What do you think?
Rate this book
Americans Before Columbus
A history of the Native American peoples living in the Americas before Columbus arrived. This history features detailed photographs and drawings of the artifacts left behind.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1951
3 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 5, 2025
Although I have indeed found the featured topic of Elizabeth Chesley Baity's Americans Before Columbus interesting, and while I certainly did not expect this book to be current and thus in any manner up-to-date with regard to historical, scientific facts and details (seeing that it was published in 1951 and is also seemingly long out of print), the often rather at best questionable science and historical, stereotypical assumptions presented by Baity as facts really do tend to make me continuously cringe, and to the point that I am actually now only considering but one star for Americans Before Columbus. And while I do in fact still believe that the author, that Elizabeth Chesley Baity has actually tried to make a good, honourable, and yes, also for its time period an at least marginally, partially respectful to Native Americans concerted effort, I personally would still ONLY recommend Americans Before Columbus with major and problematic caveats, with major and painful reservations, and would NOT in any manner suggest that the intended audience, that older children above the age of eleven or twelve simply peruse this book on their own (that Americans Before Columbus really should only ever be read with adult supervision, guidance and much discussion and debate, preferably in a monitored and guided classroom setting).
Now my main issues with Americans Before Columbus (and one that I have also seen equally and strongly echoed in other negative and critical reviews) is the simple and rather problematic truth of the matter that Baity obviously has no real clue about and concept of geology and that geologic time extends for millions upon millions of years. For her assertions about the Andes Mountians probably having risen very rapidly and in a very short time frame, and that this then forced native populations to move, to relocate, make absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever, since while mountains do indeed rise and fall, this takes millions of years and does therefore and logically not happen overnight (or even within a few decades, centuries, even millennia). Yes, the Andes region is and always has been both seismically and volcanically active (due to basic plate tectonics), but the mountain peaks of the Andes have certainly not been rapidly rising higher and higher (at least not within the past 10000 years of so). And for Elizabeth Chesley Baity in Americans Before Columbus to also then claim that the great desserts of the American Southwest were similarly and quickly created by the (and once again) rapid rising of the Rocky Mountains, and that this all was occurring post the peopling of North America and therefore affected Native American tribes approximately 1500 years ago, all this basically and fundamentally wrong and absolutely illogical geology just makes me totally shake my head in and with massive consternation, as by the 1950s, it indeed was beginning to be generally accepted by most reasonable and thinking scientists (as well as lay individuals) that geologic features such as mountains and the like do NOT change within years, and even within hundreds and thousands of years, that geologic changes like folding and faulting mountains usually take millions of years to become noticeable (and I would most certainly in NO WAY want children or teenagers to be reading this type of what I personally would label as pseudo-scientific "fake news" trash on their own and without guidance by teachers or at least educated caregivers, educated and engaged parents prepared to think and approach things critically regarding Americans Before Columbus).
Furthermore, aside from some rather major generalisations and and an attitude towards Native Americans as a group (and both from North and South America I might add) in Americans Before Columbus that definitely veers rather too often towards paternalism and a superiority of White Western Europeans (even if just implied), I actually have found some of the ethno-genetical stereotyping in which Elizabeth Chesley Baity engages during the course of Americans Before Columbus even more troubling and worrisome (and of course rather woefully unscientific as well). For example, Baity seems rather intent on claiming that the main reason why the Spanish were seemingly so often cruel and genocidal with and in their approach to the Native populations of South America and the Caribbean is due to the fact that they are not just European in ethnicity but also have a Moorish (read a Northern African) genealogical connection, almost as though Baity wants to somehow demonstrate that it was primarily and mostly the Spanish Conquistadors who were by nature and genetics (and due to Moorish influence, therefore due to non Caucasian African influence) cruel and somehow much much worse than White Anglo Saxon Protestant and Catholic settlers (and in my humble opinion, although Elizabeth Chelsea Baity does not in fact ever categorically claim the latter, she most definitely seems to quite strongly imply this in Americans Before Columbus). And let us be totally honest here, not only is that kind of an assessment both generalising as well as basically and utterly wrong (not the claim that the Spanish were cruel and often actually quite murderously so with regard to their approach to Native American populations, of course, but Baity's standpoint that they were somehow worse and more viciously vile due to their genetics and their partially Northern African ethnicity, and as such also inherently more cruel and inhumane than other especially Western European settlers, this just does not mesh, is just not in any way the truth), and yes, it at least for me personally also and very sadly tends to denigrate and triviliase the cruel cultural ethnic cleansing strategies of the American Indian Removal Acts, Canadian Residential School atrocities etc. (and that is something I for one cannot and will not in any manner of speaking ever accept).
And finally, to now return to issues with problematic and lacking science and scientific knowledge in Americans Before Columbus, Elizabeth Chesley Baity also provides some very strange and not all that scientifically acceptable (sound) information regarding the possible reasons for the extinction of so much of the North American mega fauna (during and immediately after the last glaciation period). For while today, and actually during the past fifty years or so, it is generally assumed that the majority of North American Ice Age mega-sized animals like mammoths, ground sloths etc. became extinct primarily due to overhunting by recently arrived humans (from Eurasia, crossing over the Bering Sea Land Bridge) by Clovis hunters and other such groups, Baity would rather have us believe that mammoths et al all and sundry starved to death due to not being able to adapt to the agricultural practices of the recently arrived groups of people (and while many Native American tribes did indeed engage in agriculture, in farming, and that this has also been shown to have occurred rather early on in the Americas, it still did NOT happen until AFTER the end of the last Ice Age, and therefore until after it is assumed most of the mega fauna had already perished, had already gone extinct). And so, with the many and multiple issues I have encountered in Americans Before Columbus I do have to unilaterally and categorically claim that Elizabeth Cheney Baity's scientific naiveté and basic lack of even a remotely and averagely reasonable and intelligent attitude towards hard sciences, to disciplines, to subjects like geology, genetics and such, this does make me very uncomfortable, and so academically annoyed in fact that its Newbery Honour designation notwithstanding, one star is really all that Americans Before Columbus deserves as a rating.
Now my main issues with Americans Before Columbus (and one that I have also seen equally and strongly echoed in other negative and critical reviews) is the simple and rather problematic truth of the matter that Baity obviously has no real clue about and concept of geology and that geologic time extends for millions upon millions of years. For her assertions about the Andes Mountians probably having risen very rapidly and in a very short time frame, and that this then forced native populations to move, to relocate, make absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever, since while mountains do indeed rise and fall, this takes millions of years and does therefore and logically not happen overnight (or even within a few decades, centuries, even millennia). Yes, the Andes region is and always has been both seismically and volcanically active (due to basic plate tectonics), but the mountain peaks of the Andes have certainly not been rapidly rising higher and higher (at least not within the past 10000 years of so). And for Elizabeth Chesley Baity in Americans Before Columbus to also then claim that the great desserts of the American Southwest were similarly and quickly created by the (and once again) rapid rising of the Rocky Mountains, and that this all was occurring post the peopling of North America and therefore affected Native American tribes approximately 1500 years ago, all this basically and fundamentally wrong and absolutely illogical geology just makes me totally shake my head in and with massive consternation, as by the 1950s, it indeed was beginning to be generally accepted by most reasonable and thinking scientists (as well as lay individuals) that geologic features such as mountains and the like do NOT change within years, and even within hundreds and thousands of years, that geologic changes like folding and faulting mountains usually take millions of years to become noticeable (and I would most certainly in NO WAY want children or teenagers to be reading this type of what I personally would label as pseudo-scientific "fake news" trash on their own and without guidance by teachers or at least educated caregivers, educated and engaged parents prepared to think and approach things critically regarding Americans Before Columbus).
Furthermore, aside from some rather major generalisations and and an attitude towards Native Americans as a group (and both from North and South America I might add) in Americans Before Columbus that definitely veers rather too often towards paternalism and a superiority of White Western Europeans (even if just implied), I actually have found some of the ethno-genetical stereotyping in which Elizabeth Chesley Baity engages during the course of Americans Before Columbus even more troubling and worrisome (and of course rather woefully unscientific as well). For example, Baity seems rather intent on claiming that the main reason why the Spanish were seemingly so often cruel and genocidal with and in their approach to the Native populations of South America and the Caribbean is due to the fact that they are not just European in ethnicity but also have a Moorish (read a Northern African) genealogical connection, almost as though Baity wants to somehow demonstrate that it was primarily and mostly the Spanish Conquistadors who were by nature and genetics (and due to Moorish influence, therefore due to non Caucasian African influence) cruel and somehow much much worse than White Anglo Saxon Protestant and Catholic settlers (and in my humble opinion, although Elizabeth Chelsea Baity does not in fact ever categorically claim the latter, she most definitely seems to quite strongly imply this in Americans Before Columbus). And let us be totally honest here, not only is that kind of an assessment both generalising as well as basically and utterly wrong (not the claim that the Spanish were cruel and often actually quite murderously so with regard to their approach to Native American populations, of course, but Baity's standpoint that they were somehow worse and more viciously vile due to their genetics and their partially Northern African ethnicity, and as such also inherently more cruel and inhumane than other especially Western European settlers, this just does not mesh, is just not in any way the truth), and yes, it at least for me personally also and very sadly tends to denigrate and triviliase the cruel cultural ethnic cleansing strategies of the American Indian Removal Acts, Canadian Residential School atrocities etc. (and that is something I for one cannot and will not in any manner of speaking ever accept).
And finally, to now return to issues with problematic and lacking science and scientific knowledge in Americans Before Columbus, Elizabeth Chesley Baity also provides some very strange and not all that scientifically acceptable (sound) information regarding the possible reasons for the extinction of so much of the North American mega fauna (during and immediately after the last glaciation period). For while today, and actually during the past fifty years or so, it is generally assumed that the majority of North American Ice Age mega-sized animals like mammoths, ground sloths etc. became extinct primarily due to overhunting by recently arrived humans (from Eurasia, crossing over the Bering Sea Land Bridge) by Clovis hunters and other such groups, Baity would rather have us believe that mammoths et al all and sundry starved to death due to not being able to adapt to the agricultural practices of the recently arrived groups of people (and while many Native American tribes did indeed engage in agriculture, in farming, and that this has also been shown to have occurred rather early on in the Americas, it still did NOT happen until AFTER the end of the last Ice Age, and therefore until after it is assumed most of the mega fauna had already perished, had already gone extinct). And so, with the many and multiple issues I have encountered in Americans Before Columbus I do have to unilaterally and categorically claim that Elizabeth Cheney Baity's scientific naiveté and basic lack of even a remotely and averagely reasonable and intelligent attitude towards hard sciences, to disciplines, to subjects like geology, genetics and such, this does make me very uncomfortable, and so academically annoyed in fact that its Newbery Honour designation notwithstanding, one star is really all that Americans Before Columbus deserves as a rating.
May 7, 2016
I thought it was interesting history of pre-columbian America, but there are some major problems with inaccuracies. Basically, the author is wrong a lot - and any real scientist, even at the time this book was written, would see it immediately.
First, it is clear that the author doesn't know anything about geology. For example, she claims that part of the reason people may have migrated from the Andes at one point (about 1000 years ago) is because the mountains were rising too rapidly. But rapidly rising mountains is more like millimeters per year, meaning that during the 300 years the particular civilization was there the mountain may have risen a foot or two - not enough to affect anything. She also claimed that the rising Rocky Mountains created the entire Southwest desert since the arrival of the American Indians. Yeah, they don't rise that fast. In fact, the Rockies are actually lowering - and any geologist could have told that to the author.
She also seems to carry on the horrible idea that if your ancestors were farmers that it is somehow in your blood, and the more generations they farmed (even if it hasn't been in your family for hundreds of years), the more it is in your blood. Similarly, the Spaniards were especially bold and ruthless because they had Moorish blood in them. Just FYI, in case you decide to read an older book, that's all a bunch of bull.
Also, radiocarbon dating had been in use for ten years before the book was originally written, but the author failed to include it in the dating methods used to determine the ages of different cultures until her little addendum written yet another 10 years later. It is very clear to me that though the author claims to have been an expert in archaeology, she was not up to date, even then.
The author also tries to further weird ideas from people. Did people actually believe this stuff in the 40's and 50's? I don't know. My favorite is the extinction of all the ice-age mammals. Here's what happened according to the author: First, the mammoths died off because the people burned off all their food supply and replaced it with corn. Then the saber-toothed tigers didn't have their largest food supply anymore, so they ate off the smaller game which then died off too. Then the saber-toothed tigers didn't have any more food at all, so they starved like the mammoths. Presto, all the ice-age animals are gone. :-)
First, it is clear that the author doesn't know anything about geology. For example, she claims that part of the reason people may have migrated from the Andes at one point (about 1000 years ago) is because the mountains were rising too rapidly. But rapidly rising mountains is more like millimeters per year, meaning that during the 300 years the particular civilization was there the mountain may have risen a foot or two - not enough to affect anything. She also claimed that the rising Rocky Mountains created the entire Southwest desert since the arrival of the American Indians. Yeah, they don't rise that fast. In fact, the Rockies are actually lowering - and any geologist could have told that to the author.
She also seems to carry on the horrible idea that if your ancestors were farmers that it is somehow in your blood, and the more generations they farmed (even if it hasn't been in your family for hundreds of years), the more it is in your blood. Similarly, the Spaniards were especially bold and ruthless because they had Moorish blood in them. Just FYI, in case you decide to read an older book, that's all a bunch of bull.
Also, radiocarbon dating had been in use for ten years before the book was originally written, but the author failed to include it in the dating methods used to determine the ages of different cultures until her little addendum written yet another 10 years later. It is very clear to me that though the author claims to have been an expert in archaeology, she was not up to date, even then.
The author also tries to further weird ideas from people. Did people actually believe this stuff in the 40's and 50's? I don't know. My favorite is the extinction of all the ice-age mammals. Here's what happened according to the author: First, the mammoths died off because the people burned off all their food supply and replaced it with corn. Then the saber-toothed tigers didn't have their largest food supply anymore, so they ate off the smaller game which then died off too. Then the saber-toothed tigers didn't have any more food at all, so they starved like the mammoths. Presto, all the ice-age animals are gone. :-)
June 1, 2016
It was boring. The author also tended to jump around much more than I think was necessary, she couldn't focus on one people or time period for very long before hopping over to something else. I did, however, love that she was able to make it seem like the Spanish coming was an immediate consequent of what the group of people was doing at the time. The Aztecs start to go really crazy with the sacrifices, killing in larger quantities and more times than before, soon thereafter, the Spanish came. The Incas fight a bloody civil war and the winner kills most of his relatives who had and could oppose him in the future, soon thereafter, the Spanish came.
December 14, 2022
This is a book of archeology, so it is outdated. I found myself questioning any information that wasn't already known to me, uncertain whether it was new to me, or disproved. The book addressed the reader several times, assuming that the children reading the book were of white European descent. This bias seemed to color the archeological conclusions in some places as well.
January 28, 2018
I shouldn't mark this one as read, since I barely read a few pages out of it. But I want to get it off my list. I skipped ahead to a section or two I was most interested in but the book just didn't hold a lot of appeal for me. So after reading those few pages I set it aside.
December 9, 2019
A history of the pro-Columbus Americas intended for children. Pretty darned dry for a kid's book, to be honest. I suspect there are better ones out there at this point.
July 9, 2021
Rating this as an adult, I do believe other reviewers have been too harsh. Baity clearly admired the civilizations that original Americans had created and wished to bring knowledge of them to mainstream society, which still fails to see how developed those civilizations were. I learned a few new things that I hadn't run across before, and this was written over 50 years ago. Did I see an example of paternalism in her writing two or three times in the 260 pages? Yes, but I also saw her rather harshly call out the U.S. treatment of native North Americans and the cruel destruction of Central and Southern Americans by the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors. I would hope there is a more recent treatment of these histories - both because there have surely been more discoveries and theories put forth, and because this really was not anything I could see a youth reading. For an adult, it was interesting when you're in the mood for non-fiction, but not teens or kids.
July 26, 2020
2.5 stars. This is not a horrible book. It's actually quite readable in regards to writing style. But...and it is a big BUT, this book is an overview of the history of the Peoples of the Americans before 1492 and it cannot go into detail and it cannot help but be sketchy in information. Add that it was written in 1951 and it is also horrendously out of date historically and culturally. In the 1950s this was intended as a book for middle grade and young adults - and for that time period I would say it's fairly pc (the Spanish come off worse than the Aztecs) - but today should be read with the an adult. Ideally, there could be a series of books, each focusing on a particular area and People(s), to replace it. Did I (60+ years old) learn anything? Yes - coming from WV I remember the school focus on the Grave Creek Mound and its inscribed stone; I'm somewhat disappointed to find out that 15 years before my schooling that stone was considered a fake. So what is the current relevance of this book? The illustrations, the broad outline of events and Peoples, and the acknowledgement that there was civilization in the Americas before 1492 - these are the things that make this valuable in the 21st c. I read this for my 2020 Reading Challenge (52 Wks "by a female author") and my Newbery Challenge (Honor 1952); this was more of a thorough skim than a word by word read. Read via Internet Archive/Open Library due to Covid 19.
Want to read
June 15, 20251952 Newbery honor book
August 22, 2024
I felt that the author was heavily biased toward her opinions which are not proven facts but only theories, and a lot of her information was either inaccurate at the time she wrote or later disproven. Not an enjoyable read.
Read
October 23, 2014fa792490-1c1a-4a67-932c-5787512fdf27
January 6, 2015
A few things are dated although a lot is basic. My sense would be to find a more recent and up-to-date read for youngsters.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews