Guns Germs & Steel

[Dagny]

I'm being made to read a few chapter's of Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" in a literature course (We're only reading the chapters that are relevant to animal sacrifice.)

Anyone care to share their opinions on Diamond or this book? Just curious to see what other people think.

[SkepticalScience]

For me, it answered why Europeans (and Asians) came to rule most of the world, rather than Native Americans, Africans, or other groups.

I’m not sure I’ve ever came across any other book that proposed an answer to that question. And since he argued his theory pretty persuasively, I came to enjoy the book very much.

[CBL4]

It's one of the best science books I have ever read. It is well researched, well written and on, IMO, an interesting topic.

As far as animal sacrifice, I have no idea why it would be relevant.

CBL

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Dagny

I'm being made to read a few chapter's of Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" in a literature course (We're only reading the chapters that are relevant to animal sacrifice.)

Anyone care to share their opinions on Diamond or this book? Just curious to see what other people think.

It's a pretty good book as a popular treatment of anthropology, one of the best. It's accessible and has a large scope. It necessarily omits a lot of stuff, and some of it has become outdated even since it was published. Even though its in large part an opinion piece, it's light on polemic, and Diamond, as much as I think is possible in a popular treatment, describes alternate theories in a properly scientific spirit. It's basically consistent with what I've learned in anthropology classes. I'd say that it's probably the best popular book on anthropology and an anthropological view of history ever written.

The main problem that I have with the book is that there's very little about guns and steel in it, and what is there is not very accurate. Even though steel dates back at least to the 1st century CE, it really wasn't that common until the Bessemer conversion process in the 19th century. It would have been prohibitively costly to outfit an army in the 16th century with steel swords and/or armor. In the 17th century, steel shoe- and belt buckles became fashionable, but they were expensive. Even for the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, structures were made of cast- and wrought iron rather than steel. Furthermore, in the 15th and 16th centuries, the prime weapon of conquest was not the gun, which was still too inaccurate to be of much use except against standing armies, but rather the crossbow.

[CurtC]

Yeah, it's a great book. But I can't recall anything about animal sacrifice in it. What parts are those?

[Frostbite]

I thought it was boring as hell. Read about half of it then realized it's just a bunch of obvious observations. Anyone care to say if there was anything worth reading in the second half?

[ysabella]

I really enjoyed it. I'd never read any anthropology so for me it wasn't obvious at all.

I think it goes nicely with reading The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes. Looking at similar issues, but at economic and cultural concepts.

[Phil]

Started it, but decided to listen to Zevon's "Lawyers, Guns, and Money" instead.

I recommend it.

[Dymanic]

I think a few chapters is enough. It gets repetitious after that. The significance of latitude on climate means that crops will tend to have wider ranges where orientation of landmasses is East-to-West rather than North-to-South; and everything else follows that. It doesn't take a thousand examples to express that idea, or appreciate the possible implications.

[Roboramma]

It's a great book. I learned a lot of about history and anthropology from it, and found quite a few interesting tidbits to keep me reading more.
I found the information about what plants and animals were available for domestication really interesting. And his points about why people develop agriculture were pretty cool. In fact, here's a link to him talking briefly about that: http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses...ndmistake.html
Since I'd always considered agriculture to be this amazing thing that necessarily improved the lives of it's first practitioners, the idea that it might not have was an eye opener. I'd known about the increased prevalence of disease, but this was interesting.

I like Diamond in general. He's not afraid to talk about his own ideas, but he never jumps to conclusions either, and his work seems to be always well researched. Plus he's an engaging writer. His newer book, "Collapse" was very interesting. I enjoyed reading about all the cannibalism, but I'm morbid that way.
Right now I'm reading an older book of his, "Why Sex is Fun". Just started, but enjoying it.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by epepke

The main problem that I have with the book is that there's very little about guns and steel in it, and what is there is not very accurate.

In his defense, it is possible the publisher chose the title...

[Chris Haynes]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

In his defense, it is possible the publisher chose the title...

I hope so, because while I was reading I kept thinking a more appropriate title would have been Grains, Germs and Steel.

[CurtC]

Or Grains, Beasts of Burden, and Germs.

[logical muse]

Like the majority of posters here, I also enjoyed this book.

A few years ago at uni, I was writing an essay on emotional responses to virtual pets. I touched on everything from Braitenberg vehicles to tamagotchis to Rodney Brooks' robots. At one point I needed something to back up my claim that people have pets. I recalled, and used, a quote from Diamond's book:

Quote:

Keeping wild animals as pets, and taming them, constitutes an initial stage in domestication. But pets have been reported from virtually all traditional human societies on all continents. The variety of wild animals thus tamed is far greater than the variety eventually domesticated, and includes some species that we would scarcely have imagined as pets.

The lecturer thought that perhaps this point was obvious enough that I didn't a reference, but I don't like to assume.

If you think that's pedantic, try having a conversation with me...

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

It's a great book. I learned a lot of about history and anthropology from it, and found quite a few interesting tidbits to keep me reading more.
I found the information about what plants and animals were available for domestication really interesting. And his points about why people develop agriculture were pretty cool. In fact, here's a link to him talking briefly about that: http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses...ndmistake.html
. (snip)

Gee, he makes the claim that hunter-gatherers had a longer lifespan at birth than farmers. But then later he tells how the H/G used infanticide to control their population to halve the number of children. Which is it? Seems to me that if you kill half the babies by abondoning them to the crows, and then estimate life span from adult skeletons, the life span would also be halved, from 26 to 13 years, vs the 19 of the farmers?

[Jesus]

I'm about halfway through it, and I agree it is a bit repetitive, but still a very worthwhile read.

[ceo_esq]

Originally Posted by SkepticalScience

For me, it answered why Europeans (and Asians) came to rule most of the world, rather than Native Americans, Africans, or other groups.

I’m not sure I’ve ever came across any other book that proposed an answer to that question. And since he argued his theory pretty persuasively, I came to enjoy the book very much.

Diamond's work has been discussed at various places in the "Is religion slowing us down?" thread, although some posts unfortunately fell during the forum's infamous "lost week". Diamond's purpose was to debunk one materialistic historical explanation - that genetic differences account for the relative successes of European culture - with another materialistic explanation (geographical determinism). However, Diamond has no background in the history of ideas, and one can easily come away from Guns, Germs, and Steel with the misconception that ideas do not play a crucially important role in shaping cultures. As many historians have pointed out, one of the reasons for Europe's "success" is that its societies historically embraced ideas and belief systems, including religious beliefs, that were especially conducive to the rise of a scientifically and technologically sophisticated culture. That and a few other flaws aside, I thought that Guns, Germs, and Steel was a worthwhile read.

[Schneibster]

I also enjoyed the book, and reiterate the cautions that this is a popular treatment rather than a rigorous treatment.

On steel: most smiths knew how to make steel, and although nothing like the amounts we know today from the Bessemer (and other) industrial production processes was known, there were relatively many steel swords around (not just case-hardened iron, although that too was not unknown). A smith could make a batch of steel sufficient to make fifteen or twenty swords in a couple days' work spread over a few weeks (there were parts of the process that had long lead time, but little production effort- mostly a matter of waiting for the process to happen, rather than working continuously on it), and could make a steel sword from the batch of steel in a few days, and one should not underestimate the number of smiths around. It is, after all, one of the most common names in the English language, and there is a reason.

The finest swords of pre-industrial times were made in three places, using three different methods. The overall idea was the same, but the execution was as different as can well be imagined.

The overall idea is to layer high-carbon, very hard but very brittle steel between low-carbon, softer, but more flexible mild steel or writhen iron. There must be many thousands of layers per inch, alternating the harder high-carbon steel with the more flexible writhen iron. Over-layering, however, eventually will result merely in homogenization of the steel rather than the desired layering.

The Japanese katana, or "Samurai sword," actually only one of two blades carried by the Samurai but the one that everyone in most Western cultures associates with them, was made by case-hardening a steel bar, beating it flat, folding it, beating it flat, and repeating this process until the high-carbon layer on the outside (created by the case-hardening process) had been layered many thousands of times with the low-carbon writhen iron in the middle. Most swords were folded twelve times or less, and twenty is theoretically sufficient to homogenize the steel to a level of less than molecular width.

The sword-makers of Toledo learned some of their art from the Arabs, and the rest from experience; their process for layering involved the production of two case-hardened bars, which were welded together and then twisted to produce a swirled rather than a flat pattern as in the katana.

The sword-makers of Damascus used a process unknown today; what is known from analysis of the isotope content is that they began with wootz steel, but what processing they used to produce the final product is still debated today; if it was pattern-welding, it utilized techniques that are no longer remembered. One group has it that ten or more cyclings of temperature to very precise levels both up and down were required at a certain point in the process, and has demonstrated their technique and produced swords very like those of the smiths of Damascus.

In any case, the three tests of a true steel sword are these:
The steel can be sharpened until it will cut silk from the air; that is, if a kerchief of specified size is thrown up into the air, the sword can cut it as it falls unsupported save by the air itself.
It will cut a lesser blade. By this it is not meant that it can cleave it, although that is a possible result if the opposing blade is of a relatively soft metal; rather, what is meant is that the steel sword can be used to shave the hardest part of a blade made of something of lesser quality than steel, normally the edge.
Its hilts can be bent to meet its tip, and when it is released it will return to its original form.

These three tests can all be passed by any high-quality (read: old) katana, Toledo sword (but be careful that it is truly made by the Toledo process- there are many that are not, yet come from Toledo, which were made by methods other than pattern welding, or from inferior materials, for common soldiers, footmen, and so forth), or Damascus sword. I would, however, caution that even if the sword does not break, one could easily lose life or limb in conducting the third test!

In modern times, detailed understanding of the crystalline structure of steel and the use of additives of various sorts to modify it in various ways allow us to create homogenous swords that are nevertheless superior in quality to anything that could have been made by pre-industrial smiths; however, we no longer require swords!

[Dagny]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Yeah, it's a great book. But I can't recall anything about animal sacrifice in it. What parts are those?

Nothing in "Guns Germs and Steel" pertains to sacrifice, but animal sacrifice is only practiced on domesticated animals (see J. Z. Smith), which is the part of Diamonds book we were interested in.

[Dagny]

"However, Diamond has no background in the history of ideas, and one can easily come away from Guns, Germs, and Steel with the misconception that ideas do not play a crucially important role in shaping cultures. "

I brought this up in my class today. All I really wanted to say was one word: "memes", but (sadly) no one in my class has even heard of Dawkins...

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by casebro

Gee, he makes the claim that hunter-gatherers had a longer lifespan at birth than farmers. But then later he tells how the H/G used infanticide to control their population to halve the number of children. Which is it? Seems to me that if you kill half the babies by abondoning them to the crows, and then estimate life span from adult skeletons, the life span would also be halved, from 26 to 13 years, vs the 19 of the farmers?

Sorry for not responding to this sooner, just noticed it.

Two points. One, what leads you to believe that infanticide wasn't factored into a calculation of life expectancy at birth?

Two, I think you get the "kill half the babies" statement from this quote:

Quote:

Partly, too, it’s because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it’s old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don’t have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years

Bolding is mine. Note that other means part? You assume that because infanticide is sited as one method of keeping the number of children down it's the only method. There are others.
For instance breast feeding tends to reduce fertility. Agriculture gave mothers the option of weening their children sooner because they had more access to soft foods and perhaps animal milk. By weening children younger they were then able to concieve more children sooner.

I'm sure there are other possibilites.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

The Japanese katana, or "Samurai sword," actually only one of two blades carried by the Samurai but the one that everyone in most Western cultures associates with them, was made by case-hardening a steel bar, beating it flat, folding it, beating it flat, and repeating this process until the high-carbon layer on the outside (created by the case-hardening process) had been layered many thousands of times with the low-carbon writhen iron in the middle. Most swords were folded twelve times or less, and twenty is theoretically sufficient to homogenize the steel to a level of less than molecular width.

Thisis not really accurate; and needs several corrections.

1) The Japanese samurai carried a number of different weapons. The katana is the most well-known, and most common. Swords of different lengths and styles were also carried: the tachi or no-dachi, which was a much longer sword; the chakuto, which was a straight-bladed sword; and the wakizashi, which was a shorter version of the katana. The "two sword" style was a later development, and many samurai carried only one. Samurai also typically carried a polearm-type weapon known as a "naginata"; which had a sword-like blade very similar to the katana in style and construction, and which was their primary weapon of battle (the sword being used more in close-quarters and often ritualised single-combat conflicts).

2) Japanese swords were typically made with at least two different types of steel (different alloys containing different concentrations of carbon and other trace contaminants), and some times as many as four, sandwiched and welded together. Some of these steels were folded in specific patterns, as mentioned, but others were not; and the folding technique was not applied to the entire blade the way it was with Toledo swords. The strength and characteristics of the sword came from both the use of multiple steels; as well as a highly refined tempering process that controlled the martensite/austenite transformation very precisely; and is generally considered to be the epitome of sword-making technique. It is, however, far slower and more labour-intensive than more common European techniques; and is more suited to an iron-poor culture seeking to maximize quality without the concern for large-scale production.

Case-hardening was not involved in the process; and is generally undesirable in a sword steel, as it results in brittleness.

A few other points of interest.

According to a recent study published in the Journal of Metallurgy, true Damascus steel is a variant of the super-high-carbon wootz steel: http://people.howstuffworks.com/fram...even-9809.html According to the article, the reason Damascus steel was so hard to reproduce is that it requires the use of a specific type of steel alloy with a high vanadium content. Since the technology to create such alloys did not exist, swordmakers were dependent upon ores which contained the necessary mineral impurities; and when these were exhausted, the technique was no longer effective, even when similar tempering patterns were used. Lower quality Damascus blades were also produced with ores that contained high levels of certain other, similar mineral impurities.

The Toledo (popularly and incorrectly known as "damascus" steel, because of the similarity in appearance) process is a pattern-welding technique; and generally involved high-carbon steel layered with wrought iron more often than with low-carbon steel (as well as a less precise tempering process). The "twisted" pattern was only one of several that were commonly found, each smith having his own signature pattern. The problem with this process is that it was very easy to introduce small, hidden flaws during the folding and welding, and so took a very skilled hand and slow, labour-intensive forging to produce a blade that didn't run the risk of breaking. Again, not a technique suited to the large-scale production typically needed for European conflicts.