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.

-

Dissertation Journal #4: Explaining an Anomaly and Methodological Issues

Since my last post, I have completed the first draft of my dissertation. In this entry, I hope to raise some of the methodological issues that I encountered during this process. This will be done by focusing on an anomaly in my data that centered around the Roman Senate and the problems I faced while trying to explain it through Social Network Analysis (SNA).

I will firstly highlight the characteristics that separated the anomaly from the norms of the network. Firstly, it was a relatively dense and highly-connected area of the network. The findings of my first chapter suggested that Ostrogothic Italy on the whole tended to be a relatively divided society. However, the anomalous group of 39 nodes challenged this. The betweenness centrality for this cluster was 8.946078412, whereas for the entire network it was only 1.164930545 (Theoderic the Great was excluded from these calculations as he connects to everyone). A higher score on this metric indicates the extent to which a node mediates relations, so it became clear this group of 39 nodes had unusually high levels of interconnectivity. The second defining characteristic of the anomaly was that it had a higher percentage of nodes with the label 'Roman'. Non-Romans were only 10.24% of the cluster, in contrast to forming 51.9% of the entire network.

The first questions needing to be addressed were simple. Was this anomaly contradicting the points I developed earlier in the dissertation about ethnicity not being important in Ostrogothic social relations? Furthermore, could the anomaly instead be characterised as an 'ethnic' enclave for Romans? The answers were not necessarily simple. While being numerically inferior, 'Gothic' and 'Unknown' nodes still tended to score equally if not higher than 'Roman' nodes on most metrics. In other words, this anomaly was an intensification of the patterns established in my first chapter. There were more Romans, but this did not necessarily translate to them being more important or separate from Goths in terms of connections.

By examining other factors that may have influenced the creation of the anomaly, I hoped to more adequately address this group of nodes. I firstly assessed if holding a certain 'title' was important. Firstly, I noticed the anomaly had a high concentration of individuals who were Viri Illustres. By Late Antiquity, this was the only title that allowed admission to the Roman Senate. It is worth noting here that during this period an individual could very well hold senatorial status through a different title, but only this one could allow participation in the Senate as a political institution. However, aside from this, there were also some odd titles in the data, such as Arch-Physician and Pantomimist. In this way, it was clear that participation in the Senate was important, but at the same time more answers were needed. An analysis of individuals' zones of activity yielded similar results. Rome was particularly prominent as a location for individuals in this group, which again reinforced my conviction that the Senate was playing an important role. With this mind, I suggested the higher rates of interconnectivity in the anomaly could potentially be linked to the the independence the Senate still held as an institution, with it being less dependent on the patronage of Theoderic. Meanwhile, the changes in the ratio of Goths to Romans were a result of  the Senate's relatively small size in comparison to the rest of the Ostrogothic bureaucracy. It was harder for everyone, not just Goths, to be a part of the Senate. Despite all of this, there were still too many nodes within the anomaly that could not be entirely explained by the Roman Senate and so I was required to consider additional factors.

A screenshot of part of the anomaly, with Romans in red and the other nodes representing nodes with non-Roman labels.

It was at this point, I began to consider a number of methodological issues. The first was whether my application of SNA to the letters of Cassiodorus was giving undue importance to this anomaly. This came to mind because the group contained a particularly prominent clique originating from only 2 of the 229 letters studied. A clique is a set of nodes where every possible connection is made. The connections in this clique occurred twice, which was highly unusual, as individuals in the network tended to connect only once and never again. However, there were only 9 nodes in this clique and 30 other ones with the aforementioned anomalous traits still remained. Further answers were needed.

Having exhausted what the data was telling me about the anomaly, I decided to see if I was missing something by using quantitative rather than qualitative techniques. In particular, I wanted to examine the contexts in which individual connections were taking place. By doing this, I noticed that individuals were primarily meeting as a response to 'events' or for practical reasons, such as an administrative order (e.g collecting taxes, etc). This allowed me to develop a model for understanding the anomaly which relied on both SNA and readings of my source. Factors, such as 'titles' or 'zones of activity' were indeed important in the creation of the anomaly. However, social relations are not necessarily predictable. For example, we cannot presume the pantomimist Helladius would have not had everyday access to the powerful Urban Prefect of Rome. Yet, they connected anyway due to disturbances at the circus. It was on this basis, I suggested that while certain factors can influence the likelihood of a connection (in this case, they both shared Rome), they do not in themselves create it- there needs to be a reason for a relation. In this way, the quantitative data was useful for identifying that being part of a Roman Senate was an important factor for the anomaly, whereas looking at the sources allowed a more fuller explanation for any peculiarities. The Roman Senate was not rigid, it encountered people outside of its own ranks due to daily practical activities, and to expect a 'pure' undifferentiated set of nodes within the anomaly would have missed the point. It would have portrayed social relations as hierarchical, predictable and overly simplistic.

Following this necessary interaction of quantitative and qualitative techniques, I thought it was necessary to raise some of the methodological implications. For example, are statistics better at explaining some problems better than others? Should the historian use SNA and traditional document-reading alongside each other? Based on my findings, I suggested it would be wrong to take the view we need to choose one or the other. In fact, both methodologies can be mutually beneficial to each other. SNA can be helpful for complicating structures that may have been taken for granted in the historiography (in this instance, the role of ethnicity), while also allowing us to assess the importance of other factors in social relations. Whereas, qualitative techniques allow a more microscopic look at instances which defy our expectations. I took many of the ideas developed when analysing this anomaly into my final chapter, which looked at the variety of smaller clusters that made up the rest of the network. Hopefully, this post offers insight into my thought processes on the methodological issues I encountered while writing my dissertation.

Secondary Sources:

Heather, Peter. "Senators and Senates." In The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 13: The Late Empire, AD 337–425, edited by Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey, 184-210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Radtki, Christine. "The Senate at Rome in Ostrogothic Italy." In A  Companion  to Ostrogothic Italy, edited by Jonathan J. Arnold, Shane Bjornlie and Kristina Sessa, 121-46. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Scott, John. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. 2017 ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 1991.

Dissertation Journal #3: Applying Metrics and Analysing the Network

In my last post, I discussed the processes involved in constructing a social network. This entry will build on this by looking at how I analysed the network. I will firstly introduce some of the methods  used to do this, before discussing what they reveal about social relations in Ostrogothic Italy. Most of what will be discussed here ended up forming the basis of my the first chapter of my dissertation and so this entry will give some insight into how I came to my conclusions.

The software used for analysing the network was Gephi, which aids Social Network Analysis (SNA) in two ways. Firstly, by visualising the network, allowing the researcher to identify patterns. An image of part of my network, as visualised in Gephi, can be seen below. To aid my investigations for the first chapter, I colour-coded the different nodes based on their 'ethnic' label. Red nodes were Roman, whereas purple ones were Gothic. Likewise, blue nodes represented individuals that are classified as 'Unknown' and green ones represent individuals classified under 'Other', such as Visigoths or Franks. In this image, lines between people mean they are connected at least once. A visual representation such as this was useful, as it allowed me to analyse the network on a smaller scale. For example, by looking at a representation, I was able to identify a clique based around the Roman Senate going against the norm of the network established by metrical means.

                                      Part of the network, colour-coded for my analysis.

I will now move on to the aforementioned ability to use metrics in Gephi. Social Network Analysis often involves using a range of formula which help the researcher to identify patterns. These can be calculated for the network as a whole. For example, global density helps to identify how complete or connected the entirety of the network is. This is calculated by expressing the number of lines in the network as a proportion of the maximum number of lines. It was therefore useful for identifying the divided nature of my network. The average clustering coefficient is another metric calculated globally and is used to understand the tendency of individuals to form into clusters within the network.

There are also a number of metrics that assign scores to individuals, rather than on a global-level. Closeness centrality calculates the shortest route through which a node tends to be connected to other nodes in the network, whether this is directly or through an intermediary. Eigenvector centrality is similar to this, except it is based on how far a node is connected to the most central nodes. Metrics such as these can be useful for finding out who the most important people in the network are. However, they are also useful for finding out averages for different node types. For example, it was possible to work out that Goths and Romans were generally equal in importance in terms of their place in the network. As I used a range of technical vocabulary, like the ones described here, throughout the first chapter, I decided to restrict definitions to the appendices of my dissertation. This is to prevent detraction from my argument in the main body of the text.

I will now discuss some of my findings from applying these forms of analyses for the first chapter of my dissertation. The first and most significant finding was that connections between individuals did not tend to be made in the context of ethnicity. Most modern scholarship accepts that ethnicity does not have an unchanging biological basis. However, historians have still tended to emphasise the importance of ethnicity, even it its ideological or constructed form, when understanding Ostrogothic society. My research has questioned this assumption in multiple ways. Firstly, as mentioned, average centrality scores for individuals in the network tended to be the same for Goths and Romans. They were unable to be distinguished in this way. Secondly, based on a visual analysis of my network I noticed that while nodes did tend to coalesce into groups, there was no basis to use ethnicity as an explanation for this. Nodes of different ethnic labels tended to connect with each other more often than not. The final statistic that supported this point were the percentages at which Goths and Romans connected with other 'ethnic' labels. Based on a 20% sample of all Goths in the network, I found out that Goths tended to connect more with Romans rather than their fellow Goths.

The second finding of my research was that the military/civilian divide that has characterised discussion around Ostrogothic Italy is not supported by a statistical analysis. Goths have often been seen as 'soldiers' and Romans as 'civilians'. Nearly every single title within my study was either civilian or straggled the apparent divide. For example, many titles such as Dukes, had civilian and military duties. However, some titles did seem to be associated with particular 'ethnic' labels. For example the 17 Sajones in the data were all Gothic. Sajones were experienced soldiers, who usually held judicial roles.  However, this was not a suitable foundation to argue for a military/civilian divide, the holders of this title still tended to associate with Romans more than Goth, in spite of being Gothic themselves.

This entry has established the different methodologies I used to carry out an analysis of social relations in Ostrogothic Italy and pointed towards how I came to the conclusions established in the first chapter of my dissertation. After dismissing the traditional ethnic interpretations, the rest of the analyses of my network will focus on establishing a new model for understanding society in early sixth-century Italy.

Secondary Sources:

   

  Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

  

  Heather, Peter. "Merely an Ideology? Gothic Identity in Ostrogothic Italy." In The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, edited by Sam Barnish and Federico Marazzi, 31-80. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2007.

  Knoke, David and Song Yang. Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2000.

  Scott, John. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. 2017 ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 1991.

Dissertation Journal #2: Completing the Network and Resolving Problems

Over the summer and since my previous post, I have completed entering the data necessary to create a social network based on Cassiodorus' Variae. In this entry, I not only hope to show the process by which this was carried out, but also show the problems that can arise in a research project of this size and nature and how they can be resolved or at least circumvented. I will do this by firstly examining the process for collecting the data for the nodes or individuals within the network and then move on to look at the wedges or connections.

The data for this project was collected through a reading of the first five books of Cassiodorus' Variae and then was entered into Microsoft Excel. The first Excel sheet for my database was for the 'nodes'. This mainly consisted of the characteristics of the individuals in the network which were collected under a series of labels; their name, the origin of their name or ethnicity, gender, occupation and finally their location. An additional column was reserved for a range of additional notes relevant to creating the network, such as my reasoning for making certain decisions. It is clear that the labels I used for collecting the data were based on structures (such as class and ethnicity) that have had prominence in recent debates on Ostrogothic Italy. While this may indeed have neglected other aspects of the text, I believe my choices are justified as one of the aims of my project was to ask whether recent historiography stands up to scrutiny when the Variae are analysed quantitatively instead of qualitatively. Likewise, I believe a technique like Social Network Analysis, as it examines connections between people, can be used to examine the usefulness of these categories.

                           

Part of the nodes table for the data collected from the Variae.

However, a specific problem did arise when trying to enter the geographic location of individuals within the network. When I initially started my project I expected I would able to pinpoint the 'home' location of an individual, in essence where they spend most of their time. However, this rarely came up while reading the Variae and therefore left a column of almost entirely 'unknowns'. For example, I was able to work out that a certain Florianus and Annas were both involved in a dispute over a farm at Mazennes, but the text provided no clue to whether they were actually from this area. A second and more serious problem was that by focusing on the 'home' location of an individual, I was in danger of ignoring what the source was telling me with regards to the geographic mobility of certain people within the Ostrogothic Kingdom, as individuals in the Variae were appearing in multiple places. My dissertation supervisor suggested that a solution to these problems could be to change my initial label of 'location' for the column to a more general one of 'zones of activity'. I believe this solution, of entering multiple locations, helped to avoid losing some of the nuance of the Variae. In one of the most extreme instances, the Praetorian Prefect Faustus, could be found in 14 different locations, ranging from the Cottian Alps to Campania, and instances such as these could not be simply ignored.

Entering the data for the other labels in the nodes table was generally easier, however a number of issues did arise when deciding the ethnicity of a particular person, especially whether they should be termed Roman or Gothic. My main sources for the decision part of this category were two reference works, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. and the prosopography found within Amory's People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554.  As early medieval scholarship has moved to a more fluid definition of ethnicity, these works had a number of criteria for determining whether a person was Roman or Gothic, aside from the linguistic origin of their name. This, of course, meant there were certain scenarios where the ethnicity of a person was not clear. For example, neither Amory or Martindale could decide the best term to describe an individual called Starcedus. Furthermore, an individual named Colossaeus may have initially appeared to have a Roman name, but the Variae themselves state that he is Gothic (Var. III 23). In some instances there were people who were neither Gothic or Roman, therefore I often used the particular context of an individual to make a decision. For example, Clovis, as King of the Franks, was termed 'Frankish'.

Further complications were the result of my translation of the Variae, the nineteenth-century edition by Thomas Hodgkin. As the best version of the Variae available in English, it is a pivotal work for my dissertation, especially for the purposes of collecting data. This is due to the fact that it contains all the letters from Latin edition, even if in an abridged format. However, it is not perfect, Hodgkin has a tendency to be inconsistent in his use of names and titles. The Assuin mentioned in Book 1, is the same as the Ossuin in Books 3 and 4, however Hodgkin uses both versions of the name without stating it is the same person. In such confusing instances, my reference works were valuable in establishing such connections.

Part of the incidence matrix compiled for the dissertation.

Concurrently to entering the data for the nodes table, I had to compile an incidence matrix to create the wedges or connections within the social network. As shown above, this involved entering a '1' in a column when an individual was a participant in a letter or a '0' if they were not. The letters of the Variae were represented in the top row by the alphabet. A matrix such as this was the easiest way to collect the data, as it accommodated my approach of reading through the Variae one by one. However, it was difficult to transfer this part of the database over to Gephi, the software I am using for the metrics and visualisation of the network. I was therefore required to create a source-target table (as shown below) to do this. This simply involved typing the two IDs (their numerical reference) of the participants within the connection and attributing to them a 'weight'. A higher 'weight' between two people indicates that they are more closely connected, for my purposes this was how often they were mentioned together within Cassiodorus' letters, which was often only once.

                                     

Source-Target Table for connections in the network.

                                                Visualisation of my network in Gephi.

The creating of the source-target table formed the final part of my data collection process. After this I transferred it all over to Gephi and ran an algorithm, which helped to create the visualisation of the network also shown above. I immediately detected, unsurprisingly, that Theodoric the Great was at the centre of the network due to his participation in all the letters of the first five books of the Variae. However, I also noticed a number of cliques or groups within the network, particularly around those individuals who were based around Rome or were members of the senate. Argolicus, the Urban Prefect of the city is the most connected individual in the network aside from Theodoric. As my dissertation work continues, I will continue to analyse these different intricacies of the network, most notably by using the metric tools available within Gephi.

Primary Sources:

  Cassiodorus, Variae translated 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.

     Secondary Sources:

  Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997

  The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Vol 3 edited by Arnold Jones, John Martindale and John Morris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

  Scott, John. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. 2017 ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 1991.

A Historiographical Conundrum?: A Commentary on the Debate Surrounding the Barbarian Settlements

The debate surrounding the settlement of the barbarians in the Western Roman Empire is one of the most hotly contested issues of the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods. This has been particularly apparent since the publication of Walter Goffart's 1980 book Barbarians and Romans, A.D 418-584: The Techniques of Accommodation. Before this, the consensus on the settlement of the barbarians was mainly based around the Roman quartering system of Hospitalitas. This consensus, developed from Gaupp's 1844 work, stated that barbarians received shares of land that had been divided into three. This was an extension of a law from the Theodosian Code describing the practice of billeting Roman troops on civilian land (Hospitalitas). Consequently, this implied that the settlements involved a physical transfer of land. Goffart, starting with Ostrogothic Italy, offered a radical departure to this, suggesting that instead of receiving land barbarian settlers were given a third of the usual tax revenues, specifically put aside for them. This was based on two key terms found in Cassiodorus' Variae. The first being illatio tertiarum, previously this had been considered as a tax paid by those who were not currently hosting a Goth. He now argued this must be understood as referring to the aforementioned diverted and general tax revenue.The second term was millenarrii which Goffart believed referred to a unit of tax assessment that funded the payments made to the Goths, before this most interpretations thought this term referred to a commander of 1000 men.  Goffart was therefore arguing that barbarians were not given or rewarded with a share of land, but instead with a share of the normal tax revenues of the state.

With this article I hope to show that the large difference between the 'land' and 'tax' views in the debate can mainly be ascribed to the highly scant and inconclusive nature of the evidence. In essence, it is a historiographical conundrum that raises questions about how the historian should interpret and use evidence. This is not a new point, Goffart himself saw the implications of his argument for historians when he wrote 'what is at stake in all this not one's sympathy or antipathy towards barbarians, Germans or Goths, rather a conception of how history on the modern marvel may be legitimately be assembled and written'. However, I believe it is a seriously underdeveloped part of the discussion surrounding the settlements. Secondly, by doing this it will become clear that this debate is too centered around finding a single explanatory model for the barbarian settlement. It is often in danger of becoming mechanistic by trying to apply a single model to different geographic and political contexts. More nuanced interpretations of the barbarian settlements do exist, for example Halsall has already made the case for moving beyond the 'land' vs 'tax' debate. In fact, Goffart himself sought to address some of the issues present in his argument when he returned to the debate in 2006, for example stating that 'land' could have had multiple meanings. I will extend this discussion of the historiographical aspect of this debate in three sections, by focusing on successively on the settlement of the Ostrogoths, Visigoths and Burgundians in the Western Empire.

Settlement of the Ostrogoths in Italy

Goffart, when working out the technicalities of barbarian settlement, started with Ostrogothic Italy. This was because, he argued, that the evidence for this area was the most contemporary and detailed. One of his first steps was to try and demolish the evidence for a landed allotment found in Procopius' History of the Wars. This is a key step, as if Procopius is taken at face value a 'landed' arrangement is shown quite clearly.  Procopius states 'by giving a third part of the land to the barbarians, and in this way gaining their allegiance more firmly, he [Odoacer] held the supreme power for nearly ten years'. This of course is referring to the predecessor in Italy to the Ostrogothic king Theodoric and a supposed grant of land. Goffart proposes a number of reasons to distrust this statement. Firstly, that Procopius was from the Eastern Roman Empire and wished to describe Odoacer as a tyrant, with him also respecting Theodoric. The handing over of lands to the barbarians of course being seen as a negative act. Secondly, he also suggests another possibility, that Procopius is criticising the Roman practice of co-operating with barbarians. These criticisms of Procopius are quite valid and even some of Goffart's major opponents such as Sam Barnish distrust this statement as evidence of a landed settlement. Some such as Peter Heather, in an article on Gothic ideology, have suggested we should not be too quick to dismiss Procopius as a source. The debate around whether we should trust Procopius is in essence historiographical, raising the question about how much trust we should put in a source, and how literal we should take it.

Goffart then, as shown in the introduction, goes to use Cassiodorus' Variae to develop his theory for the mechanics of barbarian settlement. Overall, his thesis is supported very well by the evidence found in these letters. Goffart's strongest piece of evidence is perhaps Variae 2:17, in which Theodoric instructs the local authorities of Trent to cancel the taxes for land given to the Priest Butila. According to Goffart, this letter states that prior to the assignment to Butila, the land was subject to ordinary taxation, but once he received it became tax free. Now in a possession of a Goth, the tax revenue, the illatio usually set aside for the Goths, was no longer necessary. Goffart also uses Variae 5:27 to support his thesis for the settlement of Italy. Hodgkin's translation states that it orders the captains of the thousands of the men of Picenum and Samnium, suggesting that Gothic soldiers who served in the field should not lose their reward. Goffart takes a different interpretation of this passage suggesting that the term millenae refers not to a captain of the thousands, but the collective term to which all the Goths in these provinces are referred to as part of the process of receiving an annual tax revenue. The Variae can therefore be used to support Goffart's thesis and yet at same doing so leaves us with even more questions about how we should approach the sources for the settlement of the Goths.

Different viewpoints in the Hospitalitas debate can often hinge on an interpretation of a single term or sentence in sources such as the Variae. This of course can be problematic, should we take the meaning of the texts literal? Likewise, can a word mean something completely different in the context of another source? Furthermore, Goffart seems to place more trust in Cassiodorus than Procopius, but is his reasoning valid? As shown by Patrick Amory the Variae themself often had an ideological purpose. What I am wanting to show by raising these questions here is that the debate on barbarian settlement, as it is based on technicalities and often small pieces of evidence, acts as a focal point for discussion on how history should be carried out.

While Procopius and the Variae may be considered as direct pieces of evidence on the settlement of the Ostrogoths in Italy, there are a number of practical reasons and pieces of external evidence to suggest that a landed settlement in Italy is unlikely. If a landed assignment was made in Italy, the aristocracy would have deprived themselves of their own land and also their wealth. There is little evidence for this or any unrest and the idea that a landed allotment would have been favourable to the aristocracy if a land grant was the case does not seem reasonable. Furthermore, the fact that we can say barbarians owned land does not necessarily prove that they received it as part of a settlement agreement. Settlers could have used their income from the tax in order to buy land. This once again raises a historical issue. In the context of Italy, Goffart's thesis seems the most practical in contrast to the greater harm a landed settlement could have caused to the aristocracy. However, these assumptions are based on the absence of evidence or pragmatism, they are speculative even if it appears there are good reasons to believe in them.. Once again, the debate over the settlement of the barbarians in the Western Roman Empire forces us to encounter questions about how we should approach  evidence and whether there is room for inferences 'around' or 'outside' the sources.

Settlement of the Visigoths

Whereas, a tax based reward seems more likely for the settlement of the Ostrogoths in Italy, it is harder to prove this for the settlement of the Visigoths in Southern Gaul. Halsall suggests that the restricted reading for their settlement (and also for the Burgundians) makes Goffart's thesis more plausible. This is where I would make a departure and suggest that the absence of evidence actually makes a landed settlement more likely. Nevertheless, I still aim to avoid a general or 'mechanistic' view of settlement in the Roman Empire, emphasising a landed settlement in this instance only because of the particular context of the Visigothic settlement.

One of the major sources for Visigothic settlement is the fifth-century Code of Euric, which is only accessible through the seventh-century Visigothic Code. One can immediately identify that this poses lots of problems about whether we can trust the source and it is easy to see why Goffart leaves it to after his discussion of Italy. Nevertheless, there are a number of statements here that imply a landed settlement over a tax-based solution, even if they do so in a sketchy fashion. In 1:1:17 the code describes the process of returning land to Romans from which they had been deprived, this seems to imply physical ownership rather than a unit of tax assessment. 10:1:8-9 presumes that disputes would arise over land ownership, but there is an absence of any specific references to differences between Romans and barbarians. 8:5:5 refers to the fact that travellers may used land that has not been closed in and could be making a reference to the Roman system of hospitalitas. The Code of Euric and the Visigothic Code are therefore highly problematic when it comes to discussing the settlement of the Visigoths in Gaul, even if there are hints at a landed settlement. With the evidence being so scarce, we are forced to ask if the external context and evidence can be used to try and understand the mechanics of barbarian settlement.

Perhaps, the most convincing reason to believe that a landed settlement would have been likely in Gaul is because the disadvantages of doing so would not have been as prominent, in comparison to Italy. Most historians agree that the area the Visigoths settled in was experiencing some sort of crisis. Kulikowksi suggests the settlement of the Visigoths in in Aquitania II meant that the areas that had recently supported usurpation were flanked by the Imperial capital, Arles and the Goths. Burns suggests the settlement must be understood in the context of Constantius trying to stabilise Gaul and Spain. The use of combined Roman and Gothic garrisons in the latter proved to be a bad idea, so the Visigoths, according to Burns, were settled back in Southern Gaul. Nixon has also used a range of literary sources to show the turmoil present in this area at the time. Therefore, while historians do not agree on what exactly happened, it is clear that Gaul during the period of Visigothic settlement was experiencing some sort of political crisis. A landed settlement of the Visigoths in Southern Gaul therefore makes sense as a means of trying to bring the area back into the fold of the Imperial administration. This was perhaps short-sighted, for example the Visigothic King Theodoric II would later support Avitus in his bid to become emperor. Nevertheless, a landed and physical settlement might have been seen as a politically viable move at the time to recover a 'lost' territory.

This of course once again raises the question of whether we should use indirect evidence- that which does not mention the terms or mechanics of barbarian settlement specifically- to help solve our historical conundrum. As we can see very different conclusions can be made from this sort of evidence when we compare the settlement of Gaul to the settlement of Italy. This problem is made more difficult by the number of references in Gallic sources of the period that could be used to imply a landed settlement, such as those in the works of Sidonius Apollinaris and the Gallic Chronicle of 452. We must be careful when using these as they usually detail individual disturbances or settlements.  All this forces to ask whether it is possible and to collate fragmentary and ambiguous pieces of evidence to create a wider narrative about the barbarian settlements. As can be seen much of this will come to down to how the individual historian decides to approach the question of settlement and their choice of what is and what is not worthy evidence. Perhaps, what we can learn from all this historiographical pondering is that discussing the settlement of the barbarians does not have an easy answer and that trying to apply a mechanistic solution risks being overly simplistic.

Settlement of the Burgundians

The settlement of the Burgundians in the Western Empire equally raises many questions about how should approach the Hospitalitas Debate. Once again here, like the settlement of the Visigoths, the evidence is once again sketchy. The main source for a landed settlement in this instance comes from the Burgundian Code, in particularly titles 54 and 55 which belong to the Liber Consitutionum of 417. Much like the evidence from the Visigothic code, some of the titles imply a landed settlement quite heavily. Title 54 states 'It was commanded at the time that the order was issued whereby our people should receive one-third of the slaves, and two thirds of the land'. The use of slaves concurrently suggests the reference to land in this instance could imply physical ownership. It is difficult to identify the idea of a tax revenue instead of land here, when there is also a clause containing information on a 'physical property' such as a slave. In title 54 there is also a reference to barbarians and 'which hospitality assigned him'. This is using the language of hospitalitas, which is mostly not present in the evidence found in Cassiodorus' Variae. Similarly, this clause also states that land should not be taken contrary to the 'gift'. The language used here suggests it was a 'one-off' gift and it is difficult to suggest that this could mean a permanent tax revenue.

Title 55 also mentions the law of hospitality. Which once again raises the question of whether this should be interpreted as meaning temporary or permanent settlement. Perhaps, one of the strongest indicators of some sort of land based arrangement comes with the statement 'let the guests of the contestants not be involved in the quarrel'. Once again it is difficult to see how this language of guests or hospitality could be interpreted meaning as something other than a land settlement. However, there is not much to go on within the code to show if this is arrangement permanent or temporary. We are also faced with another dilemma, can we put trust in the source that what it is saying is accurate? Like the Visigothic code titles 54 and 55 of the Burgundian text survive in much later copies. At the same time it provides some of the most detailed evidence on the process of settlement for the Burgundians. This of course, once again shows, how the debate surrounding barbarian settlement brings is ultimately of historiographical concern, ultimately about how one should approach the evidence that is available.

A number of writers and chroniclers also point towards the possibility of a landed settlement. Propsper of Aquitaine and Hydatius describe the handing over of land. Wheareas, The Gallic Chronicle of 452 describes how Sapaudia was given to the remnants of the Burgundians , who had been defeated by Aetius, to be divided with the  native inhabitants. Wood has highlighted a number of problems with this source, for example its chronology is misplaced and the exact location of Sapaudia is unknown. Therefore, much like with the Visigothic settlement of Gaul evidence external to the law codes is fragmentary and is difficult to use when trying to discuss the settlement of the Burgundians. However, we should be careful in making direct analogies between these two settlements, despite the evidence initially appearing quite similar and with it leaning towards the 'land' side of the Hospitalitas debate.The evidence found in the Burgundian Code is quite different to that found the Visigothic Code, titles 54 and 55 more directly refer to the settlement of the Burgundians, whereas the Visigothic Code tends to only refer to the process of settlement by implication. The point of course here is that we should be careful when approaching evidence and trying to find an easy 'fit-all' solution to barbarian settlement.

Conclusion

This post has not necessarily tried to solve any of the problems regarding the settlement of the barbarians in the Western Roman Empire, but it has tried to show how the debate has a historiographical aspect. It forces the historian to question how they approach and how they should use the sources at their disposal, as vastly different interpretations have derived from a limited base of evidence, due to the different ways it has been approached. Secondly, it has shown that because of these varied problems it would be wrong to develop a 'copy and paste' mechanism in trying to understand the settlement of the barbarians. We cannot simply create a general explanation for barbarian settlement with the evidence available and so focusing on the individual contexts of the Ostrogothic, Visigothic and Burgundian accommodations is not only a necessity, but also good historical practice. 

Bibliography:

Primary Sources:

Cassiodorus, Variae translated 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.

Chronica Gallica of 452 in From Roman to Merovingian Gaul: A Reader translated by Alexander C. Murray. Letchworth: Broadview Press, 2000.

Lex Burgundionum in The Burgundian Code: Book of Constitutions or Law of Gundobad Additional Enactments translated by Katherine F. Drew. Philadelphia: University of Pennysylvania Press, 1972.

Lex Visigothorum in The Visigothic Code translated by Samuel P. Scott. Boston: The Boston Book Company, 1910.

Procopius, The History of the Wars translated by H.B Dewing. Accesed 15/06/2018 at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20298/20298-h/20298-h.htm.  

Secondary Sources:

Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554. Cambridge; New York:                              Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Barnish, Sam. J. B. "Taxation, Land and Barbarian Settlement in the Western Empire." Papers of the British School at Rome 54 (1986): 170-95.

Burns, Thomas S. "The Settlement of 418." In Fifth-century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?, edited by John Drinkwater and Hugh Elton, 53-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Goffart, Walter. Barbarian Tides The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Goffart, Walter A. Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418-584 : The Techniques of Accommodation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.

Halsall, Guy. "The Technique of Barbarian Settlement in the Fifth Century: A Reply to Walter Goffart." Journal of Late Antiquity 3, no. 1 (2010).

Halsall, Guy. Barbarian Migrations and The Roman West, 376-568. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Heather, Peter. "Merely an Ideology? Gothic Identity in Ostrogothic Italy." In The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, edited by Sam Barnish and Federico Marazzi, 31-80. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2007.

Kulikowski, Michael. "The Visigothic Settlement in Aquitania: The Imperial Perspective." In Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul: Revisiting the Sources, edited by Raplh W. Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer, 26-38. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.

Nixon, Charles E.V. "Relations between Visigoths and Romans in Fifth-century Gaul." In Fifth-century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?, edited by John Drinkwater and Hugh Elton, 64-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Wood, Ian. "Ethnicity and the Ethnogenesis of the Burgundians." In Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern : Teil 1 : Berichte des Symposions der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung, 27. bis 30. Oktober 1986, Stift Zwettl, Niederösterreich, edited by Walter Pohl and Herwig Wolfram, 53-70, 1986.

———. "The Barbarian Invasions and First Settlements." edited by Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey, 516-37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Review: People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554 by Patrick Amory

The 1997 book 'People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy' by Patrick Amory  is one of many books to tackle the issue of identity, especially ethnicity,  in the 'transition' from the late Roman west to the early medieval period. Amory attempts to tackle this issue through two main lens: by looking at the relationship of individuals to a given community and by examining the often poltically motivated ideological tools that could be used to shape these ties. Amory's approach is ultimately insightful and at times highly nuanced, coming to the conclusion that the boundaries between 'Roman' and 'Goth' were far from static. however there a number of gaps left by the scope of his work.

The first chapters, as of reading now, discuss many themes and issues that will be familiar to those who have studied early medieval ethnicity before. The historiography of ethnic interpretations, the complexity of  labels such as 'Roman' and 'barbarian', are all issues you expect to be present and they certainly are. Therefore, while not always covering new ground, the beginning of the book acts as a useful preamble to the rest of Amory's arguments. The opening section of the book is also aided by a list of vocabulary, which is of a great benefit in what can often be a highly theoretical work.

Amory's initial argument is that Theodoric tried to perpetuate different ideologies on ethnography. Using sources, such as Cassiodorus' Variae and the Edictum Theoderici, he shows that this often over time. Theodoric's civilitas ideology consisted of promoting the idea of  the 'Romans' and the 'Goths' as two harmonious peoples. The 'Goths' being defined by military status, the 'Romans' being civilians. However, in the 520s this changed to an ideology of Gothic superiority, based on strength and the legitimacy of the Amal dynasty. He argues this may have been a a result of the the political upheaval in this part of his reign, such as his actions against Albinus, Pope John and Boethius. Under Theodoric's successors, ethnographic propaganda varied between these two ideas.

The argument here is made better by the point that the promotion of an ideology does not necessarily reflect reality. The changes shown in the texts show an attempt to change ethnic thought, but do not actually represent it in reality. This approach avoids any problematic assumptions with the sources. However, Amory could have made it more clear how these texts with ethnographic connotations were disseminated. Only throwaway references to studies on early medieval literacy, such as those by Rosamond Mckitterick, tackle this problem. It would have been good to see more space dedicated to this, particularly within the context of sixth-century Italy, when it forms an important part of his argument.

Amory also shows how the ideologies of the Gothic kings was only one of many competing discourses in sixth-century Italy. One was the idea of renovatio, the idea of a return to to a golden past, as promoted by the Emperor Justinian. Naturally, this took on the most importance during Justinian's attempt to reconquer the Italian peninsular and it aimed to appeal to the sensibilities of conservative Roman aristocrats. These competing ethnographic ideas could used be used politically by both sides in the context of the Gothic Wars.

                                          Theodoric the Great, as depicated in a medallion.

The other dichotomy tackled by Amory in this book is that of the Arian-Catholic divide. The traditional assumption is that Arianism was inherently 'Gothic', whereas 'Catholicism' was 'Roman'. A large amount of space is dedicated to undermining  the idea that these divisions were anything as simple as the labels suggest. For example, although some Popes may have been driven by an idea of a universal Christian Empire, the day-to-day practical implications of this were often affected by the working relationship the Papacy had with the Arian Ostrogothic Kings. Amory also suggests that individuals could change and adopt their 'faith' to suit political circumstances, as such the 'Arian' and 'Christian' divide were as fluid as other ethnographic ideologies in sixth-century Italy.

One of the other major parts of the book, and perhaps the most impressive, is the massive prosopography attached to the appendix. This is a study of all people who can possibly be identified as a Goth in sixth-century Italy- 379. Outside the work of Procopius, there are only a few people directly named as 'Goth'. Therefore, Amory approaches this section with the flexible criteria found in the rest of the book. This could be problematic for those wishing to use it as a simple factual resource, however as Amory suggests it is reflective of the numerous meanings 'Goth' actually had for various people and groups.

The prosopography also must be understood in the wider content of Amory's work. As a study of 'Gothic' individuals, it cleverly connects to the wider arguments of the book about identity and community by showing the wide range of individuals that can be classed under the aforementioned label. 

There are also a range of other articles attached to the appendix, which all relate to the wider theme of identity in Ostrogothic Italy. Including an inquiry into Gundila's property, which swapped hands during the Gothic Wars. An essay that expands on the 'Germanic' culture as a scholarly construct adds to some of the discussion found earlier in the book. The rest of the appendix covers some of the evidence that is noticeably absent in the main section of the book, such as archaeology and dress. All of these are insightful and well placed here as they are relevant, but not critical to the main thrust of Amory's arguments. 

                                        The mausoleum of Theodoric in Ravenna

To conclude, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy is a valuable contribution to discussion about early medieval identity. Its argument that identities such as 'Gothic' and 'Arian' were more complex in reality than how they were portrayed in ethnographic propaganda is persuasive. However, the scope of the work also leaves a couple of unanswered questions, for example how were ethnographic texts disseminated and is it possible to measure their effectivness? Such issues are critical to some of the points made in the book and it would have been good to see more time spent on them. Nevertheless, the book is a nuanced addition to the wide range of scholarly works on early medieval identity.