Chronological Problems of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe", Arkæologiske skrifter vol 7,...

CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMSOF THE PRE-ROMAN IRON AGE

IN NORTHERN EUROPE

Symposium at the Institute of Prehistoric and Classical ArchaeologyUniversity of Copenhagen, December 8 1992

edited bv Jes Martens

DANMARKS UN1VERSITETSFORLAGD A N I S H U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

Ryszard Wolagiewicz in memoriam

Chronological Problemsof the Pre-Roman Iron Age

in Northern Europe.

Arkaeologiske StudierPublished by "Selskabet Arkaeologiske Studier"

c/o Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology,Vandkunsten 5, DK-1467 Copenhagen K, Denmark

Editor: Klavs Randsborg

Volume 7

ARMOLOGISKE SKRIFTER 7

CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMSOF THE PRE-ROMAN IRON AGE

IN NORTHERN EUROPE

Symposium at the Institute of Prehistoric and Classical ArchaeologyUniversity of Copenhagen, December 8 1992

edited by Jes Martens

Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, University of Copenhagen 1997

DANMARKS UNIVERSITETSFORLAGD A N I S H U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

Published with grants from:The Danish Research Council

Dronning Margrethe 2. Arkseologiske Fond

Published by:"Selskabet Arkaeologiske Studier"

c/o Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology,University of Copenhagen,

Vandkunsten 5, DK-1467 Copenhagen K,Denmark

Editor: Jes MartensAssistant editor: Vibeke Vandrup Martens

Printing: Special-Try kkeriet a-s, ViborgSale and Distribution; Danish University Prcss/Akademisk Forlag

N0rre Voldgade 90, P. O. Box 54DK-1002 Copenhagen K, Denmark

Phone(+45)33 11 98 26Fax (+45) 33 32 05 70

1997 Danish University Press, Copenhagen

ISSN: 0901-6732ISBN: 87-89500-04-0

Contents:

Ryszard Wofagiewicz (19th of June 1933-14th of January 1994),

J. Martens, Copenhagen ; 5

Introduction,

J. Martens, Copenhagen 9

The Pre-Roman Iron Age in Pomerania,

R. Wolagiewiczf, Szczecin 11

Chronologische Probleme am Ubergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit im Raum siidlich

der Ostsee,

H. Keiling, Schwerin 35

Forromersk jarnalder pa Oland

(The Pre-Roman Iron Age on Oland),

M. Rasch, Stockholm 45

The Pre-Roman Iron Age in Norway,

P. O. Nybruget, Oslo & J. Martens, Copenhagen 73

Kronologiske problemer og deres bctydning for forstaelsen af f0rromersk jernalder

i Syd- og Midtjylland

(Chronological Problems and their Consequence for the Comprehension of

the Pre-Roman Iron Age of South and Central Jutland),

C. K. Jensen, Arhus 91

The Pre-Roman Iron Age in North Jutland,

J. Martens - Copenhagen 107

Radiocarbon-Dating in the Pre-Roman Iron Age,

U. Rahbsek & K. Lund Rasmussen, Copenhagen 137

Vapenfynd fran forromersk jarnalder pa Sveriges fastland

(Pre-Roman Iron Age Weaponry on the Swedish Mainland),

P. Nicklasson, Lund 145

Den keramiske udvikling i sen f0rromersk og asldre romcrsk jernalder i S0nderjylland

(The Ceramical Development in the Late Pre-Roman and Early Roman

Iron Age in Southern Jutland),

P. O. Rindel, Copenhagen 159

Chronological Problems in the Pre-Roman Iron Age Northern Europe - Copenhagen 1992, pp. 5-7

RYSZARD WOL4GIEWICZt(19th of June 1933-14th of January 1994)

Jes Martens, Copenhagen.

On January the 1st 1994 Ryszard Woiagiewicz diedin a hospital in Szczecin after a long, serious illness.For his wife and for those who knew him per-sonally, as well as for the archaeological society ingeneral, his much too early death is a great loss.

Wol^giewicz was the quintessence of Slavonichospitality: you were always welcome, whendropping in at the Muzeum Narodowe in Szczecin,where he worked until his death. He could spendhours of his busy day entertaining guests, catchingup with the lost time, however, by working late inthe evenings. He had a genuine passion for Scan-dinavia, and with the freshness of yesterday hecould recall memoirs from his scholarships inCopenhagen in 1972 and in Stockholm in 1979 and1984.

Born in Wilno, Woiagiewicz as a child experiencedat first hand a part of the history of World War IIwhich in our part of the world until recently hasbeen suppressed. When the Soviet Union inSeptember 1939 attacked and occupied the easternparts of Poland, in accordance with theMolotov-Ribbendrop treaty, a large part of theinhabitants was deported deep into the interior ofthe Soviet Union. Woiagiewicz1 mother and her twoboys shared this fate and spent six years in thismerciless vasteland, mainly in the Komi ASSR inthe northern part of Russia, close Ural. His fatherwas among those thousands of Polish officers whowere assassinated by the Soviet army in the Katyriforest. These events made a deep impression on theman, who, like many Poles bom in the easternterritories of Pre-War Poland, after the War had tocarry a stamp in their passport saying "bom in theUSSR". In spite of the painfulness of these experi-ences he did not mind telling the story, which in hisversion was coloured with a certain amount ofhumour. When, however, the softening of the Sovietsystem came about with the accession ofGorbachow, Woiagiewicz engaged himself in the

investigations of the mass murder in Katyri. Hewrote a book basing on the letters of the capturedofficers (Woiagiewicz 1991, 1993a) and produceda radio documentary which was awarded in acontest in Berlin and has been transmitted by Polish,German, Danish and Norwegian Radio.

Woiagiewicz graduated from the University ofPoznari in 1956 as a pupil of Jozef Kostrzewski.After a short period as a worker of the Torurisection of the Polish Academy of Science,Woiagiewicz in 1958 mowed to Szczecin where heand his wife, Maria Danuta were employed at theMuzeum Pomorza Zachodniego (Muzeum Naro-dowe). Here he continued to work until his death,after 1980 as the director of the archaeologicaldepartment.

Woiagiewicz was a man who despised titles andcareers, but at the same time he was the uncom-promising, devoted and sharpminded scientist wholeft behind a long row of basic works, especially onthe Late Pre-Roman and the Early Roman Iron Agecultures of Pomerania. Belonging to the firstpost-war generation which produced a lot of out-standing Polish archaeologists he probably outshinedthem all. An importance which, however, due to thelanguage in which the major part of his work wasprinted, never really became apparent in theneighbouring Scandinavian countries. It could be ahope for the future that more of his work waspublished in one of the world languages.

Several of his works deserve the designation "majorworks": The work from 1966 on weaponry in thelate Pre-Roman Iron Age in Pomerania - with hiswife as a co-author - is today the basic work onOksywie weapon chronology. In general one couldsay that the first great passion of Wotagiewicz wasthe Late Pre-Roman Iron Age since many of hisearly works were devoted to this subject. In a seriesof papers he dealt with the eastern zone of the

Jastorf culture and the transition to the Oksywie cul-ture in Western Pomerania (1959, 1963, 1968, 1969,1979). Of these works the most important is thetribute to the congress on the Pomeranian Culture in1979: in this he offers a synchronization of some ofthe major local chronologies of Northern andCentral Europe. Finally, it was Wotagiewicz whowrote the contribution on the Oksywie and theJastorf Cultures in the large collective work"Prahistoria Ziem Polskich" (I981b, 1981c, printedhere as "The Pre-Roman Iron Age in Pomerania",pp. l lff .) . Beside of these more synthetical workshe also published a long row of cemeteries from theperiod. One might wonder why these works havehad so little influence on Scandinavian Archaeology.For example it is rather astonishing to note that insome recent works on the PreRoman Iron Age onBornholm, considering "foreign influences", thename of Wotagiewicz is almost absent in the refer-ences.

The second great passion of Wotagiewiczconcerned the Wielbark Culture and the problem ofthe Goths. In 1966, the same year as the paper onthe Pre-Roman weaponry, his first major work onthis subject appeared. It was a chronology of theRoman period in Pomerania on the base of theLubowidz cemetery. In 1970 he published in Polisha study on the influx of Roman imports which heseparated in chronological horizons and directions (asummarized version appeared in German the sameyear). In 1974 Wolagiewicz suggested to use thecemetery at Wielbark/Willenberg as theeponym sitefor the Roman Iron Age Culture in northern andeastern Poland, a proposal which later has wongeneral approval. In 1977 he published acomparative study on Iron Age stone circles inNorthern Europe - a very interesting work butunfortunately also a very rare edition. Wolagiewiczwas also the author of the chapter on the WielbarkCulture (1981b)and the Roman Iron Age cultures ofthe Elbian culture sphere (1981d) in PrahistoriaZiem Polskich. In the 80'ies his interest for theGothic problem became more evident in works like"Kultury wielbarska - problemy interpretacji etnicz-nej" (The Wielbark Culture - the problem ofethnical interpretation) (198la) and "Die Goten imBereich der Wielbark-Kultur" (1986). Finally, in1993 on his sick-bed he managed to finish the book"Ceramika kultury Wielbarskiej miedzy Battykiema Morzem Czarnym" - a study on the pottery of theWielbark Culture - a work which was accepted as adissertation (1993b).

Beside of these works which today occupy animportant part of the basic works of Polish IronAge Archaeology it should not be forgotten thatduring all his active years Wolagiewicz alsomanaged to excavate several interesting sites and topublish reports on these, mainly in the periodical ofhis own museum - Materiaty zachodnio-pomorskie,and to the last moment he worked on thepreparation of the publication of the Lubowidzcemetery.

The life work of Ryszard Wotagiewicz is of longstanding value - not only for Polish but for Centraland Northern European Iron Age Archeology in all.But his own person was of equal magnificence. Thestraight-forwardness and hospitality of this greatman was astonishing. His death leaves a large gapin the archaeological society. We shall miss you andwe shall never forget you.

Acknowledgements:I wish to thank Maria Danuta Wotagiewicz for herhelp with data and material about her late husband.Also thanks to Jacek Andrzejowski, WadystawFilipowiak and Henryk Machajewski.

Reference si

Machajewski, H. 1994: Pamieci Doktora Rys-zarda Wot agiewicza. Folia PraehistoricaPosnaniemis, t.7, in print.

Pietrzak, M. 1994: Ryszard Wolagiewicz. Po-rn orania Antiqua, f. XV,pp.3 45-348.

Wotagiewicz, R. 1959: Uwagi do zagadnieniastosunkow kulturowych w okresie lateri-skim na Pomorzu Zachodnim (Bemerkun-gen zur Frage der Kulturverhaltnisse inWestpommern wahrend der Latenezeit).Materialy zachodnio-pomorskie torn V,pp. 121-143.

Wotagiewicz, R. 1963: Oblicze kulturowePomorza Zachodniego u progu naszej ery(Kulturbild des Siedlungswesens in West-pommern um die Zeitwende). MuneraArchaeologica losepho Kostrzewski, Poz-nan. pp. 291-311.

Wolagewiczowie, M.D. & R. 1966: Uzbrojenieludnosci Pomorza Zachodniego u progunaszej ery (Die Bewaffnung der Bevolkerungin Westpommern um die Zeitwende).Materialy zachodnio-pomorskie torn IX, pp.9-166.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1966: Chronologia wzglednaokresu wczesnorzymskiego na Pomorzu Za-chodnim w swietle niektorych jej wyznacz-nikow. Materiaty zachodnio-pomorskie tornXII, pp. 169-191.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1968: Der ostliche Ausdeh-nungsbereich der Jastorfkultur und sein sied-lungsgeschichtliches Verhaltnis zurpommer-schen Gesichtsurnenkultur und der jiingerenvorromischen Unterweichsel-Gruppe. Zeit-schrift fur Archdologie 2. Jahrgang, pp.178-191.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1969: Relacja miexlzy kulturajastorfska a kulturami luzycka, wschodnio-pomorska, przeworska i oksywska (Be-ziehungen der Jastorf-Kultur zur Lausitzer,Pommerellischen, Przeworsk- und Oksy-wie-Kultur). / miedzynarodowy kongresarcheologii slowianskiej, torn II, ed.W.Hensel, Warszawa. pp. 162-174.

Woiagiewicz, R. 1970a: Napiyw importow rzym-skich do Europy na polnoc od srodkowegoDunaju. Archeologia Polski torn 15, pp.207-252.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1970b: Das Zufluss romischerImport in das Gebiet ndrdlich der mittlerenDonau in der alteren Kaiserzeit. Zeitschriftfur Archdologie 4. Jahrgang, pp. 222-249.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1974: Zagadnienie stylu wczes-norzymskiego w kulturze wielbarskiej. StudiaArchaeologia Pomeranica, Koszalin. pp.129-152.

Wol^giewicz, R. 1977: Kr$gi kammienne w Grzyb-nicy (Steinringe in Grzybnice). Koszalin.

Woiagiewicz, R. 1979: Kultura pomorska a kulturaoksywska. Problemy kultury pomorskiej, ed.T. Malinowski, Slupsk, pp.33-69.

Wot agiewicz, R. 1981 a: Kultury wielbarska -problemy interpretacji etnicznej. Problemykultury Wielbarskiej, ed. T. Malinowski,Slupsk, pp. 79-106.

Wotagiewicz, R. 1981 b: Kultura oksywska iwielbarska. Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, tornV. ed. J.Wielowiejski. pp. 135-190.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1981c: Kultura Jastorfska. Grupanadodrzariska. Prahistoria Ziem Polskich,torn V. ed. J.Wielowiejski. pp. 191-196.

Wol agiewicz, R. 1981 d: Grupy kulturowe napograniczu kregu nadlabskiego. PrahistoriaZiem Polskich, torn V. ed. J.Wielowiejski.pp. 200-216.

Wotagiewicz, R. 1983: Przemiany kulturo we iosadnicze w kregu jastorfskim i na jegowschodnim pograniczu. Proba porownania.(Cultural and settlement changes in theJastorf culture area and on its easternboundary. An attempt at a comparison).Przem iany ludnosciowe i k ulturow e Itysiaclecia p.n.e. na ziemiach miedzy Odrq,a Dnieprem, ed. W.Hensel. Warszawa, pp.83-106.

Wotagiewicz, R. 1986: Die Goten im Bereichder Wielbark-Kultur. Peregrinatio Gothica.Polonia 84185, vol.VlI, pp. 63-98.

Wotagiewicz, R. 1991: Katyn w albumachrodzinnych. Stowarzysznie "Katyri" wSzczecinie.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1993a: Katyn w albumachrodzinnych. Suplement. Stowarzysznie"Katyri" w Szczecinie.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1993b: Ceramika kulturyWielbarskiej miedzy Baltykiem a MorzemCzarnym (Die Tongefassen der Wielbark-kultur zwischen Ostsee und SchwarzeMeer), Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1995: Lubowidz. EinBirituelles Grdberfeld der Wielbark-Kulturaus der Zeit vom Ende des I . Jhs. v. Chr.bis zum Anfang des 3. Jhs. n.Chr. Secesja,Krakow.

Wotagiewicz, R. 1990: Za drutami by I las.Transmitted in Danish Radio under thetitle: "Bag pigtraden la der en skov.Fangerne i Kozielsk beretter".

Chronological Problems in the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe - Copenhagen 1992, PP. 9-10

INTRODUCTION.

Jes Martens, Copenhagen.

Many years have passed since the last time whenthe problems of the Pre-Roman Iron Age chrono-logy of Scandinavia were debated at large. Thatwas at the Nordic Archaeological Meeting of1951 in Helsinki, a meeting which became a tur-ning point in the discussion. It is therefore withthe greatest pride that I now present a selection offresh views on the topic. Most of the papers stemfrom a conference held December 8th, 1992 atthe Institute of Prehistoric and Classic Archaeo-logy, University of Copenhagen, except a fewcontributions which were later included in the re-port.

One might with some right claim that withinScandinavian archaeology the general interest inchronological problems has died out since themajor works of C. J. Becker and Erik Nylen. Itwas the aim of the conference to renew and inspi-re chronological research in all corners of Scan-dinavia - in honour of the occasion includingMecklenburg and Pomerania. This meeting by nomeans reflects the general interest in Pre-RomanIron Age chronology of today in Northern Euro-pe. Many more scholars, Scandinavian as well asContinental, could have taken part in the session,but due to the framework within which it was ar-ranged and the wish to be able to realize it withina short time it was decided to invite only a selec-ted group of scholars. Afterwards, while waitingfor the contributions to arrive at the editors desk,I invited colleagues who had related interests tocontribute. And as a special honour we weregranted permission by Mrs Maria Danuta Wola-giewicz to bring a translation of a work on thePre-Roman Iron Age of Pomerania written by herlate husband, Ryszard Wolagiewicz, to whosememory this report is dedicated. In this way theconference report has become somewhat morecomplete.

In today's archaeology of Southern ScandinavianPre-Roman Iron Age we operate with a chrono-

logical three-period system. This system wasoriginally suggested by Oscar Montelius in 1887but was generally rejected until reintroduced byCarl-Axel Moberg and Carl Johan Becker in theforties and the fifties. However, nobody can denythat the material basically falls into two groups:an early not influenced by and a later stronglyinfluenced by the Central European La Tenecultures. This is the reason why scholars all overthe North European plain since the fifties haveabandoned the three period scheme in favour of ageneral two-period system.

In Scandinavia a similar development has onlytaken place on Gotland, thanks to the works ofErik Nylen. In Norway Erik Hinsch suggested atwo-period system in 1951, but on a much moreslender material background. In mainland Swe-den and in Denmark we still operate with a three-period system in which the second is some sort ofa "missing link". It is obvious that such a phan-tom period, whether existing or not, must influ-ence the general comprehension of the age. This Isay in order to justify our chronological obses-sion in the face of the modern demand of a moresocial-theoretical approach. It is my hope thatthis report will be the starting point of a renewedchronological discussion and demonstrate the ne-cessity of a reconsideration of the Pre-RomanIron Age chronology of Southern Scandinavia.

The framework for our session was a course onthe Pre-Roman Iron Age chronology of NorthernEurope held at this very institute during theautumn of 1992. The original plan was to invitethe present contributors as successive guest-lecturers for the course. A second thought mademe decide to try to make us all meet on one day -thus providing us with the chance to discuss theproblems on equal terms and with mutual benefit,I am grateful for the understanding which thiswish has met from my working place. The Insti-tute of Prehistoric and Classic Archaeology at the

University of Copenhagen has provided us notonly with the physical but also the economicalframework for the session, and for this I wish toexpress my personal gratitude.

I would also like to thank the participants of theday for the willingness to with such short respitedecide to participate. It is at the same time an ho-nourable proof of your personal involvement inthe cause. Finally I am indebted to my students,without whose practical help the day would haveturned out less pleasant: Birgitte Borby Hansen,Xenia Pauli Jensen, Karen Busk Nielsen, LeneNielsen, Vibeke Wheatley.

As mentioned, you will find among the contribu-tors to this report several who were not physi-cally present at the session. Thus the first paper isa translation of Ryszard Wolagiewicz' contribu-tion on Pomerania in the Pre-Roman Iron Age toa large collective work on Polish Prehistory.Wolagiewicz, seated in Szczecin, consecratedmost of his life to the Early Iron Age of Pomera-nia. Of his many important works only little hasso far reached us, and that has mainly concernedworks on Roman Iron Age. The paper includedhere sums up the present state of research in anexcellent and very concise manner.

Our first participant, Horst Keiling, needs nofurther presentation. Just like Wolagiewicz - andonly a few kilometres west of the Odra, inSchwerin - he has devoted a long career to thestudy of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. In the presentpaper he deals with the problems of the transitionfrom the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in Meck-lenburg, ending up with giving a clue to theeternal problem of absolute chronology.

Monika Rasch, the State History Museum inStockholm, has during the last couple of yearsbeen occupied with the laborious but indeed veryimportant work to prepare a complete publicationof the Iron Age graves from Oland. We are gra-teful that she found the time to summarize herview on the Pre-Roman Iron Age for this volume.There are many interesting aspects of this, amongothers a surprisingly high number of finds fromthe hitherto rather badly illuminated Early Pre-Roman Iron Age, indications of a possibility toconnect the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age with theLate in the same way as on the large cemeterieson Gotland, and finally, the problem of thetransition to the Roman Iron Age.

From Norway Per Oscar Nybruget, Oldsak-samlingen in Oslo, took part in the session. Formany years he has worked with the Pre-RomanIron Age with the intention of publishing a mo-nography of his country. Together with the editorhe has finished a survey over the limited but atthe same time surprisingly rich Southern Nor-wegian material of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.Much of the material stems from old, unsyste-matically recovered finds causing much distressfor anyone who wishes to implement it for chro-nological research. However, the diversity of thematerial and the activity rate of modern Norwe-gian archaeology is promising for the future.

South and Central Jutland is represented byClaus Kjeld Jensen, University of Arhus. It isencouraging to see that from a lecture on typolo-gy, after this session should emerge an article onchronology. Northern Jutland is dealt with byJes Martens, University of Copenhagen, who formore than a decade has worked with this area.Obviously these two contributions may have a lotin common - the more surprising is the fact thatthey are rather different in outset, methods, andconclusions. Common to both is, however, thefocus on the need to redefine the basic chrono-logy system of Jutland, and to abandon the three-period system.

Science is represented by Uffe Rahbick andKaare Lund Rasmussen from the Departmentof Science at the National Museum of Denmark.In their highly interesting paper on C-14 theyexplain the mysterious ways of the calibrationcurves in the later half of the first millenium BC.

The two final papers are, just like the very first,added after the conference was held. Pavel Nick-lasson, University of Lund, has during the lastyears dealt with the weapon burial rites of IronAge Mainland Sweden. We are therefore grate-ful that he could be persuaded to offer a summaryof his research on the Pre-Roman part of his ma-terial. Per Ole Rindel, University of Copenha-gen, has dealt with the longterm settlement de-velopment of Southern Jutland. During this, hemade some interesting observations on the potte-ry chronology on the transition from Bl to B2.This has important implications for the under-standing of the chronological problems concer-ning the transition from the Pre-Roman Age tothe Roman Iron Age in Jutland.

10


THE PRE-ROMAN IRON AGE IN POMERANIA.i

Ryszard Wofagiewicz f, Szczecin.

The Jastorf CultureThe Jastorf Culture can be divided into four ma-jor groups (Keiling 1968, pp. 161ff, 1968a): 1)the Lower Elbe Group, including the area withthe eponym sites; 2) the Coastal Group, consis-ting of the area between Warnow and the OdraEstuary; 3) the Lake District Group, located be-tween the lakes Plauer See, Kummerower See,Tollensee, and Berlin; and 4) the Havel-MiddleElbe Group, occupying the river systems of Spreeand Havel and northern Saxony.

Schwantes' original chronological system(Schwantes 1935, p. 49) is, apart from the preli-minary Wessenstedt phase which corresponds tothe Early Iron Age in Central Europe and Monte-lius VI in Scandinavia (750-600BC), divided intothe following phases ("Stufen") during the periodof the Jastorf Culture: Jastorf a (600-500BC);Jastorf b (500-400BC); Jastorf c (400-350BC);Ripdorf (350-120BC); and Seedorf (120-1BC).This system has undergone considerable modifi-cations (Wolagiewicz 1970, p. 47). The potterycan generally be divided into three stylistic pha-ses: an early comprising Jastorf a-b; a middle in-cluding Jastorf c and Ripdorf; and a late, the See-dorf phase (Schwantes 1950, pp. 119ff., 1958, pp.334ff.). The Jastorf Culture ends in Seedorf I(corresponding to A2 in Poland), while phaseSeedorf II (late A2 and A3 in Poland) is a part ofthe Elbe Germanic Culture (which is characteris-tic of the area in the Roman Iron Age (ed.)).

The Jastorf Culture occupies a considerable terri-tory of Central Europe. In many areas, mainly inthe periphery, the culture received or was influ-enced by foreign cultures which resulted in quiteconsiderable differences within the Jastorf Cultu-re. The deviations are especially evident betweenthe core area at the lower Elbe and the southernperiphery.

The Jastorf Culture transgressed the Odra-Neisseline at two points (fig. 5); at the lower Odra andat the lower Lusatian Neisse; in the first mentio-

ned area at the transition from Ha D to the EarlyPre-Roman Iron Age; in the latter at the end ofthe Early Pre-Roman Iron Age. The Odra EstuaryGroup is a part of the Coastal Group of theJastorf Culture while the Gubin Group at thelower Neisse is closely related to the Havel-Middle Elbe Group (Domanski 1975).

The beginning of the Jastorf Culture in WesternPomerania dates back to HaD/D2. It is connectedwith the influences from the Lake District Groupof the Mecklenburg hinterlands, and initially it islimited to the left bank of the lower Odra(Wawelnica, woj. Szczecin). In the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age the Jastorf Culture expands itsterritory eastwards to the area in-between theRega and Parseta rivers and southwards towardsNotec, although the settlement hardly transgres-sed the Myslibork lake district. From this timeonwards the Odra Estuary Group is closely rela-ted to the Coastal Group,

Up to now (1980 (ed.)) about 40 sites are knownfrom this culture group. Of these only three ce-meteries have been excavated; Dlugie (Langen-hagen), Kunowo, and Lubieszewo, all woj.Szczecin. The material allows us to distinguishfour chronological horizons (Wolagiewicz 1968a,pp. 178ff, 1970,pp.43ff).

The oldest phase (la) is only present at the leftbank of the lower Odra.

The older phase (Ib) is related to the younger partof the Early Jastorf style (Jastorf b) and is presentall over the area as far east as in-between Regaand Parseta (fig. 1; 1-6).

The younger horizon (II) is related to the middleJastorf style (i.e. Ripdorf) and is contemporarywith Al of the Polish Late Pre-Roman Iron Age(fig. 1; 7-25) the beginning of which it slightlyprecedes (fig. 1; 7-10). Typical ceramical formsare bipartite and tripartite vessels (zwei- und

Fig. 1: Relative chronology of the Odra estuary group of the Jastorf Culture. Phase I: 1-6; Phase HA: 7-10;Phases IIA-B: 11-12; Phase IIB: 13-25; Phase HI: 26-34. After Wolagiewicz 1981a, tab. XXVII.

12

dreigliederige Gefasse) and footed bowls (fig. 1;12, 23, 24). Beside supra-regional artifacts likesimple, bipartite and tripartite belt hooks (fig. 1;13-15), local bronze ornament types are mostnumerous. As examples of the latter can be men-tioned "Fliigelnadeln" of the Pomeranian type(fig. 1; 16) and neck-rings with thick cylindricterminals and deep cut ornamentation with ena-mel incrustation (fig. 1; 25, 34). Dominatingamong the brooches are iron specimens ofKostrzewski's types A-C (fig. 1; 18), often withone or two balls on the bow (fig. 1; 19-20), andthe typical Jastorf type with rectangular bow (mitstufenformige Bugel) (fig. 1; 21) of Late La Teneconstruction. Also of Late La Tene constructionare iron brooches with bronze "mantle" (fig. 1;21) which are known from Bronholm and Got-land. Finally, the tripartite bronze belt hooks ap-pear for the first time (fig. 1; 17).

further hinge belt hooks and bronze tripartite belthooks (fig. 1; 27-29). Belt hooks and neck-ringsof the previous phase occur sporadically.

Fig, 2: Lubieszewo, Szczecin woj. grave no. 10 fromphase A1 of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age. Enamel or-namented bronze neck-ring and brooch.

The youngest horizon (III) represents the earlypart of the late Jastorf Style (Seedorf I) and cor-responds to the middle phase of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age of Poland (fig. 1; 26-34), A2a tobe more exact. The pottery of this phase is ratherpoorly known (fig. 1; 33) due to the dominationduring this phase of the cremation pit burial rite.Typical to the phase are brooches of Middle andLate La Tene construction of Kostrzewki's typesF, G/H, and K (fig. 1; 30-32), simple iron belthooks with the ends turned in opposite directions(fig. 1; 26), and a related type at which one of thehooks is shaped like a small shield (fig. 1; 28),

Fig. 3: Dlugie, Szczecin woj. grave 90 from phase A1of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age. Two bronze pins anda tripartite iron belt hook.

Apart from the pottery, all the artifacts knownfrom the graves are ornaments or dress equip-ment, especially female dress equipment. It iscomposed of brooches, pins, neck-rings and belthooks (fig. 2-3). The male equipment only com-prised a few elements like brooches and, more ra-rely, belt hooks. The reason for this is closelyconnected with the "feminine" character of thegrave furniture and the custom not to furnish thegrave with weaponry or tools (except spindlewhorls).

The dead were always cremated. In the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age (horizon la-b), unmarked urngraves were totally dominating (from time totime urn grave pits) besides graves without potte-ry just consisting of a heap of cleansed crematedbones ("knochenhaiifschen"). As a rule, the gra-ves were surrounded by stones. In the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age (horizon II-III), the cremationpit grave dominated over the urn cremation pit.Both types were enclosed by a circle of small

13

Fig: 4 Lubieszewo, Szczecin woj. The relative chronology of the Pre-Roman part of the cemetery. I-II: Early Pre-Roman Iron Age, IU-V: Late Pre-Roman Iron Age (IH=A1, IVa=A2a, IVb=A2b, V=A3).

stones, covered by stones, or marked by a sel-domly preserved stele. Circles of vertically posi-tioned stones, enclosing the whole cemerery,known from Netzeband, Kr. Greifswald, in north-eastern Germany, are hitherto unknown in Pome-rania.

All Jastorf cemeteries known hitherto in the areabetween Warnow and Rega went out of use atlatest at the end of the early part of the middlephase of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age (phaseA2a). Only the cemeteries at the border to theOksy wie Culture, along the Rega river, were used

14

continually into the Early Roman Iron Age (fig.4) (Lubieszewo and Ginawa, Szczecin woj.). Thisvery distinct interruption in the use of thecemeteries in the lower Odra region is not anisolated phenomenon within the Jastorf culture.A similar discontinuity is seen at cemeteries incertain other regions as well (Keiling 1968, pp.199f., 1969, pp. 3 I f , Seyer 1973, pp. 323ff.). It ismost likely connected with the displacement ofcertain population groups and the formation ofnew territorial and tribal units at the base ofwhich the Elbian culture zone of the Suebi cry-stallized. The territory of our group, ie. thecoastal areas on both sides of the Odra estuary,found itself excluded from this process and wasduring the Early Roman Iron Age strongly con-nected with the Pomeranian culture zone.

(Usedom), and considerable parts of the Szczecinregion which lasted until the end of the Pre-Roman Iron Age was in all probability the effectof a displacement of the population to the east ofRega and Parseta (see the Oksywie Culturebelow).

The ethnic appertinance of the population at theOdra estuary at the periphery of the Jastorf Cul-ture is not clear. A marked regress of the sett-lement in the area at end of the Early Iron Age(dianostic finds of the final phase of the Goritzerculture are absent, and only a few dispersed sitesof the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture2 are knownwest of the Rega) does not permit us to formanunambiguous comprehension of the expansionof the Jastorf Culture by way of assimilating a

Fig. 5: The cultural situation in the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age of northern Poland. Archaeological sites marked bya square with inner star, Jastorf Culture; filled triangles, Oksywie Culture; filled dots, Przeworsk Culture (afterPrahistoria Ziem Polskich, vol. 5, fig. 30).

The interruption of the use of the Jastorfcemeteries in the middle phase of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the depopulation of thewest bank of the lower Odra, Riigen, Uznam

population of the Lusatian (Lausitz) Culture orthe Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture. However, thepossibility cannot be ruled out that a populationfrom the west of the Odra also took part in the

15

process. Pointing in this direction is the fact thatthe Jastorf cemeteries of the region around theOdra estuary do not comprise relicts of the local-ly preceding culture. A problem for future re-search is to consider the possibilites of identify-ing the population of the Jastorf Culture at theOdra Estuary and its later location east of theParseta with the Rugii (Tacitus), and the Ulme-rugii (Jordanes), ie. "the island Rugians", whosehabitation has been localized to the Vistula estu-ary or rather the Kaszubsk lake district, where theGoths most likely emerged in the Early RomanIron Age (the Lubowidz phase of the WielbarkCulture - see Wolagiewicz 1981a, pp. 143ff. and1993). In the case of a positive answer to thisidentification, what remains to be explained is thepresence of the Ulmerugii in Middle Pomeraniawhere they arrived from the Odra estuary, that isfrom the very densely settled Jastorf Cultureterritory of the Rugii.

The economical base of the Jastorf Culture popu-lation at the Odra estuary is poorly illuminated.Indirect sources hint that the farmers based onhusbandry and grain cultivation - mainly barleyand wheat (Lange 1971, pp. 258ff.). At the be-ginning of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age, themetallurgy of iron handling (2/3 of all iron arti-facts are of local ore) and bronze (mainly foun-ding) was strongly developed. The high standingof the latter is witnessed by among other thingsthe mastering of the technique of ornamentingbronze objects with enamel (neck-rings withthickened, cylindric terminals). The Odra estuarypopulation already aquired this technique fromthe Celtic world at the beginning of Al of theLate Pre-Roman Iron Age. Besides the Odraestuary group this technique spread to Gotland,Oland, Bornholm, and the Coastal Group of theJastorf Culture (brooches ornamented with redenamel in the phases A1-A2).

The Oksywic CultureCompared to the cultural development of Polandand Central Europe, Pomerania - and during thelate Roman Iron Age also Mazovia and Podlasie -display an independent cultural development(during the Late Pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age(ed.)). The unsatisfactory level of research con-cerning the cultural problems in the area - whichfinds expression in the non-standardized classifi-cation of artifacts, the ambiguous and arbitrary

application of nomenclature, and the controver-sial character of the attempts at interpreting thecultural processes leading to the formation anddevelopment of the Oksywie and the WielbarkCultures - stresses the necessity to formulate anew cultural systematic and as a consequencethereof a new consistent terminology.

Earlier views on the cultures of Pomerania duringthe Late Pre-Roman and the Roman Iron Age arebased on monographies, prepared from an alloch-tonical starting point (Kostrzewski 1919, Blume1912-15, Bohnsack 1938, 1940, Schindler 1940).The autochtonical point of view, first of all pre-sented by J. Kostrzewski (Kostrzewski 1939-48,1961, 1966, 1969), is too superficial. It is basedon a general hypothesis of an unbroken culturaldevelopment which has been illustrated by distri-bution maps of successive cultures and selecteddiagnostic types which have been quite arbitrarilyclassified culturally through a prism with a postu-lated ethnical angle (Kostrzewski 1961).

The cultural systematic which groups the Oksy-wie and the Przeworsk Cultures under the com-mon designation "the Cremation Pit Burial Cul-ture", also called the "Venedian Culture", is nottenable. Against it speaks not only the burial riteswhich segregate the two areas and which stand inmanifest contradiction to the very term "Crema-tion Pit Burial Culture", but also a difference ingrave furnishing rites which offers different pos-sibilities and outset for the investigation of thetwo cultures, and stylistic differences, manifes-ting themselves in ceramical forms, ornamentsand aesthetically in ornamentation motives. Like-wise is the "Venedic-ness" not something imma-nent to this culture but rather the product of anattempt at giving it a common ethnical interpre-tation - by nature a highly disputable outset. Inboth regions we are dealing with so independentcultures that to seperate one from the other cau-ses no problems in spite of the existence ofmixed forms.

In opposition to the Przeworsk Culture which un-derwent a gradual stylistic evolution, the transi-tion from the Late Pre-Roman to the Early Ro-man Iron Age in Pomerania is marked by a radi-cal cultural transformation. Until now the cultureof the area has been termed by one name beforeand after the birth of Christ (the Oksywie Groupor Culture), or by different names before andafter the turn of the millenium (the Oksywie

16

ture and the East Pomeranian-Mazovian Culture(Godlowski 1970, Okulicz 1970), or the Mazo-vian-Wolynian Culture (Kuharenko 1970, 1971).The changes mentioned above necessitate thedistinction between two archaeological cultures;the Late Pre-Roman Oksywie Culture (fig. 6-7)and the Early Roman Wielbark Culture(Wolagiewicz 198la, tab. XXI-XXI1). From thisit appears that the actual number of commonforms is limited to a minor number of shortlivedrelicts of the Oksywie Culture (within the earlyWielbark Culture (ed.)). One ought, nevertheless,to stress the unbroken population continuity inthe primeval area of the Wielbark Culture whichat its earliest stage (Bl) exclusively covers theterritory of the preceeding Oksywie Culture.However, later in the Roman Iron Age (in spiteof the expanded territory (ed.)) it is impossible todistinguish between the different ethnical groupsof the Wielbark Culture. Therefore, while ab-stracting from problems of ethnicity, during thisperiod one may speak of a cultural community.

The basic chronological division of the Late Pre-Roman and the Early Roman Iron Age in Pome-rania does not deviate from the chronologicalsystem applied elsewhere for these periods inPoland. However, the Pomeranian chronology isdue to cultural differences based on diagnostictypes which are characteristic of the region. Con-cerning the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age this means"Jastorf type" ornaments and belt equipment and"Oksywie style" weaponry. During the RomanIron Age, when weaponry and the majority ofiron objects are missing, it means bronze, silverand gold ornaments and tools of Lubowidz andCelele-Wielbark style.

The Late Pre-Roman Iron Age can on the base ofa modification of earlier chronological systems(Kostrzewski 1919, Bohnsack 1938, Hachmann1961) be divided into three phases, of which theearly (Al) corresponds to the middle style of theJastorf Culture (the Ripdorf phase) and LTC2 andthe earliest part of LTD1 (of the Central Euro-pean chronology (ed.)) ie. it falls within the laterhalf of Middle La Tene and the very beginning ofLate La Tene (fig. 6-7). The middle phase (A2)corresponds mainly to LTD1 and may be dividedinto two substages of which the earliest (A2a)comprises brooches of Middle and Late La Teneconstruction (Kostrzewski 1919, types F, G/Hand K), the later (A2b) late derivates of thesebrooches and brooches of safety pin type (Kost-

rzewski 1919, fig. 15). Brooches of Kostrzewski'stype J which is inspired by the Nauheim broochappear at the end of this phase and continue inuse into the following phase (A3).

The late phase (A3) corresponds approximatelyto LTD2 in southern Germany (Kramer 1962),that is it must be contemporary with the early Ro-man settlement of the upper Danube region,about 15 BC or a little earlier3. The late phaselasted a little longer in Pomerania than in areaswith direct contact to the Roman civilization likeBohemia, This is indicated by the occurrence oftypes which in Bohemia are typical for the localphase A distinguished by Motykova-Sneidrova(1965, pp. 130ff) and her early phase 1 of Bl ofthe Early Roman Iron Age (Wolagiewicz 1968,pp. 82ff). The Late Pre-Roman Iron Age of Po-merania may thus last until the first or the seconddecade of the first century AD (ibid. p. 85).

The name of the Oksywie Culture complex deri-ves from an unpublished cemetery (Jasnosz1972) from which the materials vanished duringWorld War II (fig. 6; 36-45). In spite of this lackof reference material the name has won generalacceptance within Polish archaeology.

Diagnostic for the Oksywie Culture is a distinctstyle of pottery (vessels with egg-shaped body,vessels shaped like situlae or pots) and metalobjects, especially weaponry (one-edged andtwo-edged swords, local types of spear and lanceheads, slightly profiled shield bosses). However,the most significant feature is the burial custom,and in particular the sex specific attributes (wea-ponry and tools, etc.). The cremation pits whichgenerally contain female attributes often enclosea minor number of (broken) pots, while the urngraves, which in general appear to be maleburials, often contain weaponry.

At an early stage of research a theory of Born-holm descent of the Oksywie Culture was wide-spread due to a number of apparent similaritiesbetween that island and Pomerania (cremation pitburials, weaponry, belt equipment). Due to thefact that the research of the Pre-Roman Iron Ageat Bornholm (Vedel 1870, 1886, 1897) at that ti-me was more advanced than the Pomeranian, thiswas interpreted in favour of Bornholm. In sup-port of this theory Kossinna claimed that the Bur-gunds (who were believed to be synonymouswith the bearers of the Oksywie Culture (ed.))

17

14

18

Figs. 6-7: Left fig. 6: Oksywie pottery. 1-6, early phase; 7-14, late phase.Above fig. 7: typical ornaments and weaponry. 1-12, early phase; 13-34, middle phase (13-14+19-26, early sub-phase); 35-53, late phase (52-53, end phase).

derived their name from the old name of this is-land; "Burgundarholmr". Several Scandinavianscholars rejected the theory due to the lack ofevidence of the immigration (Moberg 1941, pp.

189f, Larsen 1949, p. I, Klindt-Jensen 1957, pp.4f. & 50f.). The present state of research onBornholm4 suggests that the island in the EarlyPre-Roman Iron Age as well as the Early and

19

Middle phases of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Agehad close connections with the other Baltic islesOland and Gotland - as evidenced by the pottery.The metal objects from the same period clearlydisplay influence from the Jastorf Culture, whilea number of metal artifact types of the later partof the Pre-Roman Iron Age evidently are influen-ced by Pomeranian style. There is, on the otherhand, nothing that suggests a Bornholm origin ofthe Oksywie Culture. The features common toBornholm and Pomerania can either be explainedas Jastorf influence in both areas (brooches andbelt equipment) or as Pomeranian influence onBornholm (eg. the adaptation of the latenizedpottery style on Bornholm, where the Oksywietypes have been reproduced in miniature size).

The hypothesis of a local origin of the OksywieCulture was formulated by Kostrzewski (Kost-rzewski 1961, pp. 85f, 1970, pp. 161f). The out-set was the diagnostic differences between theOksywie and the Przeworsk groups within the so-called Cremation-Pit-Culture. The differences arethe product of different cultural substrata, respec-tively the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn and the Lusa-tian Cultures, due to their different geographicalorigin. This should be testified by certain dif-ferences which continue to exist between thematerial culture of the two areas from the Earlyto the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age: Firstly, the su-perior position of the Przeworsk group concer-ning pottery while the Oksywie Culture has a su-perior craftmanship concerning iron products.Secondly, the coincidence of distibution areas ofthe Przeworsk and the Oksywie groups with thedistribution areas of the Lusatian Culture in theEarly Pre-Roman Iron Age and the original Po-meranian area of the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn(between the Parsenta, Pasleka and Notec Ri-vers). As further support for his thesis, Kost-rzewski forwarded examples of affinity betweenartifact types from on the one hand the Przeworskgroup and the Lusatian Culture, on the other theWejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture and the Oksywiegroup.

However, there are some essential problems withKostrzewski's conception both concerning thecoincidence of distribution areas and the claimedaffinity. Thus his conception does not take thevery basic nature of the cultural metamorphosiswhich took place in both areas on the transitionfrom the Early to the Late Pre-Roman Iron Ageinto consideration. The relation between the

Przeworsk Culture and the Wejherowo-Krostoszyn Culture is so special that the Prze-worsk Culture at first settled in those areas intowhich the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture neverexpanded and which to the end of the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age were occupied by the LusatianCulture as late as in the Early Roman Iron Age(Gedl 1962, pp. 337f.; 1972, pp. 309f.; Wozniak1971, pp. 197f.; Godlowski 1969, pp. 23f. &21 If. & maps nos. 2-4). It is also difficult toprove the coincidence of the territory of the Ok-sywie Culture and the original area of the Wejhe-rowo-Krotoszyn Culture, because the only areawhere it is possible to talk about a geographicalcoincidence is at the Lower Vistula, and it is evenonly during the early part of the Early Pre-RomanIron Age that the territory of the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture at this spot coincides with thelater territory of the Oksywie Culture. All theexamples which Kostrzewski have produced ofaffinity between artifact types of the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture and of the Oksywie Culture(Kostrzewski 1961, pp. 65f. & plate 5-8; 1970,pp. 166f.) origin from outside Pomerania. Indi-cations of a highly developed iron metallurgy isknown at first in southern Wielko Polska and Si-lesia, and a comparison between artifacts fromthese territories and Pomerania proves to be indisfavour of the latter area. This concerns boththe number of belt fittings (5:1) and swords(21:5). This, and the fact that Kostrzewski (1961,pp. 85ff. & plates 5-8) could point out moreforms that the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture hasin common with the Przeworsk Culture than withthe Oksywie Culture, and the disagreement be-tween the territories of the cultures in question,forces us to reject his theory of the origin of thediagnostic differences between the two Late Pre-Roman Iron Age Cultures and as a consequencehis conception of the origin of the Oksywie Cul-ture.

When analyzing the formation of the OksywieCulture one must take into account the popula-tion processes of the successive phases anddifferent cultures of Late Pre-Roman Pomerania.

In the early phase (Al (ed.)), the eastern and thewestern parts of Pomerania were under influenceof the Jastorf and the Przeworsk Cultures. Alongthe lower Vistula, in Ziemia Chelmiska, a localgroup of the Przeworsk Culture existed with im-manent germs of the Oksywie-Wielbark Cultures,The diagnostic artifact types of this group which

20

50cm

Fig. 8: Cross-sections of two Oksywie cremation burial. Left: Rumia, Gdansk woj. cremation pit grave 42 fromphase A2. Right: Gostkowo, Slupsk woj. Urn cremation pit grave 76 from phase A3.

is represented by cemeteries like Rzadz (in Ger-man: Rondsen (ed.)) and Podwiesk can also befound at cemeteries from the same phase furtherdown the river and in the area around its estuary(Bystrzec, Rumia, Oksywie, Karlikowo, etc.).The diffusion of latenized style in the lower Vis-tula region was mediated by the Przeworsk Cul-ture whose territory, also concerning Pomerania,coincided with the areas of the preceding Wejhe-rowo-Krotoszyn Culture. In western Pomerania,around Szczecin, a local group of the JastorfCulture was existing since the Early Pre-RomanIron Age. The territory of this group included thecoastal lands on both sides of the Odra estuary,from Warnow in the west to Parseta (German:Persantes (ed.)) in the east. To the south thegroup was bordered by the Mecklenburgian andthe Myslibork-Walcz lake districts. This groupdisappeared from the area east of the Odra riverduring the following phase.

The territory of both groups (the lower Odragroup and the Chelm group) were closely relatedto the population processes in Pomerania in theearly phase (Al (ed.)). The eastern settlementwas concentrated along the lower Vistula and didnever cross the Wda and the Leba rivers to thewest, while the western settlement on the otherhand never reached further east than the riversPerseta, Drawa and Gwda. There are no traces ofsettlement in-between these two areas within thefirst phase of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age ofPomerania.

In the beginning of the middle phase of the LatePre-Roman Iron Age some essential changes tookplace in Pomerania: the formation of the culturecomplex called the Oksywie Culture. The back-ground for this was certain profound changes inthe population pattern. During the middle phase,most probably in the end of the early part of it(phase A2a) Western Pomerania, which hithertohad been populated by the Warnow-Odra groupof the Jastorf Culture, became almost totally de-populated (Keiling 1968, pp. 199f, 1969, pp.3If.) - a phenomenon which lasted to the end ofthe Pre-Roman Iron Age. This breaking off of thecontinuous use of the cemeteries is also notice-able in the region of Szczecin, where some of thecemeteries went out of use during phase A2a.These changes in the settlement took place con-temporarily with the transformation of the JastorfCulture in its core area into the Elbe GermanicCulture at the end of Seedorf I. Important for theunderstanding of the changes in Pomerania is thefact that the territory of the Jastorf groups at theOdra river were outside the sphere of the Elbianculture zone: Pomerania west of the Odra wasdepopulated, while the cemeteries which were incontinuous use until the Roman Iron Age in theSzczecin plain were integrated in the culture ofthe remaining part of Pomerania as a part of theGustow group.

At the same time as the desertion of Pomeraniawest of the Odra and partly also the Szczecinregion, middle Pomerania became populated.

21

F/g; 9: Podwiesk, Torun woj. Urn cremation pit grave 294 (1-3) and grave 273 (4-6), both Al with Przeworsktraits.

Here a number of cemeteries were founded whichwere to be in continuous use far into the RomanIron Age (Konikowo, Parsecko, Niemica, Warsz-kowo, Gostkowo, etc.). The newly settled areaswere part of the Oksywie culture, as proved bythe weapon burial rite. It is assumed that thesettlers of middle Pomerania were of local origin,a mixture of people from the Odra area withothers from the Vistula region, and that bothgroups contributed with elements of their originalcultures. Thus cremation pit burials with femini-ne attributes like the typical Jastorf feature belthooks are considered a relict of the Odra popu-lation. The urn cremation graves which for alarge part are furnished with weaponry are mostlikely due to influences from the Vistula popu-lation (Ziemia Chelminska), where they werealready known before this phase. Besides thetypical Oksywie cemeteries in the newly settledareas of middle Pomerania, pure female burialgrounds were founded (Konikowo, Parsecko), ademonstration that this habit already reached asfar east as Parseta in the Late Pre-Roman IronAge. At the beginning of the Roman Iron Age ithad spread to all Pomerania. Beside ZiemiaChelminska and the Lower Vistula area theOksywie Culture came to cover the coastal area

until Parseta in the west with a minor inlandconcentration of sites in the Drawsko lakedistrict. The Kaszubsk highlands and the Walcz-Krajenka lake district were still rather sparselypopulated (fig. 5).

The Oksywie Culture was firstly fully developedin the middle phase of the Late Pre-Roman IronAge, at the same time as its territory wasestablished being the eastern and middle parts ofPomerania. The settlement did not cover all thisarea but was restricted to the area along the lowerVistula, Ziemia Chelminska, the Baltic coast andthe Drawsko lake district (fig. 5). It did not extentto the Kaszubsk and Krajenka lake districtswhich remained unsettled until the end of the firstcentury AD. The area settled by the people of theOksywie Culture is strongly diverging from thesettlement pattern of the previous population ofthe Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture which wasquite evenly distributed all over eastern andmiddle Pomerania and included the Kaszubsk,the Krajenka, and the Walcz lake districts. Thisdivergence becomes even clearer when conside-ring that the Oksywie settlement of the coastalarea and the Drawsko lake district occurred as

22

2 - 4

Fig. 10: Rumia, Gdansk woj. Urn cremation grave, phase Al, with Jastorf Culture elements (2-4).

2cm

3-5

Fig. 11: Podwiesk, Torun woj. Urn cremation pit grave, phase A1/A2, with Jastorf Culture (2-3) elements.

23

10 163 cm

F(g. 72: Rumia, Gdansk woj. Cremation pit grave 42, phase A2. Female burial with glass (1-6), bronze (7-10, 12-16) ornaments and iron belt ring and hook (11, 17).

late as during phase A2 as evidenced by a num-ber of Oksywie cemeteries founded in this phase.The clear interruption of the settlement of theKaszubsk and Walcz lake districts which beginsat the time of the disappearance of the Wejhero-wo-Krotoszyn Culture proves that also in middlePomerania we have to reckon with an intermis-sion (phase Al) between the Wejherowo-Kroto-szyn Culture and the Oksywie Culture rather thanthe prolonged existence of a local retarded group

of the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture. Alone theabsence of traces of the inevitable connectionsbetween such a group and the contemporaryJastorf and Przeworsk Cultures rejects this theo-ry. It is consequently necessary to reckon withconsiderable changes in the settlement of middleand eastern Pomerania during the Early Pre-Ro-man Iron Age, and to recognize that this meantan important decline in the population. The onlyplace where an unbroken continuity between the

24

Oksywie population and the Wejherowo-Kroto-szyn population is possible is in the area alongthe lower Vistula and in Ziemia Chelminska.Speaking in favour of this is the absence of achronological interruption of the settlement ofthese areas, certain traits of the burial customcommon to both cultures (like cremation burialswhere the urn is covered by a large inverted urn)(Heym 1961, pp. 155ff), further the "Przeworsk"style which is visible in the area at the beginningof the latenization process (fig. 6; 1-3 and fig. 9)- a style which was taken over in almost all theterritory of the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture atthe beginning of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age.

In phase Al which is prior to the crystallizationof the Oksywie Culture there are signs of strongPrzeworsk influence. Ziemia Chelminska and theright bank of the lower Vistula should for thisreason rather be categorized as a local group ofthe Przeworsk Culture with immanent traits ofthe future Oksywie Culture than as an indepen-dent culture group.

with horizontal handles (fig. 6; 2). No local wea-pon types have (so far (ed.)) been developed (fig.13). Two edged swords of Kostrzewski's type I(fig. 7; 9) and low, semispherical umba ofKostrzewki's type I fig. 7; 10) indicate that thePrzeworsk Culture was the mediator (Wolagie-wiczowie 1964, pp. 53, 73ff, fig. 8). In the burialrite the Przeworsk tradition is expressed in thecustom of furnishing the cremation pit grave withsherds of several intentionally broken pots.

Traits specific to the lower Vistula group are potswith egg-shaped body (fig. 6; 4, 6) and the cus-tom of furnishing the urn grave with a minimalamount of pottery, mostly limited to the urn, onlysporadically with an additional vessel. This groupwas more than the other local groups of thePrzeworsk Culture submitted to influence fromthe Jastorf group at the lower Odra (figs. 10-11).This influence manifested itself by the occurren-ce already in Al of tripartite belt hooks which aretypical of the Szczecin region (fig. 7; 7), certainbrooches of Middle and Late La Tene construc-

Fig. 13: Nowa Wies Krolewska, Elblag woj. Urn cremation pit grave 13, phase A!. Male burial, equipped with fullarmament of Przeworsk type.

The Przeworsk influence in the pottery shows it-self in inverted pyriform vessels with tall neckand outturned rim (fig. 6; 3) and jugs and bowls

tion (fig. 7; 3 & 6), and iron brooches withbronze mantle (fig. 7; 5), which are typical of theLower Odra region, Bornholm, and Gotland. The

25

Fig. 14: Warszkowo, Slupsk woj. Urn cremation pit grave, A2. Male burial equipped with full armament ofOksy-wie types.

stele as grave marker is occurring in ZiemiaChelmiska and along the lower Vistula from Alor A2, most likely due to Jastorf influence(Bohnsack 1940a, pp. 22ff, Janikowski 1971,pp.lHff.).

The earliest phase of the Late Pre-Roman IronAge which can be characterized as a local Prze-worsk group with traits of Oksywie Culture andinfluence of Jastorf Culture (figs. 9-11) is repre-sented at the following cemeteries in ZiemiaChelminska; Rzadz (German: Rondsen), Nowe

Dobra (German: Neuguth) and Podwiesk; furtherat the right bank of the lower Vistula at thecemeteries Bystrzec, Nowa Wies Krolewska,Stary Targ, Pruszcz site no. 10, Gdynia-Oksywieand Karlikowo.

Simultaneous with the colonization of the Draw-sko lake district and the eastern Pomeranian Bal-tic coast a relatively considerable number of newcemeteries were founded in these areas, mainly inthe later part of A2 and often with continual useuntil Cl of the Late Roman Iron Age.

26

» 5

3cm

Fig. 15: Rumia, Gdansk woj. Urn cremation pit grave 52, phase A3. Male burial, with "shield fighter" equipment.

In connection with the territorial expansion ahomogenization and assimilation between middlePomerania and eastern Pomerania took place.From the very start of A2, two types of burialsare predominant at the cemeteries: cremation pitgraves without pottery (fig. 8; 1), but furnishedwith feminine attributes (fig. 12) i.e. belt hooks,brooches, crescent shaped knives, spindle whorls,and pins; and urn cremation graves or quite oftenurn cremation pit graves (fig. 8; 2) furnishes withmale attributes (figs. 13 & 16) i.e. lances, shield

fittings, sword, razor, and tweezer. Though gra-ves which mix traits from these two groups occur(Schindler 1937, p. 377), they are our main in-formation source on the Oksywie Culture.

The pottery is characterized by a very carefullysmoothed ware with lustreless or glossy blacksurface. The rims are elaborately modelled andoutturned (fig. 6; 5, 6, 14), or vertical with an in-ner thickening and facets (fig. 6; 8, 13). Theprofiles of the vessels are soft and are characteri-

27

1,3 -4

3cm=1

Fig. S6: Rumia, Gdansk woj. Urn cremation pit grave 38, phase A2. Male burial with "spear fighter" equipment.

zed by the absence of classical biconical forms.On the other hand there is a tendency towardshighly placed belly maximum., convex shoulder,and inverted conical lower part (fig. 6; 4, 6, 12,14) or concave lower part (fig. 6; 7, 9). Conse-quently the pottery may be divided into egg-sha-ped, barrel-shaped, and situla-shaped vessels.The size variation is considerable. The followinggroups may be isolated; tall vessels (up to 40cmhigh), medium vessels (up to 20cm high), smallvessels (cups), and miniatures (up to 10cm high).The ornamentation falls into two major groupswhich are confined to specific vessel types. Thefirst group comprises plastic ornaments like ver-tical beads (fig. 6; 12), knops with central de-pression (fig. 6; 9), or very rarely figures (fig.

17). The second group is comprised of horizontalfriezes confined by narrow grooves and dividedinto minor squares with alternate motives. Besi-des the simple version (fig. 6; 6, 14), a morecomplex version occurs (fig. 6; 7, 13).

Considering the fact that the majority of the pot-tery found functioned as cinerary urns in weapongraves, the dating of the different groups is notvery precise. The material has been divided intovarious basic groups (Bohnsack 1938, pp. 75ff;Wolagiewicz 1966, pp. 229ff). Among the ear-liest are three simple groups of egg- and barrel-shaped vessels. Group I comprises egg-shapedvessels with narrow mouth (fig. 6; 4). This is theoldest group and is confined to the lower Vistula

28

region. The same goes for group IT, single-luggedvessels with open mouth (fig. 6; 5). Contrary tothis is group III, barrel-shaped vessels (fig. 6; 6)also occuring in middle Pomerania.

The later series (phases A2-A3) is characterizedby convex shoulder and marked inverted conicallower part. To this series belongs group IV, situ-la-like vessels (fig. 6; 8, 9, 12). Their height ex-ceeds their diameter. The vessels of the relatedgroup V are characterized by a tripartite profilewith a marked distinct neck (fig. 6; 14). Vesselsof groups IV and V are ornamented by plastic or-naments or simple beads. Group VI consists ofvase-like jars with a single x-shaped handle (fig.6; 7, 13). These vessels are as a rule decoratedwith friezes with complex motives. The width ofthe mouth equals or exeeds the height. A nume-rous version of group VI within the OksywieCulture consists of small vases, which are closeto biconical and most often not ornamented.

velopment of a local metallurgy based on localiron ore with high contents of phosphorus andimported iron with low contents of phosphorus.

Metallurgic investigations have demonstrated(Piaskowski 1969, pp. 332ff; 1971, pp. 13Iff)that the Oksywie population had at their disposalthree types of iron - iron with high contents ofphosphorus (50%) extracted from local bog ironore, slightly carborized soft steel (35%) of a sofar unknown origin, and hard steel (15%) whichhas been identified as "Swietokrzyski-iron". Themetallurgy of the Oksywie Culture is stronglyinfluenced by the metallurgy of the Jastorf Cultu-re which in the Szczecin area already in phase Aldisposed of its own iron with high phosporuscontents (66.7%) and the above mentioned softsteel (33.3%). The metallografical evidence pro-ves that the population of the lower Vistula areain phase Al mastered only an inferior metallurgyand was dependent on the import of iron with low

Fig. 17: Golebiewo, Gdansk woj. Urn grave 2.

Vessels of group VII with cylindric shoulders andinverted conical lower part may be counted asPrzeworsk forms (Wolagiewicz 1966, pp. 231).Group VIII comprises cups (fig. 6; 10-11) andgroup IX miniatures (Bohnsack 1938, pi. 17:1).A final independent group is bowls (ibid. pi. 15;2-3), which are quite common in the lower Vistu-la region, while rare in middle Pomerania. Two-lugged jars of Przeworsk type are very rare inOksywie context and is not a major type.

The Oksywie Culture shows up a particular richvariety of iron products. This is evident fromphase A2 and is closely connected with the de

phosphorus contents of "Swietokrzyski-type".Owing to influence from the Odra estuary popu-lation a local metallurgy was develloped in phaseA2, and thanks to the disposal of pig-iron andsoft steel the import of low phosphorus iron wasreduced so its importance fell to 15%.

These three types of metal were consciouslyemployed for different purposes: belt hooks, kni-ves, scissors, and sickles were made of iron andsoft steel, only very rarely of hard steel, weaponwere made of soft and hard steel (especiallyswords) and in a minor scale of iron (some lanceheads).

29

The most typical forms of the rich variety of ironproducts of the Oksywie Culture are, apart frombrooches and tools which are mainly inter-cultu-ral types, belt hooks which have been adoptedfrom the Jastorf Culture and certain types ofweapon which owe their origin to Celtic inspira-tion or local invention.

In the fittings for the female dress the Jastorf in-fluence is evident. It comprised two-three broo-ches., a belt hook (fig. 10) as basic elements; tothis may be added ornaments like neck-rings(rarely) (fig. 11) and in phase A3 arm-rings (fig.7; 48). Among the belt hooks the tripartite hook(fig. 10) is the earliest one (fig. 7; 7). From phaseA2 the diversity increases; apart from hingedhooks (fig. 7; 21) simple iron hooks (with theends bended in opposite directions (ed.)) arised(fig. 7; 20). In a later part of this phase one of thehooks of the latter type developed into a flatshield-like plate (fig. 7; 29). Furthermore two ty-pes of tripartite bronze belt hooks developed (fig.7; 19, 28). In phase A3 occur, apart from theabove mentioned types, ornamented versions ofthe simple belt hooks (fig. 7; 41) and the tripar-tite belt hooks (fig. 7; 40). At the transitionalphase A3/B1 at some cemeteries (Warszkowo,Slupsk woj.) belt hooks are replaced by beltbuckles shaped like the number 8 (fig. 7; 49), orkey holes, or buckles with fixed spike (fig. 7; 50).

The armament comprised spears and lances,swords and shields. Basing on the grave furni-ture, the warriors can be divided into "spearfighters" (fig. 16), "shield fighters" (fig. 15),"sword fighters", and "fully armed men" (figs.13-14) (Wolagiewiczowie 1964, pp. 75ff). Apartfrom two-edged swords of Kostrzewski's types Iand II (Kostrzewski 1919, pp. 84ff) (fig. 7; 9,22) which are copying Celtic types (fig. 13), andtypes III and IV (fig. 7; 34) which have a diffe-rent outlook than the Celtic influenced swordsand are quite specific for the lower Vistula regionand Kujavia (Hachmann 1951, map. 8), one-edged swords are especially characteristic of theOksywie Culture. The latter are also characteris-tic of Bornholm, Oland, Gotland and Ostergot-land (Wolagiewiczowie 1964, pp. 37ff, fig. 7).Type 1 (according to the classification of Wola-giewiczowie 1964 (ed.)) (fig. 14) and type 2(Wolagiewicz 1981a, fig. 35) occurred in themiddle phase (fig. 7; 30, 35), while type 3 occur-red in phase A3 (fig. 7; 42), when type 1 went outof use. Types 2 and 3 became the pattern of the

one-edged swords which spread to all barbarianEurope in the Roman Iron Age.

Apart from U-shaped edge-fittings the shields(fig. 7; 47) were equipped with grips of four dif-ferent types (Jahn 1916, pp. 160ff.) and withshield bosses of several different variants(Bohnsack 1938, pp. 56ff, fig. 36). The latterexpose in the Oksywie Culture a local develop-ment from Bohnsack's types 4 (fig. 7; 31) and 6to his type 9 (fig. 7; 43) and two versions of type7 (fig. 7; 44).

Spears and lances have been split up into thefollowing three major groups (by M. D. & R.Wolagiewicz 1964 (ed.)); spear heads with wideblade (bay leaf, lancet, and deltaoid), lean bladed(with the variants A-C), and stocky. Most typicalfor the Oksywie Culture are barbed spears (fig. 7;45), lean spear heads, and ornamented spearswith waved profile (fig. 7; 33, 46).

The ornamented spear heads (fig. 16), the belthooks, and the frieze ornamented belt hooks areour main source to Oksywie Culture decorationart. The motives of the frieze ornamented vesselsare repeated at the hinged belt hooks. Just as po-pular a motive are zigzag lines which ornamentthe majority of the spear heads and the tripartitebronze belt hooks (fig. 7; 19, 42). Similar orna-ments occur at tripartite belt hooks from the Odraeastuary group of the Jastorf Culture in phase Al.

Tools are relatively common among the gravefurniture of the Oksywie Culture. Most commonin the female burials are different variants ofcrescent shaped knives (fig. 7; 27) and biconical,cylindric, or "pillow-shaped" spindle whorls (fig.7; 23), and, more rarely, hemispherical bonespindle whorls from Bornholm (fig. 7; 24). In themale burials occur, on the other hand, "sheepscissors" (fig. 7; 51) and axes. A special groupcomprises handicraft tools like pistons, hammers,files, and chisels. An assemblage of black smithtools is known from the so-called "smiths grave"at Grudiadz/Rzadz (German Rondsen) (Anger1890, p. 12, pi. 7).

The cemeteries of the Oksywie population as arule show up a continuous usage including thewhole of the Roman Iron Age. In the lower Vis-tula region, the maximum duration is from phaseAl to Eggers1 phase D. In middle Pomerania, onthe other hand, burial grounds founded in A2

30

may last until Cl of the Late Roman Iron Age.There is no doubt that the cemeteries were usedby the same population throughout this period,and the cultural metamorphosis which took placeat the turn to the Roman Iron Age can conse-quently not be ascribed to the arrival of a new fo-reign population but is the result of internal cul-tural processes. It is very likely that the popula-tion groups of the lower Vistula and ZiemiaChelminska are direct descendants of the prece-ding Wejherowo-Krotoszyn population. The po-pulation groups of the Drawsko lake district andthe middle Pomeranian costal zone seem on theother hand to have colonized this area not earlierthan during the middle phase of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age. Most likely they descent fromthe Odra estuary group (of the Jastorf Culture(ed.)) and Przeworsk groups along the Notec ri-ver. This is indicated by the settlement patternwhich has been transferred from their places oforigin, as well as by relicts of their former cultu-ral identity as bearers of the Przeworsk or JastorfCultures.

The continuity of settlement and settlement pat-tern in middle and eastern Pomerania during theLate Pre-Roman and the Early Roman Iron Ageindicate (Przewozna 1974) that the economicalbase of the population was not substantiallychanged during this period. Just like in the earlyWielbark Culture, farming with fully developed

cattle and sheep breeding and growing of crops,mainly barley and wheat, was the economic baseof the Oksywie Culture. Besides farming themost highly developed occupation was ironextraction and forging basing on locally extractediron and imported iron with low phosphoruscontents, whose share did not exceed 1/3 of thetotal production. The beginning of the highly de-veloped bronze casting technology which is cha-racteristic of the Roman Iron Age dates back tothe terminal phase of the Late Pre-Roman IronAge.

Translated from Polish by M. Hansen and J.Martens.

Acknowledgements:We wish to thank Mrs Maria Danuta Wolagie-wicz for the permission to bring this translationof her late husband's works. We are furthermoreindebted to Dr. Romuald Schild, director of theInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnology at thePolish Academy of Science, Warsaw, for allo-wing us to publish the material from PrahistoriaZiem Polskich. Finally a special thanks to MrsMalgorzata Hansen, the National Museum ofDenmark for the invaluable assistence with thetranslation.

31

Notes:1: The present paper is a translation of Ryszard Wola-giewicz' contribution to the fifth volume of the largecollective work "Prahistoria Ziem Polskich" (ed. W.Ilensel 1979-81). The following parts have been in-cluded: on the Jastorf Culture pp. 191-196; on the Ok-sywie Culture pp. 135-136, 139-143 & 156-165. Dueto the very compressed and congenial nature of theoriginal text the editor has found it necessary at certainpassages to add additional information. This is alwaysstated. Otherwise it has been attempted to keep thewording as close to the original as possible. Due totechnical problems it has unfortunately been impos-sible to use Polish characters.

2: The Wejherowo-Krotoszyn Culture is also knownunder the names "Pomerarian Culture", "East Pomera-nian Culture", or a northern "Stone Cist Grave Cultu-res" and a southern "Cloche Grave Culture" (ed).

3: This was written before Andrei Miron's revision ofthe base of the absolute chronology of the CentralEuropean chronology (Miron 1986: Das Grabcrfeldvon Horath. Untersuchungen zur Mittcl- und Spatlatc-nezeit im Saar-Moscl-Raum. Trierer Zeitschrift, 49,Jahrgang, pp. 7-198) (ed).

4: The following notes on Bornholm are based on lite-rature until 1980 and a visit to the National Museum ofDenmark in 1973 (ed.).

References:

Anger, S. 1890: Das Grdberfeld zu Rondsen imKreise Graudenz. Danzig.

Blumc, E. 1912-15: Die germanische Stdmme unddie Kuituren zwischen Oder und Passarge zurromischen Kaiserzeit. Mannus BibHothek Bd.8& 14.

Bohnsack, D. 1938: Die Burgunden in Ostdeutschlandund Polen wdhrend des Ictzten Jahrhundertsv. Chr. Leipzig.

1940: Die Burgunden. Vorgeschihcteder deutschen Stdmme, ed. H. Reinerth, Ber-lin. Bd. 3, pp. 1033-1148.

1940a: Ostgermanische Graber mitSteinpfeilern und Steinkrciscn in Ostdeutch-land. Gothiskandza, Bd. 2, pp. 22-36.

Domanski, G. 1975: Studia z dziejow srodkowegoNadodrza w ///-/ wieku p.n.e. Wroclaw, War-szawa, Krakow, Gdansk.

Eggers, H.J. 1951: Der romische Import im freienGermanien. Atlas der Urgeschichte, Bd.I.Hamburg.

Gedl, M. 1962: Uwagi o zanikow kulturyluzyckiej na Gornym Slasku. Archeologia

Polski, vol. 7, pp. 337-345.1972: Ze studiow nad schylkowa faza

kultury luzyckiej. Archeologia Poiski, vol. 17,pp. 309-346.

Godlowski, K. 1969: Kultura przeworska na GornymSlasku. Katowize-Krakrow.

1970: The Chronology of the Late Ro-man and Early Migration Periods in CentralEurope. Zeszyty naukowe Uniwersitctu Ja-giellonskicgo, Prace Archeologiczne, z. 11.Krakow.

Hachmann, R. 1951: Das Graberfeld von Rondsen(Rzadz), Krcis Graudenz (Grudiadz) und dieChronologic der Spatlatenezeit im ostlichesMittelcuropa. Archaeologia-Geografica Bd.I, pp. 79-96.

1961: Die Chronologic der jiingerenvorromischcn Eisenzeit. 41. Berichte der ro-misch-germanische Kommision.

Heym, W. 1961: Drei Spatlatenegrabcrfelder ausWestpreussen. Offa Bd. 17-18, pp. 143-170.

Jahn, M. 1916: Die Bewaffnung der Germanen inder dlteren Eisenzeit. etwa von 700 v. Chr. bis200 n. Chr- Wiirzburg.

.lanikowski, J. 1971: Z badan na stanowisku 2 w Pod-wiesku, pow. Chclmno. Sprawozdania Ar-cheologiczne vol. 23, pp. 317-160.

Jasnosz, S. 1972: Ocalale rnatcrialy z cmentarzyskow Oksywiu. Fontes Archeologici Posnanien-sesvol. 21, pp. 148-167.

Keiling, H. 1968: Stan i perspcktywy badan nadkultura jastorfska w polnocnych okregachNRD. Materiaiy Zachodniopomorskie t. 12,pp. 195-204.

1968a: Die Formenkrcise der vorromi-schen Eisenzeit in Norddeutchland und dasProblem der Entstehung der Jastorf Kultur.Zeitschrift fur Archdologie Bd. 2, pp. 161-177.

1969: Die vorromische Eisenzeit imElde-Karthane-Gebiet, Schwcrin.

Klindt-Jensen, O.1957: Bornholm i folkevandringsti-den. Kebcnhavn.

Kostrzewski, J. 1919: Die ostgermanische Kultur derSpatlatenezeit. Mannus Bibliothek Bd. 18.

1939-48: Od mezolitu do wedrowck lu-dow. Prehistoria Ziem Polskich, Krakow, pp.118-358.

1961: Zagadnienie ciaglosci zaludnieniaziern polskich w pradziejach (od polowy II ty-siaclecia p.n.e. do wczesnego sredniowiecza),Poznan. (appeared in German translation asKostrzewski 1965(ed.)).

1965: Zur Frage der Siedlungsstetigkeitin der Urgeschichte Polens von der Mitte desII Jahrtausends v. u. Z. bis zum Friihen Mit-telalter. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow (seeKostrzewski 1961 (ed.)).

32

Kostrzewski, J. 1966: Pradzieje Pomorza, Poznan.1969: Uber die Bcziehungcn zwischen

der Pommerellischen Kultur und der Wene-dischen Kultur der Spatlatenezeit. /. Medzy-narodowe Kongres Archeologii Slowianskiej,I 2, pp. 131-143.

1970: O pochodzeniu grupy polnocnej(oksywskiej) kultury wenedskiej pozncgookresu latenskiego. Europa - Slowianszczyzna- Polska. Studia kit uczczeniu Prof. K. Tymie-nieckiego. Poznan pp. 161-172.

Kramer, W. 1962: Manching II. Germania Ed. 40,pp. 304-317.

Kuharenko, Ju. 1970: Volynskaja grupa polej pogre-benij i problema tak nazyvaemoj gotsko-ge-pidskoj kultury. Kratkie soobshchenija Insti-tuta Archeologii, vol. 121, pp. 57-78.

1971: Jeshche raz o grupe polej pogre-benij i o puti Gotow k Chernomu Moriu. Ar-cheologia Polski, vol. 16, pp. 249-253.

Lange, E. 1971: Botanische Beitrdge zur mittel-europdischen Siedlungsgeschichte. Ergebnis-sc zur Wirtschaft und Kulturlandschaft infruhgeschichtlicher Zeit, Berlin.

Larsen, K. 1949: Bornholm i eeldre jernalder. Aar-b0ger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historic,pp. 1-214.

Moberg, C.-A. 1941: Zonengliederungen der vor-christlichen Eisenzeit in Nordeuropa. Lund.

Motykova-Sneidrova, K. 1965: Zur Chronologic deralteren romischen Kaiserzeit in Bohmen. Ber-liner Jahrbuch fur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte,Bd.5,pp. 103-174.

Okulicz, J. 1970: Studia na przemianami kulturo-wymi i osadniczymi w okresic rzymskim naPomorzu Wschodnim, Mazowszu i Podlasiu.Archeologia Polski, vol. 15, pp. 419-498.

Piaskowski, J. 1969: Cechy materialo-technologiczncwyrobow zelaznych jako kryteria kulturowo-chronologicznc. Wiadomosci Archeologicznevol. 34, pp, 332-354.

1971: Badania technologii przedmiotowzelaznych na Pomorzu Zachodnim w okresicod I w. p.n.e. do II w. n.e. Prace Komisji Me-talurgiczno-Odlewniczej, Metalurgia, vol 17,pp. 131-187.

Przewozna, K. 1974: Struktura i rozwoj zasiedleniapoludniowo-wschodniej strefy nadbaltyckiej uschylku starozytnosci, Warszawa-Poznan.

Schindlcr, R. 1937: Zur Kenntnis des ostgermanischenBestattungsbrauches im letzten Jahrhundertvor Chr. Geb. Blatter fur deutsche Vorges-chichte, Bd. / / ,pp. 27-29.- / 1940: Die Besiedlungsgeschichte derGoten und Gepiden im unteren WeichselraumaufGrund der Tongefdsse. Leipzig.

Schwantes, G. 1909: Die Graber der iiltcrcn Eisenzeitim ostlichen Hannover. Prahistorische Zeit-

schriftBd. I, pp. 140-162.1935: Die Hausurae von Seedorf und

ihre Zeit. Althonaische Zeitschrift, Bd. 4, pp.31-49.

1950: Die Jastorf-Zivilisation. Reinecke-Festschrift, pp. 119-130.

1958: Die Gruppen der Ripdorf-Stufe.Jahresschrift fur mitteldeutsche Vorgeschich-te, pp. 334-338.

Seyer, R. 1973: Zur besiedlungsgeschichte imnordlichen Mittelelbe-Havel Gebiet um dieWende u. Z. Ethnographisch-archdologischeZeitschrift Bd. 14, pp. 323-340.

Vedel, E. 1870: Om de bornholmskc Brandpletter.Aarboger for nordisk oldkyndighed og histo-rie, pp. 1-110.

1886: Bornholmske Oldtidsminder ogOldsager. K0benhavn.

1897: Efterskrift til Bornholmske Old-tidsminder og Oldsager. K0benhavn.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1966: Cmentarzysko z okresu pozno-latenskiego i rzymskiego w Warzskowie,pow. Slawno. Materially Zachodnio-Pomor-skie, vol. 11. pp. 179-247.

1968: Stan badan nad wybranymi za-gadnicniami okresu poznolatenskiego na Po-morzu Zachodnim. Zagadnienie okresu poz-nolatenskiego w Polsce. Wroclaw - Warszawa- Krakow, pp. 76-86.

1968a: Der 6 stliche Ausdehnungsbe-reich der Jastorf-Kultur und sein Siedlungsge-schichtliches Verhaltnis zur pommerschenGesichtsurnenkultur und der jtingeren vorro-mischen Unterweichsclgruppe. Zeitschrift furArchdologie Bd. 2, pp. 178-191.

1970: Kultura Jastorfska na PomorzuZachodnim. Materialy do Prahistorii ZiemPolskich, cz. 5, z. 4. pp. 43-66.

1981: Kultura Jastorfska. Grupa nado-drzanska. Prahistoria ziem polskich, Tom V,Pozny Okres Latenski i Okres Rzymski, ed. J.Wielowiejski, Wroclaw, Warszawa Krakow,Gdansk, pp. 191-196.

1981 a: Kultura oksywska i kultura wiel-barska. Prahistoria ziem polskich, Tom V,Pozny Okres Latenski i Okres Rzymski, ed. J.Wielowiejski, Wroclaw, Warszawa Krakow,Gdansk, pp. 135-178+190-191.

1993: Ceramika kultury wielbarskiejmiedzy Baltykiem i Morzem Czarnym. Szcze-cin.

Wolagiewiczowie, M. D. & R. 1964: Uzbrojenie lud-nosci Pomorza Zachodniego u progu naszejery. Materialy Zachodnio-Pomorskie, vol. 9.pp. 9-166.

Wozniak, Z. 1971: Z problcmatyki zaniku kulturyluzyckiej w Polsce poludniowcj. ArcheologiaPolski, vol. 16, pp. 197-208.

33


CHRONOLOGTSCHE PROBLEME AM UBERGANG VON DERBRONZE- ZUR ElSENZEIT IM RAUM SUDLICH DER OSTSEE.

Horst Keiling, Schwerin.

Zu Beginn unseres Jahrhunderts, als die Jastorf-Forschung noch in den Anfangen lag, herrschtedie Ansicht vor, dass an der Nahtstelle zwischenBronze- und Eisenzeit ein Bruch in der Grabfeld-belegung festzustellen sei, der als Siedlungsab-bruch und -neubeginn interpretiert wurde(Schwantes 1909, S. 140ff.)- Vollstandig unter-suchte Urnenfriedhofe gab es zu jener Zeit eben-sowenig wie gezielte Untersuchungen zur Ge-samtnutzungsdauer der einzelnen Bestattungs-

BesiattungskonUnuitat

• gesichert O vennutet

Abb. I : Nutzung von Urnenfriedhofen in der Jungbronze- undder vorromischen Eisenzeit (nach Keiling 1989, Abb. S. 147).

plalze. Doch hob schon Gustav Schwantes her-vor, dass es besonders im Metallsachgut derJastorf-Kultur zahlreiche Formen gibt, die ein-deutige Vorformen in der jiingeren Bronzezeitbesitzen. Das betrifft Nadcln, Fibeln undRingschmuck, insbesondere Hohl- und Wendel-ringe, aber auch Perlen, Pinzetten und Rasier-messer. Bei der Keramik kann ein allmahlicherFormenwandel festgestellt werden. Auch einWeiterleben der bronzezeitlichen Bestattungssit-

ten lasst sich beobachten. Das trifft so-wohl auf Grabaufbau und -anlage(Steinschutz, Flachgraberfelder, flacheGrabhiigel) als auch auf den Grabtypus(Urnengrab, Knochenlager, Brandgrube)zu. Das Bedecken der Urne mit einerSchale war in der Jungbronzezeit ver-breitet und ist in der vorromischen Ei-senzeit ublich geblieben. Erst im Laufeder Zeit treten hier Veranderungen ein.

Im Grunde genommen besteht auch inder Beigabensitte Kontinuitat. Als Bei-gaben fmden wir vorwiegend Schmuck,Kleidungsbestandteile und Toilettengerat.Selbst die Sitte, Urnen mit Seelenlochcrnbeizusetzen, wird in der Eisenzeit weiter-gefiihrt (Keiling 1969, S. 175). Sowohldie jungbronzezeitliche Kultur als auchdie fruhjastorfzeitliche ist imGesamtverbreitungsgebiet nicht ein-heitHch, so dass regionale bronzezeitlicheTraditionen sich gebietsspezifischauswirken. Doch sowohl in kleinen wiein grosseren Gebieten gibt es ausreich-ende Hinweise fur eine kontinuerlicheEntwicklung der Kulturgutformen, fureine allmahliche Formveranderung beiSchmuckstucken, Trachtbestandteilen,Gebrauchsgegenstanden, Werkzeugenund Waffen (Keiling 1976, S. 88ff.)- Beider als ortliches Produkt anzusprechen-

Korrelationstafel der geschlossenen Funde von Keramik und Metallgerat

HI

Anzahl der Funde

1-2

3-4

5-6

crfes

QYin IX" XI

10

12

13

O

16

17

18

29

30

31

3A

Abb. 2: Correlation von Keramik und Metallsachgut aus Grabfunden des Gebietes zwischen Havelmundung undElde (nach Keiling 1979, Abb. 9).

36

Schortlappige Wendelnnge (TotenkranzelHalsnnge mil echter TorsionSpiralrollchenSchwa n enh al sn a d e InBronzenadeln mit meormals gebogenem Schaf tQoppelkcH-iische Ternnen und TopfeUnregelrnaflig gelormte Terrinen mit abgesetztem HalsrandTonklappernHohlwulsleSronzenadeln mit gestrecktem SchaftSchullerschalenFrngerringe (?]Ungegliederte Terrinen mit ausgeprdgter SchijlterBeigefafleKannenMassive BronzearmnngeRotlenkoptnadelnUnverriertenjndstabige uricl kantige HaisringeSchleifen- und SpiralohrringeSchalenmit einladendem RandEiserne RasierrriMser und PrniettenSchalen rnit gerade auslaufenrtem RandHochhalsige TdpfeHohln'nge (Halsringe)BranzeblecharmringeSpiralrollchenHochhdsiga und weitbauchige VasenDicklappig-breilnppige(echte) WendelringeHalsringe "mit imilierter TorsionTerrinen mit abgeselztem HalsrandGekropfie Nadeln mit ruridlichem KopfUagel- und Nietkopfnadeln<Ieine einfache ZungengurtelhakenTdpfe mit abgesetztem HalsrandGestreckte eiserne Nadeln mit rundlicheni KopfSegelohrringe.Glos-und BronzeperlenGon'tzer BammelnJngegliederte tonnenformjge ZweifwnkeltopfeJngegliederte Topfe rnit KorperrauhungOsenringeUn'echte Wendelrtnge-lugelnadelf ibelnCettenplattenschrnuck>ahtatirringeSombenkopfnadetn^ngkopfnadeln"iserne DoppelpQukenfibelnlechteckige Eisenbleche mit Ringen]reigliedrige GefdHe vom Typ Jastorf bSpiralarmringeErtwickelte ZungengurtelhakenSlabkopfnadelnSpotenkopfnadelnTopfe nvt abgesetztern.senkrechtem oder asgebogenem RandVierkantkopfnadeln:infache CGrtelringeIreigliedrige GefdDe vom Typ Jastorf c)reieckige Gurtelhaken mil NietabscrtunJadeinmit kleinem RingkopfHoftarmgurtelhakenjurtelringe rnit kurzer ZwingelinggurtetHolsteinische NadelnHalsringe mit KolbenendenTerrinen rnit einfachem Trichterrand:ibeln vorn Mittel-Lat^ne -Schema;iseme HobdeckelhandhabeTerrinen niit verdtcktetn Trichlerrand;lijgelnadeln;ibeln vom Spat-Latene-SchemaGurtelringe mit langschmaler ZwingeGesclweifte Draht libel3unne Knochennadetn mit prof ilier tern KopfSichelmesser mit geradem GriffAugenfibeln

BZ^^mmMMMWMMHi•MMMI

r:

la

•MMM

•MM1

MMMi

ss

Ib Ic

! !-__

====•MM*MMHM

=E^^^m

3

Ea

i— i

Hb

mm

mH|

•MM

••MIHMMWHM_

wmm

mm

z=^~

i

He

MMIMM

•••••••W

Bj

•MMHI

Zeitstetlung vermutete Zeilstellunq

I

Abb. 3: Nutzungsdauer von Formengut im Gebiet zwischen Havelmundung und Elde (nach Keiling 1979, Abb.

11).

37

den Keramik kann man den allmahlichen For-menwandel besonders gut verfolgen. Unter-suchungsergebnisse hinsichtlich der kontinuerli-chen Nutzung des Platzes (Platzkontinuitat), derSiedlungskammer wie des Siedlungsraumes lies-sen die Erkentniss reifen, dass Kultur und Bevol-kerung der vorromischen Eisenzeit im Jastorf-Raum aus der bodenstandigen jungbronzezeitli-chen hervorgegangen sind. Die Siedlungsschwer-punkte auf der Jungbronzezeitkarte sind weitge-hend identisch mit denen auf der Eisenzeitkarte(Keiling 1976, Abb. 2 & 3). Eine Karte der kon-tinuierlichen Nutzung der Urnenfriedhofe (Abb.1) unterstreicht diesen Fakt.

Das Verbreitungsgebiet der Jastorf-Kultur istdurch verschiedende regionale Schemata zur re-lativen Chronologic aufgeschlossen worden(Abb. 2), deren Erstellung allerdings auf un-terschiedlichen methodischen Vorgehensweisenbasiert. Grundlage war aber stets die Erarbeitungtypologischer Abfolgen. Am zuverlassigsten er-scheint die von Hans Hingst entwickelte korrela-tionsstatistische Methode (Hingst 1959, S.112ff.). Nach typologischer Vorsortierung wer-den Metall + Metall und Keramik + Metall zu-einander in Bezug gebracht, so dass relativchro-nologische Ablaufe mit Schwerpunkten entste-hen, die im Vergleich und Ergebnis Aussagen zurNutzungsdauer einzelner Kulturgutformen gestat-ten und zur Abfolge von Schwerpunkte tuhren,die als Zeitphasen betrachtet werden konnen. Jenach Fundgutanfall und Kombinationshaufigkeitkann deren Zahl unterschiedlich sein. So unter-teilt Hingst die altere vorromische Eisenzeit Siid-ostholsteins in 4 Abschnitte, Keiling die Siid-westmecklenburgs nur in 3 (Keiling 1979, S. 36).Bei reichlichem Fundanfall und sich haufig wie-derholenden gleichartigen Fundkombinationenhebt sich ein so erkannter, relativchronologischerAbschnitt deutlich ab. Schwierigkeiten entstehenbei der Anwendung der Methode fur Zeiten, indenen es an Sachgut und vor allem an sich wie-derholenden Kombinationen in geschlossendenFunden (vorwiegend Grabfunde) mangelt. Unddas trifft in hohem Masse auf die Ubergangszeit(Bronze-/Eisenzeit) im gesamten Raum siidlichder Ostsee zu. Sowohl in der P. VI der Bronzezeitals auch in Stufe la der vorromischen Eisenzeittreten keine sich wiederholenden Beigabenkom-binationen auf. Das Typenspektrum der Nadelnist beispielsweise so vielgestaltig, dass nur seltenziemlich gleichartige Formen anzutreffen sind.

Bildete sich doch aus dem a'rmlichen Grabbeiga-benspektrum der P. VI in Stufe la eine Kulturheraus, in der im wesentlichen nur eiserne Ge-genstande hinzutreten, die auf Grund der Metall-knappheit aber wenig materialintensiv und dazunoch zahlenmassig gering sind. Infolge dieserBeigabenknappheit lassen sich viele Graber nurnach der Keramik einer der beiden iibergangsstu-fen zuordnen, und das nicht immer mit grosserSicherheit, weil die Keramik langlebig ist und derFormennwandel sich allmahlich vollzieht. Eswird immer schwer sein - auch in materialinten-siven Zeiten - zwei aneinandergrenzende Stufeneindeutig voneinander abzugrenzen, weil derFormenablauf das Ergebnis eines kontinuierlichverlaufenden historischen Prozesses ist, dieTypologie nur ein Hilfsmittel zu dessen Darstel-lung und zur Hervorhebung charakteristischerqualitativer Unterscheide. Bei der Betrachtungder Ubergangsabschnitte ist es erforderlich auchBeobachtungen zur Grablegung und zu den Be-stattungssitten einzubeziehen (Abb. 2-3).

Entsprechend demFundanfall als auchdem Forschungsstandkann fur das Verbrei-tungsgebiet der Jas-torf-Kultur sudlichder Ostsee, das hinterder Oder auf polni-schem Territoriumendet, eine im Prinzipweitgehend gleichar-tige Entwicklung furden Bronze-Eisen-zeit-Ubergang ange-nommen werden,wenn auch regionalerFormenschatz pra-gend fur die ver-schiedenen Gebieteist. Mit P. VI wird dieerste Halfte dieserStufe verstanden, ihrezweite Halfte leitetals la die Eisenzeitein.

Abb.4: Zeitstufengliederung der vorromischen Eisen-zeit im Gebiet sudlich des Creifswalder Boddens (nachReinecke 1986, Abb- I).

100-

200-

300-

400-

500-1

Hb

— . — —

Da

Ib

— • — ' — — - —

laX

sX

X"/

X

P VI

NUI

E:O

O

i_OO)c

—)

-M

0)NC4)to

LLJ

£:O

ilO

0)

0)

:<

38

Abb, 5: Endphase der Bronzezeit in Ostmecklenburg (nach Keiling 1977, Abb. 2).

Abb. 6: Stufe la/b in Ostmecklenburg (nach Keiling 1971, Abb. 3).

Vorpommern (Abb. 4).(Eggers 1930, S. 17ff.,Gau 1939, Reinecke1987).

P. VI:Bronzene Schwanenhals-nadeln und Fingerringevon Flachgraberfeldernsind selten.

Bronzene Schwanenhals-nadeln und Fingerringevon Flachgraberfeldernsind selten.

Ungegliederte Gefasse,verwaschene Doppelkoniund hohe ungegliederteFormen gehoren an denAusklang der Bronzezeit.Einflusse der LausitzerKultur sind erkennbar.Knochenlager treten auf.

la:Metallsachgut fehlt fastvollig. Gekropfte Scha'I-chenkopfnadeln diirftendie Eisenzeit einleiten.

Hohe vasenformige, ge-schweifte und engmun-dige sowie gerauhte Top-fe sind typisch. Es gibtauch verschiedene Deck-schalen, darunter solchemit ausgebogenem Rand.Knochenlager sind vor-handen.

Ostmecklenburg (Abb. 5-

7).(Fenske 1986, Keiling1971,S. 13ff. Schoknecht1963, S. 93ff.)

P. VI:Auf den Flachgraberfel-dern tritt Metallsachgutnur selten auf, neben Na-delresten vor allem Bron-zeringe und vereinzelt einDreipass.

39

PU1.H.

Ib

Abb. 7: Endbronze- und dltere Eisenzeit in Cosa (nach Fenske 1986, Abb. 11).

Bei der Keramik sind Doppelkoni, ungegliederteTerrinen und Gefasse mit Halsabsatz sowieDeckschalen mit Schulter, geradem und einladen-den Rand charakteristisch. Anklange an die G6-ritzer Kultur lassen sich feststellen.

la:Metallsachgut tritt in den Urnengrabern ausserstselten auf. Es sind gekropfte eiserne Nadeln mitsenkrechtem Bronzescheibenkopf, bronzene undeiserne Schwanenhalsnadeln, eine eiserneSchlangenfibel und kleine eiserne Zungengurtel-haken bekannt.

Bei der Keramik iiberwiegen ungegliederte Ge-fasse mit Korperrauhung neben flaschenformigenund doppelkonischen Gefassen, weitbauchigenund hochhalsigen Vasen. Zum Bedecken der Ur-nen sind diverse Schalen und vereinzelt Kappen-deckel verwendet worden.

Sudwestmecklenburg (Abb. 8)(Keiling 1969a, 1974, & 1979)

Auf den meisten Urnenfriedhofen sind die Uber-gangsstufen nur schwach ausgebildet. EineAusnahme ist der Bestattungsplatz Lanz.

P. VI:Urnenfriedhofe mit Flachgrabern in unregelmas-sigen Steinpackungen oder ohne Steinschutz.Lehmverkleidung des Steinschutzes kann auftre-ten. Knochenlager sind Ausnahmen.

Die selten auftretenden Grabbeigaben bestehen inder Regel aus Bronze und Knochen. MassivesBronzesachgut fehlt fast ganz. Es herrschen feineDraht- und Blecharbeiten vor. Die Nadeln weiseneinen mehrmals gebogenen Schaft auf, die Kopf-gestaltung ist unterschiedlich (nagelformig, ein-gerollt, konisch, gerippt). Erste Eisengegenstandetreten auf (halbrunde Rasiermesser, gestreckteEisenmesser, Pinzetten).

Die Keramik ist uberwiegend ungegliedert oderdoppelkonisch, oft ungleichmassig geformt.Deckschalen, haufig mit Schulterauspragung undausladendem Rand, aber auch mit geradem undeinladendem Rand treten auf. Als Urnenbe-deckung kommen Gefassunterteile und andereGefassreste vor.

la:Flachgraberfriedhofe mit Hinwendung zu starke-ren Steinschutzbauten. Knochenlager bleiben

40

weiterhin Ausnahmen. Grabbeigaben sind selten,Bronze tritt gegeniiber dem Eisen als Rohmate-rial zuriick. Gestreckte eiserne Nadeln mit rundli-chem Kopf, kleine einfache eiserne Zungengtir-telhaken, mittelstarke dicklappige (echte) Wen-delringe und Spiralschmuck aus Bronze sind stu-fencharakteristisch.

Die Keramik wird durch Korperrauhung oderHalsabsatz gegliedert. Hochhalsige und weit-bauchige Vasen sowie Kannen sind typisch, des-gleichen hohe Schulterschalen und einfacheSchalen. Auch Gefassunterteile werden weiterhinals Urnenverschluss verwendet.

Abb. 8: Stufela/b in Glovzin, Kr. Perleberg (nach failing 1979, Abb. 12).

Abb. 9: Cosa, Kr. Neubrandenburg, Grab HO (nachFenske 1986, Tafel 27).

Sudostholstein (Hingst 1959, S. 122f.)

P. VT/la:Diese Stufe wird von Hans Hingst noch als aus-gehende Bronzezeit angesehen. Es gibt Depot-funde, wie Tremsbiittel, mit Wendelringen undBronzeknopfen. In Grabfunden treten bronzeneSchwanenhalsnadeln und eiserne Nadeln mit Hn-senfdrmigem Kopf auf. Die Keramik besteht ausAmphoren und Kegelhalsterrinen,

Ibl:Bronzespiralschmuck, einteilige Osenringe, ein-fache eiserne Zungengurtelhaken, Blechringket-ten, gerade eiserne Ringkopfnadeln und Nadelnmit rundlichem oder Rollenkopf kommen in un-gegliederten Urnen vor.

Hinsichtlich der Einbindung der relativchronolo-gischen Abschnitte bietet der Grabfund 110 vonCosa (Fenske 1986, S. 15ff.) Hinweise auf dieabsolute Zeitstellung der beiden Ubergangshori-zonte. In einer ungegliederten, hohen, steilrandi-gen Urne, die typologisch der Stufe Ta zugeordnet

41

Hall s t a t t - und La tenechrono logre zwischen Mittelgebirgen u. Ostsee

Zeit

etwa

~ 100—

—

tu

*tu

400-a

500-

£fj

M

•*- 600 —a

—

SCiden

allgemein

LI D1

_ _ — -2

Lt C1

Lt B 1

Lt A

^^\2

Ha D

Ha C 2

1

Ha B 3

Eister-Saaie-

Unstrut

H . 0 2

Lt Dl

_ — — —

Lt C(D

Lt B 1

Lt A

s.-'

" Ha 0 2/3

Ha C/Q1

^— '"""

Unstrut-gruppe

Brandenburg

— ". • —-

1

n b1

Ha 2

Ib

la

x

xx

jungste

Bronie-zett

j (i n

Luneburg

Seedorf(D

Ripdorf

Jastorf c

b

Jastorf

a

y/

^""(Wessenstedt!

P3ZI

Siid west -

Mecklenburg

He

Hb

Ha

Ic

I b

^"•*~

la

P ZI

g e r e B r o n z s i

Siidholstein

fld

c

n

U a

I c

I b

^-"la

(Tremsbiittel)

P 21

e i 1

Jutland

Mb

(2)

Ha

(D

n

I b

^-la'

P2I

P 2!

...

* <u

o> cc aj

UJ

01

u

eHI

a t_

:O O

"-at

W N

in 01

c.

• '°

03

. 70: Vergleichende Chronologie der HalhtaU- und Latenezeit (nach Peschel 1976, Abb, 1).

werden kann, lag eine zerbrochenen eiserneSchlangenfibel aus besonders gut erhaltenemMetall (Abb. 9). Diese Fibeln sind vor allem imWesthallstattkreis und Siidostalpengebiet verbrei-tet, moglicherweise in Oberitalien entstanden,aber dort fast ausschliesslich aus Bronze gefertigtworden. Generell wird die Fibel in Ha Dl datiert,steht aber nach R. Fenske den beiden eisernenFibeln von Gorduno (Kanton Tessin) nahe, dieals relativ spate Stucke betrachtet und in die

Stufe Ha D2 gesetzt werden (Fenske 1986, S.16). Es handelt sich also bei der Schlangenfibelvon Cosa um eine echte Spathallstattflbel, die imSiiden in die Zeit von 600-500 v.u.z. gehorendurfte. In diese Zeit ist bisher auch in Mecklen-burg die Stufe la gesetzt worden, womit dieCosa-Fibel den bisherigen Zeitansatzt stiitzt. Essind doch jedoch weitere Belege fur die abso-lutchronologische Stellung der Ubergangsstufenerforderlich (Abb. 10).

42

Zusammenfassung:

Der Ubergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit imRaum siidlich der Ostsee zeichnet sich in den ein-zelnen Siedlungsgebieten durch eine kulturellweitgehend einheitliche Entwicklung aus. Jung-bronzezeitliche Formen leben bis an den Beginnder Eisenzeit, der in der Regel durch dass Auftre-ten kleiner Eisengegenstande sich abhebt, weiter.Die Scheidung der Endstufe der Bronzezeit vonder Anfangsstufe der Eisenzeit wird erschwertdurch das Fehlen gleichartiger, sich nach denStufen unterscheidender Fundkombinationen, sodass die Anwendung der korrelationsstatistischenMethode an Grenzen stosst. Im Formenspektrumder Ubergangszeit spiegelt sich eine Entwicklungwider, die erst zu Beginn der Stufe Ib der Eisen-zeit durch neue spezifische Merkmale sich quali-tativ aussert. Dass der ermittelte absolutchronolo-gische Ansatz real sein du'rfte, wird durch dieSchlangenfibel von Cosa unterstrichen. Histo-risch gesehen spricht vieles dafur, dass sich dieBevolkerung der fruhen Jastorf-Kultur aus derder bodenstandigen Jungbronzezeit entwickelthat.

Litter atur:

Eggers, HJ. 1930: Zwei Urnenfriedhofe aus der Uni-gebung dcs Dorfes Netzeband (Kreis Greifs-wald), Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung vater-Idndischer Altertumer der Universitat Greifs-wald, Bd. iy 1930, pp. 17-37,

Fenske, R. 1986: Cosa. Ein Grdberfelder vorromi-schen Eisenzeit im Kreis Neubrandenburg.Beitrage zur Ur- und Friihgeschi elite derBczirke Rostock, Schwerin und Neubranden-burg, Bd. 19. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wis-senschaften, Berlin.

Gau, H. 1939: Die Westgermanen in Vorpom-mern zur altesten Eisenzeit. Ungedr. Diss.Greifswald.

Hingst, H. 1959: Vorgeschichte des Kreises Stor-marn. Kurt Wachholst, Neumiinster.

Keiling, H. 1969: Ein jungbronzezeitliches Urnen-grab von Repzin, Kr. Parchim. AusgrabungenundFunde 14, 1969. pp. 168-175.

Keiling, H. 1969a: Die vorrdmische Eisenzeit imElde-Karthane-Gebiet (Kreis Perleberg undKreis Ludwigslust), Beitrage zur Ur- undFrtihgeschichte der Bezirke Rostock, Schwe-rin und Neubrandenburg, Bd. 3. Museum furUr- und Fruhgeschichte, Schwerin.

1971: Formenschatz und relative Chro-nologie der Seengruppe Mecklenburgs wah-rend der vorromischen Eisenzeit. Mitteilun-gen des Bezirksfachausschusses fur Ur- undFruhgeschichte Neubrandenburg 18, 1971.pp. 13-21.

1974: Kolbow. Ein Urnenfriedhof dervorromischen Eisenzeit im Kreis Ludwigslust,Beitrage zur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte der Be-zirke Rostock, Schwerin und Neubranden-burg, Bd. 8. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wis-senschaften, Berlin.

1976: Zur Frage der Kontinuitat von derspaten Bronze- zur fruhen Eisenzeit. Ausgra-bungen undFunde 21, 1976. pp. 88-93.

1979: Glovzin. Ein Urnenfriedhof dervorromischen Eisenzeit im Kreis Perleberg.Beitrage zur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte der Be-zirke Rostock, Schwerin und Neubranden-burg, Bd. 12. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wis-senschaften, Berlin.

1989: Jastorfkultur und Germanen. Ar-chdologie in der Deutschen DemokratischenRepublik, red. U.Donat & E.Heydeck. Urania-Verlag, Leipzip, Jena, Berlin. Bd. 1, pp. 147-155.

Peschel, K. 1976: Hallstattzeit und Latenezeit. Aus-grabungen undFunde 21, 1976. pp. 94-107.

Reinecke, A. 1986: Ein Bestattungsplatz der vorromi-schen Eisenzeit von Latzow, Kreis Greifs-wald, Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg,Jahrbuch 1986. pp.45- 91.

1987: Ausgrabungen auf dem Jung-bronze- und eisenzeitlichen Grdberfeld vonWusterhusen, Kr. Greifswald (DDR), Wissen-schaftliche Beitrage der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitat, Greifswald.

Schoknecht, U. 1963: Ein Graberfeld mit neolitischenund fruheisenzeitlichen Bestattungen vonGielow, Kreis Malchin. Bodendenkmalpflegein Mecklenburg, Jahrbuch 1963. pp. 93-154.

Schwantes, G. 1909: Die Gra'ber der altesten Eisen-zeit im ostlichen Hannover. PraehistorischeZeitschrift, Bd. I, 1909- pp. 140-162.

43


FORROMERSK JARNALDER PA OLAND.

Monika Rasch, Stockholm

1. Introduktion:

Under de senaste tva decennierna har intresset forkronologiska studier minskat i Sverige. Samtidigthar tillvaxten av det arkeologiska materialet okati en tidigare inte kand omfattning. Detta har in-neburit att det manga ganger ytterst sparsammamaterial, som forskarna tidigare hade tillgang tillvid utarbetandet av kronologiska serier over detsvenska materialet, idag har blivit betydligt fylli-gare. Det fmns alltsa all anledning till fornyadestudier i amnet. Syftet med denna artikel ar attbelysa hur ett nytillkommet material kan ge endelvis ny och sakrare kunskap om ett tidsskedesfb'remalsbestand och dess tidsmassiga relationinom ett val avgransat omrade.

Omradet som valts ar Oland. On blev tidigt kandfor sina fdremalsrika gravfynd fran yngre forro-mersk och romersk jarnalder. Framfor allt komgravfynden fran den yngre delen att anvandas fli-tigt i olika kronologiska studier (jfr. Almgren1897; Jahn 1916; Moberg 1941; Nylen 1955;Hachmann 1960). Redan i dessa arbeten framstarde olandska fyndkomplexens betydelse for fbr-staelsen av utvecklingen i omradet runt sodraOstersjon under det aktuella tidsskedet. Det ny-tillkomna materialet, vilket ocksa innefattar enokning av fyndmangden fran aldre forromerskjarnalder, fbrstarker denna bild.

Innan analysen inleds torde en kort oversikt av dekronologisystem, som framsprungit ur tidigarestudier vara motiverad, da de utgor grunden fordagens syn pa foremalstypernas tidsmassiga rela-tion och darmed pa den kulturhistoriska utveck-lingen.

Den forsta mer genomgripande genomgangenoch bearbetningen av det nordiska jarnaldersma-terialet utfdrdes av Montelius. Resultatet blev enindelning av den forromerska jarnaldern i treperioder (Montelius 1896, s. 160ff). Bakgrundentill denna indelning skall sokas i Monteliusonskan att parallellisera den nordiska forromer-

ska jarnalderns olika stadier med lateneperioder-na inom det centralkeltiska omradet (Nylen 1955,s. 1). Montelius indelning blev ocksa allmant an-tagen och kom att pragla forskningen under nas-tan ett belt sekel. Detta trots att den andra perio-den var svar att defmiera och klart avgransa motde bada andra periodema. Nagra forskare, somforsokte losa problemet med den andra perioden,var Becker, Moberg och Nylen (Becker 1961, s.224ff; Moberg 1941, 1950, s. 83ff.; Nylen 1955,s.lf, 28f). Det tillgangliga materialet var dockfortfarande for litet for att nagon andring av denvedertagna indelningen skulle kunna genomforas.

Genom fornyade analyser under 1960- och 70-talen av det kontinentala gravmaterialet och daframst inom nordosttyskt omrade, har den forro-merska jarnaldern i detta omrade kunnat indelas itva huvudavsnitt, betecknade som period I och II(Keiling 1979, s. 3Iff ; Reinecke 1987, s. 9f,1988, oplubl.}. I bada studierna bygger indelnin-gen pa keramiken (Keiling 1979, s. 26ff; Mar-tens 1992). Medan Keiling i sin tur indelar badahuvudperioderna i tre faser vardera (a-c), foredrarReinecke och Martens att indela dem i tva (a-b).Till skillnad fran periodindelningen bygger fasin-delningen pa gravfunna metallforemal.

Aven i Skandinavien kom forskarna i praktikenatt indela den forromerska perioden i tva huvud-perioder, vilka fick beteckningarna aldre och yn-gre forromersk jarnalder. Darvid kom Monteliustva forsta perioder att raknas till den aldre delenoch den tredje till den yngre delen (Nylen 1955,s. l lf). Det omfangsrika fyndmaterialet fran dentredje perioden gjorde det mqjligt att vidarbear-beta det samma. Salunda indelade Nylen det got-landska gravmaterialet i fyra grupper, A-D, uti-fran fibulor och baltedetaljer. Grupperna motsva-rar en tidsperiod vars langd beraknas utifran anta-let gravfynd med respektive fibulatyp (ibid. s.397ff). Tidslangden for varje grupp anser Nylenvara ca. en generation och hanvisar till resultatetfran undersokningen av det mellersta gravfaltetvid Vallhagar.

Beckers studier omfattar hela det nuvarande Dan-mark och bygger framst pa keramikmaterialet(Becker 1961, 1990 och 1993). Till skillnad franNylens bearbetning ingar har aven boplatsmate-rial. Studierna resulterade i en bibehallen indel-ning av den a'ldre forromerska jarnaldern i tvaperioder. Daremot indelades den yngre i tva half-ter, per. Ilia och Illb, dar per. Ilia anses vara enlang inledningsfas, som kannetecknas av ett fatalforemalstyper, medan per. Illb ar en kort avslut-nings-/6vergangsfas, som kannetecknas av enokning av foremalstyper och att dessa avloservarandra i snabb takt. Indelningen i per. Ilia ochIllb bygger pa keramikens form, dar den kera-mik, som anses tillhora per. Ilia, ansluter till ke-ramikformer fran den a'ldre delen av den forro-merska jarnaldern, medan den keramik som re-presenterar per. Illb ansluter till keramikformer,som tillskrivs a'ldre romersk jarnalder (Becker1961, s. 259ff).

LillaSmedby

Karta nr. 1. Platser som omnamns i texten.Map no. ] . Places namned in the text.

Aven Hachmann har vidarbearbetat material franden senare delen av den forromerska jarnaldern. Imotsats till de forra innefattar denna studie heladet nordgermanska omradet, och trots att dennastudie tacker ett stort geografiskt omrade, och attmaterialet visar pa stora regionala skillnader, sakunde Hachmann indela materialet i fyra faser,vilka ansluter till Nylens indelning (Hachmann1960, s. 23Iff.).

Under senare ar har danska forskare ater bearbe-tat det danska materialet fran forromersk jarn-alder. Dessa studier baseras liksom de a'ldreframst pa keramikmaterialet och dess fora'ndringover tiden. Resultatet tenderar att bli en indelningi tva huvudavsnitt betecknade som period I och II(J. Martens, delta band).

2. Fyndmaterialet (Karta 1).

Som omtalades ovan ansag Nylen redan pa fetn-tiotalet, att det gotlandska materialet kunde inde-las i en a'ldre och en yngre del. Genomgangen avdet olandska gravmaterialet nedan kommer att vi-sa, att aven delta faller i tva halfter utifran grav-skick, foremalstyper och gravgodsets samman-sattning. Uppdelningen i tva huvudavsnitt har fattbeteckningarna a'ldre respektive yngre forromerskjarnalder och foljer darmed Nylens terminologi.

Fore de senaste trettio arens omfattande arkeolo-giska undersokningar var storre delen av den for-romerska jarnaldern sa golt som okand pa Oland.Salunda beskrev Marten Stenberger forskningsla-get pa foljande satt i sin avhandling 1933. "Lik-som annorstddes i Skandinavien kannetecknasden begynnande jarnaldern pa Oland av entorftig och tdmligen ensartad kultur. Fynden drofdtaliga och fran jdrnalderns forsta period arhittills blott ett enda ndgorlunda tillfdrlitligtgravfynd kdntfrdn on..." (Stenberger 1933, s. 1).Har syftar Stenberger pa ett osakkunnigt upptagetfynd fran Skogsbys a'gor i Torslunda socken. Hantillagger: "Den fattigdom pa fynd, som ar utmdr-kandefor de tva forsta perioderna av jarnaldern,forbytes pa Oland under den tredje perioden i enforhdllandevis stor fyndrikedom, som bildar upp-takten till den rika utvecklingen under denfoljan-deperioden..."(Stenberger 1933, s. 2). En iaktta-gelse som till viss del aven ga'ller dagens forsk-ningslage.

46

2.1. Aldre fdrromersk jarnalder:

Ironiskt nog hade ett gravfynd fran den fdrromer-ska jarnalderns aldre del framkommit vid Lop-perstad i Runsten socken 1932, men delta tycksinte ha uppmarksammats av Stenberger. Gravenutgjordes av en hallkista byggd av relativt smaoch glest stallda kalkstensflisor. I kistan lag ettskelett i rygglage och vid dess midja patraffadesen ovalformad baltehake (Rasch 1991, s. 350ff.).

av jam, medan den andra kistan var fyndtom.Enligt gravningsrapporten inneholl aven dentredje graven ett toremal. Detta beskrivs somplant bandformigl jarnfragment. La'get antyder attocksa detta jarnfragment ursprungligen kan havarit en baltehake (SHM 24.846). Tyvarr harfyndet inte kunnat alerfmnas i SHM:s samlingarvarfor detta inte kan verifieras. Ett foto i SHM:sarkiv visar pa ett slorre och fern mindre planabandformiga jarnfragment.

Karta nr. 2. Plan over gravfaltet vid Ldngerum i Kalla sn.innehaller fdremal fran fdrromersk jarnalder.Map no. 2. Plan of the cemetery at Ldngerum in Kallahatching contain items dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

Darefter skulle det drqja 21 ar innan nya grav-fynd fran den aktuella perioden kom till arkeolo-gernas kannedom. Ell av dessa aterfanns i enhallkista ca. 300 m OSO om Torslunda kyrka iTorslunda socken (Pelersson 1956, s. 135f.). Avhallkislan alerstod endasl den norra delen och avskelettet endasl dess ovre del. Vid dess vanstraoverarm lag en dekorerad benknapp och omedel-bart over backenet nagra jarnfragment.

Det andra fyndet framkom vid N Kvinneby iStenasa socken och utgjordes av tre skelettgravar,varav tva i hallkista (Nylen 1957, s. 70). I en avhallkistorna patraffades en dubbelspiralbaltehake

Vid en de hinder sok-ning 1959-62 av ettgravfalt strax osier omTombotten by i Al-gutsrums socken pa-traffades bl. a. enringhuvudnal av jam iA 6. Nalen aterfannstillsammans med enbronshalsring med pa-ronformat las i ettbenlager. Foremals-kombinationen visar,att foremalen bor till-hora tva separatagravlaggningar, ochen grop i fyndets ome-delbara narhet anty-der, att nagot av fore-malen bor kommafran denna (Rasch1991, s. 189).

Den stora gravfalls-

Gravarsomdrskrafrerade undersokningen straxvasler om Folkeslun-

parish. Graves marked by da by i Langlols soc-ken 1968-1973 resul-lerade bl. a. i tva gra-

var med fbremal fran den behandlade perioden(Lund & Rasch 1991, s. 286ff.)- Fynden fran A309, en hallkisla, ulgjordes av en ovalformadballehake av jam, Iva sma beslag av silver och ensvinbele med genomborral hal. A 216, en grav-grop under kalkslenshallar, inneholl fbrutom ske-lett av tva individer en slangknapp av benliknande den fran Torslunda (Lund & Rasch1991,s.286, 324ff.).

I samband med ell forskningsprojekt om StoraAlvarels bebyggelseutveckling och nytljande un-der forhislorisk lid undersoktes ett mindre grav-falt pa Gosslunda bys marker i Hulterslads soc-

47

ken. Gravfaltet utgjordes av ett rose samt nagraflatmarksgravar (Jansson i manus). Sjalva resetvisade sig innehalla ett flertal gravlaggningar,vilka i lid stracker sig fran bronsalder till vikin-gatid, medan de daterbara gravlaggningarna i denomgivande marken kunde tidsfastas till senbronsalder och forromersk jarnalder. En av de se-nare utgjordes av en hallkista, A l l , vilken forut-om skelett av en kvinna inneholl tva baltehakar,kedjefragment samt tenformade jarnfragment.Mqjligen ar de tenformiga jarnfragmenten resterav en eller tva draktnalar (Konigsson & Rasch,Olands jarnaldersgravfalt, vol III in print).

Det kanske intressantaste fyndet gjordes i sam-band med en vagbreddning vid Langerum i Kallasocken 1970-72. Av totalt 25 gravlaggningar in-neholl hela sex stycken foremal daterbara till denforromerska jarnalderns aldre del (karta 2). Samt-liga var skelettgravar varav fyra aterfanns i hall-kista. Varje gravgomma tacktes av en lag rundstensattning, som avslutades med en kantkedja. A9, 25 och 26 inneholl ovalformade baltehakar,medan A 2, 3 och 21 inneholl draktnalar (Hol-gersson 1978, s. 50ff.; Olands jarnaldersgravfalt,vol IV i manus).

2.2. Yngre forromersk jarnalder

Aven for denna del har fyndbilden blivit fylligaregenom de senaste decenniernas stora undersok-ningar.

Atta gravlaggningar fran den undersokta delen avgravfaltet vid Bo gard i Bredsatra socken inne-holl fynd, som kan hanforas till den aktuella pe-rioden. A 17 inneholl vapen, medan de ovriga in-neholl drakttillbehor och ibland aven smyckeneller redskap, A 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21 (Sjoberg1987, s. 23Iff.)-

Vid undersokningen av ett starkt odlingsskadatgravfalt melfan Sorby och Storlinge byar i Gards-losa socken patraffades aven nagra gravar franden behandlade tidsperioden. Bl. a. inneholl fyraeller fern vapen, A 6, 142, 147, 157, 182, och tvabaltedetaljer och fibula, A 9 och 35 (ibid. s.342ff.).

Av de undersokta gravarna pa gravfaltet norr omRyds by i Glomminge socken inneholl fyra fore-mal, som traditionellt dateras till yngre forro-mersk jarnalder. A 6 innholl en bronskittel med

jarnrand och en trekantsfibula, medan A 1, 7 och8 inneholl vapen (Rasch 1991, s. 84ff).

Tva gravar fran gravfaltet vid Folkeslunda iLanglots socken inneholl foremal fran perioden.Benlagret A 200 inneholl en T-formig fibula medfalsk spiral och lokformade andknoppar, medanbrandgropen A 202 inneholl ,tva trekantsfibulor(Lundh & Rasch 1991, s. 294ff).

Fran gravfaltet oster om Tornbotten by kommertre gravfynd fran den aktuella perioden, varavfynden fran A 64 bestar av ett baltegarnityr, A 14av skolddetaljer och A 43 av en redskapsuppsatt-ning (Rasch 1991,s. 169ff).

Det sista gravfaltet, som givit mer an ett gravfyndfran den forromerska jarnalderns senare del, arbelaget vid Ovra Aleback i Gardby socken.(Bjehrentz 1896, s. 107ff; Sjoberg 1991, s. 425).Utifran fyndinnehallet kan atta gravlaggningardateras t i l l den forromerska periodens yngre del,varav sju innehaller vapen, A 2, 6, 10, 13, 15, 33och nr 8 norra, och ett, A 29, fragment av fibula,halsring och baltegarnityr (Sjoberg 1991, s. 441).

Gemensamt for denna grupp ar att likbegangelse-formen ar kremering och att gravgomman vanli-gen tacks av en rund eller rektangular stensatt-ning.

Tre gravar med foremal sty per, som traditionelltdateras till yngre forromersk jarnalder, avvikerfran den ga'ngse likbegangelseformen genom, attden dode jordats obrand i en hallkista. En av des-sa patraffades vaster om N Mockleby kyrka i NMockleby socken, dar en delvis forstord hallkistaaterfanns under en ursprungfigen rund stensatt-ning (ibid. s. 392ff). Kistan inneholl nedre delenav ett skelett och langs dess larben lag delar avett baltegarnityr bestaende av 16 dubbelknapparoch tva remandebeslag (ibid. s. 413).

Den andra graven kommer fran Lilla Smedby iSmedby socken och gravgodset utgors av tre tre-kantsfibulor, ett baltegarnityr, fyra bronsparlor,en jarnkniv och hartstatning (Nylen 1957, s.73ff).

Det tredje gravfyndet med foremal fran den ak-tuella perioden eller mqjligen slutet av den forra,harror fran gravfaltet vid Folkeslunda, A 124. Ihallkistan patraffades forutom ett skefett aven endolkklinga, en kniv samt ringformiga jarnfrag-

ment, mojligen balteringar (Lundh & Rasch1991, s. 322f.).

3. Tva formvarldar

Fynden fran de senaste trettio arens undersb'k-ningar ger en delvis ny bild av 6ns gravskick ochfdremals former. Tyvarr saknas annu boplatsfyndoch darmed ett storre keramikmaterial. Darmedfar de kronologiska studierna tills vidare baseraspa gravfunna metallforernal.

Gravmaterialet kan omedelbart delas i tva halfterutifran gravgodsets sammansattning och mangdsamt aven till viss del genom valet av likbegan-gelseform. En halft utgors nastan uteslutande avskelettgravar, vilka oftast endast innehaller ett fo-remal, och detta a'r av kategorin drakttillbehor.Den andra halften utgors framst av brandgravar,vilka merendels innehaller mer an ett foremal. Tden senare upptrader ocksa vanligen flera fore-malskategorier i samma gravfynd. Foremalen i debada grupperna tillhor olika formvarldar, vilketindikerar att de bor vara atskilda i tid.

3.1. Aldre torromersk iarnalder

Gravlaggningarna fran denna perioden kanne-tecknas av jordande i hallkista eller i gravgrop,vilken ibland a'r tackt av en mycket lag jordblan-dad rund stensa'ttning med kantkedja. Samtligabevarade foremal kan tillskrivas kategorin drakt-tillbehor och utgors av baltehakar, draktnalar ochknappar.

3.1.a. Baltehakar (fig.l).De olandska baltehakarna a'r av tva typer, dels enovalformad med hake i bada a'ndar, dels en typdar ena anden avslutas med en hake och den an-dra med spiraler, fig. la-d. Den senare kan inde-las i tva undergrupper, dar en grupp utgors avfyra hopsmidda ja'rntenar med inatrullade spiralermedan den andra utgors av tva hopsmidda jarnte-nar med utatrullade spiraler.

Huruvida spiralbaltehakar skall sa'ttas i sambandmed spiralforsedda foremal fran bronsaldernsslutskede och darmed vara aldre an den ovala ty-pen eller om spiralornamentet har varit i bruk un-der ett la'ngre tidsavsnitt a'r svart att avgora i da-gens forskningsla'ge. Hjarthner-Holdar anser, attspiralbaltehaken fran N Kvinneby i Stenasa soc-ken, fig. la, bor tidsfa'stas till jarnalderns inled-ning. Dateringen bygger bl. a. pa tillverkningssat-tet, vilket Hjarthner-Holdar anser vara en kvarle-va fran sen bronsalder, men ocksa pa spiralmoti-vet, vilket anses kanneteckna bronsalderns slut,samt pa grankvistorneringen, vilken traditionelltdateras till jarnalderns inledning (Nylen 1957, s.71; Hjarthner-Holdar 1993, s. 136, 147). Att spi-ralmotivet endast skulle forekomma under senbronsalder motsa'gs av fynd fran bl.a. Baltikum,dar det fortlever in i romersk jarnalder, jfr. spi-ralnalen fran Grobin och hattbonader med brons-skallor och spiralha'ngen fran Schernen, bada franLitauen (Petrenko 1990, s. 47; Blumbergs 1972,s. 162). Hakens na'rmaste paralleller finns i syd-ostra Norge, men aven har ar bristen pa slutnafyndkombinationer stor, vilket gor en narmaredatering mycket svar (Nylen 1957, s. 72 med daranford litteratur).

Fig. 1. Bdltehakar: a, N. Kvinneby, Stenasa sn, SHM 24 847; b-c, anl, nr. 11, Gosslunda ror, Hulterstads sn; d,anl. nr. 26, Langerum, Kalla sn. Teckning C. Bonnevier. Skala 1:2.Fig. 1: Belt hooks: a, N. Kvinneby, Stenasa parish, SHM 24 847; b-c, A. 11, Gosslunda ror, Hulterstad parish;d, A. 26, Langerum, Kalla parish. C. Bonnevier del. scale 1:2.

49

Den andra typen av baltehake med spiralupprul-lad ande har utatrullade spiraler. Hittills ar avendenna typ endast kand i ett exemplar pa Oland.Den patraffades i hallkistan A 11 pa gravfaltetvid Gosslunda by i Hulterstads socken, fig. Ib. Itva nyligen publicerade arbeten visar Becker, atttypens spridningsomrade innefattar Bornholm,Ostergotland, Sveriges vastkusts norra del samtomradet kring Oslofjorden (Becker 1990, s. 120och 1993, s. 8f.). Tre fynd fran ett begransat om-rade i nordostra Sodermanland visar, att typenaven forekommer langs Sveriges ostkust (Hjart-ner-Holdar 1993, s. 155f. samt ett annu opubli-cerat fynd fran Grodinge socken i Soderman-land).

tycks den ovalformade vara mera allmant spridd,fig. Id. Ovalformade baltehakar har framkommiti en grav pa gravfaltet vid Lopperstad (SHM 20131) samt i A 9, 25 och 26 pa gravfaltet vid Lan-gerum och i A 309 pa gravfaltet vid Folkeslunda.I det sistnamnda fyndet ingar aven en genombor-rad svinbete och tva sma silverbeslag. Beslagenar unika och darmed tills vidare obrukbara somdateringsunderlag (Lundh & Rasch 1991, s. 326).

Ovala baltehakar forekommer ocksa pa Born-holm samt i omradena soder om Ostersjon. Kei-ling daterar hakarna fran nordostra Tyskland tillperiod Ib, medan typen pa Bornholm upptrader ifyndkombinationer, vilka kan dateras till saval

Fig. 2. Draktnalar: a, anl, nr. 2, b, anl. nr. 21, Ldngerum, Kalla sn; c-d, anl. nr. 3, Langerum, Kdlla sn; e,anl. nr. 6, Tornbotten, Algutsrums sn. Teckmng C. Bonnevier. Skala 1:2.Fig. 2. Dress pins: a, A. 2, b, A. 21, Ldngerum, Kdlla parish; c-d, A. 3, Ldngerum, Kdlla parish; e, A. 6,Tornbotten, Algutsrums parish. C. Bonnevier del. Scale 1:2.

I ett flertal vastsvenska och norska fynd ingaraven draktnalar av period I typ (Becker 1990, s.120). Rester av en draktnal har ocksa patraffats igravfyndet fran Gosslunda, men denna ar safragmentarisk, att den inte kan typbestammas. Ifyndet ingar vidare annu en baltehake, vars ur-sprungliga form ar svartolkad, fig. Ic, samt frag-ment av jarnkedja. Om samtliga foremal tillhoren och samma gravlaggning, sa anger kedjefrag-menten en datering till periodens mitt.

Medan den spiralformade baltehaken endasttycks forekomma i enstaka exemplar pa on, sa

aldre som till en tidig del av yngre forromerskjarnalder (Becker 1990, s. 120, 1993, s. 10; Kei-Iingl979, s. 21, Abb. 9).

Troligen skall de olandska ovalformade balteha-karna ses i samband med de bornholmska och bordarmed dateras till mitten av den forromerskajarnaldern.

3. l.b. Draktnalar (fig.2).Samtliga olandska draktnalar fran forromerskjarnalder ar tillverkade i jam och nastan alia harden karakteristiska bygeln pa halsen. Det, som

50

skiljer naltyperna at, ar utformningen av nalenshuvud. Tva nalar avslutas "med inatrullade spira-ler (fig. 2a-b), en tredje bar ett ringformat huvud(fig. 2e), en fjarde har cylindriskt eller mojligenkvadratiskt utformat huvud (fig. 2c), och for enfemte gar del inte att sa'kert avgora huvudets ut-formning (fig. 2d).

Draktnalar av den forsta typen framkom i A 2och 21 pa gravfa'ltet vid Langemm i Kalla soc-ken. Typen ar varken kand fran ovriga Skandi-navien eller i omradet soder om Ostersjon utantycks vara en lokal form, mojligen med anknyt-ning till Baltikum da'r en liknande nal har patraf-fats (Petrenko 1990, s. 46). Det litauiska exem-plaret skiljer sig fran de bada ola'ndska genom, attden saknar den karakteristiska bygeln. Daterin-gen av den litauiska nalen forlagger Petrenko tilltiden efter Kristi fb'delse, och aven om de ola'nd-ska exemplaren inte bor dateras till en sa sen pe-riod, sa fmns det inslag i gravlaggningen i formav matoffer i A 2, som gor en datering till densenare delen av aldre forromersk jarnalder trolig(ibid. s. 47).

Aven hallkistgraven A 3 fran samma gravfalt in-neholl minst tva draktnalar. En av nalarna harlagtplacerad bygel och fortjockat huvud (fig. 2c).Nalen, som ar av Stabkopftyp eller mojligen avVierkopftyp, har sin na'rmaste motsvarighet ifynd fran nordostra Tyskland. Keiling daterar debada typerna till overgangen mellan aldre ochyngre forromersk jarnalder, Keilings period Ic/IIa(Keiling 1979, s. 19f. och Abb. 9).

Den andra nalen (fig. 2d) har ursprungligen varitminst 15 cm lang. En teckning av nalen in situ ty-der pa, att dess huvud varit W-format. Forekom-sten av ytterligare ett W-format fragment liksomytterligare ett nalspetsfragment indikerar, att detkan rora sig om en "Doppelnadel" (Polenz 1986,s. 215, 217). Nalspetsen kan dock tillhora nalenav Stabkopftyp och i sa fall torde den forra varaen enkelnal med manga vindlingar.

Ursprungsomradet for dubbelnalen anses varaGrekland och Italien, da'r den upptrader redan pa700-talet f. Kr. Harifran spreds typen till bl.a.Balkan, dar den utifran gravkombinationer tycksha varit i bruk under en mycket lang tid, 600-200-talet f. Kr.. Vidare tycks naltypen vara vanligi Sydryssland och Anatolien, medan endast en-staka exemplar ar kanda i Mellaneuropa (ibid. s.216). En naltyp som ansluter till dubbelnalen ar

enkelnalen med manga vindlingar. Derma typfmns foretradesvis i Ryssland och i de baltiskalanderna (Petrenko 1978, s. 19). Enstaka exem-plar ar ocksa kanda fran Gotland (jfr. Fornvannen1935, s. 112 fig. 2). Likheten mellan dubbelnalenoch enkelnalen med de manga vindlingarna tyderpa, att den senare ar en variant av den forra. Pe-trenkos datering av dubbelnalen till tiden ca. 600-300 f. Kr. och enkelnalen med de manga vindlin-garna till 300-200-talen f. Kr., styrker detta anta-gande (ibid. s. 19).

I Langerumsgraven patraffades ocksa en stormangd sma jarnfragment, varav en del, att domaav formen, mojligen ar rester av en kedja. Dess-utom inneholl graven djurben av far/get och not.Sava'l nalarna, kedjefragmenten som djurbenenvisar, att graven bor vara anlagd under senare de-len av a'ldre forromersk jarnalder.

Till sist skall ett fynd omnamnas, da'r fyndom-standigheten ar oklar. Det kommer fran gravfa'l-tet oster om Tornbotten by i Algutsrums socken,A 6 (fig. 2e) och utgors av en ringhuvudnal avjam. Glodpatinan tyder pa, att nalen bor kommafran en brandgrav. Naltypens fra'msta utbred-ningsomrade ar mellan floderna Elbe och Oder,samt sodra Jylland. Enligt Keiling bor naltypendateras till slutet av den aldre forromerska ja'rnal-dern, medan Becker daterar den till slutet av sinper. I (Keiling 1974, s. 30; Becker 1961, s. 252).Med tanke pa likbegangelseformen bor det oland-ska gravfyndet dateras till en mycket sen del avden a'ldre eller troligare inledningen av den yngreforromerska ja'rnaldern.

3.I.e. Benknappar (fig. 3).En foremalsgrupp, som hittills endast ar kandfran Oland, ar benknappen. Mojligen kan dettaforklaras av, att benfb'remal bevaras battre i 6nskalkrika jord och pa likbegangelseformen, somunder den aktuella tidsperioden ar jordande.

Fig. 3. Benknapp:anl. nr. 216, Folkes-lunda, Ldnglot sn.Teckning C. Bonne-vier. Skala 1:2.

Fig. 3. Bone buttons: A. 216, Folkeslunda, Langlotparish. C. Bonnevier del. Scale 1:2.

Hittills fmns tre ola'ndska gravfynd med ben-knappar registrerade. Dessa ar A 216 vid Folkes-

51

lunda i Langlots socken, A 1 vid Torsborg 3:3 iTorslunda socken och SHM inv nr. 7701 franLilla Brunneby i Stenasa socken (Lundh & Rasch1991, s. 324; Petersson 1956, s. 135ff). Fyndenfran Torsborg och Lilla Brunneby inneholl avenmetalIforemal. Fyndomstandigheterna for detsistnamnda fyndet ar dock ytterst oklara. Graven,som inte ar sakkunnigt undersokt, utgjordes en-ligt upphittaren av en hallkista, i vilken lag ettstorre och ett mindre skelett. Invid och pa skelet-ten lag en benknapp, en bronshalsring, armspira-ler av brons samt ett jarnforemal. Det senare tol-kades av upphittaren som rester av en kniv. Hals-ringen och armspiralerna la'r ha patraffats vid detstorre skelettet, medan benknappen och jarnfore-malet aterfanns pa och invid det mindre skelettet.Om jarnforemalet verkligen var en kniv gar inteatt kontrollera, eftersom det inte tillvaratogs avupphittaren (Oldeberg 1935, s. 247ff.). Dess lageantyder dock, att det mycket val kan ha varit res-ter av en baltehake.

gravfynd med till andra perioder klart daterbarafyndkombinationer.

3.2. Yngre_.fQrrQ_mersk jarnalder

Den yngre forromerska jarnaldern kannetecknasav, att gravgodset utokas med nya foremalskate-gorier, att gamla foremalstyper ersatts med nyaoch att Hkbegangelseformen overgar fran jordan-de till kremering. Nya foremalskategorier arsmycken, redskap och vapen. Den sedan tidigareingaende foremalskategorin drakttillbehor farhelt nya foremalstyper. Salunda ersatter fibulordraktnalar och baltegarnityr baltehakar.

3.2.a. Fibulor (fig. 4).De fibulatyper, som upptrader i olandska grav-fynd fran denna perioden ar T-formiga fibulorsamt Kostrzewskis fibulatyp I, K och N.

Den T-formiga fibulan ingar i tva gravfynd.Av dessa aterfanns en i en liten stenkistamed branda ben under en rund stensattningpa gravfaltet vid Karums alvar i Hogsrumsocken, A 5, medan den andra patraffades iett benlager inom en stenkrets under enrund stensa'ttning pa gravfaltet vid Folkes-lunda i Langlots socken, A 200 (Schulze1991, s. 32; Lundh & Rasch 1991, s. 323).

Fig. 4. Fibulor: a, anl. nr. 200, Folkeslunda, Langlot sn; b,anl. nr 10, Ovra Aleback, Gardby sn; c, anl. nr. 13, VallhagarM, Frojel sn Gotland; d, anl. nr. 9, Bo gdrd, Bredsatra sn.Teckning C. Bonnevier. Skala 1:2.Fig. 4. Brooches: a, A. 200, Folkeslunda, Langlot parish; b, A.10, Ovra Aleback, Gardby parish; c, A. 13, Vallhagar M,Frojel parish, Gotland; d, A. 9, Bo gdrd, Bredsatra parish. C.Bonnevier del. Scale 1:2.

Jarnfragmenten fran gravfyndet vid Torsborg tol-kas av utgravaren som " rester av rial?" , menfragmentens lage " over backenet" tyder pa attaven dessa ar rester av en baltehake. Detta gartyvarr inte att bekrafta, eftersom Jarnfragmenteninte kunnat aterfinnas.

Dateringen av benknapparna till aldre forromerskjarnalder far tills vidare vila pa de till baltehakartolkade Jarnfragmenten, som ingar i tva av grav-fynden och att benknappar inte har aterfunnits i

Av fibulan fran Karums alvar aterstar en-dast den yttersta delen av spiralen, medanfibulan fran Folkeslunda ar i det narmastehel (fig. 4a). Den senare ar tillverkad i jamoch forsedd med falsk spiral, som avslutasmed lokformade bronskladda andknoppar.Bortsett fran en detalj pa bagen sa over-ensstammer exemplaret fran Folkeslundamed en fibula fran grav 536 vid N0rre San-degard pa Bornholm (Becker 1990, fig.47). Detta ar overraskande med tanke pa attflertalet olandska fibulatyper fran den har

perioden har sina narmaste motsvarigheter paGotland. De olandska T-fibulorna ar svardateradeeftersom de inte ingar i nagon fbremalskombi na-tion. Daremot visar gravfynd fran bl. a. Gotlandoch Bornholm, att typen bor dateras till inlednin-gen av yngre forromersk jarnalder (Becker 1990,s. 120;Nylen 1955, s. 417ff.).

En av de vanligaste fibulatyperna inom det ost-germanska omradet under sen forromersk jarnal-der ar den triangulara fibulan, Kostrzewskis vari-

52

ant K (fig. 4b). Pa Oland patraffas den saval par-vis som i enkelexemplar och ofta tillsammansmed andra fbremalskategorier.

A 202 fran gravfaltet vid Folkeshmda i Langlotsocken inneholl tva trekantsflbulor. Av den enafibulan aterstar endast bagen, som ar av jam, me-dan den andra bar en bage av brons saml nal ochspiral av jam. Fyndet ar intressant dels genom re-parationen pa den ena fibulan och att reparatio-nen har utforts i annan metall, dels genom, att pa-ret ar tillverkade i tva olika metaller. De olikametallerna samt pa vilket satt de anvants tyderpa, att den fibula som har en bage av brons ar denaldsta, och att man tillverkat jarnfibulan medbronsfibulan som forlaga.

Brandlagret A4 pa gravfaltet vid Langerum iKalla socken inneholl en trekantsfibula. Enligtgravningsrapporten tycks brandlagret ha genom-gravts vid anlaggandet av en hallkista, A 20 (Hol-gersson 1978 s. 52f, rapport i manus). Den senaresaknar foremal och kan darmed inte ge nagonytterligare ledtrad vid dateringen av A 4.

Trekantsflbulor har vidare patraffats i tva oland-ska kittelgravar, A 6 vid Ryd i Glomminge soc-ken och A 10 vid Ovra Aleback i Gardby socken(fig. 4b). I den sistnamnda patraffades aven va-pendetaljer, vilka kan hanforas till den forsta va-penhorisonten pa on, se nedan (Rasch 1991, s.87;Sjobergl991,s. 450ff.}.

I gravfyndet, A 8, fran gravfaltet vid Bo gard iBredsatra socken, var fibulatypen kombineradmed en synal av jam. Da fyndet troligen innehal-ler ben efter tva kvinnor kan det inte uteslutas attgravgodset tillhor tva separata gravlaggningar,vilka inte nodvandigtvis behover vara samtida(Sjoberg 1987, s. 274). Skulle nalen och trekants-fibulan tillhora samma gravlaggning, sa ar detden hittills aldsta dateringen av en synal i ettolandskt gravfynd.

Fran samma gravfalt kommer ytterligare ett grav-fynd innehallande en trekantsfibula, A 20. I dettafynd ar fibulan kombinerad med ett baltegarnityrnarmast likt Nylen 1955, fig. 297:3, och tva rem-andebeslag av Beckers typ A (Sjoberg 1987, s.277; Becker 1993, fig. 6).

Gravfyndet fran Lilla Smedby i Smedby sockeninnehaller inte mindre an tre trekantsflbulor, enav brons och tva av jam. Till fyndet hor ocksa tva

spiralparlor, en hoprullad och en bikonisk parla,samtliga av brons, ett baltegarnityr av Beckerstyp 6b eller 7 och ett remandebeslag av Beckerstyp D (Becker 1993, fig. 7,8).

Flertalet dlandska trekantsflbulor ar ganska korta,ofta under 5 cm, och flertalet saknar kam. De argjutna i ett stycke och overgangen mellan spiraloch bage ar fortjockad likt tidiga profilerade fibu-lor, jfr Almgrens typ 65-69 (Nylen 1955, s.429ff). Vanligen har bagens framre del en ten-dens till en konkav profil. Nagra fibulor ar kraf-tiga och ornerade pa nalhallare och ibland avenlangs bagen, t. ex. A 20 fran Bo gard. Andra arbelt slata och tillverkade av en ganska tunn ten, t.ex. fibulan i A 4 fran Langerum och A 202 franFolkeslunda. Trekantsfibulorna, som aterfanns ide bada kittelgravarna, avviker fran de ovriga ge-nom att vara kraftigare och langre. Bada ar drygt7 cm langa och forsedda med en liten kam justvid bagens knick.

Fibulatypens tidsmassiga stallning i Norden harvarit foremal for diskussion allt sedan slutet av1800-talet. Almgren havdade, att typen fortlevt ini aldre romersk jarnalder, en asikt som avenStenberger anslot sig till (Almgren 1896, s. 3f;Stenberger 1948, s. 203f.). Till ungefar sammatid, period ICb, har Becker daterat de nordjyl-landska exemplaren, medan Dabrowska och Ny-len forlagger introduktionen nagot tidigare (Bec-ker 1961, s. 263; Dabrowska 1988, s. 322; Nylen3955, s. 399). Aven Werner forlagger flertalettrekantsflbulor till overgangen mellan forromerskoch aldre romersk jarnalder och visar pa ett typo-logiskt samband med den s.k. "Norische Fibel",som upptrader inom det ostkeltiska omradet(Werner 1977, s. 394).

Det bor ocksa noteras, att i de fall tidiga importe-rade kittlar och spannar ar kombinerade med fi-bula, sa ar denna av typen trekantsfibula, jfr. 1s-berga i Heda socken Ostergotland, samt Ryd iGlomminge och Ovra Aleback i Gardby socken,(Ekholm 1921, s. 49; Rasch 1991, s. 87; Sjoberg1991,s.450ff).

En liten rektangular fibula med tillbakabojd nal-hallare avloser trekantsfibulan pa Oland (fig. 4c).Fibulan ar en variant av Kostrzewskis typ T(Kostrzewski 1919 s. 23f). I Sverige ar typenframst kand genom fynd fran Oland och Gotland.Har far den ocksa en alldeles egen utformning

53

och ornering. Nylen menar, att typen utgor enegen horisont mellan trekantsfibulan och fibulamed kraftigt svangd bage (Nylen 1955, s. 399).Att fibulan skulle bilda en egen tidshorisont harifragasatts av Becker (Becker 1993, s. 16), menutifran saval gotlandska som olandska fyndkom-binationer bor Nylens antagande vara helt riktigt.Salunda upptrader fibulatypen pa Oland med bal-tegarnityr av Beckers typ 2 och remandebeslag avBeckers typ A, och troligen aven med rembeslagav typen dubbelknapp jfr. gravfyndet Iran A 29vid Ovra Aleback nedan.

I gravfyndet A 21 fran Bo Card ingar delar av tvafibulor av typen liten rektangular fibula med till-bakabqjd nalhallare (Sjoberg 1987, s. 278). Ty-varr ar saval fibulorna som delar av baltegarnity-ret mycket fragmentariska, vilket gor en narmaretypbestamning svar. Bland gravgodset finns ock-sa fragment av ett remandebeslag av Beckers typA samt spiralparlor av brons, vilket skulle daterafyndet till Nylens grupp C (Becker 1993, s. 19;Nylen 1955, s. 399).

Annu ett gravfynd, A 29 vid Ovra Aleback, inne-haller fragment av en fibula med tillbakabqjd nal-hallare (Sjoberg 1991, s. 462). Till fyndet hor vi-dare ett halsringsfragment, ett litet fragment aven balteplatta och ett rembeslag i form av dubbel-knapp. Forutom fibulafragmentet ar det endastdubbelknappen, som ger en narmare datering avgravfyndet och detta genom ett gravfynd fran NMockleby i N Mockleby socken, i vilket balte-beslagen ar kombinerade med remandebeslag avBeckers typ B och C (se nedan).

Ett avbildat fynd i "Zonengliederungen der vor-christlichen Eisenzeit in Nordeuropa" uppges avMoberg att vara ett gravfynd fran Gardby i Gard-by socken. Fyndet bestir av en fibula med tillba-kabqjd nalhallare, en skara, en krumkniv och enpryl (Moberg 1941, s. 139, Abb. 19). En gransk-ning av fyndomstandigheterna visar emellertid,att foremalen ar funna vid grushamtning tillsam-mans med en rad andra foremal i en grustakt iovan namnda by, och darmed far fyndet betraktassom ett blandat fynd.

Den fibulatyp, som anses avsluta den fb'rromer-ska jarnaldern, har kraftigt svangd bage och arvanligen forsedd med en genombruten nalhallare(fig. 4d). Pa valbevarade exemplar finns en vulstpa bagen, vilken ibland kan overga i en kam.

Partiet mellan spiral och vulst, liksom overgan-gen mellan bage och spiral, kan vara dekorerad.Fibulatypens huvudomrade tycks vara Nedre El-be, men den ar aven vanlig inom Przeworsk-kulturen samt i mellersta Tyskland och Bohmen(Cosack 1979, s. 21ff; Dabrowska 1988, s. 322).I Skandinavien patraffas den framst pa Oland ochGotland, medan typen ar ovanlig i ovriga omra-den. Fibulatypen finns i en rad varianter, sasomKostrzewskis variant M, N, O, samt Almgrensoch Cosacks "Armbrustfibula", fortsattningsvisbenamnd armborstfibula. De olandska exempla-ren star typologiskt narmast Cosacks armborstfi-bula med smal fot och Kostrzewskis variant N.

Redan Almgren ansag, att fibulor av armborsttyputvecklats ur de sena latenefibulorna, och savalKostrzewski som Cosack daterar typen till in-ledningen av aldre romersk jarnalder (Almgren1897, s. 7ff; Kostrzewski 1919, s. 39; Cosack1979, s. 23).

Fibulor med kraftigt svangd bage forekommer bl.a. i tva gravfynd fran gravfaltet vid Sorby Stor-linge i Gardslosa socken, A 6 och 147, samt i ettgravfynd fran Bo gard i Bredsatra, A 9 (Sjoberg1987, s. 274ff, 346f, 370).

A 6 fran Sorby Storlinge utgjordes av en rundstensattning, vilken inneholl en hallkista ochminst tre brandlager. Brandlager 6:3 inneholl tvafibulor av jam med kraftigt svangd bage, en prylsamt vapendetaljer. Bagformen pa de bada fibu-lorna ansluter narmast till Cosacks armborstfibu-la med smal bage. Den bast bevarade fibulan,som tillika ar betydligt kraftigare an den andra,har genombruten nalhallare. Det senare ar kanne-tecknade for fibulor fran den romerska jarnal-derns inledning.

Den andra Storlingegraven inneholl aven den va-pendetaljer, sasom tange till eneggat sva'rd ochdoppsko till saval lansskaft som till svardsslida.Aven fibulan fran denna grav skiljer sig fran denrena N-fibulatypen genom avsaknaden av vulstpa bagen. Vidare har den hel nalhallare och av-smalnande fot. Aven denna fibula bor anses varaen armborstfibula med smal bage.

Fran en av de absolut foremalsrikaste gravarna paon, A 9 vid Bo gard, kommer tva bronsfibulormed svangd bage. Den storsta och samtidigt bastbevarade har bl. a. kam och genombruten nalhal-lare samt parlstavsornering pa bagens bakre del

54

och punktcirkeldekor under kammen. Delta arformelement som upptrader pa armborstfibulormed bred bage. Gravfyndet bestar dessutom avtre guldparlor, ett 20-taI bla glasparlor, sex guld-folierade glasparlor, en liten ring av guld, enarmring, en fmgerring och ett baltegarnityr in-klusive remandebeslag av brons samt skarvor avminst tre lerkarl, varav ett ar av typen kruka medbikonisk buk, insvangd hals och utvikt mynning,formelement som ar utmarkande for s.k. oland-skrukor. En keramiktyp, som upptrader forst un-der Eggers period Bib.

3.2.b. Baltegarnityr (fig. 5-6).Det, som framfor allt kannetecknar de olandskakvinnogravarna fran yngre forromersk jarnalder,ar de praktfulla baltegarnityren. Dessa bestar aven tillslutningsdel, som dels kan vara en ring ochen hake, dels tva ringar och en dubbelknapp forlasning. Ringarna och haken ar fastade vid ettbleck, i fortsattningen kallad rernhatta. Vidareingar ett eller flera remandebeslag och iblandaven rembeslag.

med omtag och nit, ar kombinerade med fibulormed kraftigt svangd bage (Becker 1993, s. 17,fig. 7; Nylen 1955, s. 399).

Fran Oland finns hittills endast ett fynd med ettbaltegarnityr av Beckers typ la. Fyndet kommerfran gravfaltet vid Tornbotten i Algutsrums soc-ken, A 64 (fig. 5a) (Rasch 1991, s. 171). Tyvarrvar baltegarnityret enda foremal i gravgomman,varfor dateringen far stodjas pa de gotlandskafyndkombinationer, dar de upptrader med tre-kantsfibulor och T-fibula med falsk spiral (Nylen1955,s.399).

I A 20 pa gravfaltet vid Bo gard patraffades bl aett baltegarnityr narmast likt Nylen 1955, fig.297:3, men med den skillnaden, att omtaget tillringen har en skraffrering, och att sjalva ringen arornerad med koncentriska ringar. Detta ar dekor-element, som framfor allt ingar i Nylens grupp C(jfr. Nylen 1955, fig. 149 och 167:3,5). I gravfyn-det ingar ocksa tva remandebeslag av Beckers typA, 350 halvklotformade bronsfragment, troligen

Fig. 5. Baltegarnityr: a, anl. nr. 64, Tornbotten, Algutsrums sn. b, anl. nr. 7, Bo gdrd Bredsdtra sn; c, anl. nr.55c, Gatebo, Bresatra sn; d, Lilla Smedby, Smedby sn, SHM 24 866. Teckning C. Bonnevier. Skala 1:2.Fig. 5. Belt fittings: a, A. 64, Tornbotten, Algutsrums parish, b, A. 7, Bo gdrd Bredsdtra parish; c, A. 55c,Gatebo, Bresdtra parish; d, Lilla Smedby, Smedby parish, SHM 24 866. C. Bonnevier del. Scale 1:2.

Baltegarnityr bestaende av en ring och en hakemed rektangular fastedel for remmen, Beckerstyp la och b, upptrader pa Gotland i kombinationmed trekantsfibulor. Baltegarnityr bestaende avringar med liten rektangular och rund fastedel forremmen, Beckers typ 2a och 2b, upptrader a an-dra sidan med fibulor med tillbakabojd nalhalla-re, medan baltegarnityr av Beckers typ 3, ringar

bronsskoller till hattbonad, och en kort trekants-fibula med svagt konkavt svangd bage (Sjoberg1987, s. 277). Fyndet bor tillhora en sen del avNylens grupp B.

Baltegarnityr av Beckers typ 2a och b har fram-kommit i tva gravfynd. Ett av dessa ar A 7 vid Bogard, dar tva ringar med vidhangande fostedel till

55

remmen av typen liten rektangular platta med in-tag och rund platta, tillslutningsknapp och ettremandebeslag av Beckers typ A ingar, fig. 5b(Becker 1993, s. 18, fig. 8; Sjoberg 1987, s.273f). Remhattan med intag har sin narmastemotsvarighet i ett gravfynd fran Vallhagar M paGotland (Nylen 3955, fig. 167). I detta fynd ingaren fibula med tillbakabojd nalhallare samt spiral-parlor av brons, vilket tidsiaster balteringstypentill denna fibulahorisont.

Ytterligare ett gravfynd, A 21, fran Bo gard grav-faltet, innehaller fragment av ett baltegarnityrinklusive remandebeslag av Beckers typ A, spi-ralparlor och fibulor samt beslag till balte. Detbast bevarade fragmentet av remhattan till ba'lte-garnityret ar rektangulart och fbrsett med flikar ihornen. Fibulorna ar, som redan namnts, troligenav typen liten fibula med tillbakabojd nalhallare.

I gravfyndet A 29 fran gravfaltet vid Ovra Ale-back ingar ocksa delar av ett baltegarnityr i formav ett litet fragment av remhatta till baltegarnityr,troligen av Beckers typ 2, och baltebeslag i formav en dubbelknapp. Fragmentet av en bronsfibulamed tillbakabojd nalhallare tidsfaster gravlagg-ningen till Nylens grupp C.

ogonfibula (Gatebo och Sorby Storlinge), i ettmed fibula av armborsttyp (Bo gard), medanBrostorpfyndet saknade andra foremal. I gravfyn-den fran Gatebo, Bo gard och Sorby Storlinge in-gar dessutom balusterformade remandebeslag.

Fibulan i Gatebofyndet har hel nalhallare ochbred bage, formelement som anses upptrada forsten bit in i period Bl (Liversage 1980, s. 64). Tilldetta fynd hor tva lerkarl, vilka ar av typen lagkruka med s-profil, varav en har antydan till fot.Karlformen fb'rekommer under period B2a, menblir vanlig forst under en tidig del av period B2b,da den har sin blomstringstid pa Oland. Den fdr-hallandevis sena dateringen, som framfor allt an-tyds av lerkarlen, forklaras av, att kvinnan upp-natt en aktningsvard alder vid sin dod, jfr. osteo-logisk bestamning (Sjoberg 1987, s. 213).

En ogonfibula ingar aven bland gravgodset i A35 fran gravfaltet vid Sorby Storlinge. Denna harinstamplade 6'gon, bred tvartradshylsa och en lagtplacerad vulst. Detta ar formelement, som upptra-der relativt tidigt. Till fyndet hor vidare en asym-metrisk krumkniv, en s-formad kniv, en kniv mednagot svangd rygg och lang tange samt glasfluss-parlor. Fibulan tyder pa en datering av detta grav-

fynd till slutet av period Bla.

I gravfyndet fran Lilla Smedby iSmedby socken ingar ett till typen av-vikande baltegarnityr. Det bestar aven ring, som ar fast vid ett bandfor-migt jarnbleck, pa vilket sitter tva ni-tar med platta runda huvuden (fig.5d). Baltegarnityret ar enligt Beckerav hans typ 5b. Darmed skulle det hasin narmaste motsvarighet i vastgot-ska fynd (Becker 1993, s. 22). Bec-

Fig. 6. Remandebeslag: a, anl. nr. 7, Bo gard Bredsatra sn; b-c, kers typbestamning ar dock tveksam.anl. nr. 3, N. Mockleby, N. Mockieby sn; d, Lilla Smedby, Smedby Den langa och smala remhattan ar be-sn, Teckning C. Bonnevier. Skala 1:2. tydligt mer lik Beckers typ 6b eller 7.Fig. 6. Strap end mountings: a, A. 7, Bo gard Bredsatra parish; b-c, Den forra typen patraffas foretrades-A. 3, N. Mockleby, N. Mockleby parish; d, Lilla Smedby, Smedby vjs j osteotska gravfynd medan den

a

parish. C. Bonnevier del. Scale 1:2.

Balteringar med endast omtag och nit, Beckerstyp 3, har patraffats i A 55c vid Gatebo i Bred-satra socken, A 9 vid Bo gard i samma socken, A31 vid Brostorp i Glomminge socken samt troli-gen ocksa i A 35 vid Sorby Storlinge i Gardslosasocken (fig. 5c). Balteringarna i A 9 vid Bo gardar gjutna i brons, medan de ovriga ar av jam. Itva gravfynd ar balteringarna kombinerade med

senare framst forekommer langs Sve-riges vastkust och norr ut till Oslofjor-

den(ibid. s. 17f).

Till baltet hor, sorn redan namnts, ofta remande-beslag och ibland aven baltebeslag av metall. PaOland forekommer tre huvudtyper av remandebe-slag varav ett bestar av en snodd jarn- ellerbronsten, Beckers typ A (fig. 6a). Den andra ty-pen utgors av en gjuten cylindrisk bronsstav med

56

tillplattad andknopp och parlstavsornering, Bec-kers typ B (fig. 6b), och den tredje ar tillverkadav ett dubbelvikt balusterformat bronsbleck, Bec-kers typ C (fig. 6c).

Remandebeslag av typen snodd ten fmns iorutomi de ovan namnda gravfynden fran Bo gard ocksai kittelgravarna A 6 fran Ryd och A 10 fran OvraAleback (fig. 6c). Till de bada sistnamnda grav-fynden hor ocksa en trekantsfibula, vilket fast-staller tidpunkten tor beslagtypens tidigaste upp-tradande pa on.

Remandebeslag av Beckers typ B ingar i ett fler-tal gotlandska balteuppsattningar, och aven omdel finns flera fynd fran Oland, sa har beslagsty-pen hittills endast patraffats i ett sakkunnigtundersokt gravfynd, och detta var i A 3 vid NMockleby i N Mockleby socken (Sjoberg 1991, s.413). Fyndet innehaller aven ett balusterformatremandebeslag och beslag i form av dubbelknap-par. Kombinationen ar intressant, eftersom denvisar, att remandebeslag av Beckers typ B och Coverlappar varandra tidsmassigt.

Balusterformade remandebeslag fmns i de tidiga-re omtalade gravfynden A 9 vid Bo gard (fig. 6c),A 55c i Gatebo och A 35 vid Sdrby Storlinge(Sjoberg 1987, s. 260, 274ff., 354f.). De fibulor,som ingar i dessa fynd, ar antingen av armborst-typ, som i A 9 fran Bo gard, eller ogonfibula,som i Sorby Storlinge A 35 och Gatebo A 55c.Fibulorna visar, att det balusterformade remande-beslaget bor tidsfastas till inledningen av aldreromerskjarnalder.

Ytterligare en remandebeslagstyp fmns represen-terad pa on. Det bestar underst av en rektangularplatta och overst av en rund fastedel, Beckers typD, och ingar i det tidigare omtalade gravfyndetfran Smedby. Typens huvudomrade ar Vastergot-land, men ar aven vanlig i Ostergotland (Becker1993, s. 18). Dateringen borde med tanke pa tre-kantsfibulorna forlaggas till en tidig del av Bec-kers period lllb (Becker 1990, s. 88). Likbegan-gelseformen tyder daremot pa en datering till in-ledningen av aldre romerskjarnalder.

3.2.c. RedskapDe redskap som traditionellt raknas till yngre for-romersk jarnalder ar skara, kortlie, pryl, asymme-trisk krumkniv och synal. Ofta ingar endast eneller tva av de uppraknade redskapen i ett grav-fynd, men storre kombinationer forekommer ock-

sa. I det foljande betecknas de senare som red-skap suppsattning. Denna kalegori upptrader sal-Ian med andra fb'remalskategorier. Fran Olandfmns t ex endast ett gravfynd, dar en synal franden aktuella perioden upptrader tillsammans meden sa'kert typbestambar fibula, A 8 vid Bo gard.Krumknivar har a andra sidan patraffats tillsam-mans med baltegarnityr, keramik, fragment avfibula, dryckeshornsbeslag samt delar av vad somformodligen ursprungligen varit en jarnsked medbronskant, av Sjoberg angiven som vag, jfr. Bogard A 2 och A 3 (Sjoberg 1987, s. 269). Denfb'rmodade skeden har sin motsvarighet i ett grav-fynd fran Bingeby pa Gotland. Ett rontgenfoto-grafi av den senare visar ett svagt skalat sked-blad, vilket ar fast vid ett skaft, pa vars oversidasitter ett fagelliknande foremal. Skaftet avslutasmed en barring lik den, som ingar i fyndet franBo gard (Anna Lena Gerdin muntligen).

Gravfyndet A 4 fran gravfaltet vid Bo gard inne-haller en skara och en pryl samt ornerade brons-bleck, en storre bronsring med omtag och smalfastetunga, troligen till ett trakarl, samt bagen aven atypisk fibula med tillbakabqjd nalhallare. Igravfyndet A 7 fran samma gravfalt ar en synalkombinerad med balteringar av Beckers typ 2 ochett remandebeslag av Beckers typ A.

Till sist kan aven namnas ett foremalsrikt, menicke sakkunnigt upptaget gravfynd fran OlandsSkogsby i Torslunda socken (Nylen 1955, s.550f; Rasch 1991, s. 248ff). Forutom skara, tvakrumknivar, en kortlie, en kniv med ett mycketlangt blad och en kniv med lang tange, innehallerfyndet fragment av dekorerade bronsbleck, dryc-keshornsbeslag, balteringar och tillslutnings-knapp samt ring med bandformigt omtag till tra-karl och yttersta spetsen av en nalhallare till enfibula. Baltegarnityret och dryckeshornsbeslagentyder pa en datering till Nylens grupp D.

Redskapsuppsattningarna patraffas ofta i urnegra-var, dar urnan antingen ar svagt dubbelkoniskmed rak eller latt insvangd mynning eller harhogt avsatt skuldra, markerad hals och utsvangdmynning, jfr A 2 fran Algutsrum och OlandsSkogsby (KLM 22713) (Rasch 1991, s. 178,251). I dessa gravfynd upptrader ibland hela ellerdelar av ytterligare karl sasom stor kopp med oraeller liten kopp utan ora, jfr. Bo gard A 2, 25,Olands Skogsby (KLM 22713), Olands Skogsby8:16 fornl nr. 76 A 5 (Sjoberg 1987, s. 268f, 281;Rasch 1991,s.251,254).

57

Visserligen ar de kanda kombinationerna, vari fi-bula eller baltegarnityr ingar, fa, men de indike-rar, att synalen ar det forsta redskap, som upptra-der i gravinventariet, och att delta sker under ensen del av Nylens grupp B. Under nasta fas,Nylens grupp C, tillkommer den asymmetriskakrumkniven och mqjligen ocksa skaran, medande stora kombinationerna, vilka aven innefattarpryl och kniv, upptrader iorst under fas D.

3.2.d. SmyckenForutom den genomborrade svinbeten i A 309fran gravfaltet vid Folkeslunda saknas smycken igravinventariet under aldre forromersk jarnalder,och annu under den yngre delen ar smycken myc-ket ovanliga. Spiralparlor av brons ar en av de fasmy eke former, som kan dateras till yngre forro-mersk jarnalder. I de fall fibulor ingar i dessagravfynd, sa ar de av Kostrzewskis variant K el-ler den gotlandska varianten av I, jfr. Lilla Smed-by (SHM 24866) och A 21 Bo gard. I det forst-namnda fyndet ingar aven en liten bikoniskbronsparla, en form som ansluter till glasparlorfran romersk jarnalder.

Gravfyndet A 29 fran gravfaltet vid Ovra Ale-back innehaller ett fragment av en halsring orne-rad med trianglar och punktcirklar. Halsringsty-pen tycks framst upptrada pa Oland dar den tradi-tionellt dateras till sen forromersk jamalder(Aberg 1923, s. 80f.). Abergs datering tycks varabaserad pa typologiska element, eftersom samtli-ga ringar, forutom fragmentet fran Ovra Aleback,ar losfunna. Dekortypen pa fragmentet fran OvraAleback aterflnns framst pa fibulor och skold-hantag daterbara till aldre romersk jarnalder.

Gravfyndet, A 9 fran Bo gard, i vilket sava'l enbronsarmring som guld- och glasparlor ingar, arsom framgatt ovan fran den romerska periodenoch behandlas darfdr inte vidare har.

3.2.e. Vapen (fig. 7-9).De forsta olandska vapenforande gravarna ansesupptrada under sen forromersk jarnalder. Flertaletvapengravar fran den har perioden kannetecknasav att de endast innehaller vapendetaljer, vilketgor dem svardaterade. Fibulor, vilka utgor rygg-raden i jarnalderns kronologisystem, har t. ex.

Fig. 7. Skoldbucklor; a, anl. nr. 2, Ovra Aleback; b, anl. nr. 6, Ovra Aleback, bada Gardby sn. Teckning C.Bonnevier. Skala 1:2.Fig. 7. Shield bosses: a, A. 2, Ovra Aleback; b, A. 6, Ovra Aleback, both Gardby parish. C. Bonnevier del.Scale 1:2.

58

hittills endast patraffats i A 10 vid Ovra Alebacki Gardby socken och A 6:3 och A 147 vid Sorby-Storlinge i Gardslosa socken (Sjoberg 1987, s.346f.,370, 1991,s.450ff.).

3.2.el.Skolden (fig. 7-8).De delar av skolden som fmns bevarade i grav-fynden ar skoldbuckla, skoldhandtag och kantbe-slag.

Tre typer av skoldbucklor fran perioden ar hittillskanda fran on. Av dessa har en typ plant brettbra'tte och fyra nitar med stora skivformiga nit-huvuden, kort och svagt konvergerande hals samten svagt konkavvalvd overdel, vilken overgar ien kort parerstang och avslutas med en litenknopp (fig. 7a). Dess diameter ar ca 24 cm.

Den andra typen har smalt plant bra'tte och attanitar med platta skivformiga nithuvuden, kort ochrak hals samt konisk och nagot toppig overdel,(fig. 7b). Dess diameter ar betydligt mindre anden fdrras och overstiger inte 15 cm. Skoldbuc-keltypen tycks vara en lokal variant av Zielingstyp lid (Zieling 1989, s. 108f).

Fig. 8. Skoldhandtag: a, anl. nr. 14, Tornbotten, Algutsrums sn; b, anl.nr 6, Ovra Aleback, Gardby sn. Teckning C. Bonnevier.Fig. 8. Strap grips: a, A. 14, Tdrnbotten, Algutsrums parish; b, A. 6,Ovra Aleback, Gardby parish. C. Bonnevier del.

vergerande krage och toppig overdel med anty-dan till parerstang.

Skoldhandtagen ar aven de av tre typer. Greppde-len pa den forsta bestir av en i det narmaste rundten, vilken avslutas med tva stora skivformiganitplattor (fig. 8a). Typen har hittills endast pa-traffats pa Gotland, Oland och i Ostergotland.Den dateras av Zieling utifran trekantsfibulan i A10 vid Ovra Aleback till sen-latene (Zieling1989,s.l64).

Greppdelen pa den andra typen utgors av en tre-kantig eller bandformig ten, medan andstyckenaar utformade som en triangel. I triangelns mittfinns ett nithal (fig. 8b). I de fall niten ar bevaradhar den ett litet och svagt kupat nithuvud. Skold-handtagstypen, Zieling typ D, har endast patraf-fats pa Oland och i Ostergotland (jfr. Sjoberg1987, s. 367, 1991, s. 449, Zieling 1989, s. 165f).

Den tredje typen av skoldhandtag ar av Zielingstyp Bl. Den har flera typologiska drag gemen-samma med skoldhandtag av Zielings typ Al(Zieling 1989, s. 163ff). Det, som framst skiljer

de bada skoldhantagstyperna at, argreppdelen. Detta har pa exempla-ret fran Alby blivit kortare och bre-dare, och fastenitarna har ersattsmed runda andstycken. Handtags-typen fmns spridd over hela Mel-Ian- och Osteuropa, medan den,bortsett fran Oland, hittills inte pa-traffats i Sverige, Norge eller Fin-land (Zieling 1989, s. 166). Dess •central omrade tycks vara me 11 anfloderna Oder och Weichsel, darinte mindre an 27 stycken fram-kommit enbart pa gravfaltet vidGrossromstedt. Zieling daterar ty-pen till senkeltisk tid, medan Jahndaterar skoldhandtagstypen, Jahnstyp 5, till det fbrsta arhundradet e.Kr. (Jahn 1916, s. 184, 188, Abb.203).

Den tredje typen ar en hybrid av de bada ovanbeskrivna buckeltyperna. Hittills ar endast ettexemplar kant, och den ar funnen i en hallkistavid Alby i Hulterstad socken (Helgesson & K6-nigsson 1973, s. 88). Den har plant brett bratteoch atta nitar med stora platta nithuvuden, kon-

Kantbeslag i metall till skoldar pa-traffas ganska ofta i vapengravar

fran aldre jarnalder. Under det har skedet fore-kommer de dock ytterst sallan. De ar samtligaankarformade och de upptrader bara i kombina-tion med skoldbucklor med konisk overdel ochatta nitar i brattet, (jfr. A 6:2, 6:3 och 142 franSorby-Storlinge och A 6 fran Ovra Aleback).

59

Fig. 9. Lansspetsar: a, anl. nr. 2, och b, anl. nr. 6, Ovra Aleback, Gdrdby sn. Teckning C. Bonnevier,Fig. 9. Lance heads: a, A. 2, b, A. 6, both OvraAlebdck, Gdrdby parish. C. Bonnevier del.

3.2.e.2. Lans (fig.9).T vapenuppsattningama ingar ocksa lansspetsaroch doppsko till lans. Doppskorna ar alia av enoch samma typ, cylindrisk hylsa, medan det finnsolika typer av lansspetsar.

En typ ar ca 40 cm lang, har mycket langt blad,vilket ibland ar ornerat, och bladtvarsnitt 6 enligtIlkjasrs definition (Ilkjaer 1991, s. 31). Bladets'storsta bredd uppgar till minst 3,6 cm och desskraftiga mittas fortsatter ner pa holken, vars tvar-snitt darigenom dverst blir niistan kvadratiskt,holktvarsnitt 2 enligt Ilkjcers indelning (ibid. s.30). Utmarkande ar vidare den mycket korta hol-ken, som uppgar till ca 1/6 av lansspetsens totalalangd (fig. 9a). Dateringen vilar framst pa dessforekomst i fyndet fran Alesia, dar fyndomstan-digheterna indikerar, att de anvants vid slaget om

staden 52 f. Kr (Moberg 1950, s. 11 Iff.). Det artroligen ocksa detta fynd, som far Jahn att dateratypen till den andra halften av det sista arhundra-det f. Kr. (Jahn 1916, s. 51, 67, 78).

Langden pa den andra typen varierar mellan 30och 42 cm och bladet, som har bladtvarsnitt 2, 2beller 4 (Ilkjaer 1991, s. 31), har en storsta breddav 3,5 cm (fig. 9b). Bladets mittas fortsatteribland ner pa holken, varvid denna overst fartvarsnitt 2 enligt Ilkjaars typdefinition (ibid., s.30). Holken ar aven pa denna typ mycket kort ifbrhallande till bladet, men langden tenderar attoka.

3.2.e.3. SvardSva'rd eller svardstillbehor ingar i flertalet vapen-fijrande gravfynd. Svarden ar samtliga eneggade,

60

och langden for ett helt sva'rd uppgar till mellan75-80 cm. Klingans storsta bredd varierar mellan4,5 och 7,6 cm och tangen, som ofta ar avsatt franklingans rygg ar rak eller latt bojd. Tangenslangd, liksom antalet nithal, varierar kraftigt.Svard med lang tange och manga nithal har oftaocksa mer an tva nithal langs klingans bas, me-dan de med kort tange och fa nithal aven har fanithal vid klingans bas.

En svardstyp, som hittills endast patraffats i ettenda exemplar pa on, ar typen eneggat svard medfogsvansgrepp, Ryd A 7 (Rasch 1991, s. 88). Idetta fynd ingar aven en 21,7 cm lang lansspets,vars bladtvarsnitt ar 2 enligt Ilkjasrs indelning(IlkJEer 1991, Abb. 18). Lansspetsens forhallan-devis langa hoik samt bladtvarsnittet tyder pa endateringen till den romerska jarnalderns inled-ning.

Doppskor till svard och/eller beslag ingar ocksaofta i vapenuppsattningarna. Doppskorna ar avtypen rak jarnten med plan undersida och kon-kavt svangda sidor. Pa tenens oversida finns fas-teanordning for skanklar i form av tunna brons-eller jarnbleck med tatt sittande nithal, jfr. A 10fran Ovra Aleback (Sjoberg 1991, s. 451).

Svardsslidebeslagen ar alia av typen klammerlik-nande tresidiga till bandformiga tenar. Nagra avdessa ar dubbla och forsedda med upphangnings-ogla.

3.2.e.4. VapenkombinationerDe olika vapenkategorierna och dess typer upp-trader i bestamda kombinationer. Salunda upptra-der skoldbucklor av typen fig. 7a med skoldhand-tag av typen fig. 8a och lansspetsar av typenAlmgren & Nerman 1923, fig. 94. I en av dessakombinationer ingar aven en trekantsfibula ochmqjligen aven ett remandebeslag av Beckers typA. I tva gravar var vapnen placerade i en kittel,varav den ena ar helt i brons, Ovra Aleback A 10,Eggers typ 74, medan den andra ar fdrsedd medjarnrand, Ovra Aleback A 2, Eggers typ 4. Eggersdaterar de bada kitteltyperna till sen fdrromerskjarnalder utan att ange pa vilken grund han byg-ger denna datering (Eggers 1951, s. 40f., Tafel 2och 8). Redlich menar, att just dessa bada typerar de aldsta i en serie kitteltyper, och att dessabor dateras till sen fdrromersk jarnalder (Redlich1980, s. 330ff). Kunow och Keiling anser a an-dra sidan, att kitteltyperna inte natt Nordeuropa

forran tidigast vid tiden kring Kr.f. (Kunow 1983,s. 17; Keiling 1986, s. 13f., 1989, s. 201ff.).

Skoldbucklor av typen fig. 7b upptrader a andrasidan alltid med skoldhandtag av typen fig. 8boch lansar med bladtvarsnitt 2, 2b eller 4, fig. 9b.I dessa Vapenkombinationer kan aven ankarfor-made skoldkantbeslag inga. Daremot har annu in-te nagon fibula patraffats i ett sakert slutet grav-fynd med vapentyper fran denna grupp. Fibuloringar dock i den mycket svartolkade gravanlagg-ningen A 6 vid Sorby Storlinge. Anlaggningenutgjordes av en rund stensattning, vilken inneholltre brandlager A 6:1-3, ett benlager i stenkista A142 och en hallkista A 6A. Fynden fran A 6:2och A 6:3 utgors av skoldbuckelnitar, svardsski-debeslag, doppsko till svardsskida och skoldkant-beslag. I A 6:3 ingar dessutom tva fibulor avarmborsttyp med smal bage. Fynden fran benlag-ret i stenkista, A 142, utgors av skoldbuckla medkonisk overdel, vilken saknar skoldnitar, skold-handtag med triangulara andstycken, lans medbladtvarsnitt 2, eneggat svard utan svardskidebe-slag och doppsko till svard samt en skoldnit. Fyn-den i A 6:2 och A 6:3 kompletterar fynden i A142, vilket gor det troligt att vapendetaljerna franA 6 och A 142 tillhor en och samrna gravlagg-ning. Fibulorna kan, som papekats tidigare, lik-som de sma nitarna tillhora en separat gravlagg-ning. Soljefragmentet i A 6:2, ar daremot betyd-ligt svarare att forklara. Baltesoljor forekommerinte i olandska gravfynd under den behandladetidsperioden varfor fragmentet inte kan tillhoranagon av brandgravarna. Mojligen kommer solje-fragmentet fran den fyndtomma hallkistan A 6A,vilken enligt gravningsrapporten utsatts for se-kundara ingrepp.

Aven A 147 fran samma gravfalt innehaller en fi-bula av armborsttyp med smal bage. Dessvarre arvapenuppsattningen sa fragmentarisk och av sa-dan karaktar att ingen bevarad vapendel kan han-foras till nagon av de ovan bestamda gruppernaav vapenuppsattningar. Gravfyndet far darfdr da-teras utifran fibulan.

Dateringen av vapenfyndet fran hallkistan vid Al-by, i vilket en skoldbuckla av Zielings typ El, ettskoldhandtag av Zielings typ Bl, ett eneggatsvard och rester av en kniv ingar, medfor avendet vissa svarigheter eftersom flertalet vapen arav typer som saknar paralleller i Skandinavien.Skoldhandtaget t. ex. ar av en typ, som fra'mstforekommer pa kontinenten och da'r i kombina-

61

tioner daterbara till inledningen av aldre romerskjarnalder. Skoldbucklans narmaste motsvarighetfmns i ett gravfynd fran Siemiechow vid flodenWarta i Polen. I det senare ar skoldbucklan kom-binerad med en bronshjalm, ett tveeggat svard avlatenetyp, tva knivar, en lansspets med orneratblad och kraftig mittribba, en fibula av Kostrzew-skis typ M och hank till traspann. Fyndkombina-tionen fran Siemiechow indikerar att skoldbuc-keltypen i oraradet soder om Ostersjon upptradervid inledningen av aldre romersk jarnalder (Jaz-dzewska 1983, s. 37ff.).

Det stora antalet svardsnitar och utformningen avdet eneggade svardets klinga visar, att svardetfran Alby bor tillhora den svardsgrupp, som kanknytas till de bada ovan omtalade huvudkombi-nationerna, alltsa fran vapengravskickets inled-ning. Forekomsten av kniv tyder a andra sidan paen ganska sen datering, eftersom "matknivar" in-te tycks upptrada i olandska vapengravar forranunder en sen del av period Bl. Dessutom antydergravskicket, som var skelettgrav i hallkista, attgraven inte bor vara anlagd forran en bit in i detforsta arhundradet

4. Gravsed och kronologi

Det ar inte enbart metalIfb'remalens olika form-varld, som gor en tudelning av den forromerskajarnaldern mqjlig, utan aven dess gravskick ochgravinnehall. Overgangen fran kremering till jor-dande vid den forromerska jarnalderns inledninginnebar en anpassning av den inre gravformen tillskelettgravskickets krav. Detta sker, genom attgravgrop och hallkista ersatter brand- och ben-gropar. De forromerska hallkistorna avviker na-got fran senare perioders kistor, dels genom deglest stallda vaggflisorna, vilka ar mindre och in-te sa valhuggna som senare perioders, dels av attvardera gaven ofta bestar av tva flisor, och attdessa ibland bildar en vinkel. En nyhet ar den la-ga runda stensattningen med kantkedja, som tac-ker sjalva gravgomman.

Forutom enstaka foremal och skelettet av dengravlagde innehaller ett flertal gravar ocksa o-branda ben av tamdjur, sasom not, gris och far.Att doma av mangden och typen av ben bor dessatolkas som rester av matoffer eller maltider hall-na i anslutning till gravlaggningen. Daremot sak-nas behallare for dryck.

Gravgodsets sammansattning ar det samma somunder yngre bronsalder, endast foremalstypernavaxlar. Detta innebar, att flertalet gravfynd inne-haller ett foremal. Bristen pa fyndkombinationergor det mycket svart att uppratta en mera fminde-lad relativ kronologi. Dateringen av de olikagravfynden far istallet bygga pa jamforelser medgravfynd fran ovriga Skandinavien och omradenasoder och oster om Ostersjon. Detta tillvagagang-satt har brister, eftersom samma foremalstyp kanupptrada pa skilda platser vid olika tidpunkter.Dessutom uppvisar manga foremal lokala sardragunder den har perioden, vilket forsvarar en jam-forelse mellan omradena.

Vissa slutsatser ar dock mojliga. Bl. a. framgardet, att gravgodset uteslutande bestar av drakttill-behor, sasom draktnalar, benknappar och balteha-kar. Analysen tyder pa att draktnalar och balteha-kar upptrader samtidigt och vanligen var for sig.Detta skulle kunna indikera, att de olika drakttill-behoren var knutna till respektive kon. Tyva'rr harde osteologiska analyserna hittills inte kunnat be-lagga detta antagande. Den enda foremal sgrupp,som eventuellt kan knytas till kon, ar benknap-pen, vilken i tva fall patraffats i gravar, dar ske-lettet bestamts vara av en ung kvinna.

Bilden forandras vid overgangen till yngre forro-mersk jarnalder. Pa Oland kannetecknas periodenav inforandet av helt nya fb'remalsformer samt enatergang till kremering. Darmed ansluter sig denolandska gravritualen till gravseden i resten avdet sydskandinaviska omradet samt till omradenasoder om Ostersjon (Nylen 1955, s. 11; Becker1990, s. 86f). Typiskt for perioden ar den inregravformens stora variation. Salunda forekom-mer benlager, benlager inom stenkrets, benlager iliten stenkista, urnegrav i stenkista, brand- ellerbengrop, samt urnegrav i grop med eller utanoverliggande brandlager. Daremot tycks brandla-ger borja upptrada forst under aldre romersk jarn-alder.

En ny typ av stensattning tillkommer under pe-riodens senare del. Den ar rektangular till formenoch tacker manliga gravlaggningar. Ungefar sam-tidigt utvecklas den runda stensattningen till tvatypologiskt olika typer. En av dessa ar lag ochuppdelad i en inre del, ett karnrose, och en yttredel, ett bratte, vilka oftast atskiljs av en stenkretsav storre sten. Den andra ar nagot hogre och sak-nar uppdelningen i karnrose och bratte. Gravgod-

62

sets sammansattning i de runda stensattningarnatyder pa, att den forra typen var avsedd for kvin-nor, medan den senare var avsedd for man.

Samtidigt med introduktionen av den rektangula-ra stensattningen utokas gravinventariet med va-pen, smycken, redskap, och mot slutet aven avdryckeskarl. Fibulor ersatter draktnalar och ben-knappar, medan baltegarnityr ersatter baltehakar.De ganska omfattande fb'remalskombinationernamedfor, att materialet kan rangordnas tidsmas-sigt, vilket ger goda mqjligheter att fb'lja eventu-ella forandringar mycket detaljerat.

Det olandska foremalsmaterialet ansluter i storttill det gotlandska, vilket mpjliggor en indelningenligt Nylens schema i fyra grupper, har beteck-nade som faser (Nylen 1955, s. 399). Fasernamotsvarar fyra pa varandra foljande tidsskedenoch indelningen utgar fran fibulor och baltedetal-jer. Den lokala variationen av fibulatyper mellanOland och Gotland innebar, att smarre justeringarmaste goras. Salunda fmns inga kanda fynd avfibula med stor gjuten halvsfarisk kula. Istalletfar den fibulatyp, som tycks vara den fdrsta i ra-den av fibulatyper pa Oland, T-fibula med falskspiral, vara ledtyp for den fb'rsta fasen, fas A,medan trekantsfibulan blir ledtyp for fas B. Dengotlandska varianten av Kostrzewskis typ I utgorledtyp for fas C, medan fibula med kraftigtsvangd bygel, armbortsfibula, ar ledtyp for fas D.Det faktum, att antalet olandska gravfynd inne-hallande en eller flera trekantsfibulor ar forhal-landevis stort i jamforelse med gravfynd, i vilkafibulor av Kostrzewskis form I och N ingar, samtatt trekants fibulor kan upptrada som enda fb're-mal eller i kombination med andra foremalskate-gorier, indikerar, att fibulatypen varit i bruk un-der en forhallandevis lang tidsperiod pa denna 6.

Genomgangen visar, att det ar svart att pavisanagon jamn overgang fran det som traditionelltbetecknas som aldre forromersk till yngre fb'rro-mersk jarnalder. Bl. a. saknas gravfynd, vilka in-nehaller foremal s former fran saval aldre somyngre fb'rromersk jarnalder. Detta kan tolkas somatt det skett en snabb och genomgripande foran-dring av det skandinaviska samhallet. For Glandsoch Gotlands del skulle denna fbrandring inklu-dera en omlaggning i likbegangleseformen. Engranskning visar emellertid att forandringen skettstegvis.

Forst tycks en omlaggning av likbegangelsefor-men ha agt rum, medan gravgodsets samman-sattning ib'rblev vid det gamla. Salunda innehal-ler den aldst daterade brandgraven, A 6 franTornbotten i Algutsrums socken, endast en drakt-nal av ringhuvudtyp. Ganska snart tycks dock fi-bulan ersatta draktnalen, men fortfarande utgorsgravgodset endast av enstaka foremal, och dessaar av kategorin drakttillbehor, jfr. T-fibulorna i A5 fran Karums alvar, Hogsrums socken och A200 fran Folkeslunda, Langlots socken, samt K-fibulorna i A 4 fran Langerum i Kalla socken ochA 202 vid Folkeslunda.

Forst under K-fibulahorisonten utokas gravgodsetmed nya foremalskategorier sasom smycken, va-pen och redskap, och fran och med dess senaredel bestar gravgodset av samma foremalskatego-rier som under aldre romersk jarnalder, endastfdremalens utseende vaxlar.

Detta tidsavsnitt betecknas av Becker som enovergangsfas (Becker 1961, s. 248, 262f). Moti-vet for denna beteckning ar gravgodsets samman-sattning dar keramikformerna ansluter till deformer som upptrader vid inledningen av aldreromersk jarnalder, medan metallforemalen ar avtyper som traditionellt dateras till sen forromerskjarnalder (Becker 1961, s. 263). Becker diskute-rar problemet med divergensen mellan keramikoch metalIfb'remal och argumenterar for en over-flyttning av per. Illb till inledningen av aldre ro-mersk jarnalder, men avstar och va'ljer istallet atttala om en overgangsfas.

Men fmns det nagot, som kan betecknas som enovergangsfas? En barande ide inom saval arkeo-logi som inom ovriga historievetenskaper ar, attett samhalle standigt ar i forandring, och att dessaforandringar bl. a. aterspeglas i den materiellakulturen. Det ar ju ocksa dessa formodade tidsre-laterade forandringar i den materiella kulturen,som gor det mqjligt att uppstalla kronologiskaserier. Vad de enskilda forskarna sedan valjer attbenamna de olika delarna i dessa serier, ar ova-sentligt, sa lange som man ar overens om, vad enperiod skall innehalla, och/eller att man talar omsamma tidsintervall i absoluta artal. Problemet ar,att man inte alltid klart uttalat vilket innehall,som kannetecknar ett visst tidsavsnitt, i ett visstomrade. Inte minst galler delta for den period,som behandlas i denna artikel (jfr. Nylen 1955;

63

Becker 1961; Keiling 1979; Reinecke 1986;Martens 1992).

Den kronologiska forskningen bar ocksa langevarit last vid de kronologier, som utarbetades runtsekelskiftet 1900. Inte minst ga'Iler delta for denaldre ja'rnaldern. Eggers' bearbetning och indel-ning av den romerska importen i det fria Germa-nien under romersk jarnalder och dess forekomsti gravar av s.k. Liibsowtyp kom att permanentasynen pa innehallet i respektive period (Eggers1951, 1953). Flertalet ledtyper i dessa kronologi-system a'r dessutom daterade utifran central- ochsydeuropeiska kontexter. En datering, som sedanhar overforts till nordeuropeiskt och skandina-viskt omrade utan en mer djupgaende diskussionom lokal variation, tidsforskjutning samt sprid-ningsvagar och distributionssatt.

Detta har bl.a. resulterat i, att de aldst dateradevapengravarna inom det germanska omradetframst aterfmns i Skandinavien och i nordostraEuropa, alltsa i de germanska randomradena (jfr.Schulze 1987, Abb 2-4). Detta trots att tidiga va-pengravar inom hela det germanska omradet a'rmycket enhetliga till form och innehall., medanforemalstyperna uppvisar mera lokala drag. Ensadan likformighet i form och innehall, men inte iforemalstyp, tyder pa en mycket snabb spridningav en ny gravsed. Grunden for en sadan foran-dring skall troligen sokas i en ny ideologiskidentitet hos de germanska folken. Var denna nyaidentitet forst har uppstatt, a'r narmast omqjlig attavgora utan en noggrann genomgang av hela detgermanska och keltiska gravmaterialet. Troligenbor det dock vara i ett omrade, dar overregionalakontakter har varit som storst. Ett sadant omradea'r det central- och vasteuropeiska, dar det keltis-ka och senare det romerska sammhallssystemetmotte det germanska. Ett mote som inte alltidforlopte friktionsfritt.

Forandringen i den ideologiska identiteten ater-speglas inte enbart i vapengravarna utan aven i derikt utstyrda kvinnogravarna. Aven har a'r sprid-ningsbilden nagot ma'rklig, om man vidhaller dentraditionella dateringen. Ett exempel a'r daterin-gen av nagra gravfynd fran nordostra Tysklandoch Gotland i vilka importerade fotbecken avEggers typ 91 och 92, ingar jfr grav SHM 4539:A

fran Sojvide, Sjonhem socken, Gotland, (Nylen1955, Fig. 173, 174, 175), Lalendorf, kr. Gustrow(Keiling 1977, s. 123) samt grav nr 260 frangravfa'ltet vid Giovzin, Kr. Perleberg, (Keiling1979, Tafel 39). I motsats till de bada nordtyskagravfynden a'r det gotlandska osakkunnigt uppta-get. Uppgifterna om fyndet ar dock sa uttomman-de, att det inte rader nagot tvivel om, att fotbec-kenet och de till beckenet forda foremalen tillhorett och samma gravfynd. Fibulorna i detta fynd arav sen-latenetyp, Kostrzewskis typ N, medan debada tyska gravfynden innehaller tidigromerskafibulatyper. Med en traditionell datering av fibu-lorna innebar detta, att det gotlandska gravfyndetskulle vara aldst (jfr. Lund-Hansen 1987, s. 126).Detta forefaller mindre troligt med tanke pa, attdessa becken a'r tillverkade i Italien och darforbor ha passerat omradena soder om Ostersjonforst.

Att datera den romerska och keltiska importenutifran fibulatyper kan visa sig vansklig, om maninte analyserar, vilka fibulatyper som upptrader iett visst omrade under ett visst tidsavsnitt. ISkandinavien finns det t.ex. rikligt med fibulorav s.k. sen-latenetyp, men na'stan inga fibulor avtidigromersk typ. Riktigt tidiga ogonfibulor, lik-som tidiga rollenkapp- och profilerade fibulor,finns na'stan uteslutande soder om Ostersjon ochframst i de centrala delarna av Mellaneuropa (jfr.Cosack 1979 och med dar anford litteratur). Dettatyder pa, att flertalet skandinaviska fibulor av s.k.sen-latenetyp bor vara samtida med tidigromer-ska fibulatyper pa kontinenten, en asikt som stodsav Almgrens och Kostrzewskis analyser (Alm-gren 1897, s. 3, Kostrzewski 1919, s. 39). Flyttarvi fram dateringarna av de s.k. sen-latenefibulor-na, sa forsvinner ocksa den i stora delar av Skan-dinavien fyndtomma perioden Bla. Gransen mel-lan den sena forromerska och den romerska jarn-aldern bor darmed sa'ttas mellan Beckers per. Iliaoch Illb. Detta innebar, att gravgodsknappa grav-fynd med enbart en eller tva trekantsfibulor ellerett ba'ltegarnityr av Beckers typ 1 avslutar denforromerska jarnaldern pa Oland, medan grav-fynd med saval trekants fibula, ba'ltegarnityr,vapen, redskap och/eller smycken inleder denperiod som traditionellt betecknas som aldreromersk jarnalder. Tidsma'ssigt sker detta troligenomkring Kr. f.

64

Forkortningar (Abbrevations):

KLM: Kalmar Lans Museum, Kalmar.SHM: Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm.

Litteraturlorteckning:

Almgren, O. 1897: Studien uber Nordeuropdische Fi-belformen, Stockholm.

Almgren, O. & Ncrman, B. 1923: Die Altere EisenzeitGotlands, Stockholm.

Becker, C. J. 1961: Forromersk jernalder i Syd- ogMittjylland. Nationalmuseets Skrifter. StorreBeretninger VI. K0benhavn.

1990: N0rre Sandegdrd. Arkceologiskeundersogelser pa Bornholm 1948-1952. Hi-storisk-filosofiskc Skrifter 13. K0benhavn.

1993: Studien zur Jiingeren Vorromi-schen Eisenzeit auf Bornholm. Acta Archaeo-logica vol.63, pp. 1-38.

Blumbergs, .Z. 1972: En gotlandsk huvudbonad franromersk jarnalder. Fornvdnnen 1972, pp.153-169.

Baihrentz, F. J., 1896: Graffaltet vid Ofre Aleback.Kungliga Vitterhets Historic och Antikvitets-akademiens Mdnadsblad 25. Stockholm.

Cosack, E. 1979: Die Fibeln der Alteren RdmischenKaiserzeit in der Germania libera. Neumiin-ster.

Dabrowska, T., 1988: Wczesne Fazy Kultury Prze-worskiej. Chronologic* - zasieg - powiazania.Warszawa.

Eggers, H. J., 1951: Der romische Import im frei-enGermanien. Atlas der urgeschichtc. vol I.Hamburg.- 1953: Liibsow, ein germanischer Fiirstensitzder alteren Kaiserzeit. PrahistorischeZeitschrift Bd. 34-35, 2, pp. 58-111.

Ekholm. G., 1921: Campanska bronskdrl funna i Sve~rige. Rig 3. Stockholm 1921.

Hachmann, R. 1960: Die Chronologic der jungerenvorromischen Eisenzeit. 41. Bericht der Ro-misch-Germanischen Kommission,

Hclgesson, U. & Konigsson, E.S. 1973: En forromerskvapengrav fran Alby pa Oland. TOR 1972-1973, pp. 84-93.

Holgersson, K. 1978: Forromersk jarnalder och folk-vandringstid i Langerum. Kalmar Ian 63, pp.50-53.

Hjarthner-Holdar, E. 1993: Jdrnets och jdrnmetalur-gins introduktion i Sverige. Uppsala.

llkjasr, J. 1991: lllerup, Bd. 1-2. Die Lanzen und Spee-re. Arhus.

Jazdzewska, M., 1983: Rzymski helm legionisty zna-leziony w polscc. Wiadomosci Archeologicz-

Jahn, M., 1916: Die Bewaffnung der Germanen in deralteren Eisenzeit. Mannus-Bibliothek 16,Leipzig und Wiirzburg.

Jansson, I. i manus: Gravfaltet Goslunda ror i Hulter-stad socken. in print.

Keiling, H., 1977: Zur kulturgeschichtichen bedeutungdes furstengrabes von Lalendorf, Kr.Gustrow. Ausklang der Latene-ZivilisationundAn/ange der germanischen Besiedlung immittleren Donaugebiet, ed. Chropovsky, Bra-tislava, Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej AkademieVied, pp. 123-142

1974: Kolbow. Ein (Jrnenfriedhof dervorromischen Eisenzeit im Kreis Lud-wigs-lust. Berlin.

1979: Glovzin. Ein Urnenfriedhof dervorromischen Eisenzeit im Kreis Per-leberg.Berlin.

1986: Parum, Kreis Hagenow. Ein Lan-gobardenfriedhof des 1. Jahrhunderts.Schwerin.

1989: Zur rheinischen Welle des fruhenromischen Imports im freien Germanien.Zeitschrift fur Archaologie 23, pp. 201-209.

Kunow, J., 1983: Der romische Import in der Germa-nia libera bis zu den Markomannenkriegen.Studien zu Bronze- und Glasgefassen. Neu-miinster.

Kostrzewski, J., 1919: Die ostgermanische Kultur derSpdtlatenezeit. Mannus-Bibliothek Nr 18.Leipzig und Wiirzburg.

Konigsson, E. S. & Rasch, M.: Olands jarndldersgrav-fdlt volym HI, eds. Hagberg, U.E., Stjernquist,B., Rasch, M. Kalmar, in print.

Liversage, D., 1980: Material and Interpretation.Archaeological-Historical Series I Vol. XX.Copenhagen.

Lund Hansen, U., 1987: Romischer Import im Norden,Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie B Bind 10, K0-benhavn.

Lundh, K. & Rasch, M. 1991: Olands jdrnaldergrav-fdlt volym II. eds. Hagberg, U.E., Stjernquist,B., Rasch, M. Kalmar, pp. 263-338.

Martens, J., 1992: The Pre-Roman Iron Age Cemeteryat Kraghede, Barbaricum, Bd. 2, Warsaw, pp.114-136.

Moberg, C.-A. 1941: Zonengliederungen dervorchristlichen Eisenzeit in Nordeuropa.Lund.

1950: When did Late La Tene begin?Acta archaeologica vol. XXI, pp. 83-131.

Montelius, O 1896: Den nordiska jernalderns kronolo-gi I. Svenska fornminnesforeningens tidsskriftIX, pp. 155-274.

Nylcn, E., 1955: Die Jiingere Vorromische EisenzeitGotlands. Stockholm.

1956: Kring jarnalderns andra period.Antikvariskt arkiv 6. Stockholm.

65

Nylen, E. 1957: Till fragan om gravskickct underNordcns forromerska jarnalder. Tor HI, pp.65-80.

1972: Mcllan brons och jarnalder. Ettrikt gravfynd fran och dess datering medkonventionell metod och C14. Antikvarisktarkiv44. Stockholm.

Oldcberg, A. 1935: Fynd och forcmal i svenska mu-scer. Fornvdnnen 1935, pp. 244-247.

Petersson, K. G. 1956: Undcrsokning av hallkistor vidTorslunda pa Oland. Smarre meddelanden.Forvdnnen 1956, pp. 135-143.

Petrenko, V. G. 1978: Ukrashchenija skifii VII-HI vv.do n. e. Arheologija CCCR, Svod arheologi-cheskih istochnikov, vypusk D.4-5.- 1990. Die Hiigelgraberfelder von Grobin(UdSSR). DasAUertum, Bd. 36.1, pp. 43-48.

Polenz, H. 1986: Hallstattzcitlichc Fremdlinge in derMittelgerbirgzone nordlich der Main-linic.Marburger Studien zur Vor und Fruhge-schichte, Bd. 7, pp. 213-248.

Rasch, M. 1991: Olands jdrndldergravfdtt volym II.red Hagberg, U.E., Stjernquist, B., Rasch, M.Kalmar, pp. 39-262, 339-374 & 475-511.

Redlich, C., 1980: Politische und wirtschaftliche Be-deutung der Bronzegefasse an Unterelbe undSaale zur Zeit der Romerkriege. Studien zursachsenforschung 2. Ed. Hassler, H. J., Hil-desheim 1980.

Reinecke, A., 1987: Ausgrabung auf dem jungbronze-und eisenzeitlichen Grdberfeld von Wusterhu-sen, Kr. Greifswald (DDR). WissenschaftlicheBcitrage der Erst- Mo-ritz Amdt-UniversitatGreifswaid. Greifs-wald 1987.

1988: Studien zur vorromischen Eisen-zeit im Umland der sudlichen Ostsee.Forschungsstand - Chronologie - Kulturhisto-rische Beziehungen. Thesen zur Dissertation(A). Humboldt-Univerzi-tat zu Berlin. Berlin1988. Unpubliccd dissertation.

Schulzc, E. 1987: Zur Verbreitung von Waffenbeiga-ben bei den germanischcn Stammen um denbcginn unserer Zeitrechnung. Jahrbuch furBodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg, pp. 93-117.

Schulze, H. 1991. Olands jdrndldergravfalt volym H.red Hagberg, U.E., Stjernquist, B., Rasch, M.Kalmar, pp. 9-38.

Sjoberg, M. B. 1987. Olands jdrndldergravf alt volymI. red. Sjoberg, M. B. Kalmar, pp. 199-433.

1991. Olands jdrndldergravfdlt volym II.red Hagberg, U.E., Stjernquist, B., Rasch, M.Kalmar, pp. 375-474.

Stenberger, M. 1933. Oland under aldre jarnalder.Stockholm.

1948: Bjurumfyndet och dcss datering.Fornvdnnen 1948, pp. 193-210.

Werner, J., 1977: Spatlatene Schwerter Norischer Her-kunft. Ausklang der Latene-Zivilisation und

Anfdnge der germanischen Besiedlung immittleren Donaugebiet, ed. Chropovsky, Bra-tislava, Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej AkademieVied, pp. 367-401.

Zieling, N,, 1989. Studien der Spatlatene. und der ro-mischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien.BAR. International Series, 505. Oxford.

Aberg, N., 1923: Kalmar Idns forhistoria. Uppsala.

SUMMARYThe Pre-Roman Iron Age on Oland by MonikaRasch, Stockholm

The last twenty years of Swedish archaeology havewitnessed a marked decrease in the interest in chrono-logical problems. Meanwhile the growth rate of the ar-chaeological material has been the largest ever. Thismeans that the material today is much more compre-hensive than it was when the chronological studieswere in focus. How few the finds from the early partof the Pre-Roman Iron Age were at that time, is illu-strated by these words of Marten Stenberger in hisbook on Oland during the Early Iron Age (Stenberger1933). Stenberger wrote "As anywhere else in Scandi-navia, the beginning of the Iron Age on Oland is cha-racterized by a poor and rather uniform culture. Thefinds are few, and from the first period of the Pre-Ro-man Iron Age only one grave find is known from theisland....". Here Stenberger is referring to an unscienti-fically excavated grave find from Skogsby in Torslun-da parish (Stenberger 1933, p. 1). Stenberger conti-nues "The poverty which characterizes the first twoperiods, changes during the third period to a relativerichness in finds making the preamble to the rich de-velopment during the following period..." (Stenbergcr1933, p. 2). With this in mind, it seems reasonable totake a closer look at the new finds and to comparethem with the older ones in order to search for new in-terpretations and alternative conclusions.

The growth of Pre-Roman Iron Age finds is not ava-lanche-like on Oland. So far, only one category offinds is known besides stray finds, and that is burials.Today we know of 40-50 scientifically excavated bu-rials from the period in question. However, most ofthese date from a very late part of the period.

Before the analysis begins, a brief review of the cur-rent chronological systems is necessary. Monteliuswas the first archaeologist who more in detail dividedthe Pre-Roman material in shorter periods. His studyended up in the division of the Pre-Roman Iron Age inthree periods (Montelius 1896, p. 160ff)- By doing so,Montelius adhered the Scandinavian Pre-Roman IronAge to the La Tene periods in the main Celtic areas.This division was not questioned until the mid-fifties,when Nylen argued that the Pre-Roman Iron Age ra-

66

ther ought to be divided into two major parts, an earlyand a late. His suggestion was based on the fundamen-tal difference between the collection of items found inthe graves from the two periods (Nylen 1955, p. 11).This division has later been accepted by several scho-lars, and it will also be used in this study (cf. Keiling1979; Reinecke 1987, 1988; Martens 1992).

EARLY PRE-ROMAN IRON AGEProfessionally excavated burial finds from the earlyPre-Roman Iron Age have been made at Loppcrstad inRimsten parish, Torsborg in Torslunda parish, N.Kvinneby in Stenasa parish, Tornbotten in Algutsrumparish, Folkcslunda in Langlot parish, GSsslunda inHulterstad parish, and at Langerum in Kalla parish(map no. 1). The items found in these graves almost allbelong to the category of dress equipment.

Belt-hooksThe belt-hooks can be divided into two main types.One is oval shaped and has a hook at both ends, whilethe other type has a hook in one end and two or fourspiral ends in the other. All the belt-hooks are made ofiron. Oval shaped belt-hooks (fig. Ic) were found in agrave at Lopperstad (SHM 20 131), graves nos. 9, 25and 26 at Langerum, grave no. 309 at Folkeslunda andin grave no. 11 at Gosslunda. The latter grave find alsocontains a belt-hook with a curlcd-up end, fragmentsof at least one dress-pin as well as fragments of a chain(fig. Ib). The grave at N. Kvinneby (SHM 24847, fig.ia) contained a belt-hook with a curled-up end too.

The two belt-hooks with a curled-up end differ in theexecution of the spirals. The one from N Kvinneby ismade of four iron rods, and the winding is downwards.This belt-hook is ornamented by a series of short, slantlines between long lines. According to Hjartner-Hol-dar and others, the ornament is characteristic for thevery beginning of the Iron Age, and the spiral is areminiscence from the Late Bronze Age (Hjartner-Holdar 1993, pp. 136, & 147). In burial finds from thewestern part of Sweden and Norway, belt-hooks withan outer curled-up end, as the one from Gosslunda,have been found together with dress pins dated to thevery beginning of the Iron Age (Becker 1990, p. 120).At Gosslunda, the belt-hook was found together with aprobably oval shaped belt-hook and chain fragments.The last type of belt-hook indicates a somewhat laterdating for this particular grave find.

Except for the finds on Oland and Bornholm, the ovalshaped belt-hook does not seem to be very common inScandinavia. Instead, the main distribution area issouth of the Baltic Sea, and here the type is dated toKeiling's period Ib (Keiling 1979, p. 21, Abb. 9). OnBornholm, the type is found in combinations dated to

the late part of the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age (Becker1990, p. 120, 1992 p. 10).

Dress-pinsDress-pins were found in graves nos. 2, 3, and 21 atLangerum, in grave no. 11 at Gosslunda and in graveno. 6 at Tornbotten.

The shape of the dress-pins vary very much, but theyare all made of iron, and most of them are of the"kropf-pin"-type. Two kropf-pins have a head in formof two curled-up ends (graves nos. 2 and no. 21 atLangerum, fig. 2a, b). One dress-pin has a cylindricalhead and a "kropf, which is located low on the neck(grave no. 3 at Langerum, fig. 2c). In the same gravefragments of a second dress-pin were found. Due tothe bad state of preservation, the type is difficult todetermine, it might be a so-called double pin with aW-shaped head, or a pin with a long, winded head (fig.2d).

The ring-head-pin from Tornbotten (fig. 2c), wasfound on top of a stone-setting together with a neck-lace with a pear-shaped lock. The combination indica-tes that it is a mixed find, and a shallow pit foundnearby supports the suspicion.

The dress-pin or -pins from Gosslunda are too frag-mentary to be determined.

Some of the dress-pins found in Oland graves are oflocal style. One of the very few parallels to the twodress-pins with a curled-up end is for example foundin Lithuania, but this pin lacks the "kropf-neck". TheLithuanian specimen is dated to the Early Roman IronAge (Petrenko 1990, p. 46f). The Oland ones are pro-bably not that young, but without any combinationfinds, these pins are hard to date.

The dress-pin with cylindrical or rectangular head,from grave no. 3 at Langerum, has its counterpart infinds from the eastern parts of north Germany, wherethe type is found in combinations dated to a late partof the early Pre-Roman Iron Age (Keiling 1979, p.20).

Parallels to the long dress-pins from the same graveare harder to find. The double pin type is most com-mon in Greece and Italy, as well as on Balkan and inSouthern Russia. Especially on Balkan and in Russiathe double dress-pins were in use for a very long time,600-200 B.C. In Russia a similar type of dress-pin de-veloped. This type concists of only one pin. It is datedto the fourth and third century B.C. (Petrenko 1978, p.19). Dress-pins with large and high placed kropf andthe head in shape of waves are known from gotlandicburial finds too (Fornvannen 1935, p. 112). If these

67

pins are not similar, then at least they belong to thesame main type as the Oland specimen.

Bone-buttonsBone-buttons have up to now been found in three gra-ves (fig. 3). One was found in grave no. 1 at Torsborg,another in grave no. 216 at Folkeslunda, and a third inan unprofcssionally excavated grave from Lilla Brun-neby in Stenasa parish (Petersson 1956, p. 135ff.;Lund&Raschl991,p. 324).

The bone-button from Torsborg was found close to theshoulder of the skeleton. This grave also containedsome fragments of iron, and as they were found on thepelvis, it seems as if they were the remains of abelt-hook. An iron object was also found in the graveat Lilla Brunneby. Unfortunately it was not brought in.It is described as "probably a knife". If the fragmentsfrom Torsborg and the object from Lilla Brunneby be-long to a belt hook, then the buttons should be dated tothe Early Prc-Roman Iron Age.

The grave structureSo far, belt-hooks, bone-buttons and all but one of thedress-pins have been found in inhumation graves. Theinner structure of these graves is either a simple pitdug into the ground, or a stone cist. Some of the gra-ves are covered by a round stone setting. The walls ofthe stone cists are usually made of rather small lime-stone slabs, which arc placed close to one another.Normally, the southern end of the cist is slightly roun-ded, and lock slabs occur occasionally. The dead per-son is placed on his back in recumbent position.

LATE PRE-ROMAN IRON AGEThe second category of Pre-Roman graves containpersonal ornament, dress-, tool- and weapon-equip-ment, and sometimes a vessel. Mostly, these burialsare cremations, but there are exceptions.

Grave finds from this period are found at Langerum inKalla parish, grave no. 4; Bo gard in Bredsatra parish,graves nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21; Sorby Storlinge inGardslosa parish, graves nos. 6:2, 6:3, 9, 142, 147;Folkeslunda in Langlots parish, graves nos. 200, 202and perhaps no. 309; Karum in Hogsrums parish, gra-ve no. 5; Ryd in Glomminge parish, graves nos. 1, 6,perhaps nos. 7, 8; and Ovra Aleback graves nos. 2,6,10, 29, and perhaps nos. 13, 28, 33 and 8N.

Dress equipmentThis category consists of brooches and belt fittings.The brooches which will be discussed here arc of fourmain types.

The first type of brooch is the T-brooch. It differs fromall other brooches of the period in having a falsespring.

Only two burials with a T-brooch arc known so far,and in both cases the brooch is the only object foundin the grave. One was found among burnt bones in asmall stone cist at the cemetery at Karum. Of this one,only a small fragment of the winding with the onionshaped knob remains (Schulze 1991, p. 32). The otherT-brooch was found in a bone-layer enclosed by a sto-nekerb at the cemetery at Folkeslunda, grave no. 200(fig. 4a) (Lundh & Rasch 1991, p. 323). This broochis almost complete and very similar to the broochfound in grave no. 536 in the cemetery at N0rreSandegard on Bornholm (Becker 1990, fig. 47). Thisis suprising, since almost all the other brooch typeshave their nearest counterparts on Gotland.

The next type of brooch is Kostrzcwski's type K (fig.4b). In the graves on Oland, such brooches either oc-cur single or in pairs, with or without other objects. Ifthe brooch is combined with other objects, they usual-ly are of the kind which can be attributed to females.Grave no. 4 at the cemetery at Langerum in Kalla pa-rish only contained a K-brooch. It is impossible to tellwhether this grave originally contained more objects,because the cremation layer was destroyed by an in-humation grave (Holgersson 1978, p. 52f). Grave no.202 at the cemetery at Folkeslunda yielded two K-brooches (Lundh & Rasch 1991, p. 323). One of thebrooches was almost complete, whilst only the bow re-mains of the other. The two brooches were made ofdifferent metal. The fragmented one is made of iron,while the bow of the other is made of bronze and thepin of iron. More commonly the K-brooch is combi-ned with other types of objects. In grave no. 8 at thecemetery at Bo gard in Bredsatra parish, a K-broochwas found together with a needle and a ring of resin(Sjoberg 1987, p. 274). A further K-brooch was foundin grave no. 20 at the same cemetery, and beside thebrooch this burial included two belt rings with at-tached rectangular belt mountings (similar to Nylen1955, fig. 297:3) and two strap ends of Becker's typeA (Sjoberg 1987, p. 277, Becker 1993, fig. 6). In graveno. 10 at the cemetery at Ovra Aleback, a K-broochwas found together with a shield boss, like fig. 7a, astrap grip, like fig. 8a, a lance-head of type Almgren &Nerman 1923, fig. 94, a single-edged sword, a chapeto a scabbard, and sword mountings. The weaponrywas placed with burnt bones in a bronze cauldron ofEggers type 74 (Eggers 1951). Also grave no. 6 at thecemetery at Ryd in Glomminge parish contained a K-brooch (Rasch 1991, p. 87). The brooch was found ina cauldron of Eggers' type 4 (Eggers 1951). The K-brooches from the cauldron graves are larger (7.3 resp.8.2 cm long), than the others, which generally areshorter than 5.5 cm long. A grave at Lilla Smedby inSmedby parish (SHM 24866) contained three K-broo-ches. This grave differs from the other graves contai-ning K-brooches in respect of the burial custom, whichin this case was inhumation in a stone cist. Two of thebrooches were situated close to the shoulders of the

-

skeleton and the third above the head. The two at theshoulders are made of iron while the third is cast inbronze. This burial also contained a belt ring of Bec-ker's type 6b or 7, a strap end of Becker's type D, fourbeads of bronze, and a knife of a strange shape (Nylen1957, p. 75, Becker 1993, figs. 7, 8).

The next type of brooch seems to be of a very localcharacter, fig. 4c. So far, this type, a variant of Kos-trzewski's type 1, is known from Oland and Gotlandexclusively. The brooch is of La Tene Il-constructionand very small. So far, only two professionally exca-vated graves with fragments of this type of brooch areknown on Oland, and in both cases the brooch is verydestroyed by the pyre. One was found Jn a cremationburial with unenclosed pyre sweeping, grave no. 29, atthe cemetery at Ovra Aleback (Sjoberg 1991, p. 462).The burial also constained a fragment of a necklace, astrap mounting in shape of a button, and a fragment ofa belt mounting of Becker's type 2. All the objects we-re made of bronze. The other grave find is from Bogard, grave no. 21. This find includes fragments oftwo brooches, belt fittings, a strap end of Becker's typeA and bronze beads (Sjoberg 1987 p.278; Becker1993, p. 19; Nylen 1955, p. 399).

The last type of brooches who traditionally is dated tothe Pre-Roman Iron Age has a high, curved bow, i.e.Kostrzewski's types M, N and O, (fig. 4d). However,the Oland brooches arc more similar to Cosack's Arm-bnistfibeln, and this brooch seems to succeed Kos-trzewski's brooches of type M, N and O. The "Arm-bmsf'-brooch do not occur untill the beginning of theEarly Roman Iron Age, and its main area is the lower

[ Elbe (Almgren 1897, pp. 7ff.; ICostrzewski 1919, p.39;Cosack 1979, pp. 2Iff.). The brooch type is knownfrom three Oland grave finds, graves nos. 6 and 147from the cemetery at Sorby Storlinge in Gardslosa pa-rish, and grave no. 9 at Bo gard in Bredsatra parish(Sjoberg 1987, pp. 274ff., 346f., 370).

Grave no. 9 at Bo gard contains two bronze broochesof "Armbrust-type", gold and glass beads, a fingerring, an armring of bronze, a belt fitting, a belt-buttonand strapends of bronze. The circumstances of graveno. 6 from Sorby Storlinge are more complicated. Thisgrave consists of at least three cremation layers, onepit dug into the ground with cremated bones and oneinhumation in a stone cist. One of the cremation lay-ers, no. 6:3, contained two brooches of "Armbrust"-ty-pe, sword scabbard fittings, nails for a shield boss, aferrule for a sword scabbard and a piercer, while thecremation layer, no. 6:2, contained shield mountings,sword scabbard fittings, parts of a bucket of bronze,and nail heads for belt fittings. The items found in thecremation layers indicate that the building of the stonecist and later cultivation have destroyed and mixed the

cremation layers. Also grave no. 147 from the samecemetery contained a brooch of "Armbrust-typc". Herethe brooch was combined with parts of weapons.

Belt fittingsMany of the grave finds containing brooches also in-clude belt fittings and strap ends. The belt fittings areof three main types (fig. 5a-c). The first type consist ofa ring and a hook, or two rings, each of which are at-tached to a rectangulare plate (fig. 5a). The other typeconsists of two rings, each attached to a rectangularand a round shaped plate and a button for closing (fig.5b). The third type is made of a ring which is attachedto a narrow rectangular plate and a button for closing(fig. 5c).

Usually the belt fitting is found together with one ormore strap ends (fig. 6). Three main types of strapends are known so far. One of these is made of a twis-ted rod (fig. 6a). Another is staff shaped and ends in aflattened bud (fig. 6b). The third is baluster shaped andmade of bent double bronze sheet.

Strap ends of type fig. 6a are found together with tri-angular brooches as well as with brooches with thefoot bent back and winded around the bow and belt fit-tings of types figs. 5a and b. Strap ends of type fig. 6bare only known from one professionally excavatedgrave, N Mocklcby grave no. 3 (Sjoberg 1991, pp.396ff.). Unfortunately, this grave was destroyed, andexcept for the strap ends of type fig. 6b and c and 16button shaped belt fittings, no other items were found.However, strap ends of type fig. 6c occur in threeother grave finds, of which two contain an eye brooch(Gatebo grave no. 55c, Sorby Storlinge grave no. 35),and one two brooches of "Armbrust-type" (Bo gard,grave no. 9) (Sjoberg 1987, pp. 260, 274ff, 354f>-

Tool_equiprnentNew among the grave goods is the tool equipment.This category consists of needles, sickles, curved kni-ves, s-shapcd knives, and piercers. During the LatePre-Roman Iron Age, these items often appear in va-rious combinations, but very seldom with other cate-gories of grave goods. Sometimes the tools are foundin a cinerary container of clay, like in grave no. 2 atAlgutsrum in Algutsrums parish and grave no. 25 atBo gard in Bredsatra. According to the very few findswhere tools are found together with brooches or beltfittings, it seems that the needle is the first tool to beincluded in the burial practise, and this happens at thetime of the triangular brooch (cf. grave no. 8 at Bogard), whereas the more extensive tool equipment doesnot appear untill the horizon of the Armbrust-brooch(cf. the grave at Glands Skogsby, KLM 22 713) (Sjo-berg 1987, p. 274; Nylen 1955, pp. 492, 550; Rasch1991p.248ff).

69

Personal ornamentsPersonal ornaments appear in form of bronze beadsand necklaces. The first introduction of bronze beadsseems to occur during the horizon of the triangularbrooch (cf. grave SHM 24 866 at Lilla Smcdby andgrave no. 21 at Bo gard).

A fragment of a necklace is included among the goodsfrom grave no. 29 at Ovra Aleback (Sjb'berg 1991, p.462). The fragment was combined with a belt fittingand a fragment of a brooch where the foot is bentbackwards and winded around the bow. The ornamentin form of two triangles ending with a small circleeach, is a type of ornamentation which is common du-ring the Early Roman Iron Age, and the brooch sup-ports the dating to the beginning of this period.

WeaponryNew is also grave finds containing weaponry. A fullequipment consists of a single-edged sword, someti-mes including the remains of a scabbard, the metalparts of a shield, and a lance head.

Three different types of shield bosses are known fromthe time span in question. One is fitted with a crossguard and a broad brim with four rivets with large,plate-shaped heads (fig. 7a). The other type has a co-nical upper part and a narrow brim, which bears morethan four rivets (fig. 7b). The third type of shield bossis known in one copy only. This type is a mixture ofthe other two. It has a cross guard and a rather broadbrim, which bears eight rivets (Hclgcsson & IConigs-son 1973, p. 88).

Even the strap grips can be divided into three main ty-pes. One of these is made of an iron rod fitted with lar-ge disc shaped ends (fig. 8a). The other type of strapgrip is also made of an iron rod, but this is fitted withtriangular fixing ends (fig. 8b).

The third type is very similar in shape to the grip withlarge, plate-shaped rivet heads. But instead this grip ismade of a more flattened and broader rod and the fix-ing ends are plate-shaped.

Also the lance heads could be divided into differenttypes because of the length of the blade in proportionto the shaft, and the cross-section of the blade. Onetype of lance heads has a very long and broad bladeand a short shaft, no more than 1/6 of the blade, and astrong centre rib (fig. 9a). The other type also has along blade and a short shaft, but the lenght of the shafttends to be more than 1/6 of the blade. The blade wideof the latter is a little bit slender, not more than 3,5 cmbroad, and its cross-section is rombic (fig. 9b).

The strap grips like fig. 8a are combined with shildbosses like fig. 7 a and with lance heads of type fig. 9a,

while strap grips like fig. 8b are combined with shieldbosses like fig. 7b and with lance heads of type fig. 9b.

The shape of the single-edged swords varies a lot.Some of the swords have more than two rivet holes inthe grip, while others only have one or two rivet holes.The ones with many rivet holes in the grip usually alsohave many rivet holes at the base of the blade, whilethe ones with only one or two rivet holes in the gripalso only has one or two rivet holes at the base of theblade. Also the width of the blade differs beteween 4,5and 7,5 cm. Unfortunately, the swords cannot be clas-sified in types, since each type mostly only appears inone or two copies.

It is not easy to date the different weapon combina-tions, because very few are found together with othercategories of grave goods. The only instance whenweaponry has been found in association with a broochis in grave no. 10 at Ovra Aleback. in this grave theweapon equipment, consisting of a shield boss like fig.7a, a strap grip like fig. 8a, two single-edged swords,and two lance heads like fig. 9a, was combined with atriangular brooch, a strap end of a twisted rod, Bec-ker's type A, and a bronze cauldron of Eggers' type 74.

Brooches of the Armbrust-type have been found toge-ther with parts of a weapon equipment in grave no, 6at Sorby Storlinge, but the circumstances for this findare unfortunately a little bit uncertain (see above). Ifall the items from this grave belong to one burial only,then the combination of strap grips like fig. 8b, shieldbosses like fig. 7b, and lance heads like fig. 9b couldbe fixed to the horizon of the Armbrust-brooch.

BURIAL CUSTOM AND CHRONOLOGYThe survey shows that the burials can be separated in-to two main groups. The first one consists of inhuma-tion graves, often in the form of a stone cist. The graveis mostly covered by a very low round stone setting.The furnishing in these graves is scanty and consistseither of a belt hook or a dresspin, sometimes both.The other category mainly consists of cremation gra-ves. In case the deceased has been cremated, then theremains are buried in a cinerary container in a stonecist, or in a cinerary container in a pit with a stone slablining or clay-lined sides, or a cinerary container in asimple pit, or a cinerary container in a simple pit, co-vered with a cremation layer with pyre sweepings, oras an unenclosed cremation with pyre sweepings, or asan unenclosed cremation in a simple pit with pyresweepings, or as an unenclosed cremation without py-re sweeping, or as an unenclosed cremation withoutpyre sweepings in a simple pit.

The grave goods change too. The items found in thesegraves are related to the sex of the buried person in a

70

very obvious way. The grave goods in female gravesconstitute tool and/or dress equipment, and sometimesalso personal ornaments, while most male graves onlycontain weaponry.

The analysis shows that it is hard to see a gradual tran-sition from the first category of graves to the secondone, since no grave has yielded objects from both cate-gories. This could speak in favour of a period with nograve goods, as suggested by some Swedish archaeo-logists (Nylen 1956, p. 28). On the other hand it isvery difficult to accept periods without grave goods.Anyhow, a closer look shows that the change actuallydid occur gradually. First the funeral pattern changedthough the combination of grave goods remained as itwas (cf. grave A6 from the cemetery at Tornbotten inAlgutsrums parish). However, rather soon brooches re-placed the dress pins, but still the grave goods mostlyconsisted of a single item belonging to the category ofdress equipment (cf. the T-brooch in A 5 at Karums al-var, Hogsrums parish, and A 200 at Folkeslunda,Langlots parish, as well as the triangular brooch in A 4at Langerum i Kalla parish, and the two K-brooches inA 202 at Folkeslunda). During the horizon of the trian-gular brooches, the number of grave goods per graveincreased and new categories of items were included.From this time onwards the combination of gravegoods was the same as at the beginning of the EarlyRoman Iron Age, only the shape of the items changed.

C.J. Becker characterized this time span (his per. Illb)as a "transitional period", because he could not distin-guish between the pottery associated with the metalobjects from this period and the pottery associatedwith metal objects ascribed to the Early Roman IronAge (Becker 1961, p. 263). But are there periodswhich can be characterized as transition periods? Onefundamental idea within the science of archaeology isthat the society is constantly changing and that this isexpressed by the change in the material culture. It isalso these supposed changes that make it possible toestablish a chronology. What name the individualscientist chooses to give to a specific period is uninte-resting, as long as it is explicitly stated which objects itshould contain and during what time span these ob-jects were in use.

The research of chronology has for long been haltedby the systems worked out around the turn of the cen-tury, and H. J. Eggers' analyses of the Roman importin Germania Libera settled the chronology of the Ro-man Iron Age. The problem is that none of these sys-tems take the local variation or time delay caused bythe ways of distribution into consideration.

As a consequence, the oldest weapon graves withinwhat is supposed to be the Germanic territory are to be

found in the periphery (cf. Schulze 1987, Abb. 2-4),though early weapon graves in the whole area are ra-ther similar in construction and contents. Only theweapons and the brooch types differ. That kind of si-milarity in choice of grave contents, and the construc-tion of the internal grave structure indicates a very ra-pid spread of a new burial custom. Such a distributionpattern can only be the result of a change in the ideo-logical identity. Once accepted, that kind of identityspreads more rapidly than the material culture, andtherefore items of an older date are to be found in gra-ves in the periphery areas. It is difficult to tell wherethis burial custom has started without a closer analysisof both the Celtic and Germanic weapon graves, butprobably should it be in an area where the super-re-gional contacts were most extensive. Such an area isfound in Central and Western Europe, where the Celticand later the Roman social systems met the Germanicone. A meeting which was not always peaceful.

The change in the ideological identity was not onlymirrored in the weapon graves, but also by the wellequipped female graves. Here the distribution patternis also a little strange if one maintains the traditionaldating. One example is three female graves containinga "fussbecken" of Eggers1 type 91 and 92; grave no.SHM 4539:A from Sojvide, Sjonhem parish, Gotland,(Nylen 1955, Figs. 173, 174, 175), an inhumation gra-ve from Lalendorf, kr. Gustrow, (Keiling 1977, p.123), and grave no. 260 from the cemetery at Glovzin,Kr. Perleberg (Keiling 1979, Tafel 39). Because of thebrooches, the two grave finds from Germany are datedto the Early Roman Iron Age, while the grave findfrom Gotland is dated to the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age(Lund-Hansen 1987, pp. 45, 126). But as I have statedabove, no brooches which traditionally are said to befrom the very beginning of the Early Roman Iron Age,Eggers Bla, have been found on the Scandinavianpeninsula. Instead this area has yielded a lot of broo-ches of so-called Late La Tene types.

On Oland and Gotland the limit between the Pre-Ro-man and the Roman Iron Age occurs during the hori-zon of the triangular brooch: grave finds with only oneor two brooches, or belt fitting of Becker's type 1 markthe end of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, and graves contai-ning grave goods of more than one category mark thebeginning of the Roman Iron Age. In absolute chrono-logy this happens around the birth of Christ. Thismeans that a considerable number of graves traditio-nally referred to the Late Pre-Roman period should ra-ther be assigned to the beginning of the Roman periodor Eggers' period Bla and some even to the beginningof the period Bib.

Translated by the author.

71

Chronological Problems in the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe- Copenhagen 1992, PP. 73-90

THE PRE-ROMAN IRON AGE IN NORWAY.

Per Oscar Nybruget, Oslo & Jes Martens, Copenhagen.

1. A Short History of Research:

In Norway a Pre-Roman Iron Age culture in theCentral European sense of the word is only foundin the coastal areas of southern Norway (up toBergen). In the more northerly parts of the coun-try an Iron Age culture developed which was in-dependent of southern Scandinavian influence.The aim of this paper is only to give a brief sur-vey of the southern Norwegian material.

The Pre-Roman Iron Age is not the most well re-searched period of Norwegian prehistory. Due tothe rather poor and accidental character of thefind material, only a few researchers have taken aspecial interest in the period.

In 1873, Andreas Lorange suggested that therewere traces of iron using people in Norway olderthan the Roman influence (Lorange 1873, p.220). Ingvald Undset disagreed with Lorange,doubting that any iron object found in Norwaycould be older than the Roman period. As evi-dence he referred to a barrow excavated at Hem-stad in Stange district, Hedmark county, whereobjects from late Bronze Age and early RomanIron Age were found together. In Undset's opi-nion objects found together must have been putinto the earth at the same time. He used thismixed find to prove that in Norway the BronzeAge lasted till the first century A.D. (Undset1880, pp. 113f. and 1881, pp. 427f).

At the beginning of the 20th century, Norwegianarchaeologists were discussing two problemsconcerning early Iron Age in Norway:

1: When did the Iron Age start?2: What finds belong to the Pre-Roman Period?

Gustav M0rch partly agreed with Undset, but inhis opinion the Iron Age in Norway started about300 B.C. He supposed that Bronze Age formsand La Tene forms lived side by side (M0rch1902, pp. 188ff.).

Gabriel Gustafson gave a short review of thefinds from the Pre-Roman period and he was thefirst Norwegian archaeologist to group the arti-facts in accordance with the three-period-systemdeveloped by Oscar Montelius (Gustafson 1906,pp. 60f.). From then on, the Norwegian archao-logists followed Montelius' three-period-system,although Haakon Shetelig already in 1914 sug-gested that the Pre-Roman Iron Age finds oughtto be divided into only two groups (Shetelig1914, p. 118). In spite of this, even he used thethree-period-system of Montelius.

In the 1920ies, Bj0rn Hougen and Anathon Bj0rnsuggested that most burials without markings onthe surface could be dated to the Pre-Roman pe-riod (Hougen 1924, pp. 8ff. and Bj0rn 1926, pp.53ff). Rude unornamented pottery was withoutexception placed in the Pre-Roman period (Hou-gen 1924, pp. 9ff). Besides, Hougen and Bj0rndated several cremated graves without artifacts tothe Pre-Roman Period (Hougen 1924, pp. 9f. andBjern 1927, pp. 12ff). Later many of these findshave been dated to the two first centuries A.D.

Erik Hinsch was one of the last to contribute withan extensive study on the period. He no longerused the three-period-system of Montelius butdivided the finds into two groups: An Early Pre-Roman Iron Age = Montelii Period I,' and a LatePre-Roman Iron Age = Montelii periods II and III(Hinsch 1950 and 1951).

In 1955, Erling Johansen demonstrated that mostburials of burnt bones and human ashes withoutmarkings on the surface belonged to later periodsof the Iron Age. Pots without ornaments are verydifficult to date and single sherds found with nocontext may belong to any prehistoric period(Johansen 1955, p. 217).

In several popular books new finds and points ofview concerning the Pre-Roman Iron Age inNorway have been presented (Magnus and Myhre1986, pp. 203ff and Hagen 1983, pp. 273ff).

The latest contribution to the discussion of theperiod are two papers by Lars Pil0, which give alist of finds from South Western Norway (Pil01991) and a discussion on the dating of soapstone vessels (Pil0 1992).

2. The Finds:

The Pre-Roman Iron Age material is very slenderand often difficult to date. Many finds have beenreferred to the period based on other criteria, likeradio carbon datings, find circumstances, and thelike. This is important to keep in mind whileconsidering the extent of the settlement area du-ring this period. Some finds may have been refer-red to the period on a false base, and on the otherhand an undiscovered material may still wait inthe files and stores of Norwegian museums.

Radio carbon datings show that there have beensettlements in most part of Norway since theStone Age although there are lacunae in the ar-chaeological material.

Apparantly people in the inland lived with stoneage technology without use of metal objects.They were little influenced by Southern Scandi-navia, and they may have had little use of metal.Flint and local rocks were used to make tools.

Along the coast of Southern and Western Norwayfrom the Oslo Fjord up to about Bergen, findsdocument a Pre-Roman Iron Age culture stronglyrelated to the one known elsewhere in SouthernScandinavia. The find material is particularly richin 0stfold, what might mirror the local antiqua-rian activity. In the western part of the area -theearly part of the period is well represented, whilethe later part is absent.

During the last 20 years, several house sites andvillages from the Early Iron Age have been exca-vated in the area. The house structures belong tothe southern Scandinavian types although theremay be some deviations in the dating of the typo-logical development Objects of metal and otherartifacts are rare, so the sites have mostly beendated by radiocarbon. Of great interest is a vil-lage excavated in 1988 at Kongsgard, Kristian-sand, Vest-Agder (Rolfsen 1992). Pre-Romanhouse sites have also been excavated in Rogalandat Ogna and at Forsandmoen (Skj01svold 1970,and Loken 1991). In the future, new villages may

be found when applying machines and unearthingthe subsoil. This new kind of source materialmay fill the apparant settlement gap of Southwes-tern Norway in the later part of the period.

Hoards from the Pre-Roman Iron Age are rare. Afew finds from bogs have been interpreted ashoards or ritual deposits. The finds consist of afew pots in Rogaland and a single torque fromStange, Hedmark. The bog pots are difficult todate, as they may also belong to the Roman Pe-riod.

Bog bodies make out a particular type of ritualdeposits. Until 1994, 6 human skeletons havebeen found in Norwegian bogs, 5 in Hedmarkand 1 in 0stfold. All of them have been radiocarbon dated. In basic bogs only the skeleton ispreserved. The rituals around these bog finds pro-bably resemble those that may have taken placein Denmark when human bodies were placed inbogs. Bog finds are a new category of finds thathas long been neglected. There are several storiestold in Norway about human skeletons found inbogs which have been reburied at the nearestcemetery, being interpreted as remains of soldierskilled in historically known military campaigns.

However, the most common finds are cremationburials found mainly in the counties bordering tothe costal line. Cremation burials are also foundin the inland, but here they are not so common. Itis an open question why graves from the Pre-Roman Iron Age still are lacking in the inlandcounties like Hedmark and Oppland. It is difficultto say whether the absence of graves reflects anabsence of settlement or just less archaeologicalresearch.

Only cremation burials are known from the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Norway. In the literature oneskeleton grave from As in Sande, Vestfold, hasearlier been referred to the period. However, acritical examination demonstrated that it had tobe referred to the late Roman Iron Age (Sj0vold1967). Burials without markings on the surfaceare the most common types in 0stfold and Vest-fold, but in Aust-Agder and in Vest-Agder andfurther westwards, Pre-Roman burials are alsofound as secondary graves in bronze age barrowsor as independent barrows.

Since the cremation graves are mostly very poor-ly furnished or without any equipment at all, it

74

has been the practise to radio carbon date burialsin connection with excavations of larger crema-tion cemeteries. In this way many unfurnishedgraves have been dated to the period.

In 1914, Jan Petersen excavated the major part ofa gravefield at Store Dal in Skjeberg, 0stfold.Only one burial contained metal objects thatcould be dated to the Pre-Roman Period (Petersen1916). At the gravefield at Gunnarstorp in Skje-berg, 0stfold, about 150 cremated burials wereexcavated in 1953 and 1960. Only 10 of thesecontained metal objects that can be dated to thelate Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age. The buri-als were either marked by stone circles or singlestones. Finally, the cemetary at Ula, Frederikstad,0stfold, must be mentioned. Though the majorityof the graves at this site are undateable or mustbe referred to the Roman Iron Age there are afew wich must be ascribed to the terminal part ofthe Pre-Roman Iron Age (Vibe-Muller 1987).

The burial customs in Norway are in many waysthe same as burial customs in Sweden, Denmarkand Northern Germany. In some ways, however,they are different. It looks as if Norway had spe-cial contacts with Sweden and the Baltic islands,although some finds also points toward Denmark,Northern Poland, and Holstein.

Unfortunately, many of the key finds happen tobe mixed, as they were not excavated by archaeo-logist but casually picked up by local farmers ortreasure hunters.

3. The Material:

3a. Dress-Pins,:Dress-pins are relatively common in the Norwe-gian material. The majority is made of iron andbelongs to the "Kropf-"pin type which is charac-teristic of the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age in nor-thern Europe.

"Kropf'-pins with curled-up head are known tothe number of 13 certain specimens from south-ern and western Norway. All of these are made ofiron. The "Kropf-neck" is immediately under thecurled-up head on most specimens, except for theone from Li, Sandnes, Rogaland (fig. le). Onthree pins the head is flat and wide; one of these,from a grave in Vestre Frivold, Grimstad, Aust-

Agder (C. 28297a), even has a minor plate on theback of the head (fig. la). Similar traits areknown on Vendsyssel pins (cf. Martens 1992, fig.2)-

The pins are reported to be found in graves, butonly in a few instances does the context consistof more than cremated bones, and if so, then rare-ly more than a few pieces of broken pottery. Ingrave 15 at Espeland, Sandnes, Rogaland (AMS9142) a pin is combined with a clay urn and anunusual, wide, flat iron ring with a hook (probab-ly a belt fitting), and a bronze spiral ring (fig. Ib)(Magnus & Myhre 1966, pp. 30f). Grave 4A atStore Tune, Sarpsborg, 0stfold (C. 32758z-cc)combined a pin with a belt-hook with double spi-ral end, an iron ring, and sherds of a clay vessel(fig. Id). While these two graves were excavatedrecently, by professionals, a find from Aske, Lar-vik, Vestfold (C. 18056-60), well known fromliterature (cf. Shetelig 1914, pp. 119f, Moberg1941, p. 200, Hinsch 1951, pp. 63f), has a moredubious nature. The find combines an iron"Kropf'-pin with a large, massive bronze pinwith a flat top, a bronze sickle, fragments of whatseems to be a bronze neck-ring, and three ironfittings. This unusually large assemblage wasrecovered by a private person in order to sell it tocollectors. One might therefore suspect that theexcavator on purpose mixed the inventory of se-veral graves in order to obtain a higher price.

Another relatively common pin type is the"plate"-pin (fig. 2a). The pin is made of iron andis of the "Kropf'-pin type, but the "Kropf' issomewhat less marked than is the case with thepins with curled-up head. The head is hammeredout flat like a plate and usually has a central rivetwhich originally attached a profiiated bronzesheet as a face ornament. Such pins usually occurin pairs in the graves - so far five such pairs areknown. In three cases they were found in combi-nation with a spiral belt hook (see below). In twocases the pair was combined with a third pin of adifferent type and metal (bronze).

From 0stre Vatne, Farsund, Vest-Agder (C.22804) an iron "Kropf'-pin with a bronze ballhead is known. A simple bronze pin with bailhead is known from a grave in Gunnarstorp (C.3389lb-c). An interesting derivate of iron of the"Spatenkopf'-pin type (fig. 3b) found in a gravefrom Oldemyr, Larvik, Vestfold (C. 19189-90)

75

must be mentioned, as well as a bronze "Kropf'-pin with profilated top (found in a grave with apair of plate pins (B. 4999), cf, Shetelig 1912, p.6). An iron "Kropf-"pin with spiral head isknown from grave 120 in Gunnarstorp. Finally,the large bronze pin with flat top from theprobably mixed find from Aske (see above) mustbe mentioned. There are other finds which inclu-de Early Pre-Roman iron pins, mainly of the"Kropf-"pin type, but due to the state of preser-vation a closer determination of their type is im-possible.

jb^Belt Equipment:Spiral shaped belt hooks from the Early Pre-Roman period (Becker's type A, Becker 1992,fig. 3) have been found to the number of eight.Four of these were found together with a pair of"plate-"pins (cf. fig. 2a & Hinsch 1951, figs. 2 &3). It looks like this may be a common combina-tion. However, in grave 4A at Store Tune, Sarps-borg, 0stfold, such a hook was combined with a"Kropf-"pin with curled-up head (fig. Id). Thisdemonstrates that their dating is the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age. Similar belt-hooks are knownfrom Central Sweden, Oland (cf. Rasch thisvolume), and Bornholm (Becker 1992, p. 8f).

One tongue-shaped belt hook (Becker's type Bl)is known from Southern Norway. It stems froman urn grave found in a stone mound (r0ys) atBekkeheia (grave 4), Ha, Rogaland. Apart fromthe urn and the belt hook, this grave enclosed onefurther vessel and some indeterminable ironfragments (fig. 3c). Judging from the burial cus-tom and the grave furnishing, the dating of thistype of belt hook appears to be the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age,

A bronze ring with an eye of Jutland type hasbeen found as a loose find at Jasren (Shetelig1914, p. 121, PI. 11.16).

A more local type is known from two graves inRogaland (figs. Ib, 3a) (Magnus & Myhre 1966;

pp. 30ff). The wide and flat ring does not seemto have parallels elsewhere, but the combinationwith a "kropf'- pin with curled-up head provesthe dating to the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age.

In a grave at Aske, Larvik, Vestfold (Shetelig1914, fig. 19, Hinsch 1951, fig. 62), tworectangular iron plates, one with a hook, the otherwith an eye, were found together with, amongother things, two further iron plates and a"kropf'-pin with curled-up head. Unfortunately itappears that the grave is a mixed inventory of atleast two graves. The iron plates appear to be thefittings of a leather belt comparable to the oneknown from Arre grave 334 (Becker 1965, fig.2), but with a somewhat different lock. A similarlock is known on belts from Gotland (cf. Nylen1955, fig. 297.4), and on the bronze chain beltsfrom Jutland. These belts are dated to a late partof the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age. However, She-telig mentioned further finds with combinationswith "kropf'-pins, so the dating to the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age appears to be confirmed.

Two belt locks with long strap mountings, whichBecker has classified as his types 6 and 7, areknown from the Oslo Fjord region. One wasfound in a cremation pit grave at Store Borge(grave 3), Borge, 0stfold, in combination withtwo iron brooches of Kostrzewski's type K, and abronze neck-ring (fig. 5a) (Hinsch 1951, pp.63f). This specimen Becker refers both to histype 6b (Becker 1992, p. 22) and later to his type6a (ibid. p. 23). The other stems from a cremationpit grave at As, Sande, Vestfold, and was theonly artifact in the grave (Fig. 5e). This Beckerrefers to his type 7 (ibid. p. 25 and fig. 16). Thedefinition of his type 7 resembles very much thedefinition of his type 6b (i.e. Lundstroms type 2,cf. Lundstrom 1970, p. 27), and Becker admitsthat it may be difficult to distinguish between the

Fig. I: Examples of grave furniture from the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age containing "kropf-pins with curled-uphead. All metal objects are of iron. Pottery 1:4. Metal 1:2. Del. Martens 1992, except for the pin in cand e left after Shetelig 1912.

a: Vestre Frivold, grave 111, Grimstad. Ausi-Agder. C. 28297 If/a-c.b: Espeland, Hang 15, grave 1, H0yland, Sandnes, Rogaland. AMS 9142a~f. A bronze spiral bracelet

(9142 d) was not possible to reconstruct.c: Nordre Fevang, Hang 39, Sandejjord, Vestfold. C. 7013-14, the pin after Shelelig 1914, plate !.5.d: Store Tune, Hang 4. grave A. Tune, 0stfold. C. 32758z-cc.e: Li, Sandnes, Rogaland. AMS 2340 a-c. Note that the iron "kropf'-pin has earlier (left) been depicted

with a curled-up head (cf. Shetelig 1914, plate 1.4) which now is missing (right).

77

Fig. 2: Examples of grave furniture from the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age containing pairs of pins. Pottery 1:4.Metal objects 1:2. Martens del. 1992.

a: Haug, Nannestad, Akershus. C. 11037a-c. Plate pins, iron with bronze rivet at head, belt hook, iron, pinfragments, bronze.

b: Gjone, Hedrum, Vestfold. C. 19909-11. Belt hook, iron; back of pins, iron; cover plate of pins, bronze,c: Viste, Tune, 0stfold. C. 20l2la-d. Pins, iron.

78

Fig. 3: Examples of grave furniture from the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age. Pottery 1:4. Metal 1:2. Martens del1992.

a: Vigrestad grave H, Ha, Rogaland. AMS 9146 e-f, x. Belt ring, iron,b: Oldemyr, Brunlanes, Vestfold. C. 19189-190. Pin, iron,c: Bekkeheia grave 4, Ha, Rogaland. AMS 9869a-d. Belt hook and fragment, iron.

types 6 and 7 (Becker 1992, p. 18). The defini-tions are, however, neither very exact nor veryelaborate. Therefore it does not seem convincingto distinguish between the specimens from Asand Store Borge, particularly since the latter isnot very well preserved. However, from the gene-ral outlook the Store Borge belt lock resemblesthe one from As so much that they ought to beascribed to the same type (type 6), until provedotherwise. Consequently, the grave at Store Bor-ge refers this type to the late Pre-Roman IronAge. The distribution of type 7 is, according toBecker, the Swedish West coast and the Oslofjord, while the strongly related type 6 has a wi-

der distribution with a marked concentration inOstergotland (Becker 1992, pp. 17f. and p. 22).

Belt locks with two strap mountings (Becker's ty-pe 4) appear to the number of three certain speci-mens and fragments of some probable ones. Theproblem is that it may be very difficult to distin-guish between fragments of a type 4 and a type 5belt lock. One certain specimen has been foundas a loose find at the cemetery at Ula, Frederik-stad, Ostfold (Vibe-Muller 1987, p. 43) (fig. 5d),two further ones has been found in a grave atHals, 0vre Eiker, Buskerud (Becker 1992, fig.11). The latter ones were found in an urn crema-

tion pit in association with a local version ofKostrzewski's K-brooch, a twisted strap endmounting (Becker's type A), an awl, a curvedknife, and a sickle (Fig. 6). A fourth possiblespecimen stems from an urn cremation pit grave(grave 16B) in Store Dal, 0stfold. Besides thebelt lock the grave contained two bronze broo-ches of Kostrzewski's type K, a number of rivetsof bronze and iron, and a resin ring (Fig. 5b). TheK-brooches refer the type to the Late Pre-RomanIron Age, though it must be admitted that thevery broad and flat bow of the bronze broochfrom Hals seems to indicate typological influencefrom Roman Iron Age brooches (see later). Fur-ther belt rings are found at the large burialground at U!a (graves nos. 56 and 68), but due tothe state of publication their types remain un-known (cf Vibe-Muller 1987, p. 67).

A twisted bronze strap end mounting of Becker'stype A (Becker 1993, fig. 8) is known from thealready mentioned grave at Hals (fig. 6). Thetype is widely distributed in Scandinavia and isamong other places known in Vendsyssel, andWestern Sweden. However, Becker believes thatit is possible to point out northern Vaster Gotlandas the homeland of this particular specimen dueto the associated beit lock of his type 4.

A bronze chain beit of North Jutland type wasfound in a grave at R0r, Rygge, 0stfoid (Hinsch1951, pp. 6Iff . & fig. 4). In the earlier literaturethe find has been presented as two separate gra-ves (cf. Moberg 1941, pp. 11 If.). However, whilereconstructing the belt Hinsch found fragments ofit in both complexes. The contents which are veryfragmented are quite extensive; fragments of twoor three bronze neck-rings, a fragmented T-sha-ped bronze brooch with false iron spring, abronze buckle with a long mounting piece, amassive bronze penannular brooch, and potsherds. Though not an exact replica the belt findsits best parallels in North Jutland (cf. Miiller1900, Klindt-Jensen 1953, figs. 33-34, Madsen1992), where the type is dated to Becker's per.Illb (Becker 1957). This date is confirmed by thebrooch. Further belts of this type are known fromWest Sweden and Blekinge (Manadsblad 1903-5,pp. 131f., Ekholm 1919).

3c. Brooches:Penannular brooches form an inhomogeneousgroup (Shetelig 1914, fig. 29-32) which, howe-

ver, can be divided into to major types; bronzebrooches with pin and massive open broocheswithout pin. The first type, of which there is

known three specimens, has not been found lo-cally in a surely dating context. It has, howeverclose parallels within the Jutland material, whereit is found in graves from both the Early and theLate Pre-Roman Iron Age (cf. Martens, this vo-lume). Four specimens of the latter are known insoutheastern Norway. Of these one stems fromthe already mentioned mixed inventory of R0r,Rygge, Ostfold. Since, however, the rest of thematerial dates the grave to an advanced stage ofthe Late Pre-Roman Iron Age, it seems reasonab-le to extent this dating to the penannular broochas well. The other specimens are not found in su-rely dating contexts. Penannular brooches of thistype are also known from central and southerSweden (Arbmann 1934, p. 39 & fig. 22, Stjern-quist 1947) and from North Jutland"1. Unfortuna-tely all these finds are stray finds.

A surprisingly high number of La Tene brooches,23, have up to now been found in Norway. Theyare only found in southastern Norway in the OsloFjord region and in Buskerud. They are found ingraves, either single or, as in four instances, inpairs. They are most often (14 times) found as theonly equipment besides the bone container, but ina few instances they are combined with neck-rings, belt equipment, or tools. The brooches canbe divided into three types; specimens of Kos-trzewski's type A and B, specimens of Kostrzew-ski's type K, and a single T-shaped brooch.

Brooches of Middle La Tene scheme (Kostrzew-ski's type A and B) are known to the number ofseven. Five of these are made of iron, two ofbronze. All are found in cremation graves as theonly equipment; two in cremation pits, one withan urn of organic material, three with a clayvessel (fig. 4e) as cinerary urn, and one with animported bronze cauldron as an urn (fig. 4f).From this it may be difficult to derive an inde-pendent local dating (cf Moberg 1952, p. If .)- Incontinental Europe they appear to have a ratherlong life (cf. Hachmann 1960, pi. 1, Hingst 1959,fig. 17a). In a recent study on the brooches ofKostrzewski's A-C-types from Central Poland,Teresa Dabrowska divides them into an long type(more than 8 cm) and a shorter type (Dabrowska1988, pp. 15ff, cf. Martens 1989). She demon-strates that while even long specimens of the C-

80

Fig. 4: Examples of brooches and grave furniture with brooches of Kosirzewski's types A and B of the Late Pre-Roman iron Age. Brooches 1:2. Vessels 1:4. Martens del- 1992.

a: Store Tune, Haug 3, stray find. Tune, 0stfold. C.32757hhhh. Iron.b: Lundstad, Ringerike, Buskerud. C. 20I67a-b. Iron,c: Nordre Fevang, Haug 40, Sandefjord, Vestfold. C. 7031-32. Bronze,d: Store Tune, Haug 3, grave XVI. Tune, 0stfold. C. 32757000-aaaa. Iron.e: Gipsen, Haug II, Rygge, 0stfold. C. 8185-86. Brooch, bronze,f: As, Sande, Vestfold. C. 21697a+c. Brooch, iron. Cauldron rim and handles, iron; sheet, bronze.

type may combine with artifacts of the secondphase of the local chronology, this is only thecase with the shorter specimen of the types A andB. Her conclusion is that the long A and B broo-ches date to her phase Al which she synchroni-zes with LTC. Al least two of the Norwegianbrooches are of the long type; the brooch fromLundstad, Ringerike, Buskerud (fig. 4b), and the

brooch from As, Sande, Vestfold (fig. 4f). Thelatter was found with an imported bronze caul-dron, which is generally dated to an advancedstage of the late Pre-Roman Iron Age (see later),a fact that seems to contradict the dating sugges-ted by Dabrowska. This may be an indication of adelayed occurrence of the type within the Norwe-gian context.

a

c

6=

Fig. 5: Examples of brooches and grave furniture with brooches of Kostrzewski's type K of the Late P re-RomanIron Age. Martens del. 1992. 1:2.

a: Store Borge, grave 3, Borge, 0stfold. C. 28595a+b+d+e. Brooches and belt filling, iron. Neck-ring,bronze.

b: Store Dal, Haug 16, grave B, Skjeberg, 0stfold. C. 21547d~n. Bronze,c: Ula, stray find, Frederikstad, 0stfold. C 29I40e. Bronze,d: Ula, stray find, Frederikstad, 0stfold. C. 29140a. Iron,e: As, Sande, Vestfold. C. 21697b. Iron.

The most numerous type of brooches in Norwayis Kostrzewski's type K. 15 specimens of thistype have hitherto been found. They are all found

in graves or in connection with graves, four timesas pairs, and five times together with other typesof metal artifacts, mainly belt equipment. They

82

can be divided into two sub-types; a slender (12specimens) and one with a broad, flat bow (3specimens).

The first subtype exists in two versions; one ofiron and one of bronze. The eight iron broochesmeasure between 5-6 crn from spring to foot,their height being 2,2-2'/2cm. The pair from grave3 at Store Borge, 0stfold, has open work in thefoot frame (fig. 5a). Otherwise these broochesseem to fit in with the definition of the typical Kbrooch with a thin bow, with a round or rhombiccross section. Twice these brooches were foundin pairs, and once in combination with other me-tal artifacts. The complex is the above mentionedgrave 3 from Store Borge, which besides a pair ofiron brooches contained a belt fitting of Becker'stype 6/7 and a bronze neck-ring (fig.5a) (Hinsch1951. pp. 63f.)- Unfortunately these artifacts giveno farther clue to the dating than "the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age, not earlier than the K broo-ches". However, the brooches themselves findgood parallels in the Jutland material where theymainly date to Becker's per. Illb (cf. Martens1992).

Four brooches are made of bronze (length 3-3'/2cm, height l!/2-2cm). Besides a fragment ofthe foot frame of a bronze brooch, Ula grave 56contained a bronze pin, a belt fitting apparantlyresembling Becker's type 2a, and two iron pen-dants resembling Nylen 1955, fig. 117 (Vibe-Muller 1987, p.161 and pi. 7). The two latter ty-pes are on Gotland dated to Nylen's fase C of theLate Pre-Roman Iron Age (Nylen 1955, p. 399 &507). A further bronze specimen from the Ulacemetery is a loose find, but may of course comefrom a destroyed grave (Vibe-Miiller 1987, p.43). From Store Dal grave 16B, Skjeberg, 0st-fold stems a pair of brooches with a narrow, flatbow and open work in the foot frame. Theirheads are flat, triangular and horned, and they areslightly sway-backed (fig. 5b). In this they re-semble an iron brooch from a cremation grave atMariendals Mark in Vendsyssel (VHM 23011-14) and two bronze specimens from grave 6 atStommen in Vastergotland (Oxenstierna 1948,fig. 60). These parallels must be referred to theterminal part of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Howe-ver, they appear in areas where the sway-backedbrooches of Kostrzewski's types M, N, and O areabsent, and therefore it has been suggested thatthey in these areas substitute the very latest Pre-Roman brooch types (Bech 1980, pp. 801, notes

3 and 4). While the size of the brooches alreadyindicates a difference in time in comparison withthe iron brooches, this pair may be seen as thetransitional form between this group and the fol-lowing.

The second group (length 4-4,8 cm, height 2-2,1cm) is known from two burials, one specimenfrom the grave at Hals, 0vre Hiker, Buskerud,and two specimens from grave 69 at the Ula ce-metery, Frederikstad, 0stfold (Vibe-Miiller 1987,pi. 7). All three are of bronze, the one from Halswith open work in the foot frame. The excavatorcompares the two brooches from Ula with theRoman Iron Age brooches of Almgren's type 75& 109 (Almgren 1923, pi. IV & V, Vibe-Miiller1987, pp. 231), and it must be admitted that theredoes exist a typological affinity between thesebrooches (fig. 6b). The Ula-brooches are, howe-ver, formally La Tene brooches in spite of the ve-ry broad bow. The importance in Vibe-Muller'sobservation is then, that these La Tene broochesseern to be produced under influence of the styleand design of Roman Iron Age brooches. This isa strong indication of a very late chronologicalposition. How late, can not be judged from thisfind alone, but luckily a very similar brooch wasfound in a richly furnished grave at Hals (fig. 6a).This complex included a belt ring of Becker'stype 4, which unfortunately has no closer datingthan "Late Pre-Roman Iron Age", "not earlierthan the K-brooch" (Becker 1993, p. 181). Thetwisted strap end mounting of Becker's type Aseems to have a long chronology beginning withthe occurence of the K-brooches but continuingat least to the time of the sway-backed brooches(Becker 1993, p. 191; Rasch this volume). Final-ly, the occurence of tools in the grave indicate adate not earlier than the K-brooches. Thus, thebest argument for the dating remains the typolo-gical affinity with the Roman Iron Age brooches.In this connection it is remarkable to note the ab-sense of sway-backed brooches in Norway. Per-haps these were substituted by a local develop-ment of the K-brooch.

A third type, a T-shaped brooch, is known fromthe already mentioned grave at R0r, Rygge in0stfold. The brooch which is very badly preser-ved has a long, false iron spring with three bron-ze knobs at each end and a bronze bow of middleLa Tene construction. The execution of the footframe as well as the joining of the bow to thespring cannot be reconstructed today. T-brooches

83

a

Fig. 6: Grave furniture with late derivates of brooches ofKostrzewski's type K from the transition to the RomanIron Age. Martens del 1992, except 6b after Vibe-Muller 1987, plate 7. Brooches 1:1. Everything else 1:2.a: Hals, 0vre Eiker, Buskerud. C. 23249a-k. Brooch and belt equipment, bronze. Everything else, iron.b: Ula grave 69, Frederikstad, 0stfold. C. 29473. Bronze.

are known from all over Scandinavia, but alwaysof a local execution. From Vendsyssel two suchbrooches are known from Vogn, the dating beingBecker's per. Ilia and b (Bech 1975, note 9 andfigs. 10-11). These brooches are, however, lack-ing the characteristic bronze knobs at the springends. From Ekehogen, West Sweden, (Cullberg1972, fig. 54) and Vaster Gotland (Oxenstierna1948, fig. 62) T-brooches with such knobs areknown, the construction of the brooches themsel-

ves being somewhat different. Nylen dates theGotland brooches with long, false spring to hisphase B (Nylen 1955, pp. 417ff). Among thequite large number of such brooches are a fewwith four bronze knobs on each spring end (ibid,figs. 127, 128), but the brooches are of Late LaTene construction. Becker generally referred theball brooches with wide spring to his first LatePre-Roman phase at N0rre Sandegard on Born-holm (Becker 1990, p. 80), but grave 494 which

84

also contained a beit hook was referred to hissecond phase (ibid. p. 82 and pi. 45). Hingstreferred brooches with wide springs to his secondand third phase of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Agein Holstein (Hingst 1959, fig. 17a). Thus a closerdating of the wide false spring than generally tothe Late Pre-Roman Iron Age is difficult to reachon the present basis.

3d. Tools:Small iron tools like curved knives, razors, sick-les, sewing needles, awls, etc. appear as gravegoods all over Scandinavia at the close of thePre-Roman Iron Age. In Norway only a limitednumber of graves with such equipment can be re-ferred to the period with certainty.

The already mentioned Hals grave contained be-sides brooch and belt equipment a curved knife, asickle, and an awl (fig. 6a). As mentioned above,the brooch shows clear typological indications ofa very late position, perhaps even the firstcentury AD. Grave 66 at Ula which contained asickle as the only grave good (Vibe-MuTler 1987,p. 21) has been radiocarbon dated to BC50±110(T-137). Due to the considerable inaccuracy ofthe measurement this means that the calibrateddating includes the first century AD. Consequent-ly this grave gives no clue concerning the datingof the first appearance of tools in Norwegiangraves. An urn cremation grave from S0r-Hog-stad, Sandnes, Rogaland, which contained a U--shaped razor (fig. 7b), has been dated to the LatePre-Roman Iron Age by L. H. Pile (1990, p. 91and fig. 4). However, since the urn is the onlyother artifact in the grave it is difficult to judgeabout the dating of this grave as well (see below).In a few cases curved knives are even found inassociation with brooches dated to the secondcentury AD. Judging from this one could assumethat almost all, perhaps all tools found inNorwegian graves from the Early Iron Age be-longed to the first centuries A.D.

In North Jutland knives, scissors, and razors arealready known in graves from Becker's per. Ilia.Sewing needles seem to appear somewhat laterwhile sickles do not occur (cf Martens thisvolume). U-shaped razors are known from Bec-ker's per. Ilia but also from his per. Illb.

In the graves nos. 34 and 35, at the Ekehb'gencemetery at the Swedish west coast, sickles were

associated with sway-backed brooches (Cullberg1972, p. 24). Graves furnished with tools inVastergotland lack other dating objects (broochesor belt equipment). However, Sahlstrom hasdemonstrated that such graves at Kyrkbackenwere found in all districts of the cemeteryincluding the earliest sections (Sahlstrom et al.1948, figs. 127, 128, 132, Moberg 1950, fig. 1-3).This means that tools similar to the Norwegianones in Western Swe-den already appeared in theLate Pre-Roman Iron Age, at the latest inBecker's per.IIIb.

This indicates the possibility that some of thegraves with tools but no other dating artifacts(like Ula, grave 66) in Norway theoreticallycould stem from the terminal part of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

3e. Weaponry:Pre-Roman weapon graves are not very commonin Norway. In fact no grave has with certaintybeen dated to the period. The problem is as withthe tools that the weapons do not combine withother, datable artifacts.

At Hodtved, Andebu in Vestfold a La Tenesword was found together with a spear head in acremation pit marked by a large cover stone. Thesite was reexamined by Nybruget but no newobjects were found. The sword is very damaged,so a closer determination than Kostrzewski's typeI/II (Kostrzewski 1919, figs. 64-65) is not pos-sible. These types occur in Poland in Dabrow-ska's phases A1-A2 (Dabrowska 1988, zes. 13),while Becker has demonstrated that they may oc-cur in per. Illb (Becker 1961, pi. 121f.), but alsoas late as the Early Roman Iron Age in Jutland(ibid. p. 202 and fig. 78). The associating lancehead has a slightly star shaped cross section andmust be referred to Wolagiewicz's group IIIwhich in Pommerania is dated to the turn of themillenium (Wolagiewiczowie 1965, p. 28f). it is,however, uncertain whether this date can betransferred to Norway.

A grave from Store Borge, containing a shieldboss and a lance head has also been referred tothe Pre-Roman Iron Age (Shetelig 1901). Theshield boss appears to be Kostzewski's type V,which in Jutland occurs in Becker's per. I l l b aswell as in the Early Roman Iron Age (Nielsen1975).

More lance heads have been dated to the EarlyIron Age (eg. Hinsch 1951, fig. 9.1), but as al! ofthem are stray finds and none of them are ofchronologically distinct types, the dating may bewrong.

Thus, it seems that almost all, perhaps all, wea-pons found in Norwegian graves from the EarlyIron Age belong to the first centuries A.D.

3f. Impojrtejj Metal Vessel:Two bronze cauldrons with iron rim have beenfound in Norway, both in barrows. One of themwas found at As (FIG. 4F) in Sande, Vestfoldwhile the other appeared at Tjelta in Sola, Roga-land (Bj0rn 1927, p. 7, fig.l). The As cauldron,determined by Eggers as his type 5 (Eggers 1951,p. 159), was filled with cremated human bonesand ashes and among the bones there was found along La Tene brooch of Kostrzewski's type A(Br0gger 1916:65-72). As far as the authorsknow this is the only time an A brooch and a LaTene cauldron have been found together. TheTjelta cauldron, Eggers' type 4, contained nothingbut cremated bones.

A third imported bronze vessel, of Eggers1 type67 was found in Skeide, north of Bergen (Eggers1951, pp. 95 & 166). The find is without context,so it has to be dated by similar finds in otherareas of Scandinavia. In Denmark two suchbronze pans have been found: one in Try, Vend-syssel (Becker 1957), another in Hedegard, Cen-tral Jutland (O. Madsen, pers. comm.). The con-texts (pottery, brooches, belt equipment, and kni-ves) in both cases refer the vessels to Becker'sper. IHb. In a grave from Anga on Gotland asimilar pan was found in association with beltequipment dateable to Nylen's phase B and C(Nylen 1955, pp. 93f. and figs. 107-108). On thecontinent the type has a rather long life, datingfrom the second half of the first century BC untilthe second half of the second century AD (Berke1990, p. 18). This means that though the Scandi-navian material points at an early dating(Becker's per. IHb) it cannot be excluded that thisfind belongs to the Roman Iron Age.

3g. Pottery:Pottery forms a large but unfortunately not verywell illuminated artifact group. The so far mostdetailed study on this field has been made by E.

Hinsch, but unfortunately it remained only anunfinished sketch (Hinsch 1951, pp. 66ff., figs.10-11). The outset was the otherwise dated ma-terial, mainly cinerary urns. The problem wasand still is that while we do have a number ofwell preserved urns in combination with metalartifacts from the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age thisis not the case with the late part of the period.The typology proposed by Hinsch is not veryclear, and it must be stated that his suggested in-fluence of "Vandal" pottery in the late Pre-Ro-man Iron Age as well as the dating of a numberof the pots ascribed to this period is rather uncer-tain.

17 graves with metal objects which with certaintyrefers them to the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age alsocontained pottery. In several instances it is pos-sible to reconstruct the vessel more or less. Theforms are quite simple, and the ware is generallycoarse. The rims can be divided into three types:a simple thin rim (most numerous), a simple rimwith a thickened, flat top, and a rim with outerthickening (fig. 2c). The latter points back at thelate Bronze Age. Some vessels have a more orless sharply marked neck below the rim (fig. Ic)while on others the rim protrudes directly fromthe body (fig. la). The profile of the body is ge-nerally smoothly curved, the widest point tendingto be placed in the upper third of its height. In afew cases the widest point may be marked by asharp angle (fig. Id). Ornaments are seldom:known are narrow horisontai grooves (fig. 3c)and depressions made by tubular bones (fig. le).An animal figure is incised at the neck of a potfrom Vigrestad, Ha, Rogaland (fig. 3a).

7 vessels or fragments of vessels are dated bycontext to the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age. Thereason for the lower number may be the use ofcontainers of organic material or of metal in thisperiod. Unfortunately, these vessels are generallyless well preserved than the ones from the EarlyPre-Roman Iron Age, and this prevents us fromsaying much about their general character. Therims are thin or slightly thickened with a flat top.At a specimen from Finndal, Skien, Telemark,the inner side of the rim appears to be facetted(Hinsch 1951, fig. 11.14).

Hinsch dated the first occurence of thickened, fa-cetted rims and X-shaped handles to the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age. However, so far none of these

traits have been found within surely late Pre-Ro-man contexts, while they are well documented inthe Early Roman Iron Age.

serve as a better outset for a more detailedknowledge of the Pre-Roman Iron Age pottery ofSouthern Norway.

Fig. 7: Grave furniture with pottery from the Late Pre-RomanIron Age. Vessels 1:4. Razor 1:2. Martens del. 1992.

a: Gipsen, HaugI, Rygge, Ostfold. C. 8J75-76.b: S0r Hogstad, Sandnes, Rogaland. AMS 3555a-d.

Razor, iron.

3h. Soap Stone:In Norway soap stone has been used sincethe Stone Age. Soap stone bowls and sherdshave been found in house sites, in graves,and as stray finds, but these finds are diffi-cult to date. In Rogaland soap stone bowlshave been used as grave urns in the Pre-Ro-man period but none of them have beenfound together with metal objects.

Lately, L. H. Pil0 has given a review of thematerial attempting at establishing a typolo-gy and a chronology (Pil0 1990). While thesuggested typology seems reasonable, thechronology suffers from a number of ob-vious weak points: Pil0 is only able to listthree finds with a sure dating: Stausland,Forsand, and Saxerod. The first two datingsare radio carbon datings. Stausland, which isa bowl of Pile's type 1, is dated to BC830 +/-60, a dating which appears to be unquestion-able (Johansen 1986, pp. 85f). The findfrom Forsand is only a small rim fragmentwhich cannot be placed within Pil0's typolo-gy. This has been dated to BC410-370 +/-80.For some reason or another Pil0 does notaccept this dating which places the rim sherdin the early Pre-Roman Iron Age. The thirddating stems from the already mentionedgrave from Saxerod on the Swedish westcoast (Manadsbiad 1903-5, p. 13If.). In thesoap stone vessel, Pil0's type 4, which wasused as an urn, was found a bronze chainbelt of a type which now in several instancesin Jutland has been found with other artifactsdating to Becker's per. Illb (see earlier).

On the present basis it may be difficult to renderanything new to the chronology of Pre-Romanpottery in Norway. The very simple forms do notallow a detailed comparison with the ceramicaldevelopment in Jutland or western Sweden. It canonly be stated that the general development ofrims and necks does not seem to follow along thesame lines - the Norwegian material appearingtoo loose in its execution. One may only hopethat the large-scale settlement excavations in thefuture may produce a larger material, that may

The other datings referred to in the articleare either very questionable or too wide to

give any clues. Therefore it seems necessary touse analogies for dating, and it must be admittedthat the suggested analogy between Pile's type 1and Danish late Bronze Age bowls of clay seemsconvincing.

A further indication of the dating can be reachedby the soap stone quarry at Kvikne, Hedrnark. Aseries of radiocarbon datings indicate that it hasbeen used in the Late Bronze Age and the EarlyPre-Roman Iron Age (Skjolsvold 1969, pp. 204

87

and 235)(2'. Among the blanks should be bowls ofPile's type 1, what seems to confirm the earlydate of this particular type. Fragments of vesselswhich appear to be very similar to the Saxerodurn were aiso found at the Kvikne quarry (Skj01s-vold 1969, pp. 207f. and fig. 11). This either indi-cates a long life of this type or a long use of thequarry. Since the five CI4-datings all indicate anearly part of the Pre-Roman Iron Age or a latepart of the Bronze Age, the first possibility ap-pears to be the most likely. One might wonder,why this find was not taken into consideration byPil0.

The conclusion on this must be that while Pil0'stype 1 appears to be correctly referred to the LateBronze Age, we still have only very few land-marks concerning the date of his other types.Besides, one may argue that we still have too fewfinds to establish a typology. Especially some ofPile's later types are defined on a very slendermaterial.

4. Chronological Problems:

It is difficult to say whether the oldest combina-tion finds belong to the Late Bronze Age or theEarly Iron Age. As long as a combination doesnot contain iron artifacts it may be difficult tocall them Bronze Age or Iron Age. There are se-veral good combinations from the Early Iron Agelike dress pins and belt hooks found in differentcombinations. Pottery is rare, and it is difficult todistinguish pots from the transition between theBronze Age and the Iron Age.

In Norway there are no combination finds be-tween the Early and the Late Pre-Roman IronAge. The Norwegian material is so small that it isnot reasonable to talk about a period II. Thebrooch of Kostrzewski's types A and B is relati-vely common in Norwegian archeological mate-rial and there is one interesting combination fromVestfold where an A-brooch was found togetherwith a bronze cauldron. The K-brooch which isthe other brooch type characteristic for the LatePre-Roman Iron Age is probably slightly laterthan the A-brooch - a position which is indicatedby the brooches from Hals and Ula. These latterfinds demonstrate the close relationship betweenthe late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman IronAge - a relationship which is underlined by findsfrom both periods on the same burial places. Be-

sides, it may even be difficult to distinguishbetween finds from Pre-Roman Iron age andRoman Iron Age, as small tools and coarse pot-tery are used as grave gifts until about 400 A.D.Further finds and further research is needed be-fore a clear distinction can be made between LatePre-Roman and Early Roman in southern Nor-way.

The chronological problems are blurred by therelatively large number of not. professionally in-vestigated finds which may have been mixedbefore they came into the hands of antiquarians.As an example of this, one could mention thegrave find from Aske which has been dated to theLate Pre-Roman period. The find was excavatedby a local farmer and in the authors' opinion thefind may be a mixed one as it looks like amixture of a grave from the Late Pre-Roman withone from the early Pre-Roman Iron Age.

5: Final Remarks

From this brief survey it appears that southernNorway has produced a surprisingly high numberof well-equipped cremation graves from the Pre-Roman Iron Age. These may be divided into twogroups, an early one containing belt hooks, dresspins, and well preserved clay vessels, and a lateone containing brooches, belt equipment, andtools. The cinerary containers in this period mayoften be of organic material, or badly preservedclay vessels, or in a few instances of metal. Nofind combines types from the two periods whichin terms of Montelius could be termed per. I andper. III. However, to speak of an intermediaryperiod without finds would be to carry the con-clusion too far on an afterall quite slender basis.As the remarks on the brooches of Kostrzewski'stype K demonstrate, there may occur a certaindelay in or prolongated circulation of the variousinterregional types occuring in Norway. This maybe due to the position of the country in theextreme northern periphery of the northern Euro-pean Iron Age culture zone. Southern Norwaybelongs to this zone and shows particular rela-tions to the neighbouring areas like Jutland,western and central Sweden, and even Oland andBornholm. In northern Norway an Iron Age inde-pendent of southern Scandinavian influenceseems to have developed. Finds from Kjelm0y,among other things skis and a curved iron knife,are radio carbon dated to the fourth century B.C.

Abbrevations:

AMS Arkeologisk Museum, Stavanger.C. Oldsaksamlingen, Oslo.B. Bergens Museum.NMC Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen.VHM Vendsyssel Historiske Museum, Hj0rrinj

Notes:

1: A stray find from G01 Bjerg, NMC30796.2: Skj01svold refers the datings without calibration.Calibrated is the range approximately between 750-120BC, cf. Rasmussen og Rahbask this volume.

References:

Arbman, H. 1934: Zur Kenntnis der altesten Eisen-zeit in Schweden. Ada Archaeologica vol. V,pp. 1-48.

Bech, J-H. 1975: Nordjyske fibler fra per.Ilia aff0rromersk jernalder, Hikuin 2, pp.75-88

Becker, C..I. 1957: En f0rromersk jernaldergrav fraTry Skole. Kuml 1957, pp.49-68

1961: F0rromersk Jernalder i Syd- ogMidtjylland. K0benhavn. Nationalmuseet.

1990: N0rre Sandegdrd. ArkcuologiskeUndersogelser pa Bornholm 1948-1952. His-torisk-filosofiske Skrifter 13, Det KongeligeDanske Videnskabernes Selskab, Keben-havn.

1992: Studien zur jiingeren vorromi-schen Eisenzeit auf Bornholm. Acta Archaeo-logia vol. 63, pp. 1-38.

Berke, S. 1990: Romische Bronzegefasse und Ter-ra Sigilata in der Germania Libera, Boreas,Beiheft 7. Miinster.

Bj0rn. A. 1926: Tidlig metallkultur i 0st-Norge.Oldtiden XI, f0rstehefte, pp. 1-76.

1927: Fra var asldste jernalder, BergenMuseums Arbok 1926, Historisk-Antikvariskrsekke. Nr. 3, Bergen

Br0gger, A.W. 1916: La Tenckjedelen fra Sandc iJarlsberg, Oldtiden Bind VII. f0rste hefte, pp.65-72.

1925: Del norske folk i oldtiden, OsloCullberg, K. 1972: Ekehogen und Valtersberg. Zwei

Grabcrfelder der vorrdmischen Eisenzeit inWestschweden. Studier i nordisk arktcologi11 , Goteborg.

Dabrowska, T. 1988: Wczesne Fazy Kuliuiy Przewor-skiej. Chronoiogia - zasieg - powiazania.

Warszawa, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Nau-kowe.

Ekholm, G. 1919: Tva fynd fran den forromerskejamaldern, Fornvannen 14, pp. 224-231.

Gustafson. G. 1906: Norges Oldtid, ICnstianiaHagen, A. 1983: Norges Oldtid, 3. utgave, Oslo.Hansen, A. M. 1907: Oldiidens Nordmcend. Qpphav

og boscctning. KristianiaHingst, H. 1959: Vorgeschichte des Kreises Stor-

marn, Veroffentlichungen des Landcsamtesfur Vor- und Friihgeschichte in Schleswig-Holstein, Die vor- und fruhgeschichtlichenDcnkmaler und Funde in Schlcswig-Holstein,bd.V, Neumunster, Kurt Wachholtz.

Hinsch, E. 1950: ICeltertidsproblemet i nordisk ar-keologi. Nordisk Tidsskrift, Stockholm.

1951: Forromersk jernalder i Norge.Finska Fornminneforreningens TidsskriftLIL-I.

Hougen, B. 1924: Grav og gravplass. Eldre jernal-ders gravskikk i 0stfold og Vestfold. Viden-skapsselskapets skrifter. SI. Hist.-Filos.Klasse.1924. No.6.Knstiama.

Johansen, E. 1955: Ny datering av branngraver underflat mark. Gravskikken som kilde til sosialhistorie. Universilelets Oldsaksamlings arbok1951-1953, pp. 178-236.

Johanscn. 0. 1986: Tidlig metallkultur i Agder. Uni-versitetets Oldsaksamlings Skrifter, Ny rekkc,nr. 8.

Klindt-Jensen. O. 1953: Bronzekedelen fra Bra. JyskArka^ologisk Selskabs Skrifter, Bd. I I I . Aar-hus.

Kostrzewski, J. 1919: Die ostgermanische Kullur derSpatlatenezeit. Mannusbibhothek no. 18.Leipzig.

Lorange, A. 1873: Om spor af romersk kultur i Nor-ges ceidre jernalder. Kristianias Videnskabs.Selsk. Forhandlingcr for 1873. Kristiania.

Lundstrom, P. 1970: Gravfahen via Fiskeby I. Kungl.Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akadc-mien, Stockholm.

Leken, T. 1991: Forsand i Rogaland - lokalt sen-trum i de ssrlige Ryfylkefjordcne. Gunneria64 Volume !, Trondhcim 1991, pp. 207-201 .

Magnus, B. & Myhre, B. 1966: Oldsaksamlingens t i l -vekst 1965. Stavanger Museums Arbok 1965,pp. 5-52.

Magnus, B. & Myhre, B. 1986: Forhistorien. NorgesHistoric, Bd. l .Osio .

Martens, J. 1991: Teresa Dabrowska, Wczesne fazykultury przeworskicj. Chronoiogia - Zazieg -Powaziania (Friihstufcn der Przeworsk-Kul-tur. Chronologic - Gcbiet - Verbindungcn),Journal of Danish Archaeology vol.8, pp. 233-235.

89

Martens,]. 1992: On the So-Called Kraghede-Group. The Pre-Roman Iron Age in NorthJutland and its Connections with the Prze-worsk Culture. Kultura Przeworska, Tom 1,ed. A.Kokowski, Lublin, in print.

1993: Die vorromische Eisenzeit in Sud-skandinavien. Problemen und Perspektivcn.Prahistorische Zeitschrifl, in print.

Moberg, C-A. 1941: Zonengliederungen der vorro-mischen Eisenzeit in Nordeuropa. Lund,C.W.K.Gleerup.

1950: Kyrkbacken i Horns Socken foreoch efter jamalderns tredje period. Fornvdn-nen, h. 2-3,pp. 73-94.

Miiller, S. 1900: Bronzebaslter fra f0rromersk tid.Arbeger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historicJ900,pp. 130-139.

M0rch, G. 1902: Jernets f0rste tider i Norge. Fore-ningen til Norske fortidsmindes-merkers Be-varing Aarsberetning 1901. Kristiania. pp.188-200.

Mdnadsblad 1903-5: Kungliga Vitterhets Historic ochAntikvitets Akademiens Manadsblad.

Nielsen^J.L. 1975: Aspekter af det fsrromerske va-bengravsmilj0 i Jylland. Hikuin 2, pp. 89-96

Nybruget, P. O. 1978: F0rromersk jernalder i S0r0st-Norge. Unpublished dissertation from Insti-tute of Archaeology, Oldsaksamlingen, Uni-versity of Oslo.

Nylen, E. 1955: Diejiingere vorromische EisenzeitGotlands, Uppsala, Almquist & Wiksell.

Oxensiierna, E. 1948: Die Urheimat der Goten, Leip-zig-Stockholm.

Petersen, J. 1916: Gravplassen fra Store-Dai i Skje-berg. Norske Oldfund 1. Kristiania.

Pil0, L. H. 1990: Early Soap Stone Vessels in Nor-way, Ada Archaeologica vol. 60, pp.87-100.

1991: F0rromersk jernalder - fra en an-nen vinkel, Viking Bind LIV-J991, pp. 51-64.

Rolfsen, P. 1992: Porten til Europa. Card - Tettsted- Kaupang - By. pp. 33 - 55. Seminar i Bergen

11. - 13. desember 1991. N.U.B. Nytt fra Ut-gravningskontoret i Bergen. Riksantikvarenutgravningskontor i Bergen.

Rygh, O. 1885: Norske Oldsager. CammerrneyerChristian! a.

Sahlstrom, K. E. & Gejvall, N.-G. 1948: GravfdltetP{JKyrkbacken i Horns Socken, VdstergotlandKungl. Vitterhets Historic och AntikvitetsAkademiens Handlingar, Del 60:2.

Shetelig, H. 1901: Vaabengrave fra Norges asldrejernalder. Foreningen til Norske fortidsmin-desmerkers Bevaring, Aarsbereting 1900Kristiania, pp. 46-67.

1912: Vestlandske graver fra jernalde-ren. Bergen Museums Skrifter. Ny raskke, Bd.II, no. 1, Bergen.

1914: Den ferromerske jernalder iNorge. Oidtiden III, pp. 117-143.

Skj01svold, A. 1969: Et keltertids klebersteinsbruddfra Kvikne. Viking. BindXXXIII, pp. 201-238.

1970: To keltertids hustufter fra Ogna iRogaland. Viking. Bind XXXIV, pp. 65-82.

Sjovold, T. 1967: Keltertid eller romertid? Viking1971, BindXXXI, pp. 123-143.

Stjemquist, B. 1947: Grave from Pre-Roman Iron AgeDiscovered at Barseback, Skane. Medddan-den fran Lunds Universitets Hisioriska Muse-um, pp. 195-204

Undset, I. 1880: Fra Norges yEldre Jernalder. Aar-boger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie,pp. 89-184.

1881: Jernalderens Begyndelse i Nord-europa. K0benhavn.

Vibe-Muller, K. 1987: Gravfeltene pa Via, Glemmen,0stfold. Keltisk Jernalder, Romertid og Fol-kevandringstid, Varia 13, Universitetets Old-saksamling, Oslo.

Wolagiewiczowie, M.D. & R. 1964: Uzbrojenie lud-nosci Pomorza ZachodnJego u progu naszejery. Materialy Zachodniopomorskie vol. 9,pp.9-166

90

Chronological Problems in the Pre-Roman Iron Age ofNorthern Europe - Copenhagen 1992, pp. 91-106

KRONOLOGISKE PROBLEMER OG DERES BETYDNING FORFORSTAELSEN AF F0RROMERSK JERNALDER I SYD- OGMIDTJYLLAND.Claus K. Jensen, Arhus.

mens de 0vrige perioder er tilsvarende underre-prassenterede. Men derudover er der ogsa indenforde enkelte perioder forskel i reprassentationen afbopladsfund og gravfund. Periode I er saledes deneneste periode, der er godt reprassenteret blandtbegge kategorier. Periode II og Ilia rummer noglebopladsfund, men mangier stort set gravfund. Der-imod er periode Illb ganske rig pa gravfund - menkan til gengseld ikke opvise et eneste bopladsfund.Becker sa problemet som et reprassentativitetspro-blem: det var bare et sp0rgsmal om at fa en st0rrefundmcengde, sa ville der blive overensstemmelsemellem fundfordelingen og periodernes formodedelagngde (Becker 1961, p. 270). En gennemgang affundtilvzeksten fra 1982 til 1986 bar imidlertidvist, at fundfordelingen her er precis sa skasv somden i 1961 (Jensen 1992, p. 54 og tabel 2). Dette

ma betyde, at vi ikke lasnge-re kan forvente, at fundfor-delingen med tiden og blotved tilkomsten af nye fundvil tilpasse sig vort billedeaf den f0rromerske jernal-der. Tvsertimod ma denfundfordeling, Becker sa i1961, og som er illustreretpa figur 1, give et prascistbillede af den f0rromerskejernalder - ud fra det krono-

Fig. L Fordelingen af grav og bopladsfund i Jylland sammenholdt med logiske grundlag man an-periodernes formodede lazngde. Status J961. Oversigten er baseret pa en optcelling vender ved inddelingen i

"Ferromersk Jernalder i Syd- og Midtjylland".

Selvom det nu er mere end tredive ar siden C. J.Becker udgav monografien "F0rromersk Jernalderi Syd- og Midtjylland" (1961), er dette veerk stadiggrundlaget for al forskning i f0rromersk jernalder iDanmark. Og med god grand. Heri publicerer Bec-ker ikke mindre end 51 bopladser og 49 gravplad-ser med tilsammen mere end 450 grave. Derudo-ver behandles keramikken indgaende; en relativ ogen absolut kronologi etableres, og forholdet mel-lem den f0rromerske jernalder i Danmark og Jas-torfkulturen i Nordtyskland belyses. Nar emnet idet folgende er kronologiske problemer omkringforromersk jernalder i Syd- og Midtjylland, maBeckers vasrk derfor sta centralt, bade som inspi-ration, som dokumentation og som angrebspunkt.

I (78,57-1

(17.;-:)

gravlund

afjundene a/bildetpa pi. 123-127 i Becker }96l.

Becker behandlede en lang rsekke problemer i1961 - og 10ste de fleste af dem. Et problem bansa, men ikke kunne 10se, var den meget skeeve for-deling af fund mellem de enkelte perioder (fig. 1).I virkeligheden er det jo ikke bare et problem menflere misforhold. Sammenligner man masngden affund fra de enkelte perioder med de tidsrum, Bec-ker formoder, perioderne daskker, ses for det f0r-ste, at periode I generelt er overreprsesenteret,

perioder. Heraf f01ger, at vienten kan vaelge at fastholde

det kronologiske grundlag - og s0ge demografiskeeller bebyggelseshistoriske forklaringer pa detsk^eve fundbillede - eller kan vselge at se nsrmerepa det kronologiske grundlag, som fundfordelin-gen er baseret pa. I det f01gende skal vises, at denskeeve fundfordeling er et sp0gelse (jvf. Martens,dette skrift), alene betinget af det Beckerske kro-nologisystem, og at en revurdering af de typologis-ke og kronologiske forhold far det til at forsvinde.

Periode I

Periode II

Periode tlla

Periode l!lb

med deraf f01gende problemervedrorende korreleringen afdisse.

Et vassentligt resultat af Bec-kers arbejder er papegningenaf lerkarrandenes kronologi-ske udsagnsvaardi. Pa figur 2er vist de karakteristiske ran-de og hvorledes Becker opfat-ter deres tidsmasssige relationtil en rsekke metaltyper. Me-

Fig. 2: Randenes kronologi sammenholdt med nogle periodedefmerende metal- tallerne er altsa periodespeci-typer. Delvis baseret pa Becker 1961, fig A.

Forholdet mellem keramikkens og mctallcrneskronologi.

Becker fremhasver gentagne gange, at det bedstegnede materiale til kronologiske studier indenforf0rromersk jernalder er keramikken (Becker194Sa, p. 233; 1951, p. 30), og det er da ogsa f0rstog fremmest omkring keramikkens kronologi,bans arbejder er nyskabende, mens ban bygger paandres resultater for metallernes kronologi. Imid-lertid ma keramikkens forrang for metallerne isa3rbero pa, at keramikken forekommer bade pa bo-pladser og i grave, mens metallerne kun fmdes igravene. Derimod mener Becker nasppe, at date-ring via keramik er mere n0jagtig end datering viametaltyper,- snarere tvsertimod. Det fremgar sale-des af bans arbejder, at de enkelte perioder f0rst ogfremmest er defineret ud fra deres indhold af me-taltyper. Som eksempler kan nasvnes, at keramik-inventaret for periode IT f0rst blev udskilt da det ien grav lykkedes at finde et lerkar sammen med enkarakteristisk ledetype af metal (Becker 1948a, pp.235ff), og at de store asndringer i keramikkrono-logien, der blev foretaget fra 1948 til 1951, er endirekte f01ge af ;endringer i metalkronologien(Becker 1951, pp. 32f). Og endelig lader ban selv i1961, hvor ellers en detaljeret keramikkronologifremlsegges, klart keramikken "komme i andenrekke" i forhold til metallerne (Becker 1961, p.174). Men da metalsagerne jo kun fmdes i grave-ne, er det naturligvis kun disse, der kan dateres vedmetaltyper. For bopladserne derimod er keramik-ken det eneste middel til datering, hvorfor boplad-sernes kronologi n0dvendigvis ma knyttes til kera-mikken. Det betyder, at kronologien for de to for-skellige genstandsgrupper, keramik og metal,knyttes til to forskellige fundgrupper, bopladser oggrave. Herved etableres to adskilte kronologier,

fikke og selvom nogle randty-per fmdes i flere perioder erbilledet klart: i periode I fm-

des udelukkende rande fra gruppe 1; i periode IIdukker rande fra gruppe 2 op; periode Ilia begyn-der med de f0rste rande af gruppe 3 og fra periodeIllb fmdes rande af gruppe 4. Billedet svarer tilvores normale opfattelse af ledetypers forhold tilperioder: en ny periode begynder med opdukken afen ny ledetype, mens andre typer fortssetter fraperiode til periode. For keramikken gaelder altsa,at den f0rste opdukken af rande fra gruppe 2definerer begyndelsen pa periode II, ligesom denf0rste opdukken af rande fra gruppe 3 definererbegyndelsen pa periode Ilia. Et billede, der n0jesvarer til dette, kan ses ved udbredelsen af deforskellige randtyper pa tuegravpladsen Arupgard.

Arupgard er den st0rste af de kendte tuegravplad-ser fra f0rromersk jernalder i Danmark og deneneste, der er totaludgravet (J0rgensen 197la;1971b; 1972; 1975; 1989; 1990; Becker 1982; Jen-sen 1992). Pladsen, der ligger i det nordlige S0n-derjylland mellem Ribe og Gram, falder naturligtind i gruppen af store tuegravpladser fra Syd- ogMidtjylland, af hvilke Arre og Uldal er de bedstkendte. Antallet af undersogte grave pa Arupgard,er mere end 3 gange sa stort som antallet af kendtegrave pa Arre, og det sammenholdt med, at Arup-gard er totaludgravet, at dokumentationsniveauetfra Arupgardudgravningen er meget h0jt og atpladsen synes at daskke et meget langt tidsrum, g0rat denne plads giver nogle muligheder for krono-logiske analyser, som ingen anden dansk, f0rro-mersk gravplads.

Pa Arupgard er der en tydelig horisontalstratigrafimed de asldste grave Hggende nordligt og deyngste mod syd. Jeg bar tidligere argumenteret forat pladsen kan deles i 3 omrader, modsvarende trekronologiske faser (Jensen 1992). Faserne er her

92

Gruppe I

Gruppe 2

Gruppe 3

F/'g. 3: Udbredelsen af fern randtyper pa tuegravplad-sen Arupgdrd.

illustreret ved udbredelsen af tre forskellige ud-formninger af lerkarhalse (fig. 4). Jeevnf0res dermed randformer af Beckers gruppe 1, 2 og 3 (fig.3), fremgar det, at der i fase 1 udelukkende sesrande fra gruppe 1, hvorved denne fase umiddel-bart kan ja^vnf0res med Beckers periode I. I fase 2dominerer rande fra gruppe 1, men over hele dendel af pladsen, der tilskrives fase 2 ses rande afgruppe 2, hvilket betyder, at fasen kan jeevnf0resmed Beckers periode II. For den tredje fase erJ£evnf0ringen imidlertid lidt vanskeligere. Fasendomineres af rande af gruppe 1 og 2, men et min-dre indslag af gruppe 3 rande ses. Da periode Iliaif01ge defmitionen begynder med den f0rste op-dukken af rande af gruppe 3, burde fase 3 maskeja3vnf0res med denne. Men antallet af rande afgruppe 3 er sa beskedent, at det synes urimeligt di-rekte at foretage denne jaevnf0ring. Imidlertidgjorde Becker i 1961 opmeerksom pa, at en tvede-

ling af periode II's keramik kunne iagttages(Becker 1961, p. 224ff). I den tidlige del af perio-de II ligner keramikken periode I's keramik medden ene forskel, at nogle af de store forradskar kanhave en let fortykket, Hge afskaren rand. I den senedel af periode II forekommer en ny type lerkar, derikke bar nogen hals, men en tydelig afsat rand ogkonveks-konkav profil. Det er faktisk prsecis dentvedeling, der kan iagttages pa Arupgard, idet deteneste af Beckers periode II-trsek, der kan ses i fa-se 2, er tilstedevasrelsen af lerkar med "let fortyk-kede, Hge afskarne rande", mens kar uden hals,men med tydeligt afsat rand er almindelig i fase 3.Derfor bliver det muligt at lave en prascis ja^vnfo-ring med Beckers kronologisystem saledes: Fase 1svarer til periode I; fase 2 til "tidlig periode II" ogfase 3 til "sen periode Il/tidlig Ilia".

'

'-v O A CMx o , o ;A o /

O

o

konisk tilcylindrisk hals

svajet hals

kraftigt markeret,udadbojet rand

Fig. 4: Udbredelsen af tre keramikhalsformer pa tue-gravpladsen Arupgdrd.

Na^ste skridt i korreleringen af keramik- og metal-kronologien er at se pa udvalgte metaltypers fore-komst pa Arupgard. Af figur 5 fremgar, at metal-typer, diagnostiske for Beckers periode 1, synes at

93

karakterisere bade fase 1 og 2, mens typiske perio-de II-metaltyper f0rst optrasder i fase 3. Beckermente imidlertid pa metalsagerne at kunne skelnemellem tidlig og sen periode I, og det ser ud somom nale fra Beckers periode la dominerer fase 1,mens nale fra periode Ib dominerer fase 2.

» c +

o

Fig. 5: Udbredelsen affetn ndletyper pa tuegravpladsenArupgard. Efter Becker 1982,

Sammenholder vi sa resultaterne fra af de to jsevn-f0ringer begynder problemerne at melde sig om-kring fase 2, idet denne if01ge keramikken skullekorreleres med Beckers "tidlig periode II" ogif01ge metalsagerne med periode Ib. Med andreord er metalsager typiske for periode Ib samtidigemed keramik typisk for "tidlig periode II". Medforbindelserne keramik/bopladsdatering og me-tal/gravpladsdatering in mente f01ger, at grave, derdateres til periode Ib er samtidige med bopladser,der dateres til "tidlig periode II", og hermed bar viforklaringen pa en del af det skasve fundbillede.For det f0rste forklarer det den meget store meeng-

de gravfund, der dateres til periode I, og hvorforperiode I er bedre reprassenteret ved grave end vedbopladser. Tilsvarende er det forstaeligt, at periodeII er bedre reprsesenteret ved bopladser end vedgravfund og specielt, at det er meget sveert forBecker at udskille grave fra "tidlig periode II".

At Becker ikke har set dette misforhold, f.eks gen-nem et gravfund bestaende af en metaltype karak-teristisk for periode Ib og et lerkar karakteristiskfor "tidlig periode II", skyldes f0rst og fremmestden meget brede definition, Becker knytter til pe-riode I's keramik. Som det fremgar af fig. 2 errande af gruppe 1 ikke bare defmerende kendetegnfor periode I, men ogsa dominerende i periode II,mens den diagnostiske randform for periode II kirnforekommer pa et mindretal af lerkarrene, ogendda kun pa "de store forradskar" (Becker 1961,224). Da forekomsten af gruppe 2-rande er deteneste element, der adskiller keramik fra periode Iog tidlig periode II, er det klart, at hovedparten afde lerkar, der skal dateres til tidlig periode II ikkekan skilles fra de lerkar, der skal dateres til periodeI. Og siden tidlige f0rromerske gravfund oftest kunbestar af et enkelt lerkar - urnen -ja sa er chancenfor at finde et periode II-tegn pa keramikken i dis-se meget lille. Da sandsynligheden for at treeffe etperiode II-karakteristikum pa keramikken 0gesmed antallet af lerkar i et fund, forklarer dette,hvorfor det er muligt at udskille bopladser fra "tid-lig periode II".

For forholdet mellem periode Ilia's bopladser ogIllb's grave g0r et lignende forhold sig gasldende.Becker kunne i 1961 kun udskille periode Illb pametalsagerne, mens periodens keramik tilsynela-dende ikke kunne udskilles fra aeldre romertids ke-ramik. I modsaetning hertil kunne Becker definereet bredt keramikinventar for periode Ilia, men tilgengasld ikke henf0re sasrligt mange metaltyperdertil. Det er derfor ikke underligt, at periode Iliastort set alene er reprassenteret ved bopladser ogperiode Illb alene ved grave. Becker forklaredeoprindeligt manglen pa periode Illb bopladser medperiodens formodede korte varighed, der skullemedf0re, at keramikken ikke naede at "fa sit egetpra3g" (Becker 1961, 241). Samtidig var det klart,at periode Ilia matte va3re meget lang, ikke mindsti lyset af det forhold, at der pa N0rre Fjand kunnepavises 7 huse, som stratigrafisk af!0ste hinanden,og alle skulle dateres til periode Ilia (Becker 1961,11 Off). Det er dog senere lykkedes bade Erik J0r-gensen og Jens-Henrik Bech at udskille karakte-ristiske periode Illb-lerkar former (J0rgensen 1968;

94

Bech 1979). Bech har desuden kunnet fremvise etperiode Illb-bopladsfund, hvorved den del af pro-blemet, der vedr0rer periode Illb, maske kan syneslost. Men misforholdet mellem de mange boplad-ser og de fa grave i periode Ilia fmdes dog stadig,ligesom det ikke er forklaret, hvorfor der kan hen-f0res nassten fire gange sa mange gravfund til denkorte periode Illb, som til den lange periode Ilia.

Fig. 6: Retvceggede bcegre karakteristiske for periodelilb. Efter Bech 1979.

Det hidtil mest omfattende arbejde omkring ud-skillelsen af periode Illb's keramik er gjort afJens-Henrik Bech (Bech 1977; 1979). En enkeltlerkarform kan her klart udskilles som va3rendekarakteristisk for periode Illb: hankekarret mednssten ret profil og udfaldende rand (fig. 6). Gen-nem en ra^kke kombinationsanalyser kan Bech do-kumentere, at formen ikke fmdes i grave med ty-piske periode Illa-metalsager og heller ikke medtypiske asldre romertidsformer, men derimod medmetalsager som ma dateres til periode Illb {Bech1979). Der er nseppe tvivl om, at Bechs beskrivel-se af periode Illb for gravenes vedkomrnendedzekker en fase, der ligger imellem Ilia og aeldreromertid, men forholdet til periode Ilia's boplad-

ser er ikke helt sa klart. Pa den bedst publicerededanske boplads fra periode Ilia, Hodde, ses nemligBechs typiske periode Illb-lerkar i klar periodeIlla-sammenhasng (fig. 7). Hvis saledes Bechs pa-stand er rigtig, at de retvaeggede basgre i graveneer diagnostiske for periode Illb, og det skal ikkebetvivles, ja sa ma konklusionen vsere, at i hvertfald nogle af de grave, der dateres til periode Illb,ma vsere samtidige med nogle af de bopladser,som dateres til periode Ilia.

Fig. 7: Retvceggede bccgrefra Hodde. Efter Hvass 1985.

Forholdet mellem den idag anvendte kronologi forbopladser og gravpladser kan illustreres som pa fi-gur8.

Gravfund:

Bopladser:

II Ilia

Ilia Illb

8: Forholdet mellem gravenes og bopladserneskronologi.

Essensen af denne analyse er, at perioderne sombeskrevet af Becker, ikke er velafgrsensede krono-logiske enheder bestaende af bade bopladser oggrave, men kun har mening ved sammenligning affund indenfor en fundgruppe, og at det derfor er

95

^uden mening at bruge dem til videre slutninger. !det f01gende skal vi se lidt nasrmere pa selve pe-riodeinddelingen.

LI2 IJS

Fig. 9: Typer anvendt i analysen.

Seriation af gravmaterialet fra Syd- og Midtjyl-land.

I det ovenstaende bar argumentationen sa at sigevaeret f0rt indenfor rammerne af det hcevdvundnekronologisystem, med anvendelse af ledetyper ogmere eller mindre subjektive vurderinger af gen-standes forhold til disse og dermed til de etablere-de "perioder". Men da det ovenfor er pavist, atdisse perioder ikke fungerer som kronologiske en-heder, ma man i et forseg pa at revurdere krono-logien nodvendigvis se bort fra periodeopdelingenog pany analysere fundene. Da problemet ved dentraditionelle kronologi isaer er korreleringen afmetallernes og keramikkens kronologi, er det hel-ler ingen darlig ide at bygge analysen pa beggematerialegrupper. Da det som nasvnt kun er i gra-vene, begge materialegrupper forekommer almin-deligt, er disse et godt udgangspunkt for en revur-dering af kronologien. Syd- og Midtjylland er me-get rig pa grave fra f0rromersk jernalder, og bartraditionelt indtaget en vassentlig rolle i forsknin-

gen omkring denne periode i Danmark. Derfor ergrave fra dette omrade brugt som grundlag for re-vurderingen.

Jeg har valgt at seriere materialet (1). Den grund-lasggende ide med seriationsteknikken er forsavidtidentisk med den klassiske fundkombinationsme-tode, hvor man gennem sluttede funds indhold aftyper etablerer en "ra^kkefolge" eller "serie" affund og typer, og ud fra den fundne raskkef01gedefmerer perioder (2). Specielt i Nordtyskland harfundkombinationsmetoden vEeret meget anvendtpa f0rromerske gravpladser. I stedet for manuelt atordne materialet som det er almindeligt der, harjeg dog valgt at foretage ordningen ved hjaslp af enmultivariabel analysemetode: korrespondensanaly-sen (3). Fordelen herved er for det f0rste, at jegslipper for at skulle estimere over "den bedst mu-lige orden", men nok sa vigtigt, at der gennem dengrafiske representation af analyseresultatet givesmulighed for at vurdere kvaliteten af seriationen,eller rettere om de sluttede fund kan serieres pagrundlag af de udvalgte typer.

Fig. 10: Plot afl.- og 2.-aksen af korrespondensanalysepa enheder og typer i appendix A.

Rent praktisk er en raskke gravfund beskrevet vedderes indhold af forud definerede typer, og detforventes at lighed i typesammensa^tning medf0rersamtidighed og modsat at forskel i typesammen-SEetning modsvarer kronologisk afstand. Selvomdet lyder som dobbeltkonfekt, er der faktisk taleom to forskellige antagelser. Den f0rste kan im0-dekommes ved at operere med prascise og snasvretyper. Den sidste antagelse derimod, er kun gael-dende, hvis tilstedevasrelsen af de udvalgte typer igravene er kronologisk betinget og ikke socialt

96

betinget. Derfor har jeg kun medtaget 3 "funk-tionsgrupper" eller genstandsgrupper, der synes atforekomme almindeligt i bade mands og kvinde-grave, nemlig lerkar, dragtnale/fibler og simpeltbtelteudstyr. Da det er fundkombination, der skalanalyseres, er det et krav, at hver grav skal inde-holde mindst to typer og at hver type skal fore-komme i mindst to grave. Det tjener intet formal atanalysere to grave med n0jagtig ens typeindhold -det interessante, nar man skal seriere, er jo at fa samaagtforskettige kombinationer som muligt for atopna den gradvise udskiften af typer, som giverkontinuitet og er selve seriationen. Det er klart, atdenne udvaslgelse har medfort en voldsom frasor-tering af fund, men samtidig ma det bemasrkes, atsamtlige interessante typer, der forekommer imindst to eksemplarer, er med i analysen, ligesomalle forekommende kombinationer er det, hvorfordet er mindre vaesentligt om "alle grave er med".

Fig. 11: Plot af L- og2.-aksen af korrespondensanalysepa det totale materiale i appendix A.

I appendix A er 59 grave fra Syd- og Midtjyllandbeskrevet ved deres indhold af udvalgte typer. I fi-gur 9 er vist eksempler pa de 13 keramiktyper, 6naletyper, 4 basltespasnder og 5 fibeltyper, der ind-gar i den f0rste analyse. Resultatet af en korres-pondensanalyse k0rt pa en matrice opstillet padette materiale ses illustreret pa figur 10 ved etplot at de to f0rste akser. Nogen seriation er der joikke tale om, men derimod to grupperinger, hvorafden ene er en koncentreret klump i 0verste venstrehjorne mens den anden er spredt ud pa en linie. Serman neermere pa matricen viser det sig, at gruppentil h0jre indeholder de tidlige grave (Beckers pe-riode I og II), mens den anden klump indeholderde sene grave og desuden, at ikke en eneste type er

faslles mellem disse to grupper. Imidlertid er detklart, at nogle af de elementer, der er brugt til atdefmere keramiktyperne flndes i begge grupper,men da denne forbindelse gar tabt ved anvendelseaf de snzevre typedefmitioner, bliver det n0dven-digt at inddrage nogle af elementerne i analysen.

Fig. 12: Plot af L- og 2,-aksen af korrespondensanalysepa materialet i appendix A og B.

I andet forsog er saledes inddraget 9 formelemen-ter fra keramikken og resultatet af en analyse k0rtpa de 59 grave og deres indhold af nu 37 variableses pa fig. 11. Dette billede svarer bedre til en se-riation, men er stadig langt fra godt. Der ses en op-splitning i nogle grupper, og hvis disse korreleresmed Beckers kronologi ses en vis overensstem-melse, idet gravene i gruppen til venstre alle kandateres til Beckers periode I, mens de i bunden afplottet kan dateres til periode II, og de til h0jre madateres til periode III. Bruddet i kurven forekom-mer altsa omkring Beckers periode II, og dette be-r0rer et reelt problem omkring de manglendegrave fra Beckers perioder II og Ilia, eller retteremanglen pa grave med gode fundkombinationer.Det er nemlig klart, at de typer, der synes at skulleplaceres mellem "periode I" og "periode Illb", fo-rekommer i Jylland. Men de fleste af genstandeneer enten fundet i beskedent udstyrede grave ellerendnu veerre, er 10sfund (Becker 1961, 255). Imid-lertid findes savel pa Fyn som i Holsten en delgrave med gode kombinationer, sa i mangel afanvendelige jyske fund har jeg inddraget noglegrave, der ligger udenfor unders0gelsesomradet.

I appendix B er beskrevet 10 grave fra gravpladsenHornbek i Holsten (Rangs-Borchling 1963), ogdisse grave er inkluderet i den neeste analyse. Re-

97

Fig. 13: Den ordnede matrice (se ogsd side 106).

neladende selvmodsigende at bruge seriationen, ogmaske specielt seriationen udf0rt via korrespon-densanalyse, som grundlag for en fase- eller perio-deinddeling. Men da vi jo n0digt vil undvasre"perioder" eller "faser" som arbejdsredskaber, er derpa den ordnede matrice (fig. 13) fors0gsvis angivet5 faser. For at vurdere hvordan det er mestfornuftigt at beskrive perioder, skal der ses lidtbredere pa materialet.

Tredelingen.

Den f0rromerske jernalder i Danmark bar skiftevisvaeret inddelt i to og tre hovedperioder. Den f0rsteopdeling af det danske materiale blev foretaget afCarl Neergaard og fulgte Oscar Montelius' trede-ling af f0rromersk jernalder, der igen hvilede paOtto Tischlers tredeling af La Tene kulturen(Neergaard 1916; Montelius 1896; Tischler 1886).Efterhanden viste der sig dog problemer med at

Fig. 14: Keramik fro. periode I. Ellum Skole, T0nder ami. Efter Becker 196!, pi. 1-2.

sultatet af denne ses i fig. 12. Det fremgar, at dernu er tale om en ganske god seriation. Da en "godseriation" i princippet er det modsatte af en perio-deinddeling, i og med den perfekte seriation jo ikkeindeholder "klumpninger" og dermed intet direktebelaeg for periodeinddeling, er det altsa tilsy-

opretholde tredelingen i Danmark, og da JohannesBr0ndsted i 1940 udsendte f0rste udgave af 3-bindsv<erket "Danmarks Oldtid", var den f0rro-merske jernalder blot delt i to perioder. Senere togC. J. Becker som bekendt tredelingen op igen ogfastslog dens gyldighed (Becker 1948a; 1948b;

98

Fig. 15. Keramikfra periode II. G0rding, Ringk0hing amt. Efter Becker 1961, pi 70 og 72.

Fig. ! 6: Keramikfra periode II: Vilstrup Vestermark, Haderslev amt. Efter Becker 1961, pi. 57-58.

99

Fig. 17: Keramikfra periode Ilia. Aidt, Vihorg amt. Efter Becker 1961, pi. 80-81.

Fig. 18: Keramikfra periode Hla. Norre Fjand, Ringkobing amt. Efter Becker 1961, pi. 86-87.

100

1951; 1961). Siden da bar tredelingen vasret al-ment accepteret, men i praksis er flere igen be-gyndt at anvende en todeling. Saledes operererLotte Hedeager i sine nye arbejder omkring asldrejernalder kun med to f0rromerske perioder (Hede-ager 1988; 1990). I den arlige oversigt "Arkseolo-giske udgravninger i Danmark" ses ligeledes oftedateringer som "asldre f0rromersk jernalder" og"yngre forromersk jernalder". Situationen er sale-des precis den samme som i 1930erne og 40erne,hvor man i praksis vendte sig mod tredelingen tilfordel for en todeling, uden at have nye kronolo-giske unders0gelser som holdepunkt. I det f01gen-de skal der argumenteres for, at det rent faktisk ermere fornuftigt at todele end at tredele den f0rro-merske jernalder.

I virkeligheden har tredelingen altid voldt proble-mer. Neergaard kunne ganske vist i 1916 let ud-skille den f0rste periode, der bade pa keramik ogmetalsager havde nasre ligheder med tilsvarendemateriale fra yngre bronzealder, og ligeledes densidste periode, der var lige sa taet knyttet til ro-mersk jernalder (Neergaard 1916, 249). Den mid-terste periode fik derimod ikke noget klart indhold,- den kom blot til at indeholde det, der ikke varspecielt tidligt og heller ikke specielt sent, og m.h.t. keramikken var det slet ikke muligt at udskilleen midterfase. Med Neergaards arbejde som detkronologiske grundlag er det ikke sasrt, at Brand-sted valgte at operere med to f0rromerske perio-der. Neergaards system havde ganske enkelt kunto veldefmerede perioder.

Da Becker i 1948 for forste gang publicerede etarbejde over f0rromersk kronologi, var udgangs-punktet naturligvis Neergaards arbejde, og hansvigtigste mal var at defmere et keramisk inventarfor den rmdterste periode. Et sadant mente Beckerat have i nogle affaldsgruber fra Trelleborg, idetkeramikken her hverken syntes at kunne dateres tilNeergaards f0rste eller sidste periode, men deri-mod via et gravfund fra S0nderjylland kunneknyttes til en ledetype af metal for periode II. Der-ved lykkedes for Becker, hvad Neergaard matteopgive, nemlig at etablere en kronologisk tredelingaf den f0rromerske keramik.

Blot tre ar senere matte Becker dog erkende, atmaterialet ikke sa enkelt lader sig tredele. Noget afdet han i 1948 havde kaldt periode II, burdenemlig rettelig kaldes periode III, men var dog

samtidig Eeldre end det, han oprindeligt kaldte pe-riode III. Derfor valgte han at kalde den sene del afperiode II for periode Ilia, og det der f0r hed pe-riode III, kom sa til at hedde periode Illb. Hervedblev materialet jo reelt firdelt, og Becker indr0m-mede, at skellene mellem de enkelte periodersamtidig blev mindre skarpe (Becker 1951, 35).

Da Becker i 1961 leverede sit fore!0bigt sidste bi-drag til debatten kunne han yderligere todele pe-riode I og skelne mellem tidlige og sene afsnit afperiode II og Ilia. Men skellene mellem de enkelteperioder og underperioder blev stadig mere uklare,og Becker anf0rte, at man nok ud fra det sammefundstof kunne opstille og begrunde andre indde-linger (Becker 1961, 255). Han fastholdt dog, atder ud fra det syd- og midtjyske materiale ma reg-nes med tre store perioder af f0rromersk jernalder(I, II og Ilia) samt en overgangsfase til xldre ro-mersk jernalder (nib).

Hvordan han ud fra det fremlagte materiale kunnese "tre store perioder" er noget uklart. Tkke mindsthvis man kigger pa det faktiske fundbillede, somallerede er kommenteret flere gange. Kun i forde-lingen af bopladser (fig. 1) er der maske tegn pa entredeling, men ser vi pa selve keramikken, voidertredelingen straks problemer. Pa fig. 14 -18 er visteksempler pa karakteristiske inventarer fra fernf0rromerske bopladser, dateret til henholdsvis pe-riode I, tidlig II, sen II, tidlig Ilia og sen Ilia. Dajeg endnu ikke kan prassentere en egentlig analyseaf bopladsmaterialet, skal blot f01gende tendensfremha^ves. Det mest markante skel i den f0rro-merske bopladskeramik forekommer mellem, hvadBecker kalder tidlig og sen periode II, og kan somallerede nasvnt kort beskrives ved fremkomsten aflerkar med konveks-konkav korpus-profil udenhals, men med kraftigt markeret, udadb0jet rand.Becker daterer denne lerkarform til den sene del afperiode II og periode Ilia (Becker 1961,226).Formen svarer n0je til hvad Hans Hingst kalder"Terrinenform", og som defmerer overgangenmellem asldre og yngre f0r-romersk jernalder iHolsten (f.eks. Hingst 1959, 49; 1980, 17). Jeg harallerede argumenteret for, at Beckers tidlige pe-riode II er samtidig med den sene periode I, og dader i sen periode II sker en introduktion af nyeformer, som fortsa^tter i periode Ilia, synes det ri-meligt at foresla en deling af forromersk jernaldermidt i periode II. F01gende elementer vil dakomme til at karakterisere de to afsnit:

10!

TIDLJGTGryder med beskyttcdc hanke

("svalereder" eller indvendige hanke)Forradskar med hals er almindelige

Fade med rand, der kan vasreomamenteret.

SENTGryder uden hank el. m. udvendige hanke;

(med disse er ildbukke almindelige)Forradskar uden hals men med randen markeret

direkte pa overdelen.Enleddede retvasggede fade eller fade med

konveks-konkav profil.

Vender vi os mod gravfundene, kan prascis densamme opdeling ses. Becker noterer sig i 1961folgende problem ved inddelingen af den f0rro-merske jernalder i tre perioder: "Bade periode I ogIllb kan vise mange sluttede fund, hvor man let farkontakt mellem keramikken og de vigtigste grup-per af metalsager. For de to mellemliggende pe-rioder II og Ola er den belt store vanskelighed i0jeblikket at fa bestemt de mange fund af smykkerog andre sasrprasgede genstande, der hovedsageligtforeligger som enkeltfund, og som man gennemmangfoldige ar og med forskelligt resultat bar for-s0gt at fa dateret" (Becker 1961,255).

Med andre ord falder den f0rromerske jernaldersgrave altsa i to klare grupper, der dateres til pe-riode I og Illb. At der kan ses en markant forskelpa disse to grupper, er indlysende. I den f0rstegruppe er indholdet meget lig yngre bronzealdersgrave: typisk en urne og en dragtnal evt. ogsabadtetilbeh0r. Herimod star periode Illb's righol-dige grave med urne, ofte adskillige bikar, fibler,basltetilbehor, vaben og importgenstande, der jotydeligt viser hen mod asldre romertids gravudstyr.Imellem disse to klare grupper kan Becker kunplacere ganske fa fund, som udover at binde sy-stemet sammen ogsa skal retfasrdiggore en trede-Hng. Jeg har allerede argumenteret for, at de graveder dateres til Beckers periode I og Illb, nok i vir-keligheden daskker storsteparten af f0rromerskjernalder, men nar man skal vurdere om, og i givetfald hvor, en todeling af de f0rromerske grave skalforetages, er de fa periode II og Ilia grave natur-ligvis vigtige, da de utvivlsomt relativt kronolo-gisk ma placeres mellem de to store grupper afgrave fra periode I og Illb. I den forbindelse er detvigtigt, at de kendte periode Il-grave som nsevntalle dateres til den sene del af periode II, hvorforet skel midt i periode II, som ved bopladserne, vir-ker rimeligt. Der er dog den veesentlige forskelmellem periode II og Ilia's grave, at det f0rst er iperiode Ilia egentlige fibler dukker op i gravene. Iperiode II ses stadig dragtnale, omend det nu ude-lukkende er den holstenske nal og aldrig typiskeperiode I-nale. Ser vi pa seriationen fig. 13, svarer

skellet altsa til det, der ses mellem fase 3 og 4. Ogkigger vi specielt pa fase 4 ses det, at keramikkenher fra savel de jyske som de holstenske grave sva-rer til Beckers "sen periode II", men at der i deholstenske forekommer fibler. Den sene periode IIkommer altsa under alle omsta^ndigheder til atindtage en mellemstilling mellem periode I ogIlia. Da keramikken i periode II-gravene imidler-tid viser klarere forbindelser til periode Ilia end tilperiode I, og da enkelte metalformer synes at vxrefailles for periode II og Ilia (bl.a. jernring medtvinge) vaelger jeg her i lighed med ved boplads-materialet at lade det materiale, som Becker kaldtesen periode II betegne starten pa yngre f0rromerskjernalder.

Afslutning

Resultatet af ovenstaende overvejelser er, at denha^vdvundne inddeling af f0rromersk jernalder iSyd- og Midtjylland i tre hovedperioder og enovergangsfase b0r forlades til fordel for en tode-ling, hvor de to dele betegnes "Eeldre" og "yngref0rromersk jernalder" Det er selvf01geligt muligtat operere med finere inddelinger af disse to perio-der, men da der kun ser ud til at forekomme etmarkant brud i materialet, er det mest hensigts-maessigt grundlasggende at operere med to perio-der.

Man kunne indvende mod de foreslaede asndrin-ger, at det udelukkende er et definitorisk sp0rgs-mal, hvor man sastter skellene rnellem perioderne.Og derfor uden st0rre betydning, ikke mindst i be-tragtning af, at der ikke er pavist afg0rende fejlved den relative ordning af henholdsvis grave ogbopladser i Beckers system. Problemerne opstarf0rst i det 0jeblik, de relative kronologier for graveog bopladser kombineres. Imidlertid er etablerin-gen af selvstasndige serier for de forskellige fund-grupper ikke formalet med en relativ kronologi.Formalet ma va^re at skabe et redskab til at 10sevidere problemstillinger, af hvilke mange kra?verinddragelse af forskellige fundgrupper og viden

102

om samtidighed mellem disse. Og da "perioderne"defineret af C. J. Becker kun giver mening, nar debruges indenfor en fundgruppe, kan de for eksem-pel ikke bruges til at unders0ge samtidighedenmellem gravpladser og bopladser. Becker perioderer dermed ikke kronologiske enheder.

Noter1: Om begrebet "seriation" se Madsen 1989a.2: For beskrivelse af fundkombinationsmetodcn og den

traditionelle definition af perioder se Malmer1963, 192ff og Graslund 1974, 39ff.

3: Analyserne er foretaget v.h.a. programmet KVARK.Se Madsen 1989b.

Litteratur:Bech, J.H. 1975: Nordjyske fibler fra per. Ilia af

f0rromersk jemalder. Hikuin 2.1977: Der enskes en analyse af

periodeovergangen mellem tojernalderperioder udfra et prim£ert fundstof.Upubliceret guldmedaljeafhandling, AarhusUniversitet 1977.

1979: Overbygardkaslderen - datering afkeramikken. Kuml 1979.

Becker, C. J. 1948a: Den tidlige jernalderbebyggelse paTrelleborg. I P. N0rlund (ed): Trelleborg. (=Nordiske Fortidsminder IV). Kabenhavn 1948.

1948b: Die zeitliche Stellung desHjortspringfundes. Acta Archaeologica XIX.

1951: F0rromersk jernalder i Danmark.Finska Fornminneforeningens Tidskrift LH.

1961: Forromersk jernalder i Syd- ogMidtjylland. (=Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Storreberetninger VI) K0benhavn 1961.

1982: Siedlungen der Bronzezeit und dervorromischen Eizenzeit in Danemark. Ojfa 39.

Br0ndsted, J. 1940: Danmark Oldtid bd. 3. Jernalderen.K0benhavn 1940.

Graslund, B. 1974: Relativ datering. Om kronologiskmetod i nordisk arkeologi, TOR 16, 1974.Uppsala 1974.

Hcdeager, L. 1988: Danernes Land. Gyldendal ogPolitikens Danmarkshistorie bd. 2 .K0bcnhavn1988.

1990. Danmarks Jernalder. Mellemstamme og stat, Arhus 1990.

Hingst. H. 1959: Vorgeschichte des KreisesStormarn. Neumiinster 1959.

1980: Neumiinster-Oberjorn. (=Offa-Bucher43). Neumiinster 1980.

Hvass, S. 1985: Hodde. Et vestjysk landsbysamfundfra celdre jernalder.(= Arkceologiske Studiervol. VII.)

Jensen, C. K. 1992: Om behovet for en nyvurdenng afden ferromerske kronofogi. LAG 3.

J0rgensen, E. 1968: S0nder Vilstrupfundet og det sentf0rromerske vabengravsmillieu i Danmark.A arboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed ogHistorie 1968.

1971 a: Tuegravpladsen ved Arupgard.Haderslev Amis Museum 13:2.

197lb: Lidentue. Skalk 1971:1.1972: Tuegravpladsen ved Arupgard II.

Haderslev Amis Museum 13:3.1975: Tuernes mysterier. Skalk 1975:1.1989: Truslen fra Rom. Skalk 1989:5.1990: H0jgard, Avnevig og Made. Tre

syd- og s0nderjyske grave fra tiden omkringKristi f0dsel. Kuml 1990.

Kostrzewski, J. 1919: Die ostgermanische Kultur derSpatlatenezeit. Leipzig & Wiirzburg 1919.

Laursen, J. 1984: Danske kuglefibler. Hikuin 10.Madsen, T. 1989a: Seriation - en grundlasggende

arkaeologisk arbejdsmctode. KARK Nyhedsbrev1989 nr 3.

1989b: PC programmer til udf0relse afkorrespondensanalyse. KARK Nyhedsbrev 1989nr 3.

Malmer, M. 1963: Meiodproblem inom jerndlderenskonsthistoria,(= Acta ArchaeologicaLundensia ser. inS'nr. 3). Lund 1963.

Montelius, O. 1896: Den nordiska jernalderenskronologi. Svenska FornminneforeningensTidsskrift bd. 9. Stockholm 1896.

Neergaard, C. 1916: S0nderjyllands Jasrnalder.Aarb0ger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed ogHistorie 1916.

Rangs-Borchling, A. 1963: Das Urnengrdberfeld vonHornbek in Holstein. (=Offa Biicher 18).Neumiinster 1963.

Schwantes, G. 1909: Die Graber der altesen Eisenzeitim ostlichen Hannover. PrdhistorischeZeitschrift I.

1911: Die altesten Urnenfriedhofe beiUltzen und Liincburg.

103

Appendix ASyd- og midtjyske grave, der indgar i analysen.

id.nr1234567891011121316171819202122232425262729303134353839404142434445464748495051525354575859606162636566676869

GravArre42Arre 44Arre49Arre 52Arre 65Arre 71'Arre 72Arre 90Arre 107Arre 127Arre 156Arre 1 79Arre 1 95Arre 235Arre 245Arre 261Arre 263Arre 304Arre 332Arre 344Ulda lNMC 3587-90UldalNMC 3592-94Uldal 30-27Uldal 30-30Uldal 30-45Uldal 31-19Uldal 3 1-20Uldal 3 1-28Arupgard 204Arupgard 228Arupgard 1001Arupgard 1 154Arupgard 1382Arupgard 1744Arupgard 2293Arupgard 3796GHbstrupAlmtoftBranlundAsboGildbjergSkadsPerb01Hinderup dBjerndrup 1Bjerndrup 2HoptrupLydum 2Vorbasse 1 5Vorbasse 36Vorbasse 45L0nborggardTudvad KHedegard 820MadeVesterm01leSdr. Vilstrup 5AvnevigH0jgard 1

VaribelsammensaetningL4 N2 B2 E3L4N2B1 E3L6 N5 E4L6 N4 E4L3 N2 ElL 3 N 2 B 1 ElL4 B2 E3L2 N2 ElL 3 N 3 B 2 E 1L3 N3 ElLI N 2 E 1 E2L7 N5 E4 E5L3 N3 E3L4 N2 E3L4N2N3B1 E3L2 B2 E 1L1N2B2E1 E2L5 B3 E3L6 N3 N5 E4L5 N4 E3 E9L7 N4 B3 E4 E5L 3 N 2 E IL7 N4 E4L7 N4 E4 E5L4 B3 E3 E5L5 N4 E3LI N3 E2L5 B3 E3 E5L7 B3 E4 E5LI N 3 E I E2L7 B5 E4 E5L4 N3 E3L7 N5 B3 E4 E5L7 N3 B3 E4 E5L8 B5 E5L 3 N 4 B 2 E 1L3 N 2 E 1L1N1 E2E3L3 N2 E3LI Nl Bl El E2L1N2B1 ElLI B2E1 E2L4 N3 B2 E3L5 N4 B3 E3 E5L8 N6 E6 E9N6 B5 E6L l l F2E7LI 3 EVESL 1 0 L I 2 F 4 E 7 E 8L9 F6 E9L9L10L12F5L9 F4 E8 E9L9 F5 E8 E9L 9 L 1 2 L 1 3 F 4 F 5 E 7 E 8 E 9L9 L12 F4 F5 E8 E9L9L12E7E8E9L9L12F5E8E9Lll L12F6E8F6E8

DokumentationBecker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1 961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961HAMj.nr. 1070HAMj.nr. 1070HAMj.nr. 1070HAMj.nr. 1070HAMj.nr. 1070HAMj.nr. 1070HAMj.nr. 1070HAMj.nr. 1070Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Becker 1961Hvass 1985Hvass 1985Hvass 1985Becker 1961Becker 1961HOMj.nr. 1086Jergensen 1990Becker 1961Jergensen 1968Jargensen 1990Jorgensen 1990

104

Appendix B:Grave fra den holstenske gravplads Hornbek, inddraget i analyscn:

id.nr70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

GravHornbek 105Hornbek 117Hornbek 172Hornbek 552Hornbek 520Hornbek 726Hornbek 592Hornbek 40Hornbek 748Hornbek 57

VariabelsammensaetningL10N6B5B6E6L8 N6 B5 B6 E5 E6L10N5 B5B6L8 Fl B5 E6 E9L8 F2 B5 E6 E9L10B5 B6E7L8 Fl B3 B5 E9L10 F2 B5 E7L9 Fl E8F5E8

DokumentationRangs-Borchling 1963Rangs-Borchling 1963Rangs-Borchling 1963Rangs-Borchling 1963Rangs-Borchling 3963Rangs-Borchling 1963Rangs-Borchling 1963Rangs-Borchling 1963Rangs-Borchling 1963Rangs-Borchling 1963

Appendix CDefimtioner af typer og elementer.

LerkarLI : Lerkar med dobbeltkonisk korpus, lavtsiddende

bugknsk og cylindrisk til konisk hals.L2: Lerkar med jasvnt svajet bug, hojtsiddende bugkneek

og cylindrisk hals.L3 Lerkar med dobbeltkonisk korpus, centralt bugkna:k

og konisk hals.L4: Lerkar med hvselvet over- og underdel, h0jtsidden-

dc bugknask og konisk hals.L5: Lerkar med hvselvet overdel, konisk til konkav un-

derdel, hojtsiddende bugknaek og konisk hals.L6: Lerkar med jievnt svajet korpus, centralt bugkniek

og lav, svajet hals.L7: Lerkar med hvffilvet over- og uncerdel,

hojtsiddende bugknaek og svajet hals.L8: Lerkar med hva:lvet overdel, konisk til konkav un-

derdel, uden hals men med kraftigt afsat rand.L9: Lerkar med hvaelvet overde, konisk underdel og

kraftigt afsat kort rand.L10: Lerkar med hvselvet .over- og underdel, centralt,

skarpt bugknsek og bred, kraftigt afsat rand.L12: Fodbasger med facctteret skulder.L13: Enledet lerkar med konisk underdel.L14: Rundbuget basger.

NaleNl: Dragtnal med svanehalsb0jning og linseformct ho-

ved.N2: Dragtnal med bojning af stilkcn og oprullet hoved

lige over bojningen ("Kralhovednal type 1").N3: Som N2 men med et stykke stilk mellem bojning og

oprulning ("Krahovednal type 2")

N4: Dragtnal med bojning af stilken og stort ringformethoved (0jets diameter > 2x stilkens tykkelsc)

N5: Dragtnal med bejning af stilken og lille ringformethoved (0jets diameter < 2x stilkens tykkelse).

N6:"Holstensknal"

FiblerFl: Fibula af Kostrzewski variant K (Kostrzewski

1919,35)F2: Kuglefibula (se Bech 1975; Laursen 1984)F4: Fibula af Kostrzewski variant M. (Kostrzewski

1919,37)F5: Hannoveransk fibula, (sc J0rgensen 1968)F6: "Typologisk sen K-fibula" (Bech 1976, 1979).

BaeltetilbehorBl: Rund bartering af jern.B2: Stor 0skenring.B3: Trekantet basltehage.B5: Jernring med tvinge.

Elementer pa keramikken.El: cylindrisk halsE2: lavtsiddende bugkneekE3: konisk halsE4: svajet halsE5: hveelvet overdel, hveelvet underdel og hejsiddende

bugknask.E6: let fortykket, lige afskaren randE7: let fortykket, brcdt facetteret randE8: kraftigt fortykket, smalt facetteret rand.E9: hvgelvet overdel, konisk til konkav underdel og

hojtsiddende bugknsek.

105

Abstract.Kronologiske problemer og deres betydning for for-staelsen af f0rromersk jernalder i Syd- og Midtjyl-land

Et problem, der altid bar altid drillet dem, der arbejdermed f0rromersk jernalder i Danmark, er den megetsksve fordeling af fund mellem de enkelte perioder.Hidtil bar alle, der bar fors0gt at 10se problemet, mattetopgive, og fundbilledet tegnes stadig med de skasvhe-der, der sas ved den sidste store bearbejdning af denf0rromerske kronologi for over tredive ar siden.

Med udgangspunkt i Arupgardgravpladsen pavises endiskrepans mellem "metalkronologien" og "keramik-kronologien" i den hasvdvundne kronologi, og det vises,at den skxve fundfordeling er en direkte f01ge af dennediskrepans. Med henblik pa etablering af en nykronologi for f0rromersk jernalder analyseres de syd-og midtjyske gravfundskombinationer.

Abstract.Chronological Problems and their Consequence forthe Comprehension of the Pre-Roman Iron Age ofSouth and Central Jutland.

The uneven chronological dispersion of the finds of thePre-Roman Iron Age of Denmark has always been aproblem to the researchers. All attempts to solve it haveso far been given up, and the picture remains just asunbalanced today as it was 30 years ago, after the lastmajor study on the chronology (Becker 1961, cf. Jensen1992).

Using the Arupgard cemetery as an outset, the authordemonstrates that there is a discrepancy between thechronologies of the metal objects and the pottery withinthe established chronology system, and that this is theprimary cause of the uneven chronological distribution.An attempt is made at establishing a new chronologyon the base of tbe type combinations in the grave findsof South and Central Jutland.

Translated by J. Martens

1 1 1-i r

Fig. 13: Den ordnede matrice. Enheder og variable er sorteret efter deres respektive koordinatpd l.-aksen (seogsd side 98).

106

Chronological Problems of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe - Copenhagen 1992 - pp. 107-136

THE PRE-ROMAN IRON AGE IN NORTH JUTLAND.JES MARTENS, COPENHAGEN.

1. Introduction:

The Gundestrup silver cauldron, the rich cemete-ry at Kraghede, the golden torque from Dron-ninglund, and the fortified settlement in Borre-mose are just some of the spectacular archaeolo-gical finds of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in NorthJutland. From the historical point of view thearea has been pointed out as the possible prime-val home of the Cimbri and the Vandals, theorieswhich have been discussed among archaeologistsas well. In spite of this, we may still look in vainfor a survey over the Pre-Roman Iron Age ofNorth Jutland.

2. History of Research:

The first person to deal particularly with the areawas Sophus Muller, who, besides publishing theGundestrup cauldron (Muller 1903), the Dron-ninglund torque (Muller 1900a), and a group oflocally casted bronze belts (Muller 1900b), wasthe first to mention the Kraghede find, fromwhich he described selected material (Muller1912.pp.125f., 1933, pp. 37ft, Martens 1988b).

During the twenties and the thirties, GudmundHatt carried out his famous investigations of theEarly Iron Age village and field systems. Muchof the basic material stemmed from Himmerlandand Thy, and only parts of it are published (Hatt1928, 1938, 1949).

During the thirties and the early fourties, Johan-nes Br0ndsted conducted a vast excavation pro-gramme in Borremose in order - so to speak - todig up a chronology of the Pre-Roman Iron Agepottery. Apart from a few notices, the resultswere never published (Br0ndsted 1936, 1940,1960, Martens 1988a, c, 1991, 1994).

Inspired by the works of Muller (1933) and vonRichthofen (1930), Br0ndsted in 1940 suggested

to use the expression "The Kraghede-Group" as alabel for the culture group of the Late Pre-RomanIron Age of North Jutland (Brandsted 1940, cf.Martens 1988b, 1992).

Map 1: The location of the most important findsmentioned in the text. A: Blcere, B: Braulstrup, C:Borremose, D: Birkely, E: Risholm, F: Kirkemose, G:Vinstmp Bjerg, H: Kraghede, I: Vogn, K: Veer, L:Viistrup Vestermark, M: Cording Hede, N: Arre(Martens del.),

In his doctor's dissertation from 1949, OleKlindt-Jensen based a chronological study on thetypological difference between the pottery stem-

ming from the cemetery and that from the settle-ment at Kraghede. Even he published only selec-ted material from the find, adding material fromother graves of the area (Klindt-Jensen 1949).Further material was published in another context(Klindt-Jensen 1953).

Carl Johan Becker, who published a thoroughstudy on the chronological problems of Southernand Central Jutland, originally intended to extendhis study to the northern parts of the peninsula.Though in the end he refrained from this project,it is from his writings, from the fifties and theearly sixties, that we get the most detailed infor-mation on the area. This is thanks to his studiesof regional variations and to his publication ofthree central finds: the graves from Try andDronninglund and the refuse pits from Kraghede(Becker 1957, 1959, 1961, 1980).

1992, 1993, 1994), Erik Johansen (1990) andViggo Nielsen (1993).

Finally, the studies by Joachim Werner on thespecial North Jutland bronze chain belts (Werner1952), and Janni Lindeneg Nielsen on the wea-pon grave burial rite of the area (J. L. Nielsen1975), and Tine Trolle-Lassen's social studies onthe Vogn cemetery (Trolle-Lassen 1984, 1987)ought to be mentioned.

As it appears from this very brief history of re-search, the majority of the works dealing with thePre-Roman Iron Age of North Jutland only pub-lished selected material. Apart from a few minorfinds, not one has been published in its totalextent. Much more unpublished material can beadded - for instance the large number of welldocumented excavations carried out by amateur

\

3

Fig. I: The contents of three early Pre-Roman cremation pit graves from Himmerland. 1: Braulstrup grave 1,after Johansen 1990, figs. 2-3. (Cup Martens del.). Metal objects, bronze. 2: Blcere grave AI, iron pin andfragments of a vessel (Martens del.), 3: Bltere, grave A4, iron pin and fragments of a vessel. Scale ca. 1:4(Martens del.), The artifacts from Bl&re are kept at Vesthimmerlands Museum (VMAj.nr. 79), cf. Fabech 1986.

In the seventies, Jens-Henrik Bech dealt with thechronological problems of the Late Pre-RomanIron Age of Vendsyssel. In this connection hecarried out additional excavations at the Vogncemetery. Bech published a few but very impor-tant papers on the subject, before he got occu-pied by other problems (Bech 1975, 1979, 1980).

Further Pre-Roman material has been publishedby A. P. Madsen & C. Neergaard (1881), Neer-gaard (1892), Peter Riism011er (1938), OscarMarseen (1954, 1956), J0rgen Jensen (1965), H.C. Vorting (1977), Mogens Hansen (1984), Char-lotte Fabech (1986), Jes Martens (1988a, b, c,

archaeologists around Ars and Hobro, and amaterial of a similar size secured by theVendsyssel Historical Museum in Hjorring. Thematerial is certainly not lacking, but thepublications defmately are. We only know thetop of the iceberg...

3. The Material Culture of North Jutland:

Due to the burial rite of the early Pre-Roman IronAge, only a few graves from this period areknown. Though urn graves do occur, the domi-nant custom is a cremation pit with no or only a

108

a

•Q ...O-.. O O O O

/%. 2: The contents of the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age graves from Birkely (a-b) (VHM 22421-22), Risholm graveI (c-f) (VHM 20355A-D) andKirkemose (g-h) (VHM 19651-53), b-e-h iron, f bronze. Scale ca. 1:4 (Martens del).

109

few grave goods - typically a pot sherd, moreseldom metal dress equipment.

In Himmerland, the graves often occur on minorcemeteries with less than 10 graves beneath acommon, flat stone paving (like Braulstrup, cf.Johansen 1990) - a custom which has its roots in

the late Bronze Age (cf. Jensen 1966). However,they can also occur isolated - then often assecondary burials in earlier barrows (cf. Fabech1986) or in natural mounds (fig. 1). The lattertype of graves appears to be the only one in con-temporary Vendsyssel (cf. Becker 1959, Vorting1977, Martens 1992). It is obvious that such

110

Fig. 3: Kraghede (NM C13245); Contents of three refuse pits from the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age. This page pit12, opposite page, upper part pit 5, tower part pit IS. Scale 1:4 (0rsnes del), compare Becker 1980, fig. 2.

poorly equipped, otherwise unmarked cremationburials are not easy to discover, and this mayserve as the best explanation for the very poormaterial preserved from the period (fig. 2).

Settlements from the Early Pre-Roman Iron Ageare especially well known from Himmerland,where Malle Degnegard (Hatt 1938) and the earlyphase of Borremose (Martens 1988a, c, 1994, fig.2) must be referred to the period (fig. 4). FromVendsyssel, so far only the material from thesettlement pits at Kraghede has been published(fig. 3). This by no means reflects the real situa-tion, since the museums and private collectionsof both Himmerland and Vendsyssel are filledwith Early Pre-Roman settlement material -

mainly, however, pottery from refuse pits (cf.Becker 1961, map pi. 123).

The Late Pre-Roman Iron Age is better represen-ted in Vendsyssel. This is due to the appearanceof larger cemeteries and an increase in the num-ber and value of the grave goods. The predomi-nant burial custom is cremation pit, but urn gra-ves still occur. A typical grave equipment con-sists of a large number of broken pots, one or se-veral knives, dress equipment or weaponry (figs.7, 8 & 17). In rich graves one may find goldenfinger rings, imported bronze vessels, or even acart. In Himmerland cemeteries are smaller oreven absent. Therefore only a few graves areknown from the period. Like in Vendsyssel both

1 1 1

Fig. 4: Borremose (NM C25633); Pottery representing the early phase. Scale 1:5 except for the large storage jarin the lower right corner 1:10 (0rsnes del), cf. Martens 1994.

112

Fig. 5: Borremose (NMC25633); Pottery representing the late phase. Scale 1:5 (0rsnes del), cf. Martens 1994.

cremation pits and urn graves occur. The equip-ment is less lavish, consisting of a few vessels,dress fittings, or weaponry (Neergaard 1892,Becker 1961, 1980, Bech 1980, Bech & Lysdahl1976, Nielsen 1975, Hansen 1984, Trolle-Lassen1984, 1987, Martens 1992).

A large number of settlements are known fromboth landscapes - best known are Kraghede(Klindt-Jensen 1949, pp. 53ff., Martens 1994b,fig. 2), the late phase at Borremose (Martens1988a), and Stabsek Hede (Hatt 1938, pp.119ff.), but several new sites have been registe-

113

Fig. 6: Kraghede (NM C13245); Pottery found in the west end of the burnt down house I, scale 1:4 (0rsnes del.).

114

Fig. 7: Kraghede (NM C13245); contents of grave 3 (Martens del.). Sword and knife, iron. Scale 1:4.

red and excavated by the local museums (cf.Bech 1979, Hansen 1984).

Since the days of Sophus Miiller, it has been be-lieved that the late Pre-Roman Iron Age of Vend-syssel forms a distinct local group marked byrichly decorated pottery (Muller 1912, 1933, Mo-berg 1941, Klindt-Jensen 1949, Martens 1988b,p. 176, 1992), particularly early weapon graves(J0rgensen 1968, Nielsen 1975), a peculiar typeof bronze belts (Muller 1900b, Werner 1952,Becker 1957), and special foreign relations(Muller 1912, Moberg 1941, Klindt-Jensen 1949,

Bech 1975, J. L. Nielsen 1975). The only one tooppose this notion, especially concerning thesoutheastern relations, is C. J. Becker whoclaimed that Vendsyssel is a part of a larger localgroup which also comprises Himmerland (Becker1980, 1993). However, the special position ofVendsyssel still seems to hold true to some extentboth considering southeastern relations (Martens1988b, 1992, Martens & Kaul 1993) and therelation with Himmerland. This landscapeappears in many respects closer related to CentralJutland than to its neighbour to the north(Martens 1988a, 1990).

115

Fig. 8: Kraghede (NM C13245); contents of grave 74, scale 1:6 (Martens del.). Sword, lance head, scissors, iron.

116

Part II: The Chronological Problems:

4. "Stand der Vorschung":

In 1980, Becker summarized the situation likethis:

"Der Vendsyssel ist sowohl in der alteren undjungeren Eisenzeit ein Teil einer grosseren Pro-vinz, die auch Himmerland (...) umfasst (...). Indem nordjutldndischen Gebiet fmden wir einedeutliche Periode I, die zweifellos in Charakterund Alter dem alteren Abschnitt der ubrigenjut-Idndischen Provinzen entspricht. Obwohl derFundstoff sparlich ist, kennt man doch kleineGrdberfelder mit Urnen oder Brandgruben - alledrmlich ausgestattet - und einzelne Siedlungen,bisher nur Abfallgruben mit Keramik. Unter denMetallgegenstdnden hat man jedoch einzelneSonderformen bestimmt (...)." (Becker 1980,p.58f.).

About his second period, Becker wrote:

"Diese Phase ist bisher im Vendsyssel so gut wieunbekannt gewesen, was auf Zufdlligkeiten beru-hen muss (...). Wendet man sich dagegen demsudlicheren Teil der Provinz zu, so hat man indem sehr reichen Fund aus Borremose in Him-merland ein sowohl variertes als iiberaus um-fangreiches keramisches Material, das die gamekontinuierliche Entwicklung (...) aus der (spaten)periode I uber eine lokal geprdgte, aber deutlicheperiode II bis zu einer reichen Periode Iliadeckt." (ibid. p.59f.).

To per.IIIa, Becker ascribed the Kraghede sett-lement (cf. fig. 6) and certain graves (grave A-l,3 and 8, cf. fig. 7), whereas grave 74 and the Trygrave were referred to per.IIIb (cf. fig, 8). Grave69 from Kraghede was described as being "inbetween" the two afore mentioned groups (Bec-ker 1961, pp. 261ff, and note 43).

On the base of the Kraghede finds and the Bor-remose stratigraphy, Klindt-Jensen had suggesteda somewhat different chronological division (LTII and LT III), referring the Kraghede settlementand the early phase of Borremose to his LT II andthe Kraghede graves to his LT III, while the lateBorremose phase was put at the transition to thisperiod (Klindt-Jensen 1949, pp. 53, 1953, pp.44ff.). As it appears, he treated the Pre-RomanKraghede graves as a chronological unity - a

position which was generally accepted untilBecker's treatise of 1961 (cf. Becker 1951, p. 33).The phases of Klindt-Jensen are not easily syn-chronized with the ones of Becker, but accordingto the definitions of LT II it must be more or lesscovering what Becker in 1961 would call "lateper.II and early per.IIIa" (cf. Becker 1961, p. 4and passim).

A major difference in the two systems lies in thesuggested synchronization with the Central Euro-pean chronologies. Klindt-Jensen parallelized hisLT II with Ripdorf, Rangs-Borchling's phase la,and La Tene II (Klindt-Jensen 1953, pp.43ff. andnote 102, p. 93f.), while Becker synchronized hisper. II with Ripdorf, and his per. Ilia with EarlySeedorf and Rangs-Borchling's phase Ib (Becker,1951, p. 33, 1961, p. 4 & p. 264ff., cf. Borchling1951). Rangs-Borchling herself synchronized herphase la with a late part of Ripdorf or Id+IIa interms of the chronology established by HansHingst for Holstein (Hingst 1959). Phase Ib shesynchronized with Early Seedorf or Hingst lib,and Ha and lib with late Seedorf or Hingst Heand lid (Rangs-Borchling 1963, pp.47ff).

The outset of the discussion of the chronologicalsynchronization was a reference by Klindt-Jensento Karl Waller's Elbe Estuary group (Klindt-Jen-sen 1949, p. 57, Becker 1951, p. 32f.). Excava-ting a series of cemeteries, Waller had demon-strated that a distinct culture group had deve-loped in this area in the middle and late Pre-Ro-man Iron Age (Waller 1941, 1942, 1951, 1953).The Ripdorf or Middle La Tene period was re-presented in a peculiar local style at Berensch-Vosberg, while more typical Ripdorf-pottery wasfound at the cemeteries at Galgenberg, Spanger-berg and at Holszei (Waller 1941, 1942, 1953).At the cemetery at Berensch-Waterpohl he evenseparated three chronological groups, which he atfirst ascribed to the Late La Tene period (Waller1942, p. 249 & 258). Later, however, he wrotethat Waterpohl "...enthielt iiberwiegend Bestat-tungen der Mittellatenezeit neben einigen Spdtla-tenezeitlichen." (Waller 1953, p. 16). He syn-chronized the middle La Tene graves with theRipdorf phase of Holszei.

Klindt-Jensen equated Waller's first phase withhis LT II and the second with LT III (cf Klindt-Jensen 1953, p. 46). Becker, on the other hand,held the cemetery at Berensch-Vosberg to becontemporary with his per.II, while he (apparent-

117

ly not knowing Waller's later redefinitions) con-sidered the Berensch-Waterpohl cemetery equi-valent with his per. Ilia. At the same time heequated the latter period (litterally the Kraghedesettlement) with Hornbek Ib (Becker 1951, p.32f, 1961, p. 267, note 19).

In his chronological survey of northern Europe inthe Late Pre-Roman Iron Age, Hachmann dividedthe grave goods of the Elbe Estuary group intothree phases, a "Middle Pre-Roman" phase repre-sented by Berensch-Vosberg, and two "EarlyLate Pre-Roman" phases represented by Waller'sso-called "Rattich-Gefasse". The first phase wasparallelised with Hingst Id+IIa, while the twolatter ones were equated with Hingst lib (Hach-mann 1960, pp. 156ff.)- In this connection it isimportant to keep in mind that Hachmann notedthat his "middle Pre-Roman phase" was presentnot only at Berensch-Vosberg, but at several ofthe Elbe Estuary cemeteries, i.e. Holszel, Water-pohl, and even Wingst. Thus, according to Hach-mann, only the later but admittingly also the lar-ger part of the material from Waterpohl is con-temporary with Hornbek Ib.

The point of this discussion was whether theslightly thickened, facetted rim by which Beckerdefined his per. Ilia, in the Jastorf culture wasfound in Ripdorf or in "Early Seedorf'. Klindt-Jensen claimed that it was a Ripdorf phenomenon(Klindt-Jensen 1953, pp. 46 and 93f. note 102),while Becker held the position that it first appea-red in "Early Seedorf (Becker 1961, p. 267, note19). It is important to note that before Becker in-vented the expression "slightly thickened rim",such rims were usually, even by himself, descri-bed as "broad, thin rims" (cf. Becker 1948a & b).The term "thickened, facetted rims" was reservedfor the typical thick rims of Seedorf and the EarlyRoman Iron Age. In Germany, this terminologyis still in use. Consequently one might find thatrims which are described as "broad, thin" areactually "slightly thickened and facetted". This Iexperienced on a trip to museums in northernGermany, where I also had the opportunity todiscuss the classification of Becker's per. Iliapottery within German terminology with Dr.Hans Hingst (1). According to him, the definingtrait of per. Ilia, i.e. the slightly facetted rim, is aregular feature of the Ripdorf style. Furthermorehe agreed with Klindt-Jensen in his judgment thatthe G0rding find, which Becker ascribed to "an

early stage of per. II" (Klindt-Jensen 1953, p. 93f.note 102, Becker 1961, p. and plates nos. 70-72),in German terminology would be called "Jastorfb". This actually means that Hingst rather wouldagree with Klindt-Jensen's chronological syn-chronization than with the one suggested byBecker. As demonstrated later, even the metalobjects confirm this (see chaps. 7 & 8).

After this digression, we shall return to the maintopic. The latest contribution to the chronologicaldiscussion was delivered by J.-H. Bech who revi-sed the brooches of North Jutland, ascribing allthe casted ball brooches and brooches ofKostrzewski's A-C type to per.IIIa, whereas K-brooches and T-shaped brooches appeared inper.IIIa and per.IIIb (Bech 1975). Bech alsopointed out a special type of single handled cupsas a per.IIIb type (Bech 1979 & 1980).

5. Borremose:

The fortified settlement in Borremose has alreadyplayed a role in the chronological discussion - ithas been referred to by Brandsted (Brondsted1936, p.40, 1940, p.63ff. 1960, p.89f), Klindt-Jensen (Klindt-Jensen 1949, p.57, 1953, p. 46),Becker (Becker 1961, p. 3 6, p.236 & p.259,1980 p.61 and note 5, Kossack and Harck 1973,note 4), and Bech (Bech 1975). As mentioned, itwas never published by the excavators, but in1988 a preliminary report on the site appeared(Martens 1988a). In that connection a potterychronology was sketched out, basing on the findsfrom three burned down houses:

The material could typologically be divided intotwo groups. The early group which was represen-ted by the rich materials of house XXIII showedmany traits which Becker ascribed to his per.I.However, most of the pottery found close paral-lels in the material from the G0rding Hede hou-ses which Becker ascribed to an early stage ofper.II. The late group at Borremose was represen-ted by the more slender material from the twohouses VIII and XVI. The pottery from thesehouses showed typical marks of per.IIIa, whereastraits of per.IIIb were absent. Thus a general dateof Borremose was suggested, ranging from anearly stage of per.II to a developed stage ofper.IIIa (ibid. p. 174f).

118

This report was based exclusively on the docu-mentation left over from the excavations of thethirties and the fourties. Since then, the old ma-terial has been revised even closer, and a new se-ries of excavations has been carried out at the lo-cus classicus. The new results have confirmedthe first impression: the so-called stratigraphicalsequence of the moats has no, or only a restric-ted, chronological value (Martens 1991, 1994).Consequently, the only way to deal with the vastpottery material stemming from the moats is todivide it in accordance with its typological re-semblance to the two groups mentioned above.This was done in a dissertation delivered at theAarhus University (Martens 1990). The resultwas as follows:

The chronologically most important trait appearsto be not the execution of the rim but the area justbelow the rim. To be excact: the point were theprofile changes from concave to convex. At theearly vessels, this point is placed lower than thenarrowest point of the neck, whereas at the latervessels these points generally coincide. To put itotherwise - the early pots tend to have a neck,however unmarked it may be, whereas, at the la-ter pots the rim tends to set out directly from thebody. In the late material there are some typeswhich preserve the distinct neck - especially theelegant black single handled vessels, but alsolarge single handled jars with a conical neck anda few other types - only of the more exclusivequality. The division resembles the German di-vision between "dreigliedrige Gefasse" and "Ter-rinen und Topfe" which marks the difference be-tween the Jastorf and the Ripdorf style (eg.Hingst 1959, p. 52 & Abb. 17b).

The pottery of the early Borremose phase (fig. 4)can be described as follows: the vessels tend tohave a neck, which might or might not be markedby a ledge, the collar is generally broad and soft-ly turned out, but on vessels of better quality itmight set out in an angle. Normally the rim isthin, but in some instances it may be slightlythickened. If the latter is the case, then the thic-kest point is typically placed at the very top end -or the thickening might appear as a ledge on theouter surface of the collar, a little below the edge.The shape of the body tends to be almost globu-lar, giving a stocky impression. The handles areband shaped, generally with a rectangular but insome instances with a U-shaped cross-section.On handled cups they often connect the rim with

the shoulder, whereas on two-lugged jars they areplaced below the neck.

The pottery of the late Borremose phase (fig. 5)may be described as follows: necks are seenexclusively on good quality vessels of certain ty-pes - and then always distinctly marked. On othervessels the rim sets out directly from the body ina sharp angle or in a sharp curve. The rims aremostly thickened, though simple thin rims occur.The thickest point may be placed at the very topend of the rim, as in the early phase, but typicalfor this phase is that the thickest point is placedat the midst or just below the middle of the insideof the collar. This point may be marked by facet-ting. The shape of the body tends to be invertedpyriform, giving the impression of a tall, shoul-dered vessel. The handles are generally narrowand thick, with a square cross section, and theyconnect the outset of the collar with the shoulder.Broad and band shaped handles still occur. Thereis, however, a tendency towards x-shaping of thehandles - especially on high quality ware - and insuch instances the handle might even be facetted.

More traits could be added to the description ofboth phases, but these range among the most di-stinct. As it may appear, the equation of the laterBorremose phase with Becker's definition of hisper.IIIa is obvious. The problem arises with theearly Borremose phase. It apparently mixes ele-ments from Becker's per.Ib with his per.II. Onemight choose to call it "Early per.II", as Beckerdid with the G0rding material (Becker 1961, p.224). But is this satisfactory? If so, then onemight ask for the missing link between the earlyand the late phase at Borremose. Such a questionseems reasonable - but it is impossible to answerfor two reasons: first of all, we lack closed findsat Borremose representing the supposed inter-mediate phase which thus has to be isolated on apurely typological base; secondly, Becker's de-finition of per.II in relation with per.IIIa is sovague that an attempt at pointing out per.II-pot-tery within a mixed per. II-per. Ilia-material wouldbe a very doubtful enterprise. Thus we are leftwith no typical per.II material in North Jutland.This poses the question - does the period exist?

6. Kraghede:

Before dealing with this essential question, a fewwords have to be said about the other key find of

119

North Jutland; the settlement and cemetery atKraghede. Though the location is quite famous, ithas never been published to its full extent. It co-vers four archaeological phases; a number ofrefuse pits have been referred to Becker's per. I,the house sites have been referred to Becker'sper. Ilia, and the few scattered graves cover per.ilia, per. 1Kb, and the Early Roman Iron Age (cf.Martens 1988b).

Becker placed the material from the two burntdown houses in an early stage of his per. Ilia(Becker 1980, p. 60). As noted elsewhere it isamong this material that the really "foreign"forms of Vendsyssel are found (Martens 1992,fig. 11, Martens & Kaul 1993). Some of thestrange forms might, however, be due to the factthat the published sample appears to mix earlyand late traits, like tall necks and concave lowerbelly (cf. Klindt-Jensen 1949, figs. 24 and 25).Certain vessels even have unmarked necks (likeKlindt-Jensen 1949, figs. 24g and 25f) recallingthe forms from the early Borremose phase.

However, a closer examination of the excavationreport reveals that not all the pottery which in thepublications has been ascribed to the sites wasactually found inside the burnt down houses. Thematerial which with certainty can be related tohouse I is depicted in fig. 6. The majority of therims are slightly thickened and facetted, but thelugs are band-shaped. The lack of x-shaped andfacetted handles is interesting, since it suggeststhat the material typologically should be earlierthan the latest part of the second phase at Borre-mose. The facetted rims are, on the other hand,much more numerous than at Borremose, an ob-servation which seems to point in the opposite di-rection. The shape of the handles may thereforealso be the expression of local style. The potteryof the two Kraghede houses may therefore besaid to represent a local version of an advancedstage of the late Borremose phase. The reasonwhy Klindt-Jensen parallelized it with the earlyphase at Borremose was due to the misconceptionof the stratigraphy at that site which was gene-rally accepted earlier (see above and Martens1991, 1994).

The cemetery at Kraghede has been split up byBecker into three phases of which the two firstare Pre-Roman. The graves A-l, 3, 8 represent adeveloped stage of per. Ilia, while per. Illb is re-

presented by grave 74, and the early Roman IronAge by grave 4. Grave 69 is placed at the transi-tion between per. Ilia and per. Illb (Becker 1961,p. 261, note 43). Later, this grave was redated tolate per. Ilia by Erik J0rgensen (1968, p. 77).

About grave A-l, Becker wrote that this wasdoubtlessly a per. Ilia grave with pottery of a de-veloped stage of the period. However, later re-search has demonstrated that this very importantfind consists of two separate samples; grave Aand pit 1, and that there is little or no indicationthat the two objects should be contemporary. Onthe contrary, the pottery in the pit appears to bemuch later than that from the grave (Martens1988b, pp. 116f). Thus it is necessary to split thematerial into two. The brooch of Kostrzewski'stype B, the weaponry, the cup with the huntingfrieze, and 11 other vessels stem from a crema-tion pit grave, while the bronze ornamented cartand II further vessels stem from a pit withouthuman bones. The pottery of grave A dates toper. Ilia while the pit must be referred to per. Illbas demonstrated by the ornamention of a smallcup (cf. Klindt-Jensen 1949, fig. 40b).

Another grave which may cause discussion is no.69. It appears from the report that the grave wasfound in two pits; one containing a bronze caul-dron (Eggers1 type 4), weaponry and knifes, theother containing an iron brooch of Kostrzewski'sK-type, a golden finger ring, a razor, and frag-ments of 7 vessels (cf. Martens 1988b, p. 118).The documentation does not allow us a criticalexamination of the relation between these twocremation pits. Several specimens among thevessels of the pit containing the brooch seem tobe rather late. This especially concerns a globularvessel (Klindt-Jensen 1949, fig. 34), a ratherstocky, two-lugged jar (ibid. fig. 28b), and asmall cup with a broad horizontal ornamentalfriese (ibid. fig. 38). Such forms are common inthe local per. Illb, but not earlier (cf. Martens1992).

In comparison to Borremose, one may concludethat graves nos. A, 2, 3, 8, and 24 contain potterywhich typologically corresponds to the later pha-se of the settlement (cf. fig. 7), while the contentsof pit 1, and graves nos. 69 and 74 must be later(cf. fig. 8). For the evaluation of the interregionalchronological position of the graves, it is impor-tant to note that grave A contained a B-broochand grave 69 a K-brooch and a bronze cauldron

120

of Eggers1 type 4. Furthermore, grave 3 containeda La Tene sword of Kostrzewski's type I, whilegraves 69 and 74 each contained a single-edgedsword. No fragments of shield bosses werefound, although all the Pre-Roman graves at thecemetery contained weapons.

7: Becker's Period II - a phantom period?:

Tn Becker's large and important work "The Pre-Roman Iron Age of Southern and Central Jut-land" he published only 8 graves and 11 settle-ments as representatives of his per.II (Becker1961). Thus, in comparison with per.I the mate-rial was very slender. Becker himself was thefirst to point out the basic problem: in his defini-tion of per.II there were no distinct borders, nei-ther to the preceding per.Ib nor to the followingper.Ilia. Anyhow, Becker maintained that whe-ther a particular find was to be dated early in oneor late in another period was of minor importance- the relative dating within the Pre-Roman IronAge would not be influenced! (ibid. p.224). Andindeed he lived up to this parole: in a later workhe changed the dating of the major part of one ofhis defining per.II finds - Gr0ntoft - to per.I.

This leaves us with 8 graves and 10 settlements.In general, they can be divided into two groups:finds in per.I-style but with a few distinct per.lllatraits - and finds in per.IOa-style with a few dis-tinct per.Ib traits. As an example, the typologicaldistance between the pottery of the Vasr settle-ment (ibid- plate 64-67) and that of the Vilstrupsettlement (ibid, plate 57-60) is so striking thatone might wonder, whether it would not be betterto ascribe the finds to two subsequent periods (cf.fig. 9). In spite of this, Becker chose to interpretthe typological differences as a sign of a long in-termediate period (ibid. p.270)! Another way toview the problem would be: As no traits can bepointed out as typical per.II, one might questionwhether the period exists at all.

For the discussion of the period, it is important tokeep in mind that Becker always believed per.IIto be parallel with the Ripdorf phase of theJastorf chronology. For this reason he ascribedthe Holstein pins to the period. In Jutland at thattime only two such pins were found in graves -the Bjerndrup graves in Southern Jutland (fig. 10-1 & -2). Consequently, the pottery of these gra-

ves was dated to per.II. One could, however,admit that the pottery might as well have beendated to per.llla, if basing exclusively on its owntypological traits. In Holstein such pins normallyalways occur together with pottery typical forBecker's per.llla (cf. Martens 1992, fig. 8) - afact which Becker already was aware of in 1961(Becker 1961, p. 255f). And Erik J0rgensen haskindly told me that the two specimens found onthe Arupgard cemetery are found together withdeveloped per.llla pottery. This seems to implythat the Holstein pins must be dated to per.llla inDenmark.

Before going into the implications of this obser-vation we shall turn to the other metal type arti-fact of per.II - the penannular brooch. Becker da-ted it to per.llla on the base of several gravefinds. Two finds implied an earlier date. In a gra-ve from Vester Vamdrup such a brooch is foundtogether with a typical per.I urn (fig. 10-3). Thesecond grave find, stemming from Sandager To-rup on Funen, combines two penannular broocheswith a two-lugged jar and a small cup (Albrect-sen 1954, plate 3a-c and fig.13.17). The cup isatypical and is rather difficult to date, and eventhe jar cannot be more precisely dated on the ba-se of the publication (fig. 10-5). Interesting traitsare the neck of the cup and the lack of a neck onthe jar. Both vessels have a short, sharply turned-out rim, and the lugs on the jar are placed on theshoulder a little bit below the rim. These traitsappear to be contradictory, and that is why it isdifficult to give this find an independant date. Inspite of this, Becker used these two finds as anargument for a dating of penannular brooches toper.II (Becker 1961, p. 255).

Principally, a find combining a type from oneperiod with a type from another does not implyan intermediate period - but rather an immediatechronological contact between the two periods. Asimilar explanation could easily be adapted to therest of Becker's per.II finds, as contact finds be-tween two subsequent periods - that is, per.Ib andper.llla. A similar conclusion might be reachedfrom a find recently excavated by Svend-ErikAlbrethsen at an Early Pre-Roman cemetery inKrogslund. One of the graves combined a penan-nular brooch and a ring headed kropf pin - thelatter unquestionably a per.I type (fig. 10-4). Thismust mean that the penannular brooch reachesback into per. Ib.

121

Fig. 9: Left: Pottery from the settlement at Veer, presented by C.J. Becker as typical to his per.ll in CentralJutland (Becker 1961, pis. 64-67).Right: Pottery from the settlement at Vilstrup Vestermark presented by C.J. Becker as typical to his per.ll inSouthern Jutland (Becker 1961, pis. 57-59).

122

Fig. 10: Graves with metal artifacts from Becker's per. IL10-1: Contents ofBjerndrup grave I, c bronze (Becker 1961, fig. 70).10-2; Contents ofBjerndrup grave II, c bronze, b+d +e iron (Becker 1961, fig. 71).10-3: Contents ofVester Vamdrup grave, c bronze (Becker 1961, fig. 72).10-4: Contents ofKrogslund grave A169, only the lower part of the urn preserved (not illustrated, Haderslev

Museum 1549x392-394), a iron, b bronze (Martens del.).10-5: Contents of grave at Sandager Torup, c-d bronze (after Albrectsen 1954, pi. 3a-c).

123

Fig. II: Arre; pottery ascribed by Becker to his per. II(graves nos. 382, 394, 398) (after Becker 1961, pi 106).

D

Fig. 12: Arre; pottery from the third phase according toMartens 1993 (after Becker 1961, pis. 100+JOS).

Becker had a final argument for his per. II. Hedemonstrated that the graves at the Arre ceme-tery could be seriated according to location, ie.that there existed a so-called "horizontal strati-graphy". In this way he divided the materialinto three phases; the first he ascribed to per.la, the second to per. Ib, and the third to per. II.The latter group only consisted of three graves,but since they all were located at the very nor-thern edge of the cemetery, and since their ci-nerary urns were of a very distinct and superiorstyle, Becker thought them fit to define a thirdand final stage at the cemetery (ibid. fig. 67,68, & pi. 106). The typological argumentationwas never explicitly formulated, and one mightwonder whether Becker would have maintai-ned this division, if he had tried to do that.From a typological point of view there is nobig difference between the shaping of thesethree vessels and those ascribed to per. Ib (cf.ibid. fig. 66). The problem simply is; Beckernever defined the pottery style of his per. Ibeither.

However, from various papers the followingdefinition may be extracted: The rim is distinctand turned out in an angle, it is usually thin -the outer thickening seems to be a per. la trait(ibid. p. 214). The neck is tall and conical inopposition to the curved profile of per. la. Thebase is narrow and may have a foot ring(Becker 1956, p. 62). The band shaped handlesare usually connecting the neck with the uppershoulder - thus placed higher on the body thanon per.Ia vessels (Becker 1961, p.175). Orna-ments are rare in per. Ib, in opposition to per.la, where semicircles are typical (ibid., p.218).The three "per. II" vessels at Arre fit wellwithin this definition (fig. 11).

There are, however, other vessels at the Arrecemetery which typologically differ much mo-re from the per. Ib graves (cf. graves no. 325,328, 330 and 403). The general trait of thesepots is the total absence of a separate neck; therim protrudes directly from the body (fig. 12).This is a much more distinct typological diffe-rence and therefore a much better dividing linebetween a second and a third phase at thecemetery. Unfortunately, these graves lack me-tal equipment, so the relation to the metal chro-nology established at the place is not possibleto demonstrate, but their location at the north-

124

Arre - H orison talstratigrafi

Umer rncd lav hals •

Urner med hcrj hals

Urner uelcn hall

Fig. 13: Arre; distribution of three types of pottery at the cemetery. Dot:pottery with low neck (< 2'/2cm). Star: pottery with a tall neck (<4cm).Sun: pottery without a neck (Martens del.), cf. Martens 1993.

eastern edge fits well with the direction of theexpansion of the burial ground (fig. 13). Afarther argument in this connection is, that thesegraves all contained more than one pot - a pheno-menon which is not known in the earlier phases.Finally, the obvious similarity between the pot-tery of the above mentioned graves and that fromthe graves at Ullem011e and Bjerndrup, whichBecker also ascribed to per. II (fig. 10-1 + -2)(ibid. figs. 71 & 72), confirms the late position ofthese four graves (2).

At the large unpublished cemetery at Arupgard, asimilar horizontal stratigraphy and chronologicaldevelopment seems to be at hand (cf. J0rgensen

1971, 1975). In a short paper,Claus K. Jensen has demonstratedthat the cemetery can be dividedinto three ceramical phases (Jensen1992). Penannular brooches appearboth in the second and the thirdphase. Triangular belt hooks andring headed kropf pins date his se-cond phase to Becker's per.Ib. Thepottery of this phase is characteri-zed by tall, slightly curved necks,while the pottery of the third phasehas no neck but a sharply turnedout rim setting out from the body.Though Jensen puts the major di-viding line between his first andhis second phase, it is obviousfrom what he has published thatthe dividing line - from a purelytypological point of view - nodoubt should be put between hissecond and his third phase; be-tween "drei-gliedrige Gefasse " and"Terrinen und Topfe" (using theterminology of Hingst). Thus, alsofrom the ceramical point of view,his second phase corresponds withthe second phase at Arre, and histhird phase with the third phase atArre.

How do the settlements ascribed toper. II fit in with this? As mentio-ned above, the material from thesesites is typologically far from ho-mogenous. In his treatment of per.I, Becker had proved that his re-

search area could be divided into more zones.This is important to keep in mind while revisingthe per. II material.

From zone A, Becker presented four samples:The Vilstrup Vestermark find (fig. 9, right)which stems from a refuse pit (Becker 1961, pla-tes 57-59) could generally be ascribed to the thirdphase at Arre, though, admittedly, a few vessels(ibid. pi. 57c, e, pi. 58f.) could be earlier. Thereare, on the other hand, even profiles which aretypical of the second Borremose phase (ibid. pi.58, d, e & j). The same goes for the inverted pyri-fom body of the large storage jars (ibid. pi. 57d &58j). The material from the six refuse pits atRogager (ibid. pi. 59-61) is rather homogeneous

125

N! Bl N3 N4 N5 BJ Ng KA3KG9KC10KC7 K£l K.D1 KGI KA! KQ

Fig. 14: Combination diagram between the three types of urns mapped in fig. 13 and selected metal objects in thegraves from Arre, Bjerndrup, Ullemolle and Vester Vamdrup. N2-3 kropfpins with curled-up head, N4-5 kropfpinswith ring head, N8 Holstein pins, Bl belt buckles with an eye, B3 triangular belt hooks, KA-C vessels withouthandles, KD-F vessels with one lug, KG two-lugged jars - 3, 6, 9 necks of medium height, 4, 7, !0 tall necks, 1necks absent. (Martens del.) cf. Martens 1993.

and fits well with the third Arre phase, a fewprofiles even being slightly thickened (i.e. op.cit.pi. 60, j, p. & r). Also here the body of thestorage jars is inverted pyriform (ibid. pi. 60 p,61m). The material from Darum II is not excava-ted professionally and does not stem from arefuse pit (ibid. pi. 62). One must admit that it istypologically uniform, but at the same time it dif-fers from the rest of the material presented inBecker's book. However, according to its formaltypological traits it should be ascribed to the thirdphase at Arre. A very similar profile to the wide,two-lugged jars of Darum II is found in the lastfind from Becker's zone A (ibid. pi. 63). Thematerial of this find, a burnt down house at Gje-sing, is, however, so slender that it is difficult tobase anything on it - especially since only four ofthe presented vessel fragments can be surelyascribed to the house site (ibid. p. 74 & pi. 63d, e,g & j). Thus the material of zone A all could beascribed to Arre's third phase.

From zone B, three samples were presented. Thematerial from Veer (fig. 9, left) stems from tworefuse pits (ibid. pp. 75ff. & pis. 64-66). The ma-terial is rather homogenical and has a lot incommon with the second phase at Arre and withthe settlement material which Becker ascribed tohis per. I. This he also admitted, but comparingthe two-lugged jars to the ones from Darum II heconcluded that it had to be per. II. This is a verystrange conclusion since two-lugged jars of amuch more similar shape are found in well datedper. I contexts at the cemeteries which he presen-ted in the same book (compare pis. 66h with99.304, 102.344, and 661 with 199.3). A minorsample stems from a reiuse pit from Svejstrup(ibid. pp. 78f. & pi. 67). The vessels lack a dis-tinct neck, and the lugs are all slightly x-shaped.This qualifies them to Arre's third phase and evenBacker's own per. Ilia. The final find from zoneB stems from two refuse pits at Vorrevangen inNorthern Arhus (ibid. pp. 79ff. & pis. 68-69).

126

From pit I five vessels have been depicted. Ofthese, two are quite easily classified as belongingto the third phase at Arre (ibid. pi. c & d), whileone must admit that the three other ones typolo-gically do appear to be somewhat earlier. Theylack a distinct rim, and their shoulders are muchmore narrow than usually at this stage. A moreimportant observation is that they also lack thetypical tall neck of the earlier stage. Thereforethis pit must be ascribed to the third phase atArre. The material from the second pit (ibid. pi.69) is rather poor, but seems to be of a similardating.

Zone C is represented by four sites. Of these thetwo burnt down houses at G0rding Hede are byfar the most important (ibid. pis. 70-73). Beckeradmitted that the pottery of this find shows aclear affinity to his per. I, but certain traits madehim prefer a somewhat later date. This goes for avery broad rim on a handle cup from house II(ibid. pi. 70b) and a narrow thick lug on a handlecup from house 111 (ibid. pi. 72c). While the firstargument easily can be rejected by referring tothe per. Ib vessel in Arre grave 352 (ibid. pi.103), then the second argument is more striking.Taken as a whole, there is no doubt that the ma-terial from house II is typologically uniform andcan be referred to Arre's second phase. The samecan be said about the majority of the vessels ofhouse III, except for the above mentioned handlecup. Though Becker treats the houses as contem-porary, there is no explicit argument for such anassumption. The second site might therefore beslightly later, but such an assumption does notchange the impression that a sample clearly re-presenting the second Arre phase is mixed with afew later traits. How late the traits are is markedby the narrow handle which actually is facetted, atrait which is common in Becker's per. Ilia, butnot before. G0rding house III must therefore beplaced just before or at the transition to Arre'sthird phase.

The second site of zone C is 0ster Lem, fromwhich Becker published a very slender material(ibid. pp. 9Iff. & pi. 74). It stems from three dif-ferent archaeological features, the major partbeing from house III and a refuse pit. Since potsherds from the same vessel have been found inthe pit and in the house it is claimed that the twofeatures were contemporary. Becker also claimedthat the material was typologically uniform. Thatis a very subjective statement, since the material

from the house, except for one cup, only consistsof minor fragments, and the cup is clearly diffe-rent from the cups from the pit (compare Hatt1949, fig. 70 & 73). Actually, the general typo-logical outlook of the pottery from the pit gives ayounger impression than the pottery from thehouse. The argument for contemporainety is notthat certain either, since the pit was excavatedeight years before the house site, apparentlywithout recognizing the latter. Due to the verynear proximity (the pit was found 1m west of thewest gable of house III) one could expect one oftwo things to have happened; 1) while excavatingthe pit, the excavator might have mixed the soilfrom the pit with soil from the adjacent but notyet recognized house site; 2) if the pit was dug ata time when the settlement was already deserted,then it would be highly probable that pot sherdsfrom the earlier settlement could have beenmixed with the waste of the people who dug thepit. That there was a later activity at the spot isdocumented by the Celtic fields covering thehouse site. The conclusion of these considera-tions is that this find is not particularly well fit asan outset for a chronological discussion.

The third per. II site in Zone C is Gr0ntoft(Becker 1961, pp. 93ff. & pis. 75-76.). Already in1961, Becker dated parts of the material to per. I(pit C, ibid. p. 97). Later, in 1968, further mate-rial was redated (House A, ibid. pi. 76d-j, cf.Becker 1968, p. 244). What is left from this siteis not enough to be the base of a chronologicaldiscussion (Becker 1961, pi. 75).

The last site which Becker used in his definitionof per. II is the multi-phased village at N0rreFjand (ibid. p. 11 Off, pi. 91b, r-u). Four of thehouses were ascribed to per. II (XXI, XlXb,XlXa, and XVIIe). Pottery has only been preser-ved from house XVIIe, and only in a smallerquantity. The most important piece is a handlecup, quite similar to those from the third phase ofArre (ibid. pi. 91s). The general trait of the fewother published fragments is the lack of a neck,and in one instance the rim is slightly thickenedand facetted.

While in zone A all the per. II settlements appea-red to be "late per. II", even Becker noted that animportant part of his more northernly "per. II si-tes" had a strikingly early appearance (ibid. p.97). The most notable of these early sites are Veerand G0rding Hede. From the study of the pottery

127

chronology at Arre, it appears that Becker mis-took a local settlement version of per. Ib potteryfor his missing per. II in the areas north of zoneA. This has implications for the dating of the firstphase at Borremose, since it has already been de-monstrated that it should be contemporary to theG0rding site (Martens 1988a, p. 175). If this isaccepted, then the start of the second Borremosephase must be marked by the third phase at Arre.This phase may be of some length, since Jensen'sthird phase at Arupgard apparently is lackingtypical thickened and facetted rims. This should,however, not cause too much disturbance, sincesuch rims generally are rare in this phase.

8: Chronological Consequences:

The result is that a per. Ib-like phase is followedwithout intermission by a per. Ilia-like phase.Does this fit with the continental chronologies oftoday?

The modem German scholars have left the threeperiod system at large. Instead, they deal withtwo major periods: one characterized by kropfnecked iron pins and pots with marked necks(drei-gliedrige Gefasse) - and a second periodcharacterized by brooches and more stocky pots,mainly without necks (Terrinen und Topfe). Thisis of course a very rough generalization. Whatused to be termed "Ripdorf is now more or lessequivalent with Id-IIa in Holstein (Hingst 1959and later), Ha in Mecklenburg (Keiling 1969),Ila-b in Northeastern Niedersachsen (Harck1970), and Ila in Brandenburg (Seyer 1982).

The Holstein pins are placed in the beginning ofthe second period (Hingst Id/Ha) together withtypical per.IIIa pottery. Typologically late Hol-stein pins might even be found together with per.IIIb-like pottery (cf. Martens 1992, fig. 8). K-brooches are typical for the next stage of the LatePre-Roman Iron Age, associated with pottery ofper. Illb profile (Hingst lib-lie, Keiling lib,Harck lie, and Seyer Ilbl). Finally sway-backedbrooches (geschweifte Fibeln) mark the endphase (Hingst lid, Keiling lie, Harck lid, SeyerIIb2). In my opinion, this can only be interpretedin one way: per. Ilia is contemporary with theRipdorf phase of the Jastorf culture, while per.Illb covers what used to be termed Seedorf.

The synchronization of the former Ripdorf phase(Id-IIa in terms of Hingst) with the Central Euro-pean chronology may be arrived at in two ways:an analysis of La Tene imports in local contexts,or a synchronization with a strongly latenizatedregion. Hingst did the first, and concluded thathis Id-IIa more or less covered LT B2-C, libmaybe even starting before the end of LT C2(Hingst 1986, pp. 29ff). The second method canbe employed by synchronizing the local chrono-logy of Northeastern Turingia (Miiller 1985, pp.36ff.) with the Brandenburg area (Seyer 1982,pp.!6ff.). This confirms the results of Hingst.

Becker synchronized his per. Ilia and Illb withthe whole of the Pre-Roman phase of the EasternEuropean Przeworsk culture (Becker 1980, fig.1). Today this phase can be subdivided into threesubphases: A1-A3. The first of these has provedto be a middle La Tene period which is generallysynchronized with Ripdorf (cf. Dabrowska 1988,pp. 50ff. Wolagiewicz 1979, fig. 1). If Becker'ssuggested synchronization holds true, then it alsoimplies a synchronization - at least partly - ofper. Ilia with Ripdorf. This fits with the fact thatthe per. Ilia graves at Kraghede contained arti-facts typical of Dabrowska's Al (a long brooch ofKostrzewski's type B, and a two-edged sword ofKostrzewski's type I), while the per.IIIb gravescontained types from Dabrowska's A2 (a caul-dron of Eggers' type 4, brooches of Kostrzewski'stype K). A bronze pan of Egger's type 67 wasfound in a grave in Try, Vendsyssel, togetherwith a so-called late derivate of Kostrzewski'stype K-brooch, dated by Becker to per. Illb(Becker 1957). This early Roman import is datedwithin the stages Hingst Ilc-IId or Dabrowska'slate A2 and A3 (Dabrowska 1988, p. 210). Fromthe interregional point of view there is simply noroom for Becker's per. II!

This leads us to the point where we have to de-cide whether we want to continue using the old,well-established terminology defined by Becker,but now lacking the middle period, or we shouldredefine the chronology as such. I believe thelatter is the only way out. I would suggest a gene-ral two-phased division, cutting between potterywith a neck and pottery without a neck - follow-ing the suggestions by Hingst, Harck, Keiling,Seyer, and others basing on the northern Germanmaterial.

128

The naming of the phases in such a division may,however, cause some troubles. Using Romannumerals may lead to confusing with Becker'ssystem, and using letters may lead to confusingthe system with the one by Eggers covering thesubsequent period. Roman numerals, on the otherhand, are used by the modern German systems,"I" denoting the early and "II" denoting the latePre-Roman Iron Age. Therefore it seems reason-able to apply a similar terminology to a similarchronology. I would consequently suggest a ge-neral division of the Pre-Roman Iron Age inSouthern Scandinavia in an early "phase I", and alate "phase II". Further subdivisons ought to fol-low along the same lines, ie. IA, IB, IIA, IIB, andIA1, IA2, IB1, IB2 etc., since some finds may beeasily placed within narrow frames, others onlyaccording to more general traits.

(Jensen 1992, fig. 16) at the cemetery at Arup-gard gives a hint of a possible subdivision of IBtoo: the area of the cemetery covered by Jensenssecond phase (which is equivalent to phase IBsketched out here) can be divided into a northern(earlier) part with pins with ring head and a sou-thern (later) part with pins with ball head.

Though Hachmann boldly has spoken of 4 pha-ses of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age in Jutland(Hachmann 1960, p.!82ff), and Becker cautio-nally used the terms "Early" and "Developed"per.IIIa (Becker 1961, p.261), it has so far notbeen possible with certainty to demonstrate afurther subdivision of the period than the a-b-di-vision already established by Becker in 1951.The special chronological problems of the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Jutland are due to the fact

IA

HA

I IB

116

T t

Fig. 15: Suggested chronology scheme of the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Jutland (Martens del.), cf. Martens 1993.

As sketched out elsewhere (Martens 1993), theearly Pre-Roman Iron Age can be divided into IAand IB, corresponding to the two first phases atArre (fig. 14 & 15). Becker's mapping of the twotypes of "kropf-" pins with curled up head sug-gests that IA may be subdivided (Becker 1961,fig. 59), and a comparison of the distribution ofpins (J0rgensen 1975, p. 5) and pottery types

that metal objects are rare, especially in the laterpart of the period, and that they are often of localtypes. It was for this reason that Becker insistedon defining the chronology on the basis of potte-ry rather than metal types. Initially, he suggestedthat the casted bronze brooches were earlier thanthe typical La Tene forms, and consequently heplaced them in per.II, together with the Holstein

129

pins and other casted bronze ornaments (Becker1948a, pp. 156ff.). Anyhow, when redefining hischronological system in 1951, Becker pushedsome of the casted brooches up into the newlydefined per.IIIa (Becker 1951, p. 34 and espe-cially pp. 40ff.). Later revisions of the relationbetween the casted brooches and the pottery de-velopment has demonstrated that they all must bereferred to per.IIIa (Bech 1975, Laursen 1984).Thus per.II was only left with two metal types -the penannular brooch, which is seen in per.IIIaas well, and the Holstein pin (Becker 1961, pp.255ff). As mentioned above, even these typesare unfit for a definition of an independant per.II.

The afore treated types are most often found asbog deposits or as stray finds. In opposition tothis, brooches of Kostrzewski's K type are just asoften and the sway-backed brooches exclusivelyfound as grave goods. Already this could be anindication of a chronological difference. In theliterature, this type of brooch is often dividedinto an early and a late type (Hachmann 1960,p. 178, J0rgensen 1968, p. 77, etc.). The earlybrooches have been placed in a "late stage ofper.IIIa", whereas the late derivates have been re-ferred to per.IIIb. While several of the so-calledlate derivates have been published in their fullcontext, so far not a single specimen of the earlygroup has been treated in a similar manner. In1975 J.-H. Bech listed a total of five K-broocheswith a supposedly early date (Bech 1975, p. 86,group VII). Among these, only three can be da-ted by the associated pottery. The most typical"early" brooch is found in the Kraghede grave69, which Becker, however, dated to the transi-tion from per.IIIa to per.IIIb (Becker 1961, p.261, and note 43). It must be admitted that theforms like the globular vase (Klindt-Jensen 1949,fig. 34) and the broad, horizontal frieze on thestraight-sided cup (ibid. figs. 38, and 41c) moreresemble per.IIIb than per.IIIa. Since a findcomplex cannot be earlier than its latest element,this implies that grave 69 is "early per.IIIb". TheVogn grave 21 is surely a mixed inventory of agrave with typical per.IIIb pottery and anotherwith mixed per. Ilia and per.IIIb types. Whetherthe brooch belongs to one or the other of thesegraves is not possible to determine (Martens1993, fig.10). The only possible per.IIIa-graveleft is the Vogn grave 1953-c - but the brooch inthis grave is definitely far from the elegant longiron brooches of the continent (J0rgensen 1968,

fig. 17.2). Besides the brooch, the grave furni-shing comprised three pots and a miniature cup(Martens 1993, fig. 11). Though the pottery for-mally can be ascribed to per. Ilia, especially thejug appears closely related to the design of thefollowing phase at the same site. Consequently, acloser analysis of the total Vogn cemetery isneeded before it will be possible to establishwhether this particular grave should be referredto a late part of per. Ilia or an early part of per.Illb.

Summing up the present state of affairs (fig. 15),the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age of Denmark can bedivided into two major phases: an early which ischaracterized by developed Holstein pins, castedball brooches and long brooches of B-type, and alate characterized by D/E-, K-, M-, N- and O-brooches and Hannoverian brooches (J0rgensen1968, 1989, Martens 1992, 1993). The earlyphase appears to embrace material which interms of Becker would be ascribed both to hisperiods II and Ilia, while the late phase embracesmaterial which has been referred to Becker'sper.IIIa as well as his per.IIIb. It has been sug-gested elsewhere to term the early phase HA andthe late phase IIB (Martens 1993).

Also these periods may prove to be possible tosubdivide. Thus the rather late occurrence ofslightly thickened, facetted rims at Arupgard (cf.Jensen 1992, fig. 18) hints that this is a late traitwithin IIA. This suggestion is supported by thetypological difference between the pottery of theKraghede settlement and the earliest graves atthe same location.

IIB appears to be a very long phase. In a recentstudy on the N0rre Sandegard cemetery at Born-holm, Becker has suggested a local 3-phasedchronology in which he distinguishes between anearly phase 1 characterized by local ball broo-ches, a phase 2 characterized by brooches ofKostrzewski's C and K-types, a phase 3 charac-terized by brooches of Kostrzewski's M-O-types(Becker 1990, pp. 80ff.). This suggests that IIBin Jutland actually can be divided into subphases,but as long as the defining metal types are sorare, it seems necessary to maintain the periodundivided (3).

Becker considered the phase to be only a shorttransitional stage due to the fact that he wasunable to distinguish the pottery from this phase

130

500BC

250BC

••

130BC

50BC

10-20AD

C.Europe

HaD3/LTA

LTB1

LTB2

LTC1

LTC2

LTD la

LTDlb

LTD2

Poland

Pomme-

ranian-

Culture

Al

A2

A2/A3

A3

Holsten Jutland

Ib IA

Ic IB

Id

Ila HA

libIIB

lieIIB

lid

Bornholm

EarlyPre-RomanIronAge

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 2

Phase 3

Gotland

aA

aB

yA

yB

yc

yD

Fig. 16: Suggested synchronization between the chronologies of Jutland (cf. fig. 15) and selected Central andNorthern European chronologies. La Tene chrononology cf. Kramer 1962, Miron 1986; Polish chronology cf.Wolagiewicz 1979, Wozniak 1979, Dabrowska 1988; Jastorf chronology cf. Hingst 1959; Jutland cf. Martens1993; Gotland cf. Nylen 1955, 1962; absolute datings cf. Haffner 1979, Miron 1986, Rieckhoff 1992, Dabrowska1988, pp. 53ff. (cf. Martens 1992, 1993).

from the pottery of the Early Roman Iron Age(B). The argument ran that since it was impossi-ble to single out "independant" per. Hlb types itmeant that the period was so short that there wasno time to develop an independant style. Beckerestimated that this would mean 50 years or less(Becker 1961, pp. 262f. & 271). From a logicalpoint of view the argument does not hold true;the transition from per. Ilia to per. Illb is themost clear in Becker's chronology. This meansthat per. Illb most certainly appears with an in-dependant pottery style. If the pottery of theEarly Roman Iron Age cannot be distinguishfrom it, this tells more about this period than per.Illb which is its base. As Sophus Muller wrote inhis initial description of the Kraghede pottery:first "with Kraghede does the Roman Iron Age(....) get a comprehensive background" (Muller1912, pp. 126). Actually the Early Roman IronAge may be considered a sort of baroque basedon the per. Illb style. Apart from these conside-rations of a more formal logical character onemay add that since Becker forwarded his notionseveral researchers have been dealt with the

problem and have come to the conclusion that itis possible to isolate certain traits special for per.Illb (J0rgensen 1968, Bech 1979, Hvass 1985,pp. 83ff). Even more important is the recent dis-covery (Per Ole Rindel, this volume) that thepottery of the Early Roman Iron Age may be di-vided into an Early Bl-style connected to per.Illb and a later B2 style, a situation which isknown from other areas of northern Europe aswell (Jacek Andrzejowski, pers. comm.). Theconsequense is that the ceramical phase IIB/B1becomes about 150-200 years - a length which ismuch more acceptable.

Considering metal types and pottery, there seemsto be no doubt about synchronizing IIA with thephases Id-IIa in Hans Hingst's Holstein chrono-logy (Hingst 1959). Likewise, IIB appears to cor-respond to Hingst's phases Ilb-c-d. However, theVogn grave 1953-c suggests that IIA perhapsmight end a little after the beginning of Hingstlib. Hingst's chronology system has by RyszardWolagiewicz (1979, ryc.l) and Teresa Dabrow-

131

ska (1988, p. 193) been synchronized with thePolish chronology system in the following way:Al=Ila-b, A2=IIc, A3=IId (see also Martens1989). The suggestion seems somewhat strange,as Hingst lib is characterized by ball broochesand K-brooches (Hingst 1959, p.115 & fig. 17a).It seems more likely to equate Hingst lib withA2, He = A2/3, and lid with A3. From this itfollows that our phase IIA should be contempo-rary with the Polish Al, while IIB should beequated with A2 and A3. This fits with the newlysuggested 3 -phase chronology of Bornholm(Becker 1990), where phase 1 can be equatedwith Al, phase 2 with A2 and phase 3 with A3.

From this it follows that IIA should be (partly)corresponding to LT C1-C2, perhaps with a shortcontact to LT Dl, whereas IIB more or lessshould cover LT D1-D2 (following Kramer1962, Polenz 1971, Miron 1986). In absoluteyears it means that the transition from IB to IIAshould be dated to around 250 BC, whereas thetransition from IIA-IIB should be dated to130BC or shortly thereafter (Miron 1986, pp.151ff.,Rieckhoff 1992, p. 116f.)-

From the above emerges the following scheme ofsynchronization (fig. 16) - the absolute datingsestablished on dendrochronology and greek am-phora stamps.

the latter period was hiding in the vast materialsfrom the moats of Borremose. Instead, the re-examination of the pottery development at theArre cemetery has demonstrated that Becker'sper. II is a phantom period which owes its exis-tence to his avoiding precise morphological de-finitions. Thus the early Borremose phase repre-sents the local per. Ib style (i.e. phase IB), whichis followed immediately by a per. Ilia-like phase(i.e. phase IIA). In this way it is possible tobridge the gap between the early and the late Pre-Roman Iron Age of North Jutland.

While these observations are applicable to all ofJutland, there are other features of a more geo-graphically limited character. Thus even with therevision of the chronology, weapon graves doappear to be earlier in North Jutland than else-where on the peninsula (eg. the IIA graves atKraghede) (Nielsen 1975). Apparently, this riteis closely connected with the custom to furnishthe grave with an abundance of (broken) potteryand even tools and lumps of meat. The samegoes for the rich IIB pottery decoration stylewhich is confined to Vendsyssel (cf. fig. 17 andMartens 1992, fig. 12). These features demon-strate the specific cultural position of Vendsys-sel; in IIA connected with the Przeworsk culture,in IIB with Holstein and the lower Elbe region(cf. Martens 1992).

9: Conclusion:

What from the outset appeared to be a local pro-blem caused by a poorly represented Pre-RomanIron Age of North Jutland, proved to be a generalproblem of the Pre-Roman Iron Age chronologyof Jutland. I would have liked to present moreNorth Jutland material, but without defining thechronological framework it would have had nointerest. I would simply have had to confirm thetraditional point of view that: In North Jutlandper.I and per.IIIa and -b are well represented, butper.II is lacking. I could even have suggested that

Acknowledgements:I wish to thank DAAD, Deutsche AkademischeAustauschdienst for granting me a 2 months'scholarship enabling me to visit selected mu-seums and collections in Northern Germany.Further I shall thank Vendsyssel Historical Mu-seum and the National Museum of Denmark forallowing me to publish finds in their collections,and to Jens-Henrik Bech for allowing me to pub-lish materials from his investigations at the Vogncemetery, and to C. J. Becker for allowing me tomake use of his drawings of the Kraghede mate-rial.

132

Fig. 17: Vogn; contents of grave f. nr. 54 (VHM 1975/9-30). Metal objects iron, except finger ring bronze (Martensdel.).

133

Abbrevations:

NM: National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.VHM: Vendsyssel Historiske Museum, Hj0rring.VMA: Vesthimmerlands Museum, Ars.

Notes:

1: The trip which was made possible by DA AD gaveme the opportunity to see the archaeologicalcollections of the museums in Slesvig, Ham-burg, Stade, Cuxhaven, Bederkesa, and Wil-helmshaven during the months of Februaryand March 1993.

2: Becker was aware of the late position of at leastsome of the vessels of these Arre Graves.Thus, he placed the handle-cup from grave403 in per. I but "close to the border to per.II" (Becker 1961, p. 215).

3: For a more detailed discussion of the relation be-tween the chronologies of Jutland and Born-holm see Martens 1993.

References:

Albrectsen, E. 1954: Fynske Jernaldergrave I. F0rro-mersk jernalder. Munksgaard, K0benhavn.

Bech, J-H. 1975: Nordjyske fibler fra per.IIIa afferromersk jernalder - et bidrag til diskusio-nen vedrarende kulturforbindelser i yngre f0r-romersk jernalder. Hikuin 2, pp. 75-88.

1979: Overbygardkaelderen. Datering afkeramikken. Kuml 1979, pp. 141-150

1980: Late Pre-Roman Iron Age in Nor-thern Jutland in the Light of Excavations atthe Vogn Cemetery in Mosbjerg, Vendsyssel.Die vorromische Eisenzeit im Kattegatt-Ge-biet und in Polen, eds. L. Kaelas & J. Wig-fors, Goteborgs Arkeologiska Museum,Goteborg, pp. 68-84.

Bech, J.-H. & Lysdahl, P. 1976: Vendsyssel. Ndr jar-net kom, ed. Kj. Cullberg, Goteborgs Arkeo-logiska Museum, Goteborg, pp. 68-84.

Becker, C. J. 1948a: Die zeitliche Stellung des Hjort-springfundes, Ada Archaeologica XIX, pp.145-187

1948b: Den tidlige jernalderbebyggelsepaa Trelleborg, Nordiske fortidsminder IV,hf.l, pp. 223-240

1951: F0rromersk Jernalder i Danmark,Aktuelle Problemer. SMYA-FFT LU:l, pp.29-50.

1956: Fra Jyllands asldste jernalder.Kuml 1956, pp. 50-67.

1957: F0rromersk jernaldergrav fra TrySkole i Vendsyssel. Kuml 1957, pp. 49-67.

1959: Einige danische Fibelformen derjungsten Bronzezeit. Berliner Beitrage zurVor- und Fruhgeschichte Bd.2, Gandert-Fest-schrift,pp. 12-18, Taf. 19-20.

1961: F0rromersk Jernalder i Syd- ogMidtjylland, Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Storreberetninger VI, Nationalmuseet, Kjabenhavn.

1968: Das zweite friiheisenzeitlicheDorf bei Gr0ntoft, Westjutland. Acta Ar-chaeologica XXXIX, pp. 235-255.

1980: Vendsyssel wahrend der vorromi-schen Eisenzeit. Die vorromische Eisenzeit imKattegatt-Gebiet und in Polen, eds. L. Kaelas& J. Wigfors, Goteborgs Arkeologiska Mu-seum, Goteborg, pp. 54-67.

1990: Nerre Sandegdrd. Arkceologiskeundersogelser pa Bornholm 1948-1952. Hi-storisk-filosofiske Skrifter 13, Det KongeligeDanske Videnskabernes Selskab, K0benhavn.

1993: Studien zur jungeren vorromi-schen Eisenzeit auf Bornholm. Acta Archaeo-logica vol. 63, pp. 1-38.

Borchling, A. 1951: Die Untergliederung der Stufevon Seedorf auf Grund des Fundstoffs vomUrnenfriedhof Hombek, Kr. Hzgt. Lauen-burg. Archaeologia Geografica Ed. 1, 1950/51, pp. 49-54.

Brondsted, J. 1936: En himmerlandsk tilflugtsborg.Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark, 38-41.

1940: Danmarks Oldtid, bd. Ill, Jernal-deren. IC0benhavn, Gyldendal.

1960: Danmarks Oldtid, bd. Ill, Jernal-deren. Kabenhavn, Gyldendal.

Dabrowska, T. 1988: Wczesne fazy kttltury przewor-skiej. Chronologia - zasieg - powazania.Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsza-wa.

Eggers, H. J. 1951: Der romische Import im FreienGermanien, Hamburgisches Museum furVolkerkunde und Urgeschichte, Hamburg.

Fabech, C. 1986: Storstenskisten fra Blaere. Kuml1986, pp. 45-75.

Hachmann, R. 1960: Die Chronologie der jungerenvorromischen Eisenzeit. 41. Bericht der ro-misch-germanischen Kommision 1960, pp. 1-276.

Haffner, A. 1979: Zur absoluten Chronologie derMittellatenezeit. Archaologisches Korrespon-denzblatt 9, pp. 405-409.

Hansen, M. 1984: Umegrav med jernfibula fraMarkvasnget i Vesthimmerland. Hikuin 10,pp.117.

Harck, O. 1970: Nordostniedersachsen vom Be-ginn der jungeren Bronzezeit bis zum friihenMittelalter. Materialhefte zur Ur- undFriihgeschichte Niedersachsens. Heft 7, Au-gust Lax, Hildesheim.

134

Halt, G. 1928: To bopladsfund fra eeldre jernal-der, fra Mors og Himmerland. Arb0ger fornordisk oldkyndighed og historic 1928, pp.214-260.

1938: Jernaldersbopladser i Himmer-land. Arb0ger for nordisk oldkyndighed oghistoric 1938, pp. 119-266.

1949: Oldtidsagre. Kabenhavn.Hingst, H. 1959: Vorgeschichte des Kreises Stor-

warn. Karl Wachholtz, Neumiinster.1983: Die vorromische Eisenzeit West-

holsteins. Offa Biicher 49, Kurt Wacbholtz,Neumunster.

1986: Urnenfriedhofe der vorromischenEisenzeit aus dem ostlichen Holstein undSchwansen. Offa Biicher 58, Kurt Wachholtz,Neumunster.

1989: Urnenfriedhofe der vorromischenEisenzeit aus Sudostholstein. Offa Biicher 67,Kurt Wachholtz, Neumunster.

Hvass, S. 1985: Hodde. Et vestjysk landsbysam-fund fra celdre jernalder. Arkaeologiske Stu-dier vol. VII, Akademisk Forlag, Kobenhavn.

Jensen, C.K. 1992: Om behovet for en nyvurdering afden ferromerske kronologi. Lag 3, pp. 53-71.

Jensen, J. 1966: Jyske fladmarksgrave fra slutnin-gen af yngre bronzealder. Arbogerfor nordiskoldkyndighed og historic 1966, pp. 36-66.

1965: Ulbjerg-graven. Begyndelsen afden Eeldre jernalder i Jylland. Kuml 1965, pp.23-33.

Johansen, E. 1990: En brandgravplads med smykke-fund fra f0rromersk jernalder, Kuml 1990, pp.45-56.

Jergensen, E. 1968: S0nder Vilstrup-fundet. En grav-plads fra den aeldre jernalder. Arb0ger fornordisk oldkyndighed og historic 1968, pp.32-90.

1971: Liden rue. Skalk 1971-2, pp. 3-71975: Tuernes mysterier. Skalk 1975-1,

pp. 3-10.1989: Hojgard, Avncvig og Made. Tre

syd- og sonderjyske grave fra tiden omkringKristi fedsel. Kuml 1989, pp. 119-142.

Keiling, H. 1969: Die vorromische Eisenzeit imElde-Karthane-Gebiet. Beitrage zur Ur- undFriihgeschichte der Bezirke Rostock, Schwe-rin und Neubrandenburg 3, Schwerin.

Klindt-Jensen, O.I949: Foreign Influences in Den-mark's Early Iron Age, Ada ArchaeologicaXX, pp. 1-248.

1953: Bronzekedelen fra Bra. JyskArkasologisk Selskabs Skrifter bd.III, Univer-sitetsforlaget, Arhus.

Kossack, G. & Harck, O. 1973: Grabungen in derArchsumburg auf Sylt. Germania 51, pp.477-499.

Kostrzewski, J. 1919: Die ostgermanische Kultur derSpdtlatenezeit. Mannus-Bibliothek nr. 18,Leipzig & Wiirzburg.

Kramer, W. 1962: Manching II. Germania 40, pp.304-317.

Laursen, J. 1984: Danske kuglefibler. Hikuin 10,pp. 127-136.

Madsen, A.P. & Neergaard C. 1881: Jernalderensgravskikke i Jylland. Arb0gerfor nordisk old-kyndighed og historie 1881, pp. 79-184.

Marseen, O. 1954: En meseske af ler. Kuml 1954, pp.50-54.

1956: Oldtidsbrende. Kuml 1956, pp.68-85.

Martens, J. 1988a: Borremose Reconsidered. TheDate and Development of a Fortified Sett-lement of the Early Iron Age. Journal of Da-nish Archaeology vol.7, pp. 159-181.

1988b: The Pre-Roman Iron Age Ceme-tery at Kraghede - On the Cultural Connec-tions of the So-Called "Kraghede-Group" ofthe Late Pre-Roman Iron Age. Barbaricum 2,pp. 134-136.

1988c: Borremose in North Jutland - aFortified Settlement of the Pre-Roman IronAge. Barbaricum 2, pp. 102-113.

1989: Teresa Dabrowska: Wczesne FazyKultury Przeworskiej. Chronologia - Zasieg -Powiazania. (Friihstufen der Przeworsk-KuI-tur. Chronologic - Gebiet - Verbindungen).Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsza-wa 1988, Journal of Danish Archaeologyvol.8, pp. 233-235

1990: Studier over Borremosefundetskeramik. Unpublished dissertation from Insti-tute of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Univer-sity of Aarhus.

1991: Gensyn med Borremose - ombaggrunden for genoptagelsen af unders0gel-serne. LAG 2, pp. 30-35.

1992: On the So-Called Kraghede-Group - the Pre-Roman Iron Age in NorthJutland and its Connections with the Prze-worsk Culture, Kultura Przeworska, ed. A.Kokowski, Lublin, in print.

1993: Die vorromische Eisenzeit inSudskandinavien. Prdhistorische Zeitschrift,in print.

1994: Refuge Fort - Fortied Settlement -Central Place? Three years of archaeologicalinvestigations in the Borremose Stronghold(1989-1991) Ethnographisch ArchaologischeZeitschrift 1994-2, pp. 177-198.

1994b: Haus und Hof in Sudskandina-vien. Haus und Hof in ostlichen Germanien,Tagungsbericht, ed. A. Leube, Berlin, inprint.

135

Martens, J. & Kaul, F. 1993: Foreign Southeastern In-fluences in the Early Iron Age of SouthernScandinavia. Acta Archaeologica, in print.

Miron, A. 1986: Das Graberfeld von Horath. Un-tersuchungen zur Mittel- und Spatlatenezeitim Saar-Mosel-Raum. Trierer Zeitschrift, 49.Jahrgang, pp. 7-198.

Moberg, C.-A. 1941: Zonengliederungen der vor-christlichen Eisenzeit in Nordeuropa. C. W.K. Glerup, Lund.

Miiller, R. 1985: Die Grabfunde der Jastorf undLatenezeit an unterer Saale und Mittelelbe.Veroffentlichungen des Landesmuseums furVorgeschichte in Halle, Bd. 38

Miiller, S. 1900a: En fremmed halsring af guld fraforromersk tid. Arb0ger for nordisk oldkyn-dighed og historie 1900, pp. 140-143.

1900b: Bronzebalter fra f0rromersk tid.Arb0ger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie1900,pp. 130-139.

1903: Det store S01vkar fra Gundestrup iJylland. Nordiske Fortidsminder, Bind 1. Gyl-dendal, Kabenhavn 1890-1903. pp.35-68.

1912: Vendsyssel-Studier. III. Jernalde-rens kulturhistorie og Fund. Arhogerfor nor-disk oldkyndighed og historie 1912, pp. 83-142.

1933: Oldtidens Kunst, Jernalderen. C.A. Reitzel, K0benhavn.

Neergaard, C. 1892: Jernalderen. Arb0ger for nordiskoldkyndighed og historie 1892, pp. 207-341.

Nielsen,!. L. 1975: Aspekter af det f0rromerske va-bengravsmilj0 i Jylland. Hikuin 2, pp. 89-96.

Nielsen, V. 1993: Jernalderens plojning. Store Vild-mose. Vendsyssel Historiske Museum.

Nylen, E. 1955: Diejiingere vorromische EisenzeitGotlands. Almquist & Wicksell, Uppsala.

1962: Kontakt erhallen mellan aldre ochyngre forromersk jemalder. En preliminarforskningsrapport. Fornvannen 57, pp. 257-276.

Polenz, H. 1971: Mittel- und spatlatenezeitlicheBrandgraber aus Dietzenbach, Landkreis Of-fenbach am Main. Studien und Forschungen,N.F. 4.

Rangs-Borchling, A. 1963: Das Urnengraberfeld vonHornbek in Holstein. Offa-Bucher, Bd. 18,Kurt Wachholtz, Neumiinster.

von Richthofen, B. 1930: Zur Herkunft der Wandalen.Altschlesien 3, pp. 21-36.

Rieckhoff, S. 1992: Uberlegungen zur Chronologicder Spatlatenezeit im siidlichen Mitteleuropa.

Bayrische Vorgeschichtsbldtter, Jahrg. 57,pp. 103-121.

Riismoller, P. 1938: En urnegravplads fra teldre jern-alder i Lille Vildmose. Winther Festskrift. Ar-kceologiske studier tilegnet Jens Winther, eds.H.Norling-Christensen & P.V.Glob. Munks-gard, Kobenhavn, pp. 110-116.

Seyer, H. 1982: Siedlung und archaologische Kul-tur der Germanen im Havel-Spree-Gebiet inden Jahrhunderten vor Beginn u. Z. Schriftenzur Ur- und Friihgeschichte 34, AkademieVerlag, Berlin.

Trolle-Lassen, T. 1984: Sociale forskelle i jernalder-samfundet i Vogn. Vendsyssel nu og da 1984,pp. 10-23.

1987: Jernaldergravpladsen ved Vogn.En arkaeologisk-osteologisk unders0gelse.Kumll987,pp. 105-163.

Vorting, H. C. 1977: Gravplads pa h0jtoppen - og an-det godt fra en frigivet gravhej i Vendsyssel.Antikvariske studier I , pp. 109-122.

Waller, K. 1941: Die Riescnurnen von Berenschbei Cuxhaven. Germania 25, pp. 11-18.

1942: Latenezeitliche Friedhofe an derElbmimdung. Prdhistorische Zeitschrift,XXXH.-XXXIII. Band, 1941/42, pp. 235-259.

1951: Ein Latenezeitliches Graberfeldauf der Wingst. Manner vom Morgenstern.Heimatbund an Elb- und Wesermundung.Jahrbuch 32,pp. 101-110.

1953: Ein eisenzeltliches Graberfeld beiHolsel. Manner vom Morgenstern. Heimat-bund an Elb- und Wesermiindung. Jahrbuch34,pp.7-17.

Werner, J. 1952: Narrejyske bronzebslter fra Jern-alderen. Kuml 1952, pp. 133-143.

Wolagiewicz, R. 1979: Kultura pomorska a kulturaoksywska. Problemy kultury pomorskiej, ed.T. Malinowski, Muzeum Okregowe w Kosza-linie, Slupsk, pp. 33-69.

Vorting, H.C. 1977: Gravplads pa h0jtoppen - og andetgodt fra en frigivet gravh0j i Vendsyssel.Antikvariske studier 1, pp. 109-122.

Wozniak, Z. 1979: Chronologia mlodzej fazy kulturyPomorskiej w swietle importow i nasladow-nictwa zabytkow pochodzenia poludniego,Problemy kultury pomorskiej. ed. T. Mali-nowski, Muzeum Okregowe w Koszalinie,Slupsk, pp. 125-148.

136

Chronological Problems in the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe - Copenhagen 1992, pp. 137-143

RADIOCARBON DATING IN THE PRE-ROMAN IRON AGE.

Uffe Rahbek1 and Kaare Lund Rasmussen1-2

Introduction

The radiocarbon dating method was proposed byWillard F. Libby in 1947, then at the Universityof Chicago (Anderson et ai, 1947). The methodwas soon adopted by other institutions as it pro-ved to be an efficient method of establishing anabsolute chronology in the archaeological andgeological sciences. Over the years the methodhas been improved in many ways and the radio-carbon dating method has become far more accu-rate and reliable than it was in the 1950'ties. Thispaper describes the basis of the radiocarbondating method and demonstrates the importanceof calibrating radiocarbon dates, emphasized byexamples from the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

Carbon-14 dating

Carbon is present in nature in three isotopes; I2Cand 13C are stable isotopes whereas 14C isradioactive. Living organisms such as animals,plants and shells incorporate all three isotopes viatheir metabolism. The incorporation of I4Cabruptly ends when metabolism stops at the timeof death of the organism. The accumulated I4Cthen starts to decay.

Knowing the original amount of 14C, the amountof I4C present in the material today and the half-live of I4C, a radiocarbon age can be calculated.The equation for calculating the radiocarbon age,T, is:

where T is the age in l4C-years(the radiocarbon age).Tl/2 is the Libby half life of

14C(= 5568 years).A14 is the l4C-activity inthe material at present.A014 is the original 14C-

activity in the material.

Material older than ca. 40,000 years is generallytoo old to measure with the radiocarbon method,as more than 99.5 % of the I4C originally presentin the material has decayed.

Measuring 14C concentration in the samples

In order to measure the amount of I4C in asample, the material has to undergo an extensivemechanical and chemical pre-treatment in orderto remove possible contamination. This is toensure that only carbon from the original materialis used in the measurement. The material is thenconverted to carbondioxide by burning it in anatmosphere of pure oxygen.

After further purification processes the carbon-dioxide is transferred to a proportional counterand the 14C radioactivity of the sample is measu-red for at least 20 hours. Radiocarbon dates aregiven in HC-years ± one standard deviation. Thestandard deviation reflects the accuracy of themeasurement. The longer the measurement time,the lesser the standard deviation.

,14

In2 14

H Dating Laboratory, Ny Vestergade 11, DK1471 Copenhagen, Denmark.2Also at Department of Physics, University of Odensc,Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odcnse M, Denmark.

Isotopic fractionation.

During the process of carbon forming organismsand in the demolishion of such organisms via aseries of chemical reactions, it is possible thatisotopic fractionation has occurred. By isotopicfractionation, we mean that relatively more ofone isotope is taken up by the organismcompared to the abundance of this isotope in

•

nature. In this way there may have become toomuch (or too little) 14C in a sample compared tothe content of I2C and I3C.

The isotopic fractionation has only a minor effecton the date, but if not accounted for, the agecould become some tens of years too old or tooyoung. It is possible to compensate for the frac-tionation by measuring the ratio I3C/12C in thematerial. The 13C/12C ratio is fixed through timeas both I3C and I2C are stable isotopes. If the'3C/12C-ratio is altered by fractionation processes,then the I4C/I2C will be altered by twice thatamount. By measuring the l3C/12C-ratio and cor-recting the 14C/12C-ratio, the effect of the fractio-nation processes are eliminated.

Calibration of 14C dates

Libby assumed that the l4C-content in theatmosphere had been constant for at least 50,000years. This assumption was held true for manyyears, and radiocarbon dating of material withknown ages within the last 2000 years more orless confirmed it. In 1971 it was, however, reali-zed that the l4C-content of the atmosphere hadnot always been constant. This was proven onsamples from living trees several thousands yearsold from the west coast of North America. Moreaccurate measurements of annual tree ringsshowed that fluctuations during the last 2000years had also occurred.

This gave rise to the creation of a calibrationcurve, where the natural l4C-content was measu-red in tree ring samples of known ages. The cali-bration curve shows the radiocarbon age as afunction of the true calendar age, hence a conver-sion from radiocarbon years to calendar years isnon possible. Variations in the HC-content of theatmosphere are reflected in the calibration curveas the so-called wiggles.

When a sample is dated, a radiocarbon age iscalculated by the formula given above. Byconsulting the calibration curve the radiocarbonage is converted into a calendar year or acalendar year span. Calibration curves ofincreasing refinement have been published inRadiocarbon (Stuiver et al, 1986; Stuiver et al,1993). With the latest calibration curves, (Stuiveret al., 1993) measurements from ca. BC 20,000

until AD 1955 can be calibrated. The calibrationfrom BC 20.000 till ca. 10.000 BC uses acorrelation to U/Th series on marine samplesfrom Barbardos. We have probably not seen thelast revision of the calibration curves, though it isunlikely the curve for the latest 4000 years shallalter much. We can assume the adjustments willbe within the standard deviation of the presentcurve.

The curves that are normally used for calibrationpurposes are based on a 20 years average of the14C-content in the atmosphere. This is appropriatefor trees with 20 annual rings and other samplesgrown over a similar numbers of years. Butshort-lived samples, such as straw or hazelnutsrepresent the 14C-content of the atmosphere in asingle year, and that can differ slightly from the20 years average (Vogel et al., 1993). Only smallparts of the calibration curve have been estab-lished for single year calibration, so this is anarea open for research. Until now the periods3900-1900 BC and AD 1510-1954 have beenpublished for single year calibration (Vogel etal., 1993 and Stuiver, 1993). None of thesecurves are yet available in the computer programused for calibration (Stuiver et al., 1993). Whenthe single year calibration curve is used insteadof the usual 20 years averaged curve the intervalfor ± one standard deviation may become slight-ly broader.

It is essential to use the calibrated age whendiscussing radiocarbon dating in an archaeologi-cal context, the calibration can have a conclusiveeffect on the results. Sometimes uncalibratedradiocarbon dates have been cited in the literatureeven after publication of the calibration curves.This cannot be recommended. The reason for thiswill be clarified below.

Besides the uncertainty (± one standard devia-tion) coming directly from the measurement, twoother uncertainties lay implicitly in the 14C-age,i.e. the uncertainties are there, but not to be seenunless the calibration process is used. The uncer-tainties originating from the calibration curve,and the fact that the l4C-content of theatmosphere has fluctuated over time (wiggles),gives uncertainty to the date in a totally opaqueway. If only the l4C-age ± one standard deviationis quoted, these two uncertainties are excludedfrom the discussion.

138

CLGO,

OOS03CO.a8gT3COCC

2600 1

2500 -.

2400 T

2300 -

2200 -

2100 -=

2000600 500 400 300

Calibrated age (BC)

200

Fig. 1: Radiocarbon age in l4C-years as a function of calibrated age in calendar years. Note the two periods 520-430 BC. and 350-210 BC where the calibration curve is horizontal. The large bumps in the curve are calledwiggles, and are caused by fluctuations in the I4C- content of the atmosphere. The radiocarbon age of theparticular sample is 2340 ± 100BP.

2600 :

=5 2200CO

OC

2000

600 500 400 300

Calibrated age (BC)200

Fig. 2: The same radiocarbon age as in Fig. I but a smaller standard deviation - 2340 ± 65 BP. Note that theinterval in calibrated years for ± one standard deviation is smaller than 130 years due to the steep part of the

139

1900

450 350 250

Calibrated age (BC)

50

Fig. 3: A radiocarbon age (2220 ± 80 BP) that haphazardly falls into aflat part of the calibration curve. Note thelarge interval in the calibrated date.

2500 1

2400 -

CL£. 2300OO3CO

J8§

2200 ~.

.9 2100T3COtr

2000

1900

450 350 250 150

Calibrated age (BC)

Fig. 4: The same radiocarbon age as in Fig. 3 but with a much smaller standard deviation (2220 ± 20 BP). Thecalibrated interval for ± one standard deviation is not reduced much due to the flat part of the calibration curve.

140

2500 1

1900

450 350 250 150

Calibrated age (BC)

Fig. 5: The same radiocarbon age as in Fig. 3 calibrated with the 100 years averaged calibration curve. Thecalibration curve is smoothed and hence the wiggle that coursed an interval of calibrated values is also smoothedout, so that only one central value is produced in this case.

2600 1

2000 :

600 500 400 300

Calibrated age (BC)200

Fig. 6: The same radiocarbon age as in Fig. 2, calibrated with the 100 years averaged calibration curve. Thecalibrated interval at ± 1 standard deviation becomes wider.

141

A pitfall of this kind is that two HC-ages mayapparently be well separated, but are in fact in-distinguishable once they are calibrated. Such anexample in the Pre-Roman Iron Age is the twodates 2340 ± 100 BP and 2100 ± 100 BP. Ob-viously these are two separate dates, which evenif the error is incorporated give two dates at leastfourty years apart. Once calibrated ± one stan-dard deviation the dates become 510-260 BC and340 BC- AD 10 respectively. Hence giving thepossibility of coincidental date span of eightyyears. It is therefore strongly recommended thatall archaeological argumentation is based solelyon calibrated ages at ± one standard deviation,However the calibration curve can never separatetwo dates that have indistinguishable l4C-ages.

Special problems in Pre-Roman Iron Age

The Pre-Roman Iron Age shows some of themore challenging problems for the radiocarbonmethod, a closer look at the calibration curve re-veals this (see Fig. 1).

Consider a sample radiocarbon dated to 2340 ±100 BP. As can be seen in Fig. 1 the calibratedvalue at ± one standard deviation is 510-260 BCCal., i.e. a time span of 250 years. If the mea-surement had been made more accurately, butwith the same radiocarbon age, e.g. 2340 ± 65BP, the calibrated value at ± one standard devia-tion would be 410-370 BC Cal. It should be notedhere, that the time span in l4C-years is 130,whereas the calibration leads to a 40 years inter-val. This is due to the steep part of the calibrationcurve (cf. Fig. 2), where a much more accuratedate can be achieved if the radiocarbon age is de-termined with a higher precision.

However, certain periods cannot be dated moreaccurately by the 14C-method no matter how pre-cise the measurements are made. This is the casein the periods where the central value in itselfproduces an interval of calendar years in the cali-bration process. Also measurements close tothese periods can be troublesome, because thestandard deviation overlap with them. Anexample is shown in Fig. 3, where a sample datedto 2220 ± 80 BP is calibrated. The central valueis calibrated to 350-210 BC Cal. and at ± onestandard deviation is calibrated to 390-170 BCCal., a time span of 220 years. Fig. 4 demon-strates the case of the same radiocarbon age, but

with an extremely small standard deviation: 2220± 20 BP. It can be seen in Fig. 4 that thecalibration at ± one standard deviation becomes360-200 BC Cal., still a time span of 160 yearsthough the time span in 14C-years is only 40.

One way of overcoming the problem withwiggles is to date material with a larger timespan. Usually materials of low time spans arepreferred, e.g. straw, hazelnuts or twigs. Ifsamples of longer time spans are used, e.g. woodsamples with more annual rings, a moresmoothed calibration curve should be used forthe calibration. An example is given in Fig. 5where the sample is radiocarbon dated to 2220 ±80 BP and calibrated using the 100 yearsaveraged curve. Note how the shape of the curveis changed dramatically compared to Fig. 4 sothat only one central value is now produced bythe calibration.

Samples of longer time spans can be trees withmore than 30 annual ring or peat deposited cove-ring several years. The disadvantage of this typeof samples is that the archaeological context canbe difficult to establish. In some cases, however,a smoothed calibration curve can make a calibra-tion more uncertain than an unsmoothed. Thiscan be seen for the example 2340 ± 65 BP whichis shown for the 100 years smoothed curve inFig. 6. The interval for ± one standard deviationis in this case approximately 30 years wider thanif calibrated with the usual 20 years averagedcurve shown in Fig. 2.

Two periods are particularly troublesome in thePre-Roman Iron Age: BC 350-210 and BC 520-430. Dates that fall into either of these periodscannot be determined with accuracy by the I4C-method using the 20 years averaged calibrationcurve.

Conclusions

l4C-dating in the Pre-Roman Iron Age can bedifficult. The periods 520-430 BC Cal. and 350-210 BC Cal. constitute intervals where accuratedatings are difficult to achieve, irrespective of theprecision of the !4C-measurements. Dating ofsamples from 180 BC till AD 1 Cal. are not sub-ject to these annoying wiggles and are notspecifically troublesome. In the period 420-380BC Cal. calibration is possible with very narrow

142

intervals in calendar years, as low as 20 years. Itcan be concluded that it is worthwhile to attemptl4C-dating in the Pre- Roman Iron Age, but thathigh accuracy in the calibrated result cannotalways be achieved in this period. In some casessamples with higher time spans are preferredbecause wiggles on the calibration curve aresmoothed out this way.

References

Aitken, MJ. 1990: Science-based dating inarchaeology. Longman Archaeology Se-ries.

Anderson, E.G.; Libby, W.F., Weinhouse, S.;Reid, A.F.; Kirshenbaum, A.D. andGrosse, A.V. 1947: Phys. Rev. 1947, 72,931,

Mook, W.G. and Waterbolk, H.T. 1985: Hand-books for Archaeologists, No 3. Radio-carbon Dating.

Stuiver, M. 1993: A Note on Single Year Cali-bration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale,AD 1510-1954. Radiocarbon, Calibra-tion, 1993 Vol 35(1).

Stuiver, M. and Kra, R. 1986: Radiocarbon, Ca-libration Issue. Vol 28(2B).

Stuiver, M.; Long, A; Kra, R.S. and Devine, J.M.1993: Radiocarbon, Calibration 1993.Vol 35 (1).

Stuiver, M. and Reimer, PJ. 1993: Extended I4CData Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14CAge Calibration Program. Radiocarbon,Calibration 1993, Vol 35, No 1. pp. 215-230.

Vogel, J.C.; Fuls, A; Visser, E; Becker, B. 1993:Pretoria Calibration Curve for Short-Li-ved Samples, 1930-3350 BC. Radiocar-bon, Calibration 1993. Vol 35 (I).

Vogel, J.C. and Plicht, J van der 1993: Calibra-tion Curve for Short-Lived Samples,1900-3900 BC. Radiocarbon, Calibration1993. Vol 35(1).

143


VAPENFYND FRAN FORROMERSK JARNALDER PASVERIGES FASTLAND.

Kronologi, typologi och regionala grupper (1).

Pavel Nicklasson, Lund.

Den forromerska vapengravsmiljon pa Sverigesfastland er omfattande och valdokumenterad.Detta framgar av flera oversiktsverk som tillexempel TJ. Arnes oversikt fran 1919 over denforromerska jarnaldern i Sverige och av MartenStenbergers framstallning av perioden i Det forn-tida Sverige (1964). Nagon heltackande studieeller materialsammanstalining over perioden somhelhet eller over vapenmaterialet fb'religgeremellertid inte efter Arnes artikel i Fornvannen1919. Sedan dess bar bade det arkeologiskafyndmaterialet och tankandet vuxit avsevart. Un-der perioden 1920 - 1960 publicerades ett antalmaterialsammanstallningar oftast med ett land-skap som utgangspunkt. De teoretiska utgangs-punkterna och ambitionsnivan varierar mellanforskarna i denna generation men studierna hardet gemensamma att de ar materialbaserade.

Bland de for forromersk jarnalder mest betydel-sefulla arbetena fran denna period ar Oxenstier-nas Die Urheimat der Goten och Die altereEisenzeit in Ostergotland (Oxenstierna 1945 och1958), Almgren och Nermans Die altere Eisen-zeit Gotlands (Almgren, Nerman 1923), samtNylens Die jungere Vorromische Eisenzeit Got-lands (Nylen 1956). Det pagaende projektetOlands jarnaldersgravfalt (Beskow-Sjoberg 1987,red, Hagberg m fl. red 1991) gor att de storstaoch mest spridda sammanstallningarna berorostersjooarna Oland och Gotland. Oxenstiernasarbeten ar de enda som konsekvent tar upp fynd-material fran tva av de viktigare landskapen pafastlandet. Detta ar givetvis en allvarlig brist. Detfinns till exempel a'nnu sa lange ingen samman-stallning over aldre jarnalder i Malardalen, darman har ett stort och intressant material. Numerasker aven de fiesta arkeologiska undersokningarpa fastlandet. 1 stora drag kan kanske material-

sammanstallningarna fran ostersjooarna duga tillkronologiska och typologiska studier aven pafastlandet. Regionala sardrag och bebyggelseut-veckling blir synlig forst da fastlandsmaterialetblir genomganget. C.J. Becker's kronologi(Becker 1961) ar for narvaranda den mest ut-byggda och anvandbara for den forromerskajarnaldern i Sydskandinavien. Genom att anvandaden, gar det att stalla de fastlandssvenska fyndeni relation til dansk material.

Med undantag fran det ovan namnda projektetom Olands jarnaldersgravfalt publiceras fa mate-rialbaserade studier efter 1960. Enskilda fyndpubliceras ibland i artikelform och vissa materi-algenomgangar gors i C-uppsatser. Material-genomgangar ar av vikt inte bara for att nya fyndskall kunna bidra till vetandet om forntiden utanaven som en sammanstallning over de ideer ochteoretiska stallningstaganden som styrt tidigareforskning.

1. Ostergotland och Vastergb'tland

Jag valjer att diskutera dessa bada landskap till-sammans. Dels ar vapenmaterialet snarlikt frande bada landskapen. Dels har de bada landkapenofta jamforts i den arkeologiska litteraturen.Delar av forskningen kring aldre jarnaldern ilandskapen loper dessutom samman i Oxenstier-nas kataloggenomgang (Oxenstierna 1945).

1.1. Forskningshistorik

Arthur Nordens "Ostergotlands Jarnalder I-II"fran 1925 och 1929 ar den forsta overgripandesammanstallningen over arkeologiska fynd och

fornlamningar fran delar av Ostergotland. Sa'r-skilt materialet fran Brabygden agnas intresse.Nordens arbete ar en va'l genomford material-genomgang. Han drar emellertid ingen skarpgrans mellan arkeologi och fornnordiska sagor.Till exempel heter ett kapitel "Arkeologiska ochSagohistoriska problem".

Aven fran Vastergotland foreligger tidiga mate-rialsammanstallningar. Framst ar det Sahlstromsom var verksam i omradet. Forutom material-sammanstallningar genomforde han aven ett stortantal undersokningar av gravar fran aldre jarnal-der (Sahlstrom 1932, 1939, 1954, Sahlstrom,Gejvall 1948, 1954, Sahlstrom, Svensson, Melin1928).

Det ar emellertid framst Oxenstierna som praglatsynen pa aldre jarnalder i de bada gotalandska-pen. I sitt arbete "Die Urheimat der Goten" fran1945 ar Oxenstierna starkt influerad av Kossin-nas kulturkretslara. Delvis kan man saga attOxenstiernas historiesyn ar militaristisk. Vapen-gravar och vapenfynd tillmats darfor stor bety-delse for den sociala och politiska utvecklingen.Det vastgotska gravskicket anser han vara rentgotiskt medan det ostgotska ar en blandning avimpulser fran flera olika hall: "Welter bietet unsOstergotland interessante Fragen. Es war be-stimmt ein gotisch-gotisches Land, aber von denGoten Vdstergotlands klar trennbar. Wie nanntensie sich selber? Welche waren ihre Herrscher?Einige worte des Tacitus uber die Svear wurdensehr grosse Bedeutung besitzen. Wir haben leiderkeinen einzigen Anhaltspunkt, urn die 'Mischkul-tur' Ostergotlands mehr leben zu geben."(Oxenstierna 1945s.191).

Oxenstierna ser ett brott i bebyggelsekontinuite-ten, framst belagd genom bruten belaggnings-kontinuitet pa gravfalt, i Vastergotland vid tidenkring Kristi fodelse. Detta ligger till grund forhans teori om en gotisk utvandring fran Vaster-gotland till Weichselomradet i nuvarande Polen,Franvaro av vapengravar i bada dessa omradenblir ytterligare ett argument for en utvandring."Vollstdndige Waffenlosigkeit der Grdberfelderdes Weichsellandes seit Beginn unserer Zeit-rechnung so, wie in Vastergotland im Jahrhun-dert vorher." (Oxenstierna 1945 s.189). Vid tid-punkten for "Die Urheimat" kande Oxenstiernatill endast tva forromerska vapenfynd iVastergotland, Dyrehogen i Jarpas socken, om-namnd redan i Arnes sammanstallning 1919.

Samt graven fran Kallegarden , Ostra Tunhemssocken, utgravd 1936. Dessa bada gravar ar langtifran lika praktfulla som de vid samma tid kandaostgotska som till exempel Lagerlunda i Ka'rnasocken eller svardslidebeslaget fran Eggeby(Bland annat avbildade i Oxenstierna 1945, s.92ff.). Vid denna tidpunkt var det en riktig iakt-tagelse, och man kan tycka, att Oxenstierna hadeotur, na'r man betanker hur manga vastgotska va-pengravar, som framkom aren efter bokenspublicering: Kyrkbacken i Horns socken, tva va-pengravar, gravfaltet utgravt 1942-46 ochpublicerat 1948 (Sahlstrom, Gejvall 1948). Dessafynd hanvisar Oxenstierna till men de paverkarinte hans slutsatser. Marby i Bjurum socken,framkom 1946, publicerat 1948 (Stenberger1948). En grav fran Skeby socken framkom1954, ej publicerad. Pa en tio ars period efter"Die Urheimat" mer an fdrdubblades de vastgot-ska vapenfynden, och fynden forde dessutom uppde vastgotska vapengravarna till samma niva somde ostgotska.

Den vastgotska fyndtomheten under aldre ro-mersk jarnalder kan a'ven den ifragasattas.Undersokningar har pavisat gravar under aldreromersk jarnalder (tex Artelius 1992). Dessutomhar det pavisats att ett av de storre undersoktagravfalten fran Kyrkbacken i Horns socken strac-ker sig in i romersk jarnalder, om inte annulangre (Moberg 1950, Hachmann 1961 s.!98ff).Fragan har aven med representativitet att gora.Gravundersokningarna i Ostergotland har varit avbetydligt storre omfattning an i Vastergotland.

1.2. Materialgenomgang

Fran Ostergotland foreligger 21 vapenfynd ochfran Vastergotland 11. De tidigaste vapenfyndenutgors av lansspetsar med kort eller i det nar-maste obefmtlig hoik. Dessa har utforligt diskute-rats av Salo (Salo 1962). Han skiljer ut tva typer,A och B. Fran Blackgarden i Tidavads socken iVastergotland harror ett storre depafynd medlansspetsar da'r bada typerna forekommer. Detfinns inga narmare fynduppgifter om lansspet-saraa utom att de skall ha framkommit under ste-nar. Lansspetsarna ar liknande typer som finns ide danska krigsbyteoffren fran Hjortspring ochkanske framforallt Krogsb0Ile (Senast behand-lade av Kaul 1988). Lansspetsar av Salos B-typforekommer aven i gravar som i en grav franGottlosa i Veta socken i Ostergotland och

146

avert sannolikt i en grav Iran Bjorsater socken iVastergotland (fig.l). Det senare fyndet ar dockett losfynd. Salo vill placera dessa lansspetsarunder sen period II eller tidig period III. Salo an-vander sig emellertid av Montelius periodindel-ning. Fynden bor placeres i en tidig del av Bec-kers per.IIIa. Dateringen er dock osa'ker.

Fig. 1: Lansspets sannolikt frangravfynd, Bjorsater sn., Kyrck-backen, Vastergotland. SkaraLdnsmuseutn. Skala 1:2. Del.Jonas Wikborg.

Fig. 2: Skoldbuckla fran grav, Skeby sn. Vastergotland, SkaraLdnsmuseum. Skala 1:2. Del. Jonas Wikborg.

Fran sen period Ilia harror ett litet antal daterbarafynd. Det ror sig om gravar med laga flackko-niska skoldbucklor av Bohnsacks typ 3 (Bohn-sack 1938 s.59). Denna typ av skoldbuckla fmns ien grav fran Lagerlunda i Kama socken iOstergotland och i ett fynd fran Skeby socken iVatergotland (fig.2). Bada skoldbucklorna arkombinerade med skoldhandtag med triangularafasteandar. I graven fran Lagerlunda fanns etttveeggat svard med metallskida av "Mittelgerma-nischer Typ", bjornfalanger och skoldkantsbeslagsom visar pa att skolden varit fyrkantig. Begrav-

ningen hade skett i en jarnkittel. Fran Skebyfyn-det finns samre underrattelser. Skolden medhandtag skall ha patraffats tillsammans med"svardsknapp" och "remfastebeslag". Beskriv-ningen i museikatalogen av de senare foremalengor att de annolikt skall tolkas som svardslide-beslag.

Sannolikt skall fler fynd dateras till period Ilia.Dessa bada fynd ar emellertid de enda som patypologiska grunder gar att hanfora till dennaperiod. Det genomgaende draget att vapen igravar sallan fbrekommer i kombination medbattre tidsfasta fdremalstyper samt att fa gravarinnehaller skolddelar, som tillhor de bastdaterbara vapnen, medfor att fa fynd kan tids-fastas noggrannare an till period III i allmanhet.

Sex gravar fran Ostergotland och en fran Vaster-gotland gar att placera i period Illb. Detta gorsmed utgangspunkt fran skoldbucklorna som ar

olika varianter av stangskoldbucklor. Dear individuellt utformade och flera avdem ar dessutom mycket daligt bevarade.De har vid gravlaggningen slagits senderoch pressats samman sa att de helttorlorat sin ursprungliga form. Darformaste Oxenstiernas rekonstruktioner (tillexempel Oxenstierna 1958, fig. 75-77)anses som ytterst vagade.

En enda fackmannamassigt undersoktgrav, fran Hjarterum i Kuddby socken iOstergotland, innehaller andra fdremals-typer an vapen (fig. 3). Ett fynd franRingstad i Ostergotland innehaller fyndfran minst tva olika vapengravar ochdarutover aven en fibula. Eftersom fyndetar sammanblandat ar del inte lampat forkronologiska indelningar. Graven franHjarterum inneholl ett eneggat svard,lansspets, skolddelar, bjornfalanger samt

en fibula av Kostrzewskis K-typ. Gravlaggningenhade skett i ett importerat bronskarl av Eggerstyp 61. Graven ar viktig for den kronologiskagrupperingen av det forromerska vapenmaterialeteftersom den forutom vapen innehaller badeimport och fibula. Bade fibulan och bronskarletar emellertid av typer som forekommer underlang tidsrymd. Fibulan placerar Nylen pa Gotlandi sin B-fas. Det finns emellertid belagg for atttypen fmns kvar aven under motsvarande NylensC-fas pa det svenska fastlandet (Stenberger 1948,Nylen 1956). Graven fran Hjarterum kombinerar

147

flera av de foremalstyper som ar typiska forperiod Illb. Dessa ar eneggade svard med fleranitar i tangen, fibulor av Kostrzewskis K-typ,tidig Gallo-Romersk import samt flacka skold-bucklor med stang. Vad galler lansspetsen ardenna av en langsmal variant. Lanspetsarna kanemellertid variera avsevart i utformning. Varia-tionen vad galler framst skoldbucklor ochlansspetsar gor att man mqjligen skulle kunnadela in fasen i en aldre och en yngre fas.

Nagra andra fynd gar emellertid att pa andragrunder att hanfora till en sen del av period Illb.Dessa utgors framfbrallt av svard med fogsvans-grepp. Dessas sena inplacering i kronologin gorsframst genom kontinentala jamforelser. I Polenforekommer denna typ av svard forst under senperiod A3 och aven under tidig Bl (Dabrowska1988). Svard av denna typ forekommer bade iOster- och Vastergotland och aven i Uppland.Det ar omqjligt att pa fristaende ge de svenska

Fig. 3: Gravfynd fran Hjdrterum, Kuddby sn. Ostergotland. Skara Ldnsmuseum. Skala: lansspets och bjorn-falanger 1:2, ovrigt 1:4, utgravningsritning 1:40. Del. Jonas Wikborg. Andra fynd: fibula av Kostrzewskis typ K ejillustrerad.

148

fynden en datering innanfor period Illb. En avgravarna fran Fiskeby i Ostra Eneby socken iOstergotland inneholl en ornerad lansspets. Lik-nande lansar forekoramer aven i fynd somdateras tidigare i period Illb.

Overgangen till period Bl ar nagot problematisk.Den ovannamnda gruppen med eneggade svardmed fogsvansgrepp foljs av en horisont somhittills bara ar representerad i Ostergotland. Tilldenna hor svard med antydan till fogsvansgreppsamt tidiga varianter av koniska skoldbucklorutan markerad krage. Exempel pa sadana fynd aren grav fran Galstad i Slaka socken, Lilla Berga iKlockrike socken (fig. 4) och Kungsbro i Vretaklosters socken (Oxenstierna 1958). Dennahorisont kallar jag Bla. Att den inte gar att pavisai Vastergotland kan ha'nga samman med attsvardet i stort sett utgar som gravgava underaldre romersk jarnalder. I Vastergotland bar baraett enda eneggat svard av aldre romersk ja'rnal-derstyp patraffats mot 35 i Ostergotland. I andrahall pa fastlandet markeras denna fas, som viskall se, av sma, eller symboliska vapenuppsatt-ningar som gravgavor, som tillexempel svardsli-debeslag eller enbart lansspets.

Fig. 4: Eneggat svard med fogsvansgrep fran grav iLilla Berga, Klockrike sn. Ostergotland. SHM 17921.Skala 1:4. Del. Jonas Wikborg.

US. Geografisk spridning och regjonala grupper

Att jag valt att bearbeta de ost- och vastgotskafynden tillsamraans beror pa att de utgot delar aven och samma vapengravstradition med sammagravskick och med fa undantag aven med sammafb'remalstyper. I andra sammanhang har manutifran andra forema Is former delat in de badagotalandskapen i underregioner. Detta har ny-ligen gjorts for baltehakar (Becker 1993). Tidi-gare har man i vissa sammanhang talat om ost-svenska varianter av vapen eller vapendelar somsarpraglade for Oland, Gotland och Ostergotland.Detta galler bland annat skoldhandtag med trian-gulara och runda fastea'ndar (Zieling 1989 s.!63f,

169 f, Rasch 1991 s.481). Ett skoldhandtag medtriangulara fastea'ndar har patraffats i Vastergot-land. Snarare ro'r det sig om en kronologisk hori-sont med laga flackkoniska skoldbucklor somkombineras med denna handtagstyp, foretradd ibade Oster-, Vastergotland, Oland och sannoliktaven Gotland, aven om det gotla'ndska materialetavviker fran det ovriga. Den enda skoldhandtag s-typ som fortfarande kan kallas for ostsvensk arden med runda fastea'ndar. Jag misstanker attdetta ar ett representativitetsproblem snarare anen faktisk spridningsbild. Fran Vastergotlandfinns hittills bara en enda skold fran period ITTb.

De ostgotska fynden samlar sig i tva geografiskaomraden. Dels i vastra delen av landskapet, dels iden vastra delen av Vikbolandet och i Norrko-pingstrakten. Spridningsbilden sammanfaller medvar man i olika sammanhang velat forlagga denhuvudsakliga bebyggelsen under bronsalder ochfb'rromersk jarnalder (Bland annat Norden 1925,Larsson 1986). Detta ar ett starkt argument for attSpridningsbilden ar rattvisande.

Samma sak kan inte sagas om de vastgotskafynden. Det finns bara drygt halften sa mangafynd som fran Ostergotland. Fynden har liksom iOstergotland framkommit i goda jordbruksomra-den. En viss koncentration till Falbygden kan for-markas. Att notera ar att inga forromerska vapen-fynd och knappt nagra forromerska fynd over-huvud ar kanda fran Valle harad norr och osterom Hornborgasjon. Fran detta omrade harrornagra av de rikaste svenska gravrynden franromersk jarnalder (Sahlstrom 1939). Att dennacentralbyggd skulle vara utan foregangare underfdrromersk jarnalder ar osannolikt. En rimligareforklaring ges av Sahlstrom (Sahlstrom 1939s.78f) da han papekar att gruset i denna trakt inteduger till vagbyggnad och att grusasarna darfor imycket ringa omfattning exploaterats. Majorite-ten av forromerska gravfalt och vapengravar harframkommit vid grustackt. Detta ar darfor troli-gen forklaringen till avsaknaden fran forromerskavapengravar i Valle harad och sannolikt aven detmindre antalet fynd fran Vastergotland jamfortmed Ostergotland.

1.4. Gravskick och vapenkombinationer

Samtliga vapengravar ar urnebrandgravar. Ske-lettgravskicket introduceras pa fastlandet fdrstunder aldre romersk jarnalder (Stjernquist 1955,

149

s. 49ff.) da det a'ven forekommer skelettgravarmed vapen. Det yttre gravskicket ar i de fiestafall ansprakslost. En grav fran Ostergotland aranlagd i en stensattning. Ett par andra gravar arsekundart anlagda i eller i anslutning till bronsal-dershogar. Ovriga gravar ar anlagda under flatmark. I vissa fall som till exempel fran Hjarterumi Kuddby socken i Ostergotland forekommerlock- och bottenstenar. Samtliga vapengravar arframkomna pa storre flatmarksgravfalt varsanvandningstid stracker sig bakat till bronsalder.

Fig. 5: Vapenkombinaiioner I gravar fran Oslergotland och Vastergotland. Endastslutnafynd medtagna.

En tendens ar att det forekommer tva vapengra-var per gravfalt. Givetvis ar detta svart attbelagga eftersom flera gravfalt bara ar delunder-sokta eller fynden ar ofackmannamassigtbargade. Tendensen ar trots dessa fdrbehalltydlig. Ett exempel ar gravfaltet pa kyrkbacken iHorns socken i Vastergotland da'r en vapengravforeligger fran den norra aldsta delen av gravfal-tet och en andra vapengrav la'ngre soderut, franen yngre de! av gravfaltet. De bada vapengra-varna kan tolkas som en vapengrav anlagd pergeneration.

Sorn benbehallare bar i fern fall metallkarl, sakallad Gallo-Romersk import kommit tillanvandning. Dessas tidstallning ar omdebatteradoch inte belt utredd (Poulsen 1987, Keiling1989). De forekommer i Sverige med vapen ochandra foremal med huvudsaklig datering tillperiod Illb. Fran Kama i Lagerlunda socken iOstergotland harror tva kittlar av jam som saknarparalleller. Huruvida det ror sig om importer ellerinhemska arbeten ar oklart (Arne 1932). Metall-karl av Gallo-Romersk typ har i gotalandskapenen mycket stark anknytning till vapengravar.

Endast tva sadana karl fran Heda socken i Oster-gotland har framkommit i gravar utan vapen.

Den absolut vanligaste vapenkombinationen arsvard + lans (fig. 5). Kombinationen foreliggerunder hela period TUb. Den nast vanligastekombinationen ar svard + lans + skold. Att noteraar att de till period Ilia daterbara fynden badainneholl skold. Kombinationen svard + lans +lans som endast upptrader i en grav skall utifransvardets utformning dateras sent, kanske sa sent

som Bla. Kombinationensvard + lans gar belt urbruk under romersk jarn-alder. I nagra fall har intehela svard lagts i gravar-na utan bara svardsslide-beslag. Dessa ar alltidkombinerade rned andravapen.

2. Ovriga Sydsverige

Det ar tveksamt, om detforekommer nagra va-pengravar fore en sen delav period Illb eller Bla iovriga Sydsverige. Fran

Skane harror ett losfunnet svard med flera nitar itangen. Typen avviker emellertid fran svarden iOster- och Vastergotland, sa den ar svar att tids-fasta. Skane forefaller att ansluta till en Ostdanskgravtradition utan vapengravar under forromerskjarnalder (Liversage 1980).

Fig. 6: Vapenkombinationcr i gravar fran Holland,Bohuslan och Blekinge. Endast slutnafynd medtagna.

Fran Bohuslan och norra Halland harror fernvapengravar. Fyra av dessa kommer fran grav-faltet Ekehogen i Onsala socken publicerat avCullberg (Cullberg 1973). Den femte graven

150

kommer fran en grav pa gravfaltet Valtersberg(uppgifter fran Peter Jankavs, Skara museum).Dessa gravfalt utgjorde under 1970-talet basenfor diskussioner kring kattegattsomradets forbin-delser med Jylland och Polen under forromerskjarnalder (Kaelas, Wigfors red. 1980).

Dessa gravar ar delvis av annorlunda typ an deost- och vastgotska. De ar visserligen urnebrand-gravar under flat mark. De avviker framst genomvapenuppsattningarna (fig. 6). Fyra av gravarnainnehaller endast en lans och den femte endastsvardsslidebeslag. Dessa kombinationer saknas igotalandskapen. Aven typologiskt skiljer sig devastsvenska gravarna. Kronologiskt skall dessagravar placeras i en mycket sen del av period Illbeller rent av i period Bla. En av gravarna inne-haller ett keramikkarl som snarare hor hemma iBl an forromersk jarnalder.

Fran Blekinge kommer ett par gravar medliknande vapenuppsattningar (fig. 6). I en gravforeligger endast svardslidebeslag. I en annangrav forekommer visserligen kombinationensvard + lans, men svardets utformning placerargraven i romerskjarnalder.

Fig. 7: Vapenkombinationer i gravar fran Malardalen. Endast slutna fynd medtagna.

3. Malardalen

3.1. Forskningshistorik

Malardalen omfattar landskapen Sodermanland,Uppland, Vastmanland och Narke. Fran detsistnamnda landskapet foreligger inga vapenfynd.Inga materialsammanstallningar om aldre jarnal-der foreligger som i gotalandskapen. Under 1930och -40 talen publicerade Ekholm flera forromer-ska gravfalt i artikelform (Ekholm 1938, 1939,1944, 1946). En sammanstallning over vapengra-var fran aldre jarnalder har gjorts inom ramen foren C-uppsats (Clareus 1980). Det ar slaende hurden aldre jarnaldern i Malardalen kommit skug-gan av de praktfulla fynden fran yngre jarnalder.Det ar aven slaende att endast praktfulla vapen-gravar som Fullero och Godaker har anvants somforelopare till den yngre jarnaldern och den sven-ska riksbildningen (exempelvis Ekholm 1925,1927). Fynd fran forromersk och aldre romerskjarnalder har inte diskuterats i anslutning till desenare fynden.

Fran Uppland harror nio vapenfynd fran forro-mersk jarnalder. Fran Sodermanland fyra och

fran Vastmanland fern.Alia fynd harror frangravar utom en lans-spets fran Vastman-land som ar funnen ien mosse. Den geogra-fiska spridningen sam-manfaller i stort medbebyggelsens geografi-ska forutsattningar idalgangar atskiljda avskog. Vapengravarnaligger pa stora grav-falt. Nagra starka geo-grafiska koncentratio-ner till delar av omra-det kan man inte ut-lasa.

Fran ovriga Sydsverige finns inga vapenfynd franforromersk jarnalder. Det forefaller, att man paflera hall haft ett helt annat gravskick an i de om-raden, dar man anlagt stora flatmarksgravfalt pavilka vapengravarna framkommit. I och med attman inte deponerat daterbara fdremal i gravarna,ar det forst genom C-14 metoden, som man kun-nat konstatera forromerska gravar i exempelvisSmaland (Till exempel Ahman 1983).

3.2. Materialgenomgang

En nyligen funnen lansspets fran Vastmanland avSales B-typ (fig. 8), mycket snarlik lansspetsarfran Krogsb011efyndet (Kaul 1988 s.36 fig 27) ardet tidigast daterbara forromerska vapenfyndet.Lansspetsen patraffades i vatmark (Uppgifterfran Jonas Wikborg Arkeologikonsult AB). Enspjutspets med mothakar i en brandgrav som a-

151

ven inneholl en spiralvriden bronsparla fran ettgravfalt i Kolbacks socken i Vastmanland ar ge-nom tva C-14 dateringar tidsfast till aldre forro-mersk jarnalder (Magnusson 1972, 1974). Spjut-spetsen liknar typologiskt spjutspetsar fran ro-mersk jarnalder. Inga andra fynd av spjutspetsarfran forromersk jarnalder foreligger fran ovrigaSverige. Pa kontinenten forekommer spjutspetsarforst under period A3 (Dabrowska 1988). Fyndetfran Kolback maste darfor, trots C-14 daterin-garna, sannolikt foras till romersk jarnalder.

Fig. 8: Lansspets fiinnen i vatmark, Fdgelbacken,Hubbo sn. Vastmanland. Skala 1:2. Del JonasWikborg.

Inga fynd kan entydigt dateras till period Ilia.Vapenkombinationerna i gravarna gor materialetannu rner kronologiskt svararbetat an i gotaland-skapen. Oftast forekommer endast en lansspetseller en kombination av tva lansspetsar i gravarna(fig. 7). Kronologin tor fb'rromerska lansspetsarar fortfarande nagot flytande. Genom typologiskajamforelser med material fran gotalandskapenoch ovriga Sydsverige bor de fiesta vapengra-

varna i Malardalen dateras forst till period Illbeller overgangen till romersk jarnalder, periodBla. En viss kronologisk efterslapning for vissafb'remalstyper ar markbar i Malardalen.

Vapenkombinationerna ar inte sa regelbundnasom i gotalandskapen. Att notera ar att den igotalandskapen i sarklass vanligaste kombinatio-nen svard + lans endast forekommer i tre gravar,tva fran Vastmanland och en fran Uppland. Devastmanlandska gravarna harror fran sammagravfalt, Gottsta oh Darsta hagar i Kungsarasocken (fig. 9). Det ar darfor vanskligt att tala oraen speciell vastmanlandsk vapenkombination iMalardalen. Det kan vara en for gravfaltet speci-fik tradition. Av fem vapengravar fran gravfaltetdateras fyra till forromersk jarnalder. Tre av des-sa innehaller storre vapenuppsattningar. I tva fallsvard + lans och i ett fall aven skb'ld. Den fjardegraven inneholl endast en lansspets. Gravarnamed storre vapenuppsattningar innehaller typolo-giskt snarlika vapen. Darfor ar det inte mqjligt attuppstalla en relativ kronologi for dem. Sannoliktligger de mycket nara varandra i tid. Svarden arav samma typ och sa lika varandra att de hordevara tillverkade i samma smedja. Svarden anslu-ter generellt till den forromerska typen med fleranitar i handtaget. Svarden har emellertid en sa'r-praglad utformning med uttag for nitar aven pahandtagets over- och undersida. Inga svard meddenna utformning har framkommit pa annat hall.Detta kan tyda pa en lokal produktion. Detta pa-visar ytterligare en svarighet att stalla upp en kro-nologi for vapenfynden i Malardalen. Lokalt pro-ducerade vapen finns sida vid sida med vapensom importerats eller har sina forebilder lang-vaga ifran.

Nagra lansspetsar funna i gravar i Uppland kantja'na som exempel pa lokal produktion och lang-vaga kontakter. En lansspets i en grav fran Asby iEdsbro socken ar av en langsmal typ med rom-biskt tvarsnitt (fig. 10). Langs bladet finns faror.Lansspetsar av denna typ forekommer i ett exem-plar fran Ostergotland, Snedstorps socken (Oxen-stierna 1958, fig. 82), ett exemplar fran Gotland,Hogran socken (Nylen 1956, s. 299, fig. 179)samt mojligen aven i en grav fran Vasterhaningesocken i Sodermanland (Aija 1993, s. 54). Dettafynd har jag inte studerat personligen. Fyndillu-strationen i rapporten antyder dock narvaron avfaror langs bladet. Trots att lansspetstypen ar aven sa speciell formgivning, att man kan miss-tiinka samma smedtradition bakom dem alia, ar

152

de spridda over ett stort geografiskt omrade. Dekombinationer, lansspetsen fb'rekommer i, daterarden till period Illb.

Fig. 9: Gravfynd frdn Gottska/Darsta gravfdltet, Kungsdra sn.Vdstmanland. VM 9969. Skala 1:4. Del. Jonas Wikborg. Andrafynd: keramikurna (+ brdnda ben) ej illustrerade.

En lansspets i en grav franGravelsta i Vallentuna soc-ken (fig. 11) ar pafallandelik en lansspets fran grav-faltet Ekehogen i Onsalasocken i norra Halland. Den-na grav dateras genom kera-miken till period Bla, vilketaven da horde galla for denupplandska graven.

En tredje lansspets harrorfran en grav fran Gredlebylogbacke i Knivsta socken(fig. 12). Lansspetsen eggarar urnupna. Pa Sveriges fast-land har denna typ av lans-spets patraffats i en gravfran Bjurum socken i Vas-tergotland. I aldre litteraturgar den under beteckningenostgermansk (Jahn 1916)och sags harstamma fran nu-varande Pol en.

Sammanfattningen av denna lilla lansspetsexposear, att lansspetsar fardas langt under forromerskjarnalder. De pavisar narvaron av langvaga kon-

taktvagar mellan omraden som i ovrigt kanha olika gravtraditioner och utformning avvapengravar. Lansspetsarna fran Upplandpavisar, att man i Malardalen hamtat im-pulser fran flera olika hall, Gotland, gota-landskapen, Vastsverige, och aven konti-nenten. Vissa foreteelser i gravskicket aremellertid specifika for Malardalen.

3.2. Gravskick

Gravskicket under forromersk jarnalder,liksom under hela den aldre jarnaldern,skiljer sig markant mellan gotalandskapenoch Malardalen. I gotalandskapen anlaggssom regel gravar under flat mark utanegentlig overbyggnad. I Malardalen ar fler-talet av vapengravarna patraffade i sten-sattningar som kan vara upp mot tio meteri diameter. Aven gravar utan vapen ar ofta

anlagda i denna typ av gravar. Liksom i gotaland-skapen ar samtliga vapengravar brandgravar.Emellertid forefaller bengropar och benlagerfbrekomma parallellt med urnebrandgravar, somar forharskande i gotalandskapen.

fig. 10: Lansspets frdn gravjyndfrdn Asby, Edsbro sn.Uppland. SHM 10404. Skala 1:2. Del Jonas Wikborg.Andra fynd: endast brdnda ben.

Fig. 11: Lansspets frdn gravjynd i Gravelsta,Vallentuna sn. Uppland. SSM 19737. Skala1:2. Del. Jonas Wikborg. Andra fynd: brdndaben och hartstdtningsbitar.

153

I Malardalen gar inte att iaktta monstret med tvavapengravar per gravfalt, mqjligen represente-rande en med vapen gravlagd person per genera-tion, vilket ar verkar vara ordningen i gotaland-skapen. Istallet forekommer flera vapengravar paett och samma gravfalt. Gravarna ligger i flerafall kronologiskt mycket nara varandra, vilketforsvarar en tolkning om en vapengrav pergeneration. Ett exempel pa delta ar de ovan dis-kuterade vapengravarna fran Gottsta och Darstahagar i Kimgsara socken i Vastmanland.

En intressant vapen-grav undersoktes paett gravfalt vid Aby iVasterhaninge sockeni Sodermanland (Aija1993). Central! i gra-ven farms en vapen-grav med kombinatio-nen svard + lans.Sekundart i stensatt-ningen fanns tva an-dra gravar med enbartsvardsslidebeslag.

Denna typ av sekun-dara vapengravar fo-rekommer inte i gota-landskapen. Inte hel-ler traditionen att en-bart deponera svards-slidebeslag forekom-mer. En parallell finnspa Oland, dar man ien grav pa ett gravfaltvid Sorby-Storlinge iGardslosa socken pa-traffade tre gravarmed enbart vapende-lar anlagda sekundarti en stensattning (Be-skow-Sjoberg red.1987, s. 344ff).

Fig. 12: Lansspets frdngravfynd frdn GredlebyLogbacke, Knivsta sn. Upp-land, SHM 23359. Skala1:2. Del. Jonas Wikborg,Andrafynd: branda ben.

4. Diskussion och sammanfattning

Denna prelimenara materialgenomgang av forro-merska vapenfynd fran Sveriges fastland visar attde aldsta fynden utgors v lansspetsar av Salos Aoch B-typer. Dessa bor dateras till en tidig del avperiod Ilia, men en tidigara datering ar inte ute-sluten. Lansspetsar forekommer under delta tidi-

ga skede bade i gravar och i depaer. Det ar emel-lertid enbart lansspetsar av Salos B-typ som pa-traffats i gravar.

Till nasta fas, sen period Ilia hor fynd med laga,flackkoniska skoldbucklor av Bohnsacks typ 3.Fran och med denna period utgors i stort sett aliafynd av gravar. Skoldbucklorna kombineras medskoldhandtag med triangulara fasteandar. Fyndenar fataliga och horisonten forekommer endast iOster- och Vastergotland. I en av gravarna fore-kommer en jarnkittel som begravningsurna. Dettaar det tidigaste exemplet pa inflytande av Gallo-Romersk import.

Flertalet daterbara fynd harror fran period Illb.Denna fas kan delas upp i en aldre och en yngreunderfas. Den aldre fasen ar sannolikt tamligenlang, men pa grund av svagheter i materialet garden inte att sonderdela ytterligare.

Till den tidiga delen av period Illb fors skold-bucklor med stang. Dessa varierar i utformning.Det relativt lilla materialet gor det svart att ur-skilja aldre och yngre varianter. Flera av dem araven mycket dahgt bevarade, vilket omqjliggorsaker rekonstruktion av ursprungsformen. Ovrigavapen utgors av eneggade svard med flera nitar ihandtaget och lansspetsar. Aven dessa foremals-former varierar i utformning. Till perioden horaven Gallo-Romersk import i form av metallkitt-lar. Sena varianter av Kostrzewskis K-fibula skallaven de foras hit. Denna fas ar representerad iOstergotland, Vastergotland och i Malardalen.

Till den senare delen av period Illb, som avenkan tangera en tidig del av period Bla, forseneggade svard med fogsvansgrepp. Aven gravarmed sma eller endast symboliska vapenuppsatt-ningar som endast lansspets eller svardslide-beslag skall i flera fall foras till denna eller nastafas. Geografiskt finns fasen i samma landskapsom den tidiga period Illb. Dessutom anlaggs nuvapengravar aven pa vastkusten och mojligenaven i Blekinge, aven om dessa gravar mojligenskall dateras fdrst till nasta fas.

Period Bla ar nagot problematisk. Den represen-terar overgangen till aldre romersk jarnalder. Enren Bla fas gar endast att urskilja i Ostergotland.Dar represent eras den av svard med antyttfogsvansgrepp kombinerade med tidiga varianterav koniska skoldbucklor. Ett problem ar att i tillexempel i Vastergotland slutar man deponera

154

sva'rd i vapengravar under aldre romersk ja'rnal-der. I Ostergotland fb'religger salunda 35 eneg-gade sva'rd av aldre romersk typ och i Vastergot-land endast ett. I ovriga Sverige fb'rutom Oster-gotland forefaller man alltsa ha fortsatt gravtra-ditionen fran foregaende period. I vissa fall gardet typologiskt att konstatera att fynden skallforas till Bla snarare an Illb.

Den kronologiska grupperingen av materialet li-der av flera brister. Vapen kombineras ytterst sal-Ian med andra daterbara foremalskategorier. Del-ta gor det svart att inplacera flertalet fynd i ettkronologiskt schema. Vapnen bestar bade av lo-kalt producerade varianter av over stora delar avNordeuropa spridda huvudtyper och rena impor-ter eller kopior av vapen fran kontinenten. Kera-mikkarl fb'rekommer endast i ett mindre antal avgravarna. Istallet bar ofta hartstatade ka'rl anvantssom gravurna. Dessutom ar den forromerska ke-ramiken av dalig kvalitet. Av dessa skal kan barakeramik i undantagsfall anvandas for dateringar.

Det gar att dela in det svenska fastlandet i ettantal regioner. For vapenmaterialets del utgorOstergotland och Va'stergotland en huvudregion.For andra fb'remalstyper har man under forro-mersk jarnalder velat se en viss skillnad mellanlandskapen. For vapnens del beror de sma skill-naderna som fmns i materialet sannolikt pa detbetydligt storre antalet patraffade gravar i Oster-gotland. Vapengravarna kannetecknas av att varaurnebrandgravar anlagda under flat mark utanoverbyggnader. Vapengravarna ar utan undantaganlagda pa storre gravfalt som kan ha rotter till-baka till bronsalder och som framat kan strackasig ind i romersk jarnalder. Vapenuppsattningar-na fran och med period Ilia bestar alltid av minsttva vapen eller delar av vapen. Den i sarklassvanligaste vapenkombinationen ar sva'rd + lans.

En andra region utgors av vastkusten. Aven harar vapengravarna urnebrandgravar anlagda pastorre gravfalt. Till skillnad fran gotalandskapenutgors vapenuppsattningarna av endast ett vapeneller del av vapen som lansspets eller svardsslide-beslag. Fran ovriga Sydsverige fmns vapengravarfran Blekinge som paminner om de fran vastkus-ten. Skane forefaller vara ett vapengravsfrittomrade.

Na'sta huvudregion ar Malardalen. Har gar i vissafall att iaktta en viss kronologisk efterslapning

jamfort med sodra Sverige. Vapengravarna iMalardalen uppvisar flera sa'rdrag, aven ominfluenser och kontakter med stora delar av detovriga Sverige och aven kontinenten kan skonjas.Vapengravarna ar oftast anlagda i stensattningarsom kan vara upp mot tio meter i diameter. Avendet inre gravskicket avviker fran det i gotaland-skapen i och med att bengropar och benlager fo-rekommer parallellt med urnebrandgravar. Dessaskillnader gar att iaktta aven i gravar utan vapen.Vapenkombinationerna ar inte lika regelbundnasom i gotalandskapen. Det vanligaste ar att manendast deponerat en lansspets i graven.

Endast ett fatal av vapengravarna ar osteologisktbearbetade. Framst ar det materialet fran storreutgravningar gjorda efter 1940 som granskats. Ioch med detta ar inte resultaten helt representa-tiva. Den genomgaende tendensen ar att det arvuxna man som ar gravlagda med vapen. Ettundantag ar tva gravar fran gravfaltet Ekehogen iHalland, som ar osteologiskt bestamda somkvinnogravar.

Har ar inte utrymme att gora storre jamforelsermellan det fastlandssvenska vapenmaterialet ochfynd fran andra regioner. Endast en begransadjamforelse med det jyllandska materialet somdiskuterats av Erik Jorgensen och Janni LindenegNielsen (Jorgensen 1968, Nielsen 1975) kangoras har. Nielsen delar in de danska vapengra-varna i period Ilia, Illb, IIIb/Bl och Bl. Dessafaser motsvarar i stort den indelning jag gjort fordet svenska materialet aven om jamforelsensviktar i och med att inget av materialen hittills arpublicerat i sin helhet, vilket omqjliggor nog-grannare typologiska jamforelser. Det jyllandskamaterialet forefaller framst ha beroringspunktermed vapengravarna fran gotalandskapen. Endetalj vad galler vapenkombinationer ar, att denvanligaste vapenkombinationen i Jylland ar svard+ lans. Kombinationen ar svardaterad, men Niel-sen anser, att den forekommer under bade periodIlia och Illb. Samma kombination ar den vanli-gaste aven i gotalandskapen och Nielsens daterin-gar till period Ilia kan antyda att aven en del avde svenska fynden skulle kunna harrora frandenna period, aven om det saknas typologiskabelagg for detta. Overgangen till romersk jarn-alder ar problematisk. Nielsen konkluderar, attforromerska vapenformer fortlever en bra bit in iromersk jarnalder. Samma sak ar giltigt for detsvenska fastlandet.

155

Noter:1: Denna artikel ar delresultat av mina doktorand-studier vid arkeologiska institutionen vid Lunds uni-vcrsitct. Mitt avhandlingsprojekt gar under arbetsnam-net vapenfynd fran aldre jarnalder pa Sveriges fast-land. Alia illutrationer utom diagrammen ar gjorda avJonas Wikborg t i l l vilkcn ctt varmt tack a'ven riktas formanuslasning och synpunkter pa artikeln.

Litteratur:

Almgren, O, Nerman, B. 1923: Die altere EisenzeitGotlands. Stockholm.

Arne, T. J. 1919: Den senare forromcrska ja'rnal-dcrn i Svcrige. Fornvannen, pp.188-223.

Arne, T. J. 1932: Ett markligt La Tene fynd. Forn-vannen, pp. 187-190.

Artelius, T. 1992: Ledsberget "En hog och odugliggruskulle". RAA och SHM rapport UV1992:4.

Becker, C. J. 1961: F0rromersk jernalder i Syd- ogMidtjylland. K0benhavn.

1993: Studien zur jiingeren vorromi-schcn Eisenzeit auf Bornholm. Ada Archaeo-logica LXUl, pp. 1-38.

Bcskow-Sjoberg, M. (red.) 1987: Olands jdrndlders-gravfdlt I. Stockholm.

Bohnsack, D. 1938: Die Burgunden in Ostdeutschlandund Polen wdhrend des letzten Jahrhundertsv. Chr. Quellenschriften zur ostdeutschenVor- und Friihgeschichte Band 4.

Clareus, C. 1980: Vapengravar fran aldre jarnal-der i malarlandskapen. Trcbctygsuppsats franarkeologiska institutionen vid Stockholmsuniversitet.

Cullberg, K. 1973a: Ekehogen und Valtersberg. ZweiGrdberfelder der vorromischen Eisenzeit inWestschweden. Goteborg.

1973b: Ekehogen - Backa Rod - Valters-berg, Goteborg.

Dabrowska, T. 1988: Wczesne fazy kultury przewor-skiej. Chronologia - Zasieg - powiazania.Warszawa.

Ekholm, G. 1925: Gravfaltct vid Godaker. Fornvan-nen, pp. 326-346.

1927: Gravfaltet vid Godaker och denromerska jarnaldern i Uppsverige. FinskaFornminnesforeningens tidskrift XXXVI, pp.94-101.

1938: Ett upplandskt gravfalt fran LaTcne tiden, och andra fornminnen i trakten avLabyvad. Fornvannen, pp. 69-99.

1939: Valloxsaby logbackc. Ett upp-landskt gravfalt fran l:a arh. e. Kr. Forn-vdnnen, pp. 1-34.

1944: Upplandska gravfalt fran aldrejarnaldern. Fornvannen, pp. 83-110.

Ekholm, G. 1946: Upplandska gravfalt fran aldrejarnaldern. Knivsta stationssamhalle, Knivstasn. Fornvannen, pp. 193-215.

Hagberg, U-E, Stjernquist, B, Rasch, M. red. 1991:Olands jarndldersgravfalt II. Stockholm.

Hachmann, R. 1960: Die Chronologic der jungerenvorromischen Eisenzeit. 41 Bericht derRomisch-Germanischen Kommision.

Jahn, M. 1916: Die Bewaffnung der Germanen inder dlteren Eisenzeit. Mannus Bibl. nr. 16.

J0rgensen, E. 1968: S0nder Vilstrupfundet, Aarbogerfor Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, pp.32-90

Kaul, F. 1988: Da vdbnene tav - Hjortspringfundet ogdels baggrund. Kobenhavn.

Keiling, H. 1989: Zur rheinischen Welle des friihenromischen imports im freien Gcrmanicn. Zeit-schrift fur Archaologie 23, pp. 201-209.

Kostrzewski, J. 1919: Die Ostgermanische Kultur derSpatlatenezeit. Mannus Bibliothek nr. 18.

Larsson, T. B. 1986: The Bronze Age Metalwork insouthern Sweden. Umea.

Liversage, D. 1980: Material and Interpretation.K0benhavn.

Magnusson, G. 1972: Arkeologiska undersokningar iVastmanlands Ian 1970. Vdstmanlands Forn-minnesforenings Arskrift L.

1974: Arkeologisk undersokning 1968-70. Fornldmningarna 191 och 236, tvd grav-

falt Asen 1:2, 1:3, Kolbdcks sn, Vastmanland.RAA och SHM UV Rapport 1974, B 33.

Moberg, C-A. 1950: Kyrkbacken i Horns socken foreoch efter jarnalderns tredje period. Fornvan-nen, pp. 73-94.

Nielsen, J. L. 1975: Aspektcr af det f0rromerske va-bengravsmilje i Jylland. Hikuin 2, pp. 89-96

Norden, A. 1925: Ostergotlands bronsdlder.Linkoping.

1927, 1929: Ostergotlands jarnalder I-II. Linkoping.

Nylen, E. 1955: Diejiingere vorromische EisenzeitGotlands. Uppsala.

Oxenstierna, E. 1945: Die Urheimat der Goten.Leipzig/Stockholm.

1958: Die altere Eisenzeit in Ostergot-land. Stockholm.

Poulsen, E. 1987: Kelto-romerskc importer. Aarbogerfor Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, pp.97-103.

Rasch, M. 1991: Sammanfattande kommentar ochanalys. I: Hagberg, Stjernquist, Rasch (red).Olands jarndldersgravfalt II, pp. 475-495.

Sahlstrom, K.-E. 1932: Gudhems hdrads fornminnen.Skovde.

1939: Valle hdr-ads fornminnen. Skovde.1954: Skovde stadsfornminnen. Skovde.

Sahlstrom, 1C-E, Gejvall, N-G. 1948: Gravfaltet paKyrkbacken i Horns socken Vdstergotland.Stockholm.

156

Sahlstrom, K.-E, Gejvall, N-G. 1954: Bankdlla ochStora Ro. Stockholm.

Sahlstrom. IC-E, Svensson, H, Melin, D. 1928:Kdkinds hdrads fornminnen. Skovde.

Salo, U. 1962: Friiheisenzeitliche Lanzenspitzender skandinavischen halbinsel. Acta Archaeo-logicaXXXHI, pp. 63-78.

Stenberger, M. 1948: Bjurumfyndet och dess date-ring. Fornvdnnen, pp.193-210.

1964: Det forntida Sverige. Stockholm,Almqvist & Wikscll.

Stjernquist, B. 1955: Simris. On cultural connectionsof Scania in the roman iron age. Lund.

Zieling, N. 1989: Studien zu germanischen Schildender Spdtlatene- und der romischen Eisenzeitim freien Germanien, BAR int series 505 i-iii.

Ahman, E. 1983: Gravfdlt, forromersk jdrndlder,Hulan 1:10 och 1:29, Berga sn Smaland.Smalands museum, Kulturhistorisk rapport21.

Aija, K. 1993: Abygravfdltet. RAA och SHM UVRapport 1987:11.

157

Summary:

Pre-Roman Iron Age Weaponry on the SwedishMainland. Chronology, Typology and RegionalGroups, by Pavel Nicklasson, Lund.

Though weaponry of the Pre-Roman Iron Age inMainland-Sweden is numerous and well documented athorough review is still lacking. It is the aim of theauthor to complete this gap and in the present papersome preliminary results are presented. The chronolo-gical terms arc referring to C. J. Becker 1961.

An attempt at dividing the material chronologicallywill be met with the difficulties stemming from thefact that weapons in the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Swe-den seldomly combine with anything but weapons.Only in a few instances weapons combine with potte-ry, brooches or imported metal cauldrons. Besides,many of the weapons are of local types or local copiesof international types. Due to this, it may be difficultto date certain finds more closely. However, chronolo-gically the material can be parted into five sequences:

The first phase, dating to the transition from per.ll toper.IIIa, is only represented by lanceheads of Salo'stype A and B (figs. 1 & 8): Of these two types the firstonly occur in deposits while the latter has been foundin graves as well.

The second phase, dating to per.IIIa, is represented byshieldbosses of Bohnsack type 3 (fig. 2). Such bossesoccur together with shieldhandles with triangular ends.From this phase onwards the majority of the finds aregrave finds. The finds are rather few and the horizon isknown exclusively from Vaster- and Ostergotland. Inone of the graves an imported iron cauldron was usedas cinerary urn.

The majority of the finds date to per.IIIb. It is, how-ever, possible to divide the material into two sub-phases:

The early subphase appears to be relatively long, butdue to the nature of the material it seems impossible tosubdivide it. The type artifact is shieldbosses withspike. Together with these occur lanceheads and one-edged swords with several rivets in the handle, andfurthermore imported metal cauldrons and late deriva-tes of the Kostrzewski K brooch (cf. fig. 3). This sub-phase is represented in Oster- and Vastergotland andthe Malarvalley.

The second subphase, which forms a late part of per.I l lb and possibly the very opening of Bla, is markedby the appearance of one-edged swords with full hand-le (like a saw) (fig. 4). Also graves with little or literal-ly only symbolic weapon equipment like a single lan-

cehead or scabbard fittings date from this or the suc-ceeding phase. The weapon burial rite now reaches theSwedish westcoast and Blekinge.

The fifth phase, Bla, represents the transition to theRoman Iron Age. A distinct Bla is only visible inOstergotland, represented by one-edged swords withsaw-like handle in combination with early versions ofthe conical shieldboss. In Vastergotland the use ofswords as grave gifts appears to stop at the transitionto the Roman Iron Age. Thus from this landscape onlyone one-edged sword is known from the Roman IronAge, while from Ostergotland the number is 35. In theother parts of mainland Sweden the rite of the pre-ceeding subphase appears to continue, why many ofthe graves of that phase in those landscapes may bedated to Bla.

The weapon grave rite in mainland Sweden can bedivided into three regions:

Oster- and Vastergotland form the region were wea-pongraves are most numerous. The graves are urn gra-ves without any marking, and they occur on largercemeteries which can be founded in the late BronzeAge or which can be in continuous use into the RomanIron Age. From the very beginning in per.IIIa the wea-pon graves of the region always contain at least twoweapons or parts of two, the most common combina-tion being sword and lance (fig. 5).

The Swedish westcoast forms a second, minor region(fig. 6). As in Vaster- and Ostergotland the graves oc-cur on larger urncemeteries, but the weapon equip-ment is only represented by one or parts of a weapon.The weapon graves from Blekinge resemble the onesfrom this region. Skane appears to be without Pre-Roman Iron Age weapon graves at all.

The third region is the Malar-valley (fig. 7). There ap-pears to be some chronological delay in the develop-ment in this region, and the burial rite shows severallocal traits. The graves are mostly marked by stonesettings which can be more than 10m in diameter. Thegraves may be urn graves, bone heaps, or cremationpits. The weapon graves are mostly only equippedwith a single lancehead, but other equipments mayoccur.

The chronological phases here presented appear tocorrespond with the four phases into which J.L. Niel-sen (1975) has separated the Jutland material (Ilia,Illb, TIIb/Bl, Bl) - the first phase in Sweden beingearlier, corresponding with Hjortsping and Krogsbellein Denmark. Worth noting is the resemblance in theweapon equipment between Jutland and Vaster- andOstergotland.

Translated by J.Martens

158


DEN KERAMISKE UDVIKLING I SEN F0RROMERSK OGROMERSK JERNALDERI S0NDERJYLLAND,

Per Ole Rindel, Copenhagen.

Hidtil har der kun v£eret fa sikre holdepunkter for I bopladsmaterialet er det oftest kun mindre brud-en kronologisk opdeling af det omfattende jyske stykker af lerkar, der foreligger. Det er derforbopladsmateriale fra f0rromersk jernalder per.Illb (FRJ ITIb) og sldre romersk jernalder (^RJ).Den detaljerede kronologiske inddeling1' af dettetidsrum er baseret pa gravfundene, med hoved-vasgt pa metalsagerne, mens keramikken kun tilen vis grad kan indpasses. Det medf0rer, at grav-fundene ofte kan dateres ganske snasvert, mensbopladsfundene som regel kun kan dateres nogetbredere.

Fig.l. Lerkarformer. De anvendte typers datering. S0nderjyl-land. Typenumrene henviser til appendix A.

vigtigt at etablere en keramikkronologi, der erbaseret pa enkeltelementer som rande, hanke ogornamentik, frem for lerkarrenes sarnlede ud-formning og proportioner. I det folgende vil bliveredegjort for nogle hyppigt forekommende rand-og hanketyper, som i hvert fald i S0nderjyllandsynes at vasre karakteristisk for hhv. FRJ Illb/,ERJ Bl og ^RJ B22>. Disse kriterier er delvisudledt ved at sammenholde den kronologi, Hen-

rik Jarl Hansen3' har opstillet for de s0nder-jyske lerkarformer fra denne periode (JarlHansen 1982), med den kronologi, der eropstillet for randtyper i det nordvesttyskeNords0kystomrade pa grundlag af vasrft-stratigrafierne (Schmid 1965).

De kronologisk vigtigste randformer erkraftigt fortykkede, facetterede rande, hvorranden er over dobbelt sa tyk som karvasg-gen umiddelbart under randen (her type269, jvf. fig.2), samt h0je, skarpt afsatte, let/middel fortykkede, facetterede rande, hvorranden er 1,5-2 gange sa tyk som karvseg-gen umiddelbart under randen, og hvor ran-den er bredest inden for dens 0verste ijerde-del (type 272). Den vigtigste hanketype erden rent H-formede hank (som et liggendeH), evt. som massiv 0reknop (type 282).

1 fig. 4 er vist, hvorledes disse rand- oghanketyper, samt nogle udvalgte hyppigt fo-rekommende karformer, er kombineret medveldaterede metalsager (fibler, smykker, ro-mersk import, sporer og vaben) i sluttedegravfund i S0nderjylland. Det fremgar her-af, at randtype 269 og kartype 242a er knyt-tet til FRJ IIIb/^RJ Bl, mens randtype 272og hanketype 282 er knyttet til ;£RJ B2.Antallet af fundkombinationer er dog forlille til i sig selv at danne et sikkert da-te ringsgrundlag. Derfor er i fig.5 vist, hvor-

ledes disse rand- og hanketyper optreeder pa enrsekke af de almindeligste karformer4'.

Fig. 2. Rande, hanke og ornamentik (keramik). Deanvendte typers datering. Sonderjylland. Typenumrenehenviser til appendix A.

Af fig. 5 fremgar, at randtype 269 forekommermeget ofte pa kartype 242a, der er fra FRJIIIbAERJ Bl, sjaeldnere pa kartype 242b, derspsender fra FRJ Illb til ind i ^RJ B2, og kunundtagelsesvis eller slet ikke pa kartyperne 242c,248 og 246c, der mere eller mindre sikkert kanhenf0res til RJ B2 (fig.4).

Randtype 272 er derimod hyppigt registreret pakartype 248, der synes knyttet til ^RJ B2 (i etenkelt lilfeelde fundet sammen med en fragmen-tarisk fibel, der efter alt at d0mme er af YRJtype)og i0vrigt kun pa kartyper, der kan vasre fra ^RJB2 (fig.4- 5).

Hanketype 282 er prima3rt registreret pa kartyper-ne 248 og 246c, og i0vrigt kun pa kartyper, derligeledes kan vasre fra RJ B2 (fig. 4-5).

Sammenholdes rand- og hanketypernes kombina-tion med hhv. veldaterede sluttede gravfund ogkarformer, hvorpa de opttceder, kan hanketype282 med stor sandsynlighed regnes for karakte-

ristisk for RJ B2. Del skal dog nasvnes, at der iFRJ IIIb/^RJ Bl-milj0 i sjasldne tilfgelde optras-der hanke, der umiddelbart kunne ligne type 282,men i fig.7.a-d. er illustreret alle de registredeeksemplarer af denne karakter. Det ses, at de alleafviger markant fra den rent H-formede hank-form ved de langt udtrukne, svajede flige (fig.7.a+ c), evt. kun i en reduceret udgave heraf som enenkelt svajet liste (fig.7.b), eller kun foreliggerfragmentarisk og umulig at typebestemme medsikkerhed (fig.7.d). Lerkarret med den ekstremtstore hank med langt udtrukne svajede flige fraS0nderager (fig.7.a) er ikke sikkert dateret, menen nassten identisk hank kendes fra Fyn pa et ler-kar med en rand, der snarest er af type 269(Albrectsen 1956, tavle 37,f).

Randtype 269 er med stor sandsynlighed knyttettil FRJ IIIbAERJ Bl, hvilket bekrasftes af, atdenne randtype ikke er registreret pa kar medhanketype 282 (fig.6). Det er ogsa i fuld overens-stemmelse med resultaterne fra de nordvesttyskevasrfter (Schmid 1965).

Randtype 272 optreeder pa en raekke lerkar sam-men med hanketype 282 (fig.6) og kan ogsa medrimelighed henf0res til RJ B2.

Fig. 3. Fibler. De anvendte typers datering. Sonder-jylland. Typenumrene henviser til appendix A.

160

FRJ

flllb

£RJ

B1a

£RJB1a/Bib

£RJ

B2

SwB2 /YRJC1

YRJ

^""---^keramik

metalsage?^-^^

fibel (12) (-7-9

svzrd (135)e! ^

fibel (1<0 jg;«

fibel (iga) J\#

f ibel (21c) ~ "S

import (102)-^ .

fibel (15) ^~%

fibel (17) ""7^**-*r >

fibel (20) ^

fibel (23a) ,jA

fibel (3O §=^

Berlok (65) (

fibel (25a) °™^T=lJS

fibe! (Z^)^^.W^™,

import (lOgcJy^^N

fibel (2^c) «^B

fibel (J1) ^^

fibel (29) •-*»dO

d°P (90) til ^dr ikkehorn KJO

spore (98) 1£(Je>

fibel (30) ^^aj

import (I06)laaj=sa

beslag (1g) til

sk- jo ldhanotag

fibel CtOc) jrf^j»

0' •Za

Hjolden

SkovlystVester-malle

VIVedste t;nderupsk

Tonbalgrc

Tislund

269

Hjolden,Ottersbal

Skov lys tV.Lindet

Ittersbal

HillerupV.Vedstet

Kolstruf

lombalgrt

Mojbel

Knud

o2ji2b

V.Lindet

Stepping

K n u d

Galsted

St.Anslet

Marstrup

Harstruf

02<*2c

O.Jerstal

)over (b.

9*79 V?<-[ L

St .Oarum

•n283

Dollerup

Q

Hviding

Kastrup(b)

2^282

Marstrup

Ast rup 1

Astrup 1

Kastrup(a)

.F^stedTof t )

O2^60

St.Darum

Astrup B

Ast rup 6

Kast rup(a)

Genner ^

Tornunt-skov

Genner ^

Dover(a)

(FistedT o f t )

Fig. 4. Diagram over komhinationen af kronologisk vigtige lerkarformer, rande og hanke med veldateredemetalsager i s0nderjyske sluttede gravfund fra FRJ HIb og /ERJ. Typenumrene henviser til appendix A, mensstednavnene angiver findestederne for de pagceldende gravfund (jvf. appendix B).

161

_rande og^hanke

karformer

O

27

270* 28?

15 10

271

fig.5. Kombinationsdiagram over nogle kronologiskvigtige rand- og hanketypers forekomst pa udvalgtelerkarformer. Sonderjylland, FRJ lllb-JERJ. Typenum-rene henviser til appendix A, mens tallene i rubrikker-ne angiver, i hvor mange tilfcelde den pdgceldenderand- eller hanketype er registreret pa de forskelligelerkarformer.

Pa fig.5-6 er yderligere anf0rt et par randtyper(270-271), som af P. Schmid pa de nordvesttyskevserfter dateres til "2.arh.". De synes ogsa megetvel at kunne vasre karakteristisk for ^RJ B2 iSonderjylland, omend grundlaget er spinkelt.

Udformningen af de s0nderjyske lerkars rande iFRJ Illb og /ERJ synes saledes pa en raskke vee-sentlige pimkter at stemme overens med den ud-vikling, der kan iagttages i fundmaterialet fra denordvesttyske va3rftsstratigrafier.

rande

hanke

28?

270 271

fig.6. Komhinationsdiagram over en kronologiskvigtig hanketypes kombination med udvalgte randtyperpa lerkar. S0nderjylland, FRJ Illb-ALRJ. Typenumrenehenviser til appendix A, mens tallene i rubrikkerneangiver, i hvor mange tilfcelde denne hanketype erregistreret pa samme lerkar som de anforte randtyper.

fig. 7. Hanke i s0nderjyske gravfund fra FRJ lllbl&RJ med fadlestrcek med de rent H-formede hanke fra&RJ B2. a: Sonderager, F0vling sogn, Malt hrd, Ribeamt. b: Roager, Roager sogn sb.nr.62, Hviding hrd,Tonder amt. c: Vesterb&k, Roager sogn sb. nr.4,Hviding hrd, Tonder amt. d: Over Lert, Stepping sognsb.nr.5, S0nder Tyrstrup hrd, Haderslev amt.

Noter:1: Periodeinddelingen af forromersk jernalder folgerher den kronologi, der er opstillet af C.J.Becker i 1961primaert for Jylland (Becker 1961), mens kronologienfor romersk jernalder folger den inddeling, der er op-stillet af Ulla Lund Hansen i 1987 for Skandinavien(Lund Hansen 1987 & 1988). Skemaerne fig. 1-3 byg-ger i vid udstraekning pa tidligere publikationer, jvf.appendix A. Bl.a. et kronologisk studie af gravkeramikfra ^RJ er f0rst publiceret efter udarbejdelsen af den-ne oversigt og er ikke inddraget (Christensen 1988).

2: Denne kronologiske analyse er et biprodukt af etkonferensspeciale om eeldre jcrnalders bebyggelse iS0nderjylland (Rindel 1990), og indgar i en kronolo-gisk oversigt, som blev udarbejdet i den sammenheeng.En mere fuldstsendig gennemgang af fundmaterialetmed SEerlig henblik pa disse kronologiske forhold kun-

162

ne vsere pakravet, men det faldt uden for rammen afden bebyggelsesarkgeologiske undersogelse, som varbaggrund for den aktuclle registrering af fundmate-rialet.

3: Henrik Jarl Hansen bar venligst givet forfatteren til-ladelse til at anvende den typeinddeling af og kronolo-gi for senderjyske karformer fra teldre romersk jernal-dcr, som indgar i bans upubficerede konferensspeciale(Jarl Hansen 1982), og som udg0r et vassentligt grund-lag for udarbejdelsen af skcmaet fig. 1 og for analysenaf visse rand- og hanke-typers kombination med kar-formerne (jvf. fig.4-5).

4: Det skal bemgerkes, at dcr sandsynligvis forekom-mer flere sadanne fundkombinationer, end her anf0rt,idet ikke alle lerkar og gravfund er rcgistreret i detaljerved fundgennemgangen, men kun de, der i bebyggel-sesarka:ologisk sammenhEeng er vigtigc for dateringenaf den pagseldende lokalitet og dens saerlig bemasrkel-scsveerdige fund (jvf. note 2).

Litteratur:

Albrectsen, E. 1954: Fynske Jernaldergrave, Bd. I.F0rromerskjernalder. K0benhavn.

1956: Fynske Jernaldergrave, Bd. II.^Idre romersk jernaldcr. K0benhavn.

Almgren, O. 1923: Studien uber nordeuropaischeFibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahr-hunderte. Leipzig.

Bcch, J. H. 1975: Nordjyske fibler fra per. Ilia af f0r-romersk Jernalder. Hikuin 2, pp. 75-88.

Becker, C.J. 1961: Forromersk Jernalder i Syd- ogMidtjylland. Nationalmusects Skrifter, StarreBeretninger VI. K0benhavn.

Br0ndsted, J. 1960: Danmarks Oldtid, Bd.3, Jernal-deren. K0benhavn.

Cbristcnsen, L. 1988: Eine Urnengraberfeld deralterenKaiserzeit in Frarup, S0nderjyllands Amt.Qffa45, pp. 81-118.

Eggers, H.J. 195): Der romische Import im freienGermanien. Atlas der Urgeschichte, Bd.I.Hamburg.

1955: Zur absoluten Chronologic derromischen Kaiserzeit im Freien Germanien.Jahrbuch RGZM //, pp. 196-244.

1964: Die Kunst der Germancn in dcrEisenzeit. Kelten und Germanen, by H.J.Eggers, E. Will, R. Joffroy & W. Holmquist.Kunst der Welt. Holle. Baden-Baden 1964(1970), pp. 5-91.

Hansen, H. Jarl 1982: Drengsted. En celdre romerskurnegravplads fra Sonderjylland (del 1). En

behandling af den celdre romerske gravkera-mik i Syd- og S0nderjylland med henblik paen opstilling og Catering af keramiktyper vedhjcelp af EDB (del 2). Speciale til magister-konferens, K0benhavns Universitet.

Hansen, U. Lund avelse 1985: ovelse over jernalde-rens oldsagsformer ved Forhistorisk Ark&olo-gisk Institut, upubliccrede, Kebenhavn, 1985,

1987: Romischer Import im Norden.Nordiske Fortidsminder, Serie B, Bd.10.Kebenhavn.

1988: Hovedproblemcr i romersk oggermansk jernalders kronologi i Skandinavienog pa Kontinentet. Fra Stamme til Slat i Dan-mark I. Jysk Arkteologisk Selskabs Skrifter,Arhus, pp. 21-35.

Hvass, S. 1985: Hodde. Et vestjysk landsbysam-fund fra celdre Jernalder. ArkaeologiskeStudiervol. VII. K0benhavn.

J0rgensen, E. 1969: S0nder Vilstrup-fundet. En grav-plads fra seldre Jernalder. Aarboger fornordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1968, pp.32-90.

1989: Truslen fra Rom. Skalk 1989-5,pp. 10-15.

Kostrzewski, J. 1919: Die ostgermanische Kultur derSpdtlatenezeit. Mannus Bibl.18.

Mackeprang, M. 1943: Kulturbeziehungen im nordi-schen Raum des 3.-5. Jahrhunderts. Hambur-ger Schriften zur Vorgeschichte und germani-sche Fruhgeschichte.

Neumann, H. 1982: Olgerdiget ~ et bidrag til Dan-marks tidligste historie. Skrifter fra Mu-seumsradet for S0nderjyllands amt 1.Haderslev.

Nielsen, J. L. 1975: Aspekter af det f0rromerskevabengravmilj0 i Jylland. Hikuin 2, pp. 89-96.

Rindel, P.O. 1990: S0nderjylland i celdre Jernalder -bebyggelsesm0nstre, ressourceudnyttelse ogcenterdannelser. Upubliceret specialc tilmagisterkonferens. Kebenhavns Universitet.

1992: ^Idre jernalders bebyggelse iS0nderjylland. Bebyggelsesm0nstre, ressour-ceudnyttelse og centerdannelser i seldrc Jern-alder. "Sjcellands Jernalder", eds. U. LundHansen & S. Nielsen. Arkeeologiske Skrifter6. Kebenbavn, pp. 133-157.

Schmid, P. 1965: Die Keramik des 1. bis 3. Jahr-hunderts im Kiistengebiet der siidlichenNordsee. Probleme der Kustenforschung imsiidlichen Nordseegebiet 8, pp. 9-46.

Wielowiejski, J. 1970: Kontakty Noricum i Pannonii zLudami Polnocnyni. (Beziehungen Noricumsund Pannoniens zu den nordlichen Volkern).Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow.

0rsnes, M. & O.Voss 1948: Der Dollerupfund. ActaArchaeologica vol. XIX, pp. 209-271.

163

appendix A:

Fortegnelse over de vigtigste ledetyper indenforkeramik, dragtnale og flbler i senderjyske fund frasen farromersk og aeldre romersk jernalder. (jvf.skemaerne fig.1-3}

Ud for hvert typenummer er anf0rt betegnelse, Catering(skrevet med kursiv) og reference til hvemder bar dateret typen.

9. ringnal af jysk type (jvf. Becker 1961), FRJ ll-llla,Becker 1961.

10. trekantfibel, Kostrzewski K, FRJ Ilia, Bech 1975;Becker 1961; E.Jergensen 1968.

1 l.a svasrt st0bte fibler uden kugler eller kamme pa b0j-len, FRJ Ilia, Bech 1975.

1 l.b T-formet jernfibel, FRJ Ilia, Bech 1975.12. hannoveransk fibel, FRJ lllb, E.Jergensen 1968.13.a svajet fibel, ICostrzewski M, FRJ lllb, Becker

1961;EJ0rgensen 1968.13.b svajet fibel, Kostrzewski N, FRJ lllb, Becker

1961;E.J0rgensen 1968.13.c svajet fibel, Kostrzewski O, FRJ lllb, Becker 1961;

EJorgensen 1961.14. fibel Almgrcn 11:23, FRJ IHb, Albrectsen 1956;

Lund Hansen 0velse 1985.15. provinsialromersk fibel, Almgren 242, FRJ lllb/

MRJ Bl, Almgren 1923; Wielowiejski 1970,s. 315; fundkombination med svajet fibel(ICostrzewski O) i grav fra Mojb01 (kat. nr.326).

16. provinsialromersk fibel fra Rhinprovinserne, Alm-gren 19 (Albrectsen fig.37a), MRJ El, Alm-gren 1923; Albrectsen 1956; Wielowiejski1970,s.315.

17. provinsialromersk fibel fra Rhinprovinserne, Alm-gren 20, MRJ Bl, Almgren 1923; Wielowiej-ski 1970, s.315.

18. provinsialromersk fibel fra Rhinprovinserne, Alm-gren 22, &RJBl, Almgren 1923; Albrectsen1956.

J9.a fibel Almgren 11:24 (Albrectsen fig.37b)1 MRJ Bl,Albrectsen 1956; Eggers 1955; Lund Hansen0velse 1985.

19.b fibel Almgren 11:25 (Albrectsen fig.37b), MRJBla, Albrectsen 1956; Lund Hansen 0velse1985.

20. fibel Albrectsen fig.37c (Almgren 11:26), MRJ Bl,Albrectsen 1956; Lund Hansen 0velse 1985.

21.a fibel Almgren 111:45, MRJ Bla, Albrectsen 1956;Eggers 1955; Wielowiejski 1970; Lund Han-sen 0velse 1985.

21.b fibel Almgren 111:46, MRJ Bla, Lund Hansen0velse 1985.

21.c fibel Almgren TTI:54, MRJ Bla, Lund Hansen0velse 1985.

22.a fibel Almgrcn IV:74, MRJ Bib, Lund Hansen0velse 1985.

22.b fibel Almgren IV:75, ^RJ Bib, Albrectsen 1956;Eggers 1955; Lund Hansen 0velse 1985.

22.c fibel Almgren IV:67, MRJ Bla, Lund Hansen0velsc 1985.

23.a fibel Almgren IV:77, MRJ B2, Lund Hansen0velse 1985.

23.b fibel Almgren IV:79 (Albrectsen fig.37p), MRJB2, Albrectsen 1956; Wielowiejski 1970;Lund Hansen 0velse 1985.

23.c fibel Almgren IV:80 (Albrectsen fig.37p), MRJB2,Albrectsen 1956; Wielowiejski 1970; LundHansen 0velse 1985.

24.a fibel Almgren 11:27, MRJ B2, Eggers 1964; LundHansen 0velse 1985.

24.b fibel Almgren 11:28 (Albrectsen fig.37d), MRJ B2,Albrectsen 1956.

24.c fibel Almgren 11:29, MRJB2, Lund Hansen 0velse1985.

24.d fibel Almgren 11:30, MRJB2, Lund Hansen 0velse1985.

24.e fibel Almgren 11:38 (Albrectsen fig.37e), MRJB2,Albrectsen 1956; Eggers 1955; Lund Hansen0velsc 1985.

25.a fibel Almgren 111:53, MR)B2, Albrectsen 1956.25.b fibel Almgren 111:58 (Albrectsen fig.37,1), MRJ

B2, (Albrectsen 1956).26.a fibel Almgren V:99, MRJBl, Lund Hansen 0velse

1985.26. fibel Almgren V: 100, MRJB2, Almgren 1923.27. fibel Almgren V:103, MRJ (Bib) B2, Almgren 192328. fibel Almgren V : l l l , MRJ B2, Albrectsen 1956;

Wielowiejski 1970; Lund Hansen 0velse1985.

29. fibel Almgren V: 135, MRJ sen B2, Albrectsen 1956.30. fibel Almgren V:138, MRJ (Bib) B2, (YRJ Cl)

Almgren 1923.31. fibel Almgren V: 141, MRJ B2, Lund Hansen 0velse

1985.32. fibel Almgrcn V:142, MRJ B2, Lund Hansen 0velse

1985.33. fibel Almgren V:144, MRJ B2, Lund Hansen 0velse

1985.34. fibel Almgrcn V:\45,/£RJ B2, Lund Hansen 0velse

1985.35. fibel Almgren V: 146, MRJB2, Lund Hansen 0velse

1985.36. fibel Almgren V:149, MRJ B2/YRJ Cl, Albrecten

1956.206. hankekar, Becker pl.79,g, FRJ Ilia, Becker 1961.207. hankekar, Becker pl.79,n, FRJ Ilia, Becker 1961.208. hankekar, Becker pl.79,n uden hals, FRJ Ilia, Bec-

ker 1961.219. enkcl krukke, Becker pl.61,m, FRJ Il/IIIa, Becker

1961.220. enkel krukke, Becker pl.77,k, FRJ Ilia, Becker

1961.223. fad, (Becker pl.42,hj, FRJ/MRJ, Becker 1961.224. fad, (Becker pl.59,j), FRJ/MRJ, Becker 1961.

164

230. stort forradskar, Becker pl.78,j, FRJ Ilia, Becker1961.

231. stort forradskar, cvt. mcd listc mcd fingerindtrykpa overgangen mellem hals og skulder, Bec-ker pl,S6,c-75,b, FRJ Ilia, Becker 1961.

235. smal opretstaende ildbuk, FRJ I11//ERJ, Becker1961.

236. rundbuget hankekar (Jarl Hansen Cl med hank),FRJ lllbl/ERJ, Hvass 1985; Jarl Hansen 1982

237. rundbuget skal, Jarl Hansen C1, FRJ lllbl/ERJ, JarlHansen 1982; Neumann 1982; Orsnes 1948.

238. fodbasger med skarpt skulderknsek, Jarl HansenB1-B2, FRJ lllb//ERJ, Albrectsen 1956; JarlHansen 19S2;Schmid 1965.

239. fodbacger med rundet skulder, Jarl Hansen B3, FRJlllb//ERJ, Albrectsen 1956; Jarl Hansen1982; Schmid 1965.

240. stor fodskal med vandrcttc hankc, Jarl Hansen A4,FRJ lllb//ERJ, Jarl Hansen 1982.

241. stor skal med vandrette hanke, Jarl Hansen A5,FRJ Hlb/MRJ, Jarl Hansen 1982.

242.a udpreeget h0j rundbuget urnc med vid mundingog kort skulder, Jarl Hansen C7, FRJlllbl/ERJ iscer FRJ IIIb//ERJ Bl, Jarl Hansen1982; Hvass 1985; Schmid 1965.

242.b rundbuget urne ("terriner") med vid munding ogkort skulder, Jarl Hansen C4-C6, /ERJ, Al-brectsen 1956; Jarl Hansen 1982; Neumann1982.

242.c udprasget lav rundbuget urne med vid mundingog kort skulder, Jarl Hansen C3, /ERJ,sandsyntigvis /ERJ B2, Albrectsen 1956;Jarl Hansen 1982; Neumann 1982.

243. krukkc, Jarl Hansen Cl 1-14, FRJ lllbl/ERJ, Al-brectsen 1956; Jarl Hansen 1982; Hvass1985;0rsnes 1948.

244. lav bred skal, Jarl Hansen A1&A3, FRJ IHb//ERJ, Albrectsen 1956, Jarl Hansen 1982.

245. lav bred skal med stor vandrct og facetteret hank,Jarl Hansen A2, /ERJ, sandsynligvis /ERJB2, Jarl Hansen 1982; 0rsnes 1948.

246.a slank vaseformet kar med haj hals, Jarl HansenC18, FRJ lUb/ARJ, Jarl Hansen 1982.

246.b vaseformet krukke med lav hals, Jarl HansenC15, FRJIIIb/ARJ, Jarl Hansen 1982.

246.c stort vaseformet kar med h0j hals, Jarl Hansen C16-17, /ERJ, sandsynligvis /ERJ B2(evt.YRJ Cl), Jarl Hansen 1982; 0rsnes1948; (karformen optrseder i grav fra Fse-sted Toft (kat.nr.305, NMl C 9015-17) medfibcl med h0j naleholder ((40c)).

247.a situlaagtigt kar med indtrukkct underdel, JarlHansen CI9, FRJ HIb//ERJ sandsynligvisFRJ IHb IMRJ Bl, Jarl Hansen 1982;Schmid 1965.

247.b stort fodkar med rundet skulder, form som JarlHansen B3, men stort, FRJ IIIb//£RJ, (JarlHansen 1982).

248. rundbuget kar med kort, afsat hals, Jarl HansenC8-10, /ERJ, sandsynligvis /ERJ B2, JarlHansen 1982.

264.a- 264.b h0j tynd udadha^ldende rand, skarpt afsatfra (rundet) skulder, sandsynligvis FRJII/HIa eller YRJ, Becker 1961.

265. kort, let udadhasldende, let fortykket rand, skarptafsat fra rundet skulder, sandsynligvis FRJff/IIIa, Becker 1961.

266. let fortykket (op til 1,5 gange karvyeggens tykkcl-se) bredt facetteret rand, FRJ III//ERJ, iscerFRJ Ilia, Albrectsen 1956; Becker 1961;Hvass 1985.

267. middel/kraftigt fortykket (over 1,5 gangc kar-vaeggens tykkelse) afrundet rand, FRJlllbl/ERJ, Becker 1961; Hvass 1985;Schmid 1965.

268. let/middcl fortykket (1,5-2 gange karvasggenstykkelse) smalt facetteret rand, FRJIIIb//£RJ, Albrectsen 1956; Becker 1961.

268.b ufortykket, ikke afsat munding, mcd facetteretrand, FRJ lllb//ERJ.

268.c indadtil let fortykket, ikke afsat munding, medfacetteret rand, FRJ lllbl/ERJ.

269. kraftigt fortykket (over 2 gange karvceggens tyk-kelse) facetteret rand, FRJ Ulbl /ERJ Bl,Albrectsen 1956; Hvass 1985; Schmid1965.

270. kort tilspidsende rand med flad ydersidc og run-det inderside, /ERJ B2 (evt.YRJ Cl),Schmid 1965.

271. rand med trekantet tvsersnit, ^ERJ B2 (evt.YRJCl), Schmid 1965.

272. let/middcl fortykket (1,5-2 gange karva:ggens tyk-kelse) h0j, afsat, facetteret rand, randcns bre-deste sted er indcn for randens 0verste fjcr-dcdel, FRJ lllbl/ERJ sandsynligvis &RJ B2.

278. let X-formet flad hank, iscer FRJ II.279. X-formet hank med tagrygformet tvasrsnit, FRJ

llll/ERJ, (evt.YRJ Cl), Albrectsen 1954;Albrectsen 1956; Hvass 1985.

280. X-formet hank med ydcrside afglattet J 3 fladcr,FRJlllbl/ERJ, Albrectsen 1956.

281. X-formet 0rcknop, FRJ lllbl/ERJ.282. H-formet 0re/0rcknop, /ERJ, sandsynligvis /ERJ

B2 (evt.YRJ C I), Albrectsen 1956; Albrect-sen 1971, IV:2, pl.lOSa; (hankformen op-traeder i grav fra Fsested Toft (kat.nr.305,NMI C 9015- 17) med fibel med h0j nale-holder ((40c)).

283. bredt, kort udtrukket facetteret vandret hank cllcrmassivt greb, /ERJ, sandsynligvis /ERJ B2,Jarl Hansen 1982; 0rsnes 1948.

289. X-formet hank siddende hojt pa karside, umid-delbart under overgang rand/skulder, FRJIlia Hvass 1985.

290. X-formet hank, anbragt omtrent midt mellemrand og sterste bugbredde (eller i hvert fald

165

et stykke under overgang hals/skulder), FRJIHb/ARJ, (Jarl Hansen 1982), Hvass 1985.

296. palagt vandret liste med fingerindtryk, pa over-gangen rand/skulder, randen 2-4 cm h0j,FRJ Ilia, Becker 1961.

297. vandret liste med fingerindtryk, pasat umiddel-bart under kort mundingsrand, FRJlllb/MRJ, Becker 1961, Hvass 1985.

298. kamornamentik, iscer FRJ IHb/^ERJ, (Neumann1982).

299. tEetliggende flade vandrette furer, FRJ lllb//ERJ,Hvass 1985; (Neumann 1982).

300. mgeanderornamentik, FRJ HJb/AZRJ, Brandsted1960.

301. vandrette furer og furer i vinkelband eller udfyld-te trekanter, pa skuldcr (evt.ogsa bug) afjjevnt rundet karside, FRJ IIIb/RJ/SEGJ,iscer /ERJ, (Mackeprang 1943), (Neumann1982).

Appendix B:

Fortegnelse over de sluttede gravfund, der ligger tilgrund for kombinationsdiagrammet fig.4.

Skovlyst, Folding sogn sb.nr.25, Malt herred, Ribeamt. NMI C 3224-27.

Dollerup, Skanderup sogn sb.nr.32, Anst herred, Ribeamt. NMI C 23861-923, MKH O.3412.

Store Darum, Darum sogn sb.nr.16 & 20, Carding her-red, Ribe amt. NMI C 20355-61.

Hillerup, Farup sogn sb.nr.ll, Ribe herred, Ribe amt.NMI C 26614-20.

V.Vedsted, Vester Vedsted sogn sb.nr.16, Ribe herred,Ribe amt. NMI C 15299-305.

Dover (a), Lintrup sogn sb.nr.3, Fras herred, Haderslevamt. HAM 18593-95.

Dover (b) Lintrup sogn sb.nr.3, Fras herred, Haderslevamt. HAM 18622-25.

Tornumskov, Lintrup sogn sb.nr.166, Fr0s herred, Ha-derslev amt. NMI C 18057-61.

Fssted Toft, Sdr.Hygum sogn sb.nr.101, Fras herred,Haderslev amt. NMI C 9015-17.

Mojb01, Lindet sogn sb.nr.23, Fras herred, Haders-lev amt. HAM 10321-26.

V.Lindet, Gram sogn sb.nr.2, Gram herred, Haderslevamt. HAM 4743-51.

Kastrup (a), Gram sogn sb.nr.47 & 48, Gram herred,Haderslev amt. HAM 5813-53.

Kastrup (a), Gram sogn sb.nr.47 & 48, Gram herred,Haderslev amt. HAM 5955-6008.

Enderupskov, Gram sogn sb.nr.107, Gram herred, Ha-derslev amt. HAM 10276-80.

Over Jerstal, Vedsted sogn sb.nr.22, Gram herred, Ha-derslev amt. KS 5891.

Marstrup, Hoptrup sogn (HAM sb.nr.289), Haderslevherred, Haderslev amt. NMI C 23937-40 &dnf.11/39.

Galsted, Agerskov sogn sb.nr.122, N0rre Rangstrupherred, Haderslev amt. HAM 6661-66.

Tislund, Tislund sogn sb.nr.40, N0rre Rangstrup her-red, Haderslev amt. HAM 7218-22.

Knud, Fjelstrup sogn sb.nr.98, S0nder Tyrstrupherred, Haderslev amt. HAM 6606-35.

Store Anslet, Fjelstrup sogn (HAM sb.nr.ll9), SenderTyrstrup herred, Haderslev amt. HAM

. 23828-32.Kolstrup, Stepping sogn, S0nder Tyrstrup herred, Ha-

derslev amt. HAM 10673-76 & 10680.Stepping, Stepping sogn, S0ndcr Tyrstrup herred, Ha-

derslev amt. HAM 5280-82.Astrup Banke, Brans sogn sb.nr.3 & 24, Hviding her-

red, T0nderamt. NMI C 24221-25.Hviding, Hviding sogn sb.nr.6, Hviding herred, Ten-

der amt. NMI C 22076-78.Vesterm011e, L0gumkloster sogn sb.nr.la, L0 herred,

T0nder amt. NMI C 20227-33.Ottersb01 I, Mjolden sogn sb.nr.3, L0 herred, T0nder

amt. NMI C 13816-21.Mjolden, Mjolden sogn sb.nr.15, L0 herred, T0nder

amt. NMI C 29474-78.Genner Mark, 0ster L0gum sogn sb.nr. 170, S0nder

Rangstrup herred, Abenra amt. KS 14150(HAM 3937-47).

Tomb0Igard, Ulkeb01 sogn sb.nr. 141 & 192, Als Sen-der herred, S0nderborg amt. MSS 2398-2425, NMI dnf.32/35.

Anvendte forkortelser:

ASR: Antikvarisk Samling, Ribe.HAM: Haderslev Museum.KS: Schloss Gottorf, Schleswig (tidligere: Kieler Sam-

lung).MKH: Museet pa Koldinghus.MSS: Museet pa S0nderborg Slot.NMI: Nationalmuseets l.afdeling, K0benhavn.

166

Summary:

The Ceramical Development in the Late Pre-Roman and Early Roman Iron Age in SouthernJutland.

The paper deals with the pottery chronology in theLate Pre-Roman Iron Age (Becker's per.IIIb) and theEarly Roman Iron Age (Eggers B), and suggests atwo-phased development; the first phase coveringper.IIIB/Bl and the second B2. The study is mainlybased on published material and uses thechronological definitions by C.J.Becker (1961) andU.L.Hansen (1987) (figs. 1-3).

So far only a few traits in the settlement pottery havebeen attributed chronological value on the transitionfrom per.IIIb to B. However, combining the work ofH.J.Hansen (1982) on Southern Jutland ceramics withthe pottery chronology established by P. Schmid(1965) on the base of the wharf stratigraphies ofNorthwestern Germany, further diagnostic traits maybe derived.

The chronologically most significant traits are, 1)strongly thickened, facetted rim, the rims being morethan twice as thick as the wall just below it (type 269),2) tall, sharply marked rims, slightly to medium

thickened and facetted, the rim being T/2-2 timesthicker than the wall just below it, and its widest pointbeing at its upper quarter (type 272), 3) a handleshaped like a tipped over H, sometimes, however,reduced to a purely ornametal H-shaped knob (type282).

The find combinations in the Southern Jutland gravessuggest that the rim type 269 is diagnostic forper.IIIb/Bl, while rims of type 272 and handles oftype 282 must be dated to B2 (figs. 4-5). A fewhandles on jars from per.IIIb/Bl might resemble type282, but only superficially, since they all in varioussignificant ways differ from the H-shaped handlesproper (fig. 7). Two further rim types (types 270-271)which by P. Schmid have been dated to "the 2ndCentury" may very well prove to be characteristic ofSouthern Jutland B2, but so far the material is tooslender to say anything definite (figs. 5-6).

Thus at least on some significant points the ceramicaldevelopment of Southern Jutland in the Late Pre-Roman and the Early Roman Iron Age seems tocorrespond with the one taking place at the wharfsettlements in Northwestern Germany.

Translated by J. Martens

167

ARK^OLOGISKE SKRIFTER

Published by " Selskabet Arkceologiske Studier"do Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, University of Copenhagen

Vol. 1. Strids0ksetid i Sydskandinavien. Beretning fra et symposium 28.-30. X. 1985 i Vejle,373 pp. 174 figs. Danish and Swedish (34 papers from a symposium on the Battle-Axe(Corded Ware) Culture in South Scandinavia). The references are collected into one,very comprehensive, reference list. 1986.Sold out.

Vol. 2. Archaeological Textiles. Report from the 2nd NESAT symposium. 1.-4. V. 1984. 272pp.114 figs. English and German. (21 papers from a symposium on Prehistoric andMedieval textile research in Northern Europe). 1988.Sold out.

Vol. 3. Simblegdrd-Trelleborg. Danske gravpladser fra f0rromersk jernalder til vikingetid.320 pp, 85fig. Danish with German summaries. (12 papers on Danish cemeteries fromthe Pre-Roman Iron Age to the Viking Period). 1989.Price DKK 90.-

Vol. 4. Arkceologi, Statistik og EDB. Forelczsninger fra efterdret 1989. 176 pp., 61 figs.Danish with English summaries. (7 papers from a course of lectures on Archaeology,Statistics, and Computers in the autumn of 1989). 1990.Price DKK 60.-

Vol. 5. Chronological Studies of Anglo-Saxon England, Lombard Italy and Vendel PeriodSweden. 122 pp., 23 figs., 2 plates. English (5 papers applying modern seriationmethods on various find complexes). 1992.Price DKK 100.-

Vol. 6. Sjcellands Jernalder. Beretning fra et symposium 24. IV. 1992 i K0benhavn. 248 pp.,119 figs. Danish and English (15 papers on the Iron Age of Zealand). 1992.Price DKK 80.-

All titles available throughDanish University PresslAkademisk EorlagN0rre Voldgade 90, P. O. Box 54DK-1002 Copenhagen K, DenmarkPhone(+45)33 11 98 26Fax (+45) 33 32 05 70

169

Chronological Problems of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe", Arkæologiske skrifter vol 7,...

Documents

Transcript of Chronological Problems of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe", Arkæologiske skrifter vol 7,...