Book: Guns, Germs and Steel

[keith]

His thesis was "People in those areas were no less clever/intelligent/brave/capable etc. than people in Europe and Asia". If so, why did they not domesticate animals like the Europeans?

well they did domesticate the animals that could be domesticated - the problem was an absence of domesticatable animals not an unwillingness to domesticate. Whether this mattered is another matter; the Aztec nation was some 20 million plus in population despite an absence of pack animals.

And the whole "Eurasia is long east to west, Africa and South America north to west" premise also struck me as not having been sufficiently justified as a cause of an effect.

what you mean that the climate of Iraq and somerset doesn't strike you as similar?

Again, he had some interesting ideas, but I have a hard time accepting his conclusions based on the theories he presented. He wants to make geography the whole story, and that's a bit too reductionistic for me...

The hardest one for me is pathogens from domesticated animals. The one that is always mentioned is Smallpox but that has no animal host which is why it can be eradicated. Things like influenza that can jump hosts are devastating regardless of how much time you spend with your pigs - there is no partial protection. Then on the other hand most of south america and africa have quite a rich parasitic fauna - something europe lacks. Just don't buy it.

Then of course if Cortez had turned up five years earlier or later his initial reception would have been very different.

[Inquartata]

well they did domesticate the animals that could be domesticated - the problem was an absence of domesticatable animals not an unwillingness to domesticate

I don't buy this. I mentioned elephants and water buffalo, which were domesticated in Asia but not in Africa. The Lapps herded reindeer, so why not the Aleuts and Inuit, and why not other similar animals? Plus, how do we determine which animals are and are not domesticable? We may just not have been trying long enough; it probably took centuries of breeding and association with humans to achieve in some species, and that some moderns have tried for a few years to domesticate, say, zebras does not strike me as great proof that it just can't be done and never could...I mean, look at cats...how easy can THEY have been to tame?

Plus, one way or another humans first reached the New World from the Old...where animals were domesticated. So it's not as though the concept was a completely foreign one. ( And for that matter why didn't they bring already domesticated breeds with them? )

[keith]

I don't buy this.

oh go on; yours at an absolute bargain price. Free Shipping!!

I swear I'm losing money on every one.

[Schiavona]

There's a Military History book, "Carnage and Culture" that attempts to explain why Europeans kick butt all over the world. One point brought up is that every country with a military today follows the Western model. Other cultures have/had explorers and colonies, the West just seems to have better military skills.

[Moses]

Then some of the conclusions depended on unspoken premises which were none too well explored. Like: people in Europe and Asia developed immunities to diseases because they lived with domesticated animals. New World, Australian and sub-Saharan African peoples didn't have domesticated animals, thus didn't develop the immunities, and were vulnerable to European microbes. OK, fine, but---WHY didn't they domesticate animals? There were certainly animals around that could have BEEN domesticated. Take Africa. Why was the water buffalo never domesticated? It was in Asia. So was the elephant. There are doglike creatures in South America. Capybaras. Etc. So why was only the llama used? And why wasn't it lived with in the same way household beasts were elsewhere in the world?

Actually, that episode (and others) did address some of your concerns.

1) The show focused on large animals which could be used for muscle power, because the labor of animals made food-growing less time consuming, allowing people to do other things for their groups (a strong agricultural minority which is able to sustain non-farmers within their group is the base of the definition of civilization). The capibara does not have a lot of muscle power necessary for use as a farm tool (neither do most breeds of dogs).

2) The capibara is a water-loving creature. It needs to live near a river or lake to get at its preferred foods. Animals which need specific environments are not very versatile (you can take a cow anywhere where there is enough vegetation, or in the case of urban India, cardboard and other cellulose trash, but a creature that spends 50% of its life in water is not useful unless you spend that much time there, too). This is why man has never domesticated the hippo (The aurochs were fierce creatures before we made them cows, dontchaknow, but they didn't need a specialized environment.).

3) South America had 1 large domesticated animal: the llama, which was used for limited labor, but mostly for meat and wool. South America also had a smaller domesticate used for food: guinea pigs. But guinea pigs can't be used for plowing. Small flightless birds were also herded for their feathers but again, that's of limited use. The point is, there are no cows in South America (or North, for that matter).

4) Elephants are /not/ domesticated because they are inefficient (long time to mature and give birth, very large size). In Asia they are tamed. In Africa they were once tamed, as well (Hannibal's war elephants, remember?). But Hannibal's elephants were the extinct Forest Elephant species, which was small and easy to tame after capture. African elephants are considerably larger and more agressive than Asian elephants (they tend to take control in mixed-breed zoo enclosures). Africa did domesticat the cow, by the way, according to some researchers (the critical word is 'some').

Also, all the 'water buffalo' in Africa are domesticated imports from Asia. Those big, dark-colored, long-horned bovids we see on "Nature" and "National Geographic" are cape buffalo (apparently they're not very closely related). Cape buffalo prefer wide open spaces where they are constantly threatened by large predators (mainly lions). Wild water buffalo in Asia mostly live in forests or pastures lined by woods. They have less large predators in most of their habitats and were easier to tame because they were less 'flighty'.

More importantly, cape buffalo migrate, which is something that interferes with domestication unless you follow the same routes. Water buffalo do not migrate.

5) Llamas are grazing animals that prefer rocky cliffs where they feel safe. Mountain goats are not domesticated, but their plains relatives are. They are native to West Asia, where grain could be grown to feed the goats. There are no grains native to South America (except potatoes, which llamas won't eat). Pigs (which were the intermediary that gave us flu, orignally an avian disease) don't need a huge amount of territory if they have everything they need before them (someone to feed them slop, shade and maybe a mud wallow). Goats, pigs and other animals could live close to people because their needs could be fulfilled with the resources their masters had around them.

And in the ancient times, the resources you had depended on your GEOGRAPHY.

Yes, Inq, you're very right that that PBS episode was quite lacking. Most of the stuff above was stuff I had already known or found out later and connected with Diamond's thesis. But it was a TV show, and one can't expect to understand everything about a certain topic from a TV show, even one on PBS.

-Da Mose

[Schiavona]

I don't buy this. I mentioned elephants and water buffalo, which were domesticated in Asia but not in Africa. The Lapps herded reindeer, so why not the Aleuts and Inuit, and why not other similar animals? Plus, how do we determine which animals are and are not domesticable? We may just not have been trying long enough; it probably took centuries of breeding and association with humans to achieve in some species, and that some moderns have tried for a few years to domesticate, say, zebras does not strike me as great proof that it just can't be done and never could...I mean, look at cats...how easy can THEY have been to tame?

Good point. Though, the North African cultures did domesticate some animals. Carthage had elephants and Egypt had leopards.

Why didn't the other CircmPolar cultures domesticate caribou/reindeer? They domesticated dogs.

[Inquartata]

oh go on; yours at an absolute bargain price. Free Shipping!!

I swear I'm losing money on every one.

No, no, I already have a garage full!

[Moses]

Good point. Though, the North African cultures did domesticate some animals. Carthage had elephants and Egypt had leopards.

Why didn't the other CircmPolar cultures domesticate caribou/reindeer? They domesticated dogs.

Guys, you're confusing taming with domestication.

Mankind has never domesticated the leopard or the lion and house done a pretty crappy job with the housecat (unless you've made your kitty obese, it really could survive quite dandily without you).

Domesticated animals are those creatures which we have adopted into our environments and bred selectively to suit our needs.

There are hundreds of different breeds of cows in Europe which existed before the Industrial Revolution. Some were big and stocky for meat production, others were bred to produce more milk. They're domesticated.

Domesticated goat species have very short horns compared to their ancestors, and have fuller bodies and more efficient milk producing organs.

Most pigs have very little hair compared to their ancestor, the Eurasian boar, as well as significantly smaller tusks and fatter bellies.

Mankind has never done anything to directly alter the leopard or elephant. Even if your pet tiger has a kitten that baby is still not domesticated because it's essentially the same as its parents.

Now if you bred for a certain color or (more importantly) behavioral pattern over several generations, you might start something (in Russia one farm bred foxes /solely/ for tameness, and less than a dozen generations later had foxes which were phenotypically VERY different than their wild progenitors).

-Da Mose

[Schiavona]

Guys, you're confusing taming with domestication.

Doesn't domestication start by taming, then breeding animals?

Mankind has never tamed the leopard

Wrong, cubs taken before they "open their eyes" can be tamed and trained to hunt. Not as easily as cheetas, but it can be done and was.

[Moses]

Woops! Sorry, I meant "man has never domesticated the leopard".

Fix-ed.

-Da Mose

[Moses]

Doesn't domestication start by taming, then breeding animals?

Yes, but all in vivo births start as a parasitic attachment to the uterus of a human mother. You wouldn't characterize your entire life by that, would you (and if you would, well, I can't help you with that)?

And domestication is only domestication if it results in:
"...animals...which we have adopted into our environments and [been] bred selectively to suit our needs."

-Da Mose

[Schiavona]

Just picking nits, Mose.

I always thought domestication started with one guy (or girl) having a bright idea that turn out to be of such overwhelming benefit that everybody wants in. Like cell phones.

What would be the benefit of trying to domesticate Cape Buffs be? You'd have to be crazy to try! I'll wait till somebody else does it......

[Inquartata]

The show focused on large animals which could be used for muscle power...The capibara does not have a lot of muscle power necessary for use as a farm tool (neither do most breeds of dogs).

This is where selective breeding comes in. The horses that were originally domesticated were not much larger than llamas, more like ponies---and until the invention of the horse collar millenia later were not much use in tilling the land. They were bred up to size over time. Why were not animals elsewhere so bred up?

Dogs were used as burden-beasts by the Plains Indians. Why not elsewhere?

2) The capibara is a water-loving creature. It needs to live near a river or lake to get at its preferred foods.

The Mexico City of Aztec times was fed by tilling an enormous system of floating gardens, canal-laced plots reclaimed from the lakes, etc. Water and waterways were quite plentiful.

This is why man has never domesticated the hippo

Well, that and the fact that they're irascible, dangerous creatures and not much use out of the water.

Small flightless birds were also herded for their feathers but again, that's of limited use.

And why were no birds developed into the equivalent of the chicken, to be used for eggs and meat, living in close conjuction with humans? One suspect that chickens started out as wild birds of marginal use as well...but were bred for useful traits. Why did not the equally-smart, equally-resourceful New Worlders do the same?

The point is, there are no cows in South America (or North, for that matter).

There are deer, elk, moose and antelope, though. There are tapirs, peccary...

Wild water buffalo in Asia mostly live in forests or pastures lined by woods. They have less large predators in most of their habitats

Don't they have tigers there?

There are no grains native to South America (except potatoes, which llamas won't eat).

Er---maize was native to Mexico and Central America. There was also a form of wild rice in North America, and in South America there were ( according to a quick web search ) three other native grains, called kaniwa, kiwicha and quinoa, though they are broad-leaved plants rather than grasses. And a true grass cereal, Bromus mango, was cultivated until the introduction of wheat from abroad.

Anyway, one of the other points of the theory is that Eurasians cultivated wild grasses INTO grains by selective breeding. Why didn't New Worlders?

And---Africa certainly had cereal grains, did it not?

[Moses]

Once again, Inq, you do not disappoint. You always manage to fill a watercooler thread with just the right atmosphere of well thought out explication and condescension that gets me all fired up.

Unfortunately, it's been a long day, so I might not be worthy of thise challenge, but whatever.

This is where selective breeding comes in. The horses that were originally domesticated were not much larger than llamas, more like ponies---and until the invention of the horse collar millenia later were not much use in tilling the land. They were bred up to size over time. Why were not animals elsewhere so bred up?

People in other places of the world
a) had no creatures which could reasonably fit those which humans needed filling. To use the horse example: yes it took a long time for the horse to work the plow, but the original purpose of the horse was to be ridden (so far as we know). But if you have an animal which is, in practice, useless to you except for a quick meal (say, a lizard or rat), would you invest your time trying to domesticate those creatures or tell your son to do the same when that creature will be no good to you for several generations?
b) simply didn't think of it. One could argue here that possibility is proof that more ingenuity sat in Asia and Europe than anywhere else in the world, but that illusory. When people were confronted with a problem they found a way to cope. Someone said to themselves, "I'll make that cow do it for me." Someone somewhere else said, "I'll build a better tool for digging."
One method ultimately proved more advantageous than the other, but both hypothetical people have come up with a working solution to their problems.

Dogs were used as burden-beasts by the Plains Indians. Why not elsewhere?

Need. The plains Indians were nomadic. They needed a medium-sized, robust breed of dog to carry their stuff around. A big dog won't help you maneuver through dense rainforests, and won't be needed as a burden animal if you stay at home.

The Mexico City of Aztec times was fed by tilling an enormous system of floating gardens, canal-laced plots reclaimed from the lakes, etc. Water and waterways were quite plentiful.

You're talking about one urban center. The Aztecs were a fairly large culture spread over many different land types, not all of which was near fresh water. Do you think that the leaders of the Aztecs thought "hmmm, we live in a pretty wet place. Let's import some water-rats, domesticate them over 50 years so they can feed and clothe us despite the fact they have no use to people who live far away from water!"?
Domestication does not (or rather, did not) occur because some king or emperor declares it should occur. It happened because some rural people thought animals were the best way to solve a particular problem, and then the idea and the animals spread.

Well, that and the fact that they're irascible, dangerous creatures and not much use out of the water.

Um, the purpose of the paragraph preceeding that line was to explicate those points.

And why were no birds developed into the equivalent of the chicken, to be used for eggs and meat, living in close conjuction with humans? One suspect that chickens started out as wild birds of marginal use as well...but were bred for useful traits. Why did not the equally-smart, equally-resourceful New Worlders do the same?

One simply does not breed useful traits 'into' a creature. Humans amplify what is already there: speed, strength, herding instinct or a desire to protect. They also had to have traits that made them somewhat easy to keep. For example, all domestic fowl and their wild ancestors fed on the ground. That made them easier to keep track of than birds which had to fly up into the trees for food. That eliminates a large swath of possible bird species right there, because many, many birds do not feed on the ground. Also, like all food and labor domesticates, they'd have to be herbivores or omnivores which can easily subsist on mostly plant material. Another huge swath of possible bird species. Again, they would have trouble if they needed a specific habitat not generally compatible with most humans (although some species of ducks have been domesticated in cultures living near water). They have to be non-migratory, so that removes another large group of birds. And, of course, they have to produce meat or eggs in enough quantities to justify the labor put into them (although, as you suggested, those traits would be bred for selectively over time, there had to be a logical reason for people to attempt to keep them and breed them in a the first place).
And the progenitor for all modern chickens was found in New Guinea, one the supposed "have not" countries, and certainly not anywhere near Europe. Ingenuity...?

There are deer, elk, moose and antelope, though. There are tapirs, peccary...

Forest and open pasture whitetails could be herded. They are herded now, but not domesticated. Mule deer would be more difficult considering their terrain.
However, moose are a different proposition. Moose are solitary creatures. Humans don't typically domesticate large solitary creatures. Look at the list:

Agricultural animals:
Water buffalo (herds)
Cows (herds)
Yaks (herds)
Goats (herds)
Camels (herds)
Llamas (herds)
Reindeer (herds)
Pigs (sounders)

Small animals:
Chickens (harems dominated by a rooster)

Non-agricultural animals:
Dogs (packs)

An animal with a group psychology are easier to control, because one can take advantage of the tendency to have a single dominant creature/alpha male/whatever. Moose like their privacy and are violent when they are bothered. It's hard to domesticate that in the first place, and in the second, how do you effectively keep together a hundred or so animals which like to keep to themselves?
Another problem with domesticating animals like elk and deer are their very well defined ruts. A male in rut is hard to control. Hundreds of males in rut would be very difficult. That's why these animals are not domesticated.
But you pointed to the reindeer herders in Eurasia. These animals live in the wide open plains. They are not as strictly controlled as cows. They are allowed to roam with the guidance of humans. When humans want bone, meat, hide or sinew from their reindeer they kill one or two. Really, the natural processes which the reindeer would follow otherwise have no been changed (in North America, contemporary reindeer herders often lose hundreds of head as they run off with wild caribou). 'Domesticated' reindeer and wild caribou are the same species and behaviorally the same animal.
Also, elk feel secure hiding in forests or in rocky areas. Herding them in the same manner as reindeer would be very difficult, and contrary to their psychology (as opposed to domesticates, where human beings take advantage of the animal's tendencies).
Peccaries eat fruits and plants which are not cultivated but rather grow slowly in the wild. They would more like be herded than domesticated proper. Why they were not, I wonder (perhaps they were, I just don't know).
Tapirs love the water and feel safest in it. Their preferred foods grow in or near water. Dryland tapirs are rare and often seek out water, anyway. We've already discussed why water is a problem.

Don't they have tigers there?

Except for large males, cape buffalo tend to run away from predators. Mature water buffalo are too big for a tiger to handle, and they like to fight back. Furthermore, tigers are solitary hunters, which means they lack the advantage of attacking their prey from multiple angles which lions have. A water buffalo doesn't need to be as edgy as cape buffalo.

Er---maize was native to Mexico and Central America. There was also a form of wild rice in North America, and in South America there were ( according to a quick web search ) three other native grains, called kaniwa, kiwicha and quinoa, though they are broad-leaved plants rather than grasses. And a true grass cereal, Bromus mango, was cultivated until the introduction of wheat from abroad.

I stand corrected.

Anyway, one of the other points of the theory is that Eurasians cultivated wild grasses INTO grains by selective breeding. Why didn't New Worlders?

Well, like I said, the concept of need combined with the information you provided above. If they had something else on which to subsist, why would they need to grow anything else?

-Da Mose

[mrbiggs]

Inquartata, just so you know, nearly all of your questions were answered in the book. I've never seen it, but your description makes it sound like the PBS special skipped alot of parts of the book.

[Inquartata]

I'm sure it must have done---books are by far the more concentrated medium. And TV wants the entertainment value of dressing guys up as Spaniards and Incas and having them fight battles, etc. Which takes time away from the presentation of information...

[Inquartata]

People in other places of the world
a) had no creatures which could reasonably fit those which humans needed filling.

I still disagree with this premise. Man is supreme at adapting his environments to himself rather than the other way around. Given the motivation and the inventiveness, I do not see why prehistoric man could adapt creatures found in one area but not those in another. The methods and uses might be different, but the idea that there was simply no resource to be worked with strikes me as highly implausible.

To use the horse example: yes it took a long time for the horse to work the plow, but the original purpose of the horse was to be ridden (so far as we know).

But how is this different from the camel or for that matter the llama? The basic idea is that someone had to have the bright idea in the first place, then work to reify it. Anyone who has ever tried to catch and train wild horses without either other horses or motor vehicles will tell you that it is no easy feat. Somewhere in history, someone did a lot of failing before they succeeded. In a subsistence culture, this seems wasteful in the pursuit of what might eventually turn out to be impossible.

Yet, in Eurasia they thought of it and kept trying. Elsewhere, they either did not think of it or else gave up the effort, it seems to me. Or as you say did not see a need and so did not bother. All of which seems to fly in the face of the author's root theory of pure geographical determination, so long as indeed the nonexistence of "raw materials" cannot be definitively proven---which I do not think has been satisfactorily done.

But if you have an animal which is, in practice, useless to you except for a quick meal (say, a lizard or rat), would you invest your time trying to domesticate those creatures or tell your son to do the same when that creature will be no good to you for several generations?

Why not? If the agricultural society has time for art, organized religion, and so forth, obviously there are some members with the needed leisure to cultivate animals.

And again the authors premise about cereal grains was precisely that people in the Fertile Crescent cultivated wild grasses, which offered only the prospect of a meal, into more and more useful crops over what must have been MANY generations, was it not?

Need. The plains Indians were nomadic. They needed a medium-sized, robust breed of dog to carry their stuff around.

Yet Central and South America are not all jungle and swamp and mountain...and many beasts have been adapted for more than one sort of work. The horse may first have been cultivated in the Central Asian steppes and first harnessed to chariots and carts in Mesopotamia, but they were also used in the European and African forests, the mountains of China, etc.

Why is a dog different? What kept non-plains dwellers from thinking up more environmentally suitable uses for dogs---or any other beast they observed others using for work?

Domestication does not (or rather, did not) occur because some king or emperor declares it should occur. It happened because some rural people thought animals were the best way to solve a particular problem, and then the idea and the animals spread.

Or more likely because some inventive eccentric thought of it and carried it out, all the while being derided by his fellows. Perhaps the first rider had the horse jibed at as a sort of prehistoric "Fulton's Folly"...

But yes, once shown to be of use I'm sure that was exactly how the practices spread. I don't see why this precludes the adoption of such practices everywhere.

Where did I say anything about royal decrees? The motive behind inventions such as these, surely, is practical advantage for the man or woman doing an unpleasant task. Those existed everywhere, not just in Eurasia.

One simply does not breed useful traits 'into' a creature. Humans amplify what is already there: speed, strength, herding instinct or a desire to protect. They also had to have traits that made them somewhat easy to keep.

It's generally agreed that all modern dog breeds came from a common ancestor. Are you contending that swimming, coursing, herding, pointing, tunneling, fighting, and so on were ALL traits present in the ancestor?

And if so, and one or another is specially selected---let us say herding---then at least in modern breeds the other traits have been bred OUT, have they not? Certainly hunting or running a herd of sheep or cattle would not be something one wanted in a working dog. If one can breed traits out, why not in?

For example, all domestic fowl and their wild ancestors fed on the ground.

What is your source for this?

They have to be non-migratory, so that removes another large group of birds.

Why?

You clip the wings, and presto! A ground-dwelling fowl incapable of migration.

And the progenitor for all modern chickens was found in New Guinea, one the supposed "have not" countries, and certainly not anywhere near Europe. Ingenuity...?

I had not heard this, but if true it surely goes AGAINST the author's premise, does it not? If it's there, why wasn't it developed as in Eurasia?

Forest and open pasture whitetails could be herded. They are herded now, but not domesticated. Mule deer would be more difficult considering their terrain.

Oh, and I managed to forget the bison somehow...

Another problem with domesticating animals like elk and deer are their very well defined ruts. A male in rut is hard to control. Hundreds of males in rut would be very difficult.

Somehow Man overcame or lived with this in horses, cattle and elephants, though.