I understand that Professor Weatherford is an anthropologist, rather than a historian. As such, he would naturally seek to understand a people as they would understand themselves. Given such, though, I am inclined to hold his particular interpretation of their history to be somewhat suspect. Am I right to do so, or has he managed to balance accuracy with that desire?
I will say that I found the book incredibly compelling. It was also rather informative, and much of the information I encountered in it has been confirmed by other sources. That being said, there is both the factual content and there is also the context in which it is presented.