What do you think?
Rate this book
Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins
In a journey across four continents, acclaimed science writer Steve Olson traces the origins of modern humans and the migrations of our ancestors throughout the world over the past 150,000 years. Like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, Mapping Human History is a groundbreaking synthesis of science and history. Drawing on a wide range of sources, including the latest genetic research, linguistic evidence, and archaeological findings, Olson reveals the surprising unity among modern humans and "demonstrates just how naive some of our ideas about our human ancestry have been" (Discover).Olson offers a genealogy of all humanity, explaining, for instance, why everyone can claim Julius Caesar and Confucius as forebears. Olson also provides startling new perspectives on the invention of agriculture, the peopling of the Americas, the origins of language, the history of the Jews, and more. An engaging and lucid account, Mapping Human History will forever change how we think about ourselves and our relations with others.
304 pages, Paperback
First published May 15, 2002
48 people are currently reading
1829 people want to read
About the author
Steve Olson
4 books49 followersSteve Olson is author of the book Eruption: The Untold Story of Mount St. Helens, which Amazon has named one of the 20 best nonfiction books published in 2016 and which has been shortlisted for the Boardman Tasker Prize for Mountain Literature. He is also the author of Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins, which was nominated for the National Book Award, and other books, and he has written for the Atlantic Monthly, Science, the Smithsonian, and many other magazines. Since 1979, he has been a consultant writer for the National Academy of Sciences, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and other national scientific organizations. A native of Washington State, he now lives in Seattle.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews
Read
August 1, 2025This book has not made me any wiser about the earliest human history, compared to works I previously read by Douglas Palmer and Adam Rutherford. Steve Olson (° 1956) provides an introduction to what genetic research has yielded, at least up to the date of the publication of this book, 2002, and unfortunately that is far too long ago in this rapidly evolving sector. For example, he maintains that Neandertal and Sapiens never produced progeny together, because no Neandertal genetic material has been found in our species; that was later clearly refuted.
Plus, Olson is a science journalist, not a scientist. This has the advantage that this book is very readable, but at the same time regularly contains factual errors. For example, he clearly misrepresents Jewish history by referring to the mythical kingdoms of David and Solomon. And according to him, the megalith builders were hunter-gatherers who responded to the advent of agriculture, a very curious and speculative theory. Also his long chapter on the origin of languages is a very strange element in this book.
In other words, for a thorough overview of the genetic evolution of our species, you should not depend on Olson. Rather, the book's merit lies in its focus on refuting racial theory! Olson comes back to this time and again: making a racial distinction between people has no biological basis, and certainly no genetic: “Human groups are too closely related to differ in any but the most superficial ways. The genetic study of our past is revealing that the cultural differences between groups could not have biological origins. Those differences must result instead from the experiences individuals have had”.
As mentioned, Olson comes back to this at random, but he also puts forward solid arguments. I only have the impression that he does this just a little too diligently, and doing so also wipes out all the cultural differences of people. And that of course is a bridge too far.
Plus, Olson is a science journalist, not a scientist. This has the advantage that this book is very readable, but at the same time regularly contains factual errors. For example, he clearly misrepresents Jewish history by referring to the mythical kingdoms of David and Solomon. And according to him, the megalith builders were hunter-gatherers who responded to the advent of agriculture, a very curious and speculative theory. Also his long chapter on the origin of languages is a very strange element in this book.
In other words, for a thorough overview of the genetic evolution of our species, you should not depend on Olson. Rather, the book's merit lies in its focus on refuting racial theory! Olson comes back to this time and again: making a racial distinction between people has no biological basis, and certainly no genetic: “Human groups are too closely related to differ in any but the most superficial ways. The genetic study of our past is revealing that the cultural differences between groups could not have biological origins. Those differences must result instead from the experiences individuals have had”.
As mentioned, Olson comes back to this at random, but he also puts forward solid arguments. I only have the impression that he does this just a little too diligently, and doing so also wipes out all the cultural differences of people. And that of course is a bridge too far.
September 16, 2020
General introduction to the results genetic research gives in the study of origin and evolution of our human species. This book is a nice read, but unfortunately now thoroughly outdated. The emphasis in this book is also almost entirely on the rejection of racial theories. See my review in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
March 16, 2008
It’s the history of all of us. . . and we’re more alike than most people know.
Mitochondrial Eve (our common female ancestor) lived fewer than 200,000 years ago and thus shows the recency of our common ancestry. “Some people might like to believe that genetic mixing of people from different groups is rare—and that their ancestors certainly didn’t mix with hoi polloi. But groups have many ways of mixing.”
By comparing the DNA sequences of people all over the world, geneticists have found 85% of the total amount of genetic difference in humans occurs within groups and only 15% between populations. As the author puts it, “In other words, most genetic variants occur in all human populations. Geneticists have to look hard to find variants concentrated in specific groups. This pattern is not found in most other animals. Most biologists feel that group genetic differences have to exceed 25%-30% for a single species to be divided into subspecies or races. By this measure, human races do not exist.”
That is a profound statement! “Most African-Americans have European ancestors; all European Americans have African ancestors. Race disguises rather than acknowledges our multifaceted histories.” Showing how insignificant these differences are the author states, “The genetic variants affecting skin color and facial features probably involve a few hundred of the billions of nucleotides in a person’s DNA. Yet societies have built elaborate systems of privilege and control around these miniscule genetic differences.”
Just think about it, just ten generations ago each of us had 1,024 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents and most of us got our surname from just one of them. Twenty generations ago, we each had more than a million ancestors and at thirty generations we had more than a billion—more than were actually alive back in the time. This is the result of what the author terms “circles of inheritance”—whereby you have individuals contributing to your ancestry through more than one branch of your family tree. It has to do with cousins marrying each other and gets quite complicated.
The end result reminds me of two infamous songs, We Are The World and We Are Family. So, shouldn’t we be able to get along better?
Mitochondrial Eve (our common female ancestor) lived fewer than 200,000 years ago and thus shows the recency of our common ancestry. “Some people might like to believe that genetic mixing of people from different groups is rare—and that their ancestors certainly didn’t mix with hoi polloi. But groups have many ways of mixing.”
By comparing the DNA sequences of people all over the world, geneticists have found 85% of the total amount of genetic difference in humans occurs within groups and only 15% between populations. As the author puts it, “In other words, most genetic variants occur in all human populations. Geneticists have to look hard to find variants concentrated in specific groups. This pattern is not found in most other animals. Most biologists feel that group genetic differences have to exceed 25%-30% for a single species to be divided into subspecies or races. By this measure, human races do not exist.”
That is a profound statement! “Most African-Americans have European ancestors; all European Americans have African ancestors. Race disguises rather than acknowledges our multifaceted histories.” Showing how insignificant these differences are the author states, “The genetic variants affecting skin color and facial features probably involve a few hundred of the billions of nucleotides in a person’s DNA. Yet societies have built elaborate systems of privilege and control around these miniscule genetic differences.”
Just think about it, just ten generations ago each of us had 1,024 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents and most of us got our surname from just one of them. Twenty generations ago, we each had more than a million ancestors and at thirty generations we had more than a billion—more than were actually alive back in the time. This is the result of what the author terms “circles of inheritance”—whereby you have individuals contributing to your ancestry through more than one branch of your family tree. It has to do with cousins marrying each other and gets quite complicated.
The end result reminds me of two infamous songs, We Are The World and We Are Family. So, shouldn’t we be able to get along better?
April 17, 2021
Steve Olson's book has some historical value; it records the period just before 23andme, a period during which the DNA of the Y chromosome and the mitochondrion were sequenced and their relationship to various populations was understood, but the rest of the chromosomes were still a mystery.
On p. 235 he writes, "Within a few years geneticists will be able to use DNA sequences from all the chromosoms to trace ancestry. But these histories will be just as convoluted as those of mitochondrial DNA and the Y. Granted, geneticists will be able to make statistical assessments ... But probabilities don't convey the cold, hard certainties that people want in their genealogies."
In a way, with this statement Olson contradicts the title of his book, because it implies that an individual will be able to map their history through an analysis of their genes. In fact, he is careful to use the terms "human history" and "our genes." This is a journalist's reconstruction of what scientists are finding out about the history of populations, not individual people. As such, it is a reasonably good introduction to the topic.
Olson repeatedly ventures away from genetics and explores other sciences, like linguistics, and other topics entirely, like politics and history. While these are quite definitely related topics, he seems less familiar with them than he is with genetics and biology. He also has his own political ax to grind, which is, however, a worthy progressive one: racism is incredibly wrong-headed and has no basis in reality.
He touches on several hot-button issues—the African diaspora, Jewish history, and the identity of native Americans and Polynesians—but he handles them very cooly and with the constant aim of diffusing the tensions surrounding them by explaining what genetics reveals about generally held views. His message is consistently "We are so mixed together that the identity of all of these groups is very much a cultural construct, not a biological one." This is a valuable point to make and it is certainly worth writing a book about.
Olson's prose is that of a good journalist; it is transparent and therefore easy to read. He occasionally appears in the story himself, as he visits the various places populated by interesting peoples—like the San of Namibia—or speaks with various experts. He isn't a literary journalist like John McPhee or Joan Didion though; he doesn't paint a vivid picture of these people or places. He simply sets a scene and moves on to conveying information. This style is fine in a magazine article, but it gets a little dry in a book-length story.
On p. 235 he writes, "Within a few years geneticists will be able to use DNA sequences from all the chromosoms to trace ancestry. But these histories will be just as convoluted as those of mitochondrial DNA and the Y. Granted, geneticists will be able to make statistical assessments ... But probabilities don't convey the cold, hard certainties that people want in their genealogies."
In a way, with this statement Olson contradicts the title of his book, because it implies that an individual will be able to map their history through an analysis of their genes. In fact, he is careful to use the terms "human history" and "our genes." This is a journalist's reconstruction of what scientists are finding out about the history of populations, not individual people. As such, it is a reasonably good introduction to the topic.
Olson repeatedly ventures away from genetics and explores other sciences, like linguistics, and other topics entirely, like politics and history. While these are quite definitely related topics, he seems less familiar with them than he is with genetics and biology. He also has his own political ax to grind, which is, however, a worthy progressive one: racism is incredibly wrong-headed and has no basis in reality.
He touches on several hot-button issues—the African diaspora, Jewish history, and the identity of native Americans and Polynesians—but he handles them very cooly and with the constant aim of diffusing the tensions surrounding them by explaining what genetics reveals about generally held views. His message is consistently "We are so mixed together that the identity of all of these groups is very much a cultural construct, not a biological one." This is a valuable point to make and it is certainly worth writing a book about.
Olson's prose is that of a good journalist; it is transparent and therefore easy to read. He occasionally appears in the story himself, as he visits the various places populated by interesting peoples—like the San of Namibia—or speaks with various experts. He isn't a literary journalist like John McPhee or Joan Didion though; he doesn't paint a vivid picture of these people or places. He simply sets a scene and moves on to conveying information. This style is fine in a magazine article, but it gets a little dry in a book-length story.
May 23, 2021
Published in 2002 this book covers similar territory to the contemporaneously published Journey of Man by Spencer Wells (see my review) with noticeable differences in style of presentation. Both detail the then recently proven-by-DNA pattern of immigration of modern humans out of Eastern Africa and around the world. Olson’s account is more traditionally historical and narrative and easier for the non-geneticist to read. Wells’s, with its detailed presentation of Y-haplogroups, is more precise in its scientific explanations and thus provides better actual evidence for why the outlined emigration path is true. Both attempt to correlate language spread to genetic patterns; both are now dated by more recent developments. For Olson the “Did humans and Neanderthals mate?” is still an open question, but more recent DNA analysis has shown they definitely did. Both books have no mention of the then-not-discovered Denosovians. Olson’s chapter on what can and cannot be learned by studying the genetics of Jews as a people offers valuable insight, while both books caution against falling into “racial” fallacies. Both remind us that all modern humans are modern humans with only the most negligible mutational differences. For the generalist I recommend Olson; for those seeking to understand “why and how” I recommend Wells.
March 15, 2021
Mapping Human History by Steve Olson
Page quote/words
distinct mito chrondrial sequences called a haplotype
p35 Bushman have the oldest haplotypes
p35 loop of DNA carried in mitochondria is so small that mutatations are rare
but DNA of our chromosomes are 400,000 times longer
Krings found Neandertal fragments of DNA different from modern
at positioin 16,223 where most humans have a cytosine the same had a tymine
at position 16,254 instead of guanine the sample had a an adenine
out of 379 nucleotides fromt eh fossil twenty-seven differed
to be so distinct must have separated 500,000 years ago
issue of whether both groups were using language or neither – the traditional view is languagre rose early in Homo about 2 mya – Neandertals mostly used the same scrapers and spear points for more than 5,000 generations
maybe A? mutation occurred that allowed an individual to talk. The mutation might have caused the brain to grow in a different way or forged internal connections that weren’t there before – sure sure sure
linguists have no idea exactly where language appeared
Jin had studied chromosome 21 in 10,000 Chinese individuals where a particular recombination was not muddled – there are two kinds of migrations: one is colonization where people are going to an empty space the other is gene flow where an incoming group mixes with people who are already there
11th century Enlgish of theLords Prayer “Fader ure thu eth eart on heofonum,k si thin nama gehalgod” changes represent 600 years
maybe with luck good planning and perserverance…
by 8500 years ago… the creation of artwork fell off drastically, replaced by geometric gravings and paintings on pebbles and bones. Even then the stone tools became simpler, less varied and less carefully made. By 10,000 years Europe entered a period of cultural stupor
Monumental architecture created that attitudes that made farming acceptable to these people. I gtproived a sense of place, a bond with a partucalr location, that allowed them to sue that location in new ways.
experiments o cut DnA at precise locations. For the first time humans could control nucleotide sequences he age of genetic engineering had begun 1971
Y chromosomes are 60, million times longer than mitochochondrial DNA
strongest pre-Clovis evidence comes from Monteverde in south-central Chile – an upland bog about 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean, a research team led by Thomas Dillehay from the University of Kentucky with radiocarbon dates of 14,700 years ol, more than 1000 years odler than Clovis. Dillehay says even older occupation sites nearby.
an enzyme of Hpa I cuts DNA every time it encounters the sequence GTTAAC. So if Hpa is mixed with mitochondrial DNA the enzyme will cut DNA into a collection of particular lengths depending of times the sequence appears…
… in this way using different restriction enzymes Wallace slowly and methodically probed how mitochondrial DNA varies..
Called the four major haplogroups A, B, C and D and L for Africa and M for Asia
A, C and D lived near the border of Mongolia and Siberia; B lived along the coast of China and SE Asia; AC and D have been in N. Am for 20,000 years. Haplogroup X found in Druze, Italian and Finnish populations for more than 10,000 years
Clovis points look similar to Solutrean points of 22,000 to 16,500 years ago
Huntington Disease possibility candidates would rather live with uncertainty
Page quote/words
distinct mito chrondrial sequences called a haplotype
p35 Bushman have the oldest haplotypes
p35 loop of DNA carried in mitochondria is so small that mutatations are rare
but DNA of our chromosomes are 400,000 times longer
Krings found Neandertal fragments of DNA different from modern
at positioin 16,223 where most humans have a cytosine the same had a tymine
at position 16,254 instead of guanine the sample had a an adenine
out of 379 nucleotides fromt eh fossil twenty-seven differed
to be so distinct must have separated 500,000 years ago
issue of whether both groups were using language or neither – the traditional view is languagre rose early in Homo about 2 mya – Neandertals mostly used the same scrapers and spear points for more than 5,000 generations
maybe A? mutation occurred that allowed an individual to talk. The mutation might have caused the brain to grow in a different way or forged internal connections that weren’t there before – sure sure sure
linguists have no idea exactly where language appeared
Jin had studied chromosome 21 in 10,000 Chinese individuals where a particular recombination was not muddled – there are two kinds of migrations: one is colonization where people are going to an empty space the other is gene flow where an incoming group mixes with people who are already there
11th century Enlgish of theLords Prayer “Fader ure thu eth eart on heofonum,k si thin nama gehalgod” changes represent 600 years
maybe with luck good planning and perserverance…
by 8500 years ago… the creation of artwork fell off drastically, replaced by geometric gravings and paintings on pebbles and bones. Even then the stone tools became simpler, less varied and less carefully made. By 10,000 years Europe entered a period of cultural stupor
Monumental architecture created that attitudes that made farming acceptable to these people. I gtproived a sense of place, a bond with a partucalr location, that allowed them to sue that location in new ways.
experiments o cut DnA at precise locations. For the first time humans could control nucleotide sequences he age of genetic engineering had begun 1971
Y chromosomes are 60, million times longer than mitochochondrial DNA
strongest pre-Clovis evidence comes from Monteverde in south-central Chile – an upland bog about 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean, a research team led by Thomas Dillehay from the University of Kentucky with radiocarbon dates of 14,700 years ol, more than 1000 years odler than Clovis. Dillehay says even older occupation sites nearby.
an enzyme of Hpa I cuts DNA every time it encounters the sequence GTTAAC. So if Hpa is mixed with mitochondrial DNA the enzyme will cut DNA into a collection of particular lengths depending of times the sequence appears…
… in this way using different restriction enzymes Wallace slowly and methodically probed how mitochondrial DNA varies..
Called the four major haplogroups A, B, C and D and L for Africa and M for Asia
A, C and D lived near the border of Mongolia and Siberia; B lived along the coast of China and SE Asia; AC and D have been in N. Am for 20,000 years. Haplogroup X found in Druze, Italian and Finnish populations for more than 10,000 years
Clovis points look similar to Solutrean points of 22,000 to 16,500 years ago
Huntington Disease possibility candidates would rather live with uncertainty
August 14, 2015
Mid 3. Olson traces the evolution of mankind across four continents, and in doing so begs the question of whether racial distinctions are nothing more than historical accidents. According to his account everyone alive today can trace their biological roots to a small group of anatomically modern humans inhabiting the grasslands of Eastern Africa some 100,000 years ago. The four most momentous events in the prehistory of human evolution all probably occurred within 500 miles of the equator. Around 6 million years ago, a population of African apes split into two distinct species which would lead to humans and chimpanzees. Subsequently, more than 4 million years ago one of the species on the evolutionary path to humans adopted bipedality, which may have been a significant factor behind brain development. Then, about 2 million years ago, one species of biped assimilated tool-making skills, thereby earning the genus name 'Homo'. At the end of this chain of events, some 100,000 years ago, a new group within the genus 'Homo' appeared which were both more mobile, and had higher level cognitive ability. Yet, Olson is at pains to point out that human evolution should not be regarded as a smooth process from lower to higher forms, but rather, a product of a winnowing process where failed evolutionary experiments became extinct along the way. Moreover, at various points of this evolutionary timetable several forms of human species co-inhabited the planet. Prior to evidence from genetic research, one theory of human evolution which held sway was that of 'multiregionalism' which regarded racial differences as denoting descent from different species. Thereby Africans were partly descended from Homo sapiens, Asians partly from Homo erectus and Europeans partly from Neandertals. However, in 1987 a team of Berkeley molecular biologists studying mitochondria in human cells brought such theories under intense criticism. Mitochondria are maternally transmitted which led the team to propose that logically all humans descend from one original female - the mitochondrial Eve. The diversity which characterises the human population has arisen as the process of each cell replicating its DNA is not perfect,and therefore, 'mutations' occur, and are passed onto descendants. Olson ascribes such racial differences as resulting from the tribal phase of human history when gene flow could have been restricted by geographical barriers The lack of any basis in regarding racial differences as explaining genetic differences can best be evidenced by the fact geneticists have discovered that 85% of total genetic variation occurs within groups and only 15% between groups. This is of paramount importance as for any species to be divisable into sub-species, there should exist at least 25-30% genetic variation. fascinating though this central premise is, the author has not been able to enthuse this reader with his overall style.
April 2, 2016
This was a quick read relative to the subject matter, informative but not too technical. The basic premise is that the human species is incredibly alike regardless of our visual differences. Race is nothing but a human construct designed to neatly put groups in categories but doesn't reflect DNA similiarities. The most interesting part of this book concerns the migrations out of Africa, about how there were several attempts and then maybe returns to Africa and the bottleneck that modern Egpyt and the Holy Land made to get to Asia and Europe. The caves of Skhul and Tabun in modern Israel prove that neanderthals and modern humans lived side by side and that neaderthals lived in Tabun both before and after modern humans joined them nearby. The rest is a mystery.
A group of AFricans in Southern AFrica are members of the Cohen haplotype and it seems were a group who migrated or intermixed with Jewish people, possibly traders and matches their foundation story in a sense, long thought to be nothing but a silly myth.
The other interesting point is that they groups most closely related to modern Native Americans (most proclaimed native americans are mostly mixed with Europeans and Africans) are previously nomadic peoples in Central Asia, Mongolia and NOT those groups closest to the Bering strait. The eventual horse culture similiarities are interesting there too.
The
A group of AFricans in Southern AFrica are members of the Cohen haplotype and it seems were a group who migrated or intermixed with Jewish people, possibly traders and matches their foundation story in a sense, long thought to be nothing but a silly myth.
The other interesting point is that they groups most closely related to modern Native Americans (most proclaimed native americans are mostly mixed with Europeans and Africans) are previously nomadic peoples in Central Asia, Mongolia and NOT those groups closest to the Bering strait. The eventual horse culture similiarities are interesting there too.
The
July 6, 2016
In this wonderful book, Olson explores the origin of Homo sapiens and our eventual migrations to populate the globe. The bulk of the book focuses on the latest genetic research using DNA analysis to discover just where we all come from. How do humans genetically differ from one another, and more importantly, what does research tell us we all of us have in common? Olson argues strongly, and backs it up with science, that the human race is one; that we are all the product on interbreeding and the mixing of genes, that we all have literally common ancestors, that no one of us is racially "pure" and that, indeed , the very concept of biologically distinct races has become obsolete in light of recent research findings.
It's fascinating stuff and should be required reading in schools; it's past time to put an end to ignorance and racism, and hopefully this well-researched and well-written book provides one more step along the road toward truth, equality and compassion for all.We're all mongrels and mutts with no pedigrees! I find that beautiful.
Very recommended.
It's fascinating stuff and should be required reading in schools; it's past time to put an end to ignorance and racism, and hopefully this well-researched and well-written book provides one more step along the road toward truth, equality and compassion for all.We're all mongrels and mutts with no pedigrees! I find that beautiful.
Very recommended.
July 3, 2022
I gave this book 3 stars because it is older and no longer completely current on genomic research and the ethical questions surrounding that research. At the same time, it makes a solid case that the entire current Earth population is all genetically more similar than different and that the issues of race and ethnicity should go away based on more commonality than difference between us all in our DNA. The author recognizes that various ‘race’ differences also represent hard to give up prejudices and perceived power differentials (think white supremacy and racial inequality). It argues for more not less genomic research to blur rather than accentuate our perceived ‘differences’.
September 10, 2013
The scientific part of this book is fascinating reading. Olson gives a great account of how mankind evolved in Africa and spread to the rest of the world, along with some interesting case studies such as that of the Lemba people in Zimbabwe and South Africa who - based on genetic evidence - have Jewish ancestors. Also includes a good explanation of why we all have ancestors from all corners of the world. For me, the book is marred by a certain amount of preachiness, but if one can abstract from that, it is a good read.
September 12, 2012
I found this book to be very interesting and while I don't agree with some of the evolutionary thoughts (there has never been any crossover evolution, so in that aspect I find evolution theory to be unbelievable in general) but I did find most of the content to be interesting and educational.
January 23, 2021
This was an interesting book on a subject that can seem very difficult to access. But Steve Olson does a great job of making this subject come alive and relating it to our ways of thinking about the world. I highly recommend it.
September 21, 2015
Another history of ancient humanity through DNA. Great basic book.
July 5, 2017
With a grandiose title such as this, I was expecting a lot more from this book. The book is very light on the science of genetics and how it helps in tracing human history and migration. he author does describe how mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome are used in tracing genetic ancestry, but it lacks the depth I was expecting. Since genetics is probabilistic and not deterministic the author cautions against using genetics as a basis for inheritance or anti-discrimination laws. The main thesis of the book is that all humans have the same genetic roots originating in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. I wonder if (or how) the recent discovery of homo sapien skeletons in Morocco, dating to about 300,000 years changes any of these arguments.
November 7, 2020
Mapping Human History is from 2002. Steve Olson wrote the book right after the Human Genome Project finished, so it is full of hope and promise of the future. Now we know that gene-specific therapy is difficult to pull off.
Mapping Human History is not about that. It is about using genetic markers to trace human ancestry. Olson describes the Out of Africa theory and supports it with DNA evidence. For example, the mitochondria in our cells have different DNA. We can trace that back to a single genetic ancestor from around 200,000 years ago.
Olson discusses how humans migrated across the globe as well. He mentions that it is possible to use genetic sequencing techniques to trace your ancestry but that the method would only yield probabilities.
Mapping Human History is not about that. It is about using genetic markers to trace human ancestry. Olson describes the Out of Africa theory and supports it with DNA evidence. For example, the mitochondria in our cells have different DNA. We can trace that back to a single genetic ancestor from around 200,000 years ago.
Olson discusses how humans migrated across the globe as well. He mentions that it is possible to use genetic sequencing techniques to trace your ancestry but that the method would only yield probabilities.
July 10, 2017
As an bio-anthro major, I thought it was a great overview of human genetic history. I very much liked the way it was set up by region, starting with Africa and working its way out, to model the migration of modern humans around the globe. I also liked that Olson made a point to pull research from geneticists that not only were interested in the genetics of certain parts of the world, but were also from the same region they study. The book is a little outdated though, as it mentions several times that Neanderthals had little to no contribution to our genomes, when in reality this was disproven after the book was written.
November 18, 2020
We are at the beginning of an attempt to map human history through gene flow. Humans leave 2 streams of history in 2 kinds of DNA, mitochondial DNA from their mothers and that from the male Y chromosome. Olson explores how mutations which occur in both kinds are like markers genetic differences that evolved during our development. It gives us a means of pinpointing divergence of groups of humans. His explanation was slightly confusing because I am a lay person, but I got the gist and found it fascinating. Anyone interested in the progress of the study of Genes and DNA would like this book.
May 27, 2024
An excellent book that I ended up skimming as the genetic discussion is quite complicated. Nonetheless, it reminds us that instead of genetic research being something to make us think we are more like a particular group and less like the whole, it does the opposite. We have more in common than we do to separate us and the conjectures of how we got from Africa to every other part of the globe and yet sometimes look different, we are more alike when it comes to the genetic makeup.
June 15, 2025
Finally finished from my genetics class 2 years ago!
It actually wasn’t even that long and it was written in a way that made me interested in a topic I kind of suck at. It was more anthropology heavy than genetics but it touched on a lot of interesting information. If you are interested in human evolution, constructs of race, racism, ethics, and more this is for you plus the added bonus of being a mini anthropology crash course.
It actually wasn’t even that long and it was written in a way that made me interested in a topic I kind of suck at. It was more anthropology heavy than genetics but it touched on a lot of interesting information. If you are interested in human evolution, constructs of race, racism, ethics, and more this is for you plus the added bonus of being a mini anthropology crash course.
July 25, 2017
Pretty good but showing it's age. This field is developing fast.
June 10, 2018
This was very interesting, though new information has made it kind of dated.
March 11, 2020
A bunch of outdated leftist ox poo!
June 8, 2020
Easy to read and very informative
July 31, 2021
A good overview despite it being 20 yrs +/- now. 238pp of actual text. The rest is end notes. Easy read for the lay person.
Read
January 29, 2023Assigned reading for school
January 17, 2017
I am glad to have read this book. I had a general idea of the information about genetic tracking of human beings to common ancestry, about possible interbreeding with other primate/human-types like Neandertals [sic:], and of course the scientific evidence debunking ideas of race, of relative racial "inborn" differences, of "difference" itself perhaps. It was good to read more deeply in these topics, and Olson does a credible job of making such complicated science intelligible to a non-specialist.
There are many fascinating related topics in the book, and to me the most fascinating was the idea of the "universal Eve,"--a single individual to whom all existing genetic material may be traced. Less simplistically than that sounds, the theory has to do with differentials in inherited genes from women and men. Once a woman's genes enter the "stream," they are retained in offspring differently than genetic inheritance from men. And that's as far as I'll try to portray the complex science.
Downside: I am accustomed to high standards of attribution in non-fiction, especially in a book about specialized fields of knowledge and more especially one that relates to ideological constructs which may influence future geopolitical events. Recent world history has depended strongly on ideas of European ("white") male superiority. If a book is to equip one with knowledge to resist a backlash, it must be dependable. Too much of this book seems to rest on "some people claim" foundations. A chapter on linguistics admits to being "the most speculative in the book." My alarm flags go up and jiggle. The penultimate chapter is naive and, I think, dangerous: he basically argues that Native Americans should consent to be included in the "Human Genome [Diversity:] Project," despite their resistance to being catalogued by the very sciences and power structures that so recently dehumanized them, stole their land, destroyed their lives, killed and maligned them. The book claims to understand all the biases of racist projects for the last 400 years; why then can it not understand that all science is inherently political, and that dismissing the point of view of recent victims of politics is to be in collusion? (less)
All in all, the book helped to clarify some topics but I would need more information before I could claim to understand genetic mapping with any degree of certainty.
There are many fascinating related topics in the book, and to me the most fascinating was the idea of the "universal Eve,"--a single individual to whom all existing genetic material may be traced. Less simplistically than that sounds, the theory has to do with differentials in inherited genes from women and men. Once a woman's genes enter the "stream," they are retained in offspring differently than genetic inheritance from men. And that's as far as I'll try to portray the complex science.
Downside: I am accustomed to high standards of attribution in non-fiction, especially in a book about specialized fields of knowledge and more especially one that relates to ideological constructs which may influence future geopolitical events. Recent world history has depended strongly on ideas of European ("white") male superiority. If a book is to equip one with knowledge to resist a backlash, it must be dependable. Too much of this book seems to rest on "some people claim" foundations. A chapter on linguistics admits to being "the most speculative in the book." My alarm flags go up and jiggle. The penultimate chapter is naive and, I think, dangerous: he basically argues that Native Americans should consent to be included in the "Human Genome [Diversity:] Project," despite their resistance to being catalogued by the very sciences and power structures that so recently dehumanized them, stole their land, destroyed their lives, killed and maligned them. The book claims to understand all the biases of racist projects for the last 400 years; why then can it not understand that all science is inherently political, and that dismissing the point of view of recent victims of politics is to be in collusion? (less)
All in all, the book helped to clarify some topics but I would need more information before I could claim to understand genetic mapping with any degree of certainty.
March 12, 2009
Olson provides one of the most accessible accounts of population genetics, the fascinating field pioneered in the trenches of WWI and later developed into a full-blown science through the efforts of L.L.Cavalli-Sforza and many others. The book is divided into sections corresponding to parts of the world, though this is only a very sketchy division (since the human race is intrinsically interconnected, one can't really speak of Africa without touching upon the rest of the world).
Olson is not a scientist, he's a science journalist, but he's done his research well, and he certainly delivers his message. There are some concepts that are not very clear in his account; for example, the we all have a MRCA - most recent common ancestor - and he, or she, or both, could have lived much more recently than we think, is pretty clear; but Olson also claims that we are all descended from Julius Caesar, or Xerxes - if that person's life did not eke out, today there isn't a single individual on the planet who is not descended from him or her. Olson doesn't really explain it, nor posits a date ante quam everyone's everyone's granddaddy.
Olson is a proponent of the no-race idea, which I myself tend to support because I find it attractive. However, serious objections were raised to such treatment of human diversity, and the idea itself was termed Lewontin's fallacy (by the name of the American geneticist who came up with it). Olson does not address the issue, nor, indeed, lists any recent, scientific objections. It's easy to dispel 18-century notions.
The book searches for the 'oldest existing human populations', the Khoi-san or bushmen of Africa; examines the effects of long-term inbreeding in Samaritans; explores the cohabitation of anatomically modern humans (that's us) and Neandertals in the Near East. One of the chapters is devoted to the apparent racial and ethnic harmony of Hawaii (not without its problems, of course); I never thought Hawaii were so special.
With a couple of caveats, this is probably the best entry-level book on population genetics.
Olson is not a scientist, he's a science journalist, but he's done his research well, and he certainly delivers his message. There are some concepts that are not very clear in his account; for example, the we all have a MRCA - most recent common ancestor - and he, or she, or both, could have lived much more recently than we think, is pretty clear; but Olson also claims that we are all descended from Julius Caesar, or Xerxes - if that person's life did not eke out, today there isn't a single individual on the planet who is not descended from him or her. Olson doesn't really explain it, nor posits a date ante quam everyone's everyone's granddaddy.
Olson is a proponent of the no-race idea, which I myself tend to support because I find it attractive. However, serious objections were raised to such treatment of human diversity, and the idea itself was termed Lewontin's fallacy (by the name of the American geneticist who came up with it). Olson does not address the issue, nor, indeed, lists any recent, scientific objections. It's easy to dispel 18-century notions.
The book searches for the 'oldest existing human populations', the Khoi-san or bushmen of Africa; examines the effects of long-term inbreeding in Samaritans; explores the cohabitation of anatomically modern humans (that's us) and Neandertals in the Near East. One of the chapters is devoted to the apparent racial and ethnic harmony of Hawaii (not without its problems, of course); I never thought Hawaii were so special.
With a couple of caveats, this is probably the best entry-level book on population genetics.
June 27, 2007
This book was full of interesting and pertinent information and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. But if I had to pick a title for it, I would have called it The Case Against Racism. While it does talk a little bit about the origin, distribution, and diversification of the human species over the course of the past 200,000 years, that's not what Olson seems to be focused on. In the book, he goes into great detail discussing the history of bigotry on the basis of race, and then uses science to systematically dismantle those antiquated notions people have had about their human cousins. As far as the discussion about human genes is concerned, I didn't find any information in this book I couldn't find in a science journal or any book about anthropology or human evolution.
While it is a very good book and well worth the read, don't go into it thinking you'll get and in depth account of how Homo sapiens diversified or an explaination of exactly how each ethnic group is related to the others. What you can expect, however, is really good, scientifically concrete ammunition to use against anyone who's still ignorant enough to subscribe to racism in this day and age.
While it is a very good book and well worth the read, don't go into it thinking you'll get and in depth account of how Homo sapiens diversified or an explaination of exactly how each ethnic group is related to the others. What you can expect, however, is really good, scientifically concrete ammunition to use against anyone who's still ignorant enough to subscribe to racism in this day and age.
February 28, 2013
Interesting, sweeping account of the history of human population movements based on where genetics was in 2002. Some fascinating info about the Jews, Bushmen, Mitochondrial Eve, the Neandertals, and the Native Americans. After each chapter, however, I was left wanting more. Too much commentary and speculation mixed in with hard genetic evidence. While I appreciated Olson's insight that race is a biologically indefensible construct, he seemed, by the end of the book, to be gathering as many quotes by researchers as he possibly could to make the same affirmation. Yes, we get it. Race doesn't exist in our species. I also thought his foray into historical linguistics was a bit unnecessary. He tried somehow to claim that our linguistic history can tell us something about our genetic history. While this may be helpful to the past 5000 years, comparative linguistics tells us nothing about any proto-language, and to speculate about this is beyond his purview. Overall, OK book, but I'd be interested to see something more up-to-date by an actual geneticist, like Spencer Wells.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews