Continent orientation, cultural evolution, and the Amerindian exception

Pre-Columbian copper artifacts from Illinois, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Illinois.

In my last post, I criticized Jared Diamond’s theory about continent orientation and cultural evolution. This theory posits that people, and hence ideas, are likelier to circulate along an east-west axis than along a north-south one. This is because people tend to move about in environments that have similar climates and ecosystems. Eurasia has thus reaped the benefits of having a belt of societies—stretching from Spain to Japan—that can borrow new ideas from each other with relative ease.

This is not the case with sub-Saharan Africa, which is oriented north-south. It has a much more limited pool of ideas to draw upon. Diamond argues that this is one big reason why sub-Saharan Africans failed to develop beyond the stage of simple agricultural societies.

But what about the Americas? Aren’t they even more north-south oriented? How, then, did advanced civilizations develop in Mesoamerica and the Andes? And why did they develop even faster than ancient civilizations in Eurasia?

These were the questions I raised in my last post. Here, I’ll argue that this fast pace of cultural evolution was not limited to Mesoamerica and the Andes.

Take the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture. Around 100 BC, agriculture was still confined to the American southwest. The rest of the present-day United States was home to nomadic hunter-gatherers. By 800 AD, agriculture had spread throughout most of the central and eastern U.S. and into southern Ontario. By 1000, the Mississippi valley had urban centers that were each built around a central plaza with earthen temple mounds. These developments were accompanied by a suite of cultural innovations: skilled metalworking; food storage in pits and cribs; timber palisades and bastions; and formation of intertribal confederacies.

This pace of change was, if anything, faster than comparable change elsewhere in the world. There is little evidence that the availability of new ideas was a significant brake on cultural evolution in the Americas—at least no more so than in Eurasia, where new ideas were supposedly more available. Agriculture, for instance, took more than five thousand years to spread from the Middle East to northern Europe.

Indeed, there is evidence of ancestral Amerindians having access to useful ideas that they nonetheless chose not to use. The wheel, for instance, was known to the Aztecs, who used it for toys. But they never used it for anything else.

Another example is copper working. This metal had been worked in eastern North America since at least 5,000 BC, and the resulting artifacts were “far larger and better shaped than any known native copper objects from the Middle East” (Smith, 1968, p. 242). Yet there was never any melting, smelting, casting, or alloying of copper. In particular, there was no attempt to harden copper by combining it with tin, lead, antimony, or arsenic, although such elements were available in the Americas. Such possibilities were there for the taking, but there was apparently little interest in doing so.

As Ehrhardt (2009) comments, “It is provocative and useful to think about why North American metal working technology did not follow the same developmental paths documented for other New World metal working industries.”

One factor may have been the overwhelming use of copper for status or ritual purposes, i.e., ornamentation that did not require hard metals (Ehrhardt, 2009). While such purposes certainly prevailed in Old World civilizations, the latter also used metalworking to make functional objects like kitchenware and tableware. Perhaps New World civilizations suffered not from a lack of ideas but rather from limits on the use of ideas. Mental innovation was subordinated to the interests of the ruling caste. The needs of ordinary folk came a distant second.

Thus, the availability of new ideas is not the main brake on cultural evolution. What matters more is the perceived usefulness of those ideas, and the people who decide which ones are useful and which are not.

Further thoughts

Why did cultural evolution follow a more fruitful path in the Americas than in sub-Saharan Africa? The latter had more opportunities for east-west exchange, being next to Eurasia and its cultural innovations. According to Diamond’s theory, cultural evolution should have been faster in sub-Saharan Africa than in the Americas. Yet the reverse happened.

How come? The main reason was that Amerindian men and women had to plan over a predictable yearly cycle. The men also had to provide for their mates and children, especially in winter—an obligation that not only integrated father, mother, and children into a single unit of family production but also freed the mother to specialize in other tasks, like garment making, food processing, and home building.

These factors pre-adapted Amerindians for later cultural evolution. The “family workshop” of nomadic hunter-gatherers became a model for the economic and political structures of sedentary farmers.

References

Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, New York: W.W. Norton.

Ehrhardt, K.L. (2009). Copper Working Technologies, Contexts of Use, and Social Complexity in the Eastern Woodlands of Native North America, Journal of World Prehistory, 22, 213-235.

Smith, C. S. (1968). Metallographic study of early artifacts made from native copper (pp. 237–252). Warsaw: Actes du XIe Congrès International d’Histoire des Sciences VI.

Big Other?

Julos Beaucarne, March 2007

Your Christ is Jewish
Your car is Japanese
Your couscous is Algerian
Your democracy is Greek
Your coffee is Brazilian
Your chianti is Italian

And you reproach your neighbor for being a foreigner

The above poem, by Belgian singer Julos Beaucarne, has been making the rounds of late-night radio and Facebook pages for the past few years. Its message? Without the contributions of other cultures, we’d be less advanced, less refined, and less well off. In short, we’d be nobodies. We have met the Others, and they are us.

This is Big Other at its finest. If poetry leaves you cold, a more intellectual version is available in the pages of Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond.

Diamond starts off by noting that people, and hence ideas, are more likely to circulate between regions that are ecologically and climatically similar. Hence, the circulation of ideas tends to be much more east-west than north-south.

If we look at a world map, we see that Eurasia is oriented east-west and Africa north-south. Eurasians have thus benefited from a greater number of cultural innovations because they can tap into a belt of human creativity stretching from Gibraltar to Tokyo. Africans, by contrast, have not had this advantage. This, argues Diamond, is one big reason why Africa fell behind Eurasia in the race for global dominance.

Absent from this argument is any mention of the Americas. Those continents likewise follow a north-south axis, even more so than Africa. Yet they became home to advanced civilizations in Mesoamerica and the Andes. There is some evidence that the Incas had cultural contacts with Polynesian seafarers. Other than that, both of these civilizations had to develop on their own.

Did they develop more slowly than Eurasian civilizations? Apparently not. Mesoamerican civilizations reached milestones in cultural development at a faster rate than did civilizations in the Middle East. The Zapotecs developed calendar and writing systems barely 1,000 years after their first permanent farming villages. In the Middle East, the time span was over 5,000 years.

Jared Diamond, like Julos Beaucarne, is begging the question. Yes, as Eurasian cultures came more into contact with each other, they each had fewer innovations of local origin and more of foreign origin. But would these cultures have been worse off if forced to innovate on their own?

Indeed, an argument can be made that exposure to the “Other” tends to stifle local creativity. During the thirty years after the Second World War, Americans lived under a regime of semi-autarky, producing most of their own goods, educating most of their own talent, and generating most of their own inventions. This was nonetheless a period of almost frenetic cultural and economic innovation. Is the United States more innovative today, now that it’s much more open to the rest of the world?

It is even doubtful whether the east-west flow of ideas explains the rise of the European world to global dominance between 1500 and 1900—the main theme of Diamond’s book. This rise to dominance was fueled by a technological revolution that occurred largely in northwestern Europe, with the exception of only two major innovations of non-European origin: gunpowder and the printing press.

Before 1500, Europeans did borrow considerably from the Middle East in such fields as chemistry, mathematics, and engineering, but this was a time of slow economic growth and geopolitical weakness. Europe took off economically and geopolitically only when it developed its own intellectual resources.

Reference

Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, New York: W.W. Norton.