By
Hugh Murray
[This
is a discussion of James E. McClellan III and Harold Dorn’s Science and Technology in World History: An
Introduction (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1999]
This is not
a traditional review, certainly not typical of my controversial discussions of
books. I came to this book because I was
confused by several other works I had recently read. I enjoyed reading Ian Morris’s Why the West Rules – For Now, and
reviewed it. Though he expands his
history to include much of the world, his approach to Western Europe is rather
conventional. There is a high point with
ancient Rome about 2 millennia ago, but with the fall of Rome and the Empire in
the West, Western Europe is so crippled that when Morris compares the top
Western cities to compare them to those of China, he chooses cities
Constantinople, Cairo, and Baghdad.
By
contrast, Rodney Stark viewed the fall of the Roman Empire in the west as a
turning point, freeing Europe to thrive, making great advances in the so-called
“Dark Ages” so that the average west European lived healthier, longer, and more
comfortably than most people on earth of that era. Stark maintained that many essential
inventions were made in Europe in the Dark Ages or shortly thereafter, and if
not invented by European, adapted by them and improved by them so they were
technically superior to those in the lands of the original inventors.
Another
view was presented by Charles Freeman in The
Closing of the Western Mind. He
describes the growth of Christianity and its intolerance toward other religions
and other philosophies and sciences.
After Christianity gained power under Emperor Constantine, his
successors eventually closed pagan temples and destroyed pagan culture – even
closing the Olympic Games. Christian
hostility, even to pagan mathematics, was exemplified when a devout mob kidnapped
Hypatia, then beat her, flayed her, and killed her. With her murder the end of pagan math
coincided with the end of the first female mathematician of antiquity. Not only did the Christian Roman Empire
persecute pagans, it also persecuted Christian heretics. The older, pagan culture, more tolerant and
open-to-speculation on varied topics – that era ceased. Ideologically, religiously, the European mind
had closed. So how could there be
invention and innovation in Dark Age Europe?
The more I
read, the more confused I became. If the
minds of Europeans were so closed, how could their lives so improve in the Dark
Ages? Did they improve? If Europe was so closed-minded, why would the
scientific revolution eventually occur in Europe? And not in China? Or India?
Or the Islamic world?
Helping me
answer these question is this textbook published in 1999, Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction, by James
McClellan and Harold Dorn.
This review
is not typical, but I shall use the authors’ own words to make their points. In early civilizations based upon flooding
and irrigation agriculture, knowledge of when the floods might occur, how high,
the building and maintenance of irrigation and canals, storage of foods, the
seasons, all became very practical items and governments and or temples would
subsidize these engineering and climatic studies.
“Again and
again, higher learning with practical applications was supported by state and
temple authorities [in Egypt and other early hydraulic societies] and deployed
to maintain the state and its agricultural economy. Knowledge became the concern of cadres of
professional experts employed in state institutions whose efforts…to service of
sustaining society rather than to any individualistic craving for discovery…the
scribal experts were anonymous, not a single biography of the individuals who
over hundreds of years contributed to science in the first civilizations has
come down to us.”(46)
The authors
note a weakness in Greek science. In
Greece theoretical speculation rose on many topics, from the origins and
composition of the world to the best forms of government to what might be
deemed a good life. “…on the whole
Hellenistic science at Alexandria and elsewhere in the ancient world was not
applied to technology, or…, pursued for utilitarian ends…It remained isolated,
not in any direct way connected or applied to the predominantly practical
problems of the age.”(86)
“Aristotle
marked a watershed in the history of science.
His work, which encompassed logic, physics, cosmology, psychology,
natural history, anatomy, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, represents both the
culmination of the Hellenic Enlightenment, and the fountainhead of science and
higher learning for the following 2,000 years.
Aristotle dominated scientific traditions in late antiquity, in medieval
Islam, in early modern Europe where his science and his world-view defined
scientific methodology and the research agenda up to just a few centuries
ago.”(71)
Not only
did the ancients look to scientists for guidance on numerous issues, but the
authors remind us that Ptolemy was not only the greatest astronomer of the
ancient world, he was probably the best astrologer.(85) There was overlap with alchemy, astrology,
and other mystic areas with science at that time and much later.
“Historians
of technology have asked why no industrial revolution developed in
antiquity. The simple answer seems to be
that there was no need, that contemporary modes of production and the slave-based
economy of the day satisfactorily maintained the status quo. The capitalist idea of profit as a desirable
end to pursue was completely foreign to the contemporary mentality. So too, was the idea that technology on a
large scale could or should be harnessed to those ends. An industrial revolution was literally
unthinkable in antiquity.”(94) Here I
disagree. Heron developed a steam engine
in first century Alexandria, and there were many other “modern” type
inventions. There are always some people
who want more – I suspect that is a human trait. Were ancients really oblivious to the profit
motive? Slavery may well have inhibited
willingness to invest time and resources in new invention, as the cheap labor
of slavery may have competed with more expensive industrial produce. But the industrial revolution could co-exist
with slavery as when Europe’s colonies had slaves during the official Industrial
Revolution. I think it a perfectly proper
question to ask, - why did not the Industrial Revolution occur in the ancient
world, in China, in India, etc.
McClellan
and Dorn do pay credit to other civilizations.
“A unified sociocultural domain, Islam prospered as a great world
civilization, and its scientific culture flourished for at least five
centuries.”(103) “The success of Islam
depended as much on its faithful farmers as on its soldiers. The former took over the established flood
plains of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and in what amounted to an agricultural revolution,
they adapted new and more diversified food crops to the Mediterrean ecosystem:
rice, sugar cane, cotton, melons, citrus fruits, and other products. With rebuilt and enlarged systems of
irrigation, Islamic farming extended the growing season and increased
productivity. That Islamic scientists
turned out an uninterrupted series of treatises on agriculture and
irrigation,…specialized treatises on camels, horses, bees, and falcons,..”(103)
Yet, the
authors are not oblivious to the weaknesses of that civilization. Muslims of that era seemed to have much
larger libraries than their European contemporaries. This “was also dependent on paper-making, a
new technology acquired from the Chinese in the 8th century which
allowed the mass production of paper and much cheaper books. Paper factories appeared in Samarkand after
751, in Baghdad in 793,…and in Spain in 1150…
Ironically, when the printing press appeared in the 15th
century Islamic authorities banned it for fear of defiling the name of God and
to prevent the proliferation of undesirable materials.”(109)
Concerning
China, the authors write, “Learned culture in traditional China was largely
separate from technology and the crafts…economic, military, and medical
activities were, on the whole. carried out on the strength of traditional
techniques that owed nothing to theoretical knowledge or research. Craftsmen were generally illiterate and
possessed low social status; they learned their practical skills through apprenticeship
and experience, and…without…scientific theory.”(121-22) “Rather, the starting point for any
investigation of Chinese technology must be…the totality of its advanced technologies,
regardless of their originality or priority, made China a world leader in
technology through the Sung era (AD 960) and beyond.”(122)
The
McClellan/Dorn evaluation of Aztec civilization is noteworthy. They praise Aztec pharmaceutical medicines
and conclude that life expectancy among them exceeded that of Europeans by a
decade or more.(164) The authors do mention
that the Aztec religion might require the sacrifice of fellow Amerindians
(others report up to 35,000 killed in one religious ceremony, blood running
down the steep steps of the high temples, and the priests wearing cloaks made
of human skins). It may not have been
all waste, for McClellan/Dorn suggest cannibalism among the Aztecs.(163) I wonder, if those sacrificed are included
when calculating life expectancy.
The authors
provide a brief summary of the world of science and technology in the year
1000. “…briefly consider the state of
science and systems of natural knowledge on a world scale at roughly the year AD
1000. Plainly, no cultural group was
without some understanding of the natural world. [From the most primitive]…to the centers of
urban civilization in the Islamic world, classical India, Sung China, Mesoamerica,
and Peru. What distinguishes the science
and scientific cultures of these latter civilizations is that they institutionalized knowledge and
patronized the development of science and scientific expertise in order to
administer the comparatively huge social, political, and economic entities that
constituted their respective civilizations.”(172)
The
traditional view is that with the fall of Rome, Western Europe entered “The
Dark Ages.” The mind of Europeans
closed. Cities were no longer
sustainable, repairs to infrastructure ceased, fountains dried up. The population of the city of Rome declined
from about 1 million in the time of August to a mere 40,000 around AD 600. But McClellan/Dorn assert that the population
of Europe rose by 38% between 600 and the year 1000.(177) “The impressive array of technological
innovations that led to the transformation of European society and culture owed
nothing to theoretical science, in large measure because science had little to
offer…none of it had any application in the development of the machines and
techniques for which medieval Europe became justly famous.:(181) While McClellan/Dorn acknowledge that some
innovation occurred during the Roman Empire, such as the heavy plow, but they
maintain it was not until after the fall of Rome that that plow was used on a
large scale. With a modification of the
horse collar, and development of the horse shoe, the horse could pull heavier
loads and had greater traction, and began to replace oxen in European
agriculture. The Asian-invented stirrup
was modified in Europe, providing far more stability for a rider so he might
use weapons of thrust, like a lance, without falling from the animal. With such applications, Europe would
specialize in heavy cavalry, the knighthood was in flower.
Water mills
had been used in the ancient world, but Europe had many rivers and mills were
used increasingly for various chores.
Windmills were invented, too, - another labor-saving machine. “European engineers developed a fascination
for new machines and new sources of power…Indeed,
medieval Europe became the first great civilization not to be run primarily by
human muscle power.”(180, emp. Mine)
Yet, the
authors’ write that during that era “Almost no original research took place.”(182) Nevertheless, European craftsmen and
engineers began to forge bigger and better cannon, even smaller, more powerful
cannon that in time would be mounted on ships to create floating fortresses. Slowly, in the Dark Ages and then after,
Europeans were crafting better weapons than the rest of the world. European dominance was proved in the early
1500s with the easy victories by a few hundred Spaniards over the huge empires
of the Aztecs and the Incas and by the victory of the small Portuguese fleet
over the combined Muslim and Indian fleets.
Though the following quotation comes from a century later, it illustrates
what was happening in Europe: The book by Galileo was published in the
Netherlands in 1638 and includes discussion at the Arsenal in Venice, famous for
technology, “the largest and most advanced industrial enterprise in Europe,
where craftsmen and artisans built ships, cast cannon, twisted rope, poured
tar, melted glass, and worked at a hundred other technical and industrial
activities in the service of the Venetian Republic.”(235) In the 1600s McClellan/Dorn see a new
ideology evolving on “the conviction
that science and scientific activities can promote human welfare and should
therefore be encouraged. The Ideology
was activist and contrasted with the Hellenic view of the practical irrelevance
of natural philosophy and the medieval view of science as the subservient
handmaiden to theology.”(245)
Yet, though
some may have thought of a marriage of science and technology, “contemporary
technology seems to have had a greater effect on science than the other way
around.”(269) “All the technological
innovations that formed the basis of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th
and the first half of the 19th centuries were made by men…craftsmen,
artisans, or engineers. Few were…university
educated, and all without scientific theory.”(287) Even that late, science was often
useless.(292) McClellan and Dorn state
clearly, “The main thesis of this book has concerned thehistorically limited
degree of applied science prior to the 19th century.”(308) Indeed, when viewing the whole of human
history, “In the beginning, there was only technology.”(355) Now, things have changed. The old divide between science and technology
is reshaped – pure science on one side, applied science and technology on the
other, or the difference between a scientific paper and a patent.(358-59) The authors’ do discuss the impact of pure
science upon the world with the development of the atomic bomb.
But the
thrust of this book is important. And
again, I let the authors speak for themselves, “…a more accurate historical
appreciation of technology will place proper emphasis on independent traditions
of skilled artisans whose talents crafted everyday necessities and amenities
throughout the millennia of human existence.
Such a historical reappraisal will also show that in many instances technology
directed the development of science rather than the other way around.”
I think I
learned a great deal from this book, and suspect that many of you may learn
from it also.
What I had
viewed as contradictions may not have been so.
For example, the closing of the European mind with the rise of
monotheistic religion may have stifled science and theorizing, but not smiths
who shod horses. Totalitarian nations
too can make great strides in science and technology. I still have many questions, but now realize
my notion that science and technology are wedded, is simply part of 20th
century ideology. For most of human
history, they were unlinked, generally dwelling in different locales, one near
the earth, the other in the clouds. But
after Einstein, we all know mushroom clouds from pure scientists can change the
worlds of everyone.