{"title":"Reflections on Residences from one Scandinavian Experience","authors":"J. Ljungkvist","doi":"10.1080/00293652.2021.1955410","DOIUrl":null,"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":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Norwegian Archaeological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2021.1955410","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
期刊介绍:
Norwegian Archaeological Review published since 1968, aims to be an interface between archaeological research in the Nordic countries and global archaeological trends, a meeting ground for current discussion of theoretical and methodical problems on an international scientific level. The main focus is on the European area, but discussions based upon results from other parts of the world are also welcomed. The comments of specialists, along with the author"s reply, are given as an addendum to selected articles. The Journal is also receptive to uninvited opinions and comments on a wider scope of archaeological themes, e.g. articles in Norwegian Archaeological Review or other journals, monographies, conferences.