Arroyo Seco, A 14,000 year old hunting camp in Argentina

Just saw this little gem of a paper.

The Arroyo Seco 2 site contains a rich archaeological record, exceptional for South America, to explain the expansion of Homo sapiens into the Americas and their interaction with extinct Pleistocene mammals. The following paper provides a detailed overview of material remains found in the earliest cultural episodes at this multi-component site, dated between ca. 12,170 14C yrs B.P. (ca. 14,064 cal yrs B.P.) and 11,180 14C yrs B.P. (ca. 13,068 cal yrs B.P.). Evidence of early occupations includes the presence of lithic tools, a concentration of Pleistocene species remains, human-induced fractured animal bones, and a selection of skeletal parts of extinct fauna. The occurrence of hunter-gatherers in the Southern Cone at ca. 14,000 cal yrs B.P. is added to the growing list of American sites that indicate a human occupation earlier than the Clovis dispersal episode, but posterior to the onset of the deglaciation of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in the North America.

The article is chock full of info.

Arroyo Seco

First, the site presents an ample temporal scale of human occupation from ca. 12,170 14C yrs B.P. to the 19th century. This extensive chronological dimension in a relatively short stratigraphic sequence (~2 m) of loessial sediments assigned to the La Postrera Formation [7](Fig 2) has been one of the main causes of its low archaeological resolution. Second, there exists a high diversity of archaeological materials which provide a broad spectrum for detailed analysis (lithic, bone, ceramic, etc.) [4]. Third, the site presents an exceptionally varied and abundant number of human burials (50 individuals and counting), dated between 7805 ± 85 14C yrs B.P. and 4487 ± 45 14C yrs B.P. (n = 25 dates) [8].

a reply to: punkinworks10

Nice find! I love discoveries like this.

If they found abundant human burials though ( 50+ ) hopefully they can link this to an ancient tribe.

a reply to: punkinworks10

So....this site was incredibly important to people about 13k-14k years ago. Important enough that they returned frequently, and made quite a few burials there.

The only question current is why the difference in "C" and "Calendar"?

a reply to: punkinworks10

Am I doing something wrong? When I click your link, it just brings me to a page with photos of lithics, no article.
Great find, I was just stoked to read more about it. You know me and my devotion to due diligence lol. If I'm doing something wrong, it's ok to bust my balls and have a laugh at my expense. If not and you can link me the pertinent info I would be much obliged. As always, thanks for posting this, it's a pretty important site. I'd love I see some dates on the remains they found at the site.

Ancient civilizations like this always fascinate me.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: punkinworks10

Am I doing something wrong? When I click your link, it just brings me to a page with photos of lithics, no article.
Great find, I was just stoked to read more about it. You know me and my devotion to due diligence lol. If I'm doing something wrong, it's ok to bust my balls and have a laugh at my expense. If not and you can link me the pertinent info I would be much obliged. As always, thanks for posting this, it's a pretty important site. I'd love I see some dates on the remains they found at the site.

My bad PeterV,

I didnt double check my work, i posted while having a pint of newcastle at the pub.

Here is the correct link

Arroyo Seco 2

It is a very important site, for me not so much of its age as its location on the atlantic side of the continent. I have read else where that, it appears from lithic analysis that people worked into the amazon first then over to the atlantic coast and down.
Which sounds good until one realises that there were already people in eastern brazil 30k years ago.

I wonder if there is any cultural association with the people at Monte Verde.

Third, the site presents an exceptionally varied and abundant number of human burials (50 individuals and counting), dated between 7805 ± 85 14C yrs B.P. and 4487 ± 45 14C yrs B.P. (n = 25 dates)

The burials seem to be much younger.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Havlock's 2008 ATS thread re southwestern-Pennsylvania's Meadowcroft Rockshelter that served as a campsite for prehistoric hunters and gatherers ~16,000 years ago. About one-third of site remains undisturbed.

Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Historic Village, Avella, PA.

I enjoyed the opening... it all started with a groundhog hole in 1955.

originally posted by: EightAhoy
a reply to: punkinworks10

Havlock's 2008 ATS thread re southwestern-Pennsylvania's Meadowcroft Rockshelter that served as a campsite for prehistoric hunters and gatherers ~16,000 years ago. About one-third of site remains undisturbed.

Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Historic Village, Avella, PA.

I enjoyed the opening... it all started with a groundhog hole in 1955.

Thank you for the contribution EightAhoy,
I usually include Meadowcroft in my pre-clovis myth rants, but thyis time i tried not to rant.
But thanks again for mentioning.
Statments like this one leave me scratching my head, from the paper,

The occurrence of hunter-gatherers in the Southern Cone at ca. 14,000 cal yrs B.P. is added to the growing list of American sites that indicate a human occupation earlier than the Clovis dispersal episode, but posterior to the onset of the deglaciation of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in the North America.

There are literally dozens of sites that pre date clovis, and i still dont get what the continuing myopic fascination with clovis is?, In the context of north america, clovis was just one of at least a half dozen distinct cultures, , that coexisted in north america. But interestingly enough as hyper focused on the "clovis dispersal" as some academics can be, they seem to miss the fact that this clovis dispersal runs against the flow of humanity into the new world, according to the most widely accepted theories.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
But interestingly enough as hyper focused on the "clovis dispersal" as some academics can be, they seem to miss the fact that this clovis dispersal runs against the flow of humanity into the new world, according to the most widely accepted theories.

I think the "Clovis First" is all but dead except in a few corners. I haven't kept up with the new ideas but I do know that they've mostly kicked Clovis First to the curb by now.

a reply to: EightAhoy

Wow ... that helps to put the current article into geographic and temporal context.

I have always wondered why, once established somewhere on either continent in any significant numbers, humans could not have expanded into most tropical and even temperate portions of both American continents in less than 1000 years.

I mean, we walk pretty well, right? Our ancestors could make shelter, fire, and clothing ....

Especially if the continents were empty of any prior humans to compete for resources, they could make for fast dispersal. 1000 years may even be too long of an estimate for small bands of humans to walk all over the place. Why not? High mortality rates? Low birth survival rates? Bad luck?

a reply to: punkinworks10

Your source site presents rigorous criteria for acceptance and publication. Science and academia move at a glacial pace and are rift with politics, too. Fifty years ago it took years for such research to be peer reviewed. Today it occurs in a matter of months. I can only hope that in the next year or two, I'll be able to watch a special on cable about this South American site, presented in a manner that is wholly understood by people like me. Exciting times. This statement alone makes me think, "Wow!" "In this sense, the arrival of Homo sapiens into the Southern Cone at 14,000 years ago represents the last step in the expansion of modern humans throughout the world and the final continental colonization."

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
Especially if the continents were empty of any prior humans to compete for resources, they could make for fast dispersal. 1000 years may even be too long of an estimate for small bands of humans to walk all over the place. Why not? High mortality rates? Low birth survival rates? Bad luck?

Human populations don't really expand rapidly until they reach a critical mass numbering millions, with high infant mortality and dangerous predators all around, the peopling of the Americas happened on a tribe by tribe basis. 10,000 years ago there were less people on Earth than currently inhabit London.