79 pages • 2 hours read
Guns, Germs, and Steel
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 4, Chapter 18-EpilogueChapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 4: "Around the World in Four Chapters"
Chapter 18 Summary: “Hemispheres Colliding”
The collision between the Old World and New World constitutes one of the largest population replacements of the last 13,000 years. But why did the Europeans conquer the Native Americans rather than vice versa?
In contrast to Eurasia, which was home to 13 species of big domestic mammals, the Americas had only one species—the llama/alpaca—following extinctions during the Late Pleistocene era. The significance of this fact is highlighted by the victory of the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortes’ over the Aztecs in 1519; had the Spaniards been confronted by Aztec cavalry mounted on horses, then the outcome of this battle might have been different. Alternatively, the Aztecs, or other American peoples, might have sent out their own conquistadors to wreak havoc on Europe.
Food production also differed in Eurasia and the Americas, with agriculture being widespread in Eurasia by 1492. Agriculture was widespread in the Americas too, but hunter-gatherers occupied a larger area of the Americas compared with Eurasia. In fact, some of the most productive areas of America today were without food production at the time of the European conquest. This absence was due to a scarcity of suitable plants and animals, along with geographical and ecological barriers that prevented the arrival of imported crops and animal species. It was only when the Europeans arrived with suitable crops and animals that the lands became productive.
Some parts of the Americas supported Native American agriculture, but this form of agriculture was hampered by five disadvantages: dependence on protein-poor corn; the hand planting of individual seeds rather than broadcast sowing; tilling by hand instead of plowing with animals; lack of manufacturing to increase soil fertility; and the use of human, rather than animal, muscle power in threshing, grinding, and irrigation.
Germs were another significant factor in enabling the Eurasians’ victory. Eurasian societies had developed resistance to diseases including smallpox, influenza, malaria, and cholera. Eurasians’ many domestic animals had enabled the development of such microbes.
Europeans enjoyed five categories of technological advantage. First, metals were used for tool-making in Eurasia in 1492, whereas Native American societies were still using stone, wood, and bone. Second, Eurasian technology benefited from the availability of horses. Third, while Native Americans relied on human muscle power, Eurasians used animals to operate plows and other machines. Fourth, wheels were used for most forms of land transport in Eurasia at a time when they had not been adopted in the Americas. Last, Eurasians had developed large sailing ships that were far superior to the rafts used in the New World.
Eurasian and Native American societies also differed in their political organization, with Eurasia having been under the rule of organized empires since medieval or Renaissance times. Additionally, many Eurasian states and empires had official religions that legitimized political leadership and wars. Instead, America was home to many chiefdoms, as well as tribes and bands. Europe had seven empires that possessed the resources to acquire American colonies, whereas the Americas had only two—the Aztecs and Incas—that carried comparable weight.
The final significant factor is writing: Most Eurasian states had literate bureaucracies, and a large fraction of the population in some of these states was literate as well. Writing helped with political administration, economic exchanges, expeditions, and the transfer of information. In the Americas, writing was confined to an elite group in a small area.
Diamond offers four reasons to explain why the Americas lagged behind Eurasia in these areas: the Americas’ later start in food production, the restricted suite of domestic animals and plants available for domestication, greater barriers that hindered distribution, and smaller or more isolated pockets of dense human population.
Eurasia had a head start, since humans have inhabited Eurasia for around a million years, which is far longer than they have resided in the Americas. This head start relates to technology, as early farmers in the Fertile Crescent and China had access to tools that their heirs later developed to utilize local resources. The first settlers who arrived in Alaska, meanwhile, hailed from the Siberian Arctic tundra and had to formulate equipment suitable for the new habitats that they encountered in the Americas.
The lack of domesticable wild plants and animals was another reason why the Americas lagged behind Eurasia. Here, Diamond notes that the Fertile Crescent’s wild wheat and barley did not require substantial changes or a long period of time in order to evolve into crops. In the Americas, however, teosinte required more drastic changes and a greater period of development.
Eurasia’s east-west axis of diffusion also gave it an advantage over the Americas, which were fragmented by areas ill suited to food production. This fragmentation of the Americas also affected the distribution of language and writing systems, with Diamond remarking that the Americas lack examples of large-scale language expansions. Had Native American food-producers spread across a large area and replaced hunter-gatherers, this would have resulted in legacies of easily recognized language families.
Towards the end of this chapter, Diamond calls attention to an earlier attempt to colonize the Americas by the Norse. This attempt was launched from Greenland, as North America’s coast was effectively beyond the reach of ships sailing directly from Norway, given ship technology at that time. However, it would have been impossible for a small colony such as Greenland to sustain the exploration, conquest, and settlement of the Americas. Also, the destination—Newfoundland—meant that any prospective advantages in terms of food production, technology, or political organization could not be applied effectively. As Diamond sums up, “At latitudes too high for much food production, the iron tools of a few Norse, weakly supported by one of Europe's poorer states, were no match for the stone, bone, and wooden tools of Eskimo and Indian hunter-gatherers” (372-373).
Spain triumphed where Norway failed because it had a source, destination, latitude, and timeframe that were much more likely to yield success. The first Spanish settlements were in the West Indies, whose populations were largely decimated by murder, disease, warfare, and enslavement. The first mainland colony was founded in 1508, and the Aztec and Inca empires were defeated soon afterwards. The most advanced native societies in North America were overcome primarily by germs, while smaller societies were defeated by raids and murder. Native American societies that survived were relegated to lands unsuitable for European food production and mining. Furthermore, their culture and language have been replaced for the most part with those of the Old World.
Chapter 19 Summary: “How Africa Became Black”
Africa was home to five of the world’s six major divisions of humanity even prior to the arrival of white colonists. In addition, one quarter of the world’s languages are spoken in Africa: “No other continent approaches this human diversity” (377).
Diamond reiterates that humans have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else, adding that the continent’s diverse population resulted from its long prehistory and varied geography. Turning to present day Africa, however, Diamond asks why blacks became widespread while the other four groups—whites, Pygmies, Khosian, and Asians—did not. He suggests that African prehistory has some “striking parallels” (377) with American prehistory.
Discussing the fragmented distribution of Pygmies in Africa today, Diamond posits that Pygmy hunters used to be widespread but became displaced or isolated by black farmers. He also observes that the area populated by Khosian is surprisingly small, given these peoples’ anatomical and linguistic distinctiveness. It may be that the Khosian population had likewise been widespread until their northerly population was eliminated somehow.
In Diamond’s view, the biggest anomaly is that Madagascar’s population consists of black Africans and of tropical Southeast Asians. Furthermore, the language spoken in Madagascar is similar to that spoken on the Indonesian island of Borneo. The ultimate question is how the prehistoric people of Borneo voyaged to Madagascar—probably without maps or compasses—and ended up settling there. A book of sailors’ directions dated around 100 CE describes a flourishing sea trade connecting India and Egypt with the East African coast. Diamond speculates that the inhabitants of Madagascar may have originally discovered the island after travelling along this trade route. It is also possible that they sailed straight across the Indian Ocean and discovered Madagascar autonomously.
Africa is home to 1,500 languages, which the renowned linguist Joseph Greenberg has classified into five families. These families correspond roughly to the anatomically defined human groups noted at the start of the chapter. He also observes that languages have tended to evolve alongside their speakers.
People have typically been taught that Western civilization originated in the Near East and reached its zenith in Europe with the Romans and Greeks. Likewise, we are taught that it produced the religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, which arose among people speaking Semitic languages. However, Greenberg found that Semitic languages form only one branch of a much larger language family known as Afro-asiatic, the other branches of which are confined to Africa. This suggests that Afro-asiatic languages originated in Africa and only one branch spread to the Near East. It may even be the case, then, that Africa brought into being those languages spoken by the authors of the New and Old Testaments and the Koran—texts regarded as “the moral pillars of Western civilization” (383).
From linguistic clues, Diamond determines that the Pygmy homeland was overcome by invading black farmers, whose languages were adopted by those Pygmies that remained. This would explain why Pygmies no longer have any distinct language yet exhibit traces of their original languages in certain words and sounds. Still, Diamond states that the distribution of Khosian languages bears witness to an even more dramatic takeover. Drawing on linguistic evidence again, Diamond concludes that Khosian languages and peoples used to extend far north of their current location, but they too were displaced, leaving only traces of their former presence.
The value of linguistics is, for Diamond, epitomized by what it call tell us about the Niger-Congo language family. This family originated in West Africa, and its various branches spread out into wider terrain. However, since all Niger-Congo speakers are black, physical anthropology would not enable us to ascertain the directions in which the various branches spread—linguistics alone holds the key.
Linguistic evidence further specifies that the Pygmies and the Khosian were displaced by Bantu peoples who originated in Cameroon and Nigeria. The Bantu enjoyed several advantages, including food production. The Pygmies and Khosian were at a geographical disadvantage because their wild plants provided unsuitable for domestication. The Bantu, by contrast, swept through Africa with the aid of iron tools and wet-climate crops. Still, they did not displace all of the Khosian, some of whom survived in areas unsuited to Bantu agriculture.
The Bantu never expanded further south than Fish River due to issues with climate and agriculture. This meant that Dutch settlers who arrived in Cape Town in 1652 only had to contend with a sparse population of Khosian herders. When they advanced to Fish River, they became embroiled in prolonged fighting with the Bantu and finally emergent triumphant. Had geographical/ecological issues not prohibited the Bantu from advancing southward in the first place, the Dutch would most likely have never been able to establish their presence at the Cape.
The final issue that Diamond tackles is why the Europeans were the ones to colonize sub-Saharan Africa and not the other way around. The factors that enabled the Europeans to triumph are those that allowed them to conquer the Americas: advanced guns and technology, widespread literacy, and the political organization needed in order to launch and sustain a conquest strategy. These factors are all rooted in food production, which was delayed in sub-Saharan Africa due to the scarcity of domesticable plant and animal species, its north-south axis, and its comparatively small area in which indigenous food production was viable.
Epilogue Summary: “The Future of Human History as a Science”
Returning to Yali’s question, Diamond reaffirms that the histories of people of different continents have been the result of their respective environments. In Diamond’s view, four sets of differences are most important: continental differences between domesticable plants and animals; the benefits of the east-west axis; geographical conditions affecting diffusion between continents; and the continental differences in area or total population size.
Diamond concludes with some suggestions for further research. The most straightforward is gathering additional data quantifying the four areas mentioned above. A second approach would focus on smaller geographical scales and shorter timescales.
Diamond poses a key question that may have occurred to readers over the course of the book; namely, why European societies rather than those of the Fertile Crescent or China colonized the Americas and Australia, took the lead in technology, and became politically and economically dominant. Diamond states that the answer is clear: once the Fertile Crescent lost its head start and Europe had received its crops, livestock, technology, and writing systems, it had no further geographic advantages of note and nothing more to offer. He further explains that the Fertile Crescent and other eastern Mediterranean societies arose in an ecologically fragile environment and destroyed their own resource base. Northern and Western Europe, by contrast, benefited from an environment that continued to be productive.
China also began with various advantages and had been a pioneer in technology, as well as navigation and control of the seas, but it too lost its lead. In this case, China’s treasure fleets were suspended due to wrangling between two political factions. Because China was politically unified, however, this resulted in the halting of fleets over the entire country. As Europe was not politically unified, it did not face this same risk. Quite the opposite—its fragmentation enabled Columbus to succeed on his fifth try in persuading one of Europe’s many princes to sponsor him.
China’s geographic connectedness and modest internal barriers were originally advantageous. However, this connectedness also meant that a decision made by one despot could shut down innovation.
The Fertile Crescent and China are warnings that circumstances change and that past primacy is no guarantee of future success. However, the nations rising to new power are the ones were incorporated into the old centers of dominance thousands of years ago. This means that the Fertile Crescent and China still dominate through successor states, neighboring regions, or states repopulated or ruled by their emigrants: “The hand of history's course at 8000 BCE lies heavily on us” (417).
Other elements pertinent to Yali’s question are cultural factors and the influence of individual people. Some cultural variation is inevitably due to environmental conditions, but it can also arise from trivial, local concerns that then evolve into influential, enduring cultural features; Diamond cites the QWERTY keyboard as an example of this. The potential influence of individuals, meanwhile, is demonstrated by the failed assassination of Adolf Hitler in 1944—an attempt that, were it successful, would most likely have shaped the course of history. Diamond remarks, however, that the extent and duration of individual influence on history remains an open question.
In the final pages of the Epilogue, Diamond distinguishes between the historical and non-historical sciences. The historical sciences share four key features: methodology, causation, prediction, and complexity. Laboratory experiments are often of little relevance in the historical sciences, which employ methods such as observation, comparison, and “natural experiments” instead. Another difference is that historical sciences focus on chains of proximate and ultimate causes. For example, an evolutionary biologist would not be satisfied with identifying the changes in fur color that Arctic hares exhibit. They would be concerned with the function of this mechanism—possibly camouflage—and its ultimate cause—potentially, natural selection stemming from a hare population with unchanging fur color.
Another difference involves prediction. Sciences such as chemistry and physics regard the ability to correctly predict a system’s future behavior as indication of one’s understanding of this system. In their view, the historical sciences seem to fail this test. However, the historical sciences do make and test predictions. The difference is that physicists and chemists can formulate universal deterministic laws while historians and biologists can formulate only statistical trends. Also, in the historical sciences, prediction is most feasible in relation to large spatial scales and long periods of time. This is because the millions of small-scale events that occur average out over time and space.
Diamond recognizes a variety of criticisms that can be made about the human sciences, and he acknowledges the complexity and unpredictability of historical systems. However, he observes that evolutionary biologists have been developing increasingly sophisticated methods. Despite his own focus in this book, he also suggests that there are many natural experiments that scholars can draw on in addressing questions of cultural evolution; not just comparisons of the five inhabited continents. He concludes on an optimistic note, suggesting that we have reached a point where “historical studies of human societies can be pursued as scientifically as studies of dinosaurs” (425).
Part 4, Chapter 18-Epilogue Analysis
Diamond has referred to the European conquest of the Americas throughout this book. Here, however, he turns to it directly and asks the key question: why did the Europeans conquer the Native Americans? Why not the other way around?
By this point, readers most likely have an idea of the principal factors at play. One was the dearth of large domestic animals in the America. Not only was Eurasia home to a greater number of big domestic animals, but agriculture had become dominant by 1492. Food production was practiced in the Americas but not on the same scale; again, due to in large part to a lack of suitable plants and animals and geographical/ecological barriers. Europeans succeeded where the Native Americans failed because they brought with them their own crops and animals. Not only this, they had developed resistance to diseases as a result of their livestock. It is apparent that successful food production in Eurasia had the usual domino effect, which involved not only disease resistance but also resulted in more advanced technology, political organization and writing. These factors worked in conjunction to ensure that Eurasia was at a considerable advantage.
Humans have lived on the African continent longer than anywhere else, and it is diverse both in terms of human populace and spoken languages. However, Diamond is curious as to why blacks became widespread in Africa while whites, Pygmies, Khosian, and Asians did not. Farming seems to be a key issue again, as the Pygmies and the Khosian were consequently displaced or isolated by black farmers; specifically, the Bantu, who brought with them iron tools and a suite of crops. Though the Bantu spread through Africa quickly, they encountered a stumbling block as they expanded southward. Their resources proved less compatible with conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, which enabled European settlers to gain headway in this region.
Though there are some similarities between the Europeans’ conquest of the Americas and their experience in sub-Saharan Africa, success was more limited and unstable in the latter case. In the context of Africa as a whole, Diamond demonstrates that the Bantu expansion was more influential and expansive than the Europeans’. His account of this expansion also highlights the fact that prospective settlers did not always hail from abroad. In some cases, the struggle could be between different groups of peoples within the same continent.
In the book’s Epilogue, Diamond summarizes the factors that have shaped peoples’ different outcomes throughout history. He has covered a huge time period and geographical area in the preceding chapters. However, because this is such a vast topic, he has not been able to cover every base, and he therefore follows the standard academic practice of offering suggestions for further research.
He also anticipates some of the questions that readers might have; namely, why the Americas and Australia were colonized by Europe rather than the people of the Fertile Crescent or China. Diamond responds to this question by explaining that the Fertile Crescent failed to maintain its early momentum. Furthermore, it was situated in an ecologically fragile environment, so following its initial success its position became less enviable and influential. China’s problem was different but no less debilitating: because it was unified country, any individual barrier was likely to have a more widespread effect. Such was the case when political strife led to the suspension of treasure fleets and, by association, the suspension of fleets throughout the country. This is a particularly relevant point, in that is shows that fragmentation does not always constitute a barrier. Solidarity may have helped in some historical episodes, such as the Spanish victory over the Incas, but China’s political unification left it in a precarious position.
Diamond’s concluding remarks concern methodology, and he explains the differences between the historical and non-historical sciences. He observes that, of the historical sciences, human history is seen as an especially problematic field that involves an assortment of variables. It consequently appears more vague, unreliable, and unpredictable than non-historical sciences, which involve fewer variables and are able to formulate universal deterministic laws at the macroscopic level, as opposed to relying on statistical trends.
Lab-based sciences such as physics and chemistry may therefore seem to possess greater validity, but Diamond asserts that scientists working in the historical field—including evolutionary biologists—have been making progress in determining and implementing successful methodologies. He therefore defends this subject area and expresses his conviction that human history can be studied with the same efficacy and scientific rigor as the history of dinosaurs.
Unlock all 79 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
Related Titles
By Jared Diamond
