However, in suggesting that complexity theory should be brought to bear on the analysis of the causes of the Late Bronze Age Collapse, we may just be applying a scientific (or possibly pseudoscientific) term to a situation in which there is insufficient knowledge to draw firm conclusions. It sounds nice, but does it really advance our understanding? Is it more than just a fancy way to state a fairly obvious fact, namely, that complicated things can break down in a variety of ways?
Kinda my reaction to this whole book.
