1967 Russchen — Dark-Age Frisia

New Light On Dark-Age Frisia

by A. [Albert] Russchen

Drukkerij en Uitgeverij Laverman N.V. — Drachten — 1967

Preface

[5] About a year ago I was asked on behalf of the Frisian Academy at Leeuwarden to prepare a survey of the literature on Dark-Age Frisia that had appeared since the second edition of P.C.J.A. Boeles’s “Friesland tot de elfde eeuw” in 1951. I gladly complied with this request, as an attempt to make this division of the imperishable manual on Frisian pre-and protohistory more accessible to the present reader seemed highly appropriate.

My task comprised the fourth chapter of Mr. Boeles’s book, i.e. roughly the period from the beginning of the fifth till the middle of the eighth century, when the Carolingians began to penetrate into Frisia proper and its conversion reached such a dramatic climax at Dokkum (754). I have covered the entire field of the chapter, as may be seen in the table that precedes my chapter I, but mainly refrained from polemizing: the reader who has gone through the relevant pages of the English summary that completes Mr. Boeles’s book (p. 578—92) will have little difficulty in noting the different opinions. Moreover, not only everything that has been incorporated in the manual, but also all facts of common knowledge to the student of the period have been omitted. Literature has, generally speaking, only been taken into account in so far as it had appeared before January 1965: for practical reasons it was not possible for me to integrate publications that appeared as I was writing.

One of the consequences of the restriction to a mere survey of literature has been that I have thought myself excused from incorporating the apparatus of catalogues, drawings and other illustrations that would have been necessary if I should have had the ambition to rewrite this part of Mr. Boeles’s book. Some maps have been added for the convenience of the reader, but they have no historical value of their own.

On the other hand the boundaries have been set a little wider than [6] Mr. Boeles did: an attempt has been made — always with one eye on the centre of our interest that are the present provinces of Friesland and Groningen — to cover the whole territory from Sincfal to Weser and to give written sources as well as philology their due. Of course, this programme would have been realized better by the co-operation of a team of specialists, but, in my opinion, the disadvantages of a merely archaeological approach would have been still greater, as the period is entirely protohistoric and no longer prehistoric.

~

Finally I should like to remark that my survey is a little subjective, and that in two senses.

In the first place I have not tried to enumerate all writings on a certain subject, but I have restricted myself to those which, in my judgment, constituted a positive contribution to the discussion; to this I must add, however, that the omission of certain foreign, particulary English, studies is due to the circumstance that they were not available here.

Secondly I have not merely given an impartial account of such literature as I did include, but I have also expressed my own opinions, thus sometimes falling into digressions that may be thought irrelevant.

For me these possibilities constituted one of the most attractive sides of my task.

Ede (Veluwe), spring 1966. / A.R.

Acknowledgements.

I have to thank Mr. G. Elzinga, Frisian Museum (Leeuwarden), for his useful hints and his encouragement, and Mr. R. Eisenga, now at Huissen (Guelders), for his conscientious efforts to make my English tolerable. Mr. H.K. Schippers, Drachten, drew the maps with his usual ability. [7]

Contents

Chapter I: Frisia Magna.

• Section (1) The limits of the kingdom: Sincfal not = Swin; Teisterbant, Betuwe, Veluwe not Frisian; Liudger’s family near Utrecht; colonization of North Frisiaintwo waves — (p.9)
• Section (2) Frisian presence to the west of the Flie: Inguaeonisms and Frisicisms; demonstration on place-names in N. and S. Holland; archaeological material of central Holland; revival of cremation — (p.12)
• Section (3) Excavations in East Frisia: Jemgum and the origin of the Frisians; Einswarden and the Chauci maiores, minores; Feddersen Wierde; Hessens and its pottery; the “vici” of Emden, Groothusen — (p.15)
• Section (4) Inguaeonisms: triple divisions of the Germanic tribes; adherence to R. Hachmann’s interpretation of the classics; Inguaeonisms from Flanders to Schleswig; ambiguity of “Anglo-Frisian”; rejection of K. Heeroma’s E. and W. Inguaeonic — (p.18)

Chapter Il: The heroic age.

• Section (1) F. Tischler on Saxon pottery: four areas in Schleswig-Holstein; synthesis at Perlberg; reconsideration of J.N.L. Myres’s “Anglo-Frisian”; second phase at Hessens; reconsideration of P.C.J.A. Boeles’s “Anglo-Frisian” — (p.23)
• Section (2) Saxons in Frisia: Mr. Boeles’s thesis; attack by P. Sipma; anthropological aspects; second marine transgression; excavations at Tritsum; rejection of Mr. Boeles’s main argument; serious repercussions of M. Gysseling’s thesis on Frisia’s placenames — (p.25)
• Section (3) Frisians in Britain: East Anglia; Kent and its problems; “Anglo-Frisian”, Frankish, Nordic influences; the idiom; Nordic and Teutonic; the battle at Finnsburg; new development by W. Laur; adherence to Bede’s version — (p.29)
• Section (4) Merovingian texts: Warns, Heruli, Thuringians; Hygelac’s invasion and the kingdom of Theodebert; two pericopes from Fortunatus (Frisians and Suevi, Bordaa and Laugona); Dagobert’s conquests around Utrecht — (p.33)

Chapter III: The age of Eadgils.

• Section (1) Frisian trade during the seventh century: general observations; focus of the Occident; Mr. Boeles’s thesis; agreement with [8] regard to Frisia citerior; criticism with regard to Frisia proper and the northern route; important studies by H. Jankuhn — (p.38)
• Section (2) Runic inscriptions: criticism by W. Krogmann; contribution by W.J. Buma; rejection of Mr. Boeles’s thesis and two new discoveries — (p.42)
• Section (3) Coinage: reproduction of Mr. Boeles’s catalogues; Midlum; Wieuwerd; Altenwalde (Stade); P.V. Hill on sceattas — (p.44)
• Section (4) Ornament: general observations; Scandinavian influences during the sixth, and Kentish during the seventh century; annular brooches of Saxon type; Domburg; R.L.S. Bruce Mitford on the brooch of Wynaldum; sword knobs from Ezinge; Wieuwerd; the fragment from Huizum — (p.4)

Chapter IV: The age of Redbad.

• Section (1) General observations: the Carolingian conquest of Frisia citerior; Germanic kings; Redbad as “Heerkönig”; kings or dukes; nobility — (p.51)
• Section (2) Fositesland: arguments of Dr. Krogmann in favour of Helgoland; identification with Abalus; Basileia; counterpart to Nerthus; Poseidon — (p.53)
• Section (3) The lex Frisionum: N.E. Algra hypercritical; important contribution by Dr. Krogmann; the pagan titles — (p.56)
• Section (4) The Carolingian era: duchy of Frisia?; the fate of the royal family; Theodswinth; Fulda and Werden; Folker; Reginbert; B.H. Slicher van Bath on Frisian liberty — (p.57)

Conclusion — (p.61)

Index I (alphabetical list of authors, mentioned in the references) — (p.63)

Maps — (p.68)

Addendum — (p.73)

TABLE.

The following table relates the various sections of Mr. Boeles’s chapter IV to my sections.

• I (The Anglo-Saxon invasion) = II:2
• II (The first phase of Germanic coinage) = III:3
• III (Written records. Political history) = IV:1
• IV (The second phase of Germanic coinage) = III:3
• V (Germanic decorative art) = III:4
• VI (Runic inscriptions) = III:2
• VII (Trade and intercourse. Sceattas) = III:1

CHAPTER I — Frisia Magna

1

[9] The lex Frisionum mentions the rivers Sincfal and Weser as being the limits of the tribal territory. It reflects, of course, the situation as it was about 800, but if we look, for instance, at the annexation of the continental Saxon state, we may be rather sure that Frisia as a whole was absorbed by the Frankish Empire, with the boundaries it then had acquired. So Carolingian documents may be used with some confidence for determining the limits of the Frisian kingdom as it was found by Pepin II and Charles Martel at the height of its power.

Traditionally the river Sincfal is identified with the Swin near Bruges. M. Gysseling has shown, however, that this is not quite right, the Swin being a canal from about 1127. We have to look for the northern frontier of the most northern district of Flanders, the pagus Rodanensis, and then we come across a creek that separates the mainland from several small islands like Wulpen and Cadzand. This channel, once called Rodanos and later Sincfal, marked the boundary of the Frisians, so that Wulpen with its epic background constituted their outmost territory.

The region of the delta, where Utrecht and Dorestad undoubtedly became Frisian during the seventh century, has been discussed extensively by J.F. Niermeyer. He sets forth that the Ewa ad Amorem does not contain the tribal law of the Chamavian Franks, but a regional codification, owing its origin to the central government; the district for which it was meant can roughly be described as comprising the pagi Teisterbant and Betuwe. Other conclusions by the learned author have given rise to some criticism on my part. To my mind, this district cannot be identified with “Frisia superior”, because the Frisians are evidently [10] foreigners. Moreover, the inhabitants call themselves Franks explicitly and three times in succession. Against the assertion by Prof. Niermeyer that “homines Franci” can only appear in conquered regions I quoted some texts in which people of this category are found in the central parts of the Frankish state (S. Denis and Beaune-la-Rolande, dept. Loiret). My conclusion was that Teisterbant and Betuwe were outside the Frisian boundaries.

The pagus Veluwe receives in 834 the qualification of being “sub lege Francorum”, which I translated as “under the jurisdiction of the common Frankish law”. Another indication with regard to this district is given in the treaty from 837, when it becomes clear that between Frisia citerior and the tribal state of the Saxons there is room left for the county of Hamaland. The interesting question whether the county was an original creation or whether it only happened to develop in the vacuum between the concentric expansions of the Frisians and the Saxons towards the Lower Rhine must be left open here; at least we no longer believe in the continued existence of a Chamavian tribal state to that day. From several sources the dimensions of the county can be deduced; it appears to have comprised the pagi Veluwe and Salland and the present district of Zutfen. Finally we may read in the famous donation by Folker to the monastery of Werden (855) that at least the interpolator of about 890 did distinguish between Frisia on the one, and Veluwe and Betuwe on the other hand.

It has been possible to add to the evidence of the Frisian presence in the region of Utrecht by establishing Liudger’s birthplace at Zuilen and his family estate at Werina, somewhere between Naarden and Muiden. I rejected the current opinion which supposes Werina to be identical with the village of Wierum to the north of Dokkum, drawing attention to a couple of texts from Werden, where the place is mentioned between Naruthi and Amuthon resp. “ad ostia Rheni fluminis”. We could easily believe with D.P. Blok that the whole of the monasterial possessions in the neighbourhood of Utrecht took its origin from this noble Frisian family.

[11] While the frontiers of Frisia citerior thus have become a little more concrete, the situation with regard to the central parts of the kingdom between Flie and Weser has not changed very much. Here we must still make do with some data of hagiografic origin, from which we deduce that the frontier followed roughly the same course as in later days.

The settlements beyond the Weser (Wursten, North Frisia) only just began to take shape during our period and will not engage us for long. Two important contributions on the latter region must nevertheless be noted down. The first thing to do here is to distinguish between the islands of Sylt, Fohr and Amrum on the one hand, and the coast of Schleswig on the other. As to the islands a Frisian colonization from the eighth century onwards has been made very plausible; at the same time a penetration of Danish elements may be observed. The coast was occupied by a new Frisian wave, proceeding directly from the homeland and not from the islands. This is shown by the idiom: whereas the islanders have developed i from y from u, continental speech reveals the common Frisian evolution to e. Anticipating the discussion on Kent in chapter II:3 we may say here that the insular development proves that during the eighth century the development from u to e was not yet complete. To sum up: the kingdom of Frisia comprised between Sincfal and Flie roughly the present provinces of Zealand, N. and S. Holland, Utrecht; it will be convenient to call this entire division “Frisia citerior”, though strictly speaking the name is only correct for the country to the south of Utrecht. The central parts between Flie and Weser Frisia proper, I shall venture to call West — provs. of Friesland and Groningen — resp. East Frisia: district of that name + Jever c.a. (“Kreis Friesland”) and Butjadingen in N. Oldenburg.

2

It is not easy to reconstruct the Frisian presence in the districts to the west of the Flie that now constitute the heart of Holland. We know, for instance, that they destroyed a chapel at Utrecht and the mint at Dorestad and that Willibrord met the king in the former town; we saw the Wursing family firmly established at Zuilen and Werina; we hear about Frisians near Antwerp. All these facts, however, can be explained easily by the assumption of a small caste of conquerors in a country that remained essentially foreign to them. On the other hand it has been thought that the coast of N. and S. Holland was evacuated as a result of the marine transgression of the Late Roman Age and that it was entirely recolonized by Frisians from the North. Dr. Blok declares that this view is at least strongly exaggerated, as the conservation of many place-names of the prehistoric type does not point to an absolute break in the pattern of inhabitation. It is in other toponyms, however, that Frisian influence becomes most distinct and that a development, exceeding the frame of a merely political domination, begins to stand out. For a full discussion of this subject we can do no better than to return to the study by Dr. Gysseling, mentioned before (note 1). This author distinguishes very rightly between the common Inguaeonisms that will be dealt with below and Frisicisms in the proper sense of the word. To the former category belong phenomena that appear in the whole maritime area from Flanders to the Jutish peninsula, for instance the disappearance of n before a spirans and the assibilation of k and g.

[13] The latter group can be described as follows:

1. Evolution of au and ai into a. / Examples: Asthusa (= Oosthuizen, N.H.) from “austa” = east; Ekerslato (= Akersloot, N.H.) from “slauta” = ditch; Haamstede (Zeal.) from “haim” = home; Zwaag (N.H.) from “swaigo” = yard. Very widely diffused is also the word “kaag” = a patch of land outside the dikes, from “kauga”.
2. “Umlaut” of o and u. / Example: Suetan (= Zwieten, S.H.) from “swoti” = sweet.
3. Evolution of eu into iu into ju or into ia into ja. / Examples: “teuhjo” = meadow can be found as “tjuch” in the neighbourhood of Krommenie (N.H.) and Valkenburg (S.H.); “theudo” = people in Tjaddink — (Oude Niedorp, N.H.) and Tjaarling — (Warmenhuizen, N.H.).

Dr. Gysseling has been able to date these sound-changes, and with them the birth of a separate Frisian language, mainly during the eighth century; the evolution of iu, ia to ju, ja belongs to the Viking Age and may perhaps be ascribed to Danish influences. At any rate it is evident that even after the absorption by the Frankish Empire the adhesion between the various provinces of the former kingdom was still strong enough to occasion a common renovation.

The archaeological material is rich enough, but it does scarcely permit of ethnic deductions. The cemeteries of central Holland like Katwijk, Rijnsburg, Monster in S. Holland, Rhenen in Utrecht and Wageningen, Putten, Garderen, Loenen in Guelders belong to a large transitional zone between the purely Merovingian cemeteries in the South (N. Brabant, Limburg) and the maritime North (Friesland, Groningen). We find here urns and glassware of Merovingian provenance as well as the typical North Sea pottery, and the ritual also exhibits a composite character: unlike the central Merovingian area, which has a strict preference for inhumation, these districts have a mixture of inhumation and cremation.

As I said, it is not possible to draw ethnic conclusions from this [14] material, which is not confined to Frisia citerior and does not bespeak specific Frisian features. Perhaps we succeed better in thequestion that has been raised by F. Tischler in his study on continental Saxon archaeology: he observes a revival of the custom of cremation in an extensive area between Seine and Lippe and asks for its origin. Prof. Tischler holds the view that the historical situation — the area belongs to the heartland of Austria — excludes a Frisian focus and suggests insular influences. Against this it can be remarked that the hostilities in the age of Redbad cannot simply be reprojected to all previous periods: on the contrary, the stories of Hygelac’s invasion (chapter II:4) and of king Eadgils as given in the Vita Wilfridi speak of a more or less friendly atmosphere. Secondly, it is too theoretical to suppose that trade and with it certain customs could not have crossed political barriers. It seems, furthermore, that Prof. Tischler’s dating is too early and that we must think of the second half of the seventh century, at least in so far as cemeteries like Monster and Wageningen are concerned. But then the Frisian possibility gains considerably in force: the kingdom is at the height of its power and England has already been christianized too thoroughly to be a likely base for exporting pagan beliefs.

More particulars about Frisia citerior, also with regard to the supposed existence in these parts of Warns and Heruli, may be found in chapters II:4 and IV:1.

3

[15] In East Frisia several important investigations have been carried out by the “Niedersichsische Landesstelle für Marschen- und Wurtenforschung” at Wilhelmshaven under the direction of W. Haarnagel. Two excellent summaries by the same author made my task at this place much easier.

Although strictly speaking only Hessens can be said to belong to our period, it will appear convenient for our further discussion to describe here the whole complex investigated by Dr. Haarnagel and his staff with so much energy and acumen.

In the first place we must mention Jemgum on the river Ems, to which since recently the site of Hatzum has to be added. Here it becomes clear that already at the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age settlers occupied these marshes. Their dwelling places were evacuated during the fourth century B.C. because of marine transgression and it was only during the last century B.C. that a new population appeared, taking part in the systematic colonization of the clay areas between Ems and Elbe. The first settlers at Jemgum used a kind of pottery that has received the name of Dötlingen (after a village in Central Oldenburg), and which has affinities with Nienburg and the North Frisian isles. Specimina of the same style have been found by Prof. Waterbolk in the earliest levels of the proto-Frisian culture of Ruinen-Wommels, so that we could believe that the people of Jemgum met with more success in Westergo, where from this time onwards an inhabitation without gaps may be observed. Secondly there is Einswarden. The village is situated on the left bank of the Weser, but it belongs mainly to the region that extends on the east side of the river towards the Elbe, district of Stade or North Hanover, which in the Iron Age may be described as a division of the extensive Jastorf civilization. Since we know that the Chauci maiores lived here, the important conclusion may be drawn that this tribe had a Suevian origin. In the next section we shall see that this word deserves a revaluation and that it is really equivalent with [16] Germanic in the proper sense of the word, this in contrast with the population between Weser and Rhine which can only be called semi-Germanic, and even that is only partially correct. We may observe, moreover, that in this light all tribes that took part in the formation of the English, the original Saxons from Dithmarschen, the Angles and other tribes from the peninsula like Jutes and North Suevi, together with the Chauci maiores, are very closely related and that our speculations about their various areas of settlement in Britain are, strictly speaking, rather trivial in comparison with the great fact of the Anglo-Saxon homogeneity. Einswarden is the most easterly site that shows continuous influences from West Frisia, witness, first, the prehistoric geometric style and, next, the rougher ware from the Roman Age. Thus it is remarkable to notice that with regard to the archaeological material East Frisia is by that time already very close to the rest, although we know that in a political sense the country was in the hands of the Chauci minores. According to Dr. Haarnagel it is only during the second century that eastern influences can be discovered, while still later the well-known Anglo-Saxon types appear. The investigations at Feddersen Wierde (in Wursten) have become most famous of all. Here seven villages were discovered, dating from the last century B.C. till the fifth century A.D., when the second marine transgression began to rear its head. The systematic colonization between Elbe and Ems which we noticed already at Jemgum has been explained by Dr. Haarnagel as the result of an extensive organization, covering the inland territories as well as the marshes and revealing the activities of a leading caste. Still more than at Einswarden, pottery displays affinities with Schleswig-Holstein and the other Suevian districts; on the other hand early Roman import of terra sigillata may be observed.

The greatest interest lies, however, in the discoveries with regard to the social and economic developments of the site. The population lived mainly by agrarian activities, but the early and frequent presence of artisans who lived in the shadow of a [17] “manor” is remarkable. Dr. Haarnagel supposes that the posses- sors of the “Herrenhof”, traces of which can be found down through several centuries, owed their wealth and influence to the Roman trade. Possibly the manufacture of cloth had already begun to play its part. The final evacuation of the village is reflected in the whole coastal area on the east side of the Weser, which lay empty until the Frisian colonization of Wursten, starting after 700. The ceramics of Hessens will be discussed in chapter II:1, where we shall see that their style is familiar to the whole maritime region on both sides of the North Sea, regardless of ethnic or political background. The question that should be of particular interest to the historian, namely how the country between Ems and Weser changed from the Chaucian to the Frisian name, is therefore still left unanswered. At any rate we should think more of conquest than of colonization, for the undisturbed appearance of the sites in central East Frisia (Krummhörn), which have not been evacuated like Feddersen Wierde, does not point to important rearrangements. From an economic point of view the early traces of cloth-industry and shipbuilding are important, while also the finding of a dragon’s head in the style of Sutton Hoo should be reported.

Not all places have an agrarian origin: Emden and Groothusen, for instance, have been founded by a population with exclusively commercial interests. These settlements have the character of a vicus, for which Dorestad could have been the prototype: the “terp” is not circular, but carries a street with two rows of houses. H. Halbertsma mentions more instances from the West Frisian country between Flie and Ems, such as Harlingen, Leeuwarden, Dokkum, Tjum, Winsum, Hogebeintum, Holwerd, Winsum (Gr.), Westeremden.

4

Three times the student of Germanic antiquity will come across a triple division: firstly we have Tacitus’ Inguaeones, Istuaeones and Irminones; then the cultural pattern designed by R. von Uslar and adopted by F. Maurer, which demonstrates the existence of North Sea, Weser-Rhine and Elbe tribes, and finally the [19] three Teutonic idioms “Anglo-Frisian”, Frankish and High German, to which all present languages of the group can be reduced. Regarded in this light it is quite comprehensible that an organic identity between these historical, archaeological and linguistic distinctions has long been taken for granted, in the sense that the three classical groups were supposed to have expressed themselves in these material and spiritual entities. More recent investigations, however, have shaken the foundations of this structure, in which connection an important place must be awarded to a study by R. Hachmann, G. Kossack and H. Kuhn. Here it becomes clear that, till the coming of the Romans, only the Suevian confederation may be called Germanic in the proper sense of the word, for it is only there that we can observe an organic growth from the Nordic centre by way of the phases of Ilmenau, Jastorf, Ripdorf, Seedorf. The people on the west side of the Weser as far as Lippe and Yssel had a different civilization, in which Germanic and Urnfield tendencies mixed and which I should like to call semiGermanic to distinguish it from the Belgian tribes on both sides of the Rhine who — to make the confusion still greater — were the original bearers of the Germanic name. Its language did not yet exhibit a Germanic character, for it still had p- in stead of f-.

In this situation it is hardly credible that the Mannus tribes covered the whole area between Oder and Rhine and I follow with conviction Prof. Hachmann’s emendation of the texts, which leaves only the various Chaucian tribes as Inguaeones, the Chatti and Cherusci as Irminones. As the name of the Sicambri clearly has been interpolated, we must confess that about the Istuaeones nothing is known. Thus the Mannus tribes have been reduced to relatively small clusters on the fringe of the great Suevian family: this situation is underlined by their archaeological inheritance, which may be classified as a marginal division of the extensive Jastorf civilization. It is only after the coming of the Romans and the establishment of the Rhine as a frontier that something like a homogeneous Germanic civilization emerges, [20] comprising the whole area between Oder and Rhine. Probably this must be explained by Suevian cultural and/or ethnic transgression, endured by a population that now was cut off from a retreat to the west. There is much truth in saying: “Was Caesar in seiner ethnographischen Konstruktion des Germanenbildes als politisches Tendenzbild entworfen hat, ist spater durch seine eigene Grenzziehung wirklich entstanden”. We must now ask whether Von Uslar’s groups can be considered as successors of the Mannus tribes and the answer is of course mainly negative. It would yet be possible to look upon the North Sea Germans as an enlarged version of the Chaucian Inguaeones, but for those between Weser and Rhine we should rather choose the Irminonic name, belonging to Chatti and Cherusci, than that of the Istuaeones, who are lost; the great Suevian culture on the Elbe remains, as we saw, entirely outside the Mannus mythology. In view of these considerations it seems preferable to use Von Uslar’s three groups as the real starting-point for a discussion of Germanic diversity, though for practical reasons a word like Inguaeonisms need not be sacrified. A last question remains, namely whether the three idioms really go back to the ethnic distinctions we have just found or whether their development must be dated much later. The famous linguist Th. Frings has defended the former opinion with much emphasis: according to him the Tacitean system is hidden behind the division in coastal, inner and alpine German. Coastal and inner German are taken together under the common name of Inguaeonic, namely “Küsten” — and “Gemeiningwäonisch”. Prof. Kuhn, on the other hand, recently put forward that there is no evidence for a differentiation in Germanic idiom before the fifth century. Though his other considerations on the subject have not found much approval, I think him mainly right in declaring: “Dahin [i.e. to the Dark Ages] führt es uns immer wieder zurück, weiter rückwarts aber fast nie”. In the same way it may be remarked that the first level of Frankish derivations in Gaul does not betray any peculiarities and that is it only during the sixth and seventh [21] centuries that dialectic features like e from ai and o from au begin to appear. To my mind, it thus seems the most realistic thing to explain the development of the Frankish and High German dialects mainly as the result of the historical events that brought these tribes to foreign territories and not of their origin as Weser-Rhine, resp. Elbe, Germans. It is only with regard to the Inguaeonisms of the North Sea tribes that a native and somewhat older origin seems obvious, for the idiom must already have possessed its distinctive features when the Anglo-Saxons crossed the sea. As to the geographic extension of the phenomenon, it has to be said that the first certain fact in English history, namely the resemblance between the English and Frisian languages, has lost much of its value. Most linguists now believe that the whole maritime area between Flanders and Schleswig took part in the development and that the present province of Friesland constitutes only a last continental island, which has resisted, while everywhere else the Frankish waves swallowed up the idiom. Evidence for this point of view is to be found in the fact that, as we go back further, the Inguaeonic symptoms in the dialects of, for instance, Flanders and Hanover grow stronger and stronger, so that it must be right to say that there has been a time when they were entirely Inguaconic. Viewed in this light the word “Anglo-Frisian” can, strictly speaking, only be used as is the term “Indo-Germanic”: naming two of the most remarkable representatives is a convenient way of defining a much larger group, but we must be careful not to be deluded by the suggestion of a particularly close affinity between the two tribes thus honoured. K. Heeroma therefore stands rather alone with his theory of East and West Inguaeonic, according to which the present province of Friesland constitutes an eastern exclave in the western region between Weser and Scheldt, this being due to strong Anglo-Saxon penetration. As we shall see in chapter II:2, the foundation for his theory is not very solid, and if hereafter we turn to the linguistic evidence, I must confess that to an unbiased eye the name of the male duck, being derived from “anud-drako” in [22] Friesland, East Hanover and England and from “ward” between Weser and Scheldt, is not conclusive as long as we cannot exclude the possibility that the latter region also has known “anud-drako”, before it was superseded by the Frankish “ward”.

CHAPTER II — The heroic age

1

[23] By way of introduction to the following reflections I should like to summmarize some conclusions from Prof. Tischler’s important paper — which, in fact, looks more like a book — to which I already referred in chapter I:2 (note 9).

We may observe how during the Roman Age in the southern part of the Jutish peninsula four civilizations come to a development that at the same time constitutes a secession from the common Suevian pattern. From now on this must be divided in two sections, the former belonging to the peninsula and the latter to the basin of the Elbe, where the texts locate Langobards, Semnones, Hermunduri and Marcomanni.

~

The four northern cultures comprise the Fuhlsbüttel group in East Holstein (= North Suevian), the “Westgruppe” in Dithmarschen (= Saxon), the Anglian group and the Oberjersdal group, which, with many reservations, may be connected with the Eudoses or Jutes. The western group is, in fact, an extension from the district of Stade or North Hanover, which we have learnt to call Chaucian, so that here an attractive hypothesis emerges, viz. that the Saxon tribe is in its origin only a division of the “gentes Chaucorum”, On the other hand West Holstein may be said to have felt the continuous influence of the western section of Oberjersdal that gave its tall urns (“Topfurnen”) their pronounced necks and some of their baroque ornament. It is by transgression of these stylistic influences across the Elbe that the well-known “Buckel-urnen” are born. On the Baltic shore the Anglian panel-style conquers the eastern section of Oberjersdal as well as the isle of Fünen and then, turning to the South, mixes with the saucer urns [24] (“Schalenurnen”) of East Holstein, thus creating an Anglo-Holsatian style.

Finally all currents meet in the central cemetery of Perlberg: Oberjersdal and “Westgruppe” by way of Westerwanna, Angeln and East Holstein having crossed the Elbe, so that at last a cultural fusion of Jutish, Saxon, Chaucian, Anglian and North Suevian elements may be observed, which fully deserves the name of Anglo-Saxon; cf. my map 4.

After this Prof. Tischler calls attention to the essential fact that the “Buckelurnen” of Westerwanna constitute an exception in the ceramic totality and that about 80% must be said to belong to the style of Perlberg. This is true with regard to England (S. Elkington, Lincs.; Lackford, Suffolk) as well as to West Frisia (Beetgum, Hogebeintum, Midlaren); the illustrations under nos. 25, 26 (S. Elkington), resp. 43, 44 (Midlaren) are very instructive in this respect.

These observations show, I think, that the time has come to reconsider the name “Anglo-Frisian”, which J.N.L. Myres introduced for this specific kind of pottery and which has been adopted by many others who speak, for instance, of Frisia as a natural half-way-house for adventurers to Britain (C.F.C. Hawkes) or as an intermediate home of the Angles (T.C. Lethbridge). The area of Perlberg is clearly the focus for both countries and it would be impossible to decide whether a certain English province received its stylistic influence directly from there or by way of Frisia.

As the sixth century approaches its end, ornament begins to fall into decay and it is particulary during the seventh that a rather rough and simple type appears that Prof. Tischler has named after the site of Hessens. It is encountered in the entire North Sea area from Whitby (Yorks.) and Sleaford (Lincs.) to North Frisia and Hamburg and does not have a specific focus, so that we lack all possibilities for ethnic deduction. In Frisia proper its material has been found at Hallum (prov. of Friesland); Marum, Godlinze (prov. of Groningen); Hessens, Cleverns, Schortens (Jever), while in Wursten it seems to announce the Frisian [25] colonization.” Most interesting, but not belonging to our subject, is the appearance of Hessens pottery in Warendorf (Westfalia), where it heralds unambiguously the coming of the Saxons at a time that corresponds rather nicely with Bede’s account.

It is here that the word “Anglo-Frisian” emerges again, this time put forward by Mr. Boeles who employs it to describe the style supposedly developed by the mixed descendants of Anglo-Saxon invaders and native Frisians. And again I feel the need for criticism, as it appears from the remarks by Prof. Tischler that the style is not exclusively Frisian at all. Our statement with regard to the expression “Anglo-Frisian” in the linguistic context may be extended here to Dr. Myres’s as well as Mr. Boeles’s usage: one may employ the term as a convenient qualification for the North Sea koine as a whole, but it has no concrete meaning.

2

A considerable part of Mr. Boeles’s manual is taken up by his reflections on a supposed Anglo-Saxon invasion in the West Frisian country between Flie and Ems. He had been struck by the frequent occurrence of cruciform brooches at places like Hogebeintum, Beetgum, Ferwerd, and yet more by the complete disappearance of native pottery and its integral replacement by ceramics decorated in the Anglo-Saxon manner, which led him to [26] declare that “the pottery of the primitive Frisians was evidently superseded by that of the Anglo-Saxon conquerors”. Moreover, a similar phenomenon was to be observed with regard to building; the large Frisian farmsteads have been replaced by the small huts of Saxon invaders, the classic site being, of course, at Ezinge. All these cultural changes in his opinion could only be explained by assuming that strong Anglo-Saxon groups landed in Frisia and acquired there a dominating position, so that they could impose their culture on the remnants of the original population. In the course of time the invaders and their Frisian subjects fused to a new people, characterized by its “Anglo-Frisian” style, in which the native element was thought to have re-emerged. Mr. Boeles even went so far as to declare that the Frisian population has not been eliminated “completely”, thus suggesting that it was, in fact, for the greater part!

The most extreme aspects of this representation were promptly attacked by P. Sipma. Quite rightly, Dr. Sipma ascribes enough importance to the survival of the Frisian name to deny that Anglo-Saxon immigrants became the masters of the country. To this I should like to add as a personal observation that Frisia has never been incorporated into the Saxon tribal state between Yssel and Elbe: native political feeling therefore must have remained strong enough to resist assimilation. As to the “Anglo-Frisian” style, a reference to the last section may be sufficient and in so far as the linguistic aspects are concerned, we may think of chapter I:4, where we assumed the existence of a maritime area from Flanders to Schleswig, in which a common “Inguaeonic” idiom developed during the first christian centuries. This common background is the likeliest explanation of the resemblance between the English and the Frisian languages. It is only when we are prepared to follow Prof. Heeroma and his theory of East and West Inguaeonic, that we have a strong argument in favour of Mr. Boeles, but then we should find ourselves caught in a vicious circle, for Prof. Heeroma quotes Mr. Boeles and the latter names Prof. Heeroma as his source.

[27] The anthropologist J. Huizinga found a discontinuity in the craniological material, which in his opinion can only be the result of an invasion during the Dark Ages. He remarks, however, that it is not known whether the people on the Lower Elbe were of a physical type such as would produce the hybridization described. It seems that the resemblance between the Dark-Age specimina and the appearance of the present population is so evident that a direct descent cannot be denied.

Another aspect was introduced by Mr. Halbertsma who called attention to possible influences of the second marine transgression which, as we saw, had such disastrous consequences for the region to the east of the Weser. He found that many “terps” had been evacuated during the fourth century and established the presence of important sediments as far into the interior as the neighbourhood of Sneek. With regard to the observations by Dr. Huizinga he, too, expressed more or less plainly his belief in a hiatus in the pattern of occupation, so that in this light the present Frisians could not be considered as the direct descendants of the tribesmen with whom the Romans dealt. It is rather a pity that Mr. Halbertsma did not develop these views more broadly, but that in a recent publication he follows Prof. Waterbolk entirely. It is to the latter that we owe the most recent developments of our problem, at least in the archaeological sector. At Tritsum he completed the first systematic investigation of a “terp” in the province of Friesland, in Westergo where the Frisian tribe was born. As a result of this, Mr. Boeles’s main argument, namely that Anglo-Saxon pottery completely superseded the native product, seems to have lost its validity: Prof. Waterbolk found many specimina of the same undecorated kind that has been excavated at Wijster (Drenthe) and which undoubtedly has an indigenous orgin. He suggests that the Saxon ware, which had succeeded the earlier Roman imports, was employed for ritual ends only, while the native product was used for everyday purposes. About 60 “Saxon” huts have been found, scattered over three centuries, so that a specific relation with the Anglo-Saxon [28] tribes is out of the question. Like Prof. Tischler, Prof. Waterbolk inclines to explain these huts as auxiliary buildings to larger farmsteads which have escaped the archaeological eye, because they only left shallow impressions in the soil. Prof. Waterbolk refuses to commit himself yet, as this would be premature, but it is certain that on the ground of his material we can now construct a picture of Dark-Age Frisia in which everything is accounted for, without our having to turn to the idea of an invasion.

To complete the dossier another study by Dr. Gysseling must be mentioned, in which he expresses his conviction that toponyms with a personal name in the front syllable and a suffix like — ingja or — heim date from the Dark Ages. Viewed in this light, the Frisian country must have received nearly all its names during this period or, rather, it must have been rechristened: it is remarkably free from the prehistoric types that appear so abundantly on the near-by diluvium, for instance in the province of Drenthe, whence nevertheless the proto-Frisians must have arrived. By following Dr. Gysseling this incongruity would be explained conclusively, but the repercussion on our present problem would be serious indeed: if Frisia has been rebaptized during the Dark Ages, a radical change in the ethnic pattern can no longer be denied and the frequency of -ing and -ham suffixes would point to the Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence.

Taking all these facts together, I cannot say that the situation is yet entirely clear, though I am sure we now are quite a long way from Mr. Boeles’s representation of Anglo-Saxon invaders systematically destroying the Frisian maritime districts and imposing their rule. On the other hand, remembering the contributions by Dr. Huizinga, Mr. Halbertsma and Dr. Gysseling, I am still inclined to think of something more vehement than just a change of cultural influences. In fact, it remains an open question whether the “Saxon” huts really were auxiliary buildings or whether they mark a temporary social and economic decline. At this stage it is perhaps possible to reach agreement on the formula of a combination of several factors, both climatological and human, [29] which shook Frisia to its foundations, without being able to destroy the essential values of the tribe; in this connection I do not think specifically of the Anglo-Saxons.

3

The counterpart of an Anglo-Saxon invasion in Frisia would be a Frisian immigration in England and it is this subject that will be dealt with now. Some relevant texts, however, from Theodebert and Fortunatus have been assigned to the next section.

Most of our efforts may be concentrated on the kingdoms of East Anglia and Kent and with regard to the former we may refer to an essay by T.C. Lethbridge in the collection Dark-Age Britain. His expositions on the “Anglo-Frisian” complex and [30] on Frisia as an intermediate home of the Angles have been considered in the first section of this chapter. Further I must confess that I am not impressed by G.C. Homans’s paper on East Anglian institutions and their resemblance to those of Frisia. Not only are the points of correspondence of too general a character and do they belong to a much later age, but I moreover find it difficult to believe at all in the fundamental thesis that institutions or agrarian systems should permit of ethnic deductions. The situation in Kent is, of course, rather complicated. As a starting-point we now have the study by C.F.C. Hawkes which resumes and adapts the earlier representations by E.T. Leeds and J.E.A. Jolliffe. Prof. Hawkes distinguishes three phases, namely the Jutish Phase (1a: 450—490; 1b: 490—525), the Frankish phase (2a: 525—555; 2b: 555—590) and the Kentish phase. The first contains “Anglo-Frisian” ware; and here again the idea of Frisia, this time as a natural halfway-house for adventurers to Britain, crops up and must be rejected. The Frankish phase now begins too late for maintaining Mr. Leeds’s theory of an invasion of Ripuarians in its present form, but, mainly on the authority of Prof. Jolliffe, Prof. Hawkes sees only occasion for a slight modification to the effect that he suggests them to have been among the original invaders under Hengest. I have declared already that I reject the kind of ethnic deductions made here, based as they are on resemblance of agrarian system and institutions, and in this case I felt the surer of my rejection, as another difficulty arises: the correspondence only occurs on the Middle Rhine between Düsseldorf and Koblenz, so that a primitive “Istuaeonic” substrate, also comprising the lower regions on the river, has to be assumed. With all respect due to two prominent scholars, I think this an entirely arbitrary construction that is not corroborated by any fact. To me at least it thus seemed that the “Frankish” theory was definitely on the decline, but I must confess that some recent publications have shaken this opinion slightly. In the first place it has been put forward that it is far too optimistic to suppose that an exact date (about 525) can be [31] established by archaeological means, and secondly several studies by Mrs. S. Hawkes reveal the presence of a continuous Frankish influence, from the Late Roman Age through the period of Jutish A into the sixth century. On the other hand cultural connections with the peninsula have received more stress — for instance at the XVth Symposion at Oxford, April 1964, where the Scandinavian evidence was presented by O. Voss — so that at the moment the following formula would seem to fit the facts best: the short interruption by elements from the peninsula and the Perlberg area, coinciding with the Jutish conquest, is a hundred times more likely to have an ethnic background than the continuous transgression from near-by Gaul. During all these centuries Kent was closer to the latter country than to the rest of England.

In the linguistic field it seems that Th. Siebs’s argument on the resemblance between the Kentish and Frisian idioms is still being repeated. Wrongly so, as during the era of the invasions neither of them yet existed as such: we saw in chapter I:2 how the Frisian language was born from a common “Inguaeonic” substrate, mainly during the eighth century, and with regard to the English dialects H.M. Chadwick as early as 1907 stated about the same. He is backed up by modern linguists like A. Campbell, who said that “the differentiation of Kentish from other dialects is due to the isolation of the area rather than to the descent of the inhabitants from the Jutes”. The reader will furthermore recall that the typical Kentish evolution of u to y to e does not appear before the ninth century and on the Frisian side we saw at the end of chapter I:1 that during the eighth century it had only reached the phase of y. Without endeavouring to answer the question how these identical developments in Kent and Frisia must be explained we may safely say that a phenomenon, dating from the ninth century, is no evidence for ethnic situations during the fifth.

Another argument against the assumption of a direct arrival of peninsular Jutes is advanced by E. Schwarz who thinks that the [32] latter must have spoken a Nordic dialect. I fail to see why: even if a distinct boundary between Nordic and Teutonic did exist as early as the fifth century, the Jutes must have belonged to the South in their quality of members of the Nerthus-confederacy. Moreover, I do not see room for them in Prof. Schwarz’s northern division, which is entirely filled up by Vandals, Teutons, Cimbrians and Harudes.

Finally we must give our attention to the saga of Finnsburg, which assigns to Frisia such an important place in the heroic age of the North Sea tribes. In my essay on Jutes and Frisians (note 39) I recorded my agreement with R.W. Chambers that a band of Jutish mercenaries under the Frisian banner is, generally speaking, all that the text demands and that it is not necessary to identify the two tribes as H. Schneider would have us do. Internal difficulties in the text cannot shake my faith in the external evidence provided by Widsith that Jutes and Frisians were different tribes under different rulers. A new development in Finnsburg studies may have been introduced by W. Laur. His interpretation, rather depressing for Frisians, implies that the original Finn was a giant (evidence: his picture in the cathedral of Lund), that in a second version the battles between Jutes and Danes were introduced and that, finally, the story was only embellished by the introduction of Frisia. Though I do not think Dr. Laur’s representation entirely convincing, I must admit that the name Finn Folcwalda — “folkvaldi” is an epithet of the god Freyr — is a little suspect.

To sum up: none of the arguments in favour of a Frisian invasion in East Anglia or Kent turned out to be valid, while the “Frankish” theory, relating to the latter kingdom, is on the decline. On the other hand Bede’s representation of the conquerors as peninsular Jutes is gaining ground: not only does the Jutish phase show strong affinities with the peninsula, but the Finnsburg saga provides us with an argument for the vicinity of these Jutes and the Danes; for it is only thus that their traditional enmity can be explained — an enmity, which it would be rather difficult to [33] understand if the Jutes were really an East Frisian subtribe on the Jade, as Th. Siebs thought. As to the Frisians, only the famous text from Procopius about the three peoples in Britain is left us to meditate on, besides the sober consideration that we must not change the old dogma for a new one: we cannot prove the invasion of Anglo-Saxons in Frisia and of Frisians in Britain, but, of course, this should not lead us to assume that therefore absolutely no one came hither and went thither; on the contrary, it is more than probable — with regard to the geographic situation — that certain Anglo-Saxon elements found a new home in Frisia and that some Frisians were attracted by the promise of easy conquest in Britain.

4

In a paper on Warns, Heruli, Thuringians I tried to make it clear that the common view, according to which these tribes are [34] to be located in the region that afterwards took the name of Frisia citerior, cannot be maintained. Respecting the Thuringians, we have to think of a mistake by Gregory of Tours who wrote Thoringia instead of Tongria. With regard to the Heruli we can only point to an auxiliary detachment “Herulorum et Batavorum” during the fourth century, which may have borne an entirely traditional name. The famous pericope from Procopius, where he tells the story of a revengeful English princess who fights the army of the Warns not very far from the mouth of the Rhine, is, in my opinion, without authority, as the Warnish name is used for all tribes between Danube, Rhine and North Sea. It is therefore not possible to connect the Visigothic king Euric with this subject: even where he is said — by Sidonius Apollinaris — to have imposed a treaty on barbaric tribesmen on the river Waal, we must think of the Franks themselves. For Sidonius this river represents a Frankish stream, as is demonstrated by the words: “tu Tuncrum et Vachalim, Visurgin, Albin, Francorum et penitissimas paludes intrares venerantibus Sigambris”.

In the third decade of the sixth century Hygelac, ruler of the Swedish Goths, sails to these parts and attacks the country of the Chattuarii, a division of Theoderic’s kingdom of Austria. He is beaten by a strong force under the young prince Theodebert, but Beowulf himself kills the enemy leader Daeghrefn = Dagoramn. The most remarkable fact of the whole story is that Frisians and Merovingians collaborated closely in this matter, for it is said that Dagoramn would have brought his spoils to the Frisian king. With regard to the obvious agreement between the insular and the continental sources D. Whitelock has made important remarks, which should make us approach the subject in a cautious spirit. She observes, quite rightly, that this unanimity has little value if the English and Merovingian accounts could be shown to have been interdependent. Though Prof. Whitelock does not think this danger very great, she says in her conclusion that

the mere possibility that the story of Hygelac’s raid was still being related in the north-east of the Frankish realm in the eighth century [35] prevents us from stating dogmatically that the English of this period knew the story solely from the Scandinavian point of view.

F.P. Magoun went into the matter of the geography of the raid and provides good grounds for his opinion that the Goths did not enter the delta by means of the Old Rhine, but that a shorter way via Vecht or Yssel was chosen. For Scandinavians, at least, this would have cut the distance considerably and they would have avoided an exposed tract.

The glory of the day is given to young Theodebert; and here we must say a few words about his kingdom, Austria, described in his well-known letter to the emperor Justinian. We may observe that from 511 onwards Austria constituted a stable political entity with its western boundary in the Silva Carbonaria, roughly from Brussels to Antwerp.

In the east the Chattuarian country from Cleves to Styrum on the Ruhr belonged to it. It is evident that between these two points the sea can only have been touched at the Dutch or Flemish coast and that the entire province of N. Brabant was Austrian. Somewhere in this north-western corner of the kingdom, where it met the territory of the Frisians, the Jutish settlements that the letter mentions must also be looked for. It is very easy to connect the royal statement that they came under his sceptre of their own will with Procopius’ information about the Anglo-Saxon remigration to the continent. At any rate it is not necessary to consider them as the remmants of the conquerors of Kent, for it is quite possible that a parallel invasion brought one group to Kent and another one to Holland or Flanders.

The panegyric on Chilperic of Neustria by Venantius Fortunatus contains two interesting points. In the first place the king is awarded the distinction of being a terror for Frisians and Suevi. The latter cannot be identified with the inhabitants of Zealand (“Zeeuwen”), whose name has been derived from “saiws” = sea, whereas Suevi would have become “Zwaven”. For authentic Suevi we must look at the region of Courtrai, where a group, probably a remnant of a Roman auxiliary force, had settled. To [36] have frightened these scattered ethnic groups deep in Neustria is nothing to be proud of for a Merovingian, so that I decided that not they, but their kinsmen in N.W. Spain are meant. This conclusion, however, implies the strong suspicion that Fortunatus flatters the king beyond truth — Chilperic is not known to have exercised any influence in Galicia — and that thus his statement on the Frisians must also be declared worthless. Secondly his defence of Gaul against Goths, Gascons, Danes, Jutes, Saxons and Bretons is applauded. Did these Jutes live in France or were they only pirates from their homeland? And, supposing the latter to have been the case, does the fact that they have been put between Danes and Saxons (“Danus, Euthio, Saxo, Britannus”) provide any indication with regard to their origin? All this is too insubstantial to be of much use in solving the Jutish problem.

Another poem by Fortunatus that haunts our historical literature is his praise of the duke Lupus of Champagne, a general under Sigibert of Austria. He seems to have beaten Saxons and Danes on the river Bordaa “qua fluvius sinuoso gurgite currit” and to have pursued them as far as the river Laugona. We are here far from West Frisia: the former is clearly a torrent and not the sluggish Boorn, the latter can be found back in Lahn or Leine.

Thus we find ourselves no better equipped than at the outset to answer the essential question whether the occupation of Frisia citerior was only a short interregnum during the second half of the seventh century, as Mr. Boeles argues with such vigour, or whether, on the other hand, Dagobert penetrated into Frisian territory. Dr. Blok has criticized on good grounds a charter from Pepin III for Utrecht which seemed to point to a Merovingian rule under Theodebert II and Clothar II (595—623), but in this way made the problem again more ambiguous than before. Even the name of Frisia citerior gives no indication, because it does not sound original: in the eyes of a real Frisian the district would not have been on this side of, but across the river Rhine. The only clue lies perhaps in the Lex Ripuaria, which is now dated at 633—34 and which contains material from Clothar II [37] and Dagobert. Tit. 40 speaks of the murder of various groups of foreigners: other Franks, Burgundians, Romans, Alamanni, Frisians and Bavarians — the former are valued at 200, all members of the Germanic tribes at 160 and the provincials at only 100 solidi. It is clear that thus all participants in the Frankish state have been enumerated, among them some Frisians who must have been subjected by Dagobert when the reign of Utrecht changed hands.

CHAPTER III — The age of Eadgils

1

[38] The disturbances during the fourth and fifth centuries at first did not interrupt the commercial relations that had existed between Gaul and the North since the beginning of the Roman Age. The trade routes ran along the Frisian coast, where they brought, for instance, prosperity to Feddersen Wierde and connected particularly Denmark and Norway with the South. During the sixth century, however, commerce suffers a sharp decline, which has been explained as the consequence of the shifting of Gaulish interests to Aquitaine, which then witnessed the last revival of the mediterranean system under Justinian. At the same time the classic route by Carnuntum was interrupted by the invasions of Slavs and Avars. We may also observe the rise of a strong tribal centre in Uppland, which soon replaced the Goths as the main power on the Scandinavian subcontinent: if the previous era belonged to the Saxon and the Dane, now the hour of the Swede has come. From Beowulf we know that the Goths were vanquished in the course of this century and archaeological investigations have corroborated this, at least with regard to the isles of Gotland and Oeland. Analogous influences can be discovered in Norway as well as in East Anglia.

We now come to the seventh century which in Frisia, with some exaggeration, of course, might be called the era of king Eadgils. During this time the country is a focus of the Occident, situated as it is between the strong kingdoms of England, Sweden and Austria. For England it is the century of Kent, Sutton Hoo and Bede; in Sweden prosperity grows, though for its luxury goods it must still rely on imports by way of the North Sea. The most important fact, however, is that Austria is beginning to build its [39] own character and to prepare for its leading role under the Carolingians. Even during the previous century the kingdom had known more stability than Neustria and Burgundy and now under its strong mayors this tendency was strengthened. The country turned from the Mediterranean and applied much of its energies to internal development. This is the era of the acculturation of the duchies of Thuringia, Swabia and Bavaria to Franconia and Austria proper, regions that were to constitute the core of the German Empire, and beside which Saxony always held somewhat aloof. To finish these general remarks, which are mainly based on Prof. Jankuhn’s studies mentioned below, we may observe that Italy’s circumstances had also improved a good deal, as a result of the armistice between the Langobards and the Greeks, which was to last till the days of Liutprand.

As an ultima Thule of this Austrian world Dorestad was founded in the beginning of the century by merchants from Maastricht. It became the capital of commercial activities in the delta region and thus provides us with a convenient approach to Mr. Boeles’s expositions on Frisian trade. His thesis, which he developed not only in his manual, but also — and with even more stress — in the paper mentioned before (note 50), was a second blow to Frisian self-respect. The thesis is twofold: the first part concerns Frisia citerior, the second Frisia proper. Mr. Boeles began by directing the full weight of his criticism against those who thought the distribution of the sceattas a Frisian affair and who assumed the presence of Frisians at S. Denis as early as in the days of Dagobert. With respect to the sceattas, which will be dealt with again in the third section, I think Mr. Boeles has been proved right in saying that they are an English invention and that the supposed Frisian colonies in Gaul are entirely fictitious.

Among the written sources the charter from 753 for S. Denis (Diplom. Karol. 6) is the most important one. In it Pepin III mentions the visits by Englishmen and Frisians and, in my opinion, indeed assigns them to the days of Dagobert. We saw, however, at the end of the last chapter that such references to [40] earlier kings are not particularly trustworthy (the criticized charter for Utrecht is known as Diplom. Karol. 5) and, moreover, that even under Dagobert the people from Dorestad etc. could be called Frisian, so that Mr. Boeles’s conclusion at any rate seems to be right. The charter probably speaks of the men from Frisia citerior: Mr. Boeles thinks of the era of Pepin III, while I would not exclude the days of Dagobert.

To this I should like to add the following observation: even if the town itself was peopled by men of semi-Frisian extraction, the commercial activities at Dorestad were, of course, promoted from the South and we may be fairly sure, even though we know nothing about the exact circumstances of its foundation, that the second trading centre of Frisia citerior, Domburg, must be understood in a similar way. These commercial activities follow the patterns of Roman Gaul and it is therefore far more probable that they were also directed from there than that they owe their origin to Frisian initiatives. Mrs. A.N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta gives more particulars about this southern trade, which bespeaks connections with Aquitaine (550—590), with Burgundy and Marseilles by way of the Meuse (575—630), when the Longobards blockaded the Alps, and finally with the classic Rhine-route, when the river in the beginning of the seventh century had regained its importance as the highway of the Occident.

Having thus followed Mr. Boeles in the first part of his thesis, we now come to the second which, in my opinion, is much less satisfying. He thinks that Frisia proper can only be regarded as a rather primitive hinterland of Dorestad, not capable of international trade. His reasons for this opinion, as far as I can see, are threefold. In the first place there are no written sources about commercial activities in the country between Flie and Weser; this is, of course, true, but the argument is entirely negative. Secondly he remarks that Frisia proper did not possess towns of importance that could have been used as trading centres. To this it could be said that the geographer of Ravenna knew at least Bordonchar (Oldeboorn?) and Nocdac (Dokkum?) and that, [41] as we saw in chapter I:3, a considerable number of “terps” was constructed by a population with exclusively commercial interests. Moreover, even in sites with a more agrarian character like Feddersen Wierde and Hessens many traces of an early industrial development were discovered. Taking together such evidence as is available, we may even say that the Frisian area distinguishes itself rather clearly from the diluvium by its more advanced economy.

This is also true with regard to coinage, although Mr. Boeles seems to charge the Frisians with the illiteracy of their imitations: illiterate in the Latin sense they may have been, but the mere fact that they, as the only tribe beyond the Rhine, felt it necessary to mint coins, points to a people actively interested in commerce. Nor was their trade solely of a local character, as Mr. Boeles suggests, for pieces of the “boucle perdue” type have been found in Westfalia, while coins of the “Dronryp” type and sceattas mark the northern route.

It is this route that has been dealt with in several important studies by Prof. Jankuhn. Several exhibits testify to trade from points on the Frisian coast to the Jutish peninsula and from there to Sweden. In East Frisia we find coins from Dorestad and sceattas at Hamswehrum, Barthe and Norden; between Weser and Elbe the important treasure of Altenwalde with its considerable number of pieces from “Dronryp” and Dorestad should be noted; in Holstein a sceatta at Itzehoe. Very interesting with regard to the ethnic question is the concentration of material in what was to become North Frisia: Frankish pottery and a coin (early Maastricht) on Fohr, a coin (“Dronryp”) on Sylt. Passing by Gadegaard on the Limfiord (Dorestad) we arrive at Uppland, where Frankish glassware and fine cloth (from a site like Hessens?) bespeak strong connections with the South during the seventh century.

When we ask who actually conducted this trade, I think we need not assume the existence of an unknown people, carrying their wares up north by way of Föhr and Sylt: it is far more logical [42] to conclude that the Frisians who afterwards settled in these islands were preceded by traders of the same nationality.

It is worthwhile recalling that, as regards the concentration of money, the coastal area — particularly the Frisian part of it — contrasts markedly with the more continental regions and also, generally speaking, with the Saxon seaboard between Weser and Eider.

2

The runic inscriptions that have been found in Frisia between Flie and Ems constituted another argument in favour of Mr. Boeles’s Anglo-Frisian thesis. Since, in England as well as in Frisia, the first inscriptions date from the Dark Ages, while earlier material is known from the North, Mr. Boeles thought there was no way but to believe that these runes were imported in both countries by Anglo-Saxon invaders. So far as the newer futhark is concerned, he admits that economic relations provide sufficient explanation, but, since the invasion in his opinion is a fact, the ethnic similarity of Anglo-Saxons in England and Anglo-Frisians in Frisia must have been of essential importance.

The first contribution to record here is by W. Krogmann. This [43] author made an attempt to discredit the authenticity of most inscriptions, but his expositions met with little success, no more than his interpretation of Arum’s wooden sword as “edlboda” = messenger of illness, instead of the traditional “edaeboda”.

The counterattack was led by Mr. Boeles himself who could describe better than anybody else the circumstances under which the material had been discovered.

Omitting the not so very important study by R.W.V. Elliott on the magic character of the runes and making a passing reference to his useful introduction to runic lore, we may now turn to the important contribution by W.J. Buma.

Prof. Buma introduced two new specimina: the first comes from Jouswier and bears the inscription AMLHD = Amleth (?) Of course we think immediately of Westeremden’s yew wand and its fine text: “Ophamu gistada Amluth; iwim ost ah thukn; iwi osust dukale”. (Amleth took up position at Upheim; before his yew wand the breakers receded; may the breakers recede before this yew wand.)

It is not only the name of Amleth that connects the Jouswier bone piece with the North, but also the letter H instead of ᚻ.

The second inscription appears on a piece of bronze, together with a primitive figure of Christ which must be dated in the second half of the eighth century. It reads Agu-, the first syllable of a name like Agubert.

The author provides, moreover, a valuable argument against Mr. Boeles’s thesis that the Frisians did not know the runic alphabet before the era of the migrations. The letter H is generally written as ᚻ and this form is more original, i.e. closer to the North Italian spelling of [ᚻ with 3 lines], than the Nordic H. The latter can be traced back to the beginning of the third century, so that runic lore in Frisia must be older still.

With all respect due to such an eminent Frisian scholar, I am afraid I cannot appreciate Dr. Sipma’s paper on this subject as much as Prof. Buma’s, as it wants some of the latter’s critical [44] spirit. It is therefore with much reservation that I mention his interpretation of Wynaldum’s bone amulet as Inguz, the mythical ancestor of the “Inguaeones”, in which name the suffix -uz would point to a very early date indeed. The paper contains a neatly designed survey of 16 runic inscriptions of a more or less certain Frisian origin.

3

It seems the best plan to begin this section on coinage with a brief summary of Mr. Boeles’s catalogues which, in my opinion, constitute one of the most valuable parts of the book. The classification is as follows:

Phase I (6th century)

Catalogue VIII

• A I (1-82) official Roman and Byzantine + imitations;
• A II (83-95) imitations of imitations;
• A III-IV (96-105) Frisian imitations with and without “boucle perdue”.

Phase II (7th century)

Catalogue VIII

• C I (107-119) official Merovingian coinage; [45]
• C II (120-208) monetarii + imitations; among these 120—130 Dorestad / 131—144 “Dronryp” / 145—171 Rhineland.

Phase III (8th century)

Catalogue IX

• sceattas from Hallum, Franeker and Terwispel.

Mrs. Zadoks contributed some remarks on the hoard of Midlum which can be dated in the second half of the sixth century. The most remarkable aspect of the treasure, eight solidi of Leo I, is explained as an indication of Scandinavian connections. These connections find confirmation in other phenomena, but I doubt whether the evidence from Midlum is valid, particularly whether these solidi are as rare in western Europa as Mrs. Zadoks suggests. The important hoard of Wieuwerd has been analysed by J. Lafaurie, B. Jansen and Mrs. Zadoks; it is composed of 7 x imperial coinage from the East, 3 x imperial coinage from Italy, 15 x Merovingian coinage (among these 11 x from Marseilles) and 3 pieces of uncertain origin.

The authors agree in dating the treasure around 630—640.

The most interesting thing to observe about the find is the fact that all coins have been made into ornament. As to the reason, the first investigator thinks in this respect of an economic change about the middle of the century that brought silver currency to the fore, while the others use a more subjective argumentation: they speak of a treasure, collected by two generations, the former still fascinated by the magic qualities of gold, the latter more inclined to reduce it to ready money. However this may be, it is a fact that the treasure represents quite a capital, namely 167 trientes, or the equivalent of 42—55 cows.

Though strictly speaking outside the Frisian borders, the hoard of Altenwalde in the district of Stade or North Hanover has a claim to our attention; it has been discussed by P. Berghaus in a [46] very wide context. He lists the entire monetary stock from Hanover and Westfalia that can be dated in the Dark Ages. Among his group B, which comprises trientes of Roman origin + imitations, the numbers 7 and 8 belong to Frisia: they are of the “boucle perdue” type from the sixth century and were found in Erle (Recklinghausen) and Horn (Detmold), respectively.

Altenwalde itself has been classed under group C (monetarii of the seventh century). It boasts 1 x Mouzon (Theudemar), 1 x Maastricht (Adelbert), 2 x “Dronryp” and 5 x Dorestad (Madelinus). Prof. Berghaus has added some maps, charting two distinct streams of money: one follows the coast and is mainly based on the Frisian districts, the other is nourished from Central Gaul and centres on Ruhr and Lippe; the second stream is, moreover, of an entirely different character: most of its coins have been found in graves, so that we may assume magic qualities to have been imputed to them. Once again we observe that the area which at this time may be considered truly Saxon remains a blank.

Finally we should mention two papers by P.V. Hill on sceattas. The author tries to determine some groups that, next to the “Wodan-monster” type of Terwispel, may be said to be of Frisian origin. The subject is rather complicated as both sides of the North Sea copied each other’s style, so that on either side we find specimina of the other’s coins, originals as well as imitations. In a conclusion the types “plumed bird” and “cross and pellets” are assigned to Frisia, while with regard to the “porcupines” the important suggestion is made that, having been derived from English types in Frisia, they came back to the island. In connection with two hoards in the prov. of Groningen — one at Lutjesaaxum (Baflo): 15 “porcupines”, and one from an unknown site: 9 “porcupines” — the author states his opinion that all these sceattas were struck in the immediate neighbourhood, all mints supplying their own small area and being mutually exclusive, so that even between places which are as close to each other as Franeker and Hallum variations may occur.

4

In the final part of her paper, mentioned in note 53, Mrs. Zadoks gives an outline of the development of the North Sea area as an artistic entity. With respect to Frisia, we may see how the cruciform brooches of the fifth century are giving way to types of a more complicated character, in which influences from Scandinavia and from Kent or East Anglia appear and then melt into a truly Frisian style with such fine specimina as the buckles of Wieuwerd, Hogebeintum and Wynaldum. Scandinavia contributes the square heads and the love of spirals, coils, plaits and interlace that may already be seen on the more primitive pieces from Achlum and Aalsum (Boeles, pl. 43, 1 and 3). A pendant like that from Cornjum (Boeles, pl. 41,5) owes its circular form and its technique of cell-work inlaid with stones entirely to Kent. Finally the three great brooches combine these influences and at the same time display a character of their own, particularly in the undulating outline of the bottom sections, which must be attributed to local Frisian artisanship. Quite rightly Mrs. Zadoks wonders about the difference in quality between these truly beautiful pieces and the rather primitive “home-made” coins from the same period.

Returning to a more chronological order after these general [48] remarks, we may call attention to a reconsideration by A. Roes of two early brooches of the annular type, one from the northern part of Friesland (Boeles, fig. 59,2) and one from Ezinge. Both are specimina from the “Foederatenhorizont” which brought so many artistic influences from the Roman province to Germany, particularly to the Saxon country between Weser and Elbe. Dr. Roes proposes a dating in the second half of the fourth century, Mr. Boeles thought of the beginning of the sixth, so that the fifth century would constitute a goed compromise.

J. Werner contributed a short note on some pieces from Domburg, first published by Dr. Roes, that were a little different from the rest. He thinks that more primitive specimina of the type may be found in Wierumerschouw and Looveen (Drenthe) and that the whole may be considered fresh evidence for the existence of a cultural stream from Thuringia to Kent during the sixth century. Dr. Roes [see previous note: b], however, soberly replied that she could only detect some spirals on the brooches and not the required bird’s heads (“eingerollte Vogelköpfe”) and that she was not willing to exclude the four pieces concerned from the rest of the material, all of it dating from the eighth century and later, on such weak grounds.

The most important discovery of recent years is, of course, the buckle of Wynaldum, in fact the most beautiful object from Dark-Age Frisia that has so far been recovered. The lower portion of the brooch displays a geometric pattern with the well-known mushroom cells, the upper part has an ornament, which bespeaks affinities with Sutton Hoo. Its general form, however, connects it, as we saw, with Wieuwerd and Hogebeintum. R.L.S. Bruce Mitford resumes his opinion in the following words:

My impression therefore after a cursory examination is that the buckle is probably not made in England, though very strongly influenced from insular sources, perhaps the work of a craftsman trained in Kent or Suffolk, but working for a Continental patron. Its date should be about 640—660 A.D. The design of the upper part of the plate is not without interesting analogies with the great gold [49] buckle, devoid of cloisonné work, in the Sutton Hoo treasure, a piece which shows influences from Swedish Vendel art in its animal patterns.

Some sword knobs from Ezinge in the same style have been published by S.S. Mensonides.

The paper on Wieuwerd, mentioned in note 61, also contains several important observations on the ornamental aspects of the treasure. Better than anywhere else we may observe here the gradual transition from Scandinavian to English stylistic influences. The older pieces have a coin as a centre, surrounded by golden wires in the truly Northern way of the sixth century, then we come across specimina that may be compared directly with the Kentish pendant of Cornjum and finally a Frisian synthesis has been achieved in the buckle.

Prof. Jankuhn wrote extensively about the fragment from Huizum (Boeles, fig. 64,3) which meanwhile has been interpreted by J. Ypey as being a piece from a stirrup. The decoration of the upper part is zoomorphic and must be explained as a result of the Northumbrian influences that followed the English missionaries to the continent; for the lower part the author is inclined to think of Lombardy as an ultimate source. (It is particularly Mrs. Zadoks who more than once calls attention to the fact that our relative ignorance with regard to the art of the Longobards in Italy is a severe handicap in several ways.)

CHAPTER IV — The age of Redbad

1

[51] In 689 begins the Carolingian conquest of Frisia, when Pepin II takes Dorestad and with it Frisia citerior as far as Utrecht. This limit can be deduced from Bede and Alcuin, who, describing the situation in 690, speak of Frisia citerior as being occupied by the Franks, with Redbad still at Utrecht. It has been generally thought that a second push brought Pepin to the latter town a little later, for it is again Bede who says that Willibrord established his see there as early as 695. Alcuin and Altfried, however, date this event under Charles Martel, while Liudger declares that the missionary was already rather old at that time (“senescente eo in opere Dei”), which points to a much later year than 695, when Willebrord was only about 35 years of age; cf. Vita Willibrordi cap. 13, Vita I Liudgeri 1:4 and Vita Gregorii cap. 10. However this may be, we may be sure that under Redbad the Franks did not penetrate far beyond Utrecht, for the Frisian king still had jurisdiction over the region of Werina, which he restored to Thiadgrim, son of Ado Wursing and father of Liudger, in the later days of his life. The Vita Adalberti and the Annals of Xanten, which suggest an occupation as far as the Flie, are entirely unreliable in this respect. Under Charles Martel it is possible for Boniface to work during the years 719-722 at Woerden and “Attingahem” near Utrecht, while Velsen (N.H.) is still “propior gentilibus et paganis”. It is not before 734 that the Carolingian sails into Frisia proper. As to the name of Frisia citerior, I observed in chapter II:4 that it is not of Frisian origin: it must have been invented in the same quarters that spoke of the provinces to the west of the Flie as “cis Fli” or it may have been coined by the English mission itself. In both cases it reflects a [52] pattern that grew as a result of the Frankish conquest, and not internal Frisian situations; indeed, the Lex calls the entire area from Flie to Sincfal by one name, without distinguishing a separate Frisia citerior.

Though recently some important contributions have been made, I cannot say that the problems around the origins of Germanic royalty, particularly with regard to the question why some tribes did possess kings and others did not, have been explained entirely. However this may be, the Frisians belong to the former category, with their early dynasts Verritus and Malorix who ruled the nation “in quantum Germani regnantur”. These words do not point to a state of anarchy, but must be understood in connection with the phrase “nec regibus infinita aut libera potestas” that marks the difference between this and the Asiatic conception of kingship.

Passing by the epic figures of Finn Folcwalda and the king to whom Dagoramn would have brought his spoils, we come to Eadgils and Redbad whose personalities emerge in some more detail from the hagiographic accounts, especially the Vitae Wilfridi and Liudgeri. At a first glance it would seem that at least Redbad ruled Frisia Magna as a unity, from Dorestad to Helgoland, but if we read the text of the Vita Willibrordi that produces the king as lord of Fositesland carefully, a discrepancy arises, for the two protagonists are represented as strangers, though they had already met at Utrecht long before. In a study that will be discussed at greater length in the next section, Dr. Krogmann offers a convincing solution of the problem by assuming the name of Redbad to have been introduced later, the original lord of the island being anonymous.

With respect to Redbad it seems therefore most prudent to follow Dr. Schmidt who looks upon him as a “Heerkönig” with his actual power concentrated around Utrecht and Dorestad, i.e. at the periphery of the state, in the same way as the Saxon dukes somewhat later around the Harz. In this connection it may be interesting to remark that Finnsburg is also represented as being [53] situated outside Frisia proper, for it is said that after the battle the heroes return to that country.

That continental sources persistently describe the king as a duke does not point to a lower status of the Frisian dynast, but must be understood as a specimen of psychological warfare, which tried to degrade all opponents of the Frankish sovereign. So the prince who is always known as the duke of Bavaria receives the honour of being Garibald “rex Baioariorum” in a non-Frankish source.

Next to the king, the nobility seems to have played an important part in national life: we hear, for instance, how the common people follow their example in receiving baptism from the hands of Wilfrid, and how Ado Wursing is speaking “coram rege et elus principibus” and obtains the praise of being fair in his administration of justice.

2

In an essay on Fositesland Dr. Laur rejects one of the many dubious pronouncements by J. Spanuth who thought the island to be identical with the Stollberg in his parish of Bordelum on the coast of Schleswig-Holstein. His reasoning is simple: as the continent did not receive a Frisian population before the Middle Ages, it is highly improbable that such a place could be called “in confinio Fresonum atque Danorum” in the days of Willibrord or Liudger.

Dr. Laur continues with a synthesis of the valuable arguments that Dr. Krogmann contributed as early as 1942 (“Die heilige Insel”) and which, in my opinion, have decided the question [54] entirely in favour of Helgoland. In the first place the reason which made Th. Siebs think that the island had to be looked for in the western areas of Frisia, viz. that it was hardly possible for Redbad to have reigned as far as the red cliffs, is no longer valid, since we accepted the king’s name as an interpolation. Secondly — and this constitutes a positive argument — Altfried says that Liudger wanted to work beyond the limits of his diocese when he went to Fositesland, so that, also taking into account that Willehad occupied the rest of the country as far as Hadeln, no island off the southern coast of the North Sea deserves consideration. Finally it is put forward that all discrepancies in the account by Adam of Bremen can be explained by assuming that this author mixed up his notes on Helgoland and the Faroer (= Farria). The argument in favour of the former island can be made stronger still by identifying it with Abalus or Basileia, the mysterious centre of the amber trade. This aspect has not been omitted by Dr. Laur, while also attention should be given to the fine summing up by Prof. Schwarz.

From several pronouncements by ancient authors, collected by Pliny, we can deduce that the island must be looked for to the north of Baunonia (= Borkum) and in the neighbourhood of the Teutons who, together with their subtribe of the Ambrones, occupied the west coast of the Jutish peninsula. Abalus means “apple-land” and seems to be identical with Avalon, the Elysium, while Basileia = “royal island”.

Now the saga mentions a close parallel to Baldr and his son Fosite: Gudmundr who reigns in Glasisvellir, where sickness is unknown. This points to an Elysium, decorated with amber (cf. Glesiae). His son is Hofundr, the best judge of all, i.e. the judge of the underworld.

If we try to assemble all these scattered elements to something more concrete, what emerges is that it was believed that there existed an island, dedicated to the king of the underworld, heavy with amber and a symbol of immortality. This island must have been Helgoland.

[55] Baldr and Forseti both mean “lord” and they are closely related to Freyr, son of Niord or husband of Nerthus. Thus we find in Helgoland a kind of counterpart to the famous island of the earth-goddess in the Baltic, taking us back to very ancient times. {It would not even be unreasonable to conceive of the former island as the centre of an amphictyony worshipping Ing-Freyr, i.e. the Inguaeones who — as we saw chapter I:4 — are identical with the Chaucian tribes, among them the Saxons in Dithmarschen.}

Some authors think of a distribution of ideas by megalithic missionaries, while, in my opininon, among other possibilities even a direct import from Mycenaean Greece need not be excluded. The discrepancy between the names of the god as given by the hagiographs (Fosite etc.) and by the Nordic sources (Forseti) is still difficult to explain: it is quite easy to understand how a no longer intelligible Fosite may have become Forseti, but an inverse evolution is not rational.

Though I agree with Dr. Krogmann that linguistic rules do not permit of an identification of Fosite and Poseidon, it must be said that otherwise many similarities can be observed. The Greek name has been analysed as Posi-das = husband of the earth-goddess (cf. Demeter), so that we need no longer think of a stem pet- = to stream (cf. potamos). In Mycenaean times the god still entirely eclipsed Zeus — the Peloponnesus as a whole, for instance, was considered his property; he is the original lord of the Tartarus and as such will have been judge of the dead. Like Fosite he is worshipped in the neighbourhood of bubbling springs.

3

[56] At the philological congress in 1962 two contributions dealt with the Lex Frisionum. N.E. Algra gave expression to a criticism that, in my opinion, is somewhat exaggerated. He does not believe that the Frisians possessed a common law, because the Lex gives different provisions for the three divisions of Frisia. This is of course true, but only to a certain degree, and it seems more realistic to say that the law of the central district was, with some variations, also valid in the parts between Sincfal and Flie and between Lauwers and Weser, than to declare the three divisions different in essence. I think, moreover, that we may assume that the divisions are Frisian in origin and not due to the phases of the Frankish conquest, for in the latter case it would not be easy to explain the identical elevation of the status of the nobility in either outer district, a phenomenon that becomes quite rational if we regard the region between Flie and Lauwers as the cradle of the nation, from which conquest took them to Sincfal and Weser. The author mentions also the institution of the asega, which is familiar to Frisia citerior; the function may also be found in other regions more to the east, but it must be maintained that the name is purely Frisian and as such probably a reminiscence of the occupation by that tribe.

Dr. Krogmann considers once again the origin of the Lex and reaches a conclusion that lies between those of Ph. Heck on the one and the majority on the other hand: whereas the former believes that the Lex was noted down at Aachen as a codification of law being in force and the latter thinks that it is mainly a compilation of various specimina of royal activity in the field of legislature, Dr. Krogmann is inclined to see the text as an “im Auftrage des Kaisers geleistete Vorarbeit zu einer geplanten, aber nicht verwirklichten Kodifizierung des friesischen Rechts”. The crucial titles are the numbers V and XI (Add. Sap.), which both contain pagan conceptions. The former speaks of those who can be killed without retribution and among them is mentioned [57] “infans ab utero sublatus et enecatus a matre”; this is followed by the words: “Et si hoc quaelibet foemina fecerit, leudem suam Regi componat, et si negaverit cum V iuret”. The latter threatens the violator of the temple with castration and immolation “in sabulo quod accessus maris operire solet”, as described in the Vita Wulframni. It is difficult to explain these texts as being in force under the Emperor and I think therefore that Dr. Krogmann’s interpretation is very plausible. An attractive emendation is that of “et enecatus a matre” into: “nec altus a matre”, so that in the second paragraph of title V we may observe an attempt by the central government to mitigate this pagan custom by restricting it to the father of the child and excluding the elder ladies of the family who — as the Vita Liudgeri shows — also used to claim this privilege. Another instance of this adaptation of pagan manners is to be found in title XIV, where the ancient method of leaving the decision to the gods — cf. the Vitae Willibrordi and Willehadi — has been christianized by marking the lots with the sign of the cross and putting them on the altar. The author’s attempts to find Frisicisms in words in the Germanic idiom that are sprinkled throughout the Lex have convinced me less.

4

Now that we have reached the end of our expositions it seems justified to say something of the Carolingian era.

More than once the duchy of Frisia is mentioned, for instance in the various treaties by which the Empire was divided, but it is generally assumed that this has only a geographical meaning and [58] does not prove the continued existence of Frisia as a political entity.

In later times we may observe a somewhat raised status of the bishop of Utrecht in comparison with the other feudal dynasts in his neighbourhood, for instance Holland and Guelders, and it has been thought sometimes that this phenomenon constitutes a reminiscence of the duke of Frisia, but there are also other explanations that can be put forward: we may think of a privilege for the Ricfrieds who drove the Danes from Utrecht or for the Everhards who may have been in command of the delta region. There are probably several reasons why Frisia did not share in the revival of the tribal conception, which otherwise is characteristic of the later Carolingian era; among them the curious geographical situation of the former kingdom and the existence of a “Frisian Normandy” during the decisive decades must have been of importance.

-

The fate of the royal family is not known; it is not even clear whether the duke Poppo who fought against Charles Martel in the heart of Frisia proper did belong to it or whether he had been elected for the occasion.

Among the early counts of Holland the name of Redbad is not unknown, but it is, in my opinion, too common to justify conclusions. The founder of the family, Gerolf, can perhaps be connected with an earlier bearer of that name who received royal possessions at “Cammingehunderi” in Westergo (839); the appellation of the place may point to a Frankish garrison and its commander.

Later traditions have turned two bishops of Utrecht, Frederik “van Adelen” and Redbad (899—917), into descendants of the Frisian king, but this claim is entirely spurious.

A new approach may have been found by those who think Theodswinth, the wife of a count Ebroin near Cleves, to have been identical with the princess of that name who originally had been given in marriage to Grimoald.

[59] With regard to Frisia proper considerable material is to be gathered from the registers of the monasteries at Fulda and Werden, the most important of them being the donation by Folker (855), which was already mentioned in chapter I:1. It is remarkable to see how the possessions of this man reach from the pagi of Betuwe and Veluwe on the one hand, to N. Holland and the pagi of Westergo and Humsterland on the other: he must have been the son of a member of one of the great families between Rhine and Meuse and a Frisian mother. In this connection it is worth notice that the counts Gerhard and Alfdag also had interests in the same village in Westergo (Hieslum) and a count Deodred in Humsterland, so that we find here the traces of a great Frisian family that flourished on both sides of the Lauwers.

Another important family is that of Reginhild who married Theoderic, a nobleman of the blood of the Saxon duke Widukind; of her kinsman Reginbert it is recorded that he had possessions in Westergo, while his son Gerbert is appointed to the post of “advocatus” for Fulda’s property in Frisia (945). (I cannot agree with C. Woebcken that count Deodred must be identical with Theoderic who became the father of the German queen Mathilde.) Perhaps this Saxon family constituted the bridge by which finally the counts of Brunswick gained firm ground in West Frisia, one of the intermediaries being Egbert “unioculus”, son of Wichman Billung and another daughter of Reginhild, who may have been count of Sudergo in 966.

-

Frisian liberty, as appearing after the eleventh century, has been attributed to different causes; one of the most essential has been indicated by B.H. Slicher van Bath who stresses the “urban” character of the districts between Flie and Weser, which by their density of population, their trade and their cloth-industry (“pallia fresonica”) stand out from the still entirely agrarian diluvium. Their wealth made it possible for the Frisians to pay taxes in money and cloth and thus prevented a rise of the feudal system. [60] Our Dark-Age period showed already clearly this economic superiority of the Frisian country; cf chapter III:1.

According to the author “it is most probable that in the early middle ages the demographic centre of the Netherlands was to be found in the Frisian terp districts”; in the Occident only regions like Paris, Liege and Cologne had a higher density!

Conclusion, index, maps, addendum

Conclusion

[61] If at this place I try to resume some main features, two complexes can be said to eclipse the rest.

In the first place we have got the problem of the genesis of the Frisian tribe viewed in the light of the new conceptions of the origin and expansion of the Germanic nations as a whole.

Prof. Waterbolk has demonstrated that the Frisians descended from the diluvium of Drenthe into the area of Westergo about 500 B.C. To-day, however, the two districts differ greatly from each other on a variety of scores: physical and psychological character of the population, idiom, social and economic system, type of the farmsteads etc. Most of these phenomena may be (and probably are) secondary, but, in my opinion, this does not go for the place-names: Drenthe possesses a majority of toponyms of the prehistoric type and it is difficult to understand how immigrants from these parts, which about 500 B.C. were still far from the Germanic area, could have imported the names on -werd, -ens and -um which are so characteristic of Westergo.

I see only three possibilities to solve the problem:

1. The “terps” have been nameless for about 500 years and have been baptized in the Roman Age, when the idiom had already assumed a Germanic character. Psychologically I do not think this thesis very strong.
2. The Frisians used Drenthe only as a temporary basis, but came originally from the Lower Weser, i.e. from the periphery of what then could be called Germania. In this case we must presume the names on -werd, -ens and -um to have been of prehistoric times — which is not easy —, while on the archaeological level things also become rather difficult.
3. Thus it seems most obvious to accept Dr. Gysseling’s thesis that the toponyms have been introduced during the Dark Ages and [62] with it the consequences that I described at the end of chapter II:2. In short, I think we cannot yet say definitely whether the characteristics that now distinguish the Frisian tribe are original, entirely secondary or due to an ethnic mutation during the era of the Saxon invasions.

A second, perhaps more concrete, salient point is the further development of the conception of a North Sea koine.

This “commonwealth” comes into being during the fifth century, when from an area on both sides of the Lower Elbe cruciform brooches and Perlberg pottery find their way to Frisia, England and, moreover, to the West of Scandinavia. From the subcontinent the Danes descend to the isles and the peninsula and the sagas of this conquest again connect the North, Frisia and England.

During the sixth century the Swedes succeed the Goths as leading power and their influence can be traced as far as Norway, East Anglia and the ornaments of Frisia. Austria now begins to play its part in Kent, where the Jutish phase is superseded by the Frankish one, while the Merovingian coins of Frisia also testify to its importance.

The next century witnesses the climax of this evolution, particularly in the two areas where Austria touches the North Sea koine, viz. Kent and Frisia. The latter kingdom now contributes in a positive way to the developments by its intensivation of the northern trading route, which unites the Swedish heartland with the whole. Brooches like that from Wynaldum and the coinage of sceattas bespeak close relations with Kent and East Anglia.

This, then, is the context which enables us to appreciate the unique position of Dark-Age Frisia in its second phase, under the kings Eadgils and Redbad. This, also, is the background to further investigations.

Index I

[63] alphabetical list of authors, mentioned in the references [with note nr.]

• N.E. Algra: Wat verstond en wat verstaat men onder Oudfries recht? (Philologia Frisica 1962) [76]
• P. Berghaus: Die merowingischen Trienten von Altenwalde. (Die Kunde 12, 1961, 43-62) [62]
• D.P. Blok: Toponymics and the settlement history of the western Netherlands. (VI. Kongress für Namenforschung 1958, Bd. II) [7]
• Idem: Werina of Werthina? (It Beaken 23, 1967, 231-33) [5]
• Idem: Het immuniteitsdiploma van Koning Pippijn I voor de St. Maartenskerk te Utrecht. (Tijdschr. voor Gesch. 75, 1962, 40-43) [51]
• P.C.J.A. Boeles: De handel van Groter-Friesland met Frankrijk in de Merovingische tijd. (Bijdr. Gesch. Nederl. 8, 1954, 237-50) [50]
• Idem: De inheemse runen-inscripties uit Friesland en Groningen. (Oudheidk. Meded. Leiden 35, 1954, 18-32) [56]
• W.J. de Boone and J. Ypey in: Antiquity and Survival 2, 1959, 198-211 (Rhenen) [8]
• W.C. Braat in: Oudheidk. Meded. Leiden 37, 1956, 82-91 (Monster) [8]
• W.J. Buma: Frieslands runeninscripties. (1957) [58]
• R.W.V. Elliott: Runes, Yews, and Magic. (Speculum 32, 1957, 250-61) [57]
• W.A. van Es in: Palaeohistoria 10, 1964 (Wageningen) [8]
• Th. Frings: Grundlegung einer Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. (1957) [21]
• A.E. van Giffen: Die frühgeschichtlichen Marschensiedlungen, die “Terpen” oder Warfen. (Jahrb. der Manner vom Morgenstern 36, 1955, 7-19) [29]
• M. Gysseling: Het oudste Fries. (It Beaken 24, 1962, 1-26) [1]
• Idem: Het chronologisch probleem bij de jong-prehistorische en vroeg-middeleeuwse nederzettingsnamen. (Meded. Veren. Naamk. 41, 1965, 90-97) [35]
• W. Haarnagel: Die Flachabdeckungen auf der Wurt Hessens am Jadebusen bei Wilhelmshaven und ihr vorlaiufiges Ergebnis. (Germania 29, 1951, 223-25) [16]
• Idem: Die früthgeschichtliche Handelssiedlung Emden und ihre Entwicklung bis ins Mittelalter. (Friesisches Jahrbuch 1955, 9-78) [17]
• Idem: Die spatbronze-, früheisenzeitliche Gehöftsiedlung Jemgum bei Leer auf dem linken Ufer der Ems. (Die Kunde 8, 1957, 2-44) [11]
• Idem: Neue Ergebnisse der Vor- und Frühgeschichtsforschung in Ostfriesland. (Philologia Frisica 1959) [10]
• Idem: Die einheimische frühgeschichtliche und mittelalterliche Keramik aus den Wurten “Hessens” und ,,Emden” und ihre zeitliche Gliederung. (Praehistor. Zeitschr. 37, 1959, 41-56) [25]
• Idem: Probleme der Siedlungsforschung im Küstengebiet zwischen Elbe und Weser in der Spatlatönezeit. (Jahrb. der Manner vom Morgenstern 42, 1961, 74-85) [14]
• Idem: Die Grabung Feddersen Wierde. (Zeitschr. für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 10, 7962, 145-57) [13]
• Idem: Die niedersachsische Landesstelle für Marschen- und Wurtenforschung in Wilhelmshaven. (Nachr. aus Niedersachsens Urgesch. 32, 1963, 3-33) [10]
• R. Hachmann - G. Kossack - H. Kubn: Vilker zwischen Germanen und Kelten. (1962) [18]
• H. Halbertsma: Terponderzoek tussen Flie en Eems, gedurende de jaren 1947-57. (Friesisches Jahrbuch 1958, 82-88) [32]
• Idem: De cultuur van het noordelijk kustgebied. (Antiquity and Survival 2, 1959, 178-97) [32]
• Idem: It Beaken 1961, 45-51 and 1962, 68-69 (Werina) [4]
• C.F.C. Hawkes: The Jutes of Kent. (Dark-Age Britain, 1956) [38]
• K. Heeroma: Friese dialectologie. (Philologia Frisica 1959) [24]
• P.V. Hill: Anglo-Saxon and Frisian sceattas in the light of Frisian hoards and site-finds. (Jaarb. voor Munt- en Penning. 41, 1954, 11-18) [63]
• Idem: Two hoards of sceattas from the province of Groningen. (Jaarb. voor Munt- en Penningk. 42, 1955, 104-5) [63]
• O. Höfler: Der Sakralcharakter des germanischen KGnigtums. (Vortrige und Forschungen 3, 1956) [71]
• D. Hofmann: Die Sprache der Nordfriesen und ihre alten Wohnsitze. (Philologia Frisica 1959) [6]
• G.C. Homans: The Frisians in East Anglia. (Economic History Review 1957-58, 189-206) [37]
• J.A. Huisman: Sueven en Zeeuwen. (Westerheem 11, 1962, 59-60) [48]
• J. Huizinga: Anthropologische beschouwing n.a.v. enige skeletvondsten uit het begin der jaartelling in Westergo (Fr.). (Berichten R. O. B. 5, 1954, 50-56) [31]
• H. Jankubn: Der frankisch-friesische Handel zur Ostsee im frühen Mittelalter. (Vierteljschr. für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 40, 1953, 193-243) [54]
• Idem: Zum Stierkopf aus der Terp Huizum, Prov. Friesland. (Vrije Fries 41, 1953, 46-62) [69]
• Idem: Zur Frage der friesischen Einwanderung in Nordfriesland. (Philologia Frisica 1959) [6]
• Idem: Das Abendland und der Norden. (Das erste Jahrtausend, 1964, 821-47) [54]
• B. Jansen: cf. J. Lafaurie.
• P. Jörgensen: Das Problem der Ingwaonen. (Philologia Frisica 1956) [23]
• G. Kossack: cf. R. Hachmann.
• W. Krogmann: Zur Frage der friesischen Runeninschriften. (Estrikken 2, 1953) [55]
• Idem: Forsite und Poseidon. (It Beaken 16, 1954, 42-49) [75]
• Idem: Entstehung und Eigenart der Lex Frisionum. (Philologia Frisica 1962) [77]
• H. Kubn: Zur Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen. (Zeitschr. für deutsch. Altert, u. Lit. 86, 1955-6, 1-47) [22]
• Idem: cf. R. Hachmann.
• J. Lafaurie, B. Jansen, A. N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta: Le trésor de Wieuwerd. (Oudheidk. Meded. Leiden 42, 1961, 78-107) [61]
• W. Laur: Fositesland und die Bernsteininsel. (Zs. Schlesw.-Holstein. Gesch. 74-75, 1951, 416-44) [73]
• Idem: Die Heldensage vom Finnsburgkampf. (Zeitschr. für deutsch, Altert. u. Lit. 85, 1954-5, 107-36) [43]
• T. C. Lethbridge: The Anglo-Saxon settlement in Eastern England, in: Dark-Age Britain, ed. by D. B. Harden. (1956) [36]
• F.P. Magoun: The geography of Hygelac’s raid... (English Studies 34, 1953, 160-63) [46]
• S.S. Mensonides: Een 7e-ecuws gouden sieraad uit de dorpswierde van Ezinge. (Gron. Volksalmanak 1958, 117-23) [68]
• R.L.S. Bruce Mitford in: 126e Verslag Friesch Genootschap, 1954 (Wynaldum) [67]
• J.F. Niermeyer: Het Midden-Nederl. rivierengebied in de Frankische tijd. (Tijdschr. voor Gesch. 66, 1953, 145-69) [2]
• W. Reinhardt: Die Grabung auf der Dorfwarf von Groothusen, Kreis Norden, und ihre Ergebnisse. (Emder Jahrbuch 39, 1959, 20-36) [17]
• A. Roes: A travers les collections archéologiques de 1a Hollande, II: Deux fibules annulaires saxonnes trouvées dans le Nord de la Hollande. (Berichten R. O. B. 4, 2, 1953, 28-30) [64]
• Idem: Les trouvailles de Dombourg, Zélande. (Berichten R.O.B. 5, 1954, 65-69) [66a]
• Idem: Les quatre fibules arquées de Dombourg, Zélande. (Berichten R.O.B. 6, 1955, 77-78) [66b]
• [A. Russchen: My own contributions are to be found in notes 3, 4, 19, 39, 44 and 49.]
• R. Schindler in: Praehistor. Zeitschr. 37, 1959, 57-71 (Hamburg) [26]
• W. Schlesinger: Ueber germanischen Heerkönigtum. (Vortrage und Forschungen 3, 1956) [71]
• P. Schmid: Die Holzplastik aus der Wurt Hessens im Kulturbild des 7. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts. (Nachr. aus Niedersachsens Urgesch. 24, 1955, 32-49) [16]
• Idem: Die vorrömische Eisenzeit im norwestdeutschen Küstengebiet. (Probleme der Küstenforschung 6, 1957) [12]
• Idem in: Die Kunde 15, 1964 (report on the XVth Symposion at Oxford, April 1964) [40]
• H. Schmidt: Studien zur Geschichte der friesischen Freiheit im Mittelalter. (Emder Jahrb. 43, 1963, 5-78) [72]
• E. Schwarz: Goten, Nordgermanen, Angelsachsen. (1951) [42]
• Idem: Germanische Stammeskunde. (1956) 42, [74]
• P. Sipma: Een Angelsaksische invasie in Friesland? (It Beaken 15, 1953, 162-86) [30]
• Idem: Eat oer Fryske runen. (Fryske stidzjes J. H. Brouwer, 1960) [59]
• B.H. Slicher van Bath: The economic and social conditions in the Frisian districts from 900 to 1500. (A. A. G. Bijdragen Wageningen 13, 1965) [80]
• F. Tischler: Der Stand der Sachsenforschung, archiologisch gesehen. (35. Bericht der röm.-germ. Kommission, 1956) [9]
• K. Waller: Die Anfange einer friesischen Besiedlung im Lande Wursten und auf der angrenzenden Geest. (Jahrb. der Manner vom Morgenstern 42, 1961, 125-29) [28]
• G. Walser: Caesar und die Germanen. (1956) [20]
• H.T. Waterbolk: Een 8e-ceuwse urn uit Marum (Gr.) (Gron. Volksalmanak 1958, 125-26) [27]
• Idem: Beschouwingen n.a.v. de opgravingen te Tritsum, gem. Franekeradeel. (It Beaken 23, 1967, 216-26) [33]
• J. Werner: Bügelfibeln des 6. Jh. aus Domburg, Zeeland. (Berichten R.O.B. 6, 1955, 75-77) [65]
• D. Whitelock: The audience of Beowulf. (1951) [45]
• C. Woebcken: Die vier Grafschaften Frieslands nach Ablauf der Normannenzeit. (Vrije Fries 43, 1957, 100-104) [79]
• J. Ypey: cf. W. J. de Boone.
• Idem: Eine Riemenzunge ... und ein Steigbügelfragment von Huizum, Prov. Friesland. (Berichten R. O. B. 12-13, 1962-3, 177-86) [70]
• A.N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta in: Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde 47, 1960, 94-96 (Midlum). [60]
• Idem: Looking back at “Frisians, Franks and Saxons”. (Bulletin Vereniging t.b.v. kennis antieke beschaving 36, 7961, 41-58) [53]
• Idem: cf J. Lafaurie.

Maps

[1. “Frisia Citerior”; 2. “West Frisia”; 3. “East Frisia”; 4. “Frisia beyond the Weser”]

Addendum

[73] In my preface I wrote that January 1965 constituted the limit of my efforts, as it was hardly possible to register and discuss literature being published or about to be published while I was writing, and even in the spring of 1966, when I had finished my manuscript, it was still too early to survey the year that had just gone by. As, however, the publication of this little book has been held up somewhat by several circumstances, I have taken the opportunity of trying to heighten its usefulness by adding some notes on important studies issued in 1965. I cannot claim for this last year the same degree of completeness that I at least aimed at in my description of the harvest of the preceding period, because even now in several cases the volume from 1965 was not yet available. With these restrictions this survey of literature on Dark-Age Frisia may now be said to extend to January 1966, thus covering the whole of the fifteen years that have gone by since the appearance of Mr. Boeles’s great work.

Chapter I:3.

W. Haarnagel: Die Untersuchung einer spatbronze-, altereisenzeitlichen Siedlung in Boomborg-Hatzum, Kr. Leer, in den Jahren 1963 und 1964 und ihr vorlaufiges Ergebnis. (Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 2, 1965).

Dr. Haarnagel says here that Hatzum is about synchronous with Jemgum and that the pottery from both sites — and, as I should like to add from the preceding contribution by D. Zoller, from Gristede and Querenstede in Central Oldenburg — belongs to the horizon of Dötlingen and Ruinen-Wommels; this style therefore seems to have covered the entire marginal area between sand and clay from Weser to Flie. Dötlingen can perhaps be defined as undecorated Nienburg.

It seems to me that these developments give more scope for speculations about the proto-Frisian homeland, though Drenthe [74] is, of course, still very much the likeliest candidate from a geographical point of view.

P. Schmid: Die Keramik des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. im Küstengebiet der südlichen Nordsee. (Probleme der Küstenforschung 8, 1965).

This study is a sequel to the one mentioned in note 12, which dealt with the pre-Roman era. The fundamental division by the Weser in a western section, dominated by Frisian ware, and an eastern one, is fully corroborated. The eastern group, in the Iron Age no more than a division of Jastorf, now develops together with Dithmarschen into Prof. Tischler’s “Westgruppe”, distinguished from the continental Longobards; cf. also chapter II:1.

W. Reinhardt: Studien zur Entwicklung des landlichen Siedlungsbildes in den Seemarschen der ostfries. Westküste. (Probleme der Küstenforschung 8, 1965).

While in 1959 Dr. Haarnagel (cf. note 15) was still very sure of a continuous occupation of the Krummhörn, he expressed himself in a more cautious vein in 1963 (cf. the second publication mentioned in note 10). Now Dr. Reinhardt says plainly that with regard to East Frisia we must reckon with a gap in settlement during the Dark Ages. This conclusion makes the question of the way in which the country between Ems and Weser changed from the Chaucian to the Frisian name not easier and may also constitute an argument for those who believe in a hiatus of the ethnic pattern in West Frisia.

Chapter I:4.

K. Heeroma: Wat is Ingweoons? (Tijdschr. voor Nederl. taal- en letterkunde 81, 1965, 1-15).

Prof. Heeroma develops a new theory about the origin of the phenomenon of Inguaeonism. In his eyes the area from Flanders to the Jutish peninsula does not constitute a linguistic focus in the positive sense of the word; but it is merely a backward region, [75] where people spoke slovenly, dropping their n’s and assibilating their k’s, in the same way as in English comedy the butler drops his aitches. The original common West Germanic idiom was maintained better by the Franks who, to sustain the metaphor, spoke the King’s English.

Chapter II:1.

A. Genrich: Zur Geschichte der Altsachsen auf dem Kontinent. / F. Tischler: Neue Literatur zur Sachsenforschung. (Die Kunde 16, 1965).

These contributions to the XVIth Symposion at Oldenburg (1965) reflect the latest state of affairs with regard to the study of the continental Saxons.

Dr. Genrich, one of the leading representatives of continental “Sachsenforschung”, describes the Frisians as a Saxon subtribe, to be compared with, for instance, the Angrivarii of Engern.

Chapter II:3.

V.I. Evison: The Fifth-Century Invasions South of the Thames (1965).

The “Frankish” theory with regard to Kent here returns with more vigour than ever before. I have not read the book myself, because of the reviews by Prof. Tischler (Germania 43, 1965) and Prof. Hawkes (Medieval Arch. 9, 1965).

The latter, who according to his paper mentioned in note 38 takes a positive stand with respect to the “Frankish” conception as a whole, concludes his notice of the book with the words:

We must learn to laugh and live with it, and not forget that it has things for us to ponder.

(Concluded July 1966.)