414 Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021) Introduction Bones are a common raw material for tool manufac- turing in traditional societies partly because of work- ing proprieties of bones and partly because of their abundance as a food by-product that provides an un- ending supply of pieces from which to choose (Moore 1999; Stone 2011; Xie, Stiner 2018). The Late Pre- Hispanic Period of Sierras of Córdoba (1500–360 years BP, Argentina) was no exception, and bone tools constitute the third most numerous artefact group-type collected on the archaeological record after pottery and lithic technology. The majority of bone tools were projectile points, spindle whorls, awls, pin-like tools, spatulas, knives, smoothers, ne- edles, tubes, flakers and manufacturing by-products, Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) Matías Medina1, Sebastián Pastor2 1 Archeology Division, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Museum, National University of La Plata, La Plata, AR paleomedina@gmail.com 2 Catamarca Research and Transfer Center, San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca, Catamarca, AR pastorvcp@yahoo.com.ar ABSTRACT – The aim of the article is to assess the role played by bone tools at Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina), an open-air site interpreted as a basecamp seasonally occupied by mobile mixed foraging and farming people c. 900–700 years BP. The results suggest that diverse activities were carried out on-site, including hunting or warfare, tool production, food processing and rituals. Bone tool analysis may enable reconstruction of the technological level, social organization, and cultural attitude towards the environment among people neither wholly foragers nor wholly farmers, a category for which archaeology currently lacks sufficient archaeological understanding and that merits further research. IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku ocenjujemo vlogo ko∏≠enih orodij na najdi∏≠u Boyo Paso 2 (gorovje Sierras de Córdoba, Argentina), tj. najdi∏≠u na prostem, ki ga razlagajo kot bazni kamp, ki so ga v ≠asu ok. 900–700 pr. sed. sezonsko obiskovale me∏ane skupine nabiralcev in poljedelcev. Rezultati ka∫ejo, da so se na tem najdi∏≠u odvijale razli≠ne aktivnosti, vklju≠no z lovom ali bojevanjem, izdelava orodij, predelava hrane in rituali. S pomo≠jo analize ko∏≠enih orodij lahko rekonstruiramo tehnolo∏ko raven, dru∫beno organizacijo in odnos do okolja te skupine ljudi, ki niso ne povsem nabiralci, ne povsem kmetje, kar pa je kategorija, za katero arheologija trenutno ∏e nima zadostnega arheolo∏ke- ga razumevanja in si zaslu∫i nadaljnje raziskave. KEY WORDS – South America; Late Holocene; bone tool technology; raw material; mixed foraging and cultivation economies KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Ju∫na Amerika; pozni holocen; tehnologija izdelave ko∏≠enih orodij; surovine; me∏ano nabiralni∏ko in poljedelsko gospodarstvo Ko[;ena orodja na najdi[;u Boyo Paso 2 (gorovje Sierras de Córdoba, Argentina) iz poznega pred[panskega obdobja DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.4 Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) 415 bone tools during the site’s seasonal occupation. Briefly, the aim of this paper is to provide a full mor- phological, physical, and functional description of the bone tool assemblage recorded at Boyo Paso 2, exploring the nature of the activities performed and their relation to the socioeconomic intensification process observed at the end of the Holocene (Buc et al. 2016; Medina et al. 2016; Rivero 2009). The site Boyo Paso 2 is an open-air site located at 1160m a.s.l. in the eastern Salsacate valley (Fig. 1). Today, it might be considered one of the best archaeological- ly investigated sites from the Late Pre-Hispanic Pe- riod. In addition to four test-pit works over 2m2, a specific section of the site was investigated, uncov- ering 55m2. Horizontal excavation revealed two overlaying archaeological floors formed by packed sediments (see Medina et al. 2020.Figs. 3–4). The living floors have post-moulds and abundant dome- stic refuse, including the bone tools analysed here. The faunal remains found at Boyo Paso 2 were in several publications (Medina et al. 2019; 2019; Medina, Rivero 2020). Lama sp. was the largest readily consumed faunal resource assigned to genus or species level. They were tentatively assigned to the wild camelid Lama cf. L. guanicoe. Two species of deer and diverse small vertebrates were the most consumed animals after Lama cf. L. guanicoe. Rhea sp. eggshells prevail among bird remains and, along with the identification of domesticated plant remains and wild fruits, support the site was occupied dur- ing the growing season – i.e. from October to April (Medina et al. 2019; 2020). Lithic tool assemblages were dominated by expedient tools man- ufactured on local lithic raw materi- al (Balena, Medina 2020; Medina et al. 2019). Pottery vessels were domi- nated by medium-sized rounded morphologies with a versatile and transportable design, better able to withstand the stress of a mobile semi-sedentary lifestyle (Medina et al. 2016). The existence of a wide range of subsistence and processing activities is evidenced by both arte- facts and food refuse, including farm- ing, foraging wild resources, storing, and grinding. Signs of a full-sedentary farming eco- nomy at Boyo Paso 2 are question- showing that they played a key role in those socie- ties where a broad-spectrum foraging and cultiva- tion base took over daily subsistence and dominat- ed the activities of adults (Argüello de Dorsch 1983; Berberián 1984; González 1943; 1949; Laguens, Bonnin 2009; Marcellino et al. 1967; Medina et al. 2014; 2019; Medina, Balena 2020; Serrano 1945). However, to date studies of bone working have been relatively neglected due to the greater interest of archaeology regarding chronological questions focusing on lithic projectile technology or the adop- tion of crop farming. Manufacture debris was thus usually ignored and use-wear analyses were rare. In- deed, Late Pre-Hispanic bone tool assemblages were only exceptionally described or analysed from a typo-functional of sometimes chronological or com- parative perspective, with the focus on unusual cases from which functional hypotheses or the activities carried out on-site were assessed (Buc et al. 2016; Laguens, Bonnin 2009; Medina et al. 2014; 2018; 2019). The aim of the article is to identify the raw materi- als chosen and the working methods used for mak- ing bone tools at Boyo Paso 2, an open-air site inter- preted as a base-camp seasonally occupied by mo- bile mixed foraging and farming people c. 900–700 years BP. Bone tool technology is compared here with the zooarchaeological record to link the eco- nomic life with the social life of Boyo Paso 2 people. Another related goal was to identify the possible ac- tivities carried out on-site and the role played by Fig. 1. Geographic locations of the archaeological sites referred to in the text: 1 Boyo Paso 2; 2 San Roque; 3 Carrupachina. Matías Medina, Sebastián Pastor 416 able, as this also occurred during the Late Pre-Hispa- nic Period, making it difficult to evaluate the reliance on crops over foraging due to the fragmentary na- ture of the archaeological record. The presence of habitational structures like pit-houses, huts or brush windbreaks was inferred by the detection of post- moulds. The absence of well-defined hearth featu- res makes the identification of the shape and size of the structures more difficult, reinforcing the hypo- thesis that they were not durable habitational res- idences for long-term occupation. Artefacts left as abandonment stage refuse or as a site furniture were found on the living floors, including bone tools, suggesting that people planned to return to this lo- cation (Medina et al. 2014; 2016; 2018; 2020). Se- ven radiocarbon dates have been obtained for the site (Tab. 1). The dates overlap roughly when two dates from the upper floor that are considered out- liers – 1060±50 and 1500±80 years BP – are exclud- ed, placing the archaeological floors between the range of 900–700 years BP, and confirming that they were formed over a relatively short period (Me- dina et al. 2016). Such evidence looks like a result of frequent seaso- nal reoccupation of the same site year after year or every few years, supporting the interpretation that Boyo Paso 2 was a seasonally reoccupied encamp- ment where small groups of people with a mixed foraging and cultivation economy coalesced to do a wide range of activities. As such, the bone tool and manufacture debris assemblage of Boyo Paso 2 of- fers a viable match and an excellent opportunity to assess the process of bone raw material procure- ment, working method and tentative use of bone artefacts, where tactics, actions and decisions were repeated at an evolutionary scale resolution. Materials and methods The bone tool assemblage was formed by 87 items collected from fieldwork between 2011 and 2018. Although a few pieces were recovered during test-pit works, most of the bone tools were found on living surfaces or in the semi-subterranean feature of the upper archaeological floor, linking their use to the deposit in which they were found. Pieces were exa- mined with a 20–10X hand lens. This approach was sufficient to confirm that the pieces were artificially modified by manufacture or use on at least one sur- face. Some of the bone tools discussed here were mentioned in Matías E. Medina et al. (2018) and Me- dina et al. (2019), but they were never studied from the whole worked bone assemblage perspective. In order to organize the diverse set of objects, the assemblage was classified into morpho-functional groups based on visual inspection of the pieces fol- lowing the French archaeological school (Camps-Fa- brer 1967) adapted for South America prehistoric assemblages (Buc 2012; Cahiza et al. 2012; Capri- les 2014; Medina et al. 2014; Moore 1999; Pastor, Moschettoni 2018). The anatomical and taxonomi- cal identifications were based on the reference col- lections. The physical and metric data (maximum length, width and thickness), as well as the presence and orientation of polish and striae, were recorded to identify the manufacturing processes and tenta- tive functionality of tools. Evidence from wear tra- ces on active edges or ends, ethnographic analogy and archaeological context were used to link the tool type to the function and possible social signifi- cance of the objects (cf. Berenguer, Acevedo 2015; Borella, Buc 2010; Buc 2012; Gates St-Pierre 2007; D’Errico et al. 2012; Horta et al. 2019; Legrand 2007; Legrand, Sidera 2007; Luik 2006; Nami, Scheinsohn 1997; Soressi et al. 2013; Stone 2011). Thus, the assignment functions of the bone tool as- semblage are speculative until use-wear analysis are completed. The use and performance of the projectile points as spears, arrows or darts were assessed based on the gross weight following Fenenga (1953), assuming that pieces with a weight lighter than 4g were used on arrows. The system of hafting projectile points Stratigraphic unit Material dated 14C years Sigma Lab. code Calibrated age Upper archaeological floor Wood charcoal 750 70 LP-2932 549–744 BP (37–40cm) Phaseolus vulgaris 866 39 AA110929 658–908 BP Zea mays 878 18 AA110928 716–774 BP Wood charcoal 1060 50 LP-3122 796–987 BP Wood charcoal 1500 80 LP-3107 1261–1538 BP Lower archaeological floor Wood charcoal 870 50 LP-3577 666–808 BP (49–56cm) Wood charcoal 970 40 LP-3567 757–924 BP Tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates from Boyo Paso 2 taken from Medina et al. (2020). The calibration of 14C ages was done using Calib Rev. 7.0.1 (Reimer et al. 2013). Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) 417 and the size of the shaft were assessed by the mor- phology of the proximal end of the projectile point following Heidi Knetch (1993.34), mainly consider- ing the characteristic of the stem (section, width- thickness, additional technological element associ- ated, etc.). Traces of burning on artefacts were re- corded using the same taphonomic scheme as that applied to zooarchaeological remains (see Medina et al. 2019). Lastly, the zooarchaeological record de- scribed above was used as a baseline to evaluate the selection of raw materials for bone tool production. Results Raw materials chosen for making artefacts The intense anthropic modification and post-depo- sitional fragmentation of the assemblage made it dif- ficult to identify the body parts and taxa selected to make most the bone tools. The species whose bones were most often used for making tools were Lama cf. L. guanicoe followed by Cervidae cf. Ozo- toceros (Tabs. 2 and 3 (see Appendix)), readily avail- able and in large quantities as kitchen waste (Medi- na et al. 2019). Most of the bones identified as the body size classes Mammalia indent (medium-large size) or Macrovertebrate indet presumably also came from these Cetartiodactyla species. Cut marks on an artefact made of Camelidae scapula confirm that at least a portion of the bones used to fashion tools came from animals killed for food, probably those that remained on site after primary butchering. Ca- thartidae bones were also used for tool manufactur- ing. Although the meat of Cathartidae was not va- luable for food (see Kozák et al. 1979), a few bones of this species were probably sought for symbolic reasons, mainly for fashion specific tools for ritual paraphernalia. The choice of raw material for manufacturing bone tools was rather standardized. Most often, splinters from macro vertebrate long bones were used to shape the tools, especially metapodials – judging from the pieces BP2-49, BP2-74 and BP2-82 – and perhaps also tibiae, because of their long and straight shape (Tabs. 2 and 3 (see Appendix)). Antler, rib, ra- dius-ulna, scapula, carpals-tarsals, phalanges or axial bones were seldom used (Tab. 3). One particular type of bone tool – flakers – were made from antler, maybe because they required little alteration to pro- duce a flaker. However, flakers were also made on long-bones. It is noteworthy that working traces on antler were ambiguous and could be assigned to a natural origin according to Alejandro Alberto Acos- ta et al. (2020). Thus, the functional assignation of antler flakers needs further exploration through use- wear analysis to determine whether they are expedi- ent tools or simply pieces of raw material collected for later use. In general terms, the raw materials selected to ma- nufacture the worked bone at Boyo Paso 2 are simi- lar to the osseous materials selected for making tools at other Late Pre-Hispanic Period sites (Berberián 1984; González 1943; 1949; Medina et al. 2014; Ser- rano 1945). The subsistence strategies at all these Late Pre-Hispanic settlements were quite similar and this is also reflected in the exploitation of animal bones for making tools. Artefacts or manufacture de- bris made from bird bones are extremely scarce at Boyo Paso 2, and only three pieces were found (BP 2-1, BP2-70 and BP2-83). These are also rare at other Late Pre-Hispanic sites, even when bird long bones were used in neighbouring regions to produce bird bone tubes, tubular beads, pendants and pin-like tools (Bonomo 2013; Del Papa et al. 2019; Escoste- Tool type Frequency Burned (No.) (No.) Projectile points Blade fragments 3 3 Serrated stems 2 – Notched bone tool Notched bone tool 1 – Flakers Antler-Flakers| 4 1 Long bone-Flakers 3 2 Smoothers and Scrapers Rib- Smoother 1 – Long bone-Scrapers 4 1 Long bone-Longitudinal scraper 1 1 Pointed tools Pin-like tools 2 1 Awl 1 – Spatulas Pin-shaped subtype spatula 1 1 Pin-shaped subtype spatulas| 4 2 Undecorated fragments of spatulas| 3 1 Indeterminate artefacts Artefacts on indeterminate taxa 45 23 Artefact on Cathartidae bone (mastic) 1 – Artefacts on camelid bone 3 1 Artefacts on cervid bone 2 1 Unfinished items and waste by-products Pieces on Cathartidae bone 2 1 Pieces on camelid bone 3 – Piece on cervid bone 1 1 Piece on macrovertebrate bone 1 1 Tab. 2. Summary of bone tool types from Boyo Pa- so 2. Matías Medina, Sebastián Pastor 418 guy et al. 2017; Horta Tricallotis et al. 2019; Perez Jimeno, Del Papa 2016; Rusconi 1933). Tool types and tentative functions The bone tool assemblage from Boyo Paso 2 shows different morpho-functional groups, including pro- jectile points, awls, pin-like tools, spatulas, serrated edge tool and blunt points (Tabs. 2 and 3 (see Ap- pendix)). Most tools showed clear signs of wear. Other items were considered manufacture debris by- products or artefacts with unknown functionality. The metric and physical data of the assemblage is presented in Table 3. Five fragments of projectile points were found (Fig. 2). They were represented by three fragments of blades and two of stems assigned to a class of arte- fact relatively common in Late Pre-Hispanic Period assemblages characterized by the long triangular- shaped blade (c. 62.1mm), straight or slightly con- tracted stem with serrated edge and barber shoul- ders (Medina, Balena 2020; Medina et al. 2014; 2019; Pastor et al. 2005). Although abrasion makes bone identification difficult, nutrient fora- mida, an element-diagnostic feature, indi- cated that BP2-82 was fashioned on a me- tatarsal roughly assigned to Cetartiodacty- la cf. Camelidae-Cervidae. The pieces BP2- 39, BP2-64, BP2-75 and BP2-84, with a bi- plane cross-section, thickness of c. 3mm and diagonal manufacture traces or finally ab- raded surfaces, resemble the physical struc- ture known for bone projectile points, which would thus increase the frequency of this tool-type in the assemblage. The gross weight of the nearly complete pieces sug- gests that these projectile points were ha- fted to a bow-and-arrow weapon delivery system, mainly because their light weight (c. 2–4g) needs speed to increase their ef- fectiveness and penetration capacity (Pas- tor et al. 2005). Moreover, they have a complex hafting system that involve shafts with a distal end being whittled down to match a stem with a serrated edge to re- duce the slippage of the ligature and fasten the point firmly to the shaft (see Medina et al. 2019.Fig. 5). Hunting and warfare projectile points dif- fer in that the former are produced to ob- tain meat, while the primarily intent of the latter is to kill or wound enemies. As a re- sult, different constraints exist for these two tasks. Hunting points were made to kill as rapidly as possible to avoid the effort of tracking the prey (Loendorf et al. 2015). In contrast, warfare points were designed to maximize the probability that in- jury or death resulted, regardless how long this might take (Loendorf et al. 2015; Luik 2006). Never- theless, such classification of warfare and hunting weapons is subjective, and if necessary warfare ar- rowheads could be used in hunting and vice versa (Loendorf et al. 2015; Luik 2006). According to these assumptions, the bone arrow points from Boyo Paso 2 were interpreted as weapons designed for using against people in warfare, although the most abundant tiny lithic arrowheads could have been used with the same purpose. The capacity of bone tips to pierce the rib cage, the addition of barbed tangs that resist removal from the wound, and a se- curely hafted fastening method, all mean that if the projectile enters the body of an enemy then it is un- likely to be easily withdrawn, with the point being attached to an arrow creating a more serious inter- nal haemorrhaging (Christenson 1997; Loendorf et al. 2015; Luik 2006). The recent discovery of Late Fig. 2. Bone projectile points referred to in the text: a, b and d fragments of blades (BP2-29, BP2-56 and BP2-78, respec- tively); c and e fragments of stems (BP2-82 and BP2-81, re- spectively); f complete bone projectile point recovered at San Roque locality and housed in Museo Arqueológico Num- ba Charava (Villa Carlos Paz, Argentina). Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) 419 Pre-Hispanic human skeletal remains with clear evidence of death caused by bone-tip- ped projectiles similar to the ones describ- ed here reinforce this functional hypothe- sis (Fabra et al. 2015; Pastor et al. 2012). A notched bone tool was found on Boyo Paso 2 (BP2-58). The tool was manufac- tured on the posterior border of a Lama cf. L. guanicoe scapula, conserving the axil- lary border, the subscapular fossa and the posterior angle (Fig. 3.a). Fifteen closely spaced notches or denticulations were re- touched on the infraspinatous fossa to cre- ate a serrated edge (Fig. 3.a). The notched use edge appears shiny to the naked eye. Starch grains recovered from the shiny area by sonication were identified as aff. Oxalis sp. tuber, although their taxonomic status as domestic or wild requires further investigation (Medina et al. 2018). Based on this evidence, it is argued that the not- ched bone tool was used for peeling Oxalis sp. tubers, an activity with low archaeolo- gical visibility due to the poor preservation of underground plant organs. Most antler tines were tentatively identified as flakers. They have their natural tine tips presumably transformed into small, round- ed surfaces, blunt and worn from use (Fig. 4.a). However, as it was mentioned above, such functions have not been verified so far through use- wear analysis and require further exploration. Frag- ments of blunt points made from elongated macro- vertebrate long bone splinters slightly regularized were also identified as flakers (BP2-13, BP2-14 and BP2-45). They presented transversal and parallel stri- ations on the apical end, inclusively visible under the naked eye, being short, deep and wide, similar to those observed in tools used as flakers (D’errico et al. 2012; Nami, Scheinsohn 1997; Borella, Buc 2009; Vitezovi≤ 2018). The greatest share of bone tools were connected to hide, leather or fibre processing. Presumably, the bone tool BP2-8, made from a macromammal rib, was used as a smoother for hides or similar, related activities (Fig. 4.b). The tool has been lightly shaped to blunt it into an pointed tip. The edges of the me- dial cortical side of the rib were scraped, exposing the spongy structure of bone for unknown function. Cortical bone at the very tip and around the edges was polished by use. Moreover, spongy bone is ex- posed and polished at and near the tip by use-wear. The anthropic modifications of the tip look like the result of abrasive pressure against a softer material, such a dry hide, with a repetition motion transverse to the active edge or longitudinally to the long axis of the bone. Rib smoothers are common in Late Pre- Hispanic contexts (Medina et al. 2014) and are also related to pottery or basketry making (Buc 2011; Medina et al. 2014). The small fragment of rib BP2- 31 also has the edge of the cortical medial side scraped, but its fragmented characteristic impedes its secure classification as a rib smoother. Five frag- ments of macro mammal and Cervidae cf. Ozotoce- ros ribs with manufacturing traces can be linked to this type of tool or their manufacture by-products. On the other hand, the small fragments of long bone (BP2-6, BP2-48 and BP2-85) were identified as hide scrapers (sensu Legrand, Sidera 2007). They pre- sented a flat side, bevelled and sharp-edged with po- lished spongy bone on the area affected by wearing and a set of parallel striations running longitudinal- ly to the edge (Fig. 4.c). Something similar occurred with BP2-32 which, despite its small size and frag- Fig. 3. Different tool-types referred to in the text: a notched bone tool (BP2-58); b bone tool used for scraping hides in a transversal motion (BP2-79); c similar to BP2-79 nearly com- plete scraper recovered at Carrupachina (Rivero et al. 2015). Matías Medina, Sebastián Pastor 420 mented character, has a bevelled and polished by use edge. All these characteristics are consistent with their use against softer material such as a hide, pro- ducing a smoothly shifting pressure over a small area to result in a more impermeable and lustrous hide (D’Errico et al. 2012; Mozota Holgueras 2007; Soressi et al. 2013; Vitezovi≤ 2011). Finally, the long edge of a lengthwise split long bone of a large- medium size mammal (BP2-79) was classified as used for scraping or cleaning hides in a transversal motion (Fig. 3.b), as described by Heidi Luik and Gi- edrė Pili≠iauskienė (2016) for seal bone scrapers. As a result of this activity, the long edge of the dia- physis and trabecular bone of the epiphysis were polished and look shiny to the naked eye (Fig. 3.b). Similar tool-type scrapers were also common in the Late Pre-Hispanic context of the Carrupachina site (Fig. 3.c; Rivero et al. 2015). An awl and pin-like tools were probably multi-use items (sensu Gates-St. Pierre 2006), e.g., for hide- working, corn husking and basketry making. In ge- neral terms, pointed tools were poorly standard- ized. They were not only made of long bones, and simple, opportunistically chosen ad hoc points with sharp tips were used with minimal modification as pointed tools, as exemplified by a sharp point tip fa- shioned on a camelid malleolus (BP2-54; Fig. 4.g). BP2-3, BP2-55 and BP2-80 are small indeterminate artefact fragments that can be classified as pin-like tools by their circular and fine cross-sections, but their apical areas were broken to verify this assig- nation. The sharp characteristics of the apical areas of BP2-19 (Fig. 4.f), BP2-20 (Fig. 4.e) and BP2-54 (Fig. 4.g), suggest drilling activities in soft materials such as hides or for making mats, nets and baskets, perishable tools crucial to many subsistence activi- ties that are rarely preserved in today’s archaeolo- gical record but comprise up to 95% of the mater- ial culture in ethnographically documented groups (Stone 2011). Ethnographic analogy is consistent with this functional assignation (Moore 1999; Stone 2011). The evidence of plant-based technologies im- pressed on the clay of Late Pre-Hispanic vessels re- inforces these arguments. Moreover, the use of point- ed tools to peel the husk of corn cob needs to be considered in horticultural groups, but this is never easy be recognize and only use-wear analysis can allow a valid identification of this activity (Gates-St. Pierre 2006). There are few artefacts in Boyo Paso 2 that can be connected to cults, rituals or religions rather than a technological function. The most spectacular find- ing of this type is a fragment of pin-shaped subtype spatula (sensu Pastor, Moschettoni 2018) with de- corative lateral fins (presumably shaped like ani- mals). It is made of a long bone that is finely poli- shed, smoothed and has incised decoration, mainly circles, triangles and dots, made in a positive relief (Fig. 5.a). Small fragments of artefacts with a dot-and- circle pattern (BP2-25, BP2-26, BP2-27 and BP2-28) and three distal ends of spatulas without incised de- coration (BP2-18, BP2-42 and BP2-86) were assign- ed to the same ritual object, even when it is not clear if most of them were really spatulas, ornaments or other small personal objects related to clothing (Fig. 6). A few such decorated spatulas were also found at Sierras of Córdoba, but they are common at several sites in Norte Chico of Chile with similar chronolo- gies, where they were imitated according to Pastor and Moschettoni (2018). They related pin-shaped subtype spatulas to the inhalant paraphernalia used in the consumption of hallucinogen substances such as cebil (Anadenanthera colubrina), and they are thought to have had important ritual functions. Tubes for A. colubrina consumption were not found, Fig. 4. Different tool-types referred to in the text: a antler tine tentatively identified as a flaker (BP2- 2); b smoother made from a macromammal rib (BP2-8); c hide scraper (BP2-48); d Cathartidae cf. Cathartes-Coragyps distal radius splinter (BP2-70) with arrows showing the mastic residues; e pin-like tool (BP2-20); f pin-like tool (BP2-19); g awl (BP2- 54). Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) 421 but the by-products of its manufacture using Cathar- tidae long bones were recorded at Boyo Paso 2. The possible meaning of these tools in term of Pre-His- panic networks and the significance of hallucinogens in the pre-Hispanic cultures and religions of the southern cone of South America have recently been discussed in several publications (Berenguer, Aceve- do 2015; Horta 2012; Horta et al. 2019; Pastor, Moschettoni 2018; Perez Gollán 1994; Sprovieri 2008–2009). A high number of worked or shaped pieces (n=51) were too fragmentary to permit any useful specula- tion as to the function of the tool, or even the orien- tation of the working edge. These pieces were clas- sified as indeterminate artefacts. The category in- cludes an unciform of Lama cf. L. guanicoe (BP2-11) and a cervical vertebrae of a deer (BP2-12) that pre- sented abraded surfaces, but with an unknown fun- ction. It also includes a Cathartidae cf. Cathartes-Co- ragyps distal radius splinter with mastic residues (BP2-70; Fig. 4.d). Bone working method The presence of unfinished items and waste by-pro- ducts suggests that at least a portion of the bone tools were manufactured on-site. The techniques used to manufacture bone tools at Boyo Paso 2 were simple and have much in common with those prac- ticed through prehistory (Álvarez 2014; del Papa et al. 2019; Legrand 2007; Vitezovi≤, Bulatovi≤ 2013). One method used for splitting bones was grooving, where a transversal or longitudinal groove was cut into the diaphysis of long bone with a flint tool and then the bone was split to obtain a blank or a tube. As a result, a groove incised into the bone is visible at some split bones. The technique is exemplified by a proximal humerus of Cathartidae cf. Cathartes- Coragyps (BP2-1), a proximal metatarsal of Lama cf. L. guanicoe (BP2-49) and a proximal rib of Cervi- dae cf. Ozotoceros (BP2-5) with cut-and-break marks around the circumference of the diaphysis. More examples are available in Table 3 (see Appendix) and Figure 7, including a Cathartidae cf. Vultur pro- ximal radius (BP2-83). Fracturing bone was also fre- quently used to produce blanks or preforms, e.g., breaking by direct percussion. Moreover, some pie- ces could have been produced during cracking of bone to release marrow and not specifically for tool manufacturing. After the blank was obtained, several bone working methods were observed. Many pieces have been so modified in finishing and use – i.e. projectile points – that the initial shaping trace has not been observ- ed. Most common, though, was shaping by grinding against an abrasive surface, perhaps a ground stone, a common item found in Boyo Paso 2 layers (Medina et al. 2020). Pieces were treated in this way to pro- duce a uniform, smooth result. Conversely, many bone tools were identified by the traces of wear on a broken or natural surface, not by any deliberated shaping or cutting. Pointed tools show longitudinal coarse striations interpreted as manufacture traces made with abrasive coarse-grained material (Fig. 4.e). The pin-like tool BP2-19 suggests that the sur- face was more finally abraded (Fig. 4.f), whereas the awl BP2-54 shows manufacture traces as a scraped surface (Fig. 4.g). The fragments of bone projectile points presented longitudinal and oblique coarse striations suggesting that they were shaped by a combination of scraping and abrasion with a coarse- grain material. Blades were more finely abraded to increase the drag coefficient, reduce resistance and secure deeper penetration of the rib cage of the tar- Fig. 5. Pin-shaped subtype spatulas referred to in the text: a and b fragment of pin-shaped subtype spatula recovered at Boyo Paso 2 (BP2-24); c out- line of pin-shaped subtype spatula from the Norte Chico of Chile (modelled from Pastor, Moschettoni 2018). Matías Medina, Sebastián Pastor 422 get (Fig. 2.a,d). In decorated artefacts, a flint tool was used for carved circle, triangle and dot decora- tions and the surfaces were finely polished (Figs. 5 and 6). About 41 of the bone tools showed some sign of burning or heat treatment related to manu- facturing or use, mostly when burning hardened the bone altering the crystal structures of the bone mi- neral (Camps Fabrer 1967; Moore 1999; Vitezovi≤ 2018). Burning also affected decorated tools (Figs. 5 and 6). It is thus open to question whether expo- sing the bone to fire was a deliberated practice, either to alter the appearance or working proper- ties, or to finish its working life by discarding it in domestic fires. Burning damage could also be a res- ponse to accidental burning during the multiple oc- cupation events that affected the deposit (see Medi- na et al. 2019). Discusion and conclusion The bone tools of Boyo Paso 2 can be broadly divid- ed into the group of artefacts made of suitable bone fragments – thus representing barely worked objects – and the group of artefacts skilfully or finally manu- factured (Choyke 1997). The majority of bone tools belong to the first group, where the natural shape of bone or bone fragment has been exploited for making bone artefacts (pin-like tools, smoothers, notched bone tools, etc.). This tool-kit reflects that bone technology was related to short-term and low- risk activities (Nelson 1991; Torrence 1983), show- ing low-energy investment in manufacture and sim- ple designs, without any features of curated tech- nology. The raw materials for making bone tools were obtained from the by-product of faunal con- sumption and fashioned into tools by basic manu- facture techniques such as cutting, fracturing and scraping. Moreover, the variability of pointed tools suggests that they were versatile tools that could perform different tasks with minimal labour invest- ment (Nelson 1991). It seems likely that production took place in the household according to personal or domestic needs. Conversely, bone arrowheads and spatulas are out- standing among the Late Pre-Hispanic bone tools for their careful finishing, high energy investment and standardization, reflecting the importance of the task they were used for in the society as a whole. Pin- shaped subtype spatulas are particularly meticulous- ly made, with very high skill, time and labour in- vestment. They were produced through several sta- ges of abrasion, cutting, carving, scraping and poli- shing. Even though they were probably used for spe- cial occasions, in Boyo Paso 2 they were found on living floors and in a semi-subterranean feature that looks likely to have been used for multiple func- tions, including trash disposal. Something similar occurs with projectile points: hours of work were needed to fashion one projectile point. In earlier ar- chaic occupations, no similarly finished artefact types were formed (see Rivero 2009). Thus, these are cul- turally and chronologically specific artefacts. This means that arrow points and decorated spatulas were new types introduced to deal with the socioe- conomic changes that occurred when crop plant cul- tivation was adopted c. 1500 years BP. They thus shed light on a time of high social dynamism during the Late Pre-Hispanic Period, which involved the in- tensification of social relations through prestigious technologies and inter-personal violence. Some degree of standardization in the choice of raw materials is characteristic of the bone tools from the Late Pre-Hispanic. The long bones of macro vertebra- tes, probably Lama cf. L. guanicoe and deer, were used more often. Camelids and cervids were gene- Fig. 6. Artefacts with dot-and-circle pattern referred to in the text: a BP2-26; b BP2-28; c BP2-25; d and e pin-shaped subtype spatulas from Caldera (Norte Chico, Chile) and Abaucán (Catamarca, Argentina) taken from Pastor and Moschettoni (2018). Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) 423 rally the animals that were mostly hunted at Boyo Paso 2 (see Medina et al. 2019), indicating that the acquisition of bone was embedded within subsis- tence activities. In other words, the prevalence of wild ungulate species in the raw material choices certainly points to cultural attitudes to hunting prey, which were included in all segment of life and in di- verse aspects of consumption. The study of the worked-bone assemblage of Boyo Paso 2 provides several insights regarding the daily use of bone tools by people with a mixed foraging and cultivation economy. The diversity of bone tools suggests that multiple activities were carried out at Boyo Paso 2, mainly related to hunting or warfare, food processing, hide-working, net or basketry-mak- ing, ritual activities, and lithic tool production. Bone arrow points were used for defence or attack, but also occasionally for hunting ungulate prey. The adoption of an effective weapon for individual de- fence probably increased the political self-sufficiency of families and encouraged the development of a more independent family-based political system, as the described by early colonial records (Gonzalez Navarro 2009). Pointed tool types were used in bas- ketry or drilling activities when working with soft organic materials such as skins, whereas the smo- other and scraper were used to smooth animal hides, technologies associated with the labour of woman that are frequently invisible in the archaeo- logical record (Stone 2011). The notched bone tool was used for peeling Oxalis sp. tubers, highlighting the role of tubers, whether wild or domestic, in the daily seasonal life. Similar notched bone tools only occurred in Late Pre-Hispanic sites, suggesting that the adoption of a broad-scale foraging and cultiva- tion base was accompanied by the development of new types of bone tool for processing the plant foods that were now included into subsistence. On the other hand, blunt points presented traces that were compatible with lithic flakers, reinforcing the hypothesis of Imanol Balena and Matías E. Medina (2020) that the manufacture and maintenance of li- thic artefacts for hunting or food processing were common activities at Boyo Paso 2. Artefacts connect- ed with cults, religions or expressing social identities are also represented among the bone objects from Boyo Paso 2, probably imitating foreign bone tool objects (Pastor, Moschettoni 2018). These objects comprised decorated incised pin-shaped subtype spatulas used in ritual paraphernalia along the south- ern cone of South America, and/or small fragments of probable ornaments related to clothing. It is par- ticularly interesting that these tools and decoration patterns show an important South-Central Andean influence, although (and again) in a somewhat mo- dified way, reflecting the wide distribution of ideo- logies or symbolic meanings across regions and the existence of social ranks whose status requirements these artefacts met. Residues of vulture and condor bones resulting from the manufacture of bird bone tubes, artefacts commonly used for the consumption of hallucinogens (Horta-Tricallotis et al. 2019) or ritual paraphernalia (Potter 1997), may be conceiv- ed in the same way, even when such tubes have not been found yet at Boyo Paso 2. It is thus con- cluded that the analysis of bone technology makes it possible to explore a component of the subsis- tence and material culture that has to date been neglected, directly or indirectly, by its low visibility in the record. As a result, bone tools may enable re- construction not only of the methods of subsistence, but also of technological levels, social organization, and cultural attitudes towards the environment. While the analysis presented here must be consid- ered a starting point toward resolving more com- plex problems that await further formal functional research, this should not be an impediment to com- municating the results to the archaeological com- munity interested in how neither wholly foragers nor wholly farmers dealt with technological prob- Fig. 7. Examples of waste by-products recovered at Boyo Paso 2: a proximal humerus of Cathartidae cf. Cathartes-Coragyps (BP2-1); b proximal meta- tarsal of Lama cf. L. guanicoe (BP2-49); c distal first phalanx of Lama cf. L. guanicoe (BP2-22); d Catha- rtidae cf. Vultur proximal radio (BP2-83). Matías Medina, Sebastián Pastor 424 lems using bone as a raw material. At the very least it contributes with a set of first conclusions, mostly to be viewed as hypotheses until use-wear studies have been established, providing data to improve the knowledge of the material culture associated with mixed foraging and cultivation economies, a category for which archaeology currently lacks suf- ficient archaeological understanding and which thus merits further research. We thank the financial support for this study provid- ed by the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (2016-201-0677). Our gratitude also ex- tends to I. Mlakar, G. Perriello, S. Vitezovi≤, H. Luik, D. Rivero, D. Gobbo, B. Grill, P. Teta, G. Piloni, E. Man- ge, N. Buc, L. Del Papa, and L. Tissera, who provided professional advice and equipment, and replied to our numerous requests to improve the original work. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acosta A., Buc N., and Loponte D. 2020. Tecnología ósea de los grupos cazadores-recolectores de la Pampa Ondu- lada (provincia de Buenos Aires). Revista del Museo de Antropología 13(2): 79–92. https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v13.n2.25387 Álvarez M. C. 2014. Tecnología ósea en el Oeste de la Re- gión Pampeana: Identificación de las técnicas de manufac- tura a partir de evidencias arqueológicas y experimenta- les. Chungara 46(2): 193–210. Argüello de Dorsch E. 1983. Investigaciones arqueológicas en el Departamento de Punilla (Provincia de Córdoba-Rep. Argentina). Sitio C.Pun.39. Comechingonia 1: 41–60. Balena I., Medina M. 2020. Horticultura, Movilidad y Tec- nología Lítica: Una Mirada desde Boyo Paso 2 (900–700 AP, Sierras de Córdoba, Argentina). Estudios Atacame- ños, in press. Berberián E. 1984. Potrero de Garay: Una entidad socio- cultural tardía de la región serrana de la Provincia de Cór- doba (Rep. Argentina). Comechingonia 4: 71–138. Berenguer J., Acevedo N. 2015. Tubos de hueso de ave como implementos chamánicos en el Desierto de Ataca- ma, siglos XI-XV. Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Pre- colombino 20(1): 51–72. Bonomo M. 2013. Reanálisis de la Colección de Samuel Lothrop procedente del Delta del Paraná. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología XXXVIII(1): 169–198. Borella F., Buc N. 2009. Ópticas y ópticos. Una aproxima- ción a la tecnología ósea en la Bahía de San Antonio (Río Negro), Argentina. In M. Salemme, F. Santiago, M. Álvarez, E. Piana, M. Vázquez, and M. Mansur (eds.), Arqueología de Patagonia: Una Mirada desde el Último Confín. Edi- torial Utopías. Ushuaia: 421–433. Buc N. 2011. Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 546–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.009 2012. Tecnología Ósea de Cazadores-Recolectores del Humedal del Paraná Inferior. Bajíos Ribereños Meri- dionales. Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensa- miento Latinoamericano. Buenos Aires. Buc N., Rivero D., and Medina M. 2016. The Late Holocene bone tools from Quebrada del Real 1 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina). In S. Vitezovi≤ (ed.), Close to the Bone: Cur- rent Studies in Bone Technologies. Institute of Archaeo- logy. Beograd: 80–85. Cahiza P., Aguilar J., and García Llorca J. 2012. Tecnolo- gía ósea del alero Las Tumanas (LT1), Valle Fértil, San Juan. Comechingonia 16(2): 75–91. Camps-Fabrer H. 1967. Matièreet Art Mobilierdans la Préhistoire Nord-Africaine et Saharienne. Mémoires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques, Préhistoriques et Ethnographiques. Paris. Capriles J. 2014. The economic organization of early camelid pastoralism in the Andean Highlands of Boli- via. BAR International Series 2587. Archaeopress. Oxford. Choyke A. 1997. The bone manufacturing continuum. Anthropozoologica 25–25: 65–72. Christenson A. 1997. Side-notched and unnotched arrow- points. Asssesing functional differences. In H. Knetch (ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press. New York: 131–142. del Papa L., Lamenza G., Salceda S., and Calandra H. 2019. Un núcleo óseo: nuevos aportes a la comprensión de la tecnología ósea en el Gran Chaco sudamericano (Ar- gentina). Latin American Antiquity 30(2): 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2019.2 References ∴ Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) D’Errico F., Backwell L., and Wadley L. 2012. Identifying regional variability in Middle Stone Age bone technology: The case of Sibudu Cave. Journal of Archaeological Sci- ence 39: 2479–2495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.01.040 Escosteguy P., Salemme M., and González M. 2017. Tecno- logía ósea en la Depresión del Río Salado (provincia de Buenos Aires). Arqueología 23(3): 65–90. Fabra M., González C., and Robin S. 2015. Evidencias de violencia interpersonal en poblaciones del piedemonte y las llanuras de Córdoba (Argentina) a finales del Holoce- no tardío. Runa 36: 5–27. Fenenga F. 1953. The weights of chipped stone points: A clue to their functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthro- pology 9(3): 309–323. Gates St.-Pierre C. 2007. Bone awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: A microwear analysis. In C. Gates St-Pierre, R. Walker (eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and In- terpretations in Worked Bone Studies. BAR Internatio- nal Series 1622. Archaeopress. Oxford: 107–118. González A. 1943. Arqueología del yacimiento indígena de Villa Rumipal (Pcia. de Córdoba). Publicaciones del In- stituto de Arqueología, Lingüística y Folklore “Dr. Pablo Cabrera” IV. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba. 1949. Nota sobre la arqueología de Pampa de Olaen (Córdoba). Notas del Museo de La Plata, tomo XIV, Antropología 56: 463–503. González Navarro C. 2009. Autoridades étnicas en un con- texto de desestructuración: Córdoba entre la fundación y la visita de Antonio Martines Luxan de Vargas. In B. Bi- xio, C. González Navarro, R. Grana, and V. Iarza (eds.), Vi- sita a las Encomiendas de Indios de Córdoba 1692– 1693. Editorial Brujas. Córdoba: 63–114. Horta H. 2012. El estilo circumpuneño en el arte de la pa- rafernalia alucinógena prehispánica (Atacama y Noroeste Argentino). Estudios Atacameños 43: 5–34. Horta-Tricallotis H., Echeverría J., Lema V., Quirgas A., and Vidal A. 2019. Enema syringes in South Andean hallu- cinogenic paraphernalia: evidence of their use in funer- ary contexts of the Atacama and neighboring zones (ca. AD 500–1500). Archaeological and Anthropological Sci- ences 11: 6197–6219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00913-5 Knecht H. 1993. Early Upper Paleolithic approaches to bone and antler projectile technology. In G. Peterkin, H. Bricker, and P. Mellars (eds.), Hunting and Animal Ex- ploitation in the Later Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eu- rasia. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropo- logical Association. New York: 33–47. Kozák V., Baxter D., Willamson L., and Carneiro R. 1979. The Héta Indians: Fish in a Dry Pond. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 55(6): 349–434. Laguens A., Bonnín M. 2009. Sociedades indígenas de las Sierras Centrales. Arqueología de Córdoba y San Luis. Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Córdoba. Legrand A. 2007. Fabrication et Utilisation de L’outilla- ge en Matières Osseuses du Néolithique de Chypre: Khi- rokitia et Cap Andreas-Kastros. Oxbow Books. Oxford. Legrand A., Sidéra I. 2007. Methods, means, and results when studying European bone industry. In C. Gates St- Pierre, R. Walker (eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. BAR Inter- national Series 1622. Archaeopress. Oxford: 291–304. Loendorf C., Simon L., Dybowski D., Woodson M., Plum- lee R., Tiedens S., and Withrow M. 2015. Warfare and big game hunting: flaked-stone projectile points along the middle Gila River in Arizona. Antiquity 89(346): 940– 952. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.28 Luik H. 2006. For hunting or warfare? Bone arrowheads from the Late Bronze Age fortified settlements in Eastern Baltic. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 10(2): 132–149. Luik H., Pili≠iauskienė G. 2016. Bone tools at the Neoli- thic sites of πventoji, Lithuania: raw materials and work- ing methods. In S. Vitezovi≤ (ed.), Close to the Bone: Cur- rent Studies in Bone Technologies. Institute of Archaeo- logy. Beograd: 188–200. Marcellino A., Berberián E., and Pérez J. 1967. El yaci- miento arqueológico de Los Molinos (Dpto. Calamuchita, Córdoba). Publicaciones del Instituto de Antropología XXVI: 1–68. Medina M., Balena I. 2021. Tiny arrowpoints, bone-tipped projectiles and foraging during the Late Prehispanic Pe- riod (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina). In J. Belardi, D. Boz- zuto, P. Fernández, E. Moreno, and G. Neme (eds.), An- cient Hunting Strategies in Southern South America. The Latin American Studies Book Series. Springer. Nueva York: 33–58. Medina M., López L., Campos M., Saur Palmieri V., and Pastor S. 2020. Pit-houses, seasonality and subsistence resources: an essay from Boyo Paso 2 (ca. 900–700 BP, Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina). Archaeological and An- thropological Sciences 12(6): 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01066-6. 425 Matías Medina, Sebastián Pastor 426 Medina M., Rivero D. 2020. Hunting and skeletal element abundance of guanaco during the Holocene of Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29: 102074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102074. Medina M., Balena I., and Rivero D. 2019. Proyectiles y procesos de intensificación: una aproximación desde Bo- yo Paso 2, 1500–750 AP (Sierras de Córdoba, Argentina). Chungara 51(4): 517–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-73562019005002202 Medina M., Campos M, Ávila N., Soibelzon E., and Fernan- dez F. 2019. Animal food during the Late Prehispanic Period at Sierras of Córdoba (Argentina). A zooarchaeo- logical view from Boyo Paso 2. Anthropozoologica 54(10): 83–95. https://doi.org/10.5252/anthropozoologica2019v54a10 Medina M., Picasso M., Campos M., and Ávila N. 2019. Tar- sometatarsus, eggshells and the species level identifica- tion of large-sized flightless birds from Boyo Paso 2 (Sier- ras of Córdoba, Argentina). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 29(4): 584–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2754 Medina E., López L., and Buc N. 2018. Bone tool and tu- ber processing: a multi-proxy approach at Boyo Paso 2, Argentina. Antiquity 92(364): 1040–1055. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.93 Medina M., Pastor S., and Recalde A. 2016. The archaeo- logical landscape of late prehispanic mixed foraging and cultivation economy (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 42: 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.04.003 Medina M., Buc N., and Pastor S. 2014. Intensificación y dinámica ocupacional en el Periodo Prehispánico Tardío de las Sierras de Córdoba (Argentina): Una aproximación desde el registro artefactual óseo. Chungara 46(1): 73–90. Moore K. 1999. Chiripa worked bone and bone tools. In C. A. Hastorf (ed.), Early Settlement at Chiripa Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. Archaeo- logical Research Facility. University of California. Berke- ley: 73–93. Mozota Holgueras M. 2007. Industrias óseas musteriens- es en el Cantábrico Oriental: los “alisadores” en hueso de los niveles B, C y D de Axlor (Dima, Bizkaia). Cuadernos de Arqueología 15: 31–42. Nami H., Scheinsohn V. 1997. Use-wear patterns on bone exerimental flakers: a preliminary report. In A. Hannus, L. Rossum, and R. P. Winhan (eds.), Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference. Hot Springs, South Dakota. Archaeology Laboratory. Agusana College. Sioux Falls. South Dakota: 256–264. Nelson M. 1991. The study of technological organization. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 57– 100. Pastor S., Moschettoni L. 2018. Practicas inhalatorias y redes de de interacción. Análisis de espátulas óseas del Centro de Argentina. Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino 23(1): 101–115. Pastor S., Medina M., Recalde A., López L., and Berberián E. 2012. Arqueología de la región montañosa central de Argentina. Avances en el conocimiento de la historia pre- hispánica tardía. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 37: 89–112. Pastor S., Rivero D., and Pautassi E. 2005. Los sistemas de armas de las comunidades agroalfareras de Córdoba: una aproximación arqueológica y experimental. In Actas del XIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina. Tomo IV. Córdoba: 253–266. Pérez Gollán J. 1994. El proceso de integración en el Val- le de Ambato: complejidad social y sistemas simbólicos. Rumitacama 1: 33–41. Perez Jimeno J., del Papa L. 2016. Presencia del grupo morfológico definido como tubo-ave e hipótesis de uso. El humedal del Paraná medio y el Chaco seco como caso de estudio. Revista de Antropología del Museo de Entre Ríos 2(1): 100–118. Potter J. 1997. Communal ritual and faunal remains: an example from the Dolores Anasazi. Journal of Field Ar- chaeology 24(3): 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1179/009346997792208140 Reimer P., Bard E., Bayliss A., +27 authors, and van der Plicht J. 2013. INTCAL13 and MARINE13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55: 1859–1887. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 Rivero D. 2009. Ecología de Cazadores-Recolectores del Sector Central de las Sierras de Córdoba (Rep. Argenti- na). BAR International Series 2007. Archaeopress. Oxford. Rivero D., Pastor S., Truyol G, Medina M., and Agüero M. 2015. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en el Sitio Carrupa- china (Dpto. San Alberto, Pcia de Córdoba). Primeros Resultados. Precirculados de las XI Jornadas de Arqueo- logía y Etnohistoria del Centro-Oeste del País. Universi- dad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Río Cuarto. Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) 427 Rusconi C. 1933. Instrumentos óseos trabajados por in- dígenas prehispánicos de Santiago del Estero. Revista de la Sociedad Amigos de la Arqueología VII: 229–250. Serrano A. 1945. Los Comechingones. Serie Aborígenes Argentinos I. Instituto de Arqueología, Lingüística y Fol- klore de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Córdoba. Soressi M., McPherron S., Lenoir M., +11 authors, and Texier J. 2013. Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proceedings of the National Aca- demy of Sciences of USA 110 (35): 14186–14190. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302730110 Sprovieri M. 2008–2009. Alucinaciones en circulación. Una mirada a la interacción surandina tardía desde las tabletas y tubos de La Paya (valle Calchaquí, Salta). Ana- les de Arqueología y Etnología 63–64: 81–105. Stone E. 2011. The role of ethnographic museum collec- tions in understanding bone tool use. In J. Baron, B. Kufel-Diakowska (eds.), Written in Bones. Studies on Technological and Social Contexts of Past Faunal Skele- tal Remains. Uniwersytet Wrocławski. Wrocław: 25–37. Torrence R. 1983. Time, budgeting and hunter-gatherer technology. In G. Bailey (ed.), Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 11–22. Xie L., Stiner M. 2018. Raw material preferences for sca- pular tools: evaluating water buffalo age bias in the early Hemudu culture, China. International Journal of Osteo- archaeology 28(6): 645–655. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2677 Vitezovi≤ S. 2011. The Mesolithic bone industry from Kula, eastern Serbia. Before Farming 3(2): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3828/bfarm.2011.3.2 2018. Retouching tools from the post-Palaeolithic pe- riod in southeast Europe. In J. Hutson, A. García-More- no, E. Noack, E. Turner, A. Villanuenga, and S. Gaudzin- ski-Windheuser (eds.), The Origins of Bone Tool Tech- nologies. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Leib- niz-Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie. Mainz: 297–315. Vitezovi≤ S., Bulatovi≤ J. 2013. Managing raw materials in Vin≠a culture: A case study of osseous raw materials from Vitkovo. Documenta Praehistorica 40: 279–289. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.22 Matías Medina, Sebastián Pastor 428 Ta b. 3 . C at al og ue o f th e bo n e to ol s fr om B oy o Pa so 2 . A pp en di x B on e To ol t yp e C on te xt M ax . M ax . Sk el et al Ta xa D es cr ip tio n C ro ss - to ol w id th th ic k se ct io n (N o. ) (m m ) (m m ) el em en t B P2 -1 w as te b y- U pp er fl oo r 33 .3 14 .2 Pr ox im al h um er us C at ha rt id ae c f. En d w ith c ut -a nd -b re ak m ar ks a ro un d th e ci rc um fe re nc e of t he pr od uc t C at ha rt es -C or ag yp s pr ox im al d ia ph ys is . B P2 -2 fla ke r| U pp er fl oo r 13 .1 4. 5 an tle r C er vi da e cf .O . B ur ne d tin e w ith t he n at ur al t in e tip p re su m ab ly t ra ns fo rm ed in to ci rc ul ar be zo ar tic us sm al l. ro un de d su rf ac e, b lu nt a nd w or n fr om u se . B P2 -3 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 13 .4 3. 5 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ci rc ul ar ar te fa ct in de t B P2 -4 In de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 12 .8 1. 4 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. bi pl an e ar te fa ct in de t. B P2 -5 w as te b y- U pp er fl oo r 15 .5 6. 5 pr ox im al r ib C er vi da e cf . B ur ne d fr ag m en t of a lo ng -b on e cy lin de r w ith c ut -a nd -b re ak m ar ks pr od uc t O . b ez oa rt ic us ar ou nd o r ne ar t he n ec k. B P2 -6 sc ra pe r Lo w er fl oo r 20 4. 5 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith a fl at -s id e, b ev el ed , s ha rp -e dg ed w ith p ol is he d sp on gy (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) bo ne o n th e ar ea a ffe ct ed b y w ea ri ng a nd a s et o f p ar al le l s tr ia tio ns ru nn in g lo ng itu di na lly t o th e ed ge . B P2 -7 w as te b y- U pp er fl oo r 19 .1 5. 7 lo ng b on e M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith c ut -a nd -b re ak a nd m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. pl an e- pr od uc t (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) co nv ex B P2 -8 sm oo th er Te st -p it 3 38 .3 10 ri b M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith a n oj iv al -s ha pe d tip a nd w ith t he e dg es o f t he m ed ia l bi pl an e (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) co rt ic al fa ce o f t he r ib s cr ap ed . T he t ip a nd a ro un d th e ed ge s w er e po lis he d by u se . B P2 -9 fla ke r| U pp er fl oo r 46 .9 9. 4 an tle r C er vi da e cf . Lo ng itu di na l f ra gm en t of a t in e w ith t he n at ur al t in e tip p re su m ab ly O . b ez oa rt ic us tr an sf or m ed in to s m al l, ro un de d su rf ac e, b lu nt a nd w or n fr om u se . B P2 -1 0 fla ke r| U pp er fl oo r 14 4. 5 an tle r C er vi da e Lo ng itu di na l f ra gm en t of a t in e w ith t he n at ur al t in e tip p re su m ab ly tr an sf or m ed in to s m al l, ro un de d su rf ac e, b lu nt a nd w or n fr om u se . B P2 -1 1 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 22 .5 11 .6 un ci fo rm La m a sp . B on e w ith m an uf ac tu re o r w ea r tr ac es o n on e su rf ac e. ar te fa ct B P2 -1 2 in de te rm in at e Fe at ur e of 19 .2 7 ce rv ic al C er vi da e B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re o r w ea r tr ac es . ar te fa ct up pe r flo or B P2 -1 3 fla ke r U pp er fl oo r 18 .6 2. 2 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t of a b lu nt p oi nt w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd w ea r tr ac es on a ct iv e en d. B P2 -1 4 fla ke r U pp er fl oo r 20 .7 4. 2 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t of a b lu nt p oi nt w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd w ea r tr ac es on a ct iv e en d. B P2 -1 5 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 10 .7 1. 8 lo ng b on e sp lin te r V er te br at e in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce . ar te fa ct B P2 -1 6 ″ U pp er fl oo r 10 .8 1. 9 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -1 7 ″ U pp er fl oo r 17 .6 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith o bl iq ue m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) 429 B P2 -1 8 sp at ul a U pp er fl oo r 20 .4 2. 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d di st al -la te ra l a ct iv e en d fr ag m en t w ith p ol is he d su rf ac e. bi pl an e B P2 -1 9 Pi n- lik e to ol Te st -p it 4 16 2. 8 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t of t ip w ith u se -w ea r tr ac es . ci rc ul ar B P2 -2 0 Pi n- lik e to ol Te st -p it 4 23 1. 5 lo ng b on e sp lin te r V er te br at e in de t. Fr ag m en t of t ip w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . pl an e- co nc av e B P2 -2 1 in de te rm in at e Te st -p it 3 8. 8 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct B P2 -2 2 w as te b y- Te st -p it 3 19 .2 13 .3 di st al fi rs t ph al an x La m a sp . En d w ith c ut -a nd -b re ak m ar ks a ro un d th e ci rc um fe re nc e of t he d is ta l pr od uc t di ap hy si s. B P2 -2 3 in de te rm in at e Te st -p it 3 75 .5 6. 5 ra di us -u ln a La m a sp . D ia ph ys is s pl in te r w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct B P2 -2 4 pi n- sh ap ed Fe at ur e of 35 .3 3. 9 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t fin el y po lis he d w ith d ec or at iv e la te ra l f in s bi pl an e su bt yp e up pe r flo or (p re su m ab ly s ha pe d lik e an im al s) a nd in ci se d de co ra tio n, m ai nl y sp at ul a ci rc le s, t ri an gl es a nd d ot s m ad e on a p os iti ve r el ie f. B P2 -2 5 pi n- sh ap ed Te st -p it 3 14 .3 1. 8 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith in ci se d de co ra tio n, m ai nl y ci rc le s an d do ts su bt yp e (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) m ad e on a p os iti ve r el ie f. sp at ul a| B P2 -2 6 ″ U pp er fl oo r 10 .5 1. 6 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith in ci se d de co ra tio n, m ai nl y ci rc le s an d do ts m ad e (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) on a p os iti ve r el ie f. B P2 -2 7 ″ U pp er fl oo r 13 .4 2 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith in ci se d de co ra tio n, m ai nl y ci rc le s an d do ts m ad e. on a p os iti ve r el ie f. B P2 -2 8 ″ U pp er fl oo r 14 .2 1. 9 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith in ci se d de co ra tio n, m ai nl y ci rc le s an d do ts (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) m ad e on a p os iti ve r el ie f. B P2 -2 9 pr oj ec til e po in t Fe at ur e of t he 15 1. 5 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t of t he e dg e of t he b la de w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. pl an e- up pe r flo or co nc av e B P2 -3 0 in de te rm in at e Fe at ur e of t he 19 .4 1. 9 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct up pe r flo or (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) B P2 -3 1 in de te rm in at e Fe at ur e of t he 28 .1 2. 7 ri b M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . ar te fa ct up pe r flo or (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) B P2 -3 2 sc ra pe r U pp er fl oo r 12 .1 2. 5 lo ng b on e sp lin te r V er te br at e in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith a b ev el ed a nd p ol is he d by u se e dg e. pl an e- co nc av e B P2 -3 3 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 9 2. 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . bi pl an e ar te fa ct B P2 -3 4 ″ U pp er fl oo r 7. 3 4 ax ia l b on e M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . B P2 -3 5 ″ U pp er fl oo r 13 .2 2. 1 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . B P2 -3 6 ″ Lo w er fl oo r 18 .2 3. 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. bi pl an e B P2 -3 7 fla ke r| Fe at ur e of t he 34 .3 10 an tle r C er vi da e cf . Fr ag m en t of a t in e w ith t he n at ur al t in e tip p re su m ab ly t ra ns fo rm ed up pe r flo or O . b ez oa rt ic us in to s m al l, ro un de d su rf ac e, b lu nt a nd w or n fr om u se . B P2 -3 8 in de te rm in at e Fe at ur e of t he 14 .3 1. 1 lo ng b on e sp lin te r V er te br at e in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct up pe r flo or B P2 -3 9 ″ U pp er fl oo r 17 .7 2. 9 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith o bl iq ue m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. bi pl an e Matías Medina, Sebastián Pastor 430 B on e To ol t yp e C on te xt M ax . M ax . Sk el et al Ta xa D es cr ip tio n C ro ss - to ol w id th th ic k se ct io n (N o. ) (m m ) (m m ) el em en t B P2 -4 0 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 12 .6 3. 7 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. pl an e- ar te fa ct co nc av e B P2 -4 1 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 84 .2 4. 5 ri b C er vi da e cf . Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct O . b ez oa rt ic us B P2 -4 2 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 14 .4 3. 1 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . ar te fa ct (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) B P2 -4 3 sp at ul a U pp er fl oo r 16 .4 2. 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t of a d is ta l a ct iv e en d w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. pl an e- co nc av e B P2 -4 4 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 13 .4 1. 7 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct B P2 -4 5 fla ke r U pp er fl oo r 18 .7 4 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t of a b lu nt t ip w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . B P2 -4 6 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 9. 6 3. 9 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. pl an e- ar te fa ct co nv ex B P2 -4 7 in de te rm in at e Fe at ur e of t he 20 1. 4 lo ng b on e sp lin te r V er te br at e in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . ar te fa ct up pe r flo or B P2 -4 8 sc ra pe r U pp er fl oo r 14 .5 5. 4 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am ife ro in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith a fl at -s id e, b ev el ed , s ha rp -e dg ed w ith p ol is he d sp on gy co nv ex - bo ne o n th e ar ea a ffe ct ed b y w ea ri ng a nd a s et o f p ar al le l s tr ia tio ns co nc av e ru nn in g lo ng itu di na lly t o th e ed ge . B P2 -4 9 w as te b y- U pp er fl oo r 28 .9 24 .6 pr ox im al m et at ar sa l La m a sp . Lo ng itu di na l f ra gm en t of a p ro xi m al e nd a nd d ia ph ys is ( ca ud al s id e) pr od uc t w ith lo ng itu di na l-t ra ns ve rs e gr oo ve s an d m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -5 0 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 11 .6 1. 6 lo ng b on e sp lin te r V er te br at e in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct B P2 -5 1 w as te b y- U pp er fl oo r 41 .5 14 .8 Fi rs t ph al an x La m a sp . N ea rl y co m pl et e di ap hy si s w ith c ut -a nd -b re ak m ar ks a ro un d th e pr od uc t ci rc um fe re nc e of t he d is ta l e pi ph ys is . B P2 -5 2 in de te rm in at e Fe at ur e of t he 28 .4 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct up pe r flo or B P2 -5 3 in de te rm in at e Fe at ur e of t he 9 4. 2 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith r ou nd ed c on to ur a nd p ol is he d su rf ac es . bi pl an e ar te fa ct up pe r flo or B P2 -5 4 aw l U pp er fl oo r 24 .6 13 m al le ol us La m a sp . Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s (s cr ap ed m ar ks ). B P2 -5 5 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 13 4. 7 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. pl an e- ar te fa ct co nv ex B P2 -5 6 pr oj ec til e po in t U pp er fl oo r 13 2. 7 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t of a b la de w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. bi pl an e B P2 -5 7 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 12 .2 3. 7 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith o bl iq ue m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct B P2 -5 8 no tc he d bo ne U pp er fl oo r 14 0 .1 49 .2 sc ap ul a La m a cf .L . G ua ni co e Fr ag m en t of t he p os te ri or b or de r w ith c ut -m ar ks a nd fi ft ee n cl os el y to ol sp ac ed n ot ch es in ci se d on t he in fr as pi na to us fo ss a. B P2 -5 9 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 11 .2 2. 8 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Po lis he d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct Bone tools at the Late Pre-Hispanic site Boyo Paso 2 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) 431 B P2 -6 0 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 25 .9 11 .9 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia Po lis he d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) B P2 -6 1 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 16 .3 11 .3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Po lis he d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. bi pl an e ar te fa ct (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) B P2 -6 2 ″ U pp er fl oo r 22 .2 10 .5 hu es o ax ia l ″ Po lis he d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -6 3 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 15 .5 4. 5 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . pl an e- ar te fa ct (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) co nv ex B P2 -6 4 ″ U pp er fl oo r 6. 1 1. 5 lo ng b on e sp lin te r ″ B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. bi pl an e B P2 -6 5 ″ U pp er fl oo r 5. 3 1. 1 lo ng b on e sp lin te r V er te br at e in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -6 6 ″ Te st -p it 4 28 .3 7. 7 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -6 7 ″ Te st -p it 4 19 .5 4. 8 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . B P2 -6 8 ″ Te st -p it 4 8 1. 8 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -6 9 ″ Te st -p it 4 17 .3 6. 4 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . B P2 -7 0 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 23 .8 6 D is ta l r ad iu s C at ha rt id ae c f. D ia ph ys is s pl in te r w ith m as tic r es id ue s. ar te fa ct ( m as tic ) C at ha rt es -C or ag yp s B P2 -7 1 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 22 .4 11 .8 A pe nd ic ul ar b on e M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) B P2 -7 2 in de te rm in at e Te st -p it 3 18 .2 9. 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t of a b lu nt t ip w ith o bl iq ue m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s an d ar te fa ct sh in y su rf ac e. B P2 -7 3 ″ U pp er fl oo r 16 4. 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . B P2 -7 4 ″ U pp er fl oo r 29 .8 19 .6 m et ac ar pa l La m a sp . B ur ne d lo ng itu di na l e nd fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -7 5 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 9 3 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith t ra ns ve rs al g ro ov es a nd m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. bi pl an e ar te fa ct (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) B P2 -7 6 ″ U pp er fl oo r 14 .4 2 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. Fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es o n th e sp on gy b on e. B P2 -7 7 ″ U pp er fl oo r 9 1. 9 lo ng b on e sp lin te r V er te br at e in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -7 8 pr oj ec til e po in t U pp er fl oo r 9. 9 2. 6 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d m es ia l-l at er al fr ag m en t of t he b la de w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. B P2 -7 9 sc ra pe r U pp er fl oo r 42 .6 15 lo ng b on e M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith u se -w ea r tr ac es a lo ng t he e dg e of t he d ia ph ys is (m ed iu m -la rg e si ze ) an d tr ab ec ul ar b on e. B P2 -8 0 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 11 5. 2 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ci rc ul ar ar te fa ct B P2 -8 1 pr oj ec til e po in t Lo w er fl oo r 11 .4 2. 1 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. Fr ag m en t of a s tr ai gh t st em w ith a s er ra te d ed ge . B P2 -8 2 pr oj ec til e po in t U pp er fl oo r 15 .8 2. 3 m et ap od iu m C et ar tio da ct yl a cf . Fr ag m en t of a s tr ai gh t st em w ith a s er ra te d ed ge a nd m an uf ac tu re C am el id ae -C er vi da e tr ac es . B P2 -8 3 w as te b y- U pp er fl oo r 24 .3 15 .4 Pr ox im al r ad iu s C at ha rt id ae c f. V ul tu r En d w ith c ut -a nd -b re ak m ar ks a ro un d th e ci rc um fe re nc e of t he pr od uc t pr ox im al d ia ph ys is . B P2 -8 4 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 33 .8 4 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct B P2 -8 5 sc ra pe r U pp er fl oo r 13 .4 1. 7 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M am m al ia in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith a s lig ht ly b ev el ed e dg e af fe ct ed b y w ea ri ng . B P2 -8 6 sp at ul a Lo w er fl oo r 60 3. 7 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. D is ta l a ct iv e en d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re a nd u se -w ea r tr ac es . B P2 -8 7 in de te rm in at e U pp er fl oo r 23 5 lo ng b on e sp lin te r M ac ro ve rt eb ra te in de t. B ur ne d fr ag m en t w ith m an uf ac tu re t ra ce s. ar te fa ct