Table Of ContentThe
Copyrightedimage
Copyrighiedmaterial
TheS
Big H-
of
FromtheBigBanguntilToday
FRED Spier
Amsterdam University
Everyefforthas been made to obtain permission for all copy-
righted illustrations usedin this book. Nonetheless, whosoever
believestohaverightstothismaterial is advised to contact the
publisher.
Coverillustration: Detail from "Afl^eeldingvan 'tStadtHuysvan
Amsterdam", by HuhertusQiiellinus(1661-1668).
Coverdesign: Marjan Wijsbeek,Pro Studio, Loosdrccht
Typesetting: KronosPublishingAssistance,Amersfoort
ISBN9053562206
©FredSpier/rVinsterdamUniversityPress,Amsterdam, 1996
All rights reserved. Withoutlimiting the rights undercojnright
reserved above, no part ofthis book ma\' be reproduced, stored
in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
torm or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopving,
recording, orotherwise), withoutthewritten jiermissionofboth
thecopyrightownerandtheauthorofthisbook.
Contents
PRRFACRAND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VU
I GENERAL APPROACH I
TnrroHiicHnn Z
Regimesasstructuringelementsfor 2
cosmic,planetaryand humanhistory
Humanregimes 5
Inorganicregimes 75
II HUMANLIEE BETWEENMICROAND MACRO 11
REGIMES
H
Introduction
M
Astronomical regimes
Organicandbiologicalregimes 24
HUMANCULTURAL REGIMES U
III
Introduction ??
Humanecologicalregimetransformationsas 38^
themajorstructuringprincipleofhuman
history
5
IV Threem^jorecologicalregimetrans- 4s
FORMATIONSASSTRUCTURINGPRINCIPLE
FORHUMANHISTORY
Thefirstgreatecologicalregimetransformation: 4S
thedomesticationoffire
Thegadierer-huntersocialregime 49
Sedentarygatherersandhunters S2
Thesecondgreatecologicalregimetransfbrma- f
tion:thetransition toanagrarianregime
Theevolvingagrariansocialregime 62
Agrariansocialregimedifferentiationand 67
development
Thethirdgreatecologicalregimetransforma- 77
don:thetransitiontowardanindustrialregime
Socialregimetransformations 80
Planetaryecologicalregimedevelopment 81
SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS 8S
NOTES 89
References 97
VI
Copyrightedmalarial
and
Preface
acknowledgments
At the University ofAmsterdam, the sociologistJohan Gouds-
bloniiindnivscU,abiochemist,anthropologistandhistoricalsoci-
ologistbytraining,areorganisinganinterdepartmentalcoursein
what Australian historian David Christian calls ''Big History".
Thatis: an overviewofall knownhistoryfromthe begimiingof
the Universeuntil liteon Earthtoday.
OurcurriculumhasbeenmodelledonthecourseAnIntro-
duction to WorldHistory set up by Davitl Christian at Alacquarie
University, Sydney, Australia (see: Christian 1991). We have
adapted his apj^roach with the aid ofour emergingsociological
structuringprinciples,whilerevisionotthecontentshasbenetited
from comments by contributing lecturers, whose specialities
range from astronomy to the social sciences. While we have
thoughtaboutand tosomeextentdiscussedthequestion ofhow
tostructurethissummary^ofcosmic,planetary,worldandhuman
historyforanumberofyearswithinourowncircles,wehavenot
yet written anything about it. Goudsblom has outlined some of
hisviews on howtostructure thehistoryofhumamtyinHuman
HistoryandSocialProcess(Goudsblometal. 1989).
In this book, I will advance one single, all-encompassing,
theoreticalframeworkforbighistory.Theneedforsuchascheme
arosewhileconsideringhowtointegrateintoourcourseportions
ofscientific knowledge that are usually widely separated. As a
result of this specialisation, the various academic disci|)Iines
involved,rangingfrom astronomytothesocial sciences,haveall
developed their own distinct theories, vocabularies and termin-
ologies. And since veryfewpeople attempt to bring togetherall
these formsofhistorical knowledge,theneedforasinglestruc-
turingscheme is rarelyfelt.
It is therefore notsurprisingthat, as far as 1 know, no one
before hassuggestedsuch an outline. However, we thinkwe live
inonesingle,undividedUniverse,withinonesingleSolarSystem,
ononesingleplanet,asonehumankind,which,likeallotherliv-
vn
ingspecies, hasdescendedfromonesinglelifeform. Inorderto
graspthisunityadequately,weneedatypeofunifiedknowledge
thatisnotsplitalongdiefaultlinesofacademicspecialisations,
whichdevelopedaspartofoursocialhistory.Ifwewishtoreach
acomprehensiveunderstandingofourbigpast, we mustdevise
onesinglesyntheticschemethatallowsustocombineallexisting
theoretical and factual knowledge.
This is, ofcourse, a most ambitious enterprise. It hardly
needs savinu tliai in no way do I claim to have written the final
word in this respect. Because no scholarly tradition exists of
designmg "Cirand L nified Theories ofthe Past", such schemes
can (Milybecomeestablishedattera longand thorough acadennc
discussion. In addition, in manydisciplines, scientific knowledge
is rapidly de\eloping. This will almost inevitabh lead to a need
forreiliiiikingthisschemesomewherein the future.
However, we livenow, and mustmakedowith ourexisting
knowledge.Asa result, mythef)retical approach mustbe consid-
ered a first attempt at uniting sections of scientific historical
knowledge that have grown apart h)r centuries, if not longer. I
thinkthetimeisripeforsuchaneffort. In almostall branchesof
acadenncthought,the historical approachisgainingground.We
nowhavetodeviseanoverarchingscheme unit\ingall these his-
ntoereidc.alYahpcprUoSachweosr.ldI haimstonroitanthWe iolnlhiamonIIe. wMchNoeiplelr,cewihveislesuccohm-a
mentingonourproject, h)rmulated itasfollows: "themeetingof
hard and soft sciences is much needed. Itelevates histor\ to the
Queenofthe Sciences: an interestingreversalfromitsstatusasa
would-besciencein the 19th century".
W^hateverthereceptit>notm\ piojxjsal, torme,atleast,the
effort ot producing the scheme presented in this book has con-
tributedconsiderablytostructurmgourcourseinbighistoryand,
asa result, tostructuringourapproach toall history itself.
This text is an improved and enlarged version ofa paper
presented at the 1995 Annual Conference ot the World History
Association in Florence, Italy. I have greatly profited from con-
tributions to our course as well as from critical suggestions by
astronomer Ed van den Heuvel, geologist HarryPriem, palaeo-
biochemist Peter Westbroek, palynologist and palaeoclima-
tologist Henry Hooghiemstra, biologist Frederick Schram, eth-
ologist Adriaan Kortlandt, and archaeologistJos Deeben. Ihe
vm
Copyrightedmalarial
worldhistoriansDavidChristianandWilliamMcNeill, ocean-
ographerJamesKennett,sodalscientists^^ImaAarts,MartBaz,
AnnBuddey,JohanGoudsblomJohanHeilbron,EstellieSmith,
Ruud Stokvis, Abram de Swaan, Nico Wilterdink, chemistry
teacherGijsKalsbeekandbiologystudentFilipaVala provided
valuable references, fascinating suggestions, critical comments
andinvaluablesupportforanenterprisethatseemedimpossible
andhopelessly difficultwhenIfirstbeganthinkingalongthese
lines.DavidChristian,inparticular,mademanyvaluablesugges-
tions and provided invaluable inspiration and support. Both
David Christian and Alison Fisher corrected the English. Of
course,Iremainfiillyresponsibleforboththesyntaxandthecon-
tents.
IdedicatethisbooktoJohanGoudsblomv/ho,morethan
anyoneelse,hashelpedmetogetonthetracktowardbighistory.
DC
Copyrightedmaterial
CHAPTERI
General approach
Whatisworldhistory?Sofor,acompellinganswerhas
eluded the World History Association. What the
organizationneeds,amemberremarked,is^'asimple,
all-encompassing, elegant idea** with the power to
orderallhmnanexperience.
GiUfertAUardycem:IbwanlWorldHistory:AmeriamHistarums
andtheCommgoftheWorldHistoryCourse'(1990:67)
INTRODUCTION
Iamnotthefirsttoaddressthequestionofhowtostructurethe
historyofhumanity. Onthecontrary:forcenturiessomeofthe
bestmindshavestruggledwiththisproblem,andhaveproduced
anumberofintriguing,illuminatingbutoftencontroversialideas,
manyofwhichnowseemoutdated.^Ibday,WilliamMcNeill,in
particular, is emphasising the importance of, and interplay
between,socialandecologicalaspectsforthestudyofhumanhis-
tory(1974-1995).Thefollowinganalysisowesagreatdealtohis
pioneeringworL
Yet,withtheexceptionofWilliamMcNeillandsomeother
scholarssuchasFemandBraudel,J.M.Roberts,OswaldSpengler,
LeftenStavrianos,ArnoldIbynbee(cf.Costello1993),mosthis-
toriansemploystructuringprinciplesfor(partsof)humanhistory
thatremainmoreorlessimplicitintheirwritings,iftheyaddress
theissueatall.Bycontrast,historicalsociologistsandanthropol-
ogistsmakeuseofexplicitgeneralschemeswhichcanbeillumi-
nating,butwhicharesometimesnotverysuitabletoaccommo-
dateall,orevenmost, oftheestablishedhistoricalknowledge.^
Also sodo-biologists, geneticists in particular, have produced
theirownversionsofworldhistoty.^Nowadays,diegreatmajor-
ityofthe historicalprofession aswell as mostsociologists and
anthropologistsrefrainfromtakingthegrandview.
1
