north-european trading centres and the early medieval craftsman; craftsmen at Åhus, north-eastern...

7/31/2019 North-European Trading Centres and the Early Medieval Craftsman; Craftsmen at hus, north-eastern Scania, Sw

1/33

125NORTH-EUROPEAN TRADING CENTRES AND THE EARLY MEDIEVAL CRAFTSMAN

North-European trading centres and the Early Medieval

craftsman. Craftsmen at hus, north-eastern Scania,Sweden ca. AD 750-850+.

Johan Callmer

Abstract

The emergence and the further development of wics and trading places in Northern and North-western Europe(late 7th century to the 10th century) cannot be explained as the result of only one social and economic system.This complex background could be studied in the archaeological material from the workshops of craftsmen. Inthe person of the craftsman different social and economic and possibly also cultural spheres join together. Thesite of hus II (S. Sweden) and its waste material from diverse crafts is presented shortly: amber-working,antler-working, bronze- and silver-casting, glass-working, specialized forging, fine textile-working). The crafts-men were mainly residents of the site although some may have been absent e.g. during the summer months. Thenumber of active craftsmen was high (hundreds of them). The craftsmen at hus II to a considerable extentwere generalists performing several crafts. Fine dresses and clothes with accessories may have been the mostimportant products. They joined in small-sized work groups forming an important element I n the social sys-tem of the site. The relative regularity of plots may hide a considerable variability. Many craftsmen at trading

sites in Northern Europe were free men although the community of the site was dependant on the protection oflocal holders of power. The military potential of a site of this type should however not be played down com-

pletely. Presumably the emergence of more extensive and more complex estates in the 7th and 8th centuries wasan important mover for the development of wics and trading centres. The craftsman often worked intimatelytogether with traders and merchants and may even sometimes have been the same person.

Johan Callmer, Institut fr Geschichtswissenschaften, Ur- und Frhgeschichte, Hausvogteiplatz 57, D-10117Berlin, Deutschland.

The discussion aboutwics and NorthEuropean trading places and theirplace in archaeology and history

The phenomenon of trading places cumcraftsmen of the late seventh to ninth andtenth centuries in North-western and NorthernEurope has been much discussed during the

last decade. From the beginning mainly beinga topic of Scandinavian archaeology and with

very slow progress, it has now shifted itsfocus away from the northern examples andhas been predominantly involved with thewics of Anglo-Saxon England, the Channelarea and the Rhine estuary. It is howevermost essential to see all these places as inte-grated parts of a single extensive network,albeit with various distinctive branches. There

have been three dominant approaches to thequestion how and why these very special and

Central Places in the Migration and the Merovingian Periods, s. 125-157.


2/33

126 JOHAN CALLMER

undoubtedly in many ways urban sites emer-ged and functioned in relation to each otherand in relation to surrounding regions. Someauthors have pointed out these places as em-bryos of the trading towns of North-western

Europe in the High Middle Ages (e.g. Hodges1989). They have thus taken a neo-evolutionistposition. This stance has found some supportin the undeniable continuity of urban societyand culture in Western Europe from the 8 th

century onward. Other authors, often out-spoken Marxists, have pointed out the impor-tance of the relationship between wics andsimilar sites and local regional economy and

political hierarchy (e.g. Saunders 2001). Theyhave i.a. stressed the complexity of the pro-blem how to support a large population withfood mainly from outside. Sometimes theirconcern with the local conditions, makes themloose sight of the network structure of thephenomenon and itsimplications and conse-quences. They also argue the anachronistictotal control model. Often they also bringforward the idea of discontinuity between thetrading places and the later towns. A thirdposition is taken by those, who see thephenomenon predominantly as a trade net-work (e.g. Mller-Wille 1989). Consequentlythey tend to play down and are also much lessinterested in the problem to link the sites tothe local economy and political system. Alsothe question of production at the sites is not acentral one: the dominant focus is long-distance trade. This third stance is often takenby scholars working with Northern Europewhere distances areimportant. The discussionabout this important phenomenon (both froma social and economical and also from acultural point of view) has unfortunately beenmainly restricted to archaeology. There are

only few and mostly very meagre relevantwritten sources. This has contributed to a

situation where the importance of the pheno-menon is hardly fully realized by historians.At this point it is easy to understand thatneither of these schools is able to supply uswith a convincing explanation and a deep

understanding of the problem. It is also ratherobvious that the reason for this failure is themisconception that there is one monolithicsystem and consequently onlyoneexplanation.A more fruitful approach recognizes thenecessity to include diverse perspectives andthe positive potential in attacking the pro-blem as a heterogenous complex of differentinterests, connections and relations of power.

One way to come closer to the central prob-lems is to concentrate on the activities andespecially on the production at the sites: boththe quantity and the quality and furthermorethe cultural dimension of the products. It isperhaps more in the person of the craftsmanthan in that of the merchant or trader that wecan perceive the complexity of these sites andtheir population. In the archaeological recordthe merchant and the trader are much moreelusive than the craftsmen. The craft produc-tion leaves a multitude of tangible traces,which can be studied by archaeology. I willhere discuss the role of the craftsman at arelevant site in Southern Scandinavia.

hus II and source criticism of thesite

Beginning in 1978 two important sites inti-mately connected with trade and exchangewere partly excavated at hus on the lowerHelge (Holy) River of north-eastern Scania(Callmer 1991) (Fig.1). The earlier of the twosites, dated ca. AD 700-750, is situated on

the southern riverbank. The subsoil is sandand a few hundred meters to the south there


3/33


Fig. 1.The topographical situation of the two trading sites hus I (ca. AD 700-750) and hus II (ca.AD 750-850+).

are dunes of Early Modern date. It is mostprobably a non-permanent site with onlyflimsy constructions. Activities were obviouslyrestricted to repeated short intervals of time.The extension of the site is considerable,measuring no less than three or four hectares.There are however large expanses without findsbetween concentrations of waste material fromseveral different crafts. Of the crafts repre-sented at this site glass working (beadproduction) with a profusely rich material,bronze casting, comb making and black-smithing should be mentioned. These findsare closely related to the find material fromlayers A-D in the stratigraphy of the Post

Office site at Ribe in south-western Jutland(Feveile & Jensen 1993). Finds normally

indicating settlement like pottery, discardediron tools and other iron artefacts, loomweights, spindle whorls and whetstones wererare. It was observed that kaolin, very suitablefor the production of crucibles, had beenexcavated on the site (accessible at a cliff-likesection of the riverbank). It is important to beaware of the existence of this earlier site forthe following expos but it will not bediscussed in any detail in this paper.

The other site, called hus II or Transval(the name of an agglomeration of housesnearby) is situated on the northern bank ofthe river a few hundred meters downstream.Also here the subsoil is sand, mostly of a fine

quality. The site is quite extensive and measuresmore than 12 hectares. Of this at least 3.5


4/33

128 JOHAN CALLMER

hectares had been completely destroyed beforethe beginning of the excavations. The mostimportant factors of destruction were two gravelpits and a Late Medieval water mill with awater channel cutting through the southern

part of the site from west to east. Later, in theearly seventeenth century, the channel waswidened and rebuilt as a real canal for barges.

The excavations were first concentrated tothe southern part of the site profiting fromparticularly well-preserved sections along thecanal. Here especially, the construction of thecanal had resulted in the deposition of vastmasses of subsoil on both sides. Consequently

the ploughed seventeenth century surface wascompletely sealed off. Later due to a disastrousdecision by the local administration of NationalMonuments almost the entire north-easternquarter of the site was stripped and excavatedfor a large scale house-building exploitation.

The excavations through the years werecarried out with similar methods for therecovery of the find material and for thedocumentation o features. Although staffchanged during the years there was alwayscontinuity, which must be considered veryimportant when discussing the compatibilityof the results from different parts of the site.Totally ca. 30.000 square meters were exca-vated but only ca. 4000 square meters withcultural layers (Fig. 2). The number of featureswas ca. 5200. Most important for manyreasons were 149 sunken-featured buildings(Fig. 2). For the discussion of the traces ofcraft activities below it is essential to elaborateat length on the formation or rather the defor-mation of the monument. After the site wasabandoned and probably relocated nearbysome time in the second half of the ninthcentury the whole surface came under culti-

vation. It is reasonable to assume, that thisextensive site, like other abandoned Late Iron

Age and Early Medieval settlements, waseagerly exploited by later farmers. The soil atan old settlement site was rich in organicmatter (agglomerations of humus), traceelements and phosphates and the numerous

pits did contribute to an increased capacity tohold water in dry seasons. The fields herewere ploughed without serious intermissionsfor 1100 years until the present day.

As already pointed out the site today wascovered by cultural layers only in the southern-most part cut off by the canal, until recentlyforming a complete island, and in a bandalong the northern side of the canal. There is

however no good reason to assume that theentire surface of the site was covered by equallythick cultural layers. Layers did develop whereorganic waste material was deposited regularly.Consequently the rubbish-heap was the originof the development of layers. This is howevera truth with certain modifications. Layers alsodevelop at house sites and where activities areconcentrated. In the latter case the materialtends to be more mixed with non-organiccomponents like sand, clay and stone. Depo-sition of organic matter however also wasconsiderable. The effect of gardening close tothe dwelling(s) must also be taken into con-sideration. These conclusions could be reachedthrough studies of the stratigraphy in thoseparts of the site where layers were extant.There were slight differences in thickness butthe complete surface below the Late Medievaland Early Modern deposits did display culturallayers without interruption. However the partsexcavated in this well-preserved southern sectorof the site had all been intensively settled. Opensurfaces between the intensively settled partsmay have featured insignificant layers or nolayers at all.

The sunken-featured buildings provide uswith a very strong argument for the conclusion


5/33


Fig.2.husII:sunken-featuredbuildingsandsectorswithculturallayers.


6/33

130 JOHAN CALLMER

that all settled parts of the site once had asimilar deposition of rubbish and a similarsubsequent formation of layers. With onlyvery few exceptions the fill in the sunken-featured buildings consists of cultural earth.

The formation of layers in the fill indicatesthat the content of organic matter often musthave been very high originally. Much of thisfill and perhaps all of it must have beenavailable in huge masses close by. In generalthe fill looks very much the same irrespectiveof if we are 30 or 300 m from the river. Ageneral idea of the speed of destruction of thedry and sandy cultural layers is provided by a

comparison of the depths at which the sunken-featured buildings are preserved in differentparts of the site with and without culturallayers. Obviously agriculture during 1100years has completely destroyed all culturallayers in the unprotected part of the site.There is documentary evidence of verydestructive wind erosion already from theEarly Modern Period, but there is much tosuggest that the landscape already in the LateIron Age was open and without considerablewoodland. In the Early Medieval Period itwas even more open than today. The combinedeffect of the progress of technical and eoliandestruction has been most considerable. Whenthe cultural layers had been destroyed de-struction reached between 0.2 and 0.4mfurther down into the sandy subsoil. In somesectors only the lowermost parts of the sunken-featured buildings have been preserved andshallow buildings of this type, which areknown from the southern part of the site(depth 0.2-0.3m) may be completely elimi-nated. Many pits must be completely goneand only very deep postholes could survive.

Observations in the southern part of the

site however have made it possible to recon-struct a little more in detail the progression of

this destruction. As already noted the circum-stances that allowed the conservation ofcultural layers were the construction of thecanal and the watermill, the relocation of aroad and a field dividing bank. In connection

with the construction works for the canalmasses of dug out earth (changing at a depthof 1-2m to clayey sand) were mainly depositedas close as possible in a band along the bankof the canal but flattened out and reaching abreadth of up to 60m to give place for a towtrack. This means, that the surface of theearly 17th century was covered by an easilyrecognizable protecting layer of sterile earth.

Observations of the plough soil below thiscover made it clear that there were two phasesin this area along the canal: one early and oneconsiderably later. Late 14th and 15th centurypottery suggested that the early phase corre-sponded well with the information in thewritten sources about a big water mill situatedon the river immediately to the west of themedieval town of hus. It is however worthnoting that already the formation of this LateMedieval plough layer (ca. 0.2-0.3 m thick)was partly a result of the destruction of theoriginal 8-9th century cultural layers. Theseoriginal cultural layers seldom measured morethan 0.2 to 0.3 m and sometimes they werethinner. Farming from the Viking Period untilthe 15th century must have annihilated atleast 0.2m of the layers. It seems reasonable tothink that the cultural layers if they had re-mained completely intact would have measuredat least 0.5 m. Before the breaking downprocess of the organic content had come to anend layers must have been much thicker.Especially the rubbish heaps had formed lowmounds. A fine confirmation of the exten-sion of cultural layers all over the settled parts

of the site was provided by the extant layersbelow a field dividing bank running north


7/33


south in the north-eastern quarter of the site.Unfortunately grave mistakes in connectionwith the stripping of this sector for excavationled to widespread destruction of the layersbut enough was preserved and documented

to allow this assessment. The dividing bankmust belong to a system of land division,which is earlier than the 18th century andprobably antedates a new system laid out inconnection with the demise of the Medievaltown and its relocation to the new site atKristianstad in 1617. An old road, definitelyof medieval date, ran on the high groundalong the river. In connection with the

construction of the water channel and laterthe canal it was relocated towards the north.Below the road constructions were better pre-served than to the north and the south of it.

Six important questions concerningcraft production and craftsmen

These details concerning the deconstructionof the site must be taken into account whenwe now proceed to a discussion of our maintopic: the evidence for craftsmen at the husII site. At the heart of the matter is a compara-tive analysis of the spatial distribution ofartefacts and waste material. This analysis isnecessary to carry out irrespective of which ofthe relevant main questions we turn to:1. Which crafts could be identified at the site?2. Did craftsmen live here permanently or

were they only guests?3. How many craftsmen were active at the site

simultaneously?4. To what extent do we meet highly speciali-

sed craftsmen here or were they mainlygeneralists?

5. How were the different basic social units(households,families) organized?

6. What was the social position of the crafts-man in society?

The reconstruction of the site

For many of these questions it is also necessaryto discuss the lay out and the spatial divisionof the site. It is not possible yet to present avery detailed and final interpretation of thestructure of the settlement at hus II. Workwith the documentation of the excavations ofthe site during the last few years have resultedin some substantial progress. First and mostimportant it could be ascertained that, the

documented features do not occur haphazardlyall over the place but are found in specialpatterns and definite concentrations. In thisrespect the excavation 1989-90 of the north-eastern quarter of the site was especiallyimportant. The stripping of a very extensivesurface made it possible to follow the confinesof the settled parts over a very large area,which had not been possible earlier. The veryextensive stripping also made comparativestudies of the configurations of different typesof constructions feasible. The various concen-trations of constructions indicate the macro-structure of the site. Constructions, i.e.hearths, pits, postholes and sunken-featuredbuildings are found in broad strips orientatedparallel to the river course. Other usuallyimportant factors for the organisation of settle-ment space like the relief and the cardinalpoints were not decisive in a comparablemanner. These strips measure ca. 25 or 50 min breadth. Between these strips of settledland corridors of free space ca. 10-15 m broadare running. The detailed study of the micro-topography of the features suggests con-centrations at rather regular intervals following

divisions perpendicularly to the general axisof the settled strips along the river course.


8/33

132 JOHAN CALLMER

Fig. 3. A theoretical plot model for hus II.

With these principles of division of space wearrive at a plot division with modules measuringca. 25 m x 20 m (Fig. 3). With theseconsiderations we arrive at a picture of aninnermost single row of nine plots measuringmore than 175 m. Further inland (as far as300 m from the river) there were some plotslaid out but they are few and they do notform a continuous strip. The innermost singlestrip is separated by the next double strip by afree corridor ca. 20 m broad. The documentedlength of this double strip is ca. 225 m. Thereare probably all the way through double rowsof plots similar in size to those already definedfor the innermost strip except at the easternend where there are two separate plots lying

side by side. Between this and the next macro-structural element there is another free corri-

dor. This time the corridor measures ca. 10 15 m in breadth. The next macro-structuralelement is another strip with single plotsrunning parallel to the other ones butdiscontinued for at least ca. 50 m forming anopen space in the middle of the settlementmeasuring at least 50 m x 30 m. Towards theriver this single row of plots is followed by afree corridor perhaps 10 m broad. The nextmacro-structural element is a double row ofplots documented for ca. 190 m. Throughexcavations in the southernmost part of thesettlement, now forming an artificial island,we have been able to demonstrate that thereis another strip (probably double) along theriver bank with a very rich find material. This

strip may have been the longest on the site.Based on these reconstructions we may


9/33


proceed to a calculation of the number of plotsoriginally found at hus II. First, however,we must decide if there is reason for us tounderstand the site as static or dynamic witha transformation. A completely static settlement

structure existing over more than a hundredyears is of course most unlikely. On the otherhand large parts of the area now excavatedshows us a pattern, which does not suggestgreat changes. There is so far no evidence of agradual displacement of the site. With regardto the special topography we could expecteither a movement towards the north-east orthe south-west but, with the exception of a

small sector in the south-western part of thesite there are no indications of a possible re-arrangement. After this conclusion we can pro-ceed with a minimum calculation of the totalnumber of plots at the site. All settlement indi-cations so far known considered gives the numberof plots at around one hundred. There aresome possibilities to arrive at higher as well asat lower figures, but the arguments are gene-rally weak for a substantial reconsideration. Withthe number of plots counted it is possible tenta-tively to estimate the total population. Thereis no convincing basic social unit-model for thistype of society with strong elements of specia-lized production. It seems unlikely that thenumber of inhabitants of the plots would exceedthe interval five to ten individuals (see furtherbelow). Consequently we are confronted witha simultaneous population residing on the plotsof ca. 500 to 1000 individuals. Incidentally wecan conclude that this is not the populationsize of an ordinary agglomerated agrarian settle-ment in Southern Scandi-navia. As we havealready pointed out, the constructions and thefind material also strongly differ from thatfrom ordinary agrarian settlements.

The different crafts

There are four activities of craft character,which differ absolutely and two, which differqualitatively from activities at ordinary settle-

ments. The four absolutely different activitiesare amber-working, comb-making, silver- andbronze-casting and glass-working. Traces ofthese activities are with just a few dubiousexclusions only found at so called trading-sites and residence-sites.

Amber-working

Amber-working at hus is concentrated onthe production of beads and axe-shapedpendants. The number of finds is 3015, whichcould be regarded as surprisingly low. Thefind material is a typical production-materialwith only 36 finished beads and three finishedaxes (1.3%). The vast majority of the finds (2474 units constituting 82%) are pieces ofraw amber and among these small pieces domi-nate. These small pieces have been sorted outas not suited for processing and thus discarded.Small pieces of amber are difficult to find inthe process of excavating and it could bemaintained, that these finds only constitute asmall sample of the total. There are 343 piecesof cut amber and no less than 117 plaquettesfor the production of beads. These plaqettesare in the three different stages of production:raw plaquettes, plaqettes with perforation begun,plaquettes with the perforation finished. Workat these stages was primarily carried out witha knife whereas the delicate perforation stagewas executed with a fine borer. The wastematerial resulting from these types of worktends to be very small in size and crumbly.The final symmetrical shaping and polishing

of the beads is often supposed to have beendone on a turning lathe. Since the lathe was


10/33

134 JOHAN CALLMER

Fig.4.DistributionofambermaterialinfeaturesathusII.


11/33


used during the period, this may be areasonable conclusion. High quality abrasivesare also needed. The use of less sophisticatedalternative techniques like rotation in a circularcavity in stone should however not be ruled

out. Three gaming pieces of amber are amongthe finds but there is no hard evidence for theproduction of these artefacts. A most intri-guing find of a sandstone slab with severalcircular cup-shaped cavities suggest a productionof gaming pieces. This may however apply togaming pieces of bone rather than amber.

Amber finds are encountered all over theexcavated parts of the site (Fig. 4). A certain

tendency regarding the distribution of amberfinds could however be noted. The majorityof the production finds could be located inthe plot rows close to the river and in anintermediate position. On the plots far fromthe river there are few finds but we can stillobserve that there are finds indicating produc-tion. Considering relationship to other craftswe cannot see any obvious and consistentlink with antler-working, which could besupposed to be vaguely related. Only a fewplots lack indications for amber-workingcompletely.

Antler-working

With a total of 28.136 find-units antler-working is the most fully documented craftproduction at the site. It must be understoodthat unless antler waste was almost instantlycovered, e.g. by deposition on a rubbish heapor in a rubbish pit, the material will beconsumed (by rodents), weather, becomebrittle and will ultimately be completelybroken down and destroyed. Red deer antleris the dominating raw material but there are

also minor elements of elk and roe deer antlerpresent. All stages of the production could be

studied in the rich material. This is a verytypical waste material deriving from intensivecraft-production. Like in all other well-documented trading sites antler-working hereis mainly aimed at producing composite, single

sided combs. Basic antler is represented bothby shed antler (84 %) and antler fromslaughtered animals (16%). Comb-making isonly possible with the help of a number ofspecialized tools. When the antler has beensoftened in water, parts of the work could becarried out with a knife and a light, thin-bladed axe. Other parts demanded tools like ahigh precision fine-toothed saw and several

special tools used for the decoration of theside plates of the combs. The finish of thesurface of the connecting plates is always veryfine and implies the use of high qualityabrasives. The production of connecting platesand tooth-plates requires much skill and aboveall a high degree of precision. The primarydivision resulted in relatively few wasteproducts (only 101 units, 0.4%). The secon-dary division waste of the antler branchessawed or chopped into suitable lengths forfurther work on side plates and tooth-plates isalso relatively few (620 units, 2.2%). Theselengths of antler are then further divided intorough-outs for side plates and tooth platesand the spongiosa of the antler is cut away.The number of find units is 1.231 (4.4%).Further work is needed to shape these rough-outs resulting in very numerous waste products(22.875 units, 81 %) of which chips fromwork with the axe, knife or plane are domina-ting (20.432 units, 73%). The number ofside plates (whole and fragmentary) (319 units,1.1%) is surprisingly small when we considerthe number of whole and fragmentary toothplates (2.457 units, 8.7%). The number of

connecting side plates only corresponds to159.5 produced combs, whereas the number


12/33

136 JOHAN CALLMER

of tooth-plates corresponds to more than twicethe number of combs (351) (considering 7tooth-plates per comb). Ambrosiani hasproposed another calculation concentratingon the burrs (1981 p. 155). Assuming a

production of three combs per antler we arriveagain at a lower figure of ca. 240 combs Thisis of course a surprisingly small number but itmust be considered with regard to the qualityof the source-material. The vast majority ofthe once extant waste material is destroyed.

When we turn to the distribution of antlerwaste (Fig. 5) we must consider variations inthe calcareous content of the soil. The riverine

zone is definitely richer in lime than the in-land plateau. However the fill in the sunken-featured buildings with a high proportion ofbones created a favourable milieu for theconservation of antler also. When we considerthe quality of the finds we can observedifferences but we may maintain that quanti-tative differences are insignificant. The con-centration of finds is varying very much. Fromsingular stray occurrences of waste materialthe maximum number of find units is 3.045in a sunken-featured building and 133 persquare meter in the cultural layer. The distri-bution of the waste material on the site showsa distinct tendency with strongly decreasingnumbers of finds when we proceed from theriver towards the interior. However, like inthe case of the amber-working waste, antlerwaste is also still occurring in the back-row ofplots ca. 300 m from the river. If we consideran equal spatial division of the site in a riverineand an inland part it is very clear that theintensity by far is highest in the riverine part.Very high numbers of waste material are foundall along the river from the far westernmosttrench to the eastern limit of the excavations.

Only few plots lack finds of antler waste mate-rial completely. Comparing the distribution

of waste products of diverse crafts antlerworkingshows a certain but not really distinct tendencyto co-occurrence with amber-working.

Bronze- and silver-castingLike antler-working bronze-casting is repre-sented by vast numbers of waste materialon the site. Silver has also been worked athus II but much less frequently. Among themetallic waste products silver amounts to ca.6 % only. Bronze- and silver-casting is acomplex craft involving several stages requiringexpertise. The highest level of sophistication

is needed in the metallurgical stages of theproduction. The work process begins withscrutinizing and sorting out the metal availablefor processing. Metal was available both asscrap (83 units) and as metal bars (6 units).Scrap metal seems to be totally dominating(93 %), but since failed casts may be theorigin of much of the scrap, the originalcomposition of metal is difficult to ascertain.Next, larger objects must be divided intosmaller pieces matching the size of thecrucibles. The production of suitable cruciblesdemands complex knowledge and skill. Thetempering material should preferably be purequartz and many ceramic clays are not suitedfor this production. It is also desirable tobuild the crucible with more than one layer.When discarded after the casting processcrucibles are often brittle and break up insmall pieces, which must have a considerableinfluence on the degree of retrieval in thecourse of archaeological excavation. At husII 532 units of crucibles have been recovered.In addition to crucibles there must be mouldsfor the casting. Moulds were made from spe-cial clay and obviously not seldom built with

two layers. In order to ensure a perfect rende-ring of the ornamental design the innermost


13/33


Fig.5.Distributionofan

tlermaterialinfeaturesathus

II.


14/33

138 JOHAN CALLMER

layer consists of very fine clay. Unfortunatelythis practice results in frequent damage onthe inner surface and subsequently to consi-derable difficulties to identify the cast object.The number of mould units recovered is

3.596. Like crucibles mould pieces depositedon the surface break up into small crumblingpieces. Surprisingly, mould pieces have aslightly better chance than pieces of cruciblesto survive. A hearth or an oven with bellows isnecessary for the casting process. No intactremains of constructions of this kind havebeen recovered. There are however rich findsof burnt clay, some of them with distinct wall

character (up to more than 37 kg in a singlesunken-featured building), and numerousfragments of tuyres. When the metal piecesare melted down impurities as slag must beremoved. The casting itself must be donerapidly but with caution. Later the cast objectmust be removed from the mould and carefullytrimmed. Although no traces of mercury werefound several of the ornaments produced atthe site appear as gilded objects. Consequentlythe case of gilding with the help of mercurycannot be ruled out. For the brooches a pin,mostly of iron must be added. This requiresthe skill of a blacksmith as well. Exceedinglyinteresting, the pin construction changesradically from a spiral model with long tradi-tion to pins with a springing head plate. Itseems to be completely unrelated to otherchanges in the production. There are nume-rous finds of separate pins (30 units of theearlier A-type and 23 of the later B-type). Theproduction of bronze objects comprises severaldifferent brooches, armlets, mounts and keys.The types represented here belong to wellknown types used all over Scandinavia.

The spatial distribution of finds related to

bronze-casting is not restricted to a singlesector or zone at the hus II site (Figs. 6 and

7). Only occasionally we can observe a lackof finds at a single plot. It is also worth notingthat, when we proceed to a detailed analysisof the various types of objects produced atdifferent plots, we find that the same type of

ornament was produced at several differentplots. For example we can consider ovalbrooches of the well known 9th century typePetersen 37, one of the most frequently foundbrooch-types all over Scandinavia (Petersen1928). Mould fragments for the productionof this type of brooch were found at fourdifferent places all over the site. There is acertain dependence of crucible-finds on

mould-finds especially when we consider findsfrom the cultural layers. The links betweenthe mould-finds is however stronger withamber-working when we consider the diffe-rent links of this category of finds. A mode-rately negative relationship is only found withantler-working.

Glass-working

Glass-working is another pyrotechnic craftintensively practised on the earlier (first halfof the eighth century) hus I site. Glass-working on both sites is aimed at the produc--tion of beads. There are two techniques used:winding glass around a metal rod and fusingmillefiori components into beads. Bothsimple, undecorated and complex, decoratedbeads were produced. The production of beadsrequires a high degree of skill. Knowledge ofvarious glass materials and how they can becombined is essential and so is also knowledgeof how to construct, maintain and controlappropriate sources of heat. The productiontechnique is demanding, especially withreference to the degree of precision, swiftness of

movements and steadiness. At hus II glass-working debris are found only in relatively


15/33


Fig.6.Distributionofm

ouldsformetalcastinginfeatu

resathusII.


16/33

140 JOHAN CALLMER

Fig.7.

Distributionofcruciblesinfeat

uresathusII.


17/33


small numbers. There are 124 find units in-cluding 28 lumps and drops of molten glass,15 pieces of glass slag, 14 tesserae and 67 otherpieces (mostly fragments of staves and chipsand splinters). This is in sharp contrast to condi-

tions at hus I with more than 70.000 findunits. These finds of bead-making debris werefound only in the riverine part of the hus IIsite and on just a few, a little removed plots inthe eastern part (Fig. 8). In addition there arehowever numerous finds of imported beadswhich definitely have not been produced onthe site (a little more than one thousand). Thedistribution of glass-working debris does not

suggest a concentration of production to a certainpart of the site but rather reflects the historicaldevelopment of the site. Considering the gene-ral datings of the bead-making debris and ofthe imported beads it becomes likely that theproduction debris belong to the earliest phaseof the site and that this type of productionwas soon altogether abandoned. Beads fromWestern Europe and the Middle East beganto be imported in vast numbers during thesecond half of the eighth century. Many ofthe beads found at hus II are defect and thusdiscarded products but there are no productiondebris. This fact shows that imported beadsarrived at hus II not yet strung. In otherparts of Scandinavia, production continuedbut on a more modest scale. Our observationshere allow us to follow the dynamic develop-ment of the earliest riverine part towards theinterior. This observation agrees well withsome other peculiarities of the riverine part .

Forging

When we consider different forms of craft-production forging is one of the activities,

which is most difficult to form an opinion of.To what extent was forging a domestic activity

necessary for maintaining a reasonable tech-nical level and to what extent was it a specia-lized and exclusive activity? There is muchevidence of pyrotechnical production pro-cesses all over the site. Notwithstanding the

fact that we have found no traces of ovensamong the features excavated there are distinctpieces of walls of ovens among the finds (asnoted in connection with bronze-casting) andthere are numerous finds of bloc-shaped,subrectangular tuyres as well as smaller loom-weight-like, round tuyres. Since these sourcesof heat and protection devices for bellowscould also be useful in the production process

of bronze- and silver-casting (and as well glass-working) it is uncertain to which extent theywere used for forging. The bigger, bloc-shapedtuyres are however hardly necessary for therather small hearths probably used by thejewellers. This type of tuyre much bettermatches a forging milieu. The round, trundle-shaped tuyres are more difficult to judge.Slag was found all over the site sometimes inconsiderable quantities (Fig. 9). A total of ca.100 kg iron slag was collected. The distribu-tion of slag is uneven with ca. 30 kg retrievedin the fill of a single sunken-featured buildingand in layers close by. This concentrationmost probably could be interpreted as theremnants of a slag-rich rubbish-heap used tofill in the nearby sunken-featured buildingwhen it was abandoned. The later destructionof the site does not exclude the possibilitythat there once were numerous rubbish-heapsof the same character.

A strong argument for intensive forging atthe site is provided by frequent finds of piecesof rod-shaped iron bars (with a rectangularsection). Also some iron bars of other shapesare represented. As already pointed out both

comb-making and the production of broocheshad a close connection with blacksmiths work


18/33

142 JOHAN CALLMER

Fig.8.Distributionofglassfindsinfea

turesandlayersathusII.


19/33


Fig.9.Distributionofslag(predominantlyironslag)infeaturesathu

sII.


20/33

144 JOHAN CALLMER

(fine rivets and pins respectively). There arealso indications that other forms of specializedblacksmiths work were carried out on thesite. We may notice evidence of productionof chests and caskets with complex locks and

mounts on the site. There are also severalfinds of semi-processed knives suggesting aconsiderable production of knives. Since theproduction of other cutting tools like scissorsand shears is closely related to knife-forging itis likely that knives were not the only toolsmade on the site. Whether there also werearmourers among the blacksmiths at hus IIis an open question. There are few pieces of

offensive weapons (excluding arrow-heads)and a fragment of mail among the finds.Numerous finds of fragments of sheet-ironriveted together strongly suggest that theproduction and repair of iron cauldrons alsowas an important activity. The making ofsheet-iron of good quality necessary forwatertight cauldrons was probably beyondthe competence of most ordinary rural smiths.Cauldrons played an important role for thepreparation of food (probably more importantthan pottery) although they seldom are foundintact (almost exclusively in grave contexts).The indications for specialised blacksmithswork on the site in our opinion are convincing.There is both a quantitative and qualitativedifference between hus II and contemporaryordinary rural sites. It is however much todesire, that the qualitative differences betweenvillage forging and forging on special sitescould be more fully researched. We have alsoto consider forging at residences wherespecialisation e.g. in the production and repairof weapons is most likely to occur. For ob-vious reasons a certain degree of overlap ishowever to be reckoned with between forging

at sites of different types. Any site situated onor near the coast or a major artery, for example,

will produce finds of rivets in considerablenumbers. Also in this respect hus II isexceptional with more than 2400 find units.This extreme frequency of rivet finds must besomewhat reduced since boat timber was

certainly much used as fuel and repair workon boats and ships must have been a majoractivity.

Textile-working

Like forging textile working can only condi-tionally be regarded as a craft. Textile-workingwas probably carried out in almost all rural

households. The basic knowledge of spinningand weaving was widely spread and manyitems of clothing and other textiles no doubtwere produced in the homes. On some sites,residence sites and trading sites, textile-working definitely adopted a specialised form.Arguments for the existence of a specialisedproduction of textiles can only be based onqualitative properties of the archaeologicalsource material. Unfortunately no textiles wererecovered during the excavations. This defi-ciency is somewhat compensated by rich findsof textile tools. Several categories of this ma-terial have been studied by Andersson (1996),who concluded that the weight spectrum ofthe spindle whorls not only shows a widevariation but also distinct tendencies to acertain standardisation. Whorls intended forthe spinning of very fine threads are com-mon. The number of whorls is very conside-rable (107 find units). The frequency of whorlfinds clearly so far exceeds all other knownsites. A site with a certain likeness to hus IIwith regard to settlement structure and socio-economic pattern like Lddekpinge/Vikhgs-vgen has significantly less whorl finds and

the weights of the whorls are not so clearlygrouped.


21/33


Weaving is well documented on the sitewith numerous finds of loom weights of rawor baked clay. Secondary sorting of the mate-rial has shown several fragmentary baked clayweights in fact to be discarded tuyres. Weights

are mostly found in small numbers of two tothree in the fill of sunken-featured buildings.Only occasionally they appear in large num-bers (up to 28 find units). Among these findsof weights the vast majority is not baked. Theweights are relatively light (70% of 87 wellpreserved weights are found in the interval200-400g with a distinct peak at 225-275g).The relative lightness of the weights corro-

borates the evidence of the spindle whorls forthe production of fine threads and corre-sponding fine cloths. Weaving of decorativeribbons presumably for the application onfine dresses was also carried out at the site asindicated by two finds of special weavingcombs of antler. The only parallels to thesespecialist implements have come to light atBirka (Geijer 1938:57). At hus II sewing isalso well documented. No less than 34 finesewing needles of iron and two of bronzewere recovered during the excavation. It is ofcourse difficult to compare the material froma site like hus II, where the fill of all featureswas sieved, with sites where the finds werehand collected. It is still striking that theprobable trading site at Lddekpinge/Vik-hgsvgen only yielded a single needle (Ohlsson1976:112). At hus II there are also 33 boneneedles probably used for working in coarsetextiles e.g. sail-cloth.

Textile working was practised almost allover the site and there are only very few hintsthat some plots were not at all engaged in thiskind of production (Fig. 10). There is no diffe-rence between the riverine part of the site and

the interior portion in this respect.

The different crafts and the product

The different crafts discussed here: amberworking, antler working, bronze- and silvercasting, glass working and the specialized

forging and textile-working activities, hardlyexhaust the list of crafts, which in reality werecarried out at the site. It is most likely that anumber of other crafts were executed there aswell like e.g. the production of turned woodenvessels and the production of belts and shoesof leather. We have no evidence of theseadditional activities but it is all the sameessential not to forget that the palette no

doubt was broader than we can see in thematerial remains. The production at hus IIwas certainly concentrated on dress, bothmasculine and feminine. It is most likely thatcomplete dresses including ornaments andaccessories like fine, ornamental combs wereproduced. Other parts of the production in-cluded forging of quality tools and possiblyweapons. Vessels of wood and iron andcaskets were most probably also importantproducts.

Permanent resident or guest?

As it has been pointed out, the main differencebetween the early hus I site and the laterhus II site is the almost complete lack oflayers and constructions in the first case andthe presence of manifest features and layerswhen sufficiently protected in the second. Tothe reader it must be explained that hus I issituated on land belonging to the village ofYngsj situated 5 km further upriver. Thisdivision of land, for several reasons, must beregarded as of Early Medieval date, whichthen means that this site always has been

situated in an extreme periphery with corre-spondingly extensive land-use, in this case


22/33

146 JOHAN CALLMER

Fig.1

0.Distributionofspindlewhor

lsathusII.


23/33


permanent pasture until the 19th century.Agro-technical and eolian destruction of thekind met with at hus II never occurred.Consequently we can maintain that thisdifference between the sites is a real one.

Activities at hus I must have been going ononly for short spells of time and there cannothave been permanent settlement there. But,what about hus II? Was it permanently settledwith the same population remaining on thesite all year round or is it more likely thatthere were fluctuations through the seasons.Different forms of trading certainly took placeat hus II and at least some of the agents of

trade did not live there permanently. In ourimplicit model of the Viking Period traderthey would appear for longer or shorter spellsof time, but would then leave again. Some ofthem may have stayed on board their shipsanchored or beached on the riverbank belowthe site. In this study we are concerned withthe craftsmen. The massive evidence of thepresence of craftsmen at hus II paradoxicallycontradicts the idea of a permanent and stablepopulation. Our reconstruction of the struc-ture of the site allows for a very considerablepopulation engaged in craft production. Thevolume of the production has no plausiblerelationship to the population of the region.We shall not enter here on a discussion ofabsolute numbers (a regional study is underpreparation) but it is a fact that the potentialproduction of the craftsmen highly exceedsthe demand of the population of the region.This calculation is valid no matter how thetransactions between the inhabitants and theproducers were organised. The number ofcraftsmen at hus II must rather be seen inrelationship to a much larger circle ofconsumers. The production should probably

be understood in relationship to a coastalnetwork of trade and craft production func-

tioning along the east coast of the Scandina-vian Peninsula from the Danish Isles (andHedeby) as far as the Mlar region in presentEastern Middle Sweden. There must havebeen a well-known route along the coast similar

to the Northern way (Norway) on the westside of the peninsula. This does however notmean that we think that all craftsmen activein this network had a house at hus II.Certainly there must have been other impor-tant sites of this type elsewhere at still un-known locations or incompletely known placeslike Trelleborg and Ystad (cf. Callmer 1995).Among the not yet identified locations there

must have been at least one, where glass-working was carried on during the late eighthand the ninth centuries, until Scandinavianbead-making experienced a new peak in thesecond half of the ninth. For a portion of thecraftsmen mobility must have been importantand they may have left the site for severalmonths during the period favourable for travelon the sea from April to the end of Sep-tember. If we accept this interpretation wemust also conclude that it is likely thatcraftsmen from other sites could turn up athus II and to remain there for some time asguests. It may be concluded from the minuteconformity of the items of material culturetransmitted during these centuries that theseclose personal contacts between craftsmen wasa characteristic feature of the coastal network.We may then answer the question whethercraftsmen lived permanently at hus II or ifthey were only guests. Numerous craftsmenlived at the hus II site for a considerable partof the year. It must have been an importanthome base for them where a significant por-tion of the production was carried out. It isalso clear that many left for a part of the year.

We may also consider an important presenceof guests.


24/33

148 JOHAN CALLMER

How many craftsmen were at work?

Is it possible to calculate the number ofcraftsmen active at hus II? First we mustconclude that all efforts in this direction are

approximations. We must also remember thatin connection with our review above of findsrelated to glass-working, it was possible todemonstrate at least two phases in thedevelopment of the site otherwise not soobvious. The earliest phase probably onlyincludes the riverine part of the site. It is mostunfortunate that this part is also the leaststudied and the most destroyed section (by

the canal and the sand pits). The distributionof the glass-working debris suggests a sub-sequent enlargement towards the interior at arate of ca 100%. The length of time of thisprocess is not easy to measure but in ouropinion it is unlikely that it exceeds one gene-ration. One of the important observations athus II is that craft-activities are located allover the site. There are only very few minorsectors where the presence of craft productioncould be called in question. This means thatwe have reason to assume that almost theentire site has this economical structure. Abovewe have already calculated a tentative popula-tion of the site. It was argued that the plot struc-ture indicated by configurations of sunken-featured building gives us 500 to 1000 inhabi-tants on ca. 100 plots. This population to a veryconsiderable extent was active in craft-production.These craftsmen composed the majority ofthe population and must have numberedseveral hundred. Especially during the winterseason it is likely that the vast majority ofthem were present on the site. Closer thanthat to an answer to this question we cannotcome at present.

Specialist or generalist?

How can we classify the craftsman active onthe site? Is the designation specialist appro-priate as mostly argued in studies of Early

Medieval crafts or is it necessary to turn theconcept upside-down and to argue for theopposite: the generalist? The unfortunateshortage of excavations of contexts of craft-production in the Early Medieval Period hasuntil recently left us with our own classi-fications and analogies, mostly of High Medie-val date or later. The recent excavation of abronze-casting workshop at Birka has appa-

rently confirmed the idea of the specialistcraftsman (Ambrosiani & Erikson 1996:27p.). Some observations at Ribe seemingly givethe same message of activities exclusively ofcraftsmen specialised in bead-making orcomb-making or brooch-casting etc (Jensen1991:42). Other observations at Ribe are lessdistinct with waste material from several diffe-rent crafts occurring together. The conclusionsto be drawn from the excavations at Hedebyso far are also difficult to interpret in terms ofa strict separation of different crafts (cf. Ul-bricht 1978). Consequently it is at presentdifficult to argue one of the principles exclu-sively and we are faced with contradictoryobservations. In this connection the obser-vations at hus II are of great interest. Asshown above in the reviews of the variouscraft activities on the site it is not possible todesignate different sectors of the site asexclusively the domain of the comb-maker orthe brooch-maker etc. On the contrary wemust conclude that traces of most activitiesare found all over the site. Differences infrequency between various parts can at leastpartly be explained through differences in the

degree of destruction of layers and construc-tions. If we now approach the question of


25/33


which activities were executed on the singleplot we must try to combine our observationsfrom those parts where layers are preservedwith those where our source is the fill insunken-featured buildings and a few additional

pits with other functions. The fill in thebuildings and the pits, as we have arguedabove, must mainly stem from rubbish-heapswhere not desirable material was deposited.The handling of rubbish must mean twothings: first that activity areas, not only in thehouses, but also surfaces outdoors wereregularly cleared; secondly that waste mate-rial in these rubbish heaps give ample evidence

of the various activities which have takenplace on the plot. It is not likely that thehandling of rubbish was a communal matterbut rather it was a task for the people on thedifferent plots. The filling in of pits musthave been an ad hoc action with no directconnection with the accumulation of rubbishand waste material on the heaps. The repre-sentation of different craft activities must becompletely random, which of course is ofparamount interest to us. We can also concludethat accumulation on the heaps must havebeen rapid since several categories of findswould have been weathered, gnawed etc. orhad completely disintegrated like coprolites(there is a considerable number almostexclusively from the sunken-featured buil-dings) unless rapidly covered by new garbage.It is thus very likely that the fill of the sunken-featured buildings gives an excellent reflectionof the ongoing activities on the plot. Theymay however give an exaggerate rendering ofthe quantitative and qualitative relationshipsbetween different crafts when we try to bringtogether a generalized picture of craft activities.It is consequently probably wise to enlarge

the weaker indications somewhat and todiminish the stronger indications. Compared

to the material from the fill finds from thecultural layers on the contrary mainly give usa rather generalized picture. There are,however, sections where we have a strongimpression that concentrations of certain types

of material (esp. antler-working waste) indeedrepresent compressed and spread out rubbishheaps. We have taken the trouble to discussshortly a little further the quality of our sourcesbecause we think that the observationsconcerning the spatial distribution of diffe-rent crafts from hus II are of central impor-tance for the further discussion of the question.

Based on the observations on the site our

conclusion must be that very often all thecrafts taken into consideration were practisedon the same plot. As we have noted thisconclusion partly contradicts the usual pictureof Early Medieval craftsmen and artisans inNorthern Europe. Important products fromsites like hus II, we have concluded, werefine dresses for women including textiles,various brooches and other jewellery andtrinkets and as well other accessories, likeornamental antler combs. Dress on the maleside is probably equally relevant although lesswell known. The production of these completesets included first textile-work, some of whichwas certainly carried out on the site, but weshould not exclude the possibility, that sometextiles were procured locally or from regionswith a production of good quality. Fine tex-tiles, probably not only silk, were traded overgreat distances as well. Some of the mostimportant parts of the textile work wereperhaps dying and sewing with applied ribbonsand thin strips of cloth (e.g. of silk). This partof the work was most probably mainly in thehands of females (although we do not knowfor sure). The production of brooches and

other ornamental bronzes (occasionally alsoin silver) was to a considerable extent carried


26/33

150 JOHAN CALLMER

out on the spot although import of broochesmade elsewhere is not to be excluded. Bronzeand silver had to be imported from outsideunless obsolete ornaments for melting couldbe acquired locally. There is much to suggest

that some of the metal was indeed procuredthis way. Like most crafts connected with fire,metal work was a male activity. It is not knownwhether this probable division has its back-ground in taboo ideas. Imported beads werestrung on the spot. The combs certainly wereitems of prestige and carried symbolic values.The blacksmiths work necessary to producethese items belonged to the male sphere

according to our interpretation. Other mostlikely products of hus II mentioned abovelike wooden caskets or boxes with locksprobable intended for the very conservationof the dresses, brooches, trinkets and acces-sories and iron cauldrons are reasonably closelyconnected with the male sphere. The produc-tion of cutting tools and the tentativeproduction of weapons are likewise tradi-tionally regarded as male activities. Consi-dered together we must conclude that theproduction integrated both female and maleactivities. On the plot level close cooperationin the production may have been essential. Inreality it seems likely that gender divisionlines were transgressed so far as it was accep-table with regard to social conventions andreligious taboos. Many individuals active onthe different plots must be designated gene-ralists rather than specialists. It is reasonableto envisage individuals working with bronze-and silver-casting, forging and carpentry andperhaps as well stringing beads rather thanspecialist brooch makers, blacksmiths, armou-rers etc. The production community musthave included both women and men. Conse-

quently the term craftsman may seem inappro-priate in this place. The term artisan, which

carries no gender association may be preferred,however the historical context provides uswith an argument to retain the terminologyused so far. We must all the time rememberthat craftsman like ombudsman in reality

carries no clear gender connection.

Social organisation of the craftsmen

The fifth question above was concerned withhow the basic social unit was organised. Thesize and the repetitive character of settlementremains and traces of production make itreasonable to look upon hus II as a commu-

nity of rather similar basic social and economicunits. The different plots were each inhabitedby a number of individuals sufficient for themaintenance of a level of production, whichallowed survival. The poor standard of docu-mentation of the exact size and the disposi-tion of houses built on the surface does notallow any far-reaching conclusions concer-ning the number and the relationships of theinhabitants. We consider it most unlikely thatthe sunken-featured buildings could be usedfor housing. Where house-size could beassumed we are confronted by rather smallbuildings of no more than 5m of breadth and10m or slightly more of length. Similar housesare known from Hedeby (Schietzel 1981) andRibe (Jensen 1991:45). Probably there areexceptions with more than one house on eachplot but the usual layout only comprises onehouse of this type. This plot-cum-housepattern instinctively turns our minds towardsthe sphere of the nuclear family. The impor-tance of the nuclear family should not beunderestimated but in Early Medieval societyextended family relationships were importantas well. We should also consider organisation

from the production perspective. Several ofthe activities, which concern us here are not a


27/33


one mans work but should preferably beexecuted by a small collective of at least twocraftsmen. Above we have already reflectedon whether women could join men in forging,bronze- and silver casting and bead making

but found it unlikely. Rather, crafts intimatelyconnected with fire may have been regardedtaboo for females. The ideal production groupwould comprise two families. Also withreference to the necessary textile work carriedout within each social unit a close colla-boration between two families would bepreferred to work on ones own. As in alltraditional societies family here must be

understood to comprise members of the formergeneration, children and possibly unmarriedclose relatives. As suggested above maximumnumbers for each site would be 10 indivi-duals. The relationship between the twofamilies cannot be ascertained based on thearchaeological sources. It could of course bespeculated about a family relationship likebrothers, brothers-in-law etc., but this is pureguesswork. It is however worth rememberingthat the social framework at localities likehus II largely must have represented some-thing new with only modest and relativelyfew predecessors. People active here hadcertainly highly varying backgrounds. Thus itis not unlikely that in the primary stage in thehistory of these sites families with differentbackgrounds combined their efforts. The orga-nisation sketched here does not exclude thepossibility that the inhabitants on some plotsdid cooperate intimately with others for somespecial part of the production when even morehands were needed or desirable. Cooperationlike this could either be ad hoclike an artel orcould have a more permanent and firm orga-nisation. Our reconstruction of the plot

structure of hus II has resulted in a numberof plots of exactly the same size. So far we

think the majority of the plots had approxi-mately the same or very similar measurements.Complete regularity is however most unlikelyand there may have been considerable varia-tions and exemptions. The organization of

space and the layout invite speculation abouta truly regulating power at work. The firstrow of plots along the river could however aswell have been spontaneous formationsdictated by the demands of each residencegroup and the wish for access to the river. Atsome point the row becomes too long andthen the second row is formed. In this waythe site (like other comparable sites) will grow

with a pseudo-regularity and maybe comparedto any self-regulating system. The deviationsin size may have had their demographiccorrelates.

The position of the craftsman in thewider social system

The last question posed is intimately connec-ted with the preceding one. Is it possible tosay something about the position of craftsmenin the wider social system of the period? Firstwe have to make clear which were the domi-nant social groups of the Early Middle Agesin Northern Europe. The vast majority of thepopulation in Southern Scandinavia werepeasants living from animal husbandry andagriculture. The settlement pattern varied fromsmall single farms over groups of farms orhamlets in loose or developed associations tovillages with a reasonably close cooperation(horizontal social connections). Many of thesepeasants were legally free men but their socialposition was most variable. Especially in thedensely populated regions with a long conti-

nuity of settlement most peasant householdswere integrated in systems of dependence and


28/33

152 JOHAN CALLMER

of followers. It seems today difficult to denythat in these regions estates of varyingcomplexity had begun to evolve already in theMigration and Vendel periods. The popula-tion of these estates included thralls both as

servants and hands at the residence farm andas tenants on some of the farms. A number ofregions of this character were not seldombrought under the dominion of a supremelordly family. Some of these political con-stellations had achieved a certain stability(territoriality) while others would disintegrateand might become part of new ones. Basicallythis was a mostly self-supporting and as well

largely self-sufficient society.In order to make it possible to understand

the position of craftsmen at hus II we mustlook closely also into a rather special part ofthe social sphere. Not only the socio-politicalmacro-structure of society, but also culturaltradition contributed to the organisation ofexchange between the different regions anddominions and to the production of exclusiveitems. Many of these things exchanged wereperhaps of little absolute value but theimportant thing was that they could not beproduced in every household since the mate-rial could not be procured locally and theexpertise knowledge necessary for theirproduction was not generally accessible. Animportant factor in this system was that thepre-Christian religion prescribed that someitems of fine clothing, ornaments, trinkets,quality tools, weapons etc should accompanytheir owners or users when they were buriedor should be destroyed some other way. Someobjects were also deposited as offerings andthus left the system and were not reclaimed.This permanent loss of material made acontinuous production of new items necessary.

As we have noted all things in the possessionof the dead were not consumed in this way

but the number of objects was not sufficientto minimize the production of new things.Empirically we can observe several thresholdsin the quantitative and qualitative develop-ment of the deposition of such things. Certainly

some of the fluctuations we can observe arethe result of some changes in details of themortuary ritual, but we can still establish themain tendencies of the production of ex-changed goods. Such thresholds are for thefirst Christian millennium to be noted in the1st century A.D., in the Late Roman Period,in the Migration Period in the late 5th century,in the earliest part of the Vendel Period around

A.D. 600, in the first half of the 8th centuryand at last in the second half of the 10 th

century. This is not the place to discuss thecharacter of and the reasons for all thesechanges and we will concentrate on the laterpart of the millennium. On the whole thedevelopment must be seen as a continuousgrowth in the volume of the production. Inthe second half of the 6th and in the beginningof the 7th century we may perhaps have a certainretrograde development, but it is questionablehow sharp and how protracted it was in reality.

Residence sites on the topmost levels insociety were probably visited by craftsmenregularly in the Migration Period and probablyalready in the Late Roman Period. The mostimportant of these residence sites had somecraftsmen of their own, but most of this groupled a partly ambulating life visiting numerousimportant sites of various kinds. The obser-vations at Gudme and Lundeborg on Funenprovide us with some interesting examples ofthese variations already from this early phase(The archaeology of Gudme and Lundeborg1994). Craftsmen were actively at work bothat the inland residence site and at Lundeborg,

the contemporary, only temporarily occupiedcoastal site. This pattern with variations


29/33


probably persists in Northern Europe untilthe High Middle Ages. Although materialistarchaeologists and historians have maintainedthat craftsmen were mainly slaves and depen-dant producers there is much both in the

archaeological source material and in thewritten sources to suggest that the position ofthe craftsman was not that of a person com-pletely without legal rights. It is likely thatthe widespread and obviously popular (andhighly relevant) Wayland-myth defines thesocial position of itinerant craftsmen. Althoughthe craftsmen were highly vulnerable and itmay have been tempting to force them to do

certain things and especially to remain at yourplace the myth makes it clear that this is notthe way to handle the situation. Their skillscraftsmen will always keep for themselves andany act of violence will result in retaliationone way or the other (Callmer 2002). Itinerantcraftsmen were most probably free membersof society but their ambulating existencevisiting various regions with different lawcodes makes it clear that they could only existwith the protection of the locally powerful.Special peace-regulations for markets andtrading sites only gave short-time respite andmay have changed little in the end. What wehave is a form of symbiosis, which was notunique for craftsmen only but as well didapply to other individuals and groups with anambulating life-style like merchants and tradersand possibly mercenary warriors as well. Bothsides had great possibilities to injure the otherand both had profound interest to maintain abalanced and positive relationship. It is muchmore difficult to form an opinion aboutcraftsmen who lived and worked on residencesites of major estates. This is partly connectedwith the problem to define what was actually

regarded as a craft and what was skilled andspecialised production after all belonging to

the sphere of the normal activities andproduction of a big farm. Also craftsmenremaining all their life on the big residencefarms may have been free whereas many skilledproducers in the latter sphere no doubt were

unfree (considerable parts of the productionbeing in the hands of thralls).

Conclusions and perspectives

Around AD 700 large sites with ampleevidence for large numbers of craftsmen, arti-sans and traders living together, perhaps notall of them throughout the year, but certainly

for long spells of time, are known from North-western and Northern Europe. Why and howthese large so-called emporium sites diddevelop is a highly contentious issue in con-temporary Early Medieval archaeological andnumismatist (and historical) research. Aconsiderable difficulty in this connection is,that earlier non-permanent coastal sites withevidence of craft-production and trade andexchange (like the just mentioned Lundeborgsite) have not been identified and excavated.This circumstance gives their emergence anexplosive quality in North-western Europe.Most of the emporium sites are howeversituated in locations, where we may supposethat some variety of these activities had beengoing on through the centuries after the Romancollapse. In reality it seems most unlikely thatthe development is so rapid as it is oftenthought. There is, as perhaps the numismaticmaterial best shows, a highly relevant gradualchange in the economy beginning in themiddle of the 7th century or a little earlier.This means that this process of change takesabout two generations. It is both a qualitativechange with gold coinage and gold as a basic

meter of value being replaced by silver and aquantitative change with a highly restricted


30/33

154 JOHAN CALLMER

coinage being replaced with what we, withsome reservation, could call a mass coinage(Metcalf 1967, 2001). The problems to keepup gold coinage were, as it has long been wellknown, a result of trouble outside North-

western Europe. This fact in no way canexplain the remarkable quantitative change.This is not the place to go deep into a dis-cussion about this little known but I thinkwe have reason to state- most important trans-formation. To be short, the single large anddecisive factor we can consider seriously is thedevelopment of well functioning estates. Tradeand exchange between estates and increasingly

further afield with other regions and evenfurther with other states becomes a commonconcern for those administrating these manorsand they also carry away minor owners. Thisgrowth in the number of transactions and theneed for increased production of tools, clothes,shoes, trinkets, vessels etc. called for a furtherdevelopment and reorganization of places forproduction and exchange and trade, the latterbecoming more important. Probably still goingon since the days of the Roman Empire tradein slaves sees a strong up-turn (McCormick2001). Kings, other rulers and leaders andmen of the church, who often may have beenengaged in organizing the security of theseplaces, soon realized the possibilities to increasetheir revenues. This they achieved by an activepolicy of emission of coins and by exactingtolls (most probably a tithe) and other fees. Ithas been maintained that the kings and theirequals were the organizers of these emporiaand that they completely controlled them.This seems to be unlikely for several reasons.Organizing and controlling these transactionsand this production of goods was probablymuch beyond the capacity of the administra-

tion of the day. To try to profit from trans-actions going on was rather the mentality of

this uppermost stratum in society. There is noreason to suspect that the majority of thoseactive in trading and in producing at theemporium sites were unfree, although we mayimagine trusted serfs selling products from

secular or ecclesiastical estates there. The factthat there is an emporium to each of the king-doms of Wessex, East Anglia and Northumbriadoes not mean that we unconditionally mustaccept the hypothesis propagating royal ini-tiatives. The location of these is related toboth economical-geographical and politicalconsiderations. The case of London is intri-guing since Mercian influence there comes

later than the beginnings of Lundenvic (cf.Vince 1990:151 pp.). A more suitable locationfor a trading place for Mercia in the late 7th

century would have been on the lower Trent.Lundenvic in the beginning obviously serveda number of political entities in South-easternEngland. We can conclude that the Northwest-European emporia are social and economicphenomena closely related to the economicaland social developments in this part of Europein the second half of the 7th century. Theirdevelopment is not primarily the result ofroyal or episcopal initiatives but of a compli-cated process involving traditional patterns ofinterregional connections and the wishes ofthose primarily active there: merchants/tradersand artisans/craftsmen. Only later thosewielding political power tried to profit fromthem and to regulate the layout of the sites(how successfully we do not know). Themajority of the people visiting or livingpermanently at these places were not slavesbut in many ways highly dependant on thoselocally in power. Although the historicalevidence of guilds is two or three hundredyears later it seems highly probable that they

had developed a framework for cooperationand mutual support. In the archaeological


31/33


material we find plenty of evidence for closecooperation and intimate sharing of ideasbetween craftsmen.

It has been necessary at some length todiscuss the background of the development

of extensive places for trade and exchange andcraft production in North-western Europesince the development of rather similar placesin Northern Europe is closely related. Nodoubt, the North European development ofthese places with manifest settlement remainscomes later than that in North-western Europe.The earliest sites closely connected to thedevelopment in the west are Ribe in South-

western Jutland and hus I in North-easternScania both starting in the very beginning ofthe 8th century as non-permanent places visitedfor short spells of time (Callmer 1991; Jensen1991). The earliest Ribe site comprises aterp-like, artificial sandbank. Consequently thereare arguments for a gradual development fromnon-permanent to permanent also in theNorth. The subsequent development comesin the next generation when already consi-derable parts of Western Scandinavia and theBaltic Region are part of a network of sites.Gross Strmkendorf on the Slavic South Coastis established already in the first half of thecentury (Mller-Wille et al. 1997). From themiddle of the century they tend to includeelements of permanent settlement and acti-vities. For these Scandinavian examples as fortheir Northwest European counterparts it isessential to recognize the network structureof the phenomenon. Like in the West preciselythe network structure makes it unlikely thatprime movers were the local potentates alongthe coasts. It is, as we have already stressed,more likely that the development in the Northwas an extension of the Northwest European

network and that it evolved on similar lines.The new network was perhaps not so new

since we must realize that it seizes on anearlier, little known coastal network (cf.Lundeborg mentioned above). We can alsoremember the thresholds in the productionof brooches, trinkets etc. stressed above). Like

in any earlier network it was necessary tocooperate closely with local power structures(probably differently organized in the variousregions) because mostly only they couldorganize the collection of desired productsand only they could supply food provisions(fresh or staple) in sufficient quantities. Asrecent results have made clear, some importantresidence sites (also those somewhat removed

from the coast) were certainly visited bycraftsmen regularly and the obvious successof the system for many generations meansthat the close cooperation with estates matchedvery well interests from the side of the localpartners.

The life-style, culture, perhaps also theirvernacular set the people active as craftsmenand traders aside from the inhabitants of thedifferent regions. Frequently the remoteness(in relation to central locations in the regions)and the coastal location of the places contri-buted to this social isolation. Local society ofthe period had great difficulties in assimilatinga population, which by its habits, doings andfor many, by its extraction was alien. Conse-quently it is most likely that many of thesetraders and craftsmen never became part ofthe local society and then we must considerthe probable issue of the formation of aseparate society. We may tend to imaginethese people, on the margin of the majoritypopulation, weak and vulnerable and exposedto conditionality. This may be a false picture.They gathered many together (cf. above) andthey could certainly instantly muster a

relatively large troop of armed men. Theyprobably built and they owned ships. All


32/33

156 JOHAN CALLMER

necessary transfers were certainly undertakenby numerous ships together.

There is no reason to think that unfreeindividuals were less numerous in this society.Since trade in slaves, as remarked, may have

been an important part of the trade, someslave servants are likely members of thecommunity. The most intriguing question ishowever the relationship between craftsmenand traders. Until this point we have main-tained a division by convention between thesetwo categories. Here we must however statethe fact that we have very little to support thisinterpretation. In the written sources we have

of course enough to prove the existence ofdistinct traders. We have also good reason tocount with several different categories of tradersand merchants. At two wicsites in Englandwe have some indications of a predominantlymerchants zone along the waterfront. At mostsites this section is little known (e.g. atDorestad and Hedeby). Also at hus II thispart is insufficiently studied and partlyinaccessible. We have maintained above thatthe craftsmen at hus II were much toonumerous for the region and thus we see onepossibility to solve this problem throughmobility and visits to other trading sites andto residence sites. This mobility of craftsmenand merchants was perhaps from the begin-ning (in the days before the permanent orpartly permanent sites) the main reason forthe development of a close symbiotic rela-tionship between the two categories. Some-times even the distinction between the twotrades could be transgressed in the same personor in the small integrated working group. Infact this close relationship may be a specialcharacteristic of the North European sites,which sets them apart both from the North-

west European wics and the later Medievaltowns.

Note

An important argument in this article is thecomplexity of craft production processes. In a tan-dem publication the majority of these processesare fully documented in picture (Callmer 2002).

References

Ambrosiani, B.& Erikson, B.G. 1996. Birka,vikingastaden, 5. Helsingborg.

Ambrosiani, K.1981.Viking age combs, comb makingand comb makers in the light of finds from Birkaand Ribe. Stockholm.

Andersson, E. 1996. Textilproduktion i arkeologisk

kontext. En metodstudie av yngrejrnldersbo-platser i Skne. Lund.Callmer,J. 1991. Platser med anknytning till han-

del och hantverk i yngre jrnlder. Mortensen,P. & Rasmussen, B. M. (eds.), Fra stamme tilstat i Danmark, 2. Hvdingesamfund ogkongemagt. Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskabs skrif-ter, XXII:2. Viborg, pp. 29-47

1995. Hantverksproduktion, samhllsfrn-dringar och bebyggelse. Iakttagelser frn straSydskandinavien. Gystein-Resi, H. (ed.),Produksjon og samfunn. Beretning fra 2.nordiske jernaldersymposium p Granavolden7-10 maj 1992. Universtetets oldsaksamling.Varia, 30. Oslo, pp. 39-72.

2002. Wayland. An essay on craft production inthe Early and High Middle Ages in Scan-dinavia. Hrdh, B. & Larsson, L. (eds.),Uppkra studies7. Lund.

Feveile, C & Jensen, S.1993. Sceattafundene fraRibe. Nogle arkaeologiske kendsgerninger.

Nordisk numismatisk union. Medlemsblad,1993. Stockholm, pp. 74-80.

Geijer, A. 1938. Birka III. Die Textilfunde aus denGrbern. Uppsala.

Hodges, R. 1989. The Anglo-Saxon achievement.London.

Jensen, S. 1991. Ribes vikinger. Ribe.McCormick, M. 2001. Origins of the European

economy. Communication and commerce AD300-900. Cambridge.

Metcalf, M. 1967. The prosperity of NorthwesternEurope in the eighth and ninth centuries.


33/33

Economic history review20. London. 2001. Coins from wics.Hill, D. &.Cowie, R.

(eds.), Wics. The Early Medieval tradingcentresof Northern Europe. Sheffield, pp. 50-54.

Mller-Wille, M. 1989. Die Ostseegebiete whrenddes frhen Mittelalters. Kulturkontakt, Handel

und Urbanisierung aus archologischer Sicht.Kiel.

Mller-Wille, M. & Jns, H. & Lth, F. 1997.Ausgrabungen auf dem frhgeschichtlichenSeehandelsplatz von Gross Strmkendorf, Kr.Nordwestmecklenburg. Germania, 75:193-321.

Ohlsson, T. 1976. The Lddekpinge investigationI. The settlement at Vikhgsvgen. Meddelan-den frn Lunds universitets historiska museum,

1975-76:59-161.Petersen, J. 1928. Vikingtidens smykker. Stavanger.Saunders, T. 2001. Early Medieval emporia and

the tributary social function. Hill,D. & CowieR. (eds.), Wics. The Early Medieval tradingcentres of Northern Europe. Sheffield, pp.7-14.

Schietzel, K.1981. Stand der siedlungsarcho-logischen Forschung in Haithabu Ergebnisseund Probleme.

north-european trading centres and the early medieval craftsman; craftsmen at Åhus, north-eastern...

Documents