 Thank you very much Annette and dear colleagues. I'm going far up in the north, in the north of Scandinavia. When the Roman vessels moved beyond the lemurs and far up north, they often became subject to material mutations. And not least, their functions and contexts of use were essentially altered. A frequent way of using Roman vessels in Scandinavia was as scenery earns. This paper discusses a few Roman vessels, mainly the so-called Vestland Codrons in Scandinavian contexts. My aim is to encourage more research on transformations over Roman vessels during their journeys in time and space, but also on how they tangibly have been active in changing local practices, material objects, and burial customs, and hopefully also social relations. We know too little about this. But there are some good examples for further inspiration. My survey therefore builds on earlier and recent literature, together with my own questions and some conclusions. Tradition labels the Vestland Codron as Roman input. But now scholars mainly agree that circulation of vessels is much more complex than to be used to general inputs. Instead, we are used to keywords like encounters, search space, creolization, and hybridization of material things and of practices and customs. Influence is, of course, by post-colonial fields, not least Homi Baba, the location of culture, but also several other scholars. A few colleagues only have used these lines in the studies of Roman vessels in Scandinavia. Some a little more on the vessels. The Vestland Codrons were produced in Germania Inferior, most scholars think in Namur area, mainly during the third century AD. Metallurgical analysis show that some of them are made of copper and others of tin-bronst alloy. Originally, they most likely were for military canteens. At least 120, 130 of them are found in Scandinavia and mostly then used with cremations, occasionally in new intimations, and very seldom in hordes as a contrast to the continent. Their name, Vestland Codron, derives from the fact that most of them were first found in the western parts of Scandinavia, in western Norway. And the old archeologist Ingval Unset named them Vestland Codrons already in 1880. Scandinavian contexts of use of burial have been in the fourth to sixth centuries. So when used as urn, the vessels were old, maybe about 200 years old. Most found of Vestland Codrons were made long ago, and professional documentation in situ is not frequent. But to which burial cairns or mounds they belong is usually known. Vestland Codrons often are deposited in big mounds or cairns, often as secondary burials in old mounds, sometimes in mounds built already in the Bronze Ages. They're contents. This is an example of typical equipment, local bone and small metal seams, belt fittings and small copies of Roman coins as ceramics. And it varies very much. Bones, it's burnt bones of humans. Very few of them are osteologically examined, but they show a very wide variation in the biological gender and to age. Some of them are double graves, and many of them are mixed human bones and animal bones. And the most frequent animal is the bear. Bear claws is the most frequent animal representation in them. There are no weapons in these Vestland Codrons cremations. There are a few examples of bone arrows, but many scholars have named them working equipment instead of weapons, so I don't know. This is also another example of equipment where this basin was placed over the Codron with the bones. But my old colleagues took the burials apart, the seams apart and photographed it with separate seams. This is too early. The most extensive work on Vestland Codrons as an object is by also Darlene Huygen, who presented an additional new typology. There are many others, not least Eggers, or there are also many, many others. But these are maybe the two explicitly classic typology studies. So as many scholars have studied the typology and Codron types and forms, I thought I would focus on different aspects, ways in which Codron burials were constructed in detail. An important observation I first made in museums and in literature was that all of the Vestland Codrons with cremation residues are different to each other in display of materials and bones and in burial construction. This was also how I could relate them to the discussion of encounters between foreign and local and try to think of them as in a third space, a space where differentiation were changed and hybridisation could have taken place. It is very clear that the changed function and forms in many ways, there are many material changes, some of the Codrons have got new ears, new handles, and many of them are patched many times, so many as 12 times. Some of the Codrons got a new bottom, and on some of the Codrons the neck is shortened, and so on, there are many small. I think there are repairs, reparations, but not only, I think also it is because there was an idea that the changed Codrons should be altered, taken care of and altered and got a new life until it was used in its last context, namely the burial. The issue of Roman import has traditionally been emblematic theme in Scandinavian archaeology, but around the change of millennium a few younger scholars took up this post-colonial inspiration, not least Therios de Gord, Lotta fanstort Frederick Ekingren, to name some of the most important names in Scandinavian context, and I think they also were inspired by Peter van Domelen and Jane Webster, who were very early on taking up colonization discussions and hybridization and creolization in the Roman burial, in the Roman context, just outside and in the Lemus area. But the ideas of material influence is not new. There were some older archaeologists who had the ideas that Western Codrons were changed and that they were hybrid in some way. For example, one of the Nestor old archaeologists Anders Loran in Norway thought that the Western Codron was produced in Norway and by the influence of impulses from the Roman Empire, combined with influences from local ceramic pots. Another among the old archaeologists, Håkon Sjetelig, excavated one of the Codrons with cremations and he named it, in fact, a hybrid burial custom. That was because he thought it was hybrid because the bones were cleaned and the Codron was surrounded by ashes and burnt bones. There was a combination of two burial customs in thought and therefore it was a hybrid burial custom. Yes, and I think this was a very good idea but the old archaeologists did not tell from where they had their ideas of hybridity. But as you think that Sjetelig's work was published in 1912, it must be suspected that he had some influence from general cultural history, thoughts about hybrids and races and such things. Maybe we do not know but I think there could have been some influences. So there are many threads to take up and to go on with. I have chosen to look a little more on a lot of fanstots. A good example from Feklinge in eastern Sweden. She has studied this in detail. It's not the Western Codron, it is an Apollo-Granus vase used as an iron in Scandinavia and she thought of the whole process of making this into a very long creolization process. She is the very first one in Scandinavia to take this term to this group of imports. This is another example. This is the so-called Eastern Codron. This is also a Roman temple vessel in Scandinavia used as an arm. There is also a question of how this Codron form could have influenced other forms such as ceramic pots. You could say that some of these ceramic pots have a similar profile as the Western Codrons and you could say that this little silver cup also has a small Western Codron. But it might be a fantasy, I don't know. So, to sum up, my summary and prospects are that my aim is to participate in a discussion of Roman influences far north of the lemurs. We have substantial knowledge about the number of vessels and the local ways of use in Scandinavia but less knowledge about specific encounters in which vessels are involved and under impacts on social conditions. There is therefore a gap in knowledge about how Roman muscle influences social relations in Scandinavia. This is such as organizational practices in the preparation and cremation of the deceased and in construction of a grave and about burial work according to social relations, gender, age and skills. But it is obvious that such small encounters, their materialities and their negotiations are very important to generate changes in social conditions traditionally supposed to have affected Roman iron edges in Scandinavia. Locals with Western Codrons, used with cremations, are usually far away from the rich Danish context, of course, and also far away from the Scanians, such as Uppokra and as we just saw from Ireland and Gotland context, they are very, very different and maybe poor in comparison, in comparison to them. They are just different and I just want to talk about difference. It is generally recognized that Northern Scandinavia was of interest to the continent because of the fur-bearing animals and that it should be reasonable and reasonable explanation why Roman vessels are found far north, in North Sweden, in not so much in Northern Norway and not much in Northern Finland, but in Northern Middle Sweden, there are a few of them. But they do not know much about how, on the details of how they came up to the north or Middle part and how they were changed social relations. To get more detailed knowledge about how difference Scandinavian areas related to the Roman Empire, I think it's fruitful to continue detailed study of small contexts and practices and look for differences and variation to be compared to each other between sides. I tried a practice approach in my earlier studies. They gave some knowledge about details in burial constructions, but not much on how encounters looked like. This is still a big question. My investigation tried to change an approach and in methods by analysis of practices and differences between load scales. I think that the better development of relational perspectives on contexts with Roman vessels in Scandinavia is an interesting challenge. Combined with approaches already present like good frameworks like context of action and chenuporatoir and such useful good approaches and frameworks already tried in other contexts. I think except to those earlier studies, a lot of fanstools in Östigård and Fredrik Ekengren, studies on columns in Scandinavia are rather traditional. So there is quite an interesting field to go into with some of the new theories and methods of how to study practices and social action. So I think this is the most, the content or what I would like to say. So thank you very much.