Book · 2005
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
by Charles C. Mann
Charles Mann tours archaeologists arguing the pre-Columbian Americas were as populous and engineered as anything in Europe.
What does Reddit think of 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus?
r/AskHistorians owns this book: 60 of 104 mentions, more than triple any other sub, and the recurring move is comparative — 1491 as the credible answer to Guns, Germs and Steel. One comment (↑221) poses it directly, asking how "Diamond's apparently terrible book" squares with Mann's more "well-cited and respected" account of disease and population collapse. That's not a one-off; Diamond keeps surfacing as the foil across this thread. Another comment (↑1122) pairs 1491 with Kim MacQuarrie's Last Days of the Incas as complementary reads on the same period, one broad and one narrow. r/history's smaller presence (16 mentions, sentiment running positive) treats it more as a list entry than a load-bearing citation. None of the displayed excerpts push back on Mann's own arguments; the pushback in this sample lands on Diamond, not on him. Whether that silence means the book holds up or just hasn't been tested here is a fair question the data doesn't answer.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Pre-Columbian population and urbanization in the Americas
- · Correcting the untouched-wilderness assumption
- · Disease and demographic collapse after contact
- · Positioned as the rebuttal to Guns, Germs, and Steel
Common praise
- + r/AskHistorians repeatedly reaches for it as the credible counter to Guns, Germs and Steel, calling it more well-cited and respected (↑221).
- + Gets paired with Last Days of the Incas as a two-book overview of the period (↑1122), not treated as a standalone curiosity.
- + Held up across seven years without a visible backlash thread in this sample, which for a pop-history title on r/AskHistorians is not nothing.
Common criticism
- − No displayed excerpt actually argues with Mann's specific claims; the disagreements in this sample target Diamond, not 1491.
- − r/history's mentions read as list-filler rather than close engagement, suggesting casual audiences absorb the title without the argument behind it.
- − Sentiment sits closer to the positive threshold than comfortably above it, a thinner endorsement than the sub's enthusiasm for the Diamond comparison implies.
Who it's for
Skeptics of Guns, Germs and Steel end up here eventually — r/AskHistorians has practically built a rebuttal reading list around this title. Pair it with Last Days of the Incas if you want the zoomed-in companion, per the ↑1122 recommendation. History readers who want an argument, not just a list of facts, get more out of it than r/history's casual name-drops suggest. If your interest is strictly the historical-determinism debate, this is the book people hand you instead of Diamond's.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“That's great that you want to learn more about U.S. history! I focus on indigenous history, as well as the indigenous slave trade, and in the list below highlight some of my favorite books, with a little nod to Texas/Western U.S. history. I'm going to recommend some of my favorites below, in a roug…
“Books I'm referencing here are *1491: The Americas Before Columbus* by Charles C Mann, and *The Last Days of the Incas* by Kim MacQuarrie. The latter goes into more detail of how the Inca Empire functioned as it operates as a chronicle of the Spanish Conquest of what would later be known as Peru by…
“I was going to suggest *A Short History of Nearly Everything* by Bryson for a good overview of scientific history but you mentioned you want books for specific periods. If you're interested in the 1920s Bryson has a good book *One Summer*. But if you're looking for books on specific periods: If yo…
“u/Lubyak already covered the problem with "Big History" books in general but there are some that are sort of close to the material GGS covers. They all have their own problems but generally are considered more scholarly or important in some way than GGS. \-The Creation of Inequality by Kent Flanner…
“Oh absolutely we cannot discard pop history. There is definitely bad pop history (which can sometimes be pretty easily sussed out, for example a book on whether Hitler did weeeeeed is probably not going to be super rigorous) but there is also very good pop history. And this very good pop history pro…
“I hate to add to the list of comments here, but this incited a burning question for me. How does Diamond's apparently terrible book interact with Charles Mann's *1491*? Having read it, I understand it's a much more well-cited and respected work, but Mann argues that disease and mass death from it …
“To comment on the last paragraph of your response, these were accounts were a part of a number of widely read texts called Captivity Narratives which were explicitly spread and used to demonstrate the,…
“Ok, so to begin with, the author does start off with a relatively sound thesis. Most Native American cultures were indeed agriculturalists who subsisted primarily on vegetables and fruits. However, she does run into several problems with the detail. Take her statement about Mesoamerican children not…
“Whenever people first find out that academics don't like Jared Diamond, Yuval Harari, or any other non-specialist who decided for themselves that writing … for a casual reader; the authors seem well aware they are writing for many beyond their fields. Most of it is available [online](
“1491 by Charles C. Mann is a good overview of what life was like in the Americas prior to Columbus and European contact.
“For similar sweep and verve, I recommend everything by Charles C. Mann. His book 1491 is a wonderful and reasonably current synopsis of things most people don't know about the ancient Americas. 1493 and The Wizard and the Prophet are both wonderful too. Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything …
“It's hard to encapsulate the entire history of humanity into a single book, but here are some titles I've read and seen recommended that seem right up your alley: 1491 and 1493 by Charles C. Mann give an amazing overview of the origins, development, and history of Pre-Columbian societies that ar…
“Check out the book 1491 by Charles Mann (if that isn't already what inspired your comment). It discusses this exact premise as well as many other similar discussions of pre/early contact Indian tribes.
“I assume you've read it but 1491 by Charles Mann delves deeply into this topic.
“I want to encourage everyone who enjoyed this great comment to read '1491' and '1493' by Charles Mann
Convinced? Pick up 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
Readers also mention
Books that share discussion threads with 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus — counted from the comments, not curated.
Guides featuring 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
Ranked best-of lists and editorial guides where this book's tracked mentions place it.
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus — frequently asked
Is 1491 better than Guns, Germs and Steel?+
Per r/AskHistorians, yes, and it isn't close. One comment (↑221) calls Diamond's book "apparently terrible" by comparison and Mann's "much more well-cited and respected." That comparison recurs across the thread rather than appearing once, which is the strongest signal in this corpus.
Should I read 1491 or Last Days of the Incas first?+
A r/AskHistorians comment (↑1122) recommends both without ranking them — 1491 for continental scope, Last Days of the Incas for the specific Spanish conquest narrative. Nothing in the data argues for a strict order; they're presented as complementary, not sequential.
Does r/AskHistorians actually endorse 1491's arguments, or just recommend the title?+
Recommend and defend, based on this sample. The most-upvoted relevant comments use 1491 to counter a specific rival book rather than just listing it. No displayed excerpt disputes Mann's own claims; the friction here is aimed at Diamond, not at Mann.
Is 1491 treated as more than a beginner's book on r/AskHistorians?+
Seems that way. It's invoked to settle a specific historiographical argument, Diamond versus Mann on disease and population collapse, not just handed to newcomers as an easy read. r/history's mentions are more casual and list-style; the substantive engagement concentrates in r/AskHistorians.