Dr. Tom Dillehay

That cave yielded what's called fishtail points, projectile points. And in the base of it, allegedly kind of a flute-like removal of a flake, something similar to Clovis. And at that time in South America, the evidence was incredibly clear. scarce. So the connection was made between the peopling of the north, peopling of the south.

Clovis had moved very rapidly all the way from the north down to South America in Patagonia at Fell's Cave. And that was the theory that was set for the next 70 years or so. There's always been sites, other sites in North and South America, a few in Mexico as well, that have threatened the Clovis first paradigm or theory.

Clovis had moved very rapidly all the way from the north down to South America in Patagonia at Fell's Cave. And that was the theory that was set for the next 70 years or so. There's always been sites, other sites in North and South America, a few in Mexico as well, that have threatened the Clovis first paradigm or theory.

Clovis had moved very rapidly all the way from the north down to South America in Patagonia at Fell's Cave. And that was the theory that was set for the next 70 years or so. There's always been sites, other sites in North and South America, a few in Mexico as well, that have threatened the Clovis first paradigm or theory.

But people debunk them because the proponents of Clovis are strong headed group of people. It was the first theory and we're going to hold on to it. So a lot of these sites were legitimately rejected. The radiocarbon data was questionable. The geological stratigraphy, questionable. Human artifacts, questionable. That goes on to today.

But people debunk them because the proponents of Clovis are strong headed group of people. It was the first theory and we're going to hold on to it. So a lot of these sites were legitimately rejected. The radiocarbon data was questionable. The geological stratigraphy, questionable. Human artifacts, questionable. That goes on to today.

But people debunk them because the proponents of Clovis are strong headed group of people. It was the first theory and we're going to hold on to it. So a lot of these sites were legitimately rejected. The radiocarbon data was questionable. The geological stratigraphy, questionable. Human artifacts, questionable. That goes on to today.

And in the late 70s through the 80s, excavating Monte Verde was probably the first archaeological site in the Americas, along with Metacroft Shelter in Pennsylvania, that really threatened the Clovis paradigm. In around 2010 or 11, After some 30 years of excavating, Monte Verde was finally accepted as the site that broke the Clovis barrier, so to speak.

And in the late 70s through the 80s, excavating Monte Verde was probably the first archaeological site in the Americas, along with Metacroft Shelter in Pennsylvania, that really threatened the Clovis paradigm. In around 2010 or 11, After some 30 years of excavating, Monte Verde was finally accepted as the site that broke the Clovis barrier, so to speak.

And in the late 70s through the 80s, excavating Monte Verde was probably the first archaeological site in the Americas, along with Metacroft Shelter in Pennsylvania, that really threatened the Clovis paradigm. In around 2010 or 11, After some 30 years of excavating, Monte Verde was finally accepted as the site that broke the Clovis barrier, so to speak.

Yeah, I was. I mean, it was difficult at times with people, you know, Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called The Structure Scientific Revolution, talking about paradigm change in science. And he says that well-entrenched models and theories like, he doesn't talk about Clovis, but we could say Clovis takes a long, long time. to overthrow those theories with a lot of evidence, a lot of persistence.

Yeah, I was. I mean, it was difficult at times with people, you know, Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called The Structure Scientific Revolution, talking about paradigm change in science. And he says that well-entrenched models and theories like, he doesn't talk about Clovis, but we could say Clovis takes a long, long time. to overthrow those theories with a lot of evidence, a lot of persistence.

Yeah, I was. I mean, it was difficult at times with people, you know, Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called The Structure Scientific Revolution, talking about paradigm change in science. And he says that well-entrenched models and theories like, he doesn't talk about Clovis, but we could say Clovis takes a long, long time. to overthrow those theories with a lot of evidence, a lot of persistence.

There's personal attacks involved, people attacking the data. It took us about 30, 35 years to convince people. And what made it easier for me, well, it wasn't easy, let me say that, was that I was doing other projects too. And so it was kind of like my default projects that kept my mind pretty straight. And I just, the preponderance of evidence eventually at Monte Verde convinced the discipline.

There's personal attacks involved, people attacking the data. It took us about 30, 35 years to convince people. And what made it easier for me, well, it wasn't easy, let me say that, was that I was doing other projects too. And so it was kind of like my default projects that kept my mind pretty straight. And I just, the preponderance of evidence eventually at Monte Verde convinced the discipline.

There's personal attacks involved, people attacking the data. It took us about 30, 35 years to convince people. And what made it easier for me, well, it wasn't easy, let me say that, was that I was doing other projects too. And so it was kind of like my default projects that kept my mind pretty straight. And I just, the preponderance of evidence eventually at Monte Verde convinced the discipline.

But following Kuhn, the paradigm never completely falls until, as he says, the last diehard proponents of the old theory die away.

But following Kuhn, the paradigm never completely falls until, as he says, the last diehard proponents of the old theory die away.

But following Kuhn, the paradigm never completely falls until, as he says, the last diehard proponents of the old theory die away.

Yeah, first of all, back then, the site was about 50 kilometers away from the Pacific coast, located in the headwaters of a small stream called Chinchuapi that was, at the time, probably about five meters wide. And it was located in a open forest, what we call a cool temperate rainforest.