Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 2009, 13, 2, 96–109 doi: 10.3176/arch.2009.2.

02

Søren M. Sindbæk

OPEN ACCESS, NODAL POINTS,

AND CENTRAL PLACES
Maritime communication and locational principles
for coastal sites in south Scandinavia, c. AD 400–1200

This paper surveys the archaeology of coastal settlement in south Scandinavia, c. AD 400–1200
from a perspective of communication. The location of important centres of communication
and exchange reveal changes of preference, which reflect the shifting nature of social
relations. The Late Iron Age port Lundeborg is characterized by safe access for foreigners,
gathered for periodic assemblies; the Early Viking Age emporia Åhus is identified as a
nodal point at a natural barrier for bulk-traffic; Early Medieval Roskilde, finally, was a
central place related to a local hinterland, and collected several central functions under
central authority.

Søren M. Sindbæk, Department of Archaeology, the University of York, The King’s Manor,
York YO1 7EP, United Kingdom; sms510@york.ac.uk

Introduction

The sea was treasured by Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Scandinavians for
many reasons.
In addition to supplying fishery and other coastal resources, it was the principal
conduit of regional and long-distance communication. Through the period c. AD
400–1200 various sites emerge or disappear as centres of communication and
exchange. The fate of individual sites is often explained as an effect of the changing
fortunes of political centres. Communication, however, is a reality of its own. This
paper argues that over the centuries, the choice of location for sites concerned
with long-distance traffic follows a pattern, which is closely related to changing
modes of communication and social relations, rather than mere political shifts.
Analysing the location of three evidently important sites, it asks what form of
communication made just these positions particularly attractive at a particular period
of time.
Open access, nodal points, and central places 97

Coastal settlements

In recent years, many investigations have shown that settlements at the coast
became common in south Scandinavia in the middle of the first millennium AD
(Fig. 1). Well-studied examples include Selsø – Vestby in Roskilde Fjord and
Vester Egesborg in southern Zealand (Ulriksen 1998; 2006), Strandby Gammeltoft
in south-west Fyn (Henriksen 1997) and Næs in southern Zealand (Christensen
2006). Comparable sites are also known from earlier excavations (e.g. Strömberg
1978), and from investigations in other parts of south Scandinavia (Carlsson 1991;
Callmer 1994; Birkedahl & Johansen 2000; Dobat 2005; Ulriksen 2006).
The coastal sites are often characterized by large numbers of sunken-featured
buildings, rather than the large multi-purpose longhouses of agrarian villages in the
inland. The find-material is marked out, unsurprisingly, by tools for fishing, boat-
repair and other maritime activities, and sometimes by a more varied assemblage

Fig. 1. Excavated settlements in south Scandinavia c. AD 600–1100. Sites discussed in the text are
indicated.
98 Søren M. Sindbæk

related to crafts and exchange. Sailing, exchange and communication are the main
issues discussed in connection with these sites. But the coast held many other
attractions. Among the many sites located on the coast, several were not concerned
with trade or travel, but with a basic economy of fishing or grazing in the
coastal meadows.
The most common maritime activity was undoubtedly fishing. Judging by the
species identified in bone-samples from many sites, Viking Age North Europeans
were not yet accustomed to deep-sea fishing (cf. Barrett et al. 2004). Rather, fishing
took place on shallow water near the coast. Albeit a maritime activity, it scarcely
implied navigation beyond the local surroundings, and did not in itself lead to
more distant communication.
The forests and meadows of the coastal forelands were another valuable
resource, certainly exploited for permanent or seasonal grassing. Whether the herds
were sent out from nearby villages or belonged to separate communities, the groups
settled here had very different needs than people in inland villages. Settled perhaps
only seasonally at the sea, and with no need to stall cattle, as farmers did to collect
manure for their fields, people lived mainly in the lightly built, easily heated
sunken-featured huts. As the sunken-featured buildings preserve more varied
finds than ploughed-out sites with post-built houses, we might be led to consider
such coastal sites as more significant than they really were.
The majority of coastal sites, then, belonged to fishers and herdsmen, rather
than sailors and merchants. They were essentially rural sites in a maritime setting,
located to take advantage of resources in the immediate environment of the site,
either on land or in the waters just beyond.

The problem of ‘central places’

A fishing community may use their location and facilities to engage in contacts
by sea. But only a small group of sites in south Scandinavia appear to have
fulfilled a more specific function in maritime communication. These sites deserve a
special interest, not only because they are ‘special’ and often contain more varied
assemblages than other sites, but because they were literally hubs in the social
interaction of their time.
The most influential concept in previous discussions of sites connected
to exchange and communication in Iron Age and Viking Period Scandinavia
is ‘central places’. As a concept, this is rooted in discussions of towns and
urbanization by sociologists or historians such as Max Weber or Henri Pirenne.
The German geographer Walter Christaller was to develop the concept to its
most concise form in the justly famous ‘central place theory’ (Christaller 1966
[1933]). The central place model became widely used in archaeology from the
late 1960s. When in the 1980s Scandinavian archaeologists began to recognize
a group of specialized Late Iron Age settlements with indications of trade and
crafts production, the term that began to be used was just ‘central places’ (e.g.
Näsman 1991; 2000).
Open access, nodal points, and central places 99

As it has been pointed out, the archaeological use of the central place concept
is not intended to refer strictly to Christaller (Fabech 1999, 456). In fact, however, it
shares a number of fundamental assumptions with his model: The significance of a
centre is believed to spring from the interaction with a local hinterland; sites are
believed to enter into a functional hierarchy, in which the size and economic
significance of a site corresponds to the political position of its leaders; and in
keeping with this, the largest and most spectacular sites are related to the top of
Late Iron Age society: the king.
Central-place theory, however, was designed to model a strongly integrated,
modern society, and ignores the plethora of conflicting concerns likely to have
influenced pre-modern communication. In suggesting a single, uniform hierarchy
of sites, it leads to entirely wrong expectations. Communication, above all, depends
on the nature of social relations. As these relations changed over the centuries,
so did the requirements imposed on the sites where encounters took place. In the
following, three important sites are discussed in order to suggest what considerations
affected the choice of locations from the Roman Iron Age to the Age of Crusades.
The sites are discussed primarily with regards to maritime communication. While
land transport is evidently also of importance, the sea posed the greatest locational
constraints as well as potential throughout the period concerned.

Lundeborg: an open access assembly site

The trade and craft centre at Lundeborg in south-east Fyn was discovered in
the 1980s, and was immediately recognized as a complement to the long-known
centre Gudme located 3–4 km inland.
The archaeological structures investigated in Lundeborg comprised extensive
cultural layers covering a line of 800 m immediately adjacent to the shore.
Remarkable quantities of Roman imports were mixed with refuse from several
specialised crafts. In nearby Gudme, the remains of a huge hall, more than 50 m
long, was the focus of a landscape with exceptionally rich detector-finds and
hoards, including some of the richest gold-finds from Danish prehistory. Part
of the space left between Gudme and Lundeborg is taken up by the cemetery
Møllegårdsmarken, whose 2.200 graves makes it the most extensive necropolis
from the Iron Age in Denmark. Gudme-Lundeborg is commonly explained as
a combined regional centre, the residence of a petty king, and a centre of cult
(Thomsen 1994).
Lundeborg’s location has puzzled more than one researcher (Fig. 2). It is
described as “strangely peripheral on Fyn, cramped in between the forest-districts
of inner Fyn and the Great Belt” (Näsman 1991, 171; my translation). It has
even been maintained that “the prominence of the region cannot be explained
alone by the topography of the landscape, the fertility of the soil, good access
or strategic position. None of these conditions are optimal here, and one may
presume that something religious has been the cause why a centre evolved just here”
100 Søren M. Sindbæk

Fig. 2. The location of Lundeborg: directly accessible on an open coast.

(Crumlin-Pedersen et al. 1996, 88; my translation). Yet a particular aspect of the

location has escaped attention.
Lundeborg is facing the Great Belt, one of the most trafficable central Danish
waters, and the principal channel between the Baltic and the North Sea. Quite
atypically for a Danish coastal settlement, Lundeborg is not in a sheltered fjord
or inlet, but on a directly exposed coast. Compared to the nearby medieval towns
Svendborg and Rudkøbing, Lundeborg has little maritime foreland, and no natural
harbour (Crumlin-Pedersen et al. 1996, 86). Neither does the site refer to the
strangulation-point between Nyborg, Sprogø and Korsør, fortified since the 12th
century to control traffic through and across the Belt. Rather, Lundeborg is located
at the point where the island Langeland splits the Great Belt into three waters:
Fynske Øhav, Langelandsbælt and Smålandshavet. This position has interesting
implications.
Besides being equally accessible from each of these waters, and obviously
from the terrestrial hinterland on Fyn, Lundeborg was accessible from a corridor
of long-distance traffic, at a point that could be approached by visitors from remote
Open access, nodal points, and central places 101

regions without moving too close towards any settled districts and intimidating
potential enemies on the ground. Likewise, it could be rapidly escaped if a conflict
emerged.
The scope of interregional contacts in the Baltic Sea region in the Late Roman
Iron Age is brought out by the so-called Ejsbøl-horizon of sacrificial weapon-
deposit, found in regions facing southern Danish Waters, but containing weapons
and artefacts from central Scandinavia. In an age of sea-warriors, the sight of
boats with foreigners – certainly armed, be that for defence or attack – might be
enough to provoke an unwarranted conflict. Lundeborg was an obvious location
for avoiding an unintended offence of peace.
This is a quality shared by several other sites, which can be compared to
Gudme-Lundeborg in the Late Roman and Migration Period: Sorte Muld in
Bornholm, and Uppåkra in western Skåne, itself more comparable to Gudme, but
undoubtedly with at landing-place in the bay of Lund (Hårdh 2002). A similar
connection to open coasts is met at the aristocratic residences, which appear in
eastern Denmark from the 6th century: Toftegård-Strøby, Järrestad and Tissø
(see Söderberg 2005, 107 ff.).
From the Late Roman to the Merovingian Period, then, we find sites with
intense evidence of long-distance exchange in the south-west Baltic area in very
similar locations: At an open coast near the entrance to a narrow strait or sound
that would demand foreign vessels to navigate uncomfortably close to inhabited
coastal regions. The locations chosen were hardly optimal for controlling traffic.
But they were locations where traffic from a large area convened, and to which
foreigners could count on a neutral passage, even if no authority could guarantee
peace but the landing place itself.
The locational principle of these sites was open access. Their archaeology
suggests that this was exactly the quality that served their purpose: They were
places of convention, of formal meeting or assembly between peers and their retinue
from near and distant regions to confer and collaborate on politics, exchange, cult,
and other matters of common concern.
Unlike the sites to complement or replace them in the following period, there
is nothing in the location, or in the archaeological material, to indicate that they
served generally for receiving or transmitting large cargoes. By nature of the
activities taking place, they acted as centres of distribution. The distribution
concerned individual things, personal relations and power – things and relations
that held value and whose protection was important to the people concerned. But
they did not involve transhipped bulk-cargoes that posed marked constraints or
demanded special landing facilities.

Åhus: a nodal point

The site Åhus, a few kilometres upstream the Helge river in eastern Skåne,
had been a focus of research for some years when in the early 1990s a development
project led to a large-scale excavation (Ericson-Borggren 1993; Callmer 2002).
102 Søren M. Sindbæk

Its archaeological features consist mainly in dozens of sunken-featured buildings

and thin, irregular cultural layers. They hardly differ from many other Iron Age
coastal sites in south Scandinavia. But Åhus was a special site indeed: it is one
of only five sites in Scandinavia known to be directly engaged in the trade with
Western Europe in the 8th and early 9th century. This is evident from the frequent
occurrence of Rhenish ceramics and the large-scale practice of crafts with raw
materials imported from the Rhinelands: bronze-casting and bead-making. Both
are otherwise restricted to the famous group of Early Viking Age emporia: Birka,
Hedeby, Ribe and Kaupang in Scandinavia, and Truso and Staraja Ladoga on the
eastern side of the Baltic (Sindbæk 2007). The emergence of these sites was
associated with the growth of maritime trade, invigorated by the introduction of
the sail to the northern seas of Europe in the Merovingian period.
The location of Åhus was distinctly unlike that of Lundeborg (Fig. 3). Being
set a bit into the land, it was not immediately accessible from the sea. As for the
safety of ship, crew and cargo, a visitor was at the mercy of his hosts. But as a
natural harbour, the site was far superior to Lundeborg: ships of considerable size
could be safely landed along the riverbank, perhaps even without being beached.

Fig. 3. The location of Åhus: a natural harbour on a corridor of long-distance transport, close to the
natural boundary between the rocky archipelago and the sand-coast.
Open access, nodal points, and central places 103

The potential as a local centre was also favourable, as the Helge river opens into
one of the largest and most fertile plains in southern Sweden. The most striking
aspect of Åhus’ topography, however, is its position in relation to long-distance
maritime traffic.
The shores of Skåne are mainly open coasts formed by sand and silt transported
by the currents. But just north of Åhus the first encounter is made with the rocky
archipelago-coast distinctive of Blekinge and the Swedish coasts further north.
The essential art of a skipper in following the sand-coast is to avoid shifting
banks and coping with few sheltered harbour-sites. Hanöbukten, immediately
south of Åhus, is particularly feared because of its capricious winds and currents.
The archipelago, in turn, implied a different set of problems to sailors. There
were plenty of sheltered places for anchorage, but also a persistent danger of
striking underwater rocks (Callmer 2009, 121 ff.). To a sailor acquainted with
either environment, passing Åhus meant suddenly multiplied and unfamiliar
risks.
Åhus, then, was a natural harbour located near a salient border for maritime
traffic. This description, as it happens, fits any large emporia of the period. All of
these sites, besides providing good conditions for local traffic, also possessed
special topographical qualities connected to long-distance transport. It was this
function as a nodal point on trade-routes, and not the role as a centre to a hinterland,
that conditioned the special importance of these ‘network-towns’ (cf. Hohenberg
& Lees 1996, 59; Sindbæk 2005, 99 ff.).
Long distance transport can be understood as simply an extension of the central
place function, but the distinction of nodal points from central places makes it
possible to draw attention to an important difference. Most central place functions
are served by local traffic, and thus depend on maximum accessibility from the
greatest possible hinterland. The role of a nodal point, on the other hand, is
exercised through long-distance traffic, and is stimulated in particular by topo-
graphical restrictions that guide traffic into narrow corridors. A situation of
particular significance occurs where a topographical or a social barrier causes a
break of traffic and requires a transhipment and perhaps a temporary storage of
goods. Where such a physical break occurs, a social transaction is likely to take
place as well. This topographical logic was noted more than a hundred years
ago by the American sociologist C. H. Cooley in his ‘Theory of Transportation’
(Cooley 1969 [1894]).
The locational principle of Åhus was that of a nodal point. It was related
to trade-routes, acting in a transmission of bulk-cargo, served by long-distance
transport. Its basic topographic condition was a barrier, and the dominant economic
activity was assemblage and trans-shipment.

Roskilde: a central place

Roskilde, one of the chief towns of medieval Denmark, grew swiftly from an
insignificant landing-place in the bottom of Roskilde Fjord, in the opening decades
104 Søren M. Sindbæk

of the 11th century. Archaeological excavations on several locations within the

town show that the site rapidly became extensively settled, and acquired workshops
for specialized crafts (Birkebæk et al. 1992, 74 f.). Before 1030, Roskilde was
the site of a royal mint, an ecclesiastic centre, and on occasion a place of general
assembly. According to later sources, the town was created as a royal foundation,
either by King Harald Bluetooth or his successor, Svein Forkbeard. The archaeo-
logical data agrees chronologically with this claim.
The position of Roskilde in the bottom of the long, narrow fjord could hardly
be more different from Lundeborg’s open accessibility or Åhus’ boundary position
on a corridor of long-distance transport (Fig. 4). Among earlier south Scandinavian
centres only Hedeby had a similarly withdrawn location. Hedeby’s position,
however, was influenced by the site’s potential to act as a bridge between the
traffics of the North Sea and the Baltic. The long, narrow Roskilde Fjord, on the
other hand, did not lead on to any further routes, but simply made for an unusually
slow approach to Roskilde. If, as has been suggested, the withdrawn position was
a safety-measure, guarding the town against sudden attack, the situation almost
reversed that found in Lundeborg, where the safety of the approaching party

Fig. 4. The location of Roskilde: a regional centre of terrestrial and maritime traffic.
Open access, nodal points, and central places 105

seems to have been the prime concern (Birkebæk et al. 1992). In spite of the
obvious importance of trade, the location may have discouraged the skippers of
the increasingly bulky cargo-vessels of the Early Middle Ages. They may often
have chosen to transfer their cargoes to smaller vessels in the natural harbour
Lynæs in the outer reaches of the fjord (Ulriksen 1998).
Roskilde was not by far the most attractive site one could imagine for a port-
of-trade. In a regional perspective, on the other hand, Roskilde was undoubtedly
the most favourable location in Zealand for a centre. On the land-side, it was a
meeting-place of some of the island’s most important natural corridors of traffic.
And the fjord provided what was arguably the greatest maritime foreland of any
medieval town in Denmark.
Roskilde’s location, at last, truly illustrates the principle of a central place.
This was a position in which different central functions could be collected in one
site and subsumed under central authority. As its history shows, the town emerged
exactly at a time when central authority rose to a much more appreciable position
in Denmark. Roskilde appeared along with other centres of a similar nature, and
mostly at very similar location: Odense, Århus, Viborg, Ålborg, and Lund. This
family of sites, the oldest proper towns in Denmark, were all located so as to attain
optimal conditions as regional centres, while communicating with each other
through a maritime network.

Conclusion

The majority of coastal sites in Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Scandinavia
exploited the coast for its productive rather than communicational potential.
Yet a small group of maritime sites stand out as foci of local or long-distance
traffic. During the period 400–1200 AD, different types of location gain or lose
significance in connection with maritime exchange and communication. These
shifts are not caused by changes in the natural landscape, which does not alter
significantly through the period within southern Scandinavia. To some extent they
reflect development of transport technology, in as much as the introduction of the
sail is likely to have stimulated new modes of contact. Mostly, however, they reflect
changes in the nature of social interaction.
The setting of Lundeborg, I argue, reflects a situation in which non-local
contacts were only established at great risk. A site like Åhus became interesting
when vessels carrying bulk-cargoes began to cross regularly between distant
stations. They raised a demand for entrepôts at salient maritime barriers – and
testify to more trustful relations between hosts and visitors. An excellent local
centre like Roskilde, on the other hand, did not become relevant until the
appearance of a central authority, which benefited from the accumulation of
many central functions in one place, and could guarantee their protection by
military power.
106 Søren M. Sindbæk

References

Barrett, J. H., Locker, A. M. & Roberts, C. M. 2004. ‘Dark Age Economics’ revisited: the English
fish bone evidence AD 600–1600. – Antiquity, 78: 301, 618–636.
Birkebæk, F. A., Verwohlt, E. & Høj, M. (eds) 1992. Roskilde bys historie. Bd. 1. Tiden indtil
1536. Roskilde Museum, Roskilde.
Birkedahl, P. & Johansen, E. 2000. The eastern Limfjord in the Germanic Iron Age and the
Viking Period. Internal structures and external relations. – Acta Archaeologica, 71, 25–33.
Callmer, J. 1994. Urbanization in Scandinavia and the Baltic region c. AD 700–1100. – Develop-
ments around the Baltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age. The Twelfth Viking Congress. Eds
B. Ambrosiani & H. Clark. (Birka studies, 3.) Riksantikvarieämbetet, Statens historiska museer,
Stockholm, 50–90.
Callmer, J. 2002. North-European trading centres and the Early Medieval craftsman. Craftsmen
at Åhus, north-eastern Scania, Sweden ca. AD 750–850+. – Central Places in the Migration and
Merovingian Periods. Eds B. Hårdh & L. Larsson. (Uppåkrastudier, 6.) Almqvist & Wiksell
International, Lund, 130–158.
Callmer, J. 2009. Wulfstan and the coast of southern Scandinavia: sailing routes from Langeland
to Möre. – Wulfstan’s Voyage. The Baltic Sea Region in the Early Viking Age as Seen from
Shipboard. Eds A. Englert & A. Trakadas. Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, 114–134.
Carlsson, D. 1991. Harbours and trading places on Gotland AD 600–1000. – Aspects of Maritime
Scandinavia AD 200–1200. Ed. O. Crumlin-Pedersen. Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, 145–158.
Christaller, W. 1966. Central Places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey [first
published in German 1933].
Christensen, D. V. 2006. Næs – a Late Iron Age and Viking Age coastal settlement. – Across the
Western Baltic. Eds K. Møller Hanse & K. Buck Pedersen. (Sydsjællands Museums Publikationer, 1.)
Vordingborg, 257–266.
Cooley, C. H. 1969 [1894]. Theory of Transportation. Sociological Theory and Social Research.
Selected Papers of C. H. Cooley. New York.
Crumlin-Pedersen, O., Porsmose, E. & Thrane, H. (eds) 1996. Atlas over Fyns kyst i jernalder,
vikingetid og middelalder. Odense Universitetsvorlag, Odense.
Dobat, A. 2005. Maritime cultural landscapes – recovering the trajectories of communication
across the Baltic. – Questiones Medii Aevi Novae, 10, 74–92.
Ericson-Borggren, T. 1993. Åhus 42:84 m. fl. Åhus sn. Fornlämning 35. Skåne. (Kristianstads
Läns Museum Rapport, 1993.) Kristianstad, 12.
Fabech, C. 1999. Centrality in sites and landscapes. – Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a
Conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4–7 1998. Eds C. Fabech & J. Ringtved. Jutland Archaeological
Society, Århus, 455–473.
Hårdh, B. 2002. Uppåkra in the migration and merovingian periods. – Central Places in the
Migration and Merovingian Periods. Eds B. Hårdh & L. Larsson. (Uppåkrastudier, 6.) Almqvist &
Wiksell International, Lund, 41–54.
Henriksen, M. B. 1997. Vikinger ved Helnæsbugten. – Fynske Minder, 25–58.
Hohenberg, P. M. & Lees, L. H. 1996. The Making of Urban Europe 1000–1994. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Näsman, U. 1991. Nogle bemærkninger om det nordiske symposium “Samfundsorganisation og
Regional Variation” på Sandbjerg Slot den 11.–15. april 1989. Samfundsorganisation og Regional
Variation. Norden i romersk jernalder og Folkevandringstid. Højbjerg, 321–333.
Näsman, U. 2000. Exchange and politics: the eight – early ninth century in Denmark. – The Long
Eight Century. Production, Distribution and Demand. (The transformation of the Roman World,
11.) Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, 35–68.
Sindbæk, S. M. 2005. Ruter og Rutinisering. Vikingetidens fjernhandel i Nordeuropa. Multivers
Academic, Copenhagen.
Open access, nodal points, and central places 107

Sindbæk, S. M. 2007. Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in Early Viking Age
Scandinavia. – Antiquity, 81, 119–132.
Söderberg, B. 2005. Aristokratisk rum och gränsöverskridande. Järrestad och sydöstra Skåne
mellan region och rike 600–1100. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm.
Strömberg, M. 1978. En kustby i Ystad – före stadens tillkomst. – Ystads fornminneförenings
tidskrift, XXIII, 7–101.
Thomsen, P. O. 1994. Lundeborg – an early port of trade in south-east Funen. – Archaeology of
Gudme and Lundeborg. Papers Presented at a Conference at Svendborg, October 1991. Eds P. O.
Nielsen, K. Randsborg & H. Thrane. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen, 23–29.
Ulriksen, J. 1998. Anløbspladser. Besejling og bebyggelse i Danmark mellem 200 og 1100 e.Kr.
The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde.
Ulriksen, J. 2006. Vester Egesborg – a coastal settlement from the Late Iron Age on Zealand. –
Journal of Danish Archaeology, 14, 187–199.

Søren M. Sindbæk

AVATUD LIGIPÄÄS, SÕLMPUNKTID JA KESKUSED

Veeteed ja Lõuna-Skandinaavia rannaasulate paiknemisloogika
aastail 400–1200 pKr

Resümee

Artikkel käsitleb Lõuna-Skandinaavia 5.–13. sajandi rannaasulate arheo-

loogiat kommunikatsiooni vaatenurgast. Selle perioodi jooksul jõudsid teatud kohad
rannikul nii saavutada kui ka kaotada oma positsiooni ülemeresuhtluses ja -kau-
banduses. Selliseid muudatusi seostatakse sageli poliitiliste keskuste muutumi-
sega. Kommunikatsioon on siiski iseseisev nähtus. Käesolevas artiklis on püütud
näidata, et kaugkaubandusega seotud kohtade asukohavalik on läbi sajandite olnud
seotud pigem ühendusteede ja sotsiaalsete sidemete muutumisega kui üksnes polii-
tiliste muudatustega. Vaatluse alla on võetud kolme ilmselgelt olulise muistise
asukoht ja püütud leida vastust küsimusele, millist laadi kommunikatsioon muutis
just nimetatud asukoha teatud perioodil atraktiivseks.
Enamik hilisrauaaegseist ja varakeskaegseist rannaasulaist Skandinaavias kasu-
tas rannikut pigem produktiivsel kui kommunikatiivsel eesmärgil. Torkab siiski
silma, et väike osa sellistest asulakohtadest oli seotud kas kohaliku või ka kauge-
male ulatuva mereliiklusega. Sellised kohad väärivad erilist tähelepanu ja seda
mitte ainult seepärast, et nad on “erilised” ja sageli rikkalikuma leiuainesega kui
muud kohad, vaid eelkõige seepärast, et need olid sõna otseses mõttes omaaegse
sotsiaalse suhtlemise keskpunktideks. Sageli nimetatakse taolisi kohti keskusteks,
nii nagu on seda sõna tõlgendanud geograaf Walter Christaller. Arvatakse, et kes-
kuste olulisus lähtub seosest kohaliku tagamaaga ja nende majanduslik võimsus
on vastavuses poliitilise hierarhiaga.
Paraku eirab selline arvamus mitmeid vastandlikke aspekte, mis tõenäoliselt
mõjutasid uusajaeelset kommunikatsiooni. Ummikteele viiv on ka taoliste muis-
tiste kategoriseerimine otsese ja üldistava hierarhia alusel. Kommunikatsioon sõl-
108 Søren M. Sindbæk

tub eelkõige ühiskondlike sidemete iseloomust. Kui sellised sidemed sajandite

jooksul muutusid, muutis see ka suhtlemiskohtadele esitatavaid nõudeid. Neid
väiteid on püütud tõestada järgnevate näidetega kolmest olulise tähtsusega kohast,
mis on dateeritud rooma rauaajast kuni ristiretkede ajani.
Hilisesse rooma rauaaega ja rahvasterännuperioodi kuuluvat Gudme-Lundeborgi
kompleksi Fyni saare kaguosas on tavaliselt interpreteeritud kui kombinatsiooni
regionaalsest keskusest, väikekuninga residentsist ja kultuskohast. Selle muistise
asukohta võib kirjeldada kui perifeerset, mis muutis koha eeldused funktsioneerida
regionaalse keskusena väga väikesteks. Erinevalt muudest Taani rannaasulatest-
sadamakohtadest ei paikne Lundeborg mitte looduslikult kaitstud fjordis või lahes,
vaid täielikult avatud rannal. Sellisest asukohast võib teha huvitavaid järeldusi.
Lundeborg oli ligipääsetav rahvusvahelise tähtsusega mereteelt, asudes kohas,
millele oli ka kaugelt tulnud külastajatel võimalik läheneda ilma asustatud piir-
kondade liigsesse lähedusse sattumata ja sealseid potentsiaalseid vaenlasi ärrita-
mata. Samuti oli võimalik kiirelt põgeneda juhul, kui ikkagi tekkis konflikt.
Arvatavalt samadele eeldustele tugines ka mitmete teiste tolleaegsete sadama-
kohtade asukohavalik. Siinkohal võiks eelkõige mainida Sorte Muldi (Must Maa)
Bornholmi saarel või Uppåkrat Lääne-Skånes; viimane on iseenesest küll enam
võrreldav Gudmega, kuid selle randumiskoht paiknes kahtlemata Lundi lahes.
Nende kohtade asukohavaliku põhiprintsiip oli avatud ligipääs. Sinna jooksid
kokku mereteed laialdastelt aladelt ja välismaalased võisid arvestada sellistest
kohtadest vaba läbipääsuga, isegi kui viimane polnud kinnitatud kohaliku võimu
poolt, vaid garanteeritud üksnes sadamakoha enesega. Arheoloogiline aines kin-
nitab, et just see määras nende kohtade olulisuse omaaegsel maastikul: need olid
kogunemiskohad, kindlaksmääratud koosolekukohad, kuhu kogunesid teatud aega-
del sotsiaalse eliidi esindajad koos oma kaaskondlastega lähedalt ja kaugelt. Neis
kohtades arutleti poliitika üle ja sõlmiti poliitilisi liite, vahetati kaupu, viidi läbi
riitusi ning teisi ühiskondlikult olulisi aktsioone.
Åhus Skåne idaosas on üks vähestest kohtadest, kust on leitud piisavalt
arheoloogilist tõendusmaterjali 8. ja 9. sajandi kaubandussidemete kohta Lääne-
Euroopaga. Selle esilekerkimine on seostatav ülemerekaubanduse tähtsuse kasvuga
eelviikingiajal, mida soodustas purje kasutuselevõtt põhjapoolse Euroopa mere-
sõidukitel. Åhusi asukoht erines täielikult Lundeborgi omast: see jäi veidi sisemaa
poole ega olnud merelt vahetult ligipääsetav. Mis puutus laeva, meeskonna ja
laadungi turvalisusse, siis selles osas olid siinsed külastajad täielikult sõltuvad
vastuvõtjast. Samas oli Åhus loodusliku randumiskohana tunduvalt soodsam kui
Lundeborg. Kõige silmatorkavam aspekt Åhusi asukohavalikul oli aga seotud
rahvusvaheliste veeteedega. Koht asub enam-vähem kahe looduslikult erineva
rannikuala piiril: sellest ühele poole jäävad Skåne liivased rannad, põhja poole
aga Rootsi kivine rannasaarestik. Neist ühega harjunud meremehele tähendas Åhusi
läbimine äkitselt mitmekordistunud ja tundmatuid riske. Åhus oli seega sadama-
koht mereliikluses olulise loodusliku piiriala lähistel.
Åhusi asukohavaliku printsiibiks oli sõlmpunktiks olemine. Selle määravaim
topograafiline tingimus oli barjäär ja valdavaks majanduslikuks tegevuseks oli nii
Open access, nodal points, and central places 109

kogunemine kui ka ümberlaadimine. Kaugtransporti võib käsitleda lihtsalt kui

keskuseks olemise funktsiooni pikendust, kuid sõlmpunktide (nodal points) ole-
muslik erinevus keskustest (central places) võimaldab juhtida tähelepanu olulisele
erinevusele. Enamik keskuse funktsioonidest toimivad läbi kohaliku liikluse, mis
teeb keskused äärmiselt sõltuvaks tagamaa ulatusest. Sõlmpunkti roll on seevastu
seotud kaugliikluse ja rahvusvaheliste teedega ning seda stimuleerivad eriti topo-
graafilised takistused, mis juhivad liikluse kitsastesse koridoridesse.
Roskilde Sjællandi saarel kerkis esile 11. sajandil ja kujunes üheks tähtsaimaks
linnaks keskaegses Taanis. Roskilde asukoht pika ja kitsa fjordi kaugeimas otsas
on täielikult erinev Lundeborgi avatud ligipääsust või Åhusi piiripealsest asukohast
kaugliikluse koridoris. Pikk ja kitsas Roskilde fjord tegi ligipääsu Roskildele
äärmiselt aeglaseks, muutes viimase ühtlasi kaubasadamana väga ebaatraktiivseks.
Seevastu regionaalsest perspektiivist vaadates oli Roskilde asukoht kahtlemata
Sjællandi keskuseks sobivaim. Maapoolsest küljest kohtusid seal saare looduslikult
soodsaimad liikluskoridorid ja fjord Roskilde ees moodustas tõenäoliselt parima
merendusliku eesmaa, võrreldes teiste keskaegsete Taani linnadega.
Roskilde asukoht illustreerib suurepäraselt keskuse kohavaliku printsiipe. See
oli koht, kuhu oli kerge tsentraliseerida erinevad keskusega seotud funktsioonid ja
hallata neid keskvõimu poolt. Nagu ajaloost teada, langeski linna esiletõus kokku
perioodiga, mil keskvõim Taanis märgatavalt tugevnes. Roskilde kerkis esile koos
mitmete teiste samasuguste keskustega, mis kõik paiknesid enam-vähem sarnastes
kohtades, näiteks Odense, Århus, Viborg, Ålborg ja Lund. Need kohad, vanimad
tõelised linnad Taanis, tekkisid kõik regionaalse keskuse mõttes soodsaimatesse
kohtadesse, kus ühtlasi olid täidetud ka tingimused omavaheliseks meritsi suhtle-
miseks.