79

Chapter 4

Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the
Southern Cone of South America

Gustavo G. Politisa and Luciano Pratesb

a Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
b Universidad Nacional de la Plata, Argentina.

Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Abstract

The Southern Cone of South America (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Southeast-
ern Brazil) was the last continental mass colonized by humans. Until recently, the
discussion about the peopling of the Americas revolved around the Clovis First-
Pre-Clovis debate. Nowadays, the axis of this debate has changed (it has been
consistently proved that there were people in the Americas before Clovis) and the
central debate is if humans were South of the Laurentide/Cordilleran Ice Sheet
after or before the onset of deglaciation (ca. 18 to 19 ky) of the Last Glacial Maxi-
mum (LGM). However, while several models have been proposed to uphold the
first hypothesis, the second one is only supported by isolated site reports and
sparse data. With very few exceptions, no coherent models have been proposed
to integrate the few suggested pre-LGM sites sprawled in the continent. In this
scenario, a fine-grain study of the timing of the arrival and the spatial occupation
sequences of the expansion process is significant to understand the pattern of
colonization of Homo sapiens in the Americas. In this chapter, we summarize and
discuss the evidence from some key sites in the Southern Cone with pre- and
post- onset of LGM deglaciation ages. We present a compilation of the earliest
14C dates as a proxy of human presence in the Southern Cone, both from samples
(charcoal, faunal remains, etc.) associated with human presence as well from
human skeletons. Based this data, we analyze the main chronological trends and
spatial sequences in the region. Finally, we contrast our results from the Southern
Cone with the new continental scale models of peopling of the Americas, based
on ancient DNA. 

Resumen

El Cono Sur de Sudamérica (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay y el sureste de Brasil) fue
la última masa continental colonizada por los humanos. Hasta hace poco, la dis-
cusión sobre el poblamiento de América giró en torno al debate Clovis-Primero
vs. Pre-Clovis. Actualmente el eje del debate ha cambiado ya que ha sido acepta-
do consistentemente que hubo gente en el continente americano antes de 
Clovis), concentrándose en si los humanos estuvieron en el sur de la escudo gla-
cial Laurentino/Cordillerano antes o después del comienzo de desglaciación 

New Perspectives on the Peopling of the Americas, ed. by Katerina Harvati, Gerhard Jäger,
Hugo Reyes-Centeno. Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies Series.
© 2018, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, ISBN: 978-3-935751-28-5.



Politis and Prates

80 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

INTRODUCTION

The peopling of America is perhaps one of the longest and most contro-
versial debates in American Archaeology. This is probably because there
have been several persistent hypotheses related to the temporal, spatial
and cultural framework of the migration process. Since the early 1960s
there have been several competing models for the timing of the first peo-
pling of the Americas (e.g., Bird 1964; Bryan 1978; Cardich et al. 1973;
Krieger 1964; Lanning and Patterson 1967; Lynch 1974; Mac Neish
1978). With the exception of the hypothesis proposing an Atlantic-
Solutrean human entrance (Stanford and Bradley 2012), there is some
agreement among archaeologists that the first colonizers came into
America from North Eastern Asia via the Bering Land Bridge, the land-
mass between Eurasia and America exposed by lowered sea levels during
the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~ 24 to 21,000 cal BP1 sensu Pitblado
2011). Nevertheless, since opinions differ according to the timing of the
migration, the current controversy is not where the first Americans came
from, but when and how this dispersal happened. Some scholars propose
it was no earlier than 12,500 cal BP (or Clovis first model; e.g.,
Dickinson 2011; Fiedel and Kuzmin 2010; Fiedel 2017), others consider
an earlier arrival between 13,000 and 16,000 cal BP (Clovis second
explanations; Goebel et al. 2008; Haynes 2015; Pitblado 2011), and still
others hold that the peopling occurred during or before the LGM (e.g.,

(ca. 18-19 mil años) del Último Máximo Glacial (UMG). Sin embargo, mientras
varios modelos han sido propuestos para defender la primera hipótesis, la segun-
da solo ha sido apoyada por reportes aislados y escasos datos. No se han pro-
puesto modelos coherentes que integren los pocos sitios del continente que pre-
ceden el UMG. En este marco, un estudio detallado sobre el momento de llegada,
así como de las secuencias de ocupación espacial del proceso de expansión, es
importante para entender el patrón de colonización del Homo sapiens en Améri-
ca. En este capítulo se resumirán y discutirán las evidencias de algunos sitios
clave del Cono Sur que datan de antes y después del comienzo de desglaciación
del UMG. Presentamos una compilación de los fechados radiocarbónicos más
tempranos como un proxy de la ocupación humana del Cono Sur, tanto de mues-
tras asociadas a presencia humana (carbón, restos de fauna, etc.), como de res-
tos óseos humanos. Basándonos en los gráficos producidos con esta base de
datos, analizamos las principales tendencias cronológicas y las secuencias
espaciales de la región. Finalmente, contrastamos nuestros resultados del Cono
Sur con los nuevos modelos del poblamiento americano de escala continental
basados en ADN antiguo.

1 We will follow Millard (2014:557) to report the dates: BP for the original uncalibrat-
ed 14C determination, cal BP for the calibrated date, generally given here as approxi-
mate midpoint in the age range. However, we recognize that “point estimates of
dates (e.g., median calibrated age) cannot represent the uncertainties involved”
(Millard 2014: 557) and therefore, we add the probability range when we refer to
specific dates. Lab number for specific dates discussed in this article can be found in
Table 1. 



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

81Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Boëda et al. 2013, 2014; Guidon and Delibrias 1986; Parenti 2001;
Vialou 2005). 

With the increasing sophistication of the study of ancient human
DNA, the model for the peopling of the Americas became more precise.
Ancient DNA has made it possible to approach a variety of issues. Most
of these studies support a pre-Clovis (pre-12,500 cal BP) but post LGM
antiquity for the dispersal into the Americas, although with some varia-
tions. Ancient mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates that Homo sapiens
populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-
easterly distribution at ~ 24,000 cal BP (Raghavan et al. 2013) and later
must have become mixed with East Asian populations who by ~ 22,000
cal BP had occupied some areas of Western Beringia (Rasmussen et al.
2014). This Northeast Asiatic population, contemporary Native Ameri-
cans, and human skeletons from North America’s late Pleistocene are all
strongly connected genetically (Haynes 2015). The European admixture
of this founding population occurred long before they dispersed to the
New World. A recent sequencing of the mitochondrial genome suggests
that a small population entered the Americas via a coastal route (as pro-
posed long ago by Fladmark 1979) ~ 16,000 cal BP, following previous
isolation in eastern Beringia for 2400 to 9000 years after separation from
eastern Siberian populations (Tamm et al. 2007; Llamas et al. 2016). This
model proposed that the first peoples likely moved from Asia across the
Bering Land Bridge (Mulligan and Kitchen 2013). At that time, much of
northern North America was covered by the Cordilleran and Laurentide
ice sheets, which blocked access from eastern Beringia southward to the
rest of the Americas. However, shortly after the Cordilleran ice sheet
began to retreat at ~17,000 cal BP, a potential Pacific coastal path became
available ~15,000 cal BP (Mandryk et al. 2001; Taylor et al. 2014),
whereas an alternative route through an inland ice-free corridor along the
eastern side of the Rocky Mountains opened around ~11,500 to
11,000 cal BP (Llamas et al. 2016) or a couple of millennia earlier (Ives
et al. 2013). Pedersen et al. (2016) found the first evidence of steppe veg-
etation, bison and mammoth in the ice-free corridor by ~12,600 cal BP,
revealing that the first Americans, whether Clovis or earlier groups
before 12,600 cal BP, were unlikely to have travelled by this route into
the Americas. The distribution of some of the rare founding mitochondri-
al haplogroups (D4h3a along the Pacific coast of the Americas, and X2a
in northwestern North America) suggests that distinct migrations along
the coastal route and the ice-free corridor occurred within less than 2000
yrs (Perego et al. 2009). Independently of the number of migration
waves, the founding population appears to have rapidly grown and
expanded southward with low levels of gene flow among areas following
the initial dispersion (Llamas et al. 2016; Reich et al. 2012; Wang et al.
2007).

The timing and routes used in the migration event(s) are important in
understanding the size, number, and speed of the first migratory wave(s).
Most of the chronological estimations are based on the radiocarbon dates



Politis and Prates

82 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

of the archaeological sites and on the molecular clock. Unfortunately, the
precision of molecular clock studies in the Americas to date has been lim-
ited by the low genetic diversity and lack of appropriate calibration
points to accurately estimate rates of molecular evolution (Llamas et al.
2016). As a result, current mitochondrial molecular clock estimates of the
initial entry into the Americas, which assume that the event corresponds
to the initial diversification of Native American genetic lineages, range
from 26,300 to 9700 cal BP (Llamas et al. 2016). In this context, the
accuracy of the radiocarbon dates are crucial to specify both the time and
the speed of the colonization wave(s) and to set appropriate calibration
points.

In this chapter we will discuss the initial peopling of the Southern
Cone of the Americas (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and
Southern Brazil, ca. 5,000,000 km2) by analyzing the chronological data
from the area. We will mainly critically evaluate earliest and controver-
sial sites and assess and compare the distributions of radiocarbon dates
from four different sub-regions: the Southern Andes (including the Pacif-
ic rim); the Pampas (including the Brazilian Campos and Argentinian and
Uruguayan plains); Central-West Argentina; and Patagonia (including
Tierra del Fuego) (Fig. 1). In this way, we will evaluate the main chrono-
logical implications for both the colonization process of South America
and the peopling of the whole continent.

RADIOCARBON DATA

It should be first noted that the coverage of research on peopling of the
Americas is markedly uneven. Clearly, some regions of North America
are the most intensively studied (e.g., the Great Plains, California), as a
result not only of research interests but also of Cultural Research
Management projects (CRM). In other areas such as Amazonia and
Chaco in South America, the density of early sites is very low for three
reasons: the low archaeological visibility, the very low density of current
human occupation and land development, and the scarcity of long term
archaeological research projects focusing on early periods. Therefore,
any discussion on the mode of expansion, the preferred environments,
the speed of the colonization and the routes of entry, at least in South
America, must take into account such bias and ponder the hypotheses in
terms of the uneven data density. We strongly agree with Haynes (2015:
136) that “The route taken [by the first populations] is still anyone’s
guess.” 

The radiocarbon age of any human event, usually estimated by asso-
ciation with a given datable sample, is a problematic issue. As we discuss
below, the use of density of radiocarbon dates in a region or during a peri-
od of time as a proxy for past demographic variations in time and space is
not direct and is subject to several constraints (e.g., Johnson and Brook
2011; Shennan et al. 2013; Steele 2010; Surovell and Brantingham 2007;
Surovell et al. 2009; Williams 2012). Moreover, the refinement in the



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

83Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

analytical methodologies extracting the CO2, as well as in the measure-
ment and statistics of the results obtained have complicated the problem
and made comparisons between dates with different pre-treatments and
methodologies of measurement more difficult. The recent debate about
the age of Clovis is a good example of how different validation criteria
and standards of dates and sites have produced different results (Roo-
sevelt et al. 2002; Waters and Sttaford 2007, 2013; Haynes et al. 2007;
Haynes 2015). 

Constructing and managing a radiocarbon database is a complex task
because many factors are involved in the process between obtaining a
sample and getting a number expressed in 14C yr BP. The source of vari-
ation is the consequence of the different actions and actors involved and
therefore the data-base is generated by the publications of hundreds of
different researchers who obtained samples and sent them to tens of dif-

Fig. 1. 
Regions of the Southern Cone
of South America with the sites
discussed in the text.



Politis and Prates

84 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

ferent radiocarbon labs which extract the CO2 using a variety of tech-
niques and finally measure their radiometric activity in different types of
machines. Needless to say, the interpretation of the obtained data and
their association with any given event is affected by subjectivity, which
varies from personal academic agendas, scientific training and speciality,
to more subtle socio-political interests and bias. By stating this, we are
neither denying the usefulness of radiocarbon databases nor undermining
the scientific foundation of the radiocarbon methodology, but wish to
stress that the many issues involved in these processes should be taken
into account when building a database and interpreting the main trends
that emerge from this base. Considering these constraints, this chapter
does not aim to make fine-grained inferences about demography or cul-
tural variability in the past but to identify and discuss the main trends and
intensity of the human signal emerging from the sum of probability
curves. 

The dataset we are working with has taken several years to be built
and has been used to perform analyses on the early human occupation of
South America at both country and continental scales (Bueno et al. 2013).
In this chapter we explore this question in-depth at the intermediate scale
of the Southern Cone. Our chronological scope is limited to the final
Pleistocene and early Holocene (sensu Walker et al. 2012), covering the
period between 30,000 and 7500 BP.

The database is composed of selected samples, which implies several
levels of confidence, which are not mechanically determined (see Steele
and Politis 2009, for South American examples). We evaluated the qual-
ity of dates by primarily taking into account the context, that is, the asso-
ciation between the sample and the event it is intended to date. In a sec-
ond stage, we also considered issues related to pre-treatment and contam-
ination. Then we excluded from the database dates with weak evidence
for an association with human activity; dates obtained from samples pre-
sumed to be contaminated; dates called into question by the authors of
the primary publication; dates with ambiguous results from re-dating;
dates with sigmas of more than 350 yrs; and dates from soil organic mat-
ter because they do not directly date the human occupation. 

More recently Surovell et al. (2016) have refined the date selection
criteria when discussing the age of Folsom. They were mostly concerned
with context and pre- treatment/contamination and they preferred bone to
charcoal if pre-treatment could always successfully remove contamina-
tion, because dates of wood charcoal can suffer from old wood problems
which potentially add large errors. Although similar problems would
occur with “old bones,” animal bones that display marks, impact feature
and other evidence of anthropic action leave little doubt about the associ-
ation between humans and age at death of the animal. 

Although charcoal has been a more reliable material than bone,
because removing exogenous carbon from charcoal samples is usually
straightforward, this situation has changed in the last years due to
improvements in the bone pre-treatment. Nowadays the development of



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

85Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

XAD resin chromatographic (Stafford et al. 1989, 1991) and ultrafiltra-
tion (Brown et al. 1988) has successfully removed contaminants
(although ultrafiltration has been recently questioned by Lindsey et al.
2016) and therefore bones pre-treated with these two techniques are pre-
ferred by Surovell et al. (2016). They also favoured the macroscopically
friable highly crystalline calcinated bones because many recent studies
show that this type of sample produces reliable dates on bone apatite (see
Rubinos 2009). The other problem with charcoal is that, if not obtained
from a hearth feature, it could have a natural origin (i.e., wildfires) and
therefore does not date any human event. The radiocarbon dates on char-
coal have been the key to “ the Paleoindian geochronology for more than
60 years, but there are reasons to believe that many charcoal dates are not
dating directly any Folsom [or Paleoindian] occupation; instead they are
likely dating the litho- and pedostratigraphic units associated with those
occupations” (Surovell et al. 2016: 87). Although at an early stage of
research, this material was useful for broadly defining the chronological
framework of the American peopling and the first technological trends
and economic strategies, in the current stage the isolated charcoal dating
should be considered low-quality samples. Taking all these issues into
account, Surovell et al. (2016: 83) had selected data strictly, including
only samples from bone collagen pre-treated with XAD or ultrafiltration
methods, dates on apatite carbonate from calcinated bones, and dates on
charcoal samples from hearth structures. We would like to use the same
strict selection criteria used in Steele and Politis (2009) and Surovell et
al. (2016) but it would be difficult for several reasons. First, in many cas-
es the pre-treatment of bone samples is not specified, and in most of the
cases where it is, neither XAD nor ultrafiltration were used. Secondly,
many samples come from isolated charcoal, and if we did not take them
into account, our database would be dramatically reduced. Thirdly, very
few samples have been obtained from calcinated bone apatite. Therefore,
we will privilege the criteria of Surovell et al. (2016) only in the specific
discussions on the chronology of some key sites. 

CONTROVERSIAL LGM OR PRE-LGM SITES

Some sites deserve to be considered interesting candidates to go through
and beyond the LGM chronological barrier, but such consideration
requires a greater degree of chronological and context resolution and
greater detail in the publication of basic data. Most of these sites are not
located in the Southern Cone, and are therefore beyond the scope of this
chapter. Only three sites in the Southern Cone have produced LGM or
pre-LGM ages: Arroyo del Vizcaíno (Fariña et al. 2014a and 2014b;
Fariña 2015), and Chinchihuapi 1 and 2 at Monte Verde (Dillehay et al.
2015). We will not include the ages of these sites in the database of
accepted dates for several reasons that we will explain below. 

The Arroyo del Vizcaíno site, Uruguay, has yielded more than 1000
bones belonging to at least 27 individuals, most of them corresponding to



Politis and Prates

86 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

the giant sloth Lestodon armatus (94% of the identifiable specimens,
NISP = 732, MNI= 17). These bones are in Bed 2 and 3 in the streambed
of Arroyo Vizcaíno. The radiocarbon age of the assemblage, based on 9
dates, is between ~ 27,000 and 30,100 BP: “except for the rib URU 0496,
the other eight dates are statistically the same (p. 0.05) and their pooled
average is 29 ± 0.106 14C ka, between 32,298 and 31,219 cal ka BP”
(Fariña et al. 2014a: 2). According to these authors, the bone assemblage
has some features suggesting human origin, such as the mortality profile,
dominated by prime adults, and the presence of cut marks in some bones
(registered in 5% of the identifiable bones) of the Pleistocene fauna (Far-
iña 2015). Moreover, they also collected a few possible lithic artifacts,
one of which has the shape of a scraper. However, the authors are not
entirely confident about these artifacts: “a few lithic elements were found
to have seemingly anthropogenic features” (p. 5). 

The site interpretation has been criticized by different authors (Bor-
rero 2015, 2016; Suarez et al. 2014; see Bracco 2015 and Fariña et al.
2014b for a rebuttal). Briefly, the main problems are as follows: 

1. The site is formed by a streambed in a place where the stream
becomes deeper, forming a natural pond on a substrate of a
Cretaceous silicified sandstone assigned to the Mercedes Fm.
(Fig. 1a in Fariña et al. 2014a). This is a typical place for a bone
trap: a depression with hydraulic energy operating and hard rock
outcrops which would act as natural trapping devices for carcasses,
part of carcasses or disarticulated bones (Rogers and Kidwell 2007:
20–25). Although the authors proposed that fluvial agency has to be
ruled out as the main source of accumulation and that the fossil
assemblage shows little evidence for major hydraulic transport, the
position of the deposit (a streambed) and the presence of coarse
grain related to a high energy event (see Fariña et al. 2014a, supple-
mentary material) make their proposal questionable (see also
Suarez et al. 2014).

2. The very few lithic artifacts are not convincing, and even if they
were artifacts, their presence in a bone assemblage in a streambed
makes any association questionable. Moreover, we actually do not
know how many artifacts could be embedded in the bone assem-
blage because “during the fieldwork no systematic effort was made
to collect lithic material and only a part of this site has been exhaus-
tively explored” (Fariña et al. 2014a: 5). This is a methodological
shortcoming since in archaeological deposits, presumably of the
proposed age, all efforts have to be concentrated on recovering lith-
ic material and other cultural remains. This recovery is essential if
human activity is to be identified.

3. The third problem is that the authors stated that “natural trap or
other catastrophic sources can also be excluded, as they do not
show the inverted U-shaped age distribution found here ”(Fariña et
al. 2014a: 4) and that inverted U-shape profile is similar to that seen



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

87Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

in kill sites. However, taphonomic studies show a great variety of
natural mortality profiles, which are influenced by a myriad of fac-
tors: size of the animal, ethology and physiological capacities, den-
sity-mediating agents, presence of predators, among others (Kahlke
and Gaudzinsky 2005). In fact, there are several examples showing
that natural causes created records with the predominance of adult
individuals from a single species and the absence of immature indi-
viduals (such as wildebeest, Connochaetes taurinus, drowned in
Eastern Africa; Capaldo and Peters 1995). Another example
involves Cervus from the Untermassfeld assemblage (no hominin
presence detected), where the mortality pattern dominated by
prime-age individuals could be observed (Kahlke and Gaudzinsky
2005). To summarize, the discussion about mortality pattern both in
natural assemblages and in archaeological sites is a very complex
issue and by no means can the dominance of prime-age individual
in a given context be taken as unequivocal evidence of human
agency (Kahlke and Gaudzinsky 2005). 

4. The fourth and main argument for the human origin of the bone
assemblage at Arroyo del Vizcaíno site is the presence of some
bones with marks that have been interpreted as “the result of the
action of human tools” (Fariña et al. 2014a). Although Fariña
(2015) made a serious and honest effort describing both qualitative-
ly and quantitatively the morphology of these particular marks, his
claim of human agency as the most feasible cause suffers from
some problems. First, the probabilistic method that Fariña generat-
ed to distinguish these alleged cut marks from trampling marks is
based on Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009 and Bello and Soligo
2008. The former authors developed an actualistic database derived
from trampling experiments conducted under particular circum-
stances: trampling on different sediment types during a brief period
of time (2 minutes maximum) was done by three men wearing
shoes with grass soles (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009).
Therefore, as Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. correctly pointed out, the
results of their experimental study can only be used as an analogue
to interpret “archaeological and paleontological assemblages that
have undergone non-intensive trampling” (2009: 2653). This is not
the case for Arroyo del Vizcaíno site, where “Nearly 59 percent of
the bones collected showed modifications, with features identifi-
able as trampling marks” and “More than one-third of the bones
exhibited trampling abrasion marks on over 25 percent of their sur-
face area” (Fariña 2015: 195). Second, even if the results of the
trampling study are regarded as a proper frame of reference, the
complete discrimination between trampling and cut marks is not
possible due to some degree of overlap of their morphological fea-
tures (Dominguez-Rodriguez et al. 2009: 2643). Third, and more
importantly the study by Fariña (2015) of the alleged cut marks
focused on their morphology and left aside other lines of evidence



Politis and Prates

88 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

that point to their natural origin, specifically by trampling or other
incidental movement of the bone specimens on/in their sedimentary
substrate. Some of this evidence is the extensive and intensive
“trampling damage” in the bone assemblage previously mentioned.
In relation to this property at the assemblage level, it is important
to considerer the presence of gravel in the deposit, a sediment type
with great potential to produce abrasional modification on bones
during trampling or fluvial transport (Behrensmeyer et al. 1986;
Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009; Fernández-Jalvo and Andrew
2003; Olsen and Shipman 1988). Because different taphonomic
processes can produce similar bone modifications (i.e., equifinali-
ty), only a configurational approach in zooarchaeological analysis,
which takes into account not only the characteristics of a mark itself
but also other important variables at the assemblage and deposi-
tional levels, makes it possible to diagnose the origin of a mark with
high confidence (Behrensmeyer et al. 1986; Bunn 1991;
Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2010).

Given this scenario, we should probably follow the cautionary advice
presented by Fariña and collaborators: “Thus, the age of the site and the
scarcity of formal tools urge caution in interpretation. In any case, we
argue that the Arroyo del Vizcaíno site deserves to be included in the
agenda of early American peopling, either as a not foreseeable discovery
or as an example of natural processes mimicking human presence” (Far-
iña et al. 2014a: 5). Based on the current available data, the second possi-
bility seems to be more reliable and therefore, considering the previously
explained criteria, the ages of the site cannot be included in our database.

In a recent paper Dillehay et al. (2015) presented new radiocarbon
dates from presumed archaeological deposits between ca. 10,000 cal BP
and ca. 19,000 to 25,000 cal BP from Monte Verde (Central Chile). If
accepted, these new dates would push back the oldest evidence of
humans in the area by ca. 5 to 10 thousands years. The excavation of
more than 250 m2 (50 test pits and 10 block excavations), yielded 
39 lithics, 12 burned features, and 8 undetermined animal bones. On this
basis, the authors proposed the occurrence of “short term anthropogenic
activities, most likely associated with hunting and gathering, heating
food in small hearths, and producing and discarding expedient tools”
(Dillehay et al. 2015: 21) at least at 19,000 cal BP. We consider that the
combination of the following problems makes the available evidence
insufficient to hold the site as clear evidence of human presence in the
area. 

1. One limitation of the presented evidence is the scarcity of archaeo-
logical materials found in the sites. This quantitative constraint is
magnified by the large extent of the excavated surface and the wide
temporal range in which the materials were dated. According to the
study, a total of ca. 190 m2 would have been excavated (including



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

89Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

only block excavations and excluding test pits and cores), that is,
the lithic artifact density would be one in ca. 5 m2, and that of the
fauna remains one in ca. 23 m2. In addition, the problem is 
compounded by the fact that the materials are distributed over a
period of many thousand years; for example for the period
15,000–25,000 cal BP only 17 artifacts were reported (this is 1.7
artifact every 1000 years); and for the period 15,000–19,000 cal BP
only 12 (this is 3 artifacts every 1000 years) (Dillehay et al.
2015:15). Given that the authors consider most human activities at
the site were done around hearths (Dillehay et al. 2015: 21) and that
they defend a high integrity of the archaeological context (Dillehay
et al. 2015: 10), the extremely low density of evidence through time
and space becomes difficult to explain. 

2. Another related point is the complex way in which the origin of the
artifacts found in the sites is presented. The descriptions in the text
do not make it possible to form a clear and accurate picture of the
spatial relations and general context of the materials. It would be
interesting to know the quantity of materials found per stratigraphic
unit and by chronological period.

3. Beyond the mentioned issues, one of the most important limitations
in validating human presence at the site is the little discussion about
the anthropic signal in the materials found. Although the article
offers very detailed and exhaustive information on some aspects
(such as the description of the sedimentary context, chronology,
and some aspects of lithic materials), the criteria for determining
the anthropic origin of the artifacts were not clearly illustrated.
Although their quantitative variables are presented, most of the 
25 artifacts illustrated in Figures 6, 7, 8 and S6 do not show
unequivocal anthropic traits, except for the Paijan point dated 
~ 10,600 cal BP. In the case of the fauna the situation is similar; no
traces of anthropic marks and fractures were identified (Dillehay et
al. 2015: 21), and the presence of combustion evidence is not
enough to validate human action (Alperson-Afil 2012). Burnt
bones, resulting from carcasses burning in wildfires, have been
reported frequently in natural deposits (Haberle et al. 2001)

4. Another argument recurrently used by the authors to defend the
anthropic origin of the site, although insufficiently developed, is
the presence of allochthonous rocks. The main problem is that by
allochthonous rocks the authors meant rocks on rounded cobbles.
Secondary deposits often present many difficulties in determining
the origin of the rocks that compose them. If there is no ambiguity
in the local geology in determining the origin of the rounded cob-
bles, this should be expressed and substantiated more clearly.

Based on the limitations shown above, we consider that the human
signal in Chinchihuapi I and II and in Monte Verde I sites are still too
weak and too chronologically and spatially sparse to support an early



Politis and Prates

90 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

human presence. Even if we accept that the artifacts are indeed a human
product, the primary association with dated samples is not clearly sup-
ported. Further study about the site formation process is necessary to
confirm the relationship between the dated sample and the presumed
archaeological deposit. 

THE DATABASE: MAIN TRENDS 

After excluding dates following the criteria summarized above, we will
analyze and discuss the main trends emerging from a database composed
of 598 radiocarbon dates (694 including rejected dates) from 457 archae-
ological sites. Dates come from sites located in the South Andes (n=145);
the Pampas (n=144); Central Argentina (n=37), and Patagonia (n=172).
To reduce the biasing effects of non-uniform dating effort in different
sites, distribution of summed probability plots were run considering
“occupation” as units of analysis; when necessary these units were
obtained by calculating the average between overlapping dates from a
single site (Prates et al. 2013). The Calibration of radiocarbon ages was
done using Calib 7.0.1 (Reimer et al. 2013) and the SHCal13 calibration
curve (Hogg et al. 2013).

The oldest archaeological signal from the Southern Cone of South
America appears in the period between ca. 15,000 and 13,000 cal BP
(Fig. 2) and comes mostly from two sites: Monte Verde II (MV-II) and
Arroyo Seco 2 (AS2) (Table 1).

The Monte Verde site (MV-II) has been widely published and debated
(Dillehay 1989, 1997) and is currently considered the prime example of a
Pre-Clovis occupation in the Americas. The cultural layer MV-II dates
from 13,565 ± 250 BP (16,326 cal BP, range 15,572–17,080 cal BP) to
6550 ± 160 BP (7450 cal BP, range 7151–7676 cal BP ) but the author has
rejected some of the dates and proposed that the antiquity is between
12,780 ± 240 BP (14,992 cal BP, range 14,145–15,839 cal BP) and
12,000 ± 250 BP (14,010 cal BP, range 13,271–14,749 cal BP) (n = 13).
Potential problems for validation of the 14C dates have been addressed 
by different authors, although most of them have been resolved (see sum-

mary in Taylor 2009). Given the age disper-
sion of the samples from the MV-6 and MV-7
stratigraphic units, Dillehay and Pino (1997)
considered that bone would be the least 
reliable sample (based on Haynes 1991) and
that several of the wood datings could be con-
taminated or might be dating anomalies. 
Taken this into account, they concluded 
that the dates of wooden artifacts (n=5)
would be the most reliable ones and that
“mean range of overlap for these artifacts is
12,570 ± 230 BP” (Dillehay and Pino 
1997: 48).

Fig. 2. 
Summed calibrated probability
distribution of 14C dates from
the Southern Cone of South
America.



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

91Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

A significant 14C dating anomaly on a sample from Monte Verde,
reported as “non-cultural deposits,” yielded an age of 6550 ± 160 BP
(BETA-7824). This age corresponds to a mastodon bone fragment that
had been eroded out onto the surface in modern creek bed at the site
(Dillehay and Pino 1997: 43–44, Table 3.1). However, another date of

Table 1.
Oldest radiocarbon dates from
the Southern Cone of South
America.

Note: abbreviations AS2: Arroyo Seco 2; CCH2: Cerro La China 2; C3T: Cerro Tres Tetas 1; CM: Cueva del Medio;
MV-II: Monte Verde II; URP2: Urupez 2; TT1: Tagua Tagua 1; QSJ: Quebrada Santa Julia; TA: Tres Arroyos.

Site 14C date Error Calibrated years Lab Code Material Dated Reference

MV-II 12.78 240 14,145-15,839 BETA-59082 wood Dillehay 1997

MV-II 12.65 130 14,221-15,307 TX-4437 wood Dillehay 1997

MV-II 12.51 60 14,211-15,015 UCR 4014 bone Dillehay 1997

MV-II 12.455 40 14,151-14,820 UCIAMS 10738 bone George et al. 2005

MV-II 12.45 150 14,015-15,116 OXA-381 wood Dillehay 1997

MV-II 12.45 40 14,145-14,805 UCIAMS 10737 bone George et al 2005

MV-II 12.45 60 14,125-14,884 UCR 4015 bone George et al 2005

MV-II 12.31 40 13,985-14,335 BETA 239650 seaweed Dillehay et al. 2008

MV-II 12.29 60 13,920-14,471 BETA 238355 seaweed Dillehay et al. 2008

MV-II 12.23 140 13,731-14,770 BETA-6755 wood Dillehay 1997

AS2 12.2 170 13,578-14,796 CAMS-58182 bone Politis et al. 2016

AS2 12.17 55 13,787-14,126 OxA-15871 bone Politis et al. 2016

AS2 12.17 45 13,804-14,121 UCIAMS-142842 bone Politis et al. 2016

AS2 12.155 70 13,767-14,125 OxA-10387 bone Politis et al. 2016

AS2 12.07 140 13,543-14224 OxA-9243 bone Politis et al. 2016

MV-II 12 110 13,551-14,067 BETA-68996 wood Dillehay 1997

MV-II 12 250 13,271-14,749 OXA-105 collagen Dillehay 1997

MV-II 11.92 120 13,459-13,991 TX-5376 wood Dillehay 1997

MV-II 11.79 200 13,180-14,029 TX-5374 charcoal Dillehay 1997

AS2 11.77 120 13,302-13,778 AA-62514 bone Politis et al. 2016

AS2 11.75 70 13,406-13,730 CAMS-1638 bone Politis et al. 2016

AS2 11.73 70 13,376-13,721 OxA-924 bone Politis et al. 2016

URP2 11.69 80 13,292-13,628 Beta-211938 charcoal Meneghin 2006

MV-II 11.64 90 13,224-13,599 BETA-52015 wood Dillehay 1997

MV-II 11.6 120 13,121-13,610 TX-3472 wood Dillehay 1997

AS2 11.59 90 13,198-13,564 AA-7965 bone Politis et al. 2016

TT1 11.38 320 12,648-13,852 GX-1205 charcoal Montané 1968

AS2 11.32 110 12,865-13,366 AA-39365 bone Politis et al. 2016

AS2 11.25 105 12,809-13,276 AA-7964 bone Politis et al. 2016

AS2 11.19 110 12,746-13,207 AA-90118 bone Politis et al. 2016

CCH2 11.15 135 12,721-13,203 AA-8955 charcoal Flegenheimer & Zarate 1997

C3T 11.145 60 12,800-13,088 OxA-10745 charcoal Steele & Politis 2009

CM 11.12 130 12,714-13,155 NUTA-1737 bone Nami & Nakamura 1995

C3T 11.1 150 12,701-13,188 AA-22233 charcoal Paunero 2003

QSJ 11.09 80 12,741-13,066 Beta 215089 charcoal Jackson et al. 2007

TA 11.085 70 12,744-13,058 OxA-9248 bone Steele & Politis 2009

QSJ 11.06 80 12,730-13,050 Beta 215090 wood Jackson et al. 2007

CM 11.04 250 12,407-13,430 NUTA-2197 bone Nami & Nakamura 1995

C3T 11.015 66 12,717-13,005 AA-39368 charcoal Paunero 2003



Politis and Prates

92 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

11,990 ± 200 BP (TX-3760; 13,820 cal BP, range 13,306–14,335 cal BP)
was obtained for a segment of mastodon bone excavated from the upper
layer of a stratigraphic unit MV-6, that re fit (Dillehay and Pino 1989:
136). Later for each bone segment, two different organic fractions—total
amino acids and ultrafiltered gelatin—were chemically isolated and the
14C values obtained on all four fractions from the two bone pieces pro-
duced statistically identical 14C values ranging from 12,455 ± 40 BP
(UCIAMS-10738; 14,485 cal BP, range 14,151–14,820 cal BP) to 12,510
± 60 BP (UCR-4014/ UCIAMS-2765; 14,613 cal BP, range 14,211
–15,015 cal BP) (George et al. 2005). The weighted average is = 12,460 ±
30 BP (14,483 cal BP, range 14,168–14,799 cal BP), which appeared to
be somewhat older than the previously reported age of 11,990 ± 200 BP
(13,820 cal BP, range 13,306–14,335 cal BP) (Taylor 2009: 200).

A long time ago the oldest date of MV-II was 13,565 ± 250 BP (TX-
3208; 16,326 cal BP, range 15,572–17,080 cal BP) (Nagle and Wilcox
1982), which Dillehay and Pino (1989: 140) first considered “may best
represent the age of the cultural event, because it was sealed and pre-
served in a clay-lined feature . . .” Later on, the same authors rejected it
(Dillehay and Pino 1997:48), basing their conclusion on the younger
group of dates, which had been obtained after TX-3208 (Taylor 2009).
Therefore, if TX-3208 is eliminated, the oldest date for MV-II is 12,780 ±
240 BP (BETA-59082; 14,992 cal BP, range 14,145–15,839 cal BP).

In spite of these adjustments, the main issue that still needs to be
resolved is the span of at least 500 yrs in MV-II, which is in disagreement
with the interpretation of Dillehay (1997: 38), who considers MV-II a
contemporaneous cultural event and the result of a year-round occupa-
tion. It remains to be seen whether this time span is a product of differ-
ences in the laboratory procedures and in measuring devices (dates have
been obtained in at least five different laboratories along more than 25
years), in differential sample contamination, in the dating of some sam-
ples not directly associated with the human occupation or, contra Dille-
hay’s interpretation, is the result of several human occupations within at
least 500 yrs. Regardless of the number of human occupations represent-
ed at MV-II, according to our criteria the highest-quality samples should
be the four samples from the mastodon bone (average 12,460 ± 30 BP;
14,483 cal BP, range 14,168–14,799 cal BP), and the last two samples
obtained from algae, which were found in sediment fill of hearths and
braziers and yielded 12,290 ± 60 BP (14,195 cal BP, range
13,920–14,471 cal BP) and 12,310 ± 40 BP (14,159 cal BP, range
13,985–14,335 cal BP) (Dillehay et al. 2008). This reduces the time span
of the MV-II human occupation to ~ 324 yrs, from 14,483 cal BP (range
14,168–14,799 cal BP) to 14,159 cal BP (range 13,985–14,335 cal BP)2,
which we will take as the most probable date of the main occupation of
the site.

2 However, taking into account the 95% cal ranges of the oldest and youngest 
14C ages may indicate a much longer span, up to >2000 years.



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

93Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Regarding Arroyo Seco 2, there are currently a total of 55 radiocar-
bon dates (25 older than 7500 BP and eight within the first signal time
span). Twenty-five dates correspond to human skeletons (7805 ± 85 to
4487 ± 45 BP; ~ 8500 to 5100 cal BP), 21 to extinct Pleistocene mam-
mals (12,170 ± 45 to 7388 ± 74 BP; ~ 14,000 to 8100 cal BP), five to
Holocene mammals ( 8461 ± 74 to 5793 ± 64 BP), three to pedogenic car-
bonates ( 5740 ± 120 to 1890 ± 80 BP), and one to a Late Holocene pale-
osoil along the banks of Tres Arroyos creek (1140 ± 60 BP) (Politis et al.
2016). Most of the dated material has been bone collagen dated with the
AMS technique. As many as eight different laboratories have participat-
ed in the radiocarbon dating (see details in Politis and Steele 2014).

The 21 radiocarbon dates from extinct Pleistocene mammals (Table
1, in Politis et al. 2016) are from 14 bone specimens that include six gen-
era (Megatherium, Glossotherium, Toxodon, Hippidion, Equus, and
Eutatus); two families (Equidae, Camelidae cf. Hemiauchenia); and two
indeterminate megamammal bones. Most of the extinct fauna are dated to
the end of the Pleistocene; however, one specimen from extinct giant
armadillo, Eutatus seguini, suggests survival into the Holocene (7388 ±
74 BP). 

According to the data from radiocarbon dates, Pleistocene fauna
death occurred in the AS2 site between 12,170 and 7388 BP (~ 14,000
and 8100 cal BP). Within this range, at least four different dates-of-death
occurred: (1) Megatherium and Equus, 12,170 BP (13,980 cal BP, range
13,787–14,126 cal BP); (2) Toxodon 11,750 BP (13,512 cal BP, range
13,406–13,730 cal BP); (3) Equus and Hippidion, 11,182 BP (12,966
cal BP, range 12,861–13,100 cal BP); and (4) Eutatus, ca. 7388 BP (8102
cal BP, range 8024–8219 cal BP). The first and third of these events show
evidence of human agency which include association with lithic artifacts,
selection of skeletal parts and bone fracture patterns (see Politis 2014;
Politis et al. 2016). The best example of anthropic fracturing at the site is
a radius from Equus neogeus (dated 12,170 ± 45 BP; UCIAMS-142842,
13,980 cal BP, range 13,787–14,126 cal BP), which presents robust evi-
dence of hammerstone bone breakage. This bone dated with XAD as a
pretreatment, and the Megatherium bone with fresh fractures yielding 
an age of 12,200 ± 170 BP (CAMS-58182, 14,188 cal BP, range
13,578–14,796 cal BP), present the highest quality dates and mark the
first human signal at the site.

In addition to these two sites, there are other sites that fall into this
period but their alleged human evidence is certainly weak. A dating of
12,000 ± 40 BP (Beta 394639; 13,841 cal BP, range 13,703–13,979
cal BP) from Urupez was excluded because it was obtained from one
gram of charcoal from very fine-sieved sediment (Meneghin 2015). The
14C dates of the Pilauco site (Pino et al. 2013) fall also in the first signal
time span but were not included in the database for the following reasons.
The site is located in the Intermediate Depression of South Central Chile
and has a rich record of both extinct and extant faunal remains, including
Gomphotheres, Equids, Camelidae, Cervidae, Mephitidae, Muridae,



Politis and Prates

94 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Myocatoridae and Xenartra; and also plant remains, coprolites, and pos-
sible soft tissue remains. The authors of the primary (and only) publica-
tion about the site (Pino et al. 2013) offer a detailed description of
chronology (nine radiocarbon dates ranging from ~14,653 to ~12,316
cal BP), of the faunal assemblage and, to a lesser extent, of the “compli-
cated taphonomic scenario”, which has been characterized as generated
by the action of several agents and circumstances: humans, carnivores,
roots, trampling, fluvial action, and in situ death of animals (i.e., Gom-
photheres) (Pino et al. 2013). A hundred and one presumed lithic artifacts
were spatially associated to the faunal. Their presence was the main rea-
son for proposing human agency at the site. Although we consider that
the site deserves some credit, since it still shows high potential for future
research, the archaeological evidence presented so far is somewhat
ambiguous to be evaluated in depth (see also Nuñez et al. 2016: 101). The
main weaknesses of the paper are as follows: a) the authors only provide
a couple of paragraphs of archaeological information; b) most of the lith-
ic pieces have been made on local pebbles, and found in a highly dynam-
ic fluvial environment where the same type of clasts are carried and accu-
mulated by the stream; c) most of the lithic pieces shown in Figure 5 do
not reveal unquestionable human traits; d) none of the more than 700 fau-
nal remains found in Pilauco show human-made marks. As previously
indicated for Arroyo Vizcaino site, even if lithics from Pilauco were mod-
ified by humans, the association between the dated samples and the
human event remains unproven.

After this first radiometrically well-defined but numerically sparse
archaeological signal, the summed probability curve remains stable and
low until ~ 13,000 cal BP where there is an abrupt rise resulting from an
increment in the occupations. Between 13,000 and 12,100 cal BP
(~11,200 to ~10,400 BP), 67 occupations were recorded (120 radiocar-
bon dates). However, very few sites have produced multiple and well
controlled series of radiocarbon dates. Among them we should mention
Pay Paso 1, where Component 1 is well dated based on 12 AMS dates on
charcoal between 12,894 and 12,462 cal BP (Suarez 2015). Lithic arti-
facts include blades and retouched blades, side scrapers, end scrapers,
standardized unifacial tools among others. No projectile points have been
found in association with the sample dated, although a fishtail projectile
point was found 10 m away from the excavation (see Suarez 2015: 92).
Faunal remains include Pleistocene fauna (Equus sp.) as well as small
extant species (coypu, Leporinus sp, among others). Other occupations
for this period with multiple dates (more than 5) include, Piedra Museo,
Unit 6 and Transition 6/5 (Miotti 2003; Steele and Politis 2009), Cerro
Tres Tetas, unit 5-lower (Paunero 2003; Steele and Politis 2009), Fell’s
Cave (Waters et al. 2015), and Cueva del Medio (Nami and Nakamura
1995)

In this second period, some trends were observed: (a) the geographic
distribution of sites includes all major regions (except for Gran Chaco)
and environments of the Southern Cone. People were almost everywhere,



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

95Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

including the southern tip of Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia; (b) subsistence
patterns included the exploitation of megafauna in most of the sites
(Tagua-Tagua 1, Arroyo Seco 2, Pay Paso 1, Quebrada Santa Julia,
Quereo, Piedra Museo, Fell’s Cave, among others; see Martinez et al.
2016; Méndez 2015; Nuñez et al. 2016; Suarez 2015). While mylodon
and American horses seem to be the preferred preys in Patagonia, giant
sloth and American horses were mainly exploited in the Pampas, and
Gomphoteride and American horses in the Southern Andes (in the tem-
perate Chilean valleys); c) while the earliest sites of this period (~ 13,000
cal BP), except for Quebrada Santa Julia and probably Urupez, have not
produced any projectile points (Tagua Tagua 1, Cueva Casa del Minero,
Cerro Tres Tetas, Arroyo Seco 2, Piedra Museo), in the more recent sites
(~ 12,700 to 12,100 cal BP), most of the occupations are associated with
the fishtail projectile point (e.g., Fell’s Cave, Salar de Punta Negra 1,
Abrigo Los Pinos, Cerro La China 1 and 2, Cerro El Sombrero Abrigo 1,
La Amalia 2, Paso Otero 5, Cueva del Medio, and Piedra Museo-Unit 5).
In the same later period, other projectile point types were also identified,
e.g., Tuina and Punta Negra points (in Salar de Punta Negra site Chile),
Pay Paso (in Pay Paso 1 site, Uruguay), and Umbú (several sites in south-
ern Brazil). These findings show an early and rapid technological diversi-
fication, already pointed out by other authors (e.g., Grosjean et al. 2005;
Suarez 2015).

Regarding the quality of the samples, some interesting observations
can be made. Clearly, Patagonia offers a large proportion of high quality
datings since they come from charcoal of well-defined hearths and, to a
lesser extent, from dispersed charcoal and bone collagen. This provides a
firmer chronological framework to the region. On the other hand, the
dates corresponding to the Pampas are mostly low quality, because pre-
dominant datings are those made on dispersed charcoal (for exceptions
see Mazzanti and Quintana 2001; Mazzanti 2003) and bone collagen not
pre-treated with XAD or ultrafiltration (for exceptions see Steele and
Politis 2013). This is especially important to specify the chronology of
some events in the region. For example, despite a few exceptions, dates
associated with the fishtail projectile points found in the Pampas come
from dispersed charcoal (e.g., Flegenheimer et al. 2015; Meneghin
2015). As mentioned above, charcoal dates do not date any human occu-
pations directly; instead they likely date the litho- and pedostratigraphic
units associated with those occupations. This problem is widespread in
the Pampas, where wildfires are very frequent nowadays3 and could have
been even more frequent in drier periods like the last millennium of the
Pleistocene. By studying the sequence of nine caves and rockshelters in

3 For example, on January 7, 2017, an electric storm caused several fires in La Pampa
province, burning 800,000 ha (Cadena 3, 2017). A few days earlier, between
December 20th and 21st 2016, 1500 lightnings hit the north of Rio Negro province
(according to a report by NASA), causing fires in 300,000 ha and the death of hun-
dreds of cattle (Cuyo newspaper 2016)



Politis and Prates

96 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

the Tandilia hill system, Martinez et al. (2013) proposed that towards
10,500 BP an abrupt climatic change occurred from more arid late Pleis-
tocene conditions to post glacial climatic amelioration. Thus, although
the dates of most sites in the Tandilia hills coincide in general terms with
the chronology of the fishtail projectile points in the Southern Cone, their
quality is not high enough to make it possible to precise the age of this
point model in the sub-region. The presence of charcoals caused by natu-
ral fires and entrapped in caves and rockshelters, or in open depressions,
is a possibility that cannot be ruled out.

Between 12,100 cal BP and the younger end of the database temporal
range (8200 cal BP), the summed probability curve does not show visible
long term changes, except for a slight increase at ca. 11,400 cal BP.
Spikes would not be evidence of increased population densities, but more
likely artifacts of the calibration curve; see Prates et al. 2013). For the
period 12,100–11,400 cal BP, 41 occupations were defined on the basis
of 71 radiocarbon dates and the curve remains stable. Between 11,400
and 8200 cal BP, there are 265 occupations (379 dates). This second peri-
od shows a slight increment in the curve, which remains steady. In the
12,100–11,400 cal BP period there are three relevant traits: a) with a few
exceptions, no megafaunal remains have been recorded. Camelids and
cervids are the main prey species in most sites; b) technologically, the
diversity of projectile points increases, and fishtail projectile points are
exceptional; c) the first direct human bone dates are recorded in the
Southern Cone. In the Pampas, the oldest date comes from the Arroyo de
Frias skeleton (Politis et al. 2011), from which two bone dates are avail-
able: 10,300 ± 40 BP (11,926 cal BP, range 11,770–12,082 cal BP) and
9520 ± 40 BP (10,698 cal BP, range 10,581–10,816 cal BP). Since the
former date has been obtained by pre-treating with XAD-KOH gelatin
hydrolyzate, we take this as the better quality. In the Southern Andes, the
oldest dates come from Los Rieles Individual 1 with three dates ranging
between 10,450 ± 60 BP to 9815 ± 30 BP (12,018–12,436 and
11,162–11,246 cal BP, Jackson et al. 2015). Since the latter has been
obtained from “purified collagen”, we consider this the most reliable
date. In Central-West Argentina, the earliest human bone date comes
from Gruta de Candonga site, which yielded a collagen date of 10,450 ±
50 BP (12,270 cal BP, range 12,025–12,433 cal BP; Cornero et al. 2014).
Finally, in Patagonia the earliest human bone dated is slightly younger
than that of the other regions and has to be included in the later period
(11,400–8200 cal BP). The first dates come from several individuals
from Baño Nuevo 1 site, dated between 9020 ± 30 and 8945 ± 40 BP
(10,080 cal BP, range 10,123–12,231 cal BP and 10,000 cal BP, range
9887–10,197 cal yr BP; Jackson et al. 2015). 

By comparing the chronological information of the different regions
considered, one can observe that the earliest human signals come from
the western valleys of the Southern Andes and the Pampas (Fig. 3). Both
are located in flat areas, relatively close to the marine coast (~ 15 and
150 km from the 14,000 cal BP coast respectively). In both sites evidence



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

97Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

of littoral remains has also been found, such as
algae (in Monte Verde II) and seashore round cob-
bles (in Arroyo Seco 2). In the Center West and
Patagonia, the signal is somewhat later as indicat-
ed by the curves of both regions. The signal
becomes intense very quickly, which shows that
although the number of dates has increased in
recent years, the chronological floor has not
changed. This is clearer in Patagonia, where a
large number of early dates were obtained, as
explained above, and where most of the dates are
high quality as they come from hearth charcoal
with multiple-date levels, making the chronologi-
cal floor defined by them highly reliable. In the
Pampas region, there is also an abrupt increase in
the signal for the same period. An interesting
aspect is that the increase in signal intensity coin-
cides with the appearance of the fishtail projectile
points, which shows a strong consistency in the
Pampas and Patagonia dates, ranging between
10,800 to10,200 BP, ~12,700 to 11,800 cal BP
(Waters et al. 2015).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the summed probability curves of radiocarbon dates accepted
according to the validation criteria, we present the following conclu-
sions:

1. The first signal of “continuous” human occupation in the Southern
Cone is low and appears between ~ 14,500 to 14,000 cal BP
(12,460 to 12,170 BP); from ~ 13,000 cal BP, the signal significant-
ly increases. This increase could have been associated with the
expansion of fishtail projectile points technology and would be
related with a second pulse of peopling (Perego et al 2009; Pitblado
2011).

2. The human signal in the inland of the Southern Cone and in
Patagonia appears about 1200 years later, which would suggest a
littoral and north to south vector of human expansion, as already
proposed by several authors. 

3. Humans were present in the Southern tip of Patagonia at
12,692 cal BP. (12,659–12,759 cal BP, 10,835 BP) in Fell’s Cave
and 12,570 cal BP (range 12,365–12,701 cal BP, 10,600 BP) in Tres
Arroyos 1. These are the southernmost sites showing the first
human signal in the region. 

4. In the four areas of the Southern Cone defined in this study, human
bone remains are first recorded about 2000 years after the first

Fig. 3. 
Summed calibrated probability
distributions of 14C dates from
different regions of the
Southern Cone of South
America.



Politis and Prates

98 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

human activity were detected. This is highly consistent in the four
areas and it makes it possible to estimate the time elapsing from the
moment a population reached a region until it began to leave burial
remains that are detectable within the contemporary sampling den-
sity.

5. The summed probability curves presented support a pre-14,000
cal BP but post-LGM peopling model. These curves show that if
the controversial sites (Monte Verde I and Chinchihuapi I and II,
Arroyo del Vizcaino) were included, the human occupation of the
Southern Cone would be a discontinuous signal, which could imply
processes of local or regional extinction. This would also lead to the
proposal of a human occupation of the Southern Cone prior to that
of Eastern Beringia. The current evidence does not support either
of these two possibilities.

6. The results of this research are in line with the age of human entry
in the America proposed by most models based on ancient DNA
studies (e.g., Mulligan and Kitchen 2013; Llamas et al. 2016;
Tamms et al. 2007; Perego et al 2009; Reich et al 2012).

There are two corollary comments derived from our study. Firstly, we
hope we have contributed to refining the molecular clock, which will be
useful in adjusting the chronology in ancient DNA studies. Secondly, the
data discussed in this chapter reinforce the idea that the current debate is
not about Clovis First or Pre-Clovis, but Pre LGM or Post LGM. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Katerina Harvati, Gerhard Jäger and Hugo
Reyes-Centeno for the invitation to the symposium at the University of
Tübingen, which gave rise to this book. Part of this research was funded
by a PICT project 2777 of Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y
Tecnológica, Argentina. We are also indebted to Agustina Massigoge for
her comments, to Cristian Favier Dubois for sharing with us the informa-
tion about the wildfires in the Pampas, to Eduardo Apolinaire for his
assistance with database management, to Diego Gobbo for his help with
the map and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

REFERENCES

Alperson-Afil, N. 2012. Archaeology of fire: Methodological aspects of reconstructing fire
history of prehistoric archaeological sites. Earth Science Reviews 113: 111–19. 

Behrensmeyer, A. K., K. D. Gordon, and G. T. Yanagi. 1986. Trampling as a cause of bone sur-
face damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature 317(27): 768–771. 

Bello, S. M., and C. Soligo. 2008. A new method for the quantitative analysis of cutmark
micromorphology. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1542–1552. (doi:10.1016/
j.jas.2007.10.018)



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

99Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Bird, J. 1964. The concept of a “Pre-Projectile Point” cultural stage in Chile and Peru. Amer-
ican Antiquity 31 (2): 262–270.

Boëda, E., A. Lourdeau, C. Lahaye, G. Daltrini Felici, S. Viana, I. Clemente-Conte, M. Pino, 
M. Fontugne, S. Hoeltz, N. Guidon, A-M Pessis, A. Da Costa, and M. Pagli. 2013. The Late-
Pleistocene Industries of Piauí, Brazil: New Data. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, ed. by 
K. Graf, C. V. Ketron and M. R. Waters, pp. 445–65. College Station: Center for the Study
of the First Americans, Texas A&M University.

Boëda, E., I. Clemente-Conte, M. Fontugne, C. Lahaye, M. Pino, G. Daltrini Felice, N. Guidon,
S. Hoeltz, A. Lourdeau, M. Pagli, A-M. Pessis, S. Viana, A. Da Costa, and E. Douville. 2014.
A new late Pleistocene archaeological sequence in South America: the Vale da Pedra
Furada (Piauí, Brazil). Antiquity 88: 927–955.

Borrero, L. A. 2015. Con lo mínimo: los debates sobre el poblamiento de América del Sur.
Intersecciones en Antropología 16: 5–38.

Borrero, L. A. 2016. Ambiguity and debates on the Early Peopling of South America. Pale-
oamerica 2(1): 11–21. 

Bracco, R. 2015. Comentario 4: Más allá de un salto temerario o de la domesticación de la
incertidumbre. Contribuyendo a la “actitud metodológica”. Intersecciones en
Antropología 16: 31–3.

Brown, T. A., D. E. Nelson, J. S. Vogel, and J. R. Southon. 1988. Improved collagen extraction
by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30: 171–77.

Bryan, A. 1978. An Overview of Paleo-American Prehistory from a Circum-Pacific Perspec-
tive. In Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, ed. by A. Bryan. Occa-
sional Papers 1, pp. 306–27. Canada: Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta.

Bueno, L., A. Schmidt Dias, and J. Steele. 2013. The Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene
archaeological record in Brazil: A geo-referenced database. Quaternary International
301: 74–93.

Bunn, H. T. 1991. A taphonomic perspective on the archaeology of human origins. Annual
Review of Anthropology 20: 433–67.

Cadena 3. 2017. Nuevos incendios en La Pampa por tormenta eléctrica. http://www.cade-
na3.com/contenido/2017/01/08/Nuevos-incendios-en-La-Pampa-por-tormenta-electri-
ca-175731.asp. Consulted March 1, 2017.

Cardich, A., L. A. Cardich, and A. Hadjuk.1973. Secuencia arqueológica y cronología radio-
carbónica de la cueva 3 de Los Toldos (Santa Cruz, Argentina). Relaciones de la
Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 7: 87–122.

Capaldo, S. D., and C .R. Peters. 1995. Skeletal inventories from wildebeest drownings in
lakes Masek and Ndutu in the Serengeti ecosystem of Tanzania. Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Science 22: 385–408.

Cornero, S., W. Neves, and D. Rivero. 2014. Nuevos aportes a la cronología de las ocupacio-
nes tempranas en las Sierras de Córdoba. La Gruta de Candonga (Córdoba, Argentina).
Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 39(1): 285–92.

Diario de Cuyo. 2016. Una tormenta de 1500 rayos causó incendios en la Patagonia.
28/12/2016 https://www.diariodecuyo.com.ar/argentina/Una-tormenta-de-1.500-rayos-
causo-incendios-en-la-Patagonia-20161228-0007.html. Consulted March1, 2017.

Dickinson, W. 2011. Geological perspectives on the Monte Verde archeological site in Chile
and pre-Clovis coastal migration in the Americas. Quaternary Research 76: 201–10.



Politis and Prates

100 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Dillehay, T. D., ed. 1989. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Paleoenviron-
ment and Site Context, vol. 1. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dillehay, T. D., ed. 1997. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. The Archaeo-
logical Context and Interpretation, vol. 2. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dillehay, T. D., and M. Pino. 1989. Stratigraphy and Chronology. In Monte Verde: A Late
Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Paleoenvironment and Site Context, vol. I, ed. by 
T. D. Dillehay, pp. 133–145. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Dillehay, T.M., and M. Pino. 1997. Radiocarbon chronology. In Monte Verde: A Late Pleis-
tocene Settlement in Chile. The Archaeological Context and Interpretation, vol. II, ed. by
T. Dillehay, pp. 41–52. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Dillehay, T. M., C. Ramírez, M. Pino, M. B. Collins, J. Rossen, and J. D. Pino-Navarro. 2008.
Monte Verde: Seaweed, food, medicine, and the peopling of South America. Science
320: 784–86. 

Dillehay, T. D., C. Ocampo, J. Saavedra, A. O. Sawakuchi, R. M. Vega, M. Pino, M. B. Collins,
L. Scott Cummings, I. Arregui, X. S. Villagran, G. A. Hartmann, M. Mella, A. González, and
G. Dix. 2015. New Archaeological Evidence for an Early Human Presence at Monte
Verde, Chile. PLoS ONE 10(11):e0141923. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141923

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., S. De Juana, A. B. Galán, and M. Rodríguez. 2009. A new protocol to
differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks. Journal of Archaeological Sci-
ence 36: 2643–654.

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., T. R. Pickering, and H. T. Bunn. 2010. Configurational approach to
identifying the earliest homin butchers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences 107: 20929–0934.

Fariña, R. A. 2015. Bone surface modifications, reasonable certainty, and human antiquity in
the Americas: The case of the arroyo del Vizcaíno site. American Antiquity 80(1):
193–200.

Fariña, R. A., P. S. Tambusso, L. Varela, A. Czerwonogora, M. Di Giacomo, M. Musso, 
R. Bracco-Boksar, and A. Gascue. 2014a. Arroyo del Vizcaíno, Uruguay: A fossil-rich 
30-ka old megafaunal locality with cut-marked bones. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B 281: 20132211.

Fariña, R. A., P. S. Tambusso, L. Varela, M. Di Giacomo, M. Musso, R. Bracco- Boksar, and A.
Gascue. 2014b. Among others, cut-marks are archaeological evidence: Reply to
“Archaeological Evidences Are Still Missing: Comment on Fariña et al. Arroyo del Viz-
caíno Site, Uruguay” by Suárez et al. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 20141637.

Faught, M. K. 2008. Archaeological roots of human diversity in the new world: a compilation
of accurate and precise radiocarbon ages from earliest sites. American Antiquity 73:
670–698.

Fernández-Jalvo, Y., and P. Andrews. 2003. Experimental effects of water abrasion on bone
fragments. Journal of Taphonomy 1(3): 147–63.

Fiedel, S. J., and Y. Kuzmin. 2010. Is more precise dating of Paleoindian expansion feasible?
Radiocarbon 52(2): 337–45. 

Fiedel, S. J. 2017. The Anzick genome proves Clovis is first, after all. Quaternary International
444 : 4–9

Fladmark, K. R. 1979. Routes: Alternate migration corridors for early man in North America.
American Antiquity 44: 55–69. 



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

101Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Flegenheimer, N., and M. Zarate. 1997. Considerations on radiocarbon and calibrated dates
from Cerro La China and Cerro El Sombrero, Argentina. Current Research in the Pleis-
tocene 14: 27–28.

Flegenheimer, N., N. Mazzia, and C. Weitzel. 2015. Landscape and rocks in the East-Central
Portion of the Tandilia Range (Buenos Aires Province, Argentina). Paleoamerica 1(2):
163–80.

George, D., J. R. Southon, and R. E. Taylor. 2005. Resolving an anomalous radiocarbon deter-
mination on mastodon bone from Monte Verde, Chile. American Antiquity 70: 764–70.

Goebel T., M. R. Waters, and D. H. O’Rourke. 2008. The Late Pleistocene dispersal of modern
humans in the Americas. Science 319: 1497–1502.

Grosjean, M., L. Nuñez, and I. Cartajena. 2005. Paleoindian occupation of the Atacame
Desert, northern Chile. Journal of Quaternary Science 20(7-8): 643–53.

Guidon, N., and G. Delibrias.1986. Carbon 14 dates point to man in the American 32,000 years
ago. Nature 321: 769–71.

Haberle, S. G., G. F. Hope, and S. Van Der Kaars. 2001. Biomass burning in Indonesia and
Papua New Guinea: natural and human induced fire events in the fossil record. Palaeo-
geography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 171: 259–68.

Haynes, C. F. 1991. Geoarchaeological and paleohydrological evidence for a Clovis-age
drought in North America and its bearing on extinction. Quaternary Research 35: 435–50.

Haynes, G. 2015. The Millenium before Clovis. Paleoamerica 1(2): 134–62.

Haynes, G., D. G. Anderson, C. R. Ferring, S. J. Fiedel, D. G. Grayson, C. V. Haynes Jr., 
V. T. Holliday, B. B. Huckell, M. Kornfeld, D. J. Meltzer, J. Morrow, T. Surovell, 
N. M. Waguespack, P. Wigand, and R. M. Yohe. 2007. Comment on “Redefining the age
of Clovis: Implications for the peopling of the Americas” by M. Waters and T. Stafford.
Science 317: 320b.

Hogg A. G., Q. Hua, P. G. Blackwell, M. Niu, C. E. Buck, T. P. Guilderson, T. J. Heaton, 
J. G. Palmer, P. J. Reimer, R. W. Reimer, C. S. M. Turney, and S. R. H. Zimmerman. 2013.
SHCal13 Southern Hemisphere calibration, 0-50,000 years cal. BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):
1889–903.

Ives, J. W., D. Froese, K. Supernant, and G. Yanicki. 2013. Vectors, vestiges, and valhallas-
rethinking the corridor. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, ed. by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron and 
M. R. Waters, pp. 149–69. College Station: Center for the study of the First Americans,
Texas A&M University. 

Jackson, D., C. Mendez, R. Seguel, A. Maldonando, and G. Vargas. 2007. Initial occupation of
the Pacific coast of Chile during late Pleistocene people of the Andes. Current Anthro-
pology 48: 725–731.

Jackson, D., C. Méndez, M. de Saint Pierre, E. Aspillag, and G. Politis. 2015. Direct dates and
mtDNA of Late Pleistocene Human skeletons from South America: A Comment on Chat-
ters et al. (2014). Paleoamerica 1(3): 213–16.

Johnson, C. N., and B. W. Brook. 2011. Reconstructing the dynamics of ancient human pop-
ulations from radiocarbon dates: 10 000 years of population growth in Australia. Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278: 3748–754.

Kahlke, R. D., and S. Gaudzinsky. 2005. The blessing of a great flood: differentiation of mor-
tality patterns in the large mammal record of the Lower Pleistocene fluvial site of Unter-
massfeld (Germany) and its relevance for the interpretation of faunal assemblages from
archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1202–222.



Politis and Prates

102 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Krieger, A.1964. Early Man in the New World. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, ed. by 
J. D. Jennings and E. Norbeck, pp. 23–81. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lanning E. P., and T. C. Patterson. 1967. Early Man in South America. Scientific American
217: 44–50. 

Lindsey, E. L., Th. W. Stafford Jr., G. Politis, and J. L. Prado. 2016. Contaminación de coláge-
no por humatos y la “supervivencia Holocénica” de la megafauna en la región de las
pampas en Sudamérica. Resúmenes del IX Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontolo-
gía. Lima, Perú. 

Llamas, B., L. Fehren-Schmitz, G. Valverde, S. Mallick, C. Ceruti, G. Politis, and N. Rohland 
et al . 2016. Ancient mitochondrial DNA provides high-resolution time scale of the peo-
pling of the Americas. Science Advances 2(4): e1501385

Lynch, Th. 1974. The antiquity of man in South America. Quaternary Research 4(3): 356–77.

MacNeish, R. 1978. Late Pleistocene Adaptations: a New Look at Early Peopling of the New
World as of 1976. Journal of Anthropological Research 34(4): 475–96.

Mandryk, C. A. S., H. Josenhans, D. W. Fedje, and R. W. Mathewes. 2001. Late quaternary
paleoenvironments of Northwestern North America: Implications for inland versus
coastal migration routes. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 301–14.

Martínez, G., D. L. Mazzanti, C. Quintana, A.F. Zucol. M. J. M. Colobig, G. S. Hassan, M. Brea,
and E. Passeggi. 2013. Geoarchaeological and Paleoenvironmental context of the human
settlement in the Eastern Tandilia Range. Argentina. Quaternary International 299:
23–37.

Martínez, G., M. Gutiérrez, P. Messineo, C. Kaufmann, and D. J. Rafuse. 2016. Subsistence
strategies in Argentina during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Quaternary Sci-
ence Reviews 144: 51–65. 

Mazzanti, D. 2003. Human settlements in caves and rockshelters during the Pleistocene-
Holocene transition in the Eastern Tandilia Range, Pampean Region, Argentina. In From
Where the South Winds Blows: Ancient evidence for Paleo South Americans, ed. by 
L. Miotti, M. Salemme and N. Flegenheimer, pp. 57–61. Texas: A&M University Press.

Mazzanti, D., and C. Quintana. 2001. Cueva Tixi: cazadores y recolectores de las sierras de
Tandilia Oriental 1. Geología, Paleontología y Zooarqueología, ed. by D. Mazzanti and 
C. Quintana. Publicación Especial 1, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.

Méndez, C. 2015. Los primeros andinos. Tecnología lítica de los habitants de Chile trece mil
años atras. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

Meneghin, U. 2006. Un nuevo registro radiocarb_onico (c-14) en el Yacimiento Urupez 2,
Maldonado, Uruguay. Orígenes 5. Fundación Arqueología Uruguay, Montevideo.

Meneghin, U. 2015. Secuencia cronoestratigráfica de Urupez II. Nuevas dataciones radio-
métricas. Orígenes 13: 1-19.

Millard, A.R. 2014. Conventions for reporting radiocarbon determinations. Radiocarbon 56:
555–559.

Miotti, L., M. Salemme, and J. Rabassa. 2003. Radiocarbon cronology at Piedra Museo
Locality. In Where the South Winds Blow: Ancient Evidence for Paleo South Americans,
ed. by L. Miotti, M. Salemme and N. Flegenheimer, pp. 99–104. Texas: Center for the
Studies of the First Americans (CSFA) and Texas A&M University Press.

Montané, J. 1968. Paleo-indian remains from Laguna Taguatagua, Central Chile. Science
161: 1137–1139.



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

103Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Mulligan, C. and A. Kitchen. 2013 Three-Stage Colonization Model for the Peopling of the
Americas. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, ed. by K Graf, C. Ketron and M Waters,
pp.171–182. College Station: Center for The Study of the First Americans

Nagle, C., and U. V. Wilcox. 1982. Monte Verde: Radiocarbon dates from an early-man site in
south-central Chile. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 547–50.

Nami, H., and A. Nakamura. 1995. Cronología radiocarbónica con AMS sobre muestras de
hueso procedentes del sitio Cueva del Medio (Última Esperanza, Chile). Anales del Insti-
tuto de la Patagonia 23: 125–33.

Nuñez, L., D. Jackson, T. Dillehay, C. Santoro, and C. Méndez. 2016. Cazadores-recolectores
tempranos y los primeros poblamientos en Chile hacia finales del Pleistoceno (ca. 13.000
a 10.000 años a.p.). In Prehistoria en Chile. Desde sus primeros habitantes hasta los
Incas, ed. by F. Falabella, M. Uribe, L. Sanhueza, C. Aldunate and J. Hidalgo, pp: 71–173.
Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria-Sociedad Chilena de Arqueología.

Olsen, S. L., and P. Shipman. 1988. Surface modification on bone: Trampling versus butch-
ery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15(5): 535–53.

Parenti, F. 2001. Le gisement quaternaire de Pedra Furada (Piauí, Brésil). Stratigraphie,
chronologie, evolution culturelle. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 

Paunero, R. S. 2003. The Cerro Tres Tetas (C3T) locality in the Central Plateau of Santa Cruz,
Argentina. In Where the South Winds Blow: Ancient Evidence for Paleo South Ameri-
cans, ed. by L. Miotti, M. Salemme and N. Flegenheimer, pp. 133–40. Texas: Center for
the Studies of the First Americans (CSFA) and Texas A&M University Press.

Pedersen, M. W, A. Ruter, Ch. Schweger, H. Friebe, R. A. Staff, K. K. Kjeldsen, M. L. Z. Men-
doza, A. B. Beaudoin, C. Zutter, N. K. Larsen, B. A. Potter, R. Nielsen, R. A. Rainville, 
L. Orlando, D. J. Meltzer, K. H. Kjær, and E. Willerslev. 2016. Postglacial viability and col-
onization in North America’s ice-free corridor. Nature 537: 45–49. 

Perego, U. A., A. Achilli, N. Angerhofer, M. Accetturo, M. Pala, A. Olivieri, B. Hooshiar
Kashani, K. H. Ritchie, R. Scozzari, Q. P. Kong, N. M. Myres, A. Salas, O. Semino, 
H. J. Bandelt, S. R. Woodward, and A. Torroni. 2009. Distinctive Paleo-Indian migration
routes from Beringia marked by two rare mtDNA haplogroups. Current Biology 19:1–8.

Pino, M., M. Chávez-Hoffmeister, X. Navarro-Harris, and R. Labarca. 2013. The late Pleis-
tocene Pilauco site, Osorno, south-central Chile. Quaternary International 299: 3–12.

Pitblado, B. 2011. A tale of two migrations: Reconciling recent biological and archaeological
evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Journal of Archaeological
Research 19: 327–75.

Politis, G. 2014. Discusión y consideraciones finales. In Estado actual de las investigaciones
en el sitio arqueológico Arroyo Seco 2, ed. by G. Politis, M. A. Gutiérrez and C. Scabuzzo,
pp. 439–59. Serie Monográfica N°5 INCUAPA-CONICET.

Politis, G., and J. Steele. 2014 Cronología radiocarbónica. In Estado actual de las investiga-
ciones en el sitio arqueológico Arroyo Seco 2, ed. by G. Politis, M. A. Gutiérrez and 
C. Scabuzzo, pp. 57–66. Olavarría: Serie Monográfica N°5 INCUAPA-CONICET.

Politis, G., G. Barrientos, and T. Stafford Jr. 2011. Revisiting Ameghino: new 14C dates from
ancient human skeletons from the Argentine Pampas. In Peuplements et préhistoire en
Amériques, ed. by D. Vialou, pp. 43–53. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques
et scientifiques.

Politis. G, M. A. Gutiérrez, D. Rafuse, and A. Blasi. 2016. The Arrival of Homo sapiens into the
Southern Cone at 14,000 Years Ago. PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0162870.
September 28, 2016 1 / 27



Politis and Prates

104 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Prates, L., G. Politis, and J. Steele. 2013. Radiocarbon chronology of the early human occu-
pation of Argentina. Quaternary International 301: 104–22.

Raghavan, M., P. Skoglund, K. E. Graf, M. Metspalu, A. Albrechtsen, I. Moltke, S. Ras-
mussen, T. W. Stafford Jr., L. Orlando, E. Metspalu, M. Karmin, K. Tambets, S. Rootsi, 
R. Mägi, P. Campos, E. Balanovska, O. Balanovsky, E. Khusnutdinova, S. Litvinov, 
L. P. Osipova, S. A. Fedorova, M. I. Voevoda, M. DeGiorgio, T. Sicheritz-Ponten, 
S. Brunak, S. Demeshchenko, T. Kivisild, R. Villems, R. Nielsen, M. Jakobsson, and 
E. Willerslev. 2013. Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native
Americans. Nature 505: 87–91.

Rasmussen, M., S. L. Anzick, M. R. Waters, P. Skoglund, M. DiGiorgio, T. W. Stafford Jr., 
S. Rasmussen, I. Moltke, A. Albrechtsen, S. M. Doyle, G. D. Poznik, V. Gudmundsdottir, 
R. Yadav, A. S. Malaspinas, S. S. V. White, M. E. Allentoft, O. E. Cornejo, K. Tambets, 
A. Eriksson, P. D. Heintzman, M. Karmin, T. S. Korneliussen, D. J. Meltzer, T. L. Pierre, 
J. Stenderup, L. Saag, V. M. Warmuth, M. C. Lopes, R. S. Malhi, S. Brunak, T. Sicheritz-
Ponten, I. Barnes, M. Collins, L. Orlando, F. Balloux, A. Manica, R. Gupta, M. Metspalu, 
C. D. Bustamante, M. Jakobsson, R. Nielsen, and E. Willerslev. 2014. The genome of a
late Pleistocene human from a Clovis burial site in western Montana. Nature 506:
225–29.

Reich, D., N. Patterson, D. Campbell, A. Tandon, S. Mazieres, N. Ray, M. V. Parra, W. Rojas,
C. Duque, N. Mesa, L. F. García, O. Triana, S. Blair, A. Maestre, J. C. Dib, C. M. Bravi, 
G. Bailliet, D. Corach, T. Hünemeier, M. C. Bortolini, F. M. Salzano, M. L. Petzl-Erler, 
V. Acuña-Alonzo, C. Aguilar-Salinas, S. Canizales-Quinteros, T. Tusié-Luna, L. Riba, 
M. Rodríguez-Cruz, M. López-Alarcón, R. Coral-Vázquez, T. Canto-Cetina, I. Silva-Zolezzi,
J. C. Fernández-López, A. V. Contreras, G. Jimenez-Sánchez, M. J. Gómez-Vázquez, 
J. Molina, A. Carracedo, A. Salas, C. Gallo, G. Poletti, D. B. Witonsky, G. Alkorta-Aranbu-
ru, R. I. Sukernik, L. Osipova, S. A. Fedorova, R. Vásquez, M. Villena, C. Moreau, R. Bar-
rantes, D. Pauls, L. Excoffier, G. Bedoya, F. Rothhammer, J. M. Dugoujon, G. Larrouy, 
W. Klitz, D. Labuda, J. Kidd, K. Kidd, A. Di Rienzo, N. B. Freimer, A. L. Price, A. Ruiz-
Linares. 2012. Reconstructing native American population history. Nature 488: 370–74.

Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. B. Ramsey, C. E. Buck, 
H. Cheng, R. L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, H. Haflidason, 
I. Hajdas, C. Hatté, T. J. Heaton, D. L. Hoffman, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, 
B. Kromer, S. W. Manning, M. Niu, R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, 
J. R. Southon, R. A. Staff, C. S. M. Turney, and J. Van der Plicht. 2013. IntCall13 and
Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal. BP. Radicarbon 55(4):
1869–887.

Rogers, R. R., and S. M. Kidwell. 2007. A conceptual framework for the genesis and analysis
of vertebrate skeletal concentrations. In Bonebeds: Genesis, Analysis, and Paleobiolog-
ical Significance, ed. by R. R. Rogers, D. A. Eberth and A. R. Fiorillo, pp. 1–63. University of
Chicago.

Roosevelt, A. C., J. Douglas, and L. Brown. 2002. The migrations and adaptations of the first
Americans: Clovis and Pre-Clovis viewed from South America. In The First Americans:
the Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, Memoir N° 27, ed. by N. G. Jablonski, 
pp. 159–223. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.

Rubinos, A. 2009. Límites de la geocronología en el estudio de yacimientos de época históri-
ca. Munibe 60: 331–47.

Shennan S., S. S. Downey, A. Timpson, K. Edinborough, S. Colledge, T. Kerig, K. Manning,
and M. G. Thomas. 2013. Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms
in mid-Holocene Europe. Nature Communications 4: 2486.

Stanford, D. J., and B. A. Bradley. 2012. Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis
Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.



Clocking the arrival of Homo sapiens in the Southern Cone of South America

105Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Stafford Jr, T. W., K. Brendal, and R. C. Duhamel. 1989. Radiocarbon, 13C and 15N analysis of
fossil bone: Removal of humates with XAD-2 resin. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
52: 2257–2267.

Stafford Jr., T. W., P. E. Hare, L. Currie, A. J. T. Jull, and D. J. Donahue. 1991. Accelerator
radiocarbon dating at the molecular level. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 35–72.

Steele, J. 2010. Radiocarbon dates as data: quantitative strategies for estimating coloniza-
tion front speeds and event densities. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2017–030.

Steele, J., and G. Politis. 2009. AMS 14C dating of early human occupation of southern South
America. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 419–29. 

Suárez, R. 2015. The Paleoamerican occupation of the plains of Uruguay: Tachnology, adap-
tations, and mobility. Paleoamerica 1(1): 88–104.

Suárez, R., L. A. Borrero, K. Borrazzo, M. Ubilla, S. Martínez, and D. Perea. 2014. Archaeolog-
ical evidences are still missing: A comment on Fariña et al., Arroyo del Vizcaíno site,
Uruguay. Proceedings Royal Society B 281: 20140449.

Surovell, T. A., and P. J. Brantingham. 2007. A note on the use of temporal frequency distri-
butions in studies of prehistoric demography. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:
1868–877.

Surovell, T. A., J. Finley, G. M. Smith, P. J. Brantingham, and R. L.Kelly. 2009. Correcting tem-
poral frequency distributions for taphonomic bias. Journal of Archaeological Science
36: 1715–734.

Surovell, T. A., J. R. Boyd, C. V. Haynes Jr., and G. W. L. Hodgins. 2016. On the dating of the
Folsom Complex and its correlation with the Younger Dryas, the end of Clovis, and
megafaunal extinction. Paleoamerica 2(2): 81–9.

Tamm, E., T. Kivisild, M. Reidla, M. Metspalu, D. G. Smith D. G., et al. 2007. Beringian Stand-
still and Spread of Native American Founders. PLoS ONE 2(9): e829.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000829

Taylor, R. 2009. Six Decades of Radiocarbon Dating in New World Archaeology. Radiocar-
bon 51(1): 173–212.

Taylor, M. A., I. L. Hendy, and D. K. Pak. 2014. Deglacial ocean warming and marine margin
retreat of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet in the North Pacific Ocean. Earth and Planetary Sci-
ence Letters 403: 89–98.

Vialou, A. V. 2005. Pré-História do Mato Grosso. Volumen 1. Sao Paulo: Santa Elina. Sao
Paulo: Editorial USP.

Walker, M. J. C., M. Berkelhammer, S. Björck, L. C. Cwynar, D. A. Fisher, A. J. Long, 
J. J. Lowe, R. M. Newnham, S. O. Rasmussen, and H. Weis. 2012. Formal subdivision of
the Holocene Series/Epoch: A Discussion Paper by a Working Group of INTIMATE (Inte-
gration of ice-core, marine and terrestrial records) and the Subcommission on Quater-
nary Stratigraphy (International Commission on Stratigraphy). Journal of Quaternary
Science 27(7): 649–59. 

Wang S., C. M. Lewis Jr., M. Jakobsson, S. Ramachandran, N. Ray, G. Bedoya, W. Rojas, 
M. V. Parra, J. A. Molina, C. Gallo, G. Mazzotti, G. Poletti, K. Hill, A. M. Hurtado, D. Labuda,
W. Klitz, R. Barrantes, M. C. Bortolini, F. M. Salzano, M. L. Petzl-Erler, L. T. Tsuneto, 
E. Llop, F. Rothhammer, L. Excoffier, M. W. Feldman, N. A. Rosenberg, and A. Ruiz-
Linares. 2007. Genetic variation and population structure in Native Americans. PLOS
Genetics https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030185

Waters, M. R., and T. W. Stafford Jr. 2007. Redefining the age of Clovis. Implications for the
peopling of the Americas. Science 315: 1122–126.



Politis and Prates

106 Words, Bones, Genes, Tools: DFG Center for Advanced Studies

Waters, M. R., and T. W. Sttaford Jr. 2013. The First Americans: A review of the evidence for
the late-Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, ed. by 
K. Graf, C. V. Ketron and M. R. Waters, pp. 541–60. College Station: Center for the Study of
the First Americans, Texas A&M University.

Waters, M., T. Amoroso, and T. Stafford Jr. 2015. Redating Fell’s Cave, Chile, and the chrono-
logical placement of the fishtail projectile ponit. American Antiquity 80(2): 376–386.

Williams, A. N. 2012. The use of summed radiocarbon probability distributions in archaeolo-
gy: A review of methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 578–89.