wood_2010

7/27/2019 wood_2010

1/28

Defending Byzantine Spain: frontiersand diplomacyemed_300 292..319

Jamie Wood

The centrality of theReconquistain the historiography of medieval Spain hasmeant that there has been little examination of the evidence for interaction onand across political boundaries in pre-Islamic Spain. This article re-examinesexisting theories about the defence of the Byzantine province ofSpania thathad been established by Justinian in the550s and was taken by the Visigothsin 625. The two existing and opposing models for the extent, defence, and therefore the importance of the province to the empire do not explain theevidence convincingly. Rather, a fluid zone of interaction was established inwhich diplomacy and propaganda was the primary means by which oppo-sition was articulated.

Introduction

In 589/90 Comentiolus, the governor ofSpania, the Byzantine provincein southern Spain, raised an inscription in Cartagena. Comentiolus hadbeen sent by Emperor Maurice against the barbarian enemy (contrahostis barbarus) in the Visigothic kingdom of Spain with the hope that

Spain always rejoices in such a governor as long as the [north andsouth] poles are being rotated and as long as the sun circles the earth.1

Thirty years later, in 619, the first canon of the Second Council ofSeville, held under Visigothic auspices, stated that lands recentlyreconquered from the empire had been carried into captive poverty(captiva necessitas) by the barbaric savagery (barbarica feritas) of theByzantines.2

1 A. Prego de Lis, La inscripcin de Comitiolus del Museo Municipal de Arqueologa deCartagena, V Reunin de Arqueologa Cristiana Hispnica (Barcelona, 2000), p. 383: . . . SEMPER SPANIA TALI RECTORE LAETETVR DVM POLI ROTANTVR DVMQ.SOL CIRCVIT ORBEM . . .

2 II Seville, ed. J. Vives, Concilios Visigticos e Hispano-Romanos(Barcelona and Madrid, 1963), I,p. 163.

Early Medieval Europe2010 18 (3) 292319 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA

7/27/2019 wood_2010

2/28

7/27/2019 wood_2010

3/28

disputes within the Visigothic ruling elite, agreeing treaties with Visig-othic rulers, and exchanging embassies. The traditional vision of constantarmed opposition between Byzantines and Visigoths, therefore, does not

tell the full story.

A limes for Spania

The history of the Byzantine province ofSpaniabegan with Justiniansreconquest of the African provinces. Following victory over the Vandalsin 534, the Byzantines moved quickly to occupySeptem in North Africa(modern Ceuta, see Fig. 1). A garrison and a naval force were stationedthere under the command of a tribune who was responsible for moni-toring events in Spain and Gaul.6 The Balearics were also rapidly occu-pied.7 These actions were vital in securing Africa from possible attack bythe Visigoths, in controlling the navigation of the Straits of Gibraltar, andin preparing for a potential offensive against southern Spain.8 Through-out antiquity economic, political and military contact across the Straits ofGibraltar had been commonplace.9 These contacts continued into theVisigothic period: Gelimer, the Vandal king, solicited aid from the Visig-oths in his fight with the Byzantines, and there were instances of direct

Visigothic action in North Africa.10

Although the possibility of Visigothic interference in Africa from Spainmust have been a powerful incentive to action, events of the mid-550sprovided Justinian with an opportunity to intervene. According to Isidoreof Seville, the rebellion of Athanagild precipitated the Byzantine invasion:

Formerly, when his tyranny had already been initiated while hewas trying to deprive Agila of power, he [Athanagild] had asked formilitary assistance from the Emperor Justinian. Afterwards, despite

6 Codex Iustinianus I.27.2.2, ed. P. Krueger, Corpus Iuris Civilis, 2 vols (Berlin, 1967), II, p. 79.Procopius, Buildings, viii.1416, trans. H. Dewing, Procopius, 7 vols (London, 1916), VII, pp.3902.

7 Procopius, History of the Wars IV.v.68, trans. Dewing, II, p. 248.8 C. Martin, La gographie du pouvoir dans lEspagne visigothique(Lille, 2003), p. 285.9 J. Arce, El ltimo siglo de la Espaa romana: 284409 (Madrid, 1982), pp. 3162.10 Procopius, History of the Wars III.xxiv.718; IV.iv.336, trans. Dewing, II, pp. 1968, 244;

Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 22 (both redactions), ed. C. Rodrguez Alonso, Las historias de losgodos, vndalos y suevos de Isidoro de Sevilla (Lon, 1975), pp. 2068. The Visigothic kingTheudis twice attempted to take Septem losing the city to the Byzantines in 534 and failing to

retake it in 548: Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 42 (second redaction), ed. Rodrguez Alonso, p.242. Procopius, History of the WarsVI.xxx.1115, trans. Dewing, IV, pp. 1402: Uraas arguedthat Ildibaldus should be made Ostrogothic king as Theudis was his uncle and they mightexpect assistance. We cannot be sure of the exact dates of these events; while the internalchronology of Isidores Historia is secure, but is not reliably connected to any externallyverifiable dating system, M. Kulikowski, Late Roman Spain and Its Cities (Baltimore, MD,2004), p. 272, n. 81; for general contacts, pp. 716.

294 Jamie Wood

Early Medieval Europe2010 18 (3) 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

7/27/2019 wood_2010

4/28

having struggled he could not remove those [imperial soldiers] fromthe borders of his kingdom.11

The continued resistance of cities such as Crdoba to Visigothic rulemade the Byzantine invasion easier.12 This was fortunate because in 552Justinians forces were still bogged down in the Ostrogothic war in Italy.Hence, only a small force was dispatched to Spain, while a secondexpedition may have been sent in 555, at the end of the Italian campaign.13

The Visigothic nobility, seeing that they were ruining themselves by theirown destruction and fearing more, lest the [Byzantine] soldiers mightinvade Spain with the pretext of giving assistance, killed Agila and made

Athanagild king.14Although the Byzantine invasion met important stra-tegic aims, such as further securing the Mediterranean and Africa, it isunclear whether Justinian intended the total conquest of all Spain or wasopportunistically taking advantage of Visigothic disunity as he had donein Ostrogothic Italy and Vandal Africa.15 Given Justinians unwillingnessto send troops or other resources even to Italy, together with the uncer-tainty of the situation throughout the empire, the opportunistic wait andsee option seems the more likely.16

The Byzantines had to maintain their newly won control of southern

Spain. There are two basic theories about how they accomplished this. Byfar the most prevalent concept is that there was an organized and fortifiedByzantine limes-style frontier in southern Spain. Barbero and Vigil were

11 Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 47 (both redactions), ed. Rodrguez Alonso, pp. 24850: Hiscum iam dudum sumpta tyrannide Agilanem regno privare conaretur, militum sibi auxilia abimperatore Iustiniano poposcerat, quos postea submovere a finibus regni molitus non potuit.Cf. Isidore, Chronica, c. 399a (second redaction), ed. J.C. Martn, Isidori Hispalensis Chronica,CCSL 112 (Turnhout, 2003), p. 195: The Roman army enters Spain due to Athanagild (InSpaniam per Athanagildum Romanus miles ingreditur).

12 Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 456 (second redaction), ed. Rodrguez Alonso, pp. 2468.

Claude, Diplomatischen Beziehungen, p. 18. Recent work has emphasized the increasedlocalization of power in the Iberian Peninsula in the aftermath of the breakdown of centralRoman control, perhaps explaining Athanagilds willingness to exchange southern coastalregions that were only loosely tied to his kingdom (if at all) for imperial support; Kulikowski,Late Roman Spain, pp. 25686; S. Castellanos, The Political Nature of Taxation in VisigothicSpain, EME12 (2003), pp. 20128; S. Castellanos and I. Martn Viso, The Local Articulationof Central Power in the North of the Iberian Peninsula (5001000), EME13 (2005), pp. 142.

13 E.A. Thompson, The Goths in Spain (Oxford, 1969), pp. 3249; Presedo Velo, La EspaaBizantine, pp. 328, 165.

14 Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 46 (second redaction), ed. Rodrguez Alonso, p. 248: vident-es . . . proprio se everti excidio et magis metuentes, ne Spaniam milites auxili occasione inva-derent. The capture of some cities (civitates aliquas) by Justinians troops led to Agilas fall,

according to Gregory of Tours, Libri Historiarum XIV.8, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, GregoriiEpiscopi Turonensis Libri Historiarum X, MGH SRM1.1 (Hanover, 1951), p. 140.

15 J. Moorhead, Justinian (London, 1994), pp. 1089; L. Garca Moreno, The Creation ofByzantiums Spanish Province. Causes and Propaganda, Byzantion 66 (1996), pp. 10119.

16 Moorhead, Justinian, pp. 7288, 1019, for conquest of Italy, and esp. pp. 1017 for the effectof lack of resources on Byzantine fortunes in Italy. For more on Justinians finances see, C.Gordon, Procopius and Justinians Financial Policies, Phoenix13 (1959), pp. 2330.

Defending Byzantine Spain: frontiers and diplomacy 295


7/27/2019 wood_2010

5/28

the first to posit the limestheory, attempting to show that the Byzantinedefences were the prototype for a Visigothic limes which was laterdirected against the Basques and Cantabrians in northern Spain.17 The

kind of frontier imagined by Barbero and Vigil and their followers is ofa double articulation, structured as follows: an interior zone consisting ofa network of fortified cities, interspersed with smaller defensive positionsand, in more advanced positions, a series of small fortified positions(castra, castella), linked by roads and defended by limitanei soldiers.18

Although Barbero and Vigils conclusions concerning the existence oflimesin northern Spain have been criticized, their thesis concerning theByzantineVisigothic frontier has formed the basis for many subsequentstudies. These studies in turn, have formed the interpretative frameworkwithin which some distinctly ambiguous archaeological findings havebeen situated historically.19

Those who believe that there was alimesfrontier in sixth- and seventh-centurySpaniabase their theories on three literary sources. None of thisevidence stands up to detailed examination. Firstly, Paul the Deaconseighth-century Historia Langobardorum states that the wife and son ofHermengild, a sixth-century Visigothic rebel, fell into the hands ofByzantine troops who were residing in the border area opposite the

Spanish Goths.20

This reference implies that Byzantine soldiers werestationed on the edges ofSpaniato defend the province from the Visig-oths. However, the Historiawas not written until the 790s, in LombardItaly. Thus its utility in demonstrating the existence of a fortified Spanishlimes (such as that envisaged by Barbero and Vigil) two hundred yearsearlier is nugatory.

17 Barbero and Vigil, Los orgenes.18 Barbero and Vigil, Los orgenes, pp. 714; L. Garca Moreno, Vndalos, visigodos y bizantinos

en Granada (409711), in N. Marn Daz (ed.), In Memoriam Agustn Daz Toledo (Granada and

Almera, 1985), p. 139; M. Vallejo Girvs, El sistema viario peninsular en los lmites de laprovincial bizantina de Spania, Camineria Hispanica. Actas del II Congreso Internacional deCamineria Hispanica, 3 vols (Madrid, 1996), I, p. 95; F. Salvador Ventura, El poblamiento enla provincial de Granada durante los siglos VI y VII, Antigedad y Cristianismo 5 (1988), p. 346.

19 For criticisms of Roman limesin Spain see: Arce, El ltimo siglo, pp. 6772; for acceptance see:L. Garca Moreno, Organizacin militar de Bizancio en la pennsula ibrica (ss. VIVII),Hispania33 (1973), pp. 522. Visigothic limes, L. Garca Moreno, Estudios sobre la organisacinadministrativa del Reino Visigodo de Toledo, Anuario de historia del Derecho Espaol44 (1974),pp. 5157. For criticisms of the northern limestheory see M. Lovelle and J. Quiroga, De losSuevos a los Visigodos en Galicia (573711); Nuevas hiptesis sobre el proceso de integracin delnoroeste de la pennsula ibrica en el reino visigodo de Toledo, Romano-Barbarica14 (19967),pp. 26580; see J.J. Sayas Abengochea, El supuesto limes del norte durante la epoca bajoim-

perial y visigoda, Spania: estudis dantiguitat tardana oferts en homenatge al profesor Pere de Paloli Salellas (Barcelona, 1996), pp. 2467 for doubts about the existence of a limes in the northdirected against the Sueves and the other northern peoples; he is equally dubious aboutapplicability of the archaeological evidence to the limesin the south.

20 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum III.21, ed. G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerumLangobardicarum 1 (Hanover, 1878), pp. 1034: qui in limite adversum Hispanos Gothosresidebant.

296 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

6/28

The two other literary references derive from Isidore of Sevilles earlyseventh-century Historia Gothorum: Leovigild (56986) took certainforts (castra) that had been occupied by the Byzantines, and Swinthila

(62131) captured Roman forts (castra).21

Garca Moreno has stated thatsince limitaneitroops usually occupied castrain other parts of the empire,one could legitimately suppose the existence of limitanei in Spania andthus the presence of a limes-style frontier.22 However, the validity ofcomparing Isidores description of Byzantine defences in Spania, ofwhich he is likely to have known very little, with that used to describefortifications in Italy, Africa and the east, about which he must haveknown virtually nothing, must be questioned. While Isidores definitionsofcastra in the Etymologiesdemonstrate that he believed that the struc-tures fulfilled military functions, he is inconsistent in his usage of theterms. He defines acastraas a place where a soldier would be stationed;but in some cases he sees these as fixed positions, in others as temporaryand moveable, while in other instances alternative terms are used todescribe fortifications or population centres in frontier zones.23 Castraofthe sort that Isidore tried to define are thinly attested in historical orarchaeological sources; the same may be said for the limitanei and theputative limes. Additionally, it is by no means clear that Byzantine limi-

taneidid always fulfil a frontier-defence role elsewhere in the empire. Bythe end of Justinians reign, the practical military differences betweenfield troops and limitanei were unclear; field units were often perma-nently garrisoned nearer to the frontier than limitanei.24 Even if thepresence of limitaneiwas securely attributed in Spania, which it is not,their presence is not necessarily indicative of a frontier defence role.

In both of these instances, therefore, Isidore simply stated that Roman-held defensive strong points were taken by Visigoths. There is no indi-cation that these defences were constructed or positioned in special

relation to one another, to any frontier, or to any other defensive system.

21 Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 49 (both redactions): quaedam castra ab eis [the Byzantines]occupata; c. 62 (second redaction): Romana castra perdomuit, ed. Rodrguez Alonso, pp. 254,274.

22 Garca Moreno, Organizacin militar de Bizancio, p. 9.23 Isidore, EtymologiaeIX.3.44, ed. W.M. Lindsay, Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi. Etymologiarum sive

Originum Libri XX, 2 vols (Oxford, 1911), trans. S.A. Barney, W.J. Lewis, J.A. Beech and O.Berghof, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville(Cambridge, 2006), pp. 3902: A camp (castra) iswhere a soldier would be stationed. See also IX.2.99, trans. Barney et al., p. 197 (burgus as

frontier forts, related to castra); IX.4.28, trans. Barneyet al., pp. 2045 (burgias dwelling placesestablished along frontiers); XV.2.5, trans. Barneyet al., p. 305 (oppidum named from its walls);

XV.2.6, trans. Barney et al., pp. 3056 (oppidum named because it gives protection; differs insize from castellum); XV.2.13, trans. Barneyet al., p. 306 (ancients called a town sited on a veryhigh place acastra); XV.3.10, trans. Barneyet al., p. 309 (the army does not stay in camp grounds metatum but passes through).

24 Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, pp. 67, 69.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

7/28

Additionally, the evidence definitely does not prove that the Byzantinesbuilt new fortifications; they may simply have reused existing structures.However, other literary and archaeological evidence suggests that there

had been greater fortification throughout the southern Iberian country-side in the fifth century and a movement to settlements sited on hills,suggesting perhaps an increased sense of danger.25 Discerning a Byzan-tine frontier amongst these changes is virtually impossible.

The other strands of the limestheory, the presence of fortified cities inthe interior of the province and the use of comparative evidence of alimessystem from other parts of the empire, do not survive detailed scrutiny.References to cities in Spaniademonstrate the existence of urban centres,but not that they were necessarily fortified, nor that they formed part ofa limes structure.26 As observed above, comparative evidence from else-where in the Byzantine empire is often adduced in support of the limestheory.27 But, even in Byzantine Africa, the province that is most fre-quently compared to Spania, the term limesis actually synonymous witha province, or the military circumscriptions of adux; it therefore defineda geographical area, not a linear boundary.28 More generally, the chiefcharacteristic of the Byzantine defensive system was the permeablefrontier; invaders were not stopped at the frontier, nor were they brought

to battle, except in the most favourable circumstances.29

As Isaac hasargued, in Byzantine usage

[a] clear distinction is made between limitesand the frontier . . . theterm limesrefers to specific districts where forts are built rather than tothe system of forts itself . . . To my knowledge there is no passageanywhere in Byzantine sources which states that a limeswas built orconstructed. Reference is made to structures in the limes as distinctfrom the limes itself . . . there is in Latin no term to indicate what

modern frontier studies describe as alimes, a defended border. It must

25 John of Biclarum, Chronicon 20 (s.a. 571) ed. C. Hartmann, Victoris Tunnunensis Chronicon cumreliquiis ex Consularibus Caesaraugustanis et Iohannis Biclarensis Chronicon, CCSL 173A (Turn-hout, 2001), p. 63: Leovigild took the rebelling city Cordoba (the city may not have beenpreviously occupied by the Visigoths; John may simply be referring to its independence andopposition to the expansion of Visigothic power); and [Leovigild] regained many cities andforts (multasque urbes et castellan . . . revocat); John of Biclarum, Chronicon 46 (s.a. 577), ed.Hartmann, p. 69: Leovigild entered the Orospeda and occupied cities and forts of the sameprovince (Orospedam ingreditur et ciuitates atque castella eiusdem prouinciae occupat). Thisevidence suggests that these areas were fortified prior to occupation by the Visigoths. Perhaps

the Byzantines inherited a similarly fortified area. K. Carr, Vandals to Visigoths. Rural SettlementPatters in Early Medieval Spain (Ann Arbor, 2002), pp. 1426.

26 ContraVallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 381.27 E.g. Garca Moreno, Organizacin militar, p. 9.28 D. Pringle, The Defence of Byzantine Africa from Justinian to the Arab Conquest, BAR Interna-

tional Series 99, 2 vols (Oxford, 1981), I, p. 97.29 J. Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 5651204 (London, 1999), p. 69.

298 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

8/28

then be asked whether . . . the military organisation, as represented bythe physical remains, should be explained along different lines. Inother words, there can be no justification for calling any chain of forts

on a frontier alimes.30

Hence, the concept of alimesas fortified frontier dividing two clearlydefined political entities does not suffice to describe most Roman orByzantine frontiers.31 The comparative and theoretical terminologyadduced in support of the Byzantine limes in Spaniahas been wronglyinterpreted and applied, and the literary evidence used to support thetheory does nothing of the sort.

The main, recent opponent of the limestheory has been Gisela RipollLpez.32 For her, the geographical extent of the province was fairly limitedand no significant frontier existed between the Visigothic and Byzantinezones of influence: Spaniawas centred on several small enclaves that werenot united territorially. This theory is attractive because it takes accountof the geography of southern Spain that consists of a relatively thincoastal strip, intersected by river valleys and separated from the inlandzone by a series of mountain chains.33 Byzantium maintained control ofthis coastal strip as a result of its dominance of the Mediterranean.34

Ripoll Lpezs criticism of the limestheory is based on the small amountand ambiguous nature of the textual evidence as well as the lack of clearlydefined archaeological evidence:

archaeologically speaking, no evidence for this supposed limes has everbeen traced, neither archaeological sites nor finds to encourage such aninterpretation and artefact typologies are insufficiently precise to iden-tify Byzantine era objects in Spain.35

30 B. Isaac, The Meaning of the Terms limesand limitanei, Journal of Roman Studies78 (1988), pp.125, 1367, 146; see also p. 125: modern studies do not hesitate to describe as a limesany set ofRoman forts encountered in a frontier zone; B. Isaac, The Limits of Empire. The Roman Armyin the East, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1992), pp. 372418 for a generally scathing attack on the tendencyto attribute a grand strategic vision to Roman leaders, which is based on a series of assumptionsthat are themselves inspired by notions of modern strategy and warfare. For a rebuttal of Isaac,see E.L. Wheeler, Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy: Part I, The

Journal of Military History 57 (1993), pp. 741; Methodological Limits and the Mirage ofRoman Strategy: Part II, The Journal of Military History57 (1993), pp. 21540.

31 Martin, La gographie, p. 287, thought that the limesin Spain would be best conceptualized asa territorial sector, not as a linear construction.

32 G. Ripoll Lpez, On the Supposed Frontier between the Regnum Visigothorum and Byzantine

Hispania, in W. Pohl, I. Wood and H. Reimitz (eds), The Transformation of Frontiers from LateAntiquity to the Carolingians(Leiden, 2000), pp. 99, 107, 115.

33 S. Keay, Introduction: Early Roman Baetica, The Archaeology of Early Roman Baetica, in S.Keay (ed.), Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 29 (1998), pp. 1213.

34 F. van Doorninck, Byzantium, Mistress of the Sea: 300641, in G.F. Bass (ed.), A History ofSeafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology(London, 1972), pp. 13358.

35 Ripoll Lpez, On the Supposed Frontier, pp. 1089.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

9/28

This means that, despite the undoubted richness of the archaeologicalremains of the sixth and seventh centuries, it is not yet possible to talkwith confidence of Byzantine artefacts in the areas of supposed imperial

occupation during this period.36

In the absence of such diagnostic, date-able evidence, judgements about the ascription of sites to a temporalperiod or a zone of political control must be suspended.

While one can largely agree with Ripoll Lpezs conclusions on thetextual evidence,37 material recorded by archaeologists working in thisarea can add significantly to the debate. Much of this is, admittedly,ambiguous and overly influenced by the limesmodel, but there is someevidence for limited defensive construction in the Byzantine province inthe early Middle Ages. Ripoll Lpez states that the sources alwaysmention only urban centres and never make reference to the territoriesthat were conquered or dependant on these cities.38 Firstly, it should benoted that in the period under consideration the obvious way to describean area was in relation to the nearest city, especially in southern Spain, alandscape dotted with urban centres since pre-Roman times (see Fig. 1).39

Secondly, and more importantly, the textual evidence does actuallysuggest that the Byzantines controlled some inland territory and thereforethat a more thoroughgoing occupation, defence, and particularly admin-

istration of the area existed than Ripoll Lpez is prepared to allow.

The evidence for Byzantine defences

The following section utilizes archaeological, geographical, epigraphic,literary and numismatic evidence to determine the character and possibleextent of the Byzantine defences. For analytical purposes it is divided intotwo parts, each centred on a Byzantine-controlled city: Cartagena andMlaga (for the following discussion, see Fig. 1). This enables a discussion

of the evidence pertaining to the defence of each city and its hinterland,both of which we should expect to have been fortified in the Byzantineperiod if a limes did exist. Conversely, if the coastal enclave theory iscloser to historical reality, we should expect little evidence of a Byzantinepresence inland. This section does not analyse the fairly substantialevidence that has been discovered for occupation by Byzantines (orByzantine material remains) of various sites; it focuses instead on themilitary-frontier evidence. It should be noted that much of the

36 A. Gonzlez Blanco, Romanidad y Bizantinismo en el sudests Hispano durante la AntigedadTarda, Spania: estudis dantiguitat tardana oferts en homenatge al profesor Pere de Palol i Salellas(Barcelona, 1996), p. 133.

37 Ripoll Lpez, On the Supposed Frontier, p. 98.38 Ripoll Lpez, On the Supposed Frontier, p. 98.39 A.T. Fear, Rome and Baetica. Urbanization in Southern Spain c.50BCAD105 (Oxford, 1996).

300 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

10/28

terminology used by archaeologists and historians who have analysed thesites under consideration is ambiguous; the vocabulary is reproduced herein order to demonstrate the shakiness of much of the evidence base of the

limes theory. Reasons for such uncertainty include the possibility thatsome sites were occupied by the Byzantines and then reused by theVisigoths, or vice versa, or that the attribution to the Byzantine periodrefers to an ill-defined chronological period (sixth and seventh centuries,or parts thereof) and not the the period of the actual Byzantine occu-pation of south-eastern Spain.40

Cartagena

Cartagena, the likely capital ofSpania, has the best evidence for defensiveconstruction.41 Parts of the Byzantine wall and a semi-circular tower havebeen discovered in excavations in Calle Soledad / Calle Nueva, whileexcavations at Calle Orcel revealed a continuation of the same wall.42

Terra sigillatapottery of a type usually dated to the period 580620 hasbeen discovered in the excavations, raising the possibility that these arethe fortifications erected by Governor Comentiolus in 589/90, describedby contemporaries as the high summits of the towers and the entrance of

the city, strengthened by a double gate to the right and to the left,supported by two pairs of arches, above which is placed an arched vaultedroof.43Additionally, the hill called Cerro de la Concepcin, a site whichoften played a defensive role in the past, may have been reoccupied in thesixth and seventh centuries.44 According to Isidore, the Visigoths finallytook and devastated Cartagena in 624.45

40 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, pp. 384, 387; Salvador Ventura, El

poblamiento, p. 346.41 For urban archaeology of Cartagena see S. Ramallo Asensio, Aproximacin al urbanismo de

Carthago Nova entre los siglos IVVII D.C., Spania: estudis dantiguitat tardana oferts enhomenatge al profesor Pere de Palol i Salellas (Barcelona, 1996), pp. 2018, who notes that thearchaeological evidence suggests that the life of the city and its Hispano-Roman populationcontinued as it had before the Byzantines arrived with wealth based on its status as animportant port and was only interrupted with Visigothic conquest in the 620s.

42 S. Ramallo Asensio and R. Mndez Ortiz, Fortificaciones tardoromanas y de poca bizantinaen el sureste, Historia de Cartagena5 (Murcia, 1986), pp. 828; Ramallo Asensio, Aproximacinal urbanismo de Carthago Nova, p. 204.

43 Ramallo Asensio and Mndez Ortiz, Fortificaciones tardoromanas y de poca bizantina, pp.8894; Prego, La inscripcin de Comitiolus, pp. 91100, 383: QVISQVIS ARDVA

TVRRIVM MIRARIS CVLMINA / VESTIBVLVMQ. VRBIS DVPLICI PORTA FIR-MATVM / DEXTRA LEVAQ. BINOS POSITOS ARCOS / QVIB. SVPERVM PONITVRCAMERA CVRVA CONVEXAQ. / The inscription was interfered with at some point; thetranscription above is the best current reading of the first part of the text; cf. J. Vives (ed.),Inscripciones cristianas de la Espaa romana y visigoda, 2nd edn (Barcelona, 1969), n. 362.

44 Ramallo Asensio, Aproximacin al urbanismo de Carthago Nova, p. 207.45 Isidore, EtymologiaeXV.1.67, trans. Barneyet al., p. 305.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

11/28

The Cartagena region has received much attention from archaeolo-gists. This has led to the identification of several potential defensive sites.However, many of these sites need further excavation to confirm the

assumptions that they were Byzantine in origin and use. Castillo de losGarres and Castillo de la Puebla, to the west of Cartagena, both controlpasses and may have been bases in the defence of Cartagena. Alterna-tively, they could have been constructed by the Visigoths to defendCehegn.46 The ceramic record of Mula suggests continuity of occupationfrom the fourth to the ninth centuries, and some of the material matchesthat found at other Byzantine sites. However, it is not yet possible toidentify Byzantine phases at Mula, and the ceramic material cannot beclearly ascribed to them.47 The sites of Castillo del Ro and Zambo mayhave been defensive positions dominating routes between Aspe and Elda,although this cannot be confirmed without excavation. Ascription toeither side, or even secure dating to our period, is thus impossible.48 Atthe strategically located city of Lorca, excavations have revealed that thehill of Cerro del Castillo was occupied by a fortress between the fifth andseventh centuries. The material remains at the site are similar to thosediscovered at Cartagena. These two pieces of information led to theassumption that the site played an important role during the imperial

occupation, although this can be confirmed definitively by neither thearchaeological nor the documentary records.49 It is easy to suppose thatthe strategically located city of Baza had some sort of military function,since it was the furthest point of Byzantine penetration into the interiorand dominated roads west from Cartagena. Although there is no defini-tive evidence that this was the case, our sources report that Leovigild tookthe city in 569.50

There is virtually no archaeological evidence for the construction of amilitary frontier in the Vinalop Valley (around Elche), although discov-

eries at some sites suggest a Byzantine context. For example, the unusualconcentration of late sixth- or seventh-century African Red Slipware andByzantine period amphorae and the absence of fourth- to mid-sixth-century African Red Slipware on the highland site of Cerro de SanMiguel (near to modern Orihuela) suggests that it was a Byzantine

46 Ramallo Asensio and Mndez Ortiz, Fortificaciones tardoromanas y de poca bizantina, pp.956; Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 387.

47 S. Ramallo Asensio and E. Ruiz Valderas, Cartagena en la arqueologa bizantina en Hispania:

estado de la cuestin, V Reunin de Arqueologa Cristiana Hispnica (Barcelona, 2000), pp.31819. P. Fuentes Hinojo, Sociedad, ejrcito y administracin fiscal en la provincia bizantinade Spania, Studia Histrica: Historia Antigua16 (1998), p. 317 ascribed the site to the Visigoths.

48 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 388, Vistalegre, may also have been adefensive position.

49 Ramallo Asensio and Ruiz Valderas, Cartagena en la arqueologa bizantina en Hispania, p. 320.50 John of Biclarum, Chronicon, c. 12, (s.a. 569), ed. Hartmann, p. 62.

302 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

12/28

outpost guarding an entrance to the valley.51At Elche a Justinianic coin (afollis), minted at Carthage in 539/40, was discovered and may be evidenceof a military presence there since such coins were probably minted to pay

the Byzantine invasion forces of North Africa; they are not found inByzantine layers at Carthage itself and are restricted to military contexts.52

However, the invasion ofSpain did not occur until over a decade after theminting date, and a solitary coin could easily have found its way toSpaniathrough other means.53 It has also been argued that the defences ofDenia, the city controlling the coast north of Cartagena and securing theBalearics, were reinforced in the earlier sixth century, sometime beforethe Byzantine invasion, and may therefore have been reused by theByzantines.54

In sum, Cartagena itself witnessed significant defensive construction inthe Byzantine period, probably owing to its importance as capital of theprovince and its strategic role in maintaining control of the Mediterra-nean. Although the vast majority of the evidence for the defence of theregion is inconclusive, many of the potential sites in the interior showsome signs of Byzantine influence, if not definite occupation, and wereclosely associated with key strategic positions, controlling roads, rivervalleys and the coast. The evidence for the Cartagena region is therefore

insufficient to suggest that an organized, fortified limessystem existed inSpania, although it does suggest more Byzantine influence in the areathan Ripoll Lpezs theory allows.55

Mlaga

Mlagas strategic location to the north-east of the Straits of Gibraltar,its harbour and its easily defensible situation means that it is likely tohave been well protected. This might explain why it did not fall when

attacked by King Leovigild in 569.56 However, there is no definite evi-dence that new fortifications were built there by the Byzantines.57 It hasbeen supposed that the original Byzantine occupation of Mlaga led to

51 P. Reynolds, Settlement and Pottery in the Vinalop Valley (Alicante, Spain) AD. 400700, BARInternational Series 588 (Oxford 1993), p. 21.

52 Reynolds, Settlement and Pottery, p. 21.53 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 382, posited that the late Roman walls of

Elche were reused by the Byzantines, although this has not been confirmed archaeologically.54 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 382.55 Ripoll Lpez, On the Supposed Frontier, pp. 1089.56 John of Biclarum, Chronicon, c. 12, (s.a. 569), ed. Hartmann, p. 62; Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y

la Espaa tardo antigua, pp. 150, 17980, 382.57 I. Navarro Luengo, et al., Malaca bizantina: primeros datos arqueolgicos, V Reunin de

Arqueologa Cristiana Hispnica(Barcelona, 2000), p. 272, in the Byzantine period structureswere built against the Roman wall, making it unlikely that in certain sectors the wall was reuseddefensively.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

13/28

the conquest of inland cities such as Illiberis(near to modern Granada)and Guadix. For example, Qastiliya, a site near Granada, has been inter-preted as forming part of the Byzantine defences on the basis of laterIslamic sources, and Byzantine-type discoveries.58 The necropolis ofMontefro has elicited varying interpretations: some see it has havingheld a Byzantine garrison; others, due to its northerly position, interpretit as Visigothic; still other scholars are non-committal.59 The area around

Illiberis was probably taken by the Visigoths during Leovigilds cam-paign of 569 because it is sited between the two cities he is known tohave attacked in that campaign, Mlaga and Baza, the second of whichhe captured. However, in the cases of both Guadix and Illiberis, wepossess no definitive evidence that they ever belonged to the Byzantineprovince.60

Medina Sidonias strategic location, together with literary evidence,suggests that it was of some significance to the defences of western

58 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 387.59 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 387; Salvador Ventura, El poblamiento,

p. 342.60 Salvador Ventura, El poblamiento, p. 340. Garca Moreno, Vndalos, visigodos y bizantinos

en Granada, p. 143 believes that there may have been a Byzantine presence at Illiberis; SalvadorVentura, El poblamiento, p. 341, is more dubious.

BAETICA

CARTHAGINENSIS

LUSITANIA

Cdiz

MedinaSidonia

Gigonza

Algeciras

Ceuta

Mlaga

Cabra

AntequeraVillanuevadel Rosario

Teba

Pizarra

Crtama

Las Delicias

MontefroGuadix

Granada

Baza

Villarcos

Lorca Vistalegre

Mula

Cehegn

El Tolmo deMinateda

Villanuevade la Fuente

OrihuelaElche

EldaAspe

Denia

Valencia

Sagunto

cija

Crdoba

Balearic Is lands

Orospeda

CARTAGENA

MRIDA

SEVILLE

TOLEDO

N Me

di t

er r

an

ean

Sea

Guadal

quivir

Tajo

0 100 200 km

Fig. 1 Byzantine and Visigothic Spain in the sixth and seventh centuries: placesmentioned in the text

304 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

14/28

Spania. John of Biclarum (550/6621/31) writing in 590 described it asfortissimam civitatem when it fell to Leovigild in 570.61 Sagontia(Gigonza)was probably a forward post for Medina Sidonia, since it controlled the

road inland to Seville and Isidore stated that the Visigoths had capturedsome Byzantine soldiers there during Witterics reign (60311).62 IfIsidores comment reflects the presence of a garrison at Sagontiaratherthan a reference to the capture of mobile forces, it would imply thatthe Byzantines had subsequently retaken Medina Sidonia and thenre-established forward defensive positions. Byzantine material has beendiscovered at Gades(Cdiz: Byzantine coinage) and Carteia(Algeciras: anepitaph in Greek dated to 616; Byzantine official weights), both of whichare coastal sites with good harbours.63 These sites are likely to have beenclosely connected to Septem (modern Ceuta in North Africa), which wasgarrisoned by naval and land forces, and whose commander was requiredto observe events in Spain.

Numerous sugestions have been made about a large number of sites onthe coast around Mlaga and in the interior. For example, it has beenargued that Antequera may have been a defensive position on roadsrunning through the mountains north of Mlaga, while numismatic andlegal evidence suggests that the city ofBarbi, seven kilometres to the west

of Antequera, couldhave been reconquered late in the reign of Gundemar(61012).64 The sporadic reuse in the late sixth century of a necropolis atthe strategic site of Teba that is situated in the same mountain range,together with the scarcity of burials from the period of reuse, has encour-aged the supposition that it was a Byzantine defensive position, althoughothers interpret it as part of the Visigothic frontier.65 Las Delicias, whichwas on an important strategic route linking Mlaga with the Baeticaninterior, has elicited controversy. Fuentes Hinojo interpreted the site as aByzantine garrison, owing to the Byzantine influence on the grave-goods

and a small number of infant burials; other scholars, such as Garca

61 John of Biclarum, Chronicon, c. 17, (s.a. 570), ed. Hartmann, p. 63.62 Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 58 (second redaction), ed. Rodrguez Alonso, pp. 268. Fuentes

Hinojo, Sociedad, ejrcito y administracin fiscal, p. 316; Vallejo Girvs, El sistema viariopeninsular, p. 100.

63 Carteia: J.B. Curbera, Two Greek Inscriptions from Spain, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie undEpigraphik 110 (1996), pp. 2912; P. de Palol, Ponderales y exagias romano-bizantinas enEspaa, Ampurias11 (1949), p. 133. Gades: T. Marot, Aproximacin a la circulacin monetaria

en la Pennsula Ibrica y las Islas Baleares durante los siglos V y VI: la incidencia de las emisionesvndalas y bizantinas, Revue Numismatique152 (1997), p. 183.

64 Vallejo Girvs, El sistema viario peninsular, p. 100. P. Bartlett and G. Cores, The Coinage ofthe Visigothic King Sisebut (612621) from the Mint of Barbi, Gaceta numismtica158 (2005),pp. 1317.

65 Fuentes Hinojo, Sociedad, ejrcito y administracin fiscal, p. 316; Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y laEspaa tardo antigua, p. 385.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

15/28

Moreno, have seen it as part of the Visigothic defences.66 The sameconjunction of circumstantial evidence has led to the necropolis of Vil-lanueva del Rosario (MlagaGranada boundary) and another site situ-

ated in the Sierra de la Alhamilla being interpreted as imperial frontiercastra.67A late Roman settlement with possible fortifications and defen-sive towers has been discovered at Villarcos, on the coast between Carta-gena and Mlaga. Although controlling this site would have beenstrategically desirable, there is no definitive proof that it was used by theByzantines.68

Contrary to the ambiguous nature of much of the archaeologicalmaterial, evidence from the Second Council of Seville, held in 619,demonstrates that the Byzantines did control a significant amount of theterritorium of Mlaga. This council resolved disputes between the bishopsof Mlaga, cija, Illiberis and Cabra. Apparently, the latter three hadtaken control of territory and churches that had previously belonged toMlaga. Elsewhere in the acta, the assembled bishops devoted a great dealof attention to refuting the opinions of Gregory, an eastern bishop whowas described as belonging to the heresy of the Acephali.69 It is thus highlylikely that the conciliar acts record the efforts of the Visigothic church ofthe province of Baetica to reorganize into administrative and pastoral

networks territories recently reconquered from the Byzantines. The cityand its environs had to be reintegrated into the traditional ecclesiasticalstructure in the face of opposition from those inside the Visigothicchurch who had benefited from the division of the bishopric of Mlaga:Concerning which matter it is pleasing that all of the parishes whichwere proved by ancient authority to have been held by their church[Mlaga] before the military hostility should be restored to its privilege.70

There were, thus, three identifiable stages to the Visigothic conquest ofthe Mlaga region from the Byzantines. In 56970 Leovigild took the

outposts in the mountains to the north and Medina Sidonia to the west.

66 Fuentes Hinojo, Sociedad, ejrcito y administracin fiscal, p. 316; Salvador Ventura, Elpoblamiento, p. 342, 345; Garca Moreno, Vndalos, visigodos y bizantinos en Granada, p.143.

67 Fuentes Hinojo, Sociedad, ejrcito y administracin fiscal, p. 316 did not name the second site.68 Vallejo Girvs, El sistema viario peninsular, p. 100; Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo

antigua, pp. 382, 387; Pizarra and Crtama may have been defensive positions associated withthe road network.

69 For the Second Council of Seville see L.S.B. MacCoull, Isidore and the Akephaloi, Greek,

Roman and Byzantine Studies39 (1998), pp. 16978; for Isidore and the Acephali more generallysee J. Wood, Heretical Catholics and Catholic Heretics: Isidore of Seville and the ReligiousHistory of the Goths, in D. Hook (ed.), From Orosius to the Historia Silense. Four Essays on Late

Antique and Early Medieval Historiography of the Iberian Peninsula(Bristol, 2005), pp. 1750, atpp. 405.

70 II Seville, I, ed. Vives, pp. 1634: Pro qua re placuit ut omnis parrochia quae ab antique ditioneante militarem hostilitatem retinuisse ecclesiam suam conprobaret eius privilegio restitueretur.

306 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

16/28

There seems to have been some military action during the reign ofWitteric (60311) when the Visigoths captured some Byzantine troops atSagontia, and which may imply that the Byzantines had re-established

their control or at least some operational capability inland. In 61315/16 Sisebut captured the city of Mlaga itself.71 There is some circum-stantial evidence for the existence of frontier defences on the bordersbetween Mlaga and Granada. However, without definite textual refer-ences or further excavation it is impossible to confirm whether these siteshad distinctive Byzantine or Visigothic phases, or even if they had amilitary function at all. Similarly, in the absence of evidence for thefortification of Mlaga during its Byzantine phase, the existence of aninterior defensive line behind Mlaga based on cities proves ephemeral.In the case of the Mlaga region, as with Cartagena, there is no definitiveevidence for a limes-style frontier but neither is there support for theminimalist position.

Zones of interaction

Numismatic evidence also has a bearing on the limes debate. Kurt hasdemonstrated that much of the minting in the south of the peninsula in

the late sixth and seventh centuries was associated with VisigothicByzantine military interaction.72 The Visigoths set up mints at placessuch as Barbi, Acci(modern Guadix) and Seville, close to those areas inwhich they were especially active in defence or offence against theByzantines, in order to pay troops and remint imperial coinage. As thecentres of their military operations shifted so also many of the mint siteswent out of use, especially in smaller or strategically unimportant towns.

Although this material suggests that the Visigoths made a serious effort totake Spaniaand reminted Byzantine gold, it does not support the exist-

ence of a fortified frontier on the Visigothic side and can tell us nothingabout whether it was opposed by a limes-style frontier on the Byzantineside. However, Kurts demonstration that the nodal points of Visigothicefforts to disrupt the impact of Byzantine political and economic powerwere significantly inland does suggest that Byzantine influence was felt

71 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 288. L. Garca Moreno, Historia de Espaavisigoda(Madrid, 1989), p. 149. Fredegar, Chronicon 33, ed. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Fourth

Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar and Continuations (London, 1960), p. 21: Sisebut capturedseveral of the imperial cities along the seaboard and razed them to the ground (plures civitatesab imperio Romano Sisebodus litore maris abstulit et usque fundamentum destruxit). Fredegargoes on to add that Sisebut was deeply disturbed by the slaughter of the Romans.

72 A. Kurt, Visigothic Minting and the Expulsion of the Byzantine from the South in the EarlySeventh Century, The Picus(1996), pp. 13366; A. Kurt, Minting, State and Economy in theVisigothic Kingdom ca. 418ca. 713, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (2002).



7/27/2019 wood_2010

17/28

quite far from the coast and therefore that the coastal enclave theory goestoo far.

Some scholars have discerned the development of a religious frontier

between the Visigoths and Byzantines. Poveda linked the foundation ofthe see of Elo (Elda) by the Visigoths to their attempts to reconquerSpania, suggesting that the see was founded in the late sixth century inmilitary and ecclesiastical opposition to the well-established andByzantine-controlled see ofIllici(Elche).73 Following the Visigothic con-quest ofIllici, the two sees coexisted until 681, when Elo disappeared fromthe conciliar records, presumably because it was subsumed by the olderbishopric.74 Similarly, based upon the building techniques and materialsthat were used in renewed fortifications at Begastri (near modernCehegn) in the decades around 600, it has been argued that militaryconstruction was related to conflicts between the Byzantines and theVisigoths, and the raising of the city to episcopal status by the Visigothswas a challenge to nearby Cartagenas traditional status as the metropoli-tan bishopric ofCarthaginiensis.75 It has been suggested that the Byzan-tines initiated similar policies on their side of the frontier because of theevidence for urban renewal and refortification at Ilunum (modern ElTolmo de Minateda).76 This would have made strategic sense because the

site controlled the most direct route from Cartagena to Toledo, theVisigothic capital.77 Although the putative ecclesiastical frontier isanother powerful indicator of the considerable efforts that the Visigothsand the Byzantines made to ensure their control of the local populations,the issue does not significantly illuminate the limesdebate.

A zone of interaction thus developed between the Byzantine andVisigothic spheres of influence. The nature of the interactions that tookplace within this zone varied. Although many were oppositional, andsometimes military in nature, alimesfrontier did not develop. The zone

varied in nature, extent and over time. As the Visigoths were in very loose

73 A. Poveda Navarro, La creacin de la sede de Elo en la expansin toledana de finales del s.VIen el S.E. Hispnico, Actas del XIV Centenario del III Concilio de Toledo (5891989) (Toledo,1991), pp. 61517.

74 XII Toledo, ed. J. Vives, p. 401.75 L. Abad Casal and S. Gutirrez Lloret, Iyih (El Tolmo de Minateda, Helln, Albacete). Una

civitas en el limes visigodo-bizantino, Antigedad y Cristianismo 14 (1997), p. 597; VallejoGirvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, pp. 2402. G. Garca Herrero and A.J. Snchez Ferra,Iberos, Romanos, Godos y Bizantinos en el marco histrico de Begastri, Antigedad y Cris-

tianismo 1 (1984), p. 35. A. Gonzlez Blanco, El decreto de Gundemaro y la historia del sigloVII, Antigedad y Cristianismo 3 (1986), pp. 15970 suggested that it was refortified by theByzantines and then reused by the Visigoths.

76 Abad Casal and Gutirrez Lloret, Iyih (El Tolmo de Minateda, Helln, Albacete), pp. 592,5947. These changes were similar to those taking place in Cartagena at the same time: Ramallo

Asensio and R. Mndez Ortiz, Fortificaciones tardoromanas y de poca bizantina, p. 96.77 Abad Casal and Gutirrez Lloret, Iyih (El Tolmo de Minateda, Helln, Albacete), pp. 592, 596.

308 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

18/28

control of southern Spain in the early sixth century, direct militarycontact between the two sides would have been minimal in the imme-diate aftermath of the Byzantine invasion in the 550s. Once greater

contact had occurred, especially after Leovigilds operations in 56970,the zone is likely to have become more fortified. However, warfare seemsto have consisted of the raiding of enemy territory, without much effortbeing made to gain extended control over specific strong points. The 569attack appears to have been just such a raid, while Reccared, Witteric andGundemar are all described as acting against Spaniabut are only recordedas having taken Gigonza between them. Additionally, in the 610s theByzantines captured Bishop Cicilius ofMentesa(modern Villanueva de laFuente), whose see was inside Visigothic territory.78 If military interactionwas sporadic and low-level, the construction of a systematic frontier mayhave been less important than the control of the road network and theconstruction of places of refuge for the local population, for which wehave some evidence (for example, fortification of defensive plateaux suchas El Tolmo de Minateda).79

There are strong grounds for supposing that the interior line of thelimessystem was never established, although the defences of some urbancentres were improved. Cartagena definitely saw fortification under Byz-

antine rule, while, on the basis of its geographical situation and John ofBiclarums description, it is almost certain that Medina Sidonia was astrong point on the western frontier. Although it is probable that Mlagawas fortified, we cannot yet discern whether any construction thereresulted from the Byzantine occupation. Away from the cities, sitesdefinitely associated with Byzantium were usually either coastal or linkedto the road network. This was probably because Byzantine troops werethinly spread, and speed of movement and supply would, therefore, havebeen essential; troop positions did not necessarily have anything to do

with a permanent frontier. Ripoll Lpezs suggestion that the Byzantinesdid not control any territory in the interior is too extreme: MedinaSidonia and the territory surrounding it lie inland, as do Baza and asignificant part of the territory of Mlaga. Given the lack of hard evidencefor the existence of a limes and the likelihood that Spania was moreextensive than Ripoll Lpez has allowed, it is necessary to suggest analternative hypothesis about the ways in which the Byzantines defendedSpain and interacted with the Visigoths.

78 The Byzantine treatise on strategy, the Strategikon, dated between 575628 gives the impressionthat raiding of an opponents territory was at least as frequent an activity as long sieges,Maurice, Strategikon X, ed. G.T. Dennis, Das Strategikon des Maurikios, Corpus FontiumHistoriae Byzantinae 17 (Vienna, 1981), pp. 33650.

79 Abad Casal and Gutirrez Lloret, Iyih (El Tolmo de Minateda, Helln, Albacete), pp. 591600.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

19/28

7/27/2019 wood_2010

20/28

defeat.84 Another contemporary, Gregory of Tours, was sure that therebellion had been encouraged by the Byzantines. In his account,Hermenegild was united with the generals of Emperor Tiberius (cum

ducibus imperatoris Tiberii fuerit coniunctus); while Leovigild gavethirty thousand solidi to the Emperors commander (praefectusimperatoris) in order to secure the recall of the Byzantine army(exercitus).85 Additionally, the sacking of a monastery in the region ofSagunto by Leovigilds troops during the rebellion has been interpretedas a show of strength intended to discourage Byzantine intervention.86

Furthermore, Gregory the Great states that Leander of Sevillevisited Constantinople in the early 580s to persuade the emperor tosupport Hermenegild. He is likely to have passed through Cartagena onhis return.87 After the rebellion had been defeated, Hermenegilds wifeand son fled to the protection of Byzantine troops.88 Significant eventselsewhere, such as Lombard pressure on imperial possessions in Italyand diplomatic entanglements with the Franks, are likely to havechanged the imperial attitude towards involvement in Spain and ledEmperor Maurice to extricate himself from any commitment to Herme-negild.89 It may be difficult to discern fully the extent to which theByzantines were directly involved in the rebellion, but they were

certainly open to offers from the usurper and, as it turned out, from hisfather Leovigild.Reccareds decision to convert from Arianism to Catholicism in 587

was closely followed by a series of conspiracies and rebellions (in Mrida,Toledo, Narbonne, and one by Argimund, duxof an unknown province),

84 John of Biclarum, Chronicon 68 (s.a. 583), ed. Hartmann, p. 74: ad rem publicam conmigrante.K. Wolf, Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain (Liverpool, 1990), pp. 710, 22. Formore on Hermenegilds rebellion, J.N. Hillgarth, Coins and Chronicles: Propaganda in

Sixth-Century Spain, and the Byzantine Background, Historia 15 (1966), pp. 483508; W.Goffart, Byzantine Policy in the West under Tiberius II and Maurice. The PretendersHermenegild and Gundovald (579585), Traditio 13 (1957), pp. 73118.

85 Gregory of Tours, Libri Historiarum XV.38; VI.18; VI.434, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, pp.2435; 2878; 31416. Gregory has Hermenegild vocatis Grecis (V.38); plotting by imperialenvoys (VI.18); Hermenegild de imperatoris solatio fretus(VI.43).

86 Gregory of Tours, Libri in gloria confessorum 12, ed. W. Arndt and B. Krusch, Gregorii TuronensisOpera MGH SRM1, 2 (Hanover, 1885), p. 755; Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua,pp. 2067.

87 Gregory I, Moralia in Job, Epistola, I, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL 75 (Paris, 1862), cols 50912; Licinianusof Cartagena referred to Leanders visit to Cartagena, Epistula 1, ed. J. Madoz, Liciniano deCartagena y sus cartas. Edicin crtica y estudio histrico (Madrid, 1948), pp. 926; Vallejo Girvs,

Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 202 dated the trip 5802. For Gregory the Greats positivedepiction of Hermenegild, see A.T. Fear, trans., Lives of the Visigothic Fathers(Liverpool, 1997),p. 92, n. 193. J. Orlandis, Gregorio Magno y la Espaa visigoda-bizantina, Hispania y Zaragozaen la Antigedad Tardia. Estudios Varios (Zaragoza, 1984), p. 97.

88 Gregory of Tours, Libri Historiarum XVI.44, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, p. 31416; Paul theDeacon, Historia Langobardorum III.21, ed. G. Waitz, pp. 1034.

89 Goffart, Byzantine Policy in the West under Tiberius II and Maurice, pp. 73118.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

21/28

at least three of which involved an Arian element.90 The conversion wasannounced officially, after this opposition had been overcome, at theThird Council of Toledo in 589.91 The dispatch of the Governor

Comentiolus to Spania and the resulting upsurge in activity there may,therefore, have been part of an attempt to take advantage of disquiet overthe conversion. Fortunately for Reccared, he was able to crush the revoltsbefore the Byzantines could destabilize the situation further.

The Byzantine administration had a reasonably good idea about whatwas going on inside Visigothic Spain and as a result was able to take theseessentially opportunistic measures when dealing with the Visigoths. Attimes the Byzantines were able to intervene directly to influence thesituation there and were thus regarded as a real threat by the Visigothichierarchy. However, in none of these instances is there any necessaryimplication that Byzantine and Visigothic troops met in battle, but it isclear that the imperial authorities were aware of what was happening inSpain and sought to benefit from events there whenever possible. So,in the case of Hermenegild, the emperors Tiberius and Maurice engagedin diplomatic activity, presumably holding out the carrot of militaryassistance in the hope of gaining advantage later on. Once it was clearthat there was limited scope for territorial gain and that it would be better

not to antagonize Leovigild, the decision was taken to abandon Herme-megild in return for payment.92

The administration of Byzantine Spania

Numismatic evidence supports the proposition that the Byzantine prov-ince ofSpaniawas organized in a manner consistent with the rest of theempire. Grierson suggested that Spania minted its own coins like theother western provinces, on the basis of stylistic similarities between coins

minted during a period corresponding to the Byzantine occupation, theircommon differences from coins minted elsewhere in the empire, andvarious parallels between this group and other Spanish coins of the sameperiod (i.e. similar gold content, stylistic commonalities). The putativeexistence of a Byzantine mint in Spaniahas been obscured by the shorttime for which the province existed and the success of the Visigoths inreminting Byzantine coinage when it entered their realm. Few specimens

90 John of Biclarum, Chronicon, c. 84 (s.a. 586); c. 87 (s.a. 587); c. 89 (s.a. 588); c. 94 (s.a. 589), ed.Hartmann, pp. 789, 83; Vitas Sanctorum Patrum Emeritensium V.1012, ed. A. Maya Snchez,Vitas Sanctorum Patrum Emeritensium, CCSL 116 (Turnhout, 1992), pp. 8194.

91 R. Collins, Dnde estaban los arrianos en el ao 589?, Actas del XIV Centenario del III Conciliode Toledo (5891989) (Toledo, 1991), p. 211.

92 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, pp. 187 and 2045.

312 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

22/28

therefore survive.93 Nevertheless, Spania would have required bureacu-ratic structures to organize and oversee the minting of coinage. Theexistence of a more intense bureaucracy than has previously been envis-

aged has clear implications for understanding the importance of theprovince to the empire and the likelihood that concerted efforts weremade to maintain it.

Justinian entrusted the first expedition to Spain to Liberius, a patricianof great status and experience, who had dealt with the Visigoths earlier inhis career.94A body of evidence also survives and will be discussed later concerning the administration of the province in the early seventhcentury. Isidore of Seville says that King Swinthila (62131) defeated twoByzantine patricians, presumably governors.95 Letters also survive record-ing interactions between another patrician, Caesarius, and King Sisebutin the 610s. One of these letters refers to the presence ofiudices(judges)in Spania.96

All of the above suggests that there was a more thoroughgoingadministration of the province than the coastal enclave theory allows,an administration that was responsible for dispensing judgement,arranging for the military and fiscal organization of the province, andinteracting with foreign powers. Furthermore, that this bureaucracy was

headed by figures of the highest patrician status is similarly incommen-surate with Spaniabeing little more than a listening post. When Jus-tinian had established such a listening post across the Straits ofGibraltar at Septem, shortly after conquering Africa, it had been com-manded only by a tribune.97

The best example of the activities of the patrician governors ofSpaniacomes from the 590s, the period of Comentiolus. Improvements on thePersian front in the late 580s freed Emperor Maurice (582602) to devotemore energy to affairs in the Balkans and the west. As a result, various

93 P. Grierson, Una ceca bizantina en Espaa, Numario Hispanico 4 (1955), pp. 30514.94 Jordanes, Getica303, ed. T. Mommsen, Jordanis Romana et Getica, MGH AA 5.1 (Berlin, 1882;

repr. 1961), p. 136; J.J. ODonnell, Liberius the Patrician, Traditio 3172, does not think thatLiberius made the voyage to Spain; cf. Presedo Velo, La Espaa Bizantina, pp. 3843, who ismore positive on this point.

95 Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 62 (second redaction), ed. Rodrguez Alonso, pp. 2746: Heincreased the power of his title in that conflict by prevailing over two patricians, one of whomhe defeated with his wisdom, the other by his strength. (Auxit eo proelio uirtutis eius titulumduorum patriciorum obtentus, quorum alterum prudentia suum fecit, alterum uirtute sibi

fecit.)96 Epistolae Wisigothicae, no. 5, ed. Gundlach, pp. 6667.97 For the relationship between Spaniaand the Byzantine provinces in Africa, see Fuentes Hinojo,

Sociedad, ejrcito y administracin fiscal, pp. 3047; M. Vallejo Girvs, Byzantine Spain andthe African Exarchate: An administrative Perspective, Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik49 (1999), pp. 1323; Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 358; Martin, La

gographie, pp. 2867; Claude, Diplomatischen Beziehungen, pp. 245.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

23/28

administrative reforms were implemented and experienced commanderswere dispatched westwards.98 As part of this policy, the patricianComentiolus, who had held several important military positions under

Maurice, was sent to Spain by 589.99

The inscription (dated September589August 590) that was raised by Comentiolus in Cartagena was prob-ably related to the Byzantine response to the Visigothic conversion toCatholicism. As the Visigoths could no longer be depicted as heretical

Arians, the Byzantines reverted to the old opposition of Roman versusbarbarian. The Visigoths are thus described as a barbarian enemy (hostisbarbarus) and the text emphasized the permanence of the Byzantinepresence in Spain:

Thus Spain always rejoices in such a governor as long as the [north andsouth] poles are being rotated and as long as the sun circles the earth.100

Prior to the conversion of the Visigoths to Catholicism, the Byzantinesare likely to have encouraged interaction between the Catholics ofSpaniawith those in the Visigothic kingdom in the hope of destabilizing the

Arian Visigothic monarchy. There is strong evidence for contact betweenCatholic ecclesiastics in the Byzantine province and clerics in the Visig-

othic kingdom. Severus of Mlaga wrote alibellusagainst Vincentius ofZaragoza, who had moved from Catholicism to semi-Arianism as aresult of the pressure Leovigild placed on Catholics to convert.101 Licin-ianus of Cartagena also maintained contacts with high-level ecclesiasticsin the Visigothic realm, such as Eutropius of Valencia and Leander of

98 Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, pp. 2207; Haldon, Warfare, State and Societyin the Byzantine World, pp. 701: Maurice established the exarchates of Ravenna (584) andCarthage (591), in response to Lombard and Berber threats, augmenting the exarchs military

and civil jurisdictions. J.N. Hillgarth, El Concilio III de Toledo y Bizancio, Actas del XIVCentenario del III Concilio de Toledo (5891989) (Toledo, 1991), p. 302.

99 J.R. Martindale, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 3A (Cambridge, 1992), pp.3215; Prego, La inscripcin de Comitiolus, pp. 38391 argued that this was a different person,since the inscriptions reads Comitiolus. Nevertheless, the gap in the career of the easterner, theaggressive reaffirmation of Byzantine power represented by the inscription and the context ofthe recent conversion of the Visigoths makes it likely that this was the same person theemperor needed a trusted figure to maintain the Spanish province.

100 M. Vallejo Girvs, Commentiolus, Magister militum Spaniae missus a Mauricio Augusto contrahostes barbaros. The Byzantine Perspective on the Visigothic Conversion to Catholicism,Romano-Barbarica 14 (19967), pp. 289306. For transcription, Prego, La inscripcin deComitiolus, p. 383: . . . SPANIAE SIC SEMPER SPANIA TALI RECTORE LAETETVR

DVM POLI ROTANTVR DVMQ. SOL CIRCVIT ORBEM ANN. VIII AUG. IND VIII.For a similar interpretation of earlier city walls see, C. Fernndez Ochoa and A. Morillo, Wallsin the Urban Landscape of Late Roman Spain: Defence and Imperial Strategy, in K. Bowes andM. Kulikowski (eds), Hispania in Late Antiquity (Leiden, 2005), pp. 299341; W. Mierse,Augustan City Walls in the West, Journal of Roman Archaeology3 (1990), pp. 25860.

101 Isidore, De viris illustribus, c. XXX, ed. C. Codoer Merino, p. 151; Thompson, The Goths inSpain, pp. 837.

314 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

24/28

Seville.102 Epigraphic and archaeological evidence points to the presenceof a large number of eastern merchants and eastern-produced goods inthe Iberian Peninsula in this period. Also, easterners controlled the bish-

opric of Mrida for a period during the later sixth century.103

Once theVisigoths were no longer Arian heretics, such contacts between theCatholic ecclesiastical hierarchies ofSpaniaand the Visigothic kingdomwere a potential threat to Byzantine control. Interaction may haveincreased the anxiety of the imperial government about the loyalty of thelocal Catholic population.

Three letters of Pope Gregory I, dated August 603, reinforce theimpression that Byzantine attitudes towards the population of Spaniahardened after the Visigothic conversion. The letters order thedefensor John to Spain in response to Comentiolus deposition and theexile of two bishops, Januarius of Mlaga and Stephen, whose see was notspecified.104 The weight of legal material that Gregory sent with Johnsuggests that he wanted to establish incontrovertibly that Comentiolushad acted illegally.105 Several scholars have suggested that the poisoning ofBishop Licinianus of Cartagena at Constantinople may have been theresult of his failure to toe the imperial line after the Catholic conversionof the Visigoths, although the source for this, Isidore of Seville, is gen-

erally very hostile to the empire and so must be read carefully.106

The canons of the Second Council of Seville, held in 619 under Isidoreof Seville, provide a complementary perspective. This Council sought toresolve difficulties emerging from the Visigothic conquest of parts ofsouthern Baetica from the Byzantines. 107 The presence of two importantroyal officials, Sisisclus, rector rerum publicarum, and Suanilanus, rectorrerum fiscalium, at the meeting demonstrates the close involvement of the

102 Isidore, De viris illustribus, c. XXIX, ed. C. Codoer Merino, pp. 1501; Licinianus, Epistula1,

ed. J. Madoz, Liciniano de Cartagena y sus cartas. Edicin crtica y estudio histrico (Madrid,1948), pp. 84, 923.

103 Vitas Sanctorum Patrum Emeritensium IV, ed. Maya Snchez, pp. 2546.104 Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum XIII.4750, ed. Hartmann, II, pp. 41018. See also M. Vallejo

Girvs, Bizancio ante la conversin de los visigodos: los obispos Jenaro y Esteban, Actas del XIVCentenario del III Concilio de Toledo (5891989) (Toledo, 1991), pp. 47783.

105 Orlandis, Gregorio Magno y la Espaa visigoda-bizantina, pp. 90 and 1003; R. GonzlezFernndez, Las cartas de Gregorio Magno al defensor Juan. La aplicacin del derecho de

Justiniano en la Hispania bizantina en el siglo VII, Antigedad y Cristianismo 14 (1997), p. 292.John the Deacon, Vita GregoriiII.11, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL 75 (Paris, 1862), col. 92, also mentionsJohns mission, although he gives no more details.

106 Isidore, De viris illustribus, c. XXIX, ed. C. Codoer Merino, El De viris illustribus de Isidoro

de Sevilla, Theses et Studia Philologica Salamanticensia12 (Salamanca, 1964), p. 151, Licinianusdied by poisoning at Constantinople, so they say, having been destroyed by his rivals (occubitConstantinopoli, ueneno, ut ferunt, extinctus ab aemulis); Thompson, The Goths in Spain, pp.15960; Vallejo Girvs, Bizancio y la Espaa tardo antigua, p. 427; F.-M. Beltrn Torreira (1991),El conflicto por la primaca eclesistica de la Cartaginense y el III Concilio de Toledo, Actas del

XIV Centenario del III Concilio de Toledo (5891989) (Toledo, 1991), pp. 499500.107 MacCoull, Isidore and the Akephaloi, pp. 16978.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

25/28

Visigothic monarchy in proceedings.108 The twelfth canon condemned aSyrian bishop, Gregory, who belonged to the heresy of the acephali, andmuch of the text was devoted to refuting his errors.109 Although this

formed part of Visigothic attempts to demonstrate their Catholic ortho-doxy and denigrate that of the Byzantines, Gregorys presence in Spainalso hints at deliberate attempts by the Byzantines to develop their ownform of ecclesiastical organization in Spania, the orthodoxy of which didnot tally with the ideas of Isidore and his fellow bishops. Such a readingof the evidence also helps to explain Isidores negative attitude towardsByzantium in his historical writings: he opposed the Byzantines becausethey presented a serious threat to the spiritual as well as the politicalintegrity of Spain.110 The first canon of the council resolved jurisdictionalconflicts concerning the area around Mlaga and criticized the Byzantinesfor carrying the possessions of churches into poverty with barbaricsavagery (barbarica feritas).111 The issue of the material conditions of thepopulation in Spania seems to have been an important one becauseIsidore has the following to say in the first redaction of his HistoriaGothorum, written when the Byzantines were still threatening in thesouthern Spain:

And from then up to this point in time the Romans, who remain inthe kingdom of the Goths, embrace them to such a degree that it isbetter for them to live poor with the Goths than to be powerful amongthe Romans and bear the heavy yoke of tribute.112

By attacking Byzantine orthodoxy, Visigothic propagandists also, there-fore, sought to demonstrate that the Byzantine treatment of the localpopulation, including the church, had negative economic and religiousconsequences.

ByzantineVisigothic interaction

Despite the negativity pervading VisigothicByzantine rhetoric in thelate sixth and early seventh centuries, archaeological, epigraphic andtextual research has demonstrated that commercial contacts between

108 II SevilleI, ed. Vives, p. 163.109 II SevilleXIIXIII, ed. Vives, pp. 17185; MacCoull, Isidore and the Akephaloi, pp. 16978.110 Wood, Heretical Catholics and Catholic Heretics, pp. 3945.111 II SevilleI, ed. Vives, p. 163: Sicut enim per legem mundialem his quos barbarica feritas captiva

necessitate transvexit, postliminio revertentibus redditur antiqua possession . . . 112 Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 15 (first redactions), ed. C. Rodrguez Alonso, Las historias de los

godos, vndalos y suevos de Isidoro de Sevilla(Lon, 1975), p. 196: Unde et hucusque Romani, quiin regno Gothorum consistent, adeo eos amplectuntur, ut melius sit illis cum Gothis pauperesvivere quam inter Romanos potentes esse et grave iugum tributi portare.

316 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

26/28

Spania, Visigothic Spain, and the eastern empire continued throughoutthe period of the Byzantine presence in Spain.113 Attempts to create amaterial and an ideological frontier largely failed. Even evidence for

formal interactions between the Byzantine and Visigothic governmentsreveals the dual nature of their relationship: there was conflict, to be sure,but there were also formalized avenues for meeting, discussing, andresolving disputes. A brief examination of surviving evidence for suchinteractions reveals the complex nature of the political realities facingboth sides.

A letter from King Reccared to Pope Gregory I from 599 requestedcopies of past treaties between Justinian and the Visigothic kingdom whichhad been lost. These treaties were probably the arrangements that wereconcluded between Athanagild and Justinian in the mid-550s and whichestablished the terms for Byzantine intervention and recognized Byzantinecontrol of parts of south-eastern Spain in its aftermath.114 Hermenegildsrebellion in the early580s had been accompanied by a number of interac-tions that must have involved some contact between the Visigothic andByzantine administration. As noted previously, Leovigild had bribed theemperors commander in 583 in order to prevent him from intervening,while Leander of Seville acted as Hermenegilds legate in Constantinople

in the early580s, returning via Cartagena.Reccareds letter to Gregory requesting a copy of the lost treaty resultedfrom his negotiations with the administration ofSpaniain the 590s, afterComentiolus had returned to the east. This was also the context forGregorys dispatch of the defensor John. Presumably the departure ofGovernor Comentiolus led to an attempt to normalize relations throughdiplomacy. Claude thought that these negotiations happened because theVisigoths had reconquered a portion of territory and were attempting tohave their de facto control recognized through a revised treaty.115

The situation in Spania changed dramatically in the early seventhcentury. In the east Byzantium came under increasing pressure fromPersia; the reign of Phocas (60210) witnessed renewed Lombard hostilityin Italy, and the successful rebellion of Heraclius, the exarch of Carthage,

113 L. Garca Moreno, Colonias de comerciantes orientales en la Pennsula Ibrica. S. VVII,Habis3 (1972), pp. 12754; S. Gutierrez Lloret, Eastern Spain in the Sixth Century in the Lightof Archaeology, in R. Hodges and W. Bowden (eds), The Sixth Century: Production, Distribu-tion and Demand (Leiden, 1998), pp. 16184; A. DOrs, Los tranmarini negotiatores en lalegislacion visigotica, Estudios de Derecho Internacional. Homenaje al profesor Camilo Barcia

Trelles (Santiago de Compostela, 1958), pp. 46783.114 Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum IX, no. 229, ed. L.M. Hartmann, MGH Gregorii I Papae

Registrum Epistolarum (Berlin, 1893), II, pp. 2256. M. Vallejo Girvs, The Treaties betweenJustinian and Athanagild and the Legality of the Byzantine Possessions on the Iberian Penin-sula, Byzantion 66 (1996), pp. 20818.

115 Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum IX, no. 229, ed. Hartmann, II, pp. 2256; Claude, Diplo-matischen Beziehungen, pp. 1819.



7/27/2019 wood_2010

27/28

with his son Heraclius, the future emperor.116 Despite this, it is remark-able that owing perhaps to a combination of the success of the Byzantinedefences, the poverty of our sources, or the failure of the Visigoths to

exploit this opportunity, the only recorded Visigothic territorial gainfrom the reigns of Witteric and Gundemar (60312) was Sagontia(modern Gigonza).117

Nonetheless, in the 610s and 620s the number of references to militaryaggression and diplomatic contacts increases. Letters exchanged betweenKing Sisebut (61221) and the patrician Caesarius reveal the complexitiesof these interactions.118 It appears that the Byzantines lost territory, citiesand prisoners, while on at least one occasion they captured a bishop fromVisigothic territory, Cicilius ofMentesa.119 One letter expressed Sisebutsthanks to his internuntius, Ansemundus, for his services in dealing withCaesarius. Sisebut thanked Ansemundus for participating in the negi-otiation of a treaty (suscipe federa). Other letters referred to furtherdiplomatic activity: for example, to Theoderic, Sisebuts envoy (legatus),and a priest named Amelius negotiating on the kings behalf withEmperor Heraclius in Constantinople. If Amelius was part of the Visig-othic embassy to Constantinople, it reinforces the impression of thechurch acting in concert with the Visigothic monarchy and might help to

explain why the Byzantines were so concerned about the loyalty of thelocal clergy after the conversion of the Visigoths to Catholicism.120 Theseletters demonstrate that the administration ofSpaniawas in contact withthe Visigothic monarchy, and that it acted as an intermediary in nego-tiations between the monarchy and the central imperial government. Itwas thus closely integrated into the imperial system but also had thefreedom to act autonomously if necessary.

ConclusionWe have argued that the existing evidence does not support the theorythat Spaniawas defended by alimes-style frontier. Nor was the provincelimited to a few coastal enclaves because, in at least three cases, thewritten evidence suggests that the Byzantines were in control of signifi-cant portions of territory. Even if this control was limited to the territo-rium of a city under Byzantine control the evidence does suggest thatByzantine influence extended some distance inland, and is supported by

116 Garca Moreno, Historia de Espaa visigoda, pp. 14454.117 Isidore, Historia Gothorum, c. 58 (both redactions), ed. Rodrguez Alonso, p. 268.118 Epistolae Wisigothicae, nos. 36, ed. W. Gundlach, MGH Epistolae1 (Berlin, 1892), pp. 6638.119 Epistolae Wisigothicae, no. 3, ed. Gundlach, pp. 6634.120 Claude, Diplomatischen Beziehungen, pp. 224, who argues that Amelius was a Byzantine.

318 Jamie Wood


7/27/2019 wood_2010

28/28

the archaeological evidence for economic contacts between the Visigothickingdom and Spania.

There is significant evidence for a more thoroughgoing administration

of the province than has been admitted previously and for an adminis-tration that was headed by governors of patrician status. The Byzantinegovernmental presence was mirrored by that of eastern churchmen inSpania, as evidenced by the bishops efforts at the Second Council ofSeville to reconcile the Syrian bishop Gregory to Catholic orthodoxy andto reorganize the reconquered territory.121

Although it is clear that some Byzantine troops were in Spania, thatsome building work occurred, and that a functioning governmentexisted, there was no discernable formal frontier system in place. Byzan-tium was repeatedly opportunistic in its relations with the Visigoths:Spaniawas established because of a civil war and the Byzantines sought tobenefit from further internal dissension during the reign of Leovigild.Contact between the Byzantine and Visigothic administrations was notcontinually hostile; provincial governors negotiated with the Visigoths inthe reigns of Athanagild, Reccared and Sisebut, and with both sidesduring Hermenegilds rebellion. The creation of new bishoprics by theVisigoths following their conversion, the possibility that Byzantium

engaged in similar activity, Byzantine attempts to redefine the identity ofthe Visigoths as barbarian enemies once they had ceased to be Arianheretics, and Visigothic retorts at the Second Council of Seville, allsuggest that the two sides sought to create an ideological as much as amaterial frontier.

This ideological frontier, however, was almost wholly the creation ofthe ecclesiastical and governmental elites of the Visigothic and Byzantineareas. The story was one of conflict, to be sure, but a conflict that wasfrequently mediated and sometimes resolved via a complex network of

political and religious actors: Byzantine emperors; Visigothic kings andusurpers; governors and other royal or imperial agents; councils; indi-vidual bishops; the Pope and his agents. Finally, it is important to notethat, whatever forms these elite interactions and sanctions took, they hadonly a minor influence upon peoples everyday lives material evidencesuggests strongly that the Visigothic and Byzantine territories interactedextensively and continually.122

University of Manchester

121 II SevilleXII, ed. Vives, p. 171.122 See Presedo Velo, La Espaa Bizantina, pp. 95163 for detailed summary of evidence for various

cultural influences on Visigothic Spain, including commercial, religious, legal, artistic, epi-graphic, numismatic, and ceramic influences.


wood_2010

Documents

Transcript of wood_2010