Hello,

I'm interested in learning about ancient America, but obviously I've only been told lies by TSCC. Could any of you recommend me some books to help me get started? Thank you.

No one?

After that, there's so much out there you'll face a huge but tough smorgasborg of choices...

I've read this one: "Bones: Discovering The First Americans" by Elaine Dewar...

http://books.google.com/books/about/Bones.html?id=y8768EOcx4sC

I have to say it is emminently fair to most of the various schools of thought (although the hyper-diffusionists will probably claim they're getting a bit of the short shrift; deservedly so, IMHO).

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bones-elaine-dewar/1006032923

It looks to me like Ms. Dewar got caught in the confusion of contrasting and exclusionary claims which the book doesn't sort out, but it does offer excellent background information.

This one is on my spring/summer reading list (realistically, it's probably after the fall elections):

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Early-Settlement-of-North-America/Gary-Haynes/e/9780521524636

For those with a nautical bent (I'm not one of them; developing the knowledge base to realize Lehi's voyage is utter curelom dung has hopelessly prejudiced me), there's this one...

http://archaeology.about.com/od/regionalstudie1/fr/dixon.htm

Fast forward ten thousand years or so and there's this one about the Maya...

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Maya-Code-Michael-Coe/dp/0500277214

And for those who get their news from the "Weekly World News" and the "National Enquirer," a couple of names to look for are Barry Fell, Frank Hibben, Carl Johannesen, and BYU's own John L. Sorenson.

Among the legitimate scholar/archaeology types, the names you can look for include Tom Dillehay, Stuart Feidel, Anna C. Roosevelt, C. Vance Haynes, Michael Waters, Brian M. Kemp, and Dennis Jenkins.

Good luck...

1491 is EXCELLENT. Any book with THREE HUNDRED PAGES of footnotes and citations from internationally respected sources is a better place to start than the Book of Moron

yep - try reading FARMS or FAIR stuff after reading 1491 - it's almost like they're not even talking about the same continent...

also, after reading 1491 the produce section in the grocery store will never look the same again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_plants_of_Mesoamerica



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 07:40PM by grubbygert.

Mann is a "science journalist" (I suppose the term also applies to me, at least as an avocation, and this suff does leave me a bit insecure at times because scientists are often hollering about "distortions," which is a legitimate criticism at times).

I've just reviewed the Wiki article, and here are some "points of contention" I see that leaves me labeling Mann a bit of a romanticist (à la Rousseau's "Noble Savage"). But yes, I'll get around to reading the book one of these days...

The "20,000 to 25,000" year figure for the Beringia crossing is contentious, and now that the molecular biologists have weighed in, the claim of "multiple migrations"--at least in Pleistocene/Early Holocene times--is getting a rough ride. There's evidence of a long period of a "genetic bottleneck," probably in or near Berengia around the time of the proposed crossing. What is not in doubt is the ancestors of Native Americans were Asian (the mythical "Solutrean boats" have been sunk just as surely as Lehi's).

South American "numbers" are problematic; I discussed Monte Verde with a group of archaeologists here a few years ago, and all agreed if the proposed dates for the Bering Strait migration hold at around the 15,000 year mark, their descendants "must've made a beeline for South America near Tierra del Fuego."

I also don't like this comparison (again it smacks of a judgmental putdown rather than reasoned analysis):

>"Mann first tackles New England in the 17th century. He disagrees with the popular idea that European technologies were superior to those of Indians. Guns were a prime example, as they were seen by Indians as nothing more than "noisemakers", and they were difficult to aim. Famous colonist John Smith noted that "the awful truth...it could not shoot as far as an arrow could fly." Indian technology was more impressive, such as moccasins, which were more comfortable and sturdy than the boots Europeans wore, and were preferred by most of them during that era because their padding offered a more silent approach to warfare. Canoes are a prime example that disproves the myth of superior technology of the Europeans. The canoes made by Indians were faster and more maneuverable than any small European boats."

Some of these appear to be subtle shots at Diamond, and then there is...

>Use of the horse was thought to have been an advantage for the Europeans, but in cases such as the Inca, their stepped roads were impassable to horses.

That one looks like a bit of cherry-picking since the Incas were a smallish culture in one corner of South America. Horses were sigificant, as evidenced by how quickly the Plains Indians adapted them to their own use and a whole new culture emerged among the Kiowa, Sioux, Cheyenne, Commanches, etc. as a result.

Human beings are notable for their innovative abilities, regardless of their skin hue.

It is also noteworthy that what devastated Native American populations far more than weapons technology or cultural superiority were the introduced diseases.

Sometimes he also adds which side he stands on, but he always calls it out as such. I, too, was highly skeptical of the book because of its scope and popularity, but after reading it carefully and checking out a few of his citations (not all, by any means!) I am more supportive of the effort.

I think you should get around to reading it because you may see that he wrote it more as an effort to bring a lot of recent, lesser-known accurate information, questions & controversies to front & center where they can be discussed rather than ignored or suppressed by institutions such as the Texas School Board; and less as a good hard slap in the face of the notion that white men brought "total civilization" to the lazy, stupid, good-for-nothing, etc. indigenous people of the new world, and a polemic on how our schoolbooks have taught it too much on the Euro-centric side all these centuries (although all that does come up here and there).

I believe that with a bibliography as extensive as his, ANYONE can go educate themselves to the extent Mann did himself, and beyond. It is only a question of availing one's self of the resources. I consider his footnotes and bibliography to be at least as, if not more, important than the body of his text.

Cheers!

It blows the B of M away without even mentioning it.


Something I did when I was investigating the problems with archaeology of the B of M, was that I just went to Barnes and Noble and browsed the racks in archaeology. I'd pick up random books about ancient America and see what they said about plant and animal life. They ALL disconfirmed claims made in the B of M.

That helped convince me that I wasn't just hearing anti-mormon lies. The B of M was the lie.

While seconding all of the above recommendations I would also recommend that you contact your local university or community college's anthropology department. The archaeology professor should be able to direct you to local publications that may be of interest. Here is one that I recommend:

http://www.lcoastpress.com/book.php?id=256

The Left Coast Press is a good source. Here is a link to all their titles pertaining to Archaeology:

http://www.lcoastpress.com/search.php?book=T&author=T&journal=T&journalissue=T&q=archaeology

For some fun online reading, I suggest the Mammoth Trumpet, at the Center for the Study of the First Americans. They are a little behind in their online publication, but what is up is interesting:

http://csfa.tamu.edu/

Also, check with your local Archaeological Society. Here is the link to the Wyoming Archaeological Society:

http://www.wyomingarchaeology.org/home.html

If you click on the link on the left to "The Wyoming Archaeologist" is will give you a series of dates that you can check out. "The Wyoming Archaeologist" is the avocational archaeologist journal. There are a lot of interesting articles, but it isn't very searchable. Most avocational archaeological societies have a journal of some sort, so you can probably find something more directly related to your area if you want to.