This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Review

The exploitation of RHEIDAE in Pampa and Patagonia (Argentina) as recorded

by chroniclers, naturalists and voyagers
Mónica Salemme ⇑, Romina Frontini
Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC – CONICET), Bernardo Houssay 200, (V9410CAB) Ushuaia, Argentina

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Documents from chroniclers, naturalists and voyagers that traveled across the Pampas and Patagonia
Received 30 April 2011 (Argentina) between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries are analyzed with the aim of building mate-
Revision received 9 August 2011 rial expectations about the profit of Rheidae used by the historical known natives. This corpus of data is
Available online 19 September 2011
treated as a heuristic tool in the study of local hunter–gatherer’s archaeological sites, since bones and
eggshells of rheids are recorded in most of the Pampean and Patagonian archaeological contexts from
Keywords: early to late Holocene times. Although remains of specimens of this ostrich-like family conforms a small
Rheids
portion of the whole archaeofaunal assemblages, chronicler’s narratives describe an intensive and pref-
Hunter–gatherers
Written sources
erential use of the ñandú (rheas) by the natives. The proposal considers that it is possible to use the eth-
Archaeological record nohistorical record as a tool to generate material expectations by means of analogies, in the same way
Pampa that the ethnographical, ethnoarchaeological and experimental studies are used. However, difficulties
Patagonia appear when applying the ethnohistorical information to the archaeological record, considering that
those descriptions are involved in analytical categories related to the voyager’s historical and social
contexts.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
Physiographical and environmental features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
Biology and ethology of rheids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
Rheids in Pampa and Patagonia as seen in the documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
Rheids in the archaeological record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Interpretation and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Final remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482

Introduction mentioned in the chroniclers, naturalists and voyagers’ documents

and it has been recorded in archaeofaunal contexts dated since
Ñandúes – Rhea americana (Linné 1758) and Pterocnemia pen- 12,000 14C years ago, as well. Thus, the rheas have been interpreted
nata (D’Orbigny 1834) – are the largest sized, flightless birds that as an economic resource for the natives.
inhabit the Pampean and Patagonian regions. Its presence is The main goal of this contribution is to analyze the information
of rheids available in written sources, such as documents from
chroniclers, naturalists and voyagers that travelled across the Pam-
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +54 2901 430644. pas and Patagonia between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries,
E-mail addresses: msalemme@cadic-conicet.gob.ar (M. Salemme), frontiniromini with the purpose of contrasting this information with that of the
@gmail.com (R. Frontini). archaeological record. Though the use of written sources is limited,

0278-4165/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2011.08.001
 Author's personal copy

474 M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483

they are a useful heuristic tool for the analysis of hunter gatherer
societies since they offer data about certain aspects of societies
that rarely leave material evidence. This has been studied over dif-
ferent topics by many researchers (Salemme, 1987; Miotti, 1998;
Miotti and Marchionni, 2009; Bonomo, 2006; Prates, 2009; Thoms,
2008; Vecchi, 2005–2006, 2010).
The profitable use of rheids was analyzed in the documents as a
frequent and available resource; the different processing stages
from procurement to the final consumption and discard were de-
scribed. On this behalf, hypotheses on the material expectations
derived from Rheidae exploitation were formulated and then com-
pared with a selection of the regional archaeofaunal assemblages.
Finally, similarities and differences between documents and
archaeological data are stated and a discussion on the potential
of written data as a source of information for interpreting the
archaeological record is presented.
Physiographical and environmental features
Pampean and Patagonian regions have their own physiographic
characteristics that make them different from each other (Fig. 1).
The Pampean region (Lat. 34°–38°S) is a flat plain, intersected by
the hilly systems of the Tandilia and Ventania ranges which are
not higher than 1300 m a.s.l., with very productive soils for agricul-
ture and milder climates. The Patagonian region (Lat. 38°–55°S) is a

Fig. 1. Location map showing the regional distribution of Rhea americana and Pterocnemia pennata and the archaeological sites sutdies. 1. Tres Reyes 1; 2. Arroyo Seco 2; 3. El
Guanaco; 4. La Toma; 5. Paso Mayor; 6. Los Toldos, 7. Piedra Museo; 8. La María; 9. El Ceibo; 10. Cueva Maripe.
 Author's personal copy
M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483
high, semiarid plateau limited to the west by the Andean Cordillera
and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, in which cold and strong
winds blow almost permanently. Three stripes with particular
environmental characteristics should be considered in Patagonia
(Salemme and Miotti, 2008) such as the Andean ranges and their
piedmont areas – wet and forested –; the central plateaus which
bear unproductive soils, scarce tree vegetation, and finally, the
Atlantic Ocean coast, mainly cliffy and interrupted by sandy or
gravelly beaches.
Biology and ethology of rheids
Rheids are big flightless birds typical of South America; this
family has two extant genera, each one with only one species: Rhea
americana (the greater rhea) and Pterocnemia pennata (the lesser
rhea) (Fig. 2). They have several differences both in their morphol-
ogy and in the environmental requirements (Davies, 2002; Narosky
and Yzurieta, 2003; Tambussi and Acosta Hospitaleche, 2002).
One of the remarkable morphological aspects of this family is
the well developed legs, ending in three fingers; that is the reason
for being good runners, reaching a speed up to 60 km/hour. Though
being a flightless bird, its big wings contribute to balance the body
when running at full speed. Rhea americana can reach up to 1.4 m
tall whereas Pterocnemia pennata reaches less than 1 m in height.
They can weight between 15 and 30 kg, depending on the species
and the sex (Folch, 1992; Narosky and Yzurieta, 2003).
These flightless birds have an omnivorous diet, with roots, fruits
and leaves of a wide variety of plants, as well as insects and small
vertebrates. To look for food, rheids join other species – depending
on the area – like the Pampean deer or South American camelids
with the goal of being more efficient in detecting enemies from
long distances.
Spring is the reproduction season and each nest could shelter
between 1 and 30 eggs, from different females. As soon as the
reproduction period finishes, families become integrated by
youngsters and adults (Folch, 1992).
Rheids live exclusively in open plains and generally look for
places nearby rivers, lakes or ponds, where food is abundant (Folch,
1992). The ecological niche varies depending on the species and
Fig. 2. (A) Rhea americana in a Pampean landscape. (B) Pterocnemia pennata in a Patagonian.
475
relates to the environmental and climatic conditions, thus their
distributions in Argentina have to do with this fact (Fig. 1). The les-
ser rhea seems to be the ecological equivalent of the greater rhea in
more eremic environments. Lesser rhea lives in open vegetation
areas like the Patagonian steppe, under an arid-semiarid climate
with an annual precipitation of 200 mm. Presently they inhabit
along a cordilleran stripe and Patagonian regions. On the other
hand, the greater rhea inhabit in grasslands with sparse low bushes
and planted lands, under sub humid to sub arid climates, with an-
nual rainfalls between 500 and 1000 mm. At present, they live in
the central and northeastern sector of Argentina (Davies, 2002;
Narosky and Yzurieta, 2003; Tambussi and Acosta Hospitaleche,
2002). There is an ecotonal stripe across Northern Patagonia where
both species co-exist. However, the chorology of Rhea americana
had a farther south dispersal than the present one; in fact, records
of this species have been informed from Southern Patagonia
archaeological sites where it has coexisted with P. pennata and
extinguished mammals during the early Holocene (Cardich and
Miotti, 1983; Tambussi and Tonni, 1985; Miotti, 1998; Salemme
and Miotti, 1998). On the other hand, two records of Pterocnemia
pennata in the Pampean region from late Pleistocene levels have
been found in Paso Otero (Tonni and Laza, 1980) and Monte Herm-
oso (Tambussi and Acosta Hospitaleche, 2002), as well.
Materials and methods
The written sources, as a base to formulate hypotheses for inter-
preting the archaeological record, are used by means of analogies;
this is a way of reasoning that creates inferences about an unknown
property or phenomenon. It is based on a similarity, at least partial,
between the observed and the inferred (Lyman and O’Brien, 2001).
Analogy underlies the archaeological practice, since actualistic stud-
ies and the interpretation models are based on this procedure
(Ascher, 1961; Gifford-Gonzalez, 1991; Miotti and Marchionni,
2009). To use this kind of information, let Archaeology to overcome
the limitations of the material record in the analysis of the past soci-
eties, looking at living people (Vecchi, 2010).
In the case of Pampa and Patagonia, the documents of
chroniclers, naturalists and voyagers become a significant source
 Author's personal copy

476 M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483

of information because of the inexistence of human groups living

as hunter–gatherers in any of these regions today. Documents

Patagonian, living long periods among the

are highly valuable sources since they contain descriptions on cer-

European voyagers traveling through

tain aspects of the social dynamics difficult to get from the archae-
ological record exclusively. The comprehension of such aspects is
essential to understand the social organization of the natives, par-
ticularly in the case of certain practices that rarely have material
correlations, such as ideological implications in the hunting tech-
Jesuits’ expeditions

niques, preferences and choices in tool manufacture or in the preys

Military purposes
Military purposes
for consumption, the use of perishable raw materials, beliefs and
ceremonies, among others.
aborigines

Naturalist

Naturalist
Trip goals

The use of historical records in archaeological interpretation re-

quires a specific methodology due to several aspects. First, docu-
–

ments are influenced by the analytic categories of a particular

social context, as well as personal appraisements, therefore they
should not be assumed as an objective and absolute data. Second,
G. Musters (1964 [1869–1870])
D’Orbigny (1945 [1828–1829])

Moreno (1942 [1879–1880]) written information provides data in temporal and spatial scales
different from those offered by the archaeological remains;
Claraz (1988 [1865–1866])

Burmeister (1888 [1887])

whereas documents inform about many detailed events for the

De Loqui (1992 [1888])
Falkner (1910 [1745])

post contact centuries, archaeological remains could have a chro-

Lista (2006 [1879])

nological span of thousands of years, besides the averaged-time

Patagonia region

events (Lyman, 2003). Third, the profound modifications that af-

fected the hunter–gatherer societies after the contact with Euro-
pean conquerors led the natives to reorganize themselves
Name

socially and territorially, as well as to add new elements to their

–

culture: the horse (as food and transport), European tobacco and
alcoholic beverages, glass and guns. The new situation caused
European voyager traveling through several
regions and living long periods among the

changes in their way of life and those modifications were the ones
Recognition and exploration trip, with

described by the chroniclers analyzed in this paper.

Nineteen written sources were analyzed for both regions taking
into account the historical times when they were written and the
Discovering and exploration

goals of each trip or expedition. This database is a selection of

the most representative productions and includes only one contri-
bution by author (Table 1).
Jesuits’ expeditions

Mining supervisor

Military purposes
military purposes

Military engineer

The archaeofaunal data of rheids analyzed come either from a

selection of 10 sites studied by us, through the material record,
aborigines

and/or from the literature. They are from the Pampean and Patago-
Naturalist
Trip goals

Traveler

nian regions and have different chronology and environmental

Priest

Priest

conditions, so they become relevant for a profound discussion.

These sites are Arroyo Seco 2, El Guanaco 2, Paso Mayor YI S1, La-
guna Tres Reyes and La Toma in the Pampean region and Los Tol-
dos cave 3, Piedra Museo (AEP1), El Ceibo cave 7, La María cave
Armaignac (1974 [1874–1877])
Guinnard (1999 [1856–1859])

4, and Cave Maripe in Southern Patagonia (Fig. 1 and Tables 2

Darwin (1945 [1832–1833])

Ebelot (1968 [1876–1880])

and 3). NISP and MNI categories (in the sense of Grayson (1984)
Mc Cann (1939 [1847])

Zeballos (1960 [1881])

Schmidl (1944 [1535])

and Lyman (1994)). Since some of these sites (Piedra Museo AEP-
Cardiel (1930 [1748])
García (1910 [1822])

1, Los Toldos cave 3, Arroyo Seco 2) show reoccupation from the

Hux (1979 [1875])

early Holocene until the late Holocene, a comparative approach

Furlong (1938)
Pampa region

of the exploitation of rheids, not only at an intrasite level, but also

at a regional scale has been developed.
Name

Results

Rheids in Pampa and Patagonia as seen in the documents

Early 19th century to late 19th century
From mid-18th to early 19th centuries
Information on written sources analyzed.

Data gathered from the documents are presented in a compar-

ative analysis by region, considering a series of material expecta-
tions derived from different activities related to the procurement
and processing of rheids, with the goal of contrasting this informa-
tion with that from Pampean and Patagonian archaeological sites
End of 19th century

(Table 4).
The historical data collected for the Pampean and Patagonian
16th. century

regions presents qualitative differences in the descriptions. The

sources from Pampa, though more numerous, are less detailed in
Period
Table 1

describing some steps of the way of processing than those from

Patagonia. In this last case, data about primary and secondary
 Author's personal copy

M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483 477

Table 2
Taxonomic and anatomical representation of Rheidae at the Pampean sites studied.

Site Chronology Interpretation Taxon NISP NISP% MNI Specimens Egg Anthropic References
shells evidence
Arroyo Seco 2 Early Multiple activities R. 8 1.37 1 1 TT, 7 Ph Yes Thermal alteration Salemme (in
(AS2) Holocene and burials americana on egg-shells press)
Middle 1 0.21 1 1 TT Yes Thermal alteration
Holocene on egg-shells
Late Multiple activities Rheidae cf. 1 0.82 1 1 Tmt (juvenile) Yes No
Holocene Rhea
El Guanaco 2 Early Multiple activities R. 17 4 9 2 Ph; 2 ds Tmt; 12 ds TT; Yes Helicoidal Frontini and
(EG2) Holocene americana 1 ds Fe fracture; cut Picasso (2010)
marks; thermal
alteration on egg-
shells
Paso Mayor YI S1 Middle Multiple activities R. 3 1.69 3 2 Ph; 1 ds TT Yes Helicoidal fracture Bayón et al. (2010)
(PM YI S1) – NI Holocene americana
Laguna Tres Reyes Late Primary and R. 3 1.45 1 2 Ph; 1 ds TT Yes No Salemme and
(TR1) Holocene secondary americana Madrid (2007)
butchering/burials
La Toma (LT) Late Multiple activities R. 2 0.56 2 2 Ds TT Yes No Salemme (1987)
Holocene americana

Table 3
Taxonomical and anatomical representation of Rheidae at the Patagonian sites studied.

Site Chronology Interpretation Taxon NISP NISP% MNI Speciemns Egg Anthropic References
shells evidence
Los Toldos 3 (LT3) Early Multiple activities R. 2 0.21% 1 1 Tmt 1 ds TT Yes Cut marks/ Modified after
Holocene americana transversal Miotti, 1998
fracture
Rheidae 8 0.84% - 1V fragment; n/d No
fragmented long
bones
Late Multiple activities P. pennata 10 0.19% 3 1 ds n/d no
Holocene TT + fragmented
long bones. 3
feathers
cf. 15 n/d n/d s/d Yes Fragmented long
Pterocnemia bones
Piedra Museo
(AEP1) Early Specific activities: R. 31 8.61% 6 29 Ph, 1 ds Hum; 1 Yes Cutmarks Miotti (1998) and
Holocene kill and americana ds TT Salemme and
butchering site Miotti (1998)
P. pennata 6 1.7% 3 6 Ph Yes n/d
Middle Multiple activities P. pennata 1 n/d 1 1 Ph Yes Cutmarks
Holocene
Rheidae 4 n/d 1 1 V; 1 Rib; 2 Ph Yes
El Ceibo 7 (EC7) Early Workshop skin/ P. pennata 1 n/d 1 1 ds TT n/d Fractures; impact Miotti (1998)
Holocene prey consumption points; burned
bones
La María (LM) Middle Multiple activities 15 n/d n/d n/d n/d Yes Thermal alteration Miotti (1998)
Holocene in shell-eggs
Cueva Maripe Middle Multiple activities P. pennata 1 0.16% 1 1 Ph s/d No Miotti et al. (2007)
(CM) Holocene and Miotti and
Marchionni (2009)
Rheidae 1 0.16% – – Yes No

butchering, transportation, cooking and consumption are, instead,
well described. Chroniclers, naturalists and voyagers wrote about
the differential distribution of R. americana and P. pennata in the
Pampean and Patagonian regions, respectively and the morpholog-
ical differences were pointed out by some travelers (Darwin, 1945,
p. 129; Furlong, 1938, p. 30; Claraz, 1988, p. 49). They all agree that
rheids inhabited both regions until the nineteenth century and its
presence was frequent, being a resource usually exploited by the
natives they met.
For both regions, written sources coincide on the description of
procurement techniques (Table 4). People used several products
from rheids: meat, tendons, fat, marrow, blood, bones, skin, feath-
ers and eggs. Most of them were employed as food or raw material
to manufacture, containers for water or fat, and clothes. Feathers
not only were domestic articles but also an exchange item used
with the Spaniards.
Regarding processing, descriptions for the Pampean region are
scarce; it is only mentioned that preys were flayed in the same
place where hunted. Likewise the way of obtaining meat and stom-
ach pepsin was described; pepsin was employed to cure stomach
diseases. There are not records about the transportation of anatom-
ical pieces or about the primary or secondary dismemberment,
 478
Table 4
Information on the profit obtained from rheids available in written sources from Pampean and Patagonia regions.

Pampean region Patagonian region Material expectations

Presence Presence of ‘‘ñandú’’ together with Pampean deers, Presence of ‘‘ñandú’’ together with guanacos, nearby the
armadillos and partridges lakes
Cardiel ([1748] 1930, p. 256), Furlong (1938, p. 30), García Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 38, 66, 70, 73), Falkner
([1822] 1910, p. 133), Mc Cann ([1847] 1939, p. 43), and ([1746] 1910, p. 336, 337), and Musters ([1869] 1964, p.
Schmidl ([1535] 1944, p. 48, 51, 54) 111, 114)
Procurement
Place At the desert; on the road; at a natural trap. In basins Discarded anatomical units in kill sites, especially
natural traps
Armaignac ([1874–1877] 1974, p. 176–177), Darwin ([1833] Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 65)
1945, p. 126, 152), Hux ([1875] 1979, p. 128–129), and

M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483

Zeballos ([1879–1880] 1960, p. 93)
Season In Spring, In Autumm In Winter Without material correlates
Hux ([1875] 1979, p. 34, 128–129) and Zeballos ([1879– (D’Orbigny ([1826–1833] 1945, p. 789–794)
1880] 1960, p. 93)
Techniques and agents Communal hunting, with bola stones and horses Bola stones Presence of bola stones and dogs in the

Author's personal copy

archaeological contexts
Armaignac ([1874–1877] 1974, p. 176–177), Darwin ([1833] Burmeister (1888 [1887], p. 282), Claraz ([1865–1867]
1945, p. 126, 152), Guinnard ([1856] 1999, p. 62), Ebelot 1988, p. 133), D’Orbigny ([1826–1833] 1945, p. 703),
([1876–1880] 1968, p. 83, 135–136), Hux (1979 [1875], p. 34, and Falkner ([1746] 1910, p. 337)
128–129), and Zeballos (1960 [1879–1880], p. 93)
Use of dogs Two special bola stones called ‘‘chime’’, exclusively for
ñandú hunting
Guinnard ([1856] 1999, p. 62) Musters ([1869] 1964, p. 242).
Surrounding in a half circle, using bola stones, horses
and dogs
De Loqui ([1888] 1992), D’Orbigny ([1826–1833] 1945,
p. 789–794), and Lista ([1894] 2006, p. 122–123)
Hunting on foot
Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 73)
Quantity, age and sex of the preys Many ‘‘ñandúes’’ and broods A huge brood Bones of several rheid individuals of different sex
and age in the zooarchaeological assemblages
Zeballos ([1879–1880] 1960, p. 93) Claraz (1988 [1865–1867], p. 63)
A male A small brood
Darwin ([1833] 1945, p. 126, 152) Claraz (1988 [1865–1867], p. 57)
7 or 8 preys in only one hunting day Two females
Guinnard ([1856] 1999, p. 62) De Loqui (1992 [1888])
A male with brood A family of flightless birds
Ebelot ([1876–1880] 1968, p. 135–136) D’Orbigny (1945 [1826–1833], p. 789–794)
Three ‘‘ñandués’’ Six ‘‘ñandúes’’
Darwin ([1833] 1945, p. 154) Lista (2006 [1894], p. 122–123)
Butchering techniques
Ways of processing The ‘‘ñandúes’’ are filleted in the hunting place Evisceration and preparation of the prey in the hunting Evidence of butchering on bones, using lithic tools
place, to be transported entire
Guinnard ([1856] 1999, p. 62) De Loqui (1992 [1888]; sin pp)
Conditioning for cooking and consumption of the prey in
the hunting site.
Musters (1964 [1869], p. 98–99)
Products obtained Wings, picana and blood in the hunting place Meat, fat, picana, wings, maw, bowels, stomach pepsine, Wing bone remains in the kill sites
caruto, blood, testicle, liver, heart and marrow
Guinnard ([1856] 1999, p. 62) and Zeballos ([1879–1880] Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 63, 123) Bone of different anatomical units in the base
1960, p. 93–95) camps.
Delivery and transportation
Cooking and consumption
Meat
No information The parts were delivered depending on the role played Without material correlates
by each hunter: feathers, body from head to the sternum
and one leg were reserved for the hunter; the other one
was for his helper
Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988) and Musters ([1869] 1964, p.
97)
The spine is divided among everybody, especially among
women and children.
Musters ([1869] 1964, p. 132)
No information Meal called ‘‘tschatschki’’: stones are heated until be red Thermoaltered stones in the assemblages
and are put inside the body and then, they cook into the
fire
Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 63, 71, 85 and Musters
([1869] 1964, p. 98–99)

M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483

‘‘They cooked testicles on fire’’
Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 85)
He prepared a sausage with the liver, blood and fat
Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 127)

Author's personal copy

Eggs A hole is done in the upper section and it is arranged right in Cooking in hot ashes: the egg is arranged right with a Fragments of eggshells in the archaeological
a hearth, and the white and the yolk are mixed until cooked hole open in the upper end, then a branch is introduced contexts
to remove the yolk and the white, salt is added and it is
turned round to be cooked complete
Guinnard ([1856] 1999, p. 36) Musters ([1869] 1964, p. 113)
Other uses/other products used
Bones No information Used in child games Entire or broken bones in the archaeological
contexts
Burmeister ([1887] 1888, p. 282)
Tendons No information For sawing and tieing Pieces of tendon in the archaeological contexts
Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 79)
Skin No information For making bags. Only from the male when brooding Pieces of skin in the archaeological contexts
Claraz ([1865–1867] 1988, p. 117)
Feathers Used as ornaments Used in weapons Feathers or pieces of them in the archaeological
contexts
Used to make feather dusters to be sold to the Spaniards
Darwin ([1833] 1945, p. 98), Guinnard ([1856] 1999, p. 36),
and Mc Cann ([1847] 1939, p. 102))
Taboo
No information They do not eat the marrow of the thigh because the Without material correlates
bone is very fragile and children might break a member;
neither the tail or the cattle prod or the ends of the
wings, because the birds would escape, but they eat the
breast as a way to attract the ‘‘ñandú’’. The sector of
muscle close to the tendon in the leg, should not be
eaten because could provoke cramps
(Claraz [1865–1867]1988, p. 126)

479
 Author's personal copy
480 M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483
neither about the cooking of rheids. Instead, for the Patagonian re-
gion there are very detailed descriptions about the way of butcher-
ing and processing of the animals to be transported and regarding
their subsequent cooking (Table 4).
For the Pampean region, some documents refer to the consump-
tion of certain pieces in the procurement place, such as the wings
and the ‘‘cattle prod’’ besides the blood. For Patagonia, it is re-
ported that the distribution of the prey was socially established
(Table 4).
Regarding cooking and consumption, all the information comes
from Patagonian travelers; to cook the ñandú implied the prepara-
tion of ‘‘tschatschki’’. The roasted cooking of eggs is also narrated
(Table 4).
About consumption, documents point particularly to the prefer-
ence for meat and fat of the rheas and secondarily, for the liver and
maw. On the other hand, Claraz mentions the inner parts, the
wings, the ‘‘cattle prod’’ and the maw as the preferred ones. Also,
travelers like Musters (1964) mentioned the storage of grease from
rheids, considered especially palatable and finer and even more
delicate than that of guanaco (the South American camelid Lama
guanicoe).
Likewise, Claraz (1988) describes taboos related to some pieces
that could not be eaten by children; that had to do with the devel-
opment of hunting abilities. Several chroniclers related disadvan-
tages of slight illnesses because of eating certain parts of the
prey (Table 4).
Historical documents mention that the natives also consumed
eggs. It is referred that their consumption was particularly com-
mon among children and that the eggs were cooked on the fire
(Table 4).
Rheids in the archaeological record
The records of rheid remains in archaeological contexts have a
wide spatial and chronological distribution. Pampean and Patago-
nian sites with different radiocarbon datings (from the Pleisto-
cene-Holocene transition up to post European times) usually
contain bones and eggshell fragments, many of them showing
anthropic evidence (Salemme and Miotti, 1998; Belardi, 1999;
Fernández et al., 2001; Quintana and Mazzanti, 2001; Bonomo
et al., 2008; Fiore and Borella, 2010; Giardina, 2010; Prates and
Acosta Hospitaleche, 2010, among others).
The sites under analysis are mostly multicomponent sites and
ascribed to multiple activities, except the Lower Component of Pie-
dra Museo and El Ceibo cave 7, where specific activities were iden-
tified. The taxonomic composition and relative abundance of the
assemblages indicate that in most cases the elements of rheids
do not overpass 2% of the total NISP. El Guanaco 2 –in the Pampas
– is the only site with a higher representation (4%), whereas in Pie-
dra Museo (AEP-1), Patagonia, both species represent 9% of the fau-
nal sample. Regarding the skeletal representation, mainly
tibiotarsals and phalanges, and to a lesser extent tarsometatarsals
and humeri are the most frequent, that is, the appendicular skele-
ton. MNI varies between 1 and 2, except in El Guanaco 2 where 9
individuals were identified and AEP-1 with 11 individuals for both
components (Tables 2 and 3). These tendencies coincide with sev-
eral sites analyzed by other authors (Belardi, 1999; Fernández,
2000; Giardina, 2006, 2010).
Regional models on faunal resources point to this family as a
complementary/secondary resource, following the guanaco (Politis
and Salemme, 1990; Miotti and Salemme, 1999; Martínez and Gut-
iérrez, 2004; Gutiérrez and Martínez, 2008; Prates, 2009). In Pata-
gonia, during the 13,000–8500 years 14C BP interval, Rhea
americana and Pterocnemia pennata were exploited resources. Rhea
americana inhabited this region until 9000 years 14C BP; after that,
this niche was occupied definitively by Pterocnemia pennata (Tam-
bussi and Tonni, 1985; Salemme and Miotti, 1998; Miotti and
Salemme, 1999, 2005). In the Pampas, Rhea americana is the only
flightless bird species recorded in archaeofaunal contexts (Miotti
and Salemme, 1999; Frontini and Picasso, 2010).
Interpretation and discussion
As it was proposed, correlating the historical sources with the
archaeological data allows discussing the former value in the inter-
pretation of archaeological contexts. The archaeofaunal record is
more restricted in itself, so if written information is applied to this
kind of study, the comprehension of the archaeological assem-
blages enriches.
Undoubtedly, both records – archaeological and historical
sources – suggest the exploitation/use of rheids in Pampa and Pat-
agonia since the late Pleistocene until historical times. Several con-
siderations about the studied archaeofaunal contexts can be made
from the historical data presented:
a. The knowledge of the environment and how to take advan-
tage of it is demonstrated by the written sources. Sometimes
the landscape of archaeological sites coincides with those
described in the documents, particularly the ones related
to hunting and procurement activities. Among Patagonian
sites, the Lower Component of AEP1 reflects the place where
procurement activity took place. It has been characterized as
a logistical center, a place for specific activities – trapping,
slaughtering, dismembering, primary processing and reacti-
vation of lithic tools cutting edges – (Miotti et al., 1999; Mio-
tti and Cattáneo, 2003). Site function may be related to its
environmental and geographical surroundings, likely appro-
priate for trapping preys nearby the paleolake next to it. In
the Pampean Region, El Guanaco 2 could have functioned
in a similar way, because of the proximity of a small lake
(Frontini and Picasso, 2010), though it was interpreted as a
multiple activities site (Vecchi et al., 2007; Zárate et al.,
2010). In this sense, the use of natural areas to imprison
for hunting has been also suggested for the steppe of Tierra
del Fuego during the late Holocene (Santiago and Salemme,
2010).
b. The ethnographic record describes the use of bolas as weap-
ons, sometimes in groups of three bolas of similar size or one
smaller than the other two, for hunting different preys. This
seems to have been a useful technique particularly when
riding horses. But the use of European horses is limited to
the historical times and, consequently, cannot be applied
to the zooarchaeological record of Holocene times, since this
species was introduced during the sixteenth century. Then,
it must be assumed that hunting and transportation of preys
in pre-European times were made on foot. This situation
most likely had influenced either the time as the dynamics
of procurement and transport of the preys to the base camp.
The techniques for obtaining rheids might have included, be-
sides the use of bola stones, dogs. Bola stones are present in the
lithic contexts of La Toma site, Paso Mayor YI S1, Arroyo Seco 2,
Los Toldos and Cave Maripe (Cardich et al., 1977; Politis, 1987;
Miotti et al., 2007; Vecchi, 2010). Other weapons such as projectile
points or spear points are present in some of these contexts, which
may have been used, as well. Another resource to hunt rheas would
have been dogs; in fact, remains of these canids were recorded in
other Pampean and Patagonian sites (Prates et al., 2010). Miotti
(1998) suggested that canids might have been employed as helpers
for guanaco hunting. Recent actualistic studies demonstrated that
 Author's personal copy
M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483
dogs are employed for capture of lesser rhea, as well (Giardina,
2010).
c. The quantity of preys obtained in archaeological record
show an average of 2 preys of Rheidae in most sites (Tables
2 and 3). Exceptional cases are, in the Pampean region, El
Guanaco 2, where 9 individuals of Rhea americana were
recorded (Frontini and Picasso, 2010) and in Patagonia,
AEP-1 where MNI reaches 11 rheids (Salemme and Miotti,
1998). The explanation for the high number of individuals
in those sites could be related to the lacustrian environ-
ments. Actually, in Piedra Museo, the paleolake and some
temporary ponds close to the site are currently the wetter
place where guanacos and lesser rheas feed and drink. This
kind of places (see Section 3) is the ones preferred by the
rheas, as it is mentioned in the historical sources.
Other reason that may account for the accumulation of individ-
uals of the same species is, as Darwin described (1945 (1833), p.
155), the death of many animals, rheas among them, after a strong
hailstorm.1 For instance, a catastrophic event could have produced
the natural death leaving many dead individuals that could have
been used by hunters, as it has been interpreted for guanacos
(Belardi and Rindel, 2008).
d. Regarding the age of individuals represented in the archaeo-
logical record, adults are almost exclusively present. Only
one juvenile individual was recorded in the Arroyo Seco 2,
late Holocene occupation. The historical data indicates that
young as well as adult preys were obtained (Table 4).
Regarding the sex and age of the preys in the archaeological
samples, it has not been explored yet. If hips and skull
should behave as in mammals, sex and age could be identi-
fied, but they are not usually present in the contexts maybe
because of surviving conditions (Cruz and Elkin, 2003;
Fernández et al., 2001).
e. Voyagers observed how preys were butchered and shared in
the hunting place. The practice of sharing is difficult to check
in the archaeological record. However, the butchering into
small pieces leaves different marks that could be useful to
identify the activity of dismemberment or processing. Frac-
tures on fresh bone, cut marks and impact points demon-
strate the anthropic activities on the bones of several
studied sites (see Tables 2 and 3). In Los Toldos cave 3, a left
tarsometatarsal has cut marks close to the distal epiphysis,
and a flat transversal fracture (Miotti, 1998). In AEP1, some
phalanges show cut marks. In El Guanaco 2, four distal tibio-
tarsals have cut marks as well, and, in Paso Mayor, a tibiotar-
sal with intentional fracture was recovered. Long bone
fragmentation has been related to marrow extraction, and
eventually, to be used for tool manufacture instruments.
Written sources for Patagonia mention that the entire animal
was carried to the campsite, after conditioning; if this is the case,
thus, complete, or almost complete skeletons should be recorded
in the sites identified as base camps. Considering these descrip-
tions, it is herein stated that:
1
Durante la noche precedente había caído con tanta violencia granizo, tan grande
como manzanitas y de tanta dureza que habían matado gran número de animales
salvajes. Uno de los soldados había encontrado trece cadáveres de ciervos (. . .);
algunos minutos después de mi llegada, otro soldado trajo otros siete. Y yo sé
perfectamente que un hombre sin, sin la ayuda de los perros, no hubiera podido matar
siete ciervos ni en una semana. Los hombres afirmaban haber visto por lo menos
quince avestruces muertos (teníamos uno para comer) y agregaban que muchos otros
habían quedado ciegos.’’
481
e.1. Most of the studied sites were assigned to multiple activities
and base camps as it was mentioned before (Tables 2 and 3). In
all of them, the predominant elements of rheids are from the
appendicular skeleton, and particularly phalanges, tibiotarsals
and distal tarsometatarsals. This is explained by taphonomic
processes and bone mineral densities that might generate a dif-
ferential representation of elements (Fernández et al., 2001;
Cruz and Fernández, 2004) or by anthropic decision about selec-
tion and transportation of certain parts to the base camp. This is
important in the case of people moving on foot, whose decisions
had to be influenced by the prey size, the distance to the camp
and the desired products (Binford, 1981). The elements that
are usually present in the sites are those of high economic utility
(Giardina, 2006, 2010) but, on the other side, are those with a
high index of mineral bone density. Thus, an equifinality prob-
lem becomes since the material record of both factors are sim-
ilar, though the origins differ completely.
e.2. The profitable use, besides meat, could have influenced
the transportation of certain portions; for instance, tendons
from legs could have been employed to manufacture weap-
ons or to support bola stones.
f. Regarding consumption, chroniclers from Patagonia and
Pampa referred to certain parts of rheids consumed in the
same place where hunted; that is the case of smooth parts like
crop, liver and blood. The archaeological visibility of this
makes it a null record, impossible to visualize. For the Pampas,
consumption of wings and ‘‘cattle prod’’ in the hunting place
itself, should leave evidence there (kill sites) but its record
should not be expected in the base camps. In Patagonia,
though AEP1 Lower component has been identified as a pro-
curement site, the material record does not coincide with
the evidence mentioned in written sources. Long bones iden-
tified as Rheidae are too fragmented; as they have a high con-
tent of grease, their high fragmentation could be interpreted
as a strategy to get the marrow and process it for fat. Unfortu-
nately, the archaeological evidence is not definitive.
In Patagonia, descriptions of cooking rheids refer to a process
including warm stones inside the meat and the roast of the com-
plete prey into the fire. For this practice, the material correlation
should be thermoaltered stones and burnt bones, but in the studied
sites there is not this kind of record.
The gathering of eggs is another practice usually described by
chroniclers. Sometimes, the collecting is occasional and others be-
come a planned activity. The eggs were cooked in the fire, making a
hole in the upper part and moving the egg yolk; the only archaeo-
logical evidence is the fragmented egg shells in the assemblages.
Regarding this matter:
f.1. Eggshell fragments were recorded in most of the studied
sites, though the quantification and identification (sensu
Quintana, 2008; Apolinaire and Turnes, 2010) have not been
applied yet to the sites under study.
f.2. Some thermoaltered eggshell fragments were recovered in
El Guanaco 2 and in La María, and have been interpreted
as derived from cooking.
The record of eggshell fragments in the base camps has been
interpreted as a seasonality indicator. Since oviposit occurs during
spring, eggs are a predictable resource, as it is mentioned in the
written documents.
g. The references on feeding taboos in children are frequent in
the written sources for Patagonia; nonetheless, these taboos
do not necessarily have a material correlation or it should be
difficult to identify.
 Author's personal copy
482 M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483
h. The manufacture of tools on Rheidae bones is scarcely men-
tioned among the chroniclers and has not data from the
studied archaeological sites. Anyway, if bone were highly
modified to manufacture an instrument, maybe it would
be undifferentiated from those made on bone of other spe-
cies (like guanaco).
i. The use of the skin for dressing or for containers has been
mentioned by an informant in interviews published by
Priegue (2007), as well as the use of feathers as orna-
ments. Musters’ (1964) reference about the storage of
the fat from rheids is less detailed, but it is possible that
skin bags, similar to those mentioned by Miotti (1998, p.
232) were employed. Although the physical evidence of
this activity on perishable materials does not exist, maybe
indirect evidence such as cutmarks in certain skeletal
parts, or lithic scrapers allows inferring this kind of activ-
ity. Likewise, the three feathers recorded in Los Toldos
cave 3, would suggest its use in early Holocene times
(Cardich et al., 1973).
In summary, the archaeological sites herein presented (Tables
2 and 3) are all related to water sources – lakes, ponds, streams,
etc – where flightless birds should have been available, together
with other preys. Nevertheless, only two of them have been
interpreted as hunting places nearby a water source. The evi-
dence of the ñandú record differs among all these sites and it
likely has to do with their function and such record is not al-
ways comparable with data coming from chronicles or travelers’
diaries. Nonetheless, those sites provide enough evidence of how
rheids where exploited by natives.
Final remarks
The survey of data on written sources from chroniclers, voy-
agers and naturalists about the different stages of procurement
and processing of rheids allowed to generate material expecta-
tions on certain activities and/or uses derived from the hunting
of these flightless birds and to make correlations with the Pam-
pean and Patagonian zooarchaeological record, as well. All the
chronicles point at the rhea hunting as an activity of high inter-
est during historical times. However, the record of rheid remains
from the earliest archaeological deposits does not reflect this; it
poses the question if these species were an available or palatable
resource for the Pampean and Patagonian pre-European hunter–
gatherers. If the written information is checked with that from
the material record, several differences come out, and have var-
iable reasons:
1. The way of prey processing could have varied over time. While
documents give information on a restricted span of time, the
archaeological record represents long time scales.
2. Social decisions in the profitable use of certain species could
have changed, as well as the cultural material employed for
procurement, processing and consumption of these birds (like
the use of bola stones, horses, and dogs).
3. The interests of each voyager were devoted to certain demands,
and have differed among them; in consequence, their records
could have biases as well.
4. The lesser frequency of archaeological rheid bones can be aver-
aged by destruction processes that affected the assemblage
differentially.
5. The studied sites up to the present would not correspond with
those of procurement and hunting, where the material record of
rheids should be richer than in camp sites.
Further controls on different site types are necessary to test
new hypothesis about the profitable use of rheids in the economy
of archaeological Pampean and Patagonian hunter gatherers.
Acknowledgments
A shorter version of this paper was originally presented at the
11th ICAZ International Conference (2010). Cristina Bayón, Rodrigo
Vecchi and Fernando Santiago made valuable comments to a first
draft. Celeste Weitzel and Jorge Rabassa helped us with the English
version. Two anonymous reviewers contributed to improve the
manuscript. The ICAZ Organizing Committee supported partially
our attendance to the Conference in Paris. Projects ANPCyT PICT
0717 and PICT05-38096 supported this research. The authors are
the solely responsible for the ideas expressed herein.
References
Apolinaire, E., Turnes, L., 2010. Diferenciación específica de Rheidos a partir de
fragmentos de cáscara de huevo. Su aplicación en sitios arqueológicos del
Holoceno tardío. In: Berón, M., Luna, L., Bonomo, M., Montalvo, C., Aranda, C.,
Carrera Aizpitarte, M. (Eds.), Mamul Mapu. Pasado y Presente desde la
Arqueología Pampeana. Libros del Espinillo, Ayacucho, pp. 253–260.
Armaignac, H., 1974. [1869–1874]. Viaje por las pampas argentinas. EUDEBA.
Buenos Aires.
Ascher, R., 1961. Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 17, 317–325.
Bayón, C., Pupio, A., Frontini, R., Vecchi, R., Scabuzzo, C., 2010. Localidad
arqueológica de Paso Mayor: nuevos estudios 40 años después. Intersecciones
en Antropología 11, 115–128.
Belardi, J.B., 1999. Hay choiques en la terraza. Información tafonómica y primeras
implicaciones arqueofaunísticas para Patagonia. Arqueología 9, 163–186.
Belardi, J.B., Rindel, D., 2008. Taphonomic and archeological aspects of massive
mortality processes in guanaco (Lama guanicoe) caused by winter stress in
Southern Patagonia. Quaternary International 180 (1), 38–51.
Binford, L., 1981. Bones. Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, 315 pp.
Bonomo, M., 2006. Un acercamiento a la dimensión simbólica de la cultura material
en la región pampeana. Relaciones XXI, 89–116.
Bonomo, M., Leon, D., Turnes, L., Apolinaire, E., 2008. Nuevas investigaciones sobre
la ocupación prehispánica de la costa pampeana en el Holoceno tardío: el sitio
arqueológico Claromecó 1 (Partido de Tres Arroyos, Provincia de Buenos Aires).
Intersecciones en Antropología 9, 25–41.
Burmeister, C., 1888. Últimas exploraciones en Patagonia, incluyendo los datos
recogidos en sus viajes por el ingeniero ásale P. Bell, y seguido de un mapa
descriptivo. Revista de la Sociedad Geográfica Argentina VI, 193–272.
Cardich, A., Miotti, L., 1983. Recursos faunísticos en la economía de los cazadores-
recolectores de Los Toldos (provincia de Santa Cruz, Argentina). Relaciones XV,
145–157.
Cardich, A., Cardich, L., Hajduk, A., 1973. Secuencia arqueológica y cronología
radiocarbónica de la Cueva 3 de Los Toldos (Santa Cruz, Argentina). Relaciones
7, 87–122.
Cardich, A., Tonni, E.P., Kriscautzky, N., 1977. Presencia de Canis familiaris en restos
arqueológicos de Los Toldos (provincia de Santa Cuz, Argentina. Relaciones XI,
115–119.
Cardiel, J., 1930. [1748]. Misión al Río del Sauce. Publicaciones del Instituto de
Investigaciones Geográficas, Serie A. Memorias originales y Documentos, 13.
Facultad Filosofía y Letras, Buenos Aires.
Claraz, J., 1988. [1865–1866]. Diario de viaje de exploración al Chubut, 1865–1866.
Marymar.
Cruz, I., Elkin, D., 2003. Structural Bone Density of the Lesser Rhea (Pterocnemia
pennata) (Aves:Rheidae). Taphonomic and Archaeological Implications. Journal
of Archaeological Science 30, 33–47.
Cruz, I., Fernández, P.M., 2004. Comprendiendo el pasado: Avances en tafonomía de
Rheidos. 1° Congreso Latinoamericano sobre Conservación y Cría Comercial de
Ñandúes – Congreso virtual organized by INTA-Cocina de la Tierra-
Rheacultura.com.ar.
D’Orbigny, A., 1945. [1828–1829]. Viaje a la América Meridional. Editorial Futuro,
Buenos Aires.
Darwin, Ch., 1945. [1832–1833].Viaje de un naturalista alrededor del mundo. El
Ateneo, Buenos Aires.
Davies, S.J.J.F., 2002. Ratites and Tinamous. Bird Families of the World, vol. 8. Oxford
University Press.
De Loqui, T., 1992. [1888]. Una expedición al Cabo Vírgenes. Marymar, Buenos Aires.
Ebelot, A., 1968. [1876–1880]. Recuerdos y relatos de la guerra de fronteras. Plus
Ultra, Buenos Aires.
Falkner, Th., 1910. [1745]. Descripción de Patagonia y de las partes adyacentes de la
América Meridional. In: De Angelis, P. (Ed.), Colección de Obras y Documentos
relativos a la Historia Antigua y Moderna de las provincias del Rio de la Plata,
vol. I. Buenos Aires.
 Author's personal copy
M. Salemme, R. Frontini / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 473–483
Fernández, P.M., 2000. Rendido a tus pies: acerca de la composición anatómica de
los conjuntos arqueofaunísticos con restos de Rheiformes de Pampa y
Patagonia. In: Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (Ed.), Desde el
país de los gigantes. Perspectivas arqueológicas en Patagonia II, Río Gallegos, pp.
573–586.
Fernández, P.M., Cruz, I., Elkin, D., 2001. Densidad mineral ósea de Pterocnemia
pennata (Aves:Rheidae). Una herramienta para evaluar frecuencias anatómicas
en sitios arqueológicos. Relaciones XXVI, 243–260.
Fiore, D., Borella, F., 2010. Geometrías delicadas: Diseños grabados en cáscaras de
huevo de Rheidae recuperados en la costa norte del Golfo San Matías, Río Negro.
Intersecciones en Antropología 11 (2), 277–293.
Folch, A., 1992. Order Struthioniformes. In: del Hoyo, J., Elliot, A., Sargatal, J. (Eds.),
Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 1. Ostrich to Ducks. Lynx Edit.
Barcelona, pp. 75–110.
Frontini, R., Picasso, M., 2010. Aprovechamiento de Rhea americana en la localidad
arqueológica El Guanaco. In: Gutiérrez, M.A., De Nigris, M., Fernández, P.M.,
Giardina, M., Gil, A., Izeta, A., Neme, G., Yacobaccio, H. (Eds.), Zooarqueología a
principios del siglo, vol. XXI. Ediciones del Espinillo, pp. 563–574.
Furlong, G., 1938. Entre los Pampas de Buenos Aires. Talleres Gráficos San Pablo,
Buenos Aires.
García, P.A., 1910. [1822]. Diario de la expedición de 1822 á los campos del Sud de
Buenos Aires desde Morón hasta la Sierra de la Ventana al mando del coronel
Don Pedro Andrés García con las observaciones, descripciones y demás trabajos
científicos egecutados por el Oficial de Ingenieros Don José María de los Reyes.
In: De Angelis, P. (Ed.), Colección de obras y documentos relativos á la antigua y
moderna de las Provincias del Río de la Plata, vol. IV. Buenos Aires, pp. 69–186.
Giardina, M.A., 2006. Anatomía económica de Rheidae. Intersecciones en
Antropología 7, 263–276.
Giardina, M.A., 2010. El aprovechamiento de la avifauna entre las sociedades cazadoras-
recolectoras del sur de Mendoza: un enfoque arqueozoológico. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de la Plata.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D., 1991. Bones are not enough: analogues, knowledge and
interpretative strategies in zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 10, 215–254.
Grayson, D. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Inc. 202 pages.
Guinnard, A., 1999. [1856–1859]. Tres años de cautividad entre los patagones. El
Elefante Blanco, Buenos Aires.
Gutiérrez, M.A., Martínez, G.A., 2008. Trends in the faunal human exploitation
during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in the Pampean region
(Argentina). Quaternary International 191, 53–68.
Hux, M., 1979. [1875]. Una excursión apostólica del Padre Salvaire a Salinas
Grandes. Ediciones Culturales Argentinas, Buenos Aires.
Lista, R., 2006. [1879]. Los indios Tehuelches. Una raza que desaparece. Ediciones
Continente, Buenos Aires.
Lyman, R.L., 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press.
Lyman, R.L., 2003. The influence of time averaging and space averaging on the
application of foraging theory in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological
Science 30, 595–610.
Lyman, R.L., O’Brien, M.J., 2001. The direct historical approach, analogical reasoning,
and theory in Americanist archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 8 (4), 303–342.
Martínez, G., Gutiérrez, M.A., 2004. Tendencias en la explotación humana de la
fauna durante el Pleistoceno final – Holoceno en la Región Pampeana
(Argentina). In: Mengoni Goñalons, G. (Ed.), Zooarchaeology of South America.
BAR International Series, Oxford, pp. 81–98.
Mc Cann, W., 1939. [1847]. Viaje a caballo por las provincias argentinas. Hachette,
Buenos Aires.
Miotti, L., 1998. Zooarqueología de la Meseta Central de Santa Cruz. Un enfoque de
las estrategias adaptativas aborígenes y los paleoambientes. Museo Municipal
de Historia Natural, San Rafael, Mendoza.
Miotti, L., Cattáneo, R., 2003. Variations in strategies of lithic production and faunal
exploitation in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition at Piedra Museo and
surrounding region. In: L. Miotti, Salemme, M., Flegenheimer, N. (Eds.), Where
the south winds blow: Ancient evidence of Paleo South Americans. Center for
the Study of First Americans and Texas A&M University Press, pp. 105–112.
Miotti, L., Marchionni, L., 2009. Procesando huesos: entre la Arqueología y la
Etnografía. In: Salemme, M., Santiago, F., Alvarez, A., Piana, E., Vazquez. M.,
Mansur, M.E. (Eds.), Arqueología de la Patagonia: una mirada desde el último
confín, vol. 2. Utopías, Ushuaia, pp. 787–797.
Miotti, L., Salemme, M., 1999. Biodiversity, taxonomic richness and specialists-
generalists Turing Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene times in Pampa and
Patagonia (Argentina, Southern South America). Quaternary International 53
(54), 53–68.
Miotti, L., Salemme, M., 2005. Hunting and butchering events at Late Pleistocene
and Early Holocene in Piedra Museo (Patagonia, Southernmost South America).
In: Bonnichsen, R., Lepper, B., Stanford, D., Waters, M. (Eds.), Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis. Center for the Study of First Americans and Texas A&M
University Press, pp. 210–218.
Miotti, L.L., Vázquez, M., Hermo, D., 1999. Piedra Museo: un Yamnagoo
pleistocénico en la colonización de la Meseta de Santa Cruz. Estudio de la
arqueofauna. In: Rafael Goñi (Ed.), Soplando en el viento. Universidad Nacional
del Comahue and Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento
Latinoamericano. Neuquén-Buenos Aires, pp. 113–136.
Miotti, L., Hermo, D., Magnin, L., Carden, N., Marchionni, L., Alcaraz, A., Mosquera, B.,
Terranova, E., Salemme, M., 2007. Resolución e integridad arqueológica de la
483
Cueva Maripe (Santa Cruz, Argentina). In: Morello, F., Martinic, M., Prieto, A.,
Bahamonde, G., Arqueología de Fuego-Patagonia. Levantando piedras,
desenterrando huesos... y develando arcanos. Ediciones CEQUA. Punta Arenas,
pp. 555–567.
Moreno, F.P., 1879. Viaje a la Patagonia Austral, emprendido bajo los auspicios del
Gobierno Nacional. Buenos Aires, pp. 1876–1877.
Musters, G., 1964. [1869–1870]. Vida entre los patagones. Un año de excursiones
por tierras no frecuentadas desde el Estrecho de Magallanes hasta el Río Negro.
Solar/Hachette, Buenos Aires.
Narosky, T., Yzurieta, D., 2003. Guía para la identificación de las aves de Argentina y
Uruguay. Edición de Oro. Vázquez Mazzini Editores.
Politis, G., 1987. Investigaciones arqueológicas en el Área Interserrana Bonaerense.
Etnía. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Museo Dámaso Arce,
Olavarría, pp. 7–52.
Politis, G., Salemme, M., 1990. Prehispanic mammal exploitation in the eastern
Pampa Subregion (Argentina). In: Davis, L.B., Reeves, B.O.K. (Eds.), Hunters of
the Recent Past. One World Archaeology series. Unwin Hyman, pp. 352-372.
Prates, L., 2009. El uso de recursos por los cazadores-recolectores posthispánicos de
Patagonia continental y su importancia arqueológica. Revista Relaciones 34,
201–230.
Prates, L., Acosta Hospitaleche, C., 2010. Las aves de sitios arqueológicos del
Holoceno tardío de Norpatagonia, Argentina.Los sitios Negro Muerto y
Angostura 1 (Río Negro). Archaeofauna 19, 7–18.
Prates, L., Prevosti, F., Berón, M., 2010. First records of prehispanic dogs in Southern
South America (Pampa-Patagonia, Argentina). Current Anthropology 51 (2),
273–280.
Priegue, M.C., 2007. La memoria de los abuelos. Historia de Vida de Luisa Pascual,
Tehuelche. Publiteck, Bahía Blanca.
Quintana, C., 2008. Cálculo del número mínimo de individuos de huevos de ñandú.
Intersecciones en Antropología 9, 93–97.
Quintana, C., Mazzanti, D. 2001. Selección y aprovechamiento de recursos
faunísticos. In: Mazzanti, D., Quintana, C. (Eds.), Cueva Tixi: Cazadores y
recolectores de las Sierras de Tandilia Oriental. 1 Geología, Paleontología y
Zooarqueología. Publicación Especial No. 1. Laboratorio de Arqueología,
Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina, pp. 181–209.
Salemme, M., 1987. Paleoetnozoología del sector bonaerense de la región
Pampeana, con especial atención a los mamíferos. Ph.D. Dissertation, Facultad
de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 297 pp.
Salemme, M., in press. Zooarqueología y paleoambientes en la Región Pampeana:
Arroyo Seco Sitio 2. In: Politis, G., Gutiérrez, M.A., Scabuzzo, C. (Eds.), Estado
actual de las investigaciones en el sitio Arroyo Seco 2 (Partido de Tres Arroyos,
provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina), Serie Monográfica del INCUAPA Nro. 5.
UNICEN. Olavarría. 2008.
Salemme, M., Madrid, P., 2007. The archaeofaunas from Laguna Tres Reyes Site 1:
Taxonomic richness and abundance during the beginning of the Late Holocene
in South-east Pampean region (Argentina). In: Gutierrez, M., Miotti, L.,
Barrientos, G., Mengoni Goñalons, G., Salemme, M. (Eds.), Taphonomy and
Zooarchaeology in Argentina. BAR International Series 1601, pp. 121–142.
Salemme, M., Miotti, L., 1998. The status of Rheids in Patagonia: environmental
approach and economic interpretation during the late pleistocene/early
Holocene transition. In: 8° International Conference of Archaeozoology, ICAZ,
Abstracts: 249. Victoria (Canadá).
Salemme, M., Miotti, L., 2008. Archeological Hunter–Gatherer Landscapes since the
Latest Pleistocene in Fuego-Patagonia. In: Rabassa, J. (Ed.), Late Cenozoic in
Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, Developments in Quaternary Sciences, vol. 11.
Elsevier, pp. 437–483.
Santiago, F., Salemme, M., 2010. A Guanaco kill site in Tierra del Fuego, Argentina.
The case of Las Vueltas 1. Before Farming, 2010/2.
Schmidl, U., 1944. [1535]. Derrotero y viaje a España y las Indias. Espasa Calpe
Argentina.
Tambussi, C., Acosta Hospitaleche, C., 2002. Rheidos (Aves) cuaternarios de
Argentina: inferencias paleoambientales. Ameghiniana 39 (1), 95–102.
Tambussi, C., Tonni, P., 1985. Aves del sitio arqueológico Los Toldos, cañadón de las
Cuevas, Provincia de Santa Cruz (República Argentina). Ameghiniana 22 (1–2),
69–74.
Thoms, A.V., 2008. The fire stones carry: ethnographic records and archaeological
expectations for hot-rock cookery in western North America. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 27, 443–460.
Tonni, E., Laza, J., 1980. Las aves de la Fauna local Paso Otero (Pleistoceno tardío) de
la provincia de Buenos Aires. Su significación ecológica, climática y
zoogeográfica. Ameghiniana XVII (4), 313–322.
Vecchi, R., 2005–2006. El uso de las boleadoras en fuentes documentales de Pampa
y Patagonia (s. XVI–XIX). Arqueología 13, 213–240 (Instituto de Arqueología,
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires0.
Vecchi, R., 2010. Bolas de boleadora en los grupos cazadores – recolectores de la
Pampa bonaerense. Ph.D. Dissertation. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras.
Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Vecchi, R., Colombo, M., Frontini, R., Mazzia, N., Bayón, C., 2007. Nuevas evidencias
arqueológicas en la localidad El Guanaco (partido de San Cayetano, provincia de
Buenos Aires). Presentation at XVI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina.
San Salvador de Jujuy, Jujuy, Argentina.
Zárate, M., Bayón, C., Flegenheimer, N., 2010. Tiempo, paisaje y ocupaciones
humanas de la localidad arqueológica El Guanaco – Buenos Aires. IV Congreso
Argentino de Cuaternario y Geomorfología, Abstracts: 258. La Plata.
Zeballos, E., 1960. [1881]. Viaje al país de los araucanos. Librería Hachette S.A.
Buenos Aires.