Chaetophractus Villosus A Disturbing Age

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/oa.1278
SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER
Chaetophractus villosus: A Disturbing

Agent for Archaeological Contexts
R. FRONTINIa* AND P. ESCOSTEGUYb
a
CADIC CONICET, Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina
b
CONICET, Instituto de Arqueología (FFyL), Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
ABSTRACT Chaetophractus villosus (Dasypodidae), a medium-sized armadillo with burrowing habits, is one of the natural
agents whose activities play a major role in archaeological deposit disturbance in the Pampean Region in
Argentina. This paper presents the results of a comparative analysis between the archaeological materials
collected from 32 currently active burrows and the remains collected in the sedimentary matrix identified
as burrow filling during excavations of El Guanaco Site 1, Sector 1. As a general tendency, it was possible
to establish that C. villosus removes both lithic and faunal materials that are 3 cm long or less. As an excep-
tion, materials up to 7 cm long are displaced. The distribution observed during the excavation of currently ac-
tive burrows indicates that materials concentrate around the burrows’ entrances. Copyright © 2011 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: burrowing activity; Chaetophractus villosus; mounds; Pampean Region; site formation
Introduction fossorial species, which spend most of their life under-

ground, and those with a semi-fossorial lifestyle, which
Research on site formation processes is an essential in- use burrows for different purposes (shelter, nesting, hi-
stance of archaeological research because our interpret- bernation or birthing) but spend most of their time on
ation of contexts heavily relies on the natural or the surface (Wilkins, 1989).
cultural origin of the recovered remains. Actualistic Although armadillos (Dasypodidae) are key tapho-
studies allow archaeologists to gather relevant data nomic agents, the impact of their activities on archaeo-
about those processes by drawing analogies between logical sites has not been extensively analysed. A
past and present events, where past circumstances are significant progress on this topic is Mello Araujo and
inferred from analogical present situations (Binford, Marcelino’s (2003) experimental research on the habits
1981; Gifford-Gonzalez, 1991). of Euphractus sexcintus. These authors concluded that
Burrowing mammals are one of the different bioturb- armadillos move different materials both vertically
ation agents that affect archaeological contexts. Their and horizontally and can also mix cultural horizons ori-
activity leads to the displacement of archaeological ginally located at a distance of 20 cm from each other.
materials vertically and horizontally, the destruction In addition, some actualistic studies showed the inclu-
of fragile remains and the obliteration of soil horizons sion of diverse materials into archaeological deposits
(Wood & Johnson, 1978; Erlandson, 1984; Bocek, due to the recolonisation of old armadillo galleries by
1986; Politis & Madrid, 1988; Johnson, 1989; Wilkins, rodents, anurans, owls, lizards and hares, which incor-
1989; Durán, 1991; Bocek, 1992; Pierce, 1992; Mello porate bones to the archaeological record as a result
Araujo & Marcelino, 2003; Fowler et al., 2004). There of the various feeding and reproduction habits and
are two types of animals with burrowing habits: the patterns of behaviour of each such species (Frontini
& Deschamps, 2007).
This paper aims to present the results of an actualis-
* Correspondence to: B. Houssay 200 (9410), Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego,
Argentina. tic study carried out on sediments accumulated in the
e-mail: [email protected] entrances of current Chaetophractus villosus burrows found
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 28 April 2011
Accepted 11 July 2011
R. Frontini and P. Escosteguy
near archaeological sites in the south of Buenos Aires This armadillo is considered a powerful and fast digger
Province (Argentina). By digging, this species builds owing to the long sharp claws on its forefeet and back feet,
mounds at the entrance of its galleries. In archaeo- which are well adapted for this activity (Vizcaíno & Milne,
logical areas, these mounds usually contain cultural 2002). It builds characteristic burrows that allow to eas-
remains that are often considered by archaeologists as ily identify the species (Abba et al., 2005). These bur-
a sign of buried archaeological strata (Mello Araujo & rows have elliptical 15- to 20-cm-wide entrances,
Marcelino, 2003). where the deposits removed during digging accumu-
Five species of Dasypodidae currently inhabit the late, creating mounds. Burrows may be simple or com-
Pampean Region (Argentina): Dasypus hybridus, Toly- plex, depending on their function (Abba et al., 2005).
peutes matacus, Zaedyus pichiy, Chaetophractus vellerosus and Simple burrows are built to obtain certain types of food
Chaetophractus villosus (Vizcaíno et al., 1995). Several (usually annelids and larvae) and to escape from preda-
archaeological sites in the region have been affected tors. They have an average length of 70 cm and a max-
by Dasypodidae activity (Bayón et al., 2004; Frontini imum depth of 50 cm, and their structure consists in a
& Deschamps, 2007; Massigoge, 2007). Site 1, Sector single branch that descends obliquely from the ground
1 of El Guanaco archaeological locality (EG1 S1), surface. Burrows are usually located in sediments with a
located south of the Buenos Aires’ Interserrana Area high content of moisture and organic components. In
(Pampean Region, Argentina), is one of the sites dis- turn, complex burrows are used for living and nesting;
turbed by Dasypodidae actions. During site excava- they reach a maximum length of 4 m, with an average
tions, C. villosus galleries were identified running depth of 1 m. This type of burrow also slopes down
across the archaeological deposits. in an oblique direction to a point where it becomes hori-
The purposes of this article are (1) to analyse the zontal and finally bends at an angle of 90º. Complex bur-
kind of materials collected from currently active burrows are built on hard soils with high lime content. Both
rows; (2) to determine the size and degree of con- types of burrows are dug in high places where floods do
servation of the removed material; (3) to compare not occur, with their mouths facing away from the usual
actualistic findings with the materials recovered from direction of the wind (Abba et al., 2005).
the sedimentary matrix identified as burrow filling Some of these characteristics allow to identify C. villo-
during excavations at El Guanaco Site 1 Sector 1; sus burrows in archaeological contexts and to distin-
and (4) to generate archaeological expectations guish them from the ones belonging to other species.
about the distribution of the removed material in One of these features is the amount of entrances. While
order to recognise burrowing activities during site hairy armadillo burrows have a single entrance, C. veller-
excavations. osus (small hairy armadillo) and Dasypus hybridus
(mulita) caves have more than one entrance and galler-
ies with several branches. Also, burrows of the latter
Chaetophractus villosus: characteristics, species have grass accumulation on the entrance due
distribution and behaviour to the species’s particular behaviour (Abba et al., 2005).
Another important characteristic is the width of
Chaetophractus villosus is a South American fossorial C. villosus galleries. It is either smaller for other fossorial
mammal from the order Edentata. Like all the other mammals in the area (i.e. Ctenomys sp.) or bigger (i.e.
species in the Dasypodidae family, its body and head Lagostomus maximus).
are heavily armoured with thick bony fixed and mobile Finally, the presence of claw markings in the gallery
plates arranged in transverse lines. It also has a long tail walls, especially those on hard soils, is another feature
covered with bony plates (Cabrera & Yepes, 1940). It is to identify these burrows. Nevertheless, this must be
widely spread across the Americas, from the Gran considered only as a complementary trait, as it is not al-
Chaco in Bolivia, Paraguay, and northern Argentina ways present (Frontini & Deschamps, 2007).
to Santa Cruz Province and, in Chile, from Valparaíso
and the south of Bio Bio regions to Magallanes (Gardner,
2007). This mammal lives in open areas and is highly Materials and methods
adaptive to semidesert conditions (Nowak & Paradiso,
1983; Vizcaíno & Milne, 2002). An adult weighs Actualistic study
approximately 2.5 kg. It is mainly a nocturnal animal
with an omnivorous diet that includes roots, insects, In order to test C. villosus’ activity in diverse contexts,
carrion, bird eggs and chicks (Redford, 1985; Abba the documentation of 32 modern burrows was carried
et al., 2010). out in two archaeological localities: Paso Mayor and
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
C. villosus: A Disturbing Agent in Archaeological Contexts
El Guanaco, situated in different environments (Figure 1). deposits. These two sites show differences attributable
Eighteen burrows were documented at Paso Mayor and to their location along the landscape. EG1, which is
14 at El Guanaco (EG) (Table 1). situated on a plain, exhibits patterns that match zonal
Paso Mayor is an archaeological area that runs in the and regional profiles (Bayón et al., 2004; Zárate et al.,
Southwest of the Province of Buenos Aires, in the 2009). EG2 is located on the east–northeast bank of
South-eastern region of the Central Domain in zoo- the lagoon, over aeolian deposits that build up into a
geographic terms (Ringuelet, 1961) and occupies the dune as a result of the deflation of the lagoon’s basin.
Southern District of the Espinal Province based on its The actualistic research was performed at Site 2, whereas
phytogeography (Cabrera, 1968). It sits on a large sand the application of the results was performed on Site 1.
dune on the left bank of the Sauce Grande River in Field methods consisted in recording the length and
the river valley. This dune originated as a result of width of the mouth and the orientation of the burrows
the strong aridification processes that affected the and collecting sediments at the entrances of the burrows.
area. It contains archaeological remains belonging These sediments were screened in a 1-mm mesh, and their
to at least two settlement levels. The Lower Levels volume was estimated. Remains from each burrow were
correspond to a base camp. Radiocarbon dates place collected in separate bags. They were then cleaned, la-
the archaeological remains in the dune in middle Holo- belled, measured and analysed in the laboratory. These
cene: 5.877 63 (AA-71656); 4.046 57 (AA-82714); remains were classified according to the type of material
3.820 47 (AA-82709). The Upper Levels function first (bone, lithic, pottery, industrial materials) and then
as a base camp during early late Holocene. A 14C radio- assigned as being of archaeological, modern or indetermin-
carbon date obtained corresponded to 2.774 45 (AA- able origin. Bones were anatomically and taxonomically
91415); later, this place functioned as a burial area, at identified. Those remains that were determined to be arch-
700 42 14C radiocarbon date (AA-56780) (Bayón aeological were the ones belonging to species that do not
et al., 2010). At present, the dune is covered by weep- inhabit the area nowadays but are recovered in the area’s
ing love grass that was intentionally planted. Numerous archaeofaunal records. Lithic remains were classified
C. villosus burrows are currently distributed along the according to their typology and raw materials. Remains
bottom, middle and top of the sand dune. The burrows that could not be assigned to a particular period were regis-
surveyed were those located at the bottom of the tered as indeterminable. This was the case with faunal
extensive dune. remains from species that still live in the area, such as arma-
The archaeological locality of El Guanaco is situated dillos and birds, but are also present in archaeological con-
in the Interserrana Area of Buenos Aires Province, sur- texts, being impossible to determine whether they are
rounding the El Lucero lake, within the Pampean Do- modern or past materials until radiocarbon studies are made.
main from a zoogeographic perspective and the
Southern District in phytogeographic terms. Two sites
were excavated there: Site 1 and Site 2 (EG1 and EG2), Case study: El Guanaco 1 archaeological site
located 500 m from each other (Zárate et al., 2009;
Flegenheimer et al., 2010). El Guanaco Site 1 Sector 1 (EG1 S1) is a multi-component
This area has a sedimentary matrix composed of Late site that was occupied from the Early Holocene to the
Pleistocene-Holocene pedogenetically altered aeolian Late Holocene (Bayón et al., 2004; Zárate et al., 2009).
Figure 1. Localization of the localities studied.
Table 1. Modern Chaetophractus villosus burrows surveyed
Opening Sediment Presence

Burrow of
No. Location Width (cm) Length (cm) Orientation Kind Quantity (m3) materials
1 EG2 20 18 N CaCO3 Absent Absent

4 EG2 20 22 N CaCO3 64 Yes
5 EG2 26 20 N CaCO3 64 Yes
6 EG2 20 10 N CaCO3 64 Yes
7 EG2 22 18 N CaCO3 64 Yes
8 EG2 20 21 W Organic Matter 8 Yes
9 EG2 20 26 E Organic Matter 8 Yes
10 EG2 22 24 SE Organic Matter 32 Yes
11 EG2 17 21 S CaCO3 8 Yes
12 EG2 20 22 W Organic Matter 16 Absent
13 EG2 18 22 W Sand 12 Yes
14 EG2 15 21 S Sand 56 Yes
15 PM 18 20 N Sand 24 Yes
16 PM 20 17 NE Sand 12 Yes
17 PM 16 18 SW Sand 8 Yes
18 PM 20 20 NW Sand 28 Yes
19 PM 16 15 W Sand 8 Yes
20 PM 19 17 E Sand Absent Absent
21 PM 20 18 S Sand 4 Yes
25 PM 23 17 N Sand 16 Yes
29 PM 20 21 SW Sand 8 Yes
31 PM 28 20 E Sand 16 Yes
PM, Paso Mayor; EG2, El Guanaco Site 2.
Its profile has three stratigraphic units (Bayón et al., the upper levels of unit 2 in middle-Holocene times
2004), the lowest being a calcium carbonate layer, (Zárate et al., 2009). The lowest levels of unit 2
which was the floor during the first human occupa- included faunal remains of Lama guanicoe, Lagostomus max-
tions. Unit 2 corresponds to a loess deposit with weak imus, Lycalopex sp., Lutreolina crassicaudata, Ctenomys sp.,
pedologic modification. A radiocarbon date has placed cavids and two extinct species, Equus sp. and
Figure 2. (A) A modern C. villosus burrow with archaeological lithic materials at its entrance in EG2. (B) Archaeological materials recovered from mod-
ern burrows: Sierras Bayas Group orthoquartzite lithic tools and flakes; Lama guanicoe cervical vertebrae, astragalus and first phalanx.
Macrauchenia patachonica. The last two species did not establishment; a single glass fragment of unknown ori-
show evidence of anthropic modifications. Eggshells gin; and a piece of metal whose origin is presumably
of Rheidae were also abundant. These remains were related to farming activities.
associated with lithic artefacts. A humerus of L. guanicoe Archaeological remains that included pottery and
from these levels exhibiting helical fracturing has been lithic materials were also recovered from mounds
dated at 9250 40 RCYBP (SR-6381) (Bayón et al., located in both localities. Technological materials rep-
2004; Flegenheimer et al., 2010). resent 88.24% (n = 60) of the archaeological sample;
Unit 2 was truncated in some areas by a burial pit of faunal remains reliably assigned to this category are
late-Holocene age, named Unit 3. This unit was the result very scarce (n = 12). The technological assemblage is
of human burial action. There, primary and secondary composed of lithic remains, a few pottery fragments
burials dated ca. 2500 years BP were recovered. In this (n = 1) and pigments (n = 1). Lithic artefacts (n = 58)
unit, most of the faunal remains were broken and their are mainly flakes (80%; n = 48). Two unifacial
dimensions were less than 2 cm. retouched tools and eight chunks were also recovered.
Along the stratigraphic sequence, galleries up to Raw materials mostly consisted of orthoquartzite from
90 cm deep were registered. Some of them were still the Sierras Bayas Group, although there were also some
active, while others had collapsed or were filled with subarkose and boulder flakes.
sediments. Galleries were described according to Archaeological faunal remains were not recovered at
Fowler et al.’s (2004) proposal. The burrows were mounds from Paso Mayor. They were only collected
0.19 m wide, and its morphology corresponded to a in EG2. Bone fragments were identified as belonging
unique main gallery, which in a point turned to 90 to L. guanicoe (guanaco), Ozotoceros bezoarticus (Pampaean
(Figure 5(a)). Some of these galleries had claw marks deer) and Rheidae (a South American Family of flightless
on their walls. Because of these burrows’ features and bird). In connection with the first two species, mostly
the direct observation of a C. villosus individual inside appendicular skeleton parts were found, whereas in the
a burrow during fieldwork, the burrowing agent was case of Rheidae, only fragments of eggshells were col-
identified as belonging to this species (Frontini & lected. These species are accounted for in the archaeofau-
Deschamps, 2007). nal assemblage of the site.
Galleries were emptied prior to excavations, and the Regarding archaeological materials removed by
materials present in the removed sedimentary matrix armadillos, 83.78% (n = 62) were shorter than 2 cm.
were put away into separate bags. To a lesser extent, larger remains with a length up to
7 cm were also found. These larger specimens were all
bone shaft fragments (Figure 3).
Results The state of the archaeological material faunal remains
presented weathering stages 3 and 4 (Behrensmeyer,
Actualistic study 1978). They were mainly fractured (75%, n = 9)
(Figure 4). From the damaged items, 89% presented
The mounds formed at the entrances of the burrows straight light-coloured fractures. They correspond to
examined in the actualistic study are composed of sedi- a first phalanx, a cervical vertebra, a distal humerus and
ments of volumes between 4 and 64 m3. Notably, the a metapodial fragment, all corresponding to L. guanicoe,
mouths of the burrows found in Paso Mayor have lower and four Rheidae eggshells. It is inferred that all of
amounts of sediments than those found in EG2. This them are taphonomic modern fractures. Only two ele-
may be because these burrows are located in a loose ments show fresh fractures whose origin is archaelogical.
sand dune, which may have led to the rapid scattering These are an L. guanicoe first phalanx and a mammalian
of the mounds. In 84.37% of the burrows, remains were shaft with helical fracture.
recovered from sediments (Table 2 and Figure 2(a and In contrast, in the lithic assemblage, fragmented
b)). Preliminary findings coming from burrows 1 to 7 materials are observed in the same proportion as the
were published in a previous paper (Frontini, 2009). complete materials (Figure 4).
Modern remains were collected in both localities,
but they exhibit dissimilar characteristics. In Paso
Mayor, most of the remains (98%, n = 449) are stones Case study: El Guanaco Site 1
from river pebble deposits currently present in the area.
In the burrows near EG2, modern materials consist of A total of 446 remains, both modern and archaeo-
fragments of granite (n = 80), which is being used to logical, were gathered from the galleries (Table 3). It
improve the internal roads of the agricultural was not possible to establish whether the material was
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Table 2. Materials recovered from the mounds in surveyed present-day burrows
Burrow N Remains Quantity Description Origin
1 No materials
2 No materials
3 No materials
4 No materials
5 Lithic 5 Flakes Archaeological
2 Debris Archaeological
3 Granite used for road building Modern
Faunal remains 2 Lama guanicoe (1 astragalus; 1 phalanx with impact points) Archaeological
4 Dasypodidae indet. (plates) Indet.
9 Bone fragments indet. Indet.
Modern 1 Glass Modern
Faunal remains 2 Lama guanicoe (1 humerus with impact negatives; 1 cervical vertebrae) Archaeological
1 Ozotoceros bezoarticus (metapodial epiphysis) Archaeological
2 Stone tools Archaeological
70 Granites used in the roads building Modern
2 Calcrete fragments Indet.
Faunal remains 1 Lama guanicoe (lunar) Archaeological
20 Bone fragments Indet.
Pottery 1 Fragment Archaeological
Faunal remains 1 Lama guanicoe (metapodial fragment) Archaeological
1 Shaft fragment from large mammal, with helicoidal fracture. Archaeological
10 Lithic 1 Flake Archaeological
11 Lithic 10 7 flakes, 1 pigment, 2 debris Archaeological
Faunal remains 13 13 bone fragments (2 thermally altered) Indet.
1 Ctenomys sp. (mandible fragment) Indet.
3 Dasypodidae indet, 3 plates (1 thermal altered) Indet.

12 Lithic 2 Flakes of orthoquartzite from the Sierras Bayas Group (OGSB) Archaeological
Faunal remains 2 Bone fragments Indet.

Modern 1 Metal Modern
13 No materials
14 Lithic 1 Gravel flake Archaeological
15 Lithic 63 62 pebble; 1 calcrete fragment Modern
Faunal remains 2 Plagiodontes sp. Modern
2 Mollusca indet. Modern
16 Lithic 21 1 calcrete fragment, 20 pebbles Modern
(Continues)
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Table 2. (Continued)
Burrow N Remains Quantity Description Origin
17 Lithic 18 Pebbles Modern

Faunal remain 1 Egg shell fragment Modern
18 12 Pebbles Modern
Lithic 33 Pebbles Modern
Faunal remains 1 Mollusca indet. Modern
21 Lithic 1 Pebble Modern
Lithic 35 Pebbles Modern
lithic 17 Pebbles Modern
26 lithic 29 Pebbles Modern
Faunal remains 3 1 Austroborus lutescens, 1 Plagiodontes sp.; 1 bulla from small animal Modern
28 Faunal remains 1 Austroborus lutescens Modern
29 1 Flake Archaeological
TOTAL 711
Figure 3. Size of the archaeological materials recovered from modern C. villosus burrows.
standing at the mouths of the burrows. The remains Sierras Bayas Group, coinciding with the lithic materi-
contained in the removed sediments were collected als in the non-disrupted areas that were excavated
considering the gallery as a whole and not by grids, (Bayón et al., 2004). The faunal assemblage from the re-
which prevented the mouths of the burrows from being moval context is formed by 13 elements, five out of
located. On the other hand, it could be hypothetically which belong to L. guanicoe, while the rest are fragments
assumed that the mouths of the burrows were outside of Rheidae eggshells (Figure 5(b)).
the excavated sectors. Regarding material length, the size of the remains
With regards to modern material, it corresponds to recovered from EG1 S1 is similar to that of the materi-
17% of the total elements recovered. As reported by als found in current burrows. In EG1, 80% was less
Frontini and Deschamps (2007), modern material cor- than 2 cm long (n = 358). Only 13 items of the remains
responds to faunal remains belonging to taxa such as are larger than 5 cm, and only one of them is longer
Anura, Lepus europaeus and Zaedyus pichiy. These taxa do than 10 cm (Figure 6). The largest remains are exclu-
not come from the original archaeological context, sively bone fragments: a proximal epiphysis of a gua-
but were probably introduced when the C. villosus bur- naco humerus, a fragment of a guanaco distal femur
rows were recolonized. Lepus europaeus is not a native and two fragments from the shaft of a large mammal.
species and was introduced in the 19th century. The The state of lithic artefacts and faunal remains dif-
remaining taxa inhabit the area and recolonize other fers. Whereas only 35% (n = 23) of the lithic materials
animals’ burrows. The material belonging to present are fragmented, nearly all bone remains are fractured
species presented weathering stage 1. (95%, n = 358) (Figure 7). Different types of fragmen-
The archaeological assemblage recovered from in- ted bones were recognised. First, seven elements pre-
side the C. villosus burrows is composed of lithic arte- sented fractures originated from fresh bone. Second,
facts and faunal remains from species that are taphonomic damages were recognised in the rest of
nowadays missing from the region. Lithic raw materials the assemblage, presenting straight edges as a result
predominantly consist of orthoquartzite from the of dry breakage. This high proportion of fragmented
Figure 4. Preservation of the archaeological materials collected.
Table 3. Materials recovered from the burrows at EG1 S1
Remains Quantity Description Origin
Lithic 2 Cores (1 OGSB and 1 from chert) Archaeological

46 Flakes Archaeological
4 Artefacts Archaeological
1 Pigment Archaeological
7 Calcrete fragments Indet.
Faunal remains 319 Indet bone fragment Indet.
11 Rodentia indet Indet.
4 Ctenomys sp., (3 molariforms, 1 mandible fragment) Indet.
1 Microcavia (1 molar) Indet.
2 Lagostomus maximus (1 proximal femur; 1 fragmented molariform) Indet.
3 Anuro (long bones) Modern
1 Herbivorous molar Indet.
5 Lama guanicoe (astragalus, px scapula, px humerus; femur with helicoidal Archaeological
fracture; 1 incisor)
1 Medium-sized bird: ds. tibiotarsal Indet.
8 Rheidae, shell egg fragments Archaeological
2 Dasypodidae (1 distal phalanx, 1 plate) Indet.
7 Chaetophractus villosus (molar, 3 thermoaltered plates, 3 fixed plates) Indet.
4 Zaedyus pichiy (plates) Modern
6 Lepus europaeus (2 mandible fragments; 2 molariforms, 1 calcaneus; 1 pelvis) Modern
TOTAL 446
Figure 5. (A) Chaetophractus villosus burrows in El Guanaco Site 1 Sector 1. (B) Archaeological materials recovered from these burrows: four orthoquart-
zites from the Sierras Bayas Group flakes, a Lama guanicoe proximal humerus and a mammalian shaft with helical fracture.
Figure 6. Size of materials collected inside the burrows in EG1 S1.
bones could be related not only to the C. villosus bur- area (Abba et al., 2005). This accounts for the orienta-
rowing activity but also to the archaeological context tion differences in each surveyed locality. Thus, in
of the site. Materials could have been broken previ- EG2, burrow mouths are mainly oriented north, while
ously by the human action of digging for burials. in Paso Mayor they face West.
Secondly, C. villosus usually modifies the spatial pat-
terning of the materials. The findings presented in this
Discussion and conclusions paper show that at least some materials are accumu-
lated on the ground surface, in the mounds that pile
The information gathered through the actualistic stud- up next to the entrances of the burrows after they are
ies conducted in current C. villosus burrows allows us to dug by the armadillos. This characteristic would have
make some inferences about the role of this species as a a material correlate in archaeological deposits, forming
taphonomic agent in archaeological sites. discrete accumulations of materials. However, the
First of all, this taxon has inhabited the region since archaeological visibility of this feature is not clear
the Late Pleistocene and adapts to several weather and enough. At least at EG1 S1, it was not recognised.
environmental conditions (Vizcaíno et al., 1995). In the This information can be added to the conclusions of
environments studied here—lake and fluvial—different Mello Araujo and Marcelino’s (2003) experimental
sediments are present. While in the context of the lake study. They observed that (1) the vertical movement
(EG2), CaCO3-rich sediments are predominant, in the of artefacts by armadillos is not preferential; (2) there
fluvial environment (Paso Mayor), soils are sandy. In is no significant correlation between artefact weight
both environments, intense C. villosus burrowing was and displacement degree; (3) cultural horizons 20 cm
observed. This armadillo directs the mouth of the bur- apart from each other can be mixed by armadillos activ-
rows against the direction of prevalent winds in each ities; and (4) the animal activity leaves distinctive traits
Figure 7. Preservation of the archaeological materials recovered in EG1 S1.
(accumulation of materials along the animal trajectory) including humans (McBrearty et al., 1998; Weitzel,
that can be identified during excavation (Mello Araujo 2010). These last agents produce movement, burial, ex-
& Marcelino, 2003). posure, fracture and markings on lithic artefacts by
In addition, regarding the type of materials, it can be trampling and kicking. According to an experiment
stated that C. villosus removes archaeological materials carried out by Weitzel (2010) on orthoquartzites,
from deposits and that also external modern elements human trampling on lithic tools on a loamy soil pro-
are introduced on its burrows. From the actualistic ana- duces low breakage ratios (10% of the experimental
lysis, we conclude that the proportion of modern mater- tools). Therefore, breakage is linked to the physical
ial in current active burrow varies, depending on the properties of the materials, and the relation between
context. While in burrows surveyed at EG2, modern width, length and thickness influences the chances of
materials correspond to 27% of the total, in Paso Mayor, breakage. Items ranging from 2 to 3 mm in length and
the deposit consists mostly of modern materials (98%). of proportional thickness are hardly fractured by
The scarcity of archaeological remains in this area may human trampling (Weitzel, personal communication,
be an indicator that the length of the site fails to reach 2011). Although experimentation is needed for flake
the base of the dune, where prospecting was conducted. fractures, it is possible to consider that the lithic broken
From the burrows examined during excavation in materials were probably fractured in the original
EG1 S1, both archaeological and modern remains were depositional context and that they were not fractured
collected, although the amount of archaeological mate- as a result of C. villosus activities.
rials recovered was higher. In those galleries, the only With regards to bone fragmentation, bone material
modern materials found were faunal remains of living was probably broken by the burrowing action of
species. This confirms the proposal of Frontini and C. villosus. The taphonomic modern fractures registered
Deschamps (2007) concerning the incorporation of on actualistic bones allow to get to this conclusion.
remains that did not belong to the original deposits. Nevertheless, it could be an equifinality problem be-
The modern faunal materials show a low weathering cause these fractures did not present features different
stage different from that recognised in archaeological from other agents. This theme needs deeper experi-
materials. mental investigation.
Finally, the materials collected in modern burrows In conclusion, it could be stated that it is important
are predominantly small (less than 2 cm), but there to highlight several ways of studying the role of
are larger remains (about 6 cm long). These larger C. villosus as a taphonomic agent. Actualistic studies en-
remains are exclusively bones. The size of remains is rich our understanding of natural and cultural processes
one of the main variables considered in creating dis- involved in the genesis of archaeological materials,
turbance models for other species (Bocek, 1986; mainly because of its usefulness to state, contrast and
Johnson, 1989; Bocek, 1992). In the case of pocket corroborate hypothesis. Nevertheless, the actualistic
gophers, different studies pointed out that these data presented in this paper need to be increased.
rodents move and pile up elements smaller than 6 cm
on the ground, which matches the average width of
their burrows, often generating stone lines. In addition, Acknowledgements
considering the size of the burrow and that of the ani-
mal, remains of up to 20 cm could possibly be vertically The authors are indebted to Cristina Bayón and
moved by C. villosus. However, this analysis shows that Mónica Salemme for the review of a preliminary ver-
rather small materials accumulate on the ground’s sur- sion; to Celeste Weitzel for the English review; to
face and that only exceptionally does the armadillo re- the Irastorza family and to El Guanaco agricultural
move larger items (up to 7 cm long), which are company; to the ICAZ 2010 Organizing Committee
exclusively bone fragments—a fact that has more to for partially financing our attendance to the conference
do with weight than with size. in Paris; the Ezeiza County (Buenos Aires province),
The conservation degree is also similar in both cases through Mr Fabián Dragone, for supporting with a spe-
under study. In the actualistic record as well as in the cial grant the participation of one of the authors (P.E.).
excavation of EG1 S1, the faunal remains recovered This research was supported by grants BID-PICT 2006-
were mostly broken, whereas the percentage of frac- 0717 and SECYT-UNS 24/I 154. A previous version of
tured lithic artefacts was almost equal to that of this article was presented in the New Perspectives in
complete ones. The effects of animals as agents on Taphonomy session within the 11th ICAZ meeting in
the modification of lithic materials have been analysed Paris. The authors are solely responsible for the mistakes
mainly within medium- and large-sized mammals, and/or omissions in the ideas herein presented.
References Pupio, MI González, N Flegenheimer, MM Frère (eds.).

Sociedad Argentina de Antropología: Buenos Aires; 1:
Abba A, Udrizar Sauthier DA, Vizcaíno SF. 2005. Distribu- 439–451.
tion and use of burrows and tunnels of Chaetophractus villo- Gardner AL. 2007. Mammals of South America. Marsupials,
sus (Mammalia, Xenarthra) in the Eastern Argentinean Xenarthrans, Shrews and Bats Vol 1. Chicago Press:
pampas. Acta Theriologica 50(1): 115–124. London.
Abba A, Nabte M, Udrizar Sauthier DA. 2010. New data Gifford-Gonzalez D 1991. Bones are not enough: Analo-
on Armadillos (Xenarthra: Dasypodidae) for Central gues, knowledge and interpretative strategies in zooarch-
Patagonia, Argentina. Edentata 11(1): 11–17. aeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 215–254.
Bayón C, Flegenheimer N, Zárate M, Deschamps C. 2004. Johnson DL. 1989. Subsurface stone lines, stone zones,
“. . .Y vendrán los arqueólogos en busca de un hue- artifact-manuport layers and biomantles produced by bio-
so”. . .Sitio El Guanaco, partido de San Cayetano. Aprox- turbation via pocket gophers (Thomomys battae). American
imaciones Arqueológicas Pampeanas. Teorías, Métodos y Antiquity 54: 370–389.
Casos de Aplicación Contemporáneos, G Martínez, M Massigoge A. 2007. Procesos de formación del registro
Gutiérrez, R Curtoni, M Berón, P Madrid (eds.). Facultad arqueológico en el sitio Cortaderas (Partido de San
de Ciencias Sociales, UNCPBA: Olavarría; 247–258. Cayetano, Pcia. De Buenos Aires). Intersecciones en Antropolo-
Bayón C, Pupio A, Frontini R, Vecchi R, Scabuzzo C. gía 8: 197–214.
2010. Localidad arqueológica de Paso Mayor: Nuevos McBrearty S, Bishop L, Plummer T, Dewar R, Conard N.
estudios 40 años después. Intersecciones en Antropología 11: 1998. Tools underfoot: Human trampling as an agent of
115–128. lithic artifact edge modification. American Antiquity 63(1):
Behrensmeyer A. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic informa- 108–122.
tion from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4(2): 150–162. Mello Araujo A, Marcelino JC. 2003. The role of armadillos
Binford L. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. in the movement of archaeological materials: An experi-
Academics Press: New York. mental approach. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 18
Bocek B. 1986. Rodent ecology and burrowing behaviour: (4): 433–460.
Predicted effects on archaeological site formation. Ameri- Nowak RM, Paradiso JL. 1983. Walkers’ Mammals of the
can Antiquity 51: 589–603. World. Vol 1. 4th Edition. The John Hopkins University
Bocek B. 1992. The Jasper Ridge reexcavation experiment: Press: Baltimore and London.
Rates of artifact mixing by rodents. American Antiquity 57 Pierce CH. 1992. Effects of pocket gopher burrowing on
(2): 261–269. archaeological deposits: A simulation approach. Geoarch-
Cabrera A. 1968. Vegetación de la provincia de Buenos aeology 7(3): 185–208.
Aires. Flora de la provincia de Buenos Aires. Colección Cien- Politis G, Madrid P. 1988. Un hueso duro de roer: análisis
tífica 4(1): 101–120. preliminar de la tafonomía del sitio Laguna Tres Reyes 1
Cabrera A, Yepes J. 1940. Mamíferos Sudamericanos (Vida, (Pdo. de Adolfo Gonzáles Chaves, Pcia. de Buenos Aires).
Costumbre y Descripción). Vol II. Historia Natural Ediar, De Procesos, Contextos y Otros Huesos, N Ratto y A
Compañía Argentina de Editores: Buenos Aires. Haber (eds.). Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UBA: Buenos
Durán V. 1991. Estudios de perturbación por roedores del Aires; 29–44.
género Ctenomys en un sitio arqueológico experimental. Redford KH. 1985. Food habits of armadillos (Xenarthra:
Revista de Estudios Regionales 7: 7–31. Dasypodidae). In: The Evolution and Ecology of Armadil-
Erlandson JM. 1984. A case study in faunalturbation: Delin- los, Sloths and Vermilinguas, GG Montgomery (ed.).
eating the effects of the burrowing Pocket Gophers on the Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington and London;
distribution of archaeological materials. American Antiquity 429–437.
49(4): 785–790. Ringuelet RA. 1961. Rasgos fundamentales de la zoogeogra-
Flegenheimer N, Bayon C, Scabuzzo C, Mazzia N, Weitzel fía de la Argentina. Physis 22(63): 151–170.
C, Colombo M, Frontini R, Vecchi R. 2010. Early-Holo- Vizcaíno SF, Milne N. 2002. Structure and function in arma-
cene human skeletal remains from the Argentinean Pam- dillo limbs (Mammalia: Xenarthra: Dasypodidae). Journal
pas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 27: 10–12. of Zoology (London) 257: 117–127.
Fowler KD, Greenfield HJ, van Schalkwyk LO. 2004. The Vizcaíno SF, Pardiñas UF, Bargo MS. 1995. Distribución de
effects of burrowing activity on archaeological sites: los armadillos (Mammalia, Dasypodidae) en la Región
Ndondondwane, South Africa. Geoarchaeology 19: 441–470. pampeana (República Argentina) durante el Holoceno.
Frontini R. 2009. Nuevos Datos Sobre Los Efectos De Chae- Interpretación paleoambiental. Mastozoología Neotropical
tophractus Villosus (Dasypodidae) En Sitios Arqueológicos. 2(2): 149–166.
1er. Encuentro Latinoamericano de Zooarqueología. Uni- Weitzel C 2010. El estudio de los artefactos formatizados
versidad de los Andes: Bogotá, Columbia fracturados. Contribución a la comprensión del registro
Frontini R, Deschamps C. 2007. La actividad de Chaetophrac- arqueológico y las actividades humanas. Unpublished
tus villosus en sitios arqueológicos. El Guananco como caso PhD Dissertation. Universidad de Buenos Aires: Buenos
de estudio. Arqueología en Las Pampas, C Bayón, A Aires.
Wilkins K. 1989. Burrowing vertebrates and their Wood WR, DL Johnson 1978. A survey of disturbance pro-
role in archaeological site decay. Interdisciplinary cesses in archaeological site formation. Advances in Archaeo-
Workshop on the Physical-Chemical-Biological Pro- logical Method and Theory 1: 315–381
cesses Affecting Archaeological Sites, C Mathewson Zárate M, Bayón C, Flegenheimer N. 2009. Tiempo, paisaje
(Ed.). Contract Report EL-89-1: U.S. Army Engineer y ocupaciones humanas de la localidad El Guanaco,
Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi; Buenos Aires. IV Congreso Argentino de Cuaternario y
195–217. Geomorfología. La Plata 21 al 23 de septiembre.

Chaetophractus Villosus A Disturbing Age

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chaetophractus Villosus A Disturbing Age

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chaetophractus Villosus A Disturbing Age

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology

Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Chaetophractus villosus: A Disturbing

Introduction fossorial species, which spend most of their life under-

Figure 1. Localization of the localities studied.

Table 1. Modern Chaetophractus villosus burrows surveyed

Opening Sediment Presence

1 EG2 20 18 N CaCO3 Absent Absent

PM, Paso Mayor; EG2, El Guanaco Site 2.

Burrow N Remains Quantity Description Origin

R. Frontini and P. Escosteguy

Faunal remains 2 Bone fragments Indet.

C. villosus: A Disturbing Agent in Archaeological Contexts

Burrow N Remains Quantity Description Origin

17 Lithic 18 Pebbles Modern

Figure 4. Preservation of the archaeological materials collected.

Table 3. Materials recovered from the burrows at EG1 S1

Remains Quantity Description Origin

Lithic 2 Cores (1 OGSB and 1 from chert) Archaeological

Figure 6. Size of materials collected inside the burrows in EG1 S1.

Figure 7. Preservation of the archaeological materials recovered in EG1 S1.

References Pupio, MI González, N Flegenheimer, MM Frère (eds.).

You might also like

Burrow N Remains Quantity Description Origin

Burrow N Remains Quantity Description Origin