This ethnography is more like a film than a book; so well does Stoller evoke the color; sight; sounds; and movements of Songhay possession ceremonies.—Choice"Stoller brilliantly recreates the reality of spirit presence; hosts are what they mediate; and spirits become flesh and blood in the 'fusion' with human existence. . . . An excellent demonstration of the benefits of a new genre of ethnographic writing. It expands our understanding of the harsh world of Songhay mediums and sorcerers."—Bruce Kapferer; American Ethnologist"A vivid story that will appeal to a wide audience. . . . The voices of individual Songhay are evident and forceful throughout the story. . . . Like a painter; [Stoller] is concerned with the rich surface of things; with depicting images; evoking sensations; and enriching perceptions. . . . He has succeeded admirably." —Michael Lambek; American Anthropologist"Events (ceremonies and life histories) are evoked in cinematic style. . . . [This book is] approachable and absorbing—it is well written; uncluttered by jargon and elegantly structured."—Richard Fardon; Times Higher Education Supplement"Compelling; insightful; rich in ethnographic detail; and worthy of becoming a classic in the scholarship on Africa."—Aidan Southall; African Studies Review
#468157 in Books A T Olmstead 1959-02-15 1959-02-15Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.00 x 1.68 x 5.25l; 1.50 #File Name: 0226627772600 pagesHistory of the Persian Empire
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. ImpressiveBy Al SinghAn impressive work of scholarship. The author is at great pains to show that the Persians were every bit as civilized as the Greeks; yet even he acknowledges that most of what we know about them comes from Greek historians. Yet even so; the Greeks come off rather worse by comparison in this historian's analysis. Olmstead sees the Persians as noble; honorable; and generous; the Greeks as brutal; dishonest; perfidious; and rapacious. He has some choice words to say about Alexander's behavior at Persepolis; and while he acknowledges that the Persians could not achieve victory over the Greeks on the battlefield; he points out that they could easily buy it with gold. If the Persians had written more about themselves; the western tradition might not be so biased in favor of the Greeks; but fortunately for themselves and for western civilization; the Greeks were prolific writers; while the Persians seemed to have used writing chiefly for business transactions. Hence a noble race is silent.3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. A classic account of Persian HistoryBy David V. ReadyThe encyclical accounting of the Persian Empire. Olmstead was the first author to give an account of the Persians from their perspective. He begins well before Cyrus the Great and runs through the entire Achaemenid period recounting the conquest and administration of the empire until its demise by Alexander's onslaught. Olmstead goes into exceptional detail in giving accounts of the inscriptions and palace mural carvings at the ruins of Persepolis and other locales. His account of Zoroaster is also noteworthy from a liturgical perspective; though the dating of Zoroaster's life has changed since Olmstead passed away in 1945. Overall; a fantastic exposure to the Persian Empire. Best read in conjunction with one or two later works to optimally digest newer discoveries and conclusions.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. ExcellentBy Stanley C. SargentI read this book in 1979 just before traveling to Iran. Once there; my Iranian friend and I traveled from the Shomal (the northern border of Iran on the Caspian Sea) nearly to the southern border; stopping at many of the sites I'd learned about while reading this book. My traveling companion learned more about his own country's history from me than he'd learned while getting a PhD; and I have this book to thank for that. It is very detailed and comprehensive; but it isn't a boring read for anyone with a real interest in the subject. Highly recommended! The book's only real shortcoming is the paucity of photos; the few it contains are small; not terribly clear and black white.
