1

Human – faunal relationships, a look from paleocology to taphonomy

Eduardo Corona-M. and Joaquín Arroyo Cabrales

Laboratorio de Arqueozoología, INAH, México

This is a compilation of papers devoted to diverse archaeozoological issues. Most of the contributions are based on lectures given at the Seminario Relaciones Hombre-Fauna (Human – Fauna Relationships Seminar) organized by the Laboratorio de Arqueozoología and sponsored by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, the Mexican federal agency at charge of preserving the palaeontological, anthropological and historical heritages of the country. The activities of the Seminar started at 1997 as an academic forum organized with the aims of showing research advances and promoting the exchange on theoretical and methodological issues, mainly on archaeozoology and related topics, such as Paleoecology, History, Ethnozoology, Geology, and Archaeometry. For ten years, activity we have organized many lectures and workshops lectured due to the kindness of the colleagues of several parts of the World and from Mexican researchers interested in this subject. If you are interested on this matter, as well as our past activities, visit the Seminar webpage (Corona-M., 2005), or consult the previously edited book (Corona-M. and Arroyo Cabrales, 2003, and the references therein). For this compilation, we have tried to provide a wider view oriented toward the academic public interested in archaeozoology. However, for including and respecting the language chosen by each author, the scientific article format was followed with abstract and keywords in English and Spanish. Also, we respect the decision of some authors to include a more detailed contribution; however, we feel this situation does not affect the quality of all of them. The geographical scope of the contributions is worldwide because it includes the Caribbean region, South America, Europe, Africa and from Mexico the northern state of Chihuahua, a region scarcely dealt with in this field. The papers can be read from diverse perspectives, but always under the sign of change, such as the natural biotic modifications in the last geological periods, the influence of humans in the megafaunal extinctions at late Pleistocene, or the changes of fauna caused for long-term settlements. In addition we can observe the natural environments were the humans obtain their resources, from marine to terrestrial, or from continental to island. The papers assay diverse analyses units, going from the gene to the bone remains. And last but not the least, the study subjects look through a myriad of scientific disciples, such as Genetics, Chemistry, Animal

Ethnology, Biogeography, Paleontology, Evolution, and many others. It shows that the archaeozoology is currently one of the most interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary scientific fields. It means one of the most modern forms of scientific activity (Gibbons et al., 1994; Ingold, 2000). However, in order to facilitate the reading of the book, a brief discussion of all of the papers follows, with those integrated within two great perspectives groups: PALEOENVIRONMENT AND ARCHAEOZOOLOGY One of the topics that have raised the interest is the evolution in the Neogene epoch of some faunal groups in Continental America, and also their eventual relationship with humans in late Quaternary. Alberdi shows a detailed review on the systematic and palaeoecology of the families Equidae and Gomphotheriidae, emphasizing the biogeographic routes for their transit to South America, as part of the named Great American Biotic Interchange, and discussing the evidences for their encounters with the early human populations. One of the most exciting topics is the role of early human populations in the megafaunal extinction. In the past 10 years, there have been many papers devoted to this topic, including a discussion on the current validity of the overkill theory (Grayson and Meltzer, 2003, 2004; Fiedel and Haynes, 2004). On this issue, the contributions by Arredondo on the Antilles and by Fariña and Castilla on Uruguay, compile and provide new evidences of the scarcely known relationships between the extinct ground sloths and human. The environment is representative of a biogeographic circumstance. In that case, how could this situation model the man behavior in order to obtain the resources for surviving and living in certain areas? The paper by Muñoz discusses the alternatives on the Patagonian scenario, an extreme area occupied by humans from early historical times, and also indicates their implications for the archaeozoological record. From Mexico, the contribution by Merrill and Lopez focus on the area of Chihuahua, compiling the information from three main archaeological sites, to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the use of mammals in these settlements. One of the key conclusions is that the small mammals are a vital component of the diary diet, while the big fauna, as the bison and pronghorn, are mainly used as ceremonial food.

SURVEY ON HUMAN AND FAUNAL RELATIONSHIPS

2

In recent times the molecular evidence has a raising importance as a key tool for enhancing the studies of bone interpretation . The paper by Valdiosera shows the use of ancient DNA to figure the social importance of the fauna. She explains the genetic mechanism for color coat in mammals, and how it could be used to evaluate the horse’s color and, along with the historical evidence, it could help to interpret which social function had that animal. Those results also show that the molecular studies are an important tool for the modern paleobiological studies, which include both the palaeontological and the archaeozoological researches. The papers grouped in this section illustrate that archaeozoology provides useful information in order to reconstruct paleoenvironments, and for the increase of the knowledge on systematic and biogeography or in the evolutionary dynamics of the fauna. This means that archaeozoology is a field research with several contact points between paleontology, archaeology and anthropology. TAPHONOMY In addition to the knowledge of the biological component, the taphonomy is another key element to understand the possibility of recovering the bones, since the application of laboratory techniques increase our understanding of the processes involved. In recent years a fast increase has become in this field, since the bone degradation was a major objective for research. This is considered a physical and chemical process that produces changes in their mineral and organic structures. The paper by Smith and collaborators provides the comparison of several European localities that show at least four different types of bone preservation, and where the microbial degradation is the most common of all, and also underline the importance of the first stages of degradation over the time influence. The three remaining papers deal with actualistic research on taphonomy, looking for some solutions to the problem of equifinality in bone accumulations produced by distinct causal agents. The paper by Haynes emphasizes the importance of non-cultural processes to produce similar effects than the cultural activities. The Haynes field research in Africa also provides an important knowledge on the proboscidean biology and ethology, applicable to understand those sites where mammoths and men have coexisted. The next contributions focus their research on carnivore taphonomy and their importance for understanding the bone accumulations and the role of these probable contenders of human populations. Mondini undertakes a detailed study of the bones recovered on rock shelters from Puna, a region of Argentina, where the account of the bone damages points out to the small carnivores as the agent that produces the accumulation. While the paper of Barja and Corona deal with the damages to the bones

consumed by the Iberian wolf, and with the importance of those data and the applied methodology for both ethological and archaeozoological studies. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of animal remains has become complex and sophisticated, involving members from different research disciple working through collaboration, by regular and open communication, and expanding roles across discipline boundaries, providing a better understanding of the animals itself and from diverse human strategies for subsistence and for the symbolism, this last case not illustrated in the contributions here compiled. At the same time that archaeozoology is increasing its cross-disciplinary complexity, obtaining a deep look of the cultural diversity in the use of animal resources, since many times these are the same biological group or relatives. In perspective, we agree with Ingold (2000) on the importance of promoting a holistic research perspective, emphasizing the importance of the methodological approach to data collection and analysis, where all of the species and their immediate environment should be studied and understood as a single interactive system in which each adapts to and affects the other (Ingold, 2000). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all we want to thank to all of the colleagues and technicians of our Lab for their support during the past 10 years, particularly to María Teresa Olivera, usually her help has been critical to the success of the lectures. To the INAH’a authorities for the funding to support the Seminar along the past years. To Benjamín Arteaga, Administration officer, for the easing our way through the institutional system. Some Seminar activities have received complimentary resources by the Cátedra Prof. José Luis Lorenzo, headed by Prof. Lorena Mirambell from INAH. LITERATURE CITED: Corona-M. E. 2005. Seminario Relaciones hombre-fauna.

Available at http://www.geocities.com/shofaun (last access: January 24, 2006).

Corona-M., E., and J. Arroyo-Cabrales, eds. 2003. Relaciones hombre-fauna: una zona interdisciplinaria de estudio. Plaza y Valdés Editores e Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

Fiedel, S., and G. Haynes. 2004. A premature burial: comments on Grayson and Meltzer’s “Requiem for overkill”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31: 121-131.

Gibbons M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage Ltd. London,

EDUARDO CORONA-M. AND JOAQUÍN ARROYO CABRALES: HUMAN – FAUNAL RELATIONSHIPS

3

Grayson, D.K., and D. J. Meltzer, 2003. A requiem for North American overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30: 585–593.

Grayson, D.K., and D. J. Meltzer, 2004. North American overkill continued? Journal of Archaeological Science, 31: 133-136.

Ingold, T. 2000. The Perceptions of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge. London and New York.