By Eric Hutchinson
In today’s world, after more than a
century of the internal combustion engine and the large-scale burning of fossil
fuels, the climate has come to the forefront of public debate. As both sides use evidence from past climates
to support their points, at the heart of this debate is history. For this reason, as well as for the political
implications that the polemics of this issue engenders, objective science and
objective historical study must figure prominently, however objectivity should
not be subsumed for conformity. Debate
is part of the process that brings science closer to truth. The study of climate is no different and the
Little Ice Age is an area of study in which there is currently a healthy debate
going on. Scholars’ opinions differ on
numerous aspects of this period, even to the point of disputing its
existence. Topics ranging from a
definition of the characteristics of the period to its starting date, and its
impacts on human society and history are all part of this debate. Among the multiplicity of issues surrounding
the Little Ice Age, these are chief and, in order to follow a comprehensible
thread, will be the focus of this paper.
Describing and analyzing the major views relating to these issues
(proposed by historians and non-historians alike) should provide a relatively
full picture of the debate and shed light on current thought about the topic.
The importance of climate to human
history is an issue that has interested historians only relatively
recently. According to M.J. Ingram,
“(t)he majority of historians have been content largely to ignore” the
implications of long-term climatic change on human societies.[1] Year-to-year changes and their consequent
impacts on such areas as harvest yields and grain prices were recognized, but
it was maintained that broader climatic fluctuation did not significantly
impact society. This was so for three
reasons: 1. The belief that the climate has been essentially stable throughout
historical times. 2. The belief that the
magnitude of past long-term climatic shifts has been too small to effect
economic or social change. 3. A lack of
detailed information on past weather and an imperfect understanding of climate
preclude any serious study of the subject.[2] It was for these reasons that historians such
as Slicher van Bath in 1963 said that it was “uncertain whether any great
changes in climate have occurred during historical times.”[3] The progression of belief in the importance
of climatic change has come upon the heels of scientific discovery. As the calculation of tree-ring data and
carbon dating becomes more precise and begins to corroborate documentary
evidence, the subjectivity of those documents becomes less problematic. Historians have been understandably
suspicious of folklore and of diary entries giving weather evidence, however
the more strongly objective, scientific data began to support this evidence,
the more comfortably they could generalize from it.
Historians of van Bath’s school of thought have been considered a sort of “old school” espousing the traditional view. More recently though, such luminaries as LeRoy Ladurie and Braudel began to consider the climate-human history relationship. This came about partially because of a broader conceptualization of history as promoted by Braudel and the Annales school in general, and partially because of more extensive data available to them. These historians stopped well short of naming climatic change as the primary factor in human history, but each recognized that both long-term and short-term weather patterns had an impact. Now, most recently, historians such as Lamb, Pfister, and Wallerstein have noted that the tie between climate and human history is much closer. These historians see links between climatic and socio-institutional change than those before them. Now the debate more often centers on the extent of influence rather than on the existence of influence.
This question about the
climate is important from a world systems perspective because it identifies a
potential factor that could impact human history on a global scale. Similarly to Braudel, McNeill, and Crosby,
scholars who argue for the importance of the climate-human history relationship
attempt to provide an independent factor that influences human agency, as
climatic conditions provide a framework around which humans must operate. Yearly temperature fluctuations determine the
success of a harvest and the dearth or surplus to be expected, but climatic
change determines the habitability of a region and the nature of local
institutions. Climatic change is no
longer simply the milieu of climatologists and specialists, but of historians
as well. This has become more so as
historians have begun to recognize the impact that climate has on some of the
most fundamental aspects of human society.
For this reason, the debate over the Little Ice Age has become a
historical debate. The correlation
between human history and the climate and the extent to which climatic change
directed human history are just as much world historical topics as those of
economics or biology.
One of the most fundamental debates
about the Little Ice Age is its definition as a term and as an event. Scholars argue several points on this key
issue. The most hotly debated are
chronology and characteristics. In fact
these are but aspects of a single argument because the chronology is determined
by the characteristics that each scholar applies. The contestants in this debate can generally
be grouped into three camps: those who see the Little Ice Age beginning in the
sixteenth century, those who place its origin in the thirteenth century, and
those who refuse the term altogether.
The evidence and contentions of each of these camps will be examined
through the writings of their most eminent, or convincing, supporters.
The views of J.M. Grove place the
initiation of the Little Ice Age shortly before the fourteenth century. According to Grove, the term Little Ice Age
“does not refer directly to climate but to the most recent period during which
glaciers extended globally and remained enlarged.”[4] Because Grove emphasizes the ice in Ice Age
rather than simply colder temperatures, she places the beginning phases of the
Little Ice Age at a much earlier point than students of other schools of
thought. She also uses a variety of
evidence, such as archeological evidence and radiocarbon dating, to track
glacial movements. Remains of forests
and human settlements uncovered from retreating glaciers can give strong
evidence for the time at which a glacier overtook them. By concentrating on this kind of evidence,
Grove was able to come to the conclusion that glacial advance had begun before
the fourteenth century and thus constituted the beginnings of the Little Ice
Age.
The importance in Grove’s
considering the Little Ice Age as glacial advance rather than air temperature
change is shown in her statement that the Little Ice Age “was not a long,
synchronous cold period” and could only be generalized about by looking at
glacial advance.[5] According to Grove, temperatures are too
variable and inconsistent to be used as a measurement.
On
top of that, in many regions collecting information about short term
temperature fluctuation involves some degree of inference. In addition, “(l)ow temperatures do not in
themselves prove that glaciers advanced” and therefore do not prove the
existence of the Little Ice Age.[6] So, for Grove, the incidence of glacial
advance is the only measurement that can be applied to a generalization such as
the Little Ice Age because they remained relatively consistent throughout what
was “not (a period) of unbroken cold.”[7]
H.H. Lamb’s approach to the Little
Ice Age centered more on relative temperature than on glacial expansion. Year to year, or even decade to decade
nonuniformity in temperature did not negate the long term drops in temperature
according to Lamb. In fact, he says that
there was an “enhanced variability of the temperature level” throughout the
Little Ice Age, from roughly 1550 to 1850, that wreaked havoc on harvests.[8] For Lamb, glacial expansion was a consequence
of the Little Ice Age because of the generally colder temperatures, but was not
in itself an indicator of onset. These
short-term temperature fluctuations could be grouped because of their overall
impact on human affairs. The
unpredictability of the climate during this time was just as devastating to
agriculture as a sustained cold spell would have been. For Lamb, this, combined with a general trend
of lower temperatures, was all that was necessary for a number of years to be
linked. Unlike Grove, he did not see the
necessity of sustained unidirectional change to the formation of what could be
called an age.
Lamb uses temperature records, records from granaries and fisheries, and personal accounts to reconstruct the climate during this time. Due to the availability of records (and landmass to accumulate those records) however, nearly all of Lamb’s examples came from the
Northern Hemisphere. This is primarily due to his interest not only on climate, but also on its effects on human history. There was apparently not a significant amount of civilizational data available from areas south of the equator.
On the other end of the spectrum are such authors as Helmut Landsberg as well as R.S. Bradley and P.D. Jones, who argue that there was in fact, no “Little Ice Age” and that the term is a “misnomer” that has been inappropriately used by scholars.[9] They maintain that the original application of the term by François E. Matthes was to cover the entire history of climate following the Climatic Optimum, about 5000-6000 years ago and that an understanding of climate through the last 1000 years “is not well-served by continuous use of the term ‘Little Ice Age’.”[10] Landsberg goes on to make the claim that there has been no consistent or overarching change at any time between the fourteenth and nineteenth centuries. He disagrees with Grove on the issue of glacial expansion, saying the “continental glaciation did not increase” during this period.[11] (italics in original) He also disagrees with Lamb and maintains that there was no “sustained low global temperature” during this period.[12] Landsberg concentrated on the lack of uniformity among data of glacial advance and temperature decrease to dispute the ability of scientists to consider this period as a single age. Whereas Lamb’s analysis created the Little Ice Age grouping by the human consequences a lack of climatic uniformity produced, Landsberg did not see potential human consequences as justification for grouping years together. If glaciers did not expand and temperatures did not consistently decrease, Landsberg felt that, regardless of the consequences such variation had on humanity, there was no Little Ice Age. Landsberg suggests instead, using the terms kata- and anathermal to delineate much shorter periods of temperature fluctuation. This would allow for the removal of the “scientifically misleading…even if journalistically appealing” term Little Ice Age.[13]
How to make sense of these contradictory arguments? For the purposes of history and historical study, it must be assumed that the climatologic impact on humans is of importance. Without this basic assumption, the danger of ignoring or denigrating a motivator of historical change is too great. Viewpoints that recognize the climatic impact on human beings are the most applicable to our perspective. For this reason, the efforts of Grove and Lamb seem more appropriate. Evidence that will be presented in the second half of this paper will show that, in the last millennium, there was significant enough climatic change to alter human behavior. Grove and Lamb both indicate that, regardless of the starting point, the climate in the second half of the millennium was colder than the first half. It is upon this conclusion that we can move on to a discussion of the implications of climatic change on humanity.
Because “(c)limate (change) is most influential in areas
marginal for agriculture either latitudinally or altitudinally,” the most
striking examples of the Little Ice Age on humans are found in colder regions.[14] Keeping in mind Grove’s definition of the
Little Ice Age as a period of glacial advance, the overabundance of examples
from regions nearer the
It is difficult to ignore Grove’s thoughts on the effects of the Little Ice Age related to glacial advance. When she writes of glacial advance “carry(ing) away barns and enclosures” of Scandinavian farmers in the late seventeenth century, the indirect impact of climatic fluctuation becomes apparent.[20] Advancing glaciers also overtook pastureland and blocked the course of rivers, causing flooding in some areas. These examples, in Grove’s opinion, undoubtedly indicate that climatic change has an impact on human society. Throughout history, the rise and fall of certain regions and colonies coincides with climatic and environmental change too frequently to ignore. The adaptability of human society, however, lessens the direct impact of climate to some extent. If a society lacks the social and cultural restraints that make change impossible, they could most likely adapt to any climatic change they faced.
For H.H. Lamb, the consequences of climatic change on human society are much more strongly determined. As opposed to Grove, who views both environmental and cultural causes working in tandem to impact society, Lamb sees climate as the catalyst to change in the “chain of events” that is human history.[21] He is not so dogmatic or myopic as to not perceive that climate is part of a “complex of events” rather than a universal explanation.[22] However, he looks much further down the chain of events and tries to show how climatic change causes change in human behavior and institutions (e.g. climate effects agricultural practices and yields, which have economic implications that then translate into change at a more fundamental social level). In this manner, changing climate can more directly influence social unrest. Lamb suggests that the Age of Exploration did not merely coincide with the westward migration of north Atlantic cod stocks fleeing ever-cooling waters, but was causally influenced by it.[23] Although not strictly deterministic, Lamb’s approach and his propensity for relating climatic change to events less directly related is far more deterministic than Grove’s.
Lamb believes the Little Ice Age to have a significant
effect on human history. Because he does
not define the Little Ice Age solely by glacial expansion, his definition
allows for more wide-ranging implications. He sees the change in climate affecting human
life in more complex ways than simply as expanding glaciers cutting off hunting
routes and blocking rivers. For Lamb,
social patterns, such as a “(d)elay of the marriage age and a general loss of
fertility” in
The implications of climatic change are further expanded by Brian Fagan, who describes the Little Ice Age as a “chronicle of human vulnerability in the face of sudden climate change.”[26] While he does refer to simple environmental “determinism” having “long vanished from serious discussion”, he makes some tenuous connections that are on the verge of slipping into this kind of determinism themselves.[27] Fagan equates the intricacy and splendor of Gothic architecture to the relatively prosperous and easy life of Europeans before the Little Ice Age. This architecture was an extension of the leisure afforded by bountiful and stable harvests. This sort of connection is difficult to prove quantitatively, however Fagan makes numerous such claims. This is not to say that his assumptions are necessarily incorrect or not well thought out. On the contrary, he makes convincing arguments about the movement of cod in search of warmer water fueling the Age of Discovery and the French Revolution as a culmination of “a chronic food dearth triggered by draconian land policies and sudden climatic shifts” that erupted in popular revolt.[28] This approach assigns more causality to climatic factors than those of Grove and Lamb. Fagan was obviously influenced by Lamb in his discussion of connections and determinism.
Fagan also agreed with Lamb that one of the conditions that made the Little Ice Age a unified period was the variability of its climate. He refers to the climatic seesaw that swung in “volatile and sometimes disastrous shifts” and had different implications for different regions and different groups within a region.[29] To Fagan, this unpredictability led to changes in the “course of wars and the prosperity of fisheries, and fostering agricultural innovation.”[30] This was an obvious expansion of Lamb’s views on climatic determinism in the sense that climatic change, regardless of the direction of that change, impacts upon society in significant ways. One gets the impression that Fagan sees the human impact as more consistent than the climatic change. In his account, flood and drought both affect food production equally adversely. Unlike Grove, Fagan sees this condition as the defining characteristic of the Little Ice Age. However, unlike Lamb, Fagan places the origins of the Little Ice Age in the early fourteenth century with the lead-up to a devastating famine in 1315. Here is a prime example of the extent to which Fagan places human consequences in the history of the Little Ice Age. By limiting scientific considerations and highlighting social ones, Fagan combines the ideas of both Grove and Lamb.
One can see, through all of these examples, that the issue of the Little Ice Age is far from decided. Definitions vary over its origins and its impacts. Some, like J.M. Grove argue that the Little Ice Age was defined as a period of glacial expansion because air temperatures were too erratic to be able to group together as a single period. Because of this definition, she places the origins of the Little Ice Age in the fourteenth century and the onset of continued glacial expansion. Others see these very fluctuations in temperature as a cause binding the yeas of the Little Ice Age together. Lamb and Fagan see the unpredictability of Little Ice Age temperatures and the resulting human consequences of that as one of its primary defining characteristics. True, Lamb places the origin at around 1550 while Fagan places it near 1300, but this is more a result of the extent to which each places human and social consequences over quantified scientific data than a fundamental difference. Finally, still others see this unpredictability in temperatures as reason to deny the existence of the Little Ice Age at all. Landsberg, along with Bradley and Jones, maintain that the oscillations in temperature allow only for shorter-term groupings, but that no generalizations can be made about the whole period.
Current world historical perspectives can add to a more complete understanding of climatic history. World-systems theorists of both Wallerstein’s and Frank and Gills’ schools would incorporate climatic change into a system but limit it to one of many factors shaping world history. For Wallerstein, the rise of capitalism was the primary element of a world-system, and for Frank and Gills, the interactions between societies were key. Because of this, current world-system theories offer the possibility of adding perspective to the literature on climatic history. No matter its prominence, the climate is not the sole factory in human history. Although it plays an important role, the climate is one component of a system. Incorporating world systems approaches would expand the scope of climatic history, making connections between changes in climate and changes in human history more comprehensive.
However, discussion of the climate could also be helpful to world historians because it is one factor that can effect multiple societies at once. Much like McNeill’s “disease pools”, climatic change can favor one region over another and lead to the rise or fall of societies. Climatic change can also provide an impetus for change in other, more traditionally historical, areas. Wallerstein cites this change as one motivator for the crisis in the seventeenth century, a significant economic development.
At first glance, it might seem as though temperature variation would be too temporally and regionally specific to be of use in a world historical context. By its definition however, climate is a long-term and large-scale category. Meteorological differences between years, or even between decades, do not constitute climatic change. The climate represents much broader patterns. As such, although the climates of specific areas can be defined, general climatic change impacts a much larger region. For this reason, climatic change should be one of the building blocks of any world history. Its impacts can be global in scope and can work upon (or against) the most fundamental cultural qualities of any society. One need only look at the adaptability of various cultures and their ability to adjust to changes, such as shifting fishing grounds, to see that climate and culture work to shape history. The effects of climate on human history are an oft-neglected aspect of world history and deserve greater attention from world historians.
Of the three scholars discussed in this paper, Grove, Lamb, and Fagan, each concurs that environmental factors play a role in shaping that society. Grove, however appears to believe that climate is one among equals in terms of its impact. Climatic change works with other factors but does not necessarily dictate those other factors. Lamb, on the other hand, portrays climate as something more akin to first among equals. For him, climatic change is one among many factors impacting human society, however, this change determines the nature and importance of those other factors. Similarly, Fagan considers climate to be an important variable shaping human society, but even more so than Lamb. The climate determines the other impacts on society and the way in which humans react to them. As is often the case, the answer seems to lie somewhere in the middle of these arguments. Without a doubt, as Fernand Braudel believed, environmental considerations are vital in the culture and formation of any society. Nevertheless, this should not be taken too far or it takes any human agency out of the equation. Throughout the twentieth century, considerations of the climatic influence on human history have evolved from obscurity to a topic of scholarly debate. Climatic change has entered the ranks of world system theory as a system with global impact. The importance of this debate is not as much a concern of the past as of the future. In order to understand what is happening to the climate today, we must understand the climate before the Industrial Revolution when it operated without human interference. A corollary question, and one for future research, to how the climate influenced human society, is how human society influenced the climate. The evidence for this we are still writing.
Bradley,
R.S. and Jones, P.D. “When was the ‘Little Ice Age’?” in Mikame, T. (ed.),
Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the “Little Ice Age” Climate (
Department of Geography,
Braudel,
Fernand. The
Duby,
Georges, Rural Economy and Country Life
in the Medieval West. (
Fagan,
Brian. The Little Ice Age: How Climate
Made History, 1300-1850. (
Books) 2000
Grove,
Jean M. The Little Ice Age. (
Grove, J.M. The Initiation of
the “Little Ice Age” in Regions Round the
Climatic Change. 2001. 48, no.1. 53-82.
When?” Climatic Change. 1994. 26, 109-42.
Lamb,
H.H. Climate, History, and the Modern
World. (New York, Methuen & Co.) 1982
Lamb,
H.H. Climate Present, Past, and Future,
Vol. 2. (London, Methuen & Co.) 1977
Paleoclimate Analysis and
Modeling,
Hecht, Alan D. (ed.) (
Interscience Publications) 1985
LeRoy
Ladurie, Emmanuel. Times of Feast, Times
of Famine. (Garden City, NY, Doubleday &
Messerli,
B., Messerli, P., Pfister, C. & Zumbuhl, H.T. “Fluctuations of climate and
glaciers in
the Bernese Oberland,
Arctic and Alpine Research. 1978, Vol. 10, 247-60
Ogilvie, A.E.J., and Jonsson,
T. “’Little Ice Age’ Research: A Perspective from
Climatic Change 2001. 48, 9-52
Pfister,
C. “The Little Ice Age: thermal and wetness indices for Central Europe.” Journal of
Interdisciplinary History. 1980, Vol. 10, 665-96
Slicher
van Bath, B.H. The Agrarian History of
1963
Wallerstein,
Immanuel. The Modern World-System I.
(Boston, Academic Press, Inc.) 1974
Wigley,
T.M.L., Ingram, M.J., and Farmer, G. (eds.). Climate and History. (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press) 1981
[1] T.M.L. Wigley, M.J. Ingram, and G. Farmer (eds.) Climate & History. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1981) 18
[2] Ibid 18
[3] B.H. Slicher van Bath, The Agrarian History of Western Europe. (New York, St. Martin’s Press 1963) 7
[4] J. M. Grove “The Initiation of the ‘Little Ice Age’ in Regions Round the North Atlantic.” Climatic Change. 2001. 48, no. 1. 53
[5] Ibid 76
[6] Ibid 54
[7] Ibid 69
[8] H.H. Lamb, Climate, History, and the Modern World. (New York, Methuen & Co. 1982) 220
[9] Helmut E. Landsberg. “Historic Weather Data and Early Meteorological Observations” in Alan D. Hecht (ed.) Paleoclimate Analysis and Modeling (New York, Wiley-Interscience Publications 1985) 62
[10] R. S. Bradley and P. D. Jones. “When was the ‘Little Ice Age’?” in T. Mikame (ed.) Proceedings of the International Symposium on the “Little Ice Age” Climate. (Tokyo, Department of Geography, Tokyo Metropolitan University 1992) 3
[11] Landsberg 62
[12] Landsberg 62
[13] Landsberg 62
[14] Jean M. Grove. The Little Ice Age. (London and New York, Routledge 1988) 394
[15] Grove, “The Initiation of the ‘Little Ice Age’ in Regions Round the North Atlantic” 63
[16] Grove The Little Ice Age 260
[17] Ibid 416
[18] Ibid 416
[19] Ibid 391
[20] Grove “The Initiation of the ‘Little Ice Age’ in Regions Round the North Atlantic” 73
[21] Lamb 307
[22] Ibid 307
[23] Ibid 278
[24] Ibid 219
[25] Ibid 218
[26] Brian Fagan. The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850. (New York, Basic Books 2000) xviii
[27] Ibid 58
[28] Ibid 165
[29] Ibid 48
[30] Ibid 59