1. No category

HISTORISKARKEOLOGISK TIDSKRIFT
H
META
2015
META Historiskarkeologisk tidskrift
Redaktion/styrelse 2014-2015
Johan Anund
Lena Beronius Jörpeland
Mathias Bäck (vice ordförande, huvudredaktör)
Lars Ersgård
Ann-Mari Hållans Stenholm
Joakim Kjellberg (ordförande, ansvarig utgivare)
Linda Qviström (webredaktör)
Anders Wikström
Tidskriften ges ut av Historiskarkeologiska föreningen och utkommer med ett nummer per
år. Bli medlem i föreningen genom att skicka namn, postadress och e-postadress till adressen
[email protected], samt betala medlemsavgiften - 250 kr - på Plusgiro 45 32 11-5. Uppge
ditt namn vid inbetalningen. Som medlem ansvarar du själv för att dina adressuppgifter är
aktuella. Det går inte att teckna en separat prenumeration av tidskriften.
Institutioner/organisationer är också välkomna att teckna ett medlemskap enligt samma
principer som ovan. En organisation/institution erhåller dock ingen rösträtt i föreningen.
På www.histark.se hittar du mer information om föreningen samt vår debattsida.
Författarna ansvarar själva för innehållet i sina artiklar. Samtliga artiklar har lästs och granskats av redaktionen.
Utgivningen av META - historiskarkeologisk tidskrift 2015 har möjliggjorts genom frikostigt
bidrag från: Jönköpings läns museum, Arkeologgruppen, Statens Historiska Museer Uppdragsverksamheten, Stiftelsen Upplandsmuseet, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis & Stiftelsen
Kulturmiljövård.
Kph Trycksaksbolaget, Uppsala
ISSN 2002-0406
2
Innehåll 2015
9
Axel Christophersen Et META – gjensyn,
ved en av dem
21
John Ljungkvist 45
Dag Lindström & Göran Tagesson
Gravar i en övergångsperiod
On spatializing history
61
Kristina Jonsson Gravar och kyrkogårdar
77
Georg Haggrén Archaeology and history
95
Hanna Kivikero Interpretations of animal
bones found in Finnish
inhumation graves
107 Kristian Reinfjord
Staging Bathing in Cena
Trimal chionis
125 Björn Ambrosiani
Stratigrafi i Birka 1991-2011
133 Ulrika Rosendahl The horizontal stratigraphy
of a medieval hamlet
149 Liisa Seppänen What’s going on between
history and archaeology? 163 Joakim Kjellberg To organize the dead 173 Tomas Westberg Naust – the boathouses of
Nyköping and the echoes
of power
3
META 2015
Redaktionellt
Det sista numret av ”META Medeltidsarkeologisk tidskrift” utkom i maj 2007
(nummer 2006:4). Det tog ett tag innan det gick upp för alla att det faktiskt
inte skulle komma fler nummer. En våg av saknad sköljde stilla över många av
METAs läsare. Vi saknade det forum för historisk arkeologi och debatt som
META hade varit under många år, och den mötesplats mellan uppdragsarkeologi
och akademisk arkeologi som tidskriften erbjudit. Det är ur denna saknad som en
ny tidskrift, vars första nummer du håller i handen, växt fram.
Vägen från att börja sakna META till att ge ut en fristående fortsättning under
namnet ”META Historiskarkeologisk tidskrift” har varit lång och resan har pågått
under flera år. Efter många turer ombildades Medeltidsarkeologiska föreningen,
METAs utgivare, i december 2013 och bytte namn till Historiskarkeologiska
föreningen. Den här processen var långtifrån drastisk och kuppartad, trots att
transformeringen skedde i Stockholm. Alla tidigare redaktionsmedlemmar vi har
haft kontakt med har hejat på och hjälpt till på olika sätt och inte mindre än tre
av dem, två från den nordliga lokalredaktion som tillkom mot slutet av METAs
utgivning och en som varit med från tidernas begynnelse, ingår i den nya redaktionen. Vi är också mycket glada över att en av grundarna, Axel Christopersen,
har velat inleda vårt första nummer med att reflektera över META och de tankar
och visioner som gjorde att tidskriften kom till i slutet av 1970-talet.
Som Axel skriver i sin artikel har META från allra första början varit knuten, om
än informellt, till doktoranderna i medeltidsarkeologi vid Lunds universitet. En
av drivkrafterna bakom META vid slutet av 1970-talet var, skriver Axel Christophersen, att skapa ett gemensamt forum för alla de hundratals arkeologer som
var verksamma inom i första hand stadsarkeologin, i de stora rivningarnas kölvatten, och universitetsarkeologerna. Den nya redaktionen är inte knuten till någon enskild institution. Medlemmarna är rotade inom uppdragsarkeologin men
har samtidigt olika kopplingar till universitetsinstitutioner. Kanske ska vi tolka
det som att önskemålet från 1979 om ökade kontakter i någon mån har infriats?
Också inom andra områden kan vi i backspegeln konstatera att tidskriften haft
positiva effekter. ”Gamla” META och dess redaktion kom till exempel i allra högsta grad att bidra till den debatt som förde metod- och teoriutveckling framåt.
När tidskriften somnade in efter nästan tre decennier, var medeltidsarkeologin
inte länge ett ”teoretisk u-land” (se Christophersen i detta nummer). Flera av de
problem och utmaningar som fanns 1979 kvarstår dock, en del i ny tappning.
Behovet av diskussioner om teori och metod är alltid aktuellt även om problemen
är skiftande och frågan om arkeologins samhällsrelevans är ständigt närvarande.
Både den universitetsarkeologiska och den uppdragsarkeologiska verkligheten är
delvis förändrad sedan 1979. Ämnet medeltidsarkeologi bytte 2005 namn till his-
4
torisk arkeologi (se Mogren et al. 2009) och idag pågår historiskarkeologisk forskning
dessutom på en rad olika institutioner runtom i landet. Uppdragsarkeologin har, som
så mycket annat, marknadsanpassats. I ett läge där undersökningsföretag kommer
och går och där vi omväxlande är konkurrenter och samarbetspartners på en ibland
ganska turbulent arkeologisk arena, finns det kanske större behov än någonsin att
ha gemensamma kanaler för diskussion och för spridning av spännande resultat och
idéer. Det finns alltså all anledning att arbeta vidare i METAs anda.
Det här första numret av den nya tidskriften präglas till viss del av det uppdämda
behov som funnits sedan ”gamla” META försvann. Här återfinns både nyskrivna artiklar och sådana som fått mogna ett par år i väntan på publicering. Den sistnämnda
gruppen utgörs i första hand av de artiklar som skevs efter det åttonde Nordiska
stratigrafimötet i Jönköping 2011, och som vi är glada över att få publicera här. Tre
av de fem artiklarna i denna grupp behandlar problematik kring gravar. Kristina
Jonsson tar upp problemet med stratigrafiska relationer mellan gravar och gravfaser
på medeltida och efterreformatoriska kyrkogårdar, där fysiska överlappningar mellan
gravarna sällan finns. Istället behövs ett fokus på en mikrostratigrafisk nivå, där stratigrafin för varje enskild begravning studeras för att på så sätt komma åt skillnader
och likheter i begravningspraktiker. Joakim Kjellberg diskuterar kisttypologi och hur
denna relaterar till samtida stilströmningar i samhället under tidigmodern tid. Det
material han utgår från kommer från en stor undersökning i Uppsala domkyrka. Den
tredje gravartikeln är skriven av Hanna Kivikero, som presenterar en undersökning
av animalben i finska skelettgravar från historisk tid, och diskuterar deras förekomst
utifrån kultiska och sociala praktiker.
De båda andra artiklar som har sin upprinnelse i stratigrafimötet är skrivna av Björn
Ambrosiani, som sammanfattar det omfattande stratigrafiska arbetet med materialet
från undersökningarna i Birka 1990-1995, respektive Ulrika Rosendahl, som utifrån
ett horisontalstratigrafiskt perspektiv presenterar en landskapshistorisk studie med
utgångspunkt i den medeltida bytomten Mankby i Espoo i södra Finland.
En annan grupp artiklar har tillkommit i samband med en session som hölls under
den fjortonde Nordic TAG-konferensen i Stockholm 2014. Konferensens tema var
”Archaeology as a source of theory”, och den aktuella sessionen tog upp relationen
mellan historia och arkeologi ur detta perspektiv. Hantverkarna i våra tidigmoderna städer är föremål för en metodiskt inriktad artikel av Göran Tagesson och Dag
Lindström, som hämtat exempel från Jönköping och Kalmar. Artikelns syfte är att
skapa historia utifrån en kombination av skriftliga och arkeologiska källmaterial.
Författarna – en historiker och en arkeolog - argumenterar för att historia och arkeologi tillsammans genererar nya frågor men också att tolkningarna kan bli vidare
och nya slutsatser kan dras. Minst lika viktigt är att de två disciplinernas företrädare
inleder med en gemensam teoretisk diskussion liksom att frågeställningarna har en
gemensam grund. Det handlar således inte enbart att kombinera skilda källmaterial.
Liknande teman återkommer och utvecklas även i de tre andra artiklarna. Georg
Haggrén utforskar på ett välinitierat sätt skärningen mellan de historiska och arkeologiska disciplinerna, med tonvikt på betydelsen för utvecklingen av det historiskarkeo-
5
logiska forskningsfältet i Finland och Sverige. Liisa Seppänen diskuterar frågan om
den historiska arkeologins relation till historieämnet i Finland. Denna diskussion,
menar hon, är fortfarande relevant även för övriga nordiska miljöer, trots ämnets nu
relativt långa tradition. Kristian Reinfjord utgår ifrån ett konkret exempel, nämligen
badanläggningar som finns inrymda i privata hus, domus, i Pompeji, för att belysa
hur skriftliga källor och materiell kultur kan kombineras, i det här fallet för att förstå
det romerska badets sociala roll.
Till sist två fristående artiklar. I den ena, skriven av John Ljungkvist, diskuteras
dateringen av de yngsta brand- och kammargravarna i Uppland. Ljungkvist jämför
fynden från gravarna med material från bland annat stratigrafiskt undersökta kulturlager i Sigtuna, mynt och analogier från Gotland, för att på så sätt kunna göra bättre
uppskattningar av dateringarna. Resultaten visar att många av gravarna är yngre än
vad som tidigare antagits, att de sannolikt är samtida med kristna runstenar från sent
1000-tal och tidigt 1100-tal, vilket bland annat ger en något förändrad utgångspunkt
i diskussionen kring regionens kristnande. I Thomas Westbergs artikel är det istället
lämningar med äldre datering än förväntat som diskuteras. Westberg behandlar ämnet båthus, nauster, från yngre järnålder utifrån nyligen undersökta lämningar i kvarteret Åkroken i Nyköping. De stora båthusen, som har daterats till vendel- respektive
vikingatid, har legat längs åstranden innan staden växte fram, vilket bland annat gör
frågan om vem eller vilka som låtit uppföra dem intressant.
Den tryckta tidskriften META Historiskarkeologisk tidskrift är tänkt att kompletteras med en debattsida som återfinns på adressen www.histark.se. Först ut i raden
av debattörer är Stefan Larsson och Conny Johansson Hervén, därefter kanske det är
din tur? På webben finns också också flera nummer från tidigare årgångar av METAmedeltidsarkeologisk tidskrift.
Avslutningsvis vill vi i redaktionen rikta ett stort och varmt tack till alla er, privatpersoner såväl som institutioner, som på olika sätt hjälpt till, kommit med uppmuntrande tillrop, deltagit i uppstartsmöten och på andra sätt stöttat och underlättat omstart av förening och tidskrift. Ett särskilt tack till de institutioner som har bidragit
ekonomiskt med ett startbidrag inför nyutgivningen.
Redaktionen
Referens
Mogren, M., Roslund, M., Sundnér, B. & Wienberg, J. (2009). Historisk arkeologi
vidgar fälten. I Mogren, M., Roslund, M., Sundnér, B. & Wienberg, J. (red.). Triangulering: Historisk arkeologi vidgar fälten. Lund: Institutionen för arkeologi och
antikens historia, Lunds Universitet, ss. 6-11
6
Stiftelsen
Kulturmiljövård
Utgivningen av META - historiskarkeologisk tidskrift 2015 har möjliggjorts genom frikostigt
bidrag från: Jönköpings läns museum, Arkeologgruppen, Statens Historiska Museer Uppdragsverksamheten, Stiftelsen Upplandsmuseet, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis & Stiftelsen
Kulturmiljövård.
7
8
Et META – gjensyn, ved en av dem
Axel Christophersen
The article is a reflection on the context within which META, the first journal of
medieval archaeology in Scandinavia, was established in 1979 and how this personalized
contextual reality is present in the first article published. It is stated that the need for
META was rooted in at least two important circumstances, 1) the need - constructed
or not - for new research practices within urban archaeology as a relatively young and
immature field of research in Scandinavian archaeology at that time, and 2) the need for
a “social responsible” theoretical point of departure for urban archaeological research
practice. Influenced and inspired by the marxist theoretical dominance within history
and anthropology at the University of Lund at that time, the first META article “Archaeology: more than a hole in the soil” gives a rather caustic characteristic of the theoretical
awareness practiced (or rather not practiced) in current medieval archaeology. Furthermore, the article reflects on the reasons behind a demand for a “social relevant” research
practice, percieved as producing historical knowledge aiming at enhancing the sense of
social struggle and that people through “relevant historical knowledge“ are capable of
influencing the direction of historical transformation.1
1. ”Betyder, betyder…”
i øynene stirrer skjeggansiktet på keramikkskåret han holder i hånden,
mens han usikkert mumler gjennom
skjeggpryden:
Det aller første nummeret av META
1979 åpnet verken med et forord eller en artikkel, men en tegning av
Claes Wahlöö. Tegningen viser en
beskjegget eldre herremann med et
solid og trygt grep omkring et pipehode. I hånden holder han et keramikkskår som han iakttar, idet han
begeistret utbryter: ”Ett sådant fynd!
En sån skärv! En sånn glasyr!” Utefor
billedrammen kaster noen inn et i
overkant utfordrende spørsmål: ”Hva
betyder det då?” Med et skremt blikk
”Betyder, betyder…” (fig. 1) Det er
akkurat det dette først nummeret av
META handlet om, betydning, utfordring og debatt2: Hvilke utfordringer
står middelalderarkeologien (på slutten av 1970-tallet) ovenfor? Hvilke
utfordringer står den ekspanderende
men fortsatt unge svenske byarkeologien overfor? Og hvordan løses de
(”Tell Ed Harris its only a game!”)?
9
META 2015
Figur1: ”Betyder, betyder…”Tegning i META 1979 nr. 1 av Claes Wahlöö
en arena for debatt, informasjonsutveksling og nettverksbygging.
META etablerte seg også som det
første rendyrkede debattforum for
profesjoenlle arkeologer i Norden,
der det ikke minst fant sted en
grunnleggende kritikk av kritikken
av ”The New Archaeology” lenge
før arkeologene i Cambridge gjorde
dette til en hype i internasjonal arkeologi.
Hvilken betydning har et funn? Og
hva betyr det at arkeologisk kunnskap skal være samfunnsrelevant?
Slike og lignende spørsmål var den
første META-redaksjonen opptatt
av, og vi ville gjøre noe mer med
det enn å la diskusjonen begrense
seg til deltakerne rundt lunsjbordet
i Krafts Torg 4. Vi opplevde disse
spørsmålene av grunnleggende betydning for hvordan middelalderarkeologien ble drevet i felt og bak
skrivebordet, for det var middelalderarkeologiens ve og vel, dens
innhold, praksis, seriøsitet, aksept
og innflytelse det hele handlet om.
META skulle være et verktøy for å
fremme dette målet gjennom å tilby
Og hvem var den første selvbestaltede META-redaksjonen? Vi var en
ganske sammensveiset gjeng doktorander og praktiserende arkeologer:
Noen hadde møtt hverandre i «hullet i jorden» som tidevis befant seg
10
AXEL CHRISTOPHERSEN
på norsk, tidevis på svensk side av
riksgrensen. Andre var inspirerende
bekjentskaper fra Erik Cinthios
medeltidsarkeologiska forskarseminar (fig. 2). De erfaringene vi brakte
med oss fra det vi selv opplevde som
en pionertid i byarkeologisk feltarbeid var selvfølgelig avgjørende for
hvordan middelalderarkeologiens
rolle på den tiden ble forstått. Det
påvirket først og fremst våre diskusjoner om forholdet til det øvrige
arkeologiske praksisfeltet og til fag
som historie og sosialantropologi
og dermed også de problemstillinger og løsningesforslag vi så for
oss. Arbeidet med å stable META
på beina som et tidsskrift for og av
medeltidsarkeologer var et resultat
av begge deler: Teoretisk nyorientering var et viktig punkt på agendaen, men bare som en del av en større
intensjon om å løfte den teoretiske
bevissstheten opp på linje med den
pågående metodedebatten næret av
de mange utgravningstekniske utfordringene i samtidens eksploateringsundersøkelser i bygrunnen.
hold spilte også en rolle under METAs skapelsesprosess:
2. ”Humaniora på undantag”?
Arkeologien var den gang som nå
ikke løsrevet fra det samfunnet
den hadde vokst fram i og som til
syvende og siste betalte for moroa.
Det var neppe et så innlysende
faktum den gang som nå, hvor arkeologien i lenge tider har ligge og
skvulpet i kjølvannet av Shanks
og
Tilley´s
”Re-Constructing
Sett i bakspeilet ble ikke META
skapt som et virkemiddel for redaksjonens aspirasjoner om å etablere en ny teoretisk plattform for
den historiske arkeologien men mer
ut fra et sterkt og konkret ønske om
å initiere ny praksisdannelse på et
område innenfor arkeologien som
ennå opplevdes som prematurt og
uferdig. Talende eksempler på denne målsettingen er nettopp artiklene
i det første nummeret av Andrén,
Wahlöö og Redin. Men andre for-
Figur 2: Erik Cinthio på en ekskursjon i SydSkåne med forskarseminaret i Lund, mars
1975. Foto: Axel Christophersen
11
META 2015
på noe så verdensfjernt som det å
utforske fortida som arkeolog når
den internasjonale storkapitalen var
ved å erobre verden og gjøre slutt
på all sosial rettferdighet? Mange
av synspunktene og argumentene
ble hentet fra Thomas Forsers bok
”Humaniora på undantag?” (1978),
som var et viktig og innflytelsesrikt
innlegg i den kritiske debatten som
fant sted på den tid om humanioras
selvforståelse og vitenskapsteoretiske grunn, en diskusjon som også
fant veien helt inn i Eriks forskarseminar. Svaret vi etter hvert landet
på når det gjaldt arkeologiens samfunnsbetydning var at samfunnet
hadde behov for ulik kompetanse
og erfaringer; fortiden var viktig for
å kunne orientere seg i samtiden
for slik å legge til rette for en bedre
fremtid. Derfor var utforskningen
av fortiden viktig, og middelalderarkeologien kunne gjøre en forskjell
i dette forskerarbeidet. Slutten av
Archaeology” (1987), selv om Christian Keller allerede 9 år tidligere
hadde gjort dette til et hovedpoeng i
boken ”Arkeologi – virkelighetsflukt
eller samfunnsforming” (1978). For
undertegnede ble Kellers bok, som
lå langt forut for sin tid, en øyenåpner av fundamental betydning hvis
innflytelse bl. a. skinner gjennom i
forsøket på å produsere ”samfunnsbevisst” kunnskap om fortiden som
kan leses mellom linjene bl.a. i undertegnedes avhandlingsarbeid fra
1980. Som de sosialt ansvarlige
samfunnsdeltakere vi opplevde vi
var, var det derfor rett og rimelig at
vi leverte noe tilbake, et ”produkt”
som var nyttig for allmennheten.
Men hva var egentlig samfunnsmessig nyttig og ”relevant” med arkeologi? For min egen del opplevde
jeg dette som et stort dilemma, og
det ble også heftig debattert internt:
Hvordan var det overhodet mulig
å forsvare å bruke tid og ressurser
Figur 3: Fra PK-banksgravningene i Lund, mars 1975. Et pionérarbeid i svensk byarkeologi.
Foto: Axel Christophersen
12
AXEL CHRISTOPHERSEN
hånd med et politisk engasjement
ble opprettelsen av META en innlysende ting å gjøre. Hvordan reflekteres denne samtidskonteksten - hvis
relevans selvfølgelig bare jeg kan stå
inne for! - i tidsskriftets første artikkel? (Christophersen 1979:3-8)3.
Det blir et gjensyn med fokus på slike spørsmål vi har gitt en bakgrunn
for ovenfor, f.eks. hva ville initiativtagerne oppnå? Forordet i det første
nummer gir en tydelig pekepinn om
dette: ”En rad nya frågeställningar
och metodiska grepp provas, som
har betydelse för varje medeltidsarkeologi i hans/hennes verksamhet.
Avsikten med META är att göra
vunna erfarenheter gemensamma
samt medverka till konstruktiv
problemformulering” (1979:3). Å
legge til rette for informasjons- og
erfaringsutveksling mellom spredte
miljøer av ”hundratal arkeologer,
som sysslar med medeltida och eftermedeltida material” (1979:3) sto
mao sentralt på agendaen. Det var
en måte vi (som betraktet oss som
representanter for et privilegert universitetsmiljø) kunne være med på
å styrke kunnskapsutviklingen blant
samtidens metodisk eksperimenterende og teoretisk søkende laug
av unge, entusiastiske byarkeologer
(fig. 3). Her handlet det om å være
med på å legge grunnen for en ny
arkeologisk praksis, hvilket opplevdes som en nødvendig målsetting
for det sene 1970-tallets fragmentariske og sprikende middelalderarkeologiske forskningspraksis. Artikkelen ”Arkeologi: mer enn et hull i
jorden” kan derfor ses både som et
1970-årene var fortsatt preget av
venstreradikale strømninger innen
akademia noe som gjorde seg utslag i positivismestrid, fagkritikk og
politisk aktivisme. Vi var litt der vi
også som deltok rundt lunsjbordet,
vi deltok i kurs om historiematerialismens teori som historikerne arrangerte og lot oss inspirere (eller
starstruck?) av et av samtidens store
navn innen sosialatropologien, Jonathan Friedman, strukturmarxist
og en av Maurice Godelier protegéer som i en årrekke virket ved Lunds
universitet. Vi leste Boserup, Elster,
Godelier, LeGoff, Gurevich, Pierre
Nora og Maurice Bloch. Også idehistorikeren Sven Erik Liedmans,
sosialpsykologen Johan Asplund og
sosiologen Joachim Israels arbeider
bidro til et nytt meta-perspektiv
på historie og samfunnsutvikling i
stort.
3. Mer enn en flik av blå
­himmel?
Slutten av 1970-tallet var en tid
hvor middelalderarkeologien over
hele Norden utviklet faglige ambisjoner i takt med de erfaringer og det
forskningspotensialet som ble gravd
opp av jorda i betydelige mengder,
men som man ennå ikke helt visste
hvordan man skulle håndtere faglig
eller ressursmessig på beste måte.
Overalt hvor arkeologene tittet opp
over sjaktkanten ble man konfrontert med utfordringer som forutsatte ny empirisk og analytisk praksisdannelse. Når dette gikk hånd i
13
META 2015
riktige teoretiske ”buzz-words” i all
hovedsak lånt fra marxistisk historieteori. I dag fremstår artikkelen
prematur, ideologisk overlesset og
simplistisk i forhold til den innsats
som gjennom lang tid var lagt ned
både i felt og bak skrivebord på å
nærme seg middelaldersamfunnet
arkeologisk. Men man kan ikke fraskrive den et engasjement, en motivasjon og et brennende ønske om å
bidra til å endre en rådende forskningspraksis hvis perspektiver og
forståelseshorisoner beskrives metaforisk og overdreven negativt like
begrenset som det lille glimt av blå
himmel man kan se fra bunnen av
en dyp og smal utgravningssjakt.
Gjennom mer eller mindre vellykkede retoriske formuleringer kan
det leses ut ideer og ansater til en
praksisendring som aktualiserer
sentrale spørsmål om middelalderarkeologien faglige målsettinger,
metodebruk og teoretiske kunnskapsgrunnlag (fig. 4): Middelalderarkeologien beskrives som et ”teoretisk u-land ”som styres av et
forskningsideal der formålet med
utgravningsvirksomheten var å beskrive og innsamle data, gjenstander
og observasjoner ”så totalt og objektivt” som mulig, en praksis forfatteren fant dypt forankret i ”…det positivistiske paradigms mest dubiøse
teser”. Med andre ord et massivt
angrep på den empiristiske forskningstradisjonen, selve kimen i tidens middelalderarkeologiske forskningspraksis som befattet seg med
en gjenstandsfiksert, kulturhistorisk
petitesseforskning der historiens
Figur 4: Fra en gravning i Falsterbo, mai
1976. Prøvesjakter, dokumentasjon av horisontal stratigrafi og funnnummer relatert til
lag var rutiner på gang.
Foto: Axel Christophersen
forsøk på å a) beskrive og begrunne
et nytt teoretisk praksisbehov innen
middelalderarkeologien, b) som en
begrunnelse for hvorfor ønsket om
å etablere en ny forskningspraksis
vokste fram akkurat der og da, og
endelig c) hva som påvirket utformningen av en slik ny praksis.
Artikkelen er formulert i en polemiske stil og med hjelp av samtidens
14
AXEL CHRISTOPHERSEN
lange linjer og dynamikk forsvant i
en meningsløs streben etter å forstå
den lille verden, hverdagens fysiske
miljø. Målet med forskningen
måtte være å se ”den samfunnsmessige og historiske totaliteten”
som ikke bare skulle beskrives i all
sin monumentalitet, men også
tilsvarende forklares. På den måten
ble middelalderarkeologiens mål
lagt tett opp til tilsvarende mål for
en marxistisk orientert historieskrivning, en trend i tiden der empiristiske undersøkelser av ”kulturhistoriske” fenomen var uinteressante
fordi det manglet fokus på de lange
historiske linjene og den grunnleggende konflikten mellom de som
hadde herredømmet over produksjonsmidlene og de som produserte
verdiene. Av dette fulgte også et
krav om at arkeologien skulle være
”samfunnsrelevant”, i den betydning at den kunnskap som arkeologene produserte som forvaltere og
forskere skulle fremstå som ”relevant” i en samfunnsmessig rasjonell
sammenheng. Slike sammenhenger
ble sett i den ideologiproduksjonen
som middelalderarkeologien kunne
bidra med qua fortidsforskning, for
noe samfunnsmessig praktisk nytte
ut over det var det vanskelig den
gangen å se hva arkeologene kunne
bidra med: ”Kanskje ligger den humanistiske og historiske forskningens vesentligste oppgave i å utvikle
overordnede prinsipp for f.eks. fordelingen av produksjonsresultatet,
klargjøre hva det innbærer å ”administrere samfunnet bedre” og fremfor alt, som Sven-Erik Liedman
kraftfullt har fremhevet, bidra til å
bygge opp holdninger (nærmest
ideologier) gjennom hvilke enkeltindividet kan ta stilling til, og formulere en oppfatning om sin egen
virkelighet og gjennom en analyse
av denne kan delta aktivt i, og utviklingen av de demokratiske beslutningsprosessene.” En slik ambisiøs målsetting på den historiske
arkeologiens vegne nøler jeg ikke
med å stille meg bak en dag i dag.
Uansett fikk denne tilnærmingen
sine konsekvenser for kritikken av
den rådende praksis for håndteringen av det arkeologiske kildematerialet, hvilke potesial man så i det og
hvordan det ble brukt analytisk.
Forfatterens inngang til denne diskusjonen tar et i overkant harselerende utgangspunkt i kulturhistorie-begrepet, som beskrives som så
generelt og intetsigende at enhver
fysisk levning, enhver tidsepoke og
enhver hendelse som har satt seg
spor i landskapet ”pr. definisjon er
interessant fordi det er der”, og som
sådan ble betraktet som viktige
brikker i det store kulturhistoriske
puslespillet. Dette synspunktet ligger også til grunn for artikkelens
påstand om at det hersket en betydelig mangel på relevans og analytisk dybde i samtidens (by)arkeologiske litteratur, hvilket i sin ytterste
konsekvens var en drivende kraft i
METAs tilkomsthistorikk: Blant
gjengen rundt lunsjbordet i Krafts
Torg 4 hersket det en tydelig frustrasjon over at de betydelige ressursene som ble brukt på arkeologi i
bygrunnen, de banebrytende opp-
15
META 2015
dagelsene og det enorme forskningspotensialet ble syltet ned i deskriptive gravningsrapporter fulle av
intetsigende stratigrafiske beskrivelser, funn- og gjenstandskomplekser
og lange lister med latinske navn på
planter, frø og bein som ikke ble
brukt til noen verdens ting. Kritikken mot forvaltningsmyndighetens
ideal om ”den objektive rapportering” hadde etter vår mening nådd
toppen av meningsløshet og idioti
når det ikke lenger var mulig å skille
beskrivelsen av en steinkirke fra en
gravrøysen. Denne empiristiske tilnærmingen hadde iflg artikkelen i
vesentlig grad bidratt til å redusere
byarkeologien til kuriosopplysninger om ”hverdagens fysiske miljø…..
som nepper er å betrakte som noe
annet enn historiske opplysninger
av marginal interesse”, et kraftfullt
utsagn som må forståes på bakgrunn
av det forfatteren den gang mente
måtte stå sentralt i alle arkeologiske
og tekstbaserte studier av fortida,
nemlig analysen av produksjonsmåten og mekanismene bak den sosiale
fordelingen av produksjonsresultatet. Kravet om tydelig samfunnsrelevant arkeologisk forskning handlet altså om forskning som i videste
forstand kastet lys over samfunnets
transformasjonsprosesser, og arkeologene kunne studere disse gjennom
å beskrive og analysere endringer i
produksjonslivets organisasjon, teknologi, produksjonsmåter og i de
økonomiske utvekslingsmekanismene. Når forfatteren i et senere
nummer av META (nr. 2 198 1) uttrykte reservasjoner i forhold til
”nyere tidens arkeologi”, var begrunnelsen forankret i et tilsvarende resonnement: ”…hvordan kan vi
som arkeologer studere og analysere
dette feltet (dvs. nyere tids arkeologi), denne del av den historiske virkeligheten med et resultat som tilfører den allmenne historieforskning
ikke bare noe nytt, men noe nytt
som griper inn i analysen av de fundamentale mekanismer som driver
det historiske kontinuuum frem i
bestemte bevegelser og retninger.”
(Christophersen 1981: 28) I dag
skulle undertegnede kunne påstå
med like stor selvfølgelighet at ”det
historiske kontinuum” nettopp er
kjennetegnet av det motsatte, nemlig ingen bevegelse fremover i noen
bestemt retning. Slik sett blir den
første artikkelen i META et eksempel på en teoretisk posisjonering
som på noen områder åpnet for nye
problemstillinger og måter å angripe disse på arkeologisk, men som på
andre områder gjorde gangsynet
smalt og sikten kort. Det teoretiske
reportoaret arkeologien i forskjellige
tapninger har omgitt seg frem til i
dag med kan vise til lignende virkningshistorier: det er åpnet noen
dører til fortiden mens andre er blitt
lukket. Den banale lærdommen av
dette er at eksperimentering og utprøving av nye teoretiske (og derav
følgende metodiske) tilnærminger
er avgjørende for å trenge inn i historiens mange irrganger, både de
som førte frem til der vi er i dag og
de som endte opp som blindspor i
tiden. Den siste kategorien har vi
interessert oss alt for lite for og der-
16
AXEL CHRISTOPHERSEN
for er, og forblir, vår innsikt i historiens dynamiske krefter begrenset.
Et banalt og innlysende faktum,
men allikevel verdt å ta med seg inn
i hverdagens forskergjerning: Fortiden er like mangfoldig, motsetningsfylt, kaotisk og mangslungent
som et ritzhom som med sine dendrittiske utløpere krysser på langs og
på tvers, vertikalt og horisontalt
gjennom våre og våre forgjenegeres
liv. ”What is life, indeed, if not as
proliferation of loose ends! It can
only be carried out in a world that is
not fully articulated” påstår Tim
Ingold (2013:132). Deleuze og Guattari (1980/2004) argumenterer
for at de teoretiske konstruksjonene
som gjør det mulig for oss å gripe
fortiden i all sin kompleksitet, må
være åpne for historiens Rhizomiske
karakter, alle de løse endene og sammenfiltrede praksiser. Bricolage,
pragmatisme…
mer og mer i bakgrunnen, bl.a. fordi de etter hvert ble fanget inn i et
poststrukturelt tåkeprat og i Berger/
Luckmanns sosialkonstruktivisme
der ”fortiden var et annet sted” og
der den materielle verden ble symbolske representasjoner på alt annet enn det de fysisk fremsto som.
Uansett var diskusjonen om middelalderarkeologiens
kildetilfang
gjenstand for hyppige meningsutvekslinger gjennom hele 1980-tallet
og langt ut på 1990-tallet, i META
og andre steder, men det kom ikke
til å handle så mye om generering
av ”de gode problemstillingene”
som den første artikkelen i META
la opp til, som det kom til å dreie
seg om det arkeologiske kildematerialets kunnskapspotensial i forhold
til de historiske tekstene. Dette ble
et tema for diskusjon og meningsbrytning som fylte METAs sider i
lang tid: I en META artikkel fra
1988 nr. 1-2 foreslo Anders Andrén
en distinksjon mellom ”latente” og
”manifeste” spor forstått som ulike
type data som enten var avhengig
av en kontekst for å kunne tolkes
”mer analytiska och mer medvetna”
(”manifest”) eller ikke-kontekstuelle spor som var ”mer tvetydiga
och mindre medvetna” (”latent”).
Forslaget startet en heftig, men
fruktbar diskusjon i begynnelsen av
1990-tallet, der undertegnede bl.a.
fremmet en motforestilling mot
en slik prinsipiell kategorisering av
data begrunnet i en forestilling om
at ”ting” prinsipielt var bærere av
en tilsvarende kontekstuell kvalitet
som manifeste spor gjennom de
4. Ting og tekst, isolasjon og
kontekst
Evnen til å være interessant for tilgrensende forskningområder handler bl.a. om å kunne formulere
nye problemstillinger og stille nye
spørsmål. Derfor stilte vi oss spørsmålet: Hva kunne arkeologien bidra
med som var relevant for de store
historiske spørsmålene? En klar og
konsistent teori om de historiske
utviklingsmekanismene var det som
kunne bringe en nærmere denne utfordringen, men da de fysiske sporene etter menneskelig praksis kom
17
META 2015
romlige og temporære relasjonene
ting hadde til hverandre i en gitt
stratigrafisk kontekst. Slike relasjoner mellom ting ble beskrevt som
en ”meningsdannende struktur”
på linje med en setning i en tekst:
”Sammenfatningsvis kan de materielle scenariene fremstilles som en
materialisering av kulturelt betingede samhandlinger” (Christophersen
1992:10) ble sluttkommentaren i et
kritisk blikk på Anders begrepsdannelse, som mest av alt handlet om å
forsvare de fysiske objektenes analytiske egenverdi som kildepotensial,
som der og da opplevdes som truet
og nedvurdert i forhold til tekster
og monumenter. Men det var Anders´ banebrytende bok ”Mellan
ting och text” fra 1997 som satte
tingene bokstavelig talt på plass:
Gjennom den kunnskapsintensive
og velargumenterte teksten bidro
boken langt på veg til å skape konsensus om at middelalderarkeologien måtte forståes som en del av en
historisk arkeologi der ting og tekst
opptrer side om side som døråpnere
til det forgange. Og den bidro ikke
minst til å lukke det kunstige gapet
som var skapt mellom middelalderarkeologien og arkeologifaget generelt og dermed bringe middealderarkeologien ut av en selvprodusert
og sær isolasjonspolitikk skapt av
en overdreven frykt for å bli dupert
av de historiske tekstene og historiefagets patriarkat. ”Mellom ting
og tekst” er uten tvil en av de viktigste bøkene som er publisert innen
Skandinavisk arkeologi de siste par
desennier, men METAs betydning
i denne ”frigjøringsprosessen” skal
ikke undervurderes.
5. ”Evig eies kun det tapte”
Gjennom hele sin eksistensperiode
har META vært en aktiv medspiller
mht. å utvikle middelalderarkeologien fra å være en arkeologi om
historiske fenomen som opptrådte i
middelalderen til en arkeologi uten
institusjonaliserte grenser i tid og
rom men der tilgangen til tekster
gjør en forskjell i den arkeologiske
forskningspraksisen. Særlig når en
kommer til tolkningsprosessen, men
også i poblemformuleringsfasen. Jeg
er overbevist om at META også i sin
nye fortsettelse vil være med på å
utvikle den historiske arkeologien i
nye retninger. Med den «materielle
vendingen» som i de siste 5-8 årene
har rullet som en vekkelse over det
arkeologiske miljøet er vi stilt overfor nye konstruktive muligheter til
å gjøre det som vi kanskje burde ha
sett for lenge siden, men kanskje var
hullets dunkle belysning for svakt:
nemlig å gjøre arkeologien til en
vitenskap om materialitet, eller om
hvordan det resiproke forholdet
mellom menneske og det materielle
har bidratt på uventede måter til
historiens ”meshwork”. Det er meget mulig at fortiden i metaforisk
forstand befinner seg litt ”i himmelen”, ”et annet sted” eller i folks
eksistensielle bevissthet, men den
mest åpenbare muligheten (såpass
naiv tør jeg være) er at den sitter i
sjaktveggene, i dette forunderlige,
18
AXEL CHRISTOPHERSEN
tid og til alle tider eksisterende, øyeblikket ikke. Men det er i de tapte
øyeblikkene at historien skapes, og
fortiden tilhører disse. Intet mindre.
gråbrune fettede univers av stiper,
bånd og linjer som har foldet tiden sammen omkring de uendelig
mange hendelsene som i en sum utgjør ”historiens gang”. Hva kan vi
som arkeologer med våre unike muligheter til å studere de lange linjene i forholdet mellom menneske
og materielet bidra med i den sammenheng? Der nede i hullet i jorden
konfronteres vi hele tiden med det
som har vært og det som ble ført videre, men ikke minst med det som
ble igjen. Har vi vært for opptatt av
å (gjen)oppdage det gjenkjennbare,
det traderte, det bestandige? Har vi
oversett det flyktige, det utskiftbare, det som var viktig i øyeblikket
men ikke for fremtiden? Ideologi og
identitet er bestandigheter, kvaliteter alltid og til alle tider tilstedeværende. Praksiser er det ikke, de dannes, lever, bryter samme og erstattes
av noe nytt. Det foranderlige er all-
Arkeologi er mer enn noen gang et
hull i jorden, med en solid bunn å
stå på, fire vegger som utfordrer
grensene og taket er en åpen himmel som slipper tanken fri. Det er
dit min 35 årige arkeologiske reise
siden METAs første nummer kom
ut har brakt meg. Det er i øyeblikket et utfordrende og derfor et usedvanlig godt sted å være. Fra den
utsiktssplassen ønsker jeg META
lykke til på ferden videre inn i fremtiden.
Axel Christophersen, professor historisk arkeologi, NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet,
Trondheim.
E-post: [email protected]
Noter
1.Takk til METAs redaksjon v/Mathias Bäck som inviterte meg inn i tidsskriftets spalter for en
personlig refleksjon omkring den første artikkelen som ble publisert i META nr.1/1979.
2.Takk til Anders Andrén som har kommentert manus og bidratt med verdifulle synspunkter og
forslag til forbedringer.
3. Del 2 av artikkelen ble trykt i i META 1979 nr. 2
19
META 2015
Referenser
•Andrén, Anders (1988). Ting och text. Skisse til en historisk arkeologi. META nr. 1-2.
Lund.
•Andrén, Anders (1989). Spåren forskräcker? META nr. 2. Lund.
•Andrén, Anders (1989). I Vidars fotspår. META nr. 4. Lund.
•Andrén, Anders (1997). Mellan ting och text. En introduktion till de historiska arkeologierna. Stockholm: Brutus Östlings bokf. Symposium.
•Christophersen, Axel (1979). Arkeologi: Mer enn et hull i jorden? Synspunkter på
forholdet melom arkeologi og historie, del 1. META nr. 1, ss. 4-8. Lund. Del 2. META 1979
nr. 2, ss. 4-8. Lund.
•Christophersen, Axel (1980). Håndverket i forandring: studier i horn- og beinhåndverkets utvikling i Lund ca 1000-1350. Acta archaeologica Lundensia Ser. in 4 Volum 13, Bonn:
Habelt , Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
•Christophersen, Axel (1981). Den ekspansive arkeologien. Refleksjoner over begrepet
•“nyere tidens arkeologi”. META 1981 nr. 2, ss. 26-34. Lund.
•Christophersen, Axel (1992). Mellom tingenes tale og tekstenes tyranni. Om faglig identitet og selvforståelse I historisk arkeologi. META 1992 nr.4, ss. 1-14. Lund.
•Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix (1980/2004). Thousand Plateaus. London and New
York: Continuum.
•Forser, Th. (1978): Humaniora på undantag? Humanistiska forskningstraditioner i Sverige.
Stockholm, Bokförlaget PAN / Norstedts.
•Ingold, Tim (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London and
New York: Routlegde.
•Keller, Christian: (1978). Arkeologi - virkelighetsflukt eller samfunnsforming, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
•Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher (1987). Re-Constructing Archaeology. Theory
and Practice. London and New York: Routlegde.
20
Gravar i en övergångsperiod
– de yngsta kammargravarna och brandgravarna i Uppland
under 1000- och 1100-talet
John Ljungkvist
The Christianization process of Middle Sweden is a classic topic, not least due to Adam
of Bremen and other writers, who c. 1070 described the Svear as a pagan people, far
from being as good Christians as many other people in Scandinavia. This article is an attempt to date and discuss the very last cremation and chamber graves in Uppland. Most
previous research has been focused on early possible Christian burials, not the last pagan
burials. The 11th and 12th centuries are for various reasons chronologically weak compared to the earlier and later phases. But it is possible to use recent town stratigraphies from
Sigtuna, coins and analogies to Gotland etc., in order to make better estimations than
before. It now seems like central and northern Uppland have more late graves furnished
with multiple objects and animal sacrifices than previously estimated. A considerable
amount of grave fields in the Uppsala region contain such graves, dated from 1050/1075
and with high probability into the 12th c. They are contemporary with Christian rune
stones and the accounts from Adam of Bremen and they evoke questions as to how the
last pagans and the first Christians were presented in death.
Bakgrund
kammargravar som tillhör vikingatidens allra sista skede. Dessa gravar
har bara publicerats ytterst översiktligt (Schönbäck & Thunmark-Nylén
2002; Gräslund & Ljungkvist 2011b).
Tillsammans med gravar från Tuna i
Alsike, Tuna i Badelunda och en rad
främst västmanländska brandgravar,
innehåller de välbevarade och högkvalitativa fyndkombinationer som ger
information om hur obränt och bränt
Detta arbete har sin bakgrund i projektet Valsgärde studies då en överblick av gravfältets historia skapades
(Ljungkvist 2008). På denna plats
finns det förutom 14 båtgravar ett 60tal brandgravar och en grupp kammargravar från yngre romersk järnålder till tidig vendeltid. Sist men inte
minst rymmer gravfältet en grupp
21
META 2015
med tydliga kristna yttringar. Ur ett
problemlösningsperspektiv är 1000och 1100-talet en utmanande period. Föremålskronologin för denna
fas har varit tämligen svag och det
är en fas där 14C-proverna har stora
standardavvikelser. Sist men inte
minst är det en övergångsperiod
mellan två perioder som präglas av
markanta skillnader i forskningstraditioner, dvs. järnåldern och medeltiden. Beslutet att sätta ett slut för
vikingatiden år 1050 har påverkat
dateringarna av många gravar i Mälardalen.
gravgods disponerades när kristnandet började få fäste i Mälardalen.
Eftersom kammargravarna från
Valsgärde är sena och innehåller såväl rika föremålsuppsättningar som
offrade djur, leder det osökt in på en
diskussion om övergången mellan
s.k. hedniskt och kristet gravskick.
Deras närhet till Gamla Uppsala
relaterar även till klassiska frågor
om ett tempel i Gamla Uppsala,
Adam av Bremens uppgifter om
Svearna som sena hedningar och
kanske även konflikterna mellan
kristna och hedniska tronpretendenter i Hervarar-sagan (Sundqvist
2013, s. 78ff ). Kristnandeprocessen är ingen ny diskussion, man
har länge diskuterat när den börjar
i Mälardalen och hur tidigt kristna
drag kan identifieras. Däremot har
man inte gjort omfattande studier
av hur länge traditionella hedniska
drag lever kvar, bland skelettgravar som brandgravar. Det förklarar
varför denna artikel börjar med att
behandla skelettgravar och därefter
glider över till att även inkludera föremål i brandgravar i Uppland.
Valsgärdes kammargravar
Gravfältet i Valsgärde användes under minst 1300 år, från förromersk
järnålder till vikingatidens absolut
sista skede. Kontinuiteten är lång
men långt ifrån linjär då gravarnas utseende och innehåll varierar
stort under dess historia (Ljungkvist
2008).
Platsens senvikingatida kammargravar uppträder strax efter en gradvis
förändring av gravfältets struktur.
Från att under vendeltid ha varit
varierat sett till såväl status, gender
som ålder, blir det under vikingatiden allt mer likriktat. Gravarna består då dels av båtgravar som i samtliga fall är mansgravar, dels av ett
succesivt minskande antal brandgravar. De senare utgörs främst av rikt
utrustade kvinnogravar (Schönbäck
& Thunmark-Nylén 2002; Ljungkvist 2008; Gräslund & Ljungkvist
Den religiösa transfereringen i Mälardalen är ett stort ämne som berör
en omfattande och varierat material
med en rad dimensioner som sträcker sig från grundläggande dateringsproblematik till fenomenologi. I
detta fall har jag valt att fokusera
på kronologiska frågor. De är fundamentala för diskussionen av hur
länge starka hedniska traditioner
levde kvar och existerade parallellt
22
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
rustning, vapenuppsättningar, kärl
och personlig utrustning. Grav 9
innehåller ett mynt som i Schönbäcks och Thunmark-Nyléns översiktsartikel dateras till c. 1020, vilket ger en TPQ-datering av graven.
Det bedöms som rimligt att datera
denna grav till före 1050. Vad gäller
grav 1 och 11 är det fyndmaterialet,
i viss mån med stöd av den rumsliga placeringen och stratigrafin på
gravfältet, som stärker en datering
till det aktuella århundradet.
2010). Från slutet av 900-talet blir
sammansättningen av gravar än mer
likriktad. Brandgravskicket upphör
och nästan alla som gravläggs förses
med vapen- och ridutrustning samt
placeras i båtar eller kammare. Indikationerna på kvinnogravar upphör
helt och det verkar bli en nekropol
för enbart män av hög status, vilket
är ett mycket ovanligt drag som utmärker just denna fas.
Gravtyperna som finns representerade under den yngsta fasen, dvs.
från 1000-talet är båtgravar, avlånga
kammargravar och en enklare utformad skelettgrav (grav 26). Med
utgångspunkt i stratigrafiska observationer har enstaka brandgravar
utan kronologiskt signifikanta föremål knutits till 1000-talet. Efter
14C-datering har de emellertid visat
sig vara betydligt äldre (Ljungkvist
2008; Ljungkvist manus).
Kammargravarna (grav 22, 23, 25,
28) är i viss mån en nygammal begravningsform såtillvida att platsen
rymmer en grupp folkvandringstida kammargravar som efterträds
av båtgravarna (Ljungkvist 2011a).
Som fenomen är de senvikingatida
kammargravarna inte unika för
Valsgärde. De har hittats på en rad
platser, särskilt där även båtgravar
finns (Stolpe & Arne 1912; Arne
1934; Nylén & Schönbäck 1994;
Alström 2005). Kammargravarna
i Valsgärde och Tuna i Alsike har
dock en speciell karaktär och kanske
kan även Vendel placeras in i gruppen men vendelgravarna från denna
tid är skadade (Stolpe & Arne 1912,
s. 26-27; SHM 12753).
Av 1000-talets båtgravar (grav 1, 9,
11) är endast grav 1 mer fullständigt
publicerad (Fridell 1929; Schönbäck & Thunmark-Nylén 2002).
Gravarnas sammansättning av fynd
och djur skiljer sig inte dramatiskt
från 900-talets båtgravar. De innehåller hundar och hästar, ryttarut-
Tabell 1. Längd/breddförhållande i kammargravarna från Valsgärde och Tuna i Alsike. I flera
fall har troligen toppen av gravschaktens nedgrävningskanter kalvat in vilket betyder att dessa
gravars ursprungliga toppbredd varit betydligt mindre.
23
META 2015
Till skillnad från de äldre kammargravarna i Birka, som är de utan
tvekan mest beforskade kammargravarna i Sverige, har gravschakten i Valsgärde och Tuna i Alsike en
betydligt mer utdragen form. De är
inte bara avsevärt längre utan även
proportionellt smalare. I fallet Tuna
i Alsike III är den exceptionell (tab.
1). Även dispositionen av föremål
och djur skiljer sig markant från
Birkas kammargravar även om det
finns flera gemensamma drag (jfr.
Gräslund 1980, s. 30ff ).
med avlivningen av djuret. Hästarna finns alltid i västra änden, medan
hunden, som i fallet Valsgärde 28,
kan ligga öster om människan, eller
som i fallet Tuna i Alsike III, öster
om en deponerad sadel.
Förutom formen och gravrummets
inredning finns det flera andra detaljer som skiljer de yngre kammargravarna från Birkas. I flera fall finns
inga tydliga tecken på att den döde
ligger i en kammare klädd med träväggar. Snarare verkar den gravlagde
ha lagts i en kista, säng eller bår som
in sin tur har placerats i ett större
gravschakt utan väggar. I minst ett
fall, Tuna i Alsike I, kan det diskuteras om utrymmet ifråga ska definieras som en mycket smal kammare
eller en kista. Det är en definitionsfråga och man ska inte glömma att
en uniformitet saknas. Strukturerna
och ritualerna vi kan se i det förmedeltida gravskicket är tendenser
om än tidsbundna sådana. Reglerna
har undantag som blir fler ju större
antal gravar som studeras. Varje begravning har en tydligt individuell
prägel.
Varje grav har sin individuella prägel men det finns en klar tendens till
en uppdelning av gravrummet i fyra
zoner (fig. 1). Från väster till öster
placerades:
1. Djuren, endast hund och häst
(ibland med ridutrustning på hästen).
2. Knippen av ridutrustning (huvudlag, stigbyglar, sporrar).
3. Kärl (trä eller keramik).
4. Människokropp och personlig
utrustning (t.ex. vapen, kam, bältesdetaljer).
I åtminstone ett fall, Valsgärde 23,
finns tydliga tecken på en indelning
av gravschaktet i två rum. Utifrån
längdprofilen av schaktet kan man
utläsa att avdelningen för djuren
respektive människan fyllts igen vid
två olika tillfällen (fig. 2). I fallet
Valsgärde 28 hittades en stor mängd
spikar och nitar i schaktfyllningen.
Samtliga låg i avdelningen för människan och det är rimligt att de re-
Beträffande variationen finns den
personliga utrustningen i princip
alltid runt männiksokroppen men
ibland kan enstaka föremål återfinnas på andra platser i gravrummet.
I exemplet Tuna i Alsike I återfinns
stridsyxan vid hunden i gravens
västra ände. Kanske hör det samman
24
Figur. 1.Tuna i Alsike I med zonindelning av gravgodset.
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
25
META 2015
presenterar ett trätak. Troligen har
djuren täckts över med jord ganska
snart efter gravläggningen, medan
utrymmet/rummet med människan
låg i ett luftfyllt rum. Detta antagande stärks av att hästskeletten och
hundskeletten ligger i korrekt anatomisk position. Hästskeletten tenderar att vara i något mindre korrekt position, kanske för att de fallit
sönder mer när mjukdelarna brutits
ner. Dessutom har nog en del hästar begravts liggande på mage vilket
påverkar hur benen sprids efter nedbrytningen av mjukvävnaden (t.ex.
Valsgärde 23 eller båtgraven Tuna i
Alsike VIII). Kort sagt har djurbenen
inte flyttats runt av t.ex. råttor eller
rubbats när ett kammartak ruttnat
och kollapsat. Valsgärdegravfältet
är problematiskt såtillvida att människoskeletten i regel inte bevarats.
Skeletten är dock urskiljbara om än
inte välbevarade i kammargrav 22
och 23. I dessa två fall är benens position i hög grad rubbade. Det kan
bero på att likdelarna rubbats av
människor som återbesökt graven,
men uppenbarligen inte plundrat
den grundligt. Alternativt har djur
rubbat vissa skelettdelar. Oavsett
understryker det att häst- och hundkropparna täckts med jord, medan
människan lagts i ett luftfyllt rum.
Ovan nämnda mönster gäller främst
för Valsgärde. I Tuna i Alsike ligger
skeletten i två av tre här behandlade
fall (i grav I och VIII men inte III) i
orubbat anatomiskt läge. Det finns
med andra ord en viss variation såväl i gravritualen som kanske postbegravningsaktiviteter, vilket skiljer
både enskilda gravar och gravfält
från varandra (se även Ljungkvist
2006, s. 145-147). Här finns ingen
fastställd liturgi utan likheterna ligger snarare i att gravarna är resultatet av en interaktion mellan sociala
konstellationer, i detta fall mellan
Valsgärde och Tuna i Alsike, och
manifestationer (som är platsöverskridande) samt lokal praxis. Gravarna på dessa två platser har under
en rad generationer mer gemensamt
än samtida gravar på andra platser
(t.ex. kammargravarna och båtgravarna i Tuna i Badelunda).
Om inte Valsgärdes kammargravar
påminner särskilt mycket om exempelvis Birkas, har de desto mer gemensamt med båtgravar. Såväl den
avlånga formen på gravschaktet som
disponeringen av gravgodset är densamma. Vidare är det intressant att
vi ser denna form av kammargravar
i Valsgärde, Tuna i Alsike och kanske i Vendel, dvs. på s.k. båtgravfält.
Det verkar med andra ord röra sig
om gravar som strukturellt sett är
båtgravar men som saknar en båt.
Människorna på dessa platser har
tagit ett medvetet beslut, i dialog
med personer på övriga platser, att
inte använda båten men behålla
gravspråket, dvs. det substantiella
innehållet och deponeringsmönstren. Det förklarar även varför Tuna
i Alsike III är en till synes absurt
lång och smal s.k. kammargrav (se
tab. 1). Frågan är varför man valt att
inte använda båten längre. En möjlig förklaring är att det har samband
med att kristnandeprocessen tagit
26
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
fart. Å andra sidan har en rad andra markant hedniska drag behållits
såsom djuroffren och de rika föremålsuppsättningarna. Vidare är de
gravlagda orienterade med huvudet
åt öster, precis som i alla båtgravar
på platsen sedan omkring 600 e.Kr.
Den enda tydliga skillnaden mellan
dessa gravar och de tidigare är övergivandet av båten.
Fynd- och gravkronologi för 1000talet och 1100-talet är inte ett traditionellt ämne inom svensk arkeologi. Perioden ligger efter den s.k.
Birkatiden, dvs. den väl dokumenterade gravkronologin för 800- och
900-talet i Skandinavien och före de
flesta medeltida städernas kronologi,
som är mest utforskad från 1200-talet och framåt (se t.ex. Broberg et al
1981; Jansson 1985; Skibsted Klaesoe; 1999). Det finns dock exempel
på att perioden inte är helt obeforskad. Tidiga undersökningar och ett
antal studentarbeten har behandlat
t.ex. kammar och pärlor från både
Lund och Sigtuna (t.ex. Tesch 1990;
Nordström 1996; Salminen 1996).
Kunskapsbilden för merparten av
Sveriges tidigmedeltida materiella
kultur är dock inte jämförbar med
vikingatiden och framförallt går den
inte på djupet. Ett typexempel på
problematiken är Johan Callmers
vikingatida pärlkronologi (Callmer
1977; 1997). Callmer delar in pärlmaterialet i 30- till 50-årsintervall,
från tidigt 700-tal till 1000-talet i
en väl fungerande modell. Vad gäller det sista århundradet görs dock
ingen indelning i en tidigare och
en senare fas. Man skulle kunna tro
att Callmer ansåg att vikingatiden
tog slut omkring 1050. Fast med
tanke på dennes gedigna kunskap
om materialet beror det snarare på
ett mycket mer sparsmakat material
från denna tid och att föremålen är
svåra att placera in i tydliga kombinationer efter omkring 1000. Vidare har det vetenskapliga intresset för
att studera småfyndsmaterial från
Den kronologiska aspekten
– kammargravar och samtida
brandgravar
Kammargravsbruket är en gravform
som anses efterträda båtgravarna
och sträcka sig långt in i 1000-talet. Skelettgravar från 1000- och
1100-talet som ligger utanför kyrkogårdskontexter har behandlats
vid ett antal tillfällen. Då har diskussionen till stor del baserats på
studier av skelettgravar från övergången vikingatid-medeltid. Diskussionen har i hög grad kretsat
kring kristnandeprocessen och skiften i trosuppfattning och gravtradition (se t.ex. Gräslund 1980; 1985;
1996; Andersson 2005). Få studier,
om ens några, har haft fokus på hur
länge brandgravskicket levde kvar
i olika delar av Mälarregionen eller hur långt fram kammargravarna
sträcker sig. Detta har också varit en
svår diskussion att föra. 14C-dateringarnas spännvid har i regel varit
allt för vida och kunskapsluckor rörande fyndmaterialet från den aktuella perioden har varit stora.
27
META 2015
1000- och 1100-talet varit tämligen
begränsad ända sedan 1800-talet (se
t.ex. ref. i Thunmark-Nylén 1991).
En annan äldre tendens och dessutom en svårfångad sådan, eftersom
den inte alltid uttrycks tydligt, är en
tvekan att tolka brandgravar som
yngre än c. 1050. Ett konkret exempel är Henry Simonssons (1969)
undersökning av Åsta-gravfältet i
Västmanland. Ett mynt i brandgraven A2 daterades till c. 1050. Myntet ifråga måste ha cirkulerat en tid
eftersom det gjorts om till hänge
och därefter burits ytterligare en tid.
Det är sedan länge bevisat att mynt
från skatter kan vara i omlopp under lång tid innan deponeringen (se
exempel i Thunmark-Nylén 1991,
s. 169ff ). Ändå ansåg Simonsson att
graven anlagts c. 1050. Samma argumentation förde han kring A4, en
grav med östersjökeramik som ansågs vara nedsatt omkring år 1000,
även om han refererade till Sellings
datering av kärltypen till c. 9751200 (Simonsson 1969, s. 87f ). Det
finns en stor risk för att tendensen
att knyta material till före 1050 eller
t.o.m. 1000 kommer att leva kvar
lång tid framöver. Konceptuellt sett
baseras vikingatidens materiella kultur i Mälardalens på Birka och det
är till standardverken om denna
plats som de flesta arkeologer (ofta
även undertecknad) går då större referensverk saknas för perioden 9801200. Någon förändring kommer
inte att ske förrän det producerats
ett eller flera nya referensverk som
täcker denna fas.
Figur 2.Valsgärde 23. Ovan planbild. nedan
profil.
28
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
Gravar och Sigtunafaser
Förutsättningarna för att diskutera ett sent brandgravskick är idag
bättre än någonsin, bl.a. beroende
på att allt fler brandgravar 14C-dateras till långt in i 1000- och kanske
t.o.m. 1100-talet (Andersson 2005,
Engström & Wikborg 2006). Två
forskare som tidigt lyfte frågan i två
separata regioner var Anders Broberg och Lena Thunmark-Nylén.
Den förstnämnde noterade flera
sena gravar i nordöstra Uppland i
samband med Barknåreprojektet
(1990). Samtidigt argumenterade
Lena Thunmark-Nylén för att Gotlands sena fyndrika skelettgravar
kunde dateras långt in i 1100-talet
och kanske t.o.m. ännu senare (se
exempel i Thunmark-Nylén 1991,
s. 188).
En nyckellokal för tolkningar av
flera fyndtyper från 1000-1100-tal
är Sigtuna och kvarteret Trädgårdsmästaren. Den stratigrafiska tillförlitligheten från undersökningen är
omdebatterad men nyligen rapporterad och mer överskådlig än tidigare (Söderberg 2013; Wikström
2011). Oavsett meningsskiljaktigheter i metoder och tolkningar har
inte stratigrafin omtolkats totalt eller de fastställda fasernas kronologi
flyttats mer än ett tiotal år framåt eller bakåt (se ref. ovan). Med denna
felmarginal har den gällande fasindelningen och de absoluta talen i
detta fall accepterats med ett eller
ett par årtiondens felmarginal. Det
påverkar inte tolkningarna på något
avgörande sätt men är viktigt att
vara medveten om källkritiskt.
En kombination av ett allt större
antal mynt- och föremåls­
daterade
brandgravar, samt båt- och kammar­
-gravar från såväl Valsgärde som
Tuna i Alsike och t.ex. Tuna i Badelunda, öppnar för en intressant
diskussion om kristnandeprocessen
i Uppsalaregionen. I framtiden kan
kanske kopplingar till andra regioner som södra Uppland, Västmanland/Närke och Östersjöregionen
som helhet också bli aktuella (se
t.ex. Bäck 2012). Det finns omfattande och bra fyndkombinationer
från ett ganska stort antal gravar
och i kombination med i synnerhet urbana kontexter finns det bra
förutsättningar för gedigna grundforskningsarbeten.
Kronologin i Trädgårdsmästaren
och fyndtyper som kan knytas till
definierade faser är en av huvudanledningarna bakom denna artikel.
Det är nämligen ett av de få tillfällen där fynd från kronologiskt avgränsade stadslager kan knytas till
gravfynd från samma region (här
Uppland). Den fas som är särskilt
intressant i detta fall är fas 5, som i
absoluta tal dateras till 1075-1100,
samt de närmast följande faserna 6
(1100-1125) och 7 (1125-1175).
Föremålen som uppmärksammas
särskilt är dubbelhelkammar, sammansatta dubbelkammar, miniatyr-
29
META 2015
yxor av brons, samt gjutformar för
ändstycken till munbett av brons.
fas 6 börjar typen uppträda mer
frekvent, för att bli mycket vanlig
under fas 7, dvs. c. 1125-1175 (fig.
3). Det sammanfaller med en omfattande tillverkning av kammar under denna fas då även sammansatta
dubbelkammar börjar bli representerade i materialet (Pettersson 2007,
s. 13). Den senare kamtypens form
är dock inte undersökt närmare. Ska
man utgå från Sigtunamaterialet
skulle därmed gravarna med dubbelhelkammar dateras till de sista
decennierna av 1000-talet och hela
Så kallade dubbelhelkammar är en
föremålstyp som noterats i sammanlagt åtta brandgravar samt i Tuna i
Alsike VIII som är en båtgrav (fig.
4). Det finns fler kända gravar med
dubbelhelkammar som bör utredas
(Biuw 1993, s. 48). I statistik från
Sigtuna förekommer dubbelhelkammar i enstaka fall genom samtliga faser, men de är ytterst få under
fas 1-4. Under fas 5 och början av
Figur 3. Kamtyper per fas från Sigtuna (modifierad från Wikström et al. 2011, fig. 126).
Figur 4. Människoskelettet i Tuna i Alsike VIII med dubbelhelkammen vid kraniet och en yxa i
knähöjd.
30
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
1100-talet. Det är emellertid viktigt
att vara försiktig i detta antagande.
På grundval av fynd från undersökningen av Humlegården i Sigtuna
kan de förekomma från omkring
1050 (Wikström 2006, s. 134-135).
Figur 5. Sammansatt dubbelkam, från Petré
2010, s. 200.
Vidare finns det sju brandgravar i
materialet som innehåller sammansatta dubbelkammar (tab. 2). Detta
kan betraktas som uppseendeväckande då kamtypen, oavsett varianter, brukar knytas till 1200-talet och
framåt (Broberg & Hasselmo 1981;
Nordström 1996). De aktuella gravarna innehåller främst fynd som
inte är närmare bestämbara än yngre järnålder eller vikingatid (ev. med
undantag från pärlorna i Barknåre
10, Broberg 1990, s . 72-75). Den
enda graven med en 14C-datering,
troligen en konventionell sådan av
kol från brandlagret i Barknåre 10,
fick dateringen 1105±115 (BPvärde okänt, osäkert om den var
kalibrerad, Broberg 1990, s. 74). I
mina genomgångar av ett antal tusen fyndkombinationer från gravar
från yngre järnålder har jag aldrig
sett några sammansatta dubbelkammar i kombination med kronologiskt signifikanta fyndkombinationer från 900-tal eller tidigare. Om
sådana finns är de ytterst få. Från
Gotland finns det ett antal rikt utrustade gravar med sammansatta
dubbelkammar som presenterats
Tabell 2. Brandgravar samt båtgraven Tuna i Alsike VIII med dubbelhelkammar (DK) och sammansatta dubbelkammar (SK).
31
META 2015
av Thunmark-Nylén (1991, tab.
1, fig. 9-11, s. 167ff ). I en senare
genomgång av dubbelhelkammar
(40 exemplar) och sammansatta
dubbelkammar (10 exemplar), placerar Thunmark Nylén huvudsakligen dessa kammar i Stufe VIII:4
(1090/1100-1200), men enstaka exemplar kan förekomma under Stufe
VIII:3
(990/1005-1090/1100).
Hennes dateringar, som gjorts helt
oberoende av Sigtunakronologin,
korresponderar ganska väl med denna (Thunmark Nylén 2006, s. 260,
692).
norna har elliptisk form och ovalt
tvärsnitt, samt att dekoration saknas
(fig. 5). Utseendet på fynden från
Uppland verkar helt och hållet korrespondera med de gotländska fynden. Stödskenorna verkar i de flesta
fall ha tillverkats av horn, vilket skiljer dem från merparten av de yngre
kammarna. Kanske rör det sig om
en föregångare till typ 4 (Nordström
1996).
Om Sigtunakronologin antas avspegla när dubbelhelkammar börjar
uppträda, betyder det att brandgravar med sådana och även gravarna
med sammansatta dubbelkammar, huvudsakligen ska knytas till
1100-talet om än med viss förekomst tidigare. Tyngdpunkten i
Sigtunamaterialet ligger i fas 7, dvs.
från 1125 men troligen ska man
utgå från fas 5, dvs. från c. 1075, då
kamtillverkningen under den senare
fasen genererat en överrepresentation (se ovan).
Vad gäller gravarna med sammansatta dubbelkammar ligger dessa
utanför tidigare väldefinierade och
kronologiskt relaterade typer (jfr.
Broberg & Hasselmo 1981; Nordström 1996). Vi verkar ha att göra
med en typ av sammansatt dubbelkam som teknologiskt och formmässigt inte fångats in vid tidigare
kamstudier. Exempelvis har typen
inte identifierats från kv. Trädgårdsmästaren, men den verkar finnas
i stadslagren. Från kyrkogården i
Humlegården 3 verkar en eller två
kammar ha hittats i gravar som dateras från c. 1080-1300 (Wikström
2006, s. 134, 135, 172, 173). Det
finns stark anledning till att definiera de gravfunna kammarna i
som en separat och kronologiskt
tidsbunden typ. De avviker från
andra sammansatta dubbelkammar
såtillvida att tandskenan i flera fall
verkar vara utskuren ur bara ett eller två hornstycken. Ytterligare ett
återkommande drag är att stödske-
Signifikanta fynd utöver kammar är
svårare att placera i distinkta mönster eftersom de inte förekommer i
lika stora antal. Vad gäller fynd från
kammargravar är två objekt, miniatyryxan i Tuna i Alsike VIII och bettet i Valsgärde 22 av särskilt intresse.
Yxan från Tuna i Alsike VIII är betydligt mindre än vanliga yxor (13,1
cm bred). Den är kanske den enda
av sitt slag i Mälardalen, men ett antal yxor av samma typ har hittats på
Gotland och det vore intressant att
i framtiden även studera finska och
baltiska gravkombinationer (Trot-
32
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
1100-talet. De korresponderar därmed förhållandevis väl med yxorna
från Gotland. I fallet Tuna i Alsike
VIII är detta synnerligen intressant
då gravens dubbelhelkam dateras
inom samma intervall. Det betyder
att båtgraven sannolikt är yngre än
1075 och mycket väl kan vara anlagd på 1100-talet.
Ytterligare en intressant fyndkategori från Sigtuna är gjutformar
för ändstycken till munbett som är
funna på tomt 2 i kv. Trädgårdsmästaren och knutna till fas 5. Munbett
av detta slag utgör ett av de mest
iögonfallande föremålen från senvikingatida gravar. Söderberg och
Gustafsson som undersökt föremålstypen, pekar på ett välbevarat
fynd från en grav i Lundby i Fors
i Södermanland (Söderberg & Gustafsson 2007, s. 30ff.). Utifrån fyndbeskrivningen verkar det för övrigt
röra sig om en brandgrav (SHM
13703/huvudkatalog). I Valsgärde
22, myntdaterad till TPQ 1020,
finns det ytterligare ett exempel på
munbett av detta slag (fig. 6) och i
Tuna i Alsike III återfinns ett exemplar i järn om än med mer stiliserade djurhuvuden (Arne 1934, taf.
VI). Den senare graven har för övrigt en spjutspets som formmässigt
är snarlik den i Valsgärde 22. Gjutformen från Sigtuna är kronologiskt
sett enbart ett fynd och har därmed
inte samma tyngd som mönstren
rörande kammar och miniatyryxor.
Munbett av denna typ kan mycket
väl ha tillverkats före omkring 1075
men å andra sidan har vi inte en
Figur 6. Det fragmentariska ändstycket till
ett munbett från Valsgärde 22. Lavering:
Bengt Händel. UMF.
zig 1991; Thunmark-Nylén 1991).
Trotzig daterar gravar med denna
typ av yxor till 1075-1100 vilket
troligen inte skiljer sig markant från
Thunmark-Nyléns bedömningar
(ibid, s. 171). I Sigtuna finns det
en intressant parallell i form av s.k.
miniatyryxor. Dessa skiljer sig såtillvida att det är betydligt mindre
föremål som dessutom är gjorda i
kopparlegering. Vad som förenar
bronsminiatyrerna med järnyxorna
är dels bladets form, dels en utväxt
bakom bladets nedre del. I ett välbevarat gotländskt exemplar utgör
utväxten ett dekorelement i form av
en palmett (Trotzig 1991, s. 255).
I Edbergs sammanställning av miniatyryxor är de stratigrafiska sammanhangen varierande. Av de närmare bestämda sammanhangen är
ett fynd (J) daterat till 1030-1050,
ett (C) till 1050-1075 och sex (A,
B, D, E, F, I) från 1075-1200 (Edberg 2008, s. 6f.). Yxorna dateras
m.a.o. med en klar tyngdpunkt
till 1000-talets sista decennier och
33
META 2015
Tabell 3. Gravfält i Uppsalaområdet med sena brandgravar, skelettgravar och kammargravar
som behandlas i texten.
tydlig slutfas för dem. Det bör även
betonas att bettet från Valsgärde är
gjort i Ringerikestil medan bettet
från Lundby i Fors och gjutformen i
Sigtuna verkar dra mer år Urnesstil,
dvs. de är möjligen yngre.
är Kärvenskatten från Hållnäs sn.
Från denna högst varierade depå
finns mynt som sträcker sig från
tidigt 700-tal till Wilhelm Erövraren (TPQ 1086) och samtliga mynt
var försedda med bäröglor (Broberg
1990, s. 37 med anförda referenser). Ytterligare en viktig faktor för
1000-talet är att myntimporten går
ner markant efter 1050 (Tesch &
Jonsson 2006, s. 9). En minskad
import kan betyda att mynt cirkulerar längre vilket påverkar hur vi ska
tolka gravfunna mynt.
Det bör slutligen nämnas att det
finns ett antal ytterligare fynd i både
skelett- och brandgravar som skulle
kunna diskuteras närmare. Det rör
sig exempelvis om östersjökeramik,
söljor och bälten och inte minst behovet av att utarbeta vad som skiljer
1000- och 1100-talets sammansatta
enkelkammar från 900-talets, t.ex.
att knyta ihop kamsekvenser från
Birka och Sigtuna.
De gravfunna myntens TPQ-dateringar sträcker sig från c. 1020
till 1050 och flera har präglingar
som spänner över flera decennier. I
alla noterade fall utom en av kvinnogravarna (brand- och kammargravar i Mälardalen) med mynt
från 1000-talet, är dessa omgjorda
till hängen. Det gäller grav 1330 i
Gamla Uppsala, grav 4 i Barknåre,
grav 2 i Sylta i Köping, samt Tuna
i Badelunda 76 och 84 (Simonsson 1969, s. 71; Broberg 1990, s.
73; Schönbäck & Thunmark-Ny-
Mynt och 14C-dateringar
Mynt är en högintressant materialgrupp för denna period då så såväl
brandgravar, som kammargravar
och båtgravar innehåller mynt från
1000-talet. En ständig central fråga
gällande myntfynden är hur länge
de cirkulerat före deponeringen. En
sen uppländsk depå med sena fynd
34
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
lén 1994, s. 127, 138; Lucas et al
manus). Samtliga har m.a.o. varit
sekundäranvända som smycken en
tid. Tyvärr kan enbart grav 84 från
Tuna i Badelunda relateras till andra
väl daterbara fynd, i detta fall pekar
dessa på första hälften av 1000-talet. Från Valsgärdes kammargravar
med mynt är det svårt att precisera
dateringarna av i synnerhet vapnen
och hästutrustningen i nuläget. Det
kräver en separat studie.
en skelettgrav, A11807, som med
2 sigma kalibrerades till 990-1190
(Engström & Wikborg 2006, s.
96ff ). Sistnämnda graven är intressant då den uppvisar flera drag som
återkommer i kammargravarna och
båtgraven Tuna i Alsike VIII. Den
innehåller dels ett offrat djur i form
av en hund, dels spår av ett träkärl
i form av lyftringar i järn. Sist men
inte minst innehöll graven en sammansatt dubbelkam. Med tanke på
hur dessa kammar dateras, bör graven ifråga dateras till efter 1075, vilket stöds av 14C-dateringen.
Sena 14C-dateringar av brandgravar
finns i flera fall. Tyvärr blir även de
senaste årens dateringar, där standardavvikelserna är små, svårtolkade då kaliberingskurvan inte är
idealisk. I två äldre fall, Barknåre
och Valsta, är dateringarna gjorda
på kol i brandlager och standardavvikelserna är höga (Broberg 1990,
Andersson 1997). Från grav 10 i
Barknåre, överensstämmer 14Cdateringen, som lutar åt en datering
till 1100-tal, med fragmentet av en
sammansatt dubbelkam i graven.
Broberg tolkade fragmentet som
en dubbelhelkam, men det är väl
tunt. Snarare rör hör fragmentet till
tandskenan av en sammansatt dubbelkam (se Broberg 1990, fig. 51).
Sammanfattning av daterings­
underlaget
På basis av i synnerhet kammaterialet kan dubbelhelkammarna försiktigt dateras från 1075, kanske med
viss förekomst från 1050 (se ovan).
Vad gäller de sammansatta dubbelkammarna är en datering till sent
1000-tal troligen mindre sannolik
även om detta bör utredas närmare.
Om man ser strikt till dateringarna
av föremålen, skulle vissa gravar
kunna dateras fram till omkring
1200 på grundval av såväl föremål
som 14C-dateringar. Frågan är dock
om detta är rimligt, inte minst då
gravarna inte behöver ha anlagts
under hela den tid som föremålen
ifråga använts. Om vi emellertid
antar att en eller två generationer
av individer kremerats med dubbelkammar eller sammansatta dubbelkammar från det att föremålstyperna börjar uppträda c. 1050-1075,
Från Kyrsta, undersökt senare än
nyss nämnda platser och med betydligt bättre standardavvikelser,
är två gravar särskilt intressanta.
Brandgraven A957 saknade fynd,
men en koldatering tyder på en sen
begravning som med 2 sigma kalibrerades till 1020-1240. Den andra 14C-dateringen kommer från
35
META 2015
Roslagen) samt enstaka andra platser i Mälardalen som exempelvis
Lovön (Petré 2010).
Vad gäller specifikt kammargravarna och båtgravarna, är det endast
Tuna i Alsike VIII som innehåller
en dubbelkam. Det finns emellertid
starka skäl för att datera flera av gravarna till efter 1050 och kanske in i
de första decennierna av 1100-talet
och användandet av flera förmålstyper, såväl munbett som yxor av Petersen typ M, sträcker sig fram till
minst c. 1100. Myntdateringarna är
problematiska men utesluter inte att
flera gravar dateras till efter 1050.
Den troligen yngsta kammargraven i Valsgärde, nummer 28, saknar
myntdateringar och fynden har få
tydliga paralleller. Huvudlaget till
hästen, som har en utmärkande
form och ornamentik är intressant,
inte minst för att det kanske är det
enda av sitt slag i Sverige (fig. 7). Det
finns flera skäl till att datera graven
till efter 1075. En rik förekomst av
palmetter på beslagen, korresponderar dels med palmettdetaljer på de
ovan nämnda miniatyryxorna från
gotländska gravar (se ovan) och såväl palmetter som andra detaljer på
beslagen har paralleller i dekorelement på s.k. liljestenar (Nitenberg
2009, s. 52-59). Liljestenarnas datering är erkänt osäker, men de bör
snarare knytas till 1100-talet än tidigare. Valsgärde 28 kan därmed vara
lika sen som den ovan behandlade
Tuna i Alsike VIII och understryker
att vissa skelettgravar med djuroffer
och rika föremålsuppsättningar är
Figur 7. Huvudlaget till Valsgärde 28.
betyder det att gravarna minst hör
till 1000-talet sista fjärdedel eller
omkring 1100.
Troligen är de aktuella gravarna
tämligen vanliga i vissa områden.
I socknarna närmast Uppsala finns
sena brandgravar eller skelettgravar/
kammargravar på hela tio gravfält
(tab. 3). Dessa representerar en stor
andel av de yngre järnåldersgravfält
i området som undersökts i större
omfattning. I Uppsalaområdet är
troligen Valsgärdegravfältet det enda
medelstora gravfältet som är nästan
totalundersökt. Förutom Uppsalaområdet så pekar andra fynd på en
utbredning av särskilt sena brandgravar i nordöstra Uppland (norra
36
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
samtida med de aktuella brandgravarna.
kristna gravar som Gunnar Andersson behandlat, ligger kranierna
placerade både i öster och väster
(Andersson 2005, s. 104f ). Kranierna i kammargravarna och de sena
båtgravarna ligger däremot alltid i
öster (när de kan identifieras). Värt
att betona, vilket Andersson noterar, är att gravar på kyrkogårdar
i 1000- till 1100-talets Lund och
Sigtuna har en enhetlig orientering
med huvudet i väster. Det bör betyda att liturgin får ett betydligt snabbare genomslag i dessa urbana miljöer. Gravarna i Valsta och Skälby,
som Andersson behandlar i samtida,
rurala miljöer, har en betydligt mer
varierad orientering. Vad gäller det
tredje kriteriet, en minskad mängd
gravgåvor, börjar de troligen minska
redan under 900-talets sista decennium (med markant regionalt och
socialt relaterad variation i Mälardalen). I merparten av de aktuella
kammargravarna och båtgravarna
kan innehållet emellertid knappast
betraktas som sparsmakat även om
vissa typiska föremål för 900-talet,
såsom spelbräden och pilspetsar,
succesivt försvinner. Merparten av
de aktuella brandgravarna har ett
förhållandevis sparsmakat innehåll, men detta har troligen delvis
en förklaring i sociala skillnader
då kammargravarna är elitbegravningar. Det bör dock betonas att
ingen brandgrav i Uppsalaområdet innehåller vare sig en komplett
smyckesuppsättning motsvarande
900-talets vanliga uppsättningar eller vapen (vilket det däremot finns
en rad exempel på i Västmanland
Förkristna eller kristna gravar
En fråga som aktualiserats på senare
tid är om brandgravar kan betraktas som kristna eller om föremål i
graven pekar på kristet inflytande
(Gräslund 2013; Sundqvist 2013).
Frågan har flera dimensioner och
berör bland annat hur kristna och
hedningar interagerade, hur lång tid
kristnandeprocessen tog och inte
minst hur länge hedniska riter levde
kvar i en kristnandeprocess. Diskussionen är ständigt aktuell vad gäller
Uppsala omkring 1070, då Adam
av Bremen skriver sitt verk, eller
kanske snarare under 1060-talet, då
Sven Estridsen, en av Adams sagesmän, vistades i området.
Definitionen av en kristen grav brukar grundas på följande kriterier (se
t.ex. Nilsson 1996, 365ff ):
• Den är orienterad öst-västligt.
• Huvudet ligger i väster.
• Antalet gravgåvor är färre och djur­
-offer saknas.
Med utgångspunkt från dessa kriterier kan det inledningsvis konstateras att samtliga kammargravar
i Valsgärde och Tuna i Alsike, samt
Kyrsta 11807, är orienterade i Ö-V
eller NO-SV riktning (liksom nästan samtliga äldre båtgravar från
vendeltid till vikingatid på dessa
platser, se fig. 8). Bland de tidig-
37
META 2015
Figur 8. Gravarna i
Valsgärde t.h. och Tuna i
Alsike nedan. Sena kammargravar och båtgravar
i Valsgärde är markerade
i grått . Gravar daterade
till 1000- och 1100-tal i
Badelunda är markerade i grått, medan
svart markerar övriga
skelettgravar.
38
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
och i Norduppland/Gästrikland).
Kammargravarna skiljer sig även
markant från de s.k. tidigkristna
gravgrupperna som undersökts på
en mängd platser i Mälardalen (se
t.ex. Andersson 2005). Inte en enda
av dessa gravar, som undersökts på
dussintals gravfält, rymmer en full
vapenuppsättning. En ännu större
skillnad gentemot de tidigkristna
gravarna ligger i deponeringen av
djur, vilket är ytterst ovanligt bland
skelettgravarna (se t.ex. Andersson
2005). Samtliga här behandlade
kammargravar och båtgravar uppvisar offrade hästar och hundar och
merparten av de behandlade brandgravarna som analyserats osteologiskt, vare sig det är översiktligt eller regelrätt, innehåller ben av djur.
Det finns kort sagt en rad distinkta
kriterier som gör att såväl brandgravarna som kammargravarna/båtgravarna skiljer sig markant från de s.k.
tidigkristna gravarna som behandlats av Andersson (2005) eller som
i Uppsalaområdet finns representerade i exempelvis Ultuna, Sävja, Enbacken och det nyligen undersökta
Gnista (ATA; SHM, Sjöling 2006;
Hennius et al. manus).
av tydligt symbolisk innebörd som
pekar i den ena eller andra trosriktningen. I Valsgärde och Tuna i Alsike saknar samtliga gravar distinkt
hedniska eller kristna symboler som
t.ex. torshammarringar eller kors. I
princip är detta typiskt för vikingatida mansgravar. I synnerhet amuletter hör snarare till kvinnogravar
och torshammarringar är långt ifrån
standard i alla delar av Uppland (Price 2002; Ljungkvist 2008; 2011b).
Amuletter av det aktuella slaget
finns emellertid i kvinnogravar exempelvis i Tuna i Badelunda 84, där
båtgraven förutom ett mynt (hänge)
med kors (präglat 991-1040), även
innehåller ett sköldhänge (Nylén & Schönbäck 1994, s. 139ff ).
Två utomskandinaviska analogier
är 600-talsgravarna i Sutton Hoo,
mound 1 och Prittlewell. I Sutton
Hoo finns det två skedar, varav med
en inskription som knutits till sankt
Paulus. De hittades tillsammans
med tio silverskålar som inte har
en uttalad kristen anknytning men
har tolkats som möjliga dopskedar
(Bruce Mitford 1977-83). Skedarna
är importföremål som importerats
från en kristen kontext, precis som
skölden och hjälmen i graven har
skandinavisk hednisk ikonografi.
Från kammargraven i Prittlewell,
daterad till omkring 600 e.Kr och
troligen något äldre än graven i Sutton Hoo, är däremot den kristna
anknytningen tydligare. Två små
guldkors, utskurna ur guldbleck låg
i graven, i anslutning till var kroppen varit placerad (http://www.
museumoflondonarchaeology.org.
Det har tidigare nämnts att såväl
utformningen av gravrummet som
innehållet i kammargravarna bygger
på båtgravstraditionen. Eftersom
disponeringen av föremål och djur
är så pass lik de äldre båtgravarna, är
det inte rimligt att betrakta den som
uppenbart kristen. Förutom att se
till dessa faktorer är det relevant att
se om någon grav innehåller föremål
39
META 2015
uk/Services/PCaseStudies/UK-projects/Prittlewell-Prince/Finds/PrittlewellCrosses.htmreferens). Dessa
kors är antagligen specialgjorda, ej
uppenbart importerade lyxföremål
om än besläktade med samtida kors
på kontintenten. I detta fall finns
det flera faktorer som pekar på att
grav med ytterst rik utrustning kan
tolkas som kristen. Den största
skillnaden gentemot de uppländska
kammargravarna är frånvaron av
offrade djur.
ningar. De bygger på en förkristen
praxis och är anlagda samtidigt som
brandgravskicket (och troligen s.k.
tidigkristna skelettgravar utan djuroffer) anläggs i närområdet. Frågan
är om frånvaron av en båt kan tolkas
som en religiös/rituell förändring.
Så kan mycket väl vara fallet, men
att grav VIII i Tuna i Alsike är en
båtgrav som dateras så sent som efter 1075, tyder på att kammargravskicket i sig inte markerar ett religionsskifte. Möjligen kan det tolkas
som en antydan till en kompromiss
i ett övergångsskede, men där merparten av de hedniska begravningsritualerna är intakta.
Den troligen enda föremålskategori
i de uppländska gravarna som bär
kristen ikonografi är mynten (se
ovan). De skulle kunna tolkas som
kristna symboler (Gräslund 2013,
s. 115). Å andra sidan kontrasterar
mynten mot att gravspråket i övrigt
bygger på en äldre förkristen praxis.
Det finns exempelvis ett antal dussin gravar i Mälardalen med mynt
från islamiska präglingsorter. Under
1000-talet sker det i princip ingen
import av islamiska mynt, de består
istället Engelska och Tyska mynt,
ofta med korsmotiv. Eftersom
myntfynden i gravarna är relaterad
till myntimporten gör att de i sig
är tydliga indikatorer på den döde
som kristen. Däremot kan man inte
bortse ifrån att mynten importeras
samtidigt som kristnandeprocessen
är stark i stora delar av Skandinavien.
När vi daterar skelettgravar på basis
av orientering, innehåll och lokalisering, är våra tolkningar i begränsade av grundforskningsluckor och
de ovan nämnda kalibreringsproblemen av 14C-prover. Det finns mig
veterligen inga aktuella forskningsinsatser som inriktad på att avgöra
när det börjar dyka upp kristna skelettgravar, orienterade Ö-V i grupper som rumsligt skiljer sig från övriga förkristna gravar och hur länge
och i hur stor omfattning de aktuella gravskicken existerar parallellt.
För Attundaland sätter Gunnar Andersson övergången till senare delen
av 900-talet, men han verkar då inte
ta ställning till att flera av hans 14Cdaterade brandgravar kan vara klart
yngre (Andersson 2005, fig. 10, s.
100).
Sammanfattningsvis saknar såväl
Valsgärdes som Tuna i Alsikes kammargravar och båtgravar tydliga
tecken på att vara kristna begrav-
Eftersom merparten av de här berörda skelett- och kammargravarna
40
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
lokaliserats i centrala och nordöstra
Uppland, kan man knappast undvika att diskutera situationen under
1070-talet och Adam av Bremens
beskrivning av en utbredd hedendom. Om merparten av befolkningen bekände sig som kristna,
vilket skulle kunna antydas av runstenarna, pekar det utbredda brandgravskicket på att uppfattningen om
kristen praxis var ytterst vag. Om
de var kristna så uppvisade många
en ovilja att anpassa sig till de mest
basala elementen av kristen begravningspraxis. Enligt min mening var
det inget exceptionellt att begravas
som obränd eftersom jordandet
existerat parallellt med brandgravskicket genom hela järnåldern.
m.a.o ske vissa förändringar i deponeringsmönstren. Förändringarna
är emellertid inte fundamentala eftersom det fortfarande deponeras
exempelvis kärl, djur, knivar, kammar, vissa dräktattiraljer och djur.
Sammantaget saknas det distinkta
tecken på aktiva ställningstaganden
till en ny tro i de här behandlade
gravarna. Jag skulle vilja efterlysa en
djupare religionsvetenskaplig diskussion kring denna fråga satt i relation till liturgisk praxis och kyrklig
flexibilitet under den aktuella perioden. Kan individerna ifråga kan
vara kristna utan att det satt distinkta avtryck i den materiella kulturen
och begravningspraxis, dvs. kan kremering och djuroffer vara accepterat
i en kristnat samhälle. Hur ser det
ut i andra delar av Europa och vilka
slutsatser kan dras från antropologiska paralleller.
Vad som är kristet eller inte ligger i
slutändan i betraktarens öga vare sig
det handlar om de gravlagda, deras
anförvanter, observatören Sven Estridssen, krönikören och kyrkopolitikern Adam av Bremen eller dagens
uttolkare. Om personerna i de sena
brandgravarna eller kammargravarna var kristna så följer de inte
tidigare uppsatta definitioner för
kristna begravningar (se ovan). Det
är kanske inte viktigt att förhålla sig
till definitioner som dessa eftersom
de ofta behöver modereras. Kammargravarna avspeglar i viss mån en
ny tid eftersom de bryter mot båttradition. Samma tydliga brott ser vi
inte i Tuna i Alsike med dess mycket
sena båtgrav. Vad gäller brandgravarna så verkar inte någon innehålla
större smyckesuppsättningar eller
stora pärlkombinationer. Det verkar
Det är svårt att inte fråga sig hur
Sven Estridssen eller Adam av Bremen betraktade Uppsalaområdets
befolkning under 1000-talets slut?
Om man ska utgå ifrån runstenskronologin och dateringar av en rad
undersökta grupper av skelettgravar
som följer kriterierna för kristna begravningar, så var en stor andel av
befolkningen kristnad (Gräslund
1985). Samtidigt verkar det som om
en markant andel av befolkningen
har begravts på ett sätt som för en
person med insikter i kristen liturgi
måste ha betraktat som tämligen
hednisk, i strid med exempelvis den
kristna tanken om återuppståndel-
41
META 2015
taten i denna studie framstår Uppsalaområdet som liturgiskt svagt eller hedniskt vid denna tid.
sen. Under denna tid fanns det en
utarbetad liturgi som utbildade kyrkomän och missionärer bör ha känt
till (Tveito 2011).
Som avslutning bör det betonas att jag
under arbetet till denna artikel funnit
det svårt att finna brandgravar eller rikt
utrustade skelettgravar med distinkta
fynd söder om Tuna i Alsike. De verkar
vara vanligare runt Uppsala och ut mot
norra Upplandskusten. De skillnader i
Uppland som observerats i utbredningen av tidiga kyrkor och runstenar kan
troligen kompletteras med ytterligare
en variabel som pekar på att kristnandeprocessen i norra Uppland skiljer sig
markant från södra (se Gräslund 1987).
Adams av Bremens beskrivning av
de hedniska svearna (i Uppsalaregionen?) ses som sannolik av åtminstone ett skäl. Om en viss del av Uppsalområdets befolkning trots allt var
kristna, även om de kremerades och
begravdes med djur, betraktades de
rimligen som hedningar i en skolad
kyrkomans ögon.
Slutligen kan det betonas att en utbredd förekomst av hedniskt anlagda gravar har fler konsekvenser för
diskussionen om Uppsalaregionens
kristnande. Uppsala biskopssäte
upprättades troligast 1123 (Lovén
2010, s.13f ). Om det finns brandgravar och båtgravar/kammargravar
in i tidigt 1100-tal är tiden mellan
dessa och upprättandet av biskopssätet mycket kort eller obefintlig.
Installeringen av ett biskopssäte i
just Gamla Uppsala har vid ental
tillfällen föreslagits vara en missionsrelaterad manifestation i ett
svagt kristnat område. Utifrån resul-
Denna artikel baseras på undertecknads docentföreläsning som hölls i oktober 2013. Ett
särskilt tack till Joakim Kjellberg för många
diskussioner om fynd och stratigrafi i städer
samt till Helena Hulth för manusläsning.
John Ljungkvist är docent och forskare
vid Institutionen för Arkeologi och Antik
historia vid Uppsala universitet.
E-post: [email protected]
42
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
Referenser
•Alström, U. (2005). Undersökningarna vid Norsa gravfält. Dokumentationer, beskrivningar och tillbakablickar. (Västmanlands läns museum. Kulturmiljöavdelningen rapport A
2005:A38.).Västerås.
•Andersson, G. (1997).Valsta gravfält, Arlandabanan, Uppland, Norrsunda socken, RAÄ 59
(Rapport/UV Stockholm, 1997:9:2). Stockholm.
•Andersson, G. (2005). Gravspråk som religiös strategi – Valsta och Skälby i Attundaland
under vikingatid och tidig medeltid (RAÄ skrifter 61). Stockholm.
•Arne, T. J. (1934). Das Bootgräberfeld von Tuna in Alsike, Uppland. Stockholm.
•Biuw, A. (1992). Norra Spånga. Bebyggelse och samhälle under järnåldern. Stockholm.
•Broberg, A. & Hasselmo, M. (1981). Keramik, kammar och skor från 7 medeltida ständer.
Fyndstudie. Stockholm (Medeltidsstaden 30). Stockholm.
•Broberg, A. (1990). Bönder och samhälle i statsbildningstid : en bebyggelse­arkeologisk
studie av agrarsamhället i Norra Roden 700-1350. Uppsala.
•Bruce-Mitford, R. (1975–83). The Sutton Hoo ship-burial 1-3. London.
•Bäck, M. (2012). På andra sidan Birka. Södra Björkös arkeologiska potential. I Hedenstierna-Jonsson C. (red.) Birka nu. Pågende forskning om världarvet Birka och Hovgården.
Stockholm, ss. 45-68.
•Callmer, J. (1977). Trade beads and bead trade in Scandinavia ca. 800-1000. (Acta archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 4o, 11). Lund.
•Callmer, J. (1997). Beads and beadproduction in Scandinavia and the Baltic Region c. AD
600-1100: a general outline. Perlen. Archäologie, Techniken, Analysen. U. von Freeden & A.
Wieczorek (red.), ss. 197-202.
•Göthberg, H., Lovén, C. & Dahlbäck, G. 2010. Domkyrkan i Gamla Uppsala. I Uppsala
Domkyrka. II. Sveriges kyrkor 228. Bengtsson, H. (red).
•Edberg, R. (2008). Nya fynd av miniatyryxor. I Wikström, A (red.) På väg mot paradiset
– arkeologisk undersökning i kvarteret Humlegården 3 i Sigtuna 2006. (Meddelanden och
Rapporter från Sigtuna museum 13). Sigtuna, ss. 150-154.
•Engström, T. & Wikborg, J. (2006). Kyrsta del 1. Gravar från järnålder och medeltid. (SAU
skrifter 16). Uppsala.
•Fridell, A. (1930). Den första båtgraven vid Valsgärde i Gamla Uppsala socken. Fornvännen 25, ss. 217-237.
•Gräslund, A S. (1980). Birka 4. The Burial Custums. Stockholm.
•Gräslund, A S. (1985). Den tidiga missionen i arkeologisk belysning : problem och synpunkter. Tor 20, ss. 291-313.
•Gräslund, A S. (1996). Arkeologin och kristnandet. Kristnandet i Sverige -gamla källor
och nya perspektiv. Uppsala, ss. 19-44.
43
META 2015
•Gräslund, A S. (2013). Kristna inslag i Gamla Uppsala och dess närområde. I Sundqvist,
O. & Vikstrand, P (red.). Gamla Uppsala i ny belysning. Gävle, ss. 113-134.
•Gräslund, A S. & Ljungkvist, J. (2011).Valsgärde revisited. Arkæologi i Slesvig. Sonderband
“Det 61. Internationale Sachsensymposium 2010” Haderslev, Danmark. Neumünster, ss.
123-140.
•Hennius, A et al Rapportmanus Gnista SU. .
•Jansson, I. (1985). Ovala spännbucklor: en studie av vikingatida standardsmycken med
utgångspunkt från Björköfynden. (Aun 7.) Uppsala.
•Ljungkvist, J. (2006). En hiar atti rikR. Om elit struktur och ekonomi kring Uppsala och
Mälaren under yngre järnålder. (Aun 34.). Uppsala.
•Ljungkvist, J. (2008). The development and chronology of the Valsgärde cemetery. I Norr,
S (red.) Valsgärde studies: the Place and its People, Past and Present. (OPIA 42.). Uppsala,
ss. 13-55.
•Ljungkvist, J. (2011a). Skelettgravar i tiden – från sen romersk järnålder till tidig vendeltid. I Olausson, M. (red.) Runnhusa – bosättningen på berget med de många husen, ss.
128-161.
•Ljungkvist, J. (2011b). Mistresses of the cult. Female cult leaders in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. I Quast, D. (red.) Weibliche eliten in der Frühgeschichte. Mainz, ss. 251-265.
•Ljungkvist, J.Valsgärde – the history of a burial ground (manuscript).
•Lucas, R. et al. Rapportmanus. OKB-projektet
•Nitenberg, A. (2009). Liljestenar och stavkorshällar : kulturmöten och social praktik i
tidig medeltid. (GOTARC. Serie C, Arkeologiska skrifter 71). Göteborg.
•Nordahl, E. (1952). En gravfältsundersökning vid Kroksta i Åkerby sn. TOR 1949-1951.
Uppsala, ss. 51-60.
•Nordström, A. (1996). Kammar från Uppsala ca 1150-1700 : om kamdateringar och
kammar som kulturhistoriskt källmaterial. Lund.
•Nylén, E. & Schönbäck, B. (1994). Tuna i Badelunda. Guld kvinnor och båtar 1-2.Västerås.
•Petré, B. (2010). Arkeologiska undersökningar på fornlämning RAÄ 34, Lunda/Berga,
Lovö sn Uppland. (Lovö Archaeological reports and studies 9). Stockholm.
•Pettersson, B. (2007). Kammakeriavfallets spridning på en tidigmedeltida stadsgård i
Sigtuna. Situne Dei 2007, ss. 7-15.
•Price, N. (2002). The Viking way – religion and war in late Iron Age Scandinavia. (AUN
31). Uppsala.
•Salminen, Lars. (1996). Att tappa tråden : om medeltida pärlor och kulturella mönster.
(Arkeologiska rapporter från Lund 13). Lund.
•Schönbäck, B. & Thunmark-Nylén, L. (2002). De vikingatida båtgravarna vid Valsgärde. –
relativ kronologi. Fornvännen 97, ss. 1-8.
•SHM= Statens Historiska Museum Inventarienummer.
44
JOHN LJUNGKVIST
•Simonsson, H. (1969). Ett senvikingatida gravfält från Västmanland. Fornvännen 69, ss.
69-89.
•Skibsted Klæsøe, I. (1999).Vikingetidens kronologi – en nybearbejning af det arkæologiske material. Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie 1997, ss. 89-142.
•Sundqvist, O. (2013). Gamla Uppsala som förkristen kultplats: en översikt och en hypotes. I Sundqvist, O. & Vikstrand, P (red.) Gamla Uppsala i ny belysning. Gävle, ss. 69-112.
•Stolpe, H. & Arne, T. J. (1912). Graffältet vid Vendel. Stockholm.
•Söderberg, A. (2013). Om stratigrafi, tomtmönster och hantverk i kvarteret Urmakaren,
Sigtuna. Situne Dei 2013, ss. 47-70.
•Söderberg, A. & Gustafsson, N B. (2007). Från prestigeavgjutning till myntning. Situne Dei
2006, ss. 17-40.
•Tesch, S. (red.) (1990). Makt och människor i kungens Sigtuna : Sigtunautgrävningen
1988-90. Sigtuna.
•Tesch, S. & Jonsson, K. (2006). Utgrävningen i kv. Humlegården, Sigtuna. Myntstudier
2006:3, ss. 6-10.
•Thunmark-Nylén, L. (1990).Vikingatid eller medeltid? Om datering av gotländska gravfynd. TOR 23, ss. 141-202.
•Thunmark-Nylén, L. (2000). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands 4, katalog. Stockholm.
•Thunmark-Nylén, L. (2006). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands 3:1-2. Stockholm.
•Trotzig, G. (1991). Craftsmanship and function. (The museum of national antiquities/
Stockholm monographs 1). Stockholm.
•UMF= Uppsala Universitets museum för nordiska fornsaker.
•Tveito, O. (2011). Gravskikk og kristning - en analyse i skandinavisk perspektiv 9.-11.
Oslo.
•Wikström, A. (2006). Kammar. På väg mot paradiset. (Meddelanden och Rapporter från
Sigtuna museum nr. 33. Sigtuna), ss. 131-135.
•Wikström, A. (red.) (2011). Fem stadsgårdar – arkeologisk undersökning kv. Trädgårdsmästaren 9 & 10 i Sigtuna 1988-90. (Meddelanden och Rapporter från Sigtuna Museum nr
52). Sigtuna.
•(http://www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org.uk/Services/PCaseStudies/UK-projects/
Prittlewell-Prince/Finds/PrittlewellCrosses.htmreferens)
45
META 2015
46
On spatializing history
– the household as spatial unit in Early
Modern Swedish towns
Dag Lindström & Göran Tagesson
The article discusses the differences between history and archaeology, especially when
approaching space as a category of analysis. The authors are advocating better mutual understandings from both disciplines and refer to an ongoing project on artisan households
and workshops and the relationship between physical space and household as well the
connection between residence and workshop. The case-studies comes from Early modern
Kalmar and Jönköping, where large scale archaeological excavations recently have taken
place, and where historical records about the inhabitants and the plot owners have been
scrutinized. When historical and archaeological observations are combined, household,
residence, and work appear as a much more complicated and diverse matter than often
assumed. It also stands clear that materiality and space are necessary dimensions of household and work analyses. The combination of historical and archaeological evidence also
provokes new questions and promotes new types of conclusions.
Introduction
and where. Also among historians, we
have for several years now witnessed
a rising interest in space and materiality. We have seen references to a spatial as well as a material turn. But we
should nevertheless remember that it
is still rare that historians systematically include space and materiality in
their analyses (e.g. Gunn & Morris
2001; Thompson 2003; Postles 2004;
Stobart, Hann & Morgan 2007; Harvey 2009; Sennefelt 2011; Forssberg
& Sennefelt 2014).
One of many different aspects of the
contextual meeting of history and
archaeology is the challenge of making history take place. When we
compare the agendas of history and
archaeology, we tend to have many
aspects of agency and social practice
in common. But when it comes to
the use of space as a methodological
instrument, there are tremendous differences. In archaeology, space is one
of the core fields of analyzing past
times, combining agency and social
practice theory with spatial analysis,
to understand who has done what
Confronting archaeological evidence
with information collected from the
type of written sources historians
47
META 2015
commonly use helps us to raise new
questions, it provokes new perspectives and it will provide us with new
types of results in the analyses of
early modern urban households.
domestic group”, i.e. “those who
share the same physical space for the
purpose of eating, sleeping, taking
rest and leisure, growing up, childrearing, and procreating” (Laslett
1972, pp. 23–28). Other historians
have focused more on the functions
of the early modern family and the
household. According to Michael
Mitterauer it was not genealogical
connections but rather the functional context that linked the family
together. Taking part together in
specific common everyday activities
like work, leisure, eating at the same
table and sleeping under the same
roof, constituted the early modern
family. Mitterauer and Reinhard
Sieder have emphasized also the
multifunctional aspects of the early
modern family, and one of the most
significant roles was that of being
the main unit of production (Mitterauer & Sieder 1982, pp. 71–92;
Mitterauer 1984, p. 7f ). Laslett on
the other hand was skeptical about
the early modern family and household as a necessarily coherent work
group. He discussed a number of
possible situations where residence
and work were spatially separated
(Laslett 1983). However, historians have rarely analyzed the spatial
dimensions of households, co-habitation and work, especially not
concerning artisans’ households and
workshops.
The aim of this article is to discuss
the methodological framework of
making history and archaeology
meet, and implications for combining different sets of data. The focus and case studies will be on artisan households, artisan workshops,
the relationship between physical
space and household, as well as the
often assumed connection between
residence and workshop. This is a
field where it becomes obvious that
a combination of archaeological and
historical approaches will advance
and enhance our understandings of
social and economic conditions in
early modern towns.
The household in previous
research
The household has been one of the
key concepts of early modern social
and cultural history. Many Swedish
historians identify the household as
a fundamental unit of early modern
social and economic organization.
In many cases the household has
also been identified as a basic unit of
production. Historians often have
strived at identifying the household
and the family as distinct and well
defined units. A typical and classical definition is the one presented
by Peter Laslett as “the co-resident
Also in archaeology, the functional
and structural aspects of the households have been very much discussed. Theoretical discussions as well
48
DAG LINDSTRÖM & GÖRAN TAGESSON
Figure 1. Aerial photo from the 2008 excavation at the Ansvaret block, Jönköping.The caissons of
the plots are visible. Photo: National Heritage Board (RAÄ UV Öst).
spectives; emphasizing the complex
structure of households, gender and
agency, household cycles and family
history as well as alternative models of households (Beaudry 1999;
Allison ed. 1999; Barile & Brandon 2004; Kowaleski & Goldberg
2008).
as analyses based on empirical observations now tend to take place in
dynamic intersections where new
approaches tend to combine social
organization and agency with spatial and material dimensions. The
household as a unit for organizing
property, production and consumption is confronted with the
household as ideology, discourse
and manifestation. The relationship between the physical house and
the household as a social unit is no
longer evident and has to be discussed. This makes possible new per-
This is a topic where bringing space
and materiality into the perspectives of social and economic history
would certainly promote new perspectives and interpretations. David
Warren Sabean argues that the com-
49
META 2015
mon understanding of households
involves a number of shortcomings
as an analytical tool, especially when
the household is conceived as a coherent and delimited unit. This approach will tend to conceal the actual permeability of the household,
the hierarchical dependencies between families, and the varied nature
of different individuals’ integration
in the household (Sabean 1990, pp.
97–101).
sources is combined with archaeological evidence and when spatial and
material aspects of living and working are taken into consideration, it
is certainly clear that this is a way to
develop, and in many aspects reconsider, our understandings of early
modern urban households.
Household, agency and gender
One of the major issues when discussing households and their spatial setting is the correlations of the
physical structures on the plot, the
social structure of the people owning and living on the plots, and the
actors and network of actors involved in the physical and social changes on the plots. One major obstacle
in doing this kind of studies is often
the problems of getting a firm chronological framework, necessary to
allow these different sets of data to
meet.
Also other historians have argued
for a more open and flexible understanding of family, house, and household. Naomi Tadmor and Joachim
Eibach both emphasize the dynamic
and flexible character of family and
household (Tadmor 1996; Eibach
2011). Especially Eibach has included the spatial dimension in his
analyses of the early modern house
as an open entity. In a critical dialogue with Otto Brunner’s concept
‘das ganze Haus’ where the house is
understood as a coherent but also
rather closed entity, Eibach has introduced the concept of open house
(‘das offene Haus’).
At the three plots at the Ansvaret
block in Jönköping a very propitious
source material is at hand, thanks to
extremely good preservation conditions for timber and thus suitable
conditions for building a firm chronology based on dendro-dating.
The excavation in 2008 took place
in the center of the town, in the
street Smedjegatan, an urban zone
known for housing artisans and
workshops, and revealed that these
three plots had been successively
built out, by timber constructions,
in the nearby lake Munksjön, in-
Taken together, there are several
perspectives that point in the direction of early modern households being more open, vague, flexible and
permeable than we usually assume.
It is important here to consider other forms of social organization and
other contexts of social practices
than the family and the household
as we usually understand them.
When information from written
50
DAG LINDSTRÖM & GÖRAN TAGESSON
cluding new houses and courtyards,
thus increasing the spatial plot, both
vertically and horizontally (Stibéus
2012: 2014). The details in this chronology make it possible to discuss
different strategies on how this was
done, using different sets of data.
We may discern periods of building
new constructions and buildings,
as well as sets of buildings and constructions; we can also discern changes in the plot structure. On the
other hand, by a firm chronology it
is also possible to grasp the periods
of not changing the built environment, periods of successive use and
continuity (Tagesson 2014:112ff ).
On the other hand we see the social connections between the people living and owning the plots.
The small boxes indicate one single
person, a way of graphically grasping a somewhat intriguing history,
with married couples and sons and
daughters. In lots of cases, when a
man died, the widow often remarried a new man, sometimes a person with the same profession, like
an apprentice. When the former
widow died, her younger husband
remarried a younger woman, who
successively remarried a new and
younger man after the death of her
older husband, and so on. For both
of the plots, we can reconstruct
chains of family histories, making a
detailed picture of the social development (Tagesson 2014:118ff ).
The historical record allows us to reconstruct the households connected
to these three plots in a very detailed
way (fig. 2), showing that both the
owners and the people living on the
plots were connected to each other
in both social and professional clusters. It seems to be obvious that on
two of the plots, there were lots of
people with the same occupation living together, both relatives and people with just professional connections. The figures are an attempt to
show the chronology of the physical
as well as the social construction of
the plots. The different stages of
constructions are shown as steps in
a staircase, including the timber superstructures, caissons, as well as the
houses. The successively extended
plots are constructed both as timber
foundations, acting as quays on the
water-front, and timber houses constructed on the previous quays.
When put together, family history
based on written records, and the
construction of the physical plots,
we may see a pattern, that the new
physical constructions of the plots,
including both single constructions
as well as sets of constructions and
major changes in plot structure, often coincide with the coming of the
new male person in the household.
The chronological pattern, with
contemporary new constructions,
and the changes in the family structure seems to be a repetitive pattern,
suggesting that in these cases it is
the new man who is building or having it built.
This pattern seems to be clear, both
when it comes to the repetitive pat-
51
META 2015
tern of extending the plot with new
quays and timber structures, as well
as new houses within the overall
plot structure, as well as changes
in the overall plot structure. This is
clearly indicated in the 1740’s and
1750’s when the plot structure has
been totally altered, dependent on
the fact that the new male persons
arriving at the plots had a different
profession. These men were merchants and thus in need of a different sort of spatial layout, with a
larger courtyard and buildings with
different functions. Also when it
comes to these major changes in
the physical surroundings it is clear
that they may be studied in connection to new agents, inscribed into a
different historical context, i.e. the
coming of the merchandising economy of the 18th century.
but there is not a single example
of physical rearrangements on the
plots connected to these situations.
These women seem to be keeping
the standard of the plot in status
quo.
On the contrary, we must not underestimate this absence. There is a
general pattern of connecting and
linking functions of the women in
the households. The women have a
profound function in the chain of
extending the workshops and the
households, as being the strong link
between the persons in these chains.
In these particular examples, there
seems to have been an important
strategy for continuity of the workshop, to keep the business in the
family and thus make a living for
the offspring. This act of continuity may be interpreted as a strategy
carried out by the women, and an
alternative act of agency. Once realizing this, we have to reconsider our
concept of agency in the archaeological records. Periods of non-change
in the built environment may be
considered as periods of alternative
ways of agency.
Another important result to be discussed is the gender aspect. The
overall pattern of the active male
agents has its counterpart in an
image of passive women in the
households, indicating no examples
of constructions or changes in the
physically built plots being in connection with women. So the question is, are the males the only agents,
and is the definition of agents solely
based on the coincidence of physical
building? There are some important
episodes, where the widow is stated
to have continued the business of
the workshop together with once a
daughter, once an apprentice, without a new legal male person in the
household (cf. Lindström 2012),
It stands out, that more attention
has to be paid to the concepts of
agency and households. Changes
in the built environment can not
be explained solely on the basis of
the male front figure (c.f. SpencerWood 1999:163). The examples
from Jönköping point out the need
for a gendered analysis of the household, its function and social struc-
52
Figure 2.The Ansvaret block, Jönköping, plot no. 40 (2a) and no. 41 (2b).The family members in the households to the left,
and the physical extensions of the plots, the caissons and the houses to the right (after Tagesson 2014).
DAG LINDSTRÖM & GÖRAN TAGESSON
53
META 2015
ture. The relationship between the
household and the physical house
and the plot is not static. Instead,
spatial changes must be understood
as a complex interplay between the
social and gender structure of the
household as well as the economic
possibilities, social demands, and
practical needs in the household.
Thus, it seems to be more fruitful
to discuss the agency of the household, in all its complexity, instead of
discussing agency as the deeds and
doings of individuals (Allison 1999;
Brandon & Barile 2004).
workshops (Carelli & Tagesson in
press; Lindström 2014). Four types
of observations relevant to this discussion will now be presented.
First we do have several cases where
we have on the same plot evidence
of artisans and artisan activities in
both archaeological and historical
documentation. But this does not
necessarily imply that everything is
simple and clear cut. On plot no.
236 (the Mästaren block), for example, there are remains of a forge
from the late 17th century. Soon
after, the workshop seems to have
been changed into a shoemaker’s
shop, with traces of shoe production (Tagesson & Nordström
2012:53ff ).
The Ansvaret case also asks for discussions of the particular history of
these plots against the chronology
of the town, as well as the contemporary society itself. Are these changes and the acts of agency to be seen
in the context of the town itself, its
ups and downs, dependent on political agendas in the Early Modern
period, or the different periods of
economic ups and downs, especially
noticeable in a town like Jönköping,
highly dependent on the war industry?
It has not been possible to identify
the blacksmith in the written sources. A shoemaker, Zacharias Danielsson, can however be identified
in 1704. Zacharias died in 1711
and his widow, Anna Larsdotter,
married another master shoemaker
in 1712, Johan Skytt. Anna and
Johan lived on the same plot until
1715. No. 236 is still identified as
Zacharias Danielsson’s in a tax record from 1716, but Johan Skytt is
identified as the owner. In October
1715 he sold no. 236 to a widow,
Margareta Aspegren. In 1723 it was
sold to a tailor, Olof Lindqvist, who
lived there with his wife until 1730
(Lindström 2012b).
Households as spatial unity
Another central aspect of the prevalent interpretations is the unity
of living and work which makes
the household an entity of social,
economic as well as spatial unity.
Evidence from Kalmar clearly challenges the idea of a simple and clear
unity of artisan households and
According to the poll tax registers,
no. 236 was uninhabited in the ear-
54
DAG LINDSTRÖM & GÖRAN TAGESSON
simple as they may seem. Archaeologically the forge has been dated to
the 1730’s or 1740’s (Tagesson ed.
2014:88). The blacksmith, Anders
Hallberg, on the other hand didn’t
move in until 1758 or 1759 according to the written sources. He died
in 1763, and the probate also mentions a forge on the plot (Lindström
2014:21).
ly years of the 1730’s. It was bought
in 1730 by a former military officer,
Anders Björkman, but the records
indicate that he and his wife did not
live there before 1732. The archaeological evidence also indicates that
in the 1730’s the former workshop
was changed into a residential building, and this marks the end of artisan production on this plot. This
example demonstrates a significant
discontinuity in artisan activities
and workshop structure. Within
about 40 years a forge was built,
then turned into a shoemaker’s shop
and later probably into a tailor’s
shop, and at the end it was remodeled into a living space.
In a register from 1742 Hallberg
is identified as a blacksmith in the
countryside outside Kalmar, but in
1750 he was counted among the
master blacksmiths of Kalmar. These sources don’t deliver any waterproof evidence of Anders Hallberg’s
whereabouts, but they definitely indicate that he lived in Kalmar many
years before he moved to plot no.
284. There seems thus to have been
a time lap here between the building
of the forge and the presence of a
blacksmith living on the same plot.
On plot no. 284 (the Gesällen
block) remains of a forge have also
been found. In addition to this we
also have written sources confirming
the presence of a master blacksmith.
But also in this case things are not as
Figure 3.The smithy on plot no. 284. Photo: National Heritage Board (RAÄ UV Öst).
55
META 2015
(see. Kalmar rådhusrätts och magistrats 1600-1830 arkiv, D XVI,
borgarlängder, 1742; Berättelser om
handlande och hantverkare 1750,
Årsberättelser, Kammarkontoret,
Kommerskollegium, Riksarkivet.)
widow 1760–1764, and Johan Ekelund, who married the daughter of
a former owner in 1798. But there
are no obvious remains of a pottery
workshop. Also in this case there
are obvious discontinuities, and we
don’t have a simple match between
material traces of artisan production
and written documentations of artisans’ presence.
Between 1724 and 1744 only one
person can be connected to plot
no. 284. That is Tore Ring’s widow.
She was the owner, and according
to the poll tax registers she was the
only person living there. In 1744
the plot was sold to a tobacco spinner, Jöns Runn. He never lived there
himself and soon (probably already
in 1745) he sold it to the burgomaster Casper Hoppenstedt. He (who
– the latter?) died shortly afterwards
and his widow, Emerentia, inherited
the plot. The Hoppenstedt family
was among the richer and most influential of the Kalmar burgers and
they of course never lived in the far
from fancy house on plot no. 284.
The second type would be when
we have archaeological evidence of
workshops but no written documentation of a corresponding artisan living on the same plot. On plot
no. 233 there are traces of a kiln,
which was first interpreted as being for pottery production because
of some adjacent refuse material.
This is not voluminous and probably does not represent a very long
continuity (Tagesson & Nordström
2012:29).
In this case we have no written documentation of a master potter living there. For a few years (1773–
1785) this plot was certainly owned
by a master potter, Peter Matias
Sjöholm, but he never lived there.
In the poll tax records we instead
find Sjöholm and his family on no.
130. Sjöholm bought no. 233 from
his father-in-law in 1783. Among
the former owners we also find “fru
Hoppenstedt”, which probably refers to Emerentia Hoppenstedt,
mentioned above. She never lived
on no. 233 either, but according
to tax records it belonged to her at
least from 1765 to 1760 (Lindström
2012b, pp. 3–8).
We don’t know how long Emerentia Hoppenstedt kept this plot and
if someone else owned it before
Hallberg bought it, but for several
years (1748–1752) the tax records
indicate it as uninhabited. We don’t
know the exact history of the forge
either, but it may possibly have been
Hoppenstedt who had it built. It
was definitely a reason to invest in
the plot, and it was an obvious reason for Hallberg to buy it. After the
death of Hallberg there are no more
signs of forging activities on this
plot. Two potters can be identified
though: Westlander, who probably
rented rooms from Hallberg and his
56
DAG LINDSTRÖM & GÖRAN TAGESSON
Once again we find Hoppenstedt
as the owner of a plot with a possible workshop. Although Sjöholm
never lived on no. 233 himself, we
do find one of his journeymen listed in the poll tax registers. He only
appears for one year though (1784).
Around 1785 a master baker, Jonas
Fröling, moved in. We don’t know if
he also bought no.233 at that time,
but later he can be established as
the owner. Fröling stayed for many
years and to the end of the 1780’s
his household grew and came to include as many as nine people with
maids and apprentices. In this case
we have strong indications of a
master artisan, the potter Sjöholm,
living on one plot (no. 130) and
probably, at least for some time, had
a workshop on another plot (no.
233). Maybe this was a short term
project, and maybe it was not very
successful, and it is possible that the
kiln was later changed into a baker’s
oven.
cause only the most southern, inner
part of the plot was excavated. It
is, of course, risky to base conclusions on the absence of evidence,
but there are many similar examples, and these indications support
skepticism against any assumption
about workshops necessarily being
located adjacent to the artisans’ homes (Tagesson & Nordström 2012:
Lindström 2012b, p. 20–23).
A fourth type of important observations point in a similar direction.
Many artisans moved frequently,
and lived only a few years in the
same place. On plot no. 285 for example lived a potter Glans (1754), a
shoemaker Kötke (1755), and a tailor Hagrelius (1761-65). The cooper Haglund lived on plot no. 286
from 1769 to 1772. It is, furthermore, not uncommon to find several master artisans of different
occupations on the very same plot.
The master goldsmith Peter Britt
bought plot no. 287 probably in
1774 or 1775. He also lived there,
at least from 1775 to 1788. During
that time also a wigmaker Beckstadius (1775) and a saddler Ridström
(1778-79) lived on the same plot.
As a third type, we have plots with
historical records indicating the presence of artisans but without any archaeological evidence of artisan production. On no. 245 (the Mästaren
block) a number of artisans can be
identified among the inhabitants: a
master copper (Johan Holm, from
the late 1760’s to the early 1770’s),
a master carpenter (Lars Morin, in
1771), a master blacksmith (Gustaf
Sandberg, 1770–1771), and a master painter (Johan Lundgren, from
1773 to 1804). On this plot there
are no archaeological observations
of their workshops, probably be-
From 1794 this plot belonged to the
shoemaker Åström who also lived
there, and from 1792 to 1795 there was also a potter Scharin living
there. These are also strong indications that the often assumed spatial
connection between residence and
workshop may not always have been
that self-evident. (Lindström 2014)
57
META 2015
The overall picture of the twelve
totally documented and extremely
well preserved plots of the Gesällen block certainly indicates mostly
residential functions and hardly any
examples of professional workshops
at all. Among the many examples
of professions of the inhabitants
of the plots no. 280–290 mentioned in the records, many of them
can hardly have been practiced at
home; as military personnel, lower
official personnel, seamen, workmen and widows. One important
question for future research is the
general function of the plots as exclusively residential, which indicates an ongoing process of spatial
separation between residential and
professional functions. In comparison with the previously mentioned examples from Jönköping, one
must also discuss different attitudes,
strategies and processes of change in
different towns, as well as different
parts of the towns.
shops, as well as the households and
the concepts of agency and gender,
demonstrates this exemplarily.
The commonly expected spatial
unity of residence and workshop
wasn’t always there, and we cannot
even presume that artisans necessarily owned their workshops. It seems
also that some workshops could be
quite easily transformed from one
kind to another, and some workshops were inherited and in use for
many generations. The ‘workshop’
concept itself appears as less simple
and evident. What do we actually
mean by a workshop? Is it the organizational combination of master, journeymen and apprentices?
Is it a specific place: a building or
a certain room? Or is it perhaps to
be understood as something much
more abstract; a workshop is whatever context (social, material, and
spatial) where artisan production
takes place, and these contexts can
have had a large number of different
characteristics and a variety of different constitutions.
Conclusions
When historical and archaeological
observations are combined, household, residence, and work appear
as a much more complicated and
diverse matter than often assumed.
It is also clear that materiality and
space are necessary dimensions of
household and work analyses. The
combination of historical and archaeological evidence also provokes
new questions and promotes new
types of conclusions. The question
of artisans’ residence and work-
This article was first presented at the conference Nordic TAG 2014 in Stockholm, at
the session History and archaeology – a very
long engagement.
English revised by Norman Davies, Linköping.
Dag Lindström, Professor at the University of Uppsala, dept. of History.
E-mail: [email protected]
Göran Tagesson, Ph.D, National Historical Museums, Dept. of Archaeology,
Linköping.
E-mail: [email protected]
58
DAG LINDSTRÖM & GÖRAN TAGESSON
References
•Allison, Penelope M. (ed.), 1999. The archaeology of household activities. London: Routledge.
•Beaudry, Mary, C. 1999. House and Household: The Archaeology of Domestic Life in
Early America. In: Geoff Egan and R. L. Michael (ed.) Old and New Worlds, p. 117–126.
Oxbow Books, Oxford.
•Brandon, Jamie C. & Barile, Kerri S. 2004. Household Chores and Household Choices:
Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology. University of Alabama Press.
•Eibach, Joachim. 2011. Das offene Haus. Kommunikative Praxis im sozialen Nahraum der
europäischen Frühen Neuzeit. Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 38.
•Forssberg, Anna Maria & Sennefelt, Karin (eds.). 2014. Fråga föremålen. Handbok till
historiska studier av materiell kultur. Studentlitteratur.
•Gunn, Simon & Morris, Robert J. (eds.). 2001. Identities in space. Contested terrains in
the Western city since 1850. Ashgate.
•Harvey, Karen (ed.). 2009. History and material culture. A student’s guide to approaching
alternative sources. Routledge.
•Kowaleski, M. & Goldberg P.J.P (ed.). 2004. Medieval Domesticity. Home, Housing and
Household in Medieval England.
•Laslett, Peter. 1972., “Introduction: The History of the Family”. In: Peter Laslett (ed.).
Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge University Press.
•Laslett, Peter. 1983.”Family and household as work group and kin group: areas of traditional Europe compared”. In: Richard Wall (ed.). Family forms in historic Europe. Cambridge University Press.
•Lindström, Dag. 2012a. Privilegierade eller kringskurna? Hantverkaränkor i Linköping
och Norrköping 1750—1800. Historisk tidskrift 132:2/2012.
•Lindström, Dag. 2012b. ”Rekonstruktioner av ägarförhållanden, ägoskiften, hushåll och
boende för tomterna nummer 233, 234, 235, 236, 244, 245 och 246, Kvarnholmen, Kalmar”. Bilaga 3 in: Tagesson, Göran & Nordström, Annika ed.. 2012. Kv Mästaren, Kalmar
stad och kommun: särskild arkeologisk undersökning 2009. Riksantikvarieämbetet, arkeologiska uppdragsverksamheten, UV Öst. Rapport 2012:104.
•Lindström, Dag. 2014. Kvarteret Gesällen, Kvarnholmen, Kalmar. Rekonstruktioner av
ägarförållnaden??förhållanden, ägoskiften, hushåll och boende för tomterna med nummer 280–290. I: Tagesson ed. 2014. Kvarteret Gesällen 4 och 25. Särskild arkeologisk
undersökning. Kalmar stad och kommun. Kalmar län. Riksantikvarieämbetet, arkeologiska
uppdragsverksamheten. Rapport 2014:93.
•Mitterauer, Michael & Sieder, Reinhard. The European Family. Patriarchy to Partnership
from the Middle Ages to the Present. Blackwell.
•Mitterauer, Michael .1982. “Familie und Arbeitsorganisation in städtischen Gesellschaften
59
META 2015
des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit”. In: Alfred Haverkamp (ed.). Haus und
Familie in der spätmittelalterlichen Stadt. Böhlau.
•Postles, David A. 2004. “The market place as space in early modern England”, Social
history 29.
•Sennefelt, Karin. 2011. Politikens hjärta. Medborgarskap, manlighet och plats i frihetstidens Stockholm. Stockholmia förlag.
•Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. 1999. The world their household: Changing meanings of
the domestic sphere in the nineteenth century. In: Allison, Penelope M. (ed.) (1999). The
archaeology of household activities. London: Routledge, pp. 162-189.
•Stibéus, Magnus. 2012. Från vassbevuxen strand till handelsgårdar: tre gårdar från 1600och 1700-talen vid Munksjön, Småland, Jönköpings stad och kommun, kv Ansvaret 5 och 6,
RAÄ 50. Arkeologisk undersökning. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Rapport UV 2012:175.
•Stibéus, Magnus. 2014. Slaktarens kaj, apotekarens trädgård och fällberedarens gård.
Arkeologi på tre gårdar i 1600- och 1700-talens Jönköping. Riksantikvarieämbetet.
•Stobart, Jon, Hann, Andrew & Morgan,Victoria (eds.).2007. Spaces of consumption:
Leisure and shopping in the English town, c. 1680–1830. Routledge
•Tadmor, Naomi. 1996. The Concept of the Household-Family in Eighteenth-Century
England. Past and Present 151 (1996).
•Tagesson, Göran (red.). 2014. Kvarteret Gesällen 4 och 25. Särskild arkeologisk undersökning. Kalmar stad och kommun. Kalmar län. Riksantikvarieämbetet, arkeologiska
uppdragsverksamheten. Rapport 2014:93.
•Tagesson, Göran. 2014. Tidigmoderna rum – gård, hus och rum i 1600- och 1700-talets
Jönköping. I: Stibéus (red.) Slaktarens kaj, apotekarens trädgård och fällberedarens gård. .
Arkeologi på tre gårdar i 1600- och 1700-talens Jönköping.
•Tagesson, Göran & Nordström, Annika. 2012. Kv Mästaren, Kalmar stad och kommun:
särskild arkeologisk undersökning 2009. Riksantikvarieämbetet, arkeologiska uppdragsverksamheten, UV Öst. Rapport 2012:104.
•Thompson,Victoria E. 2003. “’Telling spatial stories’: Urban space and bourgeois identity
in early nineteenth-century Paris”. Journal of modern history 75.
60
Gravar och kyrkogårdar
Ett “mikro-stratigrafiskt” angreppssätt
Kristina Jonsson
Burials and churchyards: a “micro-stratgiraphical” approach. The paper addresses problems
when dealing with stratigraphical relations in the excavation of medieval and post-Reformation burials. It is often more or less impossible to create a useful matrix for the
relational phasing of all graves in a churchyard, since individual series of overlapping
graves rarely can be connected. To possibly come to terms with this problem, the author
suggests a more detailed study of the stratigraphy of each individual burial, in order to explore the variation of practices and events that have taken place during a funeral. Possible
methods and questions are discussed, concerning the following elements of a burial: the
preparation of the dead body; the choice and/or production of coffin; the choice of burial
location; the digging of the grave; the placing of the dead and other features in the grave;
the refilling of the grave; constructions and/or markers above the grave; and the revisiting
or later interferences made to the grave. It is stressed in the paper that through the study
of burials on a “micro-stratigraphical” level, it may be possible to move on to drawing
conclusions on a more general level on burial practices, social and cultural structures,
and – in the best of worlds – also to come to terms with phasing and the passing of time.
It is also pointed out that we may need to be less programmatic in our documentation of
burials, to allow for multiple and complex interpretations.
Inledning – våndan av att undersöka gravar
separata gravgrupper till varandra då
man ju inte kan veta om den yngsta
graven i den ena gruppen med överlappande gravar är samtida med den
yngsta i en intilliggande grupp och
så vidare. Kyrkogårdsjorden är i de
flesta fall tämligen homogen, till den
grad att det ibland är omöjligt att se
nedgrävningskanter, och det är tillräckligt att enstaka centimetrar skiljer
två gravar åt i plan för att det inte ska
gå att avgöra hur de förhåller sig till
När man arbetar med kyrkogårdsmaterial är det ofta en källa till frustration att försöka koppla samman de
individuella gravarna i stratigrafiska
serier och grupper. Kyrkogårdar har i
de flesta fall använts i hundratals år,
men trots att många gravar ofta har
stört äldre begravningar kan det vara
i det närmaste omöjligt att relatera
61
META 2015
i kyrkogårdens användning och
tidsmässiga utveckling. Jag vill inte
framställa det som att jag är den första som har uppmärksammat denna
problematik, eller som har föreslagit
metoden att börja i det lilla för att
därifrån arbeta sig upp till tolkningar kring större drag i utvecklingen. I
detta sammanhang vill jag till exempel nämna Fredrik Fahlander som
har dedikerat mycket arbete åt att
utveckla det han kallar en ”mikroarkeologisk” metod (se bl.a. Cornell
& Fahlander 2002; Fahlander 2003,
2009). I beskrivningen nedan kommer jag framför allt att relatera till
medeltida undersökningar, men
tankegångarna och metodiken är
förstås applicerbar på gravar från
alla tider även om frågeställningarna
framför allt berör kristet gravskick.
varandra tidsmässigt. Kyrkogårdsmatriser, om de överhuvudtaget går
att framställa, tenderar därför att bli
väldigt breda och inte så höga…
För att kunna göra en fasindelning
måste man därför se till kompletterande variabler som gravarnas
konstruktion och innehåll. De dödas armställningar har också visat
sig kunna vara en daterande faktor, även om metoden inte alltid är
applicerbar (Redin 1976, se även
diskussion i Jonsson 2009:19, 32f ).
14
C-analyser utgör ett alltför trubbigt instrument för att komma till
rätta med små skillnader i datering,
och de kompliceras ytterligare av
den marina reservoareffekten (Arneborg et al. 1999:162ff; Holm
2006:114ff, 2009:132f ). Det har
dock i andra sammanhang gjorts
lyckade försök att snäva in 14C-dateringars felmarginal med hjälp av
kompletterande fyndanalyser (Bäck
& Strucke 2003).
En enskild handling eller ett
händelsekomplex?
I arkeologisk dokumentation och
förmedling har gravar traditionellt
ofta framställts som statiska bilder:
man illustrerar gravskick i form av
sådant som kista, svepning, kroppsställning och föremål som ett tillrättalagt ”paket” som ska visa hur den
döde var utrustad före gravens igenläggning. Det bör dock nämnas att
det har framförts kritik mot denna
statiska typ av framställning under
senare år, framför allt gällande de
bilder som förmedlas av förhistoriskt gravskick. Howard Williams
(2009:188ff ) har nyligen diskuterat
frågan, och påpekat att komplexa
Jag vill här istället föreslå en annan
– eller snarare en kompletterande –
väg, som i bästa fall kanske även kan
bidra till dateringsfrågan: en noggrann studie av ”mikrostratigrafin”
och händelseförloppet inom varje
enskild grav. En begravning är inte
en avgränsad händelse där allt sker
momentant, den har många faser
och består av ett flertal skilda händelser. Genom att reda ut dessa kan
man få en mer detaljerad bild av
begravningsförloppet och därmed
förhoppningsvis även möjlighet
att säga något om de större dragen
62
KRISTINA JONSSON
begravningsriter kanske snarare
borde illustreras som ”seriestrippar”
eller med hjälp av nya digitala metoder som möjliggör flera parallella
tolkningsmodeller. Problemet, när
man framställer en begravning som
en momentan händelse, är att man
inte tar hänsyn till den inneboende
dynamiken i det som har ägt rum.
En gravläggning är inte en isolerad
händelse där allt sker samtidigt, den
kan ha pågått under dagar – vill
man hårdra det till och med under
flera år om man inbegriper sådant
som att man återvänt till platsen för
att utföra underhåll eller handlingar
kopplade till minnet av den döde.
nast vid det aktuella dödsfallet (men
som kan ha varit planerad redan
långt innan) och som sedan inbegriper en lång rad av handlingar som
till exempel iordningställande av
den döda kroppen (tvättning, tillrättaläggning av olika kroppsdelar,
svepning etc.); val av kista (eller val
att inte använda kista); tillverkning
av kista; val av gravplats; grävning
av grav; transport till gravplatsen;
ceremonier i kyrkan; ceremonier vid
graven; anordnande av konstruktioner i graven (stenläggning, kol- eller kalkbädd etc.); nedsänkande av
kista/kropp; nedläggning av föremål under/i/på kista eller kropp;
återfyllning av graven; uppförande
av gravmarkör (sten, träkors, häll
etc.); samt återbesök och eventuella
ingrepp i gravmiljön – gravar kan
till exempel ha öppnats i samband
med senare begravningar. Alla dessa
handlingar och händelser öppnar för
arkeologiska studier av komplexitet,
olika aktörers roller, religiösa och
kulturella uppfattningar, skillnader
i tid, rum och mellan sociala kategorier samt även aspekter som sorghantering och minnets betydelse för
de efterlevande.
I modern gravarkeologi görs en
noggrann dokumentation av de
olika gravelementens utseende och
form: man beskriver nedgrävningskanter, jordfyllning, kisttyper, armställningar, förekomst av konstruktioner av sten eller andra material,
fynd o.s.v. Av praktiska skäl blir dokumentationen dock ofta ändå tämligen statisk då de blanketter som
används sällan lämnar utrymme för
variation inom de respektive underelementen – ofta är de uppbyggda
med kryssrutor eller utgår ifrån att
man kortfattad ska beskriva en företeelse genom förbestämda alternativ
som till exempel om en nedgrävningskant är synlig eller inte synlig,
rak eller sluttande och så vidare.
Hur redogör man då för att den inte
såg likadan ut runtom hela graven?
Dokumentation – möjliga
frågeställningar och metoder
Med utgångspunkt i ett urval av de
ovan uppräknade tänkbara delmomenten i en begravning är det möjligt att formulera förslag på frågor
att ställa sig inför utgrävning och
dokumentation. Många av mina
Som jag understrukit ovan är en begravning en process som startar se-
63
META 2015
idéer nedan har dock karaktär av
idéer och spekulationer och kan
vara svåra att genomföra i verkligheten, men syftet med dem är framför allt att försöka inspirera till att
tänka lite vid sidan av det vanliga.
Det jag vill slå ett slag för är alltså en
ytterligare nyansering av vanligt förekommande frågeställningar med
fokus på händelser, aktiviteter och
enskilda handlingar. Jag vill också
understryka vikten av ett aktivt
tolkningsarbete redan i fält, för att
minimera risken att viktig information går förlorad.
fället, om den döde har varit svept
och/eller har legat i en kista, och om
andra konstruktioner eller föremål
har funnits i kroppens närhet.
Val av och/eller tillverkning av kista:
När det gäller kistor finns det förstås utrymme för en mängd studier
av kisttyper och deras form, material, storlek och så vidare. Har man
återanvänt äldre material eller helt
enkelt tagit vad man hade i form
av behållare? Det finns exempel på
gravar där den begravde ligger i allt
från baktråg och flätade korgar till
kasserade möbler (se t.ex. Mårtensson 1976:91ff; Tkocz & Brøndum
1985:17). En intressant aspekt menar jag kan vara storleken på kistan:
förefaller den vara måttillpassad efter den döde eller en ”standardmodell”? Kan valet av kista kopplas till
social status, och kan utformning
och material bidra till tolkningen av
om den är hemmagjord eller tillverkad av en professionell snickare? Var
det de rika som kunde köpa prefabricerade kistor, eller var det tvärtom så att de som hade pengar hade
möjlighet att få en som var perfekt
måttillpassad? Och i de fall där behållare saknas, har den döde varit
lindad i svepning eller lagts direkt
på gravens botten iförd gångkläder
eller särskilda begravningskläder?
Är skillnader i denna aspekt av
gravskick tids- eller statusbundna?
När det gäller kistans storlek finns
det intressanta tolkningsparalleller
att hämta i folkliga traditioner från
1800- och tidigt 1900-tal. Det ansågs då vara väldigt viktigt att kistan
Iordningställande av den döda kroppen: Vad gäller denna fas har jag valt
att specifikt nämna den utveckling
som har skett under de senaste åren
inom arkeoosteologin. Det har blivit allt vanligare att osteologisk expertis deltar i fält, vilket på ett nytt
sätt har medfört möjligheter till
ingående studier av skelettens vittnesbörd. Genom att dokumentera
de skilda benens exakta lägen kan
man dra slutsatser kring hur graven
kan ha varit inredd innan allt organiskt material förmultnade. Metoden, som kräver gedigna kunskaper
om hur kroppar och andra material
sönderfaller, brukar gå under dess
franska benämning anthropologie
de terrain eller översatt till svenska
fältantropologi (för exempel se Nilsson Stutz 2003:131ff; Kjellström
& Wikström 2008:31ff ). Skelettets
gradvisa sammanfallande kan på så
vis svara på frågor som till exempel
hur olika kroppsdelar var ursprungligt placerade vid begravningstill-
64
KRISTINA JONSSON
passade den döde exakt; blev den
för stor skulle någon annan i familjen snart dö, och blev den för trång
kunde den döde komma tillbaka
och hemsöka de levande… (Rosén 1949:94). Om sådana tankegångar har förekommit redan under
medeltid, skulle man då till och
med kunna tänka sig att kiststorleken, vid arkeologiska utgrävningar,
kan användas för att dra slutsatser
om hur stor den döda personen har
varit i levande livet?
Val av gravplats: Varför ligger graven där den ligger? Hur respekterar gravarna varandra, verkar man
ha känt till äldre gravars placering?
Många kyrkogårdsgrävningar har
påvisat skilda fenomen som tyder
på att man inte har velat gräva sönder äldre begravningar om man inte
var tvungen. Gravar kan ligga i någorlunda ordnade rader och linjer,
och kroppar kan ligga på varandra
utan att de underliggande har lidit
alltför stor skada. Å andra sidan så
finns det även ett otal exempel från
gravundersökningar på hur man
ganska så osentimentalt har grävt
sönder äldre gravar vid anläggandet
av nya. Även medeltida avbildningar av gravgrävning visar nästan alltid benknotor som dräller omkring
längs gravkanterna. Sådana illustrationer bör dock tas med en nypa salt
då de oftast var väldigt schematiskt
och allegoriskt framställda; benen
på bilderna kan snarast ha haft
funktionen att förstärka meningsinnehållet (jfr Jonsson 2009:170f ).
Men som ytterligare ett exempel
Figur 1. Kistan måste passa om inte den
döde ska bli vred… (Illustrationen har inget
med detta att göra, utan är en karikatyr
föreställande den amerikanske politikern
Carl Schurz tecknad av Thomas Nast och
publicerad i Harper’s Weekly 1872). Källa:
Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schurz_in_Coffin.png).
65
META 2015
på gravfridens begränsade omfattning kan också nämnas den
medeltida Smålandslagen i vilken
man kan läsa att bötesstraff utgick
om någon grävde sönder en äldre
grav inom nio vintrar efter jordfästelsen, eller om man fortsatte gräva
trots att den uppgrävda kroppen
ännu inte var skeletterad: ”Följas
åt både lem och led, hull och hår,
böte därför tolv örar”(Holmbäck &
Wessén 1946:431). En fråga som
arkeologiska undersökningar eventuellt kan besvara är om gravmorfologin kan säga något om vad som
kan ha styrt valet att gräva sönder
äldre gravar eller inte. Hade det endast att göra med hur gamla de äldre
begravningarna var (jfr lagtext) eller
har man värnat om gravar tillhörande personer man fortfarande hade
en relation till (släktingar eller andra
kända människor)?
b) nedgrävningen har gjorts i flera
omgångar; c) nedgrävningen har
varit föremål för omgrävning/uppgrävning? Hur ser gravens botten
ut? Är den ojämn, och kan det i så
fall indikera att något har legat på
dess botten, under kroppen/kistan?
Verkar man ha planat ut ytan med
påfört material? Är detta material i
så fall samma som den omkringliggande jorden, eller har man lagt på
något annat material och i så fall
varför? Det kan ha varit av praktiska
skäl, om man har föredragit ett material som skulle ha speciella förmågor som till exempel att kunna absorbera stigande grundvatten. Men
även gällande jordfyllning i graven
så finns tolkningsmöjligheter att
hämta från senare tiders folktro. Det
hände att man lade lite jord från den
dödes hemgård i graven för att markera fortsatt jordägande så att han/
hon inte skulle gå igen och hemsöka
de levande (Hagberg 1937:399f ).
Brittiska forskare har lagt fram en
snarlik teori gällande förekomst av
aska i medeltida gravar. De menar
att då askan har visat sig ha en sammansättning som tyder på att den
kan komma från eldstäder, så kan
det indikera att rester från hemmets
härd har lagts i graven som en symbol för hem och familj (Gilchrist &
Sloane 2005:228).
Till frågan om val av gravplats tillkommer också problemkomplexet
med den sociala topografin: vem
har begravts var på kyrkogården och
vad säger det om sociala strukturer
i samhället? Dessa frågeställningar
finns det dock inte utrymme för
att gå in på här, så jag hänvisar till
resonemang och referenser i min avhandling (Jonsson 2009).
Grävning av grav: Om det går att se
en nedgrävningskant och sida, vad
har den i så fall för form (jfr ovan
om kiststorlek)? Är den homogen
i utförande och om inte, skulle det
kunna bero på att a) flera personer
har varit inblandade i grävningen;
Nedläggning av den döde och annat i graven: I enlighet med resonemanget ovan så har det betydelse
att försöka reda ut i vilken ordning
skilda händelser har ägt rum. Allt
som befinner sig i graven har inte
66
KRISTINA JONSSON
Figur 2. Hur grävdes graven och av vem/vilka? Målning från 1871 av Viktor Vasnetsov. Från Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vasnetsov_Grave_digger.JPG).
67
META 2015
hamnat där samtidigt. Finns det
föremål under kistan? I en studie
av gravkäppar (Jonsson 2007:46ff;
Jonsson 2009:108ff ) har jag diskuterat hur förekomsten av gravkäppar
under och inuti kistan inom vissa
kyrkogårdszoner kan påvisa att vissa
sociala kategorier (de högre skikten)
troligen bar sina döda i öppen kista,
på en lit de parade, till kyrkogården;
alternativt att den döda kroppen
placerades i kistan vid graven. En
annan företeelse som kan säga något
om huruvida den döde låg i öppen
kista under begravningsakten är
kistans konstruktion. Hade den ett
löst liggande lock eller var det fastspikat? Det torde vara svårt att spika
fast ett kistlock när kistan redan är
nedsänkt i graven. Har alla kistor
haft lock? Det tas ofta för givet att
lock har funnits även om man inte
påträffar rester av annat än kistans
sidor och botten, men möjligheten
finns att man inte har använt lock
utan endast har täckt kroppen med
textilier eller annat. Jag har i min
avhandling till exempel föreslagit att
förekomst av stenläggningar runt
gravlagda kroppar, och kanske även
spikar, i vissa fall kan ha haft funktionen att hålla ned ett övertäckande kläde (Jonsson 2009:171f ). Vi
vet från historiskt källmaterial att
familj och vänner deltog vid återfyllningen av graven (Boddington
1996:69; Nilsson 1987:141; Kieffer-Olsen 1993:103), och det måste
förstås ha varit obehagligt att se jord
kastas ner direkt på den döda kroppen om ingen kista användes.
Fältantropologiska iakttagelser (jfr
ovan) kan ge indikationer på hur
lång tid som har passerat mellan
dödstillfället och begravningen –
var kroppen i ett tillstånd av rigor
mortis eller redan stadd i förruttnelse? (jfr Boddington 1996:36f, 47f,
70). Man kan ställa sig samma fråga
när man finner skelett i direkt ”avvikande” kroppsställningar. Under
medeltiden var det kutym (och lagstadgat) att begrava de döda så fort
som möjligt, helst redan dagen efter
dödsfallet (Nilsson 1987:136f ). En
försenad begravning tyder därför
på speciella omständigheter. Var
den döde en prominent person vars
begravning krävde långväga gästers
närvaro? Eller kan försenade begravningar vara ett utslag av att personen
i fråga avled på vintern och först fick
en tillfällig vintergrav i väntan på att
tjälen skulle gå ur marken?
Föremål i gravar är ett knepigt kapitel eftersom det kan vara väldigt
svårt att avgöra om fynden verkligen
hör till gravens inre utrustning eller om de har legat i gravfyllningen
och därefter hamnat intill skelettet
i samband med förmultning och
jordförflyttning (mer om fynd i
gravfyllningar nedan). Det är därför av yttersta vikt att föremål som
inte säkert kan föras till den aktuella
gravkontexten inte registreras som
tillhörande graven! I de fall föremål
bedöms ingå i graven kan deras placering bidra med information om
gravläggningen. Ligger de i en sådan
position att de bör ha nedlagts efter
68
KRISTINA JONSSON
att den döde har nedsänkts? Det pekar i så fall på att kistan inte har varit
försluten vid nedsänkningen, såvida
man inte kan misstänka att de har
placerats på ett sedermera förmultnat kistlock. Föremål, beroende på
deras placering förstås, torde annars ha kunnat förflyttas i samband
med nedlyftandet av kistan eller när
kroppen förmultnar (jfr fig. 3). Har
den döde lagts direkt i jorden utan
kista har föremålen sannolikt nedlagts som en separat handling, men
de kan också ha varit inlindade i den
dödes kläder eller svepning.
oftast i ett tillstånd av likstelhet (jfr
Snyder Sachs 2001:7) när begravningen ägde rum, vilket är bra för
arkeologer eftersom det minimerar
risken för att armarna ska ha förflyttats under hanteringen. Det tyder
också på att man redan direkt efter
dödens inträde lade kroppen i den
ställning den skulle komma att ha i
graven. Men: vi kan inte räkna med
att alla begravdes inom några dagar,
så ”avvikande” armställningar skulle
kunna förklaras med omlokalisering
i samband med begravning. Noggranna studier av övriga bens lägen
kan styrka en sådan hypotes.
Problemet med förflyttning inom
graven, antingen genom direkt påverkan när man lade ned en kropp
eller kista eller genom indirekt
påverkan av biologiska och geologiska processer, måste också tas i
beaktande när man drar växlar på
andra utformningselement som till
exempel armställningar. Eftersom
de döda helst skulle i jorden inom
ett dygn var kropparna sannolikt
Återfyllning av graven: Gravfyllningen är en relativt negligerad
enhet vid undersökning av gravar,
men den kan ha potentialen att vara
mycket mer än bara just en enhet.
När en gravnedgrävning har lokaliserats hamnar fokus lätt på att så
snabbt och enkelt som möjligt ta sig
ner till ”graven”, och man glömmer
att även återfyllningen har varit en
Figur 3. Bilden visar en grav från 1853 undersökt på Spitalfriedhof St. Johann i Basel. Den
gravlagde mannen har en tallrik under bröstbenet och revbenen. Möjligen ett illustrativt exempel
på hur förmultningsprocessen kan påverka placeringen av föremål i en grav. Åtminstone har
författaren av denna artikel svårt att komma med andra alternativ. Foto publicerat med tillstånd
av Archäologische Bodenforschung Basel-Stadt.
69
META 2015
del av händelsen. Hur förhåller sig
fyllningen till den omkringliggande
jorden? Är det samma material eller har man hämtat jord någon annanstans ifrån (jfr ovan om gravens
botten)? Finns det en stratigrafi
även i fyllningen? Har man stannat
upp under arbetet och i så fall varför? Enbart av praktiska skäl, för att
vila eller transportera mer jord till
platsen, eller har andra handlingar
utförts? Nedläggning av föremål
eller substanser? Rädsla för gengångare har genom tiderna tagit sig
många manifesta uttryck som vi har
sett ovan, ofta genom att man har
placerat ”hindrande” föremål som
stenar, käppar, granris etc. i graven
(jfr Hagberg 1937:285ff; Kaliff
1997:93; Jonsson 2009:115 med
referenser). Som jag nämnt ovan
så kan stenkonstruktioner i graven,
eller ovanför graven i fyllningen,
också ha haft funktionen att dölja/
skydda den gravlagde innan den
stora mängden med fyllningsjord
kastades ner.
under återfyllningen (jfr fyndterminologi i Larsson 2000:113f )? Det
sistnämnda kan bara föreslås om
en inre stratigrafi kan skönjas i fyllningen. Det vore emellertid mycket
intressant om man, med ett källkritiskt öga, kunde arbeta mer med
fynden i fyllningarna för att datera
äldre gravar. Det ska sägas att i de
fall daterande material påträffas i
gravfyllningar förs det också oftast
resonemang kring dessa gravars ålder tpq. Jag har dock inte sett någon
studie där man konsekvent försökt
använda metodiken för att datera
stratigrafiskt äldre begravningar
med hjälp av fyndmaterialet i fyllningarna till de yngre. Det är förstås
ett riskabelt projekt eftersom man
aldrig säkert kan veta varifrån ett
föremål härrör, men det vore ändå
spännande att göra ett försök. Vad
som dock försvårar det ytterligare är
det i allmänhet magra fyndmängden i kristna gravar.
Överbyggnader och/eller gravmarkeringar: Efter gravens igenfyllning
har man sannolikt gjort någon form
av gravöverbyggnad. Dels så kan det
handla om att man har lagt extra
jord i en avlång kulle längs gravens
längd, ett förfarande som kan ses
på illustrationer från medeltid och
framåt (se t.ex. Gilchrist & Sloane
2005:21 samt omslagsbilden på
Jonsson 2009). Om detta har gjorts
enbart för att förhindra att det bildades en svacka efter att den återfyllda jorden hade satt sig, eller om
man gjorde sådana markeringar i
gravmarkerande syfte, är osäkert.
En annan viktig aspekt att utreda när
man hanterar den återfyllda jorden
är föremålsfynd. Som ovan nämnts
så härrör fynd som påträffas i gravfyllningen – även sådana som till synes ligger intill skelettet – i de flesta
fall inte till den aktuella graven. Det
är dock mer problematiskt att försöka klargöra vad de egentligen ska
knytas till: kommer de från äldre
söndergrävda gravar, har de transporterats till platsen via ditforslade
fyllnadsmassor eller har de faktiskt
kastats ner i den aktuella graven
70
KRISTINA JONSSON
Vid arkeologiska utgrävningar är
dylika högar svåra att lokalisera då
de sannolikt har planats ut och forslats bort efter hand som marken
har använts för annat som nya begravningar eller annan verksamhet.
Det kan dock vara möjligt att spåra
eventuella avgränsningar av upphöjda markeringar, som till exempel
lägre liggande stenläggningar som
har lagts runt dem.
Markering av individuella gravar tyder å ena sidan på att man hade en
önskan om att veta var de låg, men
det betyder inte att man nödvändigtvis besökte gravarna – gravens
okränkbarhet och fruktan för att
den döde inte skulle kunna återuppstå på den yttersta dagen om kroppen hade störts kan ha varit den viktigaste faktorn. Som ovan nämnts
förefaller man dock inte ha bekymrat sig nämnvärt över att förstöra
äldre gravar, men den inställningen
kan ha kommit i takt med att fokus
under högmedeltid förflyttades till
förbönernas betydelse för frälsningen och att hela kyrkogården blev
föremål för konsekrering istället för
de individuella gravarna (jfr Jonsson
2009:128f, 177f med referenser).
Från katolska områden i senare tider finns beskrivningar av hur man i
princip har ignorerat själva gravarna
efter att begravningsgudstjänsten i
kyrkan var över, eftersom det viktiga därefter var minnet av de döda,
förbönerna och mässorna.
Andra typer av gravmarkeringar
som liggande stenhällar, stenkistor
ovan jord eller stående gravstenar
och kors av sten eller trä har också
förekommit – vanligast var säkert
träkorsen. Ser man till medeltida
illustrationer från Storbritannien
och kontinenten så hade träkorsen
ofta tvärslåar som förband toppen
på den stående pålen med ändarna
på den tvärgående plankan till ett
litet ”tak”. Äldre gravmarkeringar
ovan jord har sällan bevarats till våra
dagar, men störhål, stenskoningar
och liknande kan fortfarande finnas
kvar. Bevarade rester av trämarkörer
som har stått vid gravars huvudände
har till exempel påträffats vid undersökningarna av 1600-talskyrkogården vid Sala gruvby (Bäckström
et al. 2009:12; senare exempel finns
även från utgrävningen 2011). Värt
att hålla i åtanke är att trämarkörer
kan ha haft andra former än kors
(jfr fig. 4).
I Murelaga i Baskien höll man fortfarande in på 1960-talet alla ceremonier för de döda vid familjegravar inne i kyrkobyggnaden, trots
att man sedan 1700-talet slutat att
faktiskt begrava sina döda under
kyrkans golv (Douglass 1969:36,
72ff ). Vi kan dock inte utgå från
att så har varit fallet överallt i alla tider, och oavsett tankarna bakom så
är det sannolikt att de efterlevande
åtminstone under en tid framöver
efter ett dödsfall utförde ett visst
underhåll av gravarna. Möjligen
Återbesök och senare ingrepp? Vi
vet egentligen väldigt lite om i vilken grad man under medeltiden
vårdade och besökte gravplatserna.
71
META 2015
Figur 4. Gravmarkörer i trä från Heidal kyrka i Oppland, Norge. Foto:Thomas Risan.
som kan ha utspelat sig på och
mellan det som vi dokumenterar
som kontaktytor mellan skilda lager (se Harris 1997:54ff; Larsson
2000:127ff; Gardelin & Johansson
Hervén 2003:41) och därmed inte
nödvändigtvis har lämnat manifesta spår, bör man i den bästa av
världar kunna använda sig av den
kunskap man får om detaljerna för
att dra mer generaliserande slutsatser om mer övergripande strukturer.
Detta kräver en rigorös dokumentationsstruktur, som inte bara bygger på väljbara alternativ med ger
utrymme för egna formuleringar
och tolkningar. Vi kommer aldrig
att kunna komma ifrån att det hela
tiden förekommer undantag och
att avvikelser från vad som förefaller ha varit norm i det arkeologiska
materialet, eftersom beslut alltid har
har det i alla tider fungerat mer eller mindre som idag; att en grav fick
ligga ostörd så länge någon tog ansvar för dess skötsel (och betalade?).
Ur en arkeologisk synvinkel är det
därför av intresse att se om man kan
finna spår efter vad som kan vara
restaureringsarbeten: har man bytt
ut eller förstärkt gravmarkeringar?
Har man påfört ny jord över gravfyllningen? Kan sociala skillnader
spåras, verkar det framför allt vara
vissa grupper som har haft resurser
för att värna om sina döda släktingars gravar?
Avslutning
Genom stratigrafisk grävning och
dokumentation, där uppmärksamhet även läggs vid händelser
72
KRISTINA JONSSON
ger spelrum för komplexitet – eller
åtminstone komplettera den gamla
med utökade valmöjligheter. Framtidens arkeologer kan annars komma att kritisera oss för att ha haft ett
alltför programmatiskt tänkande,
där vi ibland förlorade människorna
bland alla matriser och tabeller. Vägen fram är att med bra metoder och
frågeställningar i ryggen försöka dokumentera människors mångfaldiga
ageranden och inte bara de slutgiltiga resultaten av deras handlingar.
fattas i samband med individuella
val eller under speciella förhållanden. Men för att återkoppla till den
önskan som framställdes i uppropet
till detta det 8:e stratigrafimötet; att
vi skulle reflektera kring om vi nu
kan luta oss tillbaka och vila på våra
lagrar, så är min konklusion att metodutvecklingen ständigt måste gå
framåt och att vi bör söka nya vägar hela tiden. Kan man inte lösa ett
befintligt problem som i fallet med
den hopplösa kyrkogårdsstratigrafin, så får man hitta en väg runt det
och göra något annat som kanske
kan ge lika bra – eller mer intressanta? – resultat. Vi måste kanske också
släppa drömmen om den totala och
kvantifierbara dokumentationen till
förmån för en öppnare modell som
Kristina Jonsson är arkeolog vid Stiftelsen
Kulturmiljövård
E-post: [email protected]
73
META 2015
Referenser
•Arneborg, J., Heinemeier, J., Lynnerup, N., Nielsen, H. L., Rud, N. & Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Á. E.
1999. Change of Diet of the Greenland Vikings Determined from Stable Carbon Isotope
Analysis and 14C Dating of Their Bones’. Radiocarbon 41(2): 157–168.
•Boddington, A. 1996. Raunds Furnells. The Anglo-Saxon Church and Churchyard. Raunds
area project. English heritage, Archaeological report 7. London.
•Bäck, M. & Strucke, U. 2003. Begränsningar inom den historiska arkeologin – vår fantasi
eller analysmetoderna? 14C-dateringar och arkeologiska undersökningar av 1600-talsmaterial. Stratigrafiens mangfoldigheder. 4. Nordiske Stratigrafimøde,Viborg Middelalderseminar 2, Sognegården ved Viborg Domkirke d. 3.-5. august 2001, s. 19-25.Viborg.
•Bäckström,Y., Sundström, A. I. & Onsten-Molander, A. 2009. Sala gruvkyrkogård. Liv och
död vid Sala silvergruva. Etapp 1. Forskningsgrävning. Sala stadsförsamling, Silvergruvan
1:47, Fornlämning nr 51,Västmanlands län. SAU rapport 2009:2. Uppsala.
•Cornell, P. & Fahlander, F. 2002. Social praktik och stumma monument: introduktion till
mikroarkeologi. GOTARC. Serie C, Arkeologiska skrifter, 46. Göteborg.
•Douglass, W. A. 1969. Death in Murelaga. Funerary Ritual in a Spanish Basque Village.
Monograph 49, The American Ethnological Society. Seattle.
•Fahlander, F. 2003. The Materiality of Serial Practice. A Microarchaeology of Burial. GOTARC. Series B, Gothenburg archaeological theses, 23. Göteborg.
•Fahlander, F. 2009. Reala kroppar och dödens realitet. Rumslighet och horisontell stratigrafi på Ajvide och Skateholm. I tillvarons gränsland. Perspektiv på kroppen mellan liv och
död, s. 106-145. Lund.
•Gardelin, G. & Johansson Hervén, C. 2003. Stratigrafi och hushåll – teori och resultat
från några arkeologiska miljöer i Lund. Stratigrafiens mangfoldigheter. 4. Nordiske Stratigrafimøde,Viborg Middelalderseminar 2, Sognegården ved Viborg Domkirke den 3.-5.
August 2001 (red. A. Bodilsen, J. Hjermind & M. Iversen), s. 41-53.Viborg.
•Gilchrist, R. & Sloane, B. 2005. Requiem. The medieval monastic cemetery in Britain.
London.
•Hagberg, L. 1937. När döden gästar. Svenska folkseder och svensk folktro i samband
med död och begravning. Stockholm.
•Harris, Edward. 1997 [1979]. Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. London.
•Holm, O. 2006. The Dating of Västerhus Cemetery. A Contribution to the Study of
Christianization in Jämtland. Current Swedish Archaeology 14: 109–142.
•Holm, O. 2009. Dateringen av Västerhus kyrkogård. Ett bidrag till studiet av Jämtlands
kristnande.Västerhus. Kapell, kyrkogård och befolkning (red. E. Iregren,V. Alexandersen &
L. Redin), s. 130–153. Stockholm.
•Holmbäck, Å. & Wessén, E. (red.) 1946. Svenska landskapslagar tolkade och förklarade
för nutidens svenskar. Femte serien: Äldre Västgötalagen,Yngre Västgötalagen, Smålandslagens kyrkobalk och Bjärköarätten. Stockholm.
74
KRISTINA JONSSON
•Jonsson, K. 2007. Burial Rods and Charcoal Graves. New Light on Old Burial Practices.
Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 3: 43-73.
•Jonsson, K. 2009. Practices for the Living and the Dead. Medieval and Post-Reformation
Burials in Scandinavia. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 50. Stockholm.
•Kaliff, A. 1997. Grav och kultplats. Eskatologiska föreställningar under yngre bronsålder
och äldre järnålder i Östergötland. Aun 24. Uppsala.
•Kieffer-Olsen, J. 1993. Grav og gravskik i det middelalderlige Danmark – 8 kirkegårdsudgravninger. Højbjerg.
•Kjellström, A. & Wikström, A. 2008. Osteologi och fältantropologi. På väg mot Paradiset
– arkeologisk undersökning i kvarteret Humlegården 3 i Sigtuna 2006 (red. A. Wikström).
Meddelanden och Rapporter från Sigtuna Museum nr 33, s. 31-45. Sigtuna.
•Larsson, S. 2000. Stadens dolda kulturskikt. Lundaarkeologins förutsättningar och förståelsehorisonter uttryckt genom praxis för källmaterialsproduktion 1890-1990. Archaeologica Lundensia 9. Lund.
•Mårtensson, A. W. 1976. Gravar och kyrkor. I Mårtensson, A. W. (red). 1976. Uppgrävt
förflutet för PK-banken i Lund. En investering i arkeologi. Archaeologica Lundensia 7, s.
87-133. Lund.
•Nilsson, B. 1987. Död och begravning: begravningsskicket i Norden. Tanke och tro. Aspekter på medeltidens tankevärld och fromhetsliv (red. O. Ferm & G. Tegnér). Studier till
det medeltida Sverige 3, s. 133–150. Stockholm.
•Nilsson Stutz, L. 2003. Embodied rituals and ritualized bodies. Tracing ritual practices in
late mesolithic burials. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, no 46. Stockholm.
•Redin, L. 1976. Lagmanshejdan: ett gravfält som spegling av sociala strukturer i Skanör.
Acta Archaeologica Lundensia series in 4º, 10. Bonn.
•Rosén, H. 1949. Begravningsbruk och dödstro. I Nordisk kultur 20, Livets högtider, s.
88–110. Stockholm.
•Snyder Sachs, J. 2001. Corpse. Nature, Forensics, and the Struggle to Pinpoint Time of
Death. New York.
•Tkocz, I. & Brøndum, N. 1985. Anthropological Analyses. Medieval Skeletons from the
Fransiscan Cemetery in Svendborg. The Archaeology of Svendborg, Denamrk, No 3.
Odense.
•Williams, H. 2009. On display: envisioning the early Anglo-Saxon dead. Mortuary
Practices and social identities in the Middle Ages (red. D. Sayer & H. Williams), s. 170-206.
Exeter.
75
META 2015
76
Archaeology and history
Two different views of the past
Georg Haggrén
The aim of both archaeology and history is the research of the human past. The difference between these two disciplines derives from the source materials: historians use
written sources while archaeologists concentrate on physical remains. Historical sources
are committed to dates while archaeological material is basically connected to spatial
origin. This basic difference explains why historians and archaeologists have difficulties
in understanding each other. The number of archaeological findings has risen very fast.
On the ground of this material it is possible to make convincing analyses of the past on
different levels, not only of single finds or sites but on a regional or even global level too.
Today archaeology is challenging results made by the historical research. By combining
the sources and methods of these two disciplines historical archaeology can offer a much
more holistic and thorough view, a deeper understanding of the past than either archaeology or history alone.
Introduction
In Finland, the first archaeological excavations on a medieval monument were
made in 1867 by Karl A. Bomansson
(1827–1906) on the site of the Franciscan convent of Kökar on the Åland
Islands. In 1870 he became directorgeneral of the Senate’s Archives, later
known as the National Archives of Finland. Reinhold Hausen (1850-1942),
who in 1883 followed Bomansson as the
director of the archives and published
most of the medieval written sources
Archaeology and history are disciplines with a common aim to research
the human past. However, during the
most of the 20th century research based on methods of both archaeology
and history has been quite rare. This
was not the case before that. On the
contrary, from the 17th into the 19th
century the research of the past included methods and sources of several
disciplines.
77
META 2015
The differentiation of
the disciplines
concerning Finland, also conducted
extensive excavations on the sites of
medieval monuments, such as the
Bridgettine monastery in Nådendal
(Naantali) and the bishop’s castle of
Kustö (Kuusisto). Johannes Reinhold Aspelin (1842–1915), known
as the founder of scientific archaeology in Finland, was also employed
in the Senate’s Archives. Like their
Swedish contemporary Hans Hildebrand (1842–1913), Aspelin, Bomansson and Hausen valued and used
both archaeological and written
sources in their research. (Gardberg
1984, 65–67; Härö 1984, 30–32;
Lilius 2000, 52.)
In the late 19th and early 20th century archaeology and history began
to differentiate from one another.
Specialization in one discipline
and distinct and exclusive disciplinary orthodoxies developed. For
the historians the aim was to find
the historical truth and avoid any
speculation or interpretation of
narrative sources, works of arts or
ancient monuments. A pioneer in
the modern historical writing was
German Leopold Ranke (1795–
1886) famous for his motto “Wie
ist es eigentlich gewesen”, in English: “How things actually were.”
In the early 20th century historians
began more and more to emphasize the importance of positivism
and an extremely thorough source
criticism. Any interpretations beyond the actual words in the written
sources were to be avoided. Among
the Swedish historians the Weibull
brothers and the Lund school of history became famous for their source
positivism.(cf. Härö 1984, 14–19;
Torstendahl 1964.)
The work of Aspelin, Bomansson,
Hausen and Hildebrand reflect
this centuries-old bidisciplinary approach. This interaction between
the disciplines has been underlined
by Hans Andersson and Jussi-Pekka
Taavitsainen (Andersson 1993; Taavitsainen 1998, 6). However, archaeology and history seldom were
treated as equals. As a discipline archaeology was treated like a kind of
a little brother to history by scholars
of the past. Both historical monuments and written sources such as
medieval charters or Icelandic sagas
were accepted and analyzed when
researching the past. Sometimes
this multidisciplinary research happened at the cost of source criticism.
An example of this is the 17th century antiquarian Olof Rudbeckius,
who tried to write an imposing
history of Swedish past. (Eriksson
1998–2000; Härö 1984, 17.)
At the same time archaeologists began to concentrate more on prehistory at the expense of the Middle
Ages and the early modern era.
When publishing the history of
archaeology in Finland in 1968 C.
A. Nordman systematically ignored
research concerned with the Middle
Ages (Nordman 1968; Taavitsainen
1998, 6). As a result, for most of
78
GEORG HAGGRÈN
The way out of the schism
the 20th century historians had no
place in the research of prehistory,
and on the other hand archaeologists stayed away from researching
historical periods. An exception was
classical archaeology which managed
to preserve multidisciplinarity. Soon
the early historical period became a
lacuna between these two academic
disciplines. Especially this was the
case in Finland, where written sources older than 1320s are extremely
rare. However, the beginning of the
Middle Ages in Finland was traditionally counted from the 1150s onwards. Soon, the continuity between
the prehistory and historical times
was lost and the Middle Ages were
on their way to become a new kind
of dark age, a grey zone between the
Viking Age and the early modern
era, a grey zone between archaeological and historical research.
In the late 20th century, beginning
from the 1970s and 1980s a more
holistic view began slowly to develop in the research of the past again.
Of course, already before that there
were some individuals who tried to
combine archaeological and historical records, but in contrast to the
mainstream there were not many of
them. In Finland the new pioneers
were art historians who saw the possibilities of combining several disciplines. Most important among them
were Knut Drake (1927–2013) and
C. J. Gardberg (1926–2010). Drake
became acquainted with medieval
archaeology when studying in Lund
in the early 1960s. At the same time
the academic discipline of Medieval
Archaeology had been founded in
the University of Lund. The pioneer
in Lund was archaeologist-art historian Eric Cinthio (1921–) who later
on, in 1969, got a personal professorship in medieval archaeology.
Finally, in 1982 his appointment in
Lund was changed to an ordinary
professorship.
As a result, at least in Finland, during
the most of the 20th century archaeology and history were almost completely differentiated. The historians
used ancient monuments and archaeological finds only when they need
something to illustrate history. On
the other hand, understanding and
analyzing prehistory was solely a task
for the archaeologists. Beginning
from 1155 AD, or the end of the so
called Crusade Period the historians
took responsibility for the research.
In this kind of academic climate the
archaeologists hardly had any possibilities to interpret the Medieval Period, but with a few exceptions they
did not care about it either.
During the long scholarly separation
of history from archaeology during
the 20th century the archaeological methods developed and became
much more scientific. For example
the field work on historical sites was
not only uncovering masonry, sketching structures and collecting finds
any more. Beginning from 1970s in
medieval archaeology a great leap
took place when the contextual
79
META 2015
method based on stratigraphy was
launched by Edward C. Harris. He
was soon followed especially by the
archaeologists excavating medieval
urban sites containing complicated
structures and thick cultural layers.
As a result, from now on the chronological analysis of the archaeological record was on much firmer
ground than before.
mentary information of this period
and in a smaller scale of the early
modern era too. This kind of relationship has brought on an idea of
medieval archaeology as a discipline
complementing the proper research
of history. (See Andersson 1993;
Andrén 1997, 40–41.)
For historians the focus of the research is always on human beings.
The research objects are: 1. The human past 2. Humans as social creatures and 3. Human relationships or
relationships between humans. (see
Florén & Ågren 1998, 14.) On the
other hand, the archaeologists focus
on physical remains produced and
left by humans but not forgetting the
humans themselves. To get the archaeologists better involved in the discussion we should make an addition to
the research objects: 4. The reasons
and effects of the human activities.
In the late 20th century medieval
archaeology – and nowadays also a
wider historical archaeology – has
succeeded in establishing its position somewhere between the disciplines of archaeology and history.
Today, in the early 21st century, we
are heading to a more open-minded
view when researching the past. The
historical archaeologists try to use
as wide source materials as possible
… or use the source pluralistic method Janken Myrdal has formulated
(Myrdal 2007).
In historical archaeology both written sources and physical remains are
used, but in addition to history various scientific methods are exploited
too. The scientific methods, such as
dendrochronology, osteology, palaeobotany, are relevant in all archaeology but the well preserved organic
materials make them extremely important for the medieval and early
modern archaeology.
Despite this growing cross-disciplinarity there are certain fundamental differences between archaeology
and history. These differences complicate the discussion and interaction between these disciplines.
The focus of the research
Historians use written sources in
their research, while archaeologists
analyze physical remains. When
researching the Middle Ages the
historians often have a lack of sources. The medieval archaelogists have
long ago been able to offer comple-
Date and place in historical
and archaeological research
Dating characterizes historical research. A written source can usually
80
GEORG HAGGRÈN
be dated precisely. One of the first
tasks in a source critical analysis of
a historical record is the dating of
the source. A lot of sources have a
precise date written on them and for
the majority of the rest we can usually find out at least the year when it
was written. Most medieval charters
or modern letters belong to the first
group. Sometimes historical events
have succeeded each other so close
that while interpreting the sources
the researcher needs certain dates
or even hours. On the other hand,
for example tax registers, cadastral
records or trade accounts reflect
results of a longer process or data
from annual or seasonal events.
of place it was in 1295? What was
actually meant by this “Kustö”? Was
it a manor? … or already a bishop’s
castle? Or did the dating take place
on a ship in a harbor near the island
of Kustö. Similarly, the precise locating of a certain peasant farm or an
urban craftsman’s plot mentioned in
an early tax record often is quite challenging.
The source material of the archaeologists consists of finds, monuments
and other structures, cultural layers,
landscape among other source materials and is always connected to
the place. A spatial or contextual
element is a common character for
all these sources. Landscapes, settlement sites, activity areas, structures,
cultural layers and find contexts or
distributions are all elementarily
spatial phenomena. The archaeologists document these phenomena’s
relation to the space and place as
precise as possible. This work is often rather mechanical routine. The
context or place of finding is extremely important when analyzing the
archaeological finds. On the other
hand, for the archaeologists the dating and especially a precise absolute dating are much harder and, in
practice, usually almost impossible
to achieve.
The spatial extent of a historical record or the things and places mentioned in the record is far more complicated than the dating. Some of the
sources consist of information of the
location where they have been authored but there are other spatial dimensions too. What and where is the
place the text concerns? Sometimes it
is very difficult to identify the locality
even if its name is mentioned in the
text. The new castle of Wartholm in
Nyland in Finland mentioned twice
in the 1390s is a good example of this
kind of problem. In this case, we do
know the name of the castle but we
don’t know where it was located. (Salminen 1998, 460–463) Slightly different kind of problems in historical record represents the charter authored
by Bishop Magnus I and dated 7 November 1295 ”in Custu” (REA 17).
A couple of decades later there was a
bishop’s castle in Kustö but what kind
Historical sources
Medieval written records concerning Scandinavia and especially
Finland are scarce. Practically all of
them are published in the case of
81
META 2015
Finland, and a great deal in Scandinavia too. New ”finds” of medieval
written sources are rare. The register
of Swedish Diplomatarium consists
information of more than 40.000
medieval charters. From Finland
there are less than 8000 charters,
note books or short notes dated before 1530. More than 90 % of the
Finnish material is published, most
of them in ten volumes edited by
Reinhold Hausen between 1881 and
1935 (BFH I; FMU I–VIII; REA).
National Museum and in the Museum Center in Turku. In the latter
the number of cumulated finds from
1881 to 1997 was about 40000 find
numbers. After that there has been a
remarkable increase of archaeological
find material, and between 1998 and
2010 about 60 000 new find numbers has been recorded. (Pihlman
2010.) Today there is a continuously
increasing number of new excavations, documentation and finds,
not only in Turku but everywhere in
Finland. However, it is still hard, often impossible to reach reliable large
overviews based on the medieval archaeological material. Usually the
conclusions made by archaeologists
are based on a small number of cases or finds, often on one single case
study. As a result of this, one always
has to keep in mind that new finds
can soon change the conclusions or
the interpretations in archaeology.
On the other hand, possibilities for
research and conclusions are growing
every year.
The written sources from medieval
Finland are fragmentary, but as a result of King Gustaf Vasa’s thoroughly
controlled bailiff administration beginning from about 1540 systematical series of records from Sweden
and Finland have survived. There
are cadastral records, tithes records,
fines records and later on court records too. (cf. Brunius 2010.) It is
possible to use these records retrospectively or retrogressively. Later
on the number of survived written
sources increases remarkably during
every century, making an almost exponential curve.
Historical maps are a source material
somewhere between written sources
and archaeological record. Until recently old maps were mostly used
by cultural and human geographers.
Maps are source material which was
for a long while neglected among
the historians. Only the old maps
of historical towns made a major exception. For the historians the maps
were not any ”real” written sources.
On the other hand historical maps
were too recent source material for
prehistorical archaeology. Like most
In Finland, with Turku as an exception, the number of the archaeological find material from historical times
is rather limited, but it is increasing
quickly. Before 1990 there were practically no finds from medieval rural
sites – except a couple of manors. Today the picture is rather different and
there is lots of archaeological record
from medieval villages. The largest
archaeological collections are in the
82
GEORG HAGGRÈN
of the written sources the maps are
usually well-dated. However, they
consist of information from different times. The maps are always closely related to the place. In matter
of fact they consist of a strong spa-
tial element like most of the sources
used by the archaeologists.
Land surveyor Hans Hansson mapped several hamlets in the Parish of
Tenala (Fi Tenhola) in 1647. One of
Figure 1. Kårböle, a single farm or a former hamlet in Tenhola parish, Uusimaa (Swe. Nyland),
Finland, on a map drawn by Hans Hansson in 1647. In the NW one can still see that a meadow
as well as some fields of a deserted medieval hamlet called Gullböle are still in use by the neighboring hamlets. (Finnish National Archives)
83
META 2015
the maps shows a single farm called
Kårböle (Finnish National Archives:
Lantmäteristyrelsens arkiv: Geografiska jordeböcker B Ia Tenala, p. 25.).
Fifty years earlier there was another
farm in Kårböle but it had been deserted afterwards. The map visualizes
the world of the peasants making their
living on the fields, the meadows, the
mills and on the sea. The agricultural
landscape shown in the maps reveals
layers of medieval settlement history
too. In this map (fig. 1.), in northwest
there still are visible some small fields
illustrating the site of a medieval deserted hamlet called Gullböle. While
using retrogressive method, from this
map made in 1647 it is possible to peel
out older layers of the cultural landscape and human activities in Kårböle
(see Karsvall 2013).
realm. Already in the 1870’s Hans
Forssell employed this possibility
when he published an economic historical overview of Sweden in 1571
(Forssell 1872). Archaeologists will
never be able to get this kind of information of the animal husbandry
in every farm in a whole country.
On the other hand, a deep analyze of
detailed source materials like court
records, inventories and inspection
records makes it possible to do micro
historical research. Inspired of the
French Annales School these possibilities brought about a rise of microhistory and research of the history of
everyday life in the late 1980s. A classic example of the micro historical
research is Emanuel Le Roi Ladurie’s
Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, 1294–1324
(1980). It was published in French in
1975, after which it was soon translated to various languages, including
Swedish and Finnish. Medieval written sources similar to those Ladurie
was able to use have not survived in
Scandinavia but different kinds of
court records dating to the early modern era offer great possibilities for
microhistorical research here in the
north too. In these records these are
lots of extensive but at the same time
very detailed descriptions especially
in the cases concerning severe crimes
or capital offences.
Macrohistory and microhistory
For historians large, systematically
produced series of written sources
offer good possibilities for a research
on the macro level. The historians
are able to make quantitative overviews of large regions or the whole
country. Silver tax records from
1571 offer a good example from the
macro level. Silver tax was a possession tax collected by the Swedish
Crown with an aim to redeem the
Castle of Älvsborg back from the
Danes. The fortunes of all peasants,
burghers and priests were invented.
These records have special value giving a unique view to stables, sheds
and piggeries in every corner of the
Trustworthy interpretations on a
macro level need a large number of
records. In archaeology there usually
is a less than desireable source base
84
GEORG HAGGRÈN
for research. The record is seldom
large enough to offer a solid ground
for reliable and justified conclusions.
On the other hand, on the micro level, archaeology can offer a great deal
to researchers. It is possible to make
deep analyses of a single medieval
farm or a specific urban plot or household. Based on one well-documented case study the archaeologists can
make micro archaeological research
of great value like Katalin Schmidt
Sabo has made in the case of a medieval tenant farm in Kyrkheddinge in
Scania (Schmidt Sabo 2001).
In history a large part of the sources can be connected to individuals.
Many of the written sources, such as
letters or court records or wills tell
about individual human beings. In
archaeology this is very exceptional.
Even if the archaeologist is able to
analyze a site on a micro level hardly
any finds have such a dimension
that the object could be identified
as belongings of a certain individual.
One can sample and analyze archaeological finds but on the ground of
the archaeological record it is almost
impossible to know who has used a
tool, who has emptied a glass or who
has lost his keys. In the best cases we
can imagine who have used the finds
or made the structures. We can only
connect the archaeological record to
a household or a society. The majority of the finds are anonymous and
they will always remain so. Even a
body found from a graveyard usually
stays anonymous even if we can see
what she has been wearing or what
he has been eating at his last supper. Rare cases where a researcher
can identify the individuals behind
the archaeological record reveal wide
possibilities for a discussion between
archaeologists and historians.
In some exceptional cases with a long
history of field work and large archaeological record the archaeologist
might already now be able to make a
thorough work of research comparable to the best history books written
about larger societies such as medieval towns. In Scandinavia we have
such an exception in Lund, a kind
of pioneer in medieval archaeological research in Sweden. It is a place
where so much archaeology has been
done that it has already been possible
to write a history of the medieval
town on the ground of the archaeological material (Carelli 2012). The
largest archaeological rescue projects
can also produce extensive historical
overviews when the authors have had
enough time to analyze their results
and compare them to the older both
archaeological and historical record.
An impressive example of this kind
of research offers a recent book of a
small medieval town of Skänninge in
Sweden (Hedvall & al 2013).
The dating of the archaeological source material
In contrast to historical research,
in the archaeology exact dating is
extremely difficult, a precision to a
certain year is nearly impossible, and
even to a certain decennium is a ra-
85
META 2015
Hiekkanen has managed to make a
chronology of the building of stone
churches in Finland in the Middle Ages (Hiekkanen 1994; idem
2007). Similarly Titta Kallio-Seppä
and Liisa Seppänen have successfully used dendrochronological dating
when analyzing the archaeological
record from medieval Turku and
early modern Oulu (Seppänen &
Kallio-Seppä 2014). Dating of the
structures has also helped the dating
of the contexts under – or above –
the dated structures. Quite recently
a bayesian model dating combined
to a systematic wiggle matching of
AMS-/radiocarbon dating of a set
of stratigraphical units has made it
possible to get very accurate dating
of contexts in a small excavation in
the area of the Aboa Vetus Museum
in Turku. In this case there was not
enough dendrochronological material for the dating of the structures
and contexts but the bayesian model dating and systematic wiggle
matching made it possible to get valuable new information of the early
urbanization of Turku. (Oinonen et
al 2013.) Even in this case the dating is far from that of the written
record (fig. 2).
rity. Dating on the ground of finds,
traditional radiocarbon dating as
well as AMS-dating is far from precise. Here we have a fundamental
difference between archaeology and
historical research based on written
sources.
However, quite paradoxically, one of
the first aims of the archaeological
research is the dating of the research
objects. Usually the archaeologists
have to settle for relative dating instead of absolute dating. Today, in
contextual archaeology, relative dating based on stratigraphy – on contexts, structures and relations between them – is routine. From some
of the contexts we can get one or
several dating based on well datable
finds (coins, clay pipes etc) or scientific dating (14C, AMS, dendrochronology etc) and afterwards it is possible to make typological dating on
the ground of structures or finds, based on analogies. All this helps much
when analyzing and structuring the
past. However, we have to keep in
mind that one stratigrafical phase
might represent or cover some years
– or a couple of centuries. Luckily,
the possibilities for more precise dating have recently increased – and
will surely increase in the future too.
Sometimes the archaeologists are
able to find closed contexts. Such
time capsules are rare exceptions
among the archaeological record.
One example of such closed context consist if great fires which have
produced distinct fire layers. Even if
great fires have been usual in medieval towns the archaeologists seldom
In the late 20th and early 21st century dendrochronology has made
(quite) accurate dating of heavy
wooden structures like timbers and
planks possible. This has been extremely useful when dating buildings
and wrecks. For example Markus
86
GEORG HAGGRÈN
Figure 2. By combining the stratigraphical excavation methods and a wiggle matching of a series
of AMS-dating it has been possible to make a very detailed stratigraphic sequence on a small
scale excavation in Aboa Vetus Museum,Turku.This sequence produces detailed and rather
precisely dated information of the early urbanization of Turku in the late 13th and early 14th
century. Figure: Kari Uotila (Oinonen et al 2013).
find well preserved fire layers. For
example in Turku they are rare even
if only during the 16th century large areas of the town were destroyed
in more than ten fires (Nikula 1987,
85–86). In Bergen in Norway there
have been nine great fires between
the 12th century and 1955. Several
of them are visible as distinct fire
layers deep under the present surface. (Dunlop 1998; Hansen 1998).
Some hastily destructed buildings,
87
META 2015
such as Otepää Castle in Estonia
or Kajaani Castle in Northern Finland, offer similar possibilities. One
of the best examples is Pompei, the
famous Roman town which fell offer for a volcanic eruption on 24th
August 79 AD.
cases there are datable finds, such
as coins. Only occasionally it is
possible to find the identity of the
human remains that archaeologists
have excavated – especially when
they hardly ever excavate graves
linked to well-preserved tombstones
with detailed data of the deceased.
There are also ethical reasons why
archaeologists prefer to excavate
anonymous graves. Practically the
only exceptions are ancient graves of
members of elite, such as kings and
queens or famous noble men and
women. The modern DNA technology has opened new possibilities
but the use of them is still expensive
and far from common. In the future
we probably can expect more cooperation between archaeologists and
historians in the field of the archaeology of burials.
Another kind of time capsule consist of certain battle fields where
a short campaign has produced
plenty of objects on the ground.
Especially today, while we can use
metal detectors it sometimes is possible to figure out different events
and phases before, during and after
the battle. Most of the battle fields
are destructed or at least more or
less contaminated because of modern activities. Some examples like
Battle of Little Bighorn in Montana
on 25-26th June 1876 (Fox 1993)
or the Danish campaign during the
Seven Year’s War of the North in
1560s on Getaryggen in Sweden in
1567 have shown a remarkable record connected to the short battle
on the area (Engkvist et al 2103).
The best examples of ­archaeological
time capsules are probably ship­
wrecks. Most of them are results of
abrupt accidents when a ship has
sunken after running aground, in
a furious storm or during a naval
battle. Medieval wrecks are often
hard to date but they still represent
a short incident and often reveal
much information not only of the
ship itself but also concerning navigation, trade and economy not
forgetting the small society made by
the crew. For example a small cargo
ship shipwrecked probably in the
1280s near the island of Egelskär
in the TurkuArchipelago has given
invaluable information of the Baltic
trade and trading network during
Burials represent also narrow time
capsules. In the Middle Ages the
Church monopolized or at least
tried to control burials. Normally
most of the medieval burials were
made in churchyards and in some
cases in churches. There are some
exceptions like mass graves, temporary graves, half-Christian graves
and graves made for deceased far
from church yards. Grave goods are
rare and it often is hard to date the
remains of the body. In some rare
88
GEORG HAGGRÈN
those early days (Wessman 2007).
“Prince’s ship”, a Swedish man-ofwar lost in about 1525 in the Archipelago of Stockholm is another
example of important wreck finds.
This still unidentified carrack has
probably been part of King Gustaf
Wasa’s navy. (Adams & Rönnby
1996.)
wreck with the written sources concerning the ship while it still sailed
and when it sunk. In the case of these wrecks the archaeological record
has proved to be from a certain date
which opens a fruitful co-operation
and discussion with historians.
Possibilities of the
archaeological research
Many early modern shipwrecks have
proved to be extremely valuable for
not only archaeological but also historical research too. Large men-ofwar were miniature societies full of
information of the everyday life of
their own time. The Mary Rose, the
flagship of King Henry VIII sunk in
1545 not far away from Southampton. The Wasa, the flagship of King
Gustaf II Adolf shipwrecked in 1628
on its maiden voyage in the harbor
of Stockholm. A half century later,
in 1676 another Swedish flagship,
the Stora Kronan, exploded during
a naval battle near the island of
Öland. All these large men-of-war
have turned out as enormous and
invaluable sources for the research
of the past (see for example Gardiner ed. 2005). We should not forget wrecks of some well-preserved
merchant ships from the 17th and
18th century either. Good examples of them are the Dutch merchant
ships the St. Mikael and Vrouw Maria. The former sunk in the Finnish
Archipelago in 1747 and the latter
met the same fate in October 1771.
(Ehanti & al 2012) In all these cases it has been possible to combine
a unique and extremely informative
Two case studies from Finland show
some of the possibilities of historical
archaeology. Jutikkala in Sääksmäki
and Laukko in Vesilahti were among
the few medieval manors in the inland of Finland. Jutikkala was first
mentioned in 1340 and according
to the written sources it was a noble
manor in the middle of the 15th
century at the latest (REA 100). On
the other hand, Laukko is known
from 1416 when Johan Anundsson,
the Archdeacon of Turku Cathedral
donated one farm from the village
to the Altar of St John (REA 362).
Laukko was probably the birthplace
of Arvid Kurck, the last Catholic
Bishop of Turku. The written record
reveals some of the medieval owners
of these two manors but not much
else. On these both sites archaeological surveys and excavations have
been conducted under several sea­
sons resulting a huge amount of
new information. Now we are able
to reconstruct long settlement continuity from the Viking Age, get
some hints of the local Christianiazation, an idea of the formation of
the manorial properties as well as an
89
META 2015
overview of the material culture of
the nobility in the late Middle Ages.
But with an exception of a coin hoard from the first decade of the 16th
century found from Laukko, the
archaeological record is hardly able
to produce any precise dating. (Haggrén et al 2002; Uotila (ed) 2000.)
mind that the inventory record represents only one year while the find
material might have been cumulated
during several decades. Quite naturally, when a vessel has broken the
people have acquired a new one.
The aims and purposes of
the research of the past
Medieval written sources often stay
on a relatively general level and on
upper class contexts. Only seldom
historians are able to get a large
amount of detailed information
from one farm or urban plot – or
from a single person belonging to
ordinary people. Luckily there are
exceptions which have made the microhistory possible.
Today the historians are much more
open minded than their positivistic
predecessors were a hundred years ago.
Historical research is not only some
source critical analyze of the written
sources any more. The aim is to research
the human past. There are several kinds
of historical research and in contrary to
the positivism of the early 20th century
many of them are based on far reaching
interpretations. The history of mentalities and the oral history typical for Africa are telling examples of new branches
of history. In historical archaeology we
can employ the methods of the modern
historians too.
Archaeological excavations produce
often rich, varied and detailed research material. On the ground of
this record it is possible to make
deeper analyses of the research object. Typical examples of them are
ruins of a house or stratigraphical
contexts. The archaeologists have
always to keep in mind the dating
problems while interpreting the
results. There are often ostensible
differences between the archaeological and historical record. We can
illustrate this problem by a simple
but telling example. In a 17th century written inventory record after a
deceased inhabitant there might be
only one stone ware jug listed, while
the archaeologists find pieces of a
dozen such vessels when they excavate the site. This apparent contrast
is easy to explain when we keep in
Swedish historians Anders Florén and
Stellan Dahlgren (1996, 75–76,
285–288) have stressed the value of
making questions to the past: ”Fråga
det förflutna!”, Make questions to
the past! According to them we can
divide the research objects on three
groups and make our questions to
them. Single events? State of affairs?
and Progression/development? It is
possible to make these questions –
and to get answers – on the ground
of archaeology in a similar way as on
the ground of history.
90
GEORG HAGGRÈN
have increased remarkably. As a result
the possibilities for interdisciplinary
discussion have increased too.
Archaeology and history have their
own strengths and weaknesses, but
historical archaeologists can make
profit of the both disciplines. When
combining archaeological and historical data one have to keep in mind the
basic differences between them: the
historical data is closely related to the
time – and often to individual human
beings too – while the archaeological
data is always spatial and usually quite
anonymous. Contextual methods on
archaeological excavations, modern
dating methods and new scientific
openings, like ancient DNA, help us
in combining archaeology and history
and open relevant discussion between
archaeologists and historians. A dialogue between history and archaeology
is invaluable – it opens fruitful ways
to the research and interpret the past.
Combining methods and sources of
these two different disciplines it is
possible not only to achieve a more
diverse and trustworthy information
of the research object or the actual
phenomenon we are interested in but
also to get an overview with less gaps.
History and archaeology offer two
different perspectives to the past but
combining them we can get a more
comprehensive view to the past.
Special thanks to Jason Lavery for editing the
English text.
Most fertile ground for the discussion
between archaeologists and historians
is there where the date and the place
meet each other. In recent times the
dating possibilities in archaeology
Georg Haggrén
PhD, docent in historical archaeology.
Archaeology, University of Helsinki.
E-mail: [email protected]
91
META 2015
Referenser
•Adams, J. & Rönnby, J. (1996). Furstens fartyg. Marinarkeologiska undersökningar av en
renässanskravell. Stockholm: Sjöhistoriska museet/Länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län.
•Andersson, Hans (1993). Medieval Archaeology in Scandinavia. In Andersson, H. & Wienberg, J (ed.) The Study of Medieval Archaeology. Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 13.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. p. 7–21.
•Andrén, A. (1997). Mellan ting och text. En introduktion till de historiska arkeologierna.
Stockholm/Stehag: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion.
•Bidrag till Finlands historia I (BFH). Utg. av Reinh. Hausen. Helsingfors: Finlands Statsarkiv 1881.
•Brunius, J. (2010).Vasatidens samhälle: en vägledning till arkiven 1520–1620 i Riksarkivet.
Stockholm: Riksarkivet.
•Carelli, P. (2012). Lunds historia I. Medeltiden, 990–1536. Lund: Lunds stad.
•Dahlgren, S. & Florén, A. (1996). Fråga det förflutna. En introduktion till modern historieforskning. Studentlitteratur. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
•Dunlop, A.R. (1998).V. An archaeological survey of Bergen’s medieval fires. Medieval fires
in Bergen – Revisited. The Bryggen Papers: Supplementary Series No. 6. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. p. 129–156.
•Ehanti, E., Aartomaa, J., Lounatvuori, I. & Tirkkonen, E. (ed) (2012). Lost at the Sea, Rediscovered. Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities. Engkvist, S., Pettersson, C. B. & Wenerberg, R. (2013). Getaryggen 1567. Delrapport för år 2013. Skillingaryd: Miliseum.
•Eriksson, G. (1998–2000). Olof (Olaus) Rudbeck. Svenskt biografiskt lexikon 30. Stockholm: Riksarkivet, p. 640–642.
•Finnish National Archives: Lantmäteristyrelsens arkiv: Geografiska jordeböcker B Ia
Tenala.
•Finlands medeltidsurkunder (FMU) I-VIII. Utg. av Reinh. Hausen. Helsingfors: Finlands
Statsarkiv 1910-1935.
•Florén, A. & Ågren, H. (1998): Historiska undersökningar. Grunder i historisk teori,
metod och framställningssätt. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
•Fox, R. A. (1993). Archaeology, History, and Custer’s Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined. University of Oklahoma Press.
•Forssell, H. (1872). Sverige 1571 : försök till en administratif-statistisk beskrifning. Stockholm.
•Gardberg, C. J. (1984). Medeltidsarkeologi i Finland. Den historiska tidens arkeologi i
Finland. Åbo landskapsmuseum, rapporter 6. Åbo: Åbo landskapsmuseum, p. 66–70.
•Gardiner, J. (ed.) (2005). Before the Mast: Life and Death Aboard the Mary Rose. The
Archaeology of the Mary Rose volume 4. Portsmouth: The Mary Rose Trust.
92
GEORG HAGGRÈN
•Haggrén, G., Hakanpää, P. & Mikkola, T. (2002). Rautakautisista taloista rälssin asumakartanoksi. SKAS 2002:1. p. 6–10
•Hansen, G. (1998). The Bryggen chronology. New light upon the dating of fire layer sequence before V. Medieval fires in Bergen – Revisited. The Bryggen Papers: Supplementary
Series No. 6. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. p. 81–128.
•Hedvall, R., Lindeblad, K. & Menander,H. (2013). Borgare, bröder och bönder : arkeologiska perspektiv på Skänninges äldre historia. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
•Hiekkanen, M. (1994). The Stone Churches of the Medieval Diocese of Turku. Finska
fornminnesföreningens tidskrift 101. Helsinki: Finska fornminnesföreningen.
•Hiekkanen, M. (2007). Suomen keskiajan kivikirkot. Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seuran
toimituksia 1117. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.
•Härö, M. (1984): Suomen muinaismuistohallinto 1884–1917. Helsinki: Museovirasto.
•Karsvall, Olof (2013). Retrogressiv metod: En översikt med exempel från historisk geografi och agrarhistoria. Historisk tidskrift 2013:3. p. 411–435.
•Le Roi Ladurie, E. (1980). Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, 1294–
1324. Penguin Books.
•Lilius, H. (2000): Hausen rakennustutkijana ja antikvaarina. In Orrman, E. (ed.) Reinhold
Hausen. Kansallisen arkiston rakentaja. Helsinki: Kansallisarkisto, p. 51–69.
•Myrdal, j. (2007). Källpluralismen och dess inkluderande metodpaket. Historisk tidskrift
2007:3. p. 495–504.
•Nikula, O. (1987): Åbo stads historia 1521–1600. I. Åbo: Åbo stad.
•Nordman, C. A. (1968). Archaeology in Finland before 1920. The History of learning and
science in Finland 1828–1918 vol 14a. Helsinki: Societas Scient. Fennica.
•Oinonen, M., Hilasvuori, E., Mehtonen, H., , Uotila, K. & Zetterberg, P. (2013): On the eve
of urbanization – Bayesian model dating for medieval Turku Oinonen, M., Hilasvuori, E.,
Mehtonen, H., Uotila, K. & Zetterberg, P. Radiocarbon. 2013: 55(2-3), p. 1265–1277.
•Pihlman, A. (2010). Turun kaupunkiarkeologian kaksikymmentä viime vuotta. SKAS
2010:1, p. 17–25.
•Registrum Ecclesiae Aboensis eller Åbo Domkyrkas Svartbok (REA). Utg. af Reinh. Hausen. Helsingfors: Finlands Statsarkiv 1890.
•Salminen, T. (1998). Tidigare okända medeltida brev från Finland i Revals stadsarkiv. Historisk tidskrift för Finland 1998:3, p. 513–521.
•Schmidt Sabo, K. (2001):Vem behöver en by? Kyrkheddinge, struktur och strategi under
tusen år. Riksantikvarieämbetet arkeologiska undersökningar, skrifter 67. Stockholm:
Riksantikvarieämbetet.
•Seppänen, L. & Kallio-Seppä, T. (2014). Dendrokronologian kolme vuosikymmentä
Suomessa. Muinaistutkija 2014:3, p. 16–33.
•Taavitsainen, J.-P. (1999). Historiallisen ajan arkeologia tieteenalana ja antikvaarisena
toimintana. In Niukkanen, M. (ed.) Historiallisen ajan arkeologian menetelmät: Seminaari
93
META 2015
1998. Museoviraston rakennushistorian osaston julkaisuja 20. Helsinki: Museovirasto, p.
6–14.
•Torstendahl, R (1964). Källkritik och vetenskapssyn i svensk historisk forskning, 1820–
1920. Studia historica Upsaliensia 15. Stockholm: Nordstedts.
•Uotila, K. (ed.) (2000).Vesilahden Laukko - Linna, kartano, koti. Archaeologia Medii Aevi
Finlandiae IV. Turku: Sällskapet för medeltidsarkeologi i Finland.
94
Interpretations of animal
bones found in Finnish
inhumation graves
Hanna Kivikero
This study aims to interpret animal remains in inhumation graves from late Iron Age to
the 18th century through six case studies. During this time the religious tradition was in
the process of change; the Swedish crusades started to convert the Finns and later on the
religion changed from Catholicism to Lutheran. Although, the sample size is limited, the
study shows the importance of animal bones in interpreting human mortuary behaviour.
The remains from the sites showed that they could be interpreted in multiple ways compared to what was previously done. Animals could be eaten as ritual meals or they could
be part of a food offering or sacrifice (also cited as companions). Previous usage of these
sites could also bring animal remains into burials, and animals could also be disposed of
in separate pits. The difference between the eastern and western burial traditions may not
have been as significant as previously thought.
Introduction
that time. The burial tradition also changed from cremation to inhumation. The
literate evidence concerning this period
is from canonical laws, which were often
introduced when problems occurred in
the conversion process (Ersgård 1996,
s.9). The funeral behavior probably
changed also in the 16th century when
Lutheranism became the main religion.
Animal bones in inhumation graves are a
neglected area of study in Finnish archaeology. To shed a light on the mortuary
behavior involving animal bones, I studied six Finnish sites from the time period of late Iron Age (AD ca 800-1200)
to the 18th century (Kivikero 2011).
The late Iron Age especially is an interesting time period because according to legends, the Swedish started to convert the
Finns to Christianity by crusades during
There are also regional differences in
burial practice regarding the treatment of animals. The western part of
95
META 2015
Finland is thought to have given up
the Iron Age way of placing animal
remains to the graves when adapting
to Christianity (e.g. Pirinen 1991,
s.31). In the eastern parts of Finland
and Karelia people would be eating
meat and meals on graves as late as in
the 20th century (Pentikäinen 1990,
s.26). The research on Finnish graves from medieval time to the 18th
century has relied a long time on the
laws written during that time and
too little studies based on the archaeological material has been done.
The site has burials dated to late
Iron Age and possible medieval
burials. There is also a Bronze Age
dwelling place and cairns nearby.
The burial site was excavated during
1969-1992 and over 1300 inhumation graves were uncovered (Lehtosalo-Hilander 1982a, s.13, 1997,
s.389-390). The material from the
graves studied during 1969-1979
is published (Lehtosalo-Hilander
1982a-c, 2000), and is used for
this study. The material consists of
421 inhumation graves, from those
graves 182 were furnished and 239
were unfurnished. The orientation of the graves varied, though
the most popular being SW-NE
(Lehtosalo-Hilander 1982a, s.19).
The bone material was often preserved in the vicinity of bronze. The
animal bones seem to have been in
better condition than the human
bones (Lehtosalo-Hilander 1997,
s.392). Out of the 421 studied graves, 91 contained animal remains.
Dog (Canis familiaris) bones were
found in 13 graves, possibly in one
more. The bones found were mostly
teeth (dentes) and skull (cranium)
parts, in two occasions long bones
(ossa longa) were found. Cattle
(Bos taurus) was often identified
from teeth and skull parts. All in all
cattle bones were found in 36 graves. Horse (Equus caballus) remains
were most often parts of long bones.
Domestic pig (Sus domesticus) is
solely identified by the teeth. Goat
antelopes (Caprinae sp.), probably
sheep (Ovis aries) or goat (Capra
hircus), are also mainly represented
The past research on inhumation
graves has mainly focused on material remains and grave orientation
(e.g. Cleve 1943; Lehtosalo-Hilander 1982a-c; Purhonen 1998), also
in some rare occasions, on the physical anthropology of the deceased
(e.g. Formisto 1993). The bottom of
the grave is most often the emphasis
of the study, although, also the filling and top soil is part of the burial
moment and therefore also ritualistic. The osteological material is in a
key role when understanding mortuary behavior involving animals.
Material
The material chosen for this study
consists of six sites: Luistari, the
Church of the Holy Spirit, Finno,
the Cathedral of Porvoo, Visulahti
and Suotniemi. The location of the
sites can be seen in figure 1.
Luistari is located in Eura which is
ca 80 km north of Turku (fig. 1).
96
HANNA KIVIKERO
by teeth. In one occasion there are
skeletal parts from at least two goat
antelopes in one grave. Bovid (Bovidae sp.) teeth were found in nine
graves (Lehtosalo-Hilander 1982a,
s.39, 309-310).
The Church of the Holy Spirit is
situated in the centre of Turku (fig.
1). The church was built in the 16th
century for the Finnish speaking
part of the parish. The Cathedral
of Turku was reserved for the Swedish speakers. The place was studied first time as a trial excavation
in 1964 (Laaksonen 1965, s.27)
and later on during the years 198385 (Laaksonen 1984, 1985; Kykyri
1985). There were over 1100 individuals counted to be buried in the
200 m² area in SW-NE, NE-SW
and E-W orientation (Laaksonen
1965, 1984; Kykyri 1987, s.25).
Only a sample of the animal bones
from the excavation of 1985 was
analysed: in total 260 fragments.
The bones are mainly from graves,
but some are stray finds from the
area. Cattle bones were the most
frequently found animals in the
graves. The anatomical representation of the cattle is emphasized by
teeth, forelegs and phalanges. Sheep
and/or goat are anatomically evenly
distributed with a light increase on
vertebra and limb bones. Pig bones
are also anatomically evenly distributed. Bones from the feet were
found of the mountain hare (Lepus
timidus). Northern pike (Esox lucius) and Perciformes (Percidae) were
found in two graves, although in
Figure 1. Location of the studied sites.
few numbers, fowl (Galliformes sp.)
in one grave. Carnivore (Carnivora
sp.) was identified by hind legs. Cut
marks could also be recorded in ten
bones (Kivikero 2010c).
Finno lies in Espoo, some 15 km
northwest of Helsinki (fig. 1).
During an excavation of a medieval
hamlet in 2006, outlines of graves
started to appear. Most of the graves were E-W oriented. Only in 12
of the total 43 documented graves
bone substance was found (Haggrén
et al. 2007, s.11-12, 21, 24). The
poor condition of the bones is often
explained by the acidity of the soil.
97
META 2015
The bones were decomposed to the
degree that they were not identifiable even to class. Animal bones see­
med to be in slightly better condition than the two preserved human
bones. Animal bones were identified in four graves, cattle being the
only species found (Kivikero 2007).
The teeth, mandible, humerus and
a scapula of cattle could clearly be
identified as part of the graves filling (Haggrén et al. 2007; Kivikero
2007).
Visulahti lies in Mikkeli which is
part of eastern Finland (fig. 1). Excavations were conducted in 1954
and 1955. There are some 30 inhumation burials and five cremations
dating to the Iron Age. One of the
graves was interpreted to be a probably 1-year old “sacrifice bull” (Leppäaho 1957). Osteological analysis
was not conducted on the bones
before the spring of 2010. Only the
upper torso and skull was preserved.
The animal turned out to be over
8-years. In the same burial a human
humerus was found and identified
during the analysis. The human
bone was roughly in the same condition as the animal bones. Animal
bones were also mentioned on two
other occasions the documentation.
One of them was a cattle heel bone
(calcaneus) near a stone setting of a
grave, and the other horse premolars in the filling of the burial of the
“sacrifice bull” (Kivikero 2010b).
The churchyard of the Cathedral
of Porvoo (fig. 1) lies in the middle
of the town of Porvoo. The churchyard was in use of the whole parish
and after the war of Gustavus III
(1788-1790) the churchyard was
extended to prevent overcrowding
(Mäntylä 1994, s.438 and literature cited). The last burials to the
church­yard were probably done in
the 18th century. The excavations
conducted on the site in 2007 revealed some 60 graves whereof 53
were investigated (Lagersted 2008).
Only the bones found in identified
graves were analysed. Pharyngeal
bones (os pharyngeum inferior) of
the carp family (Cyprinidae) were
found in three graves, in two of the
graves the deceased was an infant
(Salo 2007). Also four graves proved
to have ­bones and scales (squama)
of northern pike and perch (Perca
fluviatilis) (Kati Salo personal communication 30.10.2010). Animal
bones found in the filling were reburied without analysis.
Suotniemi and the parish of Käkisalmi was part of Finland before
the Second World War. Nowadays the site is part of Russia (fig.
1). From the site four inhumation
burials could be identified and
one cremation, all probably dating
to the Iron Age (Schwindt 1893).
Animal remains were found in two,
what could be identified as, burial
contexts. These included horse teeth, cattle humerus, mammal long
bones, zander (Sander lucioperca)
and perciform bones, and a merganser (Mergus sp.) bone. The earth
surrounding these graves had also
98
HANNA KIVIKERO
Interpretations to date
animal bones, mostly fish in variable species: Zander, perch, roach
(Rutilus rutilus), northern pike
and salmonids (Salmonidae). From
an anatomical point of view, scales
were found frequently, as was skull
parts, fin bones and vertebra (Kivikero 2010a, 2011).
There are some interpretations already made of the animal bones
from some of the sites. The dog
bones from Luistari, for example,
were interpreted to be followers to
the deceased by the basis of their
placing in the grave. The dogs were
found near the dead: on the foot
end of the grave, near the femur or
near the shoulder. In one case dog
bones were in the filling. The dog
was in all these cases thought to be
part of the burial ritual. The reason
for this interpretation is that in Iron
Age religion the grave goods are placed near the deceased to guarantee
their passage to the ancestor world
where the person continues his/her
life as it was when living (e.g. Gräslund, B. 1994, s.17-18).
Methods
The sampling of the sites was done
by making a table of all known burial sites in Finland and then consentrating on the sites where osteological studies were made and
which showed potential for animal
bones. I studied both excavation reports and osteological reports covering late Iron Age to 17th century.
Most energy was put to the sites
where animal bones were already
mentioned in the reports. In other
sites the knowledge of animal bones
came with analyzing human bones
(e.g. in Turku) or by own experience
from excavation. Some of sites were
excavated in the late 19th century
so the standards for reports can vary
quite much. This has resulted to the
fact that some of the context descriptions are insufficient in modern
standards.
In Luistari meat production animals, such as cattle, sheep and goat
were thought to be part of the burial
when discovered near the deceased.
They were suggested to be food offerings to the dead. The bones, mostly
teeth, found in the top soil and in
the filling of graves were explained
to be from a nearby dwelling site or
from destroyed burials (LehtosaloHilander 1982a, s.39). The teeth
were also suggested to have end up
in the graves by chance due to later
ploughing (Tupala 1999, s.40).
From three of the sites no osteological analysis was done before.
These three sites were analyzed by
the author. After that the bone material was compared with context
descriptions to find out the possible
interpretations.
The animal bones from the church
of the Holy Spirit were not previously recognised so there are no
previous interpretations (Kivikero
99
META 2015
destroyed due to digging of the burial (Leppäaho 1957). The interpretation was criticized during the
1990’s and proposed that the ritual
activity was instead a much later
disturbance of the site. Apparently
people used to bury their dead animals to the same field as late as the
beginning of the 20th century because the soil was suitable. Also the
animal bones were suggested to be
in much better condition compared
with the human bones (Taavitsainen 1990, s.328-330).
2011, s.47). The cattle and large
ungulate bones in Finno were considered to be food offerings to the deceased by their intentional placing
in the graves (Haggrén et al. 2007,
s.25-26). Some fish bones were
found in infant graves in Porvoo but
based on the context they were probably not consumed (Salo 2007).
The upper torso of the cattle found
in Visulahti was interpreted to be a
“sacrifice bull” used in an Iron Age
ritual, according the excavation
leader. The interpretation is based
on the fact that the shoulder blades
and the pelvic bones were missing
from the individual. On top of
that a piece of human cheek bone
and teeth was recovered during the
lifting of the cattle skeleton. Graves
underneath the “sacrifice bull” were
In Suotniemi the potsherds and the
animal bones recovered near the
graves were interpreted to be part
of meals on graves (Schwindt 1893,
s.151, 153, 188). Eating meals on
graves is a well documented action
in Karelia from as late as the begin-
Figure 2.The interpretations made of the animal bones based on the osteological material and
context descriptions.
100
HANNA KIVIKERO
ning of 20th century. The purpose
of the meals is to guarantee a passage for the dead to the afterlife
and to communicate with the dead.
Meals could be eaten on the graves
on funeral days and on special commemoration days (e.g. Honko et al.
1993, s.572; Valk 2001, s.81, 2007,
s.142; Vilkuna 1989, s.34-35, 6768, 71, 77, 261, Pentikäinen 1990,
s.26-29).
The interpretations are discussed
according to their stratigraphical location in the grave context (fig. 2).
Topsoil: In Luistari there is one radius and several teeth found alongside potsherds in the topsoil of some
graves. Also in Finno there was a
cattle mandible found in the top
layers of one of the graves. In Suotniemi there are teeth and pieces of
clay vessels found on top of grave
number 4. These could be remains
of food offerings or meals on graves.
The grave would already be filled
and the remains of a feast or offering left on top of the grave.
The occurrence of skull parts and
teeth was thought to be evidence
of slaughter on site, otherwise only
meatier parts would be found.
Fish and bird was also thought to
be consumed on the graves. (Schwindt 1893, s.151, 153, 188). It is
also suggested that the bones found
i Suotniemi have no relationship
with meals on graves because people
would not consume parts of animal
head (Taavitsainen 1990, s.330).
Most of the bones found in Suotniemi were described to be near graves and scattered around the burial
area. The anatomical distribution
of the found fish bones depicts fish
handling on the site. It is probable
that the animal remains found on
the site were already in the soil before any burials were made.
Interpretations based on the
bone material and contexts
The most logical interpretation,
when finding traces of food production animals in graves, is to think
of them as food for the deceased.
However, these animals might have
other functions in funeral rituals.
Depending on the context of the
bones, the interpretations of the
same material are infinitive.
Filling: The animal bones and pieces of pottery found in Luistari and
Finno could have functioned as food
offering to the deceased or as a funeral meal eaten directly at the funeral
before the grave is wholly filled. At
least in Finno the parts of animals
were intentionally placed either on
top of a coffin or somewhere in the
middle of the grave.
In this chapter I will discuss the interpretations made of the animal
bones found in the studied six sites.
In Finno the bones found in the filling can be regarded as rich of meat
from meat production animals, as
101
META 2015
well as in four graves from Luistari.
In Luistari most bones found in
the filing are teeth, which have not
been earlier regarded as suitable for
eating purposes (e.g. Tupala 1999).
Skulls, however, appear as ingredient for food in cook books from the
17th century onwards (e.g. Sartorio 1616; Winsnes 1845; Östman
1911). Even today sheep and goat
cheeks are regarded as a delicacy in
the Middle East, so the teeth in the
fillings might originate from skulls
prepared as food for the funeral. Because of the decomposition processes are the teeth the only bones left.
In Luistari some of the graves were
dug on top of each other so it is unclear if they are from the filling.
but they could also be domesticated
for the reason of easy access food.
The dog bones in the filling of the
Luistari grave could also be from a
food offering.
The long bones, skull parts (also
teeth) and whole animals found in
the filling could also be interpreted as having a protective use in
the grave. The meatier parts of the
animals, skulls and whole animals
found building deposits have been
thought of being offerings to drive
away bad spirits, to gain luck, fertility or protection (Carlie 2004,
s.206; Falk 2006, s.200-201; Hukantaival 2007b, s.70). Skulls and
whole animals were especially used
during the medieval period (Falk
2006, s.201). Jaws and skulls placed
under the houses were perhaps regarded to preserve life force (Carlie
2004, s.115-116, 135-136; Hukantaival 2007a, s.8-10). These kind of
superstitious acts were accepted because they were so called “legal magic” which was performed by everyone (Hukantaival 2007b, s.70).
There is also some horse long bones
found in the filling of three unfurnished graves in Luistari. The bones
are regarded to have high meat percentage and in that case could be interpreted as meals or food offerings.
The treatment of horses as food can
be debated, especially with graves
which are thought to have Christian influences. Eating horse meat is
forbidden in the 3rd book of Moses
because they are not ruminants or
cloven footed (King James Bible). It
is, however, unknown if these guidelines were followed in Finland or
if the people burying their deceased
regarded horse meat as being no different from other meat production
animals.
The bones found in the filling of
medieval graves in Finno and Luistari resemble the ones described
by Ann-Britt Falk as being typically
used in building deposits, that is,
teeth from meat production animals. The teeth are probably in this
case the only thing left from placing
skulls to the graves.
The anatomical representation of
the animal bones and crossed tile
Dogs are often thought to be domesticated for hunting assistance
102
HANNA KIVIKERO
found in the probable grave filling
in Turku suggests that the bones
were already in the soil before the
graves were dug. The bones and the
other founds are probably depositions from a time when the site was
used for everyday purposes, such
as housing. Also the bone material
from Porvoo combined with the information of dogs scattering bones
in the graveyard could suggest that
the bones were household waste
from prior utilization stages of the
site. The animal bones were scattered around the surrounding soil of
the graves in a similar manner to the
stray human bones from older graves. It is of course possible that the
animals were originally deposited to
the older graves.
ker, coal filled soil and it is possible
that the soil originates from the
dwelling site. The cattle teeth found
in the soil are, however, in a similar condition as the bones found in
Iron Age and Medieval graves. This
interpretation should be thought
with some reservation.
Bottom of the grave: The dog
bones found in the bottom of the
graves in Luistari could be a sacrifice or a companion to the deceased
as suggested before. They are often
teeth and skull bones with some occasional long bones found in the vicinity of the deceased. As discussed
before during the medieval period
also whole animals, as well as skulls
could be deposited in buildings. Although the dogs in Luistari probably
date to late Iron Age, it is possible
they too had a protective purpose
in the grave. The dogs could have
a third purpose in the grave as a
food offering to the deceased. There
is some, although insufficient, evidence of ritual treatment of dogs
and consumption of its flesh in prehistorical sites in Central and Eastern Europe (Simoons 1994, s.200,
232-241 and literature cited).
The fish and bird bones found in
Suotniemi were mostly scattered
around the site and the anatomical
representation of the bones suggests some sort of fish handling. It
is therefore possible that the bones
derive from a dwelling site. The studies made in Stone Age Zveinieki,
Latvia have shown that the people
living in there were consciously filling their graves with dwelling place
soil (Zagorskis 2004, s.79; Larsson
2010). This kind of action is possible in Suotniemi, although the documentation is not good enough to
confirm this interpretation.
The bones from food production
animals in graves from Luistari are
probably food offerings for the deceased, as was interpreted before.
The bones could also be for protective purposes. One of the pharyngeal bones found in Porvoo could
have been consumed. The bone was
found in an adult male grave. The
In Luistari there is a Bronze Age
dwelling place near the inhumation
graves. The graves in the outskirts of
the burial area are filled with a dar-
103
META 2015
rest of the fish bones were from infant graves. Instead of consumption
they could be intentionally buried
with the child or from the filling
soil which had stray animal bones.
However, the burials were in most
cases in coffins and the soil inside
the coffins, where the fish bones
would have been found, had no stray bones.
graves. The animal bones from the
whole grave should be documented
to find out the purpose of the bones
in the graves. Comparing the osteological material to the context descriptions could give a light on the
interpretation. The interpretations
depend on where in the grave the
bones are found.
Even if the sample size is small, this
study suggests that animals were integrated to mortuary rituals in western Finland as late as the 16th century. From eastern Finland, where
eating meals on graves were recorded as late as the 20th century, the
relation between animals and mortuary behavior could not be confirmed. This might be due to the bad
preservation conditions of bone in
Finland. Because in most of the cases only teeth, the hardest substance
of the bone, is preserved, it is impossible to know what parts of the
animal was deposited in the grave.
Also the poor context descriptions
and documentation in some of the
sites may have influenced the interpretations.
The almost whole animal skeletons
found in the outskirts of Luistari
were dug in unevenly graves. They
are probably deliberately buried
animals. The bones were in much
better condition than the bones in
the Iron Age and Medieval burials
which suggests that they were buried
in a later date. To solve how much
later date, ¹⁴C dates should be conducted. The same stands for the “sacrifice bull” found in Visulahti. The
pit was unevenly dug but the animal
bones were in similar kind of condition than the human humerus from
the same context. The human bone
is probably from a burial which was
disturbed by the digging of the animal burial. Based on the condition
of the bones they might be buried
almost simultaneously. To solve the
matter radiocarbon dating should
be conducted on the bones.
Many of the conclusions of this
study remain speculative. Future research should be directed to proper
documentation of animal bones in
graves. Although the sample size in
this study is small the many possibilities of interpreting animal bones
could be presented.
Conclusions
Animal bones are as important information source for mortuary behavior as human bones are. That is
why more interest should be taken
into animal bones in inhumation
Hanna Kivikero ia a PhD student at the
University of Helsinki.
E-mail: [email protected]
104
HANNA KIVIKERO
Referenser
•Carlie, A. 2004. Forntida byggnadskult. Tradition och regionalitetet i södra Skandinavien.
Riksantikvarieämbetet. Arkeologiska undersökningar. Skifter no 57. Malmö.
•Cleve, N. 1943. Skelettgravfälten på Kjuloholm i Kjulo. Del 1, Den yngre folkvandringstiden. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 44. Helsinki.
•Ersgård 1996. Religinsskiftet som social förändring. Om tidigmedeltida gravskick i Dalarna och Östergötland. Engdahl, K. & Kaliff, A. (eds). Religion från stenåldern till medeltid.
Artiklar baserade på Religionsarkeologiska nätverksgruppens konferens på Lövstadbruk
den 1-3 december 1995. Riksantikvareiämbetet. Arkeologiska undersökningar. Skrifter nr.
19. 9-17.
•Falk 2006. My home is my castle. Protection against evil in medieval times. Andrén, A.,
Jennbert, K. & Raudvere, C. (eds). Old Norse Religion in long-term perspectives. Origins,
Changes and Interactions.Vägar till Midgård 8. Lund. 200-205.
•Formisto, T. 1993. An Osteological Analysis of Human and Animal Bones from Levänluhta.Vammala.
•Gräslund, B. 1994. Prehistoric Soul Beliefs in Northern Europe. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 60. 15-26.
•Haggrén, G., Rosendahl, U., Holappa, M., Knuutinen, T., Kunnas, O., Salonen, A-M., Tevali, R.
2007. Espoo, Suomenoja, Finnon kylätontti. Kaivaus 11.9.-13.10.2006. Excavation report.
The Archives of the National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki.
•Honko, L., Timonen, S., Branch, M. & Bosley, K. 1993. The Great Bear. A Thematic Anthology of Oral Poetry in the Finno-Ugrian Languages. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Peiksämäki.
•Hukantaival, S. 2007a. Jäniksenkäpäliä, teräkaluja ja elohopeaa. Rakennusten ”oudot” kätköt ja niiden merkitykset historiallisella ajalla. Arkeologia nyt! Arkeologi nu! 1/2007. 8-10.
•Hukantaival, S. 2007b. Hare’s feet under a hearth. Discussing ´ritual´ deposits in buildings. Immonen,V.,Lempiäinen, M. & Rosendahl, U. (ed.). Hortus Novus. Fresh approaches
to medieval archaeology in Finland. Archeologia Medii Aevi Finlandiae XIV. SKAS. Saarijärvi. 66-75.
•Kivikero, H. 2007. Espoo, Suomenoja, Finnon kylätontti. Osteologinen raportti. Osteological report. In Haggrén et al. 2006. The Archives of the National Board of Antiquities.
Helsinki.
•Kivikero, H. 2010a. Kurkijoki Kuuppala KM 8784 & KM 8885, Kexholm Suotniemi KM
2487 och S:t Michels Visulahti KM 13441 & KM 13769. Osteologisk analys av obrända
djurben. Osteological report. The archives of the National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki.
•Kivikero, H. 2010b. Mikkeli Visulahti hauta 30 (KM 13679:181). Osteologinen raportti.
Osteological report. The archives of the National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki.
105
META 2015
•Kivikero, H. 2010c. Turku Julinin tontti, Pyhän Hengen kirkko. Osteologinen analyysi
vuoden 1985 eläinluulöydöistä. Otos. Osteological report. The Archives of the Castle of
Turku. Turku.
•Kivikero, H. 2011. Cattle Teeth in Graves. Interpretations of animal bones found in Finnish inhumation graves (Ca AD 550-1700). Master’s thesis. Department of archaeology.
University of Helsinki. >https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/26349/cattlete.
pdf? sequence=1<
•Kykyri, M. 1985. Kaivauskertomus, Julinin tontti 1985. Kaivausraportti. Excavation report.
The archives of the National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki.
•Lagerstedt, J. 2008. Porvoon tuomiokirkon kirkkomaa. Arkeologinen kaivaus. Excavation
report. The National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki.
•Laaksonen, L. 1984. Turku ns. Julinin tontin arkeologiset tutkimukset 1983-1984. Kaivausraportti. Preliminary excavation report. The archives of the National Board of Antiquities.
Helsinki.
•Laaksonen, L. 1985. Turun ns. Julinin tontin arkeologiset tutkimukset vuonna 1985.Väliaikaisraportti tutkimustilanteesta. Preliminary excavation report. The National Board of
Antiquities. Helsinki.
•Laaksonen, L. 1965. Turun Pyhän Hengen kirkon hautakerroksista.Vanhalinna I. 27-34.
•Lehtosalo-Hilander, P-L. 1982a: Luistari I. The Graves. Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyksen
aikakauskirja 82:1.Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy:Vammala.
•Lehtosalo-Hilander, P-L. 1982b. Luistari II. The Artefacts. Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja 82:2.Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy:Vammala.
•Lehtosalo-Hilander, P-L. 1982c. Luistari III. A Burial Ground Reflecting the Finnish Iron
Age Society. Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja 82:3.Vammalan Kirjapaino
Oy:Vammala.
•Lehtosalo-Hilander, P-L. 1997: Luistari in Eura. From Pagan Burial-Ground to Christian Cemetery. Müller-Wille, M. (ed.). Rom und Byzana im Norden. Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseer­aum während des 8.-14. Jahrhundraderts. Band II. Abhandlungen
der Geistes- und Sozialwissen­schaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1997. Nr 3, II. Mainz. 389-404.
•Leppäaho, J. 1957. Mikkeli,Visulahti. Kaivaus 1954-55. Kaivausraportti. Excavation report.
The Archives of the National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki.
•Salo, K. 2007. Osteologinen raportti. Porvoo, Porvoon kirkko 2007. Osteological report.
The National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki.
•Sartorio, A.S. 1616. Koge-Bog. Indeholdendis et hundrede fornødene stycker etc. [wwwdocument] Read 25.9.2010. <http://www.notaker.com/onlitxts/kogebog.htm>
•Tupala, U. 1999. Eläinuhreja vai teurasjätteitä – Euran Luistarin rautakautisen kalmiston
eläinluu-materiaalin lähdekriittistä tarkastelua. Master’s thesis. Department of archaeology.
University of Turku.
•Winsnes, H. 1845. Lærebog i de forskjellige Grene af Husholdningen. [www-document]
Read 25.9.2010. <http://www.dokpro.uio.no/litteratur/winsnes/frames.htm>
•Östman, E. 1911. Iduns kokbok. [www-document] Read 26.9.2010. <http://runeberg.org/
idunskok/>
106
Staging Bathing in
Cena Trimalchionis
(Pet. Sat. 72 – 73)
Kristian Reinfjord
The present article seeks a broader understanding of Roman domestic baths, as found in
the Pompeian domus through an interpretation of written and archaeological sources.
A wide range of sources is preserved from the Mediterranean world, and Classical archaeology has a long tradition in taking advantage of both written and material sources.
The Cena Trimalchionis written by Petronius Arbiter in the first century AD describes
a dinner ritual staged in the private home of a Roman new rich aristocrat. As part of the
dinner ritual a bath scene is taking place. Several Roman houses from Pompeii shows
such domestic baths. A study of the bathing and placements of the baths, as described by
Petronius according to the preserved archaeological remains of the domus, give a broader
insight into the social roles of Roman domestic bathing in general, and shows how both
written and material sources can be used in harmony.
Introduction
actions of bathing Romans as we see
them in a selection of baths recorded
in material evidence of the Pompeian
domus. I will attempt to reconstruct
the ritual of bathing in the private
sphere and the social function of
these baths based on the written and
archaeological sources in harmony.
Interpretations of Roman bathing
should involve both written and material sources, especially when written
descriptions of social roles of bathing
and the actual bath suites are preserved. A main challenge in historical
archaeology is to define the analogical
The scope with this article is to present how identifiable harmony between historical and written sources
facilitates a fuller interpretation of
Roman private bath suites in the late
republic (Hodder 1982, pp. 139-147;
Morris 2000, pp. 7-8). I believe that
a good solution is to use the written
source of The Cena Trimalchionis
(Trimalchio’s Dinner), written by
Petronius Arbiter, as a cultural frame
or background that will help to determine a set of rules that regulated the
107
META 2015
value of historical information in
the interpretation of archaeological remains (Andrén 1998, p. 156).
Written source are valuable when
presenting sets of values, beliefs and
attitudes in past societies. When taking into account that we deal with
literary versions of past, a use of
such texts would be to acknowledge
their author’s respect of experiences
and tradition for texts to have functioned as active ideological tools
in the past. These versions of past
reality can provide insights into
cognitive processes of peoples from
the past and are priceless sources for
our understanding of archaeological
records and the historical contexts
that facilitated them.
Empire was, however, not so much
the result of the utilitarian services
offered, as the social pleasures that
could be obtained. The baths created an arena for social interactions,
which were stimulated by architectonical devises, creating different
experiences. The balnea are more
common, but private houses also
had their own bath suites, being the
topic of the present paper. Roman
private bathing should be seen as a
ritual and could be compared to the
Finish sauna tradition (Fagan 1999,
p. 2; Yegül 2010, p. 1). The sauna
ritual is complex and involves perspiration, sponging and whisking
with birch leaves. Often drinks and
food is consumed between bathing
and bouts in the sauna. The ritual
is preferred done with family members or friends, and the whole experience is based on bathing in company with others, even if the bath is
taken within a private setting. Business conferences and even government meetings can convene within
the sauna (Bremer & Raevuori
1986, pp. 153-161; Fagan 1999, p.
2; Yegül 2010, p. 1). Other ethnographic parallels to Roman private
bathing are found in the Japanese
sento and the Islamic hammam (Fagan 1999, p. 1; Yegül 2010, p. 1).
Social bathing in the
Roman republic
Bathing in the Roman world was a
cultural aspect which integrated all
layers of society; however, bathing
for the Romans went far beyond the
functional and hygienic necessities
of washing (Brödner 1983; DeLaine et.al. 1999; Fagan 1999; Heinz
1983; Nielsen 1990; Pasquinucci
1993; Yegül 1992; 2010). It was a
personal regeneration and a deeply
rooted cultural and social habit.
The fact that bathing was seen as
such an important cultural activity
in Rome and her colonies, make the
baths a potential source of information on Roman social life and structures. The impressive development
of baths and bathing in the Roman
Roman baths should be seen as sociological structures of Roman society, and the rituals performed within
them could be connected with the
material remains of the baths. Both
rituals of bathing and empirical
sources of the baths are seen to-
108
KRISTIAN REINFJORD
gether as they form a duality, each
a product of the other. The sociologist Anthony Giddens (1984, p.
25) argues that social structures and
individual lives should not be seen
as a dichotomy. Human actions and
structural restraints have a relationship of mutual dependency: social
structures constitute the framework
for social agents and their actions,
providing a range of appropriate
behaviours in their daily activities
(Giddens 1984, p. 60). These encounters depend upon the spatiality
of the body: its positioning, gestures, dress and relationship to others.
The awareness and the experience of
the body lie at the centre of human
consciousness, and the familiarity
surrounding these encounters leads
to a sense of ontological security
(Giddens 1984, pp. 64-68).
bound up in the ongoing maintenance of distinctions and connection between private and public
spaces. These social theories provide
a powerful way of understanding
the transformation of human action and interaction materialized in
the archaeological record, and how
these feed into the reproduction of
societies.
Bathing was carried out as a part
of the Roman day routine, an occupied a significant part of the afternoon. As bathing where carried
out as social act more than just getting clean, both eating, exercise and
meals could take place in the bath.
Such activities required larger spaces
and several rooms. Therefore, the
Roman domestic baths should not
be mixed with our bath rooms, used
for shower, washing and make up.
Essential to the bath ritual was, according to Pliny the Younger as we
can read in one of his Letters: “I’m
oiled, I take my exercise, I have my
bath” (Pliny, Letters, 9.36). Bathing
was also done in a distinct order,
requiring movement from cold to
hot, through intercommunicating
sections of rooms with varying temperatures (Yegül 2010, p. 17).
It is argued that this performance
intentionally or unintentionally
incorporates the spatial setting and
associated material, drawing upon
not only their function, but also any
symbolic meaning (Goffman 1959,
pp. 34-36). In this way, the architectural remains of the past are part
of human action and human experience. Through architecture we
understand both our own and other
people’s place within a community.
The buildings which form the archaeological material are implicated in the maintenance of identity
as the settings within which these
performances are enacted (Goffman
1959, pp. 32-34). Buildings are
within these frames seen as being
The Roman domestic bath most
often consisted of three different
rooms to maintain the varying
temperatures: frigidarium, tepidarium, and caldarium, but could
also include other rooms as dressing
rooms and sweat baths. Rooms are
labeled according to the heat which
109
META 2015
focus is placed on his conspicuous
consumption to impress his guests.
The narrative is staged in his private
home, a domus, where we follow
two dinner guests Encolpius and his
boy-friend Giton, taking place and
experiencing the dinner. Precise descriptions of the domus environment
are given, such as wall paintings at
the entrance, the different courses
served, and the gossip around the
table. The social milieu described
in the book has attracted great attention for its realism, of which the
classic discussion is of Erich Auerbach (1953, pp. 24-33). Both in the
Vulgar Latin of the freedmen’s speeches and the details of their business
lives and amusements have all been
carefully studied by Petronius (Niall
1990, p. 51). It is therefore reasonable to believe that the physical environments of the dinner and bath,
and the actual bathing session are
correct according to the actual habits of Roman bathing. Also the placements of the baths seem to match
the archaeological record.
could be achieved within them.
The two bath rooms found in every
Pompeian bath facility are the tepidarium and the caldarium. These
rooms are, in most houses, small
vaulted cabinets, connected with
each other through low and narrow
entrances, where the caldarium is
the inner room. These rooms could
contain bath tubs or large bowls for
washing. In the chosen examples
there are no sign of doors or devices for hanging curtains dividing
the rooms by closing the entrances.
Neither are there doors or devices
for separating the bath from other
connecting rooms in the house. The
caldarium seems to be the most central and important room, reflected
both in heating devises, decoration,
placement, and size. The caldarium
is always larger than the tepidarium.
Often, bath suites also contained
swimming pools located in a garden
area or a separate room connected
to the bath suite. Inside the bath,
pools, tubs, benches and other bath
equipment is found.
Comparisons between Petronius’s
text and relevant archaeological material are earlier done, for instance
by Valerie M. Hope (2009) showing
the author’s focus on keeping the
environmental context of the story
close to Roman reality. Hope has
shown close relationships between
Roman funeral traditions, actual
tombs and epitaphs of Roman freedmen and Trimalchio’s tomb as described in the text. Being one of few
literary Ancient accounts of Roman
Bathing in Trimalchio’s
new money
The Dinner of Trimalchio is the sixth
chapter out of thirteen, forming the
book Satyricon by Petronius Arbiter. It is also the best preserved
part of the Satyricon (Niall 1990,
p. 50). Written in the age of Nero,
in the early sixties AD, the source
describes a dinner ritual held by the
rich freedman Trimalchio, where
110
KRISTIAN REINFJORD
tombs, Trimalchio’s tomb is a key
to understanding the many tombs
witnessed in the archaeological material. The written source therefore
provides insights into relationships
between the rational between predeath planning of monuments and
about processes of self-presentation
(Hope 2009, p. 159). Even though
there is a danger that few literary
sources becomes too influential,
here in understanding tombs, the
sources is valuable in understanding
thoughts and motivations behind
archaeological remains. Used with
precautions Trimalchio’s dinner can
give valuable insights, also to the
role of private baths of the republican domus.
source to actions within the Roman domus. Both source categories
are dated within a short time span,
where the written source dates to
around 60 AD, and the private bath
suites dates to BC 40 – 25.
As a part of the dinner, Trimalchio invites his guests to his private bath suite. Petronius describes
the bath, here in the translation of
P.G. Walsh. Quote: “the bath house
was narrow, shaped like a cold water tank (…)”. According to their
placement, the baths are reached
through a colonnade, indicating its
placement next to a peristyle. The
ritual takes place within the domus
of Trimalchio, in the text mentioned
as “a novel labyrinth” (Pet.Sat. 72).
It is therefore reasonable to resemble the setting in the text with the
houses and bath suites in Pompeii.
As a part of Trimalchio’s dinner, bathing takes place between courses
to make room for more food, and
dispel drunkenness. Bathing is in
Trimalchio’s dinner done together
with the house owner, who is bragging about his possibility to, quote:
“take a bath without being jostled”
(Pet.Sat. 73).
In Trimalchio’s dinner the role of
the domus in promoting the owner
is stressed. The main characters describe Trimalchio as a fool spending
so much money on luxury, but an
underlying admiration is sensed.
The book is satirical and should
be read as a critique and parody of
the luxuria and money spending in
Roman aristocratic life in the republic and early empire. The author
of Satyricon, Petronius Arbiter, is
thought to be the same as Arbiter
elegantiae being an advisor at Nero’s
court. Tacitus (Tac.Ann. 16.18) describes Petronius as a witty, sophisticated person, with insights into
Aristocratic lifestyle of the republic
and early empire. Being present at
the court of Nero, Petronius had
first-hand experience with lush life
behaviour, making him a reliable
The text on the actions taking place
in the bath suite of Trimalchio describes a laid back atmosphere where
the guests act as being in a public
bath. It is not a tense atmosphere,
but a sphere where gusts relax as
they were in their own home. Quote: “while Trimalchio was singing,
the guests were chasing round the
111
META 2015
bath-tub, holding hands, tickling
each other, and making a tremendous din; others with their hands
tied behind them were trying to
pick up rings from the floor, or were
on their knees bending their necks
backward and touching the tips of
their toes. While they were amusing
themselves, we got down into the
tub which was kept at the right temperature for Trimalchio” (Pet.Sat. 73,
after P.G. Walsh 1996, pp. 61-62).
After the bath ritual was finished the
guests were conducted into a second
dining-room. The dinner of Trimalchio give a glimpse into the domestic dinner ritual and seems to collide
well with the archaeological sources
on public spheres within the domus.
status on behalf of the owner, and
discussions on the domus has proposed a public use of every room
in the house (Allison 2004, pp.
6-8; Anguissola 2010; Dickmann
1999; Grahame 1998, 2000; Hales
2003, p. 133; Laurence & Wallace-Hadrill 1997; Leach 2004, pp.
1-54; Wallace-Hadrill 1994, pp.
5, 47; 2007). A central question is
how much personal involvement
the homeowner had in the choice
of rooms/layout, and whether design and subject matter were chosen randomly, in accordance with
taste and fashion, or on the basis of
conscious ideological perceptions.
It is assumed that the Romans took
an active role in designing their
houses. The general statement by
Anthony Giddens shows that: “[h]
uman actors are not only able to
monitor their activities and those
of others in the regularity of dayto-day conduct; they are also able
to “monitor the monitoring””, and
that they understand what they
do as they do it” (Giddens 1984,
p. 29). This applies to the Roman
world and signifies that the house
owner was able to observe his own
and other’s reactions to the architectural and decorative layout of
the domus, and that he was able
to put this observation into practice. It’s also a close relationship
between the architectural entity
of the domus and the activity that
went on within it (Wallace-Hadrill
1988, p. 45). Each room served as a
part of the general use of the house
as a grand reception area of guests.
The Communicating
Roman Domus
Roman domestic baths are found
within the sphere of the domus, the
main private architecture used by
aristocrats in the Roman republic.
The domus can be seen as an expression of the owner’s social identity, and as such it was instrumental
both in shaping and maintaining it.
Bettina Bergman (1994, p. 225) sees
the domus as “an extension of the
self ”. The Roman house was partly
public, and the owner would have
been assessed on the basis of it. It was
in the house that the paterfamilias,
the house owner, received his guests,
and maintained his business and
his patron/client relationships. The
house generated and communicated
112
KRISTIAN REINFJORD
Figure 1.Wallace-Hadrill’s cross-axis diagram shows the levels of social encounters established by
separating the public spaces in the house from the private ones.The diagram also shows which
people who frequent the different spheres (After Wallace-Hadrill 1994, p. 38).
In the domus, private areas are those
into which there is no possible entrance except by invitation, for instance like cubicula (bed rooms) or
triclinia (dinner rooms). Public areas
are those where uninvited members of
the public may enter by right, that is,
vestibules, some gardens or peristyles,
and any rooms that may perform this
sort of function. The architect Vitruvius (De.Arch. 6.5.1) writes in the
age of Augustus that people of moderate income do not need magnificent rooms such as vestibules, atria or
triclinia. Because they perform their
duties by visiting others, rather than
making their duties having others making rounds visiting them. Vitruvius
explains how the domus was divided
between public and private areas in
Antiquity, making a starting point for
modern scholars investigating distinctions of private had public in Roman
society. With Andrew Wallace-Hadrill
(1988; 1994) the division between
private/public in the domus was put
into a theoretical framework.
The framework of Wallace-Hadrill
is based on a cross-axis diagram
(fig. 1) in which the levels of social
encounters could be established by
separating the public spaces in the
house from the private ones, and
grandly decorated rooms from the
humble ones. Wallace-Hadrill’s
(1994, p. 38) figure illustrates the
division of the house into two main
spheres in accordance with grandeur and accessibility. The diagram
also shows what kind of people who
engaged with the different spheres,
and has shown a useful approach in
understanding the social use of the
Roman domus (e g. Brandt 2004).
It is therefore interesting to sort out
the placements of the bath suites
within the houses. It is important
to which type of rooms they are
connected, and in which sphere of
the house the baths are placed. In
the Vesuvian city of Pompeii several
houses are preserved showing wall
paintings and mosaics actively used
by each house owner to provoke
113
META 2015
certain functions and reactions to
each room. Each room of the domus was decorated and furnished
to evoke certain feelings (WallaceHadrill 1994). Therefore, a study of
decoration will also provide clues of
private and public and contribute to
a humble or grand placement in the
cross-axis diagram
same social functions as the public
baths. These private bath suites are
mainly dated to the Late Republic,
but were later often redecorated
and changed. Dating is often seen
in the wall decorations, in Pompeii
differentiated into the four styles,
where the second style dates to the
Late Republic (40 – 25 BC). The
third style is introduced in the age
of Augustus. My empirical evidence
is chosen from a selection of baths
located in the Pompeian domus.
This is a less studied corpus of evidence. Even though domestic baths
are briefly mentioned in the general
literature of Roman baths and bathing, few in depth studies are done
on the private baths of Pompeii (De
Haan 1993, 1994, 1996, 2010;
Fabricotti 1976; Mygind 1918,
1924; Parslow 1989). I here intend
to show a representative selection
of five houses and their placement
within the domus, chosen due to
state of preservation and different
placement within the houses.
Placement of Domestic bath
suites in Pompeii
16 private baths are found in private
houses throughout the city of Pompeii: Casa del Criptoportico (I, 6, 2),
Casa di Paquius Proculus (I, 7, 1),
Casa dell’ Efebo (I, 7, 10), Casa del
Menandro (I 10, 4), Casa di Trebius
Valens (III, 2, 1), Casa del Torello
(V, 1, 7), Casa delle Nozze d’ Argento (V, 2, 1), Casa del Laberinto
(VI, 11, 8-10), Casa del Fauno (VI,
12, 2), Casa del Bracciale d’Oro
(VI, 17, 42-44), Casa di Caesius
Blandus (VII, 1, 40), Casa di Cinque Scheletri (VII, 14, 9), Casa di
Marinaio (VII, 15, 1.2.15), Casa di
Fabius Rufus (VII, 16, 17.20-22),
Casa del Centenario (IX, 8, 3-7),
Casa di M. Obellius Firmus (IX,
14, 2-4), Casa di Guiseppe II (VIII,
2, 39). Also, two villas outside the
city walls, the Villa dei Misteri and
the Villa di Diomedes, are equipped
with domestic baths. This article
focuses on a sample of four of the
larger bath suites found in the domus of Pompeii, here understood as
resembling public baths. It is proposed that they also serve some of the
The first house in my sample, the
Casa delle Nozze d’ Argento (5, ii,
1) is one of the larger and wealthier houses in Pompeii, and the
bath rooms correspond with the
house in that matter (Beyen 1960,
pp. 43-71; De Haan 2010, pp.
189-96; De Vos/De Vos 1988, pp.
211-12; Di Capua 1940, p. 127;
Ehrhardt 2004; Fabbricotti 1976,
pp. 80-81; Mau 1893, pp. 51-55;
1908, p. 322; Mygind 1924; Pernice 1938, p. 51; Pesano/Guidobaldi 2006, pp. 155-158; Richardson
114
KRISTIAN REINFJORD
Figure 2. In the Casa delle Nozze d’ Argento, the bath is placed on the western side of the
peristyle (after Allison 2004, p. 217).
period of the house and redecorated in the 2nd style. The bath suite
showed a strong presence and use by
the Late Republican aristocrat owning the house. The bath is placed
on the western side of the peristyle,
and contains four rooms laying in a
row: apodyterium, frigidarium, tepidarium, and caldarium. It also has
a pool (piscina) found in a separate
room. The apodyterium is connected with the luxurious triclinium
where the pater familias of the house dined his guests. A mosaic floor
leads the guests to the bath suite
(De Haan 2010, p. 190). The baths
of the Casa delle Nozze d’Argento
are reached through the peristyle’s
1988, pp. 155-59; Sogliano 1896,
p. 430). The house was owned by
Albucius Celsus, and is found on a
minor side street, the Vicolo delle
Nozze Argento. The house was excavated in 1893, and dated to the
late tufa period, the Late Republic,
some years after 80 BC. But later,
the house was rebuilt and repainted
to fit the demanding need of the
Republican patron. It’s suggested
that the bath was built during the
second period of the house based
on the 2nd style decorations (40 –
25 BC) (Beyen 1960, p. 47). Mau
(1893, 53) earlier suggested an older date, when he thought that the
bath was already built in the first
115
META 2015
south eastern corner, where the first
room is the apodyterium fig. 2). On
the northern wall are two doors,
one leading into the tepidarium,
the other leads to an outdoor garden room with the pool. The rooms
are decorated in the 2nd and the
3rd style, where the second style is
found closest to the entrance, and
the third style with marble decorations is found further into the bath.
dobaldi 2006). The bath is placed
next to the tablinum in front of the
peristyle’s outermost part, and looks
like a little house within the house
with its own little stair leading into
the bath. The bath is reached from
a room between the atrium and peristyle, which binds these two together. In the south-eastern corner
of this room a masonry stair, supported by the peristyle wall, leads
up into the vaulted entrance to the
tepidarium. The room is decorated
in the 2nd style, showing figures
and different animals (Fiorelli 1875,
p. 175; Overbeck and Mau 1884, p.
284).
The Casa di Caestius Blandus (8, i,
40) descends from the early periods
of Pompeii, and the house is placed
on the corner of Strada degli Augustali and Vico del Lupanare. The
building date of the house is debated, but is either built in the late
third century BC, or in the eighties
BC after the Roman annexation of
the city. Mau (1882, p. 269) and
Pernice (1938, p. 53) argue for dating the building to the tufa period.
Beyen (1960, p. 235) suggests an
earlier date. More interesting here is
the rebuilding of the house dated to
the 2nd style (40 – 25 BC) when
the private bath suite was built,
together with the peristyle (Beyen
1960, p. 238). The bath contains
two rooms: an apodyterium-tepidarium and a caldarium, placed to the
east of the tablinum (Beyen 1960,
pp. 234-238 and 247-249; Clarke
1979, p. 61; De Haan 2010, pp.
206-11; De Vos/De Vos 1988, p.
206; Di Capua, 1940, p. 128; Fabbricotti 1976, pp. 52-53; Fiorelli
1875, p. 174; Mygind 1924, pp. 3438; Overbeck/Mau 1884, p. 282;
Pernice 1938, p. 54; Pesando/Gui-
The large Casa di Centenario (9,
vii, 1) is found on the south side of
Strada di Nola is one of the largest
houses in Pompeii (Blake 1936, p.
61; De Haan 2010, pp. 223-28; De
Vos/De Vos 1988, p. 213; Dickmann 1999, p. 258; Fabbricotti
1976, pp. 73-74; Mau 1879, pp.
150-51; 1881, pp. 229-33; 1882,
pp. 112-113; Mygind 1924, pp. 4755; Overbeck/Mau 1884, p. 258;
Pernice 1938, p. 44; Richardson
1988, pp. 126-27; Riemenschneider
1986, pp. 198-99 and 298-99; Santoro 2007, pp. 153-56 Santoro et.al
2005, pp. 237-38; Schfold 1957,
pp. 277-78; Pesano/Guidobaldi
2006, pp. 237-40). It was excavated
in 1879-1881 and bear witness of
Republican splendor and greatness
with its double atrium and a very
large peristyle. It is suggested that
the bath suite was built in the last
century BC, making it a Republican
116
KRISTIAN REINFJORD
Figure 3.The baths of the Casa del Menandro is connected to the service and living part of the
house, and is reached from the peristyle (after Allison 2004, p. 205).
bath, later being redecorated in the
3rd style (De Vos/De Vos 1988, p.
127). The bath suite contains four
rooms: frigidarium, apodyterium,
tepidarium and caldarium. The
bath is placed east of the peristyle
in the middle of a series of servant
rooms and is reached through a long
and narrow corridor stretching from
the peristyle with a westward slanted
roof, stretching above the eastern
wall of a large open court yard covering parts of the room. The floor of
the bath is raised above the previous
room, and must have been reached
by a wooden stair. In the southern
part of the large open court a large
masonry pool is placed, decorated
117
META 2015
with the 4th style. The tepidarium
is reached through a vaulted entrance. The other rooms are also decorated in the 4th style showing a polyp,
fish, dolphins, and leaves.
Ling 1997, pp. 61-67, 90-92, 13237; 1983a; Ling 1983b; Ling/Ling
2005, pp. 56-67, 98-99, 243-53;
Maiuri 1933, pp. 121-58; Mielsch
1975, pp. 19, 109-110; Pernice
1938, pp. 59-60; Pesando/Guidobaldi 2006, pp. 113-22, 115, 11718; Richardson 1988, pp. 159-61).
On the western side of the entrance
is a large garden, contributing to
the extravagant experience created
by the bath.
The Casa del Menandro (1, x, 4)
was excavated in 1926-1932 and
dated its origin back to the late
third century BC. The house has a
long and complex building history
with many phases. The publication
by August Maiuri (1933, p. 22-25)
describes the different rooms of the
house and bath, later errata by Roger Ling (1997, p. 47-144). The
house was enlarged during the Late
Republic and the bath suite was added during this last building period,
dating the bath between 40 – 25
BC. The house went through different changes in the Age of Augustus
and after the earthquake of AD 62.
Restorations were done to the bath
suite, which also then was decorated in the 4th style, showing that
the bath was still in use in the later
periods of Pompeii (De Haan 2010,
p. 172). The Casa del Menandro
was also inhabited in 79 AD. The
bath suite consists of tepidarium,
caldarium, atrium, a small apodyterium and a laconicum and is placed in the South Western corner of
the house, and is connected to the
service and living part of the house,
and is reached from the peristyle
(fig. 3) (Clarke 1979; De Haan
2010, pp. 172-183; De Vos/ De Vos
1988, pp. 90-97; Dickmann 1999,
pp. 260-262; Fabricotti 1976, pp.
87-89; Kastenmeier 2007, p. 130;
Sources in harmony: Public in
Domestic contexts
The placements of the chosen bath
suites show an interesting pattern,
corresponding to the descriptions in
Trimalchio’s dinner. The baths are
placed on the peristyle or atrium,
both rooms with public connotations. The peristyle, a colonnaded
open courtyard, is thought to be a
public area within the domus, but a
bit more exclusive than the atrium
(Dickmann 1997, p. 136; 1999,
p. 313-22; Grahame 1998, p. 140;
Wallace-Hadrill 1997, p. 239).
The theoretical organisation of the
rooms reflects sociological structures, and it’s thought that the baths
served a semi-public function as
read in Trimalchio’s dinner. In the
Late republic and Early Empire the
functions of rooms got more defined, when the atrium gained use
as a main entrance hall, and the
peristyle connects to the reception
and dining areas of the house. The
Peristyle functioned as reception
118
KRISTIAN REINFJORD
that written sources could be particularly useful when describing how
spaces are used and viewed. Ancient
views are confirmed in the archaeological evidence, contributing to a
broader context than described in
the historical evidence. At the same
time built environments affected
actions and social aspects. Having
a scenario of Roman society as seen
in Pompeii, we are allowed to zoom
out and map both a material and
historical context of our written
sources, contributing to fuller and
more reliable interpretations of the
foreign country of the past.
areas for amici of the paterfamilias.
To get into the bath suite, guests
had to be invited, but it was not necessary to be family. The tablinum
and triclinium, rooms used for the
actual dinner, are also often placed
on the peristyle. It is also worth noticing that all bath suites in the sample were built in the Late Republic
when the symbolic value of the domus played the most important part
promoting the Roman aristocrat.
Viewing written and material sources in harmony opens a wider perspective on understanding the social
role of the Roman domestic bath.
The sources should be used together
in a known context and discussed,
each on the premise of the other. In
the Dinner of Trimalchio the analogical value is informative when
reading the descriptions of bath
rooms, their placements, and the
actions taking place in the archaeological context of the domus as
a stage. In understanding the built
environments of the past, I believe,
Kristian Reinfjord is a Classical archaeologist and architectural historian from Norway,
currently working as a building antiquarian
at the Hedmark municipality. He has published on Roman art and architecture, the
history of architecture and cultural Heritage.
E-mail: [email protected]
119
META 2015
References
•Antique sources are cited according to Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition.
•Allison, P. (2004). Pompeian Households: An analysis of material Culture. Los Angeles:
The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
•Andrén, A. (1998). Between Artefacts and Texts. Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. Translated by A. Crozier, Contributions to global historical archaeology, London
& New York.
•Anguissola, A. (2010). Intimitá a Pompei. Riservatezza, condivisione e prestigio negli
abienti ad alcove di Pompei. Berlin & New York: De Gruyer.
•Auerbach, E. (1953). Mimesis. Translated by W.R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
•Barton, C. A. (1993). The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
•Becatti, G. (1961). Scavi di Ostia 4. Mosaici e pavimenti marmorei. Roma: Libreria dello
Stato.
•Bergman, B. (1994). The Roman House as Memory Theater: The House of the Tragic
Poet in Pompeii. The Art Bulletin 26, pp.225-256.
•Beyen, H. G. (1960). Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten
Stil. Haag: Gravenhage.
•Blake, M. E. (1936). Roman Mosaics of the Second Century in Italy. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 13, pp. 67-214.
•Bonfante, L. (1989). Nudity as a costume in Classical Art. American Journal of Archaeology 93, pp. 543-570.
•Brandt, J. R. (2004). Movements and Views. Some observations on the Organisation of
Space in Roman Domestic architecture from the Late Republic to Early Medieval times.
Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 18, pp. 11-53.
•Bremer, C. & A. Raevuori. (1986). The World of the Sauna. Helsinki: Werner Söderström
Osakeyhtiö.
•Brödner, E. (1983). Die romischen Thermen und das antike Badewesen: Eine kulturhistorische Betrachtung. Berlin: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
•Clarke, J. R. (1979). Roman Black-and-White Figural Mosaics. New York: College Art
Association.
•Clarke, J. R. (1991). The Houses of Roman Italy 100 BC – AD 250: Ritual, Space and
Decoration. Berkley: University of California Press.
•Clarke, J. R. (1998). Looking at Lovemaking. Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art
100 B.C. – A.D. 250. Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.
•Clarke, J. R. (2003). Roman Sex 100 B.C. – A.D. 250. New York: Harry Abrams.
120
KRISTIAN REINFJORD
•Clarke, J. R. (2007). Looking at Laughter. Humour, Power, and Transgression in Roman
Visual Culture, 100 B.C- - A. D. 250. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.
•De Haan, N. (1993). Dekoration und Funktion in den Privatbädern von Pompeji und
Herculaneum. Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall painting, Proceedings of the Fifth
International Congress of Ancient Wall Painting, Amsterdam, 8-12 September 1992, Eric
M. Moorman (ed.). Leiden: Babesch, Buletin Antieke Beschaving.
•De Haan, N. (1994). Roman Private Baths. Balnearia 2(2), pp. 8-9.
•De Haan, N. (1996). Die Wasserversorgung der Privatbäder in Pompeji. Cura Aquarum
in Campania, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress on the History of Water
Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Pompeii 1-8 October 1994, Nathalie de Haan & Gemma C.M. Jansen (eds). Leiden.
•De Haan, N. (2010). Römische Privatbäder. Entwicklung,Verbreitung, Struktur und sozialer Status. Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang Verlag der Wisseschften.
•DeLaine, J. & D. E. Johnston (eds.) (1999). Roman Baths and Bathing – proceedings of the
first international conference on Roman baths held at Bath, England, 30 March – 4 April
1992. Portsmouth, Rhode Island.
•De Vos, M. & A. De Vos. (1988). Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia. Guide archeologiche Laterza 11.
Roma: Bari.
•Di Capua, F. (1940). Appunti sull’origine e lo sviluppo delle terme romane. Rendiconti
della Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti 20, pp. 83-155.
•Dickmann, J-A. (1997). The Peristyle and the transformation of Domestic Space in Hellenistic Pompeii. Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. R. Laurence
& A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), JRA Supplementary series 22, Portsmouth.
•Dickmann, J-A. (1999). Domus frequentata: Anspruchsvolles Wohnen im pompejanischen
Stadthaus. München:Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.
•Donderer, M. (1986). Die Chronologie der romischen Mosaiken in Venetien und Istrien
bis zur Zeit der Antonine. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
•Dunbabin, K. M. D. (1989). Baiarum Grata Voluptas: Pleasures and Dangers of the Baths.
Papers of the British School at Rome LVII, pp. 6-46.
•Ehrhardt, W. (2004). Casa di Nozze d’Argento (V, 2, i). Häuser in Pompeji 12. München:
Hirmer.
•Fabbricotti, E. (1976). I bagni nelle prime ville romane. Cronache Pompeiane II. Napoli: G.
Macchiaroli, pp. 29-111.
•Fagan, G. (1999). Bathing in public in the Roman World. University of Michigan Press.
•Fiorelli, G. (1875). Descrizione di Pompei. Napoli.
•Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
Cambridge: Polity
121
META 2015
•Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of the Self in everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre Monograph 2.
•Grahame, M. (1998). Material Culture and Roman Identity: The Spatial Layout of Pompeian Houses and the Problem of Ethnicity. Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. R.
Laurence & J. Berry (eds.). London & New York: Routledge.
•Grahame, M. (2000). Reading Space: Social Interaction and Identity in the Roman Houses
of Pompeii: A Syntactical Approach to the Analysis and Interpretation of Built Space. BAR
International Series 886.
•Hales, S. (2003). The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•Heinz, W. (1983). Römische Thermen. Badewesen und Badeluxus im Römischen Reich.
München: Hirmer.
•Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in Action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•Johns, C. (1982). Sex or Symbol – Erotic images of Greece and Rome. UK: Taylor &
Francis.
•Kastenheimer, P. (2007). I luoghi del lavoro domestic nella casa pompeiana. Roma: Studi
della Soperintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 23.
•Hope,V. M. (2009). At home with the Dead. Roman funeral traditions and Trimalchio’s
tomb. Petronius. A Handbook. J. Prag & I. Repath (eds.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.
140-160.
•La Rocca, E, M. & A. De Vos. (1981). Guida Archeologica di Pompei. Second ed. Milano:
Arnoldo Mondadori Editore.
•Laurence, R. & A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.). (1997). Domestic Space in the Roman World:
Pompeii and Beyond. JRA Supplementary Series 22, Portsmouth, RI.
•Leach, E. W. (1988). The Rhetoric of Space: Literary and Artistic Representations of
Landscapes in Republican and Augustan Rome. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
•Leach, E. W. (1993). The Entrance room in the house of Iulius Polybius and the nature of
Roman Vestibulum. Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting: Proceedings of the fifth
International Congress on Ancient Wall Painting, Amsterdam, 8-12 September 1992, E.M.
Moormann (ed.), Amsterdam: Stichting Babesch.
•Leach, E. W. (2004). The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•Levi, D. (1941). The Evil Eye and the Lucky Hunchback. Antioch-on-the-Orontes. R. Stillwell (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
•Ling, R. (1972). Stucco-decoration in pre-augustan Italy. Papers of the British School at
Rome 40, pp. 11-57.
•Ling, R. (1983a). The Insula of Menander at Pompeii: interim Report. The Antiquaries
Journal 63, pp. 34-57.
122
KRISTIAN REINFJORD
•Ling, R. (1983b). The Baths of the Casa del Menandro at Pompeii. Pompeii, Herculaneum,
Stabiae. Bolletino. Associazione internazionale Amici di Pompei 1, pp 49-59.
•Ling, R. (1997). The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii.Volume I: The Structures. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
•Ling, R & L. Ling. (2005). The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii.Volume II: The Decorations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
•Maiuri, A. (1933). La Casa del Menandro e il suo Tesoro di argenteria. Roma: Libreria
dello Stato.
•Mau, A. (1879). Pompejanische Beiträge. Berlin.
•Mau, A. (1882). Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji. Berlin: Reimer.
•Mau, A. (1893). Fuhrer durch Pompeji. Napoli: Furchheim.
•Mau, A. (1908). Pompeji in Leben und Kunst. Leipzig.
•Mielsch, H. (1975). Römische Stuckreliefs. Heidelberg: Kerle-Verlag.
•Mooris, I. (2000). Archaeology as Cultural History. Blackwell, Oxford.
•Mygind, H. (1918). Hygiejniske Forhold i Oldtidens Pompeji, København: Henrik Koppels
Forlag.
•Mygind, H. (1924). Badene i de pompejanske privathuse. Studier fra sprog - og oldtidsforskning, Det filologisk-historiske samfund nr. 132. København: Povl Branner
•Newby, Z. (2005). Greek Athletics in the Roman Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•Nielsen, I. (1990). Thermae et Balnea. The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman
Public Baths. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
•Overbeck, J. & A. Mau. (1884). Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthürmen unf Kunstwerken. Leipzig.
•Parslow, C. C. (1989). The Praedia Iuliae Felicis in Pompeii. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke
University.
•Pasquinucci, M. (1987). Terme romane e vita quotidiana. Modena: Panini Franco Cosimo.
•Pernice, E. (1938). Pavimente und figürliche Mosaike. Die Hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji
6. Berlin: W. de Gruyter & Co.
•Pesano, F. & M. P. Guidobaldi. (2006). Pompei Oplontis Ercolano Stabiae. Guide Archeologiche Laterza. Roma: Bari
•Richardson, L. (1988). Pompeii: An Architectural History. Baltimore.
•Riemenschneider, U. (1986). Pompejanische Stuckgesimse des Dritten und Vierten Stils.
Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
•Santoro, S. et. al. (2005). Pompei. Insula del Centenario (IX, 8). Saggi di Scavo 1999-2004,
Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 16, pp. 211-256.
•Santoro, S. (ed..) (2007). Progetto Insula del Centenario (IX, 8). Indagini diagnostiche
geofisiche e analisi archeometriche. Bologna.
123
META 2015
•Scott, G. R. (1966). Phallic Worship: A history of sex and sex rites in relation to the
religions of all races from antiquity to the present day. London: Luxor Press.
•Slater, N. W. (1990). Reading Petronius. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.
•Sogliano, A. (1896). Boscoreale – Scoperta di una villa rustica. Notizie degli scavi di
antichità 1895, pp. 207-214.
•Spinazzola,V. (1953). Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di Via dell’Abbondanza (anni
1910-1923). Roma: La Libera della Stato.
•Squassi, F. (1954). L’arte indro-sanitaria degli antichi. Epocha preromana e romana, Tolentino: Tipografia Filelfo.
•Thomsen, M-L. (1992). The Evil Eye in Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51,
pp. 19-32.
•Thompson, L. A. (1989). Romans and Blacks. Oklahoma: Norman.
•Turnbull, P. (1968). The Phallus in the Art of Roman Britain. Bulletin of the Institute of
Archaeology 15, pp. 199-206.
•Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1988). The Social Structure of the Roman House. Papers from the
British School at Rome 56, pp. 43-97.
•Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1994). Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton
and New York: Princeton University Press.
•Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1997). Rethinking the Roman Atrium House. Domestic Space in the
Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Laurence, R. & A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), RI: Portsmouth.
•Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2007). Development in the Campanian House. The World of Pompeii. J. J. Dobbins & P. W. Foss (eds.), New York: Routledge.
•Walsh, P. G. (1996). Petronius. The Satyricon. Translated with Introduction and Explanatory Notes by P.G. Walsh. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
•Weitzmann, K. (1947). Illustrations in Roll and Codex. A Study of the Origin and Method
of Text Illustration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
•Yegül, F. (1992). Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts, &
London: The MIT Press.
•Yegül, F. (2010). Bathing in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•Zanker, P. (1998). Pompeii – Public and Private Life. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
124
Stratigrafi i Birka 1991-2011
Björn Ambrosiani
Stratigraphy in Birka 1991-2011. The comprehensive excavations in the Black Earth in
Birka, on the island of Björkö 1990-1995, generated a vast record of stratified information. This paper describes post-excavation analysis of the stratigraphy and activities of the
first century of the settlements 200-year long existence.
Ett av de första stratigrafiska problemkomplex, som togs upp av
stratigrafikonferenserna i början av
1990-talet, var Birka. Undersökningarna där under åren 1990-1995 bedrevs efter en försöksperiod år 1990
med i huvudsak single-context metodik. Digitaliserad mätning med totalstation och ett registreringssystem
med R(egister)-enheter (ca 7000),
S(tratigrafiska) enheter (ca 4000) och
en halvautomatiserad fyndregistrering var en nödvändighet i det upp
till ca 2 m tjocka, fyndrika kulturlagret. Grävningen omfattade ca 350m2
och kulturlagren var så gott som helt
mineraliserade, mycket rika på sten
men saknade trä. Fyndmaterialet var
omfattande med ca 75000 fyndposter
i databasen och 6000 kg osteologiskt
material i form av avfall från hushållning och t.ex. beredningsprocesser för
pälsverk.
Vid utgrävningen utkristalliserades
snart ett par tomter med mellanliggande gata över en stenbrygga på
Birkas ursprungliga strand. På andra
sidan om den ena, totalutgrävda,
tomten fanns ytterligare en passage.
Den totalutgrävda tomten uppfattades ha 8 bebyggelsefaser, av vilka den
första bestod av konstruktioner på
stranden, och faserna 2-5 omfattade
en bronsgjutarverkstad, där alla föremålstyper, som man brukar datera
till den första halvan av 800-talet, var
tillverkade. En närmare analys av kronologin i denna verkstad ger en helt
ny insikt i vikingatidens formvärld.
I samband med fältarbetets avslutande upprättades en omfattande matris.
Vid den första analysen av matrisen
sammanställdes vertikala grupper
ur denna till anläggningar (ca 120),
vilka fördelades på de åtta faserna.
125
META 2015
Denna indelningsgrund har använts
vid de hittillsvarande analyserna av
fyndmaterialet från grävningen. För
studiet av bronsgjutarverkstaden var
denna stratigrafiska analys däremot
inte tillräckligt preciserad för att
kunna ge utslagsgivande resultat.
Inte heller strandfasen verkade vara
tillräckligt differentierad, då ingen
hänsyn var tagen till landhöjningsförhållandena i Mälarområdet. En
revidering av systemet behövdes för
att bättre kunna förstå dessa båda
problemställningar.
Denna tidskrävande process drog ut
över nära åtta år innan färdiga nya
fasplaner kunde sammanställas och
läggas till grund före en fördelning
i höjd- och ytled av fyndmaterialet.
Sammanlagt har hittills ca 2/3-delar av dokumentationsmaterialet
dragits in i revideringen. Återstoden, som avser faserna 6-8, återstår
att göra. Manuskript för en första
volym för Birka Studies om stratigrafin är nu (2015) färdigställd och
publicerad som Birka Studies, Vol.
9, 2013.
Revideringen påbörjades år 2000
genom en första ny analys av de
konstruktioner och lagerföljder,
som ansågs tillhöra strandzonen och
fas 1. Häri ingick bryggor, vågbrytare och avgränsningar i form av diken mellan de äldsta tomterna sydost om den aktuella grävningsytan.
Jag skall här ge några exempel på
hur revideringen har gått till och
dess resultat.
Ett karakteristiskt exempel från den
första analysfasen är anläggningen
A2 (fig. 1). De S-enheter, som ansågs höra till A2 är markerade med
fetstil. Över och under dessa finns
de enheter, som enligt kontextblanketten skulle ligga över respektive
under den aktuella. I detta fall är
S2320 särskilt anmärkningsvärd.
Denna enhet tillhörande A19 delar vertikalt A2 i två grupper, vilka
därför i det fortsatta arbetet fick
beteckningarna A2u och A2ö. Liknande uppdelningar blev nödvändiga i så gott som alla de analyserade
anläggningarna.
Kontrollmatriser upprättades för de
aktuella anläggningarna. Verktygen
härför var de kontextblanketter för
S-enheterna, som hade upprättats
manuellt under grävningen, och de
linjeplottar, som fanns för respektive S- och R-enhet i GIS-systemet.
Redan här uppstod svårigheter, då i
flera fall S-enheter i en anläggning
tydligt visade sig ligga i helt andra
konstellationer, skilda från sin föreslagna kontext genom S-enheter,
tillhörande andra anläggningar.
Däremot fanns också S-enheter i
bebyggelselagren, som bättre passade in i strandfasen. Revideringen
behövde därför fortsätta upp genom
verkstadslagren i fas 2-5.
Så småningom utkristalliserades,
inte minst med hjälp av de S-enheter som täckte en större yta, ”golv”,
på vilka låg en härd och eventuella
begränsade aktivitetslager (fig. 2).
De till ytan större enheter, som an-
126
BJÖRN AMBROSIANI
Figur 1. Ursprunglig analys av A2, vars S-enheter är markerade med fetstil.Yttäckande större
enheter är markerade med symboler enligt sin placering i delnivåer i den nya stratigrafin.
Figur 2. Preliminär sammanställning av golvnivåer med tillhörande härdar och aktivitetslager.
Symbolmarkeringar som i figur 1.
(fig. 3-4). Sammanlagt sammanställdes 19 delnivåer inom bronsgjutartomten, vartill kommer stranden
och anläggningar på denna under
fas 1, två nivåer med utjämnande
lager som förberedelse för tomtens
användning, två brand- och raseringslager som avslutar faserna 2
respektive 3, samt slutligen några
fasövergripande diken och gropar.
vändes som stommar i dessa ”golv”,
är markerade med symboler i båda
figurerna. ”Golven” fördelade sig till
en början tydligt på olika hörn av
tomten, ibland med direktkontakt
eller överlappningar i gränsen mot
andra delar av tomten. Golven blev
så småningom delnivåer i respektive
fas. Nya planer upprättades därefter
för varje delnivå över hela tomten
127
META 2015
Figur 3. Områdesindelning för den nya stratigrafin.
Figur 4. Plan för fas B1, delnivå 1 (B11). På strandplanet i 6-metersnivån ligger en stor stenbrygga.Tomtdiken och minst tre gärdsgårdslinjer, som avgränsar de äldsta tomterna mot stranden,
finns i den SÖ högst belägna delen av strandområdet.
128
BJÖRN AMBROSIANI
Figur 5. Plan delnivå B26, ca 810 e.Kr. Längs den NÖ passagen står en tvårumsbyggnad med en
stor härd i mittlinjen av bostadsrummet. Den bakomliggande boddelen i SÖ är starkt skadad av
Hjalmar Stolpes schakt på 1870-talet. Huset har mot passagen en stavvägg av stående plank
och mot tomten en flätverksvägg. Den N gaveln markeras av ett par stolphål och rikligt med
rester av den brand som avslutade delnivån. SV om huset stod ett par bodar med flätverksväggar.
avfallsmassor som dränerande fyllning, troligen från avfallsdumpar
inne på tomten. Därvid hade ofta
uppstått omvända lagerföljder med
de yngsta föremålen i botten och de
äldsta överst.
Denna komplicerade bild kunde
inte visas tillfredsställande med de
iakttagna uppdelningarna av de tidigare antagna anläggningarna. Ett
nytt system byggdes upp med fas,
delnivå och delområde som grund.
Tomten och de båda passagerna delades in i delområden, varav fyra låg
inne på tomten och fyra låg i passagerna (fig. 5). En anläggning med
beteckningen B263 är då belägen
i fas B2, delnivå 6 och i huvudsak
i delområde 3. Den fortsatta analysen visade också att lagerföljden
inne på tomten hade byggts upp
kontinuerligt, medan passagerna,
som troligen under långa tider varit
täckta av kavelbroar, stötvis tillförts
För att närmare demonstrera dessa
förhållanden markerades texten i
kolumnerna i ett nytt stratigrafiskt
schema (fig. 6) med oformaterad
text för de ackumulerade lagren
inne på tomten och kursiverad text
för de omlagrade lagren ute i passagerna. Omlagrade fynd i strandgruset och kring de äldsta konstruktionerna i fas B1 är dock kronologiskt
låst genom lagerföljden på den över-
129
META 2015
Figur 6. Grafiskt schema av den nya stratigrafin med fas- och delnivåindelning i den första kolumnen och områdesindelningen i rubrikraden. Oformaterad text visar ackumulerade lager inne
på tomten, kursiverad text redeponerade lager i passagerna. Understruken text visar de i regel
omlagrade nivåerna från 700-talet, låsta genom den ca 790 grundade bronsgjutarverkstaden.
liggande bronsgjutartomten och har
därför markerats särskilt, med understruken text.
föremålskategorier och t.ex. ben av
olika djurarter går därefter att visa
överskådligt med hjälp av schemana. Som exempel kan fördelningen
av gjutformsbitar för olika ovalspännetyper, och lödpaket för framställning av hänglås användas (fig. 7),
men liknande scheman har också
upprättats för en lång rad andra föremålsgrupper. Verkstadsproduktionen började troligen i delområde 1
Först sedan detta schema hade färdigställts fördelades fyndmaterialet
på respektive B-enhet (bebyggelseenhet). B ersätter här på så sätt
den vanliga beteckningen A för
”anläggning”. Den stratigrafiska
fördelningen av olika fyndtyper,
130
BJÖRN AMBROSIANI
Figur 7. Produktionen i bronsgjutarens verkstad flyttades mellan olika arbetsområden på tomten.
Sammanställningen visar de viktigaste arbetsområdena för framställning av ovalspännen och
hänglås av järn (degeltyp ”77”). Produktionen flyttades mellan olika arbetsområden allteftersom
nya byggnader sattes upp eller brann/revs på tomten. Symbolkoder som i figur 6.
för att sedan under fas B3 och B4
koncentreras till delområde 3, där
huvuddelen av gjutformsfragmenten för P27A fanns.
varianterna, och sedan P41-42 till
detta delområde. Under verkstadens
slutskede, fas B5 (850-talet), tillverkades främst andra enklare varianter
av platta föremål som hängen och
nycklar, varefter verkstaden brann
och upphörde på denna plats.
I delnivå B42 öppnades en ny verkstadsplats på tomtens västra del, delområde 6, som kom att producera
mängder av hänglås. Så småningom
överfördes också ovalspänneproduktionen med först P37, de rena
Genom detaljeringsgraden i systemet kan en kronologi för tillverkningen av de olika spännetyperna
131
META 2015
upprättas med en intervall av 3-4 år
för varje delnivå. Utan att här närmare gå in på grunderna för dateringen tycks den aktuella sekvensen
börja omkring år 790±5 och sluta
omkring år 860-870. De stratigrafiska schemana blir på så sätt ett
viktigt hjälpmedel för förståelsen
av 800-talets kronologi och utvecklingen av bosättningen på en tomt
i Birka. Förändringar av tomtgränserna, nybyggnader av husen och
utnyttjandet av tomtytan kan bestämmas noggrannare och ger oss
helt andra möjligheter än tidigare
att komma människorna i denna del
av staden inpå livet.
Björn Ambrosiani, professsor och
projektledare för Riksantikvarieämbetets
Birkautgrävning 1990-1995.
E-post: [email protected]
132
The horizontal stratigraphy of
a medieval hamlet
- Mankby in Espoo, Finland
Ulrika Rosendahl
The medieval hamlet Mankby in Espoo, Southern Finland, excavated from 2007–2013,
has revealed a landscape that reflects the complex development of the region – from the
initial Swedish colonization to the emergence of an established medieval village, a village
that was abruptly dissolved in 1556, when the freeholding peasants were forced to leave
their land to the royal demesne that the Swedish king Gustavus Vasa founded on this
spot. This study explores this landscape change, and the different layers in the landscape
through analyse of historical maps combined with data from archaeological field work.
The land use in the area gives a quite stable impression from the end of the middle ages to
the enlightenment, even though a drastic change in the experienced landscape appeared
when the demesne took over the land. In contrast, the medieval hamlet period from the
13th to the mid-16th century show shifts in the land use and movements within the toftland that reflects the dynamics of the medieval period and shifts in agricultural technique.
Introduction
project at Helsinki University and Espoo city museum since 2007 (eg. Haggrén, Holappa, Knuutinen, Rosendahl
2010). Since then, our research has
moved forward, and the results that
we have gained from the excavations
have become possible to discuss in the
context of the surrounding landscape.
The reading of layers in the landscape,
and looking at long-term changes as
well as events that had a quick and radical impact on the landscape has become an important way of analysing
the archaeological material. The horizontal stratigraphy of a medieval landscape is, like any stratigraphy, a puzzle
of observations and interpretations.
This article will present the research
from Mankby, a medieval hamlet site
in Espoo in southern Finland. The
hamlet has been excavated during a
One of the main aims of the studies
of Mankby has been to understand
the structures behind the formation
of hamlets and settlement in southern
Finland. The formation of the settle-
133
META 2015
rent angle. By using the terminology
of stratigraphy, which we know from
fieldwork and excavations, it aims
to walk through the different stages
in history, as they were stratigraphic
contexts, or layers, that have accumulated themselves in the landscape.
The choice of word, the layer is to be
grasped as a metaphor for the experienced and used landscape that has
been present in a specific period in
history. As some of these features are
visible today, while some are covered
by more recent strata, the process to
read the landscape can be compared
to a contextual excavation, where the
newer layers are removed one by one
in order to reveal older levels.
ment is not a coincidence or “natural”
development, but a result of structures
and agency. In the perspective of the
evolving early kingdom, the formation of hamlets and villages is a process comparable to urbanization and
castle building. It organized both people and the production of foodstuffs
into controllable units. The hamlets
were, in a sense, the economic base for
the emerging states. Still, the agency
that resulted in the fact that a specific
site was chosen can just as much be
explained by the agency of the actual
settlers.
The studies of Mankby are also an integrated part of the authors’ upcoming
PhD dissertation on the subject of rural settlement strategies and medieval
colonization in the Espoo area. Espoo
is a parish in of the southern coastal
zone of Finland that was colonized by
Swedish speaking population during
the beginning of the medieval period,
probably during the 13th century.
The dissertation study aims to analyse
the patterns and strategies behind the
village formation process, but also to
understand the need for recourses, the
techniques to exploit them and the
social and cultural process that took
place when the settlers were encountered with other different cultures in
the new area.
In other words, this is a step-by-stepmethod that moves gradually backwards in time using analysis of historical maps and keys gained from the
fieldwork at the site. This approach is
chosen in order to fill the gap between
the present and the past, analysing not
only the oldest stage, but also the stages between the ends of the time spectrum of the site. This method aims to
identify the different features in their
right contexts, and thus creating a solid base for further studies to engage
in a dialogue with the landscape and
the different layers it is made of.
The map and the
experienced landscape
Whereas this particular text is based
on a paper, originally written for a session on horizontal stratigraphy in the
VIII Nordic meeting on Stratigraphy
in Jönköping, it approaches the landscape of Mankby from a slightly diffe-
When cartographic representations
emerged as a means to illustrate landscapes, there was a major change in the
134
ULRIKA ROSENDAHL
way landscapes were experienced.
The landscape became visualized as a
whole that could be seen in a single
moment, and dislocated it from both
time and the physical experience of
viewing it from the ground (Barret
1999, p. 23, Cosgrove 1984, see also
Johnson, 2007 p. 85–89). In rural
Southern Finland this can be said to
have happened on a quite detailed level when cadastral mapping came into
use in the kingdom of Sweden during
the 17th century (Huhtamies 2008).
By the end of the 18th century there
is hardly any village in Espoo, whose
fields, meadows and borders has not
been carefully measured and drawn
on a piece of paper by a cartographer
commissioned by the state.
In a society that depended on farming, as in medieval and early modern Mankby, the field and meadow
resources were indeed elementary
not only for the subsistence of the
people, but also for their conception of the time, space and society.
Practically all aspects of medieval
life was linked to the use of these
resources and the cyclic return of
the agricultural events (Salminen
2013, p. 165-174). But the landscape that provided all this was not
read as a map. It was the living and
physical experience of it, that gave
the landscape its meaning; like the
field strips measured with the village
measuring stick or the knowledge of
border marks in the woods (Jutikkala, 2003, p. 241; Salminen 2013,
p. 190–193). Christopher Tilley
has described how the experience of
space comes through the lived body
moving in and looking out on the
world (Tilley 1994, p. 16). Sometimes archeologists can try to identify with that experience, as we do
surveys, walk through the landscape
and spend hours of staring into its
features, trying to explain them. But
experiencing the landscape using
our own set of references is not a
solid base for research on a past culture with different rules, habits and
views on the world (Johnson 2007,
p. 62–62; Tilley 1994, p. 11). The
experienced landscape is not only
bound to a certain time and culture,
it is also viewed different according
to the viewer’s position in that culture, depending on gender, age and
social position (Bender 1993, p. 2).
The cartographic venture of the
Enlightenment has of course left
a wonderfully useful material in
the archives for archeologists and
historians. But as researchers, thinking about and studying landscapes
using these cartographical representations, we, should be aware of the
bias the cadastral maps carry within
themselves. Maps do not represent
the experienced landscape, but
rather an attempt to rationalize and
control it by focusing on its resources. In landscape archeology today,
many researchers have pointed out
the importance to understand landscapes in the context of the cultures
that inhabited it, and the social and
symbolical meanings the landscapes
had to these people (Knapp & Ashmore 1999, Bender 1993).
135
META 2015
This said, this is still a study that
uses maps and recent archeological
fieldwork to explain features that
derive from past landscapes. But
this cannot be done without acknowledging the context these features have appeared in. The story of
the landscape within and near the
hamlet Mankby goes from colonization to the forming of one of the
largest manors in the area. These
radical shifts in the social structure
of the site had a surprisingly small
effect just viewing the landscape on
the map, but an enormous impact
on the experienced landscape. In
other words, the development of
the landscape is not linear and this
paper aims to examine through the
phases of the medieval hamlet and
the early modern manor, as complex
structures of a culture.
small. Since Espoo is part of the Helsinki metropolitan area, the pressure
to exploit the area for housing is very
big. Especially the east side of the
stream is heavily built. Still, the west
side of the ring way has a preserved
historical landscape. The land is owned by the manor Esbo gård, and several of the buildings originate from
the 19th century. Especially those
that are built along the old road, the
remains of the old country road that
once lead from Turku in the west to
Vyborg in the East.
The retrospective use of historical
maps is essential for interpreting old
settlement layers, but also quite recent maps, from the middle of the
20th century can give important
information on field structure and
other landscape elements. This is
especially important in suburban
areas that have developed rapidly
in the last few decades. If we look
at a map from 1961(fig. 1) we can
see the fields as they were before the
building of the big traffic systems in
the 1960-ies. What becomes visible
is the historical landscape of one of
the biggest mansions in the area;
Esbo gård. The fields are used very
efficiently for agricultural purposes.
In the beginning of the 20th century
marches and meadows were drained
and turned into arable land. At the
same time, the machines used in
agriculture were still quite small, and
some very small fields in the woods
are still in use. These are today totally
covered by the forest.
Starting in the contemporary –
towards the manor
When we look at the contemporary
landscape, the place called Mankby
is quite an anonymous archeological site, consisting of small heaps of
stone in a forest, Before the site was
found during archeolological survey
in 2004, the historical village site
had been a forgotten place. The area
was of extremely little use, situated
unpleasantly near heavily trafficked
areas. The landscape is cut through
by one of the main ring ways around
the capital city area of Helsinki. The
fields are divided by the traffic system, and the fields of today are quite
136
ULRIKA ROSENDAHL
Figure 1.The Landscape of the
manor Esbo gård as seen in a map
from 1961.The landscape is at
this point still dominated by heavy
agricultural use.The toft of the
deserted medieval hamlet Mankby
and its remains is added to the
map. (Grundkarta no. 2032 12/
Esbo 1961)
Figure 2. Placing the site of
the medieval hamlet Mankby
on a map from 1831 helps to
separate the hamlets’ fields form
the meadows.The two main fields
were used every second year. (Map:
National archives, Helsinki, MMH
B7:9/2-10)
137
META 2015
If we look at the situation in 1831
(fig. 2), the original main fields appear. They are Esboåkern on the east
side of the stream and Mankåker on
the west side. These fields have been
the most productive ones on the
estate, which in all consisted of over
one thousand hectares. Especially the
eastern field, Esbo åkern had had a
very fertile soil. Mankåkern, on the
other hand, had had an excellent natural drainage because of the slight
slope towards the stream, and thus
the field has had no need for blind
drains or ditching according to the
manager of Esbo gård, who has been
taking care of the farming of Esbo
gård during the last 35 years. In other
words, here we seem to have a correlation between early settlement and
fertile soil.
royal demesne of Helsinki, situated
22 km to the east, and at the royal
demesne of Sjundby, situated 20 km
to the west of Esbo gård.
The layer of 1779 – early modern times in retrospect
When we continue deeper into the
levels of mapping in this area, we are
confronted with the oldest map that
has remained in the archives (fig. 3).
The map itself is a demonstration of
how landowners in the age of enlightenment modernized and expanded
their arable land. The map is actually a plan of how the manor is going
to drain its meadows, making them
into fields. In the case of Esbogård,
this process seems to have remained
mainly on the planning table. The
areas are still in use as meadows in
the 1831 map. The only exception is
a strip of land between the northern
and southern part of the field Mankåkern. This meadow seems actually
to have been made into a field at this
point; we could observe the drainage
ditches during field work 2010.
In the map of 1831 we can also see
the main elements of the manor Esbo
gård. The mansion and its park, with
the still existing main building, built
in 1797. The barn and the other
production units are situated on the
southwest side of the park. And on
the west side was the dam that the
manor used to control the water force in the nearby rapids. Here was the
manors’ mill and lumber mill located; the existing mill was built 1777.
The rapids have been important for
the manor since the founding of Esbogård as a royal demesne in 1556.
Control over water force has been a
dominant feature of the early modern royal demesnes that was founded in this area, this immediate presence of rapids is visible also at the
But if we take out of count the old
meadows, we get two smaller fields
on the west side of the stream, the
lower and the upper Mankåker.
The name of the fields is referring
to Mankby, a hamlet that formerly
was in possession of the fields. The
inhabitants if Mankby were all independent land owning peasants (swe:
skattebönder), that paid tax directly
to the crown and had an inwheri-
138
ULRIKA ROSENDAHL
Figure 3. A map from
1779, drawn to illustrate
(partly unfulfilled) plans
to drain meadows into
fields shows that the
narrow part of the field
(marked with ”E”) was
originally a meadow.
(Map: National archives,
Helsinki/MMH B7:9/1)
ted right to their lands. Still, they
had to leave their homes when the
manor Esbo gård was founded by
the King in 1556. The lands of the
two neighbouring peasant hamlets
Mankby and Esboby were at this
point incorporated in the new royal
demesne. The peasants of the two
hamlets were moved to farmsteads
in other hamlets in the parish. The
hamlet Mankby was deserted in a
very quick process. The peasants
agreed to give up their lands in August of 1556, and the manor took
immediately over the agriculture, as
we can read in the preserved bookkeeping of the demesne. (Haggrén
& Rosendahl 2008, p. 135–137;
Ramsay 1924, p. 339–342, KA
3075, KA 3031,).
The shift from medieval times to
early modern times was exceptionally drastic for the peasants of Mankby
and Esboby that in the end were forced to desert their homesteads because of the Swedish King Gustavus
Vasa’s plans to modernize Finland.
The 16th century royal demesnes
of Finland were a result of a modern
way of thinking. The King’s plans to
gain greater control and efficiency in
this remote part of the kingdom, can
be viewed as a part of the nascence
of capitalism in Northern Europe, to
use the terms of Matthew Johnson
(1996). By establishing royal model
farms that could bring up livestock
and, if needed, feed the army in case
of military threats from the East, the
king materialized these new ideas. In
139
META 2015
The late medieval layer
– visible in field observations
Sweden the time of Gustavus Vasa
was also a time of bureaucracy. The
reeves of the demesnes had to report the estates finances notoriously
to the crown.
If we continue looking for the exact position of the toftland of the
medieval hamlet of Mankby, we can
tell by the field names that Mankby should be situated to the west
of the stream. If we have a look at
the Cartographer’s draft that preceded the map of 1779 (fig. 4) we
can get more information than we
find in the final map. What interests us is the small word Mankby,
which is written on the west side of
the southern field. Even though the
location of the tofts of Mankby was
not in use since the hamlet was deserted in 1556, it seems like people
in the 18th century still had knowledge about the hamlet. Later even
this would be forgotten.
From Esbo gård there is thorough
bookkeeping preserved from the
demesne period. This means that
even though there are no older
maps than the 1779 map, we are
able to estimate the outcome and
use of the fields and meadows in
the sources of Esbo gård since the
middle of the 16th century. August Ramsay has calculated that
the cultivated field area of the
demesne remained unchanged
during the 16th century according
to the bookkeeping of the demesne (Ramsay 1924, p. 267). In the
map of 1779 the area of the field
Mankåker is specified to be a bit
less, and the field Esboåkern to be
a bit more than 15 hectars, or 30
tunnland, to express it using the
contemporary measurement unit.
Taking into account the uncertainty of using historical measurement,
this number of all in all 30 hectares
is surprisingly accurate to the area
of 30 hectares that Ramsay estimates to be the area of the demesnes’ property in the 16th century
(Ramsay 1924, p. 267) Thus, with
some precautions, it is fairly safe to
say that the fields of Esbo manor in
the map from 1779 form the main
land resources of the late medieval
phase in the hamlet of Mankby
and its neighbour Esboby.
Today this place is luckily preserved in the forests of the manor, the
archeological site was detected in
2004 (Haggrén & Latikka 2004).
The large Helsinki ringway III passes by very closely, but has actually
not destroyed any features of the
site. The toftland of the village has
not been inhabited since the 16th
century. There has only been some
minor agricultural activity on the
site, one of the drying barns of Esbo
gård was situated here, and used
sporadically up to the 18th century.
The field observations support the
assumption on the quick process of
abandonment. Since the lack of action on the site since the abandon-
140
ULRIKA ROSENDAHL
Figure 4.The cartographers draft that
proceeded the map of 1779 was
crucial when identifying the hamlet,
since the the name of the deserted
hamlet was written at the site where
the remains of Mankby was found
in 2004. (Map: National archives,
Helsinki/MMH konseptikartat)
Figure 5. Combining information
from cadastrial maps and archeological fieldwork, it is possible to visualize the toftland, fields, meadows,
forest, roads and waterways that
constituted the primary landscape
and resources of the late medieval
hamlet.
141
META 2015
ment, the remains of the hamlet are
very well preserved and still visible
over ground. It is definitely one of
the best examples of medieval village structure in Southern Finland.
We can find over 20 house remains,
which go back to different periods of the hamlet. The toft area of
the hamlet is clearly build into the
slight slope, the area has been cleared of stones, and the excavation has
showed a quite extensive use of fill
soil. We can also see traces of the roads that lead to the site.
their goods in late medieval times.
The find material of the excavations
show that the peasants have had access to a material culture that very
well matches the culture of the hanseatic towns.
Can we go further? – Ard
marks and archaic structures
Even though we think that we have a
fairly correct picture of the late medieval landscape, we would be interested to go further, to the birth of the
settlement in Mankby. The medival
period in this part of the country is
characterized by a fairly complicated
settlement history. Southern Espoo
belongs to the Swedish-speaking part
of Finland. Until the mid 20th century, the majority of the population
were Swedish speaking, and the parish
has a Swedish place name-material.
This situation is explained by colonization from Sweden in the 13th century. The structure of the colonisation
is however not well known. For example, we know little of what was the
incitement to colonize, or what kind
of settlement previously existed in the
area when the settlers arrived (Rosendahl 2008, p. 61-66). This part
of Finland was at that time situated
quite far from the central areas in Iron
age Finland, and in Espoo we have no
dwelling sites or burials that is dated
to the Iron age in the archeological record. Still, according to recent pollen
studies the coast of Espoo have had
cultivated fields at the latest since the
11th century, and in the inland of the
If we add up the information we
have at this point, we can visualize
the late medieval landscape of the
hamlet Mankby (fig. 5). The buildings of the hamlet seem to have
a concentrated toft structure on a
small area on approximately 150 x
50 meters. The two fields are similar in size, adjusted to be cultivated
within a two field- crop rotation
system, as were custom in this area.
Outside the fields are the meadows.
The forests are owned, according to
a special Finnish custom, together
in a so-called ”skifteslag” with the
neighbouring hamlets Esboby and
Träskby.
Instead of the big rapids the peasants
use water force with smaller mills
upstream. Because of the land
uplift, the stream itself was a small
river, and probably sailable without
problems. The river lead to the Gulf
of Finland, and it is known from the
Archives of Tallinn that the peasants
of Mankby sailed to Tallinn to trade
142
ULRIKA ROSENDAHL
neighbouring parish Kirkkonummi as
early as 730 AD (Alenius 2011, p. 9293). In the whole region of Uusimaa,
there is a vast opening of the formerly
forested landscape and an increase of
cereals around the beginning of the second millennium (Alenius & al 2015,
p. 109). In addition to this, because of
increased amateur metal detecting, we
have gotten new stray finds from the
Iron age to the museum collections,
that show us that the area cannot have
been uninhabited up to the Swedish
colonization.
area of the late medieval hamlet. In
our excavations we have found two
stratigraphically overlapping ancient
field layers, that both are older than
the late medieval buildings. We have
radiocarbon datings from grains of
rye and barley found in the field layer
that show that the younger of the two
layers originates from the 1300th century (Lab no. Hela2610 & Hela2611,
Luonnontieteellinen keskusmuseo,
ajoituslaboratorio, Helsinki). The age
of the older field is unclear; but we
are still hoping for results from the
radiocarbon dating that will tell us
a more exact dating for this feature.
According to Alenius (2014, p. 109)
the transition towards a two year crop
rotation, that can be seen in an expansion of hay meadows in the landscape, began in Uusimaa from the 13th
century, and continued into the 15th
century. This means that the ancient
fields found during the excavations
are likely to belong to the older phase
with one-year crop rotation. During
the end of the medieval period the old
fields were abandoned, presumably
since the two-year crop rotation system had taken over.
Archaeology seems to be the only
source we have to go deeper into the
layers of the landscape, and try to
understand the landscape of the colonists in the early middle ages. The
excavations that our project has been
doing on the site might provide some
keys to examine these early phases. At
this point, we have no clear indication of continuity from the Iron Age
on the site. If this observation is correct, we could assume that Mankby
is a site founded by medieval settlers.
This does not mean that Mankby remains typically “Swedish” during the
Middle Ages, on the contrary, we see
many signs of hybridization of cultures, and a strong Baltic or Hansaetic
influence in the record.
The fields appear to be very small, in
contrast to the late medieval fields.
Their shape is also very different compared to the large fields of the later
period; these fields could be described
as small irregular squares, whereas the
later field are big areas divides into
thin strips. Towards the bottom of the
layers of the excavated fields we detected ard marks in opposite direction,
an indication of the tilling technique
During the excavations we have found
some signs of movement within the
toftland of the hamlet. One of the
most significant signs of changes are
the ancient fields that we have found
at a spot that we have interpreted as
a central, perhaps commonly owned,
143
META 2015
used on the field. This, and the grains
of cereals found in the paleobotanical
material implies that these fields have
been used for grain cultivation. Garden plots are generally thought to be
tilled using spades, not the horse pulled ards, and we have no indication
of spade marks in the soil. However,
since other plant remains, such as
cabbage or turnip etc, hardly could be
preserved in the materiel, it cannot be
ruled out that other species have not
been grown on the field.
Mankby we have found dug features,
which visually show a close resemblance to medieval graves. But since
we have no preserved human bone
material, which is the normal situation in the acid soil of Finland, it is
impossible to prove their existence.
However, we have found human graves in two other medieval hamlets in
the parish, and these finds makes the
interpretation of the Mankby features
as graves more liable. In the hamlet
Kauklahti, located only 1,5 kilometres from Mankby, a medieval cemetery was identified during excavations
2003 on the tofts of the hamlet (Haggrén 2005) Eight kilometres Southwest of Mankby, in the hamlet of
Finnå was a large cemetery with over
forty graves found during excavations
in 2008. (Haggren 2008, p. 45–46,
Kivikero 2011).
What these features imply, is that the
initial phase of the settlement did not
necessarily rely on a two-year crop rotation with fields in the river valley,
but rather on an intense use of small
field areas in the actual toftland. A bit
higher up in the slope, we find the
buildings that could have existed simultaneously with the fields. In this
picture we see a 14th century building that revealed itself underneath a
16th century building and we seem to
have even older layers underneath this
house. We have a 13th century dating
from a test pit on this topographical level. During our excavations we
could identify remains of oven structures from the oldest layers, although
damaged by the younger buildings.
Hopefully the forthcoming radiocarbon dates will provide more information to help us to put the picture of
the earliest settlement phase together.
The graves provide an interesting
discrepancy between the text-based
idea of the Christian burial ritual and
the archaeological material. The graves seem to follow a Christian burial
custom, but the burial ground is not
located anywhere near a church or a
chapel. On the contrary, they seem
rather to be analogue with the burial
grounds of the Iron Age society, where
burials were closely linked to the settlement. Hamlet cemeteries seem to
be very rare in the medieval material
in Sweden, which means that this
phenomenon is hard to explain referring to the customs of Swedish colonists. In a Finnish context medieval
Christian hamlet cemeteries are not
unknown, but mainly they have been
One of the big question marks in the
material from the Finnish countryside,
are the cemeteries that might be part of
the early landscape of the hamlets. In
144
ULRIKA ROSENDAHL
analysis started in the contemporary
landscape, peeling off the newer layers
and working towards the older levels,
aiming at the first historical settlement on the site. These layers would,
however, not be useful for understanding the strategies of the land use
unless they would be translated from
the view of the map into elements
that had meaning in the experienced
landscape of the inhabitants and its
contemporary viewers. These meanings are something that has changed
greatly during the different phases of
history; maybe more than the actual
landscape itself changed.
found in spots that show continuity
from the Iron Age (e.g. Lehtosalo-Hilander 1982, p. 13–15). However, the
research on these possibly Christian
medieval graves in Finland have been
sparse, since the rich findings of the
iron age graves seem to have got the
main attention of the research.
The landscape of the settlers is hard to
reach with accuracy, but using these
observations, we can identify some
of the core elements that have been
present in the early settlement. These consist of a concentrated toftland
area, with fields and settlement closely linked to each other. In addition
to the housing and production areas,
a ritual space, a village cemetery, can
have existed in the immediate proximity of the village toftland. The outland use is not easily reached by the
means of excavation. The use of small,
intensively cultivated fields, however,
suggests need of manure and cattle
breeding, which in turn needs meadows and pasture lands. These were
most likely to be found in the river
valley, that later would be made into
fields.
The place chosen for the study was
a site with a quite untypical historic
record, the area of Mankby and Esbo
gård in Southern Finland. In the contemporary landscape, filled with traffic systems and expanding land use
for housing, it is challenging to survey
and see the historical land use on the
field in this site. With this in mind,
maps as young as from the 1960ies
show surprisingly old features in the
landscape, dating back to the Middle
Ages. The other surviving maps from
1831 and 1779 are showing a landscape of power, the landowning of the
noble estate Esbo gård, but they also
reflect much older field structures.
The manor Esbo gård was not founded on noble landholdings, but as a
royal demesne by the king Gustavus
Vasa in 1556. The demesnes in Finland of the 1500ies did not reflect a
noble ideology; they were rather practical institutions that focused on tax
collection and production. The land
The layers of history
– a conclusion
This article aimed to look at a landscape as would it consist of layers in
a stratigraphy, using historical maps
as a metaphorical excavation site,
and identify the contexts of different
historical phases in the maps and the
landscape. Just as an excavation, the
145
META 2015
that the demesne was founded on
was the land of two freeholding peasant villages, Mankby and Esboby,
which the crown incorporated in
their new estate while the peasants
had to leave their homes.
emerges as a hamlet for the Swedish
speaking settlers that inhabit the
coast of Uusimaa from the middle
ages onwards. The colonization of
the area is a quite radical change in
the settlement pattern, and must
have had a major impact on the
landscape, that before the middle
ages seem to have been only sparsely inhabited. We have been able to
identify some of the core elements
that reflected the life in the early
hamlet, and a shift of the land use
within the toftland. The early hamlet has a very concentrated structure with buildings and fields, and
a potential ritual space with graves,
located closely together on the area
that we hade defined as toftland.
Towards the end of the history of
the village Mankby, the housing
expand to cover the whole toftland
and the fields within the village disappears, and the large fields in the
river valley - partly still used today forms the main resource of the village.
The landscape of the deserted, and
eventually forgotten, village site
Mankby appears to be the oldest
layer of permanent settlement and
farming in the historical landscape
on this site. The site is archaeologically well preserved and has been excavated by our project, and the late
medieval land use is quite reachable
using the cadastral map record. But
we can’t assume that the first stage of
settlement is directly visible in the
landscape of the archaeological site
from 1556, or in the cadastral mapping of the area. To see the historical
landscapes we must understand the
long-term changes that have happened in the past, and approach the
oldest periods with open minds.
The 500-year long period that we
call medieval is not to be assumed
to be any more static than the following 500-year period of history.
This research is conducted with financial
support from Svenska litteratursällskapet i
Finland.
The elements of the early settlement
can only be made visible through archaeological research.
During the excavations at the site,
no signs if continuity into the Iron
Age has been found. This has supported the assumption that Mankby
Ulrika Rosendahl is a PhD student in
archaeology at the University of Helsinki.
E-mail: [email protected]
146
ULRIKA ROSENDAHL
References
•Archive of the National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki: The research and excavations of
Mankby are a part of an on-going project conducted at the University of Helsinki and Espoo City museum.The observations of the site described in the text refer to the following
excavation rapports:
-2007: Georg Haggrén, Maija Holappa, Tarja Knuutinen, Olli Kunnas, Tero Pitkänen & Ulrika
Rosendahl: Espoo, Espoonkartano, Mankbyn kylätontti. Kartoitus ja koekaivaus.
-2008: Georg Haggrén, Maija Holappa, Hanna Kivikero, Tarja Knuutinen,Ville-Matti Rohiola,
Ulrika Rosendahl, Tanja Rönkkö, Anna-Maria Salonen, Jenni Siltainsuu & Elina Terävä: Espoo,
Espoonkartano, Mankbyn kylätontti. Kaivauskertomus.
-2009: Georg Haggrén, Maija Holappa, Tarja Knuutinen, Annika Eklund, Janne Heinonen,
Hanna Kivikero, Ulrika Rosendahl, Anna-Maria Salonen, Jenni Siltainsuu & Elina Terävä: Espoo, Espoonkartano, Mankbyn kylätontti. Kaivauskertomus.
-2010: Georg Haggrén, Maija Holappa, Janne Heinonen, Hanna Kivikero, Ulrika Rosendahl,
Tanja Rönkkö, Anna-Maria Salonen & Elina Terävä: Espoo, Espoonkartano, Mankbyn kylätontti. Kaivauskertomus.
-2011: Georg Haggrén, Maija Holappa, Tarja Knuutinen, Ulrika Rosendahl, Anna-Maria Salonen, Elina Terävä, Sanna Lillman & Anna Ylitalo: Espoo, Espoonkartano, Mankbyn kylätontti.
Kaivauskertomus.
-2012: Georg Haggrén, Maija Holappa, Ulrika Rosendahl, Anna-Maria Salonen, Elina Terävä,
Verna Kalmari, Sanna Lillman & Essi Ruuskanen: Espoo, Espoonkartano, Mankbyn kylätontti.
Kaivauskertomus.
-2013: Georg Haggrén, Maija Holappa, Ulrika Rosendahl, Anna-Maria Salonen & Elina Terävä:
Espoo, Espoonkartano, Mankbyn kylätontti. Kaivauskertomus.
•Alenius, Teija 2010. From forest to farmland. Palaeoenvironmental Reconstruction of
the Colonization of Western Uusimaa. Maritime Landscape in Change: Archaeological,
Historical, Palaeoecological and Geological Studies of Western Uusimaa. Iskos 19. Ed. Mika
Lavento. Helsinki.
•Alenius, Teija, Haggrén Georg, Oinonen Markku, Ojala Antti & Pitkänen Ritva-Liisa 2014.
The history of settlement on the coastal mainland in Southern Finland. Palaeoecological, archaeological, and etymological evidence from Lohjansaari Island, Western Uusimaa,
Finland. Journal of Archaeological Science.Volume 47/2014.
•Barrett, John C. Chronologies of landscape. The Archaeology and Anthropology an Landscape. Shaping your Landscape. Ed. Peter J. Ucko & Robert Layton. London. p.21–30.
•Bender, Barbara 1993. Landscape – Meaning and Action. Landscape. Politics and Perspectives. Ed. Barbara Bender. Oxford. p.1–18.
•Haggrén Georg & Latikka Jaakko 2004. Espoo, Espoonkartanon alueen historiallisen ajan
muinaisjäännösten inventointi 2004. Museoviraston rakennushistorian osasto. Opublicerad
forskningsrapport. Museiverkets arkiv, Helsingfors.
147
META 2015
•Haggrén Georg & Rosendahl Ulirka 2008. Mankby och de sista byborna – En epilog. Byn.
Medeltid vid Östersjöns stränder. Esbo stadsmuseums forskningsserie 10. Helsingfors. p.
132–137.
•Haggrén Georg 2005. Arkeologiska undersökningar på en medeltida bytomt i Köklax,
Esbo. Nordenskiöld-samfundets tidsskrift 65. Helsingfors. p. 83–101.
•Haggrén Georg 2008. Nylands uppkomst – Västra Nylands medeltid. Byn. Medeltid vid
Östersjöns stränder. Esbo stadsmuseums forskningsserie 10. Helsingfors. p.36–52.
•Haggrén Georg, Holappa Maija, Knuutinen Tarja & Rosendahl, Ulrika 2010. Stratigrafin på
en välbevarad bytomt – Mankby i Esbo. SKAS 2/2010.
•Huhtamies Mikko 2008. Maan mitta. Maanmittauksen historia Suomessa 1633–2008 .
Helsinki.
•Johnsson Matthew 1996. An Archaeology of Capitalism. Oxford & Cambridge.
•Johnsson, Matthew 2004. Ideas of Landscape. Oxford.
•Kivikero Hanna 2011, Cattle Teeth in Graves : Interpretations of animal bones found
in Finnish inhumation graves (ca AD 550-1700). MA thesis is Archaeology, University of
Helsinki.
•Knapp A. Bernard & Ashmore Wendy 1999. Archeological Landscapes: Constructed,
Conceptualized, Ideational. Archaeologies of Landscape. Ed. Wendy Ashmore & A. Bernard
Knapp. Oxford. p. 1–30.
•Lehtosalo Hilander, Pirkko-Liisa 1982. Luistari I. The Graves. Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakausikirja. 82:1. Helsinki.
•MMH Lantmäteriets kartarkiv
- Espoonkartano / Esbogård; Karta öfver åker och äng med beskrifning 1779-1779
(B7:9/1), Karta öfver egorne 1832-1832 (B7:9/2-10) & Konseptikarta.
•National archives of Finland, Helsinki:
- KA 3075, 3013 Fogderäkenskaper, Esbo kungsgård 1557
•Ramsay August 1924. Esbo socken och Esbo gård på 1500-talet. Helsingfors.
•Rosendahl, Ulrika 2008. Kolonisation och nybyggare I den tidiga medeltiden. Byn. Medeltid vid Östersjöns stränder. Esbo stadsmuseums forskningsserie 10.
•Tilley, Christopher Y. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford.
148
What’s going on between history
and archaeology?
Reflections on reciprocal relationship between two disciplines in historical archaeology in Finland
Liisa Seppänen
Although historical archaeology is established as a specialized field within archaeology in
Finland, the relationship between history and archaeology is still questing for a reciprocal
alliance. In the first part of the 20th century, historical archaeology was practised mainly
by historians and ethnographers who conducted archaeological excavations and combined archaeological findings with historical evidence in their writings and research. Since
the 1980s, historical archaeology has experienced a remarkable change and attracted an
increasing number of archaeologists with the focus on medieval and post-medieval sites
and history. For them combining history with archaeology is self-evident and some of
these archaeologists have qualified themselves as historians too. However, historians have
not been engaged in historical archaeology and still remain in their studies quite firmly
within historical source material. Collaboration between historians and archaeologists
does exist to a limited extent and at the individual level, but can we really talk about
interdisciplinary co-operation between these two disciplines? Is there any need for such?
The article reflects the prevailing situation between these two disciplines in Finland and
discusses the reasons for the dominant division and possibilities for a better relationship.
Short introduction to the history of historical archaeology in
Finland
of the medieval castles and churches
promoted the research of these monuments, which was mainly practiced by art historians and historians.
Archaeological excavations on historical sites and urban milieus were often
carried out by the researchers whose
background and education were in
In Finland, the history of historical
archaeology is nearly as old as the history of archaeology dating back to the
end of the 19th century. The repairs
149
META 2015
history, ethnography and art history. Becoming fully aware of the
fact, that the historical documents
from the medieval times in Finland
are very limited both in number and
contents, archaeology was considered as a necessary means to get more
information about the beginnings
of the historical times. (E.g. Koivunen 2003, p. 40, 70; Taavitsainen
1999, p. 6.)
onwards when archaeologists began
to conduct excavations on urban sites. However, until the 1980s, the
historical archaeology was equalled mainly with the medieval archaeology. (Drake 1984, p. 4.) In
the 1990s, historical archaeology
expanded to cover post-medieval
and early modern periods with several excavations in urban and rural
sites in different parts of the country. (Seppänen 2012, p. 37–45.)
Universities offering education in
archaeology responded to the practical need for specialists and the interest of the students and it became
possible to specialize in historical
archaeology in Finland.
It was very natural to combine archaeological findings with historical documents and research for
those who practiced the research of
the Middle Ages. From the end of
the 19th century until the 1980s
the researchers of medieval history
supplemented the historical evidence and hypothesis of the course
of events with archaeological findings, which accessorized the story
of the past making it more concrete.
Distinguished historians and researchers combined these two subjects
in their studies mainly related to the
medieval history. These researchers
practiced interdisciplinary research
on an individual level when they
transferred the knowledge from one
discipline to another by crossing
the boundaries between the two
disciplines. (E.g. Gardberg, 1971;
Kuujo, 1981; Ruuth 1909.)
Multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in theory and in
practice
The engagement between history
and archaeology has resulted in
practises of different kind. Most
often these two disciplines are interlinked in studies composed by
single researchers. A review to a selection of studies and publications
combining historical and archaeological approaches in Finland does not
always make it easy to distinguish
the difference between interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary collaboration between different researchers.
Multidisciplinarity is the weakest
form of co-operation, which draws
on knowledge from both disciplines but stays strictly within their
boundaries. In this case, different
However, archaeologists were mainly considered as specialists of prehistorical times, whose expertise was
focused on excavating and interpreting things without written history.
Situation changed from the 1960s
150
LIISA SEPPÄNEN
researchers might have a common
research problem and even work together at some point during a project, but they approach this problem
with different questions, sources,
methods and theories. This kind of
co-operation can be characterized as
problem-oriented teamwork where
the studies are carried out by more
than one researcher separately. The
studies are presented in a common
publication or report with separate
articles or in completely different
journals. (Choi & Pak, 2006; Mikkeli & Pakkasvirta 2007, p. 63–65.)
certain sites, which have produced
publications containing various articles with different approaches to
the same topic or site. (E.g. Brusila
et al. 2003; Virtanen et al. 2003.)
When interdisciplinary research is
practised by more than one person
the researchers representing at least
two disciplines try to pool their approaches and modify them so that
they are better suited to the common goal. In this relation, researchers compare individual findings
and transfer knowledge from one
discipline to another. The subject
at hand may appear differently
when examined through the disciplines of history and archaeology,
but it is approached as a common
problem with shared information,
methods and theories. In publications, reports and disseminations
of different kind, the results and
contributions of two disciplines are,
however, to be distinguished. Although the boundaries are crossed
from both directions they are still
acknowledged. The aim of this kind
on interdisciplinary research is to
create something new by combining
different kind of source material
and methods and thinking across
different disciplines. (E.g. Choi &
Pak, 2006; Mikkeli & Pakkasvirta
2007, p. 65.)
In Finland, this kind of collaboration began within historical archaeology in the early 1980s. Although,
there had been collaboration between scientists and archaeologists in
pre-historical studies, the first project within historical archaeology,
which included collaboration between different researchers, was the
Mätäjärvi-project in Turku in 1982.
The excavations and the research
project resulted in a collection of
articles, which included archaeologists, scientists and a historian,
who reflected the history of the area
based on historical sources and cartographical material. The approach
to the research of the site was multidisciplinary since the boundaries
between different disciplines were
clear and each study approached
the site with different sources, methods and perspectives. (Kostet &
Pihlman 1989.) Since then, there
have been projects of similar kind
based on excavations and studies on
Archaeological research projects including several researchers working
on the same topic are mainly funded by the Academy of Finland or
by different kind of foundations.
151
META 2015
Most often the research group is
composed of a few archaeologists.
Sometimes the research includes
co-operation with scientists who are
making different kinds of analyses
of the archaeological material. Even
though the research is related to
historical periods, the collaboration
between archaeologists and historians has been quite limited so far.
different source materials, methods
and approaches as a study of a certain time period. (See e.g. Orser
1996, p. 23–28.) On the basis of
publications and studies of different
kind, it seems to be self-evident to
archaeologists who work on historical periods to use historical sources
and studies provided by historians.
However, historians working on the
same subject, theme, site or time period have used archaeology, archaeological information and studies
on a non-existent or a very limited
level. What is the reason for this unbalanced use and one-way flow of
information?
It seems that the co-operation between archaeologists and historians
is realized most often on a multidisciplinary level, but interdisciplinarity is rather achieved on individual
levels. Most often interdisciplinary
elements are detectable in certain
articles but the collection of articles
represents the multidisciplinary approach of the project. Earlier, interdisciplinarity (including history and
archaeology) was practised by historians focusing on medieval history,
but today it is practised by archaeologists studying historical times on
a wider scale. Although, archaeologists have used historical information, approaches and studies, the
emphasis, however, lies clearly and
firmly on archaeological material,
methods and theories. History is
either supplementing the archaeological study, giving the frames for
the study or used as a starting point
for presenting the new information
provided by archaeology. The importance of historical information
equals the needs of the research and
capability of an archaeologist to use
it. Historical archaeology seems to
be as much a method combining
Research - prevailing practices
and conceptions
The relationship between archaeology and history in medieval and
post-medieval studies seems to be
quite unbalanced in Finland. There
are many reasons for the dearth of
collaboration and why the archaeological sources and studies have
not broken into the discipline of
history. When I was preparing this
contribution, I was able to approach
the staff members in the department of history and archaeology
at Turku University. The following
discussion about the prevailing situation between archaeology and
history is based on both my own
views and the responses of five people, who expressed their interest in
closer collaboration between history
and archaeology. I am fully aware of
152
LIISA SEPPÄNEN
the fact that this small sample does
not represent the opinions of the
whole field of these two disciplines,
but all interviewees have worked on
subjects which could have benefitted from the reciprocal information exchange and share an interest
in increasing co-operation between
history and archaeology.
justified the need for archaeological excavations and material in the
late 19th and early 20th century,
and this reason has not lost its importance in the 21st century either.
Both historians and archaeologists
emphasize the importance of collaboration especially in medieval
studies. As a medievalist of some
kind, I agree, but at the same time
I oppose the idea that archaeologists
should resign themselves to this role
and concentrate mostly on the periods and topics with very little historical information.
The group consisted of three historians and two archaeologists, of
whom three were professors, one
lecturer and one assistant working
on his PhD-thesis. My own background lies on both disciplines having graduated from both subjects.
The general opinion of the group is
that the level of collaboration between the two disciplines and people
practicing these professions is too
limited at the moment. Motivation
for collaboration and common research possibilities do, however, exist – so where is the problem?
Among some historians there seems
to prevail an idea, that some subjects
are already thoroughly studied on
the basis of the source material available and the subject has nothing
more to offer for the historians of
today. This is in line with the previous notion. If archaeologists find
some new material and revitalize the
case with the new information, the
stage is open for them, but there is
no need for historians to return to
the stage any more and participate
into an active dialogue on this topic.
One of the reasons for the limited
level of collaboration is the focus
of research, its questions and perspectives. In Finland, the historical
archaeology is stressed on periods
and topics with very few historical
sources and research possibilities for
historians. Consequently, the starting point for archaeologists is already attitudinal: The less there are
historical sources and material, the
more meaningful and justified the
archaeological research will be. In
other words, archaeological research
is entitled when historians run out
of means for new information. This
There is another kind of illusion of
closed cases and complete studies.
This is related to the early modern
and modern periods with plenty of
written source material, which have
been studied by historians in the
past decades. Some researchers – including both archaeologists and historians – are inclined to think that
archaeology has nothing more to
offer for these studies. According to
153
META 2015
them, the excavations can possibly
bring to light new objects for museum collections and exhibitions,
but they cannot bring substantial
new information on the subject
anymore.
During the past decades, the focus
of historical research has also changed in many ways. Historians have
approached social sciences in theoretical aspects as well as in the selection of topics. Among many historians it has been popular to study
social relations, behaviour and other
abstractions, like mentalities and
emotions. Longue durée studies –
which are quite suitable for archaeological inspection – have changed
into micro-history and short-term
history. However, juxtaposition
between these approaches is unnecessary since longue durée orders the
relation of different temporalities
and events within the totality of
social time establishing causal relations between them. Focus of historical studies has also shifted to more
recent decades and contemporary
phenomena, which are not considered belonging to archaeological
research in Finland at the moment.
Interestingly, archaeology as a concept has been adopted into these
studies and there are research-topics
like the media archaeology and the
archaeology of happiness etc.
Personally, I was confronted with
this kind of attitude quite recently,
when I was excavating a village in
the southern part of Finland, in the
city of Lahti. My premise was to try
to find the earliest traces of the village, the medieval village, and I was
supposed to concentrate on those
layers and constructions with my
limited time and resources. Instead,
we found a well-preserved village
from the late 19th century, whose
history – I was told – was already
well recorded by historians many
decades ago. We did not wipe out
the remains and finds of the 19th
century village but did excavate it
with the same methods and level of
documentation as we did the features from older periods. This aroused
some attention and criticism – both
from historians as well as archaeologists. I was asked why to waste energy and resources for the village from
the 19th century, whose history has
been recorded by historians already?
What is the value of archaeological
material from the 19th century? Is
it really worth half a million euro?
I am still working on my answers,
which I would like to present in a
very concrete way with research and
results incorporating different approaches to the site, excavations and
material.
For many historians, archaeology
is still a study that focuses on finds
from the older periods. Some historians seem to think that since archaeology is studying the past materiality, its focus is on the empirical
research and use of scientific methods while theories are irrelevant.
Many historians are unaware of the
wide spectrum of archaeological research of today, which extends to
154
LIISA SEPPÄNEN
interest and awareness of archaeological research instead of the structure of organizations. For example,
I have been invited more often to
give lectures in the Tampere University in the department of history
than in Turku University, although
the focus of my recent studies has
been in the history and urban archaeology of Turku and one cannot
study archaeology in the university
of Tampere.
various fields, periods and topics
including the same theoretical ideas
and approaches that are used in anthropology, social studies, history,
ethnology and other cognate disciplines. New studies are created in
many areas like in marine archaeology, warfare archaeology, industrial
archaeology, urban archaeology, environmental archaeology, garden archaeology and contemporary archaeology. (E.g. Majewski & Gaimster
2009.) At the same time new studies and approaches open up a new
dialogue with the old studies and
sources and spread of ideas within
a broader space of time. There are
plenty of new contact surfaces with
other disciplines, too. Collaboration requires will and a common
aim, but it won’t be possible unless
people are informed and aware of
ongoing research and collaboration
possibilities.
In those universities, which are
hosting the department of archaeology, it belongs to the Faculty of
Humanities / Arts. In Helsinki, the
department of archaeology belongs
to Culture Studies. (Helsinki University, 2014) In Oulu, the connection between archaeology and cultural anthropology is realized with
shared studies on the basic level.
(Oulu University, 2014) In Turku
university, the department of archaeology belongs to the school of
History, Culture and Arts Studies.
However, it is not combined with
history studies (including Cultural
History, Finnish History and European and World History) but belongs to Cultural studies together
with Comparative Religion, Folkloristics, European Ethnology, Museology and Life Philosophy. The link
with these studies is merely administrational. Classical archaeology
belongs to School of Languages and
Translation studies together with
Creek and Latin Philology. (Turku
University, 2014a) Having studied
history, classical archaeology and
Institutional borders and
limited resources
In Finland, one can study history in
seven universities, but archaeology
can only be studied in three universities: in Oulu, Turku and Helsinki.
As one of my interviewees pointed
out, this means that there are universities and historians who do not
have any contact with archaeology.
Consequently, the understanding
about the archaeological field and
research may remain very narrow
among many historians. However, I
would emphasize the significance of
155
META 2015
archaeology I can express as my
opinion that a more appropriate
contentual connection and possibility for educational and information
exchange could be made by combining these subjects together with
history studies.
department of archaeology together
with the departments of geology in
Turku University and Åbo Akademi
University in 2016 when all these
departments can be found in the
same premises. (Turku University,
2014b) Time will tell, whether this
kind of re-arrangement will bring
along any changes into the specialization and activities of the department of archaeology.
A couple of years ago, Jussi-Pekka
Taavitsainen, the professor of archaeology in Turku university, suggested that the department of archaeology should be linked up with
natural sciences, since the methods
and contacts of today’s archaeology
are more related to sciences than
humanities and collaboration between archaeologists and scientists
is more active than between other
humanities. Being aware of the level and activity of collaboration
with other humanities, this point of
view is understandable. For many,
the proposition to join archaeology
together with natural sciences was
however surprising, since the department of archaeology in Turku
has had a strong emphasis on historical archaeology since the mid
1990s. The attempt to incorporate archaeology into the Faculty of
Mathematics and Natural Science,
which was justified with closer collaboration and relationship with
the science, did not support the
views that archaeology and history
belong together. The proposition of
incorporating archaeology into the
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science was rejected. However,
on the 18th of November 2014
a decision was made to bring the
Interestingly, different research traditions or belonging to different faculties have not disturbed the collaboration with sciences. Personally, I
am inclined to believe that artificial
institutional borders can easily be
overbridged. Despite our physical
location, labeling or classification,
we can have cross networks, cross
seminars, cross projects and cross
publications – if only there is motivation and people who make it
happen. The only limits for the cooperation are set by our own will,
creativity and resources.
Lack of resources, including time,
money and people, is probably the
principal reason and blockade for
the co-operation between history
and archaeology. The shortage of
time and resources seems to be a
common problem on every level
and every field, and consequently
decisions need to be made how to
use the resources we have, how to
prioritise the different possibilities
for research and collaboration. The
limited amount of resources causes
competition on every level, even so,
156
LIISA SEPPÄNEN
that there is competition for good
students between these two disciplines. At present, the competition
for resources is one of the reasons,
which is discouraging co-operation.
Instead of competing against each
other, disciplines should rather
compete together for more resources and for better financing and for
more interesting and productive
ways of doing research.
The number of professors, lecturers,
and researcher who are interested in
co-operation and share common interests in both disciplines is small in
Finland. Professors and other members of the staff should set a good
example to the students, researches
and younger colleagues. One possibility to increase mutual understanding, respect and information
exchange is to establish programmes related to certain topic or time
period connecting researchers across
the borders of different disciplines.
The shortage of time and resources causes inadequate education or
a narrow basis for education since
there is no possibility to study many
subjects or gain knowledge about
many disciplines. Students, personnel and researches seem to focus
their time and energy to the issues
that are on their agenda at that moment. Specialization should happen
in the very early phase of studies,
which enables early graduation. This
is in strong contrast with the idea of
wide education which historical archeology requires. The departments
of archaeology in three universities
(Oulu, Turku and Helsinki) are very
small consisting only of one professor plus three to four other people.
Today all departments declare historical archaeology as one of their
specialisations among many other
things. Consequently, the profiling
of the departments is overlapping.
A combination of limited resources
and a need and an ambition to cover all fields of archaeology results
in lack of extensive, specialized and
organized education in historical archaeology.
In 2005, Turku Centre for Medieval
and Early Modern Studies (TUCEMEMS) was established in Turku
University. It is a multidisciplinary
centre, which aims to promote interdisciplinary and cross-cultural
studies of different topics ranging
from the Late Antiquity to the 18th
century. The Centre encourages
interdisciplinary debate by organizing seminars and lectures about
different topics. At present, TUCEMEMS has over 100 members from
various faculties of the university,
including musicologists, archaeologists, biologists, linguists and philologists, philosophers, historians, art
historians, and researchers of comparative literature and religion. Research topics range from medieval
sexuality and eremitism to Spinoza’s
philosophy and eighteenth-century
bodily grievances. (Tucemems
2014) The meetings make it possible to get to know researchers working on different topics, which hopefully will diminish the prejudices
157
META 2015
can be solved, since neither of these
disciplines is rocket science. Communication requires only mutual
respect, consideration and first of
all some effort.
and increases awareness of different
studies and mutual understanding
and respect.
Communication, collaboration
and common tables
All my interviewees emphasized the
importance and exigency of co-operation, – especially in medieval studies, which reflects the still prevailing conceptions about the role of
historical archaeology. History and
archaeology have different academic and research traditions, which
seems to affect the opinions about
these disciplines and practitioners.
Personal factors label and stigmatize the relationship in many ways
– in both directions, for good and
bad. Competition, ignorance, prejudice and negative attitudes cause
nonchalance, disrespect and envy.
Personal contacts and collaboration
on an individual level seems to be
the best way to decrease prejudices
and increase interest on both sides.
Today, there are many who are interested in co-operation and we just
need to find the resources and best
channels for fruitful collaboration.
The first prerequisite for co-operation is a common interest shared
by different parties. The better the
parties understand the approaches
and methods of each other, the
more intensive and intimate the
collaboration will likely become.
This requires mutual respect and
understanding about the usefulness
and importance of different contributions, a holistic approach to the
study with a common aim. Understanding is closely related to communication. Other historians have
told me many times how impossible
it is to read archaeological articles
– not to mention the excavation reports. Archaeological jargon, especially if the studies include any kind
of presentation of scientific methods and results, seems to be from
a different planet and beyond any
contact surface to history. Concepts
like radiocarbon analysis, dendrochronological dating, isotope and
DNA analysis suffocate the interest
of historians, since they get the feeling that this is beyond humanistic
scope. Archaeologists have acknowledged the same problem with somewhat milder words: “Sometimes
we talk about the same things with
different languages”. Again I would
say that communication problems
After a long engagement, one might
end up noticing that we simply have
drifted apart as it seems to have happened between history and archaeology after more than one hundred
years of engagement. If we want to
collaborate, we need to get rid of
juxtaposition and self-assertion. We
need to exchange information and
educate each other, seek common
interests and possibilities for a more
158
LIISA SEPPÄNEN
balanced co-operation. We can have
joint seminars and publications,
cross the borders in different ways
and on various forums. There are always possibilities to create research
projects with common research problems employing researchers and
students from various disciplines.
We should not forget to employ historians to our research projects from
the very beginning – starting from
excavations, if only possible.
correspondence. It also includes a
process in which specific and separate analyses are combined and
discussed within a common theoretical approach. In this marriage,
the boundaries between different
disciplines vanish and they are not
distinguishable in publications or
reports any longer. Transdisciplinary research can be considered as
the most advanced way of collaboration, the most holistic approach
to the subject, where researchers
are using different source material
and employing various methods,
theories and studies from different fields. (Mikkeli & Pakkasvirta
2007, pp. 66–67)
When we present what we can bring
to the table of the research, there is
a possibility that we might get more
people to share the spread – provided by past and present, and with
the promise of the future. The question is, do we need to bring to that
table a new theory of our own to
attract others to join us – or are we
attractive enough without it? Since
every setting is likely to be different,
the suitable theory might emerge
after the table has been set for that
particular team in co-operation. The level of collaboration does not
necessarily equal the superiority of
the setting or the supremacy of the
results. The level of symbiosis and
collaboration needs be chosen according to the research problems
and naturally according to individual researches as well. Collaboration between different researchers
is not always needed and it should
never be based on artificial and nonscholarly reasons. The main aim of
archaeology is to study the story of
mankind, his(s)tory – our story. If
we could ignore the disciplinary
borders and establish a process for
discussion and research among different actors who have a common
interest and aim to understand the
topic in question, we might be able
to weave new kind of interesting studies in historical narrative. Crossing
the bridges and borders, combining
Above, I reflected the differences
between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary co-operation. The
most intimate form of collaboration
between two or more disciplines is
transdisciplinary research. In this
collaboration, different researchers
are exchanging information, altering discipline-specific approaches
and sharing resources. In this kind
of collaboration disciplines integrate into achieving a common scientific goal. Transdisciplinarity requires conceptual and methodological
159
META 2015
sources and studies, methods and
theories, discussing with the past,
present and future – this is how I see
the role of historical archaeology or
rather hybrid archaeology of today.
Kone -foundation for supporting my
participation in NTAG -conference in
Stockholm in 2014.
Acknowledgements to
Liisa Seppänen. PhD, postdoctoral
researcher, Department of Archaeology,
Turku University, Finland
E-mail: [email protected]
Interviewees in the department of
History and Archaeology in Turku
University
160
LIISA SEPPÄNEN
Referenser
•Brusila, H. et al. (eds.) (2003) Koroinen eläväksi. Korois till liv. Koroinen -seminaari, Korois –seminarium 7.–8.4.2001. Turun maakuntamuseo / Åbo Landskapmuseum, raportteja /
rapport 19. Turku: Turun maakuntamuseo.
•Choi, B.C.K. & Pak, A.W.P. (2006) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definition, objectives, and
evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med 2006; 29 (6), ss. 351–364.
•Drake, K. (1984) Alkusanat. In Brusila, H., Drake, K. & Mikola, E. (eds.) Historiallisen ajan
arkeologia Suomessa. Den historiska tidens arkeologi i Finland. Raportteja / rapport 6.
Turku / Åbo: Turun maakuntamuseo / Åbo landskapsmuseum, ss. 6.
•Gardberg, C. J. (1971) Turun kaupungin historia 1100-luvun puolivälistä vuoteen 1366. In
Kivikoski, E. & Gardberg, C. J. Turun kaupungin historia kivikaudesta vuoteen 1366. Turku,
ss. 117–315.
•Helsinki University (2014). Available from http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/english/admissions/
presentation/disciplines.htm [Accessed 14th November 2014]
•Kallio-Seppä, T. (2013) Kosteutta, puuta ja vallankäyttöä – arkeologinen näkökulma Oulun kaupungin julkisen tilan kehittymiseen 1600-luvulta 1820-luvulle. Studia Archaeologica
Septentrionalia 6. Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen yhdistys.
•Koivunen, P. (2003) Koroisten piispanistuimen ja asutuksen tutkimushistoria / Forskninghistoria kring biskopstolen och bosättningen på Korois. In Brusila, H., Kostet, J., Pihlman, A.
& Räty. J. (eds.) Koroinen eläväksi / Korois till liv. Koroinen –seminaari / Korois –seminarium 7.–8.4.2001. Turku: Turun maakuntamuseo, ss. 35–86.
•Kostet, J. & Pihlman, A. (eds.) (1989) Turun Mätäjärvi. Mätäjärvi i Åbo. Raportteja 10 /
Rapport 10. Turku: Turun maakuntamuseo.
•Kuujo, E. (1981) Turun kaupungin historia 1366–1521. Turku.
•Majewski, T. & Gaimster, D. (eds.) (2009) International handbook of historical archaeology. Springer Science + Business media.
•Mikkeli, H. & Pakkasvirta, J. (2007) Tieteiden välissä? Johdatus monitieteisyyteen, tieteidenvälisyyteen ja poikkitieteellisyyteen. Helsinki: WSOY.
•Orser, C.E.Jr. (1996) A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. Contributions to
Global Historical Archaeology. New York and London: Plenum Press.
•Oulu University (2014). Available from http://www.oulu.fi/arkeologia/ [Accessed 14th
November 2014]
•Seppänen, L. (2012) Rakentaminen ja kaupunkikuvan muutokset keskiajan Turussa.
Erityistarkastelussa Åbo Akademin päärakennuksen tontin arkeologinen aineisto.Väitöskirja. Turun yliopisto: Historian, kulttuurin ja taiteen tutkimuksen laitos. http://urn.fi/
URN:ISBN:978-951-29-5231-1
161
META 2015
•Ruuth, J. W. (1909) Åbo stads historia under medeltiden och 1500-talet. Första häftet.
Bidrag till Åbo stads historia. Utgifna på föranstaltande av bestryrelsen för Åbo stads
historiska museum, andra serien, IX, Helsingfors.
•Taavitsainen, J.-P. (1999) Historiallisen ajan arkeologia tieteenalana ja antikvaarisena
toimintana. In Niukkanen, M. (ed.) Historiallisen ajan arkeologian menetelmät. Seminaari
1998. Museoviraston rakennushistorian osaston julkaisuja 20. Helsinki: Museovirasto, ss.
6–14.
•Tucemems (2014). Available from http://www.utu.fi/en/units/hum/sites/tucemems/Pages/
home.aspx [Accessed 14th November 2014]
•Turku University (2014a). Available from http://www.utu.fi/fi/yksikot/hum/yksikot/Sivut/
home.aspx [Accessed 14th November 2014]
•Turku University (2014b). Available from http://www.utu.fi/fi/Ajankohtaista/Uutiset/Sivut/
turkulaisyliopistot-vahvistavat-tutkimustaan-ja-opetustaan-yhteistyolla.aspx [Accessed
24th November 2014]
•Virtanen, K. et al. (eds.) (2003) Dominikaanit Suomessa ja Itämeren alueella keskiajalla /
Dominicans in Finland and around the Baltic Sea during the Middle Ages. Turun maakuntamuseo / Turku provincial museum, raportteja / report 18. Turku: Turun maakuntamuseo.
162
To organize the dead
– stratigraphy as a source for typology in post-medieval
burials
Joakim Kjellberg
This paper, presented at the VIII Nordic Meeting on Stratigraphy and the EAA meeting
in Helsinki 2012, deals with the stratigraphy and typology of post-reformation burials,
primarily those encountered during excavations in the North transept of Uppsala Cathedral in 2007 (Kjellberg et al 2011). This was at that time the largest excavation ever
conducted inside the cathedral. The excavation resulted in a substantial amount of archaeological data, with features such as a preserved and previously unknown medieval cellar,
foundations for a medieval gallery and original floor levels, two preserved and intact burial chambers and remains of more than 150 medieval and post-medieval burials. In total,
the remains of 18 more or less preserved coffins, all dating to the post-reformation period,
were recorded. The stratigraphical analysis revealed a chronological pattern in the development of coffin shapes and coffin attributes. This inspired an outline for a typology that
may be used as a tool for dating future finds of unstratified burials. The typology has since
been tested and modified through comparison with other well-dated and documented
archeological and art historical coffins from within other churches in Central Sweden. To
a lesser extent comparison with materials from excavated churchyards have been made.
The excavation
before he met his end on Christmas
day in 1160. The choir and nave of
the gothic cathedral were completed
in the mid-14th century and building
activities continued into the late 16th
century, mostly in the western parts
and towers. Much of the present appearance of the cathedral is predominantly the result of quite substantial
restorations during the 1850s - 1870s
by the architect Helgo Zetterwall.
The cathedral itself is also the final
Uppsala, along with its predecessor Gamla (‘Old’) Uppsala, has been
the seat for the Swedish archbishops
from mid-12th century to present
day. Construction of the cathedral
began in about 1270, likely replacing
a small Romanesque parish church.
The earlier church is believed to be
the place where S:t Erik, the patron
saint of Sweden, attended mass right
163
META 2015
Figure 1. Plan and overview of the site with features and the graves indicated. Post-reformation
coffins are marked in black with white frames, while dark grey irregular shapes represent 10
intact medieval burials, all without coffins and dated to the period before the construction of the
transept in the 14th century. Contexts mentioned in the following text are numbered A3-A6.
resting place for what is thought
to be more than 3000 individuals,
buried between the 13th to the early
19th century (Lovén 2010).
ous installations were to be placed
such as restrooms and facilities for
visitors and staff. Prior and parallel
to the excavations in 2007 the socalled Huselius research project had
been carried out at Upplandsmuseet. The project involved a number of scholars and experts from
various disciplines to present different aspects of the cathedral and its
history from the 12th to 19th centuries. The project and researchers
The 2007 excavation covered more
or less the whole of the North transept, in total about 90 m2 with a volume exceeding 180 m3. The reason
for excavating was the building of
a platform to support a new choir
organ. Beneath the platform vari-
164
JOAKIM KJELLBERG
have been an enormously valuable
resource during the project, especially in establishing a chronological
framework for the excavations. The
results of the Huselius project have
been published in 6 volumes as part
of the series Sveriges kyrkor (Uppsala domkyrka 1-6 2010).
new type of foundation that allowed for some of the subterranean
structures to be preserved, as well
as a limited osteological analysis to
be conducted along with a specialized recording of some of the encountered textile material (Kjellberg
et al 2011). The downside was that
it was not possible to get full cost
coverage for a complete documentation and preservation of the coffins
themselves, nor a full osteological
analysis or future access to the redeposited bones. On the request of
the Archdiocese, all skeletons and
recorded parts of coffins were placed in new containers, re-interred in
a sealed but newly discovered medieval cellar under the new concrete
floor at the end of the excavation.
In 2007 the historical records of use
for this part of the cathedral were
still unprocessed and no previous
excavations had been carried out.
Ground-penetrating radar had been
used a few years earlier to evaluate
potential underground structures,
though the results were limited and
inconclusive. For these reasons, before the start of the excavations, our
knowledge of previous constructions and activities in the transept
could be described as limited at
best. Furthermore the excavation
permit from the County Administrative Board was very generally
formulated, lacking regulations and
costs regarding the conservation of
artifacts and preservation of structures on site (Kjellberg 2011). There
was unfortunately no adequate research plan formulated at the onset
of the project, and the resources set
aside for archeological and osteological analysis and presentation were
limited. This soon became a problem that grew bigger as a rich and
costly archeological material was
uncovered daily causing a strained
relationship with the contractor. After some compromises on both sides, the contractor agreed to change
the construction plans and adopt a
The coffins from Uppsala
Cathedral
A total of 18 post-reformation burials with more or less preserved coffins were encountered in relatively
hasty circumstances, dating from at
least the early 17th century to the
late 18th century. The material consist of the remains of 14 adults and 4
children (Bäckström 2011). All were
in-terred in so called ”mull-gravar”,
without masonry constructions
although originally marked with a
stone slab. The coffins and skeletal
material were in varying condition.
The coffins were in most cases intact but caved in. In some cases they
were only partly preserved due to
165
META 2015
mechanical tear from more recent
burials and constructions.
One of the two burial chambers (A3
in fig.1 & 2) was important for establishing the chronology. From written records the chamber was recognized as belonging to the astronomy
professor Anders Spole who had it
built sometime between 1679 and
prior to his death in 1699. The burial chamber was not opened during
the excavations, as it was to be preserved beneath the new concrete
flooring. There had been coffin-shaped niches made in the brickwork at
the time of its construction, likely
to avoid damaging the foot end of
previous burials nearby. Another
key to the chronology was derived
from the coffin of Martin Wärn (S9
in fig.1 & 2) dated to 1748. The
foundations for the medieval gallery
and adjoining cellar (A4-6 in fig.1
& 2) gave the framework of an earliest possible dating of the coffins to
1440-1445 (Lovén 2010).
Even though there is a surprisingly
large amount of written sources
from the post-reformation period
in the cathedral, we have limited
knowledge of who was buried in
the North transept. Though we
have some names from the so called grave plans from the mid 17thcentury onwards (Bengtsson 2010)
it is almost impossible to link the
graves on the plans to the archeological record directly. The exception
is the burial chambers and the grave
of a Norwegian tradesman by the
name of Martin Wärn. He died of
sudden fever in 1748 and was identified from an engraved brass mount
still attached to the head end of the
coffin.
We therefore had to rely almost
completely on the archeological
observations to get some understanding of the chronological development of the site. Unfortunately the
possibilities for keeping a good and
tidy stratigraphical record was somewhat limited, since the material
surrounding the coffins consisted of
2 meters of building debris, loose
sand and gravel overturned so many
times that almost no original strata
was recognizable anywhere. Instead
we had to turn to other observations, such as contacts, superpositioning and relations of the coffins
to other on-site features.
It was noticed that the shapes and
styles of the coffins varied substantially and seemingly systematically
over time. The need for a system of
recording the coffin shapes on site
was soon apparent, as the coffins
were held together mainly by the
earth surrounding them and subsequently were destroyed during the
process of excavation. This record
was later transferred directly in to
the Harris matrix during analysis.
When we compared the shapes of
coffins to the stratigraphic sequence
a clear line of development could be
discerned.
166
JOAKIM KJELLBERG
The data
Wallenbom & Edlund 2004, Tagesson & Westerlund 2004), art-historical surveys of churches and burial
chambers (Nygren 1957, Olsson
1936) as well as conservation records (Zetterström 2010).
To widen the somewhat narrow
basis of the Domkyrkan typology
and to validate its use on other sites it was necessary to incorporate
similar material from other parts of
Sweden, a task which proved more
challenging than expected. The
number of easily accessible and well
dated materials are small. The registration of individual burials (and
especially the recording of coffins)
are at times disorganized and fragmented even within one excavation.
This makes it virtually impossible to
get an overview of the material from
different sites without the frame
work of time consuming re-processing of records. The material that has
been gathered for this article consists of archeological sources in and
around churches as well as churchyards (e.g. Jonsson 2009, Bäckström
& Ingvarsson –Sundström 2010,
In most cases only some attributes
could be recorded for each coffin,
making the number of completely
recorded coffins very small. For a
relatively large number of archeologically recorded coffins, especially
from churchyards, the outer shape
of the coffins and mostly only the
grave cut could be recognized. Subsequently, the somewhat “rougher”
graveyard materials have only been
partly included in this study since
the material is awaiting further analysis. The material from art-historical surveys and conservation reports
includes outer coffins in lead, copper and other metals. The greater
part of coffins in the study are made
Figure 2, left. Harris matrix showing the stratigraphic relations of the burials in connection to
more well dated structures (shown with grey filling).
Figure 3, right. A graphic presentation of the different coffin shapes encountered and their
relations within the matrix. Clearly, the oldest shapes, dating before the construction of the burial
chamber A3, are predominantly rectangular or trapezoid in shape.The later ones are rhombic or
lancet shaped.
167
META 2015
and Martin Olsson in the mid-20th
century. The establishing of a new
table was a necessity to coherently
summarize and structuralize the
material as they were all registered
in different ways. To date, the complete list of stratigraphically or historically well dated coffins includes
more than 90 entries, statistically
speaking still quite a small number.
New material has continually been
added, and hopefully this number
will increase even further as other
materials are discovered.
of wood, however sometimes clad
with different fabrics and/or painted. The registration is therefore somewhat reduced to basic shapes and
main features which are relevant in
both cases. When both outer and
inner coffins exist, as in several of
the coffins from Badelunda church
(Nygren 1957), both have been registered as separate coffins.
The material has been systematically collected and is summarized in
a registration table similar to that of
the archeological record from Domkyrkan. The table from Domkyrkan
was extended to include information about cross-sections and various attributes used in the excellent
records from Badelunda church and
Riddarholmskyrkan by Nils Nygren
Typology
From the complete material, including the coffins from Domkyrkan,
it is possible to outline a typology
Figure 4.The latest addition to the registration of coffins was made during a visit to the Maasenbach burial chamber in Uppsala Cathedral in June 2011.
168
JOAKIM KJELLBERG
of changes in coffin shapes and attributes during the post-reformation
period.
especially in the later examples. Inner coffins of type 1 and 2 are found
in outer coffins of type 3 and 4.
Type 3 is a hexagonal hybrid type
between 2 and 4 and seems to have
been in use for a rather limited period during the later part of 17th century. Type 3 is, together with the late
forms of type 2 coffins, the first group that shows any curved lines and
profiled carvings, predominantly on
the lids of the coffins. Type 4 is a
rhomboid or hexagonal coffin with
a wide foot end, more than half the
width of the head side gable. There
are also an increasing amount of
coffins with curved shapes in both
plan- and cross-section. Type 5 is a
hybrid shape showing features from
both types 4 and 6, still with a wide
foot end but incorporating a wider
Through analyzing the complete
listing it has been possible to divide
the material into six general types.
The types is based mainly on the
plan- and cross-section shapes of
coffins.
Coffins of type 1, together with type
2, are the oldest form of coffin in
this period, going back well into the
Middle Ages (Kieffer-Olsen 1993,
Jonsson 2009). Type 2 is relatively
common and long-lived, remaining
in use during the entire 17th century. Type 2 is also, together with
type 3, the first showing an increasing amount of decorated handles,
1. Rectangular coffins with a 4 or 6-sided cross section.
2. Trapezoid coffins with a 4 or 6-sided cross section.
3. Hexagonal coffin with a wide base and 6-sided cross section.
4. Rhomboid and curved coffins with a wide base and 6-sided cross section.
5. Rhomboid and curved coffins with a wide base, 6-sided cross section and a wide and
often profiled ridge along the lid.
6. Lancet shaped coffins with a narrow base (less than ½ of the head side) and mostly
curved lines. 5-sided cross section with a narrow and profiled ridge along the lid.
Figure 5. Schematic presentation of the development of coffin shapes dating from the postreformation period until approximately 1800.The approximate dating of each category is
highlighted in grey.
169
META 2015
and rougher profiled ridge along the
lids from type 6. Type 6 is another
long-lived shape and is also the latest
in the material. These lancet-shaped
coffins of type 6 have a narrow foot
end, less than half the width of the
head side gable, and often showing
curved lines along the body along
with elaborate profiling of the edgeworks and high-rising integrated and
decorated feet. No inner coffins were
registered in coffins of type 6.This
form is represented throughout the
18th century until abandonment of
the custom of interment inside churches in Sweden. This also seems to be
the form most commonly represented in the archeological record from
churchyards. Most likely because its
long period of use and because it often represents the last stage of burials
(e.g. Kjellberg 2010).
the early-modern period. The first
and second group clearly are set in a
medieval tradition while the shapes
of groups 3, 4 and 5 clearly link to
the general and fashionable forms of
the early Baroque. The more elongated and slimmer shapes of group 6
dating from the 18th century onwards might best be described as
late Baroque and later on even neoclassical shapes.
Of course the archeological material
from the excavations in Uppsala cathedral and other places contains a
lot more information of importance
for further studies but to fully cover all these aspects is however too
big a challenge for this article. With
increasing numbers of coherently
registered and well-dated coffins, be
it by stratigraphy or other sources,
it will be possible to narrow some
gaps in the sequences from the
complex settings often encountered
in and around churches. Alongside
the records of osteological material,
the study of coffins and other funerary objects has a potential to give a
fuller understanding of the identity
and mind-sets of any population, albeit this time a population of presumed high social status ranging from
about the 16th to the 19th century.
The study also showed that there
were more detailed developments in
coffin attributes, such as feet, handles and ornaments, to be recognized
in the material. Especially the introduction of standardized handles
around 1650 and the increased use
of externally mounted ornaments
from the 18th century were apparent. The transition from pegged and
ball- shaped feet into the elaborately
carved and integrated feet from the
mid-18th century were also obvious.
Special thanks to Robin Lucas for revising
the English text.
Joakim Kjellberg. PhD student at the dep.
of Archaeology and Ancient History at
Uppsala University and archaeologist at
Upplandsmuseet. English revised by Robin
Lucas, Upplandsmuseet.
E-post: [email protected]
Finishing touch
It is clear that the shapes of coffins
in general have been influenced by
changes in style and fashion during
170
JOAKIM KJELLBERG
Referenser
•Bengtsson, Herman. 2010. Uppsala domkyrka 6. Gravminnen. Sveriges kyrkor volym 232.
Upplandsmuseet. Uppsala.
•Bäckström,Ylva. 2011. Skelettmaterialet från norra korsarmen – sjukdomar och hälsotillstånd. In Kjellberg et al 2011.
•Bäckström,Ylva & Ingvarsson-Sundström, Anne. 2010. Sala gruvkyrkogård: arbete och
straff vid Sala silvergruva. Etapp 2 : forskningsgrävning, Sala stadsförsamling, Silvergruva
1:47, fornlämning nr 51,Västmanlands län. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis. Uppsala.
•Jonsson, Kristina. 2009. Practices for the living and the dead: medieval and post-reformation burials in Scandinavia. Diss. Stockholms universitet, 2009. Stockholm.
•Kieffer-Olsen, Jakob. 1993. Grav og gravskik i det middelalderlige Danmark: 8 kirkegårdsudgravninger. Diss. Aarhus Universitet. Aarhus.
•Kjellberg, Joakim. 2011. Uppsala Cathedral and Bälinge parish church – experiences
drawn from two recent archaeological excavations in Upland in Papers from Symposium
About Archeology and History of Churches in the Baltic region,Visby. Baltic studies. Högskolan på Gotland och Länsstyrelsen i Gotlands län.Visby.
•Kjellberg, Joakim, Bengtsson, H, Bäckström,Y & Lundwall, Eva. 2011. Uppsala domkyrka,
arkeologi i det norra transeptet. RAÄ 88:1, Uppsala, Uppland. Upplandsmuseet rapport
2011:04. Uppsala.
•Kjellberg, Joakim. 2010.Vårfrukyrkan: gravar på ”Djäknekyrkogården” : RAÄ 26:1,Vårfrukyrkan, Enköpings stad, Uppland : arkeologik schaktningsövervakning. Upplandsmuseet
rapport 2010:65. Uppsala.
•Lovén, Christian. 2010. Byggnadsbeskrivning i Uppsala domkyrka. 3, Byggnadsbeskrivning,
byggnadshistoria, domkyrkans konsthistoriska ställning. (Ed. Bengtsson, Herman), Sveriges
kyrkor volym 229. Upplandsmuseet. Uppsala.
•Nygren, Nils 1957. (unprinted notes, draft). Det Wittenbergska gravkoret i Badelunda
kyrka, antikvarisk kontroll vid restaurering.Västmanlands Läns Museum arkiv, Badelunda II.
•Olsson, Martin. 1937. Riddarholmskyrkan. 2, Fast inredning, inventarier och gravminnen.
Generalstabens litografiska anst. Stockholm.
•Tagesson, Göran & Westerlund, Johan. 2004. Domkyrkoparken, Linköping: gravar från
1100-talet till 1810, Östergötland, Linköpings stad och kommun. Riksantikvarieämbetet,
Avd. för arkeologiska undersökningar, UV Öst. Linköping.
•Uppsala domkyrka 1- 6. Sveriges kyrkor 227-232. Upplandsmuseet. Uppsala 2010.
•Zetterström, Cai. 2011. Gottröra kyrka i Rimbo pastorat. Konserveringsrapport
angående återställandet av Ingeborg Banérs begravningskista. Projekt stormaktstidens
begravningskistor. Z- metallform AB. Stockholm.
•Wallenbom, Ulrika & Edlund, Martin. 2005. Södra Råda gamla kyrkplats år 2004. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Avd. för arkeologiska undersökningar, UV Bergslagen rapport 2005:8.
Örebro.
171
META 2015
172
Naust
– the boathouses of Nyköping and the echoes of power
Tomas Westberg
This article presents and discusses a construction phenomenon during the Iron Age (500
B.C.-1100 A.D.) in Scandinavia called naust. The article discusses the naust phenomenon from structural, social and spatial perspectives concomitant with the late Iron Age
and the emergence of semi-centralized societies in Scandinavia. Particular focus is given
evidence which dates to the Vendel (ca. 550-800 A.D.) and Viking (ca. 800-1100 A.D.)
periods and come from the Åkroken excavations conducted 2010 and 2011 in the town
of Nyköping in eastern middle Sweden. Not only is the more well-preserved building
here the largest known excavated example of a naust in eastern Scandinavia from this
period, both buildings also had impressively long periods of use of up to 400 years. They
have most likely defined this locality over numerous generations and are succeeded by the
town of Nyköping which needs to be re-evaluated as a part of a greater whole.
Etymology
noe) and the suffix -steh2 “to stand”,
i.e. stall/stable (cf. Old High German: awist, ewist “sheep-pen/stable”),
i.e. literally meaning “Ship-stable”
(Lubotsky 2012-03-14). The more
commonly used word for ship in Old
Norse however, skib, is of more obscure Germanic origin, possibly derived from the PIE *skei- “to split”, also
meaning “tree cut or hollowed out”
(cf. Greek: σκαάφος (skaphos) “hull”,
Proto Germanic: *skipam). Boat can
be educed from the PIE *bheid- also
meaning “to split/bite” (cf. Old Norse batr ). In Old Norse there was obviously clear-cut distinctions between
the words (and hence the vessels) nor,
The etymology of the word naust is
intricate and can be the matter of debate. This is, however, not the main
question addressed in this article.
The etymology is merely presented so
as to demonstrate that the origins of
the nomenclature regarding nautical
terms and phenomena is ancient and
that it still has recognizable elements
having been in use for at least the last
two millennia. It is suggested that the
word naust is construed by the Proto
Indo European (PIE) root *neh2u“ship” (cf. Greek: ναῦς (naus), Old
Norse: nor, Old Irish: nau, Welsh:
173
META 2015
skip and batr, derived from various
parameters such as function, size,
crew and manner of manufacture
to name a few. This is, however, a
separate debate. Nevertheless, the
etymology of naust is explicative
due to two factors;
structure discussed in this article is
defined by:
• A sedentary pole and/or partially stone built building-like
structure with an opening facing
the water, a roof, walls, and trenches or banks consisting of stone
and/or soil on both sides of the
building.
• A trench in the middle of the
structure where the ships were
pulled up and stored, repaired
or constructed.
• It being situated in an area close
to where land and water intersect/has intersected.
• Located in what one can call
the Scandinavian culture-sphere
during the Iron Age and later.
1. is denoted by PIE elements and
has thus been introduced after
a time when an archaic form of
Proto-Norse already had settled in
Scandinavia, i.e. it is certain that
this word can be dated back to at
least the Pre-Roman Iron Age period (Kroonen 2013-05-22) and this
is also when it starts to occur in the
archaeological record.
2. Naust is used consistently for
the same type of structure through
time. Even if we cannot know this
for certain, it is implausible that
the word would designate another
type of structure today than it did
in prehistory.
The appearance of the above defined naust in the archaeological record is concomitant with the beginning of the Iron Age in Scandinavia,
a period defined by the emergence
of semi-centralized societies, political power connected to pre-urban
central sites and a differentiation
of spatial use in coastal areas. These
factors are in a reciprocal relationship with the naust, e.g. through
organized labour and that it was a
common structure in the sense that
it held shared interests and/or obligations through for example travels/
ledung2. In addition, the necessity of
defence, trade and communications
renders that ships were valuable
commodities in need of protection
and maintenance and consequently,
so were these buildings. In relation
Definition and
research history
The naust has primarily been understood and interpreted from the
aspect of storing ships . However,
this was not their only purpose, the
need of a protective structure when
constructing and repairing ships was
of equal, if not greater, importance.
Constructing these types of structures is surely as old as the use of
ships and boats themselves (Rolfsen
1974, p.121). However, the naust
174
TOMAS WESTBERG
use. Perhaps these were of simpler
nature and have therefore not survived in the archaeological record
(Stylegar & Grimm 2005, p. 256).
It needs to be pointed out that the
inventory in Scandinavia of landbuilt maritime connected structures
prior to the Iron Age is similarly to
older ships scarce at best. Still, the
naust type of structure discussed
here coincides with the social, economic and organizational aspects
of Iron Age society and is thus a
phenomenon specific to this time.
There are a wide range of evidences
of both simpler and more advanced
storage structures throughout history, e.g. Greek examples from the
5th century BC (Stylegar & Grimm
2005, p. 253), large complexes of
structures deemed some of the most
expensive of antiquity (Blackman
& Rankov 2014), but also examples from ethnographical studies
used throughout to modern times.
These are, for instance, branch built
sheds used by the Sami population
in northern Norway (Rolfsen 1974,
p. 12). Functionally speaking, these
are as any type of construction dependant on the type of vessel stored,
meaning that the properties of the
structures are determined by the
vessels and not vice versa. However, the naust type of construction
discussed in this article incorporates
more than just storage capacities.
One must bear in mind the great
value of ships and consequently also
of these structures (both monetary
and symbolic) which is given from
their reciprocity to the importance
to the common aspects of the naust
it is probable that they had both a
private, personal sphere (since it was
most likely owned by a chieftain or
its equivalent, cf. halls and other
common structures) but was also
shared/used by several others, such
as workers and shipwrights etc.
The development of shipbuilding
techniques is likely to have propelled the developments of naust construction. When the ships grew in
size and number, the naust did likewise. As indicated above, there
is no reason to believe that similar
structures have not existed throughout prehistory, but here we face a
source problem. There are few or
no3 examples of such structures
that have been excavated in Scandinavia, and few remaining ships
from the periods predating the Iron
Age are known (excepting log-boats
and canoes, which, in any case, are
not ships). Some unique examples of older boats exist, such as the
Hjortspringboat (Kaul 1988) from
Denmark dated to 3-400 BC and
the Ferriby-boats from England dated to 2000-1680 BC (http://www.
ferribyboats.co.uk/). Additionally,
even if some of the larger Norwegian examples of naust are dated
to the first centuries AD (Stylegar
& Grimm 2005, p.256) there are
no complete surviving ships from
this particular period. Yet depictions of large maritime vessels in
the well-known Bronze Age rock
carvings from Scandinavia suggest
that also during this period some
form of shelter must have been in
175
META 2015
where one can expect to find naust
structures6. Such investigations have
to a certain degree been conducted
in Sweden, and in particular on the
island of Gotland. As a result, some
20 large plausible buildings of this
kind have been identified (Stylegar
& Grimm 2005, p.255, Westerdahl
1989, p. 252-6 & 2002, p. 77-9).
of seafaring, trade and war, viz. factors of power. Given these properties it is also likely that many naust
were situated in the vicinity of places of power, constructed under the
auspice of kings (Stylegar & Grimm
2005, p.253). One of Sweden’s oldest towns, Birka, located on the
island of Björkö in lake Mälaren,
had a protected harbour with several pile barricades constructed in
the water closest to the town area
(Hedenstierna-Jonson 2006, p. 48).
This functioned primarily as a defence for the town and the trade
conducted there, but it is also reasonable to assume that merchantmen
were moored securely behind these
barricades. Furthermore, outside of
the regulated town area adjacent below the garrison of Birka, there are
remains of what appears to be jetties
and other constructions and this location is the most likely to have harboured a naval base (HedenstiernaJonson et. al. 1998, Stålberg 2000).
However, there are two4 naust located on the neighbouring island
of Adelsö, where also the royal demesne was, i.e. the naust were situated in direct connection to the king.
Also, several so called båtlänningar5
have been located on Björkö (Hermodsson 1997) but these appear
scattered over the island and do not
in any case qualify as naust.
There are, however, several hundred examples of naust throughout
what one can call the Scandinavian culture-sphere, where Norway
is overrepresented with the greater
bulk of the material (ca 800, Stylegar & Grimm 2005, p. 254). This is
due to several factors as we shall see
below. Naust do indeed occur in all
of the Scandinavian countries (and
a few others surrounding the Baltic
sea) including Sweden and Iceland,
but also on the Orkney Islands,
the Hebrides, the Faeroe Islands,
Greenland and even as far away
as Newfoundland (Rolfsen 1974,
p.13, Stylegar & Grimm 2005).
They are generally dated to periods
ranging from pre-history7 to early
modern times. One can reconstruct
a period of use for most naust if one
takes land-rise (or -sinking for that
matter) into account, since most
naust were erected close to a zone
where land and water intersected at
its time of construction (taking approximations of tides into account
as well.). Many of the naust in Norway also incorporate secondary use,
such as burials (predominantly from
the late Iron Age), but also medieval
house-constructions. The reuse of a
A thorough examination of the archaeological and historical material
and surrounding landscape (topography, land rise calculations) can
produce fairly secure indications of
176
TOMAS WESTBERG
site can provide valuable information of when the site changed in
function and therefore help to chronologically seal the naust (Rolfsen
1974, p.18-28). That the Norwegian material is overrepresented in
the archaeological material depends
on the fact that there is a long tradition of examining naust in Norway. It also seems that most naust
in Norway are generally more robust in construction, having banks
of stone and soil on both sides for
supporting the roof, leaving traces
still clearly visible today. The fjord
landscape provided an abundance
of rocks as construction material,
but wood would have had to be
transported from the inland, thus
making the Norwegian naust sturdier partly because of direct access
to, but also lack of, these different
raw materials. There was also an actual need of stronger constructions
which could withstand the Atlantic
weather and tides.
analysis serves to arrange the excavated
features in a relative chronological order and also to assimilate the course of
events or actions which have produced
the archaeological material. The construction represents all events and actions that have created and organized a
social space or a locality within a defined space. The material remains of actions that have taken place within this
locality represent its usage. Lastly, the
destruction is represented by remnants
deposited either post-usage or when
the usage has changed. Intentions and
values can be interpreted from the construction of social spaces, whereas social relations and significations on an
everyday basis are encountered in the
usage.
Beneath the earliest urban layer, which
consisted of a cultivation soil, the remains of two large post-built buildings emerged. The first (henceforth
A) and best preserved one stretched
from southeast to northwest, centered in both the Åkroken 3 and 4 sites.
The other building (henceforth B), of
which only a small portion was found,
was situated in the southwest corner of
Åkroken 3. This structure was of similar character as A and was laid out approximately in the same direction (fig.
1), perpendicular towards the Nyköping river. During a survey conducted
in January 2014 an additional part of
building B was found further to the
southwest.
Case study - Nyköping
During two seasons in 2010 and 2011
extensive excavations in the central area
of the town of Nyköping in eastern
middle Sweden were undertaken. Two
sites were excavated, Åkroken 3 and 4,
2010 and 2011 respectively. During the
excavations strict single context methodology was employed. This means that
every individual stratigraphic object
was documented equally according to
set principles on a specially developed
form. The stratigraphic and contextual
I am suggesting that these two buildings are to be understood as the
remains of two naust.
177
META 2015
This causes extraordinary implications for the spatial interpretation of the latter Nyköping and its
hinterland but also for a much larger catchment area and the county
of Södermanland as a whole. The
more well-preserved building (A)
is furthermore the largest known
naust from the Vendel and Viking
period in eastern Scandinavia.
Fig. 1. Overview. Opaque lines represent excavation areas, disturbances, test trenches and
modern buildings.The numbers display features sampled for radiocarbon dating (cf. tab. 1).
Graufelds & Westberg 2013.
178
TOMAS WESTBERG
An additional area with clusters of
postholes (henceforth Area C, fig.
1), contemporary with naust A,
was encountered in the north and
northeast corner of Åkroken 3 and
is consequently included in the discussion.
now removed constructional-elements, meaning that it was in use simultaneously with the usage-phase
of naust A. These facts furthermore
contradict the possibility of it being
a wall-trench or remains of a bank
for supporting the roof. However,
without protecting walls the buildings would not have served their
purpose (more about this further
down). The drainage trenches were
consistently 0,4-1 meters wide and
0,15-0,2 meters deep. They signal
long-term planning in the sense
that they were kept neat and diverted water from the structures. The
buildings were meant to last.
The littoral-sand, in which both
naust were constructed, lay as a
decimeter-thick course over the two
excavation areas. It sloped slightly
from the northwest to the southeast
down towards the Nyköping river
and a landslide scar in Åkroken 4,
which had left a significantly steep
escarpment generated by erosion
(fig. 1). The landslide had annihilated the southeast short side of naust
A and the modern building directly
to the south of naust B had erased
the major part of this structure
within Åkroken 4.
At the northwestern short sides of
both buildings large gable-postholes were encountered, two in naust
A and one in naust B. These were
rounded in shape, 1,3-1,8 meters
in diameter and 1,15-1,5 meters in
depth. With regards to stratigraphic and macrofossil evidence (i.e.
the cultivation soil) these depthmeasurements are considered to be
the original depths of the postholes. They contained 0,8-1,2 m³ of
neatly packed 0,1-0,5 meter large,
partly rounded, partly hewn stones.
These had a supporting function
because the soil beneath the littoralsand consisted of varved silt, which
may have been slightly unstable. All
of the features of both naust A and
B had been dug down at their construction-phase into this stratum,
which, together with the buildings
sheer size and weight explicates these substantial postholes and stone
Both naust consisted of similar constructional-elements: an enclosing
roof-drip/drainage ditch comprised
by a shallow trench with concave
sides and uneven bottom. The trenches themselves did not contain any
visible constructional-elements, and
primary deposits in the trench belonging to naust A clearly indicated
through macrofossil and stratigraphic analysis that it had been kept
open. The organic material at the
bottom of the trench had accumulated there during a long period of
time since it, as opposed to the material in the surrounding soil, was
completely decomposed. Thus, the
trench cannot have contained any
179
META 2015
0,3-0,7 meters in depth and they
contained 0,02-0,1 m³ of rounded
stone material as support. The variations in depth depend on damage
done by modern disturbances. Several results from the wood-analysis
conducted on wall posts found in
situ proved that they also were of
oak. The southwestern long side of
naust A had, compared to the opposing one, a slightly different constitution. Here, only a single row
of wall postholes was encountered.
However, at the majority of the
postholes there were, from the enclosing trench to the former perpendicularly running smaller furrows.
The furrows were 0,5-1,2 meters
in length, 0,2-0,3 meters wide and
0,1-0,2 meters in depth. These have
been interpreted as being imprints
or cut furrows for hosting horizontally placed logs on which angled
supports similar to buttresses were
erected and fastened on the outer
side of the roof supporting wall
constructions. Even though some
of the stone constructions had partially collapsed, their inner diameter, and thus the approximate size
of the posts could be determined to
0,5-0,6 meters in diameter after the
removal of loose stones. The base
of an intact post was found in situ
in the gable posthole belonging to
naust B and could through woodanalysis be classified as oak.
In naust A there were, parallel to
the northeastern long side and from
the trench 1,2-1,5 meters indented,
a double row of features separated
by 0,6-1 meters in distance (fig. 1).
The inner or farther row seen from
the trench was the postholes belonging to the roof supporting/wall
posts, and the outer row closest to
the trench (consisting of smaller features) was the ground fastened supports for the former. The wall postholes consisted generally of features
sized 0,6-0,9 meters in diameter,
Figure 2. Merged photographs of naust A.The building was excavated in two sections in Åkroken
3 due to dump-management.The southeastern part of the building was situated underneath the
wall to the left in the picture within Åkroken 4. Photo from the northeast. 2010 RAÄ Uv Mitt.
180
TOMAS WESTBERG
posts in order to achieve the same
stability as the opposing long side8.
As mentioned above, a small continuation of naust B was examined
and excavated during a survey in the
street Slottsgatan in January 2014.
The features found proved that the
southwest wall of naust B consisted
of similar constructional elements
as the corresponding wall in naust
A, at least in the section examined.
tern wall had started to subside
causing these constructional elements to be used here. On the other
hand, the southwestern long-side of
naust B proved to have been constructed in the same manner. This
could be explained by the fact that
these long sides are facing the Nyköpingbay and the sea, therefore
requiring sturdier constructions in
order to withstand autumn storms
etc. In all, this clearly displays that
the walls were carrying the entire
weight of the constructions which is
also the most commonly occurring
in the Norwegian examples, even if
these often have bank constructions
consisting of stone and soil on both
long sides, upon which the roof
rested and simultaneously functioned as support for the walls (Rolfsen
1974, Stylegar & Grimm 2005).
As mentioned above, it is unlikely
that the structures did not have
closed surrounding walls (excepting the side facing the water). One
possibility is that the roof was conjoined with the wall construction,
following the angle and fastened to
the supposed buttress-like/support
post construction down towards the
ground, albeit placing the drainagetrench on the outer side of the buildings (possibly similar to the reconstructed naust at Avaldsnes, fig. 4).
Additional solitary postholes were
encountered just inside the corners of the enclosing trench in the
northwest in naust A on each side
(fig. 1, 2). These have been interpreted as constituting additional
support for the gable but can also
have functioned as anchoring for
a construction of some sort of larger doors or gateway (cf. fig. 3, 4).
No postholes or other features that
could constitute wall constructions
for solid or closed short sides were
found, which proves that they were
free from grounded constructions.
However, with regards to the fact
that the drainage trench was intact
in this section of both buildings,
some sort of overhang probably ex-
It is improbable that the buildings,
due to their properties and use, had
transversal beams under the inner
roof, which indicates the need of
solidly stabilized wall constructions.
In relation to the properties of the
varved silt subsoil yet another engineering function of the horizontal
logs in the southwestern long sides
may have been to at some extent
allocate the weight of the wall and
roof over a larger surface and thus
preventing it from subsiding. It is
remarkable that the two long sides
of naust A differs in construction
technique, perhaps the southwes-
181
META 2015
Figure 3. From Stylegar & Grimm 2005, with permission. Note especially the top building.
fire. Processing timber in order to
acquire certain shapes is called bending (basning). Today it usually is
achieved using steam (hence it also
being called steam-bending) but in
older times it was done over open
fire, this method also prevents rot
and fouling (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 1952).
isted here. Nevertheless, the short sides facing the water must obviously
have been open or at least open-able. Yet, since all traces of these have
been destroyed, there is no information on their construction available.
Furthermore, centrically in naust A
there was a 19,6 meters long, 2,53 meters wide and 0,5-0,7 meters
deep sloping depression, which
was slightly displaced towards the
southeast, i.e. to the direction of
the water. This feature has been interpreted as being the draw-trench
where the keel and hull of a pulled
up ship rested. At the bottom of the
draw-trench a heterogenic charcoalrich layer was examined which proved to be from the phase when the
trench was in use. It is possible that
the layer represents the residue from
construction-, prevention and repair activities requiring heating or
Naust B had only a small part of the
enclosing trench preserved and two
wall postholes, one within Åkroken
3 and one in Slottsgatan. The one in
Åkroken 3 was a rounded posthole
with a diameter of 0,45 meters and
0,85 meters in depth and contained
a significant support-construction
of rounded stones, measuring approximately 0,05 m³. The enclosing
trench in Slottsgatan was ca 1,75
meters long and 1 meter wide. The
smaller perpendicular furrow run-
182
TOMAS WESTBERG
Figure 4. Reconstructed naust at Avaldsnes, Nordvegen Historiesenter. Used with permission.
outer width of 12,5-13 meters and
an interior measurement between
the roof supporting/wall posts of
7-7,2 meters.
ning from the trench to the posthole
was 0,9 meters long and 0,6 meters
wide. The posthole was 0,3 meters
in diameter and ca 0,7 meters deep.
To render the measurements of
naust B, an extrapolated line from
its short side in Åkroken 3 to the
trench encountered in Slottsgatan
was drawn resulting in a measurement of 17,5 meters in length and
an outer width of ca 15 meters. The
interior measurement between the
roof supporting/wall posts was 7,5
meters. The total length of naust
A, from the trench at the gable-end
in the northwest to the tip of the
draw-trench/landslide scar in the
southeast, was 27,2 meters. Even
if the southern part of the building
was destroyed it is not likely that it
originally was much longer, since
this would place it too close to the
water (see further down). It had an
The exact height of the buildings
is evidently unknown and in order
to approximate a height, numerous
amounts of parameters needs to be
considered. Since many of these
are unsure or simply not known
the following assumption must be
considered a speculation. An approximate height of the large gable posts can be estimated through
dimensions, proportions, a design
calculation of strength and by assessing how much of the posts that was
buried in the ground (1/3 – 1/5 is
a commonly assumed proportion,
depending on construction, cf.
Komber 1989). This would render
a height of the gable posts to 2,3-6
183
META 2015
meters, but given this range and as
stated above these results are withal
too unsure. Nonetheless, taking
into account the height of contemporary ships (Larsson 2007, Varenius 1992), it can be assumed that
the height to the upper part of the
gable-end/transition to the roof was
at least 3-4 meters, but probably
somewhat higher. Thereto a height
from the transition to the roof up
to the ridge beam must be added
in order to estimate the total height
of each building. It is assumed that
both buildings had angled roofs similar to those in fig. 3 and 4 above.
An angled roof evidently adds a few
meters to the buildings height from
the gable-end. How much it adds
however, depends on the width of
the buildings and presumed angle of
the roof.
near-shore location during the Vendel and Viking periods when the
sea-level in the area was between 6-4
meters higher respectively than it is
today. In connection, it should be
mentioned that naust B was situated approximately 8 meters farther
down towards the Nyköping-river
in relation to naust A, which partially probably depends on its slightly
later dating. As opposed to Norwegian examples the naust in Nyköping could be placed in a proximity
to the shoreline since the problem
with tides is non-existent.
Furthermore, a few smaller scattered features and postholes occurred
within naust A. These have been
interpreted as traces of temporary
constructional- and reparation phases and/or supports for ships because they do not constitute any proper
structures.
The roof-drip/drainage trench,
which enclosed naust A, measured at
its highest point in the northwestern
corner (within Åkroken 3) 8,2 meters above sea-level and 7,75 meters
at its southern tip within Åkroken
4. The bottom of the draw-trench
in naust A measured 7,45 meters
above sea-level in its southernmost
part, i.e. closest to the water, within
Åkroken 4. In naust B, the enclosing trench measured 8,05 meters
above sea-level in the northwest and
7,2 meters in the southwest at the
Slottsgatan trench. This data is relevant for the chronology and modelling of the shoreline displacement
during the phases of construction
and use of both buildings. It gives a
The area of postholes (C) north of
naust A consisted of several clusters,
both linear rows and solitary features. In the northeastern corner of the
excavation area in Åkroken 3 there
were two parallel rows of postholes,
which ran in a west-southwest and
east-northeast direction. They have
been interpreted as belonging to a
building although no additional
row of postholes was encountered
further south. It is possible that the
rest of the presumed building is situated outside of the excavation area
to the north. Yet, this would imply
that the southern row consisting
of larger features would be part of
184
TOMAS WESTBERG
Table 1. Radiocarbon dating. Cf. fig 1 for sampled features.
Building
Sample
fig. 1.
Context/Lab.no.
Action
Material
Dating
(Cal AD)
Phase
Naust A
1
77425/Ua-30015
Construction
Juniper
650-780
2A
Naust A
2
77425/Ua-30016
Construction
Oak
600-685
2A
Naust A
3
74571/Ua-30017
Construction
Oak
430-610
2A
Naust A
4
74639/Ua-30019
Construction
Juniper
650-780
2A
Naust A
5
74639/Ua-30020
Construction
Oak
530-650
2A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naust A
6
536357/Ua-29558
Use
Bone
600-675
2A
Naust A
7
77162/Ua-29997
Use
Hazel
760-900
2A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naust A
8
74571/Ua-30018
Destruction
Straw
860-1020
2B
Naust A
9
77528/Ua-29979
Destruction
Herb-seeds
890-1040
2B
Naust A
10
76966/Ua-29981
Destruction
Herb-seeds
1020-1080
2B
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naust B
11
77750/Ua-29996
Dendro-sample
CATRAS-ID
72535
Construction
Oak
670-870
(790-810)
2B
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naust B
12
72514/Ua-29980
Destruction
Hazel
980-1160
2B
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Area C
13
538133/Ua-30677
Destruction
Bark
650-780
2A
Area C
14
538555/Ua-30678
Destruction
Maple
430-640
2A
Area C
15
538765/Ua-30679
Destruction
Juniper
640-780
2A
Area C
16
538144/Ua-30681
Destruction
Cerealia
660-870
2A
Area C
17
539535/Ua-30682
Destruction
Cerealia
660-870
2A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Area C
18
538955/Ua-30680
Destruction
Birch
1020-1190
2B
its outer construction (see further
down). Furthermore, just northwest
of naust A, there were additional
clusters of postholes forming linear and perpendicular structures.
The first and older unit consisted
of nine smaller postholes forming
a cross shaped structure where one
row ran in the same direction as
the length-axis of naust A and the
other perpendicular to the former.
The second unit, consisting of five
somewhat larger postholes, ran in
a direction from west-northwest to
east-southeast and hade the shape of
a backward L (fig. 1). The functions
of these constructions are somewhat
unclear. It is however apparent that
it is not a question of buildings per
se (except perhaps the first one).
They are merely included in this discussion since they are contempora-
185
META 2015
parts ended up in the postholes long
after this event, the location where
naust A is situated was cultivated
within one or a few decades after its
destruction and as a consequence
the features in the cultivation soil
have been erased. This suggests that
the postholes were backfilled immediately after the building had
been demolished. It follows that it
is the youngest result of the analysed
samples which determines when the
destruction of naust A occurred, i.e.
sample 10 which was radiocarbon
dated to the period between 10201080 AD. From this it can be inferred that the result from the dating
of the plant parts in sample 9 (8901040 AD) is derived either from the
same moment or more probably
when the building was repaired and
the posts were exchanged. The same
moment is probably also dated by
sample 8 (860-1020 AD). The conclusion is that naust A was probably
repaired sometime during the 10th
century and ultimately demolished
sometime between 1020-1080 AD,
yielding an impressively long period
of use of approximately 400 years.
Directly following the destruction,
an intermediate period of use of the
area can be detected, namely a few
decades of small-scale cultivation
and traces of metalworking after
which the regulated town of Nyköping emerges. Nyköping is therefore, according to what we know
today, the second oldest still extant
regulated town in Sweden, only surpassed by Sigtuna.Sample 11 was
taken from the intact oak-log in the
ry with both naust A and B. The
two latter structures, which lay in
an extrapolated central line of naust
A, are interpreted as being possible
winch/mooring arrangements for
ships.
All radiocarbon-dates displayed in
table 1 lay within the greater probability-spectrum of 2σ and are derived from carefully sampled closed
stratigraphic sequences and posts
found in situ.
As the table shows, the construction
phase of naust A is placed in the
Vendel-period, in the middle of the
7th century AD. From the conducted wood-analysis it was determined
that the timbers originated from
core-wood of oak with an estimated
age of 50-75 years. In order to secure reasonable chronological intervals, several samples from the same
features were analyzed (samples 1-5
and sample 8). The phase of use of
naust A is very long-term; this is based partly on analyses of contextually secured samples from the period
when it was in operation (sample 6
from the enclosing trench and sample 7 from the draw-trench) but is
also of course given in the interval
between its construction and destruction. The demolition of naust
A is dated by parts of plants and
seeds extracted from macrofossil
samples from various postholes (tab.
1). These were deposited in connection with the exchanging of posts or
the ultimate destruction of the building. It is not possible that the plant
186
TOMAS WESTBERG
bottom of the gable posthole belonging to naust B and was supplemented with dendrochronology (in
parenthesis) which gave a fellingyear between 790-810 AD. This
result is astonishing to say the least;
it establishes that the two buildings
were contemporary (although naust
A was erected some 150 years before
naust B). The argumentation for
the destruction of naust A is also validly applicable for the destruction
of naust B. Since there evidently
existed a nascent urban settlement
in this location during the late 11th
century, the interval in sample 12
(980-1160 AD) can be forcibly adjusted. Naust B must thus have had
a slightly shorter phase of use than
naust A. Nevertheless, it amounts to
approximately 250 years.
decades of the 11th century (Bäck,
Hållans Stenholm, Nordström et. al
2015 - in press).
During the excavations of the two
naust, one hypothesis was that they
were hall-buildings. However, there
are several facts that disprove this
assumption: for instance, the composition of the constructions and
lack of finds associated with such
buildings. Only two actual finds
were encountered in all excavated
features. They were found in the enclosing trench near where sample 6
was taken (fig. 1) and consisted of
two small fragments of blue beakerglass, typologically dated to the
Vendel/Viking-periods. As a consequence, substantial amounts of the
backfills in a majority of the features
were water-sifted, though only with
meager results. The only findings
from this process were fragments
of burnt animal bones. The glass is
thus secondary but indicates high
status in the vicinity.
Samples 13-16 represent the destruction of the supposed building
in the northeast corner of Åkroken
3, placing it roughly in the period
of when naust A is erected, meaning
that the building itself must have
preceded naust A.
Furthermore, at naust A, three soilsamples were analyzed so as to evaluate the occurrence of diatoms (Bergman, Heimdahl in: Bäck, Hållans
Stenholm, Nordström et. al 2015
- in press). One sample was taken
close to the southwestern wall, one
outside the building underneath the
presumed shoreline of the Viking
period (as a reference sample) and
one additional sample was taken in
the central draw-trench. The two
first samples contained very few
diatoms, but the one sample from
Sample 17 represents the moments
when the postholes of the cross
shaped structure northwest of the
central axis of naust A was backfilled, dating its period of use to the
building’s early phase. The last sample, number 18 dates the backfilling
of the other structure in this area
(the backward L) whose upper spectrum can be modified due to the
fact that we know that a regulated
town is already in place in the last
187
META 2015
the draw-trench contained greater amounts of assorted planktonic
freshwater diatoms and benthic (or
attaching) brackish water diatoms.
The latter must have been introduced and deposited in the drawtrench by something that has been
submerged in salt/brackish water,
e.g. a ship’s hull. Additionally, the
presence of diatoms in the central
draw-trench indicates that there has
not been any covering overgrowth
here, silicate diatoms are dissolved
in developed rhizome- or rootlet zones (Bergman, Heimdahl in: Bäck,
Hållans Stenholm, Nordström et. al
2015 - in press).
1:3-1:4, cf. Larsson 2007, p.71f.).
The well-preserved Osebergs-ship,
even though it is a ceremonial burial ship, measures 21,5 meters in
length, 5,1 meters in width and 1,6
meters in height. It was built in 820
AD and it fits perfectly into naust A
as it is. Another later example of a
known war-ship is Skuldelev 2 from
Roskilde, Denmark, built in 1042
AD in Dublin. It is 29,4 meters
long and 3,8 meters wide and may
well have fitted into naust A ratiowise, even if we do not know the
exact length of the building.
The naust also conditions urbanityand centrality aspects. Who ordered
the construction and controlled
these buildings? It is plausible that
there existed a royal demesne or a
chieftain’s manor in the vicinity
of what later became Nyköping, a
parameter which may have created
unique preconditions for the expanding medieval city as a part of
a greater whole (cf. Fritz 1971). As
mentioned earlier, one of few other
places in eastern middle Sweden
where a naust has been located is
on the island of Adelsö, which had
a royal demesne and dominion over
Sweden’s first city, Birka. However,
if one examines the construction
phase of the naust in Nyköping,
there is no known demesne from
the Vendel period that can be directly connected to it, or rather; there is no excavated example of such
a milieu in the area. Regardless, the
naust phenomena should be perceived as centralized but detached
Conclusion
In conclusion, the suggested interpretation of these two buildings demands a re-evaluation of the latter
Nyköping which only emerged less
than a few decades after the naust,
surely still with these constructions
in living memory. Consequently, several premises and questions arise.
There are 23 rune-stones upstream
in the Nyköping-river valley that
accounts for travels abroad and approximately half/half mention travels east and west respectively (Brate
& Wessén 1924-1936). It is suggested that parts of a “Södermanlandic” ledung (cf. Varenius 1992,
1998) departed from Nyköping.
The length/width ratio of naust A
corresponds to hosting of a war-ship
(1:4,5-1:7,5 as opposed to merchantmen which seldom exceeded
188
TOMAS WESTBERG
Lindsbacke (RAÄ 30, 307 & 349),
Oppeby/Broby just north of Nyköping (RAÄ 1) and Kråkberget in the
eastern part of Nyköping town. The
latter where one could witness ättebackar or burial mounds, according
to a dissertation regarding Nyköping written in the 1700’s (Asp &
Sundler 1759).
constructions placed in a strategic
position for the surrounding Late
Iron Age settlements, albeit most
likely commissioned and under the
control of a local chieftain. Several
of the Norwegian examples lay somewhat detached from the manors
that are situated farther inland. In
order to understand the Nyköping
naust one must examine the surrounding landscape and its tenancies, known farmsteads and burials
from the Late Iron Age. The registered locations in the Swedish National Heritage Board’s inventory
of the Nyköping area are mostly generalized as Late Iron Age (Vendel
and Viking periods) localities. However, from their outer forms and
position in the landscape several
can be attached to the timeframe of
the naust. The milieu surrounding
Nyköping is not surprisingly rich
in Late Iron Age settlements and
burials, such as Kaffebacken (RAÄ
44), Kungsladugård (RAÄ 27),
The article was produced by means granted
from the Berit Wallenberg Foundation and
was composed during the winter of 2012/
spring of 2013.
With thanks to: Mathias Bäck,
Annika Nordström, Karlis Graufelds, Jens
Heimdahl, Jonas Bergman, Ulf Strucke, Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson, Björn Pettersson
and Andreas Winkler.
Tomas Westberg is an archaeologist at
National Historical Museums Contract
Archaeology Service
E-mail: [email protected]
Notes
1. Ship referred to in this article is a vessel of considerable size (at least 12 by 4 meters) used
for traveling long distances over sea.
2. A term (among other things), applied for naval military expeditions. Cf.Varenius 1992 & 1998.
3. Depending on region and period.
4. One from the Viking period and one medieval, where the former has not been excavated
(Brunstedt 1996).
5. Enforced mooring locations, usually with a draw trench but without overbuild.
6. One can also study place-names; cf. e.g. Njord- and Nor- (Vikstrand 2001,Wahlberg 2003),
but this is somewhat speculative and more likely exemplify locations where boats have been
dragged.
7. Few of these have been excavated making the dating unsure and Rolfsen (1974, p.13)
mentions that no examples from pre-history are known outside of Norway, this is however not
the case today.
8. Cf. e.g. buildings in Hodde (Hvass 1985) and Grøntoft (Rindel 1997).
189
META 2015
Referenser
•Asp, M. & Sundler, J. 1759 Dissertatio Academica, de Nycopia, Metropoli Sudermanniæ
1735-1739. Nyköping.
•Blackman D. & Rankov, B. 2014 – Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean.Cambridge
University Press.
•Bäck, M. Hållans Stenholm, A-M. Nordström, A. et. al. 2015 – Åkroken i Nyköping, från
Vendeltid till Tidigmodern tid. UV Rapport (in press). Riksantikvarieämbetet. Stockholm.
•Brate, E. & Wessén, E. 1924-1936 – Södermanlands Runinskrifter. Fjärde Häftet. Kungliga
Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Stockholm/Uppsala.
•Brunstedt, S. 1996 – Alsnö Kungsgård. Forskningsprjekt Hovgården. UV Stockholm rapport 1996:71/1. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Stockholm.
•Fritz, B. 1971 – Jarladömet – Sveahertigdömet. Historisk Tidskrift, vol. 91. Stockholm.
•Hedenstierna-Jonson, C. – 2006 – The Birka Warrior. The material culture of a martial
society. Theses and papers in Scientific Archaeology 8. Department of Archaeology and
Classical Studies. Stockholm University.Stockholm.
•Hedenstierna-Jonson, C. et. al. 1998 – Garnisonen II. Arkeologisk undersökning 1998.
Rapport. Stockholms Universitet. Stockholm.
•Hermodsson, Ö. 1997 – Björkö, Adelsö sn, Uppland. Fornlämningsbeskrivningar från
specialinventering under 1997. Kunskapsavdelningen, dokumentationsenheten. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Stockholm.
•Hvass, S. 1985 – Hodde. Et vestjysk landsbysamfund fra ældre jernalder. Arkæoligiske
studier Vol.VII. Akademisk Forlag. Universitetsforlaget i København.
•Kaul, F. 1988 - Da våbnene tav: Hjortspringfundet og dets baggrund. Nationalmuseet &
Nyt Nordisk Forlag. Köpenhamn.
•Komber, J. 1989 – Jernalderens Gårdshus – En bygningsteknisk analyse. AmS-Varia 18
Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger.Stavanger.
•Kroonen, G. 2013 – Mail correspondence. Department of Scandinavian Studies and
Linguistics University of Copenhagen. Denmark.
•Lubotsky, A. 2012 – Mail correspondence.Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen. Leiden
University, Centre for Linguistics. Netherlands.
•Larsson, G. 2007 – Ship and Society. Maritime Ideology in Late Iron Age Sweden.Uppsala
Universitet. Uppsala.
•Rindel, P. O. 1997 - Grøntoft - og etableringen af det strukturerede landsbysamfund i
Vestjylland i 1.årtusinde f.Kr. Institut for Arkaeologi og Etnologi. København Universitet.
København.
•Rolfsen, P. 1974 – Båtnaust på Jærkysten. Stavanger Museums Skrifter 8.Stavanger.
190
TOMAS WESTBERG
•Stylegar, F-A. & Grimm, O. 2005 – Boathouses in Northern Europe and the North
Atlantic. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2005) 34.2: 253–268. The
Nautical Archaeology Society.
•Stålberg, K. 2000 – Hade Garnisonen en hamn? Prospektering av strandområdet
nedanför Garnisonen i Birka. Arkeologiska forskningslaboratoriet. Stockholms Universitet
Stockholm.
•Varenius, B. 1992 – Det Nordiska Skeppet. Teknologi och Samhälsstrategi i Vikingatid och
Medeltid. Stockholms Universitet. Stockholm.
•Varenius, B. 1998 – Han ägde bo och skeppslid. Om rumslighet och relationer under
Vikingatid och Medeltid. Umeå.
•Vikstrand, P. 2001 – Gudarnas platser. Förkristna sakrala ortnamn i Mälarlandskapen.
Studier till en svensk ortnamnsatlas 17. Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur. Uppsala.
•Wahlberg, M. (ed.) 2003 – Svenskt ortnamnslexikon. Språk- och folkminnesinstitutet och
Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet. Uppsala.
•Westerdahl, K. 1989 – Norrlandsleden I. The Norrland Sailing soute I. Arkiv för norrländsk hembygdsforskning XXIV.Örnsköldsvik.
•Westerdahl, K. 2002 – The cognitive landscape of naval warfare and defence. in: Norgård,
A. et. al. (eds) Maritime warfare in Northern Europe. International research seminar at
the Danish National museum. Köpenhamn.
•Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 1952. - The History and Prevention of Fouling
Marine Fouling and its Prevention. United States department of the Navy, Bureau of Ships.
Annapolis, Maryland.
191
192
Sigtuna museum öppnar igen efter renovering
18.4.2015
Bilderna är detaljer ur ett verk av Elisabeth Toll från utställningen
” Från Ingegerd till Estelle - en prinsessutställning” som visats på Sigtuna museum.
Verket i sin helhet kommer att visas på det nyrenoverade och nyöppnade museet.
Verket är en modern tolkning av hur Ingegerd liv runt år 1000 kunde ha varit.
sigtuna.se, sigtunamuseum.se, Storagatan 55, Sigtuna stad
193
194
Författaranvisningar för META Historiskarkeologisk tidskrift
Manus
Manus behöver vara redaktionen till handa senast 1/10 för att artikeln ska kunna publiceras
i nästkommande nummer av tidskriften. Redaktionen förbehåller sig rätten att göra ett urval
bland insända bidrag.
Manus för tryckta artiklar skickas i digital form till redaktionen på adressen tidskrift@histark.
se. Den inskickade texten ska vara språkgranskad (detta är särskilt viktigt om artikeln inte är
skriven på svenska) och tryckfärdig. Korrektur till författarna utlämnas normalt sett inte.
Texten kan skrivas på svenska, norska, danska eller engelska.Varje artikel ska vara försedd
med ett kort abstract, inklusive titel, på engelska. Detta bör omfatta maximalt 200 ord.
Hänvisningar görs enligt Harvardsystemet. En guide och exempel hittar du här: http://www.
hb.se/Biblioteket/Skriva-och-referera/Guide-till-harvardsystemet/.
Bifoga kontaktuppgifter (för att vi ska kunna kontakta dig) samt författaruppgifter (namn, titel/
befattning, institution, e-postadress – dessa uppgifter kommer att tryckas i tidskriften).
Författarna ansvarar själva för innehållet i sina artiklar.
Illustrationer
Illustrationer skickas i tryckfärdigt, digitalt skick, företrädesvis i tiff- eller jpg- format. Foton
och andra bilder i gråskala eller färg bör vara scannade i 300 dpi, linjeteckningar i 600 dpi.
Bilderna skall scannas i tänkt publiceringsformat (max 18 x 11,5 cm).
Tidskriften trycks i svartvitt. Alla färgbilder kommer med andra ord att tryckas i gråskala och
behöver därför vara utformade/utvalda med hänsyn till detta för att bilderna ska bli tydliga i
tryck. Det är dock möjligt att ha färgbilder i pdf-utgåvan.
Alla illustrationer skall vara försedda med figurnumrering och tabeller ska vara försedda med
en tabellnumrering. Bifoga en förteckning över samtliga figurer och tabeller, med figur- och
tabelltexter samt anvisning om var i texten figurerna och/eller tabellerna skall placeras.
Författarna ansvarar för att inhämta publiceringstillstånd i de fall där sådant krävs.
Granskning
Artiklarna kommer att granskas av två av redaktionsmedlemmarna innan publicering.Vid
behov kommer externa granskare att tillfrågas. Peer-reviewing av enskilda artiklar kan diskuteras, kontakta redaktionen om sådana önskemål finns.
195
HISTORISKARKEOLOGISK TIDSKRIFT
H
META
2015