Barbarian identity Analysis of barbarian
identity and how it was created and expressed during the Barbarian Invasions has elicited discussion among scholars.
Herwig Wolfram, a historian of the Goths, in discussing the equation of
migratio gentium with ''
, observes that introduced the equation in his 1778 history of the Germans. Wolfram observed that the significance of gens'' as a biological community was shifting, even during the
early Middle Ages, and that "to complicate matters, we have no way of devising a terminology that is not derived from the concept of
nationhood created during the
French Revolution". The "primordialistic" paradigm prevailed during the 19th century. Scholars, such as German linguist
Johann Gottfried Herder, viewed tribes as coherent biological (racial) entities, using the term to refer to discrete ethnic groups. He also believed that the
Volk were an organic whole, with a core identity and spirit evident in art, literature and language. These characteristics were seen as intrinsic, unaffected by external influences, even conquest. Language, in particular, was seen as the most important expression of ethnicity. They argued that groups sharing the same (or similar) language possessed a common identity and ancestry. This was the
Romantic ideal that there once had been a single German, Celtic or Slavic people who originated from a common homeland and spoke a
common tongue, helping to provide a
conceptual framework for
political movements of the 18th and 19th centuries such as
Pan-Germanism and
Pan-Slavism. From the 1960s, a reinterpretation of archaeological and historical evidence prompted scholars, such as Goffart and Todd, to propose new models for explaining the construction of barbarian identity. They maintained that no sense of shared identity was perceived by the
Germani; a similar theory having been proposed for Celtic and Slavic groups. A theory states that the primordialist mode of thinking was encouraged by a
prima facie interpretation of
Graeco-Roman sources, which grouped together many tribes under such labels as
Germanoi,
Keltoi or
Sclavenoi, thus encouraging their perception as distinct peoples. Modernists argue that the uniqueness perceived by specific groups was based on common political and
economic interests rather than biological or racial distinctions. Indeed, on this basis, some schools of thought in recent scholarship urge that the concept of
Germanic peoples be jettisoned altogether. The role of language in constructing and maintaining group identity can be ephemeral since large-scale language shifts occur commonly in history. Modernists propose the idea of "imagined communities": the barbarian polities in late antiquity were social constructs rather than unchanging lines of blood kinship. The process of forming tribal units was called "
ethnogenesis", a term coined by
Soviet scholar
Yulian Bromley. The
Austrian school (led by
Reinhard Wenskus) popularized this idea, which influenced medievalists such as Herwig Wolfram,
Walter Pohl and
Patrick J. Geary. The common, track-filled map of the '''' may illustrate such [a] course of events, but it misleads. Unfolded over long periods of time, the changes of position that took place were necessarily irregular ... (with) periods of emphatic discontinuity. For decades and possibly centuries, the tradition bearers idled, and the tradition itself hibernated. There was ample time for forgetfulness to do its work.
Viewpoints and other steppe nations in 100 AD. Some historians believe that the
Huns originated from the Xiongnu. Rather than "invasion", German and Slavic scholars speak of "migration" (see , , and ), aspiring to the idea of a dynamic and "wandering
Indo-Germanic people". In contrast, the standard terms in French and Italian historiography translate to "barbarian invasions", or even "barbaric invasions" (, ). Historians have postulated several explanations for the appearance of "barbarians" on the Roman frontier: climate change, weather and crops,
population pressure, a "primeval urge" to push into the Mediterranean, the construction of the
Great Wall of China causing a "domino effect" of tribes being forced westward, leading to the Huns falling upon the Goths who, in turn, pushed other Germanic tribes before them. In general, French and Italian scholars have tended to view this as a catastrophic event, the destruction of a civilization and the beginning of a "Dark Age" that set Europe back a millennium. In contrast, German and English historians have tended to see Roman–Barbarian interaction as the replacement of a "tired, effete and decadent Mediterranean civilization" with a "more virile, martial, Nordic one". The scholar
Guy Halsall has seen the barbarian movement as the result of the fall of the Roman Empire, not its cause. Archaeological discoveries have confirmed that Germanic and Slavic tribes were settled agriculturalists who were probably merely "drawn into the politics of an empire already falling apart for quite a few other causes". Goffart argues that the process of settlement was connected to
hospitalitas, the Roman practice of quartering soldiers among the civilian population. The Romans, by granting land and the right to levy taxes to allied (Germanic) armies, hoped to reduce the financial burdens of the empire. The
Crisis of the Third Century caused significant changes within the Roman Empire in both its western and its eastern portions. In particular, economic fragmentation removed many of the political, cultural and economic forces that had held the empire together. The rural population in Roman provinces became distanced from the metropolis, and there was little to differentiate them from other peasants across the Roman frontier. In addition, Rome increasingly used foreign mercenaries to defend itself. That "barbarisation" parallelled changes within
Barbaricum. To this end, noted linguist Dennis Howard Green wrote, "the first centuries of our era witness not merely a progressive Romanisation of barbarian society, but also an undeniable barbarisation of the Roman world." For example, the Roman Empire played a vital role in building up barbarian groups along its frontier. Propped up with imperial support and gifts, the armies of allied barbarian chieftains served as buffers against other, hostile, barbarian groups. The disintegration of Roman
economic power weakened groups that had come to depend on Roman gifts for the maintenance of their own power. The arrival of the Huns helped prompt many groups to invade the provinces for economic reasons. and peoples after the end of the
Western Roman Empire in 476 AD The nature of the barbarian takeover of former Roman provinces varied from region to region. For example, in
Aquitaine, the provincial administration was largely self-reliant. Halsall has argued that local rulers simply "handed over" military rule to the
Ostrogoths, acquiring the identity of the newcomers. In
Gaul, the collapse of imperial rule resulted in anarchy: the Franks and
Alemanni were pulled into the ensuing "power vacuum", resulting in conflict. In Hispania, local aristocrats maintained independent rule for some time, raising their own armies against the
Vandals. Meanwhile, the Roman withdrawal from lowland England resulted in conflict between
Saxons and the
Brittonic chieftains (whose centres of power retreated westward as a result). The
Eastern Roman Empire attempted to maintain control of the Balkan provinces despite a thinly-spread imperial army relying mainly on local militias and an extensive effort to refortify the Danubian
limes. The ambitious fortification efforts collapsed, worsening the impoverished conditions of the local populace and resulting in colonization by Slavic warriors and their families. Halsall and Noble have argued that such changes stemmed from the breakdown in Roman political control, which exposed the weakness of local Roman rule. Instead of large-scale migrations, there were military takeovers by small groups of warriors and their families, who usually numbered only in the tens of thousands. The process involved active, conscious decision-making by Roman provincial populations. The collapse of centralized control severely weakened the sense of Roman identity in the provinces, which may explain why the provinces then underwent dramatic cultural changes even though few barbarians settled in them. Ultimately, the Germanic groups in the
Western Roman Empire were accommodated without "dispossessing or overturning indigenous society", and they maintained a structured and hierarchical (but attenuated) form of Roman administration. Ironically, they lost their unique identity as a result of such an accommodation and were absorbed into Latinhood. In contrast, in the east, Slavic tribes maintained a more "spartan and egalitarian" existence bound to the land "even in times when they took their part in plundering Roman provinces". Their organizational models were not Roman, and their leaders were not normally dependent on Roman gold for success. Thus they arguably had a greater effect on their region than the Goths, the Franks or the
Saxons had on theirs.
Ethnicity Based on the belief that particular types of artifacts, elements of personal adornment generally found in a funerary context, are thought to indicate the
ethnicity of the person buried, the "Culture-History" school of archaeology assumed that archaeological cultures represent the '''' (homeland) of tribal polities named in historical sources. As a consequence, the shifting extensions of material cultures were interpreted as the expansion of peoples. Influenced by
constructionism, process-driven archaeologists rejected the
culture-historical doctrine and marginalized the discussion of ethnicity altogether and focused on the intragroup dynamics that generated such material remains. Moreover, they argued that adoption of new cultures could occur through trade or internal political developments rather than only military takeovers. ==Depiction in media==