Maslow (1943) identified food and water as most elemental of basic human needs, followed by safety and shelter. It is only when these needs are satisfied that other higher needs are pursued. In general, a crisis is a situation in which a number of people who had taken basic satisfactions for granted must now adapt and go in search for these material needs. It is usually brought forward by an unforeseen event or chain of events, such as a war, an earthquake, drought, hurricane, flood, or other hazard, with which political, economic and social systems are unable to cope, especially when the event interacts with latent social vulnerabilities. Such situations can generate effects on every level of society. There are, of course, many types of crises – military, financial, political, economic, environmental, social etc. – and all leave imprints at various scales on those that are affected. More specifically, crises are considered as a systemic failure interposed between the environmental hazard and subsistence risk-buffering strategies. When archaeologists and historians use the word crisis, they imply more than simply hard times; rather a conjuncture of phenomena that indicate abnormality of a structural or systemic nature. Crises can be regarded as ‘deeply felt frustrations or basic problems with which routine methods, secular or sacred, cannot cope’ (La Barre 1971: 11). Crisis implies instability with a potential for an evolution in different directions: either things become normal again afterwards or the situation deteriorates. In the latter case, the possibility of radical change, catastrophe, collapse, revolution or devolution is strong.
Olson (2000) and Olson & Gawronski (2010) have developed a framework for analysis of disaster events leading to political crises within modern state contexts and the responses offered, including capability, competence, compassion, correctness, credibility and anticipation. They have illustrated how and why disasters become so rapidly political. Pulitzer Prize winning author Jared Diamond (1997, 2005) has studied crisis and collapse using a series of historical contexts and provides a multicausal theory with special attention to environmental components (‘ecocide’) including environmental changes, deforestation, soil problems, water management, overhunting and overfishing, effects of introduced species, overpopulation, institutional and cultural failures and hostile neighbours. Basically, he sees the main causes as the exhaustion of common pool resources (‘Commons’).
To some extent, he repeats earlier work by Tainter (1988) who argued that diminishing returns on investments in energy, education and technological innovation combined with environmental degradation lead to crisis and eventually to collapse. Page (2005: 1055) has simply argued that ‘climactic variations spell trouble…a civilization existing on marginal land, isolated from others, that does not strictly control population and suffers climate change will probably collapse’. It is in fact this last element – climate change as a provoker of crisis – which nowadays receives the most attention, nourished by a growing awareness of present climate change and global warming. Scientists have, for example, become more interested in examining the impacts of long-term climate change on social unrest and population collapse (McMichael 2011; Zhang et al. 2011). Zhang et al. (2007; 2011) have tried to quantify this by combining high-resolution palaeo-climatic information with data on the outbreak of war and population decline in the European and Chinese preindustrial eras. They convincingly argue for a close link between cycles of temperature change and long-term fluctuations in population and the frequency of wars.
Further analyses show that cooling impeded agricultural production, which brought about a series of serious social problems, including price inflation, then successively war, famine, and population decline. Their findings suggest that worldwide war–peace, population, and price cycles in recent centuries have been driven mainly by long-term climate change. The findings also imply that social mechanisms that might mitigate the impact of climate change were not significantly effective during the study period. Climate change may thus have played a more important role and imposed a wider ranging effect on human civilization than has so far been suggested.
In any case, crises lead to various reactions partly because different levels of society are affected in different ways and the recovery process is discriminatory. Hence, crises will intensify pre-existing social, political and economic differences and conflicts will arise both because of the allocation of resources for rehabilitation and the allocation of blame (Driessen 1995; 2002). Butzer (2012) blames poor leadership, administrative dysfunction and ideological ambivalence as aggravating circumstances, accelerating collapse, and provides a conceptual model for historical collapse, situating the variables and processes of stress and interaction.
(after Butzer 2012: 3636, fig. 1)
The specific aim of this WP is to develop a methodology adapted to archaeological and historical sources to detect a series of parameters that can be regarded as crisis-reflective. Indeed, changing socio-economic and environmental conditions and the various responses to them are bound to leave an imprint on the material and historical record of a society since they combine a potentially destructive agent from the natural and/or technological environment, a population in a socially and technologically produced condition of environmental vulnerability and attempts towards rehabilitation (Oliver-Smith 1996: 305). It is the task of the archaeologist and the historian to identify these.
The main question is: Are archaeological data reliable crisis indicators? If so, what kind of data corresponds to what kind of crisis? This WP will therefore first build up a theoretical framework, exploring whether archaeological sources in general can be used as reliable indicators to reconstruct crisis situations. It will do so in a cross-cultural, interdisciplinary fashion. It will explore ancient and recent crises and their material impact, both at short-term and long-term scales. It will attempt to construct a typology of archaeologically relevant crises. In detail, we propose to identify adaptations or changes in different domains of material culture that are prone to reflect stress-induced phenomena (Driessen 1995; Zuckerman 2007), an archaeology of adaptive strategies and cumulative responses in different cultural domains, suggestive of a period of stress (Driessen & Macdonald 1997).
Crisis archaeology has recently been reinvigorated within the current economic framework (Pilaar Birch & Wallduck 2011). Certain events and processes will leave an imprint in written sources but only when these are studied diachronically. Likewise, long-term processes that do not immediately affect social groups can still be reflected by diachronic adaptations and modifications in settlement patterns, ‘warchitecture’, demographics, subsistence practices, ritual activity, elite symbolism etc. We give prime attention to these long-term changes even if they may have been provoked by short-term events that have left no imprint in the archaeological or epigraphic record. Institutionalised crisis responses such as fortification systems, for example, are only relevant as they often originally reflect an immediate reaction to a temporally and contextualised crisis situation.
This WP provides the theoretical backbone for the LBA study area, but is not limited to it. It looks for cross-cultural comparisons of stress-induced archaeological features and tries to learn from contemporary society as much as from other scientific approaches. It continues earlier interests within the Centre d’étude des mondes antiques (CEMA-INCAL) on understanding specific archaeological and historical phenomena, similar to Destruction (Archaeological, Historical and Philological Perspectives), an international conference held at Louvain-la-Neuve in 2011 (proceedings in press, expected December 2012). As such, the specific actions undertaken by this WP involve:
Certain features of the archaeological record should present rewarding approaches to detect crisis situations. These can be classified in different domains: