Functional Ethnicity
In the fifth and sixth centuries
the most obvious feature about at least some types of ethnic identity was that
it referred to function within a kingdom. As we’ve seen, by the start of the
fifth century, the Roman army had adopted a range of barbarising identities,
which I have called the martial model of masculinity. Indeed, as we saw, the army
probably included more barbarians than had earlier been the case, even if
probably not to the extent that used to be believed. Certainly, and
importantly, more non-Romans were able to reach its highest ranks. We have also
seen that in the fifth century, politics increasingly became focused upon the
rivalry between different regional factions based around local armies,
increasingly made up of people who claimed a barbarian identity.
Consequently it’s not surprising
that across the Western kingdoms we can find a situation where the army was
made up of ‘barbarians’, which is to say people claiming a Frankish, Gothic,
Burgundian or Lombard identity. It is very likely in my view that Angle and
Saxon identities played the same role in lowland Britain at the same time,
though there’s no real way of knowing. On the other hand, the Romans, as I have
mentioned in earlier lectures, staffed what remained of the civil administration
and the church
In the 6th-century
law-codes, what is striking is that an ethnic identity is generally only
assigned to male adults. This seems to underscore that this was an identity
that was generally only deployed in particular contexts, and that it might be
something that was acquired rather than simply inherited. In other words you’d
have to grow up and serve in the army to be a Frank like your father. The range
of issues where ethnicity is discussed is actually pretty low and generally
encompasses interactions or disputes between ‘barbarians’ and Romans, issues of
inheritance – presumably because of the link between this and military service,
or tax-paying. Another clear feature of
the 6th-century law is that the ‘barbarians’ have a higher wergild than the Romans, a wergild being
the sum paid to the family of the deceased by their killer. This may well have
been a continuation of a higher status for soldiers; it’s difficult to say. The
Roman and Barbarian populations are broadly parallel but we can see an
increasing privilege attached to being a barbarian: tax-exemption, higher legal
standing, other privileges.
Ethnic Change
One of the other debates about
late antique identity concerns whether one could change ethnic identity and, if
so, how easily. At one extreme, an American historian called Patrick Amory –
who later went off to become a hot shot record company executive – really –
argued that because of the functional role just mentioned, ethnic identities
were little more than badges that could be chosen and swapped without much
difficulty. At the other, Peter Heather responded showing that that ethnicity
wasn’t so easily changed and argued for a much greater reality to ethnic
identity and groupings. The problem is that both failed to appreciate two
things. One was the sort of plurality of identities in the ‘ethnic’ sphere that
I discuss in my 2007 chapter, so that ethnic change wasn’t a simple one-for-one
straight swap but the acquisition of another identity – as when a Roman joined
a barbarised army unit. Related to do that was the element of time. Heather was
absolutely right that there is little or no evidence of simple adoption and
discarding of ethnicities but people nevertheless did change ethnic identity;
it is just that it was a longer process than Amory suggested, taking a
generation or more. One person might adopt a Gothic identity in addition to his
other identities but then, over time, stress it more and more until it was the
one that he used most often, and his children might in turn see themselves more
unproblematically as Gothic – especially if they had inherited his military
obligations, tax-exemptions and so on.
Signs of ethnic identity in the 5th and 6th century
It’s probably not surprising,
given that there seem to have been no deep-seated unifying features within
ethnic groups, that all sorts of material cultural and other signs were
employed to try to provide that sort of unity, or to proclaim an ethnic
allegiance. One that receives quite a lot of contemporary comment is costume.
In [an earlier lecture, which I hope to post at some point] I mentioned that there are regional variations in fifth-
and sixth-century female costume across the west and that these have been
linked to ethnicity. There are problems with this. One is the point just made
that ethnic identity in the laws seems not to have been something assigned to
women, except in contexts of whom they were married to. If there was an ethnic
component to this costume, maybe it actually related to their husbands or
fathers. Another problem, though, is that closer study shows that differences
in female costume were often related to age and position in the life-cycle.
Some of these differences might simply be regional and while, as I argued in my
book, that might be just as ethnic as identities related to membership of
‘peoples’ it would relate to a different level of ethnic identity from the one
assumed. The linkage between ‘barbarian’ identities and military service might
have led to the carrying of weapons as a sign of ethnic distinction.
Hair-styles were another means of showing ethnic identity. Sidonius Apollinaris describes the Frankish hair-cut, which had the back of the head shaved, and the hair put into a top-knot and thrown forward. Like this:
Paul the Deacon describes the Lombard hair-style, which was also shaved at the back but grown long and parted in the middle. Lombard men also wore long beards to mark themselves out as Lango-bardi - long-beards. Gregory of Tours mentions a Breton hair-style though he doesn’t describe it. And so on.
One of the other key signs of
ethnicity was personal names: whether Germanic or Latin/Christian. We can see
naming fashions change across the period. We know of people with two names –
one Roman and one Germanic – and people who took new names when they went into
secular service. Gregory of Tours had a great-uncle called Gundulf (a Germanic name), almost certainly not his
given name; he presumably adopted it when he went to serve in the bodyguard of
the Frankish king. Just as Gregory took the name Gregory when he entered the
church. Romans had several names anyway, so the addition of another name –
again – didn’t represent a straight swap.
Another sign might be language.
The laws often used Germanic terms for legal concepts. It is possible that
declaring, for example, Frankish ethnicity (and the legal privilege it brought)
at a law court required some knowledge of these, even if one couldn’t actually
speak Frankish. It might also be that certain features deployed in the burial
of the dead were also markers that proclaimed ethnic identity and status, but
this is very difficult to identify for sure. Most of the old linkages between
burial styles and ethnicity are extremely crude and unconvincing.
In an important article from the
late 1990s Walter Pohl discussed these ‘signs of distinction’ as he called them
and argued that the fact that these never related in a 1:1 fashion to ethnic
groups in practice is significant. I don’t think this was the right
conclusion. In the 1960s an anthropologist called Moerman studied the Lue in
South-East Asia. He interviewed lots of the Lue and asked them what made them
Lue; what were the signs of membership. He was able to compile a long list. In
reality, though, these were either hardly ever worn or used in practice or,
alternatively, they weren’t exclusive to the Lue. We can make the same point.
The fact that Lombards weren’t the only people to sport long beards, or that
Franks didn’t always go around armed with a throwing axe really says nothing
about whether or not people at the time believed that these signs had
particular meanings that related to particular ethnic groups.
Non-Germanic Ethnicity
Although historiographical debate
about late antique ethnicity has focused on ‘Germanic’ barbarian groups, we
need to remember that these weren’t the only ethnic identities that existed or
which came to the fore in this period. We can list the ethnicities of the
Britons in Gaul – later called Bretons – for example, or the way a British
identity became important in Britain. In Gaul, identities based upon the city-district
(civitas) came to the fore and became politically very important.
In the east, too, regional
identities – bound up with adherence to particular forms of Christianity – may
also have become increasingly politically significant.
