Preceramic Animal Utilization in the Central Peruvian Andes

Abstract

The analysis of animal bones recovered from preceramic period deposits at Uchcumachay Cave and other sites in the Puna of Junín has documented the development of an economy involving primary camelid utilization beginning around 5,500 B.C. and culminating with the appearance of domestic forms between 2,500 and 1,750 B.C. A model that can be used to explain this process in both the Puna of Junín and the Central Andes has been presented.

Did Humans Cause the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Mammalian Extinctions in South America in a Context of Shrinking Open Areas?

“…Besides, guanacos are fast, numerous, and have montane populations. In addition, there is evidence in the Andean region of early domestication of the guanacos (Pires Ferreira et al, 1976;F. Pujos, personal communication).…”

The pre‐Columbian dog from Arica, Chile

“…Certainly dogs are known in the Andean area as early as 6000 BP on the basis of radiocarbon dates Pires-Ferreira et al (1976) and perhaps 10,000 BP from Lauricocha cave in Peru and 11160 BP from Tagua-Tagua in Chile (Palma, 1969). Pictoral evidence as seen in geoglyphs and petroglyphs is quite late, probably within the last 2000 years, although it is extremely difficult to accurately date such art forms except by association.…”

Central questions in the domestication of plants and animals

“…Markers of animal domestication may also be found in plastic, nongenetically driven responses such as bone and tooth pathologies, evidence of pandemic disease, or chemical changes in the composition of bone and tooth enamel used to track changes in nutrition and the seasonal movement of managed animals. [45][46][47][48] The presence of corrals, pens, or other traces of animals, such as manure or hoof prints, in human settlements, changes in human settlement patterns, artifacts related to the exploitation of domestic animals (bits or milk churns and storage vessels), and even changes in food distribution patterns have been used with varying effect to build cases for animal domestication. 49 The application of these later plastic responses and cultural markers needs to be tempered by the realization that they may not be manifested in all instances of animal domestication or may result from other pressures unrelated to domestication.…”