Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Surovell and colleagues’ recent publication claiming that the Monte Verde II archaeological component dates to the Middle Holocene rather than the Late Pleistocene has generated considerable controversy. We argue that perhaps the most significant contribution of their study is not its chronological conclusions, but what it represents as a scientific practice; that is, the first truly independent geochronological investigation of one of the most consequential archaeological sites in the Western Hemisphere. We contend that Monte Verde's long absence of independent investigation reflects broader structural features of how archaeology treats foundational claims and the scholars associated with them. Independent replication should not inherently be considered an attack on prior work or those who authored it. It is quite literally the process of how science advances. This lesson extends well beyond Monte Verde.
Tune et al. (Wed,) studied this question.