Hunter-Gatherer Adaptation in the Deserts of Northern Patagonia By

Title Page Hunter-gatherer adaptation in the deserts of northern Patagonia by Fernando Ricardo Franchetti B.A. (Anthropology), Universidad Nacional de La Plata, 2012 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2019 Committee Membership Page UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Fernando Ricardo Franchetti It was defended on April 18, 2019 and approved by Dr. Robert D. Drennan, Distinguished Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh Dr. Marc Bermann, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh Dr. Luis Borrero, Emeritus Professor, School of Philosophy and Literature, University of Buenos Aires Chair & Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Loukas Barton, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh ii Copyright © by Fernando Ricardo Franchetti 2019 iii Abstract Hunter-gatherer adaptation in the deserts of northern Patagonia Fernando Ricardo Franchetti, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2019 This research focuses on land use and risk management by hunter-gatherers in the Diamante valley, northern Patagonia, Argentina, across three ecological zones: the Highlands, the Piedmont, and the Lowlands. I also explore how site structure differed within these ecological zones, how mobility was used to manage the heterogeneous distribution of resources, and how ceramics were used in the context of high residential mobility. To determine the differences in land use, the fieldwork for this research involved a systematic random sample of surface deposits from 400 one-hectare units within a 100 km2 area in each ecological zone, followed by lithic and ceramic analysis of the materials recovered. The Piedmont contains the highest density of human activity, followed by the Highlands, and then the Lowlands. In the Lowlands, the relative absence of evidence for human activity suggests this was an inhospitable place for people to live. In both the Piedmont and the Highlands, larger sites close to water courses and to raw materials were occupied repeatedly. Across the region, the most common raw material was basalt, followed by cryptocrystalline, and then obsidian. Chipped stone implements and fragments in the Highlands were smaller than in the other areas. In the Highlands, the most abundant camps were of medium size, possibly located and organized to support logistical foraging trips to acquire resources in a patchier environment. Ceramics were more abundant in the Highlands, but required only minimal investment suggesting they were used for only short periods of time. In addition to ceramics, obsidian was also more important in the Highlands than it was in the Piedmont. I examine how patterns of human mobility complement the use of resources across different ecological zones, nothing that the Piedmont, iv which is accessible all year round, was used the most. These findings contribute to our understanding of the diversity of evolutionary trajectories of small-scale groups in marginal environments by the use of a variety of adaptive strategies. v Table of contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................xxii 1.0 Small-scale societies adaptations to deserts and altitude .................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Use of space in contexts of volatility and unpredictability ......................................... 5 1.3 Intensification in a volatile environment ...................................................................... 7 1.4 Research questions ....................................................................................................... 10 1.4.1 Were the Lowlands, the Piedmont, and the Highlands occupied with the same intensity? ..................................................................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Does site structure reflect uses specific to the different ecological zones? ... 11 1.4.3 How did people used mobility to manage the landscape of the Diamante valley? ..........................................................................................................................12 1.4.4 How was ceramic technology used in the three ecological zones? ................ 14 1.5 Contribution .................................................................................................................. 16 2.0 The environment ................................................................................................................... 18 2.1 Deserts of southern Mendoza ...................................................................................... 18 2.2 Geography ..................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 The Highlands ................................................................................................... 20 2.2.2 The Piedmont ..................................................................................................... 21 2.2.3 The Lowlands .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Resources: flora and fauna .......................................................................................... 23 2.3.1 Flora ................................................................................................................... 23 vi 2.3.2 Fauna .................................................................................................................. 24 2.4 Paleoenvironment ......................................................................................................... 27 2.5 Lithic resources ............................................................................................................. 28 2.5.1 Andean obsidian sources- summer availability .............................................. 30 2.5.2 Extra-andean sources, year-round availability .............................................. 30 2.5.3 Basalts, cryptocrystallines, and other raw materials ..................................... 31 3.0 Archaeological and ethnographic background .................................................................. 34 3.1 Cultural history and evolutionary ecology ................................................................. 34 3.2 Previous works in the Diamante archaeology ............................................................ 37 3.3 Ethnohistory .................................................................................................................. 42 3.3.1 Sixteenth century .............................................................................................. 42 3.3.2 Seventeenth century .......................................................................................... 43 3.3.3 Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries .............................................................. 45 3.3.4 The Puesteros ..................................................................................................... 45 3.4 Update on current archaeological data for southern Mendoza and the Diamante valley ……………………………………………………………………………….………47 3.4.1 14C dates .............................................................................................................. 47 3.4.2 The zooarchaeological record of southern Mendoza ..................................... 51 4.0 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 56 4.1 Distributional studies in small-scale societies ............................................................ 56 4.2 Survey design ................................................................................................................ 59 4.3 Ceramic analysis ........................................................................................................... 68 4.4 Lithic analysis ............................................................................................................... 69 vii 4.5 Statistics ......................................................................................................................... 72 5.0 Results for ecological zones .................................................................................................. 74 5.1 Land use in three ecological zones .............................................................................. 74 5.2 Organization of lithic technology ................................................................................ 87 5.2.1 Proportions of general artifact types ............................................................... 88 5.2.2 Proportions of distinct raw material types ..................................................... 89 5.2.3 Proportion of percentage of cortex .................................................................. 91 5.2.4 Averages of metric variables in lithic artifacts ............................................... 92 5.2.5 Debitage ............................................................................................................ 101 5.2.6 Cores ................................................................................................................

Load more