Monte Verde 18500 BP? - actually Tom Dillehay knows it's much older! (Pre-Clovis arcaeological sites of the Americas 1)

Just a couple of weeks ago Tom Dillehay published his latest paper on Monte Verde (Dillehay et. al. 2015¹ See here)

Here's the abstract:

Questions surrounding the chronology, place, and character of the initial human colonization of the Americas are a long-standing focus of debate. Interdisciplinary debate continues over the timing of entry, the rapidity and direction of dispersion, the variety of human responses to diverse habitats, the criteria for evaluating the validity of early sites, and the differences and similarities between colonization in North and South America. Despite recent advances in our understanding of these issues, archaeology still faces challenges in defining interdisciplinary research problems, assessing the reliability of the data, and applying new interpretative models. As the debates and challenges continue, new studies take place and previous research reexamined. Here we discuss recent exploratory excavation at and interdisciplinary data from the Monte Verde area in Chile to further our understanding of the first peopling of the Americas. New evidence of stone artifacts, faunal remains, and burned areas suggests discrete horizons of ephemeral human activity in a sandur plain setting radiocarbon and luminescence dated between at least ~18,500 and 14,500 cal BP. Based on multiple lines of evidence, including sedimentary proxies and artifact analysis, we present the probable anthropogenic origins and wider implications of this evidence. In a non-glacial cold climate environment of the south-central Andes, which is challenging for human occupation and for the preservation of hunter-gatherer sites, these horizons provide insight into an earlier context of late Pleistocene human behavior in northern Patagonia.

The location of the site is:

Only there's a problem with this.. no not the usual "Oh NO! That's WAY too early! Clovis were first" rubbish. No my problem with this paper is that the peopling of the Americas happened much much earlier. There are at least 6 sites from both north and south America with well established radiocarbon dates ranging from c. 50000ya to around 20000ya.

And one of those is actually Monte Verde!

In the introduction to the paper¹, Dillehay laid out his aims for the 2013 excavations thus:

“The principal goal in undertaking new research at Monte Verde was to conduct a preliminary, discontinuous geo-archaeological reconnaissance of the Monte Verde area to determine whether we had previously defined the wider horizontal and deeper vertical extent of the site.. It was not intended to be a full-scale excavation to resolve previous research questions [14]². The subsurface testing and excavation plan thus was largely designed by the CMN. Within this plan, we developed three specific objectives:

1) to explore previously unknown geo-archaeological deposits in sites MV-I, MV-II,

CH-I and CH-II;

2) to investigate the long time span between sites MV-I and MV-II; and

3) to further assess the geological setting of the sites by applying sedimentological, microstratigraphic, magnetic, optically stimulated luminescence dating (OSL), and macro- and microbotanical analyses. Based on our previous findings at MV-I, which revealed possible cultural evidence laterally dispersed in deeper, sandy levels of the sandur plain, our recent work centered on spatially intermittent excavations and core drillings across a 500 m area between the MV-I and Chinchihuapi sites in search of additional scattered remains down to and below these levels.”

So very much hedging his bets then, and NOT answering previous research questions reference 14 is Dillehay’s 1997 summary² of work to that point. The key question from this monumental tome, is for many of us: “Are the lowest levels at monte Verde 33000BP”? Or perhaps looking for further evidence of these dates in MV-7 correlated levels across a wider area of site. Dillehay is typically NOT explicit!

 

Excavations in the 2013 season comprised 54 cores and 25 test pits systematically placed across the site. In regard to more intensive areas of excavation Dillehay says “The cores and test pits covered a total area of approximately 20,000 m² between the MV-I and CH-I sites. In addition, ten excavation blocks (Units 17, 45(A), 55, 56, 57, 81 and 82 in MV-I, Units 5 and 6 in CH-I, and Unit 83 in CH-II, see Fig 2).”

Map of MV-I and MV-II adapted from Dillehay (2015)¹.

Original caption read:

Fig 2. Map of the Monte Verde and Chinchihuapi sites showing the different site sectors, block excavation, test pits and cores carried out during the 2013 excavation season.

Note the discrepancies in the block excavation numbers for MV-I, 82 and 83 are shown while text indicates 81 and 82.

Towards the end of the introduction Dillehay gives details of some of the 2013 finds:

“Geological coring and trenching was opportunistic across the sites to open additional sediments for OSL dating and sediment sampling for micromorphologic, magnetic and other stratigraphic analyses. In total, 39 new archaeological lithics and twelve burned features, concentrated primarily within a 30 by 35 m section of the MV-I site and secondarily within a 10 by 12 m section of the CH-I site, were recovered.”

The next section Geomorphology and Stratigraphy starts with a statement to reinforce the intent of the 2013 excavations:

“A key component of the recent work at Monte Verde involved large-scale correlation of the local geology with established regional paleoenvironmental records from nearby Andean glaciers and volcanoes (Fig 1) and from pollen, starch grain, and phytolith studies (see Texts C-G in S1 File). This approach had the benefits of improving stratigraphic age control, helping to develop predictive models to identify future sites in the region, and informing the development of new questions about how people used Monte Verde and similar landscapes.”

Dillehay then goes on to explain the geological context of the site. He exhaustively details the role of the nearby Andean volcanoes, the extent of glaciation, the braided stream setting of the ancient land surfaces, the timing and expected runoff from nearby glaciers and thus the effect of all these factors on the stratigraphic integrity of the site sediments. Through multiple lines of evidence he demonstrates that the site stratigraphy is intact, including the deepest MV-7 levels that had provided extremely early (c. 33000BP) radiocarbon dates in 1997².

On the stratigraphy he notes:

“The research team, composed of several geomorphologists, sedimentologists, geoarchaeologists and volcanologists, was acutely aware of the various dynamic processes that could have produced important modifications in the stratigraphy, context, and structure of the archaeological materials in this early sandur environment. As a result, the team was very cautious in employing detailed geo-archaeological and geological measures to detect any taphonomic disturbances caused by natural or other processes. Yet, we discovered no mixed stratigraphic levels in the archaeological contexts, no subsequent natural retouch and water or wind patina on the edges of artifacts, and no frost shattering of bone remains.”

 

Next Dillehay presents his Chronology of the site based on:

“The chronology of sediments and archaeological horizons was determined by 14C and OSL dating. Nine radiocarbon dates were obtained from single pieces of charcoal and from animal bone fragments in the spatially discrete burned features and reported at the 95.4% probability range. A date of 10,660–10,620 cal BP on wood charcoal in the basal level of stratum MV-4 in Unit 6, site CH-1, was associated with a Paijan-like projectile point. With exception of the 14C assay in stratum MV-4, all other radiocarbon dates were derived from the deeper stratum MV-7, which dates from ~15,000 to 45,000 years ago from the top of its upper level to its base.”

 

Here is Dillehay’s 2015¹ table 1:

The top 9 dates are from the 2013 excavation, the remainder are from 2007 and earlier excavations as noted in the Supporting Information Text B p8: “Table 1 presents new and previous radiocarbon dates for sites MV-I and CH-I (including a previously unpublished date derived from a core in the Unit 56 area in 2007 [MV-I/VM1,T4]).”

 

As we can see by his symbol ^ Dillehay is already saying “Despite some of these radiocarbon dates probably being from a human source I am going to insist they are weak evidence for that conclusion”. This type of denying of the evidence uncovered is to become a theme throughout the paper!

 

He then is pleased to report that:

“It is significant that all new radiocarbon assays date specific features with associated cultural materials and agree stratigraphically with the prior radiocarbon dates on cultural and non-cultural levels in the MV-I site.”

 

The record of radiocarbon dates proceeds downwards through the stratigraphic layers, some confirming the stratigraphy and dating of widely accepted finds and dates, some noted as failing to provide dates until they become uncomfortably old (for Dillehay!): “A dubious association of one percussion flake of basalt, another flake, and a non-feature scatter of charcoal was recorded at a deeper level (1.47–1.49 m) in a downslope extension of Unit 56, which was sealed by overlying strata MV-1 to MV-4

The charcoal dated between ~23,515 and 22,100 cal BP.”

Artifacts without charcoal to date them follow:

 

“In addition, a white quartz chopper, two spherical stones, and an unknapped flake were recovered in Unit 55, the upper lower level of stratum MV-7, site MV-1.”

I find this explanation extremely thin, why when so much trouble was put into the OSL and Infrared Stimulated Luminescence (IRSL) dating of the chronology were samples not taken to date these artifacts? Does Dillehay NOT want to offer OLD dates for human-produced materials?

Worse is to follow however:

“Previously, peat balls at the 1.63 and 1.69 m in the upper lower levels in MV-I were 14C dated between ~23,000 and 29,000 BP (see Table 1). The middle lower to basal levels of stratum MV-7 are dated ~33,000 BP by 14C dates on wood charcoal associated with burned features and greater than 40,000 years ago by OSL assays (see Text G in S1 File) [13,14]. A fragment of animal skin in a peat ball at the 2.03 m basal level in Unit 57 of the MV-I site recently 14C dated at 43,500 BP. This date generally agrees with a measure of 42,100 BP on a previously 14C assayed peat ball at the 1.97 m non-cultural basal level in Test Pit 42 of MV-1 [14]².

 

This seems to be a complete denial of RELIABLE early dates associated with artifacts! The ~33,000 BP by 14C dates are the ones from the 1997 report and noted in the introduction (p4) as “MV-I dated 33,000 BP and initially defined by scattered occurrences of three clay lined, possible culturally-produced burned areas and twenty-six stones, at least six of which suggest modification by humans.”

To add insult to injury the probable ‘fire brickette’ peat balls, one containing animal skin are not even CONSIDERED as of anthropomorphic in origin. Peat burns. All ancient people know this. Form it into balls allow to dry and viola!, fuel in handy packages. Oh and animal skin.. fatty animal skin, inside an obvious fire starter! That Dillehay doesn’t even speculate on these objects is close to unforgiveable.

He therefore finishes with:

“The data from these deeper levels are still too meager and inconclusive to determine whether they represent human activity or indeterminate natural features. At present, the latter case is perhaps more feasible, given that there is presently no convincing archaeological or other data to substantiate a human presence in South America prior to 20,000 years ago.”

I am getting a severe case of déjà vu here, after all Dillehay could almost have pulled that quote from his comments on the early (33000BP) radiocarbon dated material he discovered 20 years previously!

 

Next Dillehay details some attempts to identify the types of wood which produced the charcoal. The results were mixed but some indication of the paleoclimate was gained especially from the analysis of pollen and phytoliths.

 

Next comes the crucial section dealing with the OSL/IRSL dating.

 

First Dillehay states the rationale of the site selection and reinforces the integrity of the stratigraphy: “Unit 45(A) was selected for sampling in the MV-I locality because it was the deepest excavation unit (~2.7 m) and it yielded intermittently occurring archaeological horizons throughout the previously 14C dated MV-7 stratum [14²,34⁵,35⁶]. As discussed above and demonstrated by tephra, micromorphological, magnetic, and luminescence studies (Texts C-E and Text G in S1 File), there is no bioturbation or other disturbances in any of the excavated units, which might have affected the integrity of the luminescence ages.”
 
After some detail on sample preparation and dating methods we begin to see results:

“The OSL dates suggest that sediment accumulation of stratum MV-7 in the MV-I and

MV-II sites occurred primarily between 30,000 and 15,000 years ago. The most significant deviations occurred around 30,000 to 20,000 years ago, correlating roughly with the second Llanquihue glacial advance reported for this period [31⁷]. The OSL dates generally agree with the radiocarbon ages for the upper to upper lower levels of the MV-7 stratum in site MV-1, ranging from ~15,000 to 25,000 years ago, where the recent archaeological horizons were recovered and where prior work recorded earlier cultural materials..”
Of particular note is the age ranges stated for the MV-7 stratum of MV-I. It only goes up to 25000 years BP. Dillehay therefore declines to comment on cultural material recovered deeper in the MV-7 strata of MV-I. As we have seen above this is a continuation of a pattern of recording some NOTABLE cultural materials but side-lining or dismissing them as evidence of an early (33000BP+) occupation of the site.

 

Dillehay then uses the OSL/IRSL data to confirm the stratigraphy of the upper levels of the MV-II site and dates it to 14500BP. He then comments on the MV-I and CH-1 site ages: “In summary, the combined twenty-seven previous and new radiocarbon assays and OSL ages (Text G in S1 File) are generally in chronological and stratigraphic order in the MV-I and CH-I sites. The most conservative estimate of the ages of the sporadic occupations on the sandur plain in these sites range between ~19,000 and 14,000 cal BP, on the basis of the minimum age represented by each of the 14C and OSL dates.” This date of ~19,000 BP or 18500BP as quoted in numerous reports on his paper becomes his stated age for the site. The almost certainly human-made charcoal and lithics dated to 33000BP in 1997² are completely ignored!

 

Dillehay’s next section is Material Remains Lithic assemblages

“The earliest probable lithics (see S6 and S7i Figs), probably date around or before

25,000 years ago, are similar with the previously recorded possible site of MV-I [14,30] and consists of four specimens including two well-rounded possible “sling stones” (S6c-d Fig; sphericity indices of 0.699 and 0.690), a possible chopper with a clear percussion flake on an exotic white quartz (S6a and S7i Figs), and an angular spall of basalt showing no evidence of cultural use (S6b Fig).”

 

Here are the artifacts in question:

Dillehay 2015¹ S6 Figure. Original caption: "Stone artifacts of the deeper, older level dated prior to ~25,000 cal BP in MV-(see S1 and S2 Tables): a. polished Group 3 pebble chopper of quartz probably derived from a beach of the Pacific Ocean (see S7i Fig.); one large flake has been removed culturally; b. Group 23 a spall of basalt with no cultural evidence; c and d. Group 22 possible sling stones with dull matte finishes."

Dillehay 2015¹ Figure S7i:  Original caption: "quartz chopper dated after 25,000 cal BP?"

 

I find it astounding that, once again Dillehay finds human altered lithics, illustrates them and then dismisses them by setting his preferred date for the site as much younger!

 

Near the end of this section Dillehay has this to say about the new and old evidence recovered in the deepest MV-7 strata of MV-I:

“At the older ~33,000 cal BP depth in the basal levels of stratum MV-7 in site MV-I, no new burned features and datable radiocarbon material were associated with the recently recovered materials, although OSL assays from the stratum containing the four lithics date ~25,000 cal BP. Our current material inventory for the older, deeper possible cultural MV-I levels is still very small (now a total of 30 stones and 3 possible cultural features) and includes forms such as unmodified and retouched flakes, other elongated flakes, two possible hammerstones, and unworked but possibly used manuports. There still is no taphonomic evidence to explain the presence of these deeper materials (e.g., tree roots, animal burrows). The new findings do not improve the resolution of these older materials, and we remain inconclusive and sceptical about their cultural status [14²,30⁸]. However, the recent work confirms the discrete and dispersed nature of these materials in the older, deeper levels of stratum MV-7 at the MV-I site and the very remote possibility that people were in the area earlier than we have documented here.” So as there were 26 lithics recovered pre-1997 we now have 4 new ones plus three hearths.

However, Dillehay again plays down or ignores his own evidence of an early (33000BP) occupation of Monte Verde!

After some closing comments Dillehay’s next section is Burned features. His pertinent comments are:

“Twelve burned features dated between ~14,000 and at least 18,500 cal BP were scattered mainly in the MV-I site area between the depths of 0.95 and 1.49 m in the upper middle to upper lower levels of stratum MV-7 (Fig 3; see S4 Fig and Table 2 for the contents of each feature).

They do not contain clay-lined pits and burned rocks, yet they are directly associated with fragmented burned and unburned animal bones, knapped lithics, and varying amounts of primarily ash and secondarily charcoal. No non-cultural or other burned or feature-like areas containing charcoal and ash were recovered from the numerous cores, trenches, and units excavated in sites. The features were documented in five of the seven excavated units in MV-I and in one of two units in CH-I. Five features were associated with Unit 45(A), two in Unit 56, and one each in Units 55, 57 and 82 in site MV-I; two were recovered from Unit 5 in CH-I.

The features measured between ~1.0 and 2.8 cm in thickness and varied in form from amorphous to semi-circular, roughly averaging ~33 by 42 cm in size, excluding light scatters of ash and charcoal flecks. All features were stratigraphically embedded in thin horizontal lenses at different levels between ~.25 and .80 cm above the three clay lined burned features previously recovered in the deeper levels of stratum MV-7 in the MV-I site and dated ~33,000 BP [14²].”

Key points:

• Monte Verde confirmed at 18500BP
• New hearths reported from MV-7 stratum of the MV-I site only 0.25 and 0.80cm   above the 1997² dated hearths
•   NO LINKAGE MADE BETWEEN RADIOCARBON DATES GIVEN IN TABLE AND THESE KEY NEW HEARTHS. Again Dillehay avoids commenting on his new evidence.

 

To trace what was found where, and so confirm what NEW evidence Dillehay had of occupation at 33000BP or earlier takes some work and digging around in the Supporting Information Text G. Luminescence Dating of Sediments p42 (below) we start to find the stuff not explicitly made clear in the body of the paper (note I have adapted this figure to just show MV-I dates).

+ 14C ages from Dillehay and Collins (1988).

* 14C ages from Dillehay et al. (2008)⁹.
14C ages from this study.

the bottom of this legend is missing a "square" symbol in front of the "14C ages from this study"
This discrepancy in the key below the table and ¹⁴C ages (cal years BP) column and  the “square” symbol is presumably meant to be the “^v” in the table column?

Therefore no old material excavated up to 1997 is included in the stratigraphy. The source for the radiocarbon dates is stated as algae and charcoal fragments.
 
We see that three of the dates obtained for MV-I are from unit 45A and were excavated in the 2013 season. Dillehay does not however state which material was used for dating in each case. The only hint comes from the Supporting information p34: “The unconformity separating Units C and D was also identified in the profile MV-I-45(A) (S18 Fig.). In this site, Unit C is younger than 14,118±1,291 years (sample MV-I-45(A)-1) and Unit D is older than 34,524±2,973 years (sample MV-I-45(A)-2). The base of Unit C overlying MV-II is younger than 13,793±906 years and formed after the MV-II site. This age agrees with the 14C dates of MV-II habitation layer that rests on the buried surface of stratum MV-7 (Unit D) and covered and sealed by stratum MV-5, the peat layer that underlies Unit C. Both the radiocarbon and OSL dates indicate that any cultural materials buried below the upper levels of stratum MV-7 date prior to 15,000 years ago.”

In other words whatever the samples are for these radiocarbon dates they were in a stratigraphically intact level older than 15000BP. To show what Dillehay actually found at the MV-I unit 45A we need to look at his table 2:

 

 



 

 

It is difficult to trace which sample in MV-I unit 45A the oldest aged material came from. But hang on from the paragraph above the table we have the following sentence: “In this site, Unit C is younger than 14,118±1,291 years (sample MV-I-45(A)-1) and Unit D is older than 34,524±2,973 years (sample MV-I-45(A)-2).”

 

So it was MV-I unit 45A sample 2, the sample contained Ash (A), Charcoal (C) and Lithics (L). It was found between 0.25 and 0.80cm above the original 1997² charcoal. It was dated 34,524±2,973. There’s your smoking gun. Dillehay DID prove his site to around 33000BP but hid the evidence in his mass of data and NEVER mentioned it explicitly!

 

The really exciting part: Faunal remains

“Four burned, one slightly scorched, and four unburned bone fragments (1–3.5 cm long) were excavated at sites MV-I and CH-I. The majority of the fragments are too small to identify the species, although they are possibly from ghompothere and paleocamelid, the two mammals previously recovered at MV-II and CH-I [47]. Two bone fragments reveal comparably thicker epiphyses (~0.9 cm) that are more suggestive of a larger animal such as ghomphothere. One small bone fragment is the head of a tibia, probably from a deer or small horse (S5 Fig). Six of the nine bone fragments were recovered from five burned features that were associated directly with stone artifacts or located within a few centimeters at the same level (Fig 5). The fractured edges of two bones suggest possible flaking or crushing, but the pieces are too small to determine cause. None of the bones have cutmarks, trampling striations, or root scars. The direct association of economically useful plant remains (see Text F in S1 File), worked lithics, and bone fragments with the features suggest human intervention. An animal skin fragment was recovered from a peat ball at the interface between strataMV-7 and MV-8 at a depth of 2.1 m and dated at 43,500 calibrated years ago (Table 1). This date agrees with a previous 14C assay of 42,000 BP at the same level in a nearby excavation block [14²,35⁶]. No cultural materials were associated with the skin.”

 

I’ve already commented on this above, however this evidence of the antiquity of Monte Verde is SO STUNNING! The site may well be around 44000BP!

 

All I can conclude from this paper is:

 

1.  The downplaying of the new samples with dates in excess of 30000BP and Dillehay’s negative review of his pre-1997 material show that he is that he is UNWILLING to push the full significance of the site. This may be somewhat understandable, considering the amount of brutal and unfounded criticism he received from Fiedel (1999)⁴ and Haynes¹⁰.
 

2. Dillehay proves Monte Verde to be c. 33000BP.
 

 

3. Dillehay reveals evidence that Monte Verde may be 44000BP.

Having completed this paper review it is worth noting that Dillehay did the same self-denying-of-evidence act in 1999. See below:

 

 

 

Tom Dillehay had, by 1997, secure radiocarbon dates of 12500 BP and 33000 BP for his Monte Verde sites known as MV-II and MV-I respectively.

The problem was, that in 1997 even the radiocarbon date of 12500 BP for MV-II was controversial. The Clovis-first school of North American archaeology still held fiercely onto their established orthodoxy.

To establish his site as a legitimate one, Dillehay had to convince the establishment of the sites' antiquity. He did so by inviting an array of Paleoindian archaeologists to view the Monte Verde artifacts and site. Guests included the fiercely Clovis-first proponent Vance Haynes.

 

The stated aims of the site visit were:

" The goals of the site visit were to: ( I) evaluate the stone, bone, ivory, wood. and other objects recovered from the MV-II and MV-I levels that have been argued to be artifactual; (2) examine the Monte Verde sediments and stratigraphy (as well as the off-site stratigraphy); and (3) assess the results of the radiocarbon dating by examining possibilities for contamination, redeposition, or other potentially confounding factors. In essence, and particularly in light of published doubts concerning this site's claims to great antiquity, the primary goal of the visit was to ascertain whether the site is truly archaeological and, if so, whether it is truly late Pleistocene in age."

 

The report cited below goes on to explain how the assembled archaeological notables carried out their 'inspection':

 

"The site visit was conducted in several stages. Initially, participants travelled to Lexington, Kentucky, to hear presentations by Dillehay, James Adovasio (cordage). Michael Collins (lithics), and Jack Rossen (paleoethnobotany). During this time, participants also examined and discussed the Monte Verde materials archived at the University of Kentucky. These materials included approximately 90 percent of the stone objects (both MV-II and MV-I). 20 percent of the bone items. 15 percent of the wood specimens, and a diverse set of soft tissue remains (the remainder of the collections being housed in Chile).

The group then travelled to Chile, were joined by South American colleagues, and spent a day at the Universidad Austral de Chile (Valdivia). During this time, Mario Pino presented a synthesis of the Monte Verde stratigraphy; many of the remaining bone, wood, and soft tissue specimens, as well as a preserved human footprint from the MV-II surface, also were examined. From there, the group travelled to Puerto Montt, making stops to examine geological sections and gain a sense of the regional environmental context."

The combined team of archaeologists wrote up their report later that year.

 

In their 1997 paper "On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile" (American Antiquity. 62(4), 1997, pp. 659-663.) Meltzer et al supported an extremely early date of 33000ya for the Monte Verde site. After unanimously endorsing the 12500 BP date for MV-II they commented thus on the much more controversial 33000BP radiocarbon date for MV-I:

 

"In regard to the extremely intriguing MV-I materials. Dillehay (1997) remains noncommittal. The MV-I materials were found deep within the MV-7 deposits; at least some of them are clearly artifactual: there is no suggestion that they owe their position to disturbance; and associated radiocarbon determinations indicate an age of at least 33.000 years B.P. The chances seem good that these materials indicate a significantly early human occupation in the region. However. MV-I is located some 70 m south of the present Chinchihuapi Creek (on the north side of which sits the main, MV-II, occupation), and additional stratigraphic work is needed to relate the sequence here to the sequence that has been so well elucidated in the area of the site itself (Dillehay's Zones A and D). In addition, further excavations are needed to seek additional cultural materials and radiocarbon samples. In saying this, we are simply agreeing with and repeating what Dillehay himself feels is needed to clarify the MV-I situation."

The simple fact is that I believe that Tom Dillehay had the evidence of an extremely old occupation of the Americas nearly 20 years ago and chose not to push his discovery for fear of a career destroying backlash.

 

Therefore the question is still an open one: Does Monte Verde really date to nearly twice as old as the date given in the current paper? Is it actually 33000BP? Or even the unthinkably ancient 44000BP? As Dillehay succinctly put it in the abstract of his latest paper "previous research" needs to be "re-examined".

 

Update 06/12/15

Whilst pursuing further detail on Dillehay's views on the very early radiocarbon dates (33000Bp)  assigned to MV-I , I came across an interesting quote on the Earthmeasure website (Here):
 

" In the last few years, scientifically troubling comments have been made by leading US paleoarchaeologists about another site in Chile near the Monte Verde site dated to 14,000 years. This other site was discovered with blood-soaked lithics and dated to 33,000 years. The discoverer is on record saying, “I wish those [33k] dates would go away.” A prominent Texas archaeologist seconded that motion at an event in 2008 proposing that those dates and/or artifacts should be put in a box for ten years until they figured out what to do with them."

I will of course, look further into the details of these statements and verify/reference them.

Update 20/12/15

I have found another set of dates for Monte Verde! See my post here.

 

References

1. Dillehay TD, Ocampo C, Saavedra J, Sawakuchi AO, Vega RM, Pino M, et al. (2015) New Archaeological Evidence for an Early Human Presence at Monte Verde, Chile. PLoS ONE 10(11): e0141923. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141923

2. Dillehay, T.D. 1997. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Volume II: The Archaeological Context. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1997.

3. Dillehay, T.D. 1989. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Volume I: The Paleo-environment and Site Context. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

4. FIEDEL, S.J. 1999 Artifact Provenience at Monte Verde: Confusion and Contradictions. Discovering Archaeology. Special Report. 1(6):1-12.

5. Pino, M. Geology in 2 above.

 

6. Dillehay TD, Pino M. Chronology and Stratigraphy in 2 above.

 

7. Denton GH, Lowell TV, Heusser CJ, Schlüchter C, Andersen BG, Heusser LE, et al. Geomorphology, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Chronology of Llanquihue Drift in the Area of the Southern Lake District, Seno Reloncavi, and Isla Grande de Chiloé, Chile. Geografiska Annaler. 1999; 81(2): 167–229. doi: 10.1111/1468-0459.00057

 

8. Dillehay TD, Collins MB. Early cultural evidence from Monte Verde in Chile. Nature 1988; 332: 150–152. doi: 10.1038/332150a0

 

9.  Dillehay TD et al. 2008. Monte Verdee: Seaweed, Food, Medicine and the Peopling of South America Science 9 May 2008: Vol. 320 no. 5877 pp. 784-786. 
DOI: 10.1126/science.1156533

 

10. Haynes, C.V. Jnr. 1999. Monte Verde and the Pre-Clovis situation in America. Scientific American Discovering Archaeology, Special Report: Monte Verde Revisited. November/December 17-19.