Customer Reviews

Civilizations : Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As an adolescent, Fernandez-Armesto read the first volumes of Toynbee's "A Study of History" and "vowed never to return to them." Later in life, he "found that Toynbee's work is half full of wisdom," and "Civilizations" owes much to that half, admitting that his doctrine of "challenge and response"--the interrelationship between humans and their environment--is a "powerful and useful characterization" of how civilization can be measured. Inspired by this and other ideas, Fernandez-Armesto here defines and organizes civilizations by "their systematic refashioning of nature."

Spanning over ten millennia, proceeding from tundra societies to maritime empires, and incorporating histories both obscure and familiar, "Civilizations" is a cornucopia of minutiae and generalizations, and the breadth of Fernandez-Armesto's reading and knowledge is staggering. Since he covers hundreds of societies, many get only a page or two while others get more detailed treatment, and the encyclopedic aspect of this work can be both exhilarating and overwhelming. (Readers lacking a historical atlas will probably find the lack of maps quite frustrating.) The book works best when the author is making a point or telling a story, as when he takes the reader on a tour of the wonders of the classical (Greek) world, when he discusses both the inflated significance and the true accomplishments of Vasco da Gama, or when he focuses, in the book's final chapters, on the importance of maritime history (his specialization) during the last thousand years. "Civilizations" falters a bit, however, when Fernandez-Armesto sketches cultures with which he seems to have a passing knowledge (Songhay, New Guineau, the Mound Builders). In some of these sections, the prose reads like a series of observations transcribed or paraphrased from a sequence of those index cards favored by researchers. Still, some of those index cards are pretty darn interesting.

Fernandez-Armesto admits that this comparative study is "an experimental work," "rough-hewn," written "in something like a frenzy." Although I didn't think that its slapdash character was particularly wearisome, the book does contain some sloppy, imprecise statements that a second draft would have thrashed into submission. During his discussion of the Atlantic slave trade during the early modern period, for example, the author writes what he simply cannot mean: "It is not even clear what abolitionists found morally repugnant about slavery: they let other forms of exploitation, including coolie abuse, sweatshops, and convict labor succeed it." Putting aside the glib anachronisms in this sentence, the ambiguous "let" in this sentence demands clarification: abolitionists of the late 1700s and early 1800s were no more responsible for "coolie labor" or sweatshops than Einstein could have been for "letting" Hiroshima and Chernobyl happen.

There are a number of carelessly worded and unsupported gaffes like this one, made in the "frenzy" of getting it all down, and the author doesn't always package his assortment of assertions and abundance of data into a cohesive whole. Fortunately these shortcomings don't overwhelm the merits of this sweeping, information-packed historical survey.

Truth be said. Nowadays it is hard to find an accurate and impartial history of civilization, and most of the civilizations we'll be able to read about do not illustrate the effort to transform the environment like some of the civilizations portrayed in this book. The book is arranged according to similarities in the environment which sprouted especific civilizations and which similarities these weathers produce in their civilizations.

In a different manner to what you'll most often find, he will explain the similarities of civilizations neither as the product of a proto civilization nor as a global consciousness, but rather as a direct consequence of the desire to transform the environment. The other thing that made this book refreshing (I know that most wont find a comparative history of civilizations refreshing) is how lucid Fernandez-Armesto's thougths on civilization are.

On most explanations you'll find that the process of civilization is a way to improve the way of life, which this book clearly proofs wrong, via evidence, not because he is against civilization, but because in a short term it would reduce the diet of humans, and would increase infectious diseases.

This is not only a work of history, but it clearly ilustrates the human mind and how it adapts, not only to it's own environment, but to external cultural influences. Though, as said on other reviews, Armesto fails to deliver all he promised (probably because he promises too much), still his work is worth of praise.

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.

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.

Fernandez-Armesto's venture into environmental history further enhances his reputation as the leading scholar producing large-scale history. Here he classifies civilizations according to the general type of environment in which they arose, flourished and---often---declined. Environments and their civilizations include highlands (Zimbabwe, Inca, Aztec); small islands (Polynesia, Malta, Crete); deserts (Peru, Sahara, Gobi), among others. He then analyzes their adaptations to these settings, as well as exploring other factors. This ambitious if not wholly successful work is exceptionally thoughtful. Among other merits, his discussion of the thorny issue of defining a "civilization" is both sensible and relaxed, unlike some other, rather overwrought treatments (Spengler, Toynbee, Huntington). Like all his work, "Civilizations" is studded with insightful comments and distinguished by sparkling literary style. That said, there are a few flaws. Some equally valid alternate typologies exist to categorize societies and cultures, and some of these civilizations were not fully distinct from others. Despite his best efforts, this work does not fully escape the shadow of determinism. This US edition is not well-supplied with the illustrations (the British edition has photos), maps, diagrams and statistical tables that help with environmental data. Lastly, the author relies almost entirely on published primary and secondary sources, but this is really a necessity in creating history on such a huge canvas. It's the only way to avoid the "Lord Acton Trap:" that eminent Victorian historian sought to write the entire history of human liberty strictly from manuscript sources, and as a result he never completed a single book. Write on, Dr. Felipe!

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.

Fernandez-Armesto's purpose in writing this book is to change the way we think of civilizations -- both in definition and in perspective. He gives us his definition of civilization -- the process by which human communities attempt to alter their environment -- and then gives us a "history" of the world's civilizations, grouped by the type of environment they inhabited. Thus, for example, he will compare and contrast the ways that the inhabitants of the Great Plains in North America, the Sahel and the savannah in Africa, and the steppes of central Asia attempted to adapt their enviornment. A fascinating idea, right? Unfortunately, even though he promises to do this, he never really does. Instead, he has written short impressionist pieces on civilizations around the world, lumping them together superficially. There is very little structure to this work; Fernandez-Armesto never details the irrigation techniques in one area and compares them to another; he never closely examines the deforestation process in North America and northern Euorpe; in short, he never does any of the things he promises to do.

Despite this ambitious failure, the book is still entertaining, educational, and stimulating. Fernandez-Armesto has put out a new schema for the study of human history, but it appears that it will be up to someone else to do real analysis.

This book is worthless, or nearly so. Particularly since there are a number of other, good books on the subject (some of which are critiqued in "Civilizations").

The premise: it's useful to "measure" the level of "civilization" of societies by the degree to which they alter/subdue nature. This "new" metric of "civilization" is neither new nor even mildly interesting as a way to examine world societies compared to the more powerful mainstream studies of civilizations (e.g., what broad common attributes of groups have had measurable impacts on world history: e.g., language, religion, lifestyle, diet, world outlook, nationalistic feelings, views on commerce, economic organization, etc.). "Civilizations" is described by the author as an "experiment" done mostly on his own, partly to be provocative, and done without the benefit of research associates or the normal level of pre-publication peer review. It shows.

The book is a series of brief sketches of a number of peripheral (by any measure of impact on world history) societies to examine how they've adapted to their environment (e.g., the Lapps in northern Scandinavia, the Eskimos, the tribes that lived in north/central Asia along the Silk Road and other trade routes from China to the Middle East/Europe). The book is organized around different "ecosystems" (e.g., grasslands, artic regions, highlands, coastlands). Because the author attempts to cover so much territory, and all of it from secondary or tertiary sources, it feels like a hastily written high school survey text on world geography - censored by the "multicultural" enforcers.

"Civilizations" is full of irritating grade school level political correctness: "The West is the cause of all that is wrong in the word today", "the West is terribly imperialistic", "we're destroying our environment", "all civilizations are equally interesting and valuable, and none is better in any way than any other") without any real argument for any of these claims. For more interesting, contrary claims that are supported by lots of argument and evidence, see "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (not perfect, but tons better than "Civilizations"), "The Little Ice Age" (much more instructive about the effects weather/climate change has on societies, based on real empirical data) or "Guns, Germs and Steel" (politically correct but a much better argued thesis about the same general area in a much more interesting way). These three books (and the sources listed in their bibliographies) offer a much more informed, closely argued and interesting perspective on the issues raised in "Civilizations". Definitely read them (if you can only read one, read "Guns, Germs and Steel"), and don't waste time on "Civilizations".

[...] the author quite rightly criticizes some of the practitioners of that academic genre as missing the mark. Civilizations are of only some, limited conceptual help in studying history; not worthless, but properly viewed more as starting points from which to start analysis as opposed to some fundamental unit of human society that explains a lot of history.

It's been a long time since I have read a work of history as engrossing as this one. At first blush, the author's premise - that civilizations develop in response to (or in defiance of) environmental conditions - seems somewhat idiosyncratic, and professional nitpickers will find plenty to criticize. Those hung up on dogma will be infuriated by certain provocative pronouncements. But this is a personal, deliberately experimental approach, and if the reader is willing to shed some tenaciously held prejudices, it can be thoroughly rewarding. It manages to avoid showy erudition while maintaining high levels of scholarship and style. The abundant source material and numerous anecdotal references add to the enjoyment. I could have done without the bleak last chapter, and I am not sure I understand the author's motivation for including it. But overall, it was a thought-provoking and even exciting read.

As a teacher of History in California, we have been required to speak to four themes of history - geography/environment being one of them. This book looks at the impact that the environment has in shaping civilizations, as well as the impact man has in shaping the environment. Most books casually touch on this aspect of historical significance leaving the rise and fall of various civilizations to politics and human foibles. But, Fernandez-Armesto evinces a wonderfully complex argument that the environment is a major player. I'm thrilled by the book. It's exactly what a dogmatic history-writing community needs to help change the way they look at time and to add a broader perspective to things.