The state of Sao Paulo is a favorable area for karst formation. This occurs due to its geomorphology that presents lithological characteristics that favor the formation of caves and shelters in sandstone and limestone. Whether by speleologists or archaeologists, many archaeological sites in sheltered contexts have been discovered in the interior of Sao Paulo, however, their studies have not yet been developed in this state. This article presents preliminary results of research at two sites in shelter contexts - that is, the Alvo Shelter [Abrigo do Alvo], locating in Analândia (SP), with the most recent chronology established at 970 cal. years BP and the oldest at 7,500 cal. years BP; and the Itapeva Shelter [Abrigo de Itapeva], located in the municipality of the same name, with a more recent occupation around 585 cal. years BP and the oldest being around 5,858 cal. years BP. Both sites have similar archaeological remains which are usually found in sheltered contexts: rock art, faunal material, and lithics artifacts. In this case, we have an exception in the Itapeva Shelter, which in addition also contains some fragments of human bones and ceramic material that was originally associated with the Itarare tradition, being comprised of small, thin vessels with little variation in shape, usually without decoration, and presenting colors between dark brown, gray and black. Although the diversity of remains is remarkable, this paper will deal only with the lithic industries which are in the process of analysis at both sites. In order to establish comparisons between the sites, the research team initially sought to recognize generic characteristics such as raw material, support, dimensions, and others. In addition to this, technological attributes were observed in order to extract information about the kind of flintknapping, use-wear traces and retouching. We do not disregard the other evidence, such as rock art as a clue that possibly indicates cultural difference, nor the presence of pottery in the Itapeva Shelter site which is an indication that the inhabitants of this area already had other technology that went beyond the use of stone tools. Although the analysis is not over, some differences already stand out, for example, different raw materials used in the manufacture of stone artifacts have been observed at both sites, as well as the techniques of flaking, which in the Alvo Shelter were much more simplistic and absent of any retouching, and in the Itapeva Shelter where materials associated with several stages of reduction have been noticed along with with the presence of some retouched artifacts. Despite the noted differences, one cannot disregard the fact that the sample of the first site is much smaller when compared to the second one. This is due to the fact that a single fieldwork season was carried out at the first site while three excavations were made at the second. Although this is one reason, one must also consider that the material density in the Itapeva Shelter is much higher when comparing the number of pieces per excavation unit. Lastly, the analysis of the lithic assemblages will continue but already they exhibit little similarity, thus supporting the hypothesis that we are not dealing with similar groups.

中文翻译：

---

圣保罗州的潜在信息通报：圣保罗市的阿布里戈·杜阿尔沃和阿布里戈·德伊塔佩娃

圣保罗州是岩溶形成的有利地区。发生这种情况是由于其地貌呈现出有利于在砂岩和石灰岩中形成洞穴和掩体的岩性特征。无论是考古学家还是考古学家，在圣保罗的内部都发现了许多处于庇护环境中的考古遗址，但是，在这种状态下尚未开展研究。本文介绍了在避难所环境中两个地点进行的初步研究结果，即位于阿纳迪亚（SP）的Alvo Shelter [Abrigo do Alvo]，最新的年代建立在970 cal。BP年，最古老的有7,500卡。年BP；和Itapeva庇护所[Abrigo de Itapeva]，位于同一个城市，最近占领了585 cal。BP年，最古老的大约是5,858卡路里。年BP。两个遗址都有相似的考古遗迹，通常在庇护环境中发现：岩石艺术品，动物材料和石器物。在这种情况下，我们在Itapeva庇护所中有一个例外，该庇护所还包含一些人体骨骼和陶瓷材料的碎片，这些碎片最初与Itarare传统有关，由小的，细小的血管组成，形状几乎没有变化，通常没有装饰，并呈现深棕色，灰色和黑色之间的颜色。尽管残骸的多样性非常显着，但本文仅涉及两个站点正在分析的石器工业。为了建立站点之间的比较，研究小组最初试图识别通用特征，例如原材料，支撑物，尺寸等。除此之外，还观察到了技术属性，以提取有关fl缝，使用痕迹和修饰的信息。我们不会忽略其他证据，例如岩石艺术可能会提示文化差异，也不会在Itapeva Shelter遗址中出现陶器，这表明该地区的居民已经拥有了超出用途的其他技术。石工具。尽管分析尚未结束，但已经出现了一些差异，例如，在两个站点都观察到了用于制造石器的不同原材料，以及剥落技术，它在Alvo Shelter中要简单得多，并且没有任何修饰，而在Itapeva Shelter中，已经注意到与还原的几个阶段相关的材料以及一些修饰的文物。尽管存在明显的差异，但您不能忽略以下事实：与第二个站点相比，第一个站点的样本要小得多。这是由于以下事实：在第一个工地进行了一个野外作业季节，而在第二个工地进行了三个挖掘工作。尽管这是一个原因，但在比较每个挖掘单元的件数时，还必须考虑到Itapeva住房的材料密度要高得多。最后，将继续对石器组合物进行分析，但它们之间几乎没有相似之处，