Jew’s Harps in European Archaeology Gjermund Kolltveit BAR INTERNATIONAL SERIES For title page verso: The cover photo: Jew’s harps excavated at Hallwil Castle, Switzerland. Photo: Gjermund Kolltveit. Courtesy of Swizz National Museum, Zürich. Dedication: For Agnes and Jo Preface iewed in a psychoanalytical and evolutionistic Collection, which is a branch of The Department of perspective, this monograph can be seen as a Musicology. My supervisor Tellef Kvifte guided me Vrelease of my propensity to be a hunter-gather- through the work. He has showed me confidence, and er, since the quantitively largest part of the work has deserves thanks for always being available for advice been to make a collection, gathered through extensive and help, in his efficient, professional and safe way. hunting trips in various museums and institutions in I appreciated the opportunity to be a part of the Europe. The effort of collecting also gave me the vital community of doctoral students at the opportunity to re-experience my own childhood. As Department of Musicology.Especial thanks are due to many other children, I was busy with collecting and Eva Falck and Odd Skårberg for stimulating conver- classifying insects, napkins, football cards and other sations. items. Among things I did not collect, however, were I have also benefitted from the training program for jew’s harps. researchers at the University of Oslo, and I have The fact that this work is based on a collection of appreciated the supportive atmosphere at the seminars one single artifact, does not, however, exclude wider led by Ståle Wikshåland, Trygve Nergaard, Knut perspectives and an intention to be “culture-centred” Kjellstadli and Tellef Kvifte. instead of “artifact-centred”. The compilation of Fredrick Crane, Iowa, has meant much to this study, excavated jew’s harps is hence not the goal in itself, both scholarly and as a friend. He has sendt me data but a means to discuss cultural, social and historical on finds and offered valuable comments throughout issues, also when employing a narrow focus on the the work. I am greatful to him for sharing his enor- material objects themselves and their technology. mous knowledge of jew’ harps and for believing in It is not an unconscious choice that the artifact in me. question here is a musical instument. Although the I wish to thank the archaeologists Christian Keller monograph does not explixitely focus on music, my for comments on the typology chapter and Knut attraction to jew’s harps from archaeological contexts Paasche for information on archaeological surfaces arose from an interest in music and sounds of the past. and metallurgy.From the Norwegian Jew’s harp scene More specifically,my interest in music combined with I would like to thank Bernhard Folkestad for con- archaeology started during my undergraduate studies structive remarks. at the University of Oslo. I had been living as a pro- My effort of documenting archaelogical Jew’s harp fessional violinist for some years, and had decided to finds has brought me to several countries and allowed take a break to start studying archaeology.I soon real- me to become aquainted with a lot of people. I here- ized, however, that it was impossible to simply quit my by express my deepest gratitude to curators, archaeol- musical career.Therefore, it was fascinating to become ogists and others who have helped me to collect the aware of the works of the archaeologist Cajsa S. Lund material. I would also like to thank Graeme Lawson of Sweden, who was one of the pioneers in the field (England), Thomas Repiszky (Hungary), Annemies of music archaeology or archaeomusicology.I eventu- Tamboer (The Netherlands), Cristoph Bizer ally specialised my studies in the direction of music (Germany) Gorm Jessen (Denmark), Tenna archaeology, because it was a way to combine my Kristensen (Denmark), Igor Tonurist (Estonia), Martin interests, and because I found it fascinating and Boiko (Latvia) and Timo Leisiö (Finland) for sharing important to explore problems and issues in the inter- material and for valuable information. Thanks is also section between musicology and archaeology. I was due to Uta Hennig (Germany), who showed me her fortunate to get Cajsa S. Lund as an external supervi- collection of music iconographical sources and sor for my MA studies at the Department of Werner Meyer (Switzerland), who provided useful Musicology. It was she who advised me to look clos- information on Swiss archaeology. Furthermore, I er at the archaeological material of jew’s harps. I am want to thank Andreas König, Andreas Heege (both thankful for her help and inspiration. Germany) and Jim Spriggs (England) for hospitality. A period of almost ten years with research on jew’s Not only individuals, but also institutions deserve my harps is brought to the end with this volume, gratitude.The material could not have been studied and appearng here as a revised version of my doctoral the- presented in this way without kind permission from the sis with the same title (University of Oslo, 2004).The many museums and institutions in possession of the doctorate was made possible through funding from finds.Thus, the reproductions displayed in the Catalogue The Norwegian Research Council. I was offered a and elsewhere in the work should be regarded as copy- working place at The Norwegian Folk Music righted material, belonging to the possessory institutions. iii I am thankful to the following people for helping Ann-Turi Ford did great work with illustrations with translations: Morten Abildsnes has translated and lay-out, amongst other things.Without her sup- some Slavonic text sections and commented on port this thesis would not have been accomplished in materials from Eastern Europe. Hans-Hinrich its present form. Thedens translated an inquiry letter into German. Finally I would like to express my deepest appreci- Marthe Disen,Alfredo Barbuti and Eva Falck assisted ation to the examining commitee appointed by the with Italian texts. Sandor von Körtvelyessy proofread University of Oslo, consisting of Graeme Lawson Hungarian place names. (Cambridge), Gunnar Ternhag (Falun) and Gisela Trevor Ford has spendt hours correcting and Attinger (Oslo), for their constructive responses and improving my English. Romilly Hambling helped comments. with language improvement and proofreading at the Nesodden, March 2006 final stage. I am grateful to them both. Gjermund Kolltveit iv Contents List of Figures . .vii Technology:A hierarchical approach . .45 List of Tables . .ix Morphological developments . .48 Extension of the lamella . .49 1. Introduction . .1 The AL/OL ratio . .50 Aim and approach . .1 Bow shape . .52 Excavated music . .2 Conclusion . .53 The jew’s harp – some essential background . .3 Technology and chronology: division of types . .53 Construction, acoustics and playing technique .3 Mainly medieval: Kransen, Billingsgate, Horsens, Hallwil, Geographical distribution . .4 Bruck and Sperrboden types . .55 History . .4 Kransen 55, Billingsgate 57, Horsens 57, European history and archaeology 5 Hallwil 59, Bruck 60, Sperrboden 61 Revival . .5 Long arms, hairpin-shaped: Kuusisto, Schauenburg, Gironville Collecting material . .5 and Kvikkjokk types . .61 The Nordic Countries . .6 Kuusisto 61, Schauenburg 62, Gironville 63, Ireland and United Kingdom . .9 Kvikkjokk 64 The Low Countries . .12 Post-medieval iron: Gloucester, Damme, Kufstein and Ekeberg types . .64 Germany . .13 Gloucester 65, Damme 66, Kufstein 67, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein . .15 Ekeberg 67 France, Iberia and Italy . .17 Wedged attachment of the lamella: Pärnu and Höxter types . .68 The Balkans . .18 Pärnu 68, Höxter 69 The central and eastern parts of Europe . .18 Copper alloy: Greifswald, Odiham, Documentation . .20 Nijmegen, Stafford and Rochester types . .69 Greifswald 70, Odiham 70, Nijmegen 71, Stafford 72, Rochester 73 2.Technology . .22 Unusual and/or modern specimens . .74 Terms and definitions . .22 Manufacture . .23 4. Distribution . .75 Forging . .23 The North . .75 Bending from a rod (cold working) . .25 The West . .76 Casting . .26 The South . .79 Other methods . .27 The East . .80 The lamella . .27 Early phase . .81 Cases for jew’s harps . .29 Late phase . .84 Production and trade . .84 Dialogue one: Mass production or artisanal work? . .84 When did the jew’s harp The quality of the products 85 become established in Europe? . .30 Organization of the crafts . .85 Punch marks . .85 3.Typology . .38 Trade and communication . .89 The concepts of type and typology . .38 Top-down or bottom-up? . .39 Dialogue two: But is this really Emic or etic types? . .41 music history? . .90 Purpose and practice . .41 Earlier typologies . .42 5. Context . .95 Definition of variables . .43 The find locations . .95 Material 43, Method of manufacture 43, Cross- Regional variation . .96 section of the bow 43,Attachment of the lamella to the frame 44,The shape of the bow 44, Social context and typology . .97 Extension of the lamella beyond the frame 45, The rural/urban axis . .97 Dimensions, proportions and weight 45 v The castle finds . .98 Profession . .110 The monastery finds . .99 Functions and meanings . .111 The rural finds . .100 Dance accompaniment . .111 The urban finds . .100 Courting . .111 Maritime finds? . .100 Shamanism and therapy . .111 Medieval classification . .101 Witchcraft . .112 Social classification of music, musical Supernatural beings . .112 instruments and the jew’s harp . .101 Introvert musicking? . .112 Systematic classification and the anomalous nature of the jew’s harp . .105 The varied and associative terms for the jew’s harp . .107 6. Conclusions . .113 Social groups . .108 Sex . .108 Catalogue . .116 Age . .109 Ethnicity . .109 References . .253 vi List of Figures Fig. 1.1: Facsimile of the standard letter Fig. 3.13: Plots of overall length (OL) against sent to museums in Germany . .14 arm length (AL) for two-century (A) Fig. 1.2: Facsimile of the standard form and one-century (B) periods . .52 used for documentation . .21 Fig.