Thanks for the reply.

Which part of the article you linked supports the notion of large well established pre Columbian cities being a generally accepted notion prior to 2000? Indeed which part of that article supports large pre Columbian cities?

Note: I do not dispute such things in the slightest, it's just that your 2005 article strongly supports the notion that until recently there were:

     long-held views that the region was sparsely populated by tribal groups who peacefully coexisted with the apparently hostile environment that surrounded them. 

The article you linked also supports recent (within past decade) changes in common though to embrace large sedentary populations of people clearing sections of forest for managed agriculture, etc.

That supports large dispersed agrian populations but doesn't go so far as large concentrated urban areas which seems to be what the primary BBC article is attributing to the Prof. in question here.

In the arc of academic studies these are all "recent" changes in the traditional scholastic views .. although admittedly they perhaps originated a little before your own birth?