The Chronology of the Late Roman Iron Age in northeastern Europe

Abstract

The chronology of the Late Roman Iron Age m northwestern Europe

In 1884, Ålborg Museum received a find which presumably came from an inhumation grave (1). The find consisted of a clay vessel (fig. 1) and 155 beads (fig. 4). The find also included a badly corroded sheet-bronze fibula ornamented with stamped triangles and arcs (fig. 1). A possible reconstruction of the fibula is shown in fig. 3.

Dating of the grave

The grave can be dated by the stamp-ornamented sheet fibula. It belongs to a group which U. Lund Hansen has dated to the last part of the Late Roman Iron Age -to the period of the Nydam fibula. This dating corresponds to U. Lund Hansen's C3 and E. Albrectsen's period III (5). According to the two scholars, this period can be paralleled with H. J. Eggers' C3 (5). The following article analyses the relationship between the Danish chronology and H. J. Eggers' chronology for the late Late Roman Iron Age (6).

1. J. Eggers' C3

The period system of H. J. Eggers is outlined in his publications from 1951 (7) and 1955 (8). His relative chronology is based upon key finds, by which he means find combinations which contain at least 3 chronologically valuable types. By means of the combinations in these finds, a chronology is established in which C3, is defined in the following two ways:

1) By the boundaries -C3 lies between the discontinuance of the Hemmoor buckets and the Untersiebenbrunn phase.

2) By the contents -the Nyrup grave.

1. J. Eggers encourages other scholars to test his results within local areas. An attempt will be made on the basis of the Danish region.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE ROMAN IRON AGE IN DENMARK

Fig. 6 outlines the relative chronology for the Danish region. It is based upon the occurrence of 24 artefact types (Appendix A) in 56 grave finds (Appendix B). The combination chart shows that there is continuity in the development if a broad group of artefacts is considered. However, if the chronological development of individual fibulas is studied, the fibulas fall into three groups. Thus, fig. 7 shows that the Nydam fibulas, together with three other fibula types, constitute one group which follows immediately after fibulas of Almgren gr. VII series 3 but which clearly can be distinguished from these in the chronological sequence. It also appears that the group of fibulas around the Nydam fibula is succeeded by the cross-shaped fibula.

Fig. 8 shows a break in the group of imported containers. This corresponds with the discontinuance of the Hemmoor buckets. It also appears that this break is earlier than the break around the appearance of the Nydam fibula.

An analysis of H. J. Eggers' C3 in the Danish material

As the cessation of the Hemmoor buckets coincides with a break in the imported containers, the borderline between H. J. Eggers' C2 and C3 can easily be determined. Thus discrepancies can be proven between H. J. Eggers' frames for C2 and some of the material which he categorizes here, as some of the types are placed too early. In fact, this misplacement even holds true for one of his key finds for C2 -Varpelev grave a (nr. 24)- which in fact ought to be placed after the close of the period.

Fig. 9 shows the chronological development in schematic form. From this, it appears that a horizon can be distinguished between the Hemmoor buckets and the period of the Nydam fibula. This horizon is called the Raa Mølle horizon after one of its most important finds (nr. 37). As E. Albrechtsen and U. Lund Hansen mark the commencement of respectively period III and C3 contemporaneous with the appearance of the Nydam fibula, it must be clear that their periods do not as assumed correspond to H. J. Eggers' period C3. However, H. J. Eggers' key find for C3 -the Nyrup grave (nr. 6) falls within the horizon of the Nydam fibula.

THE RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY IN NORTHWESTERN EUROPE

1. Schach-Dörges does not believe that the border between H. J. Eggers' C2 and C3 can be distinguished in the relative chronology for the Pritzier cemetery (22). The explanation for this is that none of the types which H. J. Eggers uses to define the transition are found at the cemetery. On fig. 10 I have therefore projected combinations between domestic types and Roman imports into the relative chronology of the cemetery. These combinations originate from the rich inhumation graves of the region (23). Thus a series of graves can be distinguished between the border of H.J. Eggers' C2 and C3 and the appearance of the Nydam fibula.

Fig. 12 shows the relative fibula chronologies of H. Schach-Dörges (22), E. Kellers (26) and H. W. Böhme (28) compared with the Danish chronology. The chart is set up in such a way that identical fibulas are connected with a line. Thus the three chronology systems can be synchronized directly on the basis of their content of common types. The result of this is the following:

1) That find types which in Mecklenburg were contemporaneous with respectively the Hemmoor buckets and the Raa Mølle horizon are related to respectively an early and a late part of E. Kellers' fibula chronology.

2) That fibula types which in Mecklenburg can be placed in the Raa Mølle horizon appear earlier in H. W. Böhme than the Nydam fibulas.

3) That a shield-fibula with a rectangular main plate such as the one which appears in the Raa Mølle grave can also in E. Kellers' relative chronology be placed in the Raa Mølle horizon.

THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

An attempt is made to coordinate E. Kellers' absolute chronology (32) for the Roman border region with the relative chronology in Denmark (fig. 12 and 13). Thus the discontinuance of the Hemmoor buckets can be dated to around 300 A.D. and the appearance of the Nydam fibula to about 350 A.D. It can hereby be maintained that the Raa Mølle horizon which could be determined in the relative chronology can also be proven by means of the absolute chronology.

The Untersiebenbrunn phase

It is not possible to determine the transition to the Untersiebenbrunn phase in the relative chronology system described here. However, it can be stated that the material does not seem to contradict the earlier dating of the commencement of the Untersiebenbrunn phase to about 375 A.D. (45-47).

SUMMARY OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL RESULTS

The chart in fig. 14 compares the relative chronology system of H. J. Eggers with a number of other systems which have previously been described. In addition there is the work of K. Godlowski. His C3 varies from region to region (51). In Scandinavia he uses the key find of C3, the Nyrup grave, as his basis, and maintains that C3 consists of the Haraldsted-Nyrup phase. It has been proven earlier that the Haraldsted-Nyrup phase corresponds to the Nydam-fibula horizon (fig. 6). In the Elb region, the Nydam fibulas are included in his period D, which is why his C3 in Scandinavia must correspond to D in the Elb region.

CONCLUSION

With regard to H. J. Eggers' period system, S. Thomas has questioned whether it is possible to establish a chronological system which holds true throughout Germania libera (52). This can be a difficult problem, but if, as in the present article, H. J. Eggers' chronology system is used, whereby imported wares are considered together with the local period systems, the system can be evaluated critically. In this way, H.J. Eggers' chronology system becomes an important tool in the synchronization of local period systems, which first and foremost should be a practical classification of the local find material (53). The Raa Mølle horizon cannot be said to be a practical classification of the Danish material. The justification of the phase lies in its clarification of the relationship between H. J. Eggers' C2, C3, and the Nydam-fibula horizon. Thus the Varpelev grave a, among other finds, can be shifted from the 3rd century to, at the earliest, the middle of the 4th century, that is, to a period in which it has been assumed that the role of southeastern Zealand had diminished.

In a European context, it must likewise be emphasized that the new datings which accompany the Raa Mølle horizon postulated are significant for important cultural and historical interpretations. Among other things, some of the graves from Leuna, Hassleben, and Sackrau can now be dated later than C2 (57). The question then is whether the wealth indicated by the cemeteries does not reflect stable trade relations rather than the dramatic events around the Limes, as has been assumed until now (55).

Stig Jensen