dochist oriskarkeologisk tidskrift - Historiskarkeologiska föreningen
download 
Report Transcription
hist oriskarkeologisk tidskrift - Historiskarkeologiska föreningen
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
