This book argues for a global perspective on ancient history, emphasizing its lasting impact on modern life and advocating for a more inclusive approach beyond the traditional focus on Greece and Rome.

This book is largely academic in that it focuses a lot on definitions: What is ancient? What is medieval? How do we handle to discontinuities of different cultures developing technologies at different rates? If that sounds boring, IT IS. It wouldn’t be boring if it were way less detailed and redundant. The problem, I think, is that the author treats these questions as arguments rather than as the gentle unfolding of information. The tone of the book is, “I’m right and everything that’s come before me is wrong,” and the author then carefully cherry-picks strawman examples to knock down. In fact, academia has been taking a multicultural approach to ancient history for decades. This is not a new phenomenon.

I feel like this book is more about rhetoric than it is about humanity. The result is an unengaging word salad. I’ve listened to about 25% of the book, and my mind keeps wandering—to the point that none of it is getting through. (Compare that to “The Dawn of Everything” by David Graeber and David Wengrow, which I could not put down. I was recommending it to people even before I finished it.) The author of this book doesn’t use a storytelling style—instead, the book reads like an academic journal article. No one outside of academia wants to read journal articles. Fortunately, the narration is well done and increases the readability of the book.

There’s good information in this book, but there’s a lot of nonsense, too. When I spend more time rolling my eyes than I do nodding in agreement, that’s not a good sign. I’ve not given up on this book yet…but it’s not looking good.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

[2.5 stars rounded down]

<i> What is Ancient History </i> is Scheidel’s history of how Greece and Rome came to be the only civilizations that are included in discussions of and classes on “ancient history”, how universities have continuously divided and subdivided the humanities so far as to limit the study of ancient history, and his arguments as to what should be done about it. A concise, clearly written book that I had to struggle to remain interested in, which is strange because I enjoy all of the topics within it?

I think you would get a lot more out of this book if you are currently in or have been in the fields of classics, anthropology, ancient history, or any [location] studies/history courses, as the author discusses how these categories came to be over the last few centuries. The language is not at all overly-scholarly, his recounts of the history are thorough, his arguments are sound and easy to follow. It definitely seems like it would still be relevant and interesting whether you're just taking a few classes to fill your humanities credits or are deeper into the field.

I expected this book to be a look into what is missing from what the average person learns about ancient history in school as well as a showcasing of just how much that has limited the field. I agree that it is lazy and limiting to study ancient civilizations without acknowledging their neighbors beyond them. Once I got more into it to see what the book was more about, I was still hopeful that I would enjoy it.

I most enjoyed a lot of the second chapter and how he explains the reasons for Europe's/Germany’s obsession with finding a past to model on and choosing the Greeks rather than Egypt, the Biblical history, or anything else that they could have chosen. This specifically was designed to be a deep dive, down to mentioning specific papers and the journals they were published in by influential people in this development. There were some slow sections, but I enjoyed the information overall. It is a very interesting topic that I had no idea went back so far, and it is especially fun to compare some of the two-hundred-plus quotes he lists about Greece as the start of Western civilization to the same things I remember reading in my high school readings less than a decade ago.

For me, as someone who has never been in or ever had a deep-dive into any of these fields specifically, I really struggled to stay interested. There are only so many times I can hear his argument that “different institutions across Europe adopted the practice of separating Greece and Rome from other ancient cultures and putting them on a pedestal. This was a mistake.” before my eyes glazed over. It’s a shame, because I enjoy how Scheidel writes these accounts and appreciate the depth he goes into, but I felt like there was constant needless recounting of this, and other, arguments. As someone with little skin in the matter, it was like hearing about issues in a foreign country from a resident there. Like, yes I understand why what you are saying is good, is good, and why what you are saying is bad, is bad, but I lack any context to think beyond the surface of these arguments or build off of them. A me problem, yes 100%, but this is very different from what I was expecting going into the book and it hindered my enjoyment of it.

I don’t at all think that reading this book was a waste of time, despite my lack of enjoyment. I think that the arguments he makes are valid and that he leaves us on a good point. I also think that Scheidel is a great writer throughout this book and, to the right audience, this would be a favorite of theirs. But for me, the constant need to make his cases as well as the ceaseless repetition prevented any real enjoyment from me while reading.

What Is Ancient History takes how we usually look at history and delves deeper into the unknown areas. Places and events that are largely forgotten, overlooked, or purposefully written out of history are discussed here in detail. He argues for looking at the world beyond the ancient Greeks and Romans, to restore what has been lost over the decades. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in history. The audiobook narrator was interesting, voice was suited for the story, and kept me interested in the entire book.