Essay Questions:
1. Summarize your views on the peopling of the New World and the meaning of Clovis, Stemmed point chipped stone assemblages, and Pre-Clovis aged sites now that you know more about the data. Backup your arguments and statements with citations from your readings. Dont forget Dillehay et al. 1992.
The subject of the peopling of the New World has become a compelling and fascinating research topic for me. A brief summary of my views follows: I believe there was a limited Pre-Clovis occupation of the New World, by perhaps several groups from several locations (likely all from Asia, but perhaps Australia and/or Southeast Asia too). I think the migrants had low population densities and limited technological adaptation, but nonetheless possessed a chipped-stone tool assemblages (or a variety of them). The earliest of these arrivals may have arrived as early as 70,000 ybp, but this is far from certain. At about 13,500 ybp, just prior to the onset of the Younger Dryas, several groups migrated to the New World from, perhaps, several different locations. There was at least one migration via the Bering Land Bridge, and possibly a coastal migration along the Pacific Northwest and/or the north Atlantic (or possibly a transatlantic route from Iberia). This model is supported by the archaeological record in both North and South America.
McJukins 1926 discovery of projectile points in Folsom, New Mexico, laid questions of a Pleistocene occupation in the New World to rest (Fiedel 2000). He presented a site with excellent strata and good association between obviously human-made artifacts and extinct Pleistocene fauna. Human occupation in the New World was at least 10,000 years old. Projectile point discoveries at Dent, Colorado (1932), and Blackwater Draw, New Mexico (1933), confirmed the existence of a Folsom antecedent which became known as Clovis. Clovis dated to about 13,500 ybp. Blackwater Draw, discovered by Bilgery and published by Cotter (1937), offered excellent stratigraphy and association of artifacts with extinct proboscideans. The Clovis fluted-points were longer and clearly used to hunt mammoth and mastodon, indicating a subsistence practice distinct from the bison-hunting Folsom people (Sellards 1952). Similar points were discovered at a number of other sites, including: Miami, Whitewater Draw, Naco, and Lone Wolfe Creek (Faught, lecture, 2000). In 1938, Junius Bird excavated points with fishtail-like stems at Fell's Cave, Argentina, that were associated with extinct species of horse and glypodon, indicating a wide-spread early presence in the Americas (Fiedel 2000). Since then, fluted points have been found in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, and elsewhere to the exclusion of Stemmed-Points. Argentine and Chile also have fishtail points, but Stemmed-Points likewise are found in these areas.
Anthropologists have generally accepted three migrations into the New World in precolumbian times. These migrations were via the Bering Strait, be they over land, pack ice, or water. The first was the migration of the Amerinds about 11,500 rcbp. The second was Nadene people at about 10,500 rcbp. The final migration was made by the Aleut-Eskimo people and occurred around 5,000 ybp (Faught, lecture, 2000). If North Americas' first acknowledged culture group, the Clovis people, were part of the Amerind migration, one would expec t to find their progenitors in the American Northwest and Alaska, Siberia, or both. However, the story is not quite as simple as it may seem.
The traditional migration model would have Clovis progenitors following megafauna from Siberia to Alaska, and through the Ice Free Corridor into the present-day United States. Nels Nelson's 1935 discovery find proved unequivocally that populations did cross Beringia into the New World in prehistoric times (Smith 1974). However, although Nelson demonstrated a migra tion, he did not demonstrate it was related to the Clovis culture. The microblades Nelson found are generally associated with the tool kits that evolved into the Stemmed-Point Tradition. The Stemmed-Point Tradition's exact relationship to Clovis is still unclear.
In Siberia, no direct cultural ties can be made to Clovis. Haynes (1982) argues that two culture groups were in Siberia during the terminal Pleistocene. One was a flaked tool industry with large blades (but the presence of slotted bone also suggests some use of microblades). The other tradition in Siberia at the time had wedge-shaped cores and microblades. Bifaces appear in both. Blades, prismatic cores, mammoth bones, and hearths from a variety of sites are also found in common with Clovis. Haynes argues that 20,000 ybp Late Paleolithic hunters moved into Siberia and encountered the Dyuktai culture who had come from Southern Asia.
It is clear that the Dyuktai culture made it to Alaska. Their tool assemblage, composed of wedge-shaped cores, microblades, and bifaces appear in the technocomplexes known as Denali, Akmak, and Gallagher. The similarities between the Alaskan and Siberian tool kits are so great, some have suggested they part of the same assemblage (Haynes 1982). This tradition appears as early as 10,600 rcbp (perhaps 11,600 at Swan Point) in the New World (Hamilton & Goebel 1999). The "core-and-blade'tradition, as it has referred, appears at sites like Swan Point and Healy Lakes (charcoal association dated at 11,800 - 11,000 rcbp), Campus in the Tanana Valley, Panguingue Creek, Tangle Lakes, and Gallagher in Northern Alaska (Goebel and Slobodin 1999). All of these sites contain characteristics that seem to point toward Dyuktai origins. They are all broadly referred to "Denali.' Curiously, they all reside south of the Brooks (mountain) Range which runs through central Alaska. These early Alaskan lithic traditions do not resemble the Clovis culture, but rather represent a possible precursor to the Stemmed-Point Tradition. Over time, the Denali tool industry evolves into the technocomplexes known as Agate Basin, Scott's bluff, and the Cody complex. These assemblages are found in Canada and North America (Faught, lecture, 2000).
The Nenana complex in Alaska is represented by tool industries found at Dry Creek at Orion Portage, Walker Road, Moose Creek, Mesa and Owl Ridge. These sites have consistently dated between 11,300 and 11,000 rcbp. This complex contains retouched flakes and blades, bifacial implements, end and side scrappers. Additionally, Nenana points are small triangular or teardrop-shaped projectiles, while microblades are absent from the assemblage. Although no fluted points are found among these sites, some researchers suggest the Nenana complex is a regional precursor and that flutes developed slightly later in New World complexes. That said, fluted points have been found Alaska at Girls Hill (4,440 rcbp), Putu (stemmed and fluted points at 5,700 rcbp), Bonanza Creek (700-1,800 rcbp), Batza Tena (1,800-21,600 rcbp), and North Fork on the Koyukuk River (12,300 rcbp) (Goebel and Slobodin 1999). All of these sites are located in the foothills or north of the Brooks Range. These sites are too late in age to represent a pre-Blackwater Draw occupation, with the exception of North Fork, where only one stratigraphically equivocal fluted-point was found. Most of the Alaskan fluted-points (some with multi-flutes) appear about 8,400 rcbp (Faught, lecture, 2000).
It seems apparent that two distinct culture traditions existed in Beringia during the late Pleistocene, the Denali and Nenana. The Denali tradition seems to have unequivocally derived from the Dyuktai complex of Northeast Asia. The complex most likely evolved into the Stemmed-Point Tradition (and its varieties) and migrated South along the western seaboard. Linguists have associated this tradition with the Nadene language family. While it remains unclear where the Nenana complex originally appeared, some have suggested a tie to the Kostenki group of the Russian Steppes. Fluted-points seems strangely absent in early Beringia assembles, but do appear later in the foothills, and north of the Brooks Range--the mountains themselves seeming to create a cultural boundary from other traditions (Faught, lecture, 2000). To date, the earliest fluted-points still appear in the American Southeast and Southwest. This fact seems to suggest a northern migration of the fluted point tradition, or a northern diffusion of flute technology, during the early Holocene. Nevertheless, Clovis sites in New Mexico still are the oldest unequivocal sites in the New World and the origin of flute technology remains elusive. Why does the Nenana tradition in Alaska, similar to Clovis in many ways, lack characteristic fluting? Perhaps fluting was a New World adaptation, or perhaps the Nenana is a tradition separate from Clovis altogether. Some researchers suggest the Clovis precursor is found among the Solutrean of northern Spain. This possibility is worthy of more concerted research.
In the Great Plains, a transition from fluted technology to stemmed technology seems to occur in the Early Archaic, suggesting the possibility of multi-cultural interaction. In the West, a mix of fluted and stemmed traditions seem apparent from the beginning. A degree of tool hybridization may have occurred here. The appearance of stemmed-technology in the Southwest also occurs during the Pleistocene, but slightly later in the East. In the Great Lakes, Gainey, Barnes, and Crowfield points represent the early fluted technologies, while Debert and Vail are found in New England. The conservation of raw materials in the Northeast is suggestive of limited lithic resources. After 10,000 ybp, a short hiatus in population occurs and the Early Archaic becomes characterized by a return of notched and stemmed-points. Did a cultural transition or population replacement take place? It is possible. The Southeast is characterized by Clovis, Suwanee/Simpson, Greenbrier/Hardaway/Dalton, and Bolen. By 10,200 ybp notched points arrive in the Southeast. Technological diffusion, adaptation, population replacement/hybridization, or a combination of several of these possibilities might explain the assemblage transitions that occur during the Early Archaic.
Through the years, a number of Pre-Clovis sites have been proposed and deemed equivocal. On the other hand, there exists archaeological sites that have been claimed to possess Pre-Clovis dates, which have not been fully refuted. Several of these sites appeared in the 1970s as a revolt against Clovis-First orthodoxy. The resilient contenders include Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Cactus Hill, Topper, Wilson Butte Cave, Fort Rock Cave, the Cresrow complex, Monte Verde, Bluefish caves, Taima-Taima, Pedra Furada, and Valsequillo (Fiedel 2000).
James Adovasio claims that the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania has artifacts dating circa 30,000 ybp. Although he maintains good stratigraphic control, issues surrounding his radiocarbon dates, polynological data, and projectile point diagnostics have come into question. Collins and others have cited a projectile point at Meadowcroft as displaying possibly a pre-fluted biface technology. Taima-Taima in Venezuela has an El Jobo point in good context with extinct fauna and dates of circa 13,000 ybp. Alan Bryan vigorously defends this location and data, as well as his and McNeish's research at Pikimachay, Peru. Of special note is Monte Verde, Chile, which is securely dated at 14,500 ybp. Thomas Dillehay (1992) of the University of Kentucky has produced good strata, radiocarbon dates, and artifacts. In 1997, a team of researchers led by Haynes confirmed Monte Verde as the oldest unequivocal site in the New World. However, Michael Waters and Stuart Fiedel have both pointed out issues of concern, including problems with sloppy control, as well as the known relationship between language, archaeology, and biology in the New World (Dillehay 1992). Despite these criticisms, Monte Verde is generally accepted as a Pre-Clovis site by the academic community.
Other evidence for Pre-Clovis occupations can be inferred from biological data. Early New World skeletal remains display inconsistent characteristics. Both sinodont (shovel-shaped incisors) and sundadont dental morphologies are present in early New World remains. This is intriguing because sinodonty is present in northeast Asian populations, while sundadonty is a more generalized trait often associated with non-Mongolian populations. Early crania also tend to be more rugged and long, rather than round and smooth-browed like modern Mongoloid populations. Additionally, the lack of a epicanthic eyefold and the prominent noses of traditional Native American populations is curious. Some researchers have argued that historic Native American populations are "hybrids resulting from multiple migration waves' (Fiedel 2000). Such hypotheses usually consider an initial Proto-Caucasoid, Australoid, or southern Sundadont Mongoloid migration having taken place via Beringia, only to have hybridized with a later Sinodont northern Mongoloid migratory population. Interestingly, unusually archaic morphological traits can still be seen in isolated peripheral regions, like Tierra del Fuego, which can be construed to supporting a hybridization model (Fiedel 2000). Additionally, why are early sites and biological anomalies in South America? Walter Never of Sau Paulo University, Brazil, argues that South America was an entry point for Australians in prehistoric times.
Although the quest for Pre-Clovis occupation continues to face difficulty, the trend among paleoanthropologists seems to support an ultimate acceptance of a Pre-Clovis population. However, some researchers have entertained other explanations for New World aboriginal diversity, including models of multiple migrations. Two distinct projectile point styles, the Stemmed-Point Tradition and Clovis, exist almost contemporaneously in the archaeological record near the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary. Is it possible there were several migrations to the New World during the terminal Pleistocene? To account for peculiar paleoindian point distributions, new models for migration routes (coastal or transoceanic) have been proposed, as have new methods of research (underwater, continental shelf exploration, etc.) (Faught 1996). Such research proposes novel possibilities with regard to maritime adaptations, settle patterns, migration impetuses, and cultural origins. These alternative Late Pleistocene migration models and Pre-Clovis occupation models are not mutually exclusive, and in my opinion, probably both transpired. It is important to note, though, that a significant population influx to the New World did not occur until the arrival of Clovis about 13,500 ybp. Any Pre-Clovis occupation would have been sparse.
3. How do Anderson and Hanson propose that societies behaved on the early Holocene coastal plain landscape? What other aspects of Paleoindian societal do you think we could look for? How could we begin to deal with issues of gender in the Paleoindian record? Which artifacts might be reflective of which gender?
Beginning around 10,000 ybp, Early Archaic people began to encounter a more stabilized climate across the United States. The ice age ended and big-game hunters had adapt to a changing early Holocene landscape. When the megafauna went extinct, a transition to a more generalized subsistence strategy became a necessity. In the southeast, a climate somewhat similar to modern conditions lasted 2,000 years. It was marked by short, mild winters and hot summers. The Early Archaic period ended around 8,000 ybp with the onset of the Hypsithertmal episode. Anderson and Hanson, in their American Antiquity (1988) article entitled Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley, suggest that traditional models for Early Archaic groups in the Southeast are inaccurate. Based on sites found in the Savannah River drainage system, Anderson and Hanson create a settlement model based on band/macroband mobility and interaction that explains the variability in the Early Archaic South.
Traditionally two major, opposing positions have been advanced to explain southeastern Early Archaic assemblages. One positions argues that "settlement systems emphasizing based organizational strategies, incorporating...Binford's (1966) base camp/extraction-station dichotomy. The other position asserts a model "emphasizing a high degree of residential mobility‰Û* (Anderson and Hanson 1988:263). Anderson and Hanson propose a model that incorporates aspects of both models, while it differs from them significantly in some regards.
The landscape during the Early Archaic was not dramatically different from today's. Plant resources were limited during the winter months, but would first appear on the Coastal Plains come Springtime. Only later would the same plant resources appear in the Piedmont and Mountains. Deer was the principle game animal exploited by the Early Archaic hunter/gatherers. Deer were widely dispersed with seasonal congregations. The winter months were likely the only time when resources were limited in occurrence and distribution, in turn, unpredictable. Such environments usually promote a centralized basecamp lifestyle. At this time, much of the southeast was covered in a homogeneous hardwood canopy. In summer months, resources were much more predictable. These uniform environments frequently promote a mobile, foraging adaptation. In an evenly dispersed region with predictable resources, dispersed residential locations are twice as efficient as the use of a centrally located base. Therefore, summer base camps and winter mobility would be consistent with models for a homogeneous hardwood environment with a modern climatological analogy. Indeed, this is supported by the Early Archaic archaeological record in the Southeast.
Group reproductive behaviors are also predictable in seasonal sedentary and mobile systems. Wobst (1974) found that equilibrium in hunter/gatherer populations must be between 175 and 475 people. Populations must be in contact with other bands if they are to persist through time. Open-mating systems seem to occur in areas of low-population, while closed-systems arise in areas of high population density. Anderson and Hanson predict a macro-band organization along the South Atlantic Slope (the Carolinas, Georgia, and part of north Florida), consistent with an open-mating system.
Also important to macro-band systems are information sharing networks. "Uncoordinated territorial packing or land use is highly inefficient and can result in unanticipated and potentially serious shortages‰Û* (Anderson and Hanson 1988). Information sharing is especially important where seasonal dispersal appears, reducing the risk of redundant land use. Periodic population aggregation is one way in which information is shared, although perhaps not cost-effective at the time. Such aggregations would in occur resource-rich environments capable of sustaining a large population for a period of time.
"On the South Atlantic Slope, Early Archaic components are recognized by the presence of diagnostic projectile points. These hafted biface forms, from earliest to latest, include Dalton/Hardaway-Dalton side notched (ca. 10,500-9,800 bp); Taylor-Bolen side notched (ca. 10,000-9,500 bp); Palmer-Kirk corner notched (ca. 9,500-8,900 bp); and a series of bifurcate forms, including MacCorkle, St. Albans, LeCroy and Kanawah (ca. 8,900-8,100 bp)‰Û* (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
The proceeding quote is a good outline of the diagnostic evolution of lithic assemblages in the Southeast. Early Archaic sites on the South Atlantic Slope occur in a wide-range of microenvironmental zones. Non-local raw lithic materials have been recovered from many assemblages over the past 10 years. Two explanations have been advanced. Either trade between populations in relatively stable geographic localities occurred, or the phenomena is evidence of group mobility.
The researchers use data collected from the Savannah River drainage to support their hypothesis. Based upon the southeastern regional archeological record and the aforementioned anthropological theory, Anderson and Hanson describe two settlement strategies, one for band-level, and one for macroband-level around the Savannah River. Band-level settlement strategies are described as follows. Settlement rounds are characterized by "logistically provisioned base camps during the winter, and foraging camps t hroughout the remainder of the year‰Û* (Anderson and Hanson 1988:267). Early spring prompted a coastal movement (plant resource availability), then a western movement toward the Upper Coastal Plain for the late spring, summer, and fall. A return to winter camp coincided with aggregations with bands from other drainages. This biocultural model assigns individual river drainages of the Atlantic Slope to individual bands of between 50 and 150 people during the initial Early Archaic. Later, greater population growth would lead to group fission and a decrease in annual range.
Winter months, marked by resource unpredictability, left the hunter/gatherers short on plant food, but with aggregated deer populations. Centrally positioned base camps with specialized hunting forays are predicted. In the Savannah River basin, camps are believed to have been located in the Middle and Upper Coastal Plain, though camps in other drainages would be variable based on local resources and climates. However, the summer months promoted small, regularly spaced camps enacting a generalist foraging strategy for predictable and homogeneous resources. Chert outcrops would have "tethered‰Û* settlement locations to some degree, as chert sojourns would have been a periodic necessity. Additionally, greater cross-river activity would correspond in the Upper Plains because rivers toward the coast would have been much deeper and rapidly moving.
Macroband-level group size can be predicted based on the maintenance of a minimal equilibrium population - the minimum number of people needed to maintain a viable population. To maintain such, several bands from as many as three to five major drainages had to be in regular contact. Seasonal assemblies and individual movements ("Social Fluidity‰Û*) could have accounted for an appropriate genetic transfer. Archaeological sites like Manning, Thom's Creek, Taylor, and Nipper Creek may be interpreted as aggregation sites.
Anderson and Hanson test their model on two Savannah River Basin sites -- the Ricker's Bottom Site (9EB91), and The George S. Lewis Site (38AK228), though they also compare assemblages with the Theriault, Gregg Shoals, Cal Smoak, and 9RI89 sites. In summary, Anderson and Hanson argue that 4 limiting factors influenced Early Archaic settlement patterns on the Atlantic Slope. Those are: (1) environmental structure (i.e., seasonal and geographic variation in food, materials, and resources); (2) biological interaction (mate exchange, etc.); (3) information exchange; and (4) population size and spacing (demographic structure). These factors helped to shape a "base camp/foraging camp residential dichotomy within local Early Archaic settlement systems, as well as the existence of special-purpose resource-extraction camps‰Û* (Anderson and Hanson 1988:280).
Gender issues can be raised and models inferred based on Anderson and Hanson's model. For example, at Rucker's Bottom, 32 cobbles and cobble too ls were recovered (2 with grinding facets and four that were pitted). These artifacts are associated with possible plant processing activities. Hearths were also there in great number, suggestive of food cooking and processing (Anderson and Hanson 1988). This site, likely a warm weather site, would have been a small camp for a band or extended family. While men likely hunted deer, women may have foraged for and processed plants with cobbles and other stone tools.
At The George S. Lewis site, 2 Edgefield scrappers, chipped stone adzes, a polished diorite adze, whetstone, pigment pallette stained with hematite (possibly for hide processing), cobbles, mano and metate, and milling stones (for vegetal food milling) were all recovered (Anderson and Hanson 1988). Based on division of labor models, many of these artifacts may be tied to female activities. For instance, vegetal food milling, hide processing, and even wood working might be associated with female activities. Evidence for such activities are also found at the Clovis-age site in Texas, the Gault site, where ware patterns on stone tools are suggestive of vegetal processing (Wisner 2000). Additionally, a coastal movement in the spring for plant resources might indicate an emphasis on female resource acquisition. Gender issues surrounding mate exchange and marriage might also be an avenue of research.
One societal issue not addressed by Anderson and Hanson deals with the possibly of maritime adaptation to river systems. The band-level arrangement they propose certainly seems tied to river drainages. This may have important implications to Late Pleistocene and Early Archaic peoples. According to Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institute, the topic of early maritime adaptation has been ignored by academia. Stanford states plainly, "These people (Clovis) had water craft. If you look at the distribution of Clovis sites in the East, they seem to be associated with the large rivers and you can follow them up and down these rivers and, I think it's a matter of time before we find a site where there are boats preserved. These people are using the rivers as ways to get around, ways to transport flint‰Û*(Stanford, interview, 1997).
Stanford believes that flint procured from remote locations is a testimony to Clovis mobility. This was done, he reasons, to obtain chert of a certain color for ritualistic and nonutilitarian reasons--something that would not be done without adequate and efficient means of travel. Chert movement was particularly done on the East Coast, where great amounts of rock were moved up and down the river valleys. Stanford argues that such movement was probably accomplished by means of riverine watercraft, as well as by foot. Ultimately, Stanford suggest that watercraft likely played a role in artifact distribution in New World during the Pleistocene, as well as in New World migrations (Stanford, interview, 1997).
Although Stanford focuses on Clovis-age sites in this interview, the same reasons he offers can be used to support the possibility of Early Archaic river travel on the Atlantic Slope. The presence of adzes might also be seen as suggestive of working wood for boats. Evidence for this kind of travel might be found in river drainages, and perhaps, in rivers themselves. Research into such issues will likely prove fruitful for future archaeologists. Graduate Student Portion:
Discuss your opinions of the validity (or not) of Monte Verde using the Fiedel article and the response by Dillehay et al., Collins and Haynes. What are the most significant details of Fiedel's review with regard to the three principles of what makes a site a site? Did they (Dillehay et al.) answer Fiedel's most significant criticisms? Check out the Meltzer et al. 1997 for historical perspective and what they based their conclusion on at that time.
Monte Verde, Chile, has been the center of attention since 1997 when Vance Haynes and a team of esteemed archaeologists officially recognized it as unequivocally Pre-Clovis (Meltzer et al., 1997). For the first time since 1927 and the acceptance of Folsom as Pleistocene-age, a major paradigm in New World archaeology had been shattered. The certification of Monte Verde's dates of between 14,500-14,000 ybp threw a monkey-wrench of great proportion into the mechanics of New World migration models. Monte Verde's dates were over 1,000 years earlier than Clovis, which previously held the distinction of the New World's oldest. Why was the oldest confirmed site in the western hemisphere in Chile? Did humans really arrive here via Beringia first? When? As a result of Monte Verde's confirmation, other proported Pre-Clovis sites took on new meaning and possibility.
The Monte Verde site is located on the banks of the Chinchihuapi River, Chile, over 10,000 miles south of the Bering Strait. Tom Dillehay, of the University of Kentucky, started excavations at Monte Verde in 1977 and ceased in 1988, when the site was bulldozed. He reported to have found evidence of wood-framed, hide-covered structures, stone tools, hearths, wooden implements, knotted twine and cordage, mastodon bones, and other artifacts (Leach et al. 1999). Along with carbon dates of circa 14,500 ybp, Dillehay also reported carbon dates in association with cultural materials as early as 33,000 rcbp.
However, all is not settled with regard to Monte Verde's antiquity. Stuart Fiedel, of John Milner Associates, is outspoken in his criticism of Monte Verde's samples, associations, and provenience data. He questions nearly all of Dillehay's "compelling" artifacts, and coming from Fiedel, a widely-published expert on the New World Paleolithic, such critiques cannot be taken lightly.
Fiedel points to a number of problematic issues surrounding Monte Verde. He argues for epistomological problems inherent in Haynes' 1997 confirmation expedition to Chile. When the scientists arrived they were confronted with a site that had been bulldozed flat nearly nine years earlier. The researchers were only able to inspect remnant soil remains. At best, this allowed the scientists to verify Dillehay's stratigraphic analyses, but no in situ artifacts were observed. In fact, Fiedel criticized Dillehay for not inviting scientists earlier on during active excavation. Only the legendary Junius Bird saw the excavation at Monte Verde, and he was not convinced of a human occupation of the site (Fiedel 1999).
Fiedel (1999:2) asks, "Where are the photographs, or even field drawings, of the Monte Verde bifaces at the moment of discovery at their various locations?" Indeed, according to Fiedel (1999:2), Dillehay's volumes of literature on Monte Verde "fails to provide even the most basic provenience data about key artifacts." If the irrefutable artifacts that lack quality provenience are set aside, the case for human occupation at Monte Verde is questionable.
Many stone artifacts supported by Dillehay, likewise, seem questionable. Michael Collins of the University of Texas, who worked with Dillehay, admitted at one point, "I truly understand the skepticism with which some will receive the lithic assemblage" (Fiedel 1999). Although some artifacts are unequivocally cultural, many of these are from ambiguous proveniences. Some of the artifacts that Dillehay claims are Pre-Clovis have acceptable provenance, but questionable status as artifacts. Additionally, the associations between some wooden artifacts and lithic artifacts is weak, as are the cut marks found on mastodon bones of poor preservation. The lack of wood-working lithic artifacts is also peculiar, in light of the proported presence of wood artifacts.
"If, minus the unprovenienced artifacts and inadequately mapped 'structures,' the lithics, bones, and microscopic residues are dubious, that leaves the peculiar suite of plant remains as the most convincing evidence of human occupation" (Fiedel 1999:3). The presence of seaweed and several other extralocal plant species are not easily explained without human intervention. Yet, Fiedel points out that vegetal material at Monte Verde could be derived from the dung of living proboscideans, or the rotting innards of dead ones.
Fiedel suggests that the diverse array of artifacts at Monte Verde may be a result of several occupations, not one with great variability. Dillehay (1997a:3-4) once said, "At first glance, the Monte Verde site contains an unusual abundance and variety of materials that tempt the investigator to question whether the site is a natural commingled assortment of debris, including a few artifacts tossed in for good measure and heated debate." Fiedel seized Dillehay's quote, and agreed that after reviewing the discrepancies of the data, it appears to be the case. Fiedel (1999:4) states that, "this site (Monte Verde) should not be construed as conclusive proof of a Pre-Clovis human occupation in South America."
Inconsistencies with regard to carbon-dating are also criticized by Fiedel. Associations of cultural materials with carbon samples are made between items 30 meters apart. Additionally, contamination by saturation with creek water, as well as the presence of "anomalous" outlier dates skews the conclusion one can responsibly draw from the data. Ultimately, Fiedel questions Dillehay's provenience, stratification data and nomenclature, the integrity of many crucial artifacts as cultural, and finally the dates of artifacts and dates associated with artifacts.
Fiedel's biting review of Monte Verde spurred a series of responses from scientists associated with the research. A response authored by Dillehay, Pino, Rossen, Ocampo, Rivas, Pollack, and Henderson attempted to answer many of Fiedel's concerns. These researchers believe that "Most of Fiedel's article...is concerned with the multiple and discontinuous numbers often assigned to some artifacts and features..." (Dillehay, et al. 1999:12). His concern, therefore, was reflective of his "misunderstandings about long-term and interdisciplinary research design and analysis and the necessity to recode and reclassify artifacts for computational studies" (Dillehay, et al. 1999:12). The authors account for discrepancy in nomenclature as a result of modernization, and suggest that a more careful reading of the literature would have altered Fiedel's understanding.
Much of Fiedel's confusion surrounding site and artifact function could be explained by standard procedures associated with long-term research. The authors suggest that it is natural for opinions and views of a site and its contents to change over the years. Such change will be reflected in the literature. The fact that some inconsistencies might exist with regard to artifact interpretation is made up by the fact that consistency exists with regard to interpretative continuity.
Dillehay et al. suggest that Fiedel was heavily influenced by Junius Bird and his comments made to National Geographic in 1979. The authors argue that Bird never saw cultural material in situ at Monte Verde, and that his two day spell was inadequate to make any solid inferences for or against the validity of the site. Additionally, Fiedel was influenced by Lynch who published negative comments on Monte Verde in 1991. However, Lynch was apparently a closed-minded skeptic when it came to anything with Pre-Clovis potential. Dillehay and his co-authors resent Fiedel's conspiratorial tone and argue that they did invite colleagues to visit Monte Verde, as well as view holdings stored in Kentucky.
Regarding the lack of a biface and lithic emphasis, Dillehay et al. assert that they did not choose to focus on one particular aspect of the assemblage. This was done in the name of artifactual equality, besides which, "in South America...pebble-tool and unifacial industries are just as prevalent and important as bifacial industries" (Dillehay, et al. 1999:14). The authors also explain away the lack of certain photographs to degradation, and a desire to not publish duplicates. They argue that many photos have been published over the years and that this criticism is unsubstantiated.
Michael Collins of the University of Texas at Austin, authored an individual response to Fiedel, as he was one who had been singled out in Fiedel's original attack. He argues specifically against Fiedel's claim of a lack of flakes on site. Collins suggests that the flakes do exist, but are perhaps shatter-like as a result of the nature of the raw material and knapping technique. Additionally, although Fiedel offers an explanation for the presence of exotic vegetal materials at Monte Verde, he does not even mention the presence of exotic lithic material. Proboscideans as an explanation for the presence of plant material is adequate, but the presence of extralocal lithic materials requires human intervention. Collins suggests this is one example of Fiedel's tendency to selectively critique certain aspects of the site, while ignoring other critical, collaborative data.
David Meltzer of the Southern Methodist University, responded to Fiedel as well. Meltzer points out that no scientist is immune to error, but you cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. He also suggests that the lack of adequately collected provenience data is not devastating to Dillehay. For example, he points out that Adovasio "published pictures of a projectile point in Pre-Clovis age levels at Meadowcroft, but so far I have not seen a massive groundswell of support that the site's claims" (Meltzer 1999:16). In other words, other evidence, like post-excavation analysis of radiocarbon samples, sediment chemistry, artifact sources and residues, isotopic composition, and other research methods are more critical than decent photographs.
The leader of the 1997 team of specialists, Vance Haynes of the University of Arizona, also had commentary for Fiedel. However, rather than vigorously defend Dillehay, Haynes carefully explained his position on the topic. Haynes does, in fact, question the provenience of some artifactual material, among other things. "My reservations were about the provenience of the six unequivocal stone artifacts because my preliminary reading of the poor quality preprint of Volume II was mainly devoted to evaluating the radiocarbon dating and the stratigraphic provenience of the samples analyzed for Carbon 14." Later, when Haynes read the various site reports, he commented, "To my surprise, I found these data to be inadequate and therefore unconvincing" (Haynes 1999:17). If the six stone artifacts did, indeed, come from the provenience which Dillehay claims they did, then Haynes acknowledges the site as legitimate.
Haynes suggests caution with regard to seven important issues: (1) Most of the wooden "artifacts" may not be unequivocal artifacts at all, (2) many stone "artifacts" are likewise questionable, (3) pebbles with high sphericity may not be artifactual, (4) the mastodon tusk sheath is not unequivocally a tool, (5) problems surrounding stratigraphy upon which artifacts were found is questionable, (6) more samples need to be radiocarbon dated, and finally (7) radiocarbon age in South America may be offset from between 1,200 to 700 years (Haynes 1999:18). Haynes suggest alternative explanations for the phenomena observed at Monte Verde and concludes by proposing a Chamberlain-like, multiple working hypothesis approach when considering the evidence.
In conclusion, I believe that Monte Verde probably does represent a Pre-Clovis site. However, as Haynes suggested, it is important to have multiple working hypotheses. There are problems with Dillehay's methodology and techniques. He should have been more careful to document provenience, especially considering the great potential the site exhibited. If the six stone artifacts were located in the stratigraphy they are reported to have been found in, then I do not question the validity of the site and its dates. I defer to Haynes' expertise on the subject. Philosophically, I have no problem with the possibility of Pre-Clovis New World occupation, nor South America as an entry point for a Pleistocene migration. It is my belief that we are only a few years from absolutely, unequivocally proving a Pre-Clovis occupation in the New World, though I think any Pre-Clovis population would have been quite limited in number.
References
Anderson, David. G., and G.T. Hanson. 1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from, the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity, 53(2), pp.262-286
Collins, M. 1999 Reply to Fiedel II. Special Report Monte Verde Revisited. Scientific American Discovering Archaeology, Vol. 1(6), pp.14-15
Dillehay, T.D.; et al. 1999 Reply to Fiedel, Part I. Special Report Monte Verde Revisited. Scientific American Discovering Archaeology, Vol. 1(6), pp.12-14
Dillehay, T.D.; Calderon, G.A.; Politis, G.; Beltrao, M.daC.de M.C. 1992 Earliest Hunters and Gatherers of South America. Journal of World Prehistory 6(2):145-204.
Faught, M. K. 2000 "Paleoindian Archaeology" Florida State University, Tallahassee. Anthropology 5152, Fall Semester lecture series.
Fiedel , Stuart J. 2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 8, No. 1 39-103
Fiedel , Stuart J. 1999 Artifact Provenience at Monte Verde: Confusion and Contradictions. Special Report Monte Verde Revisited. Scientific American Discovering Archaeology, Vol. 1(6), pp.1-12
Goebel, T. and Slobodin, S.B. 1999 The Colonization of Western Beringia Technology, Ecology, and Adaptations. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First Americas, edited by Bonnichsen, R. and Turnmire, K.L.
Haynes, C.V. 1999 Monte Verde and the Pre-Clovis Situation in America. Special Report Monte Verde Revisited. Scientific American Discovering Archaeology, Vol. 1(6), pp.17-19
Haynes, C.V. 1982 Were Clovis Progenitors in Beringia?. In Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by Hopkins, D.M.; Matthews, J.V., Jr.; Schweger, C.E.; Young, S.B, pp. 383-398. Academic Press, New York.
Leach, J.; et al.. 1999 From the Editors. Special Report Monte Verde Revisited. Scientific American Discovering Archaeology, Vol. 1(6), pp. 1
Meltzer, D. 1999 On Monte Verde. Special Report Monte Verde Revisited. Scientific American Discovering Archaeology, Vol. 1(6), pp.16-17
Meltzer, D.J.; et al. 1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62(4):659-663.
Sellards, E.H. 1952 "The Elephant Hunters: Llano Complex and Llano Man" in Early Man in America. University of Texas Press, Austin pp. 17-46
Smith, J.W. 1974 The Northeast Asian - Northwest American Microblade Tradition (NANAMT). Journal of Field Archaeology 1:347-364.
Stanford, Dennis 1997 Transcript of an interview taken from a video recorded in March 1997. Smithsonian Institute. Electronic Publication: http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/dennis_stanford.html
Wisner, George. 2000 Texas Site Suggests Link With Europe's Upper Paleolithic. Mamm