From the Shire to Mordor to your door?
One does not simply hop into Mordor.
Too return to the OP, I guess the question is to what extent that long term climate change has affected the climate, particularly the amount of rainfall? To what extent can we blame deforestation and irrigation for messing up the fertility of the area? Especially, the depletion of soil nutrients, as well as increased salinity. Before agriculture, I assume there were palm forests and grasslands around the fertile crescent, with decent amounts of wild game.
When the news kept talking about “Desert Storm”, I kept thinking, “That’s the Fertile Crescent, damn it! You just want us to feel better about bombing it!”
Admittedly, some of it’s less fertile now. But still.
Yeah. Hunter gatherers very often do not want to become farmers.
Especially not full-time farmers. Bits and pieces of behavior related to agriculture often get mixed in.
It doesn’t have to be more recent global climate change. Local climate change happens due to deforestation and desertification. Trees suck up truly enormous amounts of water, and basically all of it gets transpired/evaporated back into the atmosphere to help make more rain. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle where the plants that need rain help to make the rain they need. Cut down too much forest and the overall moisture content of the system goes down, causing more trees to die off, and it becomes a self-destructive cycle.
Both.
And trouble, trouble, trouble everywhere. Damn the dams!
And to the original OP, a very efective way to reduce fertility are goats. The Aegean Islands, Crete, Cyprus, Greece, Sicily, Sothern Italy, Spain and the complete South shore of the Mediterranean used to be more fertile too, but deforestation and goats that prevented reforestation made the region arid. They really eat everything. Shoots and leaves and all.
Merowe isn’t the one that causes flow concerns, though.
Thanks - the dam in Ehtiopia was the one I remembered the fuss about. The concern was the size of the resulting lake. Some calculations said the resulting evaportation would be a significant amount of the NIle flow. It appears to be pretty much full now, so time will tell.
Egypt went ballistic over the dam plan. Egypt had a plan to divert some of the excess Nile flow out of Lake Nasser near Aswan to the Toshka lakes and possibly further down that side valley to create additional fertile space. Any reduction in the flow will of course make that less likely - although the project seemed untenable anyway.
Mot just Mediterranean goats - I read somewhere those beautiful lush rolling hills carpeted with bright green grass in the Scottish highland were due to sheep’s proclivity in eating everything down to the roots, so any bushes and forests never regrew. I recall seeing some reforestation areas there fenced in to keep sheep out. Also, the classic western trope about the war between sheep farmers and cattle farmers (before crop farmers came along) was due to the sheep eating grass down to the roots ruining the dry grasslands. Grass had a harder time growing back compared to what cows did.
I think the steps of climate change and then people chopping and burning the forest came before the sheep. Sheep only reached Britain in ~ 3000 BCE, the maximum extent of the Caledonian Forest was ~5000BCE So it was already in 2000 years of decline before the sheep joined the fun.
One speculation I’ve read is that the vast forests of northern Europe only came about after mammoths and mastodons became extinct. Before that the proboscideans had been “apex herbivores”, nearly immune to predation and capable of bulldozing their environment enough to actively alter the ecology. Ironically it was when humans developed agriculture that they became the new apex herbivores.
This is the Ecological Hypothesis version of the Mammoth Steppe (as opposed to the Climatic Hypothesis).
Note that it was just the Mammoth Steppe, because mastodons were strictly North American.
The tragedy of the highland clearances started in the late 1700’s when the scottish lords discovered that sheep were more lucrative than sharecroppers, once the mills of England got going in earnest. At the same time, hardier sheep able to handle the Highland climate were bred. By a fluke of medieval law, the clan chiefs mostly owned the land, the peasants were just tenants - so give them the boot. Once the sheep got going everywhere, it didn’t take much to remove any chance larger vegetation had to grow. Fortunately, unlike the Greek islands or the fertile crescent, there was still plenty of goode olde British moisture to encourage the grass.
There’s a Glengarry something or other in most American towns and cities thanks to the Highland expulsions, for example, but Glen Garry is deserted now.
My understanding is that “vagabonds” first impacted the social, political and economic consciousness due to this. That originally “unemployment” was something scarcely conceivable; how could there be any such thing as no work to do, except for the deliberately lazy?
So what did happen when vast numbers of people simply became surplus? Emigration? Did the economy expand enough to take up the slack after a generation or two? Die-outs? And does this offer lessons for the impact of automation on the 21st century?
Lots and lots of emigration. Problem is, there is nowhere left to emigrate to these days.
When I was in elementary school, our history class touched on the story of the Selkirk settlers who went through Churchill on Hudson Bay to settle in what is now Winnipeg. Itt was told as a story of hardy pioneers on a grand adventure. Years later a friend of mine told me that in fact what happened was Lord Selkirk was going to do same as the other Scottish lords “get off my land”. His wife gave him holy hell, and made him finance at least a way to give the displaced farmers some land.
I’m surprised there weren’t peasant uprisings– “kill the landlord”. Or did the landowners demonstrate that they could quite effectively exterminate anyone occupying the land against their wishes? ISTM that if Marxism had any validity at all, this is when the “proletariat” should have risen up.
There were many.
Got it in one. Look at how many red entries there are in my linked list, versus how many green.
I think the term “Fertile Crescent” is a bit ambiguous. Some sources show it to include much of southern Anatolia. Here’s a map with much of the “Land between the rivers” excluded. And I’m not sure how good this map is – wasn’t the Zagros region of Western Iran one of the important parts of the Fertile Crescent? It’s missing from this depiction.
https://cdn.britannica.com/50/64950-050-7FF76F71/cities-records-rivers-mouths-Euphrates-Tigris-countries.jpg The large cities of Mesopotamia depended on relatively distant hinterlands for their food.
An interesting site to look up is Gobekli Tepe - right at the top of that fertile crescent, it apparently is a site of stone buildings and carved stele dating several thousand years before the advent of organized agriculture. Theorries abound, but it seems to suggest that the area was sufficiently fertile that nomadic life was sufficiently fertile that the inhabitants could remain there for months each year and live offf the land with time to create large monuments.
(One theory is that returning to the same spot every year, they observed and ecouraged the growwth of wheat crops that led to agriculture.
Pre-Jamestown North America gives us a hint of how abundant temperate climates could be without advanced agriculture, and North America was ecologically impoverished compared to pre-agriculture Eurasia. And before the Holocene we know from archeological finds that mammoth hunting was so rewarding that cultures lasting tens of thousands of years were built on it.