Introduction to Visigothic Symposium 3, 2018-2020:
Communication and Circulation (pdf)

(*En Portugués aquí; En Español aquí; En français ici)

The period after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century and the subsequent establishment of successor kingdoms was one of dynamic transformation. Commercial, social, political, and religious networks of various scales circulated people and objects among the regions of the post-Roman world and facilitated the transmission of their ideologies and the formation of new perspectives and institutional structures. In recent years, scholars of the period have begun to recognize the value of studying travel and networks for elucidating the relationships individuals formed and the ways these connections contributed to various historical developments.[1] As this volume shows, the communication and circulation of ideas, people, and institutions among social, political, and religious groups within the Iberian Peninsula and beyond undoubtedly shaped many aspects of the Visigothic and Suevic kingdoms. Equally important for developing a fuller picture of Hispania in this period is exchange within the academic community, particularly among scholars focused on Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages generally. The authors of this volume provide compelling evidence for the benefits of sharing theoretical approaches, methodologies, and sources among disciplines and regional foci.

This volume – the articles and responses – exemplifies the vibrancy of current Visigothic scholarship. By focusing their inquiries on “communication” and “circulation,” the contributors have been able to bring new light to well-known historical developments, such as the growing importance of bishops in their communities and Visigothic efforts to create a politically and religiously unified kingdom. The increased incorporation of new archaeological data, which thankfully have been uncovered using steadily improved and more scientific methodologies, and subjected to new analytical approaches, also has added considerably to our understanding of the period.[2]

The analytical framework of communication and circulation must include consideration of the transfer of ideas, traditions and institutions from generation-to-generation. Of course, for our region and time period, these themes long have been analyzed in the context of continuity and rupture from the late Roman period to the Suevic and Visigothic kingdoms. In the past, such examinations have led to numerous debates about identity, ethnicity and even “Spanishness” during the post-Roman era, including whether or not the Iberian Peninsula, and certain regions in particular, were Romanized at all. As several of our authors point out, frequently the questions and approaches, along with the arguments they produced, were circular and used to support claims of regional nationalism, Iberian isolation, and exceptionalism or “particularidad.”[3] Yet, this volume clearly demonstrates that the people of Hispania were active participants in numerous regional and long-distance networks that connected them to communities, ideas, places, and objects throughout the post-Roman world.

The use of archaeological data and application of theoretical models from various disciplines, such as sociology, cultural anthropology, and philosophy, have allowed several of our authors to break from long-held arguments about the relative isolation and the uniqueness of the Iberian Peninsula, which often have been used to support nationalistic agendas.[4] For example, Luciano Gallinari analyzes the archaeology for the limes in Sardinia to challenge claims that Romanization was “alien” and those living in the mountains were “uncontaminated” by and “unassimilated” with others. Gallinari asserts that these regions actually were integrated into the imperial world and there were population shifts within areas across geographic borders.[5] Similarly, the data uncovered over the last several decades, such as in Braga by the archaeologists at the University of Minho, also have transformed our picture of northwestern Hispania in Late Antiquity. Archaeological and written evidence shows that the people of Braga and the former Roman province of Gallaecia were not isolated, but had robust and ongoing connections with those from the central and eastern Mediterranean, Gaul, and North Africa in the fifth through seventh centuries.[6] Through this contact, which came via means such as commercial, social, and religious networks, ideas and architectural norms were communicated and spread, which influenced Suevic and Visigothic developments and modes of “political performance.”[7]

The increased availability of archaeological data excavated with improved and more scientific methods also has led to many new and exciting avenues of inquiry related to the transformation of the Roman world. The relationship between rural and urban settlements has become an important area of study for the scholars of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.[8] As Tomás Cordero Ruiz demonstrates in his analysis of Egitania and its surrounding territory in the fourth through eighth centuries, focusing on the degree to which there was interaction and communication between cities and the countryside provides insight into administrative, economic, ecclesiastical, and social networks.[9] Certainly, diachronic and contextualized studies of all the available evidence are needed to make precise claims about when these networks formed and the degree to which they represent continuity with or innovation from the Roman period.[10] Yet, this type of analysis has great potential for questions about the communication of structures and institutions from the Roman period to the Suevic and Visigothic era. Cordero Ruiz suggests that the Visigothic kings had an interest in maintaining the imperial provincial units in Lusitania and the Church played an important role in facilitating the process.[11] The responses to this paper demonstrate that this continues to be a rich topic for future investigation.[12]

Javier Martínez Jiménez’s examination of Visigothic aqueduct technology shows the value of new approaches and breaking from old debates. Since the nineteenth century, scholarship on material culture from the Visigothic period primarily had relied on art historical approaches to “Visigothic” churches.^[13] As Martínez Jiménez points out, this resulted in circular arguments based on presumptions about Visigothic history and areas under Visigothic control, which were then used to support claims about dating.^[14] By analyzing the technology used in major building projects, Martínez Jiménez is able to discern a shift in communication among skilled craftsmen such as architects and engineers during the transition from the late Roman period to the Visigothic Kingdom. This suggests a decrease in communication within this social group in the fifth century and therefore a dearth of new skilled engineers.^[15] Yet, Martínez Jiménez’s analysis also indicates that knowledge of architectural approaches continued within the educated elite of the former Roman World, and it is possible that the Visigoths turned to Eastern Romans for help with their local building projects in the sixth and seventh centuries.^[16]

The communication of building techniques also would have included the circulation of new modes of social, political and religious messaging that were being developed in the late and post-Roman world. Until recently, the shift away from imperial traditions for displaying power and patronage, and building community, such as through grand bath complexes, amphitheaters, and villas, typically was used to support arguments of degradation. Yet, as Luís Fontes makes evident in the case of Braga, such claims are narrow and give privilege to Classical modes of expression. Moreover, rather than decline in the late to post-Roman monumental architecture, we should interpret the evidence within the framework of changes in “the typology of the constructions.” For example, in the fifth and sixth centuries, ecclesiastical elites invested in the edification of cultic places, which showed complex technical building solutions, such as domed roofs, and in Braga there is evidence of Eastern Mediterranean, Italian, and North African influences.[17]

Another useful area of communication covered in various articles centers on how, to what extent, and for what purposes the monarchs communicated their intentions and ideologies with their subjects, and the degree to which their messages were received and acted upon. The kings employed various methods to convey their perspectives and royal propaganda with the hopes of putting certain policies into place. Of course, these types of questions have been explored previously, but by focusing on communication and circulation, our contributors are able to build on previous scholarship related to the purposes and outcomes of using different modes, such as law codes and coins. As Andrew Kurt suggests, Visigothic elites handled coins and were involved in the circulation of currency, which undoubtedly enhanced their power – and ability to project it – particularly due to their role in tax collection.[18] However, Kurt asserts that the monarchs controlled fiscal operations and therefore they benefitted most directly from the movement of the coins and the ideologies they represented.[19]

The question of communication also allows for some subtle but important shifts in our understanding of ongoing debates about Visigothic statehood and royal efforts to project the image of unity. For example, Jason Osborne builds on previous scholarship concerning Liuvigild and Reccared’s efforts to build a united and stable kingdom in the later sixth century, and the threats religious tensions posed to this royal ideology and the monarch’s responses to them.[20] Osborne focuses on how the Visigothic military began to shift in the sixth century from more limited, ad hoc private armies comprised of nobility to the beginnings of a regular and standing royal army and the “creation of a new, centralized Visigothic state.”[21] Certainly, it is not profound to assert that the military played a significant role in unifying the Hispano-Romano and Gothic peoples, including those previously ruled by the Sueves, under a single, strong monarchy.[22] However, the frame of communication allows Osborne to highlight how suppressing two separate and geographically distant revolts in the same year, without a monarch present, would have required significant coordination and interaction among the regions of Iberia, and the military and royal leaders.[23] This adds nuance to our historiographical perspective and suggests exciting new avenues to explore, many of which our contributors indicate in their responses.[24] Moreover, it provides some insight into the dynamic processes through which actual unity may have been created, and how the ideology of unity was shared – beyond the methods scholars already have established, such as the use of coins and the propaganda of war, and the Third Council of Toledo (589).[25] For example, Fontes presents evidence to suggest that in Braga, the secular powers and elite appropriated aspects of religious architecture to reinforce the relationship between the aristocracy and the Church.[26]

Fernando Ruchesi also contributes to the historiography on the emerging ideology of unity within the Visigothic Kingdom in the sixth and seventh centuries and how that message was shared within the realm, while also adding evidence to disprove older theories about the relative isolation of Iberians. Ruchesi examines Visigothic and Frankish sources on battles, rebellions, and alliances involving both realms through the lenses of communication and circulation. Battles, migrations, and settlement shifts are significant not only in terms of the events themselves, but also due to how contemporary writers presented them in order to communicate political and cultural ideologies. Analyzing what they leave out or include, exaggerate, and emphasize provides us with information about the messages the authors sought to relay, and to whom, and the factors that contributed to changes in messaging.[27] Typically, the Frankish and Visigothic authors would emphasize those events that made their own leaders look unified and strong in comparison to those of the other kingdom, yet there is evidence for sharing ideas among the writers.[28] Ruchesi’s article, along with some of the responses to it, also provide evidence that clerical networks and communications were important tools for conveying ideological messages to prevent rebellions, create alliances and foster unity among elites.[29]

Using communication as a line of inquiry also leads to valuable insights about the types of connections and information shared among Visigothic subjects of different religious backgrounds. Liubov Chernin reminds us that despite legislation that might suggest otherwise, communication among Christian and Jewish communities was necessary within the Visigothic Kingdom.[30] For example, since Christians were supposed to visit priests on Shabbat and Jewish holidays, there needed to be trusted men within the church who held expertise in Jewish rights and keeping track of feast days.[31] In addition, the communities had to be organized in such a way that educated Jewish people who converted to Christianity could write about both religions and copy and transmit important texts.[32] Chernin also puts this topic into the context of the communication of Roman institutions and ideas, such as the Visigothic understanding of Jewish people as Roman citizens throughout the “Arian” period and anti-Jewish campaigns.[33]

Andrew Kurt’s article makes it clear that coins were circulated throughout the peninsula and that the mint system itself was not static.[34] His analysis also confirms communications among different social groups and regions and provides still more evidence for Iberia’s involvement in various long-distance networks.[35] Using written and archaeological evidence, Kurt suggests that the Visigoths enjoyed a partially monetized society, with the transmission of coins forming an ordinary part of urban and rural life.[36] In contrast to the fiscalist perspective within the historiography, which suggests minimal circulation of coins confined primarily to the elite, Kurt agrees with scholars such as Banaji who think that there likely was a larger circuit for currency and that coin possession may have been relatively commonplace in what was not likely a predominately barter-orientated society.[37] While coins may not have been struck for economic and commercial purposes – which Kurt suggests explains why mint locations did not correspond to known commercial networks – such factors did contribute to their use and circulation. Coins would have moved from kings to elite and various non-elite groups, such as artisans, soldiers, attendants, and bureaucrats.[38]

Pablo C. Díaz also provides insight into communication among social groups, and the important roles the Church and members of the ecclesiastical leadership played in facilitating these connections in the seventh century. For his case study, Díaz focuses on Valerius of Bierzo (c. 630-695) and employs an interdisciplinary approach, which allows him to develop a picture of “sociability,” even for an ascetic who had pledged monastic vows and a life of social isolation.[39] This study reminds us that connections among groups and the functions individuals played within institutional structures—whether they be religious, political, social, or economic – were fluid.[40] Post-Roman Hispania was a period of dynamic development, during which responsibilities of income collection and of dependency bonds among social groups continued, but also were conflated with those of religiosity and spurred by competition and jealousy.[41] Again, we see that religious figures such as Valerius held privileged positions, which connected them to their communities, but their pastoral duties also made them social mediators among the classes.[42]

Alberto Ferreiro provides even more evidence for the importance of ecclesiastical networks and how contacts with outside regions contributed to developments in late antique Hispania. Ferreiro argues letters that circulated between the bishops of Rome and those in Hispania, particularly in the fourth through sixth centuries, were used to confirm and connect regional conciliar decisions with ecumenical and papal rulings.[43] For the episcopal leaders in Hispania, advice and support from the bishop of Rome could bolster their positions within internal disagreements, such as related to accusations of Priscillianism, and their status within the ecclesiastical elite.[44] Some of our contributors suggest that these early communications with Rome contributed to political and theological cohesion in the Visigothic Kingdom, so that by the sixth and seventh centuries authority and power became focused in Toledo rather than Rome.[45]

Together, these articles and responses strongly suggest that studying the degree, manner and types of communication and circulation among individuals, political and religious groups, and regions is critical to understanding the transformative periods of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Moreover, this volume demonstrates that post-Roman Hispania was far from isolated. Instead, people of all social levels were involved in and affected by cross-regional and long-distance interactions, which were integral in the creation of Visigothic and Suevic society. While the reader will see some remnants of older debates, all of the contributors provide insightful new interpretations, many of which come via communication with scholars working in various disciplines and regions. As the responses indicate, these new approaches and the results bring up even more questions,[46] which promise to keep the field of Visigothic and Suevic studies dynamic and thought-provoking for years to come.

NOTES 

[1] See: Maritime Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean World, ed. Justin Leidwanger and Carl Knappett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018); Adam M. Schor, Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011); Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean, ed. Irad Malkin, Christy Constantakopoulou and Katerina Panagopoulou (London and New York: Routledge, 2009); and, Travel, Communication, and Geography in Late Antiquity: Sacred and Profane, ed. Linda Ellis and Frank L. Kidner (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004).

[2] For older and newer archaeological methods, see: Juan Antonio Quirós Castillo, “Early Medieval Villages in Spain in the Light of European Experience,” in The Archaeology of Early Medieval Villages in Europe, ed. Juan Antonio Quirós Castillo (Leioa, Biscay: Servicio Editorial Universidad del País Vasco, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitateko, Argitalpen Zerbitzua, 2009), 13-26; Juan Antonio Quirós Castillo, “Medieval Archaeology in Spain,” in Reflections: 50 Years of Medieval Archaeology, 1957-2007, ed. Roberta Gilchrist and Andrew Reynolds (Leeds: Maney Publishing, 2009), 173-89; and Hispania in Late Antiquity, Current Perspectives, ed. Kim Bowes and Michael Kulikowski (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005).

[3] See for example, Javier Martínez Jiménez, “Engineering, Aqueducts, and the Rupture of Knowledge Transmission in the Visigothic period,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 38-39. See also, Margarita Díaz-Andreu, “Archaeology and Nationalism in Spain,” in Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, ed. Philip L Kohl and Clare P. Fawcett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 47-54.

[4] Luciano Gallinari, “Indigenous Peoples in Sardinia and the Iberian Peninsula in the Early Middle Ages: A Comparative Historiography,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 154-155, 157-158; Pablo C. Díaz, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3, Panel 2: Circulation,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 246; Andrew Kurt, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3: Circulation & Communication,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 271.

[5] Gallinari, “Indigenous Peoples in Sardinia and the Iberian Peninsula,” 154-155, 157-158.

[6] Luís Fontes, “The Circulation of Models in the Construction of Christian Identity in the Northwest Iberian Peninsula: Architecture and Hagiotoponymia in the Braga region,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 130-131, 137.

[7] Ibid., 137-39.

[8] See, for example, Michael Kulikowski, “The Interdependence of Town and Country in Late Antique Spain,” in Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity, ed. Thomas S.  Burns and John W. Eadie (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2001), 147-61. For an important foundational study of the “dialogue” between local and central power centers, see Santiago Castellanos and Iñaki Martín Viso, “The Local Articulation of Central Power in the North of the Iberian Peninsula (500-1000),” Early Medieval Europe 13.1 (2005): 1-42.

[9] Tomás Cordero Ruiz, “At the Center and the Periphery of Lusitania: The Evolution of the City of Egitania and its Territory (4th-8th centuries),” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 88-89.

[10] This is to avoid what Guy Halsall calls the “melting pot” approach to the study of the late Roman Empire and the early Middle Ages. Guy Halsall, Settlement and Social Organization in the Merovingian Region of Metz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 1.

[11] Cordero Ruiz, “At the Center and the Periphery of Lusitania,” 89-91.

[12] See especially, Díaz, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 242-44; Jason Osborne, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 232; Liubov Chernin, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 200-01; Kurt, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 267-68.

[13] Martínez Jiménez,“Engineering, Aqueducts, and the Rupture of Knowledge Transmission,” 38-39. See also, Quirós Castillo, “Medieval Archaeology in Spain,” 174-75.

[14] Martínez Jiménez,“Engineering, Aqueducts, and the Rupture of Knowledge Transmission,” 38-39.

[15] Ibid., 37,39-40, 44-45. As Chernin points out, “the science of engineering demands an exemplary level of communication between masters and apprentices and intensive knowledge sharing” (Chernin, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 199).

[16] Martínez Jiménez,“Engineering, Aqueducts, and the Rupture of Knowledge Transmission,” 45-46.

[17] Fontes, “The Circulation of Models,” 138-39.

[18] For a challenge to this assertion, see Díaz, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 248.

[19] Andrew Kurt, “Visigothic Currency in its Making and Movement: a Varying State of Circumstances,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 174-75.

[20] Jason Osborne, “A Call to Arms: Cross-Regional Communication and the Visigothic Military,”Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 55-56, 63-64, 66.

[21] Ibid., 56-57, 59.

[22] Ibid., 69.

[23] Ibid., 63.

[24] See, for example, Alberto Ferreiro, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 209-10; Chernin, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 203.

[25] Osborne, “A Call to Arms,” 67, Kurt, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 265.

[26] Fontes, “The Circulation of Models,” 131-32.

[27] Fernando Ruchesi, “Military Matters in the Visigothic Kingdom: Initial Considerations,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 72-4. For suggestions for more contemporary sources to evaluate, and precautions to be considered when making these types of comparisons, see Ferreiro, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 211.

[28] Ruchesi, “Military Matters,” 76-82; Chernin, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 203.

[29] Ruchesi, “Military Matters,” 73; Chernin, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 203. For more on the role of the church and the use of the ideals of religious unity to construct an image of political unity, see Fontes, “The Circulation of Models,” 137-39.

[30] Visigothic leadership did attempt to limit this communication for religious and fiscal reasons. See Liubov Chernin, “Visigothic Jewish Converts: A Life in Between,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 7-9, 12-13.

[31] Chernin, “Visigothic Jewish Converts,” 6.

[32] Ibid., 7.

[33] Ibid., 10-12.

[34] Kurt, “Visigothic Currency,” 185-86; Kurt, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 264; Ferreiro, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 216.

[35] Ferreiro, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 217; Luciano Gallinari, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3, Panel 2: Circulation,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 257-58.

[36] Kurt, “Visigothic Currency,” 177-80.

[37]Ibid., 184-85.

[38] Ibid., 180-84.

[39] Díaz acknowledges that many theories and methodologies are difficult to align with our ancient and medieval source materials. Pablo C. Díaz, “Sociability and Sense of Belonging: Community Interaction in the Work of Valerius of Bierzo,” Visigothic Symposia3 (2019): 113, 122-125. See also, Chernin, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 201; Gallinari, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 255.

[40]  My view may be compared to Ferreiro, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 214: “a world of rigid hierarchies but likewise a world of occasional and more or less reified coexistences that can provide a glimpse of a certain sense of sociability”.

[41] Díaz, “Sociability and Sense of Belonging,” 115, 117-118, 121-122.

[42] Ibid., 121-26.

[43] Alberto Ferreiro, “The Bishops of Hispania and Pope Innocent I (407-417),” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 32-33.

[44] Ferreiro, “The Bishops of Hispania and Pope Innocent I,” 20-22, 26; Javier Martínez Jiménez, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3, Panel 1: Communication,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 223-24.

[45] Chernin, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 200; Martínez Jiménez, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3,” 220; Fernando Ruchesi, “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3, Panel 1: Communication,” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 240.

[46] Limes studies and communications during the Byzantine wars might be a useful line of inquiry. See, Jamie Wood, “Defending Byzantine Spain: Frontiers and Diplomacy,” Early Medieval Europe 18.3 (2010): 292–319.

Bibliography

Castellanos, Santiago and Iñaki Martín Viso, “The Local Articulation of Central Power in the North of the Iberian Peninsula (500-1000).” Early Medieval Europe 13.1 (2005): 1-42.

Chernin, Liubov. “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 198-205.

Chernin, Liubov. “Visigothic Jewish Converts: A Life in Between.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 1-18.

Cordero Ruiz, Tomás. “At the Center and the Periphery of Lusitania: The Evolution of the City of Egitania and its Territory (4th-8th centuries).” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 88-111.

Díaz, Pablo C. “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3, Panel 2: Circulation.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 242-49.

Díaz, Pablo C. “Sociability and Sense of Belonging: Community Interaction in the Work of Valerius of Bierzo.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 112-29.

Díaz-Andreu, Margarita. “Archaeology and Nationalism in Spain.” In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by Philip L Kohl and Clare P. Fawcett, 47-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Ferreiro, Alberto “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 206-17.

Ferreiro, Alberto. “The Bishops of Hispania and Pope Innocent I (407-417).” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 19-35.

Fontes, Luís. “The Circulation of Models in the Construction of Christian Identity in the Northwest Iberian Peninsula: Architecture and Hagiotoponymia in the Braga region.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 130-50.

Gallinari, Luciano. “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3, Panel 2: Circulation.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 250-59.

Gallinari, Luciano. “Indigenous Peoples in Sardinia and the Iberian Peninsula in the Early Middle Ages: A Comparative Historiography.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 151-64.

Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean. Edited by Irad Malkin, Christy Constantakopoulou and Katerina Panagopoulou. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.

Halsall, Guy. Settlement and Social Organization in the Merovingian Region of Metz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 

Hispania in Late Antiquity, Current Perspectives. Edited by Kim Bowes and Michael Kulikowski. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005.

Kulikowski, Michael. “The Interdependence of Town and Country in Late Antique Spain.” In Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity, edited by Thomas S.  Burns and John W. Eadie, 147-62. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2001.

Kurt, Andrew. “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3: Circulation & Communication.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 260-73.

Kurt, Andrew. “Visigothic Currency in its Making and Movement: a Varying State of Circumstances.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 165-97.

Maritime Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Edited by Justin Leidwanger and Carl Knappett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Martínez Jiménez, Javier. “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3, Panel 1: Communication.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 218-26.

Martínez Jiménez, Javier. “Engineering, Aqueducts, and the Rupture of Knowledge Transmission in the Visigothic period.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 36-54.

Osborne, Jason. “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 227-35.

Osborne, Jason. “A Call to Arms: Cross-Regional Communication and the Visigothic Military.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 55-71.

Quirós Castillo, Juan Antonio. “Early Medieval Villages in Spain in the Light of European Experience.” In The Archaeology of Early Medieval Villages in Europe, edited by Juan Antonio Quirós Castillo, 13-26. Leioa, Biscay: Servicio Editorial Universidad del País Vasco, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitateko, Argitalpen Zerbitzua, 2009.

Quirós Castillo, Juan Antonio. “Medieval Archaeology in Spain.” In Reflections: 50 Years of Medieval Archaeology, 1957-2007, edited by Roberta Gilchrist and Andrew Reynolds, 173-89. Leeds: Maney Publishing, 2009.

Ruchesi, Fernando. “Response to Visigothic Symposium 3, Panel 1: Communication.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2020): 236-41.

Ruchesi, Fernando. “Military Matters in the Visigothic Kingdom: Initial Considerations.” Visigothic Symposia 3 (2019): 72-87.

Schor, Adam M. Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011.

Travel, Communication, and Geography in Late Antiquity: Sacred and Profane. Edited by Linda Ellis and Frank L. Kidner. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004.

Wood, Jamie. “Defending Byzantine Spain: Frontiers and Diplomacy.” Early Medieval Europe 18.3 (2010): 292–319.