Scott,

I had not read the article yet (or book), but have read a number of reviews and talked to a few who had read it. It is definately interesting. In general, I try to hold judgement (pro or con) until I actually read it (or see it, for documentaries). The "specualtive" statement is from several of the reviews (by professional historians). I had not heard the Genghis Khan reference before, but have recognized the same point previously.

I too love reading about "unsettled" history, particularly King Arthur, Atlantis (Thera/Santorini), the Celtic Church and early Irish/Scottish history, MacBeth, and the many Biblical-related matters. Pre-Columbus Americas is more on the periphory of my interests, but "1491" intrigues me. By nature, the historical topics that have the most question marks (either by a marked lack of primary sources or enormous legends and myths layed above the actual history) leads to the most speculative history. I am always interested in what sources and arguements are used to make a point. Mann tries to limit the speculation, though eliminating it is impossible, especially for the topic. Cahill's "How the Irish Saved Civilization" suffers from the same problem, lack of primary sources (Cahill by the destruction of the Viking raids and Mann by the lack of readable native writings and the level of the disease induced destruction) and attempts to make up for that by archeology and other fields.

Thanks for bringing up the article!!