Ethnoarchaeology of Andean South America Contributions to Archaeological Method and Theory edited by Lawrence A. Kuznar InreRNaTional. MonoGRaPHS IN PREHISTORY Ethnoarchaeological Series 4 ZookERRATA On Table 2 (p. 262), the damages on ribs were made by humans, not by foxes; hence, "Body" and "Steal end" should be in the "Location of Damage by Humans" column, and only the line (___ ) should be read in the foxes one.14, Human and Small Carnivore Gnawing Damage on Bones - an Exploratory Study and its Archaeological Implications Dolores Elkin and Mariana Mondini Distinction among agents of formation of the fossil record is at the foundation of archaeological research. This paper discusses the morphological criteria used for distinguishing between human and carnivore bone modification. This study is relevant to the formation of the zooarchaeological record in the Argentinian Puna, a high-altitude Andean steppe, particularly in rockshelters. Rockshelters, in a generic sense, including caves, are very important in Puna archaeology. In this region all archaeofaunal information on the early human occupations, as well as much data on. significant aspects of the later ones, come from these loci (see Elkin 1996, Elkin et al. 1991 for a synthesis). Carnivores are important taphonomic agents in the region, in the sense that they can modify and accumulate bones, even of large vertebrates. Fur- thermore, den accumulations are the closest pale- ontological parallel to archaeological accumula- tions (Gifford 1981). And, as Stiner (1994) has noticed in paleolithic archaeofaunas, occupational alternation of both agents is the rule rather than the exception, particularly in rockshelters. This study focuseson foxes, the carnivores that most commonly use rockshelters in the Puna, and also in other regions in Argentina, and can there- fore alternate with human occupations in these loci. In the Puna, there are several archaeological sites in rockshelters where carnivore, or even canid, bones and scats have been identified. Such is the case of sites Inca Cueva 4, Huachichocana III, and Quebrada Seca 3 (Elkin 1996, Yacobaccio 1991). ‘Tooth modifications on bones from thesesites have been generally attributed to carnivores. However, the possibility that at least some of them may be human-generated has generally not been consid- ered (but see Elkin 1996) We are concerned with the criteria required to distinguish the incidence of humans and that of foxes in the modification of faunal assemblages. As afirst exploratory approach to the subject, we have carried out an experimental study of the morphol- ogy of bone modifications made by human and fox teeth. It is aimed at assessing whether the mor- phological features of these modifications may be ambiguous. In the Argentinian Puna there are mainly medium-to-small carnivores (Berta 1988, Mares et al. 1989, Olrog and Lucero 1981, Redford and Eisenberg 1992). There is one relatively large car- nivore, the mountain lion or puma (Felis concolor). According to Berta (1988), it occupies the large-to- intermediate-sized carnivore adaptive zone, and, withinit, the specialist hunter, crouch-and-spring guild. Pumas have considerable gnawing power, and the modifications they produce on bones can be considered quite diagnostic, although they do not substantially transport prey or their parts to dens (but see Martin and Borrero 1997). It should also be noticed that in this area there are no seav- engers or hunters with hyena-like massive jaws and teeth for crushing bone. Among the medium-to-small carnivoresarethe South American red fox (Pseudalopex culpaeus) and the South American gray fox (P. griseus), also known as culpeo and grey zorro or chilla, respec- tively, and felids like the Andean cat (Felis jacobita) and the gato de pajonal (F. colocolo). The popula- tion density of these Puna felids is very low. Be- sides, the scarce available information on their diet, suggests they are not likely to accumulate large vertebrate assemblages, as humans do. Though information on dog behavior is also rather scarce and somewhat inconsistent, nothing indicates that, denningin rockshelters should be expected, at least for domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). However, these can certainly gnaw bones fed to them or dis- carded by people occupying rockshelters, such as herders during their seasonal rounds. Finally, there are even smaller carnivores, the mustelids, suchas the hog-nosed skunk (Conepatus chinga) and the lesser grison or quique (Galictis cuja). While grisons prey upon small rodents, 25514, Dolores Elkin and Mariana Mondini skunks hardly eat vertebrates, except for very small ones. In sum, foxes are the main carnivores in the Puna that use rockshelters for denning and, there- fore, the ones most likely toalternate with humans in these loci. In addition, domestic dogs, of rela- tively late introduction in the area, can gnaw hu- man-generated bone assemblages. From our ar- chaeological perspective, then, canids in particu- lar pose the problem of potential ambiguity in de- termining the agents of formation of faunal assem- blages in rockshelters. The Problem of Bone Modification One of the lines of evidence most commonly used in archaeology for agentiidentification isbone modification, especially damage morphology. Cur- rently there are some criteria that allow the dis- tinction between bone modifications produced by humans and those produced by carnivores. The former are based mainly on the traces of techniques implying tools, such as butchering, cooking, etc., while the latter principally relate to bone gnaw- ing, Few studies have dealt with human gnawing, and even fewer concern the use of tools by non- human animals. Moreover, research on gnawing damage by carnivores has mostly focused on ani- mals with relatively large body size and/or intense gnawing power, such as hyenas, wolves, coyotes, pumas, bears, lions, ete. (see Lyman 1994 for a synthesis). Studies on the taphonomic action of smaller carnivores are scarce (e.g., Andrews and Nesbit Evans 1983; Borrero 1990; Mondini 1995, this volume; Stallibrass 1984, 1990). Bone modifications produced by large carni- vores or animals with strong gnawing power seem to be quite diagnostic. However, this might not be the case with carnivores of a smaller body size. We think that the modifications they produce have the potential of mimicking the ones generated by hu- man teeth, since both agents share at least some features. Even though the size and shape of the canine teeth are remarkably different in humans and canids, both agents’ canines are conical, and can produce scratches, pits and/or hole-like marks on bones. Besides, the difference would be attenuated by the small size of South American foxes as com- pared to other canids and other carnivores in gen- eral. Among the cheek teeth, one of the most dis- tinctive features of carnivore dentition is the de- velopmentofcarnassial teeth that cutthrough meat and skin. Hominids lack carnassials and have bunodont teeth with low and rounded cusps. Canids, being more generalized than other carni- vores, also have some bunodont teeth used for crushing bone and other hard tissue Hillson 1986). The potential ambiguity in gnawing damage by both agents also relates to the low mandibular strength of foxes. As Binford (1981) has noticed, while teeth are the implements that ultimately produce bone modifications, thejawis the mechani- cal device for exerting force. And we believe that in relative terms, compared to the spectrum of all living carnivores, the gnawing power of South American foxes, given their size, need not be con- sidered significantly different from that ofhumans. In fact, the most common bone modifications in Puna modern fox dens are scoring and, secondly, pitting (Mondini, this volume), which can be con- sidered as light damage. ‘This point relates to another fact that we think may enhance potential ambiguities with human gnawing damage: fox gnawing is not expected tobe very intensive under conditions such asthe present ones in the Puna, e.g,, the scarcity or lack of direct competition among carnivores (Redford and Eisenberg 1992). These conditions do not appear to have been significantly different in the past, according to Holocene paleenvironmental data for the Southern Puna: environmental conditions like the present ones were inferred at several loci, at least for the last 4-5 millennia (Lupo 1993; Markgraf 1985, 1987; Ybert and Miranda 1984). However, this point should be further looked into for each particular situation, since some other cir- cumstances might have promoted a more inten- sive damage to bones by these carnivores, Regardinghumans, Binford (1981) argues that although intensive gnawing is relatively rare in modern times, some ancestors may have been more enthusiasticin gnawing. This would have been the case particularly in early times when many tech- niques of food preparation still had not been devel- oped and hominids were just incorporating hunt- ing and meat consumption systematically. Simi- larly, Oliver (1993) thinks that during the Plio- Pleistocene, before the use of fire for cooking, gnaw- ing and bone breakage were the only available technologies of nutrient extraction. Binford puts it in terms of intensity: “it is highly unlikely that a normal hominid pattern of consumption would include gnawing to the extent that it would mimic the consequences of the classic carnivore's behav- ior..." (Binford 1981:148). However, it is currently accepted that there is not a unique and/or typical 256Human and Small Carnivore Gnawing Damage on Bones... carnivore pattern. Besides, since bone modifica- tion by small carnivores may be much lighter than that described by Binford, at least some of the patterns of carnivore gnawing may overlap with the ones of human gnawing, in turn potentially quite variable, even in recent times. Human Gnawing: Background Human gnawing has not been studied as sys- tematically as carnivore gnawing, but several ob- servations can be found in the literature, some of which are summarized next. Binford (1978, 1981) has pointed out that Eskimo chewing at the mar- gins of boiled or “women’s” bones (the bones of the axial skeleton) such as vertebrae, ribs, pelves, and scapulae may result in mashed edges. Gnawing and sucking of short sections of ribs or “rib tablets” (about 5-15 em long) is fairly common when Nunamiuts consume fresh meat. Gnawing and sucking are restricted basically to the ends of these tablets. Scoring, puneturing, or pitting, however, were never observed along the lateral margins of theribs. Binford highlights thedifference between this pattern and the crenulated edges produced by canids. He has also observed regular human gnaw- ing on dorsal spines of thoracic vertebrae, proxi- mal margins of scapulae, and several very “soft” bones of young individuals. Although he did not systematically record the consequences of this gnawing in all instances, he noticed that pitting and mashing back of edges was fairly common; punctures, instead, were rare, and scoring was never observed. Mandibles may be processed for marrow by cracking them with the teeth (the mar- ginis taken in the mouth and cracked and twisted off) although, according to Binford’s experience, this procedure is occasional and done only in a playful manner. Oliver (1993) has observed that gnawingisone of six Hadza bone breakage techniques, though only used in a residential camp context, not in kill sites, and only for bones of size I animals (2-23 kg, after Bunnet al. 1988). He noticed that nearly 80% of these bones, 54 ribs and 2 metapodials, were fragmented through gnawing during marrow and cancellous tissue consumption; only two ribs were broken by wrenching, and nine limb bones were broken with knives and hammerstones. Most limb bones were struck so that diaphyses would break into many pieces, but some bone tubes were gener ated by striking the proximal and distal diaphyses of several limb bones of size I and II animals (size 11: 23-113 kg, after Bunnet al. 1988). After marrow was sucked out of these tubes, the exposed ends were chewed. Theauthor considers that these bones might be mistaken for the result of chewing by a smal! carnivore unless careful inspection of frac- ture features is made (see also Oliver 1994). The minimal processing required for consumption or cooking preparation of small animal limbs? sug- gests that the archaeological visibility of marrow processing and boiling may be reduced as compared tolarger animals. However, marrow processing of small ungulate limb bones may be inferred from the presence of the bone tubes with light gnawing damage near their ends just described, as well as the presence of limited impact breakage on the midshafts.3 Oliver argues that pitting, as well as, crushing and slicing, on cancellous bone of small animals may be used, together with other indica- tors of bone fragmentation and damage, to infer processing intensity. He concludes that gnawing of small animal ribs and articular ends of limb bones is among the significant observationson frac- ture patterning that help thoroughly understand carcass processing behaviors. Gifford (1989) noticed the presence of marks probably caused by human consumption on 10 caprine limb bones in an assemblage generated by modern Dassanetch herders in Kenya. Brain (1981) mentions that Hottentots are capable of inflicting considerable damage to goat bones with their teeth: 15 caudal vertebrae were gnawed and swallowed, and limb bones such as femora and metapodials were severely damaged in their ends. Maguire et al, (1980, in Lyman 1994 and Fisher 1995) think there may be a similar appearance in human and carnivore gnawing marks concerning ragged edges of chewed bones. This damage, observed on goat bones gnawed by Hottentots, was practically in- distinguishable from that produced by hyenas on the most fragile elements, particularly scapula and pelvis. White (1992) has predicted that further re- search would reveal considerable overlap in hu- manand carnivore damage,andhassuggested that diagnostichuman patterning might most probably be found in striations left by incisor teeth during periosteum removal. Both tooth size and configu- ration of cusp patterns may also be useful in iden- tifying agency when bone modificationsare clearly preserved and measurable (e.g., Haynes 1983). Insum, human gnawinghas been ethnographi- cally observed on several types of bones, of both the axial and the appendicular skeleton, and for dif- ferent sizes and ages of animals; the resulting damage varies from light to severe, including bone 25714. Dolores Elkin and Mariana Mondini breakage and swallowing. It is difficult to find patterns when comparing all these observations, suggesting the need of more systematic studies on the topic. ‘The Study We have carried out an experimental study consisting of feeding small foxes and humans equivalent sets of artiodactyl bones.4 Our aim, as stated above, was to compare the morphology of the modifications generated through gnawing by both agents in order to determine whether some gnawing damage produced by foxes can have a morphology similar to that produced by humans. We have undertaken this study as a first ex- ploratory approach to the subject, since descrip- tions available on morphological similarities and differences between the traces of human and car- nivore gnawing are scarce and rather inconsistent insome aspects (see above). Experimentally estab- lishing whether certain morphological features of small fox and human tooth modifications may be ambiguous can be considered a first step towards farther studies. These would be aimed at solving more specific problems, such as the conditions under which potential differences may be accentu- ated or attenuated, or the behavior of variables other than the morphological ones, e.g., frequency and distribution of damage in different contexts. It should be noted that our study does not in- tend to account for all the potential variability expected in human and/or fox gnawing damage, but to determine whether these small carnivores and humans may produce similar damage as a result. That is, we intend to determine whether at least some ambiguity in morphological criteria should be expected. As we said earlier, this is rel- evant for faunal assemblages from Puna rockshel- ters. ‘The study required bone material subjected to ‘the gnawing action of both humans and foxes. For that purpose, analogous sets of sheep (Ouis aries) anatomical units were fed to five adult humans and five juvenile-to-adult Pampa or Azara’s foxes (Pseudalopex gymnocercus). An artiodactyl was chosen because it is the most common taxonomic group found both in Puna modern fox dens and archaeological sites. Each type of agent was given three sets of fore- limb articulated bones: radii, scapulae, ulnae, humeri, two carpals, plus two sets of attached ribs articulated with the respective vertebrae: ribs 1-6 one side half vertebrae 1-6, longitudinally cut; ribs 7-12 opposite side half vertebrae 7-12, longitudi- nally cut. The sheep bones used in the study were all of adult size, being semi-fused to fused. They had some meat attached, though in the case of foxes we removed some of the meat off the scapulae and humeri, leaving a similar amount as in the radius- ulnae, to make sure the gnawing would reach the bone. All parts were roasted for the same amount of time in the same grill. Consumption of roasted animals is possible both in archaeological and den assemblages (in the latter, when foxes scavenge food discarded in human settlements). We included both appendicular and axial bones because of their different structural density, which in turn implies varying levels of resistance to de- struction and modification (see Elkin 1995, Elkin and Zanchetta 1991, Lyman 1994). Human feeding was performed with no help of tools at all, in order to ensure that tooth modifica- tions could be confidently identified. Even though all participants were aware of the goal of the study, they were instructed just to eat without the aid of tools, but to avoid purposefully attempting toleave tooth marks on the bones. The material was col- lected after the agents’ interest had ceased; by that time, most of the edible tissue had been consumed. Pampa fox, aclose relative of the South Ameri- can gray fox, has a head-and-body length of 62.cm, andaweightof4.2-6.5kg average (Olrog and Lucero 1981, Redford and Eisenberg 1992). Even though this species’ distribution does not include the high Andes, its size is similar to that of Puna foxes. ‘The study was performed at the E.C.A.S (Estacion de Crfa de Animales Silvestres, Ministerio de la Produccién de la Provincia de Buenos Aires), a wild animal raising facility in the Province of Buenos Aires, where appropriate con- ditions for the controlled feeding experience could be provided. The placement of the E.C.A.S. in the pampa environment providesan analogous setting to the natural habitat of Pampa foxes. The animals had been recently put in captivity ina 13-by-16mcorral. They arenever given chemi- cally balanced food, and their standard diet con- sists of viscera, eggs, and bones. When they were given the sheep parts for our study, they had not. been fed for a whole day and they were soon at- tracted by the food. Their interest, however, was discontinuous. After five hours the bones were collected, and at that moment none of the foxes seemed to be interested in the food, though in some bones a considerable amount of meat had not been consumed. 258Human and Small Carnivore Gnawing Damage on Bones... ‘The analysis of the resulting damage was per- formed with the naked eye as well as with a 2x hand lens. Binocular 10-40 x lenses were occasion- ally used for a more detailed observation Results Of a total of twelve ribs and twelve vertebra halves, humans tooth-marked nine and two, re- spectively. The frequency of axial bones damaged by foxes (three ribs and no vertebrae) might be underrepresented, since one of the sets (six ribs and six halves of vertebrae) could not be found in the foxes’ corral after the feeding event, except for onerib fragment. The information onthe limb bones fed to each agent and those damaged is summa- rized in Table 1, It should be noticed that all the frequencies are given only in terms of sample data, and not as representative of human and/or fox behavior, ‘The analysis of tooth damage revealed that some of it is common to both humans and small foxes. Common damage categories are scoring, pitting, punctures (see Figures 1 and 2), and more substantial removal ofbonetissue than thatcaused by tooth impressions: the original bone contour cannot be inferred from the specimen. The location of the damage on each type of bone was also coin- cident in several cases (Table 2). Regarding the morphology of these modifica- tions, foxes and humans produced the following common tooth damage features: Scoring: length ranges from 8-10 mm. width ranges from 0.5-1 mm. straight edges smooth internal surfaces flat bottom’ shallowness Table 1. Analyzed appendicular bone sample. Pitting: ‘maximum diameter ranges from 1.5-3mm. circular or subcircular perimeter smooth to uneven internal surfaces flat-bottomed or concave Punctures: maximum diameter of 6 mm. circular or semi-circular perimeter uneven internal surfaces concave internal shape shallowness Bone tissue removal: jagged, irregular or even edges collapsed bone splinters or fragments at- tached to edges, ‘The percentage of total cases (number of modi- fications by foxes and by humans) which fall in the categories of shared features stated above is quite variable, though most cases are above 50%. The highest values, between 80 and 100%, correspond to scoring width, internal surface and depth; pit- tingperimeter, internal surface and internal shape; puncture depth; and bone tissue removal edges. Allthe other percentages of common features range between 50 and 80%, with the exception of scoring length (30%) and puncture maximum diameter (44%). ‘Damage on periosteum and other soft tissue which did not reach the bone was also recorded for both agents (Table 3). It is noteworthy that in the case of humans this kind of damage can be quite larger than that produced by foxes. Damage on soft tissue will not be further con- sidered here since itis rarely preserved in archaeo- logical material. Insum, according to this study, foxes and hu- mans can produce at least some similar gnawing damage, even with similar morphology. Foxes Humans Skeletal Parts #bones fed bones damaged bones fed #bones damaged Scapulae 3 2 3 2 Humeri 3 2 3 2 Radii 3 1 3 0 Ulnae 3 2 3 1 Carpals 6 2 6 0 Total 18 9 18 Ne EEE14. Dolores Elkin and Mariana Mondini Fig. 1. Fox puncture on a humerus medial condyle. Discussion and Conclusions In many archaeological sites in rockshelters and caves in the Argentinian Puna there are vary ing proportions of bone specimens with damage attributed tocarnivores. Inthe last few years some taphonomic studies have started on the carnivores inhabiting the region (e.g., Mondini 1995, Nasti 1992). The information so generated is casting new light on the integrity and history of formation of archacofaunal deposits, which have been other. wise interpreted according to models focused on carnivores and/or contexts quite different from those of the Puna, and therefore not always rel evant toour region. Anyway, the possibility that at least some gnawing damage in these archaeologi cal deposits was generated by human gnawing has not been systematically considered yet, We believe this possibility merits studying its consequences parallel to the recently initiated study of local car- nivores. it 4 cm The results of our study suggest that tooth damage morphology should not be the main crite- rion, let alone the only one, for agency identifica tion in archaeological contexts potentially involv- ing foxes as taphonomic agents. And even when the study was developed in order to find out about specific Puna problems, it should alert us on the potential ambiguity that taphonomic processes by small carnivores in general may imply There are few observations describing the char- acteristies of human gnawing modifications, and they are generally isolated ethnographic notes(see above), This scarcity of studies on the subject prob. ably has to do with the fact that the use of tools for animal food processing is quite characteristic of humans, and therefore observations have concen- trated on the traces of this behavior, given their diagnostic potential. But there seems to be an underlying assumption, as well: that human food processing is unique in nature. If we keep in mind that humans evolve as members of animal commu-Human Fig. 2, Human puncture on a rib sternal end. nities (Behrensmeyer et al. 1992, Stiner 1994), it becomes clear that at least some strategies are potentially common with other species. There is no reason to view, at least implicitly, the traces of gnawing as an exclusive indicator of non-human animals. While some time ago archaeologists often interpreted carnivore-inflicted damage as human modifications (see Binford 1981 for a synthesis), more recent studies have tended todo the opposite, generally interpreting any tooth damage as carni: vore-generated. ‘This bias is also partly due to“... the episodic treatment ofhuman behavior (Binford 1987), where otherwise related activities are artificially parti tioned, resulting in a patchwork of data but no appreciation of how several behaviors may be inte- grated intoadecision-makingstrategy. With a focus on differentiating between hominid-and non homi- nid-induced patterns, most actualistic work has examined only segments of carcass processing be- havior” (Oliver 1993:201). Considering Oliver's and Small Carnivore Gnawing Damage on Bones pevengeneayarciyuviypaviapuinyt 3 4 5 6 cm arguments together with the results of our study, wwe can stress the need to consider bone modifica- tion morphology in conjunction with other proper- ties, such as damage frequency and location. These other properties are directly conditioned by the context under which they occur, i.e., available nutrient extraction strategies, degree of compet tion, ete, Contextual information is precisely ai other relevant issue to agency identification. In areas where small carnivores are the rule, using all these lines of evidence should be a requisite for distinguishing between carnivore and human ac- tion in the fossil record. The results of this study should be thought of as exploratory. They cannot and do not intend to be representative of the whole range of tooth damage that foxes and humans can produce, that is, of the modifications generated in any possible gnawing context. The information presented here is only aimed at assessing whether ambiguity in morpho- logical features is possible 26114, Dolores Elkin and Mariana Mondini ‘Table 2. Tooth damage on bone by foxes and humans. Typeof Skeletal Location of Damage Location of Damage Damage Part by Foxes by Humans Scoring Scapula Supraglenoid tubercle Blade Humerus Head Central diaphysis Proximal, central, and distal diaphysis Distal epiphysis, Pitting Scapula Blade Proximal edge Humerus Head Central and distal diaphysis Distal epiphysis Rib Body Sternal end Sternal end Carpal Distal articular surface —_— Punctures Scapula Proximal edge — Blade Supraglenoid tubercle Glenoid cavity Humerus Head —_— Distal epiphysis Uina Olecranon Olecranon Proximal diaphysis Rib — Head Body Sternal end Bone tissue Seapula Proximal edge Proximal edge removal Blade Spine Supraglenoid tubercle Glenoid cavity Humerus Distal epiphysis — Una Olecranon —_— Distal diaphysis Rib Head Head Articular facet Edges Body Sternal and ventral ends Vertebra —_ Spinous apophysis In fact, differential contexts, such as food tar- get (meat, fat, marrow, etc.), levels of nutrient demand, animal food source (prey, carcass, etc.), situation within the subsistence circuit (kill site, den, base camp, etc.), variability in gnawing appa- ratus within each agent class, technology avail- able for food consumption in the case of humans, etc., condition differential patterns of gnawing damage, particularly regarding its intensity and location. 26: The fact that humans generally have the aid of technology when processing faunal food is quite relevant; carnivores, instead, rely on their teeth and paws. This may imply greater variability and/ or intensity of gnawing as compared to humans, ‘An example of this potential difference is that humans can avoid gnawing as a means of marrow extraction, since they can break bones open with the aid of tools. On the other hand, both carnivores and humans may gnaw bones with aimsother than 2Human and Small Carnivore Gnawing Damage on Bones Table 8. Tooth damage on soft tissue by foxes and humans. Location of Damage ‘Type of Damage by Foxes Circular or subeircular soft tissue removal Rib: edge Quadrangular or subquadrangular soft tissue removal Surficial longitudinal scratches” distal diaphysis Radius: proximal diaphysis “Often wider than scorings on bone. “*Some scratches on ribs were wider than average. Humerus: distal epiphysis Radius: prox. epiphysis Humerus: distal epiphysis, Location of Damage by Humans Humerus: diaphysis Rib: head Scapula: supraglenoid tubers» Ulna: olecranon Humerus: diaphysis Humerus: diaphysis Vertebra: transverse apophys* Scapula: blade Rib: body”* animal food processing, like carnivore “boredom” chewing, human cannibalism, ete. These contexts should also be taken into account. The development of studies on human food processing strategies other than those implying the use of tools is necessary in order to control potential ambiguities concerning bone moditica- tions traditionally assigned to carnivore animals, especially in South American and other contexts where, as we said, the main carnivores suspected tohave produced these traces are medium-to-small ones. Another reason to study human processing strategies alternative or complementary to those implying the use of tools is the need to understand animal food processing as a whole, which in turn may let us develop evolutionary animal processing models that account for the implications of techno- logical and other innovations (see Oliver 1993). Future research should approach all these topics. Binford (1981) emphasizes the need of more infor- mation on the subject before we are able to confi- dently assign tooth modifications to non-human agents. He has promoted the development of diag- nostic properties of human gnawing through ex- perimental studies. Ethnoarchaeological studies onhuman gnawing are also very valuable, particu- larly when the modifications generated under vary- ing circumstances and contexts can be compared ‘Small carnivore modifications under differentssitu- ations should also be further considered. In sum, the aim of this study, as in the case any experimental analogy (see Borrero 1991), hi” been to open up our eyes to new possibilities and enhance the spectrum of situations we are able! conceive in order to understand the archacologic:"" record. Notes According to Binford’s (1978) observation when dry and/or frozen meat is consumed, 1" breakage is prevented because blood and “marrow are not very appetizing. 2n all cases marrow from size I animals wi" cooked, and so was that from most size II car limbs (Oliver 1993) SNotice that in contrast with limb bones, Olive" (1993)has observed that small animal axial bone especially vertebrae, may be more intensely fr mented than those of larger animals. 4Asyntheticreport of this study was presente! at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society f" American Archaeology, New Orleans, 1996. Acknowledgments We want to thank Bruno Carpinetti an‘! Mariano Merino of the E.C.A.S. for the permissie"" 26314. Dolores Elkin and Mariana Mondini and assistance to carry on this study. The butcher Cacho skillfully and patiently cut sheep carcasses, into unusual parts‘atour request. Alejandro Acosta cooked a delicious sheep barbecue, undoubtedly appreciated by five foxes, Eduardo Barclay, Sebastién Mufioz, the authors, and himself. We are very grateful to Luis Borrero, Simon Davis, Donald Grayson, Gary Haynes, R. Lee Lyman, Sebastian Muiioz, Sebastian Payne, and Sue Stallibrass for their insightful comments on this chapter, although its contents are our own respon- sibility, References Cited Andrews, P, and E. M. Nesbit Evans 1983 Small Mammal Bone Accumulations Produced by Mammalian Carnivores. Paleobiology 9:289-307. Behrensmeyer, A. K., J.D. Damuth, W. A. DiMichele, R. Potts, H. D. Sues, and S. L. Wing 1992 Terrestrial Ecosystems through Time. Evolutionary Paleoecology of Terrestrial Plants and Animals. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Berta, A. 1988 Quaternary Evolution and Biogeography of the Large South American Canidae (Mammalia: Carnivora). Geological Sci- ence, Vol. 132. The University of Califor- nia Publications, University of Califor- nia Press, Berkeley. Binford, L. R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1981 Bones - Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York. Borrero, L. A. 1990 Taphonomy of Guanaco Bones in Tierra del Fuego. Quaternary Research 34:361- 371. 1991 Experimentos y Escalas Arqueolégicas. Shineal 3 (1): 142-145. Brain, C.K. 1981 The Hunters or the Hunted? An Intro- duction to African Cave Taphonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bunn, H. T., L. Bartram and E. Kroll. 1988 Variability in Bone Assemblage Forma- tion from Hadza Hunting, Scavenging and Carcass Processing. Journal of An thropological Archaeology 7:412-457. Elkin, D. 1995 Volume Density of South American Camelids Skeletal Parts. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 5(1):29-37. Arqueozoologia de Quebrada Seca 3 - Indicadores de Subsistencia Humana ‘Tempranaen a Puna Meridional Argen- tina. Tesis de Doctorado, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires. MS Elkin and J. L. Zanchetta 1991 Densitometria Osea de Camélidos - Aplicaciones Arqueolégicas. Shincal 3: 195-204. Elkin, D. C., C, M. Madero, G. L. Mengoni, D. Olivera, and H. D. Yacobaccio 1991 Avances en el Estudio Arqueolégico de los Camélidos en el Noroeste Argentino, Actas dela VII Convencién Internacional de Especialistas en Camélidos Sud- ‘americanos, San Salvador de Jujuy, Abril 1991. (in press). Fisher, J. 1995 Bone Surface Modifications in Zoo- archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(1): 7-68. Gifford, D. 1981 Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A Critical Review of Archaeology’sSister Disciplines. InAdvancesin Archaeological Methodand Theory, Vol. 4, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 365-438, Academic Press, New York Ethnographic Analogues for Interpret- ing Modified Bones: Some Cases from East Africa. In Bone Modification, ed- ited by M. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg, pp. 179-246, Center for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine, Orono. Haynes, G. 1983 A Guide for Differentiating Mammalian Carnivore Taxa Responsible for Gnaw Damage to Hervibore Limb Bones. Paleobiology 9(2): 164-172. Hilson, 8. 1986 Teeth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lupo, L. 1993 Informe Palinolégico del Sitio Inca Cueva 4 (ICe4). MS. Lyman, R. L. 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1996 1989 264Human and Small Carnivore Gnawing Damage on Bones. Maguire, J. M., D. Pemberton, and M. H. Collett 1980 TheMakapansgat Limeworks Grey Brec- cia: Hominids, Hyenas, Hystricids or Hillwash? Paleontologia Africana 23: 75- 98, Mares, M., R. Ojeda, and R. Barquez 1989 Guéade los Mam{feros dela Provincia de Salta, Argentina. University of Okla- homa Press, Norman and London. Markgraf, V. 1985 Paleoenvironmental History of the Last 10,000 Yearsin Northwestern Argentina. Zentralblatt fiir Geologie und Pala- ontologie. Teil I (11/12):1739-1749 Stuttgart. Paleoclimates ofthe Southern Argentine ‘Andes. Current Research in the Pleis- tocene 4:150-157. Martin, F. M. and L. A. Borrero 1997 A Puma Lair in Southern Patagonia: Implications for the Archaeological Record. Current Anthropology 38: 453- 461. Mondini, N. M. 1995 ' Artiodactyl Prey Transport by Foxes in Puna Rock Shelters. Current Anthropol- ogy 36: 520-524. 1987 Nasti, A. 1991 Tafonomiade Vertebrados en Contextos Sedimentarios Modernos dela Puna Sur: Chances de Enterramiento y Formacién del Registro Arqueolégico. Shincal 3 (1) 234-251. Oliver, J.S. 1993 Carcass Processing by the Hadza: Bone Breakage from Butchery to Consump- tion. In From Bones to Behavior. Ethno- archaeological and Experimental Contri- butions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains, edited by J. Hudson, pp. 200- 227. Occassional Paper No. 21, Center for Archaeological Investigations, South- erm Illinois University at Carbondale. 1994 Estimates of Hominid and Carnivore Involvement in the FLK Zinjanthropus Fossil Assemblage: Some Socioecological Implications. Journal of Human Evolu- tion 21:267-294. Olrog, C. C. and M. M. Lucero 1981 Guta de los Maméferos Argentinos. Fundacién Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Redford, K. H. and J. F. Eisenberg 1992 Mammals of the Neotropics. The South- ern Cone. Vol. 2: Chile, Argentina, Uru- guay, Paraguay. The University of Chi- cago Press, Chicago. Stallibrass, S. 1984 The Distinction Between the Effects of Small Carnivores and Humans on Post- Glacial Faunal Assemblages. In Animals and archaeology: 4. Husbandry in Eu- rope, edited by C. Grigson and J. Clutton- Brock, pp. 259-269. BAR International Series 226. Canid Damage to Animal Bones: Two Current Lines of Research. Experimenta- tion and Reconstruction in Environmen- tal Archaeology, edited by D.E.Robinson, pp. 151-165. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Stiner, M.C. 1994 Honor Among Thieves. A Zooarchaeo- logical Study of Neanderthal Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton. White, T.D. 1992 Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos S5MTUMR-2346. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Yacobaccio, H. D. 1991 SistemasdeAsentamientosdeCazadores- Recolectores Tempranos en los Andes Centro-Sur. Tesis de Doctorado en Filo- sofia. FFyL, UBA, Buenos Aires. (MS). Ybert, J.P. and Y, Miranda 1984 Andlisis Palinolégico de un Corte del Sajama. Actas del Segundo Congreso Geologico de Bolivia, pp. 691-695. 1990 265