Romans In Denmark.

[Power2the1]

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Archaeologists have discovered a Roman cemetery from about 300 A.D. in suburban Copenhagen with about 30 graves, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

"It is something special and rare in Denmark to have so many (ancient Roman) graves in one place," archaeologist Rune Iversen was quoted as saying by the Roskilde Dagblad newspaper.

The graveyard's exact location in Ishoej, southwest of downtown Copenhagen, was being kept secret until the archaeologists from the nearby Kroppedal Museum have completed their work, the newspaper wrote. No one at the museum could be immediately be reached for comment.

Archaeologists found necklaces and other personal belongings, as well as ceramics for containing food.

"It shows that we're dealing with the wealthy segment of that population," Iversen was quoted as saying. The objects were buried with the deceased "to show that one could afford it, show one's social status."

Excavations are due to be completed in early November, according to Roskilde Dagblad.

More info:
http://clioaudio.com/2007/10/10/roma...in-copenhagen/

[Centurion Crastinus]

I had no idea that there were Romans even in Denmark.

[Landwalker]

If you read the whole thing, you realize that there probably weren't; one commentor notes that Scandinavian archaeologists tend to use "Roman" to designate a time period in which their finds fall, not a culture to which they belong. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's unlikely that these were infact Romans as opposed to Roman-era Scandinavians.

Cheers.

[Sakkura]

All they really know is that the place was full of obviously Roman artifacts. Whether that means it was a cemetery for Roman expatriates or for natives who just happened to have loads of Roman stuff is a matter of interpretation...

Here's an article about it in one of the bigger Danish newspapers, unfortunately in Danish:
http://politiken.dk/videnskab/article401616.ece

Apparently there are about 30 graves overall, one of them for a nobleman.
They found a gold ring, some sort of clothes pin of silver (which according to them is otherwise usually only found much further south during that period) and what the article calls a "circus cup" - the first image is of a copy of one - in his grave. They also found 58 glass pieces used for a game like checkers.
The nobleman's body is well preserved, so they hope to find out whether he was of native ethnicity or not - and perhaps find a coin in the mouth for the ferryman.

The 30 other graves are from the generations after the nobleman.

[cmacq]

not really sure the danes were in denmark then either?

[Long lost Caesar]

well most peoples of these days are the descendents of whoever has settled in a country, and with all the of the migration of the steppe and germanic tribes, thats no surprise really. all the same, was scandinavia ever affected by the migrations?

[Thaatu]

This means everything hasn't been wiped out by the rains. I'm still looking for that Phoenician colony on the Finnish isles.

[Krusader]

This means everything hasn't been wiped out by the rains. I'm still looking for that Phoenician colony on the Finnish isles.

Ahvenmaa?

[Thaatu]

Ahvenmaa?

Ahvenanmaa. That's supposedly Troy, although I'm 50% sure it's not.

[EoE]

Anyone interested in the finds in Denmark should get their hands on:

"The spoils of victory - The North in the shadow of the Roman Empire".

It's a reassessment of old and new archeological finds and basically concludes that the Romans supported client kingdoms in present day Denmark. Supposedly to keep them in check and to use them as allies against the tribes along the northern Rhine border.

rgds/EoE

[konny]

I would be suprised if there had been no Romans living in important trading centers outside their Empire. That must not always have been native Italians but can also be traders from Gallia or Roman Germania who are not so easy to be distinguished from the local population, if they had been buried there.


On the other hand, we have a lot of graves from nobles everywhere in Germany (and I suppose also in Southern Scandinavia) that are full of Roman artefacts, even so these are evidently non-Romans buried there. Those people were made for Roman stuff.

[The Internet]

You think thats crazy? I have a friend from Brazil who has told me one of the tribes there has connections to to the Greek language, meaning they had traveled to South America way before the medieval period.

[Sakkura]

well most peoples of these days are the descendents of whoever has settled in a country, and with all the of the migration of the steppe and germanic tribes, thats no surprise really. all the same, was scandinavia ever affected by the migrations?

Yeah it was, and Denmark possibly more than the rest because it's a bit easier to get here.

According to the Goth Jordanes, the Danes (Dani) took over the area that is now Denmark + Southern Sweden from the Heruli.

[Landwalker]

Yeah it was, and Denmark possibly more than the rest because it's a bit easier to get here.

According to the Goth Jordanes, the Danes (Dani) took over the area that is now Denmark + Southern Sweden from the Heruli.

On that note, take a look at Walter Goffart's article or Jordanes, the Getica, and the legitimacy of his claims about the Scandinavian origins of the Goths. I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to that part, because I was mostly interested in what he had to say about Jordanes' motives for writing the Getica in the first place, but I think the gist of it was that Jordanes was full of crap.

Cheers.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

So it's false to assume Rome was never concerned with geographic knowledge beyond her borders, even in the Principate period. They at least knew a lot about the North, more than we would expect.

[Slim_Ghost]

The Romans were trading in India as well, so I wouldn't be that suprised if someday there are Roman cemetaries discovered over there.

[Landwalker]

So it's false to assume Rome was never concerned with geographic knowledge beyond her borders, even in the Principate period. They at least knew a lot about the North, more than we would expect.

We've known that for quite some time. Even Late Antique authors knew about placed like Scandinavia and even Iceland (typically called Thule), not to mention the areas far to the east of the empire's borders.

Cheers.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Yes, and a trader was sent to China during the time of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, AFAIK.

[Sakkura]

On that note, take a look at Walter Goffart's article or Jordanes, the Getica, and the legitimacy of his claims about the Scandinavian origins of the Goths. I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to that part, because I was mostly interested in what he had to say about Jordanes' motives for writing the Getica in the first place, but I think the gist of it was that Jordanes was full of crap.

Cheers.

I suppose. But still, I don't see why there would not have been a lot of migration affecting Denmark just like the rest of Europe.

[cmacq]

On that note, take a look at Walter Goffart's article or Jordanes, the Getica, and the legitimacy of his claims about the Scandinavian origins of the Goths. I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to that part, because I was mostly interested in what he had to say about Jordanes' motives for writing the Getica in the first place, but I think the gist of it was that Jordanes was full of crap.

Cheers.

the problem with that is Walter Goffart's (of Yale) article may be full of crap as well. And there are many reasons for this.

We've known that for quite some time. Even Late Antique authors knew about placed like Scandinavia and even Iceland (typically called Thule), not to mention the areas far to the east of the empire's borders.

Cheers.

right, the romans sent an expedition there but failed due to high seas. the hebrideans went there all the time, once took a greek merchant, they stoped off in denmark on the return trip.

[Landwalker]

the problem with that is the Walter Goffart's (of Yale) article may be full of crap as well. And there are many reasons for this.

I'd love to hear them. And I mean this in all sincerity, not be snarky or sardonic. After all, the man's a pretty big deal in early medieval history, and since I'm using a few of his books and articles in my own research, I'm always interested in hearing particular problems people might take with his (or anyone's) research.

Cheers.

[cmacq]

I'd love to hear them. And I mean this in all sincerity, not be snarky or sardonic. After all, the man's a pretty big deal in early medieval history, and since I'm using a few of his books and articles in my own research, I'm always interested in hearing particular problems people might take with his (or anyone's) research.

Cheers.

great, but can't respond in detail now, will get back to this soon.

[keravnos]

You think thats crazy? I have a friend from Brazil who has told me one of the tribes there has connections to to the Greek language, meaning they had traveled to South America way before the medieval period.

Brazil huh? Well, that is another one for the "Where did ancient greeks go?" para-psychology classes.

-Alpha Centauri,
-Japan
-Easter island.
and now... Brazil.

Now, the reason I find this all very uglee to say the least is that Ancient greeks did travel a lot, from Norway to S. vietnam (the furthest greek finds are in S. Vietnam in the location of Oc eo), but people tend to disbelieve it because of wackos like the one above.

After IG state was formed a big emporion (comercial colony) was built in Taprobane state - present day Sri Lanka, from which Periplous documents all the places Ancient Greeks, then Romans, (basically greek crewed greek speaking vessels) went. This is how we know of Malaisia (golden coast) and other far away places.

In Oc eo, S. Vietnam is the furthest place greek trades have been found. I have no more knowledge of this excavation, unfortunately.

[cmacq]

Preface Rant

First, remember this is all in good cheer, so please don’t misinterpret the bearing of my comments, as my subtle nature is often misconstrued as sledgehammer-ish, cutting, or by the truly clueless; mean-spirited? Must, be my heritage coming through, as I typically call it, as it lies. A far as US Archaeology and Historiography are concerned, my personal experience is as follows; method is great as an outline, but as much as possible, your research/project must always be based on direct evidence, and all direct evidence must be field checked if possible. You can do this by establishing a set of simple yet rigorous tests. You must always personaly know the provider of all indirect evidence you use. If you do not know them, don’t trust them, and if for some reason you do trust them, triple check and test everything, if you don’t trust them don’t use this type of evidence, except prefaced as a cautionary tale. Also, learn to render Latin, and Greek texts yourself, as you will find many well-worn translations are not at all what they should be.

To understand Goffart’s works, one must first understand the history of US Archaeology and Historiography from the 60s on, to some degree, Yet,let’s just cut the crab and get straight to the chase? First, Archaeology is not an exact science; rather it’s more a scientific-art. The study of history beyond textural evidence, on the other hand, relies directly on the former discipline, and thus is even more an art than is Archaeology. In this vain, I believe many archaeologists from this era (60s to 90s) have sort of an Oedipus complex, in that they seek to kill the father of their art, and 'do' their respective mother-discipline. Yes strange but true, as they try to trash their predecessors, not based on merit, but for the sake of their career. That is, to stand out, apart, or above? Again, sad but very true, as it’s all wrapped in the various guises of Marxist, Processual or so-called New, Behavioral, and Post-processual, or good god, feminist, gender-based, and neo-Marxist Archaeological approaches/methods. Today we have the neo-Darwinism, cognitive science, phenomenology, postmodernism, agency theory, Functionalism, and System theory. From this god awful mess Historiography and its method have taken its own buss words and then we have our revisionists and minimalists, of which vat the works of Mr Goffart are well known to fall. In the end these works serve only to foster the recent and more modern antagonisms of the major enthno-political complexes that be, that want what all good collectives always want; a long and glorious past for the so-called ‘pure’ or ‘master race.’

If you'r in school now, post-grad, I hope you’ve heard all this before, yet I know many are treated as mushrooms. Kept in the dark and feed only bull.

The direct textual and archaeological evidence from Denmark (and modern Germany) are very clear on this point. There was significant cultural and demographic change between the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD. There also is significant evidence of similar changes between the 4th and 7th centuries in Denmark. Much of this has to do with why radiocarbon dating doesn’t work as it should.

If you want more detailed information please outline the specifics.

[Landwalker]

Interesting stuff, cmacq. I have to say I'm not very familiar with the history of American archaeological academia, so I haven't run across the conflicts of different "theories" of scholarship yet. I'm only a senior undergraduate, though, so I'm sure I'll encounter plenty of theoretical stuff in graduate school. Unfortunately, since I'm not familiar with them, I can't really comment or respond to most of what you said about them.

I do agree that migrations, in and out of Scandinavia, certainly took place. I think the issue at hand (in Goffart's article, at least) is whether or not the Goths were one of them. Naturally, Jordanes claims that they were, but Jordanes is a Byzantinized Goth writing with the agenda of glorifying the reconquests of Justinian, including through such means as building up the "enemy" to make the victories all the greater. I don't know, however, whether or not Scandinavian origin was considered some keyword for 6th Century Romans that somehow conveyed power and nobility--if it wasn't (or if the Romans simply didn't care), then there obviously would be no other reason for Jordanes to include this other than because he believed it to be the case.

In any case, it's interesting to get a little insight into what's going on "behind the scenes" of the secondary sources I read for my thesis. Even if I don't know what most of the labels mean. Thanks for the "rant".

Cheers.

[Labrat]

We've known that for quite some time. Even Late Antique authors knew about placed like Scandinavia and even Iceland (typically called Thule), not to mention the areas far to the east of the empire's borders.

Did they? I though Iceland was uninhabited until the Vikings colonized it.

[Landwalker]

Did they? I though Iceland was uninhabited until the Vikings colonized it.

It's pretty common academic belief that the Vikings already knew about Iceland before they "found" it, by way of the Irish. The reason for this foreknowledge is that Irish monks had a tradition of traveling into solitude, and one of their most popular destinations was Thule/Iceland. The Vikings in the British Isles found out about this, and eventually made the trip themselves. Obviously, being hermits, the Irish monk population on Iceland by the time of the Viking settlement was so low and sparse as to be unmentionable, but the point was that Iceland was known to exist long before the Vikings ever settled there.

Cheers.

[cmacq]

All points well taken. My current research deals with the period just before and during the American southwest abandonments and migrations, 12th to 15th century. So I'm somewhat familiar with the subject. Without writing the old were an ancient culture's history, and when an ancient culture moved, the old were abandoned, as was their past.

Personally, I think goffats argument against Jordanes holds little water. Remember Justinian's world was greek not latin. The history between Rome and Denmark were at that point a dead subject. Yet as far as Jordanes was concerned, many of the foreign peoples Justinian's armies fought in italy, north afica, and spain claimed descent from those who came from southern Scandinavia in a not too distant past. In a recent post about EB's use of Sakas and Scyths, I explained one as the name given an eastern and the other a western manifestation of a single ethnos. Yet, each represented a separate polity. If Jordanes was following a traditional view on the subject, he likely referred to all non-Suetidi groups, as Guti, as a general ethnos (of many separate polities). They were Gothic-like, just not like his Gothics. In this vain he would have been correct, yes?

[Labrat]

@ Landwalker

Thanks for the clarification. I am not an archeologist, just someone with an interest in history.

[Cyclops]

Yeah there's a theoretical quagmire lurking under the page in very history and Archeology book.

Whats a Dane? Whats a Goth? I've just read an account of the battle of Chalons. The Hun (aka Skythians according to the Byzantines aka the Hsung Nu (who knew?)) horde (which contained Alans, who were Sarmatians after they were Skythians but before they were Sauromatae) was fighting the Goths (who were Skandinavian tribesmen, you know burly spearchucking blonde footmen, excpet on their way through the Skythian (that is Saka) homeland to the Slavic homelands they adopted Roxolani tactics to escape the Huns (remember they're Skyths but not Saka) and as they traversed the Roman Empire picking up Germans) and the Romans (whose army was composed of Burgundians, various Franks and even Armoricans who may or may not have been Gauls, but quite possibly not a single actual Roman, aside from Aetius (although he spent 10 years as a Hun hostage so he may be considered naturalised)) not to mention Alans, which is curious because the Alans were supoposed to be in the Hun horde.

Anyway, thats when I came to the confusing bit...

As for the migrations, well I think they were more a matter of fighting elites being driven hither and thither. I imagine they took some ladies with them but like the Vikings in Ireland I think generally shopped locally rather than carry wife and kids a thousand miles. I know the Goths had family in camp at Adrianople, but I can't imagine Attila organising a little nomad creche.