andersson "traumatic artefacts", in l. ersgård, ed., thirteen essays on medieval artefacts...

8/12/2019 Andersson "Traumatic Artefacts", in L. Ersgrd, ed., Thirteen Essays on Medieval Artefacts (Meddelanden frn Lunds universitets historiska museum, 10, 1993-94), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995

1/4

Traumatic Artefacts

By HANS ANDERSSON

......................................................Abstract Andersson, H- Traumatic Artefacts. Meddelailden frdn Lands universitets historiska museum

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 arte-

fact 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 butrarely 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 pri-

marily a dating instrument, or evidence used to discuss contacts on a more "general level. Ontop 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 itsorigin 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. Thisclaim is often heard, and there may be some

""""truthin 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, buteach in its own way helps to paint the

"'background to todays situation. At the same

cial object of study in themselves.2 It was in

Sveriges medeltid.that he developed his ency-

clopaedic 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 Country-

side", "The Common People", "The Life of

the Common People", "Work", "Taxes", and

"The Lapps". The chapter on the life of thecommon people, for example, is based on a

variety of sources, one of which is the arte-


2/4

6 HANS ANDERSSON

the much later Anna(es school. It might be

said that Hildebrand shares with them an

interest in folk culture, everyday life, perhapsalso 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 Ragnhilds-

hollnen played a significant role in Nordic

history in the late thirteenth century. ~

Berg has a detailed presentation of theartefacts 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 dif-

ficult to get hold of the relevant literature. Inhis letters he frequently complains about the

meagre library resources in Gothenburg

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 es-

tablished 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 ofstudy. The starting-point was settlement

structures and their changes Interest was


3/4

TRAUMATIC ARTEFACTS 7

of finds, but the material must be processed

with a view to"-answeringchronological, func-

tional, and structural questions.

If archaeology is to be able to make a moreprofound contribution to, say, the discussion

of urbanization, the archaeological criteria

must be specified more precisely. In what waycan different elements in the urbanization

process be archaeologically defined? What

material is needed for this? It is necessary tohave find material which can be chronolog-

ically 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 impor-

tance. ~I began by commenting on research

traditions in medieval archaeology. What I

have gone on to say is scarcely in conflict withthese 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 starting-

point in a broad tradition of cultural history

must conduct a serious study of artefacts. Wemust improve both the primary knowledge

of the artefacts and our ability to handle them

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 (Andersson1989; Christophersen 1980; Forsstr6m 1976;

Klackenberg 1992).

There is another aspect of the problem of

medieval artefacts. There are few publica-

tions of basic material. This is due not only

to the research tradition but also to the quan-titative 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 per-

haps 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 byBirgitta 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 toobtain a general picture of chronology and

distribution. In the processing of finds from


4/4

8 HANS ANDERSSON

References

Andersson, H. 1990.Medieval archaeology in Scandi-

navia. 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 ochskor n sju medeltida stader. Fyndstud!e. Riksantik-

varie8mbetet och statens historiska museer, rapport.Medeltidsstaden 30. Stockholm.

Christophersen, A. 1980. H&ndverket i forandr!ng. Stu-

dier i horn- og beinh&ndverkets utvikling i Lund c.'a

1000-1350. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in4o 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"d-skriftf6r Skdneland. 1965:1.

1988.Examensmnet medeltidsarkeologi. Tillblivelseoch utveckling. M ETA 1988: 1-2.

Forsstr6m, M. 1976. Keramik fr&n Visby. En modellf6r

databehandlz"ngav arkeologisktfyndmaterial fr&n me-

deltiden. 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. Stock-holm.

Klackenberg, H. 1992.Moneta nostra. Monetarisering !

medeltz"dens Snerige. Lund Studies in Medieval Ar-chaeology 10. Stockholm.

Nordeide, S. W. 1989a. ~".. .De beste bf nder i klf bstwden

. . . " En junksjons- og aktivz.tetsanalyse basert pa gjen-

standsmaten"alet.Meddelser fra prosjektet Fortiden i

Trondheimbygrunn:Folkebibliotekstomten2O.Trond-helm.

- 1989b~Betente spor. META 1989:1.

- 1989c. Latente og manifeste spot.META 1989..4.

Thordeman, B, 1920.Alsn6 has, Eta svenskt medelt!ds-palats i sin konsthistorz~skasammanhang. Stockholm.

Troels-Lund, T. F. 1879-1901. Danmarks og Nor&eshistoric i slutningen af det 16."eaarhundrede. Copen-

hagen.

Translated by Alan Crozz"er

andersson "traumatic artefacts", in l. ersgård, ed., thirteen essays on medieval artefacts...

Documents