THESIS JUSTIFICATION
Climate,
or the long-term average of weather conditions of an area, affects all
terrestrial forms of life on the earth. With
the settling of Homo sapiens through
the utilization of agriculture, or improved horticulture, about 10,000 years
ago, humans have shown to be very sensitive to extreme or prolonged climate
changes. Climate has influenced
human habitation since its inception. In
fact, climate has affected human livelihoods for many more years than human
ingenuity has been able to compensate for even minor changes in climate.
Changing climate has probably driven and influenced major migrations of
humans for millennia. The
difficulty is proving that these changes forced a response.
The
reluctance of accepting climate as a significant influence in human migration is
that most people tend to look at the role of climate change as a significant
driving factor in human survival from the wrong perspective.
Humans root their perspectives in the immediate past and apply them to
human history (Bloch and Putnam, 1953)
. The advancement in
knowledge and technology that has allowed humans to irrigate deserts, control
indoor temperature, and to create drought resistant cultivars has tainted their
perspectives. This view removes the
historical perspective. It is
presumptuous to conclude that ancient peoples behaved in a similar fashion to
modern individuals or society under similar climate conditions.
Without proper historical perspective, interpretation of past events can
become slanted or inaccurate because these events are filtered through a modern
psyche. If climate shifts from cool
and wet to hot and dry in a developed nation, the populace can easily irrigate,
use their air conditioners, and plant different crops that do not need much
moisture to grow. Despite
technological advancement, many modern developing countries have difficulty in
compensating for climate shifts, although climate change is not nearly as
consequential in modern human society as it would have been in ancient times.
The
only justification for removing climate from the discourse is that there are
rarely data available to portray past climates beyond meteorological data, which
was true until paleoclimatology and climate proxy indicators began to allow the
reconstruction of previous climate conditions.
Unfortunately, modern logic seems to be that if major climate shifts of
the last two hundred years have not affected humanity that greatly, then why
would it affect civilizations two thousand years ago? Or more accurately, the ideas of climate change affecting an
ancient culture seem to raise questions like: why would they not just build an
irrigation ditch? or why would they not just switch to a more drought resistant
food staple? or why did they not just move over the mountain range to a better
climate and a more fertile area? The
point is that irrigation may have been unknown to them, that their staple may
have been culturally tied, or that they did not fully comprehend the
geographical biomes and climate of their immediate area (let alone their world).
Another
reason that an historical approach can become slanted or even inaccurate has to
do with traditional history (Novick,
1988)
. When information necessary
to correctly assess the period is not available, it is common for the
storyteller to make assumptions and inferences based on the information that has
been found. Over time, these ideas
may become “fact” based on traditional history (Novick,
1988)
. For example, the popular
belief that Abraham Lincoln’s childhood was spent reading by candlelight in a
log cabin is not factual. He
actually spent his formative years in a large house in the city and not a log
cabin (Loewen, 1995)
. This idea of popular
traditional history usually allows for an easier telling or romanticizing of the
period.
Take
another example of Betsy Ross, almost every American grade school child can tell
the story of George Washington getting her to make the first American flag.
Nice story, but it probably never happened (Loewen,
1995)
. There is not a shred of
historical evidence that this event occurred, but every year it is taught as
fact. Tales about Betsy Ross and
the first American flag seem to stir up feelings of patriotism even though they
are likely untrue.
The
Germanic tribes are regarded as barbarians, uncivilized hordes, and the
destroyers of the greatest empire that existed in the ancient world.
The very sound of the word “barbarian” brings images of men with
large weapons destroying civilized people.
Some early studies about the origin suggests that the term
“barbarian”, when referring to the Germanic tribes, may actually have come
from the term “barbaicarius”
meaning goldsmith or gold weaver, because the early tribes were very skilled
artisans. This was shortened to “barbaus”
in the 4th century AD to mean German or northern foreigner (Musset,
1975)
. Eventually the term
developed to “barbarian” and carried the connotation of evil.
These barbarians seem to be only remembered by their atrocities recorded
by the Romans. Most of the negative
information on these “barbarians” is what is remembered and applied to the
term. They have been remembered as
the uncivilized tribes that destroyed the civilized and promoted the decline of
the Western Roman Empire.
It
is the craft of the historian to utilize as many resources as possible and
retell the story as accurately as possible (Novick,
1988)
. Ideally, there would be
unbiased documents that tell the story from several different perspectives that
would give the historian a more complete picture of the events (Bloch
and Putnam, 1953)
. This rarely happens even
in modern history and is even more problematic as we move backward in time.
Attempts to reconstruct the Germanic tribes on an individual
tribe-by-tribe basis have always fallen short of the goal due to the lack of
documentation.
Therefore,
the task of the historian is to approach each topic with the understanding that
not all pertinent information may be known, or even worse, it may be inaccurate (Bloch
and Putnam, 1953)
. Further, the historian
needs to realize that modern perspectives are different from perspectives of
other times and assigning reaction or “rational cognizance” to a different
age and culture risks error (Novick,
1988)
. It should also be
understood that the historian’s opinion is only as valid as their resources (Bloch
and Putnam, 1953)
.
Hypotheses
of the role of climate change and the migration of the Germanic tribes has been
evaluated for years; in fact, the idea of climate related migration had been
posed about one hundred years ago (Huntington,
1907)
. So, why approach the issue
again? Ellsworth Huntington
suggested that a climate shift during the early stages of the Völkerwanderung,
or migrations of the Germanic tribes, would be compatible with the behavioral
change of the Germanic tribes, but he did so with no empirical data.
However, the empirical data currently exists that suggest that climate
could have been a factor in the migrations of the Germanic tribes.
There
are several obstacles to overcome when studying the histories of the Germanic
tribes. Firstly, the available
documentation comes mainly from written Roman sources.
This is problematic because there is an inherent cultural bias with using
the Roman documents. The Romans are
predominantly the enemies of the Germanic tribes.
Further, the Romans also considered the tribes as inferior beings. This leaves the historian the task of assessing this bias of
relevance and accuracy.
Secondly,
it is difficult to fully comprehend the individual or collective perceptions of
the Romans even though they possess most of the documentation.
Trying to appreciate their perceptions of their enemies, the Germanic
tribes, is not feasible. Reconstructing the values of the Germanic tribes through
Roman documentation is daunting. Interpreting
perception of a people, with little to no documentation, is all but impossible.
At best, one can only suggest a plausible explanation and, reassess some
that are currently accepted.
Thirdly,
the science of dendroclimatology can accurately reveal ancient climatic
conditions and allow annual resolution reconstruction of climate in areas where
trees develop a seasonal ring structure. These
data were not available to the historians who have approached this question
previously, from the likes of Henry Bradley (1889) to present.
It is noteworthy that most have rejected the possibility of
climate-initiated migration entirely. But because there are now data that may suggest that climate
may actually be an influence, it is necessary to re-evaluate the historically
recorded events in Germania of the 3rd and 4th centuries
AD.