Architecture Society and Ritual in Viking Age Scandinavia Doors
Dwellings and Domestic Space
Marianne Hem Eriksen
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/architecture-society-and-ritual-in-viking-age-scandina via-doors-dwellings-and-domestic-space-marianne-hem-eriksen/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Interreligious Relations and the Negotiation of Ritual Boundaries: Explorations in Interrituality Marianne Moyaert
https://textbookfull.com/product/interreligious-relations-andthe-negotiation-of-ritual-boundaries-explorations-ininterrituality-marianne-moyaert/
Aural Architecture in Byzantium Music Acoustics and Ritual First Issued In Paperback Edition Routledge.
https://textbookfull.com/product/aural-architecture-in-byzantiummusic-acoustics-and-ritual-first-issued-in-paperback-editionroutledge/
Architecture and the Social Sciences Inter and Multidisciplinary Approaches between Society and Space 1st Edition Maria Manuela Mendes
https://textbookfull.com/product/architecture-and-the-socialsciences-inter-and-multidisciplinary-approaches-between-societyand-space-1st-edition-maria-manuela-mendes/
The Viking age a reader Third Edition. Edition Russell Andrew Mcdonald (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-viking-age-a-reader-thirdedition-edition-russell-andrew-mcdonald-editor/
Security And Society In The Information Age Katarzyna Maniszewska
https://textbookfull.com/product/security-and-society-in-theinformation-age-katarzyna-maniszewska/
Integrated Space for African Society Legal and Policy Implementation of Space in African Countries Annette Froehlich
https://textbookfull.com/product/integrated-space-for-africansociety-legal-and-policy-implementation-of-space-in-africancountries-annette-froehlich/
Space as Storyteller Spatial Jumps in Architecture Critical Theory and Literature Laura Chiesa
https://textbookfull.com/product/space-as-storyteller-spatialjumps-in-architecture-critical-theory-and-literature-laurachiesa/
Pilot Society and the Energy Transition: The co-shaping of innovation, participation and politics Marianne Ryghaug
https://textbookfull.com/product/pilot-society-and-the-energytransition-the-co-shaping-of-innovation-participation-andpolitics-marianne-ryghaug/
Security And Society In The Information Age Katarzyna Maniszewska Paulina Piasecka
https://textbookfull.com/product/security-and-society-in-theinformation-age-katarzyna-maniszewska-paulina-piasecka/
ARCHITECTURE,SOCIETY,ANDRITUALINVIKING AGESCANDINAVIA
Inthisbook,MarianneHemEriksenexploresthesocialorganizationof VikingAgeScandinaviathroughastudyofdomesticarchitecture,andin particularthedoorway.Ahighlychargedarchitecturalelement,thedoor isnotmerelyapractical,constructionalsolution.Doorscontrolaccess, generatemovement,anddemarkboundaries,yetalsoserveaspotentritual objects.Forthisstudy,Eriksenanalyzesandinterpretsthearchaeological dataofhouseremainsfromVikingAgeNorway,whichareheresynthesizedforthe firsttime.Usingsocialapproachestoarchitecture,shedemonstrateshowthedomesticspaceoftheVikinghousehold,whichcould includemastersandslaves,wivesandmistresses,childrenandcattle,was notneutral.Quotidianandritualinteractionswith,through,andorchestratedbydoorwaysprovetobecentraltotheproductionofasocialworld intheVikingAge.Eriksen’sbookchallengesthemale-dominatedfocusof researchontheVikingsandexpandsresearchquestionsbeyondtopicsof seabornewarriors,trade,andcraft.
MarianneHemEriksenisAssociateProfessorofArchaeologyatthe UniversityofOslo.From 2017 to 2019 shewasaResearchFellowatthe UniversityofCambridge.AnelectedmemberoftheYoungResearchersof NorwayundertheNorwegianAcademyofScienceandLetters,shewas awardedHisMajestytheKing'sGoldMedalforYoungerScholarsof Excellencein 2016
ARCHITECTURE, SOCIETY,ANDRITUAL INVIKINGAGE SCANDINAVIA
DOORS,DWELLINGS, ANDDOMESTICSPACE
MARIANNEHEMERIKSEN
UniversityofOslo
UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridge cb28bs ,UnitedKingdom OneLibertyPlaza, 20thFloor,NewYork, ny10006,USA
477 WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne, vic3207,Australia
314–321, 3rdFloor,Plot 3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,NewDelhi – 110025,India
79 AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore 079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge. ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle: www.cambridge.org/9781108497220 doi : 10 1017/9781108667043
©CambridgeUniversityPress 2019
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished 2019
PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyTJInternationalLtd.Padstow,Cornwall AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData names :Eriksen,MarianneHem,author. title :Architecture,society,andritualinVikingAgeScandinavia:doors,dwellings, anddomesticspace/MarianneHemEriksen,UniversityofOslo. description :Cambridge;NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2019.| Includesbibliographicalreferences. identifiers:lccn2018035538| isbn9781108497220 (hardback)| isbn9781108739603 (paperback)
subjects:lcsh :Architecture,Viking–Themes,motives.|Architectureand society–Scandinavia–History–To 1500.|Domesticspace–Scandinavia–History–To 1500.|Doorways–Socialaspects–Scandinavia. classification:lccna7370 e752019 | ddc721/.82209480902–dc23 LCrecordavailableat https://lccn.loc.gov/2018035538 isbn978-1-108-49722-0 Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracy ofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate.
Weareneverrealhistorians,butalwaysnearpoets,andouremotionis perhapsnothingbutanexpressionofapoetrythatwaslost
– GastonBachelard, ThePoeticsofSpace
2 1 Thedoorreproducestheaxialsymmetryofthebodies page 19
2.2 Threewaysthedoorcancreatevisionlines,manipulatingthe perceptionofspaceandobjects 20
2 3 FalsedoorfromanEgyptiantomb,exhibitedattheBritishMuseum 24
2 4 PreserveddoorfromtheVikingtownofKaupang,Norway 28
2.5 ReconstructiondrawingofthecompletedoorfoundinHedeby 29
2 6 PicturestonefromLillbjärs,Gotland,Sweden, ‘keyhole’ shaped 30
2 7 Threeiconographicalrepresentationsofhouseswithdoorways 31
2.8 ThehogbacksalludetoScandinavianlonghouses 32
2 9 Thedoorfromtwelfth-centuryStålekleivsloftet,Norway, withrepeatedlypaintedandcarvedcrossesandornamentation 34
2 10 Urnesstavechurchportalwithitscharacteristickeyholeshape 34
3.1 Scandinavian-stylelonghousesatapproximately 1,000-yearintervals 44
3 2 Illustrationdisplayingthevaryinglengthofthelonghouses 46
3 3 Mapofthesixty- fivearchaeologicalsitesconstitutingtheprimary empiricsofthisbook 50
3 4 ThelonghousefromSørbø,Rogaland,isanexampleofahouse withtwoseparatehearthrooms 55
3.5 Threeexamplesofhouseswithapossible ‘roombeyondthebyre’ 61
3 6 Miniaturechairinsilverfromawoman’schamberburial fromBjörkö,Sweden 65
3 7 Buildingsinterpretedtoincludehallfunction 67
3.8 Helganeset – asmallandunevenlybuiltlonghouse 78
4 1 Thedifferenttypesofdooridentificationevidentinthecorpus 82
4 2 Longhousewithanextendedentrance 83
4.3 Overviewoftheentrancetypesofforty-threelonghouses withcompleteentrancepatternsfromLateIronAgeNorway 84
4 4 Notallentrancepatternsareequallyfrequent 85
4 5 Thestone-walledVikingAgelonghousefromOma,Rogaland, isanexampleofadwellingwithopposingentrances 86
4 6 Fourbuildingsandtheircorrespondinggammamaps 89
4 7 Legendofdifferentlabelsusedintheaccessanalyses 89
4.8 Anassortmentofgammamapsfromthelonghouses,all ‘deep’ ortree-like 90
4 9 Visualizationsofthefourmodelsofmovementidentified inthegammamaps 92
10 Linechartshowingtheaveragedepthvaluesofthesocialspaces ofthelonghouse
.11 ThelonghouseatMoiI/Vwithasocio-spatialinterpretation
12 Gammamapsofhousesinterpretedasbuildingswithhallfunction
4 13 Suggestionofhowdifferentterritoriesfromproxemicstheory mightbespatiallysituatedwithinaLateIronAgelonghouse
4 14 AccessanalysisofcourtyardsitefromBjarkøy,Troms
5 1 AngledsettlementsfromdifferentsitesinScandinavia
5.2 InterpretationofphasesoftheLateIronAgesettlement atSkeie,Rogaland
5 3 OverviewofthefourphasesofsettlementatGolvsengane, SognogFjordane
5.4 OverviewofthedifferentphasesatthecentralplaceÅker,Hedmark
5 5 Modeloftherelationshipbetweenthesocialboundariesexamined throughproxemicstheoryinChapter 4,andtheboundariesmentioned intheHälsingelandlaw
5 6 Topographicalmodeldisplaying fivetypesoflandscapeplacement
5 7 Theaveragelengthofthelonghousesvs.theirtopographicalplacement
5 8 Radargraphdisplayingtheorientationofninety-ninelonghouses inLateIronAgeNorway
5 9 IllustrationofthemovementpatternsatBirkelandsstølen,Rogaland
5 10 MovementpatternsatSkeie,Rogaland,intheMerovingianPeriod 139
6.1 Small,anthropomorphic figurineofbronze,ofteninterpreted asFreyrbecauseofhiserection
6 2 EntangledConcepts
6.3 Artisticinterpretationofthegirlbeingliftedoverthedoorframe
6 4 Figuralgoldfoilsshowingembracingcouples,potentially standingindoorways
6 5 Overviewofartefacttypesintheplaceddeposits 165
6.6 Overviewofthespatialcontextofthedeposits 166
6 7 Plansoflonghouseswithdepositionoccurringinconnection withthedoor 168
7.1 TheruneringfromForsa,Hälsingeland,Sweden 182
7 2 TheUppåkraringwasfoundstandingverticallyinoneofthemassive postholesinthesmallcultbuilding 184
7.3 TheJärrestaddepositconsistedofanadze,hammerhead,anvil, andthepossibledoorring 185
7 4 ThemortuaryhouseatGulliduringexcavation,withaddedposts todisplaytheclosingofthedoors 192
7.5 Stylizedillustrationofthelifespanofburiedlonghouses. 194
7 6 Examplesofhousesconstructedabovemortuarymonuments 195
7 7 Twoexamplesofincorporatingthedeadwiththehouse.Ontheleft, thesmallhouseKrågeland 2 wasconstructedtouchinga centuries-oldmound
7 8 ThelonghouseatJarlsbergsuperimposedbymonumentalburialmounds
7 9 Otnemstova,exhibitedattheopen-airmuseuminSunnfjord,Norway, hasaclearlyvisiblecorpse-doorinitsbackwall 202
7.10 Artisticreconstructionofthesixth-centuryÅbyportal,Sweden 204
7 11 Exampleofdwellingwithamortuarymonumentdirectly outsidethedoor 206
7.12 IllustrationofStorrsheia 2,Rogaland,indicatingitsentranceburial 206
7 13 Visualizationofthefree-standingportals,basedontheHelgö andÄbyportals 208
PREFACE
Asissooftenthecase,thisbookhasbeenalongtimeinthemaking.Someof theideasarguedhereinwereconceivednearlyadecadeagonow,whileothers arerelativelyrecentdevelopments,asmyknowledgehasexpandedandmy thinkinghasmoved.IfwearetoacceptChrisFowler’s(2013)argumentthat archaeologicaltheoriesandinterpretationsareactantsinproducingthepast enpar withhumans,materialobjects,structures,andsoon,thisbookisthe resultofwhathasbeenadynamicaggregateofinputandinspirationfrom texts,lectures,encounterswithwonderfulandgenerousindividuals,random conversations,placesvisited,andthresholdscrossed.
Hence,agreatnumberofpeoplehavecontributedinmaterialandimmaterialwaystowardswritingthisbook.Fortheirsupportandencouragement IwanttoespeciallyextendmygratitudetoLotteHedeager,NeilPrice,and RunarHillerenLie.Fortheirgenerosityinreadingandcritiquingchaptersat variousstagesofcompletionIwarmlythankLotteHedeager,RichardBradley, RebeccaCannell,KevinKay,FrandsHerschend,HowardWilliams,Vibeke Viestad,UnnPedersen,KarianneAamdalLundgaard,EliseNaumann,and twoanonymousreviewers.
Iamespeciallygratefultothe fivearchaeologicaluniversitymuseumsin Norwayforprovidingguidancetotheirarchivesandgrantingpermissionsto reproduceplandrawingsofhousesfromtheirexcavations:Archaeological Museum,UniversityofStavanger;UniversityMuseumofBergen;the MuseumofCulturalHistory,UniversityofOslo;NTNUUniversity Museum;andTromsøUniversityMuseum,TheArcticUniversityofNorway. Anumberofotherinstitutionsandindividualshavegivenmepermissionto reproduceplandrawings,illustrations,andphotographs,asnotedintheillustrationslist,andIamdeeplythankful.
Duringpartsoftherevisionstage,IhavebeenplacedintheMaterial CultureLabattheMcDonaldInstituteforArchaeologicalResearch,UniversityofCambridge.ManythankstotheMcDonaldInstitute,especiallytoMarie LouiseStigSørensenandJamesBarrett,andthegreatgroupofpostdocs,staff, andPhDstudentsIhaveencounteredthere,formakingmefeelwelcome,and forpushingmeintellectually.Ialsowarmlythankmycollege,ClareHall, whereIheldaResearchFellowshipwhileinCambridge.
Someoftheideasmakingupthisbookhavebeenpublishedpreviously. Chapters 1–6 haveneverbeenpublished. Chapter 7 isarevisedandreworked compilationoftwopreviouslypublishedarticles: ‘ThePoweroftheRing: DoorRings,OathRingsandtheSacralPlace’,publishedinaneditedvolume byOxbow(Eriksenetal. 2015),and ‘DoorstotheDead:ThePowerof DoorwaysandThresholdsinVikingAgeScandinavia’ , publishedin ArchaeologicalDialogues in 2013.Iamgratefulforthepublishersgrantingpermissionto publishreworkedversionshere.
IwouldalsoliketothankeveryoneatCambridgeUniversityPress,and especiallymyeditor,BeatriceRehl,forbringingthisbooktolifeinitsbest possibleiteration.
Nowomanisanisland.Fromthesidelinescolleagues,friends,andfamily havecheeredmeon,andIextendmydeepestgratitude.However,thereisone personIwouldliketothankinparticular.IcamelateintoLotteHedeager’ s careerasprofessor,ChairofPrehistoricArchaeology,supervisor extraordinaire, andcolleague.Since 2013,however,Lottehasreadprettymucheveryword Ihavewritten.Sherespondstoe-mailsfasterthanIcancheckmysocialmedia accounts.Shetellsmeinnouncertaintermswhenarticledraftsarepoor,ideas faulty,andargumentsweak.Sheonce,aftera fifty-pagethesischaptergroaning undertheweightofitsownbulkyanalyses,hadasingleconcludingremark: “Putin!” Ittookmeawhileto figureouthowVladimir fitintothepicture,but needlesstosay,hedid.
LottehasencouragedmewhenIneededsupport,showncompassionwhen lifegotintheway,andlaughedwithmethroughmanyameeting.Iam honouredtobeamongthosethatcancallhermentor,andforallthesereasons IdedicatethisbooktoLotteHedeager, forceofnature
ONE ENTRYPOINTS
ONTHETHRESHOLD
Mostofustakedoorsforgranted.Wepassthroughdoorwaystensoftimes eachday,withoutreflection.Thedooris,however,apowerfulfeatureof humanmentalityandlife-practice.Itcontrolsaccess,providesasenseof securityandprivacy,andmarkstheboundarybetweendifferentiatedspaces. Thedoorwayisalsothearchitecturalelementallowingpassagefromonespace tothenext.Crossingthethresholdmeansabandoningonespaceandentering another,abodilypracticerecognizedbothinritualandlanguageasatransition betweensocialrolesorsituations.Doorsandthresholdsarethuscloselylinked with ritesdepassage,theword ‘liminality’ itselfstemmingfromLatin limen, ‘threshold’.Thisdoesnotimplythateachandeverycrossingofathreshold constitutesaliminalritual,butratherthatpassingthroughadoorwayisan embodied,everydayexperiencepromptingnumeroussocialandmetaphorical implications.Avolumeonthresholdsin fictionaskswhythethresholdexercisessucharivetinggrasponhumanimagination;whyitissucharesonant space(Mukherji 2011:xvii).Thecharacterizationofthethresholdasaresonant spacepreciselycapturesitsaffect.Thethresholdisevocative,alocusof heightenedanticipation.
Theseedsforthisbookweresownnearlyadecadeagowhen,duringdata collectionformymaster’sthesis,Inoticedastrangeconcurrencebetweentwo writtensourcesrelatedtotheVikingAge.Onetext,ibnFadla¯n’ s Risãla,was
fromtheArabicCaliphate,containinganeyewitnessreportofashipburialofa VikingchieftainontheriverVolgain 922 CE.Theotherwasanepisodefrom Flateyjarbók, alateIcelandicsagaofwhichtheoldestsurvivingcopydatestothe fourteenthcentury,recountingastrangefertilityritualonaremotefarmin VikingAgeNorway.1 Eventhoughthetextsweretranscribedcenturiesapart andinvastlydifferentgeographicalandculturalcontexts,theybothtouched onthesame,eerietopic:awomanbeinglifted – oraskingtobelifted – abovea doorframe,toenableherto see intoadifferentrealm.
Thisimagetookrootinme;Istartedwonderingifdoorswererelatedto ritualpracticesintheVikingAge.Simultaneously,Ihadstartedrealizingthe vastandlargelyuntouchedpotentialinconsideringthearchaeologicalremains ofthebuiltenvironmentoftheperiodnotonlyasfunctional-economic constructionsbutassocialexpressions,producers,andagents.Gradually,these twothemesforgedonequestion:Howcananin-depthstudyofaneveryday materialobject – thedoor – generatenewknowledgeofsocial,ritual,and affectiveexperienceoftheLateIronandVikingAges?Inansweringthat question,thisbookoffersafreshapproachtothe(pre)historicperiodoften termedtheScandinavianLateIronAge(c. 550–1050 CE);itisasocialexplorationofthehousesandhomesoftheVikingsinapivotalperiodofEuropean history.Thecruxofthebookisthatitusesahighlychargedarchitectural elementasanentrywaytoexplorethehouseholds,hierarchies,andritualsof theVikingAge.
NEWGATEWAYSTOTHEVIKINGS
TheVikingsarewellknowntous.Wecanconjureimagesinourminds withoutblinking – long-haired,bearded,frenziedwarriors,swordsinhand. And,equallyobvious,theconjuredimageistosomeextentfalse,oratthevery leastitisone-dimensionalandstagnant.Inathought-provokingarticle,Neil PricepointsoutthattheVikingswestudytodayareverydifferentfromthe onesunderscrutinytwentyyearsago – orevenfurtherback. ‘Theyhave grown ’,hewrites, ‘theyhavegainedmoredepthandresolution’ (Price 2015:7).Tomymind,thatisonlypartiallytrue.Inarenassuchasreligion andritual,dressandgender,andespeciallymortuarypractices,theVikings havegainedmoredepth.Butintermsofeverydaylife,intheVikings’ households,andtheiruseandconceptualizationofdomesticspace,Iargue thatthereisstillroomtogrow.InarecentassessmentofVikingarchaeology, SarahCroix(2015)claimsthatVikingstudiesaretosomeextentregressing. Afterthelastdecades’ gendercritiqueandafocusonVikingritual,craft,and especiallytrade,aninternationalexhibitionlaunchedin 2013 unapologetically focussedonthestereotypicalViking:themaleraiderandwarrior(Williams etal. 2014).WiththeenormouspopularityoftheVikingsinmainstream
culture,Croix(2015:93)contendsthatthe fieldofVikingstudiesisfeedingthe publicwhatitexpects, ‘andrepeatingitselfwithinasimplifiedandevermore narrowingframe’.Inmyopinion,whiletheperceptionsofVikingsaswarriors, traders,andcolonistsareintheforefrontofpublicdiscourse,aswellasthe objectofasubstantialamountofresearchontheVikingAge,thedomestic sphereisstillperceivedasanunproblematized,familiar,andsomewhattrivial sphere.
Incontrast,theempiricalbasisandthepointofdepartureofthisworkare thefragmentedremainsofthedoors,butalsothedwellings,oftheVikings. Eventhoughthedoorwillbeoncentrestageinthisstudy,itmakeslittlesense todiscussentrywayswithoutconsideringthespacetowhichtheylead.Ithus drawonthelatentpossibilityinusingarchitectureandthebuiltenvironment toanswerquestionsofsocialorganization,architecturaltemplatesof movement,ideology,affect,andritualbehaviour.Thequestionofhowone particularmaterialconstructioncanelucidatethesocialfabricoftheViking Agerelatestoabroaderattempttodevelopmoretheoreticallyengaged perspectivesinVikingarchaeology.Moreimportant,though,isthequestion: HowdoestheVikingAgelookfromthepointofviewofthehouse?
Inrecentyears,developmentsinexcavationtechniquehaveunearthed thousandsofprehistorichousesinScandinavia.Thisnewdatasetprovides novelopportunitiestoexaminethepracticeofdwellingthroughphysical remainsofarchitecture.ThisbookdrawsonthegenerallyunexploitedpotentialembeddedinthearchaeologicalrecordofhouseremainsfromLateIron AgeScandinavia,withaprimaryfocusonNorway.Thecorpus,presentedin the Appendix andreferencedthroughout,consistsof 99 longhousesand 17 shorthouses,intotal 116 buildingsinterpretedasdwellings,from 65 archaeologicalsites.Embeddedinthecorpusisasubstantialarchaeologicalmaterialof doorsandentrances,withatotalnumberof 150 doors.Theprimaryattention onNorwayisastrategytolimitthescopeofinquiry,andtopresentNorwegiansettlementsoftheperiodintoonepublication,asthismaterialhasnot beencompiledpreviously.However,Iwillusesettlementmaterialfromother partsofScandinavia,mainlysouthScandinavia(DenmarkandScania),andthe Norseworldscomparatively,inordertoexploredifferencesandsimilarities betweenthesouthandcentralScandinavianarchitecturalexpression.Iwillalso brieflydiscussotherbuildingtypessuchascourtyardsites,cultbuildings,and mortuaryhouses.
ResearchonIronandVikingAgesettlementhastraditionallyfocusedon functional,economic,andagriculturalaspectsofsettlement.Whilethesetopics areclearlyimportant,therearestillunrealizedpossibilitiesinusingthematerial remainsofhousesindiscussionsofthespatialityandsocialorganizationof dwellings.Bydrawingonthepotentialembeddedinpostholes,doors,and hearths,thisstudycomplementsexistingresearchbyconsideringaccessand
entrytodomesticspace,thecompositionofthehousehold,andtheaffective websofthehouse.Itinvestigatestheritualizationofdoorsandthresholdsin theVikingAge,therelationshipbetweenhouses,doors,andthedead,andthe significanceofeveryday,domesticlife.Materialobjectsarehereinconsidered asmorethaneconomiccommodities,statussymbols,or,inthecaseof architecture,climateshelters;andareratherexploredassocialentitiesforming relationalassemblages,inlinewithmuchofcurrentarchaeologicalthinking (e.g.Fowler 2013;JonesandBoivin 2010;Lucas 2012, 2016;B.Olsen 2010). IwillrepeatedlyarguethatVikinglonghouseshaveformsofagencyand vibrancy,thattheycanhavesociallives,andthattheinhabitants’ liveswere verymuchentwinedwiththatofthehouse.Significantly,Ihopetomapa morecomprehensiveuniverseoftheVikings,wherethepeopleoftheViking Ageare fleshedoutandembodied.
IthereforeaspiretoseetheVikingsasmorecompletehumanbeings specificallythroughtheirrelationtoanduseofsocialspace.Thisworkcannotand willnotbeacompletesocialarchaeologyoftheVikingAge;itdoesnot considerforinstancetheVikingraids,colonization,ortrade.Theaimisrather tocarveout,fromthegreyblockoftentermed ‘thedomesticsphere’,ahigherresolutionpictureoflivedexperienceinVikingAgeNorway.Everydaylifeis thefoundationofthiswork;consumption,seatingarrangements,sleeping patterns,everydaymovementthroughdomesticspace.Insomechapters,the slavesoftheVikingsareconsidered,andtheireverydaylifeexperience.Viking children,andwomen,andmalesofdifferentstatusarebroughtintothe picture.Inotherchapters,Iconsiderrituals,anddeposition,andthehouseas anactiveagentinthecreationofasocialworld.IhopetoportraytheVikings toahigherextentas realpeople,withdesiresandaversions,agendasandaffects, anxietiesandbeliefs.Iembedthemwithinaphysical,architecturalframethat notonlysignificantlyshapedtheirmovements,thoughts,andactions,butthat waspartofthemandofwhichtheywereapartinturn.Inshort,theaimisto contributetothedevelopmentofasocialarchaeologyoftheVikingAge.And mygatewayfordoingsoisthroughthedoorofthedomestichouse.
THEHOUSE:ORDERINGSPACE,BODIES,AND SOCIALRELATIONS
... thehousewewereborninisphysicallyinscribedinus.Itisagroupoforganichabits.After twentyyears,inspiteofalltheotheranonymousstairways;wecouldrecapturethereflexesof “the firststairway”,wewouldnotstumbleonthatratherhighstep. Thehousewewereborn inismorethananembodimentofhome,itisalsoanembodimentofdreams.
(Bachelard 1994 [1964]:14–15)
Whereassocialanthropology,sociology,andseveralsubfieldsofarchaeology havelongbeeninterestedinhousesandhouseholdsasanalyticalcategories,as
wellastheconnectionsbetweenthebuiltenvironmentandsocialorganization,suchissueshavearguablyreceivedlimitedattentioninScandinavianIron andVikingAgestudies.People,andtheireverydaysocial,political,andritual practices,areoftenmoreorlessinvisibleindiscussionsofhousesandsettlements.RuthTringham’sfamousstatementthattheinhabitantsofprehistoric housesaremerely ‘facelessblobs’ (1991)ringsnolesstrueinthelate 2010sthan itdidintheearly 1990s.
TheearlieststudiesofIronandVikingAgesettlementinNorwaywere rootedinacultural-historicalframework,andgenerallyofadescriptivecharacter(Grieg 1934;Hagen 1953;Petersen 1933, 1936).Aparticularresearch strandinNorwegianarchaeologyhasbeenthetraditionofusingwritten records,cadastres,maps,andtoponymstochartIronandVikingAge settlement,ashistoricalfarmsareseenasthenaturalsuccessorstopostulated prehistoricfarms(Gjerpe 2014;Pilø 2005).ThisrelatespartlytoNorwegian archaeology’semergenceinanationalromanticistframeworkinthenineteenthcentury(seealso Chapter 3).
Subsequentworksinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturybecame increasinglyattentivetoquestionsofeconomyandsubsistence,inlinewith thedevelopingprocessualframework(e.g.Jacobsen 1984;Kaland 1987;Randers 1981).Publicationsprimarilyfocusoncalculationsofproduce,cultivation intensity,andthenumberoflivestock,andrarelycontainplansofthehouses andsettlements.Inlinewiththepredominantarchaeologicalthinkingofthe day,thispointstoanunderexploredanalyticalconsiderationofthehouse structuresthemselves.Yet,therewereothervoicesinthesettlementdebate. Throughseveralworks,BjørnMyhreconsideredthesettlementofsouthwest Norway(1980, 1982a, 1982b, 1982c, 1983).EventhoughMyhrewasinfluencedbytheprocessualandfunctionalistwayofthinking,healsopinpointed sociallyorientedquestionsofsettlementandusedmodelsfromsocialanthropology.Likewise,TrondLøken’sworkontheBronzeAgetoEarlyIronAge siteForsandmoen,Rogaland,incorporatesmoresociallyorientedquestions springingfromthearchitectureitself(Løken 1998).
Otherworkshavetakenapoliticalangle,focusingonthedevelopmentof estatesandpettykingdoms,andtherolelandownershipplayedinstateformation(Iversen 2008;Skre 1998).EspeciallytheworksofDagfinnSkre(1997, 1998, 2001)significantlyrejectedtheidealizedegalitarianperceptionofViking settlementandilluminatedtheroleoffreeddependantsandslavesinlarge-scale settlementpatterns.Skreopensforadebateofideologicalandpoliticalaspectsof settlement,wherehisfocusisprimarilyonlandholding,tenancy,andsocial economyexploredmainlythroughburialmaterialandwrittensources(Skre 2001).Yet,thereislimitedconsiderationofeveryday,domesticlife,orindeed thehousestructuresthemselves;theestatesidentifiedinlaterwrittensourcesare theimportantelements,aspawnsinlarge-scalepowerplays.
InthesameperiodthenumberofexcavatedsettlementsinNorwaystarted toincreasedramaticallyduetothemethodologyofexcavatingwithmechanicaldiggersunderneathcultivatedland.However,accumulatingalargerdatasetofhousesfromtheIronAgedidnotinitselfincreaseexplorationsofsocial aspectsofspace.Incontrast,Britishprehistoricarchaeology,especiallyduring thepeakofpost-processualism,hasofferedcognitivetakesonarchitecture, suchastracingsymbolicspacesorviewinghousesandmonumentsascosmologicalexpressions(e.g.Benderetal. 2007;ParkerPearson 1999b;Tilley 1994), yet,Iwouldargue,againoftenatthecostoflivedexperience.Suchapproaches moreoverrarelyseepedintoScandinavianconsiderationsofarchitectureand households,atleastinIronAgescholarship.InScandinavia,limitedconsiderationoftheBritish-centredphenomenologyofspacehastakenplace,orthe livedexperienceofarchitecture.Iarguethattherehasbeenatendencyofa dichotomybetweenmortuaryarchaeologistsfocusingonritual,socialorganization,andideology;andsettlementarchaeologists – atleastthoseworking withnon-elitesettlements – concentratingontypology,economy,andfunction.Asaresultofthisdivisionofresearchagendas(andhereIampainting withabroadbrush),apictureemergeswherethemannerinwhichapast societyhandledtheirdeadmayprovideknowledgeofideas,rituals,and ontology,whilethebuiltenvironmentisreducedtoaneutralbackdropto socialpractice.
Inrecentyears,however,studiesofbuiltenvironmentsinScandinaviaand thewiderVikingworldthattranscenda homoeconomicus perspectivehave startedgeneratingnewknowledgeinarangeofareas:socialandpolitical process(Boyd 2013;Dommasnesetal. 2016;HadleyandHarkel 2013; Herschend 2009;Holst 2010),structureandpractice(Webley 2008),ritualization(e.g.Carlie 2004;Eriksen 2015b;Kristensen 2010),therelationship betweenthelivingandthedead(Eriksen 2013, 2016, 2017;Thäte 2007),and genderrelations(Croix 2014;Milek 2012).AkeyScandinavianscholarhas beenFrandsHerschend,whoinaseriesofworkshasexplorednotionsof orderedspaceandconsideredlandscapesassocialagentsintheIronAge (Herschend 1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2009).
Itisalsoincreasinglyacceptedthatmany,ifnotmost,agrarian,economic practices,suchasplantingcrops,ploughing,grinding,cooking,orweaving, hadritualandmythologicalovertonesintheIronAgeworldview(e.g.Fendin 2006;Gräslund 2001;Kristoffersen 2000;Welinder 1993).Thehousewasalso thecentrallocusofmanyformsoffeastsandseasonalcelebrations,aswellas ritesdepassage:burials,births,andweddingstookplacewithinthehouse.All deitiesintheNorsepantheonhadtheirown,namedhallbuildingsoverwhich theyruled;whenwarriorsdied,theyexpectedtheirbodiestogolivein anotherhouse – Valhǫll or Fólkvangr.Moreover,theworlditselfisinkennings andEddicpoetrylikenedtoahallorhouse,theskyasaroof,andsoon(e.g.
Rigsþula, Vǫluspá 64).Afoundationofthisbookisthusthatthelonghousenot onlyhadritualconnotations,butwasdeeplyentwinedintheLateIronAge ontology,andmoreover,thatsocial,ritual,andeconomicalpracticeswere interwovenintoatapestrythatcouldnotbeunravelled(sensuBradley 2005). Thebuiltenvironmentisanaccumulatedandinfluentialassemblageof socialpractice,repeatedactions,spatialideals – inotherwords,of livedspace. Architectureisalwaystheresultofpastaction(e.g.McFadyen 2013).The houseandits praxis hasbeenplacedintheverycentreofthesocialfabricof pre-industrialsocieties,asithasbeenarguedthatincultureswithoutliteracy, inhabitedspaceandthehouseconstitutetheprimaryobjectificationsofsocial schemes(Bourdieu 1977:89–90).Thehouseis,inBourdieanterms,botha structuringandstructuredstructure – i.e.bothacauseandeffectofsocialprocess, andaprimary fieldforinscribingthebodywithaspecifichabitus.However, JohnRobbsuggeststhatinsteadofsimplisticallyapplyingideassuchashabitus inprehistoryor ‘lookforagency’ inthearchaeologicalrecord,weshould ratherunderstandactionas genresofbehaviour: ‘asetofinstitutionalizedpractices recognizedasadistinctactivity’ (Robb 2010:507).Feasting,warfare,mortuary rituals,orcultivationwouldconstitutedifferent genresofbehaviour.Moreover, Robbstressesthatagencyisnotnecessarilyembeddedindisparateindividuals butin relationships,andthattheserelationshipsarefundamentallymaterial. Agencycanthusbedefinedas ‘thesociallyreproductivequalityofaction’ withinrelationshipsamonghumanandnon-humans(Robb 2010:494).Houses createthecontextsformanydifferent fieldsofactionandgenresofbehaviour. Moreover,theinfluenceofthebuiltenvironmentiscertainlypartofareciprocalrelationshipbetweenthehouseanditsinhabitants,andtheirdaily,unreflectedandembodiedpractices;thehouseastheproductofthesocialchoices ofthebuildersandinhabitants,andareificationofpastaction,inturnaffecting newgenerationsemergingwithinthehouse.
Toconsiderthelivedexperienceofdwellingitisnecessary,Iargue,to considerbodiesinspace:bodiesbuildingspace,usingspace,navigatingspace, andtransformingspace.Increasedattentionhasbeendirectedtowardsthe sensesandthebodyrecently,withintheIronAge(e.g.Hedeager 2010;Lund 2013)andespeciallyinEuropeanlaterprehistoryatlarge(e.g.Boric ´ andRobb 2008;Hamilakis 2013;Rebay-Salisburyetal. 2010;RobbandHarris 2013). Bodiesareambiguous,simultaneouslyobjectsandsubjects,asitewhereboth theselfandtheotherarenegotiatedandperformed.Bodiesareplacesofdesire, butalsoofviolence,biologicalprocesses,abjection,andalienation. Embodimentcanbedefinedasthewaypeopleengagewiththeworldthrough theirbodies.Thewayweexperiencethebuiltenvironment,astherestofthe world,isthroughourcorporeality(Bourdieu 1977;Merleau-Ponty 2012 [1958]).Mauss(1979)famouslyobservedthatthetechniquesofthebody:the waywewalk,sleep,dance,run,andmakelove,areallsocio-cultural
idiosyncrasies.Childreninparticularareinscribedwith,orrather,imitate,the adults’ movementsofthebody,andtherebyacquiresetsofsociallyconditionedbodymovementsthatconstituteculturallyspecificstrategiesforexperiencingandmediatingtheworld(Bourdieu 1977;Mauss 1979;Wilson 1988:153).
Theperspectiveofbodilylearntpracticeandexperienceishighlyrelevant forastudyofdoorsanddwellings.Movementsthroughdomesticspace, seatingarrangements,theorderinwhichfoodisserved,theroomyouare notsupposedtoenter,thethresholdonlysomeareallowedtocross – these small,householdpracticesarebothexecutedbyandabsorbedintothebody, creatingandrecreatingthesocialworld.Andasthesocialsystemsareinstitutionalizedinthearchitecture,differentiatedpowerstructuresarelegitimized andeuphemized(Bourdieu 1989).HarrisandRobb(2013b:3)offertheuseful workingconcept bodyworlds,whichtheydefineas ‘thetotalityofbodily experiences,practicesandrepresentationsinaspecificplaceandtime’.Emanatingfromembodiment,somescholarsemphasizetheperformativityofarchitecture,ofhowitisonlywhenbodies,architecture,andthingscometogether thataspacebecomesaplace(Kaye 2016).Otherscholarsstressthatthebuilt environmentcanbeunderstoodasaproducerofaffective fields(Harrisand Sørensen 2010),engenderingcertainformsofemotionalresponsesinitsusers (Harris 2016;Love 2016),orspecificatmospheres(Sørensen 2015).Iconsider doors,doorways,andthehouseatlarge,notonlyasmediatorsofhabitus,but asthingswhichshape,move,andmergewithpeople,inaprocesswhere housesandpeopletogetherengageinanembodiedprocessofdwelling.
TOWARDSASOCIALARCHAEOLOGYOFTHEVIKINGAGE
Noveltheoreticalperspectiveshaveopenedthedoortonewquestionsand newanswersinVikingarchaeology.Theeclecticinternallyconflictedwaveof approacheshurtlingforthfromthebeginningofthethirdmillenniumhasbeen collectivelytermed ‘newmaterialism’ (Thomas 2015).Althoughcontroversial andprovocative,thisshifttorelationalthinkingoffersavastrangeofnew perspectivesinarchaeology.Amongtheperplexingstrandsofsymmetrical archaeology(Olsen 2003;B.Olsen 2010;Witmore 2007),meshworks(Ingold 2007),Actor-NetworkTheory(Latour 2005),assemblages(Fowler 2013; HamilakisandJones 2017),entanglements(Hodder 2012),vibrancy(Bennett 2010),andtheontologicalturn(Albertietal. 2011;MarshallandAlberti 2014) Iwishtoemphasizethreepointsbecausetheyexplicitlyandimplicitlycastthe storyofthiswork.
The firstisthatmaterialculture,animals,landscapes,things,andpeople form relationalassemblages (Bennett 2010;Fowler 2013, 2016;Hamilakisand Jones 2017;Lucas 2012);awaveofthinkingincurrentarchaeologicaldiscourse
thatspringsprimarilyfromthephilosophyofDeleuzeandGuattari(2013 [1987])andthesubsequentworkbyDeLanda(2006).WhileIarguedthat architectureisalwaystheresultofpastaction,itiscertainlynotmerelythe resultofhumansacting ‘ upon ’ deadmaterials.Rather,theIronAgelonghouse isanexcellentexampleofanassemblageofbuilders,materials,landscapes, inhabitants,weather,guests,animals,things,practices,technologies(Eriksen 2016),allengaginginaprocessofperpetuallybecomingahouse,atan intersectionbetweenconstructionanddecay(e.g.Harris 2016;Jones 2007; Lucas 2013).Areductionistviewofhousesasmerelythephysicalconstruction ofthewallsandposts;oronlythe(human)inhabitants;ortheactionsthattake placewithin,becomesarguments adabsurdum – thehouseistheemerging aggregateofalltheseentities,inextricablyentwined.
Thesecondpointisthat everydaythings havetosomeextentbeenoverlookedincurrentdiscourse.However,everydaythingsareinterwovenwith humanlives;theyareaggregatesoflivedexperience,andbystudyingmundane thingsweaccessotherperspectivesontheVikingAgethan finemetalwork, monumentalburials,orwarriorswordscanallow.Animplicitmotivationfor thisstudyisthustoilluminatethemundane,theordinary,thenon-spectacular. Forexample,inathought-provokingarticleaboutemotionandmaterial culture,HarrisandSørensen(2010)arguethatarchaeologyshouldengagewith questionsofemotionandaffect.Theycontendthatemotionsarenotonly internalandimmaterialphenomena,butoccurintheencounterwitha materialworld,andusethecasestudyofaspectacularLateNeolithicmonument,thehengeatMountPleasant,todiscusstheroleofemotioninbuilding andrebuildingsuchasiteoveranextendedperiodoftime.Inhercommentto thetext,ÅsaBerggren,however,pointsoutthattheenormousmonumentis anexamplewhereitisrelativelysimpletoarguethatmaterialityelicits emotionalresponses.Shewrites: ‘Itwould,forexample,havebeeninteresting tosee[HarrisandSørensen]applytheirideastosomeofthemoremundane archaeologicalmaterials,from,forexample,settlementsthatwouldbemore explicitlyconnectedtoeverydaylife’ (Berggren 2010:164).Thecritiqueresonateswiththisproject.Archaeologistshaveforalongtime,throughvirtuallyall archaeologicalparadigms,favouredthe monumental:therichest finds,thelargest mounds,andthemostelaboratemonuments.
Inasense,thisbookstartswhereNicoleBoivinendsherstimulating Material Cultures,MaterialMinds (2008).Boivinlistsanumberof ‘ ... mundane,but powerfulobjectsandenvironmentsthatcreateusaswecreatethem’,suchas potsandpans, fishinghooks,pendants,carpets,parks,artworks,pacemakers, andyes,evendoorways.Sheconcludesbystatingthatwehaveonlyjustbegun toexplorehow ‘thismassofsimplethingshasshapedandtransformedour thoughts,emotions,bodies,andsocieties’ (2008:232).Thisstudyisintendedas exactlythat,anexplorationofhowaneverydaymaterialfeature,thedoor,
shapedandtransformedthoughts,emotions,bodies,andsocietiesinaspecific prehistoricperiod.Itis,afterall,everydaylifethatbuildsasocialworld.
Third,thisworkisintendedasacontributiontowardsa socialarchaeology of theVikingAge.Someprominentthinkersincurrentdiscourseseeaclear oppositionbetweensocialarchaeologyandamaterialistarchaeology(Latour 1992, 2005;Webmoor 2007).Thesharpestcritiqueofsocialarchaeologywas presentedbyWebmoorandWitmore(2008),closelyshadowingLatour,in arguingthatthesocialhasbecome ‘boththe explanandum andthe explanans for archaeologicalinquiry’,aninvisibleforcethatsomehowisbothcauseand effect,withasignificantanthropocentricbias(seealsoWebmoor 2007).Itis largelyproponentsofActor-NetworkTheoryandsymmetricalarchaeology thatarerefutingtheconceptofsocial,becauseitintheirviewinherently describesrelationsbetweenhumansandotherhumans,upholdingaCartesian dichotomybetweenthe ‘material’ and ‘social’ world.Althoughthecritiquehas meritincriticizingtheuseofsocialasauniversalistandacatch-allphrase,Istill claim ‘socialarchaeology’ hassignificance.Firstbecause,asithasbeenargued againstLatour,if ‘thesocial’ shouldbebanishedfromourvocabulary,howcan wecontinuetospeakofequallyephemeralconceptssuchas ‘theeconomic’ or ‘thepolitical’ (Rowlandetal. 2011)?Second,WebmoorandWitmore (2008:55)implythatthesocialhassupersededitsrole ‘asacorrective’ in archaeology.WhilethatmayormaynotapplytotheAnglophoneworld, therearelargeterritoriesofarchaeologywherethepost-processualwavedid notbecomequiteasubiquitousasin,e.g.Britishprehistory(cf.Ribeiro 2016), andVikingstudiesiscertainlyamongthoselands.Theuseofsocialinthis workisindeedintendedasacorrectivetotraditional,largelyeconomic perspectivesontheVikingAge:aheuristictoshiftthefocusfromagrarian practicestopeople,fromtraderelationstoaffectiverelations,fromtypologyto agency.Andthird,socialarchaeologyishereinunderstoodasinherently relational,springingfromtheviewthatsocietiesareformednotmerelyby humans,butbywider,heterogeneousagencies(Boivin 2008;Lucas 2012).In linewithGavinLucas’‘ new ’ socialarchaeology(2012:258–265),thesocial emergesthroughnetworksandrelationshipsamonghumans,animals,and things,ratherthansomehowexisting ‘behind’ or ‘previous’ tothem.Wecan expandontheoldanalogyreferencedbyMalafouris(2013:25),wherethe archaeologistsearchingforthesocial behind astoneaxe(orindeedalonghouse),canbecomparedwithavisitortoCambridge,who,afterseeingthe colleges,departments,andthelibrary,askstobeshowntheuniversity. Consequently,thesebuildingblocks – relationalontology,everydaymaterials,andsocialarchaeology – formthefoundationofthepagesahead.Instead ofseeingmaterialcultureasa ‘representation’ oftheworld,materials are the world,physicallyandsocially.Notonlyhouseholdthingsbutalsothehouse itselfisinextricablyentwinedwithhumanlives.
ARCHITECTUREOFTHEARGUMENT
ManypathwaysleadtoamoresociallygroundedapproachtotheVikingAge; minehasbeenthrough thedoor.Or,toputitanotherway,Ihavechosento placeaspecificarchitecturalelementunderscrutiny – thoughnotinisolation –andtoletthedoorwaysandentrancesspeak.
Somepracticalconcernsanddefinitionsshouldbeclarified.Thisbook addressesthetimebetween 550 and 1050 CE.InNorthernEurope,this timeframehasseveralchronologicaldefinitionsandnames(e.g.lateGermanic, Merovingian,Vendel,Viking,EarlyMedieval),andacommonchronological frameworkhasnotyetbeendeveloped.InNorwegianarchaeology,this chronologicalscopeconsistsofthe Merovingianperiod (c. 550–800)andthe VikingAge (c. 800–1050);thetwoperiodsarecollectivelytermedthe LateIron Age andareregardedasbelongingtoprehistory.Inthiswork,LateIronAge andVikingAgeareusedassynonymsforthesecondhalfofthe firstmillennium,i.e.sixthtoeleventhcenturies.Atpointswhereamore finelytuned chronologyisofrelevance,Iwillpointoutthedatinginmoreexplicitterms; however,asstatedinthe Appendix,manyhousescannotbedatedvery precisely,andchronologicaldevelopmentisthereforenotattheforefrontof thisstudy.IhavealreadystatedthatNorwayconstitutestheprimaryresearch area.Regardinggeographicalnomenclature,themodernnation-stateNorway hadofcoursenotyetformedintheLateIronAge.When ‘Norway’ and ‘Norwegian’ isusedinthistext,areasofmodern-dayNorwayareimplied. Atthisjuncture,Iwillalsobrieflystatethebook’sstanceonusingwritten, medievalsourcestounderstandsocietiescenturiesolderthantheoldestsurvivingmanuscripts.Withtheexceptionofshortandformulaicinscriptionsinthe runicalphabet,LateIronAgeScandinaviawasasocietywithouttext.The first longerScandinaviantextswerewrittenintheLatinalphabetaftertheconsolidationoftheStateandtheconversiontoChristianityinthebeginningofthe secondmillennium.TherelationshipbetweenmedievalwrittensourcesconcerningtheLateIronAgeandthematerialrecordoftheperiodhasbeen subjecttochangingacademicapproachessincetheemergenceofViking studies.Fromasomewhatuncriticalreadingoftextualsources(e.g.Munch 1852)toacriticalapproachrefutingalmostanysourcevalue(Weibull 1911, 1918);mostresearcherstodayseemtoaimatamiddleground(e.g.Andrén 2005, 2014;Hedeager 1999, 2004, 2011;Price 2002, 2010, 2014).Ingeneral, today’sscholarsneithertakemedievalsagasandpoetryatfacevalue,nor disregardtheirinsightintotwelfthtofourteenth-centuryreflectionandcommemorationofanot-too-distantpast.Thewrittensourcesdoreflectahighmedievalworldview,butatatimewhereoraltraditionsstoodstrong.Late IronAgeScandinaviaisoftenunderstoodasanoralculturewherenarratives andlegalrulewererememberedthroughformalizedlanguage(Andrénetal.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
