Kuml

Bromme genbesøgt

2023-11-28T15:18:57+01:00

Bromme revisited
When early archaeological localities become historical

State prosecutor and amateur archaeologist Erik Westerby had a dream of discovering Denmark’s first Palaeolithic settlement. He energetically and systematically searched the soil and relief maps of Denmark to find his ‘needle in a haystack’. Finally, in 1944, he struck gold when he discovered a Late Palaeolithic settlement at Bromme, northwest of Sorø. But all was not well. Westerby fell ill and was obliged to let Therkel Mathiassen of the National Museum of Denmark handle the excavation of the site, which he undertook in 1945. Unhappy with Mathiassen’s methods, Westerby continued to excavate at Bromme until 1950. The site was then left untouched till 2021, when the old excavation was reopened. This article examines the feud between Westerby and Mathiassen in the light of the recent new excavation.
Westerby’s troubles didn’t begin at Bromme. The first site he discovered and excavated was the Mesolithic locality of Bloksbjerg, near Klampenborg. After excavating there for 8 years, he published his findings to international acclaim, but national criticism. He presented the publication as his doctoral thesis to the University of Copenhagen, but it was rejected. This sparked his feud with the Danish archaeological establishment.
Westerby then went on to discover another Mesolithic site, at Øgaarde in Åmosen, but due to him having to juggle archaeology and law school, he decided to let the National Museum handle the excavation instead. This was led by Therkel Mathiassen. Westerby visited the site twice during excavation and was appalled by what he witnessed. The methods employed were chaotic and some resulted in the destruction of more lithics than were found.
His next discovery was the Bromme locality. But this site was different, it wasn’t just a confirmatory record, this was something completely new. Shortly after the discovery, however, he became ill and was forced to let Mathiassen excavate the site instead, fully knowing he would be unhappy with the result. And when Mathiassen began to publish his findings, Westerby found that all his hard work in systematically searching for the site was not valued at all. This left him very unhappy with the situation. In his final letter to Mathiassen, he wrote that he was so displeased that it would’ve been better for him if he never found the site in the first place.
While Westerby’s frustrations were deeply personal, he also had a different methodological approach to that of Mathiassen. Westerby set great store by a layer dated to the Allerød oscillation, which provided definitive proof that the site was indeed from the latter part of the ice age. During the 2021 excavation, some parts of Mathiassen’s excavation was re-examined. Trench 1 contained an intact posthole, which indicates that Mathiassen didn’t excavate deeper than 50 cm. In trench 4, Mathiassen’s excavation was only observed to a depth of 35 cm, while the Allerød layer was found untouched at a depth of 40-50 cm. Trench 14 was a re-excavation of much deeper test pit dug by Mathiassen, but this too missed the Allerød layer, as his excavation was only observed to a depth of 1.2 m, while the Allerød layer was discovered, untouched, at a depth of 1.7 m. This indicates that caution should be exercised when considering the results obtained by Mathiassen.
In Westerby’s eyes, not digging deep enough was not the only problem with Mathiassen’s excavations, another was the careless and chaotic nature of his methods. If Westerby’s criticism was well-founded, overlooked and broken lithics would be expected to be found when examining the backfill from Mathiassen’s excavation. Fifty-three lithics were discovered in trench 4, but only two of them were from Mathiassen’s refill, while 36 lithics were found in trench 5 but 22 of these were from Mathiassen’s backfill. Furthermore, three broken blades were found during the excavation of trench 14. This suggests that Westerby’s critique was justified. However, when his prior excavation was re-examined, eight lithics were found, five of which were in his backfill.
These problems have now become apparent due to the unique opportunity to re-excavate this important site. Anders Fischer and Finn Ole Sonne Nielsen have re-examined the material recovered by both Mathiassen and Westerby and have argued that the site comprises multiple chronologically and typologically different phases. But their claim is based on the recorded distribution the lithic artifacts, and this might not reflect the presence of different settlements but is perhaps just an expression of a chaotic excavation.
Finally, when reinvestigating an old excavation, the material recovered is not only from the original context: A new context has been introduced, and this is reflected in the findings, too. In Westerby’s old trench XV, bracing from his excavations was left behind, and the archived plans and drawings show how this was used. Metal foil from Westerby’s packed lunch was also found. A trowel forgotten during his excavation was also uncovered in Mathiassen’s trench. These were not recorded as archaeological finds but should perhaps be considered such as they are now also part of the history of the site. Bromme is no longer just a Palaeolithic site, it is now also an archaeological site, and a historical one, too.

Verdslige genstande i et sakralt landskab

2023-11-28T15:39:15+01:00

Secular artefacts in a sacral landscape
Textile production at a Pre-Roman/Early Roman Iron Age place of assembly

The locality of Stavsager Høj, situated north of the village of Fæsted in southern Jutland, was discovered during metal detector surveys in 2018. In addition to numerous metal finds and magnificent artefacts, the locality also offered an insight to more mundane materials: spindle whorls made from reused potsherds. These recycled artefacts are the primary focus of this article, which illuminates textile production around a pre-Christian assembly site. Four vase-shaped bronze spindle whorls are also presented and analysed together with the reused potsherds to examine the character of the local textile craft. Overall, they testify to a versatile production of textiles within the multi-phased settlement. The debate surrounding repurposed potsherds and their use as spindle whorls is also discussed. A further perspective on textile tools is provided by two tangible textile remains: a textile imprint on a fragment of pottery and a piece of preserved textile on a bronze chape. These support the diverse and broad production span demonstrated by the tools and provide an insight to a textile craft that included the production of both fine, lightweight cloth and coarser fabrics. Though the number of textile tools found at Stavsager Høj is rather modest, they do illuminate the textile craft in a landscape of an elitist and sacral character.

Jernlænken fra Fæsted

2023-11-28T15:49:07+01:00

The Fæsted iron shackle
Evidence of the slave trade between Barbaricum and the Roman Empire?

In 2018-19, Sønderskov Museum excavated the remains of a multi-phase Iron Age hall at Stavsager Høj, north of the village of Fæsted in southern Jutland (fig. 1). Fæsted and the nearby village of Harreby are thought to have been the site of a pre-Christian cultic centre during the Iron Age and Viking Age, similar to well-known localities such as Tissø and Lejre on Zealand and Uppåkra in Scania. Like Scandinavia’s other central places, Fæsted’s environs are characterised by rich and extraordinary archaeological finds. These include large amounts of gold and silver and, in the case of the Iron Age, also relatively large quantities of continental imports such as Roman bronze artefacts, drinking glasses and silver coins. A remarkable discovery in 2018 constituted four depositions, two of weapons and two of gold, in two pairs of postholes for roof-bearing posts in the western half of a multi-phase longhouse. Moreover, the eastern half of the longhouse yielded metal finds which, after conservation, must be seen as being at least as interesting as these depositions, with a well-preserved iron shackle attracting particular attention (fig. 2). The longhouse, which, in the light of its robust character and the finds it yielded, is interpreted as a hall or temple (fig. 3), encompassed as many as eight construction phases, all dating from the Roman Iron Age and the beginning of the Early Germanic Iron Age. The shackle derives from a later phase in this sequence.
The shackle is made up of four separate parts, all made from iron rod with a round cross-section; a large central, complex, composite hoop and three elongate chain links that only vary slightly innermost (figs. 2 & 5). One link is solely attached to an eye in the hoop. It is 68 mm long and has a maximum width of 41 mm – both measured externally. The link is obviously worn, as the iron is clearly thinner at its ends. The opposing eye on the composite hoop has two chain links attached in continuation of one another. The outer link is more elongated than the inner one; they measure 29 x 31 mm and 65 x 44 mm, respectively. Consequently, the inner link appears thicker than the outer ones, but it is unclear to what degree this is due to corrosion. Both links attached to an eye on the hoop are slightly bent, possibly because they have been subjected to tension, twisting and pressure over a longer period. Common to all three links is that they appear to have been welded shut. The central, composite hoop appears to be made up of three bars, which have been welded together, bent into an approximate horseshoe shape and then laid on top of each other. The hoop is c. 98 mm wide externally and c. 76 mm internally. At the two proximal eyes, the otherwise flat-forged iron divides into three separate pieces, which then run parallel around the outside. They appear to have been twisted (fig. 6), which has increased their strength. Even though an attempt was made to reinforce the hoop with the three external, twisted rods, metallurgical analyses of its structure show that it was also necessary to deal the hoop some heavy blows with a hammer, and this must have been done without first heating the iron. Moreover, the conservation process revealed evidence that the shackle was rather worn (fig. 7) when it ended up at the bottom of the posthole (fig. 4). The internal transverse dimension of the Fæsted shackle suggests that it would have been applicable to a human wrist or slender ankle, although it is also possible that it may have been used for animals. It would not have been suitable for use on the necks of either humans or animals.
This is one of the first potential slave shackles found outside the Roman Empire. To date, only one locality in Barbaricum is known to have yielded a similar example. Based on the comparable archaeological material, it seems likely that the Fæsted shackle belongs to Hugh Thompson’s type, which is known particularly from present-day France, Germany and the British Isles. The iron used for the Fæsted shackle has been identified as having been made in England, which concurs with the distribution of this shackle type. The type is considered to date from the Late Roman Iron Age.
So far, only a few examples of slave shackles from this period have been recorded north of Limes, with the exception of those found at Roman forts situated on this border. In 2011, there were records of 114 shackles from the northern Roman provinces, but from widely differing contexts. Analyses of the distribution of shackles from the Roman Iron Age (fig. 8) have led to the suggestion that they reveal the locations of the most important slave markets in the Roman Empire, and a clear concurrence has been demonstrated between Roman villas, towns and military camps and the incidence of slave shackles. Given this conclusion, it can be argued that Fæsted was a Scandinavian centre for the Iron Age slave trade.
There has been little discussion of the use of shackles with respect to the finds from the Roman period. Unequivocal evidence that the find from Fæsted constitutes a prisoner or slave shackle is, however, provided by an article published by Chris Chinnock and Michael Marshall in Britannia 2021, which addresses the use of shackles of, the type to which the Fæsted shackle belongs. This relates to the excavation of an atypical burial at Great Casterton, Rutland, England in 2015 (fig. 9). The deceased had been placed somewhat carelessly in the burial pit and a set of iron shackles of the same type as described here were found around their ankles. These appeared, however, to constitute a complete set, which it is reasonable to assume the Fæsted example was also a part of. The grave could be 14C-dated to AD 226-427, making the burial approximately coeval with the Fæsted shackle. The burial at Great Casterton is interpreted as being that of a Roman slave.
An extremely diverse range of Roman imports was found at Fæsted, which testifies to interaction via a highly ramified network of contacts. The clearest indication of trade appears to be the occurrence of Roman denarii (fig. 10). Also found at the locality were three fragments of scrap bronze, interpreted as pieces of draped cloth from a rather large figurine. No less interesting are the large numbers of glass shards, derived from imported drinking glasses. The locality clearly encompasses an extraordinary finds assemblage – especially when viewed in the light of other coeval localities in southern Jutland, where no other settlements with a comparable assemblage of artefacts have yet been found. Only the well-known Dankirke site has a finds assemblage of a similar typological composition.
The iron shackle is the latest in a series of spectacular finds from Stavsager Høj which testify to a highly developed network involving both the ‘civilised’ Roman Empire and the barbarians to the north. Very little is known about the circumstances of slaves or thralls during the Nordic Iron Age, but this group is relatively well investigated in Roman archaeology and history. Were these individuals Scandinavians who were sold out of the country as slaves – perhaps prisoners of war – or were slaves brought to Scandinavia from the British slave markets? This question cannot be answered unequivocally based on the discovery of a single artefact, but the Fæsted shackle does makes an important contribution to the discussion about the slave trade between Barbaricum and Rome.

‘Odin fra Lejre’ i rustning

2023-11-28T15:53:53+01:00

‘Odin fra Lejre’ in armour
A new interpretation of an iconic silver figurine from the Viking Age

The little silver figurine ‘Odin from Lejre’ (fig. 1) has been the subject of vigorous debate, especially as to whether it is wearing a dress. In this article it is discussed in the light of Viking Age and medieval parallels: other small figurines, chess pieces and depictions of men on thrones and wearing armour. On this basis, ‘Odin from Lejre’ is interpreted as depicting the god in full armour and wearing a helmet (parallels: figs. 2 & 4). He has bushy eyebrows and a moustache and is wearing a ring around his neck
and chainmail beneath his cloak. He is sitting on a throne with two ravens on the armrests and is flanked by wolves. All of these characteristics can be linked to Odin via his various names and the mythology surrounding him as the supreme (war) god (fig. 10): Odin has names associated with a helmet, bushy eyebrows, a missing eye, a moustache and the wearing of a cloak. He has two ravens (Huginn and Muninn), two wolves (Geri and Freki), a ring (Draupnir) and a throne (Hlidskjalf). Odin is described as wearing a (golden) helmet and chainmail. Considering all of Odin’s names, it is argued that as many as possible have been incorporated into the little figurine (it is only 1.75 cm tall).
The figurine is interpreted as wearing male garments covering the legs (parallels: fig. 5a-c), following European elite fashion. Such garments would have been an obvious choice when the Lejre elite wished to depict the ultimate god. Ulla Mannering has argued that long garments were female characteristics, but when ‘Odin from Lejre’ is compared to depictions of emperors and kings on thrones, it is obvious that high-ranking men could also wear these (see figs. 6, 7a-d & fig. 9a-c). The ornamental sash hanging across the figurine’s long garments has parallels on Ottonian depictions of emperors (fig. 9a-d). While parallels to chainmail are evident on several depictions of warriors (see fig. 3) and on other small figurines (see fig. 4). The combination of armour and long garments is seen on members of the Byzantine cavalry (fig. 8).
The most likely interpretation of the function of the figurine is as part of a völva’s staff. Odin has a name meaning Staff-wielder, Sorcerer, and Odin in full armour would be a fitting motif if the staff was used in some way in war-seiðr (-sorcery). The staff found at Fyrkat and the four examples from Birka are from fortified sites and the Ladby staff was placed in a warship, similarly a military context; these staffs could therefore also have had a similar purpose.
If this interpretation is correct, it tells us about how Odin was worshipped at Lejre, as a god of war.

Genbesøg på Bjørnkær

2023-11-28T15:56:57+01:00

Bjørnkær revisited
A new evaluation of the distillation set and large grain deposit

The well-preserved castle mounds of Bjørnkær, situated in Gosmer parish, near Hou in eastern Jutland, were excavated in the early 1930s by the local doctor Jens Didriksen under the supervision of architect C.M. Smidt of the Danish National Museum (figs. 1, 2, 5). During the investigation of the site, dated typologically to the 13th or 14th century AD, several important finds were made. Of these, the remains of a probable distillation set surrounded by an estimated 150-200 l of partially charred grain, deposited in a well in the southeast corner of the castle cellar, were of particular interest (fig. 3). When the pottery distillation set was reassembled, it was found to consist of 35 unique funnels, pans, lids, vessels etc. It was interpreted by the excavator as having been linked to the grain, which Didriksen believed had been used to produce alcohol in the set. The Bjørnkær distillation set is the oldest of its kind found to date in Denmark (fig. 4).
A major problem regarding the interpretation of the Bjørnkær site has long been that the excavation results were never thoroughly examined and presented after the conclusion of the excavation. Consequently, the various interpretations of the findings have been considered uncertain on several points. One such uncertainty relates to the dating of the distillation set, so far fixed as the late 14th or early 15th century AD, based solely on typology. Another uncertainty results from the composition of the grain find never having been thoroughly investigated. It was merely assessed in the 1930s by Knud Jessen, with the result then being published by Didriksen. At this time, Jessen was professor of botany at the University of Copenhagen as well as being the director of the Copenhagen Botanical Garden. According to Didriksen, Jessen assessed the grain deposit as being mainly composed of a mixture of naked and hulled six-row barley but also with some oats, as well as rye, vetches and wild plants. Regarding the latter, Didriksen notes that there were many seeds of wild radish, corncockle, cornflower and fat hen.
The main aim of the studies presented in this article has been to confirm or discount the previous interpretations with regard to the dating of the distillation set and the composition of the grain deposits by obtaining 14C dates and undertaking a thorough analysis of the grain. In addition to a small cardboard box containing handpicked carbonised grain and wild plant remains of unknown origin, there is also a bag containing 1805 ml carbonised material from the original grain deposit found in the well; the latter has formed the basis for the current analysis. A secondary aim has been to discuss whether the grain found in the well was actually intended for alcohol production. This is not given since medieval distilleries were not used solely for alcohol production but also for other purposes like alchemical experiments.
The 14C dates which, due to a lack of preserved organic matter on the distillation set itself, were based on two grains of hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare) and one grain of oat (Avena sp.) from the grain deposit, lay within the range AD 1303-1423 (95.4%) or AD 1320-1411 (68.3%), thereby confirming the typological dating of the find.
The results of the archaeobotanical analysis, presented in table 1 and on figures 6 and 9, show that the composition of the grain deposit corresponds to Jessens results in some ways but deviates in others. It is assumed that the differences are likely due to Jessen having assessed material from another part of the deposit than that analysed in the current investigation. This cannot, however, be verified due to the absence of the remainder of the original grain deposit. Regarding the similarities, large amounts of barley grains and the presence in smaller amounts of grains of oat and rye (Secale cereale ssp. cereale) were recorded in both analyses, as were numerous seeds and seed pod fragments of wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) and seeds of cornflower (Centaurea cyanus) and fat hen (Chenopodium album). Dissimilarities are especially evident in the presence of bread wheat/durum wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. aestivum/Triticum turgidum ssp. durum) and large amounts of cabbage/mustard/turnip etc. (Brassica sp.) seeds recorded in the current analysis. These were not found in the previous assessment, while corncockle (Agrostemma githago) and large amounts of vetch (Vicia sp.) seeds and grains of naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum) were only recorded by Jessen in his original assessment. The complete lack of naked barley in the new analysis is an important difference as Jessen’s record of this species is highly unusual. There are virtually no other records of naked barley in Danish archaeobotanical finds from the Middle Ages, and its absence in the small proportion of the Bjørnkær material that remains today unfortunately makes it impossible to confirm its presence via a new thorough analysis.
The plant species present and the overall composition of the plant remains revealed by the current analysis are very typical for medieval finds from Denmark. The grain deposit apparently consisted primarily of hulled six-row barley, probably of the lax-eared variety (figs. 7 & 10), but it also contained minor presences of other grain species. The latter likely either represent grain that had become mixed with the barley in the well or plants which had grown together with the barley in the field. Wild plants are also represented, especially typical weeds, which had probably mainly grown and subsequently been harvested together with the grain. Seeds and fruits of wild plants constitute 19% of the find by number (fig. 9). This is a relatively large proportion, but as there are no certain presences of straw fragments, rachis internodes or remains of glumes, the barley grain had probably still been processed and cleaned to some extent.
As for the functional connection between the distillation set and the grain found in the well, it is argued that this cannot be established with certainty. Even though the distillation set and the grain were found together, they may originally have been deposited separately in the castle. During the analysis of the Bjørnkær find it was noted that no grains showed evidence of sprouting, which is a sign of malting. Sprouted grain can often be found during archaeobotanical investigations of medieval grain deposits associated with breweries. If sprouts had been present on the grains, this would have reinforced the idea of a potential connection between the grain and the distillation set.
Distillation of alcohol based on grain is believed to have begun in Denmark around the end of the 14th century AD. It must therefore be concluded that, although the intended use of the grain found in the well may have been alcohol production, a connection between the grain and the distillation set cannot be made with certainty. A likely interpretation of the grain is that it was stored somewhere in the castle where it was used for various everyday purposes that may or may not have included alcohol production. After carbonisation, which most likely happened due to an accident involving fire, the grain was subsequently deposited in the well together with the distillation set.

Sandkærgårds lade i Grønhøj fra 1791

2023-12-04T09:47:42+01:00

Sandkærgård’s barn at Grønhøj from 1791
The Potato Germans’ only surviving secular building

This article explores to what degree German immigrants imported, adopted or transformed building traditions during their ‘colonisation’ of the sparsely settled heathland of Alhede to the west of Viborg in the late 18th century. The last surviving secular building of the so-called Potato Germans, the barn at the farm of Sandkærgård, is presented as a case study. Between 1760 and 1763, King Frederik V of Denmark invited German immigrants from southern Hesse and Palatinate to settle in the heathlands to the west of Viborg. He aimed to intensify the agricultural use of this sandy, barren and sparsely populated land. About 300 families answered his call and began establishing new settlements in the Alhede area. They saw no future in their homeland, which had been devasted by wars, while the Prussian Seven Year’s War and the so-called French-Indian War prevented them from emigrating to America or Russia. But the new settlers quickly discovered that the heathland was not as fertile as advertised, and neither did the Danish government keep its promises of support. While most immigrants left Denmark again, about 60 families remained in the Alhede.
The barn at Sandkærgård is – apart from the parish church in Frederiks – the last preserved building from the immigration period. It has been dendrochronologically dated to 1791. Its half-timbered, single-storey construction without aisles matches fine contemporary Danish buildings. Its sparse use of braces, its single chain of rails on all sides and its roof construction all correspond to common developments in barns in the late 18th century, when the older reversed assembly roof went out of use. One feature, the elevated central part of the eave, has been perceived as a foreign trait rooted in the Hessian or Palatinate building tradition. But there are no evident parallels to this building in the immigrants’ homeland, while the elevated part is documented on the island of Als in northern Schleswig. Perhaps (German-speaking?) craftsmen from Als were engaged in building the new settlements. The barn at the farm of Sandkærgård therefore documents a process of integration and assimilation, where immigrants adopted the cultural traditions and workmanship of their new home.

Anmeldelser 2022

2023-12-04T09:59:54+01:00

Hans Browall: Stenålder vid Tåkern
(Uffe Rasmussen)

Frands Herschend: The pre-Carolingian Iron Age in South Scandinavia.
Social stratification and Narrative
(Mads Dengsø Jessen)

Rasmus Birch Iversen, Stine Vestergaard Laursen & Nina Helt Nielsen (red.):
Døden i Centrum – Yngre jernalders gravfund i Region Midtjylland
(Torben Trier Christiansen)

Xenia Pauli Jensen (red.): Smedens rum 2 og 3
(Martin Winther Olesen)

Hans Krongaard Kristensen: Asmild Kirke og Kloster
(Jes Wienberg)

Rena Maguire: Irish Late Iron Age Equestrian Equipment in its Insular and
Continental Context
(Xenia Pauli Jensen)

Eigil Nikolaisen, Peter Birch & Per Nielsen (red.): Under Harjas fane.
Arkæologi af hjertens lyst
(Jens Jeppesen)

Jonas Monié Nordin: The Scandinavian Early Modern World.
A Global Historical Archaeology
(Jes Wienberg)

Anne Pedersen & Merethe Schifter Bagge (red.):
Horse and rider in the Late Viking Age
– Equestrian burial in perspective
(Sara Heil Jensen)

Sven Rosborn (med bidrag af Tomas Sielski): Vikingakungens guldskatt.
Om upptäckten av ett unikt manuskript, kung Harald Blåtands grav och placeringen
av fästet Jomsborg
(Jes Wienberg)

Ingunn Marit Røstad: The Language of Jewellery.
Dress-accesories and Negotiations of Identity in Scandinavia, c. AD 400-650/700
(Katrine Balsgaard Juul)

Tobias Torfing: Northern Networks.
An Analysis of Three Neolithic Enclosures from the Jutland Peninsula
(Torsten Madsen)