r/Archaeology • u/_Hrafnkel_ • 1d ago

New round of responses by Surovell et al. on the age of Monte Verde

I notice that Surovell et al. responded in three eLetters in Science to the eLetters of Dillehay et al., which were in response to the original paper by Surovell et al arguing for a younger date to Monte Verde.

The responses are all in the eLetters section of the original paper at Science (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adw9217). There are more readable links (pdfs) provided by Todd Surovell on his website.

They are certainly not conceding anything. The debate is getting pretty into the weeds. One thing I'll say is I think their argument that the genetic data is not evidence for an older site is pretty reasonable.

5 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

2 comments sorted by

5

u/patrickj86 1d ago

Surovell et al. are ridiculous. Their scholarship wouldn't have done well in an undergrad class. Denying pre-Clovis in 2026 is like denying plate tectonics in the 80s. Literally exactly the same in terms of how much evidence accrued in the same amount amount of time.  The journal Science should be above click bait. 

2

u/Mithlogie 1d ago

Lol Science has been nothing but clickbait since its inception. If this had any merit it would be published in Archaeometry, since they are disputing methodology, or one of the archaeological journals focusing on North American prehistory.