INTRO | HIGHLIGHTS | FEATURES | INTERVIEWS | PERSPECTIVES
‘Historical documents and archaeology tell a very interesting story in the Middle Ages and the story that developed is extraordinarily modern’, says Gerrard. In many cases societies throughout Europe were ‘risk sensitive’ both in how they responded to different kinds of risks, normally to hazards, but also to famine and disease which were persistent at this time. In the case of low-probability, high-impact events such as earthquakes, whether people were prepared or not depended on whether the hazard event had occurred before within living memory. ‘If they didn’t take place during someone’s generation or their father’s generation, there’s not the same learning process. There isn’t a memory embedded there within the community that gives them the confidence to respond’, says Gerrard. But often there was a lasting memory of hazardous events, and there is archaeological evidence from across Europe showing that people were proactive in managing them. Low-frequency, high-magnitude events were usually the most catastrophic, because preparedness was lower. When remains of the town wall in Andújar, in southern Spain, were uncovered by archaeologists they told a story of how the people who lived there responded to risk. The wall was destroyed by an earthquake in 1170. When it was rebuilt the foundations of the wall were cemented, and plugged to ensure that it was more resistant to the next earthquake. The builders in Andújar changed their construction practices in response to seismic risk, an early example of a ‘build back better’ strategy. An excavation in Glastonbury, in the UK, revealed a similar story. When St Michael’s Church at the top of Glastonbury Tor was excavated by archaeologists in the 1970s they discovered that it had fallen down due to an earthquake in 1275. During the excavation they found that people had removed the demolished building, identified the areas affected by the quake under the ground and the foundation, filled them with mortar and material then rebuilt the church on top.
In both of these cases ‘there was an understanding to build something that was more robust’, says Gerrard. There are numerous other examples where people in medieval Europe had what would be viewed today as a ‘modern’ response to risk, including examples of mitigation and adaptation:
Ruin of St Michael’s Church atop Glastonbury Tor.
21
• I n the hamlet of Kootwijk in the Netherlands villagers responded to coastal erosion by erecting 100-metre-long screens to prevent their agricultural fields and settlements from being buried by wind-blown sand (see Hazardous winds a’blowin’ in Features, this issue). These episodes of drifting sand were driven not only by changes in water distribution and dry weather which destabilised the vegetation, but also overgrazing, turf cutting, and deforestation to make charcoal for iron production. • I n medieval Europe gifts were routinely given by the wealthy and by unaffected communities to help with the local reconstruction effort after a disaster. Royalty, the Church and manorial courts all saw charity as their Christian duty. Today, humanitarian aid from governments, NGOs and private donors remain vital in the case of sudden emergencies. • I n medieval Europe there was a primitive kind of social security. Particularly in Italy and in Spain, financial loans and food were provided to members in need by religious confraternities. Lost assets were not replaced in full, but individuals could claim some relief aid to be repaid in part later. This has some similarities to the modern business models of the reinsurance industry, which tries to ensure that premiums will balance insurance payouts over long periods of time, with profit being generated primarily through investment return between disasters. • I nsurance was available in Italian ports from before the 12th century and merchants in the north of Europe trading around the Baltic quickly developed detailed regulations. To spread risk, traders entered into partnerships and allowed third parties to buy shares in their ships. • W hen poor weather threatened harvests, demand for grain, flour and bread could be hard to meet locally and the costs of importation were high. This was the case in 1258–61 when there were global-scale changes to weather patterns after a ‘climate-forcing’ volcanic eruption somewhere in the tropics. In London, grain was shipped from Germany and Holland but to prevent exploitation by merchants during times of famine they were prohibited from buying and reselling it. Carefully targeted food aid with safeguards for corruption is still a feature of government relief after disasters today. • T he value of routine maintenance of flood defences is not a new lesson. Before 1250 in the Netherlands, sophisticated dike systems were constructed to protect farmlands from flooding. But negligence in dike maintenance, not least the mining of peat close by, led to breaches by storm surges and river flooding, and the eventual inundation of reclaimed land in 1421–24 south of Dordrecht. Two thirds of the area remains a freshwater intertidal basin to this day.
• T oday’s disasters lead to questioning by politicians and agencies, just as it did in the past. Between 1280 and 1449 there were 153 royal commissions made up of local landowners and court officials to investigate flooding along the Thames estuary. Estimates of the overall loss of reclaimed marshland ran into thousands of hectares. • A t the end of the 16th century, after a series of earthquakes in Ferrara (Italy) during the period 1570–74, architect Pirro Ligorio argued that earthquake damage was due to inferior building materials and poor construction techniques. He therefore designed a project for earthquake-resistant housing. These are only some of many cases where medieval responses to risks were rational and intelligent, but they also show how people were in many ways building resilience by reducing their vulnerability to disaster risk. Nowhere is this more apparent in medieval Europe than in the Mediterranean.
MANAGING RISK IN THE MEDIEVAL MEDITERRANEAN THROUGHOUT HISTORY, Italy has been exposed to many different hazards including floods, fires, and earthquakes. During the Middle Ages it also developed some of the most sophisticated responses to mitigating, adapting and recovering from disasters. In examining the historical and archaeological evidence available, Gerrard and Petley concluded that those countries experiencing the most hazards, such as Italy, were the ones more likely to demonstrate resilience. Italy is also a unique case study because it developed large urban areas relatively early and with sophisticated civic infrastructures and support systems ‘you have the mechanisms in place where you can mitigate risk’, says Petley. Flooding in Florence in 1333 cost around 300 lives and left collapsed bridges and houses, mud-choked streets, dead cattle, and ruined provisions, but the city authorities responded quickly. Not only did they construct a temporary bridge over the River Arno and organise food supplies and emergency transport into the city, they also lowered taxes on imported foodstuffs and provided tax relief for those in need. ‘Most of the basic measures for disaster relief were already in place in Italy by 1300’, says Gerrard. In the case of earthquakes, for which archaeology and buildings left standing provide many examples of seismic damage in the form of collapse /// CONTINUED...