home
objects
viking age antler comb and case

Aaron Kendall

The antler comb and case shown on the cover was recovered from the site of Hofsta<eth>ir in north central Iceland during the 1998 and 2000 field seasons.  The excavation project was to uncover an unusually large Viking Age long house which had no reference in the Icelandic saga literature.  The comb and case were recovered two years apart and from separate discreet midden deposits in the same area.  These objects, since retrieved two years apart were never considered to have belonged together.  Only after analyzing the collection in its entirety was a connection realized. 
Although not proven, it will be suggested here that these two objects were at one time used together.  The pieces themselves have similar markings consisting of a series of parallel diagonal incised lines.  The comb handle and tooth plates are held together with iron rivets, some of which are still intact.  The case was probably held together in a similar fashion. 

This artifact would have likely been created somewhere in the Scandinavian mainland and brought over with the early settlers of this region of Iceland during the late 9th or early 10th century.  The piece was carved by hand out of reindeer antler.  It is generally accepted that the local technology would not have been sufficient during this period to create such an object.  From my own research it appears that trade between the North Atlantic islands and mainland Europe was likely to have been quite limited during the Viking Age.  Therefore, this item is presumed to have come over with the initial settlers and subsequently handed down through the generations.  This type of object would have definitely been a signifier of wealth in this relatively poor region and period.

The archaeological unit that produced the comb case also produced 102 other objects including glass beads, iron nails, slag, and various copper alloy objects.  Several items from this collection indicate wealth such as the copper alloy studs, glass bead, antler comb and the steatite spindle whorl.  The comb case would have gone with an actual comb and would have required highly skilled labor to produce.  The comb case is an example of a personal item having belonged to an individual whom was presumably wealthy.  This object is presumed to have been broken and therefore discarded. 

The midden layers within the Hofstaðir pithouse were deposited directly on top of the floor layer.  The floor space measured approximately 5x3.4m.  The floor is very shallow throughout, 1-1.5cm at its thickest, and thins out considerably on the eastern edge and in the southwest corner (Vésteinsson 2001).  This structure was probably occupied for a very short period at the end of the 10th century.  As Lucas and Vésteinsson both note, posts appear to have been reset at one point in the occupation, indicating that the structure was used for more than one season (Lucas 1999; Vésteinsson 2001). 

A total of 18 artifacts were recovered from this layer with most of them found in close proximity to the fire-place in the northwest corner.  The three objects found nearest the fire-place were a loom weight, a small iron ring, and a composite antler comb.  The comb is an example of highly skilled craftsmanship that is not thought to have been achieved in Iceland at this time.  This item would have most likely been brought over with the settlers or possibly imported.  As mentioned above, this comb matches up very nicely with the case discovered in the midden deposit.  The comb itself is constructed from three separate layers of antler with the teeth being carved from the center layer after being sandwiched together with iron rivets.  Since there is no antler in Iceland, at the very least the material was imported, but as mentioned above it is most likely that the comb was made elsewhere.  The handle was decorated with crossing incised lines, similar to the decoration on the case.  At first glance it appears that the case is shorter than the comb and therefore probably not a matching set.  However, on closer inspection the unfinished end of the case is lacking decoration and could indicate another piece having been overlapped in order to extend the case to the required length for housing the comb, possibly a result of a repair.  Also considering the perfect alignment of the holes on the right side, a reasonable case could be made that these two pieces do comprise a set.  If the comb was broken and left behind or simply lost when the pithouse was abandoned, it may have been some time later before the case was also discarded after its owner realized that the comb would not be recovered.  Further, the two pieces were recovered in close proximity from the same midden in Area G.  Evidence countering this argument would be the difference in degree of wear of each piece.  The comb itself exhibits much more wear than the case.  This would imply that the comb is either older than the case or was at least deposited in the ground much earlier.  This could easily be explained by their deposition in different matrices.  The comb being deposited in a much more organic deposit would have aged quite differently from the case which wound up in a more sterile deposit.

The owner of such an antler comb is likely to have cherished it and attached to it great meaning.  It would have inspired memories of the homeland for the first few generations and then later on memories of ancestors.  Based on the amount of wear observed on the teeth it appears to have been used over a long period of time, possibly passed down through several generations.  It may have invoked a sense of pride for its owner whom was likely the wife, daughter or sister of a farmer.  Living in a marginal environment with extreme winters where a meager subsistence based on herding sheep and cows and possibly trading for some fish would have been grueling.  A personal possession such as a comb may have provided some solace in such a harsh environment allowing its owner to escape reality temporarily and meditate on past times, places and events that the comb would have facilitated.  Since the comb itself was deposited first one may assume that it had broken or was possibly lost.  Only later when the comb did not turn up was the now useless case also discarded.

This type of artifact also says a great deal about the archaeologist.  In a collection with very few “nice” objects a lot of emphasis tends to be placed on an antler comb.  Also, in a relatively small collection, with less than 1,000 artifacts, when such an object is recovered in pieces from ambiguous contexts it creates problems in recording.  The outcome is often a large percentage of the bone material from the collection actually being from a single object, especially when the pieces are recovered in different field seasons.  How would the interpretation of the collection change if more emphasis was placed on recreating artifacts that were likely broken post-depositionally?

 

 

Works Cited

Lucas, Gavin, ed. 1999.  Hofsta<eth>ir 1999: Interim Report. Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík.

Vésteinsson, Orri, ed. 2001 Pithouse (Area G).  In Hofstaðir 2000.  Framvinduskyrslur/Interim Report.

Gavin Lucas, ed.  Pp. 5-9.  Fornleifastofnun Íslands, Reykjavík.

 

home
objects