Quaternary International 467 (2018) 292e296

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

The association of palaeoindian sites from southern Brazil and

Uruguay with the Umbu Tradition: Comments on Sua
rez et al. (2017)
~o Carlos Moreno de Sousa*, Mercedes Okumura
Joa
PPGArq, Dept. of Anthropology, National Museum, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Umbu Tradition is an archaeological cultural unit created in late 1960s to better describe the vari-
Received 8 September 2017 ation observed in sites presenting lithic bifacial points in southern Brazil. Over the years, many Brazilian
Received in revised form archaeologists, when studying archaeological sites presenting bifacial points, have associated these to the
18 November 2017
Umbu Tradition, regardless of region or chronology. Since the 1990s, some authors have questioned the
Accepted 30 November 2017
validity of such an encompassing archaeological tradition. This article presents a brief history of the
association of archaeological assemblages to the Umbu Tradition and a few comments which clarify some
misunderstandings put forward by Sua
rez et al. (2017). We agree with Sua
rez et al. (2017) that these
Keywords:
Umbu Tradition
criticisms of the current concept of the Umbu Tradition are fair and that more data is still necessary to
South America further explore the relationship between what has been called Umbu and other sites from southern
Palaeoindians Brazil and Uruguay.
Bifacial points © 2017 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Origins of the Umbu Tradition definition and its

rez et al. (2017) presented a case study providing new and
Sua
exciting data about the Tigre site in Northwestern Uruguay and its
implications for the initial settlement of the Uruguay River basin.
The Late Pleistocene dates and lithic technology analysis presented
by the authors are relevant to the better understanding of what
conventionally has been called the “Umbu Tradition” (an archaeo-
logical tradition associated to sites presenting lithic bifacial points
in southern and southeastern Brazil). Sua
rez et al. (2017) presented
and discussed some of the main problems related to the definition
of the Umbu Tradition and provided some fair criticisms about
assigning cultural origins to little known cultural entities, like the
association of different technological groups to the Umbu Tradition.
However, more data, including chronological information as well as
technological analysis, are necessary to fully understand the rela-
tion between those Late Pleistocene sites and the sites traditionally
associated to the Umbu Tradition in Uruguay and Southern Brazil.
Moreover, we aim to clarify the new understandings put forward by
our most recent studies, which were not quite well understood by
the authors.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jcmorenodesousa@gmail.com (J.C. Moreno de Sousa),
mercedes@mn.ufrj.br (M. Okumura).
development in the last 50 years
The origin of the Umbu Tradition definition, and the association of
sites to this archaeological culture, is related to the first systematic,
large-scale studies in Brazilian archaeology that emerged during the
1950s and 1960s, carried out by the Programa Nacional de Pesquisas
Arqueolo
gicas (National Program of Archaeological Research)
(PRONAPA, 1970). PRONAPA researchers applied the concepts of
“phase” and “tradition” which were heavily inspired by the ideas of
Phillips and Willey (1953). Material culture assemblages, especially
pottery vessels and lithic formal artifacts were classified mainly by
the size, shape, and decoration, as well as the types of artifacts and
the site settings. A new “archaeological tradition” would be created
for each type identified, and the new assemblages presenting the
same types were associated to these “traditions”. Similar types that
present slight regional or chronological differences were associated
to subcategories known as “archaeological phases”. In the late 1960s,
the works of Miller (1967, 1974) in the Sinos Valley and Maquine

region (Rio Grande do Sul state, southern Brazil) resulted in the
creation of three archaeological phases that presented bifacial
points: Camuri, Umbu, and Itapuí. Umbu and Itapuí Phases were
associated with rock shelters, while Camuri Phase was characterized
by open-air sites. At that time, the author tried to discriminate these
three phases in chronological terms. The Itapuí Phase was considered
more recent than Umbu (4000e1000 years BP), presenting points

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.11.056
1040-6182/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
 J.C. Moreno de Sousa, M. Okumura / Quaternary International 467 (2018) 292e296
with bifurcated stem, triangular body and occasionally serrated
edges. Umbu was considered more ancient (6000e4000 years BP),
and the predominant bifacial point type was described as stemmed,
with triangular body, including points with a lanceolated body (this
description is an excellent example of how difficult it was to associate
materials from new sites to either Umbu or Itapuí phase). Many other
attempts were made (mostly by researchers associated with PRO-
NAPA) to organize the diversity observed in the bifacial points from
southern Brazil, resulting in the creation of a myriad of traditions and
phases: Bituruna tradition (Chmyz, 1981), Iguaçu and Potinga Phases
(Chmyz,1969), Vinitu Phase (Kern, 1981, pp. 215e220; Schmitz,1984,
pp. 12e14; 1991), Itaguaje
Phase (Chmyz and Chmyz, 1986), Itaio

Phase (Piazza, 1974), and Capivara Phase (Schmitz, 1991). Other au-
thors kept associating some assemblages with bifacial points to the
Umbu Tradition (Mentz Ribeiro et al., 1989; Mentz Ribeiro and
Ribeiro, 1999). However, the lack of robust chronologies and the
unclear definitions of the bifacial point classes (sensu Dunnell, 1971:
45) made the use of such nomenclature very difficult, especially
when one had to assign a new site to one of these traditions or phases.
The result was that later researchers, being unable to use such
scheme, lumped most (if not all) sites that presented bifacial points in
southern Brazil into a single “tradition”- Umbu (Noelli, 1999/2000).
Even in the case of sites presenting bifacial points in Sa~o Paulo state
(southeastern Brazil), the attempt to distinguish them from southern
materials (the Umbu Tradition) was unsuccessful. Miller (1972),
based on sites from Rio Claro region, defined the Rio Claro Tradition as
presenting bifacial points in some phases. Later however, Prous
(1991, pp. 154) reports that this tradition would have been included
within Umbu Tradition (regardless of the fact that not all phases of
the Rio Claro Tradition presented bifacial points).
Capelinha, an Early Holocene site from Ribeira de Iguape Valley
(southern Sa ~o Paulo state) which presented bifacial points was also
attributed to the Umbu Tradition (Lima, 2005; Alves, 2008; Figuti
and Plens, 2014), as well as the Santa Cruz site in central S~ ao
Paulo state (Pardi et al., 2004) and Carcara
site in eastern S~ao Paulo
state (Juliani, 2012); although no detailed studies were done to
understand the relation of such lithic industries to the southern
ones. Currently, the “Umbu bag” (to use the words of Sua
rez et al.,
2017) even encompasses sites in more northern settings, like Minas
Gerais state (Koole, 2007, 2014) and Mato Grosso do Sul state
(Kashimoto and Martins, 2009; Martins and Kashimoto, 2012).
Recent attempts to “empty the Umbu bag” have been made by
researchers applying geometric morphometrics (Okumura and
Araujo, 2013, 2014; 2015, 2016), technological analysis (Moreno
de Sousa and Guimara ~es, 2016; Moreno de Sousa, 2014, 2017a;
2017b), and combinations of both (Bradley and Okumura, 2016;
Okumura et al., 2017) in order to explore the currently ignored
diversity in terms of size and shape, as well as technology, associ-
ated with bifacial points from southern and southeastern Brazil.
Another problem related to the Umbu Tradition was the associ-
ation of sites from the same coverage area and chronology to
another cultural entity known as Humaita
Tradition. To put it simply,
in the same way that bifacial points became the “guide fossil” to
classify a site as belonging to the Umbu Tradition, boomerang sha-
ped pieces were used to associate sites to Humaita
Tradition.
Currently, most Brazilian archaeologists no longer take in account
the Humaita
Tradition, since it presents a series of problems very
well detailed by Dias and Hoeltz (2010). According to the authors,
archaeological sites have been associated to Humait
a Tradition
mainly because of supposed differences on the use of spaces (loca-
tion of sites in the landscape) by hunter-gatherer and agricultural
groups in Southern Brazil, as well as the lack (with exceptions) of
bifacial points. However, according to the authors, chronology and
the general characterization of the lithic industry indicate a clear
contextual relation with the Umbu Tradition settlement system
293
(Dias and Hoeltz, 2010 pp. 46e47). In this sense, sites previously
associated to Humaita
Tradition should be associated to the Umbu
Tradition. For example, boomerang shaped bifaces that are found in
southern Brazil from the early to late Holocene were first associated
to the Altoparanaense industry, part of the Humait
a Tradition
(Mengh, 1956) and later on were reclassified as part of the Umbu
Tradition (Hoeltz, 2005). Loponte (2012) describe problems related
to the Humaita
Tradition as a valid archaeological culture, since in
his research in the region of Misiones in Argentina, he identified
stemmed bifacial points - that could be associated to the Umbu
Tradition e together with boomerang shaped bifaces.
3. Discussion
It is likely that some of the most recent publications that we cite
here were not available at the time Su
arez et al. (2017) were pre-
paring the manuscript. In any case, we will include them in order to
better present our ideas about the Umbu Tradition in southern and
southeastern Brazil. We will focus on some of the statements put
forward by the Sua
rez et al. (2017) and clarify them:
“Several Brazilian researchers have recently reinterpreted some
ideas and investigations carried out in the 1970s and 1980s.
Some sites along the middle Uruguay River, in the Brazilian
border were originally researched by Miller (1987) and assigned
to the “Uruguay phase,” are considered now part of the “Umbu
tradition” of southern Brazil according to new understandings
(Okumura and Araujo, 2014; Araujo, 2015; Moreno de Sousa,
2017a, b)” [pp. 15].
And:
“Some researchers even extend the chronology of the “Umbu
tradition” from the late Pleistocene to historical times, including
an extensive period of ca. 13,500 years. In this sense, it is sug-
gested that “In chronological terms, the oldest age for Umbu is
13,460 cal BP (11,555 ± 230 14C BP, site RS-IJ-68) and the
youngest ages reach the 17th century” (Okumura and Araujo,
2014, pp. 59)” [pp. 16].
The article by Okumura and Araujo (2014) aimed to explore the
variability of bifacial points from the Garivaldino site, an early
Holocene site from southern Brazil presenting bifacial points and
good stratigraphic context, as well as chronological information.
Such variability was mainly explored in terms of size and shape,
applying geometric morphometrics, but raw material information,
the frequencies of types, as well as metric data were also presented.
The assignment of the Garivaldino site to the Umbu Tradition was
made by the researchers who excavated the site in the 1980s
(Mentz Ribeiro et al., 1989; Mentz Ribeiro and Ribeiro, 1999) and
such information is clearly presented in the article. Although the
main purpose of the article was not to discuss the validity of the
Umbu Tradition, the Okumura and Araujo (2014) state that:
“[…] problems started to arise when, after several decades of
work, it became clear that this supposed ‘Umbu Tradition’ spans
a chronological and geographic interval that seems too large: in
geographic terms, it spreads across the southern part of Brazil
comprising an area of, at least, 510,000 km2, but also encom-
passing portions of Uruguay and Argentina (Caggiano, 1984;
Rodríguez, 1992, Fig. 1). In chronological terms, the oldest age
for Umbu is from the Ribeiro site (or RS-I-68 site), 13,460 cal BP
(11,555 þ- 230 14C years BP; wood charcoal, sample SI-3750;
Miller, 1987) and the youngest ages reach the 17th century”
[pp. 59].
294 J.C. Moreno de Sousa, M. Okumura / Quaternary International 467 (2018) 292e296
Therefore, Okumura and Araujo (2014) present what conven-
tionally has been considered as Umbu Tradition and they criticize
the idea of having an archaeological tradition so encompassing in
terms of chronology and geography. Other articles by Okumura and
Araujo (2013, 2015; 2016), not included in the discussion by Sua
rez
et al. (2017) might help clarifying our position. The title of one of
them, translated from Portuguese as “Undoing what was never
done: ‘Umbu’ bifacial points from Southern and Southeastern
Brazil” shows our desire to dismantle the Umbu Tradition as
something present in southern and southeastern Brazil. Okumura
and Araujo (2016) state that:
“[…] our preliminary results point to an important difference in
the morphology of the points from Sa ~o Paulo in relation to the
southern points of the country. Since Umbu tradition was
defined based on the material found in southern sites, the points
from S~ ao Paulo could not be considered part of this group. It may
be possible that the points from Minas Gerais and Mato Grosso
do Sul are also distinct from the points of the southern region.
[…] Our data shows, therefore, a very intriguing pattern, where
differences in point morphology seem to reflect territorial and
probably identity group differences between southern and
southeastern hunter-gatherer groups in Brazil. These differences
were not formerly recognized, due to the lack of both an explicit
comparison between points of different regions, and of statis-
tically based studies as well. Far from being definitive, our data
can be considered an initial effort in approaching this diversity
[…]” [pp. 121e122].

rez et al. (2017) also say that some authors continue to
Sua
repeat and legitimate the Umbu Tradition concept that includes all
palaeoindian sites from Southern Brazil and Uruguay:
“It is necessary to do a critical analysis of what the “Umbu
tradition” encompasses (see below), as several contemporary
scholars have been trying to extend the chronology of what they
call Umbu from the mid-Holocene to the late Pleistocene. If we
do a historical retrospective, we observe that from the mid-
1970s to the present, sites with projectile points in south-
eastern Brazil are immediately classified and placed within the
Umbu tradition, the next cite is one example: “The cultural unit
known as the Umbu Tradition includes all archaeological sites
presenting relevant bifacial-point production in the southern
Brazil region” (Moreno de Sousa, 2017a, pp. 80)” [pp. 16].
In this case, Moreno de Sousa (2017a) presents the general
Brazilian understanding of the Umbu Tradition but makes clear that
his study:
“[…] has presented the technological tendencies of only one
assemblage related to the Umbu Tradition; thus, additional
technological studies are needed to test the validity of the Umbu
Tradition hypothesis” [pp. 81].
In this sense, we agree with Sua
rez et al. (2017) that the Umbu
Tradition may be taken as a hypothesis to be tested.
Another statement by Sua
rez et al. (2017) relates to the presence
of the “Fishtail points” in assemblages that were, at some point
identified as Umbu Tradition:
“[…] the site RS-I-69 (Laranjito) has been erroneously referred
to as “Paleoindian Umbu” (Moreno de Sousa, 2017a, Fig. 3). The
lithic material from the site that Moreno de Sousa (2017a, b) re-
researches, comes from the RS-I-69 site (Laranjito), which was
excavated in the 1970s by Miller (1987). The RS-I-69 (Laranjito)
site has a Fishtail point (Nami, 2013, pp. 16; see also Su

arez, 2017,
pp. 188), was originally published in Fig. 13a,e by Miller (1987),
and was reproduced recently by Moreno de Sousa (2017a,
Fig. 4A), who does not recognize the Fisthail point of RS-I-69
site. Some ages of the Laranjito site (ca. 10,800 and 10,400 14C
BP) are exactly within the range of expansion of the Fishtail
groups in the Southern Cone (Waters et al., 2015). This high-
lights the incoherence in the terminology used to classify the
site Laranjito (RS-I-69) as “Paleoindian-Umbu,” because the
Fishtail groups do not have cultural or archaeological affinities
with Umbu” [pp. 16].
Moreno de Sousa (2017a) presented original technological data
on the lithic assemblage of the Laranjito site, with exception of the
bifacial stemmed points since some of them were lost at some point
after the excavation and all information that remains refers only to
a photograph of these materials. Currently, there are only four
bifacial points (three of which are broken) supposedly, from the
Laranjito site (which are available for study) but they are missing
contextual information. Laranjito site was associated with the
Uruguay Phase (included in the Umbu Tradition) by Eurico Miller
(1974/1976; 1987), the coordinator of the excavation. A complete
history of the research carried out by Miller in the Uruguay River
basin is provided by Milder (2000, 2013). One of the points which
were lost, but recorded in a photograph, from the Laranjito site was
identified as a Fishtail point by Nami (2013), based on its
morphology. If it were possible, a technological analysis would be
important to further support the classification of this specimen as a
Fishtail point. In fact, a few points which were classified as Fishtail
points based mostly on morphology have been identified in
Southern and Southeastern Brazil (Loponte et al., 2016). Therefore,
it is not unlikely that the specimen from Laranjito could be classi-
fied as a Fishtail. More technological data on the bifacial points
from southern Brazil and Uruguay, including the ones previously
identified as Fishtail type, are necessary to better understand the
Palaeoindian context in this region.

rez et al. (2017) criticizes that Moreno de Sousa
Finally, Sua
(2017a) does not mention the previous research on Uruguay River
Basin. In this case, the author chose to narrow the discussion to
sites that were previously associated with the Umbu Tradition.
However, such choice was not explicitly presented and we agree
that the inclusion of such research on the Uruguay River Basin
would have allowed a much more complete and contextualized
discussion about the prehistory of the region. As Sua
rez et al. (2017)
themselves clarify, there has been no mention of the concept of the
Umbu Tradition in the Uruguayan bibliography in the last two de-
cades. Still, we agree that including such research would result in a
better understanding of the regional archaeological record.
4. Conclusion
The discussion presented by Sua
rez et al. (2017) regarding the
need for a reassessment of Umbu Tradition in southern Brazil and a
better integration of such reassessment with the recent knowledge
that has been generated in the prehistory of Uruguay is undoubt-
edly a topic that deserves attention from archaeologists working
with lithic industries (with or without the presence of bifacial
points) from southern Brazil. Several Brazilian researchers have
argued for a better understanding of what is commonly named the
“Umbu Tradition” (Hilbert, 1994; Milder, 1999; Dias, 2003, 2007;
Morais, 1999/2000, to name a few) and our previous efforts
(Okumura and Araujo, 2013, 2014; 2015, 2016; Bradley and
Okumura, 2016; Moreno de Sousa and Guimara ~es, 2016; Moreno
 J.C. Moreno de Sousa, M. Okumura / Quaternary International 467 (2018) 292e296 295

de Sousa, 2014, 2017a; 2017b; Okumura et al., 2017) are in agree- pp. 33e66.
Dias, A.S., Hoeltz, S., 2010. Indústrias líticas em contexto: o problema Humaita
na
ment with the call by Su
arez (2011a; 2011b; 2014; 2015a; 2015b;
arqueologia brasileira. Rev. Arqueol. 23 (2), 40e67.
2017) and Sua
rez et al. (2017). Data from archaeological sites Dunnell, R.C., 1971. Systematics in Prehistory. The Free Press, New York.
from the same region and same period that do not present bifacial Figuti, L., Plens, C.R., 2014. The riverine sambaqui: zooarchaeological studies of
stemmed points (see: Lourdeau et al., 2014; 2017; Hoeltz et al., inland brazilian shell mounds. In: Roksandic, M., Mendonça de Souza, S.,
Eggers, S., Burchell, M., Klokler, D. (Eds.), The Cultural Dynamics of Shell Matrix
2015; for examples) are also important for a better understanding Sites. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 213e222, 1ed.
of the Palaeoindian context of this area, and further support the Hilbert, K., 1994. Caçadores coletores pre
-histo

ricos no sul do Brasil: um projeto
hypothesis that the lithic industries from the Southern Brazil and para a redefiniç~ ao das tradiço ~es líticas Umbu e Humait
a. In: Flores, M. (Ed.),
Negros e índios: literatura e histo
ria. EDIPUCRS, Porto Alegre, pp. 9e24.
Uruguay are much more heterogeneous than previously expected. Hoeltz, S.E., 2005. Tecnologia Lítica: uma Proposta de Leitura Para a Compreens~ ao
Still, more data are needed to completely understand the context of Das Indústrias do RGS. PhD dissertation. Pontifícia Universidade Cato
lica do Rio
the peopling of the region, and we expect that the abovementioned Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
Hoeltz, S.E., Lourdeau, A., Viana, S., 2015. Um Novo Conceito de Lascamento no Sul do
research, as well as new research groups that may be interested in Brasil: debitagem laminar na foz do rio Chapeco
(SC/RS). Rev. do Mus. Arqueol.
the subject, will bring us closer to this goal. In this sense, a move- Etnologia 25, 3e19. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2448-1750.revmae.2015.114852.
ment is being made by us to bring a greater integration between Juliani, L.J.C.O., 2012. Relato
rio de Campo da Terceira Fase de Resgate Arqueolo
gico
do Sítio CARCARA.
Loteamento Alphaville, Sa ~o Jose
dos Campos, SP. Commercial
data generated in Uruguay and southern Brazil, beginning with the archaeology report, for IPHAN (Instituto do Patrimo ^nio Histo
rico e Artístico
first attempt to identify Palaeoamerican points from Uruguay (Tigre Nacional - Brazilian Department of Antiquities).
and Pay Paso points) in southern and southeastern Brazil assem- Kashimoto, E.L.M., Martins, G.R., 2009. Arqueologia e Paleoambiente do Rio Parana


rez; Submitted). We expect that this em Mato Grosso do Sul. Life. Campo Grande.
blages (Okumura and Sua
ce
ramique du plateau sud-bre
silien. PhD dissertation. Ecole
Kern, A.A., 1981. Le pre
endeavor could inspire more researchers to integrate data from

des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Paris.
contextually related archaeological sites, regardless of current na- Koole, E.K.M., 2007. Pre
-histo
ria da província C
arstica do Alto S~ ao Francisco, Minas
tional boundaries. Gerais: A indústria lítica dos caçadores-coletores arcaicos. Master thesis. Museu
de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade de Sa ~o Paulo. https://doi.org/
10.11606/D.71.2007.tde-06032008-115300.
Koole, E.K.M., 2014. Entre as tradiço ~ es plana
lticas e meridionais: Caracterizaç~ ao
Funding
arqueolo
gica dos grupos caçadores coletores a partir da ana
lise de sete ele-
mentos e suas implicaço ~es para a ocupaça ~o pre
-cera^mica da Regia ~o Ca

rstica do
This research was financially supported by the Coordination for Alto S~ao Francisco, Minas Gerais, Brasil: Cronologia, tecnologia lítica, subsiste ^ncia
the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (JCMS: CAPES PhD (fauna), sepultamentos, mobilidade, uso do espaço em abrigos naturais e arte
rupestre. PhD thesis. Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade de S~ ao
Scholarship, CAPES PDSE 88881.132729/2016-01), British Academy/ Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/T.71.2014.tde-12122014-144602.
Newton Mobility Grant Scheme 2014 (MO: NG140077), and the Lima, A.P.S., 2005. An
alise dos processos formativos do sítio Capelinha: estabele-
Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Devel- cimento de um contexto microrregional. Master thesis. Museu de Arqueologia e
Etnologia, Universidade de S~ ao Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/D.71.2005.tde-
opment (MO: CNPq 443169/2014-9, 443242/2015-1). MO holds a 19102006-153609.
CNPq Research Productivity Scholarship (303566/2014-0). Loponte, D., 2012. Los extremos de la distribucio
n: la llanura pampeana y la pro-
vincia de Misiones en la arqueología del nordeste. Anua
rio Arqueol. 4 (4),
39e72.
Acknowledgements Loponte, D., Okumura, M., Carbonera, M., 2016. New records of fishtail projectile
points from Brazil and its implications for its peopling. J. Lithic Stud. 3 (1),
Special thanks to Astolfo Araujo and Bruce Bradley for the many 63e85. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i1.1312.
Lourdeau, A., Hoeltz, S.E., Viana, S.A., 2014. Early Holocene blade technology in
discussions on this topic. We also would like to thank many other southern Brazil. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 35, 190e201.
colleagues who have contributed to this work, especially those that Lourdeau, A., Hoeltz, S.E., Viana, S.A., 2017. Debitagem laminar no sul do Brasil
kindly allowed us to do research in the lithic materials curated at Habemus Núcleos! J. Lithic Stud. (in press).
Martins, G.R., Kashimoto, E.M., 2012. 12.000 Anos: Arqueologia do Povoamento
museum or university collections. We also thank Lizzie Walton for Humano no Nordeste de Mato Grosso do Sul. Life. Campo Grande.
the English proofreading. Menghin, O., 1956. El Altoparanaense. Ampurias, vols. 17e18, pp. 171e200.
Barcelona.
Mentz Ribeiro, P.A., Klamt, S.C., Buchaim, J., Ribeiro, C.T., 1989. Levantamentos
References arqueolo
gicos na encosta do planalto entre o vale dos rios Taquari e Caí, RS,
Brasil. Rev. do CEPA 16, 49e89.

lise Zooarqueolo
Alves, C.C., 2008. Ana
gica de um Sambaqui Fluvial: o caso do Sitio Milder, S.E., 1999. Caçadores coletores: a problem
atica arqueolo
gica e ambiental
Capelinha I. Master Thesis. Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade de sobre os primeiros povoadores do Rio Grande do Sul. Rev. do CEPA 23, 7e56.
S~
ao Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/D.71.2009.tde-07022011e07094134. Milder, S.E., 2000. Arqueologia do Sudoeste do Rio Grande do Sul, Uma Perspectiva
Araujo, A.G., 2015. On vastness and variability: cultural transmission, historicity, Geoarqueolo
gica. PhD dissertation. Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Uni-
and the paleoindian record in eastern south America. An. Acad. Bras. Cie ^ncias versidade de S~ ao Paulo.
87 (2), 1239e1258. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201520140219. Milder, S.E., 2013. Histo
rico do projeto paleoindígena. Rev. LEPA e Textos Arqueol.
Bradley, B., Okumura, M., 2016. Getting from the Point; combining geometric Patrimo ^nio 1, 112e140.
morphometrics and technology to investigate projectile point assemblages Miller, E.T., 1967. Pesquisas arqueolo
gicas efetuadas no Nordeste do Rio Grande do
from Southeastern Brazil. In: 8th World Archaeological Congress, Kyoto. Sul. In: Simo ~ es, M. (Ed.), Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueolo
gicas:
Caggiano, M.A., 1984. Prehistoria del N.E. Argentino: sus vinculaciones con la Resultados preliminares do primeiro ano, 1965-1966, vol. 6. Publicaço ~es avulsas
Republica Oriental del Uruguay y Sur de Brasil. Pesquisas (Antropologia), vol. do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, pp. 15e38.
38, pp. 1e109. Miller, E.T., 1974. Pesquisas arqueolo
gicas em abrigos-sob-rocha no Nordeste do Rio
Chmyz, I., 1969. Coment

-cera
arios sobre as culturas pre ^micas no estado do Parana
. Grande do Sul. In: Simo ~ es, M. (Ed.), Programa Nacional de Pesquisas
pesquisas (antropologia). In: Anais do Terceiro Simpo


sio de Arqueologia da Area Arqueolo
gicas: Resultados Preliminares do Quinto Ano (1969-1970), vol. 26.
da Prata, vol. 20, pp. 13e24. Publicaço ~es Avulsas do Museu Paranaense Emílio Goeldi, pp. 11e24.
Chmyz, I., 1981. Relato
rio arqueolo
gico das pesquisas realizadas na
area da Usina Miller Jr., T.O., 1972. Arqueologia da regia ~o central do Estado de Sa ~o Paulo. De
dalo,
Hidrele
trica de Salto Santiago (1979-80). Conve ^nio Eletrosul, Iphan, Projeto vol. 16, pp. 13e118.
Arqueolo
gico Santiago. Commercial archaeology report, for IPHAN (Instituto do Miller, E.T., 1974/1976. Forms for Archaeological Sites Description and Fieldwork
Patrimo ^nio Histo
rico e Artístico Nacional - Brazilian Department of Antiquities). Book Notes, Smithsonian’s Contract Project for Paleoindian Program (PROPA).
Chmyz, I., Chmyz, J.C.G., 1986. Dataço ~es radiome
tricas em a
reas de salvamento Museu Arqueolo
gico do Rio Grande do Sul, Taquara.
arqueolo
gico no estado do Parana
. Arqueologia 5, 69e78. Miller, E.T., 1987. Pesquisas arqueolo
gicas paleoindígenas no Brasil ocidental. Estud.
Dias, A.S., 2003. Sistemas de Assentamento e Estilo Tecnolo
gico: uma Proposta Atacamen ~ os 8, 39e64.
Interpretativa Para a Ocupaç~
-colonial do alto Vale do Rio dos Sinos. Rio
ao Pre Morais, J.L., 1999/2000. A arqueologia da regi~ ao sudeste. Rev. USP 44, 194e217.
Grande do Sul. PhD dissertation. Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9036.v0i44p194-217.
de Sa~o Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/T.8.2003.tde-21102004e21162152. Moreno de Sousa, J.C., 2014. Cogniça ~o e Cultura no Mundo Material: Os Itaparicas, Os
Dias, A.S., 2007. Da tipologia a  tecnologia: reflexo ~es sobre das indústrias líticas da Umbus e os Lagoassantenses. Master thesis. Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia,
Tradiça ~o Umbu. In: Bueno, L.R., Isnardis, A. (Eds.), Das Pedras Aos Homens: Universidade de S~ ao Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/D.71.2014.tde-26092014-
Tecnologia Lítica Na Arqueologia Brasileira. Argentum, Belo Horizonte, 160812.
296 J.C. Moreno de Sousa, M. Okumura / Quaternary International 467 (2018) 292e296
Moreno de Sousa, J.C., 2017a. Paleoindian lithic industries of Southern Brazil: a tech-
nological study of the Laranjito archaeological site, Pleistocene-Holocene Transi-
tion. PaleoAmerica 3, 74e83. https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2016.1248752.
Moreno de Sousa, J.C., 2017b. Paleoamericans: a brazilian perspective. Public lec-
ture. University of Exeter, Exeter. August 8th.
Moreno de Sousa, J.C., Guimara ~es, A.M., 2016. Tecnologia lítica do interior paulista: a
indústria do sítio arqueolo
gico Santa Cruz. Cad. do LEPAArq 13 (26), 138e171.
https://doi.org/10.15210/LEPAARQ.V13I26.7952.
Nami, H.G., 2013. Archaeology, Paleoindian research and lithic technology in the
middle Negro river, central Uruguay. Archaeol. Discov. 1, 1e22. https://doi.org/
10.4236/ad.2013.11001.
Noelli, F.S., 1999/2000. A ocupaça ~o humana na regia ~o sul do Brasil: arqueologia,
debates e perspectivas. Rev. USP 44, 218e269. https://doi.org/10.11606/
issn.2316-9036.v0i44p218-269.
Okumura, M., Araujo, A., 2013. Pontas Bifaciais no Brasil Meridional: caracterizaça
Estatística das Formas e suas Implicaço ~ es Culturais. Rev. do Mus. Arqueol. Etno-
logia 23, 111e127. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2448-1750.revmae.2013.106842.
Okumura, M., Araujo, A., 2014. Long-term cultural stability in hunteregatherers: a
case study using traditional and geometric morphometric analysis of lithic
stemmed bifacial points from Southern Brazil. J. Archaeol. Sci. 45, 59e71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.02.009.
Okumura, M., Araujo, A., 2015. Desconstruindo o que nunca foi construído: pontas
bifaciais ‘Umbu’ do Sul e Sudeste do Brasil. Rev. do Mus. Arqueol. Etnologia 20,
77e82. Suplemento.
Okumura, M., Araujo, A., 2016. The Southern Divide: testing morphological differ-
ences among bifacial points from Southern and South-eastern Brazil using
geometric morphometrics. J. Lithic Stud. 3 (1), 107e131. https://doi.org/10.2218/
jls.v3i1.1379.
Okumura M, Su
arez R., Submitted. The First Record of Tigre and Pay Paso Paleo-
american Points in Southern Brazil: Implications for the Early Holocene Set-
tlement of South America. Abstract. SAA 83rd Annual Meeting 2018,
Washington, DC.
Okumura, M., Bradley, B., Araujo, A., 2017. Morfometria geome
trica e ana

lise tec-
nolo
gica como te
cnicas complementares para explorar a diversidade de pontas
bifaciais pre
-histo

ricas brasileiras. V Semana Internacional de Arqueologia dos
discentes do Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da USP, Sa ~o Paulo.
Pardi, M.L., Rangel, Z., Coradel, A., 2004. Levantamento do Patrimo ^nio Arqueolo
gico
da Regia ~o de Monte Mor - SP. CLIO Arqueol. 17, 127e144.
Phillips, P., Willey, G.R., 1953. Method and theory in American Archaeology: an
operational basis for culture-historical integration. Am. Anthropol. 55,
615e633. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1953.55.5.02a00030.
Piazza, W., 1974. Dados  a arqueologia do Litoral Norte e do Planalto de Canoinhas.
In: Simo~ es, M. (Ed.), Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueolo
gicas: Resultados
Preliminares do Quinto Ano (1969-1970). Publicaço ~es Avulsas do Museu Para-
naense Emílio Goeldi, 26, pp. 53e68.
PRONAPA, 1970. Brazilian archaeology in 1968: an interim report on the national
Program of archaeological research. Am. Antiq. 35, 1e23.
Prous, A., 1991. Arqueologia Brasileira. Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.
Mentz Ribeiro, P.A., Ribeiro, C.T., 1999. Escavaço ~es arqueolo
gicas no sítio RS-TQ-58:
Montenegro, RS, brasil. Se
rie Doc. FURG 10, 1e86.
Rodríguez, J.A., 1992. Arqueología del sudeste de Sudame
rica. In: Meggers, B.J. (Ed.),
Prehistoria Sudamericana e Nuevas Perspectivas. Taraxacum, Washington,
pp. 177e209.
Schmitz, P.I., 1984. Caçadores e coletores do Sul. In: Schmitz, P.I. (Ed.), Caçadores e
Coletores da Pre
-Histo
ria do Brasil. IAP/Unisinos, Sa ~o Leopoldo, pp. 1e61.


Schmitz, P.I., 1991. Areas arqueolo
gicas do litoral e planalto do Brasil. Rev. do Mus.
~o Arqueol. Etnologia 1, 13e20. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2448-1750
.revmae.1991.107913.
Su

arez, R., 2011a. Arqueología durante la Transicio
n Pleistoceno Holoceno: com-
ponentes Paleoindios, Organizacio
n de la Tecnología y Movilidad de los Pri-
meros Americanos en Uruguay. British Archaeological Reports 2220
International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford, UK.
Su

arez, R., 2011b. Movilidad, acceso y uso de a
gata traslúcida por los cazadores
recolectores tempranos durante la transicio
n Pleistoceno Holoceno en el Norte
de Uruguay (ca. 11,000-8500 AP). Lat. Am. Antiq. 22, 359e383.
Su

arez, R., 2014. Pre-Fishtail settlement in the Southern Cone ca. 15,000-13,100 yr
cal. BP: synthesis, evaluation, and discussion of the evidence. In: Stanford, D.,
Stanger, A. (Eds.), Pre Clovis in Americas: International Science Conference
Proceedings. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, pp. 153e191.
Su

arez, R., 2015a. The paleoamerican occupation of the plains of Uruguay: tech-
nology, adaptations and mobility. PaleoAmerica 1, 88e104. https://doi.org/
10.1179/2055556314Z.00000000010.
Su

arez, R., 2015b. In: Tecnología Lítica y Conjunto de Artefactos Utilizados Durante
el Poblamiento Temprano de Uruguay. Chungara
, vol. 47, pp. 67e84.
Su

arez, R., 2017. The human colonization of the southeast plains of south America;
climatic conditions, technological innovations and the peopling of Uruguay and
south of Brazil. Quat. Int. 431,181e193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.02.018.
Su
~ eiro, G., Barcelo
arez, R., Pin
, F., 2017. Living on the river edge: the Tigre site (K-87)
new data and implications for the initial colonization of the Uruguay River
basin. Quat. Int. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.024 (in press).
Waters, M.R., Amorosi, T., Stafford, T., 2015. Redating Fell's cave, Chile and the
chronological placement of the Fishtail projectile point. Am. Antiq. 80,
376e386. https://doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.80.2.376.