Accumulations of bone remains in carancho (Caracara plancus, Aves, Falconiformes) nests from Southern Patagonia. Taphonomic and archaeological implications
Non-ingested faunal remains recovered inside and under a carancho (Caracara plancus) nest located in the terraced levels of the Coyle-Gallegos interfluve are studied to evaluate its role as a taphonomic agent. The nest was built on a calafate (Berberis sp.) bush, located in the center of a concentra...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Museo de Antropología
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/antropologia/article/view/37850 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Non-ingested faunal remains recovered inside and under a carancho (Caracara plancus) nest located in the terraced levels of the Coyle-Gallegos interfluve are studied to evaluate its role as a taphonomic agent. The nest was built on a calafate (Berberis sp.) bush, located in the center of a concentration of guanaco (Lama guanicoe) carcasses killed by winter stress in 2020. The nest was described and measured during the fieldwork, and its contents were collected. In the laboratory, anatomical and taxonomic identifications were made, in addition to surveying different taphonomic variables. The results indicate the predominance of guanaco remains, followed by hog-nosed skunk (Conepatus chinga), hare (Lepus europaeus), and lesser rhea (Rhea pennata). Most of the remains are disarticulated and fractured, showing carnivorous mammal marks. When considering the carancho nests in the framework of regional archaeology, it should be noted that the greatest potential for contamination of the record with bones accumulated by caranchos would be in canyons and rocky areas. The observations and the results of the analyses allow us to recognize the incidence of the carancho as a record-forming agent, which is relevant given that, due to the scarce evidence of its action, it is not usually considered when evaluating the taphonomic histories of archaeological assemblages. |
|---|