Re: German population in Europe after fall of Roman Empire.

From: Tomi A (Invalid_at_invalid.invalid)
Date: 07/12/04 

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:19:13 GMT

"Soren Larsen" <sohela@tiscali.dk> wrote in
news:2lfckvFbe31sU1@uni-berlin.de:

>> Yes but the climate had been particularly bad for centuries just
>> prior to the assumed migration.
>
> The climate always changes and the production methods changes
> accordingly and short of a new iceage I'm not sure what a
> bad climate means.

At the end of the Bronze Age the climate got colder and colder and started
warm up by a century or so before AD. At least the old wisdom is that this
made living harder and the population got smaller.
>
> But then I dont subscribe to any theory about Gothic migration
> from Sweden
>
Yes

>> Grimberg (whom I was reading when I got the impulse to write) says
>> that they didn't know how the fertilize land ... but of course they
>> may have been slash-and-burn farmers, then you don't need fertilizers
>> (***, that is). But then the population can't be dense.
>
> No slash-and-burn since the stoneage.

I doubt that. There is always slash and burn if there are forest to burn
down. The crop is so much bigger ... or used to before modern fertilizers.
>
> Targetted fertilisation of the infields (The fields close to the farm)
> starts ca 500 BC at the same time as the cattle starts to be kept
> in stables. Quite logical since you had to clean those stables.
>
Well, luckily I don't regard Grimberg as a particularly reliable source. He
had found a quote at least thousand yers later, in which some - was it -
Anglo-Saxons laughed at a fellow country man who used the method you
describe.
>
snip

I read the rest. Interesting and informing. Thanks.

Tomi

Quantcast