10 Salemme & Madrid

THE ARCHAEOFAUNAS FROM LAGUNA TRES REYES 1 SITE:
TAXONOMIC RICHNESS AND ABUNDANCE DURING THE

BEGINNING OF THE LATE HOLOCENE IN THE SOUTH-EAST
PAMPEAN REGION (ARGENTINA)
Mnica Salemme* and Patricia Madrid**
* Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientficas, CONICET. C.C. 92, (9410) Ushuaia, Argentina. E-mail: msalemme@cadic.gov.ar
** Divisin Arqueologa, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo (UNLP), Paseo del Bosque s/n, 1900. La Plata, Buenos Aires
Argentina; INCUAPA-FACSO, Olavarra, Argentina. E-mail: pmadrid@fcnym.unlp.edu.ar
RESUMEN
El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar los resultados obtenidos en el estudio de los materiales arqueofaunsticos del sitio
Laguna Tres Reyes 1 (TR1), localizado en el rea Interserrana Bonaerense. Se analizan la abundancia y riqueza taxonmica
de las especies faunsticas representadas en las ocupaciones holocnicas. La muestra analizada consta de 4069 restos
faunsticos, el 25% de los cuales ha sido determinado a distintos niveles taxonmicos. Las especies representadas (guanaco,
venado de las pampas, armadillos y and) estn distribuidas principalmente en las unidades estratigrficas A (incluye
transicin A/B) y B (parte superior) en porcentajes similares, excepto por las especies extinguidas (quido y perezoso) que
se restringen nicamente a las unidades B (parte inferior denominada Bc) y C. En cuanto a la fauna introducida, slo se han
registrado restos de caballo europeo, prcticamente concentrados en dos sectores y en los primeros 0.45 m de profundidad,
adems de un nico resto de ratn domstico (Mus musculus).
Hasta el momento, los estudios de los procesos de formacin del registro, de la distribucin espacial intrasitio y de las
tecnologas, permiten inferir al menos dos momentos (o eventos) de ocupacin en la margen norte de la laguna, entre 2500
y 1800 aos AP. Se evalan las caractersticas de la fauna y se proponen distintas hiptesis respecto a la economa, la
evolucin del ambiente y la historia ocupacional del sitio, en el contexto ms amplio de los cazadores-recolectores tardos
del sureste de la Regin Pampeana. Sin embargo, se plantea la hiptesis de una probable ocupacin ms temprana, teniendo
en cuenta que se han registrado algunas especies pleistocnicas (si se verifica su asociacin al contexto arqueolgico).
ABSTRACT
The present work deals with the results obtained from the analysis of the archaeofaunal remains from Laguna Tres Reyes 1
site (TR1), which is located in the Interserrana Area of the Pampean Region. The abundance and taxonomic richness of the
faunal species from the Holocene occupations are analysed. Of a sample of 4069 faunal remains, 25% has been assigned to
different taxonomic levels. The recorded species -camelids, deers, armadillos, pampean ostrich-likes) are distributed mainly
in the stratigraphic units A and B -in similar percentages- except for the remains of the extinct species (equid and giant sloth),
which are limited to unit C. The bones of two species (european equid and a rodent) that were introduced after the Spanish
Conquest were mainly recorded (specially concentrated) in two small sectors -up to 0.45 m in depth, that is, present soil-, and
were considered as intrusive. The information obtained form technological organization, the study of the site formation
processes, and the spatial intra-site distribution, allow us to infer that at least two occupational events had taken place in the
northern margin of the lagoon between 2500 and 1800 years BP. According to the characteristics of the fauna, several
hypotheses are put forward about the economy, the environmental evolution and the historical occupation of the site -in the
wider context of the late Pampean region hunter-gatherers. Another hypothesis that should be considered, however,
suggests the possibility that an earlier occupation existed on the basis of the recorded pleistocenic species -but only if the
association between those species and the archaeological context were definitively established-.

INTRODUCTION
This paper presents the results of the archaeofaunal studies
on Laguna Tres Reyes 1 site (TR1), located in the
Bonaerense Interserrana area, at 37 56' S and 60 34' W, to
the southeast of the Pampean Region (Figure 1). Laguna
Tres Reyes is a herbaceous steppe with plains of gentle
slope that extends between the hilly meadows of Tandilia
and Ventania. From a phytogeographical point of view, the
area is included in the Boreal Domain of the province of La
Pampa (Cabrera 1976). From the zoogeographical point of
view, it is part of the Pampean Domain of the GuayanoBrazilian Sub-Region (Ringuelet 1961). The climate is C2 B2
r a (subhumid-humid and mesothermal), following
Thornthwaites methodology.
The taxonomic richness and abundance of faunal species
found in the Holocene deposits will be analysed; the units
containing these materials were identified as Upper
Component and Lower Levels in previous papers
(Madrid and Salemme 1991; Madrid et al. 1991; Politis and
Madrid 1988; Salemme 1987). From a regional perspective
-and particularly from the point of view of faunal
exploitation-, this paper contributes to the discussion about
the lifestyles of the hunter-gatherer societies that inhabited
the southeastern Pampas in the last 3000 years.
Up to the moment, the processes of site formation, the intrasite spatial distribution, and the technological analyses have
led us to conclude that at least two occupational events
along the northern margin of the lagoon existed. These
events occurred between 2500 and 1800 years BP (Madrid
and Barrientos 2000; Madrid et al. 1997).
Figure 1. Geographical location of Laguna Tres Reyes 1 site (TR1)

and other Late Holocene sites in the Pampean Region. Sites: 1.
Cueva Tixi; 2. Lobera 1; 3. Paso Otero 1 and 3; 4. Zanjn Seco 2 and
3; 5. Arroyo Seco 2; 6. Laguna del Trompa; 7. Fortn Necochea; 8. La
Toma; 9. Puente Fierro; 10. San Martn.
Several hypotheses concerning the different aspects of

these events have been suggested, having as a basis the
characteristics of the fauna and its variability in a local scale,
and relating this to the wider context of the late huntergatherers of the Pampean region. Two such hypotheses
are: a) on the economy, the environmental evolution and
occupational history of the site; b) an earlier occupation of
the site is reformulated, considering the record of two
Pleistocene taxa that seem to be associated to the
archaeological context.
The archaeofaunal sample analysed consists of 4069 bone
remains, recorded in two different sectors excavated in the
site between 1981 and 1995 (Figure 2), 25% of which (1009
bone remains, scutes and shell egg fragments) was assigned
to different taxonomic levels.
Several authors (Gonzlez de Bonaveri 2002; Martnez and
Gutirrez 2004; Miotti and Salemme 1999; Politis 1984; Politis
and Madrid 2001; Politis and Salemme 1989; Quintana and
Mazzanti 2001) have supported different hypotheses about
the faunal structure for the Lower, Middle and Late Holocene
in the southeast of the Pampean region. Such hypotheses
include: a differential use of species; the increase or
variability in the biodiversity of the species analysed; the
frequent use of small-size species, especially during the
prehispanic Late Holocene; the use of generalised/
specialised strategies; the use of hierarchical/communal
strategies; the areal differences and intensification of the
use of some faunal resources during the Late Holocene.
It is expected that the information presented here will
positively contrast those postulates and will also contribute
with data on the differential exploitation in the different
intervals of the Late Holocene.
Figure 2. Plan of excavation of TR1.
STRATIGRAPHY, ABSOLUTE
CHRONOLOGY, AND PLAN OF
EXCAVATION
coming originally from the base of Unit B -possibly from the

Middle Holocene- and from Unit C could have been
provoked. This is the case of the faunal remains of extinct
species which come from Unit C.
The species represented -the guanaco, the pampean deer,

the armadillo, the rhea, several species of small birds, and
very few carnivores- were distributed in the different
stratigraphic units, except for the extinct species (equid and
ground sloth), which were restricted to the lower units. As
for the introduced fauna, the remains of a European horse
(Equus caballus) were concentrated in two sectors, at a
depth of 0.45 m ; only one bone of a domestic mouse (Mus
musculus) was found.
Unit C: it consists of sandy-lime sediment -white-greyish in

colour- with tosca nodules. It is the basis of the sequence
and represents the Guerrero Member of Lujan Formation
(sensu Tonni and Fidalgo 1978) -that is, Late Pleistocene-.
These deposits overlie the tosca that is considered as
belonging to the Pampiano Formation.
Three stratigraphical units were identified in different sectors

of the coastal cliff of the lagoon (Figure 3). The deposits
found there were at an average depth of 1 m (F. Fidalgo
personal communication 1986; Politis and Madrid 1988).
Below, there is a detailed description of each unit:
Unit A: it is 0.25 to 0.40 m thick. It contains sandy sediment
-dark grey when dry- which coincides with the present soil.
Down at the base, small calcium carbonate speckles appear,
going gradually to the next unit through a transitional sector
named A/B.
Unit B: it is 0.15 to 0.35 m thick. It consists of a dark brown
aeolian sediment with a high content of calcium carbonate,
which shows a concentration of tosca nodules towards the
base; this sector was identified as Unit B with carbonate
(Bc). It is, together with Unit A, the youngest section of La
Postrera Formation (sensu Fidalgo and Tonni 1981); it reaches
up to the Middle Holocene-Late Holocene transition. The
unit identified as Bc could be a sedimentary redeposition of
Unit C and the base of Unit B caused by the lacustrian
dynamics. As a result, a secondary association of materials
Previous reports on this site focalised on particular aspects

of the research, such as taphonomy (Politis and Madrid
1988), archaeofaunal analysis (Salemme 1987), definition of
the Upper Component (Madrid and Salemme 1991), technomorphological analysis, site formation processes (Madrid
et al. 1991), bioanthropological analysis (Barrientos 1997;
LHeureux 1998), chronology, archaeological record
structure and human burials (Madrid and Barrientos 2000;
Madrid et al. 1997).
The archaeological materials were recovered from the whole
thickness of the deposit. The spatial distributional analysis,
the techno-morphological characteristics of the lithic
materials, the kind of conservation and the post-depositional
disturbing level of the cultural materials made it possible to
define two archaeological units from previous papers. Those
units are: the Upper Component (Madrid and Salemme 1991;
Politis and Madrid 1988; Salemme 1987), formed by Unit A
and the transition A/B; and the Lower Levels of human
occupation in the site, that include materials from Unit B
and Unit C (Figure 3) (Madrid et al. 1991). It is not possible
to define the Lower Levels because of the low degree of
resolution. Nevertheless, the taphonomic studies support
the hypothesis that the materials found in the upper section
of Unit B (Politis and Madrid 1988) could be the result of a
displacement of materials originally belonging to Unit A,
and that only the materials from Bc (the base of Unit B) and
Unit C would correspond to the Lower Levels (Madrid and
Barrientos 2000).
The Upper Component contains more than 1,000 lithic
artifacts (not including debris <5 mm), scarce pottery
fragments and several faunal remains (70%). The Lower
Levels, on the contrary, are characterised by a low proportion
and diversity of lithic artifacts and faunal remains, and by
the absence of pottery. Besides, ten human skeletons were
recovered from Sector B of the excavation (see Figure 2).
Figure 3. Schematic profile of TR1 site with the stratigraphic and

archaeological Units and the locations of the radiocarbonic samples.
Fieldwork was carried out in different opportunities between

1981 and 1991 by L. M. Guzmn first and, afterwards, by G.
Politis and one of the authors (P.M.), with the participation
of G. Barrientos. A total surface of 57 m2 was excavated in
two sectors separated by approximately 20 m -33 m2 in Sector
A and 24 m2 in Sector B- (Figure 2). Both sectors were located
in high cliffs, where the archeological materials -such as
!
artifacts and ecofacts- in stratigraphy were found. Densities

by m3 varied among sectors. Sector A had a higher global
density of lithic and ceramic remains than Sector B. It should
be mentioned that a lower density in Sector B could be the
consequence of the co-occurrence of two areas: one that
would have had the specific function of burial area, and
another with a low remain frequency; or it could be the
result of the microtopography of the sector (Madrid and
Barrientos 2000: 190-191). In this sense, the archaeofaunal
record presents a similar distribution to the one previously
described, probably due to multiple natural and cultural
factors. As it was already discussed in Madrid and Barrientos
(2000), it is possible for the site to have had a very complex
occupational history, as a result of various occupational
events, which would not have overlapped, and which could
have generated a continuous distribution of materials in
several points of different density.
Finally, the significant modifications suffered by the margins
of the lagoon as a result of head erosion, must be pointed
out. Figure 2 shows the record of the modifications in the
cliff fronts during a decade or so. Natural process provoked
the partial destruction of these fronts, with the consequent
dissemination of the archaeological materials that probably
used to be in stratigraphical position. This is why it is frequent
to find a great amount of lithic artifacts (the most resistant
to wave erosion), mainly in several beach sectors along the
northern margin of the lagoon (sites TR3 and TR4). It is also
possible for other elements -like faunal remains, which have
fewer chances of preservation in that kind of redepositional
context- to have undergone the same process of
redeposition on the beach.
Five radiocarbon datings (Table 1) provided the necessary
information to locate chronologically this site, at least for
the latest occupation. These datings are consistent with
the expectations based on contextual associations.
However, two different stratigraphic units (A and B) yielded
dates that, from a statistical point of view, cannot be
distinguished one from the other (Ward and Wilson 1978)
and two samples from the same square and stratigraphic
unit (Unit A) yielded radiocarbon datings that were not
directly related to each other (Figure 3). Considering the
record of the formation process of the site, where the
SAMPLE
THE ARCHAEOFAUNAL RECORD

In this part of the paper special attention is given to several
topics related to the distribution and quality of information
that faunal remains offer. Thus, special emphasis is laid on
the following topics:
1.- Diversity and taxonomic abundance in both sectors of
excavation.
2.- Differential global density of faunal remains: vertical (by
stratigraphical units) and horizonal (by excavation sectors).
AA-7970
LP-287a
STANDARD
14
C
1845 50 BP
2280 60 BP
-20.4
-19.4b
AA-7971
2235 50 BP
-19.9
AA-24048
2245 55 BP
-17.2
AA-24047
2470 60 BP
-17.2
TAXON
MATERIAL
UNIT
LAB. #
L guanicoe
L. guanicoe
Bone
Bone
TR1.10.XI.2
L. guanicoe
Bone
TR1-1
H. sapiens
Bone
TR1-10
H. sapiens
Bone
A
A
B (upper
part)
Burial
sediment
Burial
sediment
TR1.6.V.29
TR1.6.VI.20
horizontal and specially the vertical migration of the

archaeological materials could be a predominant
characteristic -rather difficult to quantify through time-,
Madrid et al. (1991) suggested that at least part of these
materials could have migrated from the upper levels to the
lower levels mainly as a result of the activity of fossorial
mammals (i.e. Ctenomys sp., Myocastor coypus; Politis and
Madrid 1988). In fact, the coipo -as a factor of intrusionsneeds a special consideration. This is a rodent that does
not transport materials; nevertheless, an inverse
displacement from the lower levels (upper part of Unit B
where coipo caves have been recorded) towards the upper
levels is highly probable considering the burrowing action
of coipo -horizontally, and from the water level upwards.
Another factor could have been the action of the tucotuco which tends to move mainly vertically and in both
directions. Therefore, the situation of the remains described
above might be explained as a consequence of the existence
of this taphonomic agent (particularly the rodents). In this
respect, it has been stated: Como resultado de estas
observaciones, consideramos que la definicin estratigrfica
del CS debera incluir a los materiales recuperados en la
parte superior de la UE B. En consecuencia, y hasta
profundizar el conocimiento de los NI, los materiales de la
base de la UE B (con mayor contenido de CaCO3 -UE Bc-) y
los de la UE C deberan ser considerados como restos de
ocupaciones previas y distintas de las ocupaciones cuyos
restos integran el CS. Estas observaciones resultan vlidas
tanto para el Sector A como para el Sector B de excavacin
del sitio (Madrid and Barrientos 2000: 190).
C
13
(a) The original radiocarbon date yielded 219060 years BP. (Madrid et al. 1991). An ulterior correction of
13C yielded the present date (Madrid and Barrientos 2000).
(b) Media of 13C values from colagen samples of Lama guanicoe coming from different sites of the
Southeast of the Pampean Region (n=6) (Barrientos 1997).
Table 1. Radiocarbon datings from Laguna Tres Reyes 1 site (TR1).
"
3.- Spatial distribution of bones of extinct and

introduced fauna.
4.- Differential distribution of skeletal parts of the
most represented species in the different
stratigraphic units.
5.- Identification and differential distribution of
those species that were exploited for economic
profit and those that entered the archaeological
record because of natural agents.
6.- Relative hierarchy of those species exploited
for profit in the different units and excavation
sectors.
level, they were classified at genus level, as in the case of cf.

Pseudalopex. Further details of each specimen are provided
in the following section.
The methodology employed for the anatomical and

taxonomical identification is that explained in Salemme et al.
(1991). The bone remains that were anatomically identified
were assigned to generic and/or specific levels, depending
on their state of preservation. In some cases, and given the
high fragmentation of the sample (approximately 68%,
estimated in degrees 1 or 2 of Behrensmeyers scale (1978),
it was only possible to assign the specimens to a family
level -particularly when the specimens state of preservation
or features were insufficient to determine it- (see Gutirrez
2004 for a detailed analysis on weathering). So, since there
were no diagnostic elements to classify the specimens, 75%
of the sample was not identified. In general they
corresponded to Mammalia; those from birds were identified
as Undetermined Aves. However, and even if not identified,
remains recognised as extinct megafauna have been
considered as undetermined Megafauna, and counted
among the 25% of the identified material (Table 2).
The total number of the undetermined bone remains is 3060,

232 of which are shell-egg fragments while 53 belong to
armadillo scutes. Because of the absolute frequency of the
faunal remains from the site, fragments raging from small to
very small size that were recovered from sediments of
excavation and water sifting have not been included here.
Fortunately, the analyses are under process (G. Ramos
personal communication 2003).
As regards the MNI counting, this number was calculated
on the total NISP, as the minimum MNI (Grayson 1984; Klein
and Cruz Uribe 1984; Lyman 1994a). With the aim of knowing
the MNI by sectors and stratigraphical units, both the
minimum and the maximum MNI were calculated. In fact, the
MNI for both the Upper Component and Lower Levels units
of the site (see Madrid and Barrientos 2000; Figure 3), was
calculated as well. Besides, the MNE, the MAU, and the
%MAU (Binford 1978, 1981; Lyman 1985, 1994b) were also
estimated in order to understand the economic trend of the
exploited species, particularly in the cases of the guanaco
and the pampean deer.
Table 2 shows all the identified taxa in the archaeofaunal

context from a taxonomical point of view (that is, from the
lowest to the highest level). When the species were hard to
identify, the taxa were identified at the highest possible
taxonomic level, so as to recognise at least the genera. In
the case of materials identified at family level and/or at genus
TAXON
Lama guanicoe
Ozotoceros bezoarticus
Equus caballus
Equidae (fossil)
Chaetophractus villosus
Dasypus cf. hybridus
Zaedyus cf. pichiy
Dasypodidae
Ctenomys sp.
Lagostomus maximus
Myocastor coypus
Chinchillidae
Mus musculus
Galea sp.
Rodentia
cf. Pseudalopex
Felis geoffroyi
Lutreolina crassicaudata
Undet. Megafauna
cf. Scelidotheriinae
Undet. Ave
Rhea americana
Chloephaga sp.
cf. Calloneta leucophrys
Fulica cf. leucoptera
Laridae
Dendrocygna sp.
Anas platalea
Bufo cf. paracnemis
Ceratophrys cf. ornata
Gastropoda
Total
A-A/B
136 18.78
7
0.97
28
3.87
0
0.00
4
0.55
0
0.00
0
0.00
2
0.28
24
3.31
4
0.55
2
0.28
0
0.00
1
0.14
2
0.28
20
2.76
1
0.14
2
0.28
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
5
0.69
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
2
0.28
6
0.83
2
0.28
1
0.14
251 34.67
NISP and %NISP

Sector A by Units
B
Bc
107 14.78 21
2.90
13
1.80
6
0.83
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
4
0.55
0
0.00
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
3
0.41
0
0.00
10
1.38
2
0.28
2
0.28
0
0.00
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
6
0.83
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
150 20.72 30
4.14
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.83
A-A/B
62
8.56
33
4.56
6
0.83
0
0.00
4
0.55
2
0.28
0
0.00
4
0.55
11
1.52
5
0.69
0
0.00
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
5
0.69
2
0.28
0
0.00
1
0.14
1
0.14
0
0.00
17
2.35
1
0.14
6
0.83
0
0.00
0
0.00
2
0.28
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
165 22.79
Table 2. Distribution of NISP and %NISP by Sectors and Stratigraphic Units.
#
NISP and %NISP

Sector B by Units
B
Bc
19
2.62
24
3.31
9
1.24
8
1.10
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
3
0.41
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
1
0.14
0
0.00
2
0.28
2
0.28
3
0.41
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
1
0.14
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
0.14
0
0.00
2
0.28
1
0.14
0
0.00
2
0.28
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
41
5.66
41
5.66
C
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.56
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.52
Total % Total
369
50.97
76
10.50
34
4.70
2
0.28
16
2.21
3
0.41
1
0.14
10
1.38
51
7.04
15
2.07
3
0.41
1
0.14
1
0.14
2
0.28
33
4.56
3
0.41
2
0.28
1
0.14
35
4.83
14
1.93
24
3.31
3
0.41
6
0.83
1
0.14
1
0.14
2
0.28
2
0.28
2
0.28
6
0.83
3
0.41
2
0.28
724
100
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
%NISP
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
Ozo
toc
Lam
ag
uan
ero
sb
ezo i c o e
art
Equ
ic
us
c a b us
Ch
allu
aet
s
oph
rac E q u i d
Da
tus
ae
syp
v
i
llos
us
c
Zae f . h y b u s
rid
dyu
us
s cf
.pic
Da
h
i
syp
y
Cte o d i d a
Lag
e
nom
ost
om
ys s
us
p.
ma
My
xim
oca
us
sto
r co
Ch
ipu
inc
s
Mu hillida
sm
e
usc
ulu
s
Ga
lea
s
Rod p .
cf.
en
Pse
uda tia
Lut
Fel
lop
reo
ex
is g
lina
eof
cra
f
ssic royi
Me
aud
gaf
ata
aun
cf.
au
Sce
nde
lido
t.
the
rii
A v e nae
Rhe
a a undet.
me
rica
Ch
cf.
l
Ca
na
llon o e p h a
ga
e
t
a
Ful
s
p
l
e
.
uco
ica
p
cf.
Leu hrys
cop
ter
Lar a
De
ndr
ida
ocy
e
Ana g n a s p
.
Buf
sp
l
oc
f.pa atalea
Cer
rac
ato
phr
nem
ys c
is
f.or
na
Ga
s t r o ta
pod
a
0.0
Sector B : C
Sector B : Bc
Sector B : B
Sector B : A-A/B
Sector A : C
Sector A : Bc
Sector A : B
Sector A : A-A/B
Taxon
Sector A : A-A/B
Sector A : B
Sector A : Bc
Sector A : C
Sector B : A-A/B
Sector B : B
Sector B : Bc
Sector B : C
Figure 4. %NISP distribution by sectors and stratigraphical units.
50.00
Characteristics and structure of the recorded

fauna
45.00
40.00
Details about the taxa recovered from the archaeological

context of TR1 are shown in Table 2, and in Figures 4 to 6.
35.00
%NISP
30.00
% CS
25.00
% NI
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Ozo
L
toce ama g
u
ros
b anic
Equ ezoart oe
Cha
Equ us cab icus
idae allus
etop
Das hractu (fossi
l)
ypu s vil
Zae s cf. hy losus
b
dyu
s c f . ridus
D a s pich
y p o iy
Lag
d
osto Ctenom idae
Myo mus m ys sp.
cast axim
Chi or coyp us
n
Mus chillidaus
mus e
Gal culus
ea
cf.P Roden sp.
seu
tia
Lutr
eoli Felis dalope
na
geo
x
Megcrassic ffroyi
cf. S afaun audata
celi a u n
doth d e t .
erii
Rhe Ave unnae
a
d
cf. C
Chl ameri et.
oep can
allo
Fuli neta le haga spa
ca c u c o
.
f. le p h r y
uco
pter s
Den
a
L
a
dro
cy ridae
Bu Ana gna s
Cer fo cf. p s platal p.
atop
arac ea
hrys
n
c emis
Gasf.ornata
trop
oda
0.00
Taxon
Figure 5. Distribution of taxa by archaeological units.References:

CS: Upper Component; NI: Lower Levels.
1.- Lama guanicoe (guanaco) is the most frequent species.

It is best represented in Sector A, Unit A-A/B. This species
is spatially and vertically distributed in both sectors of
excavation and in all the stratigraphic units, except for unit
C (Table 2). Some of the materials have been identified merely
as Camelidae (n=66; 9,12%) because they do not present
the diagnostic necessary elements to define the specific
level. Nonetheless, and considering the paleocorology of
the species, they have been assigned to guanaco, since it
was the only camelid that inhabited the Pampean region, at
least before the European Conquest (Politis 1984; Politis
and Salemme 1989; Tonni and Politis 1980). In this sense,
and in order to count them, the remains assigned to
Camelidae were considered as Lama guanicoe. The
distribution of %NISP is shown in Table 2.
$
specimens (79%) belong to the

apendicular skeleton (fore limbs
and hindlimbs): only 5 are
vertebrae or fragments of them;
there are 10 skull fragments
(mandible and molars); and there
is only one small piece of antle
(Table 5). The MNI equals 4 and
is distributed as shown in Table 4.
Figure 6. MNI by sectors and stratigraphical units.
The most frequent skeletal parts are those from the

apendicular skeleton, especially the autopodial elements phalanges and astragalus are the best represented-. As
regards meat volume, forelimbs (humeri and scapulae) and
hindlimbs (femora and tibiae) are also well represented.
Furthermore, the axial skeleton is represented by vertebrae,
and the skull by a mandible and some isolated teeth
-especially molars- (Table 3). A very low percentage (1%) of
the materials show fire evidence (they were either burnt or
roasted). Distal and proximal ends, and the astragalus
usually present rodent damage and very few carnivore
marks- some of the cutmarks were easily recognised even at
first sight (A. Caro Petersen, personal communication. 2002).
The MNI amounts to 15 (Table 4).
2.- Ozotoceros bezoarticus (pampean deer) is the second
species in the order of frequency. Its spatial distribution is
similar in both sectors of excavation (Table 2), but its
frequency is higher in Unit A-A/B, Sector B. than in Sector
A. This is also the case of the guanaco and of nearly all the
other species, whose values are higher in the upper
stratigraphic units in Sector A. In the case of camelids,
materials identified as Cervidae (n=13; 180%) were counted
as Pampean deer, since no other cervid inhabited this sector
of the Interserrana area during the Holocene. Most
3.- In the case of Equus caballus,

34 remains were found and they
were concentrated mainly in Sector
A, with just a few bones coming
from Sector B (Table 2). These
remains were distributed at a
depth between 0.28 y 0.38 m,
nearly all of them within Unit A,
except for a few that were
distributed in the A/B transition.
Half the specimens (50%) belong
to the skull (mainly mandibles,
molars and incisors), while the
other half are mainly phalanges,
except for two fragments of femur
and a sesamoidal; a dorsal
vertebra represents the axial
skeleton. An almost total
horizontality can be observed,
though with a certain inclination.
Besides, some evidence, such as a differential preservation
and concentration in a recent hole (Salemme 1987), would
indicate a removal in the place where the european horse
was found. It is assumed, then, that this species is not in
primary association with the archaeological remains. Its MNI
equals 3 (Table 4).
4.- Two remains found in the lower section (Bc) of Unit B
were assigned to Equidae. One of the bones was found in
Sector A and the other in Sector B, at a depth of 0.52 and
0.54 m, respectively. They are a molar (square N 6) and an
autopodial (square N 7; Figure 2) that were found in an
assemblage of megafauna bones. Because of their state of
preservation it was impossible to classify them at a higher
taxonomic level, though it is believed that they belong to
extinct species -in fact, the MNI equals 1- (see Table 4).
Neither of the two remains shall be considered in primary
association with the archaeological context. Evidence of
fire or cutmarks could not be observed, but they could be
undercovered (masked) by carbonates adhered to the bones
surfaces.
5.- The remains of some extinct fauna, mainly concentrated
in two groups, surprisingly lying on the surface of the beach
adjacent to the lagoon, were recovered (some of the elements
were found isolated). Because these bones present high
%
Axial skeleton
teeth
skull: occipital
skull: maxilla
timpanic bulla
mandible
hioides
atlas
axis
cervical vertebrae: 3-7
toracic vertebrae 1-12
lumbar vertebrae 1-7
apophysis vertebrae
fragmented vertebrae
sacrum
caudal vertebrae
innominate
proximal ribs
fragmented ribs
sternebrae
Total NISP
Appendicular skeleton
scapula
proximal humerus
diaphysis humerus
distal humerus
proximal radius-ulna
diaphysis radio-ulna
distal radio-ulna
carpals
px. Metacarpal
ds. Metacarpal
pelvis
proximal femur
diaphysis femur
distal femur
patella
proximal tibia
diaphysis tibia
distal tibia
tarsals
astragalus
calcaneus
px.metatarsal
distal metatarsal
prox. Metapodial
diaphysis metapodial
distal metapodial
phalanx 1
phalanx 2
phalanx 3
diaphysis indet.
sesamoidal
bezoar
Total NISP
Skeletal pieces
NISP axial skeleton
NISP appendicular skeleton
Total NISP
NISP by Stratigraphical Units

A-A/B
B
Bc C
20
15
2 0
0
1
1 0
0
0
0 0
1
2
0 0
6
5
0 0
0
0
0 0
1
2
1 0
1
2
0 0
2
3
0 0
7
2
2 0
5
0
0 0
1
0
0 0
6
3
0 0
1
0
0 0
4
2
0 0
0
0
0 0
2
1
0 0
2
3
1 0
0
0
0 0
59
41
7 0
TOTAL
NISP
37
2
0
3
11
0
4
3
5
11
5
1
9
1
6
0
3
6
0
107
TOTAL
% NISP
34.58
1.87
0.00
2.80
10.28
0.00
3.74
2.80
4.67
10.28
4.67
0.93
8.41
0.93
5.61
0.00
2.80
5.61
0.00
100.00

A-A/B
B
Bc C
5
7
1 0
0
0
0 0
1
0
0 0
12
4
4 0
5
2
1 0
2
0
0 0
3
3
1 0
7
4
3 0
6
1
1 0
1
0
0 0
1
1
2 0
2
3
1 0
10
0
4 0
3
2
0 0
2
2
1 0
1
3
0 0
2
1
0 0
6
3
0 0
5
5
3 0
15
11
4 0
11
4
2 0
3
1
0 0
0
0
0 0
3
2
0 0
2
4
0 0
2
7
1 0
19
10
4 0
7
2
1 0
1
0
0 0
1
3
3 0
1
0
0 0
0
0
1 0
139
85
38 0
TOTAL
NISP
13
0
1
20
8
2
7
14
8
1
4
6
14
5
5
4
3
9
13
30
17
4
0
5
6
10
33
10
1
7
1
1
262
TOTAL
% NISP
4.96
0.00
0.38
7.63
3.05
0.76
2.67
5.34
3.05
0.38
1.53
2.29
5.34
1.91
1.91
1.53
1.15
3.44
4.96
11.45
6.49
1.53
0.00
1.91
2.29
3.82
12.60
3.82
0.38
2.67
0.38
0.38
100.00
A-A/B
59
139
198
B
41
85
126
TAXON
Lama guanicoe
Equus caballus
Equidae (fossil)
Zaedyus cf. pichiy
Dasypodidae
Ctenomys sp.
Lagostomus maximus
Myocastor coypus
Mus musculus
Galea sp.
cf. Pseudalopex
Felis geoffroyii
Undet. Megafauna
Rhea americana
Chloephaga sp.
Dendrocygna sp.
Anas platalea
Bufo cf. paracnemis
Gastropoda
Total
MNI by
MNI by Sectors Archaeological
Units
SA
SB
CS
NI
15
10
5
11
4
4
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
0
1
1
1
0
1
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
18
12
6
13
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
----------------------1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
2
0
2
0
3
3
0
3
0
2
1
1
2
0
MNI
71
48
26
54
17
Table 4. Total MNI and MNI distribution by sectors and

archaeological units. References: CS: Upper Component; NI:
Lower Levels.
fragments of ulna, a fragment of femur and two autopodials

(MNI=1, Table 4) (Salemme 1987).
Bc C Total NISP Total % NISP

7 0
107
29.00
38 0
262
71.00
45 0
369
100.00
Table 3. Lama guanicoe skeletal parts.
levels of carbonates, in many cases they were identified

simply as undetermined megafauna (35 fragments, Table 2).
They were grouped in Sector A (test pit 1) and in Sector B in
two adjacent squares (Tables 2, Figure 2). In both cases,
they come either from Unit C or from the lower level of Unit
B (Bc). They are in both cases equid bones, and a group of
bones assigned to cf. Scelidotheriinae (Table 2), eight of
them corresponding to a taxon close to Scelidotherium sp.,
though larger in size: two astragalus, a vertebra, two
Several lithic debris (five small and very small quartzite flakes)
were found in the sediment associated with the bone remains
within Test Pit 1. Other five lithic artifacts (an instrument and
four quartzite debris) were found close to the megafauna
remains coming from Square 7. Notwithstanding, a primary
association with the archaeological context was not clearly
defined from neither an archaeological nor a geological point
of view (Madrid et al. 1991) since some of the remains of
these megafauna and lithic artifacts might be considered the
result of erosion and redeposition in the lower part of Unit B
(Bc) and upper part of Unit C, in areas close to the ancient
lagoon coastline. In sum, it should be acknowledged that due
to the action of weathering on most of the bone surfaces
(equivalent to grades 2-4 in Behrensmeyers scale), evidenced
by the carbonate masks, there are few possibilities to observe
cutmarks or other anthropic marks in this context, which has
been clearly disturbed by postdepositions.
6.- Ceratophrys cf. ornata (toad) is represented by skull
remains found in Sector B at different depths (Units A-A/
B and B)-, which belong to three different individuals (Tables
2 and 4).
&
Axial skeleton
teeth
antle
skull: occipital
skull: maxilla
timpanic bulla
mandible
hioides
atlas
axis
sacrum
caudal vertebrae
innominate
proximal ribs
fragmented ribs
sternebrae
Total NISP
Appendicular skeleton
scapula
proximal humerus
diaphysis humerus
distal humerus
proximal ulna
diaphysis ulna
distal ulna
proximal radius
diaphysis radius
distal radius
carpals
px. Metacarpal
ds. Metacarpal
pelvis
proximal femur
diaphysis femur
distal femur
patella
proximal tibia
diaphysis tibia
distal tibia
tarsals
astragalus
calcaneus
px.metatarsal
distal metatarsal
proximal metapodial
distal metapodial
phalanx 1
phalanx 2
phalanx 3
sesamoidal
Total NISP
Skeletal pieces
NISP axial skeleton

NISP appendicular skeleton
Total NISP

A-A/B
B
Bc
C
5
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

A-A/B
B
Bc
C
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
5
1
3
0
0
28
0
0
1
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
19
TOTAL
NISP
TOTAL
% NISP
5
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
31.25
6.25
12.50
0
6.25
12.50
0
0
0
0
18.75
0
12.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
TOTAL
NISP
TOTAL
% NISP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
0
3
2
0
1
1
2
3
1
2
4
4
4
4
1
3
0
1
1
7
2
3
0
0
60
0
0
1.67
6.67
1.67
1.67
1.67
3.33
1.67
0
5
3.33
0
1.67
1.67
3.33
5
1.67
3.33
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
1.67
5
0
1.67
1.67
11.67
3.33
5
0
0
100
A-A/B
Bc
Total NISP
Total % NISP
11
28
39
4
19
23
1
13
14
0
0
0
16
60
76
21.05
78.95
100
taxonomically, they might be assigned to the same species.

One of the remains has a gun impact. All this evidence
indicates that Chloephaga sp. is intrusive and should not
be associated to the archaeological context.
9. Within this group, there are bones that have been
identified as Dendrocygna sp. (a type of duck). This is a
migratory species that inhabits places that are fairly close
to waters, especially during nidification, which usually takes
place in boreal territories (MNI=1, see Tables 2 and 4).
10.- Anas platalea (red shoveler) was found in Unit A-A/B,
in two squares of Sector A (Table 2) and was identified
through two bones from the apendicular skeleton (MNI=1,
see Tables 2 and 4). This species, which is widely distributed
through the Pampean Region, is known to inhabit marshes
and lagoons. Finding it in the site strongly suggests that
there used to be marshes and lagoons in the area.
11.- cf. Calloneta leucophrys (ringed teal). A bone of this
species comes from the upper levels of Sector A (Table 2). It
is very interesting to find this specimen in the area because
its southernmost chorology reaches the north and east of
the province of Entre Ros -southern Mesopotamia- (Darrieu
and Camperi 2001; Narosky and Izurieta 1987) but it is absent
from the Buenos Aires territory at present. This species is
associated with high temperatures and humidity.
12.- Fulica cf. leucoptera (white-winged coot) is represented
by a single bone coming from Sector A, Unit A-A/B (Table 2).
This species is frequent in the Interserrana area; as a matter
of fact, it has been recovered from other archaeological sites
in the area (Salemme 1990), though always in smaller numbers.
Its MNI in this site is only one (Table 4).
Other bird bones have been classified as undetermined Aves,
since it is difficult to assign them to higher levels -except for
one of them that was identified at a Family level- (Laridae,
Table 2).
Table 5. Lama guanicoe: taxonomic abundance units.
7.- Bufo cf. paracnemis (toad, sapo buey): the materials,

which belong to two individuals, were found altogether
concentrated in the disturbed sediments possibly a small
cave- of a single square in Unit A. (Tables 2 and 4). This
specimen -which could be a good indicator of high
temperatures- is represented by the fore region (pelvis and
limbs).
8. Chloephaga sp. (wild goose) remains come from the same
square (N 9, Figure 2) and belong to a single individual
(Tables 2 and 4). They were deposited in a removed sediment
-probably a pit- in Unit A-A/B. At least eight of the bones
identified as Ave undetermined belong to the same group
and, though there are no diagnostic pattern to identify them
13.- Lutreolina crassicaudata (weasel) is a frequent species

in the Interserrana area. It comes from the upper levels of
Unit A-A/B in Sector B (Table 2), where it might have entered
in a recent period of site formation. There is no clear evidence
of association between this species and the cultural materials
(MNI=1, see Table 4).
14.- Felis geoffroyii (a small felid found in Sector A) and
Pseudalopex sp. (a small fox, from Sectors A and B) (Figure
2; Table 2) are the carnivores represented -in a very low
frequency- in the upper unit of the site. There are marks on
some of the bone remains that could be attributed to these
predators (G. Gmez personal communication 2001; Gmez
and Gutirrez 2001; Gutirrez 2004). New analyses on this
topic are being carried out at the moment (see Gutirrez
2004). Their presence in this area could be the result of the
action of natural agents and no evidence of association
with the cultural context has been found. Both species are
represented by an MNI of 1 (Tables 2 and 4).
'
15.- Some remains of shells were identified as Gastropoda.

One of them belongs to an unspecified species of a marine
Volutidae, and the other to a terrestrial pulmonate snail.
The latter is frequent in the sandy sediments of the area,
whereas the marine gastropod is not. The presence of the
marine gastropod could be the result of anthropic action,
considering the distance to the marine coastline. These
remains (Table 2) come from the upper levels and from both
sectors of excavation and are so scarce that could be assigned
to only one individual in each case (Tables 2 and 4).
16.- Armadillos (some of them identified as Euphractinii,
though they have been classified as Dasypodidae), are
usually much better represented by caparace scutes than by
bones. Scutes are useful for specific assigning but are not
diagnostic in the counting of the MNI. The species
represented are Dasypus cf. hybridus (mulita),
Chaetophractus villosus (peludo) and Zaedyus cf. pichiy
(piche -only one scute was found-). Were scutes and bones
considered together, the distribution would be similar in both
sectors; but in this case, only the bones have been included
in Table 2. Two mulita bones that belong to the same individual
were found in Unit A-A/B in an adjacent square of Sector B.
A third mulita bone was found in Unit B, reason why it was
considered as belonging to a different individual (Table 4).
Chaetophractus villosus is represented by MNI=3. Two of
these specimens come from Sector A while the third was
recovered from Sector B (Tables 2 and 4, see distribution by
sectors and units). Considering both scutes and bones, only
0.4% is burnt. Such a low percentage cannot be considered
an indication of cooking -in relation to the consumption of
these animals-, but the caparace may have been used as a
container. If armadillos were to be considered as elements of
disturbance, it is possible that they could have affected mainly
the upper levels, since there is no evidence of caves
containing remains of this species. In the case of Zaedyus cf.
pichiy, the only recovered scute has been used in the counting
of the MNI (Table 4) because there was no single bone found
belonging to this species (Table 2) .
17.- Rodents are represented by Lagostomus maximus
(vizcacha), Myocastor coypus (coipo), Ctenomys sp.
(tuco-tuco), Galea sp. (patagonian cuis) and a single
bone of a domestic type of mouse (Mus musculus) (Table 2).
L. maximus was horizontally distributed in the same
proportion in both sectors of excavation, whereas the
vertical distribution recorded was 64% in Unit A-A/B (Table
2). In the case of Ctenomys sp., 68% of the remains was
recorded in Unit A-A/B, while the remaining 32% comes
from Unit B and its lower section, i.e., Bc. Of the total %NISP,
70% comes from Sector A (Table 2).
Three of these species are burrowers: vizcacha and tucotuco inhabit high and very well drained habitats, while coipo
prefers places close to ponds or streams. In this sense, the
area of Tres Reyes lagoon may have been a particularly
suitable place for the three rodents; in fact, they live nearby
at present. The activity and influence of tuco-tuco and coipo
in the formation process of the site have already been taken
into account (Politis and Madrid 1988). Besides, in a sample
from subsequent excavations an increment of L. maximus
was observed -some of the remains evidenced contact with
fire and what could be some cutmarks (A. Caro Petersen
personal communication 2002). Instead, the NISP of coipos
remains did not increase.
The sample contains 33 fragments, most of them from Sector
A, Unit A-A/B (Table 2), that have been classified as
Rodentia, since it was impossible to determine their species
at a more precise level because they did not present enough
diagnostic elements. As a result of a new revision, the bones
originally assigned to Chinchillidae are now closer to
Lagostomus than to Lagidium, as it was discussed in
Salemme (1987).
18.- Rhea americana (and) was identified through three
bones. Abundant shell-egg fragments, identified as Rheidae
have not been included in the quantification of the MNI or
in the tables. Most of the shell eggs come from the lower
section of Unit B (Bc), especially from Sector A. They are
carbonated in general. The total NISP is 232; 94.40% of which
is distributed in Sector A and 5.60% in Sector B. The bones
(two phalanges and a tibio-tarsal), on the other hand, come
from Sector B (Units A-A/B and B), and are represented by
a MNI of 1 (Tables 2 and 4). It should be mentioned that it is
remarkable how few shell eggs have been recorded in this
site as compared to other sites in the Interserrana area.
Results of the faunal analyses

Once the anatomical and the taxonomical analyses had been
done, several observations were made on the recorded
sample.
Bone preservation was variable. A total of 2.25% of the bones
revealed rodent marks (which, in some cases, seriously
damaged the external surfaces) and, frequently, marks on
the surface fractures. In a previous paper, the action of coipo
(Myocastor coypus) on bones coming from the upper levels
of the archaeological context was estimated. As a result, it
was determined that its destructive action was more evident
on the materials that came from the transition between Units
A and B (i.e., A/B) (Politis and Madrid 1988). The damaging
action of another rodent on these bones (Lagostomus
maximus), also recovered from Units A-A/B, was evaluated
as well (Gmez and Gutirrez 2001).
The action of these rodents as agents of vertical and
horizontal displacement of the archaeological materials has
been considered -at least to a certain degree-. However,
faunal and human remains recovered recently did not display
high percentages of marks, though there was a high degree
!
of disarticulation in the human skeletons (Madrid and

Barrientos 2000).
groove, and some shaft cylinders in mammal or avian

unidentified bones.
Alterations in bone sufaces, root marks, action of weathering

and a few bones with exfoliated surfaces, were also
observed. The provenience was specially considered, since
these features characterised bones that were found in caves
or in exposed profiles, where rodent activity could have
been controlled. It is possible that the different colours on
the surfaces of the bones was the result of the bones being
in contact with the sediments containing them, and could
also be a sign of antiquity. The difference is very clear in
bones of European horses, which had fresher surfaces and
lighter weights than guanaco or pampean deer bones, which
were heavier and had reddish surfaces. In some of them the
surfaces looked whiter because of the carbonaceous
sediments in which they had been resting. Two more
observations were made:
According to the archaeofaunal analysis of Laguna Tres

Reyes 1 site, the context presented a biodiversity of 31 taxa
(excluding the Camelidae, Cervidae and Rheidae families, as
it was explained above). They correspond to 22 genera and/
or species of mammals, birds and amphibians and to 9 taxa
that were identified at higher hierarchical levels like Class,
Order, Suborder and Family. They were vertically distributed
in three stratigraphical units, and horizontally distributed in
both sectors of excavation (Table 2; Figure 4). The faunal
diversity is constant in Sectors A and B alike (24 and 22 taxa
respectively), though there are differences in the NISP if
Unit A-A/B is compared to Unit B -particularly Bc- and Unit
C (28, 13, 10 and 3 taxa respectively in both sectors alike: 20,
12, 4 and 1 in Sector A; 19, 9, 9 and 3 in Sector B). However,
a more thorough analysis shall allow us to explain the
differences, especially, in the distribution of birds, toads
and extinct fauna (Figure 4). The recorded species -in both
sectors of excavation and in all the stratigraphical units- are
the ones that were best represented like Lama guanicoe
and Ozotoceros bezoarticus, the small rodent Ctenomys sp.
and another four not so well-represented taxa.
- Bones containing carbonates or that were impregnated

with them, represented 8% of the sample (this refers
mainly to those remains coming from lower Unit B (Bc)
and those coming partly from upper Unit B -more than
60 cm in depth, on average-.
- Scarce evidence of fire utilisation was found. Burnt or
calcinated bones represented only 2.6% of the total
sample and they were, in general, small and unidentified
fragments or, even in a lesser proportion, dermal scutes
of armadillos.
Regarding the fragmentation of the sample -and considering

that 75% of it was not identified-, the most outstanding
feature was the high degree of splitting in mammal long
bones: splints were usually between 2 and 10 cm long, in
average; whenever possible, the splints were assigned to
the anatomical unit. Similarly, small fragments of spongy
bones (especially megafauna bones) were highly frequent.
These were, in general, not identified -neither at the
taxonomic nor at the anatomical level. In any case, the
taphonomic processes could have been an important factor
of fragmentation, in addition to the anthropic action and the
cultural activities (see Gutirrez 2004 for a detailed
taphonomic analysis).
In spite of the preservation degree, other marks -this time
produced by man- were observed, particularly in long bones
ends as well as on articulation surfaces, and even on some
shaft fragments. Impact points and flakes are an indication
of the intentional fragmentation, which probably had two
functions: the extraction of marrow and the use of bones as
raw material. In this sense, some denticulates, sharped
fragments or spatular preforms, could be an indication of
the manufacture of instruments. At least two phalanges of
camelid were made longitudinally hollow, a signal more of
an anthropic action than of a carnivore activity (A. Caro
Petersen, personal communication 2002). However, future
analyses shall confirm or reject this hypothesis. Other
evidence of human activity was an incipient perimetrical
There are three species that are certainly intrusive in the

archaeological record: Equus caballus, Mus musculus and
Chloephaga sp. The European horse and the mouse were
introduced in the Pampas after the Spanish Conquest (Politis
and Madrid 1988; Salemme 1987). The fossil taxa -Equidae
and Scelidotheriinae- and the sheer abundance of
unidentified megamammal bones displayed no evidence of
having a primary association with the archaeological context.
In fact, their presence in the record is most certainly related
to postdepositional processes.
Apart from the hydrological agents, the systematic erosive
action of burrower rodents like Ctenomys sp., Myocastor
coypus, and Lagostomus maximus could have been the most
important factor of disturbance in the site. Moreover, they
could be the origin of secondary associations like those
already mentioned. There were two carnivore genera recorded
as well, which were believed to belong to the context.
Furthermore, it is possible that they were responsible for some
of the marks on the bones (Gmez and Gutirrez 2001).
The bones of two species of toads, Bufo paracnemis and
Ceratophrys ornata, were recorded as well; two individuals
represent the former and three the latter. However, there is
no clear evidence of primary association to the context in
any of them since the remains of Bufo were found in a place
similar to a small cave -a removed sediment-, while the skull
remains of Ceratophrys were scattered in the sediment. That
is why a natural origin for the accumulation of toad bones in
the archaeofaunal context can be assumed. From a
paleoenvironmental point of view, it is interesting to note
the presence of Bufo paracnemis in this area, since its
!
present distribution is farther north, in a warmer habitat like

the Chaco-Pampean and Mesopotamia regions.
As for the taxonomic abundance, important differences
expressed under NISP, %NISP, MNI and MNE, MAU,
%MAU for the guanaco and the papean deer (Figures 4 to
6; Tables 2 to 7) are observed among the taxa. Lama guanicoe
is dominant in the sample (the total of bones identified as
Camelidae = 50.97%, 15 individuals) as compared to other
species. Ozotoceros bezoarticus follows the guanaco as a

large mammal, but is represented only by 4 individuals
(10.50%; Tables 2 and 4). In spite of this, if rodents were all
considered together, they would have a high representation
in the sample (14.64%, MNI = 23, Tables 2 and 4). Obviously,
the difference in size among the species represented in TR1
can mean a difference in the kind of changes these burrowers
could have produced to the context, even to the point of
Skeletal parts
Archaeological Units
Upper Component
Lower Levels
MNE MAU %MAU MNE MAU %MAU
1
2
1
50.00
1
0.5
25.00
2
1
50.00
3
0.36
18.00
1
1
1
0.5
25.00
4
2
100.00
1
0.5
25.00
1
0.5
25.00
1
0.5
25.00
1
0.5
25.00
1
0.5
50.00
1
0.5
50.00
3
0.21
10.50
2
1
50.00
1
0.5
25.00
1
0.5
50.00
2
1
100.00
2
1
50.00
1
0.5
50.00
1
0.5
25.00
2
1
50.00
3
1.5
75.00
1
0.5
50.00
2
1
50.00
2
1
100.00
3
0.15
7.50
1
0.05
5.00
4
2
100.00
1
0.5
25.00
1
0.5
25.00
2
1
100.00
1
0.25
25.00
1
7
1.75
87.50
2
0.25
12.50
3
0.37
18.50
-
Archaeological Units
Skeletal parts
Upper Component
Lower Levels
MNE MAU %MAU MNE MAU %MAU
teeth
skull: occipital
1
0.5
3.85
1
0.5
25.00
skull: maxilla
timpanic bulla
3
1.5
11.54
mandible
11
5.5
42.31
hioides
atlas
3
3
23.08
1
0.5
25.00
axis
3
3
23.08
5
1
7.69
9
0.75
5.77
2
0.16
8.00
5
0.71
5.46
apophysis vertebrae
1
9
sacrum
1
0.5
3.85
caudal vertebrae
6
1.2
9.23
innominate
proximal ribs
3
0.25
1.92
fragmented ribs
5
1
sternebrae
scapula
12
6
46.15
1
0.5
25.00
proximal humerus
diaphysis humerus
1
0.5
3.85
distal humerus
16
8
61.54
4
2
100.00
proximal radius-ulna
7
0.63
4.85
1
0.5
25.00
diaphysis radio-ulna
2
1
7.69
distal radio-ulna
6
3
23.08
1
0.5
25.00
carpals
11
0.78
6.00
3
0.22
11.00
px. Metacarpal
7
3.5
26.92
1
0.5
25.00
ds. Metacarpal
1
0.5
3.85
pelvis
2
1
7.69
2
1
50.00
proximal femur
5
2.5
19.23
1
0.5
25.00
diaphysis femur
10
5
38.46
4
2
100.00
distal femur
5
2.5
19.23
patella
4
2
15.38
1
0.5
25.00
proximal tibia
4
2
15.38
diaphysis tibia
3
1.5
11.54
distal tibia
9
4.5
34.62
tarsals
10
1
7.69
3
0.3
15.00
astragalus
26
13
100.00
4
2
100.00
calcaneus
15
7.5
57.69
2
1
50.00
px.metatarsal
4
2
15.38
distal metatarsal
prox. Metapodial
5
1.25
9.62
6
distal metapodial
9
2.25
17.31
1
0.25
12.50
phalanx 1
29
3.62
27.85
4
0.5
25.00
phalanx 2
9
1.12
8.62
1
0.12
6.00
phalanx 3
1
0.12
0.92
diaphysis indet.
4
3
sesamoidal
1
0.12
0.92
bezoar
-
teeth
antle
skull: occipital
skull: maxilla
timpanic bulla
mandible
hioides
atlas
axis
sacrum
caudal vertebrae
innominate
proximal ribs
fragmented ribs
sternebrae
scapula
proximal humerus
diaphysis humerus
distal humerus
proximal ulna
diaphysis ulna
distal ulna
proximal radius
diaphysis radius
distal radius
carpals
px. Metacarpal
ds. Metacarpal
pelvis
proximal femur
diaphysis femur
distal femur
patella
proximal tibia
diaphysis tibia
distal tibia
tarsals
astragalus
calcaneus
px.metatarsal
distal metatarsal
proximal metapodial
distal metapodial
phalanx 1
phalanx 2
phalanx 3
sesamoidal
Table 6. Lama guanicoe: taxonomic abundance units.
Table 7. Ozotoceros bezoarticus: taxonomic abundance units.
!
reconsidering their role as an economic resource. Likewise,

birds represent 5.26% of the total sample, with a MNI of 5.
Unfortunately, many of those bones are not diagnostic,
making it impossible to identify them at a higher taxonomic
level, what could have been important for the environmental
interpretations1. Finally, armadillos are 4.14% of the sample,
and are represented by 8 individuals of three different
species.
An interesting record for the analysis of the anthropic action
is the marine gastropod, mainly Volutidae. It is important for
it to be part of the record -even though it has a very low
representation (0.14%)- because this would mean that man
actively took part in activities along the sea coast. The
carnivores recorded (some canids, a feline and a weasel)
represent 0.70% of the sample, and their remains are in
secondary association with the archaeological context.
The extinct megafauna (horse and sloth) represents nearly
7% of the total sample. None of the bones anatomically
identified had evidence of human actions on them, and,
what is more, their surfaces are so carbonated that even if
they had marks it would be difficult to recognise them.
So, from the 31 taxa recorded, only three species exhibited
clear evidence of exploitation (L. guanicoe, O. bezoarticus
and L. maximus). This is illustrated through the abundance
of certain skeletal pieces, of cutmarks (11%) and signs of
fire (1%). Even armadillos could be considered as part of the
diet, as it has been demonstrated in other pampean
archaeological sites (Madrid and Politis 1991; Salemme et
al. 1985). The evidence of cutmarks in bones or of
combustion in scutes was very poor in this site. In the case
of the and, it is believed that at least the eggs may have
been consumed -given the number of shell-egg fragments
found (21.70% of the total NISP in Sector A but only 1.29%
in Sector B)-, but the few bones recorded did not show
anthropic evidence.
Thus, the anatomic richness of the two larger species, the
guanaco and the pampean deer is, in terms of the economy,
the most significant of the record, (see Tables 6 and 7). In
the case of the medium-sized rodent (vizcacha), even though
its NISP and MNI are low (Tables 2 and 4), the cutmarks
observed in some of the specimens would evidence the use
of this species with different purposes. In other sites of the
Interserrana area, like Paso Otero 3 (Martnez and Gmez
1997), or Tandilia -the case of Cueva Tixi- (Quintana and
Mazzanti 2001), the record of L. maximus has been related
to anthropic action.
The vertical (stratigraphical units) and spatial (sectors of
excavation) distributions show that L. guanicoe and O.
bezoarticus species were scattered in the site (Figures 4 to
6; Table 2): 71.55% of the guanaco was found in Sector A,
with the highest frequency in Units A-A/B, that is 53.65%
of the sample. On the other hand, the pampean deer is
better represented in Sector B (65.78%), with a higher

frequency in Unit B of Sector A (50%) and in Unit A-A/B of
Sector B (66%).
Regarding the distribution of skeletal parts of the guanaco,
there is concentration in Sector A -especially in squares 5, 6
and 10- of several specimens, which for the most part belong
to the postcranial skeleton. The most abundant pieces are
of low economic value. Among them, the autopodial
elements are the most frequent in the assemblage (Table 3).
If %MAU is considered (Table 6), the astragalus has the
highest level of frequency (100%) in both archaeological
units, while the calcaneus represents 57.69% of the sample
in the Upper Component and 50% in the Lower Levels. These
differences may certainly be the consequence of different
butchering patterns or of a differential preservation. The
forelimbs are represented by values close to 50% or more
(Tables 3 and 6). It is the case of the distal humerus (61.54%)
and the scapula (46.15%) in the Upper Component; in the
Lower Levels, the frequency of the distal humerus grows to
100%. Another significant piece of high %MAU is the
mandible, with 42.31% in the Upper Component. Although
the forelimbs and the skull can provide an important quantity
of meat, marrow and fat, it is remarkable the low frequency
and/or absence of ribs, considering that they are also a
good source of supply.
The remains of the pampean deer, on the contrary, are
randomly distributed in both sectors of excavation, though
a higher concentration of skeletal parts of the apendicular
skeleton were found in Sector B (among them: tibiaes, femora,
autopodials, metapodials; Table 5). If %MAU is analysed
(Table 7), the forelimb is the best represented of all specimens,
by distal ends. In the case of this species, the distal humerus
represents 100%; the same happens with the astragalus in
the Upper Component and with the guanaco (see above).
There is no record of this specimen in the Lower Levels.
The hindlimb is represented by the femora and tibia in the
Lower Levels (between 50% and 100%) and in the Upper
Component (between 50% and 75%) (Table 7). It is
significant for the %MAU of the distal metapodial (87.5%)
to be that close to the percentage of the diaphysis of tibia
(75%). Both ends of tibia represent 50% of the sample. These
values would suggest certain pattern of dismemberment of
the hindlimbs. For this species, the cranium is represented by
skull bones and mandible (between 25% and 50%); this data
must be considered in relation to the size of the sample.
In spite of some differences, it is possible for the guanaco
and the deer to have been exploited in a similar way in this
site. The comparison between both species as regards the
%MAU for both archaeological units and sectors of
excavation evidences a pattern of economic use of these
mammals in Tres Reyes 1 site. An analysis that focuses on
the economic approach is currently under process.
!!
DISCUSSION
The following can be learnt from the analysis of Tables 2
and 8.
A wide diversity of species was recorded in the site. Most
of the 31 taxa identified at the different taxonomic levels
belong to mammals. To begin with, it could be argued that
three of the species had economic value: two are large
mammals (Lama guanicoe and Ozotoceros bezoarticus),
while the third is a medium-sized mammal (Lagostomus
maximus). There are other 3 species that are intrusive: the
European horse, a domestic mouse, and a bird -the first two
species were introduced by the Spaniards-. The sample also
contains seven species that are burrowers: four of them are
rodents, while the remaining three are armadillos. Also, it is
very interesting to acknowledge the presence of two taxa of
extinct fauna (an equid and a sloth). The birds, on the other
hand, are represented by seven taxa, most of which should
be considered to be in secondary association with the
context. However, it should be noted that an important
number of avian bones have only been assigned to Class
level (Table 2). Two species of amphibians have been
recorded, representing five individuals. Finally, gastropods
are from marine and terrestrial habitats.
TAXON
Lama guanicoe
Equus caballus
Equidae (fossil)
Zaedyus cf. pichiy
Dasypodidae
Ctenomys sp.
Lagostomus maximus
Myocastor coypus
Chinchillidae
Mus musculus
Galea sp.
Rodentia
cf. Pseudalopex
Felis geoffroyi
Undet. Megafauna
Undet. Ave
Rhea americana
Chloephaga sp.
Laridae
Dendrocygna sp.
Anas platalea
Bufo cf. paracnemis
Gastropoda
Total
The %NISP and MNI have been identified by archaeological

units and are presented in Figure 5, and in Tables 4 and 8.
This paper focuses on the archaeological units more than
on the stratigraphical ones (Figures 3 and 5). In that sense,
the spatial and chronological analyses of the archaeofauna
in TR1 are completely different from similar analyses in
previous papers. When the archaeological units, Upper
Component and Lower Levels (see Stratigraphy, Absolute
Chronology and Plan of Excavation), were defined for the
first time, the formation processes and the technofacture
characteristics of the site (Madrid and Salemme 1991; Madrid
et al. 1991; Politis and Madrid 1988; Salemme 1987) were
taken into account. In more recent papers, the archaeological
units were defined on the basis of the bioarchaeological
structure and the radiocarbon datings from the site (Madrid
and Barrientos 2000). From this point of view, the faunal
record could be divided in two blocks (Tables 4 and 8; Figures
3 and 5), though with different degrees of resolution:
Sectors A and B
Sector A
CS
NI
CS
NI
CS
n %CS n %NI
%
%
n %CS n
324 53.38 45 38.46 44.75 6.22 243 60.60 21
62 10.21 14 11.97 8.56 1.93 20
4.99 6
34
5.60
0
0.00 4.70 0.00 28
6.98 0
0
0.00
2
1.71 0.00 0.28
0
0.00 1
15
2.47
1
0.85 2.07 0.14
8
2.00 0
3
0.49
0
0.00 0.41 0.00
1
0.25 0
0
0.00
1
0.85 0.00 0.14
0
0.00 0
10
1.65
0
0.00 1.38 0.00
5
1.25 0
47
7.74
4
3.42 6.49 0.55 34
8.48 2
14
2.31
1
0.85 1.93 0.14
6
1.50 0
3
0.49
0
0.00 0.41 0.00
3
0.75 0
1
0.16
0
0.00 0.14 0.00
0
0.00 0
1
0.16
0
0.00 0.14 0.00
1
0.25 0
2
0.33
0
0.00 0.28 0.00
2
0.50 0
32
5.27
1
0.85 4.42 0.14 26
6.48 0
3
0.49
0
0.00 0.41 0.00
1
0.25 0
2
0.33
0
0.00 0.28 0.00
2
0.50 0
1
0.16
0
0.00 0.14 0.00
0
0.00 0
1
0.16 34 29.06 0.14 4.70
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 14 11.97 0.00 1.93
0
0.00 6
24
3.95
0
0.00 3.31 0.00
6
1.50 0
3
0.49
0
0.00 0.41 0.00
0
0.00 0
6
0.99
0
0.00 0.83 0.00
0
0.00 0
1
0.16
0
0.00 0.14 0.00
1
0.25 0
1
0.16
0
0.00 0.14 0.00
1
0.25 0
2
0.33
0
0.00 0.28 0.00
0
0.00 0
2
0.33
0
0.00 0.28 0.00
1
0.25 0
2
0.33
0
0.00 0.28 0.00
2
0.50 0
6
0.99
0
0.00 0.83 0.00
6
1.50 0
3
0.49
0
0.00 0.41 0.00
3
0.75 0
2
0.33
0
0.00 0.28 0.00
1
0.25 0
607 100.00 117 100.00 83.84 16.16 401 100.00 36
1. The Upper Component, the youngest stratigraphical

unit, contains the faunal remains coming from Units AA/B and upper part of Unit B.
2. The Lower Levels, the underlying stratigraphical units,
contains the faunal remains coming from the lower
section of Unit B (Bc) and Unit C.
Sector B
NI
CS
%NI n %CS n
58.33 81 39.32 24
16.67 42 20.39 8
0.00
6
2.91 0
2.78
0
0.00 1
0.00
7
3.40 1
0.00
2
0.97 0
0.00
0
0.00 1
0.00
5
2.43 0
5.56 13
6.31 2
0.00
8
3.88 1
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
1
0.49 0
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
6
2.91 1
0.00
2
0.97 0
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
1
0.49 0
0.00
1
0.49 34
16.67
0
0.00 8
0.00 18
8.74 0
0.00
3
1.46 0
0.00
6
2.91 0
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
2
0.97 0
0.00
1
0.49 0
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
0
0.00 0
0.00
1
0.49 0
100.00 206 100.00 81
Sector A
Sector B
Sectors A+B
NI
CS
NI
CS
NI Total %
%NI
%
%
%
%
29.63 33.56 2.90 11.19 3.31 369 50.97
9.88 2.76 0.83 5.80 1.10
76 10.50
0.00 3.87 0.00 0.83 0.00
34
4.70
1.23 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14
2
0.28
1.23 1.10 0.00 0.97 0.14
16
2.21
0.00 0.14 0.00 0.28 0.00
3
0.41
1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
1
0.14
0.00 0.69 0.00 0.69 0.00
10
1.38
2.47 4.70 0.28 1.80 0.28
51
7.04
1.23 0.83 0.00 1.10 0.14
15
2.07
0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
3
0.41
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00
1
0.14
0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
1
0.14
0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
2
0.28
1.23 3.59 0.00 0.83 0.14
33
4.56
0.00 0.14 0.00 0.28 0.00
3
0.41
0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
2
0.28
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00
1
0.14
41.98 0.00 0.00 0.14 4.70
35
4.83
9.88 0.00 0.83 0.00 1.10
14
1.93
0.00 0.83 0.00 2.49 0.00
24
3.31
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00
3
0.41
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00
6
0.83
0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
1
0.14
0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
1
0.14
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00
2
0.28
0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00
2
0.28
0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
2
0.28
0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00
6
0.83
0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
3
0.41
0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00
2
0.28
100.00 55.39 4.97 28.45 11.19 724 100.00
Table 8. Distribution of NISP into archaeological units. References: CS: Upper Component; NI: Lower Levels; n= NISP; %: %NISP.
!"
Even though a definite hiatus is not verified in the vertical

distribution, there is a significant drop in the frequency of
the archaeological remains, when comparing the Lower
Levels (n=117; 16.16%) with the Upper Component (n=607;
83.84%). In other words, the Lower Levels represent only
9% of the sample in Sector A but more than 39% in Sector B.
The biodiversity is similar in both sectors of excavation, but
there is a huge variation in the frequency of the taxa between
the Upper Component (28 taxa in total -22 are in Sector A
and 19 in Sector B-) and the Lower Levels (10 taxa in total 5 in Sector A and 10 in Sector B-) (Table 8). This enormous
difference in the recorded genera responds to the poor
presence of armadillos, rodents, carnivores and birds in the
Lower Levels, the predominance of guanacos and Pampean
deers, and the notorious presence of fossil taxa. Camelids,
followed by cervids, are also dominant in the Upper
Component but there is also a great diversity of birds,
armadillos, rodents, and carnivores. Similarly, three intrusive
taxa should be incorporated to this assemblage, though they
are not in primary association with the context.
Zooarchaeological indicators
If the MNI is analysed (Table 4), the high frequency of the
guanaco stands out, especially in the Upper Component
(11 individuals). As for the Pampean deer, it is equally
represented in both occupational levels 2 individuals in
each one. This distribution, as well as the skeletal pieces
represented, suggest that humans were inclined to
perform primary butchering particularly on guanacos
within the boundaries of the site or near it (Tables 3 and
6). Moreover, the hunting of guanacos must have
increased remarkably during the Upper Component, and
especially in Sector A (72%). This camelid was also a
vital resource for the societies from the Lower Levels.
the activities of small groups and/or short occupational

events, probably with a different function from that of the
Upper Component. All of these factors must be considered
and included in the analysis to understand the complex
occupational history of the site.
These data have interesting implications and chronological
connotations (Table 1). Hunter-gatherer occupations took
place along the northern margin of the lagoon in different
moments of the Late Holocene, mainly in its initial phase,
between ca. 2500 and 1800 years BP. The Lower Levels, as
well as the Upper Component, may correspond to more than
one occupational event.
From the radiocarbon dating point of view, the Upper
Component should correspond to at least two extensive
occupational events. At that time, butchering was already
being practised, mainly on the guanaco and the pampean
deer, and occasionally (or secondarily), on animals of lesser
size (i.e., vizcachas and armadillos). There is no true selection
of skeletal parts, what means that there could have been a
site where primary and secondary butchering practices took
place. So far, the areas for the different activities and their
function have not been entirely identified. On the other hand,
earlier occupations are little differentiated from a
technological point of view and can be associated to
restricted occupational events and/or to specific activities
like primary butchering of preys -mainly guanacos and
venados- in places nearby TR1.
Even though the radiocarbon dating is really useful, other
analytical tools (like bone density, surviving indexes,
taphonomic processes, patterns of butchering, among others
see Gutirrez 2004 for details) together with the lithic technomorphology and pottery technics can provide with more
specific information concerning not only the kind of preys
that were exploited, but also where and how the different
activities were developed.
In the case of cervids, primary and secondary butchering

may have been performed in the area, particularly in
Sector B, where the greatest distribution of pieces (66%)
and the highest MNI were recorded. Even though the
guanaco was the most important prey, the presence of
skeletal parts of cervids demonstrates a tendency of
humans to profit from deers during the Lower Levels
(Table 7).
The chronological sequence for the site does not go back in

time beyond the beginning of the Late Holocene.
Nonetheless, the presence of bones of extinct fauna and
the finding of a foliaceous lithic tool or lanceolate preprojectile point on silex -found during the excavations before
1986- would suggest that there existed an earlier
occupational event, but for the moment, there is no clear
evidence to support this hypothesis.
The highest percentages for both species in the Upper

Component unit could be explained because of: a) a major
demographic pressure; b) a single and longer occupational
event or a palimpsest as a result of several events; c) a
better resolution of the Upper Component.
The remains of the extinct fauna were concentrated in two

well-delimited places, in both excavation sectors. They
formed assemblages deposited in the lower section of Units
B (Bc) and C. The bones of Scelidotheriinae found in Sector
B- from the apendicular skeleton (hind limb) were articulated.
Above them, and associated to present fauna and
undetermined megafauna, five lithic debris (micro flakes) of
quartzite were recorded. Until now, no cutmarks or other
evidences of mans action have been identified in
The Lower Levels, on the other hand, have a lower

resolution than the Upper Component. Furthermore, and
if non-faunal indicators are also considered, this
archaeological context might have been the scenario for
!#
megamammal bones. Thus, the association of the remains

with the archaeological context is still unclear; consequently,
they might be considered as material that was redeposited
by the lacustrine activity. The lithic debris, on the other
hand, could have been displaced from Unit B as a
consequence of postdepositional processes.
Regarding the composition of the archaeological context,
the lithic materials and the pottery are associated to the
faunal bones only in Unit A-A/B and upper section of Unit
B -that is, the Upper Component- (Madrid and Barrientos
2000; Madrid et al. 1991; Salemme and Madrid 1991). The
guanaco and pampean deer, probably the vizcacha and some
of the armadillos constituted the fauna that was object of
anthropic action in the site. This would be evidenced by the
selectivity of the skeletal parts of large mammals, the high
degree of fragmentation of long bones as well as bone flakes,
the points of impact, the helicoidal fractures and the cutmarks
-mainly close to articulation sectors-, as well as in shaft
fragments. Several of the bones of the big rodent and the
armadillos show cutmarks that evidence the butchering of
these medium-sized mammals.
Environmental indicators
From a paleoenvironmental point of view, it is possible to
make some inferences about the archaeofauna of the site.
The recorded birds are characteristic from both continental
(widgeon) and aquatic environs (goose-like), apart from the
runners like the and, which have always been associated
to archaeological contexts. Smaller birds could have
constituted a complementary resource in the diet of men or
even in the manufacture of instruments. Except for the
Chloephaga sp., whose record indicates a recent intrusion
of that material in the context, it is possible to think that the
other species are associated to the context but not as sources
of economic profit-. In this sense, the presence of Calloneta
leucophrys is very interesting. As a climatic indicator, it
provides the basis for the formulation of two hypotheses: a)
an environmental one, in which it acts as an indicator of a
temperate-humid climate (with a wider dispersion to the south
during the Late Holocene as compared to the present one); b)
a cultural one: in which it is considered as an indicator of the
mobility or interchange among groups from the Littoral
Region, its present chorological area.
A similar situation could be described for the toads, one
(Ceratophrys ornata) of Pampean origin, and the other (Bufo
paracnemis) from the Mesopotamia or from a chaqueo
temperate but drier environ; the latter was only recorded in
the Pampean region corresponding to the Ensenadense
(Late Pliocene Early Pleistocene, Gasparini and Baez 1975).
Unfortunately, there is no evidence of anthropic action on
the remains of any of these species. This is why the presence
of toads in this context shall be explained through the
environmental hypothesis, which -up to the moment- seems

to be the most reliable.
Even though some sediments were sampled to aisle the
microfauna, they have not been analysed yet. That is why
other small species that could be good paleoenvironmental
indicators have not been included in this sample. The
available information on Calloneta and Bufo would suggest,
at least, that the Late Holocene had more temperate
conditions -even though this bird and the toad live at present
in temperate but wetter environments.
Likewise, it is possible to formulate two more hypotheses
on the basis of the record of Myocastor coypus -which is
always related to waters -. It is a mammal that is frequently
seen in the vicinities of lagoons. The presence of coipo in
TR1, in spite of the fact that only a few bones were recorded,
could be interpreted as a result of an environmental change.
Looking at the radiocarbon datings available, TR1 would
have been inhabited in a time previous to the stabilization
of the pampean ecosystems, in a period of more arid
conditions from ca. 4500 BP until 1000 BP (Gmez 1996;
Tonni 1992; Tonni and Cione 1997). This could mean that
the waters would have had their volume reduced -and as a
consequence coipo was scarce-, or that the human settlement
was farther away from the margins. Nonetheless, another
possibility must be considered. For example, the remains of
coipo might belong to recent individuals that have dug their
caves in the lagoon cliffs, disturbing in that way the
archaeological context.
In summary, according to the data on the stock of animals
recorded in TR1 the amphibians, birds and mammals-, the
hypothesis suggesting that the end of the Late Holocene
had a humid and temperate environment might be confirmed,
even though some remnant species have been found that
are associated with semiarid climatic conditions -like Lama
guanicoe, Zaedyus pichiy, Tolypeutes matacus, as well as
Chloephaga and Bufo.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The faunal assemblages in TR1 would correspond to several
occupational hunter-gatherer events that took place mainly
during the beginning of the Late Holocene. The formation
processes of the site, the intrasite spatial distribution and
the use of modern technologies have allowed to infer the
existence of at least two occupational events in the northern
margin of the lagoon between ca. 2500 and 1800 years BP.
As already mentioned, the practice of different butchering
activities together with the discharge of skeletal pieces can
also be inferred from the analysis of the faunal structure.
The most exploited preys in the different events were the
guanacos; in a lower degree the Pampean deer; and,
occasionally, other animals. The study has demonstrated
!$
that the high faunal diversity in the area was affected by a

huge demographic pressure and an intense economic
exploitation. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that
subsistence depended on these species of mammals.
Regarding the environmental conditions, the absolute
chronology locates the times previous to the stabilization
of the Pampean ecosystems (ca. 1000 years BP), in a period
of more arid conditions that began ca. 4500 BP and lasted
until 1000 BP. Then, this implies that there were transitional
conditions, in agreement with the presence of some species
characteristic of wetter and warmer environments, like
Calloneta leucophrys or Bufo paracnemis. In this sense,
the site displays a great biodiversity of species from a variety
of environments. The chronology for this site between ca.
2500 and 1800 BP is related to a pedogenetic event that was
identified in the Humid Pampas (Fidalgo and Tonni 1978;
Tonni et al. 2001) and that developed under warm and humid
conditions. The faunal assemblage would be evidence of
the unstable conditions that can be considered as a clue of
an environment that underwent changes and/or that was
under an ecotonal area.
Several models of the regional cultural development
(Martnez and Gutirrez 2004; Miotti and Salemme 1999;
Politis and Salemme 1990; Politis and Madrid 2001; Quintana
and Mazzanti 2001) agree, in general, with a hypothesis
concerning the different economic strategies for faunal
exploitation that were implemented during the Late
Pleistocene and Holocene. In general terms, it has been
stated that hunter-gatherers developed a set of strategies
called generalised strategies by the end of the Pleistocene
and Early Holocene but that they changed to a specialised
strategy in the Middle Holocene. Finally, during the Late
Holocene the faunal exploitation was not only diversified
but also intensified. However, some differentiate these
hypotheses and should be interesting to point out some of
them, especially for the Late Holocene, to check them with
the record of TR1.
Martnez and Gutirrez (2004) have formulated a theory on
an areal economy of diversification and intensification
(economa areal de diversificacin e intensificacin) for
the Late Holocene that should reflect a significant increase
in the diversity and taxonomic richness of the species particularly in each bonaerian area-, in opposition to earlier
times, when a generalised regional economy was developed,
but coincident with environments that resemble the present
Pampean ecosystems. Undoubtly, that paper made a
significant contribution to the studies, especially from a
global perspective of the regional data. However, the authors
have not been consistent in the use of the different criteria
for the zoological nomenclature. The changes introduced
by them to the nomenclature on the basis of different criteria
-most of which come from Zoology and Paleontology, and
that archaeologists use without previous analyses-,
sometimes made it difficult to compare taxonomic lists from

archaeological sites to evaluate the presence/absence or
the appearance/disappearance of the species, because they
had been named or identified in varied ways, for example
Pseudalopex or Canis (Pseudalopex).
In any case, this areal diversification and intensification
sustained by Martnez and Gutirrez (2004) seems to be
supported by the record of TR1, if it is compared in general
terms with earlier sites in any other area within the Pampean
region. For the Interserrana Area the authors argue for a
certain faunal continuity in the exploited species, particularly
in relation to the Middle Holocene. It should be remembered,
though, that a wider range of territory was occupied by
human societies during the Late Holocene (i.e., the first
occupations in the Salado Basin and the Northeastern
Pampas at a regional level). Moreover, the appearance or
incoming of new species from other regions was probably
favoured by global oscillations in the environmental
conditions.
Table 2 (Middle Holocene) and Table 3 (Late Holocene) show
the genera and species chronologies -considering regional,
areal and site scales- in Martnez and Gutirrezs analysis
(2004):
- Forty nine regional taxa were classified as belonging to the
Middle Holocene (in 4 areas of 9 sites), 20 of which were
recorded in the 3 sites of the Interserrana Area. Likewise, 14
of these 20 taxa were classified also as belonging to the Late
Holocene while other 14 taxa are recorded for the first time.
There are 4 taxa recorded for the Late Pleistocene-Early
Holocene; that is a total of 32 taxa in this Interserrana area.
It is remarkable that a total of 92 taxa are present in the
region, distributed in 28 sites of 6 areas -7 of the 28 sites are
located in the Interserrana Area-. The existence of new genera
and new species predominated in this area, where only 5
taxa disappeared -2 genera (Holochilus sp. and Conepatus
sp.) and 2 species (Monodelphis dimidiata and Calomys
musculinus), registered in Fortn Necochea site-, and 1 genus
(Rhea sp.), registered in Paso Otero 3 site.
However, the disappearance of these taxa has not been
verified in the Late Holocene -at a regional level- in the
Pampean region. This is so because they are thought to
have inhabited other areas as well, as it occurs with
Monodelphis dimidiata and Calomys musculinus in the
Tandilia hilly area (Cueva Tixi site), and a species of
Conepatus sp. -e.g., Conepatus chinga-,which was recorded
in this same area and site, apart from the northern area
(Caada de Rocha site), where it was recorded for the first
time, since there is no human occupation registered there
before the Late Holocene. Regarding the record of closely
related species -even in the Interserrana area-,
disappearances have not been recorded for the Late
Holocene, since Holochilus brasiliensis was present in
Fortn Necochea site and Rhea americana in La Toma site.
!%
Thus, if we have a look at the list -strictly at the taxonomic

level- developed by Martnez and Gutirrez (2004), it would
be possible to note the disappearance of just a few genera
and species during the Late Holocene as compared to the
Middle Holocene in the Interserrana area in particular. On
the other hand, their presence in the hilly area of Tandilia
and the northern area might be either a consequence of the
existence of local microenvironments or of an incomplete
record, or just the use of misleading identification criteria.
Nevertheless, it must be taken into account that Fortn
Necochea site contains 4 of the 5 taxa which disappeared in
the Late Holocene, and this could be attributed to special
conditions in the site, and related to a more boreal or central
location in the area. A sampling bias would not be a proper
answer since the frequency of later sites is higher the one
recorded for the Middle Holocene. That would increase
rather than reduce the probabilities of finding these species
if they were present in the area during the Late Holocene.
In the particular case of the record of TR1 (sensu the
information in this paper), 8 of the 14 taxa that were still
present in the region during the Late Holocene were: Lama
guanicoe, Ozotoceros bezoarticus, Zaedyus pichiy,
Chaetophractus villosus, Ceratophrys ornata, Galea sp.,
Lagostomus maximus, and Rhea americana.
- 5 taxa are registered for the first time for the Late Holocene of
the Interserrana area, though they were already recorded -at
the regional level- for the Middle Holocene. These are:
Dasypus hybridus, Cavia aperea, Myocastor coypus, Felis
concolor, and Tupinambis sp., as well as some unidentified
Aves. At least, the armadillo, the canid, and the lizard are
indicators of wetter and temperate environmental conditions,
while the Myocastor coypus means the presence of waters
nearby. Depending on the taxonomic levels treated, another
two taxa -Ctenomys sp. and Rhea americana- could be taken
as new appearances, but they should be taken to as a
continuity if they are account (at a genus level) as already
registered in the area during the Middle Holocene -as is the
case of Ctenomys morphotypes A and B and Rhea sp. The
Rhea americana is an indicator of a grassy land, which means
also more humidity. Besides, the group of Aves undetermined
would include birds from both aquatic and continental
environments, what makes it difficult to include them only in
the environmental interpretations. In the particular case of
TR1, 4 of the 5 taxa mentioned above as considered of first
appearance Dasypus hybridus, Myocastor coypus, Ctenomys
sp., and Rhea americana have been recorded.
- 8 taxa appear for the first time at an areal and regional level
during the Late Holocene: Lutreolina crassicaudata,
Tolypeutes matacus, Mus musculus, Fulica leucoptera,
Rhynchotus rufescens, Oxyura sp., Chloephaga sp., and
Bufo paracnemis. These taxa, in a global context, could be
indicators of grassy, more or less temperate environments.
The armadillo (Tolypeutes matacus) and, in a lesser degree,
the toad -Bufo- and Chloephaga would suggest more arid

conditions than the present ones. In fact, the PliocenePleistocene deposits, where remains of Bufo were previously
recorded, are also indicative of an arid environment. The
domestic mouse, as an introduced species, has been
adapting itself to the pampean conditions for the last 400
years. At a site level, in TR1, 5 of these 8 taxa appear for the
first time (L. crassicaudata, M. musculus, F. leucoptera,
Chloephaga sp., and B. paracnemis).
If Table 3 from Martnez and Gutirrez (2004) -in the section
referred to the Interserrana area-, is compared with Table 2
in this paper, the following observations can be made for
the TR1 site, taking into account that Dasypodidae,
Chinchillidae, Rodentia -as bigger groups-, as well as the
fossil taxa, are not considered since they already existed
before the Late Holocene:
- On the basis of revision and/or new faunal materials, 6
more taxa should be added (Zaedyus cf. pichiy, Ctenomys
sp., Aves undet., Galea sp., Rhea americana, Gastropoda)
to those included in Table 3 by Martnez and Gutirrez (2004),
who informed of 12 taxa. All of them are already present in
the area (Zaedyus pichiy, Ctenomys sp., Aves undetermined,
Rhea americana) or in the region (Galea sp. and Rhea sp.),
except for the Gastropoda, which could include different
species of snails already mentioned by those authors.
- Likewise, 5 taxa assigned to canids and birds do not appear
to be recorded in this time in the region as it can be seen in
Table 3 in Martnez and Gutirrez (2004). They are: Felis
geoffroyi, Calloneta leucophrys, Anas platalea, Laridae,
Dendrocygna sp. and Equus caballus. The species
introduced after the Conquest -like the European horse and
the domestic mouse-, however, should not be considered
as part of the stocks of the Late Holocene because they
were incorporated to daily life, together with other postHispanic elements, during the so-called Historical Times.
As for the birds, it is remarkable the increase of several
genera and species for this period, what is possibly an
indicator of the availability of new resources. However, the
birds associated to the archaeological contexts do not
always show evidence of human exploitation, as it occurs in
TR1 (Gutirrez 2004). Thus, it is assumed that the increased
diversity of species is a consequence of the amelioration
and stabilization of the environmental conditions.
- Of the 7 sites in the Interserrana area during the Late
Holocene, Fortn Necochea (Crivelli Montero et al. 1987-1988)
and TR1 display the richest diversity of taxa, 17 and 12
respectively (sensu Martnez and Gutirrez 2004; 31 taxa in
TR1 in this paper, in spite of the fact that TR1 presents fewer
species of arid environments -like the Patagonian Dominionthan Fortn Necochea. One of the reasons for this could be
the geographical situation of Fortn Necochea site, located in
a more continental habitat than TR1. The Fortn Necochea
!&
site is farther from the arid dominion, although the sites are
relatively close to each other (see Figure 1).
Finally, the late diversification and intensification that is
verified in the area, and also in the region, by Martnez and
Gutirrez (2004) could be associated to the social dynamics
as well as to the changing environmental conditions
(Holocene paleoenvironments). The increase in the number
of sites during the Late Holocene in the Interserrana area
could have been the result of more extensive populations
and/or, of different ways of mobility and of changes in
territorial exploitation; thus, the density and the variability
of the sites would have also increase. Apart from the
disappearances and first appearances of species, some of
them changed their intrarregional areal chronology (it is the
case of M. dimidiata, C. musculinus and Conepatus sp.).
The differential distribution of people and animals would be
related, in different degrees, to a better knowledge of the
availability of regional resources by human groups, as well
as to the intensification of the interethnic contacts and the
oscillations in climatic changes.
These new situations either diminished certain species, or
widened their distribution or, in some cases, made them
disappear. Climate changes during Middle and Late Holocene
were neither homogeneous nor absolute in the Pampean
region. In this sense, an increase in the aridity and the
alternation of relatively short temperate and arid -to- semiarid
periods, occurred during the Middle Holocene until ca. 35003000 years BP (Politis and Madrid 2001; Tonni 1992).
Apparently, these conditions would be checked in the faunal
records, as in the case of TR1, indicating a clear amelioration
and stabilisation of the climatic conditions similar to the
ones inferred for the pampean paleoenvironments from ca.
1000 years BP. These conditions would have favoured a
more diversified economy in TR1 site. But, even though
animals of lesser size were incorporated, the species of larger
size -like camelids and, in a lesser degree, cervids- still
dominated the selection.
Referring to another area in the Pampean Region, the Tandilia
hilly area, Quintana and Mazzanti (2001) state a hierarchical
strategy (estrategia jerrquica) for the Interserrana area,
with a high specific richness but a decreased diversity of
mammals; the guanaco and the pampean deer were mainly
exploited, while the animals (or their products) of less than
15 kg were considered as secondary resources (e.g.,
armadillos, rodents, lizards, and eggs of rheas) or,
occasionally, resources for the Middle Holocene or the
beginning of the Late Holocene. For the end of the Late
Holocene (ca. 700 BP), these authors give more emphasis to
profiting from small resources and to the fact that more
species were incorporated to the diet. This kind of profit
would imply group strategies (estrategias de conjunto),
with an intensification in buffer behaviours.
This hierarchical strategy would have not been viable for
the beginning of the Late Holocene in the Interserrana area,
as it is shown in the records of TR1 and Fortn Necochea. In

the Upper Component in TR1 (assigned to the present time)
there is a wide diversity of mammals -rather than a specific
richness-, but the guanaco significantly outnumbers the
Pampean deer (in NISP as well as in MNI), which could be a
secondary resource. Animals of less than 15 kg are more
abundant in the Late Holocene than in previous times,
though it would be hard to prove that they were consumed
and, if they were, it was only occasionally. In this case, it is
likely to have existed a specialised strategy in the exploitation
of a particular resource, though not as exclusive as it was in
the Middle Holocene. It seems to be possible that in the
Interserrana area, as well as in Tandilia, a change towards
group strategies would have taken place later on, after
1000 BP. (i.e., La Toma site), as a consequence of the
development of modern ecosystems, as well as the
introduction of the European fauna. Unfortunately, no
evidence has been found for this period in TR1 yet.
In this sense, in La Toma (Late Holocene, Figure 1), the
guanaco and the pampean deer were the main resources,
though the armadillos were also extremely important for
subsistence. The largest mammals recorded are equivalent
in MNI, but the NISP of the pampean deer is higher and a
number of groups of articulated bones were registered in its
anatomical position (Salemme 1987). This seems to point to
an intensification in the use of this cervid during the Late
Holocene in the Interserrana and Ventania hilly areas, as
well as in the central Pampean Region -the Salado Depression
area- (Gonzlez de Bonaveri 2002).
Unfortunately, with the available evidence from TR1, it is
not possible to identify the seasonality of the occupations
yet. Age categories established through bone epiphysis
fusion-, teeth analyses, migratory birds, the presence of
shell eggs, etc., are topics of other papers. On the other
side, recent taphonomical studies (Gutirrez 2004) bring to
light the reasons for the high degree of fragmentation and
splitting in the sample -as it is shown by the skeletal pieces,
especially the long bones.
Regarding the probable mobility and/or contacts of the TR1
inhabitants with other groups in the Pampean Region, the
presence of marine resources like the fragment of Gastropoda
(Volutidae) that was found, as well as the bipolars and
pebbles recorded in the archaeological assemblage, would
allow to suggest mobility patterns that are being analysed
presently in a wider context that involves the Pampean
hunter-gatherer societies.
Ackowledgements
The authors wish to thank Silvia Peri (UNLP) for identifying
the toads; Eduardo Tonni and Alfredo Carlini (UNLP) for
their analyses and comments on some topics on the
megafauna; Noelia Corrado and Claudia Tambussi (UNLP)
!'
for identifying some remains of the avian fauna and for

their comments on some issues of its corology. The authors
are also deeply indebted to Eduardo Tonni, Gustavo
Martnez and Laura Miotti for their valuable comments.
The writers take full responsibility for the ideas presented
in this paper.
Gmez, G.
1996 Los Pequeos Mamferos del Sitio Arroyo Seco 2 (Pdo.
de Tres Arroyos, Pcia. de Buenos Aires). Aspectos
Relacionados con la Subsistencia, Tafonoma y el
Paleoclima. Unpublished Thesis. Facultad de Ciencias
Sociales UNCPBA, Olavarra, Buenos Aires.
Gmez, G. and M. Gutirrez
REFERENCES CITED
Barrientos, G.
1997 Nutricin y dieta de las poblaciones aborgenes
prehispnicas del sudeste de la Regin Pampeana.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Facultad de Ciencias
Naturales y Museo, UNLP. La Plata.
Behrensmeyer, A.
1978 Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone
Weathering. Paleobiology 4:150-162.
Binford, L.
1978 Nunamiut Etnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New
York.
1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic
Press, New York.
Cabrera, A.
1976 Regiones Fitogeogrficas Argentinas. Enciclopedia
Argentina de Agricultura y Jardinera, T II (1).
Editorial Acme, Buenos Aires.
Crivelli Montero, E.; M. Silveira, E. Eugenio, P. Escola, M.

Fernndez and N. Franco
1987-1988 El sitio Fortn Necochea (Partido de General La
Madrid, Provincia de Buenos Aires). Estado actual de
los trabajos. Paleoetnolgica 4:39-53.
Darrieu, C. and A. Camperi

2001 Nueva lista de las aves de la Provincia de Buenos
Aires. Cobiobo N 3, Probiota N 2. Buenos Aires.
Fidalgo, F. and E. Tonni

1978 Aspectos paleoclimticos del Pleistoceno tardoreciente de la provincia de Buenos Aires, II Reunin
Informativa del Cuaternario Bonaerense, pp. 21-28.
CIC, La Plata.
1981 Sedimentos elicos del Pleistoceno tardo y Reciente
en el rea Interserrana bonaerense. Actas VIII
Congreso de Geologa Argentina 3:33-39.
Gasparini, Z. and A. Bez

1975 Aportes al conocimiento de la herpetofauna terciaria
de la Argentina. Actas I Congreso Argentino de
Paleontologa y Bioestratigrafa 2:377-415. Tucumn.
2001 Anlisis tafonmico de micro y mesomamferos del

sitio Tres Reyes 1 (Pdo. de A. Gonzles Chaves, Buenos
Aires). Libro de Resmenes XIV Congreso Nacional
de Arqueologa Argentina: 236-237. Universidad
Nacional de Rosario, Santa Fe.
Gonzlez de Bonaveri, M. I.
2002. Los cazadores-recolectores-pescadores de la cuenca
inferior del Ro Salado (Regin Pampeana).
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Facultad de Filosofa
y Letras, UBA. Buenos Aires.
Grayson, D.
1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the analysis
of archaeological faunas. Academic Press, New York.
Gutirrez, M.
2004 Anlisis tafonmicos en el rea Interserrana
(Provincia de Buenos Aires). Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo,
UNLP. La Plata.
Klein, R. and K. Cruz Uribe

1984 The analysis of animal bones from archaeological
sites. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
LHeureux, L.
1998 Biologa Oral de las Poblaciones Aborgenes
Prehispnicas del Sudeste de la Regin Pampeana.
Unpublished Thesis. Facultad de Humanidades y
Artes, UNR. Rosario.
Lyman, R. L.
1985 Bone frecuencies: deferential transport, in site
destruction, and the MGUI. Journal of Archaeological
Science 12:221-236.
1994a Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge Manuals in
Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1994b Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology.
American Antiquity 59:36-71.
Madrid, P. and G. Barrientos

2000 La estructura del registro arqueolgico del sitio Laguna
Tres Reyes 1 (Provincia de Buenos Aires): nuevos
datos para la interpretacin del poblamiento humano
en el Sudeste de la Regin Pampeana a inicios del
Holoceno tardo. Relaciones de la Sociedad
Argentina de Antropologa XXV:179-206.
"
Madrid, P. and G. Politis

1991 Estudios paleoambientales en la Regin Pampeana: un
enfoque multidisciplinario del sitio La Toma. Actas XI
Congreso Nacional de Arqueologa Chilena I: 131152. Santiago de Chile.
Madrid, P. and M. Salemme

1991 La ocupacin tarda del sitio 1 de la Laguna Tres Reyes,
Partido de Adolfo Gonzles Chaves, Provincia de
Buenos Aires. Boletn del Centro 2:165-179.
Madrid, P., G. Politis, M. Leipus and C. Landini

1991 Estado actual de las investigaciones en el sitio 1 de la
Laguna Tres Reyes: anlisis ltico tecno-morfolgico
y procesos de formacin del sitio. Boletn del Centro
2:112-122.
Madrid, P., L. Salgan, P. Frankovic and A. Olivera

1997 El sitio 1 de la Laguna Tres Reyes (Pcia. De Buenos
Aires): Nueva informacin cronolgica, tecnolgica y
bioantropolgica. Jornadas de Comunicaciones
Cientficas, pp. 94. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y
Museo, UNLP. La Plata.
1988 Paradigmas, modelos y mtodos en la arqueologa de

la pampa bonaerense. In Arqueologa Argentina
Contempornea, edited by H. Yacobaccio, pp. 59-107.
Buenos Aires, Editorial Bsqueda.
Politis, G. and P. Madrid

1988 Un hueso duro de roer: anlisis preliminar de la tafonoma
del sitio Laguna Tres Reyes 1, Pdo. de Adolfo Gonzles
Chaves, Pcia. de Buenos Aires. In De procesos,
contextos y otros huesos, edited by A. Haber and N.
Ratto, pp. 29-44. ICA, UBA, Buenos Aires.
2001 Arqueologa pampeana: estado actual y perspectivas.
In Historia Argentina Prehispnica, Tomo II, edited
by E. Berberian and A. Nielsen, pp. 737-814. Editorial
Brujas, Crdoba.
Politis, G. and M. Salemme

1990 Prehistoric mamal explotation and the hunting
estrategies in Eastern Pampa Subregion of Argentina.
In Hunters of the Recent Past, edited by L. Davis and
B. Reeves, pp. 352-372. One World Archaeology, 15.
Unwin Hyman, London.
Quintana, C. and D. Mazzanti

Martnez, G. and G. Gmez
1997 Evaluacin preliminar de los procesos de formacin
del sitio Paso Otero 3 a travs de la distribucin
estratigrfica de elementos pertenecientes a roedores
y dasipdidos. Resmenes Precirculados IX
Congreso Nacional de Arqueologa Uruguaya, pp.
21. Colonia del Sacramento, Uruguay.
2001 Seleccin y aprovechamiento de recursos faunsticos.

In Cueva Tixi: cazadores y recolectores de las Sierras
de Tandilia Oriental. 1 Geologa, Paleontologa y
Zooarqueologa, edited by D. Mazzanti and C.
Quintana, pp. 181-209. Publicacin Especial 1,
Laboratorio de Arqueologa, Universidad Nacional de
Mar del Plata. Mar del Plata.
Martnez, G. and M. Gutirrez
Ringuelet, R.
2004 Tendencias en la explotacin humana de la fauna

durante el Pleistoceno final y Holoceno en la Regin
Pampeana (Argentina). In Zooarchaeology of South
America, edited by G. Mengoni Goalons, pp. 81-98.
BAR International Series 1298. Oxford.
1961 Rasgos fundamentales de la zoogeografa de la

Argentina. Physis 22(63):151-170.
Miotti, L. and M. Salemme

1999 Biodiversity, taxonomic richness and specialistsgeneralists during Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene
time in Pampa and Patagonia (Argentina, Southern
South America). Quaternary International 53/54:5368.
Narosky, T. E. and D. Izurieta

1987 Gua para la identificacin de las aves de Argentina
y Uruguay. Asociacin Ornitolgica del Plata, Buenos
Aires.
Politis, G.
1984 Arqueologa del Area Interserrana Bonaerense.
Salemme, M.
1987 Paleoetnozoologa del sector bonaerense de la Regin
Pampeana, con especial atencin a los mamferos.
1990 Zooarchaeological Studies in the Humid Pampas,
Argentina. In Quaternary of South America and
Antarctic Peninsula 6, edited by J. Rabassa, pp. 309335. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam.
Salemme, M., L. Miotti and E. Tonni

1991 The determination of mammal bones in the
zooarchaeological research. Iind Deya International
Conference on Prehistory, Volume I: Archaeological
Techniques and Technology, edited by W.H. Waldren,
J.A. Ensenyat and R.C. Kennard, pp. 209-222. BAR
International Series 573. London.
"
Salemme, M., G. Politis, P. Madrid, F. Oliva and L. Gerci
Tonni, E., A. Cione and A. Figini
1985 Informe preliminar sobre las investigaciones

arqueolgicas en el sitio La Toma, Partido de Coronel
Pringles (Pcia. de Buenos Aires). Paper presented at
VIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueologa Argentina.
Concordia, Entre Ros. Ms.
2001. Chronology of Holocene Pedogenetic Events in the

Pampean Area of Argentina. Current Research in the
Pleistocene 18:124-127.
Tonni, E.
1992 Mamferos y clima del Holoceno en la Provincia de
Buenos Aires. In El Holoceno en la Argentina 1, edited
by M. Iriondo, pp. 64-78. CADINQUA, Paran.
Tonni, E. and A. Cione
Ward, G. and S. Wilson

1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon
age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20:1931.
NOTE
1
1997 Did the Argentina pampean ecosystem exist in the

Pleistocene?. Current Research in the Pleistocene
14:131-136.
Tonni, E. and G. Politis

1980 La distribucin del guanaco (Mammalia, Camelidae) en
la Pcia. de Buenos Aires durante el Pleistoceno Tardo
y Holoceno. Los factores climticos como causas de
su retraccin. Ameghiniana 17(1):53-66.
"
There are a few bones that are presently under revision;

one of them has been recently assigned to Vanellus
chilensis (Jorge Noriega, personal communication 2000).
"!

10 Salemme & Madrid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Salemme & Madrid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE ARCHAEOFAUNAS FROM LAGUNA TRES REYES 1 SITE:

TAXONOMIC RICHNESS AND ABUNDANCE DURING THE

Figure 1. Geographical location of Laguna Tres Reyes 1 site (TR1)

Several hypotheses concerning the different aspects of

Figure 2. Plan of excavation of TR1.

coming originally from the base of Unit B -possibly from the

The species represented -the guanaco, the pampean deer,

Unit C: it consists of sandy-lime sediment -white-greyish in

Three stratigraphical units were identified in different sectors

Previous reports on this site focalised on particular aspects

Figure 3. Schematic profile of TR1 site with the stratigraphic and

Fieldwork was carried out in different opportunities between

artifacts and ecofacts- in stratigraphy were found. Densities

THE ARCHAEOFAUNAL RECORD

horizontal and specially the vertical migration of the

Table 1. Radiocarbon datings from Laguna Tres Reyes 1 site (TR1).

3.- Spatial distribution of bones of extinct and

level, they were classified at genus level, as in the case of cf.

The methodology employed for the anatomical and

The total number of the undetermined bone remains is 3060,

Table 2 shows all the identified taxa in the archaeofaunal

NISP and %NISP

Table 2. Distribution of NISP and %NISP by Sectors and Stratigraphic Units.

NISP and %NISP

Figure 4. %NISP distribution by sectors and stratigraphical units.

Characteristics and structure of the recorded

Details about the taxa recovered from the archaeological

Figure 5. Distribution of taxa by archaeological units.References:

1.- Lama guanicoe (guanaco) is the most frequent species.

specimens (79%) belong to the

Figure 6. MNI by sectors and stratigraphical units.

The most frequent skeletal parts are those from the

3.- In the case of Equus caballus,

NISP by Stratigraphical Units

NISP by Stratigraphical Units

Table 4. Total MNI and MNI distribution by sectors and

fragments of ulna, a fragment of femur and two autopodials

Bc C Total NISP Total % NISP

Table 3. Lama guanicoe skeletal parts.

levels of carbonates, in many cases they were identified

NISP axial skeleton

NISP by Stratigraphical Units

NISP by Stratigraphical Units

taxonomically, they might be assigned to the same species.

Table 5. Lama guanicoe: taxonomic abundance units.

7.- Bufo cf. paracnemis (toad, sapo buey): the materials,

13.- Lutreolina crassicaudata (weasel) is a frequent species

15.- Some remains of shells were identified as Gastropoda.

Results of the faunal analyses

of disarticulation in the human skeletons (Madrid and

groove, and some shaft cylinders in mammal or avian

Alterations in bone sufaces, root marks, action of weathering

According to the archaeofaunal analysis of Laguna Tres

- Bones containing carbonates or that were impregnated

Regarding the fragmentation of the sample -and considering

There are three species that are certainly intrusive in the

present distribution is farther north, in a warmer habitat like

species. Ozotoceros bezoarticus follows the guanaco as a

Table 6. Lama guanicoe: taxonomic abundance units.

Table 7. Ozotoceros bezoarticus: taxonomic abundance units.

reconsidering their role as an economic resource. Likewise,

better represented in Sector B (65.78%), with a higher

The %NISP and MNI have been identified by archaeological