the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reconstruction of ancient drought in Northwest China and societal responses: A case study of 1759
Abstract. According to the written records and scores of grain harvest in the official historical documents of the Qing Dynasty in China, the spatial-temporal distribution and the impact caused by the 1759 AD drought in Northwest China were reconstructed, and the response of Chinese society to the drought at that time was summarized. In the spring and summer of 1759, vast areas of northern China suffered from drought, of which that experienced in the northwest region was the most serious. Starting from 27 April 1759, droughts covered Zhili, Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Gansu provinces, and the droughts in Gansu and northern Shaanxi provinces lasted until 23 July 1759. This severe drought caused the worst crop failure in Northwest China during the period 1730–1900. By implementing a series of disaster relief measures, the Qing government managed to ease the adverse societal impact of the drought in the summer of 1760. Among the relief measures, tax reduction and exemption in disaster-stricken areas, grain storage in the northwest region, and bumper agricultural harvests in Henan, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Anhui provinces in 1759 were the main reasons for the rapid recovery from the drought impacts. With better climatic conditions in the 18th century, China had higher agricultural harvest levels in the 18th century than in the 19th century. Favorable financial conditions increased drought relief efforts, which was the background for the greater societal adaptability to the climate disaster of 1759.
- Preprint
(1686 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 Dec 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-111', Fang Xiuqi, 06 Sep 2024
reply
This study presents a comprehensive reconstruction of the 1759 drought and the societal responses in Northwest China. The historical records in the official historical documents of the Qing Dynasty are reliable. The three main conclusions on the in 1759 are reasonable. The results are valuable for coping with the climate extremes under global climate change in modern society.
The major comments are that the geographical regions should be distinguished more clearly and be used consistently in the whole paper.
First, “Northwest China” was used in title, but in fact, the paper divided the Northwest China into the eastern part(Northwest Agricultural Region of China (NWAR) ) for reconstruction and the other part in the discussion. Does the “Northwest China” refering to NWAR or the whole?
Second, “Northwest China” and the other part of “Northern Agricultural Region of ancient China (NAR)” should be clearly distinguished when use the records for drought reconstruction and make any statement on the analysis or the results. It is difficult for a reader to recognize a mentioned place whether belonged to Northwest China. For example, in the abstract, “droughts covered Zhili, Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Gansu provinces” and “bumper agricultural harvests in Henan, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Anhui provinces in 1759”. Some structure changes is necessary to make the “Northwest China” and the other part of “northern China” to be distinguished.
Third, do “Northwest China” in line 68 and in lines 70-71 refer to the same area? At present, Northwest China does not include Qinghai Province, but the “the area east to Qinghai Lake in Qinghai Province was belonged to the Gansu Province. It is better to define the Northwest China using to the provinces in 1820(Fig. 1), and to list the corresponding provinces at present.
Forth, The measures out of NWAR in “4.1” is suggested to be deleted. For example, the “Cao rice” for Zhili in lines 334-338.
Some other suggestions are as follows.
- Figure1 should give a general name.
- Line 68, “km2”?
- Lines 90-91, “Records of Qing Dynasty” is for every emperor, but “Records of Qing Dynasty: Qianlong Biography (RQD) ” is only for Emperor Qianlong.
- Line 114, Qinling Mountains is an important of climate boundary. What kind of climate boundary is it to be.
- Lines 129-130, “1759 was the worst year for agricultural harvests between 1730 and 1900”. It seems 1900 was the worst in Figure 3?
- Line 376,“occupied” should be “managed”
- Line 379, “wasteland” is “wild land”
- “4.3 Long-term climate background and societal adaptation to climate disasters”. “and” is “of”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-111-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-111', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Sep 2024
reply
The paper is dealing with an important topic on disasters and social responses. According to the paper, it seems to emphasize social responses more. Therefore, I have some comments as below to improve the manuscript further.
First, the manuscript should include more records to show the responses by government. In particular, the effect of these measures should be supported by these records. So far, the effect of these measures are evaluated indirectly. If there are some records directly show the effectiveness of these measures, it will be more persuasive.
Second, the study may consider the demographic pressure and conditions. After the drought occurrence, how about the migration conducted by local communities? The migration out of town may reduce the vulnerable groups under disaster which lead to less loss.
Third, in addition to government measures, how about the measure at the civil level? I think it would be better to include some discussions on this point from a bottom-up mode.
The above comments are made to improve the manuscript. I look forward to the revised version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-111-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
183 | 39 | 33 | 255 | 4 | 17 |
- HTML: 183
- PDF: 39
- XML: 33
- Total: 255
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1