ARTICULOS

First the exploration of buried archaeological sites may take place in two ways. One is to lay a checkerboard grid system that corresponds to cardinal directions out across the site. This approach permits a systematic and integrated excavation of exploratory trenches and test pits that fit into the cardinal numerical system. Another is the opportunistic placement of trenches and test pits that are simply numbered sequentially as the excavation proceeds each season. Although in 1977 we laid out a north-by-east 5-by-10 meter grid system in Area A where bones and stones were first reported to be washed out of the creek bank (Dillehay 1989:48-50), most of our exploratory work at Monte Verde consisted of trenches and pits placed in different areas around the site to define the stratigraphy, collect sediment and other samples, and search for artifactual material. Most of these pits yielded no artifactual debris and thus were not expanded into larger block excavations. When trenches and pits yielded artifactual debris (e.g., X-4, X-15, PZ-44), they were expanded into larger pits and, in some cases, block excavations. Geological pits and trenches were assigned letters and numbers (Pino 1989:96); sample pits were given PM or number designations; and archaeological pits were given PZs, TPs and Xs. Further, artifacts (such as X-15, X-1500001, or D-10-1-1) that were first excavated in test pits which were later converted to block excavations required two or more numbers to reflect the changing excavation strategy. Other artifacts were recovered from large flotation samples taken from the habitational surface and processed later in the laboratory. The latter were given numbers that corresponded to their unit and sample context (e.g., R-DW-1-10). As Fiedel has noted, an artifact may bear two or more numbers to document its location within the expanding site excavation, and this may initially be confusing for readers skimming all publications in the 1980s and 1990s.

Second, when we first excavated Monte Verde in the late 1970s, archaeologists were just beginning to apply various computer spatial and statistical programs to the study of archaeological data. We initially did not set up the Monte Verde database for extensive exploratory computer analysis. We did so between 1983 and 1985 when newly available technology allowed us to program the data for CMAP®, SYMAP®, SPSS®, AUTOCAD®, SURFER®, K-means cluster, and other analyses. Between 1983 and 1985, we often recoded artifact and feature numbers to fit appropriate computer programs. For instance, the programs required that all artifacts be assigned the same quantity of numbers and letters on code sheets. This often meant adding suffixes, prefixes, and zeroes to "fill in" the columns on sheets. Once again, artifact numbers changed, which we reported in preliminary publications. Thus, in combination, depending on its location in a geological sample, or archaeological pit, and on the necessity of adding elements (usually prefixes such as R or X and 0s) to its nomenclature to fit computer programs, an artifact may bear several numbers (e.g., A0100026 or A-1-26; X-1E-1, X-E-1, PZ-43-1, and others). Too, some artifacts may have discontinuous or continuous numbers. We informed readers of this strategy in the chapter "Research Design" in the second tome. We say: "An opportunistic sampling strategy was employed to test outside areas of unknown cultural activities. ... For ease of reference, the grid system established earlier was divided into a letter-number designation system for each block and each 1-by-1-m row and column subdivision. ... This system was tied into the N100-E100 grid system that was utilized to measure exact artifact locations for later computational manipulation. ... During the initial course of excavation all stone, bone, wood, and miscellaneous objects excavated ... were labeled sequentially. ... During the last two seasons, when an [sic] large amount of debris was recovered ... a sequential number system was employed for each type. The use of these two cataloging systems resulted in discontinuous and continuous artifact numbers for each category" (Dillehay 1997:60-61; also 1989:48-50). Further, we noted that "... the reader should be aware that the total number of specimens for bone, wood, plant, and stone types occasionally varies slightly on tables containing quantitative data. The reason is that "missing cases" appear in the computer database for unmeasured variables, such as the length of a broken lithic or the taxon of a wood specimen, and so forth. The variations are less than 2 percent, but they exist nonetheless" (Dillehay 1997:55).

Too, computer programs such as SYMAP® are designed to reflect the general distribution of artifacts, not their precise location at the scale of illustration shown on maps in Volume 2. In this regard, where two or more artifacts of the same material category are located close together, the program superimposes them and maps only one artifact locality. Fiedel is confused by this procedure and sees it as factual error instead of programmatic mapping. Also, in regard to computer and other studies, we attempted to be as detailed and forthright as possible about the analytical procedures and their results, even including the failures and unproductive lines of analysis (Dillehay 1997:56-58). [One reviewer has already labeled the detailed analysis in the second book as "overkill" (Grayson 1998).] The point is that the last number given to an artifact and published in the second volume is its final designation; while the different numbers of some artifacts may suggest different locational contexts to casual readers, the artifact location is consistent. This is not to deny that inconsistencies in data analysis and interpretation exist in the publications, but we believe this is common in a long-term and interdisciplinary project. Such inconsistencies as changing functional terms of bone, wood, and stone artifacts or changing species of wood and plant materials simply reflect reanalyses by specialists as new data or more accurate techniques were available. If Fiedel had carefully read the chapters on research design in all publications, he would have understood the methods used by the research team and possibly been less confused about the numeration and location of artifacts and features.

Dillehay, Pino, and other Chilean members of the Monte Verde project are currently preparing the entire artifact collection for storage and eventual display. The collection will contain a master list of cross reference artifact numbers for colleagues and students to study.

Third, Fiedel notes that our ideas about the function of the site and about the functional terms of some artifacts are confusing. When we first published on the site, we were cautious and did not assign too many strict, functional terms such as knife, scraper, etc., to specific artifacts until Collins' morphological study, Dillehay's micro-use wear analysis and Rossen, Pollack, and Dillehay's spatial studies were completed and combined to determine artifact use and context. Thus, that we first published that some artifacts were bifaces in a 1983 or 1985 article and later revised our assessment of some artifacts as being "choppers," "scrapers," or "points" in the final publication simply reflects our conservative approach to functional typologies. The same can be said of changing interpretations about activity areas in the site. We were trying to be as complete, cautious, and open as possible about the artifact assemblage and about the site analysis.

The fact that our ideas changed about the function of some artifacts and some site areas is standard procedure in long-term research. Learning more about a site is the purpose of long-term research. Although some of our ideas have changed over the years, there is an interpretive continuity in our assessment of the site and its environmental setting.

Fourth, we believe that Fiedel's ideas about Monte Verde are largely based on the late Junius B. Bird's comment on Monte Verde in 1979 when he visited the site. Bird stated in a letter directed to the National Geographic Society that he did not observe any evidence of human activity at the site. As Dillehay reported in the preface to the first volume (Dillehay 1989), Bird did not stay long enough at Monte Verde during his visit to view the excavated habitational surface and associated artifacts. He was there two days when we set up the camp and began to remove the overburden. He never saw the archaeological level or the in situ artifacts. Nonetheless, Fiedel takes Bird's statement to imply that Monte Verde is an invalid site and the associated cultural material is questionable. Curiously, Fiedel does not consider the important fact that Bird never saw the archaeological levels and cultural materials at Monte Verde. Nor does Fiedel mention the lengthy chapter given to an interdisciplinary study of the habitational surface buried between the top of strata MV-6 and 7 (the ancient creek bank and terrace, respectively) and the bottom of MV-5 (the overlying fibrous peat layer that sealed and protected the organic remains). Fiedel imagines that any valid artifacts and features in the MV-II habitational surface were derived from (1) an alleged overlying layer containing Archaic period artifacts, (2) an upstream Archaic period site which was washed out and redeposited at Monte Verde, and (3) several archaeological sites located in the vicinity of Monte Verde. Fiedel takes these notions from Lynch (1991) who imagined these events to explain the human presence at Monte Verde. The visiting 1997 inspection team of Monte Verde observed no overlying Archaic deposits in the site. Further, there is both an upstream Archaic site and late Pleistocene site which are relatively intact and contain different kinds of lithics and other raw material. As demonstrated many times previously (Dillehay 1989, 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997), the cultural stratigraphy is not disturbed at Monte Verde and does not contain materials from other sites. Moreover, if one inspects closely the excavation maps in the area of MV-II, he would observe the total aerial extent is about 100 by 150 m. This is not a large test and block excavation area and not all pits and trenches yielded artifactual material: only those in the vicinity of Areas A and D on the north side of the creek and the Area C on the south side. All of these doubts stem back to Bird and Lynch, two staunch supporters of the Clovis model. To repeat, Bird never knew the excavated site. And Lynch never visited the site nor has he ever studied the artifact collection from the site. The apparent reason Lynch never visited Monte Verde is the same reason that he never visited early sites in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, and most sites in Chile and Peru where he has worked over the past twenty-five years. Lynch seemingly thought that he had the power of the Clovis paradigm behind him. Where there were no fluted points to show Clovis influence, there were no valid sites to Lynch. Lynch (1991) dismissed all pre-11,000-year-old sites on the basis that their dates, excavations, and/or artifacts were questionable.

Fifth, since 1977 we have invited colleagues to visit Monte Verde and the laboratory at the Universidad Austral de Chile in Valdivia. We also invited colleagues to see the collections when they were housed at the University of Kentucky. Fiedel would have readers believe that we tried to keep people away from the site. This is not true. We repeatedly sent telegrams and letters and made phone calls to colleagues inviting them to observe and participate in the excavation. We understand that it was difficult for foreigners to visit the site. In addition to the geographic distance, between 1977 and 1988 Chile was under the rule of General Pinochet and was, for obvious reasons, an uninviting country. As for some Chilean colleagues at the time, we have been told through the years that travel to the south was too expensive or that they chose not to visit because they were playing professional politics and avoiding association with a site they did not expect to have to take seriously.

More specifically, Fiedel suggests that we did not invite archaeologists to visit the site until it had been completely excavated and destroyed by bulldozer activity, as if we were hiding something. As stated in the second volume, we thought that we had excavated about 80-90% of the younger MV-II component (Dillehay 1997:60) before the bulldozer activity. However, archaeologists never know how much of a site remains intact. For instance, last spring Pino recovered a large mastodon tusk with possible cultural marks from an eroded section of the site.

Sixth, some of Fiedel's "plausible" alternative explanations for the presence of exotic materials in Monte Verde include birds eating whole tubers and mastodons consuming seaweed. If Fiedel had read the books carefully, he would have seen that we had already considered scientifically based alternative explanations for the presence of exotic material in the site (Dillehay 1997). Fiedel also fails to consider the numerous instances in the book where we explain carefully our reservations about the cultural status of some artifacts and about the ambiguous nature of specific areas in the site.

Seventh, Fiedel places great emphasis on our failure to highlight the lithics, especially the bifaces and points, excavated at Monte Verde. From the outset of the project in the late 1970s, we chose not to overemphasize the stone tool and biface assemblage. Nor did we ever attempt to define the site as a "pre-Clovis" locality that would break the Clovis barrier. These were claims largely made by others and eventually the press. Once again, if readers examine our publications carefully, they will see that we emphasized that Monte Verde was an important early hunter-gatherer site in south-central Chile (Dillehay 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1997). Even the first sentence of the introduction to Volume 2 states that the book presents "... archaeological data relevant to early hunter-gatherer adaptation to the cool, temperate rainforest of southwestern South America" (Dillehay 1997:1). The pre-Clovis aspect of the site is de-emphasized. Moreover, if one carefully reads the literature on late Pleistocene cultures in South America, he would realize that pebble-tool and unifacial industries are just as prevalent and important as bifacial industries (e.g., Bryan 1986; Schmitz 1987; Kipnis 1998; Dillehay 1999). In the synoptic introduction to Volume 2, Dillehay (1997:2-3) barely mentions the stone tool industry, giving primary attention to the feature, wood, bone, and botanical evidence and their internal spatial organization. This emphasis extends to earlier publications: "When viewed from the perspective of the amount of labor committed to the procurement and preparation of these materials for use, the macrobotanical and wood remains constitute the most important assemblages" (Dillehay 1988:189). Fiedel's fixation on bifaces and points is justifiable from the viewpoint of early North American archaeology but not from early South American where bifaces generally constitute a small percentage of the total artifact assemblage in sites and thus should be treated appropriately in publications. South American archaeology should not be judged exclusively by North American criteria.

Lastly, as for "crucial photographs" of features and artifacts, we have published numerous in situ features and artifacts through the years. In some cases, such as the "hafted scraper" shown in previous publications (Dillehay 1986:330, 1988:192), we decided not to duplicate it in the second tome in order to show other materials and site contexts. Further, some artifacts and features were not shown because their photos became too fuzzy after converting them from color slides to black-and-white glossies. By focusing more on features and on wood, bone, and types of all stone tools, the decision was to show a representative and proportionate sample of wood, feature, bone, and stone materials.

In sum, Fiedel shows an elementary misunderstanding of standard procedures in the long-term interdisciplinary research and publication of a complex site. Oddly, he seems to have imagined a hidden dimension to Monte Verde, and indeed our very openness and scrupulousness about documenting and reporting on the site has counterintuitively provided "evidence" for his claims. If readers carefully examine the second book, they will see that Fiedel selectively quotes statements to support his arguments and ignores passages which contradict in substance and in fact the claims he is making against the Monte Verde project, for example the chapter on research design. For our part, we apologize for any misunderstandings that may be experienced by readers of the book, and we continue to welcome any constructive comments regarding the site and the published volumes. We, too, had noticed some editing errors in the volume after its publication, and we are combining resources to produce an errata sheet in a future Web page.

Fuente: Discovering Archaeology Magazine