A comprehensive approach to certain structural problems and a wide array of scientific issues of both natural sciences and humanities should include methods of digital modelling of complex systems. Past human societies and their settlement structures represent in a certain point of view complex systems. Agent-based modelling (ABM) and simulation represents a methodological framework to construct digital models of studied contexts in order to test the viability of existing theoretical models in both qualitative and quantitative aspects. An explicitly formulated “artificial society” (e.g., Danielisová, Štekerová 2015) can be built on the basis of all available archaeological sources, proxy data, estimates and existing theoretical models in research of the Germanic society of the Middle Danube region (Moravia, W Slovakia – Záhorie region and Lower Austria to the north of the Danube). The main concern lies in the establishment of a digital model which would reflect the available archaeological knowledge and estimates about the Germanic settlement structure and possible demographic development from the 1st century AD up to the period of the Marcomannic wars. Similar attempts at archaeological demography certainly contain wide ranges of methodical issues, mostly due to the limited input data and known aspects of population dynamics from archaeological records, nevertheless, this attempt represents a pilot effort of the initial framework implementation phase designed to explore the basic demographic properties of the studied context.
V článku je probráno několik postřehů k interpretaci dvou zpráv antických autorů o poměrech v České kotlině v období přelomu letopočtů. Strabón (Geogr. VII 1,3) neprohlašuje Kvády za jeden ze suébských kmenů, ale staví oba termíny na tutéž úroveň. Búiaimon mohlo ležet na území jedněch i druhých. Pouze z téže pasáže není zcela zřejmé, že jen část Suébů podle Strabóna žije v Hercynském lese a část mimo něj, a teprve v pasáži, která následuje vzápětí, je to řečeno explicite. Búiaimon Strabón velmi pravděpodobně pokládal za královské sídlo, nikoli zemi. Argument uváděný ve prospěch této druhé možnosti není přesvědčivý a jiné, představené zde, nejsou samy o sobě dostačující. Tacitovi (Germ. 42,1) není bezpodmínečně nutné rozumět tak, že podle něho vyhnali Bóje z Boiohaema Markomani. Jeho formulace není jednoznačná, nicméně tento význam mít může a současně Tacitus neměl jinou možnost, jak se přirozeně vyjádřit, pokud to na mysli opravdu měl. and In the paper some observations are presented concerning two accounts by ancient authors on the conditions in the Czech Basin during the period at the turn of calendar eras. Strabo (Geogr. VII 1,3) does not claim Quadi to be one of the Suebian tribes: both the terms he juxtaposes at the same level. Bouiaimon could have been situated in the territory of the former as well as of the latter. It is not clear from the same passage that only a part of Suebi was living in the Hercynian Forest, while the other part outside: it is clear only from the passage immediately following the one in question. Concerning Bouiaimon, Strabo very likely considered it a kingly seat and not a territory. The evidence for the latter produced or defended by some Czech scholars is not convincing and the new pieces introduced here are not themselves sufficient. Tacitus (Germ. 42,1) need necessarily not be understood as claiming Marcomanni to have themselves expelled Boii from Boiohaemum. His wording is not unambiguous, but at the same time it definitely could have been meant so, and Tacitus had no other way to naturally express such an idea, had he really this in mind.