Using Binford's Frames of Reference to Model Hunter

Using Binford’s Frames of Reference to Model Hunter-gatherer Mobility and Group Size in the Andean Puna Elizabeth Pintar 1, Amber Johnson 2 and Sarah Lamkin 2 1 Department of Social Sciences, Aus)n Community College; 2 Department of Society and Environment, Truman State University

Introduc)on Hunter-gatherer life-ways dominated the Salt Puna of South America for the first 5000 years of human occupa=on of this high eleva=on desert in NW Argen=na. Archaeological remains in Antofagasta de la Sierra come from several rock shelters (Figure 1). The C14 dates from these sites range from ca. 10,200 BP – 4400 BP (12,400-5100 cal BP). The analyses of the vast lithic, faunal and botanical assemblages at these sites suggest a high dependency on camelids, the use of local and non-local toolstone for making stone tools, as well as the use of local plants for fuel, flooring or maPng and as raw materials for manufacturing spear shaQs, baskets and knots. A very small range of plants produce edible tubers. Tradi=onally, foragers in the Salt Puna have been considered more hunters than gatherers, partly because of the presence of herds of wild camelids in the region, and the low abundance of edible wild plant resources. The excellent preserva=on condi=ons at these sites have enabled the iden=fica=on of animal species, with a predominance of camelids, a very small percentage rodents, birds and cervids. Botanical assemblages, though by far larger than faunal and lithic assemblages, have revealed few poten=ally edible resources (wild roots and a legume). For this reason, Early and Middle Holocene foragers have been considered more hunter-gatherers than gathererhunters. The presence of non-local obsidian suggests foragers had high residen=al mobility during the Early Holocene, and lower residen=al mobility during the Middle Holocene when aridity increased (Babot 2014; Mondini and Elkin 2014; Pintar 2014; Pintar & Rodriguez 2015; Rodríguez 1997, 2005, among others ).



Methodology: Frames of reference link the domain of knowledge about how the world is organized with the archaeological record, which is the domain for which we have li]le knowledge. We follow Lewis Binford (2001) in arguing there is a link between environmental variables and hunter-gatherer organiza=on. We use world clima=c data to calculate an environmental and hunter-gatherer frame of reference for the southern Salt Puna which we use to an=cipate huntergatherer subsistence, mobility, total area used annually, and group size. We assume that environmental variables have been stable for the recent past, and that hunter-gatherer behavior in the Puna was similar to that of modern ethnographic groups. We compare those pa]erns observed with the archaeological record in Antofagasta de la Sierra. Inconsistencies between archaeological data and the frames of reference serve as a heuris=c tool to learn about past hunter-gatherers. Figure 2. Vicuñas (Vicugna vicugna)

Figure 3. A wild tuber: “papa cuchi” (Hoffmansegia eremophila)

Legend: 1- Quebrada Seca 3 (QS3) 2- Peñas de la Cruz 1 (PCz1) 3- Peña de las Trampas 1.1 (PT1.1) ★ Cueva Salamanca 1 (CS1) Obsidian sources Areas projected to have higher dependency on hun=ng (> 50%) EXAREA1

Figure 1. Area of Antofagasta de la Sierra, southern Salt Puna, NW Argen=na.

Table 1: Ethnographic data projec=ons (average values for the area of Antofagasta de la Sierra): UPCKGATH 60.16%

UPCKHUNT 39.84%

EXNOMOV1 5

EXDMOV1 198 km

EXAREA1 3329 km2

EXGRP1 9.9

EXGRP3 40.5

UPCKGATH: unpacked % dependence on gathering UPCKHUNT: unpacked % dependence on hun=ng EXNOMOV1: projected expected number of residen=al moves per year, scaled for subsistence type, for groups with year round camp to camp mobility. EXDMOV1: projected total distance moved, scaled for subsistence type, for groups with year round camp to camp mobility. EXAREA1: projected total area, scaled for subsistence type, for groups with year round camp to camp mobility. EXGRP1: projected mean size of smallest residen=al group, segmented by group pa]ern and subsistence specializa=on bias. EXGRP3: projected mean size of periodic regional camps, segmented by group pa]ern and subsistence specializa=on bias.



Table 2: Terrestrial Model (average values for the area of Antofagasta de la Sierra): TERMHUNT

TERMGATH

78.33%

21.67

Bibliography Aschero, C.A. and J.G. Marcnez (2001). Rel. Soc. Arg. Antrop. 26: 215-241. Babot, M.P. (2014). BAR 2641:169 -200. Binford, L. R. (2001). Construc=ng Frames of Reference. Univ. of CA Press. Killian Galván et al. (2015). Env. Arch. 21 (1): 1-10. Mondini, M. and D. Elkin (2014). BAR 2641: 117-124.

.

Early-Middle Holocene diet as inferred from the archaeological record at QS3 and CS1 •  Low variety of taxa exploited throughout the Holocene. Camelids (vicuña and guanaco; Figure 2) dominate the record (75-100% NISP). However, guanaco became more prevalent during the Mid Holocene when considering MNI. Chinchillids and cervids, as well as locusts, were exploited in the Early and Mid Holocene. •  During the arid Mid Holocene, an intense exploita=on of camelids is suggested by hun=ng technology (collec=ve hun=ng) and the exploita=on of bone marrow as well as camelid bone, skin and fiber for making ar=facts. Further, a shiQ in focus from family groups to higher-yield individuals is observed (Mondini and Elkin 2014). •  Macrobotanical remains of Hoffmanseggia eremophila (Figure 3) have been iden=fied at CS1. This plant has edible roots. Also, starch from an uniden=fied tuber was found adhered to an early grinding stone at CS1 (Babot 2014; Pintar & Rodriguez 2015).

Isotope analysis on human remains from PT1.1 The analyses of stable isotopes of C and N (δ13C and δ15N ) on six individuals (all under the age of 10 years) from PT1.1 site from contexts da=ng to the late Early Holocene suggest a mixed diet comprising tubers and herbivores with a C4 diet (probably vicuñas) (Killian et al. 2015).





Table 3. Es)mated foraging radius and territorial range based on toolstone and plants from QS3 and CS1 (Pintar and Rodriguez 2015).

Discussion and Conclusions •  The ethnographic projec=ons (Table 1) project a higher dependency on gathering than on hun=ng and than archaeologists generally portray. These projec=ons appear to be supported —in part— by isotope analysis of human remains from PT1.1 site, which suggest a mixed diet. However, ascertaining what food type supplies the majority of a group’s diet on the basis of isotopes, plant and animal remains is difficult. •  The Terrestrial Model (Table 2) an=cipates a higher dependence on hun=ng. In general, our models for the Salt Puna have been biased toward the terrestrial model, par=cularly for the Early and Middle Holocene (Aschero 2014; Pintar et al. 2016) given that: a) faunal assemblages during the Early Holocene and Middle Holocene were dominated by camelids; b) the lack of macrobotanical remains of edible plants/roots, although some grinding stones during the Middle Holocene have roots and tuber residues; c) a modern environment with few wild edible na=ve plants and abundant camelid herds. •  Plants and toolstone were used to reconstruct a minimum foraging radius of 6-7 km around a residen=al camp (CS1) and a minimum logis=cal radius of 9 km during the Middle Holocene (Table 3). If foragers moved their camps far enough to avoid an overlap in foraging radii, then camps were moved beyond 16 km (Table 3). This reconstruc=on is partly discordant with the ethnographic projec=ons for EXDMOV1 (Table 1), which an=cipate an average of 5 moves annually over a distance of about 200 km annually. This suggests moves of approximately 40 km between camps, a distance much larger than the minimum foraging radii reconstructed archaeologically. •  The ethnographic data (Table 1) projects 5 moves per year (EXNOMOV1) given the higher projected dependence on gathering over hun=ng. While it is difficult to calculate number of moves per year archaeologically, this number is much lower than that proposed in a recent model where a greater dependence on hun=ng over gathering was expected (Table 3). •  The projected total area (EXAREA1) has an average value of 3329km2 (Table 1). This value is within the es=mated archaeological annual range size, which was about 1100-4500 km2 (Table 3). These es=mates suggest that groups could have visited different obsidian sources during an annual range. Range shiQing during periods of decreased habitat quality during the Middle Holocene would have resulted in the use of different sources, fewer residen=al moves and longer logis=cal trips (Pintar et al. 2016). •  Tools from various obsidian sources would have been discarded and/or cached when groups camped at CS1. The projected mean size of the smallest residen=al group is about 10 persons, whereas the projected mean size of periodic regional camps is about 40 people (Table 1). The finds at CS1 rock shelter (77m2) suggest it was a residen=al camp occupied by a small group of foragers. Surveys in Antofagasta de la Sierra have not turned up large regional camps, however hun=ng parapets indicate their use by a large number of hunters during episodes of communal hun=ng (Aschero and Mar=nez 2001). These projec=ons suggest a very low popula=on density in the Salt Puna. Pintar, E.L. and M.F. Rodríguez (2015). JAS 59: 142-158. Pintar, E.L. et al. (2016). QI (in press) doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.128 Rodríguez, M.F. (1999). Rel. Soc. Arg. Antrop. 24: 159-185.