Some varieties of ancient cultural responses to tectonic activity[i]
Eric R. Force
Observing a remarkable spatial correspondence between loci
of ancient complex cultures and the margins of tectonic plates[ii],
I suggested in my 2015 book[iii] that
active tectonism along such margins forced the pace of change in cultures along
them, resulting in rapid cultural evolution. Associated evidence came from varying the geometry and scale
of spatial analysis, neutralizing the effects of requisite factors, comparing
rates of change in active vs. quiescent environments, kinetic mapping of the
propagation of complexity, and recording the dynamics as preserved in ancient
literatures and architecture[iv].
This posting/paper examines the inherent differences in cultural responses to different types of tectonic activity. The responses noted in my book were largely to seismic activity, as volcanism was absent in most of the areas I treated, and tsunami were not specifically addressed [v]. However, these other tectonic factors in cultural response are of importance, notably the western hemisphere and the western Pacific. It is of interest and practical use to analyze the structure of typical cultural response types.[vi]
Seismic activity in the ancient world commonly led to both tenacity and resilience. Damaged or destroyed settlements and ceremonial sites were generally rebuilt at the same location, despite location near active faults. Earthquakes generally do not compromise the local bases of subsistence, and directions of avoidance were unclear in antiquity. Thus sites favored for any reason[vii] were tenaciously rebuilt, but generally improved with new technology more resistant to damage, along with other changes demonstrating cultural resilience[viii]. These factors are those that eventually resulted in greater cultural complexity in comparison to coeval quiescent sites, where no such responses were needed. The historic period also furnishes many examples of seismic activity forcing the pace of change, with both tenacity and resilience as responses[ix].
This posting/paper examines the inherent differences in cultural responses to different types of tectonic activity. The responses noted in my book were largely to seismic activity, as volcanism was absent in most of the areas I treated, and tsunami were not specifically addressed [v]. However, these other tectonic factors in cultural response are of importance, notably the western hemisphere and the western Pacific. It is of interest and practical use to analyze the structure of typical cultural response types.[vi]
Seismic activity in the ancient world commonly led to both tenacity and resilience. Damaged or destroyed settlements and ceremonial sites were generally rebuilt at the same location, despite location near active faults. Earthquakes generally do not compromise the local bases of subsistence, and directions of avoidance were unclear in antiquity. Thus sites favored for any reason[vii] were tenaciously rebuilt, but generally improved with new technology more resistant to damage, along with other changes demonstrating cultural resilience[viii]. These factors are those that eventually resulted in greater cultural complexity in comparison to coeval quiescent sites, where no such responses were needed. The historic period also furnishes many examples of seismic activity forcing the pace of change, with both tenacity and resilience as responses[ix].
In comparison, the effect of volcanism commonly compromises
the bases of subsistence in settlements freshly covered. On the other hand, direction of
avoidance is generally obvious, from flow margins and direction, and/or wind
direction for ash plumes. A common
response is temporary abandonment[x], with
migration to sites less impacted, or even benefitted[xi]. Where soil formation is rapid,
abandonment may be relatively brief.
In-migration may not have the same cultural identity, however. In antiquity, the cultural response to
tectonic environments was not always toward complexity, as pertinent useful
change was not obvious[xii].
Tsunami result from offshore earthquakes, volcanism, and
sometimes submarine slides[xiii], so are
indirect results of tectonic activity, most commonly quite local but in some
cases projected onto quiescent environments across seaways[xiv].
A culture’s tsunami vulnerability along its coasts generally deprives it of the
rich resources and trade potential there[xv]. Migration to adjacent uplands and
headlands is a common response to new awareness of the danger[xvi].
Memories of this may be short-lived, but some ancient cultures went to some
lengths to preserve awareness of tsunami via traditional narratives[xvii],
and/or they structured society to minimize the danger[xviii].
Cultural change if any may be
minimal, indeed in some ancient cases retrograde[xix].
I conclude that despite wide varieties in reportage of
ancient earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunami, we can see some
differences based on literary, ethnographic, and archaeological records. Tenacity tends to be a typical response
to earthquakes, in some ways a default response due to apparent great
dimensions of affected area and lack of obvious avoidance directions. In contrast, avoidance directions
are more apparent for volcanic events and tsunami. For tsunami, abandonment can be long-lasting, whereas for
volcanism, eventual return is a typical pattern once agriculture is again
possible. Tsunami may not result in the long-term increase in cultural
complexity seen for seismicity due to the loss of coastal resources.
To some extent, ancient responses to tectonic activity are
preserved in the modern era, including the differences described above. Indeed, the only important change is
the modern knowledge of distribution of seismic and other risks of natural
disaster—and the importance of maintaining strategic sites is clearly the greater
factor in our world. Others remain
the same—and modern and ancient instincts are basically the same, being
inherent to our species. Thus
understanding of ancient responses may be useful in our modern world, as they
are unvarnished by recently added considerations. In any case, unraveling the cultural responses to different
types of tectonic activity is a step toward improved response, especially where
more than one tectonic phenomenon is involved.
[i] Proper
references appear in my book, my numerous blog-posts, and my other
publications. Here I would like to
acknowledge the most important authors that have influenced my conclusions,
rather than presenting voluminous references. Especially influential for this paper/post were my
co-panelists at a 2016 Society for Applied Anthropology convention, namely Gina
Barnes, Wayne Howell, Bruce McFadgen, Nick Roberts, John Clague, and Susanna
Hoffman. As always, I appreciate
the advice of Claudio Vita-Finzi,
Manuel Berberian, the late Jelle de Boer, Chuck Adams, Bob Tilling, David
Soren, George Davis, Emma Blake, and Jane Brandon Force.
[ii]
Demonstrated probabilistically by comparing average distance between ancient
complex cultures and on-land convergent or transcurrent plate boundary, as a
fraction of available land area.
[iii] Force
(2015) “ Impact of tectonic activity on ancient civilizations . . .” published
by Lexington Books.
[iv]Respectively
consisting of 1) spatial focus on continent-scale transects and culture-scale
comparison of tectonism and ancient culture; 2) showing that requisite
climates, soils, irrigation and transportation potential, etc. are insufficient
controls of the distribution; 3) comparing rates of cultural turnover to
tectonic environment; 4) mapping of trade-route propagation from senior complex
cultures to active vs. quiescent nascent cultures, and 5) noting evolution of
literature description of tectonic activity, and cultural response thereto,
especially in Hebrew and Greek records.
[v] I focused on
the eastern hemisphere in all but one chapter. Volcanism is a factor in the most complex ancient cultures
there in only a few areas, e.g. central Italy. Tsunami were not treated in any comprehensive way.
[vi] Mass
movements such as landslides, commonly triggered by seismic activity, can cause
disasters also, sometimes via tsunami.
[vii]
Ceremonial/religious sites were rebuilt especially tenaciously.
[viii] Secondary
effects of earthquakes include those modifying the land surface, such as
changes in sedimentation rate modifying coastal morphology. These may have important cultural
consequences, perhaps best summarized by Bruce McFadgen and Manuel Berberian.
[ix] Andrew
Robinson, Jelle de Boer, Kevin Rozario, and others.
[x] I note the
work of Payson Sheets, Jelle de Boer, Richard Fisher, Mauro DiVito, and Grant Heiken
[xi] Where
volcanic ash cover is thin (the work of Mark Elson) or the composition inherently
fertile (my own work in Italy).
[xii] Religious
responses to volcanoes are commonly among the cultural responses in the
historic period. The work of
Patricia Plunket and Gabriela Urunuela suggests these too have different
structures from those to seismicity.
Volcano veneration and incantations etc. to avert volcanism continue
into the modern period.
[xiii] Thucydides,
Simon Winchester, Brian Atwater, and others. Records of ancient tsunami are comparatively few in
comparison to those of the historic and modern eras, but probably they were
actually numerous—shown for example in the work of Gina Barnes.
[xiv] Such as
the Nile delta (the work of Daniel Jean Stanley), or facing tectonic shores
(Gina Barnes, Brian Atwater)
[xv] Especially Ruth Ludwin
[xvi] Wayne
Howell and Bruce McFadgen.
[xvii] Wayne
Howell. Oral traditions about tsunami continue into the modern era is some
societies.
[xviii] Gina
Barnes and Bruce McFadgen
[xix] Especially
Bruce McFadgen
