Congratulations! This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States.

Good review.

Thank you!

good review but I want to throw a little light on the subject of the use of the word "Incan" in the show which is my pet peeve. First, the cemetery is not an Inca cemetery. The Inka are small group from Cuzco who conquered many other groups in the andes in building their empire. The Puruchuco cemetery is a cemetery of a local group with a distinct local burial tradition. That the producers use of the adjective Incan for everything in the show is just sloppy. Note that none of the researchers ever used the term, only the narrator. It is perhaps fair to call it the Inca period, although it actually the spanish colonial period at this point, but calling all people in the andes at the time of context is akin to calling all the Indians in british colonial India british. Other than that I thought the show was well produced, and your comments about the lack of integration well put.

Although, as Mr. Lasser noted, the program "The Great Incs Rebellion" should have been remembered for documenting the first gunshot wound of the Americas, I believe that instead it will ultimately be remembered for its scholastic dishonesty in the face of a general American Culture bent on revising history (particularly historical accounts by Christians). I am not against revising history when the facts warrant it. But this program is almost comical in its proposition that an archeological find revealed facts that were not previously known. The idea that Pizarro had an Indian concubine who saved the day is familiar to anyone who has actually studied the conquest of the Americas written by priests (called scribes by Townsend/Nova/PBS' religiously secular program). Does "La Malinche" ring a bell to Townsend or any NOVA scholars? Didn't the dishonest Spanish Chroniclers reveal to us the important role that an indigenous woman had in the conquest of Mexico? Didn't most of the Spaniards follow much the same pattern in the conquest of all the Americas? This very biased Townsend/NOVA/PBS program never really analyzed why the Spaniards found so many willing allies (if the Spaniards were so evil) among the indigenous peoples. Could it be that the cruelty and cannibalism of the Incas, the Aztecs (Mexicas) and other Imperialistic tribes compelled other Indians to join the Spaniards? What does that tell us about the evil Spaniards (that they actually played a liberating role)? As for the dishonest Spanish Chroniclers: who told us that the Spaniards used other indigenous tribes as allies? The dishonest Spanish Chroniclers. Who told us that there was a siege at Lima? The dishonest Spanish Chroniclers. Who told us that cavalry charges were NOT the single greatest reason for the Spaniards' military victories? The dishonest Spanish Chroniclers. Who recorded the eyewitness accounts of the Indians who were present at the siege of Lima? The dishonest Spanish Chroniclers. You know, for being dishonest, they sure did tell us a lot. It appears that Townsend/Nova/PBS (and National Geographic) have never read any Greek, Roman, Assyrian, Egyptian or Babylonian Chronicles. The Spaniards were paragons of honesty in comparison. By the way, none of the facts that were uncovered negate the Spanish version of the facts. Though more credit was given to the Spaniards than Townsend/NOVA/PBS wanted, nothing in the Spanish account precluded assistance from other indigenous tribes at the siege of Lima: PARTICULARLY WHEN THIS FACT WAS A GIVEN THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE SPANISH CONQUEST ACCOUNTS. Bernal Diaz del Castillo (an eyewitness to the conquest of Mexico) and other Spanish Chroniclers NEVER hide the fact that the Spaniards depended on indigenous tribes for intelligence, logistical support, translation and even food.