04-07-2014, 11:48 AM
Well I really don't agree with the Hanson-esque rant below, but I shan't address that, sorry. Anyway, Joe:
A lot the "hippy dippy "scholarship" looks at the artifact record and sees little change in the countryside aside from the disappearance of large estates full of slave labor. The Roman urban centers in many instances do depopulate as the people are not getting regular supplies of food. Literacy declines, but the vast majority of people were illiterate so no major change there. High art transforms as the buyers taste for art changes.
I suppose a lot depends on what you mean by "culture."[/quote]
It does depend on what you mean by culture, here I'm literally talking about anything recognisably Roman. I'm glad someone brought up the artefact record, this is actually quite fallacious as I'll now go on to explain. Having china in my cupboard does not necessitate a cultural continuity with China, or that it is used in the same manner as they did. We may infer that such objects come originally from China but as you see the situation quickly gets complicated. Point of origin may be different from point of manufacture, are we reproducing exactly or mimicking? what are the changes? what began the china craze? do we use it in the same way as its home? did we change or they? and so on and on. Artefacts actually don't tell you us as much as we want, in isolation they're worse than useless.
Greek religion is a perfect example where archaeological accounts differ so much from what Plato and friends tell us one wonders if they're looking at the same evidence, they're not, they're interpreting blindly. Also Greek religion is interesting due to the remarkable proliferation of eastern artefacts, deities and cultic practice which happily differ and diverge. So while we may say elements of Greek cult go back to the hoary past of Mesopotamia, this certainly isn't the same thing.
Moreover there ARE large scale changes, before we even get to complex stuff. Change in settlement patterns? pretty huge. Change in slavery? again huge. The decentralisation, that occurs with landowners suddenly becoming powerful almost baronial, is a world apart from what the papyrus record tells us about Roman Egypt. You claim literature was only for a small section, sure, but it was a) for the most important section and b) "literature" in Rome WAS a complex social phenomenon! It was predicated on having a large amount of individuals educated in a particular manner. For those people to receive that education required a highly mobile international elite (and all that entails, slaves, copying houses etc) and an extensive and complex patronage system.
Literature was society for a huge section of the population due to the trickle down effects. Yes btw we can discern Roman and non-Roman use of Roman material. When the literature becomes theology and biblical canon, the copying and education done locally and by churchmen...well these aren't "little changes" but the collapse and replacement of a whole system. Do let us take Fortunatus whose poems are available here: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/venantius.html He is using Latin (albeit in a bad metre) and is ensconced in classical imagery...but it's decidedly non-Roman. If anything he's playing the role of a skald or a filid rather than a poeta in any meaningful sense. This is in marked contrast to, say, Prokopios or Nikolaos Byrennios who are still very much writing in a Roman context.
Again, I'm not arguing for a dichotomy between Roman and Christian. Prokopios and Byrennios were Christian, as was Macrobius in the West (most likely) but there are other important parameters to consider.
Basically to re-iterate. That these places were formerly Roman in some manner and benefited from continual Roman influence is not in doubt, but there was a gradual "collapse" of Roman culture and society in those areas.
Quote:When you say, "culture by any meaningful rubric does indeed collapse" what solid evidence is there that the life and culture of the majority of the common people in the Western Empire suddenly changed? Culture is a persistent thing that is not easily discarded, more so when religion is involved.
A lot the "hippy dippy "scholarship" looks at the artifact record and sees little change in the countryside aside from the disappearance of large estates full of slave labor. The Roman urban centers in many instances do depopulate as the people are not getting regular supplies of food. Literacy declines, but the vast majority of people were illiterate so no major change there. High art transforms as the buyers taste for art changes.
I suppose a lot depends on what you mean by "culture."[/quote]
It does depend on what you mean by culture, here I'm literally talking about anything recognisably Roman. I'm glad someone brought up the artefact record, this is actually quite fallacious as I'll now go on to explain. Having china in my cupboard does not necessitate a cultural continuity with China, or that it is used in the same manner as they did. We may infer that such objects come originally from China but as you see the situation quickly gets complicated. Point of origin may be different from point of manufacture, are we reproducing exactly or mimicking? what are the changes? what began the china craze? do we use it in the same way as its home? did we change or they? and so on and on. Artefacts actually don't tell you us as much as we want, in isolation they're worse than useless.
Greek religion is a perfect example where archaeological accounts differ so much from what Plato and friends tell us one wonders if they're looking at the same evidence, they're not, they're interpreting blindly. Also Greek religion is interesting due to the remarkable proliferation of eastern artefacts, deities and cultic practice which happily differ and diverge. So while we may say elements of Greek cult go back to the hoary past of Mesopotamia, this certainly isn't the same thing.
Moreover there ARE large scale changes, before we even get to complex stuff. Change in settlement patterns? pretty huge. Change in slavery? again huge. The decentralisation, that occurs with landowners suddenly becoming powerful almost baronial, is a world apart from what the papyrus record tells us about Roman Egypt. You claim literature was only for a small section, sure, but it was a) for the most important section and b) "literature" in Rome WAS a complex social phenomenon! It was predicated on having a large amount of individuals educated in a particular manner. For those people to receive that education required a highly mobile international elite (and all that entails, slaves, copying houses etc) and an extensive and complex patronage system.
Literature was society for a huge section of the population due to the trickle down effects. Yes btw we can discern Roman and non-Roman use of Roman material. When the literature becomes theology and biblical canon, the copying and education done locally and by churchmen...well these aren't "little changes" but the collapse and replacement of a whole system. Do let us take Fortunatus whose poems are available here: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/venantius.html He is using Latin (albeit in a bad metre) and is ensconced in classical imagery...but it's decidedly non-Roman. If anything he's playing the role of a skald or a filid rather than a poeta in any meaningful sense. This is in marked contrast to, say, Prokopios or Nikolaos Byrennios who are still very much writing in a Roman context.
Again, I'm not arguing for a dichotomy between Roman and Christian. Prokopios and Byrennios were Christian, as was Macrobius in the West (most likely) but there are other important parameters to consider.
Basically to re-iterate. That these places were formerly Roman in some manner and benefited from continual Roman influence is not in doubt, but there was a gradual "collapse" of Roman culture and society in those areas.
Jass
