Davies' book on the ancient 'kingdoms' of Peru covers several key pre-Spanish cultures and civilizations in the Andean highlands -- among them Chavin, Moche, Nazca, Tiahuanaco, Huari, Chimu, and Inca -- and highlights several important archaeological sites, citing both contemporary Spanish sources and more recent discoveries. He presents a decent overview of these peoples' buildings, monuments, mythologies, and artwork in readable prose. I particularly enjoyed his discussion of the Incans, which I thought was pithy but comprehensive.
However, I found the discussion of all but the Incans lacking in quite a few areas: agriculture (how did these people feed themselves, how advanced were their hunting/fishing techniques, domestication technologies, irrigation), mastery of materials (which cultures harnessed copper, which bronze, etc.), to name a few. Pre-Chavin cultures such as Norte Chico were omitted entirely. Moreover, he mentions a few facts which seem oddly incongruous with accepted anthropology, and are at best misleading. For instance:
(1) He describes the Incan capital of Cuzco as 'often conceived as a mountain lion', with one part of the city supposedly named for 'the lion's tail' in Quechua. Conceived by whom? I didn't know Panthera leo was indigenous to the Andes? Could the 'lion' have referred to another feline species?
(2) In his discussion of Incan commoners, he mentions their basic food as chuno, which was 'mixed with water, salt and pepper'. The modern notion of salt-and-pepper contains various species of Piper which grew exclusively in South India. It is more likely he meant Schinus molle, or Peruvian pepper, which was prepared differently.
(3) In his discussion of Incan bridges, he describes the 'sides of one bridge' as 'so carefully crafted that even if a horse fell on all fours, it could not tumble off'. This is misleading as there are no horse species indigenous to the Americas.