What do you think?
Rate this book
Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings
“An ambitious and lucid full narrative account of the peopling of Europe . . . this will undoubtedly provide a base line for future debates on the origins of the Europeans.” —J. P. Mallory, author of In Search of the Indo-Europeans and The Origins of the Irish
Who are the Europeans? Where did they come from? New research in the fields of archaeology and linguistics, a revolution in the study of genetics, and cutting-edge analysis of ancient DNA are dramatically changing our picture of prehistory, leading us to question what we thought we knew about these ancient peoples.This paradigm-shifting book paints a spirited portrait of a restless people that challenges our established ways of looking at Europe’s past. The story is more complex than at first believed, with new evidence suggesting that the European gene pool was stirred vigorously multiple times. Genetic clues are also enhancing our understanding of European mobility in epochs with written records, including the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the spread of the Slavs, and the adventures of the Vikings.Now brought completely up to date with all the latest findings from the fast-moving fields of genetics, DNA, and dating, Jean Manco’s highly readable account weaves multiple strands of evidence into a startling new history of the continent, of interest to anyone who wants to truly understand Europeans’ place in the ancient world.
Who are the Europeans? Where did they come from? New research in the fields of archaeology and linguistics, a revolution in the study of genetics, and cutting-edge analysis of ancient DNA are dramatically changing our picture of prehistory, leading us to question what we thought we knew about these ancient peoples.This paradigm-shifting book paints a spirited portrait of a restless people that challenges our established ways of looking at Europe’s past. The story is more complex than at first believed, with new evidence suggesting that the European gene pool was stirred vigorously multiple times. Genetic clues are also enhancing our understanding of European mobility in epochs with written records, including the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the spread of the Slavs, and the adventures of the Vikings.Now brought completely up to date with all the latest findings from the fast-moving fields of genetics, DNA, and dating, Jean Manco’s highly readable account weaves multiple strands of evidence into a startling new history of the continent, of interest to anyone who wants to truly understand Europeans’ place in the ancient world.
528 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 9, 2013
225 people are currently reading
1633 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews
November 11, 2015
I'm something of a history nerd, and have always had a particular interest in how the patchwork of ethnicities in Europe came about, so I was always likely to find this interesting. Even so, I rate this one of the best books I have read on the subject. The author bases her conclusions on a thorough cross-referencing of genetic, archaeological and linguistic evidence as well as evidence from historical sources where these are available. There are times when the sheer number of Haplogroups and archaeological cultures gets a bit overwhelming for the general reader, but in this case it is the price we must pay for accuracy and completeness, and taken as a whole the author pulls off the difficult task of making the book both scholarly and accessible.
The subject matter is evidently a fast moving area of research, since only a few years ago I was reading books that claimed the majority of Europeans were directly descended from indigenous hunter-gatherers, "sprung from the soil" as it were. It seems that in recent years that concept has been completely overturned by improved sampling of ancient DNA. The author also provides the best explanation I have read about the difficulties of drawing conclusions about ancient migration from genetic evidence, due to multiple cross migration patterns, different ways of genetic spread, and contacts between different cultures. This seems to me to be an impressive work.
The subject matter is evidently a fast moving area of research, since only a few years ago I was reading books that claimed the majority of Europeans were directly descended from indigenous hunter-gatherers, "sprung from the soil" as it were. It seems that in recent years that concept has been completely overturned by improved sampling of ancient DNA. The author also provides the best explanation I have read about the difficulties of drawing conclusions about ancient migration from genetic evidence, due to multiple cross migration patterns, different ways of genetic spread, and contacts between different cultures. This seems to me to be an impressive work.
December 13, 2018
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
This is a multidisciplinary synthesis of all kinds of information about the populations of Europe and how they got here. There have been trends in understanding the movement of peoples that anyone dipping into the topic will know about, largely the great argument over migration and whether it’s ever really occurred or not. I think Manco’s book shows that, in the end, it’s the middle road that’s the answer: sometimes there has been movement, sometimes not; usually, there’s been some movement, whether of traders or invaders.
The book presents tons and tons of evidence, drawing from genetic analysis, written records, archaeological remains and linguistic traces. No doubt some of the details are wrong here and there, but I strongly suspect that the overall sweep of it is a good picture of how Europe was populated, and how populations interacted and lived together. It’s quite attractively presented, too: it’s printed in colour throughout, with colours used to good effect to produce heatmaps and all sorts illustrating the density of certain genetic markers or linguistic groups.
It’s also, to my mind, a pretty easy read. I did get a little lost at times when it fell to listing the markers that characterise this or that population, but for the most part Manco remembers to keep all the evidence in mind, and not simply regurgitate strings of haplogroup identifications. She also explains how the genetic analysis techniques used work, which helps — not in enormous detail, so nothing new to me, but enough to contextualise the work she’s presenting.
Interesting stuff, and while I wouldn’t call it a pageturner as such, I read it in two days.
This is a multidisciplinary synthesis of all kinds of information about the populations of Europe and how they got here. There have been trends in understanding the movement of peoples that anyone dipping into the topic will know about, largely the great argument over migration and whether it’s ever really occurred or not. I think Manco’s book shows that, in the end, it’s the middle road that’s the answer: sometimes there has been movement, sometimes not; usually, there’s been some movement, whether of traders or invaders.
The book presents tons and tons of evidence, drawing from genetic analysis, written records, archaeological remains and linguistic traces. No doubt some of the details are wrong here and there, but I strongly suspect that the overall sweep of it is a good picture of how Europe was populated, and how populations interacted and lived together. It’s quite attractively presented, too: it’s printed in colour throughout, with colours used to good effect to produce heatmaps and all sorts illustrating the density of certain genetic markers or linguistic groups.
It’s also, to my mind, a pretty easy read. I did get a little lost at times when it fell to listing the markers that characterise this or that population, but for the most part Manco remembers to keep all the evidence in mind, and not simply regurgitate strings of haplogroup identifications. She also explains how the genetic analysis techniques used work, which helps — not in enormous detail, so nothing new to me, but enough to contextualise the work she’s presenting.
Interesting stuff, and while I wouldn’t call it a pageturner as such, I read it in two days.
April 26, 2015
I was skeptical about the new techniques that supposedly let us figure out the past via genetic analysis, so I was excited to find this book. It does nothing to calm my suspicions.
First, the book has its origin in blog entries. The author has a huge bibliography and has kept up with the material. But it's mainly a rehash of what the articles say, taken at face value. That is, there's very little defense of the actual methodology, and a lot of ipse dixit assertions with simply a footnote with a reference to some article that supposedly backs up the assertion. Apparently, the author has no doubts. Also, there's a certainly lack of cohesion in the book. Basically the chapters are simply chronological, starting with the mesolithic and ending with the Vikings. Sometimes there's a feeling that stuff gets stuck where it was because there was a blog entry about it and it gets stuck in the relevant chronological chapter.
As for the argument itself, there are two basic principles. First, the general notion is that genes change through mutation at a more or less constant rate, and where you get the highest piling up of mutations in the present day is where the genes started out, while groups that move out from the center have fewer mutations. The idea that the rate of change is predictable is manifestly false (e.g., "the evolutionary effective mutation rate… generally overestimates ages dramatically" p. 231). So much for that premise. Furthermore, the idea that present-day distributions can tell you anything about what expansions of populations took place in the distant past is on the surface of it ludicrous, and the results are often absurd. For instance, the "haplogroup" J1 is supposedly associated with the spread of agriculture from the Near East, and one reflection of this is the "fact" that it's particularly dense among Palestinians. Wait, what? The thin neck of habitable land connecting Egypt with ancient Syria is supposed to reflect the population there from something like 5000-8000 years ago? Oh, so all those Egyptian, Near Eastern, Persian, Roman, Hellenistic, Arab, Crusader and Ottoman armies that marched back and forth over this small area left no effect? Who could believe such an interpretation?
It used to be that students of the "pre-historic" period (i.e., before the development of written records) tried to associate linguistic/ethnic groups with particular physical remains (mainly pottery). With this method, you'd think you could march back from the historically attested levels to a clear break in the archaeological record, and that break would represent the arrival of the historically attested population. Turns out that wasn't so easy to do (e.g., it wasn't possible to figure out when the Greek-speakers showed up in Greece). Now, we associate historical populations with "haplogroups" and "subclades" and can confidently plot the march of the Celts or Sarmatians across Europe (see, for example, the maps of distributions in Ch. 9 that "show" the spread of the Indo-Europeans via gene distribution or the "march" of the Celts in Ch. 10). But the fallacy of associating modern distributions with ancient movements is shown by Map 82 on p. 180. The distribution of Y-DNA R1b-U152 is associated with the "Iron Age Celts" for basically no better reason than the fact that it supposedly corresponds to their greatest extent, as if this has been left undisturbed for the past 2500 years or so. But it doesn't even really fit. First, the "density" argument indicates that the Celts came from north-western Italy and Corsica (!), which is ridiculous, and we also have the special treat that the invasion of Asia Minor by the Celtic Galatians is still represented by a nice bubble of this sort of DNA in Asia Minor. The only problem is that even if one were willing to imagine that it had sat there undisturbed by all of the population changes there since the third century BC (and there have been a lot!), the unfortunate fact is that that bubble of Y-DNA is not in fact where ancient Galatia was, which is located noticeably to the east. So I guess either the DNA is not in fact a vestige of the Galatians or they moved a bit to the west as a mass. I'm going with the "whatever it represents it ain't the Celts" version.
For another example of the absurdity of this methodology, look at Map 109 on p. 233. This supposedly shows a "Slavic" gene. While it is true that the area covered has a slight similarity to the eastern Slav linguistic group, even this isn't very exact (e.g., the gene covers southern but not northern Poland). But it also includes a lot of non-Slavic territory (e.g., the Hungarians, the Albanians, the Greeks). Indeed, it spills over into eastern Asia Minor. The author is reduced to mentioning the Janissaries (Ottoman troops consisting of children taken from Christian populations in the Balkans and forcibly converting to Moslem soldiers in Constantinople), but if that's the case, why did it spread to only western Asia Minor? Furthermore, the "density" argument would lead you to believe that the Slavs started on the Dalmatian coast of what used to be Yugoslavia and spread from there to the the Balkans *and* the southern stepped of Russia and the Ukraine, which is absurd. If one weren't determined to make the association of gene and ethnic group, a much different picture emerges. Rather than representing the "spread" of the Slavs from the steppes into the Balkans, the more obvious interpretation of the map is the spread of a trait that starts in Dalmatia and spreads out, like the increasingly weaker waves from dropping a rock into water at the edge of a pool, to the east, becoming weaker as it spreads.
One really bizarre characteristic of the methodology is that whereas we get really detailed claims about the exact course of expansion of specific cultures across Europe during the pre-historic period, when it comes to the interesting questions of the movement and arrival of historically attested populations, the genetic data is incapable of explaining anything. When did the Greeks arrive in Greece? Don't know. What of the gap between the Mycenaean and "Dark Ages"? Isn't even mentioned. Where did the Etruscans come from and when did they arrive in Italy? No idea. What of the break between the Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement patterns in Italy and the arrival of the Latins? Not even mentioned. What about the spread of the Germans and (their subgroup) the Vikings? Nope. Turns out there is no genetic distinction among these widespread groups operating over many centuries of time.
One truly astonishing admission is that the present-day population of Hungary is indistinguishable from the surrounding Slavic populations (and presumably the Romanians), whereas of four bodies from the time of the arrival of the non-Indo-European Hungarians more than 1000 years ago, two have a haplogroup (N1c) characteristic of Uralic populations in the east (p. 240). Surely what this means is that according to the underlying methodolgy, the Hungarians do not exist as a linguistic/ethnic group distinct from their neighbors. This is manifestly not true, and this genetic "swamping" of the Hungarians by native populations of eastern Europe shows the absurdity of attempting to correlate present-day distributions with ancient movements. (Be it noted that the supposed ancient movements are at times dependent on so-called aDNA, that is, ancient material, and to the extent that this is the material being used, that's more plausible. But this ancient material is constantly equated with modern distributions, and in any event, I'm suspicious about how much DNA evidence actually remains and the extent to which it's representative. That is, how much aDNA is actually attested archaeologically and is this material really extensive enough to bear the weight put in it, like tracing movements by a century in the distant pre-historic period?)
Because the DNA evidence is (bizarrely!) so incapable of telling the story of population movement when it is known, a lot of the chapters about the Romans, the "Wandering" period, and the Vikings degenerates into potted history. And a lot of this is rather dubious. A Roman military unit called the *ala Frontoniana* is apparently associated with the word "frontier" (no, sorry, it means the unit was commanded by somebody named Fronto; p. 195); the author apparently thinks Constantinople was renamed Byzantium (what a historical blunder! p. 205). Perhaps mistakes like this are in and of themselves not too significant, but they do show the extent to which the historical information that's being correlated with genetic is treated in an amateurish way.
Anyway, if this method can't explain the situation when you do know from historical sources what's going on, there's absolutely no reason to believe the conclusions reached about periods when there is no external control over the information. Fundamentally, it may well be that this genetic information will be able to provide useful new data about the distant past. But it will take a good while, it would seem, until initial enthusiasm is replaced with a calmer and more prudent assessment of the methodological limitations of the technique.
First, the book has its origin in blog entries. The author has a huge bibliography and has kept up with the material. But it's mainly a rehash of what the articles say, taken at face value. That is, there's very little defense of the actual methodology, and a lot of ipse dixit assertions with simply a footnote with a reference to some article that supposedly backs up the assertion. Apparently, the author has no doubts. Also, there's a certainly lack of cohesion in the book. Basically the chapters are simply chronological, starting with the mesolithic and ending with the Vikings. Sometimes there's a feeling that stuff gets stuck where it was because there was a blog entry about it and it gets stuck in the relevant chronological chapter.
As for the argument itself, there are two basic principles. First, the general notion is that genes change through mutation at a more or less constant rate, and where you get the highest piling up of mutations in the present day is where the genes started out, while groups that move out from the center have fewer mutations. The idea that the rate of change is predictable is manifestly false (e.g., "the evolutionary effective mutation rate… generally overestimates ages dramatically" p. 231). So much for that premise. Furthermore, the idea that present-day distributions can tell you anything about what expansions of populations took place in the distant past is on the surface of it ludicrous, and the results are often absurd. For instance, the "haplogroup" J1 is supposedly associated with the spread of agriculture from the Near East, and one reflection of this is the "fact" that it's particularly dense among Palestinians. Wait, what? The thin neck of habitable land connecting Egypt with ancient Syria is supposed to reflect the population there from something like 5000-8000 years ago? Oh, so all those Egyptian, Near Eastern, Persian, Roman, Hellenistic, Arab, Crusader and Ottoman armies that marched back and forth over this small area left no effect? Who could believe such an interpretation?
It used to be that students of the "pre-historic" period (i.e., before the development of written records) tried to associate linguistic/ethnic groups with particular physical remains (mainly pottery). With this method, you'd think you could march back from the historically attested levels to a clear break in the archaeological record, and that break would represent the arrival of the historically attested population. Turns out that wasn't so easy to do (e.g., it wasn't possible to figure out when the Greek-speakers showed up in Greece). Now, we associate historical populations with "haplogroups" and "subclades" and can confidently plot the march of the Celts or Sarmatians across Europe (see, for example, the maps of distributions in Ch. 9 that "show" the spread of the Indo-Europeans via gene distribution or the "march" of the Celts in Ch. 10). But the fallacy of associating modern distributions with ancient movements is shown by Map 82 on p. 180. The distribution of Y-DNA R1b-U152 is associated with the "Iron Age Celts" for basically no better reason than the fact that it supposedly corresponds to their greatest extent, as if this has been left undisturbed for the past 2500 years or so. But it doesn't even really fit. First, the "density" argument indicates that the Celts came from north-western Italy and Corsica (!), which is ridiculous, and we also have the special treat that the invasion of Asia Minor by the Celtic Galatians is still represented by a nice bubble of this sort of DNA in Asia Minor. The only problem is that even if one were willing to imagine that it had sat there undisturbed by all of the population changes there since the third century BC (and there have been a lot!), the unfortunate fact is that that bubble of Y-DNA is not in fact where ancient Galatia was, which is located noticeably to the east. So I guess either the DNA is not in fact a vestige of the Galatians or they moved a bit to the west as a mass. I'm going with the "whatever it represents it ain't the Celts" version.
For another example of the absurdity of this methodology, look at Map 109 on p. 233. This supposedly shows a "Slavic" gene. While it is true that the area covered has a slight similarity to the eastern Slav linguistic group, even this isn't very exact (e.g., the gene covers southern but not northern Poland). But it also includes a lot of non-Slavic territory (e.g., the Hungarians, the Albanians, the Greeks). Indeed, it spills over into eastern Asia Minor. The author is reduced to mentioning the Janissaries (Ottoman troops consisting of children taken from Christian populations in the Balkans and forcibly converting to Moslem soldiers in Constantinople), but if that's the case, why did it spread to only western Asia Minor? Furthermore, the "density" argument would lead you to believe that the Slavs started on the Dalmatian coast of what used to be Yugoslavia and spread from there to the the Balkans *and* the southern stepped of Russia and the Ukraine, which is absurd. If one weren't determined to make the association of gene and ethnic group, a much different picture emerges. Rather than representing the "spread" of the Slavs from the steppes into the Balkans, the more obvious interpretation of the map is the spread of a trait that starts in Dalmatia and spreads out, like the increasingly weaker waves from dropping a rock into water at the edge of a pool, to the east, becoming weaker as it spreads.
One really bizarre characteristic of the methodology is that whereas we get really detailed claims about the exact course of expansion of specific cultures across Europe during the pre-historic period, when it comes to the interesting questions of the movement and arrival of historically attested populations, the genetic data is incapable of explaining anything. When did the Greeks arrive in Greece? Don't know. What of the gap between the Mycenaean and "Dark Ages"? Isn't even mentioned. Where did the Etruscans come from and when did they arrive in Italy? No idea. What of the break between the Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement patterns in Italy and the arrival of the Latins? Not even mentioned. What about the spread of the Germans and (their subgroup) the Vikings? Nope. Turns out there is no genetic distinction among these widespread groups operating over many centuries of time.
One truly astonishing admission is that the present-day population of Hungary is indistinguishable from the surrounding Slavic populations (and presumably the Romanians), whereas of four bodies from the time of the arrival of the non-Indo-European Hungarians more than 1000 years ago, two have a haplogroup (N1c) characteristic of Uralic populations in the east (p. 240). Surely what this means is that according to the underlying methodolgy, the Hungarians do not exist as a linguistic/ethnic group distinct from their neighbors. This is manifestly not true, and this genetic "swamping" of the Hungarians by native populations of eastern Europe shows the absurdity of attempting to correlate present-day distributions with ancient movements. (Be it noted that the supposed ancient movements are at times dependent on so-called aDNA, that is, ancient material, and to the extent that this is the material being used, that's more plausible. But this ancient material is constantly equated with modern distributions, and in any event, I'm suspicious about how much DNA evidence actually remains and the extent to which it's representative. That is, how much aDNA is actually attested archaeologically and is this material really extensive enough to bear the weight put in it, like tracing movements by a century in the distant pre-historic period?)
Because the DNA evidence is (bizarrely!) so incapable of telling the story of population movement when it is known, a lot of the chapters about the Romans, the "Wandering" period, and the Vikings degenerates into potted history. And a lot of this is rather dubious. A Roman military unit called the *ala Frontoniana* is apparently associated with the word "frontier" (no, sorry, it means the unit was commanded by somebody named Fronto; p. 195); the author apparently thinks Constantinople was renamed Byzantium (what a historical blunder! p. 205). Perhaps mistakes like this are in and of themselves not too significant, but they do show the extent to which the historical information that's being correlated with genetic is treated in an amateurish way.
Anyway, if this method can't explain the situation when you do know from historical sources what's going on, there's absolutely no reason to believe the conclusions reached about periods when there is no external control over the information. Fundamentally, it may well be that this genetic information will be able to provide useful new data about the distant past. But it will take a good while, it would seem, until initial enthusiasm is replaced with a calmer and more prudent assessment of the methodological limitations of the technique.
March 5, 2014
An interesting but problematic book that brings together DNA, language, archaeological and historical evidence for early migrations in Europe.
I'm intrigued by this subject and this book offered new ideas I had not seen before so it was enjoyable in that sense. I suspect it will be out of date very quickly.
There are issues, however, with both the style of the book and the thesis it presents. The style is choppy, uneven and a bit all over the place. It is broadly chronological but its coverage of different areas is uneven. Non-specialists may find the references to haplogroups a bit technical. The historical sections are far too heavily weighted towards cursory summaries of historical events while the DNA and language evidence seems sidelined. The most serious problems, however, are with the argument. As other reviewers have pointed out, the DNA evidence does not bear up against recorded events so it is hard to take it at face value for earlier periods. There are also logical fallacies. Early on we are told that language replacement must mean large scale population replacement - except where it doesn't (eg Hungary). I was also surprised by the lack of discussion of MtDNA as compared to Y DNA. At the start the author says they want to prove migration theories at the expense of continuity (and there are enthusiastic references throughout to overturning orthodoxy). I can't help wondering if the author has selected the evidence that suits their thesis.
I'm intrigued by this subject and this book offered new ideas I had not seen before so it was enjoyable in that sense. I suspect it will be out of date very quickly.
There are issues, however, with both the style of the book and the thesis it presents. The style is choppy, uneven and a bit all over the place. It is broadly chronological but its coverage of different areas is uneven. Non-specialists may find the references to haplogroups a bit technical. The historical sections are far too heavily weighted towards cursory summaries of historical events while the DNA and language evidence seems sidelined. The most serious problems, however, are with the argument. As other reviewers have pointed out, the DNA evidence does not bear up against recorded events so it is hard to take it at face value for earlier periods. There are also logical fallacies. Early on we are told that language replacement must mean large scale population replacement - except where it doesn't (eg Hungary). I was also surprised by the lack of discussion of MtDNA as compared to Y DNA. At the start the author says they want to prove migration theories at the expense of continuity (and there are enthusiastic references throughout to overturning orthodoxy). I can't help wondering if the author has selected the evidence that suits their thesis.
August 21, 2024
August 2024 - Second, updated and revised edition
This is a nicely written, informative, overview of all the journeys ancient peoples have made into Europe, from the neolithic to the vikings. The author combines information from archaeology, linguistic evidence, ancient texts and DNA, both ancient, y-DNA, mtDNA, and modern DNA. Fascinating, with a lovely collection of maps and diagrams.
March 2016 - First edition.
In this well-written and informative account of the ancient history of Europe. The author weaves together multiples strands of genetic evidence, archaeology, history and linguistics to present this narrative of the movement of people, DNA distribution and the spread of languages throughout Europe. This book includes numerous illustrations and maps.
This is a nicely written, informative, overview of all the journeys ancient peoples have made into Europe, from the neolithic to the vikings. The author combines information from archaeology, linguistic evidence, ancient texts and DNA, both ancient, y-DNA, mtDNA, and modern DNA. Fascinating, with a lovely collection of maps and diagrams.
March 2016 - First edition.
In this well-written and informative account of the ancient history of Europe. The author weaves together multiples strands of genetic evidence, archaeology, history and linguistics to present this narrative of the movement of people, DNA distribution and the spread of languages throughout Europe. This book includes numerous illustrations and maps.
January 3, 2019
Jean Manco offers an interesting story of the period form the earliest European settlers to the recent times, especially in the point of view of the recent Y-DNA and MtDNA research results. This book was particularly interesting because I recently requested a DNA heritage at a DNA testing company, and was able to trace my haplogroup (H22) to one of the migrant waves during the last Ice Age.
June 10, 2018
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R13T...
Ancestral Journeys by Jean Manco
A guide to "deep history."
This is an interesting and frequently dense book. The author, Jean Manco, surveys the "peopling" of Europe from the Paleolithic (40,000 years ago) to the time of the Vikings. The sources she uses largely involves genetic, archaeological and linguistic evidence to describe the layers of migration that she finds in this deep history.
I found the discussions of genetic evidence to be dry and dense. Although I got an A+ in upper division genetics at UC Davis nearly forty years ago, this discussion was over my head or not worth taking the time to absorb. I essentially skimmed the high points and took Manco's word that the evidence established what she said it established. Likewise, the discussion of archaeological evidence could get become an involved discussion about pots and similar artifacts.
I found the linguistic discussions to be of the most interest. I was captivated by the idea of Indo-European languages breaking out of their homeland north of the Black Sea and heading west to become the Proto-Celtic/Italic languages, followed by the proto-Germanic in the Jutland area, followed by the proto-Slavic from the Pripet Marshes, while another group headed southwest to become the Iranian speakers. This model coordinates with the evidence from genetics and archaeology as Manco explains.
The book is filled with too many revelations, or claims, to easily list. Here are a few:
Manco seems to question the idea that Neanderthals were incorporated into the European population. Manco attributes Neanderthal genes to common ancestry rather than hybridization. Manco also suggests that Neanderthal DNA indicates a substantial difference between the Neanderthal and human brain that throws into doubt the Neanderthal's capacity for human behavior. Among such behaviors, it seems is language. This is a marked reversal from a lot of recent stuff that I've read that argues that these differences were inconsequential and that interbreeding is undeniable.
Manco also rejects the "no immigration" worldview that has been ascendant for the last 50 years. She believes the evidence points to immigration rather than exclusively through cultural diffusion. She points out a number of occasions where there could have been population replacement simply because parts of Europe were depopulated by climate change or plague. For example, the Slavs move into the Balkans was preceded by the Justinian plague that eliminated 30 to 40% of the European population in a situation that is startling similar to what happened to the American Indian population in the 17th and 18th centuries.
I was surprised by how many innovations originated with the proto-Indo-European ("PIE") (aka the "Yamnaya Cultural Horizon") populations. Manco scores dairy farming, iron working, the development of wagons, and the development of chariots as PIE inventions, which may explain why PIE was so successful in moving both east and west from its small homeland. It also makes some sense of the fanciful claim of the Nazis about the "Aryans" being "culture creators," if that's what they were talking about, albeit PIE was a language group, not a racial group. Still, it would be interesting to find out why this one small group had so many innovations. Perhaps, it was simply a matter of taking a lead and keeping it?
Another surprise was that Manco discounts the romantic notion that the Basques are survivors of the original non-Indo-European language family that originally settled Europe. Basque is not an Indo-European ("IE") language, but it isn't archaic, which leaves a mystery as to where it came from. Likewise, the Etruscans and the language of the Iberes, which was spoken along the coast of what is now France, were not IE but where they came from or what languages they represent is unknown.
The Bulgarians were originally a Turkic speaking people who took over a portion of the Slav-speaking Balkans, and become a Slavic speaking people. On the other hand, the Magyars took over modern Hungary and transformed the population into a Magyar-speaking nation.
The book is well-organized. It is probably better appreciated by readers with a substantial background in linguistic history and the relevant history. For those with knowledge of history, this is a rewarding book in that it uses science to confirm or explore history, sometimes reaching surprising - albeit controversial - conclusions.
PSB
Ancestral Journeys by Jean Manco
A guide to "deep history."
This is an interesting and frequently dense book. The author, Jean Manco, surveys the "peopling" of Europe from the Paleolithic (40,000 years ago) to the time of the Vikings. The sources she uses largely involves genetic, archaeological and linguistic evidence to describe the layers of migration that she finds in this deep history.
I found the discussions of genetic evidence to be dry and dense. Although I got an A+ in upper division genetics at UC Davis nearly forty years ago, this discussion was over my head or not worth taking the time to absorb. I essentially skimmed the high points and took Manco's word that the evidence established what she said it established. Likewise, the discussion of archaeological evidence could get become an involved discussion about pots and similar artifacts.
I found the linguistic discussions to be of the most interest. I was captivated by the idea of Indo-European languages breaking out of their homeland north of the Black Sea and heading west to become the Proto-Celtic/Italic languages, followed by the proto-Germanic in the Jutland area, followed by the proto-Slavic from the Pripet Marshes, while another group headed southwest to become the Iranian speakers. This model coordinates with the evidence from genetics and archaeology as Manco explains.
The book is filled with too many revelations, or claims, to easily list. Here are a few:
Manco seems to question the idea that Neanderthals were incorporated into the European population. Manco attributes Neanderthal genes to common ancestry rather than hybridization. Manco also suggests that Neanderthal DNA indicates a substantial difference between the Neanderthal and human brain that throws into doubt the Neanderthal's capacity for human behavior. Among such behaviors, it seems is language. This is a marked reversal from a lot of recent stuff that I've read that argues that these differences were inconsequential and that interbreeding is undeniable.
Manco also rejects the "no immigration" worldview that has been ascendant for the last 50 years. She believes the evidence points to immigration rather than exclusively through cultural diffusion. She points out a number of occasions where there could have been population replacement simply because parts of Europe were depopulated by climate change or plague. For example, the Slavs move into the Balkans was preceded by the Justinian plague that eliminated 30 to 40% of the European population in a situation that is startling similar to what happened to the American Indian population in the 17th and 18th centuries.
I was surprised by how many innovations originated with the proto-Indo-European ("PIE") (aka the "Yamnaya Cultural Horizon") populations. Manco scores dairy farming, iron working, the development of wagons, and the development of chariots as PIE inventions, which may explain why PIE was so successful in moving both east and west from its small homeland. It also makes some sense of the fanciful claim of the Nazis about the "Aryans" being "culture creators," if that's what they were talking about, albeit PIE was a language group, not a racial group. Still, it would be interesting to find out why this one small group had so many innovations. Perhaps, it was simply a matter of taking a lead and keeping it?
Another surprise was that Manco discounts the romantic notion that the Basques are survivors of the original non-Indo-European language family that originally settled Europe. Basque is not an Indo-European ("IE") language, but it isn't archaic, which leaves a mystery as to where it came from. Likewise, the Etruscans and the language of the Iberes, which was spoken along the coast of what is now France, were not IE but where they came from or what languages they represent is unknown.
The Bulgarians were originally a Turkic speaking people who took over a portion of the Slav-speaking Balkans, and become a Slavic speaking people. On the other hand, the Magyars took over modern Hungary and transformed the population into a Magyar-speaking nation.
The book is well-organized. It is probably better appreciated by readers with a substantial background in linguistic history and the relevant history. For those with knowledge of history, this is a rewarding book in that it uses science to confirm or explore history, sometimes reaching surprising - albeit controversial - conclusions.
PSB
July 29, 2014
An extremely dense but amazingly well researched and uptodate book about Europeans. Uses archeology, DNA, and a variety of scientific techniques, new and old, mixed with historical research to paint a complex picture of how humans came to Europe, how successive waves of newcomers mixed with them, and how everyone moved around. And boy did people move around. If you think your people were in the same place (even the same region) for the last 1000 years, you're almost certainly wrong.
I really wish the book came with more maps. Maps with better labels too. Most of them just show coastlines and rivers and don't name much of anything. A lot of the maps have colored overlays to show various things but the colors are so similar you can't make out the differences. I don't mean the Y-DNA and mtDNA frequency maps; there the subtle changes in color make sense. I mean where each color shows a different culture or invasion.
And a glossary. The author is constantly referring to terms like "Anatolia" or "the steppe" but she never defines them. I figured out that Anatolia is Turkey, but I still don't know the boundaries, and the steppe is the border of east Europe with west Asia where it is flat, I think, but I'm not sure. It's very confusing for someone who hasn't already studied this all. If I were reading the book for a college class, I'd bring along a good Atlas. But this was a pleasure read and I really didn't want to be looking up stuff for every page. Some good basic maps and some page number references for them as needed would have been great.
That said, it's an amazing reference and well worth the read. Even though I'm technically European, my people didn't arrive in the timeframe covered by the book (up to 800 CE or so, with some mentions of later times) so it was more like reading about another culture for me. Yet it gave me a good grounding for understanding the continent. Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the subject.
I really wish the book came with more maps. Maps with better labels too. Most of them just show coastlines and rivers and don't name much of anything. A lot of the maps have colored overlays to show various things but the colors are so similar you can't make out the differences. I don't mean the Y-DNA and mtDNA frequency maps; there the subtle changes in color make sense. I mean where each color shows a different culture or invasion.
And a glossary. The author is constantly referring to terms like "Anatolia" or "the steppe" but she never defines them. I figured out that Anatolia is Turkey, but I still don't know the boundaries, and the steppe is the border of east Europe with west Asia where it is flat, I think, but I'm not sure. It's very confusing for someone who hasn't already studied this all. If I were reading the book for a college class, I'd bring along a good Atlas. But this was a pleasure read and I really didn't want to be looking up stuff for every page. Some good basic maps and some page number references for them as needed would have been great.
That said, it's an amazing reference and well worth the read. Even though I'm technically European, my people didn't arrive in the timeframe covered by the book (up to 800 CE or so, with some mentions of later times) so it was more like reading about another culture for me. Yet it gave me a good grounding for understanding the continent. Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the subject.
August 10, 2020
The grumpus23 (23-word commentary)
Would love to see this as a series on the history channel. Could be done so well visually. Audiobook was a poor format.
Would love to see this as a series on the history channel. Could be done so well visually. Audiobook was a poor format.
September 26, 2022
I was surprised to learn the frequency with which densely-populated farming regions would be completely depopulated by plague/war/climate change and left empty long enough for forests to regrow. A little too much time spent discussing obscure haplogroups in my opinion but some people are into that. Good overall.
December 28, 2018
Could not finish. The language / style of the book uses passive voice too often, as well as shorter sentences than necessary. The overall result is that of a boring lecture. In addition, facts are often lumped together without a thesis-then-evidence or evidence-then-thesis structure, so while the facts may be related, the feel of the work is disjointed.
December 27, 2024
It's fascinating in its own way, but I'm not a genetic paleontologist so there is only so much I get out of this before my brain starts to ache from the genetic web it spins. In spite of my headache, it offers another perspective on the populating of the Earth by Homo Sapiens -- a valuable research tool.
July 5, 2021
I only got to page 49 before I had to put this book down. I am a software engineer who loves reading about ancient Europe. This book, unfortunately, is a historian attempting to discuss scientific concepts that she clearly does not understand. Many times she references studies that do not say the bold claims she purports them to. Other times she makes feeble attempts to critique mathematics. This book ultimately is a "we have no idea what happened but let me try to craft a narrative." It just has way too many errors and misrepresentations to be readable or useful at all. Below are just a couple things I noted in the first 49 pages.
Author cites Soares 2009: Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock when she states that “H itself was born in the Near East and spread into Europe.” [28] But, in that study, Soares states, “Given that our estimate of the arrival of H in Europe (an estimate that includes H1 and H3 data) dates to 14.6 kya, it is perhaps improbable, albeit not impossible, that H1 and H3 expanded very shortly after (14 kya) from the southwest refugia. The ancestry of haplogroup H merits further detailed study at the complete-genome level to resolve these issues, but it is worth noting that the issue that arises is that the recalibrated rate seems, if anything, a little too fast to accommodate the most plausible phylogeographic interpretation (taking into account the archaeological evidence) in this case (i.e., a large-scale Late Glacial expansion).” Not to mention the simplistic/inaccurate representation of this study, her own graph on page 29 clearly shows the highest variance for H around the Greek/Italian coastline, not Anatolia as would be expected by her comment that “where the greatest genetic variance of a haplogroup is found is likely to be its point of origin” [24]. She does note that variance is only effective when paired with “phylogeny and other kinds of evidence” [24] however this broad categorization leads to the cherry picking of evidence where variance can be cited for her narrative, and dismissed when it contradicts it (as in the case of mtDNA haplogroup H).
Page 28, the author claims that mtDNA haplogroup H is 10,000 years old, however in the aforementioned study (Soares, 2009), haplogroup H is estimated to be 14.6 thousand years old. Author is therefore either cherrypicking info from various studies, or hyper-generalizing.
Page 30 the author states that “the deadly epidemic known as the black death ravaged Europe between 1348 and 1350, killing something like 30-60 per cent [sic] of the population.” This statement is provided with no source and is a massive, almost meaningless range for a historian to purport. Additionally, the plague is generally believed to have lasted around 5 years, at its climax, causing the devastating mortality rate, not two years.
On page 34 she discusses sex-biased migration before ending the section with a one-sentence, unexamined line stating mtDNA haplogroup H helps recovery from sepsis. What this had to do with anything is confusing and indicates the author unaware of relevant info.
“A few male outsiders may join the band or tribe, perhaps bringing haplogroups from a different lineage altogether” [35]. There should be no 'perhaps' in this statement and there were way more than 'a few.' The history of Europe is one of complete obliteration and joining of peoples. The Normans conquered England, yet entirely blended with the population, the Visigoths conquered Spain while mixing with the natives, Romans, and North Africans.
“A person in Ireland would have had no way to speak to someone in India. So similar words in their distant tongues must spring from a parent language.” [37]. This is untrue and a complete misrepresentation of comparative linguistics. When building lingual trees, similar words are not the primary consideration. For example, the Huns of central Asia conquered the Ostrogoths in eastern Europe; these Ostrogoths went on to conquer Rome and Theoderic was crowned King of Rome by Anastasius in 497; the Ostrogoths were then conquered by Byzantium and retreated north into Gaul; the peoples of Gaul and the Goths frequently intermingled including with the Franks, including political intermarriages…etc. This demonstration displays how conquerings alone can move across entire continents, and so can culture and words in preindustrial cultures. The gothic alphabet was actually adopted from the Greek alphabet and therefore many words can be found in gothic tongue at that time bearing Greek resemblance, but they were not parent-child languages.
Page 40-41 author makes somewhat of a random critique of the use of mathematical algorithms in language change. An algorithm is merely a calculative process, often repeating and is an overused buzzword by non-technical writers. I have never read a single author who thinks the reconstruction of languages can be done autonomously through algorithms and AI. Math is a tool used by people, of course it doesn’t provide perfect answers. Author specifically states “mathematical models are enticing, particularly when they can produce attractive maps and diagrams, but they are only as good as the data fed into them” [41]. What does this even mean? Enticing to what and whom? Attractive maps and diagrams? This is a hasty critique of something the author does not understand.
“More complex societies tend to engulf less complex groups” [41]. Yet another massive generalization without a source. You need to define what complexity is to make such a brash statement that is clearly untrue in many cases. Rome was taken by Gaul, Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths three times. These tribesmen were probably less complex in every way than the mighty Roman empire, yet engulfed them over hundreds of years.
Bilingualism is useful because “Some communication goals can be achieved with much less mental effort” [43]. There is no citation so this is likely a liberal arts claim instead of a scientific one. The example follows that religious rites can be read in dead tongues. How does it require less mental effort to learn a dead language than simply memorize a few paragraphs?
“Instead of waves of invasion, let us think more neutrally of waves of wanderers” [47]. This line really doesn’t make any sense. We should think of migration as it occurred, which could be for different reasons. History is full of knowledge and documentation of invasions and those incidents should not be thought of differently. The Huns, nor the Gothic conquering of Rome, or the Norman invasion of Britain, or the Roman expansion throughout the Mediterranean, or Byzantine’s movement West, or the Viking pillages of Europe were examples of “restless curiosity” but invasion.
“Warm spells enticed early hominins out of Africa, while cold spells every 125,000 years or so drove them to extinction or withdrawal from northerly climes” [49]. Wet phases in the Sahara/Sahel region and human migration patterns in North Africa is the citation provided for this claim, however the study claims that “A major dispersal period occurred between 130 and 100 ka (23, 24), which coincides with a major expansion of C3 vegetation from ≈120–110 ka (Fig. 2), and thus wetter conditions in the Sahara region, supporting the hypothesis that the Sahara could have provided a dispersal route out of Africa (24). Our interpretation is supported by other paleoclimate evidence and climate models suggesting a significant expansion of wetter conditions in the Sahara from 130 to 120 ka (24–28).” From the study it appears that wetter conditions, not necessarily warmer conditions, supported the migration out of Africa. The word “warm” only appears twice in the entire study and “warmer” never appears. This appears to be a misrepresentation of the actual study.
“Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) crossed into Europe some 46,000 years ago...recent radiocarbon dating to between 38,700 and 36,200 years ago has made his the earliest Homo sapiens skull found in Europe” [49]. Apidima 1 is a human skull believed to be a homo sapien discovered in Europe that is 210,000 years old.
Author cites Soares 2009: Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock when she states that “H itself was born in the Near East and spread into Europe.” [28] But, in that study, Soares states, “Given that our estimate of the arrival of H in Europe (an estimate that includes H1 and H3 data) dates to 14.6 kya, it is perhaps improbable, albeit not impossible, that H1 and H3 expanded very shortly after (14 kya) from the southwest refugia. The ancestry of haplogroup H merits further detailed study at the complete-genome level to resolve these issues, but it is worth noting that the issue that arises is that the recalibrated rate seems, if anything, a little too fast to accommodate the most plausible phylogeographic interpretation (taking into account the archaeological evidence) in this case (i.e., a large-scale Late Glacial expansion).” Not to mention the simplistic/inaccurate representation of this study, her own graph on page 29 clearly shows the highest variance for H around the Greek/Italian coastline, not Anatolia as would be expected by her comment that “where the greatest genetic variance of a haplogroup is found is likely to be its point of origin” [24]. She does note that variance is only effective when paired with “phylogeny and other kinds of evidence” [24] however this broad categorization leads to the cherry picking of evidence where variance can be cited for her narrative, and dismissed when it contradicts it (as in the case of mtDNA haplogroup H).
Page 28, the author claims that mtDNA haplogroup H is 10,000 years old, however in the aforementioned study (Soares, 2009), haplogroup H is estimated to be 14.6 thousand years old. Author is therefore either cherrypicking info from various studies, or hyper-generalizing.
Page 30 the author states that “the deadly epidemic known as the black death ravaged Europe between 1348 and 1350, killing something like 30-60 per cent [sic] of the population.” This statement is provided with no source and is a massive, almost meaningless range for a historian to purport. Additionally, the plague is generally believed to have lasted around 5 years, at its climax, causing the devastating mortality rate, not two years.
On page 34 she discusses sex-biased migration before ending the section with a one-sentence, unexamined line stating mtDNA haplogroup H helps recovery from sepsis. What this had to do with anything is confusing and indicates the author unaware of relevant info.
“A few male outsiders may join the band or tribe, perhaps bringing haplogroups from a different lineage altogether” [35]. There should be no 'perhaps' in this statement and there were way more than 'a few.' The history of Europe is one of complete obliteration and joining of peoples. The Normans conquered England, yet entirely blended with the population, the Visigoths conquered Spain while mixing with the natives, Romans, and North Africans.
“A person in Ireland would have had no way to speak to someone in India. So similar words in their distant tongues must spring from a parent language.” [37]. This is untrue and a complete misrepresentation of comparative linguistics. When building lingual trees, similar words are not the primary consideration. For example, the Huns of central Asia conquered the Ostrogoths in eastern Europe; these Ostrogoths went on to conquer Rome and Theoderic was crowned King of Rome by Anastasius in 497; the Ostrogoths were then conquered by Byzantium and retreated north into Gaul; the peoples of Gaul and the Goths frequently intermingled including with the Franks, including political intermarriages…etc. This demonstration displays how conquerings alone can move across entire continents, and so can culture and words in preindustrial cultures. The gothic alphabet was actually adopted from the Greek alphabet and therefore many words can be found in gothic tongue at that time bearing Greek resemblance, but they were not parent-child languages.
Page 40-41 author makes somewhat of a random critique of the use of mathematical algorithms in language change. An algorithm is merely a calculative process, often repeating and is an overused buzzword by non-technical writers. I have never read a single author who thinks the reconstruction of languages can be done autonomously through algorithms and AI. Math is a tool used by people, of course it doesn’t provide perfect answers. Author specifically states “mathematical models are enticing, particularly when they can produce attractive maps and diagrams, but they are only as good as the data fed into them” [41]. What does this even mean? Enticing to what and whom? Attractive maps and diagrams? This is a hasty critique of something the author does not understand.
“More complex societies tend to engulf less complex groups” [41]. Yet another massive generalization without a source. You need to define what complexity is to make such a brash statement that is clearly untrue in many cases. Rome was taken by Gaul, Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths three times. These tribesmen were probably less complex in every way than the mighty Roman empire, yet engulfed them over hundreds of years.
Bilingualism is useful because “Some communication goals can be achieved with much less mental effort” [43]. There is no citation so this is likely a liberal arts claim instead of a scientific one. The example follows that religious rites can be read in dead tongues. How does it require less mental effort to learn a dead language than simply memorize a few paragraphs?
“Instead of waves of invasion, let us think more neutrally of waves of wanderers” [47]. This line really doesn’t make any sense. We should think of migration as it occurred, which could be for different reasons. History is full of knowledge and documentation of invasions and those incidents should not be thought of differently. The Huns, nor the Gothic conquering of Rome, or the Norman invasion of Britain, or the Roman expansion throughout the Mediterranean, or Byzantine’s movement West, or the Viking pillages of Europe were examples of “restless curiosity” but invasion.
“Warm spells enticed early hominins out of Africa, while cold spells every 125,000 years or so drove them to extinction or withdrawal from northerly climes” [49]. Wet phases in the Sahara/Sahel region and human migration patterns in North Africa is the citation provided for this claim, however the study claims that “A major dispersal period occurred between 130 and 100 ka (23, 24), which coincides with a major expansion of C3 vegetation from ≈120–110 ka (Fig. 2), and thus wetter conditions in the Sahara region, supporting the hypothesis that the Sahara could have provided a dispersal route out of Africa (24). Our interpretation is supported by other paleoclimate evidence and climate models suggesting a significant expansion of wetter conditions in the Sahara from 130 to 120 ka (24–28).” From the study it appears that wetter conditions, not necessarily warmer conditions, supported the migration out of Africa. The word “warm” only appears twice in the entire study and “warmer” never appears. This appears to be a misrepresentation of the actual study.
“Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) crossed into Europe some 46,000 years ago...recent radiocarbon dating to between 38,700 and 36,200 years ago has made his the earliest Homo sapiens skull found in Europe” [49]. Apidima 1 is a human skull believed to be a homo sapien discovered in Europe that is 210,000 years old.
January 18, 2019
Few books manage to be simultaneously so fascinating and so eye glazing. The tale of the movements of the successive waves of people that have made and remade Europe is fascinating, and the new science of DNA analysis that allows for the extraction of ancient DNA and its comparison to the modern inhabitants of a country is a salutary corrective to the strong tendency in archaeology and historical studies in the latter half of the 20th century to deny all movements of people in favour of cultural overlay and small groups of elite warriors while the peasants remain, lumpen and unmoved on the land (although these lumpen peasants do, by this view, display a remarkable ability to change languages and cultures at the arrival of a new bunch of guys waving swords). Since all the contemporary accounts of the age of migration talk about the movements of peoples, it’s good to accord the contemporary witnesses some credit for telling what they saw. However, on the eye glazing front, I defy anyone to get through a few pages of Y-DNA haplogroup R1a1a and the like without their head drooping.
October 12, 2021
Outstanding history of the peoples of Europe from the most ancient eras of man. This edition cites recent progress in sampling and interpretation of DNA from ancient burials and current populations. Along with a pretty good explanation of the science, the author combines DNA with archaeology, linguistics, geography, history, and climate studies to compile a detailed picture of the movements of people in and around Europe.
Fascinating stuff!
Fascinating stuff!
March 27, 2024
In some places a bit of a slog, but overall fascinating and full of maps, charts, and photos
October 20, 2025
Deeply in-depth tracing of different movements and migrations into Europe through most of ancient and premodern history. The author relies heavily, almost exclusively, on genetic evidence though plenty of archaeological and historical references are used. The pre-bronze age sections are a bit confusing as the names of the peoples involved are quite unfamiliar, but once the book moves into the realm of history with which the average reader will be most acquainted, it’s a simple read.
March 26, 2024
Quick review...
1. The parts focused on pre-history using genetics and archaeology is very strong.
2. Once the historical era begins the book loses a tad of focus. Primarily, the first half of the book leans heavily on ancient dna studies, but abandons this later on. The chapter on Italy contains almost no aDNA analysis. It discusses Herodotus' opinion on Etruscan origins, but where is the aDNA analysis of Etruscan bodies? None is discussed. Interestingly, while I am generally inclined to agree with the author when it comes to migrations being central to the peopling of Europe, I am unconvinced that Etruscans were actually from the eastern Mediterranean. There is no real evidence to support that and most archeologists are of the opinion that Etruscans' bronze age culture developed from the preceding chacolithic culture with strong continuity. If this is to be proven incorrect, we'd need DNA analysis of Etruscan bodies so it should definitely be left as an open question rather than assuming Herodotus was right.
When it discusses the Romans and Italic indo-europeans the author discusses the fact that the romans imported over 100 million slaves from other lands which makes modern Italian DNA tests not indicative of ancient DNA, but where is the analysis of the aDNA of Romans from early republican or even royal eras? I can only assume there just hasn't been much study so there was nothing to talk about, but it definitely means the story is yet to be told.
3. The Viking chapter is incredibly long and full of "so and so raid here, his son settled here" and so on. From a book that began as a DNA/archaeological synthesis, it ended with a long, laborious review of Viking history, which is odd considering the relatively small genetic imprint they left on most of Europe. Especially odd to me when the chapter on the Romans was so small, and so important historically but the chapter on Vikings so long and so unimportant genetically.
That said, the book was great and the research well up to date. Highly recommend.
1. The parts focused on pre-history using genetics and archaeology is very strong.
2. Once the historical era begins the book loses a tad of focus. Primarily, the first half of the book leans heavily on ancient dna studies, but abandons this later on. The chapter on Italy contains almost no aDNA analysis. It discusses Herodotus' opinion on Etruscan origins, but where is the aDNA analysis of Etruscan bodies? None is discussed. Interestingly, while I am generally inclined to agree with the author when it comes to migrations being central to the peopling of Europe, I am unconvinced that Etruscans were actually from the eastern Mediterranean. There is no real evidence to support that and most archeologists are of the opinion that Etruscans' bronze age culture developed from the preceding chacolithic culture with strong continuity. If this is to be proven incorrect, we'd need DNA analysis of Etruscan bodies so it should definitely be left as an open question rather than assuming Herodotus was right.
When it discusses the Romans and Italic indo-europeans the author discusses the fact that the romans imported over 100 million slaves from other lands which makes modern Italian DNA tests not indicative of ancient DNA, but where is the analysis of the aDNA of Romans from early republican or even royal eras? I can only assume there just hasn't been much study so there was nothing to talk about, but it definitely means the story is yet to be told.
3. The Viking chapter is incredibly long and full of "so and so raid here, his son settled here" and so on. From a book that began as a DNA/archaeological synthesis, it ended with a long, laborious review of Viking history, which is odd considering the relatively small genetic imprint they left on most of Europe. Especially odd to me when the chapter on the Romans was so small, and so important historically but the chapter on Vikings so long and so unimportant genetically.
That said, the book was great and the research well up to date. Highly recommend.
May 13, 2015
This book is an example of the new modern interdisciplinary scholarship reconstructing the story of human history. Combining archeology, DNA genetics, history, linguistics, and geography, Manco reconstructs the history of Europeans from the advent of modern humans to the end of the Viking incursions into so many areas of Europe, both east and west. For the interested layperson this is a treasure-trove of information collated and integrated to give as complete a picture of what happened as best we can reconstruct. The history is fascinating. One myth the book will erase is "racial purity." Europe is a fascinating mix of influences, some indigenous hunter-gatherer, most immigrants from the Middle East, Asia and Africa (again). For the professional, this is a rich mosaic of what we knew several years ago, some now out of date because new discoveries are being made every day, not just every year. Nonetheless, the basic outline of European history is now approaching some clarity and, with many illustrations, is available for all who are curious. The book has a nice referencing system, good b/w illustrations and chapters conveniently divided. Most references are from the [rofessioal literature, but many are from books readily available in major libraries. The book assumes a detailed knowledge of Eurasian geography including ancient names for regions (e.g., Illyria, Pontic Steppes, Sea of Azor, Tarim Basin, etc.) that many know but may to know all; Have Wikipedia and a good atlas at hand at all times. In sum, a very impressive book at a reasonable price.
July 21, 2019
While this book provides some information on the first people of Europe, it is too academic for my taste.
There was far more information on genetics than I expected, which is not too surprising, I guess, considering that is really the only solid information a person could use to explain the spreading of peoples across Europe. But I would have preferred to have this presented in a more palatable way. I have read my share of technical documents (I used to work as a Manager of Editorial Services at the Fed), and this was less readable than some economic research papers.
I was able to get past most of the jargon but once past that, and really not all that interested in the specific DNA distribution, there was little else left.
And there was only a small inkling of information regarding my chosen area, the north of Scotland. But that is not too surprising either. I will look at this again before I discount it completely, because it did provide at least confirmation on what the influences of the setting for my book would have been.
There was far more information on genetics than I expected, which is not too surprising, I guess, considering that is really the only solid information a person could use to explain the spreading of peoples across Europe. But I would have preferred to have this presented in a more palatable way. I have read my share of technical documents (I used to work as a Manager of Editorial Services at the Fed), and this was less readable than some economic research papers.
I was able to get past most of the jargon but once past that, and really not all that interested in the specific DNA distribution, there was little else left.
And there was only a small inkling of information regarding my chosen area, the north of Scotland. But that is not too surprising either. I will look at this again before I discount it completely, because it did provide at least confirmation on what the influences of the setting for my book would have been.
November 4, 2020
Added to the tools of archaeology and linguistics, the new techniques of sequencing ancient DNA have brought us much closer to understanding population movements that happened long before humans learned to write.
Ancestral Journeys takes us back about 75,000 years, and brings us up to the Vikings' movements in the 9th and 10th centuries AD.
The reader may find, as I did, that following all the stories is near to impossible, and that remembering anything about haplogroups isn't going to happen. But one message is that the layman's current concept of what a European is is based on very recent history and gives us a very superficial view. The guys on the alt-right have no idea what "European culture" is.
Ancestral Journeys takes us back about 75,000 years, and brings us up to the Vikings' movements in the 9th and 10th centuries AD.
The reader may find, as I did, that following all the stories is near to impossible, and that remembering anything about haplogroups isn't going to happen. But one message is that the layman's current concept of what a European is is based on very recent history and gives us a very superficial view. The guys on the alt-right have no idea what "European culture" is.
April 29, 2021
Part historical survey, part genetic details
This was sufficient for me, as a layman, to get a sense of the data to date. However, it is not as scintillating as I had hoped. Facts pile up, and while the lack of sensational or shallow suppositions show Jean Manco's restraint they ultimately add up to a detailed recital of what is known to date, rather than an engaging narrative which could have enough enlivened the valuable research synthesized for general readers.
This was sufficient for me, as a layman, to get a sense of the data to date. However, it is not as scintillating as I had hoped. Facts pile up, and while the lack of sensational or shallow suppositions show Jean Manco's restraint they ultimately add up to a detailed recital of what is known to date, rather than an engaging narrative which could have enough enlivened the valuable research synthesized for general readers.
July 10, 2018
Lots and lots of detail. Bottom line is that our ancestors, even in deep prehistory, appear to have been considerably more mobile than perhaps we imagined.
Henry Louis Gates: "Genetics deconstruct our notions about race." It looks like all of us are a combination of genetic backgrounds.
Henry Louis Gates: "Genetics deconstruct our notions about race." It looks like all of us are a combination of genetic backgrounds.
wish-list
March 6, 2014spotted on Neil's update
April 3, 2016
The study of DNA is an exciting new field! It is expanding our knowledge of ancient cultures in a way the study of stones and artifacts never could.
January 10, 2014
Technically done but parts need to be reread..Loved it!
March 31, 2018
As I was reading this book I was a bit unsure of what to think and how to feel about it. I am certainly fond of reading about European prehistory and the explorations of the Vikings as well as the proto-Indo European speaking peoples [1], but it appeared as if this book sat at an uncomfortable place as a work. The author wanted to speak authoritatively in both a scientific sense as a student of population genetics and the implications of various gene markers being present in certain populations at certain times and also to create a narrative of the supposed travels and migrations of ancient peoples into certain areas, but she showed a marked reluctance to engage in a discussion of migrations where they were covered in ancient narrative histories. In short, this was not an author who wanted to address the thorny issues of textual criticism but rather wished to write about those areas where the historical record was the thinnest and therefore where the canvas for her own speculations and musings could be the most unhindered by inconvenient records that would contradict her own theories and ideas.
In about 250 pages of material or so the author manages to cover eighteen chapters worth of speculation and discussion of genetic and linguistic research in a generally chronological fashion. After a short preface, the author discusses what it means to be a European (1) in light of the fact that Europe is a subcontinent that has always had somewhat porous and uncertain borders. After that there is a discussion about the principles and problems of migration (2), where the author shows herself to be opposed to the anti-migratory bias of earlier generations of historians in the 20th century. There is a discussion about the first Europeans (3), as well as a look at Mesolithic hunters and fishermen (like the proto-Indo-Europeans) (4) and the first farmers who came out of the Middle East and neighboring areas (5). The author looks at dairy farming and the additional energy gained by being able to drink milk (6). After a look at Copper Age Europe (7), the author turns her attention to the spread of early Indo-Europeans (8) as well as their genetic record (9) and the travels of the proto-Celto-Italians known as the Beaker Folk (10). Taking a break from this the author examines the genetics and linguistics of Minoans and Mycenaeans (11) as well as the travels of iron age warriors and traders (12) throughout Europe. From this the author then turns to the relationship between Etruscans and Romans (13), the great wandering of Germanic tribes into the decaying Roman Empire (14), and the incursions of Bulgars and Magyars (16) along with the Vikings (17) before closing with a summary of the rich and varied nature of European genetic and linguistic history.
Those readers who enjoy speculation about ancient history and find a discussion of gene markers appealing will find much to appreciate about this volume. For someone engaged in as much speculation as she is, the author is strangely authoritative about her speculations, especially as she realizes that the state of genetic markers that can give a precise understanding of population movement over time is not yet present to a detailed enough degree to support the narrative structure that the author wishes to engage in. Nevertheless, there is a great deal that is appealing about wondering how it was that the world came to be as it is, how our ancestors traveled from the steppes and the Middle East through Europe to arrive at the point where we recognize our ancestors who who they are. We may ponder where our R1b1 ancestry springs from and how widely our fathers and mothers traveled, as perhaps a way of explaining our own distant travels in search of a better and happier life. Given that we are a migratory people, it is perhaps to be expected that some of us appreciate a view of history that puts migrations in their proper place and looks at the factual basis for examining migratory history. For that reason this book has at least some value despite its overreaching in speculation.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
In about 250 pages of material or so the author manages to cover eighteen chapters worth of speculation and discussion of genetic and linguistic research in a generally chronological fashion. After a short preface, the author discusses what it means to be a European (1) in light of the fact that Europe is a subcontinent that has always had somewhat porous and uncertain borders. After that there is a discussion about the principles and problems of migration (2), where the author shows herself to be opposed to the anti-migratory bias of earlier generations of historians in the 20th century. There is a discussion about the first Europeans (3), as well as a look at Mesolithic hunters and fishermen (like the proto-Indo-Europeans) (4) and the first farmers who came out of the Middle East and neighboring areas (5). The author looks at dairy farming and the additional energy gained by being able to drink milk (6). After a look at Copper Age Europe (7), the author turns her attention to the spread of early Indo-Europeans (8) as well as their genetic record (9) and the travels of the proto-Celto-Italians known as the Beaker Folk (10). Taking a break from this the author examines the genetics and linguistics of Minoans and Mycenaeans (11) as well as the travels of iron age warriors and traders (12) throughout Europe. From this the author then turns to the relationship between Etruscans and Romans (13), the great wandering of Germanic tribes into the decaying Roman Empire (14), and the incursions of Bulgars and Magyars (16) along with the Vikings (17) before closing with a summary of the rich and varied nature of European genetic and linguistic history.
Those readers who enjoy speculation about ancient history and find a discussion of gene markers appealing will find much to appreciate about this volume. For someone engaged in as much speculation as she is, the author is strangely authoritative about her speculations, especially as she realizes that the state of genetic markers that can give a precise understanding of population movement over time is not yet present to a detailed enough degree to support the narrative structure that the author wishes to engage in. Nevertheless, there is a great deal that is appealing about wondering how it was that the world came to be as it is, how our ancestors traveled from the steppes and the Middle East through Europe to arrive at the point where we recognize our ancestors who who they are. We may ponder where our R1b1 ancestry springs from and how widely our fathers and mothers traveled, as perhaps a way of explaining our own distant travels in search of a better and happier life. Given that we are a migratory people, it is perhaps to be expected that some of us appreciate a view of history that puts migrations in their proper place and looks at the factual basis for examining migratory history. For that reason this book has at least some value despite its overreaching in speculation.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
March 2, 2019
History as a discipline has got to be the most infuriating subject of study. The subject matter could not be more compelling: nothing less than the most interesting lives, events, places, times, things, in, … well …, history. The problem is when we try to get from interestingness to truth. We have documents, accounts, numbers, pictures, etc. Somethings are almost certainly true. But others only seem true until the next generation that is a bit more skeptical decides that, at best, there is no reason to believe them and at worst, they are downright stories. Of course the further back you go the more difficult the situation. And of course the more interesting the question, that is, for questions of synthesis, for questions about the sweep of the human experience … there we are really on boggy ground.
So we have some really basic questions about humanity. Are people mostly good or mostly bad? For example, in pre-historic times, if you met a neighboring band would you try to befriend them or kill them? How about subspecies? Another: nature versus nurture? Can people change their nature? Another: are different bands of peoples differently abled? Another: How inclined are people to migrate? Are they naturally adventurous, or completely pragmatic (we’ve survived here for generations …) Of course what makes these so problematic is modern sensitivity to racism. And our own personal beliefs.
We also have some basic factual questions. How important was climate to settlement, diffusion, etc.?
So throughout recent history of history, historians have argued very much from their political points of view. One of the most interesting questions is – when a technology develops, how does it spread? Is it shared or do the people who own it migrate? We can imagine the liberal versus conservative bias here. The liberal might be inclined to kumbaya and sharing. The conservative to wiping out, or at least out-competing your inferiors. In the last decades of the 20th century the liberal point of view held sway. Migrations were the point of view of the racists. And there was little evidence for it. So we could be skeptical.
Amazingly we now have many more facts. We have genetics. Amazing genetics. The first huge corpus is modern alleles, which, even with the great migrations of the past few thousand years, still has something to say about times even older than that. And even more amazing is ancient genetics – of sometimes dozens of bodies in a region in a period. Maybe not quite so miraculous, but still amazing, we now have a million ways to tell more about climate. And the dating gets better and better.
So what does all this new stuff say? Well, first of all, it’s still complicated. There is a huge amount of noise and not that much signal. But it’s still incredible that we can now even tell that there is signal at all. What in the world were historians going on before? Well, whatever they could. And to be fair, what they could in the 1880s was probably even more of a leap than what they could in the 1750s than what we have now and the 1880s. In the 1880s at least you could point to common patterns of pottery long distances away. How incredible that must have been if what you knew before was only legend?
Again, what does all this new stuff say? One thing that we know for sure is that climate was a huge factor. That major swaths of Europe went from (comparatively) densely settled to uninhabited for many hundreds of years. This now seems to shed some light on the kumbaya versus out-compete argument. First let’s back up. Kumbaya is mostly out. Much new technology like smelting is comparatively sophisticated and not easy to learn just by observing and is likely going to be protected. But out-compete is not so much a slam dunk either. That’s where the population density and climate arguments get interesting. There were many more opportunities for pre-historic peoples to diffuse and migrate without coming into conflict.
So, is this a good read? Hardly. It is a technical slog, some of it hopelessly so. Nobody but a specialist is going to remember the a10ab1qs3 haplotype and its significance. And not skip paragraphs and sometimes pages. And dense. Places where I actually know something, say where I have actually read a book, are condensed into paragraphs. Now given the aforementioned political sensitivities the documentation needs to be intense. But it is a slog. One that very few people are probably going to want to deal with – it took me months to get through it. But the ideas so good, so revolutionary, that I needed to.
So we have some really basic questions about humanity. Are people mostly good or mostly bad? For example, in pre-historic times, if you met a neighboring band would you try to befriend them or kill them? How about subspecies? Another: nature versus nurture? Can people change their nature? Another: are different bands of peoples differently abled? Another: How inclined are people to migrate? Are they naturally adventurous, or completely pragmatic (we’ve survived here for generations …) Of course what makes these so problematic is modern sensitivity to racism. And our own personal beliefs.
We also have some basic factual questions. How important was climate to settlement, diffusion, etc.?
So throughout recent history of history, historians have argued very much from their political points of view. One of the most interesting questions is – when a technology develops, how does it spread? Is it shared or do the people who own it migrate? We can imagine the liberal versus conservative bias here. The liberal might be inclined to kumbaya and sharing. The conservative to wiping out, or at least out-competing your inferiors. In the last decades of the 20th century the liberal point of view held sway. Migrations were the point of view of the racists. And there was little evidence for it. So we could be skeptical.
Amazingly we now have many more facts. We have genetics. Amazing genetics. The first huge corpus is modern alleles, which, even with the great migrations of the past few thousand years, still has something to say about times even older than that. And even more amazing is ancient genetics – of sometimes dozens of bodies in a region in a period. Maybe not quite so miraculous, but still amazing, we now have a million ways to tell more about climate. And the dating gets better and better.
So what does all this new stuff say? Well, first of all, it’s still complicated. There is a huge amount of noise and not that much signal. But it’s still incredible that we can now even tell that there is signal at all. What in the world were historians going on before? Well, whatever they could. And to be fair, what they could in the 1880s was probably even more of a leap than what they could in the 1750s than what we have now and the 1880s. In the 1880s at least you could point to common patterns of pottery long distances away. How incredible that must have been if what you knew before was only legend?
Again, what does all this new stuff say? One thing that we know for sure is that climate was a huge factor. That major swaths of Europe went from (comparatively) densely settled to uninhabited for many hundreds of years. This now seems to shed some light on the kumbaya versus out-compete argument. First let’s back up. Kumbaya is mostly out. Much new technology like smelting is comparatively sophisticated and not easy to learn just by observing and is likely going to be protected. But out-compete is not so much a slam dunk either. That’s where the population density and climate arguments get interesting. There were many more opportunities for pre-historic peoples to diffuse and migrate without coming into conflict.
So, is this a good read? Hardly. It is a technical slog, some of it hopelessly so. Nobody but a specialist is going to remember the a10ab1qs3 haplotype and its significance. And not skip paragraphs and sometimes pages. And dense. Places where I actually know something, say where I have actually read a book, are condensed into paragraphs. Now given the aforementioned political sensitivities the documentation needs to be intense. But it is a slog. One that very few people are probably going to want to deal with – it took me months to get through it. But the ideas so good, so revolutionary, that I needed to.
October 9, 2025
I’ve been a history junky all my life, and it started when I was an Army brat in the 1950s, living and traveling all over Europe. Wandering around the Forum in Rome, actually putting my hands on solid history, and knowing that other people had been doing the very same thing in that very spot for more than twenty-five centuries -- that realization hooked me for life. And my growing interest in the far past led me to wonder about things. Like, why were there so many blue-eyed blonde Italians in Milan? Why Spaniards in the north of the country seem so different from those in the south? In college, I learned I about the long history of human migration, beginning with the slow departure of the species from Africa and on into the many population shifts down history, and the domino effect of population pressure that resulted in virtually everyone (at least in Europe) having a lot in common with everyone else.
For a very long time, the study of those migrations depended on comparative analysis of historical artifacts and gravesites and on the often undependable official records and literary writings of ancient clerks and historians, but all that changed dramatically with the mapping of the human genome -- a quarter-century ago now -- and the subsequent application of DNA analysis to present-day Europeans as well as ancient burials. Recent studies of Ancient DNA fascinate me on a deep level. At last, we can get reliable answers to all those questions about cultural and linguistic origins based on real scientific data! And the weight of mounting evidence is taking an ax to a number of prevailing academic orthodoxies, because human mobility turns to have been not only an occasional reaction to events but a constant, ongoing process, built in to the fabric of human social life everywhere.
The subtitle of this fascinating volume tells you what you need to know: “The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings.” It’s rather unusual for a semi-scholarly work to need revision and updating only two years after its initial release, but so much has happened in the field of ancient DNA studies in that short time, it really was necessary. And don’t look now, but this book appeared a decade ago, so large swaths of it are probably sliding out of date again. Well, you have to start someplace and this is an accessible and very readable place to start.
Prof. Jean Mano, in fact, a British historian who became in archaeology sort of sideways late in her career, became known for her skill in making the complex fields of genetic anthropology and archaeology accessible through n interdisciplinary approach. Ancient DNA can be a very technical subject, as I have learned from experience, but she had a real knack for explaining things clearly to anyone who cared to pay attention. Unfortunately, the author also died too young, so we’ll have to hope someone will do the next update.
If this is a subject in which you have the slightest interest, I recommend this book without reservation. It runs to a bit less than four hundred pages, but take your time with it. Definitely don’t try to skim. And the next time you get into a discussion of just where the Etruscans came from, you can confidently say “Nowhere. They were almost certainly homegrown.” I mean, don’t we all have arguments like that?
For a very long time, the study of those migrations depended on comparative analysis of historical artifacts and gravesites and on the often undependable official records and literary writings of ancient clerks and historians, but all that changed dramatically with the mapping of the human genome -- a quarter-century ago now -- and the subsequent application of DNA analysis to present-day Europeans as well as ancient burials. Recent studies of Ancient DNA fascinate me on a deep level. At last, we can get reliable answers to all those questions about cultural and linguistic origins based on real scientific data! And the weight of mounting evidence is taking an ax to a number of prevailing academic orthodoxies, because human mobility turns to have been not only an occasional reaction to events but a constant, ongoing process, built in to the fabric of human social life everywhere.
The subtitle of this fascinating volume tells you what you need to know: “The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings.” It’s rather unusual for a semi-scholarly work to need revision and updating only two years after its initial release, but so much has happened in the field of ancient DNA studies in that short time, it really was necessary. And don’t look now, but this book appeared a decade ago, so large swaths of it are probably sliding out of date again. Well, you have to start someplace and this is an accessible and very readable place to start.
Prof. Jean Mano, in fact, a British historian who became in archaeology sort of sideways late in her career, became known for her skill in making the complex fields of genetic anthropology and archaeology accessible through n interdisciplinary approach. Ancient DNA can be a very technical subject, as I have learned from experience, but she had a real knack for explaining things clearly to anyone who cared to pay attention. Unfortunately, the author also died too young, so we’ll have to hope someone will do the next update.
If this is a subject in which you have the slightest interest, I recommend this book without reservation. It runs to a bit less than four hundred pages, but take your time with it. Definitely don’t try to skim. And the next time you get into a discussion of just where the Etruscans came from, you can confidently say “Nowhere. They were almost certainly homegrown.” I mean, don’t we all have arguments like that?
December 21, 2025
I was a bit skeptical at first, given that Manco’s main profession had been a “building historian,” but this book turned out to be so rigorous, scientific, and well-sourced that one could easily forget that Manco wasn’t a world-class leading scholar on this stuff.
This book’s greatest strength is how it manages to get pretty in-depth on (what at least seems to me to be) the not-so-trivial hard science of human genetics. Manco doesn’t cut corners: she gets quite into the weeds on all things DNA, usually quite clearly drawing from many sources (the list of references is impressive), often even pointing where there’s noteworthy disagreement. Yet she also manages to explain it all clearly and keeps the narrative easy to follow; the book feels very self-contained, and I very rarely found myself googling stuff as I worked my way through it. But as much as this book is focused on the genetic angle, it never loses sight of the bigger anthropological, human picture. Manco weaves in linguistics (particularly rewarding for me) more “traditional” anthropological stuff (pottery, animal husbandry, art, etc.), and good old history. I must also mention the maps—so many maps! There’s a real lot packed into these 300 pages.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this, but there are a few minor things I wasn’t crazy about. For one thing, the editing, or perhaps more so the styling. Lots of several relatively short sentences in a row that had no reason to be separate sentences. This sounds a bit silly, I’m sure, but the fact that I even noticed it tells me there’s something to it! At times it reads at a very low grade level, and for no reason—not because of the content, but the style in which it was written. Less obnoxiously, I think an interested reader should know that while the book does indeed take you all the way up to the Vikings, it’s clear that Manco had the most to say about pre-Roman Europe. To me it felt like a bit of the book’s outstanding depth and breadth was lost once it gets to the Greeks—especially after the Minoans/Mycenaeans—and even more so from the Romans on. But these are still valuable and interesting chapters, and of course it would be impossible to cover the Romans, the Migration Period, or the Vikings in just a chapter each.
Speaking of migration, Manco also quite clearly has a bone to pick with earlier scholarship that discounted the prevalence and influence of migration in the history of the peopling of Europe. She seems quite right in criticizing that work, but with how often she brings this up you do at times wonder about the bias in her writing. In any case, it was at least a little strange the way in which it kept being brought out, as if she wanted to make some kind of a political point (one which I’d agree with, at face value, but which I don’t think has anything to do with the matter at hand in this book). It’s especially strange as she was not a trained scholar in any of this stuff in the first place!
But all in all, this was a great read—perfect to get just enough information about the history of the settling of Europe and the genetic and anthropological evidence that tells its story. The perfect level of scientific rigor and detail for the average untrained reader.
This book’s greatest strength is how it manages to get pretty in-depth on (what at least seems to me to be) the not-so-trivial hard science of human genetics. Manco doesn’t cut corners: she gets quite into the weeds on all things DNA, usually quite clearly drawing from many sources (the list of references is impressive), often even pointing where there’s noteworthy disagreement. Yet she also manages to explain it all clearly and keeps the narrative easy to follow; the book feels very self-contained, and I very rarely found myself googling stuff as I worked my way through it. But as much as this book is focused on the genetic angle, it never loses sight of the bigger anthropological, human picture. Manco weaves in linguistics (particularly rewarding for me) more “traditional” anthropological stuff (pottery, animal husbandry, art, etc.), and good old history. I must also mention the maps—so many maps! There’s a real lot packed into these 300 pages.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this, but there are a few minor things I wasn’t crazy about. For one thing, the editing, or perhaps more so the styling. Lots of several relatively short sentences in a row that had no reason to be separate sentences. This sounds a bit silly, I’m sure, but the fact that I even noticed it tells me there’s something to it! At times it reads at a very low grade level, and for no reason—not because of the content, but the style in which it was written. Less obnoxiously, I think an interested reader should know that while the book does indeed take you all the way up to the Vikings, it’s clear that Manco had the most to say about pre-Roman Europe. To me it felt like a bit of the book’s outstanding depth and breadth was lost once it gets to the Greeks—especially after the Minoans/Mycenaeans—and even more so from the Romans on. But these are still valuable and interesting chapters, and of course it would be impossible to cover the Romans, the Migration Period, or the Vikings in just a chapter each.
Speaking of migration, Manco also quite clearly has a bone to pick with earlier scholarship that discounted the prevalence and influence of migration in the history of the peopling of Europe. She seems quite right in criticizing that work, but with how often she brings this up you do at times wonder about the bias in her writing. In any case, it was at least a little strange the way in which it kept being brought out, as if she wanted to make some kind of a political point (one which I’d agree with, at face value, but which I don’t think has anything to do with the matter at hand in this book). It’s especially strange as she was not a trained scholar in any of this stuff in the first place!
But all in all, this was a great read—perfect to get just enough information about the history of the settling of Europe and the genetic and anthropological evidence that tells its story. The perfect level of scientific rigor and detail for the average untrained reader.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews