Search

A biogeographic model used to describe human peopling of southern Mendoza, central western Argentina, proposed an intensification process activated by an increase in population growth rate during the Late Holocene. During this process, high‐ranked resources at the surroundings of residential camps were depleted, and hunter–gatherers broadened their diet by incorporating a larger number of low‐ranked prey and domesticated plant resources. In this paper, we evaluate an alternative hypothesis, focusing on zooarchaeological data from the Diamante River basin. The results show that faunal resource intensification does not appear to have occurred in the Diamante River basin during the Late Holocene. Faunal consumption in Diamante River basin mainly reflects the local fauna in each ecological zone. The data do not show a lack of higher ranked resources. We suggest it is more likely that the demographic increase was not significant enough to cause an impact on the faunal resources. The archaeological evidence should be improved and analysed in smaller scales to continue with the intensification debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research on intensification in hunter gatherer strategies from Central West Argentina ca. 2000 years BP states that human demographic packing and overhunting of guanacos ( Lama guanicoe ) may have caused resource depression of this large prey animal. As a result, people broadened their diet to include smaller prey animals. Evidence supporting this conclusion includes an increase in Shannon's Diversity Index and a decrease in the abundance of artiodactyl remains over time in southern Mendoza. However, these studies about change in diet breadth did not consider the importance of spatial scale on analysis of prey choice and diet breadth and used the entire region as a unit of analysis. This is problematic because southern Mendoza has a heterogeneous landscape. In this paper we analyze different faunal abundance indices considering different spatial scales and the representativeness of the zooarchaeological samples. The results of the analyses show distinctive patterns of resource use over time at the macro- and subregional scales. Some of the difference can be explained by environmental differences between subregions and others might relate to differences in sample representativeness between subregions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]