The Rebus Principle

The other day, while reading chapter 12 of Guns, Germs, and Steel, I came across a reference to pun development. 

"...it's easy to draw a recognizable picture of arrow, hard to draw a recognizable picture of life, but both are pronounced ti in Sumerian, so a picture of an arrow came to mean either arrow or life. The resulting ambiguity was resolved by the addition of a silent sign called a determinative, to indicate the category of nouns to which the intended object belonged. Linguist term this decisive innovation, which also underlies puns today, the rebus principle."   Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

The pun reference was mostly insignificant, but it caught my attention   naturally. What Diamond was discussing was the development of early writing systems, particularly logographic writing systems (single symbols representing whole words or morphemes) such as hieroglyphics or even Chinese script. The rebus principle is the use of preexisting symbols purely for their pronunciation regardless of their meaning in order to represent abstract subjects such as "love" or "belief"; it is easy to depict a physical entity with symbols, but very difficult to depict a concept or emotion with symbols. Therefore, symbols representing physical entities were often strung together in order to represent abstract concepts. It's very much like Pictionary: to represent "I can see you" one would write   or draw   "eye-can-sea-ewe." Similarly, puns use the rebus principle for the simple pleasure of exploiting a highly limited writing system or language to appear funny   a mere matter of opinion   or clever   also a mere matter of opinion.

American Diffusion vs. Afro-Eurasian Diffusion

"The distance between Mesoamerica and South America   say, between Mexico's highlands and Ecuador's   is only 1,200 miles, approximately the same as the distance in Eurasia separating the Balkans from Mesopotamia. The Balkans provided ideal growing conditions for most Mesopotamian crops and livestock, and received those domesticates as a package within 2,000 years of its assembly in the Fertile Crescent. The rapid spread preempted opportunities for domesticating those and related species in the Balkans. Highland Mexico and the Andes would similarly have been suitable for many of each other's crops and domestic animals. A few crops, notably Mexican corn, did indeed spread to the other region in the pre-Columbian era." 

"But other crops and domestic animals failed to spread between Mesoamerica and South America. The cool highlands of Mexico would have provided ideal conditions for raising llamas, guinea pigs, and potatoes, all domesticated in the cool highlands of the South American Andes. Yet the northward spread of those Andean specialties was stopped completely by the hot intervening lowlands of Central America."   Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

When I first read this, I was floored. The idea that Fertile Crescent crops diffused throughout Afro-Eurasion crops from a single ancestral region while American crops largely failed to is astonishing! The most interesting fact was that, although most crops did not diffuse between the two regions, both Mexican highland and Andean highland peoples cultivated many of the same crops   with a few exceptions. This means that the people of the respective regions domesticated some of the same plants independently. In contrast, many of the crops in Afro-Eurasia were only domesticated once and then diffused from their ancestral origins through trade and travel. Diamond explains that major reason for this strange disparity is the difference in climates along the major axes of the landmasses. Climate is greatly influenced by latitude and altitude, and, therefore, traveling east-west is much less difficult than traveling north-south. As well, differences in altitude provide differences in climate similar to how latitude does with lower altitudes resembling regions closer to the equator and higher altitudes resembling regions farther from the equator. This is why the Mexican highlands and Andean highlands generate similar climates despite the variation in latitude and therefore support similar crops. However, between the two mild highlands are tropical lowlands. Different climates create different barriers. Different climates generate different diseases which is a major factor in trade; you can't trade if the people succumb to disease before reaching their destination. As well, tropical rainforest is very difficult to traverse because of the thick vegetation. In contrast, travel along the Eurasian landmass generates much less drastic climate variation. This facilitated the transport of crops and livestock throughout north Africa, Europe, and Asia west of the Himalayas. However, African diffusion faced similar issues that American diffusion did. Although southern Africa was capable of supporting Fertile Crescent crops, it never acquired them. The drastic climate variation between Ethiopia and southern Africa generated devastating diseases and difficult terrain. Therefore, it was an unreasonable feat to attempt to traverse it.

Pizarro and the Inca vs. Gideon and the Midianites

"The most dramatic moment in subsequent European-Native American relations was the first encounter between the Inca emperor Atahuallpa and the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro at the Peruvian highland town of Cajamarca on November 16, 1532. Atahuallpa was absolute monarch of the largest and most advanced state in the New World, while Pizarro represented the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (also known as King Charles I of Spain), monarch of the most powerful state in Europe. Pizarro, leading a ragtag group of 168 Spanish soldiers, was in unfamiliar terrain, ignorant of the local inhabitants, completely out of touch with the nearest Spaniards (1,000 miles to the north in Panama) and far beyond the reach of timely reinforcements. Atahuallpa was in the middle of his own empire of millions of subjects and immediately surrounded by his army of 80,000 soldiers, recently victorious in a war with other Indians. Nevertheless, Pizarro captured Atahuallpa within a few minutes after the two leaders first set eyes on each other. Pizarro proceeded to hold his prisoner for eight months, while extracting history's largest ransom in return for a promise to free him. After the ransom   enough gold to fill a room 22 feet long by 17 feet wide to a height of over 8 feet   was delivered, Pizarro reneged on his promise and executed Atahuallpa."   Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

It seems almost as if this account was simply a story, but various personal recorded accounts verify its accuracy and archaeological evidence indicates that such numbers are plausible. Population estimates for the indigenous peoples of the Americas in about 1500 C.E. range between about 57,000,000 and 70,000,000 Native Americans. As a matter of comparison, European population estimates sit at about 70,000,000 individuals. Of course, the numbers elaborated by the conquistadors in the account are likely somewhat exaggerated, but they are not outside the realm of truth. What is most fascinating though is the fact that a mere 168 conquistadors conquered an estimate of about 80,000 Incan soldiers without losing a single soldier of their own! Diamond continues in explaining the reasons for such Spanish success   their superior technology, frightening appearance, and advantageous circumstance   but I merely want to make a comparison. While reading the account I could not  help but recall the Old Testament account of Gideon's army of 300 men against 135,000 Midianite soldiers. The imbalance was very significant (yet, not nearly as significant as between the conquistadors and the Inca) and victory was awarded to Gideon and his army. The situation was similar: both Gideon and Pizarro led a surprise attack; both the Midianites and Inca stumbled into confusion; and both parties with the numerical disadvantage succeeded. However, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Gideon's army didn't possess the same technological advantage over the Midianites that Pizarro had over the Inca. Then again, perhaps he did. We don't know because we have yet to discover any evidence of the biblical battle. Still, I thought it was an interesting comparison that reminds us that their are many determining factors for any outcome. As well, it is ignorant to conclude that any result is inevitable.

Human Exploitation and Mass Extinction

"The settlement of Australia/New Guinea was perhaps associated with still another big first, besides humans' first use of watercraft and first range extension since reaching Eurasia: the first mass extermination of large animal species by humans. Today, we regard Africa as the big continent of big mammals. Modern Eurasia also has many species of big mammals (though not in the manifest abundance of Africa's Serengeti Plains), such as Asia's rhinos and elephants and tigers, and Europe's moose and bears and (until classical times) lions. Australia/New Guinea today has no equally large mammals, in fact no mammal larger than 100-pound kangaroos. But Australia/New Guinea formerly had its own suite of diverse big mammals, including giant kangaroos, rhinolike marsupials called diprotodonts and reaching the size of a cow, and a marsupial 'leopard.' It also formerly had a 400-pound ostrichlike flightless bird, plus some impressively big reptiles, including a one-ton lizard, a giant python, and a land-dwelling crocodiles."   Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

Diamond continues explaining that "all of those Australian/New Guinean giants disappeared after the arrival of humans." An interesting correlation indeed, but what truly caused such mass extinctions. I've always been fascinated with paleontology; even as a 5 year old child I would sit down and watch a 3 hour long documentary about dinosaurs. So this question really resonates with me in relation to my past ventures into prehistory. I am most familiar with the demise of the large North American mammals which scientists often correlate with the arrival of human beings. However, I've never drawn comparisons with Australia/New Guinea and North America to Africa. It is true that while Africa is now considered synonymous with massive animals, other regions, particularly North America, were at once also home to massive animals   some even being larger as is the case with the Columbian woolly mammoth. Yet, most large animals that did not reside in Africa are now extinct. Some scientists blame this phenomenon on drastic climate change following the end of the ice ages, while others blame human hunter-gatherers. Diamond sides with the theory which blames human beings and elaborates upon the possible reason that African giants still exist while Eurasian, Australian, New Guinean, and American giants perished. According to fossil evidence, human beings evolved in Africa; therefore, they co-evolved with African biology. This means that African animals were familiar with human beings prior to their development of advanced weapons, and, therefore, were familiar with their behavior and regarded them as dangerous respectively   they knew to be cautious. However, as humans diffused across Eurasia and even further, they came across valuable game animals which were not familiar with human behavior. It reminds of an expedition which was taken by a group of scientists into a remote region of rainforest which had never been introduced to human beings. Many of the fauna were much less frightened by the presence of the scientists upon their arrival than what is typically observed. It would be somewhat reasonable to expect a similar reaction amid animals upon the arrival of prehistoric humans. This, combined with the fact that humans had developed advanced weapons and hunting strategies by the time of their arrival, produced a major disadvantage for the exploited fauna.