Historians Dispute Roman Britain Drought-Rebellion Study
Get the Health newsletter
Daily health & science — research, biotech, public health, the studies worth knowing. Free.
- Helen Foxhall Forbes of Ca' Foscari University of Venice and colleagues published a critique in Climatic Health challenging last year's study by Ulf Büntgen's Cambridge team, which linked severe 364-366 AD droughts to the 'Barbarian Conspiracy' of 367.
- Ulf Büntgen's original study used tree ring data from oaks in southern Britain and northern France spanning AD 288-2009, identified summer droughts 364-366, and expanded to 106 battles across Europe to argue that dry years correlated with conflict.
- The critique argues the team misread Ammianus Marcellinus, the sole source for the Barbarian Conspiracy: his text is fragmentary, and he describes 'inopiam' (hardship) as a consequence of the conspiracy rather than a cause - undermining the drought-famine-rebellion chain.
- Dan Lawrence of Durham University said the 106-battle database conflates pitched battles with urban unrest, meaning a drought-famine-riot spiral would need to be demonstrated rather than assumed.
- Dagomar Degroot of Georgetown University called the original study's lack of a historian specializing in late Roman Britain 'a real weakness,' while noting the tree ring data itself remains valuable for historians.
- The original study was widely covered by BBC News, The Guardian, and The Telegraph; Büntgen has called for 'constructive debate' and conceded that most climate-history studies leave out ecologists, who are key to linking climate anomalies to agricultural outcomes.
- The dispute illustrates what Degroot frames as the tension between 'minimalist' historians who resist grand narratives and 'maximalists' who identify patterns in fragmentary data - with maximalist accounts, he warns, sometimes 'built on sand.'
Why it matters: This exchange, published in the same journal, shows that last year's widely-publicized drought-conflict correlation study - covered by BBC, Guardian, and Telegraph - may have inverted what its sole ancient source actually says. For interdisciplinary climate-history research, the case underscores the cost of omitting historians who specialize in the period being analyzed.
Ask SkimNews
