1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. sci.anthropology.paleo

  • Monte Verde may not be as old as thought

    From Primum Sapienti@invalide@invalid.invalid to sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.archaeology on Fri Mar 20 22:32:15 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo


    https://www.science.org/content/article/debate-explodes-over-age-key-south-american-archaeological-site

    ...
    rCL[Monte Verde] broke the pre-Clovis barrier,rCY says
    Ben Potter, an archaeologist at the University of
    Alaska Fairbanks. rCLUp until now, itrCOs been seen as
    the bedrock.rCY

    A study out today in Science (which has a related
    Perspective) aims to shatter that bedrock. It
    suggests the stratigraphic layers at Monte Verde
    are scrambled, with older wood and other organic
    material mixed into younger sediments, resulting
    in misleading radiocarbon dates. The site is just
    8200 to 4200 years old, the study concludes.
    ...


    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adw9217
    A mid-Holocene age for Monte Verde challenges the
    timeline of human colonization of South America
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From JTEM@jtem01@gmail.com to sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.archaeology on Sat Mar 28 22:18:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

    On 3/21/26 12:32 AM, Primum Sapienti wrote:

    A study out today in Science (which has a related
    Perspective) aims to shatter that bedrock. It
    suggests the stratigraphic layers at Monte Verde
    are scrambled, with older wood and other organic
    material mixed into younger sediments, resulting
    in misleading radiocarbon dates. The site is just
    8200 to 4200 years old, the study concludes.

    It's kind of... pointless?

    "Pre Clovis" is well established. Doesn't matter if
    any one cite isn't really pre clovis or even if all
    of them but one aren't really pre clovis. We only
    need the one!
    --
    https://jtem.tumblr.com/
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2