History questions not worth their own thread V

[Lord Baal]

I don't see why it is obvious. Care to explain?

It isn't obvious because it's false. Technology tends to "travel" along the same routes as disease, communication, invasion, etc.. That is, it travels along common routes of contact. The reason the many Mediterranean cultures had similar technology and cultures to one another is that they had a common thoroughfare through which knowledge and materials was diffused; that of course being the Mediterranean itself. Egypt and Nubia had similar cultures because they were in constant contact with each other. Gunpowder spread from China to Europe along the Silk Road, but it spread more quickly along the more commonly used sea trade routes; to Japan, Vietnam and around the Malacca Strait to India and Persia. In fact, it's quite debatable as to whether the Turks got their knowledge of gunpowder through Central Asia or through Yemen.

Technology spreads along common routes, not along any fictitious "East-West Axis." Many people claim that the tropics prevents the spread of technologies from North-South, but these same people seem to have difficulty explaining India, which doesn't exactly stop developing technology when it hits the tropics, or the various Indonesian and Central American cutlures who both gained from and gave to cultures further North.

The reason people believe that technology tended to spread from East-West more than from north-south is simply because Eurasia happens to have a clear east-west oriented landmass, which possesses several inland seas that further herd peoples into traversing east-west, and that's the landmass people in our modern, Eurasian-descended societies are most familiar with. The spread of technologies in Africa and the Americas is conveniently ignored, or, more likely in Diamond's case, not even researched in the first place, since that would involve actually understanding the cultures he's claiming were pre-doomed to failure when confronted by the goegraphically-determined might of Europe.

 

[Mouthwash]

It isn't obvious because it's false. Technology tends to "travel" along the same routes as disease, communication, invasion, etc.. That is, it travels along common routes of contact. The reason the many Mediterranean cultures had similar technology and cultures to one another is that they had a common thoroughfare through which knowledge and materials was diffused; that of course being the Mediterranean itself. Egypt and Nubia had similar cultures because they were in constant contact with each other. Gunpowder spread from China to Europe along the Silk Road, but it spread more quickly along the more commonly used sea trade routes; to Japan, Vietnam and around the Malacca Strait to India and Persia. In fact, it's quite debatable as to whether the Turks got their knowledge of gunpowder through Central Asia or through Yemen.

Technology spreads along common routes, not along any fictitious "East-West Axis." Many people claim that the tropics prevents the spread of technologies from North-South, but these same people seem to have difficulty explaining India, which doesn't exactly stop developing technology when it hits the tropics, or the various Indonesian and Central American cutlures who both gained from and gave to cultures further North.

The reason people believe that technology tended to spread from East-West more than from north-south is simply because Eurasia happens to have a clear east-west oriented landmass, which possesses several inland seas that further herd peoples into traversing east-west, and that's the landmass people in our modern, Eurasian-descended societies are most familiar with. The spread of technologies in Africa and the Americas is conveniently ignored, or, more likely in Diamond's case, not even researched in the first place, since that would involve actually understanding the cultures he's claiming were pre-doomed to failure when confronted by the goegraphically-determined might of Europe.

I'll refute this tomorrow (your entire argument seems to a be series of strawmen). I would like to point out now that (A) you have not read GG@S and (B) Africa is not a good example whatsover.

 

[Lord Baal]

Climate affects biology.
Plants and animals, as well as temperatures, affect culture and human tolerances.
Climates differ more along N/S axises than E/W axises.
Therefore, technology, social systems, and crops should diffuse more slowly N/S than E/W.

Empirical evidence supports this heavily. Look at every large pre-colonial empire in history and tell me which axis they all go along.

The Incas were along a north-south axis. The Holy Roman Empire was along a north-south axis. The Mauryans and Guptas were along a north-south axis. China was relatively circular, with no real axis to speak of. Viet Nam, Thailand, Burma, Laos and Kampuchea were all along north-south axes. Every southern Slavic kingdom was along either a north-south axis or diagonall along the Adriatic coastline. The aforementioned Mississippian cultures were along a north-south axis, as was Egypt and the various Mesopotamian cultures, excepting Assyria.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Please stop pretending you do. Also, if you're making claims, it's best to back them up rather than simply refering to a widely discredited hack like Diamond.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'll refute this tomorrow (your entire argument seems to a be series of strawmen). I would like to point out now that (A) you have not read GG@S and (B) Africa is not a good example whatsover.

Why would I read a book that is obviously mistaken? And why is Africa a bad example? Because it disproves your claims?

 

[JohannaK]

If anything is obvious, I must say it is what Baal here has said.

 

[Yeekim]

To be honest, I fail to see why these two arguments need to be exclusive of each other.
They both seem rather self-evident to me.

Sure - technology travels along common routes of contact. Can't argue with hat.

On the other hand, a good deal of technology is rather environment-specific.
Building igloos is not really viable in Mediterranean and so on. Therefore, the east-west claim holds at least some merit.

 

[Lord Baal]

To be honest, I fail to see why these two arguments need to be exclusive of each other.
They are both obviously correct.

How so?

 

[JohannaK]

It is obvious that technology in the Eurasian continent spreads more easily on an East-West axis, since that's the general orientation of the damn landmass.

 

[Yeekim]

You guys are quick - see edit.

 

[JohannaK]

Nah, you are slow.

 

[Lord Baal]

To be honest, I fail to see why these two arguments need to be exclusive of each other.
They both seem rather self-evident to me.

Sure - technology travels along common routes of contact. Can't argue with hat.

On the other hand, a good deal of technology is rather environment-specific.
Building igloos is not really viable in Mediterranean and so on. Therefore, the east-west claim holds at least some merit.

You ninja'd me.

Climate obviously affects technological development, but it does not significantly affect technological diffusion. In other words, igloos aren't practical in the Sahara, but that doesn't mean if an Eskimo went there and traded with the Saharans they wouldn't know how to make igloos from his descriptions; they just wouldn't bother because it has no use to them.

Likewise, the arguments about crops doesn't really work either; most crops spread along common routes, just as anything else. But obviously the further they get from their original environment the less-well-adapted they are, righ? Wrong. Cotton, sugar and other crops seem to grow better in places nowhere near where they actually evolved.

Climate does place certain restrictions on the movement of biological organisms, including people, but I think you'll find there are more pertinent geographical issues than just climate. Having an ocean in the way tended to keep the Mayans from adopting gunpowder from the Chineses. The Nile enabled north-south interaction between the Egyptians and the Nubians, along with others further south, but the Sahara tended to stop the Carthaginians from trading extensively with the people of Nigeria (though there is actually an ancient and still used caravan route across the western Sahara, which both Carthage and Rome used, it obviously had its limits).

 

[Masada]

I've never got the East-West claim. I mean, it might work in Europe but in Asia the axis of technological diffusion was North-South. Here's some examples off the top of my head:

• Paper was in use in Southeast Asia during the 600s, long before it reached Europe;
• Buddhism diffused into Southeast Asia before it reached China ;
• Sericulture in Thailand pre-dates by about three millenia its introduction to Europe;
• Rice diffused into Southeast Asia during pre-history; the "fast-ripening" varieties from Champa then diffused back into China in the 880s;
• Citrus fruit spread from Southeast Asia, North into China;
• Bronze casting was discovered in Thailand and was then introduced into China;
• The Dong Song material culture diffused North-South; and
• The Austronesian packet of crops also moved North-South.

Empirical evidence supports this heavily. Look at every large pre-colonial empire in history and tell me which axis they all go along.

China runs North-South? Mesoamerica? The Andes?

*

Conquering and Invading are supposed to be vague terms in the context of prehistoric migrations of peoples. I doubt Austronesians formally declared a war on the pre-existing populations and proceeding on to enact genocide against them.

I don't think "conquering" or "invading" are vague in the least. I'd even go so far as to call them loaded and emotive. That's bad scholarship right there.

I find it more likely that Austronesian speakers with their advantageous position as an agriculturally developed peoples originating from likely China would arrive on the island and in little time out-populated, displaced and assimilate the local inhabitants.

The Taiwanese origin of Austronesian is pretty much conclusively proven. I have like zero bones with that. I think the second sentence is problematic because we're dealing with language transmission and not discrete biological groupings. The issue is of course that by assimilation, I mean the "adoption of Austronesian languages"* which is rather different from what you seem to be implying. The diffusion of Celtic languages into Britain is relevant in this case.

* Really we're not dealing with language transmission at all but changes in material culture which is how we date the "arrival" of Austronesian languages. Linguistic evidence can be material. But I decided to keep it simple.

Epidemiological factors probably having played some role as well.

Provide some proof. Speculation, is well, speculation.

I realize there is little evidence to support this as these events took place at a time before recorded history, however I reject that absent of knowledge is an absent of absent of case.

A lot of the views you've expressed so far (genocide for example) fall well outside of the parameters of the academic debate. On that basis I feel justified in doubting your suppositions.

What I described above historically occurred globally when an agrarian society interacted with hunting-gatherer societies. I see no reason why it wouldn't happen in SE Asia. If there are reasons why, post them. Similarly, it makes sense that the same process failed to take place in New Guinea when an agrarian society encountered another agrarian society.

Got an academic citation for those claims?

Another important consideration is that farming was probably about as significant as fishing as a source of food. In simple terms, Austronesians tended to live in coastal areas with good land and sheltered harbors, suitable for fishing.

Also why the reluctance to consider that the pre-existent peoples of Indonesia prior to the arrival of Austronesian speakers from East Asia could have been related to Melanesians and Australian Aboriginees? It's coming across as protecting some sort of agenda rather than remaining objective.

Huh? I've said nothing at all about Melanesians or Aborigines.

Regardless of people's views on him on this forum, his arguments relating to interaction of agrarian and hunting-gatherer societies is within his subject of scholarship, and they have merit and can be applied to the presumed interactions between agrarian and hunting-gatherer societies South-East Asia. If it's bull, why is it so in this particular case compared to others?

He's not a specialist and his offering is more a general overview than an original contribution. But it isn't like I *hate* him, or anything. I just thought GGS was weak? I also dislike his presentation of Easter Island in Collapse. But that isn't quite his fault; the literature that showed up the model he favored came out after Collapse was first published. I reserve judgement on reprints.

I'd also like to apologize. I kind of lost it last night. Blame it on end of term marking/lack of sleep/my brains refusal to write full sentences.

 

[madviking]

Guns, Germs, and Steel isn't really that good of a book.

 

[sydhe]

The Incas were along a north-south axis. The Holy Roman Empire was along a north-south axis. The Mauryans and Guptas were along a north-south axis. China was relatively circular, with no real axis to speak of. Viet Nam, Thailand, Burma, Laos and Kampuchea were all along north-south axes. Every southern Slavic kingdom was along either a north-south axis or diagonall along the Adriatic coastline. The aforementioned Mississippian cultures were along a north-south axis, as was Egypt and the various Mesopotamian cultures, excepting Assyria.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Please stop pretending you do. Also, if you're making claims, it's best to back them up rather than simply refering to a widely discredited hack like Diamond.

You lose me at the Mauryas and Guptas. The Mauryas went east to west (partly because they conquered the Nanda Empire, which was oriented east and west), and only later went south. The Guptas are more controversial, but again started off on a west to east empire then expanded south, mostly along the east coast. Harsha's empire was oriented east-west and never went south because it broke up when he died. None of them ruled over the southern tip of India for the reasons Diamond explains. The pattern was to take over the Ganges and Indus valleys and expand until the empire reached physical and climactic barriers. The Mughal Empire fits the same pattern.

Relatively small empires can be oriented north-south because they don't cross climactic zones, so the kingdoms in Indochina are stretching it a bit. (I don't see Kampuchea as really being north-south oriented anyway.) The Incas are an interesting exception because they expanded north and sound along the highlands and only later went into the coastal areas and what is now northern Chile. They don't seem to have headed east (except in what is now Bolivia) because that way lies jungle.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Empirical evidence supports this heavily. Look at every large pre-colonial empire in history and tell me which axis they all go along.

First: "Large" is a very vague term.

Second:
Inca Empire

Angevin Empire (Don't hate lol)

Ancient Egypt

Ottoman Empire (A rather even distribution of north-south/east-west territory)

Ming Dynasty

 

[Traitorfish]

This one makes it pretty explicit:

 

[W|M]

China, the Holy Roman Empire, the Aztec Alliance, and the Incan Empire all run through major climate zones.

 

[Yeekim]

You ninja'd me.

Climate obviously affects technological development, but it does not significantly affect technological diffusion. In other words, igloos aren't practical in the Sahara, but that doesn't mean if an Eskimo went there and traded with the Saharans they wouldn't know how to make igloos from his descriptions; they just wouldn't bother because it has no use to them.

...and because suitable building materiel might be rather hard to find.
Anyway, the distinction between development and diffusion is rather nitpicky, imo.
There is stuff that both works and is useful regardless of your latitude - and there is stuff that isn´t.

 

[Lord Baal]

Damn it, lost a post. This will be much shorter.

In response to sydhe, they may have started east-west, but eventually ended up with a primarily north-south orientation. Also, what exactly is Diamond's reasoning for southern India remaining mostly independent from the north?

 

[Tee Kay]

Relatively small empires can be oriented north-south because they don't cross climactic zones, so the kingdoms in Indochina are stretching it a bit.

Anyone from southern Thailand or southern Vietnam going north would disagree with you.

The Incas are an interesting exception because they expanded north and sound along the highlands and only later went into the coastal areas and what is now northern Chile. They don't seem to have headed east (except in what is now Bolivia) because that way lies jungle.

There were jungles in the Andean valleys that the Incans did occupy. As for the coasts... the Peruvian coast was then under the control of the Chimu Empire which the Incans were initially unable to challenge, but attacked and conquered as soon as they got the chance. The Incans took an interest in coastal areas for the very good reason that they are able to supply resources that the highlands lack. Tawantinsuyu in fact thrived because it spanned different climatic zones, enabling to draw on the resources of many different types of environments.