A mid-Holocene age for Monte Verde challenges the timeline of human colonization of South America.
Saved in:
| Title: | A mid-Holocene age for Monte Verde challenges the timeline of human colonization of South America. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Surovell, Todd A. (AUTHOR), Méndez, César (AUTHOR), García, Juan-Luis (AUTHOR), Lüthgens, Christopher (AUTHOR), Thompson, Jay M. (AUTHOR), Latorre, Claudio (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Science. 3/19/2026, Vol. 391 Issue 6791, p1283-1288. 6p. |
| Subjects: | Holocene Epoch, Radiocarbon dating, Continents, Colonization, Volcanic ash, tuff, etc., Archaeological chronology, Thermoluminescence dating, Archaeological site location |
| Geographic Terms: | South America, Chile |
| Abstract: | Our understanding of the timing of the human colonization of South America has been anchored by the Monte Verde II site in Chile, reported to date to ~14,500 years before the present (B.P.) and regarded as one of the most secure pre-Clovis archeological sites. We report the first independent investigation of Monte Verde in the nearly 50 years since initial excavations. We argue that radiocarbon and luminescence dates from alluvial exposures, in combination with the identification of a tephra dated to 11,000 years B.P. stratigraphically underlying the archaeological component, suggest that Monte Verde cannot be older than the Middle Holocene (8200 to 4200 years B.P.). With colonization no longer anchored by Monte Verde, our revised chronology supports a more recent date of human arrival to South America. Editor's summary: There is much debate surrounding the dates of human occupation in the Americas. One site that places South American timing in the pre-Clovis period is Monte Verde II in Chile. This site, however, was mostly only studied by a single group, meaning that replication of the dating has been lacking. Surovell et al. independently examined the site using current approaches and a broader scope and concluded that the site could not be older than 8200 years, significantly younger than the previously determined 14,500 years (see the Perspective by Rech). —Sacha Vignieri [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Science is the property of American Association for the Advancement of Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Our understanding of the timing of the human colonization of South America has been anchored by the Monte Verde II site in Chile, reported to date to ~14,500 years before the present (B.P.) and regarded as one of the most secure pre-Clovis archeological sites. We report the first independent investigation of Monte Verde in the nearly 50 years since initial excavations. We argue that radiocarbon and luminescence dates from alluvial exposures, in combination with the identification of a tephra dated to 11,000 years B.P. stratigraphically underlying the archaeological component, suggest that Monte Verde cannot be older than the Middle Holocene (8200 to 4200 years B.P.). With colonization no longer anchored by Monte Verde, our revised chronology supports a more recent date of human arrival to South America. Editor's summary: There is much debate surrounding the dates of human occupation in the Americas. One site that places South American timing in the pre-Clovis period is Monte Verde II in Chile. This site, however, was mostly only studied by a single group, meaning that replication of the dating has been lacking. Surovell et al. independently examined the site using current approaches and a broader scope and concluded that the site could not be older than 8200 years, significantly younger than the previously determined 14,500 years (see the Perspective by Rech). —Sacha Vignieri [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00368075 |
| DOI: | 10.1126/science.adw9217 |
