This is mostly a good book which sheds new light on the history of the Americas before the European conquest. The author shows convincing evidence that the Americas were not simply sparsely populated by groups of primitive hunter gatherers, but contained sophisticated civilizations that developed agriculture, cities and governments. Strong evidence is presented that the Indians had developed large scale agriculture based on corn, beans and squash in North America and potatos and manioc in South America, and that they transformed large areas of land for agricultural use. The old world didn't have as much of a monopoly on the development of large scale agriculture as was previously thought. However, the old world had a considerable head start timewise in that regard, and that allowed them to become considerably more advanced in many areas of technology in the year 1491, a fact that the author seems to dismiss. I feel that the author has made some exagerations. He assumes that smallpox and other European diseases wiped out 90 to 99 percent of the indigenous population then he extrapolates that to a preconquest American population of 100 million. The population was certainly much larger than previously supposed. But looking at current archeological evidence, and the fact that crop yields per acre at that time were much lower than in modern times, I don't see a population of more than 50 million. When Cortez arrived in Tenochtitlan, the city had an estimated population of 400,000, The best estimate is that one third of them died of smallpox, and although that was devastating, it was certainly not a rate of 90 to 99%, although no doubt the death rate was considerably higher in other places. Also the author suggests that if it were not for smallpox reducing the population that the Europeans could not have conquered the new world. What? Does that mean that there would still be Aztecs performing human sacrifice today in the 21st century? A large population alone doesn't imply superior power. Cortez only had at most 400 men on horses and yet they defeated the Aztecs who probably still had a population of 250,000 in Tenochtitlan even after the smallpox deaths. Pizarro and others were also overwhelmingly outnumbered and still inevitably prevailed. The reason is that stone weapons are no match for steel swords and armor and guns. A large Indigenous population would probably have taken a lot longer for the Europeans to subdue but the end result would have been the same. Why didn't the Inca chief Athualpa and his men travel across the sea and defeat the king of Spain instead of the reverse? It is because the Eurasians had at their disposal a larger knowledge base. They knew how to build steel swords, guns and ships. The Incas didn't make full use of the wheel and they made metal ornaments instead of steel weapons. In short the Eurasians had developed a more technically superior civilization at that time. It is deplorable how the Europeans killed and enslaved the indigenous peoples. I don't justify what they did. That was just the mentality at the time. The strong subdued the weak and took over their resources. I highly recommend "Guns, germs and Steel", an excellent book that discusses many of these points in detail, and also another fascinating book "The Conquest of New Spain."Read full review
This book goes a long way to repudiate long held, erroneous and even dogmatic assertions by leading researchers that Native Americans before European conquest were thinly populated, unsophisticated nomads living in harmony with the natural world. The author convincingly argues that indigenous American peoples built very large, settled agricultural cities and villages, impacted the environment in profound and even transformitive ways, and in general were more sophisticated than commonly believed. This is a book that is long overdue. Along the way the author exposes the sad spectacle of academic specialists who cling to cherished pet theories with a dogmatic, almost religious conviction. Needles to say, long held, academically entrenched beliefs are hard to overcome; young turks beware, the leading experts in your field will go out of the way to ignore the facts and try to demolish your research as well! This aspect of the book is the most revealing and, arguably the most likely observation to endure over time. The information presented is up to date, and sufficiently supported to make for an engaging and educational read, yet brief enough to allow the layman to grasp the points made. There is enough color and just straight out good writing to make this an enjoyable read as well. Behind the author’s efforts to help the reader understand the achievements of pre-Columbian civilizations is the notion that some of them, at least, deserve a place in the time-honored pantheon of ‘great civilizations’ such as Greece and China. Nevertheless how we collectively arrive at such views has a lot to do with what constitutes a ‘great civilization’ in the first place. My own view is that it’s about the degree that the ‘great civilizations’ have contributed to contemporary civilization. The level of influence that cultures such as Greece, and China, for example, have had on global dominating western civilization is enormous. Norte Chico is an example of a civilization the author highlights as being greater, that is, bigger and more complex than previously thought. Although deserving of more dignity and respect, I’m not convinced it is ‘great’ in its enduring legacy in the history of humanity. The same can be said of a number of meaningful, and yet admittedly obscure ‘important’ civilizations described in nice detail in the book.Read full review
This book of 360 pages is a scholarly, thoughtful correction to the prevailing North and South American history we were taught in grammar school. With details of names and places the author presents a picture of thriving, powerful and warring cultures that precede the European onslaught. It is not European superior intelligence or technology that eventually conquers the Americas, but disease, invasive plants and animals, and poor care of the land. The native populations were reduced and weakened by disease and death. European hordes eventually overpowered them with sheer force of numbers. This book, recommended by a friend and cited on a recent tour in Peru, is not an easy bedtime read and requires some concentration, but more importantly, it is a significant work in the history of the Americas.Read full review
This is a great synthesis on the state of science [ethnobotany, mathematics, archaeology, history, anthropology, linguistics] on the state of the Americas BEFORE Colombus' arrival in 1492. It's brilliant on many levels and goes from North to Central to South America. Written with wit and prodigious knowledge by Charles C. Man. I taught history and Latin American Studies at UC Berkeley, and this was one of, if not THE, favorite book. Highly recommend it!
Verified purchase: Yes | Condition: Pre-owned
An old and respected friend asked if I had any concept of how the actual land looked like in America when Columbus landed. I naively answered that it must have been a "pristine wilderness". How completely wrong was my thinking. I won't give away what the lands along the Eastern Seaboard actually looked like, because I feel curious readers should find out for themselves. Reading of the book raises doubts about our attempts to stop the harvesting of modern forests strictly to save the esthetic quality of forests. Mother Nature is unbelievably resilient. The book led me to believe we should harvest her bounty rather than mistakenly think we're preserving our forests by simply watching them grow. I don't think preservation by doing nothing is the correct master plan. johnvinyl
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Best Selling in Books
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Save on Books