| 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 |
| toad |
Do you think the site would be important regardless of whether or not it
is pre-Clovis? Why? |
| Tom Dillehay |
I think the site would be very important without all the Clovis
discussion. It is like the Ozette site in the northwest; the preservation is very good. |
| Pat Garrow |
It's quite rare to get wood, bone, and even flesh preserved on any site.
how did you deal with so many organic remains? |
| Tom Dillehay |
We had chemical preservatives and experts on site |
| Pat Garrow |
sure would need them! incredible preservation |
| mohr |
On a more personal level, Tom, what were your thoughts when the
archaeological world went from "Monte Verde?" to "Monte Verde!" Was
there a sense of relief? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Yes, there was some relief among all of us. the team includes more of
course. |
| IreneH1 |
This may be a naive question: Was this the first "pre-Clovis"
site found? |
| Tom Dillehay |
First pre Clovis site. Don't know. Maybe some of the surface sites found
by Kreiger, which he thought were pre-Clovis in 1964. |
| calico |
Many of us think there are acceptable pre-Clovis sites in the U.S. |
| nali |
My understanding of the situation with Clovis was that from Central
America going north, the remains are largely Clovis, and going south they appear to be
Fishtail, but with many similarities between them and a kind of meeting in the middle so
to speak, but with neither consistently dating older than the other |
| Tom Dillehay |
nali: you are correct. South America is very different. |
| Aulus |
I may have missed it as I was late arriving, but has there been any human
organic material found and enough to do any DNA testing so as to compare to existing
populations? |
| Tom Dillehay |
No human remains officially found, meaning we had a human bone but it was
shipped to a lab and lost there in 1979. We are working on DNA matter still but we have
lots of problems with it. It's old stuff; and the older the bone, the harder it is to get
acceptable DNA. |
| coop |
Has "lost info" been a frequent problem? |
| Tom Dillehay |
coop: only with the one bone. |
| IreneH1 |
That must have been frustrating though |
| calico |
any human hair? |
| Tom Dillehay |
A few but very degraded. |
| Pat Garrow |
Monte Verde was not only an extremely complex site, but it was excavated
over a course of years. Did that cause problems? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Yes. we had to protect the site, re-invite colleagues each time, and pull
together and add to the research team. |
| Pat Garrow |
Also, excavation and recordation methods have changed over the years as
the field has matured. That must have caused some problems |
| Tom Dillehay |
It did. For instance, at first, we knew nothing about how to prevent
contamination of DNA matter; then we moved from piece-plotting by hand to finer
instruments in later years. etc. |
| Pat Garrow |
In contracting we rarely spend even 6 months of a single site. problems
must have been daunting |
| BobOconee |
Is the Monte Verde site currently being excavated and if so what is the
direction of study? |
| Tom Dillehay |
The site is not being excavated at present. The Chilean government is
building a site museum. We plan to return for the deeper possible cultural level next
year. |
| calico |
Is that the stuff which might be dated as old as 34,000 years? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Yes. |
| Tom Dillehay |
Current direction of work: I am working in Peru on early and late
material. Also have students working in various areas. |
| calico |
any coprolites? |
| coop |
Tom, have you seen much in the way of bone tools of preClovis age? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Coop: I have seen early bone tools in South America, mainly Argentina.
They are flakers. |
| coop |
flakers? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Bone flakers for working unifacial pebble tools. |
| Pat Garrow |
How long was your typical field season on the site? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Pat Garrow: Most field season lasted 2 months. We lived in tents and
cooked out; about 20-30 people. |
| Pat Garrow |
That is a decent amount of field time. I admit I would rather camp out at
Days Inn myself though |
| nali |
Pat: that's no fun! |
| Pat Garrow |
is at my age nali |
| nali |
hahaha |
| IreneH1 |
==sympathize== |
| Tom Dillehay |
It was fun though taxing. We always had a large campfire, a little pisco
(Chilean brandy), and lots of guitarra and singing. |
| 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. |
| Kris Hirst |
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! |
| Wayne |
Coming from the opposite direction of sound bites, Tom, have you found
that your book has enlightened many others on the differences between archeology in north
vs. south America? I know it has for me. |
| Tom Dillehay |
Wayne: I hope so. There are major differences. The most significant is the
unifacial industries down south, which are very similar to those, curiously in Australia.
Glad the book helped. |
| jharder |
Tom, you indicated that you are currently working in Peru. What led you
there? |
| Tom Dillehay |
I did my Ph.D. work in Peru and have worked there every year since.
Perhaps because the sites aren't so early few people know about this aspect. |
| Pat Garrow |
what types of other sites have you worked on there Tom? |
| Tom Dillehay |
: My initial work was with large Inca sites; later with Archaic and
Formative (Woodland like) sites. |
| Pat Garrow |
interesting path to early sites Tom |
| calico |
Dr. Dillehay, any comments regarding the passing of Scotty MacNeish and
his work in Peru (or at Pendejo Cave or elsewhere)? |
| Tom Dillehay |
I knew Scotty well. He attained the maximum-hard worker and hard player.
He was a great archaeologist; he had a good nose for the insightful data, albeit in later
years his methods fell off a bit. As for Pendejo, I have problems with it; nonetheless,
there are things (clay fingerprints and exotic pebbles?) that puzzle me. I hope the site
is published. |
| Pat Garrow |
hard to put humans in Pendejo as early as Scotty thought in my opinion |
| jharder |
Why did you decide to move from the Inca to the earlier sites? |
| Tom Dillehay |
The decision was made for me; Monte Verde came to me and I decided to test
the site. |
| mohr |
'scuze me, but what are the Pendejo dates? |
| Pat Garrow |
over 30,000 aren't they? |
| calico |
yes |
| coop |
50k |
| mohr |
That's dramatic |
| calico |
We have other sites in the U.S. that date even earlier |
| Tom Dillehay |
Pendejo dates vary, depending on what you date and read; they can go from
25 to 40k or more. |
| Pat Garrow |
You said earlier that you think the arrival of the first people in the
Americas will eventually be pushed back to 20k Tom. What do you think the earlier
assemblages will look like? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Pat Garrow: Don't know. It seems clear that unifaces just are not
prevalent or non-existent in North America. Of course, they may exist in very small
numbers but we don't "see them". The earliest assemblages may indeed b like what
you see at Cactus Hill and Topper and lets not forget Meadowcroft. . |
| Pat Garrow |
the Cactus Hill and topper assemblages look very different from what I
understand. must beg ignorance of the early occupation at Meadowcroft beyond knowledge it
exists |
| calico |
We have old unifaces of the "Lake Manix Lithic Industry" on the
surface in the Manix Basin of the Central Mojave Desert of Southern California (near
Yermo) |
| IreneH1 |
And at what k level does it become problematic? |
| coop |
why quit excavating at 12k? |
| mohr |
once again, is there any evidence to tie these sites together in the same
sense that we discuss Clovis? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Mohr: No, not like Clovis which is tied together by a narrow range of
dates and a very clear diagnostic point. But Clovis may be exceptional. If one looks to
other areas of the world, Korea, Australia, parts of China etc, there is no clear-cut
early or first culture with a nicely defined diagnostic like Clovis. Let's face it, some
early cultures may have been more diversified and less formalized than we thought. |
| nali |
yes, and they may not all have been successful either. A lot of the time
we look at these collections and try to establish some kind of continuity where it just
can't exist |
| Pat Garrow |
I understand there are some formal bifaces from Cactus Hill that may be
ancestral to Clovis. Have you seen any of those Tom? |
| Tom Dillehay |
I have seen some bifaces from Cactus Hill. Some look roughly similar to
the deeper bifaces in Meadowcroft and, in some ways, represent the kinds of
lanceolate-like points that should be early. |
| Kris Hirst |
What's your opinion about Dennis Stanford's theory about colonizing across
the Atlantic? |
| nali |
I was going to ask that same thing Kris.. the solutrean connection |
| Tom Dillehay |
On Solutrean culture; Not yet convinced but willing to keep the door open
a bit. I know the Spanish lithics; there are similarities but also many differences. |
| coop |
How to explain the differences across such a long distance |
| coop |
And the similarities.... |
| mohr |
and it seems that differences are a more useful point of comparison than
the similarities |
| coop |
America and Spain |
| IreneH1 |
Couldn't one expect similar but separate developments? |
| Pat Garrow |
That would be quite a link. a possible eastern or southern origin for
Clovis |
| Wayne |
Dr Dillehay - have you seen anything coming out of the Gault site in TX
which holds promise for a better understanding? like the engraved pebbles, ... |
| Tom Dillehay |
Wayne: I have seen some things. The engraved stones are roughly similar to
some Solutrean-like marked stones. I wish to say that Mike Collins at Gault, Denis
Stanford and Bruce Bradley with the Solutrean model; I highly respect all these
individuals; moreover they are friends. But, remember that Betty Meggers about 40 years
ago thought that Jomon people came to the Americas to establish early culture. She based
her work on a few similarities.. |
| Pat Garrow |
Morphological similarities of early pottery as I recall |
| Tom Dillehay |
Yes. |
| Pat Garrow |
David Chase did a lot of the early work in Japan that documented the Jomon
pottery. he still lives in the Atlanta area |
| coop |
How about the Onion site engraved Clovis stone -- 40 lbs. |
| coop |
Hester documented it |
| mohr |
Onion...are they petroglyphs? |
| coop |
It's like the Gault stones, only many times larger |
| Wayne |
Yes, thanks. The analysis of all these artifacts is still in the early
stages. |
| Weaver |
Dr. Dillehay; If people across space and time are using similar resources,
for similar tasks, wouldn't there be certain about of repetition of techniques and styles?
Lithics especially constitute such a small percentage of a people's technology, don't we
need something more ? |
| Tom Dillehay |
I agree. But environmental differences and change resulting from time and
space drift creates more differences, among other factors. We need much more than stone
tools--like organics. |
| mohr |
A Lazlo Szabo at the University of New Brunswick has published interesting
work favourably comparing the Algonkian language with Finno-Uraic(?) I guess we all came
from somewhere. |
| calico |
Dr. Dillehay, how did you feel about the fact that widespread acceptance
of your 12.5 ka 14C evidence came after the visit of some of the major pre-Clovis skeptics
and not before? |
| Tom Dillehay |
calico: I and others with the team felt good--thinking that too any years
had passed. |
| skeptic1 |
I was intrigued by the earlier suggestion that artifacts from MV and other
unifacial industries in South America resemble Australian material. Are you suggesting
that there is a genetic or culture-historical connection between these areas? If not, what
is the potential homeland for the 20,000 BP immigrants? It could hardly be Siberia, where
there are mainly microblade and biface industries throughout the Upper Paleolithic! (Sorry
about the foul-up, folks) |
| Tom Dillehay |
skeptic1: Not suggesting any formal linkage between S. Amer. and
Australia. though some Aussies believe so. |
| calico |
Dr. Dillehay, thank you for being in this chat room. Best of luck with
your on-going research. If you ever find yourself in the Mojave Desert, stop in at the
Calico Site. we have good artifacts and good dates |
| Wayne |
Thanks all! |
| mohr |
I'd just like to thank Tom for letting us pick his brains for a couple of
hours. |
| calico |
yes, thank you and good night |
| Pat Garrow |
Looks like it is time to let Tom off the hook. Thank you do much for
joining us for the first Articulations, Tom, and thanks for you patience. |
| Tom Dillehay |
ArcheologyADM: thanks. |
| toad |
this has been very interesting - thanks to all |
| coop |
I'll be back, thanks all |
| calico |
let's do this again some time |
| IreneH1 |
Indeed this was quite interesting to a lay person like myself |
| mohr |
Okay, who's for a beer? |
| Tom Dillehay |
Thanks everyone for the good questions. |
| Kris Hirst |
Thanks to you all for a tremendously successful evening, for the first
Articulations. Next week, look for Anita Cohen-Williams, one of the pioneers of the
electronic media in archaeology. |
| Kris Hirst |
Count me in, you buying, Mohr? |
| mohr |
Sure, we can bill it to the Smithsonian |
| Pat Garrow |
I hope this is the first of many. Thanks again to Tom and all who attended |
| Tom Dillehay |
Pat Garrow: thanks for the invitation. Bets of luck. |
| Pat Garrow |
thanks Tom, and same to you as well |
| |
Log stopped at Sun Mar 04
19:59:55 PST 2001 ........... |
