 |
Weekly Chat from About Archaeology
Moderated by Pat Garrow and K. Kris Hirst
Transcript: March 4, 2001: Speaker Dr. Tom Dillehay (University of Kentucky).
| You are at: Page 3. Go to: Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | |
| BobOconee | Tom your findings at Monte Verde didn't fit the old theories of early man. Did you personally feel any pressure to conform? |
| mohr | Further to BobOconee, Where do you think we are going in terms of the first peopling of the continent. Was it Lee who was talking 100kya in the far north? He was ridiculed, but the door seems to be open now. |
| Tom Dillehay | Mohr:100k seems far fetched. I think we may see 20K but I would be very reluctant at present to push farther back. We need more work from various disciplines. |
| mohr | Amen to that, Tom |
| Pat Garrow | What are the Cactus Hill dates? |
| Tom Dillehay | :I think Cactus Hill is around 16K, though, as one might expect there is question about the context and association. |
| Pat Garrow | I have more questions about Cactus Hill than Topper, but no decent Topper dates yet |
| Tom Dillehay | pat: Agree. Need dates from Topper. Topper looks good. Goodyear and Co. has done well there. |
| Flagman | I never heard of Topper. Where is it? Anything published? |
| Pat Garrow | Topper is a pre-Clovis site n South Carolina being done by Al Goodyear; the work is in progress |
| Pat Garrow | Have you seen Al's features at Topper, Tom? |
| Tom Dillehay | : I have only seen photos of the features at Topper. |
| Tom Dillehay | They look good. |
| Pat Garrow | saw slides a couple of weeks ago. incredible |
| Pat Garrow | The features at Topper are piles of raw materials with some burin blade tools |
| Pat Garrow | I noticed that the lithic assemblage from Monte Verde was rather slender. Is that typical of the early South American sites in general? |
| IreneH1 | What different disciplines do you usually have on your team? |
| Flagman | You've said Monte Verde 1 had good stratigraphy, good radiocarbon dates, good tools. Why not accept it and say 33K? |
| Tom Dillehay | Flagman: I have been questioned about not accepting the 33K data; first, it bothers me that people could have been here that early. Second, I am not fully convinced that the fire pits are human made. That sheds some light doubt on other things. |
| Pat Garrow | What could explain the fire pits Tom? burned trees? |
| Tom Dillehay | We excavated control areas that showed no similar data. Appears not to be burned trees. basin are round a shallow. Also contain zinc and other compounds not with trees. |
| IreneH1 | How big were the fire pits? |
| Tom Dillehay | Size of fire pits: about 20-30 cm in diameter and 2-3 cm in depth. |
| Rich | In terms of the geology, how deep do the productive strata go, and how far do you intend to go with the dig? |
| Tom Dillehay | The productive levels undulate but most productive at 12.5 k are about 1.2 meters deep. Top soil has eroded. The deeper material possibly cultural varies from 1.8 to 2.0 meters roughly. |
| calico | any red ocher and/or quartz crystals (worked or unworked or with Paleoindian "bag wear"? |
| Tom Dillehay | calico: no quartz crystals but there was red ocher |
| ddetr | Isn't there something in western Pennsylvania, also? |
| mohr | That would be Meadowcroft |
| Pat Garrow | What about the shelters at Monte Verde, Tom? How were they constructed? |
| Tom Dillehay | They were constructed of wood and draped with hides. There were small braziers or pits scattered through them. |
| calico | Have you thought of trying any sediment thermoluminescence dating on your sediments? |
| Tom Dillehay | I am exploring the possibility of TL dates on sediments. |
| Pat Garrow | Goodyear has done that at Topper, Calico |
| calico | I've used Sediment TL on sediments at Calico with good results. I like it. |
| Pat Garrow | seems to have worked for Goodyear too calico |
| mohr | Is there any sort of cultural continuity between these sites? Can they be related back to a particular pulse and associated with any modern First Nations family? If you accept Glottochronology, some of these language groups can be "backdated" |
| Pat Garrow | I have read Feidel's and others critiques on Monte Verde, and personally don't feel they have much of a case, but would you like to address this Tom? |
| nali | It looks me like Feidel never bothered to fully read the reports. His concerns with artifact numbering etc were all addressed but he persisted in attempting to discredit the finds using that as his driving force |
| Tom Dillehay | I would expect some critiques. After all, some people's careers are shaken a bit and others see the opportunity to create a bit of light for themselves. All of this is healthy as long as it is done fairly, professionally, and openly, which was not always the case. |
| Tom Dillehay | Feidel saw what he wanted to see. |
| Pat Garrow | I felt some of the criticisms were unwarranted to be sure Tom |
| nali | Are you referring to his choice to publish in a non-juried journal? |
| Pat Garrow | in fact, most of them |
| nali | I agree Pat |
| Tom Dillehay | nali: yes, but others issues too, such as sending copy of critique before publication and having professionals review it before publication. That is why matters are peer-reviewed. |
| Pat Garrow | One of the strengths of archaeology is that we air our disputes in public, in same cases that is also a weakness, as it allows some to crawl onto the backs of others to achieve a little fame |
| Kris Hirst | It's a problem, in that the public wants to know what we find out, but the mainstream press only understands very shallowly what we say. |
| Tom Dillehay | I think most critiques are well-intended and very useful, if one properly. |
| Pat Garrow | Absolutely true admin. archaeology is hard to reduce to sound bites |
| Pat Garrow | Constructive criticism improves |
| IreneH1 | Some press more adept at it than others... ;-) |
| Kris Hirst | and the Monte Verde thing was too complicated to put into sound bites. I know, I tried, and failed. |
| Pat Garrow | true Irene |
| Tom Dillehay | The press. Now that is an issue. Too much important archeology is played out through the press. This is very advantageous in many ways but dangerous in others. We often are said to say something we don't mean, and then defend it later. |
| Pat Garrow | all of us have been there Tom. We have one of the best science journalists in the country here in Atlanta and his stories are accurate and interesting, but that is rare |
| Tom Dillehay | So true. I know CRM archeologists have to deal with much of this in the public eye. I did a lot of CRM work and occasionally still do. |
| Flagman | Need to have some large role for popular press. People deserve to know. |
| IreneH1 | What about the New York Times? |
| Tom Dillehay | I have nothing but accurate reporting from the New York Times. |
| Pat Garrow | The secret is to try to feed reporters accurate sound bites, as hard as that is |
| IreneH1 | Good! :-) It's my home paper, so I tend to get my news there first |
| Pat Garrow | NY Times has done well by me too |
| Kris Hirst | But even the NYT has an agenda, and only publishes the "exciting" sites; if Monte Verde hadn't had those early dates, they wouldn't have published the site. |
| Tom Dillehay | Probably true. |
| archaeologyADM | No doubt about it, John Noble Wilford is a terrific science reporter. |
| mohr | Reporting archaeology is also difficult, though, because one does not necessarily want to give away the location of a site, yet needs public interest and funding. That is a problem inherent to the practice. |
| Pat Garrow | That is the critical point Mohr |
| Pat Garrow | Most of what we do in CRM is not revealed to the press |
| Kris Hirst | Irene asks what is CRM; it means Cultural Resource Management and is the federally-supported arm of archaeology in the USA. |
| Pat Garrow | it is the source of employment for many of us Irene |
| IreneH1 | Good! May it flourish, Pat! |
| Pat Garrow | my thought exactly Irene! |
