From the University of Bradford
Scientists will have to find alternative explanations for a huge population collapse in Europe at the end of the Bronze Age as researchers prove definitively that climate change – commonly assumed to be responsible – could not have been the culprit.
Archaeologists and environmental scientists from the University of Bradford, University of Leeds, University College Cork, Ireland (UCC), and Queen’s University Belfast have shown that the changes in climate that scientists believed to coincide with the fall in population in fact occurred at least two generations later.
Their results, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that human activity starts to decline after 900BC, and falls rapidly after 800BC, indicating a population collapse. But the climate records show that colder, wetter conditions didn’t occur until around two generations later.
Fluctuations in levels of human activity through time are reflected by the numbers of radiocarbon dates for a given period. The team used new statistical techniques to analyse more than 2000 radiocarbon dates, taken from hundreds of archaeological sites in Ireland, to pinpoint the precise dates that Europe’s Bronze Age population collapse occurred.
The team then analysed past climate records from peat bogs in Ireland and compared the archaeological data to these climate records to see if the dates tallied. That information was then compared with evidence of climate change across NW Europe between 1200 and 500 BC.
“Our evidence shows definitively that the population decline in this period cannot have been caused by climate change,” says Ian Armit, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Bradford, and lead author of the study.
Graeme Swindles, Associate Professor of Earth System Dynamics at the University of Leeds, added, “We found clear evidence for a rapid change in climate to much wetter conditions, which we were able to precisely pinpoint to 750BC using statistical methods.”
According to Professor Armit, social and economic stress is more likely to be the cause of the sudden and widespread fall in numbers. Communities producing bronze needed to trade over very large distances to obtain copper and tin. Control of these networks enabled the growth of complex, hierarchical societies dominated by a warrior elite. As iron production took over, these networks collapsed, leading to widespread conflict and social collapse. It may be these unstable social conditions, rather than climate change, that led to the population collapse at the end of the Bronze Age.
According to Katharina Becker, Lecturer in the Department of Archaeology at UCC, the Late Bronze Age is usually seen as a time of plenty, in contrast to an impoverished Early Iron Age. “Our results show that the rich Bronze Age artefact record does not provide the full picture and that crisis began earlier than previously thought,” she says.
“Although climate change was not directly responsible for the collapse it is likely that the poor climatic conditions would have affected farming,” adds Professor Armit. “This would have been particularly difficult for vulnerable communities, preventing population recovery for several centuries.”
The findings have significance for modern day climate change debates which, argues Professor Armit, are often too quick to link historical climate events with changes in population.
“The impact of climate change on humans is a huge concern today as we monitor rising temperatures globally,” says Professor Armit.
“Often, in examining the past, we are inclined to link evidence of climate change with evidence of population change. Actually, if you have high quality data and apply modern analytical techniques, you get a much clearer picture and start to see the real complexity of human/environment relationships in the past.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Wiki article is to do with the collapse of the LB in the Aegean and western Asia (and possibly coincides with end of Shang in China etc). The article concerned is the end of LB in Europe which is somewhat later and dated between 800 and 600BC. Archaeological terms date differently from region to region. In the west and central parts of Europe Iron technology came after Iron technology in western Asia although there is good evidence the Hittites used iron before the Iron Age proper. Meteoric iron was used all the way back to the Neolithic but of course had a limited use so the use of the term is somewhat confusing. In archaeological contexts it is a term used to date different strata. Whereas bronze artifacts were often ceremonial or solely used by the elites, iron differed in that it was quickly employed by farmers and bloomeries crop up even in the most remote of places. The Americans introduced mass production to the world and the Iron Age was similar in that the use of flint and stone completely went out of fashion (as one obvious example) although wood was still employed as handles and ornament etc. C14 plateaus occur at various points in the past and this was one of the reasons given for inventing the calibration method – but why would it concern just the one plateau and ignore all the others. There was even a plateau event in the 14th century AD (which is very recent) described in Mike Baillie’s book on climate and the black death. Over time these plateaus appear to flatten out as C14 between plateaus appears to adjust to normal conditions – and yes the Younger Dryas does involve a long plateau event. I don’t know how that affects the length of the Younger Dryas – if at all.
coincidence is not causation
Sorry I didn’t see this sooner. Regarding all this amateurish denial of a real David and Solomon, we do have Edomite sources within OT itself: Gen 36:
31. Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.
32. Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
33. Then Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah became king in his place.
34. Then Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites became king in his place.
35. Then Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the field of Moab, became king in his place; and the name of his city was Avith.
36. Then Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah became king in his place.
37. Then Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates River became king in his place.
38. Then Shaul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor became king in his place.
39. Then Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar became king in his place; and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, daughter of Mezahab.
Interpretation: “Israel” refers to the Northern Kingdom independent of Judea, which conquered Edom under David. That is, this is a list of Edomite rulers before Jeroboam declared independence. Accordingly this list includes at least two kings who ruled over Edom from the vicinity of Judea: Saul and David. Of particular interest are Samla, Shaul, and Baal-hanan. Samla is Samuel, Shaul is Saul, and Baal-hanan is David. David’s real name went the way of Baal worship itself; where Yahweh and Baal could bear no equation Baal names could not persist. At 2 Samuel 21:19 it is Elhanan rather than Baal-hanan who kills Goliath, and this is not to be taken as evidence that David was not the original hero, but evidence that Baal had fallen out of the pantheon by the time the legend was written down: Baal-hanan was changed to Elhanan because Baal became associated with Canaanite worship. But that David and his clan were once unashamed of Baal worship (whether or not it was synonymous with YHWH worship) is seen at 2 Samuel 5:20 where the place name Baal Peratsim is credited to David (Baal-hanan).
There is considerable variation between the two strands of Davidic legend preserved in Samuel, apparently due to independent transmission within the two kingdoms before and after their division. But much of what the two strands have in common is reliable even if they do not preserve David’s lately pagan name. We are not certain David was a Yahweh worshiper and Psalmist but if he was one he was the other. He certainly did exist, for which the Edomites hated him, and rebelled against his successor Solomon. –AGF