488 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Maritime Mode of Production Raiding and Trading in Seafaring Chiefdoms

by Johan Ling, Timothy Earle, and Kristian Kristiansen

As exemplified by Viking and Bronze Age societies in northern Europe, we model the political dynamics of raiding, trading, and slaving as a maritime mode of production. It includes political strategies to control trade by owning boats and financing excursions, thus permitting chiefs to channel wealth flows and establish decentralized, expansive political networks. Such political institutions often form at the edges of world systems, where chieftains support mobile warriors who were instrumental in seizing and protecting wealth. Particular properties of the maritime mode of production as relevant to Scandinavia are the fusion of agropastoral and maritime modes of production. To exemplify these two sectors, we use the Thy and Tanum cases in which we have been involved in long-term archaeological research. The historic Viking society provides specificity to model the ancestral political society of Bronze Age Scandinavia. Our model helps understand an alternative path to institutional formation in decentralized chiefdoms with low population densities, mobile warriors, and long-distance trading and raiding in valuables, weapons, and slaves.

Using the Bronze Age and Viking Age of Scandinavia, we seek social and environmental differences, some regions specialized to model decentralized complexity in low-density, chiefdom- in one or the other. The result was a regional division of labor, like societies that emerged by processes of both historical con- a process understandable by the rule of comparative advan- tinuity and independent change. Over the years, scholars (Ner- tage (Ricardo 1817 [1811]), applicable generally to the Eurasian man 1954; Tallgren 1916) have proposed analogies between Bronze Age (Earle et al. 2015; Ling, Cornell, and Kristiansen Scandinavian Viking Age and Bronze Age societies, although 2017; Rowlands and Ling 2013). For example, coastal Sweden others have argued that such comparisons are simplistic (Ling and Norway had access to timber, which was already scarce in 2014:20; Ojala 2017). Reappraisals now suggest structural con- some of the most deforested and populated agropastoral regions, tinuities across regional, decentralized networks of chieflypower such as in the northwestern Jutland (Andersen 1999; Odgård (Kristiansen 2016; Melheim, Glørstad, and Tsigaridas Glørstad 1994). The latter region had a clear comparative advantage in 2016; Rowlands and Ling 2016). To understand these cases, we terms of agropastoral production, which in turn led to an ac- consider them as particular histories illustrative of general polit- cumulation of wealth and power reflected in metal (Kristiansen ical processes identified with chieftainship. 1978). Thus, the comparative advantage of different regions cre- The Bronze Age economy marked, we argue, the onset of a ated opportunities for transregional confederates of trade and macroregional division of labor integrated by entrepreneurial control over prestige goods, and all this transformed the soci- agents across Europe. Political systems that flourished after eties into expansive political machines (Beaujard 2015; Earle 1700 BC (Vandkilde 2014) demanded support of specialized et al. 2015; Kradin 2008; Kristiansen 1998; Rowlands and Ling warriors and traders, as well as investments in boats for mari- 2013). Our thesis is that development of seaworthy boats and time trade for special products (Earle at al. 2015). Two sectors in the means to finance them allowed Scandinavian chieftains to the emergent Scandinavian political economy were the land- channel flows of wealth to create class-based warrior societies. based agropastoral sector and sea-based boat-voyaging sector To illustrate such decentralized maritime confederacies (fig. 1). To participate in expanding international trade, Scan- bridging complementary economies, we focus on the maritime dinavian groups apparently depended on both, but, because of action among northwest Jutland (Thy), west Sweden (Tanum), and southwest Norway (Rogaland) (figs. 2, 3). We focus es- pecially on the archaeological evidence from Thy in the Lim- Johan Ling is Professor in the Department of Historical Studies at the fjord area of Jutland, Denmark, as exemplifying the land-based University of Gothenburg (Box 200, 40530 Göteborg, Sweden [johan sector (Bech, Eriksen, and Kristiansen 2018) and the rich rock- [email protected]]). Timothy Earle is Professor Emeritus in the Department art area of Tanum in Bohuslän (Ling 2014), Sweden, as exem- of Anthropology of Northwestern University (1810 Hinman Avenue, fi Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA). Kristian Kristiansen is Senior Professor plifying the maritime sector ( g. 4). Important for our case, at the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Gothenburg archaeological evidence of interaction exists that links these (Box 200, 40530 Göteborg, Sweden). This paper was submitted 11 X 16, rather remote areas; however, our model of Bronze Age trans- accepted 9 IX 17, and electronically published 24 VIII 18. regional interaction could pair other similar regions in Scandi- q 2018 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2018/5905-0002$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/699613 Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 489

Figure 1. Model of the maritime mode of production. Two key sectors can be identified in this political economy—a land-based agrarian sector and a sea-based mixed farming-fishing-voyaging sector. A color version of this figure is available online. navia that share similar economic conditions as Thy and Ro- 2008, 2015). Such confederacies linked up polities with distinct galand in southwestern Norway. These are singularities (Neitzel interests and relationships. and Earle 2014), patterns of distinctiveness that stand out in In terms of Adam T. Smith (2015), chieftaincies were political comparison with other Bronze Age regions and that demand machines capable of institutionalized power with rules of sov- explanations that may link to their complementary economic ereignty. Power was never absolute but was always contested roles. Before discussion of the case materials, some theoretical (Levi 1988), and top-down perspectives had to incorporate both aspects regarding chiefly social formations need background intense competition between different social groups and emer- discussion. gent regional conditions that encouraged local groups to form relationships of cooperation and exchange (Blanton and Fargher 2008). Often, bottom-up processes resulted in intercommunity Theory on Decentralized Chiefdoms interactions involving marriages, alliances, friendships, trading partnerships, frequent visiting, and ceremonial engagement, and Chiefdoms (aka intermediate-scale political societies) were the such relational webs can provide opportunities for elite control. first truly political societies, meaning simply that they main- At the heart is the dialectics between competition and collabo- tained institutions of effective power extending outside intimate ration and between “small” and “big” government. kin-based communities (Earle 2017a). Chiefs assembled chief- Research on chiefdoms demonstrates great variability in po- taincy networks that organized regional polities in the low thou- litical formations (Drennan and Peterson 2012; Earle 1991, 1997, sands. They often formed confederacies consisting of “genea- 2002; Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Redmond 1998) that are ideal logically related and unrelated chiefdoms which were unified for comparative studies of political strategies both within and through coercion or common agreement” (Gibson 2011:217). between major cultural traditions (Neitzel and Earle 2014). Such Celtic Iron Age Ireland; archaic Greece, Korea, and Iran; and political formations relied variably on three elemental powers ethnographic cases from the Pacific provide examples. Con- (economy, warrior might, and religious ideology; Earle 1997; federacies are often considered as hierarchical formations of cf. Mann 1986). Economic power is an ability to demand, give, decentralized complexity (Grinin and Korotayev 2011; Kradin or deny necessary and desired goods, including tribute, food, 490 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Figure 2. Map showing the location of Thy in Jutland, Tanum in Bohuslän, and Rogaland in western Norway, Scandinavia. housing, and wealth (prestige goods and weapons). Warrior centrality and inequality (Marx 1953). Particular ways in which power is an ability to coerce by force or threat of force. And power strategies combined are seen as creating distinctive modes. ideological power is an ability to present religiously sanctioned Here integrated concepts of production/appropriation, distribu- narratives for rules of sovereignty. Which is the most important tion/exchange, and consumption provide analytical tools to de- source of power? Chiefs mixed and matched to create many al- fine economic formations. Modes of production are thus defined ternative political formations in stateless societies, but all sources by hegemonic formations that are reproduced often in articu- of power are realized by resources mobilized through the political lation with world systems (Ling, Cornell, and Kristiansen 2017). economy and invested in control mechanisms (Earle 1997). To understand the maritime mode of production, we start with In this paper, we model power and political dynamics within Marx and Engel’s underspecified notion of a Germanic mode of decentralized maritime chiefdoms exemplified by Viking and production (Engels 1972; Marx 1953). In line with European Bronze Age societies of northern Europe. We call our model the thinkingatthetime,thedemocraticGermanicmodeofpro- maritime mode of production. Corresponding to expanding duction of northern Europe was seen in contrast to totalitarian international trade in metals, textiles, slaves, and exotics, Bronze Asiatic modes of production. Age warriors achieved a dominant, partly independent position In the Germanic mode of production, the political economy is in society that allowed formation of extensive chiefdoms and decentralized, based on free farmers organized fitfully by chief- chiefly confederacies; at the same time, such warrior fraternities tains for defense and dispute settlements. It was agrarian based. were always disruptive, fragmenting these institutional relation- Gilman (1995) summarizes the Germanic mode of production ships (Kristiansen 2018; Vandkilde 2018). Our theoretical model as consisting of autonomous households forming independent incorporates both centripetal and centrifugal forces that connect production units (Marx 1953:79), coalitions of households into to larger social formations and world systems in Eurasia and tribal assemblies, and hereditary leadership based on military Africa from the Bronze Age onward (Kristiansen, Lindkvist, and and judicial activities. The Scandinavian longhouse tradition Myrdal 2018; Vandkilde 2016). (Artursson 2009) probably well represents such a model ar- To study different regional pathways to power, we use Marxist chaeologically. We prefer to replace the Germanic mode of notions of “modes of production” (economic formations) to production terminology with the neutral, generalized concept model how resource flows were channeled to finance political of decentralized complexity that existed with prestige goods Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 491

Figure 3. Sea currents connecting Jutland with west Sweden and southern Norway also connect western Scandinavia with England. Earle et al. (2015); modified after Turrell (1992). A color version of this figure is available online. economies (Kristiansen 2015) and had elements recently dis- based on control over distant trading and raiding opportunities. cussed as anarchistic (Angelbeck and Grier 2012). Display of prestige goods formed an integral part of competition We believe the emerging maritime economy in Bronze Age for power and prestige, and procuring such goods from a dis- Scandinavia had strong roots in agricultural production but tance became the object of trading and raiding parties with po- with new maritime, warrior, and trading dynamics that appear tentials for conquest and colonization. To the degree that chiefs to have generated an expansive political economy. Any Bronze could control the procurement, distribution, and consump- Age specialist knows that the evidence for such a model is im- tion of valuables, they could dominate new political systems, perfect, and so the reader should insert the appropriate modifiers, to some degree. including “probably,”“apparently,” and “logically.” What we To understand the organizing principles of the maritime present here is a model for testing and refinement. As for any mode of production, our analysis of Scandinavian Bronze and archaeological synthesis, it cannot be stated as facts. Although Viking Ages proposes linkages between society’seconomy, the maritime mode of production was founded on decentralized power, and institutional structure vertically (complexity) and social settings, social stratification and political control emerged horizontally (networks). This political economy approach iden- 492 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Figure 4. Rock art from Tanum showing boats and warriors from the Bronze Age. An effective boat technology allowed Scandinavian chieftains to concentrate the flow of wealth and to create class-based warrior societies as illustrated in the rock art. After Milstreu and Prøhl (1999); source: SHFA. A color version of this figure is available online. tifies social groups and their associations with contrasting in- rapid clearance of forests—probably for pasture—and by its terests in a class-like system. Fundamental to our thinking were ephemeral settlement finds. As is common for pastoralist so- potentials to control resource flows (Earle and Spriggs 2015). cieties (Irons 2003; Salzman 2004; Sweet 1965a), males were Control, we argue, depended on creating property rights such as probably warriors responsible to protect and raid for movable boats and productive land, a warrior aristocracy to protect them, wealth in animals; their burials distinctively included battle- and a specialized priesthood to legitimize them. Societies orga- axes. Female burials included local amber jewelry. During the nizedaroundwarrioraristocracieshavebeenlabeledas“military subsequent late Neolithic Dagger Period (2400–1700 BC), Bell democracies” (Engels 1972), but they can be seen comparatively Beaker people colonized along the waterways of Europe to form as “decentralized complexity” based on free farmers/nomads of broad trading networks (Fitzpatrick 2011; Vandkilde 2014), and autonomous households who formed an elite stratum control- they settled in Jutland and crossed by boat into southwest Nor- ling commoners, labor, and slaves through warrior might (Cobb way (Østmo 2012; Prescott 2009). Their settlements were more 1993; Kradin 2008; Kristiansen 2013, fig. 13.7). permanent, with houses scattered across the landscape, sugges- tive of small independent agropastoral farmers. Additionally, fl Viking and Bronze Age Societies they were traders, moving int and amber (Østmo 2012). A specific dagger form of Jutland flint is found widely distributed, We argue here for long-term continuity in the Scandinavian and amber became an export (Apel 2001). Like the antecedent sequence from the middle Neolithic to the Viking Age. Under- Single Grave culture, the Bell Beaker people were characterized standing this continuity is important to see the sequential for- by warrior equipment including now flint daggers and arrow- mulation of historical conditions basic to the maritime mode of heads found in individual male burials. The Bronze Age (1700– production, but, given space limitations of journal articles, this 500 BC) was a direct development from the Dagger Period, but sequence is presented here only briefly. The Single Grave culture with additions of elaborate metal weapons, jewelry, and tools of (2800–2400 BC), a middle Neolithic society related to Corded everyday life. All bronze and other metals were imported from Ware culture elsewhere, dominated much of southern Scandi- the south. At this time, some social stratification emerged. navia. It was apparently a pastoral society, as documented by its During the Iron Age (500 BC to 700 AD), locally available iron Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 493 replaced bronze for many weapons and tools; Scandinavia’s tinued to be essential to trading and raiding, but with Viking connections to a world economy were severed; and, for a time, Age sails and improved framing (Bill 2008: Fallgren 2008). social stratification collapsed and populations clustered into Overall commercialization increased with market-like places defensive villages. Raiding continued, but it was rather local in beginning to emerge. Decentralized complexity in both periods nature. Later during the Roman and “migration” phases, exter- was evident, but Vikings moved toward a state-like society. nal raiding and colonization rebuilt international connections To construct our model of the maritime mode of produc- and social stratification, as described vividly in the Anglo-Saxon tion, we begin with a summary of the Viking Age, which has classic Beowulf (Heaney 2000). It was followed by the Viking rich historical sources well researched by others. Then, for the Age (700–1000 AD), a reestablishment of many of the Bronze Bronze Age, we look at the archaeological evidence for Thy Age social patterns and eventually the formation of the Danish and Tanum, where we have personally conducted research. We State. Thus, Bronze Age and Iron Age/Viking Age trajectories take these two regions as representing rather distinctive eco- exhibit a recurring rise and decline of social complexity (Kris- nomicopportunities,eachcreatinglocalchieflypolities that were tiansen 2016). Periods of international trade and raiding wit- linked, we believe, into decentralized confederacies that bene- ness the reformation of warrior elites and increasing social com- fited the political aspirations of both and resulted in an ex- plexity, while periods without international trade seem more ceptional concentration of wealth in Thy during the Early localized and egalitarian. A deep history approach based on Bronze Age. structural correspondence betweentheBronze andVikingAges shows how their social trajectories unfolded similarly (Kris- Viking Age tiansen 2016; Rowlands and Ling 2016), as exemplified in the chart below: Farmhouses and boats constituted two basal units of Viking so- ciety. Each appears to constitute independent agents in a seg- mental system combining or dividing according to each unit’s Early Bronze Age (1500–1100 BC) Viking Age (700–1000 AD) interests. Although inherently decentralized, regionally stratified Mound burials numerous Mound burials for the elite chieftainships emerged with an aristocracy, free farmers and war- The largest Bronze Age (BA) mounds are few in number and are of similar riors, commoners, and slaves. Exemplifying the maritime mode size as elite mounds in the Viking Age (VA). of production for Scandinavia, alternative forces of decentral- ization and hierarchy were established by surplus production, Rock art and ship setting burials Ship setting burials support of voyaging, and channeled flows of wealth. Seafaring is a dominant motif in both periods. Farms were primary productive units, as originally postulated Individual farmsteads Individual farmsteads and villages for the Germanic mode of production (Jakobsson 1992:105; The largest BA farms are the same size as the largest royal farms in Marx 1953). Each Viking Age farm owned its own land, and the VA, and considerable variation existed in farm sizes during farmsteads were stable over long periods, suggesting established both periods. inheritance (Androuschchuk 2009; Fallgren 2008:67). Bolender “ ” Ritualized meeting places Commercial meeting places (2007) compares this pattern to house societies, meaning that International trade and exchange dominated both periods. the household unit retained relative subsistence autonomy and inherited rights to land, as documented by long-term occupa- Strong warrior ethos Strong warrior ethos tion in the same locations and the burial of ancestors on the fl Elaborate chie y swords and functional warrior swords are found in both land, and some level of social stratification emerged. During periods’ burials. both phases, the ranges of house sizes (5–50 m length; 2–10 m Use of symbolic decoration Use of symbolic decoration width) materialized social hierarchy between the landless in Decorative style with cosmological meaning marked status distinctions hovels, free farmers in moderate houses, and chieftains dwelling in both periods. in large halls (Fallgren 2008:67). Chieftains owned large farms with fertile lands and more slaves that together could produce Hoarding of metal valuables Hoarding of metal valuables The tradition of hoarding metal valuables flourished in both periods. surpluses that attracted warriors. Extra cereals and animals on large and productive farms supported labor and fashioned de- pendency networks using the bilateral Viking structure. These notable material similarities speak to fundamental While many agrarian societies have unilateral (patrilineal or structural correspondences. The farm and the boat were pri- matrilineal) kinship structures that defined clans or lineages mary in each period. Some elements, like the use of barrows responsible for mutual defense of corporate land, Vikings were and ship settings, were part of old ritual traditions, still visible famously bilateral, acknowledging both father’s and mother’s in the landscape. Among major differences, in the Bronze Age, lines (Jakobsson 1992; Odner 1973). By creating a person- bronze was obtained from distant trading and was used for focused kin network, bilateral organization maximized poten- weapons, finery, and working tools, but in the Viking Age, tial kin relations and facilitated recruitment for undertakings locally available iron served for weapons and other things. such as work parties, guilds, and boat crews. Anyone could Imported metals (bronze, silver, and gold), however, contin- become a kinsman, either real or fictive, needing only lures of ued to mark status and to store value. Boat technology con- gifts and support to bind them to the farm (Odner 1973). Such 494 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 open networks of kin relationship were the basis for Viking picture Vikings as raiders enticed by precious metals, with silver political organization. People became affiliated with aggres- foremost (Sindbaek 2008, 2011). About 800,000 silver coins sive leaders, not with corporate groups, as chiefs used sur- have been found in Scandinavia, which includes “more Viking plus in wealth to bind people to local and regional political Age coins from Germany and England than ever have been machines. found in respective countries” (Gullbekk 2008:164). This wealth Boats were the second organizing feature of Viking society. was gifted to attract allies and to display personal status, but also Viking Age ships were “not only a political space but also an to attract warriors and to finance boatbuilding and distant economic one” (Price 2016:169). Probably introduced by Viking travels (Gullbekk 2008:164; Sindbaek 2011). Toward the end of colonizers, a bilateral structure organized crewing of Faroe Is- the Viking Age, monarchs mobilized fleets and armies to ex- land fishing boats (Jakobsson 1992:103). Formed by free farmers’ pand their kingdoms by conquest and colonization, ruling, for a social positions as maritime warriors, boat units shaped unifying time, parts of Scandinavia, England, Ireland, France, and be- and demanding elements, as free farmers organized boat guilds yond. Recruitment for armies took on new, larger proportions, to build and man boats. Like farmsteads, boats were structural and male warriors in several cemeteries have strontium isotopes segments, forming according to common interest. Boat groups showing foreign origins (Price et al. 2011). Seeking service with held bilateral and fictive-kin relationships: “the relations be- the highest or most promising bidder, warrior/mercenaries cre- tween male members were regulated as if they were family; ated a diaspora, reflecting political and demographic pressures members identified each other in terms of fathers, brothers and (Jesch 2015; Price 2015; Price and Gestsdóttir 2006). sons” (Varenius 1998:141). A masculine, martial ethos was ex- To explain the political economy of Viking Age society, we pressed on runic stones, referring to naval “brothers” who had outline the formation of Viking war bands, the lid, a retinue died in combat and to naval officers and their warriors as family of maritime warriors (Lund 1996; Raffield et al. 2016; Varenius (Jakobsson 1992:81). The boat was a metaphor for Viking Age 1998). Although skeptical about projecting historical patterns power, as expressed in runic stones and ship-shaped graves. backward in time (Lönnroth 1963:103; Varenius 1998:36), many Raffield, Price, and Collard (2017; cf. Barrett 2008) argue that scholars discussed Viking Age war bands as renewing ancient Viking Age war bands were partly caused by social inequality forms of maritime organization (Jakobsson 1992; Price 2016; and by polygyny and concubinage leading to “apoolofun- Raffield et al. 2016; Varenius 1998:36). Most scholars argue married men motivated to engage in risky behaviors that had that households were basic Viking Age units for the maritime the potential to increase their wealth and status, and therefore war bands (Jakobsson 1992; Lönnroth 1963:103; Sindbaek 2011; their probability of entering the marriage market” (Raffield, Varenius 1998:36). They included maritime specialists and Price, and Collard 2017:1). warriors, organized by social standing and residential place (Ja- Boat crews were largely self-organizing based on common kobsson 1992; Varenius 1998:36). Runic stones suggest that self-interest. Free farmer families produced surpluses in sons navigating officers were elite personages and free farmers con- (Kristinsson 2010, 2012). Because younger sons could not in- stituted crew (Jakobsson 1992; Varenius 1998). herit the farm, they sought opportunities elsewhere for liveli- From the Scandinavian maritime sector derived forest tim- hood, organizing crews for trade and plunder. They operated ber, labor, and woodworking expertise needed to construct and much like pirates (Price 2016:169). Financed by parents, broth- man boats. Experimental archaeology has shown that “ ” ers, and relatives to go Viking meant to join the seasonal raids, building a 30 meter long ship may have taken as much as ’ hoping to return wealthy or to lose one s life in the effort. Voy- 40.000 working hours. . . . Assuming a 12 hour working aging, their stories, and booty materialized personal valor. Many day . . . to build such a ship one should command the rune stones testify to such expeditions, especially from central surplus production of 100 persons for one year. Taking it to Sweden (Jakobsson 1992). Entrepreneurial war bands were sea- sea for four months meant that 70 men were taken away sonal, and for the rest of the year, youths lived within their kin, for from production and had to be fed. . . . this would require whom they worked (Kristiansen 2018). A valorous sojourner one year’s surplus from 460 producers. (Bill 2008:170) might be asked to join a wealthy family as warrior, increasing opportunities to augment wealth, buy a farm, and marry. How Boatbuilding was complicated, involving collective labor and could this bottom-up process of self-improvement, however, logistics to exploit remote woodland appropriate for boats as become centrally controlled? well as wool and tar for sails (Ravn 2016). Finance for boat- Agricultural surpluses of chieflyfarmsfinanced maritime building likely came especially from chiefs, who then owned ventures and thus channeled foreign flows of metals and slaves. the boats. Bilateral kinship recruited specialty craft guilds (including boat- To realize groups for boatbuilding and for long-distance builders), work parties (for felling and trees), and personnel to raiding and trading, labor had to be transferred from fieldwork crew boats. Although it is possible, and probably likely, that to voyaging. As described by historical documents, slaves ap- others could build and man boat crews, the logistical difficulties parently filled farm labor gaps. Unfree labor (with different offered a selective advantage to chieftains to finance boatbuilding names) provided heavy fieldwork, herding cattle, household and voyaging. As boat owners, they would thus have received chores, and farm management (Brink 2008:55). With unfree the most returns from a successful voyage, amassing wealth as labor working farms, free-farmer warriors could participate in political currency. Both early Arab, Frankish, and English sources voyaging to raise their social standing and capital. Although Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 495

Scandinavian slaves did not occur in large numbers on ordi- came dependent on supplies of metal from distant places, not nary farms (Brink 2008:54), chiefly farms possessed more. unlike today’s reliance on oil and gas. With international inter- As significant Viking Age trade commodities, slaves were dependency, the Bronze Age marks a significant economic rev- sought by Vikings both to bring them home and to trade them olution, as transformational as the Neolithic revolution (Kris- internationally. Wherever Vikings moved in Western Europe and tiansen 2015; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005; Vandkilde 2016). It the Baltic or Slavic regions, they captured slaves (Brink 2008:50). was supported by a universal rise of populations throughout Rather large numbers were seized in Western Europe, for ex- Europe, which increased by more than 50% between 2000 BC ample, for ransoms or to be sold (Brink 2008:54). Vikings traded and 1500 BC, amounting to 13–14 million by 1500 BC (Müller slaves against gold, silver, bronze, and other precious commodi- 2013; figs. 8, 10). Located to Europe’s far north, Scandinavia ties, as described in Old Norse sources concerning the trading might seem to have been a frontier zone in Bronze Age times. centers of Birka and Hedeby (Brink 2008). Price (2016) succinctly Nothing could be farther from the truth: between 1500 and captures these relations: “raiding is slaving is trading” (170). 1100 BC, a remarkable society developed there, with metal Because chieftains owned many boats, flows of slaves, metals, wealth, large chiefly farms, and impressive burial landscapes. and weapons were channeled through their hands. Weapons Critical for this expansion was, we believe, local improvements and other valuables marked status, armed warriors, and pro- in seaworthy boats linked to surplus-producing farms that fi- vided working tools for boat and house construction. Chieftains nanced a network of economic facilitators (traders) and preda- distributed gifts to establish fealty and alliances. Kings, aris- tors (raiders). Although the extent of social integration during tocrats, and chieftains maintained specialists for precious metals, the Bronze Age was extensive, ranging from Norway, across textiles, and other status objects. Ultimately specialty manufac- Jutland and the Danish islands, and into the Baltic and Ger- ture occurred in kings’ towns, but local chieftains always sup- manic coasts, we have chosen the three regions Thy, Rogaland, ported craft production, showing that the political economy was and Tanum to exemplify the complementarity of Scandinavian decentralized (Ljungkvist 2008:190). regions for Bronze Age maritime confederacies. These con- Iron swords were typical Viking Age weapons; double-edged nections, however, had more ancient roots beginning with the swords “measuring about 90 cm in length were by far the most expansion of Bell Beaker people (2300–1900 BC), which was common” (Oakeshott and Peirce 2002; Pedersen 2008:204). Most followed by a second expansion period of the fully developed swords were locally cast, but elaborate swords, as well as other Nordic Bronze Age of Periods II–III (1500–1100 BC). The ev- extraordinary artifacts, were foreign. In form, shape, and func- idence can by summarized as follows: tionality, Scandinavians copied enemies’ swords (Oakeshott and Bell Beaker period. With expanding trade across Europe Peirce 2002) because of the desirability to fight with equivalent and new maritime technologies, Bell Beaker people apparently weaponry (Jakobsson 1992). Viking swords were highly influ- searched out and transported copper and high-quality flint from enced by Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, Irish, and Russian forms, sug- 2400 to 1900 BC (Fitzpatrick 2011; Østmo 2012; Vandkilde gesting that conflict, not peaceful trade, characterized Scandina- 2014). In northwestern Jutland, they found good sources of vian movements in Viking Age and earlier Bronze Age sojourns amber and flint and started a nearly industrial production and (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). export of high-quality flint daggers to the rest of Scandinavia In sum, Viking Age terrestrial and maritime sectors held dis- based on systematic mining of good flint sources in Thy (Vand- tinct, complementary potentials and skills to form a dynamic, kilde 2014). Eighty-one flint daggers have been found in various integrated macroregional economy in Scandinavia. In the land- sources (hoards, graves, and stray finds) in Tanum; these flint based sector, all farms used slaves to provide labor. Larger and daggers were, for the most part, produced and imported from more productive chiefly farms could accumulate additional slave Thy, and in Rogaland, southwestern Norway, we find a similar labor to produce surpluses to support warriors, craftsmen, and picture (Apel 2001; Østmo 2012). It corresponds to the begin- ritual specialists and fund construction and manning of boats ning of deforestation and the expansion of a pastoral economy and crews. Providing seafaring and woodworking skills, the mar- in both regions, in part based on migrations from Jutland (Pres- itime sector produced and manned boats, but especially chiefly cott 2009). The qualitative step that triggered the expansion of farms provided their financing. Based on sectorial comple- a Bronze Age maritime economy was, we believe, chieftains’ mentarity, raiding and trading expeditions amassed wealth that ability to control trade in flint daggers and early metal by fi- chieftains distributed to fashion chieftaincies and confederacies. nancing maritime forces of production and transport. This maritime mode of production apparently had ancestral Nordic Early Bronze Age period. The second expansion roots in the Bronze Age. period falls between 1500 and 1100 BC and represents our case study. A major clearance of remaining forest took place in Thy Scandinavian Early Bronze Age Societies and after 1500 BC (Andersen 1999). Access to good timber was now Regional Confederacies: A Maritime Triangle scarce, but there was still an overall need for timber for boats and fi between Northwest Jutland (Thy), West Sweden longhouses in the densely settled Thy ( g. 5). By now, popula- fi (Tanum), and Southwest Norway (Rogaland) tion gures were close to or even exceeding carrying capacity, especially after 1300 BC, with absolute population numbers com- During the Early Bronze Age through Eurasia, emerging long- parable to those from the preindustrial period in Thy, 1800 AD distance trade created a new world order as communities be- (Kristiansen 2017). Such demographic surplus would be sent 496 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Figure 5. Local settlement pattern in Thy, Denmark (after Holst et al. 2013). Squares p settlements; dots p barrows; dashed lines p hypothetical infield-outfield boundaries. off to less dense landscapes in southwestern Norway, as evi- of the landscape (Ekman 2004; Prøsch-Danielsen and Simonsen denced in similar burials and bronze objects in both regions 2000). Based on this, we believe that coastal Bohuslän in western (Hornstrup 2013). Also, Tanum in Bohuslän, west Sweden, Sweden and similar northern areas in southwestern Norway, could have received surplus population from Thy; in both Ta- with rich forests and maritime skills, developed reciprocal num and Rogaland, this is followed by increasing deforestation confederacies with agriculturally rich zones including Thy, Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 497 especially after 1500 BC, which is supported by a number of of Jutland in Thy and the maritime-based sector in Bouslän, additional factors. Tanum. Thy occupied a favorable maritime position that probably served as a transit zone (bottleneck) for metals coming from At- lantic networks. Lead isotope analysis carried out on metals from Land-Based Sector of Jutland: Thy Tanum, Rogaland, and Thy indicates that most of the metal dated to 1500–1100 BC derived from the same sources in Eu- Ancestral to Nordic Bronze Age society in Jutland, a Single rope and that most of this copper was transmitted to Scandi- Grave pastoral society (2800–2400 BC) occupied Thy. It was navia via an Atlantic trade network (Ling and Stos-Gale 2015; distinguished by individual burials that include male interments Ling and Uhnér 2015; Ling et al. 2014; Melheim et al. 2018). with battle-axes. Pollen diagrams show rapid forest clearance With regard to Thy’s maritime position and the metal wealth to create pasture land (Andersen 1995,1999; Odgård 1994), al- in this region, it is logical to assume that the metal was trans- though settlements were ephemeral. Bell Beaker populations ferred via Thy to northen Bohuslän and to southwestern Nor- then settled in Thy after 2400 BC (Earle et al. 1998; Prieto- way (figs. 3, 4). Martínez 2008, 2012). Continuing the warrior ethos, every house This maritime trade in metal was supported by a system of sea had at least one dagger, and individual male burials held espe- currents that connects the British Isles with western Scandinavia cially fine examples. Farm-like settlements emerged (Earle et al. (Earle et al. 2015; Turrell 1992; see also figs. 3, 4). The Jutish sea 1998). The fusion of these societies, both with pronounced war- currents connect Jutland, in turn, with west Sweden and southeast rior ethos, underpinned the emergent Bronze Age society for Norway, and up to the modern age, fishermen have used them which warriors served as agents in warfare and trade. Reflecting to save time and effort (Hasslöf 1970; Turrell 1992). Seafaring an expanding pastoral economy, a second land clearance took Bronze Age mariners would undoubtedly have benefited from place in Thy after 1500 BC, and construction of the barrows these currents as well. Maritime groups from Thy could have followed. After 1300 BC the last forests disappeared, probably organized interregional trade expeditions, starting and more or necessitating northern wood importation to build boats and less ending at Jutland, with the use of these currents. More in- chiefly halls (fig. 5). This depletion corresponded with peak triguingly, the size of this system correlates with the size of the metal consumption, barrow construction, and settlement den- classical Kula ring (Malinowski 2010 [1922]). sity in Thy (Kristiansen 2017). Rock art manifests maritime trade between the coastal re- From 1500 to 1100 BC, an Early Bronze Age political hier- gions connected to the sea currents (fig. 4). Several scholars have archy emerged in the productive landscape of Thy (fig. 5) with argued that the ship iconography represented in rock art in its many farms and rich burials (Bech, Eriksen, and Kristiansen Bohuslän and Rogaland must be seen in light of the maritime 2018). Household density was 1 per km2 and locally higher (Bech connections with Jutland (Kaul 1998; Kristiansen 2004; Ling and Mikkelsen 1999; Earle and Kolb 2010). With a household 2014; Pettersson 1982). In fact, there are plenty of rock art consisting of eight to 10 extended family members and perhaps scenes depicting bronze weapons that have not been recorded three to five slaves, population density of 12 per km2 seems rea- in burials among coastal settlements in Bohuslän and Rogaland, sonable (Holst et al. 2013). while such weapons have been found in large numbers in burials The Early Bronze Age was the period of marked wealth and in Jutland. social distinctiveness, as documented by hierarchical sizes of The rock art area of northern Bohuslän with thousands of households and burial monuments. Central to each farm was a ship depictions and access to timber was a focal area for the three-aisle residence. Most were about 18 m long with wattle- organization of maritime activities, including shipbuilding, as and-daub walls; some were smaller. A few, like Legård’schieftain we shall discuss below. This could have been one of the regions halls, were over 30 m long and constructed of massive roof- that provided Thy with boats, when their forests were depleted supporting posts and plank walls, probably decorated elabo- by 1300 BC. In fact, the first historical evidence from the twelfth rately with carving, as is known for Viking halls (Bech, Eriksen, century AD shows that northern Bohuslän traded timber and and Kristiansen 2018). On low hills above the farms are sev- boats against agropastoral products with Jutland (Hasslöf 1949). eral thousand barrows—graves of chieftains, warriors, and free Moreover, during historical times, the Danish naval fleet was farmers; most were 2–3 m tall and 15–20 m in diameter, while a constructed using timber from northern Bohuslän (see Hasslöf few large barrows were above 5 m tall. Building large halls and 1949, 1970). prominentburialmonumentsrequiredsubstantiallabor,andwe We can thus conclude that during the period 1500–1100 BC believe that successful farms became seats for chieftains man- there developed increasingly close ties among the maritime aging production of surpluses. By provisioning animals and triangle of Thy, Tanum, and Rogaland and that they served grain for specialty labor and feasts, a chiefly farm could have complementary economic functions to each other. This was crafted a microregional dependency of farms with supporting based on landholding chieftains’ ability to control trade in warriors and could have financed boatbuilding and expeditions. metal, by financing maritime forces of productions. We shall The singularity in metal richness in Bronze Age Thy is therefore, in the following, probe more deeply into the orga- shown by its quantities of bronze objects. Figure 6 documents nization of these two economic systems: the land-based sector increases in numbers of swords from Periods II (1500–1300 BC) 498 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Figure 6. Map of Thy showing the number of sword burials from Period II (1500–1300 BC) to Period III (1300–1100 BC) and the increase in use wear as well, suggesting problems with metal supplies toward the end of the period. After Kristiansen (2017). A color version of this figure is available online. to III (1300–1100 BC). Period III richness is dramatic: both Maritime Sector of Bohuslän: Tanum flange-hilted (warrior) swords and full-hilted (chiefly) swords increased. In Thy, every free farmer seems to have been armed Documenting a long-term maritime adaptation in Bohuslän, the with a sword. There also were other bronze weapons, sickles, earliest Mesolithic settlements and later Neolithic settlements and ornaments from burials and hoards. Thy then was one of and megalithic graves were oriented toward the sea (Sjögren the richest regions in Scandinavia and all of Europe (Kristian- 2003). Early diets combined both maritime and terrestrial sen 1978). The key question is how the people of Thy could sources (Ling 2014; Sjögren 2003), and farmstead and burial have accumulated such large quantities of imported metal on locations in the Dagger period and Early Bronze Age document the fringe of Europe. What was their comparative advantage in a mixed maritime and land-based economy. Fishing and farm- trade? We propose that they controlled the distribution of metal ing are a deep northern Bohuslän tradition, as manifested in to southwestern Scandinavia via Bohuslän and Rogaland. We rock art. The coastal population, often called fisher-farmers his- shall therefore look more closely into the role of Bohuslän in torically, combined these two subsistence components. Bohus- this maritime system. län also was one of Scandinavia’s foremost boatbuilding centers Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 499

(Hasslöf 1949, 1970); the region has been associated with timber production; and several towns, such as Munkedal and Udde- valla, relied on timber brought down on rivers from hinterland forests (Hasslöf 1949, 1970). The first historical sources (twelfth century) document that northern Bohuslän traded timber and boats against agropastoral products from Jutland (Hasslöf 1949), and subsequently the Danish naval fleet was constructed on timberfromnorthernBohuslän(Hasslöf1949,1970).About215 bronzes have been recorded, mainly from southern Bohuslän, where favorable agropastoral conditions existed in the Bronze Age. In the more northerly rock art areas, bronzes are less com- mon but still present. Bronze Age remains cluster geographi- cally, probably indicating small chiefdom-like polities, about 25–30 km across (fig. 7).

The Tanum Case Tanum is singularly distinctive for the highest concentration of Bronze Age rock art in Europe. About 70% of the rock art was located near the sea, which in the Bronze Age was a large, shallow bay (fig. 8). Nearly 2,000 boat images have been documented there. Tanum encompasses about 150 km2, with granite ridges and hills framing the landscape of open plains and narrow valleys and passages. From about 1800 to 1100 BC, parts of western coastal Sweden and coastal Norway became deforested (Ekman 2004; Prøsch-Danielsen and Simonsen 2000), and, because pop- ulation densities were comparative low then, clearing may well document timber harvest for boatbuilding and perhaps export. Deforested early in the Bronze Age, lowlands of Tanum likely served for agropastoralism; however, higher ground in its eastern parts remained forested (Ling 2014; Svedhage 1997). During the Bronze Age, we suggest that perhaps fewer than one household per 2 km2 existed here, with a tentative population density of less than 4–6perkm2 (fig. 8). Even if an agropastoral economy were its foundation, marine resources doubtless played an important role, as evidenced from boats and fishing scenes on the rock art (Ling 2014). Based on historical parallels, the people of the Tanum area could easily have held knowledge for boatbuilding andvoyagingandcouldhaveprovidedwoodintrade. We propose that boatbuilding became part of the regional economy. A well-preserved boat from Hjortspring, Denmark, illustrates the labor and material investment in Bronze Age Figure 7. Map of Bohuslän in west Sweden showing the landscape boatbuilding. This boat, which dates to around 375 BC, had a with the Bronze Age remains and tentative Maritime Chiefdoms from the Bronze Age. The spatial distribution of Bronze Age re- remarkably similar design to the Bonze Age rock art boat images mains in Bohuslän probably indicate small chiefdom-like social or- from Tanum, suggesting continuous boatbuilding traditions in ganizations, about 25–30 km, marked with polygons. Gray dots p Scandinavia from the Early Bronze Age to the pre-Roman Iron rock art sites; black dots p cairns; white dots p bronze items. fi Age (Crumlin-Pedersen 2003; Kaul 1998, 2003; Østmo 2012). Adjusted after Ling (2014). A color version of this gure is avail- Further supporting boatbuilding continuity, a plank-built boat able online. from Haugvik in Norway has recently been dated by radiocarbon determination to the end of the Late Bronze Age (Østmo 2012; Sylvester 2006). Experimental Hjortspring replicas record high construction (Clausen 1993). Considering ethnographic paral- labor and timber requirements for Tanum-like boats. Such a boat lels, the spatial distribution of Tanum rock art appears to doc- wouldhaverequiredabout6,500man-hourstobuild(Valbjørn ument a ritual chain of boatbuilding: on high ground where trees 2003:235). These war canoes were similar to Solomon Islands were cut for the craft; adjacent to settlements where crafts were war canoes, which we describe below as requiring years in roughed out; and most commonly near the shore for launching, 500 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Figure 8. Map of the decentralized Bronze Age society in the coastal region of Tanum, west Sweden. Illustrated by different Bronze Age remains and showing a shoreline about 15 m higher than the present. Gray dots p figurative rock art sites; white dots p cup mark sites; black dots p cairns; large light-gray triangles p settlement finds (carbon dates, ceramics, or other features) dated to the Bronze Age; small triangles p indicative settlement sites from the Bronze Age; large circles/dots p bronze items; diamonds p flint daggers; white flashes p flint sickles. After Ling (2014). A color version of this figure is available online.

embarkation, and return. Financed by chiefs, as in the Oceanic Scandinavian elites/chiefs would not have monopolized this cases, boats would likely have been their property. medium. Rather, the art probably represented individual agency Although Bronze Age Scandinavian boat remains are still by the maritime population as they strove for success on risky, absent, abundant Bronze Age ship images in Tanum un- long-distance expeditions (Ling 2014). By creating and display- doubtedly represent local practice for producing and manning ing rock art, individuals could have recorded their actions, boats, which could have become a specialized activity in the communicated their ideals, and proclaimed their positions in macroregional division of labor (Ling 2014). Given the open society (fig. 4). Having provided an outline of the geographical location and low technologies in production of art panels, organization of maritime confederacies during the Early Bronze Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 501

Age, 1500–1100 BC, and their internal organization in Thy and Surplus Production Bohuslän, we will now describe four basic elements of this mari- If local Tanum people were involved in the building and man- time mode of production. ning of boats, then we must consider their compensation. Cross- culturally, feasts are sponsored by leaders to reward work parties The Four Elements of the Bronze Age Maritime involved in such activities (Hayden 2014). Although some Mode of Production Model Tanum farmers probably constructed boats on their own initiative, constraints on labor and finance, especially for larger The Scandinavian Bronze Age maritime mode of production boats, would have limited their options. As a result, chiefs could model has four elements: crew sizes, surplus production, metal have been the primary sponsors and thus could have received wealth, and exports of amber and slaves. trading prizes disproportionately. The potential of Thy to pro- duce sizable surpluses of animals and grains would have pro- vided the means to support boat construction and crewing and Crew Size could explain the wealth concentrated in Thy. Chieftains could Ethnographic and historical data (Johnson 2007; Varenius 1998) have provided special foods (like meat) and drink for the feasts. suggest that households were the basic structural unit for Bronze Also important would likely have been gifts such as cattle hides Age maritime war bands. As depicted on the Tanum rock art, and flint from Thy. At this time, its farms intensified cattle pro- ships typically had crews of six to 13 (Ling 2014); in other mari- duction probably to export cattle hides and meat (Earle 2002), time chiefdoms, single households typically provided one crew and specialty flint production sites were also present (Apel 2001). member (Clausen 1993; Johnson 2007). Tanum could thus have Thy’s comparative advantage for these exports would likely have provided perhaps 30–50 maritime warriors, enough for three to been to northern areas like Tanum, with less productive pasture four standard boats; however, the largest ships, as represented in land; Tanum also lacked the high-quality flint sources that were the rock art, had crews of 60–100 (Ling 2014), with defined available in Thy. No such comparative advantage for Thy ex- status positions, including elevated or enlarged war canoes (fig. 9). isted southward toward Germany, where a cattle complex was These are the ships, probably accompanied by smaller boats, likely to have been equally productive to Thy’s, and available that would have been central to long-distance trading and metal would have undercut the value of traded flint. raiding sojourns for metals, textiles, and slaves, and, we argue, such ships would have been the outcome of transregional con- Metal Wealth federacies as between Tanum and Thy. At least some of the boats from Tanum were likely financed, owned, and partly manned by The importance of metal wealth for the Scandinavian Early wealthy chiefs from agropastoral regions such as Thy. For in- Bronze Age political economy cannot be overemphasized. It stance, the Hassing district in Thy, with about 250 farms, could provided weapons for an emerging warrior class, elaborate per- thus have provided 93 crew members (Holst et al. 2013), enough sonal equipment of male and female chiefs and warriors (Kris- for a lead vessel, as seen on the rock art. tiansen and Larsson 2005), and many tools for woodworking and

Figure 9. Crewed rock art ships from Tanum, Early Bronze Age (top) and Late Bronze Age (bottom). Documentation by T. Högberg and G. Tanums Milstreu; Hällristningsmuseum Underslös; source: SHFA. 502 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 other tasks. The magnitude of Bronze Age metal trade was quite foreign motifs engraved on stone slabs (Goldhahn 2013; Kris- extraordinary as seen in rates of metal consumption. All metals tiansen and Larsson 2005). were imported from long distance, with at least two major Amber was highly valued in the south, probably close to gold Bronze Age systems of metal flow, each with rather distinct as in Roman times, and would therefore have served as an im- bottlenecks that would have served for emergent social hier- portant commodity. However, quantities of metal and woolen archies (Earle et al. 2015). As documented by its extraordinary textiles, as just outlined, would demand a rather extraordinary richness, Thy’s dominance of Early Bronze Age metal con- export in amber. Recent research in Thy recovered raw amber sumption suggests its central role in expanding chieflyconfed- collected for export, but in the Early Bronze Age only in small eracies. amounts (Earle 2018). In Periods II–III, when the region How large were stocks of bronze in Denmark during the abounded in rich metal finds, only one small bag with 69 pieces Bronze Age, and how fast was the rate of replacement? Recent of raw amber was recovered from a warrior’s house; all other analysis of Big Data (White 2009) from the Bronze Age (Holst finds, including large chiefly halls, had only a few scattered et al. 2013) allows us to determine large bronze stocks in daily pieces. We therefore conclude that, although amber was an use during 1500–1100 BC. If, as a conservative estimate, half of important Scandinavian export, this alone would not suffice Denmark (22,000 km2) were settled at 1 farm per km2, and to compensate for high-volume imports. each farm had at least two working axes of 500 g (the most What comparative advantage in Scandinavia could have important tool for daily purposes), the farms required a stock allowed for such rich accumulations of metal that would have of 22 metric tons of bronze. Because axes would have been worn built the decentralized complexity of chiefly confederacies? by daily use and resharpening, as documented by use-wear anal- Here the advantage appears to have been in warrior might and ysis, they were, conservatively, reduced annually by 5% (25 g per maritime capability, both an outcome of metal trade and mac- farm) suggesting a replacement rate for Denmark of 1 ton roregional integration. The warrior-maritime specialty would per year. Add to this the considerable consumption of bronze have created a fearsome trading-raiding package. We propose sickles, weapons, and ornaments for use, replacements, burials, that slaves, along with amber, were Scandinavia’s primary ex- and hoards. Between 10,000 and 20,000 swords alone were ports in the emerging world system to meet labor shortages cre- deposited during Periods II–III (Bunnefeld and Schwenzer ated by new regional specializations throughout Europe (fig. 10). 2011; Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke 2015). From these But could slaves have been a key Scandinavian export? As a rough extrapolations, we estimate that annual imports of metal bulk commodity of high value, slaves would have been desired must have been very high, at least from 1500 BC, and would by Bronze Age communities in Scandinavia as well as farther have demanded regular, well-organized annual procurement. away in urban palace societies of the eastern Mediterranean and Additionally, textile imports, whether finished or semifinished, elsewhere. Blonde northern slaves are shown in Etruscan wall were needed. In northern Europe at this time, no evidence yet paintings (Briggs-Nash 2006), representing perhaps a continu- exists for large-scale textile production (Bergerbrant 2007; Pres- ing practice already established in the Early Bronze Age. As cott and Melheim 2017), and at least 80% of analyzed wool described comparatively for Viking, Haida, and Philippine mar- fragments were imported from outside Denmark (Frei et al. itime societies, wealth in captive human bodies could have de- 2017). Again, such imports must have been substantial and rived from local interchiefdom wars and from raids into coastal costly. Considering the estimate of Denmark’s population and riverine settlements along voyaging routes. The importance (220,000) at this time, thousands of pieces of cloth would likely of slaves in the Viking case provides the likely homology. When have been imported annually from the south. How was trade in individuals from a defeated population were not killed, “they metal and textiles organized to make Thy, and ultimately Den- had forfeited their right to be free” (Brink 2008:50). mark, so rich? Slaves would have been captured by warrior/traders plying the coasts of Scandinavia, northern Germany, the Baltic, and elsewhere. Coastal populations would have been vulnerable to Exports of Amber and Slaves fast-acting raiders as described by Viking era documents. We To compensate for high volumes of metal and other goods im- acknowledge that this scenario is speculative, but some sug- ported into southern Scandinavia required a significant compet- gestive data support it. Possible evidence for slaves in the Bronze itive advantage for equivalently highly valued and high-volume Age includes the following examples. Nonformalized burials of exports from Scandinavia. What products could possibly have those sacrificed or killed for other reasons occur in Early Bronze supported such substantial imports? Amber is the traditional Age and Middle Bronze Age central European settlements answer, and the richness of amber sources in Jutland would seem (Knipper et al. 2014; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). From the to match the concentrated wealth in metal. Although in low Unetice culture in Poland, a possible male slave from Scandi- amounts, amber is distributed broadly in rich Bronze Age buri- navia suffered a particularly bad diet before being killed (Pokutta als and loose finds throughout Europe and the Mycenaean 2013:chap. 6.3). From the island of Thanet off the southeastern world. Amber is of Baltic origin (Harding 1990), most probably point of England, where a Late Bronze Age settlement is inter- from the coast of Jutland and a few other “amber coasts” such as preted as a trading place, with findings of metal ingots and Baltic Simris in eastern Scania, where famous burials held local and amber, strontium and oxygen isotope signatures in human bone Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 503

Figure 10. Possible links between Thy and Bohuslän and possible raiding and slaving ventures along the coast. document that, together with local people, some individuals have dinavian rock art panels show lines of people, sometimes linked Scandinavian signatures and others have west Mediterranean together, suggesting captured slaves (fig. 11). signatures (McKinley, Schuster, and Millard 2013). Dating to Late Bronze Age, a female with a clear Scandinavian signature was buried together with others in a pit inside a large ring ditch Maritime Mode of Production Summarized enclosure (McKinley, Schuster, and Millard 2013:159). Some scholars argue that various burial findings in southern Scan- For the Viking and Bronze Ages, the maritime mode of pro- dinavia suggest Bronze Age era slaves. Barrows were only for duction becomes a model of how warrior aristocracies were the top segment of free farmers, around 20% of the population, able with rich farms and superior boats to expand trading, whereas commoners and possibly slaves were sometimes buried raiding, and colonization. A linkage was established with the in simple flat and gallery graves (Bergerbrant et al. 2017). Possible division of power and labor between Denmark as a center of evidence of a Bronze Age slave raid in Sund, Norway, dated to agropastoral surplus production and wealth accumulation, 1400 BC, includes the finds of a brutal massacre of 22 individuals, west Sweden and Norway with access to boat timber and mari- most belonging to children, all buried in a mass grave (Fyllingen time specialists, and Europe with both a demand and a source for 2003). Parallels to the above mentioned finds in Thanet could be slaves. With new mobility, raiding and slaving by aggressive drawn.Additionally,someBronzeAgefarmsteadsmayhavebeen warriors of the sea would have given them comparative ad- structured to house slaves (Mikkelsen 2013:62). Tracing back to vantages with respect to the emerging world economy. They the late Neolithic, these structures contained segregated sections could seize and trade slaves to the British Isles, central Europe, perhaps for “afamilyofslavesornon-freeworkers” (Mikkelsen and possibly the Mediterranean and in return amass consid- 2013:62). Especially considering the importance of slaves as com- erable wealth and power. As exemplified by the maritime mode modities in Viking society, future research should systematically of production, the political economy of maritime chiefdoms investigate the Bronze Age role of slaves. Finally, several Scan- can be expected to contain the following elements: 504 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Figure 11. Rock art image from Leirfall i Trøndelag (central Norway) illustrating a possible slave train. Photo by Ragnar Utne.

1. Low-density populations interconnected by exchanges fashion chieftaincies and confederacies. Positive growth cy- of wealth cles included agricultural intensification, expanding maritime 2. Warriors able to raid, trade, protect, and intimidate raiding-trading voyaging, wealth accumulation and distribu- 3. Agricultural sector with productive lands and autono- tion, and the formation of dynamic networks of power over mous households owned by free farmers and chieftains extensive regions. Foundational was economic power exer- 4. Slaves as an exchange commodity and as labor to cised through ownership of large farms and boats and spon- expand surplus production sorship of maritime ventures. Warrior power was instrumental 5. Maritime sector with timber and specialized knowledge to protect and extend chiefly lands and wealth movement and of boats to seize slaves. Economic surpluses, which were invested in 6. Ownership of boats by chiefs who supported their con- weapons and boats, allowed chiefs to fix warriors to chiefly struction interests, as these warriors also pursued their personal social 7. Entrepreneurial voyage overseen by chiefly captains advancement. And then there was ideological power, which 8. Raiding along voyaging routes for slaves and other valu- gave meaning and legitimacy to chieftains and warrior service. ables With economic surpluses, chiefs supported feasts and religious 9. Transfer of metals and slaves to chieftains who owned specialists in ceremonies to mitigate risks of distant voyaging boats and financed voyages and warfare. Objects and actions took on special value by the 10. Gift exchanges by chieftains to establish networks of ritual contexts in which they served. power and alliance In world historical terms, structural similarities existed in Europe during the Bronze Age and Viking Age. Our Bronze In the maritime mode of production as developed for Age maritime mode of production for Scandinavia relies on the Scandinavia, the three sources of power appear intertwined to historical specificity of the Vikings. For each of these specific Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 505 phases, a new maritime technology changed the rules of the game, not traders. Rather, they controlled exchange by creating en- allowing Scandinavian sailors, warriors, and chiefs to dominate trepôts, channeling export products, administering international to some measure flows of weapons, slaves, and status objects. trade to extract wealth, and raiding for slaves. Essential ingre- Importantly, most Viking raiding was on a small scale and was dients to Junker’s model were the warrior nature of society able to maritime and seasonal in character. Slaves were one of the most obtain and maintain distant relationships, disrupt competitors, important commodities in the Viking trade (Brink 2008), and seize and trade slaves, guarantee the peace of market trans- we argue that the same was true in the Bronze Age. Locally, they fers, and mobilize exports. Chiefdoms supported a warrior class supported a political economy where warrior farmers were on armed with specialized weapons obtained internationally and the move, requiring labor at home that was managed by em- repurposed locally. Acquired in raids, slaves provided obligated powered warrior wives. But slaves could also be sold for metal labor, which was relatively scarce under conditions of low pop- to distant markets in centers of civilization. ulation densities and limited circumscription. Slave labor built Viking raids and their Bronze Age equivalents were most and farmed pockets of intensive irrigated rice fields that sup- efficiently accomplished by the mobility gained by human- ported chiefly warriors and elites and urban port settlements. powered (oared or paddled) boats, not too big that they could Female slaves were prestige objects involved in political ex- travel independent of winds and move silently in and out of changes to negotiate confederacies (Junker 2018). Obtaining coastal settlements. Viking Age chieftains and their followers and protecting trade networks into Philippine interior areas appeared and disappeared, raiding and trading as they saw channeled specialized forest products, desired in Chinese mar- advantages. They could establish colonies and trading hubs, kets, through chiefly hands. In the Philippine case, as exempli- drive fear into competitors, and negotiate political and eco- fying fully developed world systems, traders were international nomic relationships. All markets would be opened to them, or agents who acted independently of chiefs, who taxed commerce consequences followed. Parallel processes, but on a smaller scale, and monopolized distributions of foreign commodities. appear to have taken place in Bronze Age Scandinavia. New Commonly, as in the Scandinavian examples, chiefs control maritime skills driven by northern chieftains would fundamen- trade by owning boats and supporting warriors to protect them. tally change world interactions, providing slaves and probably Providing bottlenecks in wealth flows, ownership of boats al- warrior service for metal and other wealth from the Atlantic fa- lowed for mobile and low-cost trading and raiding. In certain çade, into the Baltic Sea and Russian rivers, up the Elbe and Oder Pacific cases, isolated from the world systems, chiefdoms were Rivers into Europe, and perhaps even to the Mediterranean. based on large seaworthy canoes. A good example was the pow- erful maritime chiefdom located in the Roviana Lagoon in the Maritime Mode of Production Solomon archipelago, southeast of New Guinea. Amazing early ’ in Comparative Perspective European explorers, the region sfamouswarcanoes(tomoko) were large plank-built vessels with high prows; they were among The maritime mode of production as described for Scandinavia the finest maritime technology ever seen in the Pacificandwere can be compared with other decentralized, maritime chiefdoms remarkably similar to the Hjortspring boat (Clausen 1993). (cf. Bjerck 2009). Although chiefdoms are thought to develop in Elaborate prows, although not on the Hjortspring boat, were high-density situations, this is not always the case. When it was represented on Tanum rock art. The tomoko took 3–4 years to possible to control flows of wealth, chiefdoms could emerge at build, involving several stages, each marked by rituals to man- very low densities by binding together polities by gift networks age high-risk, open-sea voyaging (Clausen 1993). These canoes of alliance and dependency. Such maritime chiefdoms used could hold 30–60 ferocious warriors who traveled fast, often “exclusionary” strategies to distinguish status (Blanton et al. covering 200 km of open ocean. The social organization of Ro- 1996), and warriors provided the means to protect and raid viana was a hereditary chiefdom with pronounced ranking, and wealth. Slaves from raiding provided labor and exchange value. chiefly power relied on organizing maritime headhunting ex- Examples of maritime chiefdoms include societies on the peditions (Walter and Sheppard 2006:145). Chiefs displayed islands of Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and the western coast of heads at forts and shrines to call on their powerful ancestors North America. Illustrating maritime chiefdoms on the edge and to demonstrate power (Walter and Sheppard 2006). Head- of a world system, Junker (1999) describes Philippine societies hunting expeditions also procured tradable wealth in slaves, that depended on trading and slaving during the late prehis- who, among other things, manufactured shell valuables. toric and early historic periods. She emphasizes the low pop- Located north of the Solomon Islands, Trobriand chiefdoms ulation densities throughout Southeast Asia (5.5 per km2) and participated historically in the Kula Ring trade of valuables the fundamental segmental structure of societies. “The Philip- (Malinowski 2010 [1922]). Trade involved sea voyages of rela- pine archipelago became the easternmost edge of a vast network tively high risk. Every step in the manufacture of canoes and of Chinese, Southeast Asian, Indian, and Arab traders that cir- voyaging involved ritual and magic as an interwoven praxis culated porcelains, silks, glass beads, and other luxury goods across the landscapes: (1) cutting down trees on high ground; throughout the South China Sea and through the Malaccan (2) basic fashioning of the canoe by craftsmen at villages; (3) fin- Straits into the Indian Ocean as early as the beginning of the first ishing work at the shore; and (4) the canoe’s launching. Chiefs millennium A.D.” (Junker 1999:3). Philippine chiefdoms were mobilized food surpluses to support rituals at each step. Fi- 506 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 nancing boatbuilding and voyaging, chiefs were the canoe own- 2007; Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007; Kristiansen and Larsson ers, and Kula valuables passed only through their hands. 2005). The lightweight, two-wheeled chariot drawn by two horses Removed from the world system, in the central Pacificmore revolutionized warfare and created a warrior class as they spread complex chiefdoms and state-like polities developed based on from the Urals west and east across the steppe from Mesopo- trade and conquest. During the second millennium AD, for tamia and the Aegean to Iran and Pakistan and into China. After example, Tonga lords conquered 169 islands in their archipel- 1000 BC, steppe societies became mounted nomads and more ago and extended hegemony over Samoa and Fiji (Clark, Burley, mobile both as military and political forces that extended he- and Murray 2008). Large, seagoing canoes allowed rapid move- gemony across vast regions through confederacies that would ment over great distances, carrying commodities and special- periodically develop into empires (Honeychurch 2014; Kradin ized warriors for surprise attacks. Slaves constituted a major 2008, 2015). Kradin discusses the origin and maintenance of part of the economy. The resulting extensive Tonga polities had power by nomadic rulers who controlled gift exchanges between profound state-like stratification: “The paramount Tu’iTonga independent pastoral warriors. With aspiring chiefs, nomads (Lord of Tonga) . . . , along with other senior lineages, were organized into large raiding parties that eventually formed con- buried in massive stone-faced tombs known as langi, meaning quest armies. Large pastoral polities were decentralized, without sky or heaven” (Clark, Burley, and Murray 2008:1). bureaucratic structures but always based on interpersonal rela- Smaller-scale maritime chiefdoms developed along North tionships. Reminiscent of the maritime chieftaincies, pastoral America’s Northwest Coast. For example, the Haida First Na- societies retained a dialectic between autonomy and hierarchy, tion were famous for seamanship, long-distance trade, their decentralization and central authority. A remarkably similar advanced canoes, and devastating slave raids (Donald 1997). model can be constructed for the Comanche “empire” during Large, seagoing canoes crafted from gigantic red cedars could the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries across America’s prai- hold crews of 15–20 paddling warriors and crossed open waters ries, where, to build expansionist polities, chiefs managed horse greater than 1,000 km. The Haida were considered the “Indian nomadism and warrior control of trade by protection and in- Vikings of the Northwest Coast” (Jenness 1934:2). Raids cap- timidation (Hämäläinen 2008). tured slaves who served the chiefs in political exchanges and fi ceremonial events (Donald 1997). Polities were strati ed, with Conclusions chiefs and noble warriors at the top of a social ladder, with slaves at the bottom. Long-distance sea ventures were driven by slaving Our article emphasizes some critical points: At relatively low but also the search for valuables including coppers and Chilkat densities, chiefdom did develop despite the fact that control was blankets. In fact, it is hard to find a better cross-cultural analogy always problematic because segmental polities could easily dis- than the Haida for Bronze Age Scandinavia in terms of copper solveintotheinterestsofseparatehouseholdsspreadacrossvast and textiles (Donald 1997). As another example of maritime landscapes. The independence of individual households and chiefdoms, see the Chumash of southern California (Arnold their distinct interests was critical. To make up for such cen- 1995, 2001; Gamble 2008). With particularities of the maritime tripetal social forces, slavery became critical for labor, linked to a mode of production, such chiefdoms depended on ownership warrior class dependent on rapid movement across the land- of boats (or harbors); control at distances of trade and slav- scape. ing; specialized warriors, often with distinctive equipment; and The maritime mode of production, as illustrated with two stratified (exclusionary) polities. Scandinavian regions, apparently created highly dynamic chiefly The maritime mode of production is apparently part of a confederacies under conditions of low population density and larger set of decentralized chiefdoms that depended on control high mobility for warriors and traders. The key ingredient for over raiding and trading in precious commodities including Scandinavia included independent household economies; a slaves. On the peripheries of ancient civilizations, decentralized warrior ethos; effective maritime technology; international trade trading chieftaincies developed among the pastoral societies of in wealth; slaves used for menial work, exchanges, and commod- the Eurasian steppe and beyond (Honeychurch 2014; Kradin ities; and an unstable social hierarchy based on flows of wealth. 2008), Arabia (Sweet 1965a), and North Africa (Sáenz 1991). The maritime mode of production for Scandinavia is a his- With the same entrepreneurial spirit, traders and raiders ob- torically specific model, but it helps understand similar low- tained wealth and personal status. Chiefs held advantages by density, decentralized societies that represent a distinct pathway ownership of horses and camels, the ships of the desert wastes, for social evolution (Kristiansen 2015). In Blanton’sterms,the and by control over oases that permitted some control of trade maritime mode of production relied on network (exclusionary) that channeled wealth and thus of social status. strategies for political centralization. These strategies have been This model of decentralized, pastoral chiefdoms provides an based on different bottlenecks to material flows, different artic- understanding of chiefly confederacies across central Asia during ulations with world economies, and different technologies of the Bronze and Iron Ages, as they sought to control flows of warfare and domination. Such specificities created variations in metals, silks, other textiles, slaves, and additional items desired by decentralized complexity linked to particular structural rela- agrarian states. Steppe chiefdoms were warrior aristocracies, tionships in their political economies, but the underlying pro- forming after 2000 BC with the spread of chariot warfare (Kohl cesses of control and aggrandizement seem remarkably similar. Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 507

We emphasize the roles of model building, specificpre- metalwork are found in the Bronze Age and the Viking period. histories of development, and then a comparative study of social There have been claims that certain elements in Old Norse re- evolution within and between world regions (Neitzel and Earle ligion originated in the second millennium BC (Andrén 2014). 2014). This is both the potential for and the true meaning of Might there have been other connections? Ling and his col- archaeology as a social science. Matthew Spriggs (2008) has leagues emphasize the importance of the Hjortspring boat that emphasized that cross-cultural comparisons of human societies dates from the fourth century BC, but they do not discuss the have been fatally flawed by a lack of understanding of the pre- evidence from other war booty deposits that include military histories of ethnographic cases used anthropologically. Prehistory equipment and abandoned boats. This practice extended as late and early history offer diachronic data to evaluate alternative as AD 600 (Pauli Jensen 2009). Does it provide a link between the trajectories of social evolution. One of archaeology’s central mis- case studies presented here? And, if not, how was it distinct? sions can be to comparatively investigate processes of change— Their case studies operate at different chronological and geo- top-down, bottom up, and laterally between interlocked social graphical scales. The account of maritime societies in the Viking systems. world draws on evidence extending from northern Germany to the Faroe Islands, while the examples taken from the second millennium BC focus on three comparatively small regions in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The discussion is even more specific. While the authors draw on their own fieldwork in Thy Comments and Tanum, the Norwegian example hardly features in the ar- Richard Bradley gument. Other regions are omitted. During the Early Bronze Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 Age many of the elements considered in this paper are shared 6AB, United Kingdom ([email protected]). 6 X 17 between the Atlantic and Baltic coasts of Scandinavia, but they are not mentioned. Ling and his coauthors make effective use of a paper by Matthew The authors illustrate their theme by the relationship between Spriggs (2008), who advocates the comparative study of different Tanum and Thy. It is important to see it in a longer chrono- archaeological sequences. That is why they place an emphasis on logical perspective. It is true that images of ships were created two periods in northern Europe: the Early Bronze Age and the on the west coast of Sweden while enormous houses and burial Viking Age. They locate these detailed examples in a wider dis- mounds were being built in Jutland, but this convergence was cussion of “decentralized chiefdoms,” and only toward the close not to last. After 1100 BC, mortuary rituals in Jutland were less of their study do they draw on ethnographic examples. elaborate and settlements contained smaller structures, yet it Their basic case is well made and, as they say, they are not the was in the Late Bronze Age that even more seagoing vessels were first researchers to compare the Bronze Age in northern Europe depicted in the rock art on the Atlantic coast. At Tanum this with developments in the same area during the later first mil- practice continued until the Iron Age, and in Rogaland, too, it lennium AD. In both periods people could exploit the same re- went on into the first millennium BC (Nordenborg Myhre sources and travel by the same routes. More important are the 2004). It follows that the close relationship between Tanum and structural similarities the authors detect in the archaeology of Thy represents only one stage in a lengthy and more varied these phases, for these can be identified in the ethnography of history. That is not to reject the argument put forward by Ling other parts of the world. Some elements in their model can be and his colleagues, but it needs to be pursued in a wider setting. documented by archaeology, but others remain largely hypo- One further question must be asked. This paper postulates a thetical. In particular, that applies to slave raiding during the direct connection between sea travel, the introduction of metals, Bronze Age, which is postulated by analogy with Viking sources. and the taking of slaves. At the same time, drawings of ships on There is considerable evidence of violence in prehistoric Europe, rock outcrops and bronze artifacts illustrate a distinctive solar but no particular peak during the period is considered here. The cosmology. During the day the sun is drawn across the sky by a few examples quoted in the text have a wide distribution over horse, and it returns beneath the ocean carried on a boat (Kaul time and space. They claim that their figure 11 shows “a possible 1998). How is this related to the evidence considered here? One slave train,” but there are similar processions in Scandinavian response might be that the scheme is a feature of the Late Bronze rock art that show armed men and people with special head- Age and dates from a time when maritime chiefdoms were in dresses. There are striking numerical patterns in the organiza- decline, but this symbolic system was already present during the tion of these scenes (Coles 2003). previous period (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005:194–198). How To what extent do the authors envisage a direct connection can the two interpretations be combined? between the two periods? It is well known that Viking cemeteries The authors remark that in presenting this intriguing hy- include the sites of older monuments (Pedersen 2006), but how pothesis they were aware of the word limit for a journal article, direct was the reference to a distant past? Most authorities would so that some material could not be included. Their account is accept that earlier practices lapsed during the pre-Roman and selective, and in the future it might be worth developing these RomanIronAges,butthatwouldnotexplainwhysuchspecific ideas in greater detail and exploring their application to a longer features as the construction of ship settings or the hoarding of sequence and a larger area. It would make a fascinating book. 508 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Brian Hayden supplies and could make repairs. Where were these allied ports Archaeology Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British located? Did all mariners use the same localities or were there Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada ([email protected]). 30 IX 17 different allied ports used by different chiefs? How were these alliances maintained? (By simple payments or trade pacts? By It is refreshing to find new concepts introduced that have broad intermarrying? By initiations and memberships in ritual orga- explanatory implications and bring together disparate observa- nizations? Some other means?) I suspect that a stronger role tions in a new light. This is what “Maritime Mode of Produc- may have been played by ritual organizations in creating and tion” by Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen has done for me. The initial maintaining these ports-of-call alliances, and hence in making maritime mode of production model of the Scandinavian Bronze long-distance sea voyages viable enterprises. The existence of Agemaynotcomeastoomuchofasurprisegiventhehistorically such ritual organizations may explain much of the elaborate established Viking patterns, although it is nice to see how all the ritual and rock art surrounding the use of boats. parts fit together at an earlier time. What I found particularly In regard to the organization of trade, I would expand the list interesting (besides connecting the causal links) was the ex- of items that could have been produced in Scandinavia for trade tension of the same basic characteristics and causality to an en- or exchange to include furs and hides, livestock, smoked meats tirely different sphere, namely, pastoral nomadic chiefdoms. Both or sausages, cheeses, wool/textiles, special breeds of dogs, and the maritime mode of production and pastoral chiefdoms exhib- fish or marine mammal oils. The authors’ estimates of labor ited low population densities that were organized on the basis needed to construct boats are extremely useful, but I would of transport aids (boats and horses) that made high levels of also devote more attention to the work required to produce the mobility and regional integration possible. In both cases, the fabrics used for sails, which was perhaps of comparable im- existence of unusually valuable items (wealth) in the form of portance. One other item that requires more clarification is metalsorotherprestigeobjectsiswhatmaderaidingandtrading whether the maritime mode of production and its related con- profitable and attractive. I suspect that, like the Scandinavian case, federacies really only emerged in the Bronze Age in Scandinavia the pastoral base produced surpluses for freeholders and espe- or whether the maritime mode of production was initially es- cially for chiefs (see Fratkin and Roth 1990; Starr 1987). In both tablished in the Neolithic. Even the authors reported that there cases, individuals with enough surpluses used them to under- were long-term continuities from the middle Neolithic to the write the adventurous procurement of wealth by highly mobile Viking Age. The Neolithic symbolic and architectural similar- groups of warriors. Chiefs controlled the construction of boats ities among the Scottish Orkneys, the Boyne River complexes and the largest herds of horses and hence could attract many in Ireland, and the Morbihan region in Brittany (France) all in- warriors. In both cases, long-distance forays were undertaken for dicate substantial maritime connections between elites in these trading and raiding by groups of warriors. And in the absence of areas during the Neolithic. Chiefs dominated at least some of warrior-lords at home, slaves filled important roles for labor these centers, and weaponry was strongly represented in the art needs. In both cases, warrior roles were important social com- of these areas as well. Could they not have already been raid- ponents resulting in a very competitive and fluid social organi- ing and trading? What was the source of Neolithic wealth (cat- zation verging on free-for-all trading and raiding for whoever tle, grain, flint, amber, slaves)? How could the boats needed could acquire weapons and the means of transport and could to maintain these contacts have been underwritten if not by convince others to follow. means similar to those proposed for the Bronze Age? I suspect that the maritime mode of production model would In sum, congratulations to this trio for a stimulating contri- be even more applicable to camel pastoralists and caravan or- bution to understanding what was happening in the Scandi- ganizers, especially given the felicitous term for camels: “ships of navian Bronze Age and other places in the world. the desert.” Substantial outlays were necessary to underwrite caravans for trading, and raiding was endemic (Sweet 1965b). Even farther afield, the authors note that the same model can be Anders Kaliff applied to simple chiefdoms like those in Polynesia. Major parts Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala Univer- of the model are certainly apt on Futuna, with which I am most sity, Box 626, SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden (anders.kaliff@arkeologi familiar (Hayden and Villeneuve 2010) and which exhibits the .uu.se). 25 X 17 same heterarchical independence of constituent groups united in very fluid alliances under an overarching chief, all held to- Extensive trade contacts is a well-conceived picture for the gether by feasting, trade in prestige items, and warfare. Nordic Bronze Age. The fact that metal was important in trade Theauthorsmakeaveryconvincingcaseforthecausality goods is well known, and in recent years it has been convinc- involved in the maritime mode of production. The authors make ingly shown that all raw material in metal was imported into much of raiding, but I would like to see more attention devoted Scandinavia (Ling et al. 2014). Contacts and exchanges are often to the contacts for trading that sea voyagers must have had as regarded as central to the ideology and social systems of the exemplified by the brief mention of Thanet Island. Not all of the Bronze Age. But at the same time it has been enigmatic how the metal consumed in the Scandinavian Bronze Age could have contacts were maintained and interacted. For example, what come from raiding. There must have been regular and reliable were the attractive products exported from the Nordic region in friendly ports where ships could have acquired food, water, and exchange for metal? Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 509

In recent years, new explanatory light has been cast over the in a quantity far beyond the local need. In the Roman Iron Age, emergence of the European Bronze Age, due to the possibilities such exports have been highlighted in earlier research and linked of analyzing ancient DNA. These analyses clearly show the in- to a documented Roman import, with the army as main con- flux of new groups of people during the prelude of the Bronze sumer (Hagberg 1967). The origin of the goods in Scandinavia is Age in central and northern Europe, a migration that fits well not proven but is a hypothesis based on a chain of indicia. Ex- with the explanation of some key changes in terms of ideology port of such products over the Baltic Sea during the Medieval and religion, as well as the establishment of new contact routes period and later is well documented. I have previously suggested (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015; Kristiansen 2015). that such export from Scandinavia indeed has a very long con- The results also support the perception of continuity in the tinuity, going back to the Bronze Age (e.g., Kaliff 2001, 2008). southern Scandinavia area from the Bronze Age onward. It means Can asimilar scenario as with the Romanarmybeconsideredalso that comparisons over time—historical analogies between dif- for Bronze Age Europe? Given the militarization that appears in ferent archaeological periods—have become more relevant. This several areas of the continent in the period 1500–1100 BC, with is an important starting point for the paper “Maritime Mode of signs of war and professional forces (e.g., Jantzen et al. 2011; Production: Raiding and Trading in Seafaring Chiefdoms,” by Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke 2015), this could be rea- Johan Ling, Timothy Earl, and Kristian Kristiansen. The authors sonable. argue that the more well-known Viking Age maritime contacts The trade of leather and skins during Roman times coincides can be a good analogy to the Bronze Age. Both periods are high- with the more well-known trade routes for amber. This trade lighted as distinct maritime economies, with similar contact route or, rather, routes, which ran from the southern Baltic coast systems and also similar ideology and social structure. down to the Roman border, was referred to as “the Amber In the paper, the authors takes a holistic approach. With broad Route.” Even during Roman times, however, it is less likely that brushes, they paint a very convincing picture of how the Bronze only amber was transported this way. The reason for the name is Age’s contacts were established and maintained in southern mainly because amber was a prestigious product, but not nec- Scandinavia, as well as how different geographical areas may have essarily the most economically significant. One can compare interacted and complemented each other. Important factors are with the name “the Silk route” for the trade routes through differences in terms of population density, as well as resource- central Asia, where silk certainly was an important commodity related conditions, between areas such as Thy in Jutland and but was far from the only one. Tanum in Bohuslän. A particularly interesting aspect thus high- My suggestions here do not contradict the importance of lighted is cooperation on resource utilization. For instance, slave trade, but leather goods may also have been important Tanum and its hinterland is a reasonable area for the production products. During the Bronze Age, at least parts of southern of high-quality timber for, in particular, boat construction. Scandinavia were highly suitable for livestock farming. This, Something that is highlighted as particularly important is along with access to large forests and wilderness in the north, slave trade, an aspect that has been overlooked in Bronze Age makes it possible to have a very rich hinterland for hunting and research. For this scenario, the authors seek support in research thus also to access fur and hides from sought-after wildlife. into the plundering and trade of the Viking era. For some years now, slave trade has been emphasized strongly by researchers analyzing Viking society and economics (e.g., Brink 2008, 2012). fi John T. Koch Possibly, therefore, a warning nger may be raised just because University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, research into slavery has become a very attentive topic. There is National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth SY23 3HH, Wales always a risk in research that one is convinced by arguments just ([email protected]). 27 X 17 because they are already in strong circulation. But it should be emphasized that the paper includes some very good arguments A traditional fault line separates text-free and text-aided ar- for the presented scenario. And the fact that slavery and slave chaeology. They can be virtually two disciplines. Text-aided ar- trade is a “trendy” subject in Viking research right now is not in chaeology is sometimes subsumed into history and other text- itself an argument against similar interpretation of the Bronze based subjects. As presented in the article, the maritime mode of Age trade. production potentially bridges this gap in two ways. First, a Another important trading good mentioned in the article is more sophisticated use of prehistoric archaeological evidence amber, a product that is often emphasized. But amber is unlikely builds confidence for inferences about social organization and to have been the only attractive export product from the north, economy. Second, the article’s principal method is what might nor the most significant.Itisinthiscontextthatslavetradeap- be termed a “vertical ethnographic analogy” (VEA). Some exam- pears as a reasonable complement, linked to a maritime economy ples of the maritime mode of production are drawn from doc- where war and looting have been an important ingredient. umented but unrelated cultures far from Scandinavia—in the However, there are other options that might be interesting to Solomon Islands, Tonga, the Philippines, and the Pacific coast discuss as well. A sought-after Scandinavian product, at least of North America. But the primary focus is on one region at during later periods, is leather goods. This applies to hides not horizons roughly 2,000 years apart: the Nordic Bronze Age and only from wild animals but also from domesticated animals. In the Viking Age. Therefore, the variables of geography and en- both cases, Scandinavia could deliver high-quality products, and vironment hold constant, which might otherwise raise issues 510 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 of comparability. The VEA also reduces disparities of expertise European language and that this had evolved in situ into Proto- that could invalidate explanations reliant on analogies of cul- Germanic and then Old Norse. This is now the best working tures outside the researchers’ usual areas. hypothesis and will gain strength if accumulating data confirm In presenting a model using a period known through writ- recently revealed patterns. ten evidence to illuminate aspects of European prehistory, the Most of the key attributes of the maritime mode of pro- article is not isolated at this time. Advances in the last few years duction figure in written accounts of Viking-period chieftains have brought fresh impetus to the goal of combining archae- and warriors, maritime exploration, colonization, slavery, raiding, ology, historical linguistics, and archaeogenetics to reach a fuller and trading. There are traces of all of these at this period in the understanding of later prehistory. The most dramatic break- archaeological record. The associated language, Old Norse, is through has been genome-wide sequencing of ancient DNA fully attested and understood. Therefore, we know the Old (aDNA). Independent research showing reassuring agreement Norse words for these institutions, the etymologies of the words, was presented in Allentoft et al. (2015) and Haak et al. (2015). and how they were used in texts. Both sample sets included northern Europe. Two mass mi- Even before the archaeogenetic revolution, it had been possi- gration events were found that transformed most of postglacial ble to use etymology and linguistic reconstruction to explore the Europe. From about 10,000 BP, early farmers spread west and prehistoric Proto-Indo-European- or Proto-Germanic-speaking north from Anatolia, eventually replacing most of the pre- worlds. But we could not be certain where and when these re- Neolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry. Then, during the third mil- constructed languages were spoken. Ancient DNA cannot an- lennium BCE, heavy gene flow, probably male biased, spread swer these questions directly, but it narrows the possibilities. from the Pontic-Caspian steppe region. This second migration Therefore, using the maritime mode of production to illuminate transformed gene pools as far east as the Siberian Altai, as well as the Nordic Bronze Age by comparison with the Viking Age central and northern Europe. As we now know (Cassidy et al. appears to be a valid and meaningful approach, a tool we can 2016; Olalde et al. 2018), this discontinuity between the first expect to use with increasing sophistication and confidence. farmers and Bronze Age groups of ultimate steppe background There are also differences between the ages to consider. Even occurred in Ireland and Britain during the Beaker period (2400– if the language of the Nordic Bronze Age is likely to be the direct 1900 BCE). Unexpected findings included the rapid expansion ancestor Old Norse, it changed greatly over 2,000 years, as had of the R1b and R1a Y chromosomes at the Neolithic to Bronze its linguistic neighborhood between Bronze Age and early me- Age transition, in western Europe and eastern Europe/western dieval Europe. For several centuries following the movements Asia, respectively. It had previously been thought that a more off the steppes, a high degree of mutual intelligibility naturally ancient migration was involved, such as postglacial repopulation. persisted between the far-flung Indo-European dialects. The The strength of the influx from the steppe in the third mil- Nordic Bronze Age maritime chiefdoms traded, raided, and took lennium affects historical linguistics. Previously, a widely, but captives within an extensive lingua franca. In the Viking Age, not universally, accepted case saw the spread of Indo-European OldNorse,Romance,Slavic,Baltic,OldIrish,andOldBreton from the steppe at this time (Anthony 2007; Mallory 1989). As were all Indo-European but no longer mutually intelligible. migration came to figure less in archaeological explanation, a In the Bronze Age, bronze was essential as the material of tools view took hold that population replacement could only explain and weapons as well as ornaments. This required regular long- the spread of Indo-European had it been the language of the distance exchange because tin and copper were not plentiful in first farmers (Renfrew 1998 (1987)). The possibility that Indo- all regions, and notably not in Scandinavia. The bronze to iron European from the steppe about 5,000 years ago had dominated transition coincided with the breakup of the Indo-European largely by numerical strength had come to seem unlikely until linguafranca(s)andtheBronzeAgeworldsystem.Ifthebronze aDNA revealed the massive expansion of the steppe compo- to iron transition proved fatal to the maritime mode of pro- nent. Subsequently, a numerically small but exceptionally influ- duction, how did it reemerge after a long hiatus within a lin- ential elite was no longer needed to explain the spread of Indo- guistically fragmented Europe with what was basically still Iron European across wide swaths of Eurasia. Established ideas are Age technology? also unsettled by the high degree of genetic continuity in north- ern Europe from the Early Bronze Age until today. The ancient genomes have not indicated a third great prehistoric migration in the Iron Age, the stage when it had usually been supposed that Celtic came to Britain and Ireland. Nikolay N. Kradin Where does the archaeogenetic revolution leave the maritime Institute of History, Archaeology, and Ethnology, Far East Branch of the mode of production’s modeling of the Nordic Bronze Age with Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia ([email protected]). reference to the Viking Age? As well as constraining the variables 22 X 17 of geography and environment, we now know of substantial ge- netic continuity from the Nordic Bronze Age to the Viking Age. Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen discuss a model of the formation of As to language, it had previously seemed possible, but un- complex societies with low population density. Here, the network provable, that Bronze Age Scandinavia had spoken an Indo- strategy leads to the formation of decentralized complex polities. Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 511

The Vikings used maritime operations and trade to receive example, the nomadic empire became a general mode of ad- prestige goods and other resources. The booty has strengthened aptation (Kradin 2014). For this reason, at the beginning of the the military alliances while gifts and exchanges have combined 1990s, I called the pattern of pastoral nomads the xenocratic the isolated groups into heterarchical polities. It differs from the mode of production (Kradin 1995). classical pathway to complexity when population growth leads The maritime mode of production could be created not only to scalar stresses and the necessity to regulate internal conflicts at the homeland but also on alien territory. A case in point is an for maintaining the internal structure (Carneiro 1970). Before origin of the early state in the Rus’ (Russia). The Vikings con- us, there is another, new variant of multilinear pathway to com- trolled the trade routes between the Baltic and the Black Seas on plex societies and state (Chacon and Mendoza 2017; Grinin the territory of East Slavs. In the descriptions of Arabic scholars et al. 2004; Haas 2001; etc.). (Ahmad ibn Rustah, Ahmad ibn Fadlan), Rus’ are warriors and It is interesting that Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen attempt to tradesmen who navigated on long boats. By the way, the ety- describe this variant using a novel definition—the maritime mology of this word is connected with Finnish ruotsi (oarsmen) mode of production. They attain attention again to a problem of and Estonian rootslane Swedes (Melnikova and Petrukhin 1990– mode of production. At present, it becomes a trend in the con- 1991). The Slavs are the local population of Eastern Europe that temporary archaeology of complexity (Earle and Spriggs 2015; was engaged in arable farming, cattle breeding, and beekeeping. Rosenswig and Cunningham 2017b). In the historical process, The Rus’ (Vikings) entered into alliances with the Slavic agrar- other modes of production based on external resources have ian population and established fortress settlements and cen- also existed. The idea by Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch (1966) ters of exchange and handicraft. Step by step, the heterarchical of the African mode of production was the first. This mode of complex polities were established and, in them, the military production was based on the monopoly of chiefs exchanging groups of Vikings and chiefs played an important role. This was elephant ivory, jewels, and other major assets for bijouterie, reflected in the legend of the Viking invasion of Novgorod in guns, and gunpowder supplied to the Dark Continent by white 862 and later the occupation of Kiev. Present-day scholars show tradesmen. The trade monopoly of chiefs was the base of their a discrepancy between archaeological finds of the ninth century power. and historical texts that were written later on, in the twelfth Another example is the confederations or empires of pastoral century (Makarov 2012). Nevertheless, the presence of Vikings nomads. Pastoral economy and low density of population do is doubtless from the tenth century onward, according to ar- not assume the need to develop any legitimated hierarchy chaeological data, and it can be said that the maritime mode among nomads. Therefore, the state organization has not been of production asserted the controlling influence on establishing intrinsically necessary for nomads (Kradin, Bondarenko, and the early state in Russia. Barfield 2003). Among the nomads, the ownership of livestock In conclusion, it should be pointed out that Ling, Earle, and is characteristic, and this is the cause of the appearance of in- Kristiansen have offered the fresh idea that provides better in- equality and statuses. However, property in land continues to sight into the formation of complexity in Scandinavia and other be common, and the economic relations among the cattle oceanic and coastal societies as well as confirms the multiline farmers interlace tightly with the institutes of kinship. It is no trajectories of the origin of states. It is also important to un- mere chance that French anthropologists have proposed the derstand what place is occupied by these polities (semiperiph- concept of the nomadic mode of production in order to dis- ery, periphery) in the communication networks of the prein- tinguish the pastoral groups of Africa and the Middle East from dustrial world systems. agrarian settled societies (Bonte 1990). The political integration of nomads was necessary for attacks against settled agrarian societies or for trade with them. The steppe chiefs and khans had no internal economic resources. Their power has depended on external resources—robberies, trade, and redistribution of booty and gifts. This distinguished the nomadic polities from Lene Melheim the agrarian states. Department of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, Univer- sity of Oslo, PO Box 6762 St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway The degree of centralization among nomads is in direct pro- (www.khm.uio.no). 11 V 17 portion to the extent of the neighboring agricultural societies. From the viewpoint of world system analysis, nomads have al- Do We Need Another Mode of Production? ways occupied a place of semiperiphery. In each local regional zone, the political structure of the nomadic semiperiphery was in With this article, Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen contribute to a direct proportion to the size of the core of the world system. That long-lasting tradition in historical materialism studies of socio- is the reason why, in order to trade with oases or attack them, the evolutionary model building and classification. In a comparison nomads of North Africa and the Middle East united into com- of Bronze and Viking Age societies in Scandinavia, they launch a plex chiefdoms, and nomads of the Eastern European steppes particular form of production coined “the maritime mode,” thus living on the margins of the Byzantium or Slavic early states adding “maritimeness” to the Germanic mode of production. established “quasi-imperial” confederations. In Inner Asia, for While this model is considered relevant globally (for chiefdoms 512 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 at the edges of world systems), the main aim of the article seems and of reducing model societies to idealized states is nonetheless to be to characterize Bronze Age chiefdoms in southern Scan- present also when using archaeological comparison. Examples dinavia, seen through the lens of Viking societies in the same of this may be found in simplistic one-liners like “All bronze and region. other metals were imported from the south,” which reproduce a Classic ethnographic studies from the Pacific contributed hundred-year-old dogma in Scandinavian archaeology while strongly to shaping previous representations of Bronze Age ignoring more recent and nuancing research on metal pro- chiefdoms in Scandinavia. A new model building on archaeo- duction and metal acquisition. logical comparison is indeed welcome. The model combines A common critique of comparative methodologies and ge- several interpretational and theoretical strands that have been neric models is that they tend to focus on similarity and se- at the core of Bronze Age research during the past 5–15 years: lective cherry-picking of case studies. Archaeologists are mostly the maritime focus, the Viking analogy, decentralized com- well aware of the sometimes problematic conditions for the eth- plexity, and comparative advantage. The approach is top-down, nographies used in model building, as poignantly pointed out generic—and sometimes eclectic when it comes to the presented by the authors themselves (with reference to Spriggs): “a lack evidence. of understanding of the prehistories of the ethnographic cases While a comparison of Bronze and Viking Age societies is used anthropologically.” By creating a model on the basis of nothing new, the theory of slavery presented in this text is an biased interpretations of the archaeological record, the authors original and bold contribution. While Bronze Age slavery seems run the risk of making the same mistake. logical both from an archaeological and a socioevolutionary per- Despite these critical points, my answer to the opening spective, the authors run the risk of swapping one monocausal question is confirmative: yes, we need another mode of produc- explanation (amber exportation) with another (slave exporta- tion. The maritime mode of production represents a far better tion). I am not convinced why slaves, or amber, would be the and more complex model of Bronze Age chiefdoms in Scan- only goods from Scandinavia that entered Eurasian trading dinavia than any previous model. I am also convinced that a systems. fusion of agricultural and maritime forces of production was An asymmetrical relationship between different parts of particularly forceful under certain historical circumstances, like Scandinavia is inherently assumed and governs the authors’ ap- in the Bronze and Viking Ages. proach. Behind lurks a traditional concept of centers and pe- We are left with the unresolved problem of what happened ripheries (cf. Nordenborg Myhre 2004). Agency seems to be between these two grand eras—regress, status quo, or slow evo- first and foremost in the hands of Thy farmers. Thy chiefs held lution? The highlights used by the authors to underscore long- slaves to keep up agricultural production and to be able to fund term continuity from the Corded Ware into the Viking Age seem and man ships to go raiding and trading for slaves, while at the to include all three possibilities. It would be interesting also to same time surplus population from Thy was sent out to colonize see the interaction triangle Thy-Rogaland-Tanum further de- less populated areas on the Scandinavian Peninsula. Hereby, veloped. Currently, it seems to allow mainly for contacts be- the Scandinavian Bronze Age is condensed into and presented tween Thy-Tanum and Thy-Rogaland, and the Rogaland case is as the equivalent of one small area in northern Jutland. quite ad hoc and not well integrated with the rest. The historical and natural differences between areas within Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen’s article is certainly a good read; Scandinavia—making them productively different in a com- it is clever, persuasive, and provocative. It should be read, how- parative advantage perspective—is blurred and presented instead ever, with the authors’ cautionary tale about inserting modifiers through a static center-periphery approach. Strangely, the boat- at the fore of attention. builders and skilled navigators on the Scandinavian Peninsula, as exemplified through the Bohuslän/Tanum and Rogaland cases, are cast as background actors. The authors still need to convince me that “boats from Tanum were likely financed, owned, and partly manned by wealthy chiefs from agropastoral regions such Christopher Prescott as Thy.” While there is mainly circumstantial evidence in Thy of Norwegian Institute in Rome, University of Oslo, Viale Trenta maritime practices, evidence of boat technologies are, on the Aprile, 33, 00153 Rome, Italy ([email protected]). 31 X 17 other hand, ubiquitous in Bohuslän/Tanum and Rogaland (rock art ship images, coastal orientation of settlements and monu- Toward a Realistic Understanding of the Bronze Age mental cairns, access to timber, etc.). I certainly agree with Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen that the Given the available space, I will focus on the Nordic Bronze Age. archaeological record is uniquely suited to diachronic analysis Rich data, evolving methods, and conceptual rejuvenation of and the study of repeated cultural processes and patterns. The continental perspectives, politics, conflict, and society, and an use of historical and archaeological analogies is an important appreciation of the diversity and scale of the Bronze Age econ- and potentially nuancing contribution to model and theory omy characterize emerging research. Ling, Earle, and Kristian- building (cf. Glørstad and Melheim 2016). The risk of circularity sen aim to pull this body of knowledge together and compara- Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 513 tivelyinterpretit. Factors like the BellBeakerculture’s expansion, driven away. Cattle, sheep, and goats were conceivably highly maritime capacity, trade, slavery, and warriors are essential an- valuable as capital, and raiding can immediately increase this alytical components, recasting the scale and structure of Bronze capital. The thousands of bifacial points found along the coastal Age economy, networks, and society. heathlands and in the mountains are conceivably linked to The complexity and scale of the Bronze Age economy in feuding over pastures and raiding of herds, as well as hunting— northern Europe is often underestimated and commonly is de- or attacking wealthy centers? scribed in terms of agropastoral subsistence. Long-distance “ex- This leads to an uneasiness concerning the term “maritime change” is commonly described as the circulation of a limited mode of production.” Again, sea travel, “bottlenecks,” and large number of prestige goods: metal and amber in the full-fledged boats (whether building, manning, and navigating boats or Bronze Age, flint in the Late Neolithic. This leaves a discrepancy gaining access to ports, e.g., Kvalø 2007) are essential in un- in trade volumes—a massive 2000-year trade deficit. Wilderness derstanding the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age history (Austvoll products like pelts and furs are commonly inferred to be goods 2017; Prescott, Eriksen, and Austvoll, forthcoming). Along Scan- entering networks from the north. There is extensive upland dinavia’s coasts, the correlation between agricultural potential, activity in the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age, and evidence bottlenecks, and strategic positioning between resource areas is of species prized for their hides, furs, and antlers are found at the pivotal to explaining centers of power. However, the farms, production end. However, few traces have turned up at the upland shielings, production sites, and hunting camps attest to a market end. Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen bring timber boats and multidimensional economy and society. The use of the mari- slaves and hides and cereal into the equation, and they expand time mode of production, and connotations inherent to the the scale of the Bronze Age economy in terms of goods and term, seem inaccurate. Like the traditional emphasis on agri- trade. There were conceivably a host of products traded in in- culture that undercommunicated maritime and nonagrarian tricate local to continental networks, so should the Bronze Age factors, maritime mode of production bifurcates a composite economy be viewed as more diversified and complex? totality of a decentralized complex Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Cereal and cattle production took place even in marginal en- and understates a multifaceted society and economy. vironments throughout Scandinavia; is it reasonable that grain Comparing the Bronze Age with the Viking Age (and other and hides were distance-traded in bulk? Evidence of production societies) is valid and serves heuristic and rhetorical purposes. of wool textiles is scarce in southern Scandinavia, but wool fibers The Late Neolithic through the Bronze Age also represents the from the Scandinavian Peninsula are potentially a commodity. institutional continuum leading up to the contemporary world. Wool production can explain the upland expansion in the Late From the interpretative perspective of understanding the struc- Neolithic and the Bronze Age. Is large-scale timber production ture and history of the Bronze Age, it might be productive to for overseas markets feasible in the Bronze Age? Floating timber emphasize differences. down a river is very different from transporting it across the sea, Highlighting the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) as the catalyst of and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age deforestation is better cor- the Late Neolithic is warranted. The BBC affected Jutland’s related with the intensification of agropastoralism and increase Corded Ware (CW), but it also had direct impact on areas along in farms than lumber export. Forced labor and trade in slaves the western Scandinavian coast inhabited by hunter-gatherers, were almost certainly a part of the Bronze Age economy, but is a where evidence of the CW remains elusive. The dating of the slave market on the scale suggested in the article likely? Though Mjeltehaugen grave chamber, with its enormous mound and there is significant evidence of violence in the Bronze Age, how slabs decorated with a dagger, geometric textile motifs, and does systematic, long-term slave raiding fitwithexpandingag- Late Neolithic boats has been termed an “enigma.” However, ropastoral settlement throughout Scandinavia? Despite all the Mjeltehaugen should be compared to BBC monuments in Iberia advantages of maritime raiding, is it enough to make slave raid- and western-central Europe (Prescott, Eriksen, and Austvoll, ing a predictable mode of production and pillar of trade? The forthcoming; Sand-Eriksen 2017) and is an elite expression in logical argument for slavery is stronger than the evidence—the the early Late Neolithic. Mjeltehaugen and other finds (Mel- rock art is ambiguous, and if the mass grave at Sund is a slaving heim 2012; Prescott and Glørstad 2015) represent the events raid, why kill the children? Though I agree that slavery was that sparked the Nordic Late Neolithic. Given an emphasis on probably part of Bronze Age society, the structure and scale maritime capacity, the terrestrial CW does not seem to have a remain unclear. Whether dealing with wilderness products, slaves, dynamic role in the final transformation of third millennium timber, wool, dried fish,grain,orcattlehides,problemsre- Scandinavia. However, the article’s reference to a “fusion” be- maining in that circumstantial argument are blunt, evidence is tween the Single Grave culture and the BBC underlines a key weak, and comparisons need explication. task: unraveling the pivotal events around 2400 BC and the dif- The article emphasizes maritime raiding, which was un- ferent historical trajectories in encounters between the CW and doubtedly important. Another structural impetus for violence is BBC. found in the pastoral sector. Access to pastoral resources was There is a need for further adjustments, balancing, and clar- virtually a zero-sum game in terms of labor and pastures already ification, but Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen explicate the scope of in the Late Neolithic. To expand pastures, competitors had to be Bronze Age society and economy, advocate maritime capacities 514 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 and raiding, and through comparative perspective, contribute to lead to deeply complex societies being presented as simple cogs lifting the Bronze Age out of the sociohistorical backwaters within a south Scandinavian “machine” of production and ex- where it sometimes is stranded. change. Of course, there is little reason to doubt that Bronze Age societies were engaging in long-distance trade—this is shown by the published research that the authors cite (e.g., Frei et al. 2017; Ling et al. 2014). However, we must carefully consider the extent to which hypotheses can be drawn from these results. Benjamin Raffield To take a single example, can the claim really be made for a Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala Univer- massive trade in wool and/or textiles in Thy based on a single sity, Box 626, SE 751 26 Uppsala, Sweden (ben.raffi[email protected] .se). 3 XI 17 study that found that over 75% of 42 wool samples from Bronze Age Denmark were of nonlocal origin (Frei et al. 2017:648)? Modeling Prehistory: Some Comments on Maritime Can this be reasonably taken to imply, as the authors suggest, Modes of Production and the Comparative Analysis that a substantial proportion of the population of what is now of Past Societies Denmark (an estimated 220,000 people) relied almost exclu- sively on foreign imports of wool and/or textiles? Given the In their article, Johan Ling, Timothy Earl, and Kristian Kris- current state of knowledge, I feel it would be more productive tiansen explore sociopolitical and economic structures among to first attempt to understand this purported textile trade rather Scandinavian societies during the Bronze Age. The authors than force it into an overarching economic model for social de- apply the Marxist concept of modes of production, arguing velopment. While the authors acknowledge that their hypoth- that regional specialization in the production of certain trade eses require refinement, perhaps some arguments could have goods, as well as participation in seaborne raiding and slaving, been made with a little more caution. led to the establishment of a maritime mode of production on The need for caution is also evident in relation to the com- the northern periphery of Bronze Age Europe. They argue that parative analysis of Scandinavian societies. In outlining the case this brought Scandinavia into long-distance trading networks, for a maritime mode of production in Bronze Age Scandinavia, facilitating the development of political complexity and social the authors construct a comparative model that draws heavily evolution. This hypothesis is reinforced with a comparative on analogies with Viking Age societies. This builds on an earlier study of social, economic, and political structures in Viking study by Kristiansen (2016) that argued for significant structural Age Scandinavia. continuity between the two periods. It is important, however, These arguments are novel and interesting, and they dem- not to prioritize the search for diachronic continuity over the onstrate the potential for comparative work to offer new in- consideration of historical context. Otherwise, in the case of the sights into the structural organization of prehistoric societies. Viking Age, there is a risk of glossing over more than 300 years While I read the article, however, some thoughts came to mind of social and political development, and with that, numerous concerning the overarching methodological approach em- examples of potential comparative discontinuity with the Bronze ployed throughout this study, particularly with regard to the Age. Our knowledge of Scandinavian political geographies, for discussion of modes of production within the context of pre- example, especially during the early Viking Age, is uncertain. historic Scandinavia and the comparative analysis of Bronze and It has been argued that a consolidated Danish kingdom existed Viking Age societies. I will do my best to express these thoughts as early as the eighth century (e.g., Näsman 2000), and whether in a constructive way, with the aim of stimulating discussion, or not this was the case, it is likely that substantive and polit- but I should emphasize that I claim no specialist knowledge of ically complex regional polities had been established on a scale the Bronze Age; my comments will instead derive from my own that exceeded those of the Bronze Age. The authors similarly research on Viking Age societies. present the earliest Viking raiding parties as being driven by the The authors’ study rests on a theoretical framework pro- same goals as the large, itinerant fleets of the late ninth century vided by the Marxist concept of modes of production, its (which did not represent the coordinated forces of any par- links to the establishment of comparative advantage, and how ticular Scandinavian kingdom), when in reality these were very this in turn facilitates the development of political complexity different forces operating in markedly different contexts (Mc- and social inequality. It is argued that, during the Bronze Age, Leod 2014; Price 2016; Raffield 2016). The organizational this mode of production was based on maritime travel, trade, complexity of these latter fleets, which were influential political and warfare, which facilitated the development of regional entities in themselves, was likely far beyond that of any Bronze chiefdoms and confederacies of rulers. Age raiding force discussed thus far in the archaeological liter- While the attempt to conduct an economically driven study ature. Other factors that might have been considered include of Bronze Age society is well-taken, I worry that the application potential disparities in ideology and ritual practice and the di- of this model, which is heavily laden with Marxist political vergent roles that these would have played in underpinning so- overtones, may in fact skew the reality of the prehistoric past. cialand political structures in eachperiod.While our knowledge Without due caution, applying such a model runs the risk of of prehistoric ritual practices and beliefs is far from complete, introducing a reductionist perspective, which in this case could these deserve consideration as an important factor in the for- Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 515 mation and maintenance of political and martial power (see, The point about using mode of production as a conceptual among others, Price and Mortimer 2014; Sundqvist 2002, 2012), device is surely that it must have some application beyond and similarity between the Bronze and Viking Ages cannot be any individual “historically specific model,” as they describe presumed. Perhaps, in this case, a consideration of the potential their case study. If such application is indeed the intention of discontinuities between the two periods might have facilitated a the authors, then a general label would be more serviceable; more detailed discussion of how the proposed model of a mar- something like “mobile predatory mode of production” might itime mode of production might have manifested at different perhaps better capture the general idea that they are seeking? times and in different places. Paul Spencer (2014:49–50) has discussed a predatory mode These potential issues notwithstanding, I found this to be a of production among Maasai and related groups in East Af- thought-provoking and insightful article that raises interesting rica, involving cattle rather than slave raiding, which partic- points for further consideration. I would welcome discussion of ularly came to the fore during times of famine, epidemic, or the theoretical and comparative approaches employed here and territorial expansion and involved the young men of the group how the arguments posited in the study might be further tested. as a (generally very temporary) warrior aristocracy. The ad- A consideration of how diachronic analyses of prehistoric Scan- dition of “mobile” to such a concept stresses the necessary tech- dinavia could be strengthened as part of future research would nologies of boats, horses, chariots, or camels as allowing a ma- also be well received. jor spatial extension in the reach of the economic system. My only other comment would be that it might be useful to insert a further concept into the discussion in addition to that of “prestige goods.” It is the idea of “prestige practices,” which I have defined as “involving the activation of often-esoteric knowledge systems above and beyond the pragmatic skills used in the production of material items, transportation or other Matthew Spriggs CBAP, Sir Roland Wilson Building 120, Australian National Uni- communally-recognised activities and/or performances, the versity, Acton, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia practice of which enhances the prestige of the specialist” ([email protected]). 27 X 17 (cf. Spriggs 2016:107–111). I feel that we have a too monolithic idea of the nature and I am in full sympathy with the approach being developed here, distribution of power in chiefdoms; the open and competitive and I only offer two comments for the authors’ consideration. nature of power seen for the Lapita situation by Earle and The first concerns the name of the proposed maritime mode Spriggs (2015) may well be the norm. “Chief” is only one high- of production, which I do not feel is an appropriate one. It im- status role among many that might exist at any one time, al- plies there is only one maritime-based mode of production, though more constantly on show in a community. In relation whereas several different maritime modes have existed or could to the discussion in this paper, we need to ask about the role be logically derived that do not require slaves as major trade and status of boatbuilders and navigators, long-distance trad- items or slave raiding as a major technology of acquisition of ers, warrior tacticians or warriors in general, priests and bone- resources. The maritime Lapita expansion in the western Pa- setters, bronzesmiths and prospectors, architects/builders of cific previously treated in Current Anthropology by Earle and great halls, and so on. We thus insert prestige practices and the Spriggs (2015), itself a facies and extension of the Island South- practitioners of them into a discourse that is usually focused east Asian Neolithic, has no evidence of slave raiding or a trade specifically on chiefly power. By doing this we not only poten- in slaves. Yet it was a maritime network covering many thou- tially bring in “bottom-up” alternatives to “top-down” forms sands of kilometers of ocean and many hundreds of islands of power (cf. Angelbeck and Grier 2012) but also broaden the in what Gosden and Pavlides (1994:168) called a “supercom- discussion of the nature of devolved power more generally. munity.” It represented a rather different “maritime” mode of production. Toward the end of the paper the authors draw explicit par- allels between their maritime mode of production and other Helle Vandkilde examples of decentralized trading chieftaincies among pasto- Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies, Aarhus Univer- ral societies of the Eurasian Steppes, Arabia North Africa, and sity, Moesgaard Allé 20, DK 8270 Hoejbjerg, Denmark (farkhv@cas the Comanche “empire” in North America. These are char- .au.dk). 21 X 17 acterized as having “warrior aristocracies.” Explicit mention is made of the advantages of possession of horses, chariots, The article is fresh and valuable input to discussions of the so- and camels, “the ships of the desert wastes,” as the authors call cietal makeup of the Nordic Bronze Age. It rethinks Marxist them. If horses and camels are truly the equivalent on land of concepts and historicities, while the Viking Age provides data to the boats that feature in their own case study, then there is model a maritime mode of production based on waterborne nothing specifically maritime at all about the maritime mode trading and raiding. With its footing in Ricardo’s “comparative of production. advantage” (1817 [1811]), Mann’s power sources (1986), and 516 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 the ethnography of political economy, this hybridizing contri- nally, Sahlins (1961:326) explained this form of society in terms bution will appeal to Nordic Bronze Age scholarship and be- of “predatory expansion” because of the innate warfare expe- yond. Strong points are slaves as key commodity, the resolution diting strong confederacies akin to Clastres’swarriorsocieties of the conventional war-peace divide, the anthropological un- (1994), the military democracy earlier coined by Morgan and derpinning of the argument, the dynamism between landed and Engels (1972), and also bearing resemblance to the article’s maritime production/property, and the effort made to show that maritime mode of production. This makes me interject that it is hierarchies can arise among low-density populations. The fol- perhaps not necessary to subscribe rigidly to the chiefdom lowing remarks stem from my own research. model when interpreting the societies of the Corded Ware, Bell From Bell Beaker hubs ca. 2500–2100 BCE to west Scan- Beakers, or the Bronze Age. Temporary elevation of tribal seg- dinavian Nordic Bronze Age confederacies ca. 1500–750 BCE. ments to form a political superstructure is known to occur in The article describes this long span in terms of a continuum times of stress and crisis (Sahlins 1968:51). The article’sex- between two maritime-led expansions, both of which inhabited pression “chiefdom-like” would align with a more volatile order. metallurgical knowledge. What is, however, truly remarkable is The maritime mode of production nonetheless maintains that the wide time gap between them, with de facto little metal. This hierarchy was consistently present in the low density–populated hiatus left the triangle of northwest Jutland-Rogaland-Bohuslän Nordic Bronze Age building on landed/maritime property and outside the emerging Nordic Bronze Age, with little evidence of the comparative advantages obtained through bronze and linked engagement in the metal venture as it evolved in central-eastern goods. These advantages must at times have been subject to in- Denmark and Scania with thresholds ca. 2100 BCE and again tense competition and thence been difficult to maintain. Clearly, 1600 BCE (in alignment with much of the Bronze Age hyper- different social groups existed, more or less privileged, and with region in Afro-Eurasia). Thy and the central Limfjord region slaves at the bottom rung, as the authors contend, but why not with their modest-sized sunken-floor houses contrast with the with room for social climbing or descent when success failed? east, where metal axes were in great demand due to the timber- As far as I can judge, the data do not contradict a measure of demanding big houses (Vandkilde 2017a). Metallurgy appar- social mobility through self-made enterprises. ently fell out of use in the west after the Bell Beakers and was not Warfare was an arena where individual ambition could con- reintroduced until ca. 1500 BCE, with concrete evidence in the test fraternity order and potentially threaten hierarchies at home. Kluborg sunken-floor house (Simonsen 2017) and in the sud- At sea, fame, prestige, and companionship evolved around the denly numerous metal-rich mound burials. leader as captain and provider of booty (Van de Noort 2011: The Nordic Bronze Age history of the west then took a path 233–235). If the war chief proved unpopular or unable to de- different from the leading east of the earliest Nordic Bronze liver, he was degraded or even killed: this basic principle of Age. This invites questions of the underlying logic and reasons “military democracy” or “first among equals” existed in many for such differences as well as their longer-term consequences. contexts from Homer’s epic about the Trojan War and Taci- An ethnically heterogeneous landscape rooted in Scandina- tus’s accounts of the Germanic tribes to early Danish kingship. via’s complex later middle Neolithic, hence different varieties In the Viking Age, with its lords and retainers, the warrior fra- of tribal formations, may form part of the answer. ternity at sea demonstrated loyalty to the group as much as to Can the maritime mode of production template contain, and the war chief; that is, social boundaries were traversed to bind throw new light on, historical change and social-structural var- the group (Raffield et al. 2016:42). In the Aegean final Bronze iation in Scandinavia? At stake is its wider applicability when Age and Iron Age, as, furthermore, Homer sustains, fragile confronted with archaeological data from the remarkable Nor- hierarchies existed with a pregnant, though rather unofficial, dic Bronze Age containing several thresholds of change and economy and sociality of raiding. Mediterranean early histories regional variations. The article generalizes long time spans into unfolded in a seascape offering good analogues to the Nordic one single model, but it could have explained the degree to Bronze Age (cf. Bevan 2010; Broodbank 2013). Hence, I am which sociocultural change impacted the maritime mode of inclined to understand Nordic Bronze Age social hierarchies production in the focus region of Thy-Rogaland-Bohuslän. The as usually unstable, with dynastic exceptions primarily in the Urnfield-inspired late Nordic Bronze Age commenced toward ninth and eighth centuries BCE. the end of the thirteenth century BCE as a major watershed How similar was the Bronze Age to the Viking Age? A final (Kristiansen 1998): Did this push the maritime mode of pro- remark concerns the comparative potential of the Viking Age to duction in the direction of more or less hierarchy? improve understanding of the Nordic Bronze Age. I find the Across a wider geography, one may ask whether different endeavor undertaken fruitful and inspiring. However, the Nor- production modes coexisted while networking with each other dic Bronze Age formed part of a huge realm glued by bronze through trade, alliance, and raiding. South of the maritime mode as a crucial resource well outside the controlling grip of ancient of production in Thy, western Jutland may exemplify a persis- hubs and civilizations (Vandkilde 2016, 2017b), indeed an “eco- tent pastoral mode of production from the Corded Ware into nomic revolution as transformational as the Neolithic revo- the Nordic Bronze Age. Segmentary tribes ought here to be lution.” The historical uniqueness of the Bronze Age may hint addressed as a social solution also perfected to the extreme at substantial differences between the two epochs, which need decentralization of low-density dispersed populations. Semi- more research. Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 517

Their discussions highlight the usefulness of identifying spe- Reply cific economic relationships across historically independent cases that result in similarities and difference in long-term so- Maritime Mode of Production: An Engagement ciopolitical change. Several European prehistorians also point with Comments to the importance of our comparisons (and others) to offer useful understanding of the European sequence. We are pleased by the thoughtful comments by a remarkable As Bradley links to Spriggs (2008), John Koch describes ’ assembly of scholars. We take to heart Richard Bradley scom- “vertical ethnographic analogy” as a useful means for com- ment that our article is selective in both scope and comparisons, parative research. Spriggs describes typical ethnographic stud- and its subject would demand a book to cover the complexity ies, which are often used as analogies, to be inadequate, because oftheEuropeanBronzeAge.Werespondtothecommentary they describe single points in time, often without considering positively,asweagreewithmanyoftheirpointsandbelievethat the impacts of long-term colonial engagements and other evo- they show how modeling the maritime mode of production lutionary trajectories. When most ethnographic descriptions were provides the foundation for future research. Our esteemed com- being produced, British social anthropologists argued that tradi- — menters roughly fall into two groups those primarily focused tional people were “without histories” and so had to be studied on comparative studies of complexity and those focused on the only as operating in the ethnographic present (see Radcliffe- European sequence, which is our archaeological and historic Brown 1952). Spriggs believes that such synchronic cases provide case. Those comments that relate to theoretical questions con- poor comparisons because they do not consider the historical sider various comparative issues, but not least the nature of a processes resulting in the specific conditions being observed. maritime mode of production, a formulation that we ourselves Rather, he argues that what is needed for each ethnographic case “ ” had long discussed before deciding on the term maritime. The is a consideration of their historical record, as archaeology can other group of comments relates much more to the archaeology provide. As Koch correctly realizes, that is just what we are try- fi of the Bronze Age and, nally, about critical concerns about the ing to do by using the historical homology of the Scandinavian comparison between the Scandinavian Bronze and Viking Ages. Vikings to understand a long-term record of social continuity These two interrelated topics help organize here our engage- and change. We appreciate comments by Anders Kaliff and John ment with the commentary. Koch on the importance of the ancient DNA revolution in ar- chaeology, which supports our argument for long-term conti- Situating Modes of Production in Relationship to nuity documented by population continuity from the middle Materialist Theory in Contemporary Archaeology Neolithic migrations through the Scandinavian Bronze and Vi- king Ages. We support Spriggs’s objective to create long-term What is the role of comparative studies in contemporary ar- ethnographic-historical-archaeological cases that serve compar- chaeological research? Although many archaeologists natu- atively to investigate evolutionary processes. In this regard, we rally are committed first and foremost to constructing accurate advocate the use of modes of production, a controversial idea to and detailed prehistories of specific places and times, we argue several commentators. strongly for the importance of archaeology as the means to We define a mode of production as the totality of produc- compare long-term sequences to investigate common processes tion and reproduction within a historically contingent social in societal change. Thus, archaeology can contribute meaning- formation, such as the Nordic Bronze Age or Viking Age. How- fully to a historical science of societal change. ever, the concept of modes of production has never been static. In terms of a comparative study of prehistory, we draw at- Following Marx, Patterson uses the railroad metaphor to em- tention to the insightful comments of Brian Hayden, Nikolay phasize the ever-changing functions of production in a society: Kradin, and Matthew Spriggs. They discuss our central point, “Modes of production are manifest in social formations—i.e., that low-density complexity can develop in several economic societies and cultures in the process of becoming and dissolving” and social contexts involving the trading-raiding complex that (Patterson 2014:41). While a social formation is historically de- create bottlenecks to channel resource flows resulting in dif- fined in time and space, a mode of production is the relational, ferential power. Importantly, the nature of such bottlenecks material concept that can be employed to characterize historically need not be strictly economic in nature but can involve po- different social formations. Wolf’s tributary mode of production, litical control of ritual organizations (Hayden) or prestige prac- for example, is such a generalized concept that can be applied to tices (Spriggs). The ceremonies that realize social institutions various historical cases (Wolf 1982). To us, modes of production have strong material requirements involving mobilization of should never be as a new typology; rather, they represent specific social labor and channeling special objects, often of foreign ori- dynamic relationships grounded in material processes that re- gins (Earle 2017b). These commentators highlight Kristiansen’s sulted in a range of political outcomes. They are our strategy to (1998, figs. 17, 18) more general point that decentralized com- apply a political economy approach to prehistory (Earle 2017b; plexity is typically a macroregional pathway in social evolution Earle and Spriggs 2015). that must be considered separately from the more standard Why have modes of production declined in analytical use, examples of local control exercised in high-density societies. and why are they now being revived in archaeology (Rosenswig 518 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 and Cunningham 2017a)? From the beginning, Marx and Engels navian society, especially where pastoralism dominated (see conceived modes of production as closely related to historical Christopher Prescott). The maritime mode of production, as stages, which they termed Asiatic, Germanic, Feudal, and Cap- we understand it, however, includes the significant addition italist, based upon fragmentary archaeological and historical evi- of long-distance raiding and trading that results in the uneven dence available at the time. With the revival of evolutionary emergence of social stratification. Matthew Spriggs suggests, thinking during the 1950s and ’60s, the Marx/Engels stages rather, the use of the predatory mode of production, which were redefined, creating static ethnographic-based series of would subsume both maritime and pastoral modes. Although social types, such as the band, tribe, chiefdom, and state, which we strongly agree that pastoral and maritime economies have represented increasing social complexity (Service 1971). Us- similar political structures, we decided to keep them separate for ing only ethnographic cases without detailed archaeological se- analytical purposes. These closely linked modes of production quences to understand them, such typological formulations exemplify conditions whereby social inequality emerges among could be no more than pseudohistory. political decentralization because of bottlenecks in the trading- During the second half of the twentieth century, the coming raiding complex. of age of archaeology as a rigorous, science-based discipline has Benjamin Raffield is worried that an over-reliance on a strong led to fundamental revisions in evolutionary thinking, increas- Marxist (materialist) model may “skew the reality of the pre- ingly looking at long-term sequences of change to understand historic past.” Of course, a materialist perspective is only part of alternative evolutionary pathways and generally rejecting the the picture, but it is a very important part that has emerged with use of social typologies. In Friedman and Rowlands’s (1978) better archaeological documentation of some fundamental eco- seminal paper on epigenetic models, they introduce “systems of nomic changes. The accumulation of new evidence for the vol- social reproduction.” Perhaps their most important contribution, umeofBronzeAgetradehasledustowardtheformulationofthe as relevant to our work, their consideration of societies involved maritime mode of production, not the other way around. Our in interregional relations dependent on external resources in- understanding of a new maritime economic sector has emerged volving long-distance trade, colonization, and center-periphery during the last 10–15 years along with an increasing knowledge structures (Friedman and Rowlands 1978, fig. 6). This was soon of long-distance trade in metals (Earle et al. 2015; Kristiansen applied to European and Eurasian prehistory (Kradin, Bon- 2016; Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke 2015; Ling, Cornell, darenko, and Barfield 2003; Kristiansen 1998), where Earle’s and Kristiansen 2017; Ling et al. 2014; Rowlands and Ling 2013; concepts of “wealth” and “stable” finance (Earle 1997), as well Vandkilde 2016) and, more recently, woolen textiles (Bergerbrant as “corporate” and “network” strategies (Blanton et al. 1996), 2007; Frei et al. 2017). The project on woolen textiles, which helped characterize evolutionary trajectories within contrasting demonstrated foreign origins, includes 42 samples from burials systems of social reproduction (Kristiansen 1998, figs. 17, 18). spread across Denmark; it can be considered representative of These new processual concepts largely replaced modes of pro- general Bronze Age burial ritual using imported textiles. The duction and similar evolutionary typologies. What is clear to us maritime sector involved in this trade apparently enabled the now, however, is that modes of production, stripped of their colonization of the coastal zones of central and even northern typological chains, comfortably coexist within these new con- Scandinavia, as well as the active expansion of trade routes to- ceptions and provide the basis of comparison for archaeological ward the south. In this, we came to see many parallels to the sequences. For example, the linkage of different modes of pro- Viking Age, if on a smaller geographical scale. We wish to stress duction enabled the formation of world systems, where wealth that the Bronze Age maritime sector differed fundamentally and stable finance and corporate and network strategies were from the Neolithic, as a response to Hayden’s question, by being the foundations of linked political economies that undergirded able to carry rather large quantities of trade goods. It was the the macroregional systems. Here, we do not discuss the wider integration between a land-based and sea-based economy that application of world systems models to later history (see Chase- made us coin the concept of a maritime mode of production. Dunn and Hall 1997; Frank and Gills 1993). But do we need another mode of production? Lene Melheim We now consider comments on the maritime mode of pro- ask this rhetorical, and yet important, question. Hayden, Kradin, duction specifically. Although developed to model the dynamic and Spriggs support our argument for the structural similarities political economy relationships of Scandinavia, we believe that between pastoral and maritime modes of production. Should we the general materialist relationships apply with significant var- then generalize the concept by merging them into a decentralized iability to a wide range of cases; most commenters, with specific mode of production or, rather, maintain them as different? We reservations, agree with us. Helle Vandkilde asks whether we prefer to consider them separately: one is land based and the should consider the social formation represented by “segmentary otherisseabasedintermsofthedynamicsofcontrol.Anoriginal tribes” as a more general social formation of high decentraliza- pastoral economy of the Early Bronze Age was extended with an tion. We agree that segmentary tribes characterize conditions of emerging maritime economy, however, controlled and financed fission and fusion in many warrior-based pastoral societies. Such by the land-based economy. It is this integration of two political a formulation probably characterized middle Neolithic Corded economies, yet in our view dominated by the land-based econ- Ware populations and continued as a key element of Scandi- omy, that provided the maritime mode of production with its Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 519 specificity, which can be generalized to other historical trajec- Interpreting the Bronze to Viking Ages as a tories around the world. We predict that the maritime economy Chronological Case of Social Evolution could become semiautonomous and challenge the land-based economy, but in our case, it remained under its control. Others Here we address more concrete comments about the archaeo- mayproposethatthemaritimesectorwouldbeabletocreate logical data supporting our interpretation. Not least is the ques- seaborne chiefdoms (Ling 2014; Wehlin 2013) that were able to tion of slave trade, raised in several comments, and the role of profit from their activities (see Junker 2018). Where does this the sun cult mentioned by Richard Bradley. These comments leave the Lapita expansion, as asked by Matthew Spriggs, or the and others must be resolved by future research. Neolithic seaborne expansions of megalithic cosmologies? We Lene Melheim questions the passive role we apparently believe these were primarily colonizing ventures with a mode of assign to the people of Tanum as mere providers of timber and fl production probably involving extensive resistance to central boats to aggressive Thy elites. Her point re ects a more general control, as Spriggs and Furholt are now documenting. But we interest in prehistory to broaden agency to non-elite sectors of may be wrong, and reframing the maritime mode of production the population, a position that we encourage. If the maritime- is always to be considered. We are pleased that Melhein answers linked Tanum groups had specialized and necessary skills, yestoherquestion.Weseeitnotasatypebutasavariablesetof should not they also be able to have direct political agency? fl relationships, which should help in comparative studies of social Here, perhaps, we are under too strong an in uence of the evolution. rather remarkable differences in metal wealth accumulated in And finally, what is the appropriate role of modeling, as we Danish burials, especially in Thy, but being rare in burials in use with the maritime mode of production, to guide archae- Bohuslän and Tanum. However, the Bohuslän rock carvings ological research? Benjamin Raffield argues for the necessity of demonstrate the existence of metal in their lives. How can we “due caution,” and Richard Bradley notes that some elements explain this apparent contradiction in the evidence? of our model, such as the role of slaving, remain “largely hy- Helle Vandkilde makes a number of important observations pothetical.” We agree, but we want to emphasize the importance and raises some good questions. How homogenous was the of modeling in research. This article should be understood not Nordic Bronze Age society, and can we expect the rise and fall as a synthesis of historical knowledge but as a materialist model of different regimes and the coexistence of different modes of designed from available evidence to encourage research direc- production, say, between a western, more pastoral economy tions creating better knowledge by testing the model. We sug- and an eastern, more agrarian economy, rooted in differences gested that woolen textiles may well have been an important back into the later Neolithic? Thomas B. Larsson (1986) was fi trade item, but Raffield responds, “Given the current state of among the rst to point out the potential different economic knowledge, I feel it would be more productive to first attempt to and political strategies between different regions in southern understand this purported textile trade rather than force it into Scandinavia, pointing to areas of less metal consumption, but an overarching economic model for social development.” This otherwise with both barrows and farms of traditional south statement, we believe, misconstrued the role of model building Scandinavia types. Our proposal is that from around 1500 BC, in archaeology, which is to construct logically consistent rela- an overarching new political economy was able to integrate tionships based on existing theory and evidence that build ex- and unify these economic differences, in which some degree of pectations requiring testing with new archaeological research. agency would have existed in each sector. It may be true that Until woolens are suggested as a major trade item, attempts to the pastoral mode of production dominated in areas in central document their production and trade are unlikely to draw at- Jutland without direct access to the sea, and the maritime tention in such research. Did slaving provide the trade product mode of production only came to its full potential in coastal that would be sufficient to concentrate metal wealth in Scan- regions that were able to monopolize and integrate the two dinavia? Based on both historical comparisons to the Viking economies through warrior might and tribute. The system was, economy and comparison to other maritime chiefdoms, slaving in all probability, quite unstable, due to competition and re- seems logically important. Now we must develop the archaeo- liance on international trade, as well as control of tribute and fi logical research to test the proposition, and the ancient DNA surplus production needed to nance trade expeditions. revolution will provide the best means to do so. Several argue Finally, we discuss the nature of deep historical structures that other items of trade, rather than slaves, amber, and woolens, that we propose underlie the similarities between the Bronze must be considered; Anders Kaliff, for example, discusses the and Viking Ages in Scandinavia and how they relate to our possible importance of the leather trade. We do not discount the comparative examples. John Koch raises the crucial question, “ possible importance of other items, but we do not now see an If the bronze to iron transition proved fatal to the maritime argument for their comparative advantage in Scandinavia that mode of production, how did it reemerge after a long hiatus would make them good candidates as the means to compensate within a linguistically fragmented Europe with what was ba- ” for the high volume of imported metal riches. Research focused sically still Iron Age technology? The same question is raised “ on leather, like on textiles and slaves, would certainly settle this by Lene Melheim: We are left with the unresolved problem of — point. what happened between these two grand eras regress, status 520 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018 quo, or slow evolution?” Or, put differently: Why did it disap- Bech, J.-H., and M. Mikkelsen. 1999. Landscapes, settlement and subsistence in Bronze Age Thy, NW Denmark. In Settlement and landscape.C.Fabechand pear during the intervening period? If it disappeared? The quick J. Ringtved, eds. Pp. 69–77. Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, answer would be that the Roman Empire stalled the further May 4–7, 1998. Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. expansion of the system during a 500-year-long period, in which Bech, J.-H., B. V. Eriksen, and K. Kristiansen, eds. 2018. Bronze Age settlement and land use in Thy, northwest Denmark. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, they could effectively suppress the pirate-like raiding and trad- Aarhus University Press. ing of the North. Once the Roman Empire gave up defending Bergerbrant, S. 2007. Bronze Age identities: costume, conflict and contact in Britain, however, Anglo-Saxons immediately took to their boats Northern Europe, 1600–1300 BC. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 43, Stockholm University. Lindome: Bricoleur. and migrated south as raiders, traders, and colonial powers. Bergerbrant, Sophie, Kristian Kristiansen, Morten E. Allentoft, Karin Frei, T. Other groups, such as the Langobards and the Goths, migrated Douglas Price, Karl-Göran Sjögren, and Anna Tornberg. 2017. Identifying across land. Then came the Justinian plague, and it was only commoners in the Bronze Age: burials outside barrows.Pp.37–64. Oxford: Archaeopress. after recovering from this demographic loss that the maritime Bevan, E. 2010. Making and marking relationships: Bronze Age brandings and mode of production once again started to expand, now sup- Mediterranean commodities. In Cultures and commodity branding.A.Bevan ported by the invention of the sail and the superior technology andD.Wengrow,eds.Pp.35–85. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. [HV] Bill, J. 2008. Viking ships and the sea. In The Viking world. Stefan Brink and Neil of Viking ships. Price, eds. Pp. 170–180. Abingdon: Routledge. The purpose of formulating the maritime mode of pro- Bjerck, H. B. 2009. Colonizing seascapes: comparative perspectives on the de- duction is to define institutional, material relationships that velopment of maritime relations in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition in north-west Europe. In Mesolithic horizons,vol.1.Pp.16–23. Papers presented open up, and do not restrict, new research directions to resolve at the 7th International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast, 2005. the hypotheses that the model generates. Oxford: Oxbow. —Johan Ling, Timothy Earle, and Kristian Kristiansen Blanton, R., and L. Fargher. 2008. Collective action in the formation of pre-modern states. New York: Springer. Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski, and Peter N. References Cited Peregrine. 1996. A dual processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamer- ican civilization. Current Anthropology 37:1–14. Allentoft, Morten E., Martin Sikora, Karl-Göran Sjögren, Simon Rasmussen, Bolender, D. J. 2007. House, land, and labor in a frontier landscape: the Norse Morten Rasmussen, Jesper Stenderup, Peter B. Damgaard, et al. 2015. Popu- colonization of Iceland. In The durable house: architecture, ancestors, and lation genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature 522:167–172. [AK] origins. Robin A. Beck, ed. Pp. 400–421. Carbondale: Institute for Archaeo- Andersen, S. T. 1995. History of vegetation and agriculture at Hassing Huse Mose, logical Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Thy, northwest Denmark, since the Ice Age. Journal of Danish Archaeology 11 Bonte, Pierre. 1990. French Marxist perspectives on nomadic societies. In No- (1992/93):57–79. mads in a changing world. P. C. Salzman and J. G. Galaty, eds. Pp. 49–101. ———. 1999. Pollen analyses from Early Bronze Age barrows in Thy. Journal of Naples: Instituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. [NNK] Danish Archaeology 13:7–17. Briggs-Nash, D. 2006. Servants at a rich man’s feast: early Etruscan household Andrén, A. 2014. Tracing Old Norse cosmology. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. slaves and their procurement. Etruscan Studies 9(2002–3):153–176. [RB] Brink, Stefan. 2008. Slavery in the Viking Age. In The Viking world.StefanBrink Androuschchuk, F. 2009. Vikings and farmers: some remarks on the social and Neil Price, eds. Pp. 49–57. Abingdon: Routledge. interpretation of swords and long-distance contacts during the Viking Age. In ———. 2012. Vikingarnas slavar: Den nordiska träldomen under yngre The martial society: aspects of warriors, fortifications and social change in järnålder och äldsta medeltid. Stockholm: Atlantis. [AK] Scandinavia. L. Holmquist Olausson and M. Olausson, eds. Pp. 93–104. The- Broodbank, C. 2013. The making of the Middle Sea: a history of the Mediterranean ses and Papers in Archaeology B:11, Archaeological Research Laboratory. from the beginning to the emergence of the classical world. London: Thames & Stockholm: Stockholm University. Hudson. [HV] Angelbeck, Bill, and Colin Grier. 2012. Anarchism and the archaeology of an- Bunnefeld, J., and S. Schwenzer. 2011. Traditionen, innovationen und techno- archic societies: resistance to centralization in the Coast Salish region of the logietransfer zur Herstellungstechnik und funktion älterbronzezeitlicher Pacific Northwest Coast. Current Anthropology 53(5):547–587. Schwerterin Niedersachsen. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 86(2):207–253. Anthony, D. W. 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language: how Bronze-Age riders Carneiro, Robert. 1970. A theory of the origin of the state. Science 169(3947):733– from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 738. [NNK] University Press. [JTK] Cassidy, L. M., R. Martiniano, E. M. Murphy, M. D. Teasdale, J. Mallory, Barrie Apel, J. 2001. Daggers, knowledge and power: the social aspects of flint dagger Hartwell, and D. G. Bradley. 2016. Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to technology in Scandinavia 2350–1500 cal BC. Dissertation 2001. Coast to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome. Proceedings of the Coast–Books 3. Uppsala: Uppsala University. National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113(2):368–373. [JTK] Arnold, J. 1995. Social inequality, marginalization, and economic process. In Chacon, Richard J., and Ruben G. Mendoza, eds. 2017. Feast, famine or fighting? Foundations of social inequality.T.D.PriceandG.M.Feinman,eds.Pp.87– multiple pathways to social complexity. New York: Springer. [NNK] 103. New York: Plenum. Chase-Dunn, C., and T. D. Hall. 1997. Rise and demise: comparing world-systems. ———. 2001. The Chumash in world and regional perspectives. In The origins of Boulder, CO: Westview. aPacific Coast chiefdom: the Chumash of the Channel Islands. J. E. Arnold, ed. Clark, G., D. Burley, and T. Murray. 2008. Monumentality and the development Pp. 1–19. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. of the Tongan maritime chiefdom. Antiquity 82(318):994–1008, doi:10.1017 Artursson, M. 2009. Bebyggelse och samhällsstruktur: Södra och mellersta Skan- /S0003598X00097738. dinavien under senneolitikum och bronsålder 2300–500 f. Kr. GOTARC B:49. Clastres, P. 1994. Archaeology of violence. New York: Semiotext(e). [HV] PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg. Clausen, B. L. 1993. Tomoko: En krigskano fra Salomonøerne. Roskilde, Denmark: Austvoll, K. I. 2017. Tracing boundaries of local group identities in the Early Viking Ship Museum. Bronze Age—south-west Norway. In New perspectives on the Bronze Age. Cobb, C. 1993. Archaeological approaches to the political economy of non- Sophie Bergerbrant and Anna Wessman, eds. Pp. 421–434. Proceedings of the stratified societies. Archaeological Method and Theory 5:43–100. 13th Nordic Bronze Age Symposium held in Gothenburg, June 9–13, 2015. Coles, J. 2003. And on they went . . . processions in Scandinavian Bronze Age Oxford: Archaeopress. [CP] rock art. Acta Archaeologica 74:211–250. [RB] Barrett, J. H. 2008. What caused the Viking Age. Antiquity 82(317):671–685. Coquery-Vidrovitch, Catherine. 1966. Recherches sur un mode de production Beaujard, A. 2015. The worlds of the Indian Ocean. In Trade, circulation, and flow african. La Pansee 144:61–78. [NNK] in the Indian Ocean world. M. N. Pearson, ed. Pp. 15–26. New York: Palgrave Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole. 2003. The Hjortspring boat in a ship-archaeological Macmillan US, doi:10.1007/978-1-137-56624-9. context. In Hjortspring: a pre-Roman Iron-Age warship in context. Ole Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 521

Crumlin-Pedersen and Athena Trakadas, eds. Pp. 209–232. Ships and Boats H. Glørstad, eds. New Directions in Anthropological Archaeology. Pp. 87–108. of the North 5. Roskilde, Denmark: Viking Ship Museum. Sheffield: Equinox. [LM] Donald, Leland. 1997. Aboriginal slavery on the Northwest Coast of North Goldhahn, J. 2013. Bredarör på Kivik—en arkeologisk odyssé. Simrishamn, America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sweden: Artesliberals. Drennan, R. D., and C. E. Peterson. 2012. Challenges for comparative study of Gosden, Chris, and Cristina Pavlides. 1994. Are islands insular? landscape versus early complex societies. In The comparative archaeology of complex societies. seascape in the case of the Arawe Islands, Papua New Guinea. Archaeology in Michael E. Smith, ed. Pp. 62–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oceania 29:162–171. [MS] Earle, T. K. 1991. Chiefdoms: power, economy and ideology. Cambridge: Cam- Grinin, L. E., and A. V. Korotayev. 2011. The coming epoch of new coalitions: bridge University Press. possible scenarios of the near future. World Futures 67(8):531–563. ———.1997.How chiefs come to power: the political economy in prehistory. Grinin, Leonid E., Robert Carneiro, Dmitry M. Bondarenko, Nikolay N. Kradin, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. and Andrey V. Korotayev, eds. 2004. The early state, its alternatives and ———. 2002. Bronze Age economics: the beginnings of political economies. analogues. Volgograd: Uchitel. [NNK] Cambridge: Westview. Gullbekk, S. H. 2008. Coinage and monetary economics. In The Viking world. ———. 2017a. Chiefs, chieftaincies, chiefdoms, and chiefly confederacies: power Stefan Brink and Neil Price, eds. Pp. 159–170. Abingdon: Routledge. in the evolution of political systems. In Chiefdoms: yesterday and today.R. Haak, Wolfgang, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Carneiro, L. Grinin, and A. Korotayev, eds. Pp. 233–256. Clinton Corners, NY: Mallick, Bastien Llamas, Guido Brandt, et al. 2015. Massive migration from Werner. the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522: ———.2017b. An essay on political economies in prehistory. Graduiertenkolleg 207–211. [AK] 1878 Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsarchäologie Band 2. Bonn: Habelt. Haas, Jonathan, ed. 2001. From leaders to rulers. New York: Kluwer Academic/ ———. 2018. Amber finds from the Bronze Age of Thy. In Bronze Age settlement Plenum. [NNK] and land use in Thy, northwest Denmark,vol.2,chap.24.J.-H.Bech,B.V. Hagberg, U. E. 1967. The archaeology of Skedemosse II: the votive deposites in Eriksen, and K. Kristiansen, eds. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society, the Skedemosse Fen and their relation to the Iron-Age settlement on Öland, Aarhus University Press. Sweden. Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History, and Antiq- Earle, T. K., and M. Kolb. 2010. Regional settlement patterns. In Organizing uities. [AK] Bronze Age societies. T. Earle and K. Kristiansen, eds. Pp. 57–86. Cambridge: Hämäläinen, P. 2008. The Comanche empire. New Haven, CT: Yale University Cambridge University Press. Press. Earle, T. K., J. Ling, C. Uhnér, Z. Stos-Gale, and L. Melheim. 2015. The political Harding, A. F. 1990. The Wessex connection: developments and perspectives. In economy and metal trade in Bronze Age Europe: understanding regional Orientalisch-ägäische Einflüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse eines variability in terms of comparative advantages and articulations. European Kolloquiums. T. Bader, ed. Pp. 139–155. Bonn: Habelt. Journal of Archaeology 18(4):633–657. Hasslöf, O. 1970. Sømand, fisker, skib og værft. Introduktion til maritim etnologi. Earle, Timothy, Jens-Henrik Bech, Kristian Kristiansen, Peter Aperlo, Kristina København: Rosenkilde og Bagger. Kelertas, and John Steinberg. 1998. The political economy of Late Neolithic and ———, ed. 1949. Svenska västkustfiskarna: Studier i en yrkesgrupps näringsliv Early Bronze Age Society: the Thy archaeological project. Norwegian Ar- och sociala kultur. Stockholm: Stockholm University. chaeological Review 31:1–28, doi:10.1080/00293652.1998.9965616. Hayden, B., and Suzanne Villeneuve. 2010. Who benefits from complexity? a view Earle, Timothy, and Matthew Spriggs. 2015. Political economy in prehistory: a from Futuna. In Pathways to power. R. D. Price and G. Feinman, eds. Pp. 95– Marxist approach to Pacific sequences. Current Anthropology 56(4):515–544. 146. New York: Springer. [BH] Ekman, S. 2004. Bohusländsk kulturmarksutveckling från stenålder till historisk Hayden, Brian. 2014. The power of feasts: from prehistory to the present. New York: tid. Metod- och materialanalys. P. Claesson and B. Munkenberg, ed. Pp. 113– Cambridge University Press. 144. Uddevalla, Sweden: Bohusläns Museum. Heaney, S. 2000. Beowulf: a new translation. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Engels, F. 1972. The origin of the family, private property, and the state: in the light Holst, M. K., M. Rasmussen, K. Kristiansen, and J.-H. Bech. 2013. Bronze Age of Lewis H. Morgan. New York: International Publishers. “Herostrats”: ritual, political, and domestic economies in Early Bronze Age Fallgren, J. H. 2008. Farm and the village in the Viking Age. In The Viking world. Denmark. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (79):265–296. Stefan Brink and Neil Price, eds. Pp. 67–77. Abingdon: Routledge. Honeychurch, W. 2014. Alternative complexities: the archaeology of pastoral Feinman, G., and J. Neitzel. 1984. Too many types: an overview of sedentary nomadic states. Journal of Archaeological Research 22:277–326. prestate societies in the Americas. In Archaeological method and theory,vol.7. Hornstrup, K. M. 2013. Norway-Denmark: material connections in the early M. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 39–102. New York: Academic Press. Bronze Age. In The border of farming: Shetland and Scandinavia Neolithic and Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2011. The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen: Bell Bronze Age farming. D. L. Mahler, ed. Pp. 144–155. Copenhagen: National Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire. Wessex Archaeology Museum of Copenhagen. Reports 27. Salisbury. Irons, W. 2003. Cultural capital, livestock raiding and the military advantage of Frank, A. G., and B. K. Gills, eds. 1993. The world system: five hundred years or traditional pastoralists. In Nomadic pathways in social evolution.N.N.Kradin, five thousand? London: Routledge. D. M. Bondarenko, and T. J. Barfield, eds. Pp. 63–72. Moscow: Center for Fratkin, Elliot, and Eric Roth. 1990. Drought and economic differentiation among Civilizational and Regional Studies RAS. Ariaal pastoralists of Kenya. Human Ecology 18:385–402. [BH] Jakobsson, M. 1992. Krigarideologi och vikingatida svärdstypologi. Dissertation, Frei, K. M., U. Mannering, I. Vanden Berghe, and K. Kristiansen. 2017. Bronze Stockholm University. Age wool: provenance and dye investigations of Danish textiles. Antiquity Jantzen, D., U. Brinker, J. Orschiedt, J. Heinemeier, J. Piek, K. Hauenstein, J. 91:640–654. Krüger, et al. 2011. A Bronze Age battlefield? weapons and trauma in the Friedman, J., and M. J. Rowlands. 1978. Notes towards an epigenetic model of the Tollense Valley, north-eastern Germany. Antiquity 85(2011):417–433. [AK] evolution of “Civilisation.” In The evolution of social systems. J. Friedman and Jenness, D. 1934. Indian Vikings of the North West Coast. Canadian Geo- M. J. Rowlands, eds. Pp. 201–276. London: Duckworth. graphical Journal 8(5):235–246. Fyllingen, H. 2003. Society and violence in the Early Bronze Age: analysis of Jesch, J. 2015. The Viking diaspora. London: Routledge. human skeletons from Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Johnson, J. 2007. Ethnohistoric descriptions of Chumash warfare. In North Review 36(1):27–43. American Indigenous warfare and ritual violence. R. Chacon and R. Men- Gamble, L. 2008. The Chumash world at European contact: power, trade, and feast- doza, eds. Pp. 74–113. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ing among complex hunter gatherers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Junker, L. L. 1999. Raiding, trading, and feasting: the political economy of Gibson, B. D. 2011. Chiefdom confederacies and state origins. Social Evolution Philippine chiefdoms. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. and History 10(1):215–233. ———. 2018. Conflictive trade, values, and power relations in maritime Gilman, A. 1995. Prehistoric European chiefdoms: rethinking “Germanic” soci- trading polities of the tenth to sixteenth centuries in the Philippines. In eties. In Foundations of social inequality. T. Douglas Price and Gary Feinman, Trade and civilisation. K. Kristiansen, T. Lindkvist, and J. Myrdal, eds. eds. Pp. 235–251. New York: Plenum. Pp. 354–388. Economic Networks and Cultural Ties, from Prehistory to the Glørstad, Z. T., and L. Melheim. 2016. Past mirrors: Thucydides, Sahlins and the Early Modern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bronze and Viking Ages. In Comparative perspectives on past colonisation, Kaliff, A. 2001. Gothic connections: contacts between eastern Scandinavia and maritime interaction and cultural integration. L. Melheim, Z. T. Glørstad, and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC–500 AD. Occasional Papers in Archaeol- 522 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

ogy 26. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala Kristiansen K., and P. Suchowska-Ducke. 2015. Connected histories: the University. [AK] dynamics of Bronze Age interaction and trade 1500–1100 BC. Proceedings ———. 2008. The Goths and Scandinavia: contacts between Scandinavia, the of the Prehistoric Society 81:361–392. southern Baltic coast and the Black Sea area during the Early Iron Age and Kristinsson, A. 2010. Expansions: competition and conquest in Europe since Roman period. In Import and imitation in archaeology. P. Biehl and Y. Y. the Bronze Age. Reykjavík: ReykjavíkurAkademían. Rassamakin, eds. Pp. 223–242. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und ———. 2012. Indo-European expansion cycles. Journal of Indo-European Kulturgeschichte des Schwartzenmeerraumes (ZAKS) 11. Langeweibbach: Studies 40(3–4):365–433. Beier & Beran. [AK] Kvalø, F. 2007. Oversjøiske reiser fra Sørvest- Norge til Nordvest-Jylland i Kaul, F. 1998. Ships on bronzes: a study in Bronze Age religion and iconog- eldre bronsealder: En drøfting av maritim realisering og rituell mobiliser- raphy. PNM Studies in Archaeology and History 3:1/2. Copenhagen: Na- ing. In Sjøreiser og stedsidentitet: Jæren/Lista i bronsealder og eldre jernalder. tional Museum of Denmark, Department of Danish Collections. Lotte Hedeager, ed. Pp. 11–134. Oslo: Oslo Academic Press. [CP] ———. 2003. The Hjortspring boat and ship iconography of the Bronze and Larsson, Thomas B. 1986. The Bronze Age metalwork in southern Sweden: Early pre-Roman Iron Age. In Hjortspring: a pre-Roman Iron-Age warship aspects of social and spatial organization 1800–500 BC. Archaeology and in context. Ole Crumlin-Pedersen and Athena Trakadas, eds. Pp. 187–208. Environment 6. Department of Archaeology, University of Umeå. Ships and Boats of the North 5. Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum. Levi, Margaret. 1988. Of rule and revenue. Berkeley: University of California Press. Knipper, C., C. Meyer, F. Jacobi, C. Roth, M. Fecher, E. Stephan, K. Schatz, Ling, J. 2014. Elevated rock art: towards a maritime understanding of Bronze et al. 2014. Social differentiation and land use at an Early Iron Age “princely Age rock art in northern Bohuslän, Sweden. Oxford: Oxbow. seat”: bioarchaeological investigations at the Glauberg (Germany). Journal Ling, J., P. Cornell, and K. Kristiansen. 2017. Bronze economy and mode of of Archaeological Science 41(2014):818–835. production: the role of comparative advantages in temperate Europe during Kohl, Philip. 2007. The making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge World the Bronze Age. In Modes of production and archaeology. R. Rosenswig and Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. Cunningham, eds. Pp. 207–233. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Koryakova, Ludmilla, and Andrej Epimakhov. 2007. The Urals and Western Ling, J., and Z. Stos-Gale. 2015. Representations of oxhide ingots in Scandi- Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cam- navian rock art: the sketchbook of a Bronze Age traveller? Antiquity 89 bridge: Cambridge University Press. (343):191–209. Kradin, N. N. 2008. Structure of power in nomadic empires of Inner Asia: Ling, J., Z. Stos-Gale, L. Grandin, K. Billström, E. Hjärthner-Holdar, and P.-O. anthropological approach. In Hierarchy and power in the history of Persson. 2014. Moving metals. II. Provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age civilizations: ancient and medieval cultures. L. E. Grinin, D. D. Beliaev, and artefacts by lead isotope and elemental analyses. Journal of Archaeological A. V. Korotayev, eds. Pp. 98–124. Moscow: URSS. Science 41:106–132. ———. 2015. Nomadic empires in inner Asia. In Complexity of interaction Ling, J., and C. Uhnér. 2015. Rock art and metal trade. Adoranten 2014:23–43. along the Eurasian steppe zone in the first millennium CE. J. Bemmann, ed. Ljungkvist, J. 2008. Handicrafts. In The Viking world. Stefan Brink and Neil Pp. 11–48. Bonn: Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Rheinische Price, eds. Pp. 186–193. Abingdon: Routledge. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. Lönnroth, E. 1963. Bohusläns historia. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Kradin, Nikolay N. 1995. The origins of the state among the pastoral nomads. Lund, N. 1996. Lið, leding og landeværn: hær og samfund i Danmark i ældre In Etnohistorische Wege und Lehrjahre eines Philosophen. D. Schorkowitz, middelalder. Dissertation, University of Copenhagen. ed. Pp. 163–177. Festschrift für Lawerence Krader zun 75. Geburstag. Makarov, Nikolay A., ed. 2012. Rus’ vIX–X vekakh: arkheologicheskaia pano- Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. [NNK] rama [Rus’ in IX–X centuries: archaeological panorama]. Moscow: Drev- ———. 2014. Nomads of Inner Asia in transition. Moscow: URSS. [NNK] nosti Severa. [NNK] Kradin, Nikolay N., Dmitri Bondarenko, and Thomas Barfield, eds. 2003. Malinowski, B. 2010 (1922). Argonauts of the western Pacific: an account of Nomadic pathways in social evolution. Moscow: Center for Civilizational native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New and Regional Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Guinea. Oxford: Benediction. Kristiansen, K. 1978. The consumption of wealth in Bronze Age Denmark: a study Mallory, J. P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans: language, archaeology of the dynamics of economic process in tribal societies. In New directions in and myth. London: Thames & Hudson. [JTK] Scandinavian archaeology. L. Kristiansen and C. Paludan-Müller, eds. Pp. 158– Mann, M. 1986. The sources of social power, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge 190. Studies in Scandinavian Prehistory and Early History 1. Copenhagen. University Press. ———. 1998. Europe before history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marx, Karl. 1953. Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Rohentwurf ———. 2004. Sea faring voyages and rock art ships. In The Dover boat in 1857–1858, Anhang 1850–1859. Berlin: Dietz. context: society and water transport in prehistoric Europe. P. Clark, ed. McKinley, J. I., J. Schuster, and A. Millard. 2013. Dead-Sea connections: a Pp. 111–121. Oxford: Oxbow. Bronze Age and Iron Age ritual site on the Isle of Thanet. In Celtic from the ———. 2013. Households in context: cosmology, economy and long-term West 2: rethinking the Bronze Age and the arrival of Indo-European in change in the Bronze Age of Northern Europe. In The archaeology of Atlantic Europe. J. Koch and B. Cunliffe, eds. Pp. 157–184. Oxford: Oxbow. households. M. Madella, G. Kovacs, B. Kulscarne-Berzsenyi, and I. B. McLeod, S. 2014. The beginning of Scandinavian settlement in England. Godino, eds. Pp. 235–268. Oxford: Oxbow. Turnhout: Brepols. [BR] ———. 2015. The decline of the Neolithic and the rise of Bronze Age society. Melheim, L. 2012. Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway— In The Oxford handbook of Neolithic Europe. Chris Fowler, Jan Harding, and the role of metal and metalworking. In Becoming European: the transfor- Daniela Hofmann, eds. Pp. 1093–1117. Oxford: Oxford University Press. mation of third millennium northern and western Europe. C. Prescott and ———. 2016. Bronze Age Vikings? a comparative analysis of deep historical H. Glørstad, eds. Pp. 70–81. Oxford: Oxbow. [CP] structures and their dynamics. In Comparative perspectives on past colo- Melheim, L, H. Glørstad, and T. Tsigaridas Glørstad, eds. 2016. Comparative nisation, maritime interaction and cultural integration: new directions in perspectives on past colonisation, maritime interaction and cultural inte- anthropological archaeology. L. Melheim, Z. T. Glørstad, and H. Glørstad, gration. Sheffield: Equinox eBooks. eds. Pp. 177–186. Sheffield: Equinox. Melheim, L., L. Grandin, P.-O. Persson, K. Billström, Z. Stos-Gale, J. Ling, A. ———. 2017. The rise and fall of Bronze Age societies in Thy, northwest Williams, et al. 2018. Moving metals. III. Possible origins for copper in Jutland. In Bronze Age settlement and land use in Thy, northwest Denmark. Bronze Age Denmark based on lead isotopes and geochemistry. Journal of J.-H. Bech, B. V. Eriksen, and K. Kristiansen, eds. Pp. 15–37. Højbjerg: Archaeological Science 96:1–21, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2018.04.003. Jutland Archaeological Society, Aarhus University Press. Melnikova, Elena A., and Vladimir J. Petrukhin. 1990–1991. The origin and ———. 2018. Warfare and the political economy: Bronze Age Europe 1500– evolution of the name Rus’: the Scandinavians in Eastern-European ethno- 1100 BC. In Warfare in Bronze Age society. C. Horn and K. Kristiansen, political processes before the 11th century. Tor (Uppsala) 23:203–234. eds. Pp. 23–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [NNK] Kristiansen, K., and T. B. Larsson. 2005. The rise of Bronze Age society: travels, Mikkelsen, M. 2013. The topographical placing of the Late Neolithic and Bronze transmissions and transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Age settlements and an introduction to a new interpretation of the layout of the Press. individual farms in the Bronze Age. Siedlungen der älteren Bronzezeit. Kristiansen, K., T. Lindkvist, and J. Myrdal, eds. 2018. Trade and civilisation. Milstreu, G., and H. Prøhl, eds. 1999. Fossum med angränsande områden [Fossum Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and adjoining areas]. Tanumshede: Tanums Hällristningsmuseum. Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen Maritime Mode of Production 523

Morgan, L. H., and F. Engels. 1972. The origin of the family, private property, and Price, T. D., and H. Gestsdóttir. 2006. The first settlers of Iceland: an isotopic the state. New York: Pathfinder. approach to colonization. Antiquity 80:130–144. Müller, J. 2013. Demographic traces of technological innovation, social change Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2008. Bell Beaker communities in Thy: the first Bronze Age and mobility: from 1 to 8 million Europeans (6000–2000 BCE). In Environ- society in Denmark. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2):115–158. ment and subsistence: forty years after Janusz Kruk’s “Settlement studies.” ———. 2012. Perceiving changes in the third millennium BC in Europe through S. Kadrow and P.Włodarczak, eds. Pp. 1–14. Studien zur Archäologie in pottery: Galicia, Brittany and Denmark as examples. In Becoming Euro- Ostmitteleuropa/Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej 11. Rzeszów, pean: the transformation of third millennium northern and western Europe. Bonn: Mitel & Dr. Rudolf Habelt. C. Prescott and H. Glørstad, eds. Pp. 30–47. Oxford: Oxbow. Näsman, U. 2000. Raids, migrations, and kingdoms: the Danish case. Acta Prøsch-Danielsen, L., and A. Simonsen. 2000. Palaeoecological investigations Archaeologica 71:1–7. [BR] towards the reconstruction of the history of forest clearances and coastal Neitzel, J. E., and T. K. Earle. 2014. Dual-tier approach to societal evolution and heathlands in southwestern Norway. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany types. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36(2014):181–195. 9:189–204. Nerman, B. 1954. En första svenks vikingatid. Fornvännen 40:257–285. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1952. Structure and function in primitive societies. London: Nordenborg Myhre, L. 2004. Trialectic archaeology: monuments and space in Oxford University Press. Southwest Norway 1700–500 BC. AmS-skrifter 18. Stavanger, Norway: Ar- Raffield, B. 2016. Bands of brothers: a re-appraisal of the Viking Great Army and keologisk Museum i Stavanger. [RB, LM] its implications for the Scandinavian colonization of England. Early Medieval Oakeshott, Ewart, and Ian G. Peirce. 2002. Swords of the Viking Age. Europe 24(3):308–337. [BR] Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer. Raffield, B., C. Greenlow, N. Price, and M. Collard. 2016. In group identification, Odgård, B. V. 1994. The Holocene vegetation history of northern West Jutland, identity fusion and the formation of Viking war bands. World Archaeology Denmark. Opera Botanica, No. 123. Copenhagen. 48(1):35–50, doi:10.1080/00438243.2015.1100548. Odner, Knut. 1973. Økonomiske strukturer på Vestlandet i eldre jernalder.Bergen: Raffield, B., N. Price, and M. Collard. 2017. Male-biased operational sex ratios Historisk Museum, UiB. and the Viking phenomenon: an evolutionary anthropological perspective on Ojala, K. 2017. I bronsålderns gränsland: Uppland och frågan om östliga kontakter. late Iron Age Scandinavian raiding. Evolution and Human Behavior 38(3):315– Dissertation, Uppsala University. 324. Olalde, I., S. Brace, M. Allentoft, I. Armit, K. Kristiansen, N. Rohland, S. Mallick, Ravn, M. 2016. Viking-Age war fleets: shipbuilding, resource management and et al. 2018. The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of maritime warfare in 11th-century Denmark. Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum. northwest Europe. Nature 555:190–196. [JTK] Redmond, Elsa. 1998. Chiefdoms and chieftaincy in the Americas. Gainesville: Østmo, E. 2012. Late Neolithic expansion to Norway: the beginning of a 4000 year University of Florida Press. old shipbuilding tradition. In Becoming European: the transformation of third Renfrew, A. C. 1998 (1987). Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo- millennium northern and western Europe. C. Prescott and H. Glørstad, eds. European origins. London: Pimlico (London: Cape). [JTK] Pp. 63–70. Oxford: Oxbow. Ricardo, D. 1817 (1811). The principles of political economy and taxation.New Patterson, T. C. 2014. From acorns to warehouses: historical political economy of York: Dutton. southern California’s inland empire. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. Rosenswig, R. M., and J. J. Cunningham. 2017a. Introducing modes of production Pauli Jensen, X. 2009. From fertility sacrifices to weapon sacrifices: the case of the in archaeology. In Modes of production and archaeology. R. M. Rosenswig and South Scandinavian bog finds. In Glaube, Kult und Herrschaft. U. Von Freden, J. J. Cunningham, eds. Pp. 1–28. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. H. Friesinge, and E. Wamers, eds. Pp. 53–64. Bonn: Habelt. [RB] ———,eds.2017b. Modes of production and archaeology. Gainesville: University Pedersen, A. 2006. Ancient mounds for new graves: an aspect of Viking-age Press of Florida. [NNK] burial customs in southern Scandinavia. In Old Norse religion in long-term Rowlands, M., and J. Ling. 2013. Boundaries, flows and connectivities: mo- perspective. A. Andrén, K. Jennbert, and C. Raudvere, eds. Pp. 346–353. bility and stasis in the Bronze Age. In Counterpoint: essays in archaeology Lund: Nordic Academic Press. [RB] and heritage studies in honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen. S. Berger- ———. 2008. Viking weaponry. In The Viking world. Stefan Brink and Neil Price, brant and S. Sabatini, eds. Pp. 517–529. Oxford: Archaeopress. eds. Pp. 204–212. Abingdon: Routledge. ———. 2016. Long-term cosmological interconnectedness and long-distance Pettersson, J. 1982. Hällristningar på Tjörn: Andra delen. Malung, Sweden: trade: cosmology and comparative advantage in the Bronze Age and beyond. In Dalaförlaget. Comparative perspectives on past colonisation, maritime interaction and cul- Pokutta, D. A. 2013. Population dynamics, diet and migrations of the Unetice tural integration: new directions in anthropological archaeology. L. Melheim, culture in Poland. Göteborg: University of Gothenburg. Z. T. Glørstad, and H. Glørstad, eds. Pp. 235–252. Sheffield: Equinox. Prescott, C. 2009. History in prehistory: the later Neolithic/Early Metal Age, Sáenz, C. 1991. Lords of the waste: predation, pastoral production, and the process Norway. In Neolithisation as if history mattered: Processes of Neolithisation in of stratification among the eastern Twaregs. In Chiefdoms: power, economy, north-western Europe. H. Glørstad and C. Prescott, eds. Pp. 193–215. Lindome, and ideology. Timothy Earle, ed. Pp. 100–118. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Sweden: Bricoleur. versity Press. Prescott, C., A. S. Eriksen, and K. I. Austvoll. Forthcoming. The sea and Bronze Sahlins, M. D. 1961. The segmentary lineage: an organisation of predator ex- Age transformations. In Water and power in past societies.EmilyHolt,ed. pansion. American Anthropologist 63(2):332–345. [HV] Buffalo: SUNY Press. [CP] ———.1968.Tribesmen. Foundations of Modern Anthropology Series. Engle- Prescott, C., and H. Glørstad. 2015. Expanding 3rd millennium transforma- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [HV] tions: Norway. In The Bell Beaker transition in Europe: mobility and local Salzman, P. C. 2004. Pastoralists: equality, hierarchy, and the state.Boulder,CO: evolution during the 3rd millennium BC. Maria Pilar Prieto Martínez and Westview. Laure Salanova, eds. Pp. 77–87. Oxford: Oxbow. [CP] Sand-Eriksen, A. 2017. Mjeltehaugen: Europe’s northernmost Bell Beaker ex- Prescott, C., and L. Melheim. 2017. Textiles from the peripheries? upland evidence pression. In New perspectives on the Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th Nor- from Norway. In New perspectives on the Bronze Age. Proceedings of the dic Bronze Age Symposium held in Gothenburg, June 9–13, 2015. Sophie 13th Nordic Bronze Age Symposium held in Gothenburg, June 9–13, 2015. Bergerbrant and Anna Wessman, eds. Pp. 7–18. Oxford: Archaeopress. [CP] S. Bergerbrant and A. Wessman, eds. Pp. 313–327. Oxford: Archaeopress. Service, Elman R. 1971. Primitive social organization: an evolutionary perspective. Price, N. 2016. Pirates of the North Sea? the Viking ship as a political space. In 2nd edition. New York: Random House. Comparative perspectives on past colonisation, maritime interaction and cul- Simonsen, J. 2017. Daily life at the turn of the Neolithic: a comparative study of tural integration: new directions in anthropological archaeology. L. Melheim, longhouses with sunken floors at Resengaard and nine other settlements in the Z. T. Glørstad, and H. Glørstad, eds. Pp. 149–176. Sheffield: Equinox. Limfjord region, South Scandinavia. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press and Price, N., and P. Mortimer. 2014. An eye for Odin? divine role-playing in the age Jutland Archaeological Society. [HV] of Sutton Hoo. European Journal of Archaeology 17:517–538. [BR] Sindbaek, S. M. 2008. Local and long-distance exchange. In The Viking world. Price, T. D. 2015. The peopling of the North Atlantic: isotopic results from Stefan Brink and Neil Price, eds. Pp. 150–159. Abingdon: Routledge. Norway. Special volume, Journal of the North Atlantic 7:88–102. ———. 2011. Silver economies and social ties: long-distance interaction, long- Price, T. D., K. Frei, A. Dobat, N. Lynnerup, and P. Bennike. 2011. Who was in term investments—and why the Viking Age happened. In Silver economies, Harold Bluetooth’s army? strontium isotope investigation of the cemetery at monetisation and society in Scandinavia, 800–1100. J. Graham-Campbell, S. M. the Viking Age fortress at Trelleborg, Denmark. Antiquity 85(328):476–489. Sindbæk, and G. Williams, eds. Pp. 41–66. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 524 Current Anthropology Volume 59, Number 5, October 2018

Sjögren, K. 2003. “Mångfalldige uhrminnes grafvar-”: megalitgravar och samhälle Turrell, W. R. 1992. New hypotheses concerning the circulation of the northern i Västsverige. Gotarc Serie B. Gothenburg Archaeological Thesis 24. Göteborg. North Sea and its relation to North Sea fish stock recruitment. ICES Journal of Smith, Adam T. 2015. The political machine: assembling sovereignty in the Bronze Marine Science 49:107–123. Age Caucasus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Valbjørn, K. V. 2003. Building and testing a Hjortspring boat: Hjortspring. In A Spencer, Paul. 2014. Youth and experiences of aging among Maa: models of society pre-Roman Iron-Age warship in context. O. Crumlin-Pedersen, and A. Tra- evoked by the Maasai, Samburu and Chamus of Kenya. Warsaw: De Gruyter kadas, eds. Pp. 235–236. Ships and Boats of the North 5. Roskilde: Viking Open. [MS] Ship Museum. Spriggs, Matthew. 2008. Ethnographic parallels and the denial of history. World Van de Noort, R. 2011. North Sea archaeologies: a maritime biography, 10,000 BC– Archaeology 40(4):538–552. AD 1500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [HV] ———. 2016. “Ex Oriente Lux”: recent data from Lapita Culture sites bearing Vandkilde, H. 2014. Breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age: transcultural on the Austronesian diaspora within Island Southeast Asia. In Austronesian warriorhood and a Carpathian crossroad in the sixteenth century BC. Euro- diaspora: a new perspective. Bagyo Prasetyo, Titi Surti Nastiti, and Truman pean Journal of Archaeology 17(4):602–633. Simanjuntak, eds. Pp. 105–124. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press. ———. 2016. Bronzization: the Bronze Age as pre-modern globalization. [MS] Praehistorische Zeitschrift 91:103–223. Starr, M. 1987. Risk, environmental variability, and drought-induced impover- ———.2017a. The metal hoard from Pile in Scania, Sweden: place, things, time, ishment: the pastoral economy of Central Niger. Africa 57:29–50. [BH] metals, and worlds around 2000 BCE. Swedish History Museum Studies 29. Sundqvist, O. 2002. Freyr’s offspring: rulers and religion in ancient Svea society. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. [HV] Uppsala: Uppsala University. [BR] ———.2017b. Small, medium, large: globalisation perspectives on the Afro- ———. 2012. Religious ruler ideology in pre-Christian Scandinavia: a contextual Eurasian Bronze Age. In The Routledge handbook of archaeology and global- approach. In More than mythology: narratives, ritual practices and regional ization. T. Hodos, ed. Pp. 509–521. London: Routledge. [HV] distribution in pre-Christian Scandinavian religion. C. Raudvere and J. P. ———. 2018. Body ascetics, fraternity and warfare in the long European Bronze Schjødt, eds. Pp. 225–261. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. [BR] Age. In Warfare in Bronze Age society. C. Horn and K. Kristiansen, eds. Svedhage,K.1997.Tanumsslätten med omgivning. Rapport 1997:13. Uddevalla: Pp. 229–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bohusläns Museum. Varenius, B. 1998. Han ägde bo och skeppslid: Om rumslighetoch relationer i Sweet, Louise E. 1965a. Camel pastoralism in North Arabia and the minimal vikingatid och medeltid. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 10. Umeå. camping unit. In Man, culture, and animals. A. Leeds and A. P. Vayda, eds. Walter, R., and P. Sheppard. 2006. Archaeology in Melanesia: a case study from Pp. 129–152. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement the Western Province of the Solomon Islands. In Archaeology of Oceania: of Science. Australia and the Pacific Island. Ian Lilley, ed. Pp. 137–159. Malden, MA: ———. 1965b. Camel raiding of North Arabian Bedouin. American Anthro- Blackwell. pologist 67:1132–1150. [BH] Wehlin, J. 2013. Östersjöns skeppssättningar: monument och mötesplatser under Sylvester, M. 2006. Haugvikbåten fra Sømna: en plankebygd båt fra bronsealder yngre bronsålder. Dissertation, University of Gothenburg. eller førromersk jernalder. Viking 69:91–106. White, Tom. 2009. Hadoop: the definitive guide. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. Tallgren, A. M. 1916. Sveriges förbindelser med Ryssland under Bronsåldern. Wolf, E. 1982. Europe and the people without history. Berkeley: University of Finsk Tidskrift 80:362–374. California Press.