CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMANS

            There is a belief that “culture” and “society” somehow exists in sharp contrast to “nature” this perspective needs to be discarded (Salvesen, 1992) .  As Shaw (1981) put it, “Is it not possible that … in a period which intensive agricultural exploitation was at its lowest ebb, ‘natural’ forces might have taken their toll of the environment when the artificial restraints of human cultivation were not at their most effective?” (Shaw, 1981, 11) .  The tribes of central Germania consisted of agricultural, clan-based hierarchy that would have certainly been affected by climate change and long sustained drought periods.

            According to geographic determinism, habits and character are molded by physiographic and environmental conditions.  These conditions are known to have experienced significant changes.  The placement, distribution, occupation, and even habits of humans respond to climate (Huntington, 1907) .  The philosophy of geographic determinism has been replaced due to the oversimplification and stereotypical racial nature of the approach (Huntington, 1907, Lamb, 1977).  However, from a traditional approach to climate-migration studies, these early approaches are seemingly relevant.

            The greatest barrier to climate-induced migration studies is that strong emphasis on climate influence over humans instilling notions of powerlessness, as if humans are helpless and unwitting pawns in nature’s game (Salvesen, 1992) .  Yet, humans have been greatly affected by climate change in the modern era, especially by prolonged drought (e.g., the Dust Bowl years and the 1950s drought).  Climate-induced migration does not imply that humans are merely pawns in nature’s game, but that climate can significantly influence the human cognitive process.  Climate may either synergistically promote or effectively limit human activity (Salvesen, 1992) .  Some events can easily be attributed, at least partially, to an amelioration or deterioration of climate (Anderson, 1981) .

            Lucien Musset suggests that if the climate were consistent then the numbers of the Germanic invaders in the 3^rd century AD would have been considerably higher than the numbers of Germanic tribes that eventually invaded.  Based upon the estimates of 1^st century population reconstruction and an average growth trend over the next two centuries, there were far too few invaders coming from Germania into the Roman Empire (Musset, 1975) .  Ellsworth Huntington (1907) argued a similar concept.  He concluded that the invasions would have been much larger had rainfall been more consistent during this period, because the population would be expected to increase if the period were wetter (Huntington, 1907) .  Both of these arguments are especially interesting in light of the evidence of Germanic tribes moving inside of Germania in the 2^nd century due to increasing populations (Musset, 1975) .

            Something seems to have provoked the Germanic tribes to move within and beyond Germania in the 3^rd century.  Jordanes (6^th century AD) records that the Germans who lived on fertile soil (in the 3^rd and 4^th centuries AD) were frequently attacked (Jordanes, The Story of the Goths, 22).  Does this hold true for the 4^th century as well?  There are records from Ammianus of the Goths going to war in AD 369 because trade of food products was not allowed (Musset, 1975) .  It is necessary to examine the dendrochronological record to determine when periods of sustained drought and non-drought periods occur to see how they relate to the historical record discussed in the previous chapter.  The 3^rd and 4^th centuries AD consist of many sustained drought years, but there are also sustained wet years.  Only with the complete examination of the dendroclimatology of the period, is it possible to better understand the movements of the indigenous tribes of Germania.