Chile at the Heart of the Debate on American Colonization: Scientists Confirm Monte Verde’s Age at 14,500 Years

Original article: Chile en el centro del debate sobre el poblamiento americano: Científicos reafirman antigüedad de 14,500 años para Monte Verde

International Scientists Disprove Study Questioning Monte Verde’s Age: ‘They Didn’t Dig a Single Shovel at the Site’

Three independent scientific letters published in response to an article in Science in March 2026 have dismantled the conclusions that sought to reinterpret the chronology of the Monte Verde II archaeological site in southern Chile. The rebuttal authors—Tom D. Dillehay, Michael R. Waters, and David J. Meltzer—backed by teams from universities and research centers in the United States, Europe, and Latin America, reaffirm the approximate Pleistocene age of 14,500 years for the site.

The letters, cited by El Heraldo Austral, demonstrate that the study by Todd Surovell, César Méndez, and Claudio Latorre “contains fundamental errors and incorrect interpretations” regarding one of the most significant findings for understanding the early peopling of America.

The Absence of Direct Excavation: The Fundamental Methodological Error

One of the most compelling criticisms from the rebuttals highlights the methodological approach of the questioned study. According to the published letters, Surovell and his team did not conduct excavations within the original site nor directly analyze the complete stratigraphy, basing their conclusions on observations made from outcrops located between 50 and 4,000 meters away from Monte Verde II.

These exposures, the rebuttal authors indicate, correspond to complex and heterogeneous sedimentary contexts, and their direct correlation with the archaeological site was never empirically demonstrated. Tom D. Dillehay, the principal investigator of Monte Verde, emphasized in statements reported by the press: ‘Their entire study was conducted around 50 to 4,000 meters away. It’s as if I wanted to write a biography of your life, and you are still alive and I haven’t interviewed you.’

Lepué Tephra and the Geological Confusion That Dismantles the Fluvial Hypothesis

Another key point in the debate revolves around the so-called Lepué Tephra, a layer of regional volcanic ash approximately 11,000 years old, which according to the Science article, would be located beneath the human occupation levels of Monte Verde II. However, the scientific teams responding to the study maintain that this tephra has never been identified by experts who have excavated the site since 1977. Moreover, they argue that the authors confused sedimentary deposits and mineral formations with volcanic material due to superficial chromatic similarities.

The letter led by Michael R. Waters, an independent scientist not affiliated with the Monte Verde project, states that available geochemical analyses do not confirm that the identified deposit actually corresponds to Lepué Tephra, thus refuting one of the chronological pillars of the original study.

Archaeological and Genetic Evidence Incompatible with Later Redeployment

The scientific rebuttals also demonstrate that the hypothesis of a fluvial redeployment of archaeological materials is untenable. Luminescence dating (OSL) performed on the river sands at the base of the site yielded ages between 18,100 and 14,300 years, indicating that the inhabited surface existed during the late Pleistocene. This is complemented by human footprints, fire pits, wooden structures, exceptionally preserved plant remains, and over 400 vertebrate fossils.

According to the researchers, the integrity of these materials is incompatible with a later fluvial transport, as a current of that magnitude would have destroyed much of the evidence.

Additionally, the letter led by David J. Meltzer includes paleogenomic evidence, noting that the divergence between ancestral populations of Native Americans occurred approximately 15,700 years ago, necessitating human occupations prior to Clovis culture in South America. Meltzer warns: ‘The conclusions of Surovell et al. not only ignore the evidence from Monte Verde but also decades of research across various disciplines.’

Monte Verde: More Than a Date and the Preservation of Its Archaeological Collection

Researchers emphasize that Monte Verde is not just a chronological discussion. The site preserves remains of two huts associated with thousands of fragments of animal hides, bone, stone, and wood tools, as well as local and exotic plant remains reflecting a settlement of about 15 to 20 people.

In response to criticisms about an alleged «unacceptable embargo» of the archaeological collection, researchers reminded that the materials have been under the custody of the Universidad Austral de Chile since the 1980s and that access is regulated by the National Monuments Council, the Chilean state entity.

When Science Becomes a Trench: The Debate Over Credentials

A previous article published in April 2026 by Eugenia Gayo at the CR2 research center, highlights the underlying tensions in this controversy. The author notes that while disagreement is part of the scientific method, the recent debate has shifted the focus from data to the credentials of the researchers.

“The problem is not the disagreement, but how it is expressed,” Gayo writes, observing that part of the response from the Monte Verde Foundation has focused on the researchers’ backgrounds or the fact that they did not directly excavate the site, instead of remaining solely on the evidence level.

The author warns that “rigor is lost when the discussion turns into a defense of scientific, institutional, and symbolic territory,” and calls for safeguarding conditions so that science remains a space for critical discussion, not a battleground where ideas become flags.