When Does Antiquity End?

[Ludovicus]

It seems that people are trying to generalise about something that clearly cannot be generalised.

 

Depending on where you are, and what time frame you are situated inside, ages of antiquity vary immensely; you may disagree, but this what I believe. For instance, the fall of Rome, and with it the emergence of the 'modern' European states, is often considered the end of European antiquity—even though the 'Dark Age' transition period is seemingly more ancient than the Roman period, no event thereafter disrupted the status quo of Europe. In the Near East the rise of Islam dictated the area's future thereafter, and therefore was the beginning of its modern age. In Mesoamerica, it could be argued that the arrival of the conquistadors did more to usher Mexico in the country we know today than the Maya ever did.

 

My basic argument is that regions, civilisations and peoples break out of antiquity after a great event, which did more to create the modern states we see today than anything else. In other words, the events mentioned above were catalysts in the development our contemporary world.

 

WotWortius,

Well said. Thanks. The above helps.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Ludovicus

[M. Porcius Cato]

WW--how are you defining 'antiquity' and 'modern states'? I assume you don't mean that the greatest influence on modern France was Odacer, correct?

[WotWotius]

WW--how are you defining 'antiquity' and 'modern states'? I assume you don't mean that the greatest influence on modern France was Odacer, correct?

 

No, I am merely saying that the barbarian incursions of the 5th-9th Centuries, which subsequently destroyed the Rome Empire, were a greater influence in the development of modern day France than the Roman Empire itself.

Edited October 5, 2006 by WotWotius

[DecimusCaesar]

It is very hard to interpret when Antiquity came to an end,300 476, 500, 640, 800 the list of dates is enormous and most historians can't agree on it. I think we can all agree that the Antique world had certainly ended by the beginning of the last Millennium (c.1000 AD) as I can't imagine that the Battle of Hastings or the First Crusade would be considered part of the Antique world of Greece and Rome.

 

I think that it came to an end in some parts of the mediterranean at different times. It had certainly ended in the West before it came to an end in the east.

Edited October 5, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[Pantagathus]

as I can't imagine that the Battle of Hastings or the First Crusade would be considered part of the Antique world of Greece and Rome.

From that perspective, I am thus inclined to say it should end with the Polytheistic era.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Pantagathus

[Neos Dionysos]

as I can't imagine that the Battle of Hastings or the First Crusade would be considered part of the Antique world of Greece and Rome.

From that perspective, I am thus inclined to say it should end with the Polytheistic era.

 

So then would say 312? Or would you go further past Julian in 363, or the "last breath" of polytheism in 394?

 

 

 

To answer the original question, I was always taught that Antiquity ended with the fall of Rome but then the question begs, when did Rome fall? And to make things more complicated, did Rome fall at all?

 

Personally, I have always felt that Antiquity ended with the crowning of Charlemagne, and the "middle ages" ended in 1453, because of the use of cannon to finally take a city that was almost imprenable without gunpowder's aid.

 

Perhaps this has ben covered, but does anyone here see a difference between the "Classical Period" and "Antiquity"? Are they one in the same or do they merely overlap for a time?

[Pantagathus]

Perhaps this has ben covered, but does anyone here see a difference between the "Classical Period" and "Antiquity"? Are they one in the same or do they merely overlap for a time?

They are by no means one and the same. Think of Catal Huyuk as an urban center of 'remote antiquity' and in that vein, it's easier to see the Classical period as just a certain phase of antiquity.

[DecimusCaesar]

The Oxford historian Robin Lane Fox decided to end his book 'The Classical World' with the death of the Emperor Hadrian. He sees it beginning with the poetry of Homer. The reason he places it at the death of Hadrian is that he consideres that era to be the last flourishing of the type of poetry made famous by Homer.

[docoflove1974]

Depending on where you are, and what time frame you are situated inside, ages of antiquity vary immensely

 

I would only add to this: what is it that you're describing? For example, when I describe to my students the history of the Romance languages, there is a massive break between 'Latin' and 'Romance', and that this corresponds to the fall of Rome (and, say, the 3 or so centuries after that, when we have little recorded that isn't an attempt at Latin) and then the start of the feudal European states. This latter time refers to when we have written documents where the writers no longer try to emulate Latin, but the vernacular that is spoken; depending on the area you're talking about, that could be 9th-11th century.

 

The 'limbo' in between, well, is just that; I often call it 'purgatorio' (Dante would love me!), since we have very little in the way of written documents. We have some jarchas from Iberia, but they haven't been fully translated yet. During the Moorish conquest and occupation of Iberia, the Moors and Mozarabes (Iberians who 'converted' to the Moorish way of life), along with the Jewish Iberians, wrote songs and poetry in their Semitic languages...except the last 2 stanzas were always written in 'Romance', but with Arabic/Hebrew writing; these are the jarchas. That I know of, we don't have much else--apart from occasional 'glosses' in the margins--before the Oath of Strassburg.

 

So, for me, there's 3 'periods': 'antiquity' (until the fall of the Empire, or there abouts), 'limbo', and 'modern' (roughly the 9th-11th century). It's not a great division, but it's as close as I can get for my (linguistic) purposes.

Edited October 5, 2006 by docoflove1974

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I never really went into something like this before. To me, the fall of the west seems best, as the dark ages are quite clearly a contrast from the previous Roman administration. Massive amounts of knowledge were lost over a few generations- Europe wouldn't be as intellectually prosperous as Rome until the Renaissance. Also, people thought differently. Unlike antiquity, one was not as inclined to die for his country anymore- they more or less died for their religion. After Rome, the social structure also greatly changed, slaves not completely slaves, but serfs, ect. I think these factors after the West make a good mark for a new time period.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[WotWotius]

Depending on where you are, and what time frame you are situated inside, ages of antiquity vary immensely

 

I would only add to this: what is it that you're describing? For example, when I describe to my students the history of the Romance languages, there is a massive break between 'Latin' and 'Romance', and that this corresponds to the fall of Rome (and, say, the 3 or so centuries after that, when we have little recorded that isn't an attempt at Latin) and then the start of the feudal European states. This latter time refers to when we have written documents where the writers no longer try to emulate Latin, but the vernacular that is spoken; depending on the area you're talking about, that could be 9th-11th century.

 

The 'limbo' in between, well, is just that; I often call it 'purgatorio' (Dante would love me!), since we have very little in the way of written documents. We have some jarchas from Iberia, but they haven't been fully translated yet. During the Moorish conquest and occupation of Iberia, the Moors and Mozarabes (Iberians who 'converted' to the Moorish way of life), along with the Jewish Iberians, wrote songs and poetry in their Semitic languages...except the last 2 stanzas were always written in 'Romance', but with Arabic/Hebrew writing; these are the jarchas. That I know of, we don't have much else--apart from occasional 'glosses' in the margins--before the Oath of Strassburg.

 

So, for me, there's 3 'periods': 'antiquity' (until the fall of the Empire, or there abouts), 'limbo', and 'modern' (roughly the 9th-11th century). It's not a great division, but it's as close as I can get for my (linguistic) purposes.

 

This is effectively my view point:

 

Depending on where you are, and what time frame you are situated inside, ages of antiquity vary immensely; you may disagree, but this what I believe. For instance, the fall of Rome, and with it the emergence of the 'modern' European states, is often considered the end of European antiquity

[Viggen]

...the period from Odoacer to Theodoric the Great was a period were at least in Noricum (according to Prof. Glaser an austrian expert on ostrogoths) not much changed for the individual citizens to before they appeared). Theoderic kept the status quo for many situations of normal life. The beureaucracy was the same, even with same (or very similar) laws.

 

A good sign was that the settlements and towns were not deserted. Only once the slavs arrived around AD600 the "old system" collapsed, settlements were deserted...

 

so according to my home, antiquity (in a sense of roman (classical) life) ended almost 200 years later then for example britains... , right?

[DecimusCaesar]

so according to my home, antiquity (in a sense of roman (classical) life) ended almost 200 years later then for example britains... , right?

 

It seemed to have collapsed in Britain at a fast rate, according to the Archaelogical record there was no trace of Romano-British existance by AD 600, showing that a collapse had occured within few years of Honorius's letter to the Britons. A lot of it had to do with the decline of Roman towns which had already been sealed up even during the Roman period itself. With the Empire cutting off links with the island the people must have abandoned the towns rapidly and returned to a agricultural existance.

[Kosmo]

Periodization it's always tricky. We have different events that change some aspects of life while others remain the same.

History of Rome it's one of ever changing situations

I believe, like Pirrenne, that Islamic conquests and the wars between Islam, Byzantium and the Frankish kingdom are the end of mediterranean unity.

Also the use of latin in the east after slavic invasions in the Balkans was reduced.

The invasions had a social impact by reducing slavery, decreased urbanisation and trade, increased local autonomy and introduction of foreign laws and languages.

It's hard to say when but things really changed. Religion, art, diet, ideology, language, trade and crafts all were different by 750 AD.

So, I believe that the time between 200 AD - 750 AD is the Late Antiquity, a long period of change in the mediterranean.

What we do wtih areas outside Roman control or those where just briefly connected with it like Crimeea?

This kind of big words are useless if we try to define them more precisely.

For exemple Renaissance has various starting and ending dates and some historians even dont consider it an age...

[WotWotius]

so according to my home, antiquity (in a sense of roman (classical) life) ended almost 200 years later then for example britains... , right?

 

It seemed to have collapsed in Britain at a fast rate, according to the Archaelogical record there was no trace of Romano-British existance by AD 600, showing that a collapse had occured within few years of Honorius's letter to the Britons. A lot of it had to do with the decline of Roman towns which had already been sealed up even during the Roman period itself. With the Empire cutting off links with the island the people must have abandoned the towns rapidly and returned to a agricultural existance.

 

Archaeology has proven that certain bath houses, and villas were still being utilised in Britain up until 700AD: though the later structures were indeed much more basic than their earlier predecessors.