Primer contexto mortuorio del holoceno medio en la costa norte de Santa Cruz (Patagonia Argentina)

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

En esta comunicación se da a conocer el hallazgo de un contexto mortuorio denominado Punta Buque 3, ubicado en la localidad Punta Medanosa, provincia de Santa Cruz, Argentina. El sitio es un entierro en duna de un individuo adulto masculino. Una datación radiocarbónica directa lo sitúa cronológicamente en el Holoceno medio, por lo que representa el primer contexto de entierro datado para este momento en la costa norte de Santa Cruz. Se presentan las determinaciones de los estudios bioantropológicos, tafonómicos, geoquímicos de sedimentos y de isótopos estables de 5(13)C y 5(15)N. Esta información permitió inferir que el sitio corresponde a un entierro de un individuo quien hizo uso complementario de los ambientes costeros y del interior durante el Holoceno medio.

Translated abstract

In this communication a mortuary context denominated as Punta Buque 3, located in the locality of Punta Medanosa on Santa Cruz province, Argentina, is presented. The site is a burial of a male adult individual located within a dune. A direct radiocarbon date places the burial chronologically in the middle Holocene, which represents the first burial dated for this moment on the northern coast of Santa Cruz. Bioanthropological determinations, taphonomic studies, geochemical analysis of sediments and stable isotope of δ13C and δ15N are presented. This information allows us to infer that the site corresponds to a burial of an individual who made a complementary use of coastal and inland environments during the middle Holocene.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Quantitative Units and Terminology in Zooarchaeology

R. Lyman (1994)

Fifteen years ago Casteel and Grayson (1977) identified potential ambiguity in the definitions of quantitative terms and units used by zooarchaeologists. As solutions they suggested that analysts use the original definitions of terms and explicitly specify how units are counted. The history of zooarchaeology since then has involved a shift from producing estimates of taxonomic abundances to measuring various taphonomic processes and effects within taxa. As a result, many new quantitative units and terms for those units have been proposed. Some of these new units and terms have been used to measure properties of bone assemblages that are not clearly related to a taphonomic process or effect. Other units and terms have been used inappropriately due to apparent misunderstanding of the property measured by a unit or due to some assumed, implicit meaning of a term. The 112 terms compiled for this study have 122 distinct definitions. Some of the designated quantitative units are synonymous with one another while other units are used in ambiguous manners that seriously compromise their reliability. Explicit definitions of quantitative units and terms along with detailed descriptions of how individual units are measured are mandatory to the efficient communication of research results and the continued prosperity of zooarchaeological research.