DOSSIER: Osteometry of South American camelids
The identification of bone elements and their assignment to a particular animal species is a central issue for zooarchaeology. Therefore, since the 1970s morphometric differences have been studied that allow the differentiation of species that share a similar bone morphology, especially when this is...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Museo de Antropología
2009
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/antropologia/article/view/5412 |
| Aporte de: |
| id |
I10-R10-article-5412 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| institution |
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba |
| institution_str |
I-10 |
| repository_str |
R-10 |
| container_title_str |
Revistas de la UNC |
| language |
Español |
| format |
Artículo revista |
| topic |
dossier Osteometría camélidos sudamericanos dossier Osteometry South American camelids |
| spellingShingle |
dossier Osteometría camélidos sudamericanos dossier Osteometry South American camelids Izeta, Andrés D. DOSSIER: Osteometry of South American camelids |
| topic_facet |
dossier Osteometría camélidos sudamericanos dossier Osteometry South American camelids |
| author |
Izeta, Andrés D. |
| author_facet |
Izeta, Andrés D. |
| author_sort |
Izeta, Andrés D. |
| title |
DOSSIER: Osteometry of South American camelids |
| title_short |
DOSSIER: Osteometry of South American camelids |
| title_full |
DOSSIER: Osteometry of South American camelids |
| title_fullStr |
DOSSIER: Osteometry of South American camelids |
| title_full_unstemmed |
DOSSIER: Osteometry of South American camelids |
| title_sort |
dossier: osteometry of south american camelids |
| description |
The identification of bone elements and their assignment to a particular animal species is a central issue for zooarchaeology. Therefore, since the 1970s morphometric differences have been studied that allow the differentiation of species that share a similar bone morphology, especially when this is the result of a process of domestication or improvement of some of the characteristics of the population (e.g. Albarella and Payne 2005, von den Driesch 1976, Davis 1996, Payne and Bull 1988, Reitz 1994, Uerpmann 1979, Weinstock 2003 and bibliography cited there). This morphological similarity may have its difficulties in particular cases such as South American camelids. This family (Camelidae) is currently composed of four species: Lama guanicoe Muller 1776 (guanaco), Lama glama Linnaeus 1758 (llama), Lama pacos or Vicugna pacos Linnaeus 1758 (alpaca) and Vicugna vicugna or Lama (Vicugna) vicugna Molina 1782 (vicuña). In view of the presence of so many different varieties of camelids, it is extremely important to study the morphological variations that allow the different species to be differentiated, a subject to which osteometry aims to provide new data for this family that is so conspicuous in the South American archaeological and paleontological register. This is a key question if the aim is to carry out a paleoeconomic reconstruction of the human populations of the past or of the paleoecology of the environment in which they developed their activities. In recent years, the application of different techniques has been implemented on the remains of camelids in order to advance in the analysis of the composition of the groups recovered from archaeological sites in several regions of the country and neighboring countries (Argentine Northwest, Argentine Patagonia and northern Chile). These variations have been studied in two ways: qualitative and quantitative. The forms of differentiation between species based on qualitative analysis correspond to the study of the dental morphology of incisors (Wheeler 1982, Lavallée et al. 1995: 58-59) and the study of fibers (wool and hair) (Reigadas 1994, 2001). The other type of technique that allows the identification of the different species corresponds to the quantitative analyses based on osteometry and the application of statistical analyses on their results. One of the first applications of this kind of studies on camelids from archaeological contexts was carried out by Jonathan Kent (1982). Other authors have followed such as Elkin (1996), Izeta (2004, 2006 e. p.), López (2003), Madero (1992, 1993-1994) and Yacobaccio et al. (1997-1998) for the Northwest of Argentina and L'Hereux (2005) for Patagonia. In the field of Paleontology, several studies have also been carried out applying this type of analysis, such as those of Menegaz (2000) and Menegaz et al. (1988, 1989), among others. For this reason, this Dossier aims to group diverse works that focus on this diversity within the Camelidae family in order to obtain diverse interpretations. These range from questions related to the identification of metric characters to define sex (Kaufmann and L´Heureux), metric variations between domestic species (Vasquez and Rosales), between domestic and wild species (Cartajena, Izeta et al.), between wild species (Labarca and Prieto) and economic patterns (Olivera and Grant). |
| publisher |
Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Museo de Antropología |
| publishDate |
2009 |
| url |
https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/antropologia/article/view/5412 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT izetaandresd dossierosteometryofsouthamericancamelids AT izetaandresd dossierosteometriadecamelidossudamericanos |
| first_indexed |
2022-08-20T01:10:55Z |
| last_indexed |
2022-08-20T01:10:55Z |
| _version_ |
1770717764143546368 |
| spelling |
I10-R10-article-54122021-06-18T17:46:55Z DOSSIER: Osteometry of South American camelids DOSSIER: Osteometría de camélidos sudamericanos Izeta, Andrés D. dossier Osteometría camélidos sudamericanos dossier Osteometry South American camelids The identification of bone elements and their assignment to a particular animal species is a central issue for zooarchaeology. Therefore, since the 1970s morphometric differences have been studied that allow the differentiation of species that share a similar bone morphology, especially when this is the result of a process of domestication or improvement of some of the characteristics of the population (e.g. Albarella and Payne 2005, von den Driesch 1976, Davis 1996, Payne and Bull 1988, Reitz 1994, Uerpmann 1979, Weinstock 2003 and bibliography cited there). This morphological similarity may have its difficulties in particular cases such as South American camelids. This family (Camelidae) is currently composed of four species: Lama guanicoe Muller 1776 (guanaco), Lama glama Linnaeus 1758 (llama), Lama pacos or Vicugna pacos Linnaeus 1758 (alpaca) and Vicugna vicugna or Lama (Vicugna) vicugna Molina 1782 (vicuña). In view of the presence of so many different varieties of camelids, it is extremely important to study the morphological variations that allow the different species to be differentiated, a subject to which osteometry aims to provide new data for this family that is so conspicuous in the South American archaeological and paleontological register. This is a key question if the aim is to carry out a paleoeconomic reconstruction of the human populations of the past or of the paleoecology of the environment in which they developed their activities. In recent years, the application of different techniques has been implemented on the remains of camelids in order to advance in the analysis of the composition of the groups recovered from archaeological sites in several regions of the country and neighboring countries (Argentine Northwest, Argentine Patagonia and northern Chile). These variations have been studied in two ways: qualitative and quantitative. The forms of differentiation between species based on qualitative analysis correspond to the study of the dental morphology of incisors (Wheeler 1982, Lavallée et al. 1995: 58-59) and the study of fibers (wool and hair) (Reigadas 1994, 2001). The other type of technique that allows the identification of the different species corresponds to the quantitative analyses based on osteometry and the application of statistical analyses on their results. One of the first applications of this kind of studies on camelids from archaeological contexts was carried out by Jonathan Kent (1982). Other authors have followed such as Elkin (1996), Izeta (2004, 2006 e. p.), López (2003), Madero (1992, 1993-1994) and Yacobaccio et al. (1997-1998) for the Northwest of Argentina and L'Hereux (2005) for Patagonia. In the field of Paleontology, several studies have also been carried out applying this type of analysis, such as those of Menegaz (2000) and Menegaz et al. (1988, 1989), among others. For this reason, this Dossier aims to group diverse works that focus on this diversity within the Camelidae family in order to obtain diverse interpretations. These range from questions related to the identification of metric characters to define sex (Kaufmann and L´Heureux), metric variations between domestic species (Vasquez and Rosales), between domestic and wild species (Cartajena, Izeta et al.), between wild species (Labarca and Prieto) and economic patterns (Olivera and Grant). La identificación de elementos óseos y su asignación a una especie animal concreta es un tema central para la zooarqueología. Por ello desde la década de 1970 se han estudiado las diferencias morfométricas que permiten la diferenciación de especies que comparten una morfología ósea similar, especialmente cuando ésta es el resultado de un proceso de domesticación o de mejora de alguno de los caracteres de la población (e.g. Albarella y Payne 2005, von den Driesch 1976, Davis 1996, Payne y Bull 1988, Reitz 1994, Uerpmann 1979, Weinstock 2003 y bibliografía allí citada). Esta similitud morfológica puede tener sus dificultades en casos particulares como el de los camélidos sudamericanos. Esta familia (Camelidae) está compuesta actualmente por cuatro especies: Lama guanicoe Muller 1776 (guanaco), Lama glama Linnaeus 1758 (llama), Lama pacos o Vicugna pacos Linnaeus 1758 (alpaca) y Vicugna vicugna o Lama (Vicugna) vicugna Molina 1782 (vicuña). Ante la presencia de tantas variedades diferentes de camélidos es sumamente importante el estudio de las variaciones morfológicas, que permitan diferenciar las distintas especies, tema al que la osteometría pretende aportar nuevos datos para esta familia tan conspicua en el registro arqueológico y paleontológico sudamericano. Esto es una cuestión clave si lo que se intenta es realizar una reconstrucción paleoeconómica de las poblaciones humanas del pasado o de la paleoecología del ambiente en donde desarrollaron sus actividades. En los últimos años se ha implementado la aplicación de distintas técnicas sobre los restos de camélidos con el fin de avanzar en el análisis de la composición de los conjuntos recuperados de sitios arqueológicos de varias regiones del país y de países limítrofes (Noroeste argentino, Patagonia argentina y norte de Chile). Estas variaciones han sido estudiadas a través de dos vías de análisis: uno de tipo cualitativo y otro cuantitativo. Las formas de diferenciación entre especies basadas en análisis de tipo cualitativo corresponden al estudio de la morfología dental de los incisivos (Wheeler 1982, Lavallée et al. 1995: 58-59) y el estudio de las fibras (lanilla y pelo) (Reigadas 1994, 2001). El otro tipo de técnica que permite la identificación de las distintas especies corresponde a los análisis cuantitativos a partir de la osteometría y la aplicación de análisis estadísticos sobre sus resultados. Una de las primeras aplicaciones de esta clase de estudios sobre camélidos de contextos arqueológicos fue realizada por Jonathan Kent (1982). Otros autores lo han seguido como Elkin (1996), Izeta (2004, 2006 e. p.), López (2003), Madero (1992, 1993-1994) y Yacobaccio et al. (1997-1998) para el Noroeste de la Argentina y L’Hereux (2005) para Patagonia. En el ámbito de la Paleontología también se han realizado diversos estudios aplicando este tipo de análisis como los de Menegaz (2000) y Menegaz et al. (1988, 1989) entre otros. Por ello este Dossier tiene como fin agrupar diversos trabajos que enfocan en esa diversidad dentro de la familia Camelidae con el fin de logar diversas interpretaciones. Estas van desde cuestiones relacionadas con la identificación de caracteres métricos que permitan definir sexo (Kaufmann y L´Heureux), variaciones métricas entre especies domésticas (Vásquez y Rosales), entre especies domésticas y silvestres (Cartajena, Izeta et al.), entre especies silvestres (Labarca y Prieto) y patrones económicos (Olivera y Grant). Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Museo de Antropología 2009-12-21 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/antropologia/article/view/5412 Revista del Museo de Antropología; Vol 2 (2009) NÚMERO 1; 125-126 Revista del Museo de Antropología; Vol 2 (2009) NÚMERO 1; 125-126 Revista del Museo de Antropología; Vol 2 (2009) NÚMERO 1; 125-126 1852-4826 1852-060X 10.31048/1852.4826.v2.n1 spa https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/antropologia/article/view/5412/5856 Derechos de autor 1969 Andrés D. Izeta |