An analysis of pottery from late Roman Iron Age graves in Funen

Abstract

An analysis of pottery from latest Roman Iron Age graves in Funen

Research on Denmark's Roman Iron Age has mainly concentrated on objects of metal and glass and relegated pottery to a secondary importance. But as pottery comprises the largest group of material, a closer analysis must be considered important, in that it affords a broader basis on which to judge the period. The present article therefore attempts to separate and analyse the pottery of one period in a limited area. The area selected is Funen and the period late Roman Iron Age Period III -the so-called Nydam fibula horizon.

In Funen the cremation graves comprise about 90% of the total from the late Roman Iron Age. This means that most of the graves are only poorly furnished and that any burial gifts are badly damaged by fire. I have therefore, unlike E. Albrectsen, decided not to base a ceramic chronology mainly on the basis of cross-finds, but on seriation instead. The following working method has been followed. By means of vessel proportions, the vessels are classified into main groups and types. The relative pottery chronology is then established by seriating the vessel types on the basis of the percentage distribution of suitable ornamental elements. With the aid of cross-finds between the dating metal chronology and this ceramic chronology, Albrectsen's Period III is distinguished and evaluated.

The morphological classification of the pottery

In Fynske Jernaldergrave vol. III, E. Albrectsen has classified the Funen pottery from the late Roman Iron Age. As this classification is considered unsuitable in the present connection, a new classification has been made. The procedure followed and the definitions employed are given in appendix A. The type descriptions are given in fig. 1-24.

The relative pottery chronology

The relative pottery chronology has been constructed by means of mathematical seriation. Only bowls and vases/jars are seriated, since none of the other groups contains sufficient material to justify employment of this method. Fig. 25 presents the completed seriations in graphical form. They are based on 178 vessels. The column at the far left lists the various types and in the columns under the various decoration elements the percentage representation of the elements in each type is shown graphically. The graphical presentation fig. 25 has not determined the seriations, which have been made mathematically by means of a so-called matrix analysis. Only eight ornamental elements have been employed, namely 01 and 03-09. Fig. 26 shows by means of two examples how the values entered in the matrices have been obtained.

The matrices have been ordered, which is to say that the largest numbers are placed in the upper right-hand corner and the smallest along the diagonal. By observing this order, we ensure that types with great similarity lie near one another in time and vice versa, which is the whole idea behind seriation. As will be seen in fig. 30, the oldest and youngest ends of both sequences can be determined by means of cross-finds with fibulas. The result of the seriations is thus: Bowls, Type J 2, J 9, J 1, J 3, J 6, J 10, J 7, J 4, J 5 and J 8 with type J 2 as the oldest. Vases/Jars, Type EH 7, EH 3, EH 4, EH 6, EH 5 and EH 1, with type EH 7 as the oldest.

An evaluation of the seriations

The matrix analyses immediately reveal two things:

1) The matrices can be ordered, which suggests that there is reason in the seriations.

2) In both matrices fig. 27 and 28 the figures show a break in the ornament tradition. Among the bowls the break is seen around type J 10 and in vases/jars around type EH 4. In the latter the break is not so marked, however.

In the graphical presentation of the seriations, fig. 25, one can follow the development of the individual ornamental elements. In the bowls the obvious break in ornament development is seen to occur between types J 10 and J 7, whereas in vases/jars there is no break.

In fig. 29 the two sequences are compared, in order to parallelize the appearance of new ornamental elements. Further, types J 10 and EH 4 are opposed, since they both, in their own sequences, represent transitional forms in ornament tradition. The cross-finds between pots are also marked in fig. 29. As these cross-finds have not determined the ordering of the two ceramic sequences, it is apparent that they confirm the reasonableness of the seriations and the parallelization of the two sequences.

A separation of the Nydam fibula horizon in the pottery

In the following, where the intention is to separate and analyse the pottery from the Nydam fibula horizon, E. Albrectsen's chronological fibula frame will be employed, since it may be so clearly distinguished from the previous one (see note 20). The relation between Periods I and II has, however, not been investigated, so artefacts earlier than Period III are placed in Period I/II. Vessels dated later than Period II are placed in Period III, although the relation to Germanic lron Age is uncertain.

As diagnostic types for the period prior to Period III fibulas of Almgren's group VII, series 3, and fibulas of Albrectsen's type 31 -the so-called Sackrau brooches and imitations of these- are employed. As diagnostic types for Period III Nydam and Niemberger fibulas are employed. In fig. 30 cross-finds of pottery with dating fibulas are shown. It is apparent that pot types J 10 and EH 4 may be dated to period I/II, while the subsequent types may be dated to Period III. The result is thus: Period I/II: Types J 2, J 9, J 1, J 3, J 6, EH 7 and EH 3. Period III: Types J 7, J 4,J 5,J 8, EH 6, EH 5 and EH 1. Uncertain: Types J 10 and EH 4.

Diagnostic elements for Periods I/II and III

Since bowls and vases/jars are now dated it is possible to distinguish some diagnostic elements for Periods I/II and III. From the graphical presentation of the seriations in fig. 25 it is apparent that ornament like 07 and 08 may be employed diagnostically for Period III. If the definitions of bowl types in Appendix A are compared with their dating it will be apparent that bowls where the height of the upper half constitutes at least 60% of the lower part may be dated to Period I/II.

By employing the diagnostic types and elements, a large proportion of the 508 pots included in the investigation may be dated. 94 may be assigned to Period I/II and 201 to Period III. In fig. 31 the percentage ornament distribution of all decorated vessels is shown in tabular form.

Chronological evaluations

Fig. 30, where cross-finds between pot types and fibulas are projected onto the ceramic sequences, shows that the seriations support E. Albrectsen's fibula chronology, whereas 30% of the vessels which are here dated to Period I/II are placed by Albrectsen in Period III. This divergence must be due to the difference in working methods.

Are graves from the early Germanic Iron Age present in the material?

This question is difficult to answer in the absence of dating finds of metal. The starting point is therefore the large cemetery of Møllegaardsmarken. Albrectsen holds that there is an extension there in the course of Period III towards the north­east. It has therefore been investigated whether this extension is manifest in the material and if so whether it continues into the 5th Century. For this purpose two zones have been established in the Møllegaardsmarken cemetery (fig. 32), zone 1 comprising the central part, and zone 2 the aforementioned north-western part.

From the table fig. 33 it is apparent that there is a difference in the furnishing of Period III urn graves between the two zones, and that the Period III graves from zone 1 have greater affinity with Period I/II than in zone 2. It therefore seems likely that there was a north-westerly extension of the cementery in the course of Period III. But it is only two of the late graves in zone 2 which can be dated by means of fibulas: one to Period III and one to early Germanic Iron Age. However, as there appears to be a group of Period III graves in zone 1 which may be placed between the end of Period I/II and the main part of the Period III graves in zone 2, it is probable that the use of the Møllegaardsmarken cemetery continues into the early Germanic Iron Age. But nothing certain can be said.

Population density in Funen in the late Roman Iron Age

In Fynske Jernaldergrave vol. IV, Albrectsen demonstrates a marked increase in the population of Funen in Period III - especially at Møllegaardsmarken.

Fynske Jernaldergrave volumes III-V deal with a total of 1644 dated graves from the late Roman Iron Age. 878 of these Albrectsen dates to Period I or II, and 766 to Period III. Considering the fact that Period I and II together are more than twice as long as Period III, the number of graves from Period III is unusually great. If the results presented here are followed and 30% of Albrectsen's Period III graves transferred to Period I/II the number of graves becomes 1108 and 536 respectively -slightly more than double as many from Period I/II as from III. The evidence on which E. Albrectsen bases his theory of a growth in population is thus invalidated.

North Germany

If the ceramic development at the Preetz cemetery in eastern Holstein is compared with the development in Funen, great similarities emerge. From the scheme in note 42 it is apparent that the ornament development at the transition to the Nydam fibula horizon at the Preetz cemetery is practically identical to the one in Funen (cf. fig. 31). The finds from the period from the rest of Schleswig-Holstein also strongly resemble the Funen pottery. Two bowls from Holstein (44), both found with a cruciform brooch, show that both the bowl types and the decoration elements, which have here been separated as diagnostic types for Period III, can in Germany be shown to continue into the early Germanic Iron Age.

England

At the urn cemetery of Caistor-by-Norwich, which is Anglo-Saxon, J. N. L. Myres believes that he can demonstrate pottery dated as early as 300-350 A.D. Fig. 34 shows one of the vessels which he places among the earliest from the cemetery. He regards it as a purely Continental form with parallels in Schleswig, eastern Holstein and Funen. From the previous section it is apparent that the pottery develops along identical lines in these areas, where a bowl like that in fig. 34 must be dated to the period before the Nydam fibula horizon. Myres' placement of the earliest Anglo-Saxon graves from Caistor-by-Norwich in the time around 300-350 A.D. therefore seems reasonable.

1. N. L. Myres has associated the sudden cessation which E. Albrectsen has shown to affect the Funen cemeteries at the end of Period III with the emigration to England. It should therefore be stressed that the results of the present investigation imply that the use of the known Funen cemeteries declined gradually and did not cease suddenly. It should also be remarked that the reason that J. N. L. Myres can adduce so many parallels between the early pottery in England and the Funen pottery may be that the graves in Funen have all been published. If the south Jutland area had been as energetically published as the Funen area, it would no doubt be possible to indicate more parallels there than at present.

Stig Jensen