Pub Date : 2021-11-14DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1986127
G. Lucas, Christopher L. Witmore
A radical shift in orientation alongside the objects of archaeology has occasioned a reconsideration of what theory is in a very general sense. What function does it serve and how might we define it? In retrospect, these questions arise not in the context of paradigms and strong theories, which some consider to have run their course, but in their absence. Here, there is a danger that theory might be jettisoned altogether if its nature and purpose are not critically re-assessed. The modest goal of this paper is to join in on this conversation.
{"title":"Paradigm Lost: What Is a Commitment to Theory in Contemporary Archaeology?","authors":"G. Lucas, Christopher L. Witmore","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1986127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1986127","url":null,"abstract":"A radical shift in orientation alongside the objects of archaeology has occasioned a reconsideration of what theory is in a very general sense. What function does it serve and how might we define it? In retrospect, these questions arise not in the context of paradigms and strong theories, which some consider to have run their course, but in their absence. Here, there is a danger that theory might be jettisoned altogether if its nature and purpose are not critically re-assessed. The modest goal of this paper is to join in on this conversation.","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48454707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1955411
Sam Turner
Throughout modern European history, scholars have attempted to plot how kingdoms – and consequently kingship – arose in the early Middle Ages. Their enduring interest is partly related to the hunt for national origins, prestige and legitimacy. The social and political institutions established among the ‘barbarian’ societies of the fifth and sixth centuries from the ruins of the Western Roman Empire are still considered highly influential in shaping medieval and later history; emerging nation states from the eighteenth century onwards built distinctive origin narratives from the evidence of chronicles and antiquarian discoveries. Even in the fifteenth century, scholars used early historical texts to justify claims of national pre-eminence in international relations (Wood 2013, p. 11). As modern researchers have brought increasingly critical approaches to the sparse documentary records and burgeoning volume of archaeological finds from southern Britain, they have moved away from seeing the Migration Period as the time when major polities were consolidated, shifting towards a focus on the seventh and eighth centuries. The protohistory of the kingdoms described by Bede in his early eighth-century Ecclesiastical History has consequently grown obscure, but it seems most likely they emerged as areas occupied by local groups, perhaps kin-based, that were brought together as ‘folk’ territories (Faith 1997). In Ireland, which was never part of the Roman Empire, the earliest records provide evidence for hundreds of kingships sorted in a hierarchy from tiny local territories to overarching regional polities. The complexity of the documents and their interpretation have underpinned a kind of exceptionalism which has often served to distance Irish historiography from that on Britain and Europe. Nevertheless, researchers have observed a tendency towards rationalization which meant the overall number of kingdoms diminished from the seventh century onwards, so the same period is important in Irish history (MacCotter 2008). The two articles in this issue, by Gabor Thomas and Christopher Scull on England and by Patrick Gleeson on Ireland, explore aspects of the archaeology of this formative period. Both papers provide intriguing insights into strategies used to legitimate rulership and underpin territorial claims in early medieval kingdoms. By framing their discussions within broadly international contexts, they transcend some of the key impediments that afflicted much early medieval archaeology in the twentieth century, the focus (at times almost myopic) on local datasets and national narratives.
{"title":"Royal Settlements as Power Strategies in Seventh- to Ninth-century Britain and Ireland","authors":"Sam Turner","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1955411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1955411","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout modern European history, scholars have attempted to plot how kingdoms – and consequently kingship – arose in the early Middle Ages. Their enduring interest is partly related to the hunt for national origins, prestige and legitimacy. The social and political institutions established among the ‘barbarian’ societies of the fifth and sixth centuries from the ruins of the Western Roman Empire are still considered highly influential in shaping medieval and later history; emerging nation states from the eighteenth century onwards built distinctive origin narratives from the evidence of chronicles and antiquarian discoveries. Even in the fifteenth century, scholars used early historical texts to justify claims of national pre-eminence in international relations (Wood 2013, p. 11). As modern researchers have brought increasingly critical approaches to the sparse documentary records and burgeoning volume of archaeological finds from southern Britain, they have moved away from seeing the Migration Period as the time when major polities were consolidated, shifting towards a focus on the seventh and eighth centuries. The protohistory of the kingdoms described by Bede in his early eighth-century Ecclesiastical History has consequently grown obscure, but it seems most likely they emerged as areas occupied by local groups, perhaps kin-based, that were brought together as ‘folk’ territories (Faith 1997). In Ireland, which was never part of the Roman Empire, the earliest records provide evidence for hundreds of kingships sorted in a hierarchy from tiny local territories to overarching regional polities. The complexity of the documents and their interpretation have underpinned a kind of exceptionalism which has often served to distance Irish historiography from that on Britain and Europe. Nevertheless, researchers have observed a tendency towards rationalization which meant the overall number of kingdoms diminished from the seventh century onwards, so the same period is important in Irish history (MacCotter 2008). The two articles in this issue, by Gabor Thomas and Christopher Scull on England and by Patrick Gleeson on Ireland, explore aspects of the archaeology of this formative period. Both papers provide intriguing insights into strategies used to legitimate rulership and underpin territorial claims in early medieval kingdoms. By framing their discussions within broadly international contexts, they transcend some of the key impediments that afflicted much early medieval archaeology in the twentieth century, the focus (at times almost myopic) on local datasets and national narratives.","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48528046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1955412
A. Reynolds
The two papers that inspire this comment piece appear at an interesting time in the study of power structures in the early middle ages. The topic itself has seen renewed vigour among scholars throughout Scandinavian and Continental Europe working from a range of disciplinary perspectives, particularly following the lead set by the Transformation of the Roman World project (see, for example, de Jong et al. 2001, and, recently, Rollason 2016, Carroll et al. 2019a, Semple et al. 2020). Excavation and survey have contributed key new findings, and Scull and Thomas in England and Gleeson in Ireland have led the field in their respective regions and it is thus fitting that these scholars have provided the valuable and insightful overviews that appear in this volume of the Norwegian Archaeological Review. The requisite brevity of the present piece means that references are few and token and that any consistent unpacking of the details of the two papers is impossible. Instead, this contribution considers a few points of convergence and contrast and offers some additional viewpoints. Focussing on the 6 to 9 centuries, Gleeson’s paper discusses excavated known royal sites; Thomas and Scull focus on places discovered by various means that AngloSaxon archaeologists have decided represent a similar phenomenon, the so-called Great Hall Complexes, but one that finds much less clarity in terms of attributions of places to people than in Ireland. Gleeson healthily considers wider comparisons as far afield as the Carolingian world, very much in the spirit of breaking out of the insular traditions found in both Irish and English early medieval archaeology, while Scandinavia provides the key region of reference for Thomas and Scull. The Irish dataset, based on documented polities, suggests c. 600 royal residences, with 150 documented sites listed by Peter Sawyer in England between the 6 and 11 centuries (Sawyer 1983). Beyond Lyminge, Rendlesham and Yeavering in England, where there are explicitly royal connections, the remaining sites (12) are known only from excavation and/or aerial photography. The variety of sites in both England and Ireland in terms of their occupation sequences, form and material culture is substantial, although this ought not to come as a surprise. Early English lawcodes (of the late 7 century) show that elite residences could be moved wholesale, while charters show that lands could be granted for a single or three lifetimes; there are reflections of these situations in the archaeological record. Yorke (1981) and Thacker (1981)
{"title":"Commonalities, Differences and Lacunae: Some Comments on Elite Settlement in England and Ireland in the Early Middle Ages","authors":"A. Reynolds","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1955412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1955412","url":null,"abstract":"The two papers that inspire this comment piece appear at an interesting time in the study of power structures in the early middle ages. The topic itself has seen renewed vigour among scholars throughout Scandinavian and Continental Europe working from a range of disciplinary perspectives, particularly following the lead set by the Transformation of the Roman World project (see, for example, de Jong et al. 2001, and, recently, Rollason 2016, Carroll et al. 2019a, Semple et al. 2020). Excavation and survey have contributed key new findings, and Scull and Thomas in England and Gleeson in Ireland have led the field in their respective regions and it is thus fitting that these scholars have provided the valuable and insightful overviews that appear in this volume of the Norwegian Archaeological Review. The requisite brevity of the present piece means that references are few and token and that any consistent unpacking of the details of the two papers is impossible. Instead, this contribution considers a few points of convergence and contrast and offers some additional viewpoints. Focussing on the 6 to 9 centuries, Gleeson’s paper discusses excavated known royal sites; Thomas and Scull focus on places discovered by various means that AngloSaxon archaeologists have decided represent a similar phenomenon, the so-called Great Hall Complexes, but one that finds much less clarity in terms of attributions of places to people than in Ireland. Gleeson healthily considers wider comparisons as far afield as the Carolingian world, very much in the spirit of breaking out of the insular traditions found in both Irish and English early medieval archaeology, while Scandinavia provides the key region of reference for Thomas and Scull. The Irish dataset, based on documented polities, suggests c. 600 royal residences, with 150 documented sites listed by Peter Sawyer in England between the 6 and 11 centuries (Sawyer 1983). Beyond Lyminge, Rendlesham and Yeavering in England, where there are explicitly royal connections, the remaining sites (12) are known only from excavation and/or aerial photography. The variety of sites in both England and Ireland in terms of their occupation sequences, form and material culture is substantial, although this ought not to come as a surprise. Early English lawcodes (of the late 7 century) show that elite residences could be moved wholesale, while charters show that lands could be granted for a single or three lifetimes; there are reflections of these situations in the archaeological record. Yorke (1981) and Thacker (1981)","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48651548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1928744
Marianne Skandfer
Early farming is one of the central themes in archaeology, perhaps not so much in itself, as subsistence practice, but because of the many and diverse consequences for humans and environments that it has been attributed. Arguably, at least in European archaeology. In this new volume primacy is put on the earliest farming in order to ‘[...] better understand the individual factors, processes and actors involved in Neolithisation’ (p. 1). How was agriculture spread, what was spread, and what form did it take? Secondary adoption of agriculture, i.e. outside the primary centres of origin, it is stated, allows for active choice and awareness among the individuals involved, immigrants or indigenous to an area. A time ‘zone of variability’ (with reference to Price and Bar-Yosef 2011) or period of negotiation, exploration and audition of the agricultural way of life is suggested to be relevant not only to understand the processes in primary centres, but also in secondary context Europe. This allows for different durations and intensities of the transition into Neolithic communities in various regions. In the Introduction (p. 3) Gron, Sørensen and RowleyConwy suggest that the Early Neolithic is coming to an end when we see a widespread anthropomorphic alteration of the landscape, the final abandonment of foraging sites of Mesolithic character, and the commencement of monumental or communal construction. Throughout the volume, the first elements are emphasized suggesting farming activity, including landscape management. Relatively little can be found on farmer – forager relationships, and monumental or communal constrictions are hardly mentioned. The volume consists of 20 individual chapters in addition to the Introduction and a short Conclusion. The chapters include synthetic regional overviews, local analyses, and site-specific reports. They are ordered in a roughly south to north sequence, with an additional underlying question gradually turning from ‘when’ to ‘was there’ a Neolithisation, the latter explicitly critically discussed for Scandinavia by Prescott (Chapter 18). All chapters lean heavily on new and/or improved scientific methods, in particular stable isotope analyses, and radiocarbon dating and modelling. Several present macrofossil and zooarchaeological studies and some include results from aDNA analyses on animals, plants and/or humans. The many re-evaluations of existing zooarchaeological and macrofossil assemblages, and activation of existing grey literature, is commendable. Traditional archaeological material is given relatively little attention. The ‘scientific turn’ is mirrored in the illustrations, which are mostly distribution maps at different scales and various graphical presentations of metrical characteristics. Object illustrations are almost exclusively of animal bones and teeth. From the book’s subtitle, it becomes clear that the volume aims at providing a pan-European perspective. There are, however, huge geographical gaps (mo
{"title":"Farmers at the Frontier. A Pan-European Perspective on Neolithisation","authors":"Marianne Skandfer","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1928744","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1928744","url":null,"abstract":"Early farming is one of the central themes in archaeology, perhaps not so much in itself, as subsistence practice, but because of the many and diverse consequences for humans and environments that it has been attributed. Arguably, at least in European archaeology. In this new volume primacy is put on the earliest farming in order to ‘[...] better understand the individual factors, processes and actors involved in Neolithisation’ (p. 1). How was agriculture spread, what was spread, and what form did it take? Secondary adoption of agriculture, i.e. outside the primary centres of origin, it is stated, allows for active choice and awareness among the individuals involved, immigrants or indigenous to an area. A time ‘zone of variability’ (with reference to Price and Bar-Yosef 2011) or period of negotiation, exploration and audition of the agricultural way of life is suggested to be relevant not only to understand the processes in primary centres, but also in secondary context Europe. This allows for different durations and intensities of the transition into Neolithic communities in various regions. In the Introduction (p. 3) Gron, Sørensen and RowleyConwy suggest that the Early Neolithic is coming to an end when we see a widespread anthropomorphic alteration of the landscape, the final abandonment of foraging sites of Mesolithic character, and the commencement of monumental or communal construction. Throughout the volume, the first elements are emphasized suggesting farming activity, including landscape management. Relatively little can be found on farmer – forager relationships, and monumental or communal constrictions are hardly mentioned. The volume consists of 20 individual chapters in addition to the Introduction and a short Conclusion. The chapters include synthetic regional overviews, local analyses, and site-specific reports. They are ordered in a roughly south to north sequence, with an additional underlying question gradually turning from ‘when’ to ‘was there’ a Neolithisation, the latter explicitly critically discussed for Scandinavia by Prescott (Chapter 18). All chapters lean heavily on new and/or improved scientific methods, in particular stable isotope analyses, and radiocarbon dating and modelling. Several present macrofossil and zooarchaeological studies and some include results from aDNA analyses on animals, plants and/or humans. The many re-evaluations of existing zooarchaeological and macrofossil assemblages, and activation of existing grey literature, is commendable. Traditional archaeological material is given relatively little attention. The ‘scientific turn’ is mirrored in the illustrations, which are mostly distribution maps at different scales and various graphical presentations of metrical characteristics. Object illustrations are almost exclusively of animal bones and teeth. From the book’s subtitle, it becomes clear that the volume aims at providing a pan-European perspective. There are, however, huge geographical gaps (mo","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00293652.2021.1928744","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42506522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1986128
K. Loftsgarden
A Riverine Site Near York: A Possible Viking Camp? is a comprehensive volume of finds and results from the site ‘A Riverine Site Near York’ (ARSNY). Several researchers have contributed to this publication, although Gareth Williams – as editor, sole author of two chapters and large parts of chapter 2 – is the main force behind the publication. The assemblage at ARSNY is similar to that at Torksey, where the Viking Great Army spent the winter of AD 872–873. It is therefore likely that ARSNY was the location of an undocumented Viking camp. Judging from the coins and weights, Williams date the main activity at ARNSY to AD 874–875 and/or with a continued activity by a smaller group after AD 875. The size of ARSNY, as well as Torksey, are larger than the D-shaped enclosure of the Viking camp at Repton. Adding to the assumption that the enclosure at Reption is only part of the Viking camp. ARSNY first came to notice in late 2003 when metal detectorists, with the landowners and tenants approval, unearthed a group of Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age coins, hacksilver, balance fragment, weights and remnants of iron, including three pieces from the hilt of a sword. An archaeological examination was initiated, in order to examine and contextualize the hoard’s find-spot. Although initially planned as using non-invasive techniques, in the form of geophysical surveys, the project was subsequently expanded with further geoarchaeological surveys and trial trenching. The present research publication is largely a report on the finds at ARSNY, as well as results from the excavations and the geoarchaeological surveys. Expanded with additional chapters on metals and exchange in Viking-Age Yorkshire. The short first chapter is authored by James Graham-Campbell and concerns the late Richard Hall’s impressive archaeological career and his role with the ARSNY project. Chapter 2 is the main section, constituting more than two thirds of the book. Hall and Williams are the main authors, along with Barry Ager and Nicola Rogers, with contributions from 14 others. This detailed review covers all aspects of the ARSNY project, and almost make up a book within the book. There are some repetitions and the
{"title":"A Riverine Site Near York: A Possible Viking Camp?","authors":"K. Loftsgarden","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1986128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1986128","url":null,"abstract":"A Riverine Site Near York: A Possible Viking Camp? is a comprehensive volume of finds and results from the site ‘A Riverine Site Near York’ (ARSNY). Several researchers have contributed to this publication, although Gareth Williams – as editor, sole author of two chapters and large parts of chapter 2 – is the main force behind the publication. The assemblage at ARSNY is similar to that at Torksey, where the Viking Great Army spent the winter of AD 872–873. It is therefore likely that ARSNY was the location of an undocumented Viking camp. Judging from the coins and weights, Williams date the main activity at ARNSY to AD 874–875 and/or with a continued activity by a smaller group after AD 875. The size of ARSNY, as well as Torksey, are larger than the D-shaped enclosure of the Viking camp at Repton. Adding to the assumption that the enclosure at Reption is only part of the Viking camp. ARSNY first came to notice in late 2003 when metal detectorists, with the landowners and tenants approval, unearthed a group of Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age coins, hacksilver, balance fragment, weights and remnants of iron, including three pieces from the hilt of a sword. An archaeological examination was initiated, in order to examine and contextualize the hoard’s find-spot. Although initially planned as using non-invasive techniques, in the form of geophysical surveys, the project was subsequently expanded with further geoarchaeological surveys and trial trenching. The present research publication is largely a report on the finds at ARSNY, as well as results from the excavations and the geoarchaeological surveys. Expanded with additional chapters on metals and exchange in Viking-Age Yorkshire. The short first chapter is authored by James Graham-Campbell and concerns the late Richard Hall’s impressive archaeological career and his role with the ARSNY project. Chapter 2 is the main section, constituting more than two thirds of the book. Hall and Williams are the main authors, along with Barry Ager and Nicola Rogers, with contributions from 14 others. This detailed review covers all aspects of the ARSNY project, and almost make up a book within the book. There are some repetitions and the","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48842249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1955410
J. Ljungkvist
This is a discussion based on reflections of two articles that address patterns and challenges surrounding the study of sites relating to residences of power, dating primarily from the 6–8 centuries CE, from southern England and Ireland. Each study is firmly anchored in the existing data from their respective regions. In this, they can be taken as case studies for the discussion of regions where the varying extent and nature of surviving archaeological material and literary evidence makes direct comparison difficult. However, each contribution embodies an ambition to establish a better understanding of places of power in this part of Europe during the dawn of the Middle Ages. The general lack of literary sources dating from the period (except from Ireland of course), makes archaeology even more important for this period. Royal connections are central to these discussions, and in the Irish case they are even more explicit as Gleeson is basing his study on investigations of known royal sites. In the English case, the royal connections are somewhat more vague, simply because the literary sources from Ireland are outstanding when it comes to the connection between kings and places. The connection with kingship is on the other hand potentially a distraction if the primary ambition of the study is to identify structures, ideologies, ideas etc. manifested in material culture on a broad and more general level. As both articles deal with broad structures and changes, there are numerous potential points of discussion that might be drawn from them. Unfortunately, it is only possible to deal with a few of these here. My starting point is Scandinavian archaeology, Central Sweden in particular. Each article has a ‘stand-der-forschung’ character, making them very relevant for ongoing research in several areas. They are also theoretically relevant in light of the substantial amount of presented research on places of power and centrality that has been produced in the recent years. It will be very interesting to see how much this discourse will alter the current picture of primarily pre-8/9 century structures in Northwestern Europe in the coming years. Both contributions represent new attempts to understand sites that once were labelled as ‘central places,’ particularly in Scandinavia from the 1980s onwards. This term became frequently used at a time when few settlements had been excavated and lots of evidence was based on stray finds, early metal detector surveys, and later place names and landscape studies. The central place discussion was very dynamic with many new and important contributions, but it was also a period in which interpretations were limited by the lack of substantial
{"title":"Reflections on Residences from one Scandinavian Experience","authors":"J. Ljungkvist","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1955410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1955410","url":null,"abstract":"This is a discussion based on reflections of two articles that address patterns and challenges surrounding the study of sites relating to residences of power, dating primarily from the 6–8 centuries CE, from southern England and Ireland. Each study is firmly anchored in the existing data from their respective regions. In this, they can be taken as case studies for the discussion of regions where the varying extent and nature of surviving archaeological material and literary evidence makes direct comparison difficult. However, each contribution embodies an ambition to establish a better understanding of places of power in this part of Europe during the dawn of the Middle Ages. The general lack of literary sources dating from the period (except from Ireland of course), makes archaeology even more important for this period. Royal connections are central to these discussions, and in the Irish case they are even more explicit as Gleeson is basing his study on investigations of known royal sites. In the English case, the royal connections are somewhat more vague, simply because the literary sources from Ireland are outstanding when it comes to the connection between kings and places. The connection with kingship is on the other hand potentially a distraction if the primary ambition of the study is to identify structures, ideologies, ideas etc. manifested in material culture on a broad and more general level. As both articles deal with broad structures and changes, there are numerous potential points of discussion that might be drawn from them. Unfortunately, it is only possible to deal with a few of these here. My starting point is Scandinavian archaeology, Central Sweden in particular. Each article has a ‘stand-der-forschung’ character, making them very relevant for ongoing research in several areas. They are also theoretically relevant in light of the substantial amount of presented research on places of power and centrality that has been produced in the recent years. It will be very interesting to see how much this discourse will alter the current picture of primarily pre-8/9 century structures in Northwestern Europe in the coming years. Both contributions represent new attempts to understand sites that once were labelled as ‘central places,’ particularly in Scandinavia from the 1980s onwards. This term became frequently used at a time when few settlements had been excavated and lots of evidence was based on stray finds, early metal detector surveys, and later place names and landscape studies. The central place discussion was very dynamic with many new and important contributions, but it was also a period in which interpretations were limited by the lack of substantial","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43289630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1928742
Nils Anfinset
At a time when academics and people in general are becoming more and more distant from nature, there are now movements to bring back the relations with nature. In this sense Joakim Goldhahn’s book on birds in the Bronze Age is part of this development, to broaden our understanding of the relations with nature, which we as humans are a part of. Goldhahn’s aim in this book is to explore the relationships and the bonds between birds and humans during the Bronze Age as sets of mutual relations, and in his own words; ‘Yes, viewed from a relational ontology, the history of humans and birds are entwined’ (p. 7). However, his aim is more ambitious than this as he wants to question the distinction we draw between ourselves as human beings and other beings, as well as challenging the current mainstream Bronze Age studies of Northern Europe (p. 17–18). The book centres around three main themes: Lift-Off, Birdscapes and Intra-Actions. In addition, there are some important notes to the reader, a prologue, an epilogue and two appendixes. Goldhahn’s geographical focus is primarily the middle and southern parts of Norway and Sweden, as well as Denmark and Northern Germany – a scope which is natural considering his interest and thematic orientation. This is combined with a chronological framework from 2350–500 BCE, which he defines as the Bronze Age (p. xviii). In Part I – Lift off, Goldhahn uses ethnography, anthropological studies, bird divination in the ancient world and folklore to frame the importance of birds and their relations with humans in various settings, not to mention the many similarities between humans and birds (except flying). Theoretically Goldhahn places himself within the recent developments in the humanities and social sciences known as the ontological turn, challenging the Western dualism of nature vs. culture, and between humans and nonhumans. A perspective with no sharp distinctions in a relationship with nature, animals and objects. Here Goldhahn raises an important question not only for this book, but for archaeological research in general: ‘[...], for is it not the key purpose of archaeology to explore these speculations, other ways to know and explore the world, and, in the end, challenge our own understanding of the world?’ (p. 21). In other words, we need to learn about other people, how they perceive and comprehend the world in order to understand relationships materialized in the past. The spectacular and enigmatic MBA burial at Hvidegaard is here used both as a point of departure to develop birdscapes of the Bronze Age. In Part II – Birdscapes Goldhahn takes us to different contexts where we are introduced to birds in mediums such as bronzes, burials, settlements and rock art. His initial argument is that horse imagery in the Bronze Age was found in MBA II throughout LBA I, while bird imagery on the other hand, followed in the wake of this and is found in the first half of MBA III and throughout the rest of the Bronze Age (p. 97–
{"title":"Birds in the Bronze Age. A North European Perspective","authors":"Nils Anfinset","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1928742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1928742","url":null,"abstract":"At a time when academics and people in general are becoming more and more distant from nature, there are now movements to bring back the relations with nature. In this sense Joakim Goldhahn’s book on birds in the Bronze Age is part of this development, to broaden our understanding of the relations with nature, which we as humans are a part of. Goldhahn’s aim in this book is to explore the relationships and the bonds between birds and humans during the Bronze Age as sets of mutual relations, and in his own words; ‘Yes, viewed from a relational ontology, the history of humans and birds are entwined’ (p. 7). However, his aim is more ambitious than this as he wants to question the distinction we draw between ourselves as human beings and other beings, as well as challenging the current mainstream Bronze Age studies of Northern Europe (p. 17–18). The book centres around three main themes: Lift-Off, Birdscapes and Intra-Actions. In addition, there are some important notes to the reader, a prologue, an epilogue and two appendixes. Goldhahn’s geographical focus is primarily the middle and southern parts of Norway and Sweden, as well as Denmark and Northern Germany – a scope which is natural considering his interest and thematic orientation. This is combined with a chronological framework from 2350–500 BCE, which he defines as the Bronze Age (p. xviii). In Part I – Lift off, Goldhahn uses ethnography, anthropological studies, bird divination in the ancient world and folklore to frame the importance of birds and their relations with humans in various settings, not to mention the many similarities between humans and birds (except flying). Theoretically Goldhahn places himself within the recent developments in the humanities and social sciences known as the ontological turn, challenging the Western dualism of nature vs. culture, and between humans and nonhumans. A perspective with no sharp distinctions in a relationship with nature, animals and objects. Here Goldhahn raises an important question not only for this book, but for archaeological research in general: ‘[...], for is it not the key purpose of archaeology to explore these speculations, other ways to know and explore the world, and, in the end, challenge our own understanding of the world?’ (p. 21). In other words, we need to learn about other people, how they perceive and comprehend the world in order to understand relationships materialized in the past. The spectacular and enigmatic MBA burial at Hvidegaard is here used both as a point of departure to develop birdscapes of the Bronze Age. In Part II – Birdscapes Goldhahn takes us to different contexts where we are introduced to birds in mediums such as bronzes, burials, settlements and rock art. His initial argument is that horse imagery in the Bronze Age was found in MBA II throughout LBA I, while bird imagery on the other hand, followed in the wake of this and is found in the first half of MBA III and throughout the rest of the Bronze Age (p. 97–","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41861942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1951830
Eva Mol
This article presents an alternative to archaeological object observation through an exercise in alterity and slow looking. It is inspired by the movement of Slow Archaeology, and based on the art of slow looking, perspectivism, and 16th century Japanese object aesthetics in the context of the Japanese tea ceremony. The exercise experiments with different vantage points, embodiment, and empathy related to theories of the ontological turn and non-discursive knowledge. Stimulating ourselves to employ different ways of looking can be a helpful tool in starting to think about difference and alterity, but can also possibly reach new insights on ancient object-use, performance, and perception. It can therefore form an additional instrument to formal object analyses already practiced in archaeology, as well as be a form of emancipation in education as it draws on other, non-discursive, forms of knowledge.
{"title":"‘Trying to Hear with the Eyes’: Slow Looking and Ontological Difference in Archaeological Object Analysis","authors":"Eva Mol","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1951830","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1951830","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents an alternative to archaeological object observation through an exercise in alterity and slow looking. It is inspired by the movement of Slow Archaeology, and based on the art of slow looking, perspectivism, and 16th century Japanese object aesthetics in the context of the Japanese tea ceremony. The exercise experiments with different vantage points, embodiment, and empathy related to theories of the ontological turn and non-discursive knowledge. Stimulating ourselves to employ different ways of looking can be a helpful tool in starting to think about difference and alterity, but can also possibly reach new insights on ancient object-use, performance, and perception. It can therefore form an additional instrument to formal object analyses already practiced in archaeology, as well as be a form of emancipation in education as it draws on other, non-discursive, forms of knowledge.","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45262642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1986129
Frands Herschend
In the late 1980s when Cornelia Weinmann (1994) worked on her PhD thesis on ‘Scandinavian housebuilding’ we lamented the fact that there was hardly any welcoming and straightforward Home & Living Magazine material in Old Norse texts. This was not just an ironic truth is was also the reason why it was interesting and indeed difficult to look into a culture that understood houses and their interior in other ways than we understand them today as archaeologists, ethnologists or modern human being. Although ‘This old house’ was first aired 1979, there simply wasn’t any swelling dream-house or housedream market and virtually none of the pseudo-tickling hyper-individual ‘who-lives -here?’ stuff that today’s real estate TV is made on. Thirty years later Marianne Hem Eriksen has turned this lack of a simple descriptive ethnography and the complexity of the house as architecture and a body into her point of departure and made the understanding of the door her analytical entrance into a partly forgotten world. Real estate TV is genuinely colonial: ‘We’ve travelled the countryside, found a house, the natives are gone, let’s go in and see if the premises suit you.’ Marianne Hem Eriksen’s approach as discussed in Part I is post-colonial : ‘There is a house. What does it mean to enter and leave the house and its rooms?’ Wisely, she avoids the descriptive ethnological approach to buildings and craftsmanship. Instead, supported by her database of Late Iron Age house remains, she focusses on the meaning of the architectural elements of the traditional Iron and Viking Age three-aisled long house with roof-supporting interior posts, trestles and purlins. Her analysis of the last 500 years of this tradition until the Late Viking Age as indeed Architecture is a theoretical and methodological choice. It turns out to be a prolific one because her focus is on the door, that is, on the transitional and/or liminal zone of any outer or major partition in the anatomy of a house. The door is the analytical tool that allows her to look at a variety of source materials in an inter-disciplinary approach, such as Archaeology, Architecture, Anthropology, Linguistics, History of Religion or the close reading of poetry, sagas and historical narratives. At the same time or rather consequently, it becomes possible for her successfully to analyse a number of cases in order to come to grips with the connotations of ‘the door’, ‘the house’ and its ‘space’. With this approach movement and usage becomes the important parameters trying to understand the interior as an ordered space in itself and the exterior as a meaningful situation in the landscape. The interior belongs to the formalized architecture of the house, the exterior belongs the architecture of the landscape. This means that wherever there is a traditional house, the architect, literally ‘the chief builder’ has created an ontology of the interplay between the closed
在20世纪80年代后期，当Cornelia Weinmann(1994)撰写她的博士论文“斯堪的纳维亚房屋建筑”时，我们哀叹的是，在古斯堪的纳维亚文本中几乎没有任何欢迎和直接的家居与生活杂志材料。这不仅是一个具有讽刺意味的事实，也是为什么研究一种文化很有趣，而且确实很困难的原因，因为这种文化对房屋及其内部的理解与我们今天作为考古学家，民族学家或现代人的理解不同。尽管《这所老房子》于1979年首播，但它根本没有任何膨胀的梦幻之家或梦幻之家市场，也几乎没有那种令人发痒的超级个体“谁住在这里?”这些都是今天的房地产电视节目的素材。三十年后，Marianne Hem Eriksen将这种缺乏简单的描述性人种学和房子作为建筑和身体的复杂性转变为她的出发点，并将对门的理解作为她进入部分被遗忘世界的分析入口。房地产电视节目是真正的殖民主义:“我们走遍了乡村，找到了房子，当地人都走了，让我们进去看看房子是否适合你。”玛丽安·赫姆·埃里克森(Marianne Hem Eriksen)在第一部分中讨论的方法是后殖民主义的:“有一栋房子。进出房子和房间是什么意思?她明智地避免了用描述性的民族学方法来描述建筑和工艺。相反，在她的铁器时代晚期房屋遗迹数据库的支持下，她专注于传统铁器和维京时代的三走道长屋的建筑元素的意义，这些房屋有支撑屋顶的内部柱子、支架和檩子。她对这一传统直到维京时代晚期的最后500年的分析确实是一种理论和方法上的选择。事实证明，这是一个多产的作品，因为她的重点是门，也就是说，在房子的解剖结构中，任何外部或主要分区的过渡和/或界限区。门是一种分析工具，使她能够以跨学科的方式查看各种原始材料，例如考古学，建筑学，人类学，语言学，宗教史或诗歌，传奇和历史叙事的仔细阅读。与此同时，或者更确切地说，结果是，她成功地分析了一些案例，以便掌握“门”、“房子”及其“空间”的内涵。通过这种方法，运动和使用成为重要的参数，试图将内部理解为一个有序的空间，而将外部理解为景观中有意义的场景。内部属于住宅的正式建筑，外部属于景观建筑。这意味着无论哪里有传统的房子，建筑师，字面上的“主要建造者”都创造了一个封闭的相互作用的本体
{"title":"Architecture, Society, and Ritual in Viking Age Scandinavia. Doors, Dwellings, and Domestic Space","authors":"Frands Herschend","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1986129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1986129","url":null,"abstract":"In the late 1980s when Cornelia Weinmann (1994) worked on her PhD thesis on ‘Scandinavian housebuilding’ we lamented the fact that there was hardly any welcoming and straightforward Home & Living Magazine material in Old Norse texts. This was not just an ironic truth is was also the reason why it was interesting and indeed difficult to look into a culture that understood houses and their interior in other ways than we understand them today as archaeologists, ethnologists or modern human being. Although ‘This old house’ was first aired 1979, there simply wasn’t any swelling dream-house or housedream market and virtually none of the pseudo-tickling hyper-individual ‘who-lives -here?’ stuff that today’s real estate TV is made on. Thirty years later Marianne Hem Eriksen has turned this lack of a simple descriptive ethnography and the complexity of the house as architecture and a body into her point of departure and made the understanding of the door her analytical entrance into a partly forgotten world. Real estate TV is genuinely colonial: ‘We’ve travelled the countryside, found a house, the natives are gone, let’s go in and see if the premises suit you.’ Marianne Hem Eriksen’s approach as discussed in Part I is post-colonial : ‘There is a house. What does it mean to enter and leave the house and its rooms?’ Wisely, she avoids the descriptive ethnological approach to buildings and craftsmanship. Instead, supported by her database of Late Iron Age house remains, she focusses on the meaning of the architectural elements of the traditional Iron and Viking Age three-aisled long house with roof-supporting interior posts, trestles and purlins. Her analysis of the last 500 years of this tradition until the Late Viking Age as indeed Architecture is a theoretical and methodological choice. It turns out to be a prolific one because her focus is on the door, that is, on the transitional and/or liminal zone of any outer or major partition in the anatomy of a house. The door is the analytical tool that allows her to look at a variety of source materials in an inter-disciplinary approach, such as Archaeology, Architecture, Anthropology, Linguistics, History of Religion or the close reading of poetry, sagas and historical narratives. At the same time or rather consequently, it becomes possible for her successfully to analyse a number of cases in order to come to grips with the connotations of ‘the door’, ‘the house’ and its ‘space’. With this approach movement and usage becomes the important parameters trying to understand the interior as an ordered space in itself and the exterior as a meaningful situation in the landscape. The interior belongs to the formalized architecture of the house, the exterior belongs the architecture of the landscape. This means that wherever there is a traditional house, the architect, literally ‘the chief builder’ has created an ontology of the interplay between the closed","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47485688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2021.1955413
G. Thomas, C. Scull, P. Gleeson
The commentators’ reflections on rulers’ residences as a manifestation of developing socio-political complexity raise some issues that require clarification. In our discussion of the temporality of...
{"title":"Halls of Mirrors: Reflections on the Social Meanings of Early Medieval Rulers’ Residences","authors":"G. Thomas, C. Scull, P. Gleeson","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1955413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1955413","url":null,"abstract":"The commentators’ reflections on rulers’ residences as a manifestation of developing socio-political complexity raise some issues that require clarification. In our discussion of the temporality of...","PeriodicalId":45030,"journal":{"name":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45470888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：