There may be a partial resolution in the form of the Bluefish Cave site in northern Alaska, close to the mouth of the Mackenzie Corridor. Here are located 20 to 25 kyr old bone implements. Could this have served as a steppingstone for the ancestors of the Monte Verdians? That seems somewhat problematic; for example, Dr. Richard G. Klein cites the artifacts as “putative” [p. 561], and the site’s temporal isolation should raise doubts as to its validity.

Assuming that the Bluefish Cave artifacts and dates are genuine, it is highly questionable that the corridor itself was sufficient to support a population of Upper Paleolithic people. Large animals could not have weathered the harsh environment, and trees and most of the vegetation had lost their foothold in once-lush valleys. Therefore, there may not have been much initiative for people to undertake the long, arduous, and fatal trek south.

Although public awareness of the site extends back to 1984, it has been only since 1997, when a large number of professionals surveyed Monte Verde, that it gained much more general and professional acceptance. The outcome was unanimously cheered by the popular media, who thought they had hit upon a major paradigm shift. Leading the pack, the New York Times boasts:

Monte Verde’s staunchest critics ... [are] walking away thoroughly convinced.

... remnants of hide-covered huts; a chunk of animal meat, ... digging sticks, finely crafted tools of bone and tusk, and more than 700 stone tools; and a child’s footprint.

Contrast this to the description related in Klein’s widely acknowledged and respected textbook The Human Career (1999):

At Monte Verde, eight battered or crudely flaked stone artifacts, three naturally fractured pebbles that show traces of use, and fifteen naturally fractured pebbles that were apparently carried to the locality ... were found deeply buried in riverine sands.

Furthermore, a special report entitled “Monte Verde Revisited” appeared in the November/December issue of Discovering Archaeology. The main article, written by critic Stuart J. Feidel, points out the ambiguity and inconsistencies in the details concerning the site.

According to Feidel, almost all of the important discoveries were not photographed or mapped in their exact pre-excavated condition (in situ). The two projectile midsections, A-1-26 and D-10-1-1, have no in situ photos or plan views. There was no specified provenience until Dillehay’s extensive 1300-page publication in 1997, even though the two artifacts were discovered in the early 80s. The same problem pervades the quartzite biface B-10-5, point midsection D-5-1, chipped core tools A-1-4-1 and PZ 43-3, etc. Also regarding the biface, one account attributes its discovery to Carlos Troncosco in 1976 while another source cites Dillehay in 1977. In addition, many artifacts are known under a myriad of names. For example, the chipped core PZ-43-3 has been referred to as PZ-43-1, X-E-1, or X-1E-1; and D-10-1-1 as D-10-1-2 or X-15-1. This is especially mysterious since there is no archaeological zone in the Monte Verde site named “X” and maps of zone D are bereft of any existence of projectile points.

       

Copyright ©2001-2003, Allegra H., all rights reserved. Please contact me via e-mail if you wish to reproduce this material.