The article is pretty old. Do the books, or other articles address the criticisms? eg:
" "I have seen no evidence that large numbers of people ever lived in the Beni," says Betty J. Meggers, of the Smithsonian Institution. "Claiming otherwise is just wishful thinking." Similar criticisms apply to many of the new scholarly claims about Indians, according to Dean R. Snow, an anthropologist at Pennsylvania State University. The problem is that "you can make the meager evidence from the ethnohistorical record tell you anything you want," he says. "It's really easy to kid yourself.""
I just wonder how it's viewed by experts in the field, now.
It's been a very long time since I read the first book, afraid I recall few details. The second book probably not as it covers the biological effects of the 'great exchange' and IIRC doesn't retread the 1491 material.
But I had those sorts of questions while reading, and generally do about books. I wish all were continually revised, or at least the articles on English Wikipedia about them would point out obsolete and incorrect claims.
" "I have seen no evidence that large numbers of people ever lived in the Beni," says Betty J. Meggers, of the Smithsonian Institution. "Claiming otherwise is just wishful thinking." Similar criticisms apply to many of the new scholarly claims about Indians, according to Dean R. Snow, an anthropologist at Pennsylvania State University. The problem is that "you can make the meager evidence from the ethnohistorical record tell you anything you want," he says. "It's really easy to kid yourself.""
I just wonder how it's viewed by experts in the field, now.