Jew's Harps in European Archaeology 9781841719313, 9781407329536

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1. Introduction
2. Technology
Dialogue one: When did the jew’s harp become established in Europe?
3. Typology
4. Distribution
Dialogue two: But is this really music history?
5. Context
6. Conclusions
Catalogue
References

Citation preview

BAR S1500 2006

Jew’s Harps in European Archaeology

KOLLTVEIT

Gjermund Kolltveit

JEW’S HARPS IN EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

B A R

BAR International Series 1500 2006

Jew’s Harps in European Archaeology Gjermund Kolltveit

BAR International Series 1500 2006

ISBN 9781841719313 paperback ISBN 9781407329536 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719313 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

For Agnes and Jo

Preface iewed in a psychoanalytical and evolutionistic perspective, this monograph can be seen as a release of my propensity to be a hunter-gatherer, since the quantitively largest part of the work has been to make a collection, gathered through extensive hunting trips in various museums and institutions in Europe. The effort of collecting also gave me the opportunity to re-experience my own childhood. As many other children, I was busy with collecting and classifying insects, napkins, football cards and other items. Among things I did not collect, however, were jew’s harps. The fact that this work is based on a collection of one single artifact, does not, however, exclude wider perspectives and an intention to be “culture-centred” instead of “artifact-centred”. The compilation of excavated jew’s harps is hence not the goal in itself, but a means to discuss cultural, social and historical issues, also when employing a narrow focus on the material objects themselves and their technology. It is not an unconscious choice that the artifact in question here is a musical instument. Although the monograph does not explixitely focus on music, my attraction to jew’s harps from archaeological contexts arose from an interest in music and sounds of the past. More specifically, my interest in music combined with archaeology started during my undergraduate studies at the University of Oslo. I had been living as a professional violinist for some years, and had decided to take a break to start studying archaeology. I soon realized, however, that it was impossible to simply quit my musical career.Therefore, it was fascinating to become aware of the works of the archaeologist Cajsa S. Lund of Sweden, who was one of the pioneers in the field of music archaeology or archaeomusicology. I eventually specialised my studies in the direction of music archaeology, because it was a way to combine my interests, and because I found it fascinating and important to explore problems and issues in the intersection between musicology and archaeology. I was fortunate to get Cajsa S. Lund as an external supervisor for my MA studies at the Department of Musicology. It was she who advised me to look closer at the archaeological material of jew’s harps. I am thankful for her help and inspiration. A period of almost ten years with research on jew’s harps is brought to the end with this volume, appearng here as a revised version of my doctoral thesis with the same title (University of Oslo, 2004).The doctorate was made possible through funding from The Norwegian Research Council. I was offered a working place at The Norwegian Folk Music

Collection, which is a branch of The Department of Musicology. My supervisor Tellef Kvifte guided me through the work. He has showed me confidence, and deserves thanks for always being available for advice and help, in his efficient, professional and safe way. I appreciated the opportunity to be a part of the vital community of doctoral students at the Department of Musicology. Especial thanks are due to Eva Falck and Odd Skårberg for stimulating conversations. I have also benefitted from the training program for researchers at the University of Oslo, and I have appreciated the supportive atmosphere at the seminars led by Ståle Wikshåland, Trygve Nergaard, Knut Kjellstadli and Tellef Kvifte. Fredrick Crane, Iowa, has meant much to this study, both scholarly and as a friend. He has sendt me data on finds and offered valuable comments throughout the work. I am greatful to him for sharing his enormous knowledge of jew’ harps and for believing in me. I wish to thank the archaeologists Christian Keller for comments on the typology chapter and Knut Paasche for information on archaeological surfaces and metallurgy. From the Norwegian Jew’s harp scene I would like to thank Bernhard Folkestad for constructive remarks. My effort of documenting archaelogical Jew’s harp finds has brought me to several countries and allowed me to become aquainted with a lot of people. I hereby express my deepest gratitude to curators, archaeologists and others who have helped me to collect the material. I would also like to thank Graeme Lawson (England), Thomas Repiszky (Hungary), Annemies Tamboer (The Netherlands), Cristoph Bizer (Germany) Gorm Jessen (Denmark), Tenna Kristensen (Denmark), Igor Tonurist (Estonia), Martin Boiko (Latvia) and Timo Leisiö (Finland) for sharing material and for valuable information. Thanks is also due to Uta Hennig (Germany), who showed me her collection of music iconographical sources and Werner Meyer (Switzerland), who provided useful information on Swiss archaeology. Furthermore, I want to thank Andreas König, Andreas Heege (both Germany) and Jim Spriggs (England) for hospitality. Not only individuals, but also institutions deserve my gratitude.The material could not have been studied and presented in this way without kind permission from the many museums and institutions in possession of the finds.Thus, the reproductions displayed in the Catalogue and elsewhere in the work should be regarded as copyrighted material, belonging to the possessory institutions.

V

iii

I am thankful to the following people for helping with translations: Morten Abildsnes has translated some Slavonic text sections and commented on materials from Eastern Europe. Hans-Hinrich Thedens translated an inquiry letter into German. Marthe Disen, Alfredo Barbuti and Eva Falck assisted with Italian texts. Sandor von Körtvelyessy proofread Hungarian place names. Trevor Ford has spendt hours correcting and improving my English. Romilly Hambling helped with language improvement and proofreading at the final stage. I am grateful to them both.

Ann-Turi Ford did great work with illustrations and lay-out, amongst other things. Without her support this thesis would not have been accomplished in its present form. Finally I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the examining commitee appointed by the University of Oslo, consisting of Graeme Lawson (Cambridge), Gunnar Ternhag (Falun) and Gisela Attinger (Oslo), for their constructive responses and comments. Nesodden, March 2006 Gjermund Kolltveit

iv

Contents List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix

Technology: A hierarchical approach . . . . . . .45 Morphological developments . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Extension of the lamella . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 The AL/OL ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Bow shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Technology and chronology: division of types . .53 Mainly medieval: Kransen, Billingsgate, Horsens, Hallwil, Bruck and Sperrboden types . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Kransen 55, Billingsgate 57, Horsens 57, Hallwil 59, Bruck 60, Sperrboden 61 Long arms, hairpin-shaped: Kuusisto, Schauenburg, Gironville and Kvikkjokk types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Kuusisto 61, Schauenburg 62, Gironville 63, Kvikkjokk 64 Post-medieval iron: Gloucester, Damme, Kufstein and Ekeberg types . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Gloucester 65, Damme 66, Kufstein 67, Ekeberg 67 Wedged attachment of the lamella: Pärnu and Höxter types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Pärnu 68, Höxter 69 Copper alloy: Greifswald, Odiham, Nijmegen, Stafford and Rochester types . . .69 Greifswald 70, Odiham 70, Nijmegen 71, Stafford 72, Rochester 73 Unusual and/or modern specimens . . . . . .74

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Aim and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Excavated music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The jew’s harp – some essential background . . .3 Construction, acoustics and playing technique .3 Geographical distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 European history and archaeology 5 Revival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Collecting material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 The Nordic Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Ireland and United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . .9 The Low Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein . . . .15 France, Iberia and Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 The Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 The central and eastern parts of Europe . . .18 Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

1. Introduction

2.Technology

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Terms and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Forging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Bending from a rod (cold working) . . . . . .25 Casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Other methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 The lamella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Cases for jew’s harps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

4. Distribution

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 The North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 The West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 The South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 The East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Early phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Late phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 Production and trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 Mass production or artisanal work? . . . . . . .84 The quality of the products 85 Organization of the crafts . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 Punch marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 Trade and communication . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Dialogue one: When did the jew’s harp become established in Europe? . .30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 The concepts of type and typology . . . . . . . . .38 Top-down or bottom-up? . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Emic or etic types? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Purpose and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Earlier typologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Definition of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Material 43, Method of manufacture 43, Crosssection of the bow 43, Attachment of the lamella to the frame 44,The shape of the bow 44, Extension of the lamella beyond the frame 45, Dimensions, proportions and weight 45

3.Typology

Dialogue two: But is this really music history? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 The find locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 Regional variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 Social context and typology . . . . . . . . . . . .97 The rural/urban axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

5. Context

v

The castle finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 The monastery finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 The rural finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 The urban finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 Maritime finds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 Medieval classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 Social classification of music, musical instruments and the jew’s harp . . . . . . . . .101 Systematic classification and the anomalous nature of the jew’s harp . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 The varied and associative terms for the jew’s harp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 Social groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Profession . . . . . . . . . Functions and meanings . Dance accompaniment Courting . . . . . . . . . . Shamanism and therapy Witchcraft . . . . . . . . . Supernatural beings . . . Introvert musicking? . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.110 .111 .111 .111 .111 .112 .112 .112

6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Catalogue References

vi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253

List of Figures Fig. 1.1: Facsimile of the standard letter sent to museums in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Fig. 1.2: Facsimile of the standard form used for documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Fig. 2.1: Parts of the jew’s harp: terminology . . . .23 Fig. 2.2:The rod as a working piece . . . . . . . . .24 Fig. 2.3:The middle section of the rod is worked flat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Fig. 2.4: A notch for the lamella is cut into the centre of the rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Fig. 2.5:The frame is bent into shape around a former . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Fig. 2.6:The point of attachment of the lamella viewed from the back of the frame . . . . . . . .24 Fig. 2.7:The lop-sided profile of the frame after alignment with the lamella . . . . . . . . . .25 Fig. 2.8: One half of a piece-mould for casting a jew’s harp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Fig. 2.9: One half of a piece-mould for multiple casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Fig. 2.10: Modern forged jew’s harp from Nepal with forged lamella. Photo by the author. Private coll. of author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Fig. 2.11:The two principal methods of attaching the lamella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Fig. 2.12: Different designs of the tip of the lamella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Fig. 2.13: One possible way of protecting the instrument during transport . . . . . . . . . .29 Fig. 3.1: Classification and typology (After Klejn 1982: 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Fig. 3.2:The proposed terms to describe the cross-section of the bow . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Fig. 3.3:Terminology for bow shapes . . . . . . . . .45 Fig. 3.4: Classification hierarchy determined on the basis of technology and inclusive of all the catalogued material . . . . .46 Fig. 3.5: Frequency of material used in manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Fig. 3.6: Frequency of method of manufacture for iron and Cu-alloy harps . . . .47 Fig. 3.7: Iron, forged: Frequency of cross-sections . .47 Fig. 3.8: Classification hierarchy showing the branches of jew’s harps determined on the basis of technology in the Middle Ages . . .48 Fig. 3.9: Classification hierarchy illustrating the most common medieval branches of jew’s harps from the standpoint of technology . . . .49 Fig. 3.10: Arm length (AL) as a percentage of overall length (OL) examined for three 200-year periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Fig. 3.11: Arm length (AL) as a percentage of overall length (OL) examined for six 100-year periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Fig. 3.12: Suggested general development of arm length (AL) as a percentage of overall length (OL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Fig. 3.13: Plots of overall length (OL) against arm length (AL) for two-century (A) and one-century (B) periods . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Fig. 3.14: Arm length (AL) as a percentage of overall length (OL) examined for different bow shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Fig. 3.15: Development of bow shapes . . . . . . . .53 Fig. 3.16: Chart showing the types with their chronological significance . . . . . . . . . . .54 Fig. 3.17: Length of the arms (AL), overall length (OL) and the relation between them (AL/OL), examined for the types Kransen, Greifswald, Bruck and Hallwil . . . . .55 Fig. 3.18: Jew’s harp (no. 120) from the Quarter Kransen, Uppsala, Sweden. Photo by author, courtesy of Upplandsmuseet, Uppsala. . . . . . . .56 Fig. 3.19: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Kransen type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Fig. 3.20: Jew’s harp (no. 224) from Billingsgate lorry park, London (Wardle 1998: 285, fig. 217, no. 935). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Fig. 3.21: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Billingsgate type. (A) with straight back to the bow; (B) with curved back to the bow . . . .57 Fig. 3.22: Jew’s harp (no. 1) from Fugholm Street, Horsens, Jylland, Denmark (Andersen et al. 1976: 115, fig. 9) . . . . . . . . .57 Fig. 3.23: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Horsens type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Fig. 3.24: Jew’s harp (no. 541) from Hallwil Castle, Aargau, Switzerland. Photo by author, courtesy of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich. . . .59 Fig. 3.25: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Hallwil type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Fig. 3.26: Jew’s harp (no. 810) from Bruck Castle,Tirol, Austria (Schick 2001: plate 1, no. 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Fig. 3.27: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Bruck type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Fig. 3.28: (A) Jew’s harp with two lamellae (no. 349), found in Sperrboden, Molln, Upper Austria (Mohr 1999: 21, fig. 5) (B) Similar example (no. 542) from Hallwil Castle,Aargau, Switzerland. Photo by author, courtesy of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich. . . . . .61 Fig. 3.29: Jew’s harp (no. 289) from Kuusisto (Kustö) Castle, Finland. Photo: Finnish National Museum. . . . . . . . . .61 Fig. 3.30: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Kuusisto type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Fig. 3.31: Forged/rectangular jew’s harps with hammered lamella. (A) Kv. Disa, Uppsala, Sweden (no. 122), 13th century. Photo by author, courtesy of Riksantikvarieämbätet, Uppsala. (B) Erkebispegården,Trondheim, Norway (no. 147), 1497–1532 (Ekroll et al. 1997: 83) (C) Novgorod (no. 295), 14th century (Povetkin 1992: fig.VII.3, no. 20, p. 211). . . . .62

vii

Fig. 3.54: Jew’s harp (no. 259) excavated at Odiham Castle (King John’s Castle), Hampshire, United Kingdom. Photo by author, courtesy of Hampshire County Council Museums Service. .70 Fig. 3.55: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Odiham type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Fig. 3.56: Jew’s harp (no. 664) from Nijmegen, Gelderland,The Netherlands (Ypey 1976: 217) . .71 Fig. 3.57: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Nijmegen type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Fig. 3.58: Jew’s harp (no. 262) from Stafford Castle, Staffordshire, United Kingdom. Photo by author, courtesy of Stafford Borough Council. .72 Fig. 3.59: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Stafford type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Fig. 3.60: Left: no. 773, Nottinghamshire, England. Right: no. 780, Cambridgeshire, England. Photo by Tellef Kvifte, courtesy of Frederick Crane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 Fig. 3.61: Jew’s harp (no. 794) from Rochester (Grove 1962: 207, fig. 6) . . . . . . . .73 Fig. 3.62: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Rochester type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 Fig. 3.63: Outline profile of jew’s harp from Lom, Norway (no. 134) . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Fig. 4.1: Distribution map for Europe showing all provenanced finds listed in the Catalogue . .75 Fig. 4.2: Distribution of the copper alloy types, illustrating a movement from east to west . . . .78 Fig. 4.3: Distribution map, Europe, 13–15th centuries (early phase) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 Fig. 4.4: (A) No. 222 from Old Custom House, London, 1270–1350 (Wardle 1998: 285, fig.217, no. 933). (B) No. 223 from Baynard House, Queen Victoria Street, London, 1330–1380 (op. cit.: 285, fig. 217, no. 934). (C) Modern Afghan example from the Uzbek ethnic group (DournonTaurelle and Wright 1978: 114, no. 112). . . . . .83 Fig. 4.5: Distribution map, Europe, 16th–19th centuries (late phase) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Fig. 4.6: Illustration of all the marks from the Catalogue.The illustrations of the marks from Hallwil Castle are taken from Lithbergs work on the material found there (1932).Acknowledgements of other sources are given in the Catalogue, where the marks are also shown. . . . .88 Fig. 5.1: Social context related to year of finding .96 Fig. 5.2: Distribution of the categories rural and urban in per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 Fig. 5.3: Illustration from Sebastian Virdung’s Musica getutscht (1511) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102 Fig. 5.4: Beggar playing a jew’s harp. Painting attributed to the School of Ferrara, ca 1490. Original in Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Herrmann-Schneider 2000: 291, fig. 5) . . . .103 Fig. 5.5: A serious threat to the order of zoological classification: the Australian duckbill. Illustration by Christine Hoel. . . . .106 Fig. 5.6:Three of the harps from Hallwil Castle, Switzerland. From the left: Nos. 594, 602 and 601. Photo by author, courtesy of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich. . . .109

Fig. 3.32: Jew’s harp (no. 154) from Schauenburg, near Dossenheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Photo by author, courtesy of Heimatmuseum der Gemeinde Dossenheim. . .62 Fig. 3.33: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Schauenburg type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Fig. 3.34: Jew’s harp (no. 332) from Gironville, Ain, Rhone-Alpes, France (Homo-Lechner 1996: 134). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Fig. 3.35: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Gironville type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Fig. 3.36: Medieval jew’s harps with a dia mondshaped cross-section that tends towards hexagonal. (A) Øvre Gilberg, Fåberg, Norway (no. 137), medieval (Sevåg 1973: 128). (B) Holbæk, Danmark (no. 800), 1300–1450. Photo by Gorm Jessen. (C) Grove Priory, Bedfordshire, England (no. 248), 14th century. Photo by author, courtesy of Luton Museums Service. . . . . . . . . .64 Fig. 3.37: Jew’s harp (no. 129) from Kvikkjokk, Jokkmokk county, Lappland, Sweden. Photo by Christian Reimers, Riksinventeringen (Musikmuseet, Stockholm). . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Fig. 3.38: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Kvikkjokk type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Fig. 3.39: Jew’s harp (no. 272) from Southgate Street, Gloucester, England. Drawing: Gloucester Archaeology Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Fig. 3.40: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Gloucester type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Fig. 3.41: Jew’s harp from Vadstena Monastery, Sweden (no. 103), with the bow forged so that the bow has a hexagonal cross-section of the frame only partly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Fig. 3.42: Jew’s harp from Damme,WestVlanderen, Belgium (Ypey 1976: 220, fig. 16) .66 Fig. 3.43: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Damme type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Fig. 3.44: Jew’s harp (no. 814) from Kufstein Fort, Tirol, Austria (Schick 2001: plate 1, no. 8) . . .67 Fig. 3.45: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Kufstein type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Fig. 3.46: Jew’s harp (no. 140) from Ekeberg, Oslo, Norway. Photo: Norsk Folkemuseum, Oslo. . .67 Fig. 3.47: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Ekeberg type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Fig. 3.48: Jew’s harp (no. 411) from Munga Street 2, Pärnu, Estonia (Tamla 1992: 290; plate 14, no. 6) .68 Fig. 3.49: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Pärnu type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Fig. 3.50: Jew’s harp (no. 155) excavated in the old city of Höxter, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. Photo by author, courtesy of Stadtarchäologie, Höxter City. . . . . . . . . . . .69 Fig. 3.51: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Höxter type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Fig. 3.52: Jew’s harp (no. 468) from Greifswald, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. Drawing: Landesamt für Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Fig. 3.53: Outlines of jew’s harps classified as the Greifswald type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

viii

List of Tables Table 1.1:The finds from The Nordic Countries . . .7 Table 1.2:The finds from United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Table 1.3:The finds from the Low Countries . . .13 Table 1.4:The finds from Germany . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 1.5:The finds from Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Table 1.6:The finds from France and Italy . . . . .17 Table 1.7:The finds from the central and eastern parts of Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Table 3.1: Iron jew’s harps made with bending from a rod (cold working) . . . . . Table 3.2: Jew’s harps with extension of the lamella behind the bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.1: Frequency of the social contexts . Table 5.2: Social context related to countries Table 5.3: Social context related to manufacturing material . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

. . .48 . . .49 . . .95 . . .96 . . .97

1. Introduction Aim and approach

dialectical process between the particular and the general, between empiricism and theory. In this kind of research such reasoning moves tend to be very evident. The work is arranged as follows. The first chapter consists of an introduction to the jew’s harp and to music archaeology as a field of research. It also has a description of how information on the various finds in the database was collected. This section, which accounts for the European countries in succession, also lists the finds. The tables of this section (tables 1.1–1.7) are also tools for browsing and searching for finds from particular places or sites. (The entries in the Catalogue are arranged by chronological identificaton numbers, not by geography.) The second chapter is about technology. Knowledge of the way the instruments were made and the materials used to make them allows one to dig beneath the surface, to understand the makers’ intentions and capabilities. Simply observing without asking why the objects look like they do cannot really lead us a deeper understanding of the instrument. Chapter three, which considers the typology of the harps, builds on the approach developed in the preceding chapter. The chapter starts with a general discussion of typology and classification because these concepts provide the basis of the work. Chapter four, on distribution, discusses the distribution of the finds in Europe, and how the prodution and trade of the items were organized. In the fifth and final chapter I approach the contexts of the finds – i.e., their archaeological setting and, in a wider perspective, their social and cultural significance. Here the sources are scarce, but by drawing analogies from various sources, such as written and ethnographical materials, it is possible to form ideas about the place and functions of the instrument in medieval Europe. Some important issues are covered in two dialogues between two fictional scholars, Dr Harper and Dr Trumper, who specialize in questions relating to the archaeological material on jew’s harps.Their backgrounds are fairly similar. In one respect, both represent myself, although in reality I would not always defend the positions of either.Their discussion is a way of representing an internal dialogue of my own and of establishing positions and ideas. One intention of this procedure is to break up the traditional academic style. It is, however, not intended merely to give some breathing space from the rest of the text, but to provide a means of approaching central questions in a different style. My purpose is to illustrate how theories, positions and ideas are, to a greater or lesser extent, embodied in an individual and so cannot avoid an element of the personal and subjective.Through the dialogues I am able to stage my

he subject of this monograph is the archaeology of the jew’s harp in Europe. It is based on archaeological finds collected from various sources and compiled into a database.This compilation – which is appended to the thesis as the Catalogue – is itself a major part of the work, connected as it is to the main aim of documenting the finds and thus contributing to an understanding of the early period of the jew’s harp in Europe. The basic approach to typology and chronology adopted here represents an attempt to bring coherence to an apparently chaotic situation. First, scholars disagree on when the jew’s harp became established in Europe. Some publications state that it first appeared in the 14th century, whereas others claim that the instrument has existed in the region for 2,000 years. Second, the archaeological material is large and varied, with the connections and continuity between finds obscure. The number of identified jew’s harps on which this thesis is based is 830, and new finds are reported all the time.Although the instrument has changed little in basic appearance over the last eight hundred years, we find variation between individual instruments in terms of construction materials and techniques, size, form, and so on.What is lacking is an understanding of how the various finds are related and of the typological developments among them. Until some degree of organization and clarity can be brought to bear on this somewhat chaotic situation of types and datings, the cultural significance of the instrument may remain poorly understood. The cultural significance and social context of the finds are also major issues in this thesis. The material objects, of course, cannot speak for themselves. But all the finds and their contexts play an important part in my interpretations, together with other sources, such as iconographical representations and various historical and ethnographical sources. The conclusions should be taken as interim statements. This is not because they are unsound or based on weak evidence, but because I believe it is better to regard this area of research as open-ended rather than amenable to final, definitive answers. This is also a reason why I have used dialogue form in two places in the thesis, as it allows discussion of issues that are open to interpretation from conflicting angles. In the main approaches used in this work, ideas and questions are brought into dialogue with the material objects.At some stages it is necessary to go into detail – for instance, through a study of the different cross-sections of the metal frame of the instrument near the attachment of the lamella. At other stages we turn away from the objects to develop and articulate ideas and questions. This is a

T

1

reasoning, with Dr Harper and Dr Trumper as actors. The first dialogue follows chapter two. It considers the question of when the instrument first appeared in Europe and provides a history of the research relating to this question.As this issue also proves to be a question of ideology, or at least reveals other, hidden intentions, Dr Harper and Dr Trumper sometimes turn to theoretical questions about how we approach the past and how we write history. The dialogue precedes the chapter on typology because the disagreement concerning the early datings illustrates the importance of working with the finds typologically. In the second dialogue, which follows chapter four, the two doctors concern themselves with sources, methods, research traditions, disciplines and interdisciplinarity. One question they consider is whether the earliest history of the jew’s harp, for which no music or musical manuscripts are extant, represents a fundamentally different situation than is faced by other historical musicologists. What they have to say on this matter serves as an introduction to the last chapter, which presents a discussion of the social and cultural position of the instrument. Throughout the text there are references to the Catalogue, which lists the finds that provide the material basis for the thesis.The Catalogue is based on a database that has been run continuously as finds were located in museums and publications and relevant information was collected. The Catalogue is not identical to the database but consists of information selected from it. The database is a working tool, and will be actively used as such in the future, whereas the Catalogue is a finished entity with selected information relevant to the thesis.

In 1977 the first step towards formalization of the subject was taken when the International Musicological Society included a round table called “music and archaeology” at its meeting at Berkley.The gathering stimulated much response, and in 1981 various scholars encouraged by the meeting established the Study Group of Music Archaeology within the ICTM (International Council of Traditional Music). Since then there have been several conferences devoted to various topics (for example, Lund (ed.) 1986; Hickmann and Hughes (eds) 1988; Homo-Lechner et al. (eds) 1994; Hickmann and Eichmann (eds) 2000, 2004; Hickmann, Laufs and Eichmann (eds) 2000); Hickmann, Kilmer and Eichmann (eds) 2002). There is no accepted narrow definition of music archaeology. Individuals representing different academic traditions and perspectives have contributed to and maintained the subject. However, there is no doubt that the majority of music archaeologists give special attention to the ancient, classical “high cultures” of Mesopotamia, the Middle East, Egypt, China, etc.The research here benefits from a richness of written and iconographical sources. Music archaeology’s primary source material is the physical remains of musical instruments and sound tools. However, it is always an advantage to include a variety of data and theory in the research in order to promote a broad and contextual understanding of the material objects. Scholars studying the classical cultures have more sources available to them than, for instance, those researching the Scandinavian Palaeolithic. Nevertheless, there are always possibilities, and the further back in time we go the more need there is for interdisciplinary approaches. An investigation of the very earliest indications of musical artifacts, for instance, would hardly rely on material artifacts alone but would turn to anthropology (physical and social), biology, linguistics, psychology, acoustics and so forth (Lawergren 1988,Wallin, Merker and Brown 2000). Although the main efforts of music archaeology have centred on antique and prehistorical materials, both medieval and post-medieval times have been the subject of research projects. Examples of the latter include studies of material from the shipwrecks of the English 16th century warship Mary Rose (Lawson 1986) and the Swedish 17th century flagship Kronan (Lund 1986). In both cases the marine archaeologists recovered several musical instruments, including chordophones, aerophones and idiophones. The present study also demonstrates that music archaeology is concerned with more than just prehistorical times.There is no scarcity of non-archaeological sources from the period to which the jew’s harp material belongs. Archaeology is the chosen approach not because it is the only required approach but because it is a deliberate choice. To rely on other types of source would result in other conclusions. A departure from written documents, for instance, would reveal only sparse indications of people

Excavated music1 My hope is that this thesis will find its place within a musicological as well as an archaeological tradition. I also hope that it will contribute to the field of study referred to as music archaeology. Broadly speaking, this is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to explore problems related to music or musical instruments on the basis of archaeological materials. There is a long tradition of studies of excavated musical artifacts. Especially magnificent instruments, such as the Scandinavian lurs of the Bronze Age (most of them found in the 19th century, see Lund (ed.) 1986, Vol. 2) or the Mesopotamian lyres from Ur (excavated early in the 20th century, Rimmer 1969; Schauensee 2002), have received much attention from archaeologists as well as musicologists. The Swedish archaeologist Cajsa S. Lund was among the first to carry out systematic and continuing research on sound tools from European archaeological materials. She started to compile inventories of materials in Scandinavian museums from the early 1970s (Lund 1980) and was one of the pioneers who contributed to the formation of the international community of music archaeologists.

1 Title inspired by Annemies Tamboer’s book Ausgegrabene Klänge (Tamboer 1999).

2

playing the jew’s harp. The archaeological sources bring forward a totally different situation. This is partly because those who wrote the documents were not interested in this insignificant artifact. But this also illustrates a more fundamental point: that material culture gives a quite different picture of the societies under consideration. A history of music which seeks out material culture rather than confining itself to written documents or “works of art” produces a wider perspective of the musical past that is generally more oriented towards the culture of everyday life and of ordinary people. Furthermore, the mixed nature of material culture is suggestive of a wide range of activities. An archaeological approach to historical musicology presupposes a wide understanding of “music” and “musical instruments”. If we are not willing to open up to broader perspectives, there is no point in this kind of research. Music archaeology represents a refreshing contribution not only to the history of music but to archaeology as well. Too often, the impression we get from archaeology is that the past was silent. But is it possible to use archaeological material to explore the sounds of the past? The sounds themselves are gone. So it would appear that an understanding of the sounds of the (distant) past must be based on conjectural interpretation alone, perhaps with a portion of imagination and personal experience. From one point of view we should admit that there are some major problems here. There are few data, and the very scarce sources with any relevance offer very little for an understanding of music, its functions and meanings. From another point of view, archaeologists do not always construct their knowledge of the past on much safer grounds. As the Norwegian archaeologist Arne B. Johansen reminds us, archaeologists can excavate “neither social organisation nor economy, nor types of arrows, … they are as excavated as a flute sound” (cited in Lund 1998: 17). Social organisation is not present in the archaeological record, waiting to be recovered.The critical point is that artifacts always need to be interpreted. For archaeology, as for all the humanities, knowledge is always based on interpretations that are founded, to a greater or lesser extent, on an input of imagination and experience. Regardless of such philosophical questions, one reason for a somewhat sceptical or indifferent attitude from general archaeology towards music archaeology (Lund 1998) is perhaps a tendency to see music as a notably modern phenomenon and to believe that it is impossible to work with music as long as it is not available in written form. Moreover, archaeologists often fail to see that music is integrated with a range of practical and ritual functions. The tendency to believe that a “real” archaeology of music is impossible also accounts for various other uses of the term music archaeology. One example is a “meta-understanding” of the term, expressed either in accordance with Foucault’s conception of archaeology (Tomlinsson 1993), or – less seriously – as a prehistory of music in our minds or similar (New Age). Another is that the term denotes the history of music on the basis of written music that is physically fragmented or hidden

and antiquated. This use of the term conforms to a more common understanding of music as applied by traditional historical musicology. Yet, to carry out actual research should be more important than to defend disciplines and terms. Whether we use the term music archaeology, archaeomusicology, archaeo-organology or palaeo-organology has only minor consequences. What we choose to call our field of study is less important than the questions we ask and the issues we deal with. The central issue of the present study is a classification and typological analysis of jew’s harps. This is indeed far from sounds and music. Nevertheless, I feel that my source material is excavated sounds. No one, of course, would claim that one can literally excavate sounds.The 14th century sound of a 14th century jew’s harp, for instance, is forever gone because of the simple but important fact that the 14th century is gone. When we listen to “authentic” or “reconstructed” sounds, we listen as modern humans.What we hear will always be filtered through our modern ways of perception, whether culturally, individually or emotionally. But irrespective of the impossibility of making the past re-sound today, I would still dig for the jew’s harp’s “sounds, their settings and significance”, to cite Shelemay’s definition of soundscapes (2001). I am interested in the total sound environment (Schafer 1994) of the medieval castles and other places where people played their harps. I am interested in the physical, social and even cognitive soundscapes of which the jew’s harps were part. Indeed, were it not for this interest in excavated sounds, I would not spend time collecting and classifying corroded and fossilized iron objects.

The jew’s harp – some essential background Construction, acoustics and playing technique The jew’s harp is a mouth-resonated musical instrument consisting of an elastic lamella (tongue, spring) which is either joined to, or part of, a frame.The sound is produced by the vibration of the lamella between the two parallel arms of the frame.The turbulence this produces is essential, according to one current explanation, because it generates a feasible harmonic spectrum from which the player articulates particular overtones (Ledang 1972).The articulation and the amplifying of tones are complicated processes that involve the player’s oral cavity, tongue, cranium, throat and stomach. The lamella has one fundamental, and only the corresponding overtones (partials) can be used to play melodies. This is analogous to other overtone instruments, such as the mouth bow.With the jew’s harp the fundamental serves as a drone.

3

The jew’s harp is found in a remarkable variety of forms and shapes, accompanied by different playing techniques, which include many ways of initiating the vibration of the lamella. Especially in Asia there is a diversity of instruments, made of organic materials such as bamboo, palm wood, ivory and bone, but also metals.This thesis is concerned with the European version of the instrument. In his pioneering article on the development and typology of the instrument in a worldwide perspective, Curt Sachs (1917) referred to this version as Bügelmaultrommel (bow-shaped jew’s harp), as opposed to Rahmenmaultrommel (frame jew’s harp), which is found throughout Asia. Furthermore, he regarded the European forms heteroglottic, which means that the lamella is made separately from the frame, as opposed to the idioglottic types found in Asia, where the lamella and frame are made from the same piece of material. Sachs’ typology, which was buildt exclusively on morphological criteria, followed an evolutionary scheme, where the earliest and simplest forms were made from organic materials. According to him, the jew’s harp originated in Southeast Asia and spread slowly eastwards and northwards, accompanied by a development from simple to complex forms. The latest forms were the metal versions that appeared in Europe in the High Middle Ages. Geneviève Dournon-Taurelle’s thesis on the jew’s harp (1975) approached the instrument from a worldwide ethnological perspective. She included functional and musical features, and integrated form, material and function in a typological classification.This does not have to correspond to a historical development. The same ideas were used in the catalogue of the jew’s harps in the Musée de l’homme in Paris (Dournon-Taurelle and Wright 1978).The European version corresponds to their type à languette hors du cadre, where the lamella is longer than, and sticks out from, the frame. The bow-shaped and heteroglottic jew’s harp found in Europe is played by pressing the frame firmly against the front teeth, but so that the teeth do not prevent the free vibration of the lamella.The lamella is then plucked directly by the player’s finger (or, rarely, by the player’s tongue) at the tip on the free end of the instrument. Classification of the jew’s harp has been a matter of dispute. Hornbostel and Sachs group the instrument as a plucked idiophone in their established classification system (1914) because of the primary sound-producing impulse of the lamella. Frederick Crane (1968) and Ola Kai Ledang (1972) stress the importance of the turbulent air stream created by the vibration of the lamella between the arms.Their opinion is that the instrument should, rather, be classified as an aerophone. Laurence Picken (1975: 584–5) holds that the bamboo instruments from Eastern Asia are made with considerable

sophistication – with an extremely precise adjustment of the lamella – and that they should therefore be regarded as in a class of their own.“In their neglect of this refinement, the iron and steel Jew’s harps of Central, South and West Asia, and of Europe as well, must be regarded as degenerate” (ibid.).

Geographical distribution The distribution of the jew’s harp is now worldwide. It is indigenous to the Eurasian landmass, Southeast Asia, Polynesia and Oceania. The established theory, derived from Sachs (1917) is that it originally appeared in Southeast Asia and Polynesia and only later spread to Europe. The instrument then found its way to Africa and the Americas through European contacts during the 16th century and after. The jew’s harp is referred to by a remarkable variety of names. Leonard Fox (1988) has recorded more than 250 different names from around the world, but the list should probably be much longer. European names include guimbarde (French), scacciapensieri (Italian), Maultrommel (German), birimbao (Spanish), mungige (Swedish), mundharpe (Danish), doromb (Hungarian), drombulja (Serbian) and vargan (Russian). In Latin the instrument has been referred to as crembalum and, possibly, trombula. Variants of trump and trompa seem to be among the earliest terms used in European texts, found in documents dating back to the late Middle Ages (Crane 2003b). However, it is often difficult to clarify which terms referred to the jew’s harp and which referred to other instruments in the verious sources.

History The origin and earliest history of the jew’s harp remain shrouded in darkness. It is probably a very ancient instrument. Very plausibly, the forms made of organic materials are the oldest, as is commonly believed.The manufacture of such objects would not demand skills in metal technology. The earliest pieces to have been discovered come from Mongolia. One from Xiongnu2 dates from around the first century BC to the first century AD.3 The other is from near Chifeng, Inner Mongolia, and dates from the eight to the eighth fifth century BC.4 Of the heteroglottic metal harps, the oldest so far are two specimens from Japan, these were excavated from archaeological settings that place them in the Heian period, or 1000 AD (Tadagawa 1996). Throughout the ages and continents the jew’s harp has been connected with a variety of functions and meanings. Today it is used mostly as a folkloristic melody-instrument. In some places in Asia the jew’s harp is a “speech-tone” instrument, used ritually to disguise the voice (Pugh-Kitingan 1977, 1984). Its connection with shamanism is well known, especially in Siberia.

2 Kaogu Xiebao 1974: 140, fig. 8 and plate 17 3 Frederick Crane, pers. comm. 4 Ibid

4

a much later phenomenon (Ypey 1976). He argued that the English and Dutch finds had not been excavated with stratigraphical or other relevant data that allowed a competent dating. According to Ypey, the oldest safely dated European finds are from the 13th and 14th centuries. The debate over the introduction of the instrument into Europe has continued since Crane’s and Ypey’s contributions in the 1970s. The individual finds and groups of finds that provided the basis for the core of the debate will be introduced in the following pages, under the countries in question. Moreover, the debate will be subjected to close scrutiny in Dialogue one: “When did the jew’s harp become established in Europe?” (pages 51–64)

European history and archaeology As this thesis will show, the earliest archaeological and written sources from Europe go back to the 13th and 14th centuries, suggesting that the jew’s harp was well established in the High Middle Ages. Professional artisans were already making the instrument in the 13th century, as attested by master’s marks that are punched into the frame of some jew’s harps. From the 16th century there is written documentation of mass production. The best known production centres were Molln in Upper Austria, Boccorio in Italy and Birmingham, England. The production served large markets, both domestic and overseas. Iconography also demonstrates that the jew’s harp was a common European instrument. Frederick Crane has published a book presenting iconographic material from Europe and America (Crane 2003b). The depictions include seals, watermarks, manuscripts, paintings and sculptures.The earliest visual representations appear in the mid14th century, but from the 16th and 17th centuries the material is especially rich, including paintings by Dutch and Flemish painters like Burgkmair, Brueghel and Vrancx (Crane op. cit.; Boone 1972, 1986). The Benelux countries are probably the region with most iconographic material, but there are sources from almost all European countries. The iconographic sources will frequently be referred to throughout the thesis, especially in the chapters on typology and context. Ethnographic sources will also frequently be consulted. Among these are the works of Reidar Sevåg (1970, 1973) on the jew’s harp in Norwegian folklore, and the work of Birgitte Geiser (1980) on Swiss material. Turning to the archaeology of the instrument, there have been some regional studies – from Sweden (Rydbeck 1968), Switzerland (Meyer and Oesch 1972), Ireland (Buckley 1986), Hungary (Repiszky 1996) and Scandinavia (Kolltveit 1996) – and these will be introduced in the section “Collecting material” below. Some authors have treated jew’s harp finds in an international perspective, but there is no publication that covers Europe as a whole. However, one book includes archaeological jew’s harps among other medieval instruments in a Europe-wide context. This is Extant Medieval Musical Instruments by Frederick Crane (1972), which lists 79 jew’s harps from archaeological contexts. Crane, drawing on finds from England, the Netherlands and France, suggested that the jew’s harp existed in Europe as far back as Roman times. This is almost one and a half millennia earlier than was proposed in the previous theory, derived from Sachs, who asserted that the instrument appeared in Europe in the 14th century (Sachs 1913/1964: 255; 1917: 196). J. V. S. Megaw (1968) also agreed with Crane on such an early origin of the jew’s harp in Europe. In 1976 Crane and Megaw’s position was challenged by the Dutch archaeologist J.Ypey, who denied the reliability of the early datings, and asserted that in Europe the instrument was

Revival Recent years have seen a revival of interest in the jew’s harp. CDs, festivals, books and journals, including the Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft (VIM) and the Koukin Journal, are devoted to the instrument.This is a worldwide tendency, but some communities of jew’s harpists have been motivating forces in the development, notably in Siberia (Yakutia), Austria, the USA, the Netherlands and Norway. The international jew’s harp festival in Rauland, Norway, in 2002 saw the foundation of the International Jew’s Harp Society (IJHS), which issues its own journal.

Collecting material The material on which this thesis is based consists of archaeological jew’s harps – that is, finds from established archaeological excavations and chance finds. A chance find is understood here as a find that has come to light in any other way than intentional excavation. It has been appropriate to consider both categories, as is normal with most archaeological materials, which are usually a mixture of various finds. Common to the jew’s harps considered in the study is that they were found in the earth. It has not been possible to assign much of the material to a precise time period as a large number of the specimens have proved difficult to date. However, there is no doubt that most are medieval and post-medieval, belonging to the period from about 1200 to 1700. As a rule I have not included instruments with a confirmed 19th or 20th century origin. The material is of a mixed nature, consisting of finds acquired from various sources. Some of the finds have not previously been published, while others are well known in the archaeological or organological literature. Sometimes the information and documentation for the objects are based on my own studies in museums and archaeological institutions, while for others the information comes from publications only. The documentary evidence in published sources varies greatly. Some publications do not give the museum or possessor of the finds, and in some of these cases the possessor is still unknown to me. Furthermore, publica-

5

tions provide various kinds of documentation of the appearance of finds, their provenance, the details of excavation and the like. I have used different methods to collect information on the material: searches in published sources, such as monographs or journals; direct enquiries to museums and archaeological institutions; searches and activities on the internet; and, finally, by following up suggestions from colleagues, museum staff and others. The work of gathering information about a group of artifacts from numerous sources and countries has produced documentary evidence that I find intrinsically valuable. I consider the process of collecting this information to be an important task, and not only because it provides the foundation for my own analyses.The resulting Catalogue should be regarded as a major part of the present work. It has been a challenge to arrive at a general overview because of the extent of the geographical area and the amount of archaeological activity that is being undertaken. As mentioned before, this is a work in progress, with no claim to completeness. It is impossible to keep fully abreast of the field at any given time, and to attempt any final conclusions would certainly be a mistake. In the Catalogue I have listed all archaeological finds of jew’s harps from Europe that are presently known to me. There are certainly more harps around, and new ones are continually being excavated. The information has been collected with varying attention to different parts of Europe. Some countries have been investigated with care, by searching in the literature and by sending letters and e-mails of enquiry to museums. In other cases only limited efforts to acquire material have been made. A consequence of this somewhat inconsistent coverage will very probably be that, as a basis for analysis, the material suffers from problems of imbalance and unrepresentativeness. Having said that, my analyses and discussions bear these problems in mind. However, I find it relevant to describe in more detail how the finds have been located and the information about them gathered. The section below deals with the regions and countries of Europe in succession. It also describes earlier surveys and studies of archaeological jew’s harp finds, and is therefore also a history of research on the topic.

thesis together with others located through further correspondence with museums and institutions in Scandinavia, Finland, and Iceland. There is much medieval archaeology going on in this region, and I suspect there are more finds than I have been able to trace. The Catalogue includes 30 finds from Denmark. The most important source for these has been Tenna Kristensen’s work on medieval musical instruments (Kristensen 1994). Her work was an undergraduate thesis on medieval archaeology, completed at the University of Aarhus, that surveyed musical instruments in Scandinavian archaeology. She lists 79 jew’s harps from the Scandinavian countries, of which 14 are from Denmark. The thesis also briefly discusses the instrument’s morphology and the social context of the finds. Another source for the Danish finds is Gorm Jessen, of Slagelse, who has researched archaeological jew’s harps in Denmark and Skåne.The quality of the documentation in his still unpublished material is exceptional high. I am grateful to Mr Jessen for sharing some of his material and knowledge with me. The number of finds recorded for Sweden is 118, which is the third largest country count for this category of artifacts. What is remarkable about the Swedish finds is that almost all of them have been excavated by archaeologists, although most come from old excavations. Unfortunately, these finds are usually dated inaccurately. My information on the Swedish finds has been gathered from publications and through direct enquiries to archaeological institutions. In addition, the Swedish music archaeologist Cajsa S. Lund, Åkarp, kindly allowed me access to her material collected during the Swedish project “Riksinventeringen”, which was undertaken in the 1970s. This was a comprehensive survey of musical instruments and sound tools initiated by the Musikmuseet (Music Museum) in Stockholm (Reimers 1979). The Riksinventeringen material consists of about 60 jew’s harps, information on which is kept in a card catalogue.The report on jew’s harps from the project (Reimers 1977) lists the finds and discusses problems of forms, materials of manufacture and datings. It concludes that the Swedish material dates to the period about 1200–1600. Monica Rydbeck reached the same conclusion in an earlier, well-known article that considered Swedish jew’s harps found in archaeological excavations (Rydbeck 1968). The article includes around 35 items from Swedish castles, monasteries and cities. At the time of publication as many as three-quarters of the finds were from castles and monasteries, with one-third of the total found in cities. Like other scholars, Rydbeck expressed regret that the finds from castles and monasteries in particular could only be dated within wide ranges of time, following the period of existence of the sites from which they came. Apart from these contributions treating Sweden as a whole, one article by Waldemar Falck (1974) introduces seven excavated pieces from the Hansa port of Visby, in

The Nordic Countries My own MA thesis (Kolltveit 1996) is based on 144 finds from Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) which I learned about through published sources and letters of enquiry to museums and archaeological institutions. The main scope of the thesis was to elucidate the time of the instrument’s introduction into Scandinavia.The conclusion was that no dated finds are earlier than the 13th century. Despite some possibly earlier pieces, it is most reasonable to conclude that the instrument became established in the period after 1200. In the Catalogue of the present work I have entered 170 Nordic finds; these comprise the specimens listed in my MA

6

Gotland. These were dated stratigraphically to the period from the 13th/14th century to the 16th century. Additionally, the archaeological institution in Visby5 and the Riksinventeringen project have reported four more pieces, bringing the number of items from Visby to eleven. Unfortunately, all the Visby harps had been lost when I travelled in Sweden in 1996.6 This illustrates the importance of documentation and publication of archaeological material; without Falck’s article and the Riksinventeringen survey we would know little of the jew’s harps from Visby. In 1996 and 1997 I visited the largest museums in Sweden and had the opportunity to study several of the Swedish finds in detail. I visited museums and archaeological institutions in Malmö, Lund, Växjö, Jönköping, Stockholm and Uppsala. Norway is the country I have investigated most thoroughly. As only a small number of Norwegian museums have archaeological material, it is fairly easy to get an overview of the catalogued finds in the museums. Moreover, an obvious course for me has been to draw on personal relationships, whether with museum staff, jew’s harp players or others. I have been able to identify 23 harps, of which only seven are from archaeological excavations.With one exception, the excavated pieces are from the three largest cities, Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim.The rest are casual finds with essentially no contextual documentation.Three surface finds from Lom (nos. 134–136) resemble traditional jew’s harps from recent times. However, their origin is not known, and since they were found in the ground I have found it difficult to exclude them from the selection. One entry in the Catalogue (no. 144) refers to a description from 1643 by the Danish antiquarian Ole Worm. He tells of a jew’s harp found in a burial urn near the town of Mandal, in Vest-Agder county. The description indicates a pre-Christian jew’s harp. However, it has not been possible to trace the instrument itself either in Denmark or in Norway.

It has been suggested that some objects from excavations in Norway of sites of Viking Age are jew’s harps. Among these are two heavily corroded iron objects from Grønneberg, in the county of Tjølling in Vestfold.7 These were tentatively identified as jew’s harps in 1974 (Løken 1974), and later Lund also interpreted them as possible jew’s harps (Lund 1974, 1981, 1984/1987). In connection with my MA thesis I analysed the objects and had x-ray photographs taken.8 I also analysed a similar ninth century iron object from Berger, in the county of Åmot in Hedmark.9 The analyses gave no indication that these objects were jew’s harps (Kolltveit 1996: 41), and the x-ray images showed no signs of the point where the lamella would have been attached to the frame. For the purposes of the present study, therefore, they will not be regarded as jew’s harps and they do not appear in the Catalogue. The material from Finland is small but higly interesting. An article published in 1978 describes three finds from the bishop’s castle of Kustö (Kuusisto) (nos. 290–292; Taavitsainen 1978).This is the only printed work known to me that reports jew’s harps from an archaeological setting in Finland. After a visit to the museum in Turku (Åbo) Castle I was told about four more Finnish finds.10 Furthermore, one piece excavated in Åbo in 2005 (no. 830), is included, bringing the total number to eight. I have not seen or studied any of these specimens apart from one I saw exhibited in Turku Castle. Nor have I attempted to determine whether other archaeological finds have been made in Finland. As for Iceland, jew’s harps are unknown to the organological literature. I sent an enquiry letter to the National Museum in Reykjavik, and I got information about one excavated specimen from the farm site at Stóraborg on the South coast (no. 819; Snæsdottir 1991: 24–5). I have not been able to check further for unpublished or unknown material from Iceland.

Table 1.1: The finds from the Nordic Countries Region

Place

Site

Id. No.

Denmark Fredriksborg County

Store Valby

Fyn County Greenland København County Ribe County Roskilde County

Sandhagen (Langeland) Near Nuuk Dragør (Amager) København Ribe Roskilde

Sønderjylland County

Haderslev

Farm no. 3 Farm no. 17 House VII:A Hope Colony Stakhaven Holmens kanal - Laxegade Korsebrødregården Algade Hersegade Møllestrømmen

5 6 7 8

13 14 7 150 16–18 15 6 10 9 5

Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby. Information from Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby. The University Museum of National Antiquities (Oldsaksamlingen), Oslo, acc. no. C 16490. The x-ray photographs were made by Torunn Klokkernes at the Conservation Department of the University Museum of National Antiquities (Oldsaksamlingen), Oslo. 9 The University Museum of National Antiquities (Oldsaksamlingen), Oslo, acc. no. C 1345. 10 Antti Suna, Museiverket, Turku, pers. comm.

7

Storstrøms County Vejle County

Moseby Horsens Kolding

Vest-Sjælland County

Halsskov (near Korsør) Holbæk Emborg

Århus County

Moseby Fugholm Street Vestergade Vestergade 20-22 Rendebanen, Vestergade Tårnborg Manor Ahlgade 49 Øm Monastery

8 1 2 3 4 815 800 11, 12

Finland Turku ja Pori

Åbo (Turku) Kuusisto (Kustö), near Kaarina

Cathedral Park (Domkyrkoskvären) Åbo Castle Kuusisto Castle

287–8 287–8 286, 289–92

Rangárvallasysla

Sróraborg

819

Setesdal: Bygland Setesdal: Bykle

Austad søndre: Viki Strond (by Bossvatn) Nedre Dysje (by Bossvatn)

143 505 506 138

Bryggen: Building belonging to Gullskogården 30 m north of Snåsa Church Vigenstad Øvre Gilberg

133

Iceland Su∂urland (Southland)

Norway Aust-Agder

Hedmark

Finnskogen

Hordaland

Bergen

Nord-Trøndelag Oppland

Snåsa Dovre Fåberg, Vingrom Garmo, Lom Lom Vardal (Gjøvik county) Øystre Slidre Ekeberg Gamlebyen (The Old City) Trondheim

Oslo Sør-Trøndelag

Telemark Vest-Agder

Bråstadsetra (summer pasture) Langedal Jomfrubråtveien Mindets tomt Erkebispegården Erling Skakkesgate 1 Folkebibliotekstomta Televerkstomta Lie

Gransherad Vinje Near Mandal

“Hollojen”

635 334 137 136 134–5 390 824 140–1 139 147 130 132 131 142 504 144

Sweden Bohuslän Gotland

Inlands Södre County Roma Visby

Lappland Närke

Jokkmokk: Kvikkjokk Laxå County Örebro Borgholm Alvastra Vadstena

Öland Östergötland

Skåne

Vreta Falsterbo Helsingborg Kävlinge (county), Dagstorp Parish Lund

8

Ragnhildsholmen Castle Timans Botanical Garden Kruset 14 Kv. Priorn 4 Kv. Residenset 6 Kv. Residenset 5 and 6 Kv. St. Michael 9 Kv. Systemet 4 Kv. Säcken 7 Kv. Tunnbindaren 1 Silververket 19A Ramundeboda Monastery Kv. Bodarna no. 6 Borgholm Castle Alvastra Monastery Vadstena Birgittine Convent Kv. Hotellet Unknown (Vadstena) Vreta Monastery Church Falsterbo Castle Kärnan Södra 3 Ruuth 44 Huvudstorp Kv. Altona 7

107 96 95 86–7 85 89 90 91 94 88 92–3 129 108–10 111 83–4 98–101 102–4 106 105 97 19–20 502 503 816 53

Malmö

Skanör Skanör (city)

Småland

Svedala (county) Eksjö town Island in lake Bolmen Jönköping

Stockholm

Kalmar Kronoberg Stockholm City

Södermanland Uppland

Nynäshamn County, Sorunda Parish Sigtuna Uppsala

Västmanland Östergötland Ångermanland

Norberg Västerås County Norrköping (county) Ådals-liden County

Ireland and United Kingdom

Apotekaren Kv. Färgaren Helgonabacken Gyllenkronas allé Prennegatan Kv. St. Botulf 2 Kv. St. Clemens 9 Kv. St. Laurentius (Stortorget 110) St. Peter 27 Unknown (Lund) Adelsgatan 35B Kv. Gyllenstjärna Kv. Humle Nils Kuntze’s house Kv. Rundelen Kv. St. Gertrud Kv. Söderport Thomsons väg Kv. Tranan Kv. von Conow Skanör Castle Kv. Haren Market Place Lindholmen Castle Kv. Trasten (Ärlan) Piksborg Castle Kv. Galeasen Kv. Gladan Kv. Harven Kv. Hemmet Kläckeberga Church Kronoberg Castle Kv. Thalia (Dramaten) Helgeandsholmen Fållnäs, House II The Dominician Monastery Kv. Koppardosan Kv. Disa Kv. Kransen Kv. Pantern Kv. Rådhuset Kv. Rådstugan Lapphyttan blast furnace Lista Borgs säteri (Borg manor) Ställverket

50 57 55 51 59 54 58 52 56 46–9, 60 45 44 38 35 37 41–3 40 34 39 36 21–4 26 25 27–33 81 61–5 73–5 76 77–8, 145 79–80, 146 82 66–72 112 113–15 817 117 116 121–2 119–20 124 118 123 125–6 127 818 128

rounded or oval shape to the bow. Data from United Kingdom indicate an earlier introduction of the jew’s harps than in Ireland, but not much earlier. A number of articles on “the antiquity of jew’s harps” which appeared some decades ago in Archaeologia Cantiana (Elliston-Erwood 1943, 1947; Grove 1955, 1956) suggested that the instrument existed in England in Saxon and perhaps even in Roman times.The authors introduced several finds from archaeological settings, of which the majority were undated surface finds, some with proximity to Saxon or Roman sites. Four pieces (nos. 178–181) from Surrey and Kent are notably interesting because they were found in Saxon cemeteries. However, only one of these (no. 180, Sarre) is recorded as found in a grave. This single find can

For the Republic of Ireland my starting point has been an article by Ann Buckley (1986), which includes descriptions of 27 harps. Most of these were found in excavations of the 1970s and 1980s. For more details of the harps and the circumstances in which they were found I consulted published excavation reports. No steps were taken to acquire details of material from more recent excavations in Ireland. The locations of the Irish finds, which are castles, priories and dwelling houses, are scattered throughout the country. The material dates from the period between the 14th and 18th centuries, with the majority of finds attributed to the 16th and 17th centuries.11 With one exception the Irish harps are made of iron and, typically, they have a

11 One of the pieces mentioned in Buckley’s article, from Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland, UK (no. 429), is dated to the 13th/14th centuries.

9

hardly be used as evidence for such an early appearance of the instrument in view of the soil disturbance often found in cemeteries and the lack of stratigraphical records for the excavation itself, which took place as long ago as 1863. However, the articles mentioned above are frequently referred to and have produced confusion about the chronological significance of jew’s harps. New finds of the same type (copper alloy, circular bow) have proved to be of late medieval and post-medieval date. Apart from these, British finds reported in the literature include pieces from Winchester (no. 282) and Fast Castle, Berwickshire (no. 381), which have been informatively described in archaeological publications by Graeme Lawson (1990, 2001). Some jew’s harps have also been reported from excavations in medieval London (Wardle 1998). When I started my work I knew of remarkably few jew’s harps from the United Kingdom, so I decided to contact museums with enquiries. To select relevant museums I began with the internet, but after a while I realized that the electronic sources I was relying on (MuseumsNet and other sites) did not cover all the museums for this area of research. I ended up by gathering addresses from the Museums Yearbook, the printed publication of the Museums Association (Wright (ed.) 1997), which contains a comprehensive directory of museums in the British Isles. In 1997 I sent letters of enquiry to approximately 300 museums, mainly those with archaeological collections. I received

replies from about 180, or 60 per cent. About 35 institutions replied that they had jew’s harps from archaeological settings in their collections. In 1997 and 1998 I made two journeys to England, Scotland and Wales to study a selection of the material. To summarize, the material from the UK consists of the finds I encountered during my museum survey together with other finds for which there are published accounts in the literature. The total of 173 recorded pieces represents the largest quantity for a single country. This is probably due to the large number of undated chance finds, especially jew’s harps dug up by amateur metal detector users. Most of these are cast from copper alloys and typically have a circular shape to the bow. The claimed Saxon harps referred to above are of this type. Most of the metal-detected pieces are found in central and southern parts of England. The banks of the River Thames are a popular site for users of metal detectors. Known as “mudlarks”, these artifact collectors who search the mud of the river foreshore at low tide have uncovered quantities of objects from various periods, including jew’s harps. Although some have ended up in the antiquities dealers’ markets, many are now in the safekeeping of museums.The Museum of London has some 16 pieces from the Thames foreshore (nos. 205–221), while the Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, Oxford, possesses eight pieces yielded up from the same place (nos. 264–271).

Table 1.2: The finds from United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Region

Place

Site

Id. No.

Ballycally Dunboy Glanworth Ballyman Clontuskert Kells Lough Gur

Shannon Airport (“Thady's Fort”) Dunboy Castle Glanworth Castle Artisan area near church site Clontuskert Priory Kells Priory Knockadoon: Site J of a 17th century house Picnic Area II Car Park Area II Burial Mound, Site I Fosse West, layer C

456 441–2 443 428 435–8 444–50 451

The Republic of Ireland Co. Clare Co. Cork Co. Co. Co. Co.

Dublin Galway Kilkenny Limerick

Co. Meath Co. Monaghan Co. Tipperary

Nevinstown Trim Castle Unprovenanced Drumlummin Rochestown

House site

Unprovenanced (Ireland)

452 453 454 457–8 393 439–40 455 459

United Kingdom Aberdeenshire (Scotland) Argyllshire (Scotland)

Bedfordshire

Berwickshire (Scotland) Buckinghamshire Cambridgeshire

Rattray (parish) Isle of Islay Isle of Lismore Near Tarbert Bedford

Rattray Castle Loch Finlaggan Achandun Castle Castle Sween Bedford Castle High Street (?)

Chicheley, northeast of Newport Pagnell Leighton Buzzard Unprovenanced Near Coldingham Addington Chenies Near Cambridge

10

Grove Priory Fast Castle: Lower Courtyard

365 380 377–8 379 284 285 367 248–50 251 381 797 366 782–3

Cheshire Cumbria Devon Dorset East Lothian (Scotland) Essex

Glamorgan (Wales) Gloucestershire

Hampshire

Hertfordshire Isle of Man Isle of Wight Kent

Unprovenanced Near Meols Unprovenanced Carlisle Brixham West Stafford Dunbar Colchester

Near Dove Point

Berry Head Fort

Balkerne Lane Unknown (Colchester) Waltham Abbey Whitton St. Hillary Bridewell Street Unknown (Bristol) St. Owens: Southgate Street

Waltham 4.5 km NW of Barry Llantrithyd Area Bristol Gloucester Unprovenanced (Gloucester?) Near Fleet Otterbourne Winchester

Odiham Castle (King John's Castle) City Bridge Paradise Wall: Cathedral Green Battlers Green Castle Rushen Beach at Fishbourne

Near Watford Castletown Fishbourne Mersely Down Canterbury

Stour Street Unprovenanced (Canterbury?)

Egerton Egerton-Charing West of Erith Ditton Near Eynsford Faversham Near Maidstone Otford

Lesnes Abbey Priory Grove Lullingstone Villa Maison Diew East Sutton 7 Tudor Drive 9 Tudor Drive Between Corn Exchange and Corporation Street Sarre Saxon Cemetery Sibertswold Anglo-Saxon Cemetery

Rochester

Lincolnshire

Middlesex

Sarre Sibertswold (Shepherdswell) Unprovenanced (Kent) Burton Dorrington Hogsthorpe Lincoln London

778–81 190 382 391–2 661 419 410 192 191, 193 198 280 276–9 389 388 272–3 274 259 425 283 282 242 369 370 371 374 373 182, 184 183 195 196 177 240 187 185–6 188 794 180 181 423, 795, 796 798 424 422 232 189 205 224–5 214 194 222 243 202 199

Broadgate East; Area 1 Shooters Hill Bankside (Thames foreshore) Billingsgate lorry park Bull Wharf (Thames foreshore) Cheapside: Wood Street Custom House Society Eltham: Kenwood Road Fenchurch Street: Corys Site Finsbury, Islington, Hackney: Worship Street Old Queen Street 201 Queen Victoria Street: 223, 227 Baynard House Queenhylthe or Southbank 206 (Thames foreshore) Queenhylthe-Southbank Bridge 209 (Thames foreshore) Southwark Bridge (Thames foreshore) 207 Thames foreshore 210–13, 215–21, (Find spot unknown) 264–71 Thames Street 203 Upper Thames Street: Sunlight Wharf 228 Upper Thames Street: Trig Lane 226 68 Upper Thames Street: Vintners’ Place 230 69 Upper Thames Street: Vintners’ Hall 229 Unknown (London) 200, 231

11

Montgomeryshire (Wales) Norfolk North Hertfordshire Northamptonshire Northern Ireland, Co. Antrim

Montgomery Near King’s Lynn: Middleton Unprovenanced Northampton Carrickfergus

Nottinghamshire

Near Bingham Unprovenanced Near Diddcott Near Bicester

Oxfordshire

[English Civil War Battlefeld]

Black Lion Hill Irish Quarter Market Place

Harwell Middleton Stoney Woodperry Meal Vennel High Street

Perthshire (Scotland)

Perth

Portchester Shropshire Staffordshire

Portchester Castle Wroxeter City Stafford Stoke-on-Trent: Lightwood Langton Dunwich Mildenhall Near Aldeburgh: Iken Sutton Hoo Walberswick Wangford Woodbrigde? Guildford Near Leatherhead Chichester Pulborough Hunningham, near Leamington Spa Warwick Whithorn Yatesbury, near Cherhill Chilton Foliat Edington Mildenhall, near Marlborough Near Salisbury Upavon Dunnington York

Suffolk

Surrey Sussex Warwickshire Wigtownshire (Scotland) Wiltshire

Yorkshire

Wharram Percy Unprovenanced Unprovenanced Unprovenanced Unprovenanced

(West Riding) (London?) (Winchester?) (England)

The Low Countries

Stafford Castle Lightwood Road

Meadow Cottage Settlement site Walberswick church ruin

Guildown Saxon Cemetery Hawks Hill (Saxon cemetery) East Row no. 1 “The Old House” St Margaret's Church Whithorn Priory

Clarendon Palace

Bedern St. Marys Hospital

383 149 375–6 238 429, 432–4 430–1 774 773 246 244–5 252 368 408–9 241 239 261–2 247 234–5 260 233 385 236 197 384 179 178 148 793 372 421 237 255 256 253 254 275 263 420 257 258 466 386–7 208 281 204, 775–6

finds, which are of various types, were recovered from layers deposited between the 14th and 17th centuries. More recently eight iron harps, all from the 14th century, have been reported from Amersfoort (Tamboer 1999). Hubert Boone’s publications (1972, 1986) give an account of the instrument’s historical and ethnological status in the Netherlands and Belgium. He reports that iconographical records go back to the 15th century, while written and archaeological records are available for the 14th century and onwards. In his 1972 publication Boone lists 68 jew’s harps, representing a mix of ethnographical and archaeological materials. It is difficult to determine from the list which of the harps were excavated and which were not. I have included those items from Boone’s list which I have been able to identify positively as archaeological finds.

Five jew’s harps from Niemegen, the Netherlands (nos. 662–666), were published by Crane (1972: 22), who wrote that they most likely dated from the Roman era, from the first to the fourth century.The reason for this suggestion was that the museum holding these artifacts12 presumed that they had originated from Roman graves in the vicinity.This early dating has been repeated by later authors (e.g. Rimmer 1981: 242, 245). However, according to Ypey (1976: 216), since the objects have no provenance they cannot be dated from their context. Ypey’s article referred to several finds, some of which had been published earlier but with others new to the literature, such as examples from Rossum (no. 686) and Vianen (no. 692). Five pieces are described in a book on archaeological excavations in Amsterdam (Baart et al. 1977).These

12 The Museum Kam at the time Crane’s book was published. These artifacts are now in the possesion of the Museum Het Valkhof.

12

Besides this published material, I have corresponded with Annemies Tamboer, of Driebergen in the Netherlands, who is currently conducting a survey of archaeological materials from that country and has kindly shared the preliminary results of Table 1.3: The finds from the Low Countries Region Place

her inventory. Since about 60 finds in the Catalogue are from Tamboer’s survey, her contribution has been very valuable. Unfortunately, lack of funds and time prevented me from travelling to the area to search for and study material myself. Site

Id. No.

The Netherlands Friesland Gelderland

Limburg

Noord-Brabant Noord-Holland

Overijssel

Utrecht Zeeland Zuid-Holland

Leeuwarden Bemmel Near Tiel Nijmegen Rossum (near Alem) Wijk by Duurstede (Dorestad) Heel Heerlen Maastricht Unknown (Limburg) ’s Hertogenbosch Eindhoven Amsterdam

Bergakker

Pandhof St. -Servaas

Damrak 69-79 Korte Houtstraat 9-13/Lange Houtstraat 39-49 Zandstraat/Jodenbreetstraat Keizersgr. 76/Weesperstraat Weesperstraat Unknown (Amsterdam) Frankestraat

Haarlem Deventer Lemselo Westenholte (Zwolle) Amersfoort Vianen Haamstede, Schouwen Zuid-Beveland ’sGravenhage (The Hague) Delft Delft? Dordrecht

Market Place Castle “De Bol”

Altena Castle Huis Scharlakers Unknown (Dordrecht) Huis te Woude

IJsselmonde: Slikkerveer Near the Hague: Ockenburg Rotterdam Rozenburg Unprovenanced (The Netherlands)

Europoort

748 716 736 662–666, 751 686–9 693 744 745 685 750 746–7 740 667 668 669 670 671 672–6 743 715 749 756–7 677–84 692 690 758 741–2 717 730–5 721 719–20 718 752 753–55 691 759–72, 777, 806

Belgium Antwerpen (Antwerp) Liège Luxembourg

Near Vieuxville North of Aarlen (Arlon) Unknown (Luxembourg) Oost-Vlaanderen (East Flanders) Hamme Klein Sinaai Unknown (Oost-Vlaanderen) West-Vlaanderen (West Flanders) Damme Unknown (Damme) Unprovenanced (Belgium)

Logne Castle Herbeumont Castle

Medieval harbour basin

784–5 723 724–9 786 714 787 788–791 706–13 704–5 694–703

harps were found in association with other 14th century artifacts. Sachs wrote that the jew’s harps were the oldest to have been discovered in Europe (Sachs 1913/1964: 255; 1917: 196). Several authors have repeated his conclusions in dictionaries and other publications, often accompanied by a reproduction of the illustration of the harp that was depicted in 1850 (no. 500).

Germany Three jew’s harps excavated in the ruins of Tannenberg Castle, near Darmstadt in Hessen, are probably the most reported finds of all (nos. 152, 153, 500). They were first recorded in the middle of the 19th century (Hefner and Wolf 1850: 91). The castle was destroyed in 1399, and the

13

uation by mailing museums with requests for information. I used the book Museums of the World (Bartz and Schmidt (eds) 1997), selecting all museums that claimed to cover archaeology and local history (“Heimatmuseen”). This resulted in a mailshot of almost 1600 letters, sent in 1998 and 1999. To ensure a response from as many museums as possible, the letter was written in German.13 Several of the museums forwarded my letter to archaeological institutions or other museums. Due to the organizational structure of German museums, it is difficult to determine exactly how many individual museums replied to the enquiry. For instance, letters to five local museums would sometimes result in one answer from a central governing museum. However, the number of replies – between 500 and 600 – was satisfactory. Most, of course, were negative. Several simply suggested references in the literature or gave the names of contact persons or institutions; others offered information about finds relating to the ethnography and later history of the jew’s harp in Germany; and finally, some confirmed that they held relevant archaeological material.The end result was a count of 59 German jew’s harps. If, for the sake of comparison, we disregard the English copper-alloy harps found with metal detectors, the number is approximately the same as for the United Kingdom. In 1999 I travelled to the central and southern parts of Germany to inspect a selection of the material.Among the finds I studied some were unknown to the organological and archaeological literature. These include ten undated and partly unprovenanced pieces in the Musikinstrumentenmuseum Walter Erdman in Goslar (nos. 159–168). Others are archaeologically well documented, such as two pieces from Einbeck (nos. 157–158), one from Höxter (no. 155), one from Schauenburg near Dossenheim (no. 154), one from Paderborn (no. 156; Eggenstein 2000: 44), and others. In Oberlenningen I met Christoph Bizer, a retired teacher who has specialized in the medieval castles of the Swabian Alps. He drew my attention to some jew’s harps excavated at those castles (nos 171–3, 488–90).14

Fig. 1.1: Facsimile of the standard letter sent to museums in Germany

Apart from this, notably little has been written about the early period of the jew’s harp in Germany. When I began my study I was aware of only two archaeological pieces, from Hamburg (no. 481) and Stendal (no. 482), respectively. Both are mentioned by Ypey (1976). I found it remarkable that, as a country with an abundance of archaeology and museums – not to mention its position between the two jew’s harp regions of Scandinavia and the Alpine countries – Germany had no more material of this kind. Was Germany really for some reason almost bereft of jew’s harp finds from the Middle Ages? I decided to investigate the sitTable 1.4: The finds from Germany Region Baden-Württemberg

Bayern

Place

Site Near Dossenheim (Rhein-Neckar-Kreis) Schauenburg Near Kirchheim u. Teck (Schwäbische Alb) Bittelschieß Castle Kallenberg 2 Lichtenstein Castle Wielandstein Castle Unknown (near Kirchheim) Konstanz Fischmarkt Excavation Rickenbach, Hotzenwald (Schwarzwald) Wieladingen Castle, lower part Sulz am Neckar (Schwarzwald-Baar-Heuberg) Albeck Castle Erharting (Mühldorf a. Inn) Erharting Castle Oberwittelsbach (Aiach) Oberwittelsbach Castle Passau (Eastern Bayern) The Veste Oberhaus, chapel Regen: Geiersthal (Eastern Bayern) Altnussberg Castle LdKr. Hof Waldstein Castle

Id. No. 154 171 172 488–9 490 173 491–2 477 472–3 474–6 498 494–5 471 176

13 My thanks to Hans-Hinrich Thedens for the translation. 14 I also visited Uta Henning, Ludwigsburg, who kindly allowed me access to her large collection of iconographical material with musical motives.

14

Hamburg Hessen

LdKr. Roth Sonthofen (Allgäu) Sulzbach City-Rosenberg (LdKr. Amberg-Sulzbach) Treuchtlingen (Franken) Hamburg

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Niedersachsen

Einbeck (Landkreis Nordheim)

Sachsen-Anhalt Schleswig-Holstein Thüringen Unprovenanced (Germany)

Sulzbach Castle Obere Burg The Old City of Hamburg Unknown (Hamburg) Eppstein Castle

Eppstein (Taunus) Frankenberg Kr. Hersfeld-Rotenburg Seeheim-Jugenheim (south of Darmstadt) Oberursel (Taunus) Seligenstadt Greifswald

Nordheim-Westfalen Duisburg

Hilpoltstein Castle

Lautenhausen Wildeck-Raßdorf: Wildeck Castle Tannenberg Castle

Lüneburg Unprovenenced (Niedersachsen) Alter Markt, Schwanenstraße or Innerhafen Höxter Köln Olpe (Südsauerland) Paderborn Stendal Lübeck Meiningen

Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein

Bommersheim Castle The Old City of Seligenstadt Steinbecker Straße 26 Market Place Petersilienwasser Knochenhauerstr. 19-23 Große Backerstraße 27

Rosenstraze Alte Hafenstraße Attendorn: In der Nette Balhorner Feld Petersburg-Schusterschwemme An der Untertrave/Kaimauer

175 499 174 496–7 481 166 151 159 169 170 152–3, 500 501 478 468 469–70 157 158 828 168 480 155 483–7 479 156 482 493 161 160, 162–3, 165

this, single pieces were usually found at each castle. As a rule, dating of the specimens follows the period of existence of the construction where they were found, which in general covers the time span from the 12th to the 16th/17th centuries.The earliest specimen, a single piece from Alt-Bischofstein Castle, Basel-Land (no. 613), was reported to date back to the last part of the 12th century. These authors also included one harp found at Neu-Schellenberg in Liechtenstein (no. 617). Meyer and Oesch also developed a typological classification of the material based on the shape of the instrument’s bow. In addition, their article discusses the social context of the jew’s harp in medieval times.The authors place the instrument in a rural setting associated with the culture of shepherds. The archaeological contexts of the finds indicate that in Switzerland the harp was part of a pastoral culture connected to the castle. I went to Switzerland to study some of the finds because I was curious about the various finds and types introduced by Meyer and Oesch, which have the additional interest of spanning the entire period from the 12th to the 17th century. I also wanted to see the material from Hallwil because it is rather exceptional for 85 pieces to be excavated at one single location.What was the condition of the pieces, and what was the typological variation between them? Were there any indications of jew’s harp production at Hallwil? Finally, I was curious about the pieces from Bischofstein because one of them (no. 613) was purported to date from the late 12th century. That would make it the oldest in Europe, apart from the

Austria is known as one of the most important jew’s harp countries in Europe, especially by virtue of the tradition of manufacture in Molln in Upper Austria (Oberösterreich). The people of Molln have made harps since the 17th century, perhaps longer.A jew’s harp guild was established in 1679, and in terms of quantity the production was enormous (Klier 1956). Accounts of the history of jew’s harp manufacture in Molln has been published by Klier (op. cit.), Otruba (1986) and Mohr (1998).There is also an article about archaeological finds of jew’s harps in Oberösterreich (Mohr 1999).This publication was my only source for material from Austria, until I received a very informative article which considers eight archaeological pieces from Tirol (Schick 2001).15 These items (nos. 807–814) are all well dated from their archaeological context.The oldest dates from the late 13th or early 14th century, while the two youngest are dated to the fourth quarter of the 18th century.Twenty-seven examples from Austria appear in the Catalogue. The jew’s harp is well known in the history and ethnography of Switzerland (Geiser 1980, Bachmann-Geiser 1981). Werner and Hans Oesch have covered the archaeology in a comprehensive article (1972).They introduced a large amount of material, most from medieval castles, but with some finds from Alpine mountain dairy huts. At Hallwil Castle alone 85 jew’s harps were reported to have been excavated. Apart from

15 I am grateful to Annemies Tamboer for drawing my attention to this article.

15

alleged Roman, Gallo-Roman and Saxon finds. I visited the Schweizerische Landesmuseum in Zürich for the Hallwil finds, and Liestal, where I had traced the Bischofstein harps.16 Seven of the pieces from Hallwil turned out to be stored in Stockholm at the Hallvylska Museet. In Zürich I documented 79 pieces (bringing the number for Hallwil up to 86).The specimens were generally in good condition. They were stored according to the classifications made by the Swedish archaeologist Niels Lithberg, who introduced his classificatory scheme in volume three of his comprehensive publication on the excavations at the castle (Lithberg 1932). The Bischofstein finds were indeed interesting to inspect

and study.The excavations and finds of the castle ruins at Altand Neu-Bischofstein had been restudied by Felix Müller (1980).Through a reading of this report I realized that there is no evidence for the claimed 12th century dating of the piece from Alt-Bischofstein (no. 613), the correct dating for which should be given as 1150–1350 (op. cit. 75; cf. Dialogue one, p. 30). In addition to my journey, I selected a number of museums and archaeological units in the Swiss cantons (counties) for direct enquiries by letter and e-mail. Surprisingly, I received information on several pieces as a result, bringing the total number of finds from Switzerland up to 137.

Table 1.5: The finds from Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein Region

Place

Site

Id. No.

Austria Eastern Tirol Near Lienz Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) Enns

Bruck Castle

Molln

Salzburg (county) Tirol

Gemeinde Schönau: Near the ruins of Gemeinde Tragwein: Near the ruins of Windischgarsten Near Leonstein Castle Kniepaß bei Lofer KG Alpbach (PB Rattenberg) Near Erpfendorf (BH Kitzbühel) Kufstein Fort (BH Kufstein) “Josefsburg” Seefeld (BH Innsbruck-Land) Schloßberg

Parz. 1132 Below “Ebner Wirt” (Sonnseite 26) Sperrboden: Front of F. Wimmers' house Near Haus, Ennsthal Plankenalm Prandegg Castle Reichenstein Castle Lot no. 441, south of “Hafnerbank” Kniepaß Fort Untererlbach-Hof Erpfenstein Castle

810 335, 337–8 336 348 349–50 351–3 342–3 341 344 339–40 345–7 812 811 813–4 807–9

Liechtenstein Schellenberg

Schellenberg Castle

Obere Burg, Field 2 Obere Burg, Field 13

SE of Koblenz Oftringen (near Olten) Near Rheinfelden Seethal: Near Seengen Near Sissach

Zurzach Alt-Wartburg Höflingen, Stone setting F3 Hallwil Castle Alt-Bischofstein (Hinterer Burg) Neu-Bischofstein (Vorderer Burg) Bümpliz Old Castle Löwenburg Foreshore of Zihl (Thielle) Bergeten Brauerei Castle at Haldenstein Lukmanierhospiz Sta. Maria

617 650

Switzerland Aargau (AG)

Basel Land (BL) Bern (BE)

Glarus (GL) Graubünden (GR)

Obwalden (OW) Sankt Gallen (SG) Schwyz (SZ)

Thurgau (TG)

Bern North of Delémont Zihl (Thielle) Canal Above Braunwald Chur Haldenstein Medel valley: Lukmanier Prättigau: Schiers Near Savognin S-chanf

Riom-Parsonz Chapella San Güerg Via Ruinas Sogn Murezi

Silvaplana/Surley Tomils/Tumegl Melchsee-Frutt Oberhelfenschwil Illgau March: Near Schübelbach Steinen Au Diessenhofen

Neutoggenburg Castle Balmis (Balmli) Mülenen Castle Convent “Auf der Au” Unterhof Castle

647 293–4 509 526–610, 636, 648 613 614, 637–8 611 615 619 510 656 653 508 507 651 654 657 655 652 620 525 640 512–24 639 649

16 I also went to Basel, where I met the archaeologist, Prof. Dr. Werner Meyer, who kindly gave me the benefit of his expertise during a discussion of the Swiss material.

16

Ticino (TI) Valais (VS) Zürich (ZH)

Kradolf-Schönenberg: Near Buhwil Bellinzona Val Bavona Lötschenthal: Wiler (Lötschen) Sion Near Dietikon Furttal: Near Regensdorf Betweeen Wädenswil and Richterswil

Anwil Castle Castel Grande La Presa Giätrich: structure 6, level 18 Valere Castle Schönenwerd Castle Alt-Regensberg Alt-Wädenswil Castle

658 511 646 618 645 612 641–4 634

the literature, at least in publications in the English language. There is current playing activity in Gallicia, where a seminar devoted to the instrument was held in 2003 (Melhus 2003). How far back this folk-musical tradition goes remains an open question. Excavations of a Spanish settlement in Argentina, inhabited from 1573 to 1660 (Pignocchi 2005), might indicate export of jew’s harps from Spain, though we do not know if the specimens in question were manufactured locally in Argentina. However, I was unable to acquire information on finds from Spain or Portugal, and archaeological harps for which there is published material are unknown to me. Consequently, the Catalogue has no entries for the Iberian Peninsula. Italian traditions are well known, especially those from Sicily and Sardinia, where there is a powerful style of playing on characteristic large iron instruments with open and wide bows. For northern Italy there is written documentation on the forging of ribebas going back to the 16th century in Valsesia, where Boccorio was the most important manufacturing place (Lovatto 1983, 2004). Here there was mass production on a similar or larger scale than in Molln in Austria. The Italian language has several terms for the instrument, of which scacciapensieri is the best known. In the search for archaeological material I sent my standard enquiry letter to some important museums. From a mailing of approximately 80 letters, translated into Italian,17 I received about 30 answers, but there were no reports of excavated harps. However, I later discovered a single archaeological specimen (no. 796) on the internet. This was excavated at the castle of Montereale east of Udine in the Friuli region (Grattoni d’Aranco 1987). It is dated to the 16th century.

France, Iberia and Italy In France the situation is somewhat similar to that in England inasmuch as early archaeologists excavated jew’s harps at sites that were taken to indicate a Gallo-Roman origin. The best known of these are the four pieces from Rouen (nos. 325–328). The others are single finds from Levroux (no. 329), Issoudun (no. 330) and Cimiez (no. 621). On the basis of a re-examination of these finds, Catherine Homo-Lechner (1996; Homo-Lechner and Vendries 1993) has concluded that the objects were excavated in settings that do not substantiate the suggested early datings. Homo-Lechner has also published other French finds, from Paris and elsewhere (Homo-Lechner 1987a, 1987b, 1996).The largest number were found at Cour Napoleon, at the Louvre, Paris, where 18 pieces from the 15th to the 17th centuries were unearthed (nos. 305–324). Apart from these, the Centre d’Archéologie Médiévale de Strasbourg reported ten jew’s harps in the 1970s (nos. 625–633, 659). These were dated stratigraphically to the period from the 13th to the 16th century (Rieb and Salch 1973, 1976). These and other published finds from France bring the total number of discoveries up to 53. I have been unable to devote further effort to gathering or researching French material due to lack of time and resources.The only French jew’s harp I have seen myself is no. 621 from Cimiez, which I viewed in the exhibition of the Archaeological Museum at Cimiez, Nice. We know that the instrument has been used in Italy and the Iberian Peninsula at least since the 16th century. Some regions exhibit strong and surviving traditions.The status of the jew’s harp in Spain and Portugal is largely uncovered in Table 1.6: The finds from France and Italy Region

Place

Alsace

Leimental Petit Landau, Butenheim Rathsamhausen-Ottrott

Centre Val de Loire (Central Loire Valley)

Site Landskron Castle FB5, field F (9 L 1) FB5, field B (9 L 2) FB5, field A (9 L 3) FB 3-4, Field D (9 L 4) BC III, Field A (9 L 5)

Saverne, Haut-Barr Selestat Indre: Levroux

Ortenbourg Castle

Indre: Near Issoudun

Id. No. 616 624 625 626 627 630 633 623 628–9, 631–2 329 330

17 My thanks to Eva Falck for the translation.

17

Cote d’Azur Ile de France Paris Languedoc-Roussillon Lorraine Midi-Pyrénées Normandie

Rhône-Alpes

Cher: Mehun-sur-Yèvre Nice (Alpes-Maritimes) Rougiers (Var) Chevreuse Saint-Denis Cour Napoléon, Grand Louvre Montségur Metz West of Moutmédy Toulouse Rouen

Castle of duke Jean de Berry Cimiez (Grotte G)

Montségur Castle Place de la Comédie Chauveney-le-Chateau Gúe de Bazacle Grosse-Horlogne/Place du Vieux-Marché Rue de l’Hôtel de Ville Rue Rollon/rue de l’Impératrice Unknown (Rouen)

Gironville (Near Ambronay) Brandes-en-Oisans (Isère)

333 621 622 303 302 305–24 304 825 722 801–5 325 326 327 328 332 331

Italy Friuli-Venezia Giulia

Montereale (Cellina Valley)

Montereale Castle

796

tains a view of Europe that is simply geographical incorrect.A friend of mine in Siauliai, Lithuania, claims that he lives in the middle of Europe.A glance at the map proves that he is right. Despite these critical remarks, I have decided nevertheless to consider material from the whole of Europe because I want the central, southern and eastern regions to be part of the story. I feel that this is justified as long as my interpretations acknowledge the geographical imbalance of the survey. In principle, the situation is little different for certain individual countries where I have done little to collect material (Denmark, France, Austria and others). Another reason for including countries and regions with a small number of known finds (or where I have made no special efforts to collect material ) is the hope that people will be motivated to search in museum holdings, excavation reports and even in the earth so that the “white areas” of the map can be filled in. Having said this, the central and eastern regions are not totally devoid of finds, as will be illustrated in the following paragraphs. I have made no investigations in Romania, but I have noted six published pieces from Romania, all from the Moldova region. Five appear in a book on Romanian music history (nos. 461–5; Cosma 1977: 34), while the last example is from an archaeological publication (no. 660; Ursachi 1995, Pl. 343).19 The Hungarian archaeologist Thomas Repiszky has kindly provided information on ten jew’s harps excavated in Hungary (Repiszky 1996, and pers. comm.). Descriptions of some of these have been published by their excavators (nos. 359, 360, 362–364). Repiszky is currently working on an updated article about the history and archaeology of the jew’s harp in Hungary, and he will also consider other countries of the same region.This is especially welcome because very little is known about the

The Balkans In the Balkans (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece) I have not come across any finds from archaeological settings, although I made no special effort to determine if there are any. Anna Gojkovic has written about the jew’s harp in the former Yugoslavia in two articles (Gojkovic 1981, 1989). She states that in Serbia the jew’s harp was played, but that it was not known before the end of the 18th/beginning of the 19th century, when it was brought in from Austria and Hungary. Ethnographical sources report that the instrument has been known in Bulgaria too (Todorov 1973: 30–1). Jew’s harps were made in Gabrovo until 1938.They were sold in Balkan shops and markets as a toy for children (ibid.). How far back the history of the instrument goes in Bulgaria remains unknown. I do not know any reports about indigenous jew’s harp traditions from Greece, and the lack of archaelogical finds is therefore no surprise.This is similar to the situation in Turkey, where there is no known tradition of making or playing the jew’s harp (Picken 1975: 584). However, it is very unlikely that no instruments from the large-scale production centres of the Alpine region and elsewhere reached these countries.

The central and eastern parts of Europe18 My efforts to collect material from the central and eastern parts of the continent have been so limited that I feel these areas should not be included in this work at all.The fact is that I have focused on the northern and western parts of Europe, and it has to be admitted that to refer to this somewhat restricted area as “Europe” is questionable insofar as it main-

18 The central parts of Europe are understood to mean Poland, The Czeck Republic, Slovenia and Hungary. Although the choice of geographical terms are never entirely neutral, they are used here for the sake of clarity in this material. 19 Dr Danica Stassikova-Stukovska, Nitra, drew my attention to this find.

18

instrument’s status in the Middle Ages here, as noted above. Five examples found in the present Slovakia have come to my knowledge. One (no. 361) was dug up at the castle of Fülek in 1944, when the area belonged to Hungary,20 another is from Bratislava Castle (no. 460; Polla 1979: 248, 249; Elschek 1983: 58), and a third comes from the village of Branc, from an excavation for an oil pipeline (no. 467; Ruttkay, Cheben and Ruttkayova 1994; Ruttkay 1995). In addition to theese, two unpublished harps from Slovakian castles are included (nos. 826–7). Poland was a country with no finds that I knew of until I sent off 20 letters of enquiry (in German) to the main archaeological museums and institutions in the provinces.As a result I received information on four relevant finds.Three are from Lower Silesia – one from Szczerba Castle (no. 737) and two from Wroclaw City (nos. 738–739).The fourth is from Gdansk (no. 792). Similarly, it is very likely that jew’s harps have been unearthed in the Czech Republic. However, I have no information on any, but nor have I made enquiries in that country. In the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) several archaeological jew’s harps have been found. These came to my knowledge in the first instance through personal communication with ethnomusicologists. Descriptions of most of the items have been published. Nine finds are noted from Estonia (Tõnurist 1996), 15 from Latvia (Urtans 1970, Priedite 1988), and two from Lithuania.21 Four specimens from Belarus (nos. 820–3), that came to my knowledge by chance, show that the jew’s harp was known there as well.They were all been excavated at medieval castles. I have done no further survey of the situation in Belarus. I know of no finds from Ukraine and I have not sent letters of enquiry or searched in other ways. However, from ethnographical sources the instrument is known to have existed there. For instance, the Hutsul people of Ukraine still have a lively tradition that includes the manufacture and play-

ing of instruments. One of their instruments is of the double type, with two lamellae (Dallais et al. 2002: 20–1), very similar to pieces excavated in Austria (no. 349) and Switzerland (no. 542).Vertkov (et al. 1987: 41) reports that ensembles playing on jew’s harps of different sizes may occasionally be encountered in Ukraine. In many parts of Russia the jew’s harp has had a particularly strong position in traditional music. Several ethnic groups have used it, and there is a great typological diversity, including idioglottic instruments made of organic materials (Vertkov et al. op. cit.). Five pieces are known from excavations at Novgorod (nos. 295–299; Povetkin 1992: 21).Another was found in the medieval layers during excavations at Bryansk in central Russia (no. 799; Ravdina 1973).22 Single finds can sometimes be very important – for example, because of their chronological significance.Thus, interestingly, a jew’s harp was excavated in a ninth century burial mound in Idelbayev, Bashkortostan, Russia (no. 300). My only source of information on this was for quite some time a CD cover (Shurov 1995) where the find is mentioned. Only recently I learned about a Russian article by its excavator N.A. Mazhitov (1981) that illustrates the specimen. This is not a jew’s harp of the common heteroglottic, bow-shaped type found throughout Europe, but an idioglottic example, made of one flat piece of silver. Although it diverges from the remaining material here and belongs to the Ural-region I decided to include it in the Catalogue. Another interesting find is known from the town of Yekimauts in the Republic of Moldova (no. 301). It is dated to the ninth or tenth century according to publications in a Russian archaeological journal (Fedorov 1954, Kolchin 1959).The instrument has an oval shape to the bow and is very similar to a modern piece from a village in the vicinity, as illustrated in one of the publications (Fedorov, op. cit.).

Table 1.7: The finds from the central and eastern parts of Europe Region

Place

Site

Id. No.

The Republic of Belarus Grodno region Mogilev region Vitebsk region

Lida Drutsk Mstislavl Vitebsk

Lida Castle Drutsk Castle Mstislavl Castle Vitebsk Castle

821 820 823 822

Estonia Harju county

Lehmja Tallinn

St. Brigitta’s Convent Nigulisbe, old cemetery of St. Nicolai’s ch. Munga Street 2

Pärnu county Pärnu Tartu county (South Estonia) Tartu Valga county (Southeast Estonia) Otepaa

Otepaa Castle

414–15 412, 416 413 411 418, 659 417

Hungary Alföld (Great Hungarian Plain) Muhi

359–60

20 Thomas Repiszky, pers. comm. 21 R Apanavicius, Vilnius, pers. comm. 22 Frederick Crane, Mt Pleasant, Iowa, USA, informed me about this find.

19

Near Cegled Tiszaörvény Túrkeve Borsod-Abaúj (Northern Highlands) Szuhogy Budapest Budapest: Buda Castle Dunántúl (Transdanubia) Visegrád Kisalföld (Western Lowlands) Szentmihály Unprovenanced (Hungary)

Nyúlfülehalom

Csorbak Castle Visegrád Castle

364 355 354 356 357 362 363 358

Latvia Maliena North Kurzeme Vidzeme

Aluksne Ventspils Sabile (Talsi county) Cesis (Cesis county) Lielvarde (Aizkraukle county) Turaida (Riga county) Valmiera (Valmiera county) Vecdole (Riga county)

Aluksne Castle Ventspils Castle, Commanders room Sabile senpilseta Cesis Castle Lielvarde pilskalns Turaida Castle Valmiera Castle Vecdole Castle

Trakai Trakai Castle Vilnius

Vilnius Castle

Wroclaw (Breslau): The Old City Miedzylesie (Glatz) Gdansk

Szczerba Castle Site no. 103, “Green Gate”

407 829 396 404–6 399 397–8, 400 401–3 394–5

Lithuania Aukstaitija: Kaunas region Dzukija: Vilnius region Poland Dolny Slask (Lower Silesia) Pomorze

426 427

738–9 737 792

The Republic of Moldova Orhei

Yekimauts (Between Orhei and Rezina)

301

Romania Moldova

Russia Central Russia: Bryansk region Northwest Russia: Novgorod region Ural region: Bashkortostan

Bacau: Brad (Zargidava) Unknown (Moldova)

660 461–5

Bryansk

799

Novgorod

295–9

Salavat district: Idelbayev

Idelbayev Burial Mound

Bratislava Filakovo (Fülek) Branc village (south of Nitra)

Pozsony Castle?

300

Slovakia Bratislavsk˘ Middle-South Slovakia Nitra region Unprovenanced (Slovakia)

Velka Ves; Position Arkus I

460 361 467 826–7

mentation. When studying artifacts held in distant institutions this is of course especially important for practical reasons. Another argument for making detailed and thorough records is that future researchers may take different approaches to the material. My own method for making good, reliable records in the field has been to make notes, often of an associative kind; to make measurements and observations of technical details according to a uniform standard; to take photographs; and finally, to make drawings.To facilitate the standardization I used a form that has turned out to be very efficient (Fig. 1.2). For terminology and descriptions of the various features of the specimens, the reader is referred to Chapter two on technology and Chapter four on typology. Not being a photographer or illustrator I have had to learn to cope with the visual side of things. It is difficult to take good photographs of objects as small as a jew’s harp.

Documentation To recapitulate, the material on archaeological finds of jew’s harps presented in this thesis comes from a range of sources, with only some of the finds documented by myself. In those cases where I had the opportunity to study the objects I aimed to set a standard of documentation that ensured accuracy and uniformity throughout. A recurring challenge has been to find a balance between being as thorough as possible on the one hand, and not falling into blind documentation of every little detail on the other.The problem arises because it is important to collect relevant information in the framework of a guiding question or focus, yet it is in the nature of this kind of research that the questions one asks may change during the process. One should therefore approach the research material with a wide perspective and accept that it is better to err on the side of overdocu-

20

Although I have learned much during the process, I would ideally have left this aspect of the work to professional photographers.The same can be said of the processing of images in a computer.23 Regarding technical illustrations, time did not usually allow detailed drawings of the artifacts.The purpose of my field drawings was not to make polished illustrations for publication but to help to identify the pieces during later work with them, and sometimes to illustrate important technological details.

ID. NO.

DATE OF REGISTRATION

DATING

PLACE, LOCALITY

CONDITION

The field notes and photos have been entered into my database, which is based on 4th Dimension software. The database consists of selected information from my field notes along with information from other sources. As explained earlier, the Catalogue consists of selected information from the database. This information is selective in that some notes in the database are not relevant to the thesis.The Catalogue corresponds to the various analyses and discussions in the text.

COUNTRY

YEAR OF FINDING POSSESSOR

ACCESSION NO.

TECHNIQUE

SHAPE OF BOW

DESCRIPTION/SPECIAL TRAITS

OVERALL LENGTH (OL)

Cross-section of the bow OVERALL WITH/WIDTH OF BOW (OW)

Hexagonal Diamond- Rectangshaped ular

Iron

Cu-alloy

Other

Yes

No

Not observable

Wedged

Hammered Soldered?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Material LENGTH OF BOW

(Makers) mark? LENGTH OF ARMS (AL)

Attachment of the lamella LENGTH OF LAMELLA (LL)

Anything of the lamella preserved? Lamella-extension behind the bow? If not: Could it have been extended?

Not observable

Drawing/complementary comments:

Fig. 1.2: Facsimile of the standard form used for documentation

23 Thanks to Ann-Turi Ford for guiding me through the technical problems and possibilities of computer graphics.

21

Twisted

Other

2.Technology Terms and definitions

n major parts of this study I make close reference to the material objects themselves. Morphology and technology will provide a basis for discussion and analysis. Since they were once used to produce sound, I consider the form of jew’s harps to be closely connected to their musical function. An implication of this is that the lamella should be regarded as the most important part of the instrument, despite the fact that on almost all the catalogued specimens it has corroded or fallen off entirely. One museum curator I met with an excavated jew’s harp in his collection was surprised when told that it once had a lamella. He thought it had been used as a tuning fork! There is also an example of the frame of a jew’s harp being used as a catch for a gate in London (no. 189). Excavated jew’s harps lacking their lamellae are sometimes difficult to identify, especially when they are heavily corroded.The form of a jew’s harp may easily be confused with other artifacts such as strap ends, upper parts of shears, box or drawer handles, clamps, buckles or hairpins.24 Archaeological objects of this kind require different methods of research than instruments which are studied in their musical and cultural context. Unfortunately, we cannot ask the medieval makers and players how they did things, as anthropologists or ethnomusicologists are able to when they conduct their fieldwork. This means that the archaeological material of concern to us here has to be described and analysed without reference to a living tradition. Nevertheless, these materials should be approached anthropologically, i.e. the objects should be regarded as cultural items. Their form and function should never be studied in isolation. The ideal point of view for describing the manufacture of harps would be the maker’s. I am not a maker myself, but I am interested in the methods and technology, not only of jew’s harp making but of metalworking generally. Blacksmithing and metalworking have been surrounded by secrecy and mystery since the earliest ages when metals were used, and the skills and experience of craftsmen have always been transmitted informally, as knowledge born of action. However, there has been a growing interest within experimental archaeology in the craft of ancient metalworking, and there are some good books on the subject (Bealer 1976/1995, Blandford 1988), from which I have learned.The manufacture of jew’s harps is described from ethnographical and historical perspectives by Baillet (1806/1988), Klier (1956), Sevåg (1970, 1973) and Lovatto (1983, 2004). In combination with my familiarity with the finds, these sources have provided the basis for my descriptions and analyses of the manufacturing methods.

I

A range of different terms have been used to describe the morphological features of the jew’s harp. For clarity, standardization is required, while respecting local forms. Some of the terms I suggest here are a matter of personal preference. Whether the arms of the instrument are called arms, shanks, prongs or branches makes no difference. At other times the choice is more deliberate, for instance my avoidance of the term “tongue”.This is indeed an expressive word, but it produces a confusion between the instrument’s tongue and that of the player.To avoid misunderstanding I employ the term “lamella” when referring to this part of the instrument, leaving the latter to refer to the human tongue. Moreover, the lamella is probably the part of the instrument that has produced the most varied and associative terminology. In English alone the following words or phrases are found in the literature: tongue, spring, reed, membrane, lamella, striker, trigger, feather, string, stang, tang, fork, elastic vibrator, twanger, twanging strip, iron (spring) strip, iron plate. In this study the following terms are used to describe the parts of the jew’s harp. The instrument consists of a lamella attached to a frame.The frame has two parts, the arms and the bow (Fig. 2.1A). Moreover, we may distinguish between the inside and the outside of the frame25 (Fig 2.1B). Outside the frame, behind the point where the lamella is attached to it, is the back.The part of the lamella adjacent to its point of attachment to the frame is called the base of the lamella, while the free end is called the tip.When the lamella extends beyond the back of the frame, the extended section is a tail-piece.The crosssection through the arms and lamella shown in Fig. 2.1C demonstrates what is meant by the edges and plane sides of the rod (the metal piece from which the frame is formed).Measurements are entered in the Catalogue and will be referred to in the text.The two main measurements are the overall length (OL) and overall width (OW) (Fig. 2.1D).As a rule, I have measured the overall length along a line running perpendicularly from the back of the bow along the arms. This measurement was made in exactly the same way on harps whose the arms are markedly divergent, in some instances extending beyond the measured width of the bow (for example no. 40). In these few cases the arms were probably bent outwards intentionally after the object was abandoned as a musical instrument.Other measurements appearing in the text are arms’ length (AL) and lamella’s length (LL). The cross-sectional dimensions of the metal of the frame and lamella were also measured. The thickness is the meas-

24 For an erroneous interpretation of a jew’s harp as a hairpin, see the jew’s harp from Dove Point, Cheshire, UK (no. 190). 25 I have not found it expedient to define what is up/down or lower side/upper side of the jew’s harp. One reason is that such orientations will depend on whether we study a specimen in action as a musical instrument or just as a “dead” object in a museum. Beause of possible confusion, definitions of these orientations may cloud rather than clarify the issue.

22

A

B

Width Outside

Frame

Tip Inside Back

Base

Flexing Portion

Embouchure Portion

Tail-piece

Arms

C

Cross-section arms—lamella Edges

Plane sides

Bow

D

OL AL OW

Lamella LL Thickness

Fig. 2.1: Parts of the jew’s harp: terminology

urement made when the instrument is viewed in profile, and the width is that made when the instrument is viewed in plane (Fig. 2.1D and 2.1B, respectively).

Thus, the making of jew’s harps can be described as consisting of two consecutive processes, regardless of the material or method employed: first the making of the frame, and then the making and fixing of the lamella. I will first describe the methods used to make the frames, though I will include the attachment of the lamella as it is not expedient to separate these processes totally. I will then discuss some specific issues relating to the form and function of the lamella.

Manufacture Three main methods for making the frames of jew’s harps can be identified: forging, casting, and bending from a rod. These are partly related to the choice of material: forging is a method for working iron; casting from molten metal and cold bending from a rod are possible with several metals, but in the case of archaeological jew’s harps the former seems to have been a method used for copper alloy, while the latter was applied to iron. In addition to these, the makers have to varying degrees ground or filed the frames into their final shape. The choice of material and method for making the frame has only minor consequences for the acoustic and musical function of the instrument. The lamella is much more important. It is thought that the lamella was always made of iron. Not only are its material, form and flexibility important in themselves, but its attachment and adjustment into the frame also seem to be critical for the instrument’s musical function.

Forging Most of the archaeological jew’s harps from Europe have been forged from iron. What is commonly referred to as wrought iron is iron (Fe) with a small amount of carbon (C), which metallurgists would call low-carbon steel. The carbon content is less than 0.5 per cent (Hodges 1989: 80). When I describe the process of forging, I am referring to the method used for the most common instruments from the Middle Ages.A blacksmith did not require a lot of specialist tools to make a harp; a basically equipped smithy was sufficient. At the outset, it was important to have a piece of iron that could be forged into shape without requiring extra work

23

afterwards, such as filing. A blacksmith would have thought like this, aiming to avoid extra procedures because of the expensive wear and tear on his files and the extra work itself. The blacksmith would have selected a rod that was square in cross-section. To make a jew’s harp with a final length of between five and six centimetres – which is close to the average for the catalogued artifacts – the rod had to be approximately fifteen centimetres long, depending on the shape of the instrument.

piece of iron with the required shape (Fig. 2.5). The flattening of the bow would certainly facilitate the bending operation. In Valsesia they used small anvils equipped with grooves for the bending (Lovatto 1983: 11, and fig. 4). The lamella could be inserted after the frame had been bent roughly into shape.26 Some further bending was still needed, but this had to await the precise adjustment of the lamella.

Fig. 2.2: The rod as a working piece

The first procedure was to heat the rod in the fire and to work the ends so that they tapered towards the tip.This was not always done. Sometimes only the very tips were tapered, sometimes the arms were not tapered at all. Next, the middle section of the rod was hammered flat. It was probably necessary to cool the rod and heat it again for this operation because the blacksmith always needed a hard portion of the object to hold during work. If tapering was not done, the hammering of the middle would have been done during the first hot working of the object. The hammered section was about five centimetres long and centred around the middle of the rod (Fig. 2.3). This section would form the bow of the finished harp.The hammering was done against two facing edges of the rod so that they became plane. The edges on the rest of the rod – the end sections that would form the arms – were left as they were necessary for the musical functioning of the harp. Usually, the middle section was worked flat to such an extent that it became about twice as wide as it was thick. On the finished instrument, though, this relation reverses: the thickness of the rod is approximately twice its width, to follow the terminology adopted here (Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.5: The frame is bent into shape around a former.

The notch for the lamella had to be strictly rectangular in section. If not, the lamella might be misaligned, not fitting neatly into its correct position between the unhammered edges of the arms. This suggests that the notch had to be shaped properly, possibly by filing, before the lamella was inserted and attached. Without relying on systematic observations, I would suggest that the width of the notch would have been cut to fit the lamella exactly or to be slightly narrower. The blacksmith could then easily clip the lamella into the notch temporarily, so that both his hands were free during the remaining procedure of attaching the lamella. This is only guesswork, and would be most relevant if the blacksmith were working without assistance. If so, it would have been necessary to use a tool to secure the object during the procedure, for example a holdfast, which was used to fix objects to the anvil or workbench in a vertical position (Bealer 1976/1995: 78).With two people working together attaching the lamella would have been much easier: one could hold it in position and secure the frame against the anvil, while the other could fix the lamella in place by hammering the adjacent metal over it. It was possible to secure the lamella in place by hammering without heating, but probably most often the frame was heated again for this operation because it would have facilitated the hammering considerably. On typical forged harps two small depressions can be seen on each side of the lamella, representing traces of the hammering (Fig. 2.6).

Fig. 2.3: The middle section of the rod is worked flat.

The middle section could be flattened quite quickly, and the blacksmith might immediately proceed to the next operation, which was to cut out a notch for the lamella in the centre of the rod (Fig. 2.4). Another possibility would be to make this notch later, but it was probably easier and needed less work to make it at this stage.These two operations on the middle section of the working piece were in all probability done after the second heating (assuming that the arms were tapered after a first heating stage).

Fig. 2.4: A notch for the lamella is cut into the centre of the rod.

Now, the frame was ready to be bent into shape. Different methods could be used for this operation, but it is most likely that a former was used – the rod was bent around a

Fig. 2.6: The point of attachment of the lamella viewed from the back of the frame

26 The material and form of the lamella will be discused in a later section.

24

At this stage, with the lamella fixed in place, it had to be adjusted in precise alignment between the two arms. The way to do this was to adjust the frame to the lamella, rather than the converse; the maker bent the arms slightly down in order to bring their sharp inner edges parallel to the lamella. This gave the frame a lop-sided profile (Fig. 2.7). This feature is evident in the majority of the archaeological jew’s harps, included cast copper alloy harps.

The arms were subsequently bent in position with pliers. Some specimens are so corroded that the bend between the arms and the bow is indistinct, while on others it is easy to identify. For instance, on one specimen from Gjøvik, Norway (no. 390), the bending is very obvious. As a rule, with this method of forging the method of attaching the lamella is different in that a wedge is used rather than securing it in place by hammering (Fig. 2.11. p. 28).A hole is made in the frame, and one end of the lamella is inserted and secured with a small wedge. With this method it is easier to adjust the lamella correctly, and it was therefore not necessary to obtain the correct alignment by bending the arms, as described above.A consequence is that harps with this form of attachment do not have the lopsided profile shown in Fig. 2.7.

Fig. 2.7: The lop-sided profile of the frame after alignment with the lamella

If the blacksmith punched an identifying mark of some kind into the frame, it would be reasonable to assume that this might have been the last operation to be carried out. It could indeed have been done at the end if the relevant portion of the bow could be held against the tip of the anvil to secure it for the punching. But it was probably easier to hammer the mark into the frame before the rod was bent into shape and the lamella attached. The process described above is an ideal and probably a typical one. However, it is relevant to identify two more principal methods of forging.These follow the same procedure of consecutively forging a piece of rod, bending it into shape and attaching the lamella. They are to be defined from the stage when the blacksmith worked the rod before bending, and they also relate to the orientation of the rod during the bending itself.The totally three different methods produce bows with different cross-sections. (For discussion and definition of cross-sections, see Chapter 3, Fig. 3.2 [p. 44] and related text.) The first method, which has been described above, produces a hexagonal cross-section, usually in an “upright” position. It is not always clearly hexagonal, but at some point on the back of the bow one sees traces of the hammering to flatten the rod, leaving the two unhammered edges more or less prominent at the top and bottom of the iron. The second method produces a diamond-shaped cross-section, while the third produces a rectangular one. In specimens where the bow has a diamond-shaped section, the rod has been worked so little that one edge points in towards the lamella all the way around the frame. But the rod has still been worked to some, variable degree. Sometimes the arms are tapered towards their ends. Other pieces have undergone very limited forging, and the only operation involving heating was the hammering into place of the lamella. This method is therefore often very similar to cold working – i.e. bending from a rod with no heating. Frames with rectangular sections indicate that the rod was hammered on its plane sides before it was bent (not on two opposite edges, as illustrated in Fig. 2.3), or that the rod was not hammered at all.The rod was then bent into shape in such a way that a plane side of the frame faced inwards.

Bending from a rod (cold working) Cold working – bending a rod with no heating – is the easiest way to make a frame. Cold working can be used on several metals. However, as far as I can tell none of the copper alloy harps have been made with this method, though there is nothing to prevent cold working on copper alloys. The method is similar to forging in many ways.As usual, it is important to start with the best piece of material available. It is particularly similar in respect of the way the rod is bent with one edge facing inwards, resulting in a diamond-shaped cross-section to the bow. Since in cold working the rod is not forged before the bending, it retains its original dimensions over its whole length, a feature that is readily observable. Nevertheless, there is nothing to exclude the possibility that the makers did a bit of filing or cold hammering before or after the bending, imparting a forged look to the finished harp, whereas in reality only cold techniques have been used in its manufacture. Among the instances where it is difficult to determine whether the instrument was forged or just bent up from a rod are some harps in the Museum of London (for example nos 199 and 203). On other pieces it is easier to see that no forging has been done. This is notably the case with some specimens that resemble the modern Austrian model, with a D-shaped bow (for instance no. 140, found in Oslo). In Molln, where jew’s harps have been manufactured in guilds that have been in existence since at least 1679, the production method described by Klier (1956) is cold working, with the frames bent into shape from iron rods using pliers. Additionally, the tips of the arms were hammered to make them slightly tapered. On modern instruments made in Molln the arms are not tapered at all. However, I doubt that cold working was used exclusively during the earliest phase of manufacture in Molln, my impression being that cold working is a fairly recent method. In total, 14 jew’s harps in the Catalogue are classified as formed by cold working.This should be considered a provisional finding as it is based on visual inspection alone, in many cases of photos and drawings. (See also Table 3.1, p. 48.)

25

have a section on the frame where one of the sides is plain, while the other is ornamented.The pieces are chance finds. The common method for jew’s harp casting was probably to use piece-moulds, made in two parts. They could be made of various materials, for instance clay tempered with sand. To make the mould one would have taken a jew’s harp, or a model, and made a negative impression of each side, to half the depth of the instrument, in the two halves of the mould, either by simply pressing it into the material (if it was clay) or by carving material out of the mould to obtain the required shape (Fig. 2.8).

Casting Casting is a method which can be used with several metals and alloys. For jew’s harps the common, and probably only, material used for casting in the earliest centuries was copper alloys. Cast iron was used to manufacture harps in England from the 19th century onwards. It is not clear when jew’s harps were first made from cast iron. Iron casting is a rather advanced technology requiring a high degree of skill of the craftsmen working with it. The melting point of iron is 1,520 degrees Celsius, and to work with such a material demands a certain level of technology and specialization. Iron foundries were located in a few centres. Cast iron was first used in Europe for manufacturing cannons because the high cost of the technology was of little concern in military production (Hodges 1989: 89). In the archaeological jew’s harp material only a few iron specimens look like they are cast. One is a piece from Lund in Sweden (no. 55), and another is from London (no. 215). They show no traces of hammering or forging and have smooth surfaces all over. Metallographic examination would establish with certainty whether these or others were cast of iron. Unfortunately, it was not possible to perform such analyses for the present study. I am nevertheless convinced that no cast iron harps were made in the earliest centuries of the instrument’s history in Europe. As for those iron instruments which look cast, one should bear in mind that the metal surfaces we observe today only rarely resemble the original surfaces.The rate and nature of corrosion have always made an impact on the metal, although to a varied and individual degree. The common materials for casting harps were bronze or other copper alloys.The metals that were alloyed with copper (Cu) were usually tin (Sn), and zinc (Zn), in combination with other metals.With tin the alloy formed is bronze and with zinc it is brass. The constituents of an alloy and their relative contents cannot be determined without metallographic analysis. Consequently, it is preferable to refer to the alloys from which the harps have been cast as a composite group of copper alloys, as I have done throughout the text.This is in accordance with archaeological practice when alloy compositions are not known with certainty. Casting with copper alloys required specialists, but to a lesser degree than for iron casting. There was a large span from the most complicated to the easiest methods of casting. The most specialized was the lost wax (Fr. cire perdue) method, used to make hollow objects.We can identify two main methods for casting solid (not hollow) copper alloy objects (Hodges 1989: 70) that are relevant for jew’s harps. The simplest method is the open mould, where a depression in the mould receives the molten metal. This technique produces objects where one side – the upper side of the metal as it lies in the mould – is plane. For most cast jew’s harps we can exclude this method, with some possible exceptions, such as one from London (no. 211) and another from Hamme in Belgium (no. 714). These instruments

Fig. 2.8: One half of a piece-mould for casting a jew’s harp

In casting with a piece-mould it was important that the two halves should be connected properly, allowing the metal to be poured in, possibly through two ducts placed over the holes where the ends of the arms would be formed. This would have facilitated the final work of filing and finishing as the surplus residue that remained after the metal had hardened could easily be removed from the tips of the arms. After the object was released from the mould, filing was done before the lamella was inserted. Filing marks are frequently found on cast harps, and usually go at a slant to the long axis of the arms. The relatively small separation between the arms suggests that some of the makers’ files must have been tiny if they were to reach all parts of the instrument.The effort put into filing was variable, though. Sometimes a coarse surface is evident, probably produced by sand in the mould material. Whether the notch for the lamella was cast in the mould or filed into the frame later probably varied. In cases where the notch is deep, it is most likely that its negative impression was included in the mould. The lamella was attached in the same way as for most of the iron harps, by hammering a piece of the adjacent metal over the end inserted into the frame.The corroded remains of the lamella at the point of attachment are often very visible in cast items due to its different colour, making it distinct from the copper alloy surface of the frame. Some cast harps were gilded. The Danish antiquarian Ole Worm tells of one jew’s harp found at “Holloen” outside Mandal (no. 144 and p. 7). He writes that it was found in a burial urn, was made of copper and was gilded “in such a way that the people watching were really amazed by its brilliance” (Worm 1643: 48). The harp itself is apparently lost. Regardless of the difficulties concerning the dating of

26

this specimen, this is, significantly, a written indication of gilding. Whether gilding was commonly employed is not clear. Judging from observations of the archaeological finds, it was rare. One piece that is evidently gilded comes from Lund in Sweden (no. 57). It is made of brass and shows remnants of gilding, especially at the tips of the arms. Some other harps have a very shiny, golden surface, such as two in the collection of the Museum of London (nos 209, 210). In these instances one cannot be certain that the specimens are gilded because the surfaces of metal objects often change fundamentally from their original appearance due to preservation conditions and other factors. Identification of possible gilding on these and other pieces has not been given priority in my work. However, this is a question that will hopefully be clarified later. Casting is a technology that is basically better suited to mass production than forging. The piece-moulds could be used several times. It is also reasonable to suppose that there were moulds in which several instruments could be cast at one time (Fig. 2.9).

so far been found in Europe.Yet we should not exclude the possibility that they have existed. There are some vague ethnographical sources about such instruments (p. 83).

The lamella Today’s harp makers tend to recycle other items, such as saw blades, for the manufacture of the lamella. A variety of steel types are available. Spring steel, which is iron alloyed with a tiny amount of silicon (Si), gives the best flexibility. As far as earlier times are concerned, it difficult to determine the entire process of making the lamella as this part has been preserved on few specimens.We can establish that the lamella was made of iron. It was either forged or cut from a sheet of metal. Presumably it was most frequently forged, at least in the Middle Ages. The makers who manufactured jew’s harps in Molln up to modern times cut the lamella out of sheet steel but still used hammering and filing to finish the part. The process is described by Klier (1956: 73–4, and fig. 62‚ translated in Fox 1988: 67):

Other methods

For the second part, the tongue, small strips are cut out from sheet-steel, the underside is beaten flat, the upper side hammered and thickened. Filing follows, the inelastic pieces are removed, the end is bent upwards and the whole is hardened. The completed spring is riveted or “beaten in” to the bow, then the bow is “adjusted”: if necessary, the ends of the bow are bent into alignment with the spring by means of pliers.

I will mention briefly some technologies that lie outside the scope of this thesis but which are still part of the story. During recent centuries, new manufacturing methods have been used in addition to the old ones. Some of the methods are more modern and industrial, such as pressing the frame into shape with heavy equipment. Other methods are modern but still a continuation of old traditions. Grinding technology is an example of this if we regard it as a modern means of filing.

The makers in Valsesia in Italy forged the lamella from larger rods (Baillet 1806/1988: 64, and plate XXIII; Lovatto 2004: 11, with fig. 3). They heated the rod, which was 6–7 millimetres thick (Baillet, op. cit.), and hammered it into the desired shape. After bending and forming the end, the piece was tempered. The tempering was probably an important process that gave the material the required hardness and flexibility. It was done by heating the object to a certain temperature, ascertained by watching the surface colour of the metal, and then cooling it rapidly in cold water. The lamella on some archaeological specimens is clearly forged. This is especially apparent on one piece from Novgorod (no. 295) where the lamella can be seen to be thicker towards its attachment to the frame. Modern examples from Nepal sometimes exhibit the same feature; these have tail-pieces which are thicker than the rest of the lamella, clearly demonstrating that they have been forged and not cut out of a flat sheet of material (Fig. 2.10). Regardless of how the lamella was made, it would probably have been useful to leave a tail-piece on it until it was fixed to the frame.The Norwegian jew’s harp maker Knut Gjermundsen Hovet, from Setesdal, used a tail-piece to facilitate the correct alignment of the lamella.29 He secured the lamella

Fig. 2.9: One half of a piece-mould for multiple casting

In Italy one version of the instrument has been cut from a flat piece of metal.The metal of the frame surrounds the lamella entirely, and this version therefore looks similar to idioglottic27 jew’s harps from Asia. Such harps are not found archaeologically, and their history or chronological significance will not be discussed here.28 My impression is that modern makers tend to do more finishing work – grinding and filing, etc. – on their instruments than their earlier counterparts. It is therefore often more difficult to identify the entire manufacturing process. Jew’s harps made completely or partly of wood have not

27 Cf. introduction, p. 4 28 Similar harps have been mass produced recently in Austria. 29 Reidar Sevåg, former head of the Norwegian Folk Music Collection in Oslo, documented Hovet’s work in the 1960s (briefly mentioned in Sevåg 1970, 1973; cine film “Munnharpa”, produced by Norsk Film 1968)

27

Although no complete lamellae have survived in the archaeological material, a small piece often remains near the point of attachment. Depending on how corroded this is, a number of observations can be made – for example, the width and thickness of the lamella; whether there is any trace of a widened section at the flexing portion, near the point of attachment; whether it is thicker at the flexing portion; and whether there are traces of hammering. Even in the complete absence of a lamella, its shape can be deduced from the disposition of the arms. If the arms are still in their original position, they will indicate the width of the lamella. Especially relevant is whether the arms are strictly parallel or tapered towards the end.Tapering is indicative of a corresponding tapering of the lamella. On most medieval forms, both cast and forged, the lamella was tapered. Parallel, or almost parallel, arms are probably a late characteristic. One classification of archaeological jew’s harps considers this variable, among others. It appears in a publication on the excavation of the 18th-century Fort Michilimackinac in Michigan, USA, occupied by both French and British troops, where a total of 122 jew’s harps were unearthed (Stone 1974: 141–5).Whether or not the arms are tapered appears to be a usable typological tool for the material from this excavation. One excavated harp from Roskilde in Denmark (no. 10) is among the very few examples where the lamella has been preserved along the entire length of the arms. On this piece the lamella is wider at the flexing portion, which extends half way along the arms. It then tapers considerably near the ends of the arms.This can hardly be an accident – the lamella was without doubt deliberately formed in this way.We may compare it with another piece, from Lapphyttan, Sweden (no. 125), with no lamella but where the arms suggest it had a similar shape. There are several other examples with a similar shape to the arms, suggesting that the lamella was shaped like the one from Roskilde. A glance at the Catalogue reveals that there is variation in the form and disposition of the arms and, accordingly, variation in the shape of the lamella.There is also variation in the shape of the tip of the lamella.Among the unanswered questions are, first, at what point along its length was the lamella bent up from the plane of the arms? Some iconographical material suggests that the bend was formed only in the section that extended beyond the tips of the arms (Fig. 5.3, p. 102 [Virdung 1511], Praetorius 1619, Crane 2003b). Second, at what angle was it bent? On some ethnographic pieces from Siberia the angle is not 90 degrees, as is most common elsewhere (Fig. 2.12B), but slightly more open – as much as 120 degrees (Dournon-Taurelle and Wright 1978, 122–3, no. 132 [Sakhaline Peninsula]).30 Note, too, the example from Novgorod, Russia (no. 295), on which the lamella turns up at a rather more open angle (Fig. 2.12A).Whether this was due to technological limitations (risk of breakage if the lamella was bent through 90 degrees) or playing technique is unknown. In any case, the chosen angle at this place affected the tuning. The more the tip of the lamella was bent, the

Fig. 2.10: Modern forged jew’s harp from Nepal. Overall length: 55 mm; length of frame: 35 mm; overall width: 18 mm. Note the forged lamella. (Photo by the author. Private coll. of author)

by wedging it in a hole in the frame, but a tail-piece could have been equally useful when the lamella was secured by hammering. This brings us to the methods used to join the lamella to the frame. If we consider instruments from throughout the world, several methods have been used in the case of heteroglottic jew’s harps (Dournon-Taurelle and Wright 1978: 100, fig. 8.12).The most common method in Europe has been to make a notch at the back of the bow, into which one end of the lamella is placed. Small pieces of the metal on either side of the notch are then hammered over the lamella to secure the join. The other main method of attachment is to make a rectangular or square hole in the frame and secure the end of the lamella in this hole with a wedge. I refer to these two methods as hammered and wedged (Fig. 2.11). There are also indications that some makers used a solder to fix the lamella, or possibly to give the attachment additional strength. My general view from inspecting the objects visually, in some cases with a magnifying glass, is that soldering is rare. However, traces of soldering are reported found on two Danish examples: one from Dragør with a hammered attachment (no. 18) has traces of tin, indicating soldering (Kristensen 1994: 192).The other, a harp from Kolding with awedged attachment (no. 2), may have been soldered with lead (ibid.: 193). In the absence of systematic observation or metallographic analysis for this feature, definitive conclusions on the use of soldering cannot be reached.

Fig. 2.11: The two principal methods of attaching the lamella 30 Thanks to Leo Tadagawa for drawing my attention to this.

28

higher frequency it produced. Another question concerns the shape of the very tip of the lamella, where it was plucked by the player. How was this part designed? The easiest way would be to make a tiny curl (Fig. 2.12B and C), as seen on a specimen from the Museum of London (no. 200).Another possibility is to make a more elaborate curl.There is one interesting example of this: the jew’s harp that was excavated at Erkebispegården in Trondheim (no. 147) has a lamella that is elegantly curved (Fig. 2.12D).31 An explanation of this form would be that it was made to facilitate plucking of the lamella by the player’s tongue.This is a way of playing that is reported from Norway, where some masters used to demonstrate their virtuosity by showing off the skill it required (Sevåg 1973). However, there is no evidence that they used instruments with special lamellae to facilitate such playing.

made in Molln were mounted four at a time on wedge-shaped blocks before despatch (Klier op. cit.: 74, Mohr 1998: 97).There is also evidence that pedlars carried jew’s harps in a much more careless manner.The series of pictures from the 15th to 17th centuries of “the sleeping pedlar robbed by monkeys” (Crane 2003b: 9–13) shows that pedlars carried harps in large numbers in simple boxes. To my knowledge, the oldest known jew’s harp case is a well-preserved carved example from Fusio, Ticino in Switzerland, dated 1687 (Meyer and Oesch 1972: 225). No cases are associated with the catalogued instruments, and there is no evidence that they were used in the Middle Ages. However, wooden cases would be unlikely to survive burial, unlike the metal instruments themselves. If they were used, they remain to be found. One reason for believing that they existed is the obvious need to protect the instrument, especially the lamella, during transport.There are alternative and easier ways of protecting the instrument, for example by placing it in a small, simple box and protecting it with a piece of soft material, or by securing it to a piece of wood with a cord (Fig. 2.13). A similar simple but expedient method of protecting the instrument during transport is found in folkloric material from Finland (Taavitsainen 1978: 76). Nicely made cases would have been expensive to make, and it is unlikely that the mass-produced jew’s harps made from the 14th century on would have come with such refinements. There is, however, the possibility that artisans who worked on a smaller scale sold their harps with cases. Players may also have made cases for their own instruments.

Fig. 2.12: Different designs of the tip of the lamella

Cases for jew’s harps Specially designed cases for jew’s harps are known from ethnographic sources in several European countries.They are usually made of wood and are often decorated by painting or carving. The locking device is contrived in different ways. Sometimes the mechanism is rather tricky; for example, small pieces of wood may be used to squeeze the lid firmly in place when closed. Sometimes the makers appear to have spent more time and effort on making the case than the instrument it contained. Such refined cases seem to be found most frequently in Norway (Sevåg 1973, Dournon-Taurelle and Wright 1978: 104), Austria (Klier 1956: plate 57; Haiding 1980: 312), Switzerland (Geiser 1980) and Italy (Lovatto 1983, figs. 9 and 10). In the Alpine region cases are often shaped like shoes. Less refined cases were used for trade purposes. Instruments

Fig. 2.13: One possible way of protecting the instrument during transport

31 The drawing in Fig. 2.12D is merely an outline based on this specimen.

29

Dialogue one: When did the jew’s harp become established in Europe? DR HARPER: I am glad we can meet today to discuss the question of when the jew’s harp became established in Europe. I hope that we will have a fruitful exchange of ideas, because I believe this issue is really important. DR TRUMPER: Yes, indeed. It is difficult to proceed with typology and chronology as long as we don’t know when the instrument first appeared in Europe. DR HARPER: Have you made any new finds or discoveries since we last talked, Dr Trumper? DR TRUMPER: No, nothing that has changed my opinion. I still follow Ypey’s position from 1976, claiming that the jew’s harp was established between 1100 and 1300 AD.What about you – do you still subscribe to Crane’s theory that the instrument already existed in Europe in Roman times?32 DR HARPER: No, I wouldn’t put it like that. I agree more with Crane than Ypey, but I feel that we should arrive at our own views without continuously referring to their work. Moreover, Crane’s and Ypey’s contributions are not the only ones, though they are the most often referred to in this debate. This is a long story of scholars and publications with different views on the matter. Sometimes information has been copied with no check on its reliability. Let us begin at the beginning. Wasn’t Curt Sachs the first to express an opinion on when the jew’s harp was introduced into the continent? DR TRUMPER: Sachs was more concerned with the idea that the instrument originated in Asia and travelled into Europe than when the European introduction took place. It’s true, however, that in his 1917 article in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie he stated that the pieces excavated from Tannenberg Castle near Darmstadt in Hessen (nos 152, 153, 500) were the oldest known in Europe.33 The castle was destroyed in 1399, and the harps were, he said, excavated with other artifacts from the end of the 14th century. He based this on the excavation report, published in 1850.34 The assertion that the Tannenberg harps are the oldest excavated in Germany, and even in Europe, has been reproduced in several publications – for example in Kliers’ much referred to article from 1956. DR HARPER: Well, the authors of these publications 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

didn’t just reproduce the information blindly – the finds from Tannenberg really were the oldest known to them. So one can see why Frederick Crane’s book Extant Medieval Musical Instruments, which came out in 1972, was a real challenge as it introduced materials suggesting that the instrument had existed in Europe as far back as Roman times. DR TRUMPER:Yes, but don’t forget J.V. S. Megaw, who was actually earlier, with his article from 1968. He addresses the matter in a single sentence, but his statement is unequivocal: “Now however it has been recognized that there are examples dating certainly to the Roman period and perhaps even to Late La Tène.”35 DR HARPER: Have you checked the reference for this statement?36 Megaw says that his source for the information is Crane, who had in mind Roman finds from Nijmegen (nos 662–6) in the Netherlands and La Tène finds from Indre, in the central Loire Valley (nos 329, 330). If we look into this more closely, it is interesting that Crane himself is less insistent about the Roman origin of the examples from Nijmegen. In his book he introduces the discovery as “a group of bronze objects, including these five jew’s harps. There are no data on the source, but it is very likely that they are from Roman-period (first to fourth century) graves in Nijmegen and vicinity.”37 Crane is merely reporting information given by the museum, and he does not acknowledge authenticity for the dating of the finds.The French finds are two artifacts. One was excavated in 1895 in Levroux (no. 329) and was found together with a Sequanian coin and pottery with Celtic origins.38 The other was found in 1839, near Issoudun (no. 330). It was found in a “kuba gauloise”, though without any more details as to its context39. On their own these finds hardly prove a La Tène/Celtic dating for the objects, but together with similar finds from other places they do indicate such an early dating. In his book, Crane refers to several other finds with a possible early dating. These include Gallo-Roman examples from Rouen (nos 325–8) and Cimiez (no. 621). He lists seventeen English finds with a probable Saxon origin. Four are from Saxon cemeteries in Surrey and Kent (nos 178–81). Crane’s sources for the English finds are articles by

Crane 1972. Sachs 1917: 196. (The same information appears in Sachs 1913/1964: 255.) Hefner and Wolf 1850: 91. Megaw 1968: 353. Op. cit.: 358, note 196. Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.24–28. Pierre 1935: 103. Pierre 1936: 10.

30

Elliston-Erwood and Grove in the journal Archaeologia Cantiana.40 Both these authors and Crane himself acknowledge the fact that most of the finds are from the surface, and therefore not possible to date properly. DR TRUMPER:Why doesn’t Crane accept the implications of this? I find it strange that both he and the authors you mention know that the English finds are not dated properly but they still use them as indications of jew’s harps in Saxon times. DR HARPER: Yes, but the indications are strong. As with the French finds, they are not so useful in isolation. Only when collated with information from different regions and countries can we assess their significance. Crane’s contribution is important because it was the first collection of information on the archaeology of the jew’s harp. And Crane based his theory on more material than Sachs, who relied only on the Tannenberg harps. DR TRUMPER:Yes, it was an important contribution. DR HARPER: … which resulted in the rewriting of history, in journals and elsewhere. Not immediately, of course, but slowly, something that’s still going on. DR TRUMPER: I am not so happy about all this rewriting. It has produced so much confusion.Too often scholars are careless about checking their sources of information properly. What tends to get overlooked in the secondary sources is the doubt concerning the dating of the alleged Saxon harps from England or the Roman finds from the Netherlands. However this may be, Crane’s intention was to push the history of the jew’s harp in Europe back to Roman times, despite the fact that he didn’t insist on the authenticity of all datings. In the introduction to his list of finds, he states: “The known dates and locations in which these jew’s harps have been found allow some conclusions about the early history of the instrument in Europe. It was widely known in the Roman period. … It was a personal possession sufficiently prized that several were buried with their owners in Anglo-Saxon Britain.”41 Regardless of my position in this debate, however, I think Crane’s contribution is praiseworthy. After all, such bold interpretations produce engagement in the academic community, and they stimulate research. DR HARPER: And the most engaged reaction was the article by the Dutch archaeologist Jaap Ypey. In his article “Mondharpen” he was notably sceptical about the early datings suggested by Crane.42 He considered several finds from Western Europe, and found that none could be dated archaeologically earlier than the 13th and 14th centuries. The article is thorough and serious, but I feel that Ypey’s main purpose was to cast doubt on these early datings. DR TRUMPER:Yes, he makes himself pretty clear. He 40 41 42 43 44

will not consider any finds without a proved dating, either stratigraphically or by other recognized archaeological methods. However, I favour his view that the jew’s harp appeared in Europe in the high Middle Ages, between 1100 and 1300 AD. Well-dated jew’s harps from excavations are all from this period or later. And finds made after Ypey wrote his article point to the same conclusion. DR HARPER:Yes, I know that most of the harps from modern excavations are assigned to these later periods. But consider all the examples found in settings that strongly indicate much earlier dates. I think that, like Ypey, you fail to give these finds their proper weight. DR TRUMPER: No, I am quite willing to discuss these finds. But it remains a fact that we cannot rely on them because they were found a long time ago. Most are from 19th century excavations, and the archaeological methods of the time are way out of date.The alleged La Tène harps from Indre as well as the others from Rouen (nos 325–8) and Cimiez (no. 621) have been re-examined by Catherine Homo-Lechner, who found their Gallo-Roman dating to be unsubstantiated.43 There is no surviving stratigraphical documentation or other find circumstances that would justify the suggested early datings.As for the British finds, only one or two have any connection with the Saxon cemeteries in question. Nor here is there any surviving stratigraphical documentation. DR HARPER: That may be so, but we should remember that the excavators were, after all, archaeologists – for example J.-M.Thaurin, who excavated the four jew’s harps from Rouen and the one from Levroux. Also with the Saxon finds, we should assume that their excavators knew what they were doing and documented the finds thoroughly. Some were certainly found at the surface, but there were also more reliable finds. Even if we cannot speak of modern standards of archaeological documentation, we shouldn’t actually distrust the excavators. To me, claiming that their conclusions are vitiated by shortcomings in the way they did things implies disrespect for their work. For one 19th century English find we have more than vague information. The jew’s harp from Sarre in Kent (no. 180) was excavated in 1863, but in the 1930s a curator at the Maidstone Museum, who worked on a reassessment of the grave groups, could state definitively that the object came from grave 18 of the cemetery.44 Should we say he was wrong simply because it is inconvenient for the view we may hold now? DR TRUMPER: No, I wouldn’t want to show disrespect for those archaeologists or their generation – many of their contributions are very interesting and valuable. As regards the Sarre harp, I must admit that the information you refer to sounds convincing but, as you know well, objects often

Elliston-Erwood 1943, 1947; Grove 1955, 1956. Crane, op. cit.: 19. Ypey 1976. Homo-Lechner and Vendries 1993: 20–1; Homo-Lechner 1996: 133; 1999: 782. Elliston-Erwood 1943: 35.

31

move around in the soil profile.This is a problem archaeologists are always aware of. They never conclude anything on the basis of a single object’s position unless its original context can be established with complete confidence. I will not base a theory on something that cannot be proved. In this case we need evidence, not indications. DR HARPER: Well, if you don’t regard these old finds as evidence, what then really is evidence? I think that archaeology, as one of the humanities, should recognize that people construct evidence and “facts”, and when we find evidence and use it to form conclusions, these conclusions are only interpretations.This is about objectivity … DR TRUMPER: Let’s not digress into philosophy, at least not now. It is certainly interesting, but it won’t get us any further – not least because, of course, I agree with you. Yes, my conclusions are my interpretations. All the same, I have more faith in interpretations based on modern archaeological methods than in those made 150 years ago by a discipline that was still finding its feet. DR HARPER:All right, but I still don’t understand why you accept some accounts but not others. I think I am more open-minded than you are. DR TRUMPER: Possibly you are. I used to be openminded too, but after examining several claims of early medieval finds, all of which turned out to be mistaken, I realized that one could not take them at face value, at least at the outset. I’m thinking not just of the French and English harps in Crane’s book, but also of Scandinavian finds with a suggested Viking Age. Examples include an iron fragment found during the excavations at Eketorp Castle, Øland, Sweden, in the early 1970s. The archaeologists identified and catalogued it as a clamp, giving it a possible date of 1000 AD.Well, apparently it resembled a jew’s harp, and it was shown as part of the exhibition Klang i flinta och brons45 interpreted as a possible example of just that.46 There is no picture in the exhibition catalogue, and it has since proved impossible to trace the object at all or to find more information concerning its dating and identification.47 So it has to remain an interesting curiosity – and certainly nothing to build any claims on. Another example is two iron fragments resembling jew’s harps that were found in a Viking-age burial mound in Tjølling,Vestfold, in Norway. Cajsa Lund has published these as possible jew’s harps.48 However, x-ray examination has shown no signs of the point where the lamella would be attached to the frame,49 so the finds cannot be regarded as jew’s harps. They were probably the type of shrine handles described by the Norwegian archaeologist Jan Petersen.50 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

DR HARPER:This is another category of finds, as they are not identified as jew’s harps. DR TRUMPER:Yes, but they are still part of the story. The finds that are thought to indicate a possible dating earlier than the high Middle Ages are of two kinds: objects without a certain identification as jew’s harps but with a confirmed dating, and finds confirmed as jew’s harps but which lack a reliable dating.There are several in the former group. Archaeologists and museum curators sometimes ask if objects from early medieval or antique contexts might be jew’s harps, but these always prove to be artifacts of another determination. The latter group is the largest, of course. In principle, many metal detected chance finds could be older than the high Middle Ages. At least, someone – for instance you – would interpret them as such! DR HARPER: Maybe, but only some of them are really interesting. Let me give some examples from England: in Stoke-on-Trent (no. 247), a jew’s harp was found that was assumed to be Roman because of its proximity to a late Roman coin treasure. Further, Devizes Museum, Wiltshire, has labelled two of its jew’s harps as Roman (nos 253–4) because they were found at sites which have produced Roman finds. Again, in themselves these instances are not decisive. But together with other possible Roman harps they are worth considering. Finally, there is another example from Wijk near Duurstede (Dorestad) in the Netherlands (no. 693), dug up in a Carolingian context.51 DR TRUMPER: I don’t find any of these convincing as possible early finds.What is interesting is that you continue to take them seriously. Every one is a copper alloy harp of the type that is frequently found in post-medieval layers. The examples from Devizes were probably found with metal detectors. And do any of the archaeologists or curators who deal with these finds have any knowledge of jew’s harps? They probably don’t realize that there are loads of harps of post-medieval date that resemble these “Roman” specimens. The Carolingian origin of the Duurstede harp has been questioned by Boone,52 building on Ypey.53 DR HARPER:Well, that’s what you’d expect from Ypey. He’s just following his agenda.We’ve been over that. DR TRUMPER: But the point is that it is absolutely necessary to be sceptical when faced with all these stories. DR HARPER: I feel that we have started to repeat ourselves. It is hard to get anywhere if we confine the discussion to single finds. Let us therefore consider the material as a whole.There is an abundance of finds, many of which cannot be dated with certainty. How many really well dated jew’s harps do we have? I mean, if for instance 25 per cent

English title: The Sound of Archaeology. Lund 1974: 39, no. 61. Cajsa S. Lund, pers. comm. Lund 1974: 38, no. 60; 1981: 255; 1984/1987: 20, with Figure 43. Kolltveit 1996: 40–1. Petersen 1951: 455, and Figure 242, p. 457. Ypey 1976: 217. Boone 1986: 30. Ypey, op. cit.: 217.

32

of the excavated finds are dated to layers from the high and late Middle Ages, what about the 75 per cent that are not dated at all because they were found in circumstances that make dating impossible? Since we are dealing with a relatively unusual phenomenon for which we still lack sufficient data, I believe we should be reserved in our conclusions. Remember the saying “an accused is innocent until proved guilty”. If we suppose in advance that all jew’s harps are central to late Middle Ages or later in age, we run the risk of forcing the material in the wrong direction timewise. Imagine that, some time from now, a jew’s harp turns up in a Roman or prehistorical context but that this time there’s irrefutable evidence that it belongs in this context – for instance, the harp lies under the tiles of a Roman floor. What will happen? Will no one believe it because the “truth” that this thing did not exist so early is already established? DR TRUMPER: If there really is such a find in the future, I think it will be fairly easy to adjust history. In all fields of science and the humanities the landscape changes from time to time, and our maps have to be adjusted accordingly. It’s often happened. As for forcing the material in a wrong direction, I am more worried about forcing it back in history, by recognizing all the possible Roman finds as genuinely Roman. I am worried because an unjustified acceptance of old datings may result in unwelcome attention from the general public.The discovery of an ancient instrument would be celebrated. Popular science magazines, the folk music movement and so on would certainly be there and give honour to the scientists who made the “discovery”. DR HARPER: There I totally disagree with you. Do you really believe that the general public would be interested in the age of this insignificant little object? I think not. Enthusiasts would certainly appreciate the discovery of the jew’s harp’s ancient history in Europe. Some musicians might even start to include jew’s harps in Viking bands and other early music ensembles. But to the general public this matter would be of no interest. And another thing: if you are concerned about scientific honour, I am sure that a scholar who asserted the younger age for our material would be accorded greater prestige than one claiming the older. The former is a typical sceptic, the latter a typical believer, and in our age the sceptic who reveals the “unscientific” approach of the believer is the one who is celebrated. DR TRUMPER:Well, perhaps, though I doubt that our field would qualify for the most prestigious scientific awards! But I don’t agree with you that this matter is of no importance to the general public. Worldwide, people increasingly search for their roots, and archaeology is one important source for this interest. Although the history of the jew’s harp is a small field, it is subject to the general

drive to push things as far back as possible. This is something a lot of people care about, after all.This is illustrated by the growing jew’s harp movement, worldwide. Regardless of how you understand these tendencies, the early history of the jew’s harp is hardly an isolated phenomenon in this respect. This is an important reason for adopting a sceptical attitude towards the old datings, which are very often not datings but merely guesswork. To exemplify, take the following, which happened some years ago in Norway: a girl found a jew’s harp while playing in the sand on the shores of Byglandsfjord in Setesdal (no. 143). She gave the object to the University Museum of Antiquities (Oldsaksamlingen) in Oslo, together with a description from a local folk music enthusiast, who described the site of the find as an ancient place, perhaps a Viking locality, because the area had produced Viking finds earlier.The museum made the mistake of listing the harp as a Viking-age find.There was no reliable documentation to support such a dating.The curator who made up the catalogue was probably not interested in researching this single chance find but merely reproduced the suggestion that accompanied the object. Very soon, reports about the Viking jew’s harp from Setesdal started to spread, abroad too, and now you can read about it as a “fact” in various books and articles.54 Unfortunately, such spreading of false information is almost unavoidable. DR HARPER: I will not defend the alleged Viking dating of this find. It was a regrettable mistake. I agree with you that this might be about people seeking their roots. Of course it is important for the people in Setesdal that they can trace their musical heritage back to the Vikings. DR TRUMPER: And this concerns national interests as well. It is important for the folk music movement in Norway to show its deep and ancient roots.The Vikings are an important national symbol in the country. Similarly, we should understand the tendency in 19th century France to relate their national antiquarian heritage, jew’s harps included, to the Gallic and Celtic past.55 These periods were important for the production of French national identity. If we are to understand the early and unsubstantiated datings in France or elsewhere, this is certainly an important backdrop.This is about how we use the past.The past provides the sources for the myths upon which nations and other collective identities are built.56 DR HARPER:Yes, this is something I am interested in. I can certainly follow you in that the production of history is the same as the production of myths. Because the past belongs to the present. Our knowledge of the past will always be limited by our own perceptions, mentalities and values. As several scholars have argued during the last decades, we can’t claim any more that there is one single true and monolithic past. The past does not exist there “neutrally”, waiting to be told or “read”, but is subject to

54 For example Bakx 1993: 138; Allmo and Bergelt 1995: 62. 55 Homo-Lechner 1993: 21. 56 See for example Eriksen 1996.

33

our interpretations or “writings”.57 The implication of this is that we get a more fragmented, democratic and plural past, with several voices. It is easier to give the small and individual histories a chance, not only the authorized and great ones, as earlier. Our individual experience as researchers fits better into this way of history writing. I believe it is important to recognize our personal experience in our research, and make it explicitly a part of our methods. About ten years ago the Norwegian archaeologist Brit Solli described recent trends of archaeology in terms of changing emphasis from “reading the past”58 to “writing the past”.59 She then predicted that the next stage would be an archaeology that was not only “good to write” but also “good to live”, an archaeology of body and experience.60 It is difficult to determine how much of this was a rhetorical expression in reaction to the unhappy division between theoretical and practical archaeology, which had widened during the preceding decades. However, the statement was extremely important. This is about emplacing the body as a part of the research process, akin to anthropologists doing fieldwork. For archaeological fieldwork is a bodily experience, where “the physical labour of fieldwork transforms the intellectual quest for knowledge of the past through material culture into a very personal, embodied experience”.61 With reference to our work with jew’s harps, I believe we could benefit from such an approach. Neither archaeological nor anthropological fieldwork is part of our research, but our museum studies – which include physical encounters with the artifacts – can certainly feel like fieldwork. It is an exciting experience when the museum curator brings the finds to our desk.We put on gloves and enjoy the physical sensation of holding the objects in our hands and even smelling them.This encounter with material representations of the past produces an experience that is simply not comparable to other forms of knowledge. Moreover, the fact that the jew’s harp is not only a piece of material culture but is also a musical instrument further encourages an approach of body and experience to the scholarly endeavour. It encourages us to use our feelings more, not just the facts. For example, by playing the jew’s harp, or imagining how it sounded, we can make the past resound for us. DR TRUMPER: Hmm, there are some problems here. It’s simply impossible to get the past to sound. The past belongs to the present, as you just said. The sounds will inevitably be a part of our own world. DR HARPER: That’s easy to agree with. This is about authenticity, which I think both of us regard as an impossibility.62 Let’s not spend time discussing that side of things. 57 58 59 60 61 62

The point I’m making is about experience and feeling. Sound is a way of experiencing that is closer to feelings than to facts.To play or listen to jew’s harp music can be a way of experiencing the past, even though the sounds are being perceived and interpreted through our modern ears. On the scale between evidence and experience, or facts and feeling, playing is closer to experience and feeling.Without losing the other end of the scale, playing is certainly a means of approaching the past with body and experience. DR TRUMPER: Have you joined any medieval jew’s harp bands yet? DR HARPER: Oh, come on! But seriously, if such bands existed, it would be a shame if we specialists made fun of them. If our intention is to contribute to a more democratic and plural past, we should of course acknowledge other people’s ways of experiencing it. However, experiencing the past for us is not only about playing. It also concerns the research process itself, for instance how we work with the archaeological material, how we judge our sources, how we reason and make our conclusions. An experienced approach to archaeological research is the same as being curious. An example from the same region of Norway as the Bygland find illustrates what I mean. This is not an archaeological find in itself, but a description of one, written by the Danish antiquarian Ole Worm in 1643 (no. 144). According to him, a brilliantly gilded jew’s harp was found in a burial urn near Mandal. This must have been a pre-Christian find because the text refers to a burial urn! The text is a unique document! Why are you not interested in it? You should be more curious, instead of, apparently, protecting your facts! DR TRUMPER: I am interested in Worm’s harp. But we have to find a balance between facts and feeling. I cannot go further than the facts allow.This text does not prove that the Vikings played the instrument. The object itself is lost. We have neither found the jew’s harp itself nor Worm’s source of information.We have no more than these written sentences about it, unfortunately.The case has to remain a riddle. DR HARPER: It is a riddle. But to repeat myself, together with many other indications it suggests a possibility that the instrument existed some centuries earlier than the high Middle Ages. If you really were curious, and interested in researching the reliability of this and other early finds, you would do much more … with extant artifacts, for instance, you could try metal analyses. Have you not checked whether such analyses could be used to date jew’s harps? DR TRUMPER: Not really.The problem with such analysis is that we have to destroy the objects to get enough metal.

Lowenthal 1985; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b/1992, 1989. Hodder 1986. Shanks & Tilley 1987a, 1987b/1992. Solli 1992: 107. Solli 1996: 30. Criticism of authenticity and the early music movement: Kenyon 1990.

34

Swiss material that Meyer and Oesch introduced,66 dating back to the last part of the 12th century. DR HARPER: But even that dating is not correct, I am afraid. In this case I shall take the attitude of the sceptic. Not because I am sceptical, but because the 12th century find is simply an error. In their article, Meyer and Oesch date one example to the second part of the 12th century (no. 613). It was excavated at the castle of Alt-Bischofstein in Canton Basel-Land. It is hairpin-shaped, with long arms. Meyer and Oesch regard this as type A, which is the prototype in their typology. Their dating of the object is based on the period of occupation of the castle, which was only a few decades at the end of the 12th century.67 The excavators revealed no stratigraphy, and the datings of the artifacts therefore follow the period the castle was used. However, in a more recent publication on the finds from the excavation,68 the author extends the occupation period into the 13th and even early 14th century, basing this on ceramic finds.69 AltBischofstein (Hinterer Burg) had an earlier phase of activity than the neighbouring Neu-Bischofstein (Vorderer Burg), but there was a common period in the 13th and early 14th centuries.The three jew’s harps from Neu-Bischofstein (nos 614, 637, 638) are typologically similar to the one from AltBischofstein. Most probably, they are approximately of the same date. Müller suggests 1150–1350 for all the four harps from Bischofstein: “Mangels stratigraphischer Beobachtungen auf beiden Bischofsteiner Burgen kann dieser Typ in der weiten Zeitspanne von 1150 bis 1350 nicht genau fixiert werden.”70 (“Because of lack of relevant stratigraphy at both of the Bischofstein castles, this type cannot be dated precisely within the extensive period period from 1150 to 1350.”) However, the reason he says from 1150, rather than earlier or later, is that the harps are of Meyer and Oesch’s type A, with a dating from the last part of the 12th century. This is arguing in a circle, because Meyer and Oesch based the dating of their type on just the single find from AltBischofstein. DR TRUMPER: In other words, your reinterpretation conforms to the theory that no finds predate the 13th century. Datings back to the 12th century are unsubstantiated, both in Switzerland and elsewhere in Western Europe. From another point of view, though, it makes no difference if the earliest finds are from contexts belonging to the early 13th century or the outgoing 12th century, provided that the datings express the time the object was lost.A jew’s harp from layers deposited in around 1200 was in all probability made and played in the 12th century. The Lübeck harp (no. 493) has exactly this dating. Or is this dating doubtful as well?

DR HARPER: I take it you are referring to radiocarbon analysis – extracting a few grammes of carbon from the iron to perform radiocarbon dating. For copper alloys, there are other possibilities. Metallurgical examination of a nondestructive nature could produce results, for example by identifying the composition of alloys. The scanning electron microprobe analysis (SEM) is one relevant method here63. Broadly speaking, archaeometallurgy is a great field of research.There are a lot of institutions and scientists you could cooperate with. Why have you not done anything like this? DR TRUMPER: Generally, I think that typology is a better method because we must rely on typology regardless of scientific analyses. Suppose we did do some analyses and came to the conclusion that the samples were postmedieval, what then? There would still be arguments over the harps that had not been analysed, I guess. So after all, it is better to rely on typology. But it would do no harm to have such analyses done. Perhaps this could be a task for your future research? DR HARPER: If I find people to cooperate with and funding … Meanwhile, let’s await more evidence of the “conventional” kind. It would be interesting to have finds that predated the 1200 border even by a little, not necessarily by hundreds of years.This would be a great stimulus to research on the history of the instrument. DR TRUMPER: Do you remember we had such an example some years ago? DR HARPER:Yes, if you mean the Sulzbach harp. DR TRUMPER: It was displayed in the German exhibition AusGrabungen Schicht für Schicht ins Mittelalter.64 One of the three jew’s harps in the exhibition, from Sulzbach Castle in Bavaria, was dated to the 11th–12th century (no. 174).This early dating, from a serious excavation by scholars from one of the leading institutions in medieval archaeology, was an interesting case, and our department found it worth the considerable expense of a detour via München to examine the object. It looked similar to other medieval iron harps. It did certainly not look as if it were the earliest find on the continent. Later, however, when we made contact with the excavator Mathias Hensch it was clear that the dating was a mistake, due to misinterpretation of the ceramics in the layer where the harp was found.The right dating should be the 12th to the early 14th century,65 in conformity with the views of Ypey (1976). DR HARPER: Conclusively, in your universe, according to absolute facts, no finds have proved to predate the 13th century? DR TRUMPER: The exception is the earliest of the 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Renfrew and Bahn 1996: 345 Ericsson 1998. Hensch 2002. Meyer and Oesch 1972. Op. cit.: 217. Müller 1980. Op. cit.: 80. Op. cit.: 75.

35

DR HARPER: No, it seems reliable. It was found during excavations in the mid-1980s and dated by stratigraphy. According to the excavation report it was found in a floating sediment belonging to period I/II, which dates it to around 1200.71 DR TRUMPER: It is therefore likely that Europeans knew of the instrument at the end of the 12th century. DR HARPER:Yes, that’s a safe interpretation. But we can’t stop there.We have not even mentioned the two finds from Moldova and Bashkortostan.These are also part of the story. DR TRUMPER: Hmm, yes, with apparently reliable datings from the 8th to the 10th century. I know them well. It’s strange we almost forgot them. DR HARPER: I think we overlook them because our “Western-Eurocentric” way of thinking too often excludes the eastern parts of the continent. This might be the reason for overlooking the one from Bashkortostan, at least, because it comes from the Ural region, at the margin of what we usually regard as Europe. I also think that you and other likeminded researchers tend to avoid speaking about these early finds because it is a little inconvenient for your conclusions. Dr. TRUMPER: I won’t say I avoid them. In fact I find them very interesting, especially because they appear to be different from the alleged Roman, Saxon and Viking finds from Western Europe. They seem to derive from relatively recent excavations. I have tried to reach the archaeologists to get some more details about them, but without success. This is what we presently know: the Moldavian find (no. 301) is from the town of Yekimauts. It is dated to the 9th or 10th century according to the publications in a Russian archaeological journal.72 These give no details about the dating or the archaeological context, though.The specimen is made of iron and has an oval shape to the bow. It is very similar to a modern piece from a village in the vicinity, as illustrated in one of the publications.73 The information about the example from Bashkortostan (no. 300) comes from the notes that accompany a CD, Khomus: jew’s harp music of Turkic peoples in the Urals, Siberia, and Central Asia,74 and a Russian article from 1981.75 We are told of a jew’s harp found in a burial mound in Idelbayev, excavated by Professor N. A. Mazhitov. The burial mound dates back to the 8th or 9th centuries. The jew’s harp is made of a flat piece of silver, and is idioglottic, which means that it is made of one piece of material. Similar idioglottic harps made of wood are found in Asia, but not in Europe.There is no particular reason to deny the authenticity of the dating.As for the Moldavian piece, though, we lack equivalent

finds with such an early dating from elsewhere in Europe. DR HARPER: I would love to see more detailed studies of these finds and the find circumstances. Regardless of how we view the reliability of the datings, however, these finds raise the question of how and by what routes the jew’s harp travelled into Europe from Asia.They suggest an introduction along the large rivers of Russia, for instance in the Viking Age or the following centuries, when there were extended trade routes along these rivers. DR TRUMPER: Yes, it is possible that they first arrived from this direction, despite the lack of more substantial material to confirm the theory.Yet I find it equally possible that the crusaders brought the instrument to Europe via the Mediterranean area.That is more in accordance with the earliest Western European datings in the 13th century. On the other hand, I accept that the Mediterranean route seems unlikely when one considers the total lack of jew’s harps in the Arab world and the modest position it apparently had in Southern Europe and the Middle East. DR HARPER: There is, however, some information to suggest that the jew’s harp was in fact distributed in this region. Hans Hickmann claimed that the instrument existed in Lower Egypt in pharaonic times76. Moreover, Crane reports that two jew’s harps were in the stock of an antique dealer in Cairo in 1947.77 The items, apparently of Roman date, were found in the Nile Delta. DR TRUMPER: No, this is too early.The information is unfortunately analogous to that for the early and unsubstantiated finds we discussed earlier. It is easy to imagine that an antique dealer would claim the object to be ancient if he didn’t know anything about the history of jew’s harps. As far as the instrument’s introduction into Europe is concerned, these texts don’t get us any further. If the jew’s harp was known in ancient Rome or Greece there should be evidence for it, whether in archaeological materials in museums, in iconography or in texts. Crane wrote to the Museo Nazionale in Naples to enquire if any jew’s harps had been found in Pompeii or Herculaneum and was told there were none.78 Neither Turkey has produced any archaeological finds or other signs of ancient or medieval jew’s harps. According to Picken,79 the jew’s harp is not known in Turkey at all. Sources concerning the introduction of the instrument from the areas between east and west remain silent. It is therefore difficult to come to any conclusion. DR HARPER: … which makes the hypothesis that the instrument was a European invention more probable?

71 Schalies 1992: 323. 72 Fedorov 1954; Kolchin 1959. 73 Fedorov, op. cit. 74 Shurov 1995. 75 Mazhitov 1981. 76 Hickmann 1961:170. 77 Crane 1972: 19. This information comes from Hans Hickmann (in letter), who saw these two jew’s harps at the antiques dealer Nahman in Cairo. The item had the numbers M528 and M529, respectively. 78 Frederick Crane, pers. comm. 79 Picken 1975.

36

DR TRUMPER: I wouldn’t say that.This theory has little substance, I am afraid. If the instrument were a European invention, it is unlikely that the idioglottic frame jew’s harps (Sachs’ Rahmenmaultrommeln) were the first and that the transition into the heteroglottic bow-shaped version (Sachs’ Bügelmaultrommel) took place as a parallel development in Europe and Asia. It would be more reasonable to suppose that the bow-shaped version originated in Europe independently of the idioglottic forms found in Asia. If so, the former would have travelled eastwards at some point. However, two bowshaped Japanese jew’s harps excavated from settings belonging to the Heian period, 1000 AD, indicate that one can’t set much store by this theory.80 All in all, we are looking at several unresolved problems here. About the relationship between the idioglottic and the heteroglottic forms, about the possible existence of idioglottic harps in Europe west of the Ural region … and everything on almost totally unsubstantiated ground, a matter for conjecture. I think we should leave it for another discussion. DR HARPER: I agree.We’ve covered a lot for one session.

DR TRUMPER:Are we able to reach any conclusions? DR HARPER: I feel we agree on much, all things considered.You hold to the theory that the instrument became established in Western Europe between 1100 and 1300 AD. I acknowledge that this is based on proved datings according to common archaeological reasoning. I understand your position.At least we agree that the instrument seems to have been commonly distributed from the 13th century on.The difference is that I am more open than you are to the possibility of an earlier establishment. DR TRUMPER:Well, not necessarily. If someone came up with one really substantiated Roman or Viking jew’s harp, I’d be right there with you. In a way there’s very little between our respective positions. Both of us have to admit that almost nothing is known about the earliest history of the instrument, and there our disgreement is mainly over how to view the evidence. So, I believe that the best thing we can do to move things forward in our field is to take a positive view of matters.

80 Tadagawa 1996.

37

3.Typology typological classification of the archaeological jew’s harp material is increasingly needed. First, to continue from the disagreement over when the instrument first appeared in Europe, it is essential to make a division of the material on the basis of types and search for possible chronological developments. Second, the situation is confusing regardless of the debate on origins. Different types of the instrument have been used simultaneously during the centuries and in the different areas of Europe, and there is apparently no typological development to be observed (Baart et al. 1977: 477). However, this is only partially true.The assumption that there has been no development stems partly from the current problems with the datings. A majority of the finds have come to light with no surviving information on stratigraphical or other circumstances that would allow dating. Since no reliable chronology is available, the problem compounds itself. When a jew’s harp is found that cannot be assigned a date, the group of finds that lacks chronological significance increases.The next time a specimen is found, the argument that there has been no development over time will accordingly be strengthened. And so forth. To escape from this somewhat intractable situation, a typological study will provide at least some answers. This, then, is a body of material with no defined types or established chronology. The ideal basis would therefore be to start like the “father of typology”, Montelius, with a thorough definition of types. One reason to turn to an archaeological tradition of typology is that jew’s harps are difficult to date with scientific methods. For instance, in order to perform radiocarbon dating of wrought iron artifacts one would need several grammes of carbon (C), and it would be impossible to extract a sufficient amount without destroying the object itself. Moreover, if we destroyed one object and got a good, reliable result from such a dating method, how would one benefit from it? To utilize the information it would still be necessary to classify the remaining material typologically.

bly the most influential figure on this scene, with ideas about the origins and evolution of biological species. Despite the reaction against his work, he had an enormous impact on the whole intellectual arena and not just within the natural sciences. Prior to the 19th century, scholars were unconcerned with the idea of evolution since all things were believed to result from the Creation. The famous Swedish taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), for instance, had a strong Christian faith and approached biological systematics in a fundamentally different way from Darwin. Concordantly, 18th century antiquarians classified their antiquities on the basis of similarities and differences but without focusing on why groups of artifacts were more similar to each other than to other artifacts. The Danish antiquarian Bishop Erik Pontoppidan (1698–1764) was very concerned with maps (Svestad 1995: 127), indicating that he was more interested in the spatial dimension than development through time. By the time of Darwin’s success the Danish scholar Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788–1865) had already published Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed (1836; English version in 1848: A Guide to Northern Antiquities), in which he proposed a division of prehistory into three parts: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. The basis of this was an ordering of the collections of the National Museum in Copenhagen according to material (stone, bronze and iron). This has been considered a milestone in the early phase of modern archaeology (Trigger 1989: 62). He was the first scholar to suggest a system for classifying artifacts chronologically. Evolutionary ideas generally and the Three-Age System devised by Thomsen specifically offered a framework for the development of the typological method. The Swedish archaeologist Oscar Montelius (1843–1921) elaborated the method. He described large quantities of artifacts and grouped them into types on the basis of similarities between them. Inspired by Darwin, he believed that they had developed in accordance with laws similar to those acting on biological species, although he was not influenced by Darwinism in his ideas on human behaviour (Trigger, op. cit.: 120). He based his dating of types and formulation of chronological sequences on studies of the context of finds and on cross-dating, seeking correlations between his material and similar finds from other places in Europe (Montelius 1884; Gräslund 1987: 45). Montelius had a large amount of material at hand and travelled through Europe to research museums and collections. His goal was to develop a chronology for the prehistory of Europe. He was able to construct a chronological framework for the Neolithic Period, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age.

A

The concepts of type and typology The concept of type in archaeology is historically linked to the typological method, which was originally a means of sorting materials chronologically. The method was developed in the last part of the 19th century and should be seen in the broader context of the evolutionary thinking that characterized the time. Charles Darwin (1809–1882), with his central work On the Origin of Species (1859), was proba-

38

Montelius is regarded as the father of archaeological typology.The arrangement of archaeological materials into types as developed by him still forms the basis of relative chronology and of archaeological dating, explicitly or implicitly (Gräslund, op. cit.: 7–9). The introduction of scientific dating methods (dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, etc.) did not make typology superfluous but provided absolute references for typological sequences of established relative chronologies. Typology is still of fundamental importance for the discipline, although few archaeologists today devote themselves exclusively to typological and chronological studies of artifacts. Despite the historical link to chronology and cultural history, typology is used for a variety of purposes in archaeology, as in the other humanities, more or less in accordance with a common sense understanding of what a type is. In general terms a type implies a form or a pattern, allowing us to identify groups of entities in which certain attributes distinguish one group from another. The members of one type are more similar to other members of the same type than to members of another. Consequently, typology is about similarities.

The purpose of finding similarities between artifacts depends on the perspective of the typology. Typologies should be considered as analytical tools for dealing with specific problems (Adams and Adams 1991). Their value is in their utility. Here lies the key to an understanding of the difference between typology and classification. Whereas classification denotes any kind of division of objects or events into groups based on similarities and differences, typology can be understood as one kind of classification that is explanatory, or, in the words of Hayden, aims to “reveal something about the nature of human behaviour in relation to artifacts, whether this information is by nature evolutionary, functional, technological, temporal, social or other” (Hayden 1984: 80). In other words, typology can be used to approach problems of an anthropological kind, in some meaning of the term (ibid.). Furthermore, types are made through a conscious selection of the attributes. This is a process that adresses certain problems. The model shown in Fig. 3.1 illustrates this way of distinguishing classification from typology. The horizontal arrows in the typology diagram indicate that the division into types is not static and unchangeable but subject to negotiation and change. There are continuously questions and problems to be discussed, as the question marks indicate.The model does not insinuate that classification is an unconscious process, but that it is a method of assigning items to pre-established categories. This understanding of classification and typology corresponds to the way E. B. Banning (2002: 36) distinguishes between classification and grouping. He sees grouping as a process where items are arranged according to similarities between them but without any predefined classes. The philosophically important thing, according to Banning, is “that the starting-point is not an abstract model of how to conceptualize the items, but rather an actual collection of items” (ibid.). His concept of grouping is equivalent to typology in the model above. This is the understanding of typology (or typological classification) that will be employed in this study.

Top-down or bottom-up? Classification and typology may be seen as representing two diametrically opposite cognitive directions. The upwards direction of the vertical arrows in Fig. 3.1 is not casual but is a way of illustrating the bottom-up approach of typology. Classification should then be characterized conversely, with a top-down direction.This way of distinguishing classification and typology is suggested explicitly by Elschek and Stockmann (1969), who use their ideas for analysing folk-music instruments. Their upward typologizing starts on the level of each individual instrument with all its features, and subsequently groups instruments with combinations of these features into variants, groups of variants, and finally types.The types will hence be the result of similarity with regard to certain features. In traditional classifications of musical instruments the

Fig. 3.1: Classification and typology (after Klejn 1982: 2)

39

items are usually classified in accordance with pre-arranged classes from the top, starting with one single criterion, and continuing with the introduction of new criteria downwards in the system in accordance with the level of specificity.The established classification system of Hornbostel and Sachs (1914), used in museums and collections of musical instruments, is the best known example of this method. The difference between the upward and downward approaches is somewhat intricate to grasp. Both may appear in a hierarchical form, and in either case the result is that one criterion at a time is used to distinguish between objects at each level of the system (Kvifte 1989: 64). By virtue of their logical order, the two approaches may give almost identical results. However, instead of being concerned with the logic of upward and downward methods, we should focus on the cognitive approach they represent. Do these concepts explain anything about how different researchers really work and think? In one respect upward thinking is more empirically oriented in that thorough studies of musical instruments or other artifacts should allow the material to guide the development of the typology. However, this is only apparent because we approach such artifacts and their attributes only through our preconceptions about how attributes should be selected and their importance evaluated. But does this mean that the resulting types are pure constructions, existing only as ideas in our minds? A debate about this and similar problems concerning the nature and significance of types took place in USA in the 1950s after a long and consolidating phase of archaeology during which few questioned the aim and purpose of typological work. Some archaeologists stressed that types were not “real” but entirely made by their constructors (Brew 1946; Ford 1954a, 1954b, 1954c). Others argued against this that archaeological materials consist of types with non-random attributes that have independent existence and may be identified through statistical treatment (Spaulding 1953, 1954). The debate became polarized between the two positions, one holding that types are “artificial”, “invented”, “constructed”, “designed”, “made”, “created” or similar, while the other maintained that types are “real”, “observable”, “recognized”, “natural”,“discovered”, etc. (Klejn 1982). Although the dichotomy between types as “constructed” or “real” may provide a tool for thinking about the nature of types and typology, we should seek a solution somewhere between these two poles. Epistemologically, the former conditional model is as impracticable as the latter empiricist model (Hill and Evans 1972: 233–4; Klejn op. cit.: 95).There has to be a theory governing the selection of typological attributes, and there has to be at least some information potential in the material itself, independently of the researcher’s theoretical standpoint. This is a philosophical question about the direction of the research process – whether it goes from theory to data or vice-versa.The question of which comes first, and which of the two directions the reasoning process takes, is impossible to answer, like the question of which came

first, the hen or the egg. Our theories alone do not determine what we find in the material, and in isolation the material does not lead to any conclusions. We should consequently try to avoid dichotomies suggesting that the research process is led by either theory or data, that it is either intrinsically subjective or objective. Typologizing should be regarded as a dialectical process (Adams and Adams 1991), a continuous negotiation between the pre-understandings (Hodder 1999: 49–51) of the researcher and the material objects themselves. During the process the typologist must adjust the conception of each type by matching the purpose and ideas to the empirical and tangible aspects of the objects on the table. In the early phase of a type definition process we should be open to intuitive experience and comprehension of the types on empirical grounds, though still with reference to a backdrop of pre-understandings. If a type proves to be of little or no relevance for the purpose of the study, it is necessary to revise or eliminate it. If the analysis of the material leads us in new and different directions, we should reconsider the composition of the typology, in some cases even its purpose. The typology will, thus, develop dialectically as we proceed from intuitive and tentative types to exact and formalized definitions of types. This way of typologizing is similar to the reasoning process Hodder describes as “fitting” rather that “testing”. It is too easy to describe archaeological reasoning as a process of testing theory against data. Archaeologists work by fitting theory and data together until a coherent whole is reached.The fitting of theory and data, and of wholes and parts, are hermeneutical processes (Hodder 1999: 62–5). Generally, such an emphasis on fitting rather than testing reflects an aim to dissociate from hard and scientific archaeologies in favour of hermeneutical approaches. Moreover, it implies the recognition that archaeological data are not just of secondary importance but something that should lead our interpretations, at least partly: “What fits this observation? Why is this jew’s harp so small and tiny? Is it a children’s toy?”, etc. Such questions, observations and pieces of evidence are fitted together with each other and with broader views and ideas, eventually producing interpretations and knowledge. To return to the question of upward versus downward classification: it is evident that classificatory reasoning goes in both directions. We think back and forwards from the general to the particular (downwards) and from the particular to the general (upwards). Our minds move in both of these directions. But the dichotomy is still useful because we can think that our reasoning goes more in one direction than another. I feel that the concept of upwards reasoning – even if it is an illusion – provides an understanding of and a key to typological method and work. It means that we can decide to start literally from the bottom, by studying the material or data. To work and think near the objects in consideration, and even with them, leads to an emphasis on practice.

40

It reflects an aim to study artifacts thoroughly and comprehensively, with precision and accuracy, from the level of individual specimens. In biology, comprehensive studies from micro-taxonomical perspectives may lead to new conceptions of the world. To exemplify: the Norwegian botanist Simen O. F. Omang (1867–1953) could, after years devoted to studies of hawkweeds (Hieraceum), describe several hundred species and subspecies (Omang 1935). From one point of view his studies revealed something about the world “as it is” because these species and subspecies do exist, though we could still question the purpose of describing and defining all of them instead of merely establishing that this genus of plants has great genetic variety. When we typologize human artifacts we are unlikely to reveal something about natural orders. Some scholars assert the existence of such orders, for example the classifier of musical instruments Heyde (1975), who claims that his classification system is natural and genetic, waiting to be discovered (cf. the debate about the “real” existence of types, above). But we should still search for some kind of order in or behind the material, if not a natural order. The possible order may be a developmental sequence or a pattern resulting from individual actions, as when different artists have made their individual expression through “types”.Types are the result of human processes, either from a supra-individual, long-term perspective or at the level of the individual. If typologies aim to solve anthropological problems (Hayden 1984: 80), they should explain something about these cultural and human processes behind the types.

problems, in some areas there is a reasonable possibility of finding a correspondence between emic classification and our etic types, especially when the types concern functional and practical uses of artifacts, as with ceramic vessels and various kitchen utensils (op. cit.: 88–9; Koch 1998: 64). In cases where there is little or no ethno-historical knowledge, we can still create types that are close to possible emic categories if this is relevant for the study.This is the critical point to make. It is not possible to make general statements about the relation between emic and etic types as the correspondence between them will vary according to the aims and purpose of the study. Sometimes it may be completely irrelevant to consider emic categories, while at other times it is of great importance if the questions the researcher has in mind are to be dealt with. Emic types, or an emic typology, are not important for the purposes of the present work. Any correlation between my (etic) types and their emic significance is random. However, a typological approach based on the technology of manufacture, which will be demonstrated later in this chapter, may be seen as a way of taking the perspective of the jew’s harp makers and, accordingly, may reveal or suggest emic types.

Purpose and practice The main purpose of arranging the archaeological jew’s harp material typologically is to find a key to the chronology, as explained in the introduction to this chapter. I therefore relate to typology in the original sense, as a chronological tool. However, I also seek to clarify other relations between the objects by identifying manufacturing traditions and possible local trends that cross the large-scale developments. No systematic study of the material in an international perspective has been made, and a typology will therefore provide a basis for various analyses of the material. There are indeed several possibilities for typological analysis, for example from acoustical or musical viewpoints. However, with too many purposes there is a risk of ending in chaos.At the same time it is important that the analysis is not too focused on the clarification of certain questions.The process in itself is also important. In other words, it is a matter of finding a balance between purpose and practice. As illustrated in the previous section, typologizing, like all archaeological reasoning, is a dialectical process of to-andfro-movement between materials and ideas. It is not only a matter of letting a purpose or a goal of constructing a typology govern the work and produce the final answers, at least not in this case. It has been my experience that the typological work has proceeded along a very winding road. Sometimes I have seen my purposes and the resulting tables of types very clearly, while at other times I have questioned this kind of work in fundamental ways.Although it has sometimes been hard to retain one’s enthusiasm, I regard such negotiations as something positive. They symbolize the entire research

Emic or etic types? Yet another question is whether people of the past had any awareness of types, and if it is possible to discover these today. These questions concern the relation between etic and emic types (Hayden 1984). Etic types are created by researchers for the purpose of their analyses, whereas emic types are those that a society or members of a society use for classification. Hence, in archaeology emic types reflect the views of the actors in the historical societies under consideration. At the outset, the concepts of etic and emic are very problematic, as several authors have discussed. From one point of view, all types are inevitably etic as long as they come into being when the researcher defines them. If it makes sense to speak of emic types of the past, we can gain knowledge of them through analogies from living people and traditions. Such knowledge can never be more than suggestive, and there are several difficulties at this stage. One is that emic categories often vary according to different societies and the different roles of individuals. For instance, specialists within arts and crafts have developed special terminologies for their subjects. Another problem is that people are not always aware of the rules they use in their behaviour. Not all aspects of cultures and practices are subject to conscious classification and formalization (Hayden, op. cit.: 83–6). Despite these and other

41

process, where empirical considerations arising from studying the artifacts are always negotiated in relation to ideas and purposes on a larger scale. Before introducing the typological arrangements I will describe some earlier typologies of similar materials. I will also refer to my own earlier typological work, in order to explain better my reasoning.

type.The limited importance of such a typology also stems from practical considerations. Probably very few people would spend time trying to arrive at a typology of this kind, particularly if its overall structure is difficult to follow and the verbal descriptions are not accompanied by illustrations, as in this case. This is an important point concerning any kind of classification.They should be well arranged and easy to follow to have any utility. Despite these objections, I should emphasize the tentative character of my master’s thesis.The same is true of my next typological arrangement (Kolltveit 2000), which considered material from Europe as a whole. This typology is easier to follow.The idea was to identify some main types and then to assess their possible chronological significance. I defined five types, of which three comprised iron harps (types 1–3) and two comprised copper alloy harps (types 4–5).The definitions of the types were as follows: type one: iron, forged, length 60–95 mm, the arms occupying more than two-thirds of the length; type two: iron, forged, length 50–65 mm, the arms occupying more than half of the length; type three: iron, forged or bent from a rod, the arms occupying half or less of the length; type four: copper alloy, the arms occupying more than two-thirds of the length; type five: copper alloy, the arms occupying from half to two-thirds of the length. Type one consisted of “archaic” iron harps with long overall length and long arms, similar to Meyer and Oesch’s type A.The copper alloy type four had correspondingly long arms. In typological “contrast” to type one was type three, which comprised harps with short arms in relation to their total length.The copper alloy type five also had shorter arms, like number three.Types two and five have an especially distinctive appearance. Both are numerous and have a homogeneous look. Compared to the other types, it was easy to identify the members of these. The three typologies described above are inexpedient for three reasons: first, Meyer and Oesch’s (op. cit.) and my initial contribution (Kolltveit 1996) were both designed for a geographically restricted area, respectively Switzerland and Scandinavia.There is nothing wrong with working with limited areas.The material is easier to survey in greater depth, and it is easier to identify local or regional traditions. In the present work, however, it would be more promising to build a typology on an international survey because the material results from extensive trade. Moreover, the larger the body of material, the greater is the likelihood of constructing a reliable typology. Second, if my first typology (1996) was too complex, my next attempt (2000) failed because it was too simplified in that the five types did not encompass the typological variety of the entire material.There is nothing wrong with simplification, but in this case it had no particular rationale; it did not facilitate chronology or other purposes well. Third, the types were not well defined.That Meyer and Oesch used only one variable could, from one perspective, be an advantage, but as the suggested bow shapes are difficult to distinguish it is difficult to benefit from their approach. As for my typologies, the type definitions were not consistent. Some

Earlier typologies Typologies of ethnographical jew’s harp material, such as those by Sachs (1917) or Dournon-Taurelle and Wright (1978), are outside the scope of this study. One reason is that they consider material from throughout the world, in which there is a notable typological diversity that is irrelevant for Europe. Another is that archaeological materials demand a different approach because the specimens are more or less fragmented relics of the original instruments. Regina Plate classifies the frames of metal jew’s harps partly in terms of bow shapes (Plate 1992: 29–30). Her seven classes are a mixture of forms found in archaeological, iconographical and ethnographical sources dating from the Middle Ages to the 20th century. Due to such a span, as well as a certain lack of purpose, the utility of the typology is limited. One of the few typologies of archaeological jew’s harps is that of Meyer and Oesch (1972: 217–22), which applies to Swiss material. Like Plate, they use bow shapes as the constituting variable.Their scheme of seven types, from A to G, is intended to entail chronological significance to some degree. Type A is hairpin-shaped with a small or circular bow, type B has a cross oval (“queroval”) bow, type C a high oval (“hochoval”) bow, type D a half oval (“halboval”) bow, and type E a circular bow. The two last types are chronologically more recent: type F has double lamella (no. 542), whereas on type G two small devices that the authors interpret as “handles” (“Griffplättchen”) support the bow (cf. no. 535).The applied bow shapes work for Meyer and Oesch’s material, though it is reasonable to think that distinguishing between them and classifying according to them would be difficult. Another problem with the typology is that its chronological relevance is somewhat unclear. The types from B to E are all from the period from the 14th to the 16th century. Moreover, the material is scarce, and the datings of the types are not always reliable. The typology is barely applicable to areas outside Switzerland, though it does not claim an international relevance. I have made two attempts at typologies myself. The first was in my MA thesis, which considered Scandinavian material (Kolltveit 1996: 80–6). I described seven types, of which several had sub-groups. I used a large number of variable attributes, but I was unable to produce a systematic or hierarchical system. The resulting typology was suggestive of a typological variety, but its significance was rather restricted as it was too complex. Among other things this had to do with the number of variables involved.The more variables, and the more types there are, the more chance there is of ending up with a blind typology with only a few objects per

42

ing and bending from a rod were methods used with iron, while casting was almost entirely confined to copper alloys. As far as the methods used with iron are concerned, it is sometimes hard to determine which jew’s harps have been bent from a rod or forged. The identification of cast (copper-alloy) pieces and differentiation between them and the iron forms are usually easier.

variables were not used across all types – for instance, total length. Moreover, the variable “the relation of the length of the arms to the length of the frame” was used throughout (in Kolltveit 2000), but was not sufficiently formalized.To exemplify, when the arms occupy “more than two-thirds of the length”, they also occupy “more than half of the length”. In sum, the typological arrangements were either too simplified (did not comprise the diversity of the material) or too complex (inconsistent definitions and difficult to follow).This reflects the nature of the material. It is indeed difficult to devise a system that is consistent and understandable and at the same time respects both technological diversity and chronology. A key step in proceeding from these typologies and their problems is to clarify two matters.The first is about purpose; the second concerns the form of the typology.As for purpose, one has to decide whether the main intention is to make a tool for chronological interpretation, or whether the exercise has some other goal.The answer, as reported earlier, is that the main intention is to find a key to the chronology. Regarding the form of the typology, the question here is whether a formal typology with a hierarchical structure is preferable to an informal outline of certain typological developments or tendencies in the material. My choice has been to approach the matter in three ways. First, I introduce a consistent formal typology with a hierarchical structure that covers the diversity of the material as fully as possible. It is not chronological, but is indicative of, and built on, technology as reflected in the way the instruments are made and the materials they are made from. Second, I will approach the chronology, by evaluating some morphological developments and tendencies in the material, without attempting to set up a typology of a formal kind. Third, I seek to bring these two perspectives together. However, I will start from an empirical point of view, by introducing and discussing the variable attributes that are used in the subsequent typological analysis. Despite the poor preservation of the majority of the objects, this introduction will demonstrate that there are many observable variables.

Cross-section of the bow The common cross-section of the arms is diamond-shaped, with one edge of the frame pointing inwards towards the flexing portion of the lamella.The single exception to this is a 13th century jew’s harp from Uppsala (no. 122) where plane sides of the arms face the lamella. For classification purposes it is therefore not useful to consider the cross-section of the arms as a variable. The cross-section of the bow, on the other hand, shows more variation. It is also more difficult to identify the form of this section because it may not be uniform along the whole length of the bow. There is a notable tendency for the section around the attachment point of the lamella to be corroded as a result of the hammering done to fix it in place. The best place to observe the section is therefore at each side, or “corner”, of the bow, half way between the attachment point and the beginning of the arms. The current practice in archaeological documentation is to illustrate the section with a drawing. Although this is in many ways the most precise way of illustrating this feature, for classificatory purposes a set of terms is required. Earlier I used four terms, or classes, to describe the crosssection of the bow:“upright”,“lying”,“square” and “on the edge” (Kolltveit 2000). The term upright was applied to describe the typical cross-section of a harp forged in the conventional way, where the frame is flattened before the rod is bent into shape (p. 24). With several of the typical medieval forged forms, the thickness of the bow is often about twice its width.To refer to this as “upright” – as the opposite of “lying” – may not always be unmistakable. It presupposes a up–down-view of the instrument, as when it is placed flat on a table.The main reason for abandoning the term was that I have found it most important to apply terms that are suggestive of technology. I therefore prefer hexagonal to upright because the method of forging that is referred to here produces a hexagonal cross-section. Most often only a narrow edge remains at the top and bottom of the iron (Fig.3.2, Hexagonal A), but it can also be more truly hexagonal in appearance, with all six sides having equal dimensions (Fig.3.2, Hexagonal B).The shape of the cross-section is sometimes unclear and not easy to recognize, but on close inspection it is usually possible to identify some kind of hexagonal shape to the bow with this common way of forging jew’s harps. Continuing with this topic, the second method of forging described in Chapter 2 (p. 25) produces a diamond-shaped cross-section.The reason for discarding my earlier term “on the edge” is that it may cause confusion as, strictly speaking,

Definition of variables Material Two principal kinds of frame material are identified: iron (Fe), and copper (Cu) alloys. A classification of these would encompass the type of metal (iron or copper), and where determinable other constituents, such as carbon in the iron and the metal alloyed with the copper. One could also examine specimens for signs of gilding, and which frame metal is involved in such cases. It was not feasible to have laboratory analyses of the composition and quality of the metals done, so the materials have simply been classified as either iron or copper alloy. Method of manufacture As discussed in Chapter 2 on technology, three basic methods of frame manufacture can be discerned: forging, casting, and cold bending from a rod.We can also establish that forg-

43

the hexagonal type also rests on an edge when placed flat. The occasionally used term “lozenge-shaped” tends to cloud the issue because a lozenge is commonly understood as a rhomb, which is defined as a parallelogram where all sides are equal but the angles are not right. Certainly, this is often true of the cross-section in question here (Fig.3.2, Diamond-shaped B and C). However, it also materializes as the special case of a square (Fig. 3.2, Diamond-shaped A), which is not the same as a rhomb or a lozenge.Accordingly, diamond-shaped encompasses better the slight variation in this group of sections. I have therefore found this term to be the best generic term to describe sections where the metal presents edges “outwards” (away from the lamella) and “inwards” (towards the lamella) (cf. Fig. 2.1B and C, p. 23). In cast harps the cross-section of the frame is usually diamond-shaped throughout. But in some harps the upper and lower edges (those edges not facing outwards or inwards towards the lamella) are somewhat rounded (Fig. 3.2, Diamond-shaped D).To avoid too much complexity, I still refer to them as diamond-shaped. In some cast harps the cross-section is clearly hexagonal (nos 148, 209, 234, 239–40, 251, 283). In the database I have classified these as hexagonal despite the fact that in such cases this feature has nothing to do with the forging technique that produces hexagonal sections in iron harps. The last type of section is the rectangular cross-section, which corresponds to the third method of forging (p. 25). Rectangular covers my earlier terms “square” and “lying” (Fig. 3.2, Rectangular A and B). As I do not find any specific reason to distinguish lying from square sections, although they are easily identified, rectangular will be used to include both in the typological discussion. Finally, there are some pieces where the bow is twisted.The metal is first forged into a square rod and subsequently twisted. Strictly speaking, this type of cross-section is not twisted but has a random and varied appearance, perhaps tending towards octagonal or square. Nevertheless, it is still most expedient to use the term twisted in order to avoid confusion and produce the clearest association with this contrivance. To sum up, I distinguish between four principal cross-sections: hexagonal, rectangular, diamond-shaped and twisted.

Attachment of the lamella to the frame In Chapter 2 (p. 28) it was established that two principal means of attaching the lamella to the bow can be identified.The lamella is either placed into a notch in the frame and secured by hammering adjacent metal over it, or it is inserted into a hole in the frame and secured by a wedge. These are referred to as, respectively, hammered and wedged forms of attachment. The shape of the bow One of the most difficult variable attributes of jew’s harps to define and describe is the shape of the bow. A problem that arises here is how many terms to use. Generally, the rule is that the newer the pieces are, the more bow shapes are found. For instance, English mass-produced models from the 19th and early 20th centuries display a wide variety of forms and shapes. One publication gives evidence of almost 15 shapes, several of which are highly elaborate (Boone 1972: 24–25, plates II–III). A catalogue from 1814 by the jew’s harp manufacturer John Barnsley, of Netherton in England, gives the names of some types, including “New Scotch Pattern”, “Glasgow Pattern”, “Aberdeen Pattern”, and “Irish Pattern” (Dournon-Taurelle and Wright 1978: 198, plate XIII). Terms describing the bow shape are also applied to continental material. These include “Deutsche”, “Ganauser”,“Lyra” and “Eichel” (Klier 1956: 72).These are recent and therefore not relevant archaeologically, although such harps are sometimes found with metal detectors or in the top layers of excavations. To devise a terminology that covers all the variations in bow shapes from all periods is beyond our scope here, of course.The bow shapes employed in this study have been developed for use with archaeological materials, which very broadly speaking extend up to the 17th and 18th centuries. As regards the definitions of bow shapes and the divisions between them, this is always a problem. An element of subjectivity will always be involved in this type of classification. One moment a particular harp looks circular, the next moment the same harp looks oval. There are many intermediate forms.With several harps I have changed my mind many times.To avoid subjectivity, one could set up a system

Fig. 3.2: The proposed terms to describe the cross-section of the bow. The sections produced by twisted bows are subject to variation and so are not illustrated here.

44

with measured, gradual steps. However, I doubt that such analysis would be very promising, unless a special theory about bow shapes required such an approach. For my purposes I find it better to operate with a system that museum curators and others with no special interest in jew’s harps can apply with no difficulty (Fig. 3.3) The most obvious bow shapes are triangular and circular, and these are the easiest to use in classification. Yet they often tend to resemble each other and other forms. Oval is correspondingly hard to define, especially when it seems to merge with the triangular and circular forms, making it tricky to distinguish between them. It is expedient to divide the oval class into sub-groups. I use the terms oval and narrow oval for oval shapes whose long axis is perpendicular to the arms, while long oval denotes the only oval shape where the long axis has the same alignment as the arms. Initially I did not intend to include the last of these because I felt it confused the typological work, and because it appeared to be a scarce and recent shape. I changed my mind after a visit to Zürich to examine the harps from Hallwil Castle. Many had precisely this shape, although in other respects they resemble common forged examples from the Middle Ages. Outside Switzerland the long oval shape is found only rarely. One special case is the form referred to as hairpin-shaped. Some of these are entirely lacking in any indication of a “bow” or a widened section around the attachment of the lamella. In others the form of their insignificant bows can be interpreted as circular or oval. The decision about how to classify such pieces is a matter of pure choice, as in many other cases. Copper alloy examples with a small lump indicating a demarcation between the arms and the bow, and with the frame rounded near the attachment of the lamella (e.g. no. 481), I tend to classify as circular, or circular/hairpinshaped. Iron instruments lacking this small feature I usually regard as hairpin-shaped. D-shaped is one of the typical bow shapes of harps manufactured until recently in Molln in Austria, and probably still is (Klier 1956, Mohr 1998). Some archaeological examples are very clearly shaped like a D (e.g. nos 101, 140) while others tend towards oval or circular forms (e.g. nos 580, 699).The D-shape is probably a late development, but the term has been retained here as part of the classificatory scheme because several archaeological harps have this shape. Another apparently late shape is square, which is more unusual but has also been included in the classes. The trefoil-shape is found in late harps, where it was termed “Eichel” in Austria (Klier, op. cit.: 72; Plate 1992: 30).

Only two archaeological examples exhibit this form (nos 238, 721), albeit in a different manner than the late pieces. They are both medieval, and one of them dates back to before 1360 (no. 721). This illustrates that somewhat deviant forms were used at an early stage. Extension of the lamella beyond the frame In the database I have recorded whether or not an instrument has an extension of the lamella beyond the frame, referred to as a tail-piece. To qualify as an extension, the lamella should protrude three to four millimetres or more from the back of the bow. Dimensions, proportions and weight The length and width of each harp are recorded in the database unless these measurements were not available. It is probable that unusually long or wide instruments had no special function. Very small examples are interpreted as children’s harps (p. 109). Otherwise I have not used size as a variable for systematic research purposes. Proportions offer a promising line of analysis. One is the relation between the arms and the frame as a whole, formulated here as the length of the arms (AL) divided by the overall length (OL).This relation has been calculated for all objects for which the two measurements are recorded in the database. I have not weighed the specimens, but several had already been weighed as part of the archaeological documentation kept by museums and excavation teams. Weights are not used systematically here, but this attribute could be used for a variety of research purposes, for instance in conjunction with metal analyses.

Technology: a hierarchical approach From one point of view, all the attributes of a jew’s harp can be traced back to technology.The typological diversity we see is about technology. So a knowledge of technology provides a basis for revealing how the different attributes result from the process of manufacture. This is not only about the attributes in isolation, but also about the relations between them. A technological point of departure is the most informative way of making a typological classification that includes more than one variable attribute. In this section the material will be arranged systematically according to a hierarchical classification system in which technology is the frame of reference, whereas chronology is

Fig. 3.3: Terminology for bow shapes

45

Fig. 3.4: Classification hierarchy determined on the basis of technology and inclusive of all the catalogued material. The variables are, from left to right: material, method of manufacture, cross-section of the bow and method of attaching the lamella.

not part of the approach. The idea is not to mix the purposes at this stage. This hierarchical approach is a means of securing a systematic and consistent form. The scheme introduces one variable attribute at each level downwards in the hierarchy. The approach may be seen as a kind of information language (Banning 2002: 57–62) that facilitates the classification. It is a digital information language insofar as the information is computerized, and it is a graphical information language since it appears visually. The reasoning process behind this work moves in two directions – top-down and bottom-up – in relation to the hierarchy, as discussed earlier (pp. 39–41).Yet I am certain that there would be no results without very thorough studies and documentary work from the bottom, at the detailed level of each individual specimen. Without this empirical foundation the very idea of this approach would, in fact, not be realizable. Nevertheless, I find it most expedient to start expounding from the top of the hierarchy. The most obvious and basic variable of technology is material. It is therefore placed at the top of the hierarchy. As stated earlier, the two materials used in manufacturing the frames are iron and copper alloys. The next level is method of manufacture, which is closely connected to choice of material. Building again on what was established earlier, the manufacture of iron harps is subdivided into forging and bending from a rod, while copper alloy harps are always cast. The third level is the cross-section of the bow, which should be regarded as an aspect of the manufacturing method. The four classes are hexagonal, rectangular, dia-

mond-shaped and twisted. Forged harps exhibit all the sections. Harps that are bent from a rod invariably have a diamond-shaped section, while cast examples exhibit hexagonal, diamond-shaped or rectangular sections. The fourth and final level of the hierarchy is the method of attaching the lamella, which is closely connected to the cross-section, as I will return to below.The wedged method is found in forged harps with rectangular or twisted sections and in cast harps with a rectangular section. Hammering is the only method seen in harps with hexagonal and diamond-shaped sections.The hierarchy is shown in Fig. 3.4. Although inclusive of all the catalogued material, the hierarchy claims no universal relevance. It comprises neither modern technology nor technology that we see applied in the case of ethnographical materials. It provides a means of covering the technology of the archaeological jew’s harp material, in which medieval and post-medieval finds coexist. It is also a tool for sorting the material on a technological basis. All pieces for which the relevant variables are recorded can be classified according to this scheme. Some of the branches contain very few pieces but are nevertheless important as they illustrate a typological variety. For an understanding of the technology, however, they are often insignificant because they have produced no models for further development. In contrast, the branches containing many entries are more important for the understanding of technology; in addition, they probably indicate mass production. To start from the top level, classification according to this scheme shows that iron was the most commonly used

46

15 per cent of the finds in both groups of materials, and that the unknown group at the top level, material, was 11 per cent. The objects in the unknown groups lack the relevant information for various reasons. These groups remain approximately the same relative size throughout the hierarchy. In order to explicate the significance of the hierarchy, let us now proceed downwards (i.e. from left to right in Fig. 3.4), first into the branches representing iron pieces. The group of forged harps exhibits most variation, with four different cross-sections. The classification gives the result shown in Fig. 3.7.

Fig. 3.5: Frequency of material used in manufacture

Fig. 3.7: Iron, forged: frequency of cross-sections

The most common is the hexagonal section, which reflects the most widespread way of manufacturing jew’s harps in the Middle Ages (see Chapter 2, pp. 24–5). 307 pieces have this section. The second most frequent is the diamond-shaped cross-section, exhibited by 71 harps. In these harps the frame often maintains its diamond-shape throughout. For that reason they resemble the other main class of iron harps, those bent up from a rod with cold working. Both the forged/hexagonal and forged/diamond-shaped classes are always accompanied by the hammered method of attaching the lamella.This indicates that the method used is closely connected to the cross-section: the hexagonal bow would be too weak a construction for wedging, whereas with diamond-shaped sections there would simply not be room to make a hole in the frame – hammering into a notch is the only possibility. Moreover, the diamond-shaped and hexagonal sections facilitate the making of the notch, which can easily be filed or cut into the sharp edge of the bow. Pieces with a rectangular section are accompanied by the wedged attachment method because it would be more difficult to add a notch into the bow when a flat side of the bow faces upwards. Or conversely: the reason for giving the bow a rectangular section is clearly to make it possible to wedge the lamella in a hole. Of the 39 forged/rectangular harps, 30 show the wedged method, with two the method of attachment is unknown, while the remaining seven have the hammered method and are therefore exceptions. These seven represent random and scarce phenomena: in four of them the lamella is hammered into a notch that has been placed on the frame where there is a large, clumpy

Fig. 3.6: Frequency of method of manufacture for iron (top) and Cu-alloy (bottom) harps

material (Fig. 3.5). 574 specimens are made of iron, while 167 are made of copper alloy. For 89 of the 830 pieces the material is not known. The classification according to the level of manufacture shows that 472 of the iron harps are forged, while only 14 are bent from a rod (Fig. 3.6). For 88 the method of manufacture is unknown. Of the copper alloy harps, 145 pieces fall into the only class, casting, while for 22 the method of manufacture is unknown. Note that the method of manufacture is unknown in about

47

Table 3.1: Iron jew’s harps made with bending from a rod (cold working) Country Austria

Latvia Norway Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

Place Kniepaß Fort Untererlbach-Hof, KG Alpbach Kufstein Fort Sonthofen, Allgau Valmiera Castle Ekeberg, Oslo Bykle, Setesdal Alvastra Monastery Kv. Thalia, Stockholm Alt-Wartburg, near Olten Thames Street, London

widening of the metal. This method, which should be regarded as a sub-group of the common hammered attachment method, is found in four pieces distributed geographically in the northern parts of Gudbrandsdal, Oppland County in Norway (nos 134–6, 334). The remaining three pieces (nos 122, 147, 295; Fig. 3.31, p. 62) appear to be the result of some kind of experimentation, or at least that those who made them were not part of an established community of jew’s harp makers. One (no. 295) is recorded as hammered, with a question mark added because the available documentation does not allow the attachment method to be precisely determined. In the other two the lamella is hammered in the usual way. Forging the bow to give it a rectangular section in combination with hammering the lamella into a notch was certainly an unusual way of manufacture. The twisted section is also found in combination with wedging. Frames with this type of section are formed by twisting a square rod.This is also a rare phenomenon inasmuch as only three entries (nos 214, 265, 699) are forged/twisted. The hierarchical branch iron/bent from a rod is very similar to the forged/diamond-shaped branch. It is often difficult to distinguish forging from cold working. However, the preliminary classification in this respect demonstrates that cold working is a fairly scarce phenomenon in the archaeological record.The 14 pieces that fall into this category are listed in Table 3.1. Of the 145 entries for cast copper-alloy items, 133 are classified according to cross-section (i.e. not as of unknown section). 121 of these fall into the diamond-shaped/hammered category.This is the dominant class of copper-alloy jew’s harps. The rest are unusual exceptions. Four of these exceptions have rectangular sections. Three of the latter (nos 211, 714, 828) are hammered, with ornamented patterns on the bow, and the notch for the lamella has been placed into a thickening of the frame. This is a sub-group of the hammered method. The fourth (no. 771) is probably wedged, judging from the photograph. Eight cast harps are recorded as having hexagonal sections (nos 148, 209, 234, 239–40, 251, 283, 794). Although their sections are clearly hexagonal, this peculiarity is entirely unrelated to the forging method

Id. No. 345–6 812 813–4 499 401–2 140 506 101 112 294 203

Dating Unknown 18th c. 1775–1800 Unknown 14th–17th c. Chance find 17th c. or later Medieval/Post-medieval 16th–17th c. Unknown 17th c.?

described for iron harps that results in hexagonal sections.

Morphological developments The hierarchy presented in the previous section provides a key to the technological diversity of the archaeological material, or at least some of it. Moreover, it is also intended as a basis for chronological analysis, which will be considered in this The general impression is that the branches representing rare pieces represent new developments. If we consider the iron items, the scarce forged/twisted class is most likely postmedieval.This also applies to harps bent from a rod without forging.There are no substantiated early datings among these specimens.The method is described from Molln in Austria as a later manufacturing technique than forging (Klier 1956: 73). Regarding copper alloy harps, specimens with rectangular and hexagonal sections are in all probability post-medieval developments. There are no reliable datings for harps with these features, but the lack of datings strengthens this interpretation.

Fig. 3.8: Classification hierarchy showing the branches of jew’s harps determined on the basis of technology in the Middle Ages

Consequently, there are some chronological developments within these technological attributes that suggest there was more typological variation in post-medieval times. If we eliminate the apparently post-medieval branches from the hierarchy, the medieval technology will remain. This is shown in Fig. 3.8. For the sake of clarity, the final hierarchical level of the attachment of the lamella is omitted from the chart. This hierarchy illustrates medieval technology.Yet not all the objects it includes are medieval as the figure shows the classes that contain medieval jew’s harps.The class with undoubtedly the most medieval material is the forged/hexagonal. The forged/diamond-shaped class also consists of medieval artifacts,

48

but not as many as the former class.The majority of the latter are certainly of post-medieval date, as is substantiated by many datings.81 As for the rectangular/wedged class, we can establish that neither was wedging a commonly employed method in the Middle Ages.82 The rectangular/hammered class is a scarce phenomenon. Although the three pieces attributed to it are certainly medieval (Fig. 3.31, p. 62), they definitely do not represent common medieval manufacturing traditions. To sum up, the data suggest that the diamond-shaped and rectangular classes of iron harps are unusual features of medieval technology. If we are to reveal the most common technologies of jew’s harp manufacture in the European Middle Ages, we should therefore exclude these branches from our hierarchy. The two technologies that remain are shown in Fig. 3.9.

The attributes used so far are those that were found to serve a systematic approach based on the technology of manufacture.There are certainly other attributes that can be used for chronological analysis. In the next subsections I will evaluate the chronological significance of three variable attributes: extension of the lamella, the ratio of arm length to overall length (AL/OL), and bow shapes.This will be a more informal discussion, and the design of hierarchies will be set aside.

Extension of the lamella In the search for attributes that are suggestive or indicative of chronology, let us first consider extensions of the lamella beyond the frame. Jew’s harps in India,Afghanistan and Nepal are often found with the base end of the lamella extending some way behind the frame as a “tail-piece” (cf. Fig. 2.10, p. 28 and Fig. 4.4C, p. 83). Sachs used this criterion as the only discriminative trait for the heteroglottic metal jew’s harp. He reported that the earliest European examples exhibited this feature, and deduced that they were the direct descendants of Asian instruments (Sachs 1917). If Sachs was right, this variable would be an important chronological marker, indicative both of age and of the Asian origin of the instrument. I considered that this was an important matter to clarify, and I have therefore recorded whether or not the catalogued instruments have an extension. To qualify as an extension, the lamella must protrude at least three to four millimetres beyond the back of the bow. The results so far do not support Sachs’ view. None of the archaeological pieces have long extensions comparable to the dimensions of this feature on Asian examples. Only twelve harps are recorded as exhibiting even a short extension (Table 3.2), and in ten of these the extension does not exceed four millimetres. Of the two remaining pieces, one with an extension of about six millimetres was excavated in Trondheim, Norway, and has been dated to around 1500 (no. 147).The other is a French piece excavated at Brandesen-Oissans, Isère (no. 331). This has a tailpiece measuring between eight and nine millimetres (estimated measurement from drawing).The dating of the object is 13th–14th century, and it is the only one of the twelve that belongs to the older group of excavated harps in Europe. During my studies of jew’s harps in museums and archaeological institutions, I have sought to detemine section. Initially, the chronological significance of the technological hierarchy will be established.

Fig. 3.9: Classification hierarchy illustrating the most common medieval branches of jew’s harps from the standpoint of technology

This elimination of the post-medieval and mainly postmedieval branches reveals the features of the most common medieval jew’s harps. These are large groups, still comprising different kinds of items. A better key to the chronology is therefore needed. Before moving on to attributes that are not part of the hierarchies, we should assess the chronological significance of material at the top level of the hierarchies. Both iron and copper alloy were common in the Middle Ages, but there is no evidence to suggest that there was a distinct development from one material to the other. Crane (1972: 19) argued that the earliest jew’s harps were made of bronze, with iron becoming the preferred material later.According to him, the transition took place around the 10th century.The problem with this is that no safely dated harps from Europe have been proved to predate the 13th century. From the 13th century onwards, there are no signs of development from one metal to another. Both iron and copper alloy are represented among the finds from the 13th century, though iron was the preferred material. In the post-medieval records copper alloy instruments appear more abundantly than earlier, especially in England, but iron is still common. We should therefore reject material as an important chronological variable.

Table 3.2: Jew’s harps with extension of the lamella behind the bow Country Place Id. No. Austria Enns 336 Denmark Hersegade, Roskilde 9 France Brandes-en-Oisans, Isère 331 Gironville 332 Norway Erkebispegården, Trondheim 147 Russia Novgorod 295 Sweden Falsterbo Castle 19 Kv. Haren, Skanör 26

81 These datings will be given in the next section (division of types; post-medieval iron). 82 This matter will be discussed in the next section (division of types; wedged attachment).

49

Ext. in mm 3–4 3–4 8–9 2–4 6 3–4 3–4 4–5

Dating Late medieval Unstratified 13th–14th c. 14th c. 1497–1532 14th c. Late 13th c.–1550 Late 13th-early 14th c.

United Kingdom

Kv. von Conow, Malmö Kvikkjokk Old Custom House site, London Loch Finlaggan, Isle of Islay Market Place, Carrickfergus Irish Quarter, Carrickfergus

36 129 222 380 430 432

for each instrument whether there is a possibility that it once had an extension of the lamella, and, conversely, whether there is anything that would exclude the possibility of an extension (cf. Fig. 1.2, p. 21). The reason for this part of the investigation is that the lamellae have always more or less disintegrated, and in examining an instrument it therefore seemed prudent to start by supposing that an extended portion once existed but has not survived.The observations were made systematically, but I have made no statistical report of them.The investigation established that for several pieces we should not exclude the possibility of a former extension. There is, however, nothing to suggest that this feature was common or widespread. I remain sceptical on the matter, and believe that tail-pieces were a scarce phenomenon. In non-archaeological jew’s harps, however, long tailpieces are found in Europe as well as in Asia. I do not know how common these are, but from the literature we know them from Belgium (Boone 1986, plate 5, no. 1, p. 16; Plate 1992: 36), Estonia (Sachs 1940, plate II, no. H, p. 42;Vertkov et al. 1987: fig. 256, p. 44), Italy (Midgley et al. 1976: 132) and Sweden (Kjellberg 1947: 25, Kjellström 1983: 176). On the basis of these preliminary results the presence or absence of a tail-piece cannot be considered a relevant variable for the chronological analysis of archaeological jew’s harp materials.

3 3–4 3–4 3–4 3 3

Medieval 1661–1702 1270–1350 Late 15th–early 16th c. 14th–15th c. 17th c.

of the arms (AL) and the overall length of the frame (OL). This ratio is automatically calculated for all objects in the database for which there is a record of both variables. The length of the bow (measured along the same direction as the arms) is hidden in the relation AL/OL. If the arms are long relative to the overall length, the bow is accordingly short, and vice versa. In reality, the point where arms become bow is not an exact one, and the measurement AL is therefore an estimate. As this is usually a question of a few millimetres at the very most, I believe it still serves the purpose. Sometimes, however, it is especially difficult to decide where the arms stop and the bow begins – notably in the case of hairpin-shaped harps. From one point of view these lack a bow altogether. I nevertheless measured the arms of these harps, regardless of whether the frame around the attachment of the lamella looks like a bow or not. In these cases I made the measurement from the point where the portion inside the arms starts to present a sharp edge towards the lamella (see for example nos 222 and 223). For various reasons measurements of AL and OL are not recorded for all 830 specimens in the Catalogue. Moreover, some measurements of overall length are entered in the database with an asterisk (*) to indicate that the original dimensions of the instrument were different, as when the arms are broken or bent out of position. In such cases, the measurement of arm length is not considered at all.After eliminating all cases for which no measurements are available or where they do not represent the original dimensions, 510 pieces are left.These are recorded with proper measurements of both AL and OL and can accordingly be investigated for the relation AL/OL. The ratio AL/OL was calculated as a percentage – i.e. it expresses the arm length as a percentage of the overall length.These data were sorted and found to range from 86 to 35 per cent. In other words, the relation is subject to great variation.The average is 61 per cent. The sorting of these data was a form of seriation, understood as a linear ordering of entities along a single scale (Adams and Adams 1991: 207).To utilize the data, however, a series like this is insufficient on its own. To search for a possible chronology in the relation AL/OL, it was necessary to compare the results for the analysable harps (those with AL/OL ratios) with the datings for the same harps where these were available. What I did, therefore, was to select harps with known dates and identify the AL/OL relations belonging to these.The result was a chronology where the entities of the analysis were sorted as a series of AL/OL relations.The main series, however, was the time line.The procedure should therefore be regarded as a double seriation. One problem with this approach, however, is that the datings of the specimens are very diverse, in the sense that they

The AL/OL ratio Several authors have suggested that the earliest jew’s harps had long arms relative to their bows, and that the instruments later developed shorter arms and large, open bows. This is claimed among others by Rydbeck (1968) and Sevåg (1970, 1973), and in the typology of Meyer and Oesch (1972) the prototype consists of hairpin-shaped examples. Iconography provides evidence that jew’s harps of the 16th and 17th centuries had quite short arms in relation to the bow. Relevant sources include works by the scholars Virdung (1511), Praetorius (1619) and Mersenne (1635). The earliest known iconographical evidence of a jew’s harp appears on a seal of the Trümpi family of Zurich, which dates back to 1353 (Geiser 1980: 95). The harp shown on the seal has relatively long arms, but is not hairpin-shaped. It resembles common archaeological examples from the same period. The first impressions from archaeology confirm this theory – but not unambiguously, because there are some harps with long arms that have late datings. Ethnography also suggests that in some places such forms have survived up to our time. I therefore decided to investigate the matter more closely. I formulated the relationship as one between the length

50

do not conform to one scale. They are specified in almost 150 different ways. In the database, which provides the basis of the investigation, I have entered the datings from publications, museums or other sources. They have been determined from the archaeological circumstances of the find and are not manipulated before they are entered into the database.To utilize the datings in seriation, it was absolutely necessary to edit or format them.The aim in doing this was to bring them into a single, consistent format, and to select the best datings, i.e. those which fall within relatively short periods of time. I began by eliminating the datings with limits that were too wide or which were inexpedient in other respects. Initially I excluded the following types of dating: • Unknown (238 examples) • Chance finds (i.e. chance finds that are undated from their context.) • No stratigraphical record • Medieval • Late medieval • Late medieval/post-medieval • Periods of more than two hundred years • Post-14th century, etc. • 14th century or later, etc. • All those with question marks • 9th–10th century.This concerns only no. 301 from Moldova.The reason for eliminating this is not to disregard the find but to avoid too much complexity in this part of the investigation.The question of the reliability of this find, and hence its typological significance, does not belong here. The next step was to plot two seriations, one with the datings sorted in periods of two hundred years and the other with periods of one hundred years. For the seriation with periods of two hundred years I divided the datings into three periods: the 13th–14th centuries, the 15th–16th centuries, and the 17th century onwards. It was then necessary to adjust the raw datings so that they could be plotted in one of the three periods.The following are the most important adjustments that were made: • Everything later than 1600 changed to 17th century onwards • Everything before 1400 changed to 13th–14th centuries • 1350–1500 changed to 15th–16th centuries, etc. • 1300–1450 changed to 13th–14th centuries, etc.The rule in this and the previous case was to change such datings into that of the double centuries where most of the period of the original dating belongs. • Around 1400 changed to 13th–14th centuries, etc.The reason for this is that the datings express the time when the objects were deposited in the ground. Consequently, a jew’s harp deposited in 1400 was used in the 14th century, not in the 15th. • 14th–15th centuries and 16th–17th centuries eliminated. These datings overlap both the adjacent periods equally, which they should fit into.To avoid errors, I decided to eliminate them.

• Late 13th–early 14th century eliminated. The seriation in periods of 100 years also required some editing. The datings were edited so that they could be included in one of eight centuries, from the 13th to the 18th century.The rules were fairly similar to those used for the previous set of edits: • Periods of more than one hundred years eliminated • Everything after 1800 eliminated • Everything before 1200 changed to 13th century • 1370–1420 changed to 14th century, etc. • 1380–1430 changed to 15th century, etc. • Around 1400 changed to 14th century, etc. • 1350–1450, etc., eliminated. • Late 13th–early 14th century eliminated The result after the first elimination and formatting was that 120 pieces could be used for the seriation with periods of 200 years, and 83 pieces for the seriation with single centuries. The datings themselves are of a mixed nature. I have not checked the background of all of them. However, the great majority are reliable because they are based solely on the find circumstances, which leaves little room for guesswork or estimation.Thus, the formatting performed on the datings selected for analysis means that they contain few errors. It should be noted too that many reliable datings had to be excluded because they fell on a threshold between the periods chosen for the seriation. The first seriation – in periods of two hundred years – shows that 62 of the 120 analysable pieces belong to the 13th and 14th centuries.The AL/OL ratio ranges from 54 to 86 per cent, with an average of 73 per cent. 35 pieces belong to the 15th and 16th centuries. Of these, AL/OL ranges from 38 to 83 per cent, with 64 per cent as average. In the last group, finds from the 17th century onwards, 23 pieces were available for the analysis. The AL/OL relation of these ranges from 42 to 68 per cent, with an average of 56 per cent.The findings are presented in Fig. 3.10. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 13th–14th c.

15th–16th c.

17th c.–

Fig. 3.10: Arm length (AL) as a percentage of overall length (OL) examined for three 200-year periods. Points indicate average values, squares indicate standard deviations from the average values, and horizontal lines indicate maximum and minimum values.

Before discussing these results, let us look at the investigation of AL/OL in periods of single centuries. The average values here range from 75 to 49 per cent.The number

51

OL

of pieces included in the investigation for each of the six centuries in question is: 9 (13th century), 24 (14th century), 18 (15th century), 12 (16th century), 15 (17th century), 5 (18th century).The results are presented in Fig 3.11. The significant tendency seen in both charts is that over time the arms gradually become shorter in relation to the overall length.The bars show that the average values follow a downward sloping line. In addition to this obvious tendency, there are two things to note. First, the average value in the 13th and 14th centuries is the same (75 per cent), and the maximum value is larger in the 14th than in the 13th century. Accordingly, the oldest harps do not always have the longest arms in relation to the

A

90%

AL 80% 70% 60%

OL

50% 40% 30% 13th c.

14th c.

15th c.

16th c.

17th c.

18th c.

Fig. 3.11: Arm length (AL) as a percentage of overall length (OL) examined for six 100-year periods

B

overall length, suggesting that this is a tendency rather than a rule. Several of the hairpin-shaped harps, for instance, are dated to the 14th and 15th centuries. It is more evident that harps with relatively shorter arms appear late, suggesting a situation like that illustrated in Fig. 3.12.

AL

Fig. 3.13: Plots of overall length (OL) against arm length (AL) for two-century (A) and one-century (B) periods. AL is given as the xaxis, OL as the y-axis. Measurements in millimetres. The data points are bounded by maximum and minimum AL/OL ratios, shown by the lower and upper diagonal lines, respectively.

for each find are plotted against each other. This diagram illustrates the absolute measurements of AL and OL, in addition to the relation between them.When we consider these measurements separately, observe a standardization of size in the post-medieval centuries, especially in the 17th century. Again, we see that harps from the 15th and 16th centuries are more subject to variation. On this basis we can conclude that the early jew’s harps are large, long, and with the arm occupying more of the overall length than in younger harps, which also tend to be smaller and shorter. Do variables other than OL and AL follow this general typological development? I have checked the AL/OL relation against other variables, with no notable results apart from bow shapes.

Fig. 3.12: Suggested general development of arm length (AL) as a percentage of overall length (OL)

Second, note that the relation AL/OL is more varied in the 15th and 16th centuries than in the previous and succeeding centuries. This variation is possibly due to experimentation, with less standardization than in the earliest phase.The turn of the 16th to the 17th century is very significant. Perhaps this illustrates a typological standardization due to mass production of an industrial character. An alternative way of showing the development supports this. In Fig. 3.13, instead of considering AL/OL as a percentage ratio, the AL and OL measurements

Bow shape The relation between bow shape and AL/OL was investigated in basically the same way as for the previous seriations. This could only be done for those objects where proper measurements allow AL/OL to be determined. Intermediate forms of bow shapes were eliminated, togeth-

52

er with the scarce forms square and trefoil-shaped. A total of 408 pieces were subjected to this analysis.The underlying hypothesis was that the hairpin-shaped and narrow oval shapes have the longest arms in relation to OL, while Dshaped and long oval exhibit the shortest arms in relation to OL. Oval and circular forms would be in the middle. Not surprisingly the results of this seriation, shown in Fig. 3.14, support the hypothesis.

oval shapes seem to lose popularity, while the circular shape becomes increasingly popular towards the post-medieval centuries. The diagram illustrates not only the relationship between the shapes but their absolute frequency. Note that the triangular and oval shapes are found very frequently in the Middle Ages.A typical jew’s harp from the 14th century is triangular or oval, or something in between these. One source of error in this investigation may arise from the fact that the bow shapes are defined somewhat subjectively. Another is that the selected objects represent only a small part of the entire material due to the exclusion of specimens with datings that could not be “edited” into a consistent format. However, I think that there is no reason to be too sceptical as the intention of the exercise is merely to illustrate a tendency.

AL/OL

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

Conclusion

40%

Two variables are probably more important than others with regard to chronology: the shape of the bow, and the length of the arms in relation to the length of the frame (AL/OL). On this basis, the following chronological propositions may be outlined: (1) The earliest finds have short bows and long arms, in contrast to the late medieval and post-medieval finds, which tend to have shorter arms in relation to the length of the frame. (2) The earliest finds are often hairpin-shaped, or have narrow oval and triangular bow shapes.The most common bow shapes of the late and post-medieval find are circular, D-shaped and long oval. In the middle lies oval, which connects to both the early phase and the late phase. The two variables involved – the shape of the bow and the relation between arm length and overall length – should not only be viewed separately.The relationship between them is relevant to the determination of a typological development: an increasing opening of the bow, from triangular to circular, is accompanied by a decreasing length of the arms in relation to the overall length. To sum up, there is evidence of a general typological development over time from jew’s harps with small bows and long arms towards jew’s harps with large, open bows and short arms.

30% l l r d al ed va ular va ula ape Ov O O ng ap rc h h i g s s w a C n Din- rro Tri Lo irp Na Ha

Fig. 3.14: Arm length (AL) as a percentage of overall length (OL) examined for different bow shapes. Points indicate average values, squares indicate standard deviations from the average values, and horizontal lines indicate maximum and minimum values.

The obvious conclusion from this would be that the illustrated development of bow shapes corresponds to chronology provided, of course, that the AL/OL relation proves to have chronological relevance. To confirm this matter, I decided to examine the relation between datings and bow shapes directly. I used the datings that had been formatted previously into periods of 200 years (see above). In addition to trefoil-shaped and square, I eliminated Dshaped and long oval because there are few good datings for them.This left 127 pieces for inclusion in the analysis.The results are shown in Fig. 3.15. 30 25

Frequency

20

Hairpin-shaped Narrow Oval Triangular Oval Circular

15 10

Technology and chronology: division of types

5 0

At this point we can state that the typologizing has produced some results. First, the technological hierarchies provided a key to some of the diversity. Second, some important typological developments were identified.This section aims to bring these two perspectives together by designing a more detailed typology that considers both the technological diversity and the chronological outlines from the previous section. One shortcoming of the foregoing hierarchies is that they

Time 13th–14th c.

15th–16th c.

17th c.–

Fig. 3.15: Development of bow shapes. The frequency of each bow shape is given on the y-axis, according to three periods of time on the x-axis. From the left, the periods are: 13th–14th century, 15th–16th century, and 17th century onwards.

The results quite clearly demonstrate that the development of bow shapes as shown in Fig. 3.14 coresponds to a chronological development.The triangular, oval, hairpin- and narrow

53

1900

Ekeberg

1800

Kufstein

1700

Stafford

Kvikkjokk Sperrboden

Rochester Gloucester

Höxter Damme

1600

? Bruck

Hallwil Pärnu

1500

Nijmegen

Horsens

1400

Kuusisto

Gironville

Kransen

1300

Billingsgate Schauenburg

Odiham

Greifswald

1200 Fig. 3.16: Chart showing the types with their chronological significance. The vertical lines indicate the period during which each type existed. The illustrations of the types are placed in the centre of what is assumed to be their main period.

54

did not succeed in encompassing the most relevant chronological aspects. Conversely, the discussion of morphological developments failed to take in the full diversity.This is symptomatic of the mixed nature of the material.Various kinds of jew’s harps have been used concurrently for centuries.We find a notable typological diversity already from the 13th century, and few evolutionary lines from one type to another may be identified. An elaborated typology must acknowledge that some elements of the chronology will remain fairly blurred. The idea here is to describe some types that are easy to recognize in the material.The aim is to construct a typology that is usable as well as useful, to cite Banning (2002: 55), to arrive at an arrangement that museum curators and archaeologists with no knowledge of jew’s harps could utilize. However consistent and systematic in approach, a typology that is timeconsuming to become familiar with or requires a special fascination for jew’s harps would not serve the purpose. The practicality of the typology is enhanced by drawings and reference to individual pieces that have given site names to the types. There are several reasons for using place or site names to represent the types. First, such names are easier to remember than letters or numbers. Second, a problem with letters or numbers is that they involve a notion of evolution. There will always be a tendency to think that type 1 is older or in some way more primitive than type 2, etc.This material is too complex to fit in a single-scale developmental scheme. Third, the names of sites will remain the same regardless of what happens to the typology. Thus, the jew’s harp from Kransen, Uppsala, Sweden (no. 120), that has given the name to the type “Kransen”, will always be an object from Kransen, even if our understanding of this type changes, and even if the type is omitted from the typology. Fourth, an important practical consideration follows from this: a jew’s harp may easily be compared to the find from Kransen without an explicit understanding of the type Kransen and with no knowledge of the rationale behind the typology as a whole. The type chart presented as Fig. 3.16 should be regarded as an important part of the typology, furthering the aim of practicability. The drawings of the types represent a graphical information language (Banning 2002: 57–8) in that they simplify the description of the types.All types are shown in three orientations, illustrating the most important technological features. They are deliberately shown without lamellae to avoid complexity and to keep the focus on more relevant features. This typology is constructed solely for archaeological materials, where the lamella has usually disintegrated. Most of the remainder of this chapter provides an explanation of the type chart, with descriptions of the types and their chronological significance. Each description is accompanied by an illustration of the specimen that has given the type its name. Moreover, every find in the Catalogue is depicted under its respective type. Only outlines of the specimens are depicted, to best serve the purpose here.The idea of this is to demonstrate the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity of the types. It is also meant as an illustration of the research process since the types were worked out partly by placing all

the images of the harps literally on a table and then sorting them on the basis of similarities and dissimilarities. The definitions of the types are based on combinations of features. Technological features like method of joining the lamella or cross-sections of the bow appear together with features like bow shape, length (OL) and the relation between the length of the arms (AL) to the overall length (AL/OL). Fig. 3.17 displays the relation between four of the types with regard to measurements only.

Kransen OL

Greifswald Bruck Hallwill

AL

Fig. 3.17: Length of the arms (AL), overall length (OL) and the relation between them (AL/OL), examined for the types Kransen, Greifswald, Bruck and Hallwil. AL is given on the x-axis, OL on the y-axis. Measurements in millimetres. The chart illustrates the difference between the types in terms of AL, OL and AL/OL. It also illustrates the homogeneity within the individual types. A concentration of plots indicates homogeneity.

Mainly medieval: Kransen, Billingsgate, Horsens, Hallwil, Bruck and Sperrboden types These types are all of the same composition (iron).They are forged, with the characteristic hexagonal cross-section of the bow, and their lamellae are hammered in place. The individual types are defined on the basis of their bow shape because this has a chronological relevance, as will be demonstrated. The exceptions to this are the types Bruck (miniature jew’s harps) and Sperrboden (with two lamellae). Kransen

Iron/Forged/Hexagonal/Hammered/ OL 50–65 mm/Triangular

55

Unlike the majority of archaeological jew’s harps, several of the Kransen specimens have rather good datings.The data suggest that the 14th century was the main period for the type. Some are dated 14th–15th or 14th–16th century, but there are actually few that are clearly post-14th century finds. One of the two small pieces from Amsterdam (no. 668) is among the few of this kind. Interestingly, not only its size (OL less than 50 mm) but also its bow shape deviate slightly from the archetypical form, strengthening the hypothesis that Kransen was an early type. Several finds are dated to the 13th–14th century, but only two examples may be ascribed with certainty to before 1300. One Estonian specimen from Otepaa Castle (no. 417) is dated to the 13th century. The earliest comes from Schönenwerd Castle in Switzerland (no. 612) and dates to around 1200, which makes it one of the oldest jew’s harps in Europe – if the dating is reliable. It was found in a fire level from around 1200 (Heid 1964: 48). Nonetheless, the Kransen type probably did not become common and widespread until the 14th century.

Fig. 3.18: Jew’s harp (no. 120) from the Quarter Kransen, Uppsala, Sweden (photo by the author, courtesy of Upplandsmuseet, Uppsala). It was found in a 14th century context.

The Kransen type has a triangular shape to the bow and is among the most uniform types.The overall length is usually between 55 and 60 millimetres, but is sometimes a little over 60 or down to around 50. Only two measure less than 50 millimetres (nos 667–8, Amsterdam). The average length of the type is 56.5 millimetres. Overall width is typically between 25 and 30 millimetres, with 26.8 as the average measurement. The arms occupy around 70 per cent of the overall length. The AL/OL ratio (Fig. 3.17), as well as the outlines of the 88 pieces ascribed to this type (Fig. 3.19), illustrate the homogeneity the Kransen type.

56

Fig. 3.19: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Kransen type. The harps are shown in no particular order.

Billingsgate Iron/Forged/Hexagonal/Hammered/Narrow oval

Fig. 3.21: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Billingsgate type: (A) with straight back to the bow, (B) with curved back to the bow

Fig. 3.20: Jew’s harp (no. 224) from Billingsgate lorry park, London (Wardle 1998: 285, fig. 217, no. 935). Dated to the period 1350–1400.

Horsens

The Billingsgate type is identified by the narrow oval shape of the bow (Figs 3.20 and 3.21). Average measurements are 58 (length) by 30 (width) millimetres. The AL/OL ratio, around 80 per cent, is very uniform throughout the specimens.This is probably due to the shape of the bow.The type consists of 26 examples. In most specimens of this type the back of the bow is straight (Fig. 3.21A). However, six have a deliberately curved bow (Fig. 3.21B). Since their chronological significance seems to be concordant they have been kept within the same type. The chronological significance is much the same as for the Kransen type, i.e. safely within the 14th century. The only find that may cast some doubt on this is one Danish entry (no. 7) excavated at the fishing village of Sandhagen, which was settled in the period 1550–1600.There are two interpretations. One possibility is that this single find indicates a continuous tradition of the type extending into postmedieval times.The other possibility is that the find coincidentally resembles the medieval finds of the Billingsgate type.The latter is the most reasonable theory.

Iron/Forged/Hexagonal/Hammered/Oval

Fig. 3.22: Jew’s harp (no. 1) from Fugholm Street, Horsens, Jylland, Denmark (Andersen et al. 1976: 115, fig. 9). Dated to the 14th or 15th century.

57

The Horsens type has an oval-shaped bow (Figs 3.22 and 3.23). Artifacts of this type were manufactured in the same way as the Kransen and Billingsgate types and have generally the same dimensions, but they are more heterogeneous.This is the most numerous type in the entire material, comprising a total of 137 pieces.The bow shape on these instruments is not always strictly oval – it would perhaps be more appropriate to describe it as more curved and open than the Kransen type.The heterogeneity arises predominantly from the slight variation of the bow shape.

58

Fig. 3.24: Jew’s harp (no. 541) from Hallwil Castle, Aargau, Switzerland (photo by author, courtesy of the Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich). The excavation does not allow a precise dating from the find circumstances. The castle was occupied from the late 12th century to the 19th century (Meyer and Oesch 1972: 217).

Items of the Hallwil type are characterized by the long oval bow shape and very short arms compared to the length of the bow (Figs 3.24 and 3.25).The AL/OL ratio is 35–45 per cent. The instruments are short, with a length that is usually less than 50 millimetres. Fig. 3.17, p. 55 also show the homogeneity of the type with regard to measurements and the AL/OL-ratio. (Cf. also cover photo.) Hallwil was chosen as the type name because of the abundance of finds (25 specimens) of this form at Hallwil Castle. The type is not recorded archaeologically outside Switzerland.

Fig. 3.23: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Horsens type

Horsens is later than the Kransen type inasmuch as the majority of the dated samples were deposited in the 15th century. However, the type did not first appear after 1400. There are several with 14th–15th century datings, and some are dated with confidence to the 14th century or earlier.The latter are one Slovakian (no. 460, Bratislava), one Swiss (no. 510, Bergeten) and one German piece (no. 174, Sulzbach), which are all earlier than 1400. Furthermore, two pieces from, respectively, Switzerland (no. 508, Lukmanier, Graubünden) and Austria (no. 811, Erpfenstein) are dated not later than the beginning of the 14th century.The former dates to the 13th/early 14th century, while the latter has been dated within tighter limits to the end of the 13th or the beginning of the 14th century. Finally, one find, which I have classified as of this type, is among the earliest finds in Europe. It comes from Lübeck, Germany (no. 493), where it was found in an archaeological context that dates it to around 1200 (Schalies 1989; 1992: 322–3). Although this very early dating makes the find unique, it indicates that the type was already in existence at the turn of the 12th/13h centuries. Despite the situation in this earliest phase, it is obvious that the Kransen and Billingsgate types are generally earlier (14th century) than most pieces of the Horsens type (14th–15th century). This is also in concordance with the general chronological tendency that the bows develop gradually into more open forms (cf. pp. 52–3).The Horsens type has a more curved and open bow than the Kransen and Billingsgate types. Hence, the Horsens type may be interpreted as an intermediate form between the Kransen and Billingsgate types (small bows with a relatively straight back) and the later Hallwil and Gloucester types (large, open bows). Hallwil Iron/Forged/Hexagonal/Hammered/Long oval

Fig. 3.25: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Hallwil type

Long oval is the bow shape that Meyer and Oesch (1972: 218–20) refer to as hochoval (high oval). It is very similar to Klier’s lyra (1956: 72). In her classification of bow shapes, Plate makes use of lyra (1992: 29, from Klier), but also of

59

Vogelkopf (op. cit.: 30) for another shape of the same kind. The latter derives from Mersenne’s 17th century illustration of a jew’s harp (Mersenne 1635/1957: 549). Mersenne (ibid.) shows a typical example of the Hallwil type, not only in respect of the bow shape but also in the method of forging, since the image demonstrates that the harp is many times thicker than wide in the bow (cf. no. 556 in the Catalogue).This printed source suggests that the Hallwil type existed in the 17th century. Several other depictions of what is probably this type are found in sources from the 17th and 18th centuries (Crane 2003b). However, that the type occurred much earlier is attested by iconographical sources from the 16th and the late 15th centuries.The 15th century source is the much-reproduced painting Madonna and Child, from around 1490, attributed to the Memling School (Boone 1972: 12, 32; 1986: 31; Crane, op. cit.: 29–30). One of the three angel musicians plays a jew’s harp that appears to have the high oval shape of the Hallwil type. If we turn to archaeology for chronological clues, the Hallwil finds provide no further information since the excavated objects are not dated to a period more confined than the occupation period of the castle, which was from the late 12th to the 19th century (Meyer and Oesch 1972: 217). Two Catalogue entries of this type were found at Mülenen Castle in Canton Schwyz (nos 523–4).These date to the 13th–16th centuries (Meyer 1970). Finally, one piece from Silvaplana/Surley in Canton Graubünden (no. 655) is dated to the 16th–18th centuries.83 Conclusively, then, the Hallwil type was certainly established in the 15th century, and perhaps earlier. It was probably common until the 18th century.

other forged harps with this feature, apart from the size. Most have a triangular shape to the bow.The type example from Austria is shown in Fig. 3.26.

Fig. 3.27: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Bruck type. Arrangement A–E described in text.

There is a slight variation within the type, especially in respect of the OL/AL ratio and the bow shape, though all may be regarded as triangular.The following is one way of grouping these miniature specimens (for illustrations of items A–E refer to Fig. 3.27): (A) Bow shape between triangular and high oval. The short arms occupy about half of the overall length (nos 489, 810). (B) Bow shape triangular, with very rounded corners. The short arms occupy about half of the length. Clear file marks on the arms (nos 35, 312, 731). (C) Bow shape triangular, with very pointed corners.The short arms occupy about half of the length (nos 536, 606–7, 610). (D) With triangular or oval bow.The arms occupy about two-thirds of the length. Apart from the small size, resembles the Kransen or Horsens types (nos 342, 539, 597–8, 600–4, 616, 636). (E) With high oval bow. The arms are shorter than the bow (no. 482). Only two dated pieces of the type are known: the type example from Bruck Castle, Tirol, Austria (no. 810, shown in Fig. 3.26), which is dated to the 16th century, and one French sample from Landskron Castle (no. 616), which dates to the 14th–16th century. If we judge from these, instruments of this kind were used around the time of the post-medieval shift. We may suppose that these tiny harps were used as toys for children. The discussion of this possible function is left to Chapter five (p. 109).

Bruck

Iron/Forged/Hexagonal/Hammered/OL less than 40 mm

Fig. 3.26: Jew’s harp (no. 810) from Bruck Castle, Tirol, Austria (Schick 2001: plate 1, no. 8). Dated to the 16th century (Schick, op. cit.: 120).

The Bruck type consists of very small and tiny instruments, with lengths measuring less than 40 millimetres.The bow is hexagonal in cross-section, and the type resembles

83 Information from Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Haldenstein.

60

et al. (2002) note, suggesting that they are different and probably represent an older tradition than the examples from the 19th century. A similar way of forging doubletongued jew’s harps is recorded from the Hutsul people of the Carpathians (op. cit.).

Sperrboden

Iron/Forged/Hexagonal/Hammered/Double (two lamellae)

Long arms, hairpin-shaped: Kuusisto, Schauenburg, Gironville and Kvikkjokk types Technologically, this group of types (Kuusisto, Schauenburg, Gironville, Kvikkjokk) is more heterogeneous than the preceding group, and for this reason they are difficult to classify. They share the feature of having arms that are long relative to the bow. They are either distinctively hairpin-shaped or have a small circular or oval bow. Kuusisto Iron/Forged/Hexagonal/Hammered/Hairpin-shaped

A

B

Fig. 3.28: (A) Jew’s harp with two lamellae (no. 349), found in Sperrboden, Molln, Upper Austria (Mohr 1999: 21, fig. 5). The bar in the middle is the remains of a third arm that separated the two lamellae, some traces of which are still visible each side of the middle arm. (B) Similar example (no. 542) from Hallwil Castle, Aargau, Switzerland (photo by author, courtesy of the Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich). Neither has been dated from its find context.

Fig. 3.29: Jew’s harp (no. 289) from Kuusisto (Kustö) Castle, Finland. Dating is mid- to late 15th century. The photo is taken before conservation. (Photo and information: Finnish National Museum)

The characteristic of this iron type is its hairpin-shape, though this feature shows slight variation within the type. The length of specimens varies from 55 to 91 millimetres. This is not an abundant type, as Fig. 3.30 shows. The Catalogue contains 15 entries classified as Kuusisto.

Harps of the Sperrboden type have two lamellae. The only two specimens discovered archaeologically so far are from Austria (no. 349) and Switzerland (no. 542) (Fig. 3.28). Neither has a reliable dating. Meyer and Oesch (1972: 221) are probably right when they suggest that the type is post-medieval. The earliest indication of doubletongued jew’s harps appears in a French written source from 1640 (Dallais et al. 2002: 20–1). These instruments probably first appeared in the 17th–18th centuries. The type is well documented from the 19th century.The Silesian scholar Wilhelm Ludwig Schmidt described and illustrated such harps (Schmidt 1840/1988: 104, 131, plate 3), and they are listed in trade catalogues from around the turn of the 19th/20th century (Crane 2003a). The two lamellae on these late pieces run parallel to the central arm along its entire length.This is different from the archaeological pieces, in which the lamellae are curved, running parallel to the central arm only in the embouchure section (Fig. 3.28B). Such instruments are difficult to produce, as Dallais

Fig. 3.30: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Kuusisto type: (A) entirely hairpin-shaped, (B) bow with oval inner profile, (C) bow slightly rounded

61

The type might be divided in three groups, in the following way: (A) The Finnish jew’s harp that has given the name to the type is unmistakably hairpin-shaped, with no trace of a widening section around the attachment of the lamella to the frame (Fig. 3.29). Similar instruments are found in Sweden, notably one from Ragnhildsholmen Castle (no. 107) and two from Ramundeboda Monastery (nos 109–10). (B) A few pieces resembling an example from the Old Custom House, London (no. 222), display an almost oval inner profile of the “bow”, resulting from the sharp inner edges of the arms which continue nearly all the way up to the base of the lamella. (C) Others exhibit a hint of a rounded bow, such as no. 287 from Turku Castle, Finland. Unfortunately, there are not too many well-confined datings for these objects.The Old Custom House find (no. 222) is dated to 1270–1350, corresponding to a similar London find dated 1330–1380 (no. 223). The similar Bischofstein harps (nos 613–14, 637–8) are found to date from 1150 to 1350. All these definitely belong to the older group of finds, but it is probably too simple to interpret them as prototypes or ancestors of the European metal jew’s harp, especially since the perhaps most truly hairpin-shaped piece from Kuusisto (no. 289) is dated much later, to the middle or last part of the 15th century.Another Finnish example (no. 287) dates to the late 15th–early 16th century. In addition to the specimens of the Kuusisto type, there are three specimens that should be mentioned here because they have much in common with this type.They also illustrate that pieces with very long arms compared to the bow (whether or not we regard them as hairpin-shaped) have a rather obscure chronological significance. The three pieces, from Uppsala, Sweden (no. 122), Trondheim, Norway (no. 147), and Novgorod,Russia (no.295),were mentioned in the description of the technological hierarchy (p. 48) because they share the unusual feature of a rectangular cross-section of the bow in combination with hammering as the method for joining the lamella to the frame.The three pieces are shown in Fig. 3.31. Despite their similarity, they are among the most individual pieces in the entire material.The one from Uppsala is the most unusual because its cross-section is rectangular throughout the frame. Plane sides of the arms therefore face the lamella, an arrangement that is not seen elsewhere in the Catalogue. A reconstruction of the instrument84 showed that the instrument was playable, although it produced a rather weak sound. Further, the bow is very thick, suggesting that the blacksmith worked a lot on it. It is exciting to reflect on possible innovative experiments represented by this artifact, especially since it was found in layers dating from as early as the 13th century. In the Trondheim and Novgorod examples the arms are bent into position, producing the typical diamond-shaped cross-section of the arms. Both have a small extension of the

A

B

C Fig. 3.31: Forged/rectangular jew’s harps with hammered lamella. (A) Kv. Disa, Uppsala, Sweden (no. 122), 13th century (photo by author, courtesy of Riksantikvarieämbätet, Uppsala). (B) Erkebispegården, Trondheim, Norway (no. 147), 1497–1532 (Ekroll et al. 1997: 83). (C) Novgorod (no. 295), 14th century (Povetkin 1992: fig. VII.3, no. 20, p. 211).

lamella behind the bow.Their lamellae are narrower than on the Uppsala piece. The harp from Trondheim has a thin lamella throughout, while on the Novgorod example it is very solid and thick at the base end.The lamella is preserved in both cases. The Trondheim harp is dated to 1497–1532, while the Novgorod harp is attributed to the 14th century. Novgorod, Uppsala and Trondheim certainly had contacts with other centres during these centuries – Novgorod, for example, had strong trade links with the Baltic area and the Hansa. However, since they seem to stand out from the rest of the material, apparently made by blacksmiths working outside the customary jew’s harp manufacturing practice, I have found it best not to ascribe them to a particular type. Schauenburg Iron/Forged/Hexagonal/Hammered/ Small bow/OL 60–90 mm

Fig. 3.32: Jew’s harp (no. 154) from Schauenburg, near Dossenheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (photo by author, courtesy of the Heimatmuseum der Gemeinde Dossenheim). Dated from the occupation period of the castle, which was 1130–1460 (Burkhart 1994, 1996).

84 The reconstruction was made for the author by the Norwegian blacksmith Terje Mathisen, from Gjøvik.

62

The Schauenburg type consists of long jew’s harps with long arms in relation to the overall length (Figs 3.32 and 3.33). The average AL/OL ratio is 73 per cent. They have much in common with the hairpin-shaped Kuusisto type. The bow shape is subject to variation. Some specimens resemble the Kransen or Horsens type, but they always have longer arms and are generally larger and more solid.

Fig. 3.34: Jew’s harp (no. 332) from Gironville, Ain, Rhône-Alpes, France. Dated to the 14th century (Homo-Lechner 1996: 134).

The Gironville type (Fig. 3.34) is related to both the Kuusisto and Schauenburg types, though it is not as distinctively hairpin-shaped as the Kuusisto type.The average AL/OL ratio is 73 per cent, similar to the Schauenburg type. What distinguishes it from Schauenburg is the diamond-shaped cross-section of the bow. Although this is a typical feature of the forging method commonly used in the post-medieval era, objects of this type should be associated with the Middle Ages, as the datings confirm.

Fig. 3.33: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Schauenburg type

The earliest datings fall in the late 13th–early 14th century. These are for two pieces from Sweden (Visby and Uppsala, nos 85, 124). One German find is from the period 1300–1350 (Einbeck, no. 158), while one from Liechtenstein dates from 13th_14th century (Neu-Schellenberg Castle, no. 617). Others are apparently two centuries later, such as one find from Visgerád Castle, Hungary (no. 362), which is dated to the 16th century or later, and one from Loch Finlaggan, Scotland (no. 380), with a more confined dating to the period late 15th–early 16th century. None are with certainty post-medieval.The type probably had its main period in the 14th and, perhaps, 15th centuries.

Fig. 3.35: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Gironville type

The outline chart (Fig. 3.35) shows that the type is not so very homogeneous. There are several ways of grouping instruments of this type and, possibly, identifying sub-types. For instance, three Swedish pieces (nos 19, 36, 145) are almost identical. The same can be said of another Swedish piece (no. 74) and a British example (no. 228). Furthermore, there is an interesting similarity between three examples, nos 137, 248 and 800 from, respectively, Norway, the United Kingdom and Denmark (Fig. 3.36). These represent intermediate forms between diamond-shaped and hexagonal sections. Interestingly, they show that this type of classification is difficult.The makers would probably not have used the terms “diamond-shaped” or “hexagonal” to describe the cross-section of the bows.

Gironville Iron/Forged/Diamond-shaped/Hammered/ Small bow/OL 60–90 mm

63

A Fig. 3.37: Jew’s harp (no. 129) from Kvikkjokk, Jokkmokk County, Lappland, Sweden (photo by Christian Reimers, Riksinventeringen [Musikmuseet, Stockholm]). It was found in a dwelling house that was inhabited in the period 1661–1702 (Bäärnhielm 1976).

B

Jew’s harps of the Kvikkjokk type have long arms and a circular bow.They are long, with an overall length of, as a rule, more than 80 millimetres. Only four pieces belong to the type (Fig. 3.38).

C

Fig. 3.36: Medieval jew’s harps with a diamond-shaped cross-section that tends towards hexagonal. (A) Øvre Gilberg, Fåberg, Norway (no. 137), medieval (Sevåg 1973: 128). (B) Holbæk, Denmark (no. 800), 1300–1450 (photo by Gorm Jessen). (C) Grove Priory, Bedfordshire, England (no. 248), 14th century (photo by author, courtesy of Luton Museums Service).

Fig. 3.38: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Kvikkjokk type.

These harps are very similar to the Gironville type. The reason for regarding them as a type in their own right is the notably late dating of the Kvikkjokk find (no. 129). Note the striking similarity between this and the example from Helgonabacken, Lund (no. 55).The latter has been regarded as medieval. Lund has indeed produced many medieval finds, but that does not imply that all finds made there are medieval. Due to the resemblance between these two specimens, I would suggest that they date from the same time, i.e. the 17th century. The four pieces of this type are all Scandinavian, and a distribution in this region is further attested by several similar ethnographic pieces, from Sweden (Kjellberg 1947: 25 (reprinted in Ypey 1976: 228), Kjellström 1983, Musikmuseet, Stockholm) and Finland (Taavitsainen 1978: 76). However, instruments resembling this type are also found in museums in the Low Countries (Boone 1986: 22, Figs 12 and 13). To sum up the chronological significance of the Kuusisto, Schauenburg, Gironville and Kvikkjokk types, we find that pieces with long arms in relation to the bow certainly appear both in the early phase and up to more recent times.The link between the late Middle Ages and the postmedieval period is not clear, but it is likely that the Kvikkjokk type is a continuation of the Gironville type. As has been demonstrated, both are forged so that the frame displays a diamond-shaped cross-section throughout its length.

Moreover, the ambiguous cross-section of these pieces does not necessarily indicate that they stand transitionally between an earlier hexagonal and a later diamond-shaped form. This is because we do not know that the diamondshaped section is the result of a development from other forging methods. A reasonable theory might be that the diamond-shape results from an early forging method that was designed to mimic cast jew’s harps.This concerns especially the French examples (nos 304, 331–3), which resemble cast specimens and have early dates. The earliest is attributed to the 13th century (no. 304, Montségur Castle). In other words, the Gironville type belongs to the early group of finds. However, how long the type persisted in later centuries is not clear. What confuses the situation is that similar instruments, for which there are ethnographic records, have been made until more recent times.The next type, Kvikkjokk, is designed to comprise such instruments. Kvikkjokk Iron/Forged/Diamond-shaped/ Hammered/Circular/OL 70–90 mm

Post-medieval iron: Gloucester, Damme, Kufstein and Ekeberg types This is a large group of post-medieval harps whose frames have diamond-shaped sections throughout and which have relatively large, open bows. If we consider the AL/OL ratio, they represent the opposite of the Kuusisto type. They are

64

easy to define and recognize, although there is much variation within the group. Gloucester is the most numerous of the types. The three remaining types – Damme, Kufstein and Ekeberg – are separated from the Gloucester type because their bow shape is notably different and they have a different chronological significance. Gloucester Iron/Forged (or bent from a rod)/ Diamond-shaped/Hammered/Large open bow

Fig. 3.39: Jew’s harp (no. 272) from Southgate Street, Gloucester, England. Dated to the middle of the 17th century. (Drawing and information: Gloucester Archaeology Unit)

The Gloucester type is the largest group of post-medieval jew’s harps and has a large, open bow and relatively short arms (Fig. 3.39).The frame is forged or bent up from a rod, giving a diamond-shaped cross-section along the entire length.

65

Northern Ireland (nos 432–4, Carrickfergus), and France (no. 306, Louvre, Paris). That the type was already well established in the 16th century is documented by specimens from Ireland (no. 435, Clontuskert Priory), Sweden (no. 87,Visby) and Romania (no. 461, Moldova).As early as 1511 the type is found in a printed document (Virdung 1511; see Fig. 5.3 of this thesis, p. 102). In 1568 the Flemish artist Pieter Brüegel the Elder (1528–1569) depicted jew’s harps with large and circular bows in his engraving Every Pedlar Praises His Wares (Crane 2003b: 47, no. 33 and several other reprints85). Among later datings there is one excavated specimen from Hope Colony, Greenland (no. 150), dated from its context to the short period 1721–28. If we look at the iconography again, various representations suggest that this was the most common type of jew’s harp all the way up to the 20th century (see e.g. Crane 2003b).

Fig. 3.40: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Gloucester type

As for variation within the type, there is some diversity both in size and shape (Fig. 3.40). Some have an oval bow (no. 216, Thames foreshore, London), while in others the bow is circular (nos 87, 90–1,Visby, Sweden). Since there is no obvious chronological sequence in these bow shapes, I have retained them within the main type Gloucester. In six cases (nos 102–4, 133, 296, 416) we find a form intermediate between diamond-shaped and hexagonal sections, as in the Gironville pieces described above (Fig. 3.36, nos 137, 248 and 800). These specimens seem to be transitional forms between the forging methods producing, respectively, hexagonal and diamond-shaped sections.The earliest example of this category was excavated at the Hansa port of Bryggen in Bergen, Norway (no. 133), and was deposited earlier than 1476. Another early piece from Novgorod, Russia (no. 296), dates from the 15th century. The illustrated specimen from Vadstena Monastery, Sweden (Fig. 3.41) dates from the 15th or 16th century. Strangely enough, these items belong typologically to the post-medieval phase of finds since they have short arms and large, open bows. Accordingly, the unusual way of forging the frame evident here was presumably an early development of the typical post-medieval manufacturing method.

Damme Iron/Forged (or bent from a rod)/Diamond-shaped/ Hammered/Large open bow/Triangular

Fig. 3.42: Jew’s harp (no. 704) from Damme, West-Vlanderen, Belgium (Ypey 1976: 220, fig. 16). The dating is 16th–17th century.

The Damme type is a small group of only five items, identified by their triangular bows (Figs 3.42 and 3.43). They should not be confused with the other triangular types: bows of the Kransen type have a hexagonal section, while those of the Pärnu type (see below) are rectangular.

Fig. 3.41: Jew’s harp from Vadstena Monastery, Sweden (no. 103), with the bow forged so that the bow has a hexagonal crosssection only along part of its length, notably in the area where the lamella is attached.

If we leave aside these early and intermediate forms, the Gloucester type seems to flourish in the 17th century. From this century there are well-attested datings from England (e.g. nos 272–3, Gloucester; no. 249, Grove Priory),

Fig. 3.43: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Damme type

85 Reprinted in Boone 1972: 16; Boone 1986: 33, Dournon-Taurelle and Wright 1978: 106, Fox 1988: 96, Plate 1992: 87, Schick 2001: 88.

66

The type is only found in the Low Countries and England, and the only obtainable dating is 16th–17th century for the Damme example.There is accordingly no distinguishable chronological difference between the Damme type and Gloucester. I nevertheless view Damme as a type on its own because of the bow shape.

Latvia (nos 401–2).The Latvian finds are dated to the period 14th–17th century (Priedite 1988: 14), suggesting that these small, square harps were already in use one hundred years or more before the sample excavated at Kufstein Fort. Ekeberg Iron/Forged (or bent from a rod)/Diamond-shaped/ Hammered/Large open bow/D-shaped

Kufstein Iron/Forged (or bent from a rod)/Diamond-shaped/ Hammered/Large open bow/Square/OL 40–55 mm

Fig. 3.44: Jew’s harp (no. 814) from Kufstein Fort, Tirol, Austria (Schick 2001: plate 1, no. 8), 1775–1800. The punch mark “B” on the bow can be attributed to the maker Matthias Sparnrauft of Molln (Schick, op. cit.: 86, 122).

The Kufstein type has a square bow, or tending towards square (Figs 3.44 and 3.45).The ten pieces of the type are all rather small, with an overall length ranging from 38 to 54 millimetres.

Fig. 3.46: Jew’s harp (no. 140) from Ekeberg, Oslo, Norway (photo: Norsk Folkemuseum)

The Ekeberg type consists of harps with a D-shaped bow (Figs 3.46 and 3.47). The D-shape is more or less distinct. Plate (1992: 30) calls the form “Eupaletten-form”. This is probably the type that people would recognize today since the shape dominated the market in the 20th century, at least in Europe. Such instruments can still be purchased. Fig. 3.45: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Kufstein type

Thanks to excavations in Tirol (Schick 2001), we have some good datings for the type, giving evidence of its existence in the late 18th century (nos 812–14). On the specimen from Kufstein Fort (no. 814; Fig. 3.44) the letter B has been punched into the frame. It is probable that this is the mark of the maker Matthias Sparnrauft of Molln, who received his Master’s certificate in 1780 (Schick, op. cit.: 86, 122). It is not unlikely that the other pieces of this type were made in Molln. Apart from the Alpine region, examples have been found in Norway (no. 635), Ireland (no. 451) and

Fig. 3.47: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Ekeberg type

The type comprises obviously modern specimens, but not only modern ones.There is evidence to suggest that it already existed in the 15th century. One Catalogue entry

67

from the province of Moldova in Romania (no. 462) is dated to the 15th–16th century, following the publication by Cosma (1977: 34). No details of the find circumstances are given.The oldest comes from Amsterdam (no. 669) and is dated as early as 1425–1450 (Baart et al. 1977: 476–7). It was found in 1972 in a professionally conducted excavation in the city of Amsterdam, and to judge from the publication the dating appears to be reliable. A late medieval existence is further indicated by a painting of the School of Ferrara from 1490 showing a poor person playing a jew’s harp, possibly with a D-shaped bow (Fig. 5.4, p. 103).While awaiting more data, I would still suggest that this type belongs as a rule to the post-medieval phase, perhaps from the 18th or 19th century and onwards.

The Pärnu type is characterized by a notably large and triangular bow, into which the lamella is inserted through a hole and secured with a wedge (Figs 3.48 and 3.49). The type comprises eight pieces.

Wedged attachment of the lamella: Pärnu and Höxter types

Fig. 3.49: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Pärnu type

Since the type is so homogeneous it is plausible that the instruments had a common origin – even perhaps the same workshop. The few datings of the type point in somewhat conflicting directions.They all pertain to Estonian finds, of which one is dated to the 14th century (no. 411), a second to the 15th–16th centuries (no. 412), and a third to the 15th–18th centuries (no. 413). Because the type is characterized by a large, open bow and short arms, and as they generally stand out as divergent from the conventional medieval forms of the jew’s harp, the most reasonable supposition would be that it emerged in the post-medieval era.The crucial point is the dating of the Pärnu piece (no. 411).The archaeological report on the excavation (Tamla 1992: 290) shows that it was dated from the find circumstances: it was excavated with a coin from the end of the 14th century. It remains to be seen if the dating can be considered absolutely trustworthy. If the specimen proves to be an authentic 14th century piece, the typological variety in that century was indeed remarkable. The Pärnu type is almost unknown in the iconography. One exception is the Silesian scholar Schmidt’s 1840 publication The Aura or Mouth-Harmonica (Schmidt 1840/1988), which uses two jew’s harps of this kind to illustrate an old form of the instrument (op. cit.: 130, plate 1).That Schmidt was referring to this type is evident from the illustration as well as the text, which states that the lamella is “cut” through the middle of the frame (op. cit.: 103). Moreover, the author writes that “the oldest form of this instrument that I have been able to discover is the triangle; it is possible that the triangle (the well-known instrument) occasioned the invention of the Jew’s harp.” (ibid.). However, this source hardly gets us any further with regard to the chronology of the type. The dating of the Pärnu harp seems even stranger if we consider the wedged attachment method of the lamella, of which the oldest dated specimens so far are post-medieval, as will be shown in the description of the Höxter type.

Jew’s harps of the Pärnu and Höxter types display the wedged method of attaching the lamella to the frame. There is much variation among specimens of this kind, but they are arranged in two types only to avoid unnecessary complexity and to provide the most expedient tool for chronology. Pärnu

Forged/Rectangular/Wedged/Large, triangular bow

Fig. 3.48: Jew’s harp (no. 411) from Munga Street 2, Pärnu, Estonia, dated from its context to the 14th century (Tamla 1992: 290, with plate 14, no. 6)

68

Höxter Forged/Rectangular/Wedged

Fig. 3.51: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Höxter type. For descriptions of items A–D refer to the text.

The variation within the type is seen in the shape of the bow and in that some have a bow that is twisted (A–D in Fig. 3.51 and text below). (A) Four German pieces (nos 155, 159, 163, 169) have the same oval bow shape as the Höxter harp. (B) Another German example (no. 161) has a shape that tends more towards narrow oval, like most of the Norwegian harps (nos 141–3, 504–5, 824). (C) Pieces with circular or only slightly oval bows are found in the Low Countries (nos 674, 696, 698, 724–9, 770) and Norway (no. 139). (D) Three pieces, from England (nos 214, 265) and Belgium (no. 699), have a twisted bow. Before twisting was done, the section of the rod was clearly square. The harp from Mindets tomt, Oslo (no. 139) is one of the few dated pieces to show the wedged attachment method. It was found in layers dating from the period 1575–1625. The dating conforms fairly well to that of the Höxter specimen (no. 155), which is dated to the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48).These data are scarce, but they still suggest – if we reserve judgement on the Pärnu type – that this method of attachment was a late development, not established until post-medieval times. Wedging is the most common method of attachment in traditional Norwegian jew’s harps, especially in southern parts of the country.The archaeological examples here (nos 141–3, 504–5, 824) conform to the ethnographic material. Interestingly, none of the many Swedish samples display this attachment method, and none are known from ethnographic sources. However, the method is recorded ethnographically as far south as Spain, where blacksmiths in the Gallizia region have traditionally forged jew’s harps with this special contrivance (Melhus 2003).

Fig. 3.50: Jew’s harp (no. 155) excavated in the old city of Höxter, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. Dated to the Thirty Years’ War, 1618–48. Both arms are broken. The close-up photograph shows the hole in the bow where the lamella was fixed with a wedge. In this case neither the lamella nor the wedge has survived. (Photo by author, courtesy of Stadtarchäologie, Höxter City)

The Höxter type is a compound group of harps with the lamella attached by the wedging method and consisting of harps of this kind that are not of the Pärnu type. Most have a circular or oval shape to the bow.

Copper alloy: Greifswald, Odiham, Nijmegen, Stafford and Rochester types We now turn to the copper alloy types.These are cast, and the diamond-shaped cross-section of the bow conforms to the norm for copper alloy harps. As in the iron material, pieces with long arms relative to overall length belong to the older group of finds. However, younger, post-medieval harps do not always have notably large and open bows.Yet we must probably consider another chronological variable as well: the thickness of the frames. The post-medieval instruments seem to have much thicker and more solid frames, in contrast to the thinner, more fragile appearance of earlier cast copper alloy harps.

69

Vecdole Castle, Latvia (no. 394), are also very similar. (C) One Latvian and two French pieces stand out somewhat from the rest in that their bows have a slightly oval shape.They are from Ventspils (no. 829), Cimiez (no. 621) and Rougiers (no. 622). (D) Three pieces are characterized by a bow shape that tends towards long oval.These are two from Rouen, France (nos 325, 328), and one from Lund, Sweden (no. 57). The Greifswald type appears to be among the earliest types, with well-attested datings already in the 13th century (nos 468–70, Greifswald, Germany). One is dated late 13th–early 14th century (no. 26, Skanör, Sweden), another as 13–14th century (no. 394,Vecdole Castle, Latvia), while two are attributed to the 14th century (nos 481, Hamburg, and 622, Rougiers, France).There are no later datings, and consequently the type does not need to be thought of as younger than the beginning of the 14th century. Before leaving this type, we should mention two single samples that belong to the long-armed copper alloy harps. They come from, respectively, Northampton, England (no. 238), and Dordrecht, the Netherlands (no. 721), and have a trefoil shape to their bows, which is quite a unique feature in the archaeological record. The Northampton piece was excavated from late medieval layers, which dates it to around 1350–1500. The one from Dordrecht dates to before 1360.86 The trefoil shape is known as a much later feature. It is sometimes referred to as an “oak shape” (German “Eichel”, Klier 1956: 72). Jew’s harps with this bow shape are still available today.

Greifswald Cu-alloy/Cast/Diamond-shaped/Hammered/ Frame thin, delicate/OL 70–90 mm/ Hairpin-shaped

Fig. 3.52: Jew’s harp (no. 468) from Greifswald, MecklenburgVorpommern, Germany. Date of deposition about 1270. (Drawing and information: Landesamt für Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)

Greifswald is the hairpin-shaped type of copper alloy jew’s harps, corresponding to the iron Kuusisto type.They are long, usually between 70 and 90 centimetres.The profile drawings of the three examples from Greifswald (No 468–70) illustrate the thin, delicate nature of these instruments.

Odiham Cu-alloy/Cast/Diamond-shaped/Hammered/ Frame thin, delicate/OL 50–55 mm/Narrow oval

Fig. 3.53: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Greifswald type. For discussion of items A–D see text.

Note the similarities between some of the examples shown in Fig. 3.53, a number of which are striking. Almost identical pieces in terms of form and dimensions are: (A) Two of the Greifswald pieces (nos 468–9), and two from Moseby, Denmark (no. 8), and Malmö, Sweden (no. 34). (B) Two from Lund (no. 60) and Timans (no. 96), both in Sweden. If we added harps measuring a few millimetres more or less to this group, it would include the following very similar objects: pieces from Skanör Castle (no. 21), Lund (no. 60) and Timans (no. 96), all Sweden; Greifswald (no. 470) and Hamburg (no. 481), both Germany; Ribe, Denmark (no. 6); and London, United Kingdom (no. 202). Two more pieces, from Skanör, Sweden (no. 26), and

Fig. 3.54: Jew’s harp (no. 259) excavated at Odiham Castle (King John’s Castle), Hampshire, United Kingdom (photo by author, courtesy of Hampshire County Council Museums Service). Dating mid 13th–14th century, based on find circumstances.

Instruments of the Odiham type have long arms and a small bow, which is characterized by a narrow oval shape (Figs 3.54 and 3.55).The type is extremely uniform, with a

86 Annemies Tamboer, pers. comm.

70

length of between 50 and 55 millimetres, a width of 20–22 millimetres, and an AL/OL ratio of 75–77 per cent. Specimens look so identical that we should not overlook the possibility that they were cast in the same mould.

types Greifswald and Odiham.They are a little shorter than the Odiham examples but have larger and more open bows. Accordingly, the OL/AL ratio is much lower, around 60–65 per cent.

Fig. 3.55: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Odiham type

The harp from Odiham Castle (no. 259; Fig. 3.54) is dated from its find circumstances to the period 1250–1400. Another from Lund, Sweden (no. 25), is probably 14th century. There is no information on the age of the remaining examples. The preliminary interpretation is that the type belongs to the 14th century. Finally, attention should be drawn to two Dutch finds, one from Rozenburg (no. 691) and the other from Vianen (no. 692), which have much in common with the Odiham type but also with the Greifswald type.Their form fits perfectly in between these two types with regard to length (66–67 mm) and bow shape (between the hairpin shape of Greifswald and the oval shape of Odiham). The two finds are dated to the 14th–15th century (no. 692) and the 15th century (no. 691), in other words probably slightly later than the Odiham type. Nijmegen Cu-alloy/Cast/Diamond-shaped/Hammered/Frame thin, delicate/OL 45–55 mm/Circular (oval)

Fig. 3.57: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Nijmegen type

The Nijmegen type also has much in common with the Stafford type (below). At first glance these two types look rather similar, especially when the specimens are portrayed in the standard way (as in the Catalogue of this work). But if we look at them from the side, their profile is what distinguishes the two: the Nijmegen harps are thin, while the Stafford harps are thicker and much solider. This will be demonstrated below, under the description of the Stafford type. Only four datings for specimens of the Nijmegen type are available. One Danish sample from Dragør (no. 18) is from the period 1425–1500.A Dutch piece from Amsterdam (no. 670) is a bit later, from 1525–1550, while a Belgian find from Damme (no. 705) is ascribed to the 16th–17th century. Finally, a French piece from Saint Denis (no. 302) is much

Fig. 3.56: Jew’s harp (no. 664) from Nijmegen, Gelderland, the Netherlands (Ypey 1976: 217). The item is undated from its context.

The Nijmegen type comprises relatively small and tiny instruments with slightly oval or rounded bows (Figs 3.56 and 3.57). They are thin, like the medieval copper-alloy

71

earlier as it dates to the late 13th–14th century. If the dating of this last item is to be trusted, the type existed already in the 14th century.At the opposite end of the range, the piece from Amsterdam was last played during the first half of the 16th century, and there is no good reason for thinking the Damme piece is much younger. Consequently, we do not know if the type survived the post-medieval shift. No data so far prove that it did. Stafford Cu-alloy/Cast/Diamond-shaped/Hammered/ Frame thick, solid/OL 50–65 mm/Circular

Fig. 3.58: Jew’s harp (no. 262) from Stafford Castle, Staffordshire, United Kingdom (photo by author, courtesy of Stafford Borough Council). The item was excavated in a topsoil layer.

Fig. 3.59: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Stafford type

The most important feature that distinguishes these from the Nijmegen harps is the thickness of the frame throughout, especially in the bow. There are other differences as well; for instance, Stafford types are characterized by a more circular bow and a generally more solid appearance. However, the much thicker frame of the Stafford type and the correspondingly different cross-section (another version of the diamond-shaped section, following the current terminology) is the most obvious difference between the two. I have no appropriate photographs of well-documented examples that illustrate this feature. Unfortunately, many of the photos in the Catalogue show the specimens in plane view, with too few shown in profile. However, in the collection of Prof. Frederick Crane (Pt. Pleasant, USA), which I had the opportunity to study,87 there is one metal-detected example from Cambridgeshire (no. 780) of the Nijmegen type, and one from Nottinghamshire (no. 773) that represents the Stafford type.The images of the two artifacts (Fig. 3.60) show clearly the difference in thickness. There are almost no precise datings for the Stafford harps. The great majority have been found accidentally by metal detectorists, with very few from excavations. One example with a fairly accurate dating is from Berry Head Fort, near Brixham, England (no. 661). The item was excavated in cir-

Specimens of the Stafford type have a circular shape to the bow (Figs 3.58 and 3.59). They are heavy and solid, with a thick frame, especially at the bow.The OL/AL ratio is approximately the same as for the Nijmegen type (around 60–65 per cent).

87 I am indebted to Frederick Crane for lending me some items from his collection.

72

cumstances that date it to the period 1793–1850.88 I would suggest that the type was mass produced in England in the 17th and 18th centuries.Among others, there is one good indication of this from the excavations of the 18th century French and British occupation of Fort Michilimackinac, Michigan, USA, where 122 jew’s harps, of which more than a half were of this type, were excavated (Stone 1974: 141–5). These instruments were probably imported from England.The type is also found in Canada, attested by an 18th century specimen in the Musée Pointe-à-Calliére, Montreal,89 another one excavated from a 1775–1800 site at Birchtown, Nova Scotia,90 and others. The preliminary conclusion is that there was a development among cast Cu-alloy harps from thin and fragile frames towards thicker frames, a process that probably took place during the 15th and 16th centuries. No cast harps with thick and heavy frames have proved to predate the 16th century. There is a possibility that the thin and light harps survived the post-medieval shift, but no evidence so far supports this.

Rochester Cu-alloy/Cast/Hexagonal/Hammered in an unusual way/OL 50–65 mm/Circular

Fig. 3.61: Jew’s harp (no. 794) from Rochester, Kent (Grove 1962: 207, fig. 6). Dating: 17th–18th century.

Specimens of the Rochester type display a characteristic way of attaching the lamella whereby the frame has a thicker section that stands up around the point of attachment. The lamella is hammered into a notch that has been cut down into this section.As the outlines show (Fig. 3.62), the type is very homogeneous.

Fig. 3.62: Outlines of jew’s harps of the Rochester type.

The type consists of six pieces, all of which were found in England.The 17th century is a plausible dating, based on the specimen from Rochester (no. 794, Fig 3.61), which dates to the 17th or 18th century, and one from Dunwich, Suffolk (no. 234), which is not younger than the 17th century.

Unusual and/or modern specimens Some specimens do not fit into any of the types described above. None of these finds are well dated from find circumstances.An intuitive feeling is that most are fairly modern. To avoid complexity they are not defined as proper

Fig. 3.60: Left: no. 773, Nottinghamshire, England. Right: no. 780, Cambridgeshire, England. Note especially the difference in thickness between the two. (Photo by Tellef Kvifte, courtesy of Frederick Crane)

88 Published by Berry Head Archaeology, Brixham Heritage Museum & History Society, at the Internet: http://www.brixhamheritage.org.uk/arch/berry_head_report2000.htm. (Accessed in 2004) 89: Internet: http://www.mnemo.qc.ca/html/2002(61).html 90: Internet: http://museum.gov.ns.ca/blackloyalists/17751800/Objects1775/Jawharp.htm

73

“types” and appear in the Catalogue as “unclassified”. The relevant groups of objects are:

• Cu-alloy/Cast/Hexagonal/Hammered/Imitation of a forged model One piece (no. 240, Maison Dieu). Cast, but similar in appearance to a forged instrument, which is strange. Well preserved and in extremely good condition. Excavated in a post-medieval layer. Originally thought to be Roman (English Heritage, London). • Iron/Cast/Rectangular/Hammered in an unusual way Four pieces (nos 134–6, 334).The frame has a large, clumpy widening of the metal, where the lamella is hammered into a notch. (Fig.3. 63).

• Cu-alloy/Cast/Diamond-shaped/Hammered/Frame thick, solid/OL 50–65 mm/Oval Two pieces from England (nos 208, 253). Except for the bow shape, they are similar to the Stafford type. Possible dating 18th/19th century. One from Edington,Wiltshire (no. 253), was originally thought to be Roman (Devizes Museum). • Cu-alloy/Cast/Diamond-shaped/Hammered/Frame thick, solid/OL 50–65 mm/Square Two pieces from England (nos 184, 277). Surface finds. Except for the bow shape, they are similar to the Stafford type. Possible dating: 18th/19th century. • Cu-alloy/Cast/Diamond-shaped/Hammered/ Frame thick, solid/OL 70 mm+/Circular Two pieces from England (nos 254, 774). Probably modern/19th century. One from Mildenhall,Wiltshire (no. 254), originally thought to be Roman (Devizes Museum).

Fig. 3.63: Outline profile of jew’s harp from Lom, Oppland County, Norway (no. 134). The specimen was found without a lamella; the lamella indicated here was attached by the finder.

The function of the widened section is not fully understood. The feature is possibly meant to facilitate the hammering and fixing of the lamella.Alternatively, it has something to do with playing, acting as a kind of handle for the player. Unfortunately, all four harps in question are undated chance finds. It is most likely that they are not so old. The method of attachment is also found ethnographically from the same region, e.g. Gudbrandsdal, in Oppland County (Sevåg 1973: 127).

• Cu-alloy/Cast/Diamond-shaped/Unusual form of the bow or unusual lamellar attachment method. (Difficult to observe from the illustration) One Belgian example (no. 697). Possibly modern. • Cu-alloy/Cast/With an ornamented pattern Five pieces: – Three pieces (nos 211, 714, 828) with ornamented pattern on one side only, indicating casting in an open mould (cf. p. 26) – One piece (no. 619) with what appears to be a quasioval section – One (no. 239) with hexagonal section. Bow D-shaped. Obviously modern. Similar instruments are illustrated in 20th century trade catalogues (Crane 2003a). Originally thought to be Roman (English Heritage, London). – One piece (no. 771) with rectangular section and wedged lamella attachment

• Idioglottic jew’s harp. Made of one flat piece of silver. No. 300, Idelbayev, Bashkortostan, Russia. • Several Catalogue entries have been left unclassified because – no illustration is available (e.g. nos 706–13) – the illustration is merely an outline or is too sketchy (e.g. nos 313–24) – it is too difficult to understand what the illustrator intended to show (e.g. no. 181) – the objects are too corroded to observe the relevant features (e.g. no. 77)

74

4. Distribution part from the Mediterranean area, the finds are spread across the continent (Fig. 4.1).The wide distribution indicates that the instrument was known all over Europe during the period under consideration, with the southernmost part of the continent as a possible exception. Apart from the wide distribution, there is a notable concentration of finds in some areas. This is especially true of three regions: the Øresund region of southern Scandinavia, the land on both sides of the English Channel, and the region of the Alps. It is expedient to discuss these regions and their adjacent territories in succession. The northern part of the distribution map will be considered first, then the western and southern parts, and finally the situation in the east.

Scandinavia, with Kvikkjokk in Lappland, Sweden (no. 129), as the northernmost find location in Europe.There is a distinct cluster of finds in southern Sweden and eastern Denmark, on both sides of the Øresund Strait. About fifty specimens come from this region. A few have been excavated in Dragør and København on the Danish side, while Skanör, Falsterbo, Malmö, Lund, Helsingborg and Lindholmen on the Swedish side are represented by many finds.91 The Øresund was a strategically important waterway, and it was a centre of communication and trade, of which herring was the most important item (Liebgott 1976). In the Middle Ages merchants met at the market of Skåne, which was held around the small towns of Dragør, Skanör and Falsterbo, and later Malmö.All these places have jew’s harp finds.The excavations in Dragør recovered three specimens (nos 16–18).The publication on the excavations at Skanör Castle lists four (nos 21–4, Rydbeck 1935), while

A

The North The distribution map shows a wide distribution in

Place with 1–3 finds Place with 4–9 finds Place with 10 or more finds

Fig. 4.1: Distribution map for Europe showing all provenanced finds listed in the Catalogue

91 The county of Skåne (Scania) on the Swedish side of Øresund was under the Danish crown during much of the Middle Ages. Of the 115 finds from present Sweden, almost 40 per cent are from Skåne.

75

two were found in Skanör town (nos 25–6). Two were found at Falsterbo Castle (nos 19–20), and twelve are from Malmö (nos 34–45). With some possible exceptions these are medieval finds, dating from the 13th to the 15th century. Judging from the circumstances of the finds and typology, the majority are from the 14th century. Neighboring locations in Skåne have also revealed jew’s harps, examples being Lindholmen Castle (nos 27–33) and the cities of Lund (nos 46–60) and Helsingborg (nos 502–3). Finds from the southern side of the Baltic should be viewed as being associated with the same trade community.This relates to the German finds from Greifswald (nos 468–70) and Lübeck (no. 493). There is one find from Gdansk (no. 792) that conforms perfectly to those from the Øresund region. Excavations at the Hansa port of Visby on the island of Gotland have also produced finds (nos 85–95), suggesting that jew’s harps formed part of the trade in the Baltic. Some of these finds are of the Gloucester type, with open, circular bows and short arms. They are slightly later than the Øresund finds, representing the 15th and 16th centuries. Similar jew’s harps have been found in other Scandinavian locations, for instance at Borgholm (nos 83–4), Vadstena (nos 102–6) and Bergen (no. 133). Most of the jew’s harps found in the Baltic countries plausibly arrived from the west as these countries have always been oriented westwards and to the Baltic. Specifically, the Latvian finds are chiefly made at medieval castles with Swedish and German lords (Urtans 1970, Priedite 1988). Moreover, there is a tendency among folk musicians and ethnomusicologists in the Baltic countries to believe that the instrument arrived from the west and not to regard it as among the oldest instruments in those countries. The same opinion appears to prevail in Finland.The few specimens recovered are from castles on the west coast (Turku and Kusistoo, nos 286–92), which was oriented towards Sweden in the Middle Ages. However, the typology confuses the picture, especially regarding those objects classified as of the hairpin-shaped Kuusisto type. This type is found in western parts of Europe, but it is still tempting to speculate that this minor yet perhaps important variation went from east to west, not in the opposite direction, and that Finland was the first place in Europe where this type was established. If we return to Scandinavia again, the great majority of the finds are medieval. This is especially true of those from Sweden and Denmark.A larger part of the Norwegian material consists of stray finds from the countryside that probably date from post-medieval times, whereas the Swedish and Danish harps are generally recovered from medieval castles, monasteries and cities. Notably in southern Sweden many finds come from castles, many of which have produced several finds, such as Kronoberg (nos 66–72) and Lindholmen Castles (nos 27–33) with seven each, and Piksborg Castle (nos 61–5) with five. Monasteries also include jew’s harps among their finds, such as Alvastra (nos 98–101) and Vadstena

(nos 102–4) Monasteries, Sweden, and Øm Monastery in Denmark (nos 11–12). Finally, many of the finds are from cities, such as the 15 pieces excavated in Lund (nos 46–60), twelve from Malmö (nos 34–45), ten from Jönköping (nos 73–80, 145–6) and eleven from Visby (nos 85–95). Only six of the Norwegian finds are from excavations in cities. Four are from Trondheim (nos 130–2, 147), representing the only concentration in Norway. One has been excavated in Bergen (no. 133) and one in Oslo (no. 139). The imbalance between Norway on the one hand (22 finds) and Sweden and Denmark on the other (136 finds) is surprising considering the significant role of the jew’s harp in traditional music in the former, unlike Denmark and Sweden. One explanation could be that the instrument was more popular in rural areas of Norway but was more common in cities, castles and monasteries in the southern parts of Scandinavia.Another plausible explanation is that the distribution of finds reflects population density: the more people there were, the greater the number of harps.There is also the possibility that the jew’s harp was simply more prevalent in southern Scandinavia in the Middle Ages. Iceland was by no means isolated from the rest of Europe, and received regular shipments from Western Europe from the high Middle Ages and onwards. The single find from Storaborg at the southern coast of the country (no. 819) is therefore no surprise. Only future will show if the Icelandic earth will uncover more finds of this sort.

The West Jew’s harps are frequently found throughout the British Isles, in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The instrument was probably introduced to Ireland from Britain in the late Middle Ages (Buckley 1986: 49).The Irish finds are widely distributed, and some localities have revealed several specimens, such as Clontuskert Priory (nos 435–8) and Kells Priory (nos 444–50).The majority of the finds are of the Gloucester type, with open circular bows, dating from the 16th and 17th centuries. They conform to postmedieval materials from England, including the finds from the Thames foreshore in the Museum of London.There are also earlier Irish samples, notably among the items from Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland (nos 429–34). One of these (no. 429) is dated to the 13th or 14th century, suggesting that jew’s harps were known in Ireland at least in the 14th century. In Scotland the instrument was probably known slightly earlier. One find from Whithorn Priory in Wigtownshire dates to the mid- to late 14th century (no. 237).Two items from Perth (nos 408–9) date to 13th–14th century, and two from Achandun Castle in Argyllshire (nos 377–8) date from the 13th century according to Webster and Cherry (1972). The Scottish finds correspond more to Scandinavian finds than to the majority of English finds in that they are made of iron and found at castles (Achandun, Sween and Fast). Finds from England fall in two categories: metal-detected stray finds and those excavated by archaeologists.

76

Unfortunately, the metal-detected objects represent the majority. The harps dug up on the Thames foreshore are typically of Gloucester type – made of iron and representing a post-medieval group. Another group of metal-detected finds is copper alloy harps of the Stafford type, usually found at rural sites in southern England. Kent is the county with most finds of this type. Excavations in English cities have uncovered jew’s harps in York (nos 257–8), Gloucester (nos 272–3), Northampton (no. 238) and London (nos 222–31). Other finds have been made at excavations at Grove Priory (nos 248–9) and Odiham Castle (no. 259). These well-documented finds show that the jew’s harp was established in Britain in the 14th or perhaps in the 13th century. The earliest dated specimen, from the site of the Old Custom House in London (no. 222), was deposited in the period 1270 to 1350. The situation in the Low Countries is quite similar to that in England in that there is a mix of excavated materials and chance finds, and of medieval and post-medieval finds.The impression is that metal-detected finds are abundant. Examples of the latter include groups of unprovenanced finds from Belgium (nos 694–703) and the Netherlands (nos 759–72). In addition to the specimens listed in the Catalogue of this thesis, a number of unlisted metal-detected items from the Low Countries are known to be in private hands. In Zeeland alone (southwest Netherlands) thirty examples are reported as existing in private possession.92 Private collections of what are probably metal-detected jew’s harps are also reported to exist in Belgium.93 There is a typological variety among both the items found with metal detectors and those excavated by archaeologists. For example, notice the diversity exhibited by the pieces excavated in Amsterdam (nos 667–76). In contrast, the eight harps from Amersfoort (nos 678–84) present a more uniform appearance. This probably has to do with chronology. The Amersfoort finds are dated to the 14th century, while the Amsterdam finds represent the span from the 14th to the 17th centuries. The material from the Benelux countries as a whole dates from the 14th century and onwards, as Boone (1986) has reported. Regarding the finds from the central and northern parts of Germany, it is difficult to determine if they were spread southwards from the Baltic or eastwards from the Benelux region. There is probably more than one answer to this question.The two finds from Hamburg (nos 166, 481) can be plausibly connected to the Baltic area, though there were certainly trade routes in many directions. Some German finds, however, are clearly associated with a specific trade route. Four towns along the ancient Hellweg, which runs in an east–west direction from Duisburg to Leipzig, have produced specimens: Duisburg (no. 480), Paderborn (no. 156), Höxter (nos 155) and Einbeck (no. 157–8)94.The

piece from Paderborn was excavated right on the Hellweg itself, from the rubble for a section of the road. It is very tempting to connect these finds to those from the Netherlands, which also show an east–west distribution, in this case along the Rhine. The Rhine has certainly been an important distribution channel for jew’s harps as well as other trade items. Places with harp finds along the Rhine and adjacent areas include Köln (nos 483–7),Tannenberg near Darmstadt (nos 152–3, 500), Seligenstadt (no. 478) and Schauenburg near Dossenheim (no. 154). Nürnberg was an important centre of trade, connected westwards in the 15th century through Mainz, Köln and Arnemuiden (Wright 2005). The city had contacts in several directions. We should also ask if jew’s harps made in Thüringen were traded through this route, as we know that blacksmiths of some villages there, notably Zella-Mehlis, Suhl, Scmalkalden, Salzungen, have manufactured such instruments (Crane 2004; Die Maultrommel). However, we do neither know the extent of this manufacture nor its age. As for the Middle Ages, archaeology does not point to any centres of jew’s harp manufacture in this region. The only catalogued specimen found in Thüringen is one undated piece from Meiningen (no. 161). It is classified as the Höxter type, and is probably of post-medieval date. If we regard the Benelux countries and the western part of Germany as one region, northern France could also be considered part of this region. Paris has produced twentytwo finds (nos 302–3, 305–24), while Rouen has four (nos 325–8). The material from the Louvre in Paris appears to be post-medieval, like the Thames’ foreshore material in London. The Rouen specimens are probably somewhat earlier, especially the two with long arms (nos 325, 328, Greifswald type), which may represent the 13th century. From written sources, however, there are indications of manufacture of jew’s harps in Paris already in the 13th century:An interesting legal document from 1297 suggests that three forcetiers (makers of shears) in Paris ask for permission to manufacture trumps (Crane 2003c: 24–5). The term trump probably does not, in this case, refer to trumpet, because these artisans belonged to the forcetiers, who performed a form of metalwork definitely more related to jew’s harp making.The document hardly proves that a jew’s harp guild was established, but together with the Spanish term trompa de París (meaning jew’s harp; Bakx 1998b:10; Crane, op. cit.: 26–7), it could indicate, interestingly, that Paris was a jew’s harp making city in the Late Middle Ages. In this geographical context we should also draw attention to the rich iconographical sources from Metz in Lorraine, where the d’Esch family has left a remarkable number of depictions of jew’s harps from the period from about 1439 to 1535 (Crane 2003b: 15–28).The representations appear as illustrations in books and manuscripts and as

92 Annemies Tamboer, pers. comm. 93 Ånon Egeland, pers. comm. 94: Thanks to Andreas König

77

Greifswald Odiham Nijmegen Stafford

Fig. 4.2: Distribution of the copper alloy types, illustrating a movement from east to west. Unprovenanced finds are not included. Notice also the absence of finds in the Alpine area.

decorative elements on various constructions such as the city wall, a fortified building, a church and even on cannons.The significance of this abundancy of visual representations is not clarified (ibid.), but the jew’s harp obviously enjoyed a special position in this family. The objects are always depicted with the same form.The shape of the bow is not unlike a heart, a shape that is unknown from archaeological materials.95 In Metz there is one singel archaeological harp, excavated at Place de la Comédie and dated to the secand half of the 15th century (no. 825). The item is not illustrated in the Catalogue, and it is difficult to clarify its relationship to the d’Esch family. As for iconography, a large number of pictures with depictions of the jew’s harp were produced in the Benelux countries between the 15th and 17th centuries, with paintings by, among others, the artists Hans Burgkmair, Pieter Brueghel and Sebastian Vrancx (Boone 1972, 1986; Crane 2003b). Together with the archaeology, these sources sug-

gest that the jew’s harp was a common musical instrument in this region. If we again focus on the concentration of finds around the British Channel, one appropriate question is whether this reflects more than population density. There is no archaeological documentation of manufacture in the region, but the cluster of finds is a strong indication of a production centre. Printed documents give evidence of the commercial manufacture of jew’s harps in England up to the 20th century. Several makers were active in the Birmingham area in the 19th century, witnessed by catalogues from 1814 and 1822 and other sources (Crane 2003a: 68–9,Wright, forthcoming).We do not know how far back the manufacture in England goes, although documents relating to trade may suggest that English-made specimens were exported overseas from the 17th century onwards. If we turn to the archaeology, there are some data that

95 A personal story about Metz: in May 1999 I travelled in Germany to study jew’s harps in museums. One of my appointments was cancelled on the way, so on impulse I decided to change the itinerary slightly by making a detour via Metz – the first city over the French border. I spent the weekend there, relaxingly free of jew’s harps. After I arrived home, Professor Frederick Crane, the leading Jew’s harp specialist from Iowa City with whom I had corresponded but not met, told me about Metz’s rich iconographical sources for the history of the jew’s harp, adding that he had recently been there to study these sources. Strangely enough, it turned out that he had been in Metz the same weekend as I had!

78

shed light on the question. Some of the described types have distinct distributions in particular areas.The 51 specimens of the Stafford type (pp. 72–3) were found in England with only two exceptions (Paris, no. 311; and Ireland, no. 459), and none of the six examples of the Rochester type were found outside England, suggesting that these types are exclusively English. Chapter 3 suggested that there was a development within the types of cast jew’s harps, from instruments with thin and fragile frames towards instruments with thicker, more solid frames. If we also consider the arm length/overall length (AL/OL) ratio, the development would follow the sequence Greifswald Odiham Nijmegen Stafford. A distribution map of these types shows, interestingly, a geographical movement too (Fig. 4.2). Most of the Greifswald finds are concentrated in the north and east, especially around Øresund, while the Odiham and the Nijmegen types, especially the latter, are distributed chiefly in the Benelux countries. Finally, there is a cluster of Stafford harps in southern England.

Another jew’s harp was excavated at a castle, Landskron, close to the Swiss border (no. 616). That the finds are recovered at castles is the rule in the Alpine area. If we look at the southern provinces of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg in Germany, only two of the twenty-five examples were not excavated at castles. These are from the city of Konstanz (nos 491–2). Of the castle finds in Baden-Württemberg, several are from the Swabian Alps (nos 171–3, 488–90), with others from the Schwartzwald (nos 472–3, 477). In Bavaria the finds are more widely spread, as the distribution map shows. The Austrian finds are confined to the middle and western parts of the country, in Upper Austria (nos 335–53), Salzburg (345–7) and Tirol (nos 807–14).The data substantiate that the instrument existed in Austria from approximately the same time as elsewhere in Europe and that castles are where they are most commonly found, as in southern Germany and Switzerland. Finds not made at castles are those from Molln (nos 348–50) and Enns (nos 335–8). Typologically, the Austrian finds are similar to those from the rest of the Alpine area. Note that no Cu-alloy harps are found in this region (cf. Fig. 4.2, p. 78). Interestingly, none of the Austrian specimens exhibit the typical D-shape (Ekeberg type) that is usually associated with manufacture in Molln. The only Catalogue entry from Italy is that for Montereale Castle in the Friuli-Venezia region (no. 796). It dates from the 16th century and is classified as the Horsens type. That no more excavated pieces are known from the Alpine area of Italy is probably a matter of chance since they are so frequently found in Switzerland and Austria. They begin to occur in Switzerland just across the border from Italy, for example in Bellinzona (no. 511) and La Presa (no. 646), both in the Italian-speaking canton of Ticino, and in Giätrich,Wiler (no. 618), and Valere, Sion (no. 645). Concerning the Swiss finds, the great majority are from the northwestern parts of the country. As in the rest of the Alpine region, the finds come chiefly from castles. None are from cities. One reason for this is that excavations in Swiss cities produce very few metallic artifacts, probably due to unfavorable preservation conditions.96 Among the non-castle finds there are about ten from alpine mountain dairy huts. There is no documentation of manufacture in Switzerland. Meyer and Oesch (1972: 222) mention Zurzach as a possible place of manufacture around 1600, but make no further reference to this.97 The abundant material from Hallwil (86 examples) would perhaps indicate production. However, the punch marks on several pieces are a strong indication that they were made in Boccorio, Italy. One of the specimens (no. 587) bears a punch mark in the form of a fish and a star, evidently from the maker Giacomino Giacomo Antonio, fu Gio-Pietro of Boccorio, who was assigned this mark in 1790 according to

The South The southernmost find in this material comes from Montségur Castle in southern France, north of Andorra (no. 304). It is an important find because it dates to the 13th century, establishing that jew’s harps were known in this area no later than elsewhere in Europe. Toulouse has also produced finds; their form and age are unknown, but one photo published on the internet (no. 801) shows an example of the Kransen type, suggesting a 13th or 14th century dating. The two Cu-alloy items from Cimiez, Nice (no. 621), and Rougiers (no. 622) also belong, typologically, to the early phase. The latter is dated from the circumstances of the find to the 14th century. With the exception of the finds from southern France, no materials are known from south of the Alps.The Alpine countries therefore represent the southern region of excavated jew’s harps. Here, Switzerland is the country with by far the most finds (137 examples), displaying a cluster on the distribution map. The Rhône-Alpes, Alsace, southern Germany,Austria and northern Italy should also be regarded as part of this jew’s harp region. Neither of the two finds from the Rhône-Alpes, those from Brandes-en-Oisans (no. 331) and Gironville (no. 332), corresponds typologically to the most common finds from Switzerland and Austria. They correlate better to other French finds and are classified as the Gironville type. However, the Brandes-en-Oisans piece has few parallels, with its lamella extending behind the frame as much as eight to nine millimetres. In Alsace there is a concentration of finds from the castles of Rathsamhausen-Ottrott (nos 625–7, 630, 633) and Ortenbourg (nos 628–9, 631–2), both south of Strasbourg.

96 Werner Meyer, pers. comm. 97 “Um etwa 1600 werden Zurzach und Varese genannt” (Meyer and Oesch 1972: 222).

79

written documents (Lovatto 1983: 23). Such double marks are found on several of the Hallwil harps, and it is very plausible that they all originate in Boccorio or other places in Valsesia. Moreover, the finding of this mark also makes it reasonable to suppose that most of the Hallwil material is post-medieval. If the jew’s harps found at Hallwil were made in Valsesia in the post-medieval centuries, a possible distribution channel was soldiers who brought them back from Italy. The Swiss Confederation expanded military activity in northern Italy in the early 16th century (Flüeler et al. 1975: 341–7). Moreover, Swiss mercenary soldiers were found in many European armies in the 16th to the 19th centuries, including Italian. About two million Swiss soldiers joined mercenary armies in this period (ibid.). If we consider the finds that are with certainty medieval, punch marks may be of assistance too. The harp from Giätrich, Wiler, in Valais (no. 618) is dated to the 13th or 14th century and has a punch mark identical to one appearing on a specimen from Balhorner Feld, Paderborn, in Germany (no. 156). The latter is dated to the late 13th century. Both are of the Kransen type.The finding substantiates the notion that these objects were made at the same workshop, probably by the same maker, and that they have travelled a long distance, but it does not establish in which direction they travelled or where they were made. A similar parallel can be drawn between one artifact from AltWartburg, Aargau (no. 293), and a Swedish find from Lund (no. 53).These both have U-shaped punch marks.98 Punch marks will be discussed at greater length in a section of their own (pp. 85–9). We still await evidence of jew’s harp production centres that predate 1500, in the Alpine countries as well as in the rest of Europe. Identifying the physical traces of a workshop would be the most desirable evidence as written documentation is lacking. One small indication we do have comes from Enns, Austria, where four jew’s harps were found at the site of a late medieval blacksmith's workshop (nos 335–8). Mohr’s interpretation (1999: 19–20) is that the harps are semi-manufactured, in other words that they were forged at this workshop. One (no. 337) has arms that are slightly divergent – perhaps not yet bent into position. On the other hand there is a possibility that the arms were bent outwards after the instrument was abandoned. The other specimens from Enns do not indicate manufacturing, at least not judging from the photos in Mohr (op. cit). On one (no. 336) a small portion of the lamella survives near the point of attachment, as is the case with most archaeological jew’s harps. One important question is how far back the manufacturing traditions at the well-known production centres of Molln in Upper Austria and Valsesia in Italy go. Written documents inform us that a guild of makers was established in Molln in 1679 (Klier 1956).The earliest written sources from Valsesia go back to 1524 (Lovatto 1983, 2004), sug-

gesting that production in the valley may have begun earlier than in Molln. The manufacturing predominance of both places could of course have been built on an older tradition, but so far there is nothing in the archeological records to suggest that either was established as a leading production centre in the Middle Ages. Whether or not the production in Valsesia was established in the Middle Ages, the lack of archaeologically excavated jew’s harps from Italy remains difficult to understand. The reason is either that these instruments were not used in medieval Italy, or that specimens have yet to be found. I think the latter alternative is the more likely, especially because traditions of medieval archaeology are not as developed in Italy as in northern European countries. Traditionally, Italy has been more interested in its Roman and Etruscan history, and archaeologists have literally shovelled away the medieval earth layers to allow them to start their “real” excavations. Another explanation may be that the medieval layers are not always regarded as needing identification because the period they represent is simply too recent and they are still “above the ground”, so to speak. This is also a reasonable explanation for the lack of finds from Portugal, Spain and the Balkans. However, we should not exclude the possibility that the Alps and the Pyrenees acted as southern barriers, at least until the 16th century. Time will show if this is the reason for the lack of medieval jew’s harps in the Mediterranean area.

The East No clusters of finds are identified in the eastern part of the distribution map, apart from an indistinct tendency to a concentration in Hungary and Slovakia. However, there is no reason to believe that the instrument was not established in the areas with more scattered finds or with no finds at all (Czech Republic, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia) The scarcity of finds is most likely accidental. The Hungarian, Slovakian and Romanian jew’s harps recorded here are all made of iron and they do not stand out from the Western European material. The piece excavated at the Slovakian village of Branc (no. 467), for instance, looks like a common 15th century harp of the Horsens type. Of the comparatively few harps that have been found, several have arms that are very long relative to the bow, including three Hungarian specimens (nos 358–60).There are no good datings for these, unfortunately. Note the striking similarity between two of the Hungarian pieces (nos 359–60) and two from, respectively Enns, Austria (no. 335), and Neu-Schellenberg Castle, Liechtenstein (no. 617). The latter is dated to the 13th or the 14th century. One harp from Pozsony Castle, Bratislava, is dated from the circumstances of the find to the 14th century. However, typologically we should not exclude the possibility that some of the objects are older. In this connection, we should draw

98 The mark on the Alt-Wartburg specimen is known from verbal description only.

80

attenttion to the find from the Republic of Moldova (no. 301) that, according to the excavation report, dates from the 9th or 10th century (Fedorov 1954, Kolchin 1959). The validity of this dating remains an open question as the excavators do not report on stratigraphy or other find circumstances. One interpretation is that it really is an authentic early find, and that jew’s harps were used in the region without leaving further traces of their existence.The other possibility is that the object is modern. Typologically there is no clue, at least judging from the photographic evidence alone. From the same area we have the Romanian finds (nos 461–5), which are all from the Moldavian province, west of the Carpathians.99 These are reported to date from the 15th to 16th centuries. One has the typical D-shaped bow of the Ekeberg type (no. 462); another represents the typical postmedieval harp of the Gloucester type (no. 461). Nor do the other three deviate from specimens found in the rest of Europe, suggesting that they are part of the same tradition. The four Polish finds are all medieval.That from Gdansk (no. 792) was excavated in layers from the 14th century.The remaining three have not been assigned ages more specific than “medieval”.What is interesting about them is that they are located in Lower Silesia (Dolny Slask), which was a centre of jew’s harp virtuosi in the 18th and 19th centuries (Henning 1982). Several famous players were born or lived in Silesia, for example Franz Koch (1761–1831) and Wilhelm Ludwig Schmidt (1787–1858).Wroclaw (Breslau) was apparently a centre of this musical tradition.Two of the archaeological harps are from the Old City of Wroclaw (no. 738–9). The last Silesian example is from Szczerba Castle (no. 737), just across the border in the Czech Republic. In Russia there are finds from three places: Novgorod, Bryansk and Idelbayev in Bashkortostan.The last (no. 300) was excavated from an eighth or ninth century burial mound. Coming from the Ural region, it represents the eastermost find in the entire material, unfortunately placed outside my distribution maps here [figs. 4.1, 4.3).This idioglottic piece falls outside the remaining material both geographically and typologically. It should be viewed in a context of idioglottic jew’s harp of various materials found in Siberia, Mongolia, China and elsewhere in Asia. Let us hope that the significance of this find and possibly others from the same region will be clarified in the future. The one from Bryansk (no. 799) is late medieval, of the Schauenburg type.The specimen has long arms but an oval and well-defined bow. It has a somewhat strange appearance, with no obvious parallels. Possibly it was made in Bryansk or the surrounding area. Bryansk is not far from the Belorussian regions of Mogilev and Vitebsk, where three harps have come to light (no. 820, 822–3).The fourth Belorussian piece comes from Lida in the western Grodno-region (no. 821). Unfortunately, we do not have much data on the finds from Belarus, except that they were excavated at medieval cas-

tles. The piece from Drutsk Castle (no. 820) is claimed to date from teh 12th century. Only two of the five examples from Novgorod (nos 295–9) are illustrated. One (no. 296) has a circular bow and looks like the common post-medieval form (Gloucester type) except that its bow has a hexagonal cross-section. It is dated to the 15th century.The other one for which there is an illustration (no. 295) dates to the 13th century. It has a small extension of the lamella behind the bow. It is generally characterized by an archaic appearance that has only few parallels in Western Europe, as described earlier (p. 62). One’s intuitive feeling is that it was made in Novgorod by a local blacksmith. Novgorod was an important place for trade in the Viking era and onwards through the Middle Ages.The most important trade items from Novgorod were fur, leather and wax.

Early phase To identify distributional patterns for each century or even exact dates would be interesting, but it is hardly feasible because too many finds are undated or dated with too little precision.To include only those with a dating confirmed to within a century would result in a map with only scattered finds.While we await more data, it is better to build on the types and the chronological framework associated with them (cf. pp. 53–74). I have divided the material into two phases: an early phase, from the 13th century to about 1500, and a late phase, from the 16th century onwards. In other words the two phases are, roughly speaking, respectively medieval and post-medieval. The early phase includes the types that can be assigned with certainty to the Middle Ages. These are the Kransen, Billingsgate, Horsens, Kuusisto, Gironville, Schauenburg, Greifswald, Odiham and Nijmegen types. Only specimens dated to earlier than 1500 are included in the following distribution map (Fig. 4.3). Finds of unknown type that have been dated to the medieval period by excavators or museums are included too. There are two features to note from Fig. 4.3. First, the finds are widely distributed. Second, the largest concentration is to be found in the north. The Øresund region was already a centre in the 13th to 15th centuries, as noted earlier. Apart from the Moldavian and Baskhirian specimens, which may have been made as early as the eighth to tenth centuries (nos 300–1), the oldest single finds are two from Lübeck, Germany (no. 493), and Schönenwerd Castle in Switzerland (no. 612), both of which date to around 1200. Several others are dated to the 13th century – those from Sweden (nos 82, 122), the United Kingdom (nos 377–8), Germany (nos 156, 468–70), France (no. 304) and Estonia (no. 417). This wide geographical distribution demonstrates that the jew’s harp was commonly known in the 13th century. This is further sub-

99 It has not been possible to identify these five jew’s harps individually. The publication (Cosma 1977) does not ascribe individual items in the illustration to particular localities.

81

Place with 1–3 finds Place with 4–9 finds Place with 10 or more finds

Fig. 4.3: Distribution map, Europe, 13–15th centuries (early phase)

stantiated by finds dated to the 13th and 14th centuries, of which several presumably represent the 13th century. Given the wide distribution and typological diversity already present in the 13th century, it is difficult to ascertain where and through which channels the instrument arrived in Europe. Leaving its origin out of the argument, I would suggest five possibilities for how the jew’s harp was established in Europe. 1. It was introduced from Asia via the trade routes along the Russian rivers and the Baltic.The archaeology supports this theory in that the material discovered around the Baltic is abundant, belongs to the early phase, and is typologically varied. 2. It arrived from Asia via the Mediterranean. The crusaders might have brought it back from the Middle East or Constantinople. There is nothing in the archaeological material to support this except that the earliest datings in the 13th century would match the Second and Third Crusades of the 12th century. Another vague, but interesting indication is an idea circulating in Valsesia in Italy that the Saracens (Arabs, especially those in southern Italy) brought the instrument there (Lovatto 2004: 6).This, how-

ever, is unlikely, as the Arabs were not familiar with the jew’s harp. Moreover, it is not known as an old instrument in Greece and Turkey, neither archaeology, iconography nor written sources account for its presence in the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, it could still have been traded through regions with no tradition of playing the instrument. 3. It was introduced from Asia through several channels at about the same time. Perhaps a Swedish merchant brought one back from a trip to Russia, while a group of French crusaders were introduced to it in Constantinople. Thus, the jew’s harp arrived in Sweden and France at approximately the same time and spread from there. Somewhat later, perhaps in the late 13th century, a European spice trader travelling on one of the caravan routes to Central Asia100 bought a number of jew’s harps in Samarkand and returned with them to London. Here I would draw attention to the almost identical shape of the frames of two pieces excavated in medieval London and an ethnographical sample from Afghanistan (Fig. 4.4), suggesting some kind of cultural contact. The similarity hardly proves anything, but it is an interesting parallel that provides some support for such imaginary reconstructions.

100 Trade and cultural exchange between Europe and the Orient has a long history. The caravan trade followed several routes, which are often referred to as the Silk Road. The merchants had to travel as light as possible; small and light, jew’s harps would have been perfect items to carry.

82

13th century. Following this theory, the explosive increase in its distribution in the high Middle Ages could be explained by the general expansive development in population and trade at this time. 5.Versions made of wood or bone were used in Europe before the heteroglottic metal version became established in the high Middle Ages, as mentioned in Ch. 2 (p. 27). Although there is nothing to indicate this in the archaeological records, there are some interesting ethnographical sources on wooden artifacts. Belá Bartok wrote that the jew’s harp in old Hungary was made of wood (Repizsky 1996).Wright (1972) mentions indications of wooden jew’s harps from Ireland, Flanders and Hungary.101 There is also some information about such instruments from Norway102 and Romania.103 Unfortunately, the available sources give only weak indications. While awaiting more substantiated data, we are left to speculate on the matter. Maybe jew’s harps were made from combinations of wood and metal – for instance, with a metal frame and a wooden lamella. Or possibly they were similar in appearance to idioglottic wooden harps found in Asia.

A B

C Fig. 4.4: (A) No. 222 from the Old Custom House, London, 1270–1350 (Wardle 1998: 285, fig. 217, no. 933). (B) No. 223 from Baynard House, Queen Victoria Street, London, 1330–1380 (op. cit.: 285, fig. 217, no. 934). (C) Modern Afghan example from the Uzbek ethnic group with a long “tailpiece” of the lamella extending behind the frame (Dournon-Taurelle and Wright 1978: 114, no. 112). Length of the frame: 62 mm (A), 55 mm (B and C). The slightly diverging arms of no. 223 (B) are not an original feature.

4. It was already known in Europe in the early Middle Ages, as the Moldavian find (no. 301) indicates. It spread westwards very slowly and did not gain popularity until the

Place with 1–3 finds Place with 4–9 finds Place with 10 or more finds

Fig. 4.5: Distribution map, Europe, 16th–19th centuries (late phase) 101 “… we have heard tell of European Jew’s Harps made of Elder, or some similar wood, in Flanders, Hungary and Ireland” (Wright 1972: 57, note 9). 102 A man from western Norway told me that his grandfather used to play on a “small piece of wood”, perhaps a wooden jew’s harp. I have not been able to clarify whether the musical instrument in question were brought back by a seaman or if it represented a local tradition. 103 The Hungarian archaeologist Thomas Repizsky told of an old woman living in Romania who had some knowledge of wooden jew’s harps.

83

be traced back to Molln or Boccorio. As we have seen (pp. 79–80), a punch mark connects one jew’s harp from Hallwil Castle in Switzerland to an 18th-century maker in Boccorio. The harp is classified as the Hallwil type. An implication of the find is that all examples of this type were probably made in Valsesia. The example from Kufstein Fort in Tirol (no. 814) can also be ascribed to an individual maker. The twelve examples of the Kufstein type (p. 67), named after this find, were very plausibly manufactured in Molln. Apart from these, none were unquestionably made in Molln. However, it is conceivable that several of the post-medieval Gloucester and Ekeberg types originated there. Possibly most of them did. We still cannot trace any of the medieval jew’s harps to particular places of manufacture.Although there is no fundamental difference between those harps that are known for certain to have been made in Molln or Boccorio and the rest of the material, it is unlikely that all the material we have originated in those places. It is most reasonable to suppose that there were already several manufacturing centres as early as the 13th and 14th centuries. (Paris? Thüringen? The Netherlands? Scotland? Malmö?) An interpretation of medieval production and trade must be built on the archaeological finds and their distribution, backed up by reference to the backdrop of the economical and cultural situation at the time.

Late phase The late phase includes the types that are certainly postmedieval – Gloucester, Stafford, Kufstein, Höxter and Kvikkjokk. I have also included those that are most likely post-medieval, or where the majority of specimens are dated to later than ca 1500. Here the relevant types are Hallwil and Bruck. The distribution map (Fig. 4.5) demonstrates that the concentration has now moved from northeast to west and south. Compare in particular the situation in Sweden and England, respectively, in the early and late phases. As demonstrated for the copper alloy artifacts (Fig. 4.2), there was a geographical movement from Scandinavia towards the Benelux countries and England. The same movement is probably a feature of the material as a whole. There was a marked concentration in the Alpine area in the early period. In the late period this area maintains its importance, unlike southern Scandinavia. From post-medieval times there is written documentation about manufacture just in the Alpine area (Molln and Boccorio) as well as in Thüringen and England (Birmingham). In other words, written sources support the archaeology in that the concentration in the western and southern regions prevailed in the late period.

Production and trade

Mass production or artisanal work?

What types of production and trade are we looking at where jew’s harps are concerned? For example, does the abundant archaeological material indicate mass production? We know more about the situation in post-medieval times. As has been referred to earlier in the thesis, Molln in Upper Austria and Valsesia in northern Italy are known to have been centres of jew’s harp production from the 16th century onwards, although we do not know how old these centres are. In Molln a jew’s harp guild existed from 1679 (Klier 1956, Otruba 1986, Mohr 1998). Written sources suggest that jew’s harps were already being made in Valsesia in 1524 (Lovatto 1983, 2004). The most important village was Boccorio in the parish of Riva Valdobbia. In terms of quantity the production was enormous. In illustration, between 1600 and 1850 as many as 140 million jew’s harps were made in Boccorio, according to an estimate by Lovatto (2004: 13). In Molln in 1818, 33 masters and 14 apprentices made on average 9,000 pieces a day, or two and a half million in the course of the year (Klier op. cit.: 73).There were certainly large markets available where the items could be traded. Klier (op. cit.) writes that some of the harps went to markets in Vienna, Pest and Trieste, some went directly to Poland, Russia and Turkey, while others went to wholesalers in Nürnberg, Frankfurt and Leipzig. They certainly ended up throughout Europe, and probably overseas as well, where the items were used in trade and barter by the European colonialists (Mihura 1982, Bakx 1998a). Of the archaeological material, some of the objects may

The high Middle Ages (ca 1200–1340) were a period of expansion in Europe.The population was growing, the production of goods was growing, and specialization within arts and crafts was growing. A central impetus in this development was the towns and cities.They were markets for various kinds of manufactures and attracted all kinds of professional artisans. They also attracted merchants, who were engaged in an increasingly organized and regularized trade. The period when jew’s harps invade Europe coincides with this expansionary period of urbanization, production and trade. The abundance and appearance of the material does not indicate a domestic type of manufacture. Rather, it appears to be a product of professional craftsmanship, where skilled artisans, presumably based in towns and cities, made the objects for a market, whether they were sold near their place of manufacture or to travelling merchants or pedlars. Although the material as a whole is varied and diversified, the individual types are usually standardized and uniform. The medieval Kransen type, for instance, consists of instruments that, it would seem, were produced on a large scale for large markets.The quantity and uniformity of this type, as well as its wide distribution, are indicative of such a conclusion. At the other end of the scale some specimens look as if they were made by individual and perhaps experimenting village blacksmiths. The items from Uppsala (no. 122) or Brandes-en-Oisans (no. 331), for instance, are among the few in this category. Some harps are related to the common

84

forms only to a certain extent, for example those from Piksborg Castle in Sweden (nos 61–5), which stand out somewhat from the norm in that they are unusually robust. Perhaps these were part of a regional or local tradition where artisanal workshops produced instruments for a smaller market.These deviations illustrate that the material is mixed.

The guilds built on and secured specialization and they assured the quality of the craft products. The development of guilds ended in a monopoly system, where artisans had to be members of a guild to carry on their profession. There is no evidence of medieval guilds of musical instrument builders. In medieval times musicians usually made their own instruments, with specialized instrument building becoming common only in the late Middle Ages (Salmen 1983). In some places there were instrument builders earlier.Written sources show that in Cologne there was a street where stringed instruments were made as early as the first part of the 13th century (Moser 1918: 136). Where does the jew’s harp maker fit in to this picture? The answer depends on how specialized a craft jew’s harp making was considered to be – whether it was seen as a craft in its own right with its own regulations, or if it was regarded as a form of blacksmithing or metalworking. It is possible that cutlers made jew’s harps as well as their more usual wares.Another possibility is that truly specialized jew’s harp makers ambulated from place to place. With the current state of knowledge we can only speculate. Nevertheless, the possibility that jew’s harp guilds had come into existence by the high Middle Ages cannot be discounted. An indication would be the 1297-document from Paris, in which three makers of trumps ask for permission to performe their craft (p.77; Crane 2003c: 24–5

The quality of the products If most of the material results from mass production, is there any difference in quality between those that were mass produced and those which were not? Did large-scale mass production result in instruments with a reduced significance as musical instruments? Considered as musical instruments, the cheap, mass-produced jew’s harps available in music shops throughout Europe today are usually of poor quality.They are obviously the product of an assembly line.Among other things, this form of manufacture does not allow the best alignment of the lamella between the arms. It is of decisive importance for the instrument’s musical function that the distance between the lamella and the arms is as small as possible (Ledang 1972). Unfortunately, we do not know too much about how the harps in the archaeological material performed musically because none has survived as an intact musical instrument, with the lamella in place. However, when the arms are not too corroded, we can observe that they are made with refinement, with sharp edges facing the lamella. Moreover, the arms are not strictly parallel but somewhat tapered towards the tip, indicating that the lamella on each instrument was individually adjusted.Thus, the makers obviously knew what was required to make a good instrument. There are no signs of a trend through the centuries to better or worse instruments, nor are there signs of a reduced sophistication in the mass-produced examples compared to individually manufactured pieces. It is too simple to claim that mass-produced harps have a reduced quality compared to individually made or “hand-forged” harps.This might be so today,104 but in the period to which the archaeological material belongs, the division between mass-produced and artisanal work is indeed artificial. Artisans were already able to mass produce in the 13th century, and they were able to mass produce quality items. Despite the uniform appearance of the artifacts, there is always a touch of individuality to each of them.

Punch marks Marks that are punched into the frame on some specimens offer a promising means for tracing the production and trade of jew’s harps. Punch marks, or hallmarks, are found on a range of trade items from the late 13th century onwards (Steuer 1992: 405). Three kinds of marks can be identified in medieval Europe (Gamber 1980): master marks, control marks and marks denoting place of origin. The master marks belonged to individual makers or workshops and were awarded or assigned by the guild in recognition of the quality of manufacture.They also signified that the master was responsible for the quality of his products. Master marks could be sold. Control marks provided an assurance of the quality of trade items and were assigned by special inspectors or by the guilds. They were used for export products, predominantly textiles. Origin marks were marks identifying the town or place where the goods had been manufactured. They were often the coat-of-arms or initials of the place. The marks that appear on jew’s harps are probably most often master marks. As demonstrated earlier, there are two marks that can be attributed to particular makers in Molln and Boccorio (nos. 814 and 587, respectively).

Organization of the crafts From about 1100 artisans started to organize themselves in guilds, especially in large towns and cities. By the mid-13th century guilds were common throughout Western Europe.

104 The modern jew’s harp revival in Norway bases its existence on artisan-produced instruments. It seems “ideologically” important to maintain a sharp distinction between these expensive instruments and industrially manufactured, cheap harps. This is easy to understand, since it is very difficult to play traditional Norwegian tunes on the cheap, mass-produced instruments. However, the Norwegian “hand-forged” harps are often made with industrial grinding, modern soldering techniques and the like, and the makers have all developed their own models which they rarely or never deviate from. Thus their instruments have an industrial, almost uniform character. This is illustrative of the difficulties of distinguishing between artisanal work and mass production.

85

Marks with the letter “A” on some of the specimens from Hallwil Castle may be control marks, or they may be quality marks that the best masters were allowed to use. An “A” would indicate the premier quality. Several of the makers in Boccorio were allowed to use the letter A, as well as other signs (Lovatto 1983, 2004). There are also some double marks in the material from Hallwil, such as the star-and-fish mark (no. 587), where one interpretation might be that the star is a quality mark, while the fish is the maker’s mark. In total, nine such double marks are known from Hallwil. Placed on the side of the bow closer to the arms, they appear only on examples of the Hallwil type, which has the long oval shape to the bow. The bows have, accordingly, plenty of space for such long marks. The mark “Made in England” found on 19th and 20thcentury instruments may be regarded as an origin mark. Such marks are not found on excavated pieces and are not considered here. The marks found on medieval specimens are usually small symbols, not initials or letters. They are punched into the back of the bow, to one side of the point of attachment of the lamella.They confirm that jew’s harps were part of the manufacture that came under the auspices of a guild as early as the 13th century, and therefore establish that jew’s harps were made by professional artisans. Sometimes instruments have other features that may be regarded as marks, such as notches filed into the arms (e.g. nos 216, 555, 731) or ornamented patterns (e.g. nos 239, 619). Such features are not considered as marks here. Too often, the object’s poor state of preservation does not allow the identification of punch marks. Nevertheless, 53 punch marks have been identified in the archaeological material,105 or about six per cent of the total. Fig. 4.6 shows all the known marks to facilitate comparison.

No. 52 Lund, Sweden

No. 312 Paris, France

No. 534 Hallwil Castle, Switzerland

No. 53 Lund, Sweden

No. 293 Alt-Wartburg, Switzerland Mark shaped as an U (Not illustrated)

No. 171 Bittelschieß Castle, Germany

No. 156 Balhorner Feld, Germany

No. 479 Attendorn, Germany

No. 808 Seefeld, Austria

No. 485 Köln, Germany

No. 618 Giätrich/Wiler, Switzerland

105 Some uncertain marks are not considered. These are punch marks that it has not been possible to identify without further analysis (for example nos 43, 269 and 594).

86

No. 827 Slovakia (five-pointed star) No. 681 Amersfoort No. 509 Höflingen, Switzerland Mark shaped as a five-pointed star (Not illustrated)

No. 682 Amersfoort No. 487 Köln, Germany

No. 510 Bergeten, Switzerland

No. 684 Amersfoort

No. 73 Jönköping, Sweden (two parallel lines) No. 826 Slovakia

No. 162 Unprovenanced, Germany Possibly a punch mark, shaped as a 3–5 mm singel line (Not illustrated)

No. 719 Dordrecht, The Netherlands No. 483 Köln, Germany

No. 720 Dordrecht No. 484 Köln

No. 486 Köln

No. 482 Stendal, Germany

No. 678 Amersfoort, The Netherlands No. 814 Kufstein Fort, Austria

No. 548 Hallwil Castle, Switzerland

No. 679 Amersfoort

No. 551 Hallwil No. 680 Amersfoort

87

No. 536 Hallwil

No. 552 Hallwil No. 541 Hallwil No. 554 Hallwil No. 543 Hallwil

No. 533 or 549 HallwilThis mark, illustrated in Lithberg 1932: 37, No. 60, belongs either to No. 533 or 549 (Difficult to observe because of corrosion)

No. 547 Hallwil

No. 580 Hallwil No. 556 Hallwil

No. 582 Hallwil No. 587 Hallwil

No. 601 Hallwil No. 550 Hallwil No. 602 Hallwil No. 553 Hallwil

No. 603 Hallwil (?) This mark, illustrated in Lithberg 1932: 38, No. 68, probably belongs to No. 603. (Difficult to observe because of corrosion.)

No. 555 Hallwil

Fig. 4.6: Illustration of all the marks from the Catalogue. The most similar are placed first. The illustrations of the marks from Hallwil Castle are taken from Lithberg’s work on the material found there (1932). Acknowledgements of other sources are given in the Catalogue, where the marks are also shown, under each individual entry.

No. 533 or 549 Hallwil This mark, illustrated in Lithberg 1932: 37, No. 63, belongs either to No. 533 or 549 (Difficult to observe because of corrosion)

As the illustration shows, there are not many identical marks. The only ones that are absolutely identical, I would say, are the two from Balhorner Feld (no. 156) and Giätrich, Wiler (no. 618). Also the three marks from Lund (no. 52), Paris (no. 312) and Hallwil (no. 534) seem to be similar. Generally, then, we can say that there are a variety of marks. Although the marks probably represent a long period of time, the variety indicates that many makers or workshops were engaged in jew’s harp manufacturing.With the exception of

No. 528 Hallwil

No. 529 Hallwil

88

those originating in Boccorio (no. 587) and Molln (no. 810), the marks do not help us to identify places of manufacture, although there is, with the exception of Hallwil, a concentration of marks in western Germany and the Netherlands (Köln,Attendorn, Paderborn,Amersfoort and Dordrecht). An addition to the marks on the archaeological artifacts, there are some illustrations and descriptions in printed sources that are worth considering. These are all postmedieval. A lead plate from 1877 illustrating the marks of the masters in Molln gives evidence of 35 marks, most in the form of initials. The plate itself is probably lost, but a photograph of it survives (Mohr 1998: 31–2; also Klier 1956, Bakx 1993, Fox 1988). The written records from Molln are rich, allowing several initials from the 18th and 19th centuries to be identified and related to individual masters (Mohr, op. cit.).There were also punch marks from Molln that were formed as symbols. Marks in the form of a horseshoe, a weight, a sickle, an anchor, a cross and others were used in the first part of the 20th century (Himsl 1939, Mohr op. cit.: 52). For Boccorio too there are written records of marks.The earliest is from 1695, when the maker Giuseppe Carmelino was obliged to imprint his instruments with the letter A and a symbol of the globe (Lovatto 1983: 8, 23). Lovatto (op. cit.: 23–4) has identified several documents that link makers to particular master marks between 1790 and 1856. As mentioned earlier, one of these marks was found on a harp excavated at Hallwil Castle (no. 587). The double mark, illustrating a fish and a star, belonged to the maker “Giacomino Giacomo Antonio fu Gio-Pietro”. The other marks include the letter A with eagle and sun; A with sun and heart;A and violin; E and small bell; L and star; star and lion; beaker, bell and star; simple rose; Rose Madonna; mountain; flower; beaker; and trombetta.106 Finally, some marks have been found on material from the USA. The excavation at Fort Michilimackinac uncovered 122 jew’s harps, seven of which have punch marks (Stone 1974: 141–5).The marks are of three kinds:The letter R, the letter B, and a symbol “composed of 2 elements, each similar to an H with concave sides” (op. cit.: 141). Stone reports that the harps with marks are all made of brass and are small, with a length of less than 40 millimetres.

bution of similar objects may indicate that they have been made in different workshops rather than that the objects have travelled. Thus, jew’s harps might be widely distributed because the art of making them was widely distributed.Variations like those attested by the different types of harp may be evidence of the existence of different workshops or individual masters. Second, distribution reflects travelling people. Merchants and pedlars travel, but they are not the only ones to do so. Some pilgrims may have carried jew’s harps with them, though there is no specific evidence of this. More relevant are soldiers, along with travelling jugglers and beggars. Perhaps such people represented an important channel for the dispersal of harps. There is some material connecting these groups of people to the jew’s harp, as will be demonstrated in Chapter five. Third, distribution reflects innovation.Although the jew’s harp itself is unlikely to have been a European invention, this does not mean that all its variational forms were imported from the east. The technological and typological diversity is suggestive of some kind of innovatory activity within Europe. Fourth and finally, distribution reflects style and fashion. Just as different styles of architecture, painting or woodcarving have travelled, the designs of jew’s harps may have travelled too.Thus, harps with the lamella wedged in a hole in the frame (the Pärnu and Höxter types) could have been especially fashionable among certain groups of people, for instance seamen.These harps are predominantly distributed in the northern parts of Europe, roughly speaking along the trade route between London and Novgorod. They are not found in the Alpine area. Moreover, the sound of the jew’s harp could also be regarded as an object of fashion. The characteristic drone would be especially relevant, as this musical principle was a characteristic feature of medieval music. On bowed instruments particular strings were reserved for drones, while some instruments were especially designed to provide a drone sound, such as the bagpipe or the hurdy-gurdy.This might be an important explanation for the popularity of the jew’s harp in Europe. Another possibility is that interest in the jew’s harp has not remained stable but has experienced cyclic movements, like booms.There are signs of such booms in the 20th century. In Norway there was an upsurge in the popularity of the instrument in the mid-1960s, when more than 100,000 pieces were sold over a period of four years (Sevåg 1973). Another indication is a report by the US Department of Commerce in 1935 of an order given to a firm in Birmingham, England for 160,000 instruments (Spriggs 1993). It is not unreasonable to suppose that cyclical movements were already a feature of demand and production in the Middle Ages.

Trade and communication As in Molln and Boccorio, harps made by the medieval artisans could be traded in different ways.The makers sold some at local markets, while others were sold to merchants involved in long-distance trade. The distribution of the finds follows important trade routes, such as east–west from London to Novgorod, and along the Rhine. Yet the wide distribution of jew’s harps does not only reflect trade. As Steuer (1992) has reminded us, the distribution of archaeological artifacts reflects communication – in a wider sense than just trade alone. First, a wide distri-

106 Some of these marks are also listed by Baillet (1806/1988: 64).

89

Dialogue two: But is this really music history? DR TRUMPER: I find it both interesting and important to study a musical instrument from the point of view that we have here. Typology and distribution are important issues, especially for this kind of material. But I wonder if it is possible to integrate the music in all this. There is no written music for the medieval jew’s harp, and we do not know what people actually played. Historical musicologists have at least something to draw on, either manuscripts or some hints about the music and performance. I admit that I find the absence of written music a disadvantage, and that I am somewhat pessimistic regarding the possibilities of writing music history on the basis of corroded iron objects. DR HARPER: Well, it is not exactly the same situation as for scholars of Mozart, who can draw on large numbers of manuscripts combined with great performance traditions. On the other hand, there is nothing new about studying the remains of musical instruments. Particularly within the branch of musicology that has an interest in “early music” – baroque, renaissance and medieval – there are long traditions of studying the appearance and function of instruments, as well as the ways they might have been played. One can hardly imagine the general interest in early music and historical performance without this extensive research. Remember that the objects of these studies are often merely fragmentary remnants of musical instruments. They are the fossil remains of musical activities – just as archaeological jew’s harps are.And I think there is not such a long conceptual span from our corroded iron objects to, for example, renaissance viols. Both are musical instruments.The difference is that there are more iconographical representations and written sources for the viols. DR TRUMPER: Yes, but that difference is crucial. Written sources, especially musical manuscripts, give one access to the music, even though the notes hardly give a full account of the music as it would have sounded. Reconstructors of the viol have the possibility of considering the musical styles current at the time, and a knowledge of those styles can be obtained from the manuscripts. Moreover, these researchers cooperate with the historical performance movement. Many renaissance ensembles base their performances on the work of historians of instruments.The viol researchers thus participate in contemporary musical events because the manuscripts first become music when they are performed as music, resounded today. The music is given aesthetic presence, as Dahlhaus would put it.107 With the medieval jew’s harp the situation is quite differ-

ent. Because we lack written music, and consequently a musical tradition derived from it, we cannot construct a music history for the instrument. Of course, we can make imaginative guesses at how it sounded, as convincingly we can, but that is a different thing. DR HARPER:The distinction you make is artificial. First, regarding your last statement, I would claim that all scholars approaching the past explicitly or implicitly use their imagination and intuition to “re-envision” the past108 – or their version of the past – no matter which sources they have at hand. Second, you seem to presuppose a fixed connection between written music of the past and its use today.There is no such connection. I mean – musical traditions with contemporary aesthetic presence do not necessarily originate from manuscripts! All “living” music derives from the past, and is in some way the result of traditions. The traditional jew’s harp music of Scotland is a living source for medieval music, although the music obviously does not sound today as it did seven hundred years ago.Traditional music around the world has often originated far back in time.These musics are transmitted to the present through processes of change and transformation in the same way as written “art music”. Whether the tradition has lived in concert halls or streets does not make any difference that is relevant. DR TRUMPER: But the interesting thing is that historical musicologists have the possibility to find out how tradition has transformed “art music” over the centuries because they can always go back to the original document, which is the work itself. DR HARPER: Perhaps you have a good point there. But I feel that there are a lot of problems when using manuscripts as reflections of works, in the sense of fixed, original entities. The status of a work seems a bit tricky to me because it has a twofold nature: it is a frozen object at the same time as it is dependent on performance to exist. Moreover, you will also be faced with the problem of the relation between orality and literacy. If you enter that problem area, you will probably find several difficulties with maintaining a sharp distinction between written and nonwritten musical traditions. DR TRUMPER: Well, I admit this touches on difficult and complex matters. Let us leave it for now. The point I want to make is that we – as archaeological jew’s harp specialists –are, after all, doing something different than the historical musicologists. DR HARPER: To me, you seem too concerned with boundary-making. I am not happy with your persistent ref-

107 Dahlhaus 1983: 4. 108 Jeffery 1992.

90

erence to historical musicologists as someone else. What about us? Aren’t we also historical musicologists? How would you define the difference? I think it’s not just a matter of the lack of written sources. Perhaps one reason for your unwillingness to regard yourself as a historical musicologist is that you don’t relate to the musical canon of the West, and the musicology derived from that. It is not necessary to be a Marxist to recognize that European “art music” has existed predominantly among the noble classes. It belongs to the upper layers of social and cultural hierarchies.This is an old pattern, going back at least to the Middle Ages. In medieval times, scholars and theorists of music produced hierarchies of what was good music and what was not.The lowest rank was not regarded as music at all.This was merely a consequence of the scholar’s emphasis on the music of the church, and of the way “professional” music had to be written music. Musicological circles today function hierarchically in a similar way. People working with the “wrong” and low-ranking topics are not accepted in the club! I do not think we should contribute to a reproduction of such old structures. DR TRUMPER: I agree with a lot of what you say. I share your critical attitude towards the hegemonies of the leading musical and musicological groupings. However, there is also a risk that this criticism appears somewhat exaggerated, even something of a moan. Moreover, it is outmoded. Remember that we’ve reached the 21st century. A lot of different musics, including apparently low-cultural ways of expression, for instance rock music, are now accepted and integrated parts of music-school and university syllabuses around the world. DR HARPER: Such apparent democratization is, however, largely an illusion. We still see that prestige structures influence academic work. Some approaches to academic thinking and writing are certainly more susceptible to fashion than others. Unfortunately, many scholars strive to make their writings “up-to-date”.This is about control of cultural symbols.The leading and most powerful cultural classes will control the ranking of symbols, as for instance Bourdieu has pointed out.109 DR TRUMPER: Perhaps prestige structures do exist. But they hardly operate on a single scale, from low to high.There is no monolithic, one-dimensional hierarchy that everyone has to relate to. Anyway, I am not afraid of hierarchies.They are ancient and universal ways of thinking and classifying.110 I am more tired of the project of legitimizing our activity, which seems to be as eternal as the hegemonies themselves. If we insist on being there, crying “We want to play with you!”, the only result will be that we end up on the fringes of the playground.The struggle to get access to the game is taking up too much time. Rather than argue endlessly that our contributions are important, and that we should be promoted to the premier league, we should use our time to do research, to show in practice that it is possible to think in dif-

ferent ways and do different things.With regard to our situation as “marginalized” jew’s harp researchers, I consequently do not want to be associated with historical musicology. Let them continue with their activities. DR HARPER: Although we relate to the same research traditions, we appear to have different views on which terms we should use to describe our work. Our divergent views are due to individual choice. My choice is to hold on to historical musicology because I refuse to abandon this term, or the subject, to other people and topics. Of course I would also describe my work as music archaeology, and sometimes as ethnomusicology, though I will always insist that the history of the jew’s harp should be about music history. DR TRUMPER: I understand what you say, and I agree that it is a matter of individual choice. But it is also something more than a mere choice of terms. Remember that the terms carry their meaning with them.Therefore, when you introduce yourself at a conference as a historical musicologist, people get a mistaken picture of what you really do. DR HARPER: If they’re only thinking of Mozart or studies of written music, that’s their problem. If I introduce myself as a historical musicologist, it reflects my clear intention to operate as one. I work with music as well as historical musicology. DR TRUMPER: Accordingly, I guess you tend to speak of “musical instruments” rather than using alternative concepts, regardless of how other scholars or the general public will understand it. My preference is to use the term “soundproducing device”, used by music archaeologists as an alternative to “musical instrument”.This term is a general designation for all categories of artifacts that are capable of producing sound, and it leads to wide conceptions and categories. Conversely, the term “musical instrument” may result in a contemporary, narrow understanding of music. This comprehension of music is wrongly applied to the sounds and musical practices of the past.The consequence is an ethnocentric and “chronocentric”111 history of music. DR HARPER: Here again, we run the risk of “losing” the terminology to others. If we avoid the term “musical instrument”, somebody else will adopt it and influence how it is used. The musical and musicological establishment will continue to define what is music and what is not.The early, nonliterate periods of history will, as a result, appear to be more or less devoid of music. I am afraid that a division between “sound-producing devices” and “musical instruments” will produce and maintain an unhappy split between the “real” music/art music of the west and “non-music”, whether we speak of the ritual music of tribal or traditional peoples, children who play with sound – putting things that strike the spokes on their bicycles, playing with firecrackers – or prehistoric people, who produced thousands of sound-producing artifacts that we know of but hardly any “musical”instruments.

109 Bourdieu 1984, 1994. 110 Durkheim and Mauss 1963. 111 Skog 1991: 24.

91

DR TRUMPER: I agree that such a division is unfruitful. It represents a fixed and final terminology, and I agree with you that we should avoid such rigid, boundary-preserving categories. Interestingly, a widely accepted view among archaeologists as well as musicologists is that “primitive” and prehistorical expressions of sound are to be understood as something other than music. The tools for making these sounds tend to be labelled after their functions, such as tools serving practical functions (signalling and announcing tools, hunting whistles, etc.) or ritual purposes (the shamanic drum, bronze lurs, etc.). Following this approach, music would be defined as aesthetic sounds used simply for pleasure, where the music is produced for the sake of music and nothing else. I think we should avoid this categorization of possible instruments as respectively ritual, practical or aesthetic tools – in other words, we shouldn’t preoccupy ourselves with what is music and what is not. Neither should we aim to include as much as we can in the category of aesthetic sound – i.e. “music”. Instead, we should try to think more flexibly.There is a lot of aesthetic pleasure in ritual and functional sounds, there are functions in ritual and aesthetic sounds, and, finally, there is also ritual in functional and aesthetic sounds. Consequently this is a complex matter. For what is music after all, and what is a “musical instrument”? We should try as far as possible to find concepts that produce the best associations.“Sound-producing device” is better because it does not take part in this difficult debate about what is music and what is not. DR HARPER: But this terminology, with your avoidance of the term “musical instrument”, will inevitably be a part of the debate. I agree that this is a complex matter. An endless debate about what is music and what is not will lead us nowhere. But I would still have no problem in categorizing a jew’s harp – whether used as a voice disguiser or as a shamanic sound tool – as a musical instrument because I believe we should have a wide understanding of music. Music is, and has always been, part of a diversity of themes or activities, such as religion, power, social integration or simply surviving (hunting whistles). Music is not just about sounds made for pleasure around the fireplace in the evenings. DR TRUMPER: I agree that we should define music in its widest sense. But there are cases where it is hard to maintain the concepts of music and musical instruments. I am thinking of artifacts that are found to have dual functions. These are strong arguments for acknowledging the usefulness of the term “sound-producing device”. Sometimes an artifact is used as a flute, while at other times it is used as a case for needles, for example. Playing with firecrackers is not always music, of course, but someone somewhere will regard it as music. To cover such dual functions we should find terms that are wider so that we can switch to and from them more easily. Thus, a sound-producing device can be interpreted as a musical instrument, or as not a musical instrument. In both

cases it remains a sound-producing device due to its ability to produce sound. But a musical instrument can’t be interpreted as a non-musical instrument. DR HARPER: Listen, I have a suggestion which represents both a continuation and an innovation of the concepts we’ve been talking about: if we redefine the term musical instrument so that it denotes any instrument that can produce musical sound, we will have a concept similar to your sound-producing device.The background to this is an ambiguity in the use of the word musical: a “musical director” could refer to any director – for example the director of a factory – who happens to be musical because he or she plays the clarinet.The correct term for the head of music at any institution is Director of Music. Strangely enough, this same ambiguity is quite acceptable when applied to an instrument. A “musical instrument” should therefore describe any instrument, for example a dentist’s drill, that happens to produce a musical sound. Surely the logical conclusion is that instruments whose only function is their use for music production should be termed “instruments of music” or “music instruments”. A musical instrument, then, may be a music instrument, or something else. DR TRUMPER:That sounds interesting, despite the fact that “musical instrument” is an established term, with the same meaning as your proposed “music instrument”. But your aim is presumably not to change language … DR HARPER: No, not overnight! It is, of course, only an observation about language. But it is also a clarifying and rhetorical move.The advantage of this terminology is that it keeps the words “music” and “musical” through an expanded concept of “musical”. DR TRUMPER:This reminds me of something similar: why is “music archaeology” not known as “musical archaeology”? Isn’t this the reverse of the common use of “musical instrument”? DR HARPER:Yes, it is strange. The same thought had occurred to me. For why do we take the commonly used term “music archaeology” for granted? There is a risk that “music archaeology” leads to an unfortunate emphasis on “music” as a narrow concept. It might give some people the impression that the term implies ambitious research and reconstruction of the sound of the music of the past. They will then take little interest in the matter because of the obvious problem of reconstructing how this music sounded on the basis of archaeological material. Parallel to my suggestion to reconceptualize “musical instrument”, let’s suppose that “musical archaeology” would be a better term. It would produce wider associations and more suitably include, for instance, problems relating to the social and cultural significance of sounds and soundscapes, or to the social status of the makers and performers of music. However, I would not really propose a new name for the discipline.An additional name would confuse rather than clarify the situation. Different terms have already been employed, such as “archaeomusicology”112 or “archaeo-organology”.113

112 E.g. Lund 1981; Olsen 1986, 1990. 113 E.g. Rimmer 1981; Hakelberg 1995: 9–10.

92

DR TRUMPER: Do you think the different terms reflect different views on whether or not to focus on music? I mean, compared to “music archaeology”, the concepts of “archaeomusicology” or “archaeo-organology” do not seem to be any the less about music or musical problems. DR HARPER: No, I don’t think the concepts represent fundamentally different views.Which concept to use is basically a matter of choice. I think all music archaeologists share the interest in music, in some meaning of the term, regardless of concepts and terminologies. DR TRUMPER: But, of course, there are different views and methods concerning how to approach material and problems. One research strategy is that outlined by Cajsa S. Lund, who in 1980 described the situation faced by the young and experimental discipline of music archaeology in Scandinavia.114 She affirmed as appropriate the preoccupation at the time with collecting, describing and classifying materials, i.e. musical instruments and sound-producing devices. Only later, in her view, should music archaeologists move on from this initial stage and compare their results with those from related fields – archaeology, music ethnology, history of art, history of religion, communication theory and so on.The final stage of this stepwise research strategy would be the integration of results from the various disciplines and the formation of an interdisciplinary field, which she called “prehistorical music anthropology” (Vorgeschichtsmusikanthropologie). Lund’s stepwise program is understandable because this is a pioneering field of study where it is necessary to collect and document material simply to provide the basis for research. It is impracticable to design a field of study without material or data. On the other hand, the stage-by-stage strategy is only a theoretical construction, which is difficult to employ in practice. It is impossible to collect and describe material without asking questions about it. Dale A. Olsen proposes another model for music archaeological research. It is different, as it describes four processes in which different sources and cross-boundary approaches are used simultaneously.115 The aim of the model is to gain musical knowledge from the objects of study, whether this is a knowledge of scales or other aspects of musical structure, or – nota bene – knowledge of cultural relations.The first of the four processes of the model is the archaeomusicological process, which aims at a complete description and classification of the object(s). Second, the music iconological process includes a thorough investigation of similar artifacts as depicted in painting, sculpture and other sources.Third, the historiographic process takes into account relevant contemporary written sources.The fourth and final process is the ethnological analogy process.This is about comparisons from living people and traditions – in other words drawing parallels across the span of time – or from past cultures. Both archaeological and iconographical evidence may be the subject of

such comparison.The ethnological analogy process is consequently related to and partly subsumes the three preceding processes. DR HARPER: I think Olsen’s model is more detailed, and better as a practical guideline for research, while Lund’s model seems to represent little more than a theoretical statement.They are not therefore comparable. DR TRUMPER: We should remember too that they were constructed under very different circumstances. Lund’s Scandinavian setting is not as rich in written, iconographical and archaeological sources as Olsen’s settings, which are South American and Etruscan. DR HARPER: However, the models still advocate basically the same ideas. Both extend the perspectives beyond the empirical, and are concerned about more than identification and typology, even if those issues are important. Both reflect a willingness to work in an interdisciplinary fashion and to address the question of musical culture, which I believe is terribly important. I think that interdisciplinarity and culture-sensitivity form the basis for music archaeology as a field of study. If we are to explore the musical expressions that our relatively scarce archaeological material has been part of, it is in the nature of the case that we must use different types of data and search for any kind of evidence that will help explain the musical culture in consideration, for example by using literary and iconographic sources (when available), as well as all relevant contextual data from the work of colleagues involved with other aspects of the culture. The culture-sensitivity is a part of this same picture. Archaeologists have to be aware of cultural and environmental factors while excavating material objects and gaining information from them. In theory, it is possible for a music archaeologist to work with artifacts without being interested in context and culture. But in reality, I think music archaeologists are typically interested in a wide cultural approach as a result of having to contextualize their finds … DR TRUMPER: … as opposed to historical musicologists, who are more into artifact-centred approaches. They are often predominantly preoccupied with manuscripts and musical analyses derived from them. It is a matter of fact that “works” or sound structures, not cultural processes, are the focus of attention for most historical musicologists.116 Traditional historical musicology has hardly been preoccupied with the musical culture of ordinary people because of a notable focus on music that can be traced in written sources. Music archaeology is bound to a different agenda, as you have outlined, with an approach that is much closer to archaeology than to musicology. DR HARPER:Yes, perhaps. But remember this is always a matter of individual researchers, and of individual problems and topics. Ideas about music of the past are less dependent on the nature of the sources than they are on the ideas and theories of the authors who write history on the

114 Lund 1980. 115 Olsen 1990. 116 Buckley 1989, 1991.

93

basis of them.As for your view on historical musicology, it’s too easy to state that this discipline is preoccupied with manuscripts, purely musical structures and form, etc. Some decades ago, when positivist ideas ruled the discipline, I would have agreed more. Much of what happens today is a reaction to positivism. However, I agree that too much research is still bound to the study of “works”. If we regard ourselves as music archaeologists, we are probably closer to ethnomusicology, a sub-discipline that sets out to be sensitive of the social milieu in which music takes place. Ethnomusicologists emphasize the context of music as much as the music itself.We learn from them that sound and music should not be studied as physical things in a culture, but as a system of symbols and a means of communication.To follow recent ideas in the ethnomusicological arena, music should be studied not only in culture117 but also as culture.118 For music is culture due to its capability of expressing cultural core themes, and also due to its potential as a mark of identity, as political agent, as a medium for transcendental experience, etc. DR TRUMPER:This is certainly an important agenda. I agree that we should draw upon ethnomusicology to get the best ideas of how to study music. However, we are faced with one serious problem: archaeological material is not the same as music. Ethnomusicologists can study “music in culture” because both the music and the culture are available to them. Where do we find the music we are to study as culture? It is not possible to consider musical processes without the music as sound, or without any musical “object”. If there is no musical object, we can produce no theory of musical meaning. Unfortunately, the meaning of the sounds does not survive together with the sound-producing devices. DR HARPER: Hmm … isn’t that too pessimistic? Remember that we can, though not without problems, reconstruct sounds of the past no less convincingly than for written masterpieces of music. This is especially important for music archaeologists because several of the instruments we study sound similar – physically speaking – today to how they did when used in the past. The reason for this is that some instruments are more or less unaffected by playing technique compared to other instruments, such as violins or recorders. Typical examples include bells, rhythm instruments, jew’s harps – at least partly. This is the same as for material manifestations of the past, which are, philosophically, not to be regarded as the past, but as objects of the past. Westminster Abbey in London looks today as it did at the end of the 13th century. And the Abbey’s 13th century bells sound virtually the same as they did in the 13th century. DR TRUMPER: It is a beautiful idea to reconstruct the sounds of the past and make the past literally sound for us today. But it is an error. I think we have already discussed this.

It is impossible to recreate the past, whether it be material culture or sounds. It is not relevant to argue that some instruments are unaffected by playing technique – I do not believe that any instrument is unaffected by playing technique. If there were any, it would make no difference. It doesn’t matter that they are objects of the past.They inevitably sound for us in our time, in our ears. I will accept only that we can dream of the past, for instance through sound and music. DR HARPER:That’s my point.As I argued earlier, this is about experiencing the past, which should be considered as an important method for us, in addition to more scholarly methods. However, I only wanted to propose a more optimistic view of the possibility of approaching music and musical meanings of the past. Regardless of all this, if music is an essential social and cultural activity, the meaning of music is consequently not to be found in the music itself but in the social situation of which it is a part. DR TRUMPER: All right, in other words you recognize that it is impossible to extract musical meanings if there is no music available. DR HARPER: Yes, strictly speaking. But this depends, again, on what we call music. If we employ a wide understanding, not limited to sound structures it is possible to propose some ideas about musical meanings. Such a wide understanding is what we need in our field of study. Only by broadening the issues and research methods can we make progress towards a better understanding of the music, sound and soundscapes of the past. DR TRUMPER:When talking in general terms like this, I think we agree after all.Yes, we should of course avoid narrow-minded thinking, regardless of concepts and terminology, and regardless of sources. DR HARPER: Do we dare then to end on a somewhat optimistic note? I think we should regard our corroded iron fragments and other archaeological remnants of musical instruments as proper sources for music history. DR TRUMPER: No matter what we call our discipline, archaeological materials indeed provide a gateway to other musical worlds, which deserve closer attention from future research. DR HARPER: Despite our diverging views on some matters, I am happy we have ended the discussion as friends this time too. I think it’s time to relax with a taste of the white wine ScacciaPensieri. 119 Have you come across it? We received a crate recently – its Italian makers want to sponsor our Department. DR HARPER: Good idea, and very welcome after our long session. Let’s hope it lives up to its name and dispels any gloomy thoughts we may have!

117 Merriam 1964; Blacking 1973. 118 Feld 1982; Seeger 1987. 119 ScacciaPensieri is a white wine. Mentioned in Editor’s Notes in VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft) no. 9, 2000, p. 2. Scacciapensieri, meaning “thought dispeller”, is the main Italian term for the jew’s harp.

94

5. Context Table 5.1: Frequency of the social contexts

his chapter explores the social and cultural context of the archaeological jew’s harp material, in the widest sense. I use different sources – archaeological, iconographical, written and ethnographical – to contextualize the material. The archaeological contexts of the finds themselves provide a point of departure. The find circumstances represent a compound source of information. Some of the objects are simply stored in museums with no information on who found them, or when and where they were found. In other cases the finder and the find location are known. The documentation ranges from a note such as “somewhere in Nottinghamshire” to the most detailed marking off on a map. Of course, the most valuable finds are those from archaeological excavations, where documentary evidence conforms to modern archaeological standards. The better the documentation there is of a find, the better is the possibility of identifying its original context in time and space – although this is dependent on the nature of the site. Some sites consist of more or less disturbed layers so that the excavated materials are no longer in their primary context. Excavation reports and site records should enable us to address several interesting questions, such as: How many of the jew’s harps from cities (or from a particular city) have been found in dwelling houses? Did these houses belong to ordinary people? Where in the houses was the material found? If other musical instruments were excavated, where were these located in relation to the harps? Is there evidence of particular activities at the places where objects are found – for example, playing and other children’s activities, workshops, etc.? Unfortunately, most archaeological jew’s harps come with insufficient documentation for such detailed research. That is one reason why such matters cannot be dealt with here as thoroughly as one would like.The main reason is, however, a question of scale.This study has a very wide focus, covering a large geographical area, with the aim of gaining a general overview of the material. It has therefore not been expedient to analyse find circumstances at the small-scale level. Consequently, my choice has been to arrive at a general picture of the social significance and nature of the find locations without analysing them in great depth.

T

Castle Monastery

275

(33%)

33

(4%)

161

(19%)

Unknown

282 79

(34%) (10%)

Total

830

(100%)

Rural

Urban

Unspecified Convent Church Total Unspecified Village Alpine River Church Industrial site Fort Burial mound Total Unspecified Cemetery Total

25 7 1 33 116 23 6 5 5 3 2 1 161 281 1 282

(fort), rural (burial mound), urban (unspecified), and urban (cemetery).The frequency distribution is set out in Table 5.1. To understand the significance of this classification, it is necessary to make some caveats. First, concerning the category “unknown”. These finds are unclassified either because the museum in possession does not know where the artifacts were dug up, or for other reasons. Sometimes it has been difficult to obtain the information from the museums, while in other cases I have simply done too little research to acquire it.This is especially so with regard to the Netherlands and Belgium, unfortunately, where a great many of the finds have been entered in the Catalogue without classification according to context. Another source of error is the process of classification itself. Whether a site should be regarded as rural or urban, for instance, is often a difficult decision. By urban is meant cities or towns, not villages. To decide what is a town or what is a village is often tricky, whether in modern or historical contexts. It is especially difficult when artifacts can be dated to within long periods of time only and they are found at sites where urbanization has been a continuing process for centuries. Another problem arises when artifacts from the sites of medieval castles are excavated without adequate documentation on their original context in the earth. Such pieces might have been deposited at periods later than the occupation of the castle. Due to such sources of error, the classification according to context presented here should be regarded as somewhat rudimentary. There is another reason to be careful in interpreting the results as reflecting some “real” historical situation as one has to ask to what degree they reflect archaeological traditions and interests. One relevant question here is when the speci-

The find locations As far as possible I have recorded one social context for each find.The catalogued pieces are classified according to the four main classes rural, urban, castle and monastery. When subclasses are included there are, in total, 14 classes: castle (unspecified), monastery (unspecified), monastery (convent), monastery (church), rural (unspecified), rural (village), rural (alpine), rural (river), rural (church), rural (industry site), rural

95

mens were found. A division of the material into four groups reflecting the period of time in which a piece was found produced the results shown in Fig. 5.1.

excavating medieval sites in rural contexts, partly because there has been less building activity in the countryside than in cities. But notice that as much as 40 per cent of the rural finds are from 1980 and later. This is plausibly due to the increasing activity of metal detectorists.A great many of the rural finds are found by amateur metal detectorists. Metal detecting is an activity typically done in fields as it is either prohibited or for other reasons impossible in cities, castle ruins or other places.120 Supporting evidence is that many of the rural finds (41 per cent) are from the UK, where metal detecting is a popular hobby. If we were able to exclude all metal-detected finds,121 we would probably get a much smaller group of finds from rural contexts.

Regional variation There is also some regional variation in social context (Table 5.2). Castle finds are made all over Europe, but they seem to predominate in the middle and eastern parts. Switzerland, Germany and Sweden have most finds. When adjusted for population and total number of finds, it is significant that the United Kingdom has only twelve and the Netherlands five castle finds. But harps were used in the castles of the westernmost parts of the region too, as both Ireland and the western parts of Scotland have produced finds. Table 5.2: Social context related to countries

Castle Country Switzerland Germany Sweden Austria Latvia France United Kingdom Belgium Finland Rep. of Ireland The Netherlands Rep. of Belarus Slovakia Hungary Liechtenstein Lithuania Estonia Italy Poland Total

Fig. 5.1: Social context related to year of finding

A significant feature is that the finds from castles are considerable older than the urban finds. Almost half of the castle finds are from old excavations – those undertaken before 1940 – while only 11 per cent of them were found after 1980. For the urban finds the situation is quite different: 9 per cent were found before 1940, while 32 per cent are post-1980. To express this relation in another way: of the finds made before 1940, 65 per cent were from castles, while 13 per cent were from urban contexts; whereas after 1980, 15 per cent were castle finds, while 45 per cent were urban. This illustrates a change of direction in digging archaeology. Excavations of medieval castles were considered more important in the archaeology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Medieval archaeology in urban settings has become increasingly common. This has not only to do with changing ideas and emphasis but also with increasing building activities in cities in the post-World War II decades. We should perhaps expect that a great many of the rural finds were excavated in the early phase of archaeology too. Modern archaeology has not been especially interested in

Value 120 29 28 15 15 14 12 7 7 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 275

Per cent 44 10 10 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 100

Value 12 11 5 2 2 1 33

Per cent 37 33 15 6 6 3 100

Monastery Country Sweden Rep. of Ireland United Kingdom Denmark Estonia Switzerland Total

120 The laws regulating metal detecting vary from country to country. One general tendency it to prohibit it at sites and areas with special heritage protection. Another tendency is to require detector users to obtain permission from the landowner to metal detect. Archaeologists generally have a sceptical attitude to metal detecting because it is a kind of treasure hunt where documentary evidence of the find circumstances is usually of poor or unusable quality, with only marginal value for scientific purposes. 121 Several of the Jew’s harps in museums have been found by amateur metal detectorists, but a museum does not always know whether a specimen was found in this way or by some other means. It would therefore be a difficult task to exclude all metal-detected finds. One feasible way would be to consider exclusively finds from professional archaeological excavations.

96

Urban

Country United Kingdom Sweden The Netherlands France Germany Denmark Belgium Norway Russia Austria Estonia Poland Finland Urban Total

Value

Per cent

73 68 39 33 20 13 10 8 6 4 4 3 1 282

27 24 14 11 7 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0 100

If we first compare the variables context and material (Table 5.3), it is evident that iron is the most prevalent material throughout, especially at castles and monasteries. That iron predominates in all contexts is not surprising since 70 per cent of all finds are made of this material (cf. Fig. 3.5, p. 47). Only one single specimen from monasteries is made of copper alloy. The urban category consists of many fewer iron harps relative to copper alloy harps, but nevertheless 69 per cent are made of iron. As for the rural group, there are approximately as many copper alloy as iron items. Here also the reason for the relatively strong position of copper alloy is the metal-detected finds. Table 5.3: Social context related to manufacturing material

Rural Country United Kingdom Switzerland Norway Sweden Rep. of Ireland The Netherlands Austria Denmark Germany Hungary France Estonia Island Rep. of Moldova Russia Slovakia Rural Total

Value 65 16 15 10 9 9 8 6 6 6 5 2 1 1 1 1 161

Per cent 39 9 9 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 100

Iron

Cu

Unkn.

Total

Castle

Value Per cent

241 88

14 5

20 7

275 100

Monastery

Value Per cent

32 97

1 3

0 0

33 100

Rural

Value Per cent

75 46

62 39

24 15

161 100

Urban

Value Per cent

197 69

55 20

30 11

282 100

The main types described in Chapter three are distributed fairly equally among the contexts.The only exception is that the Bruck and Hallwil types predominate at castles. The great majority of them were excavated at Hallwil Castle. The impression is, however, that all technologies, manufacturing materials and types are spread across the four social contexts.This should also indicate that none of castles, monasteries, rural or urban areas represented a significantly early or late market for jew’s harps. Since the finds cover a long period of time, a comparison between the variables context and dating to search for possible chronological patterns would still be interesting.122 The only significant development of note is that the rural finds tend to be of a late date. The great majority are postmedieval. This group also has more chance finds and finds of unknown date. Again, this is partly due to metal detecting. A typical rural jew’s harp comes from southern England, is of the Stafford type and is not dated from its archaeological context.

Note that, in the case of finds made at monasteries, Sweden and Ireland are represented with most finds. It is difficult to understand why. The finds from monasteries, however, represent only a relatively small part of the entire material (33 items). The rural finds are most common in England and the Low Countries due to metal-detecting activities. In England 63 pieces, or 41 per cent of the material, is rural. Sweden and the United Kingdom dominate in the group of urban finds. The majority of the English finds are from London. In Sweden more cities are represented, and compared to England a larger proportion of the objects are from archaeological excavations. In cities such as Lund, Malmö, Jönköping, Visby and Uppsala there have been extensive excavation activities. Yet, although medieval archaeology has a strong tradition in Sweden, archaeology alone does not explain the large number of finds made in Swedish cities. People evidently enjoyed playing the jew’s harp in the cities of southern Scandinavia.

The rural/urban axis One problem with the four social contexts or classes employed here is that they are geographical and social at the same time. Rural and urban are mainly geographical categories, while monastery and castle are mainly social and cultural. On the other hand, rural and urban might also be

Social context and typology Could typology explain anything about the social context?

122 I have not worked out a numerical basis for this examination as it would be too complicated because the database consists of around 150 different datings. The reason for this variety is that the datings given in publications or by museums are expressed in many different ways. Only minor editing of these has been done here (for instance, “the fourteen hundreds” has been changed into “the 15th century”). With such a large number of unformatted datings, I found it unfeasible to work out statistical patterns for this purpose. The limited examination here is thus based on informal comparison between the variables context and dating in a sorted list in a Microsoft Excel computer programme.

97

considered social and cultural categories, with castles and monasteries as geographical categories as long as they are located predominantly in the countryside. One way out of this problem would be to reduce the four categories to two, by retaining rural and urban and discarding castle and monastery.The reclassification of the castle and monastery finds is then best done as follows: 13 of the castle finds are classified as urban (Skanör [nos 21–24], Stafford [nos 261–2], Bedford [no. 284], Turku [nos 287–88],Vilnius [no. 427], Lida [no. 821],Vitebsk [no. 822] and Ventspils [no. 829]), with the rest classified as rural. Six of the finds from monasteries are urban (Vadstena [nos 102–4], Sigtuna [no. 117] and Tallin [nos 412, 416]), while the remainder are rural.

harps, with pieces from castles accounting for 33 per cent of the catalogued material. Who played the instrument in this milieu? Could it have been the noblewomen of the castle? The knights? The soldiers? Did the kings and lords themselves pass their time making music on it? The written sources remain silent about jew’s harp music making in medieval castles. When we hear about music in noble circles it is art music, performed by professional musicians such as troubadours and minnesingers. However, the fact that the sources make no explicit statements about jew’s harps in noble settings is no evidence against their use there. To make some progress towards establishing the instrument’s role in castles we should first ask what kind of castles we are dealing with, and then what kind of nobles owned and stayed at the castles. Castles with harp finds in Switzerland were owned by other kinds of nobles than those who resided in the cities, according to Meyer and Oesch (1972: 222–6). In the cities, a courteous and chivalrous culture was maintained by a bourgeois nobility, while the families who owned rural castles were primarily engaged in agriculture, pastoralism, hunting and warfare. The location of the relevant castles – often near the Alpine border – is one indication of this. Another, supportive, indication comes from the nature of other archaeological finds made at these sites, which frequently include cowbells, scythes, dung forks and other implements associated with cattle keeping. Moreover, barns and other store buildings are identified, and there are also written documents on the existence of these items and their connection with the castles (ibid.). The castles were, therefore, part of a rural and pastoral culture. The castles of southern Germany (Bavaria and BadenWürttemberg) and Austria were probably of the same tradition. But was this pastoral and rural character true of medieval castles generally, or was it just typical of castles in the Alpine region? Around Europe the castle’s geographical position, strategic importance, political function, use and ownership were certainly subject to variation. Some castles were in the hands of kings, while some were owned by the “lower” nobles, as in Switzerland. Scandinavia, for instance, did not have the same chivalric culture as the southern parts of Europe. Most Scandinavian castles were in the hands of the monarch, and Kronoberg Castle in Sweden (nos 66–72) was an episcopal property. Feudalism, of which castles were an important part, had a varying status. Moreover, these characteristics changed over the centuries. It is therefore problematic to treat “medieval castles” as one single phenomenon. Nevertheless, medieval castles had some features in common. One was their fortification, in other words their military function. Another was that they were homes.123 According to a common view, a castle is a fortified residence. In this respect, castles were not fundamentally dif-

Fig. 5.2: Distribution of the categories rural and urban in per cent

The result of this reclassification is that 54 per cent of the finds are rural and 36 per cent are urban, with 10 per cent unknown (Fig. 5.2). If the unknown class is excluded, 60 per cent would be rural, while 40 per cent would be urban. As we have noted earlier, the rural class consists of several metal-detected, post-medieval copper alloy specimens from the United Kingdom and the Benelux countries. In this classification they are mixed with the large group of castle finds, of which the majority are iron objects from Switzerland, Germany and Sweden. In other words, this is a mixed class, typologically and geographically. The same might be said about the urban class. On the axis between rural and urban, no special development over time can be traced. No particular geographical regions seem to predominate significantly in any of the classes. In other words, these two social and geographical contexts are almost equally represented.The jew’s harp was accordingly neither a typical urban nor a typical rural instrument. In the following I will return to the four original classes castle, monastery, rural and urban in order to arrive at a better understanding of the social and cultural position of the instrument.

The castle finds The seats of royalty and the nobility have proved to be important places for the finding of archaeological jew’s

123 Castles were not always homes. In the early Middle Ages they usually served as plain fortresses. Gradually these fortresses became residences or homes for noble people. This development, however, was not identical across Europe.

98

ferent from cities, which in the Middle Ages were also fortified places of residence. Indeed, cities often originated as castles which subsequently expanded and developed into towns and cities. Common to castles and fortified cities is that people have sought in them protection from invading armies.Towns could also be built around castles, so that the castle continued to provide protection for the inhabitants of the town. This historical parallel between castles and towns and cities is illustrative of the contact between people inside and outside the castle.The walls did not serve so much as a barrier against social contact as to give protection against outsiders.When we try to gain a picture of the castle and its social relations in the European Middle Ages, we should bear in mind that they were closely integrated with the area surrounding them. As mentioned earlier, the great majority of the castles with jew’s harps finds were in rural districts. They were therefore part of a rural community. I find it reasonable to suppose that the medieval castles with jew’s harps were, in general, of the same kind as the rural and pastoral castles described in Switzerland. This need not necessarily have been with the same subsistence economy (pastoralism, agriculture, hunting), but there would have been at least some castle-related activities outside its walls.The type of activity and the degree of contact with the surrounding village or district would also have varied, depending on the position of the castle and its ownership. If we then manage to establish that these castles had a rural character, and were integrated with the life of the surrounding villages, what are the implications for our understanding of the jew’s harp? It was a rural instrument, as we already know. But we also know that it was used in cities, so this takes us no further.The question remains: who played it? Regardless of what kind of nobility owned and lived in the castles – whether they were of royal lineage or some lower stratum of the nobility, I doubt that the nobles themselves played the jew’s harp. Excavations paint a picture that is a mixture of noble culture and the material culture of everyday life, reflecting a social diversity. Different kinds of people, such as workers and soldiers, were integrated parts of the social milieu of the castles. It is of course easier to imagine that country folk and soldiers played the jew’s harp. The presence of soldiers was a common feature of medieval castles. In some castles the military function was the most important, as at Falsterbo and Skanör (nos 19–24), situated on the strategically important strait of Øresund. The Swiss Castel Grande, Bellinzona (no. 511), was also primarily a military fortification. It was no part of any chivalrous culture, serving only military functions (Meyer and Oesch 1972: 224). Some important castles had standing armies, but it was also common among kings, princes and earls to raise armies of mercenaries. The period from the 16th century was an

especially important one for such armies, although they had existed since the early Middle Ages. In Switzerland signing up as a mercenary offered a young man excellent career prospects, not least because of economic depressions and limited opportunities in other walks of life, and the Swiss were regarded as brilliant soldiers. About two million Swiss soldiers joined mercenary armies in the period from the 16th to the 19th century (Flüeler et al. 1975: 341–7). The cluster of jew’s harp finds in the Alps might be explained by the activities of these travelling soldiers. It is reasonable to assume that soldiers represented an important channel for the spreading of the jew’s harp in Europe, and that they played the harps too. It is very unlikely that the instrument was used in battle; it is much more likely that it was used for entertainment during leisure time. Soldiers spent a great deal of time at the castles passively waiting, and playing the jew’s harp or other instruments would have helped to while away the long hours. A true story from Canton Schwyz in Switzerland suggests that soldiers have (and since the harp’s introduction have had) a special predilection for the instrument. A man related that, during his military service, all the soldiers in his unit bought jew’s harps.They became completely addicted to the instrument and used all their spare time to practice.124 They did not form an orchestra, but for some time shared a common interest in playing as individuals. For all we know, similar stories are known from elsewhere. In addition to the castles’s military functions, important religious activities could also have taken place there. One castle with religious importance was Montségur Castle in southern France, which was among the last residences of the Cathars in Europe. A jew’s harp dated to the 13th century (no. 304) was excavated there.125

The monastery finds Like the castles, monasteries had well-defined buildings and closed communities, but they were still to a certain extent part of the social life beyond their walls. The degree of openness towards its surroundings varied with the order that owned the monastery. The 33 jew’s harps found at monasteries are distributed among the following seven orders:Augustinian (12), Cistercian, including two convents (8), Birgittine (convents) (5),Antonian (3), Benedictine (3), Dominican (1) and Premostratensian (1).The fact that jew’s harps are found in monasteries can be interpreted in two ways: either the nuns and monks themselves played, or the visiting guests. Monasteries have always served as guesthouses, so both interpretations are reasonable. From one point of view it would be strange if the monks and nuns played because of the strict rules governing the conduct of religious life. Some orders took an especially critical stance on music and other forms of self-expression. The Cistercians considered even Gregorian plain song too

124 An archaeologist from Schwyz told the story to Prof. Dr. Werner Meyer, Basel. 125 The castle has a very bloody history. The Cathars surrended to the Inquisition in March 1244, after several months in isolation at the castle. Between 205 and 225 Cathars were burnt at the stake at Montségur (Internet: http://www.russianbooks.org/montsegur.htm).

99

expressive and reduced the upper and lower compass of their melodies, literally cutting off the top and bottom of the note system in the written music.126 Against this background it would be odd if they allowed monks and nuns to play the jew’s harp. However, it is unlikely that the monastic rule necessarily applied uniformly throughout the community. If the Cistercians and people in other monasteries lived under very controlled conditions, it is easy to understand the need for activities such as playing the jew’s harp

The rural finds The rural finds consist of the following sub-contexts: for 116 the only record is an unspecified description as rural. Another 23 are from villages, six are Alpine, five are from rivers, five from churches, three from sites of industry, two from forts and one is from a burial mound. The last is the find from Bashkortostan (no. 300). I have not been able to relate the rural finds to particular groups of people, except for the Alpine finds from Switzerland (nos 507–8, 510, 618, 620), which were excavated at pastoral summer dairies. Obviously the shepherds played jew’s harps, as attested by folklore from Scandinavia, Scotland and the Alpine countries (See p. 112; Crane 2000).

The urban finds Urban finds are generally from archaeological excavations. Included here are cities with long and extensive archaeological activity, such as Paris, London, Amsterdam, Gdansk, Lund and Trondheim. Some are represented by a considerable number of finds. For example, London is recorded with 42, Paris with 20, and Lund with 15 pieces. As a whole, the group of urban harp finds is a composite one. It is not possible to identify any predominant type of activity at the sites. One was found in a cemetery (Tallin, no. 413). This does not mean that it was buried as grave goods as various social activities took place at medieval cemeteries. Philippe Ariès suggests these places were not only used as public forums but also as market places and fairgrounds (Ariès 1983: 62ff.). In 1405 the Council of Rouen prohibited “anyone to dance in the cemetery or to take part in any sort of game; or for mimes, jugglers, mummers, strolling musicians, or mountebanks to pursue their dubious professions there” (op. cit.: 69). I do not claim that all cemeteries saw such flourishing activities during the European Middle Ages, but this is, nevertheless, a potentially interesting setting for musical activities, jew’s harping included. Apart from the harp from Tallin, there are some French finds from cemeteries (Homo-Lechner 1996: 134), but I have not been able to identify which these are. I would expect that more finds were from cemeteries, as well as from churches or their surroundings.The many declarations of the Catholic Church prohibiting dancing and playing in churches suggest that such activities did in fact take

place in churches (Falck 1995: 95–9). Possibly more jew’s harps in the catalogued material were found in the proximity of a church but the find location has been recorded as a street address. Recall, however, that five rural harps were found near churches. Nine of the jew’s harps from the Louvre in Paris (nos 305–24) were found in a well. They look rather similar in type. Whether they were lost or thrown in purposely we can only speculate.127 The same can be said of the piece from Erkebispegården, Trondheim (no. 147), which was found in a latrine. In this case, however, as its lamella is intact we can conclude that it was not discarded because it was broken. Some finds have been excavated in houses representing a range of different activities inasmuch as they belonged to artisans and workers, and also people from the upper classes, as in Visby, Sweden (nos 85–95; Falck 1974: 71). Rather few have been found in market places; I have identified only 10 pieces from just two locations: two of the specimens from Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland (nos 430–1), and all eight from Amersfoort in the Netherlands (nos 677–84). Why do so few of the harps come from places where markets were held? Judging from Dutch paintings showing jew’s harps (Boone 1972, 1986), it is in this environment – among beggars and pedlars – that the jew’s harp really belongs. The reasons that archaeologists have not found more jew’s harps in market places might include: • Archaeologists have generally not dug in medieval market places. Most excavations have been carried out in other parts of cities. • Finds from markets and other sites of public activity might be hidden in museums and collections, listed as chance finds. • Market places as open spaces are a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, markets were simply quarters where stalls were set up and were similar to markets in the Arabic world today. In Örebro, Sweden, a jew’s harp was excavated from the “Bodarna” quarter (no. 111); the name means “stalls”, and it might indicate this type of market. I should repeat that I have not been able to go in a detailed and systematic way through the sites and excavation records. Such an investigation would be beyond the scope of this thesis. What is still evident, however, is that jew’s harps have been found in urban locations of various kinds, market places included.

Maritime finds? The foreshore of the River Thames in London has produced 24 archaeological jew’s harps.These specimens are unphased chance finds, not too valuable for research purposes. Nevertheless, as with other finds from the banks of the Thames, they were probably lost near the river or from boats. In either case we could ask if there is a maritime connection.

126 Håvard Skaadel, pers. comm. 127 Perhaps these finds tell us of the brutal end of the local jew’s harp orchestra after a long and exhausting struggle with those in the neighbourhood who hated the instrument.

100

There are also more finds from rivers, found in various distances from the sea, which might have been lost from boats. Four pieces were found in the River Maas, near RossumAlem in the Netherlands (nos 686–9). A Swiss find comes from the banks of the River Ziel in Canton Bern (no. 619). More to the point are eight jew’s harps found in the medieval harbour basin of the town Damme in Belgium (nos 706–13); these are classified as urban, but they could equally be classified as “maritime”. The same regards five pieces from the banks of the Rhine in Köln (nos 483–7). Apart from these, no other finds have possibly any maritime connection. Surprisingly, no jew’s harps have been excavated from shipwrecks. Musical instruments and sound tools are among the finds marine archaeologists have recovered from sunken ships. Examples include the 16th century English warship Mary Rose (Lawson 1986) and the 17th century Swedish flagship Kronan, which sank off Öland in 1676 (Lund 1986).There were no jew’s harps in either wreck. If there had been, whether in these or other early ships, one would expect them to be found because shipwrecks are closed sites. In principle, everything that existed on the ship remains in or near the wreck.This is, however, also a matter of individual circumstances, such as preservation conditions. It is nevertheless strange that jew’s harps are not among the artifacts that have come to us from wrecked ships.We can hardly conclude that jew’s harps were simply not taken to sea – not just because of the finds mentioned above, made in rivers or semi-maritime settings, but also because there are more indications of the instrument’s presence at sea from post-medieval times. For example, a boat that sank in the Danube at Altenwörth in 1810 had ten jew’s harps on board.128 The boat was on its way to southeastern Europe with a cargo of iron articles (Mohr 1999: 23). The harps were probably among these trade items. Taking into consideration the extensive contacts between Europe and continents overseas in post-medieval times, where we know that the jew’s harp was an important object of trade (Mihura 1982, Bakx 1998a), it is indeed reasonable to infer that seamen used the instrument. Some Dutch sources suggest that the jew’s harp was known and used at sea (Bakx 1998a). One is a book from 1681 about Dutch arts and proverbs with connections to seafaring, which describes jew’s harp playing (op. cit.: 11). Another is a poem printed in 1712, which describes a seaman playing the instrument (op. cit.: 12). Another connection is found in an English context, where it appears that a nautical term for the shackle that joins the anchor chain to the anchor ring was “jew’s harp”. The shackle has a shape that resembles the musical instrument (op. cit.: 14).The most interesting source is still a large 17th century Dutch ship that was called the Tromp or Muiltromp, meaning Jew’s Harp

(Bakx 1998a; Crane 2003b: 76, no. 58). Strangely enough, this was a vessel of war with 42 to 45 cannons. A drawing of the ship shows a giant jew’s harp, apparently at the stern. Since she was a warship, she would have carried soldiers as well as seamen.This is therefore also a link to soldiers, supporting the contention that they played the jew’s harp. If they did so, it is reasonable to suppose that they played at sea and not only in castles. To sum up on the locations of finds, it is evident that they represent a range of different contexts. It is not possible to relate the jew’s harp to one main social context. The impression is that it was distributed in different environments, both rural and urban. It is however noteworthy that a large number of harps are found in castles. 275 finds, or one third of the material, are from castles, which were chiefly located in rural environments.The most reasonable interpretation is that soldiers played the jew’s harp as a pastime and contributed to the spread of the instrument around Europe.

Medieval classification If we are to gain a better understanding of the position of the jew’s harp in its earliest centuries in Europe, one approach is to ask how it was classified – by learned people as well as by ordinary people. Classification is a basic principle of human thinking and a characteristic feature of collective thought in all societies and cultures. However, written sources do not tell us much about the instrument, at least medieval sources do not.We do not know for certain how it was classified. This scarcity of sources is a problem, but it also offers information potential.Why are the sources so rare? To approach the matter, it is necessary to draw on a wide range of different sources.

Social classification of music, musical instruments and the jew’s harp The late Middle Ages saw an increasing significance of secular and instrumental music, and a growing tendency among theorists to study music and musical instruments from an empirical point of view (Kartomi 1990: 144–59). Among learned people, the conception of music expanded in this period. Not until post-medieval times, however, do people with an empirical orientation start to include the jew’s harp in their works.129 The first is the German priest Sebastian Virdung, in his Musica getutscht of 1511 (Virdung 1511/1993).This is also the earliest printed treatise on musical instruments in the West. His book gives a picture of a jew’s harp, besides bells, horns and one clapper (Fig.5.3).These are not included in any of his three categories chordophones, aerophones and idiophones. They are instead listed among instruments that, according to him, are “foolish, which are also considered or regarded as musicalia

128 The boat and its artifacts are now in the Shipping Museum in Spitz, Austria (Acc. No. 358). Photos of the harps in the collection of Rudolf and Uta Hennig, Ludwigsburg. (The items are not included in the Catalogue of this thesis.) 129 I have undertaken no systematic search for jew’s harps among the variety of medieval terms for musical instruments either in classification systems or in other texts.

101

…”. He states further: “All these instruments, whatever they are named or [whatever] names they might acquire, I consider tomfoolery [göckel spill, lit. ‘juggler play’]. Therefore it irks me to name them, even more to illustrate them, and above all to describe them” (op. cit.: 119).The same low social standing is evident in Michael Praetorius’ work De organographia, published in 1619 (Praetorius 1619/1980). Plate XXII shows a jew’s harp, but without any number or description as for the other instruments in the plate. When commenting on these instruments he writes: “Some of these justly could be called vulgar and crude instruments, or as Sebastian Virdung calls them, ridiculous instruments, since they are known to all and do not actually have anything to do with music” (op. cit.: 79). Somewhat later in the 17th century Marin Mersenne echoes much the same view when he writes that this instrument serves lackeys and people of low position (Mersenne 1635/1957).

Fig. 5.3: Illustration from Sebastian Virdung’s Musica getutscht (1511)

Thus, these scholars of the 16th and 17th centuries place the jew’s harp at the lowest social levels, and in this there is no reason to believe that their opinion differed from their contemporaries. But how should we understand the unwillingness to classify, or even to mention the instrument? Archaeology shows beyond doubt that the jew’s harp was widely distributed in Western Europe from the 13th century. The deficiency of written sources can be interpreted in two ways. One possibility is that it was a fairly respectable instrument but that it was not among the established instruments which learned people considered and wrote about. Most obvious, and the view most widely held, is that the jew’s harp had a low social status and was associated with the lowest classes. Following this, medieval scholars and writers did not care to mention such an insignificant instrument and placed it at the lowest level in their hierarchy. Before proceeding with our consideration of the social status of the jew’s harp, let us contextualize the discussion in a setting of the medieval classification of music and musical instruments. Since antiquity, music theorists and philosophers writing about music have classified music and musical instruments in terms of hierarchies. An important idea, rooted in classical thought and reinterpreted by Christian theorists, was to regard vocal music as on a more elevated level than instrumental music. In Boethius’ well-known philosophy, the middle category musica humana meant liturgical chanting, and

this was a mirror image of the highest category, musica mundana, which was the motion of the spheres.At the bottom of his three-part hierarchy was musica instrumentalis, a wide category containing all kinds of instrumental and vocal music that, ideally, should strive towards divinity, but which in reality tended to serve devilish forces. Throughout the Middle Ages vocal, liturgical music was the only music acceptable to the Church.All secular expressions were regarded as inferior. The regulations stipulated that no musical instrument except the organ could be performed in a church. Medieval theorists were less concerned about musical instruments than music.Those who wrote about instruments used hierarchical approaches to classification, though the order of the classes involved might vary – for instance, whether winds or strings constituted the higher class (Kartomi 1990: 141). Instruments could be categorized into three groups – for example strings, winds and percussion – or two – for example natural and artificial, high and low, or “altas and baxas” (op. cit.: 143; Hickmann 1971: 69–70). Distinctions were also made between instruments’ associations with heaven and earth, angels and devils, good and bad, or between loud and soft instruments. The music theorists, philosophers and ecclesiastical authorities who wrote about music were concerned about scholastic theories and made only minor reference to actual music and musical expression. Their classifying hierarchies were not purely musical but also social, a means of ranking people. This was especially so for jugglers, travelling musicians and entertainers, who were notably regarded as the lowest group of society.They were not only lowest in terms of rank, they were also socially marginalized, placed outside any social hierarchy.That this was a stigmatized group is evident from their clothing. In some places they were required to wear clothes of a particular colour and with stripes as a symbol of their low status (Homo-Lechner 1996: 56–60). In visual sources from the 16th century onwards, the jew’s harp appears among such marginalized people, not necessarily among professional musicians and entertainers but among marginalized people of the lowest classes, thus supporting Virdung, Praetorius and Mersenne’s (1635/1957) descriptions of a ridiculous instrument of low social standing. The relevant sources include the frequently reproduced woodcut Natural Fools, originally published in the Triumphzug Kaiser Maximillians I, made by Hans Burgkmair in 1526 (Klier 1956, fig. 56; Crane 2003b: 36–8). In the woodcut one of the jesters plays a jew’s harp.Another example from around 1490 is a painting by an artist of the Ferrara School of a lonely and poor jew’s harp-playing beggar (Fig. 5.4). A third example is Pieter Brueghel the Elder’s The Festival of Fools from about 1559 (Boone 1972: 15, 26; Crane 2003b: 41–2). This painting depicts jugglers of all kinds, including acrobats, dancers and grimace- makers, participating in a large feast scene.The jew’s harp player is seen among several other musicians who play flute, drum, hurdy-gurdy and stringed instruments.

102

Fig. 5.4: Beggar playing a jew’s harp. Painting attributed to the School of Ferrara, ca 1490. Original in Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Herrmann-Schneider 2000: 291, fig. 5).

Several Flemish paintings of the 16th and 17th centuries show pedlars who are either selling or playing jew’s harps (Boone 1972; Crane, op. cit.) The context of most of these is a market place, often with a rich folk life. The paintings do not always prove that the jew’s harp itself was simple or insignificant, an appurtenance of the lowest classes. For example, the 1562 engraving The Sleeping Pedlar Robbed by Monkeys by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (Boone 1972: 14; Plate 1992: 88, 89; Crane 2003b: 11–12) shows a pedlar with many and varied items, among which are jew’s harps. A troupe of monkeys is playing his wares while he sleeps. Among the items there is a drum, a blown instrument (a shawm?), glasses, socks, gloves, hobby-horses and other toys. However, these iconographical sources as a whole undoubtedly give an impression of poor, probably travelling pedlars.We can say for certain that those who travelled with and sold jew’s harps do not look like privileged people. As mentioned earlier, another possibility is that the jew’s harp was a fairly respectable instrument. That it does not feature in written sources is a problem that concerns several other musical instruments as well. The Middle Ages was an expansive and innovative period that saw the introduction and development of all kinds of musical instruments, not all of which found their way into the manuscripts of scholars and classifiers. On the other hand, it is plausible that the instrument is in fact mentioned in medieval texts but that its name or names are unidentified and not recognized today. Some findings give positive substantiation to the possibility that the jew’s harp enjoyed some degree of respectability. The earliest known iconographical evidence from Europe is the Swiss seal (coat of arms) of the Trümpi family of Zürich, dating from 1353 (Meyer and Oesch 1972: 215; Geiser 1980: 95; Crane 2003b: 3).The seal’s motif is a jew’s harp, and the family name Trümpi130 means the same.This family name is known from Zürich and Glarus, and a similar name with the same meaning, Trümpler, is found in Rüschlikon (Meyer and

Oesch, op. cit.). Other families also adopted the jew’s harp as some kind of symbol. In the 15th century depictions of jew’s harps found their way into manuscripts and material belongings of the d’Esch family of Metz in France (pp. 77–8; Crane, op. cit.: 15–28). Furthermore, there is a French watermark on a document from 1393 depicting an outline of a jew’s harp, and there are similar marks later, from 1393 to 1413 (op. cit.: 4; Rudén 1987: 78). The crosier of William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester from 1367 to 1404, is also worth mentioning. One of the musicians on its decorations plays a jew’s harp (Crane, op. cit.: 4). Another group of art works – motifs with angels and cherubs – also show the instrument in positions of social honour and value. The most famous is probably the school of Hans Memling picture from the late 15th century depicting Madonna and child with three angels (Boone 1972: 12, 32; Boone 1986: 31; Crane, op. cit.: 29–30).The latter are playing, respectively, a tromba marina, a violin and a jew’s harp. Another example is a jew’s harp-playing angel carved in wood in the palace chapel of Celle, Germany. It is dated 1568 (Crane, op. cit.: 58). As regards the angels, there is a possibility that the artists who depicted them deliberately chose an instrument from the lower social levels, literally from the street, and redefined it into a more respectable context. On the other hand, in cases where many kinds of musical instruments are illustrated, the artist presumably did not have such intentions. An example is the decorations on the grave of St Sebald, Nuremberg, from the early 16th century. One putto plays a jew’s harp, but this is only one of 56 angel musicians on the grave (Crane, op. cit.: 55–6). There are also other sculptures of jew’s harp-playing putti (op. cit.: 55–64). These sources suggest that the instrument was taken fairly seriously and that a certain level of social respectability surrounded it, at least in central Europe in the period from the 14th to the 16th century. In conclusion, the available sources indicate that the jew’s harp had both a respectable and a low social status. If we look more closely at the evidence, the sources indicating the former (the seal, the watermarks, the French manuscripts and the angels) are generally earlier than the pictures of fools, beggars and pedlars, which support the latter possibility. One plausible interpretation is therefore that the instrument experienced a social “fall”, which may have occurred in and around the 16th century. According to Schwoerbel (1998), this decline in status ran parallel to an increasing urbanization in the late medieval period. The jew’s harp became associated with provincial and rural forms of life, which were coming to be regarded as inferior.The rural culture of the castle, which, after all, possessed a degree of respectability, was more or less abandoned during the transition to the post-medieval period. Conversely, in the cities the colourful culture of the lower social classes – the street life with fools, jesters, jugglers and pedlars –

130 Trümpi or Trümpy

103

flourished in this period. We may also presume that the social status of the jew’s harp varied geographically. If there is something to the theory of a social fall, it is probably more relevant for central Europe (especially the Low Countries, France and Germany) than for, roughly speaking, the fringes of Europe (Scandinavia, Scotland, Ireland and Italy). This is also indicated by the fact that these latter regions have preserved their jew’s harp traditions up to our time. The hypothesis of a decline in social status is only one possibility. Another is that on average, as it were, the status of the instrument remained static throughout the entire period, from the 13th to the 17th century. In the eyes of the leading scholars and authorities its status was low, and its performers were marginalized.At the same time, the instrument gained in social value and honour in certain circles and situations. This is not very different from the situation today: the instrument has generally been abandoned and is regarded as inferior by music scholars and the cultural elite.At the same time, in other groups and in other contexts it enjoys prestige.The jew’s harp is sometimes used as a visual symbol in “official” cultural settings. Its contrasting cultural significance then emerges explicitly. Let me give three examples from contemporary Norway. First, the Norwegian Music Award (Spelemannsprisen) has a jew’s harp as its symbol and logo. The award itself is a large, stylized jew’s harp. If we judged from this alone, we would conclude that the instrument is respected, symbolizing the traditional “spelemann” (der Spielmann, or the fiddler). However, it is unlikely that a jew’s harp player would be invited to perform at the award ceremony, introducing the real instrument, unless in a setting of a popular arrangement or some other recognized context. The instrument that symbolizes the award would in reality be regarded as non-musical or unserious in other ways. Second, the five-volume work on the history of Norwegian music (Norges Musikkhistorie),131 is decorated with jew’s harps, symbolizing the country’s musical heritage. But when we turn to the work to find out about the instrument, we find that it is dismissed in half a page in volume I. If 500 years from now a music iconographer came across these volumes, he might suggest that the instrument decorating their covers must have been an important one in the minds of those who composed the work and in the culture of which it was part. He would be wrong of course. Third, in Valle in Setesdal there is a large monument in the shape of a jew’s harp, four metres high and constructed in polished steel. Raised in 2001 by Valle local council and Valle High School, it was made by the player and blacksmith Bjørgulf Straume (Melhus 2001).The monument was selected as the “Millennium symbol” of the region and was set up to honour the great makers and performers of the instru-

ment who lived there. In the valley of Setesdal the jew’s harp is a respected instrument. Still, we cannot draw the conclusion that the instrument is held in the highest esteem, ranging over other forms of musical and cultural expression. People in Setesdal dance to popular Euro-American music more often than to jew’s harp music. This is by no means a complaint about the social status of the jew’s harp, but it does serve to exemplify the fact that we cannot rely on symbolic representations alone for an understanding of its position. There is a complicated relationship between the symbols themselves and what they symbolize. The jew’s harp as well as other cultural phenomena can be surrounded by different and contradictory values at the same time, depending on who makes these value judgements. Following this line of reasoning, the medieval jew’s harp could be classified as having both high and low status at the same time, depending on which perspective it is, or was, classified from. From one point of view, social hierarchies was an important reality from which few could escape. All Middle Age musics and groups of people performing music, along with their ideas about it, were in some respects connected to the prevalent thinking and the ruling classes of the time. But we should still be careful not to interpret the established learned ideas on music as equivalent to a common understanding. There was a gulf between the learned and the ordinary people, and between theory and practice. It is difficult to establish exactly how everyday conceptions of music and instruments differed from those of the Church authorities. Generally, it is unlikely that ordinary people outside the Church conceptualized and thought about music in one single way. Several ideas about music certainly did coexist in medieval Europe because there were several ways of performing music, in various social settings.132 Music was part of other performing activities and was integrated into a range of social situations and functions.To exemplify, it could be used at markets, in private situations, for religious activities, for therapeutic purposes, to accompany work, for announcing and signalling, along with dancing, and for children’s play. Musical activities were plausibly understood and conceptualized on the basis of their social functions and significance, while “music” as an exclusive domain was only rarely employed.This is especially relevant for the music of the jew’s harp, which supposedly was no part of an official art music of the Church and, accordingly, of learned ideas about music. An early example of a dynamic view of music, which considered different contexts and functions of musical practice, is Johannes de Grocheio’s study of music in Paris in the late 13th century (Kartomi 1990: 146; Stockmann 1984). Grocheio was one of the earliest scholars to adopt an empirical orientation. He criticized the scholastic ideas of Boethius, and was instead more interested in practical music-making as well as in the social settings of music. On

131 Aschehoug, Oslo 1999–2001. 132 The very idea of “medieval music” is problematic when it is not contextualized in time and space within the medieval period, which lasted for one thousand years.

104

the basis of diverse criteria, such as socio-cultural function, content, impact on the listener, and others, he described several musical styles and practices. He introduced three main classes of music: musica ecclesiastica (music of the church), musica mensurata (composed music) and musica vulgaris (secular music). The class musica vulgaris is discussed by Stockmann (op. cit.), who finds the term to be a compound one consisting of eleven sub-groups, including both vocal and instrumental forms, with varying characteristics and functions. Some of the sub-types carry “national” or “local” connotations (einheimish/ volkstümlisch), and some are mixed styles, also including forms of expression belonging to the noble classes.To translate musica vulgaris as “folk music” would do no justice to Grocheio’s work. The contribution of Grocheio suggests that the musical life of Paris was multifaceted. Although he classifies music into three main groups, he shows that it is too simple to employ a simple social or musical hierarchy alone. His work also exemplifies, interestingly, that theorizing and writing about music always imply interpretation. To follow up Grocheio’s interpretation, we should place the jew’s harp in his class musica vulgaris.As he illustrates, this class is compound, and we should not automatically classify harping in the Middle Ages as folk music. For what is and what was folk music? Many elements in contemporary folk music can certainly be traced centuries back in time, sometimes to the Middle Ages. But the idea of “folk” is an invention of nationalism, closely related to the discovery of traditional culture, which also formed the basis for national culture (Burke 1978/1999) Although jew’s harp music had many of the characteristic features of modern folk music, it was used in various social settings and by various groups of people. To conclude, the problem of placing the jew’s harp clearly in one social or cultural context is symptomatic of its anomalous nature.

plucked idiophones, together with sanzas. Idiophones means self-resonating instruments, whereas aerophones are instruments that require air for sound production. Membranophones and chordophones are the two last classes in their system, which is based primarily on the acoustic properties of instruments. It is the acoustics of the jew’s harp that have produced disagreement over classification. Frederick Crane (1968) and Ola Kai Ledang (1972) held that the stream of air between the arms and the lamella is essential for the instrument’s function, and that it should therefore be reclassified as an aerophone. Later, some organologists reached the same conclusion, or argued that the jew’s harp is closely related to free-reed instruments (Adkins 1974; Picken 1957: 185–6;1975: 584; Sakurai 1980). Others have followed Hornbostel and Sachs and classified it as an idiophone or similar instrument (Schaeffner 1932, Norlind 1932, Dräger 1947, Galpin 1956, Montagu and Burton 1971). Sachs, who classified the jew’s harp as a plucked idiophone, writes about the instrument’s acoustical function (Sachs 1917: 186):

Systematic classification and the anomalous nature of the jew’s harp

Consequently, the basis of the classification as idiophone is the activation and subsequent movement of the lamella. There is no disagreement among authors that the lamella itself has its own fundamental, and that the partials of this fundamental are amplified and articulated by various playing techniques relating to mouth cavity, throat, breath, etc. However, it is not sufficient to describe the acoustical function of the jew’s harp in this way. Crane (1968) claimed that it only functions when a stream of air passes the embouchure portion of the instrument. It is important that the arms enclose the lamella tightly.The lamella alone cannot produce a harmonic series of partials. Crane’s conclusion was that the jew’s harp should be reclassified as a freereed instrument within the larger class of aerophones. Independently of Crane, Ledang (1972) reached the same conclusion. He focused on the distance between the arms and the lamella, and with experiments he demonstrated that this distance has to be very small, not exceeding 0.2

Systematic classification of the jew’s harp as a musical instrument has been subject to some variation in the approach used by classifiers. The earliest scholars did not classify it at all, not considering it on equal terms with other musical instruments.Virdung (1511) does not include it in any of his three categories chordophones, aerophones and idiophones.The same seems to be true of Praetorius (1619) and Zarlino (1588), who do not even mention the instrument. The first to place it in a classification system covering all musical instruments was Mersenne (1635), who classed it as a percussion instrument. Mahillon (1893) proceeded similarly, though he termed this class autophones. Mahillon was the precursor of Hornbostel and Sachs (1914), who developed the standard and most established classification system, which is still in use in museums.They grouped it among the

Von allen Namen trifft nur ein einziger den Kern der Sache. Das älteste belegbare europäische Wort, frz. (15. Jahrh.) rebute, von rebuter ‘zuruckschnellen’, sagt treffend aus, daß die wesentliche, tonbildende Bewegung des damals in Europa neuen Instrumentes das Fortzupfen und Zurückschnellen der elastishen Lamelle ist. Die Maultrommel ist demnach ein Zupf-Idiophon (v. Hornbostel-Sachs 1212). [Of the various names only one touches the core of the case.The oldest confirmable European word is rebute (French, 15th Century), from Rebuter, meaning “swinging back”.This indicates the essential sound-producing movement of the instrument, which was new in Europe at the time:The “plucking away” (Fortzupfen) and the swinging back (Zurückschnellen) of the elastic lamella.The jew’s harp is therefore a plucked idiophone (Hornbostel-Sachs 1212).]133

133 My translation

105

millimetres, to produce distinct partials. Arguing from this, Ledang claimed that the turbulence in the surrounding air is essential because it generates the harmonic spectrum required for playing. The essence of Crane and Ledang’s arguments is that the turbulent air produced by the vibration of the lamella between the arms is essential for the instrument’s acoustical function.That air is the sound-producing medium is one of the parallels to the functioning of free-reed instruments. The lynchpin of the Hornbostel and Sachs classification, which is the context for the debate over whether the jew’s harp is an aerophone or an idiophone, is the sound-producing medium of musical instruments. This is the main discriminative criterion for their classes.The debate can therefore be expressed as “what is the sound-producing medium of the jew’s harp?” We can easily agree with Crane and Ledang that air is an important sound-producing medium. But a decisive difference between free-reed instruments and the jew’s harp is that the latter is activated in the first instance by striking the lamella. I believe the aerophone arguments fail by not acknowledging the acoustical importance of the lamella itself, its function as the primary generator of the fundamental, and its importance during playing in that its action maintains the stream of air. It is possible to follow Sachs and others in the importance they attach to the lamella itself. However, they fail by not acknowledging the turbulent air produced by the lamella, which should be regarded as an important sound-producing medium. Although the jew’s harp functions in some respects as an aerophone, it is not obvious that it should be classified as such.There are also strong arguments in favour of the classification as idiophone.The decision on which to go for – whether to emphasize the lamella or the turbulent air – has to remain a subjective one. No objective circumstances support one classification label rather than the other. Consequently, the jew’s harp can be regarded as both an idiophone and an aerophone. However, due to the difficulties with this type of classification, which does not cater for such intricate acoustic devices as the jew’s harp, it is strictly speaking neither an idiophone nor an aerophone. In other words, it is at the same time either and neither. Hence, it is an anomaly, because it does not fit into the current classification.

Fig. 5.5: A serious threat to the order of zoological classification: the Australian duckbill (platypus). It has a beak like a duck and lays eggs, but has fur instead of feathers. In other respects it has the features of mammals. (Illustration by Christine Hoel)

The notion of cultural anomalies was introduced by the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1975). She found that deviations from rules and habitual patterns of thought occur in all societies, traditional as well as modern. Such anomalies are often associated with taboos because they are regarded as polluted and threatening to the established order.As phenomena, they are often considered strong and dangerous. Anomalies are analogous to Victor Turner’s liminal phase (Turner 1967, 1977), which was originally used to illustrate the middle phase of transition rites (rites de passage). In this phase, the persons undergoing the transition are no longer classified and not yet reclassified. In Turner’s words, they are “betwixt and between”.The notion of liminality has influenced a wide range of thoughts and studies in the social sciences and the humanities. The notions of liminality and anomalies refer to phenomena with ambiguous states that defy the established order because they do not fit in.The jew’s harp has an unresolved position not only in modern schemes of instrument classification. In the early phases of its history in Europe it was not classified at all, as we have seen. The silence of medieval documents on the topic is an indication of the same state of affairs – that the jew’s harp was located betwixt and between existing groups of musical instruments that were accepted as such. This was probably also relevant for the common view of the jew’s harp, that held by makers and players as well as the general public. Interestingly, they would probably have reached conclusions similar to Ledang, Crane or Sachs, despite the latters’ formal training in acoustics. Some would have viewed the jew’s harp as a wind instrument, while others would have seen it as more of a percussion, or even a stringed, instrument, depending on which they felt was more important, the vibration of the air or the striking of the lamella. A parallel can be drawn with contemporary players: some regard the role of the air and their breathing technique when playing as more important than techniques of plucking the lamella, while others see the percussive element as most important. This distinction is not just a tacit knowledge among players. Sometimes it manifests itself in the form of different schools or ideologies, as on the Norwegian jew’s harp scene. Here some players place special emphasis on rhythmic effects in their playing, claiming that they are preserving old playing techniques since some of the old masters tended to play percussively. Others are more concerned about renewing tradition by transferring fiddle tunes to the instrument.These players often emphasize a tonal virtuosity in preference to percussive effects. In this way, the two schools deliberately use the jew’s harp as, respectively, a percussion and a wind instrument.134 The idea that the jew’s harp is an anomaly is something that primarily concerns systematic classification according to classes of musical instruments. But the instrument’s ambigu-

134 This is a very simplified version of reality, of course.

106

ity and liminality is symptomatic of its position in other ways too – for instance its cultural and social classification (cf. discussion in previous section). It is most likely that an anomalous item of this nature would be regarded as culturally inferior, although the anomalous characteristics of the instrument would not by themselves produce a social classification. Following Turner, the transitional persons of the liminal phase have nothing. They have no status, property, insignia, secular clothing, rank, kinship, position etc. (Turner 1967: 98–9).A direct analogy to the medieval jew’s harp is not possible of course, but nevertheless it is not going too far to suggest that performers on the instrument had similar liminal experiences because of their social marginalization.We know that travelling musicians were socially inferior (cf. p. 102) Accordingly, this might be an example of marginalized people playing a marginalized and liminal instrument. Other characteristics also point up the anomalousness of the jew’s harp. One is the sound of the instrument, where there is an inherent contrast: the drone is a down-to earth type of sound, related to the drones of hurdy-gurdies, bagpipes and didgeridoos. At the same time, the treble sound of the melody tones (partial tones) points “upwards” by virtue of its electric, sparkling character. Another indicator, discussed below, is the abundance of associative names for the instrument, suggestive of its position between other groups of musical instruments.

The varied and associative terms for the jew’s harp The names for the jew’s harp show an exceptional richness and variety. Fox (1988: 34–7), taking a worldwide perspective, lists more than 250 names. Bakx’s booklet The 1000 Names of the Jew’s Harp (Bakx 1998b) is also indicative of the great diversity.135 The author writes that the names are “poetical metaphors, insect synonyms, mockery names, animistic names, associations with erotic powers, onomatopoetic names et cetera” (op. cit.: back cover). Plate systematizes European terms and divides them into five basic types (Plate 1992: 119–58). These are Maultrommel, rababa, Jew’s harp, symphonia and organum. However, not all the terms are possible to classify according to these types. Several names are not considered at all. This is no place for a linguistic survey of the different names and the relations between them, but what is of interest here is why there should be so many names.The names are symptomatic of conceptualization and classification. What do they tell us about the instrument’s reception in different regions and cultures? The names often suggest associations with other musical instruments, such as the drum (Maultrommel), trumpet (trompe, trump) and harp (jew’s harp). Scacciapensieri, the most common name in Italy, has a rather poetical connotation. Literally, it means “thought-dispeller”. Other names used in

Italy and Sicily are associative and onomatopoeic, such as marranzanu and gnagnararrone (Fox 1988: 34). Among several terms used in Bulgaria is brumbazuk (Todorov 1973: 30), which means small bumble-bee,136 and parmupill from Estonia means the same (Vertkov et al. 1987: 43). Another Estonian name is konnapill, meaning frog instrument. The Finnish name huuliharppu denotes lip harp (Crane 1982: 30; this name refers to harmonica in modern Finnish). The Russian name vargan-ili-zubnaya-gubanka means lip-andteeth-instrument (Bakx 1998b: 11). Other names refer to the sound and the metal of the instrument, such as the German Brummeisen – growling iron. This variation shows that the instrument has not carried its name on its way through Europe, unlike most other instruments. The violin has since the Middle Ages been called viola, viol, vielle, fele, etc.These terms are related, originating from the same roots. Of course, there are several examples of local names for violins and other instruments, but the names of the jew’s harp are unusual in their number and the diversity of forms. The associative nature of the terms indicates that people have been associative in their response to the instrument. These associations suggest that people have related jew’s harps to a variety of other types of sounds and musical instruments – insects, frogs, the harp, the fiddle, the drum, etc. We get the impression of an instrument that has travelled without a specific cultural context. It has not travelled with performers who played a certain kind of music with a fixed and familiar meaning. Instead, its meaning and significance were left open to local interpretation. The jew’s harp was probably different from the musical instruments that were already known.This is probably one of the reasons for the associative forms. Since people had nothing to relate it to, when they invented names for the new instrument they tended to think associatively, perhaps about the most important part of the player’s body (mouth, lips), or about other instruments, as with the names Maultrommel (mouth drum) or munnharpe (mouth harp). However, the associations do not always indicate that the jew’s harp was considered similar to the object of the association. For example, munnharpe does not mean that people believed that the instrument resembled a harp.The origin of this name could be due to an ironic or distanced commentary on the instrument as a poor man’s harp. On the other hand there is the possibility that a harp was used as a generic term for musical instruments or for groups of instruments. As we have seen, the instrument’s distribution developed almost explosively from the 13th and 14th centuries. Since the jew’s harp rather rapidly became a very common instrument all over Europe, it is somewhat surprising that there was not a common name that was taken around by those who played or sold it.

135 I have not counted how many different names appear in this publication. 136 Thanks to Morten Abildsnes for the translation.

107

Social groups We have discussed the archaeological contexts of the finds and the ways medieval people classified and conceptualized the jew’s harp.This section considers more specifically which people or groups of people used it under the subject headings sex, age, ethnicity and profession.The discussion is built more on ethnographical, iconographical and written records than on archaeological material. Before considering different social groups, I should mention one line of research that merits consideration. One possible way of finding out who played jew’s harps in the Middle Ages would be through an anthropological investigation of dental material, by comparing modern teeth with those from archaeological sources.137 One would seek permission from modern jew’s harp players – preferably those who practice or perform regularly – to have access to their dentists and/or dental records.The aim would be to discover if there is anything in common between the teeth of these players. One would be looking for characteristic wear marks, or for some specific type of breakage where the vibrating lamella makes contact with the front teeth. Such information could then be brought to bear on skeletal remains from archaeological excavations. Questions we might ask would include: Do these traits occur at all in the skeletons? In what kind of material? Do they appear more frequently in groups of people with a certain social position, or with other features in common? What about sex and age? One problem with this idea is that it presupposes that jew’s harp playing leaves traces on the teeth. Possibly a skilful jew’s harp player avoids damage to his teeth. The investigation I have proposed would establish this. Unfortunately, I should add, I have not had the means to carry out such research.

Sex In Siberia, the Urals and Central Asia, the jew’s harp was traditionally very popular among women (Shurov 1995: 5–6). In Yakutia especially the instrument was mainly played by women. Shurov writes about the traditional role of the Yakut khomus (jew’s harp) (op. cit.: 5): She (the woman) may go to a secluded place to play the instrument and improvise as if she merged with the surrounding nature, but Yakut women also play the khomus in the yurt (movable felt tent), in family surroundings, training children to listen to the ancient music and teaching them to play the instrument.Thus, people play the khomus from childhood on and so are able to achieve mastership by the end of their lives.The Yakut khomus playing has a special place during the big spring national holiday Essekh. At the festival young men energetically dance in a ring, ossuky, to the singing of dedicated songs, while women stand aside in groups and jointly play the khomus.

Hence, women were the leading jew’s harp players in Yakutia. Such strong indications are not found in Europe, although there is some evidence of female playing of the jew’s

harp. The main players in Somogy in Hungary were young girls and women (Sarosi 1967: 24), and Romanian sources tell us that women played (Plate 1992: 101). One 19th century engraving from Ireland shows a young lady playing the instrument (Buckley 1986: 56).The somewhat romantic representation suggests that she was a woman of the upper classes.This was not the case with a woman who was accused of witchcraft in Scotland in 1591 (see below, p. 112). Here the story tells us more about legal action against witchcraft than musicking, but it should nevertheless be regarded as documentation of a female jew’s harp player. The iconographical material in general shows both male and female players (Crane 2003b), though male players predominate, as in the ethnographic and historical sources. Interesting ethnographic sources are the traditional stories about boys working as shepherds and playing their jew’s harp to make contact with unearthly beings (p. 112). Others are the stories about courting (p. 111), where men play the jew’s harp to attract women. The modern jew’s harp movement seems to attract more men than women. Of the 114 individual members of the Norsk munnharpeforum (Norwegian Jew’s Harp Association), only 14, or twelve per cent, are women (2006). To me, the whole culture around the jew’s harp appears to be a male phenomenon. Men gather at festivals to speak passionately about their great interest, almost as if the harp was a car. During the jew’s harp boom about thirty years ago, more boys than girls played jew’s harps. In spite of these indications, it is impossible to argue that there is something about the instrument itself that attracts male players more than female. Turning to the archaeological material in Europe, nothing indicates that the jew’s harp was the exclusive or predominant domain of one sex in particular.To substantiate such a connection from archaeological information alone would in any case be difficult, though it should be possible to search in the archaeological records for relevant data.A study of excavation records, for example, might reveal whether finds were made in the men’s or the women’s parts of houses. This study has not allowed such investigation. However, we already have a few archaeological indications, including a find from Hope Colony, Greenland (no. 150), occupied in the 18th century, which was excavated in the men’s quarters of a dwelling house (Gulløv and Kapel 1979: 122). However, the most promising places to search for possible connections between jew’s harps and sex would be castles and monasteries. Due to their function and the type of activities undertaken there, it is probable that most of the people in castles were men. It is very likely that soldiers, whether stationed permanently or part of a passing mercenary army, played the jew’s harp. We do not really know much about this. We should also be open to the possibility that it was the women of the castles who spent their time in such musicking when not caring for children or performing domestic duties. In this regard it is worth noting that seven

137 Thanks to Cajsa S. Lund for this idea.

108

of the monasteries where finds have been made were convents, suggesting that nuns played the jew’s harp too.

Age I have come across no particular data suggesting that old people have been the main performers on jew’s harps. In fact it appears that more young people have played. If we go some centuries back in time, it is reasonable to suppose that old people in general were unable to play simply because they lacked the most important equipment for playing: their teeth. Young people performing on jew’s harps include courting couples, usually boys (p. 111), and children using it as a musical toy. There is strong evidence from all over Europe that children have used the jew’s harp. Regina Plate (1992: 101–4) presents ethnographic records on this from Germany, Austria, Silesia (Poland), Lithuania, Hungary and the Low Countries. The sources do not give much information on how the instrument was used. Children in Cuba play hideand-seek with its sounds (op. cit.: 104). A 19th century Swedish source tells us that the jew’s harp was used to quieten children; when there was too little food they were left to play on the instrument to help them forget their hunger (Lund 1992). Documents from Flanders and Wallonia, Belgium, give historical accounts of the connection between children and jew’s harps.Written sources going back to the 16th century describe it as a children’s toy (Plate 1992: 102). Among the depictions of children, there is one from 1621 by Dirck van Baburen, who painted a jew’s harp-playing boy (Boone 1972: 20, 23; Plate 1992: 102; Crane 2003b: 79–80). Some pieces in the archaeological material may have been children’s instruments.These are the miniature harps, classified as the Bruck type in Chapter 3 on typology.The smallest example, from Bruck Castle in Eastern Tirol (no. 810), has a total length of only 29 millimetres. This and other tiny harps of a similar size and appearance can certainly be played by adults.They are manufactured in the same way with the same proportions as larger harps. Only the size is different. One interpretation is that they are meant for playing melodies with a higher pitch.The shorter the length of the lamella, the higher the pitch. However, the rigidity of the lamella is also important for the frequency of the tone produced. It would not be necessary to make them so tiny throughout if the only purpose was to make instruments with a higher register. So a more reasonable interpretation is that they were made for children. The Bruck type probably dates from around the 16th century.As Chapter 3 showed, the type is not very homogenous, and some of the 21 specimens might therefore be earlier or later.The distribution is chiefly in the area of the Alps, suggesting a regional tradition.The excavations at Hallwil Castle in Switzerland revealed 14. In Nepal they still make miniature jew’s harps of the same kind as those of the Bruck type (Fig. 2.10, p. 28). Whether these instruments are made for children is not clear.

Fig. 5.6: Three harps from Hallwil Castle, Switzerland. From top: nos 594, 602 and 601. One can conjecture that the two small pieces were made for children.

Some early jew’s harps found in the USA represent parallel finds. These are even smaller, measuring down to 1 inch (25.4 mm), and even as little as 3/4 inch (19 mm). They were excavated at sites of 18th century European occupation (Feister 1995: 292–3; 1996). Written sources provide information on these items too, with several lists of trade goods referring explicitly to small jew’s harps (Stone 1974: 145). That these tiny harps were children’s instruments is also indicated in other written documents. A document from 1764 of Major General Sir William Johnson, who was superintendent at one of the locations, lists jew’s harps as trade items for children (Feister 1995: 292–3). If miniature harps were indeed made for children, they prove beyond doubt that children played the instrument. At the same time such finds also demonstrate that the jew’s harp was not exclusively an instrument for children because they are found along with instruments of “adult” size. This is in accordance with data from ethnographic and iconographic sources suggesting that children played, but not children alone.

Ethnicity The history of the jew’s harp’s in Europe associates it with no specific ethnic group, except for two indications. The first is some central European sources that connect the instrument to gypsies. The other is found in its English name. Starting with the latter, the term jew’s harp is found exclusively in the English language.138 Judenharfe (German) or Jødeharpe (Danish) are probably translations from English. The obvious question is whether this indicates some association with Jewish people. The origin of this English name is still unresolved. Trump, with no prefix, was

138 For a full account of the history of the term jew’s harp, see Crane 1982. There are also good sections on the term on the Jew’s Harp Guild’s home page at http://www.jewsharpguild.org/history.html.

109

probably the earliest term in the English language (Crane 1982: 29). The forms Jue harpe and Jue trumpe, both found in the Customs Accounts from Londan in 1480/81 (Wright 2005) represent the earliest versions that included the term “jew”. From the 16th century the forms Jues trounk (1545) and iewes trump (1583) are known (Crane, ibid.). That “jew” is a corruption of some other word is only an unsubstantiated idea, but it has produced explanations and propositions including jaw (or jaw’s), jeu or jeugd, and even juice harp. These are all fairly modern constructions. However, it is reasonable that some should have tried to explain the use of the word in this way as no sources indicate that the instrument has had a strong position in Jewish culture. Moreover, the name jew’s harp has been, and perhaps still is, understood as insulting or contemptuous by some, regardless of any derogatory intention by those who use it. One writer has argued that the common English name for the instrument really has a connection with Jews (Steafel 1976).The author is Jewish himself, and his argument is not linguistic but based on his childhood experience in North Staffordshire, England, in the early 20th century. He gives an interesting description of how Jewish people were subjected to insults by other people. The verbal ridicule was “always accompanied by a characteristic gesture: the hands of the speaker were cupped under his chin and rotated from the wrist outwards and inwards” (op. cit.: 123).139 If the gesture was an imitation of jew’s harp playing, or had originated as such, it conveys contempt for Jewish people through an expression of ridicule for the jew’s harp.The ridicule is illustrative of the low regard in which the instrument was held, although this kind of ridicule and, accordingly, the association between the instrument and Jewish people could have originated many centuries earlier. In addition to this conjecture, or as an alternative, it is possible that there was a more direct connection between Jews and jew’s harps. This association is more likely to have been related to selling or trading the instruments than playing them. The name would easily come into being if travelling pedlars, such as those appearing in various depictions especially from the 16th and 17th centuries (Crane 2003b: 45–53), were Jews. One problem with this is that Jews were not admitted to England for several hundred years between about 1290 and the mid-17th century (Crane 1982: 40). It would be paradoxical if they were the source for the instrument’s name during their absence from the country where the name came into being. However, this formally declared expulsion is hardly evidence for the total non-existence of Jews in England during these centuries. Similar expulsions were declared in several European countries at this time (Cohen 1982: 14). Accordingly, I still find it plausible that Jewish pedlars as an

abandoned group could be associated with jew’s harps, and that it was with reference to this ethnic group that the common English name was invented. Additionally, to account for the tradition and persistence of this name, it is interesting to consider its other part, which could be interpreted as making sarcastic reference to a harp suitable for a poor person or one of mean degree. In other words, there might at the same time be elements of understatement and mockery to the term.The term is not always easy to use because of its latent anti-Semitic connotations. The following story, told by an American man, illustrates the problem:140 This reminds me of a true story. My senior year of high school I had an English Lit teacher who was Jewish. Her mother was a holocaust survivor who would come and lecture to the classes and we read a lot of Jewish literature from that era. One day I was playing my trump before class (yes, I really did play it whenever I could – still do). She walked up and was listening.When I was done, she asked me what I called it. Oh gee, I thought. I’m going to hear it now.‘Jaw harp,’ I said. ‘You don’t call it anything else?’ she asked. Oh boy, I thought. Here it comes....‘Well, I don’t, not really... but some people call it a jew’s harp.’ ‘That’s what I’ve heard,’ she said.‘But my grandfather played one and I always remember him calling it a Goy Harp when I was little.’ ‘Goy’ is Yiddish for a non-Jewish person. I laughed about this with her and she swears she was not joking.

Traditions from the Czech Republic and Slovakia refer to gypsies as makers and pedlars of jew’s harps (Kunz 1974: 40–1).This is also reported from Hungary, where the following, among several mocking verses, shows the connection between gypsies and the jew’s harp (Sarosi 1967: 24): Cigány-bigány buzdogáni / Csinájj nékem dorongot … Hello Gipsy, Gipsy /Make me a jew’s harp

I have not come across references connecting the instrument to gypsies elsewhere. The jew’s harp has not featured particularly strongly in the traditional music of gypsies. However, like other travelling people, it is likely that they carried jew’s harps with them, but it is unlikely that they were the only ones who spread them around.

Profession From the 18th century onwards, virtuoso jew’s harp players toured the continent with their instruments (see Fox 1988). The best known of these was Carl Eulenstein (1802–1890). Were there professional musicians of this kind as early as the Middle Ages? Probably not. On the basis of the previous discussion on the social standing of the instrument, it is unlike-

139 In Lithuania I have seen people clicking their fingers towards the side of their throat when talking about people who drink too much. Not a movement that makes an explicit association with jew’s harp playing, but still an interesting idea to speculate about. What are the origins of such gestures? Perhaps similar gestures are known elsewhere. 140 Written by Matthew Allen Newsome as a contribution to the online discussion group of the American organization the Jew’s Harp Guild. Address: http://www.jewsharpguild.org/_disc1/00000026.htm.

110

ly that professional specialists on the jew’s harp were around at this time. However, it is possible that it was played by jugglers. The jugglers of the Middle Ages were no uniform group. They made a living from their activities, and most were professional, either engaged by cities (authorities, mayors), or simply earning an income in the street or marketplace. Others were semi-professional entertainers and might work as artisans for part of the year.The different names used to describe them, such as jongleurs, minstrels, jocolatures, lekare and others show that their activities varied. Behind the different names we find actors, dancers, musicians, clowns, acrobats, etc. Some performed several of these activities, while others were more specialized. Jugglers ranked lowest in the social hierarchy of the Middle Ages – indeed, they were regarded as outside the social system itself. However, there are signs that the social position of some jugglers improved during the 15th and 16th centuries. Some won patronage from nobility or civic authorities and were engaged at important feasts and festivals (Falck 1995: 90). Jugglers played an important role in the medieval carnival culture. There were several calendar festivals during the year in addition to the main carnival of February. On these occasions minstrels and jugglers of different kinds arrived in the cities and towns and gathered with ordinary people, making fun for some days. The Dutch painters mentioned earlier depicted jew’s harps in their renditions of such carnivalesque festivals.Apart from these, no sources connect the instrument directly to jugglers or other professional entertainers. However, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that some of them included it among their instruments. Regarding the makers, the Chapter 4 on distribution suggested that they were part of the guild system which organized the crafts from the 13th century onwards. We do not know if those who made jew’s harps were specialists or if cutlers or other metal workers made them. Nevertheless, we can imagine that they were manufactured in large workshops where masters and apprentices worked together.

Functions and meanings There are not too many sources for the functions of the jew’s harp in medieval Europe, though from the 15th and 16th centuries the sources gradually become richer.The use of ethnographic and other sources of comparison is absolutely necessary whether we are concerned with the medieval or post-medieval period. In this section there is space only for a brief survey of some of the instrument’s functions and meanings. A deeper investigation has to await future work on these issues.

Dance accompaniment There are some records of the use of the jew’s harp to pro-

vide music for dance.The oldest is from Scotland at the end of the 16th century and tells of a woman accused of witchcraft (Buckley 1986: 54). She played to accompany a reel (the story is discussed below under the heading “Witchcraft”). Players in Scotland have provided dance music until the 20th century (Wright 2006). From Slovakia it is reported that the jew’s harp was traditionally used to play dance tunes but that its sound was considered too weak to accompany dancing itself (Elschek 1983:58). In some Norwegian districts the jew’s harp took over from the fiddle as an instrument for dance music because the latter was regarded as the Devil’s instrument during the religious revivals of the 19th century.

Courting In many places the jew’s harp has a reputation as an instrument for courting.There are many stories of its successful use in seducing women. In Slovakia bachelors traditionally performed with their harp under the windows of the girls they adored (Elschek 1983: 58). One source reports that this activity was so common among young people that during summer nights one could hear jew’s harps under almost every window (ibid.). Similar traditions are known from Austria (Plate 1992: 113). In the iconographical material too there are indications of the jew’s harp as a courting instrument.The Dutch painting “Market in a Flemish City” (1613) by Sebastian Vrancx (Boone 1986: 34; Tamboer 1999: 59; Crane 2003b: 48–9) shows a man who appears to be playing a jew’s harp. Close to him there is a woman with a straw hat who seems to be taken by his playing. In the work Entertainment for the Eve of Carnival Thursday Before Dinner from 1608 by the Italian composer Adriano Banchieri (1568–1634), vocal imitation of a jew’s harp is used in a courting scene. The words are sung by the two upper voices, while the lower voices imitate a jew’s harp and lyre. 141 The use of the instrument in courting customs also appears in Siberia, China, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, New Zealand and New Guinea (Fox 1988). One clear-cut report from Papua New Guinea states that “if a man plays a bamboo Jew’s harp, women gather around him.Women want to marry a man who can play the Jew’s harp very well. So a good player can have two or three wives. Therefore, a man unable to play the Jew’s harp is useless” (Yamagami 1995).

Shamanism and therapy In Siberia and Central Asia the jew’s harp is known as a shamanic instrument. That the instrument has the power to put people into trance is, interestingly, a feature that is not limited to shamanistic traditions. The Austrian doctor R. A. Mesmer, who used it in therapy, had a theory about magnetism associated with the sound of the instrument. There is a curious story from Norway about a horse being hypnotized

141 Information from the CD “Adriano Banchieri il Zabaione musicale – Festino nella sera del Giovedì Grasso avanti Cena.” 1997 NAXOS 8.553785. Thanks to Håvard Skaadel for drawing my attention to this work.

111

by the sound of a jew’s harp.142 It is unlikely, of course, that inducing trance was the predominant function of the instrument in the Middle Ages.

Witchcraft The connection between the jew’s harp and witchcraft is demonstrated by a Scottish source of 1591 in connection with the trial of a man and some women who were accused of witchcraft in Lothian.We hear about a maidservant, Geillis Duncane, who was said to have crossed the sea to the Kirk of North Barrick together with local witches and another two hundred people.They took a lot of wine with them and sailed across the sea in sieves. On the other side they indulged in merry-making, and “toke handes … and daunced this reill or short daunce, singing with one voice: ‘Commer goe ye before, commer goe ye, Gif ye will not goe before, commer let me’ … this Geilles sic Duncane did goe before them playing this reill or daunce upon a small trumpe, called a Jewes Trump …” (Buckley 1986: 50). It would be unreasonable to use this source as evidence for a general connection between witchcraft and jew’s harp playing. Nonetheless, it is an interesting source. It is also interesting to note how the instrument has been connected to other evil forces. In Ingmar Bergman’s movie The Virgin Spring (Jungfrukällan) from 1960 the sounds of a jew’s harp accompany the bad guys.

Supernatural beings A number of stories in European folklore make a connection between the jew’s harp and underground creatures.These stories are typically about the lonely shepherd who plays his harp and makes contact with spirits from the underworld. Such folk tales are found in Scandinavia, Scotland and the Alpine countries (Crane 2000). Interestingly, the places where these stories are found have a tradition of cattle breeding. Several of the rural archaeological finds might be connected to this tradition.This especially concerns some Swiss finds (p. 100) that were excavated at pastoral summer dairies. We do not know how far back these traditions go. A Norwegian ballad (Dansen i Berget) that probably dates back to the Middle Ages includes the motif of jew’s harp playing and the appearance of underworld beings.

Introvert musicking?143 The jugglers played in public places and had to make themselves heard,so their performances were by nature outward oriented. An alternative and contrasting way of making music is introvert, private and personal, with no purpose of entertaining others. The stories of lonely shepherds making contact with spirit beings conform to this latter way of playing. If we set up an axis between professional entertainment on the one side and introverted, contemplative musicking on the other side (Espeland 2002), playing the jew’s harp would fall closer to the latter end of the scale.There are several possibilities in between these forms of playing, of course, but the jew’s harp still seems an ideal instrument for more private and contemplative musical activity. It is relevant for our purposes here to think of the jew’s harp as the perfect instrument for relaxation and pastime as these were perhaps an important function of the instrument in different settings in the late Middle Ages. It is especially tempting to imagine people relaxing with their harps at the castles and monasteries, where so many instruments have been excavated. The jew’s harp is a perfect instrument for relaxation for several reasons. First, it does not demand great effort to handle and play – at least to make it work after a fashion.Though it is not especially easy to play well, it is probably easier than most other instruments. Second, its small size is an advantage: the instrument is easy to store and carry. (On the other hand, one could say the same about many musical instruments that are small and relatively easy to make sound with.An example is bone flutes, which are often found at the same sites as jew’s harps.) Third, a jew’s harp is surrounded by an attractive obscurity. The musician can play and have fun in an exploratory way, and it is quite easy to discover strange sounds and effects.This may inspire small experiments along the lines of how do I create this effect, or is it possible to do this and this? The use of the jew’s harp as relaxation and pastime is also interesting in light of the Italian term for the instrument, scacciapensieri – the dispeller of thoughts or worries. It is not far from thought dispelling to time dispelling, and it is easy to imagine monks, soldiers, knights and other people of the late Middle Ages who chased away their everyday concerns and conjured up daydreams by playing on their jew’s harp.

142 Folke Nesland, pers. comm. 143 The term musicking derives from Christopher Small (1998).

112

6. Conclusions his study, which is based on archaeological material, has demonstrated that the jew’s harp was a common musical instrument in Europe from the 13th century. Information on the total of 830 finds listed in the Catalogue has been gathered in different ways; for some it was obtained from publications or other printed materials, while in other cases I have studied and documented specimens held in museum collections myself. The effort I was able to put into gathering information has differed somewhat across the various countries and regions of Europe, and the results probably illustrate this imbalance in that the eastern parts of the continent and the Mediterranean area are represented by very few finds. It is possible, of course, that the instrument was uncommon in these areas or did not reach them at all. Whatever the case, the under-representation of certain areas may also reflect the different objectives and methods of various archaeological traditions. The northern part of Europe, where medieval archaeology is most developed, has produced the largest number of finds. The United Kingdom (173 specimens), Switzerland (137 specimens) and Sweden (118 specimens) account for the largest numbers of jew’s harps found in the earth, followed by the Netherlands, Germany and France.

T

* Jew’s harps are often found along medieval trade routes. These include the important east–west trade route between London and Novgorod, which passed through the Baltic, and the river Rhine. The distribution of the finds reflects where people and merchants travelled.The distributive patterns also show where people lived, as the instrument was more prevalent in densely populated regions. There are three notable geographical concentrations of finds, which probably not only represent population density, but also manufacturing centres. The cluster of finds around the Øresund Strait, between present-day Sweden and Denmark, probably represents the oldest of these centres. Most of the material here dates from the 13th and 14th centuries. Another centre is the area around the English Channel, which has produced a larger proportion of post-medieval material than Øresund. Despite this, there is no reason to believe that the instrument became established here later than in Scandinavia. If we consider the specimens made of copper alloy (as opposed to iron), one can see a distinct movement through time from northern Germany/southern Scandinavia/the Baltic area towards England and the Low Countries. The youngest type – referred to as “Stafford” in this study – is, with very few exceptions, known only from Britain. It appears to have been mass-produced in the 17th and 18th

centuries. The third concentration of finds is in the Alps, with a particular prevalence in Switzerland. Some of the specimens in this material may be connected to the well-known production centres of Molln in Upper Austria and Boccorio in northern Italy. Written documents attest that the manufacture can be traced back to the 17th century in Molln, and to the 16th century in Boccorio. No medieval production centres (towns, workshops, or makers) have been identified so far, either in the Alpine countries or in other places. Nevertheless, medieval finds are abundant in the Alps, and there is no reason to believe that the jew’s harp arrived there later than elsewhere in Europe. In fact, there are finds with reliable early (13th century) datings from southern France, Switzerland, Scotland, England, Germany, Sweden and Estonia.The two oldest dated specimens are from Lübeck (no. 493) and Schönenwerd Castle, Switzerland (no. 612), both with find circumstances that date them to around 1200. However, it is still possible that other examples might be as old as the 11th century.

* Some finds from England, the Netherlands, France and Norway are claimed to date from earlier times, which would suggest that the Vikings, Saxons, Carolingians and Romans were familiar with the jew’s harp. However, these early datings appear to be unsubstantiated. None of the finds has been excavated under conditions that allow a reliable date to be established. Nevertheless, we should not exclude the possibility that the jew’s harp existed in Europe in the early Middle Ages. Perhaps it was a rare artifact, not appearing as a trade item until the High Middle Ages. One specimen from Moldova (no. 301), apparently from the 9th to the 10th century, lend support to this supposition – provided, of course, that the dating are trustworthy. Another early example comes from Bashkortostan in the Ural region (no. 300), excavated from a burial mound that dates from the 8th to the 9th century. This piece is idioglottic (made of one piece of matterial), and more related to similar instruments found throughout Asia than the European material. If the jew’s harp arrived from Asia in the High Middle Ages or slightly earlier, several trade routes are candidates for the way the instrument might have entered Europe. It could have been part of the trade that followed the Russian rivers, arriving via the Novgorod/Baltic route, or it could have been brought in through the Mediterranean area, for instance by returning crusaders. In both cases, we should remember the important caravan routes that connected Europe to the Orient as early as the early Middle Ages.

113

Regardless of the question of when and how the instrument was introduced to Europe, the archaeological material points to an almost explosive development of its distribution in Europe during the 13th and 14th centuries.This rapid spread seems to have been accompanied by the appearance of a diversity of types.The instrument was obviously very popular at the time. These developments indicate that some kind of “professional” mode of production was established in the period, one that had the character of mass production serving a market that demanded jew’s harps in large quantity.This coincides with a general expansion in the crafts and trade, along with the organizational circumstances needed to support such activities. Punch marks on a number of jew’s harps demonstrate that they were a part of the organized guild system of the High Middle Ages. More than fifty punch marks are recorded in the catalogued material. In the case of two specimens (nos 587, 814) the place of manufacture and even the maker can be identified. In other instances two or more marks are identical or similar, although they do not allow identification of the place of manufacture. However, punch marks offer a promising means for identifying the patterns of distribution as well as the social conditions that attended the manufacture of jew’s harps.

*

represents an initial and general overview of social distribution. The present investigation has not allowed a more detailed study of site records and excavation reports in order to identify the social environments and activities with which the finds are associated. However, we can conclude that the distribution is varied. The jew’s harp may have been a typical instrument at medieval castles and monasteries, but there is also a clear association with cities. As to such central questions as who the players were, what their social status was and when or on what occasions they played, the archaeological material remain silent, at least so far. Therefore, I have added some written and iconographical sources to the interpretations, supplemented by analogies from ethnographic records. In post-medieval times, the jew’s harp has been associated with different groups of people and connected to different functions. Its cultural significance has varied.There is no reason to believe that the situation in the Middle Ages was fundamentally different, and we should not seek one single social and cultural origin for the instrument in Europe. However, this is not to assert that the instrument was used by all classes and groups of people.Various sources suggest that it predominated in the lower social strata, and that it was prevalently used by the common people in rural and urban societies.

*

Since jew’s harps were items of trade, various kinds of merchants and pedlars would have carried them around among their wares. But salesmen would not have been the only agents of their spread through Europe. It is likely that musicians, especially travelling jugglers, would have played the instrument, probably along with others. Some ethnographic sources tell of gypsies making and carrying the jew’s harp about with them, but no material suggests that there was any close association between the instrument and this ethnic group. Nor is its connection to Jewish people fully elucidated. There is no evidence that the latter have had any special familiarity with the instrument, and as we have seen the English name for it has no direct connection with the Jewish people. Another group of people which, it is plausible to suppose, contributed considerably to the distribution of the instrument was soldiers. As many as 275 pieces, or 33 per cent of the finds, are from castles. It is very likely that soldiers played the jew’s harp in their spare time and, since this was the great period for mercenaries in Europe, that they took them around on their postings.

* Apart from the 275 specimens from castles, the catalogued finds have been recovered from the following social contexts: 33 (4 per cent) from monasteries, 282 (34 per cent) from urban sites and 161 (19 per cent) from rural sites.The division of social contexts employed in this study

Music theorists do not mention the jew’s harp before the 16th century, and the first scholars who write about it regard it as a non-musical instrument, one hardly worth mentioning. The absence of the instrument in medieval treatises of music and musical instruments is an indication of its low social standing. The same can be said about the sparseness of iconographical representations, especially before the 15th century. On the other hand, some of the earliest depictions suggest that the instrument enjoyed a degree of respectability. We should therefore not exclude the possibility that the medieval jew’s harp was also surrounded by a degree of honour and social value, at least among its makers and players. Depictions of the jew’s harp from the 15th century and later show that its place was among travelling pedlars, minstrels and jongleurs, as well as fools and beggars. It is not included among the instruments of professional minstrels. There are several accounts of children playing the jew’s harp. The size of some specimens from the archaeological material suggests that they were made for children. We know from ethnographic records that in Russia and Siberia it was predominantly girls and women who played the instrument. As for the Middle Ages, there are no clues that might allow us to interpret any find as intended for a particular sex. The use of the jew’s harp in courting is well attested from various places in Europe. Drawing on these historical sources as well as ethnographic analogy, the provision of an

114

accompaniment to courting seems to have been very much one of the functions of the jew’s harp in medieval Europe. The instrument has produced ideas and traditions, some of which can be attributed to its buzzing and even mystical sound.Thus, in the 19th century it was used for healing and therapeutic purposes, and a 16th century Scottish source associates the jew’s harp with witchcraft. Finally, several traditions make a connection with supernatural beings.The stories are often about lonely shepherds who play their jew’s harp and thereby come into contact with beings from the underworld. It is difficult to date such elements of folklore, but in general the traditions are old, originating many centuries back in time. These ideas and motifs provide an important cultural framework for the medieval jew’s harp and its characteristic sound. Moreover, they support the idea that the instrument was used to dispel thought and time. Perhaps we can conjecture that a typical use of the jew’s harp was as an instrument conducive to introspective, contemplative musical activities, whether beside an Alpine summer dairy, at a castle or monastery, or in some urban setting.

* Not only have the functions of the jew’s harp varied.The instrument itself exhibits a variety of forms. The work on technology and typology has been an important part of this study, seeking to find some order behind the morphological diversity. The chapter on technology (Chapter 2) considered materials and manufacturing methods. One of the most diagnostic variable features for manufacture is probably the crosssection of the frame of the instrument. Other important technological characteristics include the material of manufacture and the way the lamella is attached to the frame. Three methods for making the frames are identified: forging, casting, and bending from a rod (cold working). 20 per cent of the specimens in the Catalogue are cast copper alloy, while 69 per cent are made of iron. For 11 per cent the method of manufacture is unknown. Of the 574 iron jew’s harps, only some 14 pieces (or three per cent) are identified as bent from a rod with cold working. The rest are forged. Two main methods of attaching the lamella are identified: the lamella is either placed into a notch in the frame and secured by hammering some of the adjacent metal over it, or it is inserted through a hole in the frame and secured by a wedge. The main purpose of the typological analysis (Chapter 3)

was to provide a chronological tool in accordance with the traditional typological method in archaeology.To assist this aim, three separate typologies were constructed: (1) a typological classification arranged in a hierarchical way, indicative of and based on technology; (2) an evaluation of some morphological developments and tendencies in the material; and (3) a more detailed arrangement with depictions and illustrations of about twenty types. The intention of the first, introductory hierarchy was explore and clarify the technological diversity in a systematic manner.The hierarchy provides a tool for various further analyses. The evaluation of morphological developments concentrated on selected variable attributes, of which the relative length of the arms proved to be the most promising. The relation was expressed as the length of the arms (AL) in relation to the overall length of the frame (OL). The AL/OL ratio was systematically investigated. The conclusion is that, over time, there was a significant tendency for the arms gradually to become shorter relative to the overall length. The hairpin-shaped forms and others with long arms relative to overall length are early, but they are also present continuously throughout our period. In contrast, instruments with short arms and large, open bows always belong to a younger group. Accordingly, the shape of the bow is, to a certain extent, also a part of this: the investigation demonstrated that an increasing opening of the bow, from triangular to circular, is accompanied by a decreasing length of the arms in relation to the overall length. The hypothesis that there is a typological development from jew’s harps with small bows and long arms towards jew’s harps with large open bows and short arms was confirmed. The third typological approach was the most detailed, in that it resulted in a description of twenty-one types.The purpose was to bring the technological diversity and chronological outlines together in a more complete typological arrangement. The idea was also to design a tool that might readily be used by people with no detailed knowledge of jew’s harps. Its practicability was therefore considered important. A typology that is time-consuming to become familiar with or requires some special interest in jew’s harps would not serve the purpose. Its practicability was assured by the use of drawings and reference to individual finds that have been used here to give site names to the types.The types range in age from the 13th to the 19th century. Some are ascribed to fairly limited periods of time, while others have existed continuously for centuries.The typology takes the form of a type chart that serves as a condensed expression of the typological work carried out on the material.

115

Catalogue he Catalogue consists of selected information from the database, which is based on the software program 4th Dimension. It lists and depicts (when illustrations are available) the 830 finds, accompanied by various pieces of information.The entries are arranged chronologically, according to their identification numbers. The upper line of each entry gives, besides the identification number, the provenance, from the left: country, region, place and site. Regarding countries, English names are used (Germany instead of Deutschland etc.), while for the remaining place names, forms peculiar to the locality are chosen (Bayern instead of Bavaria etc.). The illustrations, which come from various sources, appear approximately in natural size. For exact measurements, consult the measurements in the text (see below). Sometimes, however, measurements are unknown. The remaining text of each entry is divided in three sections. The first section gives the following information, from the left: • Possession. Museum, institution or private collection. • Accession number. Not all finds are noted by their final accession number in a museum.They may still be in conservation labs or in the hands of their excavators. In such cases the recorded number is the find number from the excavation, or similar. Some specimens are only recorded with the general number for the excavation. Sometimes numbers do not exist at all, for various reasons. • Year of finding • Social context, according to the four classes castle,

T

monastery, rural and urban, as described in the section “The find locations”, p. 95. • Information if there is a punch mark. • Dating. The datings are based on the circumstances of the finds.“Chance find” denotes a find that has come to light casually – not from an intentional excavation, and where the find circumstances do not allow dating. • OL = Overall length. See Fig. 2.1, p. 23, and accompanying text.An asterisk (*) behind OL or OW indicates that the measurement is not original for different reasons. It means that the object is broken or is heavily corroded, or that the measurement is a reconstruction of the original measurement. • OW = Overall width. See Fig. 2.1, p. 23, and related text. • AL = Arms’ length. See Fig. 2.1, p. 23, and related text. • LL = Lamella’s length. See Fig. 2.1, p. 23, and related text. The middle section gives my own classifications, corresponding to the arrangements developed in the typology chapter. From the left: Material, method of manufacture, cross-section of the bow, way of attaching the lamella, bow shape, and type. The last section gives references to publications or other information about the find or the site.This section also gives credit for the illustration. If the illustration is taken from a publication, the relevant publication appears in italics in this section.When no credit is given, the photo or drawing has been made by the author. Though not given at each individual entry, the copyright of each picture belongs to the museums and institutions in possession of the finds.

116

1

Denmark • Jylland: Vejle County • Horsens • Fugholm Street

Horsens Museum • Found: 1974 • Urban • 14th–15th c. • OL: 55/OW: 29/AL: 32 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Andersen et. al. 1976: 114, and fig. 9, p. 115; Kristensen 1994: 193, no. 130; Kolltveit 1996: 42, no. DK1

2

Denmark • Jylland: Vejle County • Kolding • Vestergade

Kolding: Museet på Koldinghus, 5192 • Urban • Chance find • OL: 70/OW: 50/AL: 33/LL: 33 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Triangular • Type: Pärnu Skov 1957 (with photo); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.36; Müller 1972: 34, no. 40; Kristensen 1994: 193, no. 131; Kolltveit 1996: 42–4, no. DK2. Joining of lamella: Kristensen (op. cit.) says soldered with lead (Pb). Possibly a mix of wedging and soldering. Photo by Tenna Kristensen.

3

Denmark • Jylland: Vejle County • Kolding • Vestergade 20–22

Kolding: Museet på Koldinghus, 85 x 549 • Found: 1979 • Urban • 1250–1500 • OL: 44*/OW: 39 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Kristensen 1994: 217, no. 194; Kolltveit 1996: 42–4, no. DK3. Photo by Tenna Kristensen.

4 Denmark • Jylland: Vejle County • Kolding • Rendebanen, Vestergade Kolding: Museet på Koldinghus, 620 x 243 • Found: 1986–1987 • Urban • Chance find • OL: 80/OW: 25/AL: 52/LL: 59 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Kvikkjokk Kristensen 1994: 217, no. 195; Kolltveit 1996: 42–4, no. DK4. Photo by Tenna Kristensen.

5

Denmark • Jylland: Sønderjylland County • Haderslev • Møllestrømmen

Haderslev Museum, 3024 x 47 • Found: 1994 • Urban • 13th–14th c. • OL: 57/OW: 31/AL: 39 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 43–4, no. DK5. Photo by Tenna Kristensen.

117

6

Denmark • Jylland: Ribe County • Ribe • Korsebrødregården

Ribe: Den antikvariske samling, ASR 565 x 326 • Found: 1987 • Urban • 13th–14th c. • OL: 80/OW: 25*/AL: 60 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Hairpinshaped • Type: Greifswald Kristensen 1994: 225, no. 222; Kolltveit 1996: 44, no. DK6

7

Denmark • Langeland: Fyn County • Sandhagen • House VII:A

Rudkøbing: Langeland’s Museum, 167:1950 • Found: 1953–1955 • Rural (Village) • 1550–1615 • OL: 50/OW: 27/AL: 35 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Billingsgate Müller 1972: 34, no. 39; Berg et. al. 1981: 101, and fig. 74d, p. 99; Kristensen 1994: 177–8, no. 78; Kolltveit 1996: 44, no. DK7. Found in the upper clay floor of house VII:A. The village Sandhagen was a fishing village settled from the last part of the 16th century until 1615 (Berg et. al., op. cit.)

8

Denmark • Falster: Storstrøms County • Moseby • Moseby

København: Nationalmuseet, D133/1990 • Found: 1990 • Rural • Chance find • OL: 76/OW: 15/AL: 62 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Kristensen 1994: 219, no. 199; Kolltveit 1996: 44–5, no. DK8. Photo by Tenna Kristensen.

9

Denmark • Sjælland: Roskilde County • Roskilde • Hersegade

Roskilde Museum, ROM 333-53 • Found: 1953 • Urban • Unstratified • OL: 88/OW: 23/AL: 70/LL: 48 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Schauenburg Müller 1972: 34, no. 38; Kristensen 1994: 223, no. 218; Kolltveit 1996: 45, no. DK9. Müller dates it to the 14th c., and gives 95 mm. as total length. Extension of the lamella about 3–4 mm. Photo: Roskilde Museum.

10

Denmark • Sjælland: Roskilde County • Roskilde • Algade

Roskilde Museum • Found: 1995 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 55/OW: 27*/AL: 38/LL: 65 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 45, no. DK10; Andersen 1997; Kock 1999: 32 (photo). Photo: Roskilde Museum.

11

Denmark • Jylland: Århus County • Emborg • Øm Monastery

Århus: Moesgård Museum, M2 DB 13 • Found: 1976 • Monastery • 1560s • OL: 55/OW: 26/AL: 38 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kristensen 1994: 154, no. 1; Kolltveit 1996: 46, no. DK11. Øm Monastery was founded in 1172, and closed in 1560. This specimen is from the demolition phase in the 1560s. The monastery was Cistercian. Photo by Tenna Kristensen.

118

12

Denmark • Jylland: Århus County • Emborg • Øm Monastery

Århus: Moesgård Museum, M2 BCW 12 • Found: 1977 • Monastery • Medieval • OL: 59*/OW: 33*/AL: 35/LL: 6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kristensen 1994: 156, no. 6; Kolltveit 1996: 46, no. DK12. Photo by Tenna Kristensen.

13

Denmark • Sjælland: Fredriksborg County • Store Valby • Farm no. 3

7302/1952 • Found: 1952 • Rural • Medieval–1774 • OL: 64*/OW: 51*/AL: 38*/LL: 30 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Triangular • Type: Pärnu Steensberg and Østergaard Christensen 1974: 402–3, and Pl. 191, no. 3; Kolltveit 1996: 46, no. DK13. The lamella is probably attached by wedging.

14

Denmark • Sjælland: Fredriksborg County • Store Valby • Farm no. 17

6632/1954 • Found: 1953 • Rural • Medieval–1774 • OL: 59*/OW: 26*/AL: 39* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Steensberg and Østergaard Christensen 1974: 412–13, and Pl. 196, no. 7; Kolltveit 1996: 46, no. DK14

15

Denmark • Sjælland: København County • København • Holmens kanal – Laxegade

København: Nationalmuseet, D11245 • Found: 1928 • Urban • 17th c. • OL: 52/OW: 20/AL: 34/LL: 49 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kristensen 1994: 220, no. 200; Müller 1972: 34, no. 37; Kolltveit 1996: 46–7, no. DK15

16

Denmark • Amager: København County • Dragør • Stakhaven: Felt II

København: Nationalmuseet, D612/1973 • Found: 1973 • Urban • 1360–1425 • OL: 57*/OW: 29* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Liebgott 1979: 122–3, with fig. 119a, p. 122 (The three from Stakhaven are obviously not reproduced in 1:1 scale, as claimed. The correct scale should probably be 3:2); Kristensen 1994: 191–2, no. 127; Kolltveit 1996: 47, no. DK16

17

Denmark • Amager: København County • Dragør • Stakhaven: Felt I

København: Nationalmuseet, D2089/1974 • Found: 1974 • Urban • 1360–1425 • OL: 57*/OW: 24* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Liebgott 1979: 122–3, with fig. 119b, p. 122; Kristensen 1994: 192, no. 128; Kolltveit 1996: 47, no. DK17

119

18

Denmark • Amager: København County • Dragør • Stakhaven: Felt IV

København: Nationalmuseet, D1433/1975 • Found: 1975 • Urban • 1425–1500 • OL: 49*/OW: 24*/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Liebgott 1976, fig. p. 6; — 1979: 122–3, with fig. 119c, p. 122; Kristensen 1994: 192, no. 129; Kolltveit 1996: 47, no. DK18. With traces of tin (Sn), indicating soldering as additional strength to the attachment of the lamella (Kristensen, op. cit.)

19

Sweden • Skåne • Falsterbo • Falsterbo Castle

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 27 194 (a) • Found: 1888–1911 • Castle • Late 13th c.–1550 • OL: 66/OW: 24/AL: 47/LL: 64 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Gironville Rydbeck 1968: 254, 261, and fig. 2, p. 255 (right); Crane 1972: 24–5, no. 411.68–70; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 194, no. 132; Kolltveit 1996: 47–8, no. S1. Rydbeck (op. cit. 261, note 5) gives three museum numbers for the Falsterbo-finds, but these represent the entire excavation. This has produced a misunderstanding, as later authors have reported three jew’s harps, while the correct number should be only two. Extension of the lamella about 3–4 mm

20

Sweden • Skåne • Falsterbo • Falsterbo Castle

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 27 194 (b) • Found: 1888–1911 • Castle • Late 13th c.–1550 • OL: 71/OW: 35/AL: 55 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Rydbeck 1968: 254, 261, and fig. 2, p. 255 (left); Crane 1972: 24–5, no. 411.68–70; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994, 194, no. 132; Kolltveit 1996: 47–8, no. S2

21

Sweden • Skåne • Skanör • Skanör Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, LUHM 17 300:751 • Found: 1907–1909 • Castle • 1225–1425 • OL: 44*/OW: 23/LL: 8.1 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Greifswald Rydbeck 1935: 170, and fig. 109, no. 15 (Rydbeck’s no.: 17 300:IIIF7); Rydbeck 1968: 254, 261; Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.50; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 171, no. 49; Kolltveit 1996: 48, no. S3. Six jew’s harps from Skanör Castle are recorded in Reimers (op. cit.), while the correct number should be four. This is probably because Rydbeck (op. cit.) additionally to the excavated ones gave photos of two extra, one from Lund (no. 60), and one modern. These two extras are also found in Kristensen, op. cit.: 199, no. 146. Found in “borgstugan“.

22

Sweden • Skåne • Skanör • Skanör Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, LUHM 17 300:752 • Found: 1907–1909 • Castle • 1225–1425 • OL: 59/OW: 34/AL: 39/LL: 30 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rydbeck 1935: 170, and fig. 109, no. 14 (Rydbeck’s no.: 17 300: III F:7); Rydbeck 1968: 254, 261; Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.49; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 171, no. 48; Kolltveit 1996: 48, no. S4, and fig. 8, p. 48. Found in “borgstugan“, according to Rydbeck 1935. Photo by Cajsa S. Lund/Riksinventeringen.

23

Sweden • Skåne • Skanör • Skanör Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, LUHM 17 300:753 • Found: 1907–1909 • Castle • 1225–1425 • OL: 43*/OW: 31/LL: 43 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Rydbeck 1935: 170, and fig. 109, no. 13 (Rydbeck’s no.: 17 300: III F: 7); Rydbeck 1968: 254, 261; Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.48; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 170, no. 47; Kolltveit 1996: 48, no. S5. Found in “borgstugan“, according to Rydbeck 1935.

120

24

Sweden • Skåne • Skanör • Skanör Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, LUHM 17 300:1472 • Found: 1907–1909 • Castle • 1225–1425 • OL: 69/OW: 34/AL: 56/LL: 22 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Rydbeck 1935: 170, and fig. 109, no. 12 (Rydbeck’s no.: 17 300: VIII F:7); Rydbeck 1968: 254, 261; Crane 1972: 23–4, no. 411.47; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 170, no. 46; Kolltveit 1996: 48, no. S6. Found at “borgkullen på uppbördsplatsen“, according to Rydbeck 1935.

25

Sweden • Skåne • Skanör (city) • Market Place

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum • Urban • 14th c.? • OL: 50/OW: 20/AL: 38/LL: 23.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 199, no. 147; Kolltveit 1996: 48, no. S7. Excavated by Lars Rhedin. Unpublished material. Not available at the museum (in 1996). Source of the dating (“probably 14th century“) is Riksinventeringen (1970s), which probably got the informaton from the museum. Photo by Cajsa S. Lund/Riksinventeringen.

26

Sweden • Skåne • Skanör (city) • Kv. Haren

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum • Urban • Late 13th–early 14th c. • OL: 89/OW: 23/AL: 68/LL: 15 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 199, no. 148; Kolltveit 1996: 48, no. S8. NB: Measurement of OL includes extension of lamella. Extension of the lamella about 4–5 mm. Photo by Cajsa S. Lund/Riksinventeringen.

27

Sweden • Skåne • Svedala (county) • Lindholmen Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, SHM 21 174: 599 SK. • Found: 1934–1935 • Castle • 1300–1540 • OL: 27*/OW: 28/LL: 8.1 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 254–5, 261, and fig. 3 (bottom); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.60–6; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 194, no. 133; Kolltveit 1996: 48–9, no. S9

28

Sweden • Skåne • Svedala (county) • Lindholmen Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, SHM 21 174: 958 SK. • Found: 1934–1935 • Castle • 1300–1540 • OL: 60/OW: 28/AL: 42 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 254–5, 261, and fig. 3, p. 255 (middle row, left); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.60–6; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 194, no. 133; Kolltveit 1996: 48–9, no. S10

29

Sweden • Skåne • Svedala (county) • Lindholmen Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, SHM 21 174: 1561 SK. • Found: 1934–1935 • Castle • 1300–1540 • OL: 57/OW: 27/AL: 40/LL: 29.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/ Oval • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 254–5, 261, and fig. 3, p. 255 (in the middle); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.60–6; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 194, no. 133; Kolltveit 1996: 48–9, no. S11

121

30

Sweden • Skåne • Svedala (county) • Lindholmen Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, SHM 21 174: 1654 SK. • Found: 1934–1935 • Castle • 1300–1540 • OL: 53/OW: 24/AL: 35 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 254–5, 261, and fig. 3, p. 255 (upper row, in the middle); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.60–6; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 194, no. 133; Kolltveit 1996: 48–9, no. S12

31

Sweden • Skåne • Svedala (county) • Lindholmen Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, SHM 21 174: 2687 SK. • Found: 1934–1935 • Castle • 1300–1540 • OL: 55/OW: 36/AL: 32 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rydbeck 1968: 254–5, 261, and fig. 3, p. 255 (upper row, left); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.60–6; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 194, no. 133; Kolltveit 1996: 48–9, no. S13

32

Sweden • Skåne • Svedala (county) • Lindholmen Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, SHM 21 174: B: 2988 SK. • Found: 1934–1935 • Castle • 1300–1540 • OL: 60/OW: 29/AL: 39/LL: 6.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 254–5, 261, and fig. 3, p. 255 (middle row, right); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.60–6; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 194, no. 133; Kolltveit 1996: 48–9, no. S14

33

Sweden • Skåne • Svedala (county) • Lindholmen Castle

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, 21 174: 4215 SK. • Found: 1934–1935 • Castle • 1300–1540 • OL: 57/OW: 43/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rydbeck 1968: 254–5, 261, and fig. 3, p. 255 (upper row, right); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.60–6; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 194, no. 133; Kolltveit 1996: 48–9, no. S15

34

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Thomsons väg

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 1968 • Found: 1968 • Urban • OL: 78/OW: 19/AL: 64/LL: 7.4 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S16. Photo: Malmö Museer

35

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Nils Kuntze’s house

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM (lacking inv.nr.) • Found: 1972 • Urban • Chance find • OL: 38.1/OW: 25.5/AL: 18 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S17. Missing in Malmö Museer, 1996. With two notches filed into the arms. (Cf. nos. 312, Paris and 731, Delft) Riksinventeringen reports traces of gilding on the frame. Photo by Cajsa S. Lund/Riksinventeringen.

122

36

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. von Conow

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 5212:108 • Found: 1975 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 68/OW: 21/AL: 48/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gironville Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S18. Extension of the lamella 3 mm. Photo: Malmö Museer

37

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. Rundelen

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 5827:259 • Found: 1977 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 59/OW: 29/AL: 39/LL: 11 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S19. Photo: Malmö Museer

38

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. Humle

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 5975:2341 • Found: 1977 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 38*/OW: 36/LL: 7.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S20

39

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. Tranan

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 6094:243 • Found: 1978 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 48*/OW: 29/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S21. Photo: Malmö Museer

40

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. Söderport

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 6203:406 • Found: 1979 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 65*/OW: 35/AL: 40/LL: 13 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S22 *OL (65 mm) is a reconstruction of original length. Photocopy from Malmö Museer

41

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. St. Gertrud

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 6825:54 • Found: 1985 • Urban • 14th c., 1st half • OL: 53/OW: 24/AL: 40/LL: 14 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S23. Photocopy from Malmö Museer

123

42

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. St. Gertrud

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 6825:113 • Found: 1985 • Urban • Early 14th c. • OL: 57/OW: 28/AL: 48/LL: 5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S24

43

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. St. Gertrud

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 6825:294 • Found: 1985 • Urban • 14th–15th c. • OL: 58/OW: 31/AL: 39/LL: 12 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S25. There is possibly a punch mark on the back of the bow (Difficult to substantiate without laboratorial analyses). Photocopy from Malmö Museer.

44

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Kv. Gyllenstjärna

Malmö Museer, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen, MHM 6984:83 (HHHH) • Found: 1987 • Urban • 16th–17th c. • OL: 57*/OW: 34 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S26

45

Sweden • Skåne • Malmö • Adelsgatan 35B

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), FK 18.170 • Urban Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 198, no. 144; Kolltveit 1996: 49, no. S27. Photo not available

46

Sweden • Skåne • Lund

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM (lacking inv.nr.) • Found: Before 1968 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 55/OW: 28/AL: 35/LL: 11 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 258, 261, and fig. 9, p. 258 (lowest row, in the middle); Crane: 1972 23, no. 411.46; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 197, no. 140; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S28

47

Sweden • Skåne • Lund

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 5961 • Found: 1890s • Urban • Medieval • OL: 57/OW: 32/AL: 45/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Kjellberg 1948: Photo, p. 25 (lowest, right,); Rydbeck 1968: 258, 261 and fig. 9, p. 258 (upper row, left); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.38; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 197, no. 140; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S29

124

48

Sweden • Skåne • Lund

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 5961 • Found: 1890s • Urban • Medieval • OL: 54/OW: 28/AL: 39/LL: 6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Kjellberg 1948: Photo, p. 25 (lowest, left); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.39 (wrong acc. no.); Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S30

49

Sweden • Skåne • Lund

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 5961 • Found: 1890s • Urban • Medieval • OL: 70/OW: 25/AL: 48/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Kvikkjokk Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S31

50

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Apotekaren

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 20 310 XC4 • Found: 1910 • Urban • 14th c. • OL: 89/OW: 31/AL: 66 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Rydbeck 1968: 258, 261, fig. 9, p. 258 (left); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.40; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 197, no. 141; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S32

51

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Gyllenkronas allé

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 21 158 • Found: 1911–1912 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 50/OW: 23/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Kjellberg 1948: Photo, p. 25 (lowest, in the middle); Rydbeck 1968: 258, 261, and fig. 9, p. 258 (lowest row, right); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.41; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 197, no. 140; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S33

52

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Kv. St. Laurentius (Stortorget 110)

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 22 792e • Found: 1913 • Urban • With punch mark • Medieval • OL: 56/OW: 28/AL: 39 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 258, 261, and fig. 9, p. 258 (lowest row, left); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.42; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 197, no. 140; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S34, and fig. 9, left, p. 50;— 2000: 392, and fig. 9, p. 397 (top). Size of the punch mark: 5.7 X 2.8 mm. The mark is very similar to those from Paris (no. 312) and Hallwil (no. 534).

125

53

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Kv. Altona 7

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 26 230 • Found: 1917 • Urban • With punch mark • Medieval • OL: 56/OW: 30/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rydbeck 1968: 258, 261, and fig. 9, p. 258 (upper row, right); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.43; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 197, no. 140; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S35, and fig. 9, right, p. 50; — 2000: 392, and fig. 9, p. 397 (bottom). Size of the punch mark: 3.7 X 2.2 mm. One of the jew’s harps from Alt-Wartburg, Switzerland (no. 293) has a U-shaped punchmark too.

54

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Kv. St. Botulf 2

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 35 371 • Found: 1931 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 46/OW: 24/AL: 24/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Rydbeck 1968: 258, 261, and fig. 9, p. 258 (upper row, in the middle); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.44; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 197, no. 140; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S36

55

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Helgonabacken

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 38 407:15 • Found: 1936 • Urban • OL: 86/OW: 29/AL: 57 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Kvikkjokk Rydbeck 1968: 258, 261, and fig. 9, p. 258 (second from left); Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.45; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 197, no. 140; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S37

56

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • St. Peter 27

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 60 000:104 • Urban • 16th c. Iron Kolltveit 1996: 116f., no. S38 (only in the table). The object was first dated to around 1200 by the museum. However, this is now found to be a misinterpretation of the find circumstances. New investigations (2002) suggest 16th century, based on ceramics and other artifacts in the same archaeological context. The object itself is lost. (All information form Kulturen, Lund.)

57

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Kv. Färgaren

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 70 917:9 • Found: 1980 • Urban • Late medieval • OL: 85/OW: 24/AL: 60 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Long oval • Type: Greifswald Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S39. Made of brass, according to the museum. Traces of gilding.

126

58

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Kv. St. Clemens 9

Lund: Kulturhistoriska museet (Kulturen), KM 71 839:1752 • Found: 1984 • Urban • 1300–1350 • OL: 57*/OW: 24/AL: 40 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S40. OL measured to 56 mm; stipulated to 57 mm in original condition.

59

Sweden • Skåne • Lund • Prennegatan

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, LUHM 11028:CLVI • Found: 1884 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 60/OW: 30/AL: 51 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Reimers 1977: 4; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S41

60

Sweden • Skåne • Lund

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, LUHM 17 300:2119 • Found: Before 1935 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 76/OW: 21/AL: 60 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Rydbeck 1935: 170 and fig. 109, no. 16 (Rydbeck’s no.: 17 300: III F:7); Reimers 1977: 4 (erroneously recorded as Skanör-find); Kristensen 1994: 198, no. 145; Kolltveit 1996: 49–51, no. S42

61

Sweden • Småland • Island in lake Bolmen • Piksborg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 80 • Found: 1908 • Castle • 1360–1434 • OL: 56/OW: 32/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Kolltveit 1996: 51–2, no. S43

62

Sweden • Småland • Island in lake Bolmen • Piksborg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 1327 • Found: 1908 • Castle • 1360–1434 • OL: 63/OW: 36/AL: 41 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Kolltveit 1996: 51–2, no. S44, and fig. 10, p. 51

63

Sweden • Småland • Island in lake Bolmen • Piksborg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 1612 • Found: 1908 • Castle • 1360–1434 • OL: 51*/OW: 34/AL: 30 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Kolltveit 1996: 51–2, no. S45

127

64

Sweden • Småland • Island in lake Bolmen • Piksborg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 1686 • Found: 1908 • Castle • 1360–1434 • OL: Iron Kolltveit 1996: 51–2, no. S46. The object is missing in Smålands museum, Växjö (1996)

65

Sweden • Småland • Island in lake Bolmen • Piksborg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 2085 • Found: 1908 • Castle • 1360–1434 • OL: 60/OW: 35/AL: 37/LL: 8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Kolltveit 1996: 51–2, no. S47

66

Sweden • Småland • Kronoberg • Kronoberg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 17 001:594 • Found: 1930 • Castle • Medieval–17th c. • OL: 46*/OW: 20 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Rydbeck 1968: 255–6, 261, and fig. 4, p. 255 (upper row, right); Crane 1972: 25, no. 411.73–79; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 134; Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S48. Rydbeck (1968) gives photos of five of the seven Kronoberg-harps. Due to this, Reimers (1977) records only five pieces from Kronoberg, erroneously. In 1996 none of these objects were present in Smålands museum, Växjö. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

67

Sweden • Småland • Kronoberg • Kronoberg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 17 001:595 • Found: 1930 • Castle • Medieval–17th c. • OL: 41*/OW: 21 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 255–6, 261, and fig. 4, 255 (bottom, left); Crane 1972: 25, no. 411.73–79; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 134; Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S49. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

68

Sweden • Småland • Kronoberg • Kronoberg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 17 001:596 • Found: 1930 • Castle • Medieval–17th c. • OL: 48*/OW: 26 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 255–6, 261, and fig. 4, 255 (upper row, left); Crane 1972: 25, no. 411.73–79; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 134; Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S50. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

69

Sweden • Småland • Kronoberg • Kronoberg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 17 001:613 • Found: 1930 • Castle • Medieval–17th c. • OL: 31*/OW: 23 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 255–6, 261, and fig. 4, 255 (bottom, right); Crane 1972: 25, no. 411.73–79; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 134; Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S51. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

128

70

Sweden • Småland • Kronoberg • Kronoberg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 17 001:637 • Found: 1930 • Castle • Medieval–17th c. • OL: 70*/OW: 26 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Schauenburg Rydbeck 1968: 255–6, 261, and fig. 4, 255 (upper row, in the middle); Crane 1972: 25, no. 411.73–79; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 134; Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S52. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

71

Sweden • Småland • Kronoberg • Kronoberg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 17 001:1851 • Found: 1930 • Castle • Medieval–17th c. • OL: 27*/OW: 25 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Unclassified Rydbeck 1968: 255–6, 261; Crane 1972: 25, no. 411.73–79; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 134; Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S53. Sketch: Smålands Museum.

72

Sweden • Småland • Kronoberg • Kronoberg Castle

Växjö: Smålands museum, 17 001:1852 • Found: 1930 • Castle • Medieval • OL: 57/OW: 17/AL: 40 Iron • Forged • Circular • Type: Unclassified Rydbeck 1968: 255–6, 261; Crane 1972: 25, no. 411.73–79; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 134; Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S54 The object is accessed as a jew’s harp in Smålands museum. According to the museums’ files, the bow displays traces of the lamella. Building on the drawing alone, there is however reason to not rely safely on this identification. Sketch: Smålands Museum.

73

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Galeasen

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 785/85, Fnr. 272 • Found: 1985 • Urban • With punch mark • 1250–17th c. • OL: 50/OW: 32/AL: 30 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Horsens Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S55. The punch mark on the back of the bow appears as two parallell lines. Their length is respectively 4.3 and 2.1 millimetres.

74

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Galeasen

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 785/85, Fnr. 1174 • Found: 1985 • Urban • 1250–17th c. • OL: 71.3/OW: 17.9/AL: 58 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Gironville Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S56

75

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Galeasen

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 785/85, Fnr. 2296 • Found: 1985 • Urban • 1250–17th c. • OL: 44.8/OW: 26.2/AL: 22 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S57

129

76

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Gladan

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 556/85, Fnr. 1194 • Found: 1985 • Urban • 15th–17th c. • OL: 76.4/OW: 23.7/AL: 54 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Circular • Type: Schauenburg Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S58. The Gladan site produced material from the 15th to the 17th century, according to the notes from the excavators.

77

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Harven

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 150/91, Fnr. 1871 • Found: 1991 • Urban • 1250–17th c. • OL: 51.9/OW: 20.3/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Unclassified Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S59

78

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Harven

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 150/91, Fnr. 3743 • Found: 1991 • Urban • 1250–17th c. • OL: 60.3/OW: 24.8/AL: 43 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S60

79

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Hemmet

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 997/93, Fnr. 2038 • Found: 1984 • Urban • 1250–17th c. • OL: 53.4/OW: 27.8/AL: 44 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S61. The arms are not put in position with the sharp edge pointing towards the lamella. No trace of the lamella. Consequently, the harp looks unfinished.

80

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Hemmet

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 997/93, Fnr. 3030 • Found: 1984 • Urban • 1250–17th c. • OL: 74.7*/AL: 47 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Oval • Type: Unclassified Kolltveit 1996: 52, no. S62. In two pieces. Very corroded. The identification of the object as jew’s harp is not confirmed. There is sharp edge at the end of one of the arms, suggesting maybe a secondary use as a tool (for carving etc.)

81

Sweden • Småland • Eksjö town • Kv. Trasten (Ärlan)

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 334/93, Fnr. 112 • Found: 1993 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 56.3/OW: 26.6/AL: 44 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Nordman and Malmström 1993 (about the exavation); Kolltveit 1996: 53, no. S63. Found in layers with finds from 18th century and later. However, the shape and appearance of the object is clearly medieval.

130

82

Sweden • Småland • Kalmar • Kläckeberga Church

Kalmar läns museum (County Museum), KLM 30 177:45 • Found: 1980 • Rural (Church) • 1100–1300 • OL: 59/OW: 29/AL: 47/LL: 59 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Lundström 1981: 133, and photo, p. 132; Kolltveit 1996: 53, no. S64. Excavated in a rectangular structure, shortly north of the old church yard. The structure was interpreted as a house and dated to the High Middle Ages (Swedish “högmedeltid“ = ca 1100–1300AD), due to the small finds, including the jew’s harp (Lundström 1981: 133).

83

Sweden • Öland • Borgholm • Borgholm Castle

Kalmar läns museum (County Museum), KLM 28 347 • Found: 1963–1964 • Castle • 13th–17th c. • OL: 54/OW: 31/AL: 25 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Kolltveit 1996: 53, no. S65. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

84

Sweden • Öland • Borgholm • Borgholm Castle

Kalmar läns museum (County Museum), KLM 28 347 • Found: 1963–1964 • Castle • 13th–17th c. • OL: 57/OW: 37/AL: 29 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Kolltveit 1996: 53, no. S66. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

85

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kv. Priorn 4

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU) • Found: 1970–1974 • Urban • Late 13th–early 14th c. • OL: 67/OW: 29/AL: 43.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Falck 1974: 68–9, and fig. 2, p. 69, no. 1; Reimers 1977: 3; Kristensen 1994: 207, no. 164; Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S67

86

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kruset 14

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU) • Found: 1974 • Urban • 14th c. • OL: 57/OW: 23/AL: 46/LL: 16 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Falck 1974: 69, and fig. 2, p. 69, no. 2; Reimers 1977: 3; Kristensen 1994: 207, no. 165; Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S68

87

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kruset 14

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU)“ • Found: 1974 • Urban • 15th–16th c. • OL: 41/OW: 25/AL: 16 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Falck 1974: 69, and fig. 2, p. 69, no. 3; Reimers 1977: 3; Kristensen 1994: 207, no. 166; Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S69

131

88

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kv. Säcken 7

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU) • Found: 1974 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 68/OW: 22.5/AL: 50/LL: 30 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gironville Falck 1974: 69–70, and fig. 2, p. 69, no. 7 (The sites for nos. 4 and 7 are apparently mixed); Reimers 1977: 3; Kristensen 1994: 207, no. 167; Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S70

89

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kv. Residenset 6

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU) • Found: 1970–1971 • Urban • 16th c. • OL: 35*/OW: 33/LL: 7.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Kransen Falck 1974: 70, and fig. 2, p. 69, no. 5; Reimers 1977: 3; Kristensen 1994: 208, no. 168; Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S71

90

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kv. Residenset 5 and 6

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU) • Found: 1970–1971 • Urban • Late medieval (16th c.?) • OL: 46/OW: 27/AL: 21 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Falck 1974: 70, and fig. 2, p. 69, no. 6; Reimers 1977: 3; Kristensen 1994: 208, no. 169; Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S72

91

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kv. St. Michael 9

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU) • Found: 1970–1974 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 45/OW: 25/AL: 18 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Falck 1974: 70, and fig. 2, p. 69, no. 4, (The sites for nos. 4 and 7 are apparently mixed); Reimers 1977: 3; Kristensen 1994: 208, no. 170; Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S73. Reimers (op. cit.) and Kristensen (op. cit., no. 171) have recorded one extra, probably non-existing jew’s harp from the St. Michael 9.

92

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kv. Tunnbindaren 1

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU), Fnr. 62 • Found: 1976 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 62*/OW: 21* Iron • Forged • Oval • Type: Unclassified Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S74. The object is missing in the inventory of finds, UV-Visby, 1976. Photocopy from Riksinventeringen.

93

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kv. Tunnbindaren 1

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU), Fnr. 18 • Found: 1976 • Urban • 13th–18th c. Iron Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S75. The object is missing in the inventory of finds, UV-Visby, 1976.

132

94

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Kv. Systemet 4

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU), Fnr. 200 • Found: 1977 • Urban • 14th–15th c. • OL: 55/OW: 26/AL: 38/LL: 6.3 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S76. Photocopy from Riksinventeringen.

95

Sweden • Gotland • Visby • Botanical Garden

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU)?, Visby STG 11 • Found: 1979 • Urban • Chance find? • OL: 54/OW: 22/AL: 42 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Kolltveit 1996: 53–4, no. S77. All information on this piece comes from Riksinventeringen. Photo: Riksinventeringen

96

Sweden • Gotland • Roma • Timans

Visby: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Visby (RAGU)? • Found: 1982–1983 • Rural • Medieval • OL: 77/OW: 22/AL: 61 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Östergren 1983: 46, fig. 5; — 1989: no. 47, and fig. 131; Kolltveit 1996: 54, no. S78

97

Sweden • Östergötland • Vreta • Vreta Monastery Church

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 18 011:171 • Found: 1916–1923 • Monastery (Convent) • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 62/OW: 32/AL: 46 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 257, 261, and fig. 7, p. 257; Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.67; Kristensen 1994: 196, no. 137; Kolltveit 1996: 54, no. S79. OL measured to 61mm, stipulated to 62 mm, original state. Vreta monastery was Cistercian

98

Sweden • Östergötland • Alvastra • Alvastra Monastery

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 17 237:1104 • Found: 1923 • Monastery • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 54/OW: 27/AL: 36 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Unclassified Rydbeck 1968: 256, 261, and fig. 5, p. 256 (left); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.53–6; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 135; Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S80. The accession numbers for the Alvastra-finds in Rydbeck and Crane are not consistent with Reimers’ numbers. The present publication uses the same numbers as the latter. (There is one error in Reimers: He lists five pieces, instead of four. The fifth piece is given acc. no. 27 194b, which is the number of one of the jew’s harps from Falsterbo-finds [no. 20 in this Catalogue]). The four acc. numbers listed in Rydbeck and Crane are: 17033:1459, 17237:1104, 17555:313, 19675:798. This was a Cistercian monastery. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

99

Sweden • Östergötland • Alvastra • Alvastra Monastery

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 17 237:1459 • Found: 1923 • Monastery • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 54/OW: 25/AL: 36.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 256, 261, and fig. 5, p. 256 (right); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.53–6; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 135; Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S81. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

133

100

Sweden • Östergötland • Alvastra • Alvastra Monastery

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 17 555:313 • Found: 1924 • Monastery • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 63/OW: 33/AL: 33 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Rydbeck 1968: 256, 261, and fig. 5, p. 256 (in the middle); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.53–6; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 135; Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S82. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

101

Sweden • Östergötland • Alvastra • Alvastra Monastery

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 19 149:1007 • Found: 1929 • Monastery • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 27*/OW: 25 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Rydbeck 1968: 256, 261; Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.53–6; Kristensen 1994: 195, no. 135; Reimers 1977: 5; Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S83. Photo by Christian Reimers/Riksinventeringen.

102

Sweden • Östergötland • Vadstena • Vadstena Birgittine Convent

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 21 127:70 • Found: 1935 • Monastery (Convent) • 1384–1595 • OL: 55/OW: 29/AL: 25 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Rydbeck 1968: 256–7, 261, and fig. 6, p. 256 (right); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.57–59; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 196, no. 136; Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S84.

103 Sweden • Östergötland • Vadstena • Vadstena Birgittine Convent Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 21 127:71 • Found: 1935 • Monastery (Convent) • 1384–1595 • OL: 83/OW: 45/AL: 40 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Rydbeck 1968: 256–7, 261, and fig. 6, p. 256, (top); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.57–59; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 196, no. 136; Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S85.

104

Sweden • Östergötland • Vadstena • Vadstena Birgittine Convent

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 21 127:72 • Found: 1935 • Monastery (Convent) • 1384–1595 • OL: 62/OW: 34/AL: 31 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Rydbeck 1968: 256–7, 261, and fig. 6, p. 256 (left); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.57–59; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 196, no. 136; Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S86.

105

Sweden • Östergötland • Vadstena

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 28 813 • Found: 1950–1970 • Urban • 1384–1595 Iron Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S87 The object not present at Statens historiska museum, Stockholm, in February 1996.

134

106

Sweden • Östergötland • Vadstena • Kv. Hotellet

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, Dnr. 4513/80 • Found: 1980 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 49/OW: 23/AL: 30/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Kolltveit 1996: 55, no. S88

107

Sweden • Bohuslän • Inlands Södre County • Ragnhildsholmen Castle

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 7040:217 • Found: 1882 • Castle • Medieval Iron • Forged • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Kolltveit 1996: 56, no. S89. Studied from photo only. Measurements lacks. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

108

Sweden • Närke • Laxå County • Ramundeboda Monastery

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 28 889 IIR166b • Found: 1912 • Monastery • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 52/OW: 32/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Crane 1972: 25, no. 411.71 (mention of one of the jew’s harps from Ramundeboda); Kolltveit 1996: 56–7, no. S90. The monastery was Antonian.

109

Sweden • Närke • Laxå County • Ramundeboda Monastery

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 28 889 IIR166a • Found: 1912 • Monastery • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 59/OW: 17/AL: 45/LL: 25 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Kolltveit 1996: 56–7, no. S91; — 2000: 390, and fig. 4, p. 396 (bottom)

110

Sweden • Närke • Laxå County • Ramundeboda Monastery

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, SHM 28 889 IIIR38 • Found: 1912 • Monastery • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 65/OW: 14/AL: 52/LL: 32.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Kolltveit 1996: 56–7, no. S92; —1997b, fig. 3, p. 112; —2000: 390, and fig. 4, p. 396 (top)

111

Sweden • Närke • Örebro • Kv. Bodarna no. 6

Örebro läns museum (County Museum), ÖLM 29.950:50A • Found: 1974 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 80/OW: 25/AL: 64/LL: 80 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Kolltveit 1996: 57, no. S93. Photo: Statens historiska museum.

135

112

Sweden • Stockholm • Kv. Thalia (Dramaten)

Stockholm stadsmuseum (City Museum), SSM 33 513 • Found: 1902 • Urban • 16th–17th c. • OL: 60/OW: 25/AL: 31 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 199, no. 150; Kolltveit 1996: 57–8, no. S94. Photo by Christian Reimers/Riksinventeringen.

113–114

Sweden • Stockholm • Helgeandsholmen

Stockholm stadsmuseum (City Museum), Fnr. 7 826 • Found: 1978–1980 • Urban • 14th–early 15th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Kransen Dahlbäck 1982: 257, 466, and Pl. 36; Kristensen 1994: 190, no. 124; Kolltveit 1996: 57–8, no. S95–S96. The three from Helgeandsholmen (Nos. 113–115) are not identified individually, except no. 115 (lying).

115

Sweden • Stockholm • Helgeandsholmen

Stockholm stadsmuseum (City Museum), Fnr. 32 433 • Found: 1978–1980 • Urban • 14th–early 15th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Dahlbäck 1982: 257, 466, and Pl. 36; Kristensen 1994: 190, no. 124; Kolltveit 1996: 57–8, no. S97. The three from Helgeandsholmen (Nos. 113–115) are not identified individually, except this one, which is the harp lying, with narrow oval bow (previous picture).

116

Sweden • Uppland • Sigtuna • Stora Gatan, Kv. Koppardosan

Sigtuna Museum, SI 66:1 • Found: 1913 • Urban • Chance find • OL: 49*/OW: 27/LL: 6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rydbeck 1968: 257, 261, and fig. 8, p. 257 (right); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.51; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 196–7, no. 139 (the two from Sigtuna are listed twice in Kristensen, individually as nos. 138 and 139 respectively, and together as no. 149); Kolltveit 1996: 58, no. S98

117

Sweden • Uppland • Sigtuna • The Dominician Monastery

Sigtuna Museum, SI 1866:147 • Found: 1950 • Monastery • 13th–16th c. • OL: 54/OW: 32/AL: 36 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Rydbeck 1968: 257, 261, and fig. 8, p. 257 (left); Crane 1972: 24, no. 411.52; Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 196, no. 138; Kolltveit 1996: 58, no. S99

118

Sweden • Uppland • Uppsala • Kv. Rådhuset

Uppsala: Upplandsmuseet • Urban • Medieval? Iron • Hammered Kolltveit 1996: 58–61, no. S100. Location of the object unknown, because the relevant museums (Upplandsmuseet, Uppsala and SHM, Stockholm) only refer to each other (in 1996)

136

119

Sweden • Uppland • Uppsala • Kv. Kransen

Uppsala: Upplandsmuseet • Found: 1978 • Urban • 14th c. • OL: 57?/OW: 22?/LL: 5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Ehn og Gustafsson 1984: 87, and fig. 104, p. 86; Kolltveit 1996: 58–61, no. S101

120

Sweden • Uppland • Uppsala • Kv. Kransen

Uppsala: Upplandsmuseet?, Fnr. 02162 • Found: 1978 • Urban • 14th c. • OL: 55/OW: 25/AL: 41/LL: 6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Ehn og Gustafsson 1984: 87, and fig. 104, p. 86; Kolltveit 1996: 58–61, no. S102

121

Sweden • Uppland • Uppsala • Kv. Disa

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, Fnr. 8 • Found: 1974 • Urban • 15th c. • OL: 61/OW: 33/AL: 41 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Reimers 1977: 5; Kristensen 1994: 200, no. 151; Kolltveit 1996: 58–61, no. S103. Photo by Christian Reimers/Riksinventeringen.

122

Sweden • Uppland • Uppsala • Kv. Disa

Uppsala: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Uppsala, Fnr. 1078, Dnr. 2828/93 • Found: 1993 • Urban • 13th c. • OL: 94/OW: 21/AL: 77/LL: 32 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Unclassified Kolltveit 1996: 58–61, no. S104, and fig. 12, p. 59; — 2000: 391, and fig. 5, p. 396. The context of the find belongs to phase 2, which is dated to the 13th century (information from Johan Anund, Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Uppsala). Notice that the plane sides of the arms face the lamella, not the sharp sides, as is the rule.

123

Sweden • Uppland • Uppsala • Kv. Rådstugan

Uppsala: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Uppsala, Fnr. 4725, Dnr. 1776/80 • Found: 1980 • Urban • 1350–1380 • OL: 56/OW: 29/AL: 45/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval/Triangular • Type: Billingsgate Kolltveit 1996: 58–61, no. S105. Sketch: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Uppsala.

137

124

Sweden • Uppland • Uppsala • Kv. Pantern

Uppsala: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Uppsala, Fnr. 648, Dnr. UP6785/89 • Found: 1989 • Urban • Late 13th–early 14th c. • OL: 76/OW: 23/AL: 56 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Schauenburg Kolltveit 1996: 58–61, no. S106

125

Sweden • Västmanland • Norberg • Lapphyttan blast furnace

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, Fnr. 9179 • Found: 1980–1992 • Rural (Indust. site) • 1150–1380 • OL: 57/OW: 27/AL: 40/LL: 5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Lund 1992 (with drawing); Magnusson 1992 (about the blast furnace and its history); Kolltveit 1996: 61–2, no. S107. Found in a dwelling house at Lapphyttan (Lund 1992). The dating, 1150–1380, represents the period of activity at Lapphyttan (Magnusson 1992: 8)

126

Sweden • Västmanland • Norberg • Lapphyttan blast furnace

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, Fnr. 2092 • Found: 1980–1992 • Rural (Indust. site) • 1150–1380 • OL: 44*/OW: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Magnusson 1992 (about the blast furnace and its history); Kolltveit 1996: 61–2, no. S108. The dating, 1150–1380, represents the period of activity at Lapphyttan (Magnusson 1992: 8).

127

Sweden • Västmanland • Västerås County • Lista

Uppsala: Riksantikvarieämbätet, UV-Uppsala, Fnr. 84 • Found: 1995 • Rural • 17th c. • OL: 58/OW: 29/AL: 31/LL: 58 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Kolltveit 1996: 62, no. S109. Photo taken before conservation.

128

Sweden • Ångermanland • Ådals-liden County • Ställverket

Stockholm: Statens historiska museum, 23 279 (Site No.) • Found: 1944 • Rural • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 77/OW: 23/AL: 55/LL: 11.5 Iron • Forged • Hammered? • Circular/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Zachrisson 1976: 52, 125, and fig. 80, no. 7; Kolltveit 1996: 62–3, no. S110. Found at the settlement Ställverket. The site is dated to medieval and post-medieval times, based on the small finds (Zachrisson 1976).

129

Sweden • Lappland • Jokkmokk: Kvikkjokk • Silververket 19A

Luleå: Norrbottens Museum • Found: 1970 • Rural (Indust. site) • 1661–1702 • OL: 84/OW: 29/AL: 54/LL: 54 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Kvikkjokk Bäärnhielm 1976: 39, and fig. 13, p. 41; Reimers 1977: 4; Kristensen 1994: 198, no. 143; Kolltveit 1996: 63, no. S111. The jew’s harp was excavated in a dwelling house that was connected to the silver melting works in Kvikkjokk. The activity lasted from 1661 to 1702 (Bäärnhielm 1976, and information from Norrbottens Museum, Luleå). Extension of the lamella about 3–4 mm. Photo by Christian Reimers/Riksinventeringen.

138

130

Norway • Sør-Trøndelag • Trondheim • Erling Skakkesgate 1

Trondheim: Vitenskapsmuseet, N 4588 (E302) • Found: 1972 • Urban • 13th–14th c. • OL: 56/OW: 26/AL: 40/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Kolltveit 1996: 63–4, no. N1; — 1997b, fig. 1, p. 111.

131

Norway • Sør-Trøndelag • Trondheim • Televerkstomta

Trondheim: Vitenskapsmuseet, N 461887 (VA 60) • Found: 1977 • Urban • 1350–1600 • OL: 50/OW: 27/AL: 28/LL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Ledang 1995: 50, fig. 1A; Kolltveit 1996: 63–4, no. N2, and fig. 22, p. 83; — 1997a: 5 (photo)

132

Norway • Sør-Trøndelag • Trondheim • Folkebibliotekstomta

Trondheim: Vitenskapsmuseet, N 60747 (FY 11) • Found: 1979 • Urban • 17th–18th c. • OL: 42/OW: 27/AL: 19 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Gloucester Ledang 1995: 50, fig. 1B; Kolltveit 1996: 63–4, no. N3

133

Norway • Hordaland • Bergen • Bryggen: Building belonging to Gullskogården

Bergen: Bryggens Museum, BRM 56213 • Found: 1966 • Urban • Before 1476 • OL: 59.6/OW: 35/AL: 25/LL: 6.4 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Johnsen 1988: 139–40, with fig. 1, p. 140; Kristensen 1994: 208, no. 172; Kolltveit 1996: 64, no. N4. Excavated in a building belonging to Gullskogården. The building burnt down in 1476 (information from Bryggens Museum).

134

Norway • Oppland • Lom

Private • Found: About 1916 • Rural • Chance find Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Hammered** • Circular • Type: Unclassified Kolltveit 1996: 64–5, no. N5, and fig. 13, p. 65. Attachment of the lamella: Hammered into a notch in the frame, placed opposite to a large thickening. Found without lamella. Documented by Reidar Sevåg, formerly head of Norsk Folkemusikkamling (Norwegian Folk Music Archive), Oslo. Photo: Norsk Folkemuseum.

135

Norway • Oppland • Lom

Private • Found: Before 1970 • Rural • Chance find • OL: 50/OW: 34/AL: 39 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Hammered** • Circular • Type: Unclassified Kolltveit 1996: 64–5, no. N6. Attachment of the lamella: Hammered into a notch in the frame, placed opposite to a large thickening. Documented by Reidar Sevåg, formerly head of Norsk Folkemusikkamling (Norwegian Folk Music Archive), Oslo. Photo: Norsk Folkemuseum.

139

136

Norway • Oppland • Lom: Garmo

Private • Found: Before 1970 • Rural (Alpine) • Chance find Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Hammered** • Circular • Type: Unclassified Kolltveit 1996: 64–5, no. N7. Attachment of the lamella: Hammered into a notch in the frame, placed opposite to a large thickening. Documented by Reidar Sevåg, formerly head of Norsk Folkemusikkamling (Norwegian Folk Music Archive), Oslo. Photo: Norsk Folkemuseum.

137

Norway • Oppland • Fåberg, Vingrom • Øvre Gilberg

Oslo: Universtetets kulturhistoriske museer, Oldsaksamlingen, C 26 546 • Found: 1937 • Rural • Medieval • OL: 82/OW: 21/AL: 66 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gironville Sevåg 1973: 128 (with photo); Østmo 1991: 61; Færden 1990: 262; Kolltveit 1996: 65–6, no. N8; — 1998: 8. The object was excavated from a dwelling house, dated to the Viking Age and Middle Ages.

138

Norway • Hedmark • Finnskogen

Elverum: Norsk Skogbruksmuseum • Rural • Chance find Iron • Forged Kolltveit 1996: 66, no. N9. Found at an unknown site, Finnskogen. The object was missing at Norsk Skogbruksmuseum, Elverum (in 1996). Belonged to a group of objects left of a “kleinsmed” (a blacksmith making small items as knives etc. )

139

Norway • Oslo • Gamlebyen (The Old City) • Mindets tomt

Oslo: Universtetets kulturhistoriske museer, Oldsaksamlingen, C 33 448 (G5661) • Found: 1970–1972 • Urban • 1575–1625 • OL: 63/OW: 42/AL: 25/LL: 5 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Circular • Type: Höxter Kristensen 1994: 227, no. 228; Færden 1990: 261–2, and fig. 30f; Kolltveit 1996: 66–7, no. N10; — 1997b: 112, with fig. 2; — 1998: 7, and fig. on p. 8

140

Norway • Oslo • Ekeberg • Jomfrubråtveien

Found: 1923–1965 • Urban • Chance find • OL: 64/OW: 44/AL: 29/LL: 6 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Kirkevoll 1966; Sevåg 1970: 10, fig. 7; Sevåg 1973: 119; Kolltveit 1996: 66–7, no. N11. Photo: Norsk Folkemuseum. Found in the earth in a private garden.

141

Norway • Oslo • Ekeberg • Jomfrubråtveien

Fagernes: Valdres Folkemuseum • Found: 1923–1965 • Urban • Chance find • OL: 56/OW: 34/AL: 39 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Narrow oval • Type: Höxter Kirkevoll 1966; Kolltveit 1996: 66–7, no. N12. Photo: Norsk Folkemuseum. Found in the earth in a private garden.

140

142

Norway • Telemark • Gransherad • Lie

Oslo: Universtetets kulturhistoriske museer, Oldsaksamlingen, C 26 741 b • Found: 1938 • Rural • Chance find? • OL: 43/OW: 28/AL: 29 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval • Type: Höxter Sevåg 1973: 128 (with photo); Kolltveit 1996: 67–8, no. N13. On display, Historical Museum (University Museum of Antiquities), Oslo

143

Norway • Aust-Agder • Setesdal: Bygland • Austad søndre: Viki

Oslo: Universtetets kulturhistoriske museer, Oldsaksamlingen, C 37 545 • Found: 1988 • Rural • Chance find • OL: 62/OW: 37/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval • Type: Höxter Aksdal and Nyhus (ed.) 1993: 66; Allmo and Bergelt 1995: 62; Bakx 1995: 95, 138; Kolltveit 1996: 68–9, no. N14; — 1997b, fig. 5, p. 114. Found in the sand at a beach of lake Byglandsfjord. Photo by Asle Rønning.

144

Norway • Vest-Agder • Near Mandal • “Hollojen“

Lost (?) • Found: Before 1643 • Rural • Pre-Christian? Cu-alloy Worm 1643, liber primus: 48; Browne 1658/1958: 21–2; Galpin 1910: 267; Elliston-Erwood 1943: 39; Sevåg 1970: 6–8; — 1973: 122; Crane 1972: 23, no. 411.37; Lund 1973: 23; Kolltveit 1996: 69–71, no. N15. Worm reports that a jew’s harp had been found at “Holloen“ outside Mandal. He writes that it was found in a burial urn, made of copper, and gilded “in such a way that the people watching were really amazed by its brilliance“. The Latin text goes: “In Norvegia prope Hollojen in Mandalensi territorio, non ita pridem duæ effosse sunt urnæ, in qvarum altera cineres & ofsium reliqviæ, in altera instrumentum musicum Danis en Mundharpe ex cupro deaurato nitidissimo, suo splendore omnes in admirationem trahens.” It has not been possible to trace this artifact or to find Worm’s source of information, neither in Norway nor in Denmark. Hollojen is not a modern place name. Worm might have referred to either Holum or Hilløy.

145

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Harven

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 150/91, Fnr. 3846 • Found: 1991 • Urban • 1250–17th c. • OL: 67.3/OW: 23.1/AL: 50/LL: 14 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gironville The lamella extends 2.5 mm behind the bow.

146

Sweden • Småland • Jönköping • Kv. Hemmet

Jönköpings läns museum (County Museum), Dnr. 997/93, Fnr. 3650 • Found: 1984 • Urban • 1250–17th c. • OL: 57.3/OW: 16.5/AL: 42 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Schauenburg Found in five pieces. During conservation the pieces have been unprecisely glued together: About 15 mm from the tip of the arms, the distance between the arms is only 0.8 mm. There might be a small punch mark at the back of the bow (difficult to substantiate without analyses).

147

Norway • Sør-Trøndelag • Trondheim • Erkebispegården (The Archbishops Palace)

Trondheim: Vitenskapsmuseet, N166 553 • Found: 1995 • Urban • 1497–1532 • OL: 92/OW: 20/AL: 65/LL: 92 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Hammered • Circular • Type: Unclassified Ekroll et. al. 1997: 83 (photo); Nordeide 2003: 210. OL includes the lamella. Length of the frame only: 85 mm. Weight 18g. The object is displayed at the Museum in Erkebispegården (The Archbishops Palace), Trondheim. Found in a latrine. Group 161, phase 2, period 6 (which is divided into 4 phases). Dating 1497–1532 (Sæbjørg Walaker Nordeide, NIKU, Trondheim, pers. comm.). Extension of the lamella about 6 mm. The entire lamella is preserved. It is curved in an unusual manner at the tip.(The image here does not show this special contrivance.)

141

148

United Kingdom • Sussex • Chichester • East Row no. 1

Sussex Archaeological Collections? • Found: 1969 • Urban • Unstratified • OL: 55/OW: 26.5/AL: 30 Cu-alloy • Cast • Hexagonal • Hammered* • Circular • Type: Rochester Down and Rule 1971: 16, no. 75, and fig. 2.4; Ypey 1976: 223, with fig. 21. In Down and Rule (op. cit.): “Unstratified Roman coarseware and bronze objects found during building operations in 1969.“ Measurements: From fig. in Down and Rule (op. cit.) Method of attachment: Hammered in a notch, which is placed into a thickening of the frame.

149

United Kingdom • Norfolk • Near King’s Lynn: Middleton

Ipswich: Borough Museum, RI934.139 • Found: 1934 or earlier • Rural • Unstratified • OL: 78.9/OW: 31.9/AL: 53 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Ypey 1976: 223, with fig. 22. Cambridge Music-archeological Survey no. IPSM.007. Ypey (op. cit.): 16th Century?

150

Denmark • Greenland: Western Greenland • Near Nuuk • Hope Colony

København? • Found: Before 1979 • Rural (Village) • 1721–1728 • OL: 50/OW: 30/AL: 21 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Gulløv and Kapel 1979: 122, with fig. h 5699. (“Found in the men’s quarters of the dwelling house“)

151

Germany • Hessen • Taunus: Eppstein • Eppstein Castle

Stadt- und Burgmuseum Eppstein, GO/392 • Found: 1906–1939 • Castle • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 70/OW: 60/AL: 38 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Triangular • Type: Pärnu Usener 1852; Picard 1999 (both about the castle. The jew’s harp find is not mentioned)

142

152

Germany • Hessen • Seeheim–Jugenheim (south of Darmstadt) • Tannenberg Castle

Lorch: Hessisches Landsmuseum Darmstadt, Mueumszentrum Lorch, H69:53a • Found: 1848–1849 • Castle • 1200–1399 • OL: 55.9/OW: 26.5/AL: 38/LL: 40.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Hefner and Wolf 1850: 91; Sachs 1913/1964: 255; — 1917: 196; Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.32–34. Hefner and Wolf (op. cit.) report that three were found at the excavations. One of them is illustrated, Taf. VIII, no. Q. It measures ca. 58 mm (OL), but does not resemble either H69:53a or H96:53b (My Nos.: 152, 153), which are the only two present in Hessischer Landesmuseum Darmstadt, Lorch (in 1999). I regard the illustrated one as no. 500.

153

Germany • Hessen • Nentershausen (near Darmstadt) • Tannenberg Castle

Lorch: Hessisches Landsmuseum Darmstadt, Mueumszentrum Lorch, H69:53b • Found: 1848–1849 • Castle • 1200–1399 • OL: 55.9/OW: 25.9/AL: 38/LL: 6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Hefner and Wolf 1850: 91; Sachs 1913/1964: 255; — 1917: 196; Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.32–34. Hefner and Wolf (op. cit.) report that three were found at the excavations. One of them is illustrated, Taf. VIII, no. Q. It measures ca. 58 mm (OL), but does not resemble either H69:53a or H96:53b (My Nos.: 152, 153), which are the only two present in Hessischer Landesmuseum Darmstadt, Lorch (in 1999). I regard the illustrated one as no. 500.

154

Germany • Baden-Württemberg: Rhein-Neckar-Kreis • Near Dossenheim • Schauenburg

Heimatmuseum der Gemeinde Dossenheim • Found: 1932 • Castle • 1130–1460 • OL: 62.7/OW: 20.6/AL: 50/LL: 19.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Burkhart 1994 and 1996 (about the castle only).

155

Germany • Nordrhein-Westfalen • Höxter • Rosenstraze

Höxter City, Stadtarchäologie, HX155/45 • Found: 1986 • Urban • 1618–1648 • OL: 46.8*/OW: 36.8 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval • Type: Höxter König, Rabe and Westphal 1999: 264–9 (about the site and excavation. The jew’s harp is not mentioned.) Found in a well that was destroyed during the Thirty Years War, 1618–48 (Andreas König, Stadt Höxter, Stadtarchäologie, pers. comm.). Both arms are broken.

143

156

Germany • Nordrhein-Westfalen • Paderborn • Balhorner Feld

Paderborn City, Fnr. 220 • Found: 1999 • Urban • With punch mark • Late 13th c. • OL: 57.5/OW: 28.9/AL: 40/LL: 6.8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Oval • Type: Kransen Eggenstein 2000: 44 (with photo); Dallais et. al. 2002: 20. Found with rubble for the road “Hellweg“, which was an east–west trade route. Drawing by Ursula Sattler. Punch mark identical to no. 618, Giätrich, Wiler (VS), Switzerland.

157

Germany • Niedersachsen: Landkreis Nordheim • Einbeck • Petersilienwasser

Einbeck City, 185/–101 • Found: 1996 • Urban • Mid–2nd half 14th c. • OL: 52.4/OW: 25.9/AL: 42.4/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate. Excavated in a house that was buildt in 1268. The dating of the artifact (mid–2nd half od the 14th c.) is based on stratigraphy and ceramics. Drawing: Stadt Einbeck – Untere Denkmalschutzbehörde. Thanks to Andreas Heege.

158

Germany • Niedersachsen: Landkreis Nordheim • Einbeck • Knochenhauerstr. 19–23

Einbeck City, 190/–440 • Found: 1996 • Urban • 1300–1350 • OL: 73.5/OW: 20.6/AL: 60 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Found in a back yard with several rubbish pits. The pit (no. 110) with the jew’s harp is dated to first half of the 14th century, based on various artifacts in it. Drawing: Stadt Einbeck – Untere Denkmalschutzbehörde. Thanks to Andreas Heege.

159

Germany • Hessen • Frankenberg

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • Rural • OL: 69.6/OW: 45.4/AL: 36/LL: 9.5 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval • Type: Höxter

144

160

Germany • Unprovenanced

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • Rural • OL: 55.8/OW: 27/AL: 32/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester

161

Germany • Thüringen • Meiningen

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • Rural • OL: 42.3/OW: 42.3/AL: 18/LL: 8 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval • Type: Höxter

162

Germany • Unprovenanced

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • With punch mark (?)• OL: 53.2/OW: 24.2/AL: 39.7/LL: 4.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen There might be a punch mark on the back of the bow. Shaped as one single line, around 3–5 mm in length.

163

Germany • Unprovenanced

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • OL: 58.8/OW: 49.8/AL: 23.8/LL: 31.9 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval • Type: Höxter

164

United Kingdom • Unprovenanced

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • OL: 62.6/OW: 34.6/AL: 40/LL: 3.8 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Damme

145

165

Germany • Unprovenanced

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • OL: 53.3/OW: 30.4/AL: 21.3/LL: 4.6 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester

166

Germany • Hamburg?

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • Urban • OL: 57.5/OW: 26.1/AL: 39.7/LL: 5.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Marked with “Hamburg?“ There minght be a punch mark at the back of the bow (difficult to observe, because of corrosion). Note on OL: Measurement including remnant of lamella: 58.3 mm

167

United Kingdom • Unprovenanced

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • OL: 47.5/OW: 22.9/AL: 23.3/LL: 4.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester

168

Germany • Niedersachsen

Goslar: Musikinstrumenten-Museum Walter Erdmann • Found: Before 1900 • OL: 59.8/OW: 38/AL: 25.3 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester

169

Germany • Hessen • Kr. Hersfeld-Rotenburg • Lautenhausen

Kassel: Hessisches Landesmuseum, 1986/71 • Found: 1986 • Castle • Chance find • OL: 70.7/OW: 45.4/AL: 38/LL: 19.3 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval • Type: Höxter Found in the forest, 150 m from Dreienberg Castle. Possibly connected to the medieval castle (“Am O-Hang des Dreienberges“) Information from the museum.

146

170

Germany • Hessen • Kr. Hersfeld-Rotenburg • Wildeck-Raßdorf: Wildeck Castle

Private • Found: 1986 • Castle • About 15th c. • OL: 48/OW: 27/AL: 26/LL: 6.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Horsens Found in the ruins of Wildeck Castle, together with a coin from 1460. Reported to Hessisches Landesmuseum, Kassel. Drawing by K. Sippel. Information and drawing from the museum.

171

Germany • Baden-Württemberg • Schwäbische Alb.: Kirchheim u. Teck • Bittelschieß Castle

Oberlenningen: Collection of Christoph Bizer • Castle • With punch mark • 12th c., 2nd part–1479 • OL: 44.5*/OW: 36.3/AL: 39.5/LL: 13.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Information from Cristoph Bizer, Oberlenningen. Punch mark in the shape of a hammer, measuring 8.7 X 4.7 mm.

172

Germany • Baden-Württemberg • Schwäbische Alb.: Kirchheim u. Teck • Kallenberg 2

Oberlenningen: Collection of Christoph Bizer • Castle • Late 12th c.–1800 • OL: 48.3/OW: 26.6/AL: 27.8/LL: 5.6 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Information from Cristoph Bizer, Oberlenningen.

173

Germany • Baden-Württemberg • Schwäbische Alb.: Kirchheim u. Teck

Oberlenningen: Collection of Christoph Bizer • Castle • OL: 48.8/OW: 28.3/AL: 27.8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Information from Cristoph Bizer, Oberlenningen.

174

Germany • Bayern: LdKr. Amberg-Sulzbach • Sulzbach City-Rosenberg • Sulzbach Castle

Nürnberg: Germanisches Nationalmuseum, 67267 (Fundzettelnr.) • Found: 1995 • Castle • 12th–early 14th c. • OL: 57.2/OW: 26.5/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Found in a secondary layer from outside a dwelling tower, built around 1100. The layer contains ceramics from up to the beginning of the 14th century (Befund 280, Schnitt 4/1995, Profil V). In the exhibition “Aus Grabungen Schicht für Schicht ins Mittelalter“ (Ericsson 1998) the find was dated to 11th–12th c. This was due to an initial misinterpretation of the ceramics in the layer of the find (Hensch 2002). Drawing and information from Mathias Hensch.

175

Germany • Bayern • LdKr. Roth • Hilpoltstein Castle

Nürnberg: Germanisches Nationalmuseum • Castle • 16th c. • OL: Ca.50 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Platz 1998 (History of the castle. The jew’s harp is not mentioned.) Displayed in the exhibition “Aus Grabungen Schicht für Schicht ins Mittelalter“ (Ericsson 1998)

147

176

Germany • Bayern • LdKr. Hof • Waldstein Castle

Nürnberg: Germanisches Nationalmuseum • Castle • 13th–15th c. • OL: 50–60 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Narrow oval • Type: Kransen Ronnefeldt 1998 (About the castle and the excavation. The jew’s harp is not mentioned.) Displayed in the exhibition “Aus Grabungen Schicht für Schicht ins Mittelalter“ (Ericsson 1998)

177

United Kingdom • Kent • Near Eynsford • Lullingstone Villa

London: English Heritage (Northampton/London lab.), Lab.no. 81301957 • Rural • OL: 37.2*/OW: 21.7 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Grove 1955: 212, and fig. 4, p. 211; Crane 1972: 20, no. 411.01. In 1955: Collection of G. W. Meates, Lullingstone, Kent. Grove (op. cit.): Found in a post-Roman deposit at the Barn, Lullingstone. Registered as 47CUS. The bronze is hardly corroded and is covered by a very thin, slate-coloured patina. Both arms are broken.

178

United Kingdom • Surrey • Near Leatherhead • Hawks Hill (Saxon cemetery)

Guilford: Surrey Archaeological Society Museum • Found: 1906 • Rural • OL: 44,5*/OW: 20.5/AL: 33.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Elliston-Erwood 1943: 39, and fig. 1, p. 36, no. 4; Crane 1972: 20, no. 411.02. According to Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.): In Surrey archeological Society Museum, Guilford. Excavated in a Saxon cemetery in 1906. The excavation report gives no details. Measurements from ill. in Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.) The bent arms are probably accidental.

179

United Kingdom • Surrey • Guildford • Guildown Saxon Cemetery

Guilford: Surrey Archaeological Society Museum • Found: 1929 • Rural • OL: 54.5/OW: 22/AL: 42 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Elliston-Erwood 1943: 39, and fig. 1, p. 36, no. 5; Crane 1972: 20, no. 411.03, and fig. 14, p. 82. Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.): “Found in 1929 while excavating a Saxon cemetery. ... it was found in the top soil and in no way in association with the burials ...” Measurements from ill. in Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.)

180

United Kingdom • Kent • Sarre • Sarre Saxon Cemetery

Maidstone Museum and Art Gallery? • Found: 1863 • Rural • OL: 57/OW: 24/AL: 35.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Elliston-Erwood 1943: 35, and fig. 1, p. 36, no. 3; Crane 1972: 20, no. 411.03. EllistonErwood (op. cit.): Found in grave 18 of the cemetery. Originally described as “Handle of Bronze Shears or Tongs.” Measurements from ill. in Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.)

181

United Kingdom • Kent • Sibertswold (Shepherdswell)x • Sibertswold Anglo-Saxon Cemetery Lost • Found: 1772 • Rural • OL: 90/OW: 25 Iron • Oval/Circular • Type: Unclassified

Fausset 1856: 119 (with fig.); Hume 1863: 223–4, 226, with fig. on p. 224; EllistonErwood 1943: 38–9, and fig. 2, p. 37, no. 2; Crane 1972: 20, no. 411.05; — 2003b: 121 (fig. 109), 173 (no. 109 in list). Reported found in an Anglo-Saxon cemetery in the grave of an elderly woman (grave 103). Lost (disintegrated after excavation). Measurements from Crane (op. cit.)

148

182

United Kingdom • Kent • Egerton

Hollingbourne: Collection of V. J. Newbury (in 1947) • Found: 1956 • Rural • OL: 63/OW: 35/AL: 43/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval Grove 1956: 269, without picture; Crane 1972: 20, no. 411.06. Found on the surface on a freshly ploughed strawberry field, by Mr. V. J. Newbury. Comparable to no. 188, from Otford.

183

United Kingdom • Kent • Egerton–Charing

Hollingbourne: Collection of V. J. Newbury (in 1947) • Found: About 1941 • Rural • OL: 47.5*/OW: 29.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Elliston-Erwood 1947: 107–8, with fig. no. 1, p. 107; Crane 1972: 20, no. 411.07. Picked up on a surface of a field between Egerton and Charing. Found by Mr. V. J. Newbury of Harrietsham. Measure-ments from ill. in Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.)

184

United Kingdom • Kent • Egerton

Hollingbourne: Collection of V. J. Newbury (in 1947) • Found: Before 1947 • Rural • OL: 71/OW: 36/AL: 40 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Square • Type: Unclassified Elliston-Erwood 1947: 107–8, with fig. no. 2, p. 107; Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.08. Surface find by Mr. Newbury of Harrietsham. Material: Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.) suggests a brass alloy rather than bronze. Measure-ments from ill. in Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.)

185

United Kingdom • Kent • Otford • 7 Tudor Drive

Maidstone Museum and Art Gallery • Found: 1939 • Rural • OL: 63*/OW: 27*/AL: 40 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped Grove 1956: 270, without picture; Crane 1972: 21, no. 411. 09. Found by E. S. Jenkins in his garden, at the same time as the finding of no. 186 in this Catalogue. Dimensions given in Grove (op. cit.) are approximate, because the prongs have been bent away from the straight. “There are criss-cross marks of coarse filing on the outer ring of the bow“ (ibid.). Similar to East Sutton (no. 187 in this Catalogue).

186

United Kingdom • Kent • Otford • 7 Tudor Drive

Lost • Found: 1939 • Rural Grove 1956: 270 (briefly mentioned, without fig. .); Crane 1972: 21 (Mentioned under no. 411. 09). Found by E. S. Jenkins in his garden, at the same time as the finding of no. 185 in this Catalogue. In bad condition, and lost.

187

United Kingdom • Kent • Near Maidstone • East Sutton

Maidstone Museum and Art Gallery • Found: 1955 • Rural • OL: 78/OW: 31/AL: 48 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Grove 1955: 210–12, fig. 3, p. 211; Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.10. Found by Robert Laine. Grove (op. cit.): “Has a patina skin to that on the Egerton examples“ (no. 183 and 184 in this Catalogue). Evidence of filing, of two kinds: Fine and close file marks on the prongs (all marks are pointing the same way); on the back of the bow they are much coarser, maybe intended for decoration (op. cit.) Measurements from Grove (op. cit.)

149

188

United Kingdom • Kent • Otford • 9 Tudor Drive

Maidstone Museum and Art Gallery • Found: 1949 • Rural • OL: 70/OW: 31/AL: 44.5/LL: 10.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Grove 1955: 212 and fig. 5, p. 211. Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.11. Found in the garden of Mr. R. D. Clarke. The garden “produces antiquities of all dates from prehistoric times onwards and is but a stone´s throw from the Roman site excavated in 1927–28“ (Grove, op. cit.). Comparable to no. 182, from Egerton. The object was in private collection of R. D. Clarke, Otford, in 1955. Measurements from Grove (op. cit.)

189

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Shooters Hill

London (Plumstead): Greenwich Borough Museum, 1963:179 • Found: Before 1925 • Urban • OL: 56.3*/OW: 24.2/AL: 40 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Elliston-Erwood 1943: 34–5 and fig. 1, no. 6; Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.12. From the museum: “Probably post-medieval“ Collection of Frank C. Elliston-Erwood (in 1943). Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.): “It was found serving as a fastening for a flimsy sort of gate on some allotments on the crest of Shooters Hill (London S.E.18, ci-devant Kent) about 425 O. D.” *Note on OL: Measured to 56,3 mm. Arms are slightly bent, and have consequently been longer originally, stipulated to 60 mm. 190

United Kingdom • Cheshire • Near Meols • Near Dove Point

Unknown • Found: Before 1863 • Rural Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Hume 1863: 223, 226, Pl. XXII, no. 8; Grove 1955: 212; Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.13; — 2003b: 121 (fig. 113), 173 (no. 113 in list). The object was intepreted as a hairpin; hence the suggested extensions to the arms. Such hairpins are known from the Bronze Age (Worsaae 1854: 47. fig. no. 189).

191

United Kingdom • Essex • Colchester

The Colchester and Essex Museum, 702.04 • Found: Before 1943 • OL: 73/OW: 28.5/AL: 48.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Elliston-Erwood 1943: 38, and fig. 1, p. 36, no. 1; Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.14. Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.): Find spot unknown. Measure-ments from ill. in Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.)

192

United Kingdom • Essex • Colchester • Balkerne Lane

The Colchester and Essex Museum, 3789.2 • Found: Before 1943 • Urban • OL: 54/OW: 24/AL: 35 Cu-alloy • Cast • Circular • Type: Stafford Elliston-Erwood 1943: 38–9 and fig. 1, p. 36, no. 2; Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.15. “From a site where rubbish has been dumped ever since Roman times“ (Elliston-Erwood, op. cit. 39). Does this also concern no. 191 (Colchester and Essex Museum 702.04)? Measurements from ill. in Elliston-Erwood (op. cit.)

193

United Kingdom • Essex • Colchester

The Colchester and Essex Museum (1943 not present), 5282.26 • Found: 1927 • Urban Cu-alloy • Cast Elliston-Erwood 1943: 39, without picture; Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.16; Described in the Museum Catalogue 1927, but not to be found in 1943. “It is worth noting that all of these objects [the jew’s harps from Colchester] are termed Jew’s Harps in the report or catalogue, but are dated either medieval, seventeenth century or unknown“ (Elliston-Erwood, op. cit.)

150

194

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Cheapside • Wood Street

Oxford: Pitt Rivers Museum, 1938.34.515 • Found: Before 1909 • Urban • OL: 51.4/OW: 28/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Unclassified Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.17. Purchased by Mr. Balfour from G. F. Lawrence in 1909. Excavated (...) at a depth of about 5,5 or 6 metres. Very possible Roman, but also possibly later (Crane, op. cit.) Exhibited in Pitt Rivers Museum, June 1995. (Sketch by GK)

195

United Kingdom • Kent • West of Erith • Lesnes Abbey

London (Plumstead): Greenwich Borough Museum, 1963:178 • Found: Before 1959 • Rural • Post-medieval? • OL: 60.8/OW: 24.7/AL: 42 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Elliston-Erwood 1958: 200–2, with fig. 3; Ypey 1976: 224. The monastery was Augustinian, but the jew’s harp is probably from the post-monastic period of the site. “It was found in much disturbed soil in company with pottery that can be more likely associated with the farmhouse built on, and incorporating parts of the old Abbot’s lodging. All of these buildings have been demolished and the ground several times turned over“ (Elliston-Erwood, op. cit.: 201).

196

United Kingdom • Kent • Ditton • Priory Grove

Found: 1964 • Rural • OL: 60 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Grove 1965: 278 (no illustration); Ypey 1976: 224 (mention in note 35). Found at 95 Priory Grove, Ditton, on the surface. Similar to the specimen from East Sutton [no. 187 in this Catalogue], according to Grove.

197

United Kingdom • Suffolk • Wangford

Bury St. Edmonds: Moyse’s Hall Museum, 1983.109.5.7 • Found: 1983 • Rural (Village) • OL: 58/OW: 27/AL: 38 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Circular • Type: Stafford Found with metal detector on the site of a medieval village, although not from a datable context. British Museum dates this between 13th & 17th c. (Information and drawing from Moyse’s Hall Museum, Bury St. Edmonds)

198

United Kingdom • Essex • Waltham • Waltham Abbey

Waltham Abbey Historical Society collections • Found: 1969–1971 • Monastery (Church) • Postconquest • OL: 51/OW: 23/AL: 33 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Circular • Type: Stafford Huggins 1976: 115, and fig. 41, p. 116, no. 14. Described in Huggins (op. cit.) as a Post-conquest bronze object (p. 115): “F64, lower topsoil find, but probably of late medieval type.“ The monastery was Augustinian.

199

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Hackney: Islington • Finsbury: Worship Street

Museum of London, A3076 • Found: Before 1912 • Urban • 16th–17th c.? • OL: 69.5/OW: 34.1/AL: 34/LL: 9.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Horsens From the Hilton Price collection

151

200

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London

Museum of London, A3972 • Urban • OL: 59.4/OW: 37.6/AL: 40/LL: 85 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Stray find. The whole lamella is preserved. 59.4 without lamella. OL included lamella: 83.6 mm.

201

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Old Queen Street

Museum of London, A18751 • Urban • OL: 50/OW: 23.3/AL: 32 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford

202

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Cleaning • Fenchurch Street: Corys Site

Museum of London, A22843 • Found: Before 1962 • Urban • OL: 71.8/OW: 20.2/AL: 58 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Grove 1962: 207 (note 1). Undated from its context. Deposited in the postmedieval section, Museum of London.

203

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Thames Street

Museum of London, A26253 • Urban • 17th c.? • OL: 57.5/OW: 24.4/AL: 36 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester

204

United Kingdom • Unprovenanced

Museum of London, 80.469/14 • Urban • 19th c.? • OL: 44.3/OW: 34.5/AL: 22 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg

205

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore • Bankside

Museum of London, 81.147/4 • Urban • OL: 49.7/OW: 27.6/AL: 26/LL: 50.2 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester

152

206

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore • Queenhylthe or Southbank

Museum of London, 81.176/16 • Urban • OL: 60.1*/OW: 37.6/AL: 33/LL: 10.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens

207

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore • Southwark Bridge

Museum of London, 81.255/9 • Urban • 15th c.? • OL: 55.9/OW: 30.8/AL: 25 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Found near north end of Southwark bridge.

208

United Kingdom • Unprovenanced (London?)

Museum of London, 86.236/6 • Found: 1977 • Urban • Post-medieval? • OL: 50/OW: 28.1/AL: 32 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Unclassified Bought from Joh. Hayward & son, 17, Picadilly Arcade. Note on OL: Measured to 47,6 mm. Arms are slightly bent, and have consequently been longer originally, stipulated to 50 mm. Is this really Cu-alloy?

209

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore • Queenhylthe-Southbank Bridge

Museum of London, 86.239/18 • Urban • OL: 56/OW: 28.3/AL: 32 Cu-alloy • Cast • Hexagonal • Hammered* • Circular • Type: Rochester Found between Queenhylthe and Southbank bridge. Method of attachment: Hammered in a notch, which is placed into a thickening of the frame.

210

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 87.127/3 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 66/OW: 28.6/AL: 45/LL: 64.1 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Fe-lamella black and corroded, in contrast to the well preserved Cu-alloy frame.

211

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 87.127/4 • Urban • OL: 60.3/OW: 33/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Rectangular • Hammered* • Circular • Type: Unclassified The frame has a pattern. Museum suggests 14th c. Method of attachment: Hammered in a notch, which is placed into a thickening of the frame. Very similar to nos. 714 and 828.

153

212

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 87.127/5 • Urban • OL: 52.8/OW: 26.9/AL: 29/LL: 40 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Note from the museum: “No evidence of tinning“.

213

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 88.51/1 • Urban • OL: 68.5/OW: 31.5/AL: 42/LL: 10 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester The lamella was obviously very wide at the flexing portion.

214 United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore • Bull Wharf Museum of London, 89.64/1 • Found: Before 1989 • Urban • OL: 78/OW: 52/AL: 29/LL: 7.1 Iron • Forged • Twisted • Wedged • Circular • Type: Höxter

215

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 21596 • Found: Before 1968 • Urban • OL: 71.9/OW: 46.5/AL: 36 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gloucester Ypey 1976: 224, and fig. 24 b, p. 225. The museum dates it to the 18th c., according to Ypey.

216

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 21597 • Found: Before 1968 • Urban • OL: 61.6/OW: 41.7/AL: 32 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gloucester Ypey 1976: 224, and fig. 24 c, p. 225. The museum dates it to the 18th c., according to Ypey. With notches filed into the arms

154

217

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 21598 • Found: Before 1968 • Urban • OL: 48.9/OW: 22.3/AL: 35 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Ypey 1976: 224, and fig. 24 g, p. 225. The museum dates it to the 18th c., according to Ypey.

218

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 21599 • Found: Before 1968 • Urban • OL: 53.4/OW: 31.4/AL: 24 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Ypey 1976: 224, and fig. 24 d, p. 225. The museum dates it to the 18th c., according to Ypey.

219

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 21600 • Found: Before 1968 • Urban • OL: 53.3/OW: 28.1/AL: 28/LL: 7.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Long oval • Type: Gloucester Ypey 1976: 224, and fig. 24 e, p. 225. The museum dates it to the 18th c., according to Ypey.

220

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 21601 • Found: Before 1968 • Urban • OL: 52.9/OW: 24.4/AL: 32 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Ypey 1976: 224, and fig. 24 f, p. 225. The museum dates it to the 18th c., according to Ypey.

221

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Museum of London, 21602 • Found: Before 1968 • Urban • OL: 60.2*/OW: 26.5/AL: 40 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Ypey 1976: 224, and fig. 24 a, p. 225. The museum dates it to the 18th c., according to Ypey.

222

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Old Custom House site

Museum of London, CUS73 • Found: 1973 • Urban • 1270–1350 • OL: 66/OW: 18/AL: 54/LL: 50 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Henig 1974: 195, no. 83, and fig. 39, p. 193; Wardle 1998: 284, no. 933, and fig. 217, p. 285, no. 933. Context III, 10. Ceramic Phase 9. Old Custom House site lies in Lower Thames Street. All measurements from Wardle 1998. Length of frame, without the lamella: 62.5 mm. Extension of the lamella about 3–4 mm.

155

223

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Queen Victoria Street: Baynard House

Museum of London, BC72 • Found: 1972 • Urban • 1330-1380 • OL: 55.5/OW: 16.6/AL: 48/LL: 3.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Wardle 1998: 284, no. 934, and fig. 217, p. 285, no. 934 (drawing, top here). Context 250. Ceramic Phase 10. The site is also known as “Baynard Castle Dock“.

224

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Billingsgate lorry park

Museum of London, BWB 83 • Found: 1983 • Urban • 1350–1400 • OL: 53/OW: 26/AL: 43/LL: 20 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Wardle 1998: 285, no. 935, with fig. 217, no. 935. Context 149. Ceramic Phase 11. Billingsgate lorry park lies in Lower Thames Street.

225

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Billingsgate lorry park

Museum of London, BWB 83 • Found: 1983 • Urban • 1350–1400 • OL: 53/OW: 25 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Wardle 1998: 285, no. 936 (no photo). Context 354. Ceramic Phase 11. Identical to no. 224 (BWB 83 ), but the lamella is lost, according to Wardle (op. cit.)

226

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Upper Thames Street: Trig Lane

Museum of London, TL 74 • Found: 1974 • Urban • 1270–1350 • OL: 66/OW: 21/AL: 50 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gironville Wardle 1998: 285, no. 937 (no photo). Context 1877. Ceramic Phase 9. Studied through x-ray. Dimensions from Wardle 1998. (Sketch by GK)

227

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Queen Victoria Street: Baynard House

Museum of London, BC 72 • Found: 1972 • Urban • OL: 62/OW: 20/AL: 45/LL: 5 Iron • Forged • Circular • Type: Gironville Wardle 1998: 285, no. 938 (no photo). Context 5128. Unphased. Studied through x-ray. Dimensions from Wardle 1998. (Sketch by GK)

228

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • Upper Thames Street: Sunlight Wharf

Museum of London, SUN 86 • Found: 1986 • Urban • Medieval? • OL: 76/OW: 20.3/AL: 60.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gironville Wardle 1998: 284 (without no.) and fig. 217, p. 285. Context 1024. Unphased (?)

156

229

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • 69 Upper Thames Street: Vintners’ Hall

Museum of London, VHA 89 • Found: 1989 • Urban • OL: 49/OW: 13.3*/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Context 1000. Unphased. Metal detected find from contractors’ spoil.

230

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London • 68 Upper Thames Street: Vintners’ Place

Museum of London, VRY 89 • Found: 1989 • Urban Iron From the list of the archeological Archive. Not available at the museum in 1998, and no information about it.

231

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London

Museum of London, MFS 76 • Found: 1976 • Urban • OL: 51.9/OW: 27.6/AL: 30.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Site, according to Museum of London: MFS (Unidentified site. Not in the list of sites in Egan 1998.)

232

United Kingdom • Lincolnshire • Lincoln • Broadgate East; Area 1

Lincoln Archaeological Unit, BE 73/Ae.83 • Found: 1973 • Urban • Unstratified • OL: 55.6/OW: 21.9/AL: 41/LL: 20.8 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Context C19: Disturbed soil. (Information about site and context from Graeme Lawson, Cambridge Music-archeological Survey)

233

United Kingdom • Suffolk • Near Aldeburgh: Iken • Meadow Cottage

Private (Ipswich) • Rural • OL: 82.2/OW: 33.1/AL: 56 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found in a refilled soil layer at Iken.

234

United Kingdom • Suffolk • Dunwich

Southwold Museum, 937.23 • Found: Before 1937 • Rural (Village) • OL: 54.4/OW: 26.6/AL: 30 Cu-alloy • Cast • Hexagonal • Hammered* • Circular • Type: Rochester Found on the foreshore where the town Dunwich was situated, before it vanished into the sea in the 17th century. Southwold Museum says it is “thought to date between 1300 and 1400“. Original donor: Miss H. M. Vertue (1937). Method of attachment: Hammered in a notch, which is placed into a thickening of the frame.

157

235

United Kingdom • Suffolk • Dunwich

Southwold Museum, 937.23 • Found: Before 1936 • Rural (Village) • OL: 65.8/OW: 27.9/AL: 23 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found on the foreshore where the town Dunwich was situated, before it vanished into the sea in the 17th century. Southwold Museum: “Thought to date between 1300 and 1400“. Original donor: Miss H. M. Vertue (1937).

236

United Kingdom • Suffolk • Walberswick • Walberswick church ruin

Southwold Museum, 981.49 • Found: Early 20th c. • Rural (Church) • OL: 54.3/OW: 23.6/AL: 36 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Original donor: “Mr. English“

237

United Kingdom • Wigtownshire (Scotland) • Whithorn • Whithorn Priory

Stranraer Museum, Withorn 86/380/6 • Found: 1986 • Monastery • Mid–late 14th c. • OL: 59.3/OW: 30.1/AL: 42/LL: 59.3 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Hill 1997: 431, and fig. 10.106, p. 430, no. 77. Hill: Phase 1. “An intact Jew’s Harp from the southern sector (517.03) was probably deposited in the mid to late fourteenth century.” The priory was Premonstratensian. Drawing (bottom): Hill 1997.

238

United Kingdom • Northamptonshire • Northampton • Black Lion Hill

Northampton: Central Museum, 1986.53 (SFCu37) • Found: 1982 • Urban • Medieval (1350–1500?) • OL: 72.5/OW: 29.4/AL: 50.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Trefoil-shaped • Type: Unclassified Shaw 1985: 133–4, with fig. 14, no. 15, p. 134. “... recovered from deposits of Medieval date.” Phase 4Aii = late medieval (ca 1350–1500) Drawing (left, bottom): Shaw 1985

158

239

United Kingdom • Shropshire • Wroxeter City

London: English Heritage (Northampton/London lab.), 776505 (Lab No.) WC77A 1 • Found: 1977 • Rural • OL: 95.4/OW: 64.9/AL: 46.4 Cu-alloy • Cast • Hexagonal • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Unclassified Excavated in the Roman City Wroxeter, and catalogued as a Roman artifact by English Heritage. The frame has a pattern. Probably modern/19th–20st century. Similar instruments are illustrated in 20th century trade catalogues (Crane 2003a).

240

United Kingdom • Kent • Faversham • Maison Dieu

London: English Heritage (Northampton/London lab.), Lab.no. 81006333 • Found: 1977 • Rural • Post-medieval • OL: 76.5/OW: 29.8/AL: 52/LL: 10.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Unclassified Smith 1979: 142, and fig. 27, no. 166, p. 143. Excavated in a postmedieval layer. Very strange form; the bow displays a hexagonal cross-section. Look like a cast mimic of a forged iron jew’s harp.

241

United Kingdom • Hampshire • Portchester, Fareham • Portchester Castle

London: English Heritage (Northampton/London lab.), Lab.no. 886976/Cxt2331 • Castle • OL: 55.4/OW: 23.5/AL: 37/LL: 5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford

242

United Kingdom • Hertfordshire • Near Watford • Battlers Green

Watford Museum, BG159/359 • Rural • About 1730 • OL: 66.7/OW: 36/AL: 42 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Material: Looks like forged iron, but there is also some green colour at the surface, which indicates copper alloy. The material is not confirmed by the museum. Dated by pottery to about 1730. The report from the excavation is not yet published (Information from Tony Rawlins, S.W. Hertfordshire Archaeological Society).

243

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Eltham • Kenwood Road

London (Plumstead): Greenwich Borough Museum, 1980:27:00 • Urban • OL: 59.3/OW: 24.3/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Dating: Medieval, according to the museum.

159

244

United Kingdom • Oxfordshire • Near Bicester • Middleton Stoney

Standlake: Oxfordshire Museums Service, 1978.247.1 • Found: 1978 • Rural • OL: 58.6/OW: 26.6/AL: 37/LL: 2.8 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Metal detected find

245

United Kingdom • Oxfordshire • Near Bicester • Middleton Stoney

Standlake: Oxfordshire Museums Service, 1978.247.2 • Found: 1978 • Rural • OL: 48.5/OW: 22.5/AL: 30 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Metal detected find

246

United Kingdom • Oxfordshire • Near Diddcott • Harwell

Standlake: Oxfordshire Museums Service, 1990.69.5 • Found: 1990 • Rural • 15th–16th c.? • OL: 70.3/OW: 38.9/AL: 36/LL: 6.8 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Found with a number of thimbles and dated to 15th/16th century.

247

United Kingdom • Stoke-on-Trent • Lightwood Langton • Lightwood Road

Stoke: City Museum, 87/1960 • Urban • OL: 57.9/OW: 25.3/AL: 37.8 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found 50 yards from a late 3rd century Roman coin treasure.

248

United Kingdom • Bedfordshire • Leighton Buzzard• Grove Priory

Luton Museums Service, 1986/1, GP73, 909 • Found: 1973 • Monastery • 14th–15th c. • OL: 58.1/OW: 19.5/AL: 41.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gironville Found in trench I, layer 4. Grove Priory’s acc. no.: 1986/1. Grove Priory was owned by the Fontrevault order (France) of Benedictine nuns and monks. It has a rich and complex history, reaching back to the 11th century (information from Luton Museum).

249

United Kingdom • Bedfordshire • Leighton Buzzard• Grove Priory

Luton Museums Service, 1986/1, GP75, 1273 • Found: 1975 • Monastery • Mid–late 17th c. • OL: 58.1/OW: 27.5/AL: 31/LL: 9.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Found in trench VII, layer 584. Grove Priory’s acc. no.: 1986/1.

160

250

United Kingdom • Bedfordshire • Leighton Buzzard• Grove Priory

Luton Museums Service, 1986/1, GP77, 29 • Found: 1977 • Monastery • OL: 36.3*/OW: 24.8/LL: 5.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Found in trench VII, layer 584. From topsoil layer. Grove Priory’s acc. no.: 1986/1.

251

United Kingdom • Bedfordshire • Unprovenanced

Luton Museums Service, 185/61 • Found: 1961 • Post-medieval • OL: 55.2*/OW: 29.4/AL: 29 Cu-alloy • Cast • Hexagonal • Hammered* • Circular • Type: Rochester Note on OL: Measured to 55,2 mm. Arms are slightly bent, and have consequently been longer originally, stipulated to 56,5 mm. Dating: Medieval, according to the museum. Method of attachment: Hammered in a notch, which is placed into a thickening of the frame.

252

United Kingdom • Oxfordshire • Woodperry (northeast of Oxford)

Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 1873.97 • Rural • OL: 65/OW: 33.6/AL: 54/LL: 10.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Hook and MacGregor 1997: 62, fig. 84. Stray find. Woodperry is a deserted medieval hamlet.

253

United Kingdom • Wiltshire • Edington

Devizes:Wiltshire Heritage Museum, DZSWS: 1980.71 • Found: Before 1980 • Rural • OL: 57.5*/OW: 26.1/AL: 36 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Unclassified Possibly Roman, according to the museum. OL: Measured to 55,5. Armes are slightly bent out of position, and the original measurement is stipulated to 57,5. Photo: Wiltshire Heritage

254

United Kingdom • Wiltshire • Mildenhall, near Marlborough

Devizes:Wiltshire Heritage Museum, DZSWS: 1982.280 • Found: Before 1982 • Rural • OL: 78.6/OW: 38.1/AL: 42 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Unclassified No Acquisiton data. Possibly Roman, according to the museum. Very likely modern/19th–20st c. Photo: Wiltshire Heritage

161

255

United Kingdom • Wiltshire • Yatesbury, Cherhill

Devizes:Wiltshire Heritage Museum, DZSWS: 1985.177.4 • Found: Before 1985 • Rural (Village) • OL: 67.8*/AL: 41 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Circular • Type: Stafford Bow shape most likely circular Photo: Wiltshire Heritage

256

United Kingdom • Wiltshire • Chilton Foliat

Devizes:Wiltshire Heritage Museum, DZSWS: 1993.585 • Found: Before 1993 • Rural • OL: 65.8/OW: 27.4/AL: 43 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Dating, according to the museum: 18th or 19th century Photo: Wiltshire Heritage

257

United Kingdom • Yorkshire • York • Bedern

York Archaelogical Trust, 1978. 13 sf3380 • Found: 1978 • Urban • Mid–late 14th c. • OL: 57.2/OW: 25.8/AL: 40.7/LL: 54.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen

258

United Kingdom • Yorkshire • York • St. Marys Hospital

York Archaelogical Trust, 1972.18 sf825 • Found: 1972 • Urban • Mid 16th–mid 17th c. • OL: 67.7/OW: 34/AL: 38.7 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Gloucester Spriggs 1993: 17 (mention). The site of St. Mary’s hospital is in the Horsefair.

259

United Kingdom • Hampshire • Near Fleet • Odiham Castle (King John’s Castle)

Hampshire County Council Museums and Archives • Found: 1981–1986 • Castle • Mid 13th–14th c. • OL: 54.3/OW: 21.7/AL: 42/LL: 49.6 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham The object came from a moat section. Odiham Castle has a very tight chronology overall, from 1207 to about 1500 (Information from Hampshire County Council Museums and Archives)

162

260

United Kingdom • Suffolk • Mildenhall

Mildenhall and District Museum, MIHLM: SF V 32 • Found: 1970 • Rural • OL: 63/OW: 29/AL: 42 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford From Sid. Ford Collection, given in 1970. Probably picked up by a farm worker in the fields around Mildenhall. With file-marks. Information and drawing: Mildenhall and District Museum

261

United Kingdom • Staffordshire • Stafford • Stafford Castle

Stafford Borough Council, Context 0716 • Found: 1980 • Castle • Post-medieval • OL: 59.8/OW: 27.2/AL: 36/LL: 3.4 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found in context 0716, which is a fill deposit layer with material from late medieval and post-medieval times.

262

United Kingdom • Staffordshire • Stafford • Stafford Castle

Stafford Borough Council, Context 2521 • Found: 1982 • Castle • OL: 60.2/OW: 27/AL: 37 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found in context 2521, which is a topsoil layer.

263

United Kingdom • Wiltshire • Upavon

Devizes:Wiltshire Heritage Museum, DZSWS: 1982.39.19 • Found: Before 1982 • Rural • OL: 57.9/OW: 31/AL: 29 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Gift to the museum. “Perhaps 19th century“ Photo: Wiltshire Heritage

264

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Oxford: Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, 824 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 59.2/OW: 27/AL: 35 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Unclassified Montagu 1996: 108, no. 824. The frame has traces of guilding. Photo: Michael Wright

163

265

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Oxford: Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, 826 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 57.1/OW: 34.5/AL: 22 Iron • Forged • Twisted • Wedged • Circular • Type: Höxter Montagu 1996: 108–9, no. 826. Photo: Michael Wright

266

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Oxford: Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, 827 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 64.4/OW: 28.6/AL: 39/LL: 19 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Unclassified Montagu 1996: 109, no. 827. Photo: Michael Wright

267

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Oxford: Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, 828 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 56.6/OW: 32.2/AL: 28/LL: 17 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Unclassified Montagu 1996: 109, no. 828. Photo: Michael Wright

268

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Oxford: Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, 829 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 52.4/OW: 34/AL: 27 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Montagu 1996: 109, no. 829. Photo: Michael Wright

269

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Oxford: Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, 830 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 42.1/OW: 30.8/AL: 21/LL: 7.6 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Horsens Montagu 1996: 109, no. 830. Possibly a punch mark on the back of the bow (my own observation) Photo: Michael Wright

270

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Oxford: Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, 831 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 49.8/OW: 29.4/AL: 25/LL: 15.8 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Unclassified Montagu 1996: 109-10, no. 831. Photo: Michael Wright

164

271

United Kingdom • Middlesex • London: Thames foreshore

Oxford: Bate Collection of Musical Instruments, 832 • Found: Before 1987 • Urban • OL: 50/OW: 23.8/AL: 30/LL: 5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Unclassified Montagu 1996: 110, no. 832. Photo: Michael Wright

272

United Kingdom • Gloucestershire • Gloucester • St. Owens: Southgate Street

Gloucester Archaeology Unit, 13/83 • Found: 1983 • Urban • Mid 17th c. • OL: 62.3/OW: 32/AL: 31/LL: 10.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/D-shaped • Type: Gloucester Context 298. Site no. 13/84. Drawing: Gloucester Archaeology Unit.

273

United Kingdom • Gloucestershire • Gloucester • St. Owens: Southgate Street

Gloucester Archaeology Unit, 13/83 • Found: 1983 • Urban • Mid 17th c. • OL: 46.2*/OW: 32.7/LL: 41.8 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Context 298. Site no. 13/84. Drawing: Gloucester Archaeology Unit.

274

United Kingdom • Gloucestershire • Unprovenanced (Gloucester?)

Gloucester Folk Museum, F8730 • OL: 49.5/OW: 23.2/AL: 28/LL: 4.3 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford

275

United Kingdom • Wiltshire • Near Salisbury • Clarendon Palace

Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, 1974/77 • Found: 1974 • Castle • OL: 60.3/OW: 27.5/AL: 37/LL: 5.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford James & Robinson 1988: 207. Described as follows: Jew’s harp. Reed missing. Diamond in section. May or may not be medieval although typologically it could be. ... A stray find within the palace area, 1974.

276

United Kingdom • Glamorgan (Wales) • Llantrithyd Area (South Glamorgan) • St. Hillary

Cardiff: National Museum and Gallery of Wales, 95.21H/123 • Found: Before 1995 • Rural • OL: 46.2/OW: 22.1/AL: 27/LL: 5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Metal detected surface find

165

277 United Kingdom • Glamorgan (Wales) • Llantrithyd Area (South Glamorgan) • St. Hillary Cardiff: National Museum and Gallery of Wales, 95.21H/124 • Found: Before 1995 • Rural • OL: 60.6/OW: 33.4/AL: 31/LL: 2.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Square • Type: Unclassified Metal detected surface find

278

United Kingdom • Glamorgan (Wales) • Llantrithyd Area (South Glamorgan) • St. Hillary

Cardiff: National Museum and Gallery of Wales, 95.21H/125 • Found: Before 1995 • Rural • OL: 49.8/OW: 21.9/AL: 31/LL: 4 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Metal detected surface find

279

United Kingdom • Glamorgan (Wales) • Llantrithyd Area (South Glamorgan) • St. Hillary

Cardiff: National Museum and Gallery of Wales, 95.21H/126 • Found: Before 1995 • Rural • OL: 54.9/OW: 23.4/AL: 37/LL: 5.8 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Metal detected surface find

280

United Kingdom • Glamorgan (Wales) • 4.5 km NW of Barry • Whitton

Cardiff: National Museum and Gallery of Wales, 77.40H • Found: 1965–1970 • Rural • OL: 42.8*/OW: 28.2/LL: 8.6 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Jarret and Wrathmell 1981: 197, and fig. 76, no. 57. (“Object of uncertain function possibly a Jew“s harp ... it is unstratified and its date must therefore remain uncertain.“)

281

United Kingdom • Unprovenanced (Winchester?)

Winchester Museums Service, ARCH 2333 • OL: 68.9*/OW: 27.8/AL: 42 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford OL: Measured to 68,9 mm. The extant arm is bent outwards. Original length is stipulated to 65 mm.

166

282

United Kingdom • Hampshire • Winchester • Paradise Wall: Cathedral Green

Winchester Museums Service, CG2572 • Found: 1970 • Urban • OL: 70.9/OW: 28.8/AL: 48 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Lawson 1990: 724, with fig. 206

283

United Kingdom • Hampshire • Winchester • City Bridge

Winchester Museums Service, ARCH 649.95 • Found: 1937 • Urban • OL: 50.4/OW: 26.3/AL: 26 Cu-alloy? • Cast • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Rochester Stray find. Black or greenish surface. The frame is heavily corroded at the point where the lamella was attacched

284

United Kingdom • Bedfordshire • Bedford • Bedford Castle

Bedford Museum, 1978/1, Object no. 1384 • Found: 1971 • Castle • Post-medieval • OL: 57/OW: 21/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Baker et al. 1979: 280, and fig. 174, p. 279, no. 1384.

285

United Kingdom • Bedfordshire • Bedford • High Street (?)

Bedford Museum (?) • Found: About 1997 • Urban • Unstratified Unstratified. “Found during a recent watching brief on the town centre improvements in Bedford, this too unfortunately is unstratified“ (letter from Bedfordshire County Archaeology Service). One [jew“s harp] was excavated in High Street, Bedford (letter from Luton Museum).

286

Finland • Turku ja Pori • Kaarina • Kuusisto (Kustö) Castle

The National Museum of Finland, KM 86083:242 • Found: 1985 • Castle • Late 15th–early 16th c. • OL: 63.5/OW: 28/AL: 47.5/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Gardberg and Welin 1993: 122–9 (only about the castle). Found outside the wall on the north side of the castle, in field 4, route A, phase III, with coins and ceramcs. Informtion and photo: Museiverket, Turku. Photo taken before conservation.

287

Finland • Turku ja Pori • Turku (Åbo) • Turku Castle

The National Museum of Finland, KM 81132:900 • Found: 1976 • Castle • Late 15th–early 16th c. • OL: 86/OW: 22/AL: 70/LL: 72 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Found in the entrance section of Turku Castle, in the room C101–103. Informtion and photo: Museiverket, Turku. Photo taken before conservation.

167

288

Finland • Turku ja Pori • Turku (Åbo) • Turku Castle

The National Museum of Finland, Km 96001:1417 • Found: 1978 • Castle • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 91.5/OW: 22.5/AL: 73/LL: 38.5 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Excavated at the farm outside the entrance section of the castle in 1978. The site has produced artifacts dating from the late Middle Ages and later centuries. The find circumstances do not allow a more confined dating of the item. Informtion and photo: Museiverket, Turku. Photo taken before conservation.

289

Finland • Turku ja Pori • Kaarina • Kuusisto (Kustö) Castle

The National Museum of Finland, KM 98020:165 • Found: 1998 • Castle • Mid 15th c. • OL: 85/OW: 21/AL: 68.5/LL: 80 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Gardberg and Welin 1993: 122–9 (only about the castle). Found at the western part of the second entrance section, in field 9701, route A4, phase V. Dated to the middle of the 15th century or slightly later, based on stratigraphy and associated finds. Informtion and photo: Museiverket, Turku. Photo taken before conservation.

290

Finland • Turku ja Pori • Kaarina • Kuusisto (Kustö) Castle

Found: Before 1978 • Castle • 1300–1527 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Taavitsainen 1978, with photo, p. 75 (left); Gardberg and Welin 1993: 122–9 (about the castle)

291

Finland • Turku ja Pori • Kaarina • Kuusisto (Kustö) Castle

Found: Before 1978 • Castle • 1300–1527 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Taavitsainen 1978, with photo, p. 75 (in the middle); Gardberg and Welin 1993: 122–9 (about the castle)

292

Finland • Turku ja Pori • Kaarina • Kuusisto (Kustö) Castle

Found: Before 1978 • Castle • 1300–1527 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Taavitsainen 1978, with photo, p. 75 (right); Gardberg and Welin 1993: 122–9 (about the castle)

293

Switzerland • Aargau (AG) • Oftringen (near Olten) • Alt-Wartburg

Historischen Museum Olten, C 160 • Found: 1966–1967 • Castle • With punch mark • 1200–1415 • OL: 61/OW: 30/AL: 42 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 229 (note 43), 230 (note 78); Meyer 1974: 91–5, with illustration (C160); Meyer 1977: fig. 1, p. 35, no. 5; Geiser 1980: 99, 103; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39. Measurements: From drawing in Meyer 1974. Dating, according to Meyer 1974: Probably 13th century. However, there was no stratigraphy at the excavation. The punch mark is shaped as an “U“, according to Meyer (1974: 91) (Cf. no. 53, Lund, Sweden).

168

294

Switzerland • Aargau (AG) • Oftringen (near Olten) • Alt-Wartburg

Historischen Museum Olten, C 161 • Found: 1966–1967 • Castle • OL: 42/OW: 30/AL: 19 Iron • Bent from a rod? • Hammered • Oval • Type: Kufstein Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (no. 3 in type table), 224, 229 (note 43), 230 (note 78); Meyer 1974: 91–5, with illustration (C161); Meyer 1977: fig. 1, p. 35, no. 6; Geiser 1980: 99, 103; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39. Measurements: From drawing in Meyer 1974. Dating, according to Meyer 1974: 14th century or later. There was no stratigraphy at the excavation.

295

Russia • Northwest Russia: Novgorod region • Novgorod

Urban • 14th c. • OL: 78.5/OW: 20/AL: 55/LL: 85 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Hammered? • Circular/Long oval • Type: Unclassified Povetkin 1992: 211–12, with fig. VII.3, no. 20, p. 211; Kolltveit 1996: 92, fig. 23. Povetkin 1992 (p. 212): “These [the five examples] were made from iron alloy“. Measurements from drawing. OL = length of the frame. Extension of the lamella about 3–4 mm. Total length with lamella about 93 mm. The entire lamella seem to be preserved.

296

Russia • Northwest Russia: Novgorod region • Novgorod

Novgorod inventory no. 1–6–78 • Found: Before 1959 • Urban • 15th c. • OL: 64/OW: 32/AL: 35/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Kolchin 1959: 117–18, with fig. 103; Thompson 1967: 101, and fig. 78, p. 76; Sevåg 1970: fig. 4, p. 9; Crane 1972: 22 (411.31); Ypey 1976: 224, and fig. 26, p. 226; Povetkin 1992: 211–12, with fig. VII.3, no. 19, p. 211. Povetkin 1992 (p. 212): “These [the five examples] were made from iron alloy“. In 1972 in Moscow, Instutute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, according to Crane (op. cit.). Excavated from a level dated from 1462 and later (op. cit.).Note that the lamella is not preserved. Its shape is predicted, presumably on basis of the previous piece (no. 295).

297–299

Russia • Northwest Russia: Novgorod region • Novgorod

Urban • 13th–15th c. Povetkin 1992: 211, without ill. Povetkin 1992 (p. 212): “These [the five examples] were made from iron alloy“.

300

Russia • Ural region: Bashkortostan • Salavat district • Idelbayev • Idelbayev Burial Mound Bashkir Academy of Sciences: Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography • Found: Before 1981 • Rural (Burial mound) • 8th–9th c. • OL ca 68 mm Silver • Type: Unclassified Mazhitov 1981: Fig. 63, no. 10; Shurov 1995: 3; Zagretdinov 1997: 19. Found in Idelbayev burial mound. Excavated by professor N. A. Mazhitov. The burial mound dates from the eighth and ninth century. Made of silver, according to the publication (Mazhitov, op. cit.). The only idioglottic jew’s harp (i.e. made in one piece) found west of the Urals. The most relevant archaeological parallels include two jew’s harps from Mongolia; one from Xiongnu (Kaogu Xiebao 1974: 140, fig. 8 and plate 17) and one from Chifeng, Inner Mongolia. They are made of bone, and dated, respectively, to the 1st c. BC –1st c. AD and the 8th–5th c. BC (Frederick Crane, pers. comm.). Related instruments, made of various kinds of materials, are recorded ethnographically from Siberia, China and other places in East and Southeast Asia (Li Hwei 1956, Emsheimer 1964, Vertkov et al. 1987; Dournon-Taurelle and Wright 1978).

169

301

Republic of Moldova • Orhei • Yekimauts (between Orhei and Rezina)

Found: Before 1954 • Rural (Village) • 9th–10th c. Iron • Forged • Oval • Type: Unclassified Fedorov 1954: 18, and fig. 7, no. 1 (left); Kolchin 1959; Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.29. Photo: Fedorov 1954: fig. 7, p. 18. Bottom: Ethnographic piece from a village in the vicinity (same source).

302

France • Ile de France • Saint-Denis

Urban • Late 13th–14th c. • OL: 51/OW: 24/AL: 32 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Homo-Lechner 1987a, with photo

303

France • Ile de France • Chevreuse

Urban • Late 13th–14th c. • OL: 59/OW: 30.5/AL: 37/LL: 7.5 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Homo-Lechner 1987a, with photo

304

France • Languedoc-Roussillon • Montségur • Montségur Castle

Found: Before 1975 • Castle • 13th c. • OL: 75/OW: 22/AL: 56/LL: 31.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Gironville (?) Démians d’Archimbaud 1980: 430, 649 (note 70); Montségur: 13 ans de researches archéologiques (GRAME, 1980); Aujourd’hui le Moyen-Age 1981: no. 524; Homo-Lechner 1987a (with drawing). NB: Is this really made of iron?

305

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

630 • Urban Circular • Type: Gloucester Homo-Lechner 1987b, with photo p. 16.

170

306

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon (Found in a well)

2044 404 • Urban • Early 17th c. Hammered • Circular/Long oval • Type: Gloucester Homo-Lechner 1987b, with photo p. 16; Homo-Lechner 1996: 133 (photo). Nine of the jew’s harp from Cour Napoléon was found in a well. On the basis of Homo-Lechner’s 1987b-publication, it is only possible to identify six of these.

307

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

Urban Iron • Oval • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

308

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

Urban Iron • Circular • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

309

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

Urban Iron • Circular • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

310

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

Urban Iron • Forged • Circular • Type: Horsens Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

311

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

Urban Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17. NB: 2 of the Cour Napoléon-specimens are made of Cu-alloy (Homo-Lechner, op, cit.: 16).

312

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

Urban • With punch mark Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17. Notice the notches filed into the arms (cf. nos. 35, Malmö, and 731, Delft); and the punch mark (cf. nos. 52, Lund, and 534, Hallwil).

171

313

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

8.001 12085 • Found: 1985 • Urban • 16th c. Iron • Oval • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

314

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

5.113 1935 • Found: 1984 • Urban Iron • Oval • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

315

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

28.612 17946 • Found: 1985 • Urban Iron • Oval • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

316

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon (Found in a well)

2.041 681 • Found: 1984 • Urban • Early 17th c. Iron • Oval • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

317

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon (Found in a well)

2.051 373 • Found: 1984 • Urban • Early 17th c. Iron • Circular • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

318

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

9.274 8300 • Found: 1984 • Urban Iron • Oval • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

319

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon (Found in a well)

2.051 667 • Found: 1984 • Urban • Early 17th c. Iron • Triangular • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

320

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

Found: 1984 • Urban Iron • Circular • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

172

321

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

Found: 1984 • Urban Iron • Oval • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

322

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon

11.489 14877 • Found: 1984 • Urban Iron • Triangular • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

323

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon (Found in a well)

2.017 648 • Found: 1984 • Urban • Early 17th c. Iron • Oval • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

324

France • Ile de France • Paris • Grand Louvre • Cour Napoléon (Found in a well)

2.014 984 • Found: 1984 • Urban • Early 17th c. Iron • Oval/Triangular • Type: Unclassified Homo-Lechner 1987b, with drawing p. 17.

325

France • Normandie • Rouen • Grosse-Horlogne/Place du Vieux-Marché

Rouen: Musée des Antiquités de Seine-Maritime, MA 1138 (1686.8.a) • Found: 1861 • Urban • OL: 83/OW: 24/AL: 60 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Greifswald Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.18; Homo-Lechner and Vendries 1993: 20–1, no. 3. Found in a house at the corner of place du Vieux-Marché and rue de la Grosse-Horlogne.

326

France • Normandie • Rouen • rue de l’Hôtel de Ville

Rouen: Musée des Antiquités de Seine-Maritime, MA 1140 (1686.8.c) • Found: 1863 • Urban • OL: 51/OW: 24/AL: 34 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/ Circular • Type: Nijmegen Crane 1972: 21, no. 411.19; Homo-Lechner and Vendries 1993: 20–1, no. 4

327

France • Normandie • Rouen • rue Rollon/rue de l’Impératrice

Rouen: Musée des Antiquités de Seine-Maritime, MA 1145 (1686.8.b) • Found: 1865 • Urban • OL: 48/OW: 25/AL: 29 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Crane 1972: 21–2, no. 411.20; Homo-Lechner and Vendries 1993: 20–1, no. 5. Found in the ruins of the large hypocaust chamber of a large house at the southwest corner of rue Rollon and rue de l’Impératrice, according to Crane

173

328

France • Normandie • Rouen

Rouen: Musée des Antiquités de Seine-Maritime, MA 1152 (1686.8.d) • Found: 1861–1867 • Urban • OL: 82/OW: 25/AL: 57 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Greifswald Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.21; Homo-Lechner and Vendries 1993: 20–1, no. 6

329

France • Centre Val de Loire (Central Loire Valley) • Indre: Levroux

Indre: Château de Charon, near Neuvy-St.-Sépulcre: Coll. of J. Pierre • Found: 1895 • Rural • OL: 55/OW: 35 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Nijmegen Pierre 1935: 103–5, with fig. p. 104; Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.22; Homo-Lechner and Vendries 1993: 20–1, no. 7. NB: Photo in Homo-Lechner and Vendries (op. cit.) of the cast of the original find. The cast was made in 1896.

330

France • Centre Val de Loire (Central Loire Valley) • Indre: Near Issoudun

Location unknown (Crane 1972) • Found: 1839 • Rural Iron Pierre 1936: 10 (without ill.); Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.23; Homo-Lechner et. al. 1993: 20–1 (mention in no. 7)

331

France • Rhône-Alpes: Isère • Brandes-en-Oisans

Rural (Village) • 13th–14th c. • OL: 59.2*/OW: 18.8/AL: 39.5/LL: 44.2 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gironville Bailly-Maitre and Dupraz 1994: 136, and fig. 99, p. 135; Homo-Lechner 1996: 134 (drawing). Found in a house of the town. Dating: 13th–14th c., according to internet-site: http://www.multimania.com/cbrass/Guimb49.htm. OL: 59.2. Length of frame alone 50.5. Extension of the lamella 8.7 mm

332

France • Rhône-Alpes: Ain • Near Ambronay • Gironville

Castle • 14th c. Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gironville Homo-Lechner 1996: 134 (drawing).. Gironville was a fortified town. Measuerments unknown. Extension of the lamella 2–4 mm?

333

France • Centre Val de Loire (Central Loire Valley): Cher • Mehun-sur-Yèvre • Castle of duke Jean de Berry

Mehun-sur-Yèvre: Musée Charles VII • Castle • 15th c. • OL: 76/OW: 23/AL: 60 Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gironville Homo-Lechner 1996: 134 (photo). Found in a well of the castle of duke Jean de Berry.

174

334

Norway • Oppland • Dovre • Vigenstad

Private • Rural • OL: 66/OW: 23/AL: 47 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Hammered** • Triangular • Type: Unclassified Løchen 2000: 54–5, with photo p. 55. Documentation by Leif Løchen, NordGudbrandsdal folkemusikkarkiv, 2000. Found in the earth on the farm Vigenstad by the grandfather of the owner Sæmund Vigenstad. No details about the find place or circumstances are given. Attachment of the lamella: Hammered into a notch in the frame, placed opposite to a large thickening.

335

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Enns

Found: 1992–1995 • Urban • Late medieval • OL: 69/OW: 25/AL: 48 Iron • Forged • Triangular • Type: Schauenburg Mohr 1999: 18–20, with fig. no. 1, p. 20 (left, top)

336

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Enns • Enns Par. 1132

L199 • Found: 1993 • Urban • Late medieval • OL: 73/OW: 23/AL: 46 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Long oval • Type: Gironville Mohr 1999: 18–20, with drawing, p. 19, and fig. no. 1, p. 20 (left, bottom). Found at: “Q (SW) SF–E/11” Drawing: “Moki ’98“, in Mohr 1999 (p. 19). Extension of the lamella about 3–4 mm

337

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Enns

Found: 1992–1995 • Urban • Late medieval • OL: 51*/OW: 31*/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Mohr 1999: 18–20, with fig. no. 1, p. 20 (right, top). Made of bronze, according to Mohr.

338

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Enns

Found: 1992–1995 • Urban • Late medieval • OL: 47/OW: 33/AL: 32 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Mohr 1999: 18–20, with fig. no. 1, p. 20 (right, bottom)

175

339

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Near Leonstein Castle

Found: 1985 • Castle • OL: 21*/OW: 29 Circular • Type: Gloucester Mohr 1999: 20, with fig. no. 2 (left, top), and fig. no. 4, p. 21 (left, top). Found by Egon Petschnik, Molln in 1985. The castle was destroyed in 1390. NB: Is this really a jew’s harp?

340

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Near Leonstein Castle

Found: 1985 • Castle • OL: 38.5/OW: 24/AL: 19/LL: 5 Iron • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kufstein Mohr 1999: 20, with fig. no. 2 (right, top), and fig. no. 4, p. 21 (right, top). Found by Egon Petschnik, Molln in 1985. The castle was destroyed in 1390.

341

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Gemeinde Tragwein • Near the ruins of Reichenstein Castle

Reichenstein: Burgmuseum Prof. Höllhuber • Found: 1970 • Castle • OL: 56/OW: 26/AL: 39* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Mohr 1999: 20, with fig. no. 2 (in the middle)

342

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Gemeinde Schönau • Near the ruins of Prandegg Castle

Reichenstein: Burgmuseum Prof. Höllhuber • Found: 1970 • Castle • Before 1700 • OL: 37.5/OW: 20/AL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Triangular • Type: Bruck Mohr 1999: 20, with fig. no. 2 (left, bottom). The castle was left around 1700. Found by prof. Alfred Höllhuber in 1970.

343

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Gemeinde Schönau • Near the ruins of Prandegg Castle

Reichenstein: Burgmuseum Prof. Höllhuber • Found: 1970 • Castle • OL: 63.5/OW: 31/AL: 48 Iron • Forged • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Mohr 1999: 20, with fig. no. 2 (right, bottom). The castle was left around 1700. Found by prof. Alfred Höllhuber in 1970.

344

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Windischgarsten • Lot no. 441, south of “Hafnerbank“

Found: 1996 • Rural Mohr 1999: 20 (without illustration). From a “Künettengrabung” in 1996 in connection with the National Exhibition in 1998.

345

Austria • Salzburg (county) • Kniepaß bei Lofer • Kniepaß Fort

Castle • OL: 54/OW: 33.5/AL: 23/LL: 8.5 Iron • Bent from a rod? • Square • Type: Kufstein Mohr 1999: 20, and fig. no. 3, p. 21 (left). Found by Helmuth Adler, in the ruins of the fort. The refuse site was generated between 1600 and 1950.

176

346

Austria • Salzburg (county) • Kniepaß bei Lofer • Kniepaß Fort

Castle • OL: 41/OW: 24.5/AL: 18/LL: 9 Iron • Bent from a rod? • Square • Type: Kufstein Mohr 1999: 20, and fig. no. 3, p. 21 (right). Found by Helmuth Adler, in the ruins of the fort. The refuse site was generated between 1600 and 1950.

347

Austria • Salzburg (county) • Kniepaß bei Lofer • Kniepaß Fort

Castle Mohr 1999: 20 (without illustration). Found by Helmuth Adler, in the ruins of the fort. The refuse site was generated between 1600 and 1950.

348

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Molln • Below “Ebner Wirt“ (Sonnseite 26)

Rural (Village) • OL: 47/OW: 27/AL: 20 Circular • Type: Gloucester Mohr 1999: 21, with fig. 4 (right, in the middle). Found by Kurt Kammerhuber.

349

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Molln • Sperrboden: Front of F. Wimmers’ house

Found: 1976 • Rural (Village) • OL: 46/OW: 29/AL: 21/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Circular • Type: Sperrboden Mohr 1999: 21, with fig. 4 (left, bottom), and fig. 5. Found 1976 in front of the jew’s harp maker Franz Wimmers’ house, Sperrboden. With two lamellas, like no. 542

350

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Molln • Sperrboden: Front of F. Wimmers’ house

Found: 1976 • Rural (Village) • OL: 42/OW: 25/AL: 18/LL: 6.5 Iron • Forged • Circular • Type: Gloucester Mohr 1999: 21, with fig. 4 (right, bottom). Found 1976 in front of the jew’s harp maker Franz Wimmers’ house, Sperrboden.

351–353

Austria • Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) • Near Haus, Ennsthal • Plankenalm

Rural • Late medieval Mohr 1999: 22, who refers to Mandl 1996 and Cerwinka et. al. 1998.

354

Hungary • Alföld (Great Hungarian Plain) • Túrkeve

Rural (Village) Not published (2002). Túrkeve was a medieval village

355

Hungary • Alföld (Great Hungarian Plain) • Tiszaörvény

Rural (Village) Not published (2002). Tiszaörvény was a medieval village.

177

356

Hungary • Borsod-Abaúj (Northern Highlands) • Szuhogy • Csorbak Castle

Castle • Before 1553 Kalmár 1959 (mention); Repiszky 1996. The castle was in ruins in 1553.

357

Hungary • Budapest • Budapest: Buda Castle

Castle Not published (2002)

358

Hungary • Unprovenanced

Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum (Hungarian National Museum) • OL: 70/OW: 28/AL: 49/LL: 4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Information and illustration: Thomas Repiszky

359

Hungary • Alföld (Great Hungarian Plain) • Muhi

Miskolc: Hermann Otto Museum, 53.1020.15 • Found: Before 1988 • Rural (Village) • 11th–late 17th c. • OL: 70/OW: 24/AL: 53 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Michnai 1982: 137; Repiszky 1996. The material from this medieval village dates from 11th century till the end of 17th century. Max diam.: 6 mm NB: The acc. no. of this may be mixed with the other from Muhi, no. 360. Information and illustration: Thomas Repiszky

360

Hungary • Alföld (Great Hungarian Plain) • Muhi

Miskolc: Hermann Otto Museum, 13.079 • Found: Before 1988 • Rural (Village) • 11th–late 17th c. • OL: 64/OW: 23/AL: 48 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Michnai 1982: 137; Repiszky 1996. The material from this medieval village dates from 11th century till the end of 17th century. Max diam.: 4 mm NB: The acc. no. of this may be confused with the other from Muhi, no. 359. Information and illustration: Thomas Repiszky

361

Slovakia • Middle-South Slovakia • Filakovo (Fülek)

(lost) • Found: 1944 • Castle • Medieval Kalmár 1959: 18; Repiszky 1996. The castle belonged to Hungary by the time of the excavation.

362

Hungary • Dunántúl (Transdanubia) • Visegrád • Visegrád Castle

Castle • 16th c. or later • OL: 78/OW: 32/AL: 59 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Schauenburg Buzás 1994: 239. From chapel in Visegrád. Found in courtyard of the castle. Probably after 16th century One arm broken. Information and illustration: Thomas Repiszky

178

363

Hungary • Kisalföld (Western Lowlands) • Szentmihály

Found: Before 1990 • Rural (Village) • 14th–16th c.? • OL: 56*/OW: 36/AL: 36* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Holl 1990. Perhaps 14th –16th c. Szentmihály was a medieval village. The arms are possibly broken? Information and illustration: Thomas Repiszky

364

Hungary • Alföld (Great Hungarian Plain) • Near Cegled • Nyúlfülehalom

Found: Before 1994 • Rural (Church) • 16th–17th c.? • OL: 73/OW: 32/AL: 51/LL: 29 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Tari 1994: 191–217, and fig. p. 95; — 1995: 64–95. Found not far from a medieval church. “Perhaps it can be from 16th–17th century“ Max diameter: 0.5–0.6 mm. Information and illustration: Thomas Repiszky

365

United Kingdom • Aberdeenshire (Scotland) • Rattray (parish) • Rattray Castle

Castle Murray and Murray 1993: 185, no. 152. Classified among buckles and personal objects: A Jew’s harp, may be medieval. SF304A, CAS 70, Phase 5/6, Period III/IV, Not illustrated. Phase 5: demolition and robbing. Mid or late 15th century to early 16th century. Phase 6: modern activity. 18th to 20th century

366

United Kingdom • Buckinghamshire • Chenies

Aylesbury: Buckinghamshire County Museum, AYBCM 1976 168 25 • Found: 1976 • Rural (Village) • Chance find • OL: 61/OW: 25/AL: 45 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found by metal detecting. Information and photo from Buckinghamshire County Museum, Aylesbury.

367

United Kingdom • Bedfordshire • Chicheley, northeast of Newport Pagnell

Aylesbury: Buckinghamshire County Museum, AYBCM 1994 71 1 • Found: 1994 • Rural • Chance find • OL: 58/OW: 26/AL: 39 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found by metal detecting. (Chicheley was in Buckinghamshire prior to the administrative boundary change in 1995.) Information and photo from Buckinghamshire County Museum, Aylesbury.

368

United Kingdom • Perthshire (Scotland) • Perth • Meal Vennel

Perth Museum & Art Gallery, Find no. 01457 • Found: 1983 • Urban • Unstratified • OL: 30*/OW: 17/LL: 30 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Circular • Type: Gironville Cox 1996 (Report from excavation. The jew’s harp is not published in the report). Information and drawing from Perth Museum. Context 4140; Find no. 01457; Unstratified.

179

369

United Kingdom • Isle of Man • Castletown • Castle Rushen

Manx Museum • Found: 1992 • Castle • Late 18th–early 19th c. • OL: 52/OW: 27/AL: 30 Iron • Circular • Type: Gloucester Davey, Freke and Higgins 1996: 106, fig. 58 (Castle Rushen Stores), no. 3. Context 92.102/18, Layer dating from the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century. Information from Manx National Heriatage, The Manx Museum. Drawing from x-ray.

370

United Kingdom • Isle of Wight • Fishbourne • Beach at Fishbourne

Newport: County Archaeological Centre, IWCAC:1526.0.1184 • Found: Before 1997 • Rural (Village) • Chance find • OL: 41*/OW: 18/AL: 25 Cu-alloy • Circular • Type: Stafford Found during inter-tidal survey on the beach at Fishbourne, northern coast of the Isle of Man. “David Gaimster comments that this example could perhaps be of fifteen–seventeenth century date.“ Drawing and information by County Archaeological Centre, Newport

371

United Kingdom • Isle of Wight • Mersely Down, near Arreton

Private • Found: 1989 • Rural • Chance find Cu-alloy Found by metal detectorist Mr. Alan Rowe on Mersely Down. County Archaeological Centre, Newport, Reference No.: PRN2137 ID60. No photo/illustration. Information in letter from County Archaeological Centre, Newport

372

United Kingdom • Warwickshire • Hunningham, near Leamington Spa • St Margaret’s Church

Private • Found: Before 1997 • Rural (Church) Recovered from small excavation at St Margaret’s Church, Hunningham, near Leamington Spa. The harp lacks its lamella and is difficult to date. Information from Warwickshire Museum

373

United Kingdom • Kent • Unprovenanced (Canterbury?)

Canterbury: The Royal Museum & Art Gallery • OL: 50/OW: 27 Iron Letter from the Royal Museum & Art Gallery, Canterbury

374

United Kingdom • Kent • Canterbury • Stour Street

Canterbury: The Royal Museum & Art Gallery, SSB86 60 • Found: 1986 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 53/OW: 22 Iron Letter from the Royal Museum & Art Gallery, Canterbury

375

United Kingdom • North Hertfordshire

Letchworth Museum & Art Gallery • OL: 50/OW: 25/AL: 27 Iron • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester The harp is probably medieval. The museum has no further information about it. A metal detector find? (Letter from Letchworth Museum & Art Gallery) Very corroded. Photo: Letchworth Museum

180

376

United Kingdom • North Hertfordshire

Letchworth Museum & Art Gallery • OL: 50/OW: 24/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Hammered • Circular • Type: Nijmegen The harp is probably medieval. The museum has no further information about it. A metal detector find? (Letter from Letchworth Museum & Art Gallery) Photo: Letchworth Museum

377–378

United Kingdom • Argyllshire (Scotland) • Isle of Lismore • Achandun Castle

Edinburgh: Royal Museum of Scotland • Castle • 13th c.? Iron Webster and Cherry 1972: 186 (without illustration). Found in an occupation layer in the SE range of the courtyard, with “three English Edwardian pennies; two bone pegs, possibly tension pegs from a musical instrument; a whetstone; two iron gouge-bits; and a little glaze pottery.“ 13th century, according to the index to Webster and Cherry 1972. Two jew’s harps was excavated (Royal Museum of Scotland). Achandun Castle was the home of the Bishops of Argyll.

379

United Kingdom • Argyllshire (Scotland) • Near Tarbert • Castle Sween

Edinburgh: Royal Museum of Scotland • Castle Iron Castle Sween: A castle of the lords of the isles. Letter, Royal Museum of Scotland

380 United Kingdom • Argyllshire (Scotland) • Isle of Islay • Loch Finlaggan Edinburgh: Royal Museum of Scotland • Found: 1990–1997 • Rural • Late 15th–early16th c. • OL: 81/OW: 32/AL: 56/LL: 68.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Information from Royal Museum of Scotland. Finlaggan: the centre of the lords of the isles. Excavated by David Caldwell. Found in context 6018, which is a spread of debris associated with the demolition of buildings, dated by coins to the end of the 15th or beginning of the 16th century. OL: The lamella extends a bit (ca 3–4 mm?) behind the frame. Length of the frame will be, consequently, only 78 mm. Photocopy: Royal Museum of Scotland.

381 United Kingdom • Berwickshire (Scotland) • Near Coldingham • Fast Castle: Lower Courtyard Edinburgh: Royal Museum of Scotland, 72 (in iron catalogue) • Found: 1971–1986 • Castle • Early 16th–early 17th c. • OL: 60.5/OW: 30/AL: 40 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Kransen Lawson 2001: 114, with fig. 55. Found in the Quarry pit deposit in the Lower Courtyard. From period III–IV. Date of deposition early 16th to early 17th century.

382

United Kingdom • Cheshire

Chester: Grosvenor Museum Information from Grosvenor Museum, Chester. No details of provenance or anything else

383

United Kingdom • Montgomeryshire (Wales) • Montgomery

Welshpool: Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust • Rural Found during a metal detector survey of the English Civil War battlefield, AD 1642. However, the object is believed to be younger than this battle. (Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust, Welshpool)

181

384

United Kingdom • Suffolk • Woodbrigde?

Woodbridge Museum, wdgem 566 • Found: 1982 Apparently loaned in 1982. Not in good condition. Information from Woodbridge Museum

385

United Kingdom • Suffolk • Sutton Hoo • Settlement site

Woodbridge Museum, wdgem 733 • Found: 1984 • Rural • Chance find Casual surface find, October 1984. Date: 1600. Condition “fair“, complete. (Information from Woodbridge Museum)

386

United Kingdom • Yorkshire: West Riding • Unprovenanced

Halifax: Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale, 1972.1/8 • Found: Before 1972 Gift from Miss Wilson, Halifax, 1972. The object is not present in the museum (2001). Information from Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale, Shibden Hall, Halifax.

387

United Kingdom • Yorkshire: West Riding • Unprovenanced

Halifax: Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale, MI20 • Found: Before 1923 Gift from Mrs. Hyde, 1923. The object is not present in the museum (2001). Information from Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale, Shibden Hall, Halifax.

388

United Kingdom • Gloucestershire • Bristol?

Bristol Museums and Art Gallery, Ac 7058 • Found: Early 20th c. • Chance find • OL: 52/OW: 24/AL: 34 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Acquired in 1929 from Mr. A. Selley. No details as to its context. Information and photo from Bristol Museums and Art Gallery.

389

United Kingdom • Gloucestershire • Bristol • Bridewell Street

Bristol Museums and Art Gallery, Ac 6948, G 2367 • Found: Early 20th c. • Urban • Chance find • OL: 46*/OW: 25/AL: 27 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Acquired at the beginning of the century. Few details as to their context. Incomplete condition. Information and photo from Bristol Museums and Art Gallery.

390

Norway • Oppland • Gjøvik (county): Vardal • Bråstadsetra (summer pasture)

Gjøvik: Eiktunet kulturhistorisk museum, EKM 4635 • Found: 1970 • Rural • OL: 79.2/OW: 57.7/AL: 45/LL: 11.2 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Triangular • Type: Pärnu Found under a slab of rock at Bråstad-setra (a summer pasture) in 1970. Weight: 26 g. Thanks to Ingunn Holm and Stein Villa

182

391–392

United Kingdom • Cumbria • Carlisle

Carlisle Archaeological Unit • Found: 1980s • Urban From fairly modern deposits. Found during large-scale excavations during the 1980s. Information from City Museum and Art Gallery, Carlisle

393

Republic of Ireland • Co. Monaghan • Unprovenanced

Monaghan County Museum, 1974:168 • Found: Before 1974 Iron • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gloucester The museum has no information of the object’s provenance or age. Information and photo from Monaghan County Museum

394

Latvia • Vidzeme: Riga county • Vecdole • Vecdole Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 123:223 • Found: 1967 • Castle • 13th–14th c. • OL: 71.8/OW: 18.5/AL: 58/LL: 15 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Urtans 1970: 228, fig. 2, no. 7; Priedite 1988: 14, no. 1. NB: Accession numbers for this and no. 395 is according to Urtans 1970. The numbers for these two are probably mixed in Priedite 1988.

395

Latvia • Vidzeme: Riga county • Vecdole • Vecdole Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 123:461 • Found: 1966 • Castle • 13th–14th c. • OL: 60.4/OW: 34.4/AL: 45/LL: 56 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Urtans 1970: 228, fig. 2, no. 6; Priedite 1988: 14, no. 2. NB: Accession numbers for this and no. 394 is according to Urtans 1970. The numbers for these two are probably mixed in Priedite 1988.

396

Latvia • North Kurzeme: Talsi county • Sabile • Sabile senpilseta

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI • Found: 1979 • Castle • 13th–17th c. • OL: 60 Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 3. Found: Sabiles senpilseta

397

Latvia • Vidzeme: Riga county • Turaida • Turaida Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 405 • Found: 1979 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 40* Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 4. Found: Turaidas pilsdrupas. Only fragment. Diam. 25 mm.

183

398

Latvia • Vidzeme: Riga county • Turaida • Turaida Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 1854 • Found: 1982 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 56 Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 5. Found: Turaidas pilsdrupas. Only fragment

399

Latvia • Vidzeme: Aizkraukle county • Lielvarde • Lielvarde pilskalns

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 241:3 • Found: 1981 • Castle • 16th–17th c. • OL: 50/OW: 28 Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 6. Found: Lielvardes pilskalns

400

Latvia • Vidzeme: Riga county • Turaida • Turaida Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 1737 • Found: 1982 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 77 Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 7. Found: Turaidas pilsdrupas

401

Latvia • Vidzeme: Valmiera county • Valmiera • Valmiera Castle

Latvijas PSR Vestures muzejs, CVVM A 9965:539 • Found: 1937 • Castle • 14th–17th c. • OL: 46? Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Square • Type: Kufstein Urtans 1970: 228, fig. 2, no. 8; Priedite 1988: 14, no. 8. Length 62 mm? Measurements from drawing in Urtans 1970: 46 mm

402

Latvia • Vidzeme: Valmiera county • Valmiera • Valmiera Castle

Latvijas PSR Vestures muzejs, CVVM A 9965:546 • Found: 1937 • Castle • 14th–17th c. • OL: 45? Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Kufstein Urtans 1970: 228, fig. 2, no. 9; Priedite 1988: 14, no. 9. Length 65 mm? Measurements from drawing in Urtans 1970: 55 mm

403

Latvia • Vidzeme: Valmiera county • Valmiera • Valmiera Castle

Latvijas PSR Vestures muzejs, CVVM A 9965:671 • Found: 1937 • Castle • 14th–17th c. • OL: 55? Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Urtans 1970: 228, fig. 2, no. 10; Priedite 1988: 14, no. 10. Length 66 mm? Measurements from drawing in Urtans 1970: 55 mm

404

Latvia • Vidzeme: Cesis county • Cesis • Cesis Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 213:2806 • Found: 1981 • Castle • 16th c. • OL: 52 Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 11.

184

405

Latvia • Vidzeme: Cesis county • Cesis • Cesis Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 213:1679 • Found: 1978 • Castle • 16th c. • OL: 54 Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 12.

406

Latvia • Vidzeme: Cesis county • Cesis • Cesis Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 213:3425 • Found: 1982 • Castle • 16th–17th c. • OL: 52 Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 13.

407

Latvia • Maliena • Aluksne • Aluksne Castle

Riga: LPSR Zinatnu akademijas Vestures instituts, ZAVI 231:3626 • Castle • 16th–17th c. • OL: 30.5* Iron Priedite 1988: 14, no. 14. Only fragment.

408

United Kingdom • Perthshire (Scotland) • Perth • High Street

Perth Museum & Art Gallery, A 3566 • Urban • 13th–14th c. Iron Information from Perth Museum & Art Gallery. The museum does not find the two jew’s harps [nos. 408 and 409 in this Catalogue] from High Street (2001).

409

United Kingdom • Perthshire (Scotland) • Perth • High Street

Perth Museum & Art Gallery, A 104 08 • Urban • 13th–14th c. Iron Information from Perth Museum & Art Gallery. The museum does not find the two jew’s harps [nos. 408 and 409 in this Catalogue] from High Street (2001).

410

United Kingdom • East Lothian (Scotland) • Dunbar

Edinburgh: National Museum of Scotland • Found: 1990s • Urban • Unstratified • OL: 56/OW: 36/AL: 31 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Damme “Found recently” (in 1997). Information from Perth Museum and Art Gallery and National Museum of Scotland, Edinburg. Illustration: National Museum of Scotland

411

Estonia • Pärnu county • Pärnu • Munga Street 2 (In the old city in New Pärnu)

Pärnu Museum (?), PäM 14350 A2501/118 • Found: 1990 • Urban • 14th c.? • OL: 62/OW: 50.8/AL: 26/LL: 24.5 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Triangular • Type: Pärnu Tamla 1992: 290, and plate 14, no. 6; Tõnurist 1996: 116. Dating: Tamla writes that is was found with a coin from the end of the 14th century, in a layer from a fire, under a 10 cm layer of undisturbed sand. However, the article gives no dating of the sand layer. Igor Tõnurist (pers. comm.) says 14th century too (probably from Tamla).

185

412

Estonia • Harju county • Tallinn • St. Brigitta’s Convent

Tallin: Tallinna Linnamuuseumi • Monastery (Convent) • 15th–16th c. • OL: 34*/OW: 52/LL: 15.8 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Triangular • Type: Pärnu Tõnurist 1996: 116, 123 (note 5). Illustration provided by Igor Tõnurist.

413

Estonia • Harju county • Tallinn • Nigulisbe, old cemetery of St. Nicolai’s ch.

Tallin: Tallinna Linnamuuseumi • Urban (Cemetery) • 15th–18th c. • OL: 59.2/OW: 49.2/AL: 33.3/LL: 17.6 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Triangular • Type: Pärnu Tõnurist 1996: 116, 123 (note 5). Which method of joining? Illustration provided by Igor Tõnurist.

414

Estonia • Harju county • Lehmja

Tallin: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Ajaloo Institut, 5310VII:80 or 5310VII:3876 • Rural • 16th–17th c. • OL: 63.7/OW: 37.2/AL: 23 Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Gloucester Tõnurist 1996: 116, 123 (note 6). From peasants farm, Estonians. Illustration provided by Igor Tõnurist.

415

Estonia • Harju county • Lehmja

Tallin: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Ajaloo Institut, 5310VII:80 or 5310VII:3876 • Rural • 16th–17th c. • OL: 47.7/OW: 29.2/AL: 17 Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Tõnurist 1996: 116, 123 (note 6). From peasants farm, Estonians. Illustration provided by Igor Tõnurist.

186

416

Estonia • Harju county • Tallinn • St. Brigitta’s Convent

Tallin: Tallinna Linnamuuseumi • Monastery (Convent) • 15th–16th c. • OL: 66/OW: 42/AL: 25/LL: 10 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Tõnurist 1996: 116, 123 (note 5). Thickness, bow: 6 mm. With of arms at the tip: 2 mm. Illustration provided by Igor Tõnurist.

417

Estonia • Southeast Estonia: Valga county • Otepaa • Otepaa Castle

Tallin: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Ajaloo Institut, 3371:439 • Found: 1950 • Castle • 13th c. • OL: 57.5/OW: 24.8/AL: 41 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Tõnurist 1996: 115, 124. Illustration provided by Igor Tõnurist.

418

Estonia • South Estonia: Tartu county • Tartu

Tartu Linnamuuseum, TM 2126/A51:447 or TM 2126/A51:1315 • Urban • Medieval • OL: 57.8/OW: 23.7/AL: 41/LL: 11.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Tõnurist 1996: 116, 123. Dating, according to Tõnurist: “17th–18th c.?” Illustration provided by Igor Tõnurist.

419

United Kingdom • Dorset • West Stafford

Private • Rural • Post-medieval • OL: 58/OW: 25 Cu-alloy • Cast The Portable Antiquities Database, Find ID no. SOMDOR205. Date, according to database: 1700AD (Late Post-medieval) to 1800AD. Found with metal detector. With traces of iron spring strip. State of preservation: corroded. West Stafford: East of Dorchester.

420

United Kingdom • Yorkshire • Dunnington

Private • Found: 1999 • Rural • Post-medieval • OL: 39.6/OW: 24.7 Cu-alloy • Cast The Portable Antiquities Database, Find ID no. YORYMB16. Date, according to database: 1600AD (Post-medieval) to 1750AD. Found with metal detector. State of wear: very worn State of preservation: poor Thickness: 7.11 Weight: 12.81 g.

421

United Kingdom • Warwickshire • Warwick

Private • Rural • Post-medieval • OL: 51/OW: 22.7 Cu-alloy • Cast The Portable Antiquities Database, Find ID no. WMID30. Date, according to database: 1700AD (Post-medieval) to 1800AD. Found with metal detector. State of preservation: corroded.

187

422

United Kingdom • Lincolnshire • Hogsthorpe

Private • Found: 1998 • Rural • Post-medieval • OL: 55/OW: 23 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford The Portable Antiquities Database, Find ID no. LIN–BAF943. Date, according to database: Crca 1500–Circa 1700. Original iron plate missing. File marks on all sides of the object. Found with metal detector. Photo from he Portable Antiquities Database

423

United Kingdom • Kent

Private • Rural • Post-medieval • OL: 53 Cu-alloy • Cast The Portable Antiquities Database, Find ID no. KENT1366. Date, according to database: circa 1700AD (Post-medieval) to circa to 1800AD (Prehistoric) (= must be an error). Found with metal detector. Twanging strip missing. Two items found. Length of second item: 49 mm.

424

United Kingdom • Lincolnshire • Dorrington

Private • Rural • Post-medieval • OL: 60*/10* Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Circular • Type: Stafford Fragment of cast copper alloy jew’s harp. The Portable Antiquities Database, Find ID no. LIN–D19424. Date, according to database: Circa 1700–Circa 1799. Found with metal detector. Photo from he Portable Antiquities Database

425

United Kingdom • Hampshire • Otterbourne

Private • Rural • Medieval? • OL: 49/OW: 24 Cu-alloy • Cast • Circular The Portable Antiquities Database, Find ID no. HAMP108. Date, according to database: circa 1270AD (Medieval) to circa 1300AD. Found with metal detector Arms are lozenge in cross-section. Small rounded head with rabbet for the tongue. Iron tongue is missing. Reverse shows visible file marks characteristic of the period. State of preservation: fair Thickness: 10 Weight: 8 g.

426

Lithuania • Aukstaitija: Kaunas region • Trakai • Trakai Castle

Castle Information from R. Apanavicius

427

Lithuania • Dzukija: Vilnius region • Vilnius • Vilnius Castle

Castle Information from R. Apanavicius.

428

Republic of Ireland • Co. Dublin • Ballyman • Artisan area near church site

National Museum of Ireland, E182:1437 • Found: 1984 • Rural • 15th c. • OL: 60/OW: 32/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens O’Brien 1984: 10 and fig. 5a; Buckley 1986: 57, drawing p. 61, and table p. 66–7. Buckley (p. 57): Artisan area near church site (church dating to about 1330). On stratigraphical grounds thought to be slightly later in date than the church site. Tentatively early 15th century. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication.

188

429

United Kingdom • Northern Ireland, Co. Antrim • Carrickfergus • Irish Quarter

Belfast: Ulster Museum, CF V 125 • Found: 1975–1979 • Urban • 13th–14th c. • OL: 57.5/OW: 26/AL: 41.5/LL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Simpson and Dickson 1981: 80 (no illustration); Buckley 1986: 57–8, and table p. 66 (no illustration). Dating based on stratigraphy and associated finds. Drawing: Ulster Museum

430

United Kingdom • Northern Ireland, Co. Antrim • Carrickfergus • Market Place

Belfast: Ulster Museum, CF I 1097 • Found: 1972 • Urban • 14th–15th c. • OL: 57/OW: 30/AL: 37/LL: 10 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Simpson and Dickson 1981: 80 (no illustration); Buckley 1986: 57–8, and table p. 66 (no illustration). The medieval market place: 14th–15th century. Dating based on stratigraphy and associated finds. Drawing: Ulster Museum. Extension of the lamella about 3 mm

431 United Kingdom • Northern Ireland, Co. Antrim • Carrickfergus • Market Place Belfast: Ulster Museum, CF I 1180 • Found: 1972 • Urban • 14th–15th c. • OL: 69.5/OW: 33/AL: 49.5/LL: 33 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Simpson and Dickson 1981: 80 (no illustration); Buckley 1986: 57–8, and table p. 66 (no illustration). The medieval market place: 14th–15th century. Dating based on stratigraphy and associated finds. Drawing: Ulster Museum

432

United Kingdom • Northern Ireland, Co. Antrim • Carrickfergus • Irish Quarter

Belfast: Ulster Museum, CF V 58 • Found: 1975–1979 • Urban • 17th c. • OL: 55.5/OW: 25.5/AL: 35.5/LL: 47 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Simpson and Dickson 1981: 80 (no illustration); Buckley 1986: 57–8, and table p. 66 (no illustration). Dating based on stratigraphy and associated finds. Drawing: Ulster Museum. Extension of the lamella about 3 mm

433

United Kingdom • Northern Ireland, Co. Antrim • Carrickfergus • Irish Quarter

Belfast: Ulster Museum, CF VI 1509 • Found: 1975–1979 • Urban • 17th c. • OL: 60.5/OW: 29/AL: 35.5 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Simpson and Dickson 1981: 80 (no illustration); Buckley 1986: 57–8, and table p. 66 (no illustration). Dating based on stratigraphy and associated finds. Drawing: Ulster Museum

434 United Kingdom • Northern Ireland, Co. Antrim • Carrickfergus • Irish Quarter Belfast: Ulster Museum, CF VI 1577 • Found: 1975–1979 • Urban • 17th c. • OL: 68/OW: 32/AL: 38 Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Simpson and Dickson 1981: 80 (no illustration); Buckley 1986: 57–8, and table p. 66 (no illustration). Dating based on stratigraphy and associated finds. Drawing: Ulster Museum

189

435

Republic of Ireland • Co. Galway • Clontuskert • Clontuskert Priory

National Museum of Ireland, E99:8 • Found: 1971–1972 • Monastery • 16th c. • OL: 59/OW: 29/AL: 32 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Fanning 1976: 139–40, and fig. 14:8; Buckley 1986: 58, illustration p. 61, and table p. 66–7. Clontuskert Priory was an Augustinian priory of St. Mary. Late 12th–17th c. The four jew’s harps are dated by context to the 16th century, according to Buckley. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication.

436

Republic of Ireland • Co. Galway • Clontuskert • Clontuskert Priory

National Museum of Ireland, E99:41 • Found: 1971–1972 • Monastery • 16th c. Iron Fanning 1976: 139–40; Buckley 1986: 58, and table p. 66–7 (no illustration). Not traceable. Probably only a fragment, according to Buckley.

437

Republic of Ireland • Co. Galway • Clontuskert • Clontuskert Priory

National Museum of Ireland, E99:60 • Found: 1971–1972 • Monastery • 16th c. • OL: 55*/AL: 37 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Oval • Type: Unclassified Fanning 1976: 139–40, fig. 14:8; Buckley 1986: 58, illustration p. 62, table p. 66–7

438

Republic of Ireland • Co. Galway • Clontuskert • Clontuskert Priory

National Museum of Ireland, E99:92 • Found: 1971–1972 • Monastery • 16th c. • OL: 55/OW: 34/AL: 23 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Fanning 1976: 139–40, fig. 14:8; Buckley 1986: 58, illustration p. 62, table p. 66–7

439

Republic of Ireland • Co. Tipperary • Drumlummin • House site

National Museum of Ireland, E219:259 • Found: 1983 • Rural • 17th c. • OL: 70/OW: 38/AL: 38 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Buckley 1986: 58, and illustration p. 62, table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. From natural gas pipeline excavations. House from the 17th century. (Department of Archaeology, University College Cork)

440

Republic of Ireland • Co. Tipperary • Drumlummin • House site

National Museum of Ireland, E219:297 • Found: 1983 • Rural • 17th c. • OL: 47/OW: 30/AL: 27 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Unclassified Buckley 1986: 58, illustration p. 62, table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. From oil pipeline excavations. House from the 17th century. (Department of Archaeology, University College Cork)

190

441

Republic of Ireland • Co. Cork • Dunboy • Dunboy Castle

National Museum of Ireland, E150:932 • Found: 1967–1973 • Castle • 17th c. • OL: 70*/OW: 38*/AL: 48 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Oval • Type: Unclassified Gowen 1978: 27, and fig. 6:932 and 6:1232, p.24; Buckley 1986: 58, illustration p. 62, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Heavily corroded. A part of the bow is missing, and the arms are joined together by corrosion. Gowen dates the jew’s harp to the 17th century.

442

Republic of Ireland • Co. Cork • Dunboy • Dunboy Castle

National Museum of Ireland, E150:1232 • Castle • 17th c. • OL: 70/OW: 35/AL: 40 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Unclassified Gowen 1978: 27, and fig. 6:932 and 6:1232, p.27; Buckley 1986: 58, illustration p. 62, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Heavily corroded. Gowen dates the jew’s harp to the 17th century (on which grounds?)

443

Republic of Ireland • Co. Cork • Glanworth • Glanworth Castle

National Museum of Ireland, E236:1173 • Found: 1983 • Castle • 16th–17th c. • OL: 66/OW: 38/AL: 37 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Gloucester Buckley 1986: 59, illustration p. 63, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Excavated by Conleth Manning. The site was occupied between the 13th and 18th century. There is no stratigraphy on the site. Manning suggests a date between the 16th and 18th century.

444

Republic of Ireland • Co. Kilkenny • Kells • Kells Priory: Chapter House

National Museum of Ireland, E110:1741 • Found: Before 1986 • Monastery • Post-17th c. • OL: 54/OW: 27/AL: 28 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Buckley 1986: 59, illustration p. 63, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Augustinian Priory. Found in the Chapter House on the cobbles. The cobbles are from the 17th c. Therefore, the jew’s harp is post-17th c.

445

Republic of Ireland • Co. Kilkenny • Kells • Kells Priory: Chapter House

National Museum of Ireland, E110:2780 • Found: Before 1986 • Monastery • Before 17th c. • OL: 60/OW: 24/AL: 35 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Unclassified Buckley 1986: 59, illustration p. 63, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Found in the Chapter House under the cobbles. The cobbles are from the 17th c. The jew’s harp is therefore pre-17th c.

191

446

Republic of Ireland • Co. Kilkenny • Kells • Kells Priory: Graveyard

National Museum of Ireland, E110:3670 • Found: Before 1986 • Monastery • Post-15th c. • OL: 48/OW: 37/AL: 21/LL: 12 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/D-shaped • Type: Gloucester Buckley 1986: 59, illustration p. 63, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. In the text (Buckley): Dated to the late 15th century. (On which grounds?) In the list (Buckley): Post-15th c. I have chosen to rely on the latter dating.

447

Republic of Ireland • Co. Kilkenny • Kells • Kells Priory: P2

National Museum of Ireland, E110:7346 • Found: Before 1986 • Monastery • 14th–16th c.? • OL: 72/OW: 34/AL: 44 Iron • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Buckley 1986: 59, illustration p. 63, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. No date suggested. My suggestion: 14th–16th c.

448

Republic of Ireland • Co. Kilkenny • Kells • Kells Priory: Watergate site

National Museum of Ireland, E110:7558 • Found: Before 1986 • Monastery • Post-medieval • OL: 76/OW: 49/AL: 40/LL: 13 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gloucester Buckley 1986: 59, illustration p. 63, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. No date suggested. My suggestion: Post-medieval

449

Republic of Ireland • Co. Kilkenny • Kells • Kells Priory: Baulk

National Museum of Ireland, E110:7991 • Found: Before 1986 • Monastery • Post-medieval • OL: 54/OW: 28/AL: 28/LL: 12.5 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Gloucester Buckley 1986: 59, illustration p. 63, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Found in the baulk. No date suggested. My suggestion: Post-medieval.

450

Republic of Ireland • Co. Kilkenny • Kells • Kells Priory: AR2

National Museum of Ireland, E110:14100 • Found: Before 1986 • Monastery • Post-17th c. • OL: 56/OW: 28/AL: 34 Iron • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Unclassified Buckley 1986: 59, illustration p. 64, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Found above the cobbles in section AR2. It is therefore dated to post-17th century.

192

451

Republic of Ireland • Co. Limerick • Knockadoon • Site J of a 17th century house

National Museum of Ireland • Found: Before 1947 • Rural • Early 17th c. • OL: 53/OW: 25/AL: 29 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Square/Circular • Type: Kufstein Ó Riordain & Ó Danachair 1947: 49–51, and fig. 4:3; Buckley 1986: 59–60, illustration p. 64, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. In the text (Buckley): ... found in the remains of a 17th century house. In the list (Buckley): Early 17th century

452

Republic of Ireland • Co. Limerick • Lough Gur • Picnic Area II

National Museum of Ireland, E174:237 • Found: 1977–1978 • Rural • Postmedieval • OL: 69/OW: 49/AL: 36 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gloucester Cleary 1982a: 11–12, with fig. 11:239; Buckley 1986: 60, illustration p. 64, table 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. P. 60: “Found in Picnic Area II under the sod in a substantial layer of humus, ... thought to have been created partly by dumping earth along the lakeshore, so that objects in this part may not be in primary context“. The layer has produced finds from different periods, up to 19th century.

453

Republic of Ireland • Co. Limerick • Lough Gur • Car Park Area II

National Museum of Ireland, E174:550 • Found: 1977–1978 • Rural • Late medieval–late 17th c. • OL: 55/OW: 31/AL: 29/LL: 13 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Gloucester Cleary 1982b: 91–2, with fig. 7:550; Buckley 1986: 60, illustration p. 64, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. P. 60: “Found in Car Park Area II in a trench near a slate-covered drain from the metal-working area, which was used some time between the mid-14th century and the late 17th century.“

454

Republic of Ireland • Co. Meath • Nevinstown • Burial Mound, Site I

National Museum of Ireland, E162:21 • Found: 1977 • Rural • Post-medieval • OL: 57/OW: 30/AL: 29 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Buckley 1986: 60, illustration p. 64, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Found in the topsoil of the mound in 1977. The mound contained a wide variety of stray materials. Dating, Buckley’s suggestion: “?17th/18th c.”

455

Republic of Ireland • Co. Tipperary • Rochestown • Rochestown

National Museum of Ireland, E244:57 • Found: 1983 • Rural • Ca 17th c. • OL: 42/OW: 24/AL: 22 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Buckley 1986: 60–1, illustration p. 64, table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. From natural gas pipeline excavations. Dated by the archaeologists to the 17th century. (Department of Archaeology, University College Cork) NB: Very small, OL only 42 mm.

193

456

Republic of Ireland • Co. Clare • Ballycally • Shannon Airport (“Thady’s Fort“)

National Museum of Ireland, E32:13 • Found: 1959 • Rural (Fort) • 17th c., 1. half • OL: 57/OW: 30/AL: 34 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Rynne 1964: 253–4, and fig. 7:13; Buckley 1986: 61, illustration p. 64, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Badly corroded. Found among the fallen wall stones outside of the entrance to the house of the fort. Thady’s Fort was occupied during the first half of the 17th century.

457

Republic of Ireland • Co. Meath • Trim Castle • Fosse West, layer C

National Museum of Ireland, E94:4598 • Found: 1971–1974 • Castle • Mid 17th c. • OL: 55/OW: 28/AL: 33 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Sweetman 1978: 181, and fig. 23, p. 178, no. 29; Buckley 1986: 61, illustration p. 64, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Found in layer C of Fosse West. Layer C consisted of a fine, black clay, consisting of finds that are “a mixture of 14th c. and post-medieval and could partly be the result of the mid-seventeenth-century activity on the site“ (Sweetman 1978, 138).

458

Republic of Ireland • Co. Meath • Trim Castle • Fosse West, layer C

National Museum of Ireland, E94:4993 • Found: 1971–1974 • Castle • Mid 17th c. • OL: 56/OW: 29/AL: 31 Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Sweetman 1978: 181; Buckley 1986: 61, illustration p. 65, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication. Dating: Late 14th c. or mid 17th c.: Found in layer C of Fosse West. Layer C consisted of a fine, black clay, consisting of finds that are “a mixture of 14th c. and post-medieval and could partly be the result of the mid-seventeenth-century activity on the site“ (Sweetman 1978, 138).

459

Republic of Ireland • Unprovenanced

National Museum of Ireland, X.1953 • Found: 1953? • OL: 78/OW: 35/AL: 56 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Buckley 1986: 61, illustration p. 65, and table p. 66–7. Measurements: OL from list in Buckley 1986, OW and AL calculated from OL and sketches in the same publication.

460

Slovakia • Bratislavsk˘ • Bratislava • Pozsony Castle?

Found: Before 1983 • Castle • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Triangular • Type: Horsens Polla 1979: 248–9, and plate 31, no. 11; Elschek 1983: 58. Polla and Elschek probably refer to the same. Elschek, op. cit.: “Ausgrabungen in Bratislava förderten eine ins 14. Jh. zu datierende Maultrommel zutage, die aber noch genauer geprüft werden muß.“ No illustration. No references. Illustration provided by Thomas Repiszky

461

Romania • Moldova

Found: Before 1977 • 15th–16th c. Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Cosma 1977: 34 (only photo). Five examples depicted. Text: “Jew’s harps made of iron. Discovered in Moldova (Suceava, Brad-Negri, Dealul Morii), dated to 15th–16th century.“

194

462

Romania • Moldova

Found: Before 1977 • 15th–16th c.? Iron • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Cosma 1977: 34 (only photo). Five examples depicted. Text: “Jew’s harps made of iron. Discovered in Moldova (Suceava, Brad-Negri, Dealul Morii), dated to 15th–16th century.“

463

Romania • Moldova

Found: Before 1977 • 15th–16th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Cosma 1977: 34 (only photo). Five examples depicted. Text: “Jew’s harps made of iron. Discovered in Moldova (Suceava, Brad-Negri, Dealul Morii), dated to 15th–16th century“

464

Romania • Moldova

Found: Before 1977 • 15th–16th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Cosma 1977: 34 (only photo). Five examples depicted. Text: “Jew’s harps made of iron. Discovered in Moldova (Suceava, Brad-Negri, Dealul Morii), dated to 15th–16th century.“

465

Romania • Moldova

Found: Before 1977 • 15th–16th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Schauenburg Cosma 1977: 34 (only photo). Five examples depicted. Text: “Jew’s harps made of iron. Discovered in Moldova (Suceava, Brad-Negri, Dealul Morii), dated to 15th–16th century.“

466

United Kingdom • Yorkshire • Wharram Percy

SF13233 • Found: 1960s • Rural (Village) • Early 15th c.• OL: 51/OW: 27.5/AL: 31 Iron • Forged • Rectangular? • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Hurst 1979: 121, and fig. 63, no. 83, p. 120. Found in Area 6. Period V, which dates it to the early 15th century. Two jew’s harps were found at Wharram Percy. The other (SF13083), which is not illustrated in Hurst 1979, is broken and distorted. It dates to the late 15th or early 16th century. Wharram Percy, now deserted, was a medieval village, northeast of York (Lat: 54° 04’ ‘4’’ N, Lon: 0° 14’ 09’’ W).

467

Slovakia • Nitra region • South of Nitra: Branc village • Velka Ves; Position Arkus I

Found: Before 1995 • Rural (Village) • 15th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Ruttkay, Cheben and Ruttkayova 1994: fig. 9:9; Ruttkay (ed.) 1995: 35 (only photo). Dating 15th century, according to the caption in Ruttkay (ed.) 1995.

195

468

Germany • Mecklenburg-Vorpommern • Greifswald • Steinbecker Straße 26

Stralsund: Archäologisches Landesmuseum • Urban • Ca 1270 • OL: 78/OW: 19.9/AL: 62 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Found at Steinbecker Straße 26. Find site no. 14. “Um 1270“ Information and drawing from Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Stralsund

469 Germany • Mecklenburg-Vorpommern • Greifswald • Market Place Stralsund: Archäologisches Landesmuseum • Urban • 13th c., 2nd half • OL: 77.8/OW: 19.4/AL: 61 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Found at the Market Place. Find site no. 38. From a layer that probably was doposited secondary, originated from 13th c. (2nd half) layer. Information and drawing from Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Stralsund

470

Germany • Mecklenburg-Vorpommern • Greifswald • Market Place

Stralsund: Archäologisches Landesmuseum • Urban • 13th c., 2nd half • OL: 55.2*/OW: 19.7/AL: 40 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Found at the Market Place. Find site no. 38. Information and drawing from Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Stralsund

471

Germany • Bayern (Eastern Bayern) • Regen: Geiersthal • Altnussberg Castle

Geiersthal: Gemeindeverwaltung • Found: 1983 • Castle • Medieval • OL: Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Drawing in: Burgruine Altnussberg (brochure, undated). The castle destroyed 1469. Possible dating: 14th–15th century. Drawing from Gemeinde Geiersthal

472

Germany • Baden-Würt.: Schwarzwald-Baar-Heuberg • Sulz am Neckar • Albeck Castle

Oberndorf: Heimat- und Waffenmuseum • Found: About 1988 • Castle • Medieval • OL: 50.5/OW: 38.5/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Oval • Type: Horsens Information and illustration from Heimat- und Waffenmuseum, Oberndorf. Probably not excavated. The castle built in 11th century and destroyed in 1688. Possible dating: 14th–15th century.

196

473

Germany • Baden-Würt.: Schwarzwald-Baar-Heuberg • Sulz am Neckar • Albeck Castle

Oberndorf: Heimat- und Waffenmuseum • Found: About 1988 • Castle • Medieval • OL: 38*/OW: 35/LL: 6.8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Oval • Type: Horsens Information and illustration from Heimat- und Waffenmuseum, Oberndorf. Probably not excavated. The castle built in 11th century and destroyed in 1688. Possible dating: 14th–15th century.

474

Germany • Bayern: Mühldorf a. Inn • Erharting • Erharting Castle

Private (Erharting) • Castle • Post-medieval? • OL: 35/OW: 21.5/AL: 21 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Unclassified Not excavated. The castle was occupied in the period 1074–1650. Possible dating for this: Post-medieval? Information and drawing from R. Demmel, Garching-Alz.

475

Germany • Bayern: Mühldorf a. Inn • Erharting • Erharting Castle

Private (Erharting) • Castle • Late medieval • OL: 48/OW: 22/AL: 33/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Not excavated. The castle was occupied in the period 1074–1650. Possible dating for this: Late medieval/15 th. century? Information and drawing from R. Demmel, Garching-Alz.

476

Germany • Bayern: Mühldorf a. Inn • Erharting • Erharting Castle

Private (Erharting) • Castle • Medieval • OL: 50/OW: 27/AL: 34 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Not excavated. The castle was occupied in the period 1074–1650. Possible dating for this: 14th century. Information and drawing from R. Demmel, Garching-Alz.

477

Germany • Baden-Württemberg: Schwarzwald • Hotzenwald: Rickenbach • Wieladingen Castle, lower part

E 12 • Castle • Medieval • OL: 67.7/OW: 24/AL: 34 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Gironville Schwoerbel 1998: 71–3, with fig. 82, p. 72. Found in the lower part (Unterburg), southern part of a small tower. Unstratified. Possible dating: late medieval.

478

Germany • Hessen • Seligenstadt • The Old City of Seligenstadt

Kreis Offenbach, Untere Denkmalschützbehörde, 96/91/27 • Found: 1996 • Urban • 15th c. • OL: 55.8/OW: 30/AL: 35/LL: 36.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Found during an archaeological excavation in 1996, in a layer with mixed finds of various dates. Most of the ceramics, however, were found to date from the 15th century. From drawing: A small part (about one cm) of the lamella seems to have survived near the tip of one of the arms, without connection to the rest of the survived lamella. Information and drawing: Kreis Offenbach, Untere Denkmalschützbehörde

197

479

Germany • Nordheim-Westfalen: Südsauerland • Olpe • Attendorn: In der Nette

Private • Found: 1976 • Rural (Village) • With punch mark • Ca 1500 • OL: 53/OW: 31/AL: 35/LL: 8.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hundt 1980: 44, with fig. 1. Information supplied by Südsauerlandmuseum, Attendorn. Published in Hundt 1980. Found with a stove dating from around 1500.

480

Germany • Nordheim-Westfalen • Duisburg • Alter Markt, Schwanenstraße or Innerhafen

Niederrheinisches Museum der Stadt Duisburg (?) • Found: 1980–1990 • Urban • 15th c. • OL: 55/OW: 32.8/AL: 31/LL: 18.8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Horsens Fromme 1986: 1–2 (with photo); Krause (ed.) 1992: fig. 38, p. 51. Found either in Alter Markt, Schwanenstraße or Innerhafen, according to caption Krause (op. cit.).

481

Germany • Hamburg • Hamburg • The Old City of Hamburg

Hamburg: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte, 1965, 68 • Found: 1965 • Urban • 14th c. • OL: 62*/OW: 22/AL: 47 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular/Hairpin-shaped • Type: Greifswald Ypey 1976: 220–1, and fig. 18, p. 221. The arms are probably broken. Dated (by the museum) by analogy to a similar find from Ribe, Denmark (no. 6). Information and photo: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte

482

Germany • Sachsen-Anhalt • Stendal • Petersburg-Schusterschwemme

Stendal: Altmärkisches Museum, 406/57 • Found: Before 1957 • Rural • With punch mark • Chance find • OL: 34/OW: 16.8/AL: 13 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Richter 1957: Photos p. 47 and 48; Crane 1972: 22–3, no. 411.35; Ypey 1976: 221, with fig. 19, p. 221. Given to Altmärkisches Museum, Stendal in 1957, by an anonymous donor. Found in an area of gardens north of the river Uchte, between Petersburg and Schusterschwemme – about 40 meters north of the river. Two punch marks, shaped as squares, appear at the outer side of the bow, at both sides of the attchment point of the lammella.

483

Germany • Nordheim-Westfalen • Köln • Alte Hafenstraße

Urban • With punch mark • Unstratified • OL: 60/OW: 37.5/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Steuer 1992: 405, 428, and fig. 1, p. 407. Found Alte Hafenstraße, Köln. From the shore of the Rhine. Not stratigraphically arranged.

198

484

Germany • Nordheim-Westfalen • Köln • Alte Hafenstraße

Urban • With punch mark • Unstratified • OL: 53.7/OW: 32.1/AL: 31/LL: 48.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Steuer 1992: 405, 428, and fig. 2, p. 407. Found Alte Hafenstraße, Köln. From the shore of the Rhine. Not stratigraphically arranged.

485

Germany • Nordheim-Westfalen • Köln • Alte Hafenstraße

Urban • With punch mark • Unstratified • OL: 47.2/OW: 30.8/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Steuer 1992: 405, 428, and fig. 3, p. 407. Found Alte Hafenstraße, Köln. From the shore of the Rhine. Not stratigraphically arranged.

486

Germany • Nordheim-Westfalen • Köln • Alte Hafenstraße

Urban • With punch mark • Unstratified • OL: 59/OW: 33/AL: 42 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Steuer 1992: 405, 428, and fig. 4, p. 407. Found Alte Hafenstraße, Köln. From the shore of the Rhine. Not stratigraphically arranged.

487

Germany • Nordheim-Westfalen • Köln • Alte Hafenstraße

Urban • With punch mark • Unstratified • OL: 54/OW: 24/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Kransen Steuer 1992: 405, 428, and fig. 5, p. 407. Found Alte Hafenstraße, Köln. From the shore of the Rhine. Not stratigraphically arranged.

488

Germany • Baden-Württemberg • Schwäbische Alb., Kirchheim u. Teck • Lichtenstein Castle

Konstanz: Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg • Castle • OL: 40/OW: 27/AL: 19/LL: Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Information from Christoph Bizer, Oberlenningen. The castle was built in the second half of the 12th century, and has been occupied until recently. Drawing: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg.

489

Germany • Baden-Württemberg • Schwäbische Alb., Kirchheim u. Teck • Lichtenstein Castle

Konstanz: Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg • Castle • OL: 32/OW: 15/AL: 18/LL: Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Bruck Bizer and Götz 1989: 23 (photo). Information from Christoph Bizer, Oberlenningen. The castle was built in the second half of the 12th century, and has been occupied until recently. Drawing: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg. Children’s harp

199

490 Germany • Baden-Wurttemberg • Schwäbische Alb., Kirchheim u. Teck • Wielandstein Castle Konstanz: Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg • Castle • OL: 56/OW: 27.4/AL: 40/LL: 39.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Bizer 1981: 64, no. lfm. 26 (catalogue), and fig. 27, p. 91, no. 26; Bizer and Götz 1989: 23 (photo). Information from Christoph Bizer, Oberlenningen. Drawing: Landesdenkmalamt BadenWürttemberg. According to letter from Kirchheimer Museum, there should be three jew’s harps from Wielandstein castle. Bizer (Bizer 1981 and pers. comm.) does not confirm this.

491

Germany • Baden-Wurttemberg • Konstanz • Fischmarkt Excavation

Konstanz: Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, R 2489 Kn-Müg 4 01/175 • Found: 1989 • Urban • 14th–15th c. • OL: 57/OW: 28/AL: 38/LL: 29.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Information from Archäologisches Landesm. Baden-Wurtt., Konstanz. Photocopy from the museum.

492

Germany • Baden-Wurttemberg • Konstanz • Fischmarkt Excavation

Konstanz: Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, R 2490 Kn-Müg 01/151 • Found: 1990 • Urban • 14th–15th c. • OL: 62/OW: 31/AL: 41 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Information from Archäologisches Landesm. Baden-Wurtt., Konstanz. Photocopy from the museum.

493

Germany • Schleswig-Holstein • Lübeck • An der Untertrave/Kaimauer

HL 54/65 • Found: 1983–1986 • Urban • Ca 1200 • OL: 50/OW: 23.5/AL: 32/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Schalies 1989: 376–7, with fig. on p. 376; Schalies 1992: 322–3, and fig. 11, p. 344. Dating by stratigraphy. Grabungsabschnitt 2, Period I/II. About 1200.

494

Germany • Bayern (Eastern Bayern) • Passau • The Veste Oberhaus, chapel

Passau: Oberhausmuseum • Castle • 16th–17th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Horsens Photo: Dionys Asenkerschbaumer.

495

Germany • Bayern (Eastern Bayern) • Passau • The Veste Oberhaus, chapel

Passau: Oberhausmuseum • Castle • 16th–17th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Horsens Photo: Dionys Asenkerschbaumer.

200

496

Germany • Bayern: Franken • Treuchtlingen • Obere Burg

Volkskundemuseum Treuchtlingen, 74391 • Found: 1995 • Castle • OL: 63/OW: 31/AL: 43/LL: 19 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Information and photo from Volkskundemuseum Treuchtlingen. No information about dating/context. Obere Burg decayed in the late 15th century to the 1st half of the 16th century.

497

Germany • Bayern: Franken • Treuchtlingen • Obere Burg

Volkskundemuseum Treuchtlingen, 74391 • Found: 1995 • Castle • OL: 58/OW: 30*/AL: 40 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Information and photo from Volkskundemuseum Treuchtlingen. No information about dating/context. Obere Burg decayed in the late 15th century to the 1st half of the 16th century.

498

Germany • Bayern: Aiach • Oberwittelsbach • Oberwittelsbach Castle

Castle • OL: 53/OW: 25.2/AL: 36 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • OvalTriangular • Type: Kransen Published in: Ausgrabungen in der Burg “Wittelsbach“ bei Aichach-Augsburg (year, author?), p. 22 and fig. 51, p. 36.

499

Germany • Bayern: Allgäu • Sonthofen

Found: Before 1981 • Rural • OL: 38/OW: 24.8/AL: 16.5/LL: 6.5 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Kufstein Schickhaus 1981: 111 (mention). Also published in: Ausgrabungen in der Burg “Wittelsbach“ bei Aichach-Augsburg (year, author?), fig. 51, p. 36. Found in a “Sonthofener Bauernhaus“ (Schickhaus 1981)

500

Germany • Hessen • Nentershausen (near Darmstadt) • Tannenberg Castle

Found: 1848–1849 • Castle • 1200–1399 • OL: 58/OW: 24/AL: 40/LL: 13 Iron • Forged • Oval • Type: Unclassified Hefner and Wolf 1850: 91, and Taf. VIII, no. Q; Sachs 1913/1964: 255; — 1917: 196; Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.32–34. Hefner and Wolf (op. cit.) report that three were found at the excavations. One of them is illustrated, Taf. VIII, no. Q (this one). It measures ca. 58 mm (OL), but does not resemble either H69:53a or H96:53b (My Nos.: 152–153), which are the only two present in Hessischer Landesmuseum Darmstadt, Lorch (1999).

501

Germany • Hessen • Taunus: Oberursel • Bommersheim Castle

Castle Iron • Forged • Triangular Usener 1852; Petrasch and Rittershofer 1992 (about the castle). Similar to the specimen found at Eppstein Castle (no. 151 in this Catalogue), according to curator B. Picard, Eppstein Castle.

201

502

Sweden • Skåne • Helsingborg • Kärnan Södra 3

Helsingborgs museum, HM 679–72 • Urban • OL: 74/OW: 31/AL: 61/LL: 25 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Photo from Helsingborgs museum

503

Sweden • Skåne • Helsingborg • Ruuth 44

Lund: Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, F. no. 890 • Found: 1985–1986 • Urban • 15th–16th c. • OL: Iron Schmidt Sabo 1996 (about the excavation and site). Weight: 8 g.

504

Norway • Telemark • Vinje

Bykle: Private collection of Folke Nesland • Found: Before 1997 • Rural • Chance find • OL: 49.8/OW: 29.4/AL: 35/LL: 15.9 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval • Type: Höxter Found in a box with debris from an auction. Such small jew’s harps were often called girl’s harps [“jentehorpe“] (Folke Nesland, pers. comm.) Almost identical to no. 824 (Øystre Slidre, Oppland, Norway). Similar instruments are found to date from the 18th century and later.

505

Norway • Aust-Agder • Setesdal: Bykle • By Bossvatn: Strond

Bykle: Private collection of Folke Nesland • Found: About 1995 • Rural • OL: 33.4*/OW: 34.6/AL: 14* Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Triangular • Type: Höxter Nesland 2000, with photo p. 6. Found at the shore of the lake Bossvatn, which was dammed up in the late 1970-ies. The site Strond, which has produced material from different periods, was among the settlements that vanished into the lake during the artificially elevation of it. Later the action of waves has washed away the fine material along the new shoreline and the jew’s harp was uncovered. Both arms are broken.

506

Norway • Aust-Agder • Setesdal: Bykle • By Bossvatn: Nedre Dysje

Bykle: Private collection of Folke Nesland • Found: Before 1997 • Rural • OL: 48.6/OW: 36.7/AL: 20 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Nesland 2000, with photos p. 6 (the jew’s harp) and p. 7 (the location of the find). Found at the shore of the lake Bossvatn, which was dammed up in the late 1970s. Later the action of waves has washed away the fine material along the new shoreline and the jew’s harp was uncovered. The site Dysje lies close to an old route leading to western Norway (“Austmannvegen”). The shape of the jew’s harp is typical Austrian, well known up to modern times. One arm is broken. The other is probably original in length.

507

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR): Prättigau • Schiers

Chur: Rätisches Museum, RM H 1970. 1084 • Found: Before 1970 • Rural (Alpine) • Chance find Iron • Forged • Triangular Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 220, 223, 228 (note 36), 229 (note 70); Meyer 1977: 37; Geiser 1980: 99, 103; BachmannGeiser 1981: 39

202

508

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR) • Medel valley: Lukmanier • Lukmanierhospiz Sta. Maria

Chur: Rätisches Museum, RM H 1971. 5530 • Found: 1966 • Rural (Alpine) • 13th–early 14th c. • OL: 48/OW: 28/AL: 26 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 223, 228 (note 37), 229 (notes 71 and 72); Meyer 1977: 36–7; Geiser 1980: 99, 103; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39; Boscardin 1998: 22, fig. 11, no. 15; 23 (no. D 50). Excavated in 1966 before the 1968 damming of the lake lai da Sontga Maria. In the Middle Ages the site was a hospice at the Lukmanierroute, and a pastoral site. Dating: From Boscardin 1998. Measurements: From drawing in Boscardin 1998.

509

Switzerland • Aargau (AG) • Near Rheinfelden • Höflingen, Stone setting F3

Rheinfelden: Fricktaler Museum • Found: 1964–1965 • Rural (Alpine) • With punch mark • OL: 40/OW: 22.5/AL: 22 Cu-alloy • Oval • Type: Unclassified Rudin 1967: 51, 56, and fig. 7, p. 55; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 223, 228 (note 38), 229 (note 69); Meyer 1977: 36; Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39. The site is the remains of a rural settlement. Mark on the bow, in the shape of a five-pointed star. Dating, according to Meyer and Oesch (1972: 218): 14/15th c.

510

Switzerland • Glarus (GL) • Above Braunwald • Bergeten

Found: 1971 • Rural (Alpine) • With punch mark • 13th–14th c. • OL: 56.8/OW: 31/AL: 36/LL: 18 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 223, 225 (fig. 3 [the jew’s harp] and 4 [photo of the find spot]), 228 (note 39), 229 (note 73); Meyer 1977: 36f; Geiser 1980: 99, 103; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39; Meyer 1998: 32 (no. A 13), and fig. 24, p. 33, no. 13. The site was an alpine settlement (1620 meters above sea level) Dating, according to Meyer and Oesch (1972: 218, 229 [note 73]) and Meyer (1998: 32): 13/14th. Found in a layer related to the first half of the settlement period. Measurements: From drawing in Meyer 1998. Illustration,. top: Meyer 1998, 33, fig. 24, no. 13; bottom: Meyer and Oesch 1972: 225, fig. 3.

511

Switzerland • Ticino (TI) • Bellinzona • Castel Grande

Found: 1967 • Castle • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Triangular Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 220, 224, 228 (note 40); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39. Dating, according to Meyer and Oesch 1972: 218 (type table): 14th c. Probably of the Kransen type

512

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 46/OW: 23/AL: 26 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–158, and fig. no. E30 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39. NB: Only Meyer 1970 describes and illustrates the individual items from Mülenen, while Meyer and Oesch 1972, Geiser 1980 and Bachmann-Geiser 1981 only treats the Mülenen-finds as a whole.

513

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 56/OW: 29.5/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E31 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39

203

514

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 36.5*/OW: 31/AL: 12* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E32 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39

515

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 47.5/OW: 23*/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E33 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216–17, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39. Dating: Meyer (1970: 158) suggests 13th/14th century, of unknown reason. Meyer and Oesch (1972: 218, type table) lists one sample from Mülenen as dating from 13th century. That is probably this one. However, there is almost certainly no stratigraphy or other find circumstances justifying such a dating.

516

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 25*/OW: 26.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8 (text), and fig. no. E34 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39

517

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 49/OW: 23.5/AL: 27.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E35 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; BachmannGeiser 1981: 39

518

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 50/OW: 26/AL: 31 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E36 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; BachmannGeiser 1981: 39

519

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 48.5/OW: 26/AL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E37 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; BachmannGeiser 1981: 39

204

520

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 56.5/OW: 34.5/AL: 29 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E38 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39

521

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. Iron Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8 (without illustration); Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39

522

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 57/OW: 21/AL: 24/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Horsens Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E40 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39

523

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 49.5/OW: 21.5/AL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E41 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; BachmannGeiser 1981: 39

524

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ): March • Near Schübelbach • Mülenen Castle

Found: 1968–1969 • Castle • 13th–16th c. • OL: 50/OW: 18/AL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Meyer 1970: Fundreie E (Eisen), Musikinstrumente E30–E42, p. 157–8, and fig. no. E42 p. 234; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; BachmannGeiser 1981: 39

525

Switzerland • Sankt Gallen (SG) • Oberhelfenschwil • Neutoggenburg Castle

Found: 1936–1938 • Castle • 13th–14th c. • OL: 66/OW: 24/AL: 50 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Unclassified Felder 1942: 34 (photo). (The jew’s harp is not mentioned in the text. About the castle and excavation: p. 30–4); Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 41); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39: Dating: 13th–14th century, which was the occupation period of the castle.

205

526

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Stockholm: Hallwylska Museet • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 51/OW: 23/AL: 21/LL: 32.1 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Bergman 1957: 116 (text); Grupp 67, no. III: A.1.1, left (photo). Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of unknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

527

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Stockholm: Hallwylska Museet • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 58/OW: 22/AL: 27.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Bergman 1957: 116 (text); Grupp 67, no. III: A.1.1, right (photo). Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of unknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

528

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Stockholm: Hallwylska Museet • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 55/OW: 22/AL: 25 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Bergman 1957: 116 (text); Grupp 67, no. III: A.1.2, left (photo). Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 50. Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of unknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

529

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Stockholm: Hallwylska Museet • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 60/OW: 31/AL: 27.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Bergman 1957: 116 (text); Grupp 67, no. III: A.1.2, right (photo). Mark: Lithberg 1932: 38, no. 70. Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of unknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

530

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Stockholm: Hallwylska Museet • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 35/OW: 20/AL: 19.5/LL: 22.8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Bergman 1957: 116 (text); Grupp 67, no. III: A.1.3, left (photo)

531

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Stockholm: Hallwylska Museet • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48/OW: 24/AL: 28.5/LL: 21.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Horsens Bergman 1957: 116 (text); Grupp 67, no. III: A.1.3, in the middle (photo)

532

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Stockholm: Hallwylska Museet • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 50/OW: 25/AL: 28/LL: 36.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Bergman 1957: 116 (text); Grupp 67, no. III: A.1.3, right (photo)

206

533

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 56.5/OW: 20.6/AL: 20 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Lithberg 1932: Pl. 38 B. On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 60 or 63 (difficult to observe, because of corrosion). Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of unknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

534

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 57.5/OW: 22.7/AL: 23/LL: 58.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 48 (punch mark), and Pl. 38 A On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich. Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of unknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535). The punch mark is very similar to a marks found in Lund (no. 52) and Paris (no. 312).

535

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 55.7/OW: 27.2/AL: 30/LL: 21.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Horsens Lithberg 1932: Pl. 38 C; Meyer and Oesch 1972: fig. no. 14, p. 219. On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich. Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of unknown function. Only meant as decoration? Similar devices are known from Boccorio, where Lovatto (1983: 12 and fig. 11) describes it as ornaments made of brass.

536

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 38.8/OW: 30.2/AL: 19/LL: 4.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Lithberg 1932: 38, no. 69 (punch mark), and Pl. 38 I; Meyer and Oesch 1972: fig. no. 9, p. 219. On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich.

537

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 58.4/OW: 28/AL: 34/LL: 53.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Lithberg 1932: Pl. 38 F On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich.

207

538

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49.9/OW: 30.2/AL: 26/LL: 51.3 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Lithberg 1932: Pl. 38 G; Meyer and Oesch 1972: fig. no. 2, p. 219. On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich.

539

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 35.9/OW: 21.7/AL: 23/LL: 17.3 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Bruck Lithberg 1932: Pl. 38 H On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich.

540

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 52.8/OW: 18.9/AL: 34 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Schauenburg Lithberg 1932: Pl. 38 E On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich.

541

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 46.6/OW: 23.3/AL: 21/LL: 45.8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 51 (punch mark); Pl. 38 D. On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich.

542

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 57.7/OW: 33.4/AL: 30/LL: 23 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Sperrboden Lithberg 1932: Pl. 38 K; Meyer and Oesch 1972: fig. no. 12, p. 219. Flühler-Kreis 1987: 5, with fig. (Vitrine 2). On display in the Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich. With double lamella, as no. 349

543

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 57.5/OW: 18.2/AL: 25/LL: 9.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 49 (punch mark) Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 A. Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of nknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

208

544

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 59.1/OW: 20.9/AL: 21.4/LL: 4.8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 A. Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of nknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

545

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 53.4*/OW: 19.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 A. Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of nknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

546

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48.7/OW: 21.3/AL: 22.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Cu-arrangements near the attachment of the lamella, of nknown function. (Cf. text at no. 535).

547

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48.1/OW: 21.5/AL: 17.3/LL: 22 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 62

548

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 47.6/OW: 21.9/AL: 18.5/LL: 4.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 56

549

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 42.2/OW: 19/AL: 15.6/LL: 39.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 60 or 63 (difficult to observe, because of corrosion)

209

550

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49.1/OW: 23.1/AL: 20.5/LL: 6.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 53 (presumably)

551

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49.8/OW: 23.3/AL: 24/LL: 13.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 58

552

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49/OW: 21/AL: 17/LL: 12.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 57

553

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48.4/OW: 23.4/AL: 21.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 54

554

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 47.2/OW: 24/AL: 18/LL: 21.3 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 59

555

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49.7/OW: 21.5/AL: 20/LL: 21.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 52. With notches filed into the arms

210

556

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 46.3/OW: 23.4/AL: 17.6/LL: 16.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 55

557

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48.1/OW: 24.2/AL: 18.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D. Possibly a punch mark, but difficult to substantiate, because of corrosion

558

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 39.9/OW: 19.2/AL: 16 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D

559

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 45.5/OW: 24/AL: 22 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Long oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D

560

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 52.2/OW: 23.4/AL: 25/LL: 18.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D

561

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 41.4/OW: 22.9/AL: 24/LL: 31.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Long oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D

211

562

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 53.2/OW: 27.8/AL: 29/LL: 17.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D

563

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49.2/OW: 25.9/AL: 26/LL: 17.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 D

564

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 46.7/OW: 23.9/AL: 18.6/LL: 13.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 E (Difficult to understand Lithbergs classification here)

565

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48.5/OW: 24.2/AL: 26/LL: 7.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

566

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 47.3/OW: 24.7/AL: 23/LL: 26.1 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

567

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 47.8/OW: 25.6/AL: 25.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

568

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48.5/OW: 27.4/AL: 28/LL: 5.1 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

212

569

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 60.5/OW: 27.9/AL: 31.3 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

570

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 45.1/OW: 23.5/AL: 23/LL: 10.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

571

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 47.5/OW: 22.3/AL: 25/LL: 16.2 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

572

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 44.9/OW: 21.3/AL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

573

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 40.1*/OW: 25.1 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

574

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 35.9*/OW: 22.1 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

575

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 50.9/OW: 26.9/AL: 28/LL: 6.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

213

576

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 45.5/OW: 23.5/AL: 24/LL: 8.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

577

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 35.6*/OW: 21.3/LL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

578

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49.2*/OW: 30.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

579

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 52.4/OW: 31.8/AL: 29 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

580

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49/OW: 32.6/AL: 28/LL: 4.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/D-shaped • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 38, no. 65

581

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 40.2/OW: 27.6/AL: 18.5/LL: 14.3 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 F

214

582

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48.5/OW: 32.7/AL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 64

583

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 58.4/OW: 29.1/AL: 32/LL: 6.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G

584

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 60.4/OW: 30.9/AL: 33.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G

585

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49.5*/OW: 23.7*/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G OL: Originally about 51–52 mm?

586

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 51.4*/OW: 28.3*/AL: 34 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G OL: Originally about 58–60 mm? OW: Originally about 32 mm?

587

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 46.4/OW: 28.9/AL: 19 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval/Triangular • Type: Hallwil Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 37, no. 61. The mark fish and star belonged to the maker Giacomino Giacomo Antonio, fu Gio-Petro of Boccorio, who was assigned this mark in 1790 (Lovatto 1983: 23).

215

588

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 44.3/OW: 25.8/AL: 23/LL: 13.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G

589

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48/OW: 24.4/AL: 27 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G

590

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 53.8/OW: 25.8/AL: 31 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G

591

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 49.2/OW: 28.8/AL: 25 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G

592

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 51.2/OW: 29.3/AL: 27 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G

593

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 43.6/OW: 32.8/AL: 25 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 G

216

594

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 59/OW: 28.6/AL: 39 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H. Mark? Difficult to determine, because of corrosion.

595

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48/OW: 25.7/AL: 29/LL: 22.3 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H

596

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 34.6*/OW: 30.7/LL: 5.8 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H

597

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 35/OW: 22.5/AL: 19/LL: 8.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H

598

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 35.8*/OW: 22/AL: 26 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H. OL: Originally about 37 mm? OW: Originally somewhat less than 22 mm?

599

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 28*/OW: 26.2/AL: 15 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H. OL: Originally about 31 mm?

600

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 34.5/OW: 20.2/AL: 19 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H

217

601

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 31.4/OW: 16.2/AL: 21.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 38, no. 66

602

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 32.7/OW: 17.1/AL: 21.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H. Mark: Lithberg 1932: 38, no. 67

603

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • With punch mark • 13th–18th c. • OL: 37.1/OW: 18.5/AL: 23/LL: 4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H. Mark: Difficult to determine, because of corrosion. Might be Lithberg 1932: 38, no. 68.

604

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 32.2/OW: 20/AL: 18.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 H. (Length is 31.9 mm from the point of attachment, while OL is 32.2 mm.)

605 Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 47.5*/OW: 31.8/AL: 26 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 J. OL: 47.5 mm 90° to the bow. Originally about 51 mm?

606

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 39.4/OW: 27.3/AL: 16/ 5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 J

218

607

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 39.7/OW: 25.9/AL: 20/LL: 5.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 J

608

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 43*/OW: 24.5/LL: 4.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 J

609

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 48.1/OW: 27.3*/AL: 39 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval/Triangular • Type: Billingsgate Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 J. OW: Originaly about 28 mm.

610

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 32.2/OW: 18.9/AL: 19 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 J

611

Switzerland • Bern (BE) • Bern • Bümpliz Old Castle

Found: 1970 • Castle • 14th (15th) c. Iron • Circular Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216–17, 218 (type table), 224, 228 (note 42), 230 (note 80); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39. Bümpliz was a small village outside Bern. Dating: Meyer and Oesch (1972, 217) held that it is more possible with a 14th than a 15th century dating, because of the find circumstances (the depth of the find)

612

Switzerland • Zürich (ZH) • Near Dietikon • Schönenwerd Castle

Found: 1930–1935 • Castle • Ca 1200 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Heid 1964: 48, and fig. 33, p. 51; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 220, 228 (note 42); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39. Measurements unknown. Possibly 50–60 mm? The jew’s harp is connected to a fire level from around 1200 (Heid, op. cit. 48). There is no further description of the context of the find (layer, phase etc.). Schönenwerd Castle was situated in a crossroad between two through-going roads and the river Limmat (op. cit. 9)

219

613

Switzerland • Basel Land (BL) • Near Sissach • Alt-Bischofstein (Hinterer Burg)

Liestal: Archäologie und Kantonsmuseum • Found: 1937–1938 • Castle • 1150–1350 • OL: 57/OW: 18/AL: 43/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Horand 1942: 66; and fig. 28; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216–17, 218 (type table), 220, 229 (note 43, 52); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39; Müller 1980: 32, 74–5, and drawing p. 17 and 56. Small extension of the lamella behind the bow? Measurements from Müller, 17. Illustration from Müller, p. 17. Dating: Müller, p. 75.

614

Switzerland • Basel Land (BL) • Near Sissach • Neu-Bischofstein (Vorderer Burg)

Liestal: Archäologie und Kantonsmuseum, 631.641 • Found: 1937–1938 • Castle • 1150–1350 • OL: 73/OW: 21/AL: 57.5/LL: 5.9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Horand 1942: 66, and fig. 28; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 219, (fig. no. 1), 229 (note 43); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39; Müller 1980: 32, 74–5, and drawing p. 56. Dating: Müller, p.75.

615

Switzerland • Bern (BE) • North of Delémont • Löwenburg

Castle • 1280–1526 • OL: Cu-alloy Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216–17, 218 (type table), 224, 229 (notes 43, 49), 230 (note 75). About the castle and its history: Meyer 1968. Dating: Meyer and Oesch, p. 217.

616

France • Alsace • Leimental • Landskron Castle

Found: Before 1972 • Castle • 14th–16th c. • OL: 37/OW: 18/AL: 24 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 219 (fig. 8), 220, 229 (note 44). Children’s harp? Dating: Meyer and Oesch 1972: 218. Measurements from Meyer and Oesch 1972: 219 (fig. 8). Illustration from Meyer and Oesch 1972: 219 (fig. 8)

617

Liechtenstein • Schellenberg • Schellenberg • Neu-Schellenberg Castle (Obere Burg), Field 2

Found: 1960–1961 • Castle • 13th–14th c. • OL: 70/OW: 22/AL: 47 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Schauenburg Heid 1962: 70, and fig. 35, p. 76, no. 2; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 220, 224, 229 (note 44). Dating, Meyer and Oesch 1972: 13th–14th C. (p. 218)/possibly late 13th C. (p. 220). Information from internet-site http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/~e8926885/burgen/Listeliechtenstein.html: SCHELLENBERG: Burgruine Obere Burg (falsely: Neu-Schellenberg) near Schellenberg. Built 12th Century, destroyed 1405. NB: There are two jew’s harps from this site; this one and no. 650.

220

618

Switzerland • Valais (VS): Lötschenthal • Wiler (Lötschen) • Giätrich: structure 6, level 18 Inv. 90/6-34 • Found: 1989–1990 • Rural (Alpine) • With punch mark • 13th–14th c. • OL: 55/OW: 25/AL: 38 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Bitterli-Waldvogel 1998: 195, and fig. 218, p. 193, no. 33 (drawing); Dallais et. al. 2002: 20. Photo: Phillipe Dallais. Punch mark identical to no. 156, Balhorner Feld, Paderborn, Germany.

619

Switzerland • Bern (BE) • Zihl (Thielle) Canal • Foreshore of Zihl (Thielle)

Found: Before 1950 • Rural (River) • Chance find • OL: 106/OW: 74/AL: 46 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Unclassified Tschumi 1953: 167, with fig. 119; Ypey 1976: 227, and fig. 29, p. 228; Meyer 1977: 36 (note 17). The find is listed in Tschumi 1953 with pre-historical finds. The foreshore of Ziel, however, has produced finds from different periods. Very likely modern/19th– 20st c. The frame has a pattern. Measurements from Ypey 1976: 228, fig. 29. Illustration: Ypey 1976: 228, fig. 29.

620

Switzerland • Obwalden (OW) • Melchsee-Frutt

Found: 1997 • Rural (Alpine) • 13th–17th c. From “Wie lebten die Zeitgenossen von Wilhelm Tell?“ (internet-article, http://www.zumbrunn.ch/frutt/mf014.htm): Excavation of a summer pasture. The excavation found no traces of women’s activities. This is probably due to the tradition of Inner Switzerland, that women spent the summer in the village (citation of Werner Meyer in the article).

621

France • Cote d’Azur: Alpes-Maritimes • Nice • Cimiez

Nice: Musée Archéologique de Nice Cimiez, CIM F 70.1.4.4 • Found: 1957 • Urban Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Greifswald Homo-Lechner 1996: 133 (mention). Thought to be Gallo-Roman. Measurements 64 X 4, according to information in the exhibition. The measurement of the length must be an error. Looks more like between 70 and 90 mm. (Visual estimate)

622

France • Cote d’Azur: Var • Rougiers • (Grotte G)

Rural • 14th c. Cu-alloy • Cast • Hammered • Oval • Type: Greifswald Démians d’Archimbaud 1980: 430, and fig. 410, p. 425, no. 14

221

623

France • Alsace • Saverne, Haut-Barr

OL: 55/OW: 25/AL: 32 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Nijmegen Schnitzler 1990: 446, no. 3.105 (with photo). Excavated in a dike.

624

France • Alsace • Petit Landau, Butenheim

Rural (Village) • 16th c. • OL: 60/OW: 22/AL: 40 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Circular • Type: Horsens Schnitzler 1990: 446, no. 3.106 (with photo)

625

France • Alsace • Rathsamhausen-Ottrott • FB5, field F (9 L 1)

Found: Before 1973 • Castle • Late 14th–early 15th c. • OL: 56/OW: 37/AL: 36/LL: 30 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rieb and Salch 1973: 26, 28, and plate XVIII, no. 144

626

France • Alsace • Rathsamhausen-Ottrott • FB5, field B (9 L 2)

Found: Before 1973 • Castle • Late 15th c. • OL: 48*/OW: 36/AL: 27* Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rieb and Salch 1973: 28, and plate XVIII, no. 145. One of the arms broken. The other possibly shorter than originally, because of corrosion.

627

France • Alsace • Rathsamhausen-Ottrott • FB5, field A (9 L 3)

Found: Before 1973 • Castle • Early 16th c. • OL: 51/OW: 34/AL: 33/LL: 17 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rieb and Salch 1973: 28, and plate XVIII, no. 146

628

France • Alsace • Selestat • Ortenbourg Castle (FW II, field B (1 L 10, 11))

Found: Before 1973 • Castle • 15th c. • OL: 55/OW: 25/AL: 42/LL: 10 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Rieb and Salch 1973: 29, and plate XVIII, no. 147 (Found in “1420–1470 environ“)

222

629

France • Alsace • Selestat • Ortenbourg Castle (FW II, field B (1 L 10, 11))

Found: Before 1973 • Castle • 15th c. • OL: 67/OW: 19/AL: 51/LL: 20 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Circular • Type: Schauenburg Rieb and Salch 1973: 29, and plate XVIII, no. 148 (Found in “1420–1470 environ“)

630

France • Alsace • Rathsamhausen-Ottrott • FB 3-4, Field D (9 L 4)

Found: Before 1973 • Castle • 15th c., 1st half • OL: 58/OW: 32/AL: 35/LL: 6 Cu-alloy • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Rieb and Salch 1973: 29, and plate XVIII, no. 149. Is this really Cu-alloy?

631

France • Alsace • Selestat • Ortenbourg Castle (BC)

Found: Before 1973 • Castle • 15th–16th c. Iron Rieb and Salch 1973: 29, no. 150 (not illustrated)

632

France • Alsace • Selestat • Ortenbourg Castle (BC)

Found: Before 1973 • Castle • 15th–16th c. Iron Rieb and Salch 1973: 29, no. 150 (not illustrated)

633

France • Alsace • Rathsamhausen-Ottrott • BC III, Field A (9 L 5)

Paris: Musée National des Arts et Traditions Populaires • Castle • Early 16th c. • OL: 48/OW: 26/AL: 27 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Rieb and Salch 1976: 6, no. 156 bis.

634

Switzerland • Zürich (ZH) • Betweeen Wädenswil and Richterswil • Alt-Wädenswil Castle

Zürich: Kantonsarchäologie (?), FN 14.767 • Castle • 1200–1557 • OL: 57/OW: 32/AL: 33 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Bitterli and Grütter 2001: 140, 191; and plate 39, no. 447.

635

Norway • Nord-Trøndelag • Snåsa • 30 m north of Snåsa Church

Trondheim: Vitenskapsmuseet • Found: 2001 • Rural (Church) • Chance find • OL: 44/OW: 30/AL: 19/LL: 8 Iron • Oval/Circular • Type: Kufstein The jew’s harp was found accidentally during maintenance work on a family burial place. Prior to 1746 the rectory was located on this site. Today it is a churchyard of Snåsa Church. Information and sketch from Sæbjørg Walaker Nordeide, NIKU, Trondheim.

223

636

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1910–1911 • Castle • 13th–18th c. • OL: 34.5/OW: 17.7/AL: 21 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Hallwil-collection of Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, not displayed. Classified according to Lithberg 1932, Pl. 38: Zu Pl. 38 J

637

Switzerland • Basel Land (BL) • Near Sissach • Neu-Bischofstein (Vorderer Burg)

Liestal: Archäologie und Kantonsmuseum, 631.643 • Found: 1937–1938 • Castle • 1150–1350 • OL: 37.7*/OW: 17.5/AL: 24* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Horand 1942: 66, and fig. 28; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 229 (note 43); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39; Müller 1980: 32 (text), 56 (drawing), 74–5 (text). Dating: Müller, p. 75

638

Switzerland • Basel Land (BL) • Near Sissach • Neu-Bischofstein (Vorderer Burg)

Liestal: Archäologie und Kantonsmuseum, 631.642 • Found: 1937–1938 • Castle • 1150–1350 • OL: 41.1*/OW: 16.9/AL: 27* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto Horand 1942: 66, and fig. 28; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 229 (note 43); Geiser 1980: 99; Bachmann-Geiser 1981: 39; Müller 1980: 32 (text), 56 (drawing), 74–5 (text). Dating: Müller, p. 75

639

Switzerland • Szwyz (SZ) • Steinen Au • Convent “Auf der Au”

Staatsarchiv Schwyz, 5/5.2 43.4 • Found: 1977 • Monastery (Convent) • Late medieval/Postmedieval • OL: 51.5/OW: 35.5/AL: 26/LL: 7.5 Iron • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gloucester Sennhauser 1990 (about the site and excavation). Detailed excavation report not published. No information on dating of the jew’s harp. Judged from shape, possibly late medieval/postmedieval. Photo: Staatsarchiv Schwyz. The convent was Cistercian.

640

Switzerland • Schwyz (SZ) • Illgau • Balmis (Balmli)

Found: 1987 • Rural (Alpine) • 13th–14th c. • OL: 43*/OW: 35 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Meyer 1988: 92, and fig. no. 9, p. 91; Obrecht and Keller 1998: 168, and fig. p. 167, no. 40. Obrecht and Keller 1998, p. 168: “Zeitstellung wohl 13./14. Jh.“ A so called “Heidenhüttli“‚ which was used as a summer pasture.

641

Switzerland • Zürich (ZH) • Furttal: Near Regensdorf • Alt-Regensberg

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1956 • Castle • Before 1468 • OL: 47.3/OW: 23.4/AL: 27 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Schneider 1979 (About the site and excavation). The castle started to decay in 1468. The three harps from Alt-Regensberg (641–643) that are not published in Schneider 1979, are probably later in date than the published one (644), due to typological characteristics.

224

642

Switzerland • Zürich (ZH) • Furttal: Near Regensdorf • Alt-Regensberg

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1956 • Castle • Before 1468 • OL: 40.9*/OW: 24.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Horsens Schneider 1979 (About the site and excavation). The castle started to decay in 1468

643

Switzerland • Zürich (ZH) • Furttal: Near Regensdorf • Alt-Regensberg

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1956 • Castle • Before 1468 • OL: 54*/OW: 23.9*/LL: 5.3 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular • Type: Horsens Schneider 1979 (About the site and excavation). The castle started to decay in 1468. OL, originally: Around 56–58 mm. OW, originally: Around 25 mm.

644

Switzerland • Zürich (ZH) • Furttal: Near Regensdorf • Alt-Regensberg

Zürich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum • Found: 1955–1957 • Castle • 13th–14th c. • OL: 56/OW: 25.5/AL: 39 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Schneider 1979: 91, and plate 21, p. 120, no. C 110. Not found in Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich, June 2001. Probably deposited in another museum. Dating: 13th–14th Century (Schneider: 91).

645

Switzerland • Valais (VS) • Sion • Valere Castle

Castle Werner Meyer, pers. comm. (June 2001). Published in: “Nachrichten des schweizerischen Burgenvereins“, year unknown.

646

Switzerland • Ticino (TI) • Val Bavona • La Presa

Cevio: Museum Vallemaggia • Rural (Alpine) Werner Meyer, pers. comm. (June 2001)

647

Switzerland • Aargau (AG) • SE of Koblenz • Zurzach

Found: 1987 • Rural From the excavation “Nordumfahrung Zurzach“. Not published (July 2001). Source of information: Kantonsarchäologie Aargau (René Hanggi/Franz Maier)

648

Switzerland • Aargau (AG): Seethal • Near Seengen • Hallwil Castle

Kantonsarchäologie Aargau (deposited), Scc. 98.2/6.16 • Found: 1938 • Castle • 13th–18th c. Source of information: Kantonsarchäologie Aargau (René Hanggi/Peter Frey)

649

Switzerland • Thurgau (TG) • Diessenhofen • Unterhof Castle

Found: 1988–1991 • Castle • Late medieval • OL: 56.5*/OW: 30.5/AL: 39* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Baeriswyl and Junkes 1995: 243, with and fig. 272, no. 652. Both arms are corroded, and the length has probably been longer.

225

650

Liechtenstein • Schellenberg • Schellenberg • Neu-Schellenberg Castle (Obere Burg) Field 13

Found: 1960–1961 • Castle • 13th–14th c. Iron Heid 1962: 70; Meyer and Oesch 1972: 216, 218 (type table), 220, 224, 229 (note 44). Dating, Meyer and Oesch: 13th–14th C. (p. 218)/possibly late 13th C. (p. 220). Information from internet-site http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/~e8926885/burgen/Listeliechtenstein.html: SCHELLENBERG: Burgruine Obere Burg (falsely: Neu-Schellenberg) near Schellenberg. Built 12th Century, destroyed 1405. NB: There are two jew’s harps from this site; this one and no. 617.

651

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR) • Near Savognin • Riom-Parsonz

Haldenstein: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, RiC 83/3f • Found: 1983 • Rural • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 50/OW: 23.5/AL: 20/LL: 12.6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil Information and photo: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Haldenstein

652

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR) • Tomils/Tumegl • Sogn Murezi

Haldenstein: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Tu SM 96/126 • Found: 1996 • Rural • Before 17th c. • OL: 44.9/OW: 34.5/AL: 24/LL: 17.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Circular/Triangular • Type: Horsens Information and photo: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Haldenstein

653

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR) • Haldenstein • Castle at Haldenstein

Haldenstein: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, HS 88/120c • Found: 1988 • Castle • After 1540 • OL: 60.7/OW: 36.7/AL: 34/LL: 12 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Information and photo: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Haldenstein

654

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR) • S-chanf • Chapella

Haldenstein: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, S-ch Ch 81/138c • Found: 1981 • Rural • Before 17th c. • OL: 48.3/OW: 27/AL: 25/LL: 12.8 Iron • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Information and photo: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Haldenstein

655

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR) • Silvaplana/Surley • Via Ruinas

Haldenstein: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Sp Sur 96/56h • Found: 1996 • Rural • 16th–18th c. • OL: 49.7/OW: 24.5/AL: 22.5/LL: 9 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Long oval • Type: Hallwil IInformation and photo: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Haldenstein

226

656

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR) • Chur • Brauerei

Haldenstein: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, CB 88/144g • Found: 1988 • Rural • Medieval/Post-medieval • OL: 54.6/OW: 32.3/AL: 26/LL: 9.4 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Horsens Information and photo: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Haldenstein

657

Switzerland • Graubünden (GR) • S-chanf • San Güerg

Haldenstein: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, S-ch SG 74 • Found: 1974 • Rural • Before 17th c. • OL: 39*/OW: 24*/AL: 19 Square • Type: Unclassified Information and photo: Archäologischer Dienst Graubünden, Haldenstein

658

Switzerland • Thurgau (TG): Kradolf-Schönenberg • Near Buhwil • Anvil Castle

Found: 1984 • Castle • OL: 40*/OW: 26/AL: 19* Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Horsens Meier 1993: 33, no. E21, and plate 12, no. 21

659

Estonia • South Estonia: Tartu county • Tartu

Tartu Linnamuuseum, TM 2126/A51:447 or TM 2126/A51:1315 • Urban • 17th–18th c.? Tõnurist 1996: 116, 123 (note 7). Dating, according to Tõnurist: 17th–18th c.?

660

Romania • Moldova • Bacau: Brad (Zargidava)

Ursachi 1995: Pl. 343. Source: Danica Stassikova-Stukovska, Nitra (pers. comm.)

661

United Kingdom • Devon • Brixham • Berry Head Fort

Brixham Heritage Museum & History Society • Found: 1998–1999 • Rural (Fort) • 1793–1850 • OL: 55.7/OW: 25.7/AL: 37.7 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Berry Head Archaeology (Internet address: http://www.brixhamheritage.org.uk/arch/berry_head_report2000.htm). The report give no details about the exact find spot of the jew’s harp. The fort was in use during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic war. However, the finds on the site also include single objects from earlier periods. Illustration: Berry Head Archaeology

662

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Nijmegen

Nijmegen: Museum Het Valkhof, Valkh.: K159.1-5 • OL: 46/OW: 25/AL: 28 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.24–28; Ypey 1976: 215–18, with fig. 12, p. 217 (in the middle, right), and fig. 12, p. 218 (bottom, left); Boone 1986: 41 (map), 45. Measurements from Crane (op. cit.)

227

663

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Nijmegen

Nijmegen: Museum Het Valkhof, Valkh.: K159.1-5 • OL: 47/OW: 22/AL: 30 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.24–28; Ypey 1976: 215–18, with fig. 12, p. 217 (in the middle, left), and fig. 12, p. 218 (top); Boone 1986: 41 (map), 45. Measurements from Crane (op. cit.)

664

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Nijmegen

Nijmegen: Museum Het Valkhof, Valkh.: K159.1-5 • OL: 50/OW: 23/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.24–28; Ypey 1976: 215–18, with fig. 12, p. 217 (top, right), and fig. 12, p. 218 (in the middle, right); Boone 1986: 41 (map), 45. Measurements from Crane (op. cit.)

665

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Nijmegen

Nijmegen: Museum Het Valkhof, Valkh.: K159.1-5 • OL: 48/OW: 24/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.24–28; Ypey 1976: 215–18, with fig. 12, p. 217 (top, left), and fig. 12, p. 218 (bottom, right); Boone 1986: 41 (map), 45. Measurements from Crane (op. cit.)

666

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Nijmegen

Nijmegen: Museum Het Valkhof, Valkh.: K159.1-5 • OL: 45/OW: 23/AL: 28 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Crane 1972: 22, no. 411.24–28; Ypey 1976: 215–18, with fig. 12, p. 217 (bottom), and fig. 12, p. 218 (in the middle, left); Boone 1986: 41 (map), 45. Measurements from Crane (op. cit.)

667

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam • Damrak 69–79

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, Ca-18 • Found: 1964 • Urban • 1300–1325 • OL: 49/OW: 16/AL: 40/LL: 35.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Regteren Altena 1966: 77, and fig. 21; Ypey 1976: 216–17, fig. 1D, p. 209, and fig. 13, p. 219; Baart et al. 1977: 476–7, with fig. 908, p. 476, Boone 1986: 30, 45.

668

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam • Korte Houtstraat 9–13/Lange Houtstraat 39–49

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MW7-12 • Found: 1972 • Urban • 1575–1600 • OL: 45/OW: 18.5/AL: 34 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Baart et al. 1977: 476–7, with fig. 909, p. 476.

228

669

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam • Zandstraat/Jodenbreetstraat

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MW1-23 • Found: 1972 • Urban • 1425–1450 • OL: 45/OW: 35/AL: 20/LL: 6 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Baart et al. 1977: 476–7, with fig. 910, p. 476. Dating based on stratigraphy. This single piece, however, appears to be later than 15th c.

670

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam • Keizersgr. 76/Weesperstraat

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MWe4-15 • Found: 1972 • Urban • 1525–1550 • OL: 49/OW: 23/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Baart et al. 1977: 476–7, with fig. 911, p. 476.

671

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam • Weesperstraat

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MweX-166 • Found: 1973 • Urban • 1575–1625 • OL: 60/OW: 27/AL: 37 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Gloucester Baart et al. 1977: 476–7, with fig. 912, p. 476.

672

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MW4-15 • Urban Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

673

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MW7-8 • Urban Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

674

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MZ-5-277 • Urban • 16th c.? • OL: 72/OW: 47/AL: 31 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Circular/D-shaped • Type: Höxter Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

229

675

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MZ-5-278 • Urban • 19th c.? • OL: 70/OW: 53/AL: 30/LL: 22 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Triangular • Type: Pärnu Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

676

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Amsterdam

Archeologisch Depot Amsterdam, MZ-7-162 • Urban • 16th c.? • OL: 53/OW: 37/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Circular • Type: Gloucester Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

677

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Amersfoort • Market Place

Found: 1991 • Urban • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Tamboer 1999: 59, and fig. 99, p. 58 (1st from top)

678

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Amersfoort • Market Place

Found: 1991 • Urban • With punch mark • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Kransen Tamboer 1999: 59, and fig. 99, p. 58 (2nd from top)

679

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Amersfoort • Market Place

Found: 1991 • Urban • With punch mark • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular/Narrow oval • Type: Kransen Tamboer 1999: 59, and fig. 99, p. 58 (3rd from top)

230

680

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Amersfoort • Market Place

Found: 1991 • Urban • With punch mark • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Tamboer 1999: 59, and fig. 99, p. 58 (4th from top)

681

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Amersfoort • Market Place

Found: 1991 • Urban • With punch mark • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Tamboer 1999: 59, and fig. 99, p. 58 (5th from top)

682

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Amersfoort • Market Place

Found: 1991 • Urban • With punch mark • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Tamboer 1999: 59, and fig. 99, p. 58 (6th from top)

683

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Amersfoort • Market Place

Found: 1991 • Urban • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Tamboer 1999: 59, and fig. 99, p. 58 (7th from top)

684

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Amersfoort • Market Place

Found: 1991 • Urban • With punch mark • 14th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Tamboer 1999: 59, and fig. 99, p. 58 (8th from top)

685

The Netherlands • Limburg • Maastricht • Pandhof St. -Servaas

F. no. 352 • Found: 1954 • Urban • OL: 49.3/OW: 25/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Ypey 1976: 209, 217, 229, with fig. 1b, p. 209; Boone 1986: 41 (map)

686

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Rossum (near Alem)

Found: About 1959 • Rural (River) • OL: 48.5/OW: 23/AL: 30 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Nijmegen Ypey 1976: 209–10, with fig. 1c, p. 209; Boone 1986: 41 (map) Found in the river Maas

231

687–689 The Netherlands • Gelderland • Rossum (near Alem) Rural (River) Cu-alloy Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.) Found in the river Maas

690

The Netherlands • Zeeland • Haamstede, Schouwen

Found: Before 1923 • OL: 33*/OW: 22.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Ypey 1976: 210, and fig. 1a, p. 209; Boone 1986: 41 (map)

691

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Rozenburg • Europoort

Leiden: RMO, RMO 1959/9.19 • Found: 1959 • Rural • 15th c. • OL: 65.8/OW: 26/AL: 51 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Greifswald/Odiham Ypey 1976: 210, with fig. 3; Boone 1986: 41 (map). Dating: Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

692

The Netherlands • Utrecht • Vianen • Castle “De Bol”

F. no. 106 • Found: 1970 • Castle • 14th–15th c. • OL: 67/OW: 25/AL: 52 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Greifswald/Odiham Ypey 1976: 217, and fig. 14, p. 219, and fig. 15, p. 220 (the photo on p. 219 is inverted); Boone 1986: 28, 41 (map). Dating: Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

693

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Wijk by Duurstede (Dorestad)

F. no. 3862 • Found: 1969 • Rural • OL: Cu-alloy Ypey 1976: 217; Boone 1986: 30, 41 (map). Resembling the harps from Nijmegen (662–666), and Maastricht (685). Found with Carolingian debris, but the jew’s harp probably belonged to secondary mixed soil (Ypey, op. cit.)

694

Belgium • Unprovenanced

Stad Antwerpen: Museum Vleeshuis, 29.4.18-2/8 • Found: Before 1962 • OL: 62/OW: 32/AL: 51 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Ypey 1976: 217–19; Boone 1972: plate V, p. 37, no. 2, and No. 20 in catalogue (p. 46); Boone 1986: 40 (map), and fig. 5, p. 16, no. 2.

232

695

Belgium • Unprovenanced

Stad Antwerpen: Museum Vleeshuis, 29.4.18-5/8 • Found: Before 1962 • OL: 46/OW: 22/AL: 22 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Long oval • Type: Gloucester Ypey 1976: 217–19; Boone 1972: plate V, p. 37, no. 4, and no. 19 in catalogue (p. 46); Boone 1986: 40 (map), and fig. 5, p. 16, no. 4.

696

Belgium • Unprovenanced

Stad Antwerpen: Museum Vleeshuis, 29.4.18-4/8 • Found: Before 1962 • OL: 58/OW: 34/AL: 22 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Circular • Type: Höxter Ypey 1976: 217–19; Boone 1972: plate V, p. 37, no. 5, and no. 9 in catalogue (p. 45); Boone 1986: 40 (map), and fig. 5, p. 16, no. 5.

697

Belgium • Unprovenanced

Stad Antwerpen: Museum Vleeshuis, 62.14.64 • Found: Before 1962 • OL: 58/OW: 34/AL: 40 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Oval • Type: Unclassified Ypey 1976: 217–19; Boone 1972: plate V, p. 37, no. 6, and no. 68 in catalogue (p. 49); Boone 1986: 40 (map), and fig. 5, p. 16, no. 6. The significance of the two lugs sticking out laterally from the bow is unkown.

698

Belgium • Unprovenanced

Stad Antwerpen: Museum Vleeshuis, 29.4.18-7/8 • Found: Before 1962 • OL: 72.5/OW: 49/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • D-shaped • Type: Höxter Ypey 1976: 217–19; Boone 1972: plate IV, p. 35, no. 5, and no. 10 in catalogue (p. 46); Boone 1986: 40 (map), and fig. 6, p. 17, no. 5.

699

Belgium • Unprovenanced

Stad Antwerpen: Museum Vleeshuis, 29.4.18-8/3 • Found: Before 1962 • OL: 72/OW: 44.5/AL: 32 Iron • Forged • Twisted • Wedged • Circular/D-shaped • Type: Höxter Ypey 1976: 217–19; Boone 1972: plate IV, p. 35, no. 6, and no. 11 in catalogue (p. 46); Boone 1986: 40 (map), and fig. 6, p. 17, no. 6.

233

700–703

Belgium • Unprovenanced

Stad Antwerpen: Museum Vleeshuis • Found: Before 1962 Ypey 1976: 217–19; Boone 1986: 40 (map)

704

Belgium • West-Vlaanderen (West Flanders) • Damme

Langbroek: Coll. of H. J. van Beuningen (in 1976) • Found: Before 1969 • Urban • 16th–17th c. • OL: 62/OW: 41/AL: 36 Iron? • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Damme Ypey 1976:, 220, with fig. 16 (top); Boone 1986: 40 (map)

705

Belgium • West-Vlaanderen (West Flanders) • Damme

Langbroek: Coll. of H. J. van Beuningen (in 1976) • Found: Before 1969 • Urban • 16th–17th c. • OL: 36*/OW: 24/AL: 18* Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Nijmegen Ypey 1976: 220, with fig. 16 (bottom); Boone 1986: 40 (map)

706–713

Belgium • West-Vlaanderen (West Flanders) • Damme • Medieval harbour basin

Gent: Coll. of Ph. R. Duprez (in 1972) • Urban • 14th–17th c. Ypey 1976: 219–20; Boone 1986: 40 (map)

714

Belgium • Oost-Vlaanderen (East Flanders) • Hamme

Hamme: Museum Van Bogaert-Wauters, XVIe 67 • 16th c. • OL: 62/OW: 36.5/AL: 30 Cu-alloy • Cast • Rectangular • Hammered* • Circular • Type: Unclassified Ypey 1976: 220, and fig. 17, p. 221; Boone 1986: 40 (map). The frame has a pattern. *Method of attachment: Hammered in a notch, which is placed into a thickening of the frame. Very similar to nos. 211 and 828. Dating, according to the museum: 16th century.

715

The Netherlands • Overijssel • Deventer

Found: 1973 • 15th–16th c. Ypey 1976: 229; Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

716

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Bemmel

Iron Ypey 1976: 229, Boone 1986: 41 (map)

234

717

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Delft • Altena Castle

Castle • 15th c.? Cu-alloy Ypey 1976: 229, Boone 1986: 41 (map) Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

718

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • IJsselmonde: Slikkerveer • Huis te Woude

Castle • 1371–1418 Iron Ypey 1976: 229; Boone 1986: 41 (map)

719

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Dordrecht

Urban • With punch mark • 14th c. • OL: 56/OW: 25/AL: 41/LL: 27.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Ypey 1976: 229, and fig. 32, p. 231 (left); Boone 1986: 30, 41 (map), and fig. 7, p. 18 (right)

720

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Dordrecht

Urban • With punch mark • 14th c. • OL: 56.5/OW: 26/AL: 48/LL: 6 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Ypey 1976: 229, and fig. 32, p. 231 (right); Boone 1986: 30, 41 (map), and fig. 7, p. 18 (left)

721

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Dordrecht • Huis Scharlakers

Coll. ROB? • Found: 1990 • Urban • Before 1360 • OL: 75 Cu-alloy • Trefoil-shaped Found in a dwelling house. Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

722

France • Lorraine • West of Moutmédy • Chauveney-le-Chateau

Castle • Medieval Matthys and Hossey 1977; Boone 1986: 28, 40 (map)

723

Belgium • Liège • NearVieuxville • Logne Castle

Castle Boone 1986: 28

235

724

Belgium • Luxembourg • North of Aarlen (Arlon) • Herbeumont Castle

Castle Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged? • Oval • Type: Höxter Boone 1986: 12, 18, 28, 40 (map), and fig. 8, p. 19 (left, top)

725

Belgium • Luxembourg • North of Aarlen (Arlon) • Herbeumont Castle

Castle Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged? • Circular • Type: Höxter Boone 1986: 12, 18, 28, 40 (map), and fig. 8, p. 19 (left, bottom)

726

Belgium • Luxembourg • North of Aarlen (Arlon) • Herbeumont Castle

Castle Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged? • Circular • Type: Höxter Boone 1986: 12, 18, 28, 40 (map), and fig. 8, p. 19 (in the middle, top)

727

Belgium • Luxembourg • North of Aarlen (Arlon) • Herbeumont Castle

Castle Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged? • Oval • Type: Höxter Boone 1986: 12, 18, 28, 40 (map), and fig. 8, p. 19 (in the middle, bottom)

728

Belgium • Luxembourg • North of Aarlen (Arlon) • Herbeumont Castle

Castle Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged? • Oval • Type: Höxter Boone 1986: 12, 18, 28, 40 (map), and fig. 8, p. 19 (right, top)

729

Belgium • Luxembourg • North of Aarlen (Arlon) • Herbeumont Castle

Castle Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged? • Circular • Type: Höxter Boone 1986: 12, 18, 28, 40 (map), and fig. 8, p. 19 (right, bottom)

730

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Delft?

Vlaardingen: Muziekinformatie- en documentatiecentrum Ton Stolk • Urban • Chance find Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

236

731

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Delft?

Vlaardingen: Muziekinformatie- en documentatiecentrum Ton Stolk • Urban • With punch mark • Chance find Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.) Notches filed into the arms.(Cf. nos.35, Malmö, and 312, Paris) Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

732

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Delft?

Vlaardingen: Muziekinformatie- en documentatiecentrum Ton Stolk • Urban • Chance find Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

733

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Delft?

Vlaardingen: Muziekinformatie- en documentatiecentrum Ton Stolk • Urban • Chance find Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Both arms are broken, apparently. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

734

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Delft?

Vlaardingen: Muziekinformatie- en documentatiacentrum Ton Stolk • Urban • Chance find Iron • Forged • Hammered • Circular • Type: Horsens Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

735

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Delft?

Vlaardingen: Muziekinformatie- en documentatiecentrum Ton Stolk • Urban • Chance find Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Probably chance finds from the city of Delft. Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.) Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

736

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Near Tiel • Bergakker

Private • Found: 1996 • Before 1650 Cu-alloy Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

237

737

Poland • Dolny Slask (Lower Silesia): Glatz • Miedzylesie • Szczerba Castle

Wroclaw: Muzeum Archeologiczne (Archaeological Museum) • Castle • Medieval

738–739 Poland • Dolny Slask (Lower Silesia) • Wroclaw (Breslau) • The Old City Wroclaw: Muzeum Archeologiczne (Archaeological Museum) • Urban • Medieval

740

The Netherlands • Noord-Brabant • Eindhoven

Stadsarch. Eindhoven • Urban • OL: 52/OW: 35/AL: 29 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Photo: from unknown publication (copy from Annemies Tamboer)

741–742

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • ’sGravenhage (The Hague)

Arch. Dienst ’sGravenhage • Urban Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

743

The Netherlands • Noord-Holland • Haarlem • Frankestraat

Private • Found: 1993 • Urban • 14th c. Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

744

The Netherlands • Limburg • Heel

Private • Found: 1984 • Rural • 15th c.? • OL: 59 Cu-alloy? Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

745

The Netherlands • Limburg • Heerlen

Heerlen: Thermenmuseum, 2517 • Found: 1956 • Rural • 15th c.? • OL: 47/OW: 25/AL: 29 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Information from Annemies Tamboer Sketch from the museum.

746

The Netherlands • Noord-Brabant • ’s Hertogenbosch

DBKJ 11-0-46 • Found: 1984 • Urban • 14th c.? • OL: 48/OW: 24/AL: 30 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Nijmegen Drawing: from unknown publication (copy from Annemies Tamboer)

238

747

The Netherlands • Noord-Brabant • ’s Hertogenbosch

DBKJ 0-0-1198 • Found: 1984 • Urban • 15th c.? • OL: 28.5*/OW: 33.5/LL: 16 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Drawing: from unknown publication (copy from Annemies Tamboer)

748

The Netherlands • Friesland • Leeuwarden

Urban • 15th–16th c. • OL: 65 Cu-alloy Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

749

The Netherlands • Overijssel • Lemselo

Found: 1953 • Rural Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

750

The Netherlands • Limburg

Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

751

The Netherlands • Gelderland • Nijmegen

Found: 1993 • Urban • 16th c.? Cu-alloy Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

752

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Near the Hague: Ockenburg

RMO Iron Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

753

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Rotterdam

Boor • Found: 1988/1992 • Urban • 1400–1450 • OL: 48/OW: 20/AL: 34 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Carmiggelt 1997: 195, fig. 13. Dated from its archaeological context. Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.).

754

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Rotterdam

Boor • Urban (Several instruments) Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

239

755

The Netherlands • Zuid-Holland • Rotterdam

Schielandhuis • Urban (Several instruments) Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

756

The Netherlands • Overijssel • Westenholte (Zwolle)

Stedelyk Muesum Zwolle, SMZ • Found: 1983 • Castle • 1400–1425 • OL: 59 Cu-alloy Found in a moat of a castle. Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

757

The Netherlands • Overijssel • Westenholte (Zwolle)

Stedelyk Muesum Zwolle, SMZ • Found: 1983 • Castle • 1400–1425 • OL: 55 Cu-alloy Found in a moat of a castle. Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

758

The Netherlands • Zeeland • Zuid-Beveland

MZNB:7335 • 15th c. • OL: 48 Cu-alloy Annemies Tamboer (pers. comm.)

759

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7696 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

760

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7697 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

761

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7698 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Nijmegen Collected by private persons. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

762

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7699 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

240

763

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7700 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Collected by private persons. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

764

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7701 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

765

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7702 Cu-alloy? • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Damme Collected by private persons. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

766

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7703 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Collected by private persons. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

767

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7704 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Collected by private persons. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

768

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7705 Iron? • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Damme Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

241

769

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7706 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Unclassified Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

770

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7708 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval/D-shaped • Type: Höxter Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

771

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7709 Cu-alloy • Cast • Rectangular? • Wedged? • Circular • Type: Unclassified The frame has a pattern. Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

772

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7735 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

773

United Kingdom • Nottinghamshire • Unprovenanced

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • OL: 59.1/OW: 23.7/AL: 39 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found with metal detector

242

774

United Kingdom • Nottinghamshire • Near Bingham

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • Rural • OL: 73.5/OW: 39.2/AL: 41 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Unclassified Found with metal detector. Very likely modern/19th–20st c.

775

United Kingdom • Unprovenanced

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • OL: 43.9/OW: 20.7/AL: 27 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found with metal detector

776

United Kingdom • Unprovenanced

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • OL: 49/OW: 25/ AL: 30 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found with metal detector

777

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • OL: 47.9/OW: 22.4/AL: 28 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Found with metal detector

778

United Kingdom • Cambridgeshire • Unprovenanced

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • Rural • Medieval • OL: 51/OW: 21.6/AL: 39 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Odiham Found with metal detector

243

779

United Kingdom • Cambridgeshire • Unprovenanced

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • Rural • OL: 59.5/OW: 26.6/AL: 39 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found with metal detector

780

United Kingdom • Cambridgeshire • Unprovenanced

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • Rural • OL: 49.2/OW: 24/AL: 31 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Circular • Type: Nijmegen Found with metal detector

781

United Kingdom • Cambridgeshire • Unprovenanced

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • Rural • OL: 50.1/OW: 20.8/AL: 33 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found with metal detector

782

United Kingdom • Cambridgeshire • Near Cambridge

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • Rural • 18th c.? • OL: 68.2/OW: 51.4/AL: 34 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Found with metal detector

244

783

United Kingdom • Cambridgeshire • Near Cambridge

Mt. Pleasant, Iowa: Collection of Frederick Crane • Found: 1990s • Rural • OL: 59.6/OW: 26.3/AL: 38.5 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Found with metal detector

784

Belgium • Antwerpen (Antwerp)

Brussels: Instrumentenmuseum, Sterckshofsm. Deurne 2633 Cu-alloy • Cast Boone 1972: 49, no. 52

785

Belgium • Antwerpen (Antwerp)

Brussels: Instrumentenmuseum, Sterckshofsm. Deurne 2634 Cu-alloy • Cast Boone 1972: 49, no. 53

786

Belgium • Luxembourg

Bouillon: Musée Ducale Cu-alloy Boone 1986: 40 (map); Frederick Crane (pers. comm.)

787

Belgium • Oost-Vlaanderen (East Flanders) • Klein Sinaai, near Sint-Niklaas

Sint-Niklaas: Stedelijk Museum (?) • Found: Before 1982 • OL: 50/OW: 30 Iron Nauts 1982: 138, no. 260.

788–791

Belgium • Vlaanderen (East Flanders)

Gent: Oudheidkundige Musea, Bijlokemuseum • 16th–18th c. (?) Hollebusch-Van Rech and De Keyser 1978: 17–20, and Pl. 3 (Photo)

792

Poland • Pomorze • Gdansk • Site no. 103, “Green Gate“

Gdansk: Muzeum Archeologiczne (Archaeological Museum) • Urban • 15th c., 2nd part • OL: 59/OW: 29.5/AL: 49 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Narrow oval • Type: Billingsgate Photo: Muzeum Archeologiczne, Gdansk

245

793

United Kingdom • Sussex • Pulborough • The Old House

Found: Before 1978 • Rural Backhouse and Backhouse 1978.

794

United Kingdom • Kent • Rochester • Between Corn Exchange and Corporation Street

Found: 1961 • Urban • 17th–18th c. • OL: 63/OW: 25/AL: 38 Cu-alloy • Cast • Hexagonal • Hammered* • Circular • Type: Rochester Grove 1962, with fig. 6, p. 207. Found in a rubbish pit. Tobacco pipes, glassware and pottery from the pit suggest a 17th or 18th century dating. The tobacco pipes can be dated to the period from circa 1620 to 1730 (op. cit.) Method of attachment: Hammered in a notch, which is placed into a thickening of the frame.

795

United Kingdom • Kent • Egerton • Rock Hill House

Maidstone Museum (?) • Found: 1970 • Rural • OL: 52 Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Circular • Type: Stafford Grove 1975: 192, and fig. 6.1, no. 3, p. 193

796

Italy • Friuli-Venezia Giulia • Montereale (Cellina Valley)• Montereale Castle

Found: Before 1987 • Castle • 16th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Grattoni d-Aranco 1987: 150–2; Internet: http://www.univ.trieste.it/zuglio/all/montereale/montereale.sito.html. The Web-site is hosted by University of Trieste. (Access 2006) Photo from Internet-site.

797

United Kingdom • Buckinghamshire • Addington

Found: 1973–1977 • Rural (Village) Thornhill and Savage 1979

798

United Kingdom • Lincolnshire • Burton

Medieval White 1980

246

799

Russia • Central Russia: Bryansk region • Bryansk

Found: 1968–1971 • Urban • Late medieval • OL: 75/OW: 31.6/AL: 56/LL: 43 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Schauenburg Ravdina 1973: 66–71, with fig. Found in trench 4 and levels I and III.

800

Denmark • Sjælland: Vest-Sjælland County • Holbæk • Ahlgade 49

Holbæk: Museet for Holbæk og omegn, MHO 389x1089 • Urban • 1300–1450 • OL: 86/OW: 25.1/AL: 65 Iron • Forged • Hammered • Oval • Type: Gironville Gorm Jessen (pers. comm.) Photo/drawing and documentation: Gorm Jessen

801

France • Midi-Pyrénées • Toulouse • Gúe de Bazacle

Urban Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen The finds from Toulouse: Démians d’Archimbaud 1980: 649 (note 70); Homo-Lechner 1996: 134 (mention). This individual find: Published on the Internet. Probably from Toulouse, judged from the adress: http://www.jacobins.marie-toulouse.fr/ expos/vivreauMA/textes/panneaux/musique.htm (Access 2004). Photo from Internet.site.

802–805

France • Midi-Pyrénées • Toulouse • Gúe de Bazacle

Urban Iron The finds from Toulouse: Démians d’Archimbaud 1980: 649 (note 70); Homo-Lechner 1996: 134 (mention).

806

The Netherlands • Unprovenanced

Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuringen, BvB: F7707 • OL: 72/OW: 47/AL: 31 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Oval/D-shaped • Type: Unclassified Collected by private persons. Probably bought in antiquaries. Photo and information: Annemies Tamboer

247

807

Austria • Tirol• BH Innsbruck-Land: Seefeld • Schloßberg

Innsbruck: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Innsbruck • Found: 1974 • Castle • Late 15th c. • OL: 48/OW: 25/AL: 28/LL: 11 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Herrmann-Schneider 2000: 284ff., with fig. 2, p. 285; Schick 2001: 85, 118, and plate 1, no. 1 (left); Photo (below here) and short description on the Internet: www.musikland-tirol.at./html/musikinstitutionen/musikataster.html

808

Austria • Tirol• BH Innsbruck-Land: Seefeld • Schloßberg

Innsbruck: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Innsbruck • Found: 1974 • Castle • With punch mark • Late 15th c. • OL: 51/OW: 26/AL: 27 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval/Triangular • Type: Horsens Herrmann-Schneider 2000: 284ff., with fig. 1, p. 285; Schick 2001: 85, 118, and plate 1, no. 2. The punch mark, measuring 7.5 X 3 millimetres, is shaped as a hammer or T.

809

Austria • Tirol• BH Innsbruck-Land: Seefeld • Schloßberg

Innsbruck: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Innsbruck • Found: 1974 • Castle • Late 15th c. • OL: 39*/OW: 26/LL: 7.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Square • Type: Horsens Schick 2001: 85, 118–19, and plate 1, no. 3.

810

Austria • Eastern Tirol • Near Lienz • Bruck Castle

Found: 1999 • Castle • 16th c. • OL: 29/OW: 15/AL: 16/LL: 7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Bruck Schick 2001: 85, 120, and plate 1, no. 4.

811

Austria • Tirol• BH Kitzbühel (Gem. Kirckdorf): Erpfenstein near Erpfendorf • Erpfenstein Castle Kirchdorf: Heimatkundlichen Sammlung • Found: 1986/1990 • Castle • Late 13th–early 14th c. • OL: 54/OW: 26/AL: 36 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Herrmann-Schneider 2000: 286, 291; Schick 2001: 85, 120–1, and plate 1, no. 5.

248

812

Austria • Tirol• PB Rattenberg: KG Alpbach • Untererlbach-Hof

Found: 1989 • Rural • 18th c. • OL: 46/OW: 28/AL: 23/LL: 7.1 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Square • Type: Kufstein Schick 2001: 87, 121, and plate 1, no. 6.

813

Austria • Tirol• BH Kufstein: Kufstein Fort • Josefsburg

Found: 1996 • Castle • 1775–1800 • OL: 39/OW: 27/AL: 17.5/LL: 9 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval/Square • Type: Kufstein Schick 2001: 85–6, 121, and plate 1, no. 7.

814

Austria • Tirol• BH Kufstein: Kufstein Fort • Josefsburg

Found: 1996 • Castle • With punch mark • 1775–1800 • OL: 44/OW: 27/AL: 20.5 Iron • Bent from a rod • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Square • Type: Kufstein Schick 2001: 85–6, 122, and plate 1, no. 8. The punch mark, a letter B, belonged probably to the maker Matthias Sperrnrauft, Molln, Austria. He received his Master certificate in 1780 (Schick, op. cit.).

815

Denmark • Sjælland: Vestsjællands County • Near Korsør: Halsskov • Tårnborg Manor

Sorø Amts Museum, AMK 46/89 • Found: Late 19th c. • Rural • OL: 77.5/OW: 20.8 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Hairpin-shaped • Type: Kuusisto From the Kruseminde-collection. Now in archaeological department of Sorø Amts Museum. Provenance: Probably found at the fields of Tårnborg Manor. Undated from the find circumstances (Gorm Jessen, pers. comm.). The small iron item on the photo is a fragment of the lamella. The arms are bent slightly out at their ends, of unknown reason. Was it a means to facilitate plucking of the lamella with the same hand as the instrument was held? Or, if the curved section followed the jaw of the player, could it be meant for a playing technique where the lamella was plucked by the player’s tounge? Photo/drawing and documentation: Gorm Jessen

249

816

Sweden • Skåne • Kävlinge (county): Dagstorp parish • Huvudstorp

Kristianstad: Regionmuseet (The Region Museum) • Found: 2003 • Rural (Village) • 12th–13th c. Oval • Type: Unclassified Salminen 2003:6. (Without illustration. Report about the excavation. The jew’s harp is only briefly mentioned.) Excavated from a trial trench. The excavation revealed no clear stratigraphy, but the jew’s harp was found with ceramics suggesting a 12th or 13th c. deposition (Salminen pers. comm. and 2003). Photo (before conservation) by Lars Salminen. Measurements, material etc. unknown.

817

Sweden • Södermanland • Nynäshamns kommun (county) • Sorunda parish • Fållnäs, House II

F.nr. 218 • Found: 2001 • Rural • 1100–1300 • OL: 45*/OW: 35/AL: 15* Iron • Forged • Triangular • Type: Unclassified Ytterborg 2002: 16, with fig. 25; 27, 34 (table). Weight: 11 g. Both arms of the object are missing. Identified as jew’s harp in the publication (Ytterborg 2002). Found in house II. “Analysis of objects, metal and otherwise as well as comparison with similar contemporary countryside houses enables dating of the houses to 1100 - 1300 AD. The rich findings and special artefacts, like arrowheads for the crossbow and a spur, indicates that this was not an ordinary settlement but rather the home of a man who was part of the landowner’s troops.” (Ytterborg 2002: ii). NB:

818

Sweden • Östergötland • Norrköping (county) • Borg parish • Borgs säteri (Borg manor), House 12 F.nr. 1331 • Found: 1992–1993 • Rural • Late 13th c.–15th c. • OL: 52.5 • OW: 24.5/AL: 36/LL: 12.5 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Lindeblad and Nielsen 1997: 52, 90, with fig. 119. (Measurements from fig.) Found in Context A821, in a stone setting belonging to House 12. The jew’s harp was found in the southern part of the house, which was an extension, buildt in the late 13th c. or early 14th c. (Lindeblad and Nielsen, op. cit.: 55–6). The house was a dwelling house, and the bailiff probably resided here. Among the finds there are glass beakers and other artifacts indicating a socially respectable milieu (ibid.). The excavations also revealed several artifacts suggesting female activities (needles, spinning tools). Borg manor was a Royal manor, attested by written documents as well as archaeological materials.

819

Iceland • Su∂urland (Southland) • Rangárvallasysla • Stóraborg

Reykjavík: National Museum of Iceland • Stb 1982:073 • Found: 1982 • Rural • 16th–17th c. • OL: 57/OW: 45/AL: 29 Iron • Square • Type: Unclassified Snæsdóttir et al. 1991: 24–5, with photo p. 24. The lamella is missing. Found in a house that was in use in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thanks to Mjöll Snæsdóttir. The object has an unusual form to be a jew’s harp. It is studied here from photocopy only, and there is therefore reason to take preliminary reservations as to the identification of the object.

820

Republic of Belarus • Mogilev region • Drutsk • Drutsk Castle

Castle • 12th c. (?) Type: Unclassified Drutsk (or Druck) was known as Dryutesk in the Middle Ages. The place no longer exists (http://ellone-loire.net/obsidian/belarus.html#Drutsk). [Lat: 54° 19' 29''N, Lon: 29° 47' 35''E]. No further details about the finds and find circumstances are known. Source of information is the text “The Belorussian Jew’s Harp”, on the Internet, with address http://troitsaetno.narod.ru/instruments/var.htm. The text, which is written in Russian, says (translated by Morten Abildsnes): “The oldest testimonies of the jew’s harp in Belarus appear from the 12th century: In Drutsk Castle one piece of this instruments was found, along with many artifacts that had belonged to the prince’s family and his nearest superiors. More [jew’s harps] have been found at excavations of the castles Lida, Vitebsk and Mstislavl. They are dated to the 16th century.” This source does not give any more details or sources about these finds. Author is "Etno trio Troitsa", which is a Belorussian folk band.

250

821

Republic of Belarus • Grodno region • Lida • Lida Castle

Castle • 16th. c. (?) Type: Unclassified No further details about the finds and find circumstances are known. Source of information is the text “The Belorussian Jew’s Harp”, on the Internet (cf. no. 820), and Internet-site www.minskreview.com/n8/lida-e.html (mention of the jew’s harp, along with various other archaeological artifacts). The castle at Lida was founded in 1323.

822

Republic of Belarus • Vitebsk region • Vitebsk • Vitebsk Castle

Castle • 16th. c. (?) Type: Unclassified No further details about the finds and find circumstances are known. Source of information is the text “The Belorussian Jew’s Harp”, on the Internet (cf. no. 820).

823

Republic of Belarus • Mogilev region • Mstislavl • Mstislavl Castle

Castle • 16th. c. (?) Type: Unclassified No further details about the finds and find circumstances are known. Source of information is the text “The Belorussian Jew’s Harp”, on the Internet (cf. no. 820).

824

Norway • Oppland • Øystre slidre • Langedal

Oslo: Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Oldsaksamlingen, C53207 • Rural • Chance find • OL: 51/OW: 29/AL: 35/LL: 8 Iron • Forged • Rectangular • Wedged • Narrow oval • Type: Höxter Photo: Ellen C. Holte, Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Oldsaksamlingen. Weight: 9.7 g. Found by Valdres Folkemuseum, Fagernes, in a box with five objects, marked “Deposited UO [Universitetets Oldsaksamling]. From Langedal, ØS [Øystre Slidre].” Three of them, that were found to date from the Viking Age, had accession numbers of the museum (Oldsaksamlingen). The jew’s harp, however, lacked number and text (Information from the museum). Most reasonable, this is an old chance find. Almost identical to no. 504 (Vinje, Telemark, Norway). Similar instruments are found to date from the 18th c. and later.

825

France • Lorraine • Metz • Place de la Comédie

Metz: Musées de Metz; The Cour d'Or Museums (deposited from SRA de Lorraine) • Found: Before 1999 • Urban • 15th c., 2nd half • OL: ca 60 mm. Cu-alloy • Type: Unclassified Thanks to Frederick Crane for information.

826

Slovakia • Unprovenanced

Klagenfurt-Wölfnitz, Austria: Coll. of Dr. Gerfried H. Leute • Castle • With punch mark • OL: 55.5/OW: 30.5/AL: 33/LL: 6.7 Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Oval • Type: Horsens Bought at a flea market in Vienna, and said to be excavated from a castle in Slovakia (cf. no. 827). Difficult to determine the shape of the punch mark, because of corrosion. Size of the mark: ca 4 X 2.5 mm.

251

827

Slovakia • Unprovenanced

Klagenfurt-Wölfnitz, Austria: Coll. of Dr. Gerfried H. Leute • Castle • With punch mark • OL: 38/OW: 28/AL: 19/LL: 8.6 Iron • Forged • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • D-shaped • Type: Ekeberg Bought at a flea market in Vienna, and said to be excavated from a castle in Slovakia (cf. no. 826). Punch mark in the shape of a small five-pointed star, measuring 1.6 X 1.2 mm.

828

Germany • Niedersachsen • Lüneburg • Große Backerstraße 27

Lüneburg: Lüneburger Stadtarchäologie • Urban • Early post-medieval • OL: ca 60 mm. Cu-alloy • Cast • Rectangular • Hammered* • Circular • Type: Unclassified. Photo from the home pages of Lüneburger Stadtarchäologie (www.stadtarchaeologielueneburg.de/gal/galerie.htm). Dating, according to Lüneburger Stadtarchäologie: Early post-medieval. The frame has a pattern. *Method of attachment: Hammered in a notch, which is placed into a thickening of the frame. Very similar to nos. 211 and 714. Studied by photo only.

829 Latvia • North Kurzeme • Ventspils •Ventspils Castle • Commanders room Ventspils: Ventspils Museum (Displayed at The Castle of the Livonian Order) • Castle • 13th - mid 16th century Cu-alloy • Cast • Diamond-shaped • Hammered • Oval • Type: Greifswald Photo from the home pages of Ventspils Museum (www.ventspilsmuzejs.lv/). Studied by photo only.

830

Finland • Turku ja Pori • Åbo (Turku) • Cathedral Park (Domkyrkoskvären)

Turun maakuntamuseo (Turku Provincial Museum) • Found: 2005 • Urban • Late medieval–17th c. Iron • Forged • Hexagonal • Hammered • Triangular • Type: Kransen Photo: Turku Provincial Museum; published on the Internet: www.turku.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=11615, PDF-document, at link “Vecka 36”. Exhibited in the old Town Hall of Åbo in week 36, 2005 as “The Find of the Week”. Measurements unknown. Studied by photo only. Notice that the arms of the jew’s harp seem to be bent out, creating a slightly curved section, similar to no. 815. We can only guess if this was meant as an intentional contrivance or not. Thanks to Helena Wright for drawing attention to the find.

252

References mondharp. Antwerpen-Baarn: Hadewijch.

Adams,W.Y., and Adams, E.W. (1991), Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— (1998a), An Iconographic Rediscovery of the Trump,The Thoughts’ Dispeller,Vol. 6. Middelburg: Stiching/Foundation Antropodium.

Adkins, C. J. (1974),“Investigation of the Sound-Producing Mechanism of the Jew’s Harp”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 55(3): 667–70.

— (1998b), The 1000 Names of the Jew’s Harp,The Thoughts’ Dispeller,Vol. 7. Middelburg: Stiching/Foundation Antropodium.

Allmo, P. U., and Bergelt, S. (1995), Svarta jordens sång [Song of the Black Earth]. Uppsala:Tullinge.

Banning, E. B. (2002), The Archaeologist’s Laboratory.The Analysis of Archaeological Data, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Andersen, M. (1997), “Middelalderlige musikinstrumenter fra Roskildes undergrund”, in Musik i Roskilde – fra jødeharpe til festival, pp.3–12, Historisk årbog fra Roskilde amt 1996/97. Roskilde: Historisk Samfund for Roskilde Amt.

Bartz, B., and Schmidt, B. (eds) (1997), Museums of the World, Handbook of International Documentation and Information 16. München: Saur.

Andersen, S., et al. (1976),“Fugholm. En udgravning i middelalderens Horsens”, Østjysk hjemstavn, 41: 107–19.

Bealer, A.W. (1976/1995), The Art of Blacksmithing. Edison: Castle Books.

Ariès, P. (1983), The Hour of Our Death. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Berg, H., Bender Jørgensen, L., and Mortensøn, O. B. (1981), Sandhagen. Rudkøbing: Langelands museum.

Aujourd’hui le Moyen-Age: Archéologie et vie quotidienne en France méridionale (Exhibition catalogue). Aix-enProvence, 1981.

Bergman, E. (1957) Hallwylska Samlingen. Generalregister til grupperna 1–62, 65–67. Stockholm: Hallwylska museet. Berry Head Archaeology, Brixham Heritage Museum & History Society. Internet: http://www.brixhamheritage.org.uk/arch/berry_head_r eport2000.htm. (Accessed in 2006)

Bäärnhielm, G. (1976), I Norrland hava vi ett Indien: gruvdrift och kolonisation i Lappmarken under 1600-talet, Historiska Småskrifter fra Arkivet för folkets historie. Stockholm: Ordfront. Baart, J. et al. (1977), Opgravingen in Amsterdam. 20 jaar stadskernonderzoek. Amsterdam: Fibula-van Dishoek. Bachmann-Geiser, B. (1981), Die Volksmusikinstrumente der Schweiz, Handbuch der europäischen Volksmusikinstrumente, Ser. 1. Bd 4. Zurich: Atlantis. Backhouse, M.V., and Backhouse, A.V. (1978),“The Old House, Pulborough,West Sussex”, Sussex Archaeological Collection, 116: 375–92. Baeriswyl, A., and Junkes, M. (1995), Der Unterhof in Diessenhofen.Von der Adelsburg zum Ausbildungszentrum, Archäologie im Thurgau 3. Frauenfeld: Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau. Baillet, M. (1806/1988),“A Brief Introduction to the Art of Making Jew’s Harps”, in L. Fox (ed.) (1988), The Jew’s harp: A Comprehensive Anthology, pp.62–4. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. Bailly-Maitre, M.-C., and Bruno Dupraz, J. (1994), Brandes-en-Oisans: la mine d’argent des Dauphins (XII–XIVe s), Documents d’Archéologie en RhôneAlpes 9. Isère: Service Régional de l’Archéologie de Rhône-Alpes.

Bitterli,T., and Grütter, D. (2001), Alt-Wädenswil.Vom Freiherrenturm zur Ordensburg, Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters 27, Basel. Bitterli-Waldvogel, T. (1998), “‘Giätrich’, Wiler (Lötschen) VS 1989–1990”, in V. Schaltenbrand Obrecht (ed.), ‘Heidenhüttli’. 25 Jahre archäologische Wüstungsforschung im schweizerischen Alpenraum, pp.174–201, Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters 23/24, Basel. Bizer, C. (1981),“Auswertung und Dokumentation der Kleinfunde”, in Wielandstein. Eine Burgruine auf der Schwäbischen Alb, pp.39–91. Braubach/Rhein:Verlag der Deutschen Burgenvereinigung. Bizer, C., and Götz, R. (1989), Vergessene Burgen der Schwäbischen Alb. Stuttgart: DRW-Verlag. Blacking, J. (1973), How Musical is Man? Seattle: University of Washington Press. Blandford, P.W. (1988), Practical Blacksmithing and Metalworking. New York:TAB Books.

Baker, D. et al. (1979),“Excavations in Bedford 1967–1977”, Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal, 13.

Boone, H. (1972),“Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de Mondtrom, voornamelijk in de Nederlanden”, in R. de Maeyer (ed.), The Brussels Museum of Musical Instruments Bulletin 2, 5–49.

Bakx, P. (1993), De Gedachtenverdrijver. De historie van de

— (1986), De mondtrom. Brussels: La Renaissance du Livre.

253

Cleary, R. M. (1982a),“Excavations at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, 1977–1978: Part I”, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, 87(245).

Boscardin, M.-L. (1998),“Lukmanierhospiz Sta. Maria, Medel GR 1966”, in V. Schaltenbrand Obrecht (ed.), ‘Heidenhüttli’. 25 Jahre archäologische Wüstungsforschung im schweizerischen Alpenraum, pp.18–23. Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters 23/24, Basel.

— (1982b),“Excavations at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, 1977–1978: Part II”, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, 87(246).

Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction:A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Cohen, J. (1982), The Friars and the Jews.The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

— (1994), Academic Discourse: Linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power. Oxford: Polity Press.

Cosma,V. (1977), Doua milenii de muzica pe pamintul Romaniei. Bucuresti.

Brew, J. O. (1946),“The Use and Abuse of Taxonomy”, in Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah, pp.44–66, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 21. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cox, A. (1996),“Backland Activities in Medieval Perth: Excavations at Meal Vennel and Scott Street”, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 126: 733–821.

Browne,T. (1658/1958), Hydriotaphia. Urne Burial and The Garden of Cyrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buckley, A. (1986),“Jew’s Harps in Irish Archaeology”, in C. Lund (ed.), Second Conference of the ICTM Study Group on Music Archaeology, pp.49–71, Publications issued by the Royal Swedish Academy of Music, 1. Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Music.

Crane, F. (1968),“The Jew’s Harp as Aerophone”, Galpin Society Journal, 21: 66–9. — (1972), Extant Medieval Musical Instruments.A Provisional Catalogue by Types. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. — (1982),“Jew’s (Jaw’s? Jeu? Jeugd? Gew-gaw? Juice?) Harp”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 1: 29–41.

— (1989),“Musical Archaeology: Its Contribution to ‘Cultural’ Musicology and ‘Historical’ Ethnomusicology”, Archaeologia musicalis (1): 109–13.

— (2000),“Trolls and Trumps”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 9: 7–26.

— (1991),“Boundaries in the Field:What do they Serve? A Review of the Landscapes of Ethnomusicology and Historical Musicology”, in A. Buckley, K.-O. Edström and P. Nixon (eds), Proceedings of the Second British–Swedish Conference on Musicology: Ethnomusicology, pp.39–59, Musikmuseets skrifter, 21. Göteborg: Musikvetenskapliga institutionen, University of Göteborg.

— (2003a),“Trumps in American Musical Instrument Trade Catalogs”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 11: 67–116.

Burke, P. (1978/1999), Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate. Burkhart, C. (1994),“Die Ruine Schauenburg bei Dossenheim an der Bergstraße. Geschichte – Verfall – Erhaltung”, Burgen und Schlösser. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Burgenvereinigung, 35(2): 65–76. — (1996),“Die Ruine Schauenburg bei Dossenheim.Von Umgang mit einem herausragenden Geschichtszeugnis an der badischen Bergstraße im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert”, Mannheimer Geschichtsblätter. Neue Folge. Ein historisches Jahrbuch zur Archäologie, Geschichte und Zeitgeschichte, Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte Mannheims und der ehemaligen Kurpfalz, 3: 69–138. Buzás, G. (1994), A visegrády királyi palota kápolnája és északkeleti épülete,Visegrád régészeti monográfiája,Vol. 1. Visegrád. Carmiggelt,A. (1997): Laat- en postmiddeleeuwse bewoningssporen aan de Hoogstraat te Rotterdam. In:A. Carmiggelt,A.J. Guiran and M.C. van Trierum (ed.). Archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Willemsspoortunnel te Rotterdam. BOORbalans (3): 139-278. Cerwinka, G. and Mandl. F. (ed.) (1998), Dachstein.Vier Jahrtausende Almen im Hochgebirge,Vol. 2 (Mitteilungen der Anis, 18). Haus i. E.: Anisa.

— (2003b),“A History of the Trump in Pictures: Europe and America”, Supplement to VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft). — (2003c),“The Earliest Verbal Sources for the History of the Trump in Europe”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 11: 23–28. — (2004),“Editors Notes”, Journal of the International Jew’s Harp Society, 1: 2–3. Dahlbäck, G. (ed.) (1982), Helgeandsholmen. 1000 år i Stockholms ström, Stockholmsmonografier. Stockholm: Liber. Dahlhaus, C. (1983), Foundations of Music History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dallais, P. et al. (2002),“The Drymba among the Hutsul in the Ukrainian Carpathians: A Recent Ethnomusicological Survey”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 10: 9–29. Darwin, C. (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray. Davey, J. P., Freke, D. J., and Higgins, D. A. (eds) (1996), Excavations in Castletown, Isle of Man, 1989–1992. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

254

Ericsson, I. (ed.) (1998), AusGrabungen. Schicht für Schicht ins Mittelalter. Begleitheft zur Ausstellung des Lehrstuhls für Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. Bamberg: Lehrstuhl für Archäologie des Mitelalters und der Neuzeit der Universität Bamberg.

Démians d’Archimbaud, G. (1980), Les fouilles de Rougiers (Var): contribution à l’archéologie de l’habitat rural médiéval en pays méditerranéen, (Mémoires, 2.) Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Die Maultrommel. Short article at the home page of the company F. A. Schlütter, Zella-Mehlis, Germany. Internet: http://home.tiscali.de/schluetter/ Maultrommeln/texte/deumau2frame.htm. (Accessed in 2006)

Eriksen,T. H. (1996), Kampen om fortiden. Et essay om myter, identitet og politikk. Oslo: Aschehoug. Espeland,V. (2002), “Folkeviser frå scenen”, Norsk folkemusikklags skrifter, 16: 1–10.

Douglas, M. (1975), Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology. London: Routledge.

Færden, G. (1990), Dagliglivets gjenstander – del 1, E. Schia and P. B. Molaug (eds), De arkeologiske utgravninger i Gamlebyen, Oslo, 7, Øvre Ervik: Alvheim & Eide.

Dournon-Taurelle, G. (1975), La guimbarde. Doctoral thesis, University of Paris.

Falck, E. (1995), Dario Fo. Gjøgler og samfunnsrefser. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.

— and Wright, J. (1978), Les guimbardes du Musée de l’Homme. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie, Musée de l’Homme.

Falck,W. (1974), “Ett medeltida musikinstrument i Visby”, Gotländskt Arkiv, XLVI: 67–72.

Down, A., and Rule, M. (1971), Chichester Excavations I. Chichester: Chichester Civic Society Excavations Committee.

Fanning,T. (1976), “Excavations at Clontuskert Priory, Co. Galway”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C, 76(5): 97–169.

Dräger, H. H. (1947), Prinzip einer Systematik der Musikinstrumente. Kassel: Bärenreiter.

Faussett, B. (1856), Inventorium Sepulchrale. London:T. Richards.

Durkheim, É., and Mauss, M. (1963), Primitive Classification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fedorov, G. B. (1954), “Itogi trekhletnikh rabot v Moldavii v oblasti slavyano-russkoi arkheologii”, in Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Institut istorii material’noi kul’tury, Kratkie soobshcheniya, 56: 8–23.

Egan, G. (ed.) (1998), The Medieval Household: Daily Living c. 1150–c. 1450, Medieval Finds from Excavations in London. London: Stationery Office.

Feister, L. M. (1995), Johnson Hall Outbuildings, Landscape History, and Forgotten Features: Documentary and Archaeological Research Conducted Between 1945 and 1991, Johnstown, Fulton County New York. New York: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

Eggenstein, G. (2000), “On the Road”, Archäologie Deutschland (3): 43–44. Ehn, O., and Gustafsson, Jan Helmer (eds) (1984), “Kransen. Ett medeltida kvarter i Uppsala”, Upplands fornminnesförenings tidskrift, 50.

— (1996), Archaeological Excavations Conducted between 1991 and 1993 for a Gas Line and for a New Entryway at Johnson Hall State Historic Site, Johnstown, New York, 1996. New York: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

Ekroll, Ø. et al. (1997), Museet i Erkebispegården. Trondheim: Nidaros domkirkes restaureringsarbeiders forlag. Elliston-Erwood, F. C. (1943), “Notes on Bronze Objects from Shooters Hill, Kent and elsewhere and on the Antiquity of Jew’s Harps”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 56: 34–40.

Feld, S. (1982), Sound and Sentiment: Birds,Weeping, Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

— (1947), “Further Notes of Jew’s Harps”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 60: 107–8.

Felder, G. (1942), Die Burgen der kantone St. Gallen und Appenzell. Dritter Teil, Neujahrsblatt St. Gallen, 82. St. Gallen: Historischen Vereins des Kantons St. Gallen.

— (1958), “Another Jew’s Harp from Kent”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 72: 200–2. Elschek, O. (1983), Die Volksmusikinstrumente der Tschechoslowakei. Teil 2. Die slowakischen Volksmusikinstrumente, Handbuch der europäischen Volksmusikinstrumente. Leipzig: Deutsche Verlag für Musik. — and Stockmann, E. (1969), “Zur Typologie der Volksmusikinstrumente”, in E. Stockmann (ed.), Studia Instrumentorum Musicae Popularis, 1: 11–22. Stockholm: Musikmuseet. Emsheimer, E. (1964), “Maultrommeln in Sibirien und Zentralasien”, in Studia ethnomusicologica eurasiatica, pp.13–27. Stockholm: Musikmuseet.

Flüeler, N. et al. (eds) (1975), Die Schweiz vom Bau der Alpen bis zur Frage nach der Zukunft. Zürich: Ex Libris. Flühler-Kreis, D. (1987), Sammlung von Hallwil. Begleitheft. Ergänzungen zum Führer von 1929. Zürich: Swiss National Museum. Ford, J. A. (1954a), “Comment on A. C. Spaulding, ‘Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artefact Types’”, American Antiquity, 19: 390–1. — (1954b), “The Type Concept Revisited”, American Anthropologist, 56: 42–54. — (1954c), “Spaulding’s Review on Ford”, American Anthropologist, 56: 109–14.

255

Fox, L. (ed.) (1988), The Jew’s Harp: A Comprehensive Anthology. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. Fromme, J. (1986),“Interessante Funde aus dem mittelalterlichen Duisburg”, Informationsblatt Nr. 74 des Niederrheinischen Museums der Stadt Duisburg. Galpin, F.W. (1910), Old English Instruments of Music:Their History and Character. London: Shenval.

Hakelberg, D. (1995), “Some Recent ArchaeoOrganological Finds in Germany”, Galpin Society Journal, XLVIII (March): 3–12. Hayden, B. (1984), “Are Emic Types Relevant to Archaeology?”, Ethnohistory, 31(2): 79–92. Hefner, J. von, and Wolf, J. W. (1850), Die Burg Tannenberg und ihre Ausgrabungen. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag der S. Schmerberschen Buchhandlung.

— (1956), A Textbook of European Musical Instruments. London:Williams and Nowgate.

Heid, K. (1962), “Neu-Schellenberg. Die Fundgegenstände”, Jahrbuch des Historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein, 62: 51–79.

Gamber, O. (1980) “Beschauzeichnen”, Lexikon des Mittelalters,Vol. 1, Column 2056–2058. München: Artemis.

— (1964), Die Burg Schönenwerd bei Dietikon, Neujahrsblatt von Dietikon. Dietikon: Kommision für Heimatkunde Dietikon.

Gardberg, C. J. and Welin, P. O. (1993), Finlands medeltida borgar. Esbo: Schildts. Geiser, B. (1980), “Die Maultrommeln in der Schweiz”, in M. Schneider (ed.), Festschrift für Karl Horak, pp.95–103. Innsbruck: Institut für Musikwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Gojkovic, A. (1981), “Ein Serbischer Maultrommelspieler”, in E. Stockmann (ed.), Studia instrumentorum musicae popularis, 7, pp.149–52. Stockholm: Musikmuseet.

Henig, M. (1974), “Small Finds”, in T.Tatton-Brown et al., Excavations at The Custom House Site, City of London, 1973, pp.186–201 (Transactions of the London & Middlesex Archeological Society, 25), London: Bishopsgare Institute. Henning, R. (1982), “Die Schilesischen MaultrommelKunstler [The Silesian Jew’s Harp Artists]”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 1: 10–28.

— (1989), Narodni Muzicki instrumenti. Beograd:Vuk Karadzic.

Hensch, M. (2002), Burg Sulzbach in der Oberfalz – Archäologisch-historische Forschungen zur Entwicklung einer Hochadelsburg des 9. bis 12. Jahrhunderts in Nordbayern. Doctoral thesis, University of Bamberg.

Gowen, M. (1978), “Dunboy Castle, Co. Cork: Fahy Excavation”, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, 83.

Herrmann-Schneider, H. (2000), “Spätmittelalterliche Maultrommelfunde in Nordtirol”, in G. Haid, U. Hemetek and R. Pietsch (eds), Volksmusik – Wandel und Deutung. Festschrift Walter Deutsch zum 75. Geburtstag. Wien: Bohlau.

Gräslund, B. (1987), The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology: Dating Methods and Dating Systems in Nineteenth-Century Scandinavian Archaeology, New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grattoni d’Aranco, M. (1987), “Appunti su uno Strumento Idiofono”, Archeologia Medievale 14: 150–2. Grove, L. R. A. (1955), “Archeological Notes from Maidstone Museum”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 69: 206–15.

Heyde, H. (1975), Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems des Musikinstrumente. Leipzig:VEB Deutscher Verlag für Musik. Hickmann, E. (1971), Musica instrumentalis. Studien zur Klassifikation des Musikinstrumentariums im Mittelalter, Sammlung Musikwissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen, 55. Baden-Baden:Verlag Valentin Koerner.

— (1956), “Archeological Notes from Maidstone Museum”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 70: 268–73. — (1962), “Rochester”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 77: 206–7. — (1965), “Ditton”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 80: 278.

— and Eichmann, R. (eds) (2000), Studies in Music Archaeology I. Stringed Instruments in Archaeological Context. Papers from the 8th Symposium of the Study Group on Music Archaeology (ICTM), Limassol, 26–30 August, 1996 and other Contributions, Orient-Archäologie, 6. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf.

— (1975), “Archaeological Notes from Maidstone Museum”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 91: 192–5. Gulløv, H. C., and Kapel, H. (1979), Haabetz Colonie 1721–1728: A Historical-Archaeological Investigation of the Danish-Norwegian Colonization of Greenland: Ethnohistorical Studies of the Meeting of Eskimo and European Cultures, Publications of The National Museum, Ethnographical series, 16. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark. Haiding, K. (1980), “Ältere Zeugnisse zur Volksmusik des steirischen Ennsbereiches. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bestände des Landschaftsmuseums Schloß Trautenfels am Landesmuseum Joanneun”, in M. Schneider (ed.), Festschrift für Karl Horak, pp.295–318. Innsbruck: Institut für Musikwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.

— , Laufs, I. and Eichmann, R. (eds) (2000), Studies in Music Archaeology II. Music Archaeology of Early Metal Ages. Papers from the 1st Symposium of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology at Monastery Michaelstein, 18–24 May, 1988 and other Contributions, Orient-Archäologie, 7. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf. — and Hughes, D.W. (eds) (1988), The Archeology of Early Music Cultures.Third International Meeting of the ICTM Study Group on Music Archeology, Orpheus, 51. Bonn: Verlag für systematische Musikwissenschaft.

256

— , Kilmer, A. and Eichmann, R. (eds) (2002), Studies in Music Archaeology III. I) The Archaeology of Sound: Origin and Organisation. Papers from the 2nd Symposium of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology at Monastery Michaelstein, 17-23 September 2000. II) Music Archaeology in the Aegean and Anatolia. Papers from the Colloquium on Music Archaeology organised by the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (Istanbul) in cooperation with the ICTM-Study Group on Music Archaeology and the Institut Français d'Archéologie (Istanbul) at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 12-16 April, 1993, Orient-Archäologie, 10. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf. — and Eichmann, R. (eds) (2004), Studies in Music Archaeology IV. Music-Archaeological Sources: Finds, Oral Transmission,Written Evidence. Papers from the 3rd Symposium of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology at Monastery Michaelstein, 9-16 June 2002 and other Contributions. Orient-Archäologie, 10. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf. Hickmann, H. (1961), Ägypten, In W. Bachmann (ed.), Musikgeschichte in Bildern, 2. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik. Hill, J. N., and Evans, R. K. (1972), “A Model for Classification and Typology”, in D. L. Clarke (ed.), Models in Archaeology, pp.231–73. London: Methuen.

Arcéologie musicale en Gaule celtique et romaine, Exhibition catalogue. Besançon. — et al. (eds) (1994), La pluridisciplinarité en archéologie musicale: IVe rencontres internationales du Groupe d’études sur l’archéologie musicale de l’ICTM (Saint-Germain-enLaye: musée des antiquités nationales) 8-12 octobre 1990, 1–2. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme. Hook, M. and MacGregor, A. (1997), Medieval England. Archaeological Collections in the Ashmolean Museum from Alfred the Great to Richard III. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. Horand, J. (1942), “Die Ausgrabung der mittelalterlichen Burgruine Bischofstein bei Sissach”, Baselbieter Heimatbuch, 1: 34–108. Hornbostel, E. M. von, and Sachs, C. (1914), “Systematik der Musikinstrumente. Ein Versuch”, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 45: 553–90. Huggins, P. J. (1976), “The Excavations of an 11th-century Viking Hall and 14th-century Rooms at Waltham Abbey, Essex, 1969–71”, Medieval Archaeology, 20: 75–133. Hume, A. (1863), Ancient Meols; Or, Some Accounts of the Antiquities found near Dove Point on the Sea-coast of Cheshire. London: John Russell Smith.

Hill, P. (1997), Whithorn & St. Ninian – the Excavation of a Monastic Town 1984–91. Phoenix Mill: Sutton. Himsl, M. (1939), “Die Maultrommel”, in Heimatkunde des politischen Bezirks Kirchdorf an der Krems, 3. Reprinted in A. Mohr (1998), Die Geschichte der Mollner Maultrommelerzeugung, pp.94–103. Steyr: Ennsthaler Verlag. Hodder, I. (1986), Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hundt, H. (1980), “Neuer Bodenfund aus Attendorn: eine Maultrommel”, Heimtstimmen aus der Kreise Olpe, 118(1): 43–6. Hurst, J. G. (ed.) (1979), Wharram: A Study of Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, 1, Monograph Series 8, Society for Medieval Archaeology, London. James,T. B., and Robinson, A. M. (1988), Clarendon Palace: The History and Archaeology of a Medieval Palace and Hunting Lodge near Salisbury,Wiltshire. London: Society for Antiquaries of London.

— (1999), The Archaeological Process. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Hodges, H. (1989), Artifacts: An Introduction to Early Materials and Technology. London: Duckworth.

Jarret, M. G., and Wrathmell, S. (1981), Whitton: An Iron Age Roman Farmstead in South Glamorgan. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Holl, I. (1990), A középkori Szentmihály falu ásátása II [Excavation of the Medieval Village Szentmihály II]. Zalaegerszeg: Zalai Museum.

Jeffery, P. (1992), Re-Envisioning Past Musical Cultures. Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hollebusch-Van Rech,Y., and De Keyser, I. (1978), Catalogus van de muziekinstrumenten. Gent: Oudheidkundige Musea, Bijlokemuseum.

Johnsen, K. (1988), “Sound Tools and Music at Bryggen”, in A. E. Herteig (ed.) The Bryggen Papers, Supplementary Series, 3, pp.139–49. Bergen: Norwegian University Press.

Homo-Lechner, C. (1987a), “Trois guimbardes récemment découvertes”, Archaeologia musicalis, 1(1): 12. — (1987b), “Les guimbardes des fouilles de la cour Napoléon au Louvre”, Archaeologia musicalis, 1(1): 16–18.

Kalmár, J. (1959),“A füleki (Filakovo) vár XV.–XVII századi emlékei”, in Régészeti Füzetek (MNM-Törneti Múzeum) Kezirat gyanánt, p.18. Kartomi, M. J. (1990), On Concepts and Classifications of Musical Instruments. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

— (1996), Sons et instruments de musique au Moyen Age: Archéologie musicale dans l’Europe du VIIe au XIVe siècles. Paris: Editions Errance.

Kaogu Xiebao (Chinese archaeological journal), 1974, vol. 1. Kenyon, N. (ed.) (1990), Authenticity and Early Music: A Symposium. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— (1999), “Les Instruments”, in F. Ferrand (ed.), Guide de la musique du moyen age, pp.725–826. Paris: Fayard. — and Vendries, Christophe (1993), Le carnyx et la lyre:

Kirkevoll, G. (1966), “Eit og anna um munnhorpa”, Spelemannsbladet (1): 7.

257

Kjellberg, S.T. (1948), “Mungigan”, Kulturen 1947. En årsbok: 24–5.

Lawergren, B. (1988), “The Origins of Musical Instruments and Sounds”, Anthropos, 83: 31–45.

Kjellström, B. (1983), “Instrumentporträtt i Skaraborgs länsmuseum: En studie med tonvikt på 1700-talet”, in J. Ling (ed.), Vi äro musikanter alltifrån Skaraborg, pp.153–78. Falköping: Skaraborg länsmuseum.

Lawson, G. (1986), “Conservation versus Restoration: Towards a Handling and Performance Policy for Excavated Musical Instruments, with Special Reference to Microwear Studies and Finds from the English Warship Mary Rose (1545)”, in C. S. Lund (ed.), Second Conference of the ICTM Study Group on Music Archaeology (1), pp.123–30, Publications issued by the Royal Swedish Academy of Music, 53, Stockholm.

Klejn, L. S. (1982), Archaeological Typology, BAR International Series, 153. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Klier, K. M. (1956), Volkstümliche Musikinstrumente in den Alpen, Kassel: Bärenreiter.

— (1990), “Jew’s Harp”, in M. Biddle (ed.), Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester: Artefacts from Medieval Winchester, pp.724–5,Winchester studies, 7.ii. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Koch, E. (1998), “Neolithic Bog Pots from Zealand, Møn, Lolland and Falster”, Nordiske Fortidsminder, serie B, 16. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. Kock, H. D. (1999), “Feje for egen dør”, Skalk, 2: 28–32.

— (2001), “Musical Relics”, in K. L. Mitchell, K. R. Murdoch and J. R.Ward (eds), Fast Castle Excavations 1971–86, pp.114ff. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Archaeological Field Society.

Kolchin, B. A. (1959), “Trudy Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii”, in A.V. Artsikhovsky (ed.), Materialy i issledovanija po archeologii SSSR 65, pp.7–120, Akademiya Nauk SSSR. Moscow: Institut istorii material’noi kul’tury. Kolltveit, G. (1996), Munnharpas tidlige historie i Skandinavia. En studie i et arkeologisk materiale, Norsk folkemusikklags skrifter, 9. Rauland: Norsk folkemusikklag. — (1997a), “Munnharpe – årtusenets instrument”, Norsk Musikerblad (2–3): 4–6 — (1997b), “Med arkeologisk blikk på munnharpa”, Årbok for norsk folkemusikk, 6: 107–19. — (1998), “Hvorfor er det funnet så få norske munnharper fra middelalderen?”, Munnharpa, 1: 6–8. — (2000), “Archaeological Jew’s Harp Finds in Europe: Chaos or Coherence?”, in E. Hickmann, I. Laufs and R. Eichmann (eds), Studies in Music Archaeology II. Music Archaeology of Early Metal Ages. Papers from the 1st Symposium of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology at Monastery Michaelstein, 18–24 May, 1988 and other Contributions, pp.389–397, Orient-Archäologie, 7. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf. König,A., Rabe, H., and Westphal, H. (1999),“Renaissancezeitliche Waffenfunde und Ausrüstungszubehör aus den archäologischen Stadtkerngrabungen in Höxter”, in G. Isenberg (ed.), Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen-Lippe, 9 (C), pp.263–89, 9/C. Mainz:Westfälischen Museum für Archäologie. Krause, G. (ed.) (1992), Stadtarchäologie in Duisburg 1980–1990, Duisburger Forschungen, 38. Duisburg: Walter Braun. Kristensen,T. (1994), Middelalderlige musikinstrumenter i Skandinavien med særlig vægt på Danmark. Højbjerg: Avd. for Middelalder-arkæologi, Aarhus universitet. Kunz, L. (1974), Die Volksmusikinstrumente der Tschechoslowakei.Teil 1, Handbuch der europäischen Volksmusikinstrumente, Ser. 1. Bd 2. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik. Kvifte,T. (1989), Instruments and the Electronic Age.Toward a Terminology for a Unified Description of Playing Technique. Oslo: Solum Forlag.

Ledang, O. K. (1972), “On the Acoustics and Systematic Classification of the Jew’s Harp”, Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, 6: 95–103. — (1995), “Musikk og låter i kupangen Nidaros”, in A. Dybdahl et al. (eds), Middelalderen i Trøndelag, pp.49–64. Trondheim:Trøndelag folkemuseum. Li Hwei (1956), “A Comparative Study of the Jew’s Harps among the Aborgines of Formosa and East Asia”. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica 1. (In Chinese. English summary pp.137–140) Liebgott, N.-K. (1976), “Sild er godt”, Skalk (5): 3–12. — (1979), Stakhaven. Arkæologiske undersøgelser i senmiddelalderens Dragør, Nationalmuseets skrifter, Arkæologiskhistorisk række, 19. København: Gyldendal Lindeblad, K. and Nielsen, A.-L. (1997), Kungens gods i Borg. Om utgravningarna vid Borgs säteri. Rapport UV Linköping 1997:12. Linköping: Riksantikvarieämbetet, Avdelningen för arkeologiska undersökningar. Lithberg, N. (1932), Schloss Hallwill: Die Fundgegenstände, III. Stockholm: Gunnar Tisel. Lovatto, A. (1983), Primi Appunti sulla Ribeba in Valsesia, Preprint Musica 1. Bologna: Università di BolognaDams. — (2004), “The Production of Trumps in Valsesia (Piedmont, Italy)”, Journal of the International Jew’s Harp Society, 1: 4–17. Lowenthal, D. (1985), The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lund, C. (1973) “Oldtidens orkester”, Skalk (2): 19–28. — (1974), Klang i flinta och brons. Stockholm: Musikmuseet. — (1980), “Methoden und Probleme der nordischen Musikarchäologie”, Acta Musicologica 52 (1): 1–13.] — (1981), “The Archaeomusicology of Scandinavia”, World Archaeology 12(3): 246–65. — (1984/1987), Fornnordiska klanger (LP with booklet). Stockholm: Musica Sveciae. (MS 101).

258

— (1992), “Mungigan, ett av våra mest ålderdomliga och egenartade instrument”, Populär Arkeologi, 10(2): 10.

Mersenne, M. (1635/1957), Harmonie Universelle.The Book on Instruments.The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

— (1986), “Musical Instruments on the Royal Swedish Flagship Kronan (1676): An Introduction to Four Different Studies”, in C. S. Lund (ed.), Second Conference of the ICTM Study Group on Music Archaeology (1), pp.81–3, Publications issued by the Royal Swedish Academy of Music, 53, Stockholm.

Meyer,W. (1968), Die Löwenburg im Berner Jura. Geschichte der Burg, der Herrschaft und ihrer Bewohner. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. — (1970), “Die Wasserburg Mülenen: Fundkataloge”, Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz, 63: 105–346.

— (ed.) (1986), Second Conference of the ICTM Study Group on Music Archaeology.Vol. 1 General studies,Vol. 2: The Bronze Lurs. Publications issued by the Royal Swedish Academy of Music, 53, Stockholm.

— (1974), Die Burgruine Alt-Wartburg im Kanton Aargau. Bericht über die Forschungen 1966/67, Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters. Herausgegeben vom Schweizerischen Burgenverein, Band 1. Olten:Walter-Verlag.

— (1998), “What is Wrong with Music Archaeology? A Critical Essay from a Scandinavian Perspective, Including a Report about a New Find of a Bullroarer”, in A. Buckley (ed.), Hearing the Past: Essays in Historical Ethnomusicology and the Archaeology of Sound, pp.17–28, E.R.A.U.L. (Études et Recherches Archéologique de l’Université de Liège) 86. Liège: Université de Liège.

— (1977), “Von Maultrommeln, Flöten und Knochenschwirren. Ein Beitrag der MittelalterArchäologie zur Geschichte volkstümlicher Musikinstrumente in der Schweiz”, in E. Stockmann (ed.), Studia instrumentorum musicae popularis 5, pp.33–8, Stockholm: Musikmuseet.

Lundström, S. (1981), “Arkeologiska undersökningar vid Kläckeberga kyrka”, in Kalmar län. Årsbok för kulturhistoria och hembygdsvård, 66: 128–33.

— (1988), “Wüstung Illgau/Balmis SZ.Vorbericht über die Sondierungen 1987”, Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz, 80: 83–95.

Løchen, L. (2000), Fra skorofele til salmodikon. Otta: NordGudbrandsdal Folkemusikkarkiv.

Magnusson, G. (1992), “Lapphyttan – den svenska industrins vagga”, Populär Arkeologi, 10(2): 4–8.

— (1998),“Die Ausgrabungen auf Bergeten ob Braunwald GL 1971”, in V. Schaltenbrand Obrecht (ed.), ‘Heidenhüttli’. 25 Jahre archäologische Wüstungsforschung im schweizerischen Alpenraum., pp.24–36, Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters 23/24, Basel.

Mahillon,V. (1893), Catalogue descriptif & analytique de Musée Instrumental du Conservatoire Royal de Musique de Bruxelles. Paris: Gand.

— and Oesch, Hans (1972),“Maultrommelfunde in der Schweiz”, in V. Ravizza (ed.), Festschrift Arnold Geering zum 70. Geburtstag, pp.211–30. Bern: Paul Haupt.

Mandl, F. (1996), Dachstein.Vier Jahrtausende Almen im Hochgebirge. Das östliche Dachsteinplateau. 4000 Jahre Geschichte der hochalpinen Weide- und Almwirtschaft. Bd. 1, Miteilungen der ANISA, 17(2/3). Gröbming: ANISA, Verein für alpine Felsbild- und Siedlungsforschung.

Michnai, A. (1982),“Középkori tárgyak a régi Muhirol”, Communicationes Archeologicae Hungariae, p. 137.

Matthys, A., and Hossey, G. (1977), “Sondages dans la fortification médiévale de Chauveney-le-Chateau”, Archaeologia Belgica: 88–92.

Mihura, B. L. (1982),“The Jew’s Harp in Colonial America”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 1: 62–6.

Mazhitov, N. A. (1981),

Mohr, A. (1998), Die Geschichte der Mollner Maultrommelerzeugung. Steyr: Ennsthaler Verlag.

Megaw, J.V. S. (1968), “Problems and Non-Problems in Palaeo-Organology: A Musical Miscellany”, in J. M. Coles, and D. D. A. Simpson (eds), Studies in Ancient Europe: Essays Presented to Stuart Piggott, pp.333–68. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

— (1999), “Die Ennser Maultrommelfunde und der Maultrommelort Molln”, Mitteilungen des Museumsvereines Lauriacum Enns, 37: 18–24. (Also published online: http://www.stn.at/homes/maultrommel/Maultrommelfunde.htm)

Meier, H.-R. (1993), Die Burgruine Anwil bei Buhwil TG. Bericht über die Sondiergrabungen 1984, Unpublished manuscript, Amt für Archäologie, Kanton Thurgau.

Montagu, J. (1996), “Trumps in the Bate Collection”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 5: 106–10.

Melhus, J. (2001), “Avduking av tusenårsmonumentet i Valle – verdas største munnharpe?”, Munnharpa, 10: 2.

— and Burton, J. (1971), “A Proposed New Classification System for Musical Instruments”, Ethnomusicology, 15(1): 49–70.

Løken,T. (1974), “Gravminner i Østfold og Vestfold”. Unpublished thesis (archaeology), University of Oslo.

Midgley, R. et al. (eds) (1976), Musical Instruments of the World:An Illustrated Encyclopedia. London: Paddington Press.

— (2003), “Spanske munnharper i Setesdal – eller omvendt?”, Munnharpa, 18: 2–3. Merriam, A. P. (1964), The Anthropology of Music. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Montelius, O. (1884), “Den förhistoriska fornforskarens metod och material”, Antiqvarisk Tidskrift för Sverige, 3(8): 1–28.

259

Östergren, M. (1983), “Silverskaternas fyndplatser – formännens gårdar”, in I. Jansson (ed.), Gutar och vikingar: Historia i fickformat. Stockholm: Statens historiska museum.

Montségur: 13 ans de recherches archéologiques (1964–1976). Carcassonne : GRAME (Groupe de Recherches Archéologiques de Montségur et des environs), 1980. Moser, H. J. (1918), “Zur mittelalterlichen Musikgeschichte der Stadt Köln”, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 1: 135–44.

— (1989), Mellan stengrund och stenhus. Gotlands vikingtida silverskatter som boplatsindikation,Theses and Papers in Archaeology, 2.Visby: RAGU.

Müller, F. (1980), Der Bischofstein bei Sissach, Kanton Baselland. Die Hochmittelalterlichen Funde, Basler Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 4, Derendingen.

Otruba, G. (1986), “Die Maultrommeln und ihre Erzeugung zu Molln:Von der Zunft zur Werkgenossenschaft”, in Oberösterreichische Heimatblätter, 40(1): 59–94.

Müller, M. (ed.) (1972), From Bone Pipe and Cattle Horn to Fiddle and Psaltery: Folk Music Instruments from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Copenhagen: Musikkhistorisk Museum.

Østmo, E. (1991), Gård og boplass i østnorsk oldtid og middelalder. Aktuelle oppgaver for forskning og forvaltning, Varia, 22. Oslo: Universitetets Oldsaksamling.

Murray, H. K., and Murray J. C. (1993), “Excavations at Rattray, Aberdeenshire. A Scottish Deserted Burgh”, Medieval Archaeology, 73: 109–218. Nauts, H. (1982), De Abdij van Boudelo: Catalogus van de Verzameling Bodemvondsten van de Verdwenen Abdij te Klein Sinaai. Sint-Niklaas: Stedelijk Museum. Nesland, F. (2000), “Gamle munnharpefunn i Bykle [Old Jew’s Harp finds from Bykle]”, Munnharpa, 5: 6–8. Nordeide, S.W. (2003), Erkebispegården i Trondheim: beste tomta i by’n, Acta Humaniora, 158. Oslo: Unipub.

Petrasch, J., and Rittershofer, K.-F. (1992), “Die Burg von Bommersheim, Stadt Oberursel (Taunus), Hochtaunuskreis. Burg des niederen Adels und Ganerbenburg des Hoch- und Spätmittelalters”, Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen, 101: 12. Picard, B. (1999), “875 Jahre Burg Eppstein”, in D. Kleipa (ed.), Zwischen Main und Taunus: Jahrbuch des MainTaunus-Kreises: 40–4.

Nordman, A.-M., and Malmström, M. (1993), Arkeologisk undersökning kvarteret Trasten 5, 9–12, Ärlan 1, Eksjö socken, Eksjö kommun. Jönköping: Jönköpings läns museum.

Picken, L. (1957), “The music of far eastern Asia”, in E. Welles (ed.), Ancient and Oriental Music (The New Oxford History of Music,Vol. I), pp.83–194, London: Oxford University Press.

Norlind,T. (1932), “Musikinstrumentsystematik”, Svensk Tidskrift for Musikforskning, 14: 95–123. O’Brien, E. (1984), Excavations at Ballyman, Co. Dublin: Report on the 1984 Season’s Excavation, Unpublished manuscript. O’Riordáin, S. P., and Danachair, C. (1947), “Logh Gur Excavations: Site J, Knockadoon”, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 77: 39–52. Obrecht, J., and Keller, C. (1998), “‘Balmli’, Illgau SZ,1987/1994.Archäologische Untersuchung eines mittelalterlichen Gehöfts”, in V. Schaltenbrand Obrecht (ed.), ‘Heidenhüttli’. 25 Jahre archäologische Wüstungsforschung im schweizerischen Alpenraum, pp.140–73, Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters 23/24, Basel. Olsen, D. A. (1986), “The Magic Flutes of El Dorado: A Model for Research in Music Archaeology as Applied to the Sinú of Ancient Colombia”, in E. Hickmann and D.W. Hughes (eds), The Archeology of Early Music Cultures.Third International Meeting of the ICTM Study Group on Music Archeology, pp.305–28, Orpheus, 51. Bonn:Verlag für systematische Musikwissenschaft. — (1990),“The Ethnomusicology of Archaeology:A Model for the Musical/Cultural Study of Ancient Material Culture”, in S. C. DeVale (ed.), Issues in Organology, pp.175–97, Selected Reports in Ethnomusicology, 8. Los Angeles: University of California. Omang, S. O. F. (1935), Monographische Bearbeitung der Untergattung Pilloselloidea, Die Hieracien Norwegens, 1. Oslo: Det Norske Vitenskaps-akademi.

Petersen, J. (1951), Vikingetidens redskaper, Skrifter utg. av Det norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo, Hist. filos. klasse, 1951 (4). Oslo: Dybwad.

— (1975), Folk Musical Instruments of Turkey. London: Oxford University Press. Pierre, J. (1935), “Une guimbarde antique”, Revue du Berry et du Centre, 61: 101–5. — (1936), “Une guimbarde antique”, Revue du Berry et du Centre, 62: 6–11. Pignocchi, J. L (2005), “‘Trompas’ in the Zapata Gollan Collection, Found in the Ruins of Santa Fe la Vieja, from the years 1573–1660”, Journal of the International Jew’s Harp Society, 2: 11–21. Plate, R. (1992), Kulturgeschichte der Maultrommel. Bonn: Verlag für systematische Musikwissenschaft. Platz,T. (1998), “Burg und Stadt Hilpoltstein – Beugeschichte und Bedeutung”, in I. Ericsson (ed.), AusGrabungen Schicht für Schicht ins Mittelalter, pp.70–78. Bamberg: Lehrstuhl für Archäologie des Mitelalters und der Neuzeit der Universität Bamberg. Polla, B. (1979), Bratislava Západné suburbium;Vysledky archeologického vyskumu, Slovenské Národná Múzeum Archeologicky ústav, Museum Nationale Slovacum Institutum Archeologicum Fontes, 4. Bratislava. Portable Antiquities Database. Part of The Portable Antiquities Scheme, United Kingdom. Internet: www.finds.org.uk. (Accessed in 2004) Povetkin,V. (1992), “Musical Finds from Novgorod”, in M. A. Brisbane (ed.), The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia.

260

Ruttkay, M. (ed.) (1995), Archeológia a ropa. Archaeology and oil pipeline. Archeologicky ústav Slovenskej akademie vied, Nitra:Transpetrol.

Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland, pp.206–224. Monograph series 13,The Society for Medieval Archaeology, Lincoln. Praetorius, M. (1619/1980), The Syntagma Musicum.Vol. two: De Organographia. First and second parts. New York: Da Capo.

—, Cheben, I., and Ruttkayova, J. (1994), “Vyskum stredovekeho opevneneho sidliska v Branci/Velkej Vsi”, Archaeologia historica, 19: 229–41.

Priedite, I. (1988), Tautas muzikas instrumenti. Riga: Avots.

Rydbeck, M. (1968), “Maultrommeln in Funden aus dem Schwedischen Mittelalter”, in A.W. Mårtensson (ed.), Res mediaevales: Ragnar Blomqvist kal. Mai. MCMLXVIII oblata, pp.252–61, Archaeologica Lundensia, 3, Lund.

Pugh-Kitingan, J. (1977), “Huli Language and Instrumental Performance”, Ethnomusicology, 21(2): 205–32.

Rydbeck, O. (1935), Den medeltida borgen i Skanör: historik, undersøkninger och fynd, Skrifter utgivna av kungliga humanistiska vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, 20, Lund.

— (1984), “Speech-Tone Realisation in Huli Language”, in J. Kassler and J. Stubington (eds), Essays in Musicology Presented to Alice Moyle, pp.94–120. Sydney: Hale and Ironmonger. Ravdina, T. V. (1973), “O vremeni vozniknoveniya Bryanska”, in Akademiya Nauk SSSR. Institut Arkheologiya. Kratkie soobshcheniya, 135: 66–71. Regteren Altena, H. H. V. (1966), “Opgravingen aan het Damrak te Amsterdam”, in Koninklijk Oudheidkundig Genootschap, 1963–64/1964–65.

Rynne, E. (1964), “Some Destroyed Sites at Shannon Airport, County Clare”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C, 63(7): 245–77. Sachs, C. (1913/1964), Real-Lexikon der Musikinstrumente. New York: Dover. — (1917), “Die Maultrommel. Eine typologische Vorstudie”, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 49: 185–200.

Reimers, C. (1977), Medeltida mungigor i Sverige, Riksinventeringens rapport, 8, Musikhistoriska Museet, Stockholm.

— (1940), The History of Musical Instruments. New York: Norton.

— (1979), “Riksinventeringen av äldre svenske musikinstrument. Et redskap för musikarkeologin”, Fornvännen (1): 109–12.

Sakurai,T. (1980), “An Outline of a New Systematic Classification of Musical Instruments”, Journal of the Japanese Musicological Society, 25(1): 11–21.

Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. (1996), Archaeology.Theories, Methods, and Practice. London:Thames and Hudson.

Salmen,W. (1983), Der Spielmann im Mittelalter. Innsbruck: Helbling.

Repiszky,T. (1996), Kurze Geschichte der ungarischen Maultrommel, ‘Maultrommel 96’, Molln, Austria, Unpublished manuscript.

Salminen, L. (2003), Svartgods och en mungiga - om schaktövervakningar i Huvudstorp, Dagstorps sn, FU. Report, 94, The Regional Museum, Kristianstad.

Richter, G. (1957), “Eine Maultrommel aus Stendal”, Jahresgaben des Altmarkischen Museums, 11: 47–9.

Sarosi, B. (1967), Die Volksmusikinstrumente Ungarns, Handbuch der europäischen Volksmusikinstrumente, Ser. 1. Bd 1. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik.

Rieb, J.-P., and Salch, C.-L. (1973), Aspects de la vie au Moyen-Age et à la Renaissance. Dix ans de fouilles, Chantiers d’études médiévales, 11. Strasbourg: Centre d’Archéologie Médiévale de Strasbourg. — (1976), Aspects de la vie au Moyen-Age et à la Renaissance. Dix ans de fouilles en Alsace, Chantiers d’études médiévales (Supplement, no. 11, 1973). Strasbourg: Centre d’Archéologie Médiévale de Strasbourg.

Schaeffner, A. (1932), “D’une nouvelle classification methodique des instruments de musique”, Revue Musicale, 13 (Sept.–Oct.): 215–31. Schafer, R. M. (1994), The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. Rochester,Vt.: Destiny Books.

— (1981), “An Archaeo-Organological Survey of the Netherlands”, World Archaeology, 12(3): 233–45.

Schalies, I. (1989), “Maultrommel”, in J. Bracker, and A. Gückel (eds), Die Hanse. Lebenswirklichkeit und Mythos. Eine Ausstellung des Museums für Hamburgische Geschichte in Verbindung mit der Vereins- und Westbank, vol. 2, pp.376–7, Hamburg: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte.

Ronnefeldt, C. (1998), “Burg Waldstein im Fichtelgebirge”, in I. Ericsson (ed.), AusGrabungen Schicht für Schicht ins Mittelalter, pp.90–106. Bamberg: Lehrstuhl für Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit der Universität Bamberg.

— (1992), “Archäologie Untersuchungen zum Hafen Lübecks. Befunde und Funde der Grabung an der Untertrave/Kaimauer”, in Lübecker Schriften zur Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte (LSAK), 18, pp.305–44. Bonn: Habelt.

Rudén, J. O. (1987), “Music in Watermarks”, Svensk tidskrift för musikforskning, 69: 75–90.

Schauensee, M. d. (2002), Two Lyres from Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Rimmer, J. (1969), Ancient Musical Instruments of Western Asia in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities,The British Museum. London:The British Museum.

Rudin, K. (1967), “Höflingen bei Rheinfelden”, Rheinfelder Neujahrsblätter: 45–64.

261

Schick, M. (2001),“Mittelalterliche und neuzeitliche Musikinstrumente sowie Klanggerate aus Tiroler Bodenfunden”, in Drexel, K. and M. Fink (eds), Musikgeschichte Tirols. Band I.Von den Anfangen bis zur fruhen Neuzeit, pp.81–144, Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner. Schickhaus, K.-H. (1981), Über Volksmusik und Hackbrett in Bayern. München: BLV. Schmidt,W. L. (1840/1988), “The Aura or MouthHarmonica Presented as a Musical Instrument”, in L. Fox (ed.), The Jew’s harp: A Comprehensive Anthology, pp.97–152. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. Schmidt Sabo, K. (1996), Bebyggelse från ett medeltida stadskvarter: Arkeologisk förundersökning och slutundersökning, Skåne, Helsingborg, Kv Ruuth 44, RAÄ 42, 1985–1986. (Internal report, Riksantikvarieämbetet, UV Syd, Lund). Schneider, H. (1979), Die Burgruine Alt-Regensberg im Kanton Zürich, Bericht über die Forschungen 1955–1957, Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters, 6. Olten:Walter. Schnitzler, B. (ed.) (1990), Vivre au moyen age. 30 ans d’archeologie medievale en Alsace. Strasbourg: Musées de la Ville de Strasbourg. Schwoerbel, A. (1998), Die Burgruine Wieladingen bei Rickenbach im Holzenwald, Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg, 47. Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg. Seeger, A. (1987), Why Suya Sing. A Musical Anthropology of an Amazonian People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sennhauser, H. R. (1990), “Steinen, Kloster In der Au. Die Ausgrabungskampagnen 1977 und 1986/87”, in Zisterzienserbauten in der Schweiz. Neue Forschungen zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte,Vol. 1: Frauenkloster, pp.267–98, Zürich: Instituts für Denkmalpflege an der ETH Zürich. Sevåg, R. (1970), “Munnharpa”, Norsk Musikktidsskrift (1): 1–20. — (1973), Det gjallar og det læt. Frå skremme- og lokkereiskapar til folkelege blåseinstrument. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987a), Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press. — (1987b/1992), Re-Constructing Archaeology.Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. — (1989), “Archaeology into the 1990s”, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 22(1): 1–54. Shaw, M. (1985), “Excavations on a Saxon and Medieval Site at Black Lion Hill, Northampton”, Northamptonshire Archaeology, 20: 113–38. Shelemay, K. K. (2001), Soundscapes: Exploring Music in a Changing World. New York: Norton. Shurov,V. (1995), Khomus. Jew’s Harp Music of Turkic Peoples in the Urals, Siberia, and Central Asia. Leiden: Pan Records [CD with booklet]. Simpson, M. L., and Dickson, A. (1981), “Excavations at Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, 1972–79. A Summary Report on the Excavations Directed by the Late T. G. Delaney”, Medieval Archaeology, 25: 78–89.

Skog, I. (1991), “On Ethnomusicology and the History of Music”, in A. Buckley, K.-O. Edström, and P. Nixon, (ed.), Proceedings of the Second British-Swedish Conference on Musicology: Ethnomusicology, pp.5–37, Musikmuseets skrifter, 21. Göteborg: Musikvetenskapliga institutionen, University of Göteborg. Skov, S. (1957), “En mundgige fundet i Kolding”, Vejle amts aarbog: 25–8. Small, C. (1998), Musicking:The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover:Wesleyan University Press. Smith, G. H. (1979), “The Excavation of St. Mary of Ospringe, Commonly Called Maison Dieu”, Archaeologia Cantiana, 95: 81–184. Snæsdóttir, M. et al. (1991), Stóra-borg. Fornleifarannsókn 1978-1990. [Stóraborg Archaeological Excavations 19781990] Reykjavík: National Museum of Iceland. Solli, B. (1992), “Idehistoriske retninger innenfor arkeologi 1970–1990. Fra test via tegn til tekst”, Fornvännen, 87: 99–107. — (1996), Narratives of Veøy: An Investigation into the Poetics and Scientifics of Archaeology, Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Skrifter, ny rekke, 19. Oslo: Universitetets Oldsaksamling. Spaulding, A. C. (1953), “Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artefact Types”, American Antiquity, 18: 305–13. — (1954), “Reply to Ford”, American Antiquity, 19: 391–3. Spriggs, J. (1993), “Harping On and On”, Archaeology in York: Interim, 18(2): 14–18. Steafel, H. (1976), “Jew’s Harp”, Galpin Society Journal, 29: 122–3. Steensberg, A., and Østergaard Christensen, J. L. (1974), Store Valby. Historisk-arkæologisk undersøgelse af en nedlagt landsby på Sjælland, vols. I–III, Historisk-Filosofiske Skrifter, 8. København: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Steuer, H. (1992), “‘Objektwanderung’ als Quelle der Kommunikation. Die Möglichkeiten der Archäologie”, in H. Hundsbichler (ed.), Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und Neuzeit, pp.401–40.Wien:Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Stockmann, D. (1984), “Volksmusik und Musica Vulgaris: zur Klarung eines Hochmittelalterlichen Terminus”, in Tvärspel.Trettioen artiklar om musik. Festskrift til Jan Ling, pp.117–37, Skrifter från Musikvetenskapliga institutionen, 9. Göteborg: Musikvetenskapliga institutionen, University of Göteborg. Stone, L. M. (1974), Fort Michilimackinac 1715–1781. An Archaeological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier, Anthropological series, 2. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Svestad, A. (1995), Oldsakenes orden: Om tilkomsten av arkeologi. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Sweetman, P. D. (1978), “Archæological Excavations at Trim Castle, Co. Meath, 1971–74”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C, 78(6): 127–98.

262

Vertkov, K. et al. (1987),“The Jew’s Harp in the Soviet Union (from Atlas muzykal’nykh instrumentov narodov SSSR (excerpt), Moscow 1975)”, VIM (Vierundzwanzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommelvirtuosengenossenschaft), 3: 39–59.

Taavitsainen, J.-P. (1978), “Suuharpuista Suomessa”, Kotiseutu, 3: 74–7. Tadagawa, L. (1996), “One Thousand-Year Old Excavated Japanese Jew’s Harps”, Khomus, 11: 37–47. Tamboer, A. (1999), Ausgegrabene klänge. Archäologische Musikinstrumente aus allen Epochen. Olenburg: Isensee Verlag.

Virdung, S. (1511/1993), Musica Getutscht: A Treatise on Musical Instruments. Cambridge musical texts and monographs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tamla, Ü. (1992), “Archäologische Ausgrabungen in NeuPärnu in der Munga-Straße 2”, Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia toimetised, Humanitaar- ja sotsiaalteadused (Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences), 41(4): 287–92.

Wallin, N. L., Merker, B., and Brown, S. (eds) (2000), The Origins of Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wardle, A. (1998), “Musical Instruments”, in G. Egan (ed.), The Medieval Household: Daily Living c. 1150–c. 1450, pp.285–90, Medieval Finds from Excavations in London, 6. London: Stationery Office.

Tari, E. (1994), “Árpád-kori templomok Cegléd környékén”, Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 95: 191–217.

Webster, L. E., and Cherry, John (1972), “Argyll: Lismore, Achandun Castle”, Medieval Archaeology, 16: 185–6.

— (1995), Árpád-kori falusi templomok Cegléd környékén (Árpádian-Age Rural Churches in the Surroundings of Cegléd). Cegléd: Kossuth Múzeum. Thompson, M.W. (1967), Novgorod the Great. Excavations in the Medieval City 1951–62. London: Evelyn, Adams & Mackay. Thomsen, C. J. (1836), Ledetraad til nordisk Oldkyndighed. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskrift-Selskab. Thornhill, L., and Savage, R.W. (1979), “Excavations in Addington, 1973–77”, Proceedings of the Croydon Natural History and Scientific Society, 16: 312–72.

White, A.T. (1980), “Archaeology in Lincolnshire and South Humberside, 1979”, Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, 14: 200–13. “Wie lebten die Zeitgenossen von Wilhelm Tell? Mitteralterliche Alphütten auf der Melchsee-Frutt, 2001”. Unsigned article from NZZ Monatsarchiv: Neue Zürcher Zeitung INLAND, Samstag, 02.08.1997. Published at the Internet site of Melchsee-frutt: www.zumbrunn.ch/frutt/mf014.htm. (Accessed in 2006) Worm, O. (1643), Danicorum Monumentorum Libri Sex: E Spissis Antiquitatum Tenebris et in Dania ac Norvegia Extantibus Ruderibus Eruti ab Olao Worm. København: Hafniae.

Todorov, M. N. (1973), Bulgarski narodni muzikalni instrumenti.Vol 1: Organografiia. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Tomlinson, G. (1993), Music in Renaissance Magic.Towards a Historiography of Others. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Worsaae, J. J. A. (1854), Afbildninger fra Det Kongelige Museum for Nordiske Oldsager i Kjøbenhavn. Köbenhavn.

Tõnurist, I. (1996), Pillid ja pillimäng eesti külaelus, Scripta ethnologica (Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia, Ajaloo Instituut), 1.Tallinn:Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus. Trigger, B. G. (1989), A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, J. (1972), “Another Look into the Organology of the Jew’s Harp”, in R. de Maeyer (ed.), Brussels Museum of Musical Instruments Bulletin, 2, pp.51–9, Brussels. — (2006), “Jew’s [jaw’s] harp [gewgaw, guimbard, jew’s trump, trump]”, in S. Sadie et al. (eds), Grove Music Online:The World’s Premier Authority on all Aspects of Music. Electronic source; www.grovemusic.com. (Accessed in 2006)

Tschumi, O. (1953), Urgeschichte des Kantons Bern (Alter Kantonsteil): Einführung und Fundstatistik bis 1950. Bern: Huber. Turner,V. (1967), The Forest of Symbols. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Wright, M. (ed.) (1997), Museums Yearbook 1997/98: Including a Directory of Museums and Galleries of the British Isles. London: Museums Association.

— (1977), The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Wright, M. (2005), “Jue harpes, Jue trumpes, 1481”, Journal of the International Jew’s Harp Society, 2: 7–10.

Ursachi,V. (1995), Zargidava: Cetatea dacica de la Brad. Bucuresti: Caro Trading.

— (forthcoming), “Trump Manufacture in the West Midlands – Part One: 1800 to 1900”, Journal of the International Jew’s Harp Society.

Urtans,V. (1970),“Drevnejsie muzykal’nye instrumenty na territorii Latvii”, in T. M. Schmiedehelm, (ed.), Studia archaeologica in memoriam Harri Moora, pp.226–31.Tallinn: Valgus. Usener, F. P. (1852), Beiträge zu der Geschichte der Ritterburgen und Bergschlösser in der Umgegend von Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt: Stiefel.

Yamagami,T. (1995), “The Power of Bamboo – Papua New Guinea”, in Koukin Journal, 9: 26 (In Japanese with English summary) Ypey, J. (1976), “Mondharpen”, Antiek, 11(3): 209–31.

263

Ytterborg, K. (2002), Medeltida hus i Fållnäs – analys och konservering av metallföremål. [Medieval Houses in Fållnäs – analysis and conservation of metal artifacts]. CD-uppsats [research paper], laborative archaeology 2001/2002. Arkeologiska forskningslaboratoriet, Stockholm University. Zachrisson, I. (1976), Lapps and Scandinavians. Archaeological Finds from Northern Sweden, Early Norrland, 10. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Zagretdinov, R. (1997), The art of kubyz-playing. Øfø: Belaja reka Zarlino, G. (1588/1966), Sopplimenti Musicali. Ridgewood: Gregg.

264