![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
Notes
PrzemysŁaw Urbańczyk, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. E‐mail: [email protected]
Dagfinn Skre, Institute of Archaeology, Conservation and History, University of Oslo, Norway. E‐mail: [email protected]
1. Discrepancy in terminology used by Scandinavian and continental scholars dealing with the late 1st millennium frequently results in misunderstandings.
2. I thank four colleagues from Iceland, Norway and Sweden for their comments on the first version of this text.
3. There is no consistent system of cartographic illustrations. Some chapter authors use maps showing the water level as it was reconstructed for the Viking Age (chapters 1–5) while in one chapter (e.g. 6) all maps reflect contemporary hydrography, in another (e.g. 8) ‘contemporary’ maps indicate ancient sea level and still another (e.g. 7) offers a combination of these two.
4. This is a very strange pan‐Scandinavian concept.
5. My reading of Susan Reynolds' concept, which I discuss further on in this review, is quite different from that presented here.
6. Their number during the 8th and 9th centuries has been recently raised to c. 100 (Müller‐Wille Citation2003).
7. His interpretation of the ‘Danish’ area as a very homogeneous region is not fully convincing.
8. Johan Callmer (Citation2007:248) took ‘revenge’ by calling Kaupang ‘an emporium‐like’ settlement.
9. For example, Heiko Steuer's recent proposal to look for archaeologically identifiable: ‘(1) easily accessible location on inter‐regional routes (by both land and water); (2) a concentration of trading and craft production; (3) a dense population; (4) separation from the surrounding countryside (often by means of a fortification); (5) infrastructure facilities for the inhabitants (such as a systematic layout of plots, a system of roads and paths, open squares for markets, bridges, quays and other port facilities); and (6) specialized building types to meet the needs of craftsmen and merchants (differing from the farm structures required for agricultural use). In addition there are religious or sacred structures’ (Citation2007:134).
10. These are: the presence of a defence system, regular street design, market(s), a mint, juridical autonomy, centrality, substantial size of the population, diversified economy, division into house plots, differentiated society, complex religious organization and central judicial function.
11. Dagfinn Skre claims (pp. 45f.) that his definition is based on two texts published by Susan Reynolds who mentioned at the given pages that ‘a town is a permanent human settlement’ where a ‘significant proportion of its population lives on trade, industry, administration, and other non‐agricultural occupations’, ‘it is likely to serve as some kind of centre for the surrounding area – generally in marketing, possibly in administration’ and ‘it forms a social unit more or less distinct from the surrounding countryside’ (1977: ix–x). In her later paper she suggested a twofold definition: functionally ‘a town is a permanent and concentrated human settlement in which a significant proportion of the population is engaged in non‐agricultural occupations – characteristically in a variety of trades and industries, and probably in some administration, political, and professional work too’; socially ‘inhabitants of towns normally regard themselves, and are regarded by the inhabitants of predominantly rural settlement, as a different sort of people’ (Reynolds Citation1992:49–50).
12. This concept has been developed later. The most recent version may be found in Urbańczyk (in press Citationa).
13. In fact, Reynolds also criticized ‘using the concept of a “bundle of criteria”’ as one of the ‘less useful concepts’ (Citation1992:49) promoted by archaeologists.
14. There is no consistency, however, among the multiple authors of the volume who use different notions to describe the phenomenon of Kaupang: Brink calls it a ‘harbour and trading place’ (p. 64), Stylegar writes about a ‘town‐like settlement’ (p. 66). Only Dagfinn Skre consequently applies the univocal term ‘town’ in all his chapters.
15. A similar, long‐lasting tendency to treat English urban history as something very specific was refuted as ‘a great mistake’ because ‘English towns are much more like the towns of the rest of Europe’ (Reynolds Citation1992:48).
16. There are of course exceptions: for example, a contribution by John Hines Citation(1994).
17. In addition to Urbańczyk, one other reviewer of the first Kaupang volume (Helle Citation2007) has commented on the need for further discussions on centrality – see below.
18. Urbańczyk's blatant accusation (pp. 189–190) of my making manipulative use of Reynolds' texts to achieve what he assumes to be a part of a hidden agenda of mine (‘to push Norwegian urbanism far ahead of the high medieval towns’ and an ‘elevation of the class’ of Kaupang) is of course false.
19. The post‐c. 790 building evidence from Ribe is too meagre to allow any definite conclusion about the buildings' construction, but the presence of post‐holes and clay floors (Feveile Citation2006:35) indicates that they may have been suited for permanent habitation.
20. The figures on average coin loss within periods are not exact but the main trends are clear. For more detail, see the three alternative models for dirham loss at Kaupang in Blackburn (Citation2008:fig. 3.15). Kilger Citation(2008) presents a well‐argued case for a high frequency of dirham loss continuing into the early 930s.
21. Since the completion of the first Kaupang volume, manuscripts on the coin finds have been completed (Blackburn Citation2008, Kilger Citation2008, Rispling et al. Citation2008). This has led me to adjust the dating of the final phases of the Kaupang settlement. In volume 1 I wrote that ‘permanent occupation at Kaupang continued until c. 930 at least, and possibly 20–30 years beyond that’ (Skre Citation2007i:468). From the coin evidence, and taking into account the low precision in the dating of the cemeteries which might actually have an end‐date around 930, I now find that very little indicates permanent settlement at Kaupang beyond that date.
22. The discussion of this theme in volume 1 is limited since it will be further explored in the third Kaupang volume (Skre in prep.).
23. Urbańczyk's claim (p. 181) that the corner‐timbered building has left no wall traces is wrong. There are remains of a stone foundation clearly protruding above the surrounding stones, as well as of a hearth, both of exactly the kinds that such buildings normally had (Skre Citation2007c:243–247, figs 11.21, 11.24).
24. The only way to identify post‐holes would be to dig numerous c. 0.5‐metre‐wide trenches with spacing of less than one metre across the platform – some 20–25 trenches in all –hoping to identify post‐holes in the sections created by the trenches. Such a strategy would be difficult to pursue because of the numerous large stones and because it would involve the total destruction of the platform.
25. Urbańczyk's use (p. 186) of the infamous word ‘manipulations’ in characterizing the analysis of the building remains is surprising. Since he finds a basis for developing a critique of the interpretation, one would think that the evidence is presented in the book in a transparent rather than a manipulative way.
26. I am very curious as to Urbańczyk's empirical basis for claiming that the 10th century saw the emergence in Scandinavia of ‘stable territorial states whose powerful rulers aimed at multi‐directional expansion of political and fiscal control’ (p. 191).
27. Some authors have made this connection before, e.g. Axel Christophersen Citation(1991).
28. In a review of Kaupang volume 1, Hodges (Citation2007:336) sticks to his terminology from 1982 to characterize Kaupang as ‘a gateway community serving an administered dendritic tribal network’.
29. This argument is developed further in a chapter in the recently published Kaupang volume (Skre Citation2008c), concluding with an alternative to Hodges' typology of sites.
30. The ambition to write history is stated in the book's introductory chapter (Skre Citation2007e:24). In addition to Urbańczyk, Søren Sindbæk (2007a) has commented on the choice of narrative in the first Kaupang volume, although in more positive terms.