The dating of the first people in South America is a matter of debate. Some scholars adhere to an entry earlier than 15,000 years ago (e. g., Bryan and Gruhn 2003). Others advocate a late arrival 11,000 to 10,000 years ago (e. g., Lynch 1990). In studying the first people of the Americas, the traditional view has been to argue about chronology, place of entry, and migration routes, which places emphasis on the dates, localities, and diffusion of artifact (mainly stone tools) styles (Dillehay 2000; Meltzer 2004). This entry approach has a primary concern with the original peopling of previously uninhabited environments during the late Pleistocene period (ca. 13,000-11,000 uncalibrated years ago).
Convincing evidence from a number of sites and patterns place human antiquity at least 12,500 years ago (Dillehay 2000; Salemme and Miotti 2003). The place of initial entry is not known, however, it can be assumed that people first traveled along both the Pacific and Caribbean coastlines and through interior routes of Panama to spread across South America.
Although chronology and place of entry are important, recent studies have shifted to the nature of the entry and subsequent dispersion and colonization of the continent and to the fundamental patterns of social and economic organization that set the stage for cultural developments in the following Holocene period (see Dillehay 2000; Lavallee 2000). Because South America is one of only a few places in the world where pristine civilization developed early, we need to understand cultural developments during the Pleistocene and Holocene transition to identify the first pulses towards social complexity (Dillehay 1999). This is the exit approach, which shifts the primary emphasis to site location studies, faunal and floral studies, seasonality, mobility and sedentism, and principles of organization.
There is widespread agreement among archeologists that most late Pleistocene and early Holocene human populations were mobile, traversing large foraging territories to meet subsistence, social, technological, and other needs. A broad array of early foraging societies practiced a mobile way of life dictated by the availability of resources and probably by social conflict. Others probably stayed for relatively long periods in resource rich habitats such as deltas and bays, riverine estuaries, and lacustrine environs; others probably aggregated
Handbook of South American Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman and William H. Isbell.
Springer, New York, 2008
Socially for various reasons. In many places, changes in mobility appear to coincide with shifting climatic conditions and biotic reorganization during this period, reflecting adaptations to local subsistence opportunities and increasing population density in some areas. The vastness of unpopulated terrain and the ecological diversity of South America, especially in the Andean mountains and the Amazon basin, offered limitless options for relocation and pursuit of mobile resources.
The archaeology of the first foragers in the southern hemisphere (Figure 2.1) is best documented in the Central Andes, the southern Patagonian plains, Colombia, Peru, Chile, and eastern Brazil where dozens of sites are known (Ardila and Politis 1989; Lavallee 2000; Dillehay 2000; Figure 2.2). Far less is known about the cultural sequence in Ecuador,
Early archaeological sites in South America
20. Toca do Sitio de Meio, Toca do 35.
21. various site in Minas Gerais state 37.
26. Catalaense and Tangurupa complexes 42.
27. Cerro la China, Cerro El Sombrero, 43.
Figure 2.2. Location of major
1. Taima-Taima
2. Rio Pedregal, Cucurucho
3. El Abra, Tequendama, Tibitu
4. La Elvira
5. El Inga
6. Las Vegas
7. Siches, Amotope, Talara
8. Paijan
9. Guitarrero Cave
10. Lauricocha
11. Telarmachay, Pachamachay, Uchumachay, Panalauca
12. Pikimachay
13. Ring Site, Quebrade de Tacahuay, Quebrada Jaguar, Quebrada de los Burros
(modified from Dillehay 1999).
Los Toldos
Fells Cave, Palli Aike, Cerro Sota Mylodon Cave, Cueva del Medio Tres Arroyos
33. various sites in northern Chile
Quereo
Tagua-Tagua
Monte Verde
El Ceibo
Chobshi Cave
Cubilan
Asana
Ubicui and Uruguai Phase sites Pena Roja
Quebrada de las Conchas Monte Alegre
Bolivia, the Caribbean rim, the Amazon basin, the Parana-Uruguay-La Plata River basin, and the canals of southern Chile where only a handful of sites have been located (Figure 2.2). To some degree, the small number of known settlements in these areas reflects the state of archaeological investigation and often low visibility, with vast regions virtually unexplored or with early sites deeply buried below alluvial sediments, invisible to the archaeologist. However, the small number of sites may also reflect the prehistoric reality, indicative of very low population densities or a reluctance to exploit certain environmental zones, such as the vast, dry altiplano plains of highland Bolivia and the forested lowlands of the northern and central tropics.
Stratified caves and rock shelters have traditionally provided most information about early technologies, subsistence patterns, and culture change in South America. Caves have several problems, however. Much debris was tossed out of these shelters or dropped against the walls, thus leaving little intact evidence for the study of internal site structure, which is crucial for gaining insight into the social structure and organization of activities (e. g., Figure 2.2: 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14-18, 38, 44). Further, a limited range of activities seems to have taken place perhaps due mainly to the confined nature of cave space. Caves also are notorious for having disturbed cultural deposits. Although perishable materials are not usually as well preserved and the stratigraphy is often problematic (e. g., Figure 2.2: 2, 4, 5, 7, 25, 39, 40, 42), open-air sites generally provide more information on internal site structure, if their deposits are intact.
In addition to archeology, the scant human genetic and skeletal evidence in South America continues to point towards a relatively recent Asian origin for the first Americans (e. g., Merriwether 2002; Schurr 2004; Pucciarelli et al. 2003). Cranial morphology (e. g., Neves et al. 2005) points toward two early human populations in the continent: a non-Mongoloid type with origins somewhere in south Asia and with physical traits distinct from modern Native Americans, and a later Mongoloid type from north Asia with features akin to modern Native Americans. Not yet understood are the relationships between these types and how they relate to cultural diversity revealed in the archeological record. An explanatory model is needed to reconcile the diverging lines of skeletal, genetic, and archeological evidence in South America.
World History
