Dr. Tom Dillehay

Absolutely. Here we have to talk about what we call archaeological visibility. When you get into the Amazon jungle, you've got a dense forest and preservation of the record is difficult. Organics are not well preserved. Soils have acid that eat the organic material. You've got the dense forest. But when you're working in the open deserts west of the Andean mountains, as you mentioned,

archaeological visibility is a lot easier. You can see things. On the other hand, the sites are often eroded by water and wind too. So there's some issues there, but A lot of people in archaeology prefer to work along that Pacific coastline. But these gaps across the continent are beginning to be picked up by South Americanists working in their own countries.

archaeological visibility is a lot easier. You can see things. On the other hand, the sites are often eroded by water and wind too. So there's some issues there, but A lot of people in archaeology prefer to work along that Pacific coastline. But these gaps across the continent are beginning to be picked up by South Americanists working in their own countries.

archaeological visibility is a lot easier. You can see things. On the other hand, the sites are often eroded by water and wind too. So there's some issues there, but A lot of people in archaeology prefer to work along that Pacific coastline. But these gaps across the continent are beginning to be picked up by South Americanists working in their own countries.

No, they're probably similar in some ways. First of all, the world's driest deserts, the Atacama Desert in northern Chile. And that desert extends all the way up to what we call the Altiplano, the high lands in Bolivia that reach up to 14,000 feet in elevation. That is still desert.

No, they're probably similar in some ways. First of all, the world's driest deserts, the Atacama Desert in northern Chile. And that desert extends all the way up to what we call the Altiplano, the high lands in Bolivia that reach up to 14,000 feet in elevation. That is still desert.

No, they're probably similar in some ways. First of all, the world's driest deserts, the Atacama Desert in northern Chile. And that desert extends all the way up to what we call the Altiplano, the high lands in Bolivia that reach up to 14,000 feet in elevation. That is still desert.

But you have the desert also along the entire coast of Peru until you get into the forested and grasslands of the Andes. But also, you have kind of a semi-desert once you get into the Patagonian area. It's kind of like a dry steppe grassland where the visibility archaeologically is easier than it would be in the Amazon Basin.

But you have the desert also along the entire coast of Peru until you get into the forested and grasslands of the Andes. But also, you have kind of a semi-desert once you get into the Patagonian area. It's kind of like a dry steppe grassland where the visibility archaeologically is easier than it would be in the Amazon Basin.

But you have the desert also along the entire coast of Peru until you get into the forested and grasslands of the Andes. But also, you have kind of a semi-desert once you get into the Patagonian area. It's kind of like a dry steppe grassland where the visibility archaeologically is easier than it would be in the Amazon Basin.

I would say the deserts I was just talking about probably would have been grasslands. And since then, things have become drier and less moist. One thing that distinguishes North and South America is that you have these massive glacial ice sheets in the north. that kind of prevented movement from, let's say, Yukon, Alaska, down into the lower US 48.

I would say the deserts I was just talking about probably would have been grasslands. And since then, things have become drier and less moist. One thing that distinguishes North and South America is that you have these massive glacial ice sheets in the north. that kind of prevented movement from, let's say, Yukon, Alaska, down into the lower US 48.

I would say the deserts I was just talking about probably would have been grasslands. And since then, things have become drier and less moist. One thing that distinguishes North and South America is that you have these massive glacial ice sheets in the north. that kind of prevented movement from, let's say, Yukon, Alaska, down into the lower US 48.

But the only place that you had any glaciers that might have prohibited human movement in South America was in the high Andes, central Andes, and down toward Patagonia. So movement was a lot easier across north, south, east, west, diagonally, and so forth. But getting back to your question, The Amazon, probably 12, 14, 15,000 years ago, is not the dense green shag carpet we think of today.

But the only place that you had any glaciers that might have prohibited human movement in South America was in the high Andes, central Andes, and down toward Patagonia. So movement was a lot easier across north, south, east, west, diagonally, and so forth. But getting back to your question, The Amazon, probably 12, 14, 15,000 years ago, is not the dense green shag carpet we think of today.

But the only place that you had any glaciers that might have prohibited human movement in South America was in the high Andes, central Andes, and down toward Patagonia. So movement was a lot easier across north, south, east, west, diagonally, and so forth. But getting back to your question, The Amazon, probably 12, 14, 15,000 years ago, is not the dense green shag carpet we think of today.

It was savannas, parklands, open forest here and there. And since the late Pleistocene period, it began to fill in with this dense high canopy forest we think of today. And then the deserts would have been, as I said, grasslands. So no, ecologically, it would have been very different in a lot of different places.

It was savannas, parklands, open forest here and there. And since the late Pleistocene period, it began to fill in with this dense high canopy forest we think of today. And then the deserts would have been, as I said, grasslands. So no, ecologically, it would have been very different in a lot of different places.

It was savannas, parklands, open forest here and there. And since the late Pleistocene period, it began to fill in with this dense high canopy forest we think of today. And then the deserts would have been, as I said, grasslands. So no, ecologically, it would have been very different in a lot of different places.

Well, Monteverde is located in northern Patagonia in what would be the cool temperate rainforest of southern Chile, what they call the Lake District. And the ecological zone that's kind of equivalent perhaps to northern Europe in some ways, bogs. and swampy terrain.