Unfortunately I can't recommend the book. It's a fascinating subject, but ... Much/most of the book is devoted to what various Eastern Mediterranean civilizations were like before the Collapse of the Late Bronze Age. It's useful as an introduction so that you can get some idea of what collapsed, but it shouldn't be most of the book.
The treatment of the collapse itself is fairly shallow. I know the collapse is still mysterious and comparatively little is known about it, but that's why a book like this should be so interesting. Surely there is enough information to fill a comparatively short book like this. The ever mysterious Sea People's are mentioned of course, but other than noting that they weren't just one group and that the Egyptians defeated one group of invaders he says little. There is the usual "they may have been from here, or perhaps there" but it doesn't go into much detail about the different theories. The possible causes of the collapse aren't discussed much either. Basically it says "stuff fell apart and here are some examples". I know that much of this stuff is far from settled but discussing the evidence and arguments for various theories is a good approach. Talking about how new civilizations arose after the collapse would have been interesting too; much more than endless detail about pre-collapse civilizations like the Minoans.
It's funny you say that because the author addresses this at the start of the talk. He says that when it was suggested to him by a friend that he write a book about the Collapse, he agreed only on the condition that he could distinguish himself from previous publications on the same topic precisely by talking more about what the Late Bronze Age was actually like, and what was lost.
He also says if he had to choose any period of history to live in he would choose that period.
I don't think he should be blamed for writing what he wants to write about, but maybe the marketing of the book is a bit misleading.
Take my opinion with a grain of salt because I put this books down after only 100 pages or so, but it seemed to exemplify my main gripe with many/most popular science/non-fiction publications these days...padding. Many authors seem to have a great ~150 page thesis, but publishers push hard that best sellers are 400-600 pages.
I recall someone commenting that most non-fiction books have only 15 minutes of true comment. The rest is commentary and persuasion.
I used to feel awful if I did t finish a book because the author created it with a certain vision. As I get older I've realized how limited my time is, and I am more content with a quick skim for many.
that was my main problem with "The Lean Startup" too. it was really really hard to finish it when only 10% of the content was actionable (the rest anecdotal)
It's probably even worse than that. Ages ago [1] Philip Greenspun wrote about the gap between "the five-page magazine article, serving as filler among the ads [and] the book, with a minimum of 200 pages." For the most part surprisingly little has changed although that comment was made in 2009. There are some shorter form books these days, e.g. from O'Reilly. But if you want the gravitas that a book often conveys there are still a lot of forces pushing you toward 300+ pages.
> "...much more than endless detail about pre-collapse civilizations like the Minoans."
Funny you should say that, because the author does in the book (by your description) what he describes happening in a systems collapse scenario:
[describing a systems collapse, 48:10] "It usually takes about a century, there's usually a dark age that happens right afterward. And when they're coming out of that dark age they start immortalizing the great period ... before them."
I like the "it's complicated" theory, but it also a bit of a cop-out. Can we not have a meta-theory? Here are three candidates:
1) Climate change. Doesn't directly cause famines because people adapt; but the adaptation might be e.g to become wondering marauders. Thus war, destruction famine etc.
2) Technological change. Iron-working upset existing power balances. The political results were different in different places but in the end there was a whole lot of war and chaos.
3) Luck. History is complicated and random things happen at all scales. Including total collapses of civilisations.
In each of these, the proximate causes of destruction are a complicated networks of events. But there are higher level explanations behind them.
Are these more general explanations testable? Are there good arguments for or against any of them?
Joseph Tainter's theory (The Collapse of Complex Societies) is even more general. Societies collapse when "continued investment in complexity as a problem-solving strategy yields a declining marginal return". The idea is that initially, solutions to problems are found and society becomes more complex as a result, but the benefit of the solutions exceeds the cost of the complexity. But as the society develops, the benefit in the form of solutions to problems become smaller and the cost of servicing the additional complexity becomes larger, until the cost exceeds the benefit. Then things break down and society is forced to become a lot simpler.
"...the blind forces of urbanization, flowing along the lines of least resistance, show no aptitude for creating an urban and industrial pattern that will be stable, self-sustaining, and self-renewing. On the contrary, as congestion thickens and expansion widens, both the urban and the rural landscape undergo defacement and degradation, while the unprofitable investments in the remedies…serve only to promote more of the blight and disorder they seek to palliate."
It's also that to manage the complexity, individuals become hyper-specialized. So when a crisis comes along, that civilization can't repurpose people quickly enough to cope.
A direct representation of this can be found in law. Countries start out with simple laws, then as society gets more complex the laws become substantially more complex as well, to the point where tax codes, private and criminal law are no longer wholly comprehensible by any single individual.
It shouldn't be a surprise that societies collapse though, everything has a life-cycle, even stars and the universe as a whole, it would be extremely surprising if something as simple as an organization made up of fragile humans would manage to last longer than say a millennium or so.
You might be right that our civilization is going to collapse eventually. However, in many of the advanced economies, we have had gdp growth has been separated from energy consumption for several decades.
I am more worried about the effects of advance technologies, including it getting in the hands of people like ISIS who want to take down Western Civilization.
I inherited a fascination with this time period from my father who acquired it from an Oxbridge educated colleague in the RAF during WW2 - who took copies of Homer on their adventures.
My fascination was fed by the excellent 1980s BBC series "In Search of the Trojan War" with Michael Wood, which covers some of the same topics:
Not a scholar of ancient history nor anthropology, so I'm inclined to gloss over the social mechanisms. What is fascinating to me is the application of "systems collapse" theory.
I'm thinking of two contexts. On the one hand there are complex systems; Systems too large for humans to comprehend in total. This inclines us towards abstraction, dimension reduction and model-theoretic approaches which only simulate effects.
While on the other hand we have sudden collapse of complex systems. Popular examples which come to mind include Malcolm Gladwell's "Tipping Point", cascade failure (ex. Collapse of the World Trade Center, multiple organ failure).
Horses and iron weapons. Neither are mentioned in the Iliad, just before this period.
And it is documented when the Egyptions learned these technologies in the New Kingdom after being pummeled by more capable barbarians.
Readit News
The treatment of the collapse itself is fairly shallow. I know the collapse is still mysterious and comparatively little is known about it, but that's why a book like this should be so interesting. Surely there is enough information to fill a comparatively short book like this. The ever mysterious Sea People's are mentioned of course, but other than noting that they weren't just one group and that the Egyptians defeated one group of invaders he says little. There is the usual "they may have been from here, or perhaps there" but it doesn't go into much detail about the different theories. The possible causes of the collapse aren't discussed much either. Basically it says "stuff fell apart and here are some examples". I know that much of this stuff is far from settled but discussing the evidence and arguments for various theories is a good approach. Talking about how new civilizations arose after the collapse would have been interesting too; much more than endless detail about pre-collapse civilizations like the Minoans.
He also says if he had to choose any period of history to live in he would choose that period.
I don't think he should be blamed for writing what he wants to write about, but maybe the marketing of the book is a bit misleading.
I used to feel awful if I did t finish a book because the author created it with a certain vision. As I get older I've realized how limited my time is, and I am more content with a quick skim for many.
[1] http://philip.greenspun.com/writing/changed-by-web-and-weblo...
Funny you should say that, because the author does in the book (by your description) what he describes happening in a systems collapse scenario:
[describing a systems collapse, 48:10] "It usually takes about a century, there's usually a dark age that happens right afterward. And when they're coming out of that dark age they start immortalizing the great period ... before them."
Deleted Comment
1) Climate change. Doesn't directly cause famines because people adapt; but the adaptation might be e.g to become wondering marauders. Thus war, destruction famine etc.
2) Technological change. Iron-working upset existing power balances. The political results were different in different places but in the end there was a whole lot of war and chaos.
3) Luck. History is complicated and random things happen at all scales. Including total collapses of civilisations.
In each of these, the proximate causes of destruction are a complicated networks of events. But there are higher level explanations behind them.
Are these more general explanations testable? Are there good arguments for or against any of them?
"...the blind forces of urbanization, flowing along the lines of least resistance, show no aptitude for creating an urban and industrial pattern that will be stable, self-sustaining, and self-renewing. On the contrary, as congestion thickens and expansion widens, both the urban and the rural landscape undergo defacement and degradation, while the unprofitable investments in the remedies…serve only to promote more of the blight and disorder they seek to palliate."
It shouldn't be a surprise that societies collapse though, everything has a life-cycle, even stars and the universe as a whole, it would be extremely surprising if something as simple as an organization made up of fragile humans would manage to last longer than say a millennium or so.
It seems to be an inherent thing of civilizations to collapse.
The Collapse of Complex Societies https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Ar...
The collapse of our society seem to be inevitable. You don't have to believe is but I don't think we can beat mathematics in the long term:
"There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level)" http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-stat...
Limits to Growth–At our doorstep, but not recognized http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-12/limits-to-growt...
Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-...
Galactic-Scale Energy http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
Quote: "But let’s not overlook the key point: continued growth in energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable timeframes."
I am more worried about the effects of advance technologies, including it getting in the hands of people like ISIS who want to take down Western Civilization.
Isn't a "systems collapse" the meta-theory you're looking for?
My fascination was fed by the excellent 1980s BBC series "In Search of the Trojan War" with Michael Wood, which covers some of the same topics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkbUQKyie_w&list=PLH2l6uzC4U... [NB Warning of nipples].
Not a scholar of ancient history nor anthropology, so I'm inclined to gloss over the social mechanisms. What is fascinating to me is the application of "systems collapse" theory.
I'm thinking of two contexts. On the one hand there are complex systems; Systems too large for humans to comprehend in total. This inclines us towards abstraction, dimension reduction and model-theoretic approaches which only simulate effects.
While on the other hand we have sudden collapse of complex systems. Popular examples which come to mind include Malcolm Gladwell's "Tipping Point", cascade failure (ex. Collapse of the World Trade Center, multiple organ failure).
Now I can add 1177 BC to my list of examples.
[0] http://www.npr.org/2013/09/08/220438728/how-could-a-drought-...