This is in line with Bruce Trigger's Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, it is a good addition to it and it is more digestible (weThis is in line with Bruce Trigger's Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, it is a good addition to it and it is more digestible (well, a bit more digestible). Yoffee and Trigger both distance themselves from the neo-evolutionary model of state formation. This was developed more than half a century ago and classifies the many forms of human societies generally into four types: band, tribe, chiefdom and state. Yoffee pulls this view to pieces, perhaps a little too radically. His study is very theoretical, and it takes a while before Yoffee becomes more concrete (he himself is a specialist in Mesopotamia, and that is very clear from this book). Very interesting, but at the same time very specialist. Nevertheless a worthy read! More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
Naturally, in a survey work entitled 'Archaeology of the Chinese Bronze Age' you can expect quite a bit of attention to be paid to archaeological findNaturally, in a survey work entitled 'Archaeology of the Chinese Bronze Age' you can expect quite a bit of attention to be paid to archaeological finds. And this is certainly the case here. Roderick B. Campbell (Associate Professor of East Asian Archeology and History, New York University) is skilled enough to pull this off. However, for a general audience (I include myself) he goes into a bit too much detail when it comes to typologies of pottery. I estimate that more than a quarter of the pages in this book contain precise drawings of the pottery found in various places in China. For Campbell, it is the backbone of his view on earliest Chinese history. That's remarkable because I thought that early Chinese cultures were distinguished by their exceptional and abundant bronze work, not the pottery. Of course, the former is also discussed here, but much more limited. Due to the focus on archaeological finds, this book remains very descriptive and less attention is paid to broader cultural aspects (economy, social relations, religion, etc.). But before you think that this is an inferior work: the introduction that Campbell gives in this book is certainly worth it. He rightly adds the necessary nuances and perspectives to official Chinese historiography. That historiography is focused too much on finding evidence for the old dynasties (which we know from much later textual sources), and it pays too much attention to the Central Plain (around the Yellow and Yangtse rivers). Campbell is trying to correct that image, and rightly so. More about that in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
Don't be misled by my poor rating (in fact it should be 3.5 stars): this is an impressive, rich and, above all, important book. David Anthony (ProfessDon't be misled by my poor rating (in fact it should be 3.5 stars): this is an impressive, rich and, above all, important book. David Anthony (Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Hartwick College, NY) summarized decades of archaeological research conducted by Russian and Ukrainian archaeologues, research that has remained under the radar in the West for far too long. In essence, it concerns the origins and spread of pastoral nomadism in the spacious steppe region of what is now Ukraine, southern Russia, the Caucasus and Kazakhstan, in the period from 6,000 to 2,000 BCE. The focus is not only on archaeology but also on linguistics, because according to Anthony this area was also the birthplace of Proto-Indo-European. The book contains insights and hypotheses that were still very daring in 2007, but which have since been largely confirmed, including through archaeo-genetics, the study of ancient DNA. It is also wonderful how transparent Anthony proceeds, explaining in detail what his methodology is, and where he relies on reasoned speculation. This is honest science at the highest level.
But there is also a downside. Due to this very transparent approach, this work is rather heavy on the theoretical-methodological side, especially in the beginning, in the linguistic chapters. And as the book progresses, the archaeological details also pile up: the reader can expect an avalanche of successive archaeological cultures (lots of Russiand and Ukranian names), with regular overlaps and repetitions. This is certainly not a book for the general public, and so - over time - I found myself reading very diagonally, because I couldn't process it all. On top of that, especially towards the end, Anthony very often starts to use the words/terms “suggests”, “could have”, “possibly”, “it is possible that”, “probably”, etc., so it becomes a bit heavy on the speculative side. Hence my rating (3.5 stars). But it is excellent that these types of books are written, because they provide an avalanche of data and hypotheses that can be a source for further research. It's a beautiful illustration of how science works. A little more in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show......more
This was my first thorough introduction to the Indus Civilization, the very early civilization in what is now Pakistan and India, in the period from 2This was my first thorough introduction to the Indus Civilization, the very early civilization in what is now Pakistan and India, in the period from 2600 to 1900 BCE, roughly contemporaneous with the Egyptian Old Kingdom (the time of the Great Pyramids) and the Sumerian-Akkadian civilization in Mesopotamia. Only in the first half of the 20th century did the great ruins of the Indus cities come to light and it gradually became apparent that this was a very sophisticated civilization, perhaps on the same level as its better-known Middle Eastern colleagues. Publicist Andrew Robinson gives a good overview, with a few personal touches (including a lot of attention to the still undeciphered script of the Indus civilization), and especially the constant warning (rightly so) that there are still many unknowns. He also does not shy away from thorny issues, such as the highly charged debate about what happened after 1900 BCE, the so-called Aryan controversy. More about that in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
This book contains 12 articles written for a colloquium in 2005. The focus is on the contacts on both sides of the Channel, between southern England aThis book contains 12 articles written for a colloquium in 2005. The focus is on the contacts on both sides of the Channel, between southern England and northern France, in the Bronze Age, roughly between 2500 and 1000 bce, but both in space and time, some contributions look a little wider. As it happens, the level of contributions is quite different: some are very theoretical (such as the introduction of a term such as 'maritory', which stands for a geographical system with an important maritime input), others are very specialized and add little general information. The number of contributions that look almost exclusively at the British side of the Channel is also greater than the others. More in my History account on Goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
Ik kan dit boek niet beter samenvatten dan met de inleiding die Jona Lendering zelf geeft: “Te vaak komt de Oudheid (ca 3.000 vC – ca AD 650) in het nIk kan dit boek niet beter samenvatten dan met de inleiding die Jona Lendering zelf geeft: “Te vaak komt de Oudheid (ca 3.000 vC – ca AD 650) in het nieuws met trivialiteiten, en menigeen heeft inmiddels geconcludeerd dat oudheidkundigen niets méér te bieden hebben. Ze lijken geen methode te hebben, ze lopen vaak achter andermans actualiteit aan (“in de Oudheid hadden ze ook epidemieën”) en lijken zelf niets inhoudelijks te bieden. Iemand moet vertellen dat oudheidkunde geen trivialiteitenleverancier is maar een wetenschap, desnoods iemand zonder onderzoekservaring.” En dat vertellen, dat doet Lendering ook, met veel passie én ernst. Hij overloopt zowel oude als nieuwe onderzoeksmethoden en zet ook hun beperkingen in de verf. Al vind ik wel dat hij iets te jubelend is over het gebruik van AI-technologie en over de DNa-revolutie (zijn terughoudendheid in Wahibre-em-achet en andere Grieken heeft hij duidelijk laten varen). Zijn slotpleidooi voor ernstiger wetenschapscommunicatie, meer gericht op hoe wetenschap tot kennis en inzicht komt, voor een grondige hervorming van het universitair onderwijs (vooral zijn pleidooi voor een vak dat toont wat de beperkingen zijn), voor nog meer open access in academische publicaties, enz. kan ik alleen maar bijtreden. Wie de smaak te pakken heeft, abonneert zich best op Lendering’s gratis dagelijkse blog: https://mainzerbeobachter.com/. Zeer warm aanbevolen....more
Rating 2.5 stars. I'm still not quite sure what to think about this book. The first two hundred pages annoyed me immensely because of the ultra-polemiRating 2.5 stars. I'm still not quite sure what to think about this book. The first two hundred pages annoyed me immensely because of the ultra-polemical and even downright arrogant tone. Graeber and Wengrow target quite famous predecessors like Jared Diamond, Yuval Harari, and Steven Pinker and they boldly claim to offer a completely new look at world history. This creates expectations that almost by definition cannot be met. I also found their writing style annoying, with frequent digressions and half-finished arguments, and an accumulation of disputable facts. Because speculation is the main feature of their theses: they rightly state that very little is known about certain aspects of early human history, but instead they regularly refer to ethnographic data from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and then transfer that to the prehistoric and neolithic period as almost certain facts. On top of that one can clearly discriminate which chapters were mainly inspired by the political philosopher Graeber, with his glasses tinted by anarchism, and which chapters were more likely written by archaeologist Wengrow, with their greater factuality but still also with a large degree of speculation.
At the same time, this book also entices and offers intuitions that I think could touch ground. For example, the premise that prehistoric people, hunter-gatherers and early farmers, should not simply be dismissed as primitive, and that they were capable of arranging and organizing even complex matters. Or that human societies should not be captured in a simple modernist scheme, with a progressive rise from gang to tribe, to chiefdom and finally kingdom or state. And also that agriculture does not automatically lead to hierarchical societies, and so on. These are all plausible theses, but frankly, they're anything but new. Most scientific works have long rejected the simple evolutionary model of society (the so-called Turgot paradigm), they relativize the notion of Agricultural Revolution, and they do point to the remarkable long time span between the first forms of agriculture (actually rather horticulture), roughly ca 10,000 BCE and the emergence of real forms of government only after 3,000 BCE. In that sense, Graeber and Wengrow fight fictitious enemies (you can hardly take Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the dominant discourse, nor the mid-20th century archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe). But then they also make the mistake themselves to claim that things were completely different, and that, for example, the earliest agricultural communities and the first cities were almost certainly egalitarian (or at least, didn’t have an authoritarian hierarchy). That seems a step too far to me, because the empirical material they refer to does not allow us to draw that conclusion. In short, I think Graeber and Wengrow certainly ask the right questions, but I strongly doubt whether their idiosyncratic answers are any good.
In 2017 my wife and I visited the Orkney Islands, just north of the Scottish mainland, known for its remarkable Neolithic monuments. We only had 2 dayIn 2017 my wife and I visited the Orkney Islands, just north of the Scottish mainland, known for its remarkable Neolithic monuments. We only had 2 days, so it was limited to the highlights (Skara Brae, Ring of Brodgar, Maeshowe). But that was enough to see that this very northern archipelago must have been a special place in Neolithic times: the megalithic monuments are very remarkable both quantitatively and qualitatively, because all built with local stone (and we owe their preservation to that) in the period between about 3200 and 2500 BCE, so all in all in a quite limited period, and well before the better known Stonehenge, and even before the Egyptian pyramids. Archaeologist Mark Edmonds does not limit himself to a dry overview of the finds, but also tries to really empathize with the 'mindset' of the people who built the houses, monuments, and ceremonial places, including what went into it in terms of world view, organizational skills, social interaction, etc. This definitely is an interesting book about a remarkable area. Some more musings on this in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... (rating 3.5 stars)...more
Steven Mithen has really gone out of his way to give a global view of a very early period in human history. He zooms in on more than 50 places, literaSteven Mithen has really gone out of his way to give a global view of a very early period in human history. He zooms in on more than 50 places, literally spread all over the world, places where remarkable archaeological finds have been done that give us more insight into the impressive evolution that mankind went through between 20,000 and 5,000 BC. Roughly speaking, this comes down to the transition from a life as a hunter-gatherer to a farmer and even town dweller.
Mithen has put an enormous amount of information into this book, and also provides the latest state of the art of archaeological research, at least at the time of publication in 2003. He also outlines cleverly what is still hotly debated, such as for example on whether agriculture has spread through migration, or through acculturation. Mithen has even managed to include the first results of the historical-genetic research of modern humans, but of course his book came too early for the groundbreaking new knowledge that paleogenetics (the genetic research on fossil remains) now yields. In that sense, this book is slightly outdated.
But… there are very big downsides to this book. Mithen has tried to reach a large audience with this book, and he does so by sending a time traveler to visit the more than 50 archaeological sites in their original time. This is done so clumsily that the author completely misses target. Unfortunately, because of these and several other missteps I really cannot recommend this book, despite Mithen's best efforts. See also the review in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show......more
The title of this book (Time-Traveller's Tales) gives the misleading impression that these are loose Scifi-stories on British prehistory. Instead, it The title of this book (Time-Traveller's Tales) gives the misleading impression that these are loose Scifi-stories on British prehistory. Instead, it offers a rather specialised survey of British pre- and proto-history by a very experienced archaeologist. I didn't know Francis Pryor (° 1945) at all, but in Britain he apparently has a good reputation as a promoter of archeology on television, and he can look back on more than 40 years of fieldwork. Pryor does not practice archeology from the study room and, indeed, he makes no secret of the fact that he detests scientists who only look at the past from a theoretical perspective.
This is certainly evident from this book, where he constantly returns to his own excavation work, especially in the region of Fenland (East Anglia): as a reader you get almost tangible contact with the soil (actually mainly the mud), and you also learn to know the social interaction behind the archaeological work (up to and including the pints at the local pub). That makes reading this book entertaining and digestible. Bu you have to tolerate the very extroverted personality that Pryor is (with a strong anarchistic conviction). The author expresses himself in very idiosyncratic views on the subject matter, which are not always sound, but which at least encourage reflection and debate. The great weakness of this book, though, is its almost exclusive British view, without an eye for the broader context. More about that in the review in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... (rating 2.5 stars)...more
You can't ignore it: this is literally a massive work, a real doorstopper, in which a single author tries to give the state of affairs about our knowlYou can't ignore it: this is literally a massive work, a real doorstopper, in which a single author tries to give the state of affairs about our knowledge of the prehistoric times in Europe, roughly from about 40,000 years ago to the arrival of the Romans in Gaul, around 52 before our era. The latter immediately reveals that this book has a very French slant, and that is true, although it is not so bad compared to other French studies; let us say that the focus mainly is Northwest Europe. Anne Lehoërff has made a creditable attempt to provide a synthetic overview, richly illustrated - as it should be. It is also striking how often in each chapter she discusses the historical development of archeology, because that helps explain how certain terms and views have their roots in the earliest development of that science. More about the strengths and weaknesses of this book in my History Account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show......more
It took a while to write this review, because I struggled with the rating I would give this book. This work bothered me for a number of reasons: althoIt took a while to write this review, because I struggled with the rating I would give this book. This work bothered me for a number of reasons: although it is aimed at a general audience, both the language and the theoretical level are very academic. Gamble does not introduce any new material in this work, but he groups the already known data about the earliest human history into an idiosyncratic synthesis. He is especially obsessed by presenting his own conceptual frameworks (his 6 consecutive Terrae, for example, the geographical zones in which (pre) human species developed). He combines this with other theoretical elements from the social sciences, especially evolutionary psychology and social anthropology, to explain certain evolutions.
Needless to say, he thus goes far beyond the possibilities of interpretation of classical archaeology. At times you can even call this work downright speculative, and that disturbed me. And he also makes the classic mistake of first proposing a theory as an interesting explanatory hypothesis, and then turning that these into a fact. To me that’s a basic flaw.
But at the same time, after reading this book, a sense of fascination remained: it is to Gamble's credit that he at least makes an attempt to look at the industrious archaeological work from a different angle, in an effort to find better explanations. Those who hold too much to science as exclusively empirically supported knowledge will not get very far, certainly not in this domain. Theory building, and thus to some extent the use of ‘considered imagination’, is certainly necessary, provided caution is exercised. In that sense, I find Gamble's work absolutely challenging and intriguing, although I do think he has ventured a little too far. More on that in my History-account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... (rating 2.5 stars)...more
It was only a few years ago that I became acquainted with the notion of Doggerland, the land that lies under the North Sea. I think it was in the workIt was only a few years ago that I became acquainted with the notion of Doggerland, the land that lies under the North Sea. I think it was in the work of Robert Macfarlane (The Old Ways: A Journey on Foot). Apparantly, fishers already knew for a long time that under the North sea there was a vast land with special vegetation and traces of forests and rivers. But it was not until the 1990s that serious scientific research was conducted, and it is now clear that up to 8,000 years ago, at least some parts of that country protruded from the sea and were inhabited. Of course, a thing like that appeals to the imagination.
I knew ‘Time Song’ wouldn't be a real scientific work on Doggerland, and Julia Blackburn doesn't pretend to offer that. Rather, it is a romanticized evocation of the evolution of that country over the past 100,000 years, based on the many finds that still regularly wash up on the English coast. Blackburn uses a slightly Sebaldian style, perhaps on purpose, partly through the long passages in which she walks around, looks at nature, picks up fossils and stones and muses about what once was there. By the way, Sebald himself also lived and walked in that area (particularly Norfolk).
Two things stand out in this book. First, a number of fundamental historical errors. For example, she dates the age of the earth at 45 billion years (!), and connects the eruption of the Laacher volcano in the German Eifel with the sudden climate cooling of the younger Dryas-age, whilst the effects of this eruption were only local. Blackburn is also very careless in other places. But again: it is not scientific correctness that is paramount for her.
What was downright shocking to me is the constant enumeration of ancient things she finds on the beach or elsewhere (flint tools, mammoth bones, etc), and just takes with her. Apparently, the eastern coast of England and Holland is teeming with fossil collectors who keep extensive collections. She also quotes a Dutch fisherman who fished up 150,000 kilos of mammoth bones and other fossils. I agree that you cannot leave historical research only to professional academics, but how much valuable material has been lost in this way?
The second observation is that Blackburn also includes a number of things that have nothing to do with Doggerland. She describes in detail a visit to the 'Man of Tollund', a Danish bog body barely 2,000 years old, when Doggerland had long disappeared. And she ends her book with a visit to caves in Gibraltar where Neanderthals lived. In other words, Blackburn has made this book more of a reflection on the mysterious nature of time, and the fascination we all have with people living long before us and who’s lives we can barely imagine today.
She connects this with an animistic philosophy, and the intuition that life and death actually belong to the same domain, all beings and things connected and separated by time. It's an attractive view, and this indicates that this musing book is about a lot more than just Doggerland. For instance, when she refers to the death of her husband, a few years before, she feels he is somehow still out there, like a vast land now under water, and at times washing up remains on the shore. That certainly is a beautiful metaphore. But to be honest, the passage in which she describes how she ate some of the ashes of her husband mixed with some yoghurt, disturbed me a lot. And the vague, dreamy nature of her reflections and poems didn't really resonate. But maybe that's a flaw in my constellation :)....more
This is a very rich and highly specialized book that aims to provide insight into the first migratory movements in human history, starting from the eaThis is a very rich and highly specialized book that aims to provide insight into the first migratory movements in human history, starting from the earliest human species up to and including the first agricultural peoples. Bellwood uses three methodological instruments to gain insight into these migration patterns: classical archeology, linguistic studies and genetic research. His chapters and paragraphs on the latter two in particular are quite specialized, which at times makes them difficult to read. This book certainly has the merit of being very thoughtfully written, giving timely nuances, as well as having a globalist view of history: the entire planet is involved in Bellwood's story. Unfortunately, due to the rapid developments in genetic research, it has already become obsolete on a few points. See my review in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... (rating 2.5 stars)...more
Karin Bojs is a science journalist for a Swedish quality newspaper. For decades she has been following the enormous leap in genetic research, with a pKarin Bojs is a science journalist for a Swedish quality newspaper. For decades she has been following the enormous leap in genetic research, with a particular interest in the insight it offers into early human history. Especially since 2010, there has been a real DNA revolution, in which sometimes a completely new light was shed on our human ancestors, very different from the view that has been built up through classical archaeology. To name just one: the precise relationship between Neanderthal and homo sapiens.
Bojs does not present a classic, scientific exposé. In fact she kind of tells her own family history, but going back to what is called “Deep History”, the period formerly described as “prehistoric”. She starts with the arrival of the homo sapiens species in Europe, around 54,000 BP (before present) and she sketches in several steps how genetic research has mapped the successive migration flows, in a much more precise way than the classical archaeology ever could.
This is a very fascinating, very informative and up-to-date book, but of course this approach means that her story is very Scandinavian oriented. Understandably, but a limitation nonetheless. Nevertheless, a great read. For a more detailed review, see my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show......more
Genetic research has boomed in the last 30 years. A provisional highlight was the description of the human genome (an overview of the genetic code of Genetic research has boomed in the last 30 years. A provisional highlight was the description of the human genome (an overview of the genetic code of our species) in 2003. But naturally science has not stood still since then. Nowadays, not a day goes by without spectacular discoveries or breakthroughs reported by geneticists in their research, for instance on diseases.
This book by Adam Rutherford, a publicist with a background in evolutionary genetics, gives a comprehensive state of affairs at the time of the publication of this book, in 2016, now already 4 years ago. Not an easy task, because genetics turns out to be a lot more complicated than you might think. Rutherford therefore proceeds in small steps, and regularly follows side paths in which he occasionally explores certain technical aspects. That makes this book a bit elobarate at times, but in the end you get a very informative picture.
A selection of some interesting tidbits. That mankind has barely 20,000 genes, much less than expected, and less than, for example, a banana or a grain of rice. That the Human Genome Project only gave a limited reading of human genetics and that there still are whole areas in the human genome of which we do not know exactly what function they have. That there are virtually no diseases that can be attributed to a single gene, on the contrary, that it seems that different pieces of genetic material are involved in all possible phenomena (negative and positive). That it certainly makes no sense to claim that phenomena such as criminal behaviour, intelligence, sexual orientation, etc. can be attributed to a particular gene. And also important, that the companies that offer a reading of your genetic "family tree" are in most cases charlatans, digging up generalities.
But Rutherford offers much more than those tidbits. He also addresses thorny issues such as whether the concept of race has a genetic basis, he explores the nature/nurture debate, and sketches how human evolution still is going on. And of course, he disproves the bullshit spread by creationists. But what is particularly striking is his highly reasoned and nuanced defence of the scientific approach, in small steps, with word and reply in full transparency, and with attention to the limitations of the scientific method.
Some minor drawbacks: occasionally Rutherford is very wordy and he likes to incorporate anecdotes in his account, improving the readability, but sometimes distracting from the essence. This book also is quite Britain-oriented, citing mostly British studies, and focussing on studies of British subjects. But all in all, I really enjoyed reading this.
Loading...
