sitio “Jorge Femenías” (San Gregorio de Polanco, departamento de

Tacuarembó). Project presented at the Dir

Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, República Oriental del Uruguay.

ewcomer, M. H. (1980). Savoir utiliser les outils préhistoriques.

Dossiers de l'Archéologie, 46, 18-23.

Nuñez, L., Casamiquela, R., Schiappacasse, V., Niemeyer, H., &.

Villagrán, C. (1994). Cuenca de Taguatagua en Chile: El ambiente

del pleistoceno y ocupaciones humanas. Revista Chilena de Historia

Natural, 67, 503-519.

lausson, D. S. (1982-1983). Flint and gounstone axes in the Scanian

neolitic. An evaluation of raw materials based on experiment. Lund:

Scripta Minora 2.

swalt, W. (1976). An anthropological analysis of food-getting tech-

nology. New York: Wiley.

anario, D. & Gutiérrez, O. (1999). The contine

zoic: An overview. Quaternary International, 62(1), 75-84.

atané, A. J., & Nami, H. G. (2011). The first paleoindian fishtail point

find in Salta province, northwestern Argentina.

aunero, R. (2000). Localidad arqueológica cerros Tres Tetas. In L.

Miotti, R. Paunero, M. Salemme, & G. Cattáneo (Eds.), Guía de

campo de la visita a las localidades arqueológicas (pp. 89-100). La

Plata: FCNyM, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

Paunero, R., Frank, A., Skarbun. F., Rosales, R., Cueto, M., Zapata, G.,

Paunero, M., Lunazzi, N., &

arqueológicas en Sitio Casa Del Minero 1, Estancia La María, meseta

central de Santa Cruz. In F. Morello, M. Martinic, A. Prieto, & G.

Bahamonde (Eds.), Arqueología de fuego-patagonia. Levantando

piedras, desenterrando huesos y develando arcanos

Punta Arenas: CEQUA.

earson, G., & Bostrom, P. (1998). A new fluted stemmed point from

Belize and its implication for a circum-Caribbean paleoindian culture

area. Current Research in the Pleistoc

Pearson, G., & Ream, J. (2005). Clovis on the Caribbean coast of

Venezuela. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 22, 28-30.

essenda, L.C.R., Gouveia, S.E.M., & Aravena, R. (2001). Radiocar

bon dating of total soil organic matter and humin fraction and its

comparison with 14˚C ages of fossil charcoal. Rad

601.

olitis, G. (1991). Fishtail projectile points in the southern cone of

South America: An overview. In R. Bonnichsen, & K. L. Turnmire

(Eds.), Clovis, origins and adaptations (pp. 287-302). Corvallis:

Center for the Study of the First Americans.

(1998). Arqueología de la infancia: Una perspective etnoarqueológica.

Trabajos de Prehistoria, 55, 5-19.

(2002). The pampean foragers. In C. Briones, & J. L. Lanata (Eds.),

Archaeological and anthropological perspectives on the native peo-

ples of Pampa, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego to the niniteenth

century (pp. 31-45). W

Politis, G., Prates, L., & Perez, S. (2008). El poblamiento de América.

arqueología y bío-antropología de los primeros americanos. Buenos

Aires: EUDEBA.

Politis, G., Barrientos, G., & Stafford, T. (2011). Revisiting ameghino:

New 14C dates from ancien

Pampas. In D. Vialou (Ed.), Premiers peuplements et préhistoire du

continent Américain (pp. 43-54). París: Comité des Travaux

ques et Scientifiques.

olitis, G. G., & Bonomo, M. (2011). Nuevos dat

fósil” de Ameghino. In J. C. Fernícola, A. R. Prieto, & D. G. Lazo,

(Eds.), Vida y obra de Florentino Ameghino (pp. 101-119). Buenos

Aires: Asociación Paleontológica Argentina.

urdy, B. A. (1981). Florida’s prehistory stone techn

University Presses of Florida.

urdy, B. A. (2008). Florida’s people during the last Ice Age. Gains-

ville: The University Press of Florida.

anere, A., & Cooke, R. (1995). Evidencias de ocupación humana en

Panamá a postrimerías del Pleistoceno y a comienzos del holoceno.

In I. Cavelier, & S. Mora (Eds.), Ambito y ocupaciones tempranas de

la América tropical (pp. 5-26). Bogotá: Fundación Erigaie.

Raup, J. W. (1976). Some experiments with replica projectile points

used as arrow points. In E. Callahan (Ed.), The APE. experimental

archaeology papers 4 (pp. 281-303). Richmond: Department of So-

ciology and Anthropology, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Redder, A. (1985). Horn shelter No. 2: The south end a preliminary

report. Central Texas Archeologist, 10, 37-65.

Reimer, P. J., Brown, T.A., & Reimer, R.W. (2004a). Discussion: Re-

porting and calibration of post-bomb 14C data. Radiocarbon, 46,

1334.

(2004b). Discussion: Reporting and calibration of post-bomb 14C data.

Radiocarbon, 46, 1299-1304.

odriguez, J. A. (1998). Esquemas de integración cultural y síntesis en

la arqueología del noreste argentino. In Homenaje, Alberto Rex

González, 50 años de aportes al desarrollo y consolidación de la

antropología argentina (pp. 121-153). Buenos Aires: Fundación

Argentina de Antropología y Facultad de Filosofía y Letras.

(2001). Nordeste prehispánico. In E. E. Berberián, A. E. Nielsen, & M.

E. Albeck (Eds.), Historia argentina prehispánica (pp. 693-736).

Córdoba: Brujas, II.

Rodríguez, J., & Cerutti, C. (1999). Las tierras bajas del Nordeste y

litoral mesopotámico. In Nueva historia de la Nación Argentina 1

(pp. 109-122). Bue

Salemme, M., & Miotti, L. (2008). Archaeological hunter-gatherer

landscape since the latest pleistocene in Fuego-Patagonia. In J. Ra-

H. G. NAMI

bassa (Ed.), The late cenozoic of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (pp.

437-483). Rotterdam: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S1571-0866(07)10022-1

anta María, D., & García Bárcena, J. (1989). Puntas de proyectil,

cuchillos y otras herram

ientas sencillas de Los Grifos. México D.F.:

Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

auer, C. O. (1944). A geographic sketch of early man in America.

Geographical Review, 34, 529-573. doi:10.2307/210028

charpenseel, H. W. (1971). Radiocarbon daSting of soils-problems,

em: University Press.

ics, 3, 143-156.

troubles, hopes. In D. H, Yaalon, Ed., Paleopedology. Origin, nature

and dating (pp. 77-88). Jerusal

Scharpenseel, H. W., & Schiffmann, H. (1977). Soil radiocarbon analy-

sis and soil dating. Surveys in Geophys

doi:10.1007/BF01449190

chmitz, P. I. (1987). Prehistoric hunter and gatherers of Brazil. Jour-

nal of World Prehistory, 1, 53-126.

doi:10.1007/BF00974817

chmitz, P. I. (1990). O povoamento pleistocênico do Brasil. RSevista de

S de pescado” de La

egle Americanisti 1 (pp. 33-50).

Arqueología Americana, 1, 37-60.

chmitz, P. I., Basile, B, I. I., Baumhardt, G., & Proenza, B. J. J. (1971).

Bolas de boleadora no Rio Grande do sul. In O homen antigo na

América (pp. 53-68). São Paulo: Instituto de Pré-Historia, Univer-

sidade de São Paulo.

chobinger, J. (1971). Una punta de tipo “cola

Crucesita (Mendoza). Anales de Arqueología y Etnología, 26, 89-97.

974). Nuevos hallazgos de puntas “cola de pescado” y consi-

deraciones en torno al origen y dispersión de la cultura de cazadores

superiores toldense en Sudamérica. In E. Cerulli, (Ed.), Atti del XL

Congresso Internazionale d

Roma-Genova: Tilgher.

987). La patagonia en el marco de las más antigua prehistoria

Americana. In Comunicaciones. Primeras jornadas de arqueología

de la Patagonia (pp. 279-293). Rawson: Dirección de Cultura de la

Provincia.

Serrano, A. (1932). Exploraciones arqueológicas en el río Uruguay

medio. Paraná: Talleres gráficos Casa Predassi.

heets, P. D. (1994). CShipped stone artifacts from the cordillera de

Tilarán. In P. D. Sheets, & B. R. MCkee (Eds.), Archaeology, Vol-

canism, and remote sensing in the Arenal Region, Costa Rica (pp.

211-254). Austin: Texas University Press.

Snarskis, M. J. (1979). Turrialba: A Paleo-Indian quarry and workshop

site in eastern Costa Rica. American Antiquity, 44, 125-138.

doi:10.2307/279194

ollberger, J. B. (1971). A technological study of beveled knives. S

Suman occu-

Plains Anthropologist, 16, 209-218.

tanford, D. J., & Bradley, B. (2012). Across the Atlantic ice. The ori-

gins of American´s Clovis culture. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

teele, J., & Politis, G. (2009). AMS 14C dating of early h

pation of southern South America. Journal of Archaeological Sci-

ence, 36, 419-429. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.024

tein, J. K. (1992). Organic matter in arcaheological coSntexts. In V. T.

Holliday (Ed.), Soils in archaeology (pp. 193-216). Washington DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press.

uárez, R. (2003). PaleoindiaSn components in north Uruguay: New data

on early human occupations of the late pleistocene and early holo-

cene. In L. Miotti, M. Salemme, & N. Flegenheimer (Eds.), Where

the south winds blow (pp. 29-36). Corvallis: Center for the Study of

the First American.

(2009). Arqueología durante la transición pleistoceno-holoceno:

Componentes paleoindios y movilidad de los primeros americanos

en Uruguay. Doctoral Dissertation, La Plata: Universidad Nacional

de La Plata.

(2011). Movilidad, acceso y uso de agata traslúcida por los cazadores-

recolectores tempranas durante la transición pleistoceno-holoceno en

el norte de Uruguay (ca. 11,000-8500 A.P.). Latin American Anti-

quity, 22, 359-384. doi:10.7183/1045-6635.22.3.359

S López Mazz, J. M. (2003). Archaeology of the pleisto- uárez, R., &

cene-holocene transition in Uruguay: An overview. Quaternary

International, 109-110, 65-76.

doi:10.1016/S1040-6182(02)00203-3

wauger, J. L., & Mayer-Oakes, W. J. (1952). A fluted point from

Costa Rica. American Antiquity, 17, 264-265.

doi:10.2307/276371

zabadics, R. M. (2010). Cazadores especiSalizados Clovis en Para-

cializad

guaná, edo Falcón Venezuela.

http://miklosszabadics.blogspot.com/2010/12/cazadores-espe

os-clovisoides-en.html

pología, 20, 57-78.

Anales. Montevideo: CEA.

Proceedings of the

Tica de 13.000 AP: “Mantos Negros”,

cenos-holocenos del valle del Río Luján en su

Tuarte, R. A., Carbonari, J. E., & Figini, A. J. (2003).

Taddei, A. (1969). Un yacimiento de cazadores superiores del medio

río Negro, Uruguay. Pesquisas. Antro

(1980). Un yacimiento de cazadores superiores en el Río Negro (Paso

del Puerto) (Uruguay). In III Congreso Nacional de Arqueología

(1974) .

Todd, L. C., Hill, M. G., Rapson, D. J., & Frison, G. C. (1997). Cut-

marks, impacts, and carnivores at the Casper site bison bonebed. In L.

A. Hannus, L. Rossum, & R. P. Winham (Eds.),

1993 bone modification conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota (pp.

136-157). Sioux Falls: Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College.

oledo, M. (2005) La crisis climát

extinciones de megafauna y cambios poblacionales. In Actas del

XVII Congreso Geológico Argentino (pp. 735-736). Buenos Aires:

Asociación Geológica Argentina.

011). El Legado lujanense de Ameghino: Revisión estratigráfica de

los depósitos pleisto

sección tipo. Registro paleoclimático en La Pampa de los estadios

Ois 4 Al Ois 1. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina, 68,

121-167.

onni, E. P., H

New radiocarbon chronology from the Guerrero member of the Lu-

ján Formation (Buenos Aires, Argentina): Paleoclimatic significance.

Quaternary International, 109-110, 45-48.

doi:10.1016/S1040-6182(02)00201-X

Ubilla, M. (1996). Paleozoología del cuaternario continental de la

cuenca norte del Uruguay. Doctoral Dissertation, La Plata:

Universidad de La Plata.

999). Dataciones radiocarbónicas (14C) p(1ara la Fm. Dolores (Río

U, Gutiérrez, M., & Rinderknecht, A.

ontevideo: DIRAC.

Santa Lucía, dpto. de Canelones y A. Gutierrez Chico, dpto. de Rio

Negro) y comentarios sobre la fauna de vertebrados asociada. Revis

de la Sociedad Uruguaya de Geología, 3, 48-54.

billa, M., Perea, D., Lorenzo, N.

(2011). Fauna cuaternaria continental. In D. Perea (Ed.), Fósiles del

Uruguay (pp. 283-314). M

van Peer, P. (1992). The Levallois reduction strategy. Madison: Prehis-

tory Press.

Wang, Y., & Amundson, R. (1996) Radiocarbon dating of soil organic

matter. Quaternary Research, 45, 282-288.

doi:10.1006/qres.1996.0029

Weninger, B., & Jöris, O. (2008). A 14C age calibration curve for the

last 60 ka: The Greenland-Hulu U/Th timescale and its impact on

understanding the middle to upper paleolithic transition in western

Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution, 55, 772-781.

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.08.017

Weninger, B., Bernhard, W., Jöris, O., & Danzeglocke, U. (2010).

CalPal-(2007). Cologne radiocarbon calibration & Palaeoclimate

Research Package. http://www.calpal.de/

illey, G. R. (1966). An introduction Wto American archaeology. Vol. 1.

nías de Luján. Anales de la Sociedad Científica Argentina,

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

itthoft, J. (1968). Flint arrowpoints from the Eskimo of northwestern

Alaska. Expedition, 10, 30-37.

eballos, E., & Reid, W. (1876). Notas geológicas sobre una excursión

a las cerca

1, 1313-1319.

上一篇:Fishtail Projectile Points fro 下一篇:Fishtail Projectile Points fro

我要分享到：

职称论文发表交流平台！

Archaelogy, Paleoindian Research and Lithic Technology in the Middle Negro River, Central Uruguay

最新文章NEWS

推荐期刊Tui Jian

热点文章HOT