**1. Introduction**

When we think about the archaeology of the Pleistocene in the Americas, we can only point to a few sites that are not dated from the very end of that period. This is because the American continent only started to be densely occupied after 13,000 BP, when the Pleistocene was ending. In South America, there are only four places known to this day that present strong evidence that some people settled the continent before 13,000 BP: the Serra da Capivara region, in Northwestern Brazil, which has sites containing simple tools of quartzite pebbles made by direct percussion (choppers), the oldest one being Boqueirão da Pedra Furada, dating around 50,000 BP [1–11]; Monte Verde site, in central Chile, where choppers and flakes are presenting dates older than 33,000 BP [12]; Santa Elina site, in Midwestern Brazil, where retouched limestone flakes and polished pendants made of *Megatherium sp.* (giant sloth) osteoderms were found and dated to around 23,000 BP [13, 14]; and

Taima Taima site in Venezuela, where the El Jobo lithic industry was found dating back to 13,000 BP (or 15,000 cal BP) [15]. It seems that this first phase of human settlement of the Americas is mainly defined by small populations that entered the continent and did not necessarily meet each other. These are just suppositions, since data is still insufficient for a better understanding and discussion of the first phase.

It was only around 13,000 cal BP, during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition, that the continent started to be densely occupied—and this is what we may call the "second phase" of America's "human settlement." The first studies of Paleoindians in the Eastern part of South America, which is the focus of this article, emerged in the 1960s with the second generation of academic archaeologists in Brazil. Before them, the only systematic archaeological research in the country was carried out by the *Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueológicas* (a.k.a. PRONAPA), between the 1950s and 1960s [16]. PRONAPA researchers applied the concepts of "phase" and "tradition" which were heavily inspired by the historical-cultural American school. Even after the end of PRONAPA, its theorical-methodological approach influenced many researchers to classify material culture assemblages into traditions or phases, especially pottery vessels, lithic artefacts, and even rock art, mainly by their size, shape, and decoration, as well as morphological-typological classifications of artefacts and archaeological sites settings. A new "archaeological tradition" would be created for each identified type, and the new assemblages presenting the same types were associated to these "traditions." Similar types presenting slight regional or chronological differences were associated to subcategories known as "archaeological phases." This was the first attempt to classify archaeological materials into archaeological cultures. Unfortunately, when Paleoindian research started to be carried out between the 1960s and 1970s, it was not always clear which types could be included in a tradition or phase, due the lack of solid criteria for these definitions. These definition problems affected the classification of Paleoindian cultures in a way that, until the end of the 2010s, archaeological literature defined only five Paleoindian cultures in Eastern South America: the Itaparica tradition, the Umbu or Tigre tradition, the Humaitá tradition, the Catalanense industry, and the Fell industry. But most of these "traditions" have been questioned on the validity of their concepts.

During the 1970s, Brazilian archaeologist Pedro Ignácio Schmitz [17–19] discovered several Paleoindian sites in the Serranópolis region, Midwestern Brazil, dating around 10,700 BP and presenting hundreds of unifacial plan-convex tools. Schmitz gave a name to these tools: *lesmas*. He also defined a new archaeological tradition as a result—the Itaparica tradition—and associated all known sites with *lesmas* to it. In the decades to come, several researchers would associate the presence of *lesmas* to the Itaparica tradition in Northeastern and Midwestern Brazil, even though there was a lot of doubt about the supposed technological homogeneity of these tools [20–27]. Systematical research on comparing *lesmas* from different sites, regions and periods are still scarce to this day, but most authors agree that in most regions where *lesmas* appear, there is a lack of stemmed points or bifacial technology in general. The oldest site known to present *lesmas* is the Lapa do Boquete site [21], in mid-eastern Brazil, dating to 12,070 ± 317 BP (15,098–13,289 cal BP).

In Brazil, the term *lesma* was initially used as a synonym for *limace*. The term *limace* was first defined by León Henri-Martin [28] but later redefined by François Bordes [29] to refer to unifacial tools that are symmetric, three times wider than they are thick, presenting one pointed extremity (tip), biconvex edges, and uninterrupted retouches all around the artefact. In popular language, *limace* means "slug" in French, while *lesma* also means "slug" in Portuguese, being just a literal translation. However, most recent studies on Paleoindian *lesmas* have made clear that these tools are not that similar to the ones originally defined from the European Mousterian. Instead, *lesmas* present some other patterns, such as the use of a big

**153**

and nearby regions.

*The Technological Diversity of Lithic Industries in Eastern South America during the Late…*

understand cultural patterns before making any cultural affiliations.

flake as a blank, unifacial reduction/*façonnage* (not only retouch), the presence of several active edges, and at least one in one extremity (proximal or distal), planconvex cross-section, a longer than wider shape, width being bigger or equal to the thickness, and a length that is usually greater than 7 cm. It does not seem to have a more specific standard on general morphology and technology, but this is probably due the lack of research in order to define regional or chronological patterns, especially because the presence of *lesmas* was the only attribute considered to this cultural association. The presence of *lesmas* is only observed in hunter-gatherer groups of Eastern South America, but more studies are necessary in order to better

The Umbu tradition was supposed to be the opposite of the Itaparica tradition, since there were no *lesmas* associated to it. Instead, many types of "projectile points" were found. Itaparica is located in the Midwestern to Northeastern Brazil, while the Umbu tradition coverage area is only associated to the Southeastern and Southern states of Brazil, Uruguay, and some adjacent areas of Paraguay and Argentina. The concept of the Umbu tradition was created during the 1980s after a series of failed attempts to define "traditions" of stemmed points in Southern Brazil [30]. Those traditions and phase definitions were not clear, and sometimes even contradictory, making it difficult to understand to which tradition or phase new findings should be associated. At the end of the 1980s, all sites presenting stemmed points were aggregated into the Umbu tradition regardless of their morphology and technology. The oldest known site associated to it was supposed to be the Laranjito site [31, 32], in the middle of the Uruguay River, dating to 10,985 ± 100 BP (13,035–12,715 cal BP). In the same area that the Umbu tradition was found, there was a second, contemporary tradition defined based on the presence of large, thick bifaces, some of them boomerang-shaped. This culture was first referred as the Altoparanaense Tradition [33, 34] and later renamed as the Humaitá tradition [35, 36]. However, this tradition was discarded from Brazilian archaeological literature at the end of the 2010s [37], since new findings revealed that typical Umbu and Humaitá tools were now being found in the same contexts. This meant there was only one tradition to associate new Paleoindian findings with stemmed points in southern Brazil

Many critiques were made of the concept of the Umbu tradition just after a large quantity of assemblages had been aggregated into it [38–43], especially about the fact that the presence of stemmed points was the only attribute used to define it. In fact, until the end of the 2010s, no study was ever made to confirm this supposed cultural homogeneity in assemblages associated to the Umbu tradition. Added to this question, no researcher outside Brazil ever associated stemmed points to the Umbu tradition—even though Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina were supposedly part of it. One of the critiques also highlighted that Uruguayan archaeologists were defining the same points that Brazilian archaeologists were calling Umbu tradition to the Tigre tradition [43]. Tigre points were not the only ones found in levels related to the Pleistocene–Holocene transition. In fact, a good chronology for at least three types of stemmed points defined three different lithic industries [44]:

Since the beginning of the current decade, Brazilian archaeologists also started to verify the validity of this supposed cultural homogeneity in Umbu tradition sites. Studies on geometric morphometry [45–47] and technology [48, 49] on Umbuassociated stemmed points revealed that these artefacts are indeed traditional, since they persist for millennia. However, these studies also revealed that they are heterogeneous in space, since regional cultural patterns revealed the existence of at least three lithic industries in the supposed Umbu tradition coverage area: Rioclarense industry, Tunas industry, and Garivaldinense industry (**Figure 1**).

Fell industry, Tigre industry, and Pay Paso industry (**Figure 1**).

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89154*

#### *The Technological Diversity of Lithic Industries in Eastern South America during the Late… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89154*

flake as a blank, unifacial reduction/*façonnage* (not only retouch), the presence of several active edges, and at least one in one extremity (proximal or distal), planconvex cross-section, a longer than wider shape, width being bigger or equal to the thickness, and a length that is usually greater than 7 cm. It does not seem to have a more specific standard on general morphology and technology, but this is probably due the lack of research in order to define regional or chronological patterns, especially because the presence of *lesmas* was the only attribute considered to this cultural association. The presence of *lesmas* is only observed in hunter-gatherer groups of Eastern South America, but more studies are necessary in order to better understand cultural patterns before making any cultural affiliations.

The Umbu tradition was supposed to be the opposite of the Itaparica tradition, since there were no *lesmas* associated to it. Instead, many types of "projectile points" were found. Itaparica is located in the Midwestern to Northeastern Brazil, while the Umbu tradition coverage area is only associated to the Southeastern and Southern states of Brazil, Uruguay, and some adjacent areas of Paraguay and Argentina. The concept of the Umbu tradition was created during the 1980s after a series of failed attempts to define "traditions" of stemmed points in Southern Brazil [30]. Those traditions and phase definitions were not clear, and sometimes even contradictory, making it difficult to understand to which tradition or phase new findings should be associated. At the end of the 1980s, all sites presenting stemmed points were aggregated into the Umbu tradition regardless of their morphology and technology. The oldest known site associated to it was supposed to be the Laranjito site [31, 32], in the middle of the Uruguay River, dating to 10,985 ± 100 BP (13,035–12,715 cal BP).

In the same area that the Umbu tradition was found, there was a second, contemporary tradition defined based on the presence of large, thick bifaces, some of them boomerang-shaped. This culture was first referred as the Altoparanaense Tradition [33, 34] and later renamed as the Humaitá tradition [35, 36]. However, this tradition was discarded from Brazilian archaeological literature at the end of the 2010s [37], since new findings revealed that typical Umbu and Humaitá tools were now being found in the same contexts. This meant there was only one tradition to associate new Paleoindian findings with stemmed points in southern Brazil and nearby regions.

Many critiques were made of the concept of the Umbu tradition just after a large quantity of assemblages had been aggregated into it [38–43], especially about the fact that the presence of stemmed points was the only attribute used to define it. In fact, until the end of the 2010s, no study was ever made to confirm this supposed cultural homogeneity in assemblages associated to the Umbu tradition. Added to this question, no researcher outside Brazil ever associated stemmed points to the Umbu tradition—even though Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina were supposedly part of it. One of the critiques also highlighted that Uruguayan archaeologists were defining the same points that Brazilian archaeologists were calling Umbu tradition to the Tigre tradition [43]. Tigre points were not the only ones found in levels related to the Pleistocene–Holocene transition. In fact, a good chronology for at least three types of stemmed points defined three different lithic industries [44]: Fell industry, Tigre industry, and Pay Paso industry (**Figure 1**).

Since the beginning of the current decade, Brazilian archaeologists also started to verify the validity of this supposed cultural homogeneity in Umbu tradition sites. Studies on geometric morphometry [45–47] and technology [48, 49] on Umbuassociated stemmed points revealed that these artefacts are indeed traditional, since they persist for millennia. However, these studies also revealed that they are heterogeneous in space, since regional cultural patterns revealed the existence of at least three lithic industries in the supposed Umbu tradition coverage area: Rioclarense industry, Tunas industry, and Garivaldinense industry (**Figure 1**).

*Pleistocene Archaeology - Migration, Technology, and Adaptation*

Taima Taima site in Venezuela, where the El Jobo lithic industry was found dating back to 13,000 BP (or 15,000 cal BP) [15]. It seems that this first phase of human settlement of the Americas is mainly defined by small populations that entered the continent and did not necessarily meet each other. These are just suppositions, since data is still insufficient for a better understanding and discussion of the first phase. It was only around 13,000 cal BP, during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition, that the continent started to be densely occupied—and this is what we may call the "second phase" of America's "human settlement." The first studies of Paleoindians in the Eastern part of South America, which is the focus of this article, emerged in the 1960s with the second generation of academic archaeologists in Brazil. Before them, the only systematic archaeological research in the country was carried out by the *Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueológicas* (a.k.a. PRONAPA), between the 1950s and 1960s [16]. PRONAPA researchers applied the concepts of "phase" and "tradition" which were heavily inspired by the historical-cultural American school. Even after the end of PRONAPA, its theorical-methodological approach influenced many researchers to classify material culture assemblages into traditions or phases, especially pottery vessels, lithic artefacts, and even rock art, mainly by their size, shape, and decoration, as well as morphological-typological classifications of artefacts and archaeological sites settings. A new "archaeological tradition" would be created for each identified type, and the new assemblages presenting the same types were associated to these "traditions." Similar types presenting slight regional or chronological differences were associated to subcategories known as "archaeological phases." This was the first attempt to classify archaeological materials into archaeological cultures. Unfortunately, when Paleoindian research started to be carried out between the 1960s and 1970s, it was not always clear which types could be included in a tradition or phase, due the lack of solid criteria for these definitions. These definition problems affected the classification of Paleoindian cultures in a way that, until the end of the 2010s, archaeological literature defined only five Paleoindian cultures in Eastern South America: the Itaparica tradition, the Umbu or Tigre tradition, the Humaitá tradition, the Catalanense industry, and the Fell industry. But most of these "traditions" have been questioned on the validity of their concepts. During the 1970s, Brazilian archaeologist Pedro Ignácio Schmitz [17–19] discovered several Paleoindian sites in the Serranópolis region, Midwestern Brazil, dating around 10,700 BP and presenting hundreds of unifacial plan-convex tools. Schmitz gave a name to these tools: *lesmas*. He also defined a new archaeological tradition as a result—the Itaparica tradition—and associated all known sites with *lesmas* to it. In the decades to come, several researchers would associate the presence of *lesmas* to the Itaparica tradition in Northeastern and Midwestern Brazil, even though there was a lot of doubt about the supposed technological homogeneity of these tools [20–27]. Systematical research on comparing *lesmas* from different sites, regions and periods are still scarce to this day, but most authors agree that in most regions where *lesmas* appear, there is a lack of stemmed points or bifacial technology in general. The oldest site known to present *lesmas* is the Lapa do Boquete site [21], in

mid-eastern Brazil, dating to 12,070 ± 317 BP (15,098–13,289 cal BP).

In Brazil, the term *lesma* was initially used as a synonym for *limace*. The term *limace* was first defined by León Henri-Martin [28] but later redefined by François Bordes [29] to refer to unifacial tools that are symmetric, three times wider than they are thick, presenting one pointed extremity (tip), biconvex edges, and uninterrupted retouches all around the artefact. In popular language, *limace* means "slug" in French, while *lesma* also means "slug" in Portuguese, being just a literal translation. However, most recent studies on Paleoindian *lesmas* have made clear that these tools are not that similar to the ones originally defined from the European Mousterian. Instead, *lesmas* present some other patterns, such as the use of a big

**152**

**Figure 1.**

*The distribution of Paleoindian cultures in eastern South America between 13,000 and 8000 cal BP. Ls, Lagoassantense culture. Rc, Rioclarense lithic industry. Tu, tunas lithic industry. Ga, Garivaldinense lithic industry. T/C, Tigre tradition and Catalanense lithic industry coverage areas. PP, pay Paso lithic industry. Sites outside this chronological range were not considered.*

The Umbu tradition was declared to be no longer a valid concept [41, 48, 49], and none of these identified industries are related to the previously associated Humaitá tradition. In fact, no studies have ever been made in order to verify if there is any cultural pattern of point types associated to boomerang-shaped bifaces.
