Search

Resilience is a boundary object, holding different meanings for the different groups of scholars who share its use. Here we survey its application in historical research, especially premodern environmental history, and trace how the term entered historical discourse from ecology. A shift in recent decades expanded the term initially toward contemporary social science and subsequently the study of the past. This has resulted in a fuzzy conceptualization of the term within historical discourse. Yet the concept has nevertheless proven important in challenging catastrophist approaches to the societal impacts of environmental stressors (e.g. the fall of the Roman Empire). We demonstrate that today's discussion continues an earlier twentieth-century debate between an environmentally determinist view and one that emphasizes the role of human factors in the course of history. We conclude that despite the issues accompanying the use of the term and the application of formal resilience theory, both remain valuable, especially in intradisciplinary discourse, primarily as a paradigm through which more nuanced arguments can be framed. We conclude by suggesting the value of more critical work with the term in the future to take advantage of its roots in ecology and the social sciences to promote such a nuanced synthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article explores how plague—as an idea—became an ahistorical independent agent of historical change. It focuses on the case of the Justinianic Plague (ca. 541–750 c. e.), the first major recorded plague pandemic in Mediterranean history, which has increasingly been used to explain significant demographic, political, social, economic, and cultural change during late antiquity (ca. 300–800 c. e.). We argue that the Justinianic Plague retains its great historiographic power—namely, its supposed destructive impact over two centuries—because it evokes a terrifying myth of what plague should do rather than because of conclusive evidence of what it did. We define this historiographic power as the plague concept. It includes three key features: extensive chronology (lasting for two centuries), mortality (catastrophic death toll), and geography (global). The plague concept is built on three interdisciplinary types of evidence (here termed truisms): rats, climate, and paleogenetics. Our article traces how scientists constructed the plague concept in the first half of the twentieth century, and how historians entered the discussion in the last third of that century. As historians engaged in Justinianic Plague research, they used the plague concept to frame their arguments without problematizing its presence or contesting features that scientists had constructed decades earlier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collapse is a term that has attracted much attention in social science literature in recent years, but there remain substantial areas of disagreement about how it should be understood in historical contexts. More specifically, the use of the term collapse often merely serves to dramatize long-past events, to push human actors into the background, and to mystify the past intellectually. At the same time, since human societies are complex systems, the alternative involves grasping the challenges that a holistic analysis presents, taking account of the many different levels and paces at which societies function, and developing appropriate methods that help to integrate science and history. Often neglected elements in considerations of collapse are the perceptions and beliefs of a historical society and how a given society deals with change; an important facet of this, almost entirely ignored in the discussion, is the understanding of time held by the individuals and social groups affected by change; and from this perspective 'collapse' depends very much on perception, including the perceptions of the modern commentator. With this in mind, this article challenges simplistic notions of 'collapse' in an effort to encourage a more nuanced understanding of the impact and process of both social and environmental change on past human societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article surveys some examples of the ways past societies have responded to environmental stressors such as famine, war, and pandemic. We show that people in the past did think about system recovery, but only on a sectoral scale. They did perceive challenges and respond appropriately, but within cultural constraints and resource limitations. Risk mitigation was generally limited in scope, localized, and again determined by cultural logic that may not necessarily have been aware of more than symptoms, rather than actual causes. We also show that risk-managing and risk-mitigating arrangements often favored the vested interests of elites rather than the population more widely, an issue policy makers today still face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Justinianic Plague, the first part of the earliest of the three plague pandemics, has minimal historical documentation. Based on the limited primary sources, historians have argued both for and against the "maximalist narrative" of plague, i.e. that the Justinianic Plague had universally devastating effects throughout the Mediterranean region during the sixth century CE. Using primary sources of one of the pandemic's best documented outbreaks that took place in Constantinople during 542 CE, as well as modern findings on plague etiology and epidemiology, we developed a series of dynamic, compartmental models of disease to explore which, if any, transmission routes of plague are feasible. Using expected parameter values, we find that the bubonic and bubonic-pneumonic transmission routes exceed maximalist mortality estimates and are of shorter detectable duration than described by the primary sources. When accounting for parameter uncertainty, several of the bubonic plague model configurations yielded interquartile estimates consistent with the upper end of maximalist estimates of mortality; however, these models had shorter detectable outbreaks than suggested by the primary sources. The pneumonic transmission routes suggest that by itself, pneumonic plague would not cause significant mortality in the city. However, our global sensitivity analysis shows that predicted disease dynamics vary widely for all hypothesized transmission routes, suggesting that regardless of its effects in Constantinople, the Justinianic Plague would have likely had differential effects across urban areas around the Mediterranean. Our work highlights the uncertainty surrounding the details in the primary sources on the Justinianic Plague and calls into question the likelihood that the Justinianic Plague affected all localities in the same way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a detailed critical review of all the major scholarly publications in the rapidly expanding field of the Justinianic Plague published from 2000 through 2018. It updates the article in this journal by Dionysios Stathakopoulos from 2000, while also providing a detailed appraisal of the state of the field across all disciplines, including: literary studies, archaeology, DNA evidence, climatology, and epidemiology. We also identify the current paradigm for the Justinianic Plague as well as survey possible avenues forward for the field in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome, written for a popular audience, uses the environment to explain the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The book asserts that Rome fell as a result of environmental stress, in particular through a combination of pandemic disease and climate change. Although we agree that the environment can and should be integrated within traditional historical accounts, we challenge the book's claims on several issues. These include Harper's use of primary sources and secondary literature, his approach to analyzing palaeoclimate data, his interpretations of the impact of disease on the Roman state and society, and his synthesis of social, economic, and environmental history. Throughout this and the following two sections of this review, we demonstrate that several major flaws undermine the book's overarching argument, casting serious doubts on its conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the last of a three‐part review of Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome. Here, we scrutinize Harper's treatment of the Justinianic Plague, demonstrating how he crafts a convincing narrative based on rhetorical flourishes but little evidence. We call further attention to several internal contradictions within the chapter and misinterpretations of evidence. We conclude this series of articles with a reflection on Harper's deterministic approach to environmental history. While the environment appears everywhere, agency (people: society and culture) is mostly absent. We finish by emphasizing the need to develop more nuanced causal explanations for complex historical processes and suggest that future attempts to bring together such wide‐ranging material be done within interdisciplinary research teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the second of a three‐section review of Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome in which we examine in detail Harper's treatment of two allegedly widespread and mortal Roman outbreaks of disease. In the case of the second‐century Antonine plague, we demonstrate that Harper overlooked a major controversy and instead portrayed an oversimplified narrative of a catastrophic event. In the case of the third‐century Cyprianic plague, we call attention to several glaring methodological issues in Harper's treatment of the episode, point out the absence of corresponding evidence in the papyri, and cast doubt on the linkage previously drawn between the plague and archaeology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]