• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• English close
• Publikationer från Stockholms universitet close
• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage close

The use of coins as pendants is a common practice in the Scandinavian Viking Age (c. AD 800–1140). About three per cent of the coins circulating in Scandinavia show signs of having been adapted for suspension, either with a small hole or a loop. Modifying coins in this way changes the nature of the object. The pierced and looped coins move from having an economic function to having a display and symbolic function, at least temporarily. After being long neglected by both archaeologists and numismatists, the reuse of coins as pendants has started to receive attention in recent years. This arises mainly from a desire to approach coins from perspectives other than purely economic ones. Coins, like any other archaeological object, are part of material culture. It is therefore also relevant and necessary to investigate their social and cultural significance. The aim of this thesis is to understand why coins were adapted for suspension and worn as personal ornaments in Viking-Age Scandinavia. Unlike most ornaments of the time, the production of which necessarily involved craft specialists, the Viking-Age coin-pendants could be produced directly by their owners. Their study can thus provide unique insights into how the coins of which they are made, and the messages they carry, were perceived by those using them. What made coins so meaningful that they were often turned into pendants? The point of departure adopted here is the object, the ‘coin-pendant’ itself, but this object does not exist in a vacuum. Particular attention is paid to the different contexts that the coin-pendants have navigated throughout their lives, such as minting, use as currency or use as ornament. This contextual approach is combined with a semiotic one, so as to better understand how the meaning of the object was constructed. The relationship between coin-pendants and owners of coin-pendants can be explored by investigating several processes that reflect the owners’ intentions, such as coin selection, modification for suspension, orientation of the motives and combination with other ornaments. These processes allow us to understand how the coin-pendants were valued by those using them. However, it is not possible to fully understand this relationship without putting it into perspective. This means studying: (1) the wider social, economic, cultural and religious framework in which the practice of reusing coins as pendants is situated; (2) the objects with which the coin-pendants are metaphorically associated. The material forming the basis for this study is both archaeological and numismatic. It consists of two main components: 134 Scandinavian graves containing coin-pendants and a random sample of 80 Scandinavian hoards. The hoard material is primarily intended for quantitative purposes while the grave catalogue is primarily intended for qualitative purposes. The importance of studying the Viking-Age coin-pendants both in graves and in hoards cannot be overemphasised. None of these contexts directly reflects the reality of the practice. The study shows that the practice of using coins as pendants was very diverse and could be adapted to individual tastes. Within this diversity, however, a common denominator emerges: the object ‘coin’. It is clear that there was something special about coins in Viking-Age Scandinavia and that the meaning of the coin-pendants was largely derived from the ideas with which coins were associated.

Silver coin hoarding is a distinct feature of the Viking Age in some northern European areas, and these hoards convey much information about coin types and chronologies to numismatists. However, there is still no explanation of the custom itself. I argue that hoards should be considered in terms of social categories or genders as a means to understand the specific reasons behind their deposition. This contribution provides examples of approach through contextualizing hoards and their contents. I also propose some theoretical premises regarding the role of numismatics in the space between archaeology, history, economic history and art history. Numismatics as a discipline must develop an explicit research agenda of its own in order to benefit equally from the numismatist’s knowledge of a coin’s primary context (origin), as well as secondary (use and reuse) and tertiary contexts (deposition). Coins do not belong to one single context; neither the one of primary interest to the historian, nor just that which the archaeologist encounters. A numismatic approach sensitive to all contexts opens a wealth of information in terms of the life biography of objects, social relationships, and the routines and cognitive patterns of the society which produced, used and deposited coins.