1,332
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

An Insular Reliquary from Melhus: The Significance of Insular Ecclesiastical Material in Early Viking-Age Norway

&
Pages 53-82 | Published online: 22 Jun 2018
 

Abstract

THIS PAPER presents and discusses a unique insular reliquary shrine discovered in an early 9th-century woman’s grave at Melhus, central Norway, over a century ago. In addition to a detailed re-evaluation of the shrine and its use in its original ecclesiastical context, the paper also proposes an alternative interpretation as to how the local pagan population may have conceptualised this Christian object after it arrived in Norse hands. While most of the insular ecclesiastical items in Scandinavia were broken up and transformed into personal ornaments, the Melhus shrine was kept complete, suggesting it was considered to be of special value. It is argued here that this status should be seen in association with the shrine’s involvement in local narratives and ritual aspects connected with the earliest voyages across the North Sea. The woman with whom the reliquary was buried may have played a central role in these rituals.

Résumé

Un reliquaire insulaire de Melhus et la signification du matériel ecclésiastique insulaire en Norvège, au début de l'Âge des Vikings par Aina Heen-Pettersen et Griffin Murray

Une châsse reliquaire insulaire unique en son genre a été découverte il y a plus d'un siècle, dans la tombe d'une femme datée du début du 9e siècle, à Melhus, dans le centre de la Norvège. Ce papier réexamine en détail cette châsse et son utilisation dans son contexte ecclésiastique d'origine. Nous proposons également une autre interprétation de la manière dont une population païenne locale aurait pu conceptualiser cet objet chrétien, une fois arrivé entre des mains scandinaves. Si les articles ecclésiastiques insulaires en Scandinavie étaient pour la plupart mis en pièces et transformés en ornements individuels, la châsse de Melhus est restée intacte, ce qui suggère qu'on lui conférait une valeur particulière. Nous avançons ici que l'importance de la châsse découle de la place qu'elle occupait au sein des récits locaux et des pratiques rituelles liés aux premières traversées de la mer du Nord. Il est possible que la femme occupant la tombe dans laquelle se trouvait la châsse ait joué un rôle central dans ces rituels.

Zusammenfassung

Ein Inselreliquiar aus Melhus und die Bedeutung von auf Inseln gefundenen kirchlichen Gegenständen im Norwegen des frühen Wikingerzeitalters von Aina Heen-Pettersen und Griffin Murray

Vor über einem Jahrhundert wurde im Grab einer Frau aus dem frühen 9. Jahrhundert in Melhus in Zentralnorwegen ein einzigartiger Insel-Reliquienschrein entdeckt. Der vorliegende Artikel bietet eine detaillierte Neubewertung dieses Schreins und seiner Verwendung in seinem ursprünglichen kirchlichen Kontext. Wir schlagen auch eine alternative Interpretation dafür vor, wie eine lokale heidnische Bevölkerung diesen christlichen Gegenstand vielleicht konzeptualisiert hat, nachdem er in den Händen der Wikinger hier angekommen war. Während die meisten auf Inseln befindlichen kirchlichen Gegenstände in Skandinavien zerlegt und zu persönlichen Schmuckgegenständen umgeformt wurden, hat man den Melhus-Schrein vollständig gelassen, was darauf hindeutet, dass man ihn für besonders wertvoll hielt. Hier wird argumentiert, dass die Bedeutung des Schreins sich aus seinem Platz in lokalen Erzählungen und rituellen Praktiken ableitet, die mit den frühesten Reisen über die Nordsee zusammenhängen. Die Frau, mit der dieser Schrein begraben wurde, hat vielleicht bei diesen Ritualen eine zentrale Rolle gespielt.

Riassunto

Un reliquiario insulare da Melhus e il significato degli oggetti ecclesiastici di arte insulare nella Norvegia del primo periodo vichingo di Aina Heen-Pettersen e Griffin Murray

Una teca reliquiario insulare unica nel suo genere fu rinvenuta più di un secolo fa a Melhus, nella Norvegia centrale, in una tomba femminile dell’inizio del IX secolo. Questo studio offre una completa rivalutazione della teca e dell’uso cui era destinata nel suo contesto ecclesiastico originario. Proponiamo inoltre un’interpretazione alternativa sul come la popolazione pagana locale possa avere concettualizzato questo oggetto cristiano una volta giunto in mani norvegesi. Mentre la maggior parte degli oggetti ecclesiastici di arte insulare in Scandinavia venivano smontati e trasformati in ornamenti personali, la teca di Melhus venne conservata intatta, facendo pensare che le si attribuiva un valore speciale. Qui si sostiene che l’importanza della teca derivava da resoconti locali e da pratiche rituali collegate ai primi viaggi attraverso il Mare del Nord. La donna con la quale fu sepolto il reliquiario potrebbe avere avuto un ruolo centrale in queste pratiche.

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to the two anonymous referees for their constructive and useful feedback. We also wish to thank the following people at the University Museum in Trondheim: Jon Anders Risvaag for access to the artefacts from the Norse graves at Melhus and Setnes; Åge Hojem for the new photography for this paper, and Ellen Randerz for her XRF analysis of the Melhus shrine. Thanks to Anne Pedersen in the National Museum Denmark for access to the ‘Copehagen’ shrine and to Judith Jesch for her advice on its runic inscription. Finally, thanks to Maeve Sikora in the National Museum of Ireland for access to material there.

Notes

3 Housed at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology University Museum: T08144. Here and after T denotes a museum acquisition number for the Norwegian University of Science and Technology University Museum.

4 Blindheim Citation1984. The term house-shaped is retained here because it is a long-established and recognisable term, even if it is likely to be a misnomer. The term tomb-shaped is preferred by some authors and for an argument in its favour see Ó Floinn Citation2013, 209.

5 Including the Melhus shrine: Ó Floinn Citation2015, 291.

6 Petersen Citation1907.

7 Eg Coffey Citation1909, 43; Anderson Citation1909–10, 270–2; Crawford Citation1923, 85–6; Mahr Citation1932, pl 10; Petersen Citation1940, 73–4; Raftery Citation1941, 39, 107, 115, 139; Henry Citation1965, 72, 99; Blindheim Citation1984, 1, 3–4, 6, 8, 10–11, 16, 44; Wamers Citation1985, 91 cat no 12; Youngs Citation1989, 134, no 128; Ó Floinn Citation1989/90, 52–3; Haseloff Citation1990, 168, 198, pl 147; Quast Citation2012.

8 Kopytoff Citation1986.

9 Gosden and Marshall Citation1999, 172–4.

10 Ekengren Citation2009, 29–30.

11 See Eriksen Citation2016, 484–5 for a summary.

12 Eg Joy Citation2009; Lund Citation2009; Aannestad Citation2015; Eriksen Citation2016.

13 Eg Arwill-Nordbladh Citation2007; Citation2013; Hall Citation2015; Danielsson Citation2015; Lund and Arwill-Nordbladh Citation2016.

14 Williams et al Citation2015b, 9.

15 Arwill-Nordbladh Citation2013, 411–12.

16 Price Citation2010, 147.

17 Jones Citation2007; Lund and Arwill-Nordbladh Citation2016, 417–18; Williams Citation2016, 407.

18 See Jones Citation2007.

19 Williams et al Citation2015b, 8–11.

20 Sogness Citation1988.

21 Farbregd Citation1979, 67–8.

22 Petersen Citation1907.

23 T6574-82.

24 Petersen Citation1907, 11–2.

25 Petersen Citation1907, 8.

26 Visually examined January 2018.

27 Rundkvist Citation2010.

28 Ibid, 149–57.

29 Glørstad and Røstad Citation2015, 186–7.

30 T6576.

31 T8139–42, T6578, T6582.

32 Petersen Citation1919, 26.

33 Ibid, 38.

34 Petersen Citation1907, 8.

35 Petersen Citation1919, 89–100.

36 Petersen Citation1907, 7.

37 Blindheim Citation1984, 44; Randerz Citation2014.

38 Ibid. Upon discovery, the terminal was found detached from the shrine and was originally re-attached upside-down—evident in early photographs (Petersen Citation1907, 7, no 2, pl II, fig ). Its orientation has since been corrected (Blindheim Citation1984, fig 39).

39 Randerz Citation2014; Murray Citation2016b, 151; contra Petersen Citation1907, 7.

40 Randerz Citation2014.

41 Murray Citation2016b, 150; see Mullarkey Citation2014, 750–1 for discussion.

42 See Petersen Citation1907, pl II, fig .

43 See Petersen Citation1907, 17; Crawford Citation1923, 85; Raftery Citation1941, 107; Ó Floinn Citation1989/90, 52–3; Blindheim Citation1984, 10.

44 Carroll Citation1995, 49, 53–4, 55.

45 See Bruce-Mitford Citation2005.

46 See Kilbride-Jones Citation1980.

47 Øhrn Citation2015; Murray Citation2012, 539–43.

48 Ò Floinn Citation1989/90, 52–3; cf Youngs Citation1989, 134–40.

49 Ó Floinn Citation2015.

51 Eg Crawford Citation1923, 82; Raftery Citation1941, 55, 154; Lucas Citation1973, 130; Ó Floinn Citation1989/1990, 52.

52 See Murray Citation2014, 106–7.

53 Which, including fragments, have yet to be catalogued in full.

54 Eg Blindheim Citation1984, 2; Ó Floinn Citation2013, 209; Citation2015, 291.

55 Eg Blindheim Citation1984, 3; Ryan Citation1989, 129.

56 Gerace Citation2017, 89–91.

57 Ó Carragáin Citation2010, 24.

58 Eg Blindheim Citation1984; O’Donoghue Citation2011.

59 Ó Floinn Citation2013, 210, tab 1; Citation2015, 301.

60 Kelly Citation1993.

61 Youngs Citation1989, 143–4.

62 Murray Citation2016b, 153–4.

63 Eg Mahr Citation1932; Raftery Citation1941.

64 Youngs Citation1989, 135, no 129.

65 O’Donoghue Citation2011; see also Blackwell Citation2012, 36–8.

66 Ó Floinn Citation2013, 221–2, no 180.

67 Ryan Citation1998.

68 Gerace Citation2017, 88.

69 Murray Citation2017.

70 Forte et al Citation2005, 54; Downham Citation2000.

71 Lucas Citation1967; Etchingham Citation1996.

72 Lucas Citation1967, 180–1; Citation1986, 34; Downham Citation2000.

73 The Annals of Ulster, in Mac Airt and G Mac Niocaill Citation1983, 332–3; Chron Scot, in Hennessy Citation1866, 166–7.

74 Youngs Citation1989, 145.

75 Connolly and Picard Citation1987, 25.

76 Eg Bourke Citation2010; Ó Floinn and Harrison Citation2014, 153–5, 174–7, 202–3; Murray Citation2016a; Wamers Citation1985.

77 Ó Floinn and Harrison Citation2014, 154–5, illus 87, 202–3, illus 127.

78 Bourke Citation2010, 27, figs 18, 23, 25, 26.

79 Murray Citation2016b.

80 See Wamers Citation1985, tab 7; Graham-Campbell and Batey Citation1998, 116, fig 7.2; Ó Floinn and Harrison Citation2014, 155.

81 Lowe Citation2007, 63–5.

82 Eg Blindheim Citation1976, 26; Mikkelsen Citation2002; Zachrisson Citation2004, 167; Nordeide Citation2011, 151–2, 301.

83 See discussion in Murray Citation2015, 108–10; Citation2016a, 177–8.

84 NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet: T18198.

85 Solli Citation1996; Nordeide Citation2011, 142–5.

86 Nordeide Citation2011, 145–52.

87 Solli and Stamnes Citation2013, 190.

88 Murray Citation2016a, 177–8.

89 Eg Sheehan Citation2013, 818–20; Ashby Citation2015, 99–102.

90 Price Citation2010, 145–9; Hedeager Citation2011; Williams et al Citation2015a.

91 Price Citation2010, 145–51.

92 See Jesch Citation2001, 67–107 and Citation2015 for an overview.

93 Jesch Citation2015.

94 Ibid, 326–7.

95 Eg Graham-Campbell Citation2001, 32; Glørstad Citation2014, 167–70; Ashby Citation2015.

96 Following Jesch Citation2006, 264.

97 Arwill-Nordbladh Citation2007; Citation2013.

98 Following Lund and Arwill-Nordbladh Citation2016, 417.

99 See Price Citation2002 or Solli Citation2002 for a detailed discussion of the practice of ‘sidr’.

100 Jørgensen Citation2014, 145–7; Ljungkvist Citation2011, 260–3.

101 Brink Citation2007, 105.

102 Clunies Ross Citation1998, 132–4; Steinsland Citation2005; Jesch Citation2015.

103 Jesch Citation2001, 178; see also Jesch Citation2015.

104 Holtsmark Citation1989; Aannestad Citation2015, 243.

105 Clunies Ross Citation1998, 132.

106 Hagland and Stenvik Citation2008.

107 O’Meadhra Citation1988; Youngs Citation1989, 138–9, no 131; Rosedahl and Wilson Citation1992, 260, no 131.

108 O’Meadhra Citation1988, 4.

109 Olsen Citation1960, 144; Judith Jesch pers comm.

110 Clunies Ross Citation1994, 190.

111 Clunies Ross Citation1998, 138–9.

112 Ibid, 138.

113 See Hedeager Citation2011, 21–30.

114 Nordvig Citation2013, 190–1; Jesch Citation2015.

115 Glørstad and Røstad Citation2015, 189–91.

116 Arrhenius Citation1962; Glørstad and Røstad Citation2015.

117 Arrhenius Citation1962, 97.

118 See Glørstad and Røstad Citation2015, 197–9.

119 Lamn Citation2004, 49.

120 Glørstad and Røstad Citation2015, 195–9.

122 Watt Citation2011, 244–6.

123 Jørgensen Citation2014, 147.

124 See Owen Citation1999, 77–81 for a summary of this discussion.

125 Owen Citation1999, 79.

126 Isaksen Citation2012, 100–4.

127 Stenvik Citation2001; Graham-Campbell Citation2001.

128 Often with reference to Petersen Citation1951, 421–30.

129 Eg Price Citation2002; Gardela Citation2016.

130 Price Citation2002, 175–204.

131 Gosden and Marshall Citation1999, 174–5; Joy Citation2009, 550–4; Hedeager Citation2011, 138.

132 Joy Citation2009, 550–1.

133 See Gyllensvärd Citation2004, 3, fig .

134 Hedeager Citation2015, 153; see also Magnus Citation2004.

135 Following Williams Citation2001, 58–64.

136 Raftery Citation1941, 107.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 311.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.