Hajnalka Herold

The settlement of Zillingtal is among the first archaeologically investigated settlements in Austria that can be connected to the early medieval political unit known as the Avar Khaganate (7th–8th centuries AD). The results from the analysis of the Zillingtal settlement and their comparison to other sites of this polity, mostly situated today in neighbouring countries of Austria, brought new insights into early medieval settlement activity in this region of Europe, especially concerning the (re)use of Roman ruins in the early Middle Ages. Archaeometric analysis and experimental archaeology aided in reconstructing patterns of ceramic production and use in the Avar period. Traditions of depositing grave goods were examined in the cemetery of Zillingtal in relation to the age and gender of the buried persons. This study was based on the results of the archaeological and archaeometric analysis of the 469 ceramic vessels found in the 586 modern excavated graves at Zillingtal and on the physical anthropological data of the burials. The investigations revealed gender-specific patterns in selecting the culturally accepted vessels for deposition in the grave as well as changes in these traditions through time. The two volumes have been subject to peer-review in the course of the application for printing costs at the Austrian Science Fund (application no. D3996 & D3997).

Twenty-three contributions by leading archaeologists from across Europe explore the varied forms, functions and significances of fortified settlements in the 8th to 10th centuries AD. These could be sites of strongly martial nature, upland retreats, monastic enclosures, rural seats, island bases, or urban nuclei. But they were all expressions of control - of states, frontiers, lands, materials, communities - and ones defined by walls, ramparts or enclosing banks. Papers run from Irish cashels to Welsh and Pictish strongholds, Saxon burhs, Viking fortresses, Byzantine castra, Carolingian creations, Venetian barricades, Slavic strongholds, and Bulgarian central places, and coverage extends fully from north-west Europe, to central Europe, the northern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Strongly informed by recent fieldwork and excavations, but drawing also where available on the documentary record, this important collection provides fully up-to-date reviews and analyses of the archaeologies of the distinctive settlement forms that characterised Europe in the Early Middle Ages.

This chapter offers a review of early medieval strongholds built between the 5th and the 11th centuries in selected regions of East Central and Eastern Europe and considers their role in the formation of polities of the area. There are two distinct phases of strongholds within this period: late antique strongholds (5th to 6th century) and strongholds built between the late 8th and the 11th century. Late antique strongholds have a more limited occurrence both in number and geographical distribution than strongholds of the later period. In addition, these two groups of strongholds have different political articulations, as the late antique strongholds generally played no role in the emergence of longer-term political units. Conversely, there is much variation in the political articulation of the later strongholds, depending upon region and chronology. Given the sheer number of sites, it would be impossible to review all 5th- to 11th-century strongholds of East Central and Eastern Europe. In what follows, I will, therefore, concentrate on selected regions and case studies, in order to demonstrate various possible connections between strongholds and polity formation.

In the 12,000 years preceding the Industrial Revolution, human activities led to significant changes in land cover, plant and animal distributions, surface hydrology, and biochemical cycles. Earth system models suggest that this anthropogenic land cover change influenced regional and global climate. However, the representation of past land use in earth system models is currently oversimplified. As a result, there are large uncertainties in the current understanding of the past and current state of the earth system. In order to improve representation of the variety and scale of impacts that past land use had on the earth system, a global effort is underway to aggregate and synthesize archaeological and historical evidence of land use systems. Here we present a simple, hierarchical classification of land use systems designed to be used with archaeological and historical data at a global scale and a schema of codes that identify land use practices common to a range of systems, both implemented in a geospatial database. The classification scheme and database resulted from an extensive process of consultation with researchers worldwide. Our scheme is designed to deliver consistent, empirically robust data for the improvement of land use models, while simultaneously allowing for a comparative, detailed mapping of land use relevant to the needs of historical scholars. To illustrate the benefits of the classification scheme and methods for mapping historical land use, we apply it to Mesopotamia and Arabia at 6 kya (c. 4000 BCE). The scheme will be used to describe land use by the Past Global Changes (PAGES) LandCover6k working group, an international project comprised of archaeologists, historians, geographers, paleoecologists, and modelers. Beyond this, the scheme has a wide utility for creating a common language between research and policy communities, linking archaeologists with climate modelers, biodiversity conservation workers and initiatives.

Targeted geophysical survey has been employed to investigate the open rural settlement types and strategies adopted prior to the renaissance of a strong urbanism in a core zone of central Europe, the Erlauf Valley (Austria), in order to study two transformations of the 5th–11th centuries AD relevant to large parts of Europe: the end of Roman rule and Frankish colonisation. The research forms part of a broader project of the PI, investigating – by systematic fieldwalking survey and targeted geophysical survey – post-Roman to high medieval landscape transformations in various areas of the Erlauf Valley. The study region provides excellent opportunities for investigating these phenomena, as it formed part of the Roman province of Noricum until AD 488, and was variously controlled/influenced afterwards by Germanic groups and Avars, until it became part of the ‘East- Land’, an area colonised by the Carolingians in the Danube Basin in the 9th century, and colonised again by the Ottonians in the 10th–11th century. While written sources attest to these political transformations, there has been limited information available to date on how these developments were manifested in the landscape, and specifically how they impacted upon settlement dynamics.

This article presents results of the analysis of 23 thin sections of early medieval pottery from Pliska (obl. Schumen / BG). This investigation was planned as part of a comprehensive study of the so-called yellow pottery from Pliska, which aimed to characterize these vessels and their production technology as well as to illuminate the connection of this pottery group with the Avar-period yellow pottery in the Carpathian Basin (present-day Hungary and surrounding areas). The yellow pottery from Pliska became well-known primarily through the vessel-set found in a secret passage of »Krum’s Palace« in 1979. Various hypotheses have been suggested for the conceptual origin and place of production of this pottery group, including a Byzantine and a central Asian background. Chemical analyses of the yellow pottery from Pliska and of local sediments have shown that a local production of this pottery in Pliska was possible. The aim of the investigations presented here is to characterize the microstructure of the yellow pottery and other investigated pottery groups from Pliska, in order to determine possible similarities / differences between these groups, as well as to show / disprove potential connections with yellow pottery groups of the 8th and 9th centuries from the Carpathian Basin and neighbouring areas.

This article discusses fortified sites in central Europe, in the territories of today’s Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia. This geographical unit will be considered here as a whole, in order to be able to view this region in the 9th and 10th centuries AD without having to consider present-day national borders, which obviously did not exist in the Early Middle Ages. In chronological terms, the focus lies on the time period between the ‘Avar Wars’ of Charlemagne (AD 791–796) and the end of the 10th century, when the Bohemian and the Hungarian states were formed and the areas under East-Frankish control in this region came to be administered by the Babenberg family. The article starts with a brief overview of the historical background, followed by a discussion of the layout and buildings of the main fortified sites in 9th- to 10th-century central Europe. Next the paper will examine evidence for different aspects of the natural environment at these sites, including anthropogenic influences. Finally, possible roles of these fortified sites and their connections to the main political players of this period, namely the Frankish Kingdom (East-Frankish Kingdom after AD 843) and the Byzantine Empire, are considered.

This volume brings together experts from across Europe working on shared themes related to early medieval settlement. Centring discussion on three core centuries of the Early Middle Ages – the 8th–10th centuries AD – the contributors here examine the phenomenon of fortified settlements in the landscape. The period is, arguably, one dominated by enclosed communities – even if, as will be highlighted by various authors, ‘open’ and ‘dispersed’ settlement persisted in the lands attached to or overseen by the fortified centres. These sites have long been portrayed as physical, monumental and landed manifestations of fractured states, high levels of warfare – external and internecine – and a growing localisation of elite power. They have also long seen historical recognition and archaeological investigation, but generally with a focus determined by the noted vision of insecurity. Hence the emphasis of study had long been on the defences – stone or timber and earthen – and their scale and durability; on the strategic siting of the fortifications – on hilltop, island, promontory, or as citadel or urban enceinte – and their position in a defensive network; and on signs of military garrisons, of conflict and of destruction. Their role in state authority and in elite society are also regular subjects of discussion – frontier bases to a polity; fortified royal palaces; high elite strongholds, perhaps held by royal retainers or administrators such as dukes, counts, margraves; or fortresses between competing nobilities.
But while these are all factors that played a role – substantial or lesser – in the formation, functioning, evolution and ends (or endurance) of fortified sites across Europe, discussion of these distinctive and commonplace settlement foci needs better balance, addressing not just their potential politico-military roots and roles, but also their actual workings as settlements. Archaeology is ideally placed to explore not just chronologies and forms, but the occupants, their lifestyles, material expressions, their contacts and their working landscapes. As will be seen, this volume is as much about understanding how, when and why these fortified sites emerged in the Early Middle Ages as understanding how they were put together, the nature of their buildings inside and what we can learn of the social groups living and working within (and without) them.

In Michelstetten (Niederösterreich) wurden im Zuge einer großflächigen Rettungsgrabung Siedlungsobjekte aus mehreren Perioden freigelegt. Die hier vorgelegten Keramikanalysen konzentrieren sich auf die spätantike und die frühmittelalterliche Keramik der Fundstelle. Im Laufe der Untersuchungen erfolgte die Analyse von Proben aus 30 Gefäßen, deren Auswahl nach einer gründlichen Durchsicht des gesamten spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Keramikmaterials vorgenommen wurde. Möglichst repräsentative Proben wurden aus allen Gruppen der handgeformten Keramik der Spätantike und aus der handgeformten und langsam gedrehten Keramik des Frühmittelalters genommen. Die ausgewählten Keramikstücke wurden mittels petrographischer Dünnschliffanalyse untersucht. Ziel der Analysen war es zu überprüfen, ob hinter der morphologischen Ähnlichkeit einiger spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Gefäße auch eine ähnliche Herstellungstechnik steht, aufgrund derer eine technologische Kontinuität zwischen den zwei Perioden im töpferhandwerklichen Bereich vermutet werden könnte. Hierzu wurden die spätantiken und die frühmittelalterlichen Keramikstücke in Bezug auf die verwendeten Rohstoffe und die angewandten herstellungstechnischen Schritte untersucht, sowohl im Mikroskop als auch anhand der mit freiem Auge sichtbaren, makroskopischen, Merkmale. Weiters wurde die Keramik zweier Objekte (Grube 650 und Töpferofen 1454) näher charakterisiert, um Anhaltspunkte für die Datierung dieser Objekte zu gewinnen.

This article discusses how the analysis of late 6th to 10th-century ceramic finds can contribute to a better understanding and reconstruction of the chronology and economy of the Avar Khaganate and the post-Avar Period in the Carpathian Basin (today´s Hungary and adjacent areas). It comprises a critical review of available research results on Avar-Period and 9th to 10th-century pottery, including results from the author’s own investigations, thus offering a critical assessment of many decades of research on pottery from c. 400 years in this region.

Organisers: Hajnalka Herold (University of Exeter, UK), K. Patrick Fazioli (Mercy University, US), David Petts (University of Durham, UK)

This session aims to investigate how the concept of a "Global Middle Ages" can facilitate a more dynamic and inclusive medieval archaeology. Originally developed by medievalists in history and literary studies, the Global Middle Ages approach has sought to challenge the Eurocentric nature of medieval research by foregrounding long-distance connections, cross-cultural analyses, and non-western contexts. However, on the one hand, ‘Eurocentric’ medieval research has usually not included all of Europe, but only western Europe, or sometimes even only Britain more specifically. And, on the other hand, the notion of Global Middle Ages has received comparatively little attention in archaeology, especially outside of the Anglophone world, despite the tremendous potential to explore these themes based on the archaeological record.
We invite papers on the archaeology of the Global Middle Ages from any region, but especially those that have been traditionally underrepresented in this framework. Both synthetic, theoretical explorations and specific case studies are welcome. Possible themes include, but are not limited to: How does widening our geographical perspective shape the questions we ask of the archaeological record? Should a global framework be limited to investigating clearly related topics, like long-distance trade, migration, and communication, or should it infuse our entire understanding of the past? How can we make the geographical coverage within Europe more balanced? In what ways is the ‘New World’ part of Global Middle Ages? What are the advantages (and dangers) of framing non-western societies as 'medieval'? Can a global approach to medieval archaeology address inequalities in the contemporary research landscape?

The Call for Papers is available at www.e-a-a.org/eaa2024/scientificprogramme deadline 12 February 2024

See recording at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW1IN1Vx5FI&ab_channel=RecordingArchaeology
Abstract
The intent behind the notion of 'Global Middle Ages' has generally been to broaden the scope, especially geographically, that we examine when discussing the Middle Ages. Important components of this have been a decolonising approach and widening the field of view beyond western Europe and the Mediterranean. While these are very noble aims, a broad territory, situated geographically in the very area between western Europe and the Mediterranean, has largely been left out of consideration, especially in English-speaking scholarship: we rarely see central and eastern Europe discussed in works that bear a 'Global Middle Ages' tag.
In some ways, the notion of ‘Global Middle Ages’ can be seen as an ‘us vs them’, where western Europe, which often sees the Mediterranean as its extension (likely stemming from the study of Classics being a traditionally western European pursuit), considers its relations with areas that would have been seen as ‘noble savage’ by researchers working hundred years ago. In this context, central and eastern Europe does not play a role, it is not relevant, we could say it is a ‘non-place’. This paper argues that central and eastern Europe was strongly embedded in the medieval world and the study of the Middle Ages cannot be truly ‘global’ without including this broad territory. One reason for the absence of this region, especially for the earlier part of 500–1500 CE, could be the lack of consistent written sources before the 11th–12th centuries. This is where archaeology can play a decisive part – the archaeological record is rich and detailed, albeit less well-known in an international context.

The 6th–13th centuries is a period of fundamental political, economic and cultural changes, which also affected glass production and influenced the distribution of glass and glass artefacts. Archaeometric research increasingly brings new and detailed data for the history of glass and shows a wider range of chemical types of glass compared to prehistoric times, based on wider sources of raw materials. These include soda-lime natron and plant-ash glass, mixed alkali glass, lead glass (high-lead, soda-lead, wood-ash-lead) and wood-ash/potassium glass. The first wood-ash/potassium glass started to be produced in the Carolingian Empire at the end of the 8th century, and this led to the growing independence of glass production in NW Europe. The questions the session would like to address include, but are not limited to: What do analysis results tell us about the spread of wood-ash/potassium glass across Europe? What role did Eastern, Central and Western Europe play in the production and use of lead glass? How do archaeometric analysis results impact upon our knowledge of production technologies and techniques? What do they reveal about interregional and long-distance contacts as shown by glass and glass artefacts? Another important topic for discussion is continuity and discontinuity in the use of chemical glass types in relation to types of glass objects.

This session presents the 'Glass Networks: Tracing Early Medieval Long-Distance Trade, c. 800-1000' Leverhulme-funded project. The project analyses early medieval glass beads with chemical and archaeological methods, in order to develop a novel perspective on European long-distance trade networks and interconnectedness. Early medieval raw glass production mainly took place in Mediterranean and Near Eastern centres. Each produced glass with distinct chemical compositions, which was circulated to various regions, including Europe. Small-scale raw glass production also existed in northwestern Europe. While the study of glass in the Mediterranean has received considerable attention, the potential of glass circulation networks to transform our understanding of trade and communication routes in Europe has yet to be fully utilised.
Due to the Covid situation and the change to an online format for the conference this session did finally not take place.

Organisers: Hajnalka Herold (University of Vienna, Austria / University of Exeter, United Kingdom) and K. Patrick Fazioli (Medaille College, USA)

Abstract: This session aims at comparing the archaeology of fortified settlements in different parts of Europe. By analysing the origins, forms, functions and symbolic meaning of these settlements, similarities and differences will be discussed in the development of European regions in the late phase of the early Middle Ages. Were defended communities typical in the early Middle Ages? When, where and why did they emerge? Who controlled these sites? What can we say about the structure of the defences? How was the space divided within the fortification? Were the inhabitants of these sites directly engaged in agriculture or did they rely on receiving agricultural products from neighbouring unfortified sites? What kind of craft production took place at these sites? What do the small finds tell us about their inhabitants? And finally, are there regions where power centres of the early Middle Ages were unfortified?

Organisers: Hajnalka Herold (University of Vienna, Austria) and Neil Christie (University of Leicester, United Kingdom)

Abstract: The three sessions 'Defended Communities': Fortified Settlements of the 8th-10th Centuries: Origins, Forms, and Functions, I-III aim at comparing the archaeology of fortified settlements across Europe, beyond the scope of regions that are usually compared and studied together. By analysing the origins, forms and functions of these settlements, similarities and differences will be discussed in the development of European regions in the late phase of the early Middle Ages.

Organisers: Hajnalka Herold (University of Vienna, Austria) and Neil Christie (University of Leicester, United Kingdom)

Abstract: The three sessions 'Defended Communities': Fortified Settlements of the 8th-10th Centuries: Origins, Forms, and Functions, I-III aim at comparing the archaeology of fortified settlements across Europe, beyond the scope of regions that are usually compared and studied together. By analysing the origins, forms and functions of these settlements, similarities and differences will be discussed in the development of European regions in the late phase of the early Middle Ages.

Organisers: Hajnalka Herold (University of Vienna, Austria) and Neil Christie (University of Leicester, United Kingdom)

Abstract: The three sessions 'Defended Communities': Fortified Settlements of the 8th-10th Centuries: Origins, Forms, and Functions, I-III aim at comparing the archaeology of fortified settlements across Europe, beyond the scope of regions that are usually compared and studied together. By analysing the origins, forms and functions of these settlements, similarities and differences will be discussed in the development of European regions in the late phase of the early Middle Ages.

Organiser: Hajnalka Herold (University of Vienna, Austria)

Abstract: This session aims at comparing the structure, possible function(s) and symbolic meaning of Early Medieval fortified settlements from three different parts of Europe (England, Italy, and Central Europe) based on archaeological research results. Thereby special emphases will be given to the defensive capabilities (military function and/or representation) of these sites as well as to the spatial organisation within the fortified area. Possibilities of reconstructing economic and administrative functions of the discussed Early Medieval fortified settlements on the basis of the archaeological record are also going to be examined.