11

Conflict and Contact Zone: The Lower Middle Elbe (Northern Germany) as a Border in the Carolingian and Ottonian Periods

Felix Biermann

Introduction

In the early Middle Ages, the border between the settlement areas of Slavic and Germanic groups in what is now northern Germany stretched through the western lower Middle Elbe region via Holstein to the Baltic coast.¹ It had arisen from the Great Migration Period to the early Middle Ages and formed neither a permanent settlement structure nor a political border. Nevertheless, in the early and High Middle Ages there were also boundary situations in the latter sense here, because settlement movements as well as expanding powers repeatedly referred to geographical constants, such as large rivers. Newly created or expanding dominions were also oriented towards existing tribal structures, and the latter in turn had to do with languages. Thus, Charlemagne (†814), in his Saxon Wars (772–804), shifted the border of the Frankish Empire to the lower Middle Elbe as well as to the eastern borders of the Saxon settlement area north of the river. He established only a loose suzerainty over the Slavs living to the east, which his successors laboriously maintained in the following decades; this border organisation is mentioned in written sources in the area north of the Elbe as the Limes Saxoniae.²

The Ottonian kings and emperors did go beyond the Elbe from 928–929 onwards and subjugated the Slavic lands as far as the river Oder, but they lost their northern parts again in the great Slavic uprising (Liutician revolt) of 983. Thus, the border situation on the lower central Elbe re-emerged. This border had many facets: here, political territories with very different organisations bordered on each other – the Frankish or eastern Frankish Empire and small-scale structured dominions, often still organised in tribal units. In addition, the border corresponded roughly to that between groups of different languages and ethnic identities. Moreover, religious zones also bordered on each other here, for Christianity had already been established to the west in the Carolingian period, while to the east traditional pagan beliefs remained alive until the twelfth century.³

For questions about the character of early medieval borders and their role as dividing lines and contact zones, this part of the eastern border of the Frankish and (later) eastern Frankish Empire is an interesting example. We concentrate here on one section of it: the northern Middle Elbe area between Magdeburg and the Hanoverian Wendland (Map 11.1) in the period from the seventh to the eleventh centuries (with a view to the preceding and subsequent periods). It is a lowland landscape with the Altmark and the Wendland on the western side and the Havel-land, the Prignitz and the so-called Elb-Havel-Winkel on the eastern side of the approximately 180-km-long river section (federal states of Saxony-Anhalt, Lower Saxony and Brandenburg). This area offers good conditions for the archaeological and historical study of a Carolingian-Ottonian border situation because, on the one hand, large-scale field research has been carried out here as part of the German Research Foundation (DFG) project “Slavs on the Lower Middle Elbe”⁴ and, in other contexts, at various strongholds.⁵ In addition, there are many excavations in the important central place of Magdeburg.⁶ On the other hand, there is a comparatively dense historical tradition.

MAP 11.1 The area of research with the places mentioned in the text (drawing by the author).

The Carolingian and Ottonian border on the lower Middle Elbe has repeatedly attracted the interest of medieval historians, with thoroughly controversial hypotheses: Matthias Hardt assumes that Charlemagne created a limes along the Elbe after 800 on the ancient Roman model, in the form of a fortified river border.⁷ Thomas Saile has contradicted this. He and other researchers assume a broad border or frontier zone that was only roughly oriented to the river.⁸ Connected with this is the problem of whether the Slavs who settled west of the river – in the Hanoverian Wendland and in the Altmark – at times possessed their own independent dominions. Johannes Schultze assumed their integration into the Frankish dominion, while Bernd Wachter, Matthias Hardt and Ulf Frommhagen, for example, recognise autonomous Slavic dominions west of the Elbe.⁹

A Carolingian-Ottonian border is certainly not to be understood as static but was subject to shifts, changes in organisation and fluctuating stability. Archaeological finds shed light on this situation: the complex social structure of the border was maintained through the building of strongholds, the use and threat of violence and political-diplomatic activities. This will be analysed here by considering the following questions: Was the border in the Carolingian and Ottonian periods a kind of dividing line or rather a transitional area? How was it organised? What military and political-diplomatic practices maintained the border situation? What role did the border play for the various groups living here – Franks, Saxons, Slavs and their elites?

The Elbe between Magdeburg and the Hanoverian Wendland as a Border in the Early Middle Ages: Historical-Archaeological Overview

Germanic groups lived on both sides of the lower Middle Elbe until the fifth–sixth centuries, but in the Great Migration Period they began to move and leave their homes. In the Elbe lands there followed a phase of low settlement, which has so far been documented mainly in detector finds from the advanced sixth and seventh centuries, mainly from the Altmark.¹⁰ What happened in the “dark century” between c. 550 and 670 cannot be reliably surveyed, given the complete lack of written and only sparse archaeological records.¹¹ The settlement pattern did not consolidate again until the later seventh century. In the following century, we can record the groups living here as Saxons from written sources.

In the late seventh century, however, Slavs had migrated into the areas east of the Elbe that had been completely or largely denuded of Germanic settlement,¹² and they also crossed the river and settled in the later Altmark – especially in its east – as well as in the Hanoverian Wendland; this is attested to by archaeological finds of Slavic character as well as Slavic place names recorded as early as the tenth century.¹³ From that time onwards, two very different cultures clashed here, which diverged not only linguistically but also in their economic and settlement models. The tension between demarcation and contact between Saxons and Slavs can be traced archaeologically at settlement sites, burial grounds and material culture, in the Hanoverian Wendland, in the area north of Magdeburg and especially in the western Altmark.¹⁴

In the eighth century the Franks joined them. Their rulers and those of the subsequent eastern Frankish Empire waged almost constant wars from the eighth to the eleventh centuries to assert and expand their rule. Charlemagne’s central project was the subjugation of the Saxons in a war lasting over 30 years between 772 and 804.¹⁵ In its course, the ruler also came to the mouth of the river Ohre and into the Elbe near Wolmirstedt in 780: here, a people’s assembly took place in which Saxons and East Elbe Slavs, among others, took part.¹⁶ The subjugation of the Saxons finally made the northern Middle Elbe the imperial border.

We learn little about their practical organisation and structure from historical sources. Like the Limes Sorabicus to the south (at the river Saale), which is mentioned in written sources of the ninth century, there will have been a border count, and strongholds were certainly the basis for frontier protection.¹⁷ We expressly hear of at least two strongholds that Charlemagne built in the area under consideration here: on the mountain range called Höhbeck (in the Hanoverian Wendland) and opposite Magdeburg, in each case directly on or close to the Elbe (see Section “Carolingian versus Slavic Strongholds on the Elbe River”). The subjugation of the Saxons was followed by fruitful missionary efforts. The areas west of the Elbe were assigned to the bishoprics of Halberstadt and Verden in the ninth century.¹⁸ Thus, from then on, zones of Christian and pagan faiths clashed along the Elbe, for the Slavs east of the river continued with their old religious ideas and practices.

For Charlemagne’s successors, confronted with diverging forces in their own Empire, the Saxon-Slavic northeast of their domain initially lost interest. They were able to hold the border by and large but could not initiate any further expansion. Over the ninth century, the Saxons integrated themselves into the Empire. Because we hear nothing of campaigns or other acts of war, this may also have applied to the Slavs living west of the river.

It was not until the tenth century that the subjugation of the Elbe Slavic tribes on the other side of the river was put on the agenda of the Empire’s rulers, who by then were eastern Frankish and of Saxon descent. Charlemagne had already established tributary dominions, federate relations and alliance systems here – especially over the powerful Abodrites – which were also intended to prevent an alliance between Saxons and Slavs.¹⁹ The well-known campaign of 789 against the Wilzi (Veleti) on the river Peene (in present-day Vorpommern) and their ruler Dragowit should be understood in this context.²⁰ The purpose of such campaigns was not subjugation but the temporary assertion of power targets. There was nothing more than such activities in the eastern Empire until beyond the end of the Carolingian dynasty.²¹

The Saxon-eastern Frankish King Henry I (†936) went a step further with the subjugation of the Slavic territories in 928–929. In that year, he conquered Brandenburg upon Havel, the main centre of the powerful Slavic Hevellians (Stodorani), and his further campaigns affected the other Slavic areas between the rivers Elbe and Oder. These were brought under the suzerainty of the eastern Frankish Empire, but in very different ways and with fluctuating intensity. The king placed the subjugated territories under the supervision of margraves – a march organisation.²²

The military actions were not only directed against the Slavs and not only served to expand the dominion. Rather, the conquests were also intended to protect Saxony – the core territory of the empire – from the Hungarians or Old Magyars, who at that time were invading Saxony in annual raids or, even more preferably, extorting tribute; on their raids into the kingdom, they had repeatedly passed through the Elbe Slavic territories. The Slavic Redarians answered the king’s attack on Brandenburg with an assault on Walsleben fort in the north of what later became Altmark. The counterattack by the eastern Franks led to the battle of Lunkini (Lenzen/Elbe) in 929, in which the Slavic force was defeated.²³ In 932, Henry was able to repel the Hungarian messengers and subsequently defeat the Magyar armies in the battle of Riade, a not definitively localised place on the river Unstrut (933).²⁴

Henry’s son Otto I, the Great (912–973), who showed a special inclination towards Magdeburg (Figure 11.1), promoted this place and decorated it architecturally (most recently discussed by Kunz in 2005), further expanded the march organisation in Slavic lands, and arranged for and supported the founding of bishoprics [Havelberg (Figure 11.2) and Brandenburg, Archbishopric of Magdeburg] as well as mission efforts.²⁵ Actually, he managed to integrate the Sorbian territories between the Saale and Neiße Rivers into the Empire.²⁶ In the north, however – between the Elbe and the Oder – his rule continued only to vault the traditional Slavic tribal hierarchies, especially as Christianisation failed there. Instead, campaign after campaign followed to maintain the authority of those warlike chieftains.

FIGURE 11.1 View along the Elbe to the north towards Magdeburg Cathedral. In the area of the cathedral was the early medieval fortification (photo O. Cleynen).FIGURE 11.2 View from the Havelberg city island, where the centre of the Slavic settlement agglomeration was located, to the “Domberg” with the Romanesque cathedral (photo by the author).

Consequently, there was the great Liutician revolt in the north of the Elbe Slavic territory in 983. The Liutici were a confederation of Slavic tribes (above all the Redarians and the Tollensians) who had united around their (not conclusively localised) sanctuary of Rethra in Mecklenburg and pooled their forces. Eastern Frankish and German rule in the area east of the Elbe and roughly north of the river Havel collapsed.²⁷ The area in which we are interested was directly affected by this: the bishop’s seat of Havelberg was destroyed, and Kalbe monastery on the river Milde and many villages as far as the river Tanger were devastated by the Slavs.²⁸ At the latter river, an important battle took place in 983, in which eastern Frankish troops defeated those of the Liutici.²⁹ Until the twelfth century, the latter were able to retain their freedom and their old religious beliefs – tribal areas or a “gentile wedge” in Christian central Europe.³⁰

The section of the Elbe considered here had again become a border area for a good 170 years in 983, until Saxon nobility and imperial power were able to expand across the Elbe again from the middle twelfth century onwards.³¹ Soon thereafter, German eastern settlement began, shaping today’s settlement pattern and levelling the old boundaries. The multilayered border or frontier situation thus came to an end gradually.³²

Carolingian versus Slavic Strongholds on the Elbe River

To better understand the character and development of the border, studies have repeatedly focused on the many early medieval strongholds on both sides of the Elbe.³³ Methodologically, there is the problem that Slavic and Frankish fortifications cannot be easily distinguished archaeologically. Repeatedly, forts west of the Elbe were classified as Slavic on the basis of their supposedly early dating, their pottery shards or their construction method. However, the bases for this dating were insufficient and often even inaccurate, and the occurrence of Slavic finds in a border and contact area does not allow any direct conclusions to be drawn about the political obligations of the respective owner of the stronghold.³⁴ Equally inconclusive are the rather minor differences in the design of Saxon, Frankish and Slavic fortifications.³⁵

It is certain that the power politics of the Carolingian and Ottonian rulers were based, to a large extent, on strongholds. Although we cannot consistently date or otherwise classify the strongholds in the area under consideration here in terms of cultural history, some archaeologically and historically researched fortifications shed interesting light. Charlemagne encountered groups of comparatively low social complexity on both sides of the Elbe during his Saxon wars, ranging from acephalous communities to simple rank societies and chiefdoms.³⁶ It may be that they built fortifications even before the Frankish attacks, for we know of fortifications among the northern Elbe Slavs from the middle of the eighth century,³⁷ and perhaps earlier among the Saxons.³⁸ However, there is only uncertain evidence for this in the area under consideration here: a recent dating of the ramparts and moats on Magdeburg’s Cathedral Square to pre-Carolingian times, possibly even to the era of the Thuringian Empire (fifth–sixth centuries),³⁹ is based on radiocarbon dates and, in my opinion, is inaccurate.⁴⁰ The other ramparts cannot yet be dated before the decades around 800. The oldest dendrochronological date, “around/after 730”, was provided by the “Schwedenschanze” hill fort near Brünkendorf on the Höhbeck massif, but it is based on a charcoal without sapwood or wane and offers only a terminus post quem; the pottery from the site points rather to the ninth century.⁴¹ Presumably, therefore, the first strongholds in the area under consideration here were only built around the time of the Frankish military campaigns.

Even if there were older fortifications, the Carolingian strongholds had a new, namely, strategic significance: they were the main instrument for consolidating the subjugated enemies’ allegiance established with large military campaigns. On the one hand, they formed the backbone of a complex border and land organisation, where royal commissioners took up residence and control points for trade (especially with weapons) were established; Charlemagne’s Diedenhofen (Thionville) Capitulary of 805 names such places for our region firstly in Schezla, an unlocated place in the Hanoverian Wendland; according to a hypothesis of J. Schneeweiß, this place was in Meetschow near the Höhbeck.⁴² Secondly, the Diedenhofen Capitulary mentions such a checkpoint in Magdeburg, which was also the residence of the border count Aito.⁴³

On the other hand, Charlemagne built strongholds with a mainly military purpose: the castellum contra Magadaburg, initiated by his son of the same name on the other side of the Elbe after a campaign in 806 and built by the subjugated Slavs themselves. It was probably located near Hohenwarthe 15 km northeast of Magdeburg, on the high bank above the river.⁴⁴ Recently, an early medieval fort investigated in Biederitz has alternatively been identified with this fort.⁴⁵ The localisation, on the other hand, is certain in the case of the castellum Hohbuoki (“Vietzer Schanze” on the Höhbeck massif), seat of the border commissioner Odo, built shortly before 810 and renewed in 811 after martial destruction; finally, at least one further fortification, built in 808 but not localisable today, is mentioned in contemporary sources.⁴⁶

The two strongholds on the Höhbeck and at Hohenwarthe – the first is certainly identifiable, while the second is only uncertainly identifiable with the recorded places mentioned previously – have been archaeologically researched. They were demonstrations of power on high hillocks overlooking the Elbe (Figures 11.3 and 11.4), controlled the river as well as river crossings, impressed with extensive rampart-moat systems – the multiple staggered moat system of Hohenwarthe has an outer diameter of a good 300 m⁴⁷ – and the Höhbeck fort (“Vietzer Schanze”) moreover formed a rectangle (Figure 11.5);⁴⁸ this unusual shape, reminiscent of a Roman fort, may actually have gone back to ancient patterns.⁴⁹ The “Vietzer Schanze” can be precisely dated to the historically named period with three wane tree-ring dates from rampart construction beams: 805, 809 and 810.⁵⁰

FIGURE 11.3 View from the Slavic ringfort Lenzen-Neuehaus westwards to the Höh-beck mountain range. The early medieval strongholds “Vietzer Schanze” and “Schwedenschanze” are located to the right of the transmitter masts in the forest (photo by the author).FIGURE 11.4 View from the “Vietzer Schanze” on the Höhbeck across the Elbe (photo by the author).FIGURE 11.5 Digital terrain model of the rectangular “Vietzer Schanze” (Geobasis-DE/LGB, processing by the author).

The Slavic tribal rulers on the other side of the Elbe reacted to this confrontation with a social-military consolidation, which is recognisable in the building of strongholds around or soon after 800 in the Elbe lands.⁵¹ Examples of this are the gords of Lenzen-Neuehaus and Lenzersilge (Figures 11.6 and 11.7), which were built in this period in the northwestern Prignitz, opposite Höhbeck, and perhaps also the strongholds around the “Vietzer Schanze”: the so-called “Alte Burg” of Meetschow and the already mentioned “Schwedenschanze” of Brünkendorf.⁵² These fortifications, all researched as part of the DFG project mentioned earlier and dated with tree-ring data or archaeological finds, were built around 800 or in the first decades of the ninth century.

FIGURE 11.6 The stronghold of Lenzen-Neuehaus, reconstruction view in the second main phase around 900 (drawing O. Blum, after Biermann/Kieseler 2021: 142, fig. 120).FIGURE 11.7 The stronghold of Lenzersilge, reconstruction view around 830 (drawing O. Blum, after Biermann/Kieseler 2021: 141, Fig. 118).

However, on neither this side of the Elbe nor the other, which certainly formed an orienting landmark for the border situation, were there closed lines of forts. Rather, the Franks merely occupied neuralgic points in the communication landscape, and the northwestern Slavs built fortifications everywhere in their extensive settlement landscapes at that time, which primarily had to do with the consolidation of power and conflicts within the northwest Slavic tribal society; the strongholds on the Elbe had a special function here vis-à-vis the powerful opponent in the west, but they were ultimately only the outermost elements of an extensive gord landscape encompassing the entire Slavic settlement territory.⁵³ In this respect, it would not be appropriate to explain them exclusively as a reaction to Frankish stronghold building. Moreover, most of the forts are not precisely dated. However, the military organisation and stronghold building of the Slavs were stimulated by the conflicts with the Franks.⁵⁴

It remains uncertain whether Charlemagne had the ancient limes in mind when he built strongholds at various positions along the Elbe; if he intended to imitate a “Wet Limes”, there was no need for continuous or regularly spaced fortifications that could be proven archaeologically today. However, it is obvious that he aligned his sphere of influence in the area under consideration here along the Elbe. Charlemagne’s conception, however precise, did not endure, for the forts quickly disappeared from the written record for the most part and were also soon abandoned according to archaeological observations.⁵⁵ The area took on the border or frontier zone character typical of the time, which is marked archaeologically by a broad distribution of forts that represented military and administrative centres of the region.

Saxon and Slavic Elites as Border Guards of the Eastern Frankish Empire

Especially after 850, many strongholds were built west of the Elbe which, although formally commissioned by the empire, were probably the first “private” fortifications – they were in the hands of powerful magnates who increasingly acted independently. This is likely to be true of strongholds such as those at Ottersburg (Figure 11.8), Walsleben, and Hildagsburg at Wolmirstedt-Elbeu, and probably also Rosenhof, the Oerenburg and the “Weinberg” stronghold near Hitzacker (Figure 11.9).⁵⁶ For some of these strongholds, Slavic phases of the eighth or the first half of the ninth century were suspected, but they do not stand up to scrutiny.⁵⁷ The rule and property structure of the region were strongly divided in the tenth–eleventh centuries, when we get our first glimpses of these relations; several noble families, including those of Haldensleben and Walbeck, divided themselves into various counties. In the eleventh century, the eastern part of what later became the Altmark (Balsamgau) was probably owned by the ancestors of Count Wiprecht von Groitzsch (†1124).⁵⁸

FIGURE 11.8 The ringfort of Ottersburg, aerial view from the the north with an excavation trench, 2008 (photo E. Risch, after Biermann 2016a: 315, Fig. 7).FIGURE 11.9 Reconstruction view of the castle on the “Weinberg” near Hitzacker (drawing W. Sättler, after Wachter 1998: 62, Fig. 60).

Most of the ninth- to tenth-century strongholds yield considerable quantities of Slavic pottery in addition to Saxon globular pottery.⁵⁹ Sometimes the former outweighs the latter. As a rule, this is probably due to general cultural contacts, which are not surprising in the border area. Slavic pottery, at the latest from the first half of the ninth century onwards, was of higher quality than Saxon everyday ware and, moreover, was beautifully decorated; it enjoyed a certain popularity among the Saxons west of the Elbe and may even have been imitated there.⁶⁰ Of course, such finds may also point to Slavic inhabitants of the strongholds who used the everyday tableware to which they were accustomed, which was provided with a stand and not with the wobble or globular bases of the Saxon type, but this conclusion is by no means compelling. It is not possible to infer a Slavic community or commander of a fort from such finds without further ado, as already described previously. The material culture in a border area characterised by manifold interconnections does not allow this.

It is nevertheless probable that Slavic elites were also integrated into the Frank-ish or eastern Frankish ruling organisation alongside Saxons. An early medieval kingdom or empire could only exist if it incorporated local or regional elites and integrated them into its own organisation by granting them opportunities for advancement; the integration of the Saxons into the Frankish Empire in the ninth century is a good example of this. In this respect, members of Slavic groups west of the Elbe could also have experienced social elevation within the Frankish border and ruling organisation. This could be true if there were only slightly developed, small-scale and weakly hierarchised social structures there before Charlemagne’s military campaigns, which is indicated by the lack of Slavic strongholds west of the Elbe before about 800. It could also be true, however, if there really were Slavic tribal dominions west of the river, as is assumed for the Hanoverian Wendland region in the early Middle Ages (see previous discussion). These would undoubtedly have accepted the suzerainty of the Empire and thus would have been elites not only of their own community but also of the Frankish or eastern Frankish Empire. The written sources, however, are not very informative. At least there are single records about eastern Frankish possessions in the Hanoverian Wend-land beginning in the tenth–eleventh centuries (the landscapes Drevani and Marca Lipani), which suggest eastern Frankish rule there.⁶¹ However, we can assume that the strength and intensity of royal and imperial power in the border region fluctuated constantly under Carolingian and Ottonian rulers.

Ottonian Administrative Strongholds, “Private” Fortifications, Burgwarde

In the tenth century – under the Ottonians – further strongholds were built, such as Arneburg and Osterburg or the “Kleine Burgwall” Havelberg.⁶² Some of these appear in the written sources as Burgwarde – royal administrative castles.⁶³ These no longer had a primarily military purpose, but above all were devoted to administrative and political tasks; however, as shown previously, they also again represented border fortifications from 983 at the latest. The Quedlinburg Annals, followed by Thietmar of Merseburg, emphasise this function by reporting in 987 that the Saxons attacked the Slavs and submitted to the king, and at the same time the strongholds on the Elbe were renewed (Ann. Quedlinburgiensis ad anno 987).⁶⁴ The Arneburg hill fort, for example, which was first mentioned in 978 and destroyed by Slavic troops in 997, was situated high above the Elbe and the Marienborch castrum (probably near Kabelitz), first mentioned in 948 and still in the twelfth century and which lay east of the Elbe, took on special tasks in securing the border.⁶⁵ Many of these forts were imperial castles (Reichsburgen), but were de facto already in the hands of the powerful count families.⁶⁶ This corresponds to a general trend towards the “privatisation” of power and strongholds in the marches, which at the same time meant that border security increasingly became the task of the high nobility, who associated it with their own interests.⁶⁷

Thietmar von Merseburg’s chronicle estimates the complicated mixture of interests and claims of various actors of the eastern Frankish Empire in stronghold policy on the river Elbe in the late Ottonian period. For example, in the case of the aforementioned Arneburg (Figure 11.10) in 978, Brun von Arneburg (†978) was the commander there, who probably also founded the Arneburg monastery and thus acted quite independently. In 997, Emperor Otto III (980–1002) had the fortifications renewed. The ruler entrusted Archbishop Giselher von Magdeburg (†1004) with the supervision of the stronghold (Burghut) for four weeks, which he carried out completely despite a defeat by the Slavs. When he left after completing the task, he met Count Lothar III von Walbeck, Margrave of Nordmark (“northern march”) (†1003), who was to take over the next Burghut. However, as Arneburg was apparently in flames as a result of a Slavic attack, he refrained from this obligation. King Henry II (†1024) had the stronghold rebuilt before 1006, as it was important for the defence of the fatherland (ob defensionem patriae); in 1012, he negotiated here with Slavic delegates. At this time, Arneburg had probably already been sold to Archbishop Tagino von Magdeburg (†1012). Activities of the king or emperor, secular and ecclesiastical magnates on behalf of the Empire or in their own interests thus went hand in hand here.⁶⁸

FIGURE 11.10 View to the north on Arneburg. The stronghold is located on the hill in front of the church (photo G. Tschuch).

Stronghold Archaeology – Conflict Archaeology

That these strongholds not only were seats of the nobility and administrative centres but were also used in warlike events is shown by the aforementioned written records of attacks on ring forts and archaeologically recorded construction projects corresponding to warlike events. On the occasion of the Hungarian invasions of the 920s, for example, the Ottersburg stronghold in the Altmark was renewed, as tree-ring dates probably indicate⁶⁹ the reinforcement of the fortification with a mighty timber and earth wall extension (Figure 11.11), and a new moat – in 923 or shortly afterwards – coincides with the time when King Henry I bought a nine-year truce in return for the surrender of a captured Hungarian leader and tribute payments, and then used the time to build up a powerful armed force and a stronghold system.⁷⁰ In front of the sectional wall on the southern attack side of Meetschow ring fort, ditches and ramparts were laid, so-called “Reitergassen” (“riding lanes”), which formed typical approach obstacles against mounted warriors and therefore probably also belong to those years (Figures 11.12–11.14).⁷¹

FIGURE 11.11 Ottersburg, ringfort, rampart extension of the 920s, a paddle in the moat (photo by the author, after Biermann 2016a: 336, Fig. 25).FIGURE 11.12 Meetschow, aerial view of the stronghold from the southeast with excavation trenches from 2007 (photo F. Ruchhöft, after Schneeweiß 2020: 129, Fig. 57).FIGURE 11.13 Digital terrain model of the Meetschow stronghold with the rampart ditch sections directed against horsemen’s attacks (in front of the southern rampart, at the lower edge of the picture) (Geobasis-DE/LGB, processing by the author).FIGURE 11.14 Meetschow, reconstruction view of the rampart ditch sections directed against horsemen’s attacks (drawing H.-W. Heine, after Heine 2007: 108, fig. 3).

Another historical reference is provided by the expansion of the Meetschow rampart in 929, the year of the Battle of Lunkini, which apparently affected several fortifications in the region on both sides of the Elbe.⁷² The specific political-military situation in the later ninth and early tenth centuries may have been the starting point for the younger ring fort phases at Lenzen-Neuehaus and Meetschow, and perhaps also the ring fort in the Elbholz near Gartow.⁷³ Their construction coincides with a period of weakness of the Frankish border regiment after 862 and before 919.⁷⁴ In this time span, the area was outside the focus of interest. Slavictribal elites from the Prignitz possibly took advantage of this to gain a foothold on the opposite bank with fortifications.

Finally, the Liutician revolt of 983 is also reflected in the construction of fortifications: shortly before this date – according to tree-ring data 981–982 – the rampart in the stronghold “Burgberg” of Lenzen was almost completely rebuilt, obviously because of the tense and threatening situation on the Elbe; here, too, it is not entirely clear which side prompted this.⁷⁵ The strongholds, it should be noted, did support the border system, not as a rigid line but merely by occupying relevant points in the landscape of rule and communication. At the same time, the fortifications formed a dynamic system in which they were constantly disappearing or being rebuilt, and in which various actors were at work – elites of different rank, and of Saxon and Slavic origin.

War, Violence, Demonstrative Terror – Instruments of Border Security

The close relationship of the strongholds to warlike events, which can be traced back to tree-ring dates and expansion phases, shows a second essential aspect of the border: it was not established once and then accepted by all, but had to be constantly enforced by war and the use of force. The devastating campaigns with which rule was established in our area have been recorded repeatedly; the Slavic tribe of the Linones in northwestern Prignitz alone was the target of Frankish military campaigns four times during the ninth century (808, 811, 839 and 858), usually after refusals to pay tribute or other insubordination to the imperial power.⁷⁶ Because certainly only major military campaigns found expression in contemporary yearbooks, there may have been many more such activities.

We come particularly close to historical events in our area for the Battle of Lunkini in 929 (Lenzen an der Elbe). As Widukind von Corvey († after 973) describes, the Slavic Redarians had broken the treaty imposed on them by the Saxons and raided Walsleben (northern Altmark); in retaliation, a Saxon army marched against the Slavs and besieged the stronghold of Lunkini. Because a Slavic relief army was devastatingly defeated there, the campaign came to an early end here.⁷⁷ In the light of recent excavations, the stronghold of Lenzen-Neuehaus may have played a role in this event: strong traces of fire in the rampart, which according to tree-ring data was last renewed around or after 913, as well as its subsequent abandonment can be explained by the attack, as can several arrowheads in the gate area.⁷⁸

In this context, another characteristic of these wars becomes visible: their merciless harshness. “All captives were”, as Widukind von Corvey describes the fate of the Slavic warriors after the Battle of Lunkini, “beheaded the following day” (Captivi omnes postera die … obtruncati).⁷⁹ Here we are dealing less with impulsive, escalating brutality than with calculated cruelty in the sense of demonstrative terror, as Charlemagne had already used against the Saxons: brutal, violent measures to intimidate and deter, such as the “blood court” of Verden upon Aller in 782.⁸⁰ The recalcitrants were to be punished in such a way that word got around.

Archaeological witnesses to the brutality of early medieval wars are, for example, the human bones from the Wolmirstedt “Schlossberg”: in fire debris layers on the inner front of the fire-damaged rampart, which can be dated to the ninth–tenth century by means of pottery shards, two vertebrae, a finger bone and an incisor were found, which we may presumably take to be the remains of victims of fighting.⁸¹ The skull bone of a young man was also found in a fireplace in the Rosen-hof ring fort, which mainly belongs to the late ninth and tenth centuries.⁸² The 3.70-m-long lance found in the ditch of Oerenburg in the Wendland probably goes back to a fight for the stronghold (Figure 11.15).⁸³

FIGURE 11.15 Oerenburg, lance with iron tip and wooden shaft in the moat (after Wachter 1986: 139, Fig. 52).

Politics and Diplomacy in the Light of Archaeological Finds

Of course, a border was made permanent not only by using force and terror but also through diplomacy and the political securing of the border zone. The Carolingian and Ottonian rulers and diplomats attempted to integrate Slavic rulers by awarding prestigious titles, honorifics and gifts. There is ample written evidence of the importance of these factors in diplomatic relations between the Frankish and eastern Frankish as well as the Slavic rulers.⁸⁴ This aspect of border strategy is probably illustrated by several finds of Frankish elite culture – metal fittings, horsemen’s spurs, swords – which we know from Slavic strongholds of the ninth and tenth centuries. It is, of course, seldom possible to determine in detail how these things came to the area of the Elbe Slavs.

However, from somewhat later times, the late tenth to the middle of the twelfth centuries, we know of splendid pieces of equipment in chieftains’ or rulers’ graves in the Obodritian and Liutician area, which are plausibly interpreted as gifts of honour. Thus, the relic bag elaborately decorated with golden flattened wire, which was placed with a Wagrian ruler in his grave in Oldenburg/Holstein in the second half of the tenth century, and perhaps also other grave goods in the burial, including a set of hnefatafl tokens and a sword, can plausibly be interpreted as such prestigious gifts.⁸⁵ A ruler of the Slavic Dossanes, whose grave was found in Wusterhausen upon Dosse some years ago, was buried in the first half of the twelfth century not only with a silver-plated sword but also with a ceremonial robe decorated with golden flattened wire that would have satisfied the fashionable and representative demands of the imperial court (Figure 11.16). In view of the rather limited material possibilities of the ruler of a small Slavic tribe in the forefront of the Empire’s territory, but his greater chances of achieving political significance through skilful action, the interpretation as a gift of honour is probably more plausible than as a commercial good.⁸⁶ Small lords could gain far more influence by skilfully manoeuvring between the great powers than was commensurate with their real ruling resources.

FIGURE 11.16 Wusterhausen, detail of an elite burial with sword with silver-plated hilt and gold fabric of the ceremonial robe (photo D. Sommer, after Bier-mann/Schopper 2012: 58, Fig. 51).

Result

How do we characterise the border situation in the Carolingian-Ottonian period from an archaeological perspective? The methodological problems outlined earlier must be considered – the insufficient state of research, imprecise or inaccurate dating, the difficulties in interpreting material culture ethnically and difficulties in distinguishing Slavic, Saxon or Frankish fortifications in a stronghold landscape determined by mutual technical-architectural orientation and therefore relatively uniform appearing. The controversial question of a linear or rather areal shape or conception of the border can therefore hardly be decided archaeologically. However, limiting oneself to this problem would also fall short, for the border was far more than a geographical line or zone; rather, it was a social system of interactions or actions that was always changing, dynamically pulsating, and determined by changing power relations and dependencies. Some constants that can be recorded archaeologically become visible in the strategy of Carolingian-Ottonian border security and its Slavic counterpart: first, the permanence of military force was secured throughout the period by forts, to which, in turn, the opposite side reacted in the same way, when possible. Thus, at points that were important in the settlement and communication landscape, there were regular clusters of strongholds with mutual references, which illustrate the dynamic-confrontational events to this day: for example, in the Höhbeck-Lenzen area, near Wolmirstedt or near Magdeburg. In addition to strongholds as instruments of short-term power, those that already served an established administrative system or even private noble interests also had a clear connection to the militarily influenced course of events; they were, of course, symbols, but above all they were military instruments of power. Moreover, burnt layers at ring forts, human skeletal remains, weapons and other traces of fighting show the harshness of the violence that could characterise action in the border area. A border was a thoroughly unstable system that had to be constantly maintained by force and the threat of it, and it reacted sensitively to the military strength of the actors; if the Frankish or eastern Frankish Empire was unable to secure its border claim, it quickly wavered, as the weakening of Frankish power on the Elbe after Charlemagne’s death and the events of 983 show.

Finally, the archaeological findings reflect the political approach of turning local powers – Saxon as well as Slavic – into one’s own instrument of rule while accepting suzerainty and at the same time, through their integration, turning militarily enforced power into legitimised rule. This entailed the risk of smaller powers gaining strength at the expense of central royal rule, and this also happened over time. The border overall was not only a spatial contact and transition zone but also a complex system of institutions, buildings and actions, in which Saxon, Frankish and Slavic elites could be integrated.

Notes

· 1 Joachim Herrmann, ed., Die Slawen in Deutschland: Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neisse vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert. Ein Handbuch (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1985), 7–54 (pl. 1).

· 2 Der Limes Saxoniae. Fiktion oder Realität? Beiträge des interdisziplinären Symposiums in Oldenburg/Holstein am 21. Oktober 2017, eds. Oliver Auge and Jens Boye Volquartz (Berlin, Bern and Vienna: Peter Lang, 2019).

· 3 Raimund Ernst, Die Nordwestslaven und das fränkische Reich (Berlin: Duncker & Hum-blot, 1976), 38–47; Christian Hanewinkel, “Die politische Bedeutung der Elbslawen im Hinblick auf die Herrschaftsveränderungen im ostfränkischen Reich und in Sachsen von 887–936 – Politische Skizzen zu den östlichen Nachbarn im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert,” Münster in Westfalen: PhD Thesis, 2004 (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: Internet publication); Sébastian Rossignol, “Die Linonen zwischen Tat und Wort,” in Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe: Untersuchungen zur ländlichen Besiedlung, zum Burgenbau, zu Besiedlungsstrukturen und zum Landschaftswandel, eds. Karl-Heinz Willroth, Hans-Jürgen Beug, Friedrich Lüth, and Franz Schopper (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2013), 135–50, at 135–47.

· 4 Karl-Heinz Willroth, Hans-Jürgen Beug, Friedrich Lüth, and Franz Schopper (eds.), “Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe. Untersuchungen zur ländlichen Besiedlung, zum Burgenbau, zu Besiedlungsstrukturen und zum Landschaftswandel” (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2013).

· 5 For instance, in Altenzaun-Rosenhof, see Zbigniew Kobyliński, “Early Medieval settlement complex on the Elbe at Rosenhof, Gem. Altenzaun, Lkr. Stendal. Preliminary results of the ongoing German-Polish excavation project,” in Zusammengegraben – Kooperationsprojekte in Sachsen-Anhalt: Tagung vom 17. bis 20. Mai 2009 im Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle (Halle: Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, 2012), 117–23. For Hitzacker, see Berndt Wachter, Die slawisch-deutsche Burg auf dem Weinberg in Hitzacker/Elbe. Bericht über die Grabungen von 1970–1975 (Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1998). For Klietz, see Ulf Stammwitz, “Datierung, Funktion und Bedeutung der slawischen Wallburg von Klietz, Lkr. Stendal,” Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 94 (2014): 317–78. For Lenzen, see Heike Kennecke, Burg Lenzen. Eine frühgeschichtliche Befestigung am westlichen Rand der slawischen Welt (Rahden: Leidorf, 2015). For Ottersburg, see Felix Biermann, “Der ‘Schlossberg’ von Ottersburg, Lkr. Stendal – eine früh- und hochmittelalterliche Burg in der Altmark,” Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 95 (2016): 307–420. For Wolmirstedt/Elbeu, see Otilie Blum, “Hildagsburg und Schlossberg Wolmirstedt – zwei frühgeschichtlich-mittelalterliche Burgen im Elbraum nördlich Magdeburgs,” in Soziale Gruppen und Gesellschaftsstrukturen im westslawischen Raum, eds. Felix Biermann, Thomas Kersting, Anne Klammt (Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2013), 247–54; Otilie Blum, Elbeu – die Burg Albrechts des Bären: aktuelle Ausgrabungen. Neolithikum bis Mittelalter, eds. Susanne Friederich and Harald Meller (Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, 2020).

· 6 Birgitta Kunz, ed., Schaufenster der Archäologie – Neues aus der archäologischen Forschung in Magdeburg (Magdeburg: Kulturhistorisches Museum, 2005).

· 7 Matthias Hardt, “Hesse, Elbe, Saale and the Frontiers of the Carolingian Empire,” in The Transformation of Frontiers. From Late Antiquity to the Carolingians, eds. Walter Pohl, Ian Wood, and Helmut Reimitz (Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill, 2001), 219–32; Matthias Hardt, “Prignitz und Hannoversches Wendland: Das Fürstentum der slawischen Linonen im frühen und hohen Mittelalter,” in Im Dienste der historischen Landeskunde: Beitrage zu Archäologie, Mittelalterforschung, Namenkunde und Museumsarbeit vornehmlich in Sachsen. eds. Rainer Aurig, Reinhardt Butz, Ingolf Gräßler, and André Thieme (Beucha: Sax-Verlag, 2002), 95–103, at 96–97; Matthias Hardt, “‘Contra Magadaburg … contra Sclavorum incursiones’: Zum Verhältnis von Geschichtswissenschaft und Archäologie bei der Erforschung der Elbe als Nordostgrenze des Frankenreiches in der Zeit Karls des Großen,” in ArteFact: Festschrift für Sabine Rieckhoff zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Susanne Grunwald, Julia K. Koch, Doreen Mölders, Ulrike Sommer, Sabine Wolfram (Bonn: Habelt, 2009), 261–70.

· 8 Thomas Saile, Slawen in Niedersachsen. Zur westlichen Peripherie der slawischen Ökumene vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert (Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2007), 185–87.

· 9 Johannes Schultze, Die Mark Brandenburg, Bd. 1 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1961), 29; Wachter, Die slawisch-deutsche Burg, 135–36; Hardt, “Prignitz und Hannoversches Wendland,” 95–97; Ulf Frommhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg Tangermünde innerhalb der altmärkischen Burgenlandschaft vom 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert,” Burgen und Schlösser in Sachsen-Anhalt 17 (2008): 38–91, at 51. Also see Jens Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten. Archäologie einer europäischen Grenzregion zwischen Sachsen, Slawen, Franken und Dänen (Kiel and Hamburg: Wachholtz, 2020), 391–93.

· 10 Wolfgang Schwarz, “Kontinuität statt Besiedlungslücke,” in Schönheit, Macht und Tod. 120 Funde aus 120 Jahren Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle, ed. Harald Meller (Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie, 2001), 260–61.

· 11 See Wachter, Die slawisch-deutsche Burg, 123–24; Saile, Slawen in Niedersachsen, 178; Schneeweiß, “Frühe Slawen am Höhbeck,” in Willroth et al., “Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe,” 53–60, at 53–55; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 351–64; Karl-Heinz Willroth, “Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe – Zur Geschichte einer Region vom 677. bis zum

· 12 Jahrhundert,” in Willroth et al. “Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe,” 269–88, at 270. 12 Felix Biermannm, “Über das ‘dunkle Jahrhundert’ in der späten Völkerwanderungs – und frühen Slawenzeit im nordostdeutschen Raum,” in Die frühen Slawen – von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes, eds. Felix Biermann, Thomas Kersting, and Anne Klammt (Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2016), 9–26. The early dating of the settlement of Lenzen (site 32) before 700, must be rejected, because the pottery here mainly dates to the eighth century. See Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 317–32. Some decorated shards of the Feldberg and Menkendorf type even date to the first half of the ninth century; see Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 328–31, figures 222.11, 225.1, 7, 9, probably also 224.13, 225.2. There are also several fragments of the similarly late, undecorated Menkendorf type.

· 13 Hans-Jürgen Brachmann, Slawische Stämme an Elbe und Saale. Zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur im 6. bis 10. Jahrhundert – auf Grund archäologischer Quellen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1978), 122–37; Wachter, Die slawische-deutsche Burg, 123–25; Johannes Schneider, “Zum Stand der Frühmittelalterforschung in der Altmark und im Elb-Havel-Winkel,” Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 65 (1982): 217–47; Torsten Kempke, “Archäologische Beiträge zur Grenze zwischen Sachsen und Slawen im 8.–9. Jahrhundert,” in Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes: von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Michael Müller-Willie, ed. Anke Wesse (Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1998), 373–82, at 375.

· 14 Schneider, “Zum Stand,” 217–47; Kempke, “Archäologische Beiträge,” 376–77; Alper and Blum, “Das archäologische Umfeld,” 30–37; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten.

· 15 Stephan Freund, “Karolingische und ottonische Politik in Sachsen,” in Mythos Hammaburg. Archäologische Entdeckungen zu den Anfängen Hamburgs, eds. Rainer-Maria Weiss and Anne Klammt (Hamburg: Archäologisches Museum, 2015), 203–18.

· 16 Annales Regni Francorum inde ab a. 741. usque ad a. 829. Qui dicuntur annales Laurissenses maiores et Einhardi, eds. Georg Heinrich Pertz and Friedrich Kurze. MGH, Script. rerum Germ. in usum scholarum separatism editi, 6 (1895): 780.

· 17 Hans-Jürgen Brachmann, “Der Limes Sorabicus – Geschichte und Wirkung,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie 25 (1991): 177–207; Roman Grabolle, “[A]c fluvium, qui Thuringos et Sorabos dividit. Das Gebiet der mittleren Saale als politisch-militärische Grenzzone im frühen Mittelalter,” Siedlungsforschung 25 (2007): 153–90.

· 18 Ernst, Die Nordwestslaven, 121–22; Frommhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 38–39; Freund, “Karolingische und ottonische Politik,” 204–7.

· 19 Ernst, Die Nordwestslaven, 125, 135, 154–75; Fred Ruchhöft, Vom slawischen Stammesgebiet zur deutschen Vogtei. Die Entwicklung der Territorien in Ostholstein, Lauenburg, Mecklenburg und Vorpommern im Mittelalter (Rahden: Leidorf, 2013), 76–79.

· 20 Schultze, Die Mark Brandenburg, 25; Ernst, Die Nordwestslaven, 130–31, 141–54; Hardt, “Prignitz und Hannoversches Wendland,” 96.

· 21 Rossignol, “Die Linonen,” 139–41.

· 22 Andrea Stieldorf, Marken und Markgrafen. Studien zur Grenzsicherung durch die fränkischdeutschen Herrscher (Hannover: Hahn, 2012).

· 23 Felix Biermann, “Die Schlacht bei Lunkini,” in Willroth et al., “Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe,” 151–57.

· 24 Widukind von Corvey, Res gestae Saxonicae/Die Sachsengeschichte, eds. Ekkehart Rotter and Bernd Schneidmüller (1981), lib. I, c. 35, p. 36; Schultze, Die Mark Brandenburg, 30; Hellmut Beumann, Die Ottonen (Stuttgart, Berlin and Köln: W. Kohlhammer, 1994), 39–47; Matthias Springer, “Agrarii Milites,” Niedersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 66 (1994): 129–66, at 129–31, 160–65.

· 25 Birgitta Kunz, ed., Schaufenster der Archäologie – Neues aus der archäologischen Forschung in Magdeburg (Magdeburg: Kulturhistorisches Museum, 2005).

· 26 Schultze, Die Mark Brandenburg, 33–34.

· 27 Wolfgang Brüske, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Lutizenbundes. Deutsch-wendische Beziehungen des 10.–12. Jahrhunderts (Münster and Köln: Böhlau, 1955), 39–45; Schultze, Die Mark Brandenburg, 41–45; Gerhard Billig, “Der Slawenaufstand von 983 im Spiegel des Burgenbildes und der urkundlichen Überlieferung,” in Gerhard Billig. Aus Bronzezeit und Mittelalter Sachsens 2: Mittelalter (ausgewählte Arbeiten von 1959–1997), eds. Steffen Herzog, Hans-Jürgen Beier, Ingolf Gräßler, and Renate Wißuwa (Langenweiß-bach: Beier & Beran, 2012), 159–68; Felix Biermann, “Zentralisierungsprozesse bei den nördlichen Elbslawen,” in Zentralisierungsprozesse und Herrschaftsbildung im frühmittelalterli-chen Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Przemysław Sikora (Bonn: Habelt, 2014), 157–94, at 175.

· 28 Thietmar von Merseburg, Chronik, eds. Werner Trillmich and Steffen Patzold. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe, 9 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliches Buchgesellschaft, 1957), lib. III, c. 18, p. 19; Siegfried Epperlein, “Die feudale deutsche Ostexpansion im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert und die Herausbildung der vollentwickelten Feudalgesellschaft zwischen Elbe und Oder, p. 3: Die bäuerliche Siedlung im 12. und 12. Jahrhundert,” in “Die Slawen in Deutschland,” 344–63, at 346; Cornelia Müller, “Die Welt um die Hildagsburg im frühen Mittelalter,” in “Elbeu – die Burg Albrechts des Bären,” 17–21.

· 29 Thietmar von Merseburg, Chronik, lib. III, c. 19; Wolfgang Brüske, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Lutizenbundes. Deutsch-wendische Beziehungen des 10.–12. Jahrhunderts (Münster and Köln: Böhlau, 1955), 39–41; Frommhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 58.

· 30 Jürgen Petersohn, Der südliche Ostseeraum im kirchlich-politischen Kräftespiel des Reichs, Polens und Dänemarks vom 10. bis 13. Jahrhundert. Mission – Kirchenorganisation – Kultpolitik (Köln and Wien: Böhlau, 1979), 3.

· 31 Lieselott Enders, “Altmark, Nordmark und die Elbe. Werden einer historischen Region,” in Aedificatio terrae. Beiträge zur Umwelt- und Siedlungsarchäologie Mitteleuropas. Festschrift Eike Gringmuth-Dallmer, eds. Gerson H. Jeute, Jens Schneeweiß, and Claudie Theune (Rahden: Leidorf, 2007), 119–24, at 120.

· 32 Johannes Schultze, “Nordmark und Altmark,” Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands 6 (1957): 77–106; Matthias Hardt and Hans Kurt Schulze, “Altmark und Wendland als deutsch-slawische Kontaktzone,” in Wendland und Altmark in historischer und sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht, ed. Roderich Schmidt (Lüneburg: Verlag Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1992), 1–44; Enders, “Altmark, Nordmark und die Elbe,” 119–21; From-mhagem, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 38–40.

· 33 Paul Grimm, Die vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Burgwälle der Bezirke Halle und Magdeburg (Berlin: Akademie, 1958), 56–57, 81–83.

· 34 Felix Biermann, “Mark, Linie, Interaktionsraum. Archäologische Beobachtungen zum Limes saxoniae und zur karolingisch-ottonischen Elbgrenze,” in “Der Limes Saxoniae,” 45–76, at 73.

· 35 Kempke, “Archäologische Beiträge,” 373–74; Biermann, “Zur Einführung: Fränkische Burgen – Typen, Konstruktionsweise, Funktion,” in “Mythos Hammaburg,” 313–15.

· 36 Christian Lübke, Das östliche Europa. Die Deutschen und das europäische Mittelalter, 2 (München: Siedler, 2004), 65; Rossingol, “Die Linonen,” 139; Freund, “Karolingische und ottonische Politik,” 203–18.

· 37 Biermann, “Functions of the Large Feldberg Type Strongholds from the 8th/9th Century in Mecklenburg and Pomerania,” Sprawozdania archeologiczne 63 (2011): 149–74; Biermann, “Zur Einführung,” 313–15.

· 38 Grimm, Die vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Burgwälle, 36–38; Hans-Wilhelm Heine, “Frühmittelalterliche Burgen in Niedersachsen,” in Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa, eds. Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay (Bonn: Habelt, 1998), 137–44; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 354.

· 39 Rainer Kuhn, “Ein völkerwanderungszeitlicher Befestigungsgraben auf dem Domplatz in Magdeburg,” in Aufgedeckt. Ein neuer ottonischer Kirchenbau am Magdeburger Domplatz, eds. Harald Meller and Wolfgang Schenkluhn (Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie, 2005), 51–54; Thomas Weber, “Magdeburgs Befestigungen im frühen Mittelalter,” in Der Wandel um 1000, eds. Felix Biermann, Thomas Kersting und Anne Klammt (Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, 2011), 379–87, figs. 5, 6.

· 40 Biermann, “Zur Einführung,” 314–15 (note 20).

· 41 Schneeweiß, “Frühe Slawen,” 58; Jens Schneeweiß, “Slawenzeitliche Befestigungen am Höhbeck,” in Willroth et al., “Slawen an der unteren Mittelelbe,” 79–90, at 79–81; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 91–98.

· 42 Jens Schneeweiß, “Slawenzeitliche Befestigungen am Höhbeck,” 88–89; Jens Schneeweiß, “‘A Wilzis distructum’ und Schlacht ohne Schlachtfeld – die Spuren bezeugter Zerstörung der Jahre 810 und 929 an der Elbe im archäologischen Befund,” in Rauben – Plündern – Morden. Nachweis von Zerstörung und kriegerischer Gewalt im archäologischen Befund, ed. Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska (Hamburg: Dr. Kovacs, 2013), 337–56, at 3 39–40; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 370–84.

· 43 Ernst Nickel, “Magdeburg in karolingisch-ottonischer Zeit,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie 7 (1973): 102–42, at 106–7; Ernst, Die Nordwestslaven, 175; Frommhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 41–42.

· 44 Joachim Henning, “Das Kastell contra Magadaburg von 806 ad und die karolingischen Kastelle an der Elbe-Saale-Grenze – Ausgrabungen auf dem Weinberg von Hohenwarthe,” in Zusammengegraben, 133–44; Volker Schimpff, “‘Contra Magadaburg.’ Zur Lage der fränkischen/slawischen Burg an der Elbe 806,” Burgenforschung aus Sachsen 26 (2013): 109–47.

· 45 Donat Wehner and Claudia Schneider, “Fund des Monats März 2020: An der Ostgrenze des karolingischen Imperiums – Das Elbkastell gegenüber von Magdeburg,” Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, March 2020, https://archlsa.de/bodendenkmalpflege/fund-des-monats/2020/maerz-2020.html.

· 46 See Schultze, Die Mark Brandenburg, 26; Hardt, “‘Contra Magadaburg … contra Sclavorum incursiones’: Zum Verhältnis von Geschichtswissenschaft und Archäologie bei der Erforschung der Elbe als Nordostgrenze des Frankenreiches in der Zeit Karls des Großen,” in “ArteFact,” 261–70, at 261–62; Rossignol, “Dio Linonen,” 135–37; Schneeweiß, “‘A Wilzis distructum’,” 338–40; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 98–114.

· 47 Henning, “Das Kastell contra Magadaburg,” 135–36.

· 48 Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 100, fig. 28.

· 49 Hardt, “‘Contra Magadaburg’,” 263.

· 50 Schneeweiß, “‘A Wilzis distructum’,” 339–42; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 107.

· 51 Rossignol, “Die Linonen,” 137.

· 52 Felix Biermann and Andreas Kieseler, Die Burgwälle von Lenzen-Neuehaus und Lenzersilge. Archäologische Forschungen zum frühgeschichtlich-mittelalterlichen Befestigungswesen in der westlichen Prignitz (Rahden: Leidorf, 2021), 137–40; Schneeweiß, “Slawenzeitliche Befestigungen,” 79–84; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 91–98, 115–71.

· 53 Biermann, “Functions of the Large Feldberg Type Strongholds,” 149–74; Biermann, “Zentralisierungsprozesse,” 164–70.

· 54 Rossignol, “Die Linonen,” 138.

· 55 Matthias Hardt, “Limes Saxoniae as Part of the Eastern Borderlands of the Frankish and Ottonian-Salian Empire,” in Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 35–49, at 37.

· 56 Biermann, “Der ‘Schlossberg’”; Frommhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 44–46; Blum, “Hildagsburg”; Kobyliński, “Early Medieval settlement”; Wachter, “Die Oerenburg – eine unbekannte Burg der Slawen im Hannoverschen Wendland,” in Ausgrabungen in Niedersachsen – Archäologische Denkmalpflege 1979–1984, ed. Klemens Wilhelmi (Stuttgart: Theiss, 1985), 258–61; Berndt Wachter, “Das Mittelalter – Germanen, Slawen, Deutsche,” in Hannoversches Wendland, ed. Berndt Wachter (Stuttgart: Theiss, 1986), 127–57.

· 57 Biermann, “Mark, Linie, Interaktionsraum,” 58; Blum, “Die Hildagsburg,” 23; Marcus Schneider and Sabine Stoffner, “Die Grabung im Bereich der Hildagsburg am Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts,” in “Elbeu,” 38–43, at 41.

· 58 Brüske, Untersuchungen, 227–29; Hans K. Schulze, Adelsherrschaft und Landesherrschaft: Studien zur Verfassungs- und Besitzgeschichte der Altmark, des ostsächsischen Raumes und des hannoverschen Wendlandes im hohen Mittelalter (Köln and Graz: Böhlau, 1963), 19; From-mhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 64–65.

· 59 Wachter, Die slawische-deutsche Burg, 66–72; Blum, “Hildagsburg,” 247–54; Otilie Blum, “Die Hildagsburg in der schriftlichen Überlieferung,” in “Elbeu,” 22–26, at 23; Bier-mann, “Der ‘Schlossberg’,” 349–62; Eike Gringmuth-Dallmer, “Deutsche und slawische Burgen in einem Grenzraum beiderseits der Mittelelbe (Altmark und Elbe-Havel-Gebiet),” Château Gaillard. Etudes de castellologie medivale 17 (1996): 111–17, at 112.

· 60 Kempke, “Archäologische Beiträge,” 378.

· 61 Rossignol, “Die Linonen,” 142.

· 62 Heinz Arno Knorr, “Burgwardium Osterburg,” in Varia Archaeologica. Wilhelm Unverzagt zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht, ed. Paul Grimm (Berlin: Akademie, 1964), 278–92; Frommhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 43, 46; Felix Biermann, “Dendrochronologie und Keramikforschung zwischen Elbe und Oder vom 8.–12. Jahrhundert,” in Probleme der mitteleuropäischen Dendrochronologie und naturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Talaue der March, eds. Lumír Poláček and Jitka Dvórska (Brno: Akademie věd České republiky, 1999), 97–123, at 115.

· 63 Gerhard Billig, Die Burgwardorganisation im obersächsisch-meißnischen Raum. Archäologischarchivalisch vergleichende Untersuchungen (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1989); Gringmuth-Dallmer, “Deutsche und slawische Burgen,” 112–13; Frommhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 43.

· 64 Georg Heinrich Pertz, ed., “Annales Quedlinburgensis,” Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores 3 (1839); Thietmar, Chronik, lib. IV, c. 18.

· 65 Knorr, “Burgwardium,” 288–89; Scheider, “Zum Stand,” 226–28; Frommhagen, “Die Stellung der Elbburg,” 43, 57.

· 66 Grimm, Die vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Burgwälle, 356.

· 67 Stieldorf, Marken und Markgrafen.

· 68 Thietmar von Merseburg, Chronik, lib. III, c. 8; lib. IV, c. 38; lib. VI, c. 28, 65, 84.

· 69 Biermann, “Der ‘Schlossberg’,” 325–29.

· 70 Widukind von Corvey, lib. I, c. 32; 35; Helmut Beumann, Die Ottonen (Stuttgart, Berlin and Köln: W. Kohlhammer, 1994), 40.

· 71 Hans-Wilhelm Heine, “Keine Angst vor Reiterattacken,” Archäologie in Niedersachsen 10 (2007): 106–11.

· 72 Schneeweiß, “Frühe Slawen am Höhbeck,” 53–60; Schneeweiß, “‘A Wilzis distructum’,” 337–56; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 389; Biermann, “Lunkini,” 151–57.

· 73 Biermann and Goßler, “Zwischen Freund und Feind,” 149–50; Schneeweiß, “Slawenzeitliche Befestigungen,” 84–85; Schneeweiß, Zwischen den Welten, 229–42.

· 74 Rossignol, “Die Linonen,” 141.

· 75 Kennecke, Burg Lenzen, 44–45.

· 76 Rossignol, “Die Linonen,” 136.

· 77 Widukind von Corvey, lib. I, c. 36; cf. Rossignol, “Die Linonen,” 143–47; Biermann, “Schlacht bei Lunkini,” 151–57; Schneeweiß, “‘A Wilzis distructum’,” 347–51.

· 78 Biermann and Kieseler, Burgwälle von Lenzen-Neuhaus und Lenzersilge, 122–22.

· 79 Widukind von Corvey, lib. I, c. 36.

· 80 Ernst, Nordwestslaven, 116.

· 81 Maik Tews, “Der Burgwall und die erste Erwähnung Wolmirstedts,” in Archäologie am Schlossberg von Wolmirstedt von 1988 bis 2007, ed. Harald Meller (Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie, 2009), 18–26, at 20–22.

· 82 Gregor Alber and Wolfgang Schwarz, “Der slawische Burgwall beim Rosenhof, Gemeinde Altenzaun, Landkreis Stendal. Erste Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen,” in Archäologie mittelalterlicher Burgen, ed. Matthias Untermann (Paderborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, 2008), 119–26, at 123.

· 83 Wachter, “Die Oerenburg,” 258–61; Wachter, “Das Mittelalter,” 139; Wachter, Die slawisch-deutsche Burg, 127.

· 84 Schultze, Die Mark Brandenburg, 26; Hermann; Rossignol, “Die Linonen,” 136; Hanewinkel, Die politische Bedeutung der Elbslawen.

· 85 Ingo Gabriel, “Die fürstlichen Bestattungen im Innern der zweiten Kirche des Burg-walls von Starigard-Oldenburg,” in Europas Mitte um 1000, Beiträge I, eds. Alfried Wieczorek and Hans-Martin Hinz (Stuttgart: Theiss, 2001), 166–69.

· 86 Felix Biermann and Franz Schopper, eds., Ein spätslawischer Friedhof mit Schwertgräbern von Wusterhausen an der Dosse (Wünsdorf: Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, 2012), 150.