When Does Antiquity End?

[Aphrodite]

I've always personally applied it roughly to the fall of Rome and the beginning of the "dark age" of Europe. However, from a military perspective I think an earlier pre heavy cavalry date is more appropriate.

 

The fall of rome did not really signify the begining of a dark age though

 

 

I do a class called Women in Late Antiquity... and we had a discussion on what 'late antiquity' was. The following points were raised:

 

Late Antiquity = roughly the rise of Christianity (fourth century) to the mid seventh century.

 

1. For late antiquity think late roman - i.e Byzantine.

 

2. Tertullian wrote in the second century, yet his rhetoric still fitted the ideogies of the empire a few hundred years later.

 

3. 'Late' Antiquity is defined by the rise of christianity.

 

4. Dark Ages? Schools call the period the dark ages, but this was NOT a period of decline! Urbanisation of the east.

 

I guess you could say Antiquity ended when the middle ages began

[TaylorS]

I don't like the "traditional" Antiquity/Middle Ages/Modernity periodization. The end of "Antiquity" (which I date to Justinian closing the Academy of Plato) was a fundamental break point in the history of Europe, signaling the death of Graeco-Roman civilization and the birth of Western Civilization and Orthodox Christian Civilization. The supposed fundamental distinction between the "Middle Ages" and "Modernity" doesn't exist.

[Northern Neil]

The fall of rome did not really signify the begining of a dark age though

 

Ward Perkins, Peter Heather and other historians have recently dismissed this view as it flies in the face of all evidence. In the West, it heralded the start of massive economic collapse, a drop in literacy, a fall in population, desertion of cities and a huge decline in the living standards of ordinary people. In some countries such as Britain, Gaul and Spain, the Historical record almost ceased for two centuries. Coinage ceased to circulate. Quality of pottery and other manufactured goods sharply fell. Long distance travel ceased - in 400 it was possible to send a letter from Cadiz to Alexandria. By 500 this was impossible and would be for another 1000 years. Iron age economy was returned to, as well as building techniques - stone buildings with tiled roofs were only built by the Church, and on a very small scale. The low point came in about 800, when there were no towns west of Constantinople with a population greater than 5'000, with the exception of Arab Cordoba, in Spain. Trade throughout the Western Mediterranean did not return to fourth century levels until the 18th century. The upturn only began in the tenth century, with the advent of city states in Northern Italy, and a return to long distance trade. The rise of Christianity in this period is only a subjective bonus perceived by litoralist Christians.

 

Compare all this with the situation before the mid 5th century.

 

Antiquity is believed to have ended with the Arab invasions of the 7th century, although the term itself was fairly recently coined to refer to an uncertain, ambiguous period.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Northern Neil

[sonic]

For me, antiquity ended with the reign of Heraclius. This is because 'antiquity' to me means a reliance upon the use of 'classical' Latin and 'classical' Greek, with both languages being roughly equal and the traditions of both cultures being equally used by the educated people of both East and West. It is easy to see why Heraclius legalised the use of Greek instead of Latin in Byzantine documents - a gradual change that had been progressing over the previous centuries - but from his time onwards one aspect of antiquity became dominant whilst the other dwindled.

 

The continued use of Latin in the West does not mean a continuation of antiquity, since Greek fell into disuse - except in very exceptional cases - and Latin itself cease to be a 'living' language, relegated from the medium of mass communication to a form of 'low' Latin that was a preserve of the clergy. Antiquity had definitely gone when the general population needed the clergy to read the bible to them!

 

And when I say 'classical' Latin etc, I mean continuous use by a large percentage of the population of a 'living' language that changes over time. The Latin of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Greek of Procopius represented a language that had changed; Procopius is as much a part of the 'classical' world as Herodotus, and Vegetius as Julius Caesar or Virgil. Latin is now a fossil that has not changed for centuries.

[Andrew Dalby]

For me, antiquity ended with the reign of Heraclius. This is because 'antiquity' to me means a reliance upon the use of 'classical' Latin and 'classical' Greek, with both languages being roughly equal and the traditions of both cultures being equally used by the educated people of both East and West. It is easy to see why Heraclius legalised the use of Greek instead of Latin in Byzantine documents - a gradual change that had been progressing over the previous centuries - but from his time onwards one aspect of antiquity became dominant whilst the other dwindled.

 

The continued use of Latin in the West does not mean a continuation of antiquity, since Greek fell into disuse - except in very exceptional cases - and Latin itself cease to be a 'living' language, relegated from the medium of mass communication to a form of 'low' Latin that was a preserve of the clergy. Antiquity had definitely gone when the general population needed the clergy to read the bible to them!

 

And when I say 'classical' Latin etc, I mean continuous use by a large percentage of the population of a 'living' language that changes over time. The Latin of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Greek of Procopius represented a language that had changed; Procopius is as much a part of the 'classical' world as Herodotus, and Vegetius as Julius Caesar or Virgil. Latin is now a fossil that has not changed for centuries.

 

Very interesting points. I don't think I quite agree about the Latin of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Greek of Procopius: I reckon these were already archaic, fossilised, forms of language very far from what was used in everyday speech. But, yes, I must admit that at those periods lots and lots of people still wrote more-or-less-classical Latin and Greek every day. The classical languages still fully existed as standards. Later, in medieval times, they gradually became the preserve of a smaller elite.

[sonic]

Very interesting points. I don't think I quite agree about the Latin of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Greek of Procopius: I reckon these were already archaic, fossilised, forms of language very far from what was used in everyday speech. But, yes, I must admit that at those periods lots and lots of people still wrote more-or-less-classical Latin and Greek every day. The classical languages still fully existed as standards. Later, in medieval times, they gradually became the preserve of a smaller elite.

 

I know what you mean and I agree that Marcellinus and Procopius would have used traditional, but archaic, forms of language. However, they were a continuation of a tradition and that tradition was still unbroken. That is the crux of the argument. The fact that any readers of the time would have had to have the same background education to understand the texts in their entirity is true, but then the same holds true for many academic works today: the average reader would have to dive for his dictionary at least once per page!!

[Andrew Dalby]

Very interesting points. I don't think I quite agree about the Latin of Ammianus Marcellinus and the Greek of Procopius: I reckon these were already archaic, fossilised, forms of language very far from what was used in everyday speech. But, yes, I must admit that at those periods lots and lots of people still wrote more-or-less-classical Latin and Greek every day. The classical languages still fully existed as standards. Later, in medieval times, they gradually became the preserve of a smaller elite.

 

I know what you mean and I agree that Marcellinus and Procopius would have used traditional, but archaic, forms of language. However, they were a continuation of a tradition and that tradition was still unbroken. That is the crux of the argument. The fact that any readers of the time would have had to have the same background education to understand the texts in their entirity is true, but then the same holds true for many academic works today: the average reader would have to dive for his dictionary at least once per page!!

 

How true!