In the archaeological research about the Baltic Sea island of Gotland during Roman Iron Age, 0–400 AD, two different approaches are visible: One that sees the community life on Gotland as different from the one on the main land with a relative stabile development, based on the family and kin, where no higher elite separate itself. The other perception emanates from the changes in southern Scandinavia, where an elite steadily grows and finally isolate itself as an aristocracy with unlimited power over others, the development on Gotland is no exception.

This paper is about describing, investigating and explaining these two points of view. By using a selection of written sources the paper tries to answer three questions: What archaeological argumentations are there for that Gotland should be particular? What support the views that the island was a part of an over-regional development when it comes to struggle for power? What lies behind these very diverse positions among archaeological scholars?

Two scholars, Kerstin Cassel and Frands Herschend, represents the two opposite standpoints and the three questions are to be answered by a comparison with two of their main archaeological works. This comparison, based on the other written sources and my own understanding, will show that the two different views on the gotlandish development can be traced to, more than anything, the two writers pre-understanding of their own scientific argumentations.