 |
Weekly Chat from About Archaeology
Moderated by Pat Garrow and K. Kris Hirst
Transcript: March 4, 2001: Speaker Dr. Tom Dillehay (University of Kentucky).
Note: This transcript has been slightly edited for readability.
Log on Dillehay.log started at Sun Mar 04 18:04:08 PST 2001 ...........
| Pat Garrow | It is now 9 PM by my watch, and time for the first Articulations chat to begin. Thanks for joining us tonight. We are going to record the chat tonight so that people who miss it can come back and read a transcript. |
| Pat Garrow | For the record, our guest is Dr. Tom Dillehay of the University of Kentucky, to talk to us about the Monte Verde site |
| Pat Garrow | I am going to start with a few questions for our guest and then open it up for your questions |
| Pat Garrow | Tom, thanks for joining us tonight, would you tell us a little about yourself? |
| Tom Dillehay | I was born in the southwest US, starting doing archaeology. at age 13, and then headed for South America while an undergraduate student |
| Pat Garrow | Tom, how did you become interested in archaeology? |
| Tom Dillehay | I lived next door to Alex Kreiger once and also involved in an avocational-professional. society. I was hooked early |
| Pat Garrow | Alex Krieger would be quite a neighbor. Did you become involved in any of his digs? |
| Tom Dillehay | I once worked in Texas with Kreiger, Dee Ann Story, and others. It was a Caddo site |
| Pat Garrow | Good way to start. I understand the Monte Verde site was found in 1976. How did you become involved with that site? |
| Tom Dillehay | At the time I was teaching in Chile; one day bones were found in a distant place; I later checked it out, thinking it was a Paleoindian site |
| Pat Garrow | When did you start to work there? |
| Tom Dillehay | We worked there in 1978 for the first time and ended in 1987 |
| Pat Garrow | I would like to throw the chat open for questions at this point |
| nali | I have a question.. |
| Pat Garrow | Go ahead, nali |
| nali | I was wondering at what point in the excavation did you first realise that you were most likely dealing with a site that predated Clovis? |
| Tom Dillehay | In 1979, when several geologists who worked in the region looked at our stratigraphy and said it was at least 12,000 years old |
| Pat Garrow | But you carefully avoided the pre-Clovis label for quite a while didn't you? |
| Tom Dillehay | I was not interested in the Clovis:pre-Clovis debate but only the adaptation of people to the forest around site. Later, once the site was cast in pre-Clovis light I felt it was unfortunate because that became the only way to discuss it |
| Flagman | Other than the age, what's the most unusual thing about Monte Verde? |
| Tom Dillehay | The preservation. Marvelous |
| Barb845 | Did the people impact the forest? |
| Tom Dillehay | We think so. Pollen and other ecology records suggest humans caused more fire |
| jharder | Do you think the increase in the incidence of fire was due to "accidents" or controlled burns? |
| Barb845 | Did the people-induced fire change the botanical mix? |
| Tom Dillehay | We don't know; perhaps both. Geologists tend to think it's more likely to have been accidental |
| Tom Dillehay | The botanical mix was definitely changed in terms of vegetation structure |
| calico | Dr. Dillehay: Why do you say ..."unfortunately it became the only way to discuss it." |
| IreneH1 | I was just about to ask the same.. |
| Pat Garrow | There seems to be some interest in why the pre-Clovis designation was so controversial. Do you want to try to handle that one Tom? |
| Tom Dillehay | First, let me answer the previous question. I say unfortunate because I think the debate distracted from solid evidence and method used |
| coop | Tom, what do you think the best way is to get private landowners to earn the trust of the professional community, so that more pre-Clovis sites are properly documented, and shared with all? |
| Tom Dillehay | More public talks and more public outreach by archeologists. |
| Tom Dillehay | As for pre-Clovis term, Junius Bird long ago stated that the South American data was clearly Clovis. He did this in the 1950s. Later we see more than Clovis, and this raised much debate |
