Max Arthur's compilation of First World War memories, Forgotten Voices of the Great War, offers a reminder of the scale of human experience within the 1914-18 conflict. Arthur, a military historian best known for his history of the RAF and his account of the Falklands campaign in 1982, has assembled hundreds of excerpts from the sound archives of the Imperial War Museum. Officers, rank-and-file troops, Australians, Americans, war widows, women in the munitions factories, and German soldiers too, all left oral testimony of their experiences, and these interviews provide the basis of the book. Arthur has put them in chronological and campaign order, and provided a general commentary, but beyond that, has left the rich and moving record to speak for itself.

The sheer humdrum ordinariness of modern warfare--the mud and rain, the relentless loss of life and inevitability of death, the pointless routine of attrition--come over in the matter-of-fact recollections of so many. But so too does the humanity and morality of the ordinary soldier--a factor that rather belies the recent emphasis amongst some historians on how soldiers loved to kill. Arthur might have intruded more. No biographical information is given about the owners of these "voices", nor does he say when, where and how this oral testimony was gathered.

These quibbles aside this is a worthwhile read and should encourage people not only to observe a minute's silence on Remembrance Day, but also to spend a few hours in the Imperial War Museum itself. --Miles Taylor

Compelling Reading, 18 Nov 2008
The recent 90th anniversary of the end of the Great War spurred me to seek out some literature on the subject. My mother's father fought at Ypres and Arras, and was invalided home after a mustard gas attack. I was only 10 years old when he died, but I wish I could have talked to him about his experiences. This book gives a potted history of each year of the war followed by accounts of various survivors who were interviewed in the 1970's. I aim to read more of the Forgotten Voices series to further my knowledge. I received Harry Patch's The Last Fighting Tommy in the post today and look forward to reading his highly acclaimed account of his time in the trenches.

A window through time, 05 Nov 2008
War is never going to be a pleasant thing to read about, and this is no exception - it consists of testimonies from survivors, which have been cut into chunks and organised so that they refer to events in the order that they happened.

I happened across this in a charity shop at the end of October, and I can think of no better way to understand the real meaning of Armstice day - the absolute horror of the things they went through is something that I'd never be able to do. You get a real flavour of the way people were then too - women back in England handing out feathers (the symbol of a coward) to men in the street, completely unaware that a lot of them were back from the trenches sans uniform, which really affected the soldiers.

I won't go into the individual stories, but you can hear the voices rising from the page as you read - as an ex-actor, this is excellent source material if you're doing something set in this period.

A REALLY REALLY GOOD READ. Not many books have affected me as much as this one.

Voices of the Lost Generation, 30 Jul 2008
Forgotten Voices of the Great War is a collection of real life experiences of the First World War, as told by the ordinary people who lived through it.
I must admit that my knowledge of the First World War is a little blank. My only previous experience of this period was through school lessons about trench warfare, or by watching Blackadder goes forth. Therefore I can't make an analysis about the historical accuracy of the book. But what I can say is that I found it a very powerful and poignant work.

The author, Max Arthur, has spent several years listening to thousands of recordings of the men and women who lived during this period. These tapes were kept as archival records in the Imperial War Museum, after they were collected in 1972. These are essentially the voices of a lost generation. The book is divided into chapters that cover every year of the war, from 1914 to 1918. Within these chapters are accounts taken from individual campaigns or battles such as Gallipoli, The Second Battle of Ypres, or the Battle of Mons.

Arthur has sifted through these records to bring out the most varied and unique stories. We are told about gas attacks, boredom or banter between soldiers, but we also get to hear the points of view of people like Elizabeth Owen, who was a schoolgirl at the outbreak of the war. Many of these stories are touching and funny, while others can be truly horrifying. In the section on Gallipoli for instance, we get a story of the games played between British and Turkish soldiers, with some of them throwing tinned bully beef and strings of figs to each other as presents. In the same section it also tells you of the horrible and undignified deaths caused by dysentry and other diseases, which will probably be some of the most terrible accounts of the war you will ever read.

This is an incredibly powerful and important book. If you have ever wondered about life during the First World War, then this book should be the first one you read. Extraordinay.

Not everyone can get to source documents, 23 May 2008
This book is now part of a series collated from the IWM archives. Not everyone can get to source documents through time or distance. This book has brought some of the sources into the public arena. Naturally such short personal reminicences give a fragmented picture. If you want opinions handed to you, read a 'definitive' history. All history books, however good, are shaped by the author. If a book like this makes you question recived wisdom, it has done its job.

Good, but difficult to put in context., 22 May 2008
This is an excellent collection of first-hand accounts of the Great War, from a variety of different contemporary contributors to that war.

The only problem with this book is that it divorces the account from much of the wider picture, so it tends to foster a 'I've read that book, I know all about WW1 now' sort of attitude. Perhaps it's just a reflection of our rushed aged, but I think the many other books, which describe some of the development of the war and intertwine similar first-hand accounts, do more justice to those milions who gave their lives on all sides, than a quick flit through this collection of stand-alone, very short stories.

Admittedly, the book has a very important role to play in appealing to those who may othwerwise not take an interest in WW1, so for that reason alone, it is a worthwhile production.

Compelling Reading, 18 Nov 2008
The recent 90th anniversary of the end of the Great War spurred me to seek out some literature on the subject. My mother's father fought at Ypres and Arras, and was invalided home after a mustard gas attack. I was only 10 years old when he died, but I wish I could have talked to him about his experiences. This book gives a potted history of each year of the war followed by accounts of various survivors who were interviewed in the 1970's. I aim to read more of the Forgotten Voices series to further my knowledge. I received Harry Patch's The Last Fighting Tommy in the post today and look forward to reading his highly acclaimed account of his time in the trenches.

A window through time, 05 Nov 2008
War is never going to be a pleasant thing to read about, and this is no exception - it consists of testimonies from survivors, which have been cut into chunks and organised so that they refer to events in the order that they happened.

I happened across this in a charity shop at the end of October, and I can think of no better way to understand the real meaning of Armstice day - the absolute horror of the things they went through is something that I'd never be able to do. You get a real flavour of the way people were then too - women back in England handing out feathers (the symbol of a coward) to men in the street, completely unaware that a lot of them were back from the trenches sans uniform, which really affected the soldiers.

I won't go into the individual stories, but you can hear the voices rising from the page as you read - as an ex-actor, this is excellent source material if you're doing something set in this period.

A REALLY REALLY GOOD READ. Not many books have affected me as much as this one.

Voices of the Lost Generation, 30 Jul 2008
Forgotten Voices of the Great War is a collection of real life experiences of the First World War, as told by the ordinary people who lived through it.
I must admit that my knowledge of the First World War is a little blank. My only previous experience of this period was through school lessons about trench warfare, or by watching Blackadder goes forth. Therefore I can't make an analysis about the historical accuracy of the book. But what I can say is that I found it a very powerful and poignant work.

The author, Max Arthur, has spent several years listening to thousands of recordings of the men and women who lived during this period. These tapes were kept as archival records in the Imperial War Museum, after they were collected in 1972. These are essentially the voices of a lost generation. The book is divided into chapters that cover every year of the war, from 1914 to 1918. Within these chapters are accounts taken from individual campaigns or battles such as Gallipoli, The Second Battle of Ypres, or the Battle of Mons.

Arthur has sifted through these records to bring out the most varied and unique stories. We are told about gas attacks, boredom or banter between soldiers, but we also get to hear the points of view of people like Elizabeth Owen, who was a schoolgirl at the outbreak of the war. Many of these stories are touching and funny, while others can be truly horrifying. In the section on Gallipoli for instance, we get a story of the games played between British and Turkish soldiers, with some of them throwing tinned bully beef and strings of figs to each other as presents. In the same section it also tells you of the horrible and undignified deaths caused by dysentry and other diseases, which will probably be some of the most terrible accounts of the war you will ever read.

This is an incredibly powerful and important book. If you have ever wondered about life during the First World War, then this book should be the first one you read. Extraordinay.

Not everyone can get to source documents, 23 May 2008
This book is now part of a series collated from the IWM archives. Not everyone can get to source documents through time or distance. This book has brought some of the sources into the public arena. Naturally such short personal reminicences give a fragmented picture. If you want opinions handed to you, read a 'definitive' history. All history books, however good, are shaped by the author. If a book like this makes you question recived wisdom, it has done its job.

Good, but difficult to put in context., 22 May 2008
This is an excellent collection of first-hand accounts of the Great War, from a variety of different contemporary contributors to that war.

The only problem with this book is that it divorces the account from much of the wider picture, so it tends to foster a 'I've read that book, I know all about WW1 now' sort of attitude. Perhaps it's just a reflection of our rushed aged, but I think the many other books, which describe some of the development of the war and intertwine similar first-hand accounts, do more justice to those milions who gave their lives on all sides, than a quick flit through this collection of stand-alone, very short stories.

Admittedly, the book has a very important role to play in appealing to those who may othwerwise not take an interest in WW1, so for that reason alone, it is a worthwhile production.

A lengthy telling of facts that does not enlighten., 30 Jul 2008
I was very disappointed by this book. I had expected a detective story, like the sub-title, and I had expected to get a wider understanding of the topic. With the mention of DNA analysis on the cover, I had expected to get some science, hopefully like Brian Sykes' very readable informative books.

This is not what happens. The author does not _show_ the reader, the author _tells_ the reader, at great length, many many many historical facts. If you are very interested in this part of ancient history and like having a great many facts recited at you, then maybe you will enjoy this book. The facts may well be true but they are not woven into a story and as the reader you don't get to see _why_ these facts are true. For example, why did such-and-such a gene originate in this area and then spread to that area, how do we know it wasn't the other way round? The book doesn't say, it just pompously tells you. And that's just one of the few dozen facts on that page.

Like one of the other reviewers said,

AVOID.

(makes mental note to self to read the Amazon reviews more thoroughly in future before buying books)

Disagree !, 13 Jul 2008
Unlike several of the reviewers, I have found this work very readable, and well presented. I was totally captivated.
Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer by his own admission is not by background an expert in linguistics, archaeology or history. But he is an expert in genetics who has been exasperated at the entrenched dogma in these disciplines, and has extended his research into these areas.
His results are plausible, very lucidly prfesented and a benchmark.
A great read, and very thought provocing !

An in depth re-analyis of 200 years of misinformation on English British roots., 13 Apr 2008
Oppenheimer gives a very convincing new look at pre-Roman Britain. Gone is the simplistic idea of an entirely Celtic people from John O Groats to Kent as perpetuated by the mis-understanding of Bede as propagated since the 1700s. In comes the far more likely idea of several cultures and languages occupying these shores including pre-English and probably pre-Indo-European peoples. With regard to the doubters I would say they doth protest too much. Oppenheimer destroys the idea of an Anglo Saxon genocide of a mythical Celtic England using DNA. He then points out that English has almost no Celt in it and yet is full of Latin. That entirely fits the idea of an already existing pre-English language adopting the words of the Superstrate language of Latin during Roman times. Traditionalists would have us believe that all latin came into English during Norman times. Certainly the Anglo Saxons were invited over to England, but as allies of their kin Vortigern, who was not a Celtic traitor as the Welsh Gildas would have us believe, but was himself Germanic with a latinised name.

The book backs up many ideas which have already been covered by Theo Venneman who believes English to be far older than Roman Britain, and by Colin Renfrew who moved away from the old school idea of all language being carried merely by conquest.

Celtic confusions, 10 Apr 2008
While we in North America have a distressing tendency to lump most of the inhabitants of the British Isles together, those living there are aware of their diversity. That awareness has been carried rather to extremes by some scholars and politicians. "What is a Celt?" has been a key question, as has been its follow-up "What really happened to the Celts?" Tied in with these queries is the problem of finding an origin for the Celts and just what language they spoke. Stephen Oppenheimer addresses these and related issues in a comprehensive "detective story" incorporating history, analytical genetics and linguistic studies. His conclusions, well depicted in this provocative study, will prove surprising to some, and perhaps distressing to a few.

The British Isles, he begins, have the advantage of being invaders of a "terra nullius" [uninhabited land] some fifteen thousand years ago. As the Last Glacial Maximum retreated before the rise of a revived warm period, humans were able to enter a land they'd been driven from thousands of years previously. While this situation offers nothing to the historian, archaeologists and geneticists have a clear starting point for placing and dating the migration. Not an island then, Britain was a peninsula jutting out from the European land mass. That provided an easy route from the Mediterranean shoreline, around what is now Iberia to the southern and western coasts of Britain. Since "western" here now means Eire, it's clear the first adjustment of opinion must accommodate Ireland and Britain. Clearly, there were later population movements, but where did they originate, how long did they last and what numbers of people were involved? Most significantly, what languages did they speak?

From his introductory survey, Oppenheimer proceeds to tease out the answers to these questions. The origins are traced back in time using genetic markers. Mitochondrial DNA, carried down the generations only through female inheritance factors provides one scenario. The Y chromosome, the genetic marker for men is analysed separately, then compared. In most, although not all cases, the matches are mutually supportive. Archaeological finds are used as further indicators which have the advantage of solid dating techniques to support them, unlike the DNA tests which rest on a calculation based on presumed mutation rates. The language question remains contentious. Oppenheimer links it with the spread of farming entering Europe from Anatolia introducing early forms of Celtic into Western Europe. The author's genetic analysis also overturns the idea that farmers "displaced" earlier hunter-gatherer societies in Europe and Britain. Instead, farming was adapted by the resident population and farmers' larger families added some population pressure, but hardly "displacement". The same holds true for the Roman occupation, which was more interested in social stability and tax collecting than genocide.

The post-Roman era has also led to the establishment of displacement myths and their more recent overturning. History, partly thanks to reliance on "Saint" Gildas, has stoked the fires of national sentiments by depicting the Angles and Saxons as a barbarian horde bent on ethnic cleansing of the indigenous "Celtic" peoples. Oppenheimer rejects this tradition, arguing instead that a "warrior elite" may have entered Britain, but this was a small population and a continuation of British-Continental ties in any case. Just who those "barbarians" were is problematic in any case, since the author sees ongoing contact with the Frisian and near shore of Europe rather than a conquering horde emerging from northern Germany. It is now generally accepted that the Norman "Conquest" was only slightly more intrusive than the Roman one, with an elite doing the ruling and the long-lasting indigenous population doing everything else like farming, herding and trading.

A major issue here is language. Linguists, Oppenheimer argues have been keen to avoid dating of language branching, mostly because early attempts came to grief. He goes so far as to separate "Celtic" populations from "celtic" languages. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a written base of celtic to use as a foundation. The Classical Period commentators in Greece and Rome wrote of "Celts" in a vague sort of way, and even a man on the ground, Julius Caesar was unable to make definitive comments about either the people or their languages. More precise cultural details were omitted entirely. Oppenheimer's path through the language issues is inevitably a tortured one, but he makes a serious effort at simplification. Whatever his success is due to a paucity of real data. For him, the genes speak louder than words. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Next time Stephen, check the text for errors before sending it to the publisher!, 20 Feb 2008
Stephen Oppenheimer should be ashamed of himself. There's interesting stuff trying to escape from his impossibly all-over-the-place, convoluted drafting, but I'm really looking forward to someone else writing a decent book on the subject.

Not least, the second of the three sections is an appalling mess. Where I used to work, if you'd sent out even the most initial, first, provisional draft to a close colleague in this state (repeated or near repeated paragraphs only a page or two apart, mis-labelled diagrams, etc) you'd have been taken out and shot. It isn't just that this middle section hasn't been proof read, the author doesn't appear to have done the barest minimum of reading it down for mistakes.

If I didn't know better, I'd think three sections had been written by different authors!

I also found myself thinking quite a bit about the tiny sample sizes.

That said, I am pretty much convinced by his central argument. However, it's more a matter of applying a bit of common sense to the random splatter of facts and quotes rather than as a result of persuasive, CLEAR argument on Oppenheimer's part. For goodness sake, the next time you set pen to paper, READ IT DOWN before publishing it!

Compelling Reading, 18 Nov 2008
The recent 90th anniversary of the end of the Great War spurred me to seek out some literature on the subject. My mother's father fought at Ypres and Arras, and was invalided home after a mustard gas attack. I was only 10 years old when he died, but I wish I could have talked to him about his experiences. This book gives a potted history of each year of the war followed by accounts of various survivors who were interviewed in the 1970's. I aim to read more of the Forgotten Voices series to further my knowledge. I received Harry Patch's The Last Fighting Tommy in the post today and look forward to reading his highly acclaimed account of his time in the trenches.

A window through time, 05 Nov 2008
War is never going to be a pleasant thing to read about, and this is no exception - it consists of testimonies from survivors, which have been cut into chunks and organised so that they refer to events in the order that they happened.

I happened across this in a charity shop at the end of October, and I can think of no better way to understand the real meaning of Armstice day - the absolute horror of the things they went through is something that I'd never be able to do. You get a real flavour of the way people were then too - women back in England handing out feathers (the symbol of a coward) to men in the street, completely unaware that a lot of them were back from the trenches sans uniform, which really affected the soldiers.

I won't go into the individual stories, but you can hear the voices rising from the page as you read - as an ex-actor, this is excellent source material if you're doing something set in this period.

A REALLY REALLY GOOD READ. Not many books have affected me as much as this one.

Voices of the Lost Generation, 30 Jul 2008
Forgotten Voices of the Great War is a collection of real life experiences of the First World War, as told by the ordinary people who lived through it.
I must admit that my knowledge of the First World War is a little blank. My only previous experience of this period was through school lessons about trench warfare, or by watching Blackadder goes forth. Therefore I can't make an analysis about the historical accuracy of the book. But what I can say is that I found it a very powerful and poignant work.

The author, Max Arthur, has spent several years listening to thousands of recordings of the men and women who lived during this period. These tapes were kept as archival records in the Imperial War Museum, after they were collected in 1972. These are essentially the voices of a lost generation. The book is divided into chapters that cover every year of the war, from 1914 to 1918. Within these chapters are accounts taken from individual campaigns or battles such as Gallipoli, The Second Battle of Ypres, or the Battle of Mons.

Arthur has sifted through these records to bring out the most varied and unique stories. We are told about gas attacks, boredom or banter between soldiers, but we also get to hear the points of view of people like Elizabeth Owen, who was a schoolgirl at the outbreak of the war. Many of these stories are touching and funny, while others can be truly horrifying. In the section on Gallipoli for instance, we get a story of the games played between British and Turkish soldiers, with some of them throwing tinned bully beef and strings of figs to each other as presents. In the same section it also tells you of the horrible and undignified deaths caused by dysentry and other diseases, which will probably be some of the most terrible accounts of the war you will ever read.

This is an incredibly powerful and important book. If you have ever wondered about life during the First World War, then this book should be the first one you read. Extraordinay.

Not everyone can get to source documents, 23 May 2008
This book is now part of a series collated from the IWM archives. Not everyone can get to source documents through time or distance. This book has brought some of the sources into the public arena. Naturally such short personal reminicences give a fragmented picture. If you want opinions handed to you, read a 'definitive' history. All history books, however good, are shaped by the author. If a book like this makes you question recived wisdom, it has done its job.

Good, but difficult to put in context., 22 May 2008
This is an excellent collection of first-hand accounts of the Great War, from a variety of different contemporary contributors to that war.

The only problem with this book is that it divorces the account from much of the wider picture, so it tends to foster a 'I've read that book, I know all about WW1 now' sort of attitude. Perhaps it's just a reflection of our rushed aged, but I think the many other books, which describe some of the development of the war and intertwine similar first-hand accounts, do more justice to those milions who gave their lives on all sides, than a quick flit through this collection of stand-alone, very short stories.

Admittedly, the book has a very important role to play in appealing to those who may othwerwise not take an interest in WW1, so for that reason alone, it is a worthwhile production.

A lengthy telling of facts that does not enlighten., 30 Jul 2008
I was very disappointed by this book. I had expected a detective story, like the sub-title, and I had expected to get a wider understanding of the topic. With the mention of DNA analysis on the cover, I had expected to get some science, hopefully like Brian Sykes' very readable informative books.

This is not what happens. The author does not _show_ the reader, the author _tells_ the reader, at great length, many many many historical facts. If you are very interested in this part of ancient history and like having a great many facts recited at you, then maybe you will enjoy this book. The facts may well be true but they are not woven into a story and as the reader you don't get to see _why_ these facts are true. For example, why did such-and-such a gene originate in this area and then spread to that area, how do we know it wasn't the other way round? The book doesn't say, it just pompously tells you. And that's just one of the few dozen facts on that page.

Like one of the other reviewers said,

AVOID.

(makes mental note to self to read the Amazon reviews more thoroughly in future before buying books)

Disagree !, 13 Jul 2008
Unlike several of the reviewers, I have found this work very readable, and well presented. I was totally captivated.
Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer by his own admission is not by background an expert in linguistics, archaeology or history. But he is an expert in genetics who has been exasperated at the entrenched dogma in these disciplines, and has extended his research into these areas.
His results are plausible, very lucidly prfesented and a benchmark.
A great read, and very thought provocing !

An in depth re-analyis of 200 years of misinformation on English British roots., 13 Apr 2008
Oppenheimer gives a very convincing new look at pre-Roman Britain. Gone is the simplistic idea of an entirely Celtic people from John O Groats to Kent as perpetuated by the mis-understanding of Bede as propagated since the 1700s. In comes the far more likely idea of several cultures and languages occupying these shores including pre-English and probably pre-Indo-European peoples. With regard to the doubters I would say they doth protest too much. Oppenheimer destroys the idea of an Anglo Saxon genocide of a mythical Celtic England using DNA. He then points out that English has almost no Celt in it and yet is full of Latin. That entirely fits the idea of an already existing pre-English language adopting the words of the Superstrate language of Latin during Roman times. Traditionalists would have us believe that all latin came into English during Norman times. Certainly the Anglo Saxons were invited over to England, but as allies of their kin Vortigern, who was not a Celtic traitor as the Welsh Gildas would have us believe, but was himself Germanic with a latinised name.

The book backs up many ideas which have already been covered by Theo Venneman who believes English to be far older than Roman Britain, and by Colin Renfrew who moved away from the old school idea of all language being carried merely by conquest.

Celtic confusions, 10 Apr 2008
While we in North America have a distressing tendency to lump most of the inhabitants of the British Isles together, those living there are aware of their diversity. That awareness has been carried rather to extremes by some scholars and politicians. "What is a Celt?" has been a key question, as has been its follow-up "What really happened to the Celts?" Tied in with these queries is the problem of finding an origin for the Celts and just what language they spoke. Stephen Oppenheimer addresses these and related issues in a comprehensive "detective story" incorporating history, analytical genetics and linguistic studies. His conclusions, well depicted in this provocative study, will prove surprising to some, and perhaps distressing to a few.

The British Isles, he begins, have the advantage of being invaders of a "terra nullius" [uninhabited land] some fifteen thousand years ago. As the Last Glacial Maximum retreated before the rise of a revived warm period, humans were able to enter a land they'd been driven from thousands of years previously. While this situation offers nothing to the historian, archaeologists and geneticists have a clear starting point for placing and dating the migration. Not an island then, Britain was a peninsula jutting out from the European land mass. That provided an easy route from the Mediterranean shoreline, around what is now Iberia to the southern and western coasts of Britain. Since "western" here now means Eire, it's clear the first adjustment of opinion must accommodate Ireland and Britain. Clearly, there were later population movements, but where did they originate, how long did they last and what numbers of people were involved? Most significantly, what languages did they speak?

From his introductory survey, Oppenheimer proceeds to tease out the answers to these questions. The origins are traced back in time using genetic markers. Mitochondrial DNA, carried down the generations only through female inheritance factors provides one scenario. The Y chromosome, the genetic marker for men is analysed separately, then compared. In most, although not all cases, the matches are mutually supportive. Archaeological finds are used as further indicators which have the advantage of solid dating techniques to support them, unlike the DNA tests which rest on a calculation based on presumed mutation rates. The language question remains contentious. Oppenheimer links it with the spread of farming entering Europe from Anatolia introducing early forms of Celtic into Western Europe. The author's genetic analysis also overturns the idea that farmers "displaced" earlier hunter-gatherer societies in Europe and Britain. Instead, farming was adapted by the resident population and farmers' larger families added some population pressure, but hardly "displacement". The same holds true for the Roman occupation, which was more interested in social stability and tax collecting than genocide.

The post-Roman era has also led to the establishment of displacement myths and their more recent overturning. History, partly thanks to reliance on "Saint" Gildas, has stoked the fires of national sentiments by depicting the Angles and Saxons as a barbarian horde bent on ethnic cleansing of the indigenous "Celtic" peoples. Oppenheimer rejects this tradition, arguing instead that a "warrior elite" may have entered Britain, but this was a small population and a continuation of British-Continental ties in any case. Just who those "barbarians" were is problematic in any case, since the author sees ongoing contact with the Frisian and near shore of Europe rather than a conquering horde emerging from northern Germany. It is now generally accepted that the Norman "Conquest" was only slightly more intrusive than the Roman one, with an elite doing the ruling and the long-lasting indigenous population doing everything else like farming, herding and trading.

A major issue here is language. Linguists, Oppenheimer argues have been keen to avoid dating of language branching, mostly because early attempts came to grief. He goes so far as to separate "Celtic" populations from "celtic" languages. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a written base of celtic to use as a foundation. The Classical Period commentators in Greece and Rome wrote of "Celts" in a vague sort of way, and even a man on the ground, Julius Caesar was unable to make definitive comments about either the people or their languages. More precise cultural details were omitted entirely. Oppenheimer's path through the language issues is inevitably a tortured one, but he makes a serious effort at simplification. Whatever his success is due to a paucity of real data. For him, the genes speak louder than words. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Next time Stephen, check the text for errors before sending it to the publisher!, 20 Feb 2008
Stephen Oppenheimer should be ashamed of himself. There's interesting stuff trying to escape from his impossibly all-over-the-place, convoluted drafting, but I'm really looking forward to someone else writing a decent book on the subject.

Not least, the second of the three sections is an appalling mess. Where I used to work, if you'd sent out even the most initial, first, provisional draft to a close colleague in this state (repeated or near repeated paragraphs only a page or two apart, mis-labelled diagrams, etc) you'd have been taken out and shot. It isn't just that this middle section hasn't been proof read, the author doesn't appear to have done the barest minimum of reading it down for mistakes.

If I didn't know better, I'd think three sections had been written by different authors!

I also found myself thinking quite a bit about the tiny sample sizes.

That said, I am pretty much convinced by his central argument. However, it's more a matter of applying a bit of common sense to the random splatter of facts and quotes rather than as a result of persuasive, CLEAR argument on Oppenheimer's part. For goodness sake, the next time you set pen to paper, READ IT DOWN before publishing it!

Somewhat confused, 16 Oct 2004
First the good points. Jared Diamond writes excellently and makes some very good arguments, his humanity and morality is evident throughout the book. The later part of the book, which highlights many of the modern worlds more repugnant acts (especially on genocide) is a masterpiece in the critique of human barbarity and it's attempted justifications. Though there is no criticism of Israel's 'ethnic cleansing', which is a bit of a disappointment. Now for the criticism. Jared Diamond seems to have at best a rudimentary understanding of evolution and natural selection, and some of his statements don't stand up to even the most cursory reflection. For example he states 'The winner takes the losers land, sometimes also the losers women, and thus the loser's opportunity to perpetuate genes'. This seems to be a very male centered way to look at the facts (a common mistake throughout the book). It evident on even a moments reflection that the women so enslaved are the mothers, sisters and daughters of the loser and therefore carry the same genes. Again on convergent evolution (and the possibility of extra-terrestrial life) 'radio communication is one of those things that happens to have evolved here..'. When did radio communication evolve? It was discovered and developed through scientific experimentation but it hasn't evolved, not ever. Another inaccuracy is the statement 'Since evolutionary multiplications of species are very slow, natural extinctions must also be slow'. Jared Diamond seems to have an antiquated Neo-Darwinian view of evolution which doesn't stand up to the actual observations in the fossil record. He states that mass extinctions are rare events, but this is simply not true, there have been many mass extinctions, which are amply recorded in the fossil record. Mass extinctions occur when the environment changes dramatically and quickly, this has occurred many times. Ecological niches in those conditions remain open, and are usually filled very quickly by pre-adapted organisms (ie those which, by accident can survive the change in environment), which also very quickly adapt, through natural selection to their 'new' niche. These are well developed arguments first proposed by Niles Eldrige and Stephen Gould, which fit the observed fossil record perfectly. An adequate understanding of the theory of punctuated equilibrium is required for anyone who wants to venture into the world of evolution, and, unfortunately the very gifted and articulate Jared Diamond seems to score very poorly indeed.

Jared Diamond makes the cardinal sin of stating that 'the vulnerable species get eliminated quickly, and what we see persisting in nature are the robust combinations of species' this statement to me is arrant nonsense. During a dramatic change in environment, for example when Humans first colonised New Zealand, was it the robust species that survived? Well it depends how you define robust. Those species best adapted to life without human predators (ie the most robust in the original environment) weren't necessarily the same ones that were the 'most robust' after Human colonisation, the goalposts had been moved. This is the case with all mass extinctions. S those which were most robust after the colonisation had a pre-adaptive advantage (avoiding humans). But there was absolutely no way of any species 'deciding' to evolve 'avoidance of humans' just in case humans decided to come (none of the species knew of the existence of humans). This is the classic definition of pre-adaptation. It's the survival of the luckiest not survival of the fittest. It's the same with dinosaurs, they were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for well over 100 million years, far longer than mammals (which were around at the time of the dinosaurs) have been the dominant terrestrial vertebrates. So did they suddenly realize 'hey guys mammals are superior lets all die'. No some cataclysmic event (for the dinosaurs, anyway) occurred. Mammals were lucky enough to survive and then through selection occupied the niches vacated by the extinct dinosaurs. If that dramatic extinction) event had not occurred then there is no doubt that dinosaurs would still rule the world and mammals would still be the 'loser vertebrate. There's an old fashioned 'Victorian era' view of evolution as being 'progressive' which is just plain wrong (Jared Diamond falls into the trap when he infers that natural selection is the sole force behind evolution (ie speciation), but it is accepted that natural selection and at least one other force must be behind speciation events), in truth selection is adaptive, and only leads to speciation or evolution during special periods (like just after extinctions). The upshot is that during periods of equilibrium (ie no dramatic environmental catastrophes) then natural selection acts to keep species as they already are, that is already well adapted to their environment.

There are some other poorly argued points in the book. Jared Diamond correctly states that we should not look for 'evolutionary'- (whatever that's supposed to mean) reasons for all our behavioural of physical characteristics, but then goes on to do just that. He looks for selective reasons for all sorts of things, without ever explaining the genetic basis of pleiotropy, which is the fact that one gene can have two or even more effects. That is that a gene can exist for a given reason, but may manifest itself in another, apparently totally unrelated way. So people may have a characteristic for one reason, but be looking for the selective reason for a totally unrelated characteristic that the same gene confers upon us. Getting back to the male centered view of the book, he spends some time on the fact that human males have inordinately (relatively speaking) large penises compared to other apes. He concludes that it's for 'display purposes'!!!!! So it couldn't be due to the fact that human women may have selected for them because that way they have more fun then? Or that there seems to be 'no selective reason' for female infidelity (but plenty for men). So can't women have chosen one male as a 'rearer' and another as a 'donator of genes'. None of these not unreasonable explanations seem to have occurred to the 'male centered' Jared Diamond.

All these criticisms aside it's still a well written book with lots of humanity and much truth, It's only the selection/evolution bit's which lack any coherence.

A book to read to change your view of the world !, 26 Aug 2003
A book to recommend everyone who would like to know their place in the animal kingdom. There is only 2% difference between the chimpanzee, man's closest relative and us. Jared Diamond tries and largely succeeds in explaining this difference using science and philosophy and just plain logic.

Please read this book, it will help explain a lot about Man, his sexuality, his destructive properties, his creativity and the reasons why he has reached this point in evolution. He discusses adultery, the origin of art, the importance of language, addiction, genocide, the start of agriculture, the great leap forward when Man started to make a significant impact on planet earth and many other useful side topics. He gives us another definition of history. He makes us stand back from our everyday existence and see ourselves as perhaps we really are.

If you have an open mind and want to read a different viewpoint, read this book !

The best I found so far, 01 Jul 2003
All my life I have been curious about the world around me and what makes it tick. Evolution being one of the most important aspects of our learning about the nature, I've read a bit on the topic over the years. Now I am not a biologist, but I am a scientist and I can definitely tell when somebody is pulling things out of thin air just because they need to support a preconcieved picture. Most of the books I've read on the subject have been full of this (most notably Wright's The Moral Animal, whose author clearly lacks elementary scientific etics).
It is therefore with great pleasure that I can recommend Mr. Diamond's book as the first social evolution book that stood up to my requirements on intellectual honesty. Indeed, many of the claims from earlier books by social evolutionists, that I found rather wild and unsubstantiated, do not appear here and some are even refuted by Mr. Diamond as errors. As he did with his Guns, Germs and Steel, he pulls together strands from many branches of science to create a rich picture of human past, a picture which is reasonably well documented given how little we really do know and which fits together well. I found this book also better written and better ballanced than the Guns,..., which suffered from excessive political correctness that sometimes clouded the author's judgement. Here he almost avoided political correctness-related spins, and on the few occassions he did he made it clear that he does not take it too seriously, which just ties in with the overall honesty and precision of his exposition.
I enjoyed reading the book very much. It is very well written, often you even do not realize that you are learning new things and there are some genuinely funny places, too. I would recommend it as the first book to look at if you are interested in evolution of the human race.

Essential reading., 29 Nov 2000
I would rate this book, along with Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, as one of the most important and powerful books I've ever read. Furthermore, these two books complement each other beautifully. Diamond seems to pitch perfectly to all audiences, (I studied a biological degree, and the book has passed among many of my non-scientist friends who all claimed to have recommended it to others,) and ranges widely, (through biology, evolution & ecology, paleontology, history, sociology, and linguistics.) The whole is an unfeasibly lucid and educative rationale as to how mankind arrived to be where he was in 1991, and where he was likely to be headed. As with Dawkins, the going is rarely heavy and every page brings a satisfying feeling of having learnt something new. Sometimes uncomfortable, often funny, rarely overbearing. PLEASE read this book. Then read it to others, and recommend as widely as possible!

Excellent and highly readable book, 26 Oct 1998
Great book. Each chapter examines a different question relating to humanity e.g. Why did Neanderthal man die out?, How / where did language come from etc. Very readable and enjoyable this book is written in a chatty style and is full of interesting facts which will amaze your friends....did you know that a chimp is closer related to a human that a rat is to a mouse !!!!

Compelling Reading, 18 Nov 2008
The recent 90th anniversary of the end of the Great War spurred me to seek out some literature on the subject. My mother's father fought at Ypres and Arras, and was invalided home after a mustard gas attack. I was only 10 years old when he died, but I wish I could have talked to him about his experiences. This book gives a potted history of each year of the war followed by accounts of various survivors who were interviewed in the 1970's. I aim to read more of the Forgotten Voices series to further my knowledge. I received Harry Patch's The Last Fighting Tommy in the post today and look forward to reading his highly acclaimed account of his time in the trenches.

A window through time, 05 Nov 2008
War is never going to be a pleasant thing to read about, and this is no exception - it consists of testimonies from survivors, which have been cut into chunks and organised so that they refer to events in the order that they happened.

I happened across this in a charity shop at the end of October, and I can think of no better way to understand the real meaning of Armstice day - the absolute horror of the things they went through is something that I'd never be able to do. You get a real flavour of the way people were then too - women back in England handing out feathers (the symbol of a coward) to men in the street, completely unaware that a lot of them were back from the trenches sans uniform, which really affected the soldiers.

I won't go into the individual stories, but you can hear the voices rising from the page as you read - as an ex-actor, this is excellent source material if you're doing something set in this period.

A REALLY REALLY GOOD READ. Not many books have affected me as much as this one.

Voices of the Lost Generation, 30 Jul 2008
Forgotten Voices of the Great War is a collection of real life experiences of the First World War, as told by the ordinary people who lived through it.
I must admit that my knowledge of the First World War is a little blank. My only previous experience of this period was through school lessons about trench warfare, or by watching Blackadder goes forth. Therefore I can't make an analysis about the historical accuracy of the book. But what I can say is that I found it a very powerful and poignant work.

The author, Max Arthur, has spent several years listening to thousands of recordings of the men and women who lived during this period. These tapes were kept as archival records in the Imperial War Museum, after they were collected in 1972. These are essentially the voices of a lost generation. The book is divided into chapters that cover every year of the war, from 1914 to 1918. Within these chapters are accounts taken from individual campaigns or battles such as Gallipoli, The Second Battle of Ypres, or the Battle of Mons.

Arthur has sifted through these records to bring out the most varied and unique stories. We are told about gas attacks, boredom or banter between soldiers, but we also get to hear the points of view of people like Elizabeth Owen, who was a schoolgirl at the outbreak of the war. Many of these stories are touching and funny, while others can be truly horrifying. In the section on Gallipoli for instance, we get a story of the games played between British and Turkish soldiers, with some of them throwing tinned bully beef and strings of figs to each other as presents. In the same section it also tells you of the horrible and undignified deaths caused by dysentry and other diseases, which will probably be some of the most terrible accounts of the war you will ever read.

This is an incredibly powerful and important book. If you have ever wondered about life during the First World War, then this book should be the first one you read. Extraordinay.

Not everyone can get to source documents, 23 May 2008
This book is now part of a series collated from the IWM archives. Not everyone can get to source documents through time or distance. This book has brought some of the sources into the public arena. Naturally such short personal reminicences give a fragmented picture. If you want opinions handed to you, read a 'definitive' history. All history books, however good, are shaped by the author. If a book like this makes you question recived wisdom, it has done its job.

Good, but difficult to put in context., 22 May 2008
This is an excellent collection of first-hand accounts of the Great War, from a variety of different contemporary contributors to that war.

The only problem with this book is that it divorces the account from much of the wider picture, so it tends to foster a 'I've read that book, I know all about WW1 now' sort of attitude. Perhaps it's just a reflection of our rushed aged, but I think the many other books, which describe some of the development of the war and intertwine similar first-hand accounts, do more justice to those milions who gave their lives on all sides, than a quick flit through this collection of stand-alone, very short stories.

Admittedly, the book has a very important role to play in appealing to those who may othwerwise not take an interest in WW1, so for that reason alone, it is a worthwhile production.

A lengthy telling of facts that does not enlighten., 30 Jul 2008
I was very disappointed by this book. I had expected a detective story, like the sub-title, and I had expected to get a wider understanding of the topic. With the mention of DNA analysis on the cover, I had expected to get some science, hopefully like Brian Sykes' very readable informative books.

This is not what happens. The author does not _show_ the reader, the author _tells_ the reader, at great length, many many many historical facts. If you are very interested in this part of ancient history and like having a great many facts recited at you, then maybe you will enjoy this book. The facts may well be true but they are not woven into a story and as the reader you don't get to see _why_ these facts are true. For example, why did such-and-such a gene originate in this area and then spread to that area, how do we know it wasn't the other way round? The book doesn't say, it just pompously tells you. And that's just one of the few dozen facts on that page.

Like one of the other reviewers said,

AVOID.

(makes mental note to self to read the Amazon reviews more thoroughly in future before buying books)

Disagree !, 13 Jul 2008
Unlike several of the reviewers, I have found this work very readable, and well presented. I was totally captivated.
Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer by his own admission is not by background an expert in linguistics, archaeology or history. But he is an expert in genetics who has been exasperated at the entrenched dogma in these disciplines, and has extended his research into these areas.
His results are plausible, very lucidly prfesented and a benchmark.
A great read, and very thought provocing !

An in depth re-analyis of 200 years of misinformation on English British roots., 13 Apr 2008
Oppenheimer gives a very convincing new look at pre-Roman Britain. Gone is the simplistic idea of an entirely Celtic people from John O Groats to Kent as perpetuated by the mis-understanding of Bede as propagated since the 1700s. In comes the far more likely idea of several cultures and languages occupying these shores including pre-English and probably pre-Indo-European peoples. With regard to the doubters I would say they doth protest too much. Oppenheimer destroys the idea of an Anglo Saxon genocide of a mythical Celtic England using DNA. He then points out that English has almost no Celt in it and yet is full of Latin. That entirely fits the idea of an already existing pre-English language adopting the words of the Superstrate language of Latin during Roman times. Traditionalists would have us believe that all latin came into English during Norman times. Certainly the Anglo Saxons were invited over to England, but as allies of their kin Vortigern, who was not a Celtic traitor as the Welsh Gildas would have us believe, but was himself Germanic with a latinised name.

The book backs up many ideas which have already been covered by Theo Venneman who believes English to be far older than Roman Britain, and by Colin Renfrew who moved away from the old school idea of all language being carried merely by conquest.

Celtic confusions, 10 Apr 2008
While we in North America have a distressing tendency to lump most of the inhabitants of the British Isles together, those living there are aware of their diversity. That awareness has been carried rather to extremes by some scholars and politicians. "What is a Celt?" has been a key question, as has been its follow-up "What really happened to the Celts?" Tied in with these queries is the problem of finding an origin for the Celts and just what language they spoke. Stephen Oppenheimer addresses these and related issues in a comprehensive "detective story" incorporating history, analytical genetics and linguistic studies. His conclusions, well depicted in this provocative study, will prove surprising to some, and perhaps distressing to a few.

The British Isles, he begins, have the advantage of being invaders of a "terra nullius" [uninhabited land] some fifteen thousand years ago. As the Last Glacial Maximum retreated before the rise of a revived warm period, humans were able to enter a land they'd been driven from thousands of years previously. While this situation offers nothing to the historian, archaeologists and geneticists have a clear starting point for placing and dating the migration. Not an island then, Britain was a peninsula jutting out from the European land mass. That provided an easy route from the Mediterranean shoreline, around what is now Iberia to the southern and western coasts of Britain. Since "western" here now means Eire, it's clear the first adjustment of opinion must accommodate Ireland and Britain. Clearly, there were later population movements, but where did they originate, how long did they last and what numbers of people were involved? Most significantly, what languages did they speak?

From his introductory survey, Oppenheimer proceeds to tease out the answers to these questions. The origins are traced back in time using genetic markers. Mitochondrial DNA, carried down the generations only through female inheritance factors provides one scenario. The Y chromosome, the genetic marker for men is analysed separately, then compared. In most, although not all cases, the matches are mutually supportive. Archaeological finds are used as further indicators which have the advantage of solid dating techniques to support them, unlike the DNA tests which rest on a calculation based on presumed mutation rates. The language question remains contentious. Oppenheimer links it with the spread of farming entering Europe from Anatolia introducing early forms of Celtic into Western Europe. The author's genetic analysis also overturns the idea that farmers "displaced" earlier hunter-gatherer societies in Europe and Britain. Instead, farming was adapted by the resident population and farmers' larger families added some population pressure, but hardly "displacement". The same holds true for the Roman occupation, which was more interested in social stability and tax collecting than genocide.

The post-Roman era has also led to the establishment of displacement myths and their more recent overturning. History, partly thanks to reliance on "Saint" Gildas, has stoked the fires of national sentiments by depicting the Angles and Saxons as a barbarian horde bent on ethnic cleansing of the indigenous "Celtic" peoples. Oppenheimer rejects this tradition, arguing instead that a "warrior elite" may have entered Britain, but this was a small population and a continuation of British-Continental ties in any case. Just who those "barbarians" were is problematic in any case, since the author sees ongoing contact with the Frisian and near shore of Europe rather than a conquering horde emerging from northern Germany. It is now generally accepted that the Norman "Conquest" was only slightly more intrusive than the Roman one, with an elite doing the ruling and the long-lasting indigenous population doing everything else like farming, herding and trading.

A major issue here is language. Linguists, Oppenheimer argues have been keen to avoid dating of language branching, mostly because early attempts came to grief. He goes so far as to separate "Celtic" populations from "celtic" languages. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a written base of celtic to use as a foundation. The Classical Period commentators in Greece and Rome wrote of "Celts" in a vague sort of way, and even a man on the ground, Julius Caesar was unable to make definitive comments about either the people or their languages. More precise cultural details were omitted entirely. Oppenheimer's path through the language issues is inevitably a tortured one, but he makes a serious effort at simplification. Whatever his success is due to a paucity of real data. For him, the genes speak louder than words. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Next time Stephen, check the text for errors before sending it to the publisher!, 20 Feb 2008
Stephen Oppenheimer should be ashamed of himself. There's interesting stuff trying to escape from his impossibly all-over-the-place, convoluted drafting, but I'm really looking forward to someone else writing a decent book on the subject.

Not least, the second of the three sections is an appalling mess. Where I used to work, if you'd sent out even the most initial, first, provisional draft to a close colleague in this state (repeated or near repeated paragraphs only a page or two apart, mis-labelled diagrams, etc) you'd have been taken out and shot. It isn't just that this middle section hasn't been proof read, the author doesn't appear to have done the barest minimum of reading it down for mistakes.

If I didn't know better, I'd think three sections had been written by different authors!

I also found myself thinking quite a bit about the tiny sample sizes.

That said, I am pretty much convinced by his central argument. However, it's more a matter of applying a bit of common sense to the random splatter of facts and quotes rather than as a result of persuasive, CLEAR argument on Oppenheimer's part. For goodness sake, the next time you set pen to paper, READ IT DOWN before publishing it!

Somewhat confused, 16 Oct 2004
First the good points. Jared Diamond writes excellently and makes some very good arguments, his humanity and morality is evident throughout the book. The later part of the book, which highlights many of the modern worlds more repugnant acts (especially on genocide) is a masterpiece in the critique of human barbarity and it's attempted justifications. Though there is no criticism of Israel's 'ethnic cleansing', which is a bit of a disappointment. Now for the criticism. Jared Diamond seems to have at best a rudimentary understanding of evolution and natural selection, and some of his statements don't stand up to even the most cursory reflection. For example he states 'The winner takes the losers land, sometimes also the losers women, and thus the loser's opportunity to perpetuate genes'. This seems to be a very male centered way to look at the facts (a common mistake throughout the book). It evident on even a moments reflection that the women so enslaved are the mothers, sisters and daughters of the loser and therefore carry the same genes. Again on convergent evolution (and the possibility of extra-terrestrial life) 'radio communication is one of those things that happens to have evolved here..'. When did radio communication evolve? It was discovered and developed through scientific experimentation but it hasn't evolved, not ever. Another inaccuracy is the statement 'Since evolutionary multiplications of species are very slow, natural extinctions must also be slow'. Jared Diamond seems to have an antiquated Neo-Darwinian view of evolution which doesn't stand up to the actual observations in the fossil record. He states that mass extinctions are rare events, but this is simply not true, there have been many mass extinctions, which are amply recorded in the fossil record. Mass extinctions occur when the environment changes dramatically and quickly, this has occurred many times. Ecological niches in those conditions remain open, and are usually filled very quickly by pre-adapted organisms (ie those which, by accident can survive the change in environment), which also very quickly adapt, through natural selection to their 'new' niche. These are well developed arguments first proposed by Niles Eldrige and Stephen Gould, which fit the observed fossil record perfectly. An adequate understanding of the theory of punctuated equilibrium is required for anyone who wants to venture into the world of evolution, and, unfortunately the very gifted and articulate Jared Diamond seems to score very poorly indeed.

Jared Diamond makes the cardinal sin of stating that 'the vulnerable species get eliminated quickly, and what we see persisting in nature are the robust combinations of species' this statement to me is arrant nonsense. During a dramatic change in environment, for example when Humans first colonised New Zealand, was it the robust species that survived? Well it depends how you define robust. Those species best adapted to life without human predators (ie the most robust in the original environment) weren't necessarily the same ones that were the 'most robust' after Human colonisation, the goalposts had been moved. This is the case with all mass extinctions. S those which were most robust after the colonisation had a pre-adaptive advantage (avoiding humans). But there was absolutely no way of any species 'deciding' to evolve 'avoidance of humans' just in case humans decided to come (none of the species knew of the existence of humans). This is the classic definition of pre-adaptation. It's the survival of the luckiest not survival of the fittest. It's the same with dinosaurs, they were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for well over 100 million years, far longer than mammals (which were around at the time of the dinosaurs) have been the dominant terrestrial vertebrates. So did they suddenly realize 'hey guys mammals are superior lets all die'. No some cataclysmic event (for the dinosaurs, anyway) occurred. Mammals were lucky enough to survive and then through selection occupied the niches vacated by the extinct dinosaurs. If that dramatic extinction) event had not occurred then there is no doubt that dinosaurs would still rule the world and mammals would still be the 'loser vertebrate. There's an old fashioned 'Victorian era' view of evolution as being 'progressive' which is just plain wrong (Jared Diamond falls into the trap when he infers that natural selection is the sole force behind evolution (ie speciation), but it is accepted that natural selection and at least one other force must be behind speciation events), in truth selection is adaptive, and only leads to speciation or evolution during special periods (like just after extinctions). The upshot is that during periods of equilibrium (ie no dramatic environmental catastrophes) then natural selection acts to keep species as they already are, that is already well adapted to their environment.

There are some other poorly argued points in the book. Jared Diamond correctly states that we should not look for 'evolutionary'- (whatever that's supposed to mean) reasons for all our behavioural of physical characteristics, but then goes on to do just that. He looks for selective reasons for all sorts of things, without ever explaining the genetic basis of pleiotropy, which is the fact that one gene can have two or even more effects. That is that a gene can exist for a given reason, but may manifest itself in another, apparently totally unrelated way. So people may have a characteristic for one reason, but be looking for the selective reason for a totally unrelated characteristic that the same gene confers upon us. Getting back to the male centered view of the book, he spends some time on the fact that human males have inordinately (relatively speaking) large penises compared to other apes. He concludes that it's for 'display purposes'!!!!! So it couldn't be due to the fact that human women may have selected for them because that way they have more fun then? Or that there seems to be 'no selective reason' for female infidelity (but plenty for men). So can't women have chosen one male as a 'rearer' and another as a 'donator of genes'. None of these not unreasonable explanations seem to have occurred to the 'male centered' Jared Diamond.

All these criticisms aside it's still a well written book with lots of humanity and much truth, It's only the selection/evolution bit's which lack any coherence.

A book to read to change your view of the world !, 26 Aug 2003
A book to recommend everyone who would like to know their place in the animal kingdom. There is only 2% difference between the chimpanzee, man's closest relative and us. Jared Diamond tries and largely succeeds in explaining this difference using science and philosophy and just plain logic.

Please read this book, it will help explain a lot about Man, his sexuality, his destructive properties, his creativity and the reasons why he has reached this point in evolution. He discusses adultery, the origin of art, the importance of language, addiction, genocide, the start of agriculture, the great leap forward when Man started to make a significant impact on planet earth and many other useful side topics. He gives us another definition of history. He makes us stand back from our everyday existence and see ourselves as perhaps we really are.

If you have an open mind and want to read a different viewpoint, read this book !

The best I found so far, 01 Jul 2003
All my life I have been curious about the world around me and what makes it tick. Evolution being one of the most important aspects of our learning about the nature, I've read a bit on the topic over the years. Now I am not a biologist, but I am a scientist and I can definitely tell when somebody is pulling things out of thin air just because they need to support a preconcieved picture. Most of the books I've read on the subject have been full of this (most notably Wright's The Moral Animal, whose author clearly lacks elementary scientific etics).
It is therefore with great pleasure that I can recommend Mr. Diamond's book as the first social evolution book that stood up to my requirements on intellectual honesty. Indeed, many of the claims from earlier books by social evolutionists, that I found rather wild and unsubstantiated, do not appear here and some are even refuted by Mr. Diamond as errors. As he did with his Guns, Germs and Steel, he pulls together strands from many branches of science to create a rich picture of human past, a picture which is reasonably well documented given how little we really do know and which fits together well. I found this book also better written and better ballanced than the Guns,..., which suffered from excessive political correctness that sometimes clouded the author's judgement. Here he almost avoided political correctness-related spins, and on the few occassions he did he made it clear that he does not take it too seriously, which just ties in with the overall honesty and precision of his exposition.
I enjoyed reading the book very much. It is very well written, often you even do not realize that you are learning new things and there are some genuinely funny places, too. I would recommend it as the first book to look at if you are interested in evolution of the human race.

Essential reading., 29 Nov 2000
I would rate this book, along with Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, as one of the most important and powerful books I've ever read. Furthermore, these two books complement each other beautifully. Diamond seems to pitch perfectly to all audiences, (I studied a biological degree, and the book has passed among many of my non-scientist friends who all claimed to have recommended it to others,) and ranges widely, (through biology, evolution & ecology, paleontology, history, sociology, and linguistics.) The whole is an unfeasibly lucid and educative rationale as to how mankind arrived to be where he was in 1991, and where he was likely to be headed. As with Dawkins, the going is rarely heavy and every page brings a satisfying feeling of having learnt something new. Sometimes uncomfortable, often funny, rarely overbearing. PLEASE read this book. Then read it to others, and recommend as widely as possible!

Excellent and highly readable book, 26 Oct 1998
Great book. Each chapter examines a different question relating to humanity e.g. Why did Neanderthal man die out?, How / where did language come from etc. Very readable and enjoyable this book is written in a chatty style and is full of interesting facts which will amaze your friends....did you know that a chimp is closer related to a human that a rat is to a mouse !!!!

Bury Me Standing: Gypsies and Their Journey, 13 Mar 2008
Just to say that this book has you gripped from beginning to end and is recommended by most who have an interest in the culture of Gypsies. It is a book that enlightens you to the sensitivities of the gypsy culture and also has you in tears at the infliction of inhumane treatment towards a people who retain the way of life that most of us do not experience. Prejudice and intolerance from various barbaric dictators to the almost racist slur that come from everyday folk.
It is also interesting to learn about Roma language and how it cannot be recorded and is hard to capture as the language changes over the globe.

It is a good book and one of my most memorable reads. To understand the traveller culture then read this book. Another good book I had read was Stopping Places by Simon Evans

Travelogue, history, ethnography..., 11 Mar 2007
What is this book? A history? A sociology? A primary source, an ethnography? A travel book? It is all of these things in turn. Fonseca lives with Roma families from Albania to the Czech republic, supplementing her acute observation with reference to scholarship and myth.

Almost certainly, this is a story you have not heard. The history of the Romani people is not taught in schools, and is rarely acknowledged in public discourse. The Gypsies are Europe's shame, now; and we should have some understanding of how that has happened, what that means. This is a rare, humanising book - as one reviewer put it, 'a passionate and dramatic defence of the defenceless'.

Bury Me Standing was published more than a decade ago. Fonseca hasn't published since (though is reported to be working on a novel), having married Martin Amis and started a family in the intervening years. I suspect like many readers, I was dissapointed that there wasn't another volume of hers I could turn to, to revisit the lyricism, sensitivity and cool outrage found in the pages of this book. It's also a shame that it hasn't been updated, or that there's no companion volume which brings the Gypsies' journey up until the present. Though their immiseration persists, the enlarging EU has placed some pressure on Eastern European governments to ameliorate conditions somewhat.

I've seen this on many shelves. The evocative defiance of the title is a good guide to the quality of the prose, and the commitment of the author. As an introduction to the Roma, this is as readable and careful as you'll find.


A most empathetic travelogue., 09 Dec 2005
A lovely book! Fonseca's travelogue is a tour-de-force, finely balanced between her own adventures and the stories of the Gypsies she meets. Her English is clear and alive. Her empathy with the people she meets is neither maudlin nor judging. She throws herself into whatever situation she meets without exaggerating, and without superiority. Her analysis is intelligent and based very much on her own experiences. A good read for anyone, and essential for anyone interested in contemporary Gypsy life and culture.

This is brilliantly written, politically astute, and moving, 29 Mar 2001
This is an extraordinary book and will change the way you see not only gypsies or Roma, but yourself. It portrays with depth and sensitivity the lives of gypsy communities across Europe, catalogues the tale of appallingly little know horrors to which they've been subject, and makes the reader grapple with his or her own (not so)hidden prejudices. Isabel Fonseca also has an extraordinary voice and ability to craft language. I have asked everyone I've met or spoken to for the past week to read this book and can only suggest that you do the same.

ANOTHER FOOLISH ATTEMPT., 28 Nov 1997
ONCE AGAIN NON-GYPSIES HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD US. SHE MISUNDERSTANDS THAT WE HAVE SEPERATE DIALECTS AND POINTS OUT THINGS ABOUT IT SHE DONT KNOW. THE RACISM SHE POINTS OUT, SHE DOES A GOOD JOB BUT THE CULTURE PART IS MISUNDERSTOOD. SHE DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE CONTAMINATION LAWS VERY WELL. SHE SAIS THINGS ABOUT PEOPLE SHE DOES NOT KNOW. SHE POINTS OUT CERTAIN GYPSY ACTIVIST AS EVIL SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE DISAGREES WITH THEIR VEIWS. WE BELIEVE THAT WE MUST TELL OUR OWN HISTORY AND RUN OUR OWN WY LIFE TO BE UNDERSTOOD. IT IS VERY UNFAIR TO US WHEN WRITERS USE OBSERVATION OVER OUR EXPERIENCE TO FALSLY EXPLAIN OUR CULTURE. I FEEL IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING YOU SHOULD NOT GUESS AN EXPLANATION.

Compelling Reading, 18 Nov 2008
The recent 90th anniversary of the end of the Great War spurred me to seek out some literature on the subject. My mother's father fought at Ypres and Arras, and was invalided home after a mustard gas attack. I was only 10 years old when he died, but I wish I could have talked to him about his experiences. This book gives a potted history of each year of the war followed by accounts of various survivors who were interviewed in the 1970's. I aim to read more of the Forgotten Voices series to further my knowledge. I received Harry Patch's The Last Fighting Tommy in the post today and look forward to reading his highly acclaimed account of his time in the trenches.

A window through time, 05 Nov 2008
War is never going to be a pleasant thing to read about, and this is no exception - it consists of testimonies from survivors, which have been cut into chunks and organised so that they refer to events in the order that they happened.

I happened across this in a charity shop at the end of October, and I can think of no better way to understand the real meaning of Armstice day - the absolute horror of the things they went through is something that I'd never be able to do. You get a real flavour of the way people were then too - women back in England handing out feathers (the symbol of a coward) to men in the street, completely unaware that a lot of them were back from the trenches sans uniform, which really affected the soldiers.

I won't go into the individual stories, but you can hear the voices rising from the page as you read - as an ex-actor, this is excellent source material if you're doing something set in this period.

A REALLY REALLY GOOD READ. Not many books have affected me as much as this one.

Voices of the Lost Generation, 30 Jul 2008
Forgotten Voices of the Great War is a collection of real life experiences of the First World War, as told by the ordinary people who lived through it.
I must admit that my knowledge of the First World War is a little blank. My only previous experience of this period was through school lessons about trench warfare, or by watching Blackadder goes forth. Therefore I can't make an analysis about the historical accuracy of the book. But what I can say is that I found it a very powerful and poignant work.

The author, Max Arthur, has spent several years listening to thousands of recordings of the men and women who lived during this period. These tapes were kept as archival records in the Imperial War Museum, after they were collected in 1972. These are essentially the voices of a lost generation. The book is divided into chapters that cover every year of the war, from 1914 to 1918. Within these chapters are accounts taken from individual campaigns or battles such as Gallipoli, The Second Battle of Ypres, or the Battle of Mons.

Arthur has sifted through these records to bring out the most varied and unique stories. We are told about gas attacks, boredom or banter between soldiers, but we also get to hear the points of view of people like Elizabeth Owen, who was a schoolgirl at the outbreak of the war. Many of these stories are touching and funny, while others can be truly horrifying. In the section on Gallipoli for instance, we get a story of the games played between British and Turkish soldiers, with some of them throwing tinned bully beef and strings of figs to each other as presents. In the same section it also tells you of the horrible and undignified deaths caused by dysentry and other diseases, which will probably be some of the most terrible accounts of the war you will ever read.

This is an incredibly powerful and important book. If you have ever wondered about life during the First World War, then this book should be the first one you read. Extraordinay.

Not everyone can get to source documents, 23 May 2008
This book is now part of a series collated from the IWM archives. Not everyone can get to source documents through time or distance. This book has brought some of the sources into the public arena. Naturally such short personal reminicences give a fragmented picture. If you want opinions handed to you, read a 'definitive' history. All history books, however good, are shaped by the author. If a book like this makes you question recived wisdom, it has done its job.

Good, but difficult to put in context., 22 May 2008
This is an excellent collection of first-hand accounts of the Great War, from a variety of different contemporary contributors to that war.

The only problem with this book is that it divorces the account from much of the wider picture, so it tends to foster a 'I've read that book, I know all about WW1 now' sort of attitude. Perhaps it's just a reflection of our rushed aged, but I think the many other books, which describe some of the development of the war and intertwine similar first-hand accounts, do more justice to those milions who gave their lives on all sides, than a quick flit through this collection of stand-alone, very short stories.

Admittedly, the book has a very important role to play in appealing to those who may othwerwise not take an interest in WW1, so for that reason alone, it is a worthwhile production.

A lengthy telling of facts that does not enlighten., 30 Jul 2008
I was very disappointed by this book. I had expected a detective story, like the sub-title, and I had expected to get a wider understanding of the topic. With the mention of DNA analysis on the cover, I had expected to get some science, hopefully like Brian Sykes' very readable informative books.

This is not what happens. The author does not _show_ the reader, the author _tells_ the reader, at great length, many many many historical facts. If you are very interested in this part of ancient history and like having a great many facts recited at you, then maybe you will enjoy this book. The facts may well be true but they are not woven into a story and as the reader you don't get to see _why_ these facts are true. For example, why did such-and-such a gene originate in this area and then spread to that area, how do we know it wasn't the other way round? The book doesn't say, it just pompously tells you. And that's just one of the few dozen facts on that page.

Like one of the other reviewers said,

AVOID.

(makes mental note to self to read the Amazon reviews more thoroughly in future before buying books)

Disagree !, 13 Jul 2008
Unlike several of the reviewers, I have found this work very readable, and well presented. I was totally captivated.
Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer by his own admission is not by background an expert in linguistics, archaeology or history. But he is an expert in genetics who has been exasperated at the entrenched dogma in these disciplines, and has extended his research into these areas.
His results are plausible, very lucidly prfesented and a benchmark.
A great read, and very thought provocing !

An in depth re-analyis of 200 years of misinformation on English British roots., 13 Apr 2008
Oppenheimer gives a very convincing new look at pre-Roman Britain. Gone is the simplistic idea of an entirely Celtic people from John O Groats to Kent as perpetuated by the mis-understanding of Bede as propagated since the 1700s. In comes the far more likely idea of several cultures and languages occupying these shores including pre-English and probably pre-Indo-European peoples. With regard to the doubters I would say they doth protest too much. Oppenheimer destroys the idea of an Anglo Saxon genocide of a mythical Celtic England using DNA. He then points out that English has almost no Celt in it and yet is full of Latin. That entirely fits the idea of an already existing pre-English language adopting the words of the Superstrate language of Latin during Roman times. Traditionalists would have us believe that all latin came into English during Norman times. Certainly the Anglo Saxons were invited over to England, but as allies of their kin Vortigern, who was not a Celtic traitor as the Welsh Gildas would have us believe, but was himself Germanic with a latinised name.

The book backs up many ideas which have already been covered by Theo Venneman who believes English to be far older than Roman Britain, and by Colin Renfrew who moved away from the old school idea of all language being carried merely by conquest.

Celtic confusions, 10 Apr 2008
While we in North America have a distressing tendency to lump most of the inhabitants of the British Isles together, those living there are aware of their diversity. That awareness has been carried rather to extremes by some scholars and politicians. "What is a Celt?" has been a key question, as has been its follow-up "What really happened to the Celts?" Tied in with these queries is the problem of finding an origin for the Celts and just what language they spoke. Stephen Oppenheimer addresses these and related issues in a comprehensive "detective story" incorporating history, analytical genetics and linguistic studies. His conclusions, well depicted in this provocative study, will prove surprising to some, and perhaps distressing to a few.

The British Isles, he begins, have the advantage of being invaders of a "terra nullius" [uninhabited land] some fifteen thousand years ago. As the Last Glacial Maximum retreated before the rise of a revived warm period, humans were able to enter a land they'd been driven from thousands of years previously. While this situation offers nothing to the historian, archaeologists and geneticists have a clear starting point for placing and dating the migration. Not an island then, Britain was a peninsula jutting out from the European land mass. That provided an easy route from the Mediterranean shoreline, around what is now Iberia to the southern and western coasts of Britain. Since "western" here now means Eire, it's clear the first adjustment of opinion must accommodate Ireland and Britain. Clearly, there were later population movements, but where did they originate, how long did they last and what numbers of people were involved? Most significantly, what languages did they speak?

From his introductory survey, Oppenheimer proceeds to tease out the answers to these questions. The origins are traced back in time using genetic markers. Mitochondrial DNA, carried down the generations only through female inheritance factors provides one scenario. The Y chromosome, the genetic marker for men is analysed separately, then compared. In most, although not all cases, the matches are mutually supportive. Archaeological finds are used as further indicators which have the advantage of solid dating techniques to support them, unlike the DNA tests which rest on a calculation based on presumed mutation rates. The language question remains contentious. Oppenheimer links it with the spread of farming entering Europe from Anatolia introducing early forms of Celtic into Western Europe. The author's genetic analysis also overturns the idea that farmers "displaced" earlier hunter-gatherer societies in Europe and Britain. Instead, farming was adapted by the resident population and farmers' larger families added some population pressure, but hardly "displacement". The same holds true for the Roman occupation, which was more interested in social stability and tax collecting than genocide.

The post-Roman era has also led to the establishment of displacement myths and their more recent overturning. History, partly thanks to reliance on "Saint" Gildas, has stoked the fires of national sentiments by depicting the Angles and Saxons as a barbarian horde bent on ethnic cleansing of the indigenous "Celtic" peoples. Oppenheimer rejects this tradition, arguing instead that a "warrior elite" may have entered Britain, but this was a small population and a continuation of British-Continental ties in any case. Just who those "barbarians" were is problematic in any case, since the author sees ongoing contact with the Frisian and near shore of Europe rather than a conquering horde emerging from northern Germany. It is now generally accepted that the Norman "Conquest" was only slightly more intrusive than the Roman one, with an elite doing the ruling and the long-lasting indigenous population doing everything else like farming, herding and trading.

A major issue here is language. Linguists, Oppenheimer argues have been keen to avoid dating of language branching, mostly because early attempts came to grief. He goes so far as to separate "Celtic" populations from "celtic" languages. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a written base of celtic to use as a foundation. The Classical Period commentators in Greece and Rome wrote of "Celts" in a vague sort of way, and even a man on the ground, Julius Caesar was unable to make definitive comments about either the people or their languages. More precise cultural details were omitted entirely. Oppenheimer's path through the language issues is inevitably a tortured one, but he makes a serious effort at simplification. Whatever his success is due to a paucity of real data. For him, the genes speak louder than words. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Next time Stephen, check the text for errors before sending it to the publisher!, 20 Feb 2008
Stephen Oppenheimer should be ashamed of himself. There's interesting stuff trying to escape from his impossibly all-over-the-place, convoluted drafting, but I'm really looking forward to someone else writing a decent book on the subject.

Not least, the second of the three sections is an appalling mess. Where I used to work, if you'd sent out even the most initial, first, provisional draft to a close colleague in this state (repeated or near repeated paragraphs only a page or two apart, mis-labelled diagrams, etc) you'd have been taken out and shot. It isn't just that this middle section hasn't been proof read, the author doesn't appear to have done the barest minimum of reading it down for mistakes.

If I didn't know better, I'd think three sections had been written by different authors!

I also found myself thinking quite a bit about the tiny sample sizes.

That said, I am pretty much convinced by his central argument. However, it's more a matter of applying a bit of common sense to the random splatter of facts and quotes rather than as a result of persuasive, CLEAR argument on Oppenheimer's part. For goodness sake, the next time you set pen to paper, READ IT DOWN before publishing it!

Somewhat confused, 16 Oct 2004
First the good points. Jared Diamond writes excellently and makes some very good arguments, his humanity and morality is evident throughout the book. The later part of the book, which highlights many of the modern worlds more repugnant acts (especially on genocide) is a masterpiece in the critique of human barbarity and it's attempted justifications. Though there is no criticism of Israel's 'ethnic cleansing', which is a bit of a disappointment. Now for the criticism. Jared Diamond seems to have at best a rudimentary understanding of evolution and natural selection, and some of his statements don't stand up to even the most cursory reflection. For example he states 'The winner takes the losers land, sometimes also the losers women, and thus the loser's opportunity to perpetuate genes'. This seems to be a very male centered way to look at the facts (a common mistake throughout the book). It evident on even a moments reflection that the women so enslaved are the mothers, sisters and daughters of the loser and therefore carry the same genes. Again on convergent evolution (and the possibility of extra-terrestrial life) 'radio communication is one of those things that happens to have evolved here..'. When did radio communication evolve? It was discovered and developed through scientific experimentation but it hasn't evolved, not ever. Another inaccuracy is the statement 'Since evolutionary multiplications of species are very slow, natural extinctions must also be slow'. Jared Diamond seems to have an antiquated Neo-Darwinian view of evolution which doesn't stand up to the actual observations in the fossil record. He states that mass extinctions are rare events, but this is simply not true, there have been many mass extinctions, which are amply recorded in the fossil record. Mass extinctions occur when the environment changes dramatically and quickly, this has occurred many times. Ecological niches in those conditions remain open, and are usually filled very quickly by pre-adapted organisms (ie those which, by accident can survive the change in environment), which also very quickly adapt, through natural selection to their 'new' niche. These are well developed arguments first proposed by Niles Eldrige and Stephen Gould, which fit the observed fossil record perfectly. An adequate understanding of the theory of punctuated equilibrium is required for anyone who wants to venture into the world of evolution, and, unfortunately the very gifted and articulate Jared Diamond seems to score very poorly indeed.

Jared Diamond makes the cardinal sin of stating that 'the vulnerable species get eliminated quickly, and what we see persisting in nature are the robust combinations of species' this statement to me is arrant nonsense. During a dramatic change in environment, for example when Humans first colonised New Zealand, was it the robust species that survived? Well it depends how you define robust. Those species best adapted to life without human predators (ie the most robust in the original environment) weren't necessarily the same ones that were the 'most robust' after Human colonisation, the goalposts had been moved. This is the case with all mass extinctions. S those which were most robust after the colonisation had a pre-adaptive advantage (avoiding humans). But there was absolutely no way of any species 'deciding' to evolve 'avoidance of humans' just in case humans decided to come (none of the species knew of the existence of humans). This is the classic definition of pre-adaptation. It's the survival of the luckiest not survival of the fittest. It's the same with dinosaurs, they were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for well over 100 million years, far longer than mammals (which were around at the time of the dinosaurs) have been the dominant terrestrial vertebrates. So did they suddenly realize 'hey guys mammals are superior lets all die'. No some cataclysmic event (for the dinosaurs, anyway) occurred. Mammals were lucky enough to survive and then through selection occupied the niches vacated by the extinct dinosaurs. If that dramatic extinction) event had not occurred then there is no doubt that dinosaurs would still rule the world and mammals would still be the 'loser vertebrate. There's an old fashioned 'Victorian era' view of evolution as being 'progressive' which is just plain wrong (Jared Diamond falls into the trap when he infers that natural selection is the sole force behind evolution (ie speciation), but it is accepted that natural selection and at least one other force must be behind speciation events), in truth selection is adaptive, and only leads to speciation or evolution during special periods (like just after extinctions). The upshot is that during periods of equilibrium (ie no dramatic environmental catastrophes) then natural selection acts to keep species as they already are, that is already well adapted to their environment.

There are some other poorly argued points in the book. Jared Diamond correctly states that we should not look for 'evolutionary'- (whatever that's supposed to mean) reasons for all our behavioural of physical characteristics, but then goes on to do just that. He looks for selective reasons for all sorts of things, without ever explaining the genetic basis of pleiotropy, which is the fact that one gene can have two or even more effects. That is that a gene can exist for a given reason, but may manifest itself in another, apparently totally unrelated way. So people may have a characteristic for one reason, but be looking for the selective reason for a totally unrelated characteristic that the same gene confers upon us. Getting back to the male centered view of the book, he spends some time on the fact that human males have inordinately (relatively speaking) large penises compared to other apes. He concludes that it's for 'display purposes'!!!!! So it couldn't be due to the fact that human women may have selected for them because that way they have more fun then? Or that there seems to be 'no selective reason' for female infidelity (but plenty for men). So can't women have chosen one male as a 'rearer' and another as a 'donator of genes'. None of these not unreasonable explanations seem to have occurred to the 'male centered' Jared Diamond.

All these criticisms aside it's still a well written book with lots of humanity and much truth, It's only the selection/evolution bit's which lack any coherence.

A book to read to change your view of the world !, 26 Aug 2003
A book to recommend everyone who would like to know their place in the animal kingdom. There is only 2% difference between the chimpanzee, man's closest relative and us. Jared Diamond tries and largely succeeds in explaining this difference using science and philosophy and just plain logic.

Please read this book, it will help explain a lot about Man, his sexuality, his destructive properties, his creativity and the reasons why he has reached this point in evolution. He discusses adultery, the origin of art, the importance of language, addiction, genocide, the start of agriculture, the great leap forward when Man started to make a significant impact on planet earth and many other useful side topics. He gives us another definition of history. He makes us stand back from our everyday existence and see ourselves as perhaps we really are.

If you have an open mind and want to read a different viewpoint, read this book !

The best I found so far, 01 Jul 2003
All my life I have been curious about the world around me and what makes it tick. Evolution being one of the most important aspects of our learning about the nature, I've read a bit on the topic over the years. Now I am not a biologist, but I am a scientist and I can definitely tell when somebody is pulling things out of thin air just because they need to support a preconcieved picture. Most of the books I've read on the subject have been full of this (most notably Wright's The Moral Animal, whose author clearly lacks elementary scientific etics).
It is therefore with great pleasure that I can recommend Mr. Diamond's book as the first social evolution book that stood up to my requirements on intellectual honesty. Indeed, many of the claims from earlier books by social evolutionists, that I found rather wild and unsubstantiated, do not appear here and some are even refuted by Mr. Diamond as errors. As he did with his Guns, Germs and Steel, he pulls together strands from many branches of science to create a rich picture of human past, a picture which is reasonably well documented given how little we really do know and which fits together well. I found this book also better written and better ballanced than the Guns,..., which suffered from excessive political correctness that sometimes clouded the author's judgement. Here he almost avoided political correctness-related spins, and on the few occassions he did he made it clear that he does not take it too seriously, which just ties in with the overall honesty and precision of his exposition.
I enjoyed reading the book very much. It is very well written, often you even do not realize that you are learning new things and there are some genuinely funny places,