We've reached our final destination

Phew! Over the past few months we’ve managed to go through a fair bit! During this time we’ve looked at a variety of case studies of civilization collapse from around the world. On our journey we’ve been to Mesopotamia to meet the Akkadians, to Mesoamerica for our Mayan friends, on to Easter Island to chill with our Rapa Nui buddies and have stopped off in Cambodia to see the Khmer gang.

During our travels we’ve looked at an assortment of factors that have led to civilization collapse. 

These have included:

•          Social: tension, unrest and rebellion, disease
•          Political: conflict, invasion, power relations
•          Economical: costs and losses, trade
•          Religious: the shift in religious authority
•          Environmental: drought, deforestation, resource exploitation, rats!

These key factors combine all our case studies together as they often share more than one similarity. I think from all case studies we’ve looked at, it’s clear that collapse is never simple. It is important to consider how all the elements interact. As new evidence emerges older theories either gain more validity or are shunned. However, when looking at all the examples covered, I think that environmental change is the greatest threat to civilizations and in the past has played a pivotal role in collapse. The response to such events can be the nail in the coffin.

To relate back to an article from a previous post, an article by Wiener (2014) published last year shows the importance of connectedness of a society for its survival. This Network Theory demonstrates how the more interconnected the civilization, the easier it’ll be to resolve issues. If a society is isolated (such as the Rapa Nui on Easter Island) this can be difficult and the critical stress threshold can be reached quickly, after which the entire system will collapse.

Most societies today are highly interconnected, which may act as a buffer against the climate changes that are approaching and help maintain functioning societies. However we must not rely on this. Lessons can and must be drawn from the examples of civilization collapse we’ve seen. Today, societies around the world face the threat from climate change on top of deep running social, political and religious tensions. If we do not learn from the mistakes of past societies, many may be heading for a similar fate. We need to develop an understanding of underlying environmental changes that may lead to social unrest, economic losses and political instability and we must mitigate them!

Sadly, for now, this point marks the end of our travels, I hope you've enjoyed reading about the different forces behind collapse. 

Until next time!

Source: Auditel

Tying up the loose ends

So we've looked at some different theories behind the collapse of the Khmer empire, including:

• Climate events such as drought and changes in the monsoonal system
• War and conflict
• Socio-political unease

Diamond, 2009 is a nice article that ties together all the interweaving aspects involved in the Khmer empire's demise. It also neatly (maybe too neatly) links the collapses of the Khmer empire, Mayas and Inca together.

Diamond demonstrates how a boom in agriculture in Angkor led to population growth that placed pressure on the Angkor infrastructure. Deforestation, resource exploitation and land degradation followed in attempt to sustain its large population. Socio-political unease, conflict with neighbouring cities and over reliance on a vulnerable irrigation system ultimately led to the collapse of the Khmer empire. Although this article is a few years old, it covers important factors of collapse that still exist in contemporary understanding (shown in more recent articles I've looked at). However I think it over-simplifies civilization collapse and presents a homogenous theory that is not fully representative of the variance between case studies. 

Take a look at this clip from a National Geographic documentary on Angkor Wat. See the whole video on Youtube

Also have a quick read of the New York Times article by Maugh (2010). It's a good summary piece and I'm glad to see that they have acknowledged the role of factors other than climate.

Looking at the literature, I think that climate probably had a lot to do with collapse. Changes in the monsoon system would have come as an unpleasant surprise to the people of the Khmer empire. This climate change had serious impacts on agriculture and water resources that the empire could not overcome. However a society's response to environmental change is also important. In the case of the Khmer empire and its centre Angkor, fear and confusion over the change in climate acted to undermine the authorities. Matters were probably made worse by conflict with other empires and within the empire.

Keep your eyes peeled for my next post, when I'll summarise what we've found about civilization collapse in general.

Trade and social unease

Lieberman, 2011 argues that changes in trade and socio-political unease were central to the collapse of the Khmer empire. These factors also contributed to the collapse of centres of other civilizations in Asia.

A shift from terrestrial to maritime trade undermined the centre of the Khmer Empire, Angkor, and enabled once peripheral cities of the empire to become new centres of power, based on proximity to maritime trade. Key shipping routes bypassed Angkor and led to economic instability and eventual collapse. These arguments have more recently been developed by Evans et al, 2013.

As a result of shifts in trade and subsequent political disorder and fragmentation, Angkor placed greater pressure on its people. Angkor exhausted its people by focussing a lot of energy on constructing grand architectural structures, most significantly Angkor Wat. With growing social unease and simultaneous expansion of Buddhism, many civilians converted to Buddhism, which worked to undermine the ideological system that had once allowed the growth of Angkor.

Evans et al takes it further and argues that the centre of power was shifted from Angkor to coastal areas that would benefit from the new maritime trade. This, on top of social unease and dramatic religious change, led to mass outward migration and Angkor's collapse.

Source: Cartoon stock

In Lieberman’s opinion, this social unrest was made worse by ecological deterioration and declining agricultural output as a result of drought. Labour and land productivity fell which made the heart of the Khmer empire particularly vulnerable to the military attack that occurred in 1432. Following this attack universal conscription across the city was implemented. This drew attention away from other pursuits, such as stabilizing trade and agricultural output.

Evans et al argues that the urban intensification that had occurred during the zenith of the Khmer empire made the situation worse.

Till next time!

Huh! War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

The idea of conflict as the cause of the Khmer Empire's collapse originated in 1951 in Brigg's 'The Ancient Khmer Empire', but it has always been debated. Very few contemporary articles promote this theory. Having said that, Chachavalpongpun, 2012 plainly states that the Khmer Empire fell into decline after it was invaded by an army in 1431. He proposes that this was the cause behind the demise of Angkor and marked the point in time when the Khmer Empire fell and its structures were absorbed by the new emperor, Siam. He argues that this form of struggle has persisted throughout the history of conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. An article for the Ancient History Encyclopaedia by Plubins, 2013 (mentioned in a previous post) also asserts that the invasion of the Thai army was the key factor that led to collapse. 

Several blogs, such as Angkor History, The Angkor Empire, Environment and Conflict and The Warfare Historian, argue that conflict played an important role throughout the Khmer Empire's history and in its demise.

A wall carving from Angkor Wat, depicting the Khmer army marching into battle against the Chams from Vietnam. Source: Photo bucket

It may be that this theory deserves more attention from contemporary academics. As mentioned in my first post on the Khmer empire, few historical records exist after 1300s which may make this difficult. On the other hand it could be that there is little evidence to support it.

It would not come as a surprise to me that following a period of instability, the heart of the Khmer empire, Angkor, was attacked. Alternatively in combination with other factors such as environmental change and a lack of food and water, conflict within the empire may have occurred. I do not doubt that this civilization experienced a long history of conflict, however I do not believe it was the main cause of their demise. In my next few posts I’ll have a look at some other possible triggers, such as changes in trade.

Stay tuned!