What do you think?
Rate this book
The Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory
Since 1977, archaeologist Tom Dillehay has been unearthing conclusive evidence of human habitation in the Americas at least 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, settling a bitter debate and demolishing the standard scientific account of the settlement of the Americas. The question of how people first came to the Americas is now thrown wide open: the best guess is that they arrived from a variety of places, at many different times and by many different routes. Dillehay describes who the earliest settlers are likely to have been, where they may have landed, how they dispersed across two continents, what their technology and folkways may have been like, and how they interacted with the famous Clovis culture once thought to represent the earliest settlers.
394 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
17 people are currently reading
409 people want to read
About the author
Tom D. Dillehay
22 books4 followersTom D. Dillehay is Professor of Anthropology at Vanderbilt University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 21, 2015
Update 2015: an exciting summary of the latest genetic evidence on ancient links between South Asian and South American pioneers: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science...
Timothy Egan's book Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher: The Epic Life and Immortal Photographs of Edward Curtis sparked my interest in American Indian cultures, so I decided that I had best begin at the beginning. Thomas Dillehay proves to my satisfaction that the beginning was a very, very long time ago--perhaps as much as 15,000 - 20,000 years before the present.
I had vague school memories of the Clovis big-game hunting culture that supposedly peopled the Americas sometime around 11,200 years ago. That culture certainly existed and played a major role in North America, but Dillehay marshals an impressive set of data from dozens of South American excavations to demonstrate that humans were here earlier and possibly made more than one migration out of Asia. The earliest Americans were not as specialized as the Clovis nomads, but rather exploited a wide range of plants, small game and marine creatures using multiple stone, wood and bone technologies. There is even evidence for herbal medicine use and extensive trading.
While technical, this book is very accessible and readable, even for the layman. Highly recommended for anyone interested in exploring early human history and culture.
Timothy Egan's book Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher: The Epic Life and Immortal Photographs of Edward Curtis sparked my interest in American Indian cultures, so I decided that I had best begin at the beginning. Thomas Dillehay proves to my satisfaction that the beginning was a very, very long time ago--perhaps as much as 15,000 - 20,000 years before the present.
I had vague school memories of the Clovis big-game hunting culture that supposedly peopled the Americas sometime around 11,200 years ago. That culture certainly existed and played a major role in North America, but Dillehay marshals an impressive set of data from dozens of South American excavations to demonstrate that humans were here earlier and possibly made more than one migration out of Asia. The earliest Americans were not as specialized as the Clovis nomads, but rather exploited a wide range of plants, small game and marine creatures using multiple stone, wood and bone technologies. There is even evidence for herbal medicine use and extensive trading.
While technical, this book is very accessible and readable, even for the layman. Highly recommended for anyone interested in exploring early human history and culture.
July 16, 2020
quote from 'The Scientist'
https://www.the-scientist.com/news/mo...
"Thirteen years ago, archeologist Tom Dillehay was teaching at the Universidad Austral de Chile in Valdivia and pursuing his interest in early Andean cultures. Then a student asked the young researcher to identify several large bones found at Monte Verde, a wet and boggy site in south central Chile. Dillehay recognized the bones immediately as belonging to a mastodon.
Dillehay had no way of knowing that his exploration of the site where the prehistoric animal had been butchered by Indian hunters would challenge long-held theories about the peopling of the Americas - or threaten his own budding career.
"What we found was really the best window we've ever encountered on the ways of early hunter-gatherers. It's the Machu Pichu of the Ice Age," says Dillehay, now at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Other archeologists are equally enthusiastic, calling Monte Verde "the most important site [in the Americas] to come along in the last 60 years." For beneath the peaty bogs of Monte Verde lie 14 wooden hut foundations, wood and stone artifacts, a hunk of preserved mastodon muscle, animal skins, and masticated potatoes. There is even a human footprint.
But an ancient habitation wasn't the only thing that Dillehay uncovered. His discovery plunged him unwittingly into a bitter and protracted debate among archeologists over the date of the first human settlement in North America. Most archeologists, based on evidence from a 1927 discovery in New Mexico, believe that the first humans came to the New World 12,000 years ago. In fact, adherence to that view has become almost a litmus test for acceptance into the profession. Unfortunately for Dillehay, many of the artifacts from Monte Verde date from 13,000 B.P. (before the present). And that 1,000-year difference would force him to wage a 10-year battle to preserve his professional reputation."
***
***
" ... multiple migrations ... Early arrivals may have been proto-Mongoloids, later ones perhaps more like modern Mongoloids or Asians ... Two types of human skeletons, a robust form and a gracile form, apparently coexisted in early Holocen South America ... suggest that the earliest South Americans may not be morphologically linked with northeastern Asians or Siberians ... more closely resemble South Pacific and South Asian populations ... These results only add to the unanswered questions." And setting for a fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settleme...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
***
***
some fragments from first review:
“ … 36 miles from coast of southern Chile … a few days walk from both coast and mountains …
20 foot long structure of wood and animals hides on banks of creek … framed with logs and planks staked to ground with wall of poles covered with animals hides … interiors divided by hide and pole walls that were tied together with reed cordage … each area had a fire pit … two large outdoor hearths … grinding stones … firewood …wishbone shaped wooden uprights for mastodon carcass butchering … medicinal plants from coast and mountains … seaweed chaws … wild potatoes salt … rounded stones converted to tools … bitumen for fastening stone tools to wooden hafts … bone digging tools and gouges … bifacially flaked projectile points … grooved sling stones … most stone tools extremely simple rocks slightly modified by ivory batons …”
https://www.the-scientist.com/news/mo...
"Thirteen years ago, archeologist Tom Dillehay was teaching at the Universidad Austral de Chile in Valdivia and pursuing his interest in early Andean cultures. Then a student asked the young researcher to identify several large bones found at Monte Verde, a wet and boggy site in south central Chile. Dillehay recognized the bones immediately as belonging to a mastodon.
Dillehay had no way of knowing that his exploration of the site where the prehistoric animal had been butchered by Indian hunters would challenge long-held theories about the peopling of the Americas - or threaten his own budding career.
"What we found was really the best window we've ever encountered on the ways of early hunter-gatherers. It's the Machu Pichu of the Ice Age," says Dillehay, now at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Other archeologists are equally enthusiastic, calling Monte Verde "the most important site [in the Americas] to come along in the last 60 years." For beneath the peaty bogs of Monte Verde lie 14 wooden hut foundations, wood and stone artifacts, a hunk of preserved mastodon muscle, animal skins, and masticated potatoes. There is even a human footprint.
But an ancient habitation wasn't the only thing that Dillehay uncovered. His discovery plunged him unwittingly into a bitter and protracted debate among archeologists over the date of the first human settlement in North America. Most archeologists, based on evidence from a 1927 discovery in New Mexico, believe that the first humans came to the New World 12,000 years ago. In fact, adherence to that view has become almost a litmus test for acceptance into the profession. Unfortunately for Dillehay, many of the artifacts from Monte Verde date from 13,000 B.P. (before the present). And that 1,000-year difference would force him to wage a 10-year battle to preserve his professional reputation."
***
***
" ... multiple migrations ... Early arrivals may have been proto-Mongoloids, later ones perhaps more like modern Mongoloids or Asians ... Two types of human skeletons, a robust form and a gracile form, apparently coexisted in early Holocen South America ... suggest that the earliest South Americans may not be morphologically linked with northeastern Asians or Siberians ... more closely resemble South Pacific and South Asian populations ... These results only add to the unanswered questions." And setting for a fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settleme...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
***
***
some fragments from first review:
“ … 36 miles from coast of southern Chile … a few days walk from both coast and mountains …
20 foot long structure of wood and animals hides on banks of creek … framed with logs and planks staked to ground with wall of poles covered with animals hides … interiors divided by hide and pole walls that were tied together with reed cordage … each area had a fire pit … two large outdoor hearths … grinding stones … firewood …wishbone shaped wooden uprights for mastodon carcass butchering … medicinal plants from coast and mountains … seaweed chaws … wild potatoes salt … rounded stones converted to tools … bitumen for fastening stone tools to wooden hafts … bone digging tools and gouges … bifacially flaked projectile points … grooved sling stones … most stone tools extremely simple rocks slightly modified by ivory batons …”
September 18, 2015
If you picked up Dillehay's book to get a detailed analysis of Monte Verde, his infamous archaeological site, you will be disappointed. While he does delve into some of the key points about the site, this book is more of a cursory examination of the early archaeological sites found in South America as it relates to the ongoing debate regarding the arrival of the First Americans.
At the present moment, there are two leading theories regarding the arrival of the indigenous populations of the Americas: Clovis First and Coastal Migration Theory. Dillehay's book presents both in a clear format and presents thought-provoking questions for both sides of the debate. While it is clear that Dillehay's research points to the Coastal Migration as the leading answer, he suggests that upon arrival to the Isthmus of Panama the answer is somewhat muddled in that there are archaeological sites on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Like many archaeologists, Dillehay suggests that there were multiple routes to the Americas and that these did not occur at the same time.
This is a great cursory read for archaeologists looking to get their feet wet in South American archaeology and it will challenge your thinking regarding the ongoing debate. For the layperson, the book might seem a bit daunting with all of the archaeological terminology, but I think it is well worth spending your time reading how real life archaeology is constructed.
At the present moment, there are two leading theories regarding the arrival of the indigenous populations of the Americas: Clovis First and Coastal Migration Theory. Dillehay's book presents both in a clear format and presents thought-provoking questions for both sides of the debate. While it is clear that Dillehay's research points to the Coastal Migration as the leading answer, he suggests that upon arrival to the Isthmus of Panama the answer is somewhat muddled in that there are archaeological sites on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Like many archaeologists, Dillehay suggests that there were multiple routes to the Americas and that these did not occur at the same time.
This is a great cursory read for archaeologists looking to get their feet wet in South American archaeology and it will challenge your thinking regarding the ongoing debate. For the layperson, the book might seem a bit daunting with all of the archaeological terminology, but I think it is well worth spending your time reading how real life archaeology is constructed.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews