Bucket-Shaped Pots: Style, chronology and regional diversity in Norway in the Late Roman and Migration Periods 9781407303024, 9781407333137

Citation preview

BAR S1816 2008

Bucket-Shaped Pots Style, chronology and regional diversity in Norway in the Late Roman and Migration Periods

ENGEVIK jr.

Asbjørn Engevik jr.

BUCKET-SHAPED POTS

B A R Engevik 1816 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 1816 2008

30/06/2008 15:07:54

Bucket-Shaped Pots Style, chronology and regional diversity in Norway in the Late Roman and Migration Periods

Asbjørn Engevik jr.

BAR International Series 1816 2008

ISBN 9781407303024 paperback ISBN 9781407333137 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303024 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Acknowledgements The present study has been carried out from 2001 to 2006 at the Department of Archaeology, at the University of Bergen, and has been financed by the Faculty of Arts. The study is based upon bucket-shaped pots from Norwegian grave finds. These finds are situated in the following archaeological museums: Kulturhistorisk museum, University of Oslo, Bergen Museum, University of Bergen, Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, University of Stavanger, Vitenskapsmuseet, NTNU, University of Trondheim and Tromsø Museum, University of Tromsø. I extend my sincere thanks to these institutions for their generous permission to access the material and for practical assistance. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Professor Bergljot Solberg at the Department of Archaeology, University of Bergen, who has encouraged and challenged me throughout my academic program. Her knowledge about Scandinavian and Continental Roman and Migration Period archaeological material has been essential for my approach. I do not exaggerate by claiming that without her guidance and support, this thesis would never have been realized. In particular, I am also grateful to my external supervisor Professor Hans Jørgen Aarstad at the Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Bergen, for his advice and help with the statistical treatment of the material, and to Dr. Christian-Emil Ore at the University of Oslo who has been important in the initial stages of the project and who has also been my ‘employer’ for many years. During the work with my thesis a number of people have been important. I would like to express my thanks to Chris Jennings for his patience and sympathy with my English, and to Dr. Randi Barndon, my office neighbour, for her comments and critiques in the final stages of the project and of course for all the interesting discussions, planning of common future research projects, small talk and cups of coffee. I would moreover like to thank Professor emeritus, Eldrid Straume, for interesting discussions concerning the contextual and chronological evaluation of various finds. Thanks also to Ellinor Moldeklev Hoff, Bergen Museum, who has produced the drawings of the pots decoration schemes, to Svein Skare and Hans Davanger at Bergen Museum, and Elisabeth Vogt at Kulturhistorisk museum, for their help with the photographs. I very much appreciated Christian Bakke at the Media & Communication Centre, University of Bergen, for being a very patient collaborator, in spite of the numerous illustrations included in this work, and also the staff at the University Library in Bergen for always being effective and service-minded. I would also like to thank all my colleagues and the administration at the Department of Archaeology. Special thanks to Professor Ingvild Øye (Head of department), Arne Mykkeltveit (office manger) and Marit Ullestad Nilsen (secretary). I thank Dr. Knut Andreas Bergsvik for discussions and exciting – and sometimes time consuming – projects. Also my fellow PhD students who have given me support, friendship, and useful advice. During my visits to the various museums I have received assistance and help from many persons. It seems to me that the individuals who administer the various museums, photographic collections, and corporate archives are a special breed of patient collaborators. I very much value the help and support of Sonja Innselset, Kari Kristoffersen, Liv Helga Dommasnes, Svein Ove Agdestein and Frode Fjelltveit at the Bergen Museum, Åsa Dahlin Hauken at the Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Heid Gjøstein Resi at the Kulturhistorisk museum, Oslo, Gitte Hoy Pedersen and Ole Bjørn Pedersen at the Vitenskapsmuseet, Trondheim, and Roger Jørgensen at the Tromsø Museum. And last but not least, thanks to my dear family for their patience, insight and inspiration. A special thanks to my beloved wife Inger and my children Johan Magnus, Anders and Sunniva. You have all made me realize – again and again – that there are more important things in life than pots and potsherds. 

Bergen, April 2008

To my father and in memory of my mother.

iii

iv

Contents Acknowledgements List of figures List of tables Chapter 1 Theme and aims of the study Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bucket-shaped pots and chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production centers and individual potters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufacture and distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regions and regional identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic and political centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The study region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3

Chapter 2 Discussions of style, technology and communication 7 Style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Decorative style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Technological style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Style as communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Style and identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 3 Previous investigations of bucket-shaped pots The earliest investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haakon Schetelig’s ”Spandformede Lerkar fra Folkevandringstiden” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Johs. Bøe’s “Jernalderens keramikk”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investigations of bucket-shaped pots from North-Norway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bucket-shaped pots in house grounds and boat houses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typology and chronology in the post-war period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production and mending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and the individual. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 18

Chapter 4 Overview of the chronology for the Late Roman and Migration periods Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronological phasing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artefact types and style in the definition of phases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronology in the present work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 19 19 20 23 24

Chapter 5



Classification Classification and typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous classifications of bucket-shaped pots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The present classification of bucket shaped pots – premises and procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shape groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method/technique of decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration design structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Form and decoration relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computation of the material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 27 28 30 31 31 31 32 33 33 34

Chapter 6 Material analysis Introducion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronological evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 0 – undecorated pots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 1 – finger decorated pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 2 – nail decorated pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 3 – finger/nail decorated pots with comb lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 4 – finger/nail decorated pots with moulded knobs all over surface.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 5 – finger/nail decorated pots with horizontally and/or vertically moulded knobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 6 – horizontally decorated pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 7 – horizontally/vertically decorated pots with open vertical areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 8 – horizontally/vertically decorated pots with decorated vertical areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 9 – imitation of basketry/wickerwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 10 – pots decorated with hanging arches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 11 – pots with interlace motifs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 12 – pots decorated with pipe/tube stamps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 13 – pots decorated with stamped decorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 14 – pots decorated with stamped beading or knotwork as the dominant decoration elements. . . . Decoration scheme 15 – pots decorated with hanging arches in combination with stamped decorations. . . . . . . . . . . . Decoration scheme 16 – stamp decoration in combination with interlace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 35 35 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 43 56 58 59 62 63 69 77 78

Chapter 7 Correlation analysis – decoration schemes – shapes –chronology Decoration schemes and chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Testing the material by correlation analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shape and chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 81 82 83 85

Chapter 8 Correlation of weapons and various types of dress accessories 87 Weapon groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 The Vøien weapon group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 The Mollestad weapon group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 The Kvamme weapon group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 The Tveito weapon group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 The Øvsthus weapon group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 The Vestly weapon group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The Snartemo weapon group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The Nerhus weapon group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Dress accessory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Bronze chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Clasps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Cruciform brooches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Revised seriation of the cruciform brooches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Type R 243. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Relief brooches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Equal-armed brooches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Correlation of weapon groups and dress accessories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 The Kvamme weapon group and dress accessory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 The Tveito weapon group and dress accessory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 The Øvsthus weapon group and dress accessory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 The Vestly weapon group and dress accessory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 The Snartemo weapon group and dress accessory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 The Nerhus weapon groups and dress accessory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Chapter 9 Manufacture of bucket-shaped pots 129 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 The process of manufacture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Acquiring the raw material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 vi

Preparing the clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaping the vessel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decorating the pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drying. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Firing of pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production sites/workshops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technological innovation or old tradition?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

130 130 133 134 134 134 136 136

Chapter 10 Standardized manufacture, workshops and individual potters 139 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Standardized manufacture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Intensification of production? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Workshops/production centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Decoration under the bottom – potters’ ‘signatures’?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Searching for production centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Period C3 into D1 (early). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Period D1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Period D2a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Period D2b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Individual potters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Distribution within a limited territory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Distant distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Chapter 11 Regions and regional identity 161 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 What is a region?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Notes on borders and spatial identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Notes on ethnicity and social identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Regional groups – premises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 The establishment of regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Territorial awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Symbolic emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Co-variation of archaeological traits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Bucket-shaped pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Equal-armed brooches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Clasps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Relief brooches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Burial custom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 ‘The Migration Period complex’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 The socio-political situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 East Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Southwest and West Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Central Norway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 North Norway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Regional diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 ‘Asbestos regions’ and ‘soapstone regions’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Regional groups in the ‘asbestos zone’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Regional groups in the ‘soapstone zone’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 ‘Cruciform brooches regions’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Boundaries and boundary crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Exchange. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Marriage alliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Historical continuity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Chapter 12 Summary and conclusions

187

vii

References Abbreviations

199

Appendix Appendix 1 – Bucket-shaped pots from grave contexts (sorted by museum number) Appendix 2 – Bucket-shaped pots from grave contexts (sorted by decoration schemes) Appendix 3 – Selected find combinations

viii

201 221 235

List of figures Fig. 1.1 The study region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Fig. 4.1 Chronological systems for the Roman Iron Age in Scandinavian and on the Continent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Fig. 4.2: Different chronological systems for the Migration Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Fig. 4.3: Find from Grålum, Tune, Østfold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Fig. 4.4: Handles vessels (R 361) represent three different series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Fig. 5.1: The different forms of bucket-shaped pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Fig. 5.2: The four type groups based upon decoration techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Fig. 5.3: Design structure and spatial division for bucket-shaped pots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Fig. 5.4: Decoration elements and design configurations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Fig. 5.5: The different decoration schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Fig. 6.1: Bucket-shaped pot B 12144/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Fig. 6.2: Decoration scheme 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Fig. 6.3: Bucket-shaped pot B 5399 d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Fig. 6.4: Decoration scheme 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Fig. 6.5: Bucket-shaped pot B 5638 c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Fig. 6.6: Decoration scheme 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Fig. 6.7: Bucket-shaped pot B 5280 d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Fig. 6.8: Decoration scheme 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Fig. 6.9: Bucket-shaped pot B 5499 f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Fig. 6.10: Bucket-shaped pot B 7079 u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Fig. 6.11: Decoration scheme 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Fig. 6.12: Bucket-shaped pot B 10303 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Fig. 6.13: Bucket-shaped pot B 366 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Fig. 6.14: Decoration scheme 6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Fig. 6.15: Bucket-shaped pot C 4935 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Fig. 6.16: Decoration scheme 6.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Fig. 6.17: Bucket-shaped pot B 4963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Fig. 6.18: Bucket-shaped pot C 38805 I mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Fig. 6.19: Decoration scheme 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Fig. 6.20: Bucket-shaped pot S 1026 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Fig. 6.21: Bucket-shaped pot C 4935 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Fig. 6.22: Bucket-shaped pot Å 1683 I c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Fig. 6.23: Decoration scheme 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Fig. 6.24: Bucket-shaped pot B 5639 c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Fig. 6.25: Decoration scheme 8.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Fig. 6.26: Bucket-shaped pot B 8540 c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Fig. 6.27: Bucket-shaped pot B 4842 l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Fig. 6.28: Decoration scheme 8.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Fig. 6.29: Bucket-shaped pot C 23240 k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Fig. 6.30: Bucket-shaped pot B 7171 b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Fig. 6.31: Decoration scheme 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Fig. 6.32: Bucket-shaped pot B 6409 p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Fig. 6.33: Bucket-shaped pot B 6656 I l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Fig. 6.34: Decoration scheme 8.5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Fig. 6.35: Bucket-shaped pot T 9840 t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Fig. 6.36: Bucket-shaped pot B 6109 III a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Fig. 6.37: Decoration scheme 8.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Fig. 6.38: Bucket-shaped pot B 3675 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Fig. 6.39: Bucket-shaped pot B 9176 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Fig. 6.40: Decoration scheme 8.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Fig. 6.41: Bucket-shaped pot T 10113 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Fig. 6.42: Decoration scheme 8.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Fig. 6.43: Bucket-shaped pot B 11431 II s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Fig. 6.44: Decoration scheme 8.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Fig. 6.45: Bucket-shaped pot B 4590 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Fig. 6.46: Bucket-shaped pot B 13955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Fig. 6.47: Decoration scheme 8.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Fig. 6.48: Decoration scheme 8.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Fig. 6.49: Decoration scheme 8.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Fig. 6.50: Bucket-shaped pot T 19628 I s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Fig. 6.51: Decoration scheme 9.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Fig. 6.52: Bucket-shaped pot B 14289/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Fig. 6.53: Decoration scheme 9.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Fig. 6.54: Bucket-shaped pot B 5994 k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 ix



Fig. 6.55: Bucket-shaped pot B 8552 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Fig. 6.56: Decoration scheme 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Fig. 6.57: Bucket-shaped pot B 2273 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Fig. 6.58: Decoration scheme 11.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Fig. 6.59: Bucket-shaped pot B 4176 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Fig. 6.60: Decoration scheme 11.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Fig. 6.61: Bucket-shaped pot B 6756 I m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Fig. 6.62: Bucket-shaped pot C 21407 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Fig. 6.63: Decoration scheme 11.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Fig. 6.64: Bucket-shaped pot B 9614 III z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Fig. 6.65: Decoration scheme 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Fig. 6.66: Bucket-shaped pot C 4160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Fig. 6.67: Bucket-shaped pot B 11475 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Fig. 6.68: Decoration scheme 13.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Fig. 6.69: Bucket-shaped pot B 5283 b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Fig. 6.70: Bucket-shaped pot C 29300 z and C 20300 ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Fig. 6.71: Decoration scheme 13.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Fig. 6.72: Bucket-shaped pot B 3731 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Fig. 6.73: Bucket-shaped pot Ts 1129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Fig. 6.74: Bucket-shaped pot B 11474 I n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Fig. 6.75: Bucket-shaped pot B 3543 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Fig. 6.76: Decoration scheme 13.2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Fig. 6.77: Decoration scheme 13.2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Fig. 6.78: Decoration scheme 14.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Fig. 6.79: Bucket-shaped pot B 6727 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Fig. 6.80: Bucket-shaped pot B 6727 II o and B 6227 III f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Fig. 6.81: Decoration scheme 14.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Fig. 6.82: Bucket-shaped pot B 9015 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Fig. 6.83: Bucket-shaped pot B 6090 I l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Fig. 6.84: Bucket-shaped pot B 6691 I t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Fig. 6.85: Bucket-shaped pot B 11694 II p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Fig. 6.86: Decoration scheme 14.2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Fig. 6.87: Bucket-shaped pot B 6658 n and B 6658 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Fig. 6.88: Bucket-shaped pot B 4506 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Fig. 6.89: Decoration scheme 14.2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Fig. 6.90: Bucket-shaped pot B 5769 g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Fig. 6.91: Decoration scheme 14.2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Fig. 6.92: Bucket-shaped pot S 2772 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Fig. 6.93: Decoration scheme 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Fig. 6.94: Bucket-shaped pot B 3410 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Fig. 6.95: Decoration scheme 16.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Fig. 6.96: Decoration scheme 16.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Fig. 6.97: Decoration scheme 16.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Fig. 6.98: Bucket-shaped pot S 8635 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Fig. 6.99: Bucket-shaped pot B 4857 f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Fig. 6.100: Bucket-shaped pot C 26001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Fig. 7.1: Decoration schemes and chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Fig. 7.2: Scatter plot of the variables decoration scheme and dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Fig: 7.3: Box plot summary of the relationship between dating and decoration schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Fig. 7.5: Box plot summary of the relationship between dating and shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Fig. 7.4: Scatter plot based on the shape of the pots and their dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Fig. 8.1: Grave find from Einang, Vestre Slidre, Oppland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Fig. 8.2: Sword and spear from Stee, Vestre Slidre Oppland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Fig. 8.3: Spear and javelin from Foss, Melhus, Sør-Trøndelag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Fig. 8.4: Sword fittings from Slinde, Sogndal, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Fig. 8.5: Nydam fibulas in the Mollestad group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Fig. 8.6: Fibula of type R 240 from Sætrang, Ringerike, Buskerud. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Fig. 8.7: Early cruciform brooch from Liteland, Sola, Rogaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Fig. 8.8: The find from Nordgården, Seljord, Telemark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Fig. 8.9: The find from Tveito, Tinn, Telemark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Fig. 8.10: Fibula from Kvamme, Balestrand, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Fig. 8.11: Style decorated objects in the Nordgården find . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Fig. 8.12: Mouth piece from Herre, Voss, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Fig. 8.13: Mouth piece from Øvre Veien, Ringerike, Buskerud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Fig. 8.14: Cruciform brooch from Øvre Veien, Ringerike, Buskerud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Fig. 8.15: Silver mountings decorated in the Søsdala style from Øvre Veien, Ringerike, Buskerud. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Fig. 8.16: Strap buckle from Øvre Veien, Ringerike, Buskerud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Fig. 8.17: Shield boss from Indre Bø, Stryn, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Fig. 8.18: Brooch from Indre Bø, Stryn, Sogn and Fjordane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Fig. 8.19: Mounting from Indre Bø, Stryn, Sogn and Fjordane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Fig. 8.20: Javelin and spear from Forsandmoen, Forsand, Rogaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Fig. 8.21: Brooches from the Tveito I weapon group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Fig. 8.22: Fibula from Forsandmoen, Forsand, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Fig. 8.23: Spear type Kragehul ”kurz” and javelin type Tveito ”kurz” from Hæve, Voss, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Fig. 8.24: Cruciform brooch from Øvre Vemestad, Lyngdal, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Fig. 8.25: Brooch and belt fittings in bronze from Hæve, Voss, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Fig. 8.26: Cruciform brooch from Modvo, Luster, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Fig. 8.27: Cruciform brooch type Mundheim from Åm, Vindafjord, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Fig. 8.28: Grave find from Øvsthus, Kvinnherad, Hordaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Fig. 8.29: Cruciform brooch from Øvsthus, Kvinnherad, Hordaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Fig. 8.30: Grave find from Vestly, Time Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Fig. 8.31: Clasp of Form B1 v/c from Vestly, Time Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Fig. 8.32: Silver strips decorated in Style I from Kvasshem, Hå, Rogaland and Vestly, Time Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Fig. 8.33: Weapon set from Snartemo, Hægebostad, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Fig. 8.34: Sword pommel of type Snartemo/Fairford decorated in Style I from Snartemo, Hægebostad, Vest-Agder. . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Fig. 8.35: Chape from Mæle, Osterøy, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Fig. 8.36: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Class B1 iv from Veiem, Grong, Nord-Trøndelag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Fig. 8.37: The find from Nerhus, Kvinnherad, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Fig. 8.38: Sword pommel of type Brighthampton/Ciply from Hodneland, Lindås, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Fig. 8.39: Grave find from Støle, Etne, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Fig. 8.40: Cruciform and equal-armed brooch from Nordre Byrkjeland, Kvam, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Fig. 8.41: The find from Indre Fosse, Lindås, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Fig. 8.42: Equal-armed fibula with triangular plates from Kvassheim, Hå, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Fig. 8.43: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Class A from Røysum, Leikanger, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Fig. 8.44: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Class B1 i from Ommundrød, Larvik, Vestfold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Fig. 8.45: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Class B1 ii from Døsen, Os, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Fig. 8.46: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Class Bi iii from Ommundrød, Larvik, Vestfold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Fig. 8.47: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Class B1 iv from Bolstad, Voss, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Fig. 8.48: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Class B1 v a/b from Evebø, Gloppen, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Fig. 8.49: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Form B3 from Holum, Leikanger, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Fig. 8.50: Clasps of Hines’ (1993) Form C from Ommundrød, Larvik, Vestfold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Fig. 8.51: Cruciform brooch type Åk and animitation of a Magnetius gold coin from Åk, Rauma, Møre and Romsdal . . . . . . . . . 106 Fig. 8.52: Cruciform brooch type Kvassheim from Kvassheim, Hå, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Fig. 8.53: Cruciform brooch type Tveitane-Hunn from Indre Fosse, Lindås, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Fig. 8.54: Cruciform brooch type Lunde from Veiberg, Norddal, Møre and Romsdal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Fig. 8.55: Cruciform brooch type Eine from Røysum, Leikanger, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Fig. 8.56: Cruciform brooch type Nygard from Emlheim, Ålesund, Møre and Romsdal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Fig. 8.57: Cruciform brooch type Røssøy from Røssøy, Steigen, Nordland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Fig. 8.58: Cruciform brooch type Gross-Siemss from Gjervik, Lindås, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Fig. 8.59: Cruciform brooch type Stoveland from Stoveland, Mandal, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Fig. 8.60: Cruciform brooch type Valandsmoen from Tveiten, Froland, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Fig. 8.61: Cruciform brooch type Søndre-Gammelsrød from Lygra, Lindås, Hordaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Fig. 8.62: Cruciform brooch type Foldvik-Empingham from Falkum, Skien, Telemark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Fig. 8.63: Cruciform brooch type Mundheim from Edland, Gjesdal, Rogaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Fig. 8.64: Cruciform brooch type Ådland from Lunde, Farsund, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Fig. 8.65: Cruciform brooch type Lima from Holmen, Bjerkreim, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Fig. 8.66: Cruciform brooch type Nøding from Valandsmoen, Mandal, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Fig. 8.67: Cruciform brooch type Byrkje from Byrkje, Hjelmeland, Rogaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Fig. 8.68: Cruciform brooch type Varhaug from Hol, Indreøy, Nord-Trøndelag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Fig. 8.69: Cruciform brooch type Sagland from Tegle, Time, Rogaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Fig. 8.70: Cruciform brooch type Skjervum from Njøs, Leikanger, Sogn and Fjordane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Fig. 8.71: Cruciform brooch type Skaim from Skaim, Aurland, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Fig. 8.72: Cruciform brooch type Draugsvoll from Nordre Birkeland, Kvam, Hordaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Fig. 8.73: Cruciform brooch type Mo from Mo, Førde, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Fig. 8.74: Cruciform brooch type Skogøya from Ramberg, Bø, Nordland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Fig. 8.75: Cruciform brooch type Volstad from Sandtorg, Harstad, Troms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Fig. 8.76: Fibula type R 243 from Orre, Klepp, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Fig. 8.77: Relief brooch from Hol, Inderøy, Nord-Trøndelag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Fig. 8.78: Relief brooch from Indre Arna, Bergen, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Fig. 8.79: Equal-armed brooches of type II.3 from Kvåle, Sogndal, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Fig. 8.80: Decoration scheme 6.2 from Slinde, Sogndal, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Fig. 8.81: Decoration scheme 2 from Lille Granvin, Granvin, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Fig. 8.82: Decoration scheme 2 from Øvre Eiken, Hægebostad, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Fig. 8.83: Decoration scheme 6.2 from Gaalaas, Ringsaker, Hedmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Fig. 8.84: Grave find from Gaalaas, Ringsaker, Hedmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Fig. 8.85: Decoration scheme 6.2 from Føre, Bø, Nordland (Ts 5338). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Fig. 8.86: Equal-armed brooch with triangular plates from Føre, Bø, Nordland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Fig. 8.87: Fibula from Rossfjord, Lyngdal, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Fig. 8.88: Decoration scheme 8.1 from Øvre Mæle, Hjelmeland, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Fig. 8.89: Decoration scheme 8.1 from Kvassheim, Hå, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Fig. 8.90: The grave find find from Røysum, Leikanger, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Fig. 8.91: Decoration scheme 8.2 from Indre Bø, Stryn, Sogn and Fjordane and Øvre Graue, Voss, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 xi

Fig. 8.92: Strap buckle from Øvre Graue, Voss, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.93: Bucket-shaped pot from Røysland, Bjerkreim, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.94: Theodosius coin from Evebø, Gloppen, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.95: Decoration scheme 1 from Kvassheim, Hå, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.96: Decoration scheme 5 from Nordtaule, Radøy, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.97: Equal-armed brooch with triangular plates from Nordtaule, Radøy, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.98: Decoration scheme 5 from Åk, Rauma, Møre and Romsdal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.99: Fragments of a third (cruciform?) brooch in the find from Øvre Mæle, Hjelemland, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.100: Decoration scheme 8.5.2 from Lid, Voss, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.101: Decoration scheme 8.7 from Modvo (Sætre), Luster, Sogn and Fjordane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.102: Decoration scheme 8.5.2 from Kolsand, Bjarkøy, Troms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.103: Cruciform brooch type Skogøya from Kolsand, Bjarkøy, Troms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.104: Cruciform brooch type Mundheim from Bø, Hå, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.105: Decoration scheme 8.8 from Evebø, Gloppen, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.106: Decoration scheme 13.2 from Øvsthus, Kvinnherad, Hordaland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.107: Sword mounting on the sword from Evebø, Gloppen Sogn and Fjordane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.108: Profile-mask clasp (Hines Class B1 v) from Evebø, Gloppen, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.109: Decoration scheme 13.2 from Lunde, Farsund, Vest-Agder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.110: Cruciform brooch type Ådland and clasp button Hines’ Class B1 v/c from Lunde, Farsund, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.111: Decoration scheme 13.2 from Lunde, Farsund, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.112: Cruciform brooch type Byrkje and two cruciform brooches type Varhaug from Byrkje, Hjelmeland, Rogaland. . . . . . . . Fig. 8.113: Decoration scheme 13.2 from Døsen, Os, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.114: Cruciform brooch type Søndre Gammelsrødfrom Døsen, Os, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.115: Equal-armed brooches type II.1a from Øvre Moi, Kvinesdal, Vest-Agder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.116: Bucket-shaped pot decorated according to decoration scheme 11.2 from Mundheim, Kvam, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.117: Decoration scheme 16.3 from Vestly, Time, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.118: Decoration scheme 13.2 from Bjørnarheim, Gloppen, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.119: Decoration scheme 14.2 from Holum, leikanger, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.120: Plate silver rings with relief ornamentation from Holum, Leikanger, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.121: Cruciform brooch type Draugsvoll and equal-armed brooch type II.2 from Nordre Birkeland, Kvam, Hordaland. . . . . . . Fig. 8.122: Equal-armed brooches of type I.3 and II.2 from Skaim, Aurland, Sogn and Fjordane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.123: Decoration scheme 14.2.1 from Nordre Birkeland, Kvam, Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.124: Plate silver rings from Eikeland, Time, Rogaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 8.125: Revised chronological position for some of Bemmann & Hahne’s weapon groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 9.1: Bucket-shaped pot tempered with asbestos bucket-shaped pot tempered with crushed soapstone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 9.2: Map of Norway showing main areas with soapstone deposits and quarries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 9.3: Possible pottery kiln from Mo, Ørsta, Møre and Romsdal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 9.4: Foot trampling clay in Naubel, Tunisia and clay deposit from Augland, Kristiansand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 9.5: Drawn reconstruction of a vessel from Kalkillebukta, :167, fig. 265). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 9.6: Asbestos vessel from Røssvik, Giske, Møre and Romsdal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.1: Scatter plot of bucket-shaped pots based upon their height and diameter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.2: Height of the bucket-shaped pots in proportion to different shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.3: Diameter of the bucket-shaped pots according to the different shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.4: Suggested representation (peak of production) of bucket-shaped pots within the Migration Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.5: Layout of bucket-shaped pots with decorations on the bottom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.6: Geographic distribution for bucket-shaped pots with decorations under the bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.7: Distribution of horizontally decorated pots with hatched moulded ribs and plain comb lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.8: Distribution of horizontally decorated pots, decorated with plain comb lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.9: Distribution of horizontally/vertically decorated pots, decorated with comb lines and with open vertical areas . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.10: Distribution of horizontally/vertically decorated pots with irregular decorated vertical areas, decorated with comb lines and comb stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.11: Distribution of horizontally/vertically decorated pots with regulary divided vertical areas, decorated with comb lines and comb stamps. Upper horizontal area decorated with moulded knobs or nail impressions . . . . . . Fig. 10.12: Distribution of horizontally/vertically decorated pots with comb stamps as the only decorative element present in the horizontal/vertical areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.13: Distribution of horizontally/vertically decorated pots, decorated with imitation of basketry/wickerwork . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.14: Distribution of horizontally/vertically decorated pots, decorated with interlace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.15: Distribution of horizontally/vertically decorated pots, decorated with all over covering stamped beading and knotwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.16: The similarity between B 4590 and B 13955 is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.17: Examples of nearly ‘identical’ bucket-shaped pots, distributed within a limited territory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.18: The similarity between B 7414 e and B 12014 a is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.19: The similarity between B 3675 a and B 9176 a is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.20: The similarity between C 14044 and B 5114 a is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.21: The similarity between C 28026 II q and C 30088 a is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . Fig. 10.22: The similarity between B 351, B 8199 and B 8033 l is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . Fig. 10.23: The similarity between B 332 and B 4376 b is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.24: The similarity between B 5769 g and B 6611 f is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.25: The similarity between S 8512 and Ts 6341 a is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.26: Examples of nearly ’identical’ bucket-shaped pots distributed within larger territories (distant distribution). . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.27: The similarity between S 313 and T 488 is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

119 119 119 120 120 120 120 120 121 121 121 121 121 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 123 123 123 123 124 124 125 125 125 125 125 126 126 127 131 133 136 137 138 138 140 140 141 141 144 145 149 149 150 151 151 152 152 152 153 154 143 154 154 155 155 155 156 156 156 157 158

Fig. 10.28: The similarity between S 1477, B 2258, B 6109 IIIa, B 10155 and T 9840 is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.29: The similarity between B 4881 b, B 4923 II o and B 5587 f is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.30: The similarity between T 19096 g and C 9912 is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . Fig. 10.31: The similarity between B 3543 m and B 5733 f is so strong that they should be referred to the same potter. . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.1: Distribution of bucket-shaped pots in Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.2: Total distribution of cruciform brooches related to counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.3: Comparison of the distribution of bucket-shaped pots and cruciform brooches in the core area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.4: The distribution of bucket-shaped pots and cruciform brooches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.5: Economic-political centers in South-Norway in the Migration Period identified by B. Myhre (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.6: Inspection of the tempering material in Hordaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.7: Bucket-shaped pots with hatched comb lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.8: Bucket-shaped pots with regularly divided vertical areas decorated with comb lines and comb stamps and an upper horizontal area decorated with moulded knobs or nail impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.9: Bucket-shaped pots decorated with stamped beading and knotwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.10: Horizontal/vertical decorated bucket-shaped pots with comb stamps as the only decorative element in the horizontal/vertical areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.11: Bucket-shaped pots decorated with the cross of St. Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.12: Bucket-shaped pots decorated with interlace in combination with stamp decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.13: Bucket-shaped pots decorated with vvv-shaped stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.14: Cruciform brooches of type Tveitane-Hunn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.15: Cruciform brooches of type Lunde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.16: Cruciform brooches of type Lima. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.17: Cruciform brooches of type Søndre-Gammelsrød . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.18: Cruciform brooches of type Mundheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.19: Cruciform brooches of type Nygard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.20: Cruciform brooches of type Mo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.21: Cruciform brooches of type Draugsvoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.22: Cruciform brooches of type Røssøy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.23: Cruciform brooches of type Skogøya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.24: The territory of the Gulathing law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 11.25: Map showing the main Norwegian dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

158 159 159 159 165 166 167 167 169 170 176 176 177 177 178 178 179 179 180 180 181 181 182 182 183 183 184 184 185

List of tables Table 5.1: Terms used by Schetelig (1904a) and Bøe (1931a) in their treatment of bucket-shaped pottery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 7.1: Correlation of decoration scheme and dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 7.2: Partial correlation of the variables ‘shape group’ and ‘dating’, controlling for decoration schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 7.3: Correlation of shape groups and dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table 8.1: Combination of Class A clasps (R 271) and present decoration schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Table 8.2: Combinations of Form B1 i and decoration schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Table 8.3: Combinations of Form B1 ii and decoration schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Table 8.4: Combinations of form B1 v and decoration schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Table 8.5: Reichstein’s groups, types and chronology of cruciform brooches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Table 8.6: Reliable and datable finds containing brooches of type Mundheim and bucket-shaped pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Table 8.7: New suggested seriation of the cruciform brooches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Table 8.8: Combination of relief brooches and present decoration schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Table 8.9: Combinations of equal-armed brooches and bucket-shaped pots decoration schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Table 9.1: Composition of pottery substances in potsherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Table 9.2: Tempering of bucket-shaped pots based on visual observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Table 9.3: The heating temperature of bucket-shaped pots from Rogaland indicated by the mineral transformations . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Table 10.1: The average height and diameter of the bucket-shaped pots in proportion to different shapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Table 10.2: Proportion of ‘large pots’ in the different shape groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Table 10.3: Production of bucket-shaped pots within the Migration Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

xiii

xiv

Chapter 1 Theme and aims of the study Introduction For the archaeologist, ceramic vessels constitute an important source for the study of the manufacture of artefactual variability in everyday life. This is not only because pottery accounts for so much of the material wich is recovered; but also because pottery was present in most contexts in ancient societies.

The premise of this study is the consideration that a thorough and careful analysis of bucket-shaped pots will provide information about manufacture, specialization and workshops, and indentify regional groups and regional indentity in the Late Roman and Migration periods, aspects that so far have received little attention. It may also better clarify the chronology of some of the important artefact categories in Norway in this period.

More than one hundred years ago Haakon Schetelig (1904a) regarded bucket-shaped pots as one of the most important artefact categories from the latest part of the Roman period and throughout the Migration Period in Norway. In this he was followed by Johs. Bøe (1931a). Since 1931, no major study of this material has been undertaken, and the time seems almost overdue for a new investigation of the bucket-shaped pots and their information potential. The present study, therefore, will examine bucket-shaped pots from 986 Norwegian grave finds which include such pots. These graves include altogether 1179 bucket-shaped pots or fragments of pots.

By focusing upon the pots shape and decoration my intention has been to develop a consistent classification system that may be used for both well preserved pots and for fragments. The approach used in this analysis focuses particularly on the exterior designs of the bucket-shaped pots, since these designs also serve as a focus for stylistic analysis and classification. Potters work within design traditions, and archaeologists have devoted considerable attention towards the identification and analysis of the structures underlying these traditions (Friedrich 1970; Hardin 1983; Lathrap 1983). Design traditions can also be interpreted to encompass the rules and resources that are central to some conceptualization of structure. Resources include potters’ knowledge of how to execute designs, their relationships with other potters, their tools, and the corpus of vessels that they see and can use as models. The rules of design structure – including how the designs should be executed (van Keuren 1999) as well as what the final designs look like – are likely to reside at various levels of consciousness, including practical consciousness. As the potter builds a pot and executes the design, and especially when the finished vessel becomes part of the overall corpus, the pottery becomes part of the structure. The potter may reproduce the rules; or may introduce novel forms. And some manufacturers – perhaps those with special skills or status – may be more likely than others to introduce new forms that are accepted.

Bucket-shaped pots represent a ceramic category that is special to Norway. Other than in Norway, only a few pots have been recorded in Sweden (Stenberger 1964; Sandberg l971), and only a single find comes from Denmark (Kleppe 1993). The bucket-shaped pots differ from other types of pottery in most respects. The large majority are tempered with either crushed asbestos or soapstone. The pots have not been shaped by hand in the traditional way, but have been moulded upside down over a wooden block (Kleppe & Simonsen 1983). They are flat bottomed with straight or slightly concave sides, which usually are decorated. Sometimes the stamp, line and relief decorations cover only limited areas of the vessel’s belly, but in most cases the entire belly is decorated, except the area just below the rim which is usually reserved for the iron band/handle, which is often attached to the pots. Sometimes even the exterior of the base is decorated.

In a number of cases, analysts have argued for linkages between designs and social structure, e.g., the relative boundedness of art and society (Conkey 1982; Hodder 1984) and between symmetry and cultural identity (e.g. Washburn 1983, 1992, 1999).  The concept of ‘design structure’, however, in not identical to the concept of structure as developed in social theory.



Production centers and individual potters

The classification is therefore an important part of the study since the results of classification will represent means for:

In addition the study will focus upon the manufacture process and upon distribution mechanisms.

The classification will also represent a means to trace some of the social actors in the Migration Period. Identification of the craftsman’s individual style depends mainly on formal resemblance from one artefact to another. The basic idea is that one can employ individual style variability to discover which artefacts were made by specific individuals. Related typological characteristics may reflect the production of a single craft worker. Thus, the individual craftsman may be identified by stylistic attributes (Hardin 1977; Hill 1977). Some style attributes may be referable to individual potters or to workshops/production centers.

Bucket-shaped pots and chronology

Manufacture and distribution

(1) Chronological revision of some of the material from the Migration Period (2) Synchronization of material from men’s and women’s graves (3) Detection of standardized manufacture, production centers and individual potters (4) Identification of regional groups

Ethnographic studies have demonstrated that ceramics have a rather short ‘life’. Only rarely do ceramic pots last for more than c. ten years (Arnold 1985:151-154) and usually the use-expectancy for food processing pots is around one year (Merkyte 2005:89). Most likely, the bucket-shaped pots make no exception. Since the bucket-shaped pots probably represent the best material chronological marker in the later part of the Late Roman period and in the Migration Period (Slomann 1956:165) several researchers have called for a new and more extensive investigation of the ceramics (Lund Hansen 1970, 1988; Magnus 1975; Straume 1987:14; Ilkjær 1990).

The special ware of bucket-shaped pots invites one to examine the manufacture of these pots. With the exception of Kleppe & Simonsen (1983), little focus has been made upon the manufacture of bucket-shaped pots. In order to successfully produce a useable pottery vessels, potters must know about the properties of various clays and tempering material, the techniques of making a vessel and decorating it, and how to properly fire their vessels without destroying them. By focusing upon these questions the present study seeks to establish whether the pots represent standardized manufacture. The bucket-shaped pots found in graves may represent both local and more distant manufacture. How the actual distribution was performed is a matter of discussion. Ethnographic studies report a bewildering complexity of exchange relationships which often involve exchange networks, defined as a number of loci and the material that are being exchanges between them (Plog 1977:128129). The present study will consider whether the distribution of defined types of bucket-shaped pots may help clarify which exchange mechanisms that have been in operation.

To a large degree the present chronological framework for the Migration Period in Norway depends upon the development of the decorative style and upon brooch typology (Nissen Meyer 1935; Straume 1987; Kristoffersen 1999, 2000). In other words the chronology is mainly built on female grave inventory. In contrast, few male graves include brooches or other objects with animal style decoration, resulting in a situation where brooches (female graves) and weapons (male graves) actually ‘live separate lives’. Both grave categories, however, often include a common denominator, bucket-shaped pots, but in the chronological analyses of cruciform brooches (Reichstein 1975) and of weapons (Bemmann & Hahne 1994) this has not been taken into account. None of these studies have considered the ceramic material.

Regions and regional identity This leads to the question of regions and regional identity. Traditionally, Norwegian archaeologists have not been interested in these topics. In the present study, however, the question of regions and regional identity are considered to be vastly important. I have adopted the Finnish geographer Anssi Paasi’s definition of regions as

I will try to bridge the gap between male and female grave inventory by correlating weapon groups (cf. Bemmann & Hahne 1994) and finds with brooches (Nissen Meyer 1935; Reichstein 1975; Jenssen 1998; Kristoffersen 2000) by means of bucket-shaped pots typology. Possible synchronous positions of some weapon groups and of types/groups of cruciform brooches will also be tested by means of bucket-shaped pots typology.

“historically contingent structures whose institutionalization is based on their territorial, symbolic and institutional shaping” (Paasi 2002:137).



 Nissen Meyer’s (1935) study has defined various regional groups of relief brooches

‘Regional identity’ I regard as a theoretical, conceptual category that characterizes the multidimensional relationship between individuals, groups and society and is manifested in different forms in social practice.

However, whereas the gold objects and Roman imports in the grave finds may define economic-political power, they are unable to define regional differences or to trace regional identity. Detection of regional differences must be based upon the indigenous material, like the bucketshaped pots. I assume that stylistic differences result from conscious choices which may be related to the communicative role of style (see chapter two) and that the formation of conceptual (symbolic) shape contributes to the constitution of regions (Paasi 2002:137).

I think it is important to acknowledge that regions are socially and cultural constructs and those regions should primarily be understood as a set of cultural relations between a specific group of peoples and a particular place. In other words; it is a people-bound category, though not inevitably bound with individuals, but rather connected with social communities. According to Paasi (1986, 2002, 2004), interpretations of regions should start from individual and social practice – and from there aim to conceptualize the construction of the spatiality on this ground. Regions are spatial units that have been produced socially and culturally to become part of the territorial system, they exist for some time in social and cultural practices and disappear in the continual regional transformation. Regions are not, however, independent actors; they exist and ‘become’ in social practice and discourse. However, a region should not be regarded as a ‘passive’ medium in which social action takes place, neither should it be understood as an entity that operates ‘free’ and above human beings. Regions are part of this very action – they are social constructions that are created in political, economic, cultural and administrative practices and discourses.

In the evaluation of regions and regional groups I have chosen not to see the bucket-shaped pots in isolation, but to test the regional groups of bucket-shaped pots against groups of cruciform brooches and to compare both to the proposed economic-political centers (cf. Myhre 1987). Do ‘bucket-shaped pot regions’ correspond to ‘cruciform brooches regions’ and does either of them correspond to political-administrative centers and their territories? Were the regions stable or did they expand, contract or disappear?

The study region The study region corresponds to present day Norwegian territorial borders (Fig. 1.1). Norway is bounded on the north by the Barents Sea, on the northeast by Finland and Russia, on the east by Sweden, on the south by the Skagerrak Strait and the North Sea, and on the west by the Atlantic Ocean. The country covers an area of 323,877 square kilometers. Its coastline extends about 2,740 kilometers, but including all the fjords and offshore islands, the coastline totals about 21,200 kilometers. The passageway between the screen of offshore islands – known locally as the skerry guard – and the mainland is naturally protected. The country’s name, meaning ‘northern way’, reflects its importance in linking the many small fjord and valley communities that are otherwise separated by rugged mountains.

I regard the distribution of specific traits in artefacts (especially in bucket-shaped pots) to shed light on the impact of, and the relation between, specific actors on regional dynamics. It shows that ‘region-builders’ provide the region with a specific identity.

Economic and political centers Archaeologists generally agree that the territory – which later became Norway – in the Late Roman and Migration periods consisted of several economic and political territories/centers (Ringstad 1986; Myhre 1987). Bjørn Ringstad regards large burial mounds as indicators of chieftains and economic and political centers. Bjørn Myhre, who bases his analysis on grave finds that include items of gold and imported goods like glass and bronze vessels, assumes that the distribution of the best furnished graves, when compared with geographical and topographical data, may provide information about the location of political centers, their economic base and about the territories that they may have controlled (Myhre 1987:169). He finds that in the area ranging from Telemark to Møre, the distribution shows nine clusters with empty areas in between. The distribution of gold, bronze vessels and glass is assumed to represent areas of wealthy settlements close to the centers of the social and political leaders.

The mountain range, Langfjella, is one of the most defining features of the country. Starting just north of the southern Skagerak coast, the Langfjella Mountains go north, comprising large parts of the country. The mountains include Hardangervidda, Jotunheimen (with the highest point 2469 meters above sea level), Dovre and Trollheimen. From Dovre the mountain chain swings eastwards, and reaches to the border with Sweden. The mountains then follow the border in a north-easterly direction. This pan of the mountain chain is known as Kjølen, where the border with Sweden largely is defined by the watershed in the mountains. In the north, the Lyngen Alps and reaches into north-western Finnmark, gradually becoming lower from the Altafjord towards



 ��������������������������������������� Reichstein’s (1975) types of cruciform brooches ������������������������������� are the basis for the regional groups of brooches.

Figure 1.1: The study region.

Nordkapp (North Cape), where they finally end at the shores of the Barents Sea. The mountains have naturally divided the country into physical regions. Valleys radiate from the mountains in all directions.

of land suited for agriculture is far larger. Also at Lista in Vest-Agder, the district of Jæren in Rogaland and the district around the Trondheimsfjord, a large part of the land is suited for cultivation. In other parts the agricultural land is scattered around along the coast and fjords and in the valleys.

Due to the mountainous terrain, forest and lakes suited for cultivation – and habitation – are limited. In modern times only 3% of the land represents agricultural land. In some parts, however, e.g. around the Oslofjord and around the lakes Tyrifjorden and Mjøsa, the proportion 

In the present study, the bucket-shaped pots have been referred to individual farms, communities and counties since this is the way the material has been described in



the museums catalogues. However, modern political boundaries (e.g. counties) are not sufficiently meaningful in terms of the topography or the ancient settlement pattern as they cut across the topographical and ancient settlement pattern boundaries more often than they respect them. In order to avoid – as far as possible – the modern territorial divisions, distribution maps of bucketshaped pots will supplement the reference to counties, and the definition of regions will be based upon presence and absence of specific traits in the material culture.



Chapter 2 Discussions of style, technology and communication

In this chapter the theoretical frame for the thesis will be presented. Methodology will be presented in the relevant chapters.

suggested three dimensions of style: 1) form elements, motifs; 2) form relationships and 3) qualities. The formal qualities of style concern only the form or the visual qualities of the decorative style.

Style

In 1970 David Clarke regarded the position of decoration on beaker pottery as style and as largely non-functional traits. However, he stated that it is:

During the past few decades have many archaeologists begun to question and discuss explicitly what style is and how it should be understood. Various kinds of style have been defined and discussed (cf. Sackett 1973, 1977, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1990; Wiessner 1983, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1990) and it sometimes appears that archaeologists have as many approaches to style as we have works on the topic (Hegmon 1992:517).

“[…] precisely this non-functional kind of trait, or clusters of them, that are most valuable in archaeology for isolating human group traditions. They provide an indicator of common cultural tradition — which may be regional or chronological […] in this light the full importance of decorative motifs and arrangements can be understood” (Clarke 1970:6).

According to Wobst (1999), the style concept may embrace far more than mere decoration of pots. Manufacture, raw material and shape should also be included. This concept of style, separated from the ‘visible’ style, is referred to as technological style, technology, technological organization, or technological choice (Latour & Lemonnier 1994; Lechtman 1977:6; Lemonnier 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993; Nelson 1991). Thus, style may be regarded as both decorative style (the surface embellishment of an object) and technological style. In the present study the focus will be upon both decorative and technological style.

The idea that design – and design structure – may refer to or reflect rules to be identified has been adopted by several archaeologists (Arnold 1983; Friedrich 1979; Hardin 1983). Thus, the pottery decoration may serve as a code of information (see below). This perspective will be part of the present thesis.

Technological style Heather Lechtman’s (1977) concept of ‘technological style’ includes more than artefacts, but also the cultural conceptions that guide the selection of raw materials and the techniques used to transform them into finished products (Rice 1987:328). She defines technological style as the formal extrinsic manifestation of intrinsic pattern and sees style in the manifest expression, on the behavioural level, of cultural patterning that is usually neither cognitively known nor even knowable by members of a cultural community (Lechtman 1977:4). According to this view, material culture is the physical products of human behaviour patterns and it is precisely those behaviour patterns that constitute the style of technology. Technological behaviour is characterized by the many elements that make up technological activities – for example, by technical modes of operation, attitudes towards material, some specific organization of labour, ritual observances – elements which are unified nonrandomly in a complex of formal relationships. It is the

Decorative style Artistic expression is a human universal dating back to the origin of our species. In nearly all human societies, people devote a considerable amount of time and effort to decorating pottery and otherwise utilitarian objects (clothing, jewellery etc.). There are, no doubt, a variety of motivating factors behind the trend of decorating ceramic vessels. At a very basic level, people may decorate pottery simply for aesthetic reasons. Although this idea may go far towards explaining the phenomenon of pottery decoration, the observation that particular patterns of decoration can be associated with particular regions and periods of time strongly suggests that cultural context plays a central role in the creation of decorated pots. Our closest intellectual neighbour in the use of style for the analysis of cultural materials has been art history. In an article for anthropologists, Schapiro (1953:288) 

format or ‘package’ defined by these relationships that is stylistic in nature, and it is the style of such behaviour that is learned and transmitted through time (Lechtman 1977:5). To summarise, her work demonstrated that technology and style may be inextricably linked.

(or symbolic functionalist) approach, it is thought that styles in any category of artefacts have important functions in information exchange. Styles send messages of social, political, and economic group affiliations that are known and recognized by the person displaying the message and by the person intended to receive it (Wobst 1977; Wiessner 1984; Rice 1987).

Lemmonier’s (1986, 1992) work has expanded on the style of technology by highlighting the importance of studying the operational sequences, or chaîne opératoires of production. Lemmonier (1992) prescribes that we study the nature of raw materials, techniques that transform them into products, the physical movements (gestures involved in fashioning products), and the knowledge that this process requires. He argues that through an examination of the chaîne opératoires , we can more fully appreciate the articulation of society and technology and better understand the construction of style. In terms of pottery production, each step of the operational sequence, from the procuring of the raw materials through to the pottery firing techniques implies a decision that a potter must make. A pot’s style results from the unique combination of choices made at each step of the chaîne opératoires.

In 1977, when Martin Wobst proposed what has come to be known as the information-exchange theory of style, he argued that style functions in cultural systems as an avenue of communication, and defined style as “[…] that part of the formal variability in material culture that can be related to the participation of artefacts in processes of information exchange” (Wobst 1977:321). Since then the treatment of style has changed profoundly, and the discussion of information and/or communication has become almost ‘a must’ in research on style. According to Wobst (1977:327f ), style or stylistic behaviour has three major functions. One is to make social interactions more predictable by providing immediate visual information about the participants, thereby reducing stress. Items of clothing, headdresses, insignia, and objects carried or displayed all bear information about status or group affiliation that would otherwise be unknown or difficult to elicit. A second function is that, as societies become more complex over the long term, styles reinforce social differentiation by symbolizing group affiliation and enhancing ‘in-group’ solidarity. Thirdly and closely related to the second function, stylistic behaviour is important in signifying and maintaining the boundaries between groups by visual messages of ‘in-group’ solidarity. These stylistic functions are served most fully in three situations: firstly in relatively large social groups, secondly in interactions over some distance (physical or social) and thirdly when the artefacts bearing the stylistic messages have high visibility. Decorative styles are thus a kind of visual communication that reproduces the principles and relationships by which a community structures and organizes its perceptions of the cosmos and of social realities (Vandkilde 2000).

Accordingly, recent research has both increased the precision of our understanding of style and broadened our conception of style. No longer opposed to function, style is seen as having a function (Gosden 2005). Similarly, style is no longer conceived as separate from technology and production. Rather, a technology (that is, a way of doing something) can have style (Hodder 1990; Hegmon 1992, 1995, 1998; Conkey 2006).

Style as communication Those studying the meaning or content of styles, address the many ways art expresses deep-seated characteristics or beliefs of the society that produced it. In such an approach the content of styles – both visual images and spatial arrangements – is seen as a symbolic code reinforcing social and cosmological structures, beliefs, and values. Decorative styles are thus a kind of visual communication that reproduce the principles and relationships by which a community structures and organizes its perceptions of the cosmos and the social realities (Munn 1966; Rice 1987; Conkey 1990, 2006).

Sackett has directed his attention to understanding the key question:

Human nonverbal communication is interactive and subjective; that is, there must be a sharing of meaning between participants in a nonverbal event for there to be mutual understanding. Display rules and codes are embedded in the social contexts of action; the concept of appropriateness is derived from the underlying codes.

“where, in formal variability, does style reside?” (Sackett 1990:33). In his view, it is to be found wherever isochrestic actions exist and factors allied to ethnicity dictate the choices made among them (ibid.). This may be illustrated by how he interprets a richly decorated pot. The decoration constitutes what may be called adjunct form, that is, 

An approach to the content analysis of styles stresses the active role of communication within society as well as addressing that information. In this information theory

variation that is added on and supplemental to the utilitarian instrumental form involved in the pot’s manufacture and functioning. Decoration is particularly style-rich because it is largely free to vary outside of the mechanically contingent design constraints imposed by functional necessity upon instrumental form, and as a consequence has the potential to offer an extremely broad range of options to choose from. Nonetheless, the instrumental form that is built in, rather than added on, to the pot is also a great reservoir of style. The pot’s maker chooses from a considerable variety of isochrestic alternatives according to the manufacture and utilitarian end it was designed to serve. These alternatives are with respect to clays, tempers, shapes, thickness, and technique of construction and firing, some or possibly even all of which can be just as ethnically – and hence stylistically – significant as the decoration that may be applied to its surface (ibid). Accordingly, style and function are not distinct, self-contained, mutually exclusive realms of form in themselves, but instead complementary dimensions of aspects of variation that co-exist within the same form.

For style to be meaningful, it must be acknowledged by all members of the society. If the style is recognized by the society as bearing symbolic meaning, then the object is serving two functions, a ‘use’ function and a ‘symbolic’ function. In this vein, the culture’s symbolic system puts limits on the choices available to the producer. Because there is always an element of cultural choice in the selection of any technological style, choices between equivalents in mechanical function must be attributed to cultural and social factors (ibid.). If a population chooses one technology over another equivalent technology, we may then assume that the choices are laden with both social, economic, religious and ideological meanings. Accordingly, it is not possible to separate style from function either with vessel shape or projectile point morphology (Shanks and Tilley 1987:92). The debate has focused on whether style is unconsciously or consciously produced. One hypothesis advocates that crafts-persons unconsciously make specific and consistent choices based upon their culture (Close 1977, 1978, 1989; Sackett 1982, 1990). The attributes of style are manufactured unconsciously/passively, but may still actively serve to identify ethnic groups and boundaries. Another hypothesis proposes that style represents an active internal ethnic signalling or iconicism (Hodder 1977, 1982, 1990; Wiessner 1983, 1984; Wobst 1977). The craftsperson intentionally, i.e. consciously, adds stylistic elements separately from the utilitarian elements of the artefact to actively identify the owner of the object.

Sackett’s classification is based primarily on whether style plays an active or passive role in communication. Passively used style is not subject to frequent or intensive comparison and as a consequence the social boundaries reflected by it may not keep up with changing social relations. Conversely, if the role of an artefact switches from a passive to an active one – then changes in stylistic boundaries may take place with little corresponding social change. Polly Wiessner’s categories of emblemic and assertive style (Wiessner 1983) are based on different criteria, the most important of these being specificity of referent. All styles have social referents, some are very distinct, and others have much more vague associations (Wiessner 1990:108). Styles with distinct referents are those that she calls emblemic and those with more vague associations assertive. Styles without distinct referents which work through association are by no means the same as passive styles. They may be both active and effective means of communication giving powerful aesthetic impressions and stirring deep feelings through associations.

Because the message functions of styles are fulfilled to varying degrees on different types of material objects, it is important to consider how they apply to pottery and pottery styles. Although pottery may serve in the most mundane tasks, such as cooking and food storage it may also be used in culturally significant or emotionally charged situations, for example, religious ritual, mortuary activity, and a variety of ceremonies involving food. Its portability is an advantage in the transition from the familiar to the unfamiliar or the sacred to the profane context or in the situations of changing visibility. Thus, pottery may be employed in public or private context: it may be highly visible or it may be virtually unnoticed.

Lechtman claims that technologies are performances that constitute cultural messages and they are communicative systems. The styles are their symbols by which communication occurs (Lechtman & Steinberg 1979:13). Epstein argues that:

Also the present study regards style, decorative style as well as technological style, as part of communication and interaction. This has been particularly important in societies without literacy, as in Norway in the Late Roman and Migration periods.

“[…] if one views technology as a system that goes beyond the action of tools on material, to include the relationships and ideas that move and guide the technicians, it becomes clear that style can not be separated from function” (Epstein 1993:42-43). 

 ���������������������������� Although, runic writing was known, �������������������������������������� it is usually assumed that the knowledge of runes was restricted to a minority.

Style and identity

& Cooper 1984). Categorization is predicated upon the proposition that those who are categorized have a criterion of identification in common. Thus, community membership depends upon the symbolic construction and signification of a mask of similarity which all can wear as an umbrella of solidarity under which all can shelter (Jenkins 2004), and ‘community’ encompasses notions of similarity and difference, ‘us’ and ‘them’. Again, it is crucial to remember that in-groups are groups you can identify with, and out groups are ones that we identify ourselves against. Since part of our self-image is defined in terms of our group membership, there will be a preference for seeing the in-group in a positive light in relation to any out-group.

One matter that may have been in focus in communication is the identity of the person or the group which he/she belonged to. According to Richard Jenkins (2004), individual identity – embodied in selfhood – is not a meaningful proposition in isolation from the human world of other people. Selfhood is thoroughly socially constructed. Individual identity formation has its roots in our earliest processes of socialisation and identities which are established early in life – selfhood, humanness, gender and, under some circumstances, kinship and ethnicity – are primary identities, more robust and resilient to change in later life than other identities (Jenkins 2004:19).

The common collective identity is legitimized and celebrated through the use of symbols. They do not simply float in the minds of actors; they are manifested in the field of communication. Symbols remind individuals that they are all members of the same unique group and/ or region and the ‘product’ of the same collective identity. They provide people with the means to make meaning. Although the meaning that a group of people may attach to symbols may differ among individual members of that group, they still share similar symbols.

However, it is not enough to assert an identity. That identity must also be validated by those with whom we have dealings. Although people have some control over the signals about themselves which they send to others we are all at a disadvantage in that we cannot ensure either their ‘correct’ reception or interpretation. Hence the importance of what Erving Goffman (1969) called ‘impression management strategies’ in the construction of identity. These dramatise the interface between selfimage and public image. Impression management draws to our attention the performative aspects of identity and the fact that identification is a routine aspect of everyday life.

Whether we are talking about ‘symbols of community’ or ‘community as a symbol’, the power of the notions and images thus mobilised depends on the capacity of symbols to encompass and condense a range of meanings. In this sense then, symbols may be studied as to their public recognition of social relationships and collective meanings. Sociological studies of this form include the examination the role of symbols in creating and enforcing interactive boundaries (Goffman 1976; Sniderman & Tetlock 1986; Paul & Birzer 2004). Such symbolic displays are what Bourdieu (1989:19) terms the marking of ‘one’s place’ in the social order and the naming of a ‘sense of place for others.’ Here, the symbolic display of power identifies signs (verbal or otherwise) that

Style and specific objects may be examined as to the role they play in people’s definition of who they are, of who they have been, and who they wish to become (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton 1981). As Mihali Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton continues: “The things with which people interact are not simply tools of survival, or for making survival easier and more comfortable. Things embody goals, make skills manifest and shape the identities of their users. Through such works it becomes possible to see how interactions with objects result in identity formation. To interact with an object in a culturally appropriate way means to experience that object directly – becoming a medium of signs that constitutes [an identity or self]” (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton 1981:50-51).

“impose upon others a vision […] of social division [and] social authority” (ibid: 23). Identification is the production and reproduction during interaction of the intermingling, and inseparable, themes of human similarity and difference. This is clearly relevant for evaluation of ethnicity and ethnic groups and of groups that may conceptualize their identity within the context of geopolitical boundaries. In Fredrik Barth’s (1969) view, ethnic identification is built out of three basic elements: First, ethnic identities are folk classifications’,

Group identification presupposes that members will see themselves as minimally similar. Being a member of a group is defined as the subjective perception of the self as a member of a specific category (Abrams et al. 1990; Turner 1982, 1985; Turner et al. 1987; Wilder 1990). Indeed, it is the perception of group membership that guides all other conformity processes (Mackie

 ’Community’ is, ever since Durkheim, a powerful every day notion in terms of which people organize their lives and understand the places and settlement in which they live and the quality of their relationships. As such ‘community’ is among the most important sources of collective identification (Jenkins 2004:109).

10

ascriptions and self-ascriptions, held and understood by the participants in any given situation. They thus contribute to the organization of interaction. They are ‘psychologically real’. Secondly, Barth is interested in the processes that generate collective forms, rather than in the abstract structure. He is primarily concerned with what people do. Thirdly, as a consequence, rather than looking at the ‘content’ of ethnicity – cataloguing the history or ‘cultural’ characteristics of ethnic groups – the focus of investigation shifts outwards to the processes of ethnic boundary maintenance and group recruitment. This involves looking at inter-ethnic relations. By these tokens, shared common sense, common knowledge and behaviour are better understood as products of processes of boundary maintenance, rather than as defining characteristics of group organization. It follows that;

such variability at the micro-level can be related to the developments on the macro-scale, which may, in turn, be reflected by other commonly observed material patterns.

“The features that are taken into account are not the sum of ‘objective’ differences, but only those which the actors themselves regard as significant – some cultural features are used by the actors as signals and emblems of differences […]” (Barth 1969:14). In the embodied face-to-face world of every day life Barth argues (1969:28) that although ethnic ascription does not require access to assets (conceived in the widest possible way), the satisfactory performance of an ethnic identity does. It is not enough to claim an ethnic identity; one must be able satisfactorily to perform it, to actualize it. In emphasizing the importance of assets for successful performance, and exploring the circumstances under which ethnic identification are not validated. Barth is implicitly indicating the importance of power – in this case the power to define the situation successfully. During the construction of a region’s boundaries, certain cultural or regional symbols are established through which the people learn the distinctiveness and the uniqueness of their region. These symbols elevate certain features to distinguish the region from all others (Paasi 1991:245). According to Daniel Miller; “The variability of objects is significant as a major source of evidence for the study of society, the artefactual environment being one of the main products of social action. It is anticipated, therefore, that an understanding of the forces which create artefactual variability can also contribute towards an understanding of the social” (Miller 1985). Therefore, it is through the analysis of the stylistic variability in everyday artefacts that, in my opinion, an inquiry into the changing regional representation can be most successfully undertaken. Detection of 11

12

Chapter 3 Previous investigations of bucket-shaped pots

This presentation will concentrate upon works that have contributed to the knowledge of bucket-shaped pottery. Publications in which bucket-shaped pots are exclusively used for dating of other types of material will not be considered. Publications dealing with the chronology of Norwegian finds from the Late Roman and Migration Period will be presented in chapter four.

Nicolay Nicolaysen was the first Norwegian researcher to study the bucket-shaped pots (Nicolaysen 1860). In a small article, “Forsirede Stenpotter fra Hedendommen”, he analyzed the different find combinations of the pots. Unfortunately, neither the chronology nor the decoration of the pots was commented upon. As the title tells, Nicolaysen thought that the pots were made of stone. This is probably because of the special clay the pots were made of.

The earliest investigations

In 1876 Anders Lorange published a catalogue for the new exhibition at Bergens Museum (Lorange 1876). Here he briefly dated the bucket-shaped pots to

The first known descriptions and drawings of bucketshaped pottery or “Urtepotteformede Lerurner” were made by the numismatist Julius Benjamin Sorterup (Sorterup 1845:7) . In a comprehensive article, “Udsigt over Urner, Gravkar og jordfundne Kar fra Nordens Hedenhold”, he discussed a great number of prehistoric pots in the National Museum in Copenhagen. The main purposes were to systemize, make drawings of pots and to decide which prehistoric period they belonged to (ibid: 319). Among the 117 drawings of different pots, at least three bucket-shaped pots can be identified (ibid: 334, 341, figs. 74-76). The publication also has a drawing of another pot (ibid: fig. 15), which according to its shape and decoration, shows great similarity to other bucketshaped pots (e.g. T 1652 and B 4963). Unfortunately, Sorterup does not comment any further on the pots. Nevertheless, his observation that the stamp decoration is of the exact form and shape found on other types of metal objects from the same period is interesting.

“the third section of the Pagan Period” or the Early Iron Age (ibid: 75). During his work with the catalogue he got first hand knowledge of the data, and he was the first researcher to actually realize that the bucket-shaped pots were special in more than one respect and to describe the pots as “a special Norwegian type” (ibid). His comments regarding the shape, size and decorations, together with other features such as the iron cordon, clearly shows that he closely investigated the find circumstances (context) of the pots. His observations are, however, inaccurate regarding the use of bucket-shaped pots as cinerary urns. Ingvald Undset, in his publication “Fra Norges Ældre Jernalder” (Undset 1880), was the first to date the bucket-shaped pots more precisely. With reference to a find from Aak, Grytten, Møre and Romsdal county (C 5870-5885), where a bucket-shaped pot was found together with a type Nydam fibula and a swastika-shaped fibula, he placed the earliest pots to;

Although bucket-shaped pots have rarely been found outside Norway, the Swedish archaeologist Gustaf Holdo Stråle delivered one of the first descriptions of “foreign bucket-shaped pots” (Stråle 1873). A drawing of a bucket-shaped pot found in Bohuslän appears in his richly illustrated book: “Grafkärl funna i Svensk Jord. Et Bidrag til Keramikens Historia” (ibid: Pl. IX, 30). Stråle described the blending/tempering of this pot as “containing so much mica that the wall of the pot is sparkling” (ibid: 145). He was also well aware of this kind of pots in Norwegian grave finds.

“[…] sometime before the beginning of the Mid Iron Age” (ibid: 149). Undset also made a survey of all the known bucketshaped pots, altogether 139 pots at the time. His survey tells us that the number of bucket-shaped pots had doubled during the five years that had passed since Lorange published his exhibition catalogue. Like

 Bucket-shaped pottery was called ”Urtepotteformede Lerurner” until 1904 when Haakon Schetelig introduced the term “spannformede lerkar” (bucket-shaped pots) (Schetelig 1904a:42)

 ������������������������������������������������������������������������� The ware (clay) consists of very little clay and is mostly tempered with fibrous minerals like asbestos and soapstone.

13

Lorange, Undset commented upon the special type of clay (and its tempering), the special type of decoration and the fact that these pots are restricted to Norway.

Strangely enough, Schetelig in his works from the early 20th century (Schetelig 1906, 1910, 1912, 1917) hardly referred to his own work from 1904. His doctoral thesis, “The cruciform brooches of Norway” (Schetelig 1906), is a good example. Despite having questions regarding the typology and chronology of the cruciform brooches as one of his main objectives, Schetelig does not mention the bucket-shaped pots with a single word. Neither in the article, “Smaa Bronsespænder fra Folkevandringstiden” (Schetelig 1910), does he mention the bucket-shaped pots (or other types of vessels for that matter). The reason for this is probably that Schetelig wanted to make a typology of the brooches independent of other artefact categories.

Only five years later Oluf Rygh published “Norske Oldsager” (Rygh 1885). The number of bucket-shaped pots had now increased to at least 220 pots. His comments are largely restricted to the special type of clay and to the decoration of the pots. Chronology was not discussed except for a statement that the pots probably “[…] belong to the Mid Iron Age” (ibid: 18). Rygh’s publication brought to a close the earliest investigations of the bucket-shaped pots. The primary concerns of these publications were descriptions and accounts of the number of pots known. Some brief remarks on the chronology were also given, but questions concerning the origin, typology, production and geographical distribution had yet to be raised.

In his publication “Vestlandske Graver fra Jernalderen” (Schetelig 1912) Schetelig primarily emphasized the burial custom and not so much the typology and chronology of the material. This is probably also the reason why he was now referring to his works on the bucket-shaped pots and the cruciform brooches (ibid: 70). Schetelig’s last major contribution regarding grave finds from the Migration Period was the publication “Nye jernaldersfund paa Vestlandet” (Schetelig 1917), representing a supplement to his publication from 1912. The main emphasis was now upon weapons, their chronology and distribution. For almost three decades after 1904, no work concerning the bucket-shaped pots was published. But this does not mean that these pots no longer were of any interest. On the contrary. As a result of Schetelig’s emphasis on the chronology of the pots, his 1904 article is still relevant.

Haakon Schetelig’s ”Spandformede Lerkar fra Folkevandringstiden” Haakon Schetelig’s publication,”Spandformede lerkar fra folkevandringstiden” (Schetelig 1904a), represents the first full investigation of the bucket-shaped pots. His main conclusions are still valid in spite of this being one of his earliest works. The term “urtepotteformede Urner” (flowerpot-shaped pots) was now changed to “spannformede Lerkar” (bucket-shaped pots) which from then on became the standard term of this specific pottery group. Schetelig’s article is mainly based on the material of bucket-shaped pots in Bergens Museum (Schetelig 1912:70) which he regarded to be the most important material of its kind (Schetelig 1904a:42, note 1). This material included the then unpublished finds from the Kvassheim cemetery in Rogaland.

Johs. Bøe’s “Jernalderens keramikk” Johs. Bøe’s richly illustrated book, “Jernalderens keramikk” (Bøe 1931a), is still the main reference work on Norwegian ceramic ware. The bucket-shaped pots are treated in chapter 11 of this book. In the introduction of this chapter Bøe states that Schetelig’s work from 1904 is still valid in most respects. However, very soon it becomes clear that Bøe disagrees with Schetelig on several important issues, for instance which type of pots are the oldest. According to Bøe, the origin of the pots is to be found in Rogaland around 350 AD, especially in the famous area of pottery making in the northern parts of Jæren (ibid: 166). In his treatment of the earliest pots, Bøe split the material into two main groups, both being tempered with finely grounded sand (not asbestos, mica or soap-stone). In other words, the temper used in these pots is exactly the same as in pots of completely different character (e.g. handled vessels). Thus, only the shape separated the bucket-shaped pots from other ware. Quite rapidly, however, the clay came to be tempered with mica, soapstone and asbestos, something that has served as a defining element of the bucket-shaped pots.

Previous research had concentrated only on fractions of the total material, and questions such as chronology, typology and ornament/decoration, were not according to Schetelig treated satisfactorily, something he wished to amend. Schetelig obviously knew his material well. His division of the pots into different groups demonstrates his intuition and special knowledge of the material. His classification was based on a combination of shape, ware (type of clay and tempering material) and decoration. The dating was solely based on the different find combinations.  Schetelig, H. 1904a: Bucket-shaped pots from the Migration Period (my translation).  ������������������������������������������������������������������ Haakon Schetelig was 27 years old when his published his article..  ����������������������������������������������������������������������� In addition to the material situated in Bergens Museum, Schetelig also refers to bucket-shaped pots from the Kvassheim cemetery which in fact was not published at this time. Schetelig was, however, well informed of the results from these excavations through his personal friendship with Professor Gabriel Gustafson.

 Bøe, J. 1931a: Iron Age ceramics (my translation).

14

“[…]the chronology of the pots is founded on erroneous assumptions because they are based upon an untenable line of theoretical reasoning” (Sjøvold 1962:192).

Investigations of bucket-shaped pots from North-Norway Oscar Nicolaissen’s work “Urner fra Nord-Norges Graver” (ceramic pots from north-Norwegian graves) was the first publication to deal with pottery from the northern parts of Norway (Nicolaissen 1920). In spite of weak points, especially with regard to chronology, the publication is still of great value, not least because most of the finds originate from his own excavations. He observed that in this part of the country bucket-shaped pots occur more often in inhumation graves than in cremation graves. He also concluded that the distribution between maleand female graves seems to be rather even. Like Lorange (Lorange 1876), Nicolaissen claims that none of the bucket-shaped pots have been used as cinerary urns. When found in graves, the pots were usually placed by the head or the feet of the deceased (Nicolaissen 1920:6). Another important observation is that several pots have been mended with resin in antiquity. This way of repairing pots is uncommon in other parts of Norway. The pots were, according to Nicolaissen, used in the daily household, probably as cooking pots (ibid: 7). Nicolaissen also argued that the bucket-shaped pots in Tromsø Museum are of the exactly same kind as pots from the southern parts of Norway, since he recognized the same shaping and decorations of the pots as described by Schetelig.

In Sjøvold’s opinion the North-Norwegian find combinations are in accordance with chronological systems drawn up and based on the South-Norwegian and Scandinavian material (Sjøvold 1962:197, 215).

Bucket-shaped pots in house grounds and boat houses Jan Petersen was the first Norwegian archaeologist to publish comprehensive works on Iron Age farms. His observations concerning the bucket-shaped pots, presented in his reports of excavations from 23 farms in Rogaland (Petersen 1933, 1936), are still important. Petersen demonstrated that potsherds are found in settlement sites from the Late Roman Period and Migration Period, but not in sites from later periods. The sherds appear in all parts of the houses, indicating that people made little effort to get rid of them. Undecorated pots were the most common ceramic ware, but bucketshaped pots are represented in almost all the houses as well. The total amount of sherds is limited and usually represents 5-10 different pots. The most important observation is that the sherds from the settlement sites are of the same type and have the same decorations as pots found in graves (Petersen 1933:90).

Also Guttorm Gjessing was interested in the bucketshaped pots found in northern Norway (Gjessing 1938, 1941). In his treatment of the pots he strongly argued for the possibility of a ‘retardation’ of the North-Norwegian material, compared to the material from the rest of Norway (Gjessing 1938:11, 19, 1941:109).

In 1974, Rolfsen published a major work concerning three Early Iron Age boat-houses on the coast of Jæren, based upon excavations between 1964 and 1970 (Rolfsen 1974a). The most prominent group of finds is the pottery (over 6200 sherds). Over 40 % of the sherds are from bucket-shaped pots, many of them richly decorated. This is a much higher proportion than the 14,5 % found in excavations of long-houses in the same area (ibid: 89). Rolfsen suggested that the bucket-shaped pots represented important merchandise in the trade along the coast that was mainly conducted by boat. The boat-houses then served as store-houses for ceramic ware (ibid: 146).

Thorleif Sjøvold’s publication “The Iron Age Settlement of Artic Norway” (Sjøvold 1962) represents the last effort to deal with the complete material of bucketshaped pots from Northern Norway and has been of great significance for a more accurate dating of the northern pots. In addition to the 58 pots (53 bucketshaped), reported by Nicolaissen in 1920, Sjøvold listed 35 additional pots (Sjøvold 1962:191). However, many are too fragmented for any reliable classification. Among the pots classified, 53 – or 72 % of the total material of pottery vessels – consist of bucket-shaped pots. Sjøvold found no evidence of Gjessing’s suggested ‘retardation’ (Gjessing 1938, 1941) and assumed that the theory of retardation resulted from wrong methodology:

Typology and chronology in the postwar period In 1977 Bente Magnus launched a project concerning the production and distribution of bucket-shaped pots (Magnus 1981). The purpose was to establish a relative and absolute chronology for these pots and to draw some conclusions regarding the society in which they were produced. The project was financed by NAVF and was part of a program which emphasized the use of data processing in order to gain new results on archaeological

 ���������������������������������������������������������������� This may be the case in relation to the bucket-shaped pots from the ���� counties of Nordland and Troms. Sjøvold is however mentioning one possible exception (Ts 319-322) (Sjøvold 1962:104-105). In addition Holm Olsen has written an article concerning cremation graves for Northern Norway (Holm-Olsen 1990)

15

precise division of the Migration Period chronology.

material. In a short description of the project in 1981, Magnus claims that the best results were gained through seriation based on the different decoration schemes, and that this analysis made it possible to establish a relative chronology for the different types of bucket-shaped pots (ibid:15).

Origin In 1974 Perry Rolfsen focused upon the origin of the bucket-shaped pottery (Rolfsen 1974b). He rejected Bøe’s theory of origin. Rolfsen found it is more likely that these pots represent ‘imitations’ of even earlier produced bucket-shaped pots (tempered with soapstone and asbestos).

In an article from 1984 Magnus concentrated upon the interlace motif on bucket-shaped pots, a decorative element that she dated to the period 450-600 AD (Magnus 1984a:145-155.). Based on the number of interlace bands used10, the pots were divided into four different groups, found to be of chronological relevance (ibid: 155). She also addressed the question of the origin of the interlace motif. Rejecting the possibility that baskets may have inspired this decoration element, she assumed that the potters must have been inspired to use the interlace motif by decoration on imported bronze cauldrons (ibid). Another important feature is the shaping of the pots. Magnus suggested three different main shapes and two sub-types which have a more local distribution both in time and space (ibid: 141, fig. 2)11.

In 1988 Roger Jørgensen discussed the “problems of origin of bucket-shaped pots seen from a North Scandinavian viewpoint” (Jørgensen 1988). He questioned the traditional theory of bucket-shaped pottery as a Southwest Norwegian innovation13. Instead he drew attention to the similarity between the bucketshaped pots and the asbestos pottery found in Northern Fennoscandia and the eastern parts of the Karelia and Kola dated to the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age14. However, he was unable to refer to chronological links between the asbestos pottery proper and the bucketshaped pots.

In another article Magnus dealt with the bucket-shaped pots from Sunnmøre (Magnus 1984b). In spite of being a popular scientific work concerning a restricted geographical area, this publication is one of the most complete and important works carried out in recent times. It deals with questions such as production (clay, temper, firing techniques), shape and decoration, mending of the pots, the function of the pots and their chronology and status.

Also Else Johansen Kleppe (Kleppe 1993) has discussed the origin of bucket-shaped pottery. She disagrees with Rolfsen’s suggestion that the bucket-shaped pots (as a type) were not developed in the district of Rogaland. Instead she found that Rolfsen’s arguments support her own hypothesis that two distinct groups of producers – a group of professional potters and a group of nonprofessional potters – existed side by side (Kleppe & Simonsen 1983:36; Kleppe 1993:293). Kleppe claimed that the decorative elements – rather than the decorative patterns – are the determining factor for understanding the relationship between the two producer groups (ibid: 299).

Siv Kristoffersen’s publication from 1999 is the first attempt since Bøe’s publication from 1931 to regard the bucket-shaped pottery (as one of several artefact-types12) as means to achieve a finer chronological division of the Migration Period (Kristoffersen 1999). However, Kristoffersen only discusses two very distinctive types of decorations: stamped beading and knot work (which covers the surface of the wall of the vessel (Bøe 1931a: figs. 324-327)) and hanging arches. Both are late types of decorations and therefore only valid in relation to the late phase of the Migration Period. Her treatment resulted in the division of period D2 into D2a and D2b (Kristoffersen 1999, 2000) which represents a more

Production and mending In 1974 Rolfsen’s excavation at Augland, Kristiansand, Vest-Agder (Rolfsen 1976) resulted in the first evidence of a Norwegian pottery production site from the Roman and Migration periods. In the rich ceramic material from this site, bucket-shaped pots constitute a rather limited part. Rolfsen was also the first archaeologist to carry out production studies on bucket-shaped pots (Hennum & Hagen 1975). In cooperation with two professional potters, Margrethe and Jens von der Lippe, several attempts on producing bucket-shaped pots

 NAVF – Norges allmenvitenskapelige forskningsråd, today Norges forskningsråd (The Research Council of Norway).  The results have not been published. 10 Magnus divides the interlace pattern into the following groups: a) Simple interlace of two bands, b) Interlace of three bands, c) Interlace of more that three bands and d) Basket patterns. 11 Even if both Schetelig, Bøe and Magnus are rather cautious with using shape as chronological feature, it is still obvious that they all believe that the early pots are straight sided (cylindrical form), while the late pots seem to be more convex and/or straight sided with ‘sagging belly’ (Schetelig 1904a:77; Bøe 1931a:184f-185 Magnus 1984a:141). 12 Chronologically significant artefact types discussed in this article are the cruciform brooches, small equal-armed brooches and bucketshaped pots.

13 The traditional apprehension put forward by earlier researchers has been that the centre of origin and production most likely is to be found in Rogaland, perhaps in the northern parts of Jæren (Bøe 1931a:170). 14 This pottery has traditionally been dated to the last two millenniums BC. Recent investigations have, however, shown that this type of pottery also continues into the first centuries AD. (Sundquist 2000:13; A. Schanche 1997:156; K. Schanche 1994:96).

16

with traditional techniques (the coil technique and ball technique) were carried out. But because of the large quantities of soapstone, asbestos, talc and chlorite, it proved difficult to make the mixture stick together. They therefore decided to try forming the pots over a lathe, but also here the special clay mixture made it difficult to getting the pots from the lathe without pulling them apart (ibid: 111). Unfortunately, the results from these experiments have not been published.

organs along with the food prepared in these vessels. This exposure has, according to Rolfsen, caused asbestos related diseases that may have been relatively common in prehistoric times. He also suggests that man, even at this early date, was aware of the harmful effects of asbestos and that this may have caused the quite sudden end of production of this kind of pots around 600 AD.

In 1980 Else Kleppe and Stein Simonsen launched a project regarding the production methods of bucket-shaped pots (Kleppe & Simonsen 1981, 1983). The project had two main aims: 1) Give visitors to the Ullandhaug Iron Age farm in Stavanger (Rogaland) an idea of prehistoric pottery production, and 2) to gain new information about the bucket-shaped pottery from Rogaland. This work represents the first proper attempt to gain new knowledge on the production methods through major practical archaeological experiments. Their investigation was extensive and included both reconstruction of clay types and mineralogical investigations in addition to the archaeological experiments. Through their different experiments they tried different production methods. The best results were achieved by using the slab method (ibid: 25). The earlier problems with getting the vessel off the lathe were solved by decorating the pot while it still was in place on the lathe (ibid: 30). The results of this work seem convincing and have in many ways put an end to the discussion regarding the production method for the bucket-shaped pots. This production method (shaping the pots over a lathe) was suggested by Bøe as early as in 193115, but it was first through the experiments carried out by Kleppe and Simonsen that the method was proved likely.

Anne Aure Bagøien is the only archaeologist to have investigated the bucket-shaped pottery in a gender perspective (Bagøien 1976, 1980). Based on the ceramic material from the Roman and Migration periods from Agder and Telemark she suggested three different models for the production of pottery that were based on analogies and ethnographical investigations (Balfet 1965:162). She also examined the finger/nail impressions on the cooking pots from Hordaland, Agder and Telemark. She interpreted the rather small dimensions of these finger impressions as evidence of female producers. If kinship in the Migration Period was bilateral, and the potters were women, then they probably brought their individual style, technology, knowledge and tradition into the society they moved into. According to Bagøien. one should therefore expect to find pots with different shape and decoration within the same areas (Bagøien 1980:96).

Gender and the individual

Based upon an investigation on the bucket-shaped pots from the graves in Hardanger, Voss and Sogn in Western Norway, Per Ditlef Fredriksen has investigated the relation between the individual and the bucket-shaped pots in the graves and the way interpersonal relations might have been formed by these pots (Fredriksen 2005). Bucket-shaped pottery is looked upon as an expression of the individual, person or identity. In order to do this he discusses how three ‘key metaphors’ are expressed in the graves. These metaphors are; ‘travel’, ‘regeneration’ and the ‘Hall’ as a metaphor of social acting. Fredriksen emphasizes the simultaneousness of cremation and inhumation graves in this period. He interprets this as expressions of a common idea which has to be seen in connection with the suggested metaphors. The bucketshaped pots are also seen as an important part of drinking rituals and feasts and the way these rituals constitute and verify conceptions concerning identity, rank and status. In a recent study Fredriksen (2006) emphasizes heat transformations and ceramic technology in a wider social context, focusing upon bucket-shaped pots in burials both as symbolic elements and as ontological metaphors intimately associated with the deceased.

Several bucket-shaped pots have been mended in antiquity. Magnus (1980) had observed that about 5 % of the 600 pots from grave finds have been mended. For this four different methods of reparations had been used16 (ibid: 277). The mending demonstrates that the pots must have been of a certain value and that they had a special position in the Migration Period society (ibid: 285, 288). Rolfsen focused upon the injuries to health that asbestos may have caused and the possible danger of using this mineral as tempering material (Rolfsen 1986). Rolfsen’s hypothesis is that soapstone carvers and potters were exposed to asbestos dust both during extraction and production and that asbestos was absorbed by digestive 15 Bøe was convinced that the bucket-pots were produced by shaping the pots over a lathe (Bøe 1931a:171). 16 The four different kinds of reparations of bucket-shaped pots that occurred was: 1) Inserting s sherd of another pot, 2) Mending with soft clay, 3) Holding a crack together or a sherd in place by way of small iron cramps or rivets, 4) Inserting a piece of sheet iron (Magnus 1980:277).

17

Concluding remarks During the 19th and 20th centuries, several researchers have examined and discussed the bucket-shaped pottery. The early investigations mainly concentrated upon restricted aspects such as descriptions of the pots (Sorterup 1845; Stråle 1873; Lorange 1876; Rygh 1885; Petersen 1933, 1936). Not until Schetelig’s work from 1904 were bucket-shaped pots treated as a group of its own. Schetelig’s main aim, however, was typological and chronological in nature. In this he was followed by Bøe (1931a), but the perspective was widened to methods of production. In the post war period several researchers have been interested in bucket-shaped pottery, but their examinations of the material have been restricted, either geographically (Sjøvold 1962; Fredriksen 2005) or chronologically (Kristoffersen 1999). Practical experiments have been performed (Hennum & Hagen 1975, Kleppe & Simonsen 1981, 1983), and the theory of origin (Bøe 1931a) has been discussed (Rolfsen 1974b; Jørgensen 1988; Kleppe 1993). The bucket-shaped pots have also been considered from the viewpoint of mending (Magnus 1980), decoration and handicraft (Engevik 2002; Magnus 1984a, 1984b), health endangerment (Rolfsen 1986), gender (Bagøien 1980), and the individual perspective (Fredriksen 2005, 2006). However, in spite of a widening of perspectives and promotion of new theories, all of the more recent works have been based on a limited material. Because of this the publications of Schetelig (1904a) and Bøe (1931a) still represent the main reference works regarding the bucket-shaped pots. These publications are the only ones that covered the complete body of material available at the time of publication.

18

Chapter 4 Overview of the chronology for the Late Roman and Migration periods Introduction In works that have dealt with bucket-shaped pottery found in graves, chronology has been one of the main topics (Schetelig 1904a; Bøe 1931a; Straume 1987; Kristoffersen 1999; 2000). Also in the present work chronology will be of major importance. According to both Schetelig (1904a) and Bøe (1931a), the earliest bucket-shaped pots appeared in the 4th century (mainly after 350 AD) and were present throughout the Migration Period. The results of the examination of the material (chapter 6) demonstrate that the Late Roman and Migration periods mostly represent the time span covered by bucket-shaped pots. Therefore, the presentation/discussion of chronology will mainly be restricted to these periods. In Scandinavia, the chronological framework of the Late Roman and Migration periods has been developed during more than one hundred years, and by a variety of persons (Bakka 1959, 1973, 1977; Lund Hansen 1970, 1987, 1988; Montelius 1895, 1896, 1897, 1900; Müller 1884; Nerman 1935; Nissen Meyer 1935; Schetelig 1904a, 1906, 1910). After the Second World War the Scandinavian studies of chronology (Bakka 1959, 1973, 1977; Hines 1993, 1997, Lund Hansen 1970, 1987, 1988; Slomann 1956, 1977) have built on the works by German archaeologists (Eggers 1951, 1955; Haseloff 1981) and profited by absolute dating of a few important grave finds on the Continent (Doppelfeld 1960; FranceLanord & Fleuri 1962; Werner 1980, 1983). This does not mean that the chronology of the Norwegian material does not need improving. On the contrary; the correspondence between materials dated by various types of fibulae and by means of weapons is insufficiently known. Also the phases in the Migration Period, their number and dating represent unsettled matters.

Figure 4.1: Selection of different chronological systems for the Roman Iron Age in Scandinavian and on the Continent (after Solberg 2000:72, Figure 13).

the Late Roman Iron Age begins with period C1 (from 150 AD), and also embraces periods C2 and C3 (until 350/375 AD) (Eggers 1951, 1955). Eggers’ system was rapidly adopted by both archaeologists on the Continent and in Scandinavia. During the last decades Eggers’ system has been revised on several occasions, some of which cover both Scandinavia and the North-European continent (Godlowski 1970; Raddatz 1957; Wielowiejski 1970), while others are more locally based (Brandt 1960; Keller 1974; Liversage 1980). Today Ulla Lund Hansen’s (1987) chronological phasing is generally accepted. The period following the Late Roman, has undergone many changes with regard to terminology and dating. In Denmark, the term used is Early Germanic Iron Age and in Sweden and Norway it is the Migration Period.

Chronological phasing The Late Roman Iron Age was recognized as a phase (200-400 AD) by Sophus Müller (1884) and adopted by Oscar Montelius (1900) as his period V (Fig. 4.1). Oscar Almgren (1923) and Birger Nerman (1935) divided the period into V1 and V2. After the Second World War the German archaeologist Hans Jürgen Eggers established a chronological system for the Roman period, in which 19

The Migration Period has gradually been divided into different sub-periods or phases (Fig. 4.2). Nerman divided the period VI into VI 1 and VI 2. In Norway, Schetelig (1906), Nissen Meyer (1935) and Bakka (1959, 1973, 1977) have suggested various subdivisions (see below). Based on the works of Voss (1954), Bakka (1959), Lund Hansen (1970) and Magnus (1975), Eldrid Straume proposed a subdivision of the Migration Period into the periods D1 and D2 (Straume 1987). In 1973 Egil Bakka suggested a division of the period into four phases. In this he was followed by John Hines (1993). Siv Kristoffersen has proposed a further subdivision of period D2 into D2a and D2b (Kristoffersen 1999, 2000). Today the Migration Period is generally regarded to start 400 AD and to end sometime in the last half of the 6th century (Bakka 1973, 1977; Hines 1997; Kristoffersen 1999; Straume 1987).

continental and Scandinavian chronological systems (Lund Hansen 1987; Straume 1987).

Artefact types and style in the definition of phases As will be seen, some of the period definitions are based upon specific artefact types, mainly fibulas. This especially holds for periods C1 and D. The transition from the Early to the Late Roman Iron Age has been defined by the introduction of brooches with a high catch-plate (Lund Hansen 1987:39; 1988:24; Straume 1998:440). The transition is, however, visible only within the jewellery and ceramic material. Lund Hansen has, therefore, constructed a chronological system (see fig. 4.1), consisting of two phases – B2/C1a, which is placed within the C1 phase (Lund Hansen 1988:24). The transition from the Late Roman to the Migration Period (from C3 to D) has by several researchers been based on the introduction of cruciform brooches (Bakka 1973; Kristoffersen 1999, 2000). In spite of a general agreement of the importance of the cruciform brooches as the principal artefact in the period (Lund Hansen 1970, 1980; Slomann 1977), the use of these brooches as a defining criterion has been hampered by the disagreement about how to define the earliest brooches of this sort. In 1906 Schetelig did not define the cruciform brooches in exact terms, but pointed to the development of the head plate and its gradual enlargement (Schetelig 1906:24). Among his early specimens are brooches that appeared in the Nydam I find, and which later have been defined as Nydam fibulas (e.g. Schetelig 1906:19, fig. 20). In 1910 his definition of the brooches is more precise:

Figure 4.2: Selection of different chronological systems for the Migration Period (after Solberg 2000:128, Figure 34).

“…the side knobs have been attached to the spiral axis, the plate is of the same width as the bow and narrow higher up in order to serve as the base for the end knob” (Schetelig 1910:54) (my translation).

Archaeologists have had different approaches to the definition of chronological periods. Sometimes also the criteria used for the definition of periods are in disagreement. Generally, studies carried out in Norway, Scandinavia and in Northern-Europe are based on typology, style and/or combinations of finds. All of these methods have their advantages and disadvantages, depending on the aims and intensions of the research. The different ways of approaching these problems are therefore of great importance. However, since there is no ‘given’ between typology, style development and the find combinations, this has added to the difficulties in coordinating the different chronological systems (Lund Hansen 1988:22). Typology or style, as the basis for chronology, will always depend upon find combinations. In the Early Roman Iron Age imported material is especially important (Lund Hansen 1987; Straume 1987) and this material is especially important for the coordination of the different

Some 50 to 70 years later Wencke Slomann claimed that the Nydam fibula should not be included among the cruciform brooches (Slomann 1977), and that only the fully developed cruciform brooch belongs to the Migration Period. She had the following definition of a fully developed cruciform brooch: “Wenn die Platte oberhalb der Spirale breiter als der Bügel und winklig auf diesen gesetzt ist, dann haben wir es mit einer völkerwanderungszeitlichen Form zu tun” (ibid: 62, Abb. 1, 10 b-d). She saw the find from Veien, Norderhov, Buskerud (C 325-339) as a chronological marker for the transition between C3 and D1 (Slomann 1956:63f; 1977:64) and 20

Figure 4.3: The find from Grålum, Tune, Østfold, contained in addition to three cruciform brooches, a silver-sheet brooch, bronze pin, iron knife, beads, an earthen vessel, a handled pot, two spindle whorls and fragments of resin caulking and cloth (after Slomann 1977, Abb. 1.10).

a

b

c

Figure 4.4: According to Bøe, the handles vessels (R 361) represent three different series of which the first (a) belongs to period C2. The second series (b) is developed at the end of C2 and is characteristic for period C3. The third series (c) is developed in the transition between C3 and D1 and are produced more or less throughout the Migration Period (after Straume 1987:16, Abb. 1).

regarded the find from Grålum, Tune, Østfold, as an example of the fully developed cruciform brooch (Fig. 4.3). Stjernquist (1961) had the same definition of the cruciform brooch (Lund Hansen 1970).

(D1). He concluded that in Northern Germany these fibulas should be dated to the period 350/60-400 AD (Bemmann 1993:159). According to Scandinavian chronology, this corresponds to period C3. On the other hand, E. Keller, Kazimierz Godlowski and H. W. Böhme have stated that the Nydam fibulas belong to the early phase of Migration Period, which in fact overlaps with the Scandinavian period C3 (Böhme 1974; Godlowski 1970; Keller 1974). Bemmann (1993) found that the Nydam fibulas have undergone a development in the period that they were produced and he has therefore divided them into 6 different variants, in which variants 1-6 occur in combination with each other, whereas variant 6 is also found in combinations with cruciform brooches (ibid: 167).

Joachim Reichstein (1975) did not use Slomann’s and Stjernquist’s definition of the cruciform brooches. Instead he referred to Schetelig’s definition, but with some modifications: Where Schetelig emphasized the presence of a ‘square flat plate’ that must be wider than the bow and at an angle to it (Schetelig 1906, 1910), Reichstein claimed that even the fibulas with head-plates not covering the entire spiral axis, represent cruciform brooches (Reichstein 1975:30). His definition of the Nydam fibula is restricted to fibulas with no sign or indication of a head-plate (ibid: 102). As a result he defined some fibula types (his types Kvassheim, Åk, Dorchester and Tveitane-Hunn) as cruciform, whereas others regard them as Nydam fibulas (Albrectsen 1968; Lillehammer 1996; Lund Hansen 1977, 1978; Slomann 1977; Stjernquist 1961). Among Reichstein’s earliest types of cruciform brooches, the type Tveitane-Hunn is closest to the cruciform type as defined by Scandinavian researchers (Lund Hansen 1978).

Apparantly the disagreement about the typology affects the chronology of both the cruciform brooches and the starting point of the Migration Period. Reichstein dated his early types to his period C3/D1 or the later part of the 4th century. In other words; a deviation from the traditional dating of the beginning of the Migration Period around 400 AD. However, his dating of the early types does not deviate from the traditional dating of finds with Nydam fibulas (generally dated to C3 or Slomann’s ‘Sætrang phase’). Therefore, the differences of opinions between Slomann, Stjernquist and Reichstein are mainly of terminological and typological and not of chronological nature.

Jan Bemmann (1993) has analyzed North-European finds containing Nydam fibulas and discussed whether they belong to period C3 or to the Migration Period  Some of the brooches classified as type Tveitane-Hunn do not fit the description of a cruciform brooch proper (e.g. Reichstein’s find no.1) (Reichstein 1975:113).

21

The concept and development of style has been important for the definition of periods: e.g. the transition from C3 and D1, from D1 to D2 and from the Migration to the Merovingian Period. In 1955 Olfert Voss separated the Sösdala style, defined by J. E. Forssander (1937), from the remaining Migration Period styles. The main elements of the Sösdala style are stamped decoration, niello pattern and low chip-carving ornamentation (Voss 1954:173). Voss was unable to date precisely the Scandinavian finds with this style, but referred to finds on the Continent as dated to the late 4th century. He, therefore, assumed the first appearance of the Sösdala style in Scandinavia to be about 400 AD. Bakka (1973) appears to have agreed with this and correlated the Sösdala style and his Stufe I, which he regarded to start about 400 AD. Based on a study of the Kvarmløse find, Lund Hansen concluded that the stamped motifs of the Sösdala style on the silversheet fibulas (without profile heads) cannot be used in order to decide whether an object belongs to the Late Roman or the Migration Period (Lund Hansen 1970:82, 97). Therefore, a definition of the beginning of the Migration Period based upon the first appearance of the Sösdala style is not without problems. The Sösdala style may have been partly contemporary with the Nydam style (Voss 1954) which came to dominate a large part of period D1. This style is characterized by its complex chipcarving and motifs modelled upon antique mythology (Haseloff 1981:706).

and that the boundary should be assigned to 475 AD (Haseloff 1981:17). This has been accepted by most researchers (Straume 1987, Kristoffersen 1999, 2000). The change in style from Style I to Style II is also regarded as the dividing criterion between the Migration and the Merovingian periods (Bakka 1973; Bøe 1931a; Haseloff 1981; Jørgensen & Nørgård Jørgensen 1997; Kristoffersen 1999, 2000; Lund Hansen 1970, 1977, 1987, 1988; Nissen Meyer 1935). Traditionally, the change from Style I to Style II was dated to around 600 (Salin 1935 [1904]; Schetelig 1904a:90; 1906; 1917:76f; Vinsrygg 1979). This, however, became a matter for discussion when a grave in St. Denis, Paris, was examined in the 1950’s (France-Lanord & Fleuri 1962). The woman in this burial was furnished with shoe buckles decorated in Style II. Furthermore she had a seal ring with the inscription Arnegunde regis. According to Frankish annals, a Regina named Arnegunde (Arégonde) lived until 565/570. This find caused a change in the dating of the introduction of Style II, and a corresponding earlier dating of the transition between the Migration and the Merovingian period (Bakka 1973; Gudesen 1980; Hines 1984; Lund Hansen 1988; Magnus 1975; Straume 1987; Ørsnes 1966) In recent years the question has been raised whether the woman from St. Denis is the real Arnegunde known from historical sources (Périn 1991; Roth 1986). Instead of the strong emphasis upon this find, one has sought to date the late Style I in relation to material that has been dated by means of dendrochronology. In this respect a find from Krefeld Gellep has been emphasized (Hines 1984, 1997). This has also affected the view of the Norwegian (and Scandinavian) material, where the transition between the Migration and Merovingian period now is suggested to be 550/575 AD (Kristoffersen 1999:110; Lund Hansen 1988:31).

When Forssander in 1937 defined the Sjörup style (and also the Søsdala style) he separated it from Style I (Forssander 1937). Later on Voss (1955) separated the Sjörup style from both the Nydam style and Style I. However, according to Straume (1987) the differences between the Sjörup Style and Style I are difficult to delineate. This may be the reason for Haseloff ’s (1981) incorporation of the Sjörup style into Style I. Today there seems to be a general agreement that the change from Nydam style to Style I marks the transition between period D1 and D2 (Straume 1987, Kristoffersen 1999, 2000). In Bakka’s scheme it marks the transition between his Stufen II and III (1973). Thus, the dating of this period transition becomes very important. When Bakka in 1958 reviewed finds that might define the date of transition (Bakka 1959), he dated the beginning of Style I to around 500 AD. Also Reichstein dated the beginning of Style I to around the year 500 AD (Reichstein 1975, 1977), with reference to Bakka’s earlier work (Bakka 1959). The problem is that Bakka later on (partly based on the work of Reichstein) dated the beginning of Style I to the second half of the 5th century (Bakka 1973:61; 1977:60).

Schetelig regarded different variants of cruciform brooches to represent different stages in their development (Schetelig 1906). He established different series of brooches in accordance to the typological and stylistic development of knobs and foots. This resulted in a division of the brooches into four different groups: Early cruciform brooches (350-400 AD), Early Norwegian forms (400-450 AD), Middle Norwegian forms (450500 AD) and Late Norwegian forms (500-550 AD). The dating of the groups was based on find combinations with silver-sheet fibulas and relief brooches (Schetelig 1906; Stjernquist 1961:32). Reichstein (1975) emphasized the details around the forming and shaping of the cruciform brooches and made a more detailed division of the brooches into ‘Typen’, ‘Varianten’ and ‘Einzelformen’. He was especially concerned in defining characteristics

Based on the development of the Jutlandic brooch group Günther Haseloff proposed that Style I had developed in Scandinavia by the last quarter of the 5th century 22

which separate the different types. This is in contrast to Schetelig who tried to find and establish common types. Reichstein’s method resulted in an extensive division of local geographical types, such as Typ Kvassheim, Typ Mundheim and Type Varhaug, some of which are difficult to separate chronologically. Nevertheless, based on find combinations Reichstein suggested a division of the cruciform brooches into three main series: 1) early brooches, 2) younger brooches and 3) late brooches. Chronologically the early brooches belong to Reichstein’s period C3/D1, the younger brooches to period D2 and the late brooches to period D3 (Reichstein 1977:54). Unfortunately, his periods C3/D1, D2 and D3 do not correspond chronologically with the dating used by most researchers. For instance his period D2 corresponds in time to Straume’s and Kristoffersen’s period D1.

ratios over time. Norwegian weapon finds from the Late Roman and Migration periods have been treated by Per Fett (1940), Jørgen Ilkjær (1990) and Jan Bemmann & Güde Hahne (1994), respectively. Here only Ilkjær’s and Bemmann & Hahne’s works are referred to. Their chronologies depend mainly upon combinations of various types of weapons. The different combinations have been grouped, and the groups given chronological relevance. The chronological position of the various groups has mainly been established by means of belt fittings/buckles and fibulas. Jørgen Ilkjær (1990) has divided the weapons (lances and spears) into 12 different groups. His groups 1-3 belong to the Early Roman Iron Age (B1-B2) and groups 4-11 belong to the Late Roman Iron Age (C1a-C3). Only the last group (Group 12) is dated to the Migration Period (D1). Ilkjær’s chronological framework is based upon the chronological systems developed by Godlowski (1970) and Lund Hansen (1987, 1988).

Also gold bracteates have served to divide the Migration Period into phases. Bakka suggested a division of the Migration Period into four “Stufen” (Bakka 1973), but actually only his last phase (Stufe IV) has been defined by means of bracteates. Bakka’s chronological system has been criticized (Lund Hansen 1976, 1988; Malmer 1977) as well as accepted (Hines 1984, 1993).

Bemmann & Hahne (1994) have concentrated their investigation to the weapons from the Late Roman Iron Age and Migration Period. Based on the combination of different types of weapons this material has been divided into 12 different groups. Six groups belong to the Late Roman Iron Age and six to the Migration Period. In contrast to Ilkjær, Bemmann & Hahne do not relate their groups to a specific chronological framework. Instead the various groups are dated in accordance to centuries.

In Norway, the black burnished handled vessels – best known as “R 361” – represent chronological markers. According to Bøe, they represent three different series (Bøe 1931a) of which the first belongs to C2. The second series is developed at the end of C2 and is characteristic for period C3. The third series is developed in the transition between C3 and D1 and are produced more or less throughout the Migration Period (Straume 1987:16) (Fig. 4.4). Ann M. Stout has later analyzed the handled pots (R 361) found in graves in South and West Norway (Stout 1986a). She has regrouped Bøe’s original classification by using proportion analysis together with form variation and decorative motifs and by a consideration of the associated finds present in the graves (Stout 1986a:78). According to Stout, the vessels fall into six main groups based on differing values of the diameter to height ratios. The investigation shows that there was a gradual lowering of the diameter to height

To a large degree the dating of the groups is based upon the associations with fibulas. It should, however, be noted that the number of finds that contain fibulas is extremely limited. This makes a correlation between the weapons groups and for instance Reichstein’s groups of cruciform brooches difficult. This is illustrated by the following numbers: Among Bemmann & Hahne’s 426 weapons finds only 20 are included in Reichstein’s catalogue of cruciform brooches of which only seven contain defined types. As a consequence, the different weapons groups and the fibula groups have to a large degree not been correlated.

 ��������������������������������������������������������������������� According to Bakka his Stufe I is defined by the introduction of the cruciform brooches, his Stufe II by the younger cruciform brooches, Stufe III by the introduction of level-foot square-headed brooch (brooch with undivided foot) and finally Stufe IV by the introduction of the D-bracteates (Bakka 1973:85).  Hines (1984) have proposed some modifications, such as permitting the allocation of finds to ‘double-Stufen’, e.g. Bakkas Stufe III/IV (= either Stufe III or Stufe IV of Bakkas Völkerwanderungszeit), or to the cusp between two Stufen, e.g Stufe II-III (= a find combining characteristic types of two consecutive Stufen) (Hines 1993:3).  Ann M. Stout has treated these pots in a later work where she divides them into six groups. Stout emphasizes the form of the pots and whether the transition from the belly to shoulder is rounded or sharply angled (carinated) (Stout 1986a:11). Bøe is on the other hand emphasizing the decorations of the pots.  Some late specimens of this type belongs to the beginning of period D1 (Straume 1987:16)

23

Chronology in the present work In the present work, the introduction of brooches with high catch-plates defines the transition from Early to the Late Roman Period (cf. Lund Hansen 1987, 1988; Straume 1998) and the introduction of the  Group 11 is dated by Ilkjær to also include the transition from period C3 to D1.  As an example Bemmann & Hahne find it likely “[…] dass die SnartemoGruppe das letzte Drittel oder die letzten Jahrzehnte des 5. Jahrhunderts und das frühe 6. Jahrhundert umfassen könnte.” (Bemmann & Hahne 1994:329).  Four of these finds are defined as Nydam-fibulas by Reichstein.

fully developed cruciform brooch, the transition from C3 to D1 (cf. Slomann 1977, Stjernquist 1961). The transition from D1 to D2 is based upon the change from the Nydam style to Style I (Straume 1987; Kristoffersen 1999, 2000) and the transition from the Migration to the Merovingian Period upon the change from Style I to Style II (Bakka 1973; Hines 1984, 1993, Straume 1987). A more refined division will be based upon the typology of the bucket-shaped pots. Furthermore the typology of the bucket-shaped pots will be correlated to weapon types (Ilkjær 1990; Bemmann & Hahne 1994) and fibula types (Reichstein 1975; Hines 1993; Jenssen 1998; Kristoffersen 1999, 2000).

cist with an inhumation grave (ibid: 101, note 2). In cases where more than one person of the same sex is interred, the situation is more difficult to grasp. In some instances dental remains may indicate the presence of more than one person (Gjessing 1938; Ringstad 1988, 1989). Had the teeth not been present, the graves would have been regarded as belonging to one person only. In the later years several researchers (Magnus 1975; Kristoffersen 2000; Myhre 2005) seem to agree that in many of the Norwegian stone cists more than one person have been interred. Magnus and Kristoffersen found that one person rarely has received more than one bucket-shaped pot as grave goods. I have come to the same conclusion. Therefore, only finds with one bucketshaped pot have been accepted as reliable. Also finds with more than one sword, one lance or one spear may indicate that more than one man have been buried in the cist. In the present work, finds with more than one sword and one lance and one spear will be carefully examined, as they may refer to more than one man being interred in the cist.

One important aspect will be to sort dubious find combinations from the reliable find combinations. As a result of the burial custom in the Late Roman and Migration Period, this is easier said than done. A large part of the finds from this period represent inhumation burials in large stone cists, which have often rich grave goods that have been the basis for Norwegian chronology. In these inhumation graves – North Norway being an exception – skeletons are rarely preserved. The interpretation of the sex of the interred person(s) is therefore usually based upon the grave goods. Several fibulas, beads and textile equipment are usually defined as belonging to women, whereas weapons indicate the presence of men (Sellevold et. al 1984). In cases where both male and female equipment have been found in the same grave cist, the graves have usually been interpreted as a double burial.

Only finds which beyond any doubt represent closed grave finds should ideally be included in the analysis. The Norwegian grave finds, which to a large degree has been found or excavated in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, regrettably has not been found under controlled circumstances. One therefore has to choose between a relatively large body of material that only in a few circumstances has been professionally excavated – and a very restricted body of material that has been professionally excavated. In the present analysis, the chronology will be based upon finds where observations of the find circumstances seem reliable.

In their analyses of weapons (Fett 1940; Ilkjær 1990; Bemmann & Hahne 1994) and fibulas (Schetelig 1906, 1910; Nissen Meyer 1935; Reichstein 1975) little focus has been made upon the reliability of the find combinations in Norwegian graves. Usually it seems to have been taken for granted that the grave goods represent only one person. However, this is far from the case. In Fett’s catalogue of weapon finds from the Migration Period (Fett 1940), 15 of about 400 finds also includes women’s equipment, indicating that the cists may have been used for more than one person. In rare instances the inference of more than two persons in the cist has been confirmed by skeletal material. For instance at Abeland, in Helleland, in Rogaland, a cist that contained both weapons and fibulas, also included two craniums (S 306-311).

Concluding remarks Generally, chronological studies carried out in Norway are based on typology, style and combinations of finds. Is has been demonstrated that for the definition of some of the period transitions specific artefact types and styles are being used, whereas for some periods the chronology is mainly based upon find combinations of specific artefact types. In the more recent studies of fibulas (Reichstein 1975) and weapons (Ilkjær 1990; Bemmann & Hahne 1994) groups of fibulas and weapons have been established. In neither of these studies has the ceramic material been taken into consideration. Instead, the chronological position of the weapons groups has been based upon combinations of fibulas and rings (Ilkjær 1990), or fibula only (Bemmann & Hahne 1994). In the latter study, the number of combinations between

In other instances the stratigraphy in the cist may reflect several burials. Schetelig observed during an excavation of a large grave mound at Byrkje, Voss, Hordaland, that the cist held the remains of three burials. At the bottom and top were two inhumation burials. They were separated by a cremation burial (Schetelig 1912:90-109). In another burial from Voss a cremation burial had been placed in a

 Exceptions are made if the bucket-shaped pots refer to the same decoration scheme and when the grave inventory can refer to two individuals interred at the same time (double grave).

24

weapons and fibulas is extremely limited. This makes the chronology of the various groups somewhat uncertain. In the present work, the chronology of the various types of bucket-shaped pots will be studied, not just for their own sake, but as a means to correlate various groups of artefacts. Because pottery represent the only artefact category found in both men’s and women’s graves and in graves with ‘rich’ as well as ‘poor’ equipment (Solberg 1998, 1999), bucket-shaped pots represent a valuable tool in the synchronizing procedure.

25

26

Chapter 5 Classification

In this chapter I will first discuss classification and typology in general and give a review of the previous classifications of the bucket-shaped pots (Schetelig 1904a; Bøe 1931a). Secondly, I will present the basis and methodology for the classification/typology used in the present study.

produced several centuries apart will be different as a result of development over time, it is logical therefore to arrange them in a sequence according to their similarities. This is then likely to be the true chronological sequence, because it best reflects the principle of ‘like goes with like’. In theory, it is impossible to be certain which is the beginning of the row and which is the end.

Classification and typology

The main concern of the ‘founder’ of the typological method, Oscar Montelius (1843–1921), was to find a method that could be used for dating the archaeological material. Starting in Egypt, where historical dating goes back 5000 years, he formulated chronologies for many of the regions of Bronze Age Europe, drawing upon a whole series of bronze tools and weapon forms (Montelius 1871-1873). The regional sequences could in many cases be confirmed in their outlines by stratigraphic excavation. Used in this way typology serves ancillary purposes (Adams 1988:51), since ‘datability’ is one of the most important requisites of a good ancillary type. According to Merkyte, the strength of typological ordering as a specific tool is the search for repetitiveness, by recognition of primal forms (Merkyte 2005:80).

Every science, be it archaeology, botany, chemistry or physics, requires a body of basic units of classification, or taxonomy, for categorizing data as a basis for explaining scientific phenomena. Archaeologists use classification as a research tool for ordering and making sense of large quantities of artefacts. The objectives of archaeological classification vary from one problem to another, but in every case classification is a means to the solution of a specific archaeological problem. “Nearly everything that has been said about classifications is true in some contexts and untrue in others; nearly everything that has been proposed will work in some circumstances and will not work in others” (Adams 1988:42).

Archaeological types and the ‘typological method’ have been discussed and disputed over a long period of time (Montelius 1885, 1900; Müller 1884; Krieger 1944, 1960; Gjessing 1946; Spaulding 1953, 1960, 1982; Åberg 1953; Ford 1954a, 1954b, 1962; Malmer 1963, 1968; Bakka 1968a, 1968b; Brown 1982; Klein 1982; Whallon and Brown 1982; Adams 1988; Adams & Adams 1991).

Its units are therefore conceptually equivalent, and no unit is synonymous with or wholly subsumed under any other (ibid). While the single concept classification is used to designate several different kinds of conceptual structures, a typology is a particular kind of classification: one that is made specifically for the purpose of sorting entities into mutually exclusive categories. It is therefore useful to differentiate between classifications and typologies. Typology may be defined as the study of types. In archaeology, typology is how specific artefact types develop. B. Hayden’s definition of typology is:

The archaeologists between 1920 and 1940 were somewhat uncritically engaged in making and publishing classifications, mostly for culture-historical purposes. Insofar as there was debate among them, it was mostly on a practical level –­ for instance ‘Was this or that type sufficiently consistent to be regarded as a type’. Around 1940 came awareness that classifications were not answering all of the questions that archaeologists were beginning to ask. The New Archaeology of the 1960s brought to the front a new group of theoreticians, who argued that it was of utmost importance to use objective and definable criteria for analysis of the archaeological material. This represented a marked break with the

“[…]systems of categorization, which […] reveal something about the nature of human behaviour in relation to artefacts, whether this information is by nature evolutionary, functional, technological, temporal, social or other” (Hayden 1984:80). Assuming that particular artefacts (e.g. bronze daggers) produced about the same time are often alike, and those 27

culture historical approach which depended upon subjective criteria. In Scandinavia, we find examples of both directions – polarized by Nils Åberg (1953) and Mats P. Malmer (1963).

of the higher aims can be approached legitimately. These entities exist at increasingly higher levels of organization, with an increasing value in terms of the information they hold. He regards every artefact to contain an infinity of attributes or variables and therefore of possible systems connecting these attributes. It is, therefore, necessary to select the particular attributes and the particular system that we wish to study.

Åberg represents the archaeological mainstream in the period preceding the Second World War. He claimed that it is the archaeologist’s perception and understanding of the material that is the essential factor. According to this view, typology does not rely upon empirical facts, but upon insight and knowledge (Gjessing 1946:2425). Malmer, on the other hand, claimed that it is important to remove all kinds of subjectivity and nonspecific descriptions from typological research. The use of adjectives and other not measurable descriptions should, in his opinion, not be part of the archaeological vocabulary (Malmer 1963:16-17).

Archaeologists in the 20th century have continually shifted their expectations in regard to the classificatory endeavour. They have often acknowledged, in principle, that typologies must serve a purpose (Brew 1946:65; Rouse 1960; Clarke 1968; Dunnell 1971:115; Hill & Evans 1972:235). The purpose falls into two broad categories, basic and instrumental (Adams 1988: 51). Basic purposes involve learning or expressing something about the classified material itself. Instrumental purposes involve using the classified material as a means to some other end.

Malmer’s approach to archaeological typology is by differentiation of similarities and dissimilarities between objects (ibid: 14-15, 250-151). He also emphasizes the importance of formulating a logically correct verbal definition of differing types. In order to distinguish between definition and description – if one is to delimit type A from type B – you have to define the differentia specifica (ibid: 254). Malmer is also critical to the use of pictures/drawings as references to archaeological types. In his opinion a type reference like “corresponding to fig. 234”, totally lacks factual information of the shape, size, colour, technique and decoration which actually define the type. Thus, the only way of solving this problem is by verbal definitions of the different types.

In the period 1940-1960, American archaeologists began to argue that artefact classifications should help them to ‘get inside the heads’ of the artefact makers (Rouse 1939, 1960; Krieger 1944; Taylor 1948; Spaulding 1953). Therefore, for the purpose of revealing ‘the role of material entities as potentially active components of human behaviour’ (Fletcher 1992), typology must be based on ‘mental templates’ or ‘prototypes’ (Kempton 1981), understood as the ideal form of an artefact, existing in the cognition of people who share the same culture (Merkyte 2005:80-81). According to Rouse, it will be possible by selecting diagnostic criteria to trace the standard, concept or custom which govern the behaviour of the artists of a community, which are handed down from generation to generation, and which may spread from community to community over vast distances (Rouse 1960:313).

”The artefacts are admittedly a priori existent, but types are not a priori existent. They exist first in the instant there is formulated a logically correct verbal definition” (ibid: 253). Malmer’s solution to this problem is the separation of definition and description. The description may be extensive, whereas the definition shall be direct, precise and impossible to misinterpret. Types are to be defined by present typological elements (which according to Malmer are objectively determinable) (see below). The great mass of different typological elements can be divided in different ways (ibid: 24-25, 257). Malmer’s main problem is that even though the elements themselves are objectively observable, there will always be a subjective assessment regarding which elements should be emphasized in the process of creating typologies. Regardless of material, all the present and traceable typological elements cannot be taken into consideration.

Naturally, the archaeologists’ classifications cannot be tested against the perceptions of the prehistoric potters and the pottery users. But through the mapping of basic attributes and the subsequent analysis of these, it is possible to arrive at some basic shapes, which at least would have been recognized by the potter, who thought not only in socially constructed concepts but also in terms of technological possibilities and chaîne opératoire (Merkyte 2005:81).

Previous classifications of bucketshaped pots Before I present the methodological basis for my own classification, I shall briefly review previous classifications of the material.

David Clarke’s Analytical Archaeology (1968) focuses also on methodological problems. According to Clarke, the fundamental entities and processes that pervade the diverse material, must be defined and explored before any

Schetelig’s (1904a) and Bøe’s (1931a) classifications of the 28

Table 5.1: Overview over terms used by Schetelig (1904a) and Bøe (1931a) in their treatment of bucket-shaped pottery. Levels

Schetelig: Schetelig: Most used term Other terms used Type Species Form

Schetelig: Defined by: Shape Decoration Material Technique

Bøe: Most used term Group (s)

Bøe: Other terms used Series Group Form Type

Bøe: Defined by: Shape Decoration Material Technique

2. 1st sub-division of bucket-shaped pots

Species

Series Special forms Side forms

Shape Decoration

Form

Shape Material Decoration Technique Shape Decoration

Variants

3. 2nd sub-division of bucket-shaped pots

Group Form Type Series Variant Series Local form

Variant groups

Decoration

4. 3rd sub-division of bucket-shaped pots (single pots)

-

Specimen Variant Transition form Intermediate form

Decoration

-

Variant Series Variant lines Local groups Specimen Case

1. All bucket-shaped pots

bucket-shaped pots represent examples of classifications based upon the typological method. They do not mention how the various classifications were developed, and neither are their methods explicitly defined. These objectives have to be found in their implicit treatment of the material, elucidated by the terms they have used. Schetelig’s and Bøe’s different terms are outlined above (Tab. 5.1).

Decoration

two first paragraphs in his chapter of the bucket-shaped pots. In Bøe’s further division of the material (level 2), the typological elements are restricted to elements of decoration and shape, whereas Schetelig also includes material and technique. For level 3 Schetelig’s most used term is ‘form’, whereas Bøe uses ‘variant groups’. He also talks about ‘variant’, ‘variant series’ and ‘variant lines’ and ‘local group’, whereas Schetelig confines himself to the terms ‘variant’, ‘series’ and ‘local form’ in most cases. For level 4, Schetelig mentions ‘specimen’, ‘variant’, ‘transition form’ and ‘intermediate form’ while Bøe only mentions ‘specimen’ and ‘case’. However, both authors’ definitions of entities depend solely upon various forms of decoration. Even though tempering material and shape may be mentioned, these characteristics are no longer important for the division of the material.

Schetelig begins his treatment of the bucket-shaped pottery by dividing them into two main types, as he regards them to be independent of each other with differing origins (Schetelig 1904a:49). These types provide the basis for his further subdivisions of the material. Bøe, on the other hand, starts his investigation by referring to Schetelig’s publication and by stating that his results and interpretations should still be regarded as valid. This statement, however, seems to be merely polite. Gradually, it becomes obvious that his division and interpretations of the material deviate from Schetelig’s. Firstly, he does not divide the material into two chronologically parallel series, as did Schetelig. Instead he divides the pots into two chronologically distinct series (early and late bucketshaped pots). The early bucket-shaped pots – dealt with in the first part of his publication – are further divided into two main groups: horizontally decorated pots and horizontally/vertically decorated pots, a division which also applied for the later bucket-shaped pots (Bøe 1931a:183-186).

Schetelig’s and Bøe’s publications are 27 years apart. Schetelig was only 27 years old when he published his work of the bucket-shaped pots (1904a). In spite of his young age, his knowledge of the material and find combinations cannot be doubted, and the article is essential as many of his conclusions are still valid. Besides typology and chronology it gives us insight into Schetelig’s theoretical position at the beginning of the 20th century. Schetelig was a ‘typologist’, and his research was empirically founded. He was obviously inspired by evolutionism which spread from the natural sciences to archaeology at the end of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century. This is reflected in his article about the bucket-shaped pots, in which terminology collected from natural sciences abounds. Terms like ‘degenerated variant’, ‘erased steps of evolution’, ‘closely related’, ‘oldest species’ and ‘younger species’ are frequent.

Inspection of the two authors’ division of the material brings out some interesting differences. Firstly, it becomes clear that the bucket-shaped pots (as an independent type of pottery) (table 5.1 - level 1) by both authors are defined in relation to material, form, technique and decoration. When all the pots are considered (1st level), Schetelig describes the pots as ‘type’, ‘species’ and ‘form’, with ‘type’ being the most commonly used term. However, he does not mention the term ‘group’. Bøe, on the other hand, uses both the terms ‘series’, ‘group’, ‘form’ and ‘type’ in the

Bøe represents a different way of thinking and another approach to the archaeological record. The questions regarding the prehistoric reality had changed during the years since Schetelig’s article was published. The questions ‘what’ and ‘when’ are no longer the most 29

important, but ‘how’ and ‘why’. Archaeological research is not just describing, but explaining and focusing upon causal connections. Bøe is not (in the same way as Schetelig) rooted in evolutionism, but is a culture historical archaeologist. Even though Schetelig’s and Bøe’s treatments of the bucket-shaped pots are still of value in several respects, to a large degree comparison of their deviating terms demonstrates inconsistency of terminology, indicating a need for a new classification.

of reference (Clarke 1968:139). The artefact includes a combination and mixture of these lower-level entities. Most attributes can be reduced to characters of two states in relation to their system – the attribute may be either present or absent. If the attribute is a size dimension, the artefact can have a variety of particular attribute states within the entity of that attribute. This kind of attribute is referred to as a multi-state attribute. Archaeological artefact-type populations may be regarded as complex systems of traits or multistate attributes (Clarke 1970:6). To use the attributes of any one major variable quality alone for the classification would be to ignore the networked inter-relationship operating between all the attributes in the system ensemble. The whole system of attributes operates together. For example, changes in the form and proportions will also affect decorative style.

The present classification of bucket shaped pots – premises and procedures As I see it, a classification is any matched set of partially contrasting categories, which exist in a state of ‘balanced opposition’ to one another, whereas a typology represents a particular type of classification: one that is made specifically for the purpose of sorting entities into mutually exclusive categories.

The artefact attributes may be divided into: a) inessential attributes – those which are not relevant to the study, and those attributes which are constant throughout; b) essential attributes – those variables which are part of the relevant system and whose values or states may change as part of the changing system. Detailed analysis of the essential or relevant attributes may then isolate certain: c) key attributes – those correlated clusters of attributes in the system whose successive values or states co-vary in some specific relationship with successive values of other similar attributes (Clarke 1968).

“Classification, […], is not an end in itself but a technique by means of which to attain specified objectives, and so it must be varied with the objective” (Rouse 1960:313). My attempt to classify the bucket-shaped pottery is motivated by the idea that the classification shall be useful. This implies that the aim is two-fold: 1) to establish a classification system into which the various bucket-shaped pots and sherds of pots can be typed and sorted and 2) to trace some of the social networks in the Migration Period by means of the very same classification. The latter way has often been described as

Malmer (1963) does not use the term attribute, but regards the typological elements to constitute the basis on which typologies should be built. He sorts the typological elements into five groups: elements of material, elements of proportions, elements of form, technical elements and elements of decoration. Superficially, Malmer’s and Clarke’s definitions seem to disagree. However, most of Malmer’s typological elements actually represent Clarke’s ‘multistate’ attributes, e.g. this holds for the element of form, element of proportion, technical elements as well as the element of decoration. Therefore, it is a matter of choice whether one prefers Malmer’s or Clarke’s terminology. In the present study, I will use Malmer’s typological elements and adopt Clarke’s theory of essential attributes and key attributes.

“analytic” classification whereas taxonomic classification consists of formulating a single set of classes, one for each kind of artefact in the collection (Rouse 1939, 1960). The main opportunity for variation comes in selecting the criteria which are to be considered diagnostic for one’s classes. These criteria are often selected to meet one of two alternate objectives: either to form modes or to establish types (Rouse 1960). This means that the proposed classification represents a combination of a ‘taxonomic’ and an ‘analytic’ approach.

It is crucial to observe that the selection of attributes is to some extent arbitrary. Therefore, a preliminary analysis is needed to determine the essential and inessential attributes. Above all, the key attributes cannot be accurately defined until after a detailed analysis of the data is completed. In the present study, all the data concerning the bucket-shaped pots or sherds has been examined before the selection of essential and key attributes.

According to David Clarke, the lowest level of entity recognized by the archaeologist is the attribute, defined as a logically irreducible character of two or more states, acting as an independent variable within a specific frame  ��������� The term ‘mode’ means ���������������������������������������������� any standard, concept, or custom which ������ governs the behaviour of the artists of a community, which they have handed down from generation to generation, and which may spread from community to community over considerable distances (Rouse 1960:313).

30

The major variable qualities that immediately help to distinguish bucket-shaped pots from the other pottery in the Late Roman and Migration periods are shape, tempering and decoration. Thus, the number of hypothetical cross combinations of these varying features is extensive.

defined five shapes. Shape A is identical in Magnus’ and my own classification grouping, but our shapes B-E do not correspond.

Decoration One of the major variable qualities that immediately help to distinguish bucket-shaped pots from the other Late Roman and Migration Period pottery groups is the decoration in its three aspects:

In the present study, the attributes which define the shape and decoration of the pots are regarded to be the essential attributes which largely define the bucket-shaped pots. This allows me to reduce the groups of variables useful for overall classification to the qualities of shape, motifs and position of decoration (decoration schemes – see below).

(1) the method of decoration (2) the position (placement) of decoration on the pot (3) the motifs used. One of the obvious things about the pots is that they all must, at some stage, have been undecorated. Therefore, when one comes across undecorated pots as part of the bucket-shaped pot assemblage, this should not be a surprising feature. However, undecorated pots represent a minority, only 22 of about 700 complete pots.

Shape groups Variations in the shape/form of the bucket-shaped pots represent the basis for the division of the pots into shape/ form groups. However, only about one third of the pots are so well preserved that their form can be defined. These pots have been divided into the following five groups, named A to E. Four of the shapes have been recognized by Schetelig (1904a), Bøe (1931a) and Magnus (1984a). In addition to these four shapes I have also included a fifth group (E), pots with handle. Magnus too has

Method/technique of decoration

Form A: Description: Cylinder or cone/frustum shaped pots (Fig. 5.1 a). The pots have an unrestricted orifice.

Form B: Pots with convex/ellipsoid sides (Fig. 5.1 b). Description: Pots with convex sides. The upper part of the wall can also be straight sided. Any straight sided part of the wall may not constitute more than c. 25% of the walls total length. The pots have an unrestricted orifice.

Form C: Pots with straight sides and a ‘sagging belly’ (Fig. 5.1 c). Description: The straight sides must constitute more than c. 25% of the total length of the wall. The pots have an unrestricted orifice.

Form D: Pots with globular sides (Fig. 5.1 d). Description: Pots with a globular shape. The diameter of the rim is always smaller than the diameter at the widest part of the pot. The pots have a restricted orifice.

Despite the detailed studies of ceramic design variation that have been made by archaeologists, there has been little discussion of the methods that should be used in these analyses (Plog 1980:40, 1990). In the present study the technique of decoration has priority over the individual attributes of decoration (e.g. Caneva 1987). By considering the technique used before taking the other elements into account, the following advantages are achieved: 1) the technique is a fact and does not lend itself to individual subjective interpretation; it can be recognized in the same way by anybody and is easily described; 2) the technique is more distinctive than the decorative motif it creates, 3) the technique reconstructs a ‘general trend’ (a specific way of treating the material), which conveys one organized meaning to the variability of the motifs present. It, therefore, goes beyond a detailed attribute list of a myriad of different executions, by accomplishing an operation which is a synthesis of what is simply seen (see 1). Accordingly, the decoration can be evaluated according to: a) the instrument used; b) the technique adopted to produce the decoration and c) the decorative patterns achieved. It is difficult to separate these aspects, and visual impression obviously takes all three into account (ibid: 233-234). The decoration of the bucket-shaped pots has been made by using fingers and nails, by the use of a comb or comb stamps and by means of prefabricated stamps. Following the principle that the method of decoration ranks above the achieved decorative patterns, the material has been

Form E: Description: Bucket-shaped pots with handles (Fig. 5.1 e). The pots have an unrestricted orifice.

 ���������������������������������������������������� I do not regard Magnus’ shape B as a separate form. Instead ������������������ her shape C corresponds to my shape B, her shape D corresponds to my shape C, whereas her shape E corresponds to my shape D. My type E has not been treated by Magnus.

 �������������������������������������������������������������� Also the tempering is regarded as an essential attribute. The tempering will be related to the various types of bucket-shaped pots in chapter 10.

31

divided into four groups. Group 1 includes undecorated pots, group 2 the finger and/or nail decorated pots, group 3 the comb and comb stamps decorated pots and group 4 the stamp decorated pots.

separate the pots body from the neck/rim (Fig. 5.3 c). Optional boundary markers may appear further down on the body of the pot. The central area (body) of the pot may also be vertically subdivided into a number of rectangles or triangles (Fig. 5.3 f ). Optional bottom band (Fig. 5.3 e) and decoration on the bottom of the pots (Fig. 5.3 g), thus constitute the sections of the vessel within which designs are decorated.

Some pots can have a combination of comb decoration and stamp decoration. In cases where stamp decoration is present, the pots have been referred to group 4 even though they may also be decorated with comb lines/ comb stamps. Similarly, pots decorated with finger nail decoration and comb lines/comb stamps have been referred to group 3.

As to the second principle, the decorations of the bucketshaped pots vary from sparse to decorations all over the central area (F in Fig. 5.3).

1

2 A C B

F

Figure 5.2: The four type groups based upon decoration techniques.

D E

Decoration design structure The elements of decoration and the design vary in the bucket-shaped pots, something that has influenced previous classifications. A basic assumption of the classification system used in this study is that classifying a design is no different than classifying other artefacts. Similar procedures should be followed in establishing a classification system. The fundamental units that must first be identified and explicitly defined are the attributes and the attribute states as Clarke (1968:134-135) and others have argued. Attributes in this study are equated with decisions, whether conscious or unconscious, made by the artisan during the manufacturing or decoration process.

G Figure 5.3: Design structure and spatial division for bucket-shaped pots: a) vessel edge/rim and optional iron band, b) central area (body) for design and design configurations, c) optional upper boundary marker(s), d) Lower body, e) optional lower boundary marker(s), f) optional horizontal/vertical subdivisions and g) optional decoration under the bottom.

Decoration elements (designs) placed within these spatial divisions have two levels of organization: 1) decoration elements and 2) design configurations (Fig. 5.4). Decoration elements represent the smallest unit (consisting of one specific sign), while design configurations may be defined as ‘arrangements of design elements’ (Friedrich 1970:335).

In the analysis of the bucket-shaped pot the approach of design structure has been adopted, depending upon three main aspects: 1) The decoration method (already mentioned above), 2) the pots main style or design structure (the position and arrangement of decoration on the pot), 3) the elements of decoration. The design structure is based upon two basic principles: 1) division of the vessels surface (that is to be decorated into bounded areas), and 2) the filling in of the defined areas with decoration elements (designs). The spatial division represents the highest level of this hierarchy since spatial division precedes additional decoration. There are also several examples of secondary added decoration touching/ crossing primary incised comb-lines. This clearly shows us that dividing the vessels surface has been the potter’s first operation when decorating the pots.

n

Design element

Primary configuration

Secondary element use

A B C D E F G H

As to the first principle a ‘space divider’ is (almost) always required; that is the vertical line(s)/band(s) which

Figure 5.4: Decoration elements and design configurations.

32

Decoration schemes After defining the basic structure of design it is necessary to give a description of the forms or designs/motifs with which the available space is filled. As mentioned earlier, the relationship between the two can be either relatively close or fairly independent, but the layout will always restrict or determine the form of a design to a greater or less extent.

Decoration method 3 Comb line- and stamp decorated pots

Decoration scheme 6 Horizontally decorated pots Decoration scheme 7 Horizontally/vertically decorated pots with open vertical areas

The design of bucket-shaped pottery may be defined in terms of two interrelated but conceptually distinguishable characteristics. The first is the overall structure or zonal style, that is, the way in which the field has been subdivided for decoration and the type of symmetry this creates. The second is the composition of the pattern, which encompasses the nature of the elements, units or motifs employed to fill subdivisions of the field. That is, their shape, size, spacing, and the symmetry processes by which they have been combined.

Decoration scheme 8 Hor./vert. decorated pots with decorated vertical areas Decoration scheme 9 Pots decorated with basket pattern

Decoration scheme 10 Pots decorated with hanging arches

In the present study, not all the decorative elements are seen as of equal importance. Some are taken to be essential decorative elements, and their presence refers the pot to a specific decoration scheme, sub-scheme or variant. Examples of essential decorative elements are modelled knobs, interlace, hanging arches, basket pattern and the cross of St. Andrew. In cases where different and diverse typological elements appear on the same pot, the defined essential decorative elements have superiority over the remaining decorative elements. The classification system is presented in figure 5.5. Sixteen decoration schemes have been recognized.

Decoration scheme 11 Pots decorated with interlace

Decoration method 4 Stamp decorated pots

Decoration scheme 12 Pots decorated with pipe/tube stamps

Decoration scheme 13 Pots decorated with stamped decorations

Decoration method 1 (absence of decoration) Undecorated pots (decoration scheme 0)

Decoration scheme 14 Pots decorated with stamped beading

Decoration method 2 Finger/nail decorated pots

Decoration scheme 15 Pots decorated with hanging arches and stamps

Decoration scheme 1 Finger decorated pots

Decoration scheme 16 Pots decorated with interlace and stamps Figure 5.5: The bucket-shaped pots have been referred to 16 different decoration schemes. Undecorated pots are referred to decoration scheme 0 (zero).

Decoration scheme 2 Nail decorated pots

Decoration scheme 3 Finger/nail decorated pots with comb lines

Form and decoration relationship As mentioned above, the bucket-shaped pots are divided into four groups based upon decoration method which are then divided into 16 main decoration schemes. Each of the 16 main decoration schemes are then divided into five shape groups. Of the three major variables (shape, decoration method and decoration scheme) two are aspects of decoration. In the broad sense it might therefore be argued that decoration provides a better basis for classification than shape. Based on these premises,

Decoration scheme 4 Pots with moulded knobs all over surface Decoration scheme 5 Pots with moulded knobs in the upper horizontal line  ����������������������������� Undecorated pots result from �������������������������������� a choice of not to decorate the bucket-shaped vessels. Due to lack of decoration they are referred to decoration scheme number zero.

33

the present classification of the bucket-shaped pots rests firstly upon the combination of decoration method and decoration scheme, and secondly shape. In chapter 6 the various decoration schemes will be related to shape groups.

Computation of the material In order to keep account of the different finds, the following data/information has been put into a database: Museum number, find place (farm, farm number, community and county), the bucket-shaped pots height (from base to orifice), diameter (orifice), wall thickness, tempering, iron collars (if present), mending (if made in antiquity), decoration method (undecorated, finger/ nail, comb lines/comb stamps, stamp decorated), types of stamps (if present), interlace, hanging arches (and the resulting decoration schemes, sub-schemes or variants). In addition information on whether the find is a solitary grave or is associated with datable artefacts, what kind/ types of artefacts associated with the pot and the dating of these have been included. Contextual information such as reliable/unreliable find context, cremation/ inhumation burial, visible grave monument/flat grave is also recorded. This database has formed the basis for further statistical treatment within a statistical analytical package (SPSS). In order to make it possible to analyse the material within the statistical package, the finds have been given numerical codes. The statistical program package «Statistical Package for Social Sciences» (SPSS) was employed (Ver. 13.0; SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). T-test or Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed as indicated. Statistical significance was considered if P