Talk:Monte Verde

message: The proposed migration route is a reasonable subject for a map accompanying this article, but the childlike map presented here isn't really adequate. Map should probably depict physical geography rather than modern day countries, optimally depicting coastlines, glaciers/ice fields etc. ca. 15000 ybp.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.1.7 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Suggestion 

message: I'm confused why Monte Verde is being called a pre-Clovis site. Yes, I understand that it is older than the physical site at Clovis, New Mexico. But Clovis culture is not defined by any particular range of dates, but rather by the level of technological sophistication found at the site. This article, and others that I have found, provide no scientific reason to believe this site was not a member of Clovis culture (have fluted spear points been found there? have any spear points been found there?), except that it has shown up in an unexpected place and is unexpectedly old for being in that place. 1000 years and 5000 miles does not really imply a distinct origin for this site compared to the Clovis site. At best this means that Clovis culture started somewhat earlier than was previously assumed, and spread farther than was previously supported by evidence. This is entirely reasonable, given that sea levels 14000 years ago were approximately 350 feet lower than present, so any coastal Clovis settlements (which is probably almost every Clovis settlement that ever existed) would now be underwater and therefore be physically obliterated. We have only previously assumed that Clovis culture began circa 13500BP and spread circa Venezuela because there was no evidence to the contrary. Monte Verde is evidence to the contrary, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the Clovis model of migration. --70.131.114.241 (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far a I know Monte Verde people were hunter-gatherers just like the Clovis, but they lived in a completely different environment and had diffent adaptations to it. They had for example a very different building style with "huts" organizated around a central fire. I do seriusly believe that the first Americans traveled by boat following the coast and did not spread from the Bering land brigde trough the great plains. Dentren | Talk 14:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: There is also some confusion here regarding what Clovis means. Clovis are generally thought to have gained access to the continent through the gap in the glacier 13,500 BP. The Monte Verde culture evidently didn't. (Cerumol2 (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Clovis culture has been assumed to have originated in the northern interior and spread southwards, but more rigorous dating indicates that it spread northward.  Its origins appear to have been from inland migrants from the coast, who adopted a big game hunting lifestyle in their new environment.75.111.20.66 (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

text: 5,000 miles and 1,000 yrs is also the same difference between ancient China dinasty and the foundation of Rome... i'd say is more than enough to notice some 'difference', morevore the famous clovis points seems not be present in such old sites. No talk about the more recent 18,000 yrs dating. And the Clovis were the ones believe to be guilty to have killed the megafauna with a blitzkrieg about 12,000 yrs ago. So definitively it's quite stunning to read someone that cannot see the importance of Monte Verde and other site like it. Evidently the 'clovis first theory' is hard to die...S.M.71 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

text: For a site to be a Clovis site, it has to have Clovis points, not just any spear points. Monte Verde has lithic artifacts, but I don't think any functions of these have been determined. Also, Clovis settlements are most often coastal, as the people associated with the Clovis culture did not take a coastal route to migration, but a land route (through the ice-free corridor 10,000 years ago). There is zero evidence to claim that Monte Verde can be associated with the Clovis culture. Sites that do not have Clovis associated artifacts and are older are under the category of "Pre-Clovis" because of the academic stronghold that the Clovis First hypothesis has.  BeeCandelaria (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Clovis settlements are most often not coastal, my apologies.  BeeCandelaria (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Clovis? 

message: The article says "these first settlers were maritime-adapted hunter-gather-fishermen, and not necessarily big-game hunters like the Clovis" but also "Inside the camp, archaeologists found a chunk of meat that still had preserved DNA. After a DNA analysis, it matched that of a mastodon, indicating the type of food the inhabitants ate". Can this be cleared up? Mastodon is big game isn't it?(Cerumol2 (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Statements  re Diet 

message: The pictures in this article are very amateur. They look like they were made by a 4th grader using colored pencils. How do we know that the drawing of the living structures is even accurate? For a well-sourced and well-written article, the pictures are embarrassing. Surely there must be some fair-use illustrations somewhere?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible pictures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monte Verde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130428220646/http://australosorno.com.pe to http://www.australosorno.com.pe/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Monte Verde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202232355/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/97/monteverde/dallas.html to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/97/monteverde/dallas.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202200925/http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm to http://www.unl.edu/rhames/monte_verde/MonteVerde.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127073334/http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/SUROVELL/pdfs/Coastal%20Migration.pdf to http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/surovell/pdfs/coastal%20migration.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: is a nice online site map which the article probably needs something like.Ploversegg (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site