Dr. Tom Dillehay

No, you don't. That's why Monteverdi, for a long time, beyond the radiocarbon dates of being 1,500 years older than Clovis, was controversial. How can you have these kinds of things? We haven't found this before. And it was somewhat shocking to the discipline.

No, you don't. That's why Monteverdi, for a long time, beyond the radiocarbon dates of being 1,500 years older than Clovis, was controversial. How can you have these kinds of things? We haven't found this before. And it was somewhat shocking to the discipline.

No, you don't. That's why Monteverdi, for a long time, beyond the radiocarbon dates of being 1,500 years older than Clovis, was controversial. How can you have these kinds of things? We haven't found this before. And it was somewhat shocking to the discipline.

A very good question, and you're right at the truth. As they went through different ecological zones, adapting to different places at different times with this environment over thousands of years, constantly changing, then they had to adapt their life ways, and that included... consumption of different resources and different technologies.

A very good question, and you're right at the truth. As they went through different ecological zones, adapting to different places at different times with this environment over thousands of years, constantly changing, then they had to adapt their life ways, and that included... consumption of different resources and different technologies.

A very good question, and you're right at the truth. As they went through different ecological zones, adapting to different places at different times with this environment over thousands of years, constantly changing, then they had to adapt their life ways, and that included... consumption of different resources and different technologies.

But we do see in the scrapers and the adzes and cutting stone tools and the projectile points some degree of similarity. And also, what we find a lot of in South America, and I haven't mentioned this, are what's called bola stones. These are spheroids. that have grooves around them. And they're still used today by some of the indigenous groups in Patagonia.

But we do see in the scrapers and the adzes and cutting stone tools and the projectile points some degree of similarity. And also, what we find a lot of in South America, and I haven't mentioned this, are what's called bola stones. These are spheroids. that have grooves around them. And they're still used today by some of the indigenous groups in Patagonia.

But we do see in the scrapers and the adzes and cutting stone tools and the projectile points some degree of similarity. And also, what we find a lot of in South America, and I haven't mentioned this, are what's called bola stones. These are spheroids. that have grooves around them. And they're still used today by some of the indigenous groups in Patagonia.

They're used as sling stones or as kind of bolas that you throw and it wraps around the legs of a bird or a small animal or stuns them by hitting them and you capture them. These were found at Monte Verde and they're found at a number of early sites in Patagonia. And they're also found at early sites along the Rio Grande in cave sites in Texas and New Mexico.

They're used as sling stones or as kind of bolas that you throw and it wraps around the legs of a bird or a small animal or stuns them by hitting them and you capture them. These were found at Monte Verde and they're found at a number of early sites in Patagonia. And they're also found at early sites along the Rio Grande in cave sites in Texas and New Mexico.

They're used as sling stones or as kind of bolas that you throw and it wraps around the legs of a bird or a small animal or stuns them by hitting them and you capture them. These were found at Monte Verde and they're found at a number of early sites in Patagonia. And they're also found at early sites along the Rio Grande in cave sites in Texas and New Mexico.

Well, the site, going back to its geological setting, is on a high portion, the upper end of this creek, that's on a high ridge that runs from east to west. So it would be kind of a footpath from the ocean to the Andes. But Monte Verde II, as I've mentioned before, may be occupied for a year.

Well, the site, going back to its geological setting, is on a high portion, the upper end of this creek, that's on a high ridge that runs from east to west. So it would be kind of a footpath from the ocean to the Andes. But Monte Verde II, as I've mentioned before, may be occupied for a year.

Well, the site, going back to its geological setting, is on a high portion, the upper end of this creek, that's on a high ridge that runs from east to west. So it would be kind of a footpath from the ocean to the Andes. But Monte Verde II, as I've mentioned before, may be occupied for a year.

But if Monte Verde I, with these different depths of minute portions of evidence suggesting a human presence off and on for another 10, 12, 15,000 years, there exists the possibility of people there long before Monte Verde II at 14,500 years ago. It's just unproven as yet. And the problem is once you excavate Monte Verde II, it's like going from riches to rags.

But if Monte Verde I, with these different depths of minute portions of evidence suggesting a human presence off and on for another 10, 12, 15,000 years, there exists the possibility of people there long before Monte Verde II at 14,500 years ago. It's just unproven as yet. And the problem is once you excavate Monte Verde II, it's like going from riches to rags.

But if Monte Verde I, with these different depths of minute portions of evidence suggesting a human presence off and on for another 10, 12, 15,000 years, there exists the possibility of people there long before Monte Verde II at 14,500 years ago. It's just unproven as yet. And the problem is once you excavate Monte Verde II, it's like going from riches to rags.

Because there we have this pausity of information, you know, in the deeper levels. There are some sites in Brazil and elsewhere in South America that might date 16,000 to 20,000, 22,000 years ago. But they're controversial as well, as is Monte Verde 1. And they still need to be proven. So there's hints out across the continent of people being there earlier, as there are in North America as well.

Because there we have this pausity of information, you know, in the deeper levels. There are some sites in Brazil and elsewhere in South America that might date 16,000 to 20,000, 22,000 years ago. But they're controversial as well, as is Monte Verde 1. And they still need to be proven. So there's hints out across the continent of people being there earlier, as there are in North America as well.