Apart from a number of common elements and implications, which had to be considered as a whole, the crisis of the Early Bronze cultures of the Near East took place over a long period of time and in a variety of different ways. The first clues to the crisis can be seen around 2300 bc, especially in Anatolia, as well as in the increased pressure placed by the periphery on the Akkadian empire. Other regions, such as Iran and Syria, were affected later on. The overall situation regained stability at the beginning of the second millennium bc, with the rise of Middle Bronze cultures. The reciprocal implications between the various phases of the crisis can be cautiously analysed only when the archaeological data (and most importantly comparative chronologies) allow us to understand the relations and directions of the various contributions. Moreover, the reconstruction of an overview of the crisis based on local written and archaeological evidence is not yet reliable enough.
It appears that the causes of the crisis of the second urbanisation were mostly internal processes. For instance, there was the excessive exploitation of the land, the concentration of wealth in the cities and palaces, and the accumulation of this wealth for prestige, which with time led to the ultimate collapse of the system. The crisis mainly affected areas in which urban settlements could not count on a reliable availability of food surplus. On the contrary, Lower Mesopotamia remained virtually untouched by the crisis, and actually attempted to protect itself by getting less involved in external affairs. The abandonment of urbanised areas, whose economy had to revert to a village and pastoral type of economy, was also a long-term phenomenon. Some areas managed to recover from the crisis of the ‘intermediate’ period, but inevitably collapsed again a few centuries later. It is also possible that the crisis in production had been worsened by climatic factors (higher aridity), which is not mentioned in an attempt to provide a non-human and nonhistorical explanation to the crisis, but because ecological changes had a long-term impact on the way the land was exploited.
This period of decreasing resources naturally caused the rise of competition and rivalry between groups. This is visibly attested in the belligerent policies of the kings of Akkad. Competition was centred on the control of commercial networks and access to certain raw materials (metals). However, it also had other implications, such as the destruction of agricultural and urban infrastructures. This caused the collapse of several political systems, or at least required expensive works of restoration and readjustment. The forced concentration of resources (both material and human) in the royal palaces made these systems extremely vulnerable to dramatic collapses, especially when their political centres were destroyed. Despite being relatively rare, these episodes had wide-ranging implications extending beyond the boundaries of these cities.
Even during the crisis, some fortunate cases, such as the Third Dynasty of Ur and the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, managed to prosper. However, all the surrounding areas undoubtedly experienced a phase of demographic and urban decline, though at different times and in different ways. The crisis caused a return to simpler and slower strategies for the exploitation of the land. This led to the substitution of cities with villages and pastoral groups. This reversal did not last long in the areas where the recovery had been fast. In other areas, however, this crisis lasted for centuries, and they had to wait for the later regional re-organisations of the Iron Age to become urbanised states once again.
Many groups (pastoral in particular) from linguistically and socially solid areas managed to settle more easily in the open spaces and power vacuums left by the declining cities. On the one hand, there were Semitic groups. On the other, there were the Indo-Europeans. The former managed to enforce and slightly expand the area inhabited by Semitic-speaking peoples in the Syro-Palestinian area and in Mesopotamia. The latter managed to expand their control in Anatolia, Armenia, Transcaucasia and in the Iranian plateau.
As a result, the final crisis of the Early Bronze Age marked the decline of populations that were neither Semitic nor Indo-European. They were therefore living between these two large and expanding groups, and formerly belonged to some of the most important cultures of the period. Some of them, such as the Sumerians in Lower Mesopotamia and the Pre-Hittites in Central Anatolia, went through a visible crisis. Others, such as the Elamites in southern Iran and the Hurrians in Upper Mesopotamia, managed to survive in the course of the second millennium bc. However, their decline was already in sight, due to their position between two groups equipped with virtually endless resources and a strong social and family structure, ensuring their diffusion and supremacy.
World History
