The subsoil landscape that is dotted with archaeological features is being revealed by a cooperation of four gentlemen: Isak is manoeuvring the 25 ton excavator, while Kim D and Peter are frantically cleaning the area behind him; Kim G is working the silent magic of metal detector in the background 🙂 And below you can see the very first moves this work entails!
with Frands Herschend
One of the things we ask ourselves at Kvarnbo is if there were any other Late Iron Age hall farms like Kvarnbo on Åland, and how many more Late Iron Age settlement sites there could be in today’s agriculturally exploited areas. The reason is simple: if we had had a not too expensive way of finding the remains of such sites, we would get a much better grip on an important formative period in the history of modern Åland, prior to its becoming a part of the Medieval Swedish realm.
Fieldwork at Kvarnbo is meant to – actually, it is designed to proceed in well-defined steps that allow us to understand what a given archaeological step in the field will lead to. We test, investigate and proceed with new tests and new evaluations in order not to go astray, but to proceed in a rational way building up our knowledge base and predict the outcome of our actions.
This stepwise method teaches us a lot about Kvarnbo as well as a good deal about Late Iron Age hall farms and their halls in general. We have of course made a mistake or two – nothing irreparable – but most often our predictions have been quite correct. Today we would not be entirely surprised if we came across the remains of yet another Ålandic hall, next to a church in a well-drained, slightly elevated position. Most probably, test pits on such a site will reveal that farming during hundreds of years has taken away all the cultural layers above the site and moved plough soil in such a way that it will partly cover (and indeed protect) low laying prehistoric layers. Already now, with the help of metal detectors and amateur archaeologists, students and volunteers methodically digging 1 m2 test pits during 2 or 3 weeks, supervised by an experienced archaeologist, we could in all probability confirm or reject the existence of a hall farm. In the coming weeks we will become even better at defining a hall site without actually excavating it because our checklist will become longer and more specific.
It is probably not possible and perhaps not even sensible to excavate a complete farm site that has not suffered the ravages of the plough. However, there is a great point in finding these Ålandic farms and, why not, another Ålandic hall in today’s farmland, since doing it will reveal the first truly political geography on Åland. Indeed, to the visiting archaeologist sitting in the morning at Marie Bar in the sunshine drinking his coffee reading the daily newspapers eating one of the exquisite sandwiches waiting for his ride to Kvarnbo, the political geography of Åland seems still to be a significant subject and a more ambitious metal detecting project in cooperation with professional archaeologists and interested amateurs could be highly productive in this regard.
Hopefully, there will be a drone involved during the forthcoming excavations as well as some serious time-lapsing 😀 (which will probably be much more interesting than examples below, but it was still fun making both).
In regard to the age of my “little dragon” introduced some weeks ago it can be only said that it dates to prehistoric actions at the Kvarnbo Hall site. Much better dating, well, almost the best dating an archaeologist can wish for is offered by two Islamic coins I have discovered!
The very first Islamic coins recovered on Åland were documented in Finström 1846 and after that the number of Islamic coins registered on Åland started to grow. By far the most remarkable of finds within this category was made in 12th of June 1876 when a hoard of over 800 Arabic silver coins was discovered in Bertby, Saltvik. Islamic coin finds of types other than hoards are more seldom, but still known, also, from a few settlement sites. And the Kvarnbo Hall site is now among the settlement sites where Islamic coins – two of them so far – have been discovered. Btw, at the very moment I discovered the first of these, which is just a tiny fragment measuring at most merely 1 centimeter, my first thought was that I must already be pretty mighty working with my metal detector if I manage to discover objects of such a modest dimension 😀
Gert Rispling from The Royal Coin Cabinet in Stockholm and Frida Ehrnsten from The Coin Cabinet at the Finnish National Board of Antiquities in Helsinki have both had a look at the Islamic coin fragments found from the Kvarnbo Hall site. According to their estimation, both coins are Abbasids i.e. coins from the time of the Abbasid Caliphate, and both have been struck before 833 AD. There is no other period in the history of the Islamic coin that exhibits greater diversity of types and variants than the first Abbasid period that lasted 132-218 AH / 750-833 AD. It was the time of the prosperity for the Caliphate and there were many coins with varying appearance minted – new types and variants of coins of that period are still being discovered.
For obvious reasons, the smaller fragment of a coin found at the Kvarnbo Hall site poses greater challenge in terms of closer identification, however, Gert Rispling suggests it to have been minted around 194-200 AH / 810-816 AD, somewhere in today’s Iraq or Iran. But the larger fragment found at the Kvarno Hall site enables closer identification. It was estimated to have been coined by the caliph al-Amin who reigned in 193-198 AH / 809-813 AD, and the coin was minted in Madinat al-Salam (today’s Bagdad) in 196 AH / 811-812 AD. Btw, al-Amin’s reign meant no good for the Caliphate, as he had a violent conflict – civil war – with his half-brother al-Ma’mun that in turn generated other spin-off conflicts weakening the dynasty. Al-Ma’mun come out as a winner from that conflict and reigned until 218 AH / 833 AD.
Two Abbasids discovered at the Kvarnbo Hall site make a really nice complement to the artefact-based dating of the site.
Different find categories registered during metal detector surveys at the Kvarnbo Hall site so far show no particular spatial concentration, except for the fragments of bronze (and/or possibly copper). Analysing find distribution, there is clearly an area at the site where most of the finds documented are pieces of bronze clips – the area is situated on the north-eastern side of the longhouse, some 50 m from the corner of the hall building. While I was working in that zone and documenting these fragments, it was, furthermore, pretty obvious that the soil is also hiding significant amounts of iron exactly in the same area. So, either there is a modern metal thingy ploughed apart at that spot, or we could speculate about a prehistoric craft area. On the basis of the metal findings, I am cautious in assigning this area to solely prehistoric activities without further investigations, because among the fragments documented, there is awful lot of pieces that are very thin and have sharp edges, looking fairly recent to me… But, at the same time, there are also fragments that are clearly old: thick droplets, melts and twisted rods of bronze coated with nice patina as well as clips with worn-out round edges. Furthermore, among the finds of this category, there is a melted brooch section definitely of prehistoric origin (it kind of looks like a little dragon 🙂 ). Thus, I am pretty sure that one has engaged in the art of metalcraft at the Kvarnbo Hall site, and assuming that, I would start looking for the craft area in this particular zone “infested” with iron and with a high concentration of the bronze fragments.
Now, I’m no expert on buttons, but you’d be amazed how much research there has been done on this subject! As an example for the Nordic areas, there is a book by Otto Helander “Något om knappens historia i Sverige” (Something about the history of button in Sweden). The following knowledge I am about to share comes from this book and some diverse places in the Internet.
During prehistoric times, buttons were rare in the North. Well, there are button-like things known from Bronze Age, but then they disappear. During Late Iron Age, Viking Age in particular, buttons reappear in the North, but these are pretty much exclusively connected to the oriental connections. It is only starting from medieval times and from the 14th century when the real history of buttons starts. This coming of button was connected to the change in clothing – from long and flowing to tight. However, at first, buttons were just something for the clothes of wealthy people and these were, furthermore, mainly used as decoration and not as methods of closing clothing (for which lacing or hooks were used). From the end of the 16th century buttons became more common, but it is still only from the 18th century when buttons really did appear on the clothing of workers and peasants – at first, on male attire and from the mid 19th century also on female attire.
Unfortunately, among ca 30 buttons that I have documented during metal detector surveys at the Kvarnbo Hall site (from all over the field without any particular area of concentration), there isn’t a single one that I would dare to state to be older than the 18th century. But from the typological point of view, it can be stated that cast brass buttons with concave panel clearly dominate the material. Very similar to these are cast brass buttons with the flower motive in the middle that I have also discovered from my site. These kinds of buttons were one of the more prevalent types used by common people. There were many vests and pants with exactly these kinds of buttons during the late 18th and, especially, 19th century. Btw, in Finnish, the type with the flower motive in the middle has even its own name – Kansanpuvun nappi (folk costume button).
The most common type of button today, the 4-hole button was adopted only in the end of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century. At first, by men, but after the WW I, when more masculine female fashion became popular, also by women. Such buttons are very boring as these don’t allow any pattern on the button; I would also deem the two 4-hole buttons discovered at the Kvarnbo Hall site as the most mundane of buttons at the site. At the same time, the most interesting button from Kvarnbo has to be the very large and crudely made 2-hole button. Mostly because I haven’t seen anything alike before 🙂 (Actually, I’m not even sure if it is a button.).
If you thought that I am done sharing about my new actuality of metal detecting, you are wrong – I intend to continue taking up aspects this new vocation of mine has inspired me to (and -yes- at some point, there will be some newly discovered Late Iron age findings presented as well 😉 ).
When I started to work with metal detector, I expected to find and dig a lot of what is considered to be junk. And, at first, looking at the growing amount of my finds, I thought that I am, indeed, finding a lot of junk. I do dig what I am sure most of people consider rubbish, such as foil and bottle caps. I also dig bullets and cartridge cases, which I consider as a junk, but I do know that there are people (including archaeologists) who are interested in such finds. But then, there is a number of finds that I considered as a junk, but I am about to reconsider – to some degree. The thing is that while presenting detector findings by just laying these on the table, many people often reach to look at things they recognise. And among the findings that I have made – in addition to coins – thimbles, keys and buckles have great popularity 🙂
From the Kvarnbo Hall site I have discovered one thimble in the form of a ring and two customary thimbles, but I have no good idea about their age. The problem with the thimbles that were used simply solely for pushing a needle through fabric or leather as it is sewn and not as collectibles is that they look very alike throughout centuries. However, in rough terms, analysing the small dimples on the thimble might help with dating – before the middle of the 18th century dimples were done by hand and, thus, a thimble with an irregular pattern of dimples dates likely before the mid 18th century. Furthermore, from the mid 18th century, the shape of thimbles is much less domed than before, and the metal is thinner. From the three thimbles found at the Kvarnbo Hall site, one has clearly handmade dimples and seems to be older than the other two.
When it comes to keys it is probably easier to determine their age. In case of the two keys discovered in Kvarnbo, however, I can only say that none of these is from the Late Iron Age, because Iron Age keys just look different. Both keys are quite so small and the better preserved one looks more like a key used for a clock… for a table clock?… Just as the keys, buckles are also easier to date than thimbles and browsing through the Internet, you can find quite a lot of information about buckles – for example, following this link. Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean that I can say anything sensible about the buckles I have dug so far 😛
People are and have always loosing things. While losing a thimble or a buckle wasn’t probably such a big loss, losing a key must have been quite annoying. But losing a ring might be emotionally devastating – I have found a simple finger ring of silver from the Kvarnbo Hall site and I do think that the loss of it made someone sad back in the history. But again, I have no good idea about how far back in the history we should put this item. From my “Late Iron age point of view” it is a non-diagnostic item (and thereby fairly junkish 😉 ).
Last year, with the help of archaeologist Mats Blohmé, metal-detector survey of about 1 hectare was conducted at the Kvarnbo Hall site. The objective then was to identify the areas with the presence of prehistoric metal objects and, thereby, gain an understanding of both the character and date of the site as well as of the horizontal distribution of finds. And, as the result, well, some pretty nice objects were discovered dating from the late 6th century AD to the end of the Viking Age, pointing towards the existence of an elite settlement at the site. However, as these finds were distributed all over the area studied, no potential hot-spots were located. Furthermore, as the survey did not include the whole field, the site was not delimited. Thus, with my newly acquired skills, I have decided to continue metal detecting surveys at the site and the field as a whole.
While working at the site, same as last year, iron is discriminated, i.e. I have chosen to set the machine to ignore (small) ferrous objects, such as nails. But even though the machine allows me to discriminate an audio signal from a ferrous object, in case the remote control is actively used, it is still visually showing if there are iron targets in the area of search. Thus, I would say that my discrimination is not so strong, and I actually get a pretty good picture about the amount of metal in the area. At the same time, as the field is scattered with iron objects, I am afraid that there are quite a few cases when valid signals have been masked by iron targets as iron kind of tends to do that… not to mention that I am just a beginner in the highly addictive world of metal detecting. Well, eventually, I will work out a setting that would be optimal for my purposes! And I am fine with the idea that I will probably have to search through the site for several times anyways.
So far, I have dug about 150 targets at the Kvarnbo Hall site. Together with the work done last year, you would think that the total amount of metal objects documented in the field would be around 200. However, as all of the finds without direct archaeological relevance to the Iron Age and Early Medieval times were redeposited at their find-spots during the survey last year – after the find circumstances were documented with GPS and photographs – this year, I have had an opportunity to rediscover exactly the same objects 😀 To document exactly the same objects is obviously not so exiting, but, from the bright side, this fact enables observations about the movement and displacement of the objects during the time in-between their disclosures. And this is actually quite fascinating, as the field has been ploughed and harrowed in-between the surveys. Interestingly, three different kinds of object that I chose for closer examination from that point of view show minimum movement (see also picture below):
This data makes me wonder if there has been any significant movement at all during the year and a half that has passed in between the surveys. Maybe, it is mostly the margin of error with the GPS that I have used?
I am an archaeologist who believes in the power of metal detector as a useful tool for archaeological research. Last year, this belief was strengthened as from all of the archaeological research initiatives undertaken at the Kvarnbo Hall site, metal detector survey was by far the most rewarding. Thus, I suppose, it was only a matter of time before I learned how to use it myself 😀 And, as a proud owner of Deus XP metal detector, learning how to use it is exactly what I have spent all my spare time during this autumn. Furthermore, as much as weather has been in my favour, I have also been metal detecting at “my” site – I have already spent many, many hours in the field and, so far, I have dug around 150 holes of direct archaeological relevance. Therefore, I would like to briefly reflect on metal detecting.
So, why metal detecting?
Metal detecting is a form of geophysics – it uses a type of magnetometer to detect metal buried in the soil, which gives an audio signal over the location. If used in a proper way, metal detecting has a lot of advantages (*relatively cheap, *easy to use, *fast, *can survey large areas, *can survey 100% of an area, etc.) and it can be a great asset for archaeological research. Archaeologists use metal detectors primarily in order to:
But then there is this other side of metal detecting whereat crucial information about archaeological sites is being lost as a result of metal detector being used just in order to collect artefacts. It is one of the most fundamental archaeological facts that knowledge about the place where the artefact was found and about the circumstances of the find allows for a much fuller and more nuanced understanding about the past times. Also, for archaeologists it is obvious that you do not start rub or wipe or wash the finds as this is not only harmful for artefacts, but might also destroy information about the object. An ignorant cleansing might, for example, remove traces of colour or residues of organic material stuck on the artefact – particles with an information value that an incorrect handling might damage. Clearly, I am very sad to hear about the cases when a person handling metal detector is just after digging a metal detector target without any consideration about the above mentioned aspects, and, thereby, depriving us all of the chance to learn about the past.
The site of Kvarnbo Hall is on a field that has been ploughed for a long time, for hundreds of years, regularly. However, topsoil, no matter how much it has been moved around and ploughed, is still a part of the site. Thus, clearly, all the holes I dig at the site are being recorded – but I will account for this in my next post.
In some sense, all the prehistoric artefacts unearthed and/or documented at the site of Sa 14.9 are important in building our understanding of the site, and are definitely worthy of special, focussed attention. However, some objects have more informational value than others. It is therefore I am not singularly spotlighting f.ex the massive copper alloy pin or a small copper alloy washer or a simple bronze buckle, etc – quite so modest objects also dating most likely to the Late Iron Age and documented during the metal detector survey at Kvarnbo. Instead, I emphasize the artefacts with the potential of extracting much more versatile information. At the same time, all archaeological research takes time, concentration, and persistence; I cannot hope to present complete analysis of the findings from Kvarnbo just some weeks after their discovery. Thus, describing the selected findings of the investigations, at this stage, I am more or less pointing out their value for the research on the Late Iron Age on the Åland islands. And in doing this, I could absolutely not leave out aesthetically the most beautiful object 🙂 unearthed during the metal detector survey at Kvarnbo – an elaborately decorated finger ring.
Decorated silver finger ring from Kvarnbo (ÅM 768:7). Photo used with the courtesy of the Museum of Åland, Ålands Landskapsregering
The finger ring is silver and consists of a broad ovoid strip (with max width of 14 mm) tapering sharply at each end to narrow wire terminals that are twisted together to a flattened spiral/knot. The ring is very tightly decorated on all of its length. On either side of a median rib of small rectangular indentations and in-between the outer edge ribs of small rectangular indentations the ring is decorated with two closely-spaced rows of interlocking punched triangles with triple pellets in each. The median rib ceases at the shoulders and triangles merge. The back is plain. Both the form of the ring and the punched pellets-in-triangle decoration are typical of Viking jewellery of the 9/10th – 11th centuries AD. However, the ring from Kvarnbo has by far the most accurately executed decoration when compared to similar rings and holds a very high artisanal and artistic craftsmanship quality. As this kind of decoration has been done using stamps, theoretically, comparing and measuring the pellets-in-triangle ornament one could find other objects made by the same craftsman – wouldn’t that be awesome?! 🙂
It is not out of the context to note here that during the metal detector survey at Kvarnbo, pieces of bronze clips were documented on the northern side of the longhouse indicating metal crafts in the vicinity 😉
The hall at the crossroads of Baltic waterways 