But, turning from the literary to the real world, to what degree, one might ask, did these lists represent the presence of actual peoples bearing these names? The answer to this question depends to some degree on chronological perspective. Once a people’s name had been entered into the “master list,” it pretty much stayed there forever. Writers such as Caesar, Pliny the Elder, and Tacitus provided lengthy 62 63 64 lists of northern peoples attested as of the end of the first century CE, many of which—such as the Suevi, Marcomanni, Quadi, Sicambri, Chatti, Burgundians, Vandals, and Gothi—made regular appearances in later catalogues.65
But the “barbarian canon” also was dynamic and evolving. The names of new peoples made their way in. the third century saw the appearance in the Verona catalogue and other lists of a number of previously unattested peoples, such as the Franks, Alamanni, and Saxons. And in the second half of the fourth century, still new groups appeared on the scene, such as the Huns, Gepids, Vesi, ostrogoths, and Geloni. Finally, the post-Roman period saw additional new arrivals, such as the slavs and Bulgars. And the recent arrivals certainly got a better press than the old-timers. for example, sidonius cited only nine of 38 names available from the principate, but ten of 24 post-third-century peoples.66 thus, even though the compilers of late antique lists of barbarian peoples did favor the names of peoples who actually existed in their own times, they also used their literary license to flavor their lists with names from the hoary past, in an effort, no doubt, to anchor their lists in antiquity and endow them with the same sense of permanence conveyed by the catalogues of Caesar, pliny, and others.
In addition, we can be fairly confident that, at least at the time of its initial appearance, a people not only existed but also was a cause of interest or concern. But, subsequently, once a name had become part of the canon, one can be less and less confident that a people who appears in an extended list is meant to be anything more than a placeholder, part of the “cast of thousands” who provided the literary flavoring for the main course.
Indeed, ancient writers themselves realized that the names of barbarian peoples they so readily cited were not fixed in stone. In the 550s, for example, the Gothic historian Jordanes spoke of the Venetae, “whose names now are altered in various families and places; they principally are called the slavs and antes.”67 and, in general, it was recognized that the same peoples could go under different names or be understood to be incorporated into a larger super-group.
In general, the creation and use of lists of barbarian peoples represented more than just literary tours de force by writers who wanted to display their encyclopedic learning or poetic skill. They also were an integral part of Roman, Christian, and barbarian political ideology that viewed barbarian peoples collectively, whether as a completely homogeneous body or with very minimal identifying characteristics, as a means of presenting a simplified picture of how Romans, Christians, and barbarian kingdoms could classify and deal with the multitudes of different peoples who manifested a multitude of different governments, customs, religions, and ways of life.