Drinkwater J.F. The Alamanni and Rome 213-496 (Caracalla to Clovis)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

residual population would have been forced to use what was to hand,

that is Germanic products.74 Scholars inferred the existence of such a

population from the assumption that incoming war-bands, lacking

time and agricultural expertise, would have depended for the neces-

sities of life upon the work of a serv ile Roman labour force, made up

of residual inhabitants and people seized during raids into the

Empire.75 Another suggestion is that Alamannic remains at or near

former non-rural Roman sites do not signify Germanic settlement,

but Germanic control of a residual Roman workforce that supplied

the newcomers with goods and services they were unable to provide

for themselves.76 However, neither idea is sustained by archaeological

evidence. As far as the Wrst is concerned, pollen studies indicate a

decline in the rural population. A slave population descended

from resident provincials, if it existed, could not have been large.

With regard to the second, there is no sign of settlements at former

Roman forts, towns and vici acting as signiWcant centres of exchange.

Alamannic rural sites yield few luxury items, which suggests that

these were scarce and expensive, and generally available only in the

‘Ho

hensiedlungen’. On the other hand, thanks to the work of

Stribrny, we can now see a very curious local coin-pattern.

Investigation of stray Wnds of Roman bronze coins in Alamannia

has shown that these continued to circulate throughout the fourth

century.77 There is no doubt that this is an authentic circulation

pattern, and not, say, the result of the ‘churning’ of coins obtained

from booty or brought in by imperial campaigns in the region.

On the contrary, the pattern of coin loss (and, therefore, of coin

availability and usage) closely resembles that of Roman provinces

(Germania I and Maxima Sequanorum) to the west of Alamannia.78

Within the general pattern, Stribrny has identiWed two signiWcant

variations. These are areas of ‘major’ and ‘minor’ circulation, with

the latter similar to the former but with a distinctly smaller volume of

coins (Fig. 16).

74 Steuer (1990: 199–201).

75 Keller (1993: 98–9). Cf. above 93, below 139, 243.

76 Keller (1993: 97–8); Fingerlin (1997b: 131).

77 Weidemann (1972: Figs 1–12); Stribrny (1989).

78 Stribrny (1989: 423, 426).

128 Society

The largest area of major coin circulation consists of a strip,

c.20 km (12 statute miles) wide, running, with small breaks, along

the old military highway from the Mainz bridgehead to the major

base at Kaiseraugst.79 From this sprout three eastward projections.

The most prominent echoes the route of a pair of roads that left the

main north–south highway at Ubstadt and Ettlingen respectively,

joined at Stuttgart and then ran as a single road to the Danube at

Faimingen. Another runs parallel to the route of the Roman road

79 For this and the following details see Stribrny (1989: 375–97).

FRIEDBERG

G-GERAU

UBSTADT

EMS

AUGSBURG

BREISACH

ROTTWEIL

ROTTENBURG

ZURZACH

SCHLEITHEIM

FAIMINGENFAIMINGEN

FAIMINGEN

STUTTGART

ÖHRINGEN

HRINGEN

ÖHRINGEN

MILTENBERGMILTENBERG

G-KROTZENBURG

STOCKSTADTSTOCKSTADTSTOCKSTADT

SELIGENSTADTSELIGENSTADT

G-KROTZENBURGG-KROTZENBURG

FRANKFURT

WIESBADEN

MAINZ

WORMS

ETTLINGEN

h negligible

Fig. 16 Circulation of fourth-century Roman bronze coins in Alamannia

[after Stribrny (1989: 401 Fig. 19); Trumm (2002: 217 Fig. 11)].

Society 129

north of the river Main, from Mainz by way of Wiesbaden to

Friedberg, formerly an important limes fort. The third projection

runs south of Mainz, from Groß Gerau to Seligenstadt and

Stockstadt, also former limes fort s. It seems inXuenced by a road to

the Main, to the south of which is a region, the Felsberg, of fourth-

century Roman quarrying. A detached stretch of the Rhine corridor

is discernible to the north of Mainz, around Bad Ems. The areas of

minor circulation, though more scattered, seem also to be related to

Roman structures and sites. Three such areas form another broken

strip, running north–south, roughly parallel to the Rhine strip, along

the middle and upper Neckar and roads from Rottenburg by way of

Rottweil to the Rhine at Zurzach and on to Windisch. This cuts

across the Stuttgart–Faimingen road. Trumm has recently shown that

it terminates in a major area of circulation, between Schleitheim and

Windisch.80 Two other areas of minor coin circulation mark the end

of the east–west route, between Faimingen and, to the west, the

conXuence of the Iller and the Danube. A fourth area of minor

coin circulation is sandwiched between the two northernmost pro-

jections of major circulation, around Frankfurt-am-Main. Two

islands of minor coin circulation lie on the line of the former limes

around Miltenberg and O

hringen.

Coin circulation east of the Rhine was at its most intense under the

house of Constantine, especially early in the reign of Constantine I. In

common with the Gallic pattern, there is a break in supply from c.350

into the early 360s, as a result of the revolt of Magnentius. Supplies

were renewed under Valentinian I, but much less strongly than west of

the Rhine.81 Since Roman bronze coins do not Wgure prominently in

the Wnds from accepted Alamannic sites, I do not agree with Nuber

that the newcomers could have been taught how to use coins by earlier

Germanic immigrants, that is that the coin-pattern reXects Alamannic

usage.82 Precisely what it means is open to debate.

The main engine of coin supply must, as always, have been the

Roman state, in particular its payments to the army. Stribrny proposes

80 Trumm (2002: 36–8 and Fig. 11, 217).

81 Stribrny (1989: 375–7, 400–2, 407–8).

82 Cf. Stribrny (1989: 426 and n.186): only two post-260 coins were found during

the Runder Berg excavations. Nuber (1993: 102), (1998: 375, 379).

130 Society

that the bronze was paid to a local militia, acting as a defence screen.

He argues that such a militia was not required east of Basel since this

frontier had been heavily fortiWed under Diocletian. The meandering

course of the old Rhine had, however, hindered the building of

defences from Basel to Coblenz.83 Stribrny envisages this militia as a

disciplined force, comprising both men from a residual Roman popu-

lation and some resident Alamanni, stationed along the right bank of

the Upper Rhine and, in places, on the old limes. Thus Alamannic

control did not extend close to the Rhine.84 The coins were spent by

the soldiers and their dependants on Roman provincial imports, as is

reXected in Wnds of Roman ceramics in these areas.85 While elsewhere

dismissing the activity of Roman traders as a cause of the areas of

major circulation, Stribrny accepts this as an explanation for the

existence of the isolated area of minor circulation on the old limes

around O

hringen.86 The system worked well until the revolt of

Magnentius.87 It was made redundant by Valentinian I’s fortifying

the Upper-Rhine frontier. It was only then that Alamanni took control

of territory adjacent to the Upper Rhine.88 Stribrny’s ideas deserve

serious consideration.89 I agree that the coins reXect important

imperial activity, but propose that this amounted to more than just

payments to irregular troops.

Although there were such troops available to Rome in Alamannia,

these did not constitute the organized force envisaged by Stribrny.

They would have been Alamannic warriors put in the service of the

Empire by their chiefs under treaty agreements.90 But if the chiefs

received a monetary reward, this would have been in gold and silver,

and it is unlikely that they or the Empire would have paid out bronze

to their men. This is the implication of the near-absence of such

pieces from the hill-sites.91 Eastgermanic veterans appear to have

83 Stribrny (1989: 417, 422, 430–1).

84 Stribrny (1989: 432–3, 436).

85 Stribrny (1989: 403).

86 Stribrny (1989: 388, 450).

87 Below 201.

88 Stribrny (1989: 436).

89 There is curiously little said about them in, e.g. Alamannen (1997), though

Witschel (1999: 217) takes up the idea of a ‘Grenzmiliz’.

90 Above 81.

91 Cf. above 130.

Society 131

been settled in the Main valley.92 These may have brought bronze

coinage with them, and perhaps received more from the Empire,

but their numbers must have been small and restricted. Finally, there

is no other indication of an imperial cordon sanitaire east of the

Rhine during the early fourth centur y. Ammianus gives no hint

that Alamannic kings mentioned as being on the Rhine from 350

were recent unwelcome arrivals: charges against them amount to

their having crossed, or threatened to cross, the river, not having

reached it.93 A better explanation for Wnds of Roman coinage in

Alamannia is a more orthodox Roman presence in the area.

It is unlikely that Rome ever renounced its claim to sovereignty

over the region, out of pride but also because it was important for the

security of Gaul and, especially, Italy. 94 To uphold this claim regular

forces continued to be sent on routine missions into Alamannia. This

began early, in the making-good of abandoned military sites and the

reusing of their remains.95 It is also visible in the establishment of

major bridgeheads and bases—at Mainz/Kastel96 and at Wiesbaden.

The latter was an important military and civil site into the second half

of the fourth century w ith a coin-pattern identical to that of Mainz

and may have supplied regiments for the imperial army.97 Smaller

military bases may also have been maintained up the Main in the

early fourth century, providing a model for Valentinian I’s river-

supplied forts over the Rhine.98 Though rivers were important,

it would also have been prudent to monitor the old imperial

roads. Such interest might explain the inclusion in the Peutinger

Table of the route from Zurzach to Gu

nzburg, important for Julian

in 361.99 The concentration of coin-Wnds near important highways,

especially in areas of minor circulation, may indicate reconnaissance

92 Above 116.

93 Thus Gundomadus, Vadomarius; Chnodomarius, Serapio; Suomarius, Hortarius:

see below 204, 236, 242, 247.

94 Strobel (1999: 12–13); Witschel (1999: 212); Pohl (2002a: 63). Cf. below 190,

299. Italy: above 78.

95 Above 53.

96 Schoppa (1974: 93). Cf. below 364.

97 Schoppa (1974: 48, 91, 95–101); Stribrny (1989: 377–9). Cf. below 135, 171.

98 Below 241.

99 Benedetti-Martig (1993: 360–1); cf. below 256–7.

132 Society

patrols.100 (The coin-pat tern sugges ts that th is activity involved troops

from the Upper Rhine: the garrison on the High Rhine and upper

Danube was secure behind the Danube–Iller–Rhine limes.101) None of

this amounted to a full re-establishment of Roman control. There are

signs of the pragmatic securing of key areas, but no more. Against

Stribrny, there is no convincing epigraphic or literary evidence for the

restoration of Roman administration in Alamannia.102

Low-key imperial military presence in western Alamannia may

have been reinforced by exploitation of the region’s resources. The

most dramatic evidence we have of this comes from Trier cathedral.

Here, a major refurbishment of the building, planned around 330

but completed only later in the century, led to the commissioning of

four massive granite pillars (each c.12 metres long and weighing

30 tonnes) and marble capitals. The complete set came from quarries

over the Rhine to the east of Worms, near Reichenbach, in the

Felsberg (or ‘Felsenmeer’). The working of such quarries and the

transporting of their products into the Empire must have required

the long-term presence of signiWcant numbers of people—engineers,

labourers, supervisors, guards, and ancillary personnel. 103 Those who

were not slaves would have been paid, and so have attracted a further

set of people oVering goods and services. In this way, coinage would

have been circulated and lost. In addition to stone, we may envisage

the collection of other raw materials for export into the Empire.

Ammianus Marcellinus and Libanius indicate that Alamannic terri-

tory was a good source of building timber. Equally suggestive, in the

light of archaeological evidence for widespread working of the metal,

is Libanius’ report that Julian compelled Alamanni to provide

him with iron.104 Ammianus’ knowledge of the dispute between

100 I note that this interpretation resembles that of Scho

nberger, as cited by

Trumm (2002: 35–6 and n.124).

101 Above 131, below 192, 295.

102 Stribrny (1989: 390, 434–6). The Heidelberg gravestones (CIL 13.11735,

11737) are unoYcial and, to judge from their form and content, were probably

erected before 260. The Victorinus leaguestone at Illingen is generally accepted to

have been erected on the west bank of the old Rhine: Drinkwater (1987: 121).

Generally, Stribrny puts too much trust in the Historia Augusta .

103 Cu

ppers (1990: 634). Cf. Elbe (1977: 125–6); Ho

ckmann (1986: 387–8);

Stribrny (1989: 382–5, 432).

104 AM 17.10.9, 18.2.3–6; Libanius, Orat. 18.78; cf. Symmachus, Orat. 2.15.

Below 243.

Society 133

Alamanni and Burgundians over access to salt deposits may also have

derived from the shipment of salt to the Empire.105 The presence of

provincials involved in this in the Kocher region would explain coin

concentrations at O

hringen. Ellis has proposed similar late-Roman

interest in the salt trade along the river Mures, in western Romania;

she has also drawn attention to a continuation of both a sedentar y

population and maintenance of Roman military and economic inter-

ests via control over the left bank of the Danube in the neighbouring

Banat region.106

Alamannic farming was primitive, but close to the Rhine large-

scale agricultural production may have been maintained by resident

provincials. There is evidence for the continuation of Roman villae

rusticae around Wiesbaden;107 and Trumm has recently proposed the

existence of a late-Roman rural population on land over the High

Rhine.108 Ammianus reports that, when Julian campaigned over the

Rhine in 357, his troops plundered farms ‘rich in cattle and crops’,

with houses ‘built quite carefully in the Roman fashion’.109 It is usual

to take Ammianus at his word and interpret these buildings as

evidence for Alamannic occupation and reuse of Roman struc-

tures.110 However, this Wts uncomfortably with what we know

about Alamannic use of villa sites and with the generally unsophis-

ticated standards of Alamannic building. Much more in keeping with

the ‘Großho

fe’ and ‘Grubenha

user’ of the ‘Ho

hensiedlungen’ and

rural sites are, from a Roman viewpoint, the ‘Ximsy huts’ that

Ammianus mentions in the context of Julian’s campaign of 359.111

I suggest that the villas that Julian’s troops destroyed in 357 were

Roman: the property of a Roman population over the Rhine which,

during the Wrst half of the fourth century, had managed to survive

105 Cf. Guzma

n Armario (2002: 221).

106 Ellis (1998: 231–2).

107 At Erbenheim, Bierstadt and Igstadt: Schoppa (1974: 86–7, 91, 95–8, 101);

Stribrny (1989: 379).

108 Trumm (2002: 218–19).

109 AM 17.1.7: [sc. miles Romanus] opulentas pecore v illas et frugibus rapiebat, nulli

parcendo, extractisque captivis, domicilia cuncta, curatius ritu Romano constructa,

Xammis subditis exurebat.

110 Matthews (1989: 310); above 85.

111 AM 18.2.15: saepimenta fragilium penatium. Cf. above 85, 89, 104, below 290.

134 Society

and enjoy some modest prosperity. Ammianus’ villas appear to have

lain along the road from Wiesbaden to Friedberg, in an area of major

coin circulation. Nominally ruled by Alamannic kings, but looking to

the Empire, those who worked them would have helped to bring

together imperial and Germanic society.112 The road system may also

have made Wiesbaden a centre of slave trading.113

Thus, the coin-pattern of par ts of Alamannia resembles that of

the Empire because it was part of it. But the areas concerned were

small, and most imperial economic activity was probably state-

controlled, with no chance of achieving its own momentum. The

number of people involved cannot have been great, nor did the mass

of Alamanni participate meaningfully. The rarity of coinage on all

Alamannic sites and the scarcity of imported goods in rural settle-

ments suggest negligible involvement in monetary transactions. Even

Alamannic communities that grew up close to the frontier from a

relatively early date, such as at Mengen, do not appear to have

beneWted from this exchange.114 If Alamannic leaders directed their

people to supply goods or ser vices, they alone enjoyed the reward, in

a form other than that of minted bronze.

It is strange that a small but appreciable number of late-Roman

bronze coins following Stribrny’s pattern has been found beyond

old imperial territory at the Elbgermanic site of Gauko

nigshofen,

near the Main115 (Fig. 16). While this, too, has been interpreted

as losses from money paid to Germani in the service of Rome,116 I

see it as reXecting trading activity, along the lines proposed for

hringen.117 The presence of coins in all three areas may be a sign

that on the fringes of Alamannia, perhaps beyond the reach of the

major chiefs, Elbe-Germani were capable of participating in a

monetary economy.118

112 Below 356.

113 AM 29.4.3–4. Matthews (1989: 312); Geuenich (1997a: 36). Cf. below 307.

114 Fingerlin (1993: 69); Bu

cker (1999: 208–11).

115 Steidl (1997: 77).

116 Schmauder (2002: 193–4 n.55).

117 Above 131. Such usage would represent direct continuity of economic activity

from the second and third centuries: Steidl (1997: 76); Trumm (2002: 38); cf. above

36.

118 Cf. above 105, 119, below 358.

Society 135

The ending of the circulation of bronze coins east of the Rhine is

obscured by the cessation of supplies to the western provinces gen-

erally in the late fourth and early Wfth centuries.119 Though Stribrny’s

histograms show new issues failing to arrive after c.400,120 this dearth

was not exclusive to Alamannia. One might argue that preceding

activities could have continued using old coins. However, Stribrny

claims an authentic break on the grounds that old coins did not stay

long in circulation,121 and that well before the general shortage there

was a sharp diminution in Alamannia.122 Against this, we now know

that imports of Roman ceramics into the Wetterau and beyond did

not break oV in this period, so there may have been continuing

contact, albeit in very changed circumstances.123

The coins indicate that there was, for a time, a small resident

imperial population in parts of the former provincial territory.

However, this did not endure, and it must be distinguished from

the original provincial population. Of this, the upper classes and

some of the peasantry had gone. Some of the latter must have stayed:

only the presence of such people, supplemented by others, slave and

free, brought in from the Empire, can explain how early Alamanni

were able to sustain themselves. However, this ‘real’ residual class is

invisible to us.

Mention of slaves brings us to consideration of their role in

Alamannic society. All ancient communities exploited slaves. The

Germani in general were no diVerent,124 and for the third century

we now have direct contemporary evidence for Elbe-Germani,

Iuthungi, Xeeing the Empire with prisoners whom they no doubt

hoped to use as slaves.125 Without further proof, one might state

conWdently that the Alamanni must have employed servile labour.

119 RIC 10, 26–30.

120 e.g. Stribrny (1989: 398–9).

121 e.g. Stribrny (1989: 411).

122 Stribrny (1989: 413–14). This interruption Stribrny ascribes, of course, to the

demobilization of the local militia consequent upon Valentinian I’s fortifying the

upper Rhine (while conceding that Friedberg, with its relatively large number of

Valentinianic coins, hardly Wts his case).

123 Steidl (1997: 77); cf. below 174, 324, 327.

124 See Tacitus, Germania 24.4–25.1, for slavery, bond and chattel, in Germanic

society.

125 Above 53.

136 Society

However, Alamannic slave exploitation is of particular interest

because of the emphasis laid on it by ancient authors.

In 361, just after leaving the country, Julian catalogued his achieve-

ments in Gaul, beginning: ‘Three times, while I was still Caesar, I

crossed the Rhine; 20,000 persons who were held as captives on the

further side of the Rhine I demanded and received back.’126 Shortly

afterwards, Libanius recorded extensive Alamannic slaving in the

chaos caused by Constantius II’s machinations against the usurper

Magnentius in the early 350s. While Alamanni occupied and worked

provincial land in Gaul, Roman prisoners were sent as slaves to farm

theirs.127 Later, Julian forced Alamannic captors to return those

whom they had taken, and to prove that those they did not give

up had died in captivity.128 Eunapius records 3,000 prisoners

held by Vadomarius, retained until after the return of his son, held

as a hostage by Julian.129 Zosimus, w riting much later but drawing

on Eunapius, provides interesting details about such prisoner

handovers. Julian was able to confound the Alamanni by consulting

lists of the missing, and naming those who had not appeared.130

Ammianus mentions such events in his account of Julian’s campaigns

of 358 and 359.131 All accounts are probably exaggerated and, deriv-

ing from the same pro-Julian tradition, cannot be said to corroborate

each other.132 However, their common interest indicates that they

considered the recovery of prisoners signiWcant, and suggests that

they oVer a grain of truth.133 This has stimulated speculation con-

cerning links between Alamannic slaving and the needs of Alamannic

society: brie X y, the Alamannic economy was so short of skilled and

unskilled manpower that it needed regular injections of outside

labour to keep it viable.134 Is this plausible?

126 Julian, Ep. ad Ath. 280C. Cf. Lorenz, S. (1997: 63 n.245).

127 Libanius, Orat. 18.34. On Magnentius, cf. below 200–1.

128 Libanius, Orat. 18.78–9, cf. 17.14.

129 Eunapius, Hist. fr. 19 (Blockley).

130 Zosimus 3.3.4–7.

131 AM 17.10.7–8; 18.2.19. Below 243, 244–5, 247.

132 Cf. below 178.

133 On the basic veracity of Zosimus’ account see Paschoud (1979: 72).

134 So Werner (1965: 73–4); Geuenich (1997a: 36–7). Most recently, Heather

(2001: 44).

Society 137