Historisches Stadtlexikon von Teterow (German Edition)

Similar authors to follow

---

Was ehrlich simply used as a synonym for ehelich or did it have a broader meaning? The exclusion from citizenship and the exclusion from honorable guilds went hand in hand. However, negative evidence — the fact that executioners and skinners do not appear in any lists of citizens or residents — makes it likely that they inhabited this same legal limbo in the second half of the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries.

However, the reasoning behind this legal principle was never explained and it is not clear what practical implications this policy held for the authorities or for the executioners and skinners themselves. In contrast, the Augsburg city government was less sympathetic to the concerns of honorable guildsmen and did not enforce or even allow the complete social exclusion of executioner or skinner.

In all cases, however, the policies of local governments were reactive. What position did Catholic and Protestant churches take towards capital punishment and towards the executioner? What was religious practice? Executioners pretended to repent in order to receive permission to beg, and common beggars claimed to be executioners who had given up their post. Mack Walker argues that magistrates of smaller imperial cities governed according to norms and values they shared with the citizenry.

When they have done this for a while and cheated the people, they become hangmen again. Indeed, discrimination against executioners in church, denying executioners communion altogether, or requiring them to take it last, and to sit or stand separately during services, were relatively frequent in the late middle ages and continued to a lesser degree in the early modern period. In northern Germany it was common in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for executioners to celebrate marriages and baptisms in their own homes rather than in church.

He compared soldiers, judges, and executioners. They killed enemies or criminals, and therefore they did not sin when they killed, nor could they be called murderers. Synods of the sixth and seventh centuries forbade clerics from participating in any judicial proceedings that might lead to a death sentence, and they could not attend executions. Carl Josef Hefele, Conciliengeschichte. Nach den Quellen bearbeitet, vol. This was not a statement of new doctrine.

In the Bamberg code it was also the motives of the executioner that determined whether or not he was to be admitted to Holy Communion. Indeed, church investigations led to death penalties against heretics, though clerics were forbidden to administer torture personally during the interrogation.

The church continued to delegate the actual sentencing and the execution of the sentence to secular authorities in accordance with the principle Ecclesia non sitit sanguinem the church does not thirst for blood. This defect also attached to those who had spilled blood in war, regardless of whether it was a just war or not.

Judges were highly placed honorable persons, and military valor conferred the highest honor in medieval and early modern society. Irregularity was of little practical consequence to professional executioners, since it is unlikely that many sought to be ordained as priests. In the late middle ages and at the beginning of the early modern period, the church seemed unsure of its attitude towards the executioner. The churches of the early modern period developed a more consistent policy. Mainstream Protestant churches wholeheartedly endorsed capital punishment. Distinguishing sharply between the godly and worldly realm, Luther argued that true Christians living under the spiritual authority of Christ had no need of temporal authority or the law.

The majority of unregenerate mankind, however, would only keep peace under the external constraint of the sword. Luther did not really consider capital punishment as a problem separate from temporal punishment in general. It was only its most extreme example. The world cannot and dare not dispense with it. To what Extent it should be Obeyed? Protestant funeral sermons for executioners, of which several examples from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries have been preserved, make the same argument. Catholic and Protestant authorities agreed that the executioner did not sin when he carried out a death sentence.

He was not in a damned state. In fact the contrary is true. As Ernst Schubert has pointed out, the spiritual stain of sin could be removed by acts of religious penance. They were not excluded from church services; in fact, they were positively required to attend. Executioners regularly married and had their children baptized in the cathedral, while skinners attended the chapel of St.

Sebastian outside the city walls which was close to their residence. There was never any question of denying executioners a Christian burial in consecrated earth — once the body was in the graveyard. StadtAA, Strafamt, Zucht- u. One was a priest, the other was a deacon. Protestant artisans could certainly not draw on the teachings of their church to justify their exclusion of dishonorable people, since Luther had repeatedly emphasized that all trades were honorable in the eyes of the Lord, as long as they did not violate religious morality.

But conversely, their spiritual equality had no impact on their dishonor in the material world. Generally we can conclude that executioners and skinners were not absolute social pariahs.

Indeed, this line was at times blurred or invisible, while at other times it was rigidly clear. Would a patrician have felt tainted or dishonored by social or accidental contact with the executioner or skinner? The evidence is inconclusive. The examination of the position of churches towards dishonorable people has shown that by the early modern period dishonor constituted a thoroughly secular phenomenon that operated without sanction in theology or religious practice. Dishonor was not the creation of either political or religious authorities. Instead, we must look to social structure, to the social characteristics of dishonorable people and of the groups who excluded them, and to the social dynamic between them, in order to explain the phenomenon of dishonor.

This entailed looking at the boundary of honor through the eyes of honorable society. We now change perspective to get an inside view. How did executioners and skinners experience dishonor? We shall piece together the lives of individual executioners and skinners in the greatest possible detail, in order to reconstruct their social milieu. By the early seventeenth century executioners and skinners had established a hereditary professional caste. This endogamous marriage pattern has been well documented by the folklorists and historians who have studied dishonor. This work reconstructs executioner and skinner genealogies.

Glenzdorf and Treichel, Henker, p. See for instance Helmut Schuhmann, Der Scharfrichter. Moreover, honorable society provided executioners and skinners with various perquisites that partly compensated for their low social status and made their position bearable, indeed advantageous. The boundary of honor was not maintained for over two centuries by force alone. How far back in time can their distinctive marriage pattern be traced? The importance of external constraints, internal pressures, and social incentives in the formation and maintenance of the dishonorable milieu varied over the centuries.

In isolated sources from the fourteenth and the early sixteenth centuries executioners appear violent and disorderly. Executioners were also victims of violence. The city council decided that he had acted in self-defense and ordered him to bury the body of the foreign executioner beneath the gallows. For a similar argument, see Giesela Wilbertz, Scharfrichter, pp.

A year later Bair was succeeded by another member of the Scheifelhut family. Master Peter was employed for only three years. Symon was from the Swabian village of Jungersheim. Valentin Scholz was apparently a stranger in Augsburg, since he excused misbehavior by saying that he was not familiar with local customs. Caspar Behem was from Aichstet, a small Swabian town, and had served previously in the neighboring free imperial city of Kaufbeuren. Meister Peter Ramer was hired from Kaufbeuren as well. The evidence points to a rapid turnover rate in these two dishonorable professions.

The instability of these early years contrasts with the long tenures of executioners and skinners in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when individual skinners and executioners often held the position for twenty or thirty years, as we shall see below. His tenure was not free of disturbances, however.

He was arrested frequently for drunkenness, barroom brawls, and debt. But when the journeymen heard of this they did not want to tolerate it and banded together in gangs in the upper and lower city. What is surprising is that he tried to join a guild at all. They did not join honorable guilds.

He was arrested on numerous occasions for drunkenness and violence. Only Hans Gaisser the Younger was listed. Barthlme and his wife were banished from the city. With Master Veit a measure of stability set in. Stolz was morally respectable and professionally responsible, serving as executioner for twenty-eight years. He represented a new kind of executioner typical of the later period. Accordingly, Master Veit is mentioned only in less colorful sources, the city council protocols and guardianship records.

The guardianship records of that year detail the property settlements following his death. The will shows that Margaretha had a sister, Barbara Kimicher, who had been married to a weaver, Endres Kel. Casper Bez, a barber-surgeon, Hans Ludwig, a goldsmith, and Conrad Ettlin, a glazier, were appointed as executors of the testament. The goldsmith and the glazier were members of prestigious guilds. On the use of guardianship records to reconstruct social relationships that would otherwise remain invisible, see Bernd Roeck, Eine Stadt in Krieg und Frieden. He married that same year.

His widow was Sabina Scheibenhart and her guardians were Hans Scheibenhart, a stonemason, and Melchior Mayr, a weaver. Like Veit Stolz, Michael Deibler was enmeshed in a social network with local artisans. Her background could not be determined. See Glenzdorf and Treichel, Henker, vol. Glenzdorf and Treichel, Henker, vol. If the couple did go on welfare, the guarantors were liable for the payments.

A decree concerning this marriage raises the question of the relationship between dishonor and illegitimacy. On this methodology see Roeck, Stadt in Krieg, vol. After this date he is no longer listed. There is no indication that the authorities varied the bureaucratic procedure in any way when they were dealing with dishonorable people. There was little correlation between dishonor Unehrlichkeit and illegitimacy Unehelichkeit. Dishonorable people and bastards were socially distinct groups.

Sabina Scheibenhart had become fully absorbed into the dishonorable milieu. None of these cases resulted in illegitimate births. Here nomen est omen: Michael Deibler, the retired executioner, served as their guarantor. He was not present at the wedding. On the title Meister master for executioners and sometimes for skinners, see Else Angstmann, Der Henker in der Volksmeinung. Paradoxical as it may seem, by the mid-seventeenth century this core group among the dishonorable formed a socially exclusive caste.

Like his predecessor Dietrich Metz, Hartmann acquired the position by marriage. Master Dietrich and the skinner Michael Leichnam served as guarantors. When Metz retired after serving as executioner for thirty-one years, Hartmann succeeded him as master executioner. But at this juncture the city government decided to apply the principle of confessional parity to the positions of executioner and skinner as to all other public positions. But the council was determined to apply the principle of parity systematically. Archiv des Bistums Augsburg, Matrikelamt, Trauungsreg. They were sorely disappointed when they lost the position and were ordered to vacate the premises within fourteen days.

The Protestant skinner, Johann Scheppelin, whom the council hired to replace the Leichnams, was the son of Master Georg Scheppelin who had served as executioner in Memmingen for the past seventeen years. Hartmann had a long-standing relationship with the Leichnam family. There was an obstacle to this wedding, however.

The Hartmann family was Catholic, and Scheppelin, as we have seen, was Protestant. Here Scheppelin referred to Hartmann as his brother-in-law.

Confessional intermarriage in the later seventeenth and the eighteenth century was extremely rare. The magistrate hired Johann Jacob Scheller, a twenty-three-year-old skinner from the neighboring village of Ziemetshausen and a Catholic. Later that same year Susanna married the new skinner. In this way the older widow and her children would be cared for; at least this was the intention.

When she became pregnant within a year of her marriage with Scheller, complications developed and it became clear that she was dying.

When mixed marriages did occur, the couple generally tried to conform to social and religious norms through the conversion of one partner. That Susanna converted to Protestantism during her marriage with Johann Scheppelin becomes clear in the interrogation record of her second husband Johann Jacob Scheller. But the skinner forbade it, fearing for his post should Susanna leave the Catholic faith. As his wife lay dying, Scheller went to town to request instructions from the Catholic mayor, who ordered him to bring a Franciscan friar to console his wife and to convince her to remain Catholic.

In that year, after twenty-nine years of service, he resigned his position and was succeeded by his brother, Mathes Hartmann. Executioners and skinners continued to intermarry through the eighteenth century. On Johann Adam Hartmann see Stadtbed. The consolidation of the dishonorable milieu and the hardening of the boundary of honor were two sides of the same coin.

In a drunken spree he had demanded that city guards catch a stray dog for him. When the guards refused, saying that they did not want to intrude in his craft, Barthlme attacked them with a knife. He emphasized that slaughtering and skinning diseased animals was completely inappropriate for honorable artisans. In the seventeenth century there were noticeably fewer cases of this kind, which suggests that certain conventions and routines had been worked out which regulated the interaction of executioners and skinners with honorable citizens.

The executioner now lived in Undern Weschen, also in the St. The building was city property and had previously served as a hospice, for it is listed in the tax records as Brechhaus. Surrounded by grounds where wood and tallow were stored, in the immediate vicinity of the hospice for syphilitics, the house lay just within the city walls.

Historiography

This was the most impoverished section of the generally poor St. The skinner, by contrast, lived outside the city walls. Gallen, iezo Stephinger Tor. The skinner now lived about a mile from the city wall, isolated from any neighbors. The consolidation of Unehrlichkeit was also mirrored in the legal status of executioners and skinners in the commune.

While citizens had to bear certain civic burdens — most importantly taxes — the relationship between citizenry and the city government was reciprocal. Citizenship was not only a legal category; it also conferred higher social status in the commune. On the obligations of citizens, see Roeck, Stadt in Krieg, vol. As outsiders they could be discarded at any time. They had no right to remain in the city after their employment ended. It lay in the discretion of the city government whether to grant retired executioners or skinners a residency permit or not.

But as this entry in the marriage protocols makes clear, the permission to stay in the city was a mercy the magistrate was free to grant, not a right that could be demanded. Of little practical consequence to executioners and skinners, the denial of citizenship was a symbolic reminder of their outsider status.

The question of property brings us to the economic status of executioners and skinners. Here the sources are quite sketchy. As non-citizens, executioners and skinners did not pay the regular property tax. Cash reserves on which citizens would have been taxed were tax exempt for executioners and skinners. They only paid taxes on land and buildings they purchased on city lands.

Other assets remain invisible. An executioner who paid one gulden in tax, for example, was possibly much wealthier than a citizen who paid the same amount. It is possible to follow the gradual accumulation of his wealth in the tax and guardianship records.

During his long career Hartmann apparently continued to prosper. Master Marx must have been very wealthy indeed for such a boast to be at all plausible.

Product details

Skinners, in contrast to executioners, seem never to have acquired any real estate within the city. Unlike Hartmann, Scheppelin left no gold and silver dishes and jewelry or other valuables. This confronts us with another question. The master executioner often delegated the execution of the dishonorable death penalty of hanging or the task of removing the corpses of suicides to the skinner.

Executioners in northern Germany were never personally involved with skinning. They merely controlled the economic rights to skinning in a certain area and leased out these rights to skinners as a concession. Skinners generally carried out the dishonorable death penalty of hanging, while executioners reserved the technically more demanding and more honorable penalty of beheading for themselves.

Executioners were careful to distance themselves from skinners. In northern Germany executioners and skinners did not intermarry. The skinner was held in greater contempt by the public than the executioner. The Augsburg skinner did not lease the skinning rights in the area from the executioner. Rather he was granted this monopoly in his own right by the city. In southern Germany executioners and skinners did not establish as careful a division of labor as their colleagues in the north.

On separate marriage circles of executioners and skinners, see Giesela Wilbertz, Scharfrichter, pp. South German executioners and skinners cannot be separated into a superior and inferior caste. There were only more or less highly placed members within the same caste. The servants and laborers who worked and often lived with the executioner and skinner were also part of the core group of dishonorable people.

Neither citizens nor residents, these dependent workers occupied the same legal limbo as the executioners and skinners and participated fully in the dishonor of their masters. It is likely that these were younger sons and daughters who could not acquire full positions and earned their living as servants of their more successful relatives.

Finally, we must turn to the question of numbers. How many members of the dishonorable core group lived in Augsburg at any one time? Augsburg never employed more than one executioner and one skinner. In his third marriage he had eleven children, six of whom survived until adulthood.

The executioner seems to have employed fewer assistants than the skinner. The dishonorable core could have numbered anywhere between thirty and sixty people. The formation of this professional caste and the consolidation of the dishonorable milieu took place in the second half of the sixteenth century. In the early sixteenth century executioners and skinners were on average employed six years at the most.

To report this review as inappropriate, please complete this short form.

Before they developed a professional caste, executioners and skinners were often unruly and disorderly. By the early seventeenth century executioners and skinners had developed a stable endogamous marriage pattern. Within their caste social and professional relationships were articulated through the model of kinship — actual or metaphorical. Executioners and skinners were subject to the same legitimacy requirements as honorable citizens. The dishonorable milieu consolidated and the boundary of honor hardened as part of the same social process. We have seen that executioners were often wealthy.

The high economic status of executioners will have made their low social status more palatable to them. The ambiguous social position executioners and skinners occupied in this society is evident in their non-citizen status. While the denial of citizenship cast them as strangers passing through, their long terms of employment indicate that they were actually very rooted in Augsburg. The denial of citizenship was the most symbolic form of discrimination to which executioners and skinners were subjected in Augsburg. Partly as a result of this paradox, the hierarchies of honor and wealth that structured the society of orders clashed in the person of the executioner.

Barbers and bathmasters were not considered dishonorable in Augsburg in the early modern period, though they were dishonorable in other areas of the empire. Occasionally, however, their honor was challenged by guilds outside Augsburg. In contrast to bathmasters, linen-weavers, who were also labeled as dishonorable in other regions, were never challenged as dishonorable in Augsburg. See above, introduction, pp. The guild roll did not list several dishonorable trades; it named only shepherds.

This was the case in Augsburg. Many shepherds killed diseased sheep and skinned the carcasses themselves, thus likening themselves to the skinner. This association of shepherd and skinner was expressed in popular rhyme: It was necessary to make distinctions among shepherds, he argued. They employed special laborers for such tasks.

The guildsmen responded that even if Tregelin and his son did not skin sheep personally, they lodged the dishonorable servants who did in their home and ate with them at the same table. When Tregelin denied eating with these laborers and claimed they were housed separately, the tanners argued that just because Tregelin was wealthy enough to pay special laborers to do the skinning, he should not be considered honorable. Ultimately he was no better than the servants he employed and their dishonor fell back on him.

But the guild refused to apprentice the boy: A special shack was located on his property where meat and skins of sheep that had died were stored. Neither the young Tregelin nor Eisenbarth had ever done the dishonorable work of skinning personally or even tended sheep, nor had their fathers. Since Augsburg, unlike the free imperial cities of Nuremberg or Ulm, did not own much territory outside the city walls, it stands to reason that relatively few shepherds lived within the city.

We can only note the social and economic status of two individuals, the shepherd Tregelin and the peasant Eisenbarth. Tregelin was described as a wealthy and well-respected member of his rural community. The same was true of Eisenbarth. Their dishonor became relevant only when they came in contact with urban artisans, to whom their wealth and standing in their rural communities were irrelevant and who considered shepherds every bit as contaminating as skinners. All this was done by the executioner, his servants, and the dungeon guards.

The goldsmiths refused — without giving a reason. Frank and his colleagues protested to the council: The goldsmiths no longer beat around the bush. Their dishonor derived from the similarity of their duties to the work of the executioner. This is done by the executioner and his servants. He was employed as a musician at the court of the count of the Palatinate. He had also learned beer brewing, but did not practice that trade either. He had worked a while as a city guard. Now he made his living in a horse rental business. At that time little stigma seems to have been attached to the position.

The tailors told that Tobias joined the military because he was boycotted by the journeymen. Presumably they were paid a separate fee for each errand they performed, but the fee rates have not been preserved. They were entitled to soup and bread every morning and every Sunday and holiday they received two measures of wine, six rolls, and cheese.

Citizens who paid the habnit tax did not own enough assets to be required to pay property taxes. In the Frank case the goldsmiths had only threatened that the journeymen would go on strike. In this case the journeyman weavers actually did strike, organizing a regional boycott. At this point, his case disappears from the records.

They were all old enough to begin their craft training but he was unable to place them. The tailors had just refused to accept his son Georg. Faced with these responses, the Augsburg city government equivocated and refused to issue a decree one way or the other. During this time the journeymen went on strike intermittently. Now the linen-weavers would no longer accept this indignity. Gravediggers and latrine-cleaners regularly appear on all the lists of dishonorable trades that modern historians and folklorists have compiled.

Grave-diggers and their sons seemed to move in and out of weaving without encountering any resistance. As weavers, all these men were members of an honorable, albeit impoverished guild.

Customer reviews

As guildsmen, they were also citizens. Grave-diggers do not appear as a group separate from the artisanal milieu. See for instance Werner Danckert, Unehrliche Leute. All were guildsmen and citizens. In contrast to their master, they were not citizens or guildsmen. They seem to have been unskilled rural immigrants who were granted permission to reside in Augsburg for as long as they were employed. On what grounds did the linen-weavers label night-workers and grave-diggers as dishonorable?

The spy reported the content of their conversation to the authorities: In this same conversation, the linen-weavers announced their intention to exclude grave-diggers from their guild.

Historisches Stadtlexikon von Teterow

They did not want to exclude all grave-diggers, they claimed, only those who had buried the corpses of executed delinquents. These trades were considered honorable in Augsburg, though they were labeled as dishonorable in other parts of the empire. How did the barbers respond to such discrimination?

This was a list of those master barbers who could prove their legitimate birth. Thus the barbers were attempting to gain honor by living up to higher moral standards and by imitating the social exclusiveness of other guilds. The journeymen were trying to expel the grave-digger and weaver Johann Georg Lang, who had recently buried an executed delinquent. In that year they petitioned to send a representative to the council, but were turned down: According to a chronicle entry, barbers and bathmasters were exempt from the duty of sending a representative to the council, because in their capacity as surgeons they were on call at all times.

The chronicler thus cast their non-representation as an exemption or privilege rather than as an exclusion. In the early sixteenth century, according to another chronicler, the bathmasters were incorporated into one political guild with the coopers, the coach-builders, and the turners. The bathmasters then asked to be allowed to send a representative to the council. Both cured syphilis and did surgery, let blood, set broken bones, and amputated limbs.

Only then were they eligible to take an examination required of aspiring masters. The bathmasters seem to have been the wealthiest of the medical practitioners.

canzonetta piano Manual

In Augsburg, they claimed, honorable guilds did not admit bathmasters. In this case the Eger coopers were misinformed. The bathmasters reacted to the Eger inquiry with indignation. They vigorously asserted their honorable status. To back up their claim to honor, the bathmasters pointed out that their city government had granted them a guild ordinance as it had to other honorable trades, and that they, like other honorable guildsmen, did not accept bastards in their guild.

But as we saw in the case of the barbers of Cologne, who were also citizens and guildsmen, and were attempting to improve the status of their guild by excluding bastards, honorable status did not necessarily follow from these characteristics. Partly in prose, partly in verse, the placard denounced the bathmasters: Finally, the placard made the following associations: It did not involve a dishonorable applicant for admission to an honorable guild or an honorable person who had become contaminated by contact with a dishonorable person.

To drive home their point still further, they established an association between their victims and dishonorable persons and objects, a common method of insult in early modern society. Mocking rhymes were a matter of serious concern to both bathmasters and city council. The pasquill constituted a massive attack on the honor of the bathmasters. Just how threatened they felt becomes evident in the humorlessness of their response. They should then be imprisoned for fourteen days on bread and water.

When the ceremony had been arranged, however, the bathmasters protested that this punishment was far too light. This was no mere misdemeanor, they argued, for the libelers had insulted their fellow bathmasters, living and dead, in Saxony, Nuremberg, and other places. Dissension and unrest among the journeymen was sure to follow. The imperial police ordinance, the bathmasters argued, prescribed that a person should receive the same punishment that his victim would receive if the libel were true. This was probably a rhetorical device.

Undoubtedly, the bathmasters would have preferred the ceremony to take place at the gallows, the site of the original insult. Then the recantation would have taken the form of an honor punishment that would have left a mark of infamy on the libelers. Fortunately for our authors, the city council did not act on these petitions. They managed to placate the bathmasters and proceeded with the original ceremony as planned.

Their craft did occupy a somewhat ambivalent position, however. Roeck examined the marriage partners and guarantors of bathmasters in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, and came to the conclusion that bathmasters formed disproportionately many social networks with groups that were economically weaker than they, with weavers for example. Like the barbers, the linen-weavers of Cologne were denied political representation on the city council.

In his study of the dishonor of linen-weavers in Saxony, especially in the cities of Dresden, Pirna, and Chemnitz, Alfred Mating-Sammler argues that the rights of dishonorable people were curtailed in the middle ages because they were personally unfree or had been in the recent past. When towns gained independence from their lords and urban craftsmen formed guilds in the course of the late middle ages, personal freedom became the outstanding characteristic of city folk that distinguished them from the inhabitants of the surrounding villages. Urban weavers formed guilds like other crafts but were unable to establish an urban monopoly for their trade.

The institution of journeymanship caused the dishonor of linen-weavers to spread beyond those towns where an actual immigration of rural linen-weavers had taken place. Jean Quataert emphasizes distance from household production as an important criterion of craft honor. Wissell, Handwerks Recht, pp. If sexual division of labor did indeed contribute to the stigmatization of linen-weavers, this does not become explicit in the records. But it is hard to imagine how even the most inventive artisanal mind could establish any connection between the work of executioners and skinners and the work of linen-weavers.

And yet artisans did associate these linen-weavers with executioners, though the connection was not based on similarities in their work. Linen-weavers and millers were allegedly subjected to a peculiar degradation ritual in which they were publicly associated with the executioner. When a gallows was built or renovated or when a hanging was to take place, the linen-weavers or millers were required to provide the ladder. Both the primary and secondary sources on this practice are vague.

Similarly, Merry Wiesner suggests that competition by female medical practitioners might have contributed to the dishonor of bathmasters and barber-surgeons: Beneke, Von unehrlichen Leuten, p. Only further local studies can answer when and where such rituals actually took place. Given the lack of such studies the following thoughts must remain speculative. If and when such degradation rituals were performed, they were a symbolic expression of the low status of linen-weavers, who had, for whatever reasons, already been labeled as dishonorable. Die Stadt wurde Mittelpunkt einer Vogtei.

Read more Read less. Kindle Edition File Size: Haff Verlag 26 May Sold by: Customer reviews There are no customer reviews yet. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a product review. Feedback If you need help or have a question for Customer Service, contact us.

Would you like to report poor quality or formatting in this book? Click here Would you like to report this content as inappropriate? Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. Amazon Restaurants Food delivery from local restaurants. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics.

East Dane Designer Men's Fashion.

• America Down: President Evil
• COMLEX Level 1 Review Questions Hematology
• The Spirit Orb (The Resurrection series Book 1)
• El canto de los quetzales (Spanish Edition)
• The Original Classic PRIDE AND PREJUDICE [Illustrated]
• La Catedral