Editing Migration Period (section)

== Discussions ==
=== Barbarian identity ===
{{Further|Barbarian}}

Analysis of barbarian [[Cultural identity|identity]] and how it was created and expressed during the Barbarian Invasions has elicited discussion among scholars. [[Herwig Wolfram]], a historian of the Goths,<ref>Wolfram, Thomas J. Dunlap, tr. ''History of the Goths'' (1979) 1988:5</ref> in discussing the equation of ''migratio gentium'' with ''{{lang|de|Völkerwanderung}}'', observes that {{ill|Michael Ignaz Schmidt|de|lt=Michael Schmidt}} 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 [[Nation|nationhood]] created during the [[French Revolution]]".

The "primordialistic"<ref>Anthony D. Smith, ''The Ethnic Origins of Nations'' (Oxford, 1966) pp. 6ff., coined the term to separate these thinkers from those who view ethnicity as a situational construct, the product of history, rather than a cause, influenced by a variety of political, economic and cultural factors.</ref> 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.{{sfn|Geary|2006|p=29}} 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.{{sfn|Kulikowski|2007|p=46}} 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.<ref>That was influenced by the 'family tree' model (''{{lang|de|Stammbaun}}'') of linguistics in that relationships between related languages were seen to be the result of derivation from a [[common descent|common ancestor]]. The model still is very influential in linguistics</ref> This was the [[Romanticism|Romantic]] ideal that there once had been a single German, Celtic or Slavic people who originated from a common homeland and spoke a [[lingua franca|common tongue]], helping to provide a [[conceptual framework]] for [[political movement]]s of the 18th and 19th centuries such as [[Pan-Germanism]] and [[Pan-Slavism]].{{sfn|Kulikowski|2007|p=46}}

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'';<ref name="Halsall 2008 17">{{harvtxt|Halsall|2008|p=17}}</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Todd|1996|pp=8–10}} There is no indication that the Germani possessed a feeling that they were a "separate people, nation, or group of tribes"</ref>{{sfn|Geary|2006|p=29}} a similar theory having been proposed for Celtic and Slavic groups.<ref>For example, ''The Celtic World'', Miranda Green (1996), p. 3 and ''The Making of the Slavs''. Floring Curta (2001)</ref>

A theory states that the primordialist mode of thinking was encouraged by a ''[[prima facie]]'' interpretation of [[Greco-Roman world|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 interest]]s 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.<ref name ="Halsall 2008 24">{{harvtxt|Halsall|2008|p=24}}</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Friedrich|Harland|2020|}}</ref>

The role of language in constructing and maintaining group identity can be ephemeral since large-scale language shifts occur commonly in history.<ref>''Archaeology and Language: Correlating Archaeological and Linguistic Hypotheses''. "The Eurasian Spread Zone and the Indo-European Dispersal." [[Johanna Nichols]]. p. 224</ref> Modernists propose the idea of "imagined communities"; the barbarian polities in late antiquity were social constructs rather than unchanging lines of blood kinship.{{sfn|Kulikowski|2007|p=48}} The process of forming tribal units was called "[[ethnogenesis]]", a term coined by [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] scholar [[Yulian Bromley]].<ref>{{harvtxt |Halsall|2008|p=15}}</ref> The [[Vienna School of History|Austrian school]] (led by [[Reinhard Wenskus]]) popularized this idea, which influenced medievalists such as Herwig Wolfram, [[Walter Pohl]] and [[Patrick J. Geary]].<ref name="Halsall 2008 17" /> It argues that the stimulus for forming tribal polities was perpetuated by a small nucleus of people, known as the ''{{lang|de|Traditionskern}}'' ("kernel of tradition"), who were a military or aristocratic elite. This core group formed a standard for larger units, gathering adherents by employing amalgamative metaphors such as kinship and aboriginal commonality and claiming that they perpetuated an ancient, divinely-sanctioned lineage.<ref name="harvtxt|Geary|2003|p = 77">{{harvtxt|Geary|2003|p=77}}</ref>

<blockquote>The common, track-filled map of the ''{{lang|de|Völkerwanderung}}'' 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&nbsp;... (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.{{sfn|Wood|2006|p=97}}</blockquote>

=== Viewpoints ===
{{Blockquote
|text=''Völkerwanderung'' is a German word, borrowed from German historiography, that refers to the early migrations of the Germanic peoples. In a broader sense it can mean the mass migration of whole tribes or ethnic groups.
|source=Bell-Fialkoff, Andrew. ''The Role of Migration'', p. 15
}}

[[File:East-Hem 100ad.jpg|thumb|270px|Location of [[Xiongnu]] 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 {{langx|de|Völkerwanderung}}, {{langx|cs|Stěhování národů}}, {{langx|sv|folkvandring}} and {{langx|hu|népvándorlás}}), aspiring to the idea of a dynamic and "wandering [[Indo-European languages|Indo-Germanic]] people".{{sfn|Halsall|2006b|p=236}}

In contrast, the standard terms in French and Italian historiography translate to "barbarian invasions", or even "barbaric invasions" ({{langx|fr|Invasions barbares}}, {{langx|it|Invasioni barbariche}}).

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.<ref>Wright, David Curtis (1997). "The Hsiung-Nu-Hun Equation Revisited". ''Eurasian Studies Yearbook''. 69: 77–112.</ref> 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.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=35}} 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".{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=35}}

[[File:Barbarian invasions from 3rd century.png|thumb|270px|[[Barbarian invasions of the 3rd century|Barbarian invasions against the Roman Empire in the 3rd&nbsp;century]]]]

The scholar [[Guy Halsall]] has seen the barbarian movement as the result of the fall of the Roman Empire, not its cause.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=35}} 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".{{sfn|Heather|2006|p=247}} 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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Henri J. M. Claessen, Jarich Gerlof Oosten |title=Ideology and the Formation of Early States |date=1996 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=9789004104709 |page=222}}</ref> The [[Crisis of the Third Century]] caused significant changes within the Roman Empire in both its western and its eastern portions.<ref>{{harvtxt|Curta|2001|p=120}} "[T]he archaeological evidence of late fourth- and fifth-century barbarian graves between the Rhine and Loire suggests that a process of small-scale cultural and demographic change took place on both sides of the Roman frontier. Can we envisage Roman-Slavic relations in a similar way?"</ref> In particular, economic fragmentation removed many of the political, cultural and economic forces that had held the empire together.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=42}}

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."{{sfn|Green|1998|p=143}} 

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.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=49}}

[[File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png|thumb|270px|[[Barbarian kingdoms]] 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.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=51}} In [[Gaul]], the collapse of imperial rule resulted in anarchy: the Franks and [[Alamanni|Alemanni]] were pulled into the ensuing "power vacuum",{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=50}} 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 [[Celtic Britons|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 (Roman Empire)|limes]]''. The ambitious fortification efforts collapsed, worsening the impoverished conditions of the local populace and resulting in colonization by Slavic warriors and their families.<ref>{{harvtxt|Curta|2001|pp=120–180}}</ref>

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.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|pp=50–52}} 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.{{sfn|Heather|2006|p=251}}

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"<ref>{{harvtxt|Barford|2001|p=46}}</ref> existence bound to the land "even in times when they took their part in plundering Roman provinces".<ref>{{harvtxt|Pohl1998|p=20}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{harvtxt|Geary|2003|p=146}}</ref>

=== 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 ''{{lang|de|[[Urheimat]]}}'' (homeland) of tribal polities named in historical sources.<ref>{{harvtxt|Pohl|1998|pp=17–23}}</ref> As a consequence, the shifting extensions of material cultures were interpreted as the expansion of peoples.{{sfn|Kulikowski|2007|p=61}}

Influenced by [[social constructionism|constructionism]], process-driven archaeologists rejected the [[culture-historical archaeology|culture-historical]] doctrine{{sfn|Kulikowski|2007|p=61}} 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.