The name of the Germanic tribes is the territory of their settlement. Ancient Germans

German peace terms On January 1, 1918, it was the turn of the Russian delegation to listen to the demands of Germany and its allies. They were tough. No referendums were allowed in the territories they captured. It was believed that the peoples inhabiting them had already expressed their

Introduction

In this work we will touch upon a very interesting and at the same time insufficiently researched topic, such as the social system and economic development ancient Germans. This group of peoples is interesting to us for many reasons, the main ones being cultural development and belligerence; the first interested ancient authors and still attracts both professional researchers and ordinary people interested in European civilization, while the second is interesting to us from the point of view of the spirit and desire for belligerence and freedom that was inherent in the Germans then and has been lost to this day.

At that distant time, the Germans kept all of Europe in fear, and therefore many researchers and travelers were interested in these tribes. Some were attracted by the culture, lifestyle, mythology and way of life of these ancient tribes. Others looked at them solely from a selfish point of view, either as enemies or as a means of profit. But still, as will be known later from this work, the latter entailed.

The interest of Roman society in the life of the peoples who inhabited the lands bordering the empire, in particular the Germans, was associated with the constant wars waged by the emperor: in the 1st century BC. the Romans managed to bring the Germans living east of the Rhine (as far as the Weser) under their nominal dependence, but as a result of the uprising of the Cherusci and other Germanic tribes, which destroyed three Roman legions in the battle in the Teutoburg Forest, the border between the Roman possessions and the possessions of the Germans became the Rhine and Danube. The expansion of Roman possessions to the Rhine and Danube temporarily stopped the further spread of the Germans to the south and west. Under Domitian in 83 AD. The left bank regions of the Rhine and the Decumatian fields were conquered.

Starting our work, we should delve into the history of the very appearance of Germanic tribes in this area. Indeed, on the territory that is considered primordially Germanic, other groups of peoples also lived: these were the Slavs, Finno-Ugrians, Balts, Laplanders, Turks; and even more peoples passed through this area.

The settlement of northern Europe by Indo-European tribes occurred approximately 3000-2500 BC, as evidenced by archaeological data. Before this, the coasts of the North and Baltic Seas were inhabited by tribes, apparently of a different ethnic group. From the mixing of Indo-European aliens with them, the tribes that gave rise to the Germans arose. Their language, isolated from other Indo-European languages, was the Germanic language - the basis from which, in the process of subsequent fragmentation, new tribal languages ​​of the Germans arose.

The prehistoric period of the existence of the Germanic tribes can only be judged from the data of archeology and ethnography, as well as from some borrowings in the languages ​​of those tribes that in ancient times roamed their neighborhood - the Finns, the Laplanders.

The Germans lived in the north of central Europe between the Elbe and Oder and in the south of Scandinavia, including the Jutland peninsula. Archaeological data suggest that these territories were inhabited by Germanic tribes from the beginning of the Neolithic, that is, from the third millennium BC.

The first information about the ancient Germans is found in the works of Greek and Roman authors. The earliest mention of them was made by the merchant Pytheas from Massilia (Marseille), who lived in the second half of the 4th century. BC. Pytheas traveled by sea along the western coast of Europe, then along the southern coast of the North Sea. He mentions the tribes of the Huttons and Teutons, with whom he had to meet during his voyage. The description of Pytheas’s journey has not reached us, but it was used by later historians and geographers, Greek authors Polybius, Posidonius (2nd century BC), Roman historian Titus Livius (1st century BC - early 1st century BC) century AD). They cite extracts from the writings of Pytheas, and also mention the raids of Germanic tribes on the Hellenistic states of southeastern Europe and on southern Gaul and northern Italy at the end of the 2nd century. BC.

From the first centuries of the new era, information about the Germans becomes somewhat more detailed. The Greek historian Strabo (died 20 BC) writes that the Germans (Sevi) roamed the forests, built huts and were engaged in cattle breeding. The Greek writer Plutarch (46 - 127 AD) describes the Germans as wild nomads who are alien to all peaceful pursuits, such as agriculture and cattle breeding; their only occupation is war.

By the end of the 2nd century. BC. Germanic tribes of the Cimbri appear at the northeastern outskirts of the Apennine Peninsula. According to the descriptions of ancient authors, they were tall, fair-haired, strong people, often dressed in animal skins or skins, with plank shields, armed with burnt stakes and arrows with stone tips. They defeated the Roman troops and then moved west, uniting with the Teutons. For several years they defeated the Roman armies until they were defeated by the Roman commander Marius (102 - 101 BC).

In the future, the Germans did not stop raiding Rome and increasingly threatened the Roman Empire.

At a later time, when in the middle of the 1st century. BC. Julius Caesar (100 - 44 BC) encountered Germanic tribes in Gaul, they lived in a large area of ​​​​central Europe; in the west, the territory occupied by Germanic tribes reached the Rhine, in the south - to the Danube, in the east - to the Vistula, and in the north - to the North and Baltic seas, capturing the southern part of the Scandinavian Peninsula. In his "Notes on Gallic War"Caesar describes the Germans in more detail than his predecessors. He writes about the social system, economic structure and life of the ancient Germans, and also outlines the course of military events and clashes with individual Germanic tribes. He also mentions that the Germanic tribes are superior to the Gauls in bravery. As governor of Gaul in 58 - 51, Caesar made two expeditions from there against the Germans, who were trying to capture areas on the left bank of the Rhine. One expedition was organized by him against the Suevi, who crossed to the left bank of the Rhine. The Romans were victorious in the battle with the Suevi; Ariovistus, the leader of the Sueves, escaped by crossing to the right bank of the Rhine. As a result of another expedition, Caesar expelled the Germanic tribes of the Usipetes and Tencteri from the north of Gaul. Talking about clashes with German troops during these expeditions, Caesar describes in detail their military tactics, methods of attack and defense. The Germans lined up for the offensive in phalanxes, according to tribes. They used the cover of the forest to surprise the attack. The main method of protection from enemies was fencing off with forests. This natural method was known not only to the Germans, but also to other tribes living in wooded areas.

A reliable source of information about the ancient Germans are the works of Pliny the Elder (23 - 79). Pliny spent many years in the Roman provinces of Germany Inferior and Upper Germany while in military service. In his “Natural History” and in other works that have not reached us in full, Pliny described not only military actions, but also the physical and geographical features of a large territory occupied by Germanic tribes, listed and was the first to classify the Germanic tribes, based mainly on , from my own experience.

The most complete information about the ancient Germans is given by Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55 - c. 120). In his work “Germany” he talks about the way of life, way of life, customs and beliefs of the Germans; in the “Histories” and “Annals” he sets out the details of the Roman-German military clashes. Tacitus was one of the greatest Roman historians. He himself had never been to Germany and used the information that he, as a Roman senator, could receive from generals, from secret and official reports, from travelers and participants in military campaigns; he also widely used information about the Germans in the works of his predecessors and, first of all, in the writings of Pliny the Elder.

The era of Tacitus, like subsequent centuries, was filled with military clashes between the Romans and the Germans. Numerous attempts by Roman commanders to conquer the Germans failed. To prevent their advance into the territories conquered by the Romans from the Celts, Emperor Hadrian (reigned 117 - 138) erected powerful defensive structures along the Rhine and the upper Danube, on the border between Roman and German possessions. Numerous military camps and settlements became Roman strongholds in this territory; Subsequently, cities arose in their place, the modern names of which contain echoes of their former history.

In the second half of the 2nd century, after a short lull, the Germans again intensified offensive actions. In 167, the Marcomanni, in alliance with other Germanic tribes, break through the fortifications on the Danube and occupy Roman territory in northern Italy. Only in 180 did the Romans manage to push them back to the northern bank of the Danube. Until the beginning of the 3rd century. Relatively peaceful relations were established between the Germans and Romans, which contributed to significant changes in the economic and social life of the Germans.

1. Social system and material culture of the ancient Germans

In this part of our study we will understand the social system of the ancient Germans. This is perhaps the most difficult problem in our work, since unlike, for example, military affairs, which can be judged “from the outside,” it is possible to understand the social system only by joining this society, or being part of it, or having close contact with him. But it is impossible to understand society and the relationships in it without ideas about material culture.

The Germans, like the Gauls, did not know political unity. They split into tribes, each of which occupied an average area of ​​approximately 100 square meters. miles. The border parts of the region were not inhabited for fear of an enemy invasion. Therefore, it was possible even from the most remote villages to reach the seat of the people’s assembly located in the center of the region within a one-day journey.

Since a very large part of the country was covered with forests and swamps and therefore its inhabitants were only to a very small extent engaged in agriculture, subsisting mainly on milk, cheese and meat, then average density population could not exceed 250 people per 1 sq. mile. Thus, the tribe numbered approximately 25,000 people, with larger tribes possibly reaching 35,000 or even 40,000 people. This gives 6000-10000 men, i.e. as much as, in the most extreme case, taking into account 1000-2000 absentees, the human voice can reach and as much as can form a coherent national assembly capable of discussing issues. This general people's assembly had the highest sovereign power.

The tribes were divided into clans, or hundreds. These associations are called clans, since they were not formed arbitrarily, but united people according to the natural sign of blood ties and unity of origin. There were no cities yet in which part of the population growth could flow, forming new connections there. Each remained in the union within which he was born. The clans were also called hundreds, because in each of them there were about 100 families or warriors. However, this figure in practice was often higher, since the Germans used the word “hundred, hundred” in the sense of a generally large rounded number. The digital, quantitative name was preserved along with the patriarchal one, since the actual relationship between members of the clan was very distant. The clans could not have arisen as a result of the fact that families originally living in the neighborhood formed large clans over the course of centuries. Rather, it should be assumed that the overgrown clans had to be divided into several parts in order to feed themselves in the place where they lived. Thus, a certain size, a certain magnitude, a certain number, equal to approximately 100, was the formative element of the association along with the origin. Both gave their name to this union. Gender and hundred are identical.

What can we say about such an important part of social life and material culture as the housing and life of the ancient Germans? In his essay about the Germans, Tacitus constantly compares their life and customs with those of Rome. The description of the settlements of the Germans was no exception: “It is well known that the peoples of Germany do not live in cities and do not even tolerate their homes being adjacent to each other. The Germans each settle separately and on their own, wherever someone likes a spring, a clearing or an oak grove. They place their villages differently than we do, and they don’t get bored with buildings crowded and stuck to one another, but everyone leaves a vast area around their house, either to protect themselves from fire if a neighbor catches fire, or because of inability to build “We can conclude that the Germans did not even create urban-type settlements, not to mention cities in the Roman or modern sense of the word. Apparently, the German settlements of that period were farm-type villages, which were characterized by a fairly large distance between buildings and a plot of land next to the house.

Members of the clan, who were at the same time neighbors in the village, formed one general group, one horde. Therefore, even now in the north they call a military corps “thorp”, and in Switzerland they say “village” - instead of “detachment”, “dorfen” - instead of “convene a meeting”, and the current German word is “army”, “detachment” (Truppe) comes from the same root. Transferred by the Franks to the Romanesque peoples, and from them returned to Germany, it still preserves the memory of the social system of our ancestors, going back to such ancient times that not a single written source testifies. The horde that went to war together and that settled together was one and the same horde. Therefore, the names of settlements, villages, soldiers, and military units were formed from the same word.

Thus, the ancient Germanic community is: a village - according to the type of settlement, a district - according to the place of settlement, a hundred - according to its size and clan - according to its internal connections. Land and mineral resources do not constitute private property, but belong to the totality of this strictly closed community. According to a later expression, it forms a regional partnership.

At the head of each community was an elected official who was called "alderman" (elder), or "hunno", just as the community was called either "clan" or "hundred".

Aldermans, or hunni, are chiefs and leaders of communities in times of peace and leaders of men in times of war. But they live with the people and among the people. Socially, they are as free members of the community as anyone else. Their authority is not high enough to maintain peace during major strife or serious crimes. Their position is not so high, and their horizons are not so broad, to guide politics. In each tribe there were one or more noble families, standing high above the free members of the community, who, rising above the mass of the population, formed a special class and traced their descent from the gods. From among them, the general people's assembly elected several “princes”, “firsts”, “principes”, who were supposed to travel around the districts (“villages and hamlets”) to hold court, negotiate with foreign states, jointly discuss public affairs, also involving the Hunni in this discussion, in order to then make their proposals at public meetings. During the war, one of these princes, as duke, was invested with the supreme command.

In the princely families, thanks to their participation in war booty, tribute, gifts, prisoners of war who served them corvee, and profitable marriages with rich families, large, from the point of view of the Germans, wealth was concentrated6. These riches made it possible for the princes to surround themselves with a retinue consisting of free people, the bravest warriors who swore allegiance to their master for life and death and who lived with him as his dining companions, providing him “in time of peace, splendor, and in time war defense." And where the prince spoke, his retinue strengthened the authority and meaning of his words.

Of course, there was no law that categorically and positively required that only the scion of one of the noble families be elected prince. But in fact, these families were so alienated from the mass of the population that it was not so easy for a person from the people to step over this line and join the circle of noble families. And why on earth would the community choose as prince a man from the crowd who would not in any way rise above anyone else? Nevertheless, it often happened that those hunni, in whose families this position was preserved for several generations and who thanks to this achieved special honor, as well as prosperity, entered the circle of princes. This is exactly how the process of formation of princely families went. And the natural advantage that the sons of distinguished fathers had in the election of officials gradually created the habit of choosing in the place of the deceased - subject to appropriate qualifications - his son. And the advantages associated with position elevated such a family so much above the general level of the masses that it became more and more difficult for others to compete with it. If we now feel a weaker effect of this socio-psychological process in social life, this is explained by the fact that other forces exert significant opposition to such a natural formation of classes. But there is no doubt that in ancient Germany, from the initially elected officials, a hereditary class was gradually formed. In conquered Britain, kings emerged from the ancient princes, and earls (earls) from the Eldermen. But in the era we are talking about now, this process has not yet ended. Although the princely class has already separated from the mass of the population, forming a class, the Hunni still belong to the mass of the population and have not yet emerged as a separate class on the continent in general.

The meeting of German princes and Xiongni was called by the Romans the Senate of the Germanic Tribes. The sons of the most noble families were already invested with princely dignity in early youth and were involved in the meetings of the Senate. In other cases, the retinue was a school for those young men who tried to break out of the circle of free members of the community, striving for a higher position.

The rule of princes passes into royal power when there is only one prince or when one of them removes or subjugates the others. The basis and essence of the state system does not yet change from this, since the highest and decisive authority still, as before, remains the general meeting of soldiers. Princely and royal power are still fundamentally so little different from each other that the Romans sometimes use the title of king even where there are not one, but two princes. And royal power, like princely power, is not transmitted by inheritance alone from one bearer to another, but the people invest this dignity with the one who has the greatest rights to it through elections or calling his name with shouts. A physically or mentally incapable heir could and would be bypassed. But although, thus, the royal and princely power primarily differed from each other only in quantitative terms, nevertheless, of course, the circumstance was of enormous importance whether the authorities and leadership were in the hands of one or several. And this, undoubtedly, concealed a very big difference. With royal power, the possibility of contradiction was completely eliminated, the possibility of putting different plans and making different proposals to the people's assembly. The sovereign power of the people's assembly is becoming more and more mere exclamations. But this approval with an exclamation remains necessary for the king. Even under the king, the German retained the pride and spirit of independence of a free man. “They were kings,” says Tacitus, “as far as the Germans allowed themselves to be ruled.”

The connection between the district-community and the state was quite loose. It could happen that the district, changing the place of its settlement and moving further and further, could gradually separate from the state to which it previously belonged. Attending general public meetings became more and more difficult and rare. Interests have already changed. The district was only in a kind of union relationship with the state and formed over time, when the clan grew quantitatively, its own special state. The former Xiongnu family turned into a princely family. Or it happened that in the distribution of judicial districts among the various princes, the princes organized their districts as separate units, which they held firmly in their hands, gradually forming a kingdom, and then separated from the state. There is no direct indication of this in the sources, but this is reflected in the vagueness of the surviving terminology. The Cherusci and Hutts, who are tribes in the sense of the state, own such wide territories that we should rather see them as a union of states. With regard to many tribal names it may be doubted whether they are simply district names. And again the word “district” (pagus) can often be applied not to a hundred, but to a princely district, which covered several hundred. We find the strongest internal ties in the hundred, in the clan that led a semi-communist way of life within itself and which did not so easily disintegrate under the influence of internal or external reasons.

Next we should turn to the question of population density in Germany. This task is very difficult, since there have been no specific studies, much less statistical data on this. But nevertheless, let's try to understand this issue.

We must do justice to the excellent observation of the famous writers of antiquity, rejecting, however, their conclusion about the significant population density and the presence of large masses of people, which the Romans are so fond of talking about.

We know the geography of ancient Germany well enough to establish quite accurately that in the space between the Rhine, the North Sea, the Elbe and a line drawn from the Main at Hanau to the confluence of the Saal with the Elbe, there lived approximately 23 tribes, namely: two Frisian tribes , Caninefates, Batavians, Hamavians, Amsivars, Angrivars, Tubants, two tribes of Chauci, Usipeti, Tenchteri, two tribes of Bructeri, Marsi, Hasuarii, Dulgibini, Lombards, Cherusci, Chatti, Hattuarii, Innerions, Intvergi, Calukonians. This entire area covers about 2300 km 2, so on average each tribe accounted for approximately 100 km 2. The supreme power of each of these tribes belonged to the general people's assembly or assembly of warriors. This was the case in both Athens and Rome, however, only a very small part of the industrial population of these cultural states visited public assemblies. As for the Germans, we can indeed admit that very often almost all the soldiers attended the meeting. That is why the states were relatively small, since with more than a day's distance of the furthest villages from the central point, genuine general meetings would no longer be possible. An area of ​​approximately 100 square meters meets this requirement. miles. Likewise, a meeting can be conducted more or less in order only if maximum quantity 6000-8000 people. If this figure was the maximum, then the average figure was a little over 5,000, which gives 25,000 people per tribe, or 250 per square meter. mile (4-5 per 1 km 2). It should be noted that this is primarily a maximum figure, an upper limit. But this figure cannot be greatly reduced for other reasons - for reasons of a military nature. The military activity of the ancient Germans against the world power of Rome and its battle-tested legions was so significant that it makes one assume a certain population size. And the figure of 5,000 warriors for each tribe seems so insignificant in comparison with this activity that, perhaps, no one will be inclined to reduce this figure further.

Thus - despite the complete lack of positive information that we could use - we are still in a position to establish positive figures with reasonable confidence. The conditions are so simple, and economic, military, geographical and political factors are so closely intertwined that we can now, using firmly established methods of scientific research, fill in the gaps in the information that has reached us and better determine the number of Germans than the Romans, who had them before your own eyes and communicated with them daily.

Next we will turn to the question of supreme power among the Germans. That the German officials fell into two different groups follows both from the nature of things, the political organization and division of the tribe, and directly from the direct indications of the sources.

Caesar says that the “princes and elders” of the Usipetes and Tenchteri came to him. Speaking about the murders, he mentions not only their princes, but also their senate and says that the senate of the Nervii, who, although they were not Germans, were, however, very close to them in their social and state system, consisted of 600 members. Although we have here a somewhat exaggerated figure, it is still clear that the Romans could only apply the name “Senate” to a fairly large deliberative assembly. This could not be a meeting of princes alone, it was a wider meeting. Consequently, in addition to the princes, the Germans had another type of public authority.

Speaking about the land use of the Germans, Caesar not only mentions princes, but also indicates that “officials and princes” distributed arable land. The addition of a “position of a person” cannot be considered a simple pleonasm: Caesar’s compressed style would contradict such an understanding. It would be very strange if Caesar, for the sake of mere verbosity, added additional words precisely to the very simple in its meaning concept of “princes.”

These two categories of officials are not as clear in Tacitus as in Caesar. It was precisely in relation to the concept of “hundreds” that Tacitus made a fatal mistake, which subsequently caused scientists a lot of trouble. But from Tacitus we can still extract with certainty the same fact. If the Germans had only one category of officials, then this category should in any case be very numerous. But we constantly read that in each tribe certain families were so superior to the mass of the population that others could not equal them, and that these individual families are specifically called "royalty." Modern scholars have unanimously established that the ancient Germans did not have a petty nobility. The nobility (nobilitas) constantly discussed was the princely nobility. These families elevated their family to the gods, and “took kings from the nobility.” The Cherusci beg Emperor Claudius for their nephew Arminius as the only surviving member of the royal family. In the northern states there was no other nobility other than the royal families.

Such a sharp differentiation between noble families and the people would be impossible if there were a noble family for every hundred. To explain this fact, however, it is not enough to recognize that among these numerous families of leaders, some achieved special honor. If the whole matter came down to only such a difference in rank, then other families would undoubtedly come to take the place of the extinct families. And then the name “royal family” would be assigned not only to a few families, but, on the contrary, their number would no longer be so small. Of course, the difference was not absolute, and there was no impassable gulf here. The old Xiongnu family could sometimes penetrate among the princes. But still, this difference was not only rank, but also purely specific: princely families formed the nobility, in which the importance of the position greatly receded into the background, and the hunni belonged to the free members of the community, and their rank largely depended on the position, which was all could also acquire to some extent hereditary character. So, what Tacitus tells about the German princely families indicates that their number was very limited, and the limitation of this number, in turn, indicates that below the princes there was still a class of lower officials.

And from a military point of view, it was necessary for a large military unit to break up into smaller units, with the number of people not exceeding 200-300 people, who were to be under the command of special commanders. The German contingent, consisting of 5,000 soldiers, must have had at least 20, and perhaps even 50, lower commanders. It is absolutely impossible that the number of princes (principes) should be so great.

The study of economic life leads to the same conclusion. Each village had to have its own headman. This was caused by the needs of agrarian communism and the various measures that were necessary for the pasture and protection of herds. The social life of the village required a manager at every moment and could not wait for the arrival and orders of the prince, who lived several miles away. Although we must admit that the villages were quite extensive, still the village chiefs were very insignificant officials. Families whose origins were considered royal were expected to have greater authority, and the number of these families was much smaller. Thus, princes and village chiefs are essentially different officials.

In continuation of our work, I would like to mention another phenomenon in the life of Germany, such as the change of settlements and arable lands. Caesar points out that the Germans annually changed both arable land and settlement sites. However, I consider this fact, conveyed in such a general form, to be controversial, since the annual change of place of settlement does not find any basis. Even if it was possible to easily move the hut with household belongings, supplies and livestock, restoring the entire economy in a new place was associated with certain difficulties. And it was especially difficult to dig cellars with the help of those few and imperfect shovels that the Germans could have at their disposal in those days. Therefore, I have no doubt that the “annual” change of settlement sites that the Gauls and Germans told Caesar about is either a gross exaggeration or a misunderstanding.

As for Tacitus, he nowhere directly speaks of a change in settlement sites, but only indicates a change in arable land. They tried to explain this difference by a higher degree of economic development. But I fundamentally disagree with this. True, it is very possible and probable that already in the time of Tacitus and even Caesar, the Germans lived firmly and settledly in many villages, namely where there were fertile and continuous land. In such places, it was enough to change the arable land and fallow land located around the village every year. But the inhabitants of those villages that were located in areas covered mostly with forests and swamps, where the soil was less fertile, could no longer be content with this. They were forced to fully and consistently use all individual fields suitable for cultivation, all corresponding parts of a vast territory, and therefore had to change the place of settlement from time to time for this purpose. As Thudichum has already correctly noted, the words of Tacitus absolutely do not exclude the fact of such changes in the places of settlement, and even if they do not directly indicate this, I am still almost convinced that this is exactly what Tacitus was thinking about in this case. His words read: “Entire villages alternately occupy as many fields as would correspond to the number of workers, and then these fields are distributed among the inhabitants depending on their social status and wealth. Extensive brim sizes make sectioning easy. The arable land changes every year, leaving a surplus of fields.” Of particular interest in these words is the reference to a double shift. First it is said that the fields (agri) are occupied or occupied alternately, and then that the arable lands (arvi) change annually. If we were talking only about the fact that the village alternately designated more or less arable land significant part territory and that within this arable land the arable land and fallow again changed annually, then this description would be too detailed and would not correspond to the usual concise style of Tacitus. This fact would be, so to speak, too scanty for so many words. The situation would have been completely different if the Roman writer had simultaneously put into these words the idea that the community, which alternately occupied entire territories and then divided these lands between its members, along with the change of fields, also changed the places of settlements . Tacitus does not tell us this directly and precisely. But precisely this circumstance is easily explained by the extreme conciseness of his style, and, of course, in no case can one assume that this phenomenon is observed in all villages. Residents of villages with small but fertile lands did not need to change the location of their settlements.

Therefore, I have no doubt that Tacitus, making some distinction between the fact that “villages occupy fields” and the fact that “arable land changes annually,” does not at all mean to depict a new stage in the development of German economic life, but rather makes a silent correction to the description of Caesar. If we take into account that a German village with a population of 750 people had a territorial district equal to 3 square meters. miles, then this instruction of Tacitus immediately receives a completely clear meaning for us. With the primitive method of cultivating the land that existed at that time, it was absolutely necessary to cultivate new arable land with a plow (or hoe) every year. And if the supply of arable land in the vicinity of the village was exhausted, then it was easier to move the entire village to another part of the district than to cultivate and protect fields located far from the old village. After a number of years, and perhaps after numerous migrations, the inhabitants again returned to their old place and again had the opportunity to use their former cellars.

But what can be said about the size of the villages? Gregory of Tours, according to Sulpicius Alexander, tells in the 9th chapter of Book II that the Roman army in 388, during its campaign in the country of the Franks, discovered “huge villages” among them.

The identity of the village and the clan is beyond any doubt, and it has been positively proven that the clan was quite large.

In accordance with this, Kikebusch, using prehistoric data, established the population of the German settlement in the first two centuries AD. at least 800 people. The Darzau cemetery, containing about 4,000 burial urns, existed for 200 years. This gives an average of approximately 20 deaths per year and indicates a population of at least 800 people.

Stories about the change of arable lands and places of settlements, which have come down to us, perhaps with some exaggerations, still contain a grain of truth. This change of all arable land and even a change of settlement sites becomes meaningful only in large villages that had a large territorial district. Small villages with small plots of land have the opportunity to exchange only arable land for fallow. Large villages do not have sufficient arable land in their vicinity for this purpose and are therefore forced to look for land in remote parts of their district, and this in turn entails the transfer of the entire village to other places.

Each village was required to have a headman. Common ownership of arable land, common pasture and protection of herds, the frequent threat of enemy invasions and danger from wild animals - all this certainly required the presence of a holder of local power. You cannot wait for the arrival of a leader from another place, when you need to immediately organize protection from a pack of wolves or a hunt for wolves, when you need to repel an enemy attack and shelter families and livestock from the enemy, or protect a flooded river with a dam, or put out a fire, resolve disputes and minor lawsuits , announce the beginning of plowing and harvesting, which occurred simultaneously under communal land ownership. If all this happens as it should, and if, therefore, the village had its own headman, then this headman - since the village was at the same time a clan - was the clan's ruler, the elder of the clan. And this, in turn, as we have already seen above, coincided with the Xiongnu. Consequently, the village was a hundred, i.e. numbered 100 or more warriors, and therefore was not so small.

Smaller villages had the advantage of being easier to obtain food from. However, large villages, although they necessitated a more frequent change of location, were still the most convenient for the Germans given the constant dangers among which they lived. They made it possible to counter the threat from wild animals or even wilder people with a strong detachment of warriors, always ready to meet danger face to face. If we find small villages among other barbarian peoples, for example, later among the Slavs, then this circumstance cannot weaken the significance of the evidence and arguments we cited above. The Slavs do not belong to the Germans, and some analogies do not yet indicate complete identity of the remaining conditions; Moreover, the evidence concerning the Slavs dates back to such a later time that they may already depict a different stage of development. However, the large German village later, due to population growth and greater intensity of soil cultivation, when the Germans no longer changed the places of their settlements, broke up into groups of small villages.

In his narrative about the Germans, Cornelius Tacitus gave a short description of the Germanic land and the climatic conditions of Germany: “Although the country differs in appearance in some places, yet as a whole it is terrifying and disgusting with its forests and swamps; it is most humid on the side where it faces Gaul, and most exposed to the winds where it faces Noricum and Pannonia; in general, quite fertile, it is unsuitable for fruit trees.” From these words we can conclude that most of the territory of Germany at the beginning of our era was covered with dense forests and abounded in swamps, however, at the same time, sufficient space was occupied by lands for farming. It is also important to note that the land is unsuitable for fruit trees. Further, Tacitus directly said that the Germans “do not plant fruit trees.” This is reflected, for example, in the division of the year by the Germans into three parts, which is also illuminated in Tacitus’s “Germania”: “And for this reason they divide the year less fractionally than we do: they distinguish between winter, and spring, and summer, and they have their own names, but the name of autumn and its fruits are unknown to them.” The name of autumn among the Germans actually appeared later, with the development of gardening and viticulture, since by autumn fruits Tacitus meant the fruits of fruit trees and grapes.

Tacitus’s statement about the Germans is well known: “They change arable land every year, they always have a surplus of fields.” Most scientists agree that this indicates the custom of redistributing land within the community. However, in these words, some scientists saw evidence of the existence of a shifting land use system among the Germans, in which arable land had to be systematically abandoned so that the soil, depleted by extensive cultivation, could restore its fertility. Perhaps the words “et superest ager” also meant something else: the author had in mind the vastness of unoccupied and uncultivated spaces in Germany. Proof of this can be the easily noticeable attitude of Cornelius Tacitus towards the Germans as people who treated agriculture with a degree of indifference: “And they do not make efforts to increase the fertility of the soil with labor and thus compensate for the lack of land, they do not fence meadows, do not water vegetable gardens." And sometimes Tacitus directly accused the Germans of contempt for work: “And it is much more difficult to convince them to plow a field and wait a whole year for the harvest than to persuade them to fight the enemy and suffer wounds; Moreover, according to their ideas, then to get what can be acquired with blood is laziness and cowardice.” In addition, apparently, adult men capable of carrying weapons did not work on the land at all: “the bravest and most warlike of them, without bearing any responsibilities, entrust the care of housing, household and arable land to women, the elderly and the weakest of the household, while they themselves are mired in inaction.” However, telling about the way of life of the Aestians, Tacitus noted that “They grow bread and other fruits of the earth more diligently than is customary among the Germans with their inherent negligence.”

In German society of that time, slavery was developing, although it did not yet play a big role in the economy, and most of the work lay on the shoulders of members of the master’s family: “They use slaves, however, differently than we do: they do not keep them with them and do not distribute them There are responsibilities between them: each of them independently manages his own plot and his family. The master taxes him, as if he were a colony, with the established measure of grain, or sheep and pigs, or clothing, and this alone consists of the duties paid by the slave. The rest of the work on the master’s farm is done by his wife and children.”

Regarding the crops grown by the Germans, Tacitus is unequivocal: “They expect only a grain harvest from the land.” However, there is now evidence that in addition to barley, wheat, oats and rye, the Germans also sowed lentils, peas, beans, leeks, flax, hemp and dye woad, or blueberry.

Cattle breeding occupied a huge place in the German economic system. According to Tacitus’ testimony about Germany, “there are a great many small cattle in it” and “the Germans rejoice at the abundance of their herds, and they are their only and most beloved property.” However, he noted that “for the most part he is short in stature, and the bulls are deprived of the proud decoration that usually crowns their heads.”

Evidence that cattle really played an important role in the economy of the Germans of that time can be seen in the fact that in case of minor violation of any norms of customary law, the fine was paid in cattle: “for lighter offenses, the punishment is proportionate to their importance: a certain number of horses is collected from those exposed and sheep." Cattle also played an important role in the wedding ceremony: the groom had to present the bride with bulls and a horse as a gift.

The Germans used horses not only for farming, but also for military purposes - Tacitus spoke with admiration about the power of the Tencteri cavalry: “Endowed with all the qualities befitting valiant warriors, the Tencteri are also skilled and dashing riders, and the Tencteri cavalry is not inferior in glory to the Hutt infantry.” . However, when describing the Fenians, Tacitus notes with disgust the general low level of their development, in particular pointing out their lack of horses.

As for the presence of appropriating branches of the economy among the Germans, Tacitus in his work also mentioned that “when they are not waging wars, they hunt a lot.” However, no further details regarding this follow. Tacitus does not mention fishing at all, although he often focused on the fact that many Germans lived along the banks of rivers.

Tacitus especially singled out the Aestii tribe, saying that “they scour the sea and on the shore, and on the shallows they are the only ones who collect amber, which they themselves call gles. But they, being barbarians, did not ask the question about its nature and how it arises and do not know anything about it; after all, for a long time he lay along with everything that the sea throws up, until the passion for luxury gave him a name. They themselves do not use it in any way; They collect it in its natural form, deliver it to our merchants in the same raw form and, to their amazement, receive a price for it.” However, in this case, Tacitus was wrong: even in the Stone Age, long before relations with the Romans were established, the Aestii collected amber and made all kinds of jewelry from it.

Thus, the economic activity of the Germans was a combination of agriculture, possibly fallow farming, with settled cattle breeding. However, agricultural activity did not play such a big role and was not as prestigious as cattle breeding. Agriculture was mainly the domain of women, children and the elderly, while strong men were engaged in livestock, which played a significant role not only in the economic system, but also in the regulation of interpersonal relations in German society. I would especially like to note that the Germans widely used horses in their farming. Slaves played a small role in economic activity, whose situation can hardly be described as difficult. Sometimes the economy was directly influenced by natural conditions, as, for example, among the German tribe of Estii.

2. Economic system of the ancient Germans

In this chapter we will study the economic activities of ancient Germanic tribes. The economy, and the economy in general, is closely related to social life tribes As we know from the training course, economics is the economic activity of society, as well as the set of relations that develop in the system of production, distribution, exchange and consumption.

Characteristics of the economic system of the ancient Germans in the view

historians of different schools and directions was extremely contradictory: from primitive nomadic life to developed arable farming. Caesar, having caught the Suevi during their resettlement, says quite clearly: the Suevi were attracted by the fertile arable lands of Gaul; the words of the Suebi leader Ariovistus, which he cites, that his people had no shelter over their heads for fourteen years (De bell. Gall., I, 36), rather indicate a violation of the usual way of life of the Germans, which, under normal conditions, apparently was sedentary. And indeed, having settled in Gaul, the Suevi took away a third of the lands from its inhabitants, then laid claim to the second third. Caesar’s words that the Germans “are not zealous in cultivating the land” cannot be understood to mean that agriculture is generally alien to them - simply the culture of agriculture in Germany was inferior to the culture of agriculture in Italy, Gaul and other parts of the Roman state.

Textbook famous saying Caesar about the Suevi: “Their land is not divided and is not privately owned, and they cannot stay more than a year

in the same place for cultivating the land,” a number of researchers were inclined to interpret in such a way that the Roman commander encountered this tribe during the period of his conquest of foreign territory and that the military migration movement of huge masses of the population created an exceptional situation, which necessarily led to a significant “distortion” of their traditional agricultural way of life. The words of Tacitus are no less widely known: “Every year they change their arable land and there is still a field left.” These words provide evidence of the existence of a shifting land use system among the Germans, in which arable land had to be systematically abandoned so that the soil, depleted by extensive cultivation, could restore its fertility. The descriptions of the nature of Germany by ancient authors also served as an argument against the theory of the nomadic life of the Germans. If the country was either an endless virgin forest or was swampy (Germ., 5), then there was simply no room left for nomadic cattle breeding. True, a closer reading of Tacitus's accounts of the wars of the Roman generals in Germany shows that the forests were used by its inhabitants not for settlement, but as refuges, where they hid their belongings and their families when the enemy approached, and also for ambushes, from where they suddenly attacked on the Roman legions, not accustomed to war in such conditions. The Germans settled in clearings, at the edge of the forest, near streams and rivers (Germ., 16), and not in the thicket of the forest.

This deformation was expressed in the fact that the war gave rise to “state socialism” among the Suevi - their refusal of private ownership of land. Consequently, the territory of Germany at the beginning of our era was not completely covered with primeval forest, and Tacitus himself, painting a very stylized picture of its nature, immediately admits that the country is “fertile for crops,” although “not suitable for growing fruit trees” (Germ ., 5).

The archeology of settlements, inventory and cartography of finds of objects and burials, paleobotany data, and soil studies have shown that settlements on the territory of ancient Germany were distributed extremely unevenly, with isolated enclaves separated by more or less extensive “voids.” These uninhabited spaces in that era were entirely forested. The landscape of Central Europe in the first centuries AD was not forest-steppe, but

predominantly forest. The fields near the settlements separated from each other were small - the human habitat was surrounded by forest, although part of it was already sparse or completely reduced by industrial activity. In general, it is necessary to emphasize that the old idea of ​​​​the hostility of the ancient forest to man, whose economic life could supposedly unfold exclusively outside the forests, has not received support in modern science. On the contrary, this economic life found its essential prerequisites and conditions in the forests. The opinion about the negative role of forests in the life of the Germans was dictated by the trust of historians in Tacitus’s statement that they supposedly had little iron. It followed that they were powerless over nature and could not have an active influence either on the forests that surrounded them or on the soil. However, Tacitus was mistaken in this case. Archaeological finds indicate the prevalence of iron mining among the Germans, which provided them with the tools necessary for clearing forests and plowing soil, as well as weapons.

With the clearing of forests for arable land, old settlements were often abandoned for reasons that are difficult to determine. It is possible that the movement of the population to new places was caused by climatic changes (around the beginning of the new era there was some cooling in Central and Northern Europe), but another explanation is possible: searches best soils. At the same time, it is necessary not to lose sight of the social reasons for residents leaving their villages - wars, invasions, internal turmoil. Thus, the end of the settlement in the area of ​​​​Hodde (Western Jutland) was marked by a fire. Almost all the villages discovered by archaeologists on the islands of Öland and Gotland were destroyed by fire during the Great Migration era. These fires are perhaps the result of political events unknown to us. A study of traces of fields discovered on the territory of Jutland that were cultivated in ancient times showed that these fields were located mainly in areas cleared from under the forest. In many areas of settlement of the Germanic peoples, a light plow or coxa was used - a tool that did not turn over the soil layer (apparently, such a plowing tool was also depicted on the rock paintings of Scandinavia of the Bronze Age: it was pulled by a team of oxen. In the northern parts of the continent in the last centuries BC .a heavy plow with a moldboard and a share appears, such a plow was an essential condition for lifting clay soils, and its introduction into agriculture is regarded in the scientific literature as a revolutionary innovation, indicating an important step towards the intensification of arable farming.Climatic changes (a decrease in the average annual temperature) led to the need to build more permanent dwellings. In the houses of this period (they are better studied in the northern areas of settlement of the Germanic peoples, in Friesland, Lower Germany, Norway, on the island of Gotland and to a lesser extent in Central Europe, along with living quarters, there were stalls for winter keeping domestic animals These so-called long houses (from 10 to 30 m in length and 4-7 m in width) belonged to a firmly settled population. While in the pre-Roman Iron Age the population occupied light soils for cultivation, starting in the last centuries BC. it began to move to heavier soils. This transition was made possible by the spread of iron tools and associated progress in land cultivation, forest clearing and construction. The typical “original” form of German settlements, according to the unanimous statement of modern experts, were farmsteads consisting of several houses or individual estates. They were small “nuclei” that gradually grew. An example is the village of Esinge near Groningen. A small village grew here on the site of the original courtyard.

Traces of fields have been discovered on the territory of Jutland, which date back to the middle of the 1st millennium BC. and up to the 4th century. AD Such fields have been under cultivation for several generations. These lands were eventually abandoned due to soil leaching, which led to

diseases and loss of livestock.

The distribution of settlement finds in the territory occupied by the Germanic peoples is extremely uneven. As a rule, these finds were found in the northern part of the German area, which is explained by favorable conditions for the preservation of material remains in the coastal regions of Lower Germany and the Netherlands, as well as in Jutland and on the islands of the Baltic Sea - such conditions were absent in the southern regions of Germany. It arose on a low artificial embankment, erected by residents in order to avoid the threat of flooding - such “residential hills” were filled up and restored from generation to generation in the coastal zone of Friesland and Lower Germany, which attracted the population with meadows that were favorable for raising livestock. Under numerous layers of earth and manure, which were compacted over centuries, the remains of wooden dwellings and various items. The longhouses at Ezinga had both fireplaces for living and stables for livestock. In the next stage the settlement increased to about fourteen large courtyards, arranged radially around the vacant site. This village existed since the 4th-3rd centuries. BC. and until the end of the Empire. The layout of the village gives reason to believe that its residents formed a kind of community, the tasks of which, apparently, included the construction and strengthening of a “residential hill”. A largely similar picture was produced by excavations of the village of Feddersen Wierde, located in the area between the mouths of the Weser and Elbe, north of present-day Bremerhaven (Lower Saxony). This settlement existed from the 1st century. BC. until the 5th century AD And here the same “long houses” that are characteristic of German Iron Age villages have been discovered. As in Ezing, in Feddersen Wierde the houses were arranged radially. The village grew from a small farm to approximately 25 estates of different sizes and, apparently, unequal material well-being. It is believed that during the period of greatest expansion the village was inhabited by from 200 to 250 inhabitants. Along with agriculture and cattle breeding, crafts played a significant role among the occupations of part of the village population. Other settlements studied by archaeologists were not built according to any plan - cases of radial planning, like Ezinga and Fedderzen Wierde, may be explained by specific natural conditions and were so-called cumulus villages. However, few large villages have been discovered. Common forms of settlements were, as already mentioned, a small farm or a separate courtyard. Unlike villages, isolated hamlets had a different “life expectancy” and continuity over time: one or two centuries after its founding, such a single settlement could disappear, but some time later a new hamlet arose in the same place.

The words of Tacitus are worthy of attention that the Germans arrange villages “not our way” (that is, not as was customary among the Romans) and “cannot stand their dwellings touching each other; They settle at a distance from each other and scattered, where they like a stream, or a clearing, or a forest.” The Romans, who were accustomed to living in close quarters and saw it as a kind of norm, must have been struck by the tendency of the barbarians to live in individual, scattered estates, a tendency confirmed by archaeological research. These data are consistent with the indications of historical linguistics. In Germanic dialects, the word "dorf" ("dorp, baurp, thorp") meant both a group settlement and an individual estate; What was significant was not this opposition, but the opposition “fenced” - “unfenced”. Experts believe that the concept of “group settlement” developed from the concept of “estate”. However, the radially built agrarian settlement of Eketorp on the island of Öland was obviously surrounded by a wall for reasons of defense. Some researchers explain the existence of “circular” villages in Norway by the needs of the cult.

Archeology confirms the assumption that the characteristic direction of development of settlements was the expansion of the original individual estate or farmstead into a village. Along with the settlements, economic forms also acquired consistency. This is evidenced by the study of traces of Early Iron Age fields discovered in Jutland, Holland, inland Germany, the British Isles, the islands of Gotland and Öland, Sweden and Norway. They are usually called “ancient fields” - oldtidsagre, fornakrar (or digevoldingsagre - “fields fenced with ramparts”) or “fields of the Celtic type. They are associated with settlements whose inhabitants cultivated them for generations. The remains of pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age fields in Jutland have been studied in particular detail. These fields were areas in the form of irregular rectangles. The fields were either wide and short in length, or long and narrow; judging by the preserved traces of soil cultivation, the former were plowed lengthwise and crosswise, presumably with a primitive plow, which did not yet turn over the layer of earth, but cut and crumbled it, while the latter were plowed in one direction, and here a plow with a moldboard was used. It is possible that both types of plow were used at the same time. Each section of the field was separated from its neighbors by an unplowed boundary - stones collected from the field were placed on these boundaries, and the natural movement of the soil along the slopes and deposits of dust, which settled on the weeds on the boundaries from year to year, created low, wide boundaries that separated one section from another. The boundaries were large enough for a farmer to travel with a plow and a team of draft animals to his plot without damaging his neighbors' plots. There is no doubt that these plots were in long-term use. The area of ​​the studied “ancient fields” ranges from 2 to 100 hectares, but there are fields reaching an area of ​​up to 500 hectares; The area of ​​individual plots in the fields ranges from 200 to 7000 square meters. m. The inequality of their sizes and the absence of a uniform standard for the site indicate, in the opinion of the famous Danish archaeologist G. Hutt, to whom the main merit in the study of “ancient fields” belongs, about the absence of land redistribution. In a number of cases, it can be established that new boundaries arose inside the fenced space, so that the area was divided into two or several (up to seven) more or less equal shares.

Individual enclosed fields adjoined homesteads in the "cumulus village" on Gotland (Vallhagar excavations); on the island of Öland (near the coast

Southern Sweden) fields belonging to individual farms were fenced off from areas of neighboring estates by stone embankments and border paths. These villages with fields date back to the Great Migration era. Similar fields have been studied in mountainous Norway. The location of the sites and the isolated nature of their cultivation give researchers reason to believe that in the agricultural settlements of the Iron Age studied so far there was no striping or any other communal practices that would have found expression in the field system. The discovery of traces of such “ancient fields” leaves no doubt that agriculture among the peoples of Central and Northern Europe dates back to the pre-Roman period.

However, in cases where there was a shortage of arable land (as on the North Frisian island of Sylt), small farms that separated from the “big families” had to unite again. Consequently, residence was sedentary and more intense than previously thought. It remained so in the first half of the 1st millennium AD.

The crops grown were barley, oats, wheat, and rye. It was in the light of these discoveries, made possible by the improvement of archaeological technology, that the groundlessness of the statements of ancient authors regarding the peculiarities of agriculture of the northern barbarians became completely clear. From now on, the researcher of the agrarian system of the ancient Germans stands on the solid ground of established and repeatedly attested facts, and does not depend on the unclear and scattered statements of narrative monuments, the tendentiousness and bias of which cannot be eliminated. In addition, if the messages of Caesar and Tacitus could generally concern only the Rhine regions of Germany, where the Romans penetrated, then, as already mentioned, traces of “ancient fields” were found throughout the territory of settlement of Germanic tribes - from Scandinavia to continental Germany; their dating is pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age.

Similar fields were cultivated in Celtic Britain. Hutt draws other, more far-reaching conclusions based on the data he collected. He proceeds from the fact of long-term cultivation of the same land areas and the lack of indications of community arrangements and redistribution of arable land in the villages that he studied. Since land use was clearly of an individual nature, and new boundaries within the plots indicate, in his opinion, the division of ownership between the heirs, private ownership of the land existed here. Meanwhile, in the same territory in the subsequent era - in medieval Danish rural communities - forced crop rotation was used, collective agricultural work was carried out, and residents resorted to re-measurements and redistribution of plots. These communal agricultural practices cannot, in the light of new discoveries, be considered “primary” and traced back to ancient times - they are the product of medieval development itself. We can agree with the last conclusion. In Denmark, development supposedly proceeded from the individual to the collective, and not vice versa. The thesis about private ownership of land among the Germanic peoples at the turn of our era. established itself in modern Western historiography. Therefore, it is necessary to dwell on this issue. Historians who studied the problem of the agrarian system of the Germans in the period preceding these discoveries, even attaching great importance to arable farming, were still inclined to think about its extensive nature and assumed a fallow (or fallow) system associated with frequent changes of arable land. Back in 1931, at the initial stage of research, “ancient fields” were recorded for Jutland alone. However, traces of “ancient fields” have not been found anywhere for the time after the Great Migrations. The findings of other researchers regarding ancient agricultural settlements, field systems, and farming methods are extremely important. However, the question of whether the duration of cultivation of the land and the presence of boundaries between plots indicates the existence of individual ownership of the land cannot be decided using only those means at the disposal of the archaeologist. Social relations, especially property relations, are projected onto archaeological material in a very one-sided and incomplete manner, and the plans of ancient Germanic fields do not yet reveal the secrets of the social structure of their owners. The absence of redistributions and a system of leveling plots in itself hardly gives us an answer to the question: what were the real rights to the fields of their cultivators? After all, it is quite possible to assume - and a similar assumption has been expressed. That such a system of land use, as depicted in the study of the “ancient fields” of the Germans, was associated with the property of large families. “Long houses” of the early Iron Age are considered by a number of archaeologists precisely as the dwellings of large families and household communities. But ownership of members' land big family by its nature is extremely far from individual. The study of Scandinavian material dating back to the early Middle Ages showed that even divisions of the economy between small families united in a house community did not lead to the separation of plots into their private property. To resolve the issue of real rights to land among their cultivators, it is necessary to use completely different sources than archaeological data. Unfortunately, no such sources are available for the Early Iron Age, and retrospective inferences drawn from later legal records would be too risky. It rises, however, more general question: what was the attitude towards the cultivated land of the people of the era we studied? For there is no doubt that, ultimately, property rights reflected both the practical attitude of the cultivator of the land to the subject of his labor, and certain comprehensive attitudes, the “model of the world” that existed in his mind. Archaeological material has proven that the inhabitants of Central and Northern Europe were by no means inclined to frequently change places of residence and land under cultivation (the impression of the ease with which they abandoned arable land is created only when reading Caesar and Tacitus) - for many generations they inhabited all the same farmsteads and villages, cultivating their fields fenced with ramparts. They had to leave their usual places only due to natural or social disasters: due to the depletion of arable land or pastures, the inability to feed the increased population, or under pressure from warlike neighbors. The norm was a close, strong connection with the land - the source of livelihood. The German, like any other person of archaic society, was directly included in natural rhythms, formed a single whole with nature and saw in the land on which he lived and worked his organic continuation, just as he was organically connected with his family - clan group. It must be assumed that the attitude to reality of a member of a barbarian society was relatively weakly differentiated, and it would be premature to talk here about the right of property. Law was only one aspect of a single undifferentiated worldview and behavior - an aspect that modern analytical thought highlights, but which real life ancient people was closely and directly connected with their cosmology, beliefs, and myth. The fact that the inhabitants of the ancient village near Grantoft Fede (western Jutland) changed its location over time is the exception rather than the rule; Moreover, the duration of residence in the houses of this settlement is approximately a century. Linguistics can help us, to some extent, restore the Germanic peoples’ understanding of the world and the place of man in it. In Germanic languages, the world inhabited by people was designated as the “middle courtyard”: midjungar ðs ( Gothic), middangeard (Old English), mi ðgarð r (Old Norse), mittingart, mittilgart (Old Upper German).Gаr ðr, gart, geard - “a place surrounded by a fence.” The world of people was perceived as well-ordered, i.e. a fenced, protected “place in the middle,” and the fact that this term is found in all Germanic languages ​​testifies to the antiquity of such a concept. Another component of the cosmology and mythology of the Germans correlated with it was utgar ðr - “what is outside the fence,” and this external space was perceived as the location of evil and hostile forces to people, as the kingdom of monsters and giants. Opposition mi ðgarðr -utg arðr gave the defining coordinates of the entire picture of the world, culture resisted chaos. The term heimr (Old Norse; cf. Gothic haims, Old English ham, other Frisian ham, hem, other Saxon, hem, other High German heim), found again However, mainly in a mythological context, it meant both “world”, “homeland”, and “house”, “dwelling”, “fenced estate”. Thus, the world, cultivated and humanized, was modeled on the house and estate.

Another term that cannot fail to attract the attention of a historian analyzing the relationship of the Germans to the land is oð al. This Old Norse term again has correspondences in Gothic (haim - obli), Old English (o ð e;, ea ð ele), Old High German (uodal, uodil), Old Frisian (ethel), Old Saxon (o il). Odal, as it turns out from a study of medieval Norwegian and Icelandic monuments, is a hereditary family possession, land that is essentially inalienable beyond the boundaries of the collective of relatives. But “odalem” was not only the name for arable land, which was in the permanent and lasting possession of a family group—it was also the name for “homeland.” Odal is a “patrimony”, “fatherland” in both the narrow and broad sense. A man saw his fatherland where his father and ancestors lived and where he himself lived and worked; patrimonium was perceived as patria, and the microcosm of his estate was identified with the inhabited world as a whole. But further it turns out that the concept of “odal” was related not only to the land on which the family lives, but also to its owners themselves: the term “odal” was related to a group of concepts that expressed innate qualities in Germanic languages: nobility, birth, nobility of a person (a ðal, aeðel, ethel, adal, eðel, adel, aeðelingr, oðlingr). Moreover, birth and nobility here should be understood not in the spirit of medieval aristocracy, inherent or attributed only to representatives of the social elite, but as descent from free ancestors, among whom there are no slaves or freedmen, therefore, as full rights, complete freedom, personal independence. Referring to a long and glorious pedigree, the German simultaneously proved his nobility and his rights to the land, since in essence one was inextricably linked with the other. Odal represented nothing more than a person’s birth, transferred to land ownership and rooted in it. A ðalborinn (“noble”, “noble”) was a synonym for o ðalborinn (“a person born with the right to inherit and own ancestral land”). Descent from free and noble ancestors “ennobled” the land that their descendant owned, and, conversely, the possession of such land could increase the social status of the owner. According to Scandinavian mythology, the world of the aesir gods was also a fenced estate - asgarar. For a German, land is not just an object of possession; he was connected with her by many close ties, including, not least, psychological and emotional ones. This is evidenced by the cult of fertility, to which the Germans attached great importance, and the worship of their “mother earth,” and the magical rituals that they resorted to when occupying land spaces. The fact that we learn about many aspects of their relationship to the land from later sources can hardly cast doubt on the fact that this was exactly how things stood at the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. and even earlier. The main thing, apparently, is that the ancient man who cultivated the land did not and could not see in it a soulless object that could be instrumentally manipulated; There was no abstract “subject-object” relationship between the human group and the plot of soil it cultivated. Man was included in nature and was in constant interaction with it; This was also the case in the Middle Ages, and this statement is even more true in relation to ancient Germanic times. But the connection of the farmer with his plot did not contradict the high mobility of the population of Central Europe throughout this era. In the end, the movements of human groups and entire tribes and tribal alliances were dictated to a huge extent by the need to take possession of arable land, i.e. the same attitude of man to the earth, as to his natural continuation. Therefore, the recognition of the fact of the constant possession of a plot of arable land, fenced with a boundary and a rampart and cultivated from generation to generation by members of the same family - a fact that emerges thanks to new archaeological discoveries - does not yet provide any basis for the assertion that the Germans were at the turn of the new era were “private landowners.” Invoking the concept of “private property” in this case can only indicate terminological confusion or abuse of this concept. A person of the archaic era, regardless of whether he was part of a community and obeyed its agrarian regulations or ran a farm completely independently, was not a “private” owner. Between him and his plot of land there was the closest organic connection: he owned the land, but the land “owned” him; ownership of an allotment should be understood here as the incomplete separation of a person and his team from the “people - nature” system. When discussing the problem of the attitude of the ancient Germans to the land that they inhabited and cultivated, it is apparently impossible to limit ourselves to the traditional historiographical dilemma of “private property - communal property.” The Mark community among the German barbarians was found by those scientists who relied on the words of Roman authors and considered it possible to trace back to hoary antiquity the communal routines discovered during the classical and late Middle Ages. In this regard, let us again turn to the above-mentioned all-German one.

Human sacrifices, which are reported by Tacitus (Germ., 40) and which are attested by many archaeological finds, are apparently also associated with the cult of fertility. The goddess Nerthus, who, according to Tacitus, was worshiped by a number of tribes and which he interprets as Terra mater, apparently corresponded to Njord, the god of fertility, known from Scandinavian mythology.

When settling Iceland, a person, occupying a certain territory, had to go around it with a torch and light fires on its borders.

Residents of the villages discovered by archaeologists, no doubt, carried out some kind of collective work: at least the construction and strengthening of “residential hills” in flooded areas of the North Sea coast. On the possibility of community between individual farms in the Jutland village of Hodde. As we have seen, a dwelling surrounded by a fence forms, according to these ideas, mi ðgarðr, " the middle courtyard,” a kind of center of the universe; around him stretches Utgard, a world of chaos hostile to people; it is simultaneously located somewhere far away, in uninhabited mountains and wastelands, and begins right outside the fence of the estate. Oppositions mi ðgarðr - utgarðr The opposition of the concepts innan is fully consistent garðs - utangarðs in medieval Scandinavian legal monuments; these are two types of possessions: “land located within the fence”, and “land outside the fence” - land allocated from

community fund. Thus, the cosmological model of the world was at the same time a real social model: the center of both was the household yard, house, estate - with the only significant difference that in the real life of the earth utangar ðs, not being fenced off, they nevertheless did not surrender to the forces of Chaos - they were used, they were essential for the peasant economy; however, the householder's rights to them are limited, and in case of violation of the latter, he received lower compensation than for violation of his rights to lands located innangar ðs. Meanwhile, in the world-modeling consciousness of the earth utangar ðs belong to Utgard. How to explain this? The picture of the world that emerges from the study of data from German linguistics and mythology undoubtedly took shape in a very distant era, and the community was not reflected in it; The “reference points” in the mythological picture of the world were a separate courtyard and a house. This does not mean that the community was completely absent at that stage, but, apparently, the importance of the community among the Germanic peoples increased after their mythological consciousness had developed a certain cosmological structure.

It is quite possible that the ancient Germans had large family groups, patronymics, close and branched relationships of kinship and property - integral structural units of the tribal system. At that stage of development when the first news about the Germans appeared, it was natural for a person to seek help and support from his relatives, and he was hardly able to live outside such organically formed groups. However, a brand community is an entity of a different nature than a clan or a large family, and it is not necessarily associated with them. If there was some kind of reality behind the gentes and cognationes of the Germans mentioned by Caesar, then most likely these were consanguineous associations. Any reading of the words of Tacitus: “agri pro numero cultorum ab universis vicinis (or: in vices, or: invices, invicem) occupantur, quos mox inter se secundum dignationem partiuntur” was always doomed to remain fortune-telling. It is extremely risky to build a picture of an ancient Germanic rural community on such a shaky basis.

Statements about the presence of a rural community among the Germans are based, in addition to the interpretation of the words of Caesar and Tacitus, on retrospective conclusions from material that dates back to a subsequent era. However, transferring medieval data on agriculture and settlements into antiquity is hardly a justified operation. First of all, one should not lose sight of the above-mentioned break in the history of German settlements associated with the movement of peoples in the 4th-6th centuries. After this era, there were both changes in the location of settlements and changes in the land use system. Data on communal routines in the medieval mark for the most part go back to the period no earlier than the 12th-13th centuries; in relation to the initial period of the Middle Ages, such data are extremely scarce and controversial. It is impossible to equate the Ancient Community of the Germans with the medieval “classical” brand. This is clear from the few indications of communal ties among the inhabitants of ancient Germanic villages that do exist. The radial structure of settlements such as Fedderzen Wierde is evidence that the population located their houses and laid out roads based on a general plan. The fight against the sea and the construction of the “living hills” on which villages were built also required the combined efforts of householders. It is likely that grazing on the grasslands was regulated by communal rules and that neighborhood relations led to some organization among the villagers. However, we have no information about the system of forced field orders (Flurzwang) in these settlements. The structure of the “ancient fields”, traces of which have been studied in the vast territory of settlement of the ancient Germans, did not imply this kind of routine. There is also no basis for the hypothesis about the existence of “supreme ownership” of the community over arable land. When discussing the problem of the ancient Germanic community, one more circumstance must be taken into account. The question of mutual rights of neighbors to land and the delimitation of these rights, their settlement arose when the population increased and the villagers became crowded, and there was not enough new land. Meanwhile, starting from the II-III centuries. AD and until the end of the Great Migration, there was a decline in the population of Europe, caused, in particular, by epidemics. Since a considerable part of the settlements in Germany were isolated estates or hamlets, there was hardly any need for collective regulation of land use. The human unions in which members of barbarian society united were, on the one hand, narrower than villages (large and small families, kinship groups), and on the other, wider (“hundreds”, “districts”, tribes, tribal unions). Just as the German himself was far from turning into a peasant, social groups, in which it was located, were not yet built on an agricultural, generally on an economic basis - they united relatives, family members, warriors, participants in gatherings, and not direct producers, while in medieval society peasants would be united precisely by rural communities regulating production agrarian orders. In general, we must admit that the structure of the community of the ancient Germans is poorly known to us. Hence the extremes that are often encountered in historiography: one, expressed in the complete denial of community in the era under study (while the inhabitants of the villages studied by archaeologists were undoubtedly united by certain forms of community); the other extreme is the modeling of the ancient German community on the model of the medieval rural mark community, generated by the conditions of later social and agrarian development. Perhaps a more correct approach to the problem of the German community would have been made by taking into account the essential fact that in the economy of the inhabitants of non-Romanized Europe, with a firmly settled population, cattle breeding still retained a leading role. Not the use of arable land, but grazing of livestock in meadows, pastures and forests should, apparently, primarily affect the interests of neighbors and bring to life communal routines.

As Tacitus reports, Germany “is abundant in livestock, but it is mostly stunted; Even the draft cattle are not impressive in appearance and cannot boast of horns. The Germans love to have a lot of cattle: this is the only and most pleasant form of wealth for them.” This observation of the Romans who visited Germany corresponds to what is found in the remains of ancient settlements of the Early Iron Age: an abundance of bones of domestic animals, indicating that livestock were indeed undersized. As already noted, in the “long houses”, in which the Germans mostly lived, along with living quarters there were stalls for livestock. Based on the size of these premises, it is believed that the stalls could contain a large number of animals, sometimes up to three or more dozen heads of cattle.

Cattle served among the barbarians and as a means of payment. Even in a later period, vira and other compensation could be paid by large and small livestock, and the very word fehu among the Germans meant not only “cattle”, but also “property”, “possession”, “money”. Hunting, judging by archaeological finds, was not an essential occupation for the life of the Germans, and the percentage of bones of wild animals is very small in the total mass of remains of animal bones in the studied settlements. Obviously, the population satisfied its needs through agricultural activities. However, a study of the contents of the stomachs of corpses found in swamps (these people were apparently drowned as punishment for crimes or sacrificed) indicates that sometimes the population had to eat, in addition to cultivated plants, also weeds and wild plants. As has already been the case mentioned, ancient authors, not sufficiently knowledgeable about the life of the population in Germania libera, argued that the country was poor in iron, which gave a primitive character to the picture of the economy of the Germans as a whole. Undoubtedly, the Germans lagged behind the Celts and Romans in the scale and technology of iron production. Nevertheless, archaeological Research has radically altered the picture Tacitus painted: Iron was mined throughout Central and Northern Europe in both the pre-Roman and Roman periods.

Iron ore was easily accessible due to its surface occurrence, which made it quite possible to mine it by open pit mining. But underground iron mining already existed, and ancient adits and mines, as well as iron smelting furnaces, were found. German iron guns and others hardware, according to modern experts, were of good quality. Judging by the surviving “blacksmiths’ burials,” their social position in society was high.

If in the early Roman period the mining and processing of iron remained, perhaps, still a rural occupation, then metallurgy became more and more clearly identified as an independent trade. Its centers are found in Schleswig-Holstein and Poland. Blacksmithing became an important integral component of the German economy. Iron in the form of bars served as an item of trade. But iron processing was also carried out in villages. A study of the Fedderzen Virde settlement showed that workshops where metal products were processed were concentrated near the largest estate; it is possible that they were used not only to satisfy local needs, but were also sold externally. The words of Tacitus that the Germans had few weapons made of iron and rarely used swords and long spears were also not confirmed in the light of archaeological finds. Swords were found in rich burials of the nobility. Although spears and shields in burials outnumber swords, still from 1/4 to 1/2 of all burials with weapons contain swords or their remains. In some areas, up to

% of men were buried with iron weapons.

Also questioned is Tacitus’s statement that armor and metal helmets are almost never found among the Germans. In addition to iron products necessary for the economy and war, German craftsmen knew how to make jewelry from precious metals, vessels, household utensils, build boats and ships, carts; Textile production took various forms. The lively trade of Rome with the Germans served as a source for the latter to obtain many products that they themselves did not possess: jewelry, vessels, ornaments, clothing, wine (they obtained Roman weapons in battle). Rome received from the Germans amber collected on the Baltic Sea coast, bull skins, cattle, mill wheels made of basalt, slaves (the slave trade among the Germans was mentioned by Tacitus and Ammianus Marcellinus). However, in addition to income from trade to Rome

German taxes and indemnities arrived. The most lively exchange took place on the border between the empire and Germania libera, where Roman camps and urban settlements were located. However, Roman merchants also penetrated into the depths of Germany. Tacitus notes that food exchange flourished in the interior parts of the country, while money (Roman) was used by the Germans who lived near the border with the empire (Germ., 5). This message is confirmed by archaeological finds: while Roman artifacts have been found throughout the Germanic tribal area, right up to Scandinavia, Roman coins are found mainly in a relatively narrow strip along the border of the empire. In more remote areas (Scandinavia, Northern Germany), along with individual coins, there are pieces of silver items, cut up, possibly for use for exchange purposes. The level of economic development was not uniform in different parts of Central and Northern Europe in the first centuries AD. Particularly noticeable are the differences between the interior regions of Germany and the areas adjacent to the Limes. Rhineland Germany, with its Roman cities and fortifications, paved roads and other elements of ancient civilization, had a significant impact on the tribes living nearby. The Germans also lived in the settlements created by the Romans, adopting a new way of life for them. Here their upper stratum learned Latin as the language of official use and adopted customs and religious cults that were new to them. Here they became acquainted with viticulture and gardening, more advanced types of crafts and monetary trade. Here they were included in social relations that had very little in common with the order within “free Germany”.

Conclusion

culture tradition ancient German

Describing the culture of the ancient Germans, let us once again emphasize its historical value: it was on this “barbaric”, semi-primitive, archaic culture that many peoples of Western Europe grew up. The peoples of modern Germany, Great Britain, and Scandinavia owe their culture to the amazing fusion brought about by the interaction of Latin ancient culture and ancient Germanic culture.

Despite the fact that the ancient Germans stood at a fairly low level of development compared to their powerful neighbor - the Roman Empire (which, by the way, was defeated by these “barbarians”), and were just moving from a tribal system to a class one, the spiritual culture of the ancient Germans tribes is of interest due to the richness of forms.

First of all, the religion of the ancient Germans, despite a number of archaic forms (primarily totemism, human sacrifices), provides rich material for the study of common Indo-Aryan roots in the religious views of Europe and Asia, for drawing mythological parallels. Of course, hard work awaits future researchers in this field, since there are still a lot of “blank spots” in this matter. In addition, many questions arise about the representativeness of the sources. Therefore, this problem needs further development.

Much can also be emphasized from material culture and economics. Trade with the Germans provided their neighbors with food, furs, weapons and, paradoxically, slaves. After all, since some of the Germans were valiant warriors, often carrying out predatory raids, from which they brought with them both selected material assets and carried away a large number of people into slavery. Their neighbors took advantage of this.

Finally, the artistic culture of the ancient Germans also awaits further research, primarily archaeological. Based on the data currently available, we can judge the high level of artistic craft, how skillfully and original the ancient Germans borrowed elements of the Roman and Black Sea styles, etc. However, it is also certain that any question is fraught with limitless possibilities for further research; That is why the author of this course work considers this essay to be far from the last step in the study of the rich and ancient spiritual culture of the ancient Germans.

Bibliography

.Strabo.GEOGRAPHY in 17 books // M.: “Ladomir”, 1994. // Translation, article and comments by G.A. Stratanovsky under the general editorship of prof. S.L. Utchenko // Translation editor prof. O.O. Kruger./M.: “Ladomir”, 1994.p. 772;

.Notes of Julius Caesar and his successors on the Gallic War, on the Civil War, on the Alexandrian War, on the African War // Translation and comments by Academician. MM. Pokrovsky // Scientific Research Center “Ladomir” - “Science”, M.1993.560 pp.;

Cornelius Tacitus. Works in two volumes. Volume one. Annals. Small works // Publishing house “Science”, L. 1970/634 pp.;

G. Delbrück “History of military art within the framework of political history” vol. II “Science” “Juventa” St. Petersburg, 1994 Translation from German and notes by prof. IN AND. Avdieva. Published according to the publication: Delbrück G. “History of military art within the framework of political history.” in 7 vols. M., State military Publishing house, 1936-1939, 564 pp.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Mysterious people in the darkness of the past: Germanic tribes. The Romans called them savages, far from culture. Did they know about anything other than battles and wars? What did they believe? What were they afraid of? How did you coexist with? What did they leave behind and what do we know about them? Who were the Germans?

Battle of Ariovistus with Caesar

October 1935. Archaeologists explore a burial mound on a Danish island. The hill dates back to the 1st century BC, time of the Germanic tribes.

Archaeologists make a sensational discovery: this grave of a Germanic priestess. This is evidenced by the found plant seeds, fossilized sea urchins and willow twigs - all this supposedly had magical meaning.

Who the deceased was is unknown, because the biographies of German women of that era have not reached us. But Roman historians already mentioned the great influence that the priestesses had on the Germans.

Today, ancient sources and modern science allow us to tell about the life of the German priestess. Let's call her Bazin, and this is her story.

“The threat of war with the Romans looms over our tribe. I asked: should we fight? What will the signs say? The twigs of the sacred willow will predict my future. The fate of my tribe is in the hands of the gods. What will they tell us? And here's a word of caution: no fighting while Luna is dying. Let the weapon rest until the new moon."

But in 58 BC. roman general Caesar invaded the lands of the Sueves. Mindful of the warnings of the gods, Ariovistus was ready to negotiate with the Romans, but Caesar demanded that he leave his lands.

Drusus set up Roman landmarks where no one even knew Rome existed. And here is what the Roman writes: “Drusus conquered most of the Germans and shed a lot of their blood.”

Like Drusus, Tiberius too Emperor's adopted son, and he had to fulfill the will of his father Augustus: finally conquer all the Germans.

Tiberius chose a different strategy than his brother: he decided not to achieve his goal by war. Tiberius took the path of diplomacy: The Germans had to voluntarily recognize the dominance of Rome. The resistance of the barbarians was to be broken by the cultural superiority of the Romans.

On the Rhine, on the site today, this began. A city arose according to the Roman model - a Germanic tribe that was an ally of Rome for many decades. Oppidum Ubiorum became one of the most luxurious imperial metropolises: theaters, temples and baths were supposed to convince the Germans of advantages of Roman civilization.

Not much has survived from the founding of Cologne. Earliest archaeological evidence – famous monument to the murders, the foundation of a stone tower built in 4 AD.

Having erected the tower, the Romans surrounded it with cut stone - this was the Roman method of construction. The city has become a gift from the emperor his German subjects. Apparently, the stone tower was part of the city wall of the Oppidum Ubiorum.

Rome had big plans for the city of the Ubii: the first main temple of the new province of Germany arose here. Once a year, all the conquered tribes of the Germans were supposed to gather here to renew their alliance with Rome.

The spacious temple, built by the Romans, towered over the city. A German priest led the ceremonies at the altar Ara Germany. It is symbolic that the altar was facing east, towards Germany - where Rome wanted to gain dominance.

Not only the Ubii, but also the tribes from the right bank of the Rhine gradually submitted to the Roman emperor. Presumably in 8 BC. gave up and... Like the rest of the tribes who lived between the Rhine and Elbe, they could either hide in the forest or choose between a hopeless fight and conquest. The leaders of the Cherusci decided on peaceful coexistence with Rome. Here is what the Roman author Paterculus writes: “Tiberius, as a winner, marched through all corners of Germany, without losing a single person from his loyal troops. He completely conquered the Germans, making them a tribute-paying province."

Rome was interested in making peace. Tiberius had to defend the newly acquired areas and seek a reliable alliance with the vanquished. This policy of appeasement turned out to be successful and long-lasting.

But the Cherusci paid a high price for peace and security: They had to give up their freedom, follow the orders of Rome, pay tribute and send their sons to serve in the Roman army.

"And in the end the Romans demanded the leader's son as a special guarantee of our devotion. The Romans called it . As a hostage, he had to go with the legionnaires to Rome. The leader gave in; he had no choice. The fate of our tribe was at stake. He was responsible for our freedom."

Children as hostages were commonplace in ancient times. They had to prove the loyalty of their tribes far from their homeland. In Rome, hostages were generally treated well. Arminius was raised as a Roman in the capital of the empire.

“Loyal comrades accompanied the leader’s son to a foreign land. Will they ever see the lands of the Cherusci again?

20 years later Arminius returned to his homeland, and a dramatic turn took place in the history of the Germans...