Mesingw - Schuylkill County's Link to its Lenni Lenape Past

Schuylkill County was once a territory within the homelands of the Lenni Lenape and Susquehannock native tribes. neither of these tribes had permanent settlements in this territory but traversed the area as a place to mostly hunt and trap. The territory was also crossed by documented Indian trails were the native peoples in the northeastern part of what was to become the United States traveled between their homes and other tribes (for trade or occasional wars) or for access to the bountiful game for food and other necessities (furs for clothing and blankets). The Schuylkill County of today have some evidence of these links to its native past - Indian fields, place names, even evidence if the old Indian trails, if you look closely enough. But this article is about a truly unusual artifact that attests a link to Schuylkill County that is tangible and conclusive.

Spirit Mesingw as found in Schuylkill County. The dimensional reference is a 12-inch ruler.

The discovery of the Mesingw petroglyph

On May 10, 1968, a fascinating discovery was made on a hillside of West West Mountain along the west branch of the Gordon Nagle Trail (State Route 901) about two miles from Llewellyn in Branch Township, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Francis P. Burke of Mar Lin was traveling near the west branch of the Schuylkill River looking for Native American sites. He saw a dark area in the hill and, thinking it indicated a rock shelf, followed a path into the mountain to investigate. The path led to a small clearing, but after following a small stream that ran through the area he realized he had gone too far but hadn’t yet seen anything.

Going back from where he came, he now observed a niche and then an area opened up. He saw a little part of a sandstone boulder. The rest was covered over with brush and a laurel bush. Working to remove the debris and he first saw a mouth, then a nose, then two eyes. Burke said, “I got the thrill of my life.” He had happened upon a petroglyph, a rock (sandstone) carving, dating back to the 17th century and thought to be a representation of the Lenni Lenape (Delaware Indian) spirit Mesingw and now located in The State Museum of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg. [See Richardson, Leslie, Locally discovered petroglyph replica on display at county historical society, The Pottsville Republican, October 19, 2009] 

Mesingw is an important Lenni Lenape spirit being who rode through the forest on the back of a large deer; Mesingw is believed to have made sure that all the animals were healthy and fed. Lenape hunts were believed likely to be more successful if Mesingw was remembered and commemorated. 

Schuylkill County was once within the homelands of the Lenni Lenape (known as the Delaware by the settlers) people. The Lenape were part of the Unami- and Munsee-speaking (Algonquian dialects) peoples of the Delaware, Lehigh, Schuylkill, and New Jersey and lower Hudson (New York/New England) River valleys. At the time of the coming of the Europeans, the entire area occupied by the Lenape was known as Lenapehoking. Schuylkill County was located (mostly) in Unami territory (the Schuylkill and Delaware - below the Lehigh - river areas).

Lenapehoking

Surrounding Lenapehoking, were other unrelated native people groups. To the west, beyond the Schuylkill River, were the Susquehannock who occupied most of the Susquehanna valley down to the Cheasapeake Bay and west into the Allegheny Mountains. The Susquehannock were Iroquois speakers, a distinctly different native language group. Part of the homelands of the Susquehannock also encompassed the western parts of Schuylkill County.

However, neither the Lenape nor Susquehannock had permanent or semi-permanent communities within the future borders of Schuylkill County. Both indigenous groups lived in semi-permanent villages exclusively all near larger rivers – the Delaware, the lower Lehigh and lower Schuylkill – and in the case of the Susquehannock – the Susquehanna, where the inhabitants lived for ten to twenty years and then moved on to new areas as the land became exhausted from farming. Schuylkill county, was mostly a place where the groups of each tribe would travel to several times each year to hunt, fish and trap.

Mesingw and the Indian path to the hunting grounds

Moreover, Schuylkill County was the locus of four “Indian trails,” the interstate highways of early native and then European North America. These four paths began in the present-day Reading area, where they connected to other paths to the east and south. Reading lies on the Schuylkill River upstream (about 60 miles from from Philadelphia). It became a center of the Indian population as settlers moved into the Bucks, Philadelphia and Chester County areas that had been purchased by William Penn in the 1680s. These four paths themselves led to other trails into the deeper interior of Pennsylvania and also to New York (home of the Five Nations Iroquois) or to the west in Pennsylvania, further and deeper into Indian territory towards the Great Lakes and Ohio River Valley west of Pittsburgh. These four paths are:

    • Tulpehocken Path between Wolmelsdorf (west of Reading) and Shamokin (present day Sunbury),

    • Schuylkill Path between Reading and Shamokin,

    • Catawissa Path (east) between Reading and Catawissa, and

    • Nanticoke Path (north) between Reading and Nanticoke.

Of interest here is the Schuylkill Path because that appears to be where Burke discovered the Mesingw petroglyph. This path was also a forerunner to the Kings‘s Highway (1770) and of the Centre Turnpike (1809).

In the earlier Indian Era it appears that this path was a route that intersected with the Maxatawney Path from from Lechauwekink (Easton) at the Forks of the Lehigh River and thus provided a route from Easton to Sunbury that may have been faster that from Easton to Sunbury using portions of the Maxatawny Path, Lehigh Path, Nescopeck Path and Great Warriors Path.

The petroglyph when it was discovered in its natural state somewhere near the Schuylkill Path

There was also an Indian settlement at Maxatawny (Kutztown and vicinity) to Maiden Creek and Reading. The area now comprised in Maxatawny Township was much desired by the Lenape Indians, who remained here for some time after white settlers surrounded them from the east and south, maintaining relations with the newcomers, until about 1736, when these lands were purchased by Penn’s proprietors. There is a lack of explicit evidence for this traditional Indian path. But the known presence of so many natives in Maxatawny presupposes connections with the Forks of the Delaware and the Indian paths radiating from it, as also with Reading, where the Allegheny Path from Philadelphia to Harrisburg and Pittsburgh crossed the Schuylkill River. There is also reason to believe that hunting, trapping and fishing in the Upper Schuylkill was an attraction that drew Indians from Easton, Philadelphia and the Susquehanna areas into the headwaters of the Schuylkill River. As noted this area was devoid of permanent Indian settlements so likely a good place for Indians from all regions to visit for these reasons. 

The presence of Indian fields in the Upper Schuylkill area also supports this theory as does the use of “hunter’s hints” in place names in this area. According to Mahr [Mahr, August C., PRACTICAL REASONS FOR ALGONKIAN INDIAN STREAM AND PLACE NAMES, THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 59(6): 365, November, 1959, p. 368], whether on the go or at home, the Lenape Indians, men, women, and children, mainly subsisted on meat. Plentiful hunting, therefore, was not a luxury but a necessity. Hence, it was an advantage to the tribe to be familiar with names for localities where the hunters were most likely to find enough game animals to supply the common need. On modern maps, for example, there occurs place names such as Tamaqua, Maxatawny, Macungie. Heckewelder [John Heckewelder was a Moravian missionary to Pennsylvania from 1754. See Heckewelder, J. 1834. [On Indian names.] Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc, n.s. 4: 351-396. 1881. History, manners, and customs of the Indian nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the neighboring states. 450 pp. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia] listed the true Delaware name form for present Tamaqua, referring to the Little Schuylkill River (Heckewelder, 1834: 361). He wrote Tamaquon and stated that its correct Delaware version was Tamaquehanne "or (short) Tamakhanne, the Indian name, as it stands on record, for Little Schuylkill." His interpretation is "beaver stream." Similarly Heckewelder established Maxatawny as Machksithanne and interpreted it as "bears' path creek or the stream on which the bears have a path" (Heckewelder, 1834: 360), and another such hint at good bear-hunting was Macungie. Heckewelder gave its Delaware form as Machkunshi (spelling modified), which he rendered as "the harboring or feeding place of bears" (Heckewelder, 1834: 357). 

Finally, a great many “hunters'-hints” names, however, made no such special mention of the game which they promised. Their hints were broader. It was well known, for instance, among the Delaware that there was good hunting of all sorts of game near any natural outcropping of salt, be it a salt lick or a saline spring which equally attracted the animals. That is why in the whole Lenapehoking the Lenape hunters formed numerous names for big and small water courses with their term m’honi, “a salt lick,” usually adding to it their locative final -’nk: m’honink, “where there is a salt lick.” Because of salt licks in their head waters, several such streams were called m’honink siipunk, or m’honink/ hdnna, “river where there is a salt lick.” And so it is along this Indian Path. In Schuylkill County, there is the Mahanoy Creek and (Mahanoy Township and City). 

The path starts near Saconk, an Indian village at the confluence of the Schuylkill River and the Maiden (Ontaulanee) Creek (Berkley), which was the terminus of the Maxatawny Path. The path runs along side the Schuylkill River through Leesport, Hamburg to Port Clinton. The Path crossed the Little Schuylkill River south of Molino and then to Deer Lake and Schuylkill Haven. Then the path followed the West Branch of the Schuylkill River to Yorkville and Minersville and then turning west [this describes Route 61 and then Route 901] towards Beury’s Lake past Deep Creek headwaters. [The bold text describes the area where Mesingw was discovered - Llewellen.] The path continues to the north to Taylorsville to cross the Mahanoy Creek and then the Shamokin Creek in Mt. Carmel.  The path continued west re-crossing the Shamokin Creek at Paxinos and then to Stonington, Oaklyn and Sunbury (Shamokin). [This latter part describes Route 54 and then Route 61, again.] (See Wallace, Paul A., HISTORIC INDIAN PATHS OF PENNSYLVANIA, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 1952, drawing between pp. 438 and 439)

The Schuylkill Path – Saconk to Shamokin, following the Schuylkill River and where Mesingw was carved

Mesingw (probably pronounced MUH-seeng-wah) means "living solid face" or "masked being" and he was the protector of all animals of the forest, but is most strongly associated with deer. Some Lenape people describe him as taking humanoid form and riding through the woods on the back of a deer, helping respectful hunters and punishing those who despoil the forest.  His purpose was to reconcile the native's need for meat with the resentments of the animals who were the game. 

The Lenape nation today considers Mesingw important enough to place a likeness on their official seal.  The Mesingw face is in the center of the seal as the Keeper of the Game Animals on which the Lenape depended for food. The face was carved on the center post of the Big House Church ("Xingwekaown”), a wooden structure which held the tribe’s historic religious ceremony in Oklahoma (where the tribe was forced to live over the 19th century). To the right of the mask is the fire drill traditionally used to start sacred fires. Mesingw was so important that the Lenape would have a large gathering to celebrate its spirit. During this celebration, the mask painted 1/2 red and 1/2 black along with a fur skin was worn by a tribe-member to invoke the Mesingw's spirit. In that attire, he would then go through the forest.

The seal of the Lenape (Delaware) tribe adopted in 2012. Mesingw was however also on the previous versions.

This Mesingw petroglyph really exemplifies a connection between native Americans and Schuylkill County. It weaves Lenape traditions – religion, way of life (hunting, trapping and fishing), place-naming conventions, travel - with an artifact created in the county centuries ago.

 

The Murder of John P. Jones, of Storm Hill (Lansford), Pennsylvania, September 3, 1875

Prologue

On Friday, September 3, 1875, Tamaqua found itself in the epicenter of “Molly Maguire” hysteria. Three arrests were made west of Oddfellows Cemetery in the early afternoon. Those arrested were shortly charged in the shooting and murder of John P. Jones a mine superintendent for the Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Company (LWC), Colliery No. 4, located in present day Lansford, PA.  

Jones had been shot in Storm Hill (near the Lansford Station and telegraph office) in a crowd of people early that morning. Jones was walking to his office near the Lansford Train Depot. The train from Tamaqua was shortly due, and about one hundred people, travelers, railroad men and employees of the LWC, were milling about, nearby.  Two men suddenly appeared near Jones, and commenced firing repeatedly but quickly at Jones, killing him.  The perpetrators then disappeared, as the Tamaqua train arrived, and disembarked its passengers. Several men proceeded to Tamaqua on railroad trucks to station themselves to intercept the perpetrators, if possible, in their believed escape towards Tamaqua. They did not capture them but the citizens and police in Tamaqua became aware of the murder 

Scene of Jones' Murder near the Office of the LWC and the Lansford Depot

The Jones murder and arrests followed another prior murder in Tamaqua proper on July 6 at the corner of Broad and Lehigh Street. Killed at that time was Benjamin F. Yost, a Tamaqua policeman.  That murder had remained publicly unsolved in the intervening two months, even though many believed it was related to the “Molly Maguires”.  An undercover private detective - James "McKenna" McParlan, working for the Pinkerton Agency employed in turn by The Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company was immediately sent to Tamaqua after the Yost murder to investigate any connection with so-called Molly Maguires.

McParlan became aware of a related transaction (conspiracy) in the weeks after the Yost murder occurred and reported his findings. But the decision was made by his employer to not reveal all facts to the authorities to protect its undercover investigation. Moreover, although the record is unclear, McParlan learned of the Jones plot and, half-heartedly at best, warned Jones’ employers; in retrospect, his and his employers' lack of real action likely caused Jones to lose his life.

What McParlan appeared to know that the Jones murder was to be a "quid pro quo" for the Yost murder. The leaders (body-masters) of the Tamaqua Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) Division, James Kerrigan and James Carroll, who kept the Union House, a tavern on East Broad Street and sort of AOH hangout, met with James Roarity of nearby Coaldale and head of the AOH there. Later, Roarity mentioned this nascent plot to Alex Campbell a liquor-dealer and tavern owner in Storm Hill (Lansford) and previous owner of Carroll’s Union House. Coincidentally, at this time in the neighborhoods of Storm Hill and Summit Hill, it had also determined that another murder was being discussed. - that of Jones. Thus, the idea of an exchange of retributive killings at once suggested itself. Men from Summit Hill in Carbon County would kill Yost and men from Schuylkill County would kill Jones. The Yost murder occurred first and the Jones murder followed two months later.

The Arrest

On September 1, James Kerrigan met with Edward J. Kelly and Michael J. Doyle (from the Pottsville - Mt. Laffee - area) at Carroll’s bar in Tamaqua.  The three traveled to Lansford (Storm Hill) to Alec (Alex) Campbell’s bar there.  In a bit of irony, Campbell had previously owned the Union House Tavern in Tamaqua.  For several days the three observed Jones and on September 3, Jones was shot by Kelly and Doyle.  Kerrigan took them back to Tamaqua using backroads and out of the way paths. They escaped detection until they stopped for lunch near Kerrigan's residence in Newkirk.

James Kerrigan had grown up near Tuscarora and Tamaqua in the 1840s and 1850s.  During the Civil War he served with the Union Army and for two years was in General Philip Sheridan’s cavalry. By 1870 he was back living in the Tuscarora/Tamaqua area.  He was married to Marguerite (commonly called Fanny) Higgins and had at least three children, including a son. He was the Tamaqua Body Master (head) of the AOH. 

Tamaquan, Samuel Beard, coincidentally a law student, who had been in Storm Hill and knew about the shooting (returning quickly to Tamaqua with the news) and William Parkenson who had observed Kerrigan with two unknown men that morning near Oddfellow's Cemetery. Beard and his friend George Priser, put two and two together and searched the area near Kerrigan’s residence west of Oddfellows with a field (spy) glass and saw Kerrigan and two other men from a distance, stopping for lunch and whiskey.  Beard went to the police and a posse was formed to go and arrest the three men. The arrested were placed in the Tamaqua jail, charged with the killing of John P. Jones, at Storm Hill, Carbon County.

Badges of the AOH were found on Kelly and Doyle, and from them a portion of a letter to James Carroll (Union House Proprietor) was also obtained. The two had met up with Kerrigan at Carroll’s Union House Tavern before the three of them proceeded to Storm Hill on August 31/September 1.  Carbon County Deputy Sheriff John Painter then assumed custody of the men and accompanied them first from the Tamaqua police station (behind the US Hotel on Rowe Street to what was then called the New York depot (Tamaqua’s Train Station) accompanied by a squad of LWC Coal & Iron Police. Painter took the prisoners to Mauch Chunk (Carbon county seat) via the New Jersey Central train connection on a special non-stop train directly to Mauch Chunk.

The Trials

Commonwealth v. Doyle

The prisoners demanded separate trials. Michael Doyle was put upon trial first at Mauch Chunk, on January 18, 1876.  This was the first of what became known as the “Molly Maguire” trials.

Defendant, Michael J. Doyle

This trial was to set a precedent for future “Molly Maguire” trials that followed – the extensive use of private prosecutors and private police. Charles W. Parrish, the President of the LWC decided that that coal company would take a hand in the prosecution of the case. First, LWC would pay for the prosecution. Secondly, the lead prosecutor was to be mining company attorney Charles Albright, who added color to the proceeding by appearing in court wearing his full Civil War uniform (he had served as a general in the Union Army) complete with sword. 

During the trial the prisoners were under guard by the Coal & Iron Police. Several days elapsed before a full jury was selected. The majority of jurors were Pennsylvania Dutch (descended from) German immigrants whose first spoken language was not English.

The trial was before Judge Dreher. In addition to Albright, E. R. Siewers, the District Attorney for Carbon County, appeared for the Commonwealth, and with him J.W. Hughes, of Schuylkill County, and attorney Allen Craig of the Lehigh Valley. 

For the defense appeared John W. Ryon and Lin Bartholomew, of Pottsville, James. B. Reilly, member of Congress from Schuylkill County, Daniel Kalbfus and Edward Mulhearn, attorneys of Carbon County. 

At the time of the trial, it was still unknown that James McParlan was, in fact, an undercover detective. The prosecution built its case on solid circumstantial evidence supplied by about 200 witnesses. Anticipating every move by the adversary, the prosecution successfully stymied the defense. Such anticipation did not solely stem from an astute knowledge of courtroom strategy, nor was it the result of clairvoyance. McParlan, as a high-ranking Molly, was privy to most of the defense’s plans, which he relayed to the prosecution. Finding themselves hopelessly outmatched, the defense did not call witnesses. On February 1, 1876, the jury returned a verdict of “guilty of murder in the first degree.”

Mauch Chunk PA Court House 1876

Kerrigan Confesses

During the late stages of the Doyle trial Kerrigan broke. Locked in solitary confinement, the Tamaquan, the Body-master of the AOH (which McParlan conflated with the Molly Maguires), became apprehensive and decided to save himself and turned informer. The confession which contained the principal outlines of McParlan’s prior reports of the plans to kill Jones and their relation to another recent murder in Tamaqua, the Yost (policeman) murder. Now the State/Local authorities could bring that case to trial as they immediately arrested the men implicated by Kerrigan, but they still did not know the presence of undercover agent, McParlan. However, these arrests created a flurry of rumors. Fearing that others involved would leave the area, Coal and Iron Police (acting as the State) rounded up additional Mollies (implicated by McParlan). Since Kerrigan did not know the men arrested by the second posse, the Molly Maguires could only suspect the existence of a second informer. Shortly thereafter, McParlan disappeared from Schuylkill County.

Commonwealth v. Kelly

Next the trial of Edward Kelly for the murder of John P. Jones proceeded beginning on March 29, 1876. The prosecution felt that their case against Kelly was so strong they did not need Kerrigan’s confession. The same counsel appeared on the part of the Commonwealth as in the Doyle case. On the part of the defense, Lin Bartholomew, attorney Daniel Kalbfus, General John D. Bertolette, and attorney, Edward Mulhearn. appeared. Application was also made in this case for a change of venue but this was denied. 

Defendant Edward J. Kelly

Judge Dreher directed a jury to be called. The trial concluded on April 6. The evidence was a repetition of that already given on the trial of Doyle, and was of the same overwhelming character. The whole story of the crime was given in evidence, and the prisoner was identified as one of the murderers. 

Unsurprisingly, the jury found Kelly guilty of first-degree murder, and the judge sentenced him also to be hanged. 

Epilog

Alex Campbell, owner of the Storm Hill tavern where the Jones murder was allegedly planned on September 1 and 2, was also arrested (after Kerrigan’s confession) and successfully prosecuted (June 20-July 1, 1876), despite remarkably flimsy evidence of guilt other than Kerrigan’s confession and McParlan’s testimony (even with no first-hand knowledge of the murder).  This was the fourth “Molly Maguire” trial, after the first trial of the killers of Yost in Pottsville, Schuylkill County.

Kerrigan testified at several other trials - the Yost trials, the conspiracy to reward Thomas Hurley for the murder of Gomer James, the conspiracy to kill William and Jesse Major, the Morgan Powell murder, and in the murder of George K. Smith.  

Kerrigan was never prosecuted for any crimes he admitted to and left the Tamaqua area for the Richmond, VA area. He assumed at times the last name of this wife, Higgins. He died in Manchester, VA in 1898.  After his death his wife applied for his Civil War pension. 

Kerrigan was not the only informer (turned State’s evidence) of the AOH membership. Lawler and Butler had turned.  In addition, Frank McHugh, John Slattery, Michael Doolin and Charles Mulhearn were informants on other cases.

The “Molly Maguire” trials did not end labor unrest of the coal regions. At the tail end of the trials and hangings, one of the first nationwide strikes, the Railroad Strike of 1877 occurred with just as much workplace violence if not more. An effective union did not take place until 1902 when the United Mine Workers were able to successfully represent labor.

The "Inverted Jenny" and Tamaqua, Pennsylvania

This is another interesting story (mostly unknown) about Tamaqua and its relationship to other more famous stories and history. Moreover, it involves the father of one of my best friends in Tamaqua (Ron Gerber) so I knew the subject of this story personally.

Background

The Inverted Jenny is a United States postage stamp first issued on May 10, 1918 in which the image of the Curtiss JN-4 airplane in the center of the design appears upside-down; it is probably the most famous error in American philately. Only one pane of 100 of the inverted stamps was ever found, making this error one of the most prized in all philately as indicated by the following recent sales:

The Inverted Jenny Air Mail Issue of 1918

• On 15 November 2018, the position number 49 stamp was auctioned for a price of $1,350,000, with a buyer's premium raising the total cost to $1,593,000. [Healey, Matthew. "Nov. 15 Jenny Invert sale sets record". Linn's Stamp News.] 
• On 11 November 2023, another Inverted Jenny stamp was auctioned for a price of $1,700,000, with a buyer’s premium raising the total cost to $2,006,000. ["US stamp sells for a record-breaking $2m". BBC News. 2023-11-13.] 

Eighty-two of the US’ rarest postage stamps, including an “Inverted Jenny”, went missing from the New York Public Library in May 1977. The stamps, worth about $1 million (at that time), from the Benjamin K. Miller collection. Miller's sharp legal mind made him a lot of money at an early age. But the quiet Wisconsin bachelor left the bar for his first love. philately. He retired young and devoted his life to collecting what many stamp experts believe to be the 

Benjamin Kurtz Miller, whose Inverted Jenny, position 18 on the sheet, was stolen in 1977 was one of the early buyers of inverts, 10 in all, bought the stamp for $250. 

finest collection of rare U.S. stamps ever assembled. Miller moved to New York City to personally supervise the massive collection, which was on display in the New York Public Library, until he died in 1928 of a heart attack while sitting in the lobby of the University Club. Miller willed the stamps to the library on one condition, that they be displayed publicly "forever."

Police were clueless as to whodunit, until another Inverted Jenny was reported stolen in 1982.

From New York to Tamaqua

On Monday, May 9, 1977, someone walked into the basement office of Lambert W. Gerber's home on East Broad Street in Tamaqua and offered numerous rare U.S. stamps for sale. The same day, Gerber's records showed a $60,000 disbursement to a person who used a fictitious name.

What the tall, distinguished-looking Tamaqua man, an internationally known and respected dealer who had sold stamps to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and actor Adolphe Menjou, apparently didn't know was that the stamps had been stolen from the New York Public Library only days before during the weekend.

Mr. Gerber was rated as one of the top 10 philatelic auction specialists (stamp brokers) in the United States back in in the 1960s/1970s. Gerber got his start in the business in 1930 when he was a student in Tamaqua High School and sold/carried newspapers in Tamaqua.  Once after delivering papers he found he had an outstanding bill of $9 he owed the publishers. $9 was hard to come by and he placed an advertisement in a magazine noting he had stamps for sale. He said it wasn't long until he had mail coming in from people in distant places who were interested in purchasing the stamps for collections.

Gerber soon raised the money to pay off his bill and additionally, now found himself in the stamp business. In 1964 he noted that "I have been in the business more than 30 years and devote all my time to it today." Millions of stamps have passed through his hands during this time. Gerber classed the stamp broker business as "the Tiffany end of the trade." The Tamaqua man said there were 35 divisions in the stamp broker business. He deals with the advanced collectors, with people who need scarce items.

In this same interview (1964), Mr. Gerber talked about an inverted Jenny stamp, "one of the stamps in his possession" and his "plans to sell his inverted air mail stamp in the fall". This was obviously not the stolen stamp (1977).

Lambert W. Gerber examining in 1964 an inverted Jenny which had been consigned to him by a client and was later sold for about $11,000

Gerber's daughter has theorized that the thief or an intermediary came directly to Tamaqua from New York and sold the stamps to her father before the news of the robbery had been publicized. She also contended that it would have been foolish of her father to advertise the stamps in his catalogs, sent to 20,000 collectors around the world, if he had known they were stolen. Moreover, the stamp itself had been altered (perforations cut off) to appear to be from the top row of the original sheet.

She pointed out that her father was himself a victim of theft in 1953, when a briefcase containing stamps worth $35,000 was stolen from his room in the Hillsboro Hotel in Tampa, Fla. She recalled that her father had carried the briefcase everywhere, but left it in the room hidden under clothes in a bureau drawer while the family had breakfast on the final day of the Philatelic Americans Convention. When they returned, the room was as it had been left, except the stamps were missing.

FBI Breaks the Case

In December 1982, while working on another stamp theft case, Special agent Earl Sumner came across the photograph of a rare "Inverted Jenny" stamp in one of Gerber's auctions then current catalogs. Sumner took particular notice of the stamp in Gerber's catalog because, like another he had seen, it seemed to have a defect on the "2" in the lower left corner. It turned out that the stamp taken from the Miller collection had an identical mark, a defect in the paper. The agent, a specialist in stamp theft who works out of the FBI Cleveland office, then researched Gerber's old catalogs and found photographs of 81 more of the stolen stamps.

In January 1983, more than five years after the theft, a New York grand jury subpoenaed Gerber's inventory. Instead of moving the thousands of stamps to New York, a team of FBI agents and philatelic experts went to Tamaqua and discovered that 82 of the stamps had been in Gerber's inventory at one time. The FBI seized the 69 remaining stamps, valued at $500,000. The other 13, including the "Inverted Jenny," had been sold. The FBI still isn't certain what happened to the remaining 71 stolen stamps taken in the May 1977 heist, that were not traced to Gerber.

The FBI investigation revealed Gerber sold the inverted Jenny stamp to John W. Kaufmann, a Washington dealer, who featured it on the front page of a 1979 auction catalog (See below.). Lawrence A. Bustillo of Suburban Stamp, Inc., of Springfield, Mass., subsequently purchased the stamp from Kaufmann for $51,700, according to Linn's Stamp News. Sumner said Bustillo surrendered the stolen stamp, which was listed in the then current Scott's Stamp Catalog as being worth $110,000. 

it is not uncommon for stamp dealers, who sell more than collect stamps among the premiere dealers in the country, both bought the "Inverted Jenny" without knowing it was stolen. Linn's Stamp News reported that Kaufmann had the stamp reviewed by an expert at the Philatelic Foundation in New York before he bought it from Gerber. The expert found the stamp to be legitimate. The FBI said (according to experts) the top perforations were cut off the stamp, which was No. 18 of a block of 100, to make it appear it came from the top row of the sheet. Agent Sumner said he did not know whether it was altered before or after Gerber purchased it.

"No way would I know Miller material if it was put in front of me," said William R. Weiss, an Allentown stamp dealer, one of two major Lehigh Valley PA stamp auctioneers. Weiss said the thief or thieves were smart enough to know that they could not pass them into philatelic circles without altering them. Some stamps, like a block of four 1909 stamps printed on blue paper valued at about $50,000, were broken up to disguise them.  Weiss who knew Gerber before his death in 1981 said he felt Gerber was not knowledgeable enough about stamps to mastermind such a theft. "He was a very honest guy. My gut feeling is that he didn't know he was handling stolen merchandise."

Epilogue

Even the FBI concedes that a thorough examination of Gerber's records showed no illegalities in a career that spanned more than 50 years. But there is no denying that Gerber had possession of many of the stamps taken in what was one of the largest stamp thefts in history. And the recovery of those stamps, the largest such case in FBI history, has focused attention on the quiet man who devoted his life to cataloging and selling collections of rare stamps at auctions and by mail.

It also casts light on the inner workings of big-time stamp collecting, which contrary to its low-keyed exterior often involves high-stakes business where single stamps can now bring more than one million dollars. Furthermore, the FBI never issued indictments in the case, which broke after the five-year statute of limitations had expired. The actual perpetrators of the robbery were never named.

A color photograph of the actual stamp appeared on the front cover of Kaufmann’s May 5, 1979, Official NAPEX Auction catalog, which drew widespread attention to the stamp, and gave experts who had not seen Gerber’s price list their first opportunity to study it. Clifford C. Cole Jr. and Calvet Hahn, using different analytical techniques, concluded that the stamp was really position 18, the stolen Miller copy. Cole had sketched the stamp when he viewed it in the frame at the library in 1966, noting the usual plating features such as perforation anomalies and placement of the vignette in relation to the frame. Hahn had developed a technique for identifying the horizontal row from which each stamp originated based on the height and tilt of the vignette, which eliminated the possibility of a top row position.

 

.

One Son's Father - My Father's First Battle, The Fifth Battle of the Isonzo, World War 1, La Grande Guerra - PART 2

Behind the Front Lines

Military Camp Towns

On December 14, 1915 the 121st Reggimento Fanteria is relieved at the front and goes to the rear at the municipalities of Campolongo and Località Armellino (Ruda).  From the spring of 1915 field hospitals for wounded soldiers, warehouses, camps for the handling of prisoners, lodgings, recreational and entertainment centers for soldiers and for civilian employees who were engaged in the construction of military facilities started to appear in towns and villages in the Veneto plains, in Belluno, in the Carnic and Julian Alps and in the Friuli plains.  Unlike built-up areas on the front, towns and villages in zones behind the frontlines were not evacuated. In these cases, civilians lived alongside the presence of four million soldiers for a period of two and a half years, adapting their habits to the customs of military personnel.

Houses near Località Armellino today

On the other hand, for many Italian soldiers, military service and mobilization represented the first time they had visited other parts of their own country, and often the first time they had been on a train. While army life of course meant time at the front, troop rotation systems meant that in theory a mobilized unit spent only 25 percent of its time in the trenches (although the Brigata Macerata spent 32% of its time in 1915 in the front lines). The remaining time was spent in reserve areas or rest zones away from the front lines, which could include many of the towns and cities of the Veneto region.  During these periods men engaged in labor, training exercises and (limited amounts of) rest and recuperation activities. New recruits spent a minimum of two or three months in training camps before deployment, while some units served within Italian territory on garrison duty, maintaining public order and defending ports against naval bombardment. Thus wartime experience meant not only life in the trenches but an unprecedented degree of travel around the country, and to judge from men’s (from the peasant and lower middle classes) letters, diaries and memoirs, it is clear that most were fascinated by visiting new parts of Italy and meeting new people from other areas.

One of the best descriptions of what life was like behind the front lines has been found of Campolongo, where my father initially joined his unit on December 2, 1915. Campolongo al Torre (the Torre is a river that is a tributary of Isonzo River) was occupied by Italian troops (shortly after war was declared – May 23) on the morning of May 24, 1915 and became a rear staging and command area. The town was actually part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (in Gradiška (Cervignano sub-district), Küstenland) since early in the nineteenth century (being passed on from the defunct Republic of Venice). After Austria-Hungary began World War I most of the young local men were soldiers of the Hapsburg Army.  When Italy declared war against Austria in May 1915, the Austrian government left the low lying areas near the then Italian border and occupied and fortified the surrounding mountains and heights east of the town on the Karst Plateau, assuming a defensive posture.  Campolongo would immediately be transformed into an important Italian army post and hundreds of thousands of young Italian soldiers were present for over two years until 1917 when the Italians fled during the Battle of Caporetto. 

Campolongo il Torre (Cjamplunc) Küstenland, Austria in 1915 before the War

A local parish priest, Don Parmeggiani, one of the few priests left in their place by the Italians because of their irredentist sentiments, recalled that the average daily number of soldiers housed in the town and in the adjacent countryside was about 12,000. They were part of regiments at rest after tserving at the front line but also some were responsible for providing everyday services in the rear.

Villa Marcotti -  XIII Army Corps HQ

In the Villa Antonini Chiozza (aka Marcotti), now the Town Hall, the Command of the XIII Army Corps (Corps d’Armata) which was led by Generals Cinneio and Grazioli and others, was situated. This was a headquarters of considerable importance that saw the coming and going of personalities such as Cadorna, Salandra and Louis Barthou, the French Foreign Minister, as well as Russian representatives.

In the hamlet of Cavenzano there is another Villa Antonini (now a ruin), at the time of war owned by the Trieste entrepreneur Rodolfo Brunner, who spent part of the war years there. While he was interned by the Italians for his Habsburg sympathies, his son Guido enlisted (sottotenente) as an “irredenta” volunteer dying on June 6, 1916 on Monte Fior (as part of the Strafexpedition defense) and being awarded a Gold Medal for Military Valor.

In the town there were also visits from the King Vittorio Emanuele III who sometimes ascended (the first time on 6 June 1915) on the bell tower for a view of the Front lines, together with Emanuele Filiberto Duke of Aosta (Commander of the Third Army) to observe the military operations of the nearby front. Later he preferred the more advanced bell tower located in Romans d'Isonzo.

Among the services there were the 60th-75th-101st-132nd field hospitals that were visited several times by the Duchess of Aosta, who served as Inspector of the Italian Red Cross. There was also an important laundry center, where the military could bathe and their clothes were washed and sterilized, so the journalist Attilio Frescura in his war diary called Campolongo "the cloak of the Army," and two brothels.

Elena d’Orleans Duchess of Aosta General Inspector of the Volunteer Nurses possibly at a Campolongo Hospital

A school for Officer Candidates was also established in town and housed in some stables.

Campolongo also hosted soldier Giuseppe Ungaretti who wrote a collection of poems called "L'ALLEGRIA" dated as – Campolongo, 5 July 1917.

Today in the territory of the Municipality (now called Campolongo Tapogliano), the remains of World War I are still remarkable: concrete entrenchment systems made by Cadorna behind the front to contain a possible Austrian breakthrough. Their construction brought many workers from all over Italy to the site. There is also a plaque then placed by the Command of the XIII Army Corps to commemorate the civil and military deaths (34 people died and 34 were wounded) of an unfortunate explosion of ammunition that took place on the town's main street on August 4, 1916 during the preparations for the Battle of Gorizia.

I Soldati

When the “Class of 1895” (my father's group) was called for conscription over 90% of the eligible men complied, despite the general lack of interest by rural and lower class people for the declaration of war. 

The army in 1915 was composed of 96 infantry regiments (rising to 236 over the course of the war),  which were arranged not on the basis of regions or localities, but instead were recruited from at least two different regions and stationed in a third.  Italian men met and mingled with others from all over the country, and had the chance to feel that they were part of something much larger than themselves. To  take one example at random: the 111th infantry regiment, part of the Piacenza Brigade,  included men from 27 different locations between 1915 and 1918: Milan,  Como,  Lecco,  Bergamo, Brescia,  Piacenza,  Varese,  Lodi,  Genoa,  Venice,  Ferrara,  Parma,  Jesi, Livorno,  Florence,  Arezzo,  Rome,  Naples,  Reggio  Calabria,  Messina, Catania, Catanzaro, Sulmona, Syracuse, as well as Soazza and Melvagia in Switzerland, and six men born in Africa. This represents a variety of men from the north, center, south and islands.

The process of military service could help educate ordinary soldiers about what Italy was and what values it represented. These encounters were a critical element in constructing an “Italianità” which was reliant primarily on the lived experience. 

More important than geography and architecture, in men’s letters, diaries and memoirs it was an almost universal norm to comment on the geographical origins of every new acquaintance.  New friends, travel companions, members of the platoon or company, as well as officers and NCOs, were all identified by regional origin. Men were keen to recount regional differences, often describing the exchange of local customs or foods  (especially desserts) as well as shared activities, e.g. prayer and singing. 

Of course alongside interest in fellow nationals there are many examples of regional prejudice, especially towards Southerners. These prejudices could also of course act to limit the development of a strong national identity, as could strong regional or local identities. If men identified themselves primarily with a locality, it was hard for Iitalianità to seem valid or important. And many men recorded their delight at meeting up with men from their own town or area, even if they were strangers: amid the dislocating, disorientating experience of war, men from home were a source of comfort which could not be easily substituted. Yet the opportunities provided by mingling with men of diverse geographic origins should not be underestimated, offering at least a likely basis for the construction of an Italian national community. Some examples of this new community and also regional prejudice and overcoming it:

1. Amadeo Rossi of Cesena was in Venice undergoing training when the war began and his time in that city made a huge impression on him, overwhelming him with its beauty, culture and civilization, and giving him a much better sense of what ‘Italy’ meant. He wrote of “our beautiful Venice”.  A sense of ownership gradually developed through his time in the city, where, crucially, he was not a tourist but a member of its defending force.
2. “I am with two men from Bari and they are like a piece of bread [i.e. good, wholesome] every evening we say our prayers together” wrote another Cesena man.
3. When the Neapolitan Armando Diaz was appointed as Chief of the General Staff in November 1917 some similar prejudices emerged. Official historian and staff officer Angelo Gatti observed the resentment of “the Piedmontese nobleman [General  Mario  Nicolis  di] Robilant, who will certainly not be happy to work under the Neapolitan Diaz”.
4. A Romagna man wrote, “I am well I’m alone but there are some [men] who are frightening and it is always those Neapolitans”.

Geographic origin brings us to the question of language and regional languages (dialect), highly significant in terms of national identity. Consider the example of the 111th regiment mentioned above, with its 27 different military districts of origin: there probably were a half-dozen dialects spoken within the regiment at any one time.  Genuine communication difficulties were uncommon but did certainly arise.  Equally problematic was the significant potential for fraternization or sympathy with the enemy which was facilitated by shared language or dialects, such as Italian-speaking Austrian prisoners (Tirolians).

This complex situation, and the daily encounters  between men from different parts of the country, necessitated a new means of communication – a shared language, which could help constitute a shared identity.  What happened, therefore, was the growth of standard Italian –  or rather that variant known as “italiano popolare”.  This variant offered new communicative possibilities between men of different regions and localities who could build a sense of collective identity – both within the context of their military units, and within the context of the nation. Italiano popolare was also strongly associated with the need to acquire at least some degree of literacy, a significant feature of the peasant experience of the war. Many learned to read and write for the first time in the trenches, while those who had acquired some level of literacy before the war found themselves actually putting their skills into practice, reading and writing regularly for the first time in their adult lives. Of course, correspondents at home were also working to develop functional literacy skills at the same time.

My father appeared to have encountered all these attributes of everyday life of the soldiers and a sense of “Italianità”. In regards to the geographical aspect, the house on Market Street in my home town, where he lived with his sister and brother-in-law for over 20 years, were exquisite murals painted on the walls showing scenes of Italy (not only Abruzzo but other regions).  Significant among these was the painting of Trieste – perhaps an acknowledgement of his four years of service in the Italian Army pursuing “Italia Irredentia”.

In regards to friendships with fellow soldiers from other regions in Italy, he deftly called upon a soldier friend (probably from Rome) whose assistance he needed to get clearance from Italian authorities to get passports for himself and sister (and her future father-in-law).  In 1921, new American immigration rules required many administrative details which he was able to overcome with the help of his friend from the regiment who worked in the Italian Foreign Ministry.

Finally, letters home put into practice the basic elementary education he had received in regards to writing and reading. He gained literacy from semi-literacy and maintained his ability to read and read Italian, as in such periodicals and the Italian American newspaper, Il Progresso, among others.

My Father's Battles at Isonzo Front

The Front Lines

The year 1916 opened with the Macerata Brigade behind the lines on New Year’s Day but on the very next day, they returned to the front at the Castelnuovo sector and to the front lines at trenches Trincea delle Celle and Trincee Rocciose.  For recognition, each trench was given a name, which referred to the characteristics of the surrounding area (as in the case of the trench of the cells (Celle) or of the so-called "rocky trenches" - Rocciose), or to the conformation of the trench itself (small trench, trench triangular, etc).  The Brigade is sent to relieve the Sassari Brigade.  Infantrymen had dedicated themselves to the consolidation and improvement of the defensive lines. On the far right of the Frasche trench there was a walkway just 80 cm wide; it was not dug into the ground, but protected by bags of earth for forty meters until it reached six meters from the Austrian trench. It was called the Budello (See tottus in pari, emigrati e residenti: la voce delle due "Sardegne", 13 maggio 1916). This position was manned by thirty men and two officers. They had a series of lighting rockets that were to be launched to pinpoint, according to the number, the immediate intervention of medium and larger calibers of the Italian field artillery. A battalion was always ready to intervene to protect that 32-man garrison.

On the January 23 the Brigade returned to the rear again between Campolongo and Armellino; less than two days later elements return to the front less two battalions (awaiting typhoid vaccinations) to reinforce the Sassari Brigade, engaged in a strong action at that time at the Budello.  On the January 26, the commanders and two battalions return to the rear, leaving two battalions at the front (in reinforcement).  

This diagram shows the location of the trenches occupied by the Macerata Brigade during 1916 and also shows the road back to the Command Post for the Brigade at Castel Nuovo.

Thus, the first two months of 1916 passed in a continuous alternation between the Macerata Brigade and the Sassari Brigade in presiding over the Trincee delle Frasche and dei Razzi and in the rest periods in Campolongo al Torre and in Armellino (Isola Vicentina).

The Brigade remains at the rear until February 10 at the Campolongo-Armellino area. On February 11, the brigade returns to the Castelnuovo sector as part of its rotation to the front lines occupying Trincee delle Celle and Rocciose. Elements are also at Trincea delle Frasche) also in the Castelnuovo sector. As part of these short rotations the Brigade returns to the rear on March 1 until March 10. No firefights are reported during the rotations. However, this front (war zone) was open to almost continuous skirmishes and small platoon size actions in between the large scale offensive actions planned by General Cadorna and called the Battles of the Isonzo.

Ruins at Trincea delle Frasche (“Leafy Branches”)

The Battles of the Isonzo were a series of 12 battles between the Austro-Hungarian and Italian armies along the Isonzo River on the eastern sector of the Italian Front between June 1915 and November 1917.  As we have seen the Brigade participated in Second and Fourth Battles in 1915. See Part 1. 

The Fifth Battle of the Isonzo

Italy launched the Fifth Battle of the Isonzo on March 9, 1916. This was an offensive launched not after detailed strategic planning, but rather as a distraction to shift the Central Powers away from the Eastern Front and from Verdun, where the greatest bloodshed of the war was occurring. The attack was a result of the allied Chantilly Conference of December 1915. Luigi Cadorna, the Italian commander-in-chief, organized this new offensive following the winter lull in fighting which had allowed the Italian High Command to regroup and organize 8 new divisions for the front.

The attacks ordered by Cadorna for the 2nd and 3rd Italian Armies as "demonstrations" (comprised of local assaults) against the enemy, proved to be less bloody than the four previous battles. The battles were fought on the Karst plateau, with the stated objective of taking Gorizia and the Tolmin bridgehead, an Austrian water crossing at Tolmino located north of Gorizia on the opposite side of the Bainsizza Plateau. The Italians were able to conquer Mount Sabotino (overlooking Gorizia) from the Austro-Hungarians, but that was the only real gain made. The Karst sector was contested by the two opposing (static) armies in trenches opposite Gorizia and ​​Monte S. Michele. It was also important that certain local operations were conducted in the winter period, serving to maintain aggressiveness in the troops, otherwise engaged in the endless work of maintaining the trenches, which were continually destroyed by enemy artillery. Every month 300 million bags of earth and ten million kg of lime and cement were used for the restoration and conservation of defensive works, as well as three and a half million meters of barbed wire.

An example of the fighting at the Castelnuovo sector indicates that the Italian infantry was to advance beyond the Budello.  However, the Italian artillery had not managed to destroy the enemy barbed wire and even with the use of gelatin tubes (by the infantry) because of the enormous depth placement of the barbed wire. It was decided to put jelly tubes under the barbed wire of the Tortuosa, the “Winding Trench” close to the Budello. Immediately after the destruction of the defensive works a small group of Italian Arditi (Special Forces) rushed into the enemy trench, managing to eliminate the lookout. Then battalions of the regiments intervened. The explosion of an Italian grenade in the trench caused serious losses and the Austrians, who had come forward in large numbers, got busy, engaging in a wild fight with the survivors and with a group of infantrymen, who intervened to help the original special forces. The losses were serious.

Fortifications at Castelnuovo del Carso

The 121st Infantry Regiment (Macerata Brigade) of my father took part in these battles.  This was likely the first major combat action of his career since he had just arrived at the war zone on December 2, 1915 and major fighting on the front had generally ceased shortly thereafter for winter. The Brigade rotated at the familiar Castelnuovo del Carso sector and was at Trincea delle Frasche, Trincee dei Sacchi and degli Scogli - Quota (Hill) 112 and Trincee dei Razzi and Rocciose.

After a week of fighting that cost the lives of 4,000 men between both sides, the clashes ceased (March 17) because of terrible weather conditions that worsened the trench conditions and because of the Austro-Hungarian Strafexpedition offensive in the Trentino. Cadorna then called upon his Russian allies to keep the Austria-Hungarian units at bay on the Eastern front giving Cadorna the chance to redeploy his forces at Trentino all the while abandoning the Fifth Battle of the Isonzo.

On March 19, the Macerata Brigade was relieved from the front and returned behind the front lines for rest, training and other work details.  They were encamped at Campolongo (al Torre), Armellino and Aiello del Frulio, until May 8. As an indication of the less deadly nature of this Battle the total Italian casualties were less than 2,000, whereas, the first four battles AVERAGED casualties of over 42,000.

But my father had survived his first battle.

Troops at Trincee dei Razzi (Rockets)

Along certain parts of the front, especially around Gorizia, skirmishes continued between enemy platoons until March 30 and beyond, in a protracted struggle that produced no clear victor.  One of these areas was another height above Gorizia – Monte San Michele. Even Castelnuovo remained dangerous. On 27 April, an enemy grenade, exploding in a barrack on the Castelnuovo estate, had caused another serious loss in the Italian ranks. The villa of Castelnuovo was hosting the command of the 25th division (of which the Brigata Macerata was part) and this was a real war town fortification - several artillery posts had been set up in preparation for future offensives, the opposing lines of the two armies were located just beyond the villa, which had become a place for marshaling, sheltering and massing troops, as well as having a medical group for initially treating those wounded in battle.

However, prior to the continuation of the larger Battles of the Isonzo by the Italians, the Austro-Hungarians had planned a major offensive in Trentino.  The Macerata Brigade would not participate in this action but would later be involved in several Battles at the Isonzo that followed this Austrian Strafexpedition. 

Again my father would soon see more fighting with his regiment. See Part 3.

Part I - The Normans in Southern Italy - Background

One of the most under-rated military campaigns took place in southern Italy beginning in the early 11th Century and ending in the fourth decade of the 12th Century. The takeover of southern Italy was accomplished by the Normans. Perhaps it is under-rated because there was no "invasion" of Italian land by a Norman army.  In fact the Normans (in small bands of adventurers and fortune hunters) appear to have first come there as pilgrims and shown their mettle in small skirmishes with Lombards, Arabs/Muslims and Byzantines, and then second, been invited by several of the leaders of southern Italy somewhat later to help protect themselves.

Southern Italy

Southern Italy at the turn of the 11th Century was a mixture of three distinct zones. Apulia or Puglia (Longobardia) and Basilicata (Lucania)/Calabria were ruled by the Byzantine empire, the island of Sicily by the Arab/Muslims or Saracens (as it had been since their conquest of the ninth century) and the central mountains of Campania/Benevento which were divided between three major Lombard principalities (dating back to the 6th Century) - Capua (north of Naples to the border with the papal states), Salerno in the south (from the Amalfitan peninsula down to the Gulf of Policastro) and the remnants of Benevento (in the inland mountain district, from Avellino northwards to Spoleto - the Abruzzi and the Adriatic). In the Abruzzi, lay a series of independent counties, partly Lombard, partly Frankish in character, but this region was in almost every aspect, geographic, economic and social, separate from the south proper. On the west coast there were three small duchies, Gaeta, Naples and Amalfi, which had throughout the earlier middle ages retained a determined yet precarious independence from their larger neighbors, the principalities of Capua and Salerno. Both Naples and Amalfi still acknowledged dependence on the Byzantine empire, largely as a means of protection against the aggressive instincts of their neighbors, the Lombard princes.  These Lombard princes also subjected themselves to (at various times) to the Byzantines or alternatively to the Germanic rulers of East Francia (the Holy Roman Emperors) lying north of the Papal States.

Southern Italy Circa 1000 CE.  (Wikimedia Commons)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Southern_Italy%2C_ca._1000_AD.svg

Fragmented as the political divisions of southern Italy were, the cultural and religious divide was more complex still, for it did not coincide with the political boundaries. In the Byzantine dominions the population of northern and central Apulia was almost entirely Lombard, by this stage speaking Latin-Romance dialects, and observing Latin religious rites. Southern Apulia and Lucania were more mixed, although the Greek part of the population was probably in the majority, and had been strengthened in Lucania by emigration from Sicily (after the Muslim conquest). Calabria was mainly, and in the south almost entirely, Greek.

Normans Arrive into the Mix

Into this cauldron of political, religious and ethnic mixtures, Normans (from the region of Normandy in France) who were the descendants of the Vikings, began to appear.  Normans first arrived in Italy as pilgrims, probably on their way to or returning from either Jerusalum or from visiting the shrine at Gargano - the Sanctuary of Saint Michael, the Archangel., during the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. These Norman pilgrims would travel to Rome and thence to Salerno, to Gargano and finally to Brindisi to depart for the Middle East.

Modern Day Sancturary of St. Michael, the Archangel (Wikimedia Commons)

As these Normans appeared in transit, soon they began to interest the Lombard-led populations.  Several theories have been put forward by Norman chroniclers - Amatus of Montecassino, William of Apulia, and Leone Marsicanus (all in the eleventh and twelfth centuries).  Another theory comes from Radulfus Glaber in his earlier work, ca. 1030 (right after the events themselves occurred).

The earliest reported date for the arrival of Norman knights (engaged in combat) in southern Italy is 999.  In that year, according to several sources, Norman pilgrims returning from Jerusalem by way of Apulia stopped at Salerno, where they met with Prince Guaimar III, during which the city and its environs were attacked by Saracens demanding an annual tribute.  While Guaimar began to collect the tribute, the Normans upbraided him and his Lombard subjects for lack of bravery, and they assaulted the Saracen besiegers.  The Saracens fled, much booty was taken, and a Guaimar pleaded with the Normans to stay.  They refused but promised to show their riches to their compatriots in Normandy and to tell them of possible rewards for (mercenary) military service in Salerno. This account of the arrival of the Normans is sometimes called the Salerno tradition. This was first recorded by Amatus of Montecassino in his “Ystoire de li Normant” between 1071 and 1086, then was borrowed from Amatus by Peter the Deacon for his continuation of the “Chronicon Monasterii Casinensis” of Leo of Ostia, written in the early 12th century.  It is also mentioned by Orderic Vitalis in his "Historia Ecclesiastica".

William of Apulia had an alternative explanation from the years 1015-1016 in Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, dated 1088–1110. He does not mention Salerno in his work, though like Amatus he said that the first Normans to come to Italy were pilgrims. In his version, Norman pilgrims to Gargano encountered Melus, a member of the Lombard aristocracy of Apulia (in Bari) who was rebelling against the Byzantines. These Normans recognized the wealth of the region and the opportunities it offered for mercenaries.

Marsicanus, in the original version of his chronicle of Montecassino gives a briefer explanation that differs somewhat. He described the original revolt of Melus (ca. 1009) and then how he took refuge in Capua where he encountered forty Norman "in flight from the anger of their lord, the Count of Normandy" and persuades them to take part in his proposed invasion. Leone listed the leaders of the Normans as Gilbert Botericus, Rodulf of Tosny, Osmund, Rifinus and Stigand. In the later revision of the chronicle (by Leone or someone else), Amatus’ account is inserted almost verbatim while the list of the Norman leaders is omitted.  Amatus had in his account continued and described how the Count of Normandy had exiled a man called Gilbert Buatère for killing an individual called William, how Gilbert and his four brothers (Rudolf, Osmund, Rainulf and Asclettin) came to Italy and at Capua met Melus joining him in a new uprising. There are a variety of problems with this account especially the dates wherein Amatus appears to contract events that occurred over 20-30 years to imply they occurred in rapid succession. The latter two series of events are referred to as the Gargano traditiion.

The common elements in these accounts are: 1) Normans as pilgrims, 2) the role of political exiles, 3) the naming of Gilbert Buatère and 4) Norman involvement in Melus' second rebellion. Radulf's  version of the Normans’ arrival in "Radulfus Glaber Opera", edited by J.France, N. Bulst and P. Reynolds, Oxford Medieval Texts, Oxford, 1989, pages 96-101, refers to a man called Rodulf who had angered the count of Normandy, correctly named as Richard II (996-1026). Rodulf went with some companions to Rome where it was Pope Benedict VIII (1012-24) who recruited them for an attack on Apulia. Glaber’s suggestion that the pope was the instigator of or at least party to, the attack on Apulia in 1017 is supported by a contemporary French chronicler Adehemar of Chabannes: "Chronicon", edited by J. Chavanon, Paris, 1897, pages 178. Glaber also noted that news of their initial victories led to many other Normans leaving France and coming south. Certainly relations between the papacy and the patriarchate of Constantinople were poor in the 1010s as the papacy had been trying to reassert its authority, largely unsuccessfully, over the bishoprics of Byzantine Italy since the mid-tenth century.

It is possible that these stories are just the two or three tales that survived the times. They may include and be conflated with other stories known then but forgotten now. What we can ascertain is the following:

1. The events of 999-1000 in Salerno of the Normans against the Saracens need not be dismissed as legend nor does it have to be related to the second rebellion of Melus in 1016-17. Moreover, this account does not invalidate other versions of the Normans’ arrival.
2. William of Apulia's version of events should be seen as separate from the role of the Norman pilgrims at Salerno. There was a longstanding link between Normandy and the shrine at  Gargano. The presence of Melus at Gargano is likely. 
   
3. Norman mercenaries were already in Italy in the early years of the eleventh century. They had been recruited by the abbots of Montecassino and Saint Vincent of Volturno around 1010. Amatus decribes how after the early battles in Apulia in 1017 more Normans "from Salerno" joined Melus’ army suggesting they were already there.
4. Even the participation of Normans in Melus' first rebellion should not be ruled out. According to a document included in Finium agri Troiani descriptio faeta a Basilio Boiano Prol Ospdthario Catapano Italiae, a. 1019, XVIII, [in:] Syllabus Graecorum Membranarum, ed. F. Trinchera, Neapol 1865, p. 18 (Syllabus), the Byzantine general Basil Boioannes employed another group of Franks (the Byzantines always referred to Normans as Franks irrespective of their true ethnicity) and set them in city of Troia's fortress in the year 1019. What is especially interesting is that, these mercenaries must have lived in Italy for some time before they pledged allegiance to Basil, having served the counts of Ariano (ton areianiton kometon). These two events show that the Franks/Normans earned the reputation of superior soldiers very quickly and that gave them a

   

   This is the Byzantine Tower in Biccari, several kilometers from Troia. There was a similar structure in Troia built by Boiannes ca. 1017 as part of a network of towers and fortifications extending from northern Apulia to the Adriatic Sea. (Commune di Biccari Website)
   

   
   chance to serve under the Byzantine army. The contingent of mercenaries from Troia proved not only to be useful but also faithful. This is shown in another document concerning the same Franks/Normans, issued in 1024, by the same Basil (See Syllabus a. 1024, XX, p. 21), where the aforementioned soldiers served for considerable period of time (as mercenaries) and some of them might have been promoted.  
5. The involvement by Pope Benedict VIII with Norman mercenaries in Melus’ rebellion is feasible given growing problems between Rome and Constantinople.  
6. Glaber also suggested that Landulf V, prince of Benevento was involved, while Amatus and Leone Marsicanus agree that Melus gathered his forces in Capua, presumably with the concurrence of its princes, the two cousins Pandulf II and Pandulf IV. Both Capua and Benevento, which were temporarily united between 1008 and 1014 has ambitions to recover land their predecessors had held in northern Apulia, so their involvement cannot be surprising.

So by 1015, there were a group of Normans living in southern Italy primarily and employed as mercenaries. They appeared to be in service with the various Lombard princes, the Byzantine army and the Roman church. It is likely that various groups of Normans (sometimes including non-Normans but all lumped together as "Franks") would be on opposite sides of service and they did not align with each other or any political or religious philosophy. But that would be about to change in the next decades.

What factors led to the emigration from Normandy to southern Italy?

The first factor that encouraged many contacts between France and Italy during the last quarter of the tenth and the first quarter of the eleventh century was pilgrimage.  Italy was the crossing point of every major pilgrimage route leading to the Holy Land. Normans became familiar with southern Italy, its politics, its culture and its opportunity for advancement.

The next contributing factor to the Norman migration to the south is the over-population of Normandy, but in the sense of “inheritance”.  The best example of this period is the sons of Tancred de Hauteville, whose reasons for venturing to Italy are suggested by Amatus of Montecassino, Geoffrey Malaterra and Orderic Vitalis. According to Amatus “these people [the Normans] had increased to such a number that the fields and orchards were not sufficient for producing the necessities of life for so many” (Amatus, I. 1.), while Malaterra adds that “the sons of Tancred [Hauteville] noticed that whenever their aging neighbors passed away, their heirs would fight amongst themselves for their inheritance resulting in the division of the patrimony – which had been intended to fall to the lot of a single heir – into portions that were too small. [...] Ultimately, … they came to Apulia, a province of Italy.”(Malaterra, 1. 5) Orderic Vitalis noted this through the last “speech” he put into the mouth of Robert Guiscard on his deathbed in July 1085: “We were born of poor and humble parents and left the barren (sterile) country of the Cotentin and homes which could not support us to travel to Rome.” (Orderic Vitalis, VII, p. 32) These accounts underline the fact that the division of the family patrimony was a serious issue in eleventh century Normandy. Inheritance dashed the aspirations of many younger sons for acquiring a piece of land for themselves. The type of “joint tenure” estate, where the younger sons were given a share of the patrimony under the control of their elder brother, which would satisfy the younger members of a family and discourage emigration became standard only in the late eleventh century.  (See E. Tabuteau, Transfers of Property in Eleventh-century Norman law, Chapel Hill, London, 1988, Cahen, La Regime Feodal, pp. 88-9, and Loud, “How Norman was the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy?”, p. 18) 

Next, political factors played an important role in the decision to leave for Italy. Many who did so were exiles, victims of ducal wrath due to their military or political opposition to him, although some were later pardoned by the duke and reinstated. Exile was a common tool of punishment used by the Richard II, known as the “Ullac” (the duke’s right to exile has Scandinavian origin – ullac - and it is first documented in the 1050s: Haskins, Norman Institutions, pp. 27-30; Bates, Normandy Before 1066, pp. 166-67; E. Van Houts, “L’Exil Dans l’Espace Anglo-Normand”, La Normandie et l’Angleterre au Moyen Age, ed. P.Bouet, V.Gazeau, CRAHM, Caen, 2001, pp. 117-27), against uncooperative members of the nobility, in which someone of note would have aroused the interest of the Duke himself.  But the driving force behind the expansion of the 1020s-50s to Italy was the political and social disturbances in Normandy itself and many parts of northern France after the break-down of Robert II’s regime in 1034, and especially during William II’s minority. (See D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror, The Norman Impact upon England, (2nd ed.), Yale University Press, London, 1999, pp. 31-80; Bates, Normandy Before 1066, pp. 46-93)  

Other Normans were escaping the bitter conflicts between aristocratic families, during the crucial decades for the rise of aristocratic power (1035-55).  These years appear in great contrast to the period of relative stability and peace of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries in Normandy, a situation which had attracted political exiles from other parts of France actually, e.g. Anjou and Brittany, who would become leading members of the Norman aristocracy. The dramatic phase of Norman expansion began when the same type of territorial fragmentation and reorganization of family structures became pronounced within Normandy itself. (See Bates, Normandy Before 1066, p. 244.)