Traumatic Artefacts

By HANS ANDERSSON

.......................................... ............ Andersson, H- Traumatic Artefacts. Meddelailden frdn Lands universitets historiska museum Abstract 1993-1994. (Papers of the Archaeological Institute University of Lund 1993-1994. ) New Series. Vol. 10. The essay is a discussion of the way medieval archaeologists in Sweden have dealt with artefact material in their research. A tradition dating back to the late nineteenth century had a cultural historical outlook and a method by which artefact were put in a wider context but rarely given separate treatment. With the large-scale work in urban archaeology after World War II, interest was focused on settlement structures and changes in these. Artefacts were primarily a dating instrument, or evidence used to discuss contacts on a more "general level. On top of this, the artefact material grew so large that it became difficult to have a complete grasp of it. In this tradition there has been no proper place for speci/ica22y oriented artefact studies, although there are examples of these. The conclusion is that a branch of archaeology with its origin in a broad cultural historical tradition must conduct a serious discussion of artefacts and their scientific treatment. Hans Andersson, Institute of Archaeology "University of Lund, S223 50 Lund.

Medieval archaeologists do not concern " themselves with artefacts; when they do so, it is just to use them for dating purposes. This claim is often heard, and there may be some """"truth in it. But the situation is certainly more complicated than that. There are perhaps some circumstances which can be adduced to explain the state of affairs. They differ rather a lot in nature, but each in its own way helps to paint the "'background to todays situation. At the same time, a simple analysis can also hopefully provide the. tools for a discussion of con..ceivable prospects for the future.1 ".. Medieval archaeology is a relatively young ""subject, at least as an academic discipline. Its research traditions go back - if one may be so bold as to assert - to the view that emerges in Hans Hildebrand's Sveriges medeltid (1879-1903), that is a relatively broad cultural historical perspective. In contrast, pre" historic research following Oscar Montelius for a long time had a heavy orientation towards the study of artefacts (Andersson 1990; Cinthio 1965; Ciffthio /988). Artefacts were important to Hildebrand "too, but for him they were never to be a spe-

cial object of study in themselves.2 It was in Sveriges medeltid.that he developed his encyclopaedic knowledge of the Middle Ages. The headings alone paint a picture of his orientation. In the first volume we find among the main headings "The Countryside", "The Common People", "The Life of the Common People", "Work", "Taxes", and "The Lapps". The chapter on the life of the common people, for example, is based on a variety of sources, one of which is the artefacts. Naturally, the illustrations of artefacts play an important role, but artefacts are also used in the text. There are explicit headings such as "Locks", "Windows", "Fireplaces", "Tables, "Tools', and so on,under which the artefacts play a significant role, but material of this kind is also used in sections of a more complex nature, such as those on marriage and death (Hildebrand 1879-1903, part 1, pp. 88 ff.). Hildebrand thus integrates the artefact material closely in his account of cultural history. On the other hand, one does not see so much of his earlier interest in typological questions (Grasland 1974, pp, "167 ff.). It could perhaps be said that Hildebrand, in Sveriges medeltid, shows his kinship with

HANS ANDERSSON This broad cultural historical view was to be typical of medieval archaeology for a long time to come. When Bengt Thordeman (1920) wrote his dissertation on Alsn6bus, he was primarily interested in the building and the European context in which it can be placed. Erik Cinthio (1957) studied Lund Cathedral from a similar point of view, but he also touched on what would today be labelled cognitive arcflaeology. Buildings and remains acquired a strong position in medieval archaeology. This was highly evident when the discipline was established in Lund under Erik Cinthio. The content had a strong historical orientation, with discussions concerning different models of society. The archaeological material was used as a source for social and economic history, and the analyses were conducted within this framework. To use yet another theoretical term from todays archaeology, it became a kind of contextual archaeology. Questions of change and structures were. central to these studies. This was further stressed when the large urban excavations seriously got under way around 1970. The problem of urbanization as a historical phenomenon became a topic of study. The starting-point was settlement structures and their changes. Interest was focused on buildings of various kinds: remains of houses, extant medieval houses, churches, and so on. The artefacts were primarily a dating instrument or material used to discuss contacts on a more general level. This interest in historical contextual as-~ pects could be described as a legacy of Hildebrand's days. It is also interesting to see that medieval archaeologists have shown considerable interest in the Anna(es tradition, which at times has been greater than the influence of the theories formed in prehistoric archaeology. Unfortunately, this has not yet left any distinct traces in published writings, but it is important to point out the existence of this underground current. -'"In a tradition "like this, there has not really

the much later Anna(es school. It might be said that Hildebrand shares with them an interest in folk culture, everyday life, perhaps also the structures, although he never uses such terms. It is a tradition that he shared with contemporary and slightly later scholars from other disciplines, such as the Dane T. F. Troels-Lund (1879-1901), as well as other archaeologists, although they did not have the same breadth as Hildebrand. When Wilhelm Berg at the end of the nineteenth century wrote his report on the excavation of Ragnhildsholmen at Kunga"hIla north of Gothenburg, he was interested in the historical function of the castle and to some extent in life in the castle (Berg 1883). His report, which appeared the year after the excavation, shares many of the tendencies in Hildebrand's approach, but Berg integrates political history more than Hildebrand does. This is hardly surprising, since Ragnhildshollnen played a significant role in Nordic history in the late thirteenth century. ~ Berg has a detailed presentation of the artefacts found at Ragnhildsholmen. He is naturally handicapped by the fact that much of the material was unknown and had not previously been studied. He also found it difficult to get hold of the relevant literature. In his letters he frequently complains about the meagre library resources in Gothenburg, where he worked as an accountant for a railway company, Bergslagarnes J5rnvgar.3 Yet his intentions are very clear when he uses the artefacts. He sees them as part of a castle context, a body of material that is necessary if one is to be able to describe the whole (Berg 1883). Berg published his writings early, partly parallel to Hildebrand. It is therefore difficult to speak of any direct influence from Hildebrand. Nor is there anything in Bergs's letters to Hildebrand which might reveal any such influence (Hans Hildebrand's archive, ATA). Berg may nevertheless serve as an example showing that the "view represented by Hildebrand was ommon at this time among scholars involved in ~medieval archaeology. -` ~

TRAUMATIC ARTEFACTS been a place for studies geared specifically to artefacts, although it cannot be denied that there have been some, but even they contain the perspectives mentioned here (Andersson 1989; Christophersen 1980; Forsstr6m 1976; Klackenberg 1992). There is another aspect of the problem of medieval artefacts. There are few publications of basic material. This is due not only to the research tradition but also to the quantitative factor which has been increasingly accentuated in recent years, particularly with the extensive urban excavations. Enormous amounts of material have been uncovered, sometimes on a massive scale. There have been differing views about how useful this material is (Andrea 1989a; Andrn 1989b; Nordeide 1989b; Nordeide 1989c), but perhaps the very fact that this material appears insuperable may .be the, reason that so few attempts have been made to process and analyse it. One relatively early attempt was made by Birgitta Broberg and Margareta Hasselmo (1981) within the framework of the project on "The MedievalTown. Theywent through certain types of material (pottery, shoes, combs) from a number of medieval towns, doing a relatively cursory survey in order to obtain a general picture of chronology and distribution. In the processing of finds from excavation of the Library Site (Folkebibliotekstomten) in Trondheim this problem has been tackled in greater depth (Nordeide 1989a). In general, however, it can perhaps be said that a wealth of material can be an obstacle to constructive analysis. But it is not just the wealth of artefacts that is an obstacle; it can also be the lack of methods (and theories) with which to handle large bodies of material. The discussion between Andrn and Nordeide reflects this problem. .. Perhaps this is the heart of the problem. If we are to come any further, we presumably need a great deal of groundwork which can in turn be used in more profound analyses. This should not require uncritical publication

of finds, but the material must be processed with a view to"-answeringchronological, functional, and structural questions. If archaeology is to be able to make a more profound contribution to, say, the discussion of urbanization, the archaeological criteria must be specified more precisely. In what way can different elements in the urbanization process be archaeologically defined? What material is needed for this? It is necessary to have find material which can be chronologically and functionally determined, besides which we need distribution maps and the like. If we turn to questions concerning individual houses, the demands for detailed descrip"-tion of the material must be much more stringent. The dating must be narrower. The contextual discussion must be much more exact. In this connection artefacts take on. crucial importance. ~ I began by commenting on research traditions in medieval archaeology. What I have gone on to say is scarcely in conflict with these traditions. Yet perhaps it is the case that we need a discussion of artefacts as an asset in a discussion on all levels. An archaeology which be described as having its startingpoint in a broad tradition of cultural history must conduct a serious study of artefacts. We must improve both the primary knowledge of the artefacts and our ability to handle them in our analyses. This volume of Medde/anden is an attempt to find new points of departure for such a discussion.

Notes
I Jan-Erik Augustsson presents a survey of the research situation in an article later in this volume. 2 It should not be forgotten, however, that Hildebrand was also the scholar who formulated himself most clearly as regards the typological method in archaeology (Gr5slund 1974 pp. 167 ff., 199 ff.). It was he who introduced the term typology into Nordic archaeology (GrAslund 1974, p. 201). 3 For example, in a Icier of 26 February 1875 to Oscar Montelius: "It has not been possible to find much in the poorly equipped public book collections here" (ATA).

HANS ANDERSSON
Forsstr6m, M. 1976. Keramik fr&n Visby. En modellf6r databehandlz"ngav arkeologisktfyndmaterial fr&n medeltiden. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in So ml.Bore 5. Bonn & Lund. Gr5slund, B. 1974. Relativ datering. Om kronologisk metod i nordisk arkeologi. Tor XVI. Hildebrand, H. 1879-1903~ Sveriges medeltid. Stockholm. Klackenberg, H. 1992. Moneta nostra. Monetarisering ! medeltz"dens Snerige. Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 10. Stockholm. Nordeide, S. W. 1989a. ~". . . De beste bf nder i klf bstwden . . . " En junksjons- og aktivz.tetsanalyse basert pa gjenstandsmaten"alet. Meddelser fra prosjektet Fortiden i Trondheimbygrunn:Folkebibliotekstomten2O.Trondhelm. - 1989b~Betente spor. META 1989:1. - 1989c. Latente og manifeste spot. META 1989..4. Thordeman, B, 1920. Alsn6 has, Eta svenskt medelt!dspalats i sin konsthistorz~skasammanhang. Stockholm. Troels-Lund, T. F. 1879-1901. Danmarks og Nor&es historic i slutningen af det 16."eaarhundrede. Copenhagen. Translated by Alan Crozz"er

References
Andersson, H. 1990. Medieval archaeology in Scandinavia. Lund. Andersson, L. 1989, Pilgrimsmdrken och val(fart. Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 7. Stockholm, Andr6n, A. 1989a. I Vidars fotspr. META 1989:4. - 1989b. SpFen f6rskr"gcker? META 1989:2. Berg, W. 1883. Slottsruinen p Ragnhildsholmen. In BI'drag till kAnnedomen om G6teborgs och Bohuslqns fornminnen och historia 2:4~ Gothenburg. Broberg, B. & Hasselmo, M. 1981. Keramik, kammar och skor n sju medeltida stader. Fyndstud!e. Riksantikvarie8mbetet och statens historiska museer, rapport. Medeltidsstaden 30. Stockholm. Christophersen, A. 1980. H&ndverket i forandr!ng. Studier i horn- og beinh&ndverkets utvikling i Lund c.'a 1000-1350. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 4o 13. Bonn & Lund. Cinthio, E. 1957. Lands domkyrka under romansk Lid. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in go 1. Bonn & Lund. - 1965. Vad ar medeltidsarkeologi? Ale. Historisk tz"dskriftf6r Skdneland. 1965:1. 1988.Examensmnet medeltidsarkeologi. Tillblivelse och utveckling. M ETA 1988: 1-2.