

'1491': Vanished Americans - throwaway344
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/302445/

======
tokenadult
2002\. I read a big part of the book several years ago. The author goes far
beyond the available evidence, and most other scholars are not convinced by
his conclusions.

~~~
MaysonL
So why did the National Academies give it the 2006 Keck prize as best science
book of the previous year?

~~~
tokenadult
A fair question, as winning that prize puts a book in good company. I'm trying
to remember what other books about science were published that same year.

Of the author's main points, many waves of settlement, some earlier than
previously estimated, is still a controversial point. (I have just been
reading books on physical anthropology about the genetic evidence on this
issue, and his hypothesis is not well supported.) High levels of cultural
advancement in pre-Columbian America is still a controversial point (although
partly controversial as a matter of definition, of course, especially for the
regions of America without writing, much as is true in Africa). His main point
that is best accepted--and still deserves to be better known--is that the
first settlers of America didn't "live with Nature" but actively shaped their
environments, notably through use of fire to promote agriculture.

