Dissertation Journal #5: Clusters and Conclusions

I have recently received my unconfirmed mark for my dissertation. I will therefore conclude my journal by discussing the final stages of my dissertation This will be done firstly be done by examining my thinking process for the final chapter and then by looking at potential directions for future research.

In my previous post, I discussed an anomaly surrounding the Roman Senate and how this helped me to think of an alternative model to the Gothic/Roman binary, which has often been used to understand social relations in Ostrogothic Italy. The final chapter of my dissertation aimed to take these ideas forward and apply them to the rest of the network. The first idea took forward from my previous chapter concerned the interaction between quantitative and qualitative techniques. In particular, how they are mutually beneficial to each other and the difficulty of using them in isolation. As mentioned earlier, my network was highly clustered and it was difficult to find a single 'rule' governing it. I therefore used Gephi's community detection features to isolate and identify small clusters, before examining the qualitative context from which they emerged from. The modularity algorithm used detected 96 communities in total.

I classified these communities under three main headings; 'administrative', 'diplomatic' and 'legal'. The intention of this was not to reduce all clusters into three types, but to provide a platform and structure for discussing the peculiarities of each individual instance. At this point, other ideas from the earlier in the dissertation came back to the forefront. Firstly, the overemphasis on ethnicity found in the current historiography. Secondly, the varying importance of alternative factors such as geographic location and particular titles. Finally, the role of 'practical reasons' or 'events' in causing connections. These ideas, with their emphasis on focusing on the microscopic level and the uniqueness of individual clusters, seemed to fit with the rest of the network.

Graph showing size of clusters in the network.

Naturally, not every node or cluster followed these rules. A cluster surrounding two Goths, Duda and Tezutzat, protecting a Roman civilian called Petrus, reinforced rather than defied historiographic assumptions. A major surprise was that Praetorian Prefects, theoretically some of the most powerful individuals in Ostrogothic Italy, tended to have very few social connections. I suggested this was because they tended to move around quickly due to their wide remit over Italy. They struggled to build the more extensive networks of localised individuals, such as Urban Prefects. My emphasis in this chapter was on the need for a flexible understanding of social relations. One of my main issues with the Gothic/Roman binary is its simplicity and how historians (often, though not necessarily always) use it as a single answer for the social relations of an entire society.

A further issue addressed was the role of clustering in the network. Why was there no overarching rule to the network? Why were connections operating around separated and small communities? Following on from earlier ideas, I provided a number of explanations. Under the 'administrative' heading, I suggested clustering could be linked to Bjornlie's argument that Ostrogothic Italy had a decentralised and ad-hoc approach to governance. Individuals connecting around bureaucratic operations were chosen because they were in the right location at the right time and because they had the title necessary for them to carry out a task. There was not a central 'pool' of officials around one area, individuals were spread out across Italy. However, I was hesitant to use my data to support Bjornlie's further suggestion a more decentralised approach to governance was indicative of decline. Firstly, due to the lack of a comparative data sample prior to Ostrogothic rule in Italy. Secondly, because a decentralised approach may have been a conscious and proactive decision to make the administration more suitable for the early sixth-century, rather than a simple fall from earlier Roman standards.  In the context of 'legal' clusters, this explanation for clustering was again relevant. Lafferty has argued legal cases were dealt with by a provincial governor, irrespective of an individuals' ethnicity. Therefore, clusters surrounding law were also linked to a 'ad-hoc' decentralised approach. Finally, I also made some indications that the temporariness of connections may account for some of the clustering. If individuals did not 'socialise' or 'connect' outside of events or government orders, they would not have had any opportunities to develop more complete networks.

 Having outlined some of my conclusions during the latter stages of my dissertation, I will now discuss some of the potential directions for future research. The first would be to simply use more varied and extensive evidence to further test my findings. My dissertation covered the first books of Cassiodorus' Variae, which are all from the reign of Theoderic the Great. Using the latter books and other sources, like Procopius' History of the Wars, would allow an analysis that focuses more heavily on any potential changes over time. Dynamic Network Analysis (DNA) rather than standard SNA would be more suitable for this task, as it represents change better than the static visualisations and metrics used in my dissertation. I also think consulting other types of sources would be useful. Even Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy contains incidental references to social connections, considering other genres like this could be useful. They could offer further insight due to their differences to the government-oriented Variae, in particular regarding connections outside of 'practical' concerns or events.

Aside from confirming or refuting my findings, I believe my ideas could be took into another direction. Network analysis could be used to examine a number of interdisciplinary and philosophical issues. Many of the findings in my dissertation indicate it would be wrong to view Ostrogothic social relations as 'simple', instead they seem to match with the concept of 'complexity' found in the natural  and social sciences. I believe there is room for interdisciplinary dialogue here, particularly regarding the ontological nature of relations. By 'borrowing' Network Analysis  for a historical study, I have portrayed relations as polyadic. This would seem to be at odds with the binarism prevalent in the current historiography on Goths/Romans. Several interesting questions could be raised here. How far is my representation of relations an accurate reflection of reality or alternatively a result of using a technique originally developed in other disciplines? Likewise, if Late Antique philosophers conceived of relations generally in a non-polyadic fashion, would there be a problematic contradiction with my findings? Finally, there is also a need to consider the presumptions historians are carrying when analysing relations. By suggesting Goths/Romans were separate, yet harmoniously working together, are we not be presuming the subjects of a relation have greater ontological priority than the relation itself? I believe these theoretical issues could be addressed by using Network Analysis as a 'gateway' for relevant discussion.

Having concluded my dissertation, I believe there is room to develop some of my ideas. By keeping a journal, I have hoped to keep a record of the processes involved in writing my dissertation. Firstly, for my own sake, in case I return to these ideas in the future. Secondly, because I genuinely believe some of the ideas contained in my dissertation could be quite important if developed further. Overall, keeping a journal has been an enjoyable process and I hope my entries have given some insight into my thinking.

Primary Sources:

Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae in The Consolation of Philosophy translated by Victor Watts. London: Penguin, 1969.

Cassiodorus, Variae in The Letters of Cassiodorus: Being A Condensed Translation Of The Variae Epistolae Of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator translated by Thomas Hodgkin. London: Henry Frowde, 1886.

Procopius, History of the Wars in Procopius translated by William H. Dewey in 7 volumes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914-1940.

Secondary Sources:

Bjornlie, Shane. "Governmental Administration." In A  Companion to Ostrogothic Italy, edited by Jonathan J. Arnold, Shane Bjornlie and Kristina Sessa, 47-72. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Carley, Kathleen M. "Dynamic Network Analysis." In Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis:  Workshop Summary and Papers, edited by Ronald Breiger, Kathleen M. Carley and Philippa Pattison, 133-45. Washington: National Academies Press, 2003.

Lafferty, Sean D.W. Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic: A Study of the Edictum Theoderici.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

-