Scan barcode
socraticgadfly's review
2.0
This book would be fairly good, but not more than that, without a few historical errors in the introduction that undercut its authority.
I'll get to those in a minute.
First, as one other reviewer notes, most of the "viewing" of the Puebloans is done through Spanish eyes. Can we be sure of that accuracy? (In the intro, Gutiérrez admits we still have a lot to work out about Puebloan prehistory.)
Second, yes, sexuality between different cultures has always been in conflict, where they disagree greatly. But, putting the focus of two greatly different religions as primarily due to different takes on sexuality seems a cramped point of view. Not that some of the things that Gutiérrez narrates about this aren't quite interesting. But, I would have liked to see a broader focus.
And now, those errors?
In the introduction, Gutiérrez says Acoma was "established perhaps as early as 1300." Actually, we have solid evidence of building at Sky City at least 150 years earlier. He then claims it is "the oldest continually settled town in the United States." Oraibi, the oldest Hopi village, goes back to at least 1100. Taos is very likely pre-1300. Even the Hohokam village at today's Tucson is considered as continually inhabited since 1300.
These are errors that simply should not be made, and since the gist of the book is about early European historic Spanish interaction with the Puebloans, they undercut claims to reliability and authority by Gutiérrez.
Then, in the last chapter on Bourbon reforms, he says Charles III was the third and last Bourbon king of Spain. That would be news to the current, Bourbon, monarch of Spain.
Beyond THAT, Gutiérrez had other matters of "difference" he could also have discussed. We have, and had at the time of his book, some evidence that Puebloans engaged in tattooing pre-Contact. We now know that goes back 2000 years. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X18307508?via%3Dihub
I bought this book because David Roberts recommended it in his book on the Pueblo Revolt. That was a clunker; that said, the one big ding I gave THAT book was that Roberts simply couldn't grasp ideas of religious, and other, syncretism. Maybe that made this book more attractive to him than it should have been.
And with all of that, I knocked my original 3-star rating down to 2.
I'll get to those in a minute.
First, as one other reviewer notes, most of the "viewing" of the Puebloans is done through Spanish eyes. Can we be sure of that accuracy? (In the intro, Gutiérrez admits we still have a lot to work out about Puebloan prehistory.)
Second, yes, sexuality between different cultures has always been in conflict, where they disagree greatly. But, putting the focus of two greatly different religions as primarily due to different takes on sexuality seems a cramped point of view. Not that some of the things that Gutiérrez narrates about this aren't quite interesting. But, I would have liked to see a broader focus.
And now, those errors?
In the introduction, Gutiérrez says Acoma was "established perhaps as early as 1300." Actually, we have solid evidence of building at Sky City at least 150 years earlier. He then claims it is "the oldest continually settled town in the United States." Oraibi, the oldest Hopi village, goes back to at least 1100. Taos is very likely pre-1300. Even the Hohokam village at today's Tucson is considered as continually inhabited since 1300.
These are errors that simply should not be made, and since the gist of the book is about early European historic Spanish interaction with the Puebloans, they undercut claims to reliability and authority by Gutiérrez.
Then, in the last chapter on Bourbon reforms, he says Charles III was the third and last Bourbon king of Spain. That would be news to the current, Bourbon, monarch of Spain.
Beyond THAT, Gutiérrez had other matters of "difference" he could also have discussed. We have, and had at the time of his book, some evidence that Puebloans engaged in tattooing pre-Contact. We now know that goes back 2000 years. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X18307508?via%3Dihub
I bought this book because David Roberts recommended it in his book on the Pueblo Revolt. That was a clunker; that said, the one big ding I gave THAT book was that Roberts simply couldn't grasp ideas of religious, and other, syncretism. Maybe that made this book more attractive to him than it should have been.
And with all of that, I knocked my original 3-star rating down to 2.
nelsonminar's review
3.0
I only read the first third of this, the history up through the Pueblo Revolt. (That's what I was interested in.) I learned a lot from the book and really appreciate the scholarship. It's well written and easy to follow. A little dry but way more readable than the usual academic book.
I'm somewhere between curious and skeptical about the author's methods, particularly the way he comes to very specific and detailed conclusions about what various things meant to Pueblo Indians in the 1500s and 1600s. His primary sources are the records the Franciscan friars kept and he's careful at the start to talk about how problematic and biased those are. (And sometimes, clearly fantastical). I respect that it's possible to read through that and come to something like the truth, I just wish he gave us more detail on that process and estimated his certainty.
Concerns aside, as a detailed social-focussed history of early colonial New Mexico it's excellent.
I'm somewhere between curious and skeptical about the author's methods, particularly the way he comes to very specific and detailed conclusions about what various things meant to Pueblo Indians in the 1500s and 1600s. His primary sources are the records the Franciscan friars kept and he's careful at the start to talk about how problematic and biased those are. (And sometimes, clearly fantastical). I respect that it's possible to read through that and come to something like the truth, I just wish he gave us more detail on that process and estimated his certainty.
Concerns aside, as a detailed social-focussed history of early colonial New Mexico it's excellent.
More...