Did tornadoes and hurricaines retard ancient civilisations ?

[catalfalque]

I was watching a National Geographic program on TV about tornadoes, and I got to thinking about them sweeping through primitive Oklahoma and sweeping away all civilisation? And hurricaines too?

Did it take until the 20th century before a civilisation could repair itself properly after one? So were ancient civilisations retarded or knocked out by such natural events?

Thanks !

 

[ironram]

Well, large natural disasters such as tornadoes or hurricanes are primarily effective at destroying infrastructure. Hovels, granaries, etc. Human casualties tend to be minimal, at least in regards to what degree of centralization a civilization has and what the population density of that civilization is. For example, a strong hurricane is difficult to run away from, and most coastal buildings will be ruined. If the population density is incredibly minute, and the central hub of the empire is far inland, then the disaster means little. However, if we are speaking of a single collective of people in a location, a primitive city-state, then all it would take is a single catastrophic natural event to send it into the abyss.

To answer your question, the growth of civilization can be diminished or even obliterated if the two factors of population density and concentration and degree of centralization are complementary. An entire society could crumble if it is based around a centralized unit, and the centralized unit is taken away. If it has a high enough population density, then it will cause high casualties. Those who remain after the disaster won't be interested in continuing their civilization, and can't afford to anyway. It's best to just let your neighbors fill in the power vacuum.

There's a book called The Starfish and the Spider, and it talks about the flaws of centralized civilizations. If a disaster strikes Cuzco, will the Inca empire collapse? If it doesn't, then it will descend into considerable chaos for a period of time. If a tornado wipes out an Apache settlement along with their spiritual leaders, will they survive? You bet. The more decentralized the civilization, the more resilience it has against single-event catastrophes on par with tornadoes and earthquakes.

 

[83gemini]

There have been arguments the "Dark Age" between the Bronze and Iron Age, and other such periods in ancient times were caused by a combination of natural events overwhelming civilizations under stress.

 

[MrP]

IIRC, the current theory on the Minoans is that their culture was massively damaged by a giant tidal wave caused by the eruption of Santorini, and this turned it to terminal decline.

 

[Hobelhouse]

Portugal was never the same after the Lisbon earthquake, which caused massive fires and tidal waves.

 

[carlton_bach]

The problem with assumptions either way is that we can't really test them. Obviously, a primitive civilisation can suffer materially from a natural disaster, but unless we are talking about something with long-lasting consequences (like a mesoclimate shift or a river changing course) I find it hard to see how the effects would be permanent. The infrastructure that underpins preindustrial societies is fairly simple and can be rebuilt rather more easily than ours. Of course, the superstructure can collapse, but again this is only likely if it's balanced precariously anyway. Lots of ancient places weathered natural disasters just fine, sometimes so well we don't even read of them in any sources.

 

[Roberto]

And ofcourse, how could anyone forget what happened to Atlantis?

 

[CalBear]

I was watching a National Geographic program on TV about tornadoes, and I got to thinking about them sweeping through primitive Oklahoma and sweeping away all civilisation? And hurricaines too?

Did it take until the 20th century before a civilisation could repair itself properly after one? So were ancient civilisations retarded or knocked out by such natural events?

Thanks !

Those specific events?

Tornadoes are unlikely to have had a significant effect. The region of the U.S. where 90%+ (IIRC) of the world's tornadoes occur in the Great Plains. Until the advent of the steel sod cutter for plows the Great Plains was more or less impossible to farm and was sparsely populated.

Hurricans could have a greater impact, especially if you include tropical cyclones (which are what hurricaines that form in the Indian Ocean & Eastern Pacific are called) since they could really wipe out a city state that was along a coastal area.

 

[Uber_Amoeba]

Tornadoes? The great plains aren't a good place to kickstart agriculture and urbanisation.

Now hurricanes - yeah, those could do some damage. Floods, cyclones, and hurricanes (not to mention earthquakes on the West Coast) could seriously retard the development of cities if every time one was built it was smashed by natural forces every few decades. Historians believe at least one advanced Andean civilization was destroyed thanks to its El Nino and their severe reactions to it. Similarly, some believe the end of a mini-ice age was what defeated Muslim dominance by turning previously fertile land to desert. The Portuguese Empire was seriously hurt by the Lisbon earthquake, and of course, all the greatest Dinosaur civilizations, even the mighty Ultraraptor Empire, were destroyed by a single space-rock. Such as shame.

 

[Advernt]

Tornadoes? The great plains aren't a good place to kickstart agriculture and urbanisation.

Now hurricanes - yeah, those could do some damage. Floods, cyclones, and hurricanes (not to mention earthquakes on the West Coast) could seriously retard the development of cities if every time one was built it was smashed by natural forces every few decades. Historians believe at least one advanced Andean civilization was destroyed thanks to its El Nino and their severe reactions to it. Similarly, some believe the end of a mini-ice age was what defeated Muslim dominance by turning previously fertile land to desert. The Portuguese Empire was seriously hurt by the Lisbon earthquake, and of course, all the greatest Dinosaur civilizations, even the mighty Ultraraptor Empire, were destroyed by a single space-rock. Such as shame.

Is that the reason for the fact that ,as far as we know , there has been no evidence of any large scale Amerindiancivilisation developing on the modern day Eastern Seaboard of the USA, on the order of the Mayans , Aztecs or Incas?

 

[LordKalvan]

For every society destroyed by natural causes (earthquake or tsunami or volcanic eruption) there are probably a dozen which collapsed for over-exploiting environment.

I always recommend "Collapse", by Jared Diamond. A great book, at least on a par with Guns, Germs and Steel (I do apologize if I sound like a preacher )
An editorial review is posted here:
" From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In his Pulitzer Prize–winning bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel, geographer Diamond laid out a grand view of the organic roots of human civilizations in flora, fauna, climate and geology. That vision takes on apocalyptic overtones in this fascinating comparative study of societies that have, sometimes fatally, undermined their own ecological foundations. Diamond examines storied examples of human economic and social collapse, and even extinction, including Easter Island, classical Mayan civilization and the Greenland Norse. He explores patterns of population growth, overfarming, overgrazing and overhunting, often abetted by drought, cold, rigid social mores and warfare, that lead inexorably to vicious circles of deforestation, erosion and starvation prompted by the disappearance of plant and animal food sources. Extending his treatment to contemporary environmental trouble spots, from Montana to China to Australia, he finds today's global, technologically advanced civilization very far from solving the problems that plagued primitive, isolated communities in the remote past. At times Diamond comes close to a counsel of despair when contemplating the environmental havoc engulfing our rapidly industrializing planet, but he holds out hope at examples of sustainability from highland New Guinea's age-old but highly diverse and efficient agriculture to Japan's rigorous program of forest protection and, less convincingly, in recent green consumerism initiatives. Diamond is a brilliant expositor of everything from anthropology to zoology, providing a lucid background of scientific lore to support a stimulating, incisive historical account of these many declines and falls. Readers will find his book an enthralling, and disturbing, reminder of the indissoluble links that bind humans to nature. Photos.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved."

 

[Dutchie]

Hurricanes couldn't have been too much of a problem, or you wouldn't have the Mayan cities and temples that are still being discovered in the jungles of the Yucatan, or even S.E. China, which regularily gets walloped by Typhoons.

Same with West Coast earthquakes (not in the original question, but someone else posted) or the Incas and their predecessors wouldn't have became great. And before you say "How great, they're not around anymore, so they were developmentally slowed" the Spanish were only a couple of centuries ahead technologically, not all that much for civilisations that can last for hundreds and hundreds of years.

There must have been other reasons for the lack of major civilizations on the Atlantic coast of N. America. My guess would be the lack of a suitably large river to spur agriculture (like the Nile, Tigri/Euphrates, Indus, or Yangtze). Though there is some eveidence of city building in the swamps of the Everglades, so there was something.

 

[Douglas]

For every society destroyed by natural causes (earthquake or tsunami or volcanic eruption) there are probably a dozen which collapsed for over-exploiting environment.

I always recommend "Collapse", by Jared Diamond. A great book, at least on a par with Guns, Germs and Steel (I do apologize if I sound like a preacher )
An editorial review is posted here:
" From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In his Pulitzer Prize–winning bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel, geographer Diamond laid out a grand view of the organic roots of human civilizations in flora, fauna, climate and geology. That vision takes on apocalyptic overtones in this fascinating comparative study of societies that have, sometimes fatally, undermined their own ecological foundations. Diamond examines storied examples of human economic and social collapse, and even extinction, including Easter Island, classical Mayan civilization and the Greenland Norse. He explores patterns of population growth, overfarming, overgrazing and overhunting, often abetted by drought, cold, rigid social mores and warfare, that lead inexorably to vicious circles of deforestation, erosion and starvation prompted by the disappearance of plant and animal food sources. Extending his treatment to contemporary environmental trouble spots, from Montana to China to Australia, he finds today's global, technologically advanced civilization very far from solving the problems that plagued primitive, isolated communities in the remote past. At times Diamond comes close to a counsel of despair when contemplating the environmental havoc engulfing our rapidly industrializing planet, but he holds out hope at examples of sustainability from highland New Guinea's age-old but highly diverse and efficient agriculture to Japan's rigorous program of forest protection and, less convincingly, in recent green consumerism initiatives. Diamond is a brilliant expositor of everything from anthropology to zoology, providing a lucid background of scientific lore to support a stimulating, incisive historical account of these many declines and falls. Readers will find his book an enthralling, and disturbing, reminder of the indissoluble links that bind humans to nature. Photos.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved."

I second this recommendation. It's excellent reading.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I'll third it as well. After reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, I went out and picked up every other Diamond book I could find. Haven't been (too) disappointed yet.

But back to the question. I'd argue that due to the transportation lag, environmental disasters favored large civilizations rather than small ones. Take the Minoans, for example. As MrP brought up, one of the leading theories in regards to their decline has to do with the Santorini eruption. That single event disproportionally affected the Minoan civilization, which was concentrated on one single island -- Crete.

When Crete was affected by a disaster or invasion, the entire civilization suffered. It had much less "give" than a geographically larger civilization. In the event of a disaster large enough to ruin agricultural production, the Minoans might have been helpless -- international transportation was not advanced enough to provide for a state that suffered a severe disaster. Instead of food supplies coming to the devastated civilization, the affected citizens would instead go out and search for food, thus creating the migratory populations that traveled across Eurasia until the 16th Century.

Now look at the Egyptians of the time. They were (arguably) less technologically advanced, but were spread out over a geographically greater area. Egypt, too, suffered from natural disasters, but because the Egyptian Empire covered a geographically greater area, it could recover from disasters more easily. Roads (or, in this case, the Nile) could bring food from unaffected areas to feed those whose crops had been destroyed. Had the empire been fragmented into several states, this would have been impossible. There could have been no systematic transportation of food as needed.

Compare a map of Europe in 1914 with one of Europe today. You'll see a lot more smaller countries, with many more defined political boundaries. In today's world, transportation and diplomacy have advanced enough that international transportation is just as easy as interstate transportation. Food, water, and other everyday needs can be supplied in the event of a disaster, enabling small nations to survive even big disasters.

This is why you see the world dominated by large empires in the ancient world. Small empires were more easily affected by natural disasters and wars, and succumbed to things that would have only hurt large empires. By the time of the Middle Ages, however, that situation began to change. In places like Europe and China, transportation networks were advanced enough to allow for the survival of small nations like Venice, even in the event of a natural disaster.

 

[Tocomocho]

I have read that the end of the Medieval Warm Period caused a series of successive stronger hurricanes in the Yucatan Peninsula that, combined with failed crops and invasions from Mexico, brought the Maya civilization to the abandoned state found by the Conquistadors.

 

[arctic warrior]

Denmark through the ages was affected by storms and floods. Scores of people died during the great storms and accompagnying floods of the 17. and 19. century but society was able to recover and rebuilt what was lost and build dykes to prevent - or at least try to prevent - new disasters.
From age old farms in northern frisia/Slesvig was built on a high point with a pond besides the farm buildings so that you could live through a storm and flood and regain your fields afterwards.
Peoples learn to adapt to the evironment...