Monte Verde: a late Pleistocene settlement in Chile 2: The archaeological context and interpretation.

MIRACLE, PRESTON

TOM D. DILLEHAY. Monte Verde: a late Pleistocene settlement in Chile 2: The archaeological context and interpretation. xxv+1071 pages, 474 figures, 189 tables. 1997. Washington (DC) & London: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1-56098-680-8 hardback $155 & 120.95 [pounds sterling].

Monte Verde is not your run-of-the-mill hunter-gatherer site and the final publications by Tom Dillehay and colleagues are not run-of-the-mill monographs. Publication of volume 1, Palaeoenvironment and site context in 1989, definitively put Monte Verde on the map, but also elicited a number of questions and criticisms about the site's stratigraphy, the age and integrity of the Monte Verde II occupation surface (dated at the time to c. 13,000 BP), and the agents of accumulation and modification of the numerous wood, lithic, and bone remains found on this surface. Volume 2, The archaeological context and interpretation, published in 1997, was apparently worth the wait as its appearance was accompanied by the publication of testimonials from eminent Paleoindian specialists (Adovasio & Pedler 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997), including some prominent `Clovis-firsters' who appear to have helped themselves to slices of `humble pie'.

Monte Verde was first discovered early in 1976 when mastodon bones, wood, stones, and a single large biface were discovered falling out of the bank of Chinchihuapi Creek. Dillehay first visited the site late in 1976, and as he notes in the Epilogue to volume 2, at the time he `was searching for late ceramic period sites' (p. 814). Extensive excavations were carried out between 1977 and 1985, with follow-up monitoring of the site and experiments continuing to 1993. It was only during the third major field season, in 1979, that `the intact archaeological nature [of the site] was ... conclusively resolved in the mind of the principal investigator' (volume 2, p. 70). Dillehay's tenacity is impressive, as the pace of excavation was extremely slow, with a single excavator often requiring two to three weeks to expose a single 1x1-m unit, literally by hand. This slow place was necessitated by the extraordinary preservation of organic remains, including uncarbonized wood, plants, animal soft tissue and bone. The pay-off, however, has been great, as Monte Verde contains a number of hearths, pits, post-moulds and wooden hut foundations, Pleistocene architectural remains probably matched only by the Upper Palaeolithic mammoth-bone structures of Central and Eastern Europe. The site is just as noteworthy for what is missing as what is present; deliberately flaked lithic artefacts are extremely rare, as is the knapping debris usually associated with their production and maintenance. That is, the very part of the archaeological record (the lithic artefacts) with which the majority of Palaeolithic and Palaeoindian archaeologists are most familiar is, at Monte Verde, conspicuous by its absence. Radiocarbon dates and geological studies helped distinguish two separate components; Monte Verde I (MV-I) dated to c. 33,000 BP and MV-II dated to c. 12,500 BP.

Even if one dismisses MV-I as evidence of a very early peopling of the New World (as does Dillehay in both volumes), one is still faced with the small human group of MV-II occupying a site year-round, making hide-covered huts, few stone tools, and subsisting primarily on a diverse range of plant foods at least 1000 years before the first evidence of Clovis groups. Following the `Clovis-first' party line, the New World was first colonized by highly mobile hunters of megafauna who used a sophisticated and standardized lithic toolkit. To add insult to injury, these Monte Verdeans were an entire continent away from where all the action was supposed to take place, namely the spillway of the `ice-free corridor' in western North America. On the face of it, there were too many things `wrong' with Monte Verde (age, lithic assemblage, location) to take the site seriously, and it was easy to dismiss or ignore the site.

The publication of volume 1 made Monte Verde into a site that `wouldn't go away' (Adovasio 1993). Volume 1 contains 14 chapters by 10 different authors (including Dillehay). The volume introduces the site and the research framework used to investigate it, and presents a series of detailed natural science studies of the present-day fauna and flora, site geology, stratigraphy and chronology, and archaeological remains of plants, wood, pollen, diatoms, vertebrates invertebrates and beetles. This volume is still a must-read for anyone who wants a full picture of Monte Verde and its environments, especially specialists interested in the detailed evidence for palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. For many readers, however, this volume is mainly of historical interest since the more archaeologically oriented chapters and discussions are clearly superseded by volume 2. Furthermore, the major debate and point of dissonance in volume 1, the contrasting palaeoenvironmental reconstructions based on fossil pollen versus other lines of evidence, is also resolved in volume 2. Nevertheless, Dillehay forcefully establishes the importance of researching site-formation processes, and presents clear and well-articulated research methods, including excavation of `cultural' and `non-cultural' contexts, actualistic studies and experiments. The main conclusion of the paleoenvironmental studies, excepting palynology, is that conditions c. 13,000 years ago were not very different from those at the time of European contact in the 16th century. This interpretation provides the foundation for the myriad of actualistic and experimental studies presented in volume 2; one can with some justification assume that the situation in Chinchihuapi Creek today is not too different from conditions 12,500 years ago.

Volume 2 is a masterful presentation and interpretation of humanly modified assemblages and site features, and with it the focus shifts from palaeoenvironmental reconstructions to inferences and interpretations about the organization of human activities at Monte Verde. Dillehay is the sole or coauthor of 15 of the 22 chapters and 4 of the 16 appendices, with 32 other authors making the remaining contributions. In addition to presenting the site, its features and architecture, Dillehay analysed the wood assemblage, significantly contributed to the analysis of the archaeobotanical collections, made the microwear analyses of lithics, and conducted zooarchaeological analyses of the mastodon bones. This is an impressive range of studies and breadth of expertise.

The first three chapters summarize and update many of the arguments and analyses presented in volume 1. In response to criticisms levelled at the first volume, Dillehay & Pino stress, in chapter 2, that the overlying peat layer (MV-5) developed after the deposition of the cultural layer (on the surface of MV-6 and MV-7). They also summarize new palaeoenvironmental evidence from the region that indicates that deglaciation started prior to 13,000 BP. Of particular importance is chapter 3 on the radiocarbon chronology, in which Dillehay & Pino present 11 radiocarbon determinations made since the publication of volume 1, bringing the total number of radiocarbon dates to 29. With this larger series of dates and only a little special pleading to eliminate anomalous dates, the authors make a fairly convincing case for the deposition of the MV-II component at around 12,500 BP and the formation of the overlying peat after 12,000 BP. These dates and their interpretation seem quite secure (see also Taylor et al. 1999). The new age estimate of the MV-II occupation, based on an average of five dates on wooden artefacts, is 500 years younger than the 13,000 BP date stressed in volume 1. On the other hand, we now have a gap of at least 500 years between the MV-II occupation and the formation of the overlying peat. A fuller discussion of site formation processes during these 500+ years following site abandonment would have been welcome since explanations of the organic preservation and occupation surface integrity presented in volume 1 relied heavily on scenarios of rapid burial by peat accumulation.

Chapter 4 is an extended presentation of research design and methodology that builds on many issues raised in volume 1. A methodology common to most of the chapters that follow is the use of actualistic studies and experiments conducted in Monte Verde's immediate surroundings as interpretative baselines. Dillehay, with the help of his field crews and local people, among other things did the following: built and monitored the decay of a hide-covered wooden hut; studied the effects of the Chinchihuapi creek on wood, lithics, bones and plants; subjected various materials to trampling by animals and people; experimentally butchered animals; collected and processed plants with naturally fractured as well as humanly flaked gravel; mapped the spatio-temporal availability of plant resources; and made extensive collections of naturally occurring assemblages of stones and wood in a variety of depositional environments. I also found refreshing Dillehay's discussion of unproductive and unreported research and his strategy of integrating `hard and soft research approaches' (volume 2, p. 58). Flexibility appears to have been a hallmark of the research design, and one can see how new observations and hypotheses about the archaeological remains suggested actualistic studies and experiments, which then affected how these data were construed. This has clearly been an extremely effective and productive research strategy that involved more than 80 professional archaeologists and non-archaeologists.

Chapters 5-19 are the data-packed guts of the second volume, with major chapters on the lithics, lithic use wear, zooarchaeology, integrity of the MV-II surface, wood assemblage and architecture. While there is a certain amount of repetition of information across the chapters, this is an advantage as individual chapters can be easily read on their own, and most readers (book reviewers aside!) will not read the monograph cover-to-cover. The lithic assemblage remains enigmatic. The older, MV-I component includes 26 specimens, of which there are two flakes and a very convincing-looking core. The latter also has a haemoglobin residue on it that Tuross (chapter 5) concludes is not human, but which could be proboscidean in origin. The MV-II component is larger, although in Collins' estimation only 90 of the 692 modified stones were shaped by people, and of these only a very few fall in traditionally recognized forms. Dillehay is quite adamant (volume 2, p. 595) that `all stones of the MV-II component are displaced from their natural context -- the MV-6 creek bed of Chinchihuapi Creek'. Based on collections of river cobbles in the creek bed today as well as excavations in `non-cultural' contexts at Monte Verde, the authors make a persuasive case for differences between the `cultural' and `non-cultural' stone assemblages. I am not as convinced, however, that the distinction between `cultural' and `non-cultural' assemblages (and contexts) is as clear-cut as Dillehay, Collins and Pino make it out to be. On the other hand, I find plausible Dillehay and Collins' interpretations of the lithic assemblage. Very few tools were curated and most lithics appear to have been very expediently produced, if modified at all, and only minimally used. The K-means spatial analyses were not particularly illuminating, perhaps owing to the inclusion of only the lithic assemblages in the analyses. Dillehay in the zooarchaeological analysis has squeezed many interesting interpretations out of the 408 mastodon bones. He systematically examines 6 taphonomic scenarios and makes a fairly convincing case for human transport and modification of the mastodon remains. Worthy of more consideration is the relatively high frequency of teeth (MNI of 7 based on molars) to postcranial remains (MNI of 2). Is this a simple case of greater in situ destruction of bones compared to teeth, or were teeth preferentially brought to the site by people and/or other taphonomic agents? Overall, the descriptions and analyses of the archaeological assemblages are well written and illustrated. There is a wealth of information here for further interpretation and reanalysis.

Chapter 20 is an excellent 22-page summary of the arguments and results of the previous 757 pages. This should be on the reading list of anyone interested in the peopling of the New World and/or the prehistory of South America, and is an obvious point of entry into the rest of the monograph.

In chapter 21 Dillehay more explicitly situates the results from Monte Verde in a series of general discussions and models about human colonization, hunter-gatherer subsistence and settlement organization and, last but not least, the Pleistocene settlement of South America. Dillehay strongly relies on Beaton's (1991) categories of `transient-explorer' and `estate-settler' colonizers to develop 6 scenarios for the organization and nature of the MV-II occupation. He concludes that there is evidence for long-term (probably year-round) occupation at the site, with residential planning, site refurbishment and expansion (in Area D), and that the same cultural group occupied Area A (the wishbone structure) and Area D (residential area and workshops). `The Monte Verdeans were "estate settlers" ... occupying a circumscribed territory for a relatively long period of time' (volume 2, p. 790). Although these interpretations are fairly reasonable, season of occupation is inferred from the overall composition of the plant assemblage and a lack of evidence of food storage, rather than based on direct evidence of the season of death from the plant and/or animal remains. I also found the discussion of subsistence organization at times disjointed and confused. Dillehay interprets the diversity of plant remains recovered from the site, including several that are only of medicinal use today, as evidence of `economic exploration' rather than `economic diversification'. The reason for this distinction is his rejection of explanations of subsistence changes that are grounded in foraging theory (volume 2, pp. 798-9). At the same time, however, he also suggests that `over a period of a few months, the initial explorers may have depleted locally abundant and high-ranked resources ... [and] it may have been at this time that the Monte Verdeans began to exploit additional resources in distant habitats' (volume 2, p. 800), which is a scenario grounded in foraging theory if I ever read one! Furthermore, Monte Verde's `estate settlers' who emerge from the detailed analyses of the archaeological record (see above) also help account for how the archaeological record is structured (volume 2, p. 799). The theoretical moonlighting of `estate settler' aside, Dillehay's discussions of colonization and subsistence organisation are extremely insightful and provocative.

Dillehay's two-phase model for the colonization of South America, with sites containing El Jobo points such as Monte Verde in the early phase and sites containing fishtail points in the later phase, is plausible yet preliminary in light of the rarity of credible archaeological sites from the early phase. Of considerably greater and more lasting significance is the demonstration that the early colonizers at Monte Verde were not highly mobile hunters of megafauna who relied on a largely curated and typologically distinctive lithic tool kit. Diversity and flexibility of cultural strategies is the name of the game in Late Pleistocene South America. Without the exceptional organic preservation at the site and Dillehay's large-scale and meticulous excavations, Monte Verde would probably have been written off as just another kill site of questionable context and archaeological integrity. At the end of the day, our interpretations of the past often depend largely on both the luck of discovering/rescuing exceptional sites and the creativity and skill of those blessed with such good fortune. Happily in this case, Monte Verde comes up a winner on both counts.

The Monte Verde monographs have significance well beyond their contribution to our nascent understanding of Pleistocene archaeological sites in South America. They should be consulted and read by anyone interested in the peopling of the New World or more generally in prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Likewise, they are an invaluable point of reference for archaeologists, natural scientists, conservators and others dealing with waterlogged sites. The price of the two-volume set ($204.95, 161.45 [pounds sterling]) will unfortunately keep it off many a researcher's bookshelf, even though the volumes are good value for the money. To quote from the book jacket of volume 2, Monte Verde `puts a definitive end to the argument that Clovis peoples represent the first human occupants of the New World' (Donald Grayson) and `sets the standards to be expected when documenting a site which purports to chronicle early settlement' (Brian Fagan). While book-jacket blurbs are not known for their modesty, in this instance I think that the hyperbole is justified. Dillehay's monographs make us reconsider many issues surrounding the peopling of the New World and the archaeology of Pleistocene hunter-gatherers. The 12,500-year-old human settlement at Monte Verde breaks through the `Clovis barrier' and challenges many of our assumptions about the nature and organization of early Palaeoindians in the Americas.

References

ADOVASIO, J.M. 199.3 The ones that will not go away: a biased view of pre-Clovis populations in the New World, in O. Softer & N.D. Praslov (ed.), From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian adaptations: 199-218. New York (NY): Plenum Press.

ADOVASIO, J.M. & D.R. PEDLER. 1997. Monte Verde and the antiquity of humankind in the Americas, Antiquity 71:573-80.

BEATON, J.M. 1991. Colonizing continents: some problems from Australia and the Americas, in T.D. Dillehay & D.J. Meltzer (ed.), The first Americans: Search and research: 209-30. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.

MELTZER, D.J., D.K. GRAYSON, G. ARDILA, A.W. BARKER, D.F. DINCAUZE, C.V. HAYNES, F. MENA, L. NUNEZ & D.J. STANFORD. 1997. On the Pleistocene antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile, American Antiquity 62: 659-63.

TAYLOR, R.E., C.V. HAYNES, JR, D.L. KIRNER & J.R. SOUTHON. 1999. Radiocarbon analyses of modern organics at Monte Verde, Chile: no evidence for a local reservoir effect, American Antiquity 64: 455-60.

PRESTON MIRACLE, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England. [email protected].