Civilizations

I read this book and Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel back to back, and they're really similar books about the relation between civilization and the environment. But Civilizations looks at history from a historian's perspective, and therefore it brings specific insights from historical anecdotes, rather that something akin to Diamon's grand theory. I have a beautiful hardcover, and it's still nice to break it out once in a while and reread it.

I admit that I have every known work published by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. Almost all deserve that coveted five star award (exception being TRUTH). The current work is more than a history of various groups of peoples we conventiently call civilizations - culture would be apt. The originality of this work is its premise, namely that civilizations are to evaluated on their reaction to their environment.It makes for interesting bed-fellows; one can group African and Arab desert tribes with the Lapps and Inuits. Upon reflection it makes sense to view things this way. The similarities among these various groups is amazing considering their geographical isolation and cultural diversity. But each ecological niche - sand, mountains, oceans, jungles, grasslands, swamps - have the same problems and obstacles regardless of their geographical location - whether near the North Pole, in the Andes or in the steaming jungles of Southeast Asia. Fernandez-Armesto's works tower over felllow journalists simply because they extend further, make bolder claims, ask the right questions. Despite his interest and reverence for primitive peoples, he is not a multi-culturist who claims that every civilization is morally equal or that this kind of short, brutish life is preferable to our contented, abundant ones. He does ask for an attentive ear and an open mind for this lesson in history, language, food, customs and ideas.

Fernandez-Armesto's venture into environmental history extends his reputation as the leading scholar producing large-scale history. In "Civilizations" he classifies civilizations according to the general type of environment in which they arose, thrived and (often) declined. He then analyzes their ability to adapt to those conditions, as well as exploring other influences. The result is an ambitious if not wholly successful work, but still a notably thoughtful one. Among other merits, his fine discussion of the thorny issue of defining a "civilization" is both sensible and relaxed, unlike some more overrwrought treatments (Spengler, Toynbee, Huntington). Like all his work, "Civilizations" is studded with insightful comments and distinguished by sparkling literary style. That said, there are some flaws. Some alternate typologies for categorizing societies and cultures are equally valid, and despite his best efforts, this work does not completely escape the shadow of determinism. This otherwise well-illustrated book is not well-supplied with the maps, diagrams and statistical tables that are very helpful in dealing with environmental data. Finally, the author relies almost exclusively on published primary and secondary sources, but this is really a necessity in writing history on such a huge canvas. It's the only way to avoid the "Lord Acton Trap:" that famous Victorian historian sought to narrate the whole history of human liberty entirely from manuscript sources, and as a result he never completed a single book. Write on, Dr. Felipe! NB It's perfectly legitimate to use one's own earlier material in subsequent works, with proper citation. The best remedy is for buyers to examine the second book fully---or else read the first more carefully!

Armesto's approach to history is driven by ecological concerns, showing how a particular culture adapted to its particular environmental milieu. In the introduction, he discusses the difficulties historians have had trying to define the concept of civilization, pointing out that they all fail in one way or another. But Armesto's approach is simple in that ultimately it all comes down to food, sustenance, sustainability, and adaptation to one's environment. He mentions that other historians occasionally write him, complaining that his approach ultimately comes down to the history of food. Armesto also makes the important point that comparative historical analyses of civilizations, such as that of Toynbee's, have failed primarily because each civilization is the product of adaptation to a unique set of environmental circumstances.Armesto didn't pioneer this approach, and other historians have certainly used it also. If I remember correctly, didn't the great Ellsworth Huntington 100 years ago theorize that the decline of the ancient civilizations was due to a drying period in the climate in the Middle East starting several thousand years ago? I'm not sure what the current status of this theory is, since I've also read that one of the reasons that Sumeria and Akkadia declined after the second millenium BC and that the focus of power and culture shifted northward into Babylonia, was because the lower Euphrates and Tigris rivers suffered salination.Anyway, I still found Armesto's approach interesting, and as valid as any other method. Armesto is always saying things that I found informative that I hadn't read anywhere else. For example, in talking about the evolution of the first effective nomadic animal herders, he points out that the critical advance is having mixed flocks of different animals, since different animals will give milk at different times of the year--otherwise, you might run out of milk--which could mean the difference between survival and starvation.Armesto uses this interesting approach to analyze some important (and not-so-important) civilizations, ranging from ancient Mesopotamia to the Lapps in northern Scandinavia. He has the ability to capture what is specific or unique about a particular culture with a few incisive, almost epigrammatic phrases, and similarly, he is equally comfortable with broader time scales, and can give you seemingly effortless insights about an entire historical period in a few sentences or brief paragraph. This doesn't mean the book is superficial in its approach or that Armesto is given to making broad, casual, over-generalizations. Far from it. As a result, the entire book kept my interest and curiosity at a high pitch since I was always wondering what Armesto was going to say next.Overall, a very well-written, engaging, and enjoyable history by an outstanding contemporary historian, and with an interesting approach to its subject.

In this book the author arranges civilizations not by chronology but by environment. In it one finds a new approach to commonly discussed civilizations (e.g., the Greeks and Sumerians), but also much information about little known but interesting and instructive societies (e.g.,Fredrik Hendrik Islanders and the inhabitants of the Great Zimbabwe). The author's superior vocabulary makes reading at times difficult but his phrases and word choices often make some discussions almost poetic. If you enjoyed Fernandez-Armesto's "Millenium" (which is occasionally quoted verbatum in this text),you will enjoy this brilliantly told, scholarly endeavor. His dicussions about the "real" Captain John Smith (very different from the Disney version) and his "cruise" through the Wonders of Antiquity are especially enlightening.