Kalamazoo 2012, the Final Day: Goths and Old Food Nicely Presented

Sunday at Kalamazoo was another dark, semi-drizzly day. Lots of people use this for a travel day but I’m fortunate since I live relatively nearby and can make Sunday sessions. These are often some of the best (this year is a good example of that) and I very much recommend it to those attending, if you can make it work. I have occasionally skipped the final session, as I did last year to get an early start or if I run into someone who needs a ride to the airport and doesn’t have one, but usually I stick around to the end. One other last-day benefit, which I haven’t taken advantage of in a while, are the book discounts.

In any case, after loading all my stuff (I think it was only two trips to the car this year) I headed back to Valley II for Session 520: Sixth-Century Italy: Representing the Gothic War. The first paper was by Brian Swain, a Phd candidate from The Ohio State University, “‘A modern-Day Empire Worthy of a Tragedy’: Jordane’s Commentary on the Gothic War of Justinian.” This was something of a revisionist paper, which was fine by me. Recent scholarly opinion has come to view Jordanes as promoting an aggressive Roman/Byzantine policy toward the Goths and he is considered pro-Roman and anti-Goth (though I have read articles where Jordanes is considered to be arguing in favor of the legitimacy of Gothic rule in order to view the war as a legitimate effort by Justinian to battle Those Evil Arians and Defend Orthodox Christianity). Swain believes that Jordanes should not be viewed as pro or anti anyone – that he is more nuanced, particularly when you consider his Romana Breviarium along with the Getica. He provided a fairly detailed review of Jordanes where at various points in the two works he praises Justinian, casts doubt over Byzantine claims to dominion over the Goths, calls for the war to end through an agreement with the Goths, blames Justinian for its length and closes with a commentary on the ineptness of Roman rulers which could be interpreted as criticizing Justinian. I haven’t read the Getica in some time. Clearly I need to and also get my hands on the Romana Breviarium (if I don’t have it here already). I enjoyed this paper though it will take my reading the two sources to figure out whether I agree with it or not.

Next up was Jonathan J. Arnold presenting, “Manly Goths, Effeminate Romans.” Last year he gave a cool paper on Theoderic’s moustache. This year his topic was bit bit weightier (except when you look at the underlying theme of the prior year’s which was that of people over analyzing sources to sometimes find stuff that isn’t there). He opened with a quote from Walter Goffart’s Narrators of Barbarian History (I have this but haven’t read it yet) where Goffart uses a quote to demonstrate that Romans were portrayed as masculine, Goths as feminine/effeminate. Arnold believes that the quote Goffart uses supports this however if you examine Italian/Gothic sources, the reverse characterization is largely true. I’ll offer several examples (I have over a page of notes so I won’t give all of them). Ennodius has an epigram on Boethius where Boethius and the Romans are depicted as weenies (sorry – this is how I jotted it down in my notes) and Theoderic is described in a panegyric as warlike, a military victor, and has rescued Italy which has become weak and womanly under the Romans. Theoderic is masculine, strong and a manly man, including a speech to his mother where he is depicted as stating this outright. Through Theoderic a female Rome will be renewed, rescued by the masculine and warlike Goths. Cassiodorus celebrates Theoderic and the Goths as manly. The Goths are Italy’s defenders, trained as men of the God Mars. While there are a few good Roman men, overall Rome is militarily weak. Amalasuintha is depicted as a manly Goth who happens to be a woman and is contrasted with Galla Placidia who is too gentle and weakened Rome through peace. In contrast, in Jordanes’ Getica Amalasuintha is despised as weak and the manly Romans are victorious over the effeminate Goths. This was a very good paper with a lot of information.

I have another page-and-a-half of notes for the next paper by Tina Sessa of The Ohio State University, “Perceptions of War and Decline in Sixth-Century Italy.” Sessa was concerned with how the Christianization of Europe impacted viewpoints of war and how war impacted the evolution of Christianity. She stated that war cannot just be looked at in the context of attitudes but that impacts such as the loss of life and property and interactions of different societies must be considered. She used Gelasius’ depictions of the War between Odoacer and Theoderic in 489-93 to consider the war’s impacts. Based on Gelasius, barbarian violence was harmful, regardless of who was responsible. Churches were negatively impacted, including those in the south which really weren’t involved in the war. Among the Pope’s activities in response to war, he radically reduced the requirements for one to become a bishop due to need and a shortage of qualified clerics. He wrote to Palladius telling him to restore a deposed bishop, Stephanus, as his deformity was caused by war. She closed by discussing methodological issues in trying to figure out how to separate the rhetoric of war from the reality of war’s impacts on ecclesiastical life. My apologies for the weak summary. I recall this as being a very good paper but I’m afraid I haven’t done justice to it. And this was a very strong session overall. I don’t know if it was my absolute favorite but it ranks up there.

As did Session 571: Diet, Dining and Everyday Life: The Uses of Ceramics in the Third-to-Ninth-Century World. This session was a treasure. I’d decided earlier that due to my fascination with peasants I’d go to this over the final session on the Ostrogoths. I very nearly reconsidered considering the quality of the previous session but I ended up sticking to my plan and was glad I did, though I have 5 pages of notes for three papers which will make summarizing this a bit difficult. There were a few common points for all three papers; residual evidence of food is extremely rare, enough so as to make it nearly useless; faunal evidence (remnants from animals) can be unreliable for a variety of reasons including decomposition rates of different remains and scavengers, however it is often necessary to rely on it while recognizing the limitations and; pictorial and textual evidence often presents an idealized version of life. Also, none of the papers covered anything later than the seventh century.

Andrea Achi from the New York University Institute of Fine Arts opened with, “And How did They Eat: An Investigation of Food Storage, Processing, and Consumption Patterns in a Late Antique Household.” She gave a detailed description of a portion of the Dakhla, Egypt archaeological site, in particular evidence for food storage, preparation and consumption in an elite household, headed by one Serenos. On the site they found a large storage room filled with small bowls of varying sizes. They also found platters for shared, family style dining. Cooking pots were of fairly uniform size however cooking bowls were more varied. They did not find any large serving platters leading to the thought that these may have been made of more valuable materials than the locally produced ceramics. A couple of interesting notes were that as bones showed no evidence of burning, meat was probably either boiled or braised. There was an absence of extensive ovens in the home leading researchers to believe that the home may not have been used for cooking, just for reheating. However they do not know where the food was prepared. Possibly there were communal ovens which have not been found or they may have used a second floor of the house, which has now been destroyed. Beyond that, these folks ate well, produced their ceramics locally, except for amphorae, and weren’t too particular about what they did with bones. And if I ever read much on Late Antique Egypt I need to find a copy of Roger Bagnall, ed., The Kellis Agricultural Account Book.

More artifacts were in store when Elizabeth de Ridder Raubolt of the University of Missouri-Columbia presented, “Art and Artifact at the Late Antique Communal Meal.” I really enjoyed this one. She used a combination of archaeological and textual evidence to discuss how meals were conducted in the 4th through 6th centuries. Meals were taken reclining on a large, curved couch with a center table accessible to all diners where each person could see and speak to the others. There was a hierarchy of diners with the most important placed at either end. Large platters seem to have been important in elite dining however ceramics came to be more frequently used as time went on and it has been argued that African Red Slip (ARS) platters may have replaced silver in Christian households. Later in the period ARS becomes less common, being found only in the larger sizes, not used for smaller bowls, indicating possible problems with supply. Good paper and she used a lot of images to illustrate her points.

Image of the Last Supper from the Rossano(6th century Italy) Gospels. Photo from Wikimedia Commons. Note Judas reaching for food, his eyes cast down while the others all show reverence towards Christ.

The final paper of this session and, for me, the 47th Congress, was “Pots and Pantries: Correlating Cooking Ware with Dining Habits in Visigothic Spain by Scott de Brestian of Central Michigan University. I have a ton of notes for this one however he covered two primary themes for the period from the end of Roman rule to the early 7th century. One was whether the type of cooking ware used is a good indicator of what was eaten and the other was what changes in cooking ware could tell us about society. He mainly looked at two types of ceramics; casseroles, which were broad, flat, two-handled baking trays and; ollas which were large cooking pots which could be suspended by the neck over a fire and were used for slow cooking and for boiling meat. Traditionally ollas have been linked with eating pork while casseroles to eating sheep and goat. In the interior of Spain very few casseroles were found, almost all ollas, with a couple of exceptions. However faunal evidence indicates that while pigs were a substantial portion of the diet, they ate more sheep and goat. In addition, in Sainte-Blaise in Southern Gaul, ollas comprised 26% of 5th-6th century finds and 40% in the 7th century but faunal evidence indicates no significant dietary change. Brestian believes there is little evidence that looking at the types of pots used is a valid way of determining what was eaten.

Another area he covered was ceramic quality. About 50% of early 5th century cookware was improved Terragona. This declined to 15-20% by the 7th century. Over time, the use of African Red Slip pottery also declined. These were replaced by locally produced imitations. This decline shows a loss of wealth and also a decline in competition. The wealthy had fewer competitors and it took less of a display to demonstrate their status. Where previously elites possessed the entire range of high status vessels, now they used a selection. The one exception to this seems to be the Visigothic kings who had all vessels, demonstrating that elite dining rituals were now something expected of the king, not all elites. Another good paper accompanied by a lot of images which I haven’t captured adequately, and a very good session.

In place of a K’zoo summary post, I’ll throw in a quick paragraph here. I had a good time and went to some really good sessions. The accommodations continue to improve, especially with Wi-fi in most rooms. I was also more social than the previous year which was nice. As of now I’ve made four of these in a row, a record for me. Unfortunately, I’d say the odds are against my being able to attend next year. I think I’ll have a big May conflict and will probably take a year off. That’s OK, it’s not like I’m about to run out of books any time soon. Look for my 2012 posts to make it to my Kalamazoo page in the near future.

 

Saturday at Kalamazoo: Monks and Goths

Following breakfast Saturday morning I headed back to the exhibit area and spent an hour or so at Powell’s, finishing up my book purchasing. Then I headed for Schneider and Session 376, Contexts of Early Medieval Monasticism I: Architectural Concepts. Before I begin I want to mention that the organizers had put together a booklet which included abstracts of all three Contexts of Early Medieval Monasticism Sessions. Even though I only went to one of these, it provided me with some information which may prove useful once I finish my Early Christianity Reading.

First up was Gregor Kalas from the University of Tennessee-Knoxville presenting, “The Residences of Carolingian Abbots and the Afterlife of the Late Antique Villa.” This was a really interesting paper. Kalas opened with a discussion of the Plan of St. Gall showing how the Abbot was expected to live in his own house, not communally. This was supported by the Aachen synod of 817 where Benedict of Aniane amended the Benedictine Rule to have some separation from the community. This separation mimics the villa plan where the owner and his family live in a residence separated from the rest of the estate. Farfa and San Vincenzo al Volturno are examples of monasteries which were formerly villas. The Plan of St. Gall, with its private residence for the Abbot and a private route to the basilica seems to have been modeled after villa construction. Ultimately, Kalas believes that Late Antique villas provided models for monastery plans and that by the 9th century an abbot’s residence could be considered a less luxurious villa. An interesting factoid (to me anyway) was his discussion of Farfa where in the 8th century the abbot lived as something of a recluse but by the 9th century they became increasingly worldly, which he attributes to the evolving relationship with the Carolingian rulers where the monastery became subject to greater royal control and a reduced Papal influence. Good paper and I’m hoping what he talked about is published someplace so I can get a closer look at his evidence.

Kirsten Ataoguz of Indiana University-Purdue University-Fort Wayne (IPFW for those of us in Indiana and yes, other than in basketball Purdue and IU collaborate a LOT!) followed with, “Overlapping Contexts of the Last Judgement at the Monastery of Saint John in Müstair, Switzerland.” Now I have a page-and-a-half of notes for this one. Even so, I have a feeling this summary will suffer as much from temporal distance as any because she showed a lot of really cool images which I can’t precisely recall – oh, for an eidetic memory. Müstair is one of several 9th century churches in the Alps with a similar image of the Last Judgement. This image tells a story (in looking for images in Müstair, the Last Judgement is just a piece, though an essential one, of the frescoes in the church) showing Christ as judge. He is depicted as the gatekeeper to an apostolic city (a local apostle, Vigilius, is among those shown) and with his right hand up and left hand down shows that he will choose between the saved and damned. These images, prominently displayed in the church, are for the benefit of the laity, not the monks. Ataoguz discussed how this type of story-telling differed from very literal eastern representations. Due to the prevalence of similar images in local 9th century churches she believes it is very possible that this type of representation originated in the region. Another very good paper.

Monastery of Saint John in Mustair, Switzerland. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

The final paper was by Annika Rulkens from the University van Amsterdam, “Monastic or Not? The Architecture of Rural Churches in Ninth-Century Hessen.” This was a comparative examination of the architecture of churches to support her thesis that smaller churches should be considered monastic. She believes that smaller satellite churches of Fulda and Sturm, built from the mid-eighth through mid-ninth century were modeled after the larger Abbey churches. These churches were built with the approval of the mother house and while she does not believe they were directed to use similar architecture, they chose to do so. Again, lots of images used for this paper which I don’t recall well enough to describe here.

For lunch I had the opportunity to sample the marvelous cuisine in Schneider (said menu choices consisted of pre-wrapped sandwiches – still better than past years and it provided calories) and chatted with The Cranky Professor (TCP) and ADM. Actually, ADM was working for the most part but I had a lot of fun with TCP. I had sort of a theme for the week I went with which was pretty much, “The way I do my job is very different from you,” With an emphasis on the fact that Purdue does not expect me to know how to write – we have a communications department which edits everything we put together. At the time I was in the middle of putting together a fairly short publication which seemed to be taking forever to finish (seriously – I took maybe 12 hours to write the draft, which was 95% of the end product). I’m pretty good at laughing at myself and TCP was willing to join in. I’m in the middle of a 150-page agrosecurity project right now and I dread how long that one will take.

I went Goth for the rest of the day, starting with Session 429, Early Medieval Europe II. Louis Shwartz, a Phd candidate from the University of Toronto opened with, “What Rome Owes to the Lombards: Devotion to Saint Michael in Early Medieval Italy and the Riddle of Castel Sant’Angelo.” Michelle Ziegler has already covered this paper nicely and I don’t have much to add. In talking about why Saint Michael came to be associated with Sant’Angelo he discusses mentions of him in Paul the Deacon and believes that ultimately Saint Michael’s association with the church likely dates from Cunibert who was King from 688-700 and Liutprand who succeeded him. Cunibert was a strong promoter of Saint Michael and when Liutprand allied himself with the Papacy and converted the Lombards, this association was solidified. Good paper and be sure to read Michelle’s more detailed summary.

Erica Buchberger, a Phd student from the University of Oxford followed with, “Gothic Identity in Spain Before and After the Arab Conquest.” She believes (and I agree with her) that people identifying themselves as Goths disappeared fairly quickly after the Arab Conquests. I regret that I didn’t write down the specific sources she used however she argued that examples of people identifying themselves as Gothic is hard to find after the end of the 7th century. In narratives, Goths disappear as an entity after 754 and afterwards people may say that they were of Gothic descent but they did not identify themselves as Goths. She believes this may have been a sign of loyalty; that they were true to their heritage but loyal to their Arab rulers. However she did say that in the North Gothic identity lasted longer and can be found up to 883 in a chronicle (again, I apologize for not noting which one).

The final paper was by Helen Foxhall Forbes of the University of Leicester, “Suicides and the Damned in Anglo-Saxon England.” I recall this being a very interesting paper though it was as much about damnation overall as about the attitude toward suicides. However it is interesting that A-S sources almost never mentioned contemporary suicides but instead focused on those taking place in the past and that suicide is not mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon law codes. Aelfric speaks strongly against suicide and one of the Vercelli Homilies states that “Jews, heathens and suicides” won’t be saved. According to the Old English Penitential and the OE Handbook the body of a suicide cannot be sung over or buried in consecrated ground. In contrast, the Blickling Homily states that a murderer can be saved and there was an Old English belief that even an executed criminal could be saved. Aelfric disapproves of priests fighting and says that one killed in battle will not be prayed for but may be buried in consecrated ground and that he will be judged by God. Good stuff in this one.

Following this I headed to Valley II and Session 461, Sixth-Century Italy I: Representing the Ostrogothic Kingdom. I was very pleased to see the sessions on the Ostrogoths this year, in particular that they were organized by Deborah Deliyannis of Indiana University. I decided I was a fan of hers after reading

 

Conference Report: Vikings, Nosectomies, and a Saint

I’ve been horribly delinquent in my blogging lately. I’d like to say that will change in the near future but I fear this is not so. However it will change at some point. I’m equally behind on keeping up with the blogs I usually read.

On February 24 I went to campus for the second day of the Purdue Comitatus Annual Conference, subtitled, “North Atlantic Connections: Texts and Interpretations of the Medieval North.” Comitatus is a Purdue Medieval studies student group. I’ve been meaning to get to this conference for several years and the stars finally aligned so I could make it.

Based on the conference title I knew this likely wouldn’t be a program right in my wheelhouse however it was a bit closer than I expected. Most of the papers dealt with the Early Medieval Period and while the protagonists generally spoke Old English, Old German or Old Norse rather than Latin or Greek (not to say that I know Latin or Greek, just more about the people who spoke them) I was somewhat familiar with most of the topics.

Chad Judkins, a Purdue PhD student, opened with, “Writing the Viking Invasions and King Alfred’s Educational Program.” For the most part this was a continuation of the “Vikings received an overly bad reputation in historical sources” theme which has become prominent over the past couple of decades. Rather than bloodthirsty invaders in horned helmets intent on nothing more than killing folks for pleasure, it’s pretty widely recognized that their raiding was, mostly, economically motivated. Judkins expanded on this. 1

Judkins reviewed a variety of sources including Alfred’s preface to Gregory’s Pastoral Care, Alcuin and Asser. He showed that while Vikings were profoundly disliked, an economic decline seems to have been in effect well before their arrival. Alfred mentions a decline in literacy while Asser discusses how monastic life had become corrupted by wealth and was in decline prior to their arrival. As much of the destruction involved religious institutions including icons, books and churches, the ecclesiastical writers of the day will have believed both that a great deal of damage was done and that this was an attack on religion. Alfred implies that Vikings were a divine punishment, sent by God because of a decline in morality, virtue, monasticism and literacy, and Alfred is willing to use their return as a threat if this is not reversed. While this is a fairly standard type of paper, it was interesting and pointed out some specific sources I wasn’t aware of.

Next up was Phil Purser of Landers University, “Vapn-Wyf: Valkyrie Reflexes in Old English Literature.” He discussed how the Valkyrie was perceived in England and how she evolved from her Scandinavian origins. He believes that Valkyries were portrayed in three ways; as warriors, from a religious perspective, and from a contemporary popular perspective, particularly with laborers. How they were portrayed can provide some clues to their evolution from their Scandinavian origins.

As warriors, Valkyries are described as warrior women. As warrior women their role was not generally to carry a sword or spear but to provide wisdom and encouragement. He drew a parallel between Wealtheow in Beowulf and Valkyrie depictions, such as in the Old Norse verse, Eriksmal and in Danish visual representations of women resembling Valkyries bearing horns. Purser termed this as providing benevolent battle aid. 2

In religious representations Valkyries are depicted as horrible hags. Wulfstan (which I’ve not read) uses them in various ways to depict the evil of the Norse and gives them a relationship with witches. This is a distortion of the Danish Valkyrie who is something of a gatekeeper rather than a death-dealer, choosing men in their final hours for inclusion in Valhalla.

For the English working class the Valkyrie were invisible and harmful. Various charms are used to prevent or dispel their evil. Hag-shot, which is a source of mysterious physical pain is a Valkyrie affliction and flying “stinging women” were believed to cause side-stitch.

Marianne Kalinke from the University of Illinois gave a paper, “Tracking a Werewolf Through Space and Time” to discuss an example of manuscript transmission to Iceland. She uses the werewolf tale of Bisclaret to argue that this story came to Iceland directly from France rather than including a Norse intermediary. In the Icelandic tale Bisclaret is Tiòdel’s Saga. The general theme of the story is that a knight periodically disappears for several days at a time. After questioning from his wife he reveals to her that he is a man while clothed and a wolf while naked. He also tells her where he hides his clothes when he’s out wolfing it. The wife’s not too thrilled to find that she’s been spending her nights next to a wolfman and she coerces another knight to steal the clothes, trapping Bisclaret/Tiòdel in wolf form. When Bisclaret/Tiòdel doesn’t appear for some time he is declared dead and she marries the other knight. Later the king happens to come across an exceedingly friendly wolf which he takes back to his castle. To cut out several parts of the story, the wolf, while in the King’s company encounters his former wife and attacks her, tearing off her nose. As this behavior is very out of character for the wolf the wife is tortured (whole lot of things revealed about contemporary attitudes toward women but I won’t go into that here) and confesses her crime and reveals where the clothes have been hidden.

The common understanding of the original manuscript transmission has been that the story came to Iceland from an Old Norse source. Kalinke argues that it came directly from France rather than having a Norse intermediary. Her argument, which is very persuasive, at least to someone not familiar with other arguments, is based on elements of the story being common to the French and Icelandic versions and missing from the Norse version. The two elements she used were details of shapechanging and what happened to the wife when Bisclaret attacks her. I’ll focus on the wife. In the Old Norse version Bisclaret/Tiòdel tears off her clothes and leaves her standing naked in front of everyone. In the French and Icelandic versions her nose is torn off. Based on the original transmission route, she would have gone from having her nose torn off (French) to having her clothes torn off (Norse) back to losing her nose(Icelandic). Kalinke’s transmission directly from France to Iceland with a consistent nosectomy account is more logical.

There are obviously other areas to explore with this. For example, it’s possible that two versions went from France to Scandinavia and the clothes version is the only one from there which survives. But based on current manuscript evidence, Kalinke believes that a direct France to Iceland transmission makes the most sense.

Ben Wright, a Master’s student from Western Michigan University, used hagiography to illustrate Norse depictions in Early Medieval manuscripts in, “Illuminating the North: Northmen in Manuscript Pictures from Paris and Monte Cassino.” He focused on the evolution of the Life of St. Maurus. Hagiography has been one of my primary medieval interests so I’m afraid my notes do not reflect the main point of Wright’s paper.

The Life of Maurus was likely written by Odo of Cluny (Odo argued that it was written by a 6th century contemporary of Maurus) in the second half of the 9th century. In this vita the Devil is equated with Northmen and they are banished by Maurus.

What’s more interesting to me is how this vita evolved and its relative importance. Maurus ended up being used to provide additional ammo for various entities to make territorial claims. In particular a conflict between Monte Cassino and Saint-Maur-des-Fossès over control of Glanfeuil developed. In the story Maurus, a disciple of Benedict, founded Glanfeuil and his relics had been transported from there to Fossès when Odo and the monks were driven out by Northmen in 862. So Fossès had the relics. However Monte Cassino had been founded by Benedict.

In order to strengthen its claim, in 1033 Monte Cassino acquired an arm of Maurus as a relic. In 1071 Desiderius, the Abbott of Monte Cassino, had a richly decorated and illustrated book, the Codex Benedictus produced. However none of that worked. Fossès exerted control over Glanfeuil from 1058-86 however in the early 12th century Glanfeuil began to assert its independence which it achieved in 1133.

The Codex Benedictus (photo from the University of Arizona)

Wright provided a slideshow which included various illustrations of how Northmen were depicted in various manuscripts and he discussed how up to 1133 Maurus had been shown as a Greek cleric (Monte Cassino would have been heavily influenced by the Eastern Empire) however after 1133 he was depicted in Western dress. This part of the presentation was good but for me the use made of Maurus in a power struggle was more interesting.

There was one final paper on the uses of humor in sagas which I won’t report on because I took really crummy notes, unfortunately (the paper and presentation were quite good). The day closed with some Old Norse readings (one of the grad students invited me to join their group – is there an unmet Ag School quota? – but I declined. I have enough trouble with Latin.)

1 A couple of months ago I woke up in the middle of the night and couldn’t get back to sleep. In flipping through the channels of very bad late night television, I came across a Viking movie where everyone, except Lee Majors who was the hero, wore horned helmets. I ended up watching the second half of it simply to marvel at how bad it was. Worst. Movie. Ever. At least dealing with Medieval History. And kind of funny.

2 In Eriksmal, “I stirred the Einherjar/Bade them Rise up,/Stir to their benches/Ready their ale-horns/For the Valkeries come bearing wine/at the coming of the prince.” This compares fairly well with Wealtheow’s role in lines 612-41 and 1161-1231 of Beowulf where she serves as hostess, cupbearer, and encourages the men.

 

The Alamanni: A Roman Myth

I recently finished reading John Drinkwater’s The Alamanni and Rome 213-496. Caracalla to Clovis. I started a review a few days ago and it’s been kicking my butt (I can’t seem to really do it justice in less than 3,000 or so words) so I’ve decided to throw in the towel and compose a brief post about the Alamanni, in particular how Rome viewed — and used — them. Re Drinkwater; This was a good book with a LOT of information. He’s a bit selective in the use of some of his sources and he has this annoying habit of bringing up an issue, devoting maybe one sentence to it without summarizing arguments and throwing you to a footnote, sometimes to something which is out of print. I grew to dread anything footnoted, “Drinkwater, 1983a.”1 There are also stretches where it seems to me that he’s making a logical argument rather than one based on evidence but, while it has a few warts, overall this is a good book. I was fortunate to find a used copy at Kalamazoo this year and I’ll be using it a lot in this post.

Now I don’t have space on this blog to post anything beyond a very brief summary of all this (and historians reading this blog can take a nap during this if you like – unless you find a mistake in which case I appreciate corrections) but the Alamanni may be the single best example of how Rome created barbarian tribes and exaggerated the threat they posed for their own ends. There isn’t a single reason for this; the reason likely varied from Emperor to Emperor. One reason pretty much has to be to emphasize their own military successes and their role as the protector of the Empire and the Roman people however there were undoubtedly others. To me, one of the main reasons this was effective was because the population had been given accounts of a barbarian threat for so long that they were ready to believe that there was some massive foreign force ready to invade and destroy Rome, restrained only by the bravery and actions of Roman soldiers and the Emperor.

Brennus, who led the Gauls during their 4th century, BC sack of Rome, continued to receive mention in literary sources through the fifth century. Caesar’s Gallic Wars, while a wonderful historical source, exaggerated the strength of the barbarians for Caesar’s own purposes. Even Tacitus, who seems to have really tried to get things right, portrays various barbarian groups as cohesive entities. Beyond this there were accounts of Marcus Aurelius’ Marcomannic Wars and an Iuthungi invasion into Italy somewhere around 271.2

This is the start of the myth. For the most part, the myth holds true for other barbarians along the Rhine, it’s just that for the Alamanni, the Roman creation is even more extreme. So who, or what, were the Alamanni? This is an interesting question. Drinkwater believes they were a bunch of folks who happened to live in the region between the Rhine and Danube which was lost to Rome in the 3rd century, part of the former Germania Superior. Their arrival was as what I’d characterize as “just folks.” Scattered small bands of people arrived from various places and settled in the region over a period of time. Drinkwater says, “Whatever the original meaning of the term ‘Alamanni’ and the manner in which it became attached to a certain set of people, the lesson of fourth century history and archaeology is that there was no invasion by a single, fully fledged people or consciously related association of tribes.”3

Drinkwater thinks they weren’t much of anything, as an entity, until at least the fourth century. To this point they consisted of tribal groups capable of developing a war-party of around 600, large enough to cause some serious damage if they crossed the Rhine and raided into the Empire but not sizable enough to represent any sort of invasion threat. In contrast, Thomas Burns believes they began to form a confederacy, coalescing around the Iuthungi, in the 270′s and 280′s. Figuring out the “truth” of this is one of those interesting pieces of history which historians argue over and which I enjoy reading about.4

The Alamanni, even more than the other barbarian “groups” appear to have been a diffuse group without really answering to a central authority. Nobody knows what or how the Alamanni thought of themselves. They didn’t write any books. When they were first mentioned in light of a Germanic campaign in 213, it appears likely that you could consider Dio’s Alamanni to actually be, People who happen to live in the region the Romans call Alamannia.5

Now every Human society has some sort of social structure, formal or not. I’m not saying that these folks didn’t but based on their extremely rural settlement patterns it seems likely that for much if not all of the third, and even into the fourth century, this structure would have been very local.

As time went on this slowly changed. These small clusters coalesced into larger groups and signs of local elites appears. Settlements became large enough that local industry and craftmanship, particularly with iron, appear. During the fourth century a new type of settlement appeared on hillsites. These are only occasionally walled but seem to indicate a vertical stratification of society and the appearance of local elites. These elites likely held positions of authority and it seems that by the mid-fourth century this had become at least somewhat hereditary. It’s hard to say where in the hierarchy residents of these sites ranked — this likely varied from site to site — however it’s hard to avoid believing that they would have asserted effective control over the immediate surroundings, at least to the extent that agricultural production would have been directed towards supplying their needs. Still, even here the geographic area likely controlled by these elite centers was relatively small and could not have represented large numbers of people. 6

From a Roman perspective, the Alamanni achieve stardom during the middle of the fourth century. In 354 Constantius II attacks the Alamanni in response to extensive raiding in Gaul, resulting in an eventual peace treaty and Constantius adopting a title recognizing this victory (which was achieved without casualties). Ammianus Marcellinus notes that seven Alamanni Kings, led by Chnodomarius, band together against Julian in 357 and are able to raise a force which Ammianus numbers at 35,000 at Strasbourg.7

By now you’re probably saying to yourself, “The Alamanni were a myth? What myth? They raised a pretty big army for that time, crossed the Rhine and attacked Rome. Doesn’t sound like a myth to me.”

While not always literally true, I’m quite fond of the old saying that myths are usually distortions based on fact. In this case, that seems true. Clearly the Alamanni had become more organized by the mid-fourth century. However the simple fact (I’m giving Ammianus the benefit here) that this consisted of the banding together of seven kings says to me that they weren’t very organized. There’s no reason to believe that Chnodomarius was any sort of “super king” embodied with the right to command all of these others. If that type of kingship was inherent with the Alamanni, I think we’d have heard much more of them both before and after the mid-fourth century. It’s also apparent that, in an extraordinary circumstance, these kings were able to work together, though how well is a matter for debate – they certainly lost, badly.

Whether they attacked Rome or acted primarily out of self-defense is at least somewhat debatable, and pretty dependent on POV. By this time the Alamanni had become a pretty useful client group. Alamannia seems to have become one of the first places Rome went to find some extra troops to serve locally in the army. During the usurpation of Magnentius the Alamanni may have been used by Constantius to weaken the usurper by encouraging them to raid into Gaul. Unfortunately, if this is what happened, they didn’t stop once Magnentius was defeated. Constantius had to move into Gaul to achieve his bloodless victory (see above). Things didn’t end there though as the Franks continued attacks to the north, including taking Cologne and Alamanni began settling on the western bank of the Rhine, providing Julian, once he was given command of the Western army, with a good excuse to attack.8

In any case, by 357 the Alamanni were able to band the forces of seven kings together at Strasbourg. Here they were a threat, at least in numbers. However in the ensuing battle they seem to have been less so. Ammianus provides a fairly detailed account of the battle where it appears that the Roman force was in some jeopardy, however his casualty figures of 6,000 Alamanni and 247 Romans tells a different story.9

Julian wasn’t finished with the barbarians. He proceeded to attack Alamanni settlements on both sides of the Rhine, completely driving them out of Roman territory, and took his army through Alamanni territory, destroying settlements and crops. Of course in 361 he was declared Emperor and left the area for the civil war that didn’t happen as Constantius died.

The Alamanni still show up after this but it appears that from this point forward they are largely mentioned either as raiding into Roman territory, or as clients and allies. Rome engaged in a strategy of gift-giving and payments and Alamanni periodically served in and with the Roman army. Based on the narratives, it appears that their high point came in the 350′s. This did not stop Roman Emperors from being willing to consider military success against raiders to be significant victories. Orators continued to trumpet Roman successes. The barbarians, including the Alamanni, continued to be considered a threat looming on the borders.

Based on the sources, unless you accept that the Suebi/Suevi mentioned as crossing the Rhine in 405/6 were another name for Alamanni, they never again really threaten Rome. Their final significant mention comes in 496 or 497 when Clovis defeats them at Zülpich.10 Drinkwater believes that from about 450, in the wake of the dissolution of the Hunnic Empire, the Alamanni began a process of becoming increasingly organized which, if the process had been allowed to run its course, may have led to their forming a kingdom such as the Visigoths, Burgundians, or Franks. However for them the process began too late and Zülpich ended any chance of this happening. By 506/7 Clovis and the Franks had taken over Alamannia and they became part of the Merovingian kingdom.

Ultimately, the Alamanni were never much of a threat to Rome. They caused some trouble through raiding and Constantius may have started a process where for a brief period they began settling on Roman lands, but they were never organized to the point where they could seriously think of invading. Their one major organization under Chnodomarius amounted to a bunch of kinglets gathering their forces in response to Roman attacks. Beyond this, most of their activity consisted of warbands crossing the Rhine to engage in pillaging raids, often in response to Rome reducing their subsidies. This obviously sucked if you happened to be a raided settlement and some Roman citizens were undoubtedly killed but they were never going to take over Roman territory by force.

But folks in Rome and Constantinople didn’t know this. They were hundreds of miles from the frontier. Messages from the border provinces likely focused on what was going wrong, not when everything was fine. Most of all, depictions of barbarians in literature, triumphs celebrated for victories over barbarians, barbarians being killed during state games, and oratory, all supported the concept of a barbarian menace, only kept from Rome’s door by the valor of its leaders.

Occasionally barbarians could be a real threat. The Goths in the wake of Adrianople show this, and if Chnodomarius had won at Strasbourg things would likely have gone badly for local residents of the area, until another Roman force could have cleaned things up. For the most part though, the image of barbarians threatening Rome, or even the border provinces of the Empire, is a Roman myth until the fifth century. This is true for various barbarian groups including the Franks and Burgundians. It is particularly true for the Alamanni, a group that never really achieved the sort of structure necessary to become a real threat to the Empire.

1 In case you’re curious, this refers to, Drinkwater, John F., Roman Gaul: The Three Provinces, 58 B.C.-A.D. 260. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press (1983). ISBN: 978-0-8014-1642-2. Based on Amazon and Cornell University Press (using the search term, “Drinkwater”), it appears to be out of print.

2 Drinkwater, 2003, pp 70-75, argues that this invasion may have occurred in 260 and the event of 271 was more along the lines of a raid or foraging incursion, motivated by Aurelian ending subsidies which had been established following the earlier invasion. In any case, this threat evidently impressed the Roman people enough to inspire the construction of the Aurelian Walls. For an example of the persistence of the memory of the fourth century BC Gallic invasion, see Themistius, Or.3.43c, delivered in 357 in honor of Constantius.

3 From Drinkwater, 2003, p 45.

4 See Burns, 2003, p. 278 and Drinkwater, 2007, p 80. For Drinkwater, it takes his entire Chapter 3, “Settlement,” pp 80-116, to really get a handle on his position. For one thing, he prefers the terms “Elbgermanic” and “proto Alamanni” which infer that who the Romans called Alamanni were mainly “just people.”

5 Drinkwater, 2003, p 44 has a short discussion of some modern historians believing Dio’s mention of Alamanni to be a later addition by translators and explains why he disagrees with this. Cassius Dio’s Roman History 78.13.4-6 discusses the 213 campaign which consists of Caracalla running around and deciding to build forts and cities here and there which does not give me the impression that the Alamanni were capable of any sort of organized resistance.

6 Two interesting perspectives are provided here. Drinkwater, 2003, pp 100-3 believes these were rarely walled and is careful to call them “hill-sites.” He also proposes that the Romans may have assisted with the construction of some of these sites as a means of getting locals to assist with Roman security just across the Rhine. Edward James, 2009, pp 142-3 calls these hill-forts and adds some interesting details including evidence of relatively sophisticated trading activity such as the presence of scales, weights and silver ingots.

7 I’m not going to list all of the Ammianus mentions of the Alamanni. Let’s just say that they are prominent, first appearing in Book 10 of his History with their final mention in Book 27. However XVI.12 describes the Battle of Strasbourg and the subsequent campaign is covered in XVII.1. Eutropius, writing(probably) in 369 in his Breviarium, X.14, doesn’t use exact numbers but says that, “Julian, with only a modest force, overwhelmed vast numbers of Alamanni at Strasbourg …” Drinkwater, 2003, pp 238-9 believes the Alamanni numbered in the neighborhood of 15,000.

8 Drinkwater footnotes multiple sources for this; Libanius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Zosimus and Ammianus. I don’t have Libanius but I have the other four and I’ll quote from my translation of Socrates III.1.26, “For the barbarians whom the Emperor Constantius had engaged as auxiliary forces against the tyrant Magnentius, having proved of no use against the usurper, were beginning to pillage the Roman cities.”

9 Ammianus VI.12.63 for casualties. While the number of Alamanni dead can probably be summarized as Ammianus saying, “The Romans killed a whole bunch of them,” the number of Roman dead is likely to be fairly accurate.

10 Gregory of Tours, Historiae 2.30. I’ve mentioned before (see note 15) how it seems that Gregory can’t really be trusted when talking about things which happened either a long time before or geographically distant from when and where he was however this event was so seminal to the formation of the Merovingian kingdom that it seems likely that his account is substantially true. Of course Gregory is more concerned with Clovis’ conversion than the battle itself.

Bird, H. W., trans., Eutropius: Breviarium. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press (1993). ISBN:978-0-8532-3208-7.

Burns, Thomas S., Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C.-A.D. 400. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN: 978-0-8018-7306-5.

Cary, Earnest, trans., Dio’s Roman History. Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library (1961).

Drinkwater, John F., The Alamanni and Rome 213-496. Caracalla to Clovis. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2007). ISBN: 978-0-19-929586-5.

Heather, Peter and Moncur, David, ed. & trans., Politics, Philosophy and Empire in the Fourth Century: Select Orations of Themistius. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press (2001). ISBN: 978-0-8532-3106-6.

James, Edward, Europe’s Barbarians, AD 200-600. Harlow: Pearson Education (2009). ISBN: 978-0-582-77296-0.

Rolfe, John C., trans., Ammianus Marcellinus: History (3 vols). Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library (2000).

Socrates Scholasticus, The Eccelesiastical History. Nu Vision Publications (2007). ISBN: 978-1-5954-7906-8. NOTE: This is one of these cheap OOP reprint editions which I bought a few years ago when I was poorer and not concerned with making blog posts. It doesn’t even say who the original translation was by, which is weak. I have several of these and someday I should start updating them, at least if I’m going to keep citing them.

Thorpe, Lewis, trans., Gregory of Tours: The History of the Franks. London: Penguin Books (1974). ISBN: 9-780140-442953.

 

Early Medieval Law Codes and Medicine II

Warning! This Post Contains Graphic Content!!!

OK, to me the graphic content in this post isn’t as bad as in my first post on the topic, but it still has some so I thought I’d repeat the warning. I have a more serious purpose with this post than discussing a wound which would leave you unfit for anything other than the lead if Jethro Tull dusted off one of their songs to make a new music video.

In reading Lisi Oliver’s The Body Legal in Barbarian Law I was struck by her mention of several instances where a value is placed on injuries which at one time I would have considered to be pretty much an automatic death sentence before modern medicine, particularly without the availability of antibiotics to counter sepsis. Evidently, as a value which is less than a person’s full wergild is assigned to these injuries, people could sometimes recover from them. I thought I’d take a post to discuss this in a bit more detail.

Before I get started, for those of you less familiar with Germanic (sorry Goffart!) law codes, I want to give a very brief explanation of the concept of wergild. Every person in a given Germanic society is assigned a value. This value is usually equal to the amount a murderer would be required to pay the victim’s family to avoid possible repercussions, or from being “handed over” to the family. These are interesting in and of themselves as they help indicate how valuable that society considered members of a certain social class to be, as well as revealing what skills/abilities/characteristics were important. For example, in Frankish society a free woman of childbearing age had a wergild of 600, the same as that of a nobleman and three times that of a normal freeman, indicating the value of the ability to produce children. Penalties for lesser crimes are sometimes set at a percentage of wergild. For example, among the Alamanni, if someone is killed by a dog then the owner of the dog owes half the man’s wergild (though there is an interesting clause in this case requiring the dog to be hung over its owner’s door until it rots away and the owner must enter and leave his home only through that door until decomposition is complete). However sometimes the price for these penalties is a flat value. Returning to the Alamanni, if someone causes a woman to abort, he or she owes 12 solidi if the child is male, 24 if it is female. 1

This type of system has often been characterized as primitive. To me the civil court system, at least in the US, functions very similarly. In an early medieval case an assessment was made of a person’s value, how much the injury or death was worth and a punitive penalty was sometimes assigned. Items such as potential earning ability, impacts on quality of life, cost of medical care, etc., were factored in. The conflict may have been settled out of court by agreement of the two parties but if they chose the judicial route there were fairly strict criteria for selecting a judge and witness testimony was highly valued. I don’t see a lot of difference between these medieval cases and a modern lawsuit (once you accept the lack of scientific evidence available back then).

I had always been of the opinion that certain injuries from those days would have been pretty much a death sentence. After all, while they had some pretty solid herbal remedies, they didn’t have antibiotics and while they had knowledge of the general concept that clean was better than dirty for injuries, they had no concept of germs. It’s apparent that simple injuries, amputations, or even abdominal wounds which didn’t damage internal organs could be recovered from. The assignment of penalties to these wounds, at rates below full wergild, indicates that survival could be expected.

There are certain wounds I would have considered extremely serious but sometimes survivable. Among these would have been non-penetrating trauma which caused serious internal injuries and wounds which penetrated the peritoneum but did not damage internal organs. Interestingly, the former receives almost no mention in the law codes. There’s nothing pointing to, say, coughing blood because a rib punctures a lung, urinating blood because kidneys are damaged (this is particularly surprising to me because of how common it should have been) or excreting blood due to lower GI injuries. Apparently, if there weren’t visible, external signs of injury, it didn’t matter. Wounds to the abdomen do receive mention in many of the codes. The Franks have some provisions discussing if the wound doesn’t heal but continuously seeps. 2

There are some wounds mentioned by the law codes which I would have expected survival from to be extremely rare, nearly nonexistent. Two of these involve the abdomen. In one, the abdomen is cut so the internal organs spill out and must be replaced. Now folks back then had a pretty decent knowledge of anatomy and they would certainly have known to clean things up before stuffing everything back in but I would still expect this sort of injury to introduce foreign matter into the body cavity, something I understand to be pretty much a death sentence. A related wound is one to the abdomen which also damages the intestines so that excrement comes out. Again, this is contamination with foreign matter, in this case material which is loaded with bacteria. A medieval surgeon would have had the choice of sewing up the intestines with stitches which couldn’t be removed or tucking the excrement-leaking intestines back in. I probably need to read Galen or Hippocrates but I can’t imagine they’d leave the body open while the intestines healed and wait until then to close the wound. These two types of wounds are such that I would have expected near certain death, however values at less than full wergild were assessed for them, so evidently they were survivable at least some of the time. 3

The other wound category involves those to the head. And not just a head wound but those which expose the brain. Again, there are two categories. In one the brain is simply exposed. I can see how this might be survived though I’d expect this to be rare. The other involves a head injury such that the brain protrudes out of the skull. This is another I’d expect to be almost always fatal, but it is dealt with in the law codes so evidently the medievals had ways of treating it. In fact, in the Alamannic code this is portrayed as relatively common, “If, however, the brain protrudes from the wound, as often happens, so that a physician mends (the skull) with medication or silk and afterwards (the patient) recovers, and this is proved to be true, let him (the giver of the blow) compensate with forty solidi.” 4

Clearly I’m underestimating either; the ability of the body to fight off infection caused by exposure to or introduction of foreign materials or; the ability of medievals to treat such injuries. Or both. I don’t have a ton of medieval medical manuals and this isn’t something I’ve read a lot on. Thanks to Stephen Pollington(2008) I do have a few Anglo-Saxon sources. Bald’s Leechbook includes a treatment for wounds of the head where the bones are broken. The Leechbook also contains instructions for “… if one’s bowels be out …” but I suspect this refers to a prolapse. Examples of trepanation known through archaeological finds are fairly numerous so they were willing to drill holes in someone’s head if necessary. 5

Herbal remedies were also available. The Old English Herbarium suggests that, “If a man’s head be broken …” the patient should drink a concoction made of bishopswort and hot beer. Drink enough of it and I bet you would feel better. 6

This is something I need to read more on and it appears that early medieval medicine is more sophisticated than I have given it credit for. I suspect a reading of Galen and Hippocrates would be useful. I’m not sure how available these would have been to early medieval doctors however Galen’s Therapeutics to Glaucon, Hippocrates Aphorisms and a text, The Wisdom of the Art of Medicine were, among others, in circulation. I also want to get a copy of the Frisian laws. According to Oliver, they were very concerned with specifics of anatomy.

Once again, even after all the reading I’ve done, I’ve come across something which surprised me. This is really cool, happens fairly often, and if it ever stops happening I have a feeling I’ll have to find a new hobby. Of course it also leaves me with the sense of how much I don’t know but that’s OK too.

The following abbreviations will be used to identify law codes in the notes:

PLA – Pactus Legis Alamannorum
LLA – Alamannic Laws from the Lantfridana Manuscripts
BL – Bavarian Laws (from the Ingolstadt Manuscript)
PLS – Pactus Legis Salicae (Salic Law)
LSK – Lex Salica Karolina (Charlemagne’s update to the Salic Law)

1 For being killed by a dog, see LLA, XCVI.3. For abortion, LLA, LXXXVIII.1. I should also mention that when an offender was handed over to the victim’s family, general opinion is that this would usually be to serve the family as a slave until it is judged that the debt is paid, not to be killed. See Oliver(2011) pp 49-51 for a discussion of this. One of the main points of the wergild system was to reduce violence by providing non-violent means of compensation. I doubt they would have legalized turning someone over to be tortured and/or killed which would only serve to continue the violence/retribution cycle.

2 Oliver (2011), p 59 in discussing a poisoning case, “The resulting harm, in any case, would have damaged the internal organs which (except in Frisia) were not protected by law.” For non-healing abdominal wounds see PLS, XVII.7, LSK, XV.6.

3 Oliver (2011), p 129, “Frisia includes a fine for causing the intestines to spill out such that they have to be replaced.” The Alamans, LLA, LVII.57, include a fine for, “If, however, he mutilates the intestines so that the excrement comes out, let him compensate with forty solidi.”

4 LLA, LVII.7. The Alamans, LLA, LVII.6 also include compensation of 12 solidi where, “… the brain appears and a physician can touch it with a feather or a cloth …”. This is the most specific account but the Bavarians, Frisians and Franks all include compensation for injuries in which the brain is exposed. In addition to those quoted see Oliver(2011), p 86 referencing the Frisians and; BL, IV.6, V.5 and VI.5; PLS, XVII.4 and XVII.5; LSK, XV.4; PLA, I.1. Another interesting aspect to head injuries which I’m not going to cover here is that of compensation being established by determining if a piece of bone broken off was large enough to hear it strike a shield when you threw it.

5 Bald’s Leechbook, III.33 for the head and III.73 for bowels.

6 Old English Herbarium, 1.Bishopwort/Betonica.

Drew, Katherine Fischer, trans., The Laws of the Salian Franks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (1991). ISBN: 978-0-8122-1322-5.

Oliver, Lisi, The Body Legal in Barbarian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (2011). ISBN: 978-0-8020-9706-4.

Pollington, Stephen, Leechcraft: Early English Charms, Plant Lore, and Healing. Hereward: Anglo-Saxon Books (2008). ISBN: 978-1-898281-47-4.

Rivers, Theodore John, trans., Laws of the Alamans and Bavarians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (1977). ISBN: 0-8122-7731-7.

Wallis, Faith, ed., Medieval Medicine: A Reader. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (2010). ISBN: 978-1-4426-0103-1.

 

Early Medieval Law Codes and Medicine I

WARNING: This Post Contains Graphic Content!!!

Now that I’ve helped increase site traffic sufficiently warned everybody, I should clarify that this doesn’t contain any nudity but there may be some items which have a certain yuck factor.

NOTE: I originally intended this to be a single post but after the length of my tangential digression I decided to split it into two parts. The second part will discuss some of my thoughts on the kinds of injuries which folks in Late Antiquity might have a reasonable prospect of surviving, some of which I would once have considered to be pretty much a death sentence. Click here for Part II.

I finished reading Lisi Oliver’s The Body Legal in Barbarian Law a week or so ago. She uses evidence from the various laws/law codes of Roman successor kingdoms to evaluate, based on the value placed on injury to various parts of the body, what the barbarians (I’ll use her terminology here) reveal regarding the importance of the physical form. For example, she takes some time to discuss what parts of the body are most important functionally vs which are most important aesthetically. By looking at whether a law assigns greater value to damage to a functionally or aesthetically important body part she can look at what’s more important to one of the barbarian groups and does this vary with social status. For example, is an aesthetic body part valued more highly for an elite female as opposed to a slave male. This is an interesting book and if the subject intrigues you, I encourage you to take a look at it.

But this is not a review of this book. As I was reading her account she discusses some injuries which, 15 years ago, I would have thought would have been an automatic death sentence before the advent of modern drugs to counter sepsis, particularly antibiotics. She also mentioned one injury which absolutely freaks me out.

I’m going to open with my gross-out tangent which really isn’t relevant to the second part of this post as the injury is neither life-threatening or fixable (back then anyway). I’m going to begin with an anecdote. In Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four one of the most important scenes – perhaps the most important – occurs towards the end of the account of Winston’s being broken by O’Brien. Winston’s had the dog beaten out of him – he’s been starved, beaten, tortured, but there’s still a piece of him, at his core, that remains intact. Leading up to this there have been occasional references to a specific room which the other prisoners say is “the worst place in the world” (I’m paraphrasing – the book’s here somewhere but I haven’t found it). So O’Brien takes Winston in there. Winston defiantly tells O’Brien that despite everything that’s been done to him, he hasn’t betrayed Julia, his lover. We’ve previously had hints (though I hadn’t made the connection to this point) that Winston is very frightened of rats. O’Brien pulls out some sort of cage device which holds some huge, starving, ravenous rats. He places it on Winston’s head and describes how, once released, the rats will go for his eyes and burrow through his cheeks to get at his tongue. As O’Brien’s about to release the catch and Winston can hear the rats scrambling around trying to get at him, Winston screams, “Do it to Julia! Tear her face off! Eat her eyes!” or something like that. The final breaking of Winston.

In thinking about this when I read it the first time (I was in my teens) I was pretty sure that the worst place in the world for me would have been being fitted with a similar helmet, but one filled with yellowjackets. Any social bee or wasp would have done but the yellowjackets would have been the worst. When I was 9 I stepped in a ground nest, got stung a bunch of times and had to be taken to the hospital. Ever since then I’ve had a pretty strong fear of bees. At one time I considered it overwhelming. I’m better now – if I see the bees/wasps I can deal with them rationally. I know what sets them off and how to behave. And I’ve been stung since and it’s not that bad. But if a sudden buzzing happens in my ear, I still have a moment of panic.

Lisi Oliver has given me a new, not place but worst thing in the world, at least for a little while. In discussing wounds to the nose she writes of Ripuarian and Alamannic laws that, “If, however, a sufficient amount has been struck off so that mucus dribbles from the stump; a fine equal to the full penalty for eye or ear is required. This legislation addresses the physical task of the nose to contain mucus.” 1

OK, I’d never once considered a wound which would expose the sinuses to such an extent that snot would be constantly running down your face. This first passage of hers was bad enough but she becomes a bit more explicit later.

In Ripuarian law, a damaged nose that can still contain mucus must be compensated for with fifty solidi, but if the stump cannot hold mucus (mucare non possit), the penalty is doubled to 100 solidi – 50 per cent of a freeman’s wergild. Certainly these rulings consider the greater degree of injury to the dribbling stump; however, it seems at least possible that in setting the assessment for the perpetual drip, the Ripuarian legislators may also have taken into account the visual embarrassment. If this hypothesis is true, the punitive surcharge would not seem to have been assessed in Alamann law, in which restitution for slicing off a sufficient portion of the nose so that mucus flows freely is a mere twelve solidi, or 6 per cent of wergild.2

That one did it for me. I’ve often found humor in folks who express a desire to have lived even a couple of hundred, let alone a thousand or more years ago. I suspect what they would (in the vast majority of cases anyway) like is to visit and then come back home. I like camping for a few days at a time but this does not mean I want to live my entire life without electricity or flush toilets. For me, the new worst thing in the world would be to have my nose sliced off so that mucus would constantly be running down my face because my sinus cavities would be exposed to that degree, and in a world without the prospect of cosmetic surgery to fix it. I suspect that this is a temporary condition and that with time my phobia will return to stinging wasps, however this was a powerful enough visual image for me that I felt it my duty to share it with anyone who reads this blog.

Feel free to thank me. ;)

1 Oliver (2011), p 93.

2 Oliver (2011), p 168.

Oliver, Lisi, The Body Legal in Barbarian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (2011). ISBN: 978-0-8020-9706-4.

Orwell, George, Nineteen Eighty-Four, originally published in 1949. There are various editions out there including inexpensive paperbacks. If you haven’t read it, I encourage you to.

 

Rutilius Claudius Namatianus and His Trip from Rome to Gaul

In 417 a wealthy Gallo-Roman by the name of Rutilius Claudius Namatianus traveled from Rome to his estates in Gaul. Then he wrote a poem about his trip, De Reditu Suo. And we have some of it, a big chunk of one book and a bit of a second. Cool, right?

Unfortunately, the poem doesn’t reveal quite as much about the fifth century as either Hydatius’ Chronicle or Salvian’s book on what God was really up to then, but it has some interesting information. In particular, following the sack of Rome and Visigothic occupation of much of Gaul, it provides another window into what contemporary inhabitants of the Roman Empire thought of things. In contrast to the above authors, Namatianus does not seem to believe the world is falling apart. Quite the opposite; based on this poem he believes things have turned a corner and are looking up. Besides showing the attitude of an elite Roman during this specific time it also is a nice illustration of how quickly things were changing in the second decade of the fifth century.

The edition I read is a reprint of something that was originally published in 1907. In many ways it’s equally interesting to read what folks thought about all this a hundred years ago though I’ll save a discussion of that for the end of this post.1

As usual, a brief bio seems to be in order, and this will indeed be brief. We don’t know when or where Namatianus was born and we have no idea when or where he died. We know little of him at all actually though we do find out that his father was pretty high on the Roman food chain and Namatianus tells us that the same held true for himself. 2

From the content of the poem we learn that Namatianus has estates in Gaul and is evidently a member of the wealthy landowning class. The point of this trip is that he is going to tend after his estates in Gaul which are in need of care.

The poet provides a great deal of detail about the trip, including how far his party traveled and what they saw each day. For the portion covered by the poem (not all of it survives) this is a sea voyage from Rome to Pisa with the poem ending after they left the Pisan harbor. This was not a single long sea voyage but a series of short legs as they traveled along the Italian coast and spent each night on shore. The editor of this edition believes the dates of the surviving portion of the poem are from September 22 to November 21. 3

Many people appreciate the poem for its descriptive elements and how Namatianus portrays the various cities and landmarks he passed along the way. For myself, I’m more interested in what it says about the state of the Empire in the year 417, when this trip took place.

At that time the Visigoths, who had been living in Gaul, had recently moved to Spain where they stayed for a brief period before they received lands in Gaul through a treaty signed in 418. The Visigothic journey through the Empire to that point was a fairly convoluted one. Alaric had sacked Rome in 410, then moved to the south of Italy where he died. His brother, Athaulf, took over the leadership and moved them back north into Gaul where they remained until being driven into Spain by Constantius in 415.

Namatianus makes several references in the poem to the Goths and the damage they have caused, both to Rome and Gaul. He speaks of how his Gallic fields have been marred by war and demand his attention so he can build anew. 4

Namatianus clearly believes that Rome will recover. Early in the poem he spends substantial time praising the city, professing his love for Rome and describing how, while she has been harmed, she has recovered from greater depths than this. The Goths are a temporary setback. Rome is eternal. The Gods (there is little doubt he is a pagan) have and will continue to protect her. Her greatness has perhaps been marred a bit but this is a small setback. Rome is recovering, as are his estates. In contrast to Hydatius, Salvian and Sidonius Apollinaris, Namiatus believes that, for this snapshot in time, 417, Rome is strong and in no danger. 5

There are two other items that caught my attention. First, Namatianus hates Jews. He absolutely reviles them. They are a “filthy race” and one is “An animal that spurns at human food.” An interesting question is whether he distinguishes between Jews and Christians. I suspect he is well-informed enough to do so. This does not, of course, mean that he believes the differences between the two are substantial. He may even be using his vilification of Jews as a way to express similar feelings toward Christians. He takes the opportunity to criticize the monks of Capraria as mad and says that they are punishing themselves deservedly for evil. It’s impossible to say if his feelings towards the monks are extended to all Christians but it is certainly possible. 6

He is even more vitriolic against Stilicho. Stilicho burned the Sybilline Books. He opened the protective barrier of the Alps and allowed Rome to be pillaged. The barbarians were invited into Rome, to commit murder. Nero was horrible for killing his mother but Stilicho was responsible for the death of the mother of the world. Namatianus reviles Stilicho more than anyone or anything else in this poem. 7

There’s one other passage that interested me. In this poem Namatianus discusses various friends of his who he meets along the way. One of these is Victorinus. Victorinus was apparently the deputy for the Prefect whose authority included Britain. While this is well after Rome had abandoned Britain, evidently a Roman official continued to be assigned responsibility for it. Did this mean Rome believed it would take Britain back or was this symbolic only? I can’t say, though based on the rest of the poem it seems likely that Namatianus believed Rome could regain everything it had lost (or at least he wrote a poem which made it seem like he believed it). 8

As I noted above, I went ahead and read through the introductory section. It’s interesting to see how thinking has changed on some items over the past century. For example, Keene does not believe Namatianus would have been capable of showing warmth to a Christian however there are plenty of examples of Christians and Pagans being good friends. There were zealots such as Ambrose and the mob at Alexandria that killed Hypatia however there were also Christians who believed themselves to be advanced philosophers and didn’t behave that way. Keene also depicts the trip as extremely dangerous and the poem does not give this sense at all and at that moment in time there is little reason for it to have been. 9

I don’t believe this poem tells us nearly as much as Hydatius, Salvian or Sidonius, but it does provide some information. In contrast to the writings of the three former authors, for Namatianus Rome is still strong, her future bright. At this specific time the threat of the Goths has been lifted, the great landowners are still prosperous and with a little work, life will continue as it always has. One wonders what a poem of his would have looked like ten years later.

1 I debated ignoring the introductory section and decided to read through it, thankfully. I also want to note that while it includes both the English and Latin, the English and Latin do not match up on the facing pages but generally you had to flip a page or two further on to find the matching Latin. This raises an interesting dilemma for notation and I’ve decided that when I reference something the line number will represent where I found the Latin and the page number will reference the English which is what I’ll quote when a quote seems called for. I hope this is clear. Seems a strange way to publish a book but there it is. While my Latin is far from strong the poem contains many proper names and references to geographic locations so I was able to keep track reasonably well, I hope. I suppose this is as good of a place as any to mention that I found this a tough read. Namatianus’ style is florid at best. He’s often called, “The Last of the Roman Poets.” Personally, I think whoever is given that title should have written a better poem.

2 For Namatianus’ father see I.579-585, p 157 where he is Prefect of Tuscany, Quaestor, Prefect of Rome and the Imperial Treasurer. For Namatianus see I.561-4, p 155 where he says, “I of old by office held control over the palace and the soldiery guarding the pious Emperor.” which would make him Magister Officiorum and I.466, p 148 where we learn that he was Praefecti Urbi or Prefect of Rome, like his father.

3 There are several interludes where, for weather or other reasons, the travelers remained in one place for several days. For a discussion of the astronomical signs mentioned in the poem indicating the dates of the trip, see the Introduction, pp 8-9. Also, at the time of this edition the journey was believed to have taken place in 416 while a fragment of the poem discovered later indicates that it took place in 417.

4 For his ravaged lands, see I.19-34, p 111. For references to the Goths see I.39-40, p 113 and a lengthy passage referencing the fall of the Goths and recovery of the earth at I.141-154, p 121. Namatianus refers to them as Getae which can be used to refer to a number of barbarian groups however he’s specific enough with his references that it seems fairly clear that he’s discussing Alaric’s and Athaulf’s Goths.

5 This theme repeats itself several times but nowhere stronger than in this opening section, I.47-204, pp 113-121.

6 For Jews see, I.380-398, p 141. For the monks see, I.440-452, pp 145-7.

7 II.41-60, pp 165-7.

8 I.493-501, pp 149-51.

9 Introduction, p 24 for Keene’s discussion of Namatianus’ likely feelings toward Christians and p 13 for his describing the trip as difficult and perilous.

Rutilii Claudii Namatiani, De Reditu Suo Libri Duo: The Home-Coming of Rutilius Claudius Namatianus from Rome to Gaul in the Year 416 A.D., Charles Haines Keene, ed., George F. Savage Armstrong, trans. London: George Bell & Sons (1907), Nabu Reprint (2010). ISBN: 978-1-1763-8714-0.

 

Hydatius and the End of the World

I love these fifth century authors – they’re even better than the folks in the fourth. I’ve just finished going through the Chronicle of Hydatius. Seriously cool.

Before I get started, Hydatius was a bishop in the province of Gallaecia, in northwest Spain. He was born around 400 and died around 470. His chronicle is a continuation of Jerome’s and covers the years 379-468.

The reason I love the fifth century folks is they all have a different take on what was taking place. Now I’m willing to admit that for 85% of the people living in those days; slaves, coloni, the poor free, etc., life went on pretty much as it always had, though with a change at the top. I’m not willing to go so far as to say that nothing changed except who was at the top of the pyramid for society, social structure, the economy, etc. To an elite with a classical education, including Hydatius, this was a massive upheaval. However each of these authors has a unique perspective which is not echoed by the others.

For Hydatius, this was it. The world was ending. He wasn’t a witness to the Apocalypse itself but to the days leading up to it. Hydatius may even have had a date in mind of May 27, 482.1 He expresses a belief that he did not have long to live and wouldn’t live to see the end, but it would surely come; “Such then are the contents of the present volume, but I have left it to my successors (to include an account of) the Last Days, at that time at which they encounter them.” 2

If you’re looking for a source to support the old, tired tradition that the End of the Roman Empire was basically an invasion by a bunch of animalistic barbarians intent on rape, pillage, plunder and the destruction of all that’s good in the world, Hydatius is your man. You have your pestilence, sack and destruction of cities, slaughter of innocents, and even cannibalism. Hydatius’ picture of the fifth century is monstrous. 3

Interestingly, for all Hydatius’ belief that these are the last days, he does show some balance. He includes that during Alaric’s sack of Rome, those who hid in churches were spared. Theoderic’s sack of Bracara on October 28, 456 is horrible but “was accomplished without bloodshed.” Hydatius himself was taken prisoner by some Suevi and held captive for three months. Throughout his account, Aetius appears as someone who constantly fights and defeats barbarians. 4

So for Hydatius, life sucks, the world sucks, and while creation itself doesn’t suck, its suckiness is such that God has decided to end it. I once mentioned that I found Salvian to be rather anti-jovial in his outlook. Compared to Hydatius, he was the Good Humor Man.

So here’s where perspective comes into play. Christians had been predicting that the Apocalypse would come soon ever since Paul (by the fifth century some exceptions, notably Augustine, were showing up). Hydatius clearly believed that the signs were there. The problem is, Hydatius was a bishop of an obscure (by that time) province in Spain which became a major battleground between the Goths, Vandals and Suevi. Gallaecia appears to have been a mess. Unsurprisingly, Hydatius did not possess much of a world view. While he knows of major events such as Geiseric’s sack of Carthage, much of his account, particularly from 460 on, is focused exclusively on his home province. Were things as bad as Hydatius says? They may have been, locally. However there’s little evidence that you can broaden his account to include the entire Roman West. For all that he seems to believe it is, things were not the same everywhere. 5

It’s also interesting to consider how Hydatius’ perspective compares with other sources. Salvian, while the world sucks for him too, does not see an Apocalypse. What he believes is happening is that the barbarians are being sent as a Divine Punishment for the sins of the Romans and, to take this concept one step further, believes the barbarians have become God’s favored people over the Romans because of the latter’s sins. Sidonius Apollinaris is also an unhappy camper, particularly when the Auvergne was ceded to the Goths, but does not seem to believe in an imminent Apocalypse either. Augustine comes to not place much stock in Rome at all and believes the advent of the barbarians is (among other reasons) so Christianity can be spread among other groups and to new regions. I’ve not read Prosper of Aquitaine’s Chronicle but my understanding is that (as might be expected) his thinking roughly echoes Augustine’s.

Hydatius is at the Apocalyptic end of the spectrum of fifth century sources. Some people certainly believed as he did and considered that the end was coming. But this outlook was not the rule among fifth century authors.

Whatever his worldview, Hydatius is an important fifth century source. For me, he’s going to fit in with Sidonius and Salvian as my favorite sources for the period where the Empire was ending. I have many of the Eastern sources including Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius Scholasticus, Socrates Scholasticus, Zosimus and the Paschale Chronicle. But while these all have value in recounting events, they weren’t written by authors who lived in the West. The folks who lived those days, on location, provided us with not just a record of events, but how some people, at least among the elites, may have felt about it. 6

NOTE: An interesting aside, or at least it struck me as interesting, is that Hydatius discusses the Huns leaving Italy in 452. He mentions that Aetius slaughtered many of them (that this happened is debatable – and there’s a second Aetius) and they were afflicted by “heaven-sent disasters” such as plague and famine. However Hydatius says nothing of Pope Leo’s delegation or that the Huns left because of, or even after, this meeting. This may mean nothing beyond Hydatius not having a good handle on things going on outside of Spain but it sure caught my attention. 7

1 Burgess (1993), p 9.

2 Hydatius, Introduction, 1, p 73, “… as much at the end of the world as at the end of my life …” and Introduction, 6, p 75. NOTE: The Burgess edition is a facing translation with the original Latin and the English. My notes will reference the page of the English translation. And as long as I’m including a note on notes, I don’t like using “ibid” and won’t.

3 Not sure where to start with these – if this was an academic paper or book this is where you’d see half a page of notes. For cannibalism for the year 410 we have Hydatius 40, p 83, “A famine ran riot, so dire that driven by hunger human beings devoured human flesh; mothers too feasted upon the bodies of of their own children whom they had killed and cooked with their own hands … And thus with the four plagues of sword, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts raging everywhere throughout the world, the annunciations foretold by the Lord through his prophets came to fulfilment.” This is the worst but, among others(there’s a wide selection), you can also see Hydatius 164, p 107, Hydatius 167, p. 107 and Hydatius 179, pp 109-11.

4 For Alaric, see Hydatius 35, p 81. For Bracara, see Hydatius 167, p. 107. For his captivity, see Hydatius 196, p 113 and 202, p 115. The portrayal of Aetius by various sources is interesting and may be worth its own post at some point. For Hydatius, Aetius almost comes across as a heroic figure, valiantly battling to save civilization until his murder.

5 For a good assessment of Hydatius’ portrayal of Spain during this period, see Kulikowski (2004) pp 197-203. It’s hard to prove a negative but I’m unaware of anything like a massive burial pit which shows evidence of human cannibalism. In fact, I’m unaware of any massive burial pit which would provide evidence for the sort of rapid depopulation during the 5th century as was once commonly believed to have happened.

6 I hope people will forgive me if I don’t include the Eastern authors in my bibliography. I’m happy to provide that information on request though to be honest, many of these are cheap reprint editions as I bought them when I was more concerned about my budget than I am now.

7 Hydatius 146, p 103.

Hydatius, Chronicle in, The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana: Two Contemporary Accounts of the Final Years of the Roman Empire, R.W. Burgess, ed. and trans. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN: 978-0-198-147879.

Kulikowski, Michael, Late Roman Spain and Its Cities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press (2004). ISBN: 978-0-801-879784.

Salvian the Presbyter, On the Governance of God: The Writings of Salvian the Presbyter, J.F. O’Sullivan, trans. New York: CIMA Publishing (1947).

Sidonius Apollinaris, Sidonius: Letters, W.B. Anderson, trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1997). ISBN: 978-0-674-994621.

Sidonius Apollinaris, Sidonius: Poems, Letters, Books I-II, W.B. Anderson, trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1996). ISBN: 978-0-674-993273.

 

Book Review: Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. 568-774

Everett, Nicholas, Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. 568-774. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2003). ISBN:978-0-521-17410.

This is a book which discusses the uses of writing and written forms of communication during the period of Lombard rule in Italy. Whether this truly represents literacy will be discussed below. 1

Everett opens by providing a brief historical narrative discussing Italy prior to the Lombards and detailing the first years following their arrival. He then examines examples of Lombard writing, dividing these by chapters in well-ordered, logical categories. The titles of chapters three through seven are simple and descriptive of their contents; “Language and Literacy,” “Law and Government,” “Charters,” “Inscriptions” and, “Manuscripts.”

Everett spends most of the book closely examining surviving texts. Charters, law codes and monumental inscriptions are described in some depth regarding their form, functions, evolution and authorship. Manuscript production in Bobbio and Monte Casigno receive considerable attention. A section on the use of scripts is particularly detailed and informative. (306-16) If you want to know what Lombard writing has survived, this book will prove to be a very good resource.

However this is the high point. In examining the quality of this book the first question which comes to mind is; Does Everett in fact address literacy? I believe he does not. He extensively discusses the forms of writings, their uses and dissemination. He provides detailed information on various forms of texts and inscriptions. He provides excellent information regarding the evolution of Lombard law codes. Yet nowhere is there a discussion of the level of literacy among the population. Instead he resorts to a sort of “literacy by implication.” As many texts are in existence and many more must have been present during the period, literacy must have been at a fairly high level. There will have been significant numbers of literate, certainly among the higher levels of society. Unfortunately, Everett never attempts to quantify this or even provide detailed evidence regarding it and the existence or nonexistence of lay literacy is never addressed. Indeed, the most substantial argument for literacy is contained in the introduction where Everett argues that while literacy levels may not have been high, the use of formulaic subscriptions and the number of witnesses signing charters indicates that a substantial portion of the population recognized the importance of writing, though they may not have been literate. (10) This is less a book about literacy than one which examines the uses of writing. To truly explore literacy, a focus must be on the authors and readers. While the former receives some attention, the latter does not. 2

This examination of the writings is the most valuable part of the book. The discussion of surviving texts and inscriptions is detailed and well done. Everett’s structure in examining writings in various contexts is useful in helping to describe various aspects of Lombard administration and governance.

More difficult to assess is what it means. Everett provides several bold statements. He believes that, “… a unified, widely diffused native Lombardic language may never have existed.” (100) As a result, the Lombards quickly adopted Latin for their texts. This raises the question of the survival of Germanic terms in many texts, including law-codes. He believes these may have originated from a variety of dialects, not a single one, and represents allies and other barbarian groups the Lombards may have been in communication with, not from a Lombard language. (110) This is an interesting thesis and may be true, however Everett provides little evidence in support of it. Subsequently, he argues against a period of bilingualism such as others have proposed. This is an important point, however again the argument is insubstantial. 3

Another interesting thesis is that of Roman continuity. Everett argues that Lombard administrative structures and documentary practices illustrate a high degree of continuity from the Roman period; “The form and content of Lombard charters suggest that, far from being products of a less organized and less literate post-Roman political order, the charters of Lombard Italy have deep Roman roots in a legal culture of property law and practice that changed little, if at all, with the arrival of the new barbarian overlords.” (198) With this statement, Everett displays a belief that not only did administrative practices continue from the Roman period, but the literacy level among the population involved in political activities was equivalent during the Roman and Lombard periods. Both of these assertions lack supportive evidence and with regards to literacy levels remaining unchanged, considerable evidence to the contrary exists. Such a bold statement requires substantial, detailed evidence however this is not forthcoming. 4

It is worth taking some space to explore one of his arguments in detail. For this I am going to select a discussion of the Lombard use of seal-rings on pages 170 and 171. Everett discusses the finding of a seal-ring from a mid-seventh century grave at Trezzo d’Adda. He then considers whether a seal-ring was commonly used including, “Although Rothari’s law did not specifically mention a seal or seal-ring, the wording of ‘aut recognitum seu requisitum’ is sufficiently indeterminate to render it plausible.” (my emphasis) Later he adds, “Admittedly, seal-rings are not much evidence of literacy per se – the use of seals may even be termed ‘sub-literacy’ – but they are a visual counterpart to written communication, icons which help to validate the message and thus are part of the message itself. Their existence presupposes a literate stratum of communication and testifies to the tenacity of Roman traditions of government.”

In examining this, several aspects of the argument are missing. For one, in equating Lombard uses of seal-rings with Roman, a discussion of how they were used in Roman administration followed by comparing and contrasting these uses with Lombard uses, would be entirely appropriate and, in my opinion, necessary if such a connection is to be made. The use of the term “plausible” in the argument is insufficient. To make this connection, “plausible” must become “likely” or “probable”. This should include a discussion of alternatives such as the likelihood that Lombard use was either due to independently coming up with a similar solution to a similar problem or even to Lombard uses being “inspired by” Roman uses, but not through a continuous use handed down from the fifth century. The structure of the argument and the evidence presented is not sufficient either to support Lombard use as stated by Everett or the connection he proposes with Roman uses. His footnotes in this section provide little help, noting one secondary source arguing that the passages actually preclude the use of seal-rings and another in which the author is undecided.

This type of argument is not an isolated case. The seal-ring discussion is interesting however to truly examine it requires more than a few hundred words and much more detail. This reads more as a thesis statement than as a statement of proof. Overall, his arguments for Roman continuity are among the weakest in the book and are peppered with statements such as “plausible” and “possible”. This is unfortunate as the concepts he proposes are interesting and important, if sufficient evidence is given. I am unable to flatly state that he is wrong with these arguments as I do not have the knowledge of the sources or other secondary books to make such a judgement however I am comfortable in stating that I believe the structure of his arguments and the evidence given are often insufficient.

Overall, this often reads as some sort of Lombard apologetic. While it is unlikely that the Lombards were the cause of the bulk of the damage done to the Italian peninsula in the sixth century, they did inherit a scarred region, one in which it was difficult to pick up the pieces of Roman society for inclusion in the kingdom. Everett’s assertions of Roman continuity and high levels of literacy on a par with Roman society are questionable, at best, at least without substantially more evidence than is provided here.

In the end this book shows promise but disappoints. While Everett provides detailed examinations of Lombard writings, he fails to provide the type of evidence to support many of his conclusions. The book contains a great deal of information regarding charters, texts, inscriptions and scripts. There are some interesting, possibly even exciting concepts proposed. Unfortunately, the arguments in support of these concepts are frequently flawed and lack sufficient evidence. Lombard society provides evidence of literacy, and writing was important in administrative and social structures, at the elite level at least, and within this context, this book is valuable. However when Everett steps beyond these discussions, the flaws in this book become apparent.

1 I rarely review a book where I am not fairly familiar with the topic under discussion. This book is an exception. I have read some on the Lombards but do not consider myself to be any type of authority on them and have only a passing familiarity with the texts discussed. However the major issues here are with the author’s arguments and I am comfortable discussing these.

2 You’ll note that one of my problems with this book is in its title. It should not have been titled as a book on literacy rather than one on the uses of writing. While the existence of texts is an aspect of literacy, to truly be considered a book on literacy, I believe more attention must be given to those who wrote and those who may have read. The former receives some attention, though not enough, the latter receives almost none, beyond the vagueness of the general theme that if written materials existed there must have been someone to read them. Such is true, but this is not enough for a book on literacy. This would be less of a problem if the promotional materials did not repeat and emphasize the error. For example, the back cover on my paperback edition opens with, “Italy had long experienced literacy under Roman rule but what happened to literacy in Italy under the rule of a barbarian people?”

3 For an argument in favor of a bilingual period see, Wolfgang Haubrichs, “Langobardic Personal Names: Given Names and Name-Giving Among the Langobards,” in, Ausenda, G., Delogu, P., and Wickham, C., eds., (2009). See p. 217 and the subsequent discussion on pp. 242-50.

4 For arguments conflicting with this see Wickham, (2006), pp. 115-22 and Paolo Delogu, “Kingship and the Shaping of the Lombard Body Politic” in Ausenda, G., Delogu, P., and Wickham, C., eds., (2009). Wickham provides substantial evidence against Everett’s argument for extensive Lombard taxation structures through Everett’s period while Delogu substantially discusses the differences in Lombard Italy from Roman with emphasis on Roman society having been so fractured due to the Gothic Wars that developing a successor kingdom utilizing substantial Roman structures was impossible.

Ausenda, G., Delogu, P., and Wickham, C., eds., The Langobards before the Frankish Conquest: An Ethnographic Perspective. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press (2009). ISBN: 978-1-84383-490-8.

Wickham, Chris, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2006). ISBN: 978-0-19-921296-5.

 

Review: Romans, Barbarians and the Transformation of the Roman World

Ralph W. Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer, eds., Romans, Barbarians and the Transformation of the Roman World, Surrey: Ashgate (2011) Pp 379, xix. ISBN: 978-0-7546-6814-5.

This useful book evolved from the Sixth Biennial Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity Conference held at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in March, 2005. The essays contained in the book are, to a large extent, those given at the conference. They are, of course, updated and revised and some additional essays have been added.

This volume contains 25 essays. Attempting to review these, even in a cursory fashion, is impractical for a blog review. Instead I will attempt to provide an overview of the volume, while focusing on a select few essays.

A list of the essays is as follows:

Introduction, Ralph W. Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer

Part I: Constructing Images of the Impact and Identity of Barbarians

A. Literary Constructions of Barbarian Identity
1. Catalogues of Barbarians in Late Antiquity, Ralph W. Mathisen
2. Augustine and the Merciful Barbarians, Gillian Clark
3. Reguli in the Roman empire, Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval Germanic Kingdoms, Steven Fanning;
4. Were the Sasanians barbarians? Roman Writers on the ‘Empire of the Persians’, Scott McDonough
5. A Roman image of the ‘Barbarian’ Sasanians, Jan Willem Drijvers

B. Political and Religious Interpretations of Barbarian Activities
6. Banditry or Catastrophe?: History, Archaeology and Barbarian Raids on Roman Greece, Amelia Robertson Brown
7. John Rufus, Timothy Aelurus, and the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, Edward Watts

C. Imperial Manipulation of Perceptions of Barbarians
8. Imperial Religious Unification Policy and its Divisive Consequences: Diocletian, the Jews and the Samaritans, Yuval Shahar
9. Hellenes, Barbarians and Christians: Religion and Identity Politics in Diocletian’s Rome, Elizabeth DePalma Digeser
10. Barbarians as Spectacle: the Account of an Ancient ‘Embedded Reporter’ (Symm. Or. 2.10–12), Cristiana Sogno

Part II: Cultural Interaction on the Roman/Barbarian Frontiers

A. Becoming Roman: Movements of People across the Frontier and the Effects of Imperial Policies
11. The ius colonatus as a Model for the Settlement of Barbarian Prisoners-of-War in the Late Roman Empire?, Cam Grey
12. Spies Like Us: Treason and Identity in the Late Roman Empire, Kimberly Kagan
13. The ‘Runaway’ Avars and Late Antique Diplomacy, Ekaterina Nechaeva

B. Becoming Roman: Social and Economic Interchange
14. Captivity and Romano-barbarian Interchange, Noel Lenski
15. Barbarian Raiders and Barbarian Peasants: Models of Ideological and Economic Integration, Hartmut Ziche

C. A New Era of Accommodation
16. Kush and Rome on the Egyptian Southern Frontier: Where Barbarians Worshipped as Romans and Romans Worshipped as Barbarians, Salim Faraji
17. Petra and the Saracens: New Evidence from a Recently Discovered Epigram, Jason Moralee
18. Elusive places: a Chorological Approach to Identity and Territory in Scythia Minor (Second-Seventh centuries), Linda Ellis
19. Barbarian Traffic, Demon Oaths, and Christian Scruples: (Aug. Epist. 46–47), Kevin Uhalde

Part III: Creating Identity in the Post-Roman World

20. Visigothic Settlement, Hospitalitas, and Army Payment Reconsidered, Andreas Schwarcz
21. Building an Ethnic Identity for a New Gothic and Roman Nobility: Córdoba, 615 AD, Luis A. García Moreno
22. Vascones and Visigoths: Creation and Transformation of Identity in Northern Spain in Late Antiquity, Scott de Brestian
23. Identity and Ethnicity in the Era of Migrations and Barbarian Kingdoms in the Light of Archaeology in Gaul, Patrick Périn and Michel Kazanski
24. Text, Artifact and Genome: the Disputed Nature of the Anglo-Saxon Migration into Britain, Michael E. Jones

Part IV Epilogue: Modern Constructions of Barbarian Identity

25. Auguste Moutié, Pioneer of Merovingian Archaeology and the Spurlock Merovingian Collection at the University of Illinois, Bailey Young and Barbara Oehlschlaeger-Garvey

As is evident from the titles, these essays cover a broad range of topics. Even so, it is impossible to cover everything. I would have liked to see more information on economic systems. Ziche’s essay is the only one which addresses this in any depth, and even this is from the perspective of Roman attitudes toward barbarians and how they might impact economic systems, not the systems themselves. The majority of the essays are written from the perspective of what Romans and barbarians thought of the “other.” This is a very useful course of inquiry however the reader should not expect this volume to discuss what was happening so much as the opinions of the players, largely Romans (where far more evidence exists), regarding what was happening. This focus involves a great deal of analysis of textual source material.

There is not one essay I consider to be bad, or of poor quality. This is rather remarkable with this many titles. I will focus on a few which piqued my interest however this should not be taken to reflect on the quality of the others; it is simply a measure of my interests and where a particular essay showed or taught me something I found valuable.

Disparaging passages about the barbarians are a common theme among authors of Late Antiquity. Galla Placidia is described as disgracing her heritage in marrying a barbarian king. Claudian reserved some of his most critical remarks regarding Rufinus in describing him as a barbarian sympathizer. Others, such as Jerome, Salvian, and Prosper of Aquitaine considered the barbarians to be a source of great destruction and hardship. In “Augustine and the Merciful Barbarians,” (33-42) Gillian Clark opens with a notable passage from Prudentius’ Contra Symmachum in which she states, But Roman and barbarian stand as far apart as quadruped from biped, or as dumb from speaking …. (33) She then proceeds to discuss Augustine’s writings regarding the barbarians and how he portrayed them differently.

For Augustine, barbarians can be considered a sign of God’s mercy. While he describes them as savages, one step above animals, in City of God he stresses how, during the 410 sack of Rome, they allowed citizens to take refuge in Christian shrines. He credits God with allowing Alaric, a Christian (Augustine neglects to mention an Arian) to take the city, rather than the pagan Radagaisus. Radagaisus would have enacted unrestrained slaughter while Alaric is described as, “mild in slaughter through the love of God.” (36)

An interesting contrast between Augustine and other Christian authors, in particular Orosius and John Chrysostom, is explored in this essay. Augustine does not appear to consider the barbarians beyond their impact on Rome and their symbolic role as merciful punishers. As Clark says, “As in Rome in 410, so in City of God: the barbarians appear, do some damage, and go away.” (41) Orosius considers the barbarians to be an opportunity to expand Christianity and convert a multitude of others. For him, “… the purpose of the barbarian invasions was to fill the churches.” (38) Chrysostom lists numerous barbarian groups who now subscribe to Christian philosophy. Augustine is not so hopeful. The barbarians are a tool of God, not potential allies and Christians.

In Constantinople on April 12, 409 a law was issued in the names of Honorius and Theodosius regarding the terms under which the Sciri would be settled in the Empire. In, “The ius colonatus as a Model for the Settlement of Barbarian Prisoners-of-War in the Late Roman Empire?” (147-60) Cam Grey explores this text, its meaning, and its implications in developing a more generalized model of barbarian settlement.

Grey explores the status of coloni as stated in laws. They were settled as tenants, usually farmers, under the supervision of a landowner and registered even to a particular field. (151) There were various restrictions on coloni including prohibitions on their alienating property or moving. (151) Even though much of the language discussing coloni is harsh and restrictive, they are explicitly referred to as free and given certain rights and privileges. (152) Prior to the issuance of this law, coloni are known and mentioned in various laws and agreements, however the specifics of their tenure varies substantially with different situations. These agreements generally share three characteristics; dispersing the barbarians so they do not represent a cohesive threat; the prospect of future military service and; coloni being subject to taxation. (157)

The 409 law may represent a new stage in these arrangements. While the law contains the three elements mentioned above, it created a new, explicitly stated private relationship between the settled tenant coloni and the landowner. (159) Grey recognizes that these arrangements may have been customary prior to 409, however this is their first appearance in a text. He sees the placement of responsibility for coloni with private individuals as, “another example of a [Roman] preoccupation in the legislation of the period with control and limitation on the behavior of potentially threatening, liminal groups in society.” (160)

In, “Barbarian Raiders and Barbarian Peasants: Models of Ideological and Economic Integration,” (199-219) Hartmut Ziche explores Roman and Greek stereotypical attitudes towards barbarians and how these stereotypes relate to reality. Stereotypical perceptions of barbarians are not new. They are portrayed as smelly, wild, violent, unkempt, skin-clad, etc. Late Roman sources seem to place barbarians in one of two categories; as raiders or peasants. (200) Once settled, this distinction eased and barbarians disappear from the sources as they are transformed from barbarian settlers to Roman peasants. (202-3). This creates a significant difficulty in assessing the economic impact of barbarian peasants as, based on the sources, they become indistinguishable from native peasants.

Ziche discusses several sources discussing the prospect of settling warlike barbarian invaders in Rome as peasants. In 4th century sources, barbarians are not natural peasants and unsuited to farming. They must be treated harshly and watched carefully. However some sources, such as Themistius, believe that while barbarians are not suited to farming, “… they will in time stop being barbarians and then also become peasants.” (211) During the 4th century the contributions of the barbarians, once settled, to the Roman economy receive virtually no mention.

This begins to change in the fifth century. While the stereotypes continue, authors such as Salvian and Sidonius mention, indirectly, barbarian contributions. (214-6) Ziche believes it possible, and I consider it likely, that this resulted more as a result of the authors being forced to accommodate barbarians and “make the best of it” rather than a true change in their perspectives. The alteration of Roman and Gallo-Roman opinions is largely found beginning in the sixth century.

Throughout this essay, Ziche uses other, often archaeological, evidence to show that the contributions of barbarians to the Roman economy were much more substantial than the sources indicate. However the most interesting conclusion in the paper is that the opinion (at least among source authors) of barbarians and the stereotypes used in sources changed very little even into the last days of the empire.

Part III of this book is excellent. In, “Vascones and Visigoths: Creation and Transformation of Identity in Northern Spain in Late Antiquity,” (283-97) Scott de Brestian examines the consensus that “… the Basques of the High Middle Ages were the descendants of the Vascones that appear in peninsular and Frankish sources of the sixth and seventh centuries, who in turn were ethnically identical to the Vascones of the Roman period.” (286) Brestian considers this to be largely a creation of nationalistic and racially motivated perspectives and that when textual and archaeological sources are examined closely the creation of the Basques should not be seen in this manner. While the roots of the Basques may be the product of a confluence of events beginning with the end of the Roman Empire, the continuity of “… ethnic traditions that had existed since time immemorial.” (297) is insupportable.

Patrick Périn and Michel Kazanski in, “Identity and Ethnicity in the Era of Migrations and Barbarian Kingdoms in the Light of Archaeology in Gaul,” examine burials and other archaeological evidence, including pottery, to discuss the acculturation of new barbarian arrivals into the lands of the Roman Empire. While they note some exceptions and in particular the growth among barbarian elites of “… what might be called an ‘international’ barbarian culture resulting from their widespread experiences. …”1 (308) they do not hold with the view of Peter Heather and others that the arrivals represented cohesive ethnic groups, or that whatever ethnicities did exist long survived their settlement in Gaul. They argue that archaeology shows the migrations not as an invasion but that this should instead be viewed as a process of integration.

The final essay I will discuss is Michael Jones’ “Text, Artifact and Genome: the Disputed Nature of the Anglo-Saxon Migration into Britain.” There are two aspects of this essay which I find interesting. One, which I will gloss over with a single statement, is that Jones does not believe that currently available DNA evidence supports a theory of massive Anglo-Saxon migrations. What I found fascinating was his discussion of the type of DNA evidence necessary to draw any real conclusions. Currently, most of this work has been done by examining the DNA and genetic patterns of modern inhabitants of different regions and attempting to work backwards to reach conclusions regarding settlement and migration patterns. He believes that there are inherent methodological flaws with this approach and that it “… can inform but not answer the question of the nature of the Anglo-Saxon migrations.” (339) Instead he believes that archaeologically recovered DNA is the only reliable genetic evidence which should be used to reach any sort of conclusions regarding the migrations. “If and when large samples of DNA recovered from both eastern Britain and the continental homelands before and after the Anglo-Saxon migrations can be compared, we will be in a position more confidently to assess the genetic changes associated with the Anglo-Saxon migrations.” (339)

This is an excellent book. The editors are to be commended for the variety of subjects addressed and the quality of the contributions. As I stated above, there is not one essay which I consider weak, a rather remarkable statement. There are another eight essays which I believe are as worthy of discussion as those I chose to mention, and remember that even this statement is based on my primary areas of interest. This book is a welcome addition to the study of Late Antiquity and one which I am certain I will refer back to regularly.

1 I want to be clear that they do not consider this to be associated with ethnic origins. “One should not be surprised that the material culture of this princely barbarian caste was very international in flavor, and that the splendid artifacts from their graves or the treasure finds of the period usually do not betray the geo-cultural origins of their owners.” (308)