Map A: The empire of Cnut the Great (1016–1035).
Jesper Hjermind
The material evidence shows a connection between Cnut and Viborg in Jutland. Archaeologists from Viborg Museum have carried out excavations along the northern bank of Viborg’s Lake Søndersø on a number of occasions: in 1981; in 1984–1985, when test trenches were dug in the context of the planned construction of a hotel; and in 2001, when the museum excavated a 100 sq m area that was essential to a major interdisciplinary research project. The location is exceptional, as both the structures and the finds found in the waterlogged deposits are extremely well preserved. Not only are the conditions for preservation here among the very best compared to sites in northern Europe, the quality of some of the finds is also very fine. For these reasons, the excavators were eager to know what kind of site this was, and who lived there. The first excavations in the 1980s (published in 1998) resulted in a clear interpretation: this was an artisan quarter where shoemakers, blacksmiths, and founders lived and produced wares for the town of Viborg. However, since the last excavation in 2001 (published in 2005), this has been replaced by a new interpretation, based on a detailed, multidisciplinary investigation in which every context, sample, and artefact has been closely scrutinised. The site did indeed contain various workshops. They were producing goods and equipment not for the town, however, but for the king, his housecarls, and their peers.
Archaeologists see this lively activity, which can be dated precisely to 1018, as directly linked to Cnut the Great, who probably came to Viborg the following year to be crowned king of Denmark. We must say “probably” because no existing written sources mention this coronation. The earliest written reference to a coronation in Denmark is to 1027, when Harthacnut was crowned at Viborg.1 Instead, we must rely on the archaeological record and the finds which indicate the existence of a seasonal warrior and magnate milieu that surrounded itself with luxury. Craftsmen, both local and of English origin, manufactured everything from shoes to steel for swords to magnificent gold ornaments. Their workshops stood close to a small mound called Borgvold, at the foot of which was a marked boundary in the form of some kind of fence, enclosing what was possibly the Thingstead and coronation area.2
Topography of Viborg
Viborg differs from most Danish medieval towns in having an inland location, without direct access to a waterway. The southernmost branch of the Limfjord lies 10 km away, where what is now Hjarbæk was named as the port of Viborg in 1499.3 The extensive network of roads that fanned out from Viborg compensated for the lack of access to waterborne transportation. The Army Road or Ox Road, the great road running north to south through the Jutland peninsula, begins at Viborg (Map 14.1a–b).4
Map 14.1a: The great North–South route running down through the Jutland peninsula – the Military Road or Ox Road begins in Viborg. After Matthiessen, Hærvejen, 1930.
Map 14.1b: All roads lead to Viborg, meeting in a fan-shape north and south of the town. After Matthiessen, Viborg-Veje, 1933. Drawing Svend Kaae 2004.
Viborg itself is situated on the western side of a tunnel valley and is bordered to the east by the two lakes Viborg Søndersø (southern lake) and Viborg Nørresø (northern lake). Erosion gullies and valleys traverse the high-lying plateau on which the modern city stands. The oldest streets follow these natural routes, connecting the lakeside area with the upper town, running up and over the steep slope.5 The town plateau is divided into several smaller, independent, plateaus (Map 14.2). On one of these, at Store Sct. Peder Stræde (Great St. Peter Lane), we find the oldest traces of settlement. On the flat foreland below the slopes leading up to the plateau lies the Søndersø area, and close by stands the 12 m high earthen Borgvold mound just mentioned, which rises from an island on the western side of the tunnel valley containing the two lakes. The Borgvold mound plays a central part in the oldest history of the city.6
Map 14.2: On the flat foreland below the slopes leading up to the plateau lies the Søndersø area, and close by stands a pronounced 12 m high earthen bank, Borgvold, which rises up from an island in the tunnel valley. Drawing Lars Agersnap Larsen 2016.
The Store Sct. Peder Stræde Settlement
The oldest area of activity in Viborg for which we have evidence is in the present-day Store Sct. Peder Stræde part of the city. Here Viborg Museum has excavated a number of phases of a village-like farm site of late tenth-century date. Most of the buildings at Store Sct. Peder Stræde are simple storage buildings, with wattle walls, without daub or fireplaces; they could well have been related to the economic management of a farm.7 The best-built structure, house V, was a 90 sq m structure with wooden wall planks and curved outer walls (Figure 14.1).8 The uncovered remains of the farm were right on the northernmost edge of the farm site, as there were clear traces of plowing just 10 m to the north, which continued right up to the modern day town square, Hjultorvet. In the medieval period this square was the churchyard of the parish church of St. Mathias.9
Figure 14.1: Overview of the excavated house structures at the Sct. Peder Stræde settlement 1966–1967. Notice house V, the most well-built house with wooden wall planks and curved outer walls. After Levin Nielsen, “Pederstræde i Viborg,” 25, Figure 2.
The oldest dates for these settlement traces are uncertain. There is a single find of a ninth-century plate fibula brooch,10 but otherwise the general impression from both the buildings and the limited number of finds is that of a late Viking Age site. Some of the finds are older than those from the Søndersø excavation, including the semi-circular vessels,11 which were not present at all in the finds from Søndersø and so must be older than 1018.12 A rough overview of the total number of finds made in 2006 shows no other indicators of a ninth-century date (there are for instance no examples of stamped ceramics or spindles, except the fibula which might be interpreted as an heirloom from an earlier date). This means that some the buildings along Store Sct. Peder Stræde must be older than the lakeside activities, which are dated to around 1018, but these buildings hardly go back as far as the ninth century.13 The end of the dating sequence at this site lies at around 1050.14
The Settlement at Viborg Søndersø
In 1016 the area between Viborg Søndersø and the steep slopes to the west consisted of damp, marshy meadows, with patches of more solid ground where tongues of sand broke through the surface, and with flushes where water fanned out from springs in the slopes. Dendrochronological analyses of timber recovered from the excavations in the 1980s gave felling dates predating 1018 by a few years. Similarly, there is a small amount of craft waste consisting of antler, leather, and slag, suggesting that some form of minor activity had existed in 1018, and that during the winter of 1018–1019 oak trees had been felled to provide timber for building work in the area along the edge of the lake.15 The earliest building, excavated in 2001, dates from this time. This is a workshop measuring 3 m by 5 m, with oak posts and wattle walls of hazel (Figure 14.2a–b). About the same time, a drainage ditch was dug and then filled with branches and marked with a fence. The following year a latrine was built to the west of the ditch and the workshop building was equipped with a hearth, bellows, and anvil. The workshop was apparently in use in the autumn, winter, and possibly spring of the years 1020–1021, 1021–1022, and 1022–1023,16 standing unused during summer, with the result that seeds germinated and plants grew on the surface of its floor.17 However, the presence in the latrine-fill of bones from smelt, a fish which can only be caught at the end of April,18 along with strawberry pips and other plant remains, shows that people were also present at the site in some of the spring and summer months.19
Figure 14.2a: The workshop seen from the south. In the background, the anvil pit and the forge.
Figure 14.2b: Overview of the area excavated in 2001.
The botanical, entomological, and, not least, parasitological analyses show the presence of both animal dung and human feces. However, it seems that no animals were kept at the site on a long-term basis. There may just have been the occasional presence of livestock from the hinterland, or perhaps this material represents the gut contents of slaughtered animals, which, judging by the nature of the fodder, were killed in winter or early spring.20 The site also contains large numbers of bones of domesticated animals (cattle, pigs, and sheep) alongside fishbones – in other words, ordinary butchering and domestic waste. In addition to this, there are the more exotic remains of fur-bearing animals (cat, polecat, fox, hare, and even dog) as well as birds of prey (goshawk and kestrel) which were probably used for falconry or kept as status symbols.21 In short, there is clear evidence of some kind of settlement in the vicinity. The workshop was maintained throughout the period of its use, and in 1025 it was completely rebuilt from the ground up, but activity and waste layers relating to the new building are not preserved. Perhaps the rebuilt workshop stood ready in case it should be needed, but was never actually put to use (Figure 14.3a–b).
Figure 14.3a: Reconstructions of the earliest smithy from 1018.
Figure 14.3b: The altered building from ca. 1020 from the Søndersø area. Drawing Sara Heil Jensen (2001).
Crafts at Viborg
Iron blooms were refined in the workshop and the specialized manufacturing of steel for sword production took place. Silver and bronze casting also occurred, but silver was not refined here, even though the waste layers were found to contain crucibles and large quantities of lead, both of which are used in the refining process. The refinement of silver is thought to have taken place in a workshop nearby.22 Goldsmiths also worked in the area and the finds include a lead patrix or die, in which some of the finest gold ornaments of the early eleventh century – namely the Hornelunde hoard – were formed. Goldsmiths’ tools were also found in the form of a little anvil with traces of gold. This had been used to stamp out small gold discs, which were then melted to produce the gold beads that were soldered on to the ornaments (Figure 14.4a–b).23 Production waste from a comb-maker and a shoemaker, together with both local and “English” potsherds made of local clay, reveal that there were other workshops nearby.24 Insect remains, along with traces of oak bark, suggest that the shoemaker may also have tanned his own leather.25
Figure 14.4: (a) Gold brooch found near Hornelund. (b) Its lead patrice found at Viborg Søndersø. Photo: Lennart Larsen and Arne Vindum.
At first glance, these remains resemble traces from an early urban centre, but there is something that does not quite fit. The craftsmen’s products are few and select. The comb-maker produced only combs with a length of 20 cm, while the shoemaker only produced shoes and not sword- or dagger-sheaths or other leatherwork. The products from the metalworking workshop were steel and metal castings. Additionally, if this had been a typical artisans’ quarter, there would have been activity all year round. Analyses of the plant macro remains and, in particular, of the insect remains, demonstrate the absence of many of the species typically associated with human activity, which usually occur in great numbers in urban layers of this date. This must therefore have been a seasonal site or a very specialized form of settlement, one which was established around 1018 and existed only for a very few years.26
Similarly, the pattern of deposition does not correspond to that seen in contemporary Scandinavian urban sites such as Bergen, Lund, and Sigtuna,27 where the waste from each individual craftsman lies separately, and within its own lot or property. At Søndersø, the waste from at least three different crafts (and workshops) lies intermixed around the workshop building. If the fence acted a property boundary, it separated an activity area with several different workshops from the actual settlement area. There is remarkably little craft waste to the west of the fence. The same cannot be said of the domestic waste, which is present everywhere.28 This is not a picture of an organized and structured artisans’ quarter, where one would not, of course, mix one’s own refuse with that of the neighbors.
Luxury and High-Status Imports
In addition to the items produced locally in the workshops, the Søndersø area has also yielded a number of unique and rare imported finds, such as a fragment of painted Middle Eastern glass;29 a turned boxwood bowl;30 numerous sherds of green-glazed white ceramic of the Stamford type, possibly from a form of watering-can rare even in England (Figure 14.5);31 and gaming pieces either from hnefatafl (a board game) or chess and other games, which we traditionally associate with the homes of magnates.32
Figure 14.5: Sherds from a watering pot made in Stamford, England from the early eleventh century. The pot of whitish clay with a green glaze had holes in the bottom. It could have been used to water rush covered earthen floors – thus keeping down the dust. Photograph: Lars Guldager.
With a Hawk on his Hand – On the Trail of Eleventh-Century Magnates
A small handful of the finds from Viborg Søndersø can be linked to a warriors’ and magnates’ milieu – a milieu that is illustrated repeatedly, for instance, on the Bayeux Tapestry. Weapons and related finds from Viborg Søndersø include a lover hilt and a chape from a scabbard (Figure 14.6a–b). The lover hilt is made of iron and arched slightly down towards the blade. The bottom side reveals a hollow, which would have held the tang of the sword blade.33 From the sword itself, we have only found a possible fragment of the sword tip.34 The iron chape was attached to the sword scabbard by two rivets in order to strengthen the point of the scabbard.35 A small fragment of ring mail was uncovered, consisting of a total of seven rings riveted together (Figure 14.6a–c).36
Figure 14.6a–c: A cross-guard from a sword hilt, a chape from a scabbard together with a piece of ring mail. Drawing Mohan Subramaniam Arulanadam.
From Viborg Søndersø, apart from the find of two complete horse skulls, we also found a nearly complete skeleton of a four-year-old stallion,37 the Harley Davidson of its time. There were also finds of horse tack in the form of a spur38 and a snaffle-bit (Figure 14.7).39 To read the finding of a metal spur as a link to a chivalrous lifestyle may seem something of an exaggeration, but it does indirectly identify a person with the means to own and keep a horse.
Figure 14.7a–b: Spurs and bridle fittings from Viborg Søndersø. Drawing Mohan Subramaniam Arulanadam.
In the course of the latest excavation in 2001, a number of bones identifiable as goshawk and kestrel were recovered. These finds could, of course, be accidental, but the zoologist Inge Bødker Enghoff, who examined all the animal bones from the excavation, concludes with certainty that we are dealing with the remains of hawks used for hunting. This conclusion is based on the preference of falconers for goshawks, in particular, since these birds achieved the best results. It is said that goshawks were used primarily by high-status groups, lesser nobility, and the wealthy, while the kestrel was considered more appropriate for young boys.40 A further indication that we are dealing with hunting birds is the fact that all the bones are from females. Being larger than the males, these were preferred for hunting (Figure 14.8).41
Figure 14.8: Bones of a goshawk and a kestrel, recovered from the excavations in 2001. Photograph: Geert Brovad.
It is one thing to recover bones of a hunting bird, another to recover the bones of their prey, which are a more reliable indicator of a falconry environment. At Søndersø, bones from hares, partridges, and black grouse were recovered, though not in overwhelming numbers: these comprised six leg- and foot-bones from hares,42 and single bones from a partridge and a black grouse.43 A further indication of falconry could be the recovery of dog bones, as dogs are an integral part of falconry. The dog-bone finds from Viborg Søndersø are not very numerous and belonged to dogs with a stature varying from that of a small modern-day spitz-type dog up to that of a large Irish setter.44
Unfortunately, no lance pennons have been unearthed in Viborg, but we do have the probable remains of the pennon lance or shaft. During the 1981 excavation of a site around a building, the remains of an ash pole 33 cm long were recovered.45 The end where the lance head would have been attached was sharpened. Further down the pole was a brass mount. Under the polished mount were two nails, which held the lance pennant in place. It seems likely that there would have been yet more fastening nails on the remaining part of the pole, which was not recovered (Figure 14.9).
Figure 14.9: The point of the lance pole found at Viborg Søndersø. Photograph: Viborg Museum.
The English Connection
There are several finds from Søndersø of English origin, directly or indirectly. There are great similarities in the decoration on some of the small lead pieces to the design of the coins (Figure 14.10) minted in the reign of King Cnut. Perhaps the English moneyer produced cheap lead ornaments as a sideline.46 Some of the shoemakers were English, as is shown by the design on some of the half-boots (Figure 14.11).47 The finding of English imported pottery from Stamford is mentioned,48 but there is also evidence that an English potter worked in Viborg, producing pottery of the English Torksey type using the local clay.49
Figure 14.10: Two small lead pieces. The piece to the right shows great similarities with some of the coins minted in the reign of Cnut the Great. Photograph: Lars Guldager.
Figure 14.11: An eleventh-century shoe from Viborg Søndersø displaying possible English style influences, possibly of English origin or alternatively made by an English shoemaker in Viborg. Photograph: Lars Guldager.
In addition to the potsherds of Stamford type, there is an even more direct connection between Stamford and Viborg. One of the moneyer’s dies has been used in striking coins in both towns, as well as in the towns of Leicester and Southwark.50 One of the more curious examples of the possible English connection is the multi-horned sheep, which may similarly have had links with England.51 Moreover, in the smith’s workshop there was a stave from a wooden tub or vat made of English oak.52 Was the smith perhaps also an Englishman? The hearth was, at least, an extremely early example of a type that a Danish village smith is unlikely to have known at the time.53
Who Were the Inhabitants?
Some features suggest that there must have been one person or organization responsible for both the workshops and the accommodation. For example, the workshop was used by several different artisans during the course of the same season. The building must, therefore, have been part of a structure in which individual craftsmen did not own their workshops. The selective range of the products, the deposition pattern for the waste and the very nature of the waste itself are all remarkable. The comb-maker discarded large pieces of antler, which could easily have been exploited further in production. Similarly, there were great quantities of lead all around the silver-refining workshop, as shown by its presence in the reused floor sand. Could this be an indication that the craftsmen were not working with their own raw materials, but had them provided by someone else and therefore did not care how much they wasted? It is clear that this was not “domestic production” for personal consumption and was probably not “production for sale” in the usual sense. Similarly, the results of the scientific analyses exclude the possibility that these were settled craftsmen producing wares for an existing market.54 Perhaps an explanation should be sought in a very special combination of place, time, and person.
The Historical Background
The location of the workshop in such a damp area is astonishing, not least because the area on dry land directly to the west was probably not built upon at the time. The background for the location of the building at this very spot could lie in the political events which took place around 1018. In that year, King Cnut sent a large part of his army home from England, having distributed 82,500 pounds of silver among them. It was probably in the same year that Cnut’s brother Haraldr died, and in the following winter, 1019–1020, that Cnut was in Denmark to secure the throne.55 One can imagine that allegiance was sworn to him at the Thing in Viborg, just as was the case with his successors.56 We know from other sources that Cnut had coins minted in Viborg and Lund from around 1018 (Figure 14.12).57 As yet, none of the Søndersø excavations has provided direct evidence of this; the only finds of contemporaneous coins comprise two German examples from the 2001 excavation58 and an Æthelred II coin dating to the early 990s from the previous excavations.59
Figure 14.12: Coins of Cnut the Great, minted in Viborg. Photograph: Lennart Larsen.
Why Viborg?
Viborg was the main Thingstead in Northern Jutland in the Middle Ages and had perhaps been so for many centuries. No trace has ever been found, however, either in or around the town, of a “central site” from the Late Iron Age or Viking Age which could have been the first administrative, political, or religious center from which everything else developed, such as we see in Lejre near Roskilde and Uppäkra near Lund. Does this mean that the roots of the Viborg Assembly lie in a different kind of gathering-place that had cultic functions and also those associated with a Thing, functions that would leave behind such slight material traces, lacking trade and crafts, that we are unable to recognize them? Or are there no roots? Was the site chosen because there was nothing there, because within the balance of power, Viborg was a locus vacui where all could meet as equals on neutral ground? Regardless of which of these scenarios approaches the truth, there seems little doubt that the Mammen grave and the rune stones at Skjern and Asmild (from the end of the tenth century) signify important individuals in the landscape of power that framed Viborg in the preceding one to two generations. In the Mammen grave was buried a magnate in the winter of 970–971, clothed in an expensive costume and accompanied by a ceremonial axe with inlaid silver decoration and a large wax candle. It is not improbable that the Mammen axe, with silver inlays showing the ash tree Yggdrasill, or the Christian Tree of Life, and the cock Gullinkambi, or the Phoenix, was produced in Haraldr Bluetooth’s workshop. These inlays suggest strong associations with a tenth-century court environment, in which the axe was most likely a badge of honor or sign of rank bestowed by the king (Figure 14.13).60
Figure 14.13: The Mammen axe with silver inlays is found in a grave dated to 970/971. Photograph: Lennart Larsen.
The Skjern 1 stone (incomplete) was erected concerning a certain “ … usbiaur … | … | … ur : si(n) | … harals : h … ” (Osbjørn … ..his … . Harald’s).61 On Skjern 2 the inscription reads, on Side A, “sąskiriþr : risþi : stin : finulfs : tutiR : at : uþinkaur : usbiarnaR : sun : þąh : tura : uk : hin : turutin : fasta :” and on Side B “siþi : sa : mąnr : is:” (Sasgerd, Finulv’s daughter, set up the stone in memory of Odinkar Osbjørn’s son the eminent and lord-loyal. A warlock that man who this monument breaks).62 The stone is unusually finely ornamented and Sasgerd and Odinkar were clearly people of importance; it seems likely that Odinkar’s lord was the king, and that the Haraldr mentioned on Osbjørn’s stone was Haraldr Bluetooth Gormsson, Cnut’s grandfather. The Asmild stone was erected by a woman even more conscious of her family origins (Figure 14.14).
Here, three generations are named: “þurkutr : þurkus : tutiR : þkuþulfs : sunaR (:) sati : stin : þąsi : iftiR : busauir sin : tiþita : mąn : muaR : h- … : tutur:” (Thorgund, Thorgot’s daughter, Thjodulv’s son, placed this stone in memory of Bose, her husband, “tidings’ man” … daughter).63 We do not know what a “tidings’ man” was, but once again a link to a royal office seems obvious. Eriks Sjællandske Lov (The law of Zealand), dated to the mid-thirteenth century, states three conditions for a lawful Thing: the place, the time and the people:
Figure 14.14: The Asmild rune stone. Photograph: Lars Guldager.
Lij cap. Thett skall mandt wide att rett thing skall haffue thry wiilqour: Som er stæden, thymen og folck: Stheden er ther som koningen haffuer tiill giffuett og alle herritz mendt haffuer sagtt ia till oc thett maa icke anden stedtz fran thett stedt forskiudis wden alle herretz mendtzs welie och konings ja: Thumen er then dag som skal the haffue laaulige wedt tagett att søge thing som the haffue aff arylde tiidt søgtt Oc then dag som thing skall settis Schall thett begyndis halff gangen myddag oc maa icke lenger holdis endt tiill medaftfthen och icke maa thing holdis mett fære endt mett xij mendt.64
[Ch. 48. On a lawful Thing. It should also be known that three Conditions must be fulfilled for a (legal) Thing: the Place, the Time and the People. The Place is lawful if determined by the King and all in the District have given their consent: neither may it be moved to another Place without the will of all the Lords and Consent of the King. The Time is their lawful Thing Day, such as they have had through all the Ages, and on this day, it shall be held from mid in the Morning and must not continue past mid in the Evening. And the Thing may not consist of less than twelve Men.]65
So a “tidings’ man,” who was buried just opposite, on the other side of the Viborg lakes, could have been the man responsible for the Viborg Thing. Presumably, in this case, the assembly had been established prior to Cnut’s time.
In any case, Viborg lies at the center of Jutland and was easily accessible to travelers. When asked to point out the central place in the town, that which is indicated in the Vi-prefix (Old Norse vé “temple sanctuary”), as in “viet” (the temple or the High Place) or holy mound, scholars have tended to start with the cathedral plateau, making the direct or indirect suggestion that cults have continued here in some form. There are not many traces of this, however, just an east–west system of ditches with a handful of potsherds from semicircular pots,66 and with a single potsherd of Pingsdorf type which is perhaps from the eleventh century, but could be much more recent.67
There again, could the central focus not have been situated elsewhere? The oldest reference to the Thingstead is found within the Vita of Knud the Holy – that is, King Knud IV (1080–1086) – which was written in the 1120s by Ælnoth, an English-born monk from the monastery of St. Knud in Odense. Along with it is a long passage about Viborg:
Locus igitur celeberrimus medio fere Iucię orbe consistit, qui seu ob sui eminentiam, siue ob antiquorum inibi sacrificiorum uel preliorum frequentiam uel ob idoli ibidem quondam opinatissimi, qui Wig dicebatur, memoriam Wigbergis (ueluti “Wigi excelsum” aut “belli mons” seu “sacrificationis”) lingua Danica nuncupatur, ubi ex totis Iucię partibus quamsepius non minima multitudo tam de causis communibus tractatura quam et de legum ueritate siue firmitate discutienda simul et stabilienda conuenit; et quod ibi communi consensu aggregatę multitudinis statutum fuerit, non impune uspiam in Iucię partibus irritum fieri ualebit.68
[There, in what is nearly the middle of Jutland, is a place of renown which, partly due to its height and prominence, partly because, in times of old, sacrificial offerings were made here, or perhaps just as a remembrance of a highly held local deity named Vig, or because it marked the site of a battle, is called Viberg (as in “Viges mound” or “battle hill” or “sacrifice hill”) in the Danish tongue. Great hordes regularly gather there from the whole of Jutland, partly to negotiate common issues or to discuss the truth and validity of their laws and give them substance. And that which has been put forward and agreed to by the assembled masses cannot be overruled or ignored in any part of Jutland without fear of punishment.]69
Ælnoth uses the term “thingstead” in a singular form: “Vig mound,” “battle hill,” or “sacrifice hill.” These terms could just as well be applied to the Borgvold mound as to the cathedral plateau. In such a case, it may well have been the location of Borgvold that governed the choice of marshy ground for the building site. The layout we find at Søndersø would then have had its origins in relation to the Thing and to royal coronation. Its ongoing development after 1018 could be connected with King Cnut’s need not only to promote himself, but also to stamp his authority on Viborg during his reign in Denmark.
Figure 14.15: A row at least 15 m long of oblong postholes from trench S. It is probably much longer from trench S. Could it be a part of an extremely visible and impressive demarcation of the Thingstead area at the foot of the Thingstead itself – Borgvold? Drawing Hans Krongaard Kristensen.
The craftsmen produced combs, shoes, furs, steel (perhaps for swords and other weapons), silver (presumably from the many coins paid out when the army was demobilized and which were refined to give silver of a particular quality), and jewelry, as evidenced by the patrix for the production of expensive gold jewelry and the little anvil with traces of gold found during the excavations in the 1980s.70 These products are best understood in the context of a gift-based and self-sufficient economy for the king’s housecarls and entourage, rather than as ordinary wares to be traded at a market or in an artisans’ quarter. At times when those people were not gathered there, the workshops were closed, and from late spring, over summer, and until the beginning of autumn, the site was only occupied by a small staff of watchmen under the leadership of a royal officer – perhaps Bose’s successor. Apparently the need for Cnut’s presence in Viborg quickly disappeared. After 1023 there are no traces of craft activities in this building, and in the years around 1030 the workshop was abandoned and then demolished, and the site became overgrown. The assemblages of finds in the layers formed at the time are dominated by bones and a little domestic refuse. The sporadic craft waste which is present appears largely (but not exclusively) to belong to the previous workshop activity.71
The Site’s Physical Structure in the Early Eleventh Century
The area of workshop buildings could have been quite large, covering perhaps as much as 5,000 sq m. Only the trench B/881D shows signs of continuous occupation, from 1018 until the fourteenth century. It is striking that both the quality and quantity of finds from this trench are greater than those from all the other trenches. The “Main Building” itself could have been positioned with several other houses on the solid ground a little further to the west, where the present Brænderigården now lies. From here, there would have been easy access to the latrine and for depositing domestic waste over the entire area of the 2001 excavation (Map 14.3). Another possibility is that the main building stood on a sandy bank extending out from the foot of Borgvold. Along the edge of this bank were the remains of a planked causeway running north–south; to the east of this were traces of a fence. Behind the fence were eight postholes measuring 50 cm by 60 cm. They were 1.5 m apart, forming a 17 m long row, and probably extended further at both ends. Do these represent the remains of some kind of solid fence, which, in this case, could have been part of the royal residence or perhaps the Thingstead or coronation area at the foot of Borgvold? Was this formerly the location of a fenced vi, or sacred grove? (Figure 14.15)
Map 14.3: Overview of all areas excavated at Viborg Søndersø 1981, 1984–1985 and 2001. Drawing Svend Kaae and Louise Hilmar.
This open palisade could also have been part of a visible and extremely impressive demarcation of the Thingstead area at the foot of the Thingstead itself – that is, Borgvold (settlement plain).72 The defining fence could have represented a strong visual manifestation of power and sovereignty, along the lines of the palisades around Jelling, dated to the period 960–985.73 At Jelling the entire monument, with its rune stones, is centred on two man-made mounds, one of which does not contain a grave. A huge ship-setting and a palisade surround the entire complex. Perhaps a similar situation existed at Viborg, where the Borgvold mound also occupied a central location in a structure that was possibly royal. The construction of a conspicuous boundary around the foot of a piece of high ground – a mound – could have been motivated by a desire to demonstrate and mark Cnut’s royal status, and perhaps also make an overt reference to royal history further back in time.
Neither the plank causeway nor the fences around the animal enclosures excavated in 1985 shows signs of having been renewed, and many of the workshop buildings, though maintained for some years, were not altered or rebuilt. The building in the area excavated in 2001 was abandoned in around 1030, and this also seems to have been the case for buildings located by the other excavation trenches. From this time onwards, there was no longer any need for the extended structure comprising many workshop buildings, animal enclosures, roads, and so on; activity became concentrated around the central buildings on the site of Brænderigården or at the foot of Borgvold (Map 14.4a–c). For these reasons, there was probably no proto-urban settlement on the land above Søndersø. There was apparently just the agrarian hinterland,74 which contributed to supplying the people by Søndersø and at the Thingstead with food, drink, and other necessities. It was not until the middle of the eleventh century that a town began to form, perhaps in conjunction with the bishopric, which is first mentioned in about 1059–1060.75
Map 14.4a–c: The probable extent of the Søndersø settlement around a: 1020; b: 1050; c: 1100, superimposed onto a contour map, where modern earthworks have disturbed the historical landscape – the dam and roadway running down through the center of the illustration and back-fill under the Golf Hotel´s south-eastern corner. A: Brænderigården; B: Golf Hotel, Viborg; C: Borgvold. Drawing Sara Heil Jensen.
Conclusion: King Cnut and the Thing at Viborg Søndersø
We know that there was building activity over a large area of the shore of Viborg Søndersø during a short period in the early eleventh century. Some substantial parts of it then lay open and without buildings until the present day, whereas others, especially those immediately to the east of Brænderigården, were again built on during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In its own time the great publication Viborg Søndersø 1000–1300. Byarkæologiske undersøgelser 1981 og 1984–1985 concluded that the area was an organized part of the town, housing many different craftsmen.76 At the present time it is probably more correct to regard the area as a single large unit with a wide range of activities. It could have been a royal residence, perhaps with a kind of “armory” function, where living quarters and workshops were constructed, wooden roadways laid, wells dug, and animal pens established in one operation. Craft production also took place and jewelry was manufactured. Most of these things should be seen as components of a self-sufficient economy, but some products would, of course, have progressed to exchange or sale. There would, for example, have been a great demand for high-status artefacts at times when the Thing was assembled, and especially in 1019, which is when Cnut is thought to have been crowned king of Denmark in Viborg (Map 14.5).
Map 14.5: Venetian portolan chart from 1339 with the Latin text, “vuiberge hic coronatur rex dacie” – Viborg here the Danish king is crowned.
In the years following 1026 activities waned, but the location of a settlement close to, or directly on, the solid ground at Riddergade probably remained unchanged. In trench B/881D, to the south-west of Brænderigården, there are traces of buildings forming an unbroken sequence from 1018 to 1300. If the main building (a royal farmstead or residence) lay at the foot of Borgvold, then it must have been abandoned at the latest in connection with the damming up and raising of the water level in the lake in 1313. Cnut’s apparent need to visit Viborg quickly disappeared again, because after 1023 there are no traces of craft activities at the site, and in the years around 1030 the workshop was totally abandoned; it was demolished and the site became overgrown. However, it is not possible to establish whether the workshop was moved to the site of Brænderigården, or to a site much further up in the medieval town around the cathedral, where, together with the bishopric, it could have constituted a new center of power.
Epilogue: A Later English Connection
The English-Danish connection and the joint minting of coins under Cnut the Great also played a role at the end of the Second World War. In 1944 the Viborg Tourist Association had a copy made of one of Cnut the Great’s coins, which was then used as a basis for a series of ornaments. The end of the war was approaching and there was a clear expectation in all towns in Jutland that their people would be liberated by General Montgomery’s troops; the Tourist Association wanted to give these ornaments to the English soldiers. That is almost how it happened. On May 12 a small armored force of 145 soldiers rolled into Viborg under the command not of General Montgomery, but of Major Francis Fischer. On Nytorv, Major Fischer was presented with a pair of cufflinks, a tie pin, and a necklace for his wife. The soldiers were each given an emblem. These ornaments were accompanied by a card bearing the following text: “A true copy of the oldest existing Danish coin struck in Viborg, when Cnut the Dane was king of England and Denmark” (Figure 14.16).
Figure 14.16: Ornaments like this in the fashion of a coin struck in Viborg under Cnut the Great was presented to the English troops who rolled into Viborg on May 12, 1945. Photograph: Jesper Hjermind.
Notes
1
1027 is the only year in which, on Cnut’s last visit, his son by this name could have been crowned in Denmark. See Suhm, Historier af Danmark, 143; Fagrskinna, ed. Finnur Jónsson, 184 (chap. 36); Fagrskinna, ed. Bjarni Einarsson, 202 (chap. 36).
2
The article is based on, and in places reproduces material from, my earlier articles: “Theatrum Urbis Vibergensis”; “With a Hawk on the Hand”; and “Keramik.”
3
Krongaard Kristensen, Middelalderbyen Viborg, 19, 32.
4
Krongaard Kristensen, Middelalderbyen Viborg, 30.
5
Krongaard Kristensen, Middelalderbyen Viborg, 23–26.
6
Hjermind, “With a Hawk on the Hand.”
7
Levin Nielsen, “Pederstræde i Viborg,” 28–30.
8
Levin Nielsen, “Pederstræde i Viborg,” 39.
9
Krongaard Kristensen, Middelalderbyen Viborg, 39–40; Hjermind, “På sporet af Viborgs middelalderlige sognekirker.”
10
Levin Nielsen, “Pederstræde i Viborg,” 44.
11
Levin Nielsen, “Pederstræde i Viborg,” figs. 13.1 and 13.3.
12
Hjermind, “Keramik,” 421.
13
Hjermind, “Theatrum Urbis Vibergensis,” 187–88.
14
Dendrochronological dating of posts from the oldest street facing house in Store Sct. Pederstræde (VSM 990C) was carried out in 2002 by the dating laboratory Wormianum– Moesgård Museum.
15
From the previous excavations there are several dendrochronological dates prior to 1030: 1981 excavation, Trench B 1018±1 and 1018; 1984–1945 excavation, Trench B 1015, Trench L 1020 and 1028, Trench S 1018 (two dates), Trench U 1015 and 1017. Re-excavation of area 881D Trench B in 1998: 1010 (1 date) and 1018 (3 dates) from the same context.
16
There are no dendrochronological dates to confirm use in 1022–1023, but this seems very likely on the basis of the archaeobotanical and stratigraphical evidence.
17
Daly, “Dendrochronological Dating,” 153–55; Jouttijärvi, Thomsen, and Moltsen, “Værkstedets function,” 300–301; Moltsen, “Lag- og makrofossilanalyser,” 175–76; Thomsen, “Værkstedet – en bygningsarkæologisk redegørelse,” 294.
18
Enghoff, “Dyreknogler fra vikingetidens Viborg,” 245.
19
Fruergaard and Moltsen, “Latrinen,” 121–23.
20
Kenward, “Insect and Other Invertebrate Remains,” 220–21; Moltsen, “Dyrefækalier,” 201; Roepstorff and Pearman, “Parasitter,” 208.
21
Enghoff, “Dyreknogler fra vikingetidens Viborg,” 255–56.
22
Jouttijärvi and Andersen, “Affald fra metalforarbejdning,” 361–62.
23
Krongaard Kristensen, “Patrice,” 215–16. Christensen, “Genstande af knogle og tak” 141–42.
24
Linaa Larsen, “Takmaterialet fra Viborg Søndersø”; Petersen, “Læder og pelsværk”; Rasmussen and Hjermind, “Bestemmelse af proveniens,” 429.
25
Kenward, “Insect and Other Invertebrate Remains,” 224.
26
Daly, “Dendrochronological Dating,” 154; Kenward, “Insect and Other Invertebrate Remains,” 223; Moltsen, “Lag- og makrofossilanalyser,” 175–76.
27
Hansen, “Konger og byfolk”; Bergen ca. 800–ca. 1170; Roslund, “På drift i tid och rum?”.
28
Linaa Larsen and Hjermind, “Analyse af fundmaterialet.”
29
Näsman, “Glas,” 282.
30
Callesen, Hjermind, and Søvsø, “Genstande af træ,” 448–49.
31
Hjermind, “Keramik,” 420.
32
Iversen, “Perler, rav og spillebrikker,” 482; Carelli, “Schack.”
33
Jantzen, “Genstande af metal,” 208.
34
Jantzen, “Genstande af metal,” 208.
35
Jantzen, “Genstande af metal,” 208.
36
Jantzen, “Genstande af metal,” 202.
37
Hatting, “Dyreknogler,” 304.
38
Jantzen, “Genstande af metal,” 207.
39
Jantzen, “Genstande af metal,” 185.
40
Enghoff, “Dyreknogler fra vikingetidens Viborg,” 245–46.
41
Enghoff, “Dyreknogler fra vikingetidens Viborg,” 246.
42
Hatting, “Dyreknogler,” 306; Enghoff, “Dyreknogler fra vikingetidens Viborg,” 255.
43
Hatting, “Dyreknogler,” 308; Enghoff, “Dyreknogler fra vikingetidens Viborg,” 246.
44
Hatting, “Dyreknogler,” 302; Enghoff, “Dyreknogler fra vikingetidens Viborg,” 253.
45
Hjermind and Jantzen, “Genstande af træ,” 238.
46
Hjermind, Iversen, and Roesdahl, “Genstande af metal,” 471–72; Iversen and Roesdahl, “Genstande af knogle,” 485–86.
47
Petersen, “Læder og pelsværk,” 404.
48
Hjermind, “Keramik,” 420.
49
Rasmussen and Hjermind, “Bestemmelse af proveniens.”
50
Jensen, Tusindtallets Danske Mønter, 44.
51
Enghoff, “Dyreknogler fra vikingetidens Viborg,” 252.
52
Callesen, Hjermind, and Søvsø, “Genstande af træ,” 447–48.
53
Jouttijärvi, Thomsen, and Moltsen, “Værkstedets funktion,” 297.
54
Christophersen, Håndverket i forandring.
55
Bolton, “An Historical Perspective,” 499–501; Lund, “Cnut’s Danish Kingdom.”
56
Fenger, Notarius Publicus, 40.
57
Jensen, Tusindtallets Danske Mønter, 46.
58
Moesgård Museum, 2005.
59
Jensen, “Mønter,” 88.
60
Iversen and Näsman, “Mammen gravens indhold,” 61.
61
Moltke, Runerne i Danmark, 424.
62
Moltke, Runerne i Danmark, 191.
63
Moltke, Runerne i Danmark, 253.
64
Lebech, Danmarks Landskabslovgivning, 86.
65
Kroman, Danmarks gamle love, 47–48.
66
Hjermind, “Bygninger og begivenheder,” 149.
67
Krongaard Kristensen, Middelalderbyen Viborg, 78, fig. 65; Vellev, “Domkirken, Vor Frue,” 44–45.
68
Gertz, Vitae Sanctorum Danorum, 23.
69
Olrik, Danske Helgeners Levned, 73.
70
Krongaard Kristensen, “Patrice,” 215–16; Christensen, “Knogle og tak,” 141–42.
71
Jouttijärvi, Thomsen, and Moltsen, “Værkstedets funktion,” 318; Linaa Larsen, “Takmaterialet fra Viborg,” 387.
72
Krongaard Kristensen, “Udgravningerne 1981 og 1984–1985”; “Bebyggelsen,” 48, fig. 43 and 79, fig. 38.
73
Kähler Holst, Dengsø Jessen, and Pedersen, “Runestenens Jelling,” 59.
74
Krongaard Kristensen, Middelalderbyen Viborg, 39–40.
75
Gelting, “Viborg Stifts grundlæggelse,” 11, 26.
76
Viborg Søndersø 1000–1300, ed. Hjermind, Iversen, and Krongaard Kristensen.