Jump to content

Fishtail projectile point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Variety of Fishtail projectile points (both whole and fragments) found in Argentina and Chile

Fishtail points, also known as Fell points are a style of Paleoindian projectile point widespread across much of South America at the end of the Late Pleistocene, around 13-12,000 years ago.[1] They are thought to have been multifunctional, serving as cutting tools, as well as hafted to spears to use as hunting weapons, possibly in combination with spear throwers.

Chronology and origin

[edit]

Their chronological timing is disputed, with some authors favouring a short chronology spanning 12,800–12,200 years Before Present (BP), while others favouring a long chronology spanning 13,500–10,200 years BP.[2] It is the earliest widespread lithic style in South America,[3] being contemporaneous in its earlier stages to the use of Clovis points in North America.[1] Fishtail points may be derived from Clovis points,[4][5] or possibly from Fishtail-like points found on the Gulf Coast of North America and in Central America.[6]

Description, use and association with other tools

[edit]

The name "Fishtail point" derives from their fish-like shape, with broad shoulders, indented stems and flared bases, while the name "Fell point" originally given by Junius Bird derives from Cueva Fell (Fell's Cave) in southern Patagonia, where the first points were found.[7] They are typically bifacially thinned, though some unifacial Fishtail points are known.[8] The points were manufactured from blanks with a combination of percussive flaking and pressure flaking.[7] In comparison to Clovis points, Fishtail points are often but not always fluted (having a long flake running along the length of the point removed, leaving a groove at the base).[9][1]

In Uruguay, Fishtail points were most often manufactured from silcrete (54%), with other source rocks including chert (10%) jasper (9%) quartzite (7%) opal (7%) and quartz (5%),[10] while in the Tandilia Range of the Argentine Pampas, local quartzite was preferred (>75%).[11]

Fishtail points varied significantly in size and form, and many were likely hafted to spears,[2][5] which were possibly used in combination with spear throwers,[3] though some are suggested to have served other purposes, like as knives or as cutting tools, and the same point may have been used for multiple functions.[5][12] Following being damaged, the points were often later recycled into burins or cutting tools, or less often scrapers or other lithic types, sometimes in combination on the same artefact.[13] Other lithic tools utilized by Fishtail producing peoples include blades.[14]

Distribution

[edit]

Fishtail points have the highest find frequency in the open regions of the Pampas and Patagonia, but are also found with some frequency in the Andes, extending as far north as Ecuador.[1] While Brazilian finds are most common in Southern Brazil, some finds are also known from central, northern and northeastern Brazil, including in the states of Mato Grosso, Goiás, Amazonas and Bahia.[15] Finds in Patagonia extend to the farthest south of the region, including Tierra del Fuego.[10]

Like the Clovis culture, the people who produced Fishtail points were willing to transport rocks and stone tools hundreds of kilometers away from the original outcrop, in one case 482 kilometres (300 mi),[10] which may have been the result of exchanges between different groups.[16]

Lifestyle

[edit]

The people who produced Fishtail points are suggested to have been highly-mobile hunter-gatherers.[12] Fishtail points are suggested to have been utilized for big-game hunting of megafaunal mammals[3] and the peak abundance of the points coincides with the proposed extinction interval for most large mammals in South America as part of the Late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions, suggesting that the hunting may have had a causal role in the extinctions. Fishtail points disappeared following the extinction of the megafauna, and were replaced by projectile point styles better suited for hunting smaller prey.[1]

Association with extinct megafauna

[edit]

Direct association between Fishtail points and extinct megafauna are rare,[3] though such an association is preserved at several sites. These include Piedra Museo in Santa Cruz Province in Southern Argentina and in Cueva del Medio in southern Chile, where Fishtail points were found in association with the extinct equine Hippidion saldiasi, some of which show cut marks indicative of butchery. Evidence of hunting of members of the living llama genus Lama was also found at both sites. At both sites the extinct large ground sloth Mylodon was also found.[17][18] While there is no clear evidence for its consumption at Cueva del Medio,[17] cut marks were found on a mylodont rib at Piedra Museo.[19] At the Paso Otero 5 site in the Pampas of northeast Argentina, Fishtail points are associated with burned bones of the elephant-sized giant ground sloths Megatherium americanum and Lestodon the smaller ground sloths Scelidotherium, Glossotherium and Mylodon, the glyptodont Glyptodon, the equine Equus neogeus, the rhinoceros-like ungulate Toxodon, the camel-like ungulate Macrauchenia, and the extinct llama Hemiauchenia. The bones appear to have been deliberately burned as a source of fuel. Due to the poor preservation of the bones there is no clear evidence of human modification, with the possible exception of a fracture on a Hemiauchenia tibia,[20] though it has been argued that the animals present at the site had probably been consumed prior to burning, whether procured by hunting or scavenging.[21]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e Prates, Luciano; Perez, S. Ivan (2021-04-12). "Late Pleistocene South American megafaunal extinctions associated with rise of Fishtail points and human population". Nature Communications. 12 (1): 2175. Bibcode:2021NatCo..12.2175P. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22506-4. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 8041891. PMID 33846353.
  2. ^ a b Hermo, Darío; Miotti, Laura; Terranova, Enrique (2022-01-02). "Exploring Technological Choices in Fishtail Points from Southern Contexts: A Comparative Overview". PaleoAmerica. 8 (1): 79–94. doi:10.1080/20555563.2021.2000090. ISSN 2055-5563. S2CID 246217494.
  3. ^ a b c d Prates, Luciano; Rivero, Diego; Perez, S. Ivan (2022-10-25). "Changes in projectile design and size of prey reveal the central role of Fishtail points in megafauna hunting in South America". Scientific Reports. 12 (1): 16964. Bibcode:2022NatSR..1216964P. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-21287-0. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 9596454. PMID 36284118.
  4. ^ Fiedel, Stuart J. (July 2017). "The Anzick genome proves Clovis is first, after all". Quaternary International. 444: 4–9. Bibcode:2017QuInt.444....4F. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2017.06.022.
  5. ^ a b c Suárez, Rafael; Cardillo, Marcelo (October 2019). "Life history or stylistic variation? A geometric morphometric method for evaluation of Fishtail point variability". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 27: 101997. Bibcode:2019JArSR..27j1997S. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101997. ISSN 2352-409X. S2CID 202898399.
  6. ^ Nami, Hugo G. (2021). "Fishtailed projectile points in the Americas: Remarks and hypotheses on the peopling of northern South America and beyond". Quaternary International. 578: 47–72. Bibcode:2021QuInt.578...47N. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2020.06.004. ISSN 1040-6182. S2CID 225430302.
  7. ^ a b Waters, Michael R.; Amorosi, Thomas; Stafford, Thomas W. (April 2015). "Redating Fell's Cave, Chile and the Chronological Placement of the Fishtail Projectile Point". American Antiquity. 80 (2): 376–386. doi:10.7183/0002-7316.80.2.376. ISSN 0002-7316. S2CID 163247912.
  8. ^ Suarez, Rafael. 2009. Unifacial Fishtail Points: Considerations about the archaeological record of Paleo South Americans. Current Research in the Pleistocene 26:12–15.
  9. ^ Morrow, Juliet E.; Morrow, Toby A. (April 1999). "Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: A Hemispheric Perspective". American Antiquity. 64 (2): 215–230. doi:10.2307/2694275. ISSN 0002-7316. JSTOR 2694275. S2CID 131210143.
  10. ^ a b c Suárez, Rafael; Barceló, Flavia (February 2024). "Mobility and raw material procurement by Fishtail people in Uruguay: Evaluation of silcrete long distance transport between campsites and outcrops during the late Pleistocene (ca. 12,900–12,250 cal BP)". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 53: 104338. Bibcode:2024JArSR..53j4338S. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.104338.
  11. ^ Flegenheimer, Nora; Weitzel, Celeste (March 2017). "Fishtail points from the Pampas of South America: Their variability and life histories". Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 45: 142–156. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2016.12.001. hdl:11336/66912.
  12. ^ a b Suárez, Rafael (January 2015). "The Paleoamerican Occupation of the Plains of Uruguay: Technology, Adaptations, and Mobility". PaleoAmerica. 1 (1): 88–104. doi:10.1179/2055556314Z.00000000010. ISSN 2055-5563.
  13. ^ Flegenheimer, Nora; Weitzel, Celeste (March 2017). "Fishtail points from the Pampas of South America: Their variability and life histories". Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 45: 142–156. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2016.12.001. hdl:11336/66912.
  14. ^ Suárez, Rafael; Vegh, Jorge; Astiazarán, Joaquín (2018-01-02). "Fishtail Points, Blades, and Preforms and the Paleoamerican Occupation of the Yí River (Uruguay): New Evidence from La Palomita". PaleoAmerica. 4 (1): 87–89. doi:10.1080/20555563.2017.1415651. ISSN 2055-5563.
  15. ^ Loponte, Daniel; Okumura, Mercedes; Carbonera, Mirian (2015-03-15). "New records of fishtail projectile points from Brazil and its implications for its peopling". Journal of Lithic Studies. 3 (1). doi:10.2218/jls.v3i1.1312. ISSN 2055-0472.
  16. ^ Flegenheimer, N (2003). "Long distance tool stone transport in the Argentine Pampas". Quaternary International. 109–110: 49–64. Bibcode:2003QuInt.109...49F. doi:10.1016/S1040-6182(02)00202-1.
  17. ^ a b Nami, Hugo G. (2019-08-12). "Paleoamerican Occupation, Stone Tools from the Cueva del Medio, and Considerations for the Late Pleistocene Archaeology in Southern South America". Quaternary. 2 (3): 28. doi:10.3390/quat2030028. hdl:11336/120270. ISSN 2571-550X.
  18. ^ Bampi, Hugo; Barberi, Maira; Lima-Ribeiro, Matheus S. (December 2022). "Megafauna kill sites in South America: A critical review". Quaternary Science Reviews. 298: 107851. Bibcode:2022QSRv..29807851B. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107851.
  19. ^ Marchionni, Laura; Vázquez, Martín; Miotti, Laura (2022), Miotti, Laura; Salemme, Monica; Hermo, Darío (eds.), "The Archaeofaunas of Piedra Museo. Zooarchaeological and Taphonomic Study of the AEP-1 Site (Argentine Patagonia)", Archaeology of Piedra Museo Locality, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 199–256, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-92503-1_8, ISBN 978-3-030-92502-4, retrieved 2024-05-10
  20. ^ G. Martínez, M. A. Gutiérrez, Paso Otero 5: A summary of the interdisciplinary lines of evidence for reconstructing early human occupation and paleoenvironment in the Pampean region, Argentina, in Peuplements et Préhistoire de l’Amérique, D. Vialou, Ed. (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle. Departement de Prehistoire, U.M.R, Paris, 2011), pp. 271–284.
  21. ^ Messineo, Pablo Gerónimo (October 2015). "Technological Organization in Hunting/Scavenging and Butchering Sites of Megamammals in the Pampa Grasslands (Argentina)". PaleoAmerica. 1 (4): 343–359. doi:10.1179/2055556315Z.00000000018. hdl:11336/58742. ISSN 2055-5563.