Some
implications and a question: tectonic environments of ancient complex cultures (1)
This post has been revised and incorporated in a published book (Aug. 2015; link above)
This post has been revised and incorporated in a published book (Aug. 2015; link above)
Eric R. Force
(eforce@email.arizona.edu)
Implications
Regardless of the mechanisms and dynamics behind the close spatial relationship
between ancient complex cultures and active tectonism (2), there are some implications
that follow from that relationship itself.
First is the need to understand the
relationship we have described, a counterintuitive positive relation between
tectonic activity and the development of ancient complex cultures. Active
tectonism apparently was involved with the evolution of civilization over wide
areas of the earth’s surface for many thousands of years. And a glance at
an image of the world at night—a proxy for the distribution of a certain level
of cultural complexity—shows a considerable degree of concentration along
active plate boundaries today. Some of these boundary concentrations—in
California, Japan, Java—are cultures not especially complex in the period of
antiquity. So the relation still exists; its locus has merely shifted to
the circum-Pacific area.
If some of the relation is in the present
tense, we would be wise to understand it. Let’s survey the
situation vis a vis how different modern disciplines are dealing with this
opportunity. Geology and geophysics are of course the home of tectonics,
but only a few practitioners have ventured into cultural consequences.
Engineers are interested in aspects that can make habitations safe.
Anthropologists and archaeologists have generally not realized the impact that
tectonism has had on cultures, and thus don’t realize the impact it can still
have. The best grade ironically goes to economists, who have developed
the most comprehensive literature on long-term disaster recovery
opportunities. The worst grade goes to psychology, which despite William
James’ seminal work on the subject, treats tectonic events only in terms of post-traumatic
stress disorder, etc. My hope is that the evidence presented in this weblog
will inspire some activity in the fields lagging behind.
A second implication is that our
civilizations themselves must in some sense be natural phenomena. We
easily accept that our bodies and our need for sustenance reflect our
derivation from a natural world, but we tend to think of our complex cultures
as having crossed a line into another domain, one dominated by ideologies,
technologies, and leadership. Of course, none would doubt some
environmental requisites. But the strength and robustness of the relation
explored in this book suggests that civilization was molded in ways certainly
unknown to the participants —and even to us omniscient observers of the present
day—by natural tectonic forces.
A third implication follows from the
second. It is a new factor in the debate about how strongly our cultures
have been determined by their environments. It is currently out of
fashion to support “environmental determinism” and I would not propose to do so
(3). But I can point out that the debate is moot if we don’t know what
all the environmental factors are. The relation developed here suggests that we
have been missing one important factor in our cultural development. The
debate itself assumes a more complete knowledge of ourselves and of our
environment than we apparently actually have.
Fourth, geologists and paleontologists
are well aware of the importance of importance of past tectonic activity in shaping
the distribution of plant and animal species. But little information is available on the effect of tectonism
on the lifeways of these species.
If there is such an effect for our species, there is little reason to
suppose we are unique in this respect.
The notes describe an interesting tectonically-related case (4), but the
question should be asked systematically.
Last, the mere existence of some relation between ancient civilizations and
active tectonic boundaries suggests that geologic events can interact with
human time frames. This is intriguing--earth history would seem to have
nothing in common with human history except in the last few
earth-moments. By the time Homo erectus ventured from Africa a couple of
million years ago, the configuration of the earth’s crustal plates was
essentially the modern one. Mountain ranges and seaways were those we
recognize with only minor modifications necessary. By the time the
Neolithic ended anywhere, only sea level and the size of river deltas differed
significantly from that of the modern day.
But this view of earth history omits one
factor, namely that its tectonic history develops by small increments that have
a certain rhythm (5). Looking only at the long view of earth history is
like looking at the development of a symphony and its division into movements,
without looking at the beat within each measure. For the earth this beat
includes the recurrence of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Human affairs have cyclic periods of
their own, perhaps most elementally based on the succession of
generations. We have discussed possibilities of human cycles driven by
tectonic recurrence intervals. Indeed if these recurrence intervals have
any concrete effect on human cultural response, the interaction could be
described as a resonance of sorts, a resonance with a very long period.
Or those who prefer can think of the relation as a dance of tectonics with
culture, performed in such slow motion that individual humans can barely live
long enough to hear consecutive beats of the tectonic rhythm.
A nagging question
Evidence
presented in this weblog and in related publications (6) aim in the same
direction as work by G. King, G. Bailey, and colleagues (7) on earlier periods
of human history, though my work (including that with Bruce McFadgen) has
different structure and emphasis.
The two lines of evidence could plausibly join seamlessly in the
Neolithic (8), and some relationships suggest they do. If so, active tectonism has accompanied
advances in human development from our beginnings, and it becomes tempting to
think it has acted as a catalyst in that development, because the loci of
development match the loci of tectonism.
So
it appears likely that tectonism has molded our cultural development in some
ways. An obvious next question is
one I am not qualified to answer at present. Do zones of active tectonism serve as the main source of
cultural innovation for our species?
We have seen two mechanisms consistent with this contention—most
obviously accommodation to forced pace of change (9), but possibly also anomalous waters (10) along such
zones. We have also seen many
vignettes of accelerated cultural change there in this weblog (11). Our transect (12) and stasis treatments
(13) suggest that tectonically-quiescent humans have generally waited for organization,
inspiration, and/or innovation from more dynamic environments elsewhere. But the question requires analysis in
more dimensions than these.
If
the answer to our question proves to be yes, we are a tectonic species (14) in
some sense. We are fully capable
of colonizing quiescent environments but unaware that these are (or at least
were) developmental dead ends.
This provocative thought needs to be explored before we can say we
understand our place on earth.
Notes
1.
This posting begins a new 2013-14 series
2.
All previous postings address parts of this relationship, but see especially
Feb. 14, 2012 and April 2, 2014.
Published extracts are Force (2008) and Force and McFadgen (2010, 2012).
3.
Environmental opportunism seems a better term in describing one ancient
situation (Feb. 18, ’13)
4.
Extensional tectonism in
mid-oceanic settings has permitted the flourishing of unique faunal communities
that use the heat and chemical energy of hydrothermal vents there.
However, I think these communities, sometimes referred to as tube-worm
colonies, make a poor analogue with ancient human civilizations; they share few
of our finer attributes.
5.
This term suggested by the late Harry Whittier
6.
Force 2008; Force and McFadgen 2010, 2012; in this weblog see especially the summary
of Aug. 29, 2013
7.
All references listed below under King and/or Bailey as first authors
8.
Force and McFadgen 2012; see also Oct. 16, 2013
9.
Summarized in May 10, 2013
10. June 3, 2013
11.
Perhaps most graphic in June 27, 2014 and May 18, 2014
12. Mar. 4, 2014
13. Feb. 1, 2014
14.
This term coined by Bruce McFadgen
References
Bailey,
G. N., and King, G. C. P., 2010, Dynamic landscapes and human dispersal patterns: Tectonics,
coastlines, and the reconstruction of human habitats: Quaternary Science
Reviews, v. 6, p. 1–32.
Bailey,
G., King, G., and Sturdy, D., 1993, Active tectonics and land-use strategies: A
Paleolithic example from northwest Greece: Antiquity, v. 67, p. 292–303.
Bailey, G. N., Reynolds, S. C., and King, G. C. P., 2011, Landscapes
of human evolution: Models and methods of tectonic geomorphology and the reconstruction
of hominin landscapes: Journal Human Evolution, v. 60, p. 257–280.
Force, E. R., 2008, Tectonic environments
of ancient civilizations in the eastern hemisphere: Geoarchaeology v. 23 #5, p. 644-653
Force, E. R., and McFadgen, B. G., 2010,
Tectonic environments of ancient civilizations: opportunities for
archaeoseismological and anthropological studies: in Ancient
Earthquakes, M. Sintubin, I. S. Stewart, T. M. Niemi, and E. Altunel, eds.: Geological
Society of America Special Paper 471, p. 21-28.
Force, E. R., and McFadgen,
B. G., 2012, Influences of active tectonism on human development—a review and Neolithic example, in Climates, Landscapes, and Civilizations, L.
Giosan, D. Q. Fuller, K. Nicoll, R. K. Flad, and P. D., Clift, eds.: American Geophysical Union, Geophysical
Monograph 198, p. 195-202
King, G., Bailey, G.,
and Sturdy, D, 1994, Active tectonics and human survival strategies: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 99
(B10), p. 20063-20078
King, G. C. P., and
Bailey, G. N., 2006, Tectonics and human evolution: Antiquity, v. 80, p.
265-286
King, G. C. P, and
Bailey, G. N., 2010, Dynamic landscapes and human evolution, in Ancient
Earthquakes, edited by M. Sintubin et al., Geological Society of America
Special Paper 471, p. 1-19.
