Talk:Late Bronze Age collapse

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sbehr22, Rolls42.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hyksos?

I am deleting the reference to Hyksos, who were 400 years earlier. The expulsion of Asiatics by Setnakhte at the end of Dynasty 19 is a better reference.John D. Croft (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Drews: Proto-Hoplite What?

In The End of the Bronze Age Robter Drews specifically states that the Chariotry were defeated (in his theory) by "disorganized masses of running skirmishers," (pg 225) which were subsequently outmatched by close-order infantry (i.e. your "proto-hoplites"). The article as it stands is a gross misrepresentation of his thesis. I am going to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.195 (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BCE versus BC

Both the use of BC or BCE is alowed in Wikipedia. But BC (Before Christ) applies to Christian dates, and while it may be applicable in discussing a non Christian topic with people who are not Christian, it may be offensive to force a usage of BC and AD, as it implies a Christian POV. To remove this bias, personally I prefer a BCE (Before Common Era) dating system, as this certifies a non POV status.

Could the editor who changed the dates from BCE to BC please return them. Otherwise I will do it myself. John D. Croft 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Iron Versus Bronze

"Leonard R. Palmer suggested that iron, whilst inferior to bronze weapons" Arent iron weapons superior to bronze one? 62.245.124.84 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Palmer showed, that until the production of steel (through the deliberate adding of small amounts of carbon to the production of iron), in fact iron weapons were inferior to bronze. (Ever tried using wrought iron against bronze?) The superiority of iron weapons was in their ease and speed of production, which meant that you could field many more soldiers in the battle, than if you were armed only with (comparatively more expensive) bronze.

"The magic of iron: from 1500 BC

The Hittites are the first people to work iron, in Anatolia from about 1500 BC. In its simple form iron is less hard than bronze, and therefore of less use as a weapon, but it seems to have had an immediate appeal - perhaps as the latest achievement of technology (with the mysterious quality of being changeable, through heating and hammering), or from a certain intrinsic magic (it is the metal in meteorites, which fall from the sky).

Quite how much value is attached to iron can be judged from a famous letter of about 1250 BC, written by a Hittite king to accompany an iron dagger-blade which he is sending to a fellow monarch.

The discovery of steel: 11th century BC

By the 11th century BC it has been discovered that iron can be much improved. If it is reheated in a furnace with charcoal (containing carbon), some of the carbon is transferred to the iron. This process hardens the metal; and the effect is considerably greater if the hot metal is rapidly reduced in temperature, usually achieved by quenching it in water.

The new material is steel. It can be worked (or 'wrought') just like softer iron, and it will keep a finer edge, capable of being honed to sharpness. Gradually, from the 11th century onwards, steel replaces bronze weapons in the Middle East, birthplace of the Iron Age. It becomes essential, from now on, to have a good steel blade rather than a soft and indifferent one.

Cast iron in the east: 513 BC

Thus far in the story iron has been heated and hammered, but never melted. Its melting point (1528°C) is too high for primitive furnaces, which can reach about 1300°C and are adequate for copper (melting at 1083°C). This limitation is overcome when the Chinese develop a furnace hot enough to melt iron, enabling them to produce the world's first cast iron - an event traditionally dated in the Chinese histories to 513 BC."

Hope this helps John D. Croft 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

@John D. Croft: Thanks. It would have been a good idea to put in some ref on these informations, so parts of it could be explained in the article. I think many people find the statement that iron is inferior to bronze very odd. The timeline you present is a bit messed up unfortunately. Are you not referring to 11th century AD? And 513 AD in China also? RhinoMind (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No it was 11th century BCE. Romans, Greeks and Persians had good quality Iron weapons superior to Bronze. John Croft (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing no mention here of the theory that the switch to the iron age was a response to deforestation:

"A third hypothesis to explain the replacement of bronze by iron that has gained some credence is ecological. This hypothesis, proposed by the late Theodore Wertime, suggests that pyrotechnological activites making heavy demands on fuel over a long period, in conjunction with other kinds of human activity such as land clearning and agricultural terracing (Stager 1985:5-9), ultimately led to sever defoestation over much of the Mediterranean. Iron smelting, being significantly more fuel-efficient than copper smelting (Horne 1982:12), became economically more feasible despite technological difficulties and the greater labor intensity involved in producing iron (Wertime 1982, 1983). If it could be shown, therefore, that large parts of the Mediterranean were indeed undergoing heavy deforestation around the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, then the gradual switch from bronze to iron across a broad geographical range would be a reasonable response to a pressing ecological challenge." - 'The archaeometallurgy of the Asian old world', Vincent C. Pigott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnphitz (talk • contribs) 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be a useful addition to the article. I also can remember reading also that there was a shift in morality associated with the end of the Bronze Age. Julian Jaynes thesis suggests that this was the end of the bicameral mind, in which voices previously considered to be "the gods" became seen as an interior conscience, and there was a definite reaction at this period against public nudity in the middle East. In Egypt, servants previously went naked, and it was not uncommon in Mesopotamia either. Only in Greece, and then in the gymnasium, did public nudity survive. John D. Croft (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Shawnphitz:I took the liberty to highlight the key words of the argument. I can attest that deforestation in Denmark (and maybe southern Sweden) was very severe when the Iron Age reached this part of the world. almost all the land was cleared and farmed or grazed. It was a very severe and deep ecological change. A lot of the other points mentioned in the article also applied here as well. Climatic change and break down of long distance trade routes (of bronze fx.). (one of several sources: Jørgen Jensen "I begyndelsen" in Danish)

However, if this reason is not mentioned or discussed in any credible source, we should not be making Original Research, however obvious it may seem (to us). It could be mentioned though, that iron-working is more fuel-efficient. Do you have a ref on this claim? I mean a ref that goes into a bit more detail? RhinoMind (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jarred Diamond (already quoted) is a good source for this. John Croft (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @John D. Croft:, the section Changes in warfare now states that cast iron weapons are superior to forged ones, I always believed that forging yielded a stronger result than casting? Or is the superiority in speed of production? AadaamS (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

An unthought-through opening

• The Bronze Age collapse is the name of the Dark Age period of history... No, that's not what the Bronze Age collapse is at all. You have to listen to what you're writing. --Wetman (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Judea or Palestine

The reference to the area as Judea is anachronistic. Judea did not exist till after the end of the Bronze Age collapse. As this is an archaelogical article it should use the archaeologically accepted name for the region which is Palestine. If chronological accuracy is sought it should be Hatti and Canaan, not Syria and Palestine, although these are the geographic expressions preferred for these regions. John D. Croft (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought Palestine came later also? Isn't Canaan the proper name for pre-Dark Age Israel/Palestine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.195 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironworking

Not only is much of the section unreferenced (only a sngle source, and that for one of the earliest claims), but the "scientific" additions of 23 Sept 2008 (everything from "On the other hand..." to the end of the section) read like an overwrought personal essay and contradict the earlier (albeit itself uncited) claim about ironworking not appearing until after the collapse. The various claims really need sourcing;in the meantime I'll try to get rid some of the more obviously inappropriate wording. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mycenae

Mycenae is not between Troy and Gaza. Confusing concerning timeline and location

11 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.202.20 (talk)  

Mycenae is south of Troy and North of Gaza. How would you position it? John Croft (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The name of the article

It is true that so called Sea peoples devastated all near east in the 13th century BC . But the name of this article is misleading. Because it gives the impression that the collapse was in the bronze age. But it was not; it was in the iron age rather than the bronze age. Hittites who were strucked most severely during the collapse, were already using and even exporting iron . So the the name Early iron age collapse may be more convenient. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The title needs to reflect what this is commonly called. Looking at Google Books: [1] the current title seems commonly used. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the LBIII Period is known for this collapse. The early Iron Age I is more the dark age or stagnant period (depending on POV). The name is wrong though because it talks about one collapse when there were two in this Age. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 27 Kislev 5774 16:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

more archaeological info

See also the 2010 climate change article by Kaniewski et al published in PDF on leilan.yale.edu. 4.249.48.137 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is: Manuel Robbins?

I ask for the relevance resp. authority of Manuel Robbins, author of the Book Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the Peoples of the Sea.

Reasons:

• The book is self-published.
• The author cannot be found as any professor / PhD at any university. No short biography in the book. No trace at all in the whole internet. Who is he? What did he do to have competence in the field?
• The author is author *only* of this book. No other books, no scientific papers on the topic. Not even a homepage.
• No scientific citations can be found, cf. Google Scholar.

I do not reject self-published authors by principle (I myself am one), but an author should show who he is / why he is competent / and after some time there should be some reactions on his book, citations e.g. And maybe a second book on the topic, or a homepage at least? A review?

On Amazon a funny discussion is going on whether Manuel Robbins is Lord Robbins, and whether this name is right or the other.

If the author cannot proof any relevance, we should remove him. --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I add a comment by a reader whom I asked for his opinion: "Regarding Manuel Robbins, I don't know anything about him beyond what can be guessed from the book. An Amazon review suggests he's an independent researcher. -- The book seems basically reliable in that I didn't spot any major factual errors. Interpretations can of course be argued. The lack of footnotes obviously destracts from its value as a secondary source." --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Following the above argument I start to delete Manuel Robbins. Still open for discussion. --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Other groups of Indo-European warriors followed into the region, most prominently the Urartians (Armenians), Cimmerians and Scythians. "

It seems some Armenian nationalists are trying to insert themselves in the page of history through Wikipedia. Urartu, is long thought to be a Caucasian language, probably related to Chechen. I'vent read anywhere that it is Indo-European except for this wiki page. Somebody should take care of this big mistake done in the name of fanatic nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.50.39 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Environmental causes

A recent study, perhaps of some use: Kaniewski, D.; Van Campo, E.; Guiot, J. L.; Le Burel, S.; Otto, T.; Baeteman, C. (2013). Petraglia, Michael D (ed.). "Environmental Roots of the Late Bronze Age Crisis". PLoS ONE. 8 (8): e71004. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071004.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Need for differentiation between early and late Bronze Age collapses

This article should be titled the Late Bronze Age collapse. There were two collapses, one at the end of the EB and one at the end of the LB. As a result, the name Bronze Age collapse is not only incorrect, but confusing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 27 Kislev 5774 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Rapid climate change did not cause population collapse at the end of the European Bronze Age"

That's the title of a recently published article.[2]. See also "Greek Bronze Age ended 100 years earlier than thought, new evidence suggests" and [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0106672#s5 "Dating the End of the Greek Bronze Age: A Robust Radiocarbon-Based Chronology from Assiros Toumba". Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Doug, the dates given in the article suggest the Greek collapse previously was thought to be 1025 BCE. This is very late. My references suggest before 1100 BCE, which would confirm the dating discovered (i.e. 70-100 years earlier)John D. Croft (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice progress, but needs a bit more Cline

Glad to see this article's getting some love, but it could use a bit more Cline. The man wrote a really good book (along with two on the Trojan War) and loves all things LBA. I don't really want to do it myself though as I am good friends with him and so it might not to be kosher. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5775 03:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Battle at the Bridge

By coincidence this piece in Science [3] was brought to my attention before I looked at this article. I agree that it is all exciting and may change the way we look at this period in Europe, but I am always hesitant to use material from the media for such things rather than archaeological papers. It's looking pretty convincing, but then there's "“If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same event, we're dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown north of the Alps,” says dig co-director Thomas Terberger," and " Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of far-flung origins."

If we do report this it needs to be much more nuanced and tentative, and certainly not mention groups such as the Sardinians who aren't even in Curry's article. And of course it's too early to state it all as fact. Some is, some is hypothesis. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Earthquakes?

Having just seen through the deletion of the article "Earthquake storm", which was based on Nur and Cline's 2000 theory that the collapse was at least partly due to a sequence of major earthquakes, also referred to as a "seismic paroxysm" by others, I was intrigued to see that it doesn't rate even a mention here. Is that the current understanding? Mikenorton (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Needs detail

I think that this article does not have the conclusion of why the Bronze Age collapsed. Kai2004 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced

The following is unsourced. Moving here until refs can be found and the content verified.

Migrations and raids

Further information: Sea peoples, Dorian Invasion, Mushki, Aramaeans, and Ancient Iranian peoples

Ekrem Akurgal, Gustav Lehmann and Fritz Schachermeyer, following the views of Gaston Maspero, have argued that raids were the cause.

Evidence includes the widespread findings of Naue II-type swords (coming from South-Eastern Europe) throughout the region and Egyptian records of invading "northerners from all the lands".

The Ugarit correspondence at the time mentions invasions by tribes of the mysterious Sea Peoples, who appear to have been a disparate mix of Luwians, Greeks and Canaanites, among others. Equally, the last Greek Linear B documents in the Aegean (dating to just before the collapse) reported a large rise in piracy, slave raiding and other attacks, particularly around Anatolia. Later fortresses along the Libyan coast, constructed and maintained by the Egyptians after the reign of Ramesses II, were built to reduce raiding.

The theory is strengthened by the fact that the collapse coincides with the appearance in the region of many new ethnic groups. They include Indo-European tribes such as the Phrygians, Proto-Armenians, Medes, Persians, Cimmerians, Lydians and Scythians as well as the Iranian Sarmatians. The Pontic-speaking Colchians, and non-Indo-European Hurro-Urartuans also seem to have been on the move. Many of the groups settled or emerged in the Caucasus, Iran and Anatolia. Thracians, Macedonians and Dorian Greeks seem to have arrived at this time, possibly from the north, usurping the earlier Greeks of Mycenae and Achaea. There also seems to have been widespread migration of Semitic peoples, such as Aramaeans, Chaldeans and Suteans, possibly from the Southeast.

The ultimate reasons for the migrations could include drought, developments in warfare/weaponry, earthquakes or other natural disasters so the migrations theory is possibly compatible with other theories.

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Dorian Invaders

It may benefit the article to include information about the Dorian Invasion, or invaders from the north, as a potential cultural cause for the collapse. Also, including more information about the Sea peoples would increase validity for that possible cause. ElizabethAcors (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

BC/AD - BCE/CE

I would like to change the era from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Apparently it was BCE/CE orginally, but was changed in 2007 - (there is a previous entry about it on this Talk Page). The Late Bronze Age collapse was well before the Christian era and it was reconstructed through archaeology and scholarly research, so it makes sense to use an academic and more neutral era convention. I know this is a touchy issue as there are those who are adamant that BC/AD be used no matter what, but in this case BCE/CE makes more sense. If no one can provide a compelling reason for retaining BC/AD in the next month, I will make the change to BCE/BC. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:ERA, an established style should be maintained unless there is consensus to change, and the first edit clearly uses BCE, and there has been no subsequent "consensus", so yes. But I'd like to object to the notion that BCE is more "academic" and neutral - I think what you mean is "more American". The British Museum and many other academic sources continue to use BC, especially in areas such as the Near East rather than say East Asia. Many readers outside North America are unfamiliar with this particular piece of political correctness, though it seems well established there. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

- the Wikipedia Common Era article gives a history going back to the 18th century, although it wasn't common until the mid-19th century - the article notes that the BCE/CE style is used by "major museums in the English-speaking world" (although maybe not the British Museum!) - but usage is mixed - the notes say that Society for Historical Archaeology prefers BC/AD while the American Anthropological Association prefers BCE/CE - I'm not a BCE/CE warrior, I think BC/AD is appropriate for articles referencing Christianity, but that BCE/CE is more appropriate for subjects outside of Christianity, such as the Late Bronze Age collape (but that is just my opinion - p.s., I'm not American so not championing American usage) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm - saying "BCE/CE is more appropriate for subjects outside of Christianity" is pretty meaningless, since the only BC/BCE topics that are not "outside of Christianity" are Jewish ones, where BCE may indeed be preferable! BC is unquestionably still more common for British topics, though they are just as much "outside of Christianity" as those anywhere else. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

- I should know better than to express an opinion! By outside Christianity I meant that the people of the Bronze Age lived well before the foundation of Christianity, had never heard of Christianity and were never part of the Christian world. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd support going back to BCE which is commonly used in archaeology now. I note that the Oxford University Press uses BCE for its archaeology books[4]

as do many other publishers.[5] Doug Weller talk 09:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, OUP uses BCE for some books, but it does not use it consistently. Of course if you specifically search with a "-BC" parameter as in your link you will exclude results that use the BC/AD system. There are recent Oxford University Press books like this one that use the latter, but also many examples where both systems are used even in the same book, see e.g. this one from 2018. It seems Oxford has a policy similar to Wikipedia and leaves the choice of dating system to its authors and editors without a publisher-wide policy. - Lindert (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

PS I do not object to reverting this article to CE/BCE style per WP:ERA, because this was the system used originally here. However, since there is no consensus in academic literature to use any of the two styles exclusively, I maintain that it is not inappropriate to use AD/BC in historical/archaeological articles in general (as suggested by the OP). - Lindert (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I see that this has flared up again! I supported the move back to BCE above, but only on strictly WP:ERA "original style" grounds, not at all for the imo wrongheaded other reasons given by Epinoia above. I note that CE fans at other articles have often recently used an undiscussed change that has been left standing for a few years to override WP:ERA. There is an element of heads I win, tails you lose in that. User:Doug Weller was not involved above, but may care to see this, if he doesn't watch the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

– I apologize for my wrongheaded reasons and agree that they should be left out of the discussion – Epinoia (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Religion

I notice that this article does not mention the religious change that occurred at this time. Many ancient pantheons shifted, with older gods in the position of head deity being replaced by storm gods all across the area, most famously Chronos and the titans being replaced by Zeus, but also for example El being replaced by Baal. ZacharyFoj (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I dunno... “A New Beginning” would feel snottily pretentious ...

   I reworded many whole sent’s, (struggling to discern the prior honored colleagues’ intents, and summarized ”these events must explain the collapse of ancient rhetorical pedagogy, whose still-lingering effects must account for the modern-Dark-Age that bedeviled the syntax of this article. ” JerzyA (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh? You ought to know what a WP:LEAD looks like. If you have specific issues with the lead, please explain them in a coherent fashion. Btw, I pressed enter by mistake while doing my edit summary, which was meant to read "sorry, let's keep a conventional text lead, not a first screen full of list items". Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thera Explosion

Currently listed under the Possible Causes: Environmental: Volcanoes section is the Hekla 3 Eruption, however, the Minoan Eruption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption) potentially had an even higher VEI of 6 or 7 and was in closer proximity to Bronze Age civilizations. It occurred sometime between 1642 and 1540 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.221.159 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The No Late Bronze Age collapse Theory

While talking about the Late Bronze Age collapse on a forum the idea that Late Bronze Age collapse is unreality the product of bad archeology came up and we were pointed to Peter James' 1993 Centuries Of Darkness Rutgers University ISBN-10: 0813519500 ISBN-13: 978-0813519500. Now that clearly meets our reliable source requirement but is it worth including or is is just one of those flash in the pan works that went nowhere? There is an official website regarding the book but the discussion regarding the theory stops in the last year of the 20th century (2000 technically) ten though the site was "Last modified 12 Aug 2019" is why I ask.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a WP article for Peter James (historian) that mentions the book Centuries of Darkness, so it's not particularly obscure. That said, I have no idea how the book is currently regarded by mainstream historians. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Given another of his books proposes a location for Atlantis, I'm guessing not very well! Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"relative price of weaponry" in "General systems collapse"

I'm guessing weaponry became more expensive (not less) than arable land but that's not obvious from the sentence. I suggest "could have combined to push the relative price of weaponry (compared to arable land) to *an unsustainably high level*". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:47D0:FE00:BCE8:EBA:433C:57F5 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

General systems collapse, definition of complexity

The section mentions complexity a number of times as a weakening factor. For instance, "complexity induces social decline" among several similar ideas. I am not advocating at all against these ideas nor against including them. However complexity is an ill-defined catch-all term. So... I might unpack "complexity induces social decline" as "social cohesion is lost when more and more individuals start to feel that the means by which wealth is generated and distributed do not function at all as advertised" Even if you disagree with this reading, you will agree that "complexity" tends cover what ought to be the most interesting part of the explanation. Now, complexity can indeed be a bad thing. It can also make systems more robust. Complexity simply means different things in different contexts. So an explanation along the lines of "there was too much complexity" is not satisfactory, not because it is necessarily wrong, but just woefully imprecise. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2DC4:A3DE:F7EE:7C3C (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The complexity referred to is social complexity (see also Joseph Tainter#Social complexity), which admittedly is also a notoriously poorly defined term, but I've linked it in the text to at least give a bit of context. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: at least one mention of how China fared during the global late Bronze Age collapse. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed Speculation

Removed speculative paragraph. {{quote|Robert Drews describes the collapse as "the worst disaster in ancient history, even more calamitous than the collapse of the Western Roman Empire". Cultural memories of the disaster told of a "lost golden age": for example, Hesiod spoke of Ages of Gold, Silver, and Bronze, separated from the cruel modern Age of Iron by the Age of Heroes. Rodney Castleden suggests that memories of the Bronze Age collapse influenced Plato's story of Atlantis^[23] in Timaeus and the Critias.

Robert Drews claim that "the worst disaster in ancient history, even more calamitous than the collapse of the Western Roman Empire" is purely speculative opinion and not based in fact. It adds nothing to our understanding of the facts of the Collapse. Rodney Castleden’s assertion that the Bronze Age Collapse influenced the story of Atlantis is pure speculation and possibly WP:FRINGE. Rodney Castleden is a popular writer, not an academic scholar, and probably not a reliable source. - Epinoia (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Phoeey - these are very common academic opinions, & Robert Drews is enough of a specialist to be respected, with at least one book directly on the topic. Rodney Castleden is not an academic, but not without credentials. Almost any general remarks about the Late Bronze Age collapse can be called "purely speculative opinion" as we have little, or nothing in most areas, to go on except site-by-site archaeology, and indeed hints of later folk memory. But these are pretty standard academic views, & if you think they are wrong you need to produce good quality sources arguing the opposite, not just remove references to two books by a respected university press as "possibly WP:FRINGE". The lead para says "It was a transition which historians believe was violent, sudden, and culturally disruptive for some Bronze Age civilizations during the 12th century BCE, along with a sharp economic decline of regional powers." - do you have a problem with that? If somebody reverts you and points to the talk page, you should not just restate your edit summary & re-revert. At least wait to see what others may say. I will revert you again - please don't edit-war over this. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

- as you know that these are very common academic opinions you must know sources that support these claims, can you provide a list of sources that concur that the bronze age collapse was more calamitous than the fall of western roman empire and that the bronze age collapse influenced the story of atlantis?

as for the quote from the lead, the fact that the bronze age collapse was disastrous is factual and uncontested. What is contested is the speculative, and unprovable, claim that the bronze age collapse was "more calamitous than the collapse of the Western Roman Empire" and the claim that it influenced the story of Atlantis.

- without support from other scholars, these claims do not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which requires a consensus of experts, which neither of these claims have. Without supporting scholarship, this falls under WP:DUE, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" - both of these claims are opinions and not facts and should be removed from the article. They tell us absolutely nothing about the facts of the late bronze age collapse - Epinoia (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You have an impeccable source right under your nose, which you removed without discussion! How is "disastrous" a "factual" claim, but "even more calamitous than the collapse of the Western Roman Empire" not factual. What sort of "facts" do you think are available? We know that for many or most people outside the great cities the collapse of the Western Roman Empire seems to have led to not much change in their daily life, and for some even improvement. Let's have some of your sources minimizing the disruption. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I see that the Drews quote begins with an "arguably", which we should include & I will add. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Major Earthquakes?

As a geologist, I suspect major earthquakes, likely triggering tsunamis that wrecked coastal serttlements and some volcanism. The accounts of practically all cities being "destroyed" is telling. Must have been dystopian. Has ash been found, dated at some of these sites? 148.75.153.179 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Volcanic ash, no, afaik. But there are lots of ash layers from fires, suggesting they were burned down. See Minoan civilization for example (they did have the Thera eruption some centuries earlier, but carried on ok. Or the Korakou culture. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Iron I = Late Bronze Age collapse?!

The current redirect is at least counterintuitive (Iron Age / Bronze Age!), if not worse. Cannot do it w/o lots of caution & explaining. That is: if it is correct at all. Is it? Arminden (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of Mediterranean in the figure

In the figure Mediterranean is spelled ‘meditteranean’. Is this a typo? 2A00:23C7:8797:4B01:8CAD:4101:561A:7684 (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but image files are hard to correct. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo in the graphic

"unsuccefully" 71.191.66.116 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"Citation needed" needed

Hey @Baltarstar, I really appreciate your work on this article, but I wanted to suggest that you re-insert the inline "citation needed" tags. In general, my personal feeling is that they are useful as warnings for readers and as guides for future editors, but there are several cases in this article where they are essential for demarcating cited from uncited claims. For instance, there is a very big difference between this:

The moon is made of cheese. Bunnies are fuzzy.

And this:

The moon is made of cheese. Bunnies are fuzzy.

See what I mean? :) Botterweg14 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Botterweg14 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That concerns me as well, but I felt that I had to defer to the guidance of Wikipedia:Tag bombing (bold indicates my own emphasis):

Tag bombing is the unjustified addition of numerous tags to pages or unjustified addition of one tag to multiple pages. Tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing. Editors who engage in tag bombing after being asked to stop may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. While some tag bombing may be a well-intended request for clarification, tag bombing can be used as a way to promote a point of view.

...

How to tag-bomb

To tag-bomb, simply get a bunch of useless maintenance templates and place them right at the top. You may group them into a {{Multiple issues}} template or you may not group them. You can also spread inline cleanup tags like {{Citation needed}}, {{Unreliable source?}}, {{Better source}}, {{Or?}} and {{Self-published inline}}. Once you press the "Publish changes" button, you can find that the screen is exploded full of maintenance templates. After successful tag bombing, repeat it as much as you want. Use other articles. Remember: you can do it up to 6,859,157 times and this is really fun! Just make sure the admins don't find out about this.

So, the phrasing in that second paragraph is a little bit weird. I'm sure you understand but just to be 100% clear, they're using a humorous tone to indicate what -not- to do. And so a handful of citation needed tags in an article that is otherwise completely sourced seems reasonable, but Late Bronze Age had multiple sections with their own citation needed tag and lots of in-line citation needed tags. I feel the guidance above indicates that the article-level tag was necessary, appropriate, and overrides the numerous in-line citation needed tags.

That said, if you or anyone go back to add in-line citation needed tags, I'm not going to report anyone for tag-bombing. I was just trying to make it as good as possible from my understanding of the guidance. Baltarstar (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Although as we're discussing it now, I had in mind to try to fill the majority of missing tags in the next few days. If you'd like to help me with that, I think that would be the best solution overall. If so, then we could remove the article-level tag in lieu of in-line citations for the ones we can't find. Baltarstar (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your aiming for best practices and if you fill in the references that is of course the best possible outcome! But FWIW, the essay you linked is describing a conduct issue that one observes from time to time. It's not laying out a policy on proper tag usage, which would certainly be acceptable in a case where it's demarcating sourced from unsourced information within a single paragraph. I might be able to help with sourcing here and there though I'm a little short on time at the moment. Botterweg14 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Sourcing

Just leaving a note with some recommendations on sources. These are the main recent(ish) academic overviews I was planning to use if I ever got around to rewriting this article:

• Understanding Collapse: Ancient History and Modern Myths (Guy Middleton)
• Destruction and Its Impact on Ancient Societies at the End of the Bronze Age (Jesse Millek)
• Poisoned Legacy: The Decline and Fall of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty (Aidan Dodson)
• The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age (Assaf Yasur-Landau)
• The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples in Text and Archaeology (ed. Ann Killebrew)
• "Decline, Destruction, Aftermath" (Sigrid Deger-Jalotzky, in Shelmerdine's Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age)
• "The Collapse at the End of the Bronze Age" Oliver Dickinson (in Cline's "Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean")
• Various papers in "Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th Century BCE" (ed. De Martino and Devecchi)

For general claims about Hittite history, any book by Trevor Bryce would be a good bet. For claims about specific sites I would check the "Oxford Handbook of [region the site is in]" to see if it has an article about the site (e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia has a pretty good article about Troy). Robert Drews is of course a good source for his own ideas but I would be cautious about using his book for factual claims in WikiVoice. I would avoid nonacademic sources (news sources, podcasts) like the plague, since on this particular topic they really are the plague. Botterweg14 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Cline 2014 superseded with new edition

Just wanted to note that the first edition of 1177 has been superseded with a new edition as of 2021. https://www.amazon.com/1177-B-C-Civilization-Collapsed-Revised/dp/0691208018. The main changes include new archaeological finds and climatic evidence. Some discussion in a lecture here. There's also been a new book After 1177 BC on the post-collapse world but I've not read it; it might not be entirely relevant for this article. Ifly6 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Also interesting article on the necessary network configuration for collapse: Linkov, Igor; et al. (2024-01-01). "Are civilizations destined to collapse? Lessons from the Mediterranean Bronze Age" (PDF). Global Environmental Change. 84: 102792. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102792. ISSN 0959-3780. Ifly6 (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead segmentation

@Nashhinton and @2601:940:C000:3B80:29BE:374F:DD36:42E8 (IPs don't get pings, hence the mentioned frustration, and I doubt they'll bother since they've gotten their way at present), this breakup of prose is very silly. The larger paragraphs are about single topics, and WP:LEAD generally recommends four full paragraphs as an organizational basis for the lead. Remsense ‥ 论 04:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Do what you want. Nashhinton (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No I cannot, because it would be edit warring, but the IP likely won't discuss this here like you did. Remsense ‥ 论 04:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)