Scan barcode
jasonfurman's review against another edition
3.0
This book addresses the question of why the neanderthals died out while homo sapiens survived. It rejects the genetic superiority of the later and is scathing on the thesis that homo sapiens played a causal role in the extinction of the neanderthals. Instead, Finlayson argues that the main culprit was the cooling climate. Moreover, he argues that this development disproportionately affected the somewhat more successful neanderthals because they were more used to one way of life, rather than the more marginal and thus more innovative homo sapiens. The analogy he offers is a study in Gibraltar that found that rich families suffered less from diseases from poor water. But when there was a drought and everyone had to drink dirty water the poor survived (because they were resistant) while the rich suffered comparatively more.
It is a somewhat interesting thesis, although marred by the suspicion that one politically motivated narrative (conquest by the superior homo sapiens) is just being replaced with another (climate change combined with a form of moral relativism). The evidence for the later seems thin, especially given the many large climatic changes that took place over the approximately 500,000 years since homo sapiens and neanderthals split off from each other.
As for the writing, two complaints: (1) the author is prone to grandiose statements about how this book differs from the previous literature (e.g., he finds the rejection of the "Out of Africa" hypothesis particularly important, even though he just replaces it with the observation that the eurasian zone was geographically and climatically contiguous with Africa). (2) the first third/half of the book is an uninspired retelling of evolution through about 50,000 years ago.
All of this aside, Finlayson hits his stride in the second half of the book when he focuses on the period from 50,000 years ago (when neanderthals were in Europe but homo sapiens were not) to 10,000 years ago (the end of the last ice age and the invention of agriculture). This is presented with a reasonable amount of detail and grounding in the original scholarly material, to which Finlayson is a contributor.
It is a somewhat interesting thesis, although marred by the suspicion that one politically motivated narrative (conquest by the superior homo sapiens) is just being replaced with another (climate change combined with a form of moral relativism). The evidence for the later seems thin, especially given the many large climatic changes that took place over the approximately 500,000 years since homo sapiens and neanderthals split off from each other.
As for the writing, two complaints: (1) the author is prone to grandiose statements about how this book differs from the previous literature (e.g., he finds the rejection of the "Out of Africa" hypothesis particularly important, even though he just replaces it with the observation that the eurasian zone was geographically and climatically contiguous with Africa). (2) the first third/half of the book is an uninspired retelling of evolution through about 50,000 years ago.
All of this aside, Finlayson hits his stride in the second half of the book when he focuses on the period from 50,000 years ago (when neanderthals were in Europe but homo sapiens were not) to 10,000 years ago (the end of the last ice age and the invention of agriculture). This is presented with a reasonable amount of detail and grounding in the original scholarly material, to which Finlayson is a contributor.
gon8go's review against another edition
2.0
the cover and title of this book are misleading. If you are looking for a book about Neanderthals this isn't really it; there are really only a couple of chapters specifically about them. mostly he gets up on a soap box about how anthropologists have it all wrong and draw quick conclusions from very little actual data.
He feels(based on suspiciously little data) that instead of neandetthal ancestors coming from africa 300,000 yrars ago and our ancestors coming from africa 50,000 years ago that there were different migrations and small pockets of dead-end evolutionare experiments all over europe. He also feels that instead of our ancestors wiping out neanderthals because of superior ability, it was pure luck that we lived and not them. the thrust of his arguement was that neanderthals were stalking hunters that would hunt one animal at a time and need no help from a large community. light projectile weapons were useless to them because of all the trees where they lived.
On the flip side our ancestors adapted to the open steppe (huge grassy plains that covered europe) and hunted in packs like wolves. they needed projectiles and large communities to survive. so as the ice age made the woods smaller and the steppe bigger, neanderthals were pushed out. if it would have warmed instead it may have been us being studied by them today. only because of random chance. he ends on a cynical note saying that eventually our kind will die out too and something else will take our place.
He feels(based on suspiciously little data) that instead of neandetthal ancestors coming from africa 300,000 yrars ago and our ancestors coming from africa 50,000 years ago that there were different migrations and small pockets of dead-end evolutionare experiments all over europe. He also feels that instead of our ancestors wiping out neanderthals because of superior ability, it was pure luck that we lived and not them. the thrust of his arguement was that neanderthals were stalking hunters that would hunt one animal at a time and need no help from a large community. light projectile weapons were useless to them because of all the trees where they lived.
On the flip side our ancestors adapted to the open steppe (huge grassy plains that covered europe) and hunted in packs like wolves. they needed projectiles and large communities to survive. so as the ice age made the woods smaller and the steppe bigger, neanderthals were pushed out. if it would have warmed instead it may have been us being studied by them today. only because of random chance. he ends on a cynical note saying that eventually our kind will die out too and something else will take our place.
msgtdameron's review against another edition
4.0
The take away from Who Went Extinct is: it's good to be poor when the crisis hits. Finlayson shows that species that live in edge areas do better and become the dominate species when environment becomes tougher. In other words, if you make a living in the central areas of an environment, when that environment changes it is harder for you to adapt strategies from the core or more abundant area to the new environment. If you live on the edge when the environment changes it is easier for you to adapt strategies to the new environment and, when necessary, to invent new strategies to survive.
Finlayson points to example after example of adaptations that if the environment went a different way would have actually been detrimental to survival. He also started with an example from Gibraltar. Another Anthropologist, friend of Finlayson, did a study of the Gibraltar population from 1704 until the present. 1704 the British seized "The Rock" and kept detailed records of births, deaths marriages, rainfall, property etc. The findings were interesting. In times of plenty the poor died at a fairly steady rate and had a certain percentage of each age group die each year also at a steady rate. The rich and middle class had lower death rates during the same times of plenty. The hitch came when drought hit. The expectation was that the poor death rate would get higher as would the middle and upper classes. But, the poor death rate stayed the same as during the times of plenty while the middle and upper classes death rate skyrocketed. I'll let you read the book for the more in depth discussion. The short version is that the poor were more readily adapted to living on poor water, food, and ground. The rest of the book shows why this is true through out history.
This is an important thought or fact as the world heads into a climate that is getting hotter and the center areas will become smaller and smaller while edge areas become larger and larger. Many will not survive if they can only make a living in core areas. This is most of what we call civilization.
Finlayson points to example after example of adaptations that if the environment went a different way would have actually been detrimental to survival. He also started with an example from Gibraltar. Another Anthropologist, friend of Finlayson, did a study of the Gibraltar population from 1704 until the present. 1704 the British seized "The Rock" and kept detailed records of births, deaths marriages, rainfall, property etc. The findings were interesting. In times of plenty the poor died at a fairly steady rate and had a certain percentage of each age group die each year also at a steady rate. The rich and middle class had lower death rates during the same times of plenty. The hitch came when drought hit. The expectation was that the poor death rate would get higher as would the middle and upper classes. But, the poor death rate stayed the same as during the times of plenty while the middle and upper classes death rate skyrocketed. I'll let you read the book for the more in depth discussion. The short version is that the poor were more readily adapted to living on poor water, food, and ground. The rest of the book shows why this is true through out history.
This is an important thought or fact as the world heads into a climate that is getting hotter and the center areas will become smaller and smaller while edge areas become larger and larger. Many will not survive if they can only make a living in core areas. This is most of what we call civilization.
rebel_rocketman's review against another edition
4.0
This was an excellent overview of early human history, covering everything from the evolution of the hominids until the beginnings of the agricultural "revolution", and gives some pretty fascinating insights on the relationships between humans and the various aspects of the world they encountered. The author also goes into considerable speculative depth as to what it means to truly be "human", regarding the various species within genus Homo (ancestral humans, Neanderthals, etc) as all possessing not only intelligence, but also conscience, symbolism, and higher thought, and seeks to dispel the common view that other humans were somehow "less human" than homo sapiens. While written in a somewhat "scientific" style that isn't as easily accessible as other popular science works on the subject, this book presents a unique and profoundly thought provoking insight on the development of humanity. The author, himself an archaeologist, draws on a wealth of archaeological evidence and scientific publications, and includes an impressive bibliography.
Despite thoroughly enjoying the read, I did feel vaguely unsatisfied with the way the book ended, feeling like there was no definite conclusion to everything I'd read. The subtitle ("Why Neanderthals Died Out and We Survived") is also somewhat misleading, as Neanderthals are really not the primary focus of the book at all, but rather the development of our own species and the unique ways we managed to survive while our predecessors - any and all of them - did not. However, this was still an excellent work and very much worth my time.
Despite thoroughly enjoying the read, I did feel vaguely unsatisfied with the way the book ended, feeling like there was no definite conclusion to everything I'd read. The subtitle ("Why Neanderthals Died Out and We Survived") is also somewhat misleading, as Neanderthals are really not the primary focus of the book at all, but rather the development of our own species and the unique ways we managed to survive while our predecessors - any and all of them - did not. However, this was still an excellent work and very much worth my time.
evelikesbooks's review against another edition
4.0
Lots of good info. A little slow in places, but still interesting. Apparently it's all down to luck, which is kinda obvious if you think about it.
archytas's review against another edition
3.0
This book is an attempt to replicate the approach of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, to explain why 'Cro-Magnon' survived and Neanderthals didn't. It's an interesting idea, and I really wish it had worked better than it did.
The book is lush with climate and geographic description and explanation, and it felt close to palaeontology works (non-human) I've read in approach - assuming as a start point that evolutionary adaptation happens in response to specific environments. It was very helpful for gaining a greater understanding of the climate of prehistory.
This is a welcome change from "we evolved to hunt and gather and have teh sex". But partly, it isn't all totally convincing. This is, in part, that a core premise - that contact between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon was limited and had no impact on our genetic development - is looking very shaky from evidence found since this book was published. Ironically, the same findings actually strengthen one of Finlayson's key contentions - that the story of modern humans' origins is more complex than just "we migrated out of Africa in a couple of waves".
One thing that drove me particularly nuts, however, was the euro-centrist approach. Despite extensive discussion of the cave art in Europe, for example, he fails to even mention Australian cave art's existence. It's hard not suspect that this is in part, because his thesis that key evolutionary progress was enabled by specific conditions in Central Asia doesn't well explain why humans are so similar across Australasia, Africa and the descendants of those who migrated out towards Europe. Finlayson tends to explain this by referring to the great opportunities posed by the "open and empty" Australian continent when the first people arrived, but that's not explained any further (nor why it was more open or empty than anywhere else). It left me wanting very badly to read a book examining the journey and genetic evidence of any peoples not part of the Europe/Central Asia/Americas wave.
Finlayson writes engagingly, and interestingly enough, comes across as very likeable. I think I would enjoy his other works on areas he is expert in, and which may not be trying so hard to work. This one just didn't entirely come off for me.
The book is lush with climate and geographic description and explanation, and it felt close to palaeontology works (non-human) I've read in approach - assuming as a start point that evolutionary adaptation happens in response to specific environments. It was very helpful for gaining a greater understanding of the climate of prehistory.
This is a welcome change from "we evolved to hunt and gather and have teh sex". But partly, it isn't all totally convincing. This is, in part, that a core premise - that contact between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon was limited and had no impact on our genetic development - is looking very shaky from evidence found since this book was published. Ironically, the same findings actually strengthen one of Finlayson's key contentions - that the story of modern humans' origins is more complex than just "we migrated out of Africa in a couple of waves".
One thing that drove me particularly nuts, however, was the euro-centrist approach. Despite extensive discussion of the cave art in Europe, for example, he fails to even mention Australian cave art's existence. It's hard not suspect that this is in part, because his thesis that key evolutionary progress was enabled by specific conditions in Central Asia doesn't well explain why humans are so similar across Australasia, Africa and the descendants of those who migrated out towards Europe. Finlayson tends to explain this by referring to the great opportunities posed by the "open and empty" Australian continent when the first people arrived, but that's not explained any further (nor why it was more open or empty than anywhere else). It left me wanting very badly to read a book examining the journey and genetic evidence of any peoples not part of the Europe/Central Asia/Americas wave.
Finlayson writes engagingly, and interestingly enough, comes across as very likeable. I think I would enjoy his other works on areas he is expert in, and which may not be trying so hard to work. This one just didn't entirely come off for me.