History of the Franks : Interactions between Frisians and Chatti or Chauci ?

[Olivier]

Hello Laura, all

I’d like to share a few thoughts and questions regarding the piece about the history of the Franks, and also regarding my own reaction in handling those questions.

While working on the proofreading of the French translation of the wave book four, in the part pertaining to the history of the franks (chapter 32), I noticed a name substitution in the French version from the original English text. (The French version mentions a contact / fusion between the Frisian tribe and the Hattuarii tribe, while the original version mentions it between the Frisian tribe and the Chatti tribe).

Since the substitution was repeated (4 times) and consistent, I wondered if the initial translator had noticed a mistake and corrected it, and in order to clarify this, I checked the sources (Plinus the Elder and Tacitus). I found a French translation for each, with references to the Latin name, and the result I found was, unexpectedly, a third different tribe : the Chauci tribe !
I must also add that I already worked on this part while working on the French translation of 9/11, but since no substitution took place with that translation, I didn’t notice the point and didn’t investigate the Roman references.

I’d also like to make clear this doesn’t mean that the Chatti / Hittite connexion is not relevant here, because some historians include Chatti in the Frankish coalition anyway, and all those names are close enough (and confused enough both in time and space due to moving reality of Germanic tribes at the time, and perhaps to the limited understanding by Roman sources of the dynamics of German tribes outside the Empire : Tacitus and Plinus descriptions of the Chauci are completely opposite, Tacitus describing a proud and powerful tribe, while Plinus described a helpless and miserable people), but following the thread leading to this connexion gave me a real hard time and it’s not over yet. I’m still struggling to get a general idea of this mess of tribes through those troubled ages.

Perhaps what is lacking for me to make these connexions is an access to the archaeological data and the works of Kerst Huisman, mentioned in this chapter, but I could only find some of those online in the Frisian language, which I can’t understand !

So my question is : do you think digging deeper into this piece of history is part of the job of proofreading, or is it mostly a waste of time due to some programs of mine (perfectionist program for instance) ?

Now thinking of this question led me to observe my inner reactions, which I think I should also share here too.

First, the reasons I see to go deeper into this : as far as I’m concerned, digging like this is something I find very exciting. My deep feeling about it is that I am really doing some share of struggling to uncover the Truth and see things as they really are, and I really enjoy doing all this difficult searches for old references and learning so much searching around for clues. My sentiment is one of harmony between the general aim of the activity (helping others gets the knowledge in their available language) and the intellectual satisfaction of piecing the puzzle together. This is an harmony I no longer find in my professional activity, where the general aim of the activity (cost cutting and ever-growing profits for the shareholders at the expense of the customers) is essentially in conflict with my own views, and no amount of intellectual satisfaction can make this disappear.

When I speak of the intellectual satisfaction of piecing the puzzle together, perhaps I should describe a bit more the way it feels : it starts with my being really uncomfortable with a reasoning I can’t understand, and checking the sources and the validity of the reasoning seems the right thing to do, science-wise. One of the temptation is too discard it altogether, but I have also learned from previous translation work of this material that the connexions are surprisingly relevant, even if hard to catch at first sight. But that in itself is probably not enough to spend a lot of time sorting out one tiny sentence in the whole chapter.

However, when future readers are taken into account, I think checking the facts, clarifying the difficult steps of the reasoning and avoiding mistakes can help a lot : preventing open readers from discarding the information as too difficult or erroneous (however partly) is a service to them, and the idea of proposing yhem raw data with a lot to sort out on their own makes me feel a bit like a fraud. I feel it’s against basic honesty.

Now the reason I can see to stop right now and go on with the proofreading, without additional research on the tribes :
This drive to dig deeper could well be a “perfectionist” program of mine, an incapacity to focus on the larger view and to let go minor details. My scientific education is screaming the other way (“the devil is in the details”, “consistency matters”, and so on…), and I tend to value it because it was a real hard work for me to learn scientific rigor. But at the same time, since this “set of scientific values” was so foreign to me in the first place, and is the result of years of conditioning, I can’t trust my objectivity in deciding this, and that’s why I have these doubts regarding the time I should spend on this.

And, last but not least, just by doing this self-observation, I may just be spotting another program of mine : sharing my feeling that this chapter is difficult to follow, or that the way the reasoning is presented is not quite clear to me, is something that makes me ill-at-ease. What I suspect here is the predator's mind involved. It may well be the main reason why I thought going on with it could be a waste of time: a “rather put it under the rug than show that this part is difficult for me, or worse, than appear to be critical (even if in a positive way, or so I hope) on non-essential matters” program.

So here again, I don’t trust my own objectivity in these matters, so I guess I could use a little feedback on it too (before posting this, I had this inner talking going on and on endlessly, with no way to reach a conclusion or course of action. Doing some pipe breathing was helping in calming this inner talking down, but not really conclusive as to what course of action to take).

Thanks a lot and regards.

 

[Laura]

Well, let's look at the background of the problem:

The Chauci were a populous Germanic tribe that inhabited the extreme northwestern shore of Germany between Frisia in the west and the Elbe estuary in the east. Their name derives from Proto-Germanic *xabukaz, "hawk" (German: Habicht).
[edit]

The Chauci, like the Frisii, inhabited terpen, artificial mounds raised above the large floodplains of their region, which served to protect their farms from the floods of the North Sea. Their way of life was unfamiliar to the Romans, who found it mystifying. A lively, first hand account is delivered by Pliny the Elder, who writes that the Chauci lived by fishing and hunting. Archeological evidence, however, shows that Pliny isn't quite accurate, since the Chauci also raised cattle and supported cavalry-troops.

The Chauci, according to Tacitus, were highly respected among Germanic tribes. He also describes them as peaceful, calm, and levelheaded, despite the reports in the Annales of piracy.
[edit] History

The political position of the Chauci, early in the 1st century, was essentially a pro-Roman one. They provided, for instance, auxiliaries during the second campaign of Germanicus against the Cherusci. The evidence for this is not just the description of Tacitus, but also finds of typical equestrian paraphernalia near the Praetorium on the Kops-plateau near Oppidum Batavorum (Nijmegen), which served as the Roman headquarters in Germania Inferior.

The first known map of Ireland, made by the Greek geographer Ptolemy, shows a people called the Cauci living in the eastern part of Ireland during the first or second century AD. Identification with the Chauci has long been argued but is not universally accepted.[citation needed]

In 41 AD the third missing Aquila (Roman) from Varus Defeat in 9 AD was recovered by Publius Gabinius from the Chauci

In 47 the Chauci, with the Frisii raided Germania Inferior, led by Gannascus, a Canninefat and deserter from the legions. They used small boats to raid the coast of Gaul (Belgica) but were defeated by Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. Corbulo in turn started plotting against Gannascus, who was ultimately killed. This however, led to great unrest amongst the Chauci and the situation was about to escalate when Corbulo was ordered by Claudius to retreat behind the Rhine River, which was subsequently declared the border of the Roman Empire.

During the Batavian Rebellion in 69, detachments of Frisii and Chauci fought on the side of Julius Civilis.

By the end of the 3rd century CE, they had merged with the Saxons. Whether this conjunction was amicable or forced is not clear.

The Chauci also appear in the poem Beowulf as "Hugas" where they form a lieger together with the Frankish Chattuarii (Hetwaras) and the Frisians to fight against a Geatish raiding force. The Geats are defeated and their king Hygelac is killed, Beowulf alone escaping.

[edit] Bibliography

P. Cornelius Tacitus, de situ et origine germanorum. XXXV.
P. Cornelius Tacitus, annales, XI 18-19, XIII 55.
P. Cornelius Tacitus, historiae IV 79, V 19.
Gaius Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Historia, XVI, 2-4.

This article incorporates some information taken from _http://www.hostkingdom.net/ with permission.

I checked this last link to see if there was anything more enlightening and found that it was a dead link.

So, on the topic of the alleged Chauci, we seem to have only Tacitus and Pliny as witnesses (and possibly Ptolemy, though he has them in Ireland). The wikipedia article above is very short on citations... so obviously, we need to look further and deeper.

Most of what is on the net references wikipedia!!! I did find a possible here:
_http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=B8E2423E2B8FD74D753F553E9F67B8C9.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=3757816 but someone with access will have to get it.

Hopefully, some of you will dig on this and find out if this tribe is real, made-up, mis-named, or what.

Now, turning to the topic of the Chatti:

The Chatti (also Chatthi or Catti) were an ancient Germanic tribe whose homeland was near the upper Weser.[1] They settled in central and northern Hesse and southern Lower Saxony, along the upper reaches of the Weser River and in the valleys and mountains of the Eder, Fulda and Weser River regions, a district approximately corresponding to Hesse-Kassel, though probably somewhat more extensive. According to Tacitus [2], among them were the Batavians, until an internal quarrel drove them out, to take up new lands at the mouth of the Rhine.


[edit] Sources

While Julius Caesar was well informed about the regions and tribes on the eastern banks of the Rhine, he never mentions the Chatti. The first ancient writer to do so is Strabo, some time after 16 AD, who includes the Chatti in a listing of "poorer Germanic tribes" that had previously fought the Romans.[3] For the first century AD, we are quite well informed about the Chatti, mostly thanks to Tacitus, who provides important information about the Chatti's part in the Germanic wars and certain elements of their culture. After the early 3rd century AD, however, the Chatti virtually disappear from the sources and are only called upon as a topical element or when writing about events of the 1st century. Cassius Dio is most likely not only the first author to mention the Alamanni but also the last one to record an actual historical appearance of the Chatti. Writing about the Germanic war of Caracalla in 213 AD, he has the emperor fight "Κέννους, Kελτικòν έθνος" ("the Kenni, a Celtic people").[4] However, this is taken from an excerpt of Dio in the writings of Joannes Xiphilinus, whereas the Fragmenta Valesiana actually refer to the same people as "Chattoi".[5] The usage of "Kελτικòς" for Germanic peoples was an archaic tradition among Greek writers.
After Cassius Dio, the name "Chattus" appears among others in a panegyric by Sidonius Apollinaris in the late 5th century, now as a poetic synonym for "Germanus".[6] The last[clarification needed] writer to mention the Chatti, if only in a quotation of Sulpicius Alexander describing events of the late 4th century, was Gregory of Tours.[7]
[edit] History

The Chatti successfully resisted incorporation into the Roman Empire, joining the Cheruscan war leader Arminius' coalition of tribes that annihilated Varus' legions in 9 AD in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Germanicus later, in 15, raided their lands in revenge, but Rome eventually responded to the Chatti's belligerent defense of their independence by building the limes border fortifications along the southern boundary of their lands in central Hesse during the early years of the 1st century. A major raid by the Chatti into Germania Superior was defeated decisively by the legions in 50 AD.[8] Roman sources identify the fabled Mattium, beyond the Eder, as the capital of the Chatti. Destroyed by Germanicus, its location is not known today but Niedenstein, Marburg and Maden have also been identified as possible locations.[9]

According to Tacitus in his book Germania (chapter 30), they were disciplined warriors famed for their infantry, who (unusually for Germanic tribes) used trenching tools and carried provisions when at war. Their neighbours to the north were the Usipi and Tencteri.

The Chatti eventually became a branch of the much larger neighboring Franks and were incorporated in the kingdom of Clovis I, probably with the Ripuarians, at the beginning of the 6th century.

In 723, the Anglo-Saxon missionary Winfrid—subsequently called St. Boniface, Apostle of the Germans—proselytizing among the Chatti, felled their sacred tree, Thor's Oak, near Fritzlar, as part of his efforts to compel the conversion of the Chatti and the other northern Germanic tribes to Christianity.

"Chatti" eventually became "Hesse" through a series of sound shifts[citation needed].
[edit] Chasuarii

The Chasuarii were a Germanic tribe mentioned by Tacitus in the Germania. According to him, they dwelt "beyond the Chamavi and Angrivarii", who dwelt on the lower Rhine river. Many, therefore, believe the tribe to have inhabited the modern region of Hannover. Some take the name Chasuarii to mean "dwellers on the Hase [river]", a tributary to the Ems. The 2nd century geographer Claudius Ptolemy mentions that the Kasouarioi lived to the east of the Abnoba mountains, in the vicinity of Hesse. Many historians are of the opinion that the Chasuarii were the same as the people called the Chattuarii mentioned by several authors.
[edit] In popular culture

* The Light Bearer (1994), a historical novel by Donna Gillespie
* Mark of the Lion Series (1993), an historical fiction novel by Francine Rivers. In particular, As Sure as the Dawn

[edit] See also

* Adgandestrius
* Hessians

[edit] References

1. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica Article
2. ^ Histories iv. under 70
3. ^ Strabo, 7.1.3.
4. ^ Cassius Dio, 77.14.1f.
5. ^ Fragmenta Valesiana 377.
6. ^ Sidonius, Carmina 7.388ff. In this poem honouring Avitus, the "Chatt" is restricted by the swampy water of the river Elbe. Cf. Ludwig Rübekeil, Diachrone Studien zur Kontaktzone zwischen Kelten und Germanen, ÖAW, Vienna 2002, pp. 45f.
7. ^ Gregorius Turonenesis, Historia Francorum, 2.9.55.
8. ^ Tacitus, Annales (xii.27)
9. ^ Gerd Bauer, Die Geschichte Hessens, 2002, p. 56

* Wikisource-logo.svg "Chatti". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.

If you look at this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_125.svg

you will see the Frisii, Saxones, Chauci, Chamayi, Cherusci, Chatti in close proximity to one another. Further, if you read "The Origins of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer, http://www.amazon.com/Origins-British-Genetic-Detective-Story/dp/0786718900, you will find that a lot of what we assumed we knew about history based on some of these old writings is wrong. That is probably mainly because of copying confusion.

I have recently come across some material that actually connects the Hittites to the Northern Europeans in a more direct way, that being certain customs of the Hittites as well as passages that are the same in both Homer and the Epic of Gilgamesh which is not explicable by normal cross cultural fertilization. But until I get to volume two, I can't bring all this together. So, for now, it would be helpful if some of you would keep digging, but don't assume that just because a source is ancient, it is correct. There is a lot more to figuring out where the truth lies than just going back to the oldest source available. Sometimes, the oldest sources were ignorant or lying or confused.

 

[Olivier]

Thanks for your quick reply. Just a couple of additions before doing additionnal investigations :

So, on the topic of the alleged Chauci, we seem to have only Tacitus and Pliny as witnesses (and possibly Ptolemy, though he has them in Ireland). The wikipedia article above is very short on citations... so obviously, we need to look further and deeper.

Well, in Ptolemy's Germania, we also have the greater and lesser cauchi, east of the frisii, near the albios and visurgips rivers, respectively (http://www.reshistoriaeantiqua.co.uk/Ptol7.html)

The Chatti eventually became a branch of the much larger neighboring Franks and were incorporated in the kingdom of Clovis I, probably with the Ripuarians, at the beginning of the 6th century.

Claudius Ptolemy mentions that the Kasouarioi lived to the east of the Abnoba mountains, in the vicinity of Hesse. Many historians are of the opinion that the Chasuarii were the same as the people called the Chattuarii mentioned by several authors.

Identifying chattuarii and chasuarii described as living in very close places doesn't seem to be unthinkable, and both doesn't sound far from chatti. The only reason to make a difference here seems to be the difference made by Tacitus who describes them as different in his time.

If you look at this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_125.svg

you will see the Frisii, Saxones, Chauci, Chamayi, Cherusci, Chatti in close proximity to one another. Further, if you read "The Origins of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer, http://www.amazon.com/Origins-British-Genetic-Detective-Story/dp/0786718900, you will find that a lot of what we assumed we knew about history based on some of these old writings is wrong. That is probably mainly because of copying confusion.

I have recently come across some material that actually connects the Hittites to the Northern Europeans in a more direct way, that being certain customs of the Hittites as well as passages that are the same in both Homer and the Epic of Gilgamesh which is not explicable by normal cross cultural fertilization. But until I get to volume two, I can't bring all this together. So, for now, it would be helpful if some of you would keep digging, but don't assume that just because a source is ancient, it is correct. There is a lot more to figuring out where the truth lies than just going back to the oldest source available. Sometimes, the oldest sources were ignorant or lying or confused.

Thanks for your help. It does indeed appear that confusion is the right word in this mess. Most of the data available online is just commentaries about tacitus and ptolemy (I even found a piece from F. Engels about this !). But archaeological sourced data seems to be much more confidential...

 

[einheri-limetree]

Hello! :)

This is my first post and i have trouble with writing in englisch,maybe my means of expression is limited but i think the one or other could be helpful in the trouble with the Chauci :)

The Chauci are to be classified as northsea germanic tribe,some say it could
be a celtic tribe and the chatti are classified as a rhine/weser germanic tribe

I have translated with a onlinetranslator a german quote:

"The early Roman spelling points, that the Romans in the 0th century still
nobody [h, x], but breathed [kh] have belonged, from then [x>h]
became. The Greek spelling with initial <k> corresponds other
to Greek customs, after which with two breathed sounds in one
Word only the second his breath keeps."

Chauci,lat. Chauci (or Chauchi or Kaukhi) is germ. Chauken (or oldhighgermanic Hauhi) and the Name could mean "the higher" (die Hohen oder die Oberen) from the gothic word hauhs (xauxs,xoxs) ,because the people of the Chauci living in the alluvial land on artificial heightened hills or it came from the oldhighgermanic "höh" means hoch/high.

A other possibilty is,Chauken cames from the word/wordroot hauan or in the oldhighgermanic its hauwan or houwan or in modern german hauen,and the meaning has to do with the word "caedere" in latin or with the english "to hew" , to beat someone, to hash ,hitting or with fighting.

" formelles und etymologisches. ahd. hawan, hauwan, howan, houwan; alts. hawan, hauwan; ags. heávan; mhd. mnl. houwen, mittelengl. hewen, neuengl. hew; altn. höggva, schwed. hugga, dän. hugge. "

A other possibility is the word Chauken has to do with the word chauki from the hindi language and has to do with watching,guarding or observe.

The Chauci apply for several writers as a subtribe of the Saxons.A other theory says,that the Chauken was not a subtribe,it was the tribe of the Saxons and later was the split in 2 tribes and this tribes goes different ways or make a diferent development. In roman view,the chauci (Chauken) minores and the chauci (Chauken) maiores.

The travelling chaucis were the chauci minoris and this tribe goes in the western direction and conquered in the first century the areas between the ems and the weser (westtribe,a huge area).Maybe the name Chauci was a later name and only a name for the tribe that goes away.The other tribe or the Chauci maiores remained in the homeland between weser and elbe (easttribe).Interesting,its the position of the saxons and saxa could mean beating,to hew or hitting or sax means knife or has to do with cutting,if we play with the speaking we can make sax to sox and sox to saux,saux to sauchs/sauks,sounds a little bit like chauks ey?
Latter,as the Chauci minores goes away in the northern direction to england as a theory,this area was settled through the Frisians.A little part of the older Population merged in the Frisian tribe and was now Frisians too.

I think,this is a good and simple map : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:GermanenAD50.png (Map of german tribes, 50–100 AD )

 

[Jacques]

Hi einheri-limetree,

Welcome to our forum. :)

We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.