FOSS, GILLS AND THE 6TH CENTURY AD WORLD SYSTEM CRISIS/2
I have finished my previous posting by an invitation of the
others suggestions of the probable explanation of the 6th
century AD Arabian enigma. I have received some, actually (not
really surprisingly) just from Foss and Gills. In order to go
on I have to quote these suggestions (I hope my correspondents
will not be against this).
As Daniel Foss sees it:
It seems to me that you have presented, in South Arabia,
an excellent example of the social impact of the Plague
of Justinian. This, you recall, broke out in
Constantinople and Antioch in 542. South Arabia was the
only part of the peninsula with a dense peasant
population and significant urban life. The margin
between the level of population adequate to support a
state and a literate elite and one which was too low may
not, however, have been very great.
Not so surprisingly Barry Gills offers a significantly
different perspective:
Are you
saying that you think epidemic disease is a symptom
rather than a cuase of such a crisis? (e.g. the way an
outbreak of cholera in present day Peru, or Mexico City
is reflective of La Crisis rather than causative of it.)
You mentioned looking for a primary cause of the 6th
century AD world system crisis, but not in the same
direction as myself.
Does the South Arabian crisis in your view
figure as part of of the genesis of the larger world
economic crisis, or was the South Arabian collapse
precipitated by the general crisis hiting Arabia's
international commerce?
These are formally questions, but some perspective is presented
in them quite clearly.
In any case my correspondents have persuaded me unintentionally
that what I am going to present is not quite self-evident.
However, though this might appear a bit noghty (perhaps, not
without some justification), before doing this I shall spell
out another Arabian 6th century enigma - the North Arabian one.
Part 2. NORTH ARABIAN PUZZLE
Of course, it is evident that what happened in the 6th
century Yemen was not an isolated event. Already if we look at
Arabia as a whole we shall get a bit different perspective.
To begin with, in the Soviet islamology up to the 1980s
the dominant theory of the origins of Islam connected it with
the crisis and degeneration of the clan-tribal system in the
6th - early 7th century Arabia, the state and class formation.
A bit strange theory, I am afraid, as the very well-known facts
show quite clearly that the actual processes were simply
contrary to the ones described above. The clan-tribal systems
in Pre-Islamic Arabia were strengthening and consolidating,
whereas these were precisely the state structures which
degenerated and desintegrated in the first century before al-
Hijrah. Indeed at the beginning of the 6th century we see a few
kingdoms controlling most of the Arabian territory: the already
mentioned huge Taba:bi`ah Kingdom in Yemen (dominant not only
over the whole Arabian South but also considerable parts of
Central Arabia), the second Kindite Kingdom (the vassal of the
first one) in Central Arabia, the Lakhmid Kingdom (dependent on
the Sassanid Empire) in the Arabian North-West (controlling
also a considerable part of Northern and Central Arabia), and
the Ghassanid Kingdom (dependent on the Byzantian Empire) in
the North-West.
What is more, even in the territories outside the direct
control of the above-mentioned kingdoms we normally find what
should be more correctly described as chiefdoms rather than
true tribes. Their heads often explicitely call themselves
amla:k (sg. malik) kings.
The situation at the beginning of the next century (say,
at the time of the beginning of Muh*ammads Prophecy) differs
dramatically. ALL the above-mentioned great Arabian kingdoms
had disappeared together with most smaller ones. There was
almost no kings left in Arabia; and where there were
chiefdoms a century before now we see true free tribes.
This seems to support Gills rather than Foss. To quote
Daniel Foss again:
It seems to me that you have presented, in South Arabia,
an excellent example of the social impact of the Plague
of Justinian. This, you recall, broke out in
Constantinople and Antioch in 542. South Arabia was the
only part of the peninsula with a dense peasant
population and significant urban life.
South Arabia was no doubt affected by the Plague
of Justinian (I hope to mention some details in my following
postings). But as we could see very similar processes appear to
have taken place in the nomadic communities of the Arabian
Desert, i.e. in the areas and among the populations which
unlike the Arabian South are one of the best protected from the
spread of the epidemics (one may recall some early Muslim
rulers who would move to the Desert at the time of the
epidemics spending the dangerous time in a sort of bedouin
camp).
I hope to present my suggestions for some of the probable
fundamental causes of the 6th century AD world system crisis
(no accounted to by either Foss or Gills) in my following
posting.
Yours,
(Dr) Andrey Korotayev, Senior Research Fellow
Oriental Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
(Sector of Theoretical Problems of Oriental History)
12 Rozhdesrvenka, Moscow 103753, RUSSIA
Fax: (7) (095) 975 2396; E-MAIL: andrei@rsuh.ru