Replication as a Virtue: What the Monte Verde Debate Tells Us About Archaeological Science

2026/04/08 by Jesse W. Tune, D. Shane Miller · 1 voice
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Physics and Astronomy · #Archaeological Research and Protection #Archaeology and ancient environmental studies #Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life

paper · doi:10.1080/20555563.2026.2653407

openalex publication_date 2026/04/08 · openalex created_date 2026/04/09 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/18

Abstract

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.

Citations

• Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises
• Confirming a Cultural Association at the La Prele Mammoth Site (48CO1401), Converse County, Wyoming
• The Logic of Scientific Discovery
• A mid-Holocene age for Monte Verde challenges the timeline of human colonization of South America

Discussions

• Replication in the wild: "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." doi. [bsky, 0 points, 0 comments]