ARTICULOS

It is important at the outset to consider the context of the research at Monte Verde. The site had no investigated precedents; much of what was there was unfamiliar to the discipline, and logistically it presented numerous challenges. As a result, field objectives, research questions, techniques, and theoretical implications evolved as field and analytical efforts continually encountered additional and mostly unfamiliar kinds of deposits containing a baffling array of organic and inorganic materials. In retrospect, we can see a number of improvements that could have been made in what was done — the kind of insight that grows as one sequentially investigates similar sites. I am acutely aware of more efficient ways that I might have approached the lithic analysis; for example, some of the problems discussed by Fiedel (including the inadvertent dropping of one of the projectile points from Table 14.4 [Collins 1997:405]) resulted from last minute refinements that I made in my classification that did not get fully integrated into the published version.

No question is raised concerning human authorship of the 4 bifaces and the slate perforator from MV-II nor of the basalt core from MV-I. Fiedel does, however, imply doubt about the rhyolitic core A-1-4-1 when he states that the "photograph of this artifact is ... less than convincing" while ignoring the accompanying drawing depicting the sequence of flake scars around a portion of the perimeter of this stone. Rhyolite yields very flat flake scars without noticeable negative bulbs of percussion and no ripple marks; however, there is no doubt that this is a culturally flaked piece.

Fiedel chooses to ignore the equally unequivocal quartz chopper DW120410. This specimen was flaked bifacially to a sharp edge opposite a cortical butt in a manner common to chipped stone industries the world over (Collins 1997:427-428). Also, there is no parsimonious, natural explanation for all or some of the specimens in such stone categories as the notches, grooved stones, edge-battered stones, and manos. Yet Fiedel dismisses these as "dubious."

One distinctive aspect of the chipped stone lithics from Monte Verde is that chipped stone tools are almost equally as numerous as are macroflakes, clearly indicating as reported (Collins 1997:429-430) that the chipped stone tools were produced outside of the area sampled. This view has little to do with whether or not the rib fragment that Dillehay considers to be, or to resemble, a flaker. There is absolutely nothing that requires flaking tools to remain at the locus of flaking any more than the flaked stone tools that were produced there. Fiedel is bothered by the small number of flakes of any kind and the absence of bifacial thinning flakes at Monte Verde. Basalt, quartz, quartzite, and rhyolite are the raw materials of the most distinctively flaked pieces from the site. Indirect percussion may have been the technique used to produce the bifacial projectile points of basalt (Collins 1997:424). My knapping experience with basalt is limited, but it suggests to me that basalt flakes often break as they detach. The same can be said for rhyolite and for quartz with the coarse, irregular texture of the quartz chopper. Flakes of quartzite of the kind the large biface is made may or may not detach intact. It is possible that with further examination of the small angular pieces of quartzite, basalt, rhyolite and other kinds of rock found on the habitation surface of the site (Collins 1997:431-434), multiple examples of small fragments of flakes would be identified. This entire line of evidence is not considered by Fiedel.

Although Fiedel notes that "the peculiar suite of plant remains ... [are] the most convincing proof of human occupation" and then proceeds to suggest instead that proboscideans could have introduced most of the exotic plants into the site area, he ignores the equally peculiar suite of exotic stones found there (Collins 1997:482-498, Table 14.24, and Figure 14.87). At least 41 (and perhaps as many as 56) stone specimens from MV-II are of exotic raw materials; besides this petrographic evidence, the sizes and shapes of stones found in the site area differ in statistically significant ways from those found in the local gravels. Human importation of stone from remote sources as well as selective collecting from local gravels are the most parsimonious explanations for these data. This inference would hold even if the collection were derived from a surface context.

In his review, Fiedel attaches particular significance to several quoted passages that he either misconstrues or misrepresents. These are in reference to the confidence that Dillehay and I have in the MV-II and MV-I components or to differences in our views on the evidence for use on certain tools. These I address individually.

Fiedel states that "Despite the discovery of clay-lined hearths and associated lithics that include at least one obviously human-made artifact, Dillehay has been reluctant to accept MV-I as a human manifestation." That is flatly wrong. What Dillehay and I have been reluctant to do is take a dogmatic stance on what we consider absolutely to be a cultural manifestation, but one of such age that its implications go far beyond what we are willing to engage on so little evidence. We felt it better to simply report what was found.

Fiedel states, in reference to experimental effort discussed by Dillehay and others, that "this level of effort leads one to question Collins' (1997:468) admittedly reluctant conclusion that the Monte Verde lithic assemblage reflects 'effective, sophisticated use of available lithic resources' and only 'looks clumsy and ineffective'." There is no such "admitted reluctance" in that statement. I was simply making the point that, to everyone who casually observes the igneous and metamorphic stones in the Monte Verde assemblage, there is the perception that these would make clumsy, ineffective tools when, in fact, experimentation demonstrated their effectiveness.

Another example is Fiedel's comment that "this is only one case of a general lack of fit between Collins' and Dillehay's analyses of supposedly utilized, faceted stones: '... Dillehay's microscopic use-wear evidence did not correlate closely with observed macroscopic features that I considered to be evidence of use. ...'" As Dillehay and I both made clear, we attempted to bring use-wear methods developed for studying chert to bear on the diverse igneous and metamorphic rocks from Monte Verde. It is common for artifacts of chert, obsidian, or other relatively homogeneous stones to yield inconsistent use-wear interpretations based on macroscopic and microscopic levels of observation. This is simply a fact that is reflected in our reporting of what we could discern at these two different scales of observation. It is also important to note that the particular approach employed by Dillehay (and derived from the work of Keeley [1980]) is primarily based on interpretations of polish seen by incident light reflected from surfaces of the stone. This works best on relatively smooth, homogeneous surfaces, but is more difficult on irregular, heterogeneous surfaces of crystalline rocks. Rather than force a concordant interpretation of use on any given specimen, Dillehay noted his microscopic, and I my macroscopic, observations; that they did not always agree probably says more about limitations in our techniques than about the use histories of the stones. The alternative approach used by Kay (1997:649-660) adds considerable efficacy to microscopic-use wear studies, but his involvement came too late in the project to allow examination of more than a few specimens.

Finally, Fiedel imparts "lingering uncertainty" to my views on the lithic assemblage from Monte Verde and misrepresents my statements that the stones "superficially appear to be natural" and "in fact, except for one small grooved stone and the large quartzite biface, I initially saw nothing unquestionably cultural about the stones he [Dillehay] showed me. ... This has been a gradual change of mind punctuated by moments of grave misgiving when I wondered if, by being too close to these stones for too long, I was building an interpretive sand castle. Ultimately, this concern will be resolved by the degree of acceptance our interpretations receive among our colleagues and by future discoveries bearing on the issues. ... I truly understand the skepticism with which some will receive the lithic assemblage. ..." The first statement is correct, many of the unshaped stones superficially appear to be natural, but, as I stressed, my analysis removed my "lingering uncertainty" that these had been selectively collected for both form and lithology and that they were effective as tools. The second statement, too, is correct — I understand the skepticism some will have regarding these stones. That does not mean I share that skepticism.

It is clear from his tone and his selective approach that Fiedel was not objective in his review of the Monte Verde work. All of us connected with the project need to consider and address the legitimate issues that he raises, but we should not, as he urges, disregard the overwhelming bulk of evidence for an early presence of hunters and gatherers in southern Chile.

Fuente: Discovering Archaeology Magazine