fucking fascist WESTOIDS love their silly gay little romane boys in their foolish fucking garb and their daft protofascist customs but cannote fathom writing interesting his-fi about da fucking bronze age collapse which is INFINITELY cooler
TO CLARIFY: i do not want anyone to the political right of Stalin to write fuck nor shit about the Bronze Age Collapse lest they focus entirely on da scary migrant Sea Peoples
do you have some links maybe? this change must have happened in the last few years because the consensus was pretty different in 2016 and I want to find out more
Here's what I'd read on r/askhistorians. The basic premise is that there's no evidence for any singular catastrophic collapse at all, just a gradual economic decline in some areas and the end of some specific forms of elite culture and the prestige goods that went along with it, mostly due to improvements in shipbuilding that enabled a fundamentally different approach to trade.
"singular" is doing tons of work here though— there were plenty of catastrophic city razings and local collapses but they happened over many decades.
there's a whole chapter in 1177 by Eric Cline about how the title year is somewhat arbitrarily chosen and the collapse took over a hundred years. according to him the economic decline included a lot of sharp discontinuities like with tin but otherwise pretty consistent with that book
The post seems to mainly be a critique of 1177, and includes more recent work:
That's part of a section arguing that there just isn't evidence that civilizations collapsed at all: the broader populace remained in the same places and kept living fundamentally the same lives as before, and that what disappeared were specific aristocratic systems which generally lost power for more mundane economic and social reasons (and that the continuity of the civilizations was previously overlooked in older literature because the luxury goods were very noticeable and easy to date in a way that more mundane and functional goods were not, along with classist things like seeing the end of nice murals and fancy art as the end of a civilization in its entirety rather than just the end of people paying to have those things made).
thanks, sorry for not investigating more myself but I'm on a "not visiting reddit" streak that I don't feel like breaking yet
I will say that I don't know how mainstream this view is now, but the materialism of the new narrative and the way it emphasizes the class character of what disappeared vs what persisted is particularly appealing imo.
somehow i knew it'd be Guy Halsall-esque. we're probably not far out from the synthesis arguments, i'd definitely need to read more specialist stuff but saying "oh only the state & elite collapsed" is a kind of egalitarian sounding thing but it has to be squared with what those people were responsible for and what kind of affects trickled down by their absence. Halsall-type scholarship really likes talking about the common man being unlikely to come to personal harm during the collapse of Rome, but consequently elides things the depreciated elite state had been running which disappeared, like long-distance goods distribution & industrial production---which was not cloistered exclusively in the homes of the elites in the roman period.
i'm not well read on bronze-age archaeology but i'm suspicious of the characterization of the networks that existed and broke down being exclusively 'elite'---surely more people than a king benefited from bronze products before iron was widespread. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins is the (dramatically titled) book that tries to synthesize & situate "collapse" and "transformation" narratives in the context of the roman west
Isn't that another narrative that's been recontextualized in more recent scholarship? Namely that Rome didn't "collapse" at all so much as slowly decline in the west over several lifetimes, deurbanizing and losing the trade networks that made its elite logistics possible, down to the point that where you can mark a definite "end" it was already functionally irrelevant because its end came after it had lost all of its former wealth and power? To say nothing of how the Byzantines are being more recognized as a surviving chunk of Rome rather than another self-proclaimed successor like Charlemagne.
That seems to be the same adjustment that's happening with the end of the Bronze Age: the idea that while it was a transitional period and some places definitely got absolutely fucked in the process for one reason or another, it didn't really "end" most of the civilizations that were previously believed lost, that places that were believed to have been razed or lost in cataclysmic fires actually survived and continued to be used by the same civilization as before, just worse off. Like the Aegean islands got fucked by economics but remained inhabited by the same people using the same language, growing the same crops, and practicing the same religion, they were just somewhat materially poorer than they had been before.
Specifically about trade, this was a followup post in the same thread.
pasting it here for anyone who doesn't want to click through:
Ward-Perkins is specifically in conversation with that 'no collapse' reappraisal, because slowly declining, deurbanizing, and losing economic complexity had material consequences for even average people. and a lot of this comes down to what one means about 'collapse' and 'decline' i'm on board with the thesis that severe economic contraction and loss of complexity constitutes a significant event, and when it happens in a few decades a word like "collapse" seems appropriate. but some people assume that to have apocalyptic connotations, and for the survival of people and things, in however a declined state, to disprove a "collapse". semantics, really
i really get the impression from that trade stuff that the "palace economy" states were responsible for the import of copper and tin. unless we're looking at archaeological sites that lose their palace social structure and immediately pick up the slack some other way, i think there has to be a discussion of what the breakdown of 'elite economy' would mean for everyone else. bronze wasn't just for clouting your king---plows, nails, wheels---things normal people used and needed.