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.