Iron Age building offerings

(1)

Iron Age building offerings : a contribution to the analysis of a die-hard phenomenon in Swedish preindustrial agrarian society

Paulsson-Holmberg, Tove Fornvännen 92:3/4, 163-175

http://kulturarvsdata.se/raa/fornvannen/html/1997_163

Ingår i: samla.raa.se

(2)

Iron Age building offerings

A contribulion to the analysis of a die-hard phenomenon in Swedish preindustrial agrarian society

By Tove Paulsson-Holmberg

Paulsson-Holmberg, T. 1998. Iron Age building offerings. A contribulion to the analysis of a die-hard phenomenon i Swedish preindustrial agrarian society.

Fornvännen 92. Stockholm.

This paper deals with the interpretation of prehistoric offerings in relation to houses and buildings. Records of such building offerings are, so far, few in Swe- dish archaeology. Presumably this is due to the contextuality of the offerings combined with the humble character of the offering gifts. Further knowledge of the structure of the idea behind the offerings is required to increase the un- derstanding of their importance in the mental culture of Scandinavian prehistoric agrarian society. A similar phenomenon is described in folk belief records from Nordic preindustrial agrarian culture, offerings which sought to effect success and protection for the inhabitants of the farm buildings. An attempt is here made to interpret the existing Iron Age offerings in relation to those performed in historie times. The similarity between the archaeological and the historical records seems to support historie continuity, which confirms the importance of the phenomenon in Scandinavian agrarian culture in premodern times.

This investigation mainly concerns building offerings of an osteological nature. A number of Swedish Iron Age offerings are discussed in relation to the general building offering tradition. Some circumstances indicating offering are presented, intended as guidelines for future excavators.

Tove Paulsson-Holmberg, Institute ofArchaeohgy, University of Lund, Sandgatan 1, SE- 223 50 Lund, Sweden

Archaeological remains by their nature convey a limited, i n c o m p l e t e picture of the past.

Among the most important questions to be put to a material are therefore those c o n c e r n i n g representativity. How and to what extent have a category of finds been favoured or disfavoured by the circumstances of their preservation a n d the m e t h o d s used d u r i n g exeavation? T h e traces of the past are filtered t h r o u g h t h e senses of the archaeologist to the d e t r i m e n t of finds that are less significant a n d h a r d e r to interpret than others. In the e n d this leads to a situation where finds defined mainly by their

context may "disappear" if they are investigated by an archaeologist unaware of the p h e n o m - e n o n in question.

I shall here discuss a category of finds which is both little known, h e t e r o g e n e o u s a n d highly contextual. My view is that increased informa- tion on the subject may h e l p considerably to increase the total n u m b e r of finds.

T h e investigation c o n c e r n s a material of

"mental" character. I wish to stress the possibility, provided certain conditions prevail, of using ethnological-historical sources to inter- p r e t prehistoric p h e n o m e n a . T h e r e are

Fornvännen 92(1997)

(3)

reasons to believe that certain concepts belonging to the folk belief of Swedish preindustrial agrarian society originate from pre-Chris- tian times. Old systems of belief may have survived centuries of transformations since they accounted for the everyday conditions in a relatively stade culture.

Finds of animal b o n e s from houses a n d settlements are usually i n t e r p r e t e d as food refuse. But when single bones or collections of bones are recovered from inside a building or in c o n n e c t i o n with various e l e m e n t s of construction, they may be interpreted in a totally different a n d m o r e complicated way. It is possible that they are traces of offerings to t h e building in question.

T h e building offering is a universal magico- religious p h e n o m e n o n which has existed in many forms in various cultures (Talos 1987, pp.

395 f.). T h e theory b e h i n d the offering is the belief that buildings can be endowed with wealth a n d magic protection by placing gifts at significant positions in their structure.

J u d g i n g by the a b u n d a n c e of ethnological records ( H a u g e 1965; Paulsson 1993), t h e building offering tradition was widespread in Sweden d u r i n g the period of dissolution of the preindustrial agrarian culture in the late nine- t e e n t h century. It possessed universality a n d i m p o r t a n c e t h r o u g h its connection with various central concepts related to t h e everyday economics of this old peasant society: concepts of g o o d a n d evil, success, misfortune, health and ill-health. Presumably, the origin of these offerings is to be found in an older tradition which may be of prehistoric date. I shall below argue for this thesis of continuity, and describe a selection of known Iron Age building offerings from Swedish territory in relation to the late tradition.

Previous research

T h e North-European historical tradition con- cerning building offerings is fairly well known a n d has already been used by historians to interpret single archaeological finds. A selection of papers used for this summary is q u o t e d below.

Iron Age building offerings in general were

analyzed by Torsten Capelle in Eiscnzeitliche Bauopfer (1987). Capelle describes a n u m b e r of N o r t h - E u r o p e a n offerings in relation to hill- forts, buildings, roads, walls a n d wells. H e in- cludes some Scandinavian examples. T h e summary clearly shows t h e complex, a m b i g u o u s nature of die p h e n o m e n o n and stresses the im- p o r t a n c e of further research on the subject.

In D e n m a r k , the well-preserved Iron Age houses have p r o d u c e d a n u m b e r of different building offerings, from t h e excavations of G u d m u n d Hatt in the 1930's (Hatt 1938, p p . 185, 195, 236, 257 f.) to t h e investigation of H o d d e in 1985 (Hvass 1985, p p . 111 £ ) .

In Norway, Bj0rn Myhre recendy developed Anders H a g e n ' s research on the subject of Stone Age artefacts used as protection against i n u n d e r in Norwegian Iron Age houses (Myhre 1988).

Swedish archaeologists have also con- tributed to t h e knowledge of the prehistoric building offering tradition. Per Karsten has thoroughly (1994) described a n d analyzed the p h e n o m e n o n in relation to South Scandin- avian Neolithie houses. A m o n g earlier works, Margareta Beskow-Sjöberg is particularly p r o m i n e n t in h e r analysis of house offerings from the Iron Age sites Sörby Tall and Bo on Ö l a n d (1977). Per Ramqvist uses a similar interpretation for the finds of e q u i n e teeth in a Migration period house in Genesmon, Ånger- m a n l a n d (1983). Post-hole offerings of vessels have been observed in Iron Age houses from Halland (Carlie 1992) a n d Skåne (Björhem &

Säfvestad 1993). At the Birka excavations, an entire collection of offering gifts of selected bones a n d piéces of metal was recovered from a house foundation from the t e n t h c e n t u r y (Ambrosiani & Erikson 1993).

This s u m m a r y does n o t d a i m to cover all known Swedish prehistoric building offerings, and several d o c u m e n t e d examples could probably now be a d d e d to the list. Still, die n u m b e r of prehistoric houses with recovered building offerings falls short of the expected, if the custom was as widespread in prehistoric Urnes as in the last years of the preindustrial rural society.

I am convinced that only a fraction of the offerings performed have come to light, and that Fornvännen 92(1997)

(4)

Iron Age buMing offerings 165 if knowledge of the p h e n o m e n o n were wide-

spread, the n u m b e r of registered finds would sharply increase.

T h e reason for this conviction is t h e connection between the c o n c e p t of building offering and a certain, characteristic mental universe belonging to the Nordic Iron Age agrarian culture. To u n d e r s t a n d this relationship we have to investigate the m e a n i n g of building offerings p e r f o r m e d by Swedish peasants in historie times.

77ig building offering in preindustrial Swedish agrarian society

In chronicles from preindustrial Swedish agrarian culture a stränge custom is described: animals, dead or alive, single parts of their bodies, vessels, piéces of iron a n d coins were buried or h i d d e n in relation to building construetions.

T h e action was described by the informants as part of the eternal efforts to preserve t h e farm's luck: to ensure growth and to avoid misfortune (Hauge 1965, p p . 76 ff, 83 ff, 96 ff;

Paulsson 1993, p p . 13 ff). Magical means a n d rituals were the c o m m o n m e t h o d s used to ensure prosperity a n d protection for t h e indi- vidual household.

This idea is c o n n e c t e d to the very core of t h e mental universe of peasant societies: the concept that the sum ofall economical growth is constant, while t h e division varies (Foster 1965, p . 296). According to this belief, as long as there are extremely rich individuals, there will be abjecdy p o o r people to balance the system. Wealth a n d poverty must both exist as a way of things. And since the idea of the limited good excludes general economical growth, it implies that the success of your neighbours is always at your expense.

T h e foundation of this philosophy was the balance between the two concepts success and envy. Success r e p r e s e n t e d the growth, wealth a n d health of t h e h o u s e h o l d ; envy the force which t h r e a t e n e d to r o b the farm of these benefits. Envy was bdieved to work through envious thoughts which were materialized in various actions (evil t h o u g h t , evil eye a n d evil h a n d ) , a n d as such it was an i n s t r u m e n t with which unsuccessful p e o p l e could seek

vengeance on the successful (Hastrup 1992, p.

246). Envy somehow existed outside the indi- vidual—it was able to "attack" a person so that he or she, unconsciously or consciously, exer- cised its evil influence.

T h e theory of the power of envy was generally used to explain s u d d e n , u n e x p e c t e d diseases, deaths a n d accidents (Hastrup 1992, pp.

248 ff.). T h e neutralization of t h e bad influence of envy had greatest priority, a n d a wide variety of precautions were taken to achieve and maintain magical protection. T h e building offering was only o n e of these preventive meas- ures. All these p r e c a u t i o n s were rational actions p e r f o r m e d by persons b d i e v i n g in t h e d a n g e r o u s n a t u r e of envy a n d t h e power of harmful t h o u g h t s , a n d they are profoundly c o n n e c t e d with the every-day economics in a cattle-breeding peasant society. T h e idea that a hard-working a n d successful person is somehow "stealing" from the c o m m o n g o o d is as alien to Christian belief, as is the theory of a limited g o o d (Raudvere 1993, p . 51). Since these concepts obviously seem to be un-Chris- tian in origin, we must seek their roots in earlier phases of Nordic peasant societies. Is it possible that the historie ideas belonged to a pre-historic mentality which survived the change of religion in the late Viking Age a n d was preserved in the mental culture of the Me- dieval and Postmedieval peasant societies?

Catharina Raudvere, who has studied folk belief conceptions of the mara (nightmare) in preindustrial Nordic agrarian culture, appears to prove continuity in her material from pre- Christian times to the e n d of t h e n i n e t e e n t h century (Raudvere 1993, pp. 297 f.). Interest- ingly e n o u g h , t h e essence of t h e a m b i g u o u s concept of mara (a supranatural female being who attacks a n d t o r m e n t s m e n a n d cattle by night) is in fact a belief in incarnate envy. T h e t e r r o r of t h e mara was a real fear of evil thoughts of envious neighbours and the h a r m which they could inflict on t h e health a n d wealth of the entire household.

T h e connection between this p h e n o m e n o n and the world to which the building offering was related is obvious. Apart from Raudvere, other historians have succeeded in linking the

(5)

Fig. 1. Building offering obviously for protection: an owl nailed ug above the entrance door to a stable at Måns Jofs, Österbotten in Finland, 1916. (From Raudvere 1993.) - Byggnadsoffer med skyddskarak- tär: en uggla uppspikad över dörren till ett stall på Måns Jofs, Österbotten, Finland 1916.

mental universe of the last days of the preindustrial rural society with concepts from Me- dieval a n d prehistoric Urnes. For instance, the ritualistic hospitality well-known from the Nordic Viking Period and the Middle Ages is considered by some historians as a way of pla- caUng p o o r a n d "unsuccessful" visitors to the farm, and diereby nullifying dieir envy (Sehms- d o r f 1988, p p . 35 f.).

T h e building offering might be u n d e r s t o o d as an a t t e m p t to bribe fortune, a way to frighten incarnate envy away from the vicinity of your household. T h e acUon aimed to endow the farm in general a n d the buildings in par- ticular with b e n e v o l e n t resistance. Con- sequently, the gifts were placed at criucal positions in the building: u n d e r t h e threshold, above die front door, inside or u n d e r die öven, or u n d e r the floor in the middle of the house (Fig. 1; Paulsson 1993, p p . 15 ff). They were part of a raUonal economical calculaUon which

was p e r f o r m e d to protect the peasant's most precious property—his domestie animals.

We might find it acceptable that the building offering, as it appears in the n i n e t e e n t h century records, was firmly c o n n e c t e d to the economy of a certain rural society, as it was related to c e n u a l problems in its conception of the world: problems of good a n d evil, health a n d illness, richness and poverty. Moreover, if this mental universe is idenufed in d o c u m e n t s from the Early Middle Ages, it may be possible to state that the n i n e t e e n t h century customs are part of a long, i m p o r t a n t tradition, origin- ally from pre-Christian times. T h e discovery a n d analysis of building offerings from the years 800 to 1900 may well help us to prove this possible condnuity.

Construction offerings in prehistoric times

Rituals connected to die consUuction of buildings are universal and diverse, and it is difficult to establish limits in either space or time. Earl- ier I suggested that the building offering tradition from the late agrarian society in Seandin- avia should be explained in c o h e r e n c e with a mental system known as the "economy of success" (Hastrup 1992). Early indications of phe- n o m e n a related to this idea of the world in the Nordic countries occur in the Icelandic Sagas (Raudvere 1993, p p . 64 ff). But building offerings are found in m u c h older North Euro- pean archaeological contexts. Sacrifieial finds in houses date at least from the Mesolithic Age

(Karsten 1994, p . 149). We are faced with a custom which may be of considcrable age and significance.

Presumably, the idea of magic house protection has been so suongly associated with the important, continual consUuction of buildings that it has persisted without major changes t h r o u g h millennia of agrarian history. Since it was tied to everyday economics in a relatively static rural society, a n d magical rather dian religious, it easily survived even official changes in religion. It may be interpreted in the same way as the long-Iived idea of water-logged deposits of weapons (Bradley 1990): a lasUng con- cepUon, ambiguous in form, c o n t e n t a n d im- p o r t a n c e t h r o u g h o u t centuries of existence.

Fornvännen 92 (1997)

(6)

Iron Age building offerings 167 I believe however that some variations in the

form and significance of the offering are connected to major or m i n o r changes in die everyday economics of the society in question. So far, the traces of offerings from Neolithie a n d Bronze Age houses are relatively few. Obviously this may be d u e to o u r inability to find them.

But it may also reflect a m i n o r interest in the general p e r f o r m a n c e of magical protection rites in the farm buildings. T h e n u m b e r of offerings appears to increase at the beginning of the Iron Age (Capelle 1987, p . 183). Naturally this c h a n g e may somehow reflect t h e multiplicity of well-preserved Iron Age houses. But since the North-European offerings from this age also alter their c o n t e n t , from mainly weapons and vessels to remains of animals, it is possible that the increase is d u e to a change in the everyday concepts of the world, a change which enlarged the significance of t h e tradi- tional building offering. But why would such an interest e m e r g e at this m o m e n t ?

I believe that the importance a n d develop- m e n t of the building offering in the Early Iron Age may be c o n n e c t e d with a c o n t e m p o r a n - eous, major c h a n g e in animal breeding—the inuoduetion of cowsheds. Stabling arose for cli- matological reasons (Lepiksaar 1986, p . 65), but soon showed distinct economic advantages.

Increased c o n u o l över the life and breeding of the animals gave secondary produets such as milk, cheese a n d wool a greater role in household economics (Myrdal 1988, p . 195). T h e possibility of collecting and using m a n u r e p r o m o t e d the transformation of the cultural landscape initiated by the i n t r o d u c t i o n of iron (tools) 400-300 B.C. (Myrdal 1988, p . 196).

Fields and farms became more p e r m a n e n t and were s u r r o u n d e d by meadows and pasture-land p r o d u c i n g food for the stabled animals.

This increased economic sUess u p o n cattie- breeding must have been reflected in the life- style. T h e change m a d e the animals live close to man, often in the same house; the inhabitants of the farm had daily contact widi them, and they were probably considered as "family members". T h e well-being and comfort of the animals was the foundation u p o n which the success of the h o u s e h o l d rested. An offering

i n t e n d e d to bribe fortune to increase the success of the farm by conferring magical protection on t h e buildings in which the livestock were kept seems like a logical c o n d u s i o n of a culture which b d i e v e d that envious and harmful t h o u g h t s constitute d a n g e r o u s powers which may work at a distance, a n d that com- m o n animal diseases are t h e visible result of neighbour's malice and envy.

T h e "new" agrarian economy and cultural landscape of the Iron Age explain t h e increased i m p o r t a n c e of building offerings. A similar pattern is visible in the late Neolithie Age where an increase of offerings direcdy connected to the farm buildings seems to coincide with a more static habitation sUucture (Karsten 1994, p. 165). T h e n i n e t e e n t h century chronicles reveal a close connection between die idea of building offerings and the concern for livestock. It was mainly the domestie animals, n o t t h e inhabitants of the farm, which were pro- tected by different magical precautions. It is likely that this concern was the reason for the building offering in prehistoric times as well.

T h e socio-economic sUuctures of this agrarian society that s u p p o r t e d an interest in magic house protection were—from the beginning in the Early Iron Age until the decline at the e n d of last century—the relatively p e r m a n e n t habitation structure, the emphasis on the unity of the farm and the household, the strong connection between everyday work a n d the indi- vidual farm and the new status of die domestie animals as family members.

Identification

If we assume that the mental culture to which the concept of building offerings belongs dates at least from the earliest days of die Iron Age, its survival indicates that it must have reflected i m p o r t a n t , constant values accepted in t h e North E u r o p e a n agrarian society. J u d g i n g by the general character of the p h e n o m e n o n and its die-hard, a m b i g u o u s n a t u r e , it must have b e e n fairly c o m m o n in both prehistoric a n d Medieval times. Yet few finds of offerings are registered from Swedish archaeological a n d historical contexts. I believe this is mainly d u e to the fact that most house offering gifts are

(7)

Fig. 2. Posthole with deposit of sheep bones from Viking Age Löddeköping, Skåne.

Foto LUHM. - Stolphål med depå av extremitetsben av får från det vikingatida Löddeköpinge i Skåne.

plain a n d therefore difficult to identify in the field. This is particularly Uue of offerings of animals, i.e. skeletal material which represents parts of a sacrificed body. Offerings of vessels, Stone Age artefacts and coins are m o r e easily recognized as they stånd out m o r e distinctly in house contexts than single animal bones. In all cases however, an offering is distinguished t h r o u g h its position in the building structure.

This means that a suspected offering must in some way be directly connected lo a building structure.

If a relationship cannot be proved archaeo- logically, we have to question the offering context. As Capelle points out, an animal burial

found outside a house foundation should not necessarily be interpreted as a sacrifice to the building (Capelle 1987, p. 189). T h e r e is also a large g r o u p of offerings which could never be Uaced in archaeological contexts: all sacrifieial gifts which may have been h u n g in different ways in the roof or över front doors, e.g. birds of prey, animal heads a n d different artefacts

(rf-Fig. 1).

T h e position in the building structure is the principal criterion which indicates a building offering. T h e offerings may be found inside or u n d e r wall construetions, in or u n d e r h e a r t h s and ovens, in post-holes or u n d e r floors and in- teriör pavings. All positions have o n e thing in

(8)

Iron Age building offerings 169 c o m m o n : they are seakd at a given moment in the

construction.

T h e choice of position seems to be deter- m i n e d by the intention of the offering in question. T h e nature of building offerings is float- ing, diverse a n d complicated. Capelle, who has studied some sixty building offerings from North-European Iron Age avoids general Solu- tions a n d requests further research (Capelle 1987, p. 204). T h e quantity of concepts linked with the p h e n o m e n o n severly hinders the dassification of subgroups. T h e historical material shows a great heterogeneity in form a n d con- tent of the offerings, and a similar variety is reflected in the archaeological finds. Regarding the osteological offering gifts, the wide variation in the selected parts of the sacrificed bodies shows us that the offerings can be interpreted either as p u r e animal sacrifices, ordinary food offerings or s o m e t h i n g in between.

A m o n g the various prehistoric offering gifts we may discern the features of both the purposes of the offerings in historie times, i.e. to increase the success and to scare away evil. Be- tween those two groups a rich variety of com- binations is found.

T h e first g r o u p can be defined as a kind of fertility offerings. It consists of vessels with or without contents a n d limbs of i m p o r t a n t domestie animals, often found inside h e a r t h con- sUuctions or in post-holes holding load-bear- ing posts (Fig. 2; Capelle 1987, p . 204).

T h e threshold plays a significant role for the second g r o u p of offerings which were primarily i n t e n d e d to confer magical protection on the building. They often consist of entire bodies or parts of bodies buried under, or in the vicinity of, the entrance (Capelle 1987, p. 204).

T h e two groups represent the extremes of the diversified nature of the building offering, and are to be understood as models of t h o u g h t rather than two actual sorts of offering. T h e in- dividual offering at any given point must have been performed with respect to the entire con- tent of the concept.The limits between fertility and protection offerings in the nineteenth century c h r o n i d e s are vague, a n d it is likely that this vagueness existed in prehistoric times as well. I argue that the ambiguous, complex

character of the building offering concept is its most i m p o r t a n t quality and o n e of the major reasons for believing in a long historical continuity.

Despite the objection r e g a r d i n g the possibility of dassification of building offerings, some features are still visible which may assist the archaeologist's interpretation. T h e choice of gift is one. Even t h o u g h it may vary widdy, it seems that the selection of the gift is somehow linked to certain locations. Offerings of vessels seem to be c o n n e c t e d mainly with fertility.

They are usually chosen from everyday ce- ramics a n d tend to be small a n d plain. They may be found walled into hearths a n d ovens as in 0 s t e r b 0 l l e , Jylland (Hatt 1938, p p . 185 f., 195) or u n d e r walls and in post-holes as in various Danish Iron Age houses. A m o n g the vessels found in post-holes are specifically manu- factured miniatures, which particularly show the dimension of symbolism in this choice of gift, i.e. the vessel as m e t a p h o r for wealth and plenty (Jacobsen & Lorentzen 1986, p p . 8 f.).

Sacrificed bones are m o r e difficult to interpret than vessels, Stone Age artefacts and other objects. O n e way of discerning them is by their state of preservation. When entire u n b u r n e d skeletons and when single elements are found, the bones should be "untouched". This is d u e to the logic and m e a n i n g of the offering gift.

T h e bodies were presumably sacrificed with a view to their "magical survival" as guardians of the building in question.

Single b o n e s , especially crania or c a n n o n bones, may be h i d d e n for the same p u r p o s e . Collections of bones may be remains of limbs sacrificed in accordance with the logic of the vessels, fertility offerings of m e a t which were i n t e n d e d to create wealth for the household.

Species-criteria are probably less useful of interpretation of skeletal building offerings. In historie c h r o n i d e s as well as in the archaeological finds domestie animals ofall kinds occur. Neverthdess a predomination of edible animals may be expected in the gift-offering category a n d , p e r h a p s , of non-edible in t h e guardian category. I also find it likely that some single h u m a n bones recovered from habitation contexts could b e l o n g to the latter category.

(9)

Fig. 3. Sheep and cattle bones from an Iron Age house foundation at Bo, Bredsätra parish, Öland.

Photo ATA. - Extremitets- ben av får och nöt från en husgrund från järnåldern i Bo, Bredsätra sn, Öland.

T h e identification of building offerings of bones naturally d e p e n d s on careful exeavation techniques a n d sensible t r e a t m e n t of osteological material in general. Remains of offerings may not differ at first sight from the ordinary h o u s e h o l d refuse in habitation layers. It is therefore crucial that the archaeologist be aware of the circumstances indicative of offering.

Large, well-preserved bones of u n e x p e c t e d species—cat, bird of prey, m a n — i n short all bones which are incongruous or differ from the expected should be observed and described carefully. Even more important is the close investigation of all bones recovered from inside or under sealed elements of construction.

I shall exemplify the discussion by describ- ing a n u m b e r of possible building offerings from Swedish Iron Age contexts with stress on the circumstances which supported a ritual interpretation.

Swedish Iron Age buibiing offerings

T h e following examples concern only building offerings of osteological material. As a r g u e d earlier, this g r o u p reflects only o n e aspect of

the rich a n d diverse concepts related to the building offering. I have so far only briefly studied finds of Stone Age artefacts a n d coins in building offering contexts even t h o u g h these gifts at first may seem as m o r e obvious protection and fertility offerings than any body part or vessel. But it is my wish to widen the c o n t e n t of the building offering beyond the clear cases towards its multiplicity of forms.

T h e increased n u m b e r of building offerings of skeletal material during the North-European Iron Age may, as shown earlier, n o t be coincid- ental, b u t mirrors how the introduction of a new agrarian e c o n o m y altered t h e c u r r e n t everyday concepts of magic house protection.

I find it likely that the key to this renewed interest was t h e innovation of stabling the animals: a practice which came to stress a firmer c o n n e c t i o n between the farm buildings a n d the household m e m b e r s (animals). If this belief is true the offering may theoretically have been p e r f o r m e d in all buildings that housed m e n o r animals.

First I consider t h r e e cases where the unusual position of certain skeletal elements sup- p o r t e d their i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as deliberate de-

Fornvännen 92 (1997)

(10)

Iron Age buibiing offerings 171 posits. All three were interpreted as sacrifieial

by the excavators a n d are primarily related to the fertility aspect of the building offering.

A trench in the outer wall construction of a Migration Period house in Genesmon, Ånger- m a n l a n d , b r o u g h t to light a collection of e q u i n e teeth. T h e teeth lay u n t o u c h e d in situ, without any connection to the remaining b o n e refuse of the foundation.

Per Ramqvist interpreted die find as a building offering in accordance with the c o m m o n N o r t h - E u r o p e a n historie tradition of e q u i n e skulls h i d d e n in house foundations. H e suggested that the p h e n o m e n o n reflected a "more or less general North-European custom in early Iron Age" (Ramqvist 1983, p . 89).

In house foundations at Sörby Tall (Gärds- lösa parish) a n d Bo (Bredsätra parish) Iron Age sites on Ö l a n d , stränge collections of bones were recovered from post-holes and pits below floorlevd. In the oldest phase of house II in Sörby Tall several bones of sheep emerged in three post-holes, together "framing" the house limits (Beskow-Sjöberg 1977, p. 20). T h e pattern resembles the placing of miniature vessels in selected post-holes in Danish Iron Age houses (Jacobsen & Lorentzen 1986, p . 9 ) . Identical finds of sheep bones came to light in a house in Bo, as well as a d e e p pit u n d e r the central h e a r t h filled with s h e e p a n d cattle bones, vertically placed in the dark soil (Fig. 3;

Beskow-Sjöberg 1977, p. 118).

T h e b o n e collections differed radically from the ordinary mäss of animal bone-refuse which was recovered from the sites. According to the osteologist "the m e a t had n o t b e e n removed from the b o n e s before they were d e p o s i t e d "

(Beskow-Sjöberg 1977, p . 121). Entire limbs of sheep and cattle had actually been forced into the post-holes. No other interpretation than offering was feasible. Beskow-Sjöberg b d i e v e d that the bones were remains of some kind of fertility offering, rather than p u r e animal sacrifices. She suggested that a sort of "initiation offering has taken place to confirm a successful life in the new house" (Beskow-Sjöberg 1977, p.

121).

A very similar find came to light in a pit- house at t h e Viking Age settlement in Löd-

deköpinge in Skåne. Large bones from the ex- tremities of sheep a p p e a r e d in o n e of the post- holes, placed in a way which was difficult to explain in practical terms. In this case too, t h e b o n e s seem to have b e e n deposited with the meat still left on t h e m . T h e excavator interpreted the find as "a sort of building offering"

(Ohlsson 1976, p. 81).

Single h u m a n bones in house foundations are normally assumed to represent an u n e x p e c t e d species. Yet they may appear in certain prehistoric house foundations, far from burial grounds and grave contexts. I believe that some of these bones were deliberately deposited, and are presumably to be i n t e r p r e t e d as a sort of protection offering. T h e following two examples are related to this tradition.

In o n e h o u s e at the Migration Period site Vallhagar, Gotland, h u m a n bones were found inside and u n d e r floor levd. Eighteen piéces of a femur were placed next to t h e central hearth, and next to o n e of the post-holes of the entrance, a tibia (Nylén & Nylén 1955, p . 164).

No explanation was given for their presence in the house foundation.

It is hardly likely that h u m a n bones consti- tuted a n o r m a l feature in the floor-filling of a house, n o r could they be ordinary food refuse.

When there are n o Uaces of earlier graves in the habitation area, a n d the bones a p p e a r at typical building offering positions, we may sus- pect that they were deliberately deposited in accordance with the wish to confer a powerful protection on the building. In the case of the Vallhagar building, this explanation seems valid.

T h e r e are o t h e r examples which s u p p o r t the connection between single h u m a n bones in house contexts and the concept of the building offering. A central foundation trench between two houses in Birka yielded an entire collection of offering gifts. A m o n g these gifts was an unusually large h u m a n scapula (Ambrosiani

& Erikson 1993, p. 15). T h e general selection of objects—a bovine skull with preserved h o r n - cores, several so-called amulet rings and bones from the wings of an eider—as well as their position in the building structure, strongly sup-

(11)

ported a magical interpretation (Ambrosiani &

Erikson 1993, p p . 15 f.).

Bones and bodyparts in houses—some refledions T h e offerings of h u m a n and animal remains in relation to buildings may conseqently have a very long history in Swedish p r e i n d u s u i a l agrarian society. T h e explanations given in the n i n e t e e n t h century c h r o n i d e s are rational in relation to their context; the offerings were in- t e n d e d to prevent the materializations of envious thoughts. T h e sacrificed being was in some way b d i e v e d to b e c o m e a guardian for the house in question (Hauge 1965, pp. 11, 99f). It is i m p o r t a n t to note that this transformation was possible for single bones as well as for entire skeletons; i.e., a single b o n e might be suf- ficient to "house" the spirit of a dead creature.

Scandinavian folk belief shows many examples of this concept. T h e most noteworthy is per- haps the strong belief in t h e power of t h e bones of dead h u m a n s in both medicine a n d magic. Interestingly e n o u g h , this power was ex- t e n d e d also to animal remains. People with extraordinary gifts could create "living" creatures from a single well-preserved b o n e . In a note on how to create guardians for h i d d e n treasures the p r o c e d u r e is described:

förr i världen kunde de med den ledes makt ta ett ben utav vad djur som helst och lägga ner det vid så- dana medel och säga till det: Vakta nu här, till jag kommer igen! Och kom det någon och ville ta med- len, så blev det av benet ett såddet djur, som benet var av, och skrämde eller fördärvade den. (Hauge 1965, p. 103.)

T h e logic of such a story is based on the belief that the soul is somehow tied to the body, even after death. This leads naturally to a sUong concern for the place where the body is buried. By burying a body, or part of a body, in the vicinity of a place which n e e d e d a guardian, the living could exploit the extraordinary powers of the dead for their own purposes.

T h e connection between houses and graves in prehistoric Seandinavia is an e n o r m o u s topic, which I have n o intention of discussing h e r e . I believe however that the c o n c e p t of building offerings and sacrifices is somehow related to the idea of the grave symbol, and that

this connection in many ways confirms the importance of the p h e n o m e n o n in both prehistoric and historie times. Capelle describes several examples of h u m a n graves found in North- European Iron Age building offering contexts (Capelle 1987, p p . 185 ff, 191, 197, 204 f.).

Many of these are c o n n e c t e d to major forti- fications, a n d a g o o d few are graves of small children. Yet the division between o r d i n a r y grave and offering is ambiguous and h ä r d to d e t e r m i n e , a n d presumably, we n e e d m o r e knowledge before it is possible to draw any general conclusions.

T h e sacrifice of domestie animals in o r d e r to create magical guardians for buildings is presumably the most obvious example of general building offerings. We have today n o certain finds of animal burials related to Swedish Iron Age house contexts. O n the continent, graves of domestie animals have been found in houses from the Early Iron Age a n d beyond (Capelle

1987, p p . 189, 194 f.). T h e r e are indications in the historie c h r o n i d e s that animals which normally served as guardians, dögs or cats, have been m o r e c o m m o n in this category of offerings than edible domestie animals ( H a u g e

1965, p. 100). T h e archaeological records support this theory. Dögs are in majority a m o n g the entire bodies buried in offering contexts inside houses in prehistoric times. In Denmark as well as on the Continent, buried dögs have been found in pits by the entrance of Iron Age houses. They are generally interpreted as protection offerings (Albrechtsen 1946, p p . 9 ff;

Capelle 1987, p p . 194, 204; Kjaer 1928, p. 19).

Conclusions

T h e use of h u m a n or animal remains to serve magic purposes was most likely of considcrable age a n d importance in the preindustrial agrarian society. As building offering gifts they show the sacrifieial aspect of magical house protection in a clear a n d fascinating way.

T h e possibility of tracing a p h e n o m e n o n with the qualities of the building offering in archaeological contexts o p e n s u p wide perspect- ives for the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of ancient mental concepts. T h e custom in itself was not an iso- lated belief, b u t part of a m e n t a l universe

(12)

Iron Age building offerings 173 which was characterized by die belief in limited

wealth a n d the fear of t h e power of evil thoughts. T h e idea of die building offering was closely tied to cenUal concepts in this idea of the world: the nature of evil, division of means a n d resources a n d t h e origins of diseases. We may assume that the presence of building offerings in prehistoric times indicates the preval- ence of an idea of the world based on the complex of success and envy concepts.

It is my belief that this mental complex dates at least from the Early Iron Age, and that it may be closely related to the typical Iron Age agrarian economy. Finds of building offerings from the years 800-1900 are n e v e r t h d e s s necessary to confirm t h e historical continuity. More analyses of finds will also enable us to under- stand and describe regional and chronological variations.

What can be d o n e to increase the n u m b e r of registered prehistoric a n d Medieval building offerings of an osteological nature and thereby o u r knowledge of the p h e n o m e n o n ?

D u r i n g t h e exeavation of a building foundation, attention should be given to all osteological finds which stånd o u t from their context by unusual state of preservation, unusual composition or unusual species-possession.

Every such find should be carefully investigated in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e whether the find site was or had been an inaccessible location in the original building consUuction.

Parts of a building structure which are preserved in a sealed state—a walled h e a r t h or öven, a paved floor or the lower regions of a post-hole—should always be exposed a n d investigated with respect to this "insignificant"

category of finds. If the archaeologist fails to see the context in the field, it may be imposs- ible to reconstruct it afterwards. T h e building offerings are mainly contextual finds. Outside their contexts, the small and plain, ordinary offering gifts are härd to interpret. T h e most im- p o r t a n t work is always d o n e in the field.

It is to be h o p e d that future research will provide us with a n u m b e r of new finds, which will help us to u n d e r s t a n d in greater detail the rich variety of concepts linked to this p h e n o m -

References

Albrechtsen, E. 1946. Fyns bebyggelse i den aeldre Jernalder. Aarbeger for Nordisk OUkyndighet og Histo-

rie, pp. 1-71. Köpenhamn.

Ambrosiani, B. & Erikson B.-G. 1993. Birka - vikinga- staden, 3. Stockholm.

Beskow, M. 1966. Rapport över arkeologiska under- sökningar av ett boplatsområde å Bo 1. 5 N och Bo 1. 5 S, Bredsätra sn, Öland 1965-66. Del 1:

Text, schakt, planer, fotografier.

Beskow-Sjöberg, M. 1977. The Archaeology of Skede- mosse, 4. Stockholm.

Björhem, N. 8c Säfvestad, U. 1993. FosieIV. Bebyggelsen under brons- och jämåUier. Malmöfynd 6. Malmö.

Bradley, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms. An archaeohgicat analysis of prehisloric hoards and votive deposits.

Cambridge.

Capelle, T. 1987. Eiscnzeitliche Bauopfer. Fruhmittel- alterliche Studien. Jahrbuch des Instituts fiirFriihmit- tetalterforschung der Universität Munster 21. Band.

Berlin.

Carlie, L. 1992. Brogård - ett brons- och jämåUerskom- plex i södra Haltand: dess kronologi och struktur.

Lund.

Foster, G.-M. 1965. Peasant Society and the Image of the Limited Good. American Anthropohgist, 67no 2, s. 293-315. Menasha.

Hastrup, K. 1992. Lykkens okonomi. Den nordiske vert- den. K. Hastrup 8c O. Löfgren eds., pp. 240-257.

Köpenhamn.

Hatt, G. 1938. Jernalderens bopladser i Himmerland.

Aarböger fiir Nordisk OUkyndighet og Historie, pp.

119-266. Köpenhamn.

Hauge, H.-E. 1965. Levande begravd elhr bränd i nor- diskfolkmedicin. Stockholm.

Hvass, S. 1985. Hodde: et vestjysk landsbysamfund fra addre jernaUler. Köpenhamn.

Jacobsen,J.-A. & Lorentzen, A.-H. 1986. Usynlige hu- sefaeller. Skalk 2/85, pp. 8-10. Århus.

Karsten, P. 1994. Att kasta yxan i sjön - en studie över ri- tuell tradition och förändring utifrån skånska neoli- tiska offerfynd. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia se- ries in 8, No. 23. Lund.

Kjaer, H. 1928. Oldtidshuse ved Ginderup i Thy. Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark, s. 7-20. Köpenhamn.

Lepiksaar, J, 1986. The Holocene History of Therio- fauna in Fennoscandia and Baltic Countries.

Striae 24, pp. 51-70. Uppsala .

Myhre, B. 1988. Materiell som åndelig i pakt med tid.

Festskrift tit Anders Hagen. Arkeologiske Skrifter fra Hi- storisk Museum, Universitetet i Bergen. No. 4/88. S.

Indrelid, S. Kaland & B. Solberg eds., pp.

310-324. Bergen.

Myrdal, J. 1988. Ägrarteknik och samhälle under två- tusen år. Folkevandringstiden i Norden. U. Näsman

&J. Lund eds. Ärhus.

Nylén, E. & Nylén K, 1955. Building 9. Vallhagar. A Migration Period Setdement on Gotland/Sweden. M.

Stenberger ed., pp. 156-164. Köpenhamn.

(13)

Ohlsson, T. 1976. The Löddeköpinge Investigation I: The Settlement at Vikhögsvägen. Meddelanden från Lunds Historiska Museum 1975/76, pp.

59-161. Lund.

Paulsson, T. 1993. Huset och lyckan: en studie i byggnadsoffer från nordisk järnälder och medeltid. G uppsats, Lunds universitets arkeologiska institu- tion vt 1993.

Ramqvist, P. 1983. Gene: On the origin, function and de vebjpment of a sedentary Iron Age setdement in Nort-

hern Sweden. j\rchaeology and Environment I.

Umeå.

Raudvere, C. 1993. Föreställningar om maran i nordisk folktro. Lund studies in history of religions I.

Lund.

Sehmsdorf, H.-K. 1988. Envy and fear in Scandin- avian Folk Tradition. Ethnohgica Scandinavica, pp.

34-42. Lund.

Talos, I. 1987. Foundation rite. The Fincyklopedia of Re- ligion 5. M. Eliade ed., pp. 395-401. New York

Sammanfattning - Byggnadsoffer från j ä r n å l d e r n

I d e n n a artikel görs ett försök att belysa och tolka f e n o m e n e t byggnadsoffer i svenska jär- nålderskontexter. Förekomsten av offer i relation till förhistoriska hus och byggnader har länge varit sparsam i svensk arkeologi, sannolikt b e r o e n d e på svårigheten att tolka de aktuella b e b y g g d s d ä m n i n g a r n a k o m b i n e r a t m e d de typiska byggnadsoffergåvornas enkla och vardagliga karaktär. Ö k a d kunskap o m idén bakom dessa offer är av cenUal vikt för att m a n skall förstå deras betydelse i det förindustriella skandinaviska agrarsamhället.

I de etnologiska folklivsarkiven finns åtskil- liga notiser från det svenska agrarsamhällets upplösningstid som berättar o m b r u k e t att offra djur, delar av djur och föremål i relation till g å r d e n s byggnader. Offer-handlingen syf- tade till att öka »lyckan» och skydda hushållet från ondska och trolldom. Byggnadsoffren ut- gjorde en viktig beståndsdel i d e n mentala tan- kemodell som b r u k a r b e n ä m n a s »lyckans eko- nomi»: föreställningen att tillväxten utgör ett nollsummespel där förmågan att m e d magiska hjälpmedel tillskansa sig fördelar blir avgö- r a n d e för det enskilda hushållets eventuella framgångar. Centralt för d e n n a världsbild är en stark tilltro till tankens skadliga makt och till avundens förmåga att förstöra och förgöra tu- ren och lyckan för d e n framgångsrike. Offren var ett försök att förebygga och mota b o r t de

n e d b r y t a n d e krafterna från gården, ett sätt att skydda och värna hushållets främsta rikedom:

djuren. Föreställningarna o m offrets betydelse har stark anknytning till ett s a m m a n h ä n g a n d e tankesystem, till c e n u a l a uppfattningar om ont och gott, o m förhållandena mellan r i k e d o m och fattigdom och o m sjukdomars väsen och uppkomst.

Ett försök görs h ä r att följa d e n n a tanke- struktur n e r i d e t förkristna skandinaviska agrarsamhället. I n o m religionshistorien h a r framgångsrika studier spårat besläktade folk- t r o f e n o m e n som m a r a n och idéer o m skep- nadsskifte n e r i förkristen tid. Likheten mellan d e arkeologiska byggnadsofferfynden från svensk j ä r n å l d e r och de sentida uppteckning- a r n a i valet av offergåvor och placeringen i byggnadsstrukturen tycks stödja kontinuitets- tanken även här.

F e n o m e n e t byggnadsoffer präglas som hel- h e t av stor heterogenitet, även o m m ö n s t e r i Uaditionen är klart skönjbara. I d e n n a artikel fokuseras framför allt på offer av osteologisk natur. H u v u d d e l e n av de förhistoriska byggnadsoffer som består av skelettdelar härstam- m a r från j ä r n å l d e r n , då d e n totala m ä n g d e n byggnadsoffer också ökar. Det är troligt att detta förhållande speglar en förnyad önskan i tiden att b e t o n a det magiska husskyddet Mot- svarande intresse för magiskt husskydd h a r do- Fomvännen 92(1997)

(14)

kumenterats u n d e r senneolitikum, i en period som strävade m o t en m e r p e r m a n e n t bebyg- gelsestruktur. Intresset i j ä r n å l d e r n s agrarsam- hälle bör ha samband m e d en liknande konso- lidering. Det har sannolikt också orsakats av en viktig förändring av s o d o e k o n o m i s k a r t - in- t r o d u c e r a n d e t av ställningen. Offren i de sentida u p p t e c k n i n g a r n a har en stark anknytning till de byggnader där djuren huserade, och det är troligt att skyddet främst gällde djurens tillväxt och lycka.

Ett urval av d o k u m e n t e r a d e byggnadsoffer från svenska j ä r n å l d e r s h u s h a r n e d a n under- sökts mot b a k g r u n d av den sentida sedvänjan.

Allt från hela skelett till enstaka ben förekom- m e r bland offergåvorna, och fynden härstam- m a r geografiskt från Skåne, Ö l a n d , Gotland, Mälardalen och N o r r l a n d . O m s t ä n d i g h e t e r som indikerar offer urskiljs framför allt i fynd- k o n t e x t e n . Gåvorna placerades på centrala p u n k t e r i byggnadskonstruktionen: u n d e r tröskeln, inuti h ä r d e n eller i stolphål till tak- b ä r a n d e stolpar.

Bakom valet av offerplats döljer sig sannolikt en önskan att b e t o n a föreställningens

Iron Age building offerings 175 tillväxt- och fruktbarhetsaspekt ( h ä r d e n , tak- b ä r a d e stolphål) eller skyddsaspekt ( r u n t in- g å n g e n ) . Att dessa båda aspekter i verklighe- ten knappast uteslöt varandra framstår dock som troligt.

F e n o m e m e t byggnadsoffer utgör, g e n o m sin koppling till långlivade mentala sUukturer i det förindustriella svenska agrarsamhället, en mycket inUessant arkeologisk fyndkategori. Ge- n o m spridningen av kunskap o m dess form och innehåll kan förhoppningsvis antalet fynd framgent öka, vilket i sin tur möjliggör ökad förståelse för fenomenets tidsmässiga och regi- onala variation.

För att detta skall k u n n a ske måste arkeolo- ger i fältsituationen u p p m ä r k s a m m a skelettdelar som återfinns i tänkbara offersammanhang.

Det kan röra sig om enstaka hela, välbevarade b e n av vanliga husdjur eller människor;

särskilda samlingar av ben; hela lemmar; kra- nier och fotben eller hela begravda skelett. Be- varingsomständigheterna skall tyda på att fyn- det gömts inuti eller u n d e r byggnadskonsuuk- t i o n s d e m e n t i det aktuella huset.

(15)