Here We Go Again

I’ve been struggling. Struggling to get work done; Struggling to get my paper written; Even struggling to formulate a simple idea to write about. Today I am going to basically pour my thoughts out into this post with the hope that some kind of F@k’n idea comes to me and helps me write a paper that was due a week ago. That being said, let’s get this F@k’r moving along.

The general premise is straightforward: Read Geoff Eley’s A Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the History of Society. Then extract key points and write my own perspective on how events in History affected the writing of those in the field which I study. Byzantine Studies. Maybe, I should just explain the premise behind Eley’s book first. It is a type of autobiographical work in which Eley reflects on his own journey in academia and the forces that influenced his development as a historian. It discusses Marxism, Social History, Cultural History, the Linguistic Turn, and a few other ideas. Basically, it is a historiographical analysis of the development of historical thought and methods from the ’50s and up to when the book was written. Yippie.

PS: I am not a fan of Historiography!

So, why is that? Basically, I am just tired of examining Marxist thought, Post-structural influences, and how Foucault turned everything onto its head. I see the value in understanding how these methods and theories aided in the development of Historical discourse. Still, I also don’t see the point of rehashing the same arguments repeatedly. I want to move forward, not keep talking about how the Annales or EP Thompson made historians rethink how History was performed.

I know! I sound like a donkey for suggesting that. However, it is how I feel. And that’s That!

Moving forward to the problem at hand: I am failing gloriously (Thank you, Dr. Graham, for those words). I’ve read Eley’s work, but I can’t construct even two simple thoughts to begin writing this damn paper. And the problem here, I think, is that I am too worried about writing a historiographical work that will get me a good mark. I am an archaeologist. Well…a Historical Archaeologist. And that means I look at many different types of evidence from the ancient world. I want to write about how the term “Byzantine” is bullshit and what is influencing the current dialogue around this term in academic discourse. The problem is that it is a relatively new dialogue that has only been seriously addressed in the last few years. Anthony Kaldellis is one scholar who is tackling this very subject. others are as well but I will focus on Kaldellis at the moment for ease of access to his work. (Actually, I should be ashamed as I lost my favourite book, Romanland, by Kaldellis, in the process of moving to Ontario! F@k My Life).

Examining Kaldellis’ work in Romanland, one could say that it is an ethnographic analysis of how those we (academics) call “Byzantine" perceived their own identity. Kaldellis argues that these people understood themselves as ethnically Roman. Not all people in the empire thought of themselves in this way, but most, Kaldellis argues, did. I am not disputing Kaldellis’ arguments. I think he is correct on many accounts based on the evidence he presents and what I have seen. The question I am struggling with, and failing to answer, is what the F@k influenced Kaldellis’ writing. What were the influences affecting the thought processes and methods that Kaldellis employs? Are there Marxist influences? What about Post-colonial thought? Possibly more of the latter than the former. So is this my starting point? Is this what I even want to address in my paper? Not really. So what do I do?

Look For The Low Hanging Fruit. — Shawn Graham.

Thanks, Shawn. It really is excellent advice. And I have been looking for this fruit ever since he said this to me. So, (I start many sentences with “so”), what is the low-hanging fruit here? I guess in Kaldellis’ case, one could argue that ethnographic research is not entirely new in academic discourse. Still, for Byzantine Studies, we tend to show up to the party a little late. And by that I mean, the party starts at 8 pm and at 11:36 pm we (Byzantinists) come strolling in asking: Is this the house where the party is happening?

Now, to be fair, not all Byzantinists do this. I am overgeneralizing, but there is something to be said about why theory and methods take so long to take root in Byzantine Studies. More specifically, Byzantine archaeology. That should take me to my next possible topic: Numismatics!

Numismatics is that crazy subfield that tends to be an outlier that likes to do its own thing. Coins are material culture, yet, they always appear to be predominantly examined independently from all other forms of material culture. Why the f@k is that? From this point I would like to discuss one of the more influential papers in my academic career, thus far, called “Rethinking Numismatics. The archaeology of coins,” by Fleur Kemmers and Nanouschka Myrberg.

The article was published in Archaeological Dialogues in 2011. It is not an article that addresses Byzantine coins but coins as a whole. The methods used to examine them and how academics need to rethink the methods and theories used to address coin studies. The article addresses the “agency” of coins. That is to say, how coins affect how people interact with them. HOLD THE F@K UP!

Epiphany!!

I think this should be my starting point. Just like Eley, I have been shaped and guided in my studies by particular articles and books. Not particularly theoretical methods or approaches, but how these theories and methods tend to be absent or in their infancy in Byzantine discourse. Hmmmmm. Kemmers’ and Myrberg’s article forced me to rethink the methods I use to approach all material culture. Not just coins, though, coins had the most significant impact on me and my future research. It led me down the path to question how people interact with coins and when academics classify a coin(s) as Byzantine, WTF do we actually mean. The theme here is IDENTITY and how academics apply identity to material culture. This led me to question from what period were coins labelled Byzantine and why?

For example, many start with Anastasius’ monetary reforms in the late 5th century. I believe it was around 498 CE, to be exact. Anyway, the point is, we cannot even agree on when the Byzantine Empire started…

Back That Train Up Coleman! You often said that they did not identify as Byzantine, nor did they call each other Byzantines. That these people were ROMANS!

You’re damn right! I have said that, and this leads me to my next observation. Working with the coins from Çadır Höyük forced me to question why we start identifying coins as Byzantine from one date and label the beginning of Byzantine society at another date? For example, Byzantium, or the Byzantine Empire, started with Constantine the Great (Was he though?) and the establishment of Constantinople in the early 4th century as the “New Rome.” From here, I started taking an active interest in why we as scholars continue to use the term Byzantine when we know that this is incorrect and that those who lived in the empire did not identify as such. With that being said, I then began my journey into the study of what Byzantine Identity means? Moreover, how it is presented and represented to the public.

I think I should get cracking on this paper now. Hmmmmm. I think this post helped. A bit of an anti-climatic ending, but that’s what you get. This was more for me than it was for you. Sorry, but it is what it is. Until next time.