I had to read it for my first Latin American history class. I'd be interested in knowing why your colleagues roll their eyeballs. Two obvious answers, neither of which makes it a useless book:
1) it was written by a journalist, not a historian
2) it deals largely with the archaeological record and the politics of archaeology, which I get the sense not a lot of historians deal with.
The book had its problems, but its main point was that the history of civilization in the Americas pre-contact is a lot more complicated and hard to understand than most people are aware. Considering that that land bridge theory and blah blah that I was taught in fourth grade is still being taught, I think he has a point. Especially since that old-fashioned stuff seems to be informing Patricia Wrede's work, among others, which means it's all still out in the world, like mold spores.
1491 is not the greatest book, either. It's rather scattered and obviously written for a general audience. It was pretty good fodder for undergrad discussion, though, and it introduced a lot of information in a reasonably accessible manner. Because it was journalistic, it crossed disciplines shamelessly and even recklessly, but I guess you can't have everything. I don't have my copy here so I can't check this, but I do remember thinking that he played a little bit fast and loose with some of his discussions of biology.
Tell me, how do historians and archaeologists generally get along?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 03:14 am (UTC)1) it was written by a journalist, not a historian
2) it deals largely with the archaeological record and the politics of archaeology, which I get the sense not a lot of historians deal with.
The book had its problems, but its main point was that the history of civilization in the Americas pre-contact is a lot more complicated and hard to understand than most people are aware. Considering that that land bridge theory and blah blah that I was taught in fourth grade is still being taught, I think he has a point. Especially since that old-fashioned stuff seems to be informing Patricia Wrede's work, among others, which means it's all still out in the world, like mold spores.
1491 is not the greatest book, either. It's rather scattered and obviously written for a general audience. It was pretty good fodder for undergrad discussion, though, and it introduced a lot of information in a reasonably accessible manner. Because it was journalistic, it crossed disciplines shamelessly and even recklessly, but I guess you can't have everything. I don't have my copy here so I can't check this, but I do remember thinking that he played a little bit fast and loose with some of his discussions of biology.
Tell me, how do historians and archaeologists generally get along?