glasses scandinavia 1st millenia, john hunter

8/7/2019 glasses scandinavia 1st millenia, john hunter

1/9

Glasses from Scandinavian Burials in the First Millennium A.D.Author(s): John R. HunterSource: World Archaeology, Vol. 7, No. 1, Burial (Jun., 1975), pp. 79-86Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124110

Accessed: 23/06/2010 08:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World

Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/124110?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/124110?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/9

World Archaeology Volume7 No. i

GlassesromScandinavianurials n thefirstmillenniumA.D.John R. Hunter

The majority of Scandinavian artefacts dated to within the first millennium A.D. appearfrom the context of burials. Discussion of these artefacts has usually centred around suchbroad topics as typology, trade, or general levels of culture, and remarkably little workhas been attempted in detailed studies of the physical deposition of specific funeraryitems. This is all the more suprising considering that the artefacts used to interpret thedaily life of an early society are derived almost totally from the circumstances of death,and not from the circumstances for which they were manufactured or in which they weremost used. Perhaps it is because such a study requires a laborious collection of relevantregional and chronological data, and because there are few existing works on the subjectto which it could be suitably related, that the work has not so far been undertaken. Theaims here are to outline the problems involved in the discussion of a specific item fromfunerary remains, namely the glass vessel, and to illustrate the potential of the subjectfor future research.

The difficulties are two-fold. The first is concerned with the evaluation of the sourcematerial handed down by previous archaeologists, and the second is concerned withinterpreting the relationship between context of death and the social environment at thetime of the burial. The first is caused by the absence of written works concerning burialcustoms. Norwegian literature, for example, has never really bettered Shetelig's work ofI9I2 (Shetelig I912) and this situation has recently been outlined by Naess (Naess I972).Studies areusually confined to a specific cemetery or area from a particularperiod in time.A more fundamental shortcoming is that much of the earlier excavated material oftenlacks any record of the critical archaeological information. There is sometimes insufficientrecording of the nature and size of the burial monument, the stratification of a crematedlayer,the orientation and genderof askeleton, orthe exactposition of the gravefurnishings.The second difficulty concerns the relationship of the burial to daily life. Livingconditions at the time of the burial can easily be misinterpreted if this relationship isignored. Prehistoric funerary remains are traditionally discussed in terms of theassociated disciplines of anthropology and ethnography. Theoretically, archaeologicalevidence alone can build no more than a superficial framework. In the proto-historicperiod in question here this emphasis shifts to a dependence upon the seemingly moretangible conceptual aids to be derived from archaeologicalevidence, such as immigration,contact and trade. These are somehow considered suitable, and yet all of them are asnebulous and varied as anthropological and ethnographical information. There are also

Burial


3/9

80 John R. Hunter

surviving literary works which are often quoted as describing concepts of death andwhich give accounts of burial practices. Relevant here are the passages from the OldEnglish poem 'Beowulf' describing the funeral of Scyld (Klaeber 1950: 26-52), or theaccount of the ceremony at the death of Beowulf himself (I950: 3137-82), as well as amuch-discussed passage in 'The Seafarer', in which the poet describes how his soul longsto travel to distant lands (Gordon 1966: 33-8), a notion often interpreted as referring to a'rite of passage'. These sources only suggest the most general concepts of the Afterlife,and taking into account the heroic tradition in which they were written are unlikely to behistorically accurate. In certain respects, burials such as those at Vendel and Oseberg arecomparable, but like their literary parallels they belong to chieftains, heroes or evenroyalty, and their circumstances are therefore special rather than typical.One is dealing for the most part with the burials of the 'ordinary' man and womanwhose death eludes specific written evidence. Even here, the relationship between thearchaeological remains and the ideas of mythology, such as those recorded in Snorri's'Edda', is often obscure. Theoretically, anthropology and ethnography should providesome workable solution, but the backgrounds and parallels are respectively so vast thatit becomes almost impossible to use them. Ucko's article on the interpretation of funeraryremains (Ucko 197I) was no doubt intended to indicate to the archaeologist the breadthof ethnographic parallels available. Instead, the result may have been to frighten thearchaeologist away from the subject and make him wonder if ethnography can really beapplicable to his problems.The other alternative, admittedly a dangerous one, is to attempt to study solely thematerial remains. This 'material' method has alreadybeen the subject of debate (Myhreand Myhre 1972) as to whether culture change through immigration was represented byconcepts rather than by artefacts. Basic assumptions must be made. The first is that theitems chosen for burial were selected according to certain criteria even although thesecriteriaareunknown to us (Piggott 1969: 558). The second assumption is that the placingof items within a burial reflects a deliberate and purposeful act. These actions can be usedto interpret the significance and values of objects at times of death by examining theircondition, their position in the grave, and their relation to other artefacts. This in turncan help to create a picture of the society in which the objects were used.Scandinavia has yielded the remains of over 8oo individual glass vessels dated to beforeA.D. 105o, and of these approximately 75% were discovered in burials. The basicmethodology for the study of this material (Hunter 1972) has already stressed theimportance of this archaeological context. The regional distribution of glass foundwithin Scandinavia is listed below (table 8), together with its chronological distributionfor the inhumation and cremation burials (tables 9 and 10, respectively). The Balticislands of Bornholm (Denmark), Gotland and Oland (Sweden) are listed individually.The chronology used throughout is the Swedish system which is divided into fourperiods; the Roman Iron Age (A.D. 50-400) the Migration Period (A.D. 400-550/600),the Vendel Period (A.D.550/600-800) and the Viking Period (A.D.800-o1050).Glass can best be studied in the closed find-groups from inhumation burials.Cremations, on the other hand, require an understanding of the various methodspractised. There is no guarantee that the cremation grave-goods are totally representativeof the offerings laid on the funeral pyre, and owing to the numerous variantsof the custom


4/9

Glassesfrom Scandinavian burials in thefirst millenniumA.D. 8ITABLE 8Geographicaldistributionof glass vessels ound in Scandinavia, A.D. 50-Io50

Glasses from GlassesfromLocation inhumations cremationsBornholm 3 14Denmark 91 66Gotland i8 82Norway 68 31Sweden 52 158Oland 3 8Total 235 359TABLE 9Chronologicaldistributionof glass vessels rom inhumationsLocation Roman Migration Vendel Viking UndatedBornholm 2 -Denmark 83 5 - 3Gotland 5 8 4 INorway 25 36 x - 5 ISweden 8 3 8 33Oland 3 -

..._ .s I^_ v wt h

TABLE 10Chronologicaldistributionof glass vessels rom cremationsLocation Roman Migration Vendel Viking UndatedBornholm 13 I - -Denmark 66Gotland I5 31 27 - 9Norway Io i6 I 4 -Sweden 23 29 41 43 22Oland 1 4 I - 2

it is almost impossible to use the resultant furnishings with any degree of consistency.A noticeable feature concerns the actual positions of the vessels within the inhumationburial. In many instances there is no information available, but judging from burialswhere these positions are recorded there are indications that deliberate care was taken inthe placing of the glass. Two Norwegian examples illustrate this. The fragments fromFoyna (S.M.A 1932: 20, 55) were specially positioned in a small depression in the groundnext to the body, and fragments from Tanum (Oldtiden 1917: 213, 251) were carefullyset inside a pottery vessel. The majority of other vessels whose positions are recorded


5/9

82 John R. Hunter

appearnear the head of the body, a place usually considered to be reserved for personalorvaluable goods. Fragments from a vessel from Time, Norway (Lorange I875: 57) wereplaced in the burial next to a quantity of iron tools and implements. Here the valuablemetal artefacts (bronze and gold) lay at the feet. A possible interpretation may be that thetools and the glass had some occupational significance, for their deliberate associationis otherwise difficult to explain. The grave was that of a male and can be compared to asimilar example from Birka, Sweden, grave 750 (Arbman 1943: z67-72), where the glasswas placed next to an axe and iron objects. This is a double inhumation containing a maleand a female, the furnishings being positioned next to the male, and the same situation isreflected in another double burial from Birka, grave 644 (Arbman 1943: 221). Birka,grave 850 (Arbman I943: 323), contained a further male inhumation. Here the glass wascarefully positioned by the handle of the sword at the side of the body. A spear lay at thefeet and a shield by the head. Apart from the glass vessel, the grave-goods consistedsolely of arms.This limited evidence offers a few illustrations of the contexts in which glass has beendiscovered in the burial. There seems to be considerable potential in examining theposition of the finds, not only in relation to the skeleton, but also in relation to the otherburial artefacts. The impression received so far is that glass seems to have been held in aparticular regard, although the exact nature of this status is unknown. In Birka, grave649 (Arbman 1943: 228), the glass was positioned in isolation on a slight rise, as thoughit had been singled out for some special reason. This idea constantly reappears.There are several inhumation burials which contain glasses in sets or groups, aphenomenon usually restricted to personal adornments. Thirty-six burials containedmore than one vessel, and of these thirteen contained matching pairs or sets. The pairsare interesting in that the burials at both Espe, Denmark (Broholm 1952: 72), andStore-Dal, Norway (Norling-Christensen 1940: 141), contained pairs of the same typeof bowl. Perhaps this may suggest that the bowls were bought and used in pairs for aspecific function. Both burials are dated to the early part of the Roman Iron Age andthis coincides with the dating of another pair of bowls, from Juellinge, Denmark(Broholm I952: 73), and a pair of glass cups from Stenlille, Denmark (Norling-Christensen i94oa). This possibility is emphasized by the appearance of a pair of cupsalmost identical to those from Stenlille in a cremation burial of the same period atSkivarp, Sweden (Norling-Christensen 1940: 142). The Skivarp vessels are completeand can hardly have been subjected to the heat of the funeral pyre.Several burials produced vessels which were dissimilar only by way of slight dis-crepancies in size or decoration, such as the pair of beakers decorated with appliedcoloured 'snake' trails from Laebrogaard, Denmark (Eggers I951: no. i86). The pairs ofvessels from Sigersted, Denmark (Broholm 1944), and Selanger, Sweden (EkholmI965: I7, 20), differ slightly by way of decoration. Burials which produced vessels insets of three include those from Borritshoved, Denmark (Norling-Christensen 1952),containing three straight-sided cups, from Himlingoje, Denmark (Norling-Christensen1951), containing three bowls and from Uggelose, Denmark (Thrane I966), containingthree beakers of the 'Snartemo' type. In the case of the vessels from Borritshoved, allthree were carefully placed at the head of the deceased.

Other burials contained possible sets of vessels. An example of this is the burial at


6/9

Glasses rom Scandinavian burialsin thefirst millenniumA.D. 83Juellinge, Denmark, which contained a complete beakerwith faceted decoration (EkholmI965: i6). Also in the grave were fragments of a second vessel which showed clear signsof faceted decoration and which could conceivably have belonged to a beaker of the sametype. Similar instances occur at Nordrup, Denmark (Eggers I95I: no. 193), where thereis a complete beaker showing 'snake' trail decoration, together with fragments withsimilar decoration. Other examples appear in Denmark and Norway. Several burialsyielded fragments of two vessels, neither of which could be restored or reconstructed. Anexample of this is the burial containing the remains of two incised vessels from Maele,Norway (Boe 1920: 249). It should be pointed out that not all glasses within a burialwere necessarily similar. This can be seen from the burial at Varpelev, Denmark(Engelhardt 1877: 349-72), which contained a bowl, beaker, cup and glass object. A burialat Hopperstad, Norway (Hougen I968: Ioo), contained a filigree jar and a small flask.

Despite these occurrences, there is clear evidence for the existence of vessels inmatching pairs or in sets of three. This suggests that in daily life the glasses had similargroupings or even specific functions. This may be emphasized further by the presence offragments among these sets. From the evidence available it is difficult to judge whethersome of these pieces were not already fragmentary when placed in the burial and wereput there in order to complete a set of matching vessels. If this can be proved, it showsthat glass was a very significant item indeed.An immediate problem is that the excavation of many burials, particularly thoseundertaken in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, failed to record the position ofthe many artefacts and in several instances may have failed to recover all the pieces of afragmentary item. It is often assumed that in the great majority of inhumation burialsobjects were buried intact and are therefore theoretically retrievable in their entirety,even when broken. There is, however, some evidence to show that both incomplete andfragmentary items were used. The accuracy of this evidence requires an examination ofthe circumstances of the find and the nature of the excavation proceedure. The practiceof source criticism has already illustrated only too well (Hershend 1970) the dangers ofaccepting without question the value of written accounts. The evidence used here isdiscussed in full awareness of the limited value of some of these sources. It is un-fortunately not possible to draw a clear line between reliable and suspect information.A study of the material shows that the incomplete items can be divided into two groups,those which have a small part of the vessel missing, and those which occur as isolatedfragments, often from indeterminable types of vessel. Unfortunately, few excavationreports comment on whether a fragmentary vessel was found 'in toto' or whether partswere missing. If it can be proved that slightly damaged or broken vessels were placed inthe grave group, then their depositions must represent a significant gesture, and this inturn may reflect a particularvalue before burial. The general dating of the fragmentaryitems shows that there is a noticeable grouping in the Roman and Migration periods,particularly in Norway. This is pursued below.In the first group, consisting of almost complete vessels, all the examples are of clearlydefined types, usually with specific decorative qualities. Two useful examples are fromNorway, from Hibnes (Shetelig 1912: 59) where the foot of the vessel is missing, andfrom Naerland (Ekholm I965: 22) where part of the rim has gone. It is possible that theseitems were damaged in a minor way and were placed in the burial as representing a


7/9

84 John R. Hunter

complete item. Other vessels in the group are less complete but are neverthelesssufficiently whole to determine the type of vessel and decoration. They include aniiberfang vessel from Evebo, Norway (Shelelig I912: IIi), a bowl with marvereddecoration from Falkum, Norway (Marstrander 1946), and a large low bowl with afolded rim from Li, Norway (Ekholm 1965: 26). Even allowing for a certain percentage ofvessels whose condition may be due wholly to bad retrieval, there is sufficient evidence toindicate that the practice of placing damaged vessels in the grave occurred.The second group relates to the very fragmentary items. Few of these allow the type ofvessel to be determined, although some areof particularinterest in view of their decorativequalities. There is a marked preponderance of fragments with incised or grounddecoration or with applied trails. In nearly every case the decoration can be compared tosimilar decorative forms on complete vessels. Some fragments which bear no traces ofdecoration are more difficult to justify in a burial context. It is credible that almostcomplete vessels were placed in graves, or for that matter that part of a vessel with aparticular decorative characteristic could have been used symbolically. Undecorated'simple' fragments are less easy to explain. Nevertheless, this practice occurred and anexample such as the fragment from Haraldstedpladsen, Denmark, excavated andpublished by Norling-Christensen (I956: 15), who commented specifically on thisphenomenon, shows that dubious excavation cannot always be held responsible.Another useful area of study lies in an examination of vessels which show indicationsof repair. All these examples appear from Norwegian burials. and date to the Roman andMigration periods. The best example is perhaps from Solberg (Ekholm 1956: 38). Thecircumstances of the find arenot recorded but the fragments have been repairedwith goldfoil depicting animal ornamentation. A vessel from Snartemo (Hougen 1935) has beenrepaired in a similar way with a metal strip riveted around the rim. Greater repairswereneeded on a beaker from Ovsthus (Shetelig 1912: 154) which was fitted with a bronzestrip around the rim and a large bronze plate inside. This illustrates the extent to whichrepairwork was carried out, for although the vessel may have become serviceable again, itwould almost certainly have ceased to be pleasing to the eye. These types of repairindicate that the restoration of glass vessels was worthwhile and necessary and this mayindicate that glass itself was valuable or hard to obtain.The position of Norway in this study becomes continually more significant. It hasalreadybeen shown above that the majority of almost complete vessels from inhumationsappears in Norway and that these are dated to the Roman and Migration periods. Therepaired vessels confirm this. Such a situation cannot be accidental and may reflect ascarcity of glass in Norway at the time. Here one must mention Bakka's article (BakkaI97I) relating to trade patterns in Scandinavia. His plotting of the 'Snartemo' type ofbeaker,which is common in Norway in the Migration period, shows a distribution centredaround two specific areas, Norway and Gotland. In terms of glass vessels, there is acurious archaeological anomaly. The evidence studied here suggests that glass wasperhaps rare, yet the evidence from the distribution indicates that glasses were relativelycommon in that very area. However, Bakka cites this distribution as reflectingdifferences in burial practices between these two areas and the rest of Scandinavia. Thiswould certainly be justified by the evidence discussed here. During the Migrationperiod Norway seems to have practised rich burial customs, while much of the rest of


8/9

Glasses rom Scandinavian burialsin thefirst millenniumA.D. 85Scandinavia at this time followed a simpler practice in which the richly furnished gravewas less common. It cannot be argued that the rest of Scandinavia was poorer thanNorway. One can mention the great MVigration old hoards from Sweden. The wealth wasclearly available but is not always manifest to the archaeologist in the places he wouldmost like to find it. The value of this type of study is now emphasized.

Finally mention should be made of the cremation burials. They contain some interes-ting features relevant both to the study of cremation practice and to the significance of theglass vessels. Several burials, for example, yielded complete vessels. The placing of avessel in a cremation layer must signify a deposition after the burning. The example fromMollegardsmarken, Denmark (Albrectsen 197I: 164: I566), indicates that the practicewas not a casual afterthought but a specific and deliberate action. Here the glass cup wasplaced among the cremated ashes within the funeral urn. Other examples can be cited,such as the vessels from Hundstad, Norway (Hougen 1929: 112), and OstraVemmenh6g,Sweden (Eggers I95I: no. 443). Unfortunately no studies have been undertaken withregardto other artefactsin these situations and it is not possible to draw valid conclusions.An examination of the glass vessel in this manner shows that glass was in manyrespects a commodity of some significance. The position in the burial, the existence ofrepaired items, and the presence of sets and fragments all point towards this conclusion.The appearance of complete vessels from cremation burials emphasizes it. However,the nature of this significance is open to interpretation. Perhaps one can assume thatglass was costly or difficult to obtain and that it represented status for the deceased.This will only be understood more fully if associated grave furnishings can be subjectedto the same type of examination.I6.i. I975 School of Archaeological SciencesUniversity of BradfordReferencesAlbrectsen,E. 1971.FynskeJernaldergrave. ol. IV. Odense Bys Museer.Arbman,I943. Birka. Vol. I. Stockholm.Bakka,E. I971. Scandinavian rade relations with the continent and the British Isles in pre-Vikingtimes. EarlyMediaevalStudies.3:37-51.Broholm, H. C. I944. En Sjaellandsk Grav fra Femte Aarhundrede. NationalmuseetsArbjedsmark.3-8.Broholm,H. C. I952. Danmarkog Romerriget.Copenhagen.Boe J. I920. Norsk gravguldfra aeldre ernalder.BergensMuseumsArsbok.1-73.Eggers,H. J. I95I. Der romischemport mfreien Germanien.Hamburg.Ekholm, G. I956. Orientalische Glaser in Skandinavienwahrend der Kaiser- und friihenMerowingerzeit.Acta Archaeologia. 7:35-59.Ekholm,G. I965. Als orientalischeangenommeneGlaserSkandinaviensaus dem ersten bis ausdem sechstenJahrhundertn. Chr. AntikvarisktArkiv. 26.Engelhardt,C. I877. Skeletgravepaa Sjaelandog i det ostlige Danmark.Aarbogeror nordiskOldkyndighedg Historie.347-402.Gordon, I. L., ed., I966. TheSeafarer.London.Hershend, F. I970. Some critical views on Joachim Werner's 'Miinzdatierte austrasischeGrabfunde'.TOR. 48-6I.


9/9

86 John R. Hunter

Hougen, B. 1929. Trek av 0stnorsk romertid. [Oslo] UniversitetsOldsaksamling Skrifter. 75-126.Hougen, B. I935. Snartemofunnere. Norsk Oldfund. Oslo.Hougen, E. I968. Glasbegre i Norge fra sjette til tiende arhundre. Viking. 32:85-110.Hunter, J. 1972. A brief discussion concerning certain methodological difficulties in the studyof glass vessels of the Scahdinavian prehistoric period. Meddelandenfrdn Lunds UniversitetsHistoriska Museum. o08-22.Klaeber, Fr., ed., I950. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Boston.Lorange, A. I875. Norske Oldsager. Bergen.Marstrander, S. 1946. Et Provincalromersk Glas fra Telemark. Stavanger Museums Arshefte.73-85.Myhre, B. M. and Myhre, B. 1972. The concept 'immigration' in archaeological contextsillustrated by examples from West Norwegian and North Norwegion early iron age. NorwegianArchaeological Review. 5(x): 45-61.Naess, J-R. I972. Some reflections on the study of iron age burial customs in Norway.Norwegian Archaeological Review. 5(I):23-37.Norling-Christensen, H. I940. Nordiske glas fra Aeldre Romersk Jaernalder. In Fra DanmarksUngtid. Copenhagen.Norling-Christensen, H. I94oa. Stenlille Fundet. Acta Archaeologia. ii :22ff.Norling-Christensen, H. 1951. Jaernaldergravpladsen ved Himlingoje. NationalmuseetsArbjedsmark. 39-46.Norling-Christensen. H. 1952. Gravfund fra Borritshoved med Romerske Glas og Bronzekar.Kuml. 84-92.Norling-Christensen, H. I956. Haraldsredgravpladsen og Aeldre Germansk JernalderDanmark. Aarboger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie. 14-143.Oldtiden. 19I7. Oldtiden, Tidskrift for norskforhistorie. Oslo.Piggott, S. 1969. Conclusion to The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edsP. J. Ucko and G. Dimbleby, London.Shetelig, H. I912. Vestlandske Graver fra Jernalder. Bergens Museums Skrifter. 2.:S.M.A. I932. Stavanger Museums Arshefte.Thrane, H. I966. Solhvervsfund. Skalk. 3-6.UJcko, P. J. 1971. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains.World Archaeology. 3(2):262-8o.

AbstractHunter,J. R.Glasses from Scandinavian burials in the first millennium A.D.This study is an attempt to examine the significance of glass vessels from within burials.Anthropological, ethnographic, and literary evidence is deliberately avoided. The authormaintains that by a careful examination of the material remains from the burial it is possible tothrow some light on the importance of glass in daily life. This can be interpreted from thepositions of the vessels, the presence of sets and pairs of matching vessels, the presence offragmentary material in inhumation burials, and from the existence of repaired vessels.Particular emphasis is placed on the Norwegian material.

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sergio-gonzalez-sanchez
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

glasses scandinavia 1st millenia, john hunter

Documents