- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
In this groundbreaking work of science, history, and archaeology, Charles C. Mann radically alters our understanding of the Americas before the arrival of Columbus in 1492.
Contrary to what so many Americans learn in school, the pre-Columbian Indians were not sparsely settled in a pristine wilderness; rather, there were huge numbers of Indians who actively molded and influenced the land around them. The astonishing Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan had running water and immaculately clean streets, and was larger than any contemporary European city. Mexican cultures created corn in a specialized breeding process that it has been called man’s first feat of genetic engineering. Indeed, Indians were not living lightly on the land but were landscaping and manipulating their world in ways that we are only now beginning to understand. Challenging and surprising, this a transformative new look at a rich and fascinating world we only thought we knew.
From the Trade Paperback edition.
| Introduction : Holmberg's mistake | ||
| 1 | A view from above | 3 |
| 2 | Why Billington survived | 31 |
| 3 | In the land of four quarters | 62 |
| 4 | Frequently asked questions | 97 |
| 5 | Pleistocene wars | 137 |
| 6 | Cotton (or anchovies) and maize (tales of two civilizations, part I) | 174 |
| 7 | Writing, wheels, and bucket brigades (tales of two civilizations, part II) | 204 |
| 8 | Made in America | 243 |
| 9 | Amazonia | 280 |
| 10 | The artificial wilderness | 312 |
| 11 | The great law of peace | 329 |
| App. A | Loaded words | 339 |
| App. B | Talking knots | 345 |
| App. C | The syphilis exception | 351 |
| App. D | Calendar math | 355 |
1. Mann begins the book with a question about our moral responsibility to the earth’s environment: Do we have an obligation, as some green activists believe, to restore environmental conditions to the state in which they were before human intervention [p. 5]? What does the story of the Beni tell us about what “before human intervention” might mean?
2. What scientists have learned about the early Americas gives the lie to what Charles C. Mann, and most of us, learned in high school: “that Indians came to the Americas across the Bering Strait about thirteen thousand years ago, that they lived for the most part in small, isolated groups, and that they had so little impact on their environment that even after millennia of habitation the continents remained mostly wilderness” [p. 4]. What is the effect of learning that most of what we have assumed about the past is “wrong in almost every aspect” [p. 4]?
3. There are many scholarly disagreements about the research described in 1491. If our knowledge of the past is based on the findings of scholars, what happens to the past when scholars don’t agree? How convincing is anthropologist Dean R. Snow’s statement, “you can make the meager evidence from the ethnohistorical record tell you anything you want” [p. 5]? Are certain scholars introduced here more believable than others? Why or why not?
4. Probably the most devastating impact from the contact between Europeans and Americans came from the spread of biological agents like smallpox. Of Mann’s various descriptions of the effects of foreign diseases on the Americas’ native populations [pp. 96—124], which are most shocking, and why? How do you respond to his questions on page 123: “In our antibiotic era, how can we imagine what it means to have entire ways of life hiss away like steam? How can one assay the total impact of the unprecedented calamity that gave rise to the world we live in?”
5. In the nineteenth century, historian George Bancroft described pre-contact America as “an unproductive waste. . . . Its only inhabitants were a few scattered tribes of feeble barbarians, destitute of commerce and of political connection” [pp. 14—15]. To what degree is the reflexive ethnocentrism of earlier times responsible for the erroneous history of the Americas we have inherited?
6. When Spanish explorer Hernando De Soto brought pigs along on his expedition in order to feed himself and his men, the pigs carried microbes that apparently wiped out the Indian populations in the southeast part of the current United States [p. 108—09]. While this episode illustrates the haphazard quality of biological devastation, how does it also connect 1491 to our contemporary world, in which the media reports daily on scientists’ fear of diseases like avian flu jumping from animal to human populations? In our present global environment, are we as vulnerable as the Indian tribes discussed by Mann? Are there, as he suggests, moral reverberations to be felt as a result of the European entrance into the Americas five centuries ago [p. 112]?
7. Several of the cultures discussed by Mann honored their dead so highly that, in effect, the dead were treated as if they were still alive. What is most interesting about the attitudes toward death and the dead found in the Chinchorro [pp. 200—01], the Chimor [p. 264], and the Inka [p. 98] cultures?
8. Much of America’s founding mythology is based on the idea of the land as an untouched wilderness, yet most scholars now agree that this pristine myth [p. 365] was a convenient story that the early settlers told themselves. What kinds of actions did the myth support, and how did it serve the purposes of the settlers?
9. Because of the lack of documentary and statistical evidence for the mass death caused by disease in the New World, experts have argued about the size of the pre-Columbian population. The so-called High Counters, according to their detractors, “are like people who discover an empty bank account and claim from its very emptiness that it once contained millions of dollars. Historians who project large Indian populations, Low Counter critics say, are committing the intellectual sin of arguing from silence” [p. 112]. Yet those who count low, Indian activists say, do so in order to diminish not only the mass death suffered by indigenous peoples, but also the significant achievements of their pre-contact cultures. Which side does it seem Charles Mann leans toward? Which side do you find more believable?
10. Consider Mann’s remark about what was lost because of the destruction wrought by Cortés and others: “Here, at last, we begin to appreciate the enormity of the calamity, for the disintegration of native America was a loss not just to those societies but to the human enterprise as a whole. . . . The Americas were a boundless sea of novel ideas, dreams, stories, philosophies, religions, moralities, discoveries, and all the other products of the mind” [p. 137]. How might the world have been different had the ancient cultures of the Americas survived into the present?
11. Mann writes, “Native Americans were living in balance with Nature–but they had their thumbs on the scale. . . . The American landscape had come to fit their lives like comfortable clothing. It was a highly successful and stable system, if ‘stable’ is the appropriate word for a regime that involves routinely enshrouding miles of countryside in smoke and ash” [p. 284]. Why did the Indians burn acres of land? Does Mann suggest that there are the ecological lessons for our own time in the Native Americans’ active manipulation of their environment?
12. Using the words of Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, Mann explains that a “keystone” species is one “that affects the survival and abundance of many other species”; Mann adds that, “Keystone species have disproportionate impact on their ecosystems” [p. 352—53]. Indians were a keystone species in most of the hemisphere before the arrival of Columbus. What force led to their greatly diminished importance in the evolution of the hemisphere’s ecosystems? If our species now has an even greater impact on the world ecosystems, does Mann suggest ways to avoid disasters such as those he delineates in 1491?
13. Discussing foreign environmentalists’ opinions about saving the Amazonian forests, Mann raises a problem with the whole environmental movement: Those in poverty-stricken areas like Amazonia want development and jobs; wealthy, well-educated people in the U.S. and Europe tend to want to preserve these forests [pp. 363—64]. How can this problem be resolved?
14. The Gitksan Indians of Canada’s Northwest have argued a case in the Supreme Court of Canada that “the Gitksan had lived there a long time, had never left, had never agreed to give their land away, and had thus retained legal title to about eleven thousand square miles of the province” [p. xi]. What are the implications of such a claim for the various peoples and tribes that Mann discusses in 1491, and for the descendants of European settlers?
15. What does Mann mean in saying, “Understanding that nature is not normative does not mean that anything goes. . . . Instead the landscape is an arena for the interaction of natural and social forces, a kind of display, and one that like all displays is not fully under the control of its authors” [p. 365—66]?
16. People have long believed that being in the wilderness conveys a sense of the sacred. Mann explains, “The trees closing over my head in the Amazon furo made me feel the presence of something beyond myself, an intuition shared by almost everyone who has walked in the woods alone. That something seemed to have rules and resistances of its own, ones that did not stem from me” [p. 365]. What happens to this idea of a non-human force in nature if, as Mann concludes, the concept of nature is a human creation?
17. Why does Mann end 1491 with a coda on the Haudenosaunee “Great Law of Peace,” and what resonance does it have for the book as a whole?
Anonymous
Posted June 3, 2008
Wonderfully explained and organized. The wealth of data is amazing and the unbiasedness is welcomed.
3 out of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted September 23, 2007
I felt motivated to write this review after seeing some of the other reviewers comment on very odd things. This book was eye opening for me. I couldn't put it down--which says something. And it changed the way I think about the history of the Americas and the world. Regarding the person who claims that Mann criticizes environmentalists--nothing could be further from the truth. I am an ardent conservationist and am quoting Mann in my master's thesis. He discusses some very central controversies in conservation. For the person who was so outraged by the idea that some native peoples prefer to be called Indians--actually some do. And this may be more relevant in Spanish. While indio is an insult in some countries, there are native people in Colombia who refer to themselves as indios. I wasn't sure where the rage was coming from, but Mann was not incorrect. In addition, I would have to go back to the book, but I didn't interpret his portrayal of Holmberg as insulting. I thought that Mann actually spoke quite highly of him. There is much to like in this book, and maybe the fact that it can stir up so much controversy is part of that.
3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.This was an interesting book, full of information I had never seen or heard before. The author writes very clearly and is easy to understand. Occasionally, the sections were so dense with information that I became a little lost and confused--I found it hard to keep up with all the Indian names--but other than that I enjoyed it.
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted April 21, 2006
I have always thought the traditional history taught in schools is incorrect and lacking. But I don't think this book provides all the answers. I think Mann assumes quite a bit in some of his arguements and makes some claims that seem to be a stretch at best. But this is a good book and I think anyone interested in history should read it, just keep an open mind on some of the claims. Just because it is in a book does not make it true.
2 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted January 29, 2006
The rest, sadly, seems to be overly-PC journalistic obiter dicta one wonders if this chap was being paid by the word. Still, the current -- well, I suppose, science, if one can really call cultural anthropology any such thing -- is nicely summarized and the changes from the stuff that was 'official' and which has been suspect since the days of Franz Boas, is shown to be even more uncertain at best. The book drives yet another nail in the Smithsonian's ethnological coffin -- a good thing. A fascinating read, in any case.
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.The author does an excellent job of bringing together various histories of the Americas to show that the "New World" simply was not what we have traditionally been taught.
I would like to see him or someone else now do a similarly heavily-mass-marketed work on the growing body of archaeological, historical and epigraphical evidence which suggests that the Americas were, in fact, explored by Europeans and others long before Columbus.
Unfortuntely, heretofore this subject has been deemed by mainstream academia to be the realm of quackery. This is a tragedy and is based more on mainstream academia's instinct of self-preservation than any search for the truth.
In any event, perhaps 1491 will one day be seen as an opening salvo in the effort to bring such questions to the forefront of scholarship. After all, it is not just that, as Mann points out, Native Americans's societies were far more complex and larger than traditionally thought, they were also very likely far more akin to what we would today call "multicultural", as well.
1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted June 9, 2008
Who were the first people on North and South America and how did they arrive here? A subject some don't care about but for us who do, its truly a mystery. The author chose a subject knowing how many would disagree with him but he came through with material to back his ideas up. Its interesting in that we can use this to save ourselves from destruction since so many before us did the same things were doing and didn't learn. To save our planet from our own wrath and be the ones who can at least say we learned from the past. What civilization will come next if we don't learn now? This is what our children have to look forward to.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted December 30, 2007
One would think that reading about so many stats would just put one to sleep, BUT it did just the opposite for me. To understand the advanced societies in the Americas for so many centuries before the arrival of European virus just boggled my mind. If you have any interest in our past this is a must read. Until this book my perspective of pre-Columbus America was the European version.
1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted September 12, 2007
I had high hopes for Mann's interpretation especially reading this after Philbrick's Mayflower. With the exception of Part One, 90% of the book relates to South and Central America, and it almost reads as a topographical history or South America. I was 'expecting' more insight into Columbus and the North American tribes and their history, but I think people are getting caught up in the story. I found myself skipping chapters something I never do (well, there was a chapter on tortilla making).
1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted August 3, 2007
I'm impressed with the information in this book. I feel very fortunate Charles C. Mann put toghether this information. There's one thing I strongly disagree with Mann on this book-his claim that some Natives prefer to be called Indian instead of 'Native Americans' is at most a 'stupidaggine' 'absurdity' as the that name was concocted by ignorance! The very ignorance of Christoforo Colombo or 'Cristobal Colon' who thought he had landed in India. Why do we continue to perpetuate ignorance is unknown to me. Unless, of course, immigrants from other lands now want to claim the title for themselves! I'm sure it wouldn't matter now, they took everything else already from Native Peoples... I was amazed when I watched an interview with Dick Wolf by Tavis Smiley show, on PBS, He claims the Smithsonian as a source for Political correctness and the term Indian for 'Native American'. He surely jumped quicker than flees onto the back side of a quaking duck with American Indian. That name was concocted by ignorance, the very ignorance of Christoforo Colombo or 'Cristobal Colon' who thought he had landed in India. The fact that some Native American tribes 'which does NOT mean tribes in the US/Canada-but the Americas' call themselves American Indian, is part of the same filth Ale¿ Hrdlièka and the Smithsonian spoused and actively carried out in hopes to keep out the great nations that existed and that had created a much more advanced systems, cities, than in Europe and other places by the 14 century! In fact, they were so advanced in mathematics, for example, the first culture to use zero where the Native Americans, in the South of Mexico, Guatemala, throughout Central America and South America! I¿m sure he will claim Native American for him now! The Americas, or the land of the early light, as Native Americans called these lands, was the last to be discovered and we have just started to learn about the GRAND cultures that existed here, before the Spaniars ravaged the land and its people in 1492. And then, almost 2 centuries later, came the Britons 'pilgrims' who did more damaged to Native Peoples in less than 100 years, than the Spaniards did in over 400 years. The Spaniards intermerried with the Natives, the Britons killed most of them, or uprooted them from their land to inhospitable lands, far away from their homes.
1 out of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted November 22, 2005
Allan Holmberg - to whom Charles Mann attributes 'Holmberg's Mistake' - never argued anything to the effect of what Mann claims in his work on Bolivia. His dissertation at Yale, published as 'Nomads of the Long Bow' by the Smithsonian, was on the effects of hunger on forest dwellers who lived in fragmented groups due to historical contingencies. That Charles Mann elected to name a chapter of his book, 1491, ¿Holmberg¿s Mistake¿ shows nothing but that Mann never read the book. Holmberg, to the extent that his work addresses historical or archaeological questions at all, argues quite transparently that the Siriono were an ¿anomaly¿ and likely a ¿remnant of an ancient population that was exterminated, absorbed, or engulfed by more civilized invaders.¿ The mistake here is all Mann¿s. I would not argue that Mann's overall argument is incorrect but it is odd that he attempts to destroy the reputation of someone who never held the ideas attributed to him. Mann's representation approaches the unethical.
1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted January 22, 2012
A quite readable high-level account of pre-Columbian civilizations of the western hemisphere from the point of view of the peoples whom the European explorers encountered. Mann busts several myths promulgated by the Eurocentric and the politically correct, raising interesting questions and offering feasible theories. This book replaces caricature with believable people. Great read. Looking forward to 1493 next.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted January 19, 2012
The book was ok not the best i ever read
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted November 29, 2011
Great read
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.StreamFollower
Posted October 30, 2011
I found this book to be a very interesting read - particularly from the perspective of a biologist and professional conservationist. However one thing about the Nook e-version totally ticked me off. The notes, very important references to sources for some pretty controversial material, were NOT displayed in the text. That made it impossible to read, and as you go along, consider validity of the author's positions relative to the sources he felt supported them. There were references to some interesting Appendices made in the text, and there were asterisks linked to brief explanations included at the end of each chapter, but none of the text included reference notes. They were there, following page 410, seventy-eight pages of them, and you could link from them to the text page they were associated with, but not the line or statement there. Regardless, once at the end, to go back and try to integrate references into your thinking just doesn't work. If I were the author I'd be furious. As it is I just feel ripped off. B&A must do better than this!
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.4976275
Posted August 18, 2011
Very provocative premise and definitely nothing like what I was taught in schools growing up.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Joskn
Posted August 16, 2011
Discount code,with BN! Amazing Pricing! Get website: BnKing.tk
0 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Jack_Tamar
Posted July 26, 2010
The book accurately and plainly states the new findings concerning the people that occupied the Americas before Columbus. This book has some depth and is insightful without being too academic. It is perfect for the history enthusiasts that already know quite a lot about American history and early civilizations.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted January 27, 2010
Touches on enough loose ends in popular belief to stimulate further research. A great and yet easy read, it happily blows away revisionist politically correct nonsense about our 'noble savage' ancestors here.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted April 17, 2008
This book was full of information and makes you think about the way we view history in general. I also agree with some of the other reviewers on the animosity over 'Indians.' Having a relative from Peru, she preferred to be called an 'Indian.' Then again, this is the opinion of someone who spells flea, 'flees'
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Overview
In this groundbreaking work of science, history, and archaeology, Charles C. Mann radically alters our understanding of the Americas before the arrival of Columbus in 1492.
Contrary to what so many Americans learn in school, the pre-Columbian Indians were not sparsely settled in a pristine wilderness; rather, there were huge numbers of Indians who actively molded and influenced the land around them. The astonishing Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan had running water and immaculately clean streets, and was larger than any contemporary European city. Mexican cultures created corn in a specialized breeding process that ...