Let us now discuss the patrimonial development made by the Hucpoldings from the moment they settled in Italy to the beginning of the twelfth century, when the relevance of the various branches of the group reduced dramatically as a result of land distribution and contemporary prominence of new political figures.

The main outcome of this analysis and of our reconstruction of the kinship patrimony is the extensive dispersion of the group's possessions and interests across each of the three territorial environments in which it has been possible to retrace their activities. The geography of archival fonds obtained from exploring the archives is, in fact, formed of multiple documentary hubs which differ from one another not only by distinct regional areas, but also within the property areas themselves. To facilitate the full appreciation of the specificity of each series of documents and the patrimonial relationships they certify, the analysis has been split into three chapters. Each chapter corresponds to one of the following three geographical areas: Romagna, where a strong relationship with the archbishop of Ravenna constantly underlies kinship operations; the march of Tuscia, where the relevance of kinship patrimony depended significantly on the ownership of the marchisal rank, which gave access to fiscal assets; and finally, the Bologna territory, a border area between the kingdom and the exarchate where, thanks to a brief period of being public officials at the beginning of the tenth century, the group established its patrimony and later its seignorial domain.

The considerable wealth in landholdings that the Hucpoldings acquired and managed between the ninth and eleventh centuries was, in the majority of cases, foreign to the districts where leading group members exercised their marchisal office. Indeed, the patrimony administered in the Tuscan area came in decisive quantities from fiscal assets, whereas there are no specific patrimonial indications at all for the large area of Spoleto and Camerino. The only exception to this rule is the first marquis’ affirmation achieved by Boniface I within the wider district of Modena. On that occasion only, and for just a few years, we can detect the alignment of public office and patrimonial presence, above all in the Bologna area which was later at the centre of the seignorial presence of Boniface's descendants.

Individuals identified with the collective name Hucpoldings constituted one of the most important kindred groups among the Frankish aristocracies, who were active at the very centre of the Italian kingdom in their role as marchiones and comites. Arriving in Italy during the middle of the Carolingian era in the wake of Lothar I, the leading figures of the groups were adept at holding eminent political positions well into the eleventh century. They were in constant dialogue with both kings and the archbishops of Ravenna. The various figures operated and entertained relationships across a wide portion of Italy, spanning the Po valley and the Apennines. Indeed, in order to overcome the difficulties imposed by significant geographical dispersion of archival sources, it has been necessary to consider familial connections in the widest possible way, thus conferring importance on each single horizontal cognatic tie as it is brought to light.

For this reason, to clear the field of conceptual misunderstandings, when referring to the Hucpolding group from the ninth to eleventh centuries it would seem appropriate to adopt the expression ‘kinship group’, rather than that of ‘family’. The latter refers markedly to family links of an agnatic nature, those characteristic of a later period and very different from the horizontal kinship ties of the germanic Sippen. The term ‘kinship group’, on the other hand, is more suited to representing the inherently inclusive character of the group's wide cognatic ties, typical of early medieval Frankish elites. At the same time, upon historical reconstruction, the character and efficacy of each horizontal connection discovered will be verified one by one.

Finally, it is opportune to acknowledge how the notable chronological depth of the documentation – unusual in the study of early medieval aristocracies – permits reflection on long historical developments, thus setting the whole Hucpolding issue within the wider picture of the kingdom of Italy. In fact, the prosopography of the kindred group covers a chronological span of almost three centuries. From the first reference to the eponymous founder, Hucpold, in 847, all the way to the initial references to the counts of Panico, lords of large areas of the Bolognese Apennines at the beginning of the twelfth century.

The collective name of Hucpoldings was recently introduced into historiography in order to designate the descendants of Hucpold, count palatine in Italy under Louis II's rule from approximately 850 to 860.

Formerly, local Bolognese scholars referred to this kinship group as the counts of Bologna, coining an expression that linked them inseparably to the city's medieval institutions. The fundamental assumption was that every city of any importance that had survived the early medieval centuries must have been under the jurisdiction of a count in Carolingian and Post-Carolingian periods. Nevertheless, this designation concluded by nullifying, within civic institutional circles, the entire kinship issue, which therefore lost its historic significance. Moving the field of investigation from the civic point of view, we can engage with an analysis that focuses on the kinship group as a whole and on the particular features recognizable for at least nine generations, that is the individuals who lived from the middle of the ninth century to the beginning of the twelfth century for whom it would appear appropriate to attribute the collective name of Hucpoldings.

In response to the anthropological opening supported by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff in their research into medieval family structures, Cinzio Violante assertively stated the peculiarity of the Italian groups which, in his opinion, always had a prevalent point of family cohesion in the hereditary transmission of property: ‘this is explained by the enormous importance that the royal element, and especially land ownership, had in Italy and with the fact that the memory of the lineages and, therefore, familial self-awareness derived from documents that concerned the transmission of the patrimony’.

Portraying the structure and every individual of the kinship group in a consistent graphic representation is necessary when investigating an early medieval kinship. It's importance goes beyond that of a simple genealogical compilation to support the analysis of sources. The representation of each generation of the group can become a real ‘text’ made up of names, relations and titles: a ‘text’ that collects many of the characteristics of a group of individuals and that becomes appreciable thanks to the overall vision obtained only when drawing up the same scheme.

All the studies that previously dealt with the Hucpoldings show trees and diagrams more or less organized and reliable, whose main purpose is to reconstruct the succession of generations only in regard to the alleged comital authority over Bologna. This interpretation results in a representation that mainly favours the vertical line of father-son connections. This is further emphasized by the limited space-time depth of that approach. Following this perspective, both cognatic ties and the female component remains obscure, indeed it is completely neglected.

The following tables instead consider and add to each generation of the group the individuals that were linked to them through marriages. Broad horizontal relationships and the primary role played by women as kinship connections thus become immediately visible elements in the tables and find effective correspondence in the social configuration of the Frankish aristocratic Sippen. As long as they deal with extended kinship and cognatic ties (Tables G1–G5), the schemes portray many of the elite kinship groups active in Italy between the ninth and eleventh centuries. The aim, however, is not to prepare a ‘complete’ genealogical scheme of the Hucpoldings and each of the individuals connected with them over four centuries, but preserve the intelligibility of the representation. Instead, the tables here delineate the main parental, and therefore political and patrimonial, bonds initiated by the various members of the kinship group through time.

To facilitate the understanding of the patterns, originally a different color has been assigned to each kinship group, which, when applied to the lines of affiliation, indicate the links of men and women to each kinship.

This book investigates the Hucpoldings, a group of individuals united by a blood lineage, who all, either directly or indirectly, lead back to Hucpold. He lived during the central decades of the ninth century and was a member of the Carolingian Reichsadel and count palatine during the rule of Louis II in Italy (844–875). This study will focus on a detailed examination of the prosopographical, political and patrimonial aspects of each known member of his lineage, according to classic methods of early medieval kin history. Through a thematic analysis of the distinctive elements of the Hucpolding group, we shall identify not only the members of the kin group but also consider the powers they attained, their relationship networks and their collective memory and self-cohesion.

Chronologically, this research commences in the mid-eighth century, with the first records of Hucpold in Italy, and continues well into the latter part of the twelfth century, when, after thirteen generations, the various branches of the lineage had followed separate routes. Its geographical focus will be on three regional blocks within which the leading figures of the group operated: first, the Romagna, particularly the city of Ravenna; second, the eastern Po valley between Modena and Bologna; third, Tuscany, especially the city of Florence together with the north and east Tuscan Apennines. Although Spoleto and Camerino were also a field of Hucpolding activity, the paucity of surviving documentation renders detailed discussion unfeasible.

A comprehensive understanding of an historical subject such as the Hucpoldings is a significant historiographic necessity, as they were one of the main kinship groups of Frankish origin who settled in Italy with the aim of achieving the rank of marquis.

In conclusion, we can affirm that the Hucpoldings were one of the principal kinship groups of marchisal rank of the Carolingian and post-Carolingian kingdom of Italy. The overall investigation dedicated to them has enabled a reconstruction of important elements of the political history of the kingdom and particularly of the history of aristocratic power development. Of all these groups, the Hucpoldings set themselves apart in at least three particular aspects: primarily, the exceptional biological longevity, which developed in a dimension of assiduous political relevance characterizes them amid the few lineages of marquis rank that are traceable with continuity from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. Second, the dynastic transmission of the official title emerged quite early in the Italian landscape, even though it was the title of count that was associated with the kindred, not the public function of a marquis actually performed. Finally, seignorial development was always sought outside the areas of official control, thus displaying an unusual and particular feature in contrast to the standard model for Italian aristocracies.

Their marked aptitude for official roles, but mainly oriented towards the kingdom's marches, was in fact always pursued by a number of individuals in the group even to the disadvantage of their own dynastic interests. Lordship, in contrast, was developed exclusively in the patrimonial areas which, in a single brief case, was matched with the territorial environs of the group's exercise of public power. For the Hucpoldings we cannot therefore observe that ambivalence between official function and seigneurial vocation central to the transformation of most of the post-Carolingian aristocracies in seigneurial dynasties. Indeed, it was such a clear demarcation between official roles and the interests of seigneurial development and the uncommon behaviour in dynastic transmission of the public title that led to a considerable consciousness of kinship rank (Wir-Gefühl) and a strong impulse for service to the kingdom.

As members of the Adelsaristocratie, the Hucpoldings were connected to the Carolingian dynasty at the highest level. The first known member of the kindred group, Hucpold, was associated with Lothar I (817/840–855) and came to Italy with the Frankish army. There he set about to establish his kindred through political and matrimonial alliances.

Spreading their political and patrimonial horizons was a common practice of Frankish aristocracies in the Carolingian period. Nonetheless, the case of Hucpold and of his kindred can be almost totally linked to the Italian territory. They even had the admiration of Liutprand of Cremona, who depicts Hucpold's son, Hubald, as defender of Italian pride against Bavarian invaders in the last decades of the ninth century. The fragmentary sources that survive to this day allow us, however, to identify the region, which corresponds to Roman Alamannia (now Switzerland and adjacent parts of France and Germany) as both the origin of Hucpold and even that of his ancestors. Furthermore, their long-standing practice of Ripuarian Frankish law permits us to retrace the origins of the kin group further back in time and to place it in the lands traversed by the Rhine where the Ripuarian Franks had already established themselves in Roman times.

The history of the Hucpoldings in Italy starts in the first half of the ninth century in the context of the military expeditions organized by Lothar I and his son, Louis II, against the ‘Saracens’.

At the beginning of the eleventh century, the kinship group's pattern of self-promotion proceeded in substantial continuity with previous decades, as outlined above. Close relationships with imperial power and a stronger relationship of vassalage with the archbishop of Ravenna enabled them to maintain prominence within the upper aristocratic circles of the kingdom, despite the loss of the march of Tuscia following the death of Boniface II. The group maintained a considerable and efficient operational capacity for some time, albeit without dynastic control of a wide public district. In the 1030s, for example, the most senior member of the Hucpoldings at that time, Hugh II, son of Walfredus, regained the title of marchio associated with the duchy of Spoleto and the march of Camerino. The starting point of Hugh II's notable political career was in achieving the highest position in the area of Faenza, probably attained thanks to his father Walfredus’ marriage to a woman from the exarchal aristocracy. The assets of the kindred in Bologna and authority in the Faenza area – all territories under the authority of the archbishop of Ravenna – brought to Hugh a decisive role in the new organizational structure given to the exarchate by imperial command. Later, in 1037, Hugh II obtained the duchy of Spoleto and the march of Camerino. He was the last person in the group's lineage to maintain a marchisal rank within the context of a well-defined public district. Hugh built his power in the same ways as his ancestors, above all thanks to a close relationship with the emperor outside sectors of kinship patrimony.

Analysis of landholdings in the march of Tuscany is substantially founded on relationships with some of the wealthier and more significant monastic institutions in the region. Behind these were the relationships attained in the institutional sphere essential for the kindred to settle in this area of the kingdom. Bonds built with the Florentine bishops and the Adalbertings stand out above all others. Once the Hucpoldings had, however, reached their paramount political and social dominance, it was the Benedictine monasteries which were the main patrimonial intermediaries in all territorial environments across the march.

The city of Florence and its territory represented the centre of reference from as early as the middle of the ninth century. In the city centre the abbadiola of S. Andrea was controlled for at least three generations with the blessing of the city's bishop. The final decades of the tenth century saw the independent foundation of the monastery of S. Maria, the so-called Badia fiorentina, which became one of the most powerful monasteries in the whole of Tuscany, due to the consistent endowment of Willa and the Marquises Hugh and Boniface II. Also in the Florence area, we find traces of the almost century-old relationships with the church of S. Salvatore a Settimo to the west of Florence.

Control of the march, together with Hugh I's prestigious ascendancy gave him the opportunity to increase his power and influence over the whole Tuscan territory, thus playing a key role during the reign of Otto III.

The territorium civitatis of Bononia represented the core of the Hucpoldings’ patrimonial presence in Italy. From early attestations dating to the end of the ninth century, we find persistent traces of group possessions and activities more or less uniformly spread across the territories of the diocese, both over the plains and the mountains. The nuclei around which Hucpolding wealth had been accumulated was above all landholdings managed through emphyteosis, often with castles which frequently were group residences. Conversely, there are no attestations of properties within Bologna, an environment that seems to have remained alien to the kinship group's roots. The framework of the Hucpolding lordship can therefore be more clearly considered in the Bologna area, based on various fortified centres of power and widespread vassalage.

Sources enable us to trace three distinct phases of patrimonial development in this area. The first is the construction of the patrimony, about which however there are only rare and brief snippets of information. The donation to the monastery of S. Benedetto in Adili and Boniface I's acquisition of the fiscal estate of Antognano, both located on the Bolognese Saltusplanus to the north-west of Bologna, permit a patrimonial area to be outlined and assessment to be made of a link to the kingdom as a fundamental requirement for these acquisitions. Relations sealed with Nonantola refer to the same period as do those with Archbishop Peter of Ravenna.

The Apennine sector remains almost completely hidden in these first documents until the second phase from the middle of the tenth century to the middle of the eleventh, when it emerged as one of the centres of property management.

In the geographical area of modern-day Romagna, all patrimonial activity developed through the relationships that the kinship group established with the church and the archbishops of Ravenna, as well as the aristocracy upon which it depended. Relationships with the Ravennate archbishop, unquestionably the wealthiest landowner in the exarchal lands and the Pentapolis, were maintained in fact throughout the whole period between the ninth and eleventh centuries.

The changes these relationships underwent can be described in three phases. The first, at the height of the second generation, was that of patrimonial acquisition: in the final decades of the ninth century, Engelrada I benefitted from the extensive patrimony bequeathed to her by her husband, incorporating it with other properties obtained from private individuals and through direct contact with the archbishops of Ravenna. By associating herself with them through emphyteosis, she built great wealth in estates while activating relationships of patronage in such a way as to rapidly insert herself into the local elite. For the second phase, in the middle of the tenth century, we find a substantial split between Engelrada's descendents and Peter, the archbishop of the time. This patrimonial conflict culminated in a violent military clash which terminated in 967, when Emperor Otto I requisitioned all the assets causing the controversy. These were equivalent to most of the patrimony of the deceased Engelrada, and the emperor allocated them, by law, to the church of Ravenna.

Defining the aspects that characterized the kinship group as a whole means taking into consideration all those elements both intrinsic and extrinsic to the documentation that can contribute to outlining particular features of the group, such as self-awareness and -memory. We shall also examine the organization of the power enjoyed by the Hucpoldings, their qualities, their relationships and the strategies they adopted to build their seigneurial hegemony in the local communities affected by their presence. Finally, from this perspective we will observe the peculiarity of their lordship, achieved in a way that is eminently different from the evolution of other kindred groups of the Italian aristocracy. After having dealt with the genealogical and patrimonial enquiry, this third part seeks to go beyond the classic model of family history. It considers instead the various facets of the kinship evolution, placing each one into both a unitary and comprehensive diachronic vision.

The analysis will focus predominantly on the characters and developments of kinship cohesion which might go beyond solely the practical element of transmitting landed patrimony. Each chapter deals with a specific aspect that characterized and bonded various Hucpolding individuals. Elements considered include: the sense of belonging to the Reichsadel and the Königsnähe; the onomastic uses; the practice of the lex Ripuaria; the role of the monastic foundations; and finally, kinship self-awareness and the variety of perceptions that peers reported about members of the group. This approach makes clear a comparison between the Italian historiographic model, elaborated primarily by Cinzio Violante, and the results attained by French historiography for some time now committed to a programmatic dialogue with anthropological conceptions of horizontal kinship groups and extended families. These differing starting models, antithetic and therefore mutually corrective, have permitted an analysis that aims to be free from over-interpretation. The tangibility given by the real element of landownership has been combined with an attention to that symbolic capital of family honour and group prestige that is present, but often hidden, in our sources. The purpose is to gain as full as possible an image of all those elements and characteristics that the early medieval Italian aristocracies preserved, cultivated and transmitted to all their members.