A Worth of their Own. On Gotland in the Baltic Sea, and its 12th-century Coinage more

Medieval Archaeology, 54, 2010 A Worth of their Own. On Gotland in the Baltic Sea, and its 12th-century Coinage By NANOUSHKA MYRBERG1 IN ABOUT ad 1140, the island of Gotland initiated what was to become one of the most influential coinages of the medieval Baltic Sea area. This was part of a strategy to meet the impact and pressure from the world outside in a period characterised by large-scale political and ideological changes. In this situation, old and new networks were important to maintain autonomy from those aiming for dominance over the island. The coins, with an independent weight standard and an iconography inspired by NW German and Frisian coins, were one way of attracting partners to the island’s main harbour, where its inhabitants could maintain control and trading peace. Coins incorporate in them the dimensions of object, text and picture. A historical archaeology of coins needs not only focus on large-scale perspectives and formal power, but must also give weight to the archaeological context, the life biography of the coins and the social negotiations behind their production and use. Thus intention and reality, symbolism and social practice may be studied to find openings to the stories behind the objects. The different dimensions of the coins together with historical sources give away plenty of information on several levels: about the networks, ideological framework, artisanship and changing loyalties of this time and area. In about ad 1140 an island off the Swedish coast initiated what was to become one of the most influential coinages of the medieval Baltic Sea area. Regardless of the mainland authorities, some group or authority on Gotland developed their own coins, with an independent weight standard and an iconography inspired by NW German and Frisian coins. The Swedish royal powers initiated a coinage in the end of the 10th century, but that did not last and only began again in the 1180s. When the Gotlandic coinage started it was thus something quite unique for the area. These anonymous and abundant coins are a numismatic enigma; although known and disputed for a long time, the very reason to begin this coinage has remained undebated and unexplained, perhaps since the reasons and use for coinage are too often regarded as self-evident. But in a non-monetised context (ie where coins were not used as coins by the number and face value, but rather as commodity and means for barter and exchange) like most of the early medieval northern and eastern Baltic Sea area, coins were up to that point only brought in from distant trading partners like England or the Caliphate. Apart 1 Department of Archaeology and Classical studies, Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. nanouschka.myrberg@ark.su.se 157 © Society for Medieval Archaeology 2010 DOI: 10.1179/174581710X12790370815814 158 nanoushka myrberg for some coins mainly of prestige character produced on the Swedish mainland for a shorter period in the Viking Age,2 the need for domestic coins thus had not risen until in this specific historical moment. The development of the domestic coinage, the monetary way of using it and the coin iconography are tied intimately to the events of the time — sometimes reflecting those events, sometimes perhaps even changing their course. The 12th and 13th centuries were a period of consolidation of the supraregional institutions in the Baltic Sea area. Church administration and monastery building followed upon the newly completed Christianisation, and parallel to this the early Scandinavian and Baltic kingdoms/states were in the process of formation and stabilisation. The political and ideological influences from continental Europe were constant and pressing. The old, local structures of power were trying to conform to the new terms — but also to maintain their old privileges and discursive power. Old networks and loyalties were put up against new. The region was for a long time closely tied to partners in the east as well as in the west and south-west, on several levels (local family ties but also international, royal alliances; trading networks in both east and west; Christian missionaries arriving from both east and west, etc). During the 12th century, Danish and German princes as well as the Roman Church started to take an increased interest in the Baltic Sea area. By the end of the century, a number of crusades were launched to the north-east, forcing the Baltic peoples to confess to the Christian faith, submit to the crusaders, or to be conquered and severely subdued. This paper will argue that the Gotlandic coins were issued as part of a strategy to meet the impact and pressure from the world outside: continental Europe (Germany, the Church) as well as the rising Scandinavian state powers (Denmark, Sweden). From one point of view, the coins represent an adaptation to the new (modern, European) terms and economic system. From another, they represent innovative and autonomous thinking rooted in old perceptions and old networks. The seniors, the elite of lawmen and old nobility of the island of Gotland, distinguished themselves through the launching of the first medieval coinage of the north-eastern Baltic Sea. Thereby they created an independent position for the island, proving the issuers as reliable and able defenders of peace for guests, traders and themselves. The Gotlanders were engaged in trade and family relations with people from England in the west to Russia in the east (and beyond), not to forget the Scandinavian and German kingdoms. The intrapersonal relations also included artisans travelling between the areas, providing skilful products as well as competent education and leadership of domestic workers — the Gotlandic coins are tangible proof of this (Figs 1 and 2). THE HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF COINS Working with coins necessitates a reflection upon coins as a category and the numismatic discipline as a field of research. The numismatic discourse often 2 The coinages of Olof Skötkonung (994–1022) and Anund Jakob (1022–50) in Sigtuna, cf Malmer 1989; 1995; 1997. a worth of their own 159 fig 1 A coin-maker depicted on a piece of masonry from the 12th century, recovered among ruins close to Rouen (France). After Schive 1865, XV. fig 2 The earliest Gotlandic coins: Group I (c 1140–1220) (top) and Group II (1220–88) (below). Scale 2:1. Coins from the KMK collections. Photography by N Myrberg. uses and touches upon the materials, methods and terminology of the closely related disciplines of history, archaeology, art history and economic history. Between archaeology’s centring on the object and history’s detached attitude to material culture, there is a space where numismatic practice can orient itself more or less to the one or the other pole. The coin material opens up for both approaches (and further in combination with art and economy): the historical context of origin together with the archaeological context of deposition. Those two contexts represent different horizons of time and, often, place. Between the one context and the other, the coins go through transformations that may consist of transportations, demonetarisation, mutilation, additions and various reuses. This is their life biography. Knowledge of several contexts, of origin, use and deposition, will provide great possibilities to make the objects tell us not only about themselves but also about the humans and conceptions they were related to. It is thus most fruitful to work with coins within the theoretical and methodological framework of Historical Archaeology, which gives the same weight to the aspects of text and artefact, and studies focus on the relation between them.3 Coins incorporate in them the dimensions of object, text and picture. These dimensions have parallel functions and strata of meaning, which do not exclude but reinforce each other, even when they are not obviously speaking with one single voice. The practical function as a monetary object is an essential aspect of coins, but not the only one. The visual/aesthetic aspect is apparent in the selections made when coins were transformed into jewellery, included in grave equipment and in the later coin collections. The iconographical aspect contains 3 Cf Andrén 1998, 146–53, 175–7; Deetz 1977, 5; Funari, Jones and Hall 1999; Myrberg 2008a, 45; Wienberg 1988. 160 nanoushka myrberg much information about the historical and ideological context of origin, and shows a glimpse of the pictorial world surrounding the medieval individual; a world of pictures shaping his or her conceptions of the world and conveying messages. The coins were icons or symbols of the issuer, and distinguished the users as belonging to a certain group. The latter aspect of the symbolic and culturally constructive dimensions of coins is increasingly important when discussing monetised societies, where only one authorised coin group was valid at the time and its use was in a defined and restricted area. The symbolic and social functions of coins, however, are closely connected with their functions as monetary objects: with the fascination for silver, with their worth, and with economic possibilities and dependencies. The function coin is a dimension of meaning that the social and symbolic meanings surrounding the object coin associate to and are loaded with.4 These different, parallel, dimensions are all essential when discussing silver depositions as well as, for example, the shift into a regulated coin market. In the new, medieval economy and society, the coins were part of the material culture carrying meanings in everyday life as well as in popular imagination. Thus they opened up new possibilities and conceptions. The shift from using valuables and standard value commodities to using coins (as coins and not as means of payment according to metal value and weight) simplified and developed the conditions of economic transactions. When an authority outside the transaction itself guaranteed the worth of the coins, a freer attitude towards the trading partner and the transaction was possible; and the old trading networks, built on long-time personal relations,5 were no longer the only way to get access to trade routes and markets. But, at the same time, it became easier for a person or institution to control coins and transactions, and to make profits out of it. The difference between a coin and a valuable with a standard weight is the coin’s guaranteed value being dependent on the name and status of the issuer. The value (for the issuer) of a coinage lies, accordingly, not only in the possible pecuniary earnings, but also in that it manifests the issuer’s resources and authority. Thus, the coins legitimate and regenerate the authority of the issuer and, in the long run, his or her resources. The rhetoric creates and regenerates the practice. We must consider this latter aspect of the benefits of a coinage as winnings of the issuer, rather than as a common interest of society as a whole. Historical studies including coins often focus on large-scale perspectives, grand narratives and the primary (issuing) context of the coins. A historical archaeology of coins, paying attention to the archaeological context and the life biography of the coins, requires that importance attaches to more than largescale perspectives and to formal power. It presupposes a diversified view of cultural identity, including aspects of gender, age and socio-economic status, and an understanding that routines and everyday social negotiation are just as important.6 An interest with the symbolic powers of material culture must combine with an understanding of its physical dimensions and practical uses. 4 Cf Gustin 2004, 48; Hodder 1991, 125. 5 See, for example, Gustin 2004 and Roslund 2001a on the importance of intra-personal relations in trading situations during the Viking Age. ´ 6 Cf Babic 2005, 77–8; Lucy 2005, 101–2. a worth of their own 161 The production and use of objects are contexts where the status of the individual and the values of the society are involved, defined and reproduced. In work and use there is a transmission of knowledge, and a social practice that is as important as are formalised symbols or decrees from a ruler.7 The challenge is to understand how material culture expresses and reflects these different aspects and changed with them. Thus we may find openings to the stories behind the objects. THE EARLIEST COINS OF GOTLAND The silver coins explored here (Fig 2) were minted on Gotland (Fig 3) between c 1140 and 1220. Their iconography does not in an obvious way point to a particular issuer, and the inscriptions are almost all illegible or incomprehensible to the modern eye. Here, they are therefore simply called ‘Group I’. Still, this was a very extensive coinage, in Swedish early medieval terms; an estimated eight million coins were minted,8 derived from a sample of 175 coins fig 3 Scandinavia and the Baltic Rim. Enlarged the island of Gotland, origin of the coins treated in this article. Drawing by N Myrberg. 7 Cf Lucy 2005, 102–3. 8 Myrberg 2008a, 84–6, 89. 162 nanoushka myrberg and applying the formula developed by Good that numismatics regularly uses.9 Who created this coinage and why? Why was it shaped in this particular way? And what did these coins mean to the society that produced them? Large numbers (>22,000) of those estimated eight million minted coins have been recovered over the years in Gotland, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Norway and mainland Sweden. In all, 112 finds including coins of Group I are known: hoards, accumulated finds, grave finds and occasionally stray finds (Tab 1). Of these, 27 finds are from Gotland itself, of which 11 hoards contained 11,053 coins of this group and almost no other coins at all.10 All the oldest hoards were found on the island, judging from the types present.11 As a comparison, the 15 accumulated finds on Gotland only included 35 coins of Group I (but almost all the ‘other’ coins: mainly later Gotlandic coins accumulated in the churches over the years, while contemporary coins are almost non-existent). In the rest of Sweden the total number of finds is higher (60) but the numbers of coins of Group I found are about the same, representing 27% of the hoards and mainly including later types. Table 1 THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COINS OF THE GROUP I AND OF FINDS CONTAINING THEM Single finds (very few) are included here as accumulated finds. Since the exact number of coins included could not be established for certain finds, the figures are in some cases estimations and generally low ones. In several such cases the original numbers were surely higher than the table shows, but it is not possible to establish how much so. Country of find Number of each type of find Number of Group 1 coins in each type of find Total number of coins Hoards Accumulated Grave Hoard Accumulated Grave Total finds finds finds Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Norway Swedenmainland SwedenGotland Total 1 8 0 2 4 1 33 11 60 1 0 1 0 2 0 27 15 47 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 378 0 14 68 124 9827 11053 22073 2 0 6 0 7 0 151 35 202 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 16 389 6 14 75 124 9978 11088 22288 2255 705 531 20000 477 4966 42740 24649 96323 9 Good 1963. Cf Allen 2005, 44; Carter 1981. The method is debated due to certain insecurities (most important, the number of coins which could be made from a die; and does ‘they could’ also mean ‘they did’?). The numbers are therefore kept low all through my calculations, and high and low figures are balanced for a reasonable outcome of the estimation. 10 The coins of Group I represent in total 77% of the hoards, but exception should be made for one particular case, Burge in Lummelunda (tpq 1143), which is to be labelled the ‘last Viking-Age hoard’, containing large numbers of foreign silver coins and pieces, and the very first coin of Group I found. Excluding this nonrepresentative hoard, Group I represents 99.6% of the hoards found on Gotland. 11 See Myrberg 2008a, particularly p 140 for a typology and chronology. a worth of their own 163 Not all material found is still preserved (c 15,000 coins now remain in museums and private collections), partly a result of many years of shifting strategies within the museums, but in many cases the lost material was fairly well documented so the descriptions may be used for several types of analyses. The c 11,000 preserved coins that I weighed and digitally photographed constitute the basis of the empirical analyses whose results I draw upon here. The coins in question are characterised by their iconography — a clovercross on the obverse and a church on the reverse — and by the production technique Vierschlag (‘four-struck’), where a flan is hammered out to a characteristic angular shape.12 They are irregular in shape (c 11–15 mm ø) due to this technique, with thin rims and a thicker central part causing the die to strike the surface unevenly. Even for die-identical coins, weights may differ between c 0.15–0.25 gr. This means the coins are quite difficult to work with and analysis of pictures and inscriptions requires meticulous record and study of combinations of die-identical coins. Figures 4, 7 and 8 show examples of such reconstructed pictures. Some closely related coins from the beginning of the 13th century often appear with Group I in the finds, but differ so much in iconography and weights that they should be defined as separate sub-groups, issued to conform to the Gotlandic standard but not necessarily by the normal minting authority.13 In about 1220, or shortly after, the Gotlandic coinage was renewed both in iconography and in standards;14 these later coins are here referred to as Group II. Group I is a type immobilisé, meaning that the iconography was very similar all through the period when it was minted, at least it appears so at first sight. The constant features are a clover-cross (and variations of it) on the obverse, and a church building on the reverse. The models and inspiration for the iconography were NW German and Frisian coins, in particular from Münster and its ‘Mimigardeford’-type,15 which was also an ‘immobilised type’ and much imitated in the Westphalian and Frisian area. The design of the church was gradually reduced and simplified over time into an increasingly compact building, and finally into a chequered square (the central part of the earlier pictures). The degree of stylisation and reduction of the church is the main criterion for my chronological and typological classification of the coins of Group I (Fig 4). Analysis of the typological elements of the coins involved a common typological seriation based on the morphological complexity of the pictures,16 following Dethlefsen and Deetz’s N-American gravestones model.17 In addition, a slow decrease in the average weights of the coins provides supporting data for the chronology, along with tpq-dates in a few cases provided by other known coins present in hoards.18 Older classifications, built on the presence (or absence) of inscriptions on the obverse and their degree of legibility are not useful since the inscriptions differ greatly in shape and may or may not be present throughout the period of minting. 12 Schrötter 1930, 540–1. The technique is mainly known from German and Swiss areas, most commonly used during the 11th–13th centuries. 13 Myrberg 2008a, 121–4, 140. 14 Ibid, 75–83. 15 Ilisch 1994, 44; 2000, 186; Leimus 2000. 16 On seriation as archaeological method, see eg Thomas 1974, 21–5. 17 Dethlefsen and Deetz 1966. 18 Termine post quem, the earliest possible date a coin may have been minted/a hoard deposited (not to be mistaken for when it actually was minted/deposited). 164 nanoushka myrberg fig 4 The analysed elements of the design (reconstructed complete pictures). To the left an obverse of an older, more complete type; to the right four specimens shown from the reverse and demonstrating the chronological changes the types underwent (latest far right). Not to scale. Drawing by N Myrberg. Chronologies and typologies build on the assumption of change-over-time, to various extent coloured by a kind of evolutionary thinking in terms of perfection, degeneration, development, beauty and suitability. Considering the coin material at hand, such an understanding is obviously counter-productive since it does not say anything about either production, craftsmanship, symbolism, chronology or the contemporary conceptions of the coins. The iconographical change is better discussed in terms of stylisation and complexity (which have apparent chronological relevance) and of variations to an overall theme. Still, neither objects nor pictures change by themselves. Behind every (non-taphonomic) change there is a human who caused it; a specific explanation, event and intention. Therefore, we must bring concepts like innovation, routine, negotiation and discursive power into chronological work. The intentionality behind it must however not always be interpreted as part of a large-scale or intricate plan, since the object’s changes probably came out just as much from everyday recurrent actions and individual choices on occasion. Late Viking-Age and early medieval Gotland is sometimes characterised as an egalitarian society of farmers and small traders.19 A number of small harbours and trading places have been found all around the island, and small trade and exchange were undoubtedly part of the inhabitant’s economy and occupations. Yet, the indications of a stratified local society are plenty, such as richly equipped graves with parallels in the contemporary elite outside of the island, slavery, individuals with a great influence on societal discourse (like promoters of Christianity and early church building), an intermarrying elite, and inherited offices within law and politics.20 19 Notably by Yrwing 1940; 1978. 20 Eg the graves of Broa in Halla parish, central Gotland, cf Hyenstrand 1989, 124, containing helmets like those of the boat-graves in Vendel, Sweden, and Sutton Hoo, England. Slaves (thralls) are frequently mentioned in the Guta Law (eg Ch 2 §3, Ch 6 §5, Ch 16, Ch 19 §37, Ch 38, Ch 56), and Baltic Ware pottery was produced locally on Gotlandic farms, likely by slaves (cf Roslund 2001a, 175–6, 252). Examples of influential individuals are Ormika and Botair in the Guta Saga. Botair, the son-in-law of Likair ‘who ruled/advised the most’ according to the Guta Saga, provides an example of intermarrying elite. For inherited offices like Þing lawmen see Lerbom 2003, 183–4. a worth of their own 165 Just to mention ‘small-scale trade’ will not prove its free and egalitarian character, and neither will trade in itself do as an explanation of the emergence of a domestic coinage on the island in the 1140s. Trading activities had been going on for a long time in the area, doing just fine without a domestic coinage, and went on without domestic coins in the major part of the Baltic Sea area for another 40 years or more.21 Even the eastern Swedish mainland, which the island formally was tied to, did not start a medieval coinage until about 1180. Rather, Gotland coins were the standard and coins used in parts of Sweden and the Baltic region until the middle of the 13th century.22 It is difficult to understand how this divergence from the normal medieval pattern of regal powers and carefully protected rights regarding coinage and coin circulation came about. The explanation for both this exceptional pattern and for the emergence of the Gotland coinage are likely to be found in a qualitative change in the Baltic Sea relations and in the very character of trade in the area, taking place from the first part of the 12th century onwards. I will attempt an interpretation, derived from a historical contextualisation, which will by necessity be somewhat simplified, but nonetheless provides a framework for understanding the events and their consequences. surface tension The wealth of Gotlandic silver hoards (>1050) from the Viking Age (on Gotland, c ad 750–1150) reflects a silver surplus that has been interpreted as resulting from trading activities, plundering, piracy and specialised artisanship.23 In particular, transit trade seems to give a satisfactory explanation for the mass of foreign silver (a mix of coins, silver jewellery and pieces from mainly the Caliphate, Germany and England) on this rather meagre ground: expensive foreign goods like fur and slaves passing the island’s harbours, and the full opportunity to profit on the mediation between markets.24 Domestic products in the medieval period were probably metalwork (like weapons and jewellery), stonework (like baptismal fonts), and perhaps also horse-breeding and shipbuilding, as indicated by finds of such products from all around the Baltic area, by the extensive layers of iron slag in Visby (Gotland’s main harbour and town) and by some 13th-century written sources.25 The trading or exchange networks were in the Viking Age much dependent on personal relations and factors like family ties, common faith and reliability.26 Such networks, founded on long-term and family relations, existed all over the Baltic Sea area, in Scandinavia and in Rus’ (later Russia). The Svear on the eastern Swedish mainland were in close contact with the Kiev-Rus’ empire, through trade and royal family connections. As for Gotland, the access to the Rus’ markets may have depended largely from its tributary status to the Svear, 21 Domestic coins were issued earlier in the southern parts of the Baltic Sea area (Denmark, Germany, Poland) but on the Swedish mainland not until c 1180, the Baltic states only in the 13th century (on Danish, German, and perhaps also Gotlandic initiative), and Finland only by the 15th. 22 Gotland: 1 mark silver=288 penningar (deniers), later standards on the mainland: 1 mark=192 (Svealand) or 384 (Götaland) penningar. 23 Jonsson 2004, 27. 24 Blomkvist 2005, 382; Pernler 1977, 18, 45; Sawyer 1992, 134; Spufford 1988, 65; Yrwing 1978, 141. 25 DS 250, 253; Magnusson 1995, 68–9; Nordman 1942, 287; Ortved 1933, 302. 26 Cf Gustin 2004, 203–4; Ladurie 1980, 491; Polanyi 1971, 17, 99. 166 nanoushka myrberg who held those connections in their hands.27 A tribute of 60 mark silver to be paid every year is mentioned in the Guta Saga, which was written down in the beginning of the 13th century but is thought to reflect the situation in the 11th century.28 In the beginning of the 12th century, internal affairs on both sides disturbed the old connections between the Svear and Rus’. In Rus’ a power struggle eventually led the Novgorod area29 — Gotland’s most important trading partner in Rus’ — to have a partial independence from the Rus’ main centre at Kiev. On the Swedish mainland, at the same time, a series of struggles commenced over kingship authority between the old kings in the Svear area in Uppland and the wealthy landowning elite of the Götar further south in Götaland, which were to continue for more than a century. Parallel to these events, the continental Church was being established as a permanent institution in Scandinavia, dioceses were structured and bishops became a new factor of power. Around 1130, Gotland became part of the diocese of Linköping in Östergötland [Eastern Götaland].30 The extent of the diocese is the same as of the ‘core area’ of circulation of Group I (as detectable through the coin finds) and, apparently, the connections and relations within that area were already strong when the coins were first issued. The 12th-century elite of Östergötland were in many cases related through marriage to the Danish, and the Danish prince Magnus (Nielsen) was probably recognised as king in Östergötland for a period.31 Danish influence is also detectable on Gotland at this time through the church architecture, particularly in the southern parts of the island, but also in Visby.32 The architecture indicates contacts between Gotlanders and the Danish royalty, which may have mediated the contacts with artisans and masons from Denmark and Germany. At this point, the Gotlanders seem to have taken advantage of the situation and made direct agreements, separate from the Svea alliance, with Novgorod in the east (at that time broken free from Kiev-Rus’) as well as with the German and Slav area in the south-west. Tense relations with the Svear was apparently the result, leading to Svear even attacking Gotland ships heading east in the 12th century. From Novgorod came those who wished to trade without the control of the Kiev-Svea network with southern Denmark, Friesland and northern Germany, where they had their partners and the routes to continue down the Rhine and to England.33 Gotland in the middle of the Baltic Sea was the natural place to pass and to visit for rest and supplies on such a journey. Indeed, the rather meagre material culture of early 12th-century Visby includes Baltic Ware and the remains of an early Orthodox church that, along with a few written sources, indicate the presence of Russian and Slav guests and merchants.34 27 Blomkvist 2005, 400, 404. 28 Guta Saga, see Gannholm 1994. About the dating and various strata of the saga text, see Blomkvist 2005, 404; Kyhlberg 1991, 233; Steffen 1943, 40. 29 Cf Martin 1995, 62. 30 Nordanskog 1996, 10; Schück 1959, 49. 31 Hermansson 2000; Kyhlberg 1991, 140–1. 32 Markus 1999, 88, 121, 133–4, 143. 33 Blomkvist 2005, 397; Hermanson 2000, 118–19; Pernler 1977, 35. 34 Roslund 2001b, 244, 249; Zerpe 2007, 122. a worth of their own 167 An agreement or treaty between Gotlanders and the northern German area was probably made already in the 1130s, and was renewed in the 1160s as the Artlenburg Treaty.35 Few German traders seem to have been present in Visby until the latter part of the 12th century, while the eastern connection is clearly visible in archaeological material all from the beginning of the century and earlier.36 Still, when the Germans started to arrive, they did so very determinedly, through merchants soon to be residents and (by the mid-13th century) part of the town administration, and through the crusader forces gathering on the island before going further eastwards (from the end of the 12th century).37 During the 12th century, there apparently were recurrent tensions between the Gotlanders and their allies in the German area. As an example, the German Prince Henry (of Saxony) had to punish some of his people for injuring Gotlanders under his protection. Another example is an early 12th-century rune-stone (G 138) from central Gotland, declaring that Gairhjälm was killed by men from Lübeck (Fig 5).38 The partnerships were simply not reliable, creating insecurities and tensions that impeded contacts and exchange of various natures. Yet both Gotlanders and Germans had apparent interests in common and a solution to the problems was necessary. This may have been one decisive reason why the Gotlanders found it necessary to direct foreign trade to one central harbour, where they could more easily control guests and exchange. fig 5 Rune-stone from Halla church, Gotland (G 138). The inscription mentions Gairhjälm being killed by men from Lübeck/Liubice. The stone is dated from its runes to the early 12th century. Not to scale. After Svärdström 1978, 6. 35 Blomkvist 2005, 397; Yrwing 1978, 107, 125. 36 Roslund 2001b, 244–7. 37 The crusaders gathering on Gotland are mentioned eg in HCL; see further Lind et al 2004, 173–4; Tuulse 1970, 105. 38 Cf Blomkvist 2005, 432; Svärdström 1978, 6. 168 nanoushka myrberg pax porta nova From the second half of the 12th century onwards, long-distance trading guests seem to have been directed exclusively to the city and harbour of Visby. Already a meeting point in the 11th century, activities seem to increase rapidly after c 1160 and from that time on the city is the evident focal point of external relations. Earlier major trading harbours (such as Paviken and Västergarn on Gotland’s W coast) decline around the same time. About 1160 (between 1158 and 1161) Visby was fortified by a tower overlooking the harbour (Fig 6),39 which simplified control over the town as well as over the harbour, guests and trade. What Gotland had to offer, apart from a few artisan products, was mainly the opportunity to land in a safe haven and protection of its guests. Visby was a large harbour already before the middle of the century, and it is likely the Gotlanders made a profit out of their position through claiming tolls and controlling the exchange of goods and silver. fig 6 ‘The gunpowder tower’ on the harbour of Visby. After Eckhoff and Janse 1922, pl 20. 39 Swanström 2002, 47. a worth of their own 169 From a practical point of view, the initiation of domestic coinage in the 1140s probably followed because of the new treaties with the south-western markets, probably to facilitate trade between the eastern and southern partners, as well as to make an economic gain through enforcing the guests to change their means of payment into local coins controlled by Gotlandic authorities. This explains, at least in part, the rapidly effected exclusion of foreign coins from circulation on the island. It should be underlined that such a development is not self-evident, given the long tradition of using foreign coins on the island or comparing with adjacent areas where foreign coins continued to constitute a much larger proportion of the circulation. Such enforcement presumes the control of the place. Thus it eventually became necessary to follow the example of (new) Lübeck, recently established by Henry of Saxony, and direct all guests to one harbour. Why Visby was considered the best option is not known, but the fortification of the harbour is a visible remnant of the beginning of this process. Thus the Gotlanders manifested their willingness and ability to protect their guests — and to control them. Peace and safety are essential for the execution of business. There is a vast literature on the nature of exchange.40 The personal networks and even the dress code were essential to establish contact and trust; trust and reciprocity was everything on a market full of foreign coins, fakes and imitations. The introduction of coins facilitated trade through its standardisation but mainly because it depersonified the exchange relations: somebody outside of the trade situation (the issuing authority) took responsibility for the quality of the coin. That is, when the coins were domestic and known. Accordingly, the Gotlanders adopted the innovation of coinage to provide their guests with the best possible framework for their journey’s halt. In Visby, the introduction of a new variation of coins (Fig 7), no later than 1170,41 accentuated the peaceful intentions. These allude to a group of Danish coins inscribed PAX POR (PAX PO, PAX P, etc), minted for King Niels (1103– 34), interpreted as meaning ‘peace of the gate’.42 In a wider sense, this likely refers to the peace of a merchant town (port-of-trade, emporium, kaupung) and to the peace connected with the Church in medieval legislation. Of particular importance were the gates of the church, which were associated with the gates of heaven,43 and were the borderline between the profane outer world and the sanctity inside. A reference to the Porta, the Gate, accordingly alluded to divine peace and protection. Such a sanctity and legal status was earlier on Gotland connected to vi-places, protected places where one could seek shelter or legal negotiations took place.44 Visby itself is supposed to have been such a place before developing into a town, and thus the coin inscription probably refers to the place (the traditional vi, the market place, the early town) where it was minted. In breaking with the normally illegible coins to coins with a clearly visible PAX PORTA-inscription, with its known source of inspiration, the die-maker 40 Two recent examples concerning the Baltic Sea area in the late Viking Age are Roslund 2001a and Gustin 2004. 41 Myrberg 2008a, 106–9, 140, 158–60. 42 Andrén 1995, 11–12. 43 Gurevich 1985, 71. 44 GL §13; GS §11; Gustavson 2003, 187; Lönnqvist and Widmark 1997, 151; Myrberg 2008b. 170 nanoushka myrberg fig 7 PAX PORTA NY[. . .], PAX PORTA NI. Two of the obverses and one reverse from a die-chain of the Gotlandic Pax Porta-coins. Selection and drawings from a die-study made by the author (Myrberg 2008a, 108, fig 5.5.7). Scale 3:1. Average weight 0.18 g (seven specimens). Drawing by N Myrberg. expresses an ambition of keeping peace and of legal enforcement of that. Such exceptions to the rule happened in a few rare cases during the whole 80-yearperiod this otherwise uniform group of coins was minted. I suggest that the prompt was the tensions and events of the 1160s and was part of the measures taken to strengthen Visby as the island’s central harbour. The PAX PORTAcoins indicate that the Gotlanders oriented themselves towards the Danish sphere at this time. The important Danish ally was in this case not primarily the king but the Church and its primas, head of all Scandinavian bishops and dioceses. The Danish nobility were also intimately tied to the new royal families in Swedish Östergötland, antagonists of the Svear. Thus the Gotlanders built their new alliances to stand free from the Svear but not to become dependent on the German connections. The inscriptions of the Gotlandic PAX PORTA-coins differ from the Danish ones by having an addition to it: NI (NY, NV) [NOVA]. The coins are a worth of their own 171 explicit that they are from the new Porta. This presumably marks the moment when Visby passed from being one of several harbours around the island into a place of particular significance. This was also the moment when the Gotlandic coins started to be of importance outside of the island: the older coins of Group I are mainly found on the island or, rarely, in considerably younger hoards outside of the island; coins from the 1170s onwards occur in large numbers also outside of the island itself (cf Tab 1). This indicates that the use of Gotlandic coin passed from being a possibility in the first stage, into something the visitors had to relate to — probably through changing their own means of payment into the local value. The domestic coinage at this point manifested Gotlandic authority to the ever-more-frequent visitors to the island. Taking control over silver and coin use brought profit and authority, but beyond this the coins were a kind of service offered, a safe harbour in physical terms, and the means for a safe exchange or trading situation between the guests. These means depended on recognition of the Gotlanders’ authority and reliability, which the coins both manifested and recreated. Thus, the domestic coins not only created an economic surplus, but above all they helped to build a key position in the network that facilitated liberation from the mainland authorities. The coins do not simply reflect existing autonomy; they were part of a strategy that created it. inspiration, transformation and transfer of knowledge The cross on the obverse of the coins of Group I (and the first type of Group II) has been defined as a ‘star’, a ‘wheel-cross’ or a ‘flower’. I would rather refer to it as a clover-cross, with reference to the clover-leaves in between the main axes of the cross. The clovers indeed associate to floral ornamentation, as accentuated in one variant of the coins where leaves also cover the middle ring of the cross (Fig 8); but they could also be connected with the sceptre of a ruler. This design is the same as on the Frisian models, while the ‘Mimigardeford’ coins have single dots in its cross-angles (as do numerous other European coin types from the Viking Age and early Middle Ages). The type of cross with small crosses, dots or similar in the cross-angles are generally interpreted as referring to the four Evangelists, to the wounds of Christ, or similar, and may belong in particular to a missionary context such as the crusading ideology of the 12th century. The church building on the reverse is of a continental type not present on Gotland when the minting started. Therefore, it is easy to say it imitates the continental-style church of the Frisian and Westphalian coins. But the pictures were surely understood by the die-makers, as shown by the example in Fig 8, where a younger and transformed design of the Gotlandic coins alludes to the contemporary domestic churches and hall-buildings with animal head ornamentation. The adding of animal heads to a building design to ‘Scandinavise’ it is a practice known from other cases, such as the Hedeby coins imitating Carolingian ones,45 or reliquaries representing churches.46 The coins of Group I in the same way reformulate the northern European and Christian content of the 45 Malmer 1966, pl 1 fig 2. 46 Eg the reliquary from Trönö church, Sweden, crafted in Limoges but with the addition of animal heads to the roof after arriving in Scandinavia (Andersson 1951, 78; Hildebrand 1894, 520). 172 nanoushka myrberg fig 8 One of the oldest variations of Group I. The floral ornamentation of the cross on the obverse is accentuated through designing the middle ring as a flower. The variation was produced in two combinations, with several years passing from the first to the second occasion. The same die was used for the obverse of the older coins (with the reverse shown at top right) as for the younger coins (with the reverse shown at bottom right), but the corrosion on the die (visible on the younger coins) indicates that it had been stored for some years until put into use again. The church on the reverse of the younger coins alludes to domestic churches with animal heads and to reliquaries. Scale 3:1. Drawing by N Myrberg. pictures into an understanding expressed in local terms; a change takes place in the meeting between the model and the Scandinavian user and producer. The church gets a less ‘cathedral’ design and instead comes closer to the reality surrounding the interpreter and users. Fig 8 shows a variation of Group I which has been found in two combinations, one older and one considerably younger. The same die was used for the obverse of both the older and the younger coins, but when the obverses of the younger coins were minted the die was indistinct: worn, or, more likely, corroded. This indicates that it had been stored for some years, perhaps in a damp place, until put into use again. Apparently several years passed from the first to the second occasion, a fact that is not only of interest as an example of reuse (there are more such cases in the material) but also because of the shift in the interpretation of the church design taking place between the first and the second phase of use, as discussed above. Here, it might be a lead to the precise time when the domestic die-cutters took over the production from the Westphalian or Frisian craftsmen who most likely were the first executors of dies and coins a worth of their own 173 (judging from the use of models and of the characteristic vierschlag-technique applied to the flan). The older combination was minted in c ad 1155 and the younger one in c 1190.47 The artisans producing dies and coins were probably respected specialists with a certain liberty to shape the design. Individual creativity was accepted; the engraver was not entirely restricted by requirements to copy prototypes exactly, by decrees, or by a linear process of reduction, as is demonstrated by a great variation within the types. The gradual change of the types (eg from complex to stylised church) shows how knowledge was transferred between the craftsmen, an ‘artisan discourse’ being applied, practised and changed through the successive replacement of masters, apprentices and dies. The individual hand behind the design is always there and visible. In the beginning, the Gotlandic coins were thus most likely minted by craftsmen brought in from areas that had the know-how, using the network contacts which knew where to find them. On Gotland, other foreign artisans and masons have left traces in the building and decoration of churches, and the exchange of such contacts was probably extensive judging from the many cases of similar decorations or building details from different areas. Gotland boasted a fine jewellery industry of its own all through the Iron Age, and most likely the invited craftsmen were asked to teach their coining skills to the domestic artisans. The proof left by the coins, at first closely imitating the Westphalian and Frisian coinages but eventually (at some point between 1155 and 1190) changing into a local interpretation of it, opens up for a close study of artisanship and transfer of crafts and knowledge on both a small and large level. profiteers, producers, pirates and partners The introduction of coins facilitated the taking of tolls, fees and taxes, features gradually introduced in Scandinavian economic life with the passing from the Viking-Age exchange economy into the monetarised early Middle Ages.48 Inspiration for Gotland’s new, domestic coinage probably came from the regulated markets encountered in the south and west. The reason for Gotlandic domestic minting is hard to connect with the flourishing Novgorod trade, since that area did not use coins but grivna, silver bars. In the German, Danish and western Slav markets, on the other hand, they were certainly familiar with monetary use of coins, and that is where the inspiration and coins models were picked up. As pointed out above, almost no foreign coins later than c 1140 have been found on Gotland, a remarkable shift in attitude for this area. For hundreds of years an abundance of foreign coins had been brought into and kept on the island, and then in just a few years the pattern changed completely. This means a large shift, in economy as well as in conceptions. Having contacts with those foreign markets was nothing new. Therefore, the determinant factors lie in some qualitative changes in the nature of the contacts. For one thing, written regulations and agreements were getting increasingly important from the 1130s onwards. Another new situation was the everincreasing attention directed towards the eastern parts of the Baltic Sea area 47 For the whole chronology of Group I, see Myrberg 2008a, 140. 48 Lindkvist 1990. 174 nanoushka myrberg from the south-western part of it, from German, Danish and W Slav areas alike. New alliances were made, and old ones redefined. The old networks were rooted in a subordinate role towards the Svear, and the Scandinavian elite alliances on top of that, in combination with Baltic Sea networks that were probably created and maintained on a family level, thus escaping much of the interest of the lords. The new alliances involved the Danish sphere, the Church and probably also princely contacts within the German and Danish realms. It is quite possible that the Danish Prince Cnut (Lavard), who controlled the western parts of the southern Baltic coast — including the large trading centre of Slesvig — was the link between the Gotlanders and the German Duke (later Emperor) Lothar when a first contact was made (later drawn up as a formal agreement). Cnut was an ally of Lothar, but also of Novgorod through marriage with the Princess Ingeborg, and was apparently aiming to control all trade on the east.49 This made Gotland and its trading harbours of great interest to him, and the first contacts and agreements important. Cnut was killed in 1131 and others signed the agreement of the 1130s. Since the document has disappeared the signatories are unknown, but among those participating on behalf of the Gotlanders there were probably the ones who brought back the idea and incitement to start off a domestic coinage in c 1140. Throughout the 12th century (and into the following one) a series of trading and crusading enterprises were undertaken eastwards, often with somewhat unclear intentions. The Gotlanders were quite reluctant to participate in these journeys, judging from early 13th-century documents where Henry of Livonia complains that the Gotlanders would not participate in the crusades, and where the pope complains to the bishop that the Gotlanders continue to sell weapons to the pagans of the eastern Baltic.50 Henry of Livonia, as noted above, also complains about the Gotlanders receiving Osilian pirates (from the large island outside present-day Estonia). Perhaps the ‘pirates’ were there to trade, perhaps to rest, perhaps to share some loot — we do not know that. But the material culture of the Estonian islands and Gotland is sometimes strikingly similar, and the Gotlanders produced weapons for sale on the other side of the Baltic — these indications are enough to suggest a close and repeated contact between the groups though one is now referred to as Scandinavian and the other as Baltic or Estonian. The position of the Gotlanders towards the mainland and the continental powers was taken, I argue, out of long-time commitment, alliances and family bonds around the Baltic Sea and not least its eastern parts. The Gotlanders allowed crusaders to gather on the island and pass it because they could not afford expulsion from the newly consolidated church community, but the agenda was resisted on a local level. This attitude rests firmly on the Viking-Age networks of family and trading exchange. During the 12th century, the older type of economy, based on intimate networks, personal relations and commodities was challenged by the monetary economy encountered in the south-western contacts (and eventually by the Church and State demands on having taxes paid in coins). This probably meant that the old Gotlandic elite, who had built their position on the access to the 49 Blomkvist 2005, 127, 401; Hermanson 2000, 92, 114. 50 HCL XXX, 1 (regarding events of 1203); DS 250, 253 (in 1229). a worth of their own 175 ‘best networks’, met with a corresponding challenge from such groups as could use new markets and networks to free themselves from the older institutions of society. Trade in itself was nothing new, but the new formalised trade with written agreements and treaties was. Such trading agreements were initially drawn up between the (noble) elite on each side, but were more and more becoming an independent concern of towns and guilds, without necessarily depending on good relations between princes. These changes made it possible for those engaged in long-distance trade to eventually formulate a separate agenda. a worth of their own In the medieval world, profit and money were complicated. To make a profit, to trade, and to use money was both accepted and encouraged, but it was not part of an aristocratic ideal and had to take place in a Christian framework to be socially acceptable. This may be one reason why the model for the Gotlandic coins was picked up from the Münster coins and ultimately from the 9th-century Carolingian ‘Christiana Religio’-coins, which were the model for many northern European coins for some centuries. This may also be the reason behind a sudden change in silver consumption during the 12th century — from Viking-Age hoarding into investment in numerous extravagant church buildings and sacrifice on their altars.51 Through the use of coin for religious and pious purposes, its general use was made legitimate. The 12th-century Gotland elite probably encouraged the monetary economy as long as the mercantile sphere did not have any bearing on the societal ideology in itself. But starting off a domestic coinage eventually affected economic politics and caused an ideological reorientation towards the ‘capitalist spirit’ then gaining ground in the countries (and in particular the towns) of the Baltic Sea area.52 Though the production and use of the coins was probably initially mainly restricted to the town and to a few purposes, its pure existence naturalised its use, and eventually made ground for a more widespread use (geographically, and for multiple purposes) as well as for an ideological shift on a societal level. The coins were part of creating a space where former preferential rights could be challenged and side-stepped on a larger scale. That the coins in question were produced on the island is beyond doubt considering their distribution and the general change they indicate. Though present in a vast area in the Baltic Sea area, the main part of coins of Group I are found on the island itself, and in particular this is true for the older coins. The hoards found on Gotland also contain large numbers of die-identical coins, again representing a material that did not ‘move’ far from the source, and the hoards are ‘pure’ — not mixed up with other coins as they would have been had they been imported en masse from a foreign source like the Viking-Age Arabic or German coins were. During the following century, the characteristic custom of hoarding silver almost entirely vanished, and instead coins were used and deposited in large numbers in churches. These changes represent a major shift in economic use and in conceptions. 51 On the patterns of hoarding and sacrificing in churches respectively on Gotland, see Myrberg 2008a, 144, 198, figs 4.4, 4.5, 4.6. 52 Carelli 2001, 373; Gurevich 1990, 277. 176 nanoushka myrberg Considering the vast spread of these coins and the subsequent Group II, the impact they had on the rest of the Swedish mainland and on the monetary economy of the Baltic Sea area, and the obvious inspiration from Frisian and German coins, it could also be suggested that the minting authority lay outside of the island itself. Still, no other such authority is known, even less made plausible. For example, the Bishop of Linköping on the Swedish mainland is generally considered to have had less to say on the island than in the rest of the diocese, and German traders and burghers arrived on a more permanent basis to Visby considerably later than the coins started to be issued. On the other hand, the seniores or elite of the Althing were an important factor of power and present as such in Visby at least well into the middle of the 13th century.53 There is thus no reason to assume any other issuer, though the Althing is not positively indicated as issuing authority by either coins or documents. For a few hundred years the coins helped to create an independent position for Gotland, and for its inhabitants to manoeuvre between different partners and loyalties. Their own worth in the material sense thus was intimately tied to their own worth in the immaterial sense of the word. But soon the islanders were divided between the old and new loyalties. The old nobility saw the power over coinage and trade increasingly pass into the hands of the inhabitants of Visby and their external contacts, in particular all the German traders who started to settle permanently from the end of the 12th century and soon were to play an important role in the city’s affairs. During the course of the 13th century the burghers of Visby gradually estranged themselves from the rest of the island and ‘town’ and ‘country’ eventually entered into a full-scale conflict. The coinage, by then, had become the ‘own worth’ of the burgers rather than of all Gotland. This was also manifested in the coin types introduced during the century. About 1220 there was first a definite break from the long-lasting anonymous group of the 12th century into a younger one (Group II) with many variations of a different, and crusader-inspired iconography and, in the later part of the 13th century, a completely new group of coins was issued, clearly signed with a W for the town itself.54 Different groups in a society manifest themselves differently, and have partly different agendas within the common framework. The growth of the town during the course of the 12th and 13th centuries brought with it a new and continental way of life, some of it very comfortable. For example, the drainage and water systems were of unusually high standards, the number of churches was notable, highly qualified masons were brought in from abroad, and many of the churches were bestowed with an empor (a patron’s special storey) — usually only seen in connection with mainland and continental royal families. Burgher life in Visby was definitely comfortable for many of its inhabitants, and different from the life in the countryside. Gradually different cultures were to develop between Gotlanders who yet were of the same families. Contacts between the town and the countryside never entirely ceased to exist, as demonstrated by the W-coins issued by the town after the civil war in 1288 (when also a city wall was built), which are found in enormous amounts in the churches 53 Yrwing 1978, 179. 54 For the Gotlandic coin types of the 13th century, see Lagerqvist 1970, 79, 104. a worth of their own 177 of the countryside. The identification as a gute (gotlander) was also henceforth important, as indicated by its continuous use on city seals and by the frequent use of it as a byname for traders.55 But still, the inhabitants of Visby met with another way of life, other possibilities opened up, and perhaps they were also in a sense more ‘modern’ in thought than those staying in the country. One strategy to create unity within the island was, in the first years of the 13th century, to codify the Gotland ‘myth of origin’, the Guta Saga.56 There, the power of the old elite was legitimised and accentuated. But one main point of the saga may have been to make the society cohere like it ‘once did’. To this end, the discursive power which was once self-evidently in the hands of the seniores, needed to be restored, and the ideologically coloured references to an old Gotland ethnie made obvious. The Saga was one way of doing in literature what had been done in material culture long before: to manifest itself as a united entity to the world around. When Gotland initiated a coinage of its own in the 1140s, it entered into a new system of economy and thought that was most likely known from abroad but never tried at home; it was a strategy of the moment to meet with a new situation. The iconography was taken from partners encountered in the west and adapted to the overall Christian framework expected. But the execution of it was local, the legends (signs) were different, and the continental model was soon rephrased into local terms. This was not due to a lack of understanding of the models, but was an autonomous interpretation out of a local understanding, specific terms and a partly different cultural framework. With these coins, the people of Gotland built their own worth, in both material and immaterial terms. The strategy could not save the island from invasion by Swedes, Danes and pirate kings alternately in the following centuries, but it certainly had that effect at the time. acknowledgements I am most grateful to the Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Sweden, for providing me with funding to write the present article, which derives from my Swedish doctoral thesis Ett eget värde (Myrberg 2008a). Many thanks are also due to my former supervisors, Professors Anders Andrén and Kenneth Jonsson, and to Professor Mats Burström and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the present paper. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, M 2005, ‘The quantity of money in England 1180–1247: new data’, British Numis J 75, 44–9. Andersson, A 1951, ‘Thomas Beckets skrin i Trönö kyrka’, Hälsingerunor 1951. Andrén, A 1995, ‘Signs of communities. The iconography of early towns in Denmark’, Meddelanden från Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum NS 10 (1993–94), 9– 20. 55 Yrwing 1978, 179; for the frequent use of bynames alluding to Gotland among the 13th-century traders on England, see Bugge 1899; Wase 2005. 56 See Gannholm 1994 for a printed edition; Kyhlberg 1991 for an analysis and discussion of its structure and historical context; Myrberg 2008a, 173–4 for further discussion on the purposes of the saga. 178 nanoushka myrberg Gustavson, H 2003, ‘Oklundainskriften sjuttio år efteråt’, in W Heizmann and A van Nahl (eds) Runica — Germanica — Mediaevalia, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanische Altertumskunde 37, 186–98. Gustin, I 2004, Mellan gåva och marknad: handel, tillit och materiell kultur under vikingatid, Lund Studies Medieval Archaeol 34. Hermanson, L 2000, Släkt, vänner och makt: en studie av elitens politiska kultur i 1100-talets Danmark, Avhandlingar från Historiska institutionen i Göteborg 24. Hildebrand, H 1894, Sveriges Medeltid I, Book II, Stockholm: P A Norstedt and Sons. Hodder, I 1991 [1986], Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, 2nd edn, Cambridge: University Press. Hyenstrand, Å 1989, Socknar och stenstugor, Stockholm Archaeological Reports 22. Ilisch, P 1994, Die Mittelalterliche Münzprägung der Bischöfe von Münster, Münster: Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte. Ilisch, P 2000, ‘Der Münzprägung im Herzogtum Niederlothringen, 1, Die Münzprägung in der räumen Utrecht und Friesland im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert’, Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde 84–5 (1997/98). Jonsson, K 2004, ‘Västerländska vikingatida mynt’, Gotländskt Arkiv 2004, 27–32. Kyhlberg, O 1991, Gotland mellan arkeologi och historia. Om det tidiga Gotland, Theses and Papers in Archaeology 4, Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet. Ladurie, E Le Roy 1980, Montaillou: en fransk by 1294–1324, Stockholm: Atlantis. Lagerqvist, L O 1970, Svenska mynt från vikingatid och medeltid samt gotländska mynt, Stockholm: Numismatiska bokförlaget. Leimus, I 2000, ‘Gotlands ældste mønter — inspireret av Münster?’ Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad 4/2000, 81–3. Lerbom, J 2003, Mellan två riken. Integration, politisk kultur och förnationella identiteter på Gotland 1500–1700, Studia Historica Lundensia 11. Lind, J H, Jensen, C S, Jensen, K V, et al 2004, Danske korstog: krig og mission i Østersøen, København: Høst. Lindkvist, T 1990, Plundring, skatter och den feodala statens framväxt: organisatoriska tendenser i Sverige under övergången från vikingatid till tidig medeltid, Uppsala: Historiska institutionen. Andrén, A 1998, Between Artifacts and Text. Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, New York: Plenum Press. Babic S 2005, ‘Status identity and archa´, eology’, in Díaz-Andreu et al (eds), 67– 85. Bauer, A 1959, Heinrici Chronicon Livoniae [Heinrich von Lettland. Livländische Chronik]. Orginal text and German translation, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Blomkvist, N 2005, The Discovery of the Baltic. The Reception of a Catholic World-System in the European North (ad 1075–1225), The Northern World 15. Bugge, A 1899, ‘Gotlændingernes handel paa England og Norge omkring 1300’, Historisk Tidsskrift 3 række, 10–180. Carelli, P 2001, En kapitalistisk anda. Kulturella förändringar i 1100-talets Danmark, Lund Stud Medieval Archaeol 26. Carter, G F 1981, ‘Comparision of methods for calculating the total number of dies from die-link statistics’, in C Carcassonne and T Hackens (eds), Statistics and Numismatics, Pact 5, 204–31. Deetz, J 1977, In Small Things Forgotten. The Archaeology of Early American Life, New York: Anchor Press. Dethlefsen, E and Deetz, J 1966, ‘Death’s heads, cherubs, and willow trees: experimental archaeology in colonial cemeteries’, American Antiquity 31, 502–10. Díaz-Andreu, M, Lucy, S, Babic S, et al ´, (eds) 2005, The Archaeology of Identity. Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, London/New York: Routledge. Eckhoff, E and Janse, O 1922, Visby stadsmur 2, Planscher, Stockholm: Wahlström and Widstrand. Funari, P, Jones, S and Hall, M 1999, ‘Introduction: archaeology in history’, in P Funari, S Jones and M Hall (eds), Historical Archaeology. Back From the Edge, London/New York: Routledge, 1–20. Gannholm, T (ed) 1994, Guta Lagh med Gutasagan, Stånga: Ganne Burs. Good, I J 1963, ‘The population frequencies of species and the estimation of population parameters’, Biometrika 40, 237–64. Gurevich, A J 1985, Categories of Medieval Culture, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Gurevich, A J 1990, ‘The Merchant’, in J Le Goff (ed), The Medieval World, London: Collins and Brown. a worth of their own Lönnqvist, O and Widmark, G 1997, ‘Den fredlöse och Oklundaristningens band’, Saga och sed (1996/97), Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfsakademien, 145–59. Lucy, S 2005, ‘Ethnic and cultural identities’, in Díaz-Andreu et al (eds), 86–109. Magnusson, G 1995, ‘Iron production, smithing and iron trade in the Baltic during the late Iron Age and early Middle Ages (c 5th–13th centuries)’, in I Jansson (ed), Archeology East and West of the Baltic. Papers from the Second EstonianSwedish Archaeological Symposium, Sigtuna, May 1991, Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet, 61–70. Malmer, B 1966, Nordiska mynt före år 1000, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 4. Malmer, B 1989, The Sigtuna Coinage c 995– 1005, Commentationes de nummis saecolorum IX–XI in Suecia repertis, Nova Series 4. Malmer, B 1995, ‘Från Olof till Anund: ur sigtunamyntningens historia’, in K Jonsson, U Nordlind and I Wiséhn (eds), Myntningen i Sverige 995–1995, Numismatiska Meddelanden XL. Malmer, B 1997, The Anglo-Scandinavian Coinage c 995–1020, Commentationes de nummis saeculorum IX–XI in Suecia repertis, Nova series 9. Markus, K 1999, Från Gotland till Estland. Kyrkokonst och politik under 1200-talet, Tallinn: Mercur Consulting. Martin, J 1995, Medieval Russia, 980–1584, Cambridge: University Press. Myrberg, N 2008a, Ett eget värde. Gotlands tidigaste myntning, ca 1140–1220, Stockholm Stud Archaeol 45. Myrberg, N 2008b, ‘Room for all? Spaces and places for thing assemblies: the case of the all-thing on Gotland, Sweden’, Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 4 (2008), 133–57. Nordanskog, G 1996, Af dhaim briscadhus kirckiur allar i Gutlandi: problem rörande Gotlands kristianisering, C-uppsats i medeltidsarkeologi, Arkeologiska institutionen, Lund: Lunds Universitet. Nordman, C A 1942, ‘Schatzfunde und Handelsverbindungen in Finnlands Wikingerzeit’, Acta Archeologica 13, 272– 93. Ortved, E 1933, Cistercieordenen og dens klostre i Norden. [Bog 2], Sveriges klostre, Copenhagen: Schultz. 179 Pernler, S-E 1977, Gotlands medeltida kyrkoliv — biskop och prostar. En kyrkorättslig studie, Visby: Barry Press förlag. Polanyi, K 1971, Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi (ed by George Dalton), Boston: Beacon Press. Roslund, M 2001a, Gäster i huset. Kulturell överföring mellan slaver och skandinaver 900 till 1300, Lund: Vetenskapssocieteten. Roslund, M 2001b, ‘Gutar, främlingar och den förblindande vikingatiden’, in A Andrén, L Ersgård and J Wienberg (eds), Från stad till land. En medeltidsarkeologisk resa tillägnad Hans Andersson, Lund Stud Medieval Archaeol 29, 241–51. Sawyer, P 1992, ‘Resources and settlements’, in E Roesdahl (ed), From Viking to Crusader: The Scandinavians and Europe, 800–1200, New York: Rizzoli, 126–35. Schive, C I 1865, Norges mynter i middelalderen, Christiania: H Tönsberg. von Schrötter, F 1930, Wörterbuch der Münzkunde, Berlin-Leipzig. Schück, H 1959, Ecclesia Lincopensis: studier om Linköpingskyrkan under medeltiden och Gustav Vasa [English summary: Studies on the church of Linköping in the Middle Ages and the reign of Gustavus Vasa], Stockholm Stud History 4. Spufford, P 1988, Money and its Use in Medieval Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steffen, R 1943, Gotlands administrativa, rättsliga och kyrkliga organisation från äldsta tider till år 1645, Lund. Svärdström, E 1978, Gotlands runinskrifter 2, Sveriges Runinskrifter 12. Swanström, E 2002, ‘Kruttornet och sjömuren i Visby: några funderingar kring deras tillkomst’, Gotländskt arkiv 2002, 43–52. Thomas, D H 1974, Predicting the Past. An Introduction to Anthropological Archaeology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Tuulse, A 1970, ‘S:t Görans kyrkoruin i Visby’, Fornvännen, 90–107. Wase, D 2005, De gotländska köpmännen i England fram till omkring år 1300, Acta Orientalis 7. Wienberg, J 1988, ‘Metaforisk arkæologi og tingenes sprog’, META — medeltidsarkeologisk tidskrift 1–2/1988, 30–57. Yrwing, H 1940, Gotland under äldre medeltid. Studier i Baltisk-hanseatisk historia, Lund: Gleerup. 180 nanoushka myrberg version 1829. Edited by the Swedish Royal Academy of Letters, Stockholm. Guta Lagh [Guta Law]. See Gannholm 1994. Guta Saga. See Gannholm 1994. Heinrici Chronicon Livoniae. See Bauer 1959. Kungliga Myntkabinettet; the Royal Coin Cabinet, Stockholm (Sweden). Yrwing, H 1978, Gotlands medeltid, Visby: Gotlandskonst AB. Zerpe, L 2007, ‘Arkeologiska spår efter hantverk i Visby’, Gotländskt arkiv 2007, 111–26. Abbreviations DS [no] Diplomatarium Suecanum [number of the printed letter]. Printed GL GS HCL KMK Résumé Une valeur bien particulière. L’île de Gotland, en mer baltique, et sa monnaie du 12e siècle par Nanoushka Myrberg Aux environs de l’an 1140 de notre ère, l’île de Gotland a lancé ce qui devait devenir l’une des monnaies les plus influentes de la région de la mer baltique au Moyen Âge. Cette décision entrait dans le cadre d’une stratégie visant à répondre aux impacts et à la pression du monde extérieur au sein d’une période caractérisée par une importante évolution politique et idéologique. Dans ce contexte, les réseaux anciens et nouveaux étaient centraux au maintien de l’autonomie vis-à-vis des pouvoirs cherchant à contrôler l’île. Les pièces de monnaie, qui utilisaient un standard de poids indépendant et une iconographie inspirée par les pièces de monnaie du nord-ouest de l’Allemagne et frisonnes, contribuaient à attirer les partenaires dans le port principal de l’île, dont les habitants contrôlaient les échanges commerciaux dans un environnement paisible. Les pièces de monnaie incorporent certains attributs: objet, texte et image. L’archéologie historique des pièces de monnaie ne se focalise pas seulement sur les perspectives générales et le pouvoir établi. Elle doit aussi prendre en compte le contexte de leur découverte, leur biographie et les négociations sociales sous-jacentes à leur production et à leur utilisation. Ainsi, l’intention et la réalité, le symbolisme et les pratiques sociales peuvent révéler les histoires qui se cachent derrière les objets. Associées aux sources historiques, les différents attributs des pièces de monnaie donnent de nombreuses informations sur plusieurs éléments: les réseaux, le cadre idéologique, le travail des artisans et l’évolution des alliances à cette époque et dans cette région. Zusammenfassung Ein eigener Wert. Zu Gotland in der Ostsee und seinen Münzen aus dem 12. Jahrhundert von Nanoushka Myrberg Etwa 1140 n. Chr. führte die Insel Gotland eine Währung ein, die sich zu einer der einflussreichsten Münzwährungen des Ostseeraums im Mittelalter entwickeln sollte. Dies war Teil einer Strategie, mit der man in einer von weit reichenden politischen und ideologischen Veränderungen geprägten Zeit dem Einfluss und Druck der Außenwelt begegnen wollte. In dieser Situation waren alte und neue Netzwerke wichtig, um die Autonomie von denjenigen zu bewahren, die versuchten, die Herrschaft über die Insel zu erringen. Die Münzen, die einen unabhängigen Gewichtsstandard hatten und deren Ikonographie von nordwestdeutschen und friesischen Münzen inspiriert war, waren eine Methode, wie man Handelspartner in den Haupthafen der Insel anziehen konnte, wo die Anwohner die Kontrolle behalten und den Handelsfrieden wahren konnten. Münzen umfassen die Aspekte Objekt, Text und Bild. Eine historische Archäologie der Münzen darf sich nicht nur auf großräumige Perspektiven und formelle Münzgewalt beziehen, sondern muss auch den Fundzusammenhang, die Lebensbiographie der Münzen und die gesellschaftlichen Verhandlungen berücksichtigen, die hinter ihrer Herstellung und ihrem Gebrauch stecken. So kann man Absichten und Wirklichkeit, Symbolgehalt und gesellschaftliche Praktiken untersuchen, um a worth of their own 181 auf diese Weise Zugang zu den Geschichten hinter den Gegenständen zu finden. Die verschiedenen Aspekte der Münzen liefern zusammen mit historischen Quellen ungeheuer viele Informationen auf verschiedenen Ebenen: über die Netzwerke, die ideologischen Rahmenbedingungen, die Handwerkskunst und die sich verschiebenden Bündnisse zu dieser Zeit und in diesem Gebiet. Riassunto Un valore tutto proprio: l’isola di Gotland nel Mar Baltico e la sua coniazione del XII secolo di Nanoushka Myrberg Intorno al 1140 d.C. l’isola di Gotland iniziò una coniazione destinata a diventare una delle più autorevoli dell’area del Mar Baltico in epoca medievale. Questo faceva parte di una strategia intesa a far fronte all’impatto e alle pressioni esercitate dal mondo esterno in un periodo caratterizzato da cambiamenti politici e ideologici di vasta portata. In questa situazione le vecchie e nuove reti di contatti erano importanti per mantenersi autonomi rispetto a chi aspirava alla dominazione dell’isola. Le monete, che avevano uno standard di peso indipendente e un’iconografia ispirata alle monete della Germania nordoccidentale e della Frisia, erano uno dei modi per attrarre partner nel porto principale dell’isola, i cui abitanti potevano così mantenere il controllo e la pace commerciale. Le monete hanno alcuni attributi intrinseci: oggetto, scritta e figurazione. L’archeologia storica delle monete deve tener conto non solo del più ampio panorama generale e del potere ufficiale, ma deve anche dar peso al contesto del ritrovamento, alla storia del corso e della vita delle monete e alle contrattazioni sociali alle spalle della loro produzione e uso. In questo modo si possono studiare l’intento e la realtà, il simbolismo e la pratica sociale, così da ricavare le storie che si celano dietro gli oggetti. I diversi attributi delle monete abbinati alle fonti storiche regalano abbondanti informazioni su diversi piani: reti di contatti, schema ideologico, perizia artigianale e fedeltà che cambiano in questo periodo e in questa area.