The role of armadillos in the movement of archaeological materials: An experimental approach

Abstract

Armadillos are medium-sized animals whose burrowing behavior can be significant in archaeological settings ranging from South America to the central United States. Although archaeologists are well aware that these animals can move archaeological materials across stratigraphic layers, few data are available about the magnitude of mixing, number of burrows per individual, dimension of burrows, and their impact on archaeological sites. This paper addresses the problem from an experimental perspective. Specifically, we monitored the action of the yellow armadillo (Euphractus sexcintus) in translocating cultural materials. Our results suggest that: (1) the vertical movement of artifacts has no preferential direction; (2) cultural horizons at least 20 cm apart can be mixed; (3) the animal's activity leaves some distinct traces that can be recognized during an excavation; and (4) there is no significant correlation between size, shape, or weight of artifacts and amount of displacement. ᭧

The role of small carnivores in the movement of bones: implications for the Pampas archaeofaunal record, Argentina

“…The climate is temperate and rainfall occurs mainly from spring (September) to autumn (March), with a maximum of 112 mm in February and a minimum of 45 mm in August (Stutz et al 2010). Excluding the livestock, the most abundant terrestrial mammals are small-sized species (e.g., Cavia sp., Ctenomys sp., Holochilus sp., and Monodelphis sp., <1 kg) (Massoia et al 2000;Gómez Villafañe et al 2005); however, there are also large-sized rodents, such as Plains viscacha (Lagostomus maximus, approx. 4 kg) (Jackson et al 1996), Coypu (Myocastor coypus, approx.…”

“…Actualistic studies have made it possible to identify different agents and processes involved in the spatial displacement of carcasses and bones. Among the most common are fluvial action, which scatters and selects the bones according to their shape, density, and size (e.g., Voorhies 1969;Behrensmeyer 1975;Hanson 1980;Kaufmann et al 2011); trampling by animals and humans, which causes horizontal and vertical displacements even on highly consolidated substrates (e.g., Nielsen 1991;BenitoCalvo et al 2011); and burrowing, produced by animals that move bones while digging tunnels and chambers or when these structures collapse (e.g., Erlandson 1984;Bocek 1986;Mello Araujo and Marcelino 2003). In particular, carnivores modify faunal assemblages by taking or incorporating bones before, during, or after human occupations (e.g., Haynes 1980;Binford 1981;Blumenschine and Marean 1993;Lyman 1994;Yravedra 2010;Camarós et al 2013).…”

Modeling post-depositional mixing of archaeological deposits

“…doi:10. /j.jaa.2007 a priori assumption that the pre-taphonomic assemblages were completely non-overlapping in their attributes (Albert et al 2003;Karavanic and Smith, 1998;Morin et al, 2005;Rowlett and Robbins, 1982); (2) examination of the distribution of refit stone, bone or ceramic specimens between discrete stratigraphic units (Audouze and Enloe, 1997;Bollong, 1994;Delagnes and Roche, 2005;Hofman, 1986;Kroll, 1994;Morin et al, 2005;Surovell et al, 2005;Villa, 1982); and (3) experimental or observational characterization of the behavior of individual taphonomic agents and the development of criteria to aid in recognizing them in the field (Araujo and Marcelino, 2003;Balek, 2002;Bocek, 1986;Erlandson, 1984;Johnson, 1989;Laville et al, 1980;Morin, 2006;Van Nest, 2002). Using the first set of methods, assemblage overlap-for example, in faunal species representation, ceramic or lithic types-is taken as evidence for the presence of post-depositional mixing, but may also serve as a proxy for the magnitude of the disturbance if the degree of overlap can be established.…”

The effects of burrowing activity on archaeological sites: Ndondondwane, South Africa

“…These effects are specific to the behavior of the agent and the sedimentary matrix of the site (Waters, 1992:309 -316). For example, various burrowing animals, such as rodents (Erlandson, 1984;Bocek, 1986;Johnson, 1989;Pierce, 1992;Mace et al, 1997;Aravjo and Marcelino, 2003), ants (Baxter and Hole, 1967;Lyford, 1963;Humphreys, 1981), termites (West, 1970;McBrearty, 1990), and earthworms (Darwin, 1896;Atkinson, 1957;Langmaid, 1964;Stein, 1983;Armour-Chelu and Andrews, 1994;Van Nest, 2002;Canti, 2003), differentially affect the integrity of archaeological sites. 4.…”