During the ninth and tenth century, Saxonia became a part of the Carolingian Empire and of the East Frankish (German) realm. The name applied to this political entity derives from that of the Saxons first mentioned by Ptolemy in the second century A.D. But Ptolemy had no knowledge of Saxony, and the inhabitants of ninth-century territories raided and eventually conquered by Charlemagne's armies were not the direct descendants of the Saxons of Antiquity. The archaeological evidence resulting from sustained excavations in the most recent decades confirms a picture of discontinuity, change, and tremendous transformation following the Carolingian conquest of the late eighth century. As with a number of other early medieval ethnic groups to which previous volumes of the series Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology edited by Giorgio Ausenda have been dedicated, the Saxons have recently moved into the spotlight of intensive historical, linguistic, and archaeological research, including important works by contributors to this volume.
This collection of ten essays emerged from the sixth conference on "Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology," organized in September 1999 by the Center of Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress and held in San Marino. The essays attempt to trace the "archaeoethnology" of the Saxons from Late Antiquity to the tenth century, with a special emphasis on the Saxon ethnogenesis, "their encounter with such diverse neighbors as the Frisians, the Danes, the Slavs, and the Franks (not to mention connection with the Anglo-Saxon), as well as their encounter with the Carolingians and their later ascendancy under the Ottonians" (1).
The book covers a range of topics including settlement patterns, jural relations, rural economy, the beginning of cities, "minor" arts, Biblical epic, conversion, and social relations. Of particular importance for the current discussion about ethnic names and ethnicity is Matthias Springer's essay, "Location in space and time" (11-36. Through a fresh examination of sources and of the historiography of the problem, Springer attempts to place the Saxons in historical context. The fundamental conclusion of his paper is that "we must not imply that people in antiquity and during the Middle Ages lived by the same concepts that we have today" (20). There were many Saxons in the Middle Ages and the early modern period, not all of whom lived in Saxony. For example, Transylvanian Saxons had little to do with Saxony properly speaking except the name imposed on this group of settlers by the thirteenth-century chancery of the Hungarian kings. Springer notes that "there are further examples that the same name can denote totally different peoples" (13) and to his example of Serbs and Sorbs, one could add the "classical" medieval example of Obodrites and Abodrites, two tribes mentioned in ninth-century sources as located in northern Germany and the Middle Danube region, respectively. Springer asks rhetorically how many people are able today "to distinguish between Slovenia, Slovakia, and Slavonia." Coming from a German historian and addressed to an audience of European scholars, the question may appear as bizarre, but the point is well made: the same name (Slav, Slovene) can be used for a variety of ethnic phenomena. In that respect, Springer is certainly right in expressing doubts about any attempts to equate the Saxones of Ptolemy with the Saxons mentioned in Julian's First Panegyric to Emperor Constantius II. Much like the Venethi/Venedi also mentioned by Ptolemy, Saxons may have well been a name later "transferred" to a different group that happened to live within the same broadly defined area. In the case of the Saxons, responsible for this may have been Julian (the future emperor Julian the Apostate) himself. Given Julian's detailed knowledge of ancient sources in Greek, including Ptolemy, and his first-hand military experience in northern Gaul, it is quite possible that he, like Jordanes in the case of the Slavic Venethi, used an ancient name to refer to the ethnic configurations of his own time. Springer's conclusion, however, seems to push things a little too far: "At any rate, "Saxons" has been in use since the fourth century, at the beginning in its Latin form Saxones or in the Greek one Saxones. Are we allowed to infer the existence of the Saxons from the existence of this word? No!" It does not take any sophisticated line of reasoning to realize that the name must have referred to something in the first place, albeit not to what ninth-century authors understood by Saxons. The reader will also balk at such radical statements as "confederations of tribes ('Stammesbunde', 'Stammesverbande') are mere figments of the imagination of modern historians" (13). While it may well be right to criticize modern historians for exaggerating the importance of "confederational arrangements," ancient and early medieval sources abound in examples of more or less permanent coalitions of "tribes."
Several essays stand out for their sharp insights into the archaeology of late antique and early medieval Saxony. Archaeologist Dirk Meier places his essay in a broad chronological framework, "The North Sea coastal area: settlement history from Roman to early medieval times" (37-76). Some of Meier's conclusions are of great significance for a broader discussion of "peripheral" areas of early medieval Europe. His analysis of settlements and settlement patterns seems to confirm the view of a general collapse of the settlement network in northern Europe during the entire period from the fourth to the sixth century (49). Nonetheless, his remark that "it is doubtful that there were any inhabitants left around 400 A.D." has an even greater significance in the light of similar conclusions drawn on the basis of the archaeological evidence of contemporary changes taking place at the opposite "end" of the North European plain, in Poland, a point brought up en passant by Heiko Steuer in the discussion following Walter Dorfler's paper (150). In contrast with today's highly critical image of culture-historical approaches to the archaeology of ethnicity, the essay of the German archaeologist Frank Siegmund ("Social relations among the old Saxons," 77-111) attempts to outline "a region in northern Germany with these characteristics of funeral customs which, for the time being, can be classified as 'not Frankish' and 'not Thuringian'" (78). Puzzled readers are directed to a map on page 79, which shows the "ethnic classification of the Merovingian cemeteries," with circles representing "Franks," triangles "Alamanni," diamonds "Thuringians," and stars "different Saxon peoples." We are also told that "the size of the symbols increases with the certainty of classification," although the very criteria on which the latter is based are at best dubious. The ghost of Gustav Kossinna looms large in attempts to identify Saxons by means of a national "costume" (Tracht) supposedly represented in mortuary assemblages. Leaving aside the problems of widely varying rates of survival that the use of cremation in early medieval Saxony imply, Siegmund's approach to the archaeology of ethnicity is flawed and completely ignores recent developments in the archaeology of the early Middle Ages, including German contributions (e.g., Sebastian Brather's work)[[1]]. On the other hand, Siegmund's analysis of the correlation between the quantity of grave-goods and age for the large fourth- to ninth-century cemetery at Liebenau reveals some interesting aspects. He notes that "among children, young girls are probably decorated earlier with more lavish costumes (sic!) this is evident from the grave-goods consisting of bead necklaces, belt buckles and knivesthan boys"( 88), a remark that dovetails nicely with studies of similar phenomena in other areas of contemporary Europe (e.g., Anton Distelberger's studies of gender and age representation in Avar cemeteries in Austria)[[2]]. Again, the archaeological evidence of burial assemblages from early medieval Saxony brings to mind a number of striking parallels with contemporary assemblages at the eastern "end" of the North European plain, in what used to be Eastern Prussia. In the discussion following Siegmund's paper, archaeologist John Hines raised the issue of a distinctively "Saxon" feature of early medieval cemeteries, namely "the very large number of animal burials, such as dog graves, horse graves; these are much more of an innovation, and much more distinctive for the Saxon area than for those other areas" (97). Horse burials underneath or next to cremation pits are a prominent feature of sixth- to seventh-century cemeteries of the so-called Olszytn group in Mazuria (northeastern Poland) as well as of Lithuanian barrow cemeteries, a parallel unfortunately neglected in the discussion following Siegmund's paper [[3]]. In those areas, as well as in Saxony, horse burials were a major component of the representation of social status and power, a detail completely ignored in Siegmund's discussion of elites (90-91). Equally frustrating is Siegmund's decision to leave aside the thorny question of the concomitant use of three types of burials in Saxon cemeteries: inhumation, pit cremation, and urn cremation. While the chart on page 81 helps the reader understand the variations in time of the respective proportions of these three types of burial in use within the same cemetery at Liebenau, no explanation is provided for the simultaneous use of all three in the early period, ca. 400-ca. 600. In the ensuing discussion, Heiko Steuer proposes that "each family had its own funeral customs, but sometimes there were different burial customs even in the same family" (99). The lack of parallels drawn on contemporary Anglo-Saxon cemeteries is surprising, to say the least, given the presence in the audience of such reputed scholars as John Hines and Ian Wood. But even more puzzling is that Siegmund missed the opportunity to approach the problem from the viewpoint of a differential treatment of burials of children, outsiders, outcasts or other marginal categories. As Bonnie Effros has brilliantly demonstrated [[4]], cremation in Saxony may have been more than just a burial rite, as suggested by Charlemagne's obstinate attempts to eradicate such practices through his Capitula de partibus Saxoniae. If so, and if Effros is right in suggesting that burial rites may have had something to do with group identity, then the choice of inhumation instead of cremation is certainly pertinent to a discussion of group membership.
Walter Dorfler's analysis of the "Rural economy of the continental Saxons from the Migration period to the tenth century" (133-157) provides valuable insights into the degree of economic self-sufficiency of early medieval communities in Saxony and to the impact of trade on that region. Particularly interesting is Dörfler's use of pollen-diagrams to demonstrate the break in occupation on many sites in northern Germany between the sixth and the eighth century. At the same time, his conclusion that "differences between the marsh and the geest area are much bigger than differences between the Roman Iron Age and early medieval times" (145) serves as a reminder that discontinuities in site occupation are often obscured by long-term continuity in land use. Heiko Steuer, in one of the finest essays in the collection, explores the "Beginnings of urban economies among the Saxons" (159-192). He challenges current scholarly views that stress the rise of ports-of-trade in the North and Baltic Sea areas and finds that the "Saxon territory was surrounded by more developed economic structures on their way towards pre-urban forms of organization, where coin-based currencies and merchants dictated the trade" (176). Also striking is Karen H¿ilund Nielsen's very interesting essay exploring the "Saxon art between interpretation and imitation: the influence of Roman, Scandinavian, Frankish, and Christian art on the material culture of the continental Saxons A.D. 400-1000" (193-246. Nielsen's essay combines astute art historical insight into the traditions of early medieval "minor" arts in Saxony with a clear grasp of the political and military factors that influenced early medieval developments in Saxony to explain the unsettling outcome of this combination of factors: "the attempt to develop their own identity through material culture was built on a Roman tradition, but the Saxons developed this art to a much higher standard and transferred it to other media, namely urns" (228). An attempt to create a particular identity was followed by Scandinavian influence from the North and Frankish influence from the South, "which never spawned a local production" (229). It is only the ninth-century influence of Christianity in the aftermath of the Carolingian conquest that overwhelmed any cultural traditions in existence before that.
Other essays prove valuable for their subjects. Giorgio Ausenda places "Jural relations among the Saxons before and after Christianization" (113-131) in comparison with Aethelberht's Kentish laws and the edict of the Lombard king Rothari (643 A.D.). According to Ausenda, Lex Saxonum of the early ninth century, "drafted under the aegis of Frankish authorities" is not a pure Frankish invention, but reflects "a criminal code based on custom and a civil law concerning marriage and inheritance somewhat evolved with respect to tradition" (118). It remains unclear, at least to this reviewer,to what extent can the similarities discovered by means of a comparative approach be explained in terms of the continental Saxons being "a simple society without writing" (113). In the ensuing discussion, Ausenda's paper received heavy criticism precisely because of this oversimplified interpretation of what seems to have been a much more complicated picture. Karen H¿ilund Nielsen and Dennis Green brought up the issue of runic script and of its multiple functions in medieval Scandinavia both before and after Christianization. In defending himself, Ausenda came to deny the role of runes to the point of allowing it to exist only "for magic or prophylactic purposes" (120). Throughout the entire discussion, Birgit Sawyer's remarkable work on the use of runes [[5]] was never mentioned. In his essay, "Three aspects of the Old Saxon biblical epic, the Heliand" (247-269), Dennis Green traces the "transition from a pagan Germanic society to the early medieval Christendom" through the analysis of the biblical epic Heliand, written at Fulda in the ninth century. Ian Wood, "Beyond satraps and ostriches: political and social structures of the Saxons in the early Carolingian period" (271-297), reveals the fluidity of the ethnic category "Saxons," the multiple connections Saxon leaders (e.g., Widukind) and nobility had outside Saxony, and the strong influence from the outside of which Saxony was the subject throughout the early Carolingian period. John Hines, "The conversion of the old Saxons" (299-328), looks at the "cultural revolution" brought by the forceful imposition of Christianity in the aftermath of Charlemagne's Saxon wars.
Clearly the volume is a treasure trove for students of European early medieval history; there is also much to interest archaeologists. But the book does not cover all possible topics even and well, a point many times raised in Frank Siegmund' summary of discussions, notes, and comments placed at the end of the volume and significantly entitled "Current issues and suggested future directions in the study of the continental Saxons" (329-352). Gender relations and female authority, eating habits and caloric intakes, relations between Saxons and Slavs, the Saxon expansion to the southeast and southwest, among other topics, lack full consideration. Despite the declared aim of the series "Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology" to bring cultural anthropology closer to the analysis of early medieval societies, both papers and discussions in this volume are surprisingly poor theoretically. This is evident especially in the discussion summarized by Siegmund under the sub-heading "Nations in the early Middle Ages: groups of persons or peoples?" to which he added his own comment building on Morton Fried's Notion of Tribe, a book published in 1975. Reading both the summarized discussion and Siegmund's "comment," one has a bizarre feeling of going back to the seventies, a time of much terminological and theoretical confusion in matters pertaining to ethnicity. At any rate, the participants in the San Marino conference apparently had no knowledge of any older or more recent developments in the anthropology of ethnicity. With no Abner Cohen, Fredrik Barth, Anthony Smith, or Thomas Hylland Eriksen at hand, the contributors to this volume seem to have agreed with Siegmund's solution in footnote 4 on page 339: "If it can help, this is the definition [of nation] in Webster's Dictionary: 'A stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture and language in common." For what is worth, Siegmund's own attitude is clearly expressed in the discussion: "he didn't like the term 'nation'; he preferred the term 'culture', currently used in archaeology, or the term 'ethnos' or 'ethnic unit'" (339). In his own paper, Siegmund uses the concept of gift without any consideration of either Mauss's treatment of the subject or more recent studies of gift-giving practices in the Middle Ages. We thus learn that "during the Carolingian period we observe a greater duration of burial-gift customs" (80), an indication that to Siegmund there is no distinction between grave goods and gifts. Giorgio Ausenda, the only anthropologist in the group, has this to say about the distinction between "conquest" and "occupation" in the discussion following Matthias Springer's paper: "One cannot just say, 'They moved in and conquered the land'. This is not sufficient cause and the term 'conquer' does not have the connotation it has in our modern society. In the modern meaning, you have NATO invading and taking over Kossovo [sic!]. But in antiquity it did not happen necessarily that way." (25). In an incredibly politicized discussion following Dirk Meier's paper, we even read about complaints that "a lot of money goes to eastern countries" (supposedly Poland), instead of "programmes of what we can do around the North Sea" (74). In short, the overall impression one gets from this volume is not only one of poor theoretical and methodological underpinnings, but also that some participants deliberately ignored the contributions of others to much more sophisticated investigations of similar concepts [[6]].
A consistent problem throughout this volume seems to have been the translation of thoughts expressed in other languages (mainly German) into proper English, an issue that was even raised several times in discussions accompanying various papers (e.g., the brief debate surrounding the translation of the German technical term Hofgrab, 100). Infelicitous word choice characterizes the papers of Matthias Springer (e.g., p. 16) and Frank Siegmund (e.g., p. 85). Furthermore, the editorial pen should have been used more effectively in the footnotes. For example, footnote 2 on p. 37 of Dirk Meier's paper should have included a proper citation of Julian's First Panegyric to Emperor Constantius, complete with references to Bidez's edition of that text and the corresponding section and page numbers. There are few misspellings, but those that exist could and should have been corrected before publication: "erraneously" instead of "erroneously" (p. 15); "wether" instead of "whether" (p. 49), but also "where" instead of "were" (p. 121); "on the left of the Elbe" instead of "on the left bank of the Elbe" (p. 96); "coold" instead of "could" (p. 102); "beecause" instead of "because" (p. 120); "There were are books" instead of "There were books" (p. 121).
Although effective for the topics covered especially by Heiko Steuer, Ian Wood, and John Hines, the book falls short of the promised "archaeoethnology" of the continental Saxons. Nevertheless, this volume is well worth the attention of serious students of early medieval history and archaeology.
NOTES:
[[1]] Sebastian Brather, "'Germanische', 'slawische' und 'deutsche' Sachkultur des Mittelalters - Probleme ethnischer Interpretation," Ethnographisch-archaologische Zeitschrift 37 (1996), 177-216; "Ethnische Identitaten als Konstrukte der fruhgeschichtlichen Archaologie," Germania 78 (2000), 139-77; "Die Projektion des Nationalstaats in die Fruhgeschichte. Ethnische Interpretationen in der Archaologie," in Inventing the Pasts in North Central Europe. The National Perception of Early Medieval History and Archaeology, ed. by Matthias Hardt, Christian Lubke, and Dittmar Schorkowitz, (Bern, 2003), pp. 18-42.
[[2]] Anton Distelberger, "Arme 'reiche' Madchen? Altersabhangiger Schmuckerwerb der Awarinnen des Graberfeldes von Modling, Osterreich," Ethnographisch-archaologische Zeitschrift 38 (1997), 551-65.
[[3]] For the Olsztyn group, see Kazimierz Dabrowski, "Burial of horses with richly ornamented bridles, from burial site at Tumiany near Olsztyn, Poland," in Actes du VIII-e Congres international des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques, Beograd 9-15 septembre 1971, ed. by Grga Novak, vol. 3 (Belgrade, 1973), pp. 354-59; Norbert Benecke, "Zur Kenntnis der volkerwanderungszeitlichen und fruhmittelalterlichen Pferde aus den Pferdegrabern Nordost-Polens," Zeitschrift fur Archaologie 19 (1985), 197-205; Tadeusz Baranowski, "Pochowki koni z Tumian w woj. Olsztynskim," Archeologia Polski 41 (1996), 65-130. For Lithuania, see L. Vaitkunskene, "K izucheniiu kul'ta konia v Litve V-VI vv.," Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 1986, no. 2, 100-109. See also Judith Oexle, "Merowingerzeitliche Pferdebestattungen - Opfer oder Beigaben?" Fruhmittelalterliche Studien 18 (1984), 122-72.
[[4]] Bonnie Effros, "De partibus Saxoniae and the regulation of mortuary custom: a Carolingian campaign of Christianization or the suppression of Saxon identity?" Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 75 (1997), 267-86.
[[5]] Birgit Sawyer, Property and Inheritance in Viking Scandinavia: the Runic Evidence (Alingsas, 1988); and The Viking-age Rune-Stones: Custom and Commemoration in Early Medieval Scandinavia (Oxford/New York, 2000), a work reviewed for TMR by Margaret Clunies Ross, TMR ID 02.09.05.
[[6]] See, for example, the contribution of Ian Wood, a participant in the San Marino conference, to an earlier collection of studies on national identity in the Middle Ages. See Ian Wood, "Defining the Franks: Frankish origins in early medieval historiography," in Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. by Simon Forde, Lesley Johnson, and Alan V. Murray (Leeds, 1995), pp. 47-57.