Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Harper (2012), Hardcover, 640 pages
Description
In The Great Divide, acclaimed author and historian Peter Watson explores the development of humankind between the Old World and the New, and offers a groundbreaking new understanding of human history. By 15,000 BC, humans had migrated from northeastern Asia across the frozen Bering land bridge to the Americas. When the last Ice Agecame to an end, the Bering Strait refilled with water, dividing America from Eurasia. This division continued until Christopher Columbus voyaged to the New World in the fifteenth century. The Great Divide compares the development of humankind in the Old World and the New between 15,000 BC and AD 1,500. Combining the most up-to-date knowledge in archaeology, anthropology, geology, meteorology, cosmology, and mythology, Peter Watson's masterful study offers uniquely revealing insight into what it means to be human.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member pomonomo2003
Everyone knows something about the rise of Civilization and where it occurred: Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China all very early on achieved recognizably civilized societies. From these origins, civilization radiated outwards throughout much of the Old World. But why wasn't the same degree of
Our author, Peter Watson, in this intriguingly speculative study, finds the main differences (of course there are many nuances here) between the Old and New Worlds to be:
-On the one hand, east-west geographical orientation, farming, fertility religions, and domesticated animals (that are useful for everything from food to work and war), dominate the history and ideologies (religion, politics) of the old world.
As difficult as old world history so often is, it allowed civilization to both rise and flourish.
-While (again, according to our author) in the new world violent weather (and volcanoes, earthquakes), north-south orientation, fewer (much fewer) usefully domesticable animals and cereal crops, and abundant hallucinogens sent culture, ideology and religion reeling in a very different direction.
Here the circumstances conspired to thwart the rise of old-world style massive civilizations.
Why is east-west orientation so much better than north--south? Because an east-west orientation allows the cultivation of the same domesticated animals and crops across multiple time zones, and because the weather (generally speaking) remains constant. This is not true of north-south migrations.
I would have emphasized more the importance of rivers (and trade) than our author does. If one looks at the four Eurasian 'Cradles of Civilization' one finds (in each) great river systems that lead to the sea, and other societies. The only new world site of comparable antiquity, the recently discovered Norte Chico civilization, existed (comparatively speaking) in splendid isolation. Its breakthrough to civilization does not spread throughout the region.
Our author certainly does not deny that there is one humanity. His purpose is to show how much that one humanity can differ in belief and behavior thanks to different circumstances.
In Closing
I enjoyed this book a lot. I would like to see what our author does in this book attempted in a comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of Afro-Eurasia.
Now, as far as the rise of civilization goes, Africa, like the Americas, got a raw deal. What gave sub-Saharan Africa a trajectory so different than the rest of the Old World?
Three points come immediately to mind:
1. Terrible tropical diseases that ravage both man beast. Most know that disease was difficult on the colonialist cum imperialist, but (in some areas) it was killing 50% of native infants! That is an incredible and terrifying number!
2. Tropical soils with little humus and are easily leeched. So even if Africa had the grains that allowed the build up of surplus that was enjoyed elsewhere in the Old World, they could not have come close to others success thanks to the poor soil. -And one needs agricultural surplus to achieve an enduring civilized state
3. Africa is a vast Plateau. Therefore most rivers eventually come to impassable waterfalls or dangerous cataracts. This is murder on any trade that might have developed within Africa and beyond. Thus the inflow of information and goods from the rest of Eurasia slowed to a trickle.
Sheesh! What a mess!
Th first great expanding civilizations absolutely had to be in Eurasia (including North Africa). I enjoyed this book by Watson a lot. As stated above, I would like to see our author,(or anyone else) attempt to do what our author does here for the new world done for sub-Saharan Africa.
Four stars for a very thought-provoking read!
Show More
success achieved here in the New World (i.e., the Americas)? Only in the central Andes was there a comparatively early success. -But even that was on a much smaller scale.Our author, Peter Watson, in this intriguingly speculative study, finds the main differences (of course there are many nuances here) between the Old and New Worlds to be:
-On the one hand, east-west geographical orientation, farming, fertility religions, and domesticated animals (that are useful for everything from food to work and war), dominate the history and ideologies (religion, politics) of the old world.
As difficult as old world history so often is, it allowed civilization to both rise and flourish.
-While (again, according to our author) in the new world violent weather (and volcanoes, earthquakes), north-south orientation, fewer (much fewer) usefully domesticable animals and cereal crops, and abundant hallucinogens sent culture, ideology and religion reeling in a very different direction.
Here the circumstances conspired to thwart the rise of old-world style massive civilizations.
Why is east-west orientation so much better than north--south? Because an east-west orientation allows the cultivation of the same domesticated animals and crops across multiple time zones, and because the weather (generally speaking) remains constant. This is not true of north-south migrations.
I would have emphasized more the importance of rivers (and trade) than our author does. If one looks at the four Eurasian 'Cradles of Civilization' one finds (in each) great river systems that lead to the sea, and other societies. The only new world site of comparable antiquity, the recently discovered Norte Chico civilization, existed (comparatively speaking) in splendid isolation. Its breakthrough to civilization does not spread throughout the region.
Our author certainly does not deny that there is one humanity. His purpose is to show how much that one humanity can differ in belief and behavior thanks to different circumstances.
In Closing
I enjoyed this book a lot. I would like to see what our author does in this book attempted in a comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of Afro-Eurasia.
Now, as far as the rise of civilization goes, Africa, like the Americas, got a raw deal. What gave sub-Saharan Africa a trajectory so different than the rest of the Old World?
Three points come immediately to mind:
1. Terrible tropical diseases that ravage both man beast. Most know that disease was difficult on the colonialist cum imperialist, but (in some areas) it was killing 50% of native infants! That is an incredible and terrifying number!
2. Tropical soils with little humus and are easily leeched. So even if Africa had the grains that allowed the build up of surplus that was enjoyed elsewhere in the Old World, they could not have come close to others success thanks to the poor soil. -And one needs agricultural surplus to achieve an enduring civilized state
3. Africa is a vast Plateau. Therefore most rivers eventually come to impassable waterfalls or dangerous cataracts. This is murder on any trade that might have developed within Africa and beyond. Thus the inflow of information and goods from the rest of Eurasia slowed to a trickle.
Sheesh! What a mess!
Th first great expanding civilizations absolutely had to be in Eurasia (including North Africa). I enjoyed this book by Watson a lot. As stated above, I would like to see our author,(or anyone else) attempt to do what our author does here for the new world done for sub-Saharan Africa.
Four stars for a very thought-provoking read!
Show Less
LibraryThing member hailelib
Here the author concentrates on the differences between the Old World and the New beginning in Paleolithic times and taking us up to the time that Europeans discovered the existence of the Americas. The question he explores is why they were so different at that point in time. I found the book very
Show More
interesting even though much of the material was already known to me. However, I also found that I had to take a break from reading it (twice!). Watson covers so much material and also has a tendency to belabor his main points making a few days reading other things very welcome. I am glad that I did return and finish in the end. There were interesting maps and an equally interesting appendix on reactions to discovering a whole new world of people, flora, and fauna. At well over 500 pages a somewhat challenging read. Show Less
LibraryThing member tuckerresearch
Watson's dense work attempts to explain the differences between the Old World (Eurafrasia) and the New World (the Americas) in nature, civilization, and culture.
Think Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel but add culture, religion, etc. Maybe you could call it Jared Diamond on steroids.
Why are
Lots of science, myth, and history. Very good in places, but quite slow in others.
He makes a number of good points, but makes some odd leaps in others. (Watson, too, is an anti-Christian atheist, which explains why he inexplicably uses the lowercase "bible" throughout.)
All-in-all this is a fine addition to a bookshelf alongside Diamond, Crosby, Landes, McNeill, and the like. Good for anthropologists, historians of New World indigenes, and so forth.
Think Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel but add culture, religion, etc. Maybe you could call it Jared Diamond on steroids.
Why are
Show More
Greek and Egyptian gods, for instance, so nice when compared to, say, Maya or Aztec gods? What role do hallucinogens play in Native American societies? Why is the jaguar so prevalent in Native American mytho-religious ideas? Et cetera.Lots of science, myth, and history. Very good in places, but quite slow in others.
He makes a number of good points, but makes some odd leaps in others. (Watson, too, is an anti-Christian atheist, which explains why he inexplicably uses the lowercase "bible" throughout.)
All-in-all this is a fine addition to a bookshelf alongside Diamond, Crosby, Landes, McNeill, and the like. Good for anthropologists, historians of New World indigenes, and so forth.
Show Less
Language
Original publication date
2012
Physical description
640 p.
ISBN
0297845586 / 9780297845584
Similar in this library
Why The West Rules For Now: The Patterns of History and what they reveal about the Future by Ian Morris
1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed: Revised and Updated (Turning Points in Ancient History, 6) by Eric H. Cline