Interesting, sweeping account of the history of human population movements based on where genetics was in 2002. Some fascinating info about the Jews, Bushmen, Mitochondrial Eve, the Neandertals, and the Native Americans. After each chapter, however, I was left wanting more. Too much commentary and speculation mixed in with hard genetic evidence. While I appreciated Olson's insight that race is a biologically indefensible construct, he seemed, by the end of the book, to be gathering as many quotes by researchers as he possibly could to make the same affirmation. Yes, we get it. Race doesn't exist in our species. I also thought his foray into historical linguistics was a bit unnecessary. He tried somehow to claim that our linguistic history can tell us something about our genetic history. While this may be helpful to the past 5000 years, comparative linguistics tells us nothing about any proto-language, and to speculate about this is beyond his purview. Overall, OK book, but I'd be interested to see something more up-to-date by an actual geneticist, like Spencer Wells.

This book has not made me any wiser about the earliest human history, compared to works I previously read by Douglas Palmer and Adam Rutherford. Steve Olson (° 1956) provides an introduction to what genetic research has yielded, at least up to the date of the publication of this book, 2002, and unfortunately that is far too long ago in this rapidly evolving sector. For example, he maintains that Neandertal and Sapiens never produced progeny together, because no Neandertal genetic material has been found in our species; that was later clearly refuted.

Plus, Olson is a science journalist, not a scientist. This has the advantage that this book is very readable, but at the same time regularly contains factual errors. For example, he clearly misrepresents Jewish history by referring to the mythical kingdoms of David and Solomon. And according to him, the megalith builders were hunter-gatherers who responded to the advent of agriculture, a very curious and speculative theory. Also his long chapter on the origin of languages is a very strange element in this book.

In other words, for a thorough overview of the genetic evolution of our species, you should not depend on Olson. Rather, the book's merit lies in its focus on refuting racial theory! Olson comes back to this time and again: making a racial distinction between people has no biological basis, and certainly no genetic: “Human groups are too closely related to differ in any but the most superficial ways. The genetic study of our past is revealing that the cultural differences between groups could not have biological origins. Those differences must result instead from the experiences individuals have had”.

As mentioned, Olson comes back to this at random, but he also puts forward solid arguments. I only have the impression that he does this just a little too diligently, and doing so also wipes out all the cultural differences of people. And that of course is a bridge too far.

General introduction to the results genetic research gives in the study of origin and evolution of our human species. This book is a nice read, but unfortunately now thoroughly outdated. The emphasis in this book is also almost entirely on the rejection of racial theories. See my review in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1037691305.

I purchased Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins thinking I'd found an in-depth discussion of the genetic aspect of the origin and spread of Homo. After all, it was a National Book Award Finalist, and a Discover Best Science Book of the Year. Ordinarily such accolades mean little to me, but in the case of a non-specialist who, I hoped, would have a new take on the issue, I appreciated the professional nod.

I'm sure it's no surprise from my introduction to say that I was terribly disappointed in this book. Aside from it's inane simplicity, it's years behind even my non-specialist's knowledge. Olson belabors the invalidation of the Multi-Regional theory in favor of the Out-of-Africa theory, simplifies mitochondrial research to the point of senselessness, and somehow finds it necessary to re-open the "there's no biological basis for race" argument.

Nevertheless, in the hundred-or-so pages I managed before becoming disgusted, I did learn some things. I'll start with an excellent quote from page three regarding the postulated lack of interbreeding between groups of early humans: "This conclusion seems totally at odds with our knowledge of human history, which shows that groups of people have eagerly interbred at almost every opportunity."

- Ju/'huoansi is the self-name of the group commonly known as the !Kung San. San is a term that can mean "untrustworthy".
- In contast to what I'd considered the intuitive response, new species are rapidly formed in the central territory of the parent species, rather than on the periphery. My own thinking involved the reproductive isolation of those groups on the outside, allowing them to slowly branch off. However, rethinking in the light of evidence did lead me to consider that those in the center of the territory have a greater need for a reproductive advantage, thus increasing selectivity and accelerating speciation.
- The "Bushmen" (also regarded as derogative term, but with nothing better available) have the oldest mitochondrial haplotypes in the world, making their territory the most likely origin point.
- Any person (historical figure or otherwise) who lived more than 1600 years ago and had a child and grandchild is almost certainly an ancester of almost everyone in the current population. Historical figures, such as kings and conquerers, are even more likely to be in this category because of their prolific progeny. So, you're almost all descended from Nefertiti, Confuscious, and Julius Caesar.
- It's been genetically found that 5-10% of the men noted on birth certificates are not the biological fathers. Nonpaternity is higher for the first and last born.

2006-07-13

Very well written and thought out. Olson gives a strong overview of the field of genetics for use in tracing human history. It's about 10 years old but mostly still holds up. He especially does an excellent job balancing concerns of the testing populations, the legacy of racism, and the excitement that comes from new evidence.