One of the anomalies in American prehistory were that settlements at the Monte Verde archaeological site in Chile dated back to 14,500 years ago--older than the earliest human settlements found in North America. It sparked huge debates on how South American could have been settled first, from early seafarers traveling across the Pacific Ocean to human settlement leapfrogging down the Pacific Coast before spreading inland. But Popular Mechanics is now reporting that the 14,500 B.C. date may be wrong:
Monte Verde is certainly ancient, but as it turns out, evidence of human occupation at the site is not quite as ancient as it was once believed to be. Anthropologist Todd Surovell (from the University of Wyoming) and his team of researchers have found that the site was only occupied between 4,200 and 8,200 years ago.
[snip]
According to the researchers, several critical observations had been missed. For one, Monte Verde II is actually above an older layer known as Lepué Tephra, which is comprised of rock fragments that were ejected by an erupting volcano. And that lower (and, therefore, presumably older) layer is only 11,000 years old—nowhere close to the original 14,500-year-old estimate for Monte Verde occupation. For another, the original investigation of the site never accounted for the erosion that further separates older and younger strata in the region.
There is also a significant presence of Pleistocene wood and organic matter near Monte Verde II, which is about the same age as wood at the site itself. Because of geological disruptions in the region during Early Holocene, organic matter dating back to the Pleistocene was exposed, redeposited, and buried in river sediments that Surovell dated to the Middle Holocene. This natural phenomenon convinced previous archaeological teams that the settlement at Monte Verde II was far older than it actually was, even leading some to reject the theory of human migration over the Beringia land bridge. The age of the sediments can only mean that whatever remained of the Monte Verde settlement was from the Middle Holocene, rather than the Pleistocene. While this does not necessarily rule out human presence in the Americas before the Clovis culture, there has not yet been sufficient evidence to confirm that anyone predated them.
Add to that the multiple, independent verifications that the White Sands footprints are anywhere from 20,000 to 25,000 years old (I think they were up to five labs in agreement, last I checked).
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of other sites in South America that date back to the same period as Monte Verde--some even older--so the debate is not dead by a long shot.
DeleteI wouldn't write off Monte Verde just yet. The Pre-Clovis advocates and Clovis-First advocates battle each other with the same passion as Republicans and Democrats do. Rather than look for the truth, each camp seeks out any evidence which will bolster their position. IIRC Monte Verde has produced undeniable "El Jobo" projectile points...which are at least as old as Clovis...so, even if Monte Verde's occupants were contemporaneous with Clovis, they are NOT associated with Clovis culture. That's a problem for the Clovis First Model...as it points to multiple migrations into the continent at different times and perhaps from different directions. Southern Chile is a long way from the Bering Strait...from which the Clovis peoples...or their immediate ancestors were supposed to have crossed over into the New World.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good analogy of how bitter the fight can be. I see the same thing between those supporting and opposing the Younger Dryas Impact Event (although those supporting the impact event seem to be winning). Even if Monte Verde turns out to have been dated incorrectly, there are other sites: Huaca Prieta and Pikimachay in Peru both date to the same 14,000 BC period; and Santa Alina in Brazil may be much older.
Delete