A Preliminary View of the Coexistence of Mammoth - Arroyo_Cabrales 777

7/27/2019 A Preliminary View of the Coexistence of Mammoth - Arroyo_Cabrales 777

1/8

Quaternary International 142143 (2006) 7986

A preliminary view of the coexistence of mammoth and early

peoples in Me xico

Joaqun Arroyo-Cabralesa,, Oscar J. Polacoa, Eileen Johnsonb

aLaboratorio de Arqueozoologa M. en C. Ticul Alvarez Solorzano, Subdireccion de Laboratorios y Apoyo Academico,

Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Moneda # 16, Col. Centro, 06060 Me xico, D. F., MexicobMuseum of Texas Tech University, Box 43191, Lubbock, Texas 79409-3191, USA

Received 10 March 2005; accepted 16 March 2005

Available online 13 June 2005

Abstract

A progress report about humanmammoth interactions in Me xico is provided based primarily on a literature search. More than

270 mammoth localities are known in Me xico, but only 17 of them have shown some evidence of an association between early

peoples and mammoth. However, that number is even less when each locality is assessed in detail, due to the lack of a supportable

association or the loss of the actual specimens that precludes their analysis using current techniques. Only six localities have

modified mammoth bone. Among them, the greatest potential for demonstrating such a relationship is at Santa Isabel Iztapa,

Valsequillo, Villa de Guadalupe, and Tocuila. Establishing an analysis methodology for the materials from those, as well as new

localities, is warranted to provide the basis for interpreting the humanmammoth relationship in Mexico. Future research calls for

detailed stratigraphic and radiometric control and an analytical protocol for bone analysis focused on taphonomy and

biotechnology.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During the late Pleistocene, the North American

grasslands stretched from the Great Plains and south-

eastward down through the Basin of Me xico. The extent

of these grasslands and the resources they contained are

significant aspects in examining the late Pleistocene

peopling of the landscape and evidence for early

occupations.

The late Pleistocene grassland corridor from northern

Me xico to the Basin of Me xico is bounded on the east bythe Sierra Madre Oriental and the west by the Sierra

Madre Occidental ranges (Fig. 1). This general region

today is termed the desert grassland (Coupland, 1992;

Schmutz et al., 1992). In general, the climatic regime is

cool and moist up to ca. 18,000 yr BP (last glacial

maximum) and then cool and dry in the Basin of Me xico

and cool and moist in northern Me xico until the end

of the Wisconsinan (Metcalfe et al., 2000). A series of

lacustrine basins occur in the volcanic highlands of

central Me xico, with the Basin of Me xico being the

largest. A mixed pine and oak forest and grassland

setting expands and contracts while lake levels and

water chemistry fluctuate in the basin (Gonza lez-

Quintero, 1986; Bradbury, 1989, 1997; Lozano-Garca

et al., 1993; Lozano-Garca and Ortega-Guerrero, 1998;

Metcalfe et al., 2000).Typical Rancholabrean herd herbivores (mammoth,

bison, horses, camel) ranged throughout the grassland

along with attendant large carnivores (Pleistocene lion,

saber-toothed cat, short-faced bear, and lynx). Different

genera of deer and ground sloth inhabited the wooded

hill slopes along with black bear, American mastodon,

and gomphotheres. This dominant grassland ecosystem

within a composite region and its resources provided the

setting early peoples encountered and used at the end of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1040-6182/$- see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2005.03.006

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Arroyo-Cabrales),

[email protected] (E. Johnson).


2/8

the Pleistocene (Arroyo-Cabrales et al., 1998; Polaco

et al., 2001; Johnson et al., 2002).

Proboscideans are among an important suite of

animals in examining the coexistence of early peoples

and extinct fauna in Me xico. For the late Pleistocene,

four genera are known for this group, the gomphotheres

Cuvieronius and Stegomastodon having one species each,

the American mastodon Mammut americanum, and the

Plains mammoth Mammuthus columbi (Polaco, 2002).

The only one that has been found in association withevidence of human activity is the mammoth.

Mammoth is an animal that lived throughout most of

North America during the Pleistocene, from northern

Canada and Alaska (USA) to southern Me xico and

northern Central America (Agenbroad, 1984; Arroyo-

Cabrales et al., 1998, 2003). During the late Pleistocene,

they coexisted with early peoples who populated North

America. However, little information about the nature

of that coexistence is available for the most southern

populations. Evidence for early peoples in late Pleisto-

cene Me xico includes human remains (Gonzalez et al.,

2003), lithics (Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda and Maldona-

do Koerdell, 1953; Aveleyra A. de Anda, 1956), hearths

(Lorenzo and Mirambell, 1981, 1986), possible camps

(Aveleyra-Arroyo de Anda, 1962), modified bone

(Ba rcena, 1882; Solo rzano, 1989), and use of faunal

resources as a food item (Aveleyra A. de Anda, 1956). If

the relationship of early people and mammoth was

through people hunting them, then many localities

should demonstrate that relationship with physical

evidence. However, while late Wisconsinan mammoth

localities are common in the Basin of Me xico andelsewhere on the Mexican Plateau (Arroyo-Cabrales

et al., 1998, 2003), those associated with early peoples

are rare.

2. Historical review

Written reports on the presence of mammoth in

Me xico are first documented more than 400 years ago.

At least 271 localities all over Me xico are known to

contain mammoth remains, from an isolated molar to

an almost complete skeleton (Arroyo-Cabrales et al.,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Me xico showing the grassland corridor to the Basin of Me xico.

J. Arroyo-Cabrales et al. / Quaternary International 142 143 (2006) 798680


3/8

2003). Where identified, the species is M. columbi, the

southern or plains mammoth. From those localities, a

minor percentage is reported to have evidence of a

humanmammoth relationship (17), representing less

than 6.3% of the known mammoth localities. Those

localities have been investigated over the past 140 years

of research. Among these, the bone assemblages ingeneral from 11 localities (64.7%; all discovered before

1970) have been lost or their present location is

unknown, preventing any further discussion about their

significance. The other six localities (35.3%) are better

suited for providing evidence of humanmammoth

relationships.

The first evidence of a human-extinct fauna relation-

ship came from the hill Cerro de las Palmas in the

area of Tacubaya, inside the Basin of Me xico (Fig. 2).

This discovery in 1860 was the result of studies

undertaken by members of the French Scientific

Commission about the prehistory of Me xico. A lithic

side-scraper was associated with numerous probosci-

dean fossils (Aveleyra-Arroyo de Anda, 1962; Hamy,

1878, 1884). This discovery initiated the search for early

peoples in Me xico (Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, 1964),

leading to the discoveries of the sacro de Tequixquiac

(Ba rcena, 1882; Fig. 2), and of human remains inside the

Basin of Me xico (Aveleyra-Arroyo de Anda, 1962).

Herrera (1893) wrote the first synthesis of these

discoveries. He noted that some proboscidean remains

from an unspecified locality showed cuts on thecondyles, as did an articular condyle from a femur

collected in Leo n (Guanajuato). The paper had two

drawings of bones, one of which (possibly Leo n) was a

rubbing onto carbon paper of the cuts. Villada (1903)

pointed out that the second specimen was collected in

Tequixquiac (Estado de Me xico).

In 1893 in the interior lake of Zacoalco (Jalisco), a

fossil whale vertebra was found with two wide cuts in

the transverse apophysis (Solo rzano, 1989). This dis-

covery suggested at the time the potential of the region

in the search for late Pleistocene sites of early peoples.

Those first discoveries were questioned and Villada

(1903) pointed out that a strong controversy existed

about early human presence in ancient times and

peoples association with the extinct fauna. This early

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. The Basin of Me xico showing the known localities with a record of humanmammoth relationship.

J. Arroyo-Cabrales et al. / Quaternary International 142 143 (2006) 7986 81


4/8

stage of doubt lasted several decades. A new stage of

systematic explorations, however, began in 1945 that

settled any doubts of humanmammoth coexistence

(Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, 1964).

By the 1950s, several sites were known, mainly in the

Basin of Me xico. At Santa Isabel Iztapa (Estado de

Me xico), excavated in 1952 and 1954, mammothskeletons were associated with lithics (Fig. 2). The

1952 mammoth had a minimum age date of

90007250 yr BP (Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, 1964).

No radiocarbon dates were available for the 1954

mammoth. However, the 1954 bones had possible cut

marks on a large number of the epiphyses and

articulating facets of the long bones (Aveleyra A. de

Anda, 1956). A rib segment with deep incisions was the

only bone properly documented and illustrated, and is

the only one that has survived from this excavation.

Other localities in the basin included the area of

Tepexpan (Fig. 2), where in 1945, lithics were uncovered

associated with proboscidean bones (Arellano, 1946).

This discovery corresponded with the same area where

the Tepexpan man was found (De Terra, 1949). At

the same place in 1958, other mammoth remains were

recovered and those bones purportedly showed cut

marks (Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, 1964). In 1956, at Los

Reyes Acozac (Fig. 2), lithics were found in association

with mammoth bones. In 1957, a similar find in San

Bartolo Atepehuacan was radiocarbon dated at

96707400 yr BP. Finally, in 1974 at Los Reyes La Paz

(Fig. 2), two bone artifacts were recovered that were

associated stratigraphically with mammoth and other

extinct animals. This site had a radiocarbon date of

18,2807160yr BP (Garca Cook, 1974).

For the same period, and outside the Basin of Me xico,

two localities in the state of Tamaulipas (one at Arroyo

Arenillas; Fig. 3) had lithics associated with mammothbones (Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, 1964). The Falcon

Dam, however, flooded Arroyo Arenillas. Previously, in

1946, MacNeish had recorded a possible hearth with the

burned bones of extinct animals below those of

mammoth in Arroyo Chorreras (Aveleyra-Arroyo

de Anda, 1962) (Fig. 3).

In 1957, lithics were recorded in association with

mammoth in the region around the Zacoalco Lake

(Jalisco) (Aveleyra-Arroyo de Anda, 1962) (Fig. 3). In

the Valsequillo region (state of Puebla; Fig. 3), Armenta

Camacho (1978) recorded a mammoth right mandibular

ramus with a lithic artifact adhered to it by an

unidentified precipitate from a site named Arenillas,

along with other bones with possible human modifica-

tions. In general, Valsequillo was reported to contain

human-modified mammoth remains (Armenta, 1959;

Armenta Camacho, 1978). However, in a recent search,

those remains could not be located. Confusing and

conflicting evidence provided dates for the regional

fauna between 21,500 and 280,000 yr BP (Armenta,

1959; Armenta Camacho, 1978; Steen-McIntyre et al.,

1981; Pichardo, 1997).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 3. Me xico showing the known localities with a record of humanmammoth relationship (other than those in the Basin of Me xico).



5/8

3. Later discoveries

Since 1970, six archaeological sites have been docu-

mented in Me xico regarding people-mammoth relation-

ships. Sites in the Basin of Me xico are La Villa de

Guadalupe, Distrito Federal (unpublished data), and

Tocuila, Estado de Me xico (Morett et al., 1998a, b;Johnson et al., 2001) (Fig. 2). Outside the basin, and in

chronological order, sites are: El Cedral, San Luis Potos

(Lorenzo and Mirambell, 1986, 1999); basins of

Chapala-Zacoalco, Jalisco (Solo rzano, 1989); Zacapu,

Michoaca n (unpublished data); and La Estanzuela,

Nuevo Leo n (Lo pez-Oliva et al., 2001; Polaco et al.,

2001). Most of these sites are located in central Me xico

(Fig. 3).

The El Cedral site (Fig. 3) was the most interesting.

Several springs were in the region at the end of the

Pleistocene. Current vegetation is desert shrub (Schmutz

et al., 1992; Rzedowski, 1994; Gonza lez Medrano,

2003). Although the late Pleistocene vegetational record

is not yet known for the region, the vegetation probably

was different due to more humid conditions.

Three faunal stages were defined for the age intervals,

between 30,000 and 25,000 yr BP, around 15,000 yr BP,

and between 10,000 and 8000 yr BP (T. A lvarez, pers.

comm., 2001). While Mammut americanum and Mam-

muthus columbi coexisted at this locality, the plains

mammoth was the most abundant. Evidence of human

presence was associated with mammoth, but not

mastodon.

Site excavations between 1977 and 1980 produced a

very rich and abundant fauna. Mammoth remainsarranged in an undisturbed circular feature consisted

of carpal and metacarpal bones surrounding a zone of

charcoal about 30 cm in diameter and 2 cm thick. This

feature was interpreted as a hearth. The hearth bones

consisted of four right carpals, a right metacarpal, two

left carpals, and a left metacarpal. AMS radiocarbon

assays on those bones were not successful due to the lack

of collagen (S. Gonza lez, pers. comm., 2000; Oxford

University Radiocarbon Unit). The ash from the hearth

was dated at 31,85071600 yr BP (I10438). This date

was the oldest one for human presence in Me xico, and

one of the most ancient for Mexican mammoths(Lorenzo and Mirambell, 1986). It is also important

since it pre-dates the Clovis culture. An assessment of

this date due to its very old age, then, is warranted.

Lithics were associated with nine bones of different

animals (horse and canids) that showed some modifica-

tions. A chalcedony circular scraper, a limestone core,

and a quartz polyhedral flake were among the lithics

(Lorenzo and Mirambell, 1981, 1999). The modified

bones showed either scratching, boring, polishing, or cut

marks. Some were interpreted as possibly tools such as

picks (Lorenzo and Mirambell, 1981; L. Mirambell,

pers. comm., 2003). However, these materials were not

placed in one of the faunal stages that would have dated

them.

In the region around the Chapala-Zacoalco lakes

(Fig. 3), an important set of modified bones contained

some that appear to have been used as tools interpreted

as wedges (Solo rzano, 1989). Mammoth and bones of

other extinct animals had been collected during severaldecades. Unfortunately, these materials were from the

surface, without further data, thus providing limited

information about the archaeological context (Solo rza-

no, 1989).

In Zacapu, Michoaca n (Fig. 3), five segments of

mammoth long bones were recovered. One of these had

possible cut marks, similar to marks on the Santa Isabel

Iztapa rib. The bones were an isolated feature, without

an associated fauna.

The most recent record outside the Basin of Me xico is

a bone bed found in La Estanzuela, 10 km south of

Monterrey, Nuevo Leo n (Fig. 3). More than 100 bones

have been recovered representing five taxa, Mammuthus

columbi, Mammut americanum, Camelops hesternus,

Bison sp., and Equus spp. Among those, a mammoth

scapula possibly has transverse cut marks, suggesting

human presence at the time of deposition of the

proboscidean remains (Lo pez-Oliva et al., 2001; Polaco

et al., 2001).

In the Basin of Me xico, two recently discovered

localities indicate humanmammoth relationships. At

La Villa de Guadalupe (O. J. Polaco, unpublished data;

Fig. 2), a tusk and mandible show extensive cut marks

that need to be confirmed as to what taphonomic agency

produced them. Recently, the material has been dated at11,320 yr BP (OxA-7752; Gonzalez et al., 2003). The

mammoth remains (M. columbi) are associated with

other animals, including Pleistocene horse (Equus spp.),

ground sloth (cf. Megalonyx sp.), and freshwater

turtle (Kinosternon sp.). A mammoth fibula possibly

has been used as a drill, and a vertebral portion

may have been used as a scraper. A full taphonomic

analysis is warranted to determine the agencies of bone

modification.

Tocuila is located along the paleoshore of Lake

Texcoco in the Basin of Me xico, an area of numerous

mammoth finds both archaeological and paleontologicalin nature (Arroyo-Cabrales et al., 1998, 2003). This site

has several dates that average around 11,200 yr BP. In

well-stratified deposits, the disarticulated remains of at

least five mammoths are in a volcanic mud flow (lahar)

unit. From about 1000 bones in the assemblage, ca. 1%

of them exhibit dynamic impact features and other types

of modifications that indicate the bone reduction

process involved breakage of fresh bones in a very

controlled, deliberate, and systematic manner. This

situation is the basis for identifying culturally modified

bone that indicates human activity being represented at

this locality.

ARTICLE IN PRESS



6/8

While human involvement with mammoth at Tocuila

is limited, it is focused on breakage of fresh limb bones

and interpreted as bone quarrying to produce cores for

transport elsewhere (Johnson et al., 2001). The cultu-

rally modified bone represents part of a continuum in

quarrying operations to produce portable radial seg-

ments for various production purposes (Johnson, 1985,2004). This assemblage consists of a parent element

portion, cone flakes (interior pressure flakes from the

compressive force and crushing effect at the point of

impact), cortical flakes, radial diaphyseal segments, and

a core. The parent element portion, cone flakes, and

radial diaphyseal segments are the result of the initial

dynamic fracturing of the targeted limb element. They

represent the technological debris from that fracturing.

The core, on the other hand, is a radial diaphyseal

segment that has been modified and prepared purpose-

fully in order to produce the large cortical flakes (Fig. 4).

What the Tocuila mammoths in general represent is

unclear as information is not yet available on the age,

gender, and carcass condition of the five mammoths nor

their relationship to the bone core, flakes, and fracture

debris recovered other than presence in the same bone

bed. Full taphonomic and spatial analyses are needed in

order to clarify that relationship and determine the

formation and disturbance processes involved in creat-

ing the Tocuila locality.

4. Future directions

Future research in Me xico calls for detailed strati-

graphic and radiometric controls for both previously

known localities and sites, and new locations in order to

better understand the distribution of mammoth through

time and space and the relationship between this ancientproboscidean and early peoples. Remains from the

known localities have complex life histories involving

various natural and possible cultural modifications. In

order to understand these localities and future ones, a

protocol is being developed with a focus on methodol-

ogy that is based on taphonomy and biotechnology.

Research criteria include the systematic review of the

collections by the authors to confirm bone modification

and the responsible agency.

The taphonomic analysis needs to be focused on

determining the agency or agencies involved in site

formation and the agency or agencies involved in

modification to the bones. A taphonomic profile of the

overall bone assemblage provides the context in which

to interpret the relationship and relative importance of

any one type of modification. Both a regional picture

can be developed from the general individual locality

profiles as well as indicating points of departure in that

regional pattern.

Bone modification, whether natural or cultural, needs

to be based on identified criteria applied in a systematic

manner. For such natural bone modification as carni-

vore activity and trampling, these types of marks are

identified on established criteria (e.g., Shipman, 1981,

1989; Johnson, 1985; Olsen and Shipman, 1988;Blumenschine and Salvaggio, 1991; Calpaldo and

Blumenschine, 1994; Lyman, 1994), classification of

carnivore activity, and scanning electron microscopy

(SEM) in order to segregate and distinguish them from

cultural marks.

The types of cultural modification to mammoth

remains are central to the case being developed for a

humanmammoth relationship in Me xico. Modification

is characterized as marks on bone and as bone breakage.

Cultural marks are identified on established criteria

(e.g., Shipman, 1981, 1989; Shipman and Rose, 1983,

1984; Lyman, 1994) and more recent findings (e.g.,Saunders and Daeschler, 1994; Johnson, 2000, 2004). A

number of consistencies will need to be noted to indicate

a regular or standardized way of producing those marks

in particular places on the bones. The marks themselves

will need to have common features that characterize

them and the marks appear in a regular pattern. Those

features, overall pattern, and internal complexity of

marks provide the basis for the argument that the marks

are cultural and not random occurrences.

These data also would provide the basis for exploring

procurement strategy (Johnson, 2004). Issues that could

be addressed include determining whether mammoth

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 4. Bone core from Tocuila in the Basin of Me xico.



7/8

was hunted, scavenged, or both; whether hunted as a

targeted or encountered game animal; procurement

purpose (subsistence, economic, or both); whether small

herds were cropped or individual males sought out; and

seasonal time of death and age profiles.

While the authors approach is a taphonomic one to

help address the issue of the relationship of early peoplesand mammoth, other lines of evidence are as critical. In

tandem with the taphonomy, a paleontological-popula-

tion dynamics approach is being developed for probos-

cidean remains to investigate taxon, age, season of

death, sex, and biometrics. Beyond the scope of the

authors research design are the needs for continuing

investigations in paleovegetation, landscape develop-

ment, and Quaternary volcanology for paleoenviron-

mental reconstructions and in lithic technology at

purported early sites.

5. Summary

More than 270 mammoth localities are known in

Me xico, but only 17 of them have shown some evidence

of an association between early peoples and mammoth.

However, that number is even less when each locality is

assessed in detail. Only six localities have modified

mammoth bone. Those assemblages require detailed

analyses in order to present a clear statement on the

relationship between humans and mammoths. Among

those six localities, the greatest potential for demon-

strating such a relationship is at Santa Isabel Iztapa,

Valsequillo, Villa de Guadalupe, and Tocuila. Establish-ing an analysis methodology for the materials from

those, as well as new localities, is warranted to provide

the basis for interpreting the humanmammoth relation-

ships in Me xico. Furthermore, defining the human role,

either as hunter or scavenger of mammoth, is needed for

understanding human social evolution in Me xico.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Dr. Silvia Gonzalez (School of

Biological and Earth Sciences, Liverpool John MooresUniversity), Lorena Mirambell (Instituto Nacional de

Antropologa e Historia), and the late Ticul A lvarez

(formerly at the Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e

Historia) for sharing information; and for the technical

support provided by Tara Johnson (Documentation

Specialist, Museum of Texas Tech University) for the

photographic figure. Felisa J. Aguilar (Instituto Nacio-

nal de Antropologa e Historia) kindly helped with the

figures and graphics. Richard Morlan and Dan Joyce

reviewed an earlier version of this manuscript, and their

comments helped to improve its content; however, any

errors are those of the authors. The long-term study is a

joint research venture between the Instituto Nacional de

Antropologa e Historia (Me xico) and the Museum of

Texas Tech University (USA). This manuscript repre-

sents part of the ongoing Lubbock Lake Landmark

regional research into late Quaternary paleoecology,

taphonomy, and grasslands hunter-gatherers on the

Southern Plains.

References

Agenbroad, L.D., 1984. New World mammoth distribution. In:

Martin, P.S., Klein, R.G. (Eds.), Quaternary Extinctions. A

Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,

pp. 90108.

Arellano, A.R.V., 1946. El elefante fo sil de Tepexpan y el hombre

primitivo. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropolo gicos 8, 8994.

Armenta C., J., 1959. Hallazgo de un artefacto asociado con mamut,

en el Valle de Puebla. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e

Historia, Departamento de Prehistoria, Publicaciones 7, 725.Armenta Camacho, J., 1978. Vestigios de Labor Humana en Huesos

de Animales Extintos de Valsequillo, Puebla Me xico. Puebla,

Mexico.

Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Polaco, O.J., Johnson, E., 1998. Late quaternary

environments and mammal faunas in Me xico. Plenary Session

Paper Presented at the American Quaternary Association meeting,

Puerto Vallarta, Me xico.

Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Polaco, O.J., Johnson, E., Guzman, A.F., 2003.

The distribution of the genus Mammuthus in Me xico. DEINSEA 9,

2739.

Aveleyra A. de Anda, L., 1956. The second mammoth and associated

artifacts at Santa Isabel Iztapan, Mexico. American Antiquity 22,

1228.

Aveleyra-Arroyo de Anda, L., 1962. Antigu edad del hombre en

Me xico y Centroame rica: cata logo razonado de localidades ybibliografa selecta (18671961). Cuadernos del Instituto de

Historia, Serie Antropolo gica 14, 172.

Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, L., 1964. The primitive hunters. In: West,

R.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1.

University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 384412.

Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, L., Maldonado Koerdell, M., 1953.

Association of artifacts with mammoth in the Valley of Mexico.

American Antiquity 18, 332340.

Ba rcena, M., 1882. Descripcio n de un hueso labrado de llama fo sil

encontrado en los terrenos posterciarios de Tequixquiac. Anales del

Museo Nacional de Me xico 2, 439444.

Blumenschine, R.J., Salvaggio, M., 1991. On the marks of marrow

bone processing by hammerstone and hyaenas: Their anatomical

patterning and archaeological implications. In: Clark, J.D. (Ed.),

Cultural Beginnings. Approaches to Understanding Early HominidLife-ways in the African Savanna. Union Internationale des

Sciences Pre historiques et Protohistoriques Monographien Band.

Vol. 19. pp. 1732.

Bradbury, J.P., 1989. Late Quaternary lacustrine paleoenvironments in

the Cuenca de Mexico. Quaternary Science Reviews 8, 75100.

Bradbury, J.P., 1997. Sources of glacial moisture in Mesoamerica.

Quaternary International 43/44, 97110.

Calpaldo, S.D., Blumenschine, R.J., 1994. Quantitative diagnosis of

notches made by hammerstone percussion and carnivore gnawing

on bovid long bones. American Antiquity 59, 724748.

Coupland, R.T., 1992. Natural Grasslands. Introduction and Western

Hemisphere. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

De Terra, H., 1949. Early man in Mexico. In: , Tepexpan Man, vol. 11.

Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, New York, pp. 1386.

ARTICLE IN PRESS



8/8

Garca Cook, A., 1974. Dos artefactos de hueso en asociacio n con

restos pleistoce nicos en los Reyes La Paz, Me xico. Anales del

Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia 4, 237250.

Gonzalez, S., Jime nez-Lo pez, J.C., Hedges, R., Huddart, D., Ohman,

J.C., Turner, A., Pompa y Padilla, J.A., 2003. Earliest humans in

the Americas: new evidence from Me xico. Journal of Human

Evolution 44, 379387.

Gonza lez Medrano, F., 2003. Las Comunidades Vegetales de Me xico.Instituto Nacional de Ecologa (SEMARNAT), Me xico.

Gonza lez-Quintero, L., 1986. Ana lisis polnicos de los sedimentos. In:

Lorenzo, J.L., Mirambell, L. (Eds.), Tlapacoya: 35,000 An os de

Historia del Lago de Chalco, vol. 155. Instituto Nacional de

Antropologa e Historia, Coleccio n Cientifica, pp. 157166.

Hamy, E.T., 1878. Lancienncte de lhomme au Mexique. La Nature,

Revue des Sciences et de leurs applications aux arts et a lindustrie

251, 262264.

Hamy, E.T., 1884. Anthropologie du Mexique. In: Milne-Edwards, M.

(Ed.), Recherches Zoologiques pour sevir a lHistoire de la Faune

de lAmerique Centrale et du Mexique. Premie` re partie, Anthro-

pologie. Pars.

Herrera, A.L., 1893. El hombre prehisto rico en Me xico. Memoria y

Revista de la Sociedad Cientfica Antonio A lzate 7, 1756.

Johnson, E., 1985. Current developments in bone technology. In:Schiffer, B. (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and

Theory, vol. 8. Academic Press, New York, pp. 157235.

Johnson, E., 2000. Taphonomy of late pleistocene mammoth in

southeastern Wisconsin. Report submitted to the Great Lakes

Archaeological Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Johnson, E., 2004. Late Wisconsinan mammoth procurement in the

North American grasslands. In: Bonnichsen, R., Lepper, B., Steele,

D.G., Stanford, D., Warren, C.N., Gruhn, R. (Eds.), Paleoamer-

ican Origins. Beyond Clovis, Center for the Study of the First

Americans, Texas A&M University Press, College Station,

pp. 115135.

Johnson, E., Morrett, A.L., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., 2001. Late-Pleisto-

cene bone technology at Tocuila, Basin of Mexico. Current

Research in the Pleistocene 18, 8385.

Johnson, E., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Polaco, O.J., 2002. Climate,environment, and game animal resources of the late Pleistocene

Mexican grassland. Invited Paper Presented at the Primer Simposio

Internacional El Hombre Temprano en Ame rica y sus Implica-

ciones en el Poblamiento de la Cuenca de Me xico, Me xico City,

Me xico.

Lo pez-Oliva, J.G., Polaco, O.J., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Corona M., E.,

2001. New records for Mamut americanum in northeastern Me xico.

Current Research in the Pleistocene 18, 108110.

Lorenzo, J.L., Mirambell, L., 1981. El Cedral, S.L.P., Me xico: un sitio

con presencia humana de ma s de 30,000 aP. In: Bryan, A. (Ed.), X

Congreso de la Unio n Internacional de Ciencias Prehisto ricas y

Protohisto ricas. Comisio n XII: El Poblamiento de Ame rica.

Coloquio: Evidencia arqueolo gica de ocupacio n humana en

Ame rica anterior a 11,500 an os a.p. Unio n Internacional de

Ciencias Prehisto ricas y Protohisto ricas, Me xico, pp. 112124.Lorenzo, J.L., Mirambell, L., 1986. Preliminary report on archae-

ological and paleoenvironmental studies in the area of El Cedral,

San Luis Potos, Me xico 19771980. In: Bryan, A. (Ed.), New

Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Center for

the Study of Early Man, University of Maine, Orono, pp. 107113.

Lorenzo, J.L., Mirambell, L., 1999. The inhabitants of Mexico during

the upper pleistocene. In: Bonnichsen, R., Turnmire, K.L. (Eds.),

Ice Age People of North America. Environments, Origins, and

Adaptations. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon

State University Press, Corvallis, pp. 482496.

Lozano-Garca, M.S., Ortega-Guerrero, B., 1998. Late Quaternary

environmental changes of the central part of the Basin of Mexico;

correlation between Texcoco and Chalco basins. Review of

Palaeobotany and Palynology 99, 7793.

Lozano-Garca, M.S., Ortega-Guerrero, B., Caballero-Miranda, M.,

Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J., 1993. Late Pleistocene and Holocene

paleoenvironments of Chalco Lake, Central Mexico. Quaternary

Research 40, 332342.

Lyman, R.L., 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.Metcalfe, S.E., OHara, S.L., Caballero, M., Davies, S.J., 2000.

Records of late Pleistocene-Holocene climatic change in Mexicoa

review. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 699721.

Morett, L., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Polaco, O.J., 1998a. El sitio

paleontolo gico de Tocuila. Arqueologa Mexicana 30, 57.

Morett A., L., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Polaco, O.J., 1998b. Tocuila, a

remarkable mammoth site in the Basin of Mexico. Current

Research in the Pleistocene 15, 118120.

Olsen, S.L., Shipman, P., 1988. Surface modification on bone:

trampling versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15,

535553.

Pichardo, M., 1997. Valsequillo biostratigraphy: new evidence for

Pre-Clovis date. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 55, 233246.

Polaco, O.J., 2002. Los proboscidios de Me xico. In: Gonza lez

Gonza lez, A.H., De Stefano Faras, A. (Eds.), Fo siles de Me xico:Coahuila, una Ventana a trave s del Tiempo. Gobierno del Estado

de Coahuila, Me xico, p. 179.

Polaco, O.J., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Corona M., E., Lopez-Oliva, J.G.,

2001. The American mastodon Mammut americanum in Mexico.

In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.),

The World of Elephants. Proceedings of the First International

Congress. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 237242.

Rzedowski, J., 1994. Vegetacio n de Me xico. Limusa-Noriega, Ed.,

Me xico.

Saunders, J.J., Daeschler, E.B., 1994. Descriptive analyses and

taphonomical observations of culturally modified mammoths

excavated at The Gravel Pit, near Clovis, New Mexico in

1936. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of

Philadelphia, vol. 145. pp. 128.

Schmutz, E.M., Smith, E.L., Ogden, P.R., Cox, M.L., Klemmedson,J.O., Norris, J.J., Fierro, L.C., 1992. Desert grassland. In:

Coupland, R.T. (Ed.), Natural Grasslands. Introduction and

Western Hemisphere. Elsevier, New York, pp. 337362.

Shipman, P., 1981. Applications of scanning electron microscopy to

taphonomic problems. In: Griffin, J.B., Rothschild, N.A. (Eds.),

The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections,

vol. 376. Annals of the New York Academy of Science,

pp. 357385.

Shipman, P., 1989. Altered bones from olduvai gorge, Tanzania:

techniques, problems, and implications of their recognition. In:

Bonnichsen, R., Sorg, M.H. (Eds.), Bone Modification. Center for

the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine, Orono,

pp. 317334.

Shipman, P., Rose, J.J., 1983. Early hominid hunting, butchering, and

carcass-processing behaviors: approaches to the fossil record.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 5798.

Shipman, P., Rose, J.J., 1984. Cutmark mimics on modern and fossil

bovid bones. Current Anthropology 25, 116117.

Solo rzano, F.A., 1989. Pleistocene artifacts from Jalisco, Mexico: a

comparison with some pre-hispanic artifacts. In: Bonnichsen, R.,

Sorg, M.H. (Eds.), Bone Modification. Center for the Study of the

First Americans, University of Maine, Orono, pp. 499514.

Steen-McIntyre, V., Fryxell, R., Malde, H.E., 1981. Geologic evidence

for age of deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo,

Mexico. Quaternary Research 16, 117.

Villada, M.M., 1903. El hombre prehisto rico en el valle de Me xico.

Anales del Museo Nacional de Me xico 7, 455458.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


A Preliminary View of the Coexistence of Mammoth - Arroyo_Cabrales 777

Documents

Transcript of A Preliminary View of the Coexistence of Mammoth - Arroyo_Cabrales 777