The strongest version of this story is a little narrower than the viral one. A 2019 PNAS paper did not prove that archaeologists found a fully documented ancient ayahuasca brew. It did show something cleaner and still remarkable: a 1,000-year-old ritual bundle from Cueva del Chileno in southwestern Bolivia contained chemical traces of multiple psychoactive compounds, including DMT and harmine.
That distinction matters. The paper supports a sophisticated botanical kit. It supports multiple psychoactive plants in one ritual assemblage. It supports long-distance movement of plants and knowledge across ecological zones. What it does not support, on its own, is a simple headline like “oldest ayahuasca discovered.”
What the paper actually found
In Chemical evidence for the use of multiple psychotropic plants in a 1,000-year-old ritual bundle from South America, researchers analyzed residues from a ritual bundle recovered from Cueva del Chileno, a rock shelter in the Lípez highlands of southwestern Bolivia at about 3,890 meters above sea level. The outer leather bag was radiocarbon dated to 905 to 1170 CE, which is why the bundle is usually described as about 1,000 years old.
The bundle was not just loose plant material. The paper describes decorated snuffing tablets, a snuffing tube with human hair braids attached, an animal-skin pouch made from three fox snouts, bone spatulas, plant fragments, and a woven headband. That matters because the find looks like ritual paraphernalia, not random storage.
Using LC-MS/MS, the team identified cocaine, benzoylecgonine, harmine, bufotenine, and dimethyltryptamine in residues associated with the fox-snout pouch, plus related compounds on an attached plant sample. In the paper's own phrasing, this was the largest number of psychoactive compounds recovered from a single archaeological artifact from that region of South America to date.
Why DMT plus harmine matters, and why it is still not a proof-of-ayahuasca headline
The paper explicitly says the bundle is “a documented case of a ritual bundle containing both harmine and dimethyltryptamine, the two primary ingredients of ayahuasca.” That is the sentence behind most of the stronger headlines, and it is real.
But the discussion section is more careful than many retellings. The authors also say, just as explicitly, that “archaeological evidence of ayahuasca consumption is still lacking.” They note that DMT in the pouch could have come from more than one source, including Anadenanthera or Psychotria, and they stop short of claiming conclusive evidence for an ancient brew in the same form most commonly associated with modern Banisteriopsis caapi plus Psychotria viridis preparations.
That is the cleanest way to read the finding. The bundle shows that ritual specialists had access to compounds associated with multiple psychoactive plants, including the two compounds most associated with ayahuasca chemistry. It does not let us collapse the whole story into “they definitely made the modern brew.”
What the find does show with real confidence
1. Multiple psychotropic plants in one ritual assemblage
This is the most solid claim in the paper. The residue data support at least three psychoactive plant sources in one bundle, with possible evidence pointing even wider. That alone makes the find unusually strong.
2. Sophisticated botanical knowledge
The authors argue that the bundle reflects extensive knowledge of powerful plants and their uses. Even the Penn State research release, which is a little looser than the paper on the ayahuasca framing, is clear on this narrower point: the owner of the kit had access to plants that did not grow in that high Andean setting.
3. Long-distance movement across ecological zones
The compounds point toward plants from different South American environments, not a single local source. The paper frames that as evidence of either elaborate exchange networks, long-distance travel, or both. However the plants moved, the bundle suggests that ritual specialists operated inside bigger regional systems than a one-site reading would imply.
4. A ritual context, not a casual stash
The snuffing tablets, snuffing tube, fox-snout pouch, and associated ritual debris matter here. Even if the exact preparation method remains uncertain, the archaeological context strongly supports ceremonial or specialist use.
Why the correction makes the story better, not smaller
The overclaim version of this story says we have proven a 1,000-year-old ayahuasca brew. The stronger version says something more interesting: we have direct chemical evidence that ritual specialists in the pre-Columbian Andes assembled and used multiple psychoactive plants, including DMT- and harmine-linked materials, inside a carefully constructed ritual kit.
That is a better historical claim because it is both more precise and broader. It moves the discussion out of folklore without pretending the chemistry answered every ethnobotanical question. The paper gives us a hard archaeological anchor for sophisticated psychotropic plant knowledge. It does not eliminate ambiguity about exactly how every plant was prepared or combined.
The clean takeaway
If this post stays inside the evidence, the takeaway is straightforward. The Cueva del Chileno bundle is not best described as proof of a fully documented ancient ayahuasca recipe. It is best described as strong chemical evidence that a 1,000-year-old ritual specialist's bundle contained multiple psychoactive plants, including residues linked to DMT and harmine, in a context that points to complex knowledge, deliberate ritual use, and long-distance botanical exchange.
That is still a remarkable finding. It just happens to be most interesting when it is stated carefully.