This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen]On: 15 November 2014, At: 07:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norwegian Archaeological ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

Transformation in Migration Period Animal ArtSiv Kristoffersen aa Department of Archaeology , University of Bergen , NorwayPublished online: 19 May 2010.

To cite this article: Siv Kristoffersen (1995) Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art, Norwegian Archaeological Review,28:1, 1-17, DOI: 10.1080/00293652.1995.9965581

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.1995.9965581

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ARTICLES Norw. Arch. Rev., Vol. 28, No. 1, 1995

Transformation in Migration PeriodAnimal ArtSiv KRISTOFFERSEN

Department of Archaeology, University of Bergen, Norway

Germanic animal art functioned within different contexts throughout theMigration Period. Obtaining an understanding of these contexts can bearrived at in various ways. This paper discusses the regularities that seemto exist within a group of 'primitive' art forms as presented in a classicalstructuralistic text by Claude Lévi-Strauss. It is not the aim to criticizestructuralism or apply it as such, but to extract elements from the textwhich will function in the context of this study. The intention is todemonstrate that, in spite of the problems related to structuralism, astructural perspective may illuminate issues which otherwise would be hardto approach.

In the northern Germanic area, whichincludes the northern part of the Continent,parts of England, and Scandinavia, an artform developed during the Migration Period(5th and 6th centuries) in which animalsconstituted the basic elements (Miiller 1880,Salin 1935, Shetelig 1949, Bakka 1958, Hase-loff 1981). The southern part of Scandinaviawas central in this development (ibid.). Sou-thern and western Norway (the coastal areasfrom Vestfold to Sogn og Fjordane) was aprimary area for the distribution of the earlyanimal art (Nydamstyle and Salins Style I)and probably held a leading position duringthe later development of Style I. The oldestphase, the Nydamstyle, expresses a classicalorientation concerning composition as wellas choice and execution of motives, and wasprobably developed in close contact with theart of the northern provinces of the RomanEmpire (Voss 1954:176-177, Haseloff1981:8-17, 706). The Nydamstyle, in itsstrained, balanced composition, is executedby chip-carving in strong, prominent relief.Motives such as spirals in compositepatterns, meanders, chevrons and animals

with rounded, plastic bodies in a 'natu-ralistic' form are typical (ibid.). Around AD475 the Nydamstyle had developed intoStyle I (Haseloff 1981:16-17, 172-173) andgradually freed itself from the impulses ofRoman art. Now the animal motives domi-nate, they cover the entire surface, areextremely stylized and contours havereplaced the plastic form (Salin 1935:245,Haseloff 1981:172, 706, 18-170). All in allthe development expresses a completely newunderstanding of form.

During the Migration Period, Europewent through a far-reaching process ofchange. After the fall of the Roman Empire,the area was divided into small, politicallyunstable, Germanic kingdoms. Southern andwestern Norway were characterized by ter-ritorial expansion and changes of economi-cal, social and political significance (e.g.Slomann 1956, Myhre 1987, 1991). Newregional units seem to have been established,and the archaeological material probablyexpresses a stronger social stratificationwhere some families acquired central posi-tions. Generally, social strategies are embed-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

2 Siv Kristoffersen

ded in this kind of development where onecould expect production and redefinition ofsymbolic expressions (e.g. Hodder 1979,1982). This might explain the many newartefact forms typical for this area duringthe Migration Period (e.g. Myhre 1991:15-16). The animal art could be seen as one ofthese new expressions, and it might as wellhave been of central significance in thesymbolic system (for Denmark and Sweden,see e.g. Randsborg 1988:14, Ramqvist1990:19-21, H0ilund Nielsen 1991:146,Hedeager 1992:282,299). As a consequence,objects decorated with animal art of highquality, also by European standards, wereproduced in southern and western Norway.

Animal art probably functioned withindifferent contexts throughout the MigrationPeriod, one was a general context of socialstrategies referred to above. Obtaining anunderstanding of these contexts can bearrived at in various ways. In the followingthe regularities that seem to exist within agroup of 'primitive' art forms will be exam-ined more closely. The regularities will even-tually lead to a discussion of the conceptof transformation, a fundamental conceptembedded in the principles of form charac-teristic of this group.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL

We are able to study the early Germanic artonly in small, metal objects. This may giveus a one-sided impression of a more variedand richer reality to which we have noaccess. The larger decorated wooden itemsin the Oseberg grave from the Viking Period,such as ship, wagons and sledges, and theportals of the medieval stave churches whichboth represent later stages of the animal art,leave to our imagination what might haveexisted also in the Migration Period. NissenMeyer (1935:86), however, stresses thateven though the animal art was probablyalso executed in wood during the MigrationPeriod, the metal art could not have beenso dependent on woodworking traditions as

was true in the Viking Period. The metal artof the Migration Period is not a copy ofanother art form. The individual pieces andthe experimentation they express indicatethat the metal art should be considered onits own merits. It is thus likely that one ofthe major ways of expressing this art formwas actually through the small scaled metalart. The gilded surface combined with sharp,high relief, which best could be achieved inmetal, was of crucial importance as a basicelement of expression of the animal art. Alsoof importance to this art form is probablythe magic inherent in metal objects andmetallurgy in general (e.g. Reichborn-Kjen-nerud 1928:116-117,172-176, Eliade 1978),and more specifically the magic and pro-tective power in jewellery itself (in Norweg-ian folklore, e.g. Reichborn-Kjennerud1928:107). General aspects of the magic inmetal also could be linked to the idea oftransformation, through its ability to changein the process of smelting and forging (Eliade1978).

Artefacts decorated with animal art, thatwill be discussed in this analysis, are reliefbrooches, 'scabbard mountings' and amounting for a sword handle (the richlydecorated sword from the Snartemo Vburial, Vest-Agder). Relief brooches (Figs.3, 5 and 10), most thoroughly discussed byNissen Meyer (1935), represent the mainsource of the animal art and are charac-teristic for the Migration Period. In the areafrom Vestfold to Sogn og Fjordane, about50 relief brooches have been found. Theyare impressive brooches in gilded silver orbronze, often of large size and high quality.They derive from the richly furnished inhu-mation burials in cists typical for the period.In this area the brooches have been wornexclusively by women.

'The scabbard mountings', associated withswords, form another significant group ofartefacts with animal art decoration (B0e1923, Aberg 1924, Lindqvist 1926, Hougen1935, Behmer 1939, Fett 1940). They are ofhigh technical quality and executed in filigree

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art 3

Fig. 1. Map of South Norway showing locationsof finds discussed in the paper.

and in pure gold. Totally, 15 mountingsexist, and all of them are from Scandinavia.Seven are found in Norway, three withinthe area treated here (Hougen 1935:48 ff,Haseloff 1981:246 ff.) (see Fig. 1). In con-trast to the relief brooches which expresssignificant regional differences, the 'scab-bard mountings' show likeness over theentire area in which they occur. Even thoughthey are associated with swords because oftheir resemblance to real scabbard mount-ings, they have never been found on a swordand would probably be too narrow to fit areal scabbard. Furthermore, they do notseem to have been used for practical purpose(B0e 1923:18, Behmer 1939:150). Use-wearwould easily show as cut marks in the softmetal, from the edges of the sword when

put back into the scabbard. A special func-tion for these mountings is emphasized bythe fact that they are never found in graves,but always in contexts which are interpretedas depots or sacrifices (ibid.).

METHOD

The artefacts mentioned above are analysedby means of a classical structuralistic textwritten by L6vi-Strauss: Chapter XIII inStructural Anthropology from 1963 (Frenchedition in 1958) 'Split Representation in theArt of Asia and America'. It is not theauthor's aim to criticize structuralism orapply it as such, but to extract elements fromthe text which will function within the framesof this study. The intention is to demonstratethat in spite of the problems related tostructuralism, a structural perspective mayilluminate issues which otherwise would behard to approach. The concept of struc-turalism is vague and difficult to define, andhence there often seems to be a gap betweenwhat is defined as essential in structuralismand what is actually found in the texts.

Many-sided discussions of structuralismare found in Giddens (1979,1982) and Barth(1989), many-sided in the sense that they donot dismiss structuralism entirely, althoughthey do stress some central problems. Oneof these is synchronic/diachronic or static/dynamic divisions (Giddens 1979:17-18, 28;1982:36-37). They are, however, normallyadvanced

solely as a methodological division, and are notvulnerable to the criticism that societies areconstantly undergoing processes of change. Thereal point concerns whether it is justified to claimthat a linguistic system or a social system can bestudied in abstraction from change, while at thesame time the nature of that system can beadequately grasped. The recursive character oflanguage—and, by generalization, of social sys-tems also—cannot be understood unless we alsounderstand that the means whereby such systemsare reproduced, and thus exist as systems, con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

4 Siv Kristoffersen

tain within them the seeds of change. 'Rule-governed creativity' is not merely (as Chomsky'slinguistics suggests) the employment of fixed,given rules whereby new sentences are generated;it is at the same time the medium whereby thoserules are reproduced and hence in principle modi-fied (Giddens 1979:18).

It is, thus, essential to understand how asystem, be it in change or continuity, isconstantly produced or reproduced throughaction. In a social system there is always aseed of change—change to be made orworked against. Changes in the system aremade by individuals who make decisions andact relative to the constraints and possi-bilities provided in the structure, which theythen modify (Giddens 1982:31 ff., Barth1989:9, 86 ff.).

It will be shown below that the jnainproblem is the high degree of generalizationand abstraction necessary to carry througha structural analysis (e.g. Barth 1989:17,83),as it makes it difficult to comprehend thecomplexity in the material. In the search forsimilarities between the Germanic art andthe group of primitive art forms, variationsare treated as less meaningful. This is to acertain degree necessary. In the processimportant aspects may, however, be over-looked, as variations may be guidelines tofundamental traits of the culture in question,or of parts of that culture. On the otherside the problem can be overcome if theregularities are treated on a methodologicallevel and not as the aim in itself. Con-frontations with data would then in turnlead to a modification or rejection of thestructural abstraction, or the system of regu-larities^ which will be closer to the 'reality'we try to reach.

PRINCIPLES OF FORM

A main point for Levi-Strauss is that thesimilarities he discusses in material culturecould not have developed by contact, buthave to be explained through relations within

the cultures. His empirical data are thusfrom areas widely separated in time andspace. His starting point is the art of theNorthwest Coast Indians of the 18th and19th centuries AD and Chinese art from thefirst and second millenium BC. He sub-sequently adds more cultures and ends upwith a larger group. The similarities do notderive so much from the external aspects ofthe art as from fundamental principles—principles that can be expressed throughdifferent forms. The basic comparisonsbetween the art of Asia and America, whichis the empirical basis for Levi-Strauss'sanalysis, were conducted by LeonhardAdam (1931, 1936). Another importantbackground reference concerning the art ofthe Northwest Coast Indians is Boas's (1927)Primitive Art.

Based on Adam's and Boas's conclusionsLevi-Strauss (1963:246-247) describes thefundamental principles in these art forms(Fig. 2):

(1) intense stylization;(2) schematization or symbolism, expressed byemphasizing characteristic features or addingsignificant attributes (thus, in Northwest Coastart, the beaver is portrayed by the small log whichit holds between its paws;(3) depiction of the body by 'split representation';(see Boas's explanation below);(4) dislocation of details, which are arbitrarilyisolated from the whole;(5) representation of one individual shown infront view with two profiles;(6) highly elaborate symmetry, which ofteninvolves asymmetric details;(7) illogical transformation of details into newelements (thus, a paw becomes a beak, an eyemotif is used to represent a joint, or vice versa);(8) finally, intellectual rather than intuitive rep-resentation, where the skeleton or internal organstake precedence over the representation of thebody.

The principles seem to work on differentlevels. Principles 3 and 5 are of a morespecific kind than principles 1, 4 and 6.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art 5

Fig. 2. Split representation in the art of the Northwest Coast Indians (Boas 1955: Figs. 222-224, 246,248, 255-257, 259, 263).

Split representation is described by Boas(1955:223-224, also quoted in Levi-Strauss1963:248-249), and exemplified by the ani-mals shown in Fig. 2, as:

The animal is imagined cut in two from head totail, so that the two halves cohere only at the tipof the nose and the tip of the ta i l . . . there is a

deep depression between the eyes, extendingdown the nose. This shows that the head itselfmust not be considered a front view, but asconsisting of two profiles which adjoin at mouthand nose, while they are not in contact with eachother on a level with the eyes and forehead. . . .The same principle is adhered to; and either theanimals are represented as split in two so that theprofiles are joined in the middle, or a front view

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

6 Siv Kristoffersen

Fig. 3. Relief brooch from Kv&le, Sogn. Drawing by S. Kristoffersen.

of the head is shown with two adjoining profilesof the body.

Levi-Strauss's analysis emphasises splitrepresentation as the key to the other levelsof the societies. It is, however, questionablehow much importance this principle aloneshould be allotted. The principle of dis-location seems quite as essential for theexpression, also as it is discussed by Levi-Strauss (1963:254-255, 260). Althoughemphasizing split representation, Levi-Strauss underlines, however, that all of theprinciples are more or less present in thedifferent art forms. Most important for thisstudy is that all these principles are to beunderstood as solutions to the problem ofdepicting a plastic motive on a flat surface.

LEVI-STRAUSS'S PRINCIPLES ANDGERMANIC ANIMAL ART

An attempt will be made here to add thenorthern Germanic tribes of the MigrationPeriod to Levi-Strauss's group of cultures byusing the listed principles. The principleswill be illustrated by the relief broochesand mountings from southern and westernNorway. All eight principles can be demon-strated in this material, some of them, how-ever, are more pronounced than others. Splitrepresentation is found, but seems to appearmainly in specific contexts, in associationwith the sword.

Stylization, dislocation and symmetryPrinciples 1,4 and 6—stylization, dislocationand symmetry—are best illustrated by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art 7

Fig. 4. Profile heads on the relief brooches fromKv&le, Sogn and Sanddal, Sunnfjord. Drawingby S. Kristoffersen.

Fig. 5. Relief brooch from Gyland, Vest-Agder.Drawing by S. Kristoffersen.

relief brooch from Kvale, Sogn (Fig. 3). Theanimal in the inner panel of the footplateillustrates the principles of intense stylizationand dislocation of details (principles 1 and4). These basic principles are always presenton all objects, although more or less pro-nounced. The two antithetical animals in thecentral panel of the headplate illustrate themore specific principle 6, where the sym-metrical composition is broken by asym-metrical details on the animal heads. Noticethat one of the animals has ears, while theother has a curl-like extension. Whereasthe symmetry is often broken in the reliefbrooches, this never seems to occur in the'scabbard mountings'.

Schematization and symbolismPrinciple 2—schematization and sym-bolism—is best illustrated by details in therelief brooches from Kvale, Sogn and Sand-dal, Sunnfjord (Fig. 4). This principle canbe found in the material as an extension ofintense stylization, but is not a commonfeature in the specific form described byLevi-Strauss. Characteristic features areemphasized, such as the human nose or thehuman hand, to show that a figure is ahuman being and not an animal. There are,however, seldom characteristic features oradded attributes that show species, as wasthe case with the Northwest Coast Indians.However, principle 2 does exist, in some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

8 Siv Kristoffersen

Fig. 6. Animals on the relief brooches from Skjer-vum, Sogn and Bratsberg, Telemark. Drawing byS. Kristoffersen.

of the hanging profile heads on the reliefbrooches. The profile heads of the Kvalebrooch have a beak of a bird of prey, thoseon the Sanddal brooch have the tusks of thewild boar. On the whole it does not seemthat it was important to stress animal speciesin the Germanic art of the Migration Period.This became more important in the laterdevelopment of the art. In the MigrationPeriod it is the concept 'animal' which isexpressed.

Illogical transformation of details into newelementsPrinciple 7—illogical transformation ofdetails into new elements—is best illustratedby the relief brooch from Gyland, Vest-Agder (Fig. 5). The principle is seldomapplied, and not within one and the sameanimal. It can, however, be exemplified inthe merging together of two animals, as inthe footplate of the Gyland brooch. Theterminal lobe of the footplate, which showsa front view figure, could be seen as a maskwithout ears, but also as a bear-like headwith ears. The ears are identical with thecontours of the profile heads of the animalsin the lower borders of the footplate. The

Fig. 7. Detail on the sword handle mounting fromSnartemo V. Drawing by S. Kristoffersen.

heads of two animals have become the earsof another animal. It also expresses the samemelting of profiles and front view/head onfigures as in principle 5.

Intellectual representationPrinciple 8—intellectual rather than intuitiverepresentation—is best illustrated by therelief brooch from Bratsberg, Telemark andSkjervum, Sogn (Fig. 6). This principle,which is closely connected to principle 1,can be exemplified through the crosslinedbodies in the brooches from Bratsberg andSkjervum. Here the skeleton of the animal,indicated by the crosslines as ribs, havetaken precedence over the representation ofthe body.

'Split representation' with one individualshown in front view with two profilesPrinciples 3 and 5—'split representation'with one individual shown in front viewwith two profiles—are best illustrated by thehandle mounting from the Snartemo sword,Vest-Agder and the 'scabbard mountings'from Amdal, Vest-Agder and Etne, Hor-daland (Figs. 7, 8, 9).

Principle 3, depiction of the body by splitrepresentation, and principle 5, repre-sentation of one individual shown in frontview with two profiles, are closely connected.As mentioned above Boas (1955:123-124)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art 9

Fig. 8. 'Scabbard mounting' from Amdal, Vest-Agder. Drawing by S. Kristoffersen.

Fig. 9. 'Scabbard mounting' from Etne, Horda-land. Drawing by S. Kristoffersen.

Fig. 10. Relief brooch from Agedal, Vest-Agder.Drawing by S. Kristoffersen.

sees the composition of principle 5 as animportant ingredient in split representation.

Tendencies of split representations appearin some of the relief brooches, such as onthe central panel of the headplate of theAgedal brooch (Fig. 10). The small bird-likeprofiles could be seen as a front view of aface with two eyes, a nose above and a broadmouth (the wavy line with niello, drawn witha thick, black line). The body elements arespread out on both sides of the head. Forexamples of well-executed split repre-sentation we have to turn to another artefactgroup: the golden mountings (handle and'scabbard mountings') associated withswords. The middle section of the mountingon the handle of the sword from Snartemo,grave V (Hougen 1935), presents a humanfigure split in the mentioned composition.The animal, or animal with a human head,in the Amdal 'scabbard mounting' is com-posed in the same way. The body elements

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

10 Siv Kristoffersen

Fig. 11. 'Scabbard mountings' from Oure, Denmark (upper left); Langbakk, Akershus (upper right);Egge, Oppland (bottom left); and Tureholm, Sweden (bottom right). Drawing by S. Kristoffersenafter Aberg 1924: Fig. 144; Haseloff1981: Figs. 165, 296, 297, 298; and photographs.

are organized in a slightly different manneras they are adjusted to the square shapeof the mounting. The Etne mounting iscomposed like the Amdal mounting, butdemonstrates stronger stylization of themotive. All three examples show a well-executed composition in split representa-tion, even though there is some variation inthe way the profiles are joined which partlydiffer from the description of Boas.

Split representation in the 'scabbardmountings'. Earlier discussionsA special relationship seems to exist betweensplit representation (principles 3 and 5) andthe golden mountings associated withswords. The special composition in thegolden 'scabbard mountings', referred to asmask motives, has been noticed since earlyin this century (Aberg 1924:59-60, Lindqvist1926:64-65, Bakka 1958:37, Vierck1967:137-139, Haseloff 1981:180-196, 251-

254) (see Vierck also with reference to Levi-Strauss's discussion). Other mountings withmask motives are: Oure, in Danmark; Ture-holm, in Sweden; Langbakk and Egge inNorway (Fig. 11). Due to their close simi-larity, the compositions have been assignedone centre of production, even one smith(Lindqvist 1926:69). Hougen (1935:52),however, argues that the Amdal mountingas well as the scabbard mounting on theSnartemo sword, both of them from theLista-Lyngdal region (Vest-Agder), arelocally produced. This is also the impressionthe mountings give, judging from a nottoo close examination. They seem to bevariations over the same motives—variationsthat could be explained by the inter-pretations of different smiths, rather thanthe work of one hand or production centre.The special connection between split rep-resentation and the golden 'scabbard mount-ings' could also be explained by their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art 11

proposed ritual function as possible sacri-fices. Thus the mediating content (see below)of split representation is likely related to theritual significance of these mountings.

Also some of the other listed principles,though referred to by other terms, have beenrecognized earlier as characteristic featuresof Germanic animal art. Already in theearliest major work on Germanic animal artthe general connection with 'primitive art', inan evolutionary sense, was stressed (Muller1880:262). Also Haseloff (1981: e.g. 113)points to principles discussed within tra-ditional research which are closely connectedto some of those listed by L6vi-Strauss.

PRINCIPLES OF FORM IN RELATIONTO NATIVE THOUGHT

Split representation constitutes a centralelement of approach in Lfvi-Strauss's expla-nation of the similarities found in the cultureshe discusses. Through split representationhe relates the principles of form to theintegrity of the design (Levi-Strauss 1963:258ff.). In our own present-day culture we donot respect the integrity of the design, aswhen we draw an animal on a sheet of paper,we transfer the plastic form of the animal toa flat surface, a graphic form. The drawingis not identical to the animal we see, we'distort the design in accordance with thelaws of perspective' (ibid.). The form wemake is a representation of the animal. Thisis impossible in the discussed cultures wherethe flat surface defines the design, that isone respects the surface as a graphic design.To meet the demand of the graphic design,the animal is cut in two and split out on thesurface. In native thought the design doesnot represent the animal, it is the animal, orcreates the animal. By facial paintings ortattoos, which form an essential part of Levi-Strauss's argumentation, the design 'confersupon the face its social existence, its humandignity, its spiritual significance' (ibid.:259).Split representation expresses thus a deeper

and more fundamental splitting, 'namelythat between the "dumb" biological indi-vidual and the social person whom he mustembody' (ibid.).

The special relationship which links theplastic and graphic components is essentialto understanding the fundamental level ofnative thought. Levi-Strauss explains therelationship as follows:

These two elements are not independent; theyhave an ambivalent relationship which is simul-taneously one of opposition and one which isfunctional. It is a relationship of oppositionbecause the requirements of decoration areimposed upon the structure and change it, hencethe splitting and dislocation; but it is also afunctional relationship, since the object is alwaysconceived in both its plastic and graphic aspects.A vase, a box, a wall, are not independent, pre-existing objects which are subsequently decor-ated. They acquire their definitive existence onlythrough the integration of the decoration with theutilitarian function. Thus, the chests of NorthwestCoast art are not merely containers embellishedwith a painted or carved animal. They are theanimal itself, keeping an active watch over theceremonial ornaments which have been entrustedto its care. Structure modifies decoration, butdecoration is the final cause of structure, whichmust also adapt itself to the former. The finalproduct is a whole: utensil—ornament, object—animal, box—that—speaks (Levi-Strauss 1963:260-261),

Thus the form of the animal is changed asit is depicted on an object. In the sameprocess the object is changed—or given itsdefinitive existence, an existence as a newfunctional unity. The chest is both a con-tainer and an animal who is able to guardthe contents. In the same way, within theGermanic way of thought, I will suggest thatthe relief brooch was changed into a newunity and given the animals' strength andability to watch over the individual who worethe brooch. The brooches were given theseabilities through the animal ornaments. Theessential meaning of the animal figures in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

12 Siv Kristoffersen

this specific art form, then, was to enablethis transformation, it was not to present theanimals. This again may explain why theanimal figures in the Germanic art are hiddenin the complicated patterns.

THE TRANSFORMATIONWhether the similarities between the artforms discussed and Levi-Strauss's con-clusions about their meaning may be relatedto Germanic thought, and how this shouldbe done, are, however, complicated ques-tions. It is not satisfying just to place theGermanic animal art in Levi-Strauss's systemand directly transfer the elements of thoughtto the Germanic context. In order to providea better foundation for my suggestion con-cerning the relief brooches above, I will tryto establish links in the relations betweenart and thought through other sources. I willuse the concept of transformation as a basicidea in establishing these links, as this con-cept seems to describe and be of fundamentalsignificance for the process outlined by Levi-Strauss (1963:260-261, quoted above). Thatis the transition from one state to anotherand the creation of a new whole. By meansof transformation an object and an animalcan merge into a new functional unity. Levi-Strauss does not attach importance to theconcept of transformation in the text dis-cussed here, as he does in his later worksconcerning the transformation of nature intoculture {normal/transformed—'elabore')(Levi-Strauss 1969; discussed by Leach1989:26-27, 31, 102-103).

Animals as expression of transformation—general aspectsA general aspect of transformation which isworth considering is the use of animals assymbolic expressions. In the development ofthe Germanic animal art, the process whichdisassociates it from classical art and makesit genuinely Germanic, there is a will to

express the concept 'animal'. In animals assymbolic expressions there seems to existelements of highly general significance. Thisis, among others (e.g. Douglas 1966), dis-cussed by Bloch (1992) concerning rituals,but can be transferred to materialexpressions. In animals there is a dualismwhich makes them well suited for use inrituals: They are at the same time like andunlike human beings, thus being able torepresent identification at one moment andalienation at the next (ibid.:12, 65). Fur-thermore (ibid.:4) animals represent themortal part of human beings. The immortalpart can be represented by birds or byhumans being the spirits by wearing masks.Bloch underlines that the actors do notrepresent spirits, but they are spirits.Through the animals the transition from themortal to the immortal aspect of humanscan be expresseo1—the animals express thesymbolic transformation which forms theessential part of rituals. Through the trans-formations the animals become extremelyspecial and strength-giving food, which canbe consumed by the participants who arerenewed and strengthened.

Levi-Strauss does not give importance tothe fact that the motives in the art forms hedeals with often consist of animals. But asBloch's discussion shows, the transformationinto a new unity, could also be inherent inthe symbolic expressions of animals, both inrituals and as motives in materialexpressions. Motives, which to an evengreater degree carry the duality that is basicto transformation, are to be found in themetamorphosis of animals and humanbeings, characteristic within the Germanicanimal art (Haseloff 1981:111 ff., Roth1986:21-22). There are many examples insouthern and western Norway, such as theSanddal brooch. Also some of the maskmotives in the 'scabbard mountings' areinterpreted as the metamorphosis of animalsand humans. Vierck (1967:137-139) dis-cusses these metamorphoses with referenceto Levi-Strauss's idea of dualism.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art 13

Transformation in Germanic ideas of the soulTransformation in the specific Germaniccontext, also related to animals, is found inthe concept of soul central to the Nordicheathen tradition. A characteristic featureis that the soul could free itself from thebody (Steinsland 1990:62 ff., with referencesto Mundal 1974). When the soul acted onits own, it often materialized in, transformedinto, the form of an animal {'hamskifte").And as a fast running animal or a bird, thesoul could within a short time move overlong distances—over land and in the air. Notso much the transformation, but the human/animal duality is expressed through anotheraspect of the concept of soul, ldyref0lgef,an 'alter ego'; a kind of shadow creaturebelonging to the immaterial world, often notknown to the person it followed. lF0lget'could help when it was needed, as whenlittle Torstein (in the saga 'Flatoboken')stumbled over his 'f0lge', a polar bear's cub,and that made his grandfather recognize him(Baeksted 1988:242). It is stressed that lf0lgefactually was the person. When Rolf Krake's'/0/ge', a huge bear, fought for him in abattle, Rolf himself lay as dead (ibid.).

The ability of the soul to materialize inanimal form is basic to ecstatical techniquesand of highly general significance (e.g. Eli-ade 1974), within the Germanic contextreferred to as 'seid' (witchcraft, esp. aspractised in old Norse times by a specialgroup of women) and shamanism (Steinsland1990). There is reason to believe that thereis a connection between animal art and 'seid\as it can be observed through a group ofwomen's graves where animal art is richlyrepresented (Kristoffersen 1992). That is, ifwe are allowed to interpret textile equipmentas spindlewhorls and iron weaving swords,according to a ritual context through theirrole as metaphors concerning fate anddestiny, which is widely spread throughoutthe Indo-European world (e.g. Baeksted1988:217; Enright 1990:65). In the Germaniccontext it is exemplified through the spinningNorns (the goddesses of fate) and in the web

of destiny as in Beowulf and in the Nj&lsSaga (Hauck 1985, Baeksted 1988:184, 66,Enright 1990). These are later sources,maybe with the exception of Beowulf. Thatthe idea may be relevant also for theMigration Period, is made plausible throughHauck studies of the golden bracteates (e.g.Hauck 1985). Bracteates are found in someof the mentioned female graves. Hauck(1985) has suggested that, through the closeconnection to Odin and his shamanisticpower, these amulets were carried by womenwith the ability to see.

The connection between animal art andthe concept of soul is also revealed throughother aspects. Within the Nordic traditionthe soul was believed to exist in the breathand blood (Steinsland ibid.). The lifegivingbreath has been discussed in relation toMigration Period animal art (Vierck1967:104 ff., Roth 1986:15) and also inrelation to the golden bracteates where it ishighly significant to the interpretation ofsome of these amulets (Hauck 1977:172-173; 1978:380-386). The breath is alsoemphasized in some of the motives onbrooches which have been discussed here,particularly in the masks or human faces, asin the side lobes and terminal lobe of theKvale brooch (Fig. 3). In these masks it isthe breath itself which is emphasized. Thereare also examples showing an animal comingout of the mouth of a human head whichunderlines the close relationship betweensoul, animal and breath, the transformationof the soul into an animal (see discussion of'Seelentier' in Langobardic sources referredto by Roth 1986:15).

SOCIETY

The link between art and society is easilyoversimplified, often with no discussion ofwhom the art represented and in what con-text it functioned. Without deciding on thecharacter of the link between art and societyhere, it is apparent that some kind of regu-larity exists in this relationship within the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

14 Siv Kristoffersen

discussed cultures. Levi-Strauss discusses theconditions under which the specific relation-ship between the plastic and graphic forms,characteristic for these art forms, occur. Inthe cultures in question, the mask is assigneda special meaning which he relates to splitrepresentation. The function of split rep-resentation and the use of masks are both'to offer a series of intermediate forms whichensure the transition from symbol tomeaning, from magical to normal, fromsupernatural to social' (Levi-Strauss1963:262). They both have the ability ofmediation. As split representation madepossible the transformations discussedabove, the mask ensured the transformationof meaning from the ritual to the socialsphere. Thus the social hierarchy was createdand validated through the role of the masksin rituals. This creation was a continuousprocess 'in each moment of social life'(ibid.:264).

It is not of major importance here whetheror not there were masks in the Germanicculture. It is important to draw attention tothe necessity for constant legitimation ofthe social structure within the cultures inquestion—a mechanism which probably wasat work within the sociopolitics of Germanicsociety in southern and western Norway aswell. This was seen in the elaboration ofsymbols through material culture referred toabove and can be explained by a mobilesocial structure which was not tied up ininstitutions or bureaucracy.

Germanic and Roman ideology andsociety are different in many ways. This isalso the case with Germanic and classicalart. The alienation from the preceding classi-cal to the Germanic way of expression ishere represented by the establishment ofthe eight principles of form. In the fixedhierarchy of the Roman Empire, as a state,constant and active legitimation would prob-ably not be necessary and of little use.Within the Roman ideology of power theobvious dominance was crucial. One canimagine that when the end of the Empire

was near, the Romans were not able toredefine this ideology and change their strat-egy.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis I have shown that we canconnect the Germanic animal art to a groupof 'primitive' art forms characterized by eightbasic principles of form. Other similaritiesconcerning way of thought and societybetween these cultures also seem to exist.The danger of oversimplifying relations,which probably are characterized by a highdegree of complexity, is mentioned;however, effort has been made to avoid adirect linking by establishing the funda-mental idea of transformation, the transitionfrom one state to another and the creationof a new whole, an idea that can be deducedfrom Levi-Strauss's discussion. Transform-ation is inherent in the merging together ofmotive and object through the integrationof ornamentation and function in a broochor a sword, as it is in ideas concerning theGermanic concept of soul. It is not theregularities as such that have been importantin this approach, but the possibility of con-necting Germanic animal art to the idea oftransformation. This is done through Levi-Strauss's interpretation of the execution ofthe animal motives, as summarized in theeight principles.

Even though the regularities are not themain object of this study, the kinds ofproblems discussed by Giddens (1979:17-18, 28; 1982:36-37) and Barth (1989:9, 17,83, 86 ff.), which are inherent in thisapproach, have to be considered. The gen-eralizations necessary to accomplish thesekinds of analyses are stressed above. Thiscan be a problem if one considers variationsin the data as meaningful. In Germanicanimal art there are variations in the contextsin which split representation occurs, thatmay be important to our understanding ofthe society. Because of the strong associationof the principle with the sword, it should

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art 15

probably be connected to the male sphere.A completely executed split representationdoes not occur on objects carried by womenwhich constitute the majority of objectsdecorated with animal ornamentation.Hence, we cannot use this principle directlyas a key to the other levels of society, andcertainly not as a reflection of the conditionsin that society in general. The variation inthe contexts in which the principle occurs,might express dynamic conditions within thesociety, dynamics which are easily maskedin a structural approach. It is essential, then,to understand what kind of structure theregularities that are observed here represent,and what aspect of the culture is expressed.Following Giddens (1982:35) 'it is not clearwhether Levi-Strauss regards structure asrelations between a set of inferred elementsor oppositions, or as rules of transformationthat produce equivalences across sets'. Struc-ture seems, however, in both cases to con-cern rules that function on a higher level andregulate the social system. In Giddens'sdevelopment of the concept of structuralismthese rules can be used through structurationin the reproduction of social practices. Itfollows then, that a structure cannot beregarded as a direct expression of a society,but should be considered within a contextof power relations, which again are of crucialimportance to the way we use and interpretregularities in our archaeological researchprocedure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Bergljot Solberg, my supervisor,for useful comments and critique, likewiseto Randi Barndon, Arne Johan Naer0y, Chri-stopher Prescott and Elizabeth J. Warren.Christopher Prescott patiently discussed thetheme; Randi Haland gave me the Levi-Strauss paper and the idea to discuss itin relation to Germanic animal art; RandiBarndon provided useful references toanthropological literature. Thanks to par-ticipants at the course 'Strukturalisme,

dekonstruksjon, neopragmatisme og ark-eologi' in Troms0 1993 for inspiring dis-cussions. Elizabeth J. Warren corrected myEnglish.

REFERENCES .

Adam, L. 1931. Das problem der asiatisch-alta-merikanischen Kulturbeziehungen mit beson-derer Berücksichtigung der Kunst. WienerBeiträge zur Kunst und KulturgeschichteAsiens, V. Reference in Lévi-Strauss 1963.

Adam, L. 1936. Northwest American Indian artand its early Chinese parallels. Man XXXVI,No. 3. Reference in Lévi-Strauss 1963.

Bæksted, A. 1988 (first published in 1965). Nor-diske gudar och hjältar. Forum, Oslo.

Bakka, E. 1958. On the beginning of Salin's StyleI in England. Univ. i Bergen Arbok. Historiskantikvarisk rekke, No. 3, 1-83.

Barth, F. 1989 (first published in 1987). In Goody,J. (ed.), Cosmologies in the Making. A gen-erative approach to cultural variation in innerNew Guinea. Cambridge Studies in SocialAnthropology. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Behmer, E. 1939. Das zweischneidige Schwertder germanischen Völkerwanderungszeit.Tryckeriaktiebolaget SVEA. Stockholm.

Bloch, M. 1992. Pray into Hunter. The politicsof religious experience. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Boas, F. 1955 (first published in 1927). PrimitiveArt. Dover publications. New York.

B0e, J. 1923. Norske guldfund fra folk-evandringstiden. Bergen Mus. Årb. Hist.antikv. rekke, no. 2, 1920-21, 1-67.

Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger. An Analy-sis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.Routledge & Keegan Paul, London.

Eliade, M. 1974. Shamanism. Archaic Techniquesof Ecstasy. Princeton University Press, Prince-ton.

Eliade, M. 1978 (first published 1956). The Forgeand the Crucible. The Origins and Structures ofAlchemy. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Enright, M. J. 1990. The Goddess who weaves.Some iconographic aspects of bracteates of theFüstenberg type. Frühmittelalterliche Studien24. Band, 59-66.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

16 Siv Kristoffersen

Fett, P. 1940. Arms in Norway between 400and 600 A.D. Part 2. Bergens Mus. Årb.Hist.antikv. rekke, no. 1, 1939/40 (1940), 1-45.

Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in SocialTheory. Action, Structure and Contradiction inSocial Analysis. Reprint 1993. Contemporarysocial theory. Macmillan Press, Hong Kong.

Giddens, A. 1982. Profiles and Critiques in SocialTheory. University of California Press, Berke-ley and Los Angeles.

Haseloff, G. 1981. Die germanische Tieror-namentik der Völkerwanderungszeit. Studienzu Salin's Stil I. Band I-III. Walter de Gruyter,Berlin and New York.

Hauck, K. 1977. Zur Ikonologie der Gold-brakteaten XIII: Schlüsselstücke zur Entz-ifferung der Ikonographie der D-brakteaten.Sudien zur Sachsenforschung, 161-196.

Hauck, K. 1978. Brakteatenikonologie. InHoops, J. (ed.), Reallexikon der Germ-anistischen Altertumskunde. Band 3. Lieferung3/4, 361-401. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin andNew York.

Hauck, K. 1985. Motivanalyse eines Dob-beltbrakteaten. Die Träger der goldenen Göt-terbilderamulette und die Traditionsinstanz derfünischen Brakteatenproduktion. Frühmitte-lalterliche Studien 19. Band. 148-157.

Hedeager, L. 1992. Kingdoms, ethnicity andmaterial culture: Denmark in a European per-spective. In Carver, M. O. H. (ed.), The Ageof Sutton Hoo. The seventh century in North-Western Europe, 279-300. The Boydell Press.Woodbridge.

Hodder, I. 1979. Economic and social stress andmaterial culture patterning. AmericanAntiquity. Vol. 44, No. 3, 446-454.

Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action. Ethnoar-chaeological studies of material culture. NewStudies in Archaeology. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Høilund Nielsen, K. 1991. Centrum og periferi i6.-8. årh. Territoriale studier af dyrestil ogkvindesmykker i yngre germansk jernalder iSyd- og østskandinavien. In R. Mortensen andB. M. Rasmussen (eds), Fra Stamme til Stat iDanmark. 2. Høvdingesamfund og Konge-makt, 127-154. Jysk Arkæologisk SelskabsSkrifter XXII: 2. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Hougen, B. 1935. Snartemofunnene. Studier ifolkevandringstidens ornamentikk og tek-

stilhistorie. Norske Oldfunn VII. Oslo.Hougen, B. 1967. The Migration Style of Orna-

ment in Norway, 2nd edn (first published in1936). Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Kristoffersen, S. 1992. Den germanske dyrestilenog kvinnegraver med relieffspenner. K.A.N.nos 13-14, 40-57.

Leach, E. 1989. Claude Lévi-Strauss. The Uni-versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963. Structural Anthropology.Basic Books, New York.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Raw and the Cooked:Introduction to a Science of Mythology, Vol.1. New York.

Lindqvist, S. 1926. Vendelkulturens ålder ochUrsprung. Kungl. vitterhets historie och antikvi-tets akademiens handlingar, del 36:1. På aka-demiens förlag, Stockholm.

Müller, S. 1880. Dyreornamentiken i Norden,dens Oprindelse, Udvikling og Forhold til sam-tidige Stilarter. Aarbøger for Nordisk old-kyndighet og historie, 184-405. København.

Mundal, E. 1974. Fylgjemotiva i norrøn litteratur.Oslo. Reference in Steinsland 1990.

Myhre, B. 1987. Chieftains' graves and chiefdomterritories in South Norway in The MigrationPeriod. Studien zur Sachsen-forschung 6, 169-187.

Myhre, B. 1991. Bosetning og politisk organ-isasjon i Vest-Norge før vikingtid. Nor-datlantiske foredrag. Törshavn.

Nissen Meyer, E. 1935. Relieffspenner i Norden.Bergens Mus. Årb. Hist.antikv. rekke, no. 4.1934, 1-125.

Ramqvist, P. 1990. Høgom. Malungs BoktryckeriAB. Malung.

Randsborg, K. 1988. Byen, Magten og Jorden:Europa i det første årtusind. In Mortensen. P.and Rasmussen, B. (eds), Fra Stamme til Stati Danmark. 1. Jernalderens stammesamfund.Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter XXII.Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Aarhus. 9-19.

Reichbom-Kjennerud, I. 1928. Vår gamletrolldomsmedisin I. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse 1927.No. 6. A. W. Bröggers boktrykkeri A/S. Oslo.

Roth, H. 1986. Einführung in die Problematik,Rückblick und Ausblick. Zum Problem derDeutung frühmittelalterlicher Bildinhalte, 9-24.Jan Thorbecke Verlag Sigmaringen.

Salin, B. 1935 (first published in 1904). Diealtgermanische Thierornamentik. Wahlström &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Transformation in Migration Period Animal Art YJ

Widstrand. Stockholm.Shetelig, H. 1949. Classical Impulses in Scandi-

navian Art from the Migration Period to theViking Age. Instituttet for sammenlignendekulturforskning. H. Aschehoug & Co, Oslo.

Slomann, W. 1956. Folkevandringstiden i Norge.Spredte trekk og enkelte problemer. StavangerMus. Årb. 1955, 63-82.

Steinsland, G. 1990. Antropologiske og eska-tologiske ideer i førkristen nordisk religion.Problemet om kognitiv kontinuitet eller dis-kontinuitet mellom de to idekompleksene. Col-

legium Medievale. Volum 3. 1990/1, 59-71.Vierck, H. 1967. Ein Relieffibelpaar aus Nor-

dendorf in Bayerisch Schwaben. Zur Ikon-ographie des germanischen Tierstils I.Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter. Jahrgang 32.105-143.

Voss, O. 1954. The Høstentorp silver hoard andits period. Acta Archaeologica Vol. XXV, 169-219.

Åberg, N. 1924. Den nordiska folkevand-ringstidens kronologi. Cederquists grafiskaaktiebolag. Stockholm.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

berd

een]

at 0

7:13

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14