The Great Divide: History and Human Nature in the Old World and the New

by Peter Watson

Exploring the development of humankindbetween the Old World and the New—from15,000 BC to AD 1500—the acclaimed authorof Ideas and The German Genius offers agroundbreaking new understandingof human history.

Why did Asia and Europe develop far earlier than the Americas? What were thefactors that accelerated—or impeded—development? How did the experiences of OldWorld inhabitants differ from their New Worldcounterparts—and what factors influenced thosedifferences?

In this fascinating and erudite history, PeterWatson ponders these questions central to thehuman story. By 15,000 BC, humans had migratedfrom northeastern Asia across the frozen Beringland bridge to the Americas. When the world warmed up and the last Ice Age came to an end,the Bering Strait refilled with water, dividing America from Eurasia. This division—with two great populations on Earth, each unaware of theater—continued until Christopher Columbus voyaged to the New World in the fifteenth century.

The Great Divide compares the development of human kind in the Old World and the New between 15,000 BC and AD 1500. Watson identifies three major differences between the two worlds—climate, domesticable mammals, and hallucinogenic plants—that combined to produce very different trajectories of civilization in the two hemispheres. Combining the most up-to-date knowledge in archaeology, anthropology, geology, meteorology, cosmology, and mythology, this unprecedented, masterful study offers uniquely revealing insight into what it means to be human.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Anthropology, Science, World History, Archaeology, Prehistory

640 pages, Hardcover

First published January 12, 2012

About the author

Peter Watson was educated at the universities of Durham, London and Rome, and was awarded scholarships in Italy and the United States.

After a stint as Deputy Editor of New Society magazine, he was for four years part of the Sunday Times ‘Insight’ team of investigative journalists. He wrote the daily Diary column of the London Times before becoming that paper’s New York correspondent. He returned to London to write a column about the art world for the Observer and then at The Sunday Times.

He has published three exposes in the world of art and antiquities and from 1997 to 2007 was a Research Associate at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge. He has published twelve books of non-fiction and seven novels, some under the pen name of Mackenzie Ford. He lives in London where his interests include theatre, opera and fishing.

Awards, Etc.

Psychology Prize
Durham University, 1961

Italian Government Music Scholarship
Rome University, 1965

United States Government Bursary “for future world leaders”
To study the psychiatric profession and its links to the administration of justice

Books of the Year

Psychology Today Magazine, 1978, for War on the Mind
Daily Mail, 1990, for Wisdom and Strength
Independent on Sunday, for A Terrible Beauty, 2000
Times Literary Supplement, for Ideas, 2005
Time Magazine, for The Medici Conspiracy, 2006
Queen’s Pardon
Copy from Patrick Meehan after I had written a series of articles which brought about his release from prison after he had been wrongly convicted of murder, 1976.

Gold Dagger – Crime Writers’ Association of Great Britain
For The Caravaggio Conspiracy, 1983

Beacon Award – SAFE Award – Saving Antiquities for Everyone
For The Medici Conspiracy, 2006

US Library Association
The Great Divide.

Emmy Nomination
‘The Caravaggio Conspiracy, 1984.

Best sellers

The Caravaggio Conspiracy
Crusade
Landscape of Lies
Sotheby’s: The Inside Story
Nureyev
Lectures

Peter Watson has lectured at the following venues:

Universities

Cambridge
Berkeley
London
UCLA
Birmingham
Georgia
Georgia
Chicago
Birmingham
Santiago de Chile
York
Madrid
Harvard
Tufts
Military Bases

Fort Bragg
Private Institutions in

Cleveland
Berlin
Chicago
Belfast
Los Angeles
New York
Washington
Boston
Palm Beach
Other venues

Smithsonian Institution
National Museum, Copenhagen
Royal Society of Arts
Rugby School
Royal Library, Copenhagen
Festivals

Edinburgh
Oxford
Dartington
York

Reviews

[Brian Griffith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Watson sets forth to explore an interesting, important question, namely what the main differences were between traditional cultures of the Old World and the New World Americas. The inquiry starts off well, examining numerous geographical, geological, climatic, and biological features that influenced the developmental paths of societies in each hemisphere. Then he plows on into comparative history, and here I’m afraid he bogs down in rather massive detail, running to well over 500 pages. A lot of this detail is fascinating. but in attempting comprehensiveness on his absolutely enormous subject, Watson produces chapters that often read like an encyclopedia. For example, he gives detailed reports on the rules and significance of ancient Mesoamerican ball games, and an explanation of why alphabetic writing probably did NOT originate in Phoenicia or Canaan. At times I felt like saying "Just throw the whole library at me."

Overall, Watson presents loads of helpful insights on topics such as the contrasts between societies led by shamans and those led by shepherds. He challenges a lot of traditional prejudices. But at times he shows rather overwhelming cultural bias, as when he states that “Only with Christianity, beginning with St. Augustine in the fifth century, do we encounter the idea that God has given us free will” (p. 445).

[Pål Bakka · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating interdisciplinary work. I cannot but like the basic argument in the text: That the differential path of development in the New World compared to the Old was the product of the particular combination of extreme weather and naturally occurring psychotropic drugs found only in the New. In the New World the gods were angrier than in the Old, and far easier to get into contact with.
Watson bills the book as a "history of 'ideology'", that is, a history of the evolution of human attempts to explain "life, the universe and everything". Its focus is thus on religion and ritual, with the necessary digressions into archaeology, ethnography and prehistory. This subject matter is of course fertile soil for speculations; making the book a very enjoyable read. Personally I never linked the sequence in the biblical creation myth (separation of light and darkness prior to the appearance of night and day, sun and moon) to the eruption of Mt. Toba volcano 74000 years ago. And, as it was witnessed by anatomically modern humans, this may well be true. Oral tradition has to reach that far back because the human species is that old.

[Giselle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating book which reminded me a lot of "Guns Germs and Steel". I love when history is presented in an accessible way. Vast amounts of information are fit into easy-to-understand hypotheses. It's a lot like watching a PBS documentary.
I appreciated the colourful parts of history described, such as the use of hallucinogenic drugs, shamanism or bloodletting rituals. These things are much more entertaining to read about than grain surpluses, for instance.

[Howard Wiseman · Rating 2 out of 5]

A grand attempt to explain the difference in cultural patterns between the Old and New Worlds based on physical and biological geography. While this is a fascinating topic, and the book is full of provocative ideas, it did not live up to its promise. As other reviewers have noted, some of Watson's ideas are pretty far-fetched, like the extremely ancient origin of some myths. For me, a worse problem was that he did not seem to have a thorough grasp of his material. A lot of it read like undigested ideas and facts from various sources, with little integration.

Just to give one example, he tells us (p.24) all about the Toba explosion, including that "sea temperatures, according to geologist Michael Rampino, dropped by ten degrees Farenheit". On the next page, he tells us that "at a conference in Oxford in February 2010 ... [this] was queried, and new evidence presented to suggest that the temperature dropped by only 2.5C." First, this is an inappropriate level of detail about the sources for this particular event, in a book that covers a huge swathe of prehistory and history. Watson should decide what he thinks the best evidence is and tell us, leaving the caveats to end-notes. Second, this example displays a remarkable lack of synthesis in that he has not even bothered to convert the temperature estimates into the same units!

Another flaw is that while he is supposed to be contrasting the Old World and the New, his account of the history of the former is very Eurocentric. For example, he has this extraordinary statement (p.515) "In the Old World, ... after AD 70, ... blood sacrifice was abolished altogether" as if the writ of the Roman Emperors ran for the entirety of three continents.

Not being an expert in most of the areas Watson discusses, I'm not in a position to judge most of his arguments. But when he lends credence, however qualified (p.462) to the fraudulent and ridiculous claims of Gavin Menzies about China discovering America in 1421, one has to doubt his judgement on all manner of other things. I bookmarked scores of interesting facts, but I don't know how many of them I can really trust.

Finally, I will make this comment. In the introduction, Watson quotes from an art critic about a British Museum exhibition, "If there is a more revoltingly inhumane and despicable society known to history than the Aztecs, I really don't care to know about it." This was my starting position too, and I thought this book might change my mind. Instead I found out that, in terms of their religious beliefs and practices, all of the great Meso- and South-American civilisations were as revolting as the Aztecs. This was, indeed, not something I cared to know, and perhaps that made me appreciate the book less than I might have.

[Jan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peter Watson calls this the greatest natural experiment in history. We all came from the same stock, yet humankind was separated for 16,500 years in the New World and the Old, and the rate of development was very different. Why?

In the New World, there were more volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc., so gods were viewed as more destructive, far angrier and colored all religion. And, catastrophes were tied to the need for continual sacrifices to appease gods.

Diamond’s thesis is that the sheer size of great steppes of Eurasia gave it a huge advantage over the New World (led to domestication of the horse, the spread of agriculture and trade, and increased immunity from diseases). The North-South orientation of the Western Hemisphere limited communication and trade, and isolated societies and languages within restricted mountainous and jungle terrain.

Grains, such as wheat, barley and rye, in Old World were easy to domesticate and led to surpluses which allowed for growth in cities and civilizations were not available in the New World. Maize was more difficult to domesticate and spread. There were few animals in the New World to domesticate, and without pack animals, there was no need for the wheel.

In the Old World, the shift from hunter-gathering to agricultural was accompanied by a change in religion from shamanism to fertility cults. And, following the end of the Bronze Age in the 12th Century BC, the Old World entered Axial Age and turned against human sacrifice, then animal sacrifices through the works of Zoroaster, Buddha, Hindu thought, Confucius, and the Greeks (possibly as a reaction to the excessive devastation of cities caused the rise of warriors). Gradually a form of rationalism took hold.

During this time, the Old World slowly shifted away from hallucinogens to more moderate liquid intoxicants in religious ceremonies; however, this shift did not occur in the New World due to 1) superabundant presence of psychoactive plants (ten times more species than in Old World), 2) there wasn’t the same shift away from hunting in jungle environments to agriculture, and 3) the combination of violent environment and strong hallucinogens gave their religion much more intensity, more other-worldliness and caused it to be far more convincing. The break from shamanism to rationalism never occurred.

This is the story of mankind and it tells us how tenuous, how fragile our hold on civilization really is. Take away a few critical plants or animals that we were able to domesticate, add more natural disasters and psychoactive plants, and our story could have been dramatically different.

[Ard · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are many things to like about this book. The history, archeology, religion, anthropology, biology and genetics, to name a few. I loved the idea, to compare the development and evolution of people in the Old world and the New, as they became completely separated from about 15.000 BC till Columbus. We trace the development of the first people as they spread out over the world and learn how their respective situations and inventions helped to shape their minds and civilizations.

There's a lot of information in this tome of a book, about many interesting things. From the first religions and shamanism and cave art through the Mayas and the Christians to the nomadic tribal warfare and the Renaissance. But it's pretty dense reading and nothing you easily flip through. But wow is this impressive. This will be one of those books that will stick with you.

[Jayesh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of interesting details especially w.r.t. American ancient history and effect of local climate and geology on the local religion and civilization. Contrast with Old World, Eurasia was quite useful, but approximately alternate chapter threading could be handled better.

[Kati · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books I have read in a long, long time. Not since Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies have I been so engrossed in a history of the human race.

Peter Watson manages to make a huge topic accessible and interesting and points out many things that are probably apparent to most people in the backs of their minds, but most of us do not realise it (e.g. the fact that religion is almost always a response to the physical environment encountered by humans, as well as to the changing social and economic phenomena, like the fact that the Great Goddess idea becomes supplanted by the dominant male god with the advent of more bellicose societies following the invention of chariots and horse-riding).

The other great aspect of the book is that it provides context to historical phenomena that most of us know about (e.g. the development of agriculture, writing and monotheism) but which most of us probably do not understand or appreciate the historical background of. As a result of reading this book, I now have a much better understand of why the major changes and innovations of human history occurred when, where and why they did, and how previous developments helped feed into subsequent ones (e.g. the changing philosophical outlooks of the so-called Axial Age came about as a response to the increasingly violent society that most people lived in, which in turn contributed to some of the founding ideas of monotheism).

The only downside of the book is that it is repetitive at certain points, on account of the way the author chose to structure the book. The repetitiveness is occasionally useful in that it helps remind of you of previous points which you may have forgotten (there is A LOT of information to process), but I think a bit less of it would be have been better (this is a personal view of course and the issue may not bother everyone). In any event, it is a minor point, and does not detract in any way from the overall value of the book.

All in all, this book is recommended to everyone and should be taken on board by all history teachers because it compiles most recent archaeological, anthropological, climatological, etc. findings in an easily accessible form.

[Lauren Hiebner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book comparing the development of two civilizations; the Old World and the New World. His analysis is very thorough for both worlds. He said that while there are similarities, Watson wanted to focus on the differences. One reason for differing civilizations is based on environmental challenges; flooding and monsoons declining in strength in the Old World while increasingly destructive weather occurred in the New World. A second reason is the type of crops raised in the Old World (grasses, cereals, grains) which required numerous people to process and store while in the New World crops were mainly maize and tubers which made it difficult to build up surpluses. Thirdly, While monotheism and theology emerged in the Old World the New World was dominated by shamans who tried to appease the gods of destruction (volcanoes and earthquakes) via human sacrifice so that terrible things would not happen. Fourth, the Old World was characterized by pastoral nomadism in which movement of peoples east and west was easy with domesticated animals and the wheel while the New World was sedentary, tied to the land with little real need of movement which would be difficult anyways going north and south. What I really liked is the disclaimer at the end of the book where Watson makes it clear that racism found in the Renaissance of the Old World led to integrating the New World peoples and culture into the framework of Old World thought. Therefore, the entire history of the New World is seen through the eyes of Old World. Watson had equal respect for both worlds in this comparison. A very good read.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Great Divide offers a wide-ranging and fascinating insight into the shaping of myth and religion - as well as society and other customs - with a focus of how and why this manifested so different in Eurasia and the Americas.

I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in world history
—but—
perhaps not as your introduction to the topic. Watson has a tendency to rely heavily on a single or handful of sources and, especially reading 10 years after publication, does not always conform to significant details of our current understanding of the discussed cultures (for instance with regards to their ideologies and technological advancement).

Although he attempts carefully to avoid a (post-)Christian and Eurocentric bias, he increasingly loses control over this as the narrative approaches the renaissance. The Arab and later Islamic world do not at all get the credit they deserve in for instance their contribution scientific progress, and Africa as a whole remains largely unmentioned. Whereas sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania are understandably not within the scope of the thesis, civilizations such as Aksum and North-African kingdoms probably should have been.

None of this is to say that The Great Divide is not a good book: it features a compelling comparison in a truly ambitious scope, and more often than not manages to deliver, in clear and convincing prose.

[Jack Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

very interesting, builds on Diamond with it's analysis of the factors that contributed to the difference between Old and New worlds. Starts from environment, adaptation, and then focuses on the different ideologies that formed in old and new. Put simply, the Old world history was driven by the shepherd, New world by the shaman.
Old world was east- west oriented, allowing easy adaptation of animals and crops on the same latitudes. However the weakening monsoons drove many to pastoralism (eg. mongols) who needed to be constantly expanding range and thus conflict. This lead to an ideology that had an abstract but rational god, with ideas of linear time and progress.
The New world however faced an increasing frequency of destructive weather (el nino, volcanoes) and interestingly an abundance of hallucinogenic plants, which led to a more vertical ideology, more difficult to cope with in a rational way. Their gods were less understandable, manageable and so the new world was a harder place in which to adapt.
Hard to do justice in this short review, but I was convinced by his argument.

[Radiantflux · Rating 3 out of 5]

59th book of the year.

It is fascinating when you realize that civilization (cities; writing; agriculture; complex hierarchical social structures etc) developed at least twice in human history: Once in Eurasia and then again in the Americas; the people in the Americas being separated from the rest of humanity for perhaps 14000 years. Such a natural experiment allows you to ask questions like: how inevitable are cities; organized religion; writing etc.

While the theme of the book is great, it unfortunately suffers from too much information and too little synthesis. Each chapter is a veritable info-dump about some topic or other (monsoon cycles; the earth mother; psychedelic drugs; jaguars; the economics of monasteries; human sacrifice; etc. etc). In addition lots of the chapters rely too much on one author's interpretations (e.g., Peter Furst on the chapter on psychedelics and the Old World).

The book also suffers from poor editing, where brackets in particular appear without warning, making the flood of information even harder to parse.

However, if you can bear with it, an worthwhile read.

[Juliet Waldron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots to ponder here--huge amounts of information as the time span is from 15000 BC to 1500 AD, particularly on the aboriginal inhabitants of the western hemisphere and their fascinating ritualized and complex civilizations. So much of the later is newly discovered--just in the last 20 years--that alone would have drawn me into the book. Some of the author's conclusions left me jaw-dropped, however, and I was "off the bus" and then back on with a chapter by chapter regularity. Still, this didn't discourage me, first because it's a fascinating sparkler of an idea generator, the kind of book that leaves the reader with plenty upon which to ruminate. Also, because this is one of the only historical/philosophical analyses I've ever read which seriously and authoritatively discusses the hallucinogenic roots of many religious traditions of the New World and the effect of that upon cultural development.

[Grace · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was originally going to give this a like ok review because it covers a lot of material but honestly I don't support hardly any of the book's conclusions. Right from the beginning Watson is on shaky ground, agreeing with highly controversial language superfamilies like the "Dene-Caucausian" superfamily, which would seek to link Abkhaz (spoken in Georgia [the country]), Chinese, and Diné [Navajo] into the same language family. The author also upholds such outdated ideas as the "Axial Age" (~900 BCE - ~200 BCE). He also credits Christianity with the rise of rationalism and capitalism in Europe, and dates the beginning of "religious capitalism" in Europe to the ninth century (!). Which is so wrong. So wrong. Like this book honestly has so many issues I could go into all of them. What a bad analysis.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal book that overlays many disciplines of science with human prehistory. I have read the "Seven Daughters of Eve", "1491" and "1493", this book combines many elements from those books and much more. Only criticisms I have is that 1) there should have been more information regarding mitochondrial DNA, 2) more explanation as to which civilizations formed in the new world (macro scale) oh, and 3) A significant effort was made in explaining how dogs helped with early human development - it didn't even mention a couple of theories that dogs helped influence early societal structures.... Otherwise, this book was very much worth the time spent reading it.

[WaldenOgre · Rating 3 out of 5]

如果只用一个词来概括我对于本书的读后感的话，那应该就是“手足无措”了。

作者笔下涉及的信息极其繁杂，从新旧大陆的气候灾变、动植物资源、宗教思想，到社会文化、政治结构、遗传学、考古学，几无无所不包。但用来涵盖这么多信息的理论结构和叙事框架却是极其虚弱和散漫的，以致我经常读着读着就开始纳闷，作者为什么要谈及这些内容呢？他又打算如何让这些内容服务于本书的主题呢？此外，诸如在谈及致幻剂对玛雅和阿兹特克文明的巨大影响时，至少就我个人观感而言，作者的论点也常常显得很缺乏说服力。其中，臆断和推论的比例起码是持平的。

理论框架确实是一把双刃剑：过于追求清晰流畅，那很可能需要为之付出精确和严谨的代价；反之亦然。可如若像本书作者这么处理，那所有的内容就基本成了一盘散沙了。部分论点确有让我眼前一亮的振奋，但整体来说，却很难称之为成功。

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everyone knows something about the rise of Civilization and where it occurred: Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China all very early on achieved recognizably civilized societies. From these origins, civilization radiated outwards throughout much of the Old World. But why wasn't the same degree of success achieved here in the New World (i.e., the Americas)? Only in the central Andes was there a comparatively early success. -But even that was on a much smaller scale.

Our author, Peter Watson, in this intriguingly speculative study, finds the main differences (of course there are many nuances here) between the Old and New Worlds to be:
-On the one hand, east-west geographical orientation, farming, fertility religions, and domesticated animals (that are useful for everything from food to work and war), dominate the history and ideologies (religion, politics) of the old world.
As difficult as old world history so often is, it allowed civilization to both rise and flourish.
-While (again, according to our author) in the new world violent weather (and volcanoes, earthquakes), north-south orientation, fewer (much fewer) usefully domesticable animals and cereal crops, and abundant hallucinogens sent culture, ideology and religion reeling in a very different direction.
Here the circumstances conspired to thwart the rise of old-world style massive civilizations.

Why is east-west orientation so much better than north--south? Because an east-west orientation allows the cultivation of the same domesticated animals and crops across multiple time zones, and because the weather (generally speaking) remains constant. This is not true of north-south migrations.

I would have emphasized more the importance of rivers (and trade) than our author does. If one looks at the four Eurasian 'Cradles of Civilization' one finds (in each) great river systems that lead to the sea, and other societies. The only new world site of comparable antiquity, the recently discovered Norte Chico civilization, existed (comparatively speaking) in splendid isolation. Its breakthrough to civilization does not spread throughout the region.

Our author certainly does not deny that there is one humanity. His purpose is to show how much that one humanity can differ in belief and behavior thanks to different circumstances.

In Closing

I enjoyed this book a lot. I would like to see what our author does in this book attempted in a comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of Afro-Eurasia.

Now, as far as the rise of civilization goes, Africa, like the Americas, got a raw deal. What gave sub-Saharan Africa a trajectory so different than the rest of the Old World?
Three points come immediately to mind:
1. Terrible tropical diseases that ravage both man beast. Most know that disease was difficult on the colonialist cum imperialist, but (in some areas) it was killing 50% of native infants! That is an incredible and terrifying number!
2. Tropical soils with little humus and are easily leeched. So even if Africa had the grains that allowed the build up of agricultural surplus that was enjoyed elsewhere in the Old World, they could not have come close to others success thanks to the poor soil. -And one needs agricultural surplus to achieve an enduring civilized state
3. Africa is a vast Plateau. Therefore most rivers eventually come to impassable waterfalls or dangerous cataracts. This is murder on any trade that might have developed within Africa and beyond. Thus the inflow of information and goods from the rest of Eurasia slowed to a trickle.
Sheesh! What a mess!

Th first great expanding civilizations absolutely had to be in Eurasia (including North Africa). I enjoyed this book by Watson a lot. As stated above, I would like to see our author,(or anyone else) attempt to do what our author does here for the new world done for sub-Saharan Africa.
Four stars for a very thought-provoking read!

[Jrobertus · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating tour de force of world history in a similar vein to Jared Diamond���s famous book Guns, Germ, and Steel. Watson is interested in the similarities but more importantly the differences between cultures and civilizations in the old world, Eurasia, and the new world. People adapt to their environments and so there is a lengthy discussion of the geographic and climatic differences, largely the notion of Eurasia’s east west orientation in a mostly temperate latitude and the thermal trumpet of the Americas. Like Diamond he notes the differences in crops and domesticatable mammals. Cows, horses, sheep, goats and pigs are found in the old world and basically nada in the new. This lack of animals affects not only food but draft potential and the impact is staggering. Watson develops the implications at length. An often overlooked aspect of the different worlds is the amazing number of hallucinogens in the new world, and not just peyote, Datura, bufatonin, but on and on. This facilitated shamanism, and provided a vivid vision of other worlds that was not found in the old world. A large difference in religions is also analyzed. The old world largely gave up on shamans in favor of priests in public ceremonies and a move to ever more abstract notions of gods, while the new world was steeped in human sacrificial blood. Watson narrates historical and culture evolution in the old and new worlds. It is a huge story and fun to read. There is so much in the book it is difficult to review in detail but if you liked Guns, Germs, and Steel, or Rise of the West, you will probably love this book. I sure did.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating and articulate book. It provides a comprehensive overview of the differences between ancient New World and Old World cultures, and analysis thereof -- although it provides little in the way of detailed accounts of individual civilisations.
I felt it could have benefited, firstly, from the inclusion of more specific historical examples as a means of illustrating the point at hand, and secondly, making an effort to occasionally bring the particular topic under discussion back to the overall thesis. As a consequence of these two minor flaws, the middle portion of the book seemed (to the reader) to wander somewhat.
Overall, however, 'The Great Divide' provides an engaging analysis of it's subject matter, and acheives the goal it set for itself exceedingly well.

[Dennis Noson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intrigued I was, all the way through Peter Watson's Great Divide, but puzzled often by his asides, and diversions, especially the writer to reader caveats, regularly, about his penchant for fairly wild speculation. The upshot is he favored evidence that supported his various themes and main thesis, and claims that we readers have to accept this, right there in the text or footnotes.

I finished it up with a sense that this cultural and biological history of humankind was more about how fascinating humans are, than about the divide he claims to see between the Old World and the New. There are many good references to current secondary (so-called) literature, so Mr. Watson is a good guide for further exploration.

[Ricardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a well researched book. The theory behind it underlines the main differences in development between the Old and the New World. Based on anthropological, sociological, geographical and meteorology studies, the author presents a theory that shows why development occurred faster in the Old World than in the New World. The research covers the path followed by early inhabitants of Asia on their way to the New World.

It’s worth mentioning the influence of early forms of spirituality and the use of psychedelic plants in the development of cosmogony myths in the New World. Those beliefs helped the formation of behaviors and spiritual practices in the New World.

[D.L. Morrese · Rating 3 out of 5]

Civilizations evolved differently in the Old World and the New. This scholarly report discusses how and why geography, geology, climate, flora, and fauna mattered to the cultures that emerged. This isn't an easy read. The prose has an academic tone, and it's almost painfully detailed, getting bogged down in details and specifics that can be a distraction from the overall argument. Despite this, it's interesting and informative if you take it in small chunks or skim the bits that go into more depth than you care for.

[Alois Clemens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book, sometimes too detailed, complementary to Guns, germs and steel by Jared Diamond, but here environment is more linked to ideology, dividing "The old world" and 'The new world".

[Ellen · Rating 2 out of 5]

About 10 chapters longer than needed. But offers some interesting alternatives to the East-West divide compared to Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[Garrett Fitzgerald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting ideas and very readable

[Marco · Rating 4 out of 5]

En "La Gran Divergencia: Cómo y por qué llegaron a ser diferentes el Viejo Mundo y el Nuevo", Peter Watson explora el fascinante tema de por qué América y Eurasia evolucionaron de maneras tan diferentes, haciendo de esta una obra de antropología, historia y ciencia, basada en los más recientes hallazgos arqueológicos y científicos. Watson explica que cuando Colón llegó a América en 1492, encontró un mundo radicalmente distinto al que existía en Europa, y que estas diferencias eran el resultado de miles de años de evolución divergente en cuanto a cultura, biología y condiciones geográficas.

Según Watson, la separación de América del resto del mundo hace 14,000 años, al término de la última glaciación, marcó un punto clave en la historia evolutiva. Mientras los pueblos de Eurasia se expandieron en un vasto corredor de Este a Oeste (a través de regiones con climas relativamente similares que facilitaban el intercambio de plantas, animales y tecnologías), las civilizaciones americanas evolucionaron en una orientación Norte-Sur, lo cual, junto a las barreras naturales, como grandes cordilleras, volcanes, grandes masas de agua y un clima extremo, dificultó el intercambio cultural y biológico.

Watson aborda temas que van desde la genética y la relación de los humanos con los animales hasta las prácticas religiosas y las estructuras sociales. Analiza, por ejemplo, la influencia de la domesticación de animales en Eurasia, la cual permitió el desarrollo de enfermedades infecciosas (zoonosis) que inmunizaron en gran medida a las poblaciones europeas. Esto contrasta con América, donde había menos especies domesticadas y, en consecuencia, las enfermedades infecciosas eran menos comunes. Asimismo, aborda temas culturales como el culto a la Gran Diosa y la importancia de los chamanes, el uso de plantas alucinógenas y hongos psicotrópicos en América, en contraste con las sociedades pastoriles y guerreras de Eurasia.

Watson también observa los logros culturales y científicos de las civilizaciones precolombinas, como el calendario mesoamericano, la gran ciudad de Tiahuanaco en el lago Titicaca, y la sofisticación de Tenochtitlán, que contaba con jardines botánicos antes que Europa.

En suma, "La Gran Divergencia" ofrece una visión amplia y bien documentada de las complejas causas que hicieron que el Viejo y el Nuevo Mundo fueran tan distintos en el momento del encuentro en el siglo XV. Aunque es una lectura densa y pesada, me parece muy recomendable para quienes desean comprender cómo factores biológicos, geográficos y culturales dieron forma a dos mundos con historias radicalmente distintas.

[Kevin Finn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before reading this book, I was aware of the author's thesis - that geography and climate lead to the differences between Old World and New World cultures - and I was concerned that this might be a slight argument, or founded in racism or cultural chauvinism.
I was very wrong. I found this book to be a meticulously researched "history of prehistory", covering the period of human migration out of Africa, to the New World, and describing the development of human culture along the way. This filled in many gaps in my knowledge of human prehistory, and included some fascinating conjectures on why certain myths or cultural elements may have come into being deep in the past. (A small number of these arguments were stated without quite as much evidence, and bordered on "Ancient Aliens"-style arguments, but I still found them thought-provoking.)
In addition, I found the author's view of the New World civilizations to be deeply sympathetic to these human ancestors who undertook an incredible journey to a very challenging new environment, and how that journey and location shaped their culture.

[Ari · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's spicy, it's full of ingredients, but it feels undercooked. The author's topic is very large, "human culture 20000 BC to present, especially how it diverges between continents." And the book is full of ideas, conjectures, notions etc. But the author doesn't know enough to be thorough (who could?) and so there are definitely places I notice mistakes and misunderstandings.

This is sort of the bigger bullshittier counterpart of _Guns Germs and Steel_. Watson shares Diamond's point that the Old World had more and better plants and animals for civilization. The Old World had cereal grains (wheat and rice), and therefore societies could accumulate calorie surpluses, and move food long distance -- but needed intensive coordination at seeding and harvest time. The Old World had pasture animals and beasts of burden: the only large domestic animal in the new world was the llama. Hence, the old world had pastoralists, caravans, cavalry, and animal-drawn plows. The new world did not. Watson also points out that the New World had more extreme weather and natural disasters. Mexico and Peru have volcanoes and hurricanes; the centers of civilization in the old world did not.

In Watson's account, the consequence of all this is that New World religion developed an apocalyptic cast, with the consequent enthusiasm for human sacrifice, torture, etc.

[James S. · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was willing to overlook a few red flags (a non-specialist author, a cliched topic), but I couldn't get past the author's terrible writing. Sentences like this are everywhere: "According to Bartolome de las Casas, the sympathetic historian whose father travelled with Columbus on his second voyage, Rodrigo Sanches de Segovia, whom the king and queen had sent as comptroller, did not agree with Columbus though other crew members did."

Why is las Cas "sympathetic"? Is his father Segovia, as the grammar suggests? Why do we need to know that Segovia was the comptroller? In what ways did they disagree with Columbus? Shouldn't there be a comma before "though other crew members did"? Isn't that phrase redundant anyway?

[Juan Mesa · Rating 4 out of 5]

dos terceas partes del libro me parecieroin muy interesantes, sin enbargo llega un momento en el que mas parece que el autor esta haciendo una coleccion de teorias extremas que un analisis cientifico, por ejemplo el atribuir gran parte de la cultura americana a la sismicidad es poco creible, basta con ver la cantidad de poblaciones que hay al rededor de los volcanes sin que ello muestre nada especial, de hecho son tan fertiles que la gente asegura que el volcan es su amigo.

En cambio poce le atribuye a la agresividad de la selva misma o al tropico mismo