Chapter 5

Crafts in the landscape of the powerless. A combmaker’s workshop at Viborg Søndersø AD 1020–1024

Jette Linaa

‘Tóki Smith raised this stone in memory of Þorgísl Guðmundr’s son, who gave him gold(?) and freedom.’ (Danske Runeindskrifter)

What is a craftworker? The introduction of the term ‘actor’ in craft discussions invokes a perception of free agents with the power to choose what to produce, where to sell it, and to whom. But craft production seems to be more complicated than that, and there are many steps on the scale between craftworkers as free agents and unfree thralls. The aim of this paper is to emphasise this by drawing new conclusions from earlier work on a remarkable structure: a workshop, dated 1018–1024, which came to light through an equally remarkable research initiative: The Viborg Søndersø 2001-project. The workshop in Viborg clearly demonstrated that production was undertaken on a short-term, seasonal basis, and as such the conclusion that the craftworker was a free, itinerant powerful, actor is appealing. However, other traits in the material point in a quite different direction, and this paper is an attempt to shed light on this contradiction. Thus, the author wishes to throw new light on a craftworker who might have been more powerless than powerful, and to do that by analysis of traits in manufacture and spatial organisation that might generally point in the direction of a controlled production. The paper also seeks to investigate a bias in archaeological craft studies: analyses of crafts often appear to be driven by a functional perspective, in which efficiency is emphasised, while cultural factors fade into the background. This paper seeks to analyse this discourse of rationality through a contextual analysis of a combmaker’s workshop and its spatial organisation, with special reference to cultural perceptions of purity and power. Further investigations into other aspects of the craft, like an examination of the gender of the craftworker, will be performed at a later date.

Background

The question of the role of craft and craftworkers in Nordic urbanisation is almost as old as the study of craft itself. Excavations of Viking-age urban and proto-urban sites have recovered traces of craftworkers as bead-makers, combmakers and silver, copper and iron smiths, and tombstones emphasise the tools of crafts as signifiers of the deceased. As a result, the organisation, status and integration of craftworkers stands as a central element in Scandinavian discussions of urbanisation processes, and the issue of the itinerant or residential status of craftworkers has frequently been raised since it was initially discussed in the influential works of Axel Christophersen and Anders Andrén (Christophersen 1980a; Andrén 1985; see also Carelli 2001). So the question is if the craftsworkers were free agents moving freely from market to market, unfree slaves controlled by others or in a middle position as urban tenants, paying tributes or rent in products (Christophersen 1980a; Andrén 1998). The excavation of the workshop in Viborg clearly demonstrates that this was indeed a short-term, seasonal production, and as such the conclusion that this was one of the free itinerant actors in early urbanism seems obvious. But other traits in the material may point at this craftsworker being powerless.

The unfree craftworker as part of the Viking-Age population is a wellknown phenomenon even in Denmark, where historical sources from the Viking Age are sparse (Karras 1988, 83–85; Poulsen 2003, 393). A few long-known runestones (one of them quoted at the start of this paper) tell us of the gratitude of freed craftworkers to their former masters, who gave them their freedom. As runestones constitute a complex source, our conclusions cannot be too rigid, but it does seem evident that people who called themselves ‘smiths’ were formerly unfree (Andrén 2000). Nonetheless, just as we should avoid generalisations in which all craftworkers are free agents, so should we resist the urge to declare them all unfree, but should rather note the many steps on the scale between craftworkers as free entrepreneurs and unfree thralls. The discussion of the craftworker as intermediary or mediator, powerless or actor (in the sense of Latour) is central to our question. If powerful, the craftworker becomes a full actor, shaping materiality according to his wishes. And if powerless, the craftworkers cease to be mediators and become intermediaries instead, mindlessly passing on materiality; deprived of the power to influence their production and the materiality that goes through their hands.

But how do we address the question of power or lack of power in the archaeological record? We know the unfree from the grave material, but they are not easily observed in settlement archaeology. If we are to be able to discuss, on a sound archaeological basis, the role of powerful and powerless actors; mediators or intermediaries in craft organisation, it might be fruitful to study control. That is to say that we should look for the presence or absence of power to be expressed in various degrees of control: whether that be control over space, over production, or over life. We may see spatial power or lack of power in degrees of spatial organisation in crafters settlements; in this case primarily as patterns of waste disposal, degrees of spatial organisation, and in the geographic and/or symbolic distance to settlement centres. Power over production may be seen in the range and variety or lack thereof of manufactured types, and in the degree of efficiency in the use of raw material. Control over life can be seen in the burial evidence. In that sense, a craftworker may be seen as a powerful actor when the following conditions are observed: (1) A central location; (2) A high degree of spatial organisation in waste disposal; (3) A wide range of produced types; (4) An efficient use of raw material.

This may indicate that the craftworker was able to locate the workshop according to his/her preference, that he/she was able to monopolise waste disposal around the workshop; that he/she was able to adapt production in order to a meet a diverse demand, and that he/she had an economic interest in large-scale production. On the other hand, a decentralised location, a limited degree of spatial organisation, (perhaps with unspecialised waste disposal), a narrow range of types produced and an inefficient use of the raw material may indicate the actions of a weak or subordinate craftworker. Such craftworkers may have been unable to select their own working location, unable to avoid other peoples’ waste, unable to take personal decisions about what to produce, and unable to vary their production. The author aims to shed light on these questions, using the presence or absence of traces of spatial control at Viborg Søndersø as signifiers of the relative power of the craftworker, in relation to his contemporaries on site. This will be undertaken through a study of the spatial distribution of production and domestic waste in and around the workshop.

The town and the site

The city of Viborg is situated in the heart of Jutland, where ancient roads connecting Jutland with the rest of Europe cross those leading from the North Sea in the west to the Skagerrak in the east. Its situation at this important communication crossroads meant that Viborg was, from ancient times, a site of power. It was the location of the Jutish ‘thing’, a gathering of the men of all of Jutland, where kings were elected, laws passed and judgements delivered. Viborg had this role from the Iron Age until well into the 17th century. Few written sources remain from Viking-Age Viborg, but the place is mentioned several times in the early 11th century: King Cnut the Powerful (c. AD 995–1035) minted coins here in AD 1018, his son Hardicanute was elected successor here in AD 1027, and Viborg became a bishop’s seat in AD 1065.

Despite its political importance, Viborg has never been a very large town. Around AD 1000, settlement seems to have comprised five or six very large farms and a number of smaller houses. Most of the farms were built on hills close to the ‘thing’ site where the cathedral was subsequently built around AD 1060. However, at least one farm was sited to the east of the town, on a slope running down towards the lake, Søndersø (Hjermind et al. 2005, 558–562). Little is known about this farm, but we do know that the limits of its fenced land extended into the wet, swampy meadows near the lake at the bottom of the hill. It was in this area that a workshop was built in AD 1018, only to be demolished again in AD 1025. It was rebuilt in AD 1026 and finally abandoned around AD 1030. This paper will deal with the waste and artefacts produced here by the craftworker, all of which was found in connection with the first phase of the workshop (Figure 5.1).