Climate in the Iron Age

[TiagoJRToledo]

So regarding the Iberian Peninsular, the changes in climate actually increased agricultural production leading to a more developed society (greater social stratification, development of hill forts [oppida?], nobility etc), unlike more exposed locations such as Britain where agricultural surpluses decreased? So how important is the climate (specifically regarding agricultural production) in shaping social development?

Exactly. Social development seems to be greatly connected to climatic variation in ancient times. One other good example of this is the Medieval Warm Period that occurred between 950 and 1100 A.D, which everyone recognizes as the time period when the Early Middle Age ended and the High Middle Age began. This period is marked by a huge increase in agricultural surpluses and the re-development of large population centres (bourgs or burghs) and the first great population boom in Europe. This gave rise to a new trading society, dominated my a new middle-class of merchants - the bourgeoisie.

[The Gypsy]

This is very interesting. But perhaps it could be said that food production influences the social development more than just climate itself. Increases in infrastructure can also lead to increases in food production and greater social stratification. The only example of this I am aware of is pre-pharaonic Egypt (4000-3500 BC I think), where the creation of dykes and irrigation ditches led to an increase of the lands carrying capacity from around 150 people per km2 to around 1500 people per km2, which helped encourage social stratification. The only problem with this explanation is the 'chicken and the egg' problem of which came first, social hierarchy or increased food production. So would it be correct to conclude that food production as a function of climate has a significant impact on social development.

[moonburn]

if you consider that "having" the right person on the leadership was considered crucial to please the gods and ensure good harvests yes altough normally the growth of social stratification happened when troubles ocured kings and nobles have always been born out of the ranks of heroes who "save" the people during times of strife

you have as examples the american civilizations where after a few traumatic events sacrificing people became routine or the bbylonian myth/tradition of picking a new king who would rule for 15 days to be sacrificed later so the old king could return to the throne guilt free of any sin towards the gods

not to mention ofc the way that religious high strata was always involved in the pickings of who gets what namely higher lords and kings positions since fertility and survival have always been associated with apeasing or getting aproval from the gods sooner or later it became the basis for kingdoms and hereditary hierarchy since having the right "special" or "divine" blood was essencial

not to mention the godkings like in egypt or the highpriest king of ... todays england the queen or king are the supreme ruller of the anglican church ...

what must be understood is that as new agricultural practices became prevalent into lands where before they where not used (in our case iberia and gaul and britain particulary the creation of new farms or concentration of lands who allowed for better productivity ) the increase in food allowed for populational growth but not better wealth division

amongst the lusitanii/gailicii the practice of having only 1 heir was and still his wierdly enough normal so all other less suitable sons had to go and find a living somewhere else thus the constant complaints of caesar that the lusitanii roose in rebellion every year when the reality was that they where driven out of their homes so as not to split the land given some weapons and goodluk prays and told to carve out a new life as mercenaries tradesman or whatever but his family lands belonged to their brother

so the appearance of farming into iberia created more wealth but not better wealth distribution in gaul the more wealth was available the less people had acess to it same as in rome winning the punic wars and the influx of money that was gained by trade only increased the depletion of roman citizens availble to be recruited for the legion more people but less qualified people since the small and medium land owners where swallon by the big oligrchic families

also i´ve read up some articles on mountain regions farming and it´s not impossible so even in germania and the luigii regions there was room for the appearance of small farm or at least small plot of land in front of their houses to complement the pastoral lifestyle wich altough increasing the available wealth wasn´t suitable for big land industrial farming so you get a better distribution of wealth (i recomend searching youtube engineering an empire the inca agricultural practices )

the celtic practices in gaul and britain also saw some technological evolutions that enabled better yelds on their fields so even if there was a decrease in the productivity overall due to the climatic events the way that new fields and new areas where being braved for farming combined with new technologies and the beggining of the appearance of larger scale industrial farming more then compensated for it imho (for instance many archeologist have proven that the kelts could get more out of their small farms per plot then the romans but the romans compensated that with massive slave work and sheer scale )

but thats just my interpreation based on my very incomplete knowledge of what was going on back then and it´s a macro view of the events some places might have had diferent developments also my knowledge expands well into the 1st century so much of the information and interpretation might not be pertinent to the 3rd century bc altough it becomes so as we progress forward

[TiagoJRToledo]

This is very interesting. But perhaps it could be said that food production influences the social development more than just climate itself. Increases in infrastructure can also lead to increases in food production and greater social stratification. The only example of this I am aware of is pre-pharaonic Egypt (4000-3500 BC I think), where the creation of dykes and irrigation ditches led to an increase of the lands carrying capacity from around 150 people per km2 to around 1500 people per km2, which helped encourage social stratification. The only problem with this explanation is the 'chicken and the egg' problem of which came first, social hierarchy or increased food production. So would it be correct to conclude that food production as a function of climate has a significant impact on social development.

Well, food production and fertile soils are directly dependant of climatic conditions. If you have a wet Winter and a hot Summer, food production will be higher, despite improvements in techniques or infrastructure.

It is pretty much established that increased food production precedes social stratification: agricultural surpluses permit trade, trade allows the acquisition of rare materials and products (wealth), and this wealth is mainly kept by an elite that either works the land and creates the surpluses, or by chieftains that begin to emerge from an horizontal tribal society. Wealth and prestigious items come only if there is something to trade them from, or if they were lucky enough to have an easily accessible ore vein or raw material like ivory. In that case, foodstuffs are interpreted as the luxury item, and thus the biggest share would be given to the ruling elite, thus creating the social stratification.

Yes, it is food production (and not money) that makes the World go round!

[The Gypsy]

Cheers guys.

Thanks for the great replies.

[Brennus]

So the shift in the climate to a cooler and wetter climate in the late Bronze Age resulted in reforestation and a shift to pastoralism in general, due to a reduction in viable agricultural sites? Does this reflect on any of the cultures in EB like the Lugiones, who are mentioned in the preview (my main source of information about this period :P ) who were predominately pastoral? Or by this point, were the warming effects being felt and a general shift towards larger scale grain farming in North-western Europe was occurring?

Both the Lugiones and Sweboz will have the option for pastoral agriculture. There have also been discussions on allowing it for certain parts of Britain and Ireland, but not in the first release.

Thank you to Brennus and TiagoJRToledo. I read bits and pieces about this but there doesn't seem to be very much literature on the differences between what is and what was. I know that silting has had an effect on river courses and that erosion has had effects on coastlines etc.

Brennus, when you say that Yorkshire's coastline was greater...I was under the impression that there were flood-plains around the humber, and that there was a great deal of marshland, particularly in North Yorkshire. Am I wrong (or was that at a later date)?

Of particular interest to me is the coastline/rivers/marshes around East Anglia (particularly Norfolk). Any good sources for this kind of thing?

Your welcome.

Yes you are correct. When I say the coastline was larger I mean that the coast around Morcambe extended further out to sea. However, as you point out, the inland areas around the Humber were more sodden than today, something which is reflected in the archaeological record of the Iron Age.

Likewise, although the eastern coast of East Anglia extended further out to sea, the vast majority of the Norfolk Fens were swamp and marshlands. A similar situation also existed around the Bristol Channel. Iron Age communities took advantage of this landscape and it was in these regions that we have much evidence for salt production.

Regarding large-scale cereal farming in North-Western Europe, I recall reading that only after the great deforestation and draining efforts of the Northern regions of Europe (Belgica, Germania, Saxony) that started c. 8th century A.D was the extensive and intensive cultivation of cereals introduced in those regions. But again, don't quote me on this, as I may be embarrassingly wrong

That is correct.

Exactly. Social development seems to be greatly connected to climatic variation in ancient times.

That being the case how do you explain the marked continuity in settlement pattern and material culture in Galicia? Also we don't observe marked changes in the socio-settlement structure of the Netherlands and Jutland until about 100 years after we observe them in Gaul, Iberia and Britain.

[TiagoJRToledo]

That being the case how do you explain the marked continuity in settlement pattern and material culture in Galicia? Also we don't observe marked changes in the socio-settlement structure of the Netherlands and Jutland until about 100 years after we observe them in Gaul, Iberia and Britain.

Northern Portugal and Galicia are a special case, seeing as the social stratification originated from "prestigious" megalithic constructions, that originated a species of ancestor and heroic worship, and the descendants of these ancestors were regarded as more important in the community, which in turn lead them to leadership positions. Also, the terrain heavily influenced the sites that were chosen for settlement, and although this elevated and walled enclosures were easily defensible, they were a pain to access and to sustain commercial ties with far-off peoples, which in turn slowed down contacts and cultural exchange.

Regarding the second point, I would argue that the motor for socio-settlement structural change was the fact that contact with oriental cultures (Hellenes, Phoenicians), that had much more complex societies and architectural constructions, were spread across the Mediterranean Basin. It is easy to then infer that these contacts and ideas would take much longer to reach the Netherlands and Jutland, seeing as their main "envoys", the Romans and Southern Celts, confined themselves to the Left Bank of the Rhine, and due to military conflict, it took much longer for these "innovations" to permeate those regions.

[moonburn]

herm brennus the river of oblivion (styx (?) ) stayed in northwestern iberia so the romans where afraid of crossing rivers over there cause they believed they would forget everything

should make a nice cartoon romans taking straws to see who would go 1st on crossing a given river and then the dude who passed over to the other side (the poor 17 year old schmuck) when asked "hey decimus do you still remember who you are?" and then dude replyed "no who are you?" and the romans runned all south in panic

until someone stops and thinks "hey if he didn´t knew who he was how did he knew how to talk that we were talking to him and that his name is decimus?" - damm roman deserters XD