# Genesis and taphonomy of the archaeological layers of Pedra Furada rock-shelter, Brazil = Genèse et taphonomie des niveaux archéologiques de lde la Pedra Furada, Brésil

Fabio Parenti, Alan Cannell, Evelyne Debard, Martine Faure, Mercedes Okumura

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Fabio Parenti, Alan Cannell, Evelyne Debard, Martine Faure, Mercedes Okumura. Genesis and taphonomy of the archaeological layers of Pedra Furada rock-shelter, Brazil = Genèse et taphonomie des niveaux archéologiques de lde la Pedra Furada, Brésil. Quaternaire, 2018, 29 (3), pp.255-269. 10.4000/quaternaire.10313. hal-02322956

HAL Id: hal-02322956

https://univ-lyon1.hal.science/hal-02322956v1

Submitted on 22 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

OpenEdition
Journals

SEARCH

Tout OpenEdition

# Quaternaire

Revue de l'Association française pour l'étude du Quaternaire

vol. 29/3 | 2018

Volume 29 Numéro 3

## Genesis and taphonomy of the archaeological layers of Pedra Furada rock-shelter, Brazil

*Genèse et taphonomie des niveaux archéologiques de l'abri de la Pedra Furada, Brésil*

FABIO PARENTI, ALAN CANNELL, EVELYNE DEBARD, MARTINE FAURE ET MERCEDES OKUMURA

p. 255-269

https://doi.org/10.4000/quaternaire.10313

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

### Résumés

Français English

Les nouvelles recherches sédimentologiques et taphonomiques conduites sur le bloc-témoin de l'abri de la Pedra Furada mettent en évidence la double origine du remplissage, provenant de la paroi gréseuse et des niveaux conglomératiques supérieurs. Les données quantitatives et qualitatives concernant les chutes d'eau et le contenu archéologique du site, tant dans les niveaux pléistocènes que holocènes, démontrent l'absence de relation de causalité entre le talus de la chute d'eau orientale, l'outillage lithique et les structures archéologiques. Des similarités technologiques ont été observées et comparées entre les produits lithiques non intentionnels des singes actuels et ceux provenants des anciennes fouilles. La comparaison entre la masse des percuteurs utilisés par les singes actuels et celle des galets de quartz utilisés, retrouvés dans les structures archéologiques, indique une évidente sélection d'origine anthropique dans la disposition des structures, avec ou sans restes de combustion. Du fait de la similarité entre l'outillage des singes actuels et celui (supposé) humain dans le passé, une double archéologie anthropique et simienne est le seul moyen d'éclaircir la vraie nature de la présence humaine pré-Clovis en Amérique du Sud.

New sedimentological and taphonomic analyses of a preserved bulk of Pedra Furada rock-shelter characterize the mixed origin of the filling, both from the sandstone wall and from the uppermost conglomerate layer. Statistical analysis of quantitative and qualitative data on waterfalls and archaeological assemblage, both dated from the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene, demonstrated no causal relationship among Eastern waterfall talus, lithic tools and archaeological structures. Technical similarities have been reported between extant monkeys unintentional flaking by-products and the lithic toolkit from the previous archaeological excavations. Comparison between present monkey's hammerstones and the quartz elements recorded in archaeological structures point to a clear anthropic selection in the making of archaeological structures in the site, regardless of any association with charcoals. Because of the similarities between the present monkey stone-tools and the (supposed) human

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
tool-kit, the inclusion of both human and primate archaeologies in an interdisciplinary research program is needed to clarify the nature of pre-Clovis presence in South America.

## Entrées d'index

**Mots-clés** : Sédimentologie, Pléistocène supérieur, Pedra Furada, statistiques, outillage lithique, structures archéologiques, Platyrhiniens

**Keywords:** Sedimentology, Upper Pleistocene, Pedra Furada, statistics, lithic tools, archaeological structures, Platyrhines

## Dédicace

Pour Claude, un Maître et un ami.

## Texte intégral

We are very grateful to Walter Neves and Tiago Falótico for suggestions and improvements of the manuscript. Tomos Proffitt and Tiago Falótico kindly provided us with unpublished quantitative data on Serra da Capivara monkey's stone-tools. Two anonymous reviewers have provided useful suggestions. FP and MO hold a CNPq Research Productivity Scholarship (304394/2015-7 and 302163/2017-4). Sedimentological campaign and palaeontological research were funded by Fundação Museu do Homem Americano, São Raimundo Nonato, Piauí, Brazil.

# 1 - Introduction

1. For more than twenty years, the region of the Serra da Capivara National Park, located in Piauí state, Northeastern Brazil, has been the focus of a harsh debate on pre-Clovis evidence in South America, mainly centered on the evidence of the reference site, the Boqueirão da Pedra Furada (BPF) rock-shelter (main references: Guidon & Delibrias, 1986; Butzer, 1988; Meltzer et al., 1994; Borrero, 1995; Guidon et al., 1996; Michab et al., 1998; Parenti, 2001). Since 1974 the entire Serra da Capivara National Park and its surroundings have been intensively studied from a multidisciplinary approach, recording - among others - several sites presenting Pleistocene palaeontological (Guérin & Faure, 2008, 2014) and archaeological remains (Lourdeau & Pagli, 2014). In particular, since 2008, research under the direction of Eric Boëda has been conducted with the aims of replicating and refining the data obtained at the BPF site and discovering new evidence of Pleistocene occupations in the region (Lahaye et al., 2013; Boëda et al., 2014, 2016). Although the results obtained at BPF, excavated between 1978 and 1988, have been exhaustively published since 2001 (Parenti, 2001; Santos et al., 2003; Valladas et al., 2003; Chaves et al., 2006), many recent publications do not even consider the abovementioned detailed data, preferring to focus their critiques on a generic and conjectural set of taphonomic and technological remarks or even, naively, ignoring the existence of the site itself when considering the issue of a pre-Paleoindian occupation in South America (Bueno et al., 2013; Vialou et al., 2017).

2. Meanwhile, several research programs have focused on complementary aspects of the main debated issue, i.e. the hypothesis of a human colonization of the Americas during the Pleistocene; among these are: 1) a huge array of genetic studies that aim at tracing the origin of population stock(s) and the timing of their spread(s), generally admitting a first peopling event not older than 20 ka BP (Zegura et al., 2004); 2) a model of two settlement waves based on cranial morphology (Hubbe et al., 2014); 3) new archaeologically consistent and well-dated pre-Clovis sites (McAvoy & McAvoy, 1997; Stanford et al., 2014; Dillehay et al., 2015); 4) the role of Beringia refugia during the Last Glacial Maximum as cradle of American population waves (Hoffecker et al., 2016); 5) a re-birth of the controversial hypothesis of an North-Atlantic Ice-Age coastal entry route in North America, i.e. the "Solutrean hypothesis" (Stanford &

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

The whitish edge of the cliff is the uppermost outcropping conglomerate layer. Note the *thalweg* just South of BPF, comprised between elevations 383 and 393.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3: Top: position of waterfalls, excavations, sections and structures discussed in this paper;**</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
bottom: I) Panoramic view at the end of excavations (July 1988) with sections discussed in this paper, II) Northern half of section 3 during excavations (November 1987), III) section of waterfall C; note the block collapse beneath cobbles filling.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

## 2.1 - Sedimentological analysis

8. The chronostratigraphic reference during the excavations and the one utilized for the regrouping of cultural evidence is the central section (Parenti, 2001, pl. 8).

9. In 1996, eight years after the last excavation, the best preserved portion of the filling was the Eastern bulk (fig. 3). It lies on a sandstone wall and is the reference for the present stratigraphic description (tab. 1), especially for sections 4 (fig. 4) and 20 (fig. 5); the latter showing the deposit's evolution outside the drip line.

10. A preliminary sedimentary study was carried out by Joël Pellerin in 1988 and published in Parenti (2001). Three sedimentary groups had been defined at that time, taking into account their structure and alteration.

11. Sediment samples of the 1996 campaign were taken close to the wall for section 4 and underneath the drip line for section 20. Moreover, in order to know sedimentary variation westward, three samples were taken on section 3' (fig. 6), 1 m east and below section 3 (fig. 3).

12. Elements larger than 3 cm were never a majority in the analyzed samples (fig. 7), these comprise between 5 and 25 % of the samples from section 20, yet are completely absent or scarcely represented in section 4. The only exceptions are layers 4a and 4b with 10-15 % of coarse elements. These are also present in layer 1 of section 3'.

13. The bulk of the sediment is composed by particles smaller than 2 mm (figs. 8 & 9). These are mostly coarse sands with a 15-20 % of silt and very scarce clay (2-3 %). Close to the wall, the samples present a greater contribution of silt than in the ones more distant from the wall (section 20, fig. 5). The ones close to the wall are relatively homogeneous except in layer 7, which is finer. Sediments in section 20 are more heterogeneous. The sample from layer 4 in section 3' is clearly different because it contains 30 % of silt. A sample from the filling below waterfall B, draining the upper conglomerate, contains only sands (silt contribution is less than 5 %).

14. In general, the sedimentological analysis shows the difference between samples lying just below the drip line (section 20) - coarser and heterogeneous - and the ones well inside the sheltered area (sections 3' and 4), which are finer and more homogeneous. The latter, however, present some variability due to the sandstone lenses from which, partly, they are derived. The siltiest sample from section 3' shows a strong contribution of fine sediments due to runoff at the center of the sheltered area. Some layers (layer 3 for example) are clearly thicker in the Northern part of the bulk and could be the result of a higher runoff along the sandstone wall.

15. Field observations and granulometric analysis confirm the twofold origin of the deposit, as previously proposed by Guidon and Parenti (1989). The bulk of the fine elements is derived from the disintegration of the sandstone wall, as the weak cementation of the majority of its layers might contribute to this process. Although continuous, the main causal agents might

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
have changed over time, including chemical alteration during the moister phases, haloclasty and/or wind erosion during the drier periods. In some layers rich in charcoals (layer 7 for example), sandstone plates are often altered: apart from pedological process, their alteration may be due to heating.

16

The presence of sandstone slabs and blocks points to the peeling phases of the wall. Their nature varies according to the weathered layers of the wall: coarse sandstone, rich in iron oxides or without limonite, fine yellowish sandstone. This is particularly clear for the sediments of the northern sector, where sandstone fragments may be related to rip scars still visible on the wall. It is the same for the eastern block (mostly on its Eastern part) as well as for the central bulk (section 3').

17

Siliceous coarser elements (measuring more than 1 cm) are derived from conglomeratic layers; these were deposited during events of wetter periods or simply thunderstorms which stimulated the activity of the waterfalls. For the sectors exposed in this study, presenting the maximum concentration of archaeological structures (eastern sector and Trench 6), the bulk of cobbles and pebbles is derived from waterfall C and, partially, from minor drains eroding the wall upon the shelter.

<table><caption>Tab. 1: Stratigraphy of the Eastern bulk</caption><thead><tr><th>Layers</th><th>Stratigraphic description</th><th>Thickness</th><th>Colour</th><th>Lateral and vertical variations</th><th>Remarks</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>coarse sand containing small quartz pebbles (1-2 cm) et some sandstone plates</td><td>1-5 cm</td><td>dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/2)</td><td>present only in Northern part of the bulk</td><td>highly reworked</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>coarse sand with two thin lenses of granules and gravels</td><td>max: 14 cm</td><td>moderate yellowish brown (10YR 5/4)</td><td>close to the wall, gravel and small pebbles are more abundant</td><td>highly reworked by ants</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>lens rich in small pebbles (1-2 cm) and round gravel</td><td>max: 15 cm</td><td>dark yellowish orange (10YR 6/6)</td><td>clearly thicker in its Northern part</td><td>pebbles are imbricated, mostly flatly disposed against the limits</td></tr><tr><td>4a</td><td>sand surrounding isolated small pebbles</td><td>30-40 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td>the area closer to the wall is coarser. Lesser amount of matrix and some imbricated pebbles in sectors attained by runoff</td><td>highly bioturbated by ants. Rich in large and dispersed charcoal fragments, sometimes clustered as in a fireplace</td></tr><tr><td>4b</td><td>small sandstone plates, associated with scattered pebbles (1-5 cm), in a rich sandy matrix</td><td>10-35 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td>largest plates, horizontally resting, form two lines on the edges of the layer</td><td>some large quartz cobbles (10x15 and 6x10 cm)</td></tr><tr><td>4c</td><td>sandstone plates and quartz pebbles in a rich sandy matrix containing many gravels and small pebbles</td><td>40-50 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td>in its lower part, some sandstone blocks and large siliceous cobbles (7 cm wide), most of the time horizontally disposed</td><td>one large block diving into the lower layer</td></tr><tr><td>4d</td><td>angular granules, isolated or aligned in small lenses in a very rich grey-orange matrix. Gravels and abraded small pebbles (1-3 cm), with no preferential orientation</td><td>40-50 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>sand rich in fragmentary charcoals visible along its height. Small sandstone plates and small quartz pebbles (1-4 cm) were observed</td><td>5-20 cm</td><td>light brown (5YR 6/4)</td><td>general dip to NW. On section 20 (fig. 5), coarser sand with sparse cobbles (max 4 cm)</td><td>lower limit is irregular</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>rich sandy matrix, with granules, gravels and scattered small pebbles.</td><td>20-25 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td>more small sandstone plates close to the wall and at the opposite (in Southern portion) more siliceous gravels and small pebbles</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>sandy matrix rich in micro-charcoals and charcoals homogeneously distributed along its thickness. Sandstone plates (5 cm long) are plentiful and often altered</td><td>max: 15 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4) to dark yellowish orange (10YR 6/6)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>similar to layer 6 with abundant sandy matrix surrounding granules and small pebbles without preferential orientation in relation to layer's boundaries.</td><td>30-35 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td>from the drip line outward there is a rise in pebble length to some 7 cm. They are distributed in two beds on the top and the bottom of the layer.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>charcoal layer, more widespread than the others, but with the same stochastic distribution of charcoals</td><td>5-20 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td>Southward, it vanishes and is visible only by the presence of isolated charcoals among many small pebbles. In section 20 (fig. 5) it is reduced to a small charcoal lens.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>similar to preceding layers: finer granulometry in Northern part, coarser in the South, with many pebbles 1-5 cm long</td><td>20-25 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>very coarse, with abundant quartz pebbles associated with plates and small blocks of sandstone. Large charcoal fragments scattered among pebbles.</td><td>30-35 cm</td><td>light brown (5YR 5/6)</td><td>to the South, increase in number of pebbles but not in their size</td><td>sandstone elements are altered and fraised</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>sandy matrix surrounding small elements (granules, gravels, small pebbles 1-2 cm). Micro-charcoals.</td><td>12-15 cm</td><td>grayish orange (10YR 7/4)</td><td>Southward it covers the blocks at the bottom of section 20.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>very coarse layer with large pebbles (6-7 cm) associated with sandstone plates</td><td>40 cm</td><td>dark yellowish orange (10YR 6/6)</td><td>Large blocks in its upper part pointing to the last roof collapse in the Eastern sector of the shelter.</td><td>the layer envelops a talus formed in a previous collapse with a 40° dip to NW</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>fine layer: sand and most elements less than 1 cm</td><td></td><td>dark yellowish orange (10YR 6/6)</td><td></td><td>fills the gaps between the substrate and the collapsed blocks</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4: Section 4, western side of preserved bulk.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5: Section 20, southern side of preserved bulk.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Note its position slightly outside the drip line (fig. 3).

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6: Section 3', eastern side of central preserved bulk.</figcaption></figure>

This section is 1 m east and below section 3.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7: Comparison of all global granulometries.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8: Selected granulometric curves from sections 4, 3', Waterfall B, section 20.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9: Structure 67, PF3 phase, and fireplace 19 (19 300 ± 200 BP).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

## 2.2 - Deposition dynamics

18

Just after the last recession of the wall (older than 60 ka BP; Parenti, 2001, pl. 8 and Santos *et al.*, 2003), which originated the block collapse closing the shelter to the south, the first sediments, derived from the wall and from the upper conglomerate filled up the existing hollows according to the dip both of talus and substratum. These sediments have been accompanied by block collapses inducing the wall regularization. The presence of large sandstone slabs in some layers points to the spheroidal weathering of harder layers, favorable to an erosion in "onionskin". Sedimentation continued on with a granulometric gradient from east to west and from south to north for the elements originated from conglomerates and from north to south for the elements delivered from the wall; the original NW dip decreased along time.

19

In this monotonous sedimentary dynamic, there are layers of coarser cobbles, pointing to moister episodes which enhance the potential of creeks and waterfalls, as well as indicating the erosion of coarser lenses inside the conglomerate.

20

Some cobbles observed in the sheltered area could not have been naturally deposited. The regular structure of layers and the lack of channel beds rule out any torrential event that could have contributed to the deposit of cobbles inside the shelter. No geodynamic agent, water or gravity, could have transported large elements, such as the big cobble (22 x 14 cm) found in section 3' among finer elements and with a reduced dip (fig. 6). An anthropic (or other animal?) intervention must therefore be assumed to explain the presence of such large cobbles within the shelter.

## 3 - Comparison between the stones deposited by waterfalls and the artefacts.

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>
21

A first comparison between the two sets was established on the basis of the observation of 2,000 cobbles from the three Talus cones (A, B, C, fig. 2) (Parenti, 2001, p. 144). In summary, during the 1987-1988 excavations, any artifacts in the sheltered area that complied with the criteria of at least one clear (i.e. with a concave surface and evident point of impact) flake-scar for flaked pieces (cores or choppers) and, for detached pieces, the presence of an evident butt and bulbar surface were collected. Here we statistically compare the stones from Talus cone A (considered as presenting a natural, non-anthropogenic origin) and the BPF excavated material (considered as having an anthropogenic origin). The BPF sample includes materials both from Holocene (Agreste and Serra Talhada) and from Pleistocene (Pedra Furada) units (fig. 4). Our hypothesis is that there are important differences between cobbles from Talus cone A and BPF artefacts, the latter presenting characteristics that are different from stones broken by gravity (Talus cone A).

22

The sample from Talus cone A consisted of complete and broken cobbles, natural flakes, and fragments (defined as pieces of rock that do not present common flake features, like a bulb, butt or a sharp edge). Elements greater than 32mm were suitable for analysis. The archaeological pieces consisted in cores and flakes, either retouched or not.

23

The following variables were analyzed for broken pebbles (Talus cone A) and flaked pebbles or cores (excavation): number of bulb scars larger than 1 cm : 1, 2 or > 3; maximum length, in mm: 32-64, 64-128, 128-256 (Wentworth, Krumbein modified, granulometric classes); pseudo-retouch: present or absent. The variables analyzed for flakes were : flaking angle: > 90° or ≤ 90°; cortex: present or absent; non cortical butt: present or absent; pseudo-retouch: present or absent.

24

We assume that human flaking would result in cores presenting a greater amount of flake scars and pseudo-retouch, non-cortical flakes, non-cortical butt and flaking angle greater than 90°. Z-tests for the equality of two proportions were applied using 5 % significance level in order to test the presence of significant differences between proportions of flake and core attributes between Talus cone A materials and archaeological artifacts.

25

Table 2 presents the number of bulb scars larger than 1 cm observed in broken or flaked pebbles for Talus cone A and the archaeological layers. Materials from Talus cone A do not present more than four flake-scars, whereas archaeological materials present the full range of such feature (data not shown in detail due to z test limitations). Pleistocene and Holocene materials presented no significant differences between the proportion of the number of bulb scars (one and more than one, z-score -0.2911, p-value 0.77182), therefore, it was possible to sum up these numbers when comparing to Talus cone A. There were significant differences in the proportion of the number of bulb scars between Talus cone A and the archaeological layers (z-score 16.3284, p-value 0). In fact it is possible to observe that 81.2 % of pebbles from Talus cone A present only one bulb scar, while the same attribute can be observed in around 5 % of Pleistocene and Holocene cores.

26

Granulometric information regarding materials from Talus cone A and the archaeological site is presented in table 3. Due to limitations of the z-test, data from 64-128 and 128-256 mm was summed up, creating a new interval from 64 to 256 mm. Interestingly, there were significant differences between the proportions of the samples from Talus cone A (with and without flake scars, z-score 2.7071, p-value 0.00672) and between the Pleistocene and Holocene materials (z-score -3.5687, p-value 0.00036). The comparison between proportions of Talus cone A (without flake scars) and Pleistocene revealed significant differences (z-score 5.218, p-value 0). The other comparisons (Talus cone A without flake scars and Holocene, Talus cone with flake scars and Pleistocene, and Talus cone with flake scars and Holocene) did not present significant differences between proportions.

27

Table 4 shows that the observed proportion of pseudo retouch in broken pebbles from Talus cone A and flaked pebbles from the site are very low. Due to the lack of significant differences between the proportions observed for Pleistocene and Holocene materials (z-score -0.2424, p-value 0.81034), these values were summed up and compared to the values observed in Talus cone A, showing significant differences between the natural materials and the archaeological ones (z-score -2.0384, p-value 0.04136).

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

3

Table 5 shows that there is a very low number of natural flakes with a striking angle greater
than 90° when compared to the absolute numbers in the archaeological material from the Pleistocene (there are no data from Holocene materials). The z-test points to a significant difference between the proportional natural and archaeological flakes regarding the flaking angle (z-score -6.7087, p-value 0).

29

Table 6 presents the number of flakes according to the presence of cortex. There is a complete absence of natural flakes (from Talus cone A) presenting cortex and a great proportion of flakes presenting cortex in the archaeological layers. However, the proportion between Pleistocene and Holocene materials is significantly different (z-score 3.3619, p-value 0.00078), as well as the proportion between Talus cone A and Pleistocene flakes (z-score -11.9462, p-value 0) and Talus cone A and Holocene flakes (z-score -15.4117, p-value 0).

30

Given that the proportions observed for the flakes presenting non cortical butt do not show significant differences between Pleistocene and Holocene contexts (z-score 0.151, p-value 0.88076), these values were summed up to be compared to the values from Talus cone A (tab. 7). There is a complete absence of flakes from Talus cone A presenting non cortical butt, while the opposite pattern can be observed in the archaeological materials. The z-test shows that there are significant differences between such proportions (z-score -5.222, p-value 0).

31

Table 8 presents the number of flakes according to the presence of pseudo retouch. Both the Talus cone A and the archaeological layers present a very low frequency of flakes where retouch can be observed. However, there are significant differences between the proportions observed in the Pleistocene and Holocene materials (z-score 12.4613, p-value 0), as well as between the Talus cone A and Pleistocene artifacts (z-score -2.4353, p-value 0.01468). No significant differences were observed between Talus cone A and Holocene materials (z-score 1.9512, p-value 0.05118).

32

When comparing the pieces from Talus cone A and from the archaeological layers, it is possible to state that there are significant differences between the frequencies observed for the analyzed variables in natural pieces and in the ones we assumed anthropogenic (from the archaeological layers). Such differences in the proportion of features between the natural and archaeological materials can be observed in most analysed variables: number of bulb scars (tab. 2) and the presence of pseudo retouch in pebbles or cores (tab. 4), as well the presence of a striking angle greater than 90° in flakes (tab. 5), and presence of non-cortical butt in flakes (tab. 7). For some other variables, the differences between the natural and archaeological materials were not so clear, but still could be observed in some comparisons (tabs. 3, 6, & 8). The important differences between natural and archaeological materials revealed by the statistical analysis supports our hypothesis that endogenous raw materials from both Pleistocene and Holocene layers from BPF are of a different origin (anthropogenic) than natural materials from Talus cone A.

<table><caption>Tab. 2: Number of bulb-scars observed in broken or flaked pebbles from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Talus<br>cone A</th><th colspan="2">Archaeological Layers</th></tr><tr><th>Pleistocene</th><th>Holocene</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Number of<br>bulb-scars</td><td>1</td><td>65 (81.2)</td><td>8 (4.6)</td><td>12 (5.3)</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1</td><td>15 (18.8)</td><td>165 (95.4)</td><td>216 (94.7)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td>80</td><td>173</td><td>228</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Tab. 3: Number of elements according to granulometric range in broken or flaked pebbles from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Tab. 4: Number of broken or flaked pebbles presenting pseudo-retouch from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>32-64 mm</th><th>64-128 mm</th><th>128-256 mm</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Talus cone A</td><td>No bulb-scars</td><td>171 (45.1)</td><td>200 (52.8)</td><td>8 (2.1)</td><td>379</td></tr><tr><td>With bulb-scars</td><td>24 (28.9)</td><td>55 (66.3)</td><td>4 (4.8)</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>Pleistocene</td><td></td><td>40 (22.2)</td><td>125 (69.4)</td><td>15 (8.4)</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>Holocene</td><td></td><td>94 (38.5)</td><td>138 (56.6)</td><td>12 (4.9)</td><td>244</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Tab. 5: Number of flakes presenting striking angles greater than 90° from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Talus cone A</th><th>Pleistocene</th><th>Holocene</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Pseudo-retouch</td><td>present</td><td>2 (0.4)</td><td>3 (1.7)</td><td>5 (2.0)</td></tr><tr><td>absent</td><td>461 (99.6)</td><td>175 (98.3)</td><td>244 (98.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>463</td><td>178</td><td>249</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Tab. 6: Number of flakes presenting cortex from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th></th><th>Talus cone A</th><th>Pleistocene</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Flaking angle > 90°</td><td>present</td><td>3 (10.7)</td><td>85 (78.7)</td></tr><tr><td>absent</td><td>25 (89.3)</td><td>23 (21.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>28</td><td>108</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Tab. 7: Number of flakes presenting non cortical butt from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Talus<br>cone A</th><th colspan="2">Archaeological layers</th></tr><tr><th>Pleistocene</th><th>Holocene</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Cortex</td><td>present</td><td>0</td><td>112 (97.4)</td><td>1598 (86.6)</td></tr><tr><td>absent</td><td>42 (100)</td><td>3 (2.6)</td><td>247 (13.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>42</td><td>115</td><td>1845</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Tab. 8: Number of flakes presenting pseudo-retouch from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Talus<br>cone A</th><th colspan="2">Archaeological layers</th></tr><tr><th>Pleistocene</th><th>Holocene</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Non<br>cortical<br>butt</td><td>present</td><td>0</td><td>50 (40.3)</td><td>767 (39.6)</td></tr><tr><td>absent</td><td>42 (100)</td><td>74 (59.7)</td><td>1168 (60.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>42</td><td>124</td><td>1935</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Talus<br>cone A</th><th colspan="2">Archaeological layers</th></tr><tr><th>Pleistocene</th><th>Holocene</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Pseudo-<br>retouch</td><td>present</td><td>5 (11.9)</td><td>53 (30.5)</td><td>103 (5.1)</td></tr><tr><td>absent</td><td>37 (88.1)</td><td>121 (69.5)</td><td>1910 (94.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>42</td><td>174</td><td>2013</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
# 4 - The filling and the archaeological structures

33

For illustrating the relationship between archaeological features and the sedimentary matrix of the filling, we chose some well-defined stone structures from Pleistocene layers, as described in Parenti (2001). All the selected features (figs. 9 & 10) are not only well inside the drip line, but also in upslope position, frontally opposed to the talus slope, as shown in figure 3.

34

The lithological composition of these structures, i.e. the proportion between quartz cobbles and sandstone slabs is variable, but all their elements are concentrated and clearly larger than the sedimentary matrix, excluding the possibility of deposition due to hydraulic transport from eastern waterfall. Among the relevant structures from Pedra Furada 3 phase, we unearthed structure 67, a very large stone pile, composed of 515 cobbles and 102 sandstone blocks, elongated in north-south direction and bordered on its Western side by a darkened circular area (hearth 19, fig. 9) presenting charcoals dated at 19,300 ± 200 BP (GIF 8125). Such structure was found on the inner portion of the shelter, with a slight N-S dip, as observed in fig. 3-II.

35

Besides the presence of these abovementioned structures that very likely resulted from anthropogenic deposition, a dimensional analysis of a cross-section from N-S was also performed on structure 67. A total of 617 cobbles, presenting a maximum dimension of 240 mm were analyzed (fig. 11). Not only there is a weak correlation (r = 0.49) between the size of the stones and the distance from the actual waterfall, but their distribution is random, with no apparent differentiation by slope (fig. 12); moreover, the whole structure is dipping opposite to the talus slope (fig. 3II). That means we can reject the hypothesis that these stones were carried and sorted by gravity, related to the distance from the waterfall. The distribution of these stones, according to maximum length (grouped by 2 cm intervals) is shown in fig. 11. There is a marked preference for stones with a maximum length of between 8 and 10 cm, followed by those of 6 to 8 and 10 to 12 cm. The mean maximum length of these stones was 92 mm, which corresponds to a mass of about 400 g for quartz cobbles, based on data between average mass and lengths for cobbles (Falótico & Ottoni, 2016). As indicated below, this distribution around a mean of 400 g is typical of anthropic selection (Cannell, 2002, 2018).

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 10: Selected structures from Pleistocene layers.</figcaption></figure>

69 (PF2)/ small structure close to the sandstone wall, composed by large (apparently unheated) quartz cobbles, none of them having traces of pitting; 23 (PF3)/ fireplace composed by sandstone blocks and quartz pebbles, with charcoal concentration in the central concavity; 30 (PF2)/fireplace boarded by rounded sandstone blocks and four quartz cobbles; note the fine gravelly matrix of the sediment.

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 11: Distribution of cobbles from structure 67 by maximum length (2 cm intervals).</figcaption></figure>

36

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 12: Structure 67: maximum cobbles dimension (cm) by distance from waterfall C (m).</figcaption></figure>

Distances are irregularly spaced because of the different quantity of cobbles for each meter considered.

## 5 - Monkeys, artefacts and structures at BPF

37

In the last decades cognitive and instrumental capabilities of non-human primates have been largely studied, leading to a review of the former more anthropocentric view asserting that tool use is a unique human feature (Moura & Lee, 2004; Haslam et al., 2009; Visalberghi et al., 2015). A large body of research has documented material cognition and tool use in Old World Hominid, but less attention has been payed to the instrumental behavior of platyrrhine monkeys of the New World until the end of 20th century. Stone-tool using behavior in captive Cebus / Sapajus is systematically documented from the first half of 20th century onwards (Visalberghi, 1990; Westergaard & Suomi, 1994). The use of tools by capuchin monkeys in the caatinga and cerrado environment of Southern Piauí has been intensely studied since at least 2007, showing a very rich and diversified behaviour regarding tool use (Visalberghi et al., 2007; Mannu & Ottoni, 2009; Falótico, 2011; Falótico & Ottoni, 2013; Visalberghi & D. Fragaszy, 2013; Falótico & Ottoni, 2016). In parallel a new body of research has been developed in order to study material remains of non-human primate's instrumental and social activities, leading to the creation of a true non-human primate archaeology, firstly developed on the

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>
present African *Pan* territory (Mercader *et al.*, 2002; Carvalho *et al.*, 2008; Carvalho & McGrew, 2012) and after also applied in northeastern Brazil and notably the Serra da Capivara region (Haslam *et al.*, 2016).

38

However, the difficulty is the scarcity of primate fossil remains which often prevent any reliable attribution of authorship of a specific artefact assemblage. In the Serra da Capivara region, despite the copious Upper Pleistocene fossil assemblage consisting in more than 7000 faunal remains of about 60 species proceeding from 12 paleontological sites (Guérin & Faure, 2008), monkey fossil remains are absent except for one tooth of *Alouatta* from Toca do Barrigudo site (Guérin & Faure, 2014). *Alouatta* sp. has been also reported in the Toca dos Ossos cave, Ourolandia, Bahia state (Auler *et al.*, 2006). Also in Bahia state a new species of *Alouatta*, *A. mauroi*, has been described in the late Upper Pleistocene site of Gruta dos Brejões (Morro do Chapéu) (Tejedor *et al.*, 2008). Two fossilized specimens of Atelinae were discovered in 1992 in the Pleistocene megafauna of Toca da Boa Vista site (Campo Formoso, Bahia), about 300 km SE of Serra da Capivara Park. One of the skeletons has been attributed to *Protopithecus brasiliensis* Lund, 1838, defined in the fossiliferous deposits of Lagoa Santa, Minas Gerais state, Brazil (Hartwig & Cartelle, 1996). The other was described as a new genus and new species *Caipora bambuiorum* Cartelle & Hartwig, 1996, an Atelinae possibly reaching a body mass of 20 kg. Recently Halenar (2012) reviewed *Protopithecus brasiliensis*, and Halenar & Rosenberger (2013) reassessed the almost complete skeleton from the Toca da Boa Vista defining it as a new genus and new species *Cartelles coimbrafilhoi* Halenar & Rosenberger, 2013, presenting a body mass of about 25-28 kg.

39

Beside these discoveries, paleontological data are meager (Macphee & Horovitz, 2002). Without going into the details of the Cebidae phylogenetic relationship and dispersal, the ancestor of the Cebinae presently living in northeastern Brazil is unknown. Ruiz Ramoni *et al.* (2017) recently published the discovery of a Plio-Pleistocene molar tooth of Cebidae from Venezuela, being "the first definite evidence of capuchine monkeys in the South America fossil record". We do not yet know when Cebinae colonized northeastern Brazil, so it is impossible to confirm their presence in Upper Pleistocene. Haslam *et al.*, (2016) dated stone anvils probably used by Cebidae some 600-700 years ago in the Serra da Capivara Park; this Pre-Columbian age was immediately quoted by Fiedel (2017) but it is irrelevant to say that the Cebinae lived in this region in the Upper Pleistocene. However, fossil Atelidae are well attested. At present, Cebinae are the only known platyrrhine monkeys using stone hammers. Do they have the monopoly of this behavior? We know that in Africa several catarrhine primates (early Hominins, *Homo*, Apes) had, and have, this behavior; so we should wonder if in South America the large-sized extinct Atelinae (*Protopithecus*, *Caipora* and/or *Cartelles*) also showed this behavior; demonstrating this would be a great advance in knowledge of the anthropoid platyrrhine evolution.

40

Currently capuchin monkeys frequently feed at the bottom of sandstone wall, where cobbles for smashing nuts of various species are very common; they also repeatedly smash quartz cobbles in outcropping conglomerate layers inside the sandstone *cuesta*, apparently in order to produce a desirable powder smell (Mannu & Ottoni, 2009; Falótico & Ottoni, 2016; Proffitt *et al.*, 2016); bang stones as auditory behaviour (Moura, 2007), as well as use stones as digging tools for the extraction of underground food (Falótico *et al.*, 2017). In these activities they use quartz cobbles as hammerstones, sometimes unintentionally producing cores and flakes, some of them with human-like intentional flaking features as: 1) concave negative scars on cobbles, 2) angle between platform and ventral face > 90, resembling that produced in human flaking, 3) flake-scars on dorsal face of flakes (Proffitt *et al.*, 2016).

41

As very correctly stated by Fiedel (2017) in a recent comment on the Proffitt *et al.* (2016) publication, the stone remains produced by these primates can mimic the simplest elements of the lithic assemblage recovered in the Serra da Capivara region, in both the Pleistocene and Holocene layers. Because equifinality of unintentional stone flaking by neo-tropical primates is an important novelty, the authors of this article consider that the entire lithic production on endogenous raw material from this region should be re-considered in the light of this important paradigm shift.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

2

In order to distinguish between the monkey's and the (supposed) anthropic lithic collection
of Pedra Furada, an initial comparison between the two assemblages is presented. The bulk of the Pedra Furada toolkit is composed of very simple trimmed cores, quartz fragments with macroretouches and few clear flakes. In this comparison only data collection from the surface was used (Lasca OIT Surface; Profitt et al., 2016), as the possibility that their excavated artifacts had an anthropic origin is not - in our opinion - completely ruled out in the Serra da Capivara region. Thus the sample from OIT is composed of 60 stones, divided as follows (Profitt et al., 2016, Extended Data tab. 1) (tab. 9):

43

The most evident difference between the two sets is their mass: archaeological artifacts are two or three times heavier than the monkey artifacts for cores and flaked pieces in general and three to four times for flakes. Holocene archaeological flakes are on the average lighter because of the intense knapping of cores (fig. 13). It is also important to note that the average mass values of archaeological choppers and cores lie mostly around the 300-500 g mark, similar to Pleistocene and modern artefact values (Cannell 2012, 2018). The mass distribution of both the Pleistocene and Holocene assemblages at BPF also shows striking similarities, strongly suggesting that there was a technological continuum in endogenous raw material selection and tool preparation (fig. 13).

44

Beside stone-tool using in multiple tasks by monkeys, we should also consider the possibility that these animals could have produced rock piles or cairns similar to those previously defined as anthropic structures in BPF. Stone throwing from proceptive females was reported by Falótico and Ottoni (2013) as a “provocative” behavior during estrus, but no stone accumulation or storage places related to capuchine monkeys have been currently observed in Serra da Capivara.

45

However, when considering the possibility that monkeys could have contributed to the site formation, some points concerning the lithic assemblage of (Pleistocene and Holocene) units at BPF should be kept in mind :

46

a) Unambiguous hammerstones have not been recovered in any of the Pleistocene BPF layers; several putative specimens have one or more, not spatially constrained, incipient hertzian cones on cortical surface (Parenti, 2001, plates 57, 61, 67, 85), but none exhibited repeated, crushed and concentrated micropitting on a restricted surface. These are the features commonly attributed to (and used to define) hammerstones and are clearly associated to percussive activities of monkeys (Haslam et al., 2014; Profitt et al., 2016, Extended Data fig. 2). Thus, the isolated impact points on some core or chopper at BPF were attributed to the stochastic falls of cobbles at the surface of waterfalls, i.e. the lithic raw material source, before its selection, transport and trimming. Moreover, the typical pitted depressions resulting from repeated palm nut cracking percussions (Visalberghi et al., 2007) on the top of the sandstone blocks excavated inside the shelter were never observed.

47

b) Although dorsal scars on flakes allow us to discriminate between waterfall and intentional trimming, such criteria does not apply to the discrimination between human and non-human flaking. For this reason the secondary use of flakes (retouching or scraping/ cutting activities), not observed so far in wild monkeys, can be a very important factor in ascertaining the nature of a given assemblage. The many flakes and quartz fragments with marginal retouch recovered from well inside the rock shelter and dated from the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene (Parenti, 2001, pl. 70-76, 87-93, 96-97) ought to be carefully reconsidered and analyzed; as an example we present here three quartz flakes with marginal retouch from PF1 and PF2 layers (fig. 14).

48

c) It is worth noting that at BPF itself the conglomerate presenting the cobbles used by monkeys is not exposed and (loose) cobbles are only available for the monkey's disposal on the waterfall talus. Hence, their use as hammerstones would have implied a minimum transport of about 10 m. Thus, a more probable work site for the monkey smashing activity would have been at the large sandstone blocks on the talus of waterfall C (fig. 2 & 3), but in this case any by-products would have probably rolled downstream, possibly "polluting" the outer section of the site, named Vale da Pedra Furada (Parenti, 2015).

49

d) We agree that the multifunctional nature of the observed monkey tool-kit is a true mimesis of a simple core and flake technology and, because of this, the anthropic origin of a single (simple) artefact cannot be precisely ascertained, also taking in account the low sedimentation rate recorded at BPF (av. 1 cm/century), which allows for the multiple

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>
50

reutilization of the same tool (potentially by monkeys or humans). Therefore a given assemblage would only be recognizable - on statistical basis - after a careful analysis of *chaînes-opératoires* and use-wear studies.

However we still consider that the most of the more elaborate tools from BPF assemblage can be regarded as the result of intentional flaking by humans. Five trimmed cobbles are shown here as examples: two choppers from the oldest layer Pedra Furada 1 (fig. 15) and three cores from the richest Pleistocene layer, Pedra Furada 2 (fig. 16). All have technical features that could hardly be attributed to gravitational fracture or the occasional percussion by monkeys.

<table><caption>**Tab. 9: Comparison between Pedra Furada site (endogenous raw material) and Capuchin monkey's materials.**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>PF1</th><th>PF2</th><th>PF3</th><th>ST1</th><th>ST2</th><th>AG</th><th>Oit surf</th><th>Oit TOT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Choppers+cores</td><td>66</td><td>72</td><td>40</td><td>115</td><td>104</td><td>25</td><td>10</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Av. weight</td><td>419</td><td>504</td><td>464</td><td>442</td><td>284</td><td>494</td><td>130</td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td>Av. mx. Length</td><td>97</td><td>99</td><td>95</td><td>84</td><td>84</td><td>86</td><td>65</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>% of cortical coverage >50%</td><td>73</td><td>81</td><td>90</td><td>60</td><td>48</td><td>56</td><td></td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Complete flakes</td><td>26</td><td>42</td><td>15</td><td>889</td><td>876</td><td>145</td><td>19</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Av. weight</td><td>66</td><td>67</td><td>94</td><td>35</td><td>35</td><td>55</td><td>15</td><td>20</td></tr></tbody></table>

Total number of pieces is reported on the right (Proffitt *et al.*, 2016).

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 14: Retouched and utilized flakes.**</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>14492/ partially cortical quartz flake; retouched on both faces, PF1; 18602/ cortical flake, quartz, marginal retouch on dorsal face, invasive retouch on ventral face, PF1; 17960/ partially cortical quartzite flake; at least three flake scars are present on its dorsal face which, on its right side, is interested by a flat diaclass surface which allows a very good grip with the right hand, explains the notch visible on side view, PF2.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 15: Bifacial quartzite chopper, with a sinusoidal distal edge, formed by alternate trimming, 790 g, PF1 (17883); bifacial quartzite chopper, with continuous cutting edge, defined by many flake-scars, 995 g, PF1 (18637).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

Fig. 16: Centripetal quartzite core with minimum four flake-scars, the last has been retouched, maybe indicating a last use as scraping tool, 765 g, PF2 (17090); small quartzite core, useless as hammer because of its weight (155 g) and form, PF2 (4510); orthogonal core on quartz cobble, 360 g, PF2 (4430-1); orthogonal core on quartzite cobble; lower view: double synchronous split fracture, due to percussion, 265 g, PF2 (15891). Note the recurrent technique of the last two cores.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>
# 6 - Conclusions

51

In this paper we revised the formation of Pedra Furada deposit, highlighting the main physical agent seen as the principal alternative to the anthropic origin of endogenous artefact assemblages, i.e. the waterfall. A detailed sedimentological study carried out on the preserved sections eight years after the last excavation is also presented. This study has analytically demonstrated what had already been observed during the excavations, namely: the mixed origin of the filling, both from the roof and from the waterfall, and the decrease of the presence of cobbles inside the shelter. On these basis we compared the granulometry of the Western talus A with that of the lithic assemblage and of some important stone structures from Pleistocene units, demonstrating that both did not result from the waterfalls but - on the contrary - were selected, transported, trimmed (if stone tools) or disposed (if bordering possible hearths) well inside the sheltered area.

52

Given the well-studied use of stone-tool by wild capuchin monkeys in the Pedra Furada area, we show also an initial comparison between the unintentional cores and flakes currently produced by these primates and the artefacts recovered and considered as having an anthropic origin, both from the Holocene and Pleistocene layers of the site. This comparison allow us to ascertain that part – although not the totality - of the archaeological assemblage could be the result of monkey's activity, but also that some important technical traits of the artefacts along with the evidence for several stone structures still present a very strong case for a long-lasting pre-Clovis human presence in this region. We are perfectly aware that Pedra Furada - as all its analogs - needs to be studied in its archaeological and natural context and not only with a site-centered focus; it is known that BPF is not an isolated case, as our previous works and ongoing research are demonstrating.

53

From the time when it was dismissed by leading archaeologists as a possible collection of geofacts - without any careful examination of the evidence - Pleistocene layers of BPF have been ignored even by scholars (academically) debating on pre-Clovis peopling of lowland South America. In addition, ethologists are now trying to produce evidence for a pre-Columbian presence of monkey activity in order to develop the exciting new field of non-human primates archaeology in the Neotropic. These studies should consider existing data on archaeological and stratigraphic context as a useful tool for further discussion on this interesting research topic. If there is indeed any evidence of a long-lasting overlapping co-existence of humans and monkeys in the same region, it is time to build a well-founded research strategy including both non-human primate and human archaeology in order to achieve a full understanding of past cultural and ecological adaptations in lowland South-America.

## Bibliographie

AULER A.S., PILÓ L.B., SMART P.L., WANG X., HOFFMANN D., RICHARDS D.A., EDWARDS R.L., NEVES W.A. & CHENG H., 2006 - U-series dating and taphonomy of Quaternary vertebrates from Brazilian caves. *Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology*, **240**, 508-522.
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2006.03.002

BOËDA E., CLEMENTE-CONTE I., FONTUGNE M., LAHAYE C., PINO M., DALTRINI FELICE G., GUIDON N., HOELTZ S., LOURDEAU A., PAGLI M., PESSIS A.M., VIANA S., COSTA A. & DOUVILLE E., 2014 - A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America: the Vale da Pedra Furada (Piauí, Brazil). *Antiquity*, **88**, 927-955.

BOËDA E. ROCCA R., COSTA A. DA, FONTUGNE M., HATTE C., CLEMENTE-CONTE I., SANTOS J. C., LUCAS L., FELICE G., LOURDEAU A., VILLAGRAN X., GLUCHY M., RAMOS M. P., VIANA S., LAHAYE C., GUIDON N., GRIGGO C., PINO M., PESSIS A. M., BORGES C. & GATO B., 2016 - New Data on a Pleistocene Archaeological Sequence in South America: Toca do Sítio do Meio, Piauí, Brazil. *PaleoAmerica*, **2** (4), 286-302.

BORRERO L.A., 1995 - Human and natural agency: some comments on Pedra Furada. *Antiquity*, **69**, 602-603.

Bueno L., Schmidt Dias A. & Steele J., 2013 - The Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene archaeological record in Brazil: a geo-referenced database. *Quaternary International*, **301**, 74-93.

BUTZER K.W., 1988 - A Marginality Model to Explain Major Spatial and Temporal Gaps in the Old

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>
and New World Pleistocene Settlement Records. *Geoarchaeology*, **3** (3), 193-203.
DOI: 10.1002/geo.3340030303

**CANNELL A., 2002** - Throwing Behaviour and the Mass Distribution of Geological Hand Samples, Hand Grenades and Olduvian Manports. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, **29**, 335-339.

**CANNELL A., 2018** - Mass distribution analysis of spheroid Manports, spheroid artifacts, and the lithics of play learning. *Lithic Technology*, **43** (3), 141-150.
DOI: 10.1080/01977261.2018.1460703

**CARTELLE C. & HARTWIG W.C., 1996** - A new extinct primate among the Pleistocene megafauna of Bahia. Brazil. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, **93**, 6405-6409.

**CARVALHO S., CUNHA E., SOUSA C. & MATSUZAWA T., 2008** - Chaînes opératoires and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (*Pan troglodytes*) nut craking. *Journal of Human Evolution*, **55**, 148-163.

**CARVALHO S. & MCGREW W.C., 2012** - The origins of the Oldowan: Why chimpanzees (*Pan troglodytes*) still are good models for technological evolution in Africa. In M. Domínguez-Rodrigo (ed.), *Stone tools and fossil bones: debates in the archaeology of human origins*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 201-221.

**CHAVES S.A. DE MIRANDA & REINHARD K.J., 2006** - Critical analysis of coprolite evidence of medicinal plant use, Piauí, Brazil. *Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology*, **237**, 110-118.

**DILLEHAY T., OCAMPO C., SAAVEDRA J., SAWAKUCHI A. O., VEGA R. M., PINO M., COLLINS M.B., SCOTT L., CUMMINGS L.S., ARREGUI I., VILLAGRAN X. S., HARTMANN G.A., MELLA M., GONZ LEZ A. & DIX G., 2015** - New Archaeological Evidence for an Early Human Presence at Monte Verde, Chile. *PLoS ONE*, **10** (12), e0145471.

**EREN M.I., PATTEN R.J., O BRIEN M.J. & MELTZER D.J., 2013** - Refuting the technological cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic crossing hypothesis. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, **40**, 2934-2941.

**FALÓTICO T., 2011** - *Uso de ferramentas por macacos-prego* (Sapajus libidinosus) do Parque Nacional Serra da Capivara – PI, Tese de Doutorado do Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 170 p.

**FALÓTICO T. & OTTONI E., 2013** - Stone Throwing as a Sexual Display in Wild Female Bearded Capuchin Monkeys, *Sapajus libidinosus*. *PLoS ONE*, **8** (11), e79535.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079535

**FALÓTICO T. & OTTONI E., 2016** - The manifold use of pounding stone tools by wild capuchin monkeys of Serra da Capivara National Park, Brazil. *Behaviour*, **153**, 421-442.
DOI: 10.1163/1568539X-00003357

**FALÓTICO T., SIQUEIRA J.O. & OTTONI E.B., 2017** - Digging up food: excavation stone tool use by wild capuchin monkeys. *Scientific Reports*, **7**, 6278.

**FIEDEL S.J., 2017** - Did Monkeys Make the Pre-Clovis Pebble Tools of Northeastern Brazil? *PaleoAmerica*, **3** (1), 6-12.
DOI: 10.1080/20555563.2016.1273000

**GUÉRIN C. & FAURE M., 2008** - La biodiversité, mammalienne au Pléistocène supérieur - Holocène ancien dans la Région du Parc National Serra da Capivara (SE du Piauí, Brésil). *FUMDHAMentos, Revista da Fundação Museu do Homem Americano*, **7**, 80-93.

**GUÉRIN C. & FAURE M., 2014** - Paleontologia da região do Parque nacional Serra da Capivara. In A.-M. Pessis, G. Martin & N. Guidon (eds.), *Os biomas e as sociedades humanas na pré-história da região do parque nacional Serra da Capivara, Brasil, vol. II-A. A&A Comunicacão*, São Paulo, 136-182.

**GUIDON N. & DELIBRIAS G., 1986** - Carbon-14 dates point to man in the Americas 32,000 years ago. *Nature*, **6072**, 769-771.
DOI: 10.1038/321769a0

**GUIDON N. & PARENTI F., 1989** - Toca do Boqueirão da Pedra Furada: Escavações 1987. In IV Reunião Científica da Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira. Centro Cultural de Santos - 20 a 26 de setembro de 1987. Dédalo, 1. Publicações Avulsas, São Paulo, 57-67.

**GUIDON N., PESSIS A.M., PARENTI F., FONTUGNE M. & GUÉRIN C., 1996** - Pedra Furada in Brazil, and its "presumed" evidence: limitations and potential of the available data. *Antiquity*, **70**, 416-421.

**HALENAR L.B., 2012** - *Paleobiology of Protopithecus brasiliensis, a Plus-Size Pleistocene Platyrhine from Brazil*. PhD thesis, The City University of New York, New York, 240 p.

**HALENAR L.B. & ROSENBERGER A.L., 2013** - A Closer Look at the *Protopithecus* Fossil Assemblages: New Genus And Species From Bahia, Brazil. *Journal of Human Evolution*, **65**, 374-390.

**HARTWIG W.C. & CARTELLE C., 1996** - A complete skeleton of the giant South American primate *Protopithecus*. *Nature*, **381**, 307-311.

**HASLAM M., CARDOSO R.M., VISALBERGHI E. & FRAGASZY D., 2014** - Stone Anvil Damage

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>
by Wild Bearded Capuchins (*Sapajus libidinosus*) during Pounding Tool Use: A Field Experiment. *PLoS ONE*, **9** (11), e111273.

HASLAM M., HERNANDEZ-AGUILAR A., LING V., CARVALHO S., TORRE I. DE LA, DESTEFANO A., DU A., HARDY B., HARRIS J., MARCHANT L., MATSUZAWA T., MCGREW W., MERCADER J., MORA R., PETRAGLIA M., ROCHE H., VISALBERGHI E. & WARREN R., **2009** - Primate archaeology. *Nature*, **460**, 339-344.

DOI: 10.1038/nature08188

HASLAM M., LUNCZ L. V., STAFF R. A., BRADSHAW F., OTTONI E. B. & FALÓTICO T., **2016** - Pre-Columbian monkey tools. *Current Biology*, **26**, R515 R522.

DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.046

HOFFECKER J.F., ELIAS S. A., O ROURKE D.H., SCOTT G.R. & BIGELOW N.H. - **2016** - Beringia and the Global Dispersal of Modern Humans, *Evolutionary Anthropology*, **25**, 64-78.

DOI: 10.1002/evan.21478

HUBBE M., OKUMURA M., BERNARDO D.V. & NEVES W.A. **2014** - cranial morphological diversity of Early, Middle, and Late Holocene Brazilian groups: implications for Human dispersion in Brazil. *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, **155** (4), 546-558.

LAHAYE C., HERNANDEZ M., BOËDA E., FELICE G. D., GUIDON N., HOELTZ S., LOURDEAU A., PAGLI M., PESSIS A.M., RASSE M. & VIANA S. **2013** - Human occupation in South America by 20,000 BC: the Toca da Tira Peia site, Piauí, Brazil. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, **40** (6), 2840-2847.

LOURDEAU A. & PAGLI M., **2014** - Indústrias líticas pré-históricas na região da Serra da Capivara. *In A.-M. Pessis, G. Martin & N. Guidon (eds.), Os Biomas e as sociedades humanas na pré-história da região do Parque Nacional Serra da Capivara, Brasil*, vol. II-A. A&A Comunicação, São Paulo, 551-635.

MACPHEE R.D.E. & HOROVITZ I., **2002** - 13- Extinct Quaternary platyrrhines of the Greater Antilles and Brazil. *In* W.C. Hartwig (ed.), *The Primate fossil Record*. Cambridge Studies in Biological & Evolutionary Anthropology, **33**. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 189-201.

MANNU M. & OTTONI E.B., **2009** - The Enhanced Tool-Kit of Two Groups of Wild Bearded Capuchin Monkeys in the Caatinga: Tool Making, Associative Use, and Secondary Tools. *American Journal of Primatology*, **71**, 242-251.

McAVOY J.M. & McAVOY L.D., **1997** - *Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia*. Research Report Series, 8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, 487 p.

MELTZER D.J., ADOVASIO J.M. & DILLEHAY T.D., **1994** - On a Pleistocene human occupation at Pedra Furada, Brazil. *Antiquity*, **68**, 695-714.

DOI: 10.1017/S0003598X00047414

MERCADER J., PANGER M. & BOESCH C., **2002** - Excavation of a chimpanzee stone tool site in the African rainforest. *Science*, **296**, 1452-1455.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1070268

MICHAB M., VALLADAS H., FROGET L. & MERCIER N, **1998** - Distinguishin gburnt from partly bleached unburnt quartz pebble of Pedra Furada, Brazil. *Ancient TL*, **16** (1), 5-9.

MOURA A.C. DE A. & LEE P.C., **2004** - Capuchin stone tool use in Caatinga dry forest. *Science*, **306** (5703), 1909.

MOURA A. C. DE A., **2007** - Stone Banging by Wild Capuchin Monkeys: An Unusual Auditory Display. *Folia Primatologica*, **78**, 36-45.

PARENTI F., **2001** - *Le gisement quaternaire de la Pedra Furada (Piauí, Brésil) : stratigraphie, chronologie, évolution culturelle*. Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations, Paris. 323 p.

PARENTI F., **2015** - Old and new on the same site: putting Vale da Pedra Furada into a wider context. A comment to Lahaye *et al*. 2015. *Quaternary Geochronology*, **30**, 48-53.

Proffitt t., Luncz L.v., Falótico t., Ottoni e. b., torre i. dE LA & Haslam m., **2016** - Wild monkeys flake stone tools. *Nature*, **539**, 85-88.

RUIZ RAMONI D., RINCON A.D., SOLORZANO A. & MOYÀ-SOLÀ S., **2017** - The first fossil Platyrrhini (Primates: Anthropoidea) from Venezuela: A capuchin monkey from the Plio-Pleistocene of El Breal de Orocual. *Journal of Human Evolution*, **105**, 127-131.

SANTOS G.M., BIRD M.I., PARENTI F., FIFIELD L.K., GUIDON N. & HAUSLADEN P.A., **2003** - A revised chronology of the lowest occupation layer of Pedra Furada Rock Shelter, Piauí, Brazil: the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. *Quaternary Science Reviews*, **22**, 2303-2310.

STANFORD D. & BRADLEY B.A., **2012** - *Across Atlantic ice: The origin of America's Clovis culture*. University of California Press, Berkeley, 336 p.

DOI: 10.1525/9780520949676

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

STANFORD D., LOWERY D., JODRY M., BRADLEY B.A., KAY M., STAFFORD T.W. & SPEAKMAN R.J., **2014** - New Evidence for a Possible Paleolithic Occupation of the Eastern North American Continental Shelf at the Last Glacial Maximum. *In* A.M. Evans, J.C. Flatman & N.C. Flemming.
(eds.), *Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf : a global review*. Springer Science, New York, 73-93.

TEJEDOR M.F., ROSENBERGER A.L. & CARTELLE C., 2008 - Nueva especie de *Alouatta* (Primates, Atelinae) del Pleistoceno Tardío de Bahía, Brasil. *Ameghiniana*, **45** (1), 247-251.

VALLADAS H., MERCIER N., MICHAB M., JORON J.-L. REYSS J.-L. & GUIDON N., 2003 - TL age-estimates of burnt quartz pebbles from the Toca do Boqueirão da Pedra Furada (Piauí, Northeastern Brazil). *Quaternary Sciences Reviews*, **22**, 1257-1263.
DOI: 10.1016/S0277-3791(03)00029-5

VIALOU D., BENABDELHADI M., FEATHERS J., FONTUGNE M. & VILHENA VIALOU A., 2017 - Peopling South America's centre; the Late Pleistocene site of Santa Elina. *Antiquity*, **91** (358), 865-884.

VISALBERGHI E., 1990 - Tool use in *Cebus. Folia Primatologica*, **54**, 146-154.
DOI: 10.1159/000156438

VISALBERGHI E. & FRAGASZY D., 2013 - The Etho-Cebus Project: Stone-tool use by wild capuchin monkeys. In C.M. Sanz, J. Call & C. Boesch (eds.), *Tool use in animals. Cognition and Ecology*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 203-218.

VISALBERGHI E., FRAGASZY D., OTTONI E., IZAR P., OLIVEIRA M.G. DE & ANDRADE F.R.D., 2007 - Characteristics of hammer stones and anvils used by wild bearded capuchin monkeys (*Cebus libidinosus*) to crack open palm nuts. *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, **132**, 426-444.

VISALBERGHI E., SIRIANNI G., FRAGASZY D. & BOESCH C., 2015 - Percussive tool use by Taï Western chimpanzees and Fazenda Boa Vista bearded capuchin monkeys: a comparison. *Philosophical Transactions - Royal Society. Biological Sciences*, 370, 1682, 20140351.

WESTERGAARD G.C. & SUOMI S.J., 1994 - A simple stone-tool technology in monkeys. *Journal of Human Evolution*, **27**, 399-408.
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.1994.1055

ZEGURA S.L., KARAFET T.M., ZHIVOTOVSKY L.A. & HAMMER M.F., 2004 - High-Resolution SNPs and Microsatellite Haplotypes Point to a Single, Recent Entry of Native American Y Chromosomes into the America. *Biology and Evolution*, **21** (1), 164-175.

Table des illustrations

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

Titre

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

Légende

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

Titre

Légende

URL

Fichier

Titre

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

Légende

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fichier

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

Titre

URL

Fig. 1: Position of the site (BPF) in relation to the sandstone cuesta and the nearby rock-shelter of Sítio do Meio (SDM) ; image from GoogleEarth.

The whitish edge of the cliff is the uppermost outcropping conglomerate layer. Note the thalweg just South of BPF, comprised between elevations 383 and 393.

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-1.jpg

image/jpeg, 80k

Fig. 2: Sections of the sandstone wall (top) and situation of waterfalls and excavations in 1990 (bottom).

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-2.jpg

image/jpeg, 48k

Fig. 3: Top: position of waterfalls, excavations, sections and structures discussed in this paper; bottom: I) Panoramic view at the end of excavations (July 1988) with sections discussed in this paper, II) Northern half of section 3 during excavations (November 1987), III) section of waterfall C; note the block collapse beneath cobbles filling.

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-3.jpg

image/jpeg, 64k

Tab. 1: Stratigraphy of the Eastern bulk

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-4.jpg

image/jpeg, 380k

Fig. 4: Section 4, western side of preserved bulk.

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-5.jpg

image/jpeg, 28k

Fig. 5: Section 20, southern side of preserved bulk.

Note its position slightly outside the drip line (fig. 3).

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-6.jpg

image/jpeg, 28k

Fig. 6: Section 3', eastern side of central preserved bulk.

This section is 1 m east and below section 3.

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-7.jpg

image/jpeg, 36k

Fig. 7: Comparison of all globlal granulometries.

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-8.jpg

image/jpeg, 24k

Fig. 8: Selected granulometric curves from sections 4, 3', Waterfall B, section 20.

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-9.jpg

image/jpeg, 60k

Fig. 9: Structure 67, PF3 phase, and fireplace 19 (19 300 ± 200 BP).

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-10.jpg

image/jpeg, 28k

Tab. 2: Number of bulb-scars observed in broken or flaked pebbles from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-11.jpg

image/jpeg, 16k

Tab. 3: Number of elements according to granulometric range in broken or flaked pebbles from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-12.jpg

image/jpeg, 16k

Tab. 4: Number of broken or flaked pebbles presenting pseudo-retouch from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-13.jpg
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 12k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Tab. 5: Number of flakes presenting striking angles greater than 90° from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-14.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 12k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Tab. 6: Number of flakes presenting cortex from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-15.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 12k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Tab. 7: Number of flakes presenting non cortical butt from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-16.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 16k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Tab. 8: Number of flakes presenting pseudo-retouch from Talus cone A and archaeological layers (% in parentheses).</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-17.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 16k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Fig. 10: Selected structures from Pleistocene layers.</td></tr><tr><td>Légende</td><td>69 (PF2)/ small structure close to the sandstone wall, composed by large (apparently unheated) quartz cobbles, none of them having traces of pitting; 23 (PF3)/ fireplace composed by sandstone blocks and quartz pebbles, with charcoal concentration in the central concavity; 30 (PF2)/fireplace boarded by rounded sandstone blocks and four quartz cobbles; note the fine gravelly matrix of the sediment.</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-18.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 20k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Fig. 11: Distribution of cobbles from structure 67 by maximum length (2 cm intervals).</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-19.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 16k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Fig. 12: Structure 67: maximum cobbles dimension (cm) by distance from waterfall C (m).</td></tr><tr><td>Légende</td><td>Distances are irregularly spaced because of the different quantity of cobbles for each meter considered.</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-20.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 20k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Tab. 9: Comparison between Pedra Furada site (endogenous raw material) and Capuchin monkey's materials.</td></tr><tr><td>Légende</td><td>Total number of pieces is reported on the right (Proffitt et al., 2016).</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-21.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 20k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Fig. 13: Mass distribution of choppers, cores and flakes in BPF layers.</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-22.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 12k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Fig. 14: Retouched and utilized flakes.</td></tr><tr><td>Légende</td><td>14492/ partially cortical quartz flake; retouched on both faces, PF1; 18602/ cortical flake, quartz, marginal retouch on dorsal face, invasive retouch on ventral face, PF1; 17960/ partially cortical quartzite flake; at least three flake scars are present on its dorsal face which, on its right side, is interested by a flat diacrase surface which allows a very good grip with the right hand, explains the notch visible on side view, PF2.</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-23.jpg</td></tr><tr><td>Fichier</td><td>image/jpeg, 32k</td></tr><tr><td>Titre</td><td>Fig. 15: Bifacial quartzite chopper, with a sinusoidal distal edge, formed by alternate trimming, 790 g, PF1 (17883); bifacial quartzite chopper, with continuous cutting edge, defined by many flake-scars, 995 g, PF1 (18637).</td></tr><tr><td>URL</td><td>http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-24.jpg</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

**Fichier** image/jpeg, 32k

**Titre**

Fig. 16: Centripetal quartzite core with minimum four flake-scars, the last has been retouched, maybe indicating a last use as scraping tool, 765 g, PF2 (17090); small quartzite core, useless as hammer because of its weight (155 g) and form, PF2 (4510); orthogonal core on quartz cobble, 360 g, PF2 (4430-1); orthogonal core on quartzite cobble; lower view: double synchronous split fracture, due to percussion, 265 g, PF2 (15891). Note the recurrent technique of the last two cores.

**URL**

http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/10313/img-25.jpg

**Fichier** image/jpeg, 29k

## Pour citer cet article

### Référence papier

Fabio Parenti, Alan Cannell, Evelyne Debard, Martine Faure et Mercedes Okumura, « Genesis and taphonomy of the archaeological layers of Pedra Furada rock-shelter, Brazil », *Quaternaire*, vol. 29/3 | 2018, 255-269.

### Référence électronique

Fabio Parenti, Alan Cannell, Evelyne Debard, Martine Faure et Mercedes Okumura, « Genesis and taphonomy of the archaeological layers of Pedra Furada rock-shelter, Brazil », *Quaternaire* [En ligne], vol. 29/3 | 2018, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2021, consulté le 22 juillet 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/10313 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/quaternaire.10313

## Auteurs

Fabio Parenti

* IDREF : https://idref.fr/067204996

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5833-5925

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

VIAF: http://viaf.org/viaf/22362749

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

ISNI: https://isni.org/isni/0000000043118093

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>
{ BnF

BNF : http://data.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb14445170w

Departamento de Antropologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, PR, BR-80060-150 Curitiba. Email: scriptoriumparentii@gmail.com; Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, IT-03012 Anagni.

Alan Cannell

Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, IT-03012 Anagni. Email: alcannell@gmail.com

Evelyne Debard

• IDREF : https://idref.fr/02922585X

VI
AF

• VIAF : http://viaf.org/viaf/61572921

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>

• ISNI : https://isni.org/isni/0000000117661647

BnF

• BNF : http://data.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb120896405

Université de Lyon, UCBL, ENSL, CNRS, LGL-TPE, FR-69622 Villeurbanne. Email: evelyne.debard@free.fr

### Articles du même auteur

**Grotte Chauvet-Pont d'Arc (Ardèche) : évolution morphosédimentaire de l'entrée. Implication sur les occupations et sur la conservation des vestiges.** [Texte intégral]

Chauvet-Pont d'Arc cave (Ardeche): morphosedimentary evolution of the entrance. Implication for the occupations and the preservation of remains.

Paru dans *Quaternaire*, vol. 27/1 | 2016

**Nouvelles données géologiques et téphrochronologiques sur le gisement paléontologique du maar de Senèze (Pléistocène inférieur, massif central, France) [Texte intégral]**

New geological and tephrochronological data on the palaeontological site of the Senèze maar (early Pleistocene, massif central, France)

Paru dans *Quaternaire*, vol. 26/3 | 2015

**Nouvelles données sur les occupations humaines du début du Pléistocène supérieur de la moyenne vallée du Rhône (France). Les sites de l'abri des pêcheurs, de la Baume Flandin, de l'Abri du Maras et de la grotte du Figuier (Ardèche) [Texte intégral]**

New data on the Upper Pleistocene human occupations in the middle Rhone valley (France). The sites of abri des pêcheurs, Baume Flandin, Abri du Maras and le Figuier (Ardèche)

Paru dans *Quaternaire*, vol. 21/4 | 2010

**Nouvelles données sur les téphras pléistocènes piégés dans les remplissages karstiques ardéchois (SE France) [Texte intégral]**

New data on the pleistocene tephra trapped in the karstic infillings of Ardèche (SE, France)

Paru dans *Quaternaire*, vol. 19/2 | 2008

### Martine Faure

Université Lumière - Lyon 2, UFR Temps et Territoires; Université de Lyon, UCBL, ENSL, CNRS, LGL-

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>
TPE, FR-69622 Villeurbanne. Fundação Museu do Homem Americano, São Raimundo Nonato (Piauí, Brasil). Email: fauremartine@free.fr

Articles du même auteur

Foreword: Claude Guérin (1939 – 2016) [Texte intégral]

Paru dans *Quaternaire*, vol. 29/3 | 2018

Nouvelles données géologiques et téphrochronologiques sur le gisement paléontologique du maar de Senèze (Pléistocène inférieur, massif central, France) [Texte intégral]

New geological and tephrochronological data on the palaeontological site of the Senèze maar (early Pleistocene, massif central, France)

Paru dans *Quaternaire*, vol. 26/3 | 2015

Mercedes Okumura

Laboratório de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Genética e Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão, 277, Cidade Universitária, Butantã, SP, BR-05508-090. Email: okumura@ib.usp.br

Droits d'auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>