1. Chung 1
PLEISTOCENE MEGAFAUNA EXTINCTION AND HUMAN MIGRATION INTO
SOUTH AMERICA
By Annie Chung
Ant 351 – Prehistory of the Americas
Dr. Jerry Moore
11 December 2014
2. Chung 2
Introduction
The peopling of South America is substantially different culturally, environmentally, and
historically than that of North America and other parts of the world. Human presence and its
origins in the Americas has been a matter of research and investigation for archaeologists who
study this continent. There are not only debates circulating human arrival to the Americas, but
also debates on the extinction of Pleistocene megafaunas. My focus will be on the Southern Cone
and Patagonia region in South America.
The long-established consensus on the first occupants of the Americas has been thought
to be that of the Clovis culture. In one of Vance C. Haynes’ publications, he constructed a theory
to explain early human occupation in North America by studying radiocarbon dates to
demonstrate the early Clovis culture at Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Haynes described two
explanations: there was a quick and abrupt appearance of the fluted projectile points which were
obtained by the stratigraphic record from about 11,500 years ago and second, there was a lack of
earlier cultures that precede the points (Haynes 1964). This led to the “Clovis First” Hypothesis,
which dominated archaeological thought for the next few decades. The way in which they
migrated to North America from the Old World was via across the Beringia, through the ice-free
corridor (Mandryk et al. 2001). The overwhelming amount of evidence from large game
mammals and artifacts, such as stone tools, led to the suggestion that humans followed these
mammals into the Americas (Fiedel 2000). In more recent years; however, there was an
introduction to a response to the stated theory of human migration into the New World, which
was the theory that humans migrated coastally instead of traveling through the ice-free corridor.
Recently, the “Clovis First” Hypothesis has been questioned due to archaeological
findings in South America, namely the evidence found at Fell’s Cave researched by Junius Bird
3. Chung 3
in the Patagonia region of South America, with more recent excavations by archaeologists
including, Luis Alberto Borrero, Tom Dillehay, and Cristóbal Gnecco. The evidence at Fell’s
Cave that first put the Clovis hypothesis in question was due to the discovery of distinctive fluted
points, or “fishtail” projectile points, artifacts and skeletal remains of extinct large mammals
during the end of the Ice Age (Moore 2014). The correlation between these early human tools,
animal bones, and human migration patterns into South America coincided with that of the
Clovis culture in North America. I will review available data on the chronology of the
extinctions of Pleistocene faunas and the sites in South America associated with these early
people.
Background
The investigation of early human occupation and migration into Patagonia of South
America has been the topic of some debate among archaeologists, along with South America as a
whole (Borrero 1999). The “Clovis First” Hypothesis dominated the four decades of archaeology
(Moore 2014), and a number of sites have been excavated and revealed that they were pre-
Clovis. There are two main presumed pre-Clovis sites in the southern cone of South America that
I have examined: Junius Bird’s excavations at Fell’s Cave and Tom Dillehay’s excavations at
Monte Verde, Chile.
“Clovis First” Hypothesis
The Clovis culture is also associated with having had migrated from the Old World
across the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets into North
America. Distinctive fluted projectile points are a notable feature of the Clovis culture that have
4. Chung 4
been found mainly associated and in situ with extinct mammals. These points were dated to
11,500 years ago that marks one of the earliest dates of human presence in the Americas (Haynes
1982). As seen in figure 1, radiocarbon dates for Clovis sites date to between 11,000-12,000
years BP.
Fell’s Cave
In the 1930s, Junius B. Bird was an American archaeologist in South America to have
excavated a site, known as Fell’s Cave in a remote area in the valley of the Río Chico in the
Patagonia region. This cave, or rock shelter was excavated in layers (layers I-V), which revealed
artifacts associated with human occupation and bones of extinct animals. Some of the major
artifacts found here were fluted “fish tail” projectile points, along with bones of bones from
extinct horses and giant ground sloths (Bird 1988). Fell’s Cave was a good start for the argument
for the Clovis culture not being the first migrants in the Americas. Moreover, according to Jerry
D. Moore, there are three reasons for Fell’s Cave not being successful in being the equivalent to
Clovis. First, the secluded area the cave is located at made it fairly difficult for other
archaeologists to travel to that region to confirm Bird’s findings. Second, there a speculation that
the bones found in the cave were carried in there by predators and that the early humans who
occupied the area camped on top of those bones. Lastly, radiocarbon dating had not yet been
invented (Moore 2014).
Monte Verde, Chile
Despite the antiquity of early human presence in North America, early waves of human
migration and the earliest sites of human habitation appear to be in the southern region of South
5. Chung 5
America (Tedesco 2007). A particular site that contains archaeological evidence that asserts it to
be pre-Clovis is the site of Monte Verde in southern Chile, which was first excavated in the
1970s by Thomas D. Dillehay. This site yielded some impressive pre-Clovis (pre-11,000 year)
dates and discoveries; in other words, Monte Verde had “convincing radiocarbon dates, human-
made artifacts, and reliable stratigraphic association but also evidence of early cultures that pre-
dated Clovis” (Dillehay 2000). Some of the evidence found at this site that pre-dated Clovis
include projectile points, plant remains, grinding stones, cooking pits, etc. (Dillehay 1999).
In contrast, there are many debates surrounding Dillehay’s discovery of Monte Verde.
Some scholars have issues with the evidence that is available. According to Fiedel, some artifacts
that have been found at the site such as, a quartzite bifacial preform, a willow-leaf-shaped point
made of basalt, and a ground slate perforator, are all not documented accurately (Fiedel 1999).
To confirm the discoveries made at the site, Dillehay went with other scholars including Haynes
and Meltzer to re-evaluate the organic artifacts, such as bone, wood and ivory from MV-II and
MV-I. They also went to re-examine the stratigraphy of Monte Verde and to review the results of
all the radiocarbon dates for any possibilities of other outside factors that could have altered the
dates. Though there are some questions raised about the MV-I occupation, which dates to about
30,000 BP (or older), MV-II dates to about 1000 years before the Clovis culture. The site of
Monte Verde has been a big breakthrough in the idea of a pre-Clovis culture in the New World.
Though there still are questions about the early peopling of South America, the work done at
Monte Verde “imply a fundamentally different history of human colonization of the New World
than envisioned by the Clovis-first model…” (Meltzer et al. 1997). Moreover, big portions of the
ice-free corridor were blocked from 30,000 BP to about 11,500 BP, according to Mandryk et al.
These dates indicate that this route clearly was not the route taken by the humans who occupied
6. Chung 6
Monte Verde (Mandryk et al. 2001). So by stating that a fundamentally different history of
colonization comes into play, this theory proposed Mandryk could be researched more.
Methods and Findings
There were extensive amounts of research and scholarly articles that I have reviewed
during the course of my study on early peopling and fauna extinction in South America. I did a
great deal of examining published articles, studying data, and engaging in comparative analyses,
which will be addressed in this paper. Archaeologists who have studied early human occupation
in the Americas have different views on human migration and mammal extinction patterns. In
addition, they have researched this topic with different types of approaches. Cristóbal Gnecco,
for instance, wrote an article on the chronology of fluting technology in South America to
describe the early Paleoindian period on the continent. According to Gnecco, the only fluted
points that have clear and set dates are the “fishtail” projectile points from Fell’s Cave and Palli
Aike. Though examining fluting technology alone cannot explain early peopling, there is also a
question of whether fluted points can help in assessing the chronology of early human
settlements (Gnecco 1994). Moreover, South America witnessed one of the major mammal
extinction events at the end of the Pleistocene era. Debates on the exact cause of the extinction
are ongoing, with two major speculations of their demise: human arrival and climate change.
Taphonomy of Late Pleistocene Megafauans and Their Extinction
There has been recent taphonomic studies and analysis associated with early humans in
South America. Looking at fossil remains and by taking into account variables, such as aging,
hunting or kill marks, etc., this could be a way of explaining how other factors in their
7. Chung 7
environment could have be a cause of death or extinction, not just humans (Borrero 2005).
Moreover, there has been evidence of humans and predators co-existing and alternating using
sites. Unlike overkill evidence found in North America, there has not been enough evidence
showing humans overhunting animals to extinction in the Southern Cone. It is logical that to
think that caves all over Patagonia must have used by animals long before the arrival of humans.
Just like how some scholars proposed that carnivores could have dragged their prey in Fell’s
Cave in Patagonia, it could be that humans and animals could have been sharing land like this all
over South America in general. Taphonomy is still a recent study in the southern parts of South
America, so there is still much more to researched and dated.
Human Arrival and Late Pleistocene Megafauna Extinction
Humans as the driving force for megafauna extinction has been the more obvious to
examine because of compelling evidence pointing towards this, both directly and indirectly.
Humans could have caused the extinction indirectly through habitat destruction, translocation
and anthropogenic impacts; however, more directly, is the widely known overkill (or blitzkrieg)
hypothesis. This hypothesis “describes a process whereby megafauna that have not previously
encountered humans, are rapidly and selectively hunted to extinction immediately following first
contact” (Wroe et al. 2008). The overkill hypothesis excludes any indirect human influences.
According to Stephen Wroe et al., there are five major areas of observation that support this
hypothesis.
a.) The rate of extinction was much higher in regions where humans tended to settle and
colonize.
8. Chung 8
b.) Species in remote islands that have not been previously settled by humans were
vulnerable to their predation.
c.) Data suggested that humans preferred to prey on large mammals.
d.) Late Pleistocene extinctions had a bigger effect on large animals than small animals.
e.) Lastly, Wroe et al. state though there were climatic changes, these fluctuations were not
the cause of mass extinctions (Wroe et al. 2008).
In contrast, some scholars challenge the overkill hypothesis. Specifically, Alex Hubbe et
al. challenge an article, Asynchronous Extinction of Late Quaternary Sloths on Continents and
Islands, by David W. Steadman et al. – who are supporters of the overkill hypothesis – on the
extinction of ground sloths in the Americas and how the chronological data are incomplete when
it comes to South America. Another issue with Steadman’s analysis is that he comes to
conclusions based on the “incomplete” data he has. With the estimated dates of ~10,600 to
10,200 BP of the “youngest reliable dates on dung or tissue of extinct sloths”, Steadman
concludes that “if the first Americans triggered sloth extinctions, then these people must have
spread rapidly from North America through South America” (Steadman et al. 2005).The overkill
hypothesis lacks sufficient data to not only support the ground sloth extinction date, but also, the
overall megafauna extinction in South America. The three reasons, as pointed out by Hubbe et
al., include how the overkill hypothesis does not explain how there are Holocene dates for
ground sloths in South America and the overall lack of kill sites and megafaunal remains in
“archaeological contexts is inconsistent with the overkill hypothesis” (Hubbe et al. 2007).
In more recent years, due to growing technology in archaeology, there have been other
reason s to negate the overkill hypothesis. It has been discovered that it could be likely that
humans collected portions of animals that already have been killed by other predators. The
9. Chung 9
projectile points that have been excavated in sites might have been used for butchering the
carcasses, not hunting them as we think. If this is the case, people may have not played a major
role in megafauna extinction (Dillehay2000).
Another research has been done that looks at human-driven extinction instead of climate
changes. According to an article by Sandom et al., it is stated that when following extinction
patterns in Africa, Eurasia and North America, the data is pretty consistent with a climate based
extinction of mammals; however, in South America, it “strongly deviated from this trend, with
the lowest climate change and the most severe genus-level extinctions” (Sandom et al. 2014).
The main issue I have with these scholars is that they do not take into account the severe cooling
period South America did go through, especially in the Southern Cone. South America went
through a cool climate change equivalent to that of the Younger Dryas, which is the Antarctic
Cold Reversal in ca. 11,000 to10,000 BP (Borrero 1999).
Climate Change and Late Pleistocene Megafauna Extinction
From all of the available information and research, it is surely evident that human
occupation was pretty well established – with adaptation processes still ongoing – by the end of
the Pleistocene period. Numerous species of megafauna went extinct by about 10,000 BP, and
almost immediately was followed by a cooling period in the climate (Borrero 2008). There is
evidence for climate changes in North America, the Younger Dryas, and according to Borrero et
al., there is evidence indicating climatic changes in South America that could have also impacted
human population. As stated by Luis A. Borrero and Nora V. Franco, “There are indications of
atmospheric circulation patterns different than those of today, as well as major volcanic activity
around the end of the Pleistocene” (Borrero and Franco 1997). In Borrero’s article, The
10. Chung 10
Prehistoric Exploration and Colonization of Fuego-Patagonia, he analyzes the relevance of
paleoenvironmental and paleoclimatic factors in understanding early Fuego-Patagonia
occupation. By looking at the geographic settings, climatic and atmospheric factors during that
time in the Pleistocene period, the available evidence prompted a discussion of human migration.
One of the major attributes that stood out in Borrero’s article is the explanation of the Strait of
Magellan. Today, Tierra del Fuego is separated by this passage of water. The Magellan Strait
was connected to it during the late Pleistocene and did not open up until 8000 BP during the
early Holocene period, which would have made circulation plausible. Because of sea levels
rapidly rising, the Magellan Strait cut off the island of Tierra del Fuego and isolated humans at
that area (Borrero 1999; Borrero et al. 1998). Moreover, megafauna extinction could be have
been caused both direct and indirect human processes and from climatic variations during the
end of the Pleistocene. Barnosky et al. showed a graph depicting last-appearance dates for
megafauna and first-appearance date for human s for South America.
Record of Early Humans in Association with Megafauna Extinction
Based on the table by Anthony D. Barnosky and Emily L. Lindsey (see figures 2 and 3)
of the evaluation of the radiocarbon dates considered robust for both megafauna and humans, I
experimented with generating a graph for any visible trends on the association with human
arrival dates and fauna extinction dates. I used the median radiocarbon dates of megafauna and
humans to input the data in a table, along with each site in the southern cone region next to the
associated dates; specifically, I assigned the X-axis to be the sites (e.g., Monte Verde, Tres
Arroyos and Baño Nuevo), and I set the Y-axis to be the radiocarbon dates. Further, the graph
showed some discrepancies, as shown on figure 5, the graph displays some gaps in both the
11. Chung 11
megafauna and human dates. This is due to Barnosky and Lindsey’s article having equal
amounts of data for the given sites to the dates of megafauna and humans. For instance, the site
of Monte Verde had a total of six dates for human presence; whereas, the megafauna remains
had a sample number of only two. A second attempt was made by looking at specific species of
megafauna associated with the sites and grouping them by species. I kept the radiocarbon dates
as the Y-axis but changed the X-axis to the grouping of species. You could see the grouping of
species in figure 4. When I generated the graph for this data input, the graph revealed more
inconsistencies. The outcome I arrived with is that there is not enough information to come to
my own solid conclusion.
Furthermore, after more thorough reading, I have found two graphs that helped to
visualize the timing of and relationship of last appearance dates of megafauna and first
appearance dates of humans. Based on appendices 1 and 2 in the article by Barnoksy and
Lindsey, there are two graphs that depict these timings. Figure 3 shows dates of 12 different taxa
from 50,000 to10,000 BP in the upper set. The lower set overlapping that one magnifies it to
show last appearance dates of megafauna and first appearance dates of humans in more detail,
from 15,000 to 7,000 BP. The shaded grey area represents the cooling period at the end of the
Pleistocene seen equivalent to that of the Younger Dryas period. Further, the dates, according to
Barnosky and Lindsey “largely depends on the underlying temporal distribution of datable
specimens, which ultimately should be largely governed by abundance of animals that lived on
the landscape: the more animals, the more deaths, the more bones, and the more fossils…”
(Barnosky and Lindsey 2010)
Another graph, figure 2, provides dates that suggest that early solid records for human
appearance are different for various parts of South America. The graph shows about 10 out of the
12. Chung 12
25 recorded last appearance dates for the extinct mammals follow about 1000 years within first
human arrival dates. The evidence for both climate changes and human arrival in the Patagonia
region, some in Brazil, Argentina and Chile show to have been the cause for megafauna
extinction. The evidence that shows megafauna extinction caused by both climate cooling
periods and human arrivals is, according to Barnosky and Lindsey, consistent with the
understanding that climate change in higher latitudes really affected these mammals when the
climate was merged with new appearances of humans (Barnosky and Lindsey 2010).
Discussion and Conclusion
Review on a number of scholarly articles and books indicate that a great deal of research
still needs to be done to better understand the chronology of megafauna extinction and human
migration into South America. There are many contrasting views on this topic. But it is very
strongly suggested after doing my research that even though there is a myriad of data available, it
is still not enough to make solid conclusions. Many questions still arise; such as, did humans
migrate interiorly or coastally? Were humans the direct cause of megafauna extinction, or
climate change, or a synergy of both? Do humans in the Patagonia region and in southern Chile
pre-date the Clovis culture in North America? It is evident that the scholars who research this
subject carefully in their selection of data to analyze, in that they “reject standard radiocarbon
dates unless they are replicated by AMS dates” (Borrero 2008); however, there are two main
issues I have noticed with scholars that claim to have a conclusion. Though they use dates that
have been replicated by AMS dating, they only choose certain dates to replicate, not all available
ones; therefore, there are many gaps and missing data. Based on all the articles and data that
were available to me and with research still ongoing, one thing that is clear is that it seems many
13. Chung 13
archaeological sites in the Southern Cone region of South America indicate that human activity
is not necessarily directly related to faunal remains (Borrero et al. 1998). This is why it is clear to
me that instead of picking and choosing data to come to a biased conclusion, scholars should
carefully review all existing data in order obtain an acceptable and well-addressed conclusion.
References
Barnosky, Anthony D. and Emily L. Lindsey
2010 Timing of Quaternary Megafaunal Extinction in South America in Relation
To Human Arrival and Climate Change. Quaternary International 1-2:10-29.
Bird, Junius B.
1988 Travels and Archaeology in South Chile. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Borrero, Luis A. and Nora Viviana Franco
1997 Early Patagonian Hunter-Gatherers: Subsistence and Technology. Journal of
Anthropological Research 53:219-239.
Borrero, Luis A., Marcelo Zarate, Laura Miotti, and Mauricio Massone
1998 The Pleistocene-Holocene Transition and Human Occupations in the Southern
Cone of South America. Quaternary Internation 49-50:191-199.
Borrero, Luis A.
1999 The Prehistoric and Colonization of Fuego-Patagonia. Journal of World
Prehistory 13:321-355.
Borrero, Luis A.
2005 Taphonomy of Late Pleistocene Faunas at Fuego-Patagonia. Journal of South
American Earth Sciences 20:115-120.
Borerro, Luis A.
2008 Extinction of Pleistocene Megamammals in South America: The Lost Evidence.
Quaternary International. 158:69-74.
Dillehay, Tom D.
1999 The Late Pleistocene Culture of South America. Evolutionary Anthropology
7:206-216.
Dillehay, Tom D.
2000 The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory. 1st
ed. Basic Books, A
Member of the Perseus Books Group. New York.
14. Chung 14
Fiedel, Stuart J.
1999 Archaeology: A Publication of the Archaeological Institute of America.
Electronic document, http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/clovis/fiedel.
html, accessed November 15, 2014.
Fiedel, Stuart J.
2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future
Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 1:39-103.
Gnecco, Cristóbal and Christóbal Gnecco
1994 Fluting Technology in South America. Lithic Technology. 19:35-42.
Haynes Jr., C. Vance
1964 Fluted Projectile Points: Their Age and Dispersion. Science. 145:1408-1413.
Haynes Jr., C. Vance
1982 Were Clovis Progenitors in Beringia? Paleoecology of Beringia 383-398.
Hubbe, Alex, Mark Hubbe, and Walter A. Neves
2007 Early Holocene Survival of Megafauna in South America. Journal of
Biogeography 34:1642-1646.
Mandryk, Carole A. S., Heiner Josenhans, Daryl W. Fedje, and Rolf W. Mathewes
2001 Late Quaternary Paleoenvironments of Northwestern North America:
Implications for inland versus coastal migration routes. Quaternary Science
Reviews 20:301-314.
Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F.
Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes, Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nunez and Dennis J. Stanford.
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American
Antiquity 62:659-663.
Moore, Jerry D.
2014 A Prehistory of South America: Ancient Cultural Diversity on the Least Known
Continent. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado.
Sandom, Christopher, Søren Faurby, Brody Sandel, and Jens-Christian Svenning
2014 Global Late Quaternary Megafauna Extinctions Linked to Humans, Not Climate
Change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281:1-9.
Steadman, David W., Paul S, Martin, Ross D.E. MacPhee, A.J.T. Jull, H. Gregory
McDonald, Charles A. Woods, Manuel Iturralde-Vinent, and Gregory W.L. Hodgins
2005 Asynchronous Extinction of Late Quaternary Sloths on Continents and Islands.
PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:11,763-11,768.
15. Chung 15
Tedesco, Laura A.
2007 Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Electronic document, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/fell/hd_fell.htm.
Wroe, Stephen, Judith Field, Richard Fullagar, and Lars S. Jermin
2008 Megafaunal Extinction in the Late Quaternary and the Global Overkill
Hypothesis. Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Paleontology 28:291-331.
17. Chung 17
Figure 2. First appearance dates of humans (Hu) and last appearance dates of
Pleistocene megafauna: Catonyx (Ca), Cuviernius (Cu), Doedicurus (Do), Equus
(Eq), Eremotherium (Er), Glossotherium (Gs), Glyptodon (Gy), Haplomastodon
(Ha), Hippidion (Hi), Holmesina (Ho), Megatherium (Mg), Mylodon (My),
Nothrotherium (Nt), Smilodon (Sm), Toxodon (Tx), indeterminate Equid (Ei), and
indeterminate Sloth (Si).
Dashed line indicates likelihood of human presence. Grey shaded area indicates the
timing of the Antarctic Cold Reversal in Southern Patagonia.
A: San Isidro, Colombia; B: Patagonia; C: Quebrada Tacahuay, Peru; D: Pedra
Pintada; E: Central Chile; F: Argentine Pampas at Cerro el Sombrero. (Barnosky et
al. 2010).
18. Chung 18
Figure 3. Last appearance dates for megafauana and first appearance date for
humans for all of South America. Upper set of dates shows the complete suite from
50 ka to 5 ka; lower inset expands the timescale to show detail from 15 to 7ka. The
human first appearance date is from Monte Verde, Chile (has a rank of 13, out of
rank11-12 data).
Grey shaded area indicated the late Pleistocene cold spell roughly equivalent to the
Younger Dryas (Barnosky et al. 2010).
19. Chung 19
Site Name Species
OxCal Median
(Megafauna) OxCal Median (Humans)
Monte Verde (Chile) Cuvieronius 13874 14162
Monte Verde (Chile) Cuvieronius 13914 14856
Monte Verde (Chile) 14483
Monte Verde (Chile) 14527
Monte Verde (Chile) 14970
Monte Verde (Chile) 16035
Baño Nuevo (Chile) Mylodon 13329 9960
Piedra Museo (Argentina) Hippidion 12886 12998
Cueva del Medio (Chile) Hippidion 12743 12853
Cueva del Medio (Chile) Hippidion 12853 12999
Cueva del Medio (Chile) 12352
Lago Sofia I (Chile) Hippidion 12818 13404
Lago Sofia I (Chile) Hippidion 12123
Lago Sofia I (Chile) Mylodon 15347
Tres Arroyos (Chile) Equid 12744 12693
Tres Arroyos (Chile) Equid 14701 12744
Tres Arroyos (Chile) 13004
Tres Arroyos (Chile) 12632
Tres Arroyos (Chile) 11791
Tres Arroyos (Chile) 12639
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
MonteVerde…
MonteVerde…
MonteVerde…
MonteVerde…
MonteVerde…
MonteVerde…
BañoNuevo…
PiedraMuseo…
Cuevadel…
Cuevadel…
Cuevadel…
LagoSofiaI…
LagoSofiaI…
LagoSofiaI…
TresArroyos…
TresArroyos…
TresArroyos…
TresArroyos…
TresArroyos…
TresArroyos…
RadiocarbondatesBP
Sites associated with both human and megafauna data in the Southern Cone
Human and Megafauna Presence, based on
radiocarbon dating by Barnosky & Lindsey
OxCal Median (Megafauna)
OxCal Median (Humans)
Figure 4. Table listing available data on both megafauna (and list of species) and humans in sites
in the Southern Cone.
Figure 5. Graph depicting the data from figure 4. Shows some gaps and missing data.
