Great, but they’re not ‘ancient’, at least by common definitions of what ancient means. They’re relatively recent, historically speaking.
But that's in a European history context. It seems that ancient in the context of the Americas is usually applied to anything pre-1492.
This article does a lot of that ("Mind blowing!" "Challenges archeaological dogma!" "Mysterious"!), and it repeats something that's very suspect, even amongst conservative historians--it dates civilization in the area to "10,000 years old". Also, much of what's in these kinds of articles is not new, but simply repackaged content.