Hilt of a Vendel period sword found at Valsgärde.

A Migration period sword was a type of sword popular during the migration period (4th to 7th centuries AD). This sword type shows a transition from the Roman era Spatha to the Viking sword-type of the Early Middle Ages, which eventually gave rise to the arming sword.

The blade is normally smooth or shows a very shallow fuller, and often has multiple bands of pattern-welding within the central portion. The handles were often of perishable material and there are few surviving examples.

Surviving examples of these Germanic Iron Age (Vendel period) swords had blades measuring between 28" and 32" (710 and 810 mm) in length and 1.7" to 2.4" (45 to 60 mm) in width. These single handed weapons of war sported a tang only some 4" to 5" (100 to 130 mm) long, and had very little taper in their blades ending in usually rounded tip.

Names and terminology[link]

There is no single term that can be reconstructed as having referred specifically to the spatha in Common Germanic. There are a number of terms and epithets which refer to the sword, especially in Germanic poetry.^[1]

• *swerdan "cutting weapon" (whence sword). Beowulf has the compound wægsweord (1489a)referring to a pattern-welded blade (the wæg- "wave" describing the wave-like patterns). A mære maðþumsweord "renowned treasure-sword" (1023a) is given to Beowulf as a reward for his heroism. The same sword is called a guðsweord "battle-sword" later on (2154a)
• heoru/heoro/eor, tentatively associated with the name of Ares (identified with Teiwaz) by Jacob Grimm
• maki/meki/mækir/mece (also hildemece "battle-sword"), found in Gothic as well as in Old English and Old Norse, perhaps related to the Greek μάχαιρα; in any case, Gothic meki in Ephesians 6:17 translates this Greek word. The compound hæftmece in Beowulf, literally "hilt-sword", presumably describes a sword with an exceptionally long hilt.

Terms for "blade", "point" or "edge" which pars pro toto could also refer to the sword as a whole include

• *biljo "splitter, cleaver" (West Germanic only); a bill could be any bladed tool, especially farm implements such as scythes or sickles; the compound guðbill, wigbill, hildebill "battle-blade" refers to the sword, but also the simplex bill is used. Heliand (v. 4882) has billes biti "sword-bite". The Hildebrandslied has a parallelism establishing bill and suert as synonyms (v. 53f. suertu hauwan, bretun mit sinu billiu "[he shall] hew [at me] with [his] sword, lay [me] low with [his] blade").
• *þramja "edge, blade", perhaps Tacitus' framea "spear, lance", but Old Norse þremjar means "edges, sword blades"
• *agjo "edge".
• ord "point"
• *gaizo- meaning "cutter", the normal term for "spear", but in the early period may also have referred to the sword (see Bergakker inscription)

From the testimony of Germanic mythology and the Icelandic sagas, swords could also be given individual names. Examples include the magic sword of Högni, named Dáinnleif after the dwarf Dáinn (Skáldskaparmál), Skofnung and Hviting, two sword-names from the Kormáks saga, Nægling and Hrunting from Beowulf, and Mimung forged by Wayland the Smith.

Early development[link]

Depiction of a late Roman spatha on a diptych (dated to AD 406)

The spatha came into widespread use in the Roman army during the 3rd century. It was during this time that the early Germanic tribes adopted the weapon. There are types of the spatha, dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries, associated with the northern parts of the empire (Germania), such as the Straubing-Nydam type, but these are usually still classed as late Roman spathae, as they are still found in a Roman military, not a "native Germanic" context. An early find of Roman spathae in a native Germanic context (as opposed to Roman military camps in Germania) is the deposit of sixty-seven Roman swords in the Vimose bog (3rd century).

A native industry producing "Germanic swords" then emerges from the 5th century, contemporary with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Germanic spatha did not replace the native seax, sometimes referred to as gladius or ensis "sword", but technically a single-edged weapon or knife. It rather establishes itself, by the 6th century, at the top of the scale of prestige associated with weapons. While every Germanic warrior grave of the pagan period was furnished with weapons as grave goods, the vast majority 6th to 7th century grave have a seax and/or a spear, and only the richest have swords.

Swords could often become important heirlooms. Æthelstan Ætheling, son of king Æthelred, in a will of ca. 1015 bequeathed to his brother Eadmund the sword of king Offa (d. 796), which at that time must have been over 200 years old.^[2]

Krefeld type[link]

An early type of recognizably Germanic sword is the so-called "Krefeld-type" (also Krefeld-Gellep), named for a find in late Roman era military burials at Gelduba castle, Krefeld (Gellep grave 43).

The military burials at Gelduba begin in the late 1st century with the establishment of a Roman camp in Germania Inferior, and they continue without interruption throughout the period of withdrawal of Roman troops and the establishment of early Frankish presence in the mid 5th century.

The Krefeld type spathae appear in graves from approximately the 430s through the 460s. In these graves, the exalted prestige of the sword is not yet fully developed, and some of them are surprisingly poor. They rather seem to still continue the tradition of military graves of the Roman period, of warriors buried with their personal weapon, the presence of a sword perhaps indicating service in the late Roman army.

Six Krefeld type swords are known from Francia, four from Alamannia, and another two from England.

Gold hilt spatha[link]

5th century Alamannic gold hilt spatha found at Villingendorf.

The gold hilt spatha was a very rare and prestigious type of sword in the later 5th century. Specimens are known mostly from Alemannia (Pleidelsheim, Villingendorf), but also as far afield as Moravia (Blučina).

An "Alamannic type" is distinguished from a "Franconian type" based on scabbard mounts and hilt design by Quast (1993). A total of 20 examples are known, ten of each type.^[3]

One of the "Franconian" examples is the sword of Childeric I (d. 481), recovered from his tomb at Tournai. Some authors have suggested that Childeric's sword was a "ceremonial sword" not intended for combat, perhaps produced for the occasion of his burial. ^[4]

Ring-sword[link]

The 7th century Gutenstein scabbard, found near Sigmaringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany shows a warrior in wolf costume holding a ring-sword.

The ring-sword (also ring-spatha, ring-hilt spatha) is a particular variant of the Germanic migration period swords. Ring-swords are characterized by a small ring fixed to the hilt (not to be confused are Late Medieval to Renaissance Irish swords with ring-shaped pommels, also known as "ring-swords").

Ring-swords come into fashion in the last phase of the Migration period (or the beginning of the Early Middle Ages, in the 6th and 7th centuries. They are found in Vendel era Scandinavia and in Anglo-Saxon England as well as on the Continent (Saxony, Francia, Alemannia). These swords were prestigious, prized possessions, probably reserved for kings and high nobility. The ring is interpreted as a symbolic "oath ring".^[5]

The design appears to originate in the late 5th century, possibly with the early Merovingians, and quickly spreads to England (from the earliest phase of Anglo-Saxon presence) and Scandinavia. The Beowulf poem uses the term hring-mæl, literally "ring-sword" or "ring-ornament",^[6] and scholars who interpret this as referring to this type of sword can point to it as one indication that the Beowulf poet was still drawing from an unbroken tradition of the pagan period, as ring-swords disappear from the archaeological record with Christianization, by the late 7th century.^[7]

Examples include:

• Continent
  • the Beckum ring-sword, dated ca. AD 475-525, found at Beckum, Germany
  • Wünnenberg-Fürstenberg, grave 61, 6th century.
  • the Schretzheim sword, found in tomb 78 in the Schretzheim Alemannic cemetery, Dillingen, Bavaria, dated to between AD 580 and 620. The sword is a rare example of a blade inscribed with an Elder Futhark inscription, four runes arranged so that the staves form a cross shape.
• England
  • the Kent (or Dover) ring-sword^[8]
  • Sutton Hoo ring-sword
  • the Chessel Down II (Isle of Wight) ring-sword), early 6th c.
• Scandinavia
  • the Snartemo sword, found 1933 in tomb 5 at Snartemo, Vest-Agder, Norway, dated to ca. AD 500.
  • Vendel ring-sword, found at Vendel, Uppland, Sweden, 6th century.
  • the Vallstenarum sword, found in Gotland, provides an important indication of the spread of the fashion. The sword was made in the early 6th century, and a ring was added only later, around AD 600, damaging part of the existing hilt decoration.^[9]

See also[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Migration period swords

• Iron Age sword
• Migration period spear
• Gothic and Vandal warfare
• Anglo-Saxon warfare
• Viking Age arms and armour

References[link]

• Elis Behmer, Das zweischneidige Schwert der germanischen Völkerwanderungszeit, Stockholm (1939).
• H. R. Ellis Davidson, The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England: its Archaeology and Literature, Oxford (1962).

External links[link]

• 5th to 7th c. Germanic sword / seax
• Reenactor's page with Migration period sword reconstructions

This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. (January 2012) Don't speak German? Click here to read a machine-translated version of the German article. Click [show] on the right to review important translation instructions before translating. Google's machine translation is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into English Wikipedia. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. After translating, {{Translated|de|Völkerwanderung}} must be added to the talk page to ensure copyright compliance. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

Migration Period
Migrations
Other names	Babarian Invations
Time	300 - 700 AD
Place	Europe and Northern Africa
Event	Tribes invading declining Roman Empire

The Migration Period, also known as the Barbarian Invasions (German: Völkerwanderung "migration of peoples"), was a period of intensified human migration in Europe from about 400 to 800 AD.^[1][2] This period marked the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Migrations were catalyzed by profound changes within the Roman Empire and on its "barbarian frontier". The migrants who came first were Germanic tribes such as the Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii and Franks; they were later pushed westwards by the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars and Alans.^[3] Later migrations (such as the Arab conquest and Viking, Magyar, Moorish, Turkic, and Mongol invasions) also had significant effects (especially in North Africa, the Iberian peninsula, Anatolia and Central and Eastern Europe); however, they are outside the scope of the Migration Period.

Chronology[link]

[edit] Origins of Germanic tribes

Germanic peoples moved out of southern Scandinavia, Denmark and adjacent lands between the Elbe and Oder rivers after 1000 BC. The first wave moved westward and southward (pushing the resident Celts west to the Rhine River by about 200 BC) and moving into southern Germany up to the Roman province of Gaul by 100 BC, where they were stopped by Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar. It is this western group who was described by the Roman historian Tacitus (56 – 117 AD) and Julius Caesar (100 - 44 BC). A later wave of German tribes migrated eastward and southward from Scandinavia between 600 and 300 BC to the opposite coast of the Baltic Sea, moving up the Vistula near the Carpathians. During Tacitus' era they included lesser-known tribes such as the Tencteri, Cherusci, Hermunduri and Chatti; however, a period of federation and intermarriage resulted in the familiar groups known as the Alamanni, Franks, Saxons, Frisians and Thuringians.^[4]

[edit] First phase

The Migration Period may be divided into two phases. The first phase, occurring between 300 and 500 AD, is partly documented by Greek and Latin historians but difficult to verify archaeologically. It puts Germanic peoples in control of most areas of the then-Western Roman Empire.^{[citation needed]} The Visigoths entered Roman territory (after a clash with the Huns) in 376. The following year in Marcianopolis, the escort to Fritigern (their leader) was killed while meeting with Lupicinus.^[5] The Visigoths rebelled, eventually invading Italy and sacking Rome in 410, before settling in Iberia and founding a kingdom which lasted for 200 years. They were followed into Roman territory by the Ostrogoths, led by Theodoric the Great, who settled in Italy.

In Gaul the Franks (a fusion of western Germanic tribes whose leaders had been aligned with Rome since the third century AD) entered Roman lands gradually and peacefully during the fifth century, and were accepted as rulers by the Roman-Gaulish population. Fending off challenges from the Allemanni, Burgundians and Visigoths, the Frankish kingdom became the nucleus of the future France and Germany. The initial Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain occurred during the fifth century, when Roman Britain no longer existed.^[6]

[edit] Second phase

The second phase took place between 500 and 700 and saw Slavic tribes settling in central and eastern Europe (particularly in eastern Magna Germania), gradually making it predominantly Slavic.^{[citation needed]} In 567, the Avars and the Lombards destroyed much of the Gepid Kingdom. The Lombards, a Germanic people, settled in northern Italy in the region now known as Lombardy. The Bulgars (people of Turkic or Iranic origin who were present in far eastern Europe since the second century) conquered the eastern Balkan territory of the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century.

During the early Byzantine–Arab Wars the Arab armies attempted to invade southeast Europe via Asia Minor during the late seventh and early eighth centuries, but were defeated at the siege of Constantinople by the joint forces of Byzantium and the Bulgars. During the Khazar–Arab Wars, the Khazars stopped the Arab expansion into Europe across the Caucasus. At the same time, the Moors (consisting of Arabs and Berbers) invaded Europe via Gibraltar (conquering Hispania—the Iberian Peninsula—from the Visigothic Kingdom in 711), before being halted by the Franks at the Battle of Tours in 732. These battles largely fixed the frontier between Christendom and Islam for the next millennium. The following centuries saw the Muslims successful in conquering Sicily and parts of southern Italy from the Christians.

[edit] Climatic factors

A number of contemporary historical references worldwide refer to an extended period of extreme weather during 535–536. Evidence of this cold period is also found in dendrochronology and ice cores. The causes and consequences of this cold period are debated.

[edit] Discussions

Barbarian identity[link]

The analysis of barbarian identity and how it was created and expressed during the Migration Age has elicited discussion among scholars. Herwig Wolfram (an historian of the Goths),^[7] in discussing the equation of migratio gentium with Völkerwanderung, observes that Michael Schmidt introduced the equation in his 1778 history of the Germans. Wolfram observed that the significance of gens as a biological community was shifting even during the early Middle Ages; "to complicate matters, we have no way of devising a terminology that is not derived from the concept of nationhood created during the French Revolution".

The "primordialistic"^[8] paradigm prevailed during the 19th century. Scholars such as German linguist Johann Gottfried Herder viewed tribes as coherent biological (racial) entities, using the term to refer to discrete ethnic groups.^[9] He believed that the Volk were an organic whole, with a core identity and spirit evident in art, literature and language. These were seen as intrinsic characteristics unaffected by external influences, even conquest.^[10] Language, in particular, was seen as the most important expression of ethnicity. They argued that groups sharing the same (or similar) language possessed a common identity and ancestry.^[11] The Romantic ideal that there had once been a single German, Celtic or Slavic people who originated from a common homeland and spoke a common tongue helped provide a conceptual framework for political movements of the 18th and 19th centuries such as German nationalism and Pan-Slavism.^[10]

Beginning in the 1960s a reinterpretation of archaeological and historic evidence prompted scholars (such as Goffart and Todd) to propose new models for explaining the construction of barbarian identity, maintaining that no sense of shared identity was perceived by the Germani;^[12][13][14] a similar theory has been proposed for Celtic and Slavic groups.^[15] This theory states that the primordialist mode of thinking was encouraged by a prima facie interpretation of Graeco-Roman sources, which grouped together many tribes under such labels as Germani, Keltoi or Sclavenoi (encouraging their perception as distinct peoples. Modernists argue that the uniqueness perceived by specific groups was based on common political and economic interests, rather than biological or racial distinctions.

The role of language in constructing and maintaining group identity was ephemeral, since large-scale language shifts have been common in history.^[16] Modernists propose the idea of "imagined communities"; the barbarian polities in late antiquity were social constructs, rather than changeless lines of blood kinship.^[17] The process of forming tribal units was called "ethnogenesis", a term coined by Soviet scholar Julian Bromley.^[18] The Austrian school (led by Reinhard Wenskus) popularized this idea, which influenced medievalists such as Herwig Wolfram, Walter Pohl and Patrick Geary.^[19] It argues that the stimulus for forming tribal polities was perpetuated by a small nucleus of people, known as the Traditionskern ("kernel of tradition"), who were a military or aristocratic elite. This core group formed a standard for larger units, gathering adherents by employing amalgamative metaphors such as kinship and aboriginal commonality and claiming that they perpetuated an ancient, divinely-sanctioned lineage.^[20]

A capable soldier would be able to assume the group identity without being born into the "tribe". “A victorious campaign confirmed [the leaders'] right to rule and drew [to] them an ever-growing people who accepted and shared in their identity”.^[20] In time, these heterogeneous armies grew into a new people possessing "a strong belief in a common biological origin".^[21] Halsall argues that no objectively-definable criterion can be consistently used to distinguish ethnic groups from one another: language, social customs, geographic habitation, religion or a common origin. "The only common factor in defining ethnicity is belief: in the reality of your group and the difference to others".^[22]

Walter Pohl highlights the dynamic nature of group identity, proposing that during the Migration Period people could live in circumstances of "ethnic ambiguity". Given that ethnicity was important for the upper classes, they could adopt multiple ethnicities to secure the allegiance of their partners and followers: a phenomenon referred to as "situational ethnicity".^[22] To advance socially, one needed to "grow into a dominating group with high prestige, to copy its lifestyle".^[23] The process of assimilation could produce "a wide variety of transitional stages".^[24] Followers could also disband from larger units. Factions arose, challenging the right to lead the people and uphold their traditions. Conversely defeat by an external power could mean the end of a ruler and his people, who were absorbed into the victorious confederacy.^[25] “Seen in this light, ‘ethnic’ identity among barbarians was extraordinarily fluid, as new groups emerged and old ones disappeared".

Peter Heather suggests that constructionism and modernism represent two extremes of the spectrum of possibilities. The process of assimilation and appropriation of new group identity varied from group to group. He alludes to literary sources, which describe two contrasting models of interaction: the Sclavenes were prepared (after a given period) to accept prisoners as full and free members of their tribal groups; on the other hand, the Huns (although incorporating non-Hun groups) kept them separate and subordinate. Rather than being aristocratic kernels, he argues that the identity of tribal groups was maintained by a contingent of "notables" and freemen. He clarifies that while groups like the Goths were multi-ethnic, full assimilation was not the rule.^[26] He proposes that conquered groups held a subordinate status either as otherwise-autonomous tribute-payers or as disadvantaged strata within mixed settlements. Even when a homogeneous material culture arose, disparate groups were likely to preserve their unique identity and language.^[27]

Whatever the case, this process of building large-scale group identity was particularly evident along the Roman frontier, prompted by the example of Roman provincial life and the threat of Roman attack.^[28] Ethnicity was a complex, subjective and multi-layered process, and the Migration Period saw groups rise and fall. Confederations like the Huns and the Vandals arose, to vanish abruptly within a few generations. Other, previously-obscure groups (like the Angles and the Franks) created enduring polities. Even ancient groups like the Goths (who existed from late antiquity until the Middle Ages) underwent profound transformation. Given constant migrations, changing allegiances, and new cultural appropriations, all that remained constant was their Gothic name.^[29] As Thomas Noble states, "tribes are no longer imagined to have been "marching for centuries at a time in ordered ranks with homogeneous ethnic compositions" from a distant, localized homeland across Europe into a settlement on Roman soil. "The common, track-filled map of the Völkerwanderung may illustrate such [a] course of events, but it misleads. Unfolded over long periods of time, the changes of position that took place were necessarily irregular...(with) periods of emphatic discontinuity. For decades and possibly centuries, the tradition bearers idled, and the tradition itself hibernated. There was ample time for forgetfulness to do its work".^[30]

"Invasion" versus "migration"[link]

Several explanations have been given for the appearance of "barbarians" on the frontier: weather and crops, population pressure, a "primeval urge" to push into the Mediterranean or the "domino effect" (whereby the Huns fell upon the Goths who, in turn, pushed other Germanic tribes before them). Entire barbarian tribes (or nations) flooded into Roman provinces, ending classical urbanism and beginning new types of rural settlements.^[31] French and Italian scholars viewed this as a catastrophic event: the destruction of a civilization and the beginning of a "Dark Age" which set Europe back a millennium.^[31] In contrast, German and English historians saw it as the replacement of a "tired, effete and decadent Mediterranean civilization" with a "more virile, martial, Nordic one".^[31] Rather than "invasion", German and Slavic scholars use the term "migration" (German: Völkerwanderung, Czech: Stěhování národů and Hungarian: népvándorlás), aspiring to the idea of a dynamic and “wandering Indo-Germanic people”.^[32]

Guy Halsall argues that barbarian movement was the result of the fall of the Roman Empire, not its cause.^[31] Archaeological finds confirm that Germanic and Slavic tribes were settled agriculturalists^[33] that were merely "drawn into the politics of an empire already falling apart for quite other causes". The Crisis of the Third Century caused significant changes within the Roman Empire, in both its western and eastern portions.^[34] In particular, economic fragmentation removed many of the political, cultural and economic forces which held the empire together.^[35] The rural population in Roman provinces was distant from the emperor, and there was little to differentiate them from other peasants across the Roman frontier. In addition, Rome increasingly used foreign mercenaries to defend itself. This "barbarisation" of the Empire was paralleled by changes within barbaricum. The Roman Empire played a vital role in building up barbarian groups along its frontier. Propped up with imperial support and gifts, armies of allied chieftains served as buffers against hostile barbarian groups. The disintegration of Roman economic power weakened groups formerly dependent on Roman gifts for maintenance of their own power. With the arrival of the Huns, this prompted many groups to invade the provinces for economic reasons.^[36]

The barbarian takeover of former Roman provinces varied by region; for example, in Aquitaine the provincial administration was largely self-reliant. Halsall argues that local rulers simply "handed over" military rule to the Ostrogoths, acquiring the identity of the newcomers.^[37] In Gaul the collapse of imperial rule resulted in anarchy; the Franks and Alemanni were pulled into the ensuing "power vacuum",^[38] resulting in conflict. In Spain local aristocrats maintained independent rule for some time, raising their own armies against the Vandals. Meanwhile, the Roman withdrawal from lowland England resulted in conflict between Saxons and the Brythonic chieftains (whose power retreated westward). The Eastern Roman Empire attempted to maintain control of the Balkan provinces, despite a thinly-spread imperial army with local militias and an extensive re-fortification of the Danubian limes. The grandiose program of fortifications collapsed, worsening the impoverished conditions of the local populace and resulting in colonization by Slavic warriors and their families.^[39]

Halsall and Noble argue that the changes which took place were the result of breakdown in Roman political control, which exposed the weakness of local Roman rule. Instead of large-scale migrations, there were military takeovers by small groups of warriors and their families (who usually numbered in the tens of thousands). This process involved active, conscious decision-making by Roman provincial populations. Collapse of centralized control severely weakened the sense of Roman identity in the provinces; this explains dramatic cultural changes seen in the absence of large numbers of barbarian migrants.^[40] Ultimately, the Germanic groups in the Western Roman Empire were accommodated without "dispossessing or overturning indigenous society" and maintained a structured and hierarchical (albeit degenerate) form of Roman administration.^[41] Paradoxically, they lost their unique identity as they were absorbed into Latinhood. This contrasted with the situation in the east, where Slavic tribes maintained a more "spartan and egalitarian"^[42] existence bound to the land "even in times when they took their part in plundering Roman provinces".^[43] Their organization was not based on Roman models, and their leaders were not normally dependent on Roman gold for success. Thus, their effect was more thorough than what the Goths, Franks or Saxons ever achieved.^[44]

Ethnicity[link]

Based on the belief that particular types of artifacts (generally elements of personal adornment found in a funerary context) are thought to determine the race or ethnicity of the person buried, the "Culture-History" school of archaeology assumed that archaeological cultures represent the Urheimat (homeland) of tribal polities named in historical sources.^[45] As a consequence, the shifting extensions of material cultures were interpreted as the expansion of peoples.^[46] Influenced by constructionism, process-driven archaeologists rejected the Culture-Historical doctrine;^[47] they marginalized the discussion of ethnicity altogether, and focused on the intragroup dynamics which generated such material remains. Moreover, they argued that adoption of new cultures could occur through trade in or internal political developments rather than military takeovers.

Many scholars take a more moderate position. While recognizing that artifacts do not possess an inherent "ethnic ascription", some artifacts may have been used as "emblems in identity and otherness – of belonging and exclusions".^[48] Peter Heather suggests that although shifts in culture should not solely rely on migratory explanations, there is no reason to a priori rule them out (especially if there is evidence from literary sources).^[49] Profound changes in culture (and language) could occur through the influx of a ruling elite with minimal (or no) impact on overall population composition,^[50] especially if it occurs when the indigenous population is receptive to such changes.

Depiction in media[link]

• Terry Jones' Barbarians, a 4-part TV documentary series first broadcast on BBC 2 in 2006
• Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion, a Real Time Strategy game

Appendix - maps[link]

See also[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Migration period

Ancient Germanic culture portal

• Dark Ages (historiography)
• Late Antiquity
• Medieval demography
• Migration Period art

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Barford, Paul M (2001), The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0-8014-3977-9 
• Curta, Florin (2001), The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, C. 500–700, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80202-4 
• Dumville, David (1990), Histories and pseudo-histories of the insular Middle Ages, Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum 
• Geary, Patrick (2003), Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe, Princeton Paperbacks, ISBN ISBN 0-691-11481-1 
• Halsall, Guy (2006), "The Barbarian invasions", in Fouracre, Paul, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1: c. 500 – c. 700, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-36291-1 
• Halsall, Guy (2008), Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376–568, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-43491-2 
• Heather, Peter J (1998), The Goths, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-20932-8 
• Kulikowski, Michael (2007), Rome's Gothic Wars: from the third century to Alaric, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-84633-1 
• Noble, Thomas; Goffart, Walter (2006), From Roman provinces to Medieval kingdoms, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-32742-3 
• Pohl, Walter (1998), "Conceptions of ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies", in Little, Lester K; Rosenwein, Barbara, Debating the Middle Ages: issues and readings, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 1-57718-008-9 
• Todd, Malcolm, The Early Germans, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 0-631-19904-7 
• Wolfram, Herwig (2001), Die Goten . Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts ., München: C.H.Beck 

Murray Carter
Nationality	Australian
Born	(1931-01-30) 30 January 1931 (age 81) Melbourne, Victoria
Australian Touring Car Championship
Years active	1973-1990
Teams	Murray Carter Racing
Starts	107
Best finish	2nd in 1975 Australian Touring Car Championship
Previous series
1963 1992-95 1996-99 2000-04 2007 2008-11	Australian GT Champ. Australian Production Champ. Australian GT Prod. Champ. Nations Cup Intermarque Challenge Victorian Sports Car Champ.

Murray Carter (born 30 January 1931 in Melbourne^[1]) is an Australian racing driver. For many years a stalwart of the Australian Touring Car Championship Carter has had one of the longest racing careers of any driver in Australian history, continuing to race into his 80s.

Racing history[link]

One of a generation of racing drivers that appeared in the 1950s as tyres and fuel, rationed for most of that decade in the post-war economic climate, became more widely available. After racing motorcycles and a Jaguar XK120, Carter built an open wheeler which was powered by a Chevrolet Corvette V8 engine, the car making its first appearance in 1959.^[2] The following year the car was rebuilt as a sports car^[2] and subsequently as a "GT" car, becoming part of the brief history of Appendix K, a uniquely Australian category for closed cars with no required production origins. Carter finished runner up in the 1963 Australian GT Championship behind Bob Jane.^[3] He also embraced production car racing when it emerged in 1960 and raced at the first Armstrong 500, later to become famous as the Bathurst 1000, and won his class driving a Ford Customline.

Touring Cars[link]

Carter emerged as a regular in the Australian Touring Car Championship in 1973. Driving Ford Falcons Carter was one of the leading privateer drivers during the 70s and into the early 80s. Famously Carter lent his Falcon to works driver Allan Moffat at the Adelaide International Raceway round of the 1973 Australian Touring Car Championship after Moffat's race car was stolen by joyriders.^[4] Carter was a benficiary of the work being done by Moffat and the Ford works team, getting new developments quickly, keeping him at the forefront of Ford racers through the 70s. A career highlight came in 1975 when Carter benefitted from a season where many front running drivers and teams had fraught campaigns and finished runner up to Colin Bond in the 1975 Australian Touring Car Championship.^[5] The other major result of this period was a third placing at the 1978 Bathurst 1000 with New Zealand open-wheel ace Graeme Lawrence as co-driver.^[6]

Into the 1980s Carter was left behind by Ford when it withdrew from racing leaving Carter, briefly (until the rise of Dick Johnson), as Australia's leading Ford touring car driver. By 1983 Carter was becoming increasingly frustrated with developing Falcons and having little reward and switched to a cheaper-to-run Mazda RX-7. Little result came of this and Carter briefly stepped away from racing following the demise of the Group C Touring Car category at the end of 1984.

In 1986 Carter returned with a Nissan Skyline DR30 RS, before returning to Ford with a Sierra RS500 in 1988. During his Australian Touring Car Championship career Carter set a record for the most top three finishes without taking a win, a record which still stands today.

Production Cars[link]

By 1991 Carter had switched to production car racing, initially with a Nissan Pintara in the Australian Production Car Championship. He later raced a Nissan Pulsar and then a Mazda 626 in this series, with a highlight of finishing runner up to Phil Morriss in the 1994 Australian Production Car Championship. In 1997 Carter began racing a Nissan 200SX Turbo in the Australian GT Production Car Championship. In 1999 a Chevrolet Corvette C5 followed and Carter transitioned with it into the new Australian Nations Cup Championship in 2000. Carter raced only occasionally into the 2000s, driving his Corvette in state level racing as late as 2008. In 2011 Carter still races the Corvette occasionally at Victorian championship level as he appraches 80 years of age.

Career results[link]

References[link]