Book Report: 1491

1491 by Charles C. Mann: Torgo approves

Yeah, I approve. I've written about this book before. I actually finished it a week or so ago, but haven't gotten the energy to write about it. That's because it's a 300+ page research paper. It's a fascinating topic: the Americas before Columbus. But Mann is a science and history writer, straining to be compelling with subject matter that's distant and vague.

It's still an engaging book, particularly the first third. The middle third drags, then the final third varies between interesting and overkill.

Mann does great work in highlighting the latest theories of pre-Columbian civilizations, dispelling myths while still presenting the basis for those myths. He's well-rounded in his presentation. He overtly sides with the theorists who believe:
*the Americas were vastly more populated than previously believed
*these civilizations pre-date the possibility of the 'ice age land bridge' theory
*large-scale agriculture was done throughout the continents
*the Amazon and U.S. interior were not 'virgin forest' but highly cultivated regions
*European explorers got very, very, very, very lucky, destroying immense populations thanks in no part to their own skill or culturally supremacy, but rather due to incredible timing and disease.

I came away agreeing with the author wholeheartedly. My problems with the book are simple but persistent.

First, he falls into the 'comparing genocides' trap. He's constantly describing the beauty, splendor, and enormity of various civilizations as they compare to European or other civilizations. In order to be impressive, it must have been the biggest. That's not true. Can't we just appreciate it for what it was? I think he does, but he feels compelled to argue how spectacular everything was.

Second, he too heavily relies upon the latest research (often from the last 5 years), arguing that it contradicts notions of the last 10, 50, or 100 years. But how quickly will his own book become dated? It's a couple of years old now. Is there research now to negate his theories?

Archaeology is an ever-changing field. What's the oldest civilization ever discovered in 2002 isn't likely to still hold that title in 2010. He doesn't acknowledge that well.

If you can get past those points, it's worthy reading. I learned more about how civilizations survive and adapt, what type of people lived in the Americas, and why the whole European devastation blows than I ever knew before. Ok, I was pretty sure of the last point, but tells some good stories about it.