What do you think?
Rate this book
The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere
2022 Choice Outstanding Academic Title
The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere is a reclaimed history of the deep past of Indigenous people in North and South America during the Paleolithic. Paulette F. C. Steeves mines evidence from archaeology sites and Paleolithic environments, landscapes, and mammalian and human migrations to make the case that people have been in the Western Hemisphere not only just prior to Clovis sites (10,200 years ago) but for more than 60,000 years, and likely more than 100,000 years.
Steeves discusses the political history of American anthropology to focus on why pre-Clovis sites have been dismissed by the field for nearly a century. She explores supporting evidence from genetics and linguistic anthropology regarding First Peoples and time frames of early migrations. Additionally, she highlights the work and struggles faced by a small yet vibrant group of American and European archaeologists who have excavated and reported on numerous pre-Clovis archaeology sites.
In this first book on Paleolithic archaeology of the Americas written from an Indigenous perspective, The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere includes Indigenous oral traditions, archaeological evidence, and a critical and decolonizing discussion of the development of archaeology in the Americas.
The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere is a reclaimed history of the deep past of Indigenous people in North and South America during the Paleolithic. Paulette F. C. Steeves mines evidence from archaeology sites and Paleolithic environments, landscapes, and mammalian and human migrations to make the case that people have been in the Western Hemisphere not only just prior to Clovis sites (10,200 years ago) but for more than 60,000 years, and likely more than 100,000 years.
Steeves discusses the political history of American anthropology to focus on why pre-Clovis sites have been dismissed by the field for nearly a century. She explores supporting evidence from genetics and linguistic anthropology regarding First Peoples and time frames of early migrations. Additionally, she highlights the work and struggles faced by a small yet vibrant group of American and European archaeologists who have excavated and reported on numerous pre-Clovis archaeology sites.
In this first book on Paleolithic archaeology of the Americas written from an Indigenous perspective, The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere includes Indigenous oral traditions, archaeological evidence, and a critical and decolonizing discussion of the development of archaeology in the Americas.
328 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2021
53 people are currently reading
1335 people want to read
About the author
Paulette F.C. Steeves
1 book20 followersPaulette F.C. Steeves is the Canada Research Chair in Healing and Reconciliation at Algoma University. Steeves is Cree-Métis and was born in Whitehorse, Yukon. She spent her formative years in Lillooet, British Columbia, Canada. Steeves holds an BA in Anthropology degree from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. She holds a Master in Anthropology from the State University of New York at Binghamton (SUNY), Her masters thesis was titled "Archaeology, CRM, Academia, and Ethics, and, Akimel O'odham, Type 2 Diabetes: Links to Traditional Food Loss."
In 2008 she was awarded the Clifford D. Clark fellowship to attend graduate studies and earned her PhD in 2015 from Binghamton. Steeves dissertation "Decolonising Indigenous Histories: Pleistocene Archeology Sites of the Western hemisphere" was the first thesis using Indigenous method and theory in Anthropology within the United States. Throughout her graduate studies Steeves taught at Fort Peck Community College and Selkirk College.
Following completion of her PhD, Steeves was hired as the interim director of the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Native American Studies Program.[6] She then taught at Mount Allison University as an Assistant Professor in the Anthropology and Indigenous Studies program.
In 2019 Steeves was hired by Algoma University and appointed as a Tier II Canada Research Chair in Healing and Reconciliation.
In 2008 she was awarded the Clifford D. Clark fellowship to attend graduate studies and earned her PhD in 2015 from Binghamton. Steeves dissertation "Decolonising Indigenous Histories: Pleistocene Archeology Sites of the Western hemisphere" was the first thesis using Indigenous method and theory in Anthropology within the United States. Throughout her graduate studies Steeves taught at Fort Peck Community College and Selkirk College.
Following completion of her PhD, Steeves was hired as the interim director of the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Native American Studies Program.[6] She then taught at Mount Allison University as an Assistant Professor in the Anthropology and Indigenous Studies program.
In 2019 Steeves was hired by Algoma University and appointed as a Tier II Canada Research Chair in Healing and Reconciliation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
May 19, 2022
It's worth knowing, before picking up this book, that it's as much about the politics of archeology as it is about the archaeology itself. The politics of it are actually quite interesting. Readers of Charles Mann's 1491 will be familiar with some of it, as he also gets into that in his book. There's also a lot of archeology, as one purpose of the book is to make more widely known the evidence from multiple archeological sites supporting very early human entry into the continent. Not 12,000 years but as much as 30,000 - 100,000+ years ago. Paulette gives an overview of the scientific methods relevant to understanding the evidence. Her politics of archeology are of decolonization. Some may find the jargon and leftist language difficult to get through, either because of unfamiliarity with the jargon or because of ideological differences with the author. But it's worth the effort because she has some very important things to say and some fascinating evidence to present. The material is advanced and challenging. It's the kind of history that doesn't just tell a historical narrative but gets into the nuts and bolts of the kind of work that archeologists and historians have to do. And for those who find that level of detail interesting this is a gem.
November 18, 2022
While Paulette Steeves book makes an excellent case for the pre-Clovis origins of Native Americans through her literature review and selected examples, I find that the book also leaves much to be desired. One of the book's weaknesses is that the author is willing to reach for conclusions of deep antiquity even when there isn't much evidence. Unlike in Europe and Africa and Asia and Australia, where we have extensive archaeological sites not limited to lithics alone but including phytoliths, charcoal hearths, textiles, etc, we don't have the same quality of archaeological sites in North and South America. A good question to ask is why. Perhaps they haven't been found yet -- or perhaps they were destroyed -- or perhaps they don't exist. What we DO have are the sites, but not the quality. What I mean is, we know what Peking Man was eating in Asia half a million years ago through phytoliths. We know about subsistence life ways throughout the Neareast and Africa going back over a million years. If Native Americans have been here 40, or 60 thousand years ago as Steeves wants to suggest, where is the extensive evidence? Let me be clear, I'm not saying this evidence doesn't exist. I agree with Steeves that not enough study has been devoted to the Americas due to academic and colonialist biases. Yet the lack of evidence is still a problem. We have good evidence for example from places like Meadowcroft Rock Shelter c 16,000 years ago (and who's deeper layers haven't even been excavated yet, btw), but where are our 40,000 year old sites? Steeves jumps from the numerous 16-24kyr old sites to the problematic 130,000 Cerutti Mastodon Site, as if to say "We were here all along." (She has said herself on a podcast that she believes humans have been in the Americas 200kyr.) But where's the continuity! This is the problem.
Now, lest you get the wrong ideas about me, I agree with Steeves. I believe the Americas have been populated for at least 40,000 years, and probably at least 60kyr.
I also appreciate her decolonialist approach. It is important, and I am glad to read this book written by an indigenous woman. Hopefully the institutional shackles can come off of American archaeology and over the next years and decades we will find the archaeological continuity we need stretching back 30, 40, 60 thousand years. Until then, we are left imagining and striving to know more.
Now, lest you get the wrong ideas about me, I agree with Steeves. I believe the Americas have been populated for at least 40,000 years, and probably at least 60kyr.
I also appreciate her decolonialist approach. It is important, and I am glad to read this book written by an indigenous woman. Hopefully the institutional shackles can come off of American archaeology and over the next years and decades we will find the archaeological continuity we need stretching back 30, 40, 60 thousand years. Until then, we are left imagining and striving to know more.
August 1, 2022
I've been interested in ancient DNA lately, and particularly interested in indigenous American history. The author makes it very clear throughout the book that she feels the archaeological community and academia need to work together with Native American tribes as to the remains of their ancestors. This seems to be the main focus of her book and she repeatedly explains about the colonialist mindset we have in the US and especially emphasizes this in her last chapter. Personally, she seemed to belabor the point but she feels it needs to be understood.
There were some interesting things I learned from the book, but not as much as I expected to learn. I know that we no longer adopt the Clovis First idea but I wasn't convinced humans have been here as long as she thinks - 130,000 years ago would assume a line died out at some point before later humans migrated. It is extremely important to the author that her ancestors were here long before 15,000 years ago due to the fact that white settlers justified their actions as indigenous peoples had not inhabited this land as long as people had inhabited Europe. I am excited about the discovery of the Y chromosome in Amazonia that indicates an earlier migration but I am not convinced that the main migrations happened long before 20,000 - 15000 years ago. I will keep reading.
There were some interesting things I learned from the book, but not as much as I expected to learn. I know that we no longer adopt the Clovis First idea but I wasn't convinced humans have been here as long as she thinks - 130,000 years ago would assume a line died out at some point before later humans migrated. It is extremely important to the author that her ancestors were here long before 15,000 years ago due to the fact that white settlers justified their actions as indigenous peoples had not inhabited this land as long as people had inhabited Europe. I am excited about the discovery of the Y chromosome in Amazonia that indicates an earlier migration but I am not convinced that the main migrations happened long before 20,000 - 15000 years ago. I will keep reading.
January 26, 2025
This is a tricky book to approach. Steeves walks a very fine line in this work and it can be difficult to capture the substance of what she is saying.
Firstly, the title of this book can be pretty misleading. It leads the reader to expect a dense, stogy, academic text about archeology and the Paleolithic history of the Americas. This is only a piece of this work, and a relatively small one at that. Steeves' real goal in this book is to decolonize the narrative around the Indigenous History of the Americas, incorporate Indigenous perspectives and methodologies into the discourse, and demonstrate how this will effect the scholarship itself. I belief these three points basically sum up what this book is about.
The fine line that I mention before is the balance of the discourse commentary and demonstrating its actual effect on scholarship. Yes, it is certainly true that narratives around Indigenous peoples are tainted by colonial violence and bias. Yes, Indigenous voice and methodologies, such as oral tradition, history, and tribal identity, ought to be incorporated and respected in research. And, yes, this should certainly improve the quality of scholarship. It's critically demonstrating this that Steeves aspires to do.
The examples she gives are pretty high level. One example is the pervasive use of the term 'Clovis peoples.' European scholarship constantly uses this term, even after it has been refuted for having little substantial significance. Indigenous scholars have be aware of this all along, and, if they had been involved in the discourse, this erroneous concept would have been gotten rid of.
Another example is the date that humans arrived in North America. In the 1910s, scholars believed they had been there for 3,000 years. In the 1990s they believed it has been about 12,000. We now have substantial evidence that it is probably well past 40,000 years. To Indigenous people and scholars, this was evident all along.
Historical Indigenous peoples are not a static object of scientific study, but the ancestors of living peoples whose culture remains intact and whose descendants are actively participating in this work. Indigenous perspective need to be considered and Indigenous methodologies need to be incorporated, while removing colonial biases and harmful narratives. I'm hoping this book is a starting point for a big conversation that ultimately effects how we look at history.
Firstly, the title of this book can be pretty misleading. It leads the reader to expect a dense, stogy, academic text about archeology and the Paleolithic history of the Americas. This is only a piece of this work, and a relatively small one at that. Steeves' real goal in this book is to decolonize the narrative around the Indigenous History of the Americas, incorporate Indigenous perspectives and methodologies into the discourse, and demonstrate how this will effect the scholarship itself. I belief these three points basically sum up what this book is about.
The fine line that I mention before is the balance of the discourse commentary and demonstrating its actual effect on scholarship. Yes, it is certainly true that narratives around Indigenous peoples are tainted by colonial violence and bias. Yes, Indigenous voice and methodologies, such as oral tradition, history, and tribal identity, ought to be incorporated and respected in research. And, yes, this should certainly improve the quality of scholarship. It's critically demonstrating this that Steeves aspires to do.
The examples she gives are pretty high level. One example is the pervasive use of the term 'Clovis peoples.' European scholarship constantly uses this term, even after it has been refuted for having little substantial significance. Indigenous scholars have be aware of this all along, and, if they had been involved in the discourse, this erroneous concept would have been gotten rid of.
Another example is the date that humans arrived in North America. In the 1910s, scholars believed they had been there for 3,000 years. In the 1990s they believed it has been about 12,000. We now have substantial evidence that it is probably well past 40,000 years. To Indigenous people and scholars, this was evident all along.
Historical Indigenous peoples are not a static object of scientific study, but the ancestors of living peoples whose culture remains intact and whose descendants are actively participating in this work. Indigenous perspective need to be considered and Indigenous methodologies need to be incorporated, while removing colonial biases and harmful narratives. I'm hoping this book is a starting point for a big conversation that ultimately effects how we look at history.
November 14, 2025
I wish I liked this more.
This book is born of pain. It's mind-boggling, the diversity of cultures and peoples that were annihilated by the avarice and cruelty of European "sea pirates" (as Vonnegut puts it) in their quest for land, riches, little bits of shiny mineral. Steeves aims to course correct. There is a great chasm in history of her people, and the histories of the neighbors and friends and enemies of her people, and Steeves would like us to rethink how we approach this mystery of the origins of the American continent. Archeology has historically been mobilized as yet another facet of white supremacy, as Steeves painstakingly marks out. There are hundreds of sites to be found in the western hemisphere that point to occupation before Clovis-site peoples (the very categorization of which as a singular population is problematic)--surely these add up to a bigger picture worth exploring? The oral traditions of the peoples under discussion here have often gone uninvestigated--perhaps we ought to look there?
All of this sounds good, but ultimately - - - it's just not quite working for me. Ugh, I'm sorry. Let's run this backwards. The question of oral traditions. Steeves points to one bit of evidence here--something about a mastodon graveyard, the existence of which is corroborated by native legend. But, that's the only thing she points to? What else? I don't think she mentions one other oral tradition that has led to new archeological knowledge. It just comes off as slight. For another example, let's take the Cerutti mastodon site. The mastodon remains are old, like 130,000 years old. That's cool. There's human markings on there, but it's hard to say when they actually got made. Steeves assures us that her source notes "a thick precipitate of soil carbonate on the broken surfaces proves that the breakage was indeed very ancient," but this is not a particularly rigorously tested founding, and still the site remains mired in controversy. Steeves would say it's because archeology's racist origins clouds the judgement of most of its practitioners. She notes that most criticism of the site is perpetuated by people who haven't actually been there. Regardless, I just find it rhetorically sloppy to then bandy about this 130,000 years old figure over and over for the rest of the book, as if this figure were more concretely established than it is. She writes, "Based on my research across the last twenty-four years, I argue that people have been present in the Western Hemisphere for over 130,000 years and possibly earlier." As far as I can tell, the Cerutti site is the only data point for which she leans as a source for this number, 130,000. It just seems kinda insubstantial, too weak a point on which to stake such a large claim. The vast majority of the data points she references would move the dates up for Clovis-era findings a couple thousand years, hardly 130,000.
So yea, I wish I liked this more. The mission is good, even just. It's a start, and to be fair Steeves never claims that her book is anything more than that, but I wanted more, more!!! Perhaps further scholarship will vindicate Steeves (there's already that new White Sands discovery, footprints dated to like 20-23k years old, something like that). For now... I don't think we've dislodged the land bridge theory just yet. >_<
This book is born of pain. It's mind-boggling, the diversity of cultures and peoples that were annihilated by the avarice and cruelty of European "sea pirates" (as Vonnegut puts it) in their quest for land, riches, little bits of shiny mineral. Steeves aims to course correct. There is a great chasm in history of her people, and the histories of the neighbors and friends and enemies of her people, and Steeves would like us to rethink how we approach this mystery of the origins of the American continent. Archeology has historically been mobilized as yet another facet of white supremacy, as Steeves painstakingly marks out. There are hundreds of sites to be found in the western hemisphere that point to occupation before Clovis-site peoples (the very categorization of which as a singular population is problematic)--surely these add up to a bigger picture worth exploring? The oral traditions of the peoples under discussion here have often gone uninvestigated--perhaps we ought to look there?
All of this sounds good, but ultimately - - - it's just not quite working for me. Ugh, I'm sorry. Let's run this backwards. The question of oral traditions. Steeves points to one bit of evidence here--something about a mastodon graveyard, the existence of which is corroborated by native legend. But, that's the only thing she points to? What else? I don't think she mentions one other oral tradition that has led to new archeological knowledge. It just comes off as slight. For another example, let's take the Cerutti mastodon site. The mastodon remains are old, like 130,000 years old. That's cool. There's human markings on there, but it's hard to say when they actually got made. Steeves assures us that her source notes "a thick precipitate of soil carbonate on the broken surfaces proves that the breakage was indeed very ancient," but this is not a particularly rigorously tested founding, and still the site remains mired in controversy. Steeves would say it's because archeology's racist origins clouds the judgement of most of its practitioners. She notes that most criticism of the site is perpetuated by people who haven't actually been there. Regardless, I just find it rhetorically sloppy to then bandy about this 130,000 years old figure over and over for the rest of the book, as if this figure were more concretely established than it is. She writes, "Based on my research across the last twenty-four years, I argue that people have been present in the Western Hemisphere for over 130,000 years and possibly earlier." As far as I can tell, the Cerutti site is the only data point for which she leans as a source for this number, 130,000. It just seems kinda insubstantial, too weak a point on which to stake such a large claim. The vast majority of the data points she references would move the dates up for Clovis-era findings a couple thousand years, hardly 130,000.
So yea, I wish I liked this more. The mission is good, even just. It's a start, and to be fair Steeves never claims that her book is anything more than that, but I wanted more, more!!! Perhaps further scholarship will vindicate Steeves (there's already that new White Sands discovery, footprints dated to like 20-23k years old, something like that). For now... I don't think we've dislodged the land bridge theory just yet. >_<
September 4, 2022
I went into this book expecting an in-depth exploration of the archaeological sites which disproved the Clovis First theory, e.g. the artifacts found, what kinds of theories drawn about the people who lived during those times, etc. There are really only two chapters that focus on this, so I was a bit disappointed.
However, this was a really important read on Indigenous epistemology and the need to decolonize anthropology (and academia in general). Paulette Steeves outlines implications of the Clovis First theory, and how it contributes to ideas around terra nullis and colonial expansion.
Steeves also highlights the catch-22 in archaeological and anthropological research. When the assumption is already made that human settlement in the Americas only occured 10,000 years ago, fewer resources are allocated to studying these sites and determining their true age and scope. Overall, this was a solid read on colonialism in academia and research.
However, this was a really important read on Indigenous epistemology and the need to decolonize anthropology (and academia in general). Paulette Steeves outlines implications of the Clovis First theory, and how it contributes to ideas around terra nullis and colonial expansion.
Steeves also highlights the catch-22 in archaeological and anthropological research. When the assumption is already made that human settlement in the Americas only occured 10,000 years ago, fewer resources are allocated to studying these sites and determining their true age and scope. Overall, this was a solid read on colonialism in academia and research.
June 17, 2023
surprisingly sparse information about the archeology of the subject matter and way more ideological info than I thought the book would be about.
March 19, 2023
Was good. Definitely take a look if you’re interested in anthropology and archeology in the Americas. Especially important to help keep an open mind in archeology
October 25, 2025
Eye opening. A 5 for the pre-Clovis argument, 3 for readably, which is pretty good for an academic work.
April 9, 2025
One thing about me is if you tell me that the archaeological study of the Western Hemisphere has a white supremacy problem and that the field needs to be decolonized to honestly study the history of humans in it, I'll believe you.
This is not a given in academic circles, which makes sense. So, Steeves spends a good portion of this book explaining the impact of colonialism on American archaeology. I found this a bit unnecessary as a non-archaeologist, but I trust, based on the evidence Steeves lays out, that it's necessary for her intended audience. It felt like finding out about the drama after the fact; however, I can now confidently say that anyone advocating for the Clovis-first hypothesis in 2025 needs to sort out their priorities. For obvious reasons, I found the other parts of the book more interesting.
Shoutout to the two paragraphs in chapter 7 about linguistic evidence for human migration in the Western hemisphere 20,000-40,000 years ago.
This is not a given in academic circles, which makes sense. So, Steeves spends a good portion of this book explaining the impact of colonialism on American archaeology. I found this a bit unnecessary as a non-archaeologist, but I trust, based on the evidence Steeves lays out, that it's necessary for her intended audience. It felt like finding out about the drama after the fact; however, I can now confidently say that anyone advocating for the Clovis-first hypothesis in 2025 needs to sort out their priorities. For obvious reasons, I found the other parts of the book more interesting.
Shoutout to the two paragraphs in chapter 7 about linguistic evidence for human migration in the Western hemisphere 20,000-40,000 years ago.
December 21, 2024
If you are at all interested in archeology or history in the Americas, this should be high on your reading list. It's a great challenge to old colonial mindsets WITH RECEITS.
July 21, 2022
3.5 stars, but Goodreads is dumb
March 14, 2022
Dr. Steeves does an extensive review of the literature in archeology and related fields around the concept of when North America was first peopled. There has been a theory that it occurred only about 10K years ago through the Bering land bridge and that a group of people called the Clovis people were the ones who settled all of this area. This has been the dogma for years, and Dr. Steeves makes a strong case that this theory is greatly outdated and has been clung to because of a settler mentality. There seem to be people who think that this time period makes the Native Americans less entitled to the land they were on when the first Europeans arrived starting in the 1600s. I'm not sure why that would matter when they still predate the Europeans by thousands of years, because they were still the original population. But it does seem to matter in some minds, and setting the record straight makes a difference not only for a European mindset about the land here, but for those of Indigenous descent like Dr. Steeves.
I applaud Dr. Steeves for her brave stand against what had been established dogma, and for making such a compelling case that humans populated the Americas much earlier, as would make sense when you look at the peopling of other parts of the world. It is interesting to think of humans and mastodons occupying the same territories. The book is also unique in covering the Indigenous point of view, including oral histories, and I enjoyed the personal poems and notes from Dr. Steeves sprinkled thoughout.
I applaud Dr. Steeves for her brave stand against what had been established dogma, and for making such a compelling case that humans populated the Americas much earlier, as would make sense when you look at the peopling of other parts of the world. It is interesting to think of humans and mastodons occupying the same territories. The book is also unique in covering the Indigenous point of view, including oral histories, and I enjoyed the personal poems and notes from Dr. Steeves sprinkled thoughout.
August 11, 2024
4.75/5 stars
A critical, highly informative tome on the deep historical past of the Americas from the perspective of an esteemed Indigenous scholar. Easily one of the best works I've read yet arguing for the presence of Indigenous peoples on the continent far before the oft-repeated timeline of c.13,000 years ago; Paulette Steeves provides exhaustive material, cultural and linguistic research done across Turtle Island to assert a deep history of the Americas going back at least 60,000 to possibly even 130,000 years ago. Reading in 2024 meant the pre-Clovis presence of humans across North and South America is quite widely accepted (Steeves contends the very existence of a pan-hemispheric, culturally uniform "Clovis culture" is a colonial invention to insist on a later settlement date of the Americas to dispossess Indigenous peoples of their own systems of knowledge and oral histories); however, I was unaware how bizarrely controversial and straight-up xenophobic those who argue against that position continue to be. In relation to that dispute, the tome secondarily takes a critical view on the anthropology and archaeology of the Americas, linking the Eurocentric methodologies and historical practices of academia as specifically utilized to uphold neocolonial paradigms and white supremacy in order to diminish Indigenous peoples' connection to the land and dehumanize their long-enduring, diverse societies and cultures. The topic is a vitally important, yet still woefully under-explored, aspect of colonial archaeology; Steeves rightfully persuades that for the field to usher in a new era of Western Hemispheric archaeology, we must re-examine commonly held narratives about the histories and peoplings of the Americas through a decolonized, Indigenous perspective which centres Indigenous communities and empowers their deep historical connection with their homeland. Wonderful, thought-provoking stuff.
CW: moderate discussions of animal deaths, colonization, genocide, anti-Indigenous racism, academic gaslighting and xenophobia.
To allow that Indigenous people were present in the Western Hemisphere over 14,000 years ago is to solidify their claims to Indigeneity and to support Indigenous ownership of the past, cultural identity and links to homelands and material heritage. American archaeologists' reluctance to consider earlier initial migrations reflects a neocolonial practice of maintaining the historical erasure of an ancient Indigenous presence in the Western Hemisphere. Erasure of the deep past denies Indigenous people a place in world history that accords them full humanity.
A critical, highly informative tome on the deep historical past of the Americas from the perspective of an esteemed Indigenous scholar. Easily one of the best works I've read yet arguing for the presence of Indigenous peoples on the continent far before the oft-repeated timeline of c.13,000 years ago; Paulette Steeves provides exhaustive material, cultural and linguistic research done across Turtle Island to assert a deep history of the Americas going back at least 60,000 to possibly even 130,000 years ago. Reading in 2024 meant the pre-Clovis presence of humans across North and South America is quite widely accepted (Steeves contends the very existence of a pan-hemispheric, culturally uniform "Clovis culture" is a colonial invention to insist on a later settlement date of the Americas to dispossess Indigenous peoples of their own systems of knowledge and oral histories); however, I was unaware how bizarrely controversial and straight-up xenophobic those who argue against that position continue to be. In relation to that dispute, the tome secondarily takes a critical view on the anthropology and archaeology of the Americas, linking the Eurocentric methodologies and historical practices of academia as specifically utilized to uphold neocolonial paradigms and white supremacy in order to diminish Indigenous peoples' connection to the land and dehumanize their long-enduring, diverse societies and cultures. The topic is a vitally important, yet still woefully under-explored, aspect of colonial archaeology; Steeves rightfully persuades that for the field to usher in a new era of Western Hemispheric archaeology, we must re-examine commonly held narratives about the histories and peoplings of the Americas through a decolonized, Indigenous perspective which centres Indigenous communities and empowers their deep historical connection with their homeland. Wonderful, thought-provoking stuff.
CW: moderate discussions of animal deaths, colonization, genocide, anti-Indigenous racism, academic gaslighting and xenophobia.
Read
December 23, 2024Will leave unrated
Excellent for those unfamiliar with Indigenous pedagogies in anthropology, archaeology, history, and education. Written more about decolonizing these fields and their politics than about specific sites. However, two chapters are dedicated to specific sites: one for North American sites and one for South American sites. The appendix lists these sites and more as well as their sources from journal articles.
Written in an Indigenous way of speaking-circular instead of the European linear.
Some of the critiques for this book here on GR proves the author's point in revealing how colonization is still entrenched in anthropology and those who read these topics. Dr Steeves also addressed why there hasn't been much evidence for a migration 130k years ago or even 300k years ago when humans have been in Europe and Asia for 2 million years: colonization persists in American anthropology and archaeology and that affects how research is funded, how sites are sought, the entrenched colonization mindset (i.e. Clovis First persistence), and more.
Excellent for those unfamiliar with Indigenous pedagogies in anthropology, archaeology, history, and education. Written more about decolonizing these fields and their politics than about specific sites. However, two chapters are dedicated to specific sites: one for North American sites and one for South American sites. The appendix lists these sites and more as well as their sources from journal articles.
Written in an Indigenous way of speaking-circular instead of the European linear.
Some of the critiques for this book here on GR proves the author's point in revealing how colonization is still entrenched in anthropology and those who read these topics. Dr Steeves also addressed why there hasn't been much evidence for a migration 130k years ago or even 300k years ago when humans have been in Europe and Asia for 2 million years: colonization persists in American anthropology and archaeology and that affects how research is funded, how sites are sought, the entrenched colonization mindset (i.e. Clovis First persistence), and more.
September 2, 2024
The evidence in this book is quite compelling, and presents a particularly fascinating narrative. The long standing Clovis First Hypothesis, the idea that the Indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere are descended from a single founding population that crossed the Bering Straight ~10k years ago and created a cross-continent culture, is wrong. But Steeves here presents evidence not just that Clovis First is demonstrably incorrect, but our understanding of the presence of humans in the Western Hemisphere may go way farther back than we initially realized.
Multiple lines of evidence help paint this picture. The geological record shows that there were multiple thousand year periods in the last 200 kya where the Beringia land bridge was not covered in glaciers, but were traversable. Traversable enough that we’ve observed multiple mammalian land migrations in the fossil record. Beyond that, archeological evidence in the Eastern Hemisphere show the usage of watercraft by early humans as far back as 100kya. Making it possible that humans could have traversed into the Western Hemisphere via island hopping. Opening up the possibility of multiple migrations.
This sets the stage for the archeological evidence. Sites uncovered throughout North and South America show sites that have pushed back the Clovis First timeline. There is strong evidence of human habitation going back 12-20 kya, suggestively 30 kya, and potentially even 100 kya. These much older sites are at the centre of a very large conflict within anthropology and archeology in the Western Hemisphere, and it is this conflict that provides another central thrust to Steeve’s book: the decolonization of Eurocentric narratives in archeology. But I will return to that topic later.
The most controversial of these is the Cerutti Mastodon site, where some archeologists have suggested that mastodon bones found were broken by human hands and dated to over 100 kya. Others argue the impaction of the bones was due to heavy machinery at the site, and that the evidence presented was not definitive enough to push back the human settlement timeline so incredibly far when we have no record of similar sites in the north of Eurasia, or any other sites throughout the Americas.
Beyond the physical remains, genetic evidence suggests the Clovis First timeline to be unlikely. Genetic diversity, uncovered by testing on ancient remains, in the Americas suggests that multiple migrations into the Americas over a much longer period of time seems more likely. Though genetic studies of Indigenous people is fraught due to sampling issues (small current population, extreme extinction rates historically).
There is finally another line of evidence explored around oral traditions. Steeve’s recounts an oral story which seems to have suggested that a modern Indigenous group retained historical memory of mammoth-like creatures, only to find out that mammoth bones were later uncovered at an archeological site in their territory. Though this chapter seemed to have suggested that more research like this should be done on oral stories, not that this one story was key evidence.
All of this was fascinating, and made this a worthwhile read. The evidence provided here was startling to me in its breadth, and has made me rethink my perception of the age of human presence in the Americas.
---
That said, I had a lot of issues with this book. Most of it boiled down to writing. Steeves decried the usage of words like “Europe” and “Asia” being sources of human migration into the Western Hemisphere when during the Paleolithic places like “Europe” or “Asia” were not political or cultural entities. Instead, she states firmly, we must decolonize our language and use phrasing like “now known as Europe”.
Hilariously, she is not consistent in her own writing with this usage, and then even threw in the use of words like “Old World” without the decolonizing qualifier. Not even mentioning the fact that successive sentences with “now known as…” shoved in there make for some tedious reading.
I’m being pedantic with my focus on minor details like that, but there were other issues. A lot of her writing was incredibly repetitive. The conclusion felt like I was reading the same paragraph over and over.
She wrote this sentence:
> American archeologists’ reluctance to consider earlier initial migrations reflects a neocolonial practice of maintaining the historical erasure of an ancient Indigenous presence in the Western Hemisphere.
>
And then not **nine sentences** later says the following:
> From what I have learned and experienced in American archeology, I argue that the academic denial over the legitimacy of pre-Clovis sites reflects a neocolonial practice of maintaining the erasure of an ancient Indigenous presence of the Western Hemisphere.
>
This wasn’t isolated. This repetitive rephrasing, and not as opening and closing arguments of chapters or arguments, was throughout the entire book.
---
My final issue is a bit more contentious, and something that I fully and humbly admit I cannot have a balanced perspective on. Steeves is Indigenous, and a lot of her work is rightly framed in the context of her identity and her people’s connection to the land. I, on the other hand, am a settler, of more recent origin, but a settler nonetheless. I don’t deny the genocide that occurred on these lands at the hands of settlers, and I don’t deny the on-going mistreatment, inequality and violence that occurs against the Indigenous people of today. These are real, fundamental issues that we must address as we move forward as a society.
Steeves spends a lot of time, as she states it, trying to decolonize archeology, and, as I infer it, to elevate the importance of her work underneath that lens. She writes:
> To stay silent is to allow violence and colonization to continue. It is essential to rewrite Indigenous histories that continue to erase diversity and humanity, such as the Clovis First Hypothesis of initial migrations into the Western Hemisphere.
>
There is legitimate bias in the historical record. Some of the earliest anthropologists in the 19th century were huuuuggeee racists, and the current denial of certain ancient sites by contemporary archeologists is rooted in bias, and even potentially racism.
But I don’t feel like the work of re-aligning the historical narrative of the arrival of early Indigenous groups is as meaningful as Steeves makes it out to be. Even if we wholeheartedly accepted the idea that First Nation groups have been here in the Americas for over 100 thousand years. Are we suggesting that this acceptance would provide an end to violence and colonization?
That isn’t to say that decolonizing narratives of Indigenous history isn’t important. It is. I’m just not convinced it has the weight that Steeves believes it does.
Multiple lines of evidence help paint this picture. The geological record shows that there were multiple thousand year periods in the last 200 kya where the Beringia land bridge was not covered in glaciers, but were traversable. Traversable enough that we’ve observed multiple mammalian land migrations in the fossil record. Beyond that, archeological evidence in the Eastern Hemisphere show the usage of watercraft by early humans as far back as 100kya. Making it possible that humans could have traversed into the Western Hemisphere via island hopping. Opening up the possibility of multiple migrations.
This sets the stage for the archeological evidence. Sites uncovered throughout North and South America show sites that have pushed back the Clovis First timeline. There is strong evidence of human habitation going back 12-20 kya, suggestively 30 kya, and potentially even 100 kya. These much older sites are at the centre of a very large conflict within anthropology and archeology in the Western Hemisphere, and it is this conflict that provides another central thrust to Steeve’s book: the decolonization of Eurocentric narratives in archeology. But I will return to that topic later.
The most controversial of these is the Cerutti Mastodon site, where some archeologists have suggested that mastodon bones found were broken by human hands and dated to over 100 kya. Others argue the impaction of the bones was due to heavy machinery at the site, and that the evidence presented was not definitive enough to push back the human settlement timeline so incredibly far when we have no record of similar sites in the north of Eurasia, or any other sites throughout the Americas.
Beyond the physical remains, genetic evidence suggests the Clovis First timeline to be unlikely. Genetic diversity, uncovered by testing on ancient remains, in the Americas suggests that multiple migrations into the Americas over a much longer period of time seems more likely. Though genetic studies of Indigenous people is fraught due to sampling issues (small current population, extreme extinction rates historically).
There is finally another line of evidence explored around oral traditions. Steeve’s recounts an oral story which seems to have suggested that a modern Indigenous group retained historical memory of mammoth-like creatures, only to find out that mammoth bones were later uncovered at an archeological site in their territory. Though this chapter seemed to have suggested that more research like this should be done on oral stories, not that this one story was key evidence.
All of this was fascinating, and made this a worthwhile read. The evidence provided here was startling to me in its breadth, and has made me rethink my perception of the age of human presence in the Americas.
---
That said, I had a lot of issues with this book. Most of it boiled down to writing. Steeves decried the usage of words like “Europe” and “Asia” being sources of human migration into the Western Hemisphere when during the Paleolithic places like “Europe” or “Asia” were not political or cultural entities. Instead, she states firmly, we must decolonize our language and use phrasing like “now known as Europe”.
Hilariously, she is not consistent in her own writing with this usage, and then even threw in the use of words like “Old World” without the decolonizing qualifier. Not even mentioning the fact that successive sentences with “now known as…” shoved in there make for some tedious reading.
I’m being pedantic with my focus on minor details like that, but there were other issues. A lot of her writing was incredibly repetitive. The conclusion felt like I was reading the same paragraph over and over.
She wrote this sentence:
> American archeologists’ reluctance to consider earlier initial migrations reflects a neocolonial practice of maintaining the historical erasure of an ancient Indigenous presence in the Western Hemisphere.
>
And then not **nine sentences** later says the following:
> From what I have learned and experienced in American archeology, I argue that the academic denial over the legitimacy of pre-Clovis sites reflects a neocolonial practice of maintaining the erasure of an ancient Indigenous presence of the Western Hemisphere.
>
This wasn’t isolated. This repetitive rephrasing, and not as opening and closing arguments of chapters or arguments, was throughout the entire book.
---
My final issue is a bit more contentious, and something that I fully and humbly admit I cannot have a balanced perspective on. Steeves is Indigenous, and a lot of her work is rightly framed in the context of her identity and her people’s connection to the land. I, on the other hand, am a settler, of more recent origin, but a settler nonetheless. I don’t deny the genocide that occurred on these lands at the hands of settlers, and I don’t deny the on-going mistreatment, inequality and violence that occurs against the Indigenous people of today. These are real, fundamental issues that we must address as we move forward as a society.
Steeves spends a lot of time, as she states it, trying to decolonize archeology, and, as I infer it, to elevate the importance of her work underneath that lens. She writes:
> To stay silent is to allow violence and colonization to continue. It is essential to rewrite Indigenous histories that continue to erase diversity and humanity, such as the Clovis First Hypothesis of initial migrations into the Western Hemisphere.
>
There is legitimate bias in the historical record. Some of the earliest anthropologists in the 19th century were huuuuggeee racists, and the current denial of certain ancient sites by contemporary archeologists is rooted in bias, and even potentially racism.
But I don’t feel like the work of re-aligning the historical narrative of the arrival of early Indigenous groups is as meaningful as Steeves makes it out to be. Even if we wholeheartedly accepted the idea that First Nation groups have been here in the Americas for over 100 thousand years. Are we suggesting that this acceptance would provide an end to violence and colonization?
That isn’t to say that decolonizing narratives of Indigenous history isn’t important. It is. I’m just not convinced it has the weight that Steeves believes it does.
February 2, 2025
3.5 stars. This is far from bad and I’m all behind the idea of applying reconciliation efforts to the entire fields of anthropology and archaeology, but it’s just too definitively an academic text for me to want to ever revisit this.
With that said though, the author’s critiques of colonization in north American archeology are loud and well-reasoned. Better than that, they’re very well-supported by subjective and objective evidence which she very precisely presents here.
despite considering myself and ally to indigenous reconciliation and reclamation of land, culture, history, and economy, I clearly didn’t know enough coming into this about the detailed academic perspectives at play to effectively defend or fact-check the claims and biases presented here. I want this truth to be heard and actual, but need variation and critique of this to better understand this books strengths and shortcomings. This is particularly the case when the author is citing and debating the validity of specific archaeological sites and findings. I just don’t have enough background to be able to understand the weight of the arguments presented.
However, as this is the first exposure I’ve had to the debate and dialogues about indigenous North American archeology, I claim this text as my foundational bias. I do feel that systemic colonization of indigenous history and archaeology is more likely true than not. This was just a graduate school archeology major level text when I’m barely at a high school history elective level.
Regardless, this was extremely insightful, even if it was a bit academic.
With that said though, the author’s critiques of colonization in north American archeology are loud and well-reasoned. Better than that, they’re very well-supported by subjective and objective evidence which she very precisely presents here.
despite considering myself and ally to indigenous reconciliation and reclamation of land, culture, history, and economy, I clearly didn’t know enough coming into this about the detailed academic perspectives at play to effectively defend or fact-check the claims and biases presented here. I want this truth to be heard and actual, but need variation and critique of this to better understand this books strengths and shortcomings. This is particularly the case when the author is citing and debating the validity of specific archaeological sites and findings. I just don’t have enough background to be able to understand the weight of the arguments presented.
However, as this is the first exposure I’ve had to the debate and dialogues about indigenous North American archeology, I claim this text as my foundational bias. I do feel that systemic colonization of indigenous history and archaeology is more likely true than not. This was just a graduate school archeology major level text when I’m barely at a high school history elective level.
Regardless, this was extremely insightful, even if it was a bit academic.
March 3, 2023
Just ordered my paperback copy! It’s now printed and ready to order at Nebraska Press!! yay!!
And had to write a note to say I’m excited but have not yet read it. I feel like I’ve got the gist of it though because I have read a bunch that the’s written and listened to her on Patrick Farnsworth’s LastBorn In the Wilderness podcast (soooo good!).. and it was amazing.
The promised printing of the paperback edition is ready for sale at Nebraska press for the same price as the eBook. Yay! Much more affordable and light weight, a forever keeper and now to convince the masses that the Clovis First theory is bunk. Every single historical reference is now on the hook to be changed, regionally, nationally.. everywhere. Let’s get busy guys! White supremacy is over. And, while I’m the descendent of settlers/colonizers (2-5gen UK/I), it is my commitment to stand in solidarity with all Indigenous in pursuit of their sovereignty on their terms. I am constantly aware and learning to disrupt my own perpetuation of power over and all superiority colonization values. And, I am committed to amplify the voices of Indigenous women, girls, and gender diverse people.
And had to write a note to say I’m excited but have not yet read it. I feel like I’ve got the gist of it though because I have read a bunch that the’s written and listened to her on Patrick Farnsworth’s LastBorn In the Wilderness podcast (soooo good!).. and it was amazing.
The promised printing of the paperback edition is ready for sale at Nebraska press for the same price as the eBook. Yay! Much more affordable and light weight, a forever keeper and now to convince the masses that the Clovis First theory is bunk. Every single historical reference is now on the hook to be changed, regionally, nationally.. everywhere. Let’s get busy guys! White supremacy is over. And, while I’m the descendent of settlers/colonizers (2-5gen UK/I), it is my commitment to stand in solidarity with all Indigenous in pursuit of their sovereignty on their terms. I am constantly aware and learning to disrupt my own perpetuation of power over and all superiority colonization values. And, I am committed to amplify the voices of Indigenous women, girls, and gender diverse people.
May 5, 2024
"Decolonizing Indigenous histories rebuilds bridges to ancestral places and times, which American archeology burned in political fires of power and control."
I was very excited by the premise of this book. So excited, in fact, I went out and actually purchased it, as opposed to scrounging around for it at my various libraries. One of the first reviews notes that this book is mostly a discussion of the politics of Euro-American archeology, as an institution and regarding specific players, and its deliberate erasure of a varied, vibrant, Indigenous identity—this time, through the idea that Indigenous people are really just Asian, and have been in the Americas (Turtle Island) for no more than 11,000 years or so, and those that were around, were all one glob of people called the Clovis. This review, unfortunately, is correct.
While important, the majority (or what felt like it) of this book is on this subject. Sadly for me, that wasn't what I was hoping to get out of it. By the time we got to actual archeology sites and their details, I was exhausted by a predictable and repetitive story. I wish these things (the need for a revision of archeological perspectives in Euro-American institutions) had been woven around information about the sites themselves.
This isn't the fault of the author, really. These things do need to change, and be talked about. I loved hearing about the Indigenous approach to research methodology, and the actual evidence we do have regarding the peopling of Turtle Island—archeologically, linguistically, and geographically. I just wish somethings had been structured better regarding the reading experience.
I was very excited by the premise of this book. So excited, in fact, I went out and actually purchased it, as opposed to scrounging around for it at my various libraries. One of the first reviews notes that this book is mostly a discussion of the politics of Euro-American archeology, as an institution and regarding specific players, and its deliberate erasure of a varied, vibrant, Indigenous identity—this time, through the idea that Indigenous people are really just Asian, and have been in the Americas (Turtle Island) for no more than 11,000 years or so, and those that were around, were all one glob of people called the Clovis. This review, unfortunately, is correct.
While important, the majority (or what felt like it) of this book is on this subject. Sadly for me, that wasn't what I was hoping to get out of it. By the time we got to actual archeology sites and their details, I was exhausted by a predictable and repetitive story. I wish these things (the need for a revision of archeological perspectives in Euro-American institutions) had been woven around information about the sites themselves.
This isn't the fault of the author, really. These things do need to change, and be talked about. I loved hearing about the Indigenous approach to research methodology, and the actual evidence we do have regarding the peopling of Turtle Island—archeologically, linguistically, and geographically. I just wish somethings had been structured better regarding the reading experience.
April 5, 2023
I suspected that humans have inhabited the Americas longer than taught, mainly because the opposition to Clovis timeline was severely oppressed by the dominant archaeological societies run by the dominant European philosophy: if you went against the grain, your scholarly career was ruined. I concluded that the scholars who put forth the dominant theories were threatened by new evidence and sought to bury it. In any event, I appreciated the author's efforts to put forth evidence, albeit light, that human occupation of the lands predated the accepted line of thought. Some of the author's evidence rested in ancestral stories which, although may be accurate, are difficult to prove through science. Nevertheless, the book is worth reading if at least to get a different viewpoint. It reads like a cumbersome textbook, which may be an obstacle to some.
July 12, 2023
Part examination of decades of archaeological research, part blistering prosecution of the colonialist attitudes inherent in how we view our history, this lays out the case that indigenous humans have been in North and South America for 60,000 to 130,000 years.
By examining the Clovis site (the generally accepted earliest human site in N. America - 11,000 years ago) and reexamining hundreds of sites that undermine that belief, she lays out a compelling and comprehensive case that our accepted beliefs on human migration and accomplishment are inherently based in colonialism and indigenous erasure.
A fantastic read.
By examining the Clovis site (the generally accepted earliest human site in N. America - 11,000 years ago) and reexamining hundreds of sites that undermine that belief, she lays out a compelling and comprehensive case that our accepted beliefs on human migration and accomplishment are inherently based in colonialism and indigenous erasure.
A fantastic read.
December 30, 2024
A good overview of why the Clovis first hypothesis is outdated and needs to be out to bed. Also some thoughtful critiques on decolonizing academia which are useful even for those of us outside the fields of archaeology.
I was a little disappointed because I thought that this book would be more focused on the actual practices and culture of Paleolithic indigenous peoples from the Americas, but I guess one of the main conclusions of the book is that the reason we don't yet know much about these peoples is due to years of clovis-first enforcement.
I was a little disappointed because I thought that this book would be more focused on the actual practices and culture of Paleolithic indigenous peoples from the Americas, but I guess one of the main conclusions of the book is that the reason we don't yet know much about these peoples is due to years of clovis-first enforcement.
December 31, 2024
my only issue with this book was I felt at first that the author was hammering away at pointing out how bias academia had been against this history, something I wholeheartedly agree with. Then I realized she was trying to reach fellow academics (not silly armchair historians like me) and she needed to be that adamant.
The cross-continental mammalian travel that the author references was new to me and I read Tom Koppel's The Lost World in 2003, that's when I first heard of the Kelp Highway. Really adds a perspective to how likely the 100k date is.
The cross-continental mammalian travel that the author references was new to me and I read Tom Koppel's The Lost World in 2003, that's when I first heard of the Kelp Highway. Really adds a perspective to how likely the 100k date is.
October 11, 2022
Thank you for educating me on so many levels! A manifesto to decolonise archeology (or science that is) and finally acknowledging that each indigenous people have the only right to be and claim what they are and where they come from. If ever we would have a chance would history repeat itself ? Sadly I think it would, this to the detriment of indigenous population and here I mean all, all over this blue planet.
March 29, 2025
This book has been sitting on my nightstand since I had to read it for one of my Indigenous history classes. I never finished it so I can’t give a good review of it but it generally reads as a more academic reading than scientific journalism. It broke a lot of misconceptions I was taught in geography / science courses from middle school to high school, so I definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to dive into indigenous archaeological history.
May 14, 2022
Decolonize Anthropology!
Indigenous people have probably been here more than 20,000 years, but the establishment has refused to acknowledge dates older than 11,000 ya, as determined in the middle of the last century.
The meat of the book is Steeves thesis research into these (ample) older sites in both north and south America.
Indigenous people have probably been here more than 20,000 years, but the establishment has refused to acknowledge dates older than 11,000 ya, as determined in the middle of the last century.
The meat of the book is Steeves thesis research into these (ample) older sites in both north and south America.
December 31, 2023
Thoroughly academic argument that the Western Hemisphere has been home to an indigenous population much longer than the conventional wisdom would allow.
Fascinating archeological sites are discussed throughout.
Fascinating archeological sites are discussed throughout.
July 28, 2024
I always thought that the Clovis time frame to be too limiting for the Indigenous peoples and their history in the Western Hemisphere. Even though I had always thought archaeology to be a fascinating field of study, it is too Eurocentric and imperialist.
December 3, 2025
The work that Steeves presents is very compelling and strongly states what I have hitherto only heard murmurings of. In my view, this book is essential to conceptualizing a more complete history of North and South America.
June 23, 2021
STELLAR ‼️‼️‼️
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews