Childeric's Grave, Clovis' Succession, and the Ori Gins
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHAPTER FOUR CHILDERIC’S GRAVE, CLOVIS’ SUCCESSION, AND THE ORI GINS OF THE MEROVINGIAN KINGDOM* Th e discovery of the grave of the Frankish king Childeric I in Tournai in 1653 marks the beginning of Merovingian archaeology. Its nature and contents have never ceased to excite interest and debate over the subsequent three and a half centuries, in spite of the loss of most of the artifacts in 1831. Th e king was interred with the most lavish assemblage yet recovered from any early medieval burial, his iden- tity revealed by the presence of his seal ring. Subsequent excavations showed that the grave was surrounded by three pits containing the remains of twenty-three stallions, and suggested that the burial itself lay under a large mound.1 Traditionally the burial is dated to c. 481, on the basis of Gregory of Tours’ statement that Clovis died aft er reigning for thirty years.2 As Clovis died in 511 this would give the date of his accession, and thus—presumably—of Childeric’s death, as 481. Although knowledge of Clovis’ succession is so scanty that it is unclear whether he suc- ceeded directly upon his father’s death, it is probably unnecessarily sceptical to reject the presupposition that he did so. Indeed, it has been stated that the burial is ‘the only Merovingian grave of which the identifi cation [117] and date (481 or 482) are certain.’3 * Originally published in R.W. Mathisen & D. Shanzer (ed.), Society and Culture in Late Roman Gaul. Revisiting the Sources, (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 116–33 and reprinted with permission of Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer. Th e notes and references have been modifi ed and renumbered and the bibliography that originally appeared aft er the text of the article (pp. 131–33) has been omitted, but otherwise the text remains as published. 1 Th e literature on the burial is enormous; see, e.g., P. Périn, M. Kazanski, ‘Das Grab Childer ichs I,’ in A. Wieczorek, P. Périn, K. Von Welck, W. Menghin eds., Die Franken. Wegbereiter Europas (2nd ed.; Mainz, 1997) 173–82; and U. Koch, K. von Welck, A. Wieczorek, ‘Das Grab des Frankenkönigs Childerich I.,’ in Wieczorek et al. (ed.), Die Franken, pp. 879–83, and note also EMCems, pp. 31–32; and E. James, Th e Franks (Oxford, 1988) pp. 58–64. 2 LH 2.31. 3 P. Périn & M. Kazanski, ‘Le mobilier de la tombe de Childéric Ier. État de la ques- tion et per spectives,’ Re vue Archéologique de Picardie (1988) no. 3–4, pp. 13–38, at p. 13. 170 chapter four Th e presence of Childeric’s seal ring does not prove beyond doubt that the burial is his but, to borrow a phrase of English law, it places the identifi cation ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ Th e dating of the grave (and thus of Childeric’s death and Clovis’ accession) is quite another matter. Th e date of 481/2 is so generally accepted that the matter is not discussed. One overview makes no mention of dating criteria (the coins) within the grave, and another states that the burial ‘remains the only early medieval grave on the Continent which can be dated by reference to his torical sources to within a year or two.’4 A recent criti cal assessment of late fi ft h-century sword-burials and of their dat- ing methodolo gies takes the date of 481/2 as read.5 Th is date has in turn been used as the foundation for the dating of other graves, and employed as a terminus post quem for the incorporation of particular areas of Gaul into the Frankish king dom. As has long been recognized, however, Gregory’s knowledge of Clo- vis was sketchy 6 and his chronology of the reign entirely artifi cial.7 Th irty years was a convenient and appropriate length for the reign of a great king, with suitable biblical precedent.8 Furthermore, Gregory’s approach to numbers was such that, like many of his contemporaries, he worked in multiples of fi ve (using poetic lustra as a unit of chrono- logical measurement), but more usually in simple multiples of ten.9 It is diffi cult, therefore, to take Gregory’s statement that Clo vis reigned 4 Koch, Weick & Wieczorek, ‘Das Grab’; James, Franks, p. 59. At p. 79, James cor- rectly points out that the date is derived from Gregory’s ‘unverifi able statement’ about the length of Clovis’ reign. 5 F. Th euws & M. Alkemade, ‘A Kind of Mirror for Men: Sword Deposits in Late Antique North ern Gaul,’ in F. Th euws & J.L. Nelson (ed.), Rituals of Power (Leiden, 2000), pp. 401–76, with a bibliography of studies of late fi ft h-century furnished burial, including Childeric’s. 6 See, e.g., I.N. Wood, ‘Gregory of Tours and Clovis,’ RBPH 63 (1985), pp. 249–72; also M. Spencer, ‘Dating the Baptism of Clovis 1886–1983,’ EME 3.2 (1994), pp. 97–116; and D.R. Shanzer, ‘Dating the Baptism of Clovis: Th e Bishop of Vienne vs. the Bishop of Tours,’ EME 7.1 (1998), pp. 29–57. 7 See C. Carozzi, ‘Le Clo vis de Grégoire de Tours,’ Le Moyen-Age 98 (1992), pp. 169–85. 8 Th irty, for example, was David’s age when he began to reign (2 Sam. 5.4), and Christ’s age at baptism (Luke 3.23). 9 LH 2.24, where Gregory refers to Ecdicius’ army as ten strong, whereas Sidonius (Ep. 3.3.3) gives it as eighteen; for ages-at-death rounded to units of ten, see, e.g. LH 3.18, 4.51, 5.10, 6.15, 6.20, 9.19, 9.26, 10.12, 10.31 (Eufronius); VP 8.5, 11.3, 12.3, 14.4, 15.4; in general, see M. Handley, Th e Early Medieval Inscriptions of Brit ain, Gaul and Spain. Studies in Func tion and Culture (diss., Univ. of Cambridge, 1998), pp. 45–69. I thank Dr Hand ley for his informa tion on this topic. .