Barbarians and the Transformation of the Roman World

Barbarians and the transformation of the Roman World Introduction and Ethnicity Lecture 1- Roger White 2 major sources of information1. Text Text survives mostly from the Roman perspective, with barbarians either not writing or writing not surviving. All of these texts have biases that need to be acknowledge: they are written from a Christian perspective, they are heavily influenced by Roman ideals and are rarely fully intact. The Christian perspective taints it with prejudices against not just pagans but also other branches of Christians. As they are all Roman they show a Roman perspective, with their understanding of what was happening 2. Archaeology Archaeology from this period is abundant and provides extensive information on how people lived and how they dressed. It tells us of trade contacts, technology, and fills in many gaps in the historic record, Through science it can provide precise dates and what the environment was like. However, it is not good at telling us how people viewed themselves, which is important when we come to consider ethnicity. Archaeology also does not give us the context of the objects that are found, limiting it. This period is the transition from the ancient to the medieval world The era from about 410- 800 (Charlemagne’s coronation) By the end of this era Charlemagne controlled much of northern Europe, the Muslims control the southern Mediterranean and the Romans had a much smaller state. Rome and the barbarians • • • • • • For the Romans everyone who lived outside the frontier of the Empire were Barbarians Roman understanding of the separate peoples beyond the frontier was limited and typified by indifference, expect when wars were fought Barbarians could and did move into the Empire, especially as soldiers Eventually the Romans grew to realise and be able to distinguish between the barbarians in the borders Contact led to a growing understanding of the others Barbarian peoples feature in Roman literature as a focus of historical writing, or in poetry, or in letters and other documents. This is the case throughout Roman history. Such accounts have to be very cautiously- they are one-sided and may be subject to literary clichés e.g. all barbarians are fierce • The Verona list gives a list of peoples that the Romans knew of beyond their frontier e.g. the Picts, Franks, Saxons, Alamanni and Vandals Third century crisis Civil wars and barbarian attacks led to a major weakening of the Roman Empire and many invasions across the whole of the Empire e.g. Athens was sacked and much of Gaul was ruined. Agri Decumates (land between the Rhine and Danube rivers). This means that in this area the Romans don’t have the ability to use the same defence as they usually do (e.g. the rivers as borders). During the 3rd century some of this land was abandoned, meaning the Roman citizens there were then barbarians. The Franks- people of the Frontier The franks and many of people of the frontier were massively affected by their contact with the Romans, the spoke Latin, served in the Roman army, brought weapons back and helped improve their culture. Hunnic skull- The skull was deformed at birth to make it longer, showed the status and ethnicity of the people (also increased their otherness in the eyes of the Romans). What is ethnicity? • Belief in a shared descent • Ethnicity is also cognitive (a state of mind) • It is multi layered e.g. American- Californian • Ethnicity is performed through clothing, speech and forced upon one group by another • It is situational • It is dynamic, can respond to how society changes with new identities being formed as old ones become obsolete. Ethnogenesis • • • • • Ptolemy’s ‘Geography’ records many tribes in Scotland in the 1st century e.g. Caledonii, Creaones Severan Invasion talks abut some of the same but also groups like the Picts In the Late Roman period there are even fewer groups Many assume the decrease in the number of tribes is because they coalesced into coalitions in order to stand a chance against Rome Smaller identities were formed into these bigger ones. By the end of the 5th century it was hard to tell the difference as shown by Stilicho (magister militum) a Roman general of Vandal origin and Childerich I, a Frankish King who was buried in the uniform of a Roman general. A lot of the changes to Rome is caused by the militarization of the society as the Roman Empire fought to survive. Lecture 2- Barbaricum: Diocletian and the Tetrarchy The Late Roman State Dr Ruth Macrides Tetrachy In the 3rd and 4th centuries the Roman Empire was still able to fight back against the barbarian invaders as shown by Diocletian’s ability to end the crisis of the 3rd century. He partially did this by establishing the Tetrarchy, a system of 2 Augustus’ and 2 Caesars. One senior and junior in the east and west. This split to load of Empire into 4. First 2 senior Augustus’ were Diocletian and Maximums with capitals in Milan and Nicomedia. Invasions The West never fully recovered from the shock of later barbarian invasions but the east stayed until the 15th century. In the West all the provinces from Britain to Italy fell to barbarians and the once coherent Roman Empire from the 4th century was destroyed in the 5th. The lost provinces under went regionalisation and grew different structures. Continuity and innovation New kingdoms arose in the west, formed either by conquest of diplomacy. While in the 4th century being Roman provided a sense of unity the 6th century was different with nothing in the west being truly Roman. Despite this there was not an unstoppable wave of barbarians that pried provinces away from Rome, instead in 5 ways the Roman state collapsed 1. The Roman military structure collapsed with armies revolting 2. The tax system was destroyed meaning that romans couldn’t fund their empire 3. Recruitment- By the mid 5th century there was no distinct Roman military identity, instead small bands of mixed origins were employed, loyal only to their commanders, sometimes in ethnic identity. They were paid by land distribution not coin. 4. Loyalty- Western provincial elites often sided with barbarians instead of the Imperial structure due to them being able to provide better protection 5. Assimilation- For centuries groups had entered the Empire and received land in return for military service but in the 5th century the barbarian migrants got a place in the Imperial system. They didn’t come to destroy the empire but rather join it especially the Goths and mostly the Huns. Milestones of the Roman Collapse • • • • • 378- Battle of Adrianople- Emperor Valens is defeated by the Goths (close to Constantinople). Theodosius I (379-395) is able to contain the gothic menace but it showed Roman military weakness. He was the last ruler to rule both. His death left the Empire to his sons Arcadius (Eastern Ruler) and Honorius (Western Emperor) Early 5th century- The Rhine Boundary broke and large groups of barbarians crossed the Rhine and were unable to be defeated. 382-408- Stilicho (Vandal origin) was married to the niece of the Emperor Theodosius showing barbarians being taken into the imperial family. Stilicho is a powerful military strongman and is given the title of regent for Honorius after the death of Theodosius. After this there is a series of barbarian generals beginning to compete for the ability to effectively rule Rome 476- Romulus Augustulus is deposed by Odoacer, the last Roman Emperor of the West (not as important as it seems). Odoacer held power in Italy until Theodoric took control after prompting by the Byzantine ruler Zeno 530’s-540’s- Eastern Roman Empire reconquered Italy under Justinian and Belisarius During this period the population of Constantinople doubled in size (half a million). During this time the East and West grew apart massively with the East adopting Greek and the West using Latin. By the 7th century Greek was spoken by everyone in the East. The East also saw an expansion in city life. The West saw landowners living in rural villas. Constantine, Constantinople and the Church Constantine I remade the city of Byzantium after ending the civil wars of the Tetrarchy into a new city of Constantinople. In doing this he made a new Christian focused city. His focus on Christianity is shown by his famous quote ‘By this, conquer’ at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the drawing the Chi Rho on the shields of his armies. During his signal rule he promoted Christianity and at his death bed in 337 he was baptized. The Christian church then used the structures of the Roman Empire to spread. This was a top-down process with the political and social elites adopting it first in order to keep their positions at court. Constantine also called the first church council: the Council of Nicaea in 325. It was the first of 7 ecumenical councils. Each council was held in an eastern city: Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon and Ephesus. At Nicaea the Nicene Creed was adopted ‘We believe in one God, Father almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth’. This council condemned Arianism and declared Father and Son to be consubstantial (of the same substance). After this council every future ecumenical council was attended by the Emperor, showing the enormous role of the Imperial authority in the church. There were 5 Patriarchal cities: Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch. Each had a Patriarch and were supposed to be equal but Rome and Constantinople took pre-eminence and the divisions between these 2 seats led to the Great Schism (1054). The Church led to older forms of geographical knowledge being replaced by new ones. The people of the steppe were seen as Gog and Magog; demons of the end times. By the 500’s the eastern community was largely Christian with pagan worship being condemned and dying out. It was only active in some places. The 3 defining characteristic: Imperial, Roman and Christian. By the later Byzantine Empire being Christian was seen as the most important part. Economy of the Empire It was an Empire of rural areas and cities with the vast majority of the population working on the land and these people brought in most of the taxes that the state depended on. Cities were good for elites to live the luxury life but the common person was generally a farmer. The largest cities were Rome and Constantinople which was were the Emperor presided. After this the more important cities were those closest to the frontier e.g. Antioch, Ravenna and Rome. Cities allowed for the transmission and reproduction of high culture. The needs of the countryside were seen as subordinate to the needs of the city. In the east rural society was noted by villages held together by a strong sense of communities while in the west coherence was maintained by large estates and villas. The owners of such estates were able to abuse the people on them to much profit. Germanic warlords and allies wanted good quality lands and they were willing to conquer or negotiate to get them e.g. Theodosius negotiating with the Goths by giving them such land. These landgrabs meant that the people of the West’s security became dependent on barbarian hordes who were given land as rewards. The greater importance of land then money led to a decline in the trade on the Empire, thereby weakening the economy and making the life of the elite impossible. ConclusionThe late empire was complex: it had a weakening economy, the Christian religion was dominant but divided and barbarian tribes were given several ways to gain entry into it. The Fifth Century Chronology • • • • • • 378- Battle of Adrianople- Goths settle within the Empire 380’s- Situation stabilises 295- Theodosious dies and the Empire is split between his zones 406- The Rhine breached- Vandals, Alans, Sueves and Franks all cross. All but the Franks go to Spain, the Franks settle in Gaul but under the control of Roman Generals- Constantius and Aetius 407- Probable Withdrawl of troops from Britain 408- Stilicho (Magister Militum) is murdered and there is a pogrom of barbarian foederati causing them to siege Rome • • • • • • • • 410- Rome sacked by Alaric 429- Vandals seize North Africa 446- Appeal by the British to Aetius for help against invasions 451- Attila’s Huns defeated by Aetius at the Battle of Chalons 454- Aetius is assassinated at court 455- Rome is sacked by the Vandals (more destructive) 476- Romulus Augustus deposed by Odoacer. The Emperor Nepos also claimed to be legitimate Emperor of West until he is killed in 480 481- Clovis defeat Syagrius the Roman general and declares himself king of the Franks. 410- the Sack of Rome While the damage was relatively low, the motional impact of the sack was enormous. It was the first time in 800 years that Rome had fallen Among the responses it provoked was the view among pagans that the adoption of Christianity had provoked the God to let Rome fall. Specifically, they had been angered by the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate House, a causes of celebre for pagans I the late 4th century. It was in response to this that St Augustine wrote ‘On the City of God’arguing for the view that Christians aspired to a higher city then that of earthly Rome. The Second sack of Rome in 455 was far more destructive and demonstrated clearly how far Roman power had declined. There was little imperial reaction to the sack of Rome in 410. The capitol was in Ravenna and when the Emperor Honorius heard this he was worried that it was his pet chicken rather then the city. What did the barbarians want? As with the Romans, it is important to acknowledge that the barbarians motives changed over time. Initially, they wished to find protection from the Huns whose expansion was threatening their existence. They were happy to serve the Roman state as they had done in the past. Once they had broken into the Empire and settled, the Roman state could not afford to continually subsidise them. Instead, they handed over the tax revenues due from that territory. After a while the barbarian kings did not need the Roman state to assign tax revenues- that they could seize these themselves to capture power. The Visigothic Settlement first on the Roman bank of the Danube after the Battle of Adrianople and then in Aquitaine set a pattern for other peoples to follow. Sueves, Alans and Vandals all settled in Spain and the Roman strategy was to play them off each other but this didn’t always work. The seizure of Africa fatally weakened the Empire. What changed for the Romans? There had been many instances of raking barbarian peoples into the Empire before (e.g. the Sarmatians in the 2nd century), this had been done on Roman terms. This changed in the 5th century when barbarians were settled with minimal Roman control. Although Rome was at times able to control events their tax base was continually eroded: first Aquitania, the Spain, then North Africa. Eventually the Empire dwindled to just Italy and part of Gaul. Not enough to sustain the Empire. As Rome declined, so it became more difficult to defeat or even control the barbarians. Why were these events so catastrophic? Individually, these events were capable of being dealt with. In the East, exactly the same system of governance was able to absorb similar, or worse, impacts. It was the sheer number of events that caused final military collapse. The Romans had a distressing tendency to kill their own commanders, even the competent ones. This had a largely negative effect on morale and ability in the army. The gradual collapse of Roman authority and the mechanisms of central government meant that increasingly powerful landowners took the route of looking to providing their own defence by employing mercenary, barbarian, troops. The Romans had lived without a large military threat for a long time. They were ill-prepared to defend themselves. Unlike barbarians, they had little military training or fighting skills. The church could offer moral support, as with Sidonius Apollinarius, but it was unable to provide military back-up. The idea of Emperor/Emperor became irrelevant to the aristocracy, although the idea of Rome and Empire remained potent. The Emperor was perceived as powerless which was not helped by the movement of the power base to Ravenna (out of the way). This troubled era also caused the collapse of the economy through loss of tax revenues, disruption to trade and the inability to carry on the technical achievements of the past. Historian’s explanations of the causesThe list of these reasons is massively large with many historians from different times giving their own views. Edward Gibbon, in his 6 volumes of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, traced the decline in Roman power to handing responsibility for defence to barbarians and the adoption of Christianity which ‘undermined Roman fighting spirit’. Peter Brown on the other had published ‘The World of Late Antiquity’ in 1971 which said that the Roman Empire was transformed in the 3rd century into something that was more related to the states of the Middle Ages than the ancient world, leading the way for Byzantium to develop. Picking up on this some historians have argued that the so-called decline and fall of the Empire was no more than a transformation, a reconfiguration of society. In this model the barbarians became more civilized while the Romans became more barbarous. Thus, the Empire was transformed from a monolithic Roman state into a myriad of peoples and cultures of equal weight and standing. Now people argue against this view with Bryan Ward Perkins saying they are comparing the collapse to “tea party at the Roman Vicarage” and arguing for a large fall. The transformation model is still seen as quite prevalent. In the 21st century historians reacted against this ‘soft’ model of the fall. They argued that the events were completely traumatic for those who lived through them. Ward Perkins made the point that, however one viewed the cultural changed, the impact was that civilized i.e. town life, collapsed and did not reappear for 500 years. Heather stressed thee savagery of the attack, and the effectiveness of Roman resistance. He also noted the replacement of the cultured nature of the elites with the idea of the warlord and military man as the ideal. They are right. So, which is more correct? For those who had the misfortune to live through it, the fifth century must have been deeply traumatic. It is right to make clear that the invading peoples brought with them a degree of violence that had not been seen for centuries. Others could argue that while the Empire fell, what replaced it was different but not worse. This is clearly wrong because they were savages compared to high Roman society. Both models have validity, therefore it is down to each to reach their own views of the event. A possibility of the truthIt can be seen as less neat then decline and fall- there is a continuity, a transformation and a decline all at the same time. Different answers depending on the aspect of life you look at. Nobody actually seemed to want to destroy the Empire but rather just become part of it. The Ostrogoths and Italy Italy can be seen as a regional case study for what happens to Europe in the early Medieval period. Groups of Goths range from Spain to Italy and Northern France. Before the fall of Rome the Goths were a very significant group of barbarians in Rome, playing key roles as adversaries and allies to the Empire. One of the most famous things done by Goths was the 410 Sack of Rome by Alaric’s group, a major blow to Roman prestige. Goths before Theodoric? The migration myth told by the Goths is provided by Jordanes in his history of the Goths, Getica. It says they came from Northern Europe/Scandinavia. This is hard to verify. Peter Heather in The Goths tried to trace their migration through archaeological finds but it can be seen as problematic. Settlement and Kingdom of the Visigoths The 418 treaty gave them land in the Garonne Valley in Spain. It is hard to find where the Goths were settled in Spain with burial mounds being difficult to find. After the West After Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus Zeno was left with Theodoric and the Goths in the Balkans who had a large force. To deal with both Zeno sent Theodoric into Italy to take it for himself which he does by 493. Theodoric tried to imitate the Roman Emperors and survived until 526. Theodoric had palaces in Ravenna, Pavia and Verona (all in the North of the county). He seems to have been the leading king in the west as he was able to conquer parts of Gaul after the Visigoths were defeated by the Franks at the Battle of Vouille. The court culture of his realm is also unique in the west with almost all other courts having no such thing. Examples of members of this court are Boethius, Cassiodorois (writes very positively of the ruler). In trying to look Roman he built a Mausoleum for himself and had portraits made that seem similar to Roman rulers. Further he minted his own coins showing his Roman Imperial desires. Despite what is claimed about the rule of Theodoric it is doubtful he did nearly as much as was claimed by the writers such as Cassiodorus, e.g. he engaged in much less building then is described showing the type of hyperbole given by primary sources. The Domagnano Treasure: Gothic material culture in Italy? This is a treasure trove 50km south of Ravenna with there being mounts, parts of a collar, a gold pin, lengths of gold chain etc. The objects appear to be a mix of Roman and Gothic culture showing a merging not takeover during Theodoric’s invasion. There are items that have a fish/bird motive and some claim these show the Christian nature of the goths at the time with these being partially Christian images. Social and Economic changes While it seems as if there was some continuity there was also changes with an increase in hilltop forts as opposed to villas and small towns. Further cities declined with public buildings being abandoned or replaced by new structures. There are differing opinions on how much this shows a catastrophic change or just a more natural progression. The end of the Goths From the 530’s to the 550’s the Byzantines lead a reconquest of Italy under Belisarius and Justinian. While there were issues with the campaign eventually the Goths were conquered and all resistance crushed. Any for of Gothic Rule ended in 554 after the final attack led by Narses. The Franks Who were the Franks The Franks is a global term covering a number of different tribes- they are a confederation. The two principal elements were1. The Salian Franks- those on the West Bank of the Rhine and at its mouth- these were the most Romanized of the Frankish people. They later became the Neustrasian Franks. 2. Riparaian or Austrasian Franks were those living beyond the frontier (limes) of the Roman Empire- they were never fully Romanised From these two principal elements emerged the French and German nations. People from other tribes also assimilated with the Franks e.g. the Saxons, Gallo-Romans, Burgundians. Franks and the Roman Empire The Franks were the tribe closest to the Roman Empire and consequently were often recruited into the Roman Army. Franks were settled within the frontier of the Empire during the 4th century, perhaps as Foederati. In consequences, many Franks were already heavily Romanised and had already begun to assimilate into Roman society before the collapse: “The acceptance by Gallo-Romans of the Franks as heirs of Rome is perhaps the main secret of Frankish success” James, 1988, 84. The Franks first appear as troops serving under late Roman warlords. Historical sources for the Franks For the 4th and 5th centuries, we are reliant on Roman authors such as Ammianus Marcellinus, Claudian, Sidonius Apollinaris for our information but for the 6th and 7th century we get a more Frankish view with Gregory of Tours and Fredegar giving us info. There are also external sources such as Procopius. For the 8th century we have the obscure ‘Liber Historiae Francorum) covers the transition to Carolingian rule. We also have the Law Codes (e.g. Pactus Legis Salicae’ Lex Ripuraria) reflecting the very real issues besetting the mingling of populations following different legal precepts and systems. The Creation of the Merovingian Frankish Empire The Frankish Empire grew rapidly and opportunistically, using marriage alliances for some conquests or taking advantage of the collapse of the Ostrogoths in Northern Italy under the attack of the Byzantines; they were less successful against stronger enemies e.g. the Visigoths and the Bretons. Frankish kinds tended to maintain existing Roman elites in power, retaining their power structures so were able to benefit from, for example, inherited structures of Roman government and systems. The Gallo-Romans were happy to side with the Franks because they were more Roman than the other tribes- they had long been settled in the Empire- and they assimilated readily with each other. Becoming a Frank meant that you could avoid Roman taxes and other duties“under these circumstances, the association of Frank with freedom rather than nationality could begin to take hold” (Goffart, 1982 193). The Frankish Kingdom, however, rarely achieved stability as strong kinds would divide their lands between sons and other relatives; they were notorious for their internecine struggles. These struggles created powerful officials who could, along with the Bishops, play contenders for the throne against each other and hold the balance of power. From this route, ultimately, came the demise of the Merovingians and the rise of the Carolingians. Nature of Frankish Kingship Gregory of Tours castigates Chilperic for burning and ravaging settlements, for being a glutton, for writing terrible poetry and masses that were undeliverable, for attacking bishops and tearing up wills that benefitted the church. Chilperic inherited a land-locked kingdom which meant he could only survive by taking land from his brothers kingdom to try and touch the sea. The fact that he could write at all may be an impressive achievement. The attacks on bishops were not surprising because they were powerful and Gallo-Roman meaning they could challenge him. It can also be justified that he didn’t give any property to the church since it means he would not be able to get anything from it. 3 key rulers1. Childeric- The first ‘King’ of the Franks- a member of the Salian Franks, first mentioned in the Battle of Orleans (463) 2. Clovis- The son of Childeric, he vastly expanded the Frankish kingdom by defeating the Gallo-Romans, Burgundians, Alamanni and Visigoths and formed a diplomatic alliance with Anastasias 3. Charles Martel- An Austrian Frank, Charles founded the Carolingian dynasty. He won the Battle of Tours and was the grandfather of Charlemagne. Franks and ChristianityGregory tells us that the first Frankish king to convert was Clovis; he may have converted first to Arianism but later was definitely a Catholic. Conversion to Catholicism was critical as it enabled links to be formed over time with the existing bishops and ultimately the papacy. The conversion phase was heavily influenced by Irish monasticism- St Columbanus. The Franks were already very familiar with Catholic Roman populations through centres such as Trier and Cologne where there were significant number of early Christians. Africa Late Roman Africa It was the wealthiest region in the Western Empire with cities that were still flourishing although public spending was beginning to dry up in the 4 th century. There were competing Christianity’s in it- Catholics and Donatists. It was a relatively militarised place (only 1 legion) that supplied the city of Rome with grain. Carthage is one of the key cities in Northern Africa, the 2nd biggest city in the West. Vandal Origin Near the end of the 4th century they were settled on the Danube and Rhine rivers. There named groups were the Silings and Hasdings. The Vandals served in the Late Roman Army such as Stilicho, the magister militum of Honorius and married into the Imperial Family. 40 years after this they ruled Tunisia- They crossed into Africa in 429 and by 439 were in Carthage. This becomes the centre of their Kingdom and from here they launched the 455 attack that sacked Rome. The title of the Kind was ‘Reges Vadalorum et Alanorum’ meaning king od the Vandals and Alans. Gaiseric is the ruler who conquered Africa and all previous rulers were from this family. It was not only the son, mostly the eldest. Organisation At the head of this realm there were Kings but below this they largely just use the Roman structure. Their law codes were conscious emulations of Rome. The didn’t date by the Roman Consuls but by the years in which the King were in charge. Coinage Initially they just imitate coins of Honorius as they needed financial stability but eventually they changed their coins to things that looked more inspired by the ancient city state of Carthage. It is hard to find archaeological evidence for Vandalic occupation but we know that they lived in Carthage mainly. Some places in the city seem to have been destroyed in this era, possibly to deny any possibly fortifications for enemies. There are continues though such as Latin poetry and villas. Urban culture There is a lot of church building and abandonment of some public spaces. The Vandals have periods of tolerance towards the Catholics but also periods of persecution. Courtoit’s Kingdoms of the Mauri There could have been as many as 8 of these kingdoms. There is very little in terms of sources about them. They seem to have fought the Vandals occasionally and they revolted against the Byzantines. The Byzantines reconquer Africa in 533 with Belisarius. This was due to the Fall of Hilderic and Justinian’s desire to reconquer the West. This destroyed the Vandal kingdom with the survivors moving to the East. The increase of taxes and religious disputes in Africa lead to revolts. The British Isles 400-800 This is a period of massive changes for the British Isles with the start of the era seeing the island under Roman control and the end seeing the start of the Viking invasions. 400Province of Rome- The most North- Western of the provinces. Scotland is called Caledonia, Ireland is called Hibernia. Both unconquered. The senatorial class rules the province with a Romano-British elite making up the aristocracy. The Picts are the key tribes in Caledonia. The End of Roman Britain This is generally seen to be 410. The period after this there is a rapid withdrawal of Roman institutions, much quicker then the rest of Europe. The recalling of Roman troops is in the Rescript of Honorius in 410. The Archaeological evidence that is now available helps us understand this withdrawal. In the Fifth century we see a large amount of coin hoards- the period between 380-410. This means something must have happened to cause people to store large amounts of wealth. Some argue this is because of times of emergency. The Hoxne HoardDiscovered in 1992 in the early 5th century. There are 580 gold coins, 14654 silver counts and 200 gold and silver items. Most of this seems to have been packed in bags or chests. It seems like this was a ritual deposit and intended to be retrieved. Some argue it is not the favoured items of the collection as there is no rings which is to be expected. Further the women names on much of it leads to the theory that it was from the Matriarch of a family. Patching Hoard Discovered 1997. It is much smaller with 23 solidi and 27 silver coins. The range of these coins is longer though- from 49BC- 450BC Written sources • • • Letters of Patrick (largely concerned with missionary activities) Gildas, The Ruins of Britain Bede, Ecclesiastical History (8th century) Picts and Britons The Picts were from the North e.g. Scotland and not under Roman control while the Britons were from the South of the country and had been ruled by Rome. They both don’t leave much written material with there being just a few exceptions. The most detailed written source we have is Gildas’, Ruin of Britain. It is a 3 part sermon that shows the arrival and departure of the Romans and describes the weakness of British kings. It is not a history so much as a speech from which we can gain history. Bede’s much later account includes more names and dates which leads to questioning as the where he got this information from. The Sixth century There is a larger amount of grave goods and power is consolidated into Kingdoms these being• • • • • • • Northumbria Merica East Anglia Wessex Kent Essex Sussex The last 2 are much smaller and were absorbed into Kent and Wessex. Kent It could be a Jutish settlement but not sure. It had contact with Frankish kingdoms. The Irish Mission was the use of missionary’s from Ireland into England to evangelise them. This was done with the Picts. In the seventh century there is a more complete conversion to Christianity with the end of furnished burials. Sutton Hoo Furnished burial. Long ship, helmet and whetstone found their. There were 17 mounds at this burial place. This burial place had Christian imagery in it but also some pagan themes showing the changing times of the country. Coinage Following the end of Roman occupation and the import of Roman coins, coin circulation dropped dramatically. There seem to have been no fresh coins until the late 6 th/ early 7th century with Merovingian and Frankish coins coming in. Later new coins begin to be produced in England again. Eadbald (616-640) began to put his own name on coins. There was also a beginning of law codes being produced and written in English e.g. Aethelberht of Kent (600) The Rise of Mercia (650-800) In this time period power began to be consolidated by Mercia. The Vikings then came and sacked things e.g. Lindisfarne (793). This leads to discussions that the wealth of the Kingdom and subsequent decadence led to the Viking attack. Christianity in Western Europe As a religion based on ‘the book’, there are many kinds of documents relating to the early medieval church. Their reliability as historical documents is often dubious at best. Most documents relating to the period have a connection to the church as the majority of literate people were clergy. In addition to the Bible itself the texts include • • • • • • Hagiography Annals/Easter tables Charters Autobiographical accounts Exegesis Sermons and letters Archaeological information is more problematic to interpret as it is often ambiguous and there is evidence for considerable fluidity of belief. The Emperor and the Church • • • Constantine’s conversion to the Christian faith was sincere but he saw himself as much more important than the leaders of the church- he had been appointed by God as his ruler on earth; dissent was thus blasphemy His immediate successors hovered between Orthodoxy and Arianism, but generally followed his lead in maintaining their right to call Councils and seek to maintain unity of faith In the East, the Church was much more inclined to accept this position; in the West, the authority of the Emperor over state and church was much weaker. Architectural traditions • • Early Christian architecture followed two separate strands: churches here the liturgy of the mass could be followed, and where catechumens could be instructed in the faith. All that was required for such a building was for it to be able to gold lots of people, and for it not to look like a temple. The architectural form chosen was a basilica- a rectangular building with a central nave and side aisles, often ending in an apse. The interior was often painted or decorated with mosaics showing biblical scenes The second tradition was the Martyrium, a church built over the site of a martyrdom, or the site of a burial. The form adopted was often circular or polygonal Two Churches: Orthodox and Catholic • • The Early church is very much an Eastern phenomenon- most of the important writings were Greek and the strongest community was in Africa In the 4th century the first of the greet Latin church fathers appear. The Arian controversy • • • • Recognised by Constantine 313 Arius argued God was more powerful than Christ and the Holy Spirit while orthodoxy argued they were all equal The Council of Nicaea established church cannon Arius made the barbarians Arians The Bishop of Rome grows into the Papacy which allows for the Pope to be more powerful. This leads to a dispute with the Byzantine church. In the 5th century the idea of monasticism spreads to the west. Final lecture 400-700 is a period of unification to fragmentation. By the end it can be seen as unified again because there was Charlemagne by the end. It is difficult to define this period as some call it the decline of the Roman Empire and others the transformation of the Empire. It is also no longer the dark ages but rather late antiquity. Gotthart argues that there were not barbarian invasions but rather they were allowed in with a change in Roman military practice. He says they were voluntarily giving up power. Ward-Perkins on the other hand argues that there was a decline in civilisation shown by the decline in their ability to make things. They lose writing and good pottery. The view on the end of the Roman Empire changes depending on your view e.g. Italians may have a worse view but some in Northern Europe/ America have a more positive view. Eastern Mediterranean sees prosperity in the 5th and 6th centuries. The change of Paganism to monotheists religions (Christianity and Islam) brought remarkable changes to central aspects of the people. Late Antiquity is seen to be a spiritual and mental world. Especially in North America there is an increase in the amount religion is focused on. In the less harsh view the Germans did not destroy the Empire but rather just transformed them. Also nazis, less Empire and less knowledge of classics. There is a lot of evidence that the invasions of barbarians were traumatic and it was hard to adapt to the new life. Was the fall inevitable? It was not entirely inevitable e.g. at Adrianople there was a chance that Valens could have one or Stilicho could have crushed them later but they didn’t. Its possible the Empire could have been renewed under a Germanic dynasty. Theoderic might have been able to revive an imperial title in the west. The possibility to survive is shown through how the East survived until the 15 th century. It was not because of the Eastern army- may have been weaker. The Eastern Emperors also occasionally needed military help. It was a western army that defeated Attila in the end. The Bosporus may have been a large part of the reason that the Eastern Empire survived. This or the Theodosian Walls. These walls were not breached until the 15th century when cannons were used. The level of Roman pottery is not reached again for 800 years.