AN ORNAMENT IN PEACE AND A DEFENCE IN WAR LATE ROMAN WEAPON GRAVES AND MILITARY ORGANISATION IN EASTERN NORWAY

Frans-Arne Stylegar

The types of weapons used by Germanic armies in the Late Roman period are well-known and well studied. Thanks to the excavations and subsequent publications of Illerup, Ejsbl and other war-booty offerings in Denmark, we now also have a rather clear picture of the functional aspects and internal organisation of Germanic armies. However, still lacking are further regional studies dealing with questions that the recent analyses of the bog-deposits have enabled us to ask, but which this material cannot by itself provide the answers to. An important question seems to me to be how the contemporary armies were recruited. While I dont believe that there is necessarily only one answer to this question, the present study of Late Roman weapon graves from South-East Norway suggests that in this area at least there is an interesting topographical aspect to the distribution of weapon combinations and types indicative of the different levels of military hierarchy, as these can be reconstructed from the war-booty offerings.

ILLERUP PLACE A
It has been stated that material of great value for the understanding of Roman history in Norway, is now amassed in museum collections in Denmark as a consequence of the excavations in Vimose and Illerup (von Carnap-Bornheim & Ilkjr 1999:138-9). The background for this statement is Jrgen Ilkjrs work with the Illerup material, and his conclusion that the material from the Illerup A offering, dating to C1b, originated from the Western part of the Scandinavian peninsula (von Carnap-Bornheim 1992; Ilkjr 1990, 1993, 1997, 2003; Ilkjr & von Carnap-Bornheim 1999). Ilkjr and von Carnap-Bornheim were able to differentiate between three qualitatively different combinations of weaponry and thus three different
KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 243

hierarchical levels in the besieged army, whose weapons and personal equipment (12.000 artefacts) had subsequently been deposited in the then lake at Illerup (gure 1). The rst and most prominent level (level 1), the army commanders, had swords, shields, belts, and riding gear decorated with mounts made of gilded silver. The second level (level 2) consisted of ofcers with swords, shields, belts, and riding gear decorated with bronze mounts, while the third level (level 3), the regulars or infantry, had a combination of weapons different from the ofcers, most often a spear, a javelin, and a shield with mounts primarily made of iron. In Illerup A, of which only c. 40 percent has been excavated, 5-6 sets of weapons associated with the uppermost level were found, against 35-40 associated with the middle level, and c. 350 with the lower (Ilkjr 2003:50). Furthermore, about a dozen sets of equine equipment were rescued (Ilkjr 2000:102), indicating an identical number of equestrians. From the somewhat younger Ejsbl nd (c. 300 AD) c. 200 sets of the combination lance/javelin/shield were rescued, some of which also included bow and arrow. 60 weapon sets also had swords and (weapon) knives. 12-15 sets stood out by having more exclusively worked sword grips, strap buckles and mounts, and 9 sets included equine equipment as well (Jensen 2003:571).
Figure 1: 3rd century military leaders, from the Illerup exhibiton at Moesgaard Museum, rhus. Photo: FransArne Stylegar.

Ilkjr and von Carnap-Bornheim also suggested that there is a degree of correspondence between the internal organisation of the Illerup army and information supplied by Tacitus in the 1st century, that the Germanic armies consisted of princeps (princes), comites (ofcers or retinue), and pedites (foot-soldiers). This tripartite organisation is also mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th century, thus suggesting that we are dealing with
244 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

a long-standing structural feature of Germanic armies. The very homogeneity among parts of the Illerup A nd, especially the lances, javelins and shields that is, in the equipment belonging to the bulk of the beaten army could indicate that these weapons were handed out by the army leaders from armouries controlled by them (see, for instance, von Carnap-Bornheim 1993; Ilkjr & von Carnap-Bornheim 1999:144).

WARRIORS AND SOLDIERS

The numerical relationship between the three levels of hierarchy in the Illerup nd is interesting. There is a 1:8 proportion not only between levels 1 and 2, but also between levels 2 and 3. The latter relationship compares with the one between ofcers and foot-soldiers in the Roman army, where the smallest unit was a contubernium, a group of eight men led by a decurion and sharing a tent. In a more recent contribution, Xenia Pauli Jensen et al. (2003) have discussed the Illerup nd and the Illerup army from a more anthropologically informed perspective. Drawing upon a distinction argued by the anthropologist Andrew Sanders, these authors seek to distinguish between warriors, whose vocation is war, soldiers, whose profession is war, and conscripts, who are ordered into war. Typical for warriors are personally acquired weapons and localised arms production. Soldiers and conscripts, on the other hand, have standardised weapon types supplied by their leader or employer, and weapon production is centralised (Pauli Jensen et al. 2003:313). While conscripts in this sense do not seem to appear in the archaeological source material until the Late Iron Age, Pauli Jensen et al. argues that the distinction between warriors and soldiers is indeed relevant for interpreting the 3rd century Illerup hierarchy. Thus, the army leaders, the princeps and the comites, seem to have had warrior status, while it is likely that the pedites were soldiers, as their weaponry appears very standardised (2003:313-14). Both the Illerup and the Ejsbl material seem to point to other divisions within the Germanic armies, perhaps of a different order from that between the three different hierarchical levels, and perhaps related to tactical aspects of the armies. For instance, the numbers of horsemen in the Illerup army is considerably higher than the number of princeps, and, on the other hand, considerably lower than the number of comites, strongly suggesting that only a proportion of the ofcers were equestrians. This corresponds well with the written sources: The Germanic hosts which swept into southern Europe in the late second century BC were mainly foot-soldiers. A century later the warriors who formed the armies of Maraboduus and Arminius also fought largely on foot. The migrating peoples who
KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 245

passed into the Roman provinces depended overwhelmingly upon their infantry troops, relying for the most part on massed ranks of men. The use of mounted troops among most Germanic peoples was limited. Julius Caesar employed German horsemen in his armies in Gaul The cavalrymen who appear in the historical and archaeological record were mainly chiefs and their immediate retinues (Todd 1992:36-37). Likewise, the pedites in both nds seem to consist of men with at least two different types of weapon combinations, with a smaller group displaying swords in addition to the numerically dominant lance/javelin/shield combinations. Another, lesser group is suggested by the presence of arrows in both the Illerup and the Ejsbl nds. There is no doubt that these were specialised, highly organised armies. The presence of cavalry and of archery testies to the degree of discipline and structure needed. Furthermore, the standardised weapons, the presence of Roman weapons and the sheer speed by which new Roman weapon types are adopted in Germanic society throughout the Roman period, points to there being a rather close relationship between Roman and Germanic military developments in this period. As pointed out by Pauli Jensen et al., there are profound differences between the tribal armies that can be reconstructed from the early war-booty offerings like Hjortspring (4th century BC) and the later ones, like Illerup, Vimose, and Illerup. However, there are also obvious differences between the contemporary Roman legion and the Illerup army. One striking feature of the Germanic armies was noted by Tacitus as early as the late 1st century, namely that even iron is not plentiful with them, as we infer from the character of their weapons. But few use swords or long lances. They carry a spear (framea is their name for it), with a narrow and short head, but so sharp and easy to wield that the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or distant conict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satised with a shield and spear; the foot-soldiers also scatter showers of missiles, each man having several and hurling them to an immense distance (Germania, ch. 6). Still in the 3rd century Illerup army, lance/javelin and shield seem to have been the normal combination of weapons among the foot-soldiers, unlike in the Roman army (as for instance testied by Vegetius at the end of the 4th century, but with reference to olden days). Pauli Jensen et al. provides a likely answer to the problem, namely that the army organisation evidenced in Illerup A is less reminiscent of the Roman legion itself than of the supporting, auxiliary units (cf Albrethsen 1997:216): The explanation might be as simple as this: the Germans who fought on the Roman side in the Marcomannic wars and later on served as mercenaries in the period after Marcus Aurelius, have brought home with
246 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

them their knowledge of the Roman military structure. The speed by which the Germanic armies adjust to Roman conditions and vice versa points to an interconnectedness, whereby each side continually adjust weapons and ghting techniques to the opponents newest innovations (2003:325). The military capacity of Scandinavian society in this period is well documented also by other types of archaeological nds and monuments, be it boathouses (Grimm 2006; Myhre 1997), water barriers (Nrgrd Jrgensen 2001), or hill forts (Engstrm 1991). Fortied settlements like the Early Roman period village of Priorslkke in Eastern Jutland show defences in the form of palisades well-suited to resist attacks by mounted warriors (Kaul 1997).

ROMAN WEAPON GRAVES

Let us consider the weapon graves. There have been several attempts to correlate the weapon combinations and military hierarchy from Illerup place A with other types of archaeological source material, mainly Scandinavian weapon graves, not least by Ilkjr himself (von Carnap-Bornheim 1992; Gansum 2000; Ilkjr 1990, 1993, 1997, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2003; Ilkjr & von Carnap-Bornheim 1999; Solberg 2003:103-123; for a more critical view of the feasibility of discussing military organisation based on burials, see Hrke 1997). Naturally, much of the focus has been on the burials belonging to Ilkjrs levels 1 and 2. In Scandinavia, the rst weapon graves appear mainly in the late preRoman Iron Age, but not exclusively in parts of Denmark (Hedeager 1992:115). Although there are clear regional differences in leaving weapons with the dead (Hedeager & Kristiansen 1981:122f; Watt 2003), the practice as such from that point onward exists in many parts of Scandinavia right through to Christian times. In Denmark, the number of weapon graves increases steadily in the Early Roman period (ER), when approximately 7 % of all contemporary graves contain weapons. In the Late Roman period (LR), this percentage decreases to 2 % (Hedeager 1992:115). The same pattern occurs in SE Norway as well, but somewhat delayed. Thus, while the weapon grave ritual is established in the ER, it does not peak until the LR (actually in periods C1a and C1b), only to decrease in the Migration period. In the latter period, most weapon graves are found in the Western districts of SE Norway, such as Vestfold and Telemark, but even there the number of graves is decreasing, even if the remaining ones are more elaborately furnished than in the preceding period. As for regional differences, within SE Norway there is a core area with an exceptional number of graves in the inland areas around Lake Mjsa and Lake Randsfjord, centred on the districts of Hadeland, Toten, and Valdres. The number of Roman weapon graves in these upland parts of SE Norway

KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 247

is matched only by Gotland in the Nordic countries. We will return to these districts below. What do the weapon graves represent, status wise? The use of weapons in burial rituals is denitely a reection of the militarization of societies in the tribal zone beyond the limes. But are we correct in interpreting the status associated with weapons and different combinations of weapons as military status? I think we are, and I believe the results from the present study strengthen this interpretation (below). This is also suggested by Hedeagers study of the Roman burials in Denmark, and more specically by her discussion of the signicance of spurs in the graves. She points to anthropological studies (from Northern German cemeteries) which show that weapons are usually found with younger men, while sets with spurs but without weapons belong to older men (1992:160): In other words, weapons are particularly linked to the function of the active warrior. Second, warriors with spurs similarly lose the weapon set with age, but keep the spurs and the wealth; that is, they maintain a status which overrides the warrior function. Third, both weapons and spurs can be found in the graves of very young men, which leads us to conclude that the status/ function marked by the right to carry both weapons and spurs is likely to be a matter of birth, rather than earned. These patterns are consistent with Tacitus description of Germanic practices (Germania, ch. 13): They transact no public or private business without being armed. It is not, however, usual for anyone to wear arms till the state has recognised his power to use them. Then in the presence of the council one of the chiefs, or the young mans father, or some kinsman, equips him with a shield and a spear. These arms are what the toga is with us, the rst honour with which youth is invested. Up to this time he is regarded as a member of a household, afterwards as a member of the commonwealth. Very noble birth or great services rendered by the father secure for lads the rank of a chief; such lads attach themselves to men of mature strength and of long approved valour. It is no shame to be seen among a chiefs followers. Even in his escort there are gradations of rank, dependent on the choice of the man to whom they are attached. These followers vie keenly with each others as to who shall rank rst with his chiefs, the chiefs as to who shall have the most numerous and the bravest followers.
248 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

It is an honour as well as a source of strength to be thus always surrounded by a large body of picked youths; it is an ornament in peace and a defence in war. There is, however, one aspect of the mortuary customs in the Roman period that argues against assuming a too direct and causal relationship between arming in life and weapon combinations in death. It seems that only one individual per family in each generation got a furnished burial, i.e. the rst spouse that died, whether a woman or a man (Jrgensen 1988; Stylegar 2006). Most of the weapon graves ought to be sought in graves of this type. They are a way of showing status common to all families, but only once every generation. And not all families had access to the same resources, or the same weapons. Thus, while a male weaponless grave does not rule out the warrior status of the deceased, a grave with weapons is indeed a reection military status of the deceased. But it seems to me that the implications of this distinction are quantitative rather than qualitative, i.e. it does not rule out the possibility of reconstructing the relative size of different levels of the Roman period military hierarchy, only their denite numbers. For East Jutland it has been suggested that the distribution of Roman graves with spurs indicate a political division of the landscape into a whole number of similar area modules, each of a size comparable to the later herreder (Hedeager & Kristiansen 1981:125f.). Lund Hansen, too, argues for a military interpretation of the weapon graves (Lund Hansen 1995). Starting from the richly furnished graves at the Himlingje cemetery in Stevns in Zeeland, she points out that not only are weapons basically absent from Himlingje; they are absent from a much larger area from Roskilde to Prest. The weapon graves in Zeeland occur in a belt outside this area, and Lund Hansen interprets the weapon graves as belonging to a body of armed followers placed securely at some distance from the political centre at Himlingje. But admittedly, her material is rather sparse. Hedeager grouped the weapon graves into three different categories based on the number of weapon types in each grave (three, two, and one weapon, respectively), and she argued that this tripartite division reected a military hierarchy (Hedeager 1990). She found that graves with a full set of weapons comprised only 10-15 percent of the weapon graves (1992:121). Her study predates the publications and analyses of the Illerup material, and the suggested military hierarchy, based solely on the grave nds as is, represents a much coarser structure than the one argued by Ilkjr. Thus, to a certain degree all of Hedeagers three groups can be found within each and every one of Ilkjrs. As for Norway, Roman weapon graves have been the subject of a number of recent studies (Joki 2006; Eketuft Rygh 2007; Storli 2006). Thus, Storli has suggested that a relative distribution of weapon groups similar to the one
KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 249

argued by Hedeager can be discerned in Northern Norway. She too argues that individuals buried with a complete set of weapons represent military elite (Storli 2006:88-89). As for the relative distribution of different weapon types, Solberg (2003:81-82) gives a brief summary of the Norwegian material as a whole. How does this apply in SE Norway?

WEAPON GRAVES IN SE NORWAY

The empirical basis for the present study is Late Roman period weapon nds from the modern-day counties of stfold, Akershus, Oslo, Hedmark, Buskerud, Oppland, Vestfold, and Telemark. Altogether, approx. 150 grave nds and stray nds with weapons that can be dated to C1-C3 are known from this rather extensive area. Most of the nds in question are listed in Ilkjr (1990) and/or Bemmann & Hahne (1994), while the rest are taken from the catalogue of the University Museum of Cultural Historys collection in Oslo. Taken as a whole, graves with one weapon type comprise 41 % of the total number of graves. This numerical dominance of single-weapon graves ts well with Hedeagers results based on the material from Denmark. However, graves with two weapon types comprise 27 %, and graves with three comprise 32 %. Thus, it seems that graves with a full set of weapons are over- represented in SE Norway vis--vis Denmark. The ratio of graves with three weapon types from the Ejsbl nd is slightly over 20 %, thus somewhat higher than the grave material in Denmark, but still less than the number for SE Norway. Looking at the material from the perspective suggested by Ilkjr, we nd that 12 % of the weapon graves can be attributed to his level 2, against 88 % in level 3. For Illerup A, the comparable ratios would be 9 % and 89 %, respectively. Only one burial in the study area belongs to level 1 the C3 grave from Strang in Ringerike, Buskerud, with a bandoleer with silver ttings (Ilkjr cat. no. 735, cf. Fett 1937; Slomann 1959). This single burial dees any statistics (it equals 0,7 %; just one more nd would bring the percentage up to 1,3, and thus very close to Illerups 1,5 %). Thus, there is a great degree of correspondence between the SE Norwegian weapon graves and the Illerup nd. When it comes to riding gear, 10 of the burials in SE Norway have spurs, equal to 7 %. The number for Illerup is 3 %, as it is for Ejsbl. If we look at the weapon combinations within each of the two groups (levels 2 and 3), we notice some striking differences between the two of them. In level 2, distinguished by shields, belts, and riding gear decorated with bronze ttings, 62 % of the nds (i.e. 13 nds) have a sword, lance, javelin, and shield (and, in some instances, spur(s)). This seems to be the prescribed weapon combination for level 2, as the remaining 38 % of the nds consist of accidental combinations each found in one instance. All level 2 graves have a sword (except one nd that consists of a shield boss only). Spur(s) occur in 29 % of the level 2 burials.
250 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

As for level 3, three different combinations stand out. By far the most common one, represented by 39 % of the nds (i.e. 47 nds) in this group, consists of a singular lance or javelin (and sometimes including a shield). Two other combinations one with a sword, lance, and javelin (and often including a shield) and one with a lance and javelin (and sometimes including a shield) are represented by 22 % (27 nds) and 19 % (23 nds) respectively. The remaining combinations seem to be accidental and due to either bad preservation or the context of recovery, as none of them occur in more than three instances. Only four burials belonging to Ilkjrs level 3 contain one or two spurs. Three of these have a full set of weapons, while one contains only a lance. To put it simply: Level 2 consists of two combinations: a full weapon set either 1) with or 2) without spur(s). Level 3 has three combinations: 1) a singular lance or javelin (and sometimes including a shield), 2) sword, lance, and javelin (and sometimes including a shield), and 3) lance and javelin (and sometimes including a shield). In the Illerup A nd, most level 2 sets consisted of full weapon sets, while the most common combination in level 3 was a spear and javelin (and shield). As for level 2, our ndings again correspond to the Illerup material. In level 3, the share of burials containing a sword is comparable to the Illerup situation (22 % in SE Norway; 28% in Illerup). Only one aspect of the SE Norwegian material associated with level 3 seems to diverge from the Illerup pattern, namely the dominance of nds with only one weapon type, either a lance or a javelin. Some notes on source criticism are in order here. First, only a small fragment of the material stems from archaeological investigations. Most nds result from either accidental discovery by people ploughing, digging, building roads etc, or come from barrows excavated by local farmers or other non-professionals. This is a general problem with Roman graves in Norway (cf. Ilkjr 2001a:2-4). Strictly speaking, only c. 10 % of the 150 nds in our material result from scientic investigations. About half of these had a full weapon set, while the other half consisted of burials with either a lance and javelin or a singular lance or javelin. Thus, the three main combinations (and only these) are represented in the material resulting from professional excavations. Still, the dominance of single weapons might call for caution. It is not that it is unheard of in the Roman period material; in B1 Jutland and Funen, for example, a combination of a lance and a shield is very widespread indeed (Watt 2003:184-186). But if we look at Late Roman graves from SE Norway in Bemmann/Hahnes catalogue, single weapons account for almost 70 % of the nds from unknown contexts or not explicitly said to come from barrows or other grave contexts. Most of the remaining 30 % is taken up by a lance and a javelin found together. It does not seem unlikely that a portion of the single weapons actually represents specimens lost during hunting etc.
KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 251

In some instances this interpretation is self-evident, and the nds in question are not included in this study. However, a look at Bemman/Hahnes catalogue for Western Norway (i.e. the counties Rogaland, Hordaland, Sogn og Fjordane, and Mre og Romsdal) indicates that single weapons do actually form a separate weapon grave group. There are relatively fewer Late Roman nds in this region than in SE Norway, but a seemingly clear pattern emerges when one looks at the nds from more or less certain burial contexts: the combination lance and javelin is much more common in the Western districts, with twice as many nds as those represented by solitary lances or javelins. The situation is different with the stray nds, and here there is a 50:50 relationship between the two groups. Thus, is seems likely that a proportion of the single weapons either represents partially recovered burials, most likely of a lance and a javelin, or deposition contexts other than burials. But both these relative numbers are different from the SE Norwegian ones, and this further suggests to us that the combination lance and javelin is in fact more widespread in the Western districts than in the Oslofjord area, and that a substantial number of single weapons in SE Norway actually represent graves with one weapon only (unless one wants to suggest that people in the latter region lost their weapons more often than their western counterparts). Some of the single weapon nds in SE Norway probably represent only partially recovered graves, most likely graves with a lance and javelin (and shield) combined. But it is not possible to state with any certainty the real relative size of the single weapon group versus the group consisting of graves with a lance and a javelin (Solberg states that lance and javelin is the most common combination in Norway, but this may be based primarily on the material from Western Norway, see Solberg 2003:81). Sufce it to say that the level 3 graves in SE Norway consist of three major combinations. The full weapon set accounts for 22 % of the nds, while the two other main groups are made up of single lances or javelins, and lances and javelins found together. The relative weight of the latter two is uncertain, although together they account for approximately 60 % of the total number of graves in level 3. Let us have a closer look at one sub-region in SE Norway, and see how the different hierarchical levels and different weapon combinations appear on the ground, so to speak. Let us focus on the Upland districts.

THE OPPLANDENE REGION

Most of the weapon graves are in fact from this area, i.e. from the districts centred at the great lakes of Eastern Norway: Randsfjorden, Tyrifjorden, and Mjsa. Indeed, in Ilkjrs catalogue (1990) of 202 Late Roman nds from the whole of Norway, 62 are from the present region of Oppland more than twice as many as the second region. This remarkable distribution pattern
252 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

was commented upon by Shetelig as early asat the Nordic archaeologists meeting in Copenhagen in 1919 (Shetelig 1920). In 1925, he wrote: Cremation burials with a rich equipment of weapons and often with imported bronze vessels appear sporadically, one and one, from the beginning of the Roman Iron Age on both sides of the Oslofjord, and in the lake districts in the Uplands, at Tyrifjorden and Randsfjorden. It is the older nds, from the 1st-3rd centuries, that have this rather widespread and even distribution across Eastern Norway. But during the 3rd, and even stronger in the 4th century, the burials of this type cluster very clearly in one single, limited area, in Hadeland with Toten and Valdres, the old historical Hadeland, while they gradually disappear elsewhere (1925:136). Sheteligs great idea was that the weapon graves in Opplandene were due to an inux of military specialists returning home from service in Roman or Germanic armies in Continental Europe, especially after the end of the Second Marcomannian War in AD 180. He especially linked this return to the name Hadeland, i.e. land of the warriors (Shetelig 1920; for the possible meaning of the landscape name, see Sandnes & Stemshaug 1997). After Shetelig, the Roman burials in the area have been dealt with by others, primarily by Grieg (1926) and Herteig (1955), both of whom suggested different explanations than Shetelig for the predominance of weapon graves, as they argued that most weapon graves in the area stem from what today are wealthy farms, and thus that the weapon burial custom reected the upper strata of a farming society. At least for Hadeland, a more recent study conrms that the weapon graves are indeed concentrated in areas that in medieval times were occupied by bigger than average farms (Skre 1998:228). Eketuft Rygh has recently argued that a new political structure was coming into being in Opplandene in the Late Roman Period, one that in the Early Merovingian Period is reected in the so-called ker complex (2007:98f). This is a likely background for the important part played by weapon graves in the former period. Thus, there is probably some truth in both traditional interpretations, i.e. both the military and the social one, to the extent that social hierarchy is reected in military hierarchy, or vice versa. I now refer the reader to the map, gure 2. On it are marked all weapon nds from the periods B2 to D1 in the main settlement areas between Randsfjorden and Mjsa, approximately 100 nds altogether. The solid black circles signify inventories that include a sword, and the open circles inventories with lance and/or javelin as the only weapon(s). The farm names specied on the map are nd spots for burials belonging to Ilkjrs level 2.
KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 253

Figure 2: Topographical distribution of weapon graves (B2-D1) in the central part of Opplandene. Filled circles: graves containing swords; open circles: other weapon graves. Map: Frans-Arne Stylegar.

The weapon graves have a relatively even distribution across the region, but still with clear clusters in Gran (Hadeland) and stre Toten. Together, these two districts account for almost half of the weapon graves in the region. But there are other interesting facts about the distribution of weapon graves in this area. First of all, there is a tendency for graves with swords to cluster in the vicinity of level 2 graves. This is particularly clear in Gran and in stre Toten. A similar
254 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

picture seems to emerge in Ringsaker, the peninsula to the north of Lake Mjsa, but no level 2 grave is discovered there as yet. These same clusters seem to exist through the whole period in question. Within the clusters are some farms with a number of graves with sword, often spanning several generations. In some instances, more than one level 2 grave is discovered from the same farm. This is the case with Stabu in Toten and Egge in Hadeland. Thus, there must have been at least some stability and continuity in the recruitment of ofcers, as they seem to have been recruited from the same farms through generations. Secondly, graves with a lance and/or javelin (and sometimes shield) as the only weapon(s) also occur in more peripheral areas, and thus have a much more widespread distribution than the sword graves. This is evident in Jevnaker, Gjvik, Furnes, and northern parts of Ringsaker, as well as in Land. Over large tracts of land, lance/javelin seems to be the only weapons accompanying the dead. How are we to interpret this rather striking pattern? Let us look at the clusters again. While it is true that they encompass some of the best farming land in the region, and thus represent people of relatively high social standing, there are other areas which are similarly well suited for agriculture but which dont have any clusters. So while there is obviously some correlation between clusters of weapon graves and the leading social strata, the relationship is not straight forward at least not if leading strata means free odal farmers, as in Griegs and Herteigs argument against Sheteligs military hypothesis. There is, however, one kind of military organisation which seems to t the pattern: aristocratic retinues could be the raison detre for the clustering of weapon graves in certain areas. There is extensive literature concerning the retinue or comitatus described by Tacitus and said to be widespread among the Germans (Germania, ch. 1315; see for instance von Carnap-Bornheim 1992). The comites would consist of both cavalry and infantry (Kristensen 1983). They had taken a special oath which obliged them to assist their leader (princeps) in war as well as peace. In return they received maintenance, gifts and a part of the spoils in case of raids or other war-like activities. The princeps reputation depended on the number of brave warriors in his retinue, which again depended on his generosity and luck in war. In peace time the retinue was a heavy burden, economically speaking (Hedeager & Tvarn 2001:105). Skre argues that the aristocracy in the Nordic countries had warriors attached to their persons and households from the Roman Period and well into the Middle Ages (Skre 1998:261). A few words need to be said regarding the level 1 graves, that is, graves associated with the princeps. As mentioned before, there is only one level 1 grave in SE Norway. This grave, from Strang in Ringerike, belongs to a weapon grave milieu similar to the clusters in our study area. A comparable situation exists for one of the two other level 1 graves in Norway, namely
KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 255

the grave from Erga in Klepp, Rogaland. Of the ve Swedish nds, it seems to be the case with at least two. Therefore, there is a case for arguing that level 1 burials too belong to the clusters, even if we dont have any level 1 burials (yet) in Hadeland, Toten, or Hedmark. I would argue that we ought to expect level 1 graves within each of the clusters that have yielded level 2 and level 3 graves in these areas, i.e. in Gran in Hadeland, in stre Toten in Toten, in Vang/Lten in Hedemarken, and perhaps also in Ringsaker, since there is a cluster of weapon graves containing swords in this district, even if no level 2 grave is known there. Looking at Eastern Norway as a whole, there are two more clusters of this kind: Valdres and Southern stfold, but only the latter has yielded level 2 graves (gure 3).

Figure 3: Clusters (circles) with graves containing swords in SE Norway. Map: Frans-Arne Stylegar.

Thus, it doesnt seem far-fetched to suggest that what we have before us in the distribution of weapon graves in the Opplandene, is a topographical expression of the difference between the sword-possessing aristocracy and their followings on the one hand, and ordinary warriors on the other. The members of the comitatus were based on the princeps hall. The reason for the clustering of weapon graves in smaller districts, i.e. not solely on the farm containing the princeps hall, could be that the comites were granted farms that were part of the princeps estate for their maintenance. The princeps and his retinue, the
256 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

sword users focused on the formers hall, that is, were warriors in Sanders sense, their vocation was war. We still have to account for the division between level 2 graves and other graves containing swords, and it is likely that level 2 equipment was associated with a special function within the retinue, for instance with standard bearers (cfr for instance Rygge 1970 on swords with gure inlays), or with leadership positions within the retinue. With this in mind, then, how were big armies such as the one defeated at Illerup recruited? They were probably made up of several chieftains retinues, with each level 1 warrior commanding a retinue including both level 2 and level 3 men. It is interesting to compare with the situation in the Viking Age, where for instance Knut the Greats thingmannalid was constructed in a similar way (Lindkvist 1990; cf. Andr 1960). Heerhufen is the term used by Kuhn to denote armies put together for a major military campaign or other particular purpose (Kuhn 1956). If the Late Roman Period Heerhufen were made up of several chieftains retinues put together for particular purposes in this way, the widely diverging size estimates of contemporary and near contemporary armies extracted from written sources, become more understandable (see for instance Hines 1989; Reuter 1997; Wallace-Hadrill 1975). It follows from the arguments presented in the preceding paragraphs, that 10 to 12 clusters of the same kind as the 3 to 5 found in the Opplandene would be enough to gather an army 1000 men strong. But how do we account for the relative dominance of swords within the clusters. The similarities between the relative distribution of weapon types in Norwegian graves and in the Illerup nd seem at odds with the weapon combinations dominant within the clusters in Opplandene. This might indicate that Late Roman Period Scandinavian armies consisted not only of several chiefs and their personal retinues, but that a considerable number of pedites, mainly armed with lance and/or javelin, and shield were added. Many of these seem to have been recruited from a much wider geographical area than the comites. The foot-soldiers were probably recruited from the large and diverse group of free men, including independent farmers, loyal to the chief. The pedites were probably soldiers in Sanders sense.

CONCLUSION
The excavation of the Illerup A war-booty offering and the subsequent publication of the nds, have yielded new insights into Late Roman military organisation. But only few studies have so far tried to utilise these insights to (re-)study other types of source material that can cast new light upon how Late Roman period armies were organised and recruited. The present paper has dealt with weapon graves from SE Norway. Altogether, some 150 grave nds and stray nds with weapons that can be dated to C1-C3 are known from this rather extensive area. Taken as a whole,
KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 257

graves with one weapon type comprise 41 % of the total number of graves. Graves with two weapon types comprise 27 %, and graves with three comprise 32 %. Thus, it seems that graves with a full set of weapons is over- represented in SE Norway vis--vis Denmark. 12 % of the weapon graves can be attributed to Ilkjrs level 2, against 88 % in level 3. For Illerup the comparable ratios would be 9 % and 89 %, respectively. Thus, there is a great degree of correspondence between the SE Norwegian weapon graves and the Illerup nd. In SE Norway, graves associated with level 2 consist of two combinations: a full weapon set either 1) with or 2) without spur(s). Level 3 has three combinations: 1) a singular lance or javelin (and sometimes including a shield), 2) sword, lance, and javelin (and sometimes including a shield), and 3) lance and javelin (and sometimes including a shield). Only one aspect of the SE Norwegian material associated with level 3 seems to diverge from the Illerup pattern, namely the dominance of nds with only one weapon type, either a lance or a javelin. Most of the weapon graves in the present study are from the Opplandene area, i.e. from the districts centred at the great lakes of Eastern Norway, Randsfjorden, Tyrifjorden, and Mjsa. The dominance of weapon graves in this region has been dicussed within Norwegian archaeology since the 1920s, with researchers at times arguing for a military interpretion, and at times for a social or economic one. In the Opplandene, there is a tendency for graves with swords, either belonging to level 2 or level 3, to form large, marked clusters. There is one such cluster in each of the old folkland Ringerike, Hadeland, and Toten. Graves with lance and/or javelin (and sometimes shield) as the only weapon(s) also occur in more peripheral areas, and thus have a much more widespread distribution than the sword graves. In the Illerup nd, swords are associated with the upper and middle level of the military hierarchy, as well as with a minority within the lower level. In Late Roman burials in Opplandene the numerical distribution of weapon types is similar to the one from Illerup. But topographically speaking there seem to be clear differences between weapon graves with or without swords, as graves with swords are found rst and foremost in clusters which also contain level 2 graves, i.e. graves associated with the middle level of the Illerup hierarchy. There is only one kind of military organisation which seem to t this pattern: aristocratic retinues. The distribution of weapon graves in the Opplandene is a topographical expression of the difference between the sword-possessing aristocracy and their followers on the one hand, and ordinary warriors on the other. The members of the retinue were based on the chieftains hall. The reason for the clustering of weapon graves in smaller districts, i.e. not solely on the farm containing the chieftains hall, could be that the comites were granted farms that were part of the chieftains estate for their maintenance. The spear and/or javelin carrying foot-soldiers were probably recruited from the large and diverse group of free men, including independent farmers, loyal to the chief. Big
258 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

Late Roman armies like the one defeated at Illerup were probably made up of several chieftains retinues, with each level 1 warrior commanding a retinue including both level 2 and level 3 men. 10 to 12 clusters of the same kind as the 3 to 5 found in the Opplandene would be enough to gather an army of a thousand men. It cannot be a coincidence that there is one cluster of weapon graves with swords in each of the old landscapes of Ringerike, Hadeland, Hedemarken and Toten, i.e. all of the central districts in the Opplandene. One can hardly avoid the conclusion that these folklands were in existence already by the 3rd century AD, at least as distinct social and military hierarchies.

LITERATURE
Albrethsen, S. E. 1997 Logistical problems in Iron Age warfare. In Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective AD 1-1300, ed. by A. N. Jrgensen & B. L. Clausen. National Museum, Copenhagen. Andr, C.-G. 1960 Kyrka och frlse i Sverige under ldre medeltid. Svenska bokfrlaget, Stockholm. Bemmann, J. & G. Hahne 1994 Waffenfhrende Grabinventare der jngeren rmischen Kaiserzeit und Vlkerwanderungszeit in Skandinavien. Studie zur zeitlichen Ordnung anhand der norwegischen Funde. Berichte der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 75. Mainz. von Carnap-Bornheim, C. 1992 Die germanische Gefolgschaft. Zur Interpretation der Mooropfer der jngeren rmischen Kaiserzeit in Sdskandinavien. In Peregrinatio Gothica III, ed. by E. Straume & E. Skar. Universitetets oldsaksamlings skrifter. Ny rekke, no 14. Oslo. von Carnap-Bornheim, C. & J. Ilkjr 1999. Import af romersk militrudstyr til Norge i yngre romertid. In Et hus med mange rom, vol. A, ed. by I. Fuglestvedt, T. Gansum & A. Opedal. AmS-rapport no 11. Stavanger. Engstrm, J. 1991 Fornborgarna och samhllsutvecklingen. In Samfundsorganisation och regional variation. Norden i romersk jernalder og folkevandringstid, ed. by C. Fabech & J. Ringtved. Jysk arkologisk selskabs skrifter no 27. Hjbjerg. Fett, P. 1937 Setrangbeltet og andre belter fra eldre jernalder. Bergen museums rbok 1937, no. 7. Bergen. Gansum, T. 2000 Romertid og germanertid i den norske nasjonalhistorien. In Den frste Norgeshistorien, ed. by J. Ilkjr. Kulturhistorisk forlag, Tnsberg. Germania: The Germany And The Agricola Of Tacitus. Kessinger Publishing, Whitesh. Grieg, S. 1926 Hadelands eldste bosetningshistorie. Jacob Dybwad, Oslo. Grieg, S. 1932 Hadeland i oldtiden. In Hadeland. Bygdenes historie, vol. 1. Oslo.

KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 259

Grimm, O. 2006 Grobootshaus Zentrum und Herrschaft. Zentralplatzforschung in der nordeuropischen Archologie (1.-15. Jahrhundert). Ergnzungsbnde zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 52. Berlin. Hansen, U. L. 1995 Waffenfunde und militrische Ausrstungen der seelndischen Inselgruppe in der jngeren rmischen Kaiserzeit. In U. Lund Hansen et al. eds.: Himlingje Seeland Europa. Ein Grberfeld der jngeren rmischen Kaiserzeit auf Seeland, seine Bedeutung und internationalen Beziehungen. National Museum, Copenhagen. Hedeager, L. 1990 Danmarks jernalder. Mellem stamme og stat. rhus. Hedeager, L. 1992 Iron-Age Societies. From Tribe to State in Northern Europe, 500 BC to AD 700. Oxford. Hedeager, L. & K. Kristiansen 1981 Bendstrup a princely grave from the Early Roman Iron Age: Its social and historical context. Kuml. rhus. Hedeager L. & H. Tvarn 2001 Tusen rs Europahistorie. Romere, germanere og nordboere. Pax forlag, Oslo. Herschend, F. 1993 The Origin of the Hall in Southern Scandinavia. Tor, vol 25. Uppsala. Herteig, A. E. 1955 Bidrag til jernalderens busetningshistorie p Toten. Jacob Dybwad, Oslo. Hines, J. 1989 The Military Context of the adventus Saxonum: Some continental evidence. In Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. by S. C. Hawkes. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford. Hrke, H. 1997 Early Anglo-Saxon military organisation: an archaeological perspective. In Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective AD 1-1300, ed. by A. N. Jrgensen & B. L. Clausen. National Museum, Copenhagen. Ilkjr, J. 1990 Illerup dal. Die Lansen und Speere. rhus University Press, rhus. Ilkjr, J. 1993 Illerup dal. Die Grtel. rhus University Press, rhus. Ilkjr, J. 1997 Gegner und Verbndete in Nordeuropa whrend des 1. bis 4. Jahrhunderts. In Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective AD 1-1300, ed. by A. N. Jrgensen & B. L. Clausen. National Museum, Copenhagen. Ilkjr, J. 2000 Den frste Norgeshistorien. Kulturhistorisk forlag, Tnsberg. Ilkjr, J. 2001a Unterschiede zwischen Moorfunden und Waffengrbern in der jngeren rmischen Kaiserzeit. In Military Aspects of the Aristocracy in Barbaricum in the Roman and Early Migration Periods, ed. by B. Storgaard. National Museum, Copenhagen.

260 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

Ilkjr, J. 2001b Centres of power in Scandinavia before the medieval kingdoms. In Kingdoms and regionality, ed. by B. Arrhenius. Archaeological Research Laboratory, Stockholm. Ilkjr, J. 2002 Fjender og forbundsfller i romertidens Nordeuropa. In Fiender og forbundsfeller. Regional kontakt gjennom historien, ed. by M. S. Vea. Karmy kommune, Kopervik. Ilkjr, J. 2003 Danske krigsbytteofringer. In Sejrens triumf. Norden i skyggen af det romerske imperium, ed. by L. Jrgensen, B. Storgaard & L. G. Thomsen. National Museum, Copenhagen. Jensen, J. 2003 Danmarks oldtid. ldre jernalder 500 f.Kr-400 e.Kr. Gyldendal forlag, Kbenhavn. Jensen, X. P., L. Jrgensen & U. L. Hansen 2003 Den germanske hr. Krigere, soldater og ofcerer. In Sejrens triumf. Norden i skyggen af det romerske imperium, ed. by L. Jrgensen, B. Storgaard & L. G. Thomsen. National Museum, Copenhagen. Joki, H. 2006 Idealet om krigeren. Vpengravene i Norge i perioden 150/60310/20 e.Kr. som kilde til ideologi og militr organisasjon. Master Thesis, Bergen University. Kuhn, H. 1956 Die Grenzen der germanischen Gefolgschaft. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung 73. Aalen. Jrgensen, A. N. 2001 Sea defence in the Roman Iron Age. In Military aspects of the aristocracy in Barbaricum in the Roman and Early Migration Periods, ed. by B. Storgaard. National Museum, Copenhagen. Jrgensen, L. 1988 Family burial practices and inheritance systems. The development of an Iron Age society from 50 BC to AD 1000 on Bornholm. Acta Archaeologica 58. Copenhagen. Kaul, F. 1997 Priorslkke and its logistic implications. In Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective AD 1-1300, ed. by A. N. Jrgensen & B. L. Clausen. National Museum, Copenhagen. Kristensen, A. 1983 Tacitus germanische Gefolgschaft. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Copenhagen. Lindkvist, T. 1990 Plundring, skatter och den feodala statens frmvxt. Organisatoriska tendenser i Sverige under vergngen frn vikingatid til tidig medeltid. Department of History, Uppsala University. Lken, T. 2001 Oppkomsten av den germanske hallen hall og sal i eldre jernalder i Rogaland. Viking 64. Oslo. Myhre, B. 1997 Boathouses and naval organisation. In Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective, AD 1-1300, ed. by A. N. Jrgensen & B. L. Clausen. National Museum, Copenhagen.

KOLLEGER FRA NR OG FJERN : 261

Petersen, J. 1957 Hedemarken i hedensk tid. In Hedmarks historie, 1, fellesbind, ed. by R. W. Halvorsen et al. Hamar. Pil, L. 2005 Bosted urgrd enkeltgrd. En analyse av premissene i den norske bosetningshistoriske forskningstradisjon p bakgrunn av bebyggelsesarkeologisk feltarbeid p Hedemarken. Oslo University. Reuter, T. 1997 The recruitment of armies in the Early Middle Ages: what can we know. In Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective AD 1-1300, ed. by A. N. Jrgensen & B. L. Clausen. National Museum, Copenhagen. Rygge, E. W. 1970 Victoria Romana i Norge. Universitetets oldsaksamling rbok 1967-1968. Oslo. Rygh, B.-H. E. 2007 Den siste reisen. De srstnorske vpengravene som kilde til kunnskap om krigerspesialisten i eldre jernalder. MA Thesis, Oslo University. Sandnes, J. & O. Stemshaug 1997 Norsk stadnamnleksikon, 4. ed. Samlaget, Oslo. Shetelig, H. 1920 Et norsk folkevandringsrike. Aarbger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie 1920. Copenhagen. Shetelig, H. 1925 Norges forhistorie. Institutt for sammenlignende kulturforskning, Oslo. Skre, D. 1998 Herredmmet. Bosetning og besittelse p Romerike 200-1350 e.Kr. Oslo University. Slomann, W. 1959 Strangfunnet. Hjemlig tradisjon og fremmede innslag. Universitetets oldsaksamling, Oslo. Solberg, B. 2003 Jernalderen i Norge. 500 fr Kristus til 1030 etter Kristus. 2nd edition. Cappelen, Oslo. Storli, I. 2006 Hlogaland fr rikssamlingen. Politiske prosesser i perioden 200900 e.Kr. Novus forlag, Oslo. Todd, M. 1992 The Early Germans. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Vegetius: Epitome of military science. Translated by N. P. Milner. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. 1975 War and Peace in the Early Middle Ages. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, no 25. London. Watt, M. 2003 Vbengravene regionale forskelle inden for vbentyper og gravskik i Danmark, 100 f.Kr.-400 e.Kr. In Sejrens triumf. Norden i skyggen af det romerske imperium, ed. by L. Jrgensen, B. Storgaard & L. G. Thomsen. National Museum, Copenhagen.

262 : OAS NR. 10. FACETS OF ARCHEOLOGY. ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF LOTTE HEDEAGER ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY