Diskussion:Hamaland

Dear Wiki-Friends,

Please apologize for my use of English, but as a foreigner (Dutchman) my German is too poor to express myself freely. But I do understand it fully when reading, so don't bother to reply in English, German is fine.

I approach you with a peculiar problem. To explain that, I repeat the first alignments of the article 'Hamaland' in its present form as shown on de.wikipedia:

[quote]

Das Hamaland ist eine Landschaft im westlichen Münsterland und den angrenzenden Niederlanden. Es umfasst die Gegend um die Städte Vreden im Kreis Borken und Winterswijk (NL).

Zur Zeit der Merowinger umfasste das Hamaland, das nach dem germanischen Stamm der Chamaven benannt war, neben dem westlichen Münsterland noch Gebiete an Rhein und Ijssel, zwischen Elten und Deventer (NL). Im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert etablierte sich hier die Grafschaft Hamaland, die aber im 11. Jahrhundert geteilt wurde und in anderen Territorien aufging.

[unquote]

The problem is: no contemporary medieval source confirms that the cited places ever belonged to 'Hamaland'. Recently, an article appeared in the Netherlands (Hein H. Jongbloed, 'Tussen 'paltsverhaal' en 'IJsellinie', gravin Averarda 'van Zutphen'(+ 11 augustus [961]) en de geboorte van de graafschappen Zutphen en Gelre' in: Bijdragen en Mededelingen Gelre -- Historisch Jaarboek voor Gelderland 97 (2006) p. 57-130) where all reliable mentionings of Hamaland have been accumulated and mapped out (p. 67). For the northern part, we can rely on a charter of 1046 (MGH DD H III 164) describing the boundaries of this part of Hamaland, which have been successively identified by subsequent Dutch historians. For the southern part of Hamaland, nothing comparable exists and we have to do with occasional mentionings of places situated in Hamaland. The author checked his findings with places situated in the neighbouring counties (Salland, Veluwe, Betuwe, Hettergau) which confirms the northern, western and southern boundaries of Hamaland as it appears in the sources. To the east, no such check was possible, but it appears that the supposed boundaries of Hamaland run perfectly parallel with the boundaries of the bishoprics of Utrecht and Münster, estabished by Charles the Great at Paderborn in 777 on the basis of existing 'political' frontiers. The author concludes that Hamaland probably occupied a frontier zone of the Frankish empire in its state before Charles the Great set out to incorporate Saxony, therefore roughly the state of 754-772. He also stipulates that Hamaland appears in the first half of the 9th century as a comitatus (Grafschaft) in the sources, probably consisting of two 'counties' (Gaue, pagus) which are to be found in the sources equally, Leomericke and Islo (Hisloa). Only in 855 Hamaland itself is denominated as a pagus. Probably, the name 'Hamaland' had substitued the other two.

It is easily visible that no part of 'Münsterland und den angrenzenden Niederlanden' can be attributed to this 'Hamaland according to the sources'. The 'extension' of Hamaland into Münsterland rests basically on the thesis of Anna Wirtz-Henningsen, 'Die Geschichte des Hamalandes' in: Annalen des Historischen vereins für den Niederrhein 173 (1971), who based herself at least partially on [NN] Bresser, Die Entstehung und Ausbildung der Landeshoheit im westfälischen Hamaland, den späteren Münsterischen Ämtern Ahaus und Bocholt, Bocholt 1927. Both tried to justify their 'extension' of hamaland on the basis of the wanderings of the Chamaven, who however according to Wirtz herself (p. 36) appear for the last time in late-Roman sources in the year AD 392. Bresser and Wirtz tried to fill the remaining gap of some 4 centuries by highly questionable ethnographic, geographic and dialectolocal considerations, which however cannot to outweigh the careful analysis of Jongbloed.

I personally conclude that there is insufficient basis for maintaining the above cited conception of Hamaland, but I think it would be a good thing if some of you would look into the matter. Therefore, I abstained from changing the page as it is and preferred contributing this discussion item.

With best regards!

Dear Dutchman :-)

I was searching for information about the tribe living in today's Münsterland at the time of Cherusker and Chamaven. There must have been either a group of its own or one of the two mentioned must also have been situated in the region between Münster and Hamaland of Jongbloed's distinction. Hamaland itself may have not been grounded on today's Germany but on the other hand at the time there wasn't today's political frontier, the today's Netherlands were a part of the then existing germanic tribes and later on of the Holy Roman Empire. I would be delighted when you can give me some information here. Thank you very much indeed.

17th of July 2007 by andre

Dear Andre, Sorry for replying so late and equally for the poor answer I have in mind for you. For the German tribes outside the frontiers of the Roman empire, we can only rely on Roman sources from Caesar onwards (Tacitus). But between the end of these Roman sources and the start of (very-)early medieval ones, there is an enourmous gap in which the 'Great Wanderings' took place. About some wandering tribes (Ostgoths, Visigoths, Francs) we now indeed something thanks to the fact that they penetrated deep into the Roman empire and were recorded there by Roman civilization (writing !), but those who stopped in more northern parts where Roman civilization had collapsed, as well as those who remained outside of what formerly had been the Roman empire, remain out of our sight until early medieval sources start. As for the Chamavi, the Peutinger map notes that they were Francs also (qui et Pranci), it would therefore seem to me a good guess that they wandered in the slipstream of the Francs. The name of the 'pays d'Amous' around Dôle (F, to the West of Besançon) is considered to derive from the Chamavi (see Wirtz, cited above), which would consolidate this supposition. In the 19th century scholars inspired by a mixture of romanticism and nationalism pretended to know for sure, but I prefer to think that most of what happened at the time is simply not-knowable. Hekaergos 12 sep 2007

Geburtsdaten von Meginhard IV. ?

Unter Meginhard IV. von Hamaland steht '(* um 920; † 998/999)' und Tochter 'Adelheid *960/970' und 'Nach dem Tode seines Sohnes und Erben Gottfried 977 ... zogen sich Megingoz und Gerberga aus den öffentlichen Leben zurück.'. Hier steht dagegen 'Meginhard IV. von Hamaland, Sohn von Everhard Saxo, seit 921 Graf von Hamaland, ab 939 entmachtet († 955)' und 'Everhard Saxo von Hamaland († 898)'. Was gilt?--Abr 15:40, 5. Apr. 2009 (CEST)