aaron kendall
In continuing to address the antler comb and case from the site of Hofstaðir I would like to examine a hypothetical path that the object could have likely followed through its “life”. In tracing this path special attention will be paid to the gender and agency of its possessors as well as the transitions in meaning that were likely to have taken place. Also, while addressing the movement of the object, attention will be paid to its movement in and out of the market. Finally, I would like to discuss the object once in Iceland as an object for remembering, or as Meskell’s (2004) “mnemotechnology”.
Based on the size, shape, and color of the comb it is likely to be from the antler of a Red Deer. The style of comb and the decoration date it to the 10th century (Ambrosiani 1981). This date also corresponds to the archaeological context from which it was recovered. Red Deer herds were common all across northern Europe during the Viking Age, but based on the Scandinavian typology it will be presumed to have come from Denmark for this discussion. The antler was most likely sought after purely for its monetary value. It would have likely been sold or traded to a merchant who would then take the material to market, such as on the island of Gotland. Here the antler would have been sold or traded to a craftsman who would then make into a comb for sell to another merchant, eventually ending up in the hands of a Norwegian farmer. During the Viking migration to the west, this farmer ended up in Iceland and ultimately the comb was deposited in a midden. At each step in the movement of the comb it would have been endowed with differing meanings and acted on with various forms of agency. It would have likely been possessed by both males and females during its life.
Could the comb be explored in light of Gell’s (1998) application of the Epicurean Theory of “flying simulacra”? Gell’s (1998) “art” examples such as Malangan carvings and the work of Duchamp engage very effectively with his notions of the distributed mind. However, when considering the comb within Gell’s framework it seems more problematic. The anthropomorphic nature of the examples he uses seem more conducive to fitting the Epicurean Theory. Can the comb be thought of as a detached part of the person? The comb does not intuitively direct the observer to the mind of its creator as is the case with the work of Duchamp or the Malangan carvings. Instead, the comb seems very detached from its creator, almost as just a generic mass produced object. It may be useful here to consider the comb in its most commonly found context, within burials. Are burial goods in general placed with the person in death because they are part of the person? It would seem that the comb in this context was viewed as a part of the person in some way, as an extension of them. In this case the comb could be interpreted as either being needed in the afterlife or simply as a representation of the person’s place or status in life. This custom generally ends with the spread of Christianity. Is it religion that changes the thinking regarding people’s distributed nature, or is the church simply interested in the monetary value of the grave goods?
At the very least can one see the comb as being representative of its creator or owner? It would seem one could pursue this line of reasoning but only in the sense that the comb possesses secondary agency, that given it by people. Kopytoff (1986) discusses the difference between common and singular objects to distinguish between the commoditized and decommoditized world. He goes on the draw on Durkheim’s idea that societies need to set certain things within their environment aside as “sacred”, and singularization is one way. “Culture ensures that some things remain unambiguously singular, it resists the commoditization of others; and it sometimes resingularizes what has been commoditized” (Kopytoff 1986:73). It seems that the antler comb could fall into this category of singularized objects that serve other purposes in the society, at least in Iceland.
This brings up the issue of changes in meaning as the comb moved around. The comb began its life in Denmark and was then traded and crafted in Gotland before winding up in Iceland. Along this path the comb would have gone through the transition from common to singular, assuming that once owned it was completely removed from the market. Along this path the comb left the commodity world and at some point became inalienable. Determining this exact moment is difficult. Did it occur at the precise moment that it was obtained by its final owner or did it take time to accrue meaning before becoming inalienable? Also along its path the comb was possessed by both men and women. How did their agency differ in relation to the comb? It was presumably a man who hunted the deer and did the craft work. Later on it was likely a woman who used the comb on a regular basis. These generalizations are open for debate. Men also used combs and especially combs with cases. In Denmark combs with cases are most common within male burials (Ambrosiani 1981). This makes it more difficult to interpret the placement of the comb within the household.
When the comb was being used in Norway it was likely had a functional purpose as well as being a status symbol. Combs were typically worn on the outside of the clothing and would have signified wealth. Its owner, whether man or woman, would have taken great pride in using the comb to prepare the hair as well as displaying it when in public.
Once the object wound up in Iceland could it have been used as an item used to stimulate memory? A “mnemotechnology” as Meskell (2004) might suggest. Her examples of Egyptian stelae and busts are different in that they were created, at least partially, for aiding memory. However, once the comb was removed from its “home” in mainland Scandinavia it could have likely been used as a repository for memories. In Iceland the farms were very isolated and there would have been little community interaction, particularly for females. So the comb as a pure marker of status seems unlikely. If no one but the immediate or extended family ever saw the comb it would not be very useful as a status symbol. This would lead one to believe that it was more of an object reserved for memories. This transition in meaning could have taken place between Norway, where the comb was functional or used for status, to Iceland were it was a mnemotechnology.
By tracing the path this antler comb may have traveled and addressing it in terms of agency, meaning, commodity status, etc. has allowed for a more textured account of both this one object as well as its interactions with people in Viking Age society. Addressing the complex path it took and all the interactions it was involved with opens up many different avenues of interpretation. Through the object biography, the archaeologist can get more involved with the people being studied and able to consider the complex relationships that exist between people and objects.
refences
Ambrosiani, Kristina. 1981. Viking Age Combs: Comb Making and Comb Makers. University of Stockholm, Stockholm.
Gell, Alfred. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford University Press, New York.
Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process. In The Social Life of Things, edited by Arjun Appadurai, pp. 64-91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Meskell, Lynn. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies Past and Present. Berg Publishers, New York.