Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

conclusion 975
Constantinople (a.d. 324 and 330), or the early seventh century, to coincide
with the reign of Heraclius (a.d. 610–41) and the Arab conquests. 9 There
are indeed good reasons why those with a focus on the eastern empire, and
especially its religious history, might want to start with Constantine, and why
the military, economic and administrative changes of the seventh century
might also seem to mark a realistic turning-point. 10 However, common
usage is in practice inconsistent, and even those who prefer the later date
commonly use the term Byzantine to refer, say, to the reign of Justinian,
while most Roman historians would find it unnatural to refer to Constantine
as Byzantine; in practical terms, the pivotal period is probably the fifth
century, when the western empire ceased to exist, leaving only an eastern,
‘Byzantine’ empire. But there is indeed a danger of seeming to prejudge the
relevant issues in imposing a consistent mode of reference, and there has
therefore been no aim in this Volume to introduce a rigid periodization.
Indeed, that would be contrary to the approach taken by many of the contributors;
overlap of terminology is therefore not only to be expected but
also in due measure to be welcomed.
Perhaps one of the most striking features of our period is the growing
disparity in apparent prosperity, in both town and country, between the east
and the west. In contrast to the situation in the west, some of the eastern
Mediterranean provinces in the sixth century display signs of a prosperity
hardly equalled previously; this is true especially of Palestine and modern
Jordan. 11 The basis of this prosperity and the extent to which it was still to
be found at the end of the sixth century are the subject of some discussion,
as is the scale and significance of the evidence for long-distance trade
across the Mediterranean. 12 But it is in general the case that the period saw
a shift of wealth and authority to the south and east. In part, this must be
due to the disruption caused by barbarian invasion and settlement in the
west, but it must also have been brought about by the heavy investment of
resources in the east which had been a feature of the Roman empire since
the third century. Doctrinal and political differences between east and west
– for example, in attitudes towards the Vandal regime in North Africa –
were to some degree sharpened by these underlying economic factors, and
they must also in part explain the political, military and cultural strength of
the east in the sixth century.
Another way of viewing the period covered in Volumes XIII and XIV,
or perhaps more accurately from Volume XII onwards, is as ‘the age of late
antiquity’, 13 a period broadly defined as running from the later third century
9 Kazhdan and Constable (1982). Whittow (1996) chooses to begin at a.d. 600.
10 Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century.
11 Cameron and King (1994); Whittow (1990); Walmsley (1996). 12 Wickham (1988).
13 Especially since Brown (1971), on which see the debate ‘The world of late antiquity revisited’ in
Symbolae Osloenses 72 (1997): 5–90. See now Bowersock, Brown, Grabar (1999).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008