Deb

ate

A new late Pleistocene archaeologicalsequence in South America: the Vale daPedra Furada (Piauı, Brazil)Eric Boeda1, Ignacio Clemente-Conte2, Michel Fontugne3,Christelle Lahaye4, Mario Pino5, Gisele Daltrini Felice6,7,Niede Guidon6, Sirlei Hoeltz8, Antoine Lourdeau1,9, Marina Pagli1,Anne-Marie Pessis6,9, Sibeli Viana10, Amelie Da Costa1 &Eric Douville3

Brasilia

Vale da Pedra Furada

N

0 km 2000The date of the first settlement of the Americasremains a contentious subject. Previous claimsfor very early occupation at Pedra Furadain Brazil were not universally accepted (seeMeltzer et al. 1994). New work at therockshelter of Boqueirao da Pedra Furada andat the nearby open-air site of Vale da PedraFurada have however produced new evidencefor human occupation extending back morethan 20 000 years. The argument is supportedby a series of 14C and OSL dates, and bytechnical analysis of the stone tool assemblage.The authors conclude that the currentlyaccepted narrative of human settlement inSouth America will have to be re-thought.The article is followed by a series of comments,rounded off by a reply from the authors.

Keywords: Pedra Furada, Serra de Capivara, settlement of the Americas, taphonomy, lithictechnology, cobble tools, quartz tools, dating methods

Supplementary material is provided online at http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/boeda341

1 UMR 7041 CNRS ArScAn–AnTET, Universite Paris X, Maison de l’Archeologie et de l’Ethnologie, 21 allee del’Universite, 92023 Nanterre, France

2 Departamento de Arqueologıa y Antropologıa, IMF-CSIC, Calle Egipcıaques 15, Barcelona 08001, Spain3 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR 8212 CNRS-CEA-UVSQ, Domaine du

CNRS, 91198 Gif sur Yvette, France4 Universite Bordeaux-Montaigne, UMR 5060 IRAMAT-CRP2A, Institut de Recherche sur les Archeomateriaux,

Maison de l’Archeologie, Esplanade des Antilles, 33607 Pessac, France5 Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales y Evolutivas, Universidad Austral de Chile, Edificio Emilio Pugın, Avenida

Eduardo Morales Miranda, Campus Isla Teja, Valdivia, Chile

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.ANTIQUITY 88 (2014): 927–955 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/088/ant0880927.htm

927

A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America

6 Fundacao Museu do Homem Americano (FUMDHAM), Centro Cultural Sergio Motta s/n, Bairro Campestre,Sao Raimundo Nonato – PI, 64770-000, Brazil

7 Universidade Federal do Vale do Sao Francisco (UNIVASF), Campus Serra de Capivara, Rua Joao Ferreirados Santos, s/n, Bairro Campestre, Sao Raimundo Nonato–PI, 64770-000, Brazil

8 Archaeo: Pesquisas Arqueologicas, Av. Carandaı 99, Parque Georgia, Cuiaba – MT, 78085-485, Brazil9 Departamento de Arqueologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego 1235, Cidade

Universitaria, Recife – PE, 50670-901, Brazil10 Instituto Goiano de Pre-Historia e Antropologia, Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Goias, Av, Universitaria

1.440, Setor Universitario, Goiania – GO, 74605-010, Brazil

IntroductionLate Pleistocene human occupation in South America has been the focus of incessant debatefor more than 20 years. Human presence in South America before 11 000 cal BC is now,as in North America, widely accepted by most of the scientific community (Miotti 2003;Bonnichsen et al. 2005; Waters & Stafford 2007, 2013; Goebel et al. 2008; Dillehay 2009;Collins et al. 2013). In addition to the celebrated Chilean site of Monte Verde (Dillehay1997), several sites now show the occupation of South America during the Late Pleistocene,including Taima-Taima in Venezuela (Ochsenius & Gruhn 1979; Ranere & Lopez 2007),Arroyo Seco 2 in Argentina (Steele & Politis 2009) and Huaca Prieta in Peru (Dillehay et al.2012).

Acceptance of sites dating to earlier than 14 000 cal BC, however, seems to be much moredifficult (Roosevelt et al. 2002; Dillehay 2008; Goebel et al. 2008). All discoveries madehave been systematically and legitimately discussed, which is justified, but also systematicallyand surprisingly rejected, without exception. This has occurred, in particular, for sites innorth-eastern Brazil, in the Serra da Capivara region (Meltzer et al. 1994; Meltzer 2009;Farina et al. 2014).

Is there some sort of curse that affects the common sense both of archaeologists makingthe discoveries, and their colleagues, at the announcement of an age older than 14 000cal BC? In hypothetico-deductive reasoning, verifiable hypotheses are constructed on thebasis of a series of assumptions, the confirmation of which would support the postulates orpremises on which the hypotheses are based (Clark 1968). In other words, if one questionsthe assumptions, the construction of the hypothesis must also be questioned. Why then,despite abundant and varied data collected during the last two decades, are the new resultssystematically rejected? Is the importance of the hypothesis greater than the validity of theassumptions? Has the hypothesis become a paradigm with its own structure of thinking?

Another issue concerns the value given to the initial assumptions when it comes to stonetools. Indeed, it would appear that when tool types familiar from later periods, like spearor arrow points, are found with Pleistocene ages, a multitude of objections are immediatelyraised concerning both the ages obtained and the stratigraphy. In contrast, when artefactsare outside our modern memory references, it is their human origin that is questioned andnot the stratigraphic context or dating. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, this attitude isquite unsettling, raising the question that if scientific criteria are valid for the Holocene,why would they not be equally valid for late Pleistocene periods?

Despite such difficulties, research in the Sao Raimundo Nonato region (Piauı, Brazil)continued after the discovery of the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene sequence at BoqueiraoC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

928

Deb

ate

Eric Boeda et al.

Figure 1. Location of Vale da Pedra Furada and adjacent sites.

da Pedra Furada in the 1980s (Guidon & Delibrias 1986; Guidon 1989; Parenti et al. 1996;Parenti 2001) with the discovery of three new sites (see online supplementary material forfurther details): Tira Peia (Lahaye et al. 2013), Sıtio do Meio (Guidon et al. 1994) andVale da Pedra Furada, providing new Pleistocene and Holocene sequences with artefactsand dates (Figure 1). We present here the study we conducted at Vale da Pedra Furada. Thesite is located in the Sao Raimundo Nonato region on the edge of the Serra da Capivara. Itwas discovered in 1998 during a campaign of test excavations on the immediate peripheryof the site of Boqueirao da Pedra Furada (Felice 2000, 2002). At a depth of more than twometres, a few artefacts were recovered along with wood charcoals that have been dated to c.20 000 cal BC (see Table S4). A second date on charcoal, from a layer at least one metrebelow the surface, provided an age of c. 13 000 cal BC (see Table S4). In 2011, we reopenedthis test excavation (Boeda et al. 2013).

Excavations at Vale da Pedra Furada in 2011Vale da Pedra Furada is an open-air site on the left bank of the Baixao da Pedra FuradaValley. It is located at the base of a talus of sandstone rockfall resulting from erosion ofa cuesta which here is more than 30m away and survives as a residual ridge (Figure S1).The rocky talus, with a slope of 10–35◦, is composed of sandstone blocks ranging in sizefrom monumental to considerably smaller. These blocks are mixed with sediments formed

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

929

A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America

by quartz and quartzite cobbles, as well as sand resulting from both regressive erosion ofthe cuesta and the marine conglomerate overlying the Devonian sandstone (Pellerin 1983).Erosion of this conglomerate continues on the valley floor, but no longer contributes to thetalus within the area of the site. Only during rainy years do two caldeiroes (waterfalls) drainthe plateau surface waters onto the valley floor. The larger of these creates every year anintermittent creek that changes slope from around 10◦ in this first 10m to become muchflatter well before reaching the valley floor. The site is located on the left bank and at adistance of 15m from this ephemeral creek (Figure S1).

The excavated surface was located over the earlier 30m2 test excavation, including its southand east stratigraphic profiles, and continued into the unexcavated lower layers (Figure S2).All of the lithic artefacts, knapped or not, were recovered. Three-dimensional coordinateswere recorded for knapped artefacts, and the location of non-anthropic objects logged byquarter-metre in 50mm thick spits. Systematic sieving to 2mm enabled recovery of abundantsmall fragments of knapping debris and retouch flakes.

Each charcoal fragment was individually recorded to better discern the sequence ofburning. Within the 2.6m stratigraphy, eight sedimentary layers have been identified,although the base of the archaeological sequence has not yet been reached. The first layer—C1—is about 0.2m thick and corresponds to the modern surface. Below this, from bottom totop there is a succession of coarse and fine deposits that can be grouped into two broad units.The upper unit, 0.8–1m thick, contains a single layer—C2—dominated by siliciclastic siltysands, without visible lamination or other internal synsedimentary structures (Figure 2). Thelower unit, currently excavated to a depth of 1.5m, includes six sedimentary layers, from C8to C3, showing the alternation between episodes of fine, essentially sandy sedimentation(C8, C6 and C4) and episodes of coarser deposition (C7, C5 and C3) composed of amixture of gravel with some cobbles and boulders in a sand-granule matrix.

The three sandy layers are of different colours, evidence of different depositional andpost-depositional processes. Layer C8 (base not yet reached) is powdery, resulting from thedisintegration of large sandstone blocks on the talus against which the site is set. The base oflayer C6 (>0.3m thick) contains, depending on the area excavated, several thousand woodcharcoal fragments (mm and cm in size) concentrated in certain zones and making thesediment grey in colour. Sandstone blocks of different sizes (50–200mm) are present at thebase of layer C6, lying directly on gravelly layer C7 or separated from it by a sandy ash layera few centimetres thick (Figure S3). No quartz or quartzite cobbles, except for artefacts, areassociated with these sandstone blocks. The origin of these blocks, some of which weigh3–4kg, is problematic. Indeed, their presence cannot be explained exclusively by colluvialprocesses because other lithic materials would have been associated with them. Some blocksshow evidence of heating that caused their breakage, which indicates a temporal correlationwith the charcoal. A disc-shaped block some 150mm thick, currently being analysed, showstraces of use including smoothing/polishing and areas of pecking on the upper surface. LayerC4 varies in thickness (0.3–0.4m) depending on location and is defined uniquely by reddersand.

Layer C7, 0.3m thick, differs from the preceding sandy layers by the more varied size ofthe cobbles it contains (some more than 0.3m across), and by their more diversified rawmaterial. Quartzite cobbles, nearly absent in this layer, are found in the upper gravel layers.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

930

Deb

ate

Eric Boeda et al.

Figure 2. Southern zone of Vale da Pedra Furada: section showing the upper unit C1 and C2; and lower unit C3–C8 (C8is directly below C7; its base has not yet been reached).

The matrix surrounding these cobbles is of quartz granules and bright yellow sand differentfrom all other layers. Quartz cobbles, almost exclusively found only in layer C5, are variedin size but rarely more than 50–60mm long, yet in this layer, which is at most 100mmthick, we find a few rectangular sandstone blocks 5–8kg in weight. Such difference in mass(more than 1:100) cannot be explained by the same depositional process, and this supportsthe hypothesis that they are manuports. There are no macro-traces to indicate any sort ofmodification of their surfaces. Layer C3, 0.8m thick, is composed of an interstratificationof gravels with granular and/or sandy lenses 50–100mm thick. The cobbles are rarely morethan 40–50mm long. It is of interest in this kind of tropical environment to note theshortage of clay, both in the Pleistocene sediments and in the soils, where sand and siltdominate. There is no detailed local information about the Pleistocene palaeoclimate, butthe source of the sediments, such as the Devonian sandstone of the cliff and the overlyingmarine conglomerate, may provide a viable explanation. There are few local materials witha mineralogical composition that would produce clays by weathering.

The original colluvial deposits are concealed by the arrangements made for thearchaeological conservation and display of the more recent rock paintings in the lowerpart of the cliffs. It is hence not possible to observe the actual and natural processes ofalluvial reworking. At this stage of the research, however, we deduce that the deposition

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

931

A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America

of the sediments was not a continuous process. It coincided rather with sporadic humidperiods, during which enough water was running from the upper sections of the cliffs forlocal alluvial deposition that reworked the colluvium near the base of the cliffs. There areno structures such as lenses with cross-stratification or imbrication of the clasts that wouldindicate medium to high energy sedimentation environments. Thus, the energy of ephemeralstreams was not sufficient to move the coarse material, producing lag deposits where theonly remobilised sediment was the sand. This was followed by a long dry period withoutdeposition, during which humans occupied the site. The large boulders are not geneticallyrelated to the alluvium, and represent either remains of earlier colluvium or human transport.The alternation between periods of no deposition and those with very low energy colluviumreworking by ephemeral streams would allow the preservation of the archaeological remains,including perhaps hearths. It is even possible that intense human activity broke down theoriginal sedimentary structure of these deposits. Several archaeological layers have beenidentified. Artefacts were discovered in both the upper and lower units. The upper unit,excavated over an area of 5m2, contains two sparse archaeological horizons (C2a and C2b),separated by a 0.2m-thick sterile horizon (Figure 3). The two horizons are associatedwith extremely abundant charcoal scatters that in themselves do not suggest any humaninvolvement. The archaeological material consists only of lithics and includes worked quartzand quartzite cobbles and flakes. The lower unit is much richer. Sedimentary unit C3,excavated over an area of 2m2, includes a minimum of four archaeological horizons (C3ato C3b) separated by sandy lenses. The archaeological material is generally found at theinterfaces, but given the loose sandy context, the clear demarcation between each horizonand the thickness of the sandy lenses, the deposits are more or less easy to follow. A fewcharcoal fragments are also present in the archaeological horizons. Horizon C5a is foundin gravel layer C5. It contains rectangular sandstone blocks weighing several kilograms(Figure 2) that cannot be explained by natural deposition processes. Unit C7 includesthree distinct horizons (7a, 7b and 7c) of artefacts, separated by sterile horizons. The firsthorizon, 7a, excavated over an area of 6m2, directly overlies gravel layer C7. It is containedin sandy, charcoal-rich sediment forming the base of C6 in places and reaching a thicknessof 100mm. This horizon has partially overlapping concentrations of charcoal fragments(several thousand per m2). A large number of sandstone blocks and chunks are scatteredacross the ground. Some show evidence of exposure to fire. The presence should be noted oftwo slabs (0.3×0.3m) with highly altered upper surfaces, unlike the surfaces of other smallerblocks. The two remaining archaeological horizons (7b and 7c), excavated over an area of1m2, are completely different from each other and separated by sterile deposits. Horizon7c includes an ashy concave elliptical zone (0.4×0.6×0.1m) at its centre with abundantcharcoal and artefacts around its periphery. Unlike horizon 7a, no sandstone blocks orchunks are present. The ashy and charcoal-rich concentrations of horizons 7a and 7b differin intensity of burning and in their structure. Those of horizon 7a do not appear to havebeen structured while horizon 7b has a central depression with abundant charcoal. Are allof the burning zones in layers 6base and 7 due to human activity, as our initial observationssuggested? That cannot yet be definitively determined but we are awaiting the results oftaphonomic and anthracological analyses of the charcoal, as well as sedimentary data fromthese zones.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

932

Deb

ate

Eric Boeda et al.

Figure 3. Archaeological horizons (triangles), dating results (diamonds) and sampling locations (circles).

The lithic assemblageThe artefacts from Vale da Pedra Furada are mainly made on quartz cobbles, more rarelyon quartzite. The raw material comes from the dismantling of the marine layers above

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

933

A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America

the Devonian sandstone that has accumulated at the base of the cliff in the mass of fallenrocks, dispersed by intermittent run-off fed by the caldeiroes. But this proximity of theraw material does not imply that the procurement territory was so restricted. Technologicalanalyses have demonstrated that the selection was based on the quality of the quartz andquartzite blocks and on very specific morphological criteria that are much less common thanone would believe, as we have verified by experimentation. Poor-quality flint is availablein the Piauı terraces a few kilometres away but was not exploited, although it was presentin low quantities in the Holocene industries where it is used for the production of specifictools such as lesmas.

It may be recalled that the artefacts from Boqueirao da Pedra Furada were consideredthe products of natural breakage when they fell from the cliff, despite scientifically rigoroustechnical and taphonomic arguments by Parenti (2001) confirming their human origin.To avoid once again becoming embroiled in endless discussions, we decided to extendthe original study by undertaking four associated analyses: taphonomic, technological,experimental and functional.

The source of the cobbles at Vale da Pedra Furada is clearly the same as for Boqueirao daPedra Furada, although the site is further from the cliffs. Taphonomic analysis was carriedout first on material from Boqueirao da Pedra Furada. (Details of the method can be foundin the online supplementary material.) We were then able to compare these results withthe material from Vale da Pedra Furada. It should be noted that throughout the excavationof Vale da Pedra Furada and regardless of sedimentary context, all objects greater than20mm (fractured or not) were kept, sampled, weighed and technically analysed, formingan assemblage of several thousand objects. Through this comparison a series of 294 objectscould be identified by the presence of technical traits that showed them to be different fromthose that taphonomic analysis had demonstrated to be of natural origin. This considerablework allows us to assert with confidence the undeniably human origin of the artefactsrecovered from Vale da Pedra Furada.

We also analysed the technology. Three processes have been identified in each of thearchaeological assemblages: one involving shaping and two involving knapping. Analysis ofthe artefacts from the different Pleistocene layers shows the diversified production of tools onflakes and cobbles. Two methods dominate: bipolar reduction sensu stricto, and a reductionscheme to shape cobbles that had been carefully selected on the basis of certain criteria. Theassemblages differ from one layer to another, evidencing differences in site function and/ordifferent cultural facies (Figures 4 & 5, and supplementary Figures S7–S10).

Functional analysis was also conducted to complete the study (Semenov 1964). Usinglow- and high-power magnification, we analysed a sample (n = 18) of quartz artefactsfrom Vale da Pedra Furada, from archaeological horizons C3 and C7. This experimentalmethod allows us to analyse tools made on different raw materials and from all chronologicalperiods (Keeley 1980; Keeley & Toth 1983; Clemente-Conte 1997). Some artefacts fromboth C3 and C7 present evidence of butchery activities. Some have marks linked to sawingand scraping of medium-hard materials such as wood. Some of the C3 artefacts also presentmarks showing they had been used to perforate hard animal materials and others show tracesof activities on soft to medium materials such as hide (Figure 6). These results confirm thatthe artefacts were humanly shaped and were used by people in their everyday activities.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

934

Deb

ate

Eric Boeda et al.

Figure 4. Layer C3b: worked half-cobble with double bevelled transverse edge (n◦ 192158).

ChronologyAnother goal of the project was a detailed chronological analysis of Vale da Pedra Furada.Different charcoal samples were collected for this purpose from the different concentrations.Horizons C2a, C2b C3, C4 and C6base/C7 were thus dated by radiocarbon at theLaboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement in Gif-sur-Yvette, France. Inparallel, we collected sediment samples in all of the accessible units, from C2a to C8. Thesematerials were then dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) at IRAMAT-CRP2Aat Universite Bordeaux 3, France. Details of the materials and methods used to establish thechronology of the occupations are included in the online supplementary material.

The chronological data obtained by both methods (radiocarbon and OSL) are reportedin Table S6 and Figure 3. We first note the very good coherence of the OSL ages in relationto the depth of the sediments (Figure S16). No stratigraphic inversions are observed. Wealso remark the good correlation between the radiocarbon and OSL results, wherever bothmethods could be applied. The small discrepancy between the OSL and 14C results fromlayer C3 may result from the underestimation of the annual dose rate of the OSL C3 sample(BR2011-11). This sample was situated at the limit between fine and coarser sediments(Figure S13). The remainder of the values are coherent, and the chronology of the site iswell defined by the combination of OSL and 14C ages. Finally, the absolute values of theages obtained should be noted: OSL and 14C together situate layer C2 around 6000 BC,

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

935

A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America

Figure 5. Asymmetric convergent pieces: on split cobbles: 1 (n◦ 192157) and 3 (n◦ 191220), layer 3c; on cobble, 2 (n◦

192377), layer 7a.

layer C3 between 12 500 and 17 500 BC, layer C4 between 15 000 and 17 000 BC, andfinally layers C6 and C7 at around 22 000 BC.

ConclusionThe site of Vale da Pedra Furada is a succession of open-air human occupations nearmonumental sandstone blocks at the base of a cliff and next to an intermittent stream. Thecombination of 14C and OSL dates situate the upper and lower units during Oxygen IsotopeStages 1 and 2. The upper unit is an early Middle Holocene deposit laid down between 9000and 7000 BC. The artefacts within it cannot be attributed to a specific techno-cultural facies.The lower unit is clearly late in age, OIS 2, during the Last Pleniglacial. Two sedimentarydeposits (C3 and C7) from this unit contain nearly all of the archaeological assemblages.Their 14C and OSL ages correlate them with two humid phases at 15 000 and 24 000BP documented by marine core GeoB 3104-1 (Behling et al. 2000). These observationsare corroborated by results obtained from nearby sites: Sitio do Meio (new excavations)(Boeda et al. in press), Tira Peia (Lahaye et al. 2013) and Boqueirao da Pedra Furada (newC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

936

Deb

ate

Eric Boeda et al.

Figure 6. Use-wear analysis of n◦198057 from layer C7b, indicating cutting activity: butchery.

excavations). The occupations seem to be concentrated during these two periods, althoughthis does not preclude the possibility of occupations at other times. Human presence iscontinuous, but of variable intensity.

It is not yet possible to comment on the cultural attribution of these artefacts becausethe assemblages are not sufficiently large. However, several observations can be made. Thetoolkits from the different Pleistocene layers from the Vale da Pedra Furada are broadlysimilar, with certain characteristic tools such as single or double bevelled pieces and rostres.In contrast, differences appear in the statistical representation of tools, in blank selection(knapped or shaped) and in size. More generally, features of the assemblages from Vale daPedra Furada are shared by the other Pleistocene sites. Some disappear during the EarlyHolocene, other persist into the Holocene. This transcendence of a common set of toolsfrom the Pleistocene to the Holocene supports continuity in patterns of lithic resourcemanagement in this micro-region.

With respect to function, the analyses show evidence of processing wood, hide, hardanimal materials and other materials yet to be identified. The high acidity of the sedimentshas destroyed faunal remains, although these are present at sites in the limestone zones. Onlycharcoal and large numbers of hearths are available to provide evidence of human activities.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

937

A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America

These hearths have not been found in all of the archaeological assemblages and those thathave vary in appearance.

These results give the strong impression that each assemblage does not necessarily indicatethe same functionality or the same duration of occupation. This is clearly evident for layerC6base, which is particularly rich and appears to be a palimpsest. The other assemblagesoccur in small clusters, as we observed at Boqueirao da Pedra Furada, located about 100mdownstream, when we reopened excavations in the remaining part of the site. Thesesimilarities extend to the typo-technological and functional composition of the assemblagesthat we have recently recovered. Yet, having reached only the layers dated to 14 580 BC,it is still too early to conclude complete similarity between the sequences. Comparison ofartefacts from Vale da Pedra Furada with the artefacts from the previous excavations shows ahigh degree of technological similarity, but as the excavation techniques were not the same,we can compare only artefacts with artefacts and not assemblages as a whole. In addition,we have only recently reached the uppermost Pleistocene layers.

For broader comparison, it is impossible to include Santa Elina in Brazil (Vilhena Vialou2005) because of the very low number of lithic artefacts there. The sites of Monte Verdein Chile (Dillehay 1997), Arroyo Seco and Los Toldos in Argentina (Cardich et al. 1973;Miotti & Salemme 2004; Steele & Politis 2009), Huaca Pietra (Dillehay et al. 2012) inPeru and Taima-Taima in Venezuela (Ochsenius & Gruhn 1979; Ranere & Lopez 2007)are too geographically distant to allow useful comparison; further, the raw materials aredifferent. The problem of raw materials in the Piauı region has often been used as a reasonto reject human modification of the material. Why were quartz cobbles used while muchbetter materials could be found elsewhere? We respond to this with several arguments:

1) Regardless of period or place, groups exploit only raw materials from the immediateproximity; so why not quartz at Piauı? In East Asia, Europe and Africa quartz was commonlyemployed by Palaeolithic societies, yet does not present a problem for researchers.

2) The fallacy that considers cobble tools synonymous with archaic, and thus the LowerPleistocene, prevents us from realising that the cobble is above all as much the basis for atool as are shaped or retouched blades and flakes.

3) The term quartz covers a wide diversity of material and tools are made on thebest-quality quartz.

4) The taphonomic analysis has demonstrated that it is impossible to confuse naturalbreakage and human production.

We should consider the world of cobbles, and quartz in particular, as the expression ofone technological option among others. This technical orientation existed at different placesand at different times. It is thus quite difficult to reconstruct possible population dispersalsand their cultural links from their lithic artefacts. We can, on the other hand, identify thegeographic limits of different technological options.

Such is the case for the Capivara region, where we have an increasing number ofexceptional sites located within a 10km radius and beyond, in different sedimentary contexts.The 14C and OSL dates, while not directly dating the humanly modified materials, allowus to situate these industries in time and thus to compare different periods. As alreadyC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

938

Deb

ate

Eric Boeda et al.

observed, the Pleistocene industries from the sites currently known between 25 000 and15 000 years of age are typo-technologically and functionally homogeneous. Some of theircharacteristics persist and are found in Holocene industries, while others disappear. Theyreveal both the technological innovations that follow one another and typify a group ofarchaeological assemblages within a single time frame, and the continuum of technicaltraditions and the long-term rootedness of successive populations. In general, these newresults indicate a complex history that is still difficult to explain owing to the lack of data.We now need to accept that North and South America were occupied as a result of successivemigration events that were irregular. Only the most striking of these waves of migrationremain visible in the archaeological record. Yet the visibility of these events should notobscure the others. Indeed, the term ‘migration’ is too loaded with meaning and gives theimpression of mass population movements. Ethnology and history show us that populationmovements can take many forms, some of which leave no visible traces at the archaeologicalscale of interpretation and discovery.

Such may be the case for the very first migrations, which obviously did not involve themassive and systematic invasion of these two continents. If that had occurred, we wouldalready have found significant evidence for it. The image proposed is rather of patchyoccupations disseminated across space with few visible links between them. We are dealingwith small groups over long time periods, dispersed across vast areas without significantcontact owing to the very low demographic densities. Cultural differentiation would havebeen all the stronger. Ethnological data all point in this direction, so why should that notapply to more ancient populations?

AcknowledgementsWe thank the French Minister of Foreign Affairs and FUMDHAM (Fundacao Museu do Homem Americano) forannual financing of the Franco-Brazilian mission in Piauı; Bordeaux-Montaigne University, the Conseil Regionald’Aquitaine and the IUF (Institut Universitaire de France) for funding and technical support; this projectbenefited from French State help managed by the French Research National Agency under the Investissementsd’Avenir Program (reference ANR-10-LABX-52). We also thank Mr A. Olle, researcher at IPHES-Tarragona forhis assistance with analyses at the MEB in the Microscopy Unit in the Science and Technical Service at Rovira iVirgili University (Tarragona, Spain). Thanks are due to J.-P. Dumoulin and C. Moreau for AMS facilities.

ReferencesBEHLING, H., H.W. ARZ, J. PATZOLD & G. WEFER.

2000. Late quaternary vegetational and climatedynamics in northeastern Brazil, inferences frommarine core GeoB 3104-1. Quaternary ScienceReviews 19: 981–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00046-3

BOEDA, E., A. LOURDEAU, C. LAHAYE, G.D. FELICE, S.VIANA, I. CLEMENTE-CONTE, M. PINO, M.FONTUGNE, S. HOELTZ, N. GUIDON, A.-M. PESSIS,A. DA COSTA & M. PAGLI. 2013. The latePleistocene industries of Piauı , Brazil: new data, inK.E. Graf, C.V. Ketron & M.R. Waters (ed.)Paleoamerican odyssey: 425–45. College Station:Center for the Study of the First Americans, TexasA&M University.

BOEDA, E., G.D. FELICE, M. FONTUGNE, S. HOELTZ, A.LOURDEAU, C. LAHAYE, M. PAGLI & S. VIANA. Inpress. Les industries pleistocenes du Piauı. Nouvellesdonnees. Mission franco bresilienne 2010/11.France: @rcheo-editions.

BONNICHSEN, R., B.T. LEPPER, D.J. STANFORD & M.R.WATERS. 2005. Paleoamerican origins: beyond Clovis.College Station: Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Texas A&M University.

CARDICH, A.R., L.A. CARDICH & A. HAJDUK. 1973.Secuencia arqueologica y cronologıa radiocarbonicade la Cueva 3 de Los Toldos (Santa Cruz,Argentina). Relaciones 7: 85–123.

CLARK, D.L. 1968. Analytical archaeology. London:Methuen.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

939

A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America

CLEMENTE-CONTE, I. 1997. Los instrumentos lıticos deTunel VII: una aproximacion etnoarqueologica(Treballs d’Etnoarqueologia 2). Madrid: CSIC.

COLLINS, M.B., D.J. STANFORD & D.L. LOWERY. 2013.North America before Clovis: variance intemporal/spatial cultural patterns, 27,000–13,000cal y B.P., in K.E. Graf, C.V. Ketron & M.R.Waters (ed.) Paleoamerican odyssey: 521–39. CollegeStation: Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Texas A&M University.

DILLEHAY, T.D. 1997. Monte Verde: a late Pleistocenesettlement in Chile. Vol. 2: the archaeological contextand interpretation. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

– 2008. Profiles in Pleistocene history, in H. Silverman& W.H. Isbell (ed.) The handbook of SouthAmerican archaeology: 29–43. New York: Springer.

– 2009. Probing deeper into first American studies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUSA 106: 971–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808424106

DILLEHAY, T.D., D. BONAVIA, S.L. GOODBRED, JR, M.PINO, V. VASQUEZ & T. ROSALES THAM. 2012. Alate Pleistocene human presence at Huaca Prieta,Peru, and early Pacific Coastal adaptations.Quaternary Research 77: 418–23.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2012.02.003

FARINA, R.A., P.S. TAMBUSSO, L. VARELA, A.CZERWONOGORA, M. DI GIACOMO, M. MUSSO, R.BRACCO & A. GASCUE. 2014. Arroyo del Vizcaıno,Uruguay: a fossil-rich 30-ka-old megafaunal localitywith cut-marked bones. Proceedings of the RoyalSociety B: Biological Sciences 281(1774): 20132211.http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2211

FELICE, G.D. 2000. Sıtio Toca do Boqueirao da PedraFurada, Piauı – Brasil: estudo comparativo dasestratigrafias extra sıtio. Unpublished MAdissertation, Universidade Federal do Pernambuco.

– 2002. A controversia sobre o sıtio arqueologico Tocado Boqueirao da Pedra Furada, Piauı–Brasil.FUMDHAMentos 2: 143–78.

GOEBEL, T., M.R. WATERS & D.H. O’ROURKE. 2008.The late Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans inthe Americas. Science 319: 1497–502.http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1153569

GUIDON, N. 1989. On stratigraphy and chronology atPedra Furada. Current Anthropology. 30: 641–42.

GUIDON, N. & G. DELIBRIAS. 1986. Carbon-14 datespoint to man in the Americas 32,000 years ago.Nature 321: 769–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/321769a0

GUIDON, N., F. PARENTI, M.F. DA LUZ, C. GUERIN &M. FAURE. 1994. Le plus anciens peuplement del’Amerique: le Paleolithique de Nordeste bresilien.Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 91:246–50.

KEELEY, L.H. 1980. Experimental determination of stonetool uses. A microwear analysis. Chicago (IL):University of Chicago Press.

KEELEY, L.H. & N. TOTH. 1983. Microwear polishes onearly stone tools from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Nature293: 464–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/293464a0

LAHAYE, C., M. HERNANDEZ, E. BOEDA, G.D. FELICE,N. GUIDON, S. HOELTZ, A. LOURDEAU, M. PAGLI,A.-M. PESSIS, M. RASSE & S. VIANA. 2013. Humanoccupation in South America by 20,000 BC: theToca da Tira Peia site, Piauı, Brazil. Journal ofArchaeological Science 40: 2840–47.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.019

MELTZER, D.J. 2009. First peoples in a new world:colonizing Ice Age America. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

MELTZER, D.J., J.M. ADOVASIO & T.D. DILLEHAY.1994. On a Pleistocene human occupation at PedraFurada, Brazil. Antiquity 68: 695–714.

MIOTTI, L.L. 2003. Patagonia: a paradox for buildingimages of the first Americans during thePleistocene/Holocene transition. QuaternaryInternational 109–110: 147–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1040-6182(02)00210-0

MIOTTI, L.L. & M.C. SALEMME. 2004. Poblamiento,movilidad y territories entre las sociedadescazadoras-recolectoras de Patagonia. Complutum15: 177–206.

OCHSENIUS, C. & R. GRUHN. 1979. Taima-Taima: alate Pleistocene Paleo-indian kill in northernmostSouth America: final reports of 1976 excavations.Berlin: CIPICS & South America QuaternaryDocumentation Program.

PARENTI, F. 2001. Le gisement quaternaire de PedraFurada (Piauı, Bresil), stratigraphie, chronologie,evolution culturelle. Paris: Recherche sur lesCivilisations.

PARENTI, F., M. FONTUGNE & C. GUERIN. 1996. PedraFurada in Brazil and its ‘presumed’ evidence:limitations and potential of the available data.Antiquity 70: 416–21.

PELLERIN, J. 1983. Missao geomorfologica em SaoRaimundo Nonato, sudeste do Piauı, Brasil.Cadernos de Pesquisa (Serie Antropologia-II) 3:203–23.

RANERE, A.J. & C.E. LOPEZ. 2007. Cultural diversity inlate Pleistocene/early Holocene populations innorthwest South America and lower CentralAmerica. International Journal of South AmericanArchaeology 1: 25–31.

ROOSEVELT, A.C., J. DOUGLAS & L. BROWN. 2002. Themigrations and adaptations of the first Americans:Clovis and pre-Clovis viewed from South America,in N.G. Jablonski (ed.) The first Americans: thePleistocene colonization of the New World: 159–235.San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

940

Deb

ate

Tom D. Dillehay

SEMENOV, S.A. 1964. Prehistoric technology. London:Cory, Adams and Mackay.

STEELE, J. & G. POLITIS. 2009. AMS 14C dating of earlyhuman occupation of southern South America.Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 419–29.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.024

VILHENA VIALOU, A. 2005. Pre-historia do Mato Grosso.Vol. 1, Santa Elina. Sao Paulo: Universidade de SaoPaulo.

WATERS, M.R. & T.W. STAFFORD, JR. 2007. Redefiningthe age of Clovis: implications for the peopling ofthe Americas. Science 315: 1122–26.http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1137166

– 2013. The first Americans: a review of the evidencefor the late Pleistocene, in K.E. Graf, C.V. Ketron& M.R. Waters (ed.) Paleoamerican odyssey:541–60. College Station: Center for the Study ofthe First Americans, Texas A&M University.

Standards and expectationsTom D. Dillehay∗

Archaeological site candidates like Vale da Pedra Furada, Boqueirao da Pedra Furada (Parenti2001) and others (e.g. Dillehay & Collins 1988; Guidon et al. 1994) in South Americapresent different empirical and interpretative problems in the study of the first Americans.These candidates date earlier than the generally accepted age of c. 14 500 cal BP for humanentry, contain unifacial assemblages unlike anything in North America, and exhibit few, ifany, food remains and traditional features (e.g. hearths, artefact clusters). If we judge themby North American standards (e.g. Haynes 1973), they also rarely exhibit clearly definedmulti-component cultural strata with discrete use surfaces and reductive lithic industriesassociated with abundant debitage. Since these candidates do not meet all expected sitecriteria, what do they represent and how do we assess them? Are they valid archaeological sitesindicative of small, highly mobile populations equipped with expedient technologies thatleft behind ephemeral records? Were they places produced exclusively by natural phenomena(e.g. flooding, falling rocks) that mimicked human activities? Are they specific depositionalcontexts (e.g. springs) associated with a palimpsest of co-mimicking natural and culturalforces? What is needed is a better empirical understanding of early site candidates and areconsideration of the standards and expectations employed to judge them.

When I first visited Boqueirao da Pedra Furada (BPF), I had hoped it was an earlyresidential site. I expected it to exhibit recognisable use surfaces, stone tools, hearths, boneremains and artefact clusters. For various reasons, the locality did not meet expected sitecriteria and its archaeological validity was questioned (Meltzer et al. 1994). Now, afterhaving visited more early localities in South America and in other parts of the world (e.g.unifacial sites in Australia and China), my expectations have changed. I am more open tothe idea that portions of BPF were used as quarries and/or short-term campsites by smallgroups of mobile people. There are three reasons for a shift in my thinking. First, I haveexamined the unifacial assemblages from other Brazilian site candidates and have becomemore convinced that some cobbles (similar to a few at BPF) were shaped or knapped byhumans. Second, I recently excavated similar early unifaces (made on exotics) and associatedburned features at Monte Verde, Chile (Dillehay 2014). And third, I agree with Boeda et al.that we need more contextual and technological options in evaluating early site candidates.

∗ Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, 124 Garland Hall, Nashville, TN 37235, USA

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

941

Standards and expectations

This does not necessarily imply that all criteria traditionally used to judge site candidatesshould change. Yet, the earliest human record in South America is more diverse and, inseveral ways, different from that in North America and should be viewed with more flexiblestandards and expectations.

In turning to questions regarding Vale da Pedra Furada (VPF), the authors are to becommended for their interdisciplinary study of another potential early site. Although aspectsof VPF appear to be archaeologically valid, I am concerned about some issues. There is nodiscussion of the specific horizontal locations of the knapped/shaped stone tools and charcoalconcentrations. Do the lithics and charcoal form discrete use surfaces and activity areas?Are the grey (ashy?) sediments underlying these concentrations burned? How much micro-debitage is associated with knapped stones? Does some debitage conjoin? Although elementsof the SEM study of the stones are convincing, I am dubious of use-wear analysis on quartz.Although use-wear can be demonstrated, it is difficult to assign specific functions to quartzimplements. In regard to stones in the culturally sterile sediments between ‘archaeologicalhorizons’, do they have sharp chipped edges? If so, how do they differ from the designated‘cultural’ stones? Also, why was VPF selected as a site location? These and other questionsneed more detailed reporting.

The authors state that the long distances between VPF and other early candidates inSouth America prohibit an inter-site comparison of their stone tool industries. I disagree.Regardless of the irregular movement and small size of early populations, people had contactand exchanged technologies across vast areas of the continent, as suggested by genetic, skeletaland artefact evidence (e.g. Battaglia et al. 2013). Some quartz assemblages from pre-14 500cal BP candidates are comparable, especially those with selected morphological traits forknapping. As the authors note, these types of localities appear to represent ephemeral,discontinuous and functionally different episodes of human activity resulting in low levelsof archaeological visibility. If this is the case for most of the earliest South American record,then we must redefine our standards and expectations.

ReferencesBATTAGLIA, V., V. GRUGNI, U.A. PEREGO, N.

ANGERHOFER, J.E. GOMEZ-PALMIERI, S.R.WOODWARD, A. ACHILLI, N. MYRES, A. TORRONI

& O. SEMINO. 2013. The first peopling of SouthAmerica: new evidence from Y-chromosomehaplogroup Q. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71390.http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071390

DILLEHAY, T.D. 2014. Informe preliminar sobrerecientes excavaciones en Monte Verde. Reportproduced for the Consejo de MonumentosNacionales, Santiago, Chile.

DILLEHAY, T.D. & M.B. COLLINS. 1988. Early culturalevidence from Monte Verde in Chile. Nature 332:150–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/332150a0

GUIDON, N., F. PARENTI, M.F. DA LUZ, C. GUERIN &M. FAURE. 1994. Le plus anciens peuplement del’Amerique: le Paleolithique de Nordeste bresilien.Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 91:246–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1994.9732

HAYNES, C.V. 1973. The Calico site: artifacts orgeofacts? Science 181: 305–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.181.4097.305

MELTZER, D.J., J.M. ADOVASIO & T.D. DILLEHAY.1994. On a Pleistocene human occupation at PedraFurada, Brazil. Antiquity 68: 695–714.

PARENTI, F. 2001. Le gisement quaternaire de PedraFurada (Piauı, Bresil). Stratigraphie, chronologie,evolution culturelle. Paris: Recherche sur lesCivilisations.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

942

Deb

ate

Adriana Schmidt Dias & Lucas Bueno

More of the sameAdriana Schmidt Dias1 & Lucas Bueno2

The number of radiocarbon dates for the late Pleistocene and early Holocene periods inSouth America has greatly increased in recent years, due to the widespread availability ofAMS dating, and the growth of academic research done by South American archaeologists.A recent review of the period between 13 000 and 8000 14C years BP showed the continuousoccupation of major biomes and the emergence of regional cultural and economic variation.Before this period the evidence is weak, sparse and discontinuous. It comes from sites thatexist in spatial and temporal isolation from the surrounding regions, and invariably aresubjected to intense debate. The critical approach to this data is not a simple signal of a‘curse’ or an ideological barrier to be fought, as suggested by Boeda and colleagues. It simplydemonstrates the difficulty of incorporating this data into a geographically comprehensivedemographic model for the early peopling of South America (Bueno et al. 2013a & b).

Pleistocene radiocarbon dates have been obtained for several sites in Brazil (Schmitz 1990;Prous & Fogaca 1999). Although the validity of these data had been questioned for manyreasons, Boqueirao da Pedra Furada, in Piauı State, and Santa Elina, in Mato Grosso State,remained key pieces in this puzzle, justifying the importance of the continuing investigationof these areas (Parenti 1992; Vialou 2003). Their importance goes beyond the dates of over20 000 years BP obtained for both sites. They represent the first clues to the pioneering phaseof the colonisation of South America. This process would have created an archaeologicalrecord of low population density, but concentrated in physically distinctive places that couldhave been frequently re-occupied. Boqueirao da Pedra Furada and Santa Elina also point tothe importance of the riverine routes, such as the Sao Francisco and La Plata basins, in thisinitial settlement process, connecting the continental interior to other contemporaneoussettlement routes of the North Atlantic coast and the eastern side of the Andean chain (Dias& Bueno 2013).

The article by Boeda and colleagues summarises the research conducted in the Vale daPedra Furada open-air site; and it can be compared to other two Pleistocene sites recentlyinvestigated by the authors in the same region, Toca da Tira Peia and Sıtio do Meio (Boedaet al. 2013; Lahaye et al. 2013). The preliminary results presented in these papers have thesame problematic, unresolved issues as those that the Boqueirao da Pedra Furada debatebrought to light in the pages of Antiquity in the 1990s: a) a lack of information aboutthe contextual relationship between dated samples and artefacts; and b) a lack of specificpalaeoenviromental, geoarchaeological and formation process studies to support a betterunderstanding of the cultural and natural differences between the occupational phases ofthe Serra da Capivara region (Meltzer et al. 1994; Guidon et al. 1996; Parenti et al. 1996).

1 Department of History, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Avenida Paulo Gama, 110, Farropilhas,Porto Alegre – RS, 90040-060, Brazil

2 Department of History, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Universitario Reitor Joao DavidFerreira Lima, Trinidade, Florianopolis – SC, 88040-900, Brazil

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

943

More of the same

Besides, the authors do not analyse how other Pleistocene findings in South America, andin particular in Brazil, can be related (or not) to Pedra Furada, arguing that geographicaldistances or the low densities of artefacts make comparisons difficult.

The discussion presented by the authors is mainly focused on the criticism raised aboutthe ‘archaic’ nature of the lithic industries of Pedra Furada (and, by extension, of othernon-bifacial/pre-Clovis industries in the Americas). Arguments are presented extensivelyin the supplementary material to ‘prove’ the human origin of the materials. Yet it is notclear to us why Boeda and collegues did not use the abundant Holocene data from theSao Francisco Basin to support their hypothesis. One example is the Lagoa Santa region,at Minas Gerais State, where quartz was used as the main raw material between 10 000and 8000 BP. Furthermore, the same technological strategies related to the exploitation oflocal raw materials are present at Santa Elina, suggesting a similar cultural strategy for thepioneering exploitation of new territories.

A true dialogue with the ‘native’ academic community would have certainly added moreinteresting arguments to this debate than the validity of dating methodologies, the expertiseof the ‘technologists’ in charge of the analysis, or the comparisons with ancient East Asianand African technologies. As presented here, the new data from Pedra Furada are old newsfor us: it is just more of the same old game between rocks and dates. It has little to say abouthow people creatively made their living in new territories, but says a lot about how modernacademic politics works.

ReferencesBOEDA, E., A. LOURDEAU, C. LAHAYE, G. FELICE, S.

VIANA, I. CLEMENTE-CONTE, M. PINO, M.FONTUGNE, S. HOELTZ, N. GUIDON, A.-M. PESSIS,A. DA COSTA & M. PAGLI. 2013. Thelate-Pleistocene industries of Piauı, Brazil: newdata, in K. Graf, C. Ketron & M. Waters (ed.)Paleoamerican odyssey: 445–66. College Station:Texas A&M University Press.

BUENO, L., L. PRATES, G. POLITIS & J. STEELE. 2013a.A late Pleistocene/early Holocene archaeological14C database for South America and the isthmus ofPanama: paleoenvironmental contexts anddemographic interpretations. QuaternaryInternational 301: 1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.04.008

BUENO, L., A.S. DIAS & J. STEELE. 2013b. The latePleistocene/early Holocene archaeological record inBrazil: a geo-referenced database. QuaternaryInternational 301: 74–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.03.042

DIAS, A.S. & L. BUENO. 2013. The initial colonizationof South America eastern lowlands: Brazilianarchaeology contributions to settlement of Americamodels, in K. Graf, C. Ketron & M. Waters (ed.)Paleoamerican odyssey: 339–58. College Station:Texas A&M University Press.

GUIDON, N., A.-M. PESSIS, F. PARENTI, M. FONTUGNE

& C. GUERIN. 1996. Nature and age of deposits inPedra Furada, Brazil: reply to Meltzer, Adovasio &Dillehay. Falsehood or untruth? Antiquity 70:408–15.

LAHAYE, C., M. HERNANDEZ, E. BOEDA, G. FELICE, N.GUIDON, S. HOELTZ, A. LOURDEAU, M. PAGLI,A.-M. PESSIS, M. RASSE & S. VIANA. 2013. Humanoccupation in South America by 20,000 BC: theToca da Tira Peia site, Piauı, Brazil. Journal ofArchaeological Science 40: 2840–47.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.019

MELTZER, D., J. ADOVASIO & T. DILLEHAY. 1994. On aPleistocene human occupation at Pedra Furada,Brazil. Antiquity 68: 695–714.

PARENTI, F. 1992. Le gisement quaternaire de la Tocado Boqueirao da Pedra Furada (Piauı, Bresil) dans lecontexte de la prehistoire Americaine. Fouilles,stratigraphie, chronologie, evolution culturelle.Unpublished PhD dissertation, Ecole de HautsEtude en Sciences Sociales, Paris.

PARENTI, F., M. FONTUGUE & C. GUERIN. 1996. PedraFurada in Brazil and its ‘presumed’ evidence:limitations and potential of the available data.Antiquity 70: 416–21.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

944

Deb

ate

Hubert Forestier

PROUS, A. & E. FOGACA. 1999. Archaeology of thePleistocene-Holocene boundary in Brazil.Quaternary International 53–54: 21–41.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1040-6182(98)00005-6

SCHMITZ, P.I. 1990. O povoamento Pleistocenico doBrasil. Revista de Arqueologıa Americana 1: 33–68.

VIALOU, A. 2003. Santa Elina rockshelter, Brazil:evidence of the coexistence of man andGlossotherium, in L. Miotti, M. Salemme & N.Flegenheimer (ed.) Where the south winds blow:ancient evidence of Paleo South Americans: 21–28.College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

New World, new modelsHubert Forestier∗

The dominant current paradigm for the expansion of modern human populations(Homo sapiens sapiens) is largely driven by the historical development of prehistory andpalaeoanthropology. It has been established mainly on the basis of only European andAfrican data. The epistemology underlying the present article implies that the factsand European certainties are far from being universal.

Whether focusing on the latest co-existence of two particular hominins (Neanderthal andmodern) or the very significant transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic, the history ofthese disciplines has projected as a universal model what concerns in fact only a continentaldead end, that of old periglacial Western Europe. The co-existence of several homininspecies was the common mode for several hundred thousand years, and the Neanderthalepisode was long considered the last and was certainly the most discussed of the homininextinctions: raising the question why them and not us? (Leveque et al. 1993; Hublin et al.1996; d’Errico 2003; Finlayson 2004; Stringer et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2005; Lorenzo et al.2012; Lowe et al. 2012; Bates et al. 2013).

For the past decade, following the discovery of the Flores hominin that disappearedtowards 17 ka (Brown et al. 2004; Morwood et al. 2004) and the recognition of severalsubspecies of Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia (Zeitoun et al. 2010), the co-existence of severalhominin species has become again the ‘normal’ vision. To this purely anthropological viewmay be added developments in prehistoric research outside Europe that show there areregions where the universalist pan-European model does not apply. These include notablythe powerful example of the cobble tool industry that was present 2 million years ago inChina (Hou & Zhao 2010) and persisted until around a millennium ago in Southeast Asia(Forestier et al. 2013). Southeast Asia was marked by a subtropical environment, and themajor contribution of plant materials to Hoabinhian technology from 30 to 3 ka was henceonly to be expected (Gorman 1970; Solheim 1972; Hutterer 1977; Forestier 2003). Indeed:

“to obtain a proper insight into the Palaeolithic of the Tropics, account should be taken ofclimatic conditions, and of the special properties obtaining in tropical forests, which forexample enabled the nomadic food-gathering tribes to develop an elaborate folk culturebased on the availability of bamboo, hardwood and rattan” (van Heekeren 1972: 77).

∗ UMR 7194 Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle – CNRS – UPVD, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine,1 Rue Rene-panhard, Paris 75013, France

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

945

New World, new models

The field data from the South American site of Vale da Pedra Furada show that the inhabitantseither retained or developed a local industry on cobble tools at a relatively early period. Thesenew data are supported by a coherent chronological framework that has been establishedfrom two independent methods. They entail the description and identification of a hithertounknown episode in the human colonisation of this continent. The ‘psychological’ barrierevoked by the authors also holds because the cobble tool assemblages are described accordingto the simplified, restrictive and very functional European model based on Modes 1, 2, 3and more (Clark 1969; Carbonnell et al. 2010; Barsky et al. 2013). Preceding the Acheuleanassemblage (Mode 2), Mode 1 is supposed to reflect a certain archaism and early datefor cobble/pebble tool cultures with small flake tools, cultures that are connected withthe African emergence through to the earliest settlement of Europe. Nevertheless, in severaltropical regions of the world this equation is no longer respected, as for example in SoutheastAsia with the Hoabinhian (Forestier 2000; Zeitoun et al. 2008), in the Philippines (Pawlik& Ronquillo 2003), in Korea (Yi 2011) or in western Africa (Soriano 2003).

The results of the typo-technological and functional analysis show that the stone toolsfrom Vale da Pedra Furada were undoubtedly knapped and used according to specifictechnical criteria. Partly geographical determinism and partly cultural choice, this SouthAmerican case is an anthropological response to the environment (both climate andgeology/raw material sources) and the ecology.

To understand them objectively, these lithic assemblages from the Late Pleistocenearchaeological sequence in Brazil must be studied outside the constraints of the Europeanmodel. They must be recognised as an authentic Brazilian techno-functional convergencewithout any biological, cultural and chronological connection with the Old World. Toconclude, the Vale da Pedra Furada site (Piauı, Brazil) allows us to glimpse a new geographicalarea conquered by modern humans where the dominant bio-cultural paradigm built inEurope may not be valid. Indeed, the latter appears to be an exception which does not workin other regions. It is precisely that which is important about this paper, especially from afundamental epistemological perspective.

ReferencesBARSKY, D., J. GARCIA, K. MARTINEZ, R. SALA, Y.

ZAIDNER, E. CARBONELL & I. TORO-MOYANO.2013. Flake modification in European Early andEarly–Middle Pleistocene stone tool assemblages.Quaternary International 316: 140–54.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.05.024

BATES, M., M. POPE, A. SHAW, B. SCOTT & J.-L.SCHWENNINGER. 2013. Late Neanderthaloccupation in north-west Europe: rediscovery,investigation and dating of a last glacial sedimentsequence at the site of La Cotte de Saint Brelade,Jersey. Journal of Quaternary Science 28: 647–52.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jqs.2669

BROWN, P., T. SUTIKNA, M.J. MORWOOD, R.P.SOEJONO, JATMIKO, E.W. SAPTOMO & R.A. DUE.2004. A new small-bodied hominin from the LatePleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature 431:1055–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02999

CARBONELL, E., R. SALA RAMOS, X.P. RODRIGUEZ, M.MOSQUERA, A. OLLE, J.M. VERGES, B.MARTINEZ-NAVARRO & J.M. BERMUDEZ DE

CASTRO. 2010. Early hominid dispersals: atechnological hypothesis for ‘out of Africa’.Quaternary International 223–224: 36–44.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.02.015

CLARK, G. 1969. World prehistory: a new synthesis.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D’ERRICO, F. 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiplespecies model for the origin of behavioralmodernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 188–202.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/evan.10113

FINLAYSON, C. 2004. Neanderthals and modern humans:an ecological and evolutionary perspective.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542374

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

946

Deb

ate

Hubert Forestier

FORESTIER, H. 2000. De quelques chaınes operatoireslithiques en Asie du Sud-Est au Pleistocenesuperieur final et au debut de l’Holocene.L’Anthropologie 104: 531–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-5521(00)80025-4

– 2003. Des outils nes de la foret. L’importance duvegetal en Asie du Sud-Est dans l’imagination etl’invention technique aux periodes prehistoriques,in A. Froment & J. Guffroy (ed.) Peuplementsanciens et actuels des forets tropicales. Actes duSeminaire-atelier Orleans, 15 et 16 octobre 1998:315–37. Paris: IRD.

FORESTIER, H., V. ZEITOUN, C. WINAYALAI & C.METAIS. 2013. The open-air site of Huai Hin(northwestern Thailand): chronologicalperspectives for the Hoabinhian. Palevol 12: 45–55.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2012.09.003

GORMAN, C.F. 1970. Excavations at Spirit Cave, northThailand: some interim interpretations. AsianPerspectives XIII: 79–107.

HOU, Y. & L.X. ZHAO. 2010. An archeological view forthe presence of early humans in China. QuaternaryInternational 223–224: 10–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.09.025

HUBLIN, J.-J., F. SPOOR, M. BRAUN, F. ZONNEVELD &S. CONDEMI. 1996. A late Neanderthal associatedwith Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 381:224–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/381224a0

HUTTERER, K.L. 1977. Reinterpreting the SoutheastAsian Palaeolithic, in J. Allen, J. Golson & R. Jones(ed.) Sunda and Sahul: 31–71. London: AcademicPress.

LEVEQUE, F., A.M. BACKER & M. GUILBAUD. 1993.Context of a late Neandertal: implications ofmultidisciplinary research for the transition to UpperPaleolithic adaptations at Saint-Cesaire,Charente-Maritime, France. Madison (WI):Prehistory.

LORENZO, C., M. NAVAZO, J.C. DIEZ, C. SESE, D.ARCEREDILLO & J.F. JORDA PARDO. 2012. Newhuman fossil to the last Neanderthals in centralSpain (Jarama VI, Valdesotos, Guadalajara, Spain).Journal of Human Evolution 62: 720–25.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.03.006

LOWE, J., N. BARTON, S. BLOCKEY, C. BRONK RAMSEY,V.L. CULLEN, W. DAVIES, C. GAMBLE, K. GRANT,M. HARDIMAN, R. HOUSLEY, C.S. LANE, S. LEE, M.LEWIS, A. MACLEOD, M. MENZIES, W. MULLER, M.POLLARD, C. PRICE, A.P. ROBERTS, E.J. ROHLING,C. SATOW, V.C. SMITH, C.B. STRINGER, E.L.TOMLINSON, D. WHITE, P. ALBERT, I. ARIENZO, G.BARKER, D. BORIC, A. CARANDENTE, L. CIVETTA,C. FERRIER, J.-L. GUADELLI, P. KARKANAS, M.KOUMOUZELIS, U.C. MULLER, G. ORSI, J. PROSS,M. ROSI, L. SHALAMANOV-KOROBAR, N. SIRAKOV

& P.C. TZEDAKIS. 2012. Volcanic ash layersilluminate the resilience of Neanderthals and earlymodern humans to natural hazards. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109:13532–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204579109

MORWOOD, M.J., R.P. SOEJONO, R.G. ROBERTS, T.SUTIKNA, C.S.M. TURNEY, K.E. WESTAWAY, W.J.RINK, J.-X. ZHAO, G.D. VAN DEN BERGH, R.A.DUE, D.R. HOBBS, M.W. MOORE, M.I. BIRD &L.K. FIFIELD. 2004. Archaeology and age of a newhominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia. Nature431: 1087–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02956

PAWLIK, A. & P. RONQUILLO. 2003. The Palaeolithic inthe Philippines. Lithic Technology 28: 79–93.

SMITH, F.H., I. JANKOVIC & I. KARAVANIC. 2005. Theassimilation model, modern human origins inEurope, and the extinction of Neandertals.Quaternary International 137: 7–19.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2004.11.016

SOLHEIM, W. 1972. The ‘new look’ of Southeast Asianprehistory. The Journal of the Siam Society 60: 1–20.

SORIANO, S. 2003. Quand archaique n’est pas ancien!Etude de cas dans le Paleolithique du pays Dogon(Ounjougou, Mali). Annales de la Fondation Fyssen18: 79–92.

STRINGER, C.B., H. PALIKE, T.H. VAN ANDEL, B.HUNTLEY, P.J. VALDES & J.R.M. ALLEN. 2004.Climatic stress and the extinction of theNeanderthals, in T.H. Van Andel & W. Davies (ed.)Neanderthals and modern humans in the Europeanlandscape during the last glaciation: archaeologicalresults of the Stage 3 Project: 233–40. Cambridge:McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

VAN HEEKEREN, H.R. 1972. The stone age of Indonesia,with a contribution by R.P. Soejono. The Hague:Nijhoff.

YI, S. 2011. Handaxes in the Imjin Basin, in S. Yi (ed.)Handaxes in the Imjin Basin: 3–21. Seoul: SNU Press.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

947

Is dating an issue?

ZEITOUN, V., H. FORESTIER & S. NAKBUNLUNG. 2008.Prehistoires au sud du Triangle d’Or. Montpellier:IRD.

ZEITOUN, V., F. DETROIT, D. GRIMAUD-HERVE & H.WIDIANTO. 2010. Solo man in question:convergent views to split Indonesian Homo erectusin two categories. Quaternary International223–224: 281–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.01.018

Is dating an issue?James Feathers∗

Few areas have been the target of such persistent efforts to demonstrate a human presencein the Americas during the Last Glacial Maximum as the region in and around Serra daCapivara National Park in Piauı, north-eastern Brazil. This reflects the 30 years of researchin the area by Niede Guidon, who first brought attention to the possibility of evidencefor early humans at Boqueirao da Pedra Furada in the 1980s (Guidon & Delibrias 1986;Guidon 1989). The current paper by Boeda et al. on the open-air site of Vale da PedraFurada follows close on the heels of another from the nearby Toca da Tira Peia site byLahaye et al. (2013), both claiming human presence by c. 20 ka.

My contribution to this discussion stems from my application of luminescence datingto Palaeoindian sites in Brazil (e.g. Araujo et al. 2008, 2013; Feathers et al. 2010; Buenoet al. 2013; Vialou et al. in prep.). I have also done luminescence work in Serra da Capivara,but only of Holocene-age sediments (unpublished). Both Boeda et al. and Lahaye et al.employed optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating on sediments to date their sites,and I will briefly review their work. Both used relatively fine grain sizes (20–41μm) of quartzand both employed the commonly used single aliquot regenerative dose (SAR) protocol fordetermining equivalent dose (De). In neither case did the aliquots for each sample displaymuch spread in values, even for Lahaye et al., who employed smaller, 1mm diameter aliquots.The quartz was sensitive and dominated by the fast-bleaching component, which is typicalfor Brazilian quartz (Feathers et al. 2010; Guedes et al. 2013). An argument could be madethat with sensitive quartz, even 1mm aliquots might suffer from signal averaging amongindividual grains, so that the true dispersion in De values is hidden and can only be properlyevaluated with single-grain data. In other words, evidence for mixing of different aged grainsmight not be detectable without single-grain analysis. On the other hand, the OSL dates ineach case are in the correct stratigraphic order, and in the case of Boeda et al. are in agreementwith some 14C dates. But an argument for mixing at either site, however unlikely, is notreally germane to the whole debate, because the issue has never been about dating.

Rather, it has been about the nature of the artefacts and whether they can unambiguouslybe attributed to human origin (Meltzer et al. 1994). Boeda et al. and Lahaye et al. (2013)make at least two arguments. First, that the breakage patterns on the ‘artefacts’ are differentfrom those on natural cobbles; and, second, that no geologic process can account for theposition of ‘artefacts’ of certain size and shape. Boeda et al. make additional technological

∗ Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Box 353412, Seattle, WA 98195-3412, USA

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

948

Deb

ate

James Feathers

and functional observations. I do not have the expertise to evaluate these arguments, but Ican make a few comments. First, much of Brazil has a long unifacial lithic tradition, wherebifaces or other distinctive diagnostics are rare. Clovis sites, on the other hand, are definedby a very distinctive kind of biface: fluted points. This puts any argument about early sites inBrazil at a distinct disadvantage. Even if the lithics at the Serra da Capivara sites are artefacts,their defenders have an uphill battle demonstrating that. But they can well point out thatthe most a Clovis-first argument can really say is that Clovis is the first diagnostic artefact (anobservation with a long history; see Krieger 1964). Second, the Serra da Capivara sites havesome support from Santa Elina rockshelter in Mato Grosso state, central Brazil (VilhenaVialou 2005; Vialou et al. in prep.), also dated by OSL (by the author) to the same timeperiod. Here the lithics are also difficult to distinguish from natural breakage, and the samearguments are made about natural versus human patterning and the exogenous nature ofthe artefacts. But also recovered from Santa Elina are two perforated osteoderms, for whicha better case can be made for human origins.

Third, an underpinning of the original Clovis-first argument was that colonisation of theNew World was not really possible prior to Clovis, because of continental glaciers. But thisassumption has steadily been eroded, because of the potential of coastal migrations, eitherPacific (Dixon 2013) or Atlantic (Bradley & Stanford 2004), and because of evidence thatthe ‘ice-free corridor’ may have been open much earlier than originally thought (Munyikwaet al. 2011). If there is no reason to cling to a Clovis-first argument, then the potentialfor understanding New World colonisation widens considerably. I think this is the pointBoeda et al. make in their prefatory remarks. Perhaps age should no longer be the definingparameter of the debate, because with the restrictions of Clovis-first removed, the search forthe oldest site seems less meaningful (Waguespack & Kelly 2014). Rather, unless evidenceto the contrary comes to light or the arguments about the human origins of the artefacts areshown to be specious, we should give Guidon and her colleagues the benefit of the doubt,and begin to research a larger problem: how the record of these few earlier sites, such as SantaElina, Toca da Tira Peia and Vale da Pedra Furada, evolved into the much more abundantrecord of c. 13 ka and later. That is a gap that has not been filled but if it could be, thatwould put these sites into much better context and the controversy around them would belessened.

ReferencesARAUJO, A.G.M., J.K. FEATHERS, M. ARROYO-KALIN &

M.M. TIZUKA. 2008. Lapa das Boleiras rockshelter:stratigraphy and formation processes at aPaleoamerican site in central Brazil. Journal ofArchaeological Science 35: 3186–202.

ARAUJO, A.G.M., A. STRAUSS, J.K. FEATHERS, J. PAISANI

& T. SCHRAGE. 2013. Paleoindian open-air sites intropical settings: a case study in formationprocesses, dating methods and paleoenvironmentalmodels. Geoarchaeology 28: 195–220.

BRADLEY, B. & D. STANFORD. 2004, The NorthAtlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Palaeolithicroute to the New World. World Archaeology 36:459–78.

BUENO, L., J. FEATHERS & P. DE BLASIS. 2013. Theformation process of a Paleoindian open-air site incentral Brazil: integrating lithic analysis,radiocarbon and luminescence dating. Journal ofArchaeological Science 40: 190–203.

DIXON, E.J. 2013. Late Pleistocene colonization ofNorth America from northeast Asia: new insightsfrom large-scale paleogeographic reconstructions.Quaternary International 285: 57–67.

FEATHERS, J.K., L. PILO, M. ARROYO-KALIN, R. KIPNES

& D. COBLENZ. 2010. How old is Luzia?Luminescence dating and stratigraphic integrity atLapa Vermelha, Lagoa Santa, Brazil. Geoarchaeology25: 395–436.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

949

‘Simple’ need not mean ‘archaic’

GUEDES, C.C.F., A. SAWAKUCHI, P.C.F. GIANNINI, R.DEWITT & V.A.P. AGUIAR. 2013. Luminescencecharacteristics of quartz from Brazilian sedimentsand constraints for OSL dating. Anais da AcademiaBrazileira de Ciencias 85: 1303–16.

GUIDON, N. 1989. On stratigraphy and chronology atPedra Furada. Current Anthropology 30: 641–42.

GUIDON, N. & G. DELIBRIAS. 1986. Carbon-14 datespoint to man in the Americas 32,000 years ago.Nature 321: 769–71.

KRIEGER, A.D. 1964. Early man in the New World, inJ.D. Jennings & E. Norbeck (ed.) Prehistoric man inthe New World: 23–84. Chicago (IL): University ofChicago Press.

LAHAYE, C., M. HERNANDEZ, E. BOEDA, G.D. FELICE,N. GUIDON, S. HOELTZ, A. LOURDEAU, M. PAGLI,A.-M. PESSIS, M. RASSE & S. VIANA. 2013. Humanoccupation in South America by 20,000 BC: theToca da Tira Peia site, Piauı, Brazil. Journal ofArchaeological Science 40: 2840–47.

MELTZER, D.J., J.M. ADOVASIO & T.D. DILLEHAY.1994. On a Pleistocene human occupation at PedraFurada, Brazil. Antiquity 68: 695–714.

MUNYIKWA, K., J.K. FEATHERS, T. RITTENOUR & H.K.SHRIMPTON. 2011. Constraining the chronology ofthe Late Wisconsinan retreat of the Laurentide icesheet from western Canada using luminescence agesof postglacial aeolian dune sequences. QuaternaryGeochronology 6: 407–22.

VIALOU, D., M. BENABDELHADI, J. FEATHERS, M.FONTUGNE & A. VILHENA VIALOU. In preparation.Peopling in the South America’s center: Santa Elina(Brazil) a site in late Pleistocene.

VILHENA VIALOU, A. (ed.). 2005. Pre-historia do MatoGrosso Vol I—Santa Elina. Sao Paulo: Editora daUniversidade de Sao Paulo.

WAGUESPACK, N.M. & R.L. KELLY. 2014. An updateon New World colonization research: thePaleoamerican Odyssey conference. EvolutionaryAnthropology 23: 47–48.

‘Simple’ need not mean ‘archaic’Kjel Knutsson∗

Boeda et al.’s paper reports the results of an archaeological re-investigation in north-easternBrazil, an area where previous attempts to identify South American pioneer settlementsearlier than 14 000 cal BC have been disqualified and rejected. Not least have argumentsbased on the analysis of lithics been questioned; as this paper makes clear, that is stillthe case. Boeda and colleagues returned to this area to re-analyse the sequences discussedpreviously through a new excavation. They have, to my mind, convincingly argued for thepresence of artefacts situated in a closed stratigraphic sequence extending as far back as25 000 years. Within the excavated sediment a series of discrete layers with assumed quartzand quartzite cobble and flake tools have been identified. I will not discuss further thestratigraphic sequence: I assume it to be correctly dated and the chronological logic of thesequence speaks in favour of that.

Since the dating of the sequence thus seems unproblematic, the key remaining problemis one that is well known to archaeologists in general and to lithic analysts more specifically.Underlying it is the social evolutionary thinking that permeates Western thinking, which wasshaped within the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century intellectual climate and which still,after all these years, albeit mostly on an unconscious level, has consequences for archaeology;simple technologies belong to archaic humans.

A second fundamental problem concerns the archaeological construction of data;more specifically the long-standing conflict between the doxa of flint typologies anda more dynamic view of technology which sees lithic assemblages as the result∗ Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 751 26 Uppsala, Sweden

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

950

Deb

ate

Kjel Knutsson

of a sequence of manual acts, as illustrated by the debitage from the process ofproduction.

A third problem, familiar to the present author, concerns the clash between academictraditions as they are reproduced within different university classrooms. Perhaps moreimportantly, there is the conflict that arises when flint types hammered out over a centuryof archaeological classification are used to classify and interpret assemblages of other rawmaterials. This clash has become most obvious when ‘flint thinking’ is used to understandquartz assemblages (see Knutsson 1998 for a discussion).

The problems discussed in the article and supplementary online material by Boeda andhis team illustrate all these points well and show that decades of archaeological work onthe lithic analysis of non-flint material has somehow gone unnoticed in some quarters. Itmust be noted, however, that the controversy surrounding the origins of the first settlers ofthe Americas has put a special strain on the researchers and the power of their transparentanalyses.

From this point of departure I offer comments on several of the themes raised in thepaper, keeping to my area of competence, lithic analysis. One of the problems encountered byBoeda et al. and others in the region is the assumed ‘archaic character’ of quartz assemblages.This is a universal problem related to the above-mentioned strands of evolutionary thinkingwhich are still part of Western thought. Quartz is the dominant edged-tool raw materialduring the Stone Age in central and northern Scandinavia. The typical assemblage has lowformal variability and contains some bipolar cores or platform cores and a few ‘scrapers’.At first glance it does indeed look simple and ‘archaic’. Fracture analysis (Callahan et al.1992; Tallavaara et al. 2010) and use-wear analysis of unmodified flakes and flake fragments(Knutsson 1988a) show, however, that a varied set of tools are to be found in the group ofinformal ‘debitage’ that consists mostly of fragmented flakes (Knutsson 1988b; Knutsson &Knutsson forthcoming). There are basically no formal tools; the sharp edge was the primaryselection criterion. Today we know through well preserved sites that the bone, antler andwooden tools produced by these quartz-using societies were of the same technological andformal quality as those among groups where flint was the dominant raw material for tools.There is therefore nothing ‘archaic’ about non-formal quartz assemblages including cobbleswith flaked edges. In Scandinavia they are found throughout prehistory from probablyegalitarian hunter-gatherer groups in the Early Mesolithic to stratified societies in the LateNeolithic.

Another classic question concerns embedded technologies. To put it simply, what do youexpect groups of prehistoric hunter-gatherers to do if flint or flint-like materials are notavailable? As Boeda and his team suggest, why not use quartz instead? It is omnipresent inmost places on earth. Furthermore, that is also exactly what happened during the pioneeringcolonisation of Scandinavia by groups of hunter-gatherers from the eastern European taigain the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene. They came with a tool set built upon a complexpressure blade technology in flint, entering present-day Finland and the Fennoscandianshield, an area devoid of naturally occurring flint but dominated by quartz (Rankama& Kankaanpaa 2011). Within a few centuries they had adapted to the local conditionsand built their entire edged-tool technology on a very simple flake technology in quartz(Jussila et al. 2012). Quartz flakes are used in the same way as flint flakes are in the

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

951

‘Simple’ need not mean ‘archaic’

rest of Scandinavia, often as insets in slotted bone points. Quartz is, to my knowledge,therefore a perfect substitute for flint: you just have to look beyond the technology andsee what it actually was to be used for. There is no such thing as a ‘better material’than quartz—it simply represents another way of making a stone tool. I am sure thatthe inhabitants of Pedra Furada soon found out how to do it. I totally agree with thearguments presented by the authors of this paper: if quartz is available, why not use it, itworks.

Quartz, as the authors observe, varies considerably in quality. Splitting beach nodulesor taking materials directly from the quartz vein does not normally yield good enoughmaterial for creating strong and sharp edges on tools. As an experienced quartz knapperI can testify that what began as a one-hour trip for knappable quartz to the nearest eskernormally ended as a tiresome quest over several days to find a good piece. It is not surprisingthen that the quartz material found on excavated prehistoric sites is of perfect qualityfor tool-making. It is obvious that the prehistoric tool makers have carefully selected thematerial they used. Quartz is therefore not used by desperate people trying to survivedespite the lack of flint; it was systematically selected for and used by knowledgeable toolmakers.

Another issue raised by the authors concerns classification. How do you discriminatebetween a naturally broken quartz cobble and the result of human production? Quartz ishard to read even for a skilled lithic analyst (Callahan et al. 1992; Tallavaara et al. 2010).It is even harder to convince non-specialists, as the authors of this paper have experienced.Their discussion of taphonomy and technical analysis in the supplementary online materialis, in my view, well designed and convincing, since they compare the qualities of naturalcobbles with quartz from the individual layers in the sequence, the latter assumed to be ofhuman origin. The qualities indicating human manufacture are the character of the strikingplatform, the number and contiguousness of the flake scars and the duration of the flakingsequence indicated by the flake scars. Since the natural and human-worked quartz materialdiffers in these respects, the human origin of the assumed prehistoric tool material seemsobvious.

The study of bipolar anvil reduction, split cobbles and worked pebbles seems to be at anearly stage but adds to the general picture of human modification of the cobbles from thedifferent layers in the sequence. The final typological classification into pieces with differentedge qualities is reasonable, although hard to evaluate at this point. The illustrations help toevaluate the feasibility of their arguments that show convincingly that the worked cobblesmust be the result of a planned sequence of gestures based on a mental template. Thesecondarily modified flakes are mostly Siret flakes; that is, flakes split during knapping. Thismay not necessarily be a systematic selection criterion: it is simply the way quartz naturallyfractures during knapping and thus there will be a high frequency of this type of flake inthe assemblage. Intact complete flakes are the exception. Microwear analysis of a numberof quartz assemblages from Sweden and Finland actually shows that these split flakes canbe used as knives, the right-angle break being a natural ‘backing’ (Knutsson & Knutssonforthcoming).

The functional analysis further strengthens the argument that the tools are human-made,but is hard to evaluate from the illustrations and details provided. The references to previousC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

952

Deb

ate

Kjel Knutsson

work on use-wear on quartz are very general in character and include partially incompatiblemethods (the Keeley method and the Knutsson method). To evaluate the microwear analysis,the micrographs must be presented at greater size than here, and the specific features usedin the argument must be identified and described in relation to relevant experimentalbackground material. From my experience of used, unused and weathered quartz, themicrographs seem to illustrate strongly weathered surfaces, and it is difficult to distinguishwhat might be the result of use and what is a result of weathering. To be of real value amicrowear analysis must follow basic principles of documentation, analysis and description.This is not the case here.

To round off my comment, however, the microwear analysis is not essential to theargument for the human origin of the quartz assemblage in layer 7 at Vale da Pedra Furada.If the dating of this layer is correct, the authors have convincingly shown that South Americawas already settled before 20 000 cal BC. . .by knowledgeable toolmakers.

ReferencesCALLAHAN, E., L. FORSBERG, K. KNUTSSON & C.

LINDGREN. 1992. Frakturbilder. Kulturhistoriskakommentarer till kvarts saregna sonderfall vidbearbetning. Tor 24: 27–63.

JUSSILA, T., A. KRIISKA & Y. ROSTEDT. 2012. Saarenoja2—an early Mesolithic site in south-easternFinland: preliminary results and interpretations ofstudies conducted in 2000 and 2008–10.Fennoscandia Archaeologica XXIX: 3–27.

KNUTSSON, K. 1988a. Patterns of tool use. Scanningelectron microscopy of experimental quartz tools (Aun10). Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis.

– 1988b. Making and using stone tools. The analysis of thelithic assemblages from Middle Neolithic sites withflint in Vasterbotten, northern Sweden (Aun 11).Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis.

– 1998. Convention and lithic analysis, in J. Holm &K. Knutsson (ed.) Proceedings from the Third FlintAlternatives Conference at Uppsala, Sweden, October18–20, 1996 (Occasional Papers in Archaeology16): 71–93. Uppsala: Department of Archaeologyand Ancient History, Uppsala University.

KNUTSSON, H. & K. KNUTSSON. Forthcoming.Hunter-gatherer responses to raw material variationduring the pioneer settlement of northernFennoscandia. Journal of Lithic Technology.

RANKAMA, T. & J. KANKAANPAA. 2011. First evidence ofeastern Preboreal pioneers in arctic Finland andNorway. Quartar 2011: 183–209.

TALLAVAARA, M., M.A. MANNINEN, E. HERTELL & T.RANKAMA. 2010. How flakes shatter: a criticalevaluation of quartz fracture analysis. Journal ofArchaeological Science 37: 2442–48.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.05.005

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

953

The peopling of South America

The peopling of South America:expanding the evidenceEric Boeda1, Christelle Lahaye2, Gisele Daltrini Felice3,4,Niede Guidon3, Sirlei Hoeltz5, Antoine Lourdeau1,6,Anne-Marie Pessis3,6, Sibeli Viana7, Ignacio Clemente-Conte8,Mario Pino9, Michel Fontugne10, Marina Pagli1 & Amelie Da Costa1

The objective of the Franco-Brazilian mission, established in 2008 at the request of andin collaboration with Brazilian researchers, was to address the issue of the earliest peoplingof South America as evidenced in north-eastern Brazil. Such early settlement had beensuggested, and in our view demonstrated, by the previous research undertaken at the site ofBoqueirao da Pedra Furada. Yet like any discovery, this occurred at a particular point in thehistory of research. Its acceptance depends on many factors that have often been difficult toaccommodate as the evidence has unfolded. Still more fundamental has been the reasonedargument presented by the discoverers, since that is the basis of knowledge. The increasingnumber of sites and the conjunction of multiple approaches—stratigraphic, taphonomic,experimental, technological and functional—play a key role in the construction of thisargument. Whether or not it is accepted will be part of the history of science. With the sitesof Boqueirao, Sıtio do Meio, Tira Peia and now Vale, we know that the settlement of thisregion of Piauı began more than 20–25 000 years ago, and occupation persisted throughoutthe entire Holocene period. When the data from these sites are compared with those fromSanta Elina in the Mato Grosso, the antiquity of human settlement is confirmed and thearea occupied at this early period is expanded.

Another step has been taken; further steps must clearly follow in order to advancefurther. We now need to orient our questions differently by addressing behavioural issues.

1 UMR 7041 CNRS ArScAn–AnTET, Universite Paris X, Maison de l’Archeologie et de l’Ethnologie, 21 allee del’Universite, 92023 Nanterre, France

2 Universite Bordeaux-Montaigne, UMR 5060 IRAMAT-CRP2A, Institut de Recherche sur les Archeomateriaux,Maison de l’Archeologie, Esplanade des Antilles, 33607 Pessac, France

3 Fundacao Museu do Homem Americano (FUMDHAM), Centro Cultural Sergio Motta s/n, Bairro Campestre,Sao Raimundo Nonato – PI, 64770-000, Brazil

4 Universidade Federal do Vale do Sao Francisco (UNIVASF), Campus Serra da Capivara, Rua Joao Ferreira dosSantos, S/N, Bairro Campestre, Sao Raimundo Nonato –PI, 64770-000, Brazil

5 Archaeo: Pesquisas Arqueologicas, Av. Carandaı 99, Parque Georgia, Cuiaba – MT, 78085-485, Brazil6 Departamento de Arqueologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego 1235, Cidade

Universitaria, Recife – PE, 50670-901, Brazil7 Instituto Goiano de Pre-Historia e Antropologia, Pontificia Universidade Catolitica de Goias, Av. Universitaria

1.440, Setor Universitario, Goiania – GO, 74605-010, Brazil8 Departamento de Arqueologıa y Antropologıa, IMF-CSIC, Calle Egipcıaques 15, Barcelona 08001, Spain9 Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales y Evolutivas, Universidad Austral de Chile, Edificio Emilio Pugın, Avenida

Eduardo Morales Miranda, Campus Isla Teja, Valdivia, Chile10 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR 8212 CNRS-CEA-UVSQ, Domaine du

CNRS, 91198 Gif sur Yvette, France

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

954

Deb

ate

Eric Boeda et al.

Future fieldwork, by enlarging the excavated areas exposed at the sites, will focus onthe patterns of occupation seen in each archaeological horizon. The functions, activitiesand spatial patterns of occupation are all issues that will be addressed by our teamin the future. Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction will be a priority, especially since theresults of functional use-wear analysis clearly shows (as expected) an interaction betweentools and animals and plants. Reconstructing modes of tool production and use throughexperimentation is a line of research that we have followed for several years. Quartz is acomplex material that was subject to technological investment at different places and times,but simply to state that is not enough. Broader comparative analysis of this technologicalphenomenon is needed to recognise that more than one technological option or processexists.

In reality, the discussion of quartz focuses the question on one point that is certainlyimportant, but not crucial. The underlying and more significant question concerns theconcept of cobbles—their form and volume, and the ways in which natural features of theraw material may have been incorporated in reduction sequences leading to tool production.This is essentially a qualitative question that requires technological and technical analysis thatcannot be reduced to simple numbers and graphs. The cobble conceived as a tool-producingmatrix becomes a technological solution with its own potential for variability and its ownconstraints. It is thus not only a technological option, but becomes a structuring element inthe knowledge of a human group. Recent analyses, such as those undertaken by a memberof our team in the Palestina region in the state of Goıas, have identified technologicalbehaviours identical to those seen in the Holocene. The technological tradition of the FinalPleistocene industries in our study region is thus not unique, but rather is one possibilityamong many and was shared by other groups. In reality, these industries are set apart onlyby their age. It is clear that the number of absolute dates will increase and the chronologywill be further refined, but henceforth the data go beyond the old paradigm. Our nextchallenge is to describe more fully the technological and behavioural facies of the earliesthuman populations in South America.

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

955