Returning to a Landscape Is Not Replicating a Site: Monte Verde II and the South American Record of Reevaluation

Recent debate over Monte Verde II has framed independent replication as the central virtue of archaeological science. This commentary agrees that canonical claims require scrutiny but argues that independence alone is not a method. Reassessment must address the evidentiary object under dispute: the archaeological component, its stratigraphy, associations, spatial patterning, and formation history. South American examples show that meaningful reevaluation requires contextual commensurability, not merely return, proximity, or critique.