Long-term interactions between avifauna and humans in the southern Andean Puna during the Late-Holocene

Abstract

By comparing the present and past avifauna, we investigate the human practices that involved the knowledge and interaction with birds during the Late-Holocene in Puna Austral Argentina. Ethnoarchaeological methodology was used, which included the analysis of feathers recovered from archeological excavations and interviews with local people. Interviews and bird observations were carried out in the spring/summer months, and in some cases the interviewees accompanied us to make the sightings. The results show a correspondence between current and past bird populations for some species of Passeriformes, Strigiformes, Rheiformes, and Anseriformes. Continuity was observed in the interaction of people with certain birds. This is linked to their farming and livestock lifestyle. Currently this situation is changing due to the increasing expansion of mining activities. This research establishes a baseline to compare the consequences of mining on avifauna and the local population.

Keywords

birds ethnoarchaeology Late-Holocene population southern Andean Puna zooarchaeology

Introduction

Birds have been considered a supplementary food resource for humans since the Middle Pleistocene (Serjeantson, 2018). With the Optimal Foraging Theory, studies focused on hunter-gatherer decisions to capture birds, taking into account weight, size, mobility, and other non-food benefits (Serjeantson, 2009). However, these are not the only variables considered when evaluating the inclusion of birds as prey; it is also important to know the effort devoted to the search, the abundance of prey, environmental conditions, the cost of the chase, the capture and preparation of the prey, mobility of human groups, socio-cultural and technological factors (Blasco and Peresani, 2016; Jochim, 1976). Some variables are not linked to energy efficiency, so they could substantially alter the predictions within the Optimal Foraging Theory at certain points in time. Currently, there are numerous studies that point in this direction. This evidence includes avian exploitation not only as a food source in Late Pleistocene, but also for the ornamental use of their feathers and the talons of large raptors (Blasco et al., 2019; Laroulandie et al., 2016; among others).

Summarizing, in different parts of the world, avifauna remains allowed to investigate economic, ideological, technological, ecological, paleo-environmental, taphonomic aspects, mobility strategies and organization of human groups (Cruz, 2011; Laroulandie, 2005, Laroulandie et al., 2016; Lefevre, 2010; Serjeantson, 1998; Standen, 2003 among others). Bird remains at archeological sites are often the product of non-human accumulations, responding to agents such as natural predators and/or taphonomic processes (Bochenski, 2005; Bochenski et al., 2009; Cruz, 2011; Mondini, 2000; Rufà and Laroulandie, 2020, 2021; Urquiza and Echevarria, 2018, among others).

In the Argentinian Northwest, the birds are mentioned in a secondary way alluding to offerings, elaboration of artifacts, food consumption, or rock art (Aschero, 2007; Belotti, 2010; López et al., 2015; Nasif and Miguez, 2014; Urquiza et al., 2013; Urquiza and Aschero, 2014; among others) with the exception of Urquiza and Echevarria (2018). The main topic of our research is the interaction between birds and humans from zooarchaeological and ethnographic analysis. In order to approach these interactions, it is first necessary to define the bird species that share space with the human population. Therefore, based on the sampling of modern birds and analysis of feathers found at archeological sites, bird populations from the early Late-Holocene to the present were defined and compared. Defining the agents in the past and present landscape (in this case birds) allows us to better understand human actions, generating a more complete picture of them and opening the possibility of recognizing previously unperceived interactions. At the same time, the social practices associated with birds during this period were studied through interviews with villagers and the study of feathers and a few bones found in the archeological record.

Study area

Study area is located in Antofagasta de la Sierra (ANS), in the northwestern Catamarca Province (Argentina). This area corresponds to a high desert known as Salt Puna or Southern Puna, with altitudes above 3000 m above sea level. The environmental setting is defined by a patchy distribution of plant and animal resources with many nutrient concentration zones (Yacobaccio, 1994), surrounded by an extreme desert and related to the Río Punilla basin (Grant and Lane, 2018). The ANS Basin belongs to the endorheic system of the Toconquis, Calalaste and Punilla rivers, which drain into the Antofagasta Lagoon (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Study area, Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca (Argentina).

The closest town to the archeological sites studied is Antofagasta de la Sierra, with 730 inhabitants (INDEC, 2010). This area is and was inhabited by agro-livestock farming communities, who achieved self-sufficiency based on strong exchange networks that still survive in the memory of the local inhabitants (García et al., 2002).

Historically, transhumant llama herding was the main economic activity of local inhabitants and peatlands were the main foraging sites for most of the year. With the arrival of the Spanish, other species were added: pigs, goats, sheep, horses and cattle (Navarrete et al., 2022; Ortiz and Urquiza, 2012; Urquiza and Aschero, 2014).

Peasant lifestyles are based on transhumance between the different altitudinal levels of the region (Aschero et al., 2020). Agriculture also played an important role in subsistence over time (Babot et al., 2006; Rodríguez et al., 2006), and we have recorded its practice today on a small scale, generally in orchards where beans, maize, quinoa and potatoes are grown.

Birds in archeological record of ANS

In the region, feathers and few bones of local or exotic archeological birds were recorded (Lopez et al., 2015; López Campeny, 2001; Martínez, 2014; Olivera et al., 2003; Olivera and Podestá, 1995; Urquiza and Echevarria, 2018). In the Puna de Atacama (Chile), bird feathers, eggs and bones were identified (Cartajena et al., 2010; Peña Villalobos et al., 2015; among others).

Based on archeological research in the area, Antofagasta de la Sierra has been continuously occupied by humans for 10,400 years. The ancient inhabitants of the Argentine Puna were in contact with the local wildlife, primarily through camelid hunting. However, for this time of full hunter-gatherers, the people maintained contact with the birds, evidenced by those feathered ornaments or garments of Rhea pennata that were found in Peña de las Trampas 1.1 (ca. 8400–8210 AP) (Martínez, 2014). Subsequently, feathered sandals of the same species were found at Cueva Cacao 1-A (2870 ± 40 BP) (Olivera et al., 2003). Moving forward in time, other sites with evidence of the use of feathers by the populations that inhabited ANS are added. In this case they are fragments of feathers (Strigidae and Anatidae) cut along their central axis, possible deflectors or remains of their manufacture, associated with arrowheads and tendons (Urquiza and Echevarria, 2018). On the other hand, Urquiza and Aschero (2014) analyzed, among other faunal resources, the birds. They observed a continuity in waterfowl hunting during most of the Holocene period.

Environment

Argentine Puna is a high-elevation subtropical plateau – about 95,000 km² situated above 3200 masl – characterized by arid, cold and dry climate, intense solar radiation due to the altitude, large thermal amplitude, poor summer rains and low atmospheric pressure (Izquierdo et al., 2018). It corresponds to a biogeographical province characterized by a dominant vegetation of open shrub-steppe, formed mainly by the families Solanaceae, Fabaceae, and Asteraceae, accompanied by grass species (Aagesen et al., 2009; Morrone, 2001). Peatlands are key ecosystems in high elevation deserts; they regulate water and carbon fluxes and provide most forage for livestock and wildlife (Navarro et al., 2020). Camelids are the most abundant large herbivores in the region: Vicugna vicugna and Lama glama. The most common carnivores are Puma concolor, Galicitis cuja, Leopardus jacobita and Lycalopex culpaeus andinus. The Argentinean Puna is also inhabited by Rodentia (e.g. Chinchilla chinchilla, Lagidium viscacia) and Aves (Barquez et al., 2006; Ojeda et al., 2002).

The Southern Puna, is home to many bird species, some of them endemic and emblematic: Rhea pennata, Podiceps occipitalis, Vultur gryphus, Phoenicopterus chilensis, Phoenicoparrus andinus, Phoenicoparrus jamesi, Patagona gigas, among others. In ANS, 65 species of the 152 known for the Argentine Puna are recorded (Izquierdo et al., 2022; Osinaga and Martín, 2018). Peatlands and lagoons offer water, food, protection, nesting and breeding sites. Birds follow the flow of life that surrounds them, the influx of water, small invertebrates, the growth of grasses, sown seeds, and the proximity of people.

In the Antofagasta de la Sierra basin, three micro-environmental sectors have been identified, based on topography and altitude variability (Olivera, 1992).

(1) The Lower Basin (3300–3550 masl), is a wide and flat area where most of the water resources and vegetal biomass are concentrated in the form of peatlands or lagoons. This zone is the most suitable for agricultural development. Currently, the town of Antofagasta de la Sierra is located there, with residences occupied annually and areas dedicated to multiple activities where livestock and agriculture stand out.

(2) Intermediate Sectors (3550–3800 masl) are narrower areas, ravines of the tributary rivers of Punilla, with more limited wetlands, suitable for agriculture and grazing.

(3) High-Altitude Ravines (3800–4600 masl), it is characterized by wetlands and extensive areas of grasslands, and the climate is only suitable for seasonal grazing and hunting activities.

The archeological sites studied are located in the Intermediate Sector. Interviews and observations of birds were made in all sectors.

Archeological sites analyzed

Open-air archeological sites

Punta de la Peña 9-III, Structure 2 (PP9), is located at a set of collapsed ignimbrite blocks at 3560 masl (26°01′616″S and 67°20′513″W). This occupation was dated from ca.1480 to 430 AP (López Campeny, 2010). The structure was divided into two sectors (A and B). The first corresponds to the space between the rock blocks. Space B corresponds to a corridor located to the north of sector A.

Archeological rock shelter sites

Punta de la Peña 3- A (PP3-A) is an rock shelter under a collapsed block of ignimbrite, without rock art, located at 3600 masl (26°01′46″S and 67°20′41″W). His occupations range from ca. 1600 to 3800 BP. In this work, the avifauna from the late levels are analyzed.

Punta de la Peña 4 (PP4) is located at the edge of an ignimbrite outcrop at 3650 masl (26°1′40.26″S and 67°20′33.17″W). The area covered where various activities took place (e. g. instrument fabrication and fiber processing) was dated to 760 ± 40 y BP cal CE 1222–1385 (Rodríguez et al., 2006; Urquiza and Aschero, 2014). Later, between the 16th and 20th centuries, the covered area served as a seasonal corral (Urquiza and Aschero, 2014). Urquiza and Echevarria (2018) macroscopically identified feathers and bones of Anatidae, Phoenicopteridae, Strigidae, Rheidae, and Passeriformes, some of them for paraphernalia, manufacturing weapons, and also as a nutritional supplement.

El Sembrado 1 (ES1) is located under a block of collapsed ignimbrite at 3643 masl (26°01′04.6″S and 67°19′48.4″W), and presents rock art engraved with geometric motifs. The site has not yet been radiocarbon dated. Based on the materials recovered, the occupation would correspond to historical and late periods. In the 20th century, the covered area served as a seasonal corral.

Piedra Horadada 2 -Structure 1 (PH2) is a rock shelter formed under a collapsed ignimbrite block, at a height of 3640 m (26°01′ 25.21″S and 67°20′18.41″W). Structure 1 (S1) dates back to ca.690 BP and 580 BP, and includes a monolith or “huanca” (López Campeny, 2009). The occupations are associated with ritual (around the monolith) and/or transit contexts (overnight shelters for camelid caravan herders) (Urquiza et al., 2013). Urquiza and Echevarria (2018) macroscopically identified some feathers as Spinus sp., Tyrannidae (220 ± 30 BP) and Phrygilus sp., probably part of a nest during the historic period.

This study takes up the archeological evidence of the mentioned sites, and adds that of others located in the Las Pitas River basin to approach the interactions maintained by the inhabitants of ANS with birds. Taking into account the above, we will compare the diversity of bird species in the past and present, based on the archeological record and the sightings made in situ.

Methodology

In order to elaborate a list of bird species present in the Las Pitas River basin during the last 1000 years, we took into account the feathers that appear in the sites: PP9, PP3-A, PP4, ES1, and PH2. The taxonomic identification of feathers at macroscopic and microscopic level was carried out by comparison with reference collections of the Laboratory of Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy (CONICET-UNT). Feathers with clear human intervention were included, as well as those feathers without evidence of this type of alterations. Some of those manipulated for humans could come from distant places, however, as they are local species, we decided to include them in the list until the pertinent analyses (stable isotopes) are carried out to clarify their origin.

The current bird record: avibase

To record current birds, we used the bird guides of Izquierdo et al. (2022), Narosky and Izurieta (2010), and López Lanús (2020); and sightings in the different micro-environmental sectors of Antofagasta de la Sierra (Olivera, 1992).

The sightings were carried out through walking tours along the edges of the lagoon and rivers/peatlands during the spring-summer months. Nikon 60 × 40 binoculars and a Canon Powershot SX60HS camera were used for the photographic record that helped taxonomic identification.

The sightings were carried out in localities associated with archeological sites (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Sampling area: Lower Basin, Intermediate Sectors and High-Altitude Ravines.

• High Altitude Ravines: Quebrada Seca locality, between 4200 and 4600 masl. (November 2021). It is located 12 km from the sampling point in the locality of Punta de la Peña. Area: 494 km²

• Intermediate Sectors: Punta de la Peña locality, between 3400 and 3900 masl. (September 2021 and March 2022). Located 8 km from the sampled lagoons. Area: 368 km²

• Lower Basin: Laguna Colorada, at 3400 masl (September 2021). Laguna Alumbrera and Laguna Antofagasta: 3300 masl (September and November 2021). Area: 1.157 km².

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with farmers who inhabit and transit the different micro-environmental sectors mentioned, to know their relations with birds (human-bird) and compare them with archeological information. All informants gave their consent for the publication of the information provided. We used qualitative methodology proposed for ethnographic research (Guber, 2011; Hermitte, 2002). In-depth interviews (conversations among peers, meetings oriented toward the life of the interlocutors, their experiences or situations) and participant observation were used. A field notebook was used to record the information, and in case of agreement with the interlocutors, photographs were taken during the meetings.

In 2021, eight people with an age range between 60 and 90 years (three self-perceived women and five self-perceived men) were interviewed. They are all herders of llamas and goats, with seasonal homes between the village of Antofagasta de la Sierra (summer) and high pastures (winter) where they tend their flocks. In this way they cover different altitudinal floors throughout the year with their animals. The talks were conducted in their homes, and in some cases with walking tours together, to their high houses or former residences (Punta de la Peña and Laguna Alumbrera). The interviews were conducted outdoors, which allowed us to directly observe and identify the birds (by the interviewees and the interviewer) while we talked.

Results

Forty-seven of the 65 species identified by Izquierdo et al. (2022) were recorded. This means that 72% of the birds are found in the sectors studied (Table 1). In relation to the total number of species recorded in the Puna, this corresponds to 31%. In terms of diversity, 24 species were recorded in the High-Altitude Ravines, that is, 37% of the birds in the whole ANS. The sector with the highest number of species (25) was the Lower Basin, which corresponds to 38% of the birds in ANS. The latter is also the place with the highest number of species sighted only in that sector. There are species that were recorded in all altitudinal sectors: Rhea pennata; Chloephaga melanoptera; Lophoneta specularioides; Geranoaetus polyosoma; Geositta cunicularia; Geositta punensis; Zonotrichia capensis; Phrygilus sp.; Rhopospina fruticeti; Sicalis sp. (Figure 3). On the other hand, it is important to highlight the record of two species that are not mentioned by Izquierdo et al. (2022): Oxyura jamaicensis ferruginea (Figure 3j) and Leptasthenura aegithaloides.

Table 1.

List of current birds observed in Antofagasta de la Sierra, Southern Argentine Puna.

Area		Identified species
High Altitude Ravines	Quebrada Seca	Vultur gryphus
	Quebrada Seca	Chloephaga melanoptera
	Quebrada Seca	Lophonetta specularioides
	Quebrada Seca	Geranoaetus polyosoma
	Quebrada Seca	Attagis gayi
	Quebrada Seca	Thinocorus orbignyianus
	Quebrada Seca	Geositta cunicularia
	Quebrada Seca	Geositta punensis
	Quebrada Seca	Geositta tenuirostris
	Quebrada Seca	Cinclodes albidiventris
	Quebrada Seca	Upucerthia dumetaria
	Quebrada Seca	Ochetorhynchus ruficaudus
	Quebrada Seca	Leptasthenura fuliginiceps
	Quebrada Seca	Muscisaxicola sp.
	Quebrada Seca	Pygochelidon cyanoleuca
	Quebrada Seca	Geospizopsis unicolor
	Quebrada Seca	Idiopsar dorsalis
	Quebrada Seca	Phrygilus sp.
	Quebrada Seca	Sicalis sp.
	Quebrada Seca	Zonotrichia capensis
	Quebrada Seca	Rhopospina fruticeti
	Quebrada Seca	Geospizopsis plebejus
	Quebrada Seca	Spinus atratus
Intermediate Sectors	Punta de la Peña	Chloephaga melanoptera
	Punta de la Peña	Lophonetta specularioides
	Punta de la Peña	Geranoaetus polyosoma
	Punta de la Peña	Metriopelia melanoptera
	Punta de la Peña	Athene cunicularia
	Punta de la Peña	Geositta cunicularia
	Punta de la Peña	Geositta punensis
	Punta de la Peña	Geositta tenuirostris
	Punta de la Peña	Upucerthia dumetaria
	Punta de la Peña	Muscisaxicola sp.
	Punta de la Peña	Geospizopsis unicolor
	Punta de la Peña	Phrygilus sp.
	Punta de la Peña	Sicalis sp.
	Punta de la Peña	Zonotrichia capensis
	Punta de la Peña	Rhopospina fruticeti
	Punta de la Peña	Spinus atratus
Lower Basin	Laguna Colorada	Vultur gryphus
	Laguna Colorada	Chloephaga melanoptera
	Laguna Colorada	Lophonetta specularioides
	Laguna Colorada	Anas flavirostris oxyptera
	Laguna Colorada	Geranoaetus polyosoma
	Laguna Colorada	Vanellus resplendens
	Laguna Colorada	Chroicocephalus serranus
	Laguna Colorada	Geositta cunicularia
	Laguna Colorada	Geositta punensis
	Laguna Colorada	Asthenes modesta
	Laguna Colorada	Geospizopsis unicolor
	Laguna Colorada	Phrygilus sp.
	Laguna Colorada	Sicalis sp.
	Laguna Colorada	Zonotrichia capensis
	Laguna Colorada	Rhopospina fruticeti
	Laguna Colorada	Geospizopsis plebejus
	Laguna Colorada	Leptasthenura aegithhaloides
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Anas flavirostris oxyptera
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Spatula puna
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Oxyura jamaicensis ferruginea
Area		Identified species
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Falco femoralis
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Fulica ardesiaca
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Chroicocephalus serranus
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Athene cunicularia
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Geositta punensis
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Geositta cunicularia
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Phrygilus sp.
	Laguna Alumbrera and Antofagasta	Zonotrichia capensis

Figure 3.

Feathers recovered in archeological sites analyzed. (a) Cut feathers of C. melanoptera. (b) Whole feathers of Metriopelia sp. (c) Whole feathers of Furnariidae. (d) Anatidae and Fringillidae feathers. (e) P. occipitalis. (f) C. melanoptera. (g) Thinocorus orbignyianus. (h) Phygilus atriceps. (i) Phoenicopterus chiliensis. (j) Oxyura jamaicensis ferruginea.

Feathers in archeological contexts

As a result of the macroscopic and microscopic analysis, the family and, in some cases, the species were determined (Table 2). Feathers were divided into: feathers with human intervention (PCIH) and without human intervention (PSIH). PCIH are feathers cut transversely at the vane and/or longitudinally along its shaft (rachis and calamus). PSIH refers to whole feathers resulting from taphonomic processes (following to Urquiza and Echevarria, 2018) or products of human movement of animal parts.

Table 2.

Feathers recovered from archeological sites and their taxonomic identification.

Archeological site	U.P.	Level	Cut feathers	Whole feathers
PP9 III Est. 2	F6	1		Furnariidae
PP9 III Est. 2	G6A	1		Furnariidae
PP9 III Est. 2	I6	1		Furnariidae
PP9 III Est. 2	I6	2		Furnariidae
PP9 III Est. 2	K6	2		Furnaridae
PP9 III Est. 2	H6	2		Phrygilus sp.
PP9 III Est. 2	A1	1		Anatidae
PP9 III Est. 2	H6	1	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP9 III Est. 2	E2	1		Furnariidae
PP9 III Est. 2	E2	3		Phrygilus sp.
PP9 III Est. 2	E2	3		Furnariidae
PP9 III Est. 2	D2	3		Furnariidae
PP9 III Est. 2	G6	3		Furnariidae
PP9 III Est. 2	H6	3		Metriopelia sp.
PP9 III Est. 2	H7	3		Tyrannidae
PP9 III Est. 2	G7	3		Athene cunicularia
PP9 III Est. 2	E2	5		Tyrannidae
PP9 III Est. 2	E6	4		Metriopelia sp.
PP9 III Est. 2	I6	2	Anatidae
PP9 III Est. 2	A1	2	Anatidae
ES1	B1	Stove		Phrygilus sp.
ES1	B1	6		Phrygilus sp.
ES1	B2	4		Furnariidae
ES1	B2	3		Furnariidae
ES1	B2	3		Passeriformes
ES1	B2	5		Furnariidae
ES1	B1	5		Phrygilus sp.
ES1	B1	7		Furnariidae
ES1	B1	8		Anatidae
ES1	B1	8	Chloephaga melanoptera
ES1	B1	9	Anatidae
ES1	B1	8		Phrygilus sp.
PP3	C1	1		Phrygilus sp.
PP3	C4	1		Furnariidae
PP3	D2	1		Furnariidae
PP3	D2	1		Phrygilus sp.
PP3	C2	2		Rhinocryptidae
PP3	B1	2		Phrygilus sp.
PP3	B1	2		Furnariidae
PP3	C1C	2		Metriopelia sp.
PP3	B2C	2		Phrygilus sp.
PP3	D1CandD	2		Phrygilus sp.
PP3	D1AB	2		Metriopelia sp.
PP3	B2AB	2		Metriopelia sp.
PP3	B1D	2		Passeriformes
PP3	C1D	2		Phrygilus sp.
PP3	C1C	2		Phrygilus sp.
PH2	E1B4	2		Phrygilus sp.
PH2	E1A2	2		Spinus atratus
PH2	E1A2	2		Ephippiospingus dorsalis
PH2	E1A3	2		Phrygilus sp.
PH2	E1B3	2		Phrygilus sp.
PH2	E1B3	2		Furnariidae
PH2	E1B1	2		Furnariidae
PH2	E1B3	2		Tyrannidae
PH2	E1B4	2		Phrygilus sp.
PH2	E1B1	3		Metriopelia sp.
PH2	E1B3	3		Phrygilus sp.
Archeological site	U.P.	Level	Cut feathers	Whole feathers
PH2	E1B4	3		Anatidae
PH2	E1A1	3		Furnariidae
PH2	E5D2	3		Furnariidae
PH2	E1A3	3		Furnariidae
PH2	E1B3	3		Metriopelia sp.
PH2	E1A2	3		Passeriformes
PH2	E1B2	4		Columbidae
PH2	E1B4	4		Passeriformes
PH2	E1B5	4		Passeriformes
PH2	E1B3	4		Passeriformes
PH2	E1B1	1		Phrygilus sp.
PH2	E1B3	1		Phrygilus sp.
PH2	E1C2	1		Furnariidae
PH2	E1C4	1		Columbidae
PH2	E1A5	1		Phrygilus sp.
PH2	E1A5	1		Passeriformes
PP4	L3D	1		Anatidae
PP4	L3D	1		Thraupidae
PP4	K4D	1		Anatidae
PP4	K4D	1		Anatidae
PP4	K4D	1		Thraupidae
PP4	K4D	1		Thraupidae
PP4	M2C	1		Anatidae
PP4	L3B	1		Thraupidae
PP4	M2C	1		Furnariidae
PP4	M2C	1		Thraupidae
PP4	M2C	1		Anatidae
PP4	M2C	1		Anatidae
PP4	K8D	1		Passeriformes
PP4	K8B	1		Thraupidae
PP4	F8B	1		Rhea pennata
PP4	L4C	2		Thraupidae
PP4	L4C	2		Thraupidae
PP4	L4C	2		Thraupidae
PP4	L4C	2		Anatidae
PP4	L4C	2		Anatidae
PP4	L4C	2		Thraupidae
PP4	L4D	2		Thraupidae
PP4	G6A	2		Passeriformes
PP4	J8B	2		Passeriformes
PP4	L3B	3		Strigidae
PP4	K9	1–3		Anatidae
PP4	K9	1–3		Anatidae
PP4	B29	1	Anatidae
PP4	B12	1	Athene cunicularia
PP4	B29	1	Anatidae
PP4	F8B	1		Rhea pennata
PP4	M2C	1	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	I4B	2	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	L3D	3	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	J3B	3	Anatidae
PP4	I4A	3	Anatidae
PP4	I4B	3	Anatidae
PP4	I4B	3	Anatidae
PP4	L3D	1	Anatidae
PP4	L3D	1	Phoenicopteridae
PP4	L3D	1	Athene cunicularia
Archeological site	U.P.	Level	Cut feathers	Whole feathers
PP4	L3D	1	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	L3B	3	Anatidae
PP4	K9	3		Lophoneta specularioides
PP4	M3A	3	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	L4A	2	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	J9A	2	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	K8D	2	Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	L3D	3	Anatidae
PP4	K7A	3		Chloephaga melanoptera
PP4	K9	Tomb		Anas flavirostris

All the feathers analyzed are associated with levels of human occupation of archeological sites.

Open-air archeological sites

Punta de la Peña 9-III (Structure 2) This occupation was dated from ca.1480 to 430 BP The structure was divided into two sectors (A and B): a space between rock blocks interpreted as an area of activities (A), and a corridor containing the remains of a removed tomb (B) (López Campeny, 2010). In both sectors, the first occupation (530 ± 50 BP) presents an accumulation of grasses, fleece, cords, and seeds, with whole and cut feathers. These accumulations are interpreted as a result of the cleaning of spaces or wind action. In sector A, associated with a combustion structure (1150 ± 150 BP), carving debris, bone remains of Camelidae, ceramic fragments, and feathers of Passeriformes and Columbidae. In sector B, a funerary event scramble (1460 ± 40 BP) was found next to the rock wall, associated with Furnariidae, Tyrannidae, Columbidae and Anatidae feathers (whole and cut). They are related to a stove, burned bones of Camelidae, carving debris, and lithic artifacts, all in sector A.

Archeological rock shelter sites

Punta de la Peña 3-A (PP3-A) Into the occupation levels of the first millenium AD, whole feathers of Passeriformes were recovered in loose straw, on a bed of straw, and in a pit with straw. They are associated with fleece, lithic flakes, ropes, charcoal spicules, bone chips, and seeds. In some cases, feathers of Passeriformes and Columbidae are associated with these materials outside the thatch.

El Sembrado 1 (ES1-Al) in levels of human occupation from the historic period, whole Passerine feathers are associated with straw or grasses, with stoves, lithic debris from carving, ceramic fragments, cordage, and camelid bone remains. The feathers would have been introduced to the site trapped in the straw used to prepare the inner space. Into the occupation levels of the first millenium AD, there are whole feathers of Passerine and Anatidae, as well as three cut feathers of C. melanoptera associated with burnt bones, lithic flakes, ceramic fragments, and fleece.

Piedra Horadada 2 -Structure 1 (PH2) At a concentration of vegetation against a rock block – the results of eolian accumulation – feathers of Passerine and Columbidae were found associated with flakes. Other entire feathers of Passeriformes and Anatidae, appear in areas of lithic artifact making, with camelid bone remains, ceramic sherds, arrowheads, and wool cords.

Punta de la Peña 4 (PP4) Whole and cut feathers were associated with areas of human activity, such as the manufacture of stone artifacts. Other whole feathers of Passeriformes, Rheidae, and Anatidae appear in a garbage dump with bone remains. Next to the stove, were also cut Anatidae feathers, ceramic fragments, scrapers, shavings, scales, and a biface. Other feathers of this family were found next to a stone wall, near a well filled with ashes, bone remains, burnt maize husks, leather ropes, and lithic artifacts. An A. flavirostris feather was recovered from a funerary context dated 570 ± 80 BP (Urquiza and Echevarria, 2018).

Archeological feathers in context

All feathers found in archeological sites mentioned are analyzed. The total sample has: 1739 feathers. Of which, 60 were intentionally cut and 1679 were uncut.

The contextual associations of the analyzed feathers respond to different situations. Some have accumulated in places close to rock shelters or cliffs, as a result of wind action or the cleaning of residential areas. On the other hand, many whole feathers of passerines were found in the straw litters, which suggests that these were trapped in the grass before being cut and transported into the rooms. Feathers of Passerines, Columbidae, Phoenicopteridae, Strigidae, and Anatidae were also found in areas of activities such as the stone tool manufacture.

The presence of whole and cut feathers of Anatidae and Strigidae, would respond to the hunting or gathering of feathers of these birds in the site’s proximity (Figure 3a and d). The pellets found in archeological sites (PP3 A) are associated with levels of human abandonment, possibly linked to the presence of Strigidae in the past. Have currently been sighted at PP4 and PP3 Strigidae roosts. The occasional hunting of medium-sized birds was recorded for site PP4 by Urquiza and Aschero (2014). The presence of Passerines and Columbidae may be due to the accumulation by the action of natural agents (Figure 3b and c). The few feathers of Phoenicopteridae (vexile cut) and A. flavirostris (funerary context) recorded, are associated with human manipulation. These birds are sighted in the Lower Basin so their presence in Intermediate Sectors sites indicates mobility or exchange to obtain them.

Most of the cut feathers or feathers associated with human transport (C. melanoptera, Athene cunicularia, L. specularioides, Anatidae) correspond to artifact production contexts such as arrowheads – in the same level: lithic flakes and chips, coiled tendons and cut/whole feathers – (PP9, PP4, PH2, and ES1) (Figure 3a). At site PP4, a cut Phoenicopteridae feather and a whole R. pennata feather were found in a domestic context, associated with seed remains, garbage dump, camelid bone fragments and lithic tools.

Archeological bird bones

In the sites analyzed, only two bird bones were recovered. At archeological site PH2 a coracoid fragment of Anas flavirostris with cut marks was found (level 5). On the other hand, at site PP4 (level 2) a femur fragment was found, possibly from Anatidae or Podicipedidae. It shows rodent teeth marks. The anatomical and taxonomic identification of bird bone remains was carried out using reference manuals (Cohen and Serjeantson, 1996; Gilbert et al., 1981; Olsen, 1979; Serjeantson, 2009) and by consulting avian osteological collection of the Miguel Lillo Foundation.

Current social practices related to birds

Information was collected from the following places in Antofagasta de la Sierra: Laguna Colorada, Laguna Alumbrera, Punta de la Peña, Trapiche, Los Nacimientos, Quebrada Seca, and Real Grande. In terms of social practices related to birds, we have defined four categories: augural, medicinal, consumer hunting, and egg collection. In total we registered information on 16 local bird taxa, in some cases we made identifications at the species level, and in other cases only at the order or genera (Table 3). The difficulty of taxonomic identification is due to the fact that the native ways of categorizing birds do not coincide with the criteria and terms established by biology.

Table 3.

Information from interviews: Birds and the social practices associated with them.

Social practice	Species	Common /Local name	Interviewers	Resident
Medicinal	Furnaridae (?)	Quempi/quinti	JM	Punta de la Peña
Hunting	Passeriformes and Columbidae	Little birds	JM	Punta de la Peña
Eggs collection	Phoenicoteridae	Flamingos	JM	Punta de la Peña
Eggs collection	Rhea pennata	Suri	JM	Punta de la Peña
Hunting	Chloephaga melanoptera	Guayata	JM	Punta de la Peña
Hunting	Anatidae	Ducks	JM	Punta de la Peña
Eggs collection	Podiceps occipitalis	Niñita	LR	Laguna Colorada
Augural	Furnaridae (?)	Quinti	LR	Laguna Colorada
Augural	Thinocorus rumicivorus	Pocoi	LR	Laguna Colorada
Augural	Vanellus resplendens	Tero	LR	Laguna Colorada
Augural	Psilopsiagon aurifrons	Cata	LR	Laguna Colorada
Eggs collection	Phoenicopteridae, Rallidae and Anatidae	Flamingos, huare an ducks	LR	Laguna Colorada
Medicinal	Phoenicopteridae	Flamingos	LR	Laguna Colorada
Medicinal	Phoenicopteridae	Flamingos	HB	Laguna Colorada
Eggs collection	Thinocorus rumicivorus	Pocoi	HB	Laguna Colorada
Augural	Phrygilus sp.	Comesebo or Pasacana	LR	Laguna Colorada
Hunting	C. melanoptera and Anatidae	Ducks and Guayata	LR	Laguna Colorada
Medicinal	Patagona gigas	Quinti	MC	Villa de Antofagasta
Hunting	Fulica ardesiaca	Huare	MC	Villa de Antofagasta
Eggs collection	Fulica ardesiaca	Huare	MC	Villa de Antofagasta
Medicinal	Phoenicopteridae	Flamingos	MC	Villa de Antofagasta
Augural	Agriornis sp.	Gaucho	LM	Villa de Antofagasta
Medicinal	Agriornis sp.	Gaucho	LM	Villa de Antofagasta
Hunting	Rhea pennata	Suri	RV	Villa de Antofagasta
Eggs collection	Rhea pennata	Suri	RV	Villa de Antofagasta
Eggs collection	Phoenicopteridae	Flamingos	RV	Villa de Antofagasta
Hunting	Rhea pennata	Suri	RV	Villa de Antofagasta
Eggs collection	Tinamotis pentlandii	Partridge	LM	Villa de Antofagasta
Hunting	Tinamotis pentlandii	Partridge	LM	Villa de Antofagasta
Eggs collection	Rhea pennata	Suri	LM	Villa de Antofagasta
Eggs collection	Phoenicoteridae and Anatidae	Flamingos and ducks	LM	Villa de Antofagasta
Augural	Vultur Gryphus	Cóndor	IS	Trapiche/ los nacimientos
Eggs collection	Rhea pennata	Suri	BC-IS	Trapiche/ los nacimientos
Eggs collection	Phoenicopteridae	Flamingos	BC-IS	Trapiche/ los nacimientos
Eggs collection	Anatidae	Ducks	BC-IS	Trapiche/ los nacimientos
Augural	Tinamotis pentlandii	Partridge	BC-IS	Trapiche/ los nacimientos
Augural	Sicalis sp.	Llamavientos	BC-IS	Trapiche/ los nacimientos
Eggs collection	Thinocorus rumicivorus	Pocoi	BC-IS	Trapiche/ los nacimientos
Hunting	Rhea pennata	Suri	BC	Trapiche/ los nacimientos

In terms of dietary consumption, we recorded the practice of egg collection and bird hunting. Egg collection is carried out with 6 different genera of birds: Anatidae, Phoenicopteridae, Rallidae, Rheidae, Podiceps occipitalis, Fulica ardesiaca, Thinocorus rumicivorus, Tinamotis pentlandii. The hunting of wild birds is mainly linked to aquatic species that inhabit the lagoons or peatlands (Anatidae, C. melanoptera, and Fulica ardesiaca) but it is also recorded in terrestrial species such as pigeons, partridges, and ñandués.

As for practices associated with medicinal purposes, flamingos, the Gaucho (Agriornis sp.), and the Quinti (Furnariidae or Patagonas gigas) are mentioned. In the augural category there is a great diversity of birds, a total of seven species were recorded: T. pentlandii, Sicalis sp. Agriornis sp., Furnariidae, T. rumicivorus, Vallenus resplandens, Psilopsiagon aurifrons. The most frequent announcements refer to the weather, the seasons, or the arrival of good and bad news.

Discussion

Relating past and present practices

Gathering feathers to burn and inhaling the smoke (Phoenicopteridae and Quinti) to cure bleeding or other ailments has been included in the medicinal category. In this regard, there is a correspondence in one of the species whose feathers were used both in the past and in the present: Phoenicopteridae. In PP4 cut flamingo feathers were found, the purpose of which is unclear due to the lack of information that would allow us to deduce their use.

On the other hand, we also note correspondence in the value attributed to passerine birds in terms of their propitiatory or medicinal function. At the PP3-C site, close to the analyzed sites, we identified a Furnariidae feather, coming from the interior of a bundle (132 ± 25 BP). It was composed of cloth, cords, seeds, and leather. It has been interpreted as part of a ritual and seems to be an offering deposited next to the stove (Martínez, 2020). Urquiza and Babot (2018) analyze the site PP9-III-South Deposit (DIO E8) (1465 29 years BP), this is an intentional deposit of objects, where a feather of Passeriforme (Rhynocryptidae: Teledromas fuscus) was recovered, along with tufts of cut human hair, fleece, fleece with monochrome laces, bicolor cord, valve beads, remains of two camelids, among others. This has been interpreted as foundational events of the inhabited site and as propitiatory events during the dry season within the agro-pastoral cycles, according to current practices carried out in ANS.

These cases may be related to the mention in the interviews of “Quinti or Quempi.” However, we cannot associate this category to a single species because the villagers use different characteristics to recognize it. Based on the descriptions we can say that it is a Furnariidae and/or giant hummingbird (P. gigas). Thus, there is a possible correspondence in the value given to these small birds, both in the past and the present, linked to medicinal or propitiatory practices. The Quinti nest is useful for curing people’s “susto,” as mentioned by the interviewees. This ailment is associated with the loss of the soul in northwestern Argentina (Delgado Súmar, 1988, 1999). In turn, the bird also has a communicative role, again associated with the soul; one of our interviewees mentioned how the Quenti communicated to her grandmother about the death of a close relative. The medicinal or propitiatory properties of the bird may be linked to its ontological particularities, which make it a being with a specific social value.

In the archeological sites the largest amount of cut feathers were associated with projectile production contexts (arrows or darts), so they have been interpreted as possible deflectors or remains of their confection (Urquiza and Echevarria, 2018). At present, this activity is not recorded because hunting is a practice that is carried out with firearms. On the other hand, waterfowl hunting is a constant between past and present. The bone remains found in the archeological sites of PP4 and PH2 demonstrate the hunting of medium-sized birds that could correspond to the Anatidae family (Urquiza and Aschero, 2014; Urquiza and Echevarria, 2018).

Eggshell fragments were also found, associated with the human occupation at the sites analyzed. This could show a continuity in the practices of collecting the eggs for consumption. So far, no taxonomic identifications have been made on the fragments recovered; this remains pending for future work.

Past and present bird species diversity

For the comparison of bird diversity in the past and present, we will focus on the records of the Intermediate Sector (Punta de la Peña locality) where the archeological sites analyzed are located (Table 4). All species in the archeological record, with the exception of two cases, were currently recorded in the Intermediate Sector. The exceptional cases correspond to A. flavirostris and Phoenicopteridae. Flamingos and A. flavirostris usually inhabit the Lower Basin, in the lagoons, although along their migratory movements they could have rested in the peatlands of the Intermediate Sector. We are not sure of the provenance of these feathers and therefore decided to discard them for comparison of bird diversity in this sector.

Table 4.

Comparison of species in the archeological record and those currently sighted in the intermediate sector.

Past birds	Current birds
Strigidae: Athene cunicularia	Strigidae: Athene cunicularia
	Accipitridae: Geranoaetus polyosoma
Anatidae
Anatidae: Chloephaga melanoptera	Anatidae: Chloephaga melanoptera
Anatidae: Lophonetta specularioides	Anatidae: Lophonetta specularioides
Rheidae: Rhea pennata	Rheidae: Rhea pennata
Columbidae: Metriopelia sp.	Columbidae: Metriopelia melanoptera
Furnaridae	Furnariidae: Geositta cunicularia
	Furnariidae: Geositta punensis
	Furnariidae: Geositta tenuirostris
Fringillidae: Spinus atratus	Fringillidae: Spinus atratus
Thraupidae: Phrygilus sp.	Thraupidae: Phrygilus sp.
Thraupidae: Ephippiospingus dorsalis	Thraupidae: Upucerthia dumetaria
Thraupidae	Thraupidae: Sicalis sp.
	Thraupidae: Rhopospina fruticeti
	Thraupidae: Zonotrichia capensis
Rhinocryptidae
Tyrannidae	Tyrannidae: Muscisaxicola sp.
Phoenicopteridae
Anas flavirostris

Excluding the two cases mentioned above, in the archeological sites we recorded nine families of birds and eight genera. In the present study we recorded nine families and 14 genera. The lower diversity of genera in the archeological record is due to the difficulty of identifying bird genera or species from feathers.

This correspondence in species diversity is also associated with the paleoenvironmental conditions that took place since the Late Period in Antofagasta de la Sierra. Grana (2012) proposes five ecological events, starting from 7200 BP (Figure 4). In our case, the events that correspond to the time period studied are:

Figure 4.

Diachronic analysis of ecological events and their relationship with social processes in Antofagasta de la Sierra. Modificated from Grana (2012: 246, Figure 10.14).

-Ecological event three: with dry and unstable conditions between 1599 and 600 ACAP throughout the region. Different changes and sensitivities are recorded for each water system, which would indicate greater heterogeneity in hydric availability.

- Ecological event four: with wet and cold conditions during the 599–40 ACAP. This event is recorded heterogeneously within the hydric systems studied. From the analysis of the lentic system, it can be divided into three moments: 4.1 – wet conditions (591–503 ACAP), 4.2 – wet and cold (490–450 ACAP), and 4.3 – dry possibly cold or cool (449–40 ACAP).

- Ecological event five: current conditions (dry and warm), possibly beginning in the last 100 years, that is, from 1900 AD for the region. Heterogeneity in resource availability, similar to the current situation, would be evident.

All the mentioned events show a trend toward aridization with a marked heterogeneity in resource availability (such as wetlands) in the ANS region. According to Tchilinguirian and Morales (2013), the middle and upper basins of the ANS rivers were buffered from the general changes in the region, which provided favorable conditions for human occupation. This resulted, for the Late Period (start to ecological event three), in the intensification and specialization in the use of Intermediate Sectors, as well as hunting/grazing posts in High-Altitude Ravines, while for the Lower Basin there was an occupational hiatus of at least 100 years. Grana (2012), suggests that during ecological event three, social strategies were developed that generated “wet” landscapes opposed to the dominant environmental conditions. Thus, environmental conditions do not always coincide with social landscapes. Las Pitas River has demonstrated with absolute chronological evidence a constant occupation by human groups throughout all the mentioned events (Aschero, 2000; Aschero et al., 2002; Aschero, 2007; Aschero et al., 2014; Babot, 2011; Babot et al., 2006; Cohen, 2005; Hoscman et al., 2007; López Campeny, 2001, 2009, 2010; Urquiza and Aschero, 2014; Urquiza and Echevarria, 2018).

In summary, for the intermediate sector, environmental conditions during the last millenium were similar. In particular, the Las Pitas River basin maintained a constant occupation favored by greater hydric stability. This would explain the relative homogeneity of bird species in the past and at present.

On the other hand, considering the proposal of Grana (2012) regarding the creation of green spaces, we do not rule out that the stability of bird diversity is related to human occupation in Punta de la Peña. In the past, people had orchards, crop fields, and corrals associated with domestic units. Human occupation is a factor that generates new nesting, shelter and feeding spaces for birds. This is a hypothesis that needs to be further investigated in future research. On the other hand, during our interviews and fieldwork we have observed the proximity of wild birds to domestic spaces. In the case of passerines, we found them in orchards and corrals, feeding and nesting (Peñas Coloradas and Laguna Colorada).

Other research (Lallana et al., 2008; Santos Benítez et al., 2018) has found an increase or persistence in bird diversity in areas with human modifications such as the creation of dams or cultivation. It provides feeding, roosting and breeding sites for birds (Lallana et al., 2008). In some cases, introduced vegetation becomes refuges and alternative habitats for avifauna (Ramírez Albores, 2020). The conditions created by human activities offer resources that are not available in unmodified areas; in this sense, natural vegetation-agriculture mosaics can support species richness, although in most cases these studies highlight that these are birds with a predominance of generalist habits and tolerant to altered habitats, where endangered species do not persist (Santos Benítez et al., 2013). Santos Benítez et al. (2013) notes that in crops of Mexico the best represented order is the Passeriformes, which includes generalist species, so that their food resources can be found in different types of habitats -native forests and crops-. In ANS, something different happens because human action does not suppress the patches of natural vegetation, but generates the expansion of meadows with native grasses and in the case of crops involves the opening of new spaces with irrigation canals. The current bird record was not made differentiating between land use and vegetation types, so we do not know precisely how this factor influences bird diversity. This is a pending issue that we hope to be able to further explore in future works that propose other sampling strategies.

Finally, our work allowed us to define some of the agents living in the vicinity of the archeological sites. We want to emphasize the importance of taphonomic studies to approach the actions or presence of non-human agents (birds or other predators). This is fundamental to reconstruct the possible spaces, moments and behaviors in which human interactions with them took place.

Political influences in bird-human relationships

In the second millenium, between 1050 and 1660 A.D. human occupation intensified in the middle sector, in dwellings with corrals on the banks of the river Las Pitas. This indicates the persistence of domestic management of animal and vegetable production. Cohen (2014) proposes the persistence of domestic production autonomies with family units of pastoral tradition, even in post-Hispanic times.

This situation allowed mobility or access to exchange networks in family groups. This could be evidenced in the access to birds and their derivatives (e.g. feathers) from different altitudinal sectors. In the archeological sites analyzed, the feathers of A. flavirostris and Phoenicopteridae, could come from the Lower Basin and imply the displacement of people to these places. Thus, at least for the Late Period, there was access to resources that were not immediately available in the Las Pitas River basin (8–10 km from the residential units to the lagoons).

Subsequently, an Inca administrative center was established at the Lower Basin (Olivera et al., 2003/2005), a time for which we did not record evidence of birds assignable to this sector in the sites analyzed. This is probably due to political decisions on the use and access to certain resources/territories that may have limited the social practices of the settlers.

Past and present continuities

At present, based on the interviews, we found a peasant lifestyle with networks of exchange and seasonal mobility, linked to camelid foraging and agricultural activity. This way of life had a long tradition in the area (Aschero et al., 2020, among others).

Eggshells

Birds play an interesting role in the subsistence of the current inhabitants of the village of Antofagasta de la Sierra, especially in the collecting the eggs of different species. This practice is evidenced by the presence of Rhea (Suri) eggshells in domestic contexts of the sites analyzed for the Las Pitas River basin; at the same time eggshells of Anatidae were found in the Lower Basin (Daniel Olivera, 2022, personal communication). The interviewees mentioned long days of tracking Rhea pennata eggs, which imply altitudinal displacements between different micro-environmental sectors.

Until a few decades ago, the collecting of flamingo eggs was carried out in relation to exchange trips, or grazing in high altitude wintering posts. Both activities are governed by annual seasonality, in relation to the resources available in each micro-environmental sector. For example, according to interviewees, in Laguna Diamante, flamingo eggs were collected in December (spring-summer) and placed in baskets for family consumption or exchange for goods with travelers from Chile.

Camelid and bird hunting

Interviewees reported hunting vicuñas and birds for family consumption and camelid skins for exchange with Chilean travelers. For Las Pitas, bird hunting was complementary to camelid hunting from the Archaic to the colonial period (Urquiza and Aschero, 2014). In the High-Altitude Ravines during the Late-Holocene, camelid hunting was a specific activity in this sector (Olivera and Grant, 2009).

Aves auguries and medicinal practices

Various birds are mentioned by interviewees as heralding the seasons of the year, weather changes, the arrival of particular people, good news or the death of a family member. On the other hand, feathers and nests are used in healing practices, as in the case of the flamingos and the Quinti. As for the past, we do not know the communicative abilities of birds in relation to people, because they left no material testimonies. However, in the funerary contexts (PP4) and offerings (PP3-C) we have confirmed the value given to birds, linked to a propitiatory potential.

Mining and birds

Some inhabitants of the village are currently opposing and resisting the actions developed by lithium mining companies (Salar del Hombre Muerto) located to the NW of the village. The advance of these companies generated the expansion of infrastructure (roads, dams, aqueducts, etc.) over the territories of private individuals and indigenous communities. This has led to conflicts with the local population dedicated to agro-livestock activities, as well as the permanent drought of the Trapiche River, with the concomitant loss of associated biodiversity (El Ancasti Newspaper, 2019).

With neoextractivism, an area historically marked by state absence now becomes a space strongly regulated by governmental and private agents that impose their technicist and modern logics, subsidiary to a foreign ontology (De la Cadena and Blaser, 2018; Escobar, 1998, 2012; Stengers, 2018; Svampa, 2019). The ecological consequences on birds of this mining activity have been little studied (Izquierdo et al., 2018). This is an activity which consumes large quantities of water in a desert, thus directly affecting all life forms associated with high altitude wetlands. Therefore, the records made in this work can be taken as indicators of the conservation status of high-altitude wetlands in the region, and can be used in the future to measure the impact of mining activity.

Conclusions

In the three sectors sampled, 47 of the 65 bird species recorded for ANS by Izquierdo et al. (2022) were currently sighted. We should generate data for the autumn-winter seasons, which could increase the diversity of birds recorded.

For the Puna Austral Argentina, from ca. 1000 BP to the present, we observe the permanence of interactions between peasant groups and birds. This is closely linked to their cosmovision (sensu Van Kessel, 1996) or cosmology (sensu De la Cadena and Blaser, 2018), lifestyles. Activities are organized according to the seasons, which generates variations in the distribution of animal and plant resources in the micro-environmental sectors. However, the current inhabitants are undergoing changes due to the expansion of mining activities. Finally, during periods of greater aridity in the Puna (Late-Holocene), rather than reducing biodiversity, peasant activity, through water management, led to an expansion of available resources, crops and grazing areas. This could have been beneficial for the abundance of bird species. This contrasts with the high impact economic activities, such as mining, which rapidly affect water stability in the Puna ecosystem.

This research is a contribution to the comparison of past and present avifauna and their relationships with human populations. It also provides a basis for measuring future variations in bird diversity in relation to human activities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Julio Morales, Wilson Mamaní, Lola Rodríguez, Hilario Beltrán, Juan e Isabel Salva, Alfredo Morales, Luis Mamaní, Eli Mamaní, Ramón Vázquez and María and Verónica Cruz, for they collaboration and kindness. The authors thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructively critical reviews.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants FONCyT loan BID PICT-2019-03557 (S. Urquiza) and CONICET PhD Scholarship RESOL-2020-129-APN-DIR#CONICET of which M. B. Velardez Fresia is a beneficiary.

ORCID iDs

MB Velardez-Fresia

SV Urquiza

References

Aagesen

Szumik

Zuloaga

, et al. (2009) Quantitative biogeography in the South America highlands—recognizing the Altoandina, Puna and Prepuna through the study of Poaceae. Cladistics 25(3): 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00248.x

Aschero

(2000) El poblamiento del territorio. In: Tarragó

(ed.) Nueva Historia Argentina, Los Pueblos Originarios y la Conquista. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana, pp.17–59.

Aschero

(2007) Iconos, huancas y complejidad en la Puna Sur Argentina. In: Nielsen

Rivolta

Seldes

, et al. (eds) Producción y circulación prehispánicas de bienes en el Sur Andino. Córdoba: Editorial Brujas, pp.135–165.

Aschero

Izeta

Hocsman

(2014) New data on South American camelid bone size changes during Middle-late Holocene Transition: Osteometry at Peñas Chicas 1.5 (Antofagasta de la Sierra, Argentinian Puna). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 24(4): 492–504. https:/doi.org/10.1002/oa.2235

Aschero

Babot

Cohen

, et al. (2020) Miles de años de historia. . . entre vegas, peñas y quebradas en Antofagasta de la Sierra. Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.

Aschero

Zurita

Colaneri

, et al. (2002) El bebé de la peña. In: Actas del XIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina, Argentina, Córdoba, 4-8 October 1999, Tomo II pp.229–238.

Babot

(2011) Cazadores-Recolectores De Los Andes Centro-Sur Y Procesamiento Vegetal. Una Discusión Desde La Puna Meridional Argentina (Ca. 7.000-3.200 Años A.P.). Chungará, Revista de Antropología Chilena 43(S.N. 1): 413–432. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4067/S0717-73562011000300006

Babot

Aschero

Hocsman

, et al. (2006) Ocupaciones agropastoriles en los sectores intermedios de Antofagasta de la Sierra (Catamarca): un análisis desde Punta de la Peña 9. Comechingonia 9: 57–78.

Barquez

Díaz

Ojeda

(2006) Mamíferos de Argentina, sistemática y distribución. Tucumán: Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos.

10.

Belotti

(2010) Guacamayo sensorial. Análisis de los restos de un psitácido hallado en la tumba 11 de la necrópolis El Morro, en el sitio La Isla (Tilcara, provincia de Jujuy). In: Zooarqueología a principios del Siglo XXI. Aportes teóricos metodológicos y casos de estudio. Ed. Espinillo, Buenos Aires, pp.533–541.

11.

Blasco

Peresani

(2016) Humankind and the avian world: zooarchaeological evidence for inferring behavioural evolutionary signatures. Quaternary International 421: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.048

12.

Blasco

Rosell

Sánchez-Marco

, et al. (2019) Feathers and food: human-bird interactions at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 136: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102653

13.

Bochenski

(2005) Owls, diurnal raptors and humans: Signatures on avian bones. In: O’Connor

(ed.) Biosphere to Lithosphere: New Studies in Vertebrate Taphonomy. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.31–45.

14.

Bochenski

Tomek

Tornberg

, et al. (2009) Distinguishing non-human predation on birds: Pattern of damage done by the white-tailed eagle Haliaetus albicilla, with comments on the punctures made by the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.07.018

15.

Cartajena

Núñez

(2010) Phoenicopteridae exploitation in the Salar de Atacama Basin (3000–2200 BP), Northern Chile. Birds in Archaeology. Barkhuis, Groningen, pp.103–116.

16.

Cohen

Serjeantson

(1996) A Manual for the Identification of Bird Bones From Archaeological Sites. Archetype publications, Rev ed, London.

17.

Cohen

(2005) Entre Guano y Arena. . .Ocupaciones Recurrentes: Un Caso de Estudio en el Sitio Punta de la Peña 9-III Antofagasta de la Sierra Catamarca. Degree Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina.

18.

Cohen

(2014) Miradas desde y hacia los lugares de poder. Antofagasta de la Sierra entre 1000 y 1500 años d.C. Arqueología 20(1): 47–72.

19.

Cruz

(2011) Tafonomía de huesos de aves. Estado de la cuestión y perspectivas desde el Sur del Neotrópico. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 13: 147–174.

20.

De la Cadena

Blaser

(2018) A World of Many Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

21.

Delgado Súmar

(1988) El susto en la medicina tradicional de Ayacucho. Cuadernos de investigación 4: 2–55.

22.

Delgado Súmar

(1999) Rituales y procedimientos curativos en la medicina tradicional. Apuntes de medicina tradicional. Lima: Ministerio de Salud.

23.

El Ancasti Newspaper (2019) La denuncia es una vergüenza y una burrada histórica, social y jurídica. Available at: https://www.elancasti.com.ar/politica-economia/2019/11/4/la-denuncia-es-una-vergenza-una-burrada-historica-social-juridica-418222.html (accessed 20 August 2020).

24.

Escobar

(1998) La invención del Tercer Mundo. Construcción y deconstrucción del desarrollo. Bogotá: Norma.

25.

Escobar

(2012) Más allá del desarrollo: postdesarrollo y transiciones hacia el pluriverso. Revista de Antropología Social 21: 23–62.

26.

García

Rolandi

López

, et al. (2002) Viajes comerciales de intercambio en el Departamento de Antofagasta de la Sierra, Puna meridional argentina: Pasado y presente. Redes. Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales 2: 1–24.

27.

Gilbert

Martin

Savage

(1981) Avian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Socitey, Columbia.

28.

Grana

(2012) Arqueología y paleoambiente: dinámica cultural y cambio ambiental en sociedades complejas de la puna meridional argentina. PhD Thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

29.

Grant

Lane

(2018) The political ecology of late South American pastoralism: an Andean perspective A.D. 1,000-1,615. Journal of Political Ecology 25(1): 446–469. https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.23071

30.

Guber

(2011) La Etnografía. Método, campo y reflexividad. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.

31.

Hermitte

(2002) La observación por medio de la participación. In: En Visacovsky

Guber

(eds) Historias y estilos de trabajo de campo en la Argentina. Editorial Antropofagia, Buenos Aires, pp.212–234.

32.

Hoscman

, et al. (2007) Producción de bifaces y aprendices en el Sitio Quebrada Seca 3- Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca (5500-4500 años ap. In: Nielsen

(ed.) Producción y Circulación Prehispánicas de Bienes en el Sur Andino. Córdoba: Editorial Brujas, pp.55–82.

33.

INDEC (2010) Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas 2010. Available at: https://www.indec.gob.ar/indec/web/Nivel4-CensoProvincia-3-999-10-028-2010 (accessed 10 September 2022).

34.

Izquierdo

Osinaga Acosta

Martín

(2022) Guía de aves de Antofagasta de la Sierra: ecología y conocimiento local. Argentina. Tapirus, Digital book.

35.

Izquierdo

Grau

Navarro

, et al. (2018) Highlands in transition: Urbanization, pastoralism, mining, tourism, and wildlife in the Argentinian Puna. Mountain Research and Development 38(4): 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-17-00075.1

36.

Jochim

(1976) Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. New York: Academic Press.

37.

Lallana

Elizalde

, et al. (2008) Caracterización Ambiental de Represas para Riego en Entre Ríos. In: II Jornadas Red VITEC. Entre Ríos, 19-20 November 2008, Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos, Argentina.

38.

Laroulandie

(2005) Bird exploitation pattern: the case of Ptarmigan Lagopus sp. in the Upper Magdalenian site of La Vache (Ariège, France). Feathers, grit and symbolism. Birds and humans in the ancient Old and New Worlds. In: Proceedings of the 5th Meeting of the ICAZ Bird Working Group, Munich, pp.165–178.

39.

Laroulandie

Faivre

Gerbe

, et al. (2016) Who brought the bird remains to the Middle Palaeolithic site of Les Fieux (Southwestern, France)? Direct evidence of a complex taphonomic story. Quaternary International 421: 116–133.

40.

Lefevre

(2010) Birds in Maritime Hunter-Gatherers’ Subsistence: Case Studies From Southern Patagonia and the Aleutian Islands. Birds in Archaeology. Groningen: Barkhuis, pp.117–130.

41.

López Campeny

SML

(2001) Actividades Domésticas y Organización del Espacio Intrasitio. El Sitio Punta de la Peña 9 (Antofagasta de la Sierra, Prov. de Catamarca). Degree Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina.

42.

López Campeny

SML

(2009) Asentamiento, Redes Sociales, Memoria e Identidad Primer milenio de la era, Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca. PhD Thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina.

43.

López Campeny

SML

(2010) De un hogar en la Puna. . . Relatos de idas y vueltas. El hábitat prehispánico. Arqueología de la arquitectura y de la construcción del espacio organizado, pp.215–242.

44.

López

Coloca

Araya

, et al. (2015) El sitio Cueva Inca Viejo, Salar de ratones, Puna de Salta: Evidencia arqueológica y procesos de interacción macrorregional. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 40: 45–71.

45.

López Lanús

(2020) Guía Audiornis de las aves de Argentina, fotos y sonidos: identificación por características contrapuestas y marcas sobre imágenes. Audiornis producciones, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

46.

Martínez

(2014) Contributions to the knowledge of natural history and archaeology of hunter-gatherers of Antofagasta de la Sierra (Southern Argentinian Puna): the case of Peñas de las Trampas 1.1. Hunter-gatherers From a High-Altitude Desert. People of the Salt Puna (northwest Argentina) BAR, International Series, Oxford, pp.71–93.

47.

Martínez

(2020) Reproducción Social, Material y Simbólica de las Prácticas Textiles en Contexto Colonial y Republicano. Antofagasta de la Sierra, Puna Meridional Argentina. PhD Thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

48.

Mondini

(2000) Tafonomía de abrigos rocosos de la Puna. Formación de conjuntos escatológicos por zorros y sus implicaciones arqueológicas. Archaeofauna 9: 151–164.

49.

Morrone

(2001) Biogeografía de América Latina y el Caribe. MYT, Manuales y Tesis. SEA, 3.

50.

Narosky

Izurieta

(2010) Aves de Argentina y Uruguay. Guía de identificación. Buenos Aires: Vazquez Mazzini editores.

51.

Nasif

Miguez

(2014) La fauna relacionada en una comunidad prehispánica del piedemonte meridional de la provincia de Tucumán (Argentina). Folia Histórica del Noroeste 22: 203–232.

52.

Navarrete

Urquiza

Quiroga

, et al. (2022) Introducción de animales domésticos exóticos en la economía pastoril andina (ca. 440-500 AP). Un caso de estudio de Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca, Puna Austral de Argentina. Estudios Atacameños 68: e5816–e5818.

53.

Navarro

Izquierdo

Aráoz

, et al. (2020) Rewilding of large herbivore communities in high elevation Puna: Geographic segregation and no evidence of positive effects on peatland productivity. Regional Environmental Change 20: 1–11. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10113-020-01704-8

54.

Ojeda

Borghi

Roig

(2002) Mamíferos de Argentina. In: Ceballos

Simonetti

(eds) Diversidad y Conservación de Los Mamíferos Neotropicales. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y la Comisión Nacional para el conocimiento y uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), México DF, pp.23–63.

55.

Olivera

(1992) Tecnología y estrategias de adaptación en el formativo (agro-alfarero temprano) de la puna meridional argentina. Un caso de estudio. PhD Thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina.

56.

Olivera

Grant

(2009) Puestos de altura de la Puna argentina: zooarqueología de Real Grande 1 y 6 y Alero Tomayoc. Revista del Museo de Antropología 2: 151–168. https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v2.n1.5415

57.

Olivera

Podestá

(1995) The resources of art: Rock art and formative settlement-subsistence systems in the Argentine Southern Puna. Worldwide Archaeology Series 13: 265–301.

58.

Olivera

Vidal

Grana

(2003) El Sitio Cueva Cacao 1A: Hallazgos, espacio y proceso de complejidad en la Puna meridional (ca. 3000 años AP). Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 28: 257–270.

59.

Olivera

Vigliani

Elias

, et al. (2003/2005) La ocupación Tardío-Inka en la Puna Meridional: El Sitio Campo Cortaderas. Cuadernos del INAPL 20: 257–277.

60.

Olsen

(1979) Osteology for the Archaeologist: Number 4, North American Birds: Skulls and Mandibles; Number 5, North American Birds: Postcranial Skeletons, vol. 56. Peabody Museum Press, Massachusetts.

61.

Ortiz

Urquiza

(2012) Zooarqueología y tafonomía del Período Tardío-Inca en Peñas Coloradas, Antofagasta de la Sierra (Puna de Catamarca, Argentina). Revista del Museo de Antropología 5: 245–258. https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v5.n1

62.

Osinaga

Martín

(2018) Estado actual de conocimiento de las aves de la Puna argentina. La Puna argentina: naturaleza y cultura. Serie Conservación de la Naturaleza. Fundación Miguel Lillo, pp.161–179.

63.

Peña Villalobos

Fibla

Sallaberry

, et al. (2015) Discriminación de taxones de Aves a través del análisis comparativo de la microestructura de plumas: Una aplicación en el Sitio Tulán 122, Puna De Atacama, Chile. Revista Chilena de Antropología 0(30): 30–35.

64.

Ramírez Albores

(2020) Diversidad de aves de un paisaje semiárido del Altiplano Mexicano. AGROProductividad 13(6): 27–36. https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.v13i6.1711

65.

Rodríguez

Rúgolo

Agrasar

Aschero

(2006) El uso de las plantas en unidades domésticas del sitio arqueológico punta de la Peña 4, Puna Meridional Argentina. Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena 38(2): 257–271. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4067/S0717-73562006000200009

66.

Rufà

Laroulandie

(2020) Carnívoros y carroñeros. Una nueva visión sobre la depredación de los lobos sobre las aves carroñeras y su implicación en el registro arqueológico. ArkeoGazte 10: 127–140.

67.

Rufà

Laroulandie

(2021) Unravelling the taphonomic stories of bird bones from the Middle Pleistocene layer VIII of Grotte Vaufrey, France. Quaternary 4: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat4040030

68.

Santos Benítez

Hernández Ramírez

César Lavariega

, et al. (2013) Diversidad de aves en cultivares de Santa María Yahuiche, Sierra Madre de Oaxaca, México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas 4(6): 1241–1250.

69.

Serjeantson

(1998) Birds: a seasonal resource. Environmental Archaeology 3: 23–33.

70.

Serjeantson

(2009) Manuals in Archaeology. Birds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Serjeantson

(2018) Domestic birds. In: López Varela

(ed.) The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp.1–4.

72.

Standen

(2003) Bienes Funerarios del Cementerio Chinchorro Morro 1: Descripción, Análisis e Interpretación. Chungará 35(2): 175–207. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4067/S0717-73562003000200002

73.

Stengers

(2018) The challenge of ontological politics. In: De la Cadena

Blaser

(eds) A World of Many Worlds. Durham & Londen: Duke University Press, pp.83–111.

74.

Svampa

(2019) Las fronteras del neoextractivismo en América Latina: conflictos socioambientales, giro ecoterritorial y nuevas dependencias. Bielefeld University Press, Bielefeld.

75.

Tchilinguirian

Morales

(2013) Mid-Holocene paleoenvironments in northwestern Argentina: Main patterns and discrepancies. Quaternary International 307: 14–23.

76.

Urquiza

Aschero

(2014) Economía animal a lo largo del Holoceno en la puna austral argentina: Alero Punta de la Peña 4. Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, S. E.s 2(1): 86–112.

77.

Urquiza

Romano

López Campeny

SML

(2013) Historia Ocupacional y Prácticas Sociales: un análisis arqueofaunístico contextual. Sitio Piedra Horadada 2, Antofagasta de la Sierra, Catamarca, Argentina. De la Puna a las Sierras: Avances y Perspectivas en Zooarqueología del Norte de la República Argentina. Oxford: South American Archaeology Series de BAR, pp.121–144.

78.

Urquiza

Babot

MDP

(2018) Ofrendar y propiciar. Fauna y prácticas agropastoriles prehispánicas del segundo milenio AP en Antofagasta de la Sierra, Puna Meridional Argentina. Archaeofauna 27(10): 209–232. https://doi.org/10.15366/archaeofauna2018.27.009

79.

Urquiza

Echevarria

(2018) Zooarchaeology of Flight: Avifauna Resource from the southern argentine Puna. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 18: 516–534.

80.

Van Kessel

(1996) La cosmovisión aymara. In: Hidalgo

Schiappacasse

Niemeyer

, et al. (eds) Etnografía: Sociedades Indígenas Contemporáneas y su Ideología. Santiago: Editorial Andre’s Bello, pp.169–198.

81.

Yacobaccio

(1994) Biomasa animal y consumo en el Pleistoceno-Holoceno surandino. Arqueología 4: 43–71.