At https://phys.org/news/2026-03-monte-verde-fieldwork-resets-age.html … Monte Verde is a site in southern Chile that has been associated with early human activity, prior to Clovis in North America. In fact, the date assigned to the site in the 1970s to 1990s was 14,500 years ago. It caused a lot of angst amongst Clovis First archaeologists who doubted the date from the word go. Clovis First was entrenched amongst American archaeologists. It was assumed that all the northern hemisphere was under ice during the Late Glacial Maximum. Hence the tag given to that brief geological period. In other words, humans were blocked from entering the Americas which led to the Clovis First consensus view, an idea that resisted opposition for decades. However, we now know that there was a land bridge in which humans could cross from Siberia to Alaska, vestiges of which lie in the Aleutian Islands. It is now known, especially via genetic evidence, that humans from Siberia migrated westwards towards Europe and eastwards into North America, at some point prior to Clovis First. How far north in Siberia these people were living is unknown as the region is glaciated, or tundra that is seasonally frozen, and actual digging is out is not an option. People could have, for example, crossed the Arctic Ocean – which was much narrower at the time – [another sunken continental shelf system]. They could have crossed the Bering land bridge, a large lowland zone now also submerged. Or they could have boated around the edge of the theoretical ice sheets. We do not know how Clovis First arrived in North America but it is assumed they came from Siberia during the warm period prior to the Younger Dryas event. That event seems to have led to their demise – although a mass die off does not necessarily involve 100 per cent.
From that you can see why Monte Verde’s 14,500 date perplexed archaeologists attached at the hip to the Clovis First paradigm. How could people have reached that far south in the Americas after the glaciers retreated – before evidence of Clovis tools appeared in North American archaeology. Having said all that prior to reading the link you will get a better idea of what has just happened. Clovis First has reasserted itself – in this instance. In the grand scheme of things it matters not a jot if the date of 14,500 years is valid or not. The question is when did humans enter North America from Siberia. An early date at Monte Verde implies people were in the Americas a long time prior to Clovis First – but there is also evidence humans were in the Americas as early as 20,000 years ago. That idea will now be under fire but for the present we now know that the date of Monte Verde may be wrong. It is not certainly so and I expect a new study will take the opposite point of view and attempt to rubbish this one by Todd Surovell, a University of Wyoming based archaeologist. He has form of course in sticking firm to Clovis First. However, the new dates they have come up are themselves of interest – between 4200 and 8200 years ago. We have a major event at the latter date and another major event at the former date – associated with migrations of people fleeing from whatever was causing those events. It was more than just cold weather – although that was one of the symptons. Obviously, these events may have led to the erosion the team claim to have found. So, not necessarily a wrong re-assessment. One to reconsider without wholly going overboard. Let us wait and see what the other side of the argument say in a rejoinder. If they are of course still active in research.
The new findings involved sampling and dating alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek. They claim that erosion of the bank led to ‘redepositing’ and hence the older C14 derived dates that came out with 14,500BC. Funnily enough, one might say, their argument even includes a piece of Ice Age wood which they say was also a redeposited item – but which the original research took at face value. Another key to their new date was the presence of volcanic ash at Monte Verde. Here the evidence is rather tenuous as they say that the ash has a known date in the region – as if volcanoes blow only on the one occasion. It may of course be matched to a definite volcano – but unless the signature is firm, and not an assumption, that may or may not stand. At this point it would be necessary to actually read the full research paper[s]. On the face of it, taking the press release into account, their evidence is also open to reinterpretation. Surovell, is is worth pointing out, has previous, claiming misinterpretation of dating evidence at other sites of human activity that contradict Clovis First. In both South and North America. It would seem that Clovis First is still alive and kicking. The corpse is far from buried.
There are two papers published at the moment. See https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adw9217 …. and https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aef9954 … the latter article implicitly says the site was not re-excavated down to the site level. It was simply a bit of fieldwork with some samples taken in order to arrive at a more acceptable date and model. Obviously, these were professionals so we should not dismiss such a brief encounter with the site of Monte Verde – although I would have thought the original research had to be much more evidence based in order for the 14,500 date to stick. At that time Clovis First had an impregnable position in archaeological thinking.