Drinkwater J.F. The Alamanni and Rome 213-496 (Caracalla to Clovis)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Change is reXected in pollen evidence from Hornstaad and
Moosrasen, already referred to as an indicator of a decrease in
population in Alamannia from the third century.105 This shows
that the reforestation that was a feature of the fourth century, and
resulted from agricultural neglect, was reversed at the beginning
of the Wfth century. Deforestation lasted for about 50 years, after
which reforestation again set in, and intensiWed from c.500.106
Deforestation suggests a rise in farming activ ity and therefore an
increase in population from c.400. The reversal of this process, from
c.450, was perhaps initiated by the Hunnic incursion and continued
by the longer-term political and military disruption that preceded
and followed the Frankish takeover c.500.
A signiWcant factor in the early-Wfth-century rise in population
appears to have been new Elbgermanic immigration from the east,
especially from the area of modern Bohemia. It may have been these
people who were responsible for Alamannic reoccupation of former
Burgundian territory east of the Rhine after the Burgundian defeat of
436. As well as on the lower Main and in the foothills of the Taunus,
burials and settlement sites yielding ‘Bohemian’-style artefacts have
been discovered on the middle and lower Neckar. Since Bohemian
archaeology reveals no sign of depopulation, such migrants must, like
those of earlier periods, have moved in small bands.107 Population
increase and deforestation may have been the cause of a new pattern
of farming. From around 400 Alamannic settlement shifted closer
to water sources, that is away from the Roman pattern.108 That
Alamannic farming was now pressured to explore new methods of
production is also suggested by the Osterburken hoard of iron
tools.109 These, found just north of Jagsthausen, on the line of the
old limes, have been interpreted as the working inventory of a large
estate, which was busy developing animal husbandry.110 Though
broadly dated to the period 400–500, they suit the conditions of
105 Above 91 n.57.
106 Ro
¨
sch (1997: 324, 327–9 and Figs 357–8).
107 Major sites at Eschborn (Frankfurt, near the Ebel-bei-Praunheim villa: cf. above
85) and Ladenburg, Pleidelsheim and Renningen: Martin (1997b: 164–6); Quast
(1997: 174–7); Wamers (1997). Cf. above 48.
108 Weidemann (1972: 114–23, 154); Keller (1993: 99–100).
109 Above 90.
110 Henning (1985: 592–3).
338 The Fifth Century
the Wrst 50 years of the century. An oddity is that Alamannic burials
continue to favour native hand-thrown pots over Roman
wheel-thrown ceramics and g lasswares. Alamannic grave deposits
thus appear ‘poorer’ than, say, Frankish; and it has been suggested
that Alamanni may have been more dependent on cheaper wooden
vessels.111 As ever, the problem is whether funerary oVerings
reXect contemporary economic conditions or fossilized custom, or
something between.
Though all Alamanni, ‘old’ and ‘new’, were bound to have been
dependent upon farming for their basic needs, the primary attraction
for immigrants (or, rather, their controlling males) was probably
Roman military ser vice, in line with the archaeological evidence for
such service already noted.112 The Basel area appears to have been
especially attractive. The presence of Alamannic troops at Wyhlen,
across the Rhine from Kaiseraugst, has been mentioned.113 Artefacts
suggesting the early to mid-Wfth-century stationing of Germanic
(Alamannic, Elbgermanic immigrants and others) Wghters to defend
the Basel bridgehead have also been found in cemeteries at Herten
and Basel-Gotterbarmweg. Though these burial grounds were
fairly large, their corresponding settlements appear to have been
relatively small, prompting the suggestion that the settlements were
originally those of family groups, that buried their dead in particular
sections of general cemeteries. The nature of the artefacts found—
high quality, with large quantities of Roman imports—suggests the
leadership of local ‘chiefs’, living oV imperial pay, not agriculture.114
In other words, traditional upper-class Alamannic dependence on
Rome continued into the Wfth century, raising the question as to
what happened to this society when the Empire withdrew from the
Rhine. But, before this, another problem that Roman service created
for Alamanni in the Wfth century may have been that many eastern
migrants passed through their territory en route for the Empire or,
after service, returning home. If the distribution of artefacts reXects
the movement of people, such a phenomenon is suggested by W nds of
eastern Germanic and even Asiatic material on Gallic sites, and of
111 Siegmund (2000: 130–1, 145–50, 303–5).
112 Quast (1997: 172); above 327–8.
113 Ibid.
114 Giesler (1997: 209–11), noting the presence of Thuringian artefacts.
The Fifth Century 339
Roman-style military brooches as far as the Elbe.115 The Alamannic
‘room’ may again have become a ‘corridor’, with all the dislocation
that this was likely to cause.116
Cemetery evidence in general appears to show continuity yielding
to major change during the second half of the Wfth century. Funerary
archaeology remains diYcult with, for example, male preference
for Roman military dress making it hard to identify burials as
‘Germanic’, let alone ‘Alamannic’ or ‘Frankish’ etc.117 However, it
can be seen that important developments occurred in burial practices
during this period. These included changes in the nature of grave-
goods, most dramatically in the introduction of horse burials, with
the animals interred, harnessed and saddled, alongside their masters.
The custom may have been introduced by outsiders, as immigrant
Bohemian Elbe-Germani or Thuringians, or as invaders, Attila’s
Huns.118 It is impor tant to note, however, that it extended into
Gaul, as recently conWrmed by the discovery of horse burials closely
associated with the grave of Childeric.119 It has also been pointed out
that horse burials are concentrated in south-east Alamannia, on the
Danube.120 The historical signiWcance of the practice therefore lies
not in showing, say, that the Alamanni were particularly keen horse-
men,121 but that in the shifting conditions of the later Wfth century
they were becoming part of a wider Westgermanic world.
There was also change in the composition and size of Alamannic
burial sites. Down to the middle of the Wfth century Alamanni did
not really have true ‘cemeteries’. Burial places were family aVairs,
comprising the graves of individuals or small groups (up to about
half-a-dozen) of people. Then, in the period c.440/50–80, there was a
rapid shift to larger collections of burials.122 These new cemeteries
resemble, though were never as huge or as tightly regimented as, the
Merovingian ‘Reihengra
¨
ber’ of the sixth century. Nor were they, in
115 Kazanski (1993); Vallet (1993), with the criticisms of Martin (1993: 460);
Schach-Do
¨
rges (1997: 82); Bo
¨
hme (1998: 51 and Fig. 16).
116 Cf. below 343–4.
117 Above 4; Steuer (1998: 313) from Bo
¨
hme.
118 Quast (1997: 175, 179, Figs 179–80); Stork (1997: 295).
119 Above n. 65; and Beck (1998: 481).
120 Mu
¨
ller-Wille (1997: 209–10 and Fig. 146); Siegmund (2000: 124–5 and Fig. 28).
121 Cf. above 175–6.
122 Quast (1997: 171–2).
340 The Fifth Century
terms of construction and grave-goods, as economically and socially
homogeneous, since some still accommodated substantial, rich,
‘old-fashioned’ burials of individuals and distinct groups. The
tradition of dispersed single and group burials also continued.123
This is not settlement archaeology. We are dealing with more people
being buried together, not living together. Alamannic communities
remained small.124 Furthermore, change was not conWned to
Alamanni. ‘Proto-Reihengra
¨
ber’ appear from the later fourth century
in northern Gaul, in what some have seen as a Germanic (speciWcally
Frankish) and others a decidedly Roman context.125 We are in the
presence of a widespread change in burial custom, the roots of which
have been sought both in the Roman Empire and in Elbgermanic
Bohemia.126 However, Alamannic and Frankish custom and usage
may have altered in response to changes in local conditions, such as
leaders seeking other means of controlling their communities as
imperial support disappeared.127
Such an idea Wts well with another Franco-Alamannic innovation
in funerary habits from the mid-Wfth century: burying males with
swords. The weapons vary in type and quality, but include a number
of magniWcent gold-hilted double-edged longswords: spathae.128 The
evolution of this custom is debated, with emphasis placed on its
likely Roman or Romano-Germanic origin in northern Gaul, begin-
ning no later than the late fourth century. Many swords, indeed,
appear to have been made within the Empire, perhaps in imperial
arms workshops. The appearance of sword burials coincides with
that of ‘proto’-‘Reihengra
¨
ber’ in the same area.129 It is argued that
the practice spread to wider Germanic communities, including the
Alamanni, during the Wfth century as a result of barbarian service in
the Roman army. Again, wherever it came from, its adoption surely
betokens socio-political change in Frankish and Alamannic society.
123 Quast (1997: 171–2, 187–8); Siegmund (2000: 97–8).
124 Quast (1997: 171–2).
125 Halsall (1992); Bo
¨
hme (1998: 41–4); Siegmund (2000: 125).
126 Quast (1997: 171–2, 174–6, 188).
127 So Keller (1998: 589–90, 599); cf. Pohl (2000: 31).
128 Quast (1997: 186).
129 Quast (1997: 187); Bo
¨
hme (1997: 95–6), (1998: 34–5, 38, 40–4); Siegmund
(2000: 320–7). For the overall distribution of such swords see Hedeager (1993: 125
Fig. 1).
The Fifth Century 341
And again, such overt display of wealth and military power may be
explained by reference to growing aristocratic control.130
Gold-hilted spatha burials occur among both Alamanni and
Franks and include the grave of Childeric. Thus, they are a general,
‘hyper-ethnic’, upper-class custom,131 which tells us little about
Alamanni. However, Alamanni seem to have had a greater preference
for sword burials than Franks did;132 and a number of these
are concentrated on the middle Neckar, where there is also a cluster-
ing of the new, larger cemeteries133 (Fig. 26). A key site here is
130 Cf. Keller (1998: 600). Kleeman (1997) suggests similar developments in
contemporary Lower Saxony, where the introduction of weapon burials (especially,
of spathae)reXected a battle for status under conditions of social change.
131 Siegmund (1998: 574); ‘hyper-ethnic’ is my translation of his ‘u
¨
berethnisch’
(2000: 320, 326–7).
132 Siegmund (2000: 79, 177, 179–82).
133 Steuer (1997a: 160, Fig. 160, swords); Quast (1997: 171 Fig. 172, 172 Fig. 173,
cemeteries).
Fig. 26 Distribution of burials, late Wfth to early sixth century [from Quast
(1997: 172 Fig. 173); ß Archa
¨
ologisches LandesmuseumBaden-Wu
¨
rttemberg].
342 The Fifth Century
Pleidelsheim (Fig. 4), where cemetery burials from the mid-Wfth
century indicate the presence of three family groups. Burials of
Family 1 (my categorization) suggest modest wealth, though by its
third generation this family could aVord to deposit a spatha and rich
female jewellery. A male grave of Family 2 contained rich goods,
including a gold-hilted spatha. The even greater standing of Family 3
is indicated by a pair of horse burials and what appear to be associ-
ated graves of dependent horsemen.134 In the high-Roman period the
fertility of the Neckar valley had supported a fair number of urban
and rural sites.135 It Wgures little in what we know of the third and
fourth centuries, but now it may have regained importance. After
c.455, as imperial interest in the Rhine evaporated and as the Roman-
based subsidy culture of the ‘Ho
¨
hensiedlungen’ declined, Alamannic
leaders would have been forced back on their own, agricultural,
resources.136 This may have led to the rise of rural power centres,
with the hill-sites now serving to defend the more important lowland
settlements.137 The Neckar valley could have emerged as a new,
broader, power base, allowing the emergence of a ‘greater’ king.138
This takes us to evidence for a second wave of Wfth-century
settlement, after 450. The period 460–80 appears to have produced
an increase in middle-Danubian inXuences on burials in Alamannic
cemeteries. This has been explained as resulting from people brought
westwards by the Huns in the early 450s. However, this is not
suYcient explanation for the mass and distribution of the Wnds,
which more likely reXect a second phase of Wfth-century immigra-
tion, mainly (though not entirely) restricted to Alamannia, in small
family groups.139 The likeliest, though very speculative, explanation
134 Koch (1997b: 219–23).
135 Sommer (1999: 179 Fig. 67, 188).
136 Cf. Steuer (1998: 30) concerning the falling away of Roman-style military belts
in sites on the Elbe from the middle and late Wfth century, surely a direct indication of
the ending of service in the Roman army and hence of the income derived from it in
places other than Alamannia.
137 Steuer (1997a: 153, 159). Cf. Steuer (1997a: 159) and Pohl (2000: 31) on
swords as symbolizing the rise of ‘eine selbstbewußte Kriegerschicht’.
138 Above 337. Cf. Steuer (1997a: 159–60), that the (regularly spaced) rural sites
may have been royal gifts to warrior elites.
139 Quast (1997: 179–82). For eastern settlers in northern Gaul in the later Wfth
century see Pilet, Buchet, and Pilet-Lerrie
`
re (1993: 160).
The Fifth Century 343
is Danubian Suebi moving westwards following military defeat and
fusing with Alamanni.140 The newcomers appear to have settled in
areas which were already occupied, that is they did not open up new
land. As seen, this suggests a decline in Alamannic population after
c.450, and explains the ending of deforestation. More than this,
however, it also suggests control: that, since it would not have been
in the interests of Alamannic leaders to allow them to form islands of
population, they were made to integrate.141 It is interesting that,
despite mongrel beginnings, a history of dispersed settlement and
signiWcant losses and gains in population, Alamannic burial customs
appear to reXect a general cultural homogeneity.142 If true, this would
also help promote social integration and so political unity. Again we
encounter the likelihood that, just before its end, the leaders of
independent Alamannic society were becoming more sophisticated
in their political practices and aspirations, acquiring the potential to
produce greater or even Great Kings.
But Clovis defeated the Alamanni at Zu
¨
lpich, and with ‘Zu
¨
lpich’—
the ‘process’, if not the battle—we reach the end of the story of the
Alamanni and Rome. Independent Alamannic history was at its end,
as was that of the western Empire. In 497, the eastern emperor,
Anastasius, recognized Theoderic, king of the Ostrogoths and con-
queror of Odovacer, as ruler of Italy;143 and in 508, following Clovis’
victory over the Visigoths, Anastasius honoured the Frankish king
with ‘some sort of consular oYce’, allowing him and his successors to
play the Roman ruler in Gaul.144
However, to complete the story of the Alamannic ‘fall’, Alamannia
was under full Frankish control by 506/7, to the extent that Clovis could
contemplate an incursion into Raetia, within northern Ostrogothic
territory. This emerges from a letter written by Theoderic to Clovis,
now his brother-in-la w, in 507, and preserved by Cassiodorus.
Theoderic, declaring himself proud to be associated with Clovis,
congratulates him (in a somewhat double-edged fashion) on his
140 Quast (1997: 183–6); Hummer(1998: 17); Castritius (2005: 199); above 168, 335.
141 Quast (1997: 186).
142 Siegmund (2000: 301).
143 PLRE 2.1077–84, at 1083.
144 Gregory of Tours, Dec. Lib. Hist. 2.38; quotation: Wood (1994: 165). Cf. James
(1988: 87–8); Wood (1994: 48–9, 179), (1997: 360).
344 The Fifth Century
success in recent conXict with Alamanni: in fact, on having subdued the
Alamanni, weakened by the loss in battle of their leading men (for-
tiores). However, Theoderic continues, though Clovis is right to pursue
the ringleaders, he should not hold everyone to account. He advises
Clovis to temper his actions against the ‘shattered remnants’ (fessae
reliquiae) who have Xed to his (Theoderic’s) protection (either into
Raetia south of the Danube or into former Alamannic Raetia, over
which Theoderic now claimed control145): these deserve to be left in
peace. Clovis should be content with what he has achieved so far, which
includes the fall of ‘that king’ (ille rex) and ‘the pride of the race’
(gentis...superbia). He ends by asking Clovis to respect his request,
and no longer concern himself with an area that he recognizes as being
under Theoderic’s control.146 The size of the Alamannic column of
refugees is reXected in another letter of Theoderic concerning the
movement of Alamanni south through Noricum, from which it is
clear that they had signiWcant numbers of draught animals (boves:
‘oxen ’).147 Large-scale Alamannic Xight into Ostrogothic territory
following the loss of a king is conWrmed by Ennodius, in his panegyric
on Theoderic. He praises Theoderic for having successfully settled
Alamanni on good land, transforming traditional raiders of Italy
into its guardians.148 Alamannic collapse around 506 is also suggested
by Fredegarius.149
These documents demonstrate that whatever happened in 496/7
was not conclusive, being followed either by continued Alamannic
resistance and Frankish campaigning or partial Alamannic surrender
then Werce rebellion.150 They may also tell us a little more about
independent Alamannic society at the very end of its development.
First, it is clear that Clovis’ war of c.505/6 brought about, and possibly
culminated in, the death of a major Alamannic king. Theoderic
knew about this king, referred to him speciWcally (ille), and therefore
145 Lotter, Bratoz
ˇ
, and Castritius (2003: 129).
146 Cassiodorus, Var. 2.41.1–3 (¼Quellen 2, 102); Barnish (1992: 43–4 and n.33),
with Fridh, against Mommsen, reading causis (not caesis) fortioribus—‘have yielded
to a stronger power’—but expressing uncertainty.
147 Cassiodorus, Var. 3.60.1–3 (¼Quellen 2, 103).
148 Ennodius, Paneg. dictus Theoderico 15 (72–3) (¼Quellen 2, 72).
149 Fredegarius, Chron. 3.21 (¼Quellen 3, 14).
150 Resistance: James (1988: 84–5); Geuenich (1997a: 85–6), (1997c: 148). Revolt:
Koch, R. and U. (1997: 270); Babucke (1997: 250).
The Fifth Century 345
must have been aware of his name. However, in his letter to Clovis he
leaves him ingloriously anonymous. This, the common fate of the
vanquished, shows that the absence of Alamannic royal names in this
period is no good evidence for the non-existence of Great or greater
kings.151
Second, Theoderic’s emphasis on the plight of those who have
taken refuge in his territory is unusual. It may be no more than a
ploy, aimed at, say, avoiding the awkward international incident that
would result if Clovis crossed into his territory without authoriza-
tion. On the other hand, Theoderic’s concern may have been real if the
refugees included Alamannic aristocrats: able to call on Ostrogothic
royal protection.152 Clovis’ anxiety to apprehend them might there-
fore reveal a major element in his strategy of dealing w ith a subject
Alamannia (consistent with his treatment of Frankish rivals153): to
eliminate all traces of the indigenous ruling elite.
This Wts archaeological evidence for the decline and abandonment
of the hill-sites, the existence of which was no doubt judged a poten-
tial challenge to Frankish authority.154 Interesting here is the fate of
the Runder Berg (1) which was suddenly evacuated around 500, w ith
many valuables being hidden and never recovered.155 Archaeological
Wnds also appear to conWrm the Xight of the wealthy from the Middle
Rhine, whatever form we envisage for Alamannic expansion in this
area, and northern Alamannia (the Main region, the middle Neckar
and the Swabian Alp) into Raetia by way of Noricum from around
500. As always, this is based on the assumption that the distribution of
the artefacts resulted from the movement of people rather than from
trade or, in this period, the looting of Alamannic sites by outsiders.156
Similar Wnds suggest that some Alamanni went even further east-
wards, seeking refuge among Lombards, while others found safety in
the west, with Burgundians.157 A few, settled as refugees or prisoners
of war, may even be detected on Merovingian territory.158
151 Above 336–7.
152 For the rich as likely refugees, see Koch (1997a: 192).
153 Below 354.
154 Werner (1965: 90); Steuer (1997a: 154, 160); Dierkens (1998: 456).
155 Koch (1997a: 192–4).
156 Koch (1997a: 194, 196–7 and Fig. 206, 199), cf. (1997b: 237).
157 Koch (1997a: 197–9).
158 Koch (1997a: 199–200).
346 The Fifth Century
It is reasonably assumed that Franks soon occupied the lands
vacated by Alamanni, forcing the ‘slippage’ of medieval Alamannia
by comparison with its Roman predecessor.159 However, further
south, Franks appear to have moved in slowly. At Pleidelsheim,
though the elimination of the leaders of independent Alamannic
society is hinted at in the early-sixth-century disappearance of Fam-
ilies 2 and 3, the more modest Family 1 survived, and its artefacts
indicate its production of a local chief. Close Frankish interest in
what remained of Alamannia began only in the second quarter of the
sixth century. It was then, again as at Pleidelsheim, that there was
signiWcant Frankish settlement, reXected in the appearance of true
‘Reihengra
¨
ber’.160 Under the Franks, Alamannia was for the Wrst time
organized as a single administrative unit: 536 or 537 may have seen
the beginnings of the Merovingian dukedom. However, this was not
fully organized or integrated with the Merovingian kingdom until
the seventh century, a process closely related to its Christianization.
Medieval ‘Alamannia’, coterminous with the diocese of Constance,
did not emerge until the Carolingians.161 (It was only under
the Franks, in the sixth and, especially, the seventh century, that
Alamanni gradually moved into Switzerland.162)
As Wood says, in the fourth century no one could have imagined
the Franks emerging as one of the mightiest Germanic peoples
of Europe.163 Their success raises a number of questions. The most
obvious is how the Franks were able to overcome the Alamanni; but
there are others. How did the Franks thereby achieve a conquest that
had apparently eluded Rome? How did it happen that the Franks, in
crossing the Rhine into Alamannia and Thuringia, managed to
reverse the direction of Germanic conquest, from east-to-west to
west-to-east? I deal with the Wrst of these immediately below; the
rest I will return to at the end.
Frankish success is usually explained in terms of Frankish strength.
This is founded on the belief that Franks were signiWcantly more
159 So Geuenich (1997a: 87–8); Koch, R. and U. (1997: 273); Wamers (1997: 266–7).
Cf. above 125.
160 Koch, R. and U. (1997: 274–5, 277–81); Koch (1997a: 192), (1997b: 224–6).
161 Geuenich (1997a: 93–7, 100–3), (1997d: 204–6).
162 Giesler (1997: 211, 214–15, 217); cf. Windler (1997: 261–4, 266–7).
163 Wood (1997: 358).
The Fifth Century 347