[
This is the second installment of the piece I am writing for the Cambridge Archaeology of Late Antiquity. Part 1 is here. This segment is a rough and ready, but I hope useful, description of data.]
Settlements
Germania
Throughout this period, the
people of Germanic-speaking barbaricum
generally lived in longhouses.
[1] Many of these were divided into aisles by
internal posts, but single-aisled houses were known in some areas.
The distribution of different building
traditions makes little sense in terms of recorded political or ethnic
groupings and straddles the frontier.
Whether or not houses contained byres for cattle or horses (Wohnstahlhäuser) was an important
cultural feature with implications for world-views: were animals kept separate
from humans, or could beasts and people share a roof?
Subtle but interesting changes in the length
and organisation of longhouses must relate to shifts in ideas as well as to
socio-political and economic factors.
In
addition to long-houses there were – where internal byres were lacking –
separate stables, granaries and other ancillary buildings.
Granaries were usually raised on a platform
of stout posts, although ‘lean-to’ granaries are also known.
Byre-less houses appear alongside Wohnstallhäuser in some areas, in the
North Sea coastal areas especially in the fifth and sixth centuries.
Long barns are also known (identified by
pollen remains), frequently aligned differently from the long-houses.
The best-known ancillary
buildings are the semi-subterranean Grubenhäuser
(known in British archaeology as ‘SFBs’ – Sunken-Featured Buildings – and in
French as ‘fonds de cabane’).
[2] This was one of the first building-types to
be recognised archaeologically, as the soil ‘fill’ in the original sunken floor
was often discoloured, compared with surrounding areas, by the inclusion of
organic and other debris after abandonment, making these structures easier to
spot.
Various forms exist, with
different numbers and arrangements of post-holes.
The sunken space in some British examples may
have been floored over (hence the adjective ‘sunken-featured’, replacing
‘sunken-floored’ in the 1980s), although evidence suggests that this was not
always the case in mainland Europe.
It
was once thought that people lived in these huts and, although some, like
slaves, may have done so, this interpretation stemmed largely from the fact
that Grubenhäuser were recognised
earlier than associated halls.
Grubenhäuser had diverse purposes but many
have yielded evidence of weaving.
The
common ethnic interpretation of the Grubenhaus
as characteristically ‘Germanic’ makes increasingly little sense.
Similar sunken-featured buildings appeared in
third-century Gaul and are now known throughout the late antique West, though in
diverse forms.
[3] By c.650
they are found on the British east coast as far north as the Mounth (Scotland),
where there was no ‘Germanic’ settlement.
[4] Although very common in Germania, it is more helpful to think of SFBs as part of an
architectural ‘vocabulary’ (especially, within the Empire, where stone
buildings were falling into disrepair), with influences spreading across the
North Sea and other frontiers in all directions.
Given Rome’s cultural dominance, we should
think very carefully before denying any provincial Roman cultural input into
this supposedly ‘barbarian’ building-form.
In the north-western coastal
regions of Germany and the Netherlands the ‘terp’ (in the Netherlands), ‘Würt’
(in Germany) or ‘wierde’ (in Frisian) is a distinctive settlement type, formed
by the gradual accumulation of occupation layers, one on top of another.
Each major reorganisation involved raising
the surface, burying the previous levels of occupation.
Over time the site became something of an
island above the surrounding fields.
In
antiquity this raising was necessary to avoid flooding in coastal areas.
[5] In areas occupied by the Alamanni after the
Roman withdrawal from the Agri Decumates,
some former villa sites were
occupied, a well-documented example being Wurmlingen (D).
[6] Although the stone buildings were not
maintained as such, elements of the Roman settlement and its associated estates
remained important.
Otherwise Alamannic
settlement outside the Höhensiedlungen
(see below) is not especially well documented, though an excavated farmstead at
Sontheim (D) suggests that habitations were not radically dissimilar from those
in more fully explored areas.
[7]
The ratio of settlements housing
several families to individual farmsteads varies from place to place and time
to time and has been the subject of much archaeological debate.
Some settlements in Germania could be quite large, sheltering two or three hundred
people in the largest phases of Feddersen Wierde (D), Wijster (NL) and Vorbasse
(Dk) for example.
[8] The economies of some could be diverse or
specialised in different ways.
Wijster might
have grown on the basis of trade with the limes,
for example.
Nonetheless, although one
might hypothesise that social developments pointed the way towards
urbanisation, there were no real towns in Germanic-speaking barbaricum.
Various forms of higher-status
settlement were known.
Some sites, like
Feddersen Wierde, reveal the existence of farmstead complexes that are larger
than the others on the settlement.
These
have been dubbed Herrenhöfe (‘lordly
farms’).
[9] Sometimes such a higher-status farmstead may
be separated from the rest of the settlement.
The possible Herrenhof at Vorbasse
was slightly removed from the other farmsteads, for example.
High-status farmsteads are frequently
associated with traces of craft-working, especially metallurgy and
iron-working.
At Heeten (NL) the trend
reaches a sort of apogee in a small fortified site overlooking an
iron-production site, the production from which could be quite significant.
[10] In south-west Germany some hillforts,
generally known as Höhensiedlungen,
were occupied in the fourth century.
Their nature and function varied from one
example to another: some may have been refuges, others cult centres.
It is not impossible that some were forward
bases of the limes.
Some, however, were certainly the centres of
local leaders, and produce evidence of craft-production, including the
imitations of Roman official brooches mentioned above.
Whatever an individual site’s precise role,
the ability to levy manpower sufficient to raise fortifications and sometimes
level areas of these hilltops suggests considerable local authority.
Although several Höhensiedlungen were
abandoned in the middle of the fifth century, others, such as the famous Runder
Burg (D) continued in use nonetheless.
[11] Other fortified sites are the ring-forts of
Scandinavia, especially well-documented on the islands of Öland and Gotland (S),
the best-known of which may be Eketorp (Öland).
[12]
The largest ring-fort on Gotland, Torsburgen might, after fourth-century
rebuilding, have stood 7m high and have required 1000 men for defence.
[13]
These settlements did not remain
unchanged.
The fourth-century phases of
long-used sites represented the results of steady evolution since the early Roman
Iron Age but in some areas the fourth-century settlement pattern was quite
new.
One feature of the later Roman
period, for example, was a steady lengthening of the Wohnstallhäuser.
Nonetheless
there were key moments of change.
The
Frisian region experienced a decline in settlement in the later fourth century.
[14] Some areas experienced a significant crisis in
the very early fifth century.
In the
‘Saxon homelands’, for example, many sites were abandoned.
Others showed rather different
characteristics from their fourth-century precursors, with shorter longhouses,
a higher number of ancillary Grubenhäuser
and a more disordered-looking layout.
Loxstedt (D) has given its name to sites of this type.
[15] Where crisis was weathered, the subsequent settlements
looked broadly similar to those of the Late Roman Iron Age, although there were
differences in the nature and layout of longhouses.
At the very end of the period covered a new
form, with bowed long walls, began to appear, sometimes called the ‘Warendorf’
type.
[16] This eventually became common in numerous
areas bordering the North Sea, as a result of the trading and other connections
that bound these communities.
We should
think of similar features explaining earlier similarities in the same general
cultural zone, rather than reaching immediately for the concepts of ethnicity
and migration to explain them.
In Norway, around the start of
the Late Roman Iron Age, large houses for the sheltering of ships appeared.
These required significant manpower for their
construction and for the manning of the vessels.
By the Viking Age, they became quite widespread
in the Scandinavian world but in Late Antiquity they were apparently confined
to Norway.
Myhre suggested, from their
concentration and association with other signs of élite presence, that some are
signs of political organisation.
This
view has been debated and modified, although the linkage between larger
boathouses and socio-political development seems sound.
[17]
A range of trading settlements
existed around the North Sea and Blatic, beginning around the start of the Late
Roman Iron Age.
Throughout our period,
these generally seem little different from prestigious rural settlements apart
from a notable concentration of Roman imports and sometimes manufacture, too.
One of these is known at Dankirke on Jutland
(Dk) and the famous site of Helgö in the Mälar valley (S) originates in about
this period.
[18] More spectacular are the prestigious
settlements at Gudme, associated with a small port at Lundeborg, on Fyn (Dk),
and Uppåkra in Scania (S).
[19] The wider distribution of the imports that
reached Fyn through Lundeborg suggests that local elites used these sites to
control access to prestigious Roman products.
The ability to use much sought-after imports as gifts probably underpinned
rulership in the area, giving the leaders in this North Sea/Baltic area some
advantages over those in central Germania.
What happened when Roman trading contacts
dried up in the fifth century is interesting and instructive.
The evidence from Gudme seems to show an
increased emphasis on the site’s ritual role.
Around the end of our period the famous wics or emporia around the North
Sea – Quentovic, Dorestad, Hamwic, Ipswich, Lundenwic and so on – were coming
into existence, but these lie beyond the scope of this chapter.
[20]
Northern Britain
North of Hadrian’s Wall, much of
late antiquity conforms to what has been called a ‘gap’ in the region’s rural
settlement archaeology.
[21] The classic earlier Roman Iron Age ‘type
sites’, the ‘brochs’ – tall stone towers – and the souterrains – settlements
with semi-subterranean storage space – had died out by the third century.
Their successors are much less easy to define
and locate.
Some former brochs continued
to be occupied, however, with cellular structures cut into the ruins.
From the middle of the first millennium the so-called
Pitcarmick type of house, with a central soak-away, is known in Scotland.
Some higher-status fortified
sites existed in the Late Roman period, often larger than those founded
slightly later.
[22]
Examples include the fortified promontory at Burghead (Moray) and the hillfort
of Clatchard Craig (Perthshire).
Further
south, the Traprain Law hillfort was occupied in the later fourth century.
The principal moment of change, however, came
around 600, when new hillforts began to be used across northern Britain, in
areas of Scottish, British and Pictish political control.
Classic examples include Dunadd, Dumbarton
Rock and Dundurn (in Scottish, British and Pictish areas respectively), which
share several features.
They are
comparatively small, composed of several enclosures, and reveal evidence of
craft-production and elite presence, comprising, in the western regions
especially, pottery and other imports from France. Dunadd is associated with a
crannog (see below) at Lough Glashan, which has yielded evidence of leatherworking
and other craftsmanship probably associated with supplying the hillfort’s occupants.
[23] In western parts of northern Britain the dun, a small ring-fort, is known.
Some are sufficiently small to originally
have been roofed over.
These are known
since the Pre-Roman Iron Age but continued to be used through our period.
[24] The transformations of this period seem to
have brought longer-distance exchange contacts to the north and western shores
of the Irish Sea in greater density than hitherto, as the finds at Scottish
hillforts and high-status Irish sites like Lagore crannog make clear.
[25]
Ireland
Late Roman Iron Age settlement
archaeology in Ireland is exiguous.
The
principal issue is the emergence of the classic early medieval rural site, the
small enclosed farmstead, known as a rath
or a cashel.
[26] Rath
tends to be used for sites with an earthen bank and ditch, while cashel is employed to described
stone-walled sites (which usually lack a ditch).
These sites are difficult to date.
Attempts to push raths and cashels before the
‘early Christian’ period have generally been unconvincing.
Nonetheless, similar, if less clearly
demarcated, settlements possibly underlay the ring-forts.
The steady increase in carbon14
dates allows some provisional points.
[27] Some fourth- or fifth-century foundations existed
but the numbers increase significantly in the sixth, before a dramatic upsurge
in the seventh – a picture which confirms the suppositions of these sites’ earliest
investigators.
Most have only a single
bank and ditch, though some have more.
The earthworks’ defensive function is debatable.
Most banks would be unlikely to deter serious
attack and archaeological evidence shows that some fell into disrepair or
become overgrown, even during the site’s occupation.
The bank more likely served to delineate a farmstead,
while also protecting cattle and other property against robbers or
rustlers.
Nonetheless, larger sites apparently
had more serious defensive capabilities, with possible indications of
gateway-towers and complex entrance arrangements.
Some forts have the inner area built up,
either gradually through the burying of previous occupation layers (as with the
terps) or through deliberate raising
of the interior.
Such activity would
further enhance the site’s visibility.
Some sites, however, appear not to have been permanently occupied by
humans, probably serving instead as corrals.
A third, related form of
settlement is the crannog, a defended, wholly or partly man-made island within
a lake or water-course.
[28] Prehistoric Irish lakeside settlements are
known but the crannog-proper seems to appear in the late sixth and seventh
centuries.
Given the relative dates of
crannogs in the respective areas, whether the form was introduced from Britain has
been mooted.
This diffusionist
explanation is unnecessary but reminds us that cultural influences could spread
in both directions across the Irish Sea at a time of deepening contacts, not
just in the direction of historically-attested migration – a point equally applicable
to early Anglo-Saxon archaeology.
The
crannogs are built up from timbers or, in areas where woodland resources were
less good, from rocks, and ringed with a sometimes quite elaborate palisades.
The crannog was clearly constructed partly
for defence and the necessary labour implies control over considerable
manpower.
Indeed, the finds from crannog
sites have been more impressive than those from other ring-forts (although the
nature of the sites’ stratification may be partly responsible for this).
Seventh-century imported French pottery
(E-ware) and various forms of craft-working have been revealed, alongside
weapons and other items.
Lagore crannog
is referred to as a royal centre by written sources, confirming these sites’
high status.
Other forms of settlement are
hard to locate.
Some promontory forts were
occupied.
[29] A handful of unenclosed sites are also known,
the ephemeral nature of which further explains the difficulty of locating
earlier unfortified settlements.
If, as
is usually and reasonably supposed, the various forms of ring-fort can be
related to ‘comfortably-off’ farmers and higher social strata, similar points
might account for the invisibility of the dwellings of lower orders of late
antique/early medieval Irish society.
[30]
Domestic buildings within the
forts have been difficult to define and excavate, further explaining the
archaeological invisibility of Roman Iron Age settlements.
[31] Those which have been found appear to have
been roundhouses.
Rectangular buildings
have also been discovered but seem to be later than the period that concerns
us.
The same is probably true for the
souterrains, underground store-houses, refuges and passages (sometimes to
sally-ports in the defences) found on Irish sites.
The appearance of these types of
site, alongside a range of other evidence, suggests profound change taking
place in Ireland, coming to a head around 600.
The most important change might, of course, be the enclosure (or more
substantial enclosure) of farmsteads, making them considerably more visible archaeologically,
but this would still have considerable implications.
Economically, these changes are associated
with a much greater dependence upon dairy farming.
[32] This was apparently a long process but was
worked through around 600.
The change to
dairy-farming was intricately bound up with the changes in social relationships
that took place in Ireland in the Late Roman Iron Age and may have been more
important in that regard than in the purely economic sense.
Wealth, tribute and other legal payments were
measured in cows.
The need for pasture
and the creation of corrals led to all sorts of changes to the landscape.
Some of the ‘ring forts’ of the period may
have been corrals and the ability to gather and protect cattle from raiding, inside
a defensible work, was doubtless a major factor in the development of raths and cashels.
The best-known early
medieval Irish saga, the Táin bó Cúailnge
(The Cattle Raid of Cooley) deals
with a great cattle raid.
Its historical
setting, in the earlier Roman Iron Age, seemingly precedes the Irish political
obsession with cattle, a fact which may argue against the story being an
age-old, orally-transmitted tale from long before 600.
[33]
After the changes culminating
around 600, the Irish economy was complex, with much craft-specialisation
focused upon high-status sites, not only secular but monastic.
[34] The Church introduced a vitally important new
element into the Irish settlement pattern and economy.
New religious settlements lay at the heart of
complex social and economic relationships.
Ireland was now keyed into long-distance trading contacts to a much
greater degree.
Ireland does was not closely
bound into the Roman World during the Early Roman Iron Age.
Archaeologically-revealed imports are few and
scattered.
The Romans showed little
interest in the island, which seemingly was rather poor and underdeveloped economically.
Some change seems to have occurred in the
Late Roman era, when imports, if not dramatically more numerous, are apparently
more concentrated and possibly associated with high-status sites.
[35] However, that trading links with the Roman
Empire or the Mediterranean remained fairly sparse.
As manifested by fine table-wares imported
from the Mediterranean, whatever merchants from the Roman world sought in
exchange for their products was concentrated more on the eastern shore of the
Irish Sea.
That might of course have
been because the trade ‘piggy-backed’ on ships transporting supplies to
military garrisons.
Trade patterns changed
around 600, however, and French imports are found much more commonly on Irish
sites, further underlining Ireland’s greater incorporation into European
society at this time.
[36]
Burial
Germania
The normal burial rite throughout
Later Roman Iron Age Germania was cremation,
varying in detail between regions.
In
some regions the ashes were buried with neither urn nor accompanying goods,
leaving these areas blank on many distribution maps.
Large cremation cemeteries, used for
centuries, are known in the ‘Saxon Homelands’.
The remains were buried in decorated pots, sometimes accompanied by the charred
remnants of the costume in which the dead were cremated and sometimes with
unburnt grave-goods placed alongside the ashes.
Throughout the area, though, grave-goods were sparse.
In Germany inhumation became more common as
the later Roman Iron Age progressed, although, outside the lavish burial
clusters discussed below, rarely with grave-goods.
Inhumation’s appearance and spread further attests
to Roman culture’s increasing influence on barbarian society.
[37]
Change and, especially, crisis
nevertheless show up quite well in the funerary record.
Well-furnished burials, especially
inhumations, stand out against the general background of nondescript
cremation.
Third-century socio-political
stress is visible in clusters of lavishly-furnished inhumations.
At the end of that century in the Elbe-Saale
region (D), the Haßleben-Leuna group appeared, in which the display of material
revolved around imported Roman silverware.
Rich burials, also employing Roman imports, are known slightly earlier
in the North Sea Coast area; others have been found, further north, in
Mecklenburg.
The Zakrzów (Sakrau:
Poland) group of lavishly-furnished burials dates to the end of the third century
and is found in the Przeworsk Culture sometimes associated with the Vandals.
[38] These manifestations of wealth were made to
an audience of – presumably – mostly local people present at the burial itself,
and strove to smooth over tension in local politics following the death of a
member of a prominent local family.
A
lavish display, probably associated with gift-giving, attempted to ensure that
the tension was eased and that family-members could accede to their forebears’
local position.
This reading of
furnished burials is important throughout this chapter.
Until about 550, Swedish and
Danish graves are, with notable exceptions, usually fairly nondescript.
Inhumation (as in Zealand) and cremation
(e.g. Donbaek, [Dk]) were practised, both without many grave-goods (see the site
at Hjemsted, Dk).
Weapon burials have
been estimated as comprising only about 1-2% of the total but are scarce
throughout Germanic-speaking barbaricum
at this time.
More lavish burials are
known near Esbjerg (Dk), for example, some being interred in old barrows.
Danish burials are frequently grouped into
family clusters.
Earlier within the
period, grouping by sex apparently took place, but later disappeared.
Small boats were sometimes used as coffins (e.g.
Praestestien, Dk).
Although few graves
are known from sixth-century Denmark, those that have been identified are
cremations.
[39]
Cremation (urned or un-urned) occurred
in roughly equal proportions with inhumation in western Norway but dominated in
eastern and central Norway.
As was
frequently the case in Germania,
inhumations were usually better furnished.
Burials were usually covered by mounds, earthen in the east, of stone
and earth in the west, often bigger than they had been in earlier periods.
Further regional variation is found in the
fact that burial often took place in large cemeteries in the east, whereas in
the west it occurred in smaller groups associated with individual farms.
The dead were placed in cists, with the
corpse and, presumably, personal belongings at one end, and other grave-goods
at the other.
Weapons are again rare
before about 400, but other grave-goods, including imports from the Roman
Empire and other areas, could occur in quite lavish quantities with males and
females.
[40] Above-ground stone funerary monuments, whether
single stones decorated with images and/or runic inscriptions or placed around
a grave or graves as ‘ship settings’, are common throughout Scandinavia.
Moving south again, within Germania Magna, furnished inhumation
really began to be common during the fifth and sixth centuries, although
cremation was practised throughout the period and beyond.
Along the North Sea Coast, clusters of
well-furnished inhumations within large cremations appeared around 400.
A lavish burial at Fallward (D) contained the
chair decorated with imperially-inspired ‘chip-carved’ motifs mentioned
earlier, as well as a ship and other goods.
[41] These burials should be seen as responses to
crisis, much like the lavish burials of the Roman Iron Age just mentioned.
That crisis deepened, however.
A large number of burial-grounds were
abandoned, although the extent has probably been overestimated.
Later fifth- and sixth-century, furnished
inhumation cemeteries are known from the region.
Similar to the type by then common throughout
northern Europe,
[42] they
are nevertheless less neatly arranged and follow less clear patterns of
development than those in Merovingian Gaul or the Rhineland.
Archaeologists have therefore hesitated to
refer to them as Reihengräberfelder
(row-grave-cemeteries) like the others.
As in the former provinces, these probably reveal local power structures
more open to competition than had hitherto been the case.
Close study shows that, as in other post-imperial
regions (though again with significant regional peculiarities), age and gender played
important parts in structuring the grave-goods custom.
Very lavish late fifth- and early
sixth-century burials are largely absent in this region, contrasting somewhat
with the period around 400.
Nonetheless,
the subjects of inhumations were clearly distinguished in death from the
majority of the (cremated) population, adding to the relative lack of
investment in lavish grave-goods to suggest that the Saxon élite was relatively
secure in its position.
It still had
to display its distinction in burial, but funerals were seemingly not the locus
for particularly fierce competition.
[43]
Further up the Elbe in, by now,
probably Thuringian regions, the decades around 400 also saw social
stress.
The ‘Niemberger Group’ of
furnished inhumations appeared in the last quarter of the fourth century
[44]
and, like the Haßleben-Leuna Group in the same region a century earlier, show
some families responding to social pressure by using a funerary ritual that more
obviously distinguished them from their neighbours.
This stress is visible in a contemporary decline
in the quality of local craftsmanship.
[45] Further significant change occurred in the
mid-fifth century.
Some well-furnished
burials are known, some under mounds and others accompanied by horse-burial.
The practice of skull-deformation, sometimes
– albeit questionably – associated with the Huns is attested.
[46] These developments, alongside the appearance
of new forms of material culture, might suggest another phase of competition
and stress, possibly associated with the emergence of a powerful Thuringian
kingship after the collapse of Hunnic hegemony.
Changes in burial similarly
manifest crisis in the Rhineland and in the Frankish and Alamannic homelands.
[47] Unlike
the North Sea regions or other areas further into Barbaricum, these crises apparently occurred slightly later in the
fifth century.
In Frankish areas,
furnished inhumation began to appear in the early fifth century.
After a relative hiatus in the mid-century,
more visible in male than female burials, lavishly-furnished inhumation re-emerged
from c.475 and, by c.525 it had become a common rite,
practised by whole communities, probably encompassing several settlements, sharing
large focal cemeteries.
The numbers and
types of grave-goods were governed by the deceased’s age and sex.
The most lavish burials were those of people
whose death would have caused stress within local community politics, requiring
smoothing over with elaborate funerary ritual.
These were often younger adult women – whether recently betrothed or
married or the mothers of young children – whose death would bring a marriage-alliance
into question and raise issues of inheritance where young children were
involved, and mature adult males – family-heads whose sons had not yet
established themselves, with a household, within local politics.
This was a period of ongoing
change in Alamannic territory, although a consistent picture is currently quite
difficult to establish.
Some important
developments took place c.400.
Changes
in burial-custom occurred and, as in Saxony, some cemeteries were
abandoned.
Many new sites, however, began
to be used.
At Lampertheim (D) the
cremation cemetery ceased to be used around 400 and an inhumation cemetery quickly
took its place.
As elsewhere, inhumation
increased in popularity from the mid-fifth century.
As yet quite small communal inhumations cemeteries
were founded, wherein grave-goods accompanied the dead.
There were, as before, some lavish graves but
these were rarer.
[48]
This implies social change.
A breakdown of secure local power from the
mid-fifth century may be suggested by the abandonment of many Höhensiedlungen
(see above).
[49]
By the mid-sixth century, Alamannic
cemeteries look rather like those known in Frankish territory, with entire
communities participating in the furnished inhumation rite.
Here, however, the ritual involves more
extreme displays than are found in the core of the area of Merovingian hegemony.
Alamannia is not the only area on the fringes
of Merovingian power where inhumations are very elaborately furnished.
Helmets, body-armour and whole horses
(sometimes more than one) accompany male burials, while women took particularly
lavish assemblages of jewellery with them to the grave.
The most elaborate burials (from around 500)
often took place in well-constructed chambers.
As in other regions, the form and numbers of grave-goods were closely
related to deceased’s age and gender.
[50] Families competed by burying their relatives
with appropriate assemblages of grave-goods, to the greatest possible
extent.
In what, by the early seventh
century, had come to be thought of as Bavaria, fifth-century instability is
once again revealed by the appearance of furnished inhumation cemeteries.
[51] Similar to those of northern Gaul, the
Rhineland and Alamannia, they were founded in the fifth century and had evolved
into large communal cemeteries by the early sixth.
It is noteworthy, however, that these
cemeteries are found overwhelmingly on what had formerly been the imperial side
of the frontier.
[52]
Important changes occurred
towards the end of the sixth century throughout Germanic-speaking barbaricum.
In Scandinavia they may have come slightly
earlier.
The largest Norwegian funerary mound,
at Raknehaugen, dates to 530-50.
Once believed
to have been a cenotaph, the mound has been shown to have covered a
poorly-furnished cremation.
This
importantly highlights the fact that ostentatious above-ground commemoration
need not tally with lavish investment in buried objects.
The two means of marking the dead could arise
from quite different social or ritual demands.
From the mid-sixth century and into the seventh, during the transition
to what is (oddly) known as the ‘Merovingian Period’, Norwegian burials changed
somewhat.
Mounds became smaller and
fewer graves are known in central regions.
In the seventh century, imported grave-goods became scarcer, but weapon
burial more common.
Cremation increased
in proportion to inhumation.
Seventh-century
high-status sites are known, most notably at Borre on the Oslofjord (Vestfold,
N), where, as at Raknehaugen, mounds cover poorly furnished cremations.
In terms of funerary display, a permanent,
above-ground mark on the landscape had become more important than a transient
display of grave-goods.
[53]
Swedish archaeology, from the
mid-sixth century onwards, is dominated by the lavish boat burials of Uppland,
especially those from Valsgärde and Vendel (the latter site giving its name to
the pre-Viking period in Swedish archaeology).
[54] The Vendel and Valsgärde boat burials were of
men but the opposite phenomenon was recorded at Tuna in Badelunda
(Västermanland, S) with its lavish female boat burials.
Near Valsgärde, at Fullerö, the burials in
the boats were cremations.
The Scandinavian
boat burial custom was thus quite diverse.
At Gamla Uppsala is another series of large barrows, long associated
with particular semi-legendary local kings (as was also the case at
Raknehaugen).
We should not take such
identifications too seriously, though the Uppsala barrows clearly demonstrated
considerable local power.
As with some contemporaneous
Norwegian mounds, the graves covered were poorly furnished.
Some mound burials of Norwegian type are
found in the west coast (e.g. in Bohuslän) and northern regions of Sweden.
The burials of the other members
of society were less extravagant.
The
Valsgärde boat burials were surrounded by cremations of women, with few
grave-goods other than the burnt remains of dress ornaments.
There were also some robbed cist
burials.
At Tuna in Badelunda, where the
boat burials were of women, the surrounding cremations were apparently of men.
Some cremations nevertheless contained
remnants of decorated metalwork whose quality equalled that interred in the
barrow graves.
Inhumation in coffins is
also recorded.
Most Swedish cemeteries
are quite small and located on the best arable and pastural land.
The Mälar valley boat burials were, however,
sited on the periphery of the settled area.
On the island of Gotland (S), there are no boat burials but from the
mid-sixth century onwards graves were unusually well-provided with
grave-goods.
75% of male burials
included weaponry, representing a significant change from the region’s earlier burial
customs.
[55]
Further south, especially on the
Rhineland and South-Western German fringes of the Frankish realm, change in
burial custom also included increasing use of above-ground mounds from
c.600.
Local elites apparently began to
separate themselves in death from the remainder of their communities.
Sometimes their graves lay on the edge of
larger cemeteries, as at Kirchheim am Ries (D), but elsewhere Separätfriedhöfe (separate cemeteries)
were established, at Niederstotzingen (D), for example.
Otherwise, as in Norway, burials became more
nondescript and grave-goods gradually diminished throughout the seventh
century.
In general, grave-goods
deposition, particularly in male burials, persisted longer in the north.
On the Rhine and in south-west Germany,
grave-goods had generally fallen out of significant use by c.675, whereas in northern Germany and the northern Netherlands they
continued into the eighth century and beyond.
Cremation also persisted in the latter areas.
In Alamannia and Bavaria, the decades around
600 and, especially, the seventh century saw the creation of churches, often
associated with well-furnished burials, as part of the same processes as produced
the construction of barrow burials.
[56]
Northern Britain
Much interesting work has
recently been done on northern British burial customs but the topic remains
difficult because of their generally undiagnostic character.
[57] From early in Late Antiquity, inhumation in
cists (stone lined trenches) increased in frequency.
Attested as early as the third century in the
Isles, it became more significant, especially during the fifth century, when
more communal – if still small – inhumation cemeteries are more visible.
Without grave-goods, chronology is vague and
frequently only established through Carbon14 dating.
Inhumation’s introduction has been attributed
to Christian influence but the bases for the assumption are weak.
More plausible, though not entirely
satisfactory, is the linkage of the rite’s growing popularity, as in parts of
Germany, to the influence of the Roman Empire.
It must be said, though, that elements of the rite can be interpreted as
continuations of earlier burial practices.
[58]
During late antiquity, especially
in the sixth and seventh centuries, further developments occurred which, in some
regards, parallel those in Germania.
Above-ground monuments – cairns and barrows
of various shapes – began to be employed.
The famous symbol stones were also introduced.
Their dating remains tendentious and as yet
none has been found in definite, primary association with a burial.
Nonetheless, that the earlier, ‘Phase I’ symbol
stones probably originated as grave-markers some time in the later sixth
century remains broadly uncontroversial.
The enigmatic symbols are much disputed.
No specific interpretation commands wide assent; most are controversial.
That said, the idea that they convey
information about names, individual or familial, seems plausible.
In western Scotland, the seventh century saw
the enclosure of burial sites, which might be associated with the church’s establishment
in this region.
[59]
Ireland
Late antique Irish burial is also
fairly nondescript.
Unfurnished
inhumation was popular, again producing the attendant problems of establishing
a chronology.
Early Iron Age burial in
Ireland was fairly varied but generally archaeologically ephemeral, possibly
including exposure and excarnation.
Cremation
was also common, though the remains may have been deliberately dispersed.
Later in the Iron Age, burial became more
archaeologically visible, under various forms of monument, and inhumation
became more common.
As elsewhere this
might represent Rome’s cultural influence.
The use of delineated areas for burial in Late Roman Iron Age Ireland
makes Christianity’s precise impact difficult to ascertain.
Certainly, churches and monasteries employed
bounded graveyards but earlier custom makes it difficult to maintain the
equation, common in Ireland and northern Britain, between cemeteries with
boundary banks and ditches and those without with Christian and unchristian
respectively.
[60]
Another similarity with northern
Britain is the use of above-ground stone markers.
In Ireland these are famously marked with
inscriptions in the ogham alphabet (and later in Latin too) generally
commemorating the deceased.
Doubtless originating
in some way as a result of Roman influence, they probably began in the fifth
century, although some are possibly earlier, and continued through the period.
[61]
Hoards and Bog finds
Our final category of
archaeological site is the votive or ritual deposit of material.
The most famous late antique representatives
of this class are doubtless the bog-deposits from Denmark and the far north of
Germany.
Nydam, Ejsbøl and Illerup (all
Dk) are justly celebrated for having provided some of the best evidence for
Iron Age society in the region and for the quality of their analysis.
[62] Ritual bog-deposition had a long history in
Denmark and elsewhere.
The famous lavish
finds of the late Roman Iron Age represent the matériel from defeated
armies.
These deposits are difficult to
explain.
Unlike grave-goods deposition,
where the creation or maintenance of individual families’ status was at stake,
it might be that the votive bog deposits represent more of a communal rite.
We should nonetheless not see this as in any
way egalitarian.
That the deposition was
organised is suggested by the finds themselves.
These rituals centred upon the destruction, the removal from
circulation, of what, under usual circumstances, became war-booty, whose distribution
was controlled by war-leaders.
[63] Here, they disposed of large quantities of potential
loot, one imagines in the form of a gift to the gods.
In so doing, they demonstrated their authority,
removed from circulation valuable items that other warriors might have used as
gifts, and enhanced the prestige and value of the remaining items, which they could bestow upon their followers.
There is no reason to suppose that all of the defeated army’s material was
thrown into the marsh.
Furthermore, mounted
men escape from a battle more easily, possibly leading to an
under-representation of horse-furniture.
These points should make us sceptical about attempts to deduce detailed
military organisation from the bog finds,
[64]
from the exact numbers of specific types of weapons and other forms of
equipment.
Be that as it may, that the
fourth-century bog-finds clearly illustrate the northern barbarian leaders’
ability to raise substantial armed forces and thus their political power and
authority is incontrovertible.
Later in
our period, the custom declined, which – when taken alongside other
archaeological evidence, suggests steadily increasing political authority in
Denmark.
Denmark’s precise physical
geography has enabled these finds to be carefully excavated, reconstructed and
analysed.
Elsewhere, analogous finds
take the form of ‘hoards’.
Some such
deposits might initially have taken a similar form to that of the bog-finds,
but subsequent drying out of ground or changes in watercourses have left them resembling
the simple burial of material.
Caution
is thus required in treating these kinds of deposit as necessarily
different.
One of the most famous is
hoards is that from Traprain Law (southern Scotland), largely composed of late
Roman silver and belonging to the decades around 400.
[65] The material’s origins are debated.
Loot from raiding has been suggested but it
may be more profitable to interpret the hoard as a diplomatic payment from
Roman authorities to a frontier leader, especially in the turbulent era of
Roman civil wars between 383 and 420, which involved several withdrawals of
troops from Britannia.
Indeed the distribution of later Roman finds in
northern Britain and Ireland suggests concentration on fewer sites, and
frequently in hoards.
The interpretation
of hoards varies between the ‘functional’ – the burial of wealth for later
retrieval – and the votive – gifts to the gods.
A single explanation is unlikely to work everywhere.
One might hazard an intermediate
interpretation, as suggested for the Danish bog-deposits, wherein wealth was ritually
taken out of circulation but in a very ‘practical’ way, to enhance the value,
as gifts or rewards, of what remained.
Part 3 is
here.
Notes (see Bibliography)
[1]
Waterbolk (1999); Mejdahl & Siemen (2000); Hamerow (2002), pp.12-38;
Brather (2009), pp.30-39; Dijkstra (2011), pp.191-222.
[2]
Hamerow (2002), pp.31-34; Tipper (2004)
[3]
van Ossel & Ouzoulias (2000).
[4]
Lowe (1999), pp.18-21.
[5]
Thasing (2013). For a recently-excavated example, see Bestemann et al. (1999).
[6]
Reuter (2003); 2005).
[8]
Wijster: Van Es (1967); Feddersen Wierde: Haarnagel (1979); Vorbasse: Hvass
(1983)
[9]
Memorial Colloquium Haarnagel (2010);
von Carnap-Bornheim (2015).
[10]
Verlind & Erdrich (1998).
[11]
For Höhensiedlungen see now Eger (2014)
öHHHHHH
[12]
Borg, Näsman & Wegraus (ed.) (1976); Näsman & Wegraus (ed.) (1979).
[13]
Myrhe (2003), p.75. Recently, Viberg et
al. (2014).
[15]
Hamerow (2002), p.94.
[16]
Hamerow (2002), pp.15-18.
[17]
Myrhe (1985); (1997); Stylegar & Grimm (2005); Wickler
& Nilsen (2012).
[18]
Dankirke: Hansen (1989); Jensen, S., (1991); Helgö: Fischer & Victor (2011)
[19]
Gudme/Lundeborg: Nielsen, Randsborg & Thrane (ed.) (1994); Stilborg (1997).
Uppåkra: (2003) Larsson & Hårdh (ed.) (2003).
[20]
Welch (2000) for a brief, useful survey.
[21]
For Scottish rural settlement see the recent overview in Foster (2014); Dunwell
& Ralston (2008), pp.133-40. Other recent overviews of Northern British
archaeology include Driscoll, Geddes & Hall (ed) (2011); Clarke, Blackwell
& Goldberg (2012).
[22]
Again, a convenient recent overview can be found in Foster (2014). Ralston
(2004); Driscoll (2011), pp.264-6.
[23]
Crone & Campbell (2005).
[24]
Harding (1997); Campbell (1999), pp.23-25.
[26]
On Irish ringforts, see, most recently, O’Sullivan et al. (2013), pp.50-53. Also Edwards (1996), pp.6-33; Stout
(1997);
[27]
Stout (1997), pp.22-31.
[28]
O’Sullivan et al. (2013), pp.58-62;
Edwards (1996), pp.35-41
[29]
O’Sullivan et al. (2013), pp.62-64.
[30]
Edwards (1996), pp.41-48.
[31]
O’Sullivan et al. (2013), pp.88-101.
[32]
O’Sullivan et al. (2013), pp.321-3.
[33]
Táin Bó Cuailnge (The Cattle-Raid of Cooley)
[34]
On the Irish economy see the excellent accounts in O’Sullivan et al. (2013), pp.101-12 (settlement
economy), 179-214 (farming), 215-46 (craftsmanship), & 247-81 (trade).
[35]
O’Sullivan et al. (2013), p.251. See
also Freeman (2001).
[36]
O’Sullivan et al. (2013), pp.255-66.
[37]
In English, Todd (1987) remains a useful descriptive summary of Roman Iron Age
archaeology but many of the interpretations are now dated. There is as yet no
detailed book-length overview in English to replace and update this. Todd
(1997) for a briefer version.
[38]
On these prestigious burials, see, in English, Todd (1987), pp. 46-47, 57,
71. Map: Todd (1987), p.40. Generally:
Becker (2009); Gebuhr (2009); Quast (2009); Abegg-Wigg & Lau (ed.) (2014);
Zakrzów/Sakrau: Quast (2014) Mecklenberg: Voss (2009).
[40]
Norwegian burials: Solberg (2009); (2015); Stylegar (2014)
[42]
Todd (1987), pp.88-89, and refs.
[43]
Capelle (1998), pp.33-50; Siegmund (2003)
[44]
Schmidt (1983), pp.515, 518.
[46]
Ibid., p. 544. Crubézy (1990) for
reservations about the Hunnic connection.
[47]
Böhme (1974); Theuws & Hiddink (1996), p.78.
[48]
Alamannic burial: Quast (1997) is a useful survey. Christlein (1991), pp.50-62.
[50]
Analysis of later Alamannic burials: Jørgensen, Alt & Vach (1997); Donié
(1999); Brather (2004); Obertová (2008); Hausmair (2015).
[52]
Menghin (1990), p.80, fig.65.
[53]
See above, n.88. Raknehaugen: Myhre (2003) p.87; Borre: Myhre (1992).
[54]
Lamm & Nordstrom (ed.) (1983). Klevnäs (2015).
[56]Kirchheim:
Neuffer-Müller (1983). Niederstotzingen: Paulsen (1967); end of lavish burial:
Stein (1967); an example of a founder burial under a church: Burnell (1998).
[57]
Maldonado (2013) is essential. Windlow (2011).
[58]
Dunbar & Maldonado (2012) for case study and discussion. See also Fraser (2009), pp. 36-37.
[59]
On barrows and cairns, in addition to Maldonado (2103), see Ashmore
(1978-80). On symbol stones see
Henderson & Henderson (2004); Gondek & Noble (2011).
[60]
O’Sullivan et al (2013), pp.283-317
[62]
For good recent studies of the phenomenon see Ilkjaer (2002); Jørgensen, Storgaard & Gebauer Thomsen
(ed.) (2003); Abegg-Wigg & Rau (ed.) (2008); Carnap-Bornheim (2014).
[63]
See Gregory of Tours Historiae 2.27
for a late fifth-century Frankish analogy.
[64]
E.g.von Carnap-Bornheim (2015).
[65]
Hunter & Painter (2013).
