I'm still making my way through the four volumes of The Cambridge World History of Slavery, ancient to 2016, and highly recommend (published 2011-2021).
Two books I'm in the middle of, will finish eventually if the kids permit me, and would recommend to anyone who hasn't read them yet:
1. Anne Applebaum, Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine.
2. Stephen Harrigan, Big Wonderful Thing: A History of Texas.
As someone who didn't discover John Steinbeck till recently, I'd recommend his novels to anyone interested in not-so-ancient history. There are details about what life was like for the down-and-out characters that are not impossible but harder to glean from conventional historiography.
Finally, I picked up Camilla Townsend's Fifth Sun: A New History of the Aztecs after reading about it in one of Razib's monthly reading roundups and would echo his recommendation to those of you who haven't dipped into it yet. Townsend makes the unconventional decision to paint short fictional portraits of documented historical episodes at the beginning of each chapter, and they come about as close as one can get to having a Steinbeckian picture of the details of ancient Aztecs' lives. I don't mind the fictionalizing as much as I ordinarily would, because Townsend is so up front about why she does it, and 90% of the book is meticulously documented historiography taken from a broad range of more conventional sources.
Happy reading, everyone. Eager to see what books other nerds here will point me to.
I loved Fifth Sun, I will gladly add my thumbs up to that one too! It’s quite sad reading that book thinking about all the things we will probably never know about the Mexica because so much of their history was destroyed by the Spanish. But she does a great job piecing together the picture from what remains.
Another book I’m reading rn that uses a similar fictionalization at the beginning of each chapter is Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art. Accesible and well written
Currently reading The Social Conquest of Earth by E.O. Wilson which is adorable because you can totally tell that he wants to make the whole thing about ants 💖
I recently finished Religion and Domestic Violence in Early New England: The Memoirs of Abigail Abbot Bailey, which was edited by Ann Taves.
This is also a suggestion for readers with young children (6-10/11): The American Girl books, particularly the History Mysteries. The central series books are also generally good.
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year. Glad to see so many books on the list that we have listened to including one by someone who taught me at university. There is one question which I keep on wanting to ask about (ancient) DNA analysis but feel stupid about asking. But my wife has told to to so I will. Am I correct in thinking ancient DNA can only be traced via mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome because the rest of the genome inheritance can be “lost” over six odd generations? Sorry to ask such a basic question but to a layman so many things seem as a given. Another related example
is how children do not necessarily inherit equal amounts of genetic inheritance for their parents etc. Many thanks.
1) children inherit equal amounts from both parents (well, non-sex chromosomes; males get more DNA from their mom since the X is much larger than the Y)
2) what children inherit variably is DNA from their grandparents because in the parents these segments undergo crossing over and so mix and match (you usually inherit a segment from each parent that is a mix of both grandparents due to the random action of recombination)
3) re: autosome ("rest of the genome"), what you remember is that about 8 generations in the past, there is only a 50% chance of there being a segment of ancestry in the DNA from a given individual because of the randomness of inheritance
4) this means you won't have segments from many of your genealogical ancestors more than 200 years ago
5) but, you have DNA segments. where do those come from? for every loser, there are winners. where some people "don't show up" at all in your DNA (you didn't inherit a physical segment from them), others are well over-represented. in fact, looking back i your genealogy you will find some people are well over-represented at many points. these people are more likely to have passed on segments to you than those who are present only here or there.
6) so ancient DNA does work fine with autosomal. it's just that randomness means that many people don't leave any DNA segments deep into the future, while some ppl leave a lot. it's assumed genghis khan, for example, is over-represented in autosomal genomes, though this has not been formally published or empirically demonstrated (yet)
7) mtDNA and Y do pass unbroken. they're perfect maternal and paternal direct copies. but they track only a single line of descent. most get lost through breaks in the line (e.g.., father-father-father-daughter [break]-father...down to you).
“Bantu Expansion, the Khoisan and Ethiopia are all calling to me”... Sigh.
I am an African born and raised and I certainly cannot speak for all Africans or even my neighbors. I will say though that what I’ve quoted above is uncomfortable because the Bantu expansion is a racist whitewash... Khoisan(?), we don’t use this term anymore because it is a slur.
If you have read Thucydides and internalized what he had to say about the conflict between Athens and Sparta, there is a 101 lesson there that is critical and its not the Melian dialogue. I read your re read your Russia Substack written in March yesterday ironically, because there's some fascinating history revealed in that piece and I wanted to share it with a friend who shared some rather absurd medium piece on Russian history. It's not my intent to criticize the view suggested behind casus belli in that piece , its not my place. But I finally read this, and was surprised to find Thucydides on your list of books you wish you were pressed to read as a child. The casus belli view expressed in your March piece is deeply at odds with the 101 lesson documented by History. If an adult wasn't able to internalize it, and it is quite critical. How will a child?
i think thuycides is a little overrated tbh (too self-conscious and polished for his own good?) tho probably essential to read anyway. i don't believe in god, but i think western people should probably read the bible.
Well, you have read him and most have not, which in it of itself is to your benefit regardless of how you see him or your takeaway. I wasn't trying to find fault. It was coincidental, I re read the March piece and 12 hours later the reading list and found a contradiction (which may have been by design for all I know). Thucydides is cliched quite heavily in contemporary discourse to the point of being a meme, which is why, if for any other reason he is essential reading especially today as we revert to the mean. He is often misused and very often misquoted.
Looking forward to the post about Mexico. Wouldn't mind one about Solutrean genetics either. Where they came from, how much they contributed to Magdalenean and other cultures.
I'm still making my way through the four volumes of The Cambridge World History of Slavery, ancient to 2016, and highly recommend (published 2011-2021).
Two books I'm in the middle of, will finish eventually if the kids permit me, and would recommend to anyone who hasn't read them yet:
1. Anne Applebaum, Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine.
2. Stephen Harrigan, Big Wonderful Thing: A History of Texas.
As someone who didn't discover John Steinbeck till recently, I'd recommend his novels to anyone interested in not-so-ancient history. There are details about what life was like for the down-and-out characters that are not impossible but harder to glean from conventional historiography.
Finally, I picked up Camilla Townsend's Fifth Sun: A New History of the Aztecs after reading about it in one of Razib's monthly reading roundups and would echo his recommendation to those of you who haven't dipped into it yet. Townsend makes the unconventional decision to paint short fictional portraits of documented historical episodes at the beginning of each chapter, and they come about as close as one can get to having a Steinbeckian picture of the details of ancient Aztecs' lives. I don't mind the fictionalizing as much as I ordinarily would, because Townsend is so up front about why she does it, and 90% of the book is meticulously documented historiography taken from a broad range of more conventional sources.
Happy reading, everyone. Eager to see what books other nerds here will point me to.
I loved Fifth Sun, I will gladly add my thumbs up to that one too! It’s quite sad reading that book thinking about all the things we will probably never know about the Mexica because so much of their history was destroyed by the Spanish. But she does a great job piecing together the picture from what remains.
Another book I’m reading rn that uses a similar fictionalization at the beginning of each chapter is Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art. Accesible and well written
Written by Rebecca Wragg Sykes
Currently reading The Social Conquest of Earth by E.O. Wilson which is adorable because you can totally tell that he wants to make the whole thing about ants 💖
NERD!
Merry Christmas everyone!
I recently finished Religion and Domestic Violence in Early New England: The Memoirs of Abigail Abbot Bailey, which was edited by Ann Taves.
This is also a suggestion for readers with young children (6-10/11): The American Girl books, particularly the History Mysteries. The central series books are also generally good.
Also you should definitely do a series on LatAm. Also maybe a series on the Horn of Africa.
Brilliant. Thank you so much for giving me such an extensive answer. 👍 PS My wife says thanks too.
my xmas present to you and yours :)
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year. Glad to see so many books on the list that we have listened to including one by someone who taught me at university. There is one question which I keep on wanting to ask about (ancient) DNA analysis but feel stupid about asking. But my wife has told to to so I will. Am I correct in thinking ancient DNA can only be traced via mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome because the rest of the genome inheritance can be “lost” over six odd generations? Sorry to ask such a basic question but to a layman so many things seem as a given. Another related example
is how children do not necessarily inherit equal amounts of genetic inheritance for their parents etc. Many thanks.
ok, going backward
1) children inherit equal amounts from both parents (well, non-sex chromosomes; males get more DNA from their mom since the X is much larger than the Y)
2) what children inherit variably is DNA from their grandparents because in the parents these segments undergo crossing over and so mix and match (you usually inherit a segment from each parent that is a mix of both grandparents due to the random action of recombination)
3) re: autosome ("rest of the genome"), what you remember is that about 8 generations in the past, there is only a 50% chance of there being a segment of ancestry in the DNA from a given individual because of the randomness of inheritance
4) this means you won't have segments from many of your genealogical ancestors more than 200 years ago
5) but, you have DNA segments. where do those come from? for every loser, there are winners. where some people "don't show up" at all in your DNA (you didn't inherit a physical segment from them), others are well over-represented. in fact, looking back i your genealogy you will find some people are well over-represented at many points. these people are more likely to have passed on segments to you than those who are present only here or there.
6) so ancient DNA does work fine with autosomal. it's just that randomness means that many people don't leave any DNA segments deep into the future, while some ppl leave a lot. it's assumed genghis khan, for example, is over-represented in autosomal genomes, though this has not been formally published or empirically demonstrated (yet)
7) mtDNA and Y do pass unbroken. they're perfect maternal and paternal direct copies. but they track only a single line of descent. most get lost through breaks in the line (e.g.., father-father-father-daughter [break]-father...down to you).
“Bantu Expansion, the Khoisan and Ethiopia are all calling to me”... Sigh.
I am an African born and raised and I certainly cannot speak for all Africans or even my neighbors. I will say though that what I’ve quoted above is uncomfortable because the Bantu expansion is a racist whitewash... Khoisan(?), we don’t use this term anymore because it is a slur.
If you have read Thucydides and internalized what he had to say about the conflict between Athens and Sparta, there is a 101 lesson there that is critical and its not the Melian dialogue. I read your re read your Russia Substack written in March yesterday ironically, because there's some fascinating history revealed in that piece and I wanted to share it with a friend who shared some rather absurd medium piece on Russian history. It's not my intent to criticize the view suggested behind casus belli in that piece , its not my place. But I finally read this, and was surprised to find Thucydides on your list of books you wish you were pressed to read as a child. The casus belli view expressed in your March piece is deeply at odds with the 101 lesson documented by History. If an adult wasn't able to internalize it, and it is quite critical. How will a child?
i think thuycides is a little overrated tbh (too self-conscious and polished for his own good?) tho probably essential to read anyway. i don't believe in god, but i think western people should probably read the bible.
Well, you have read him and most have not, which in it of itself is to your benefit regardless of how you see him or your takeaway. I wasn't trying to find fault. It was coincidental, I re read the March piece and 12 hours later the reading list and found a contradiction (which may have been by design for all I know). Thucydides is cliched quite heavily in contemporary discourse to the point of being a meme, which is why, if for any other reason he is essential reading especially today as we revert to the mean. He is often misused and very often misquoted.
Looking forward to the post about Mexico. Wouldn't mind one about Solutrean genetics either. Where they came from, how much they contributed to Magdalenean and other cultures.