Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and

spatial models in northern Patagonia

V Scheinsohn
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Instituto Nacional de Antropología y
Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires, Argentina
scheinso@mail.retina.ar

SD Matteucci
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas CONICET, Grupo de Ecología del Paisaje y Medio
Ambiente, Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
smatt@gepama.com.ar

Keywords
Landscape ecology, spatial modelling, landscape archaeology, Argentine, Patagonia

Abstract
In the context of a project framed on ecological landscape archaeology, a predictive model of site location is con-
structed from broad patterns of hunter-gatherer ecology (Binford 2001) applied to the specific environmental char-
acteristics of a sub-antarctic steppe-forest ecotone. Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and image
processing are used to model the location of archaeological sites in Comarca Andina del Paralelo 42º (parallel 42°
Andean region), northern Patagonia, Argentina. The model is tested against the spatial distribution of known ar-
chaeological sites, and shown to be a good predictor of site location. The methodology has wider application as a
means of minimising the cost of intensive field surveys in areas with poor archaeological visibility.

1 Introduction scape ecology (ie, Forman & Godron 1986) to archaeo-

Scheinsohn (2001) evaluated the potential that a land- logical research in Comarca Andina del Paralelo 42º

scape approach offers to archaeological research in (Parallel 42° Andean Region, CA42) at northwest

Patagonia. Within the field of landscape archaeology
there are two main theoretical perspectives pursued
today, and these are briefly outlined below. Of the two
approaches, the ecological perspective is arguably the
most productive in the context of the diversity of
Patagonian environments:
1 an ecological one, linked with a processual
approach, focused on regional settlement patterns
or land use (among others Camilli 1988; Kelly
1988; various papers in Rossignol & Wandsnider
1992; Russell 1995; Wandsnider 1998), claiming
that an occupational history is necessary in order
to separate landscape elements which attract or
hamper human use
2 a postprocessual perspective, centred on symbolic
landscape perception (among others Ashmore &
Knapp 1999; Bender 1993; Miller & Gleason 1994;
Tilley 1994;Yamin & Metheny 1996) mostly
developed in Europe and in the context of historical
archaeology research in the USA.
The research we are presenting here incorporates the
ecological perspective and is directed specifically to
applying concepts and methods developed in land-
Chubut Province and southwest Río Negro Province
in Argentinean Patagonia. Our study area is 370 km2
and is located in the ecotone between Patagonian
steppe and the narrow strip of Andean-Patagonian
subantarctic forests (Dimitri 1972). On slopes and
riverbanks mixed forest with grassland patches pre-
dominates. On the lowest and wetter zones, and around
lakes, there are mallines (wetlands composed of dense
gramineae grasslands) while in dryer sites, as the
steppe, vegetation is composed of shrubs. It is a gla-
cially modified landscape with deep lakes, V-shaped
valleys and moraine chains, that ranges between 1700
and 550 m above sea level. Mean annual temperature
is from 4–8 ºC and mean annual rainfall is around 2500
mm and 900 mm at the steppe border (Morello 1999).
This area posed serious problems to archaeologi-
cal research framed in this ecological view, due to its
low archaeological visibility. Archaeological visibility, as
defined by Schiffer et al (1978) is the potential that a
certain environment offers for detecting archaeologi-
cal materials. In a low visibility area where we are try-

Before Farming 2004/1 article 2 1

Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci
ing to detect archaeological sites that are unobtrusive
in the landscape, such as those of hunter-gatherers,
we face the most challenging conditions, especially
when the goal is to record all the variety of archaeo-
logical evidence in the landscape. As Upham has
pointed out ‘Hunting and gathering adaptations … re-
sult in much more ephemeral records of occupation
that easily are blurred or obscured by later human ac-
tivity, or simply by the passage of time’ (Upham
1988:245). Given this situation, we could simply ig-
nore the difficulties by asserting that forested areas
were not important for past hunter-gatherers, and there-
fore are not worth investigating. The growing record of
archaeological materials in Patagonian forested areas
(Belardi et al 1994; Cruz 1999; Borrero & Muñoz 1999;
Espinosa 2000; among the more recent ones) makes
this an intellectually indefensible position.
To deal with this problem of poor visibility, a re-
search strategy based on predictive modelling of
landscape use has been developed (Scheinsohn
2001) and the results allow us to assert that ar-
chaeological documentation (sensu Wandsnider &
Camilli 1992) substantially improves with intensive
survey. This paper puts forward the methodology
adopted to select the areas for intensive survey in
this forest/steppe ecotone. We apply biological
models designed to predict species location from
habitat conditions, and in this case the population
under investigation is Homo sapiens in the context
of the landscapes of Patagonia. In our ecologically
based behavioural model, environmental character-
istics will constitute a proxy for predicting areas of
past human activity. The model and its predictions
will then be compared against the known archaeo-
logical record of the region.
1.1 Landscape ecology and archaeology
The patch-matrix-corridor model developed in land-
scape ecology (Forman & Godron 1986) is directly
relevant for our Patagonian research area. A patch
is a surface area differing from its surroundings in
nature or appearance while a corridor is a long strip
that differs from the areas adjacent on both sides;
both are inserted in a matrix or background cover
type with the highest connectivity. The three spatial
elements form the landscape. Landscapes are di-
vided and connected by corridors that can be used
as routes for species movements. Human and ani-
mal movements are non-random and are affected
by landscape structure, which is the specific ar-
2 Before Farming 2004/1 article 2
rangement of spatial elements.
This kind of analysis is useful in areas like that
under study here, where circulation constraints are
important. Those constraints are represented by
rugged terrain, steep slopes, wetlands, closed for-
est, etc. Humans can combine various landscape
elements and take advantage of the heterogeneity
offered (Forman & Godron 1986:497). Heterogene-
ity is at its greatest in an ecotone like the steppe-
forest study area. Furthermore, the existence of an
heritable environment (Boyd & Richerson 1985),
where environmental modifications made by one
generation constrain decisions and learning of the
following, are of importance here given the high vis-
ibility of rock art sites and ‘site furniture’ (such as
ceramics and ground stone artefacts, see below).
As a result, the human occupation in this area could
have been concentrated in certain points of the land-
scape partly because of circulation constraints, but
also because of available facilities developed over
generations.
We are aware that our approach can be criti-
cised as being environmentally deterministic, but
we agree with van Leusen (Gaffney & van Leusen
1995:370) that by applying a model with these char-
acteristics to a dataset, ‘… one can eliminate envi-
ronmental patterning in the data leaving a clearer
view of whatever cultural factors may have influ-
enced the data’. Like taphonomic analysis, which
enables us to separate the natural and cultural proc-
esses affecting site formation, this ‘data cleaning’
exercise helps us to identify environmentally, as
opposed to culturally, derived spatial patterning.
On the practical side, our modelling also ad-
dresses the costs in time and labour needed to inten-
sively survey areas with poor archaeological visibil-
ity. The integration of GIS and image processing al-
lows us to select previously unexplored zones for sur-
vey, and to test our patch-matrix-corridor model.
1.2 GIS and archaeology
Although archaeological GIS utilisation began in the
1980s, it was not until the publication of Allen et al’s
(1990) seminal book that its application increased in a
steady way. At the very beginning, applications were
directed toward inventorying activities but it slowly be-
gan to be used to study locational human behaviour,
trying to establish the causes of settlement. In North
America, archaeologists rapidly adopted GIS, led by
the needs of cultural resource management (CRM),
 Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci
but in Europe the integration of GIS into research pro-
grammes followed at a slower pace.
Distinctive trends, both in Europe and in the USA,
can be identified in the development of archaeological
applications of GIS (Harris & Lock 1995).
1 CRM centred on the recording and management
of archaeological information. The initial adoption
was related to existing manual operations of site
recording. North American CRM now has a focus
on the predictive modelling of site location (Allen
et al 1990; Judge & Sebastian 1988; Kvamme
1999) while European concerns have been
focused on modelling the structure of the cultural
landscape, data structure and spatial and temporal
definitions of sites (Harris & Lock 1995). These
differences have a basis in the physical
characteristics of the archaeological records in the
two continents. European archaeology is
temporally and spatially more dense and varied
than the North American record, creating a more
complex cultural landscape (Harris & Lock 1995).
2 A spatial statistics tradition, firmly rooted in the USA
that evolved from the importance of predictive
modelling site location related to a processual
theoretical framework.
3 A landscape archaeology tradition which
dominates European archaeology. This approach
is defined by the concentration on cultural meaning
of the spatial relationships identified between
different landscape elements and is quite different
from landscape archaeology defined in terms of
landscape ecology as stated above.
One of the goals of this paper is the elaboration of a
predictive model, and our methodology is linked to the
traditions of modelling mentioned above. The main dif-
ference between our approach and those above is that
the latter were elaborated in an inductive way, by ex-
amining known archaeological sites in a region and
Number Name
1 Cerro Pintado
2 Campo Cifuentes
3 El Peñasco
4 Juncal de Calderón 1
5 Juncal de Calderón 2
6 Juncal de Calderón 3
7 Los Guanacos 1
8 Los Guanacos 2
9 Los Guanacos 3
10 Lili 2
11 Raimapu
Table 1 Archaeological sites in the study area (see also figure 5)
searching statistical relationships with environmental
characteristics. A deductive view, less frequent in the
literature, is the one used here, which starts from a
theoretical knowledge, in our case landscape ecology
and hunter-gatherer ecology, to predict site location.
1.3. Archaeology at CA42
Archaeological research in this area was initiated to
answer questions about Andean Patagonian forests’
role in past hunter-gatherers’ adaptive strategies. At
the start, the project was dedicated to the survey and
conservation of rock-art sites (among others Bellelli et
al 1998; Bellelli et al 2000 a, b; Podestá et al 2000).
Later, research was focused to the south of CA42 in
Cholila locality, where eleven archaeological sites and
many isolated artefacts were found (table 1). Six sites
were found on deflation surfaces corresponding to lithic
artefact concentrations (Los Guanacos 1 to 3 and
Juncal de Calderón 1 to 3, see Bellelli et al 2000 a, b)
and three others consist of rockshelters (Cerro Pintado,
Raimapu, El Peñasco, see Bellelli et al 2000 a, b). Only
one of the 11 sites was excavated, Cerro Pintado (CP).
This rockshelter is situated at an altitude of 650 m
above sea level. It contains a 95 m long panel of rock-
art. Radiocarbon dates from the excavated deposits
range from 1870±80 BP to 680 ±60 BP (Bellelli et al
2004). The typological characteristics of the rock art
imagery and artefacts from these sites suggest that
they belong to the same temporal span (Bellelli et al
2004). Rock-art and other archaeological material from
this area also show stylistic and technical similarities
to steppe sites and neighbouring forest sites of a com-
parable late Holocene age (Bellelli et al 2004).
Description
Stratified rockshelter with rock art
Burial, “chenque”
Rockshelter with rock art
Surface site
Surface site
Surface site
Surface site
Surface site
Surface site
Boulder with rock art
Rockshelter with rock art
Before Farming 2004/1 article 2 3
Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci
2 Behavioural models
To construct a predictive model of site distribution we
have started with two sources:
1 archaeological information available for late
Holocene Patagonia (Borrero 2001; Mena 1997;
Scheinsohn 2003; among others)
2 models that correlate climatic characteristics with
recent hunter-gatherer databases (Binford 2001).
During the last 3000 years, hunter-gatherers inhab-
ited this region. They had links with farmers on the
western side of the Cordillera, but cultigens on the
eastern side were not critical for subsistence (Mena
1997). Ceramics appear in the archaeological record
around 1000 BP. Ethnographically these inhabitants
were called Tehuelches Septentrionales (Casamiquela
1965; Escalada 1949).
The presence of Europeans affected hunter-gath-
erers in many ways, some of which show an archaeo-
logical expression. At the very beginning, Spanish set-
tlers in the Pampas did not thrive and they returned
home, abandoning their livestock to become cimarrón
(wild). Horse adoption, which began at this time, af-
fected in some degree all Patagonian populations
(Scheinsohn 2003). What North American anthropolo-
gists called the ‘horse complex’, had its expression in
South America with the introduction of European hab-
its related to the horse, coupled with new inventions
such as special kinds of saddles, stirrups and reins.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century a process
known as araucanización was started, by which
Mapuche people, who were originally settled in Chile,
began to influence those people settled at the east
side of the Cordillera, and by the eighteenth century
they had replaced the original inhabitants. Their influ-
ence was also felt to the southernmost part of the con-
tinent. Mapuches were horticulturists who were en-
gaged in weaving and metalworking and they control-
led horse-trading. By the sixteenth century, when wild
cattle became widespread, they adopted them as their
main staple. Between the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, when these wild cattle began to dwindle in
the pampas, Mapuches took their prey from the grow-
ing estancias (ranches) by means of malones (raids).
They kept some cattle and sold the rest in Chile to
acquire new products they needed. Finally, they were
defeated and effectively destroyed as a society by Ar-
gentinian troops. The survivors were converted into
rural workers.
In spite of the abundant ethnographic information
4 Before Farming 2004/1 article 2
available for Patagonian hunter-gatherers (cf Musters
1997; Cox 1999; Claraz 1988; among others), we de-
cided not to depend on it because of its unreliability as a
source of data for constructing our behavioural model.
First, the older chronicles were confused and not sys-
tematic in recording information. Certain indigenous
groups were named in many different ways and not cor-
responding to their own given ethnic names (Nacuzzi
1998). As Nacuzzi pointed out, many of the names of
various ethnic groups and their composition are under
scrutiny now. In addition, the more recent and detailed
chronicles were recorded after the adoption of the horse
which limits their projection onto the more distant past.
Second, as Borrero pointed out (2001), the known eth-
nographic classification masks the actual cultural vari-
ability that existed because it is applied to a context trans-
formed by European conquest. Most importantly, as
Borrero also stated, there is no formula to convert ar-
chaeological artefact classes into ethnical units (Borrero
2001). This is the reason which led us to follow Binford’s
(2001) proposal for theory building in hunter-gatherer
research. He designed a model of probable human re-
sponses to different environmental conditions based on
environmental data and recent hunter-gatherer
databases. According to his comparative analysis, we
should expect hunter-gatherers in this sub-antarctic re-
gion to have diets based on terrestrial animals, to be
highly mobile, to have developed techniques to reduce
mobility costs, and to use local material for housing and
transportation (Binford, 1990; 2001). More precisely,
given the climatic conditions, one would expect that
hunter-gatherers in this area relied for subsistence mostly
on hunting, which ought to represent 65% of the nutri-
tional input (Binford 2001). The main staples should have
been huemul and guanaco, which, in fact, were recorded
in many archaeological sites.
Huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) is the stoutest in-
digenous Cervidae, reaching a height of almost a me-
tre, from back to ground, and weighing 100 kg maxi-
mum. In summer it lives in higher rugged forested ar-
eas while in winter it moves downwards to areas with
Nothofagus forests. It is a solitary animal that some-
times forms family groups of three individuals (male,
female and offspring). In spite of these solitary habits
some chronicles record its abundance in our study area
(Moreno 1999).
Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) is an indigenous
Camelidae that lives in big herds in Patagonian steppe
and Andean foothills. It reaches 1.75 m in height and
 Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci
120 kg. It feeds on dry grasslands and mallines
(wetlands). It is a good climber that moves at ease in
rugged terrain. Historical chronicles record various
hunting techniques, including fire or dog enclosures
and horse persecution with bola stones as weapons
(Mengoni Goñalons 1995).
Given the available information regarding transpor-
tation technology, hunter-gatherers in this region can
be classified into two groups. Before 1500 AD, hunter-
gatherers travelled on foot (pedestrian hunter-gather-
ers, PH). This group possibly avoided dense forested
zones and wetlands because of difficulties for walk-
ing. They would have preferred slopes and avoided
rugged or stony terrain in order to save energy, and
minimise accidents. From the sixteenth century, with
the adoption of the horse in indigenous lifeways, this
animal was the main means of transport (equestrian
hunters or herders, EH). Mounted hunters would have
different requirements for circulation, such as wide
spaces to drive cattle, and lowlands or gentle slopes.
In spite of the lack of specific records of these hunter-
gatherers in our study area, the fact that they were
present in neighbouring areas justifies including them
in our study.
From Binford’s modelling (2001), we can point out
other hypothetical differences between these two kinds
of hunter-gatherers. PH would have high residential
mobility constituting a seminomadic pattern (Binford
1990). Housing investment should have been low and
they would have used local materials as well as
rockshelters and caves to that end. By contrast, EH
should have less residential mobility and, as a conse-
quence, a higher degree of logistical organisation. They
should plan their routes depending on grasslands for
cattle, and transport part of their food on the hoof. They
would have travelled longer distances with each move
of base camp, taking with them their housing, mostly
toldos (huts) made of wood poles and leather.
Thus, it is possible to define different kinds of
spaces fit to certain activities for each hunter-gatherer
group. We will consider as habitats the spaces that
have the physical and biotic conditions for those ac-
tivities. These habitats should have some overlap given
the structure of the landscape and resource availabil-
ity including grassland for game, horses and cattle.
For instance, planned hunting would have taken place
in the same places for PH and EH although the latter
would have been less constrained, given their trans-
port technology, and the fact they have part of the food
on the hoof, with themselves. Given the need to evalu-
ate the path to follow in terms of resources availability,
as well as the presence of other human groups, they
probably used high points in the landscape to retrieve
information related to other human groups, hunting,
etc. Also both groups would look for shelter from the
prevailing winds. All these aspects have been taken
into account to define habitat patches.
We also took into account differences in establish-
ing corridors for both kinds of hunter-gatherers. We
consider as corridors those elongated spaces that had
the required security and low cost conditions for long
distance circulation. PH can move on middle to gentle
slopes (operationally defined as less than 40º), on the
forest border and avoiding wetlands (mallines). By
contrast, EH can move in low terrain, relatively plain
and more open environments. From this simplified
behavioural model we choose relief, height, ground
cover, vegetation cover and prevailing winds as vari-
ables for building up the spatial model.
3 Methods and materials
3.1 Satellite image processing
Landsat 7 ETM were obtained for 12/8/2001, path 232,
row 089, furnished by CONAE (Comisión Nacional de
Actividades Espaciales = Argentinean National Com-
mission on Spatial Activities). All image processing was
carried out using IDRISI 32 software (Eastman 1999).
We made two colour composite images, one with
bands 1, 2 and 3 and another with bands 3, 4, 5, for
visualisation of bare surfaces, and of rivers and veg-
etation patches, respectively. The composite images
and each band were georegistered by linear resampling
employing four reference points taken from topographi-
cal charts in Gauss Krüger coordinates. Careful visual
comparison with ArcView 3.2 (ESRI 1996) verified that
the images overlapped exactly with a digital topo-
graphic map by observing coincidence of roads and
rivers.
3.2 Delimitation of habitat patches
We used three to five training sites per category to
obtain the spectral signature of the six cover classes,
digitising polygons on the composite images in field
surveyed areas. The land cover categories were:
1=deep water (lakes and rivers); 2=shallow water (shal-
low lakes, ravines and melting water); 3=bare ground
(rock cover or very dispersed vegetal covering);
4=closed forest ; 5=open forest ; 6=mallín (grasslands
Before Farming 2004/1 article 2 5
Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci

and wetlands with gramineae). We obtained a land enclosed by the 600 to 700 m above sea level contour
cover map through supervised classification using the lines. We proposed that this fringe was used by PH
maximum likelihood classifier. The land cover map vali- (pedestrian hunters) as corridors. Vector layers were
dation was made by contrasting map points with field rasterised, lakes were excluded from corridors, and a
data and landscape photographs recorded during field- buffer zone was added around them.
work on those points (Bellelli et al 2000b; Scheinsohn The spatial models for PH and EH were obtained
2001). The land cover of the field points was compared by overlaying the corridor and habitat layers with a sum
with the land cover map using the IDRISI ERRMAT option (habitat plus corridors).
module. The model showed an acceptable degree of
accuracy. 4 Results
By reclassification we have obtained a Boolean
4.1 Land cover
map in which 1 corresponds to habitat, and 0 to no-
Figure 1 shows open forest predominance (40% of
habitat, sites unfitted for subsistence human activities.
pixels). This category includes disturbed native forests
Onto this habitat layer we overlapped another contain-
that were invaded by exotic species as rosa mosqueta.
ing sighting points (isolated mountain tops and ranges,
Probably these areas were dense forests before west-
specially considering those oriented N-S) also with
ern colonisation. Bare ground, forming dispersed
value 1. They were digitised on screen using the topo-
patches, occupies 22% of the pixels. Compact areas
graphical map as backdrop with Carta Linx (Clark Labs
with bare ground are highlands, rock and surfaces
1998) and rasterised in IDRISI.
covered by very sparse steppe. Thus, dense and open
3.3 Delimitation of corridors forest (which in the past would have been made up of
A corridor represents hunter-gatherer circulation dense forest), and bare ground (rocky soils or stepped
spaces for long distance displacement and was de- slopes) is considered as no-habitat.
signed from the criteria established in the behavioural Mallines (22% of pixels) appear less fragmented.
model. The considered criteria were: terrain practica- They are ideal places for hunting and for cattle grazing.
bility, group safety (which led to avoidance of accident- This category along with shallow water and the deep-
prone terrain) and energetic costs. water coastlines were considered as habitat.
First we digitised on screen contour lines using
Carta Linx (Clark Labs, 1998) with a topographical
chart as a backdrop.
From this vector layer
we built a digital eleva-
tion model (DEM) and a
slope map, with IDRISI.
This map allowed dis-
carding pixels with slope
larger than 40º.
EH (equestrian
hunter) corridors were
built from the contour
line map, closing poly-
gons bordered by the
600 m above sea level
contour line, which is the
one that surrounded
relatively flat areas on
glacifluvial plains (Bellelli
et al 2000a). The same
procedure was then
used closing polygons Figure 1 Ground cover map. Cover thematic layer is represented with the digital elevation model (DEM)

6 Before Farming 2004/1 article 2

 Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci
4.2 Spatial models
Only 27% of pixels were classified as habitat or pre-
ferred area (figure 2). Most isolated pixels correspond
to shallow water rivers and streams, and were also
included as corridors. Most habitat pixels belong to
mallin patches.
The PH corridor (figure 3) is wide, occupying 29%
of pixels while the EH corridor (figure 4) occupies 25%.
The latter overlaps with big mallin patches so in EH
spatial model (figure 4), which results from habitat and
corridor layer overlaying, 40% of the pixels would have
archaeological potential. The PH spatial model (figure
3) shows a bigger extension, reaching 48% of the pixels
because there is no overlapping with mallin patches.
4.3 Contrasting the model
Validation was made by the CROSSTAB module from
IDRISI, which allows comparison of two variables, to
determine the concordance between known ar-
chaeological sites and habitat and spatial model pixels
(habitat plus corridor). In doing so we have generated
a known archaeological sites layer. From 11 archaeo-
logical sites found in previous works (figure 5, scale
problems do not allow graphic comparison), nine (82%)
were located on habitat pixels of the spatial model,
which show a high degree of concordance. Six of those
Figure 2 Habitat patches
sites (55%) are located in habitat patches, specifically
on mallin. The other five are in open forest, near mallin
or other water sources (percentage data comes from
applying cross tabulation which consists in counting
the coincidence between data from the point and data
from the pixels in which the point falls). Hunters would
go to the forest to hunt huemul or to find vegetal re-
sources as caña colihue (species of cane) frequently
mentioned in written chronicles as a material ideal for
spears. But these incursions would be short-lived, prob-
ably not leaving any archaeological signals.
There is only one site (Nº10 = Lili) completely iso-
lated and outside both of the spatial models. It is an
erratic boulder with rock paintings, and no artefacts.
This is the kind of site we could expect from those mak-
ing forest incursions.
Most of the sites coincide with the PH spatial model.
There is only one site on the EH spatial model, Nº 1,
which is Cerro Pintado. However, given its proximity to
the PH spatial model, there is no reason to consider
this site exclusively as an EH site. We differentiated
both models theoretically but recognising that actually
some overlap between the two should occur. Indeed,
materials found there did not substantiate that EH oc-
cupied it. This is the only dated site (see above), which
Before Farming 2004/1 article 2 7
Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci

Figure 3 PH (hunter-gatherers) spatial model. Obtained by overlapping of corridor (orange) with habitat patches

Figure 4 EH (equestrian hunters or herders) spatial model. Obtained by overlapping of corridor (green) with habitat patches.

8 Before Farming 2004/1 article 2

 Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci
shows that its occupation pre-dates horse adoption.
But the formation process characteristic of this site, with
very little sedimentation, supports the existence of a
palimpsest (Binford 1981:9), and probably recent and
older materials are mixed. In any case, it is located in a
zone that is surrounded by the PH spatial model (fig-
ure 5; table 1).
Apart from that, it is interesting that sites such
as those in Juncal de Calderón (figure 5: 4,5 & 6)
and in Los Guanacos (figure 5: 7,8 & 9) related
to the PH spatial model and not the EH spatial
model, although they are near the latter. In spite
of the absence of a neat differentiation between
PH and EH spatial models, both were effective in
terms of predictive capacity of actual archaeo-
logical sites.
5 Conclusions
The proposed spatial models (habitat and corridors)
are good predictors of known archaeological sites in
the steppe-forest ecotone. The models suggest the
need to look for archaeological materials in previously
unsurveyed zones (eg, Río Pedregoso) that present
good conditions as habitats and corridors. Future field-
work will allow further testing and refinement of the
Figure 5 Model testing. Habitat patches and both corridors (PH=orange; EH=green) are shown along with archaeological sites in black and
numbered as in table 1.
spatial models, and this methodology will enable us
to generate similar models in previously unstudied
zones within CA42. In addition, we can generate spa-
tial models for the main staples in the study area,
guanaco and huemul, from their past hypothesised
behaviour (Fernández in press). These models should
overlap those established for human hunter-gather-
ers, and other thematic layers related with other re-
sources, improving their predictive capacity, and sim-
plifying the study of archaeological materials in low
visibility areas.
Acknowledgements
To Fundación Antorchas, Argentina, that supported
part of this research. To CA42° Archaeological team
(Cristina Bellelli, Mariana Carballido, Pablo Fernández
and Mercedes Podestá) Jorge Morello and LuAnn
Wandsnider. Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la
Ciencia y la Técnica and CONICET (Argentina) are
funding archaeological research at CA42°.
References
Allen, KMS, Green, SW & Zubrow, EBW (eds) 1990.
Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Before Farming 2004/1 article 2 9
Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci
Ashmore, W & Knapp, AB (eds) 1999. Archaeologies
of Landscape. Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers
Belardi, J, Carballo Marina, M, Hernández Llosas, M &
Cepeda, H 1994. Arqueología del Bosque: el área
del lago Roca. Lago Argentino, Provincia de Santa
Cruz. Actas y Memorias del XI Congreso Nacional
de Arqueología Argentina, Segunda Parte, Revista
del Museo de Historia Natural XIV N° 1–4: 282–284.
Bellelli, C, Podestá, MM, Fernández, P, Scheinsohn,
V & Sánchez, D 1998. Imágenes para el futuro. Arte
rupestre patagónico, su registro y preservación en
la Comarca Andina del Paralelo 42º. Buenos Aires:
Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento
Latinoamericano. CD ROM publication.
Bellelli, C, Pereyra, FX, Fernández, PM, Scheinsohn,
V & Carballido, M 2000a. Aproximación
geoarqueológica del sector sur de la Comarca
Andina del Paralelo 42 (Cholila, Chubut). Revista
Cuaternario y Ciencias Ambientales Publicación
Especial, 4:15–21.
Bellelli, C, Scheinsohn, V, Fernández, P, Pereyra, F,
Podestá, M & Carballido, M 2000b. Arqueología de
la Comarca Andina del Paralelo 42. Localidad
Cholila. Primeros resultados. In Belardi, J, Carballo
Marina, F, Espinosa, S (eds) Desde el País de los
Gigantes. Perspectivas arqueológicas en Patagonia.
Río Gallegos:Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia
Austral:587–602.
Bellelli, C, Carballido, M, Fernández, P & Scheinsohn,
V 2004. El pasado entre las hojas. Nueva
información arqueológica del Noroeste de la
Provincia de Chubut, Argentina. Revista Werken
2004:25–42.
Bender, B (ed) 1993. Landscape Politics and
Perspectives. Providence: Berg.
Binford, L1981 Bones. Ancient Men and Modern Myths.
Academic Press: New York.
Binford, L 1990. Mobility, Housing and Environment: a
Comparative Study. Journal of Anthropological
Research 46(2):119–152.
Binford, L 2001. Constructing Frames of Reference.
An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory
Building Using Hunter-gatherer and Environmental
Data Sets. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Borrero, LA 2001. El poblamiento de la Patagonia.
Toldos, Milodones y Volcanes. Buenos Aires:
Editorial Emecé.
Borrero, LA & Muñoz, AS 1999. Tafonomía en el bosque
patagónico. Implicaciones para el estudio de su
explotación y uso por poblaciones humanas de
cazadores-recolectores. In Belardi, J, Fernández, P,
Goñi, R, Guráieb, A, De Nigris, M (eds) Soplando en
el Viento, Actas de las III Jornadas de Arqueología
de la Patagonia. Neuquén: Universidad Nacional del
Comahue/Instituto Nacional de Antropología y
Pensamiento Latinoamericano:43–56.
Boyd, R & Richerson, P 1985. Culture and the
Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
10 Before Farming 2004/1 article 2
Camilli, EL 1988. Interpreting Long-term Land-Use
Patterns from Archaeological Landscapes. American
Archeology 7(1):57–66.
Casamiquela, R 1965. Rectificaciones y ratificaciones
hacia una interpretación definitiva del panorama
etnológico de la Patagonia y área septentrional
adyacente. Cuadernos del Sur, Instituto de
Humanidades, Universidad Nacional del Sur.
Claraz, J 1988. Diario de viaje de exploración al
Chubut. Buenos Aires: Marymar.
Clark Labs 1998. Carta Linx: the spatial data builder.
Worcester: Clark University.
Cox, G 1999. Viaje en las rejiones septentrionales de
la Patagonia (1862–1863). Buenos Aires: Ediciones
El Elefante Blanco.
Cruz, I 1999. Estepa y bosque: paisjes actuales y
tafonomía en el noroeste de Santa Cruz. In Belardi,J,
Fernández, P, Goñi, R, Guráieb, A & De Nigris, M
(eds) Soplando en el Viento, Actas de las III Jornadas
de Arqueología de la Patagonia. Neuquén:
Universidad Nacional del Comahue/Instituto
Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento
Latinoamericano:303–318
Dimitri, M 1972. La región de los bosques andino-
patagónicos. Colección Científica 10, Buenos Aires:
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria.
Eastman, J 1999. IDRISI 32. Guide to GIS and Image
Processing. Worcester: Clark Labs, Clark University.
Escalada, F 1949. El complejo tehuelche. Estudios de
Etnografía patagónica. Buenos Aires: Editorial Coni.
Espinosa, S 2000. Los conjuntos artefactuales líticos
de la estepa y el bosque en el Parque Nacional Perito
Moreno (Santa Cruz, Argentina). In Belardi, J,
Carballo Marina, F, Espinosa, S (eds) Desde el País
de los Gigantes. Perspectivas Arqueológicas en
Patagonia. Río Gallegos: UNPA ,Tomo II:357–367.
ESRI 1996. Arc View GIS. Redlands: Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc.
Fernández, PM in press. The huemul (Hippocamelus
bisulcus) as a resource in the past: a case study in
Andean Patagonia. In: Barrientos, G, Gutiérrez, M,
Mengoni Goñalons, G, Miotti, L & Salemme, M (eds)
Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy in Argentina.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International
Series.
Forman, R & Godron, M 1986. Landscape Ecology.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gaffney, V & van Leusen, M 1995. Postscript – GIS,
environmental determinism and archaeology: a
parallel text. In Lock, G, Stancic, Z (eds) Archaeology
and Geographical Information Systems: A European
Perspective. London: Taylor & Francis:367–382.
Harris, T & Lock, G 1995. Toward an evaluation of GIS
in European archaeology: the past, present and
future of theory and applications. In Lock, G &
Stancic, Z (eds) Archaeology and Geographical
Information Systems: A European Perspective.
London: Taylor & Francis:349–366.
Judge, WJ & Sebastian, L (eds) 1988. Quantifying the
 Spaces and species: archaeology, landscape ecology and spatial models in Northern Patagonia: Scheinsohn & Matteucci
Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method,
and Application of Archaeological Predictive
Modeling. Denver : US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management Service Center.
Kelly, RL 1988. Hunter-gatherer Land Use and
Regional Geomorphology: Implications for
Archeological Survey. American Archeology 7(1):49–
57.
Kvamme, K 1999. Recent Directions and
Developments in Geographical Information Systems.
Journal of Archaeological Research, 7(2):153–201.
Mena, F 1997. Middle to Late Holocene Adaptations in
Patagonia. In McEwan, C, Borrero, L & Prieto, A (eds)
Patagonia. Natural History, Prehistory and
Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth.
London: British Museum Press.
Mengoni Goñalons, GL 1995. Importancia socio-
económica del guanaco en el periodo Precolombino.
In Puig, S (ed) Técnicas para el manejo del guanaco.
Grupo de Especialistas en Camélidos. Unión
Internacional de Conservación de la Naturaleza
(UICN).
Miller, N & Gleason, K (eds) 1994.The Archaeology of
Garden and Field. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Morello, J (ed) 1999. Ambiente Biológico-Ecológico,
Provincias Patagónicas. In Segundo Proyecto de
Asistencia Técnica para el Desarrollo del Sector
Minero Argentino (PASMA II). Ms report presented
to Lakefield Research.
Moreno, FP 1999. Apuntes preliminares sobre una
excursión al Neuquén, Río Negro, Chubut y Santa
Cruz. Buenos Aires: El Elefante Blanco.
Musters, G 1997. Vida entre los Patagones. Buenos
Aires: Ediciones El Elefante Blanco.
Nacuzzi, L 1998. Identidades impuestas. Tehuelches,
aucas y pampas en el norte de la Patagonia. Buenos
Aires: Sociedad Argentina de Antropología.
Podestá, M, Bellelli, C, Fernández, P, Carballido, M,
Scheinsohn, V & Paniquelli, M 2000. Arte rupestre
de la Comarca Andina del Paralelo 42º: un caso de
análisis regional para el manejo de recursos
culturales. In Podestá, MM & de Hoyos M (eds) Arte
en las Rocas, Arte Rupestre, Menhires y Piedras de
Colores en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Sociedad
Argentina de Antropología.
Rossignol, J & Wandsnider, L 1992. Space, Time and
Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Plenum
Press.
Russell, SC 1995. Geoarchaeological Perspectives on
Paleolandscapes and Regional Subsurface
Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 2(1):69–104.
Scheinsohn, V 2001. 2001: Odisea del Espacio.
Paisajes y distribuciones artefactuales en
arqueología, resultados y propuestas. Relaciones de
la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología XXVI:285–
301.
Scheinsohn, V 2003. Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in
South America. Annual Reviews of Anthropology
32:339–361.
Schiffer, MA, Sullivan A & Klinger T. 1978. The Design
of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10
(1):1–28.
Tilley, C 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape:
Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.
Upham, S 1988. Archaeological Visibility and the
Underclass of Southwestern Prehistory. American
Anitquity 53 (2):245–261
Wandsnider, L 1998. Landscape Element
Configuration, Lifespace, and Occupation History:
Ethnoarchaeological Observations and
Archaeological Applications. In Sullivan III, AP (ed)
Surface Archaeology Albuquerque:Univeristy of New
Mexico Press:21–39
Wandsnider, L & Camilli, E 1992.The Character of
Surface Archaeological Deposits and its Influence
on Survey Accuracy. Journal of Field Archaeology
19:169–188
Yamin, R & Metheny, KB (eds).1996. Landscape
Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American
Historical Landscape. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press.
Before Farming 2004/1 article 2 11