1

Archaeobotanical analysis of plant

macrofossil material from VKH 7087,

Kristinebjerg Øst etape 4, Vejle Amt,

East Jutland, Denmark

Radoslaw Grabowski

Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

LABORATORY

REPORT nr. 2012-027

2

VKH 7087, Kristinebjerg Øst

Archaeobotanical analysis of plant macrofossil material from VKH

7087, Kristinebjerg Øst etape 4, Vejle Amt, East Jutland, Denmark

Contents Background........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Aims ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Method and material ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

Interpretative considerations ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Results and interpretation .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 17

References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Published sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

Unpublished sources ................................................................................................................................................ 20

Web-based resources ............................................................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX I: cursory analysis of material from Kristinebjerg Øst, Etape 4. ........................................... 21

APPENDIX II: results of the archaeobotanical analysis of VKH 7087, Kristinebjerg Øst ................... 23

3

Background

During the first half of 2009 samples from the fourth phase of excavations at Kristinebjerg Øst

were sent by Vejle Museum to the conservation and natural sciences department at Moesgård

Museum for cursory plant macrofossil analysis (see appendix I). 21 of these samples derived

from a longhouse designated as House DG. The house was preliminarily dated to the beginning

of the Viking Age. All samples were taken from either postholes or wall trenches (figure 2).

The cursory analysis was performed in August of 2009 and showed high concentrations of well-

preserved carbonized botanical material in all samples. An unusual trait of the investigated

house was that it contained four different crops (hulled barley, rye, wheat and oat) and that

these appeared to have been present in the house in relatively comparable quantities. The latter

observation was interpreted as particularly uncommon since barley and rye tend to dominate

archaeobotanical assemblages from the latter part of the Iron Age across Scandinavia while oat

and wheat often occur in limited quantities, or sporadically as isolated carbonised storage finds

(Grabowski 2011; Robinson et al 2009).

In 2012, having remembered this unusual material, I requested permission from Vejle Museum

to analyze the samples within the framework of my ongoing PhD-project Change and dynamics in

cereal cultivation during the Iron Age in southern Scandinavia, conducted at the Environmental

Archaeology Laboratory at Umeå University in Sweden. The samples were transported to Umeå

in August 2012 and analysed during September of the same year.

Aims

There are several partially overlapping aims connected to the analysis of samples from Kris-

tinebjerg Øst. These include attempts to:

Provide qualitative data about House DG; particularly its possible function and internal

division.

Assess the formation and taphonomy of the material recovered from House DG.

Provide insights into the cereal cultivation at Kristebjerg Øst during the Viking Age.

Gain additional insights about developments in cereal cultivation in eastern Jutland and

southern Scandinavia; particularly with regards to wheat and oat which are scarcely rep-

resented in the archaeobotanical record.

4

Figure 1. Plan of Kristinebjerg Øst, Etape 4. Show-ing the location of samples in House DG.

Figure 2. Close-up plan of House DG, showing the sample locations and their respective X-numbers.

5

Method and material

All 21 samples from House DG which were subject of the 2009 cursory analysis have also been

analysed in detail at the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory in Umeå.

The samples varied in size from 0,5 to 14 litres. Due to this sizeable variation in sample size the

data presented in figures 5-8 has been adjusted to account for sample size.

The material was floated by staff at Vejle museum prior to transport of the samples for analysis

at Moesgård Museum.

Most of the samples contained numerous botanical remains. A majority of the samples were

therefore subdivided into smaller units. The size of each subsample was based on a qualitative

estimate of how many remains were present in the separate floats. This subsample size ranged

from 1/2 to 1/10 of the original sample. The subsampling was performed by pouring the mate-

rial onto a tray and subdividing the resulting “pyramid” into equal sections. Similarly to original

sample size the results shown in figures 5-8 have also been adjusted to account for sub-sample

size.

For raw counts of identified plant remains refer to Appendix II which shows the data from the

analysis prior to adjustment against sample and sub-sample size.

The analysis itself was performed using a stereo microscope with 8-50 times magnification.

Identification of the remains was made based on a selection of reference literature (eg. Bei-

jerinck 1976; Lange 1979), internet based reference resources (eg. Zadenatlas van Nederland),

and the modern reference collection at the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory in Umeå.

Interpretative considerations

In order to understand the significance of an archaeobotanical find such as the one in House DG

one must take into consideration the fact that preserved plant remains are not solely static “nat-

ural” (ecofact) indicators for collected and grown plant resources, but also physical objects uti-

lised by humans within the framework of socially constructed operational systems. These sys-

tems are comparable in complexity to many other (non-botanical) artefact categories (see eg.

Denell 1976; Hillman 1973; Jones 1987 for archaeobotany, and Schiffer 2011 for archaeology in

general). In order to understand the significance of botanical materials fully, one must take into

account operational modifications which are imposed onto it on its way from the fields to a final

place of deposition in an archaeological context.

Such operational sequences may be more or less complex, but do commonly consist of numer-

ous steps of harvest/gathering, transport, processing (cleaning, separating), storage and con-

sumption. At each step of the process there is a chance that the assemblage which was collected

at its original place of growth becomes modified. Normally the modification consists of the re-

moval of some part of the original assemblage. Cereal straw and husks are, for example, removed

during threshing, while weed contamination is sorted away through sieving. Figure 3 shows a

hypothetical operational sequence of cereal processing. Although these sequences vary greatly

6

between regions, time periods and types of plants being processed, the figure illustrates a fun-

damental concept needed for archaeobotanical interpretation.

Although identification of where along an operational sequence an assemblage derives from is

necessary for in-depth interpretation of the botanical material one should not underestimate the

complexity involved. The archaeobotanical material is, like all other prehistoric material, frag-

mented. The fragmentation may be caused by numerous factors, such as uneven formation con-

ditions (natural and/or anthropogenic), varying preservation modes (waterlogged, carbonized,

etc.), the physical qualities of the plants being preserved (are they fragile or resistant? do they

produce numerous or few seeds? etc.), and varying levels of post-depositional disturbances

(natural and/or anthropogenic). Well-founded identification of a specific step in the operational

sequence may often require comparative material from the various stages of the process, but

since very few sites provide empirical data for such comparisons archaeobotanists are often

forced to utilise inter-site comparisons. This solution is highly problematic as inter-site variation

may be an effect of both the operational stage from which an assemblage derives but also result-

ing from local ecological conditions or social circumstances.

Another problem is that assemblages from various steps along the operational sequence may

result in very similar archaeobotanical compositions; differentiation between them often being

beyond the scope of commonly applied methodology. This phenomenon is known as equifinali-

ty. The practical limitations of the attempted reconstruction of operational sequences must

therefore be clearly stated and defined during archaeobotanical investigations and used to mod-

erate the final interpretation. It may, for example, be prudent to state that an operational se-

quence may have consisted of a dozen or more processing steps, but that we as archaeobotanists

can only identify a few broad groups within that sequence.

Additionally, one must also consider the type of archaeological feature under study. Since the

archaeobotanical material is variable the archaeobotanical analytical strategy should be adap-

tive enough to account for the specifics of each investigated feature type.

In the case of House DG the feature type is a longhouse constructed on and around a frame of

supporting posts driven into the ground. This is a feature type which has been subject of com-

paratively much archaeobotanical research in Scandinavia, particularly in Sweden and Denmark

(Grabowski in prep a; Moltsen 2011; Viklund 1998a).

The removal of posts once belonging to prehistoric constructions - either by fire, planned decon-

struction or slow decomposition after abandonment – would generally result in the creation of

small depressions, cutting into the underlying sediment. Such depressions would after some

time fill up with eroding soil from the immediate surroundings of the post. If the soil contained

botanical material this would also be deposited in the posthole depressions. If the depression

was deep enough the botanical material caught within it would remain reasonably protected

from disturbing, natural and anthropogenic, activities (Engelmark 1985; Engelmark & Viklund

2008).

Since various activities tend to result in the formation and preservation of different types of bo-

tanical assemblages (or at least assemblages with varying internal composition) plant macrofos-

sil analysis may be useful for defining which activities were once performed around the posts of

prehistoric constructions.

7

Figure 3. Hypothetical operational sequence of cereal production. From Renfrew & Bahn (2008), based on Hillman (1981).

Figure 4. Model of theoretical pathways of botanical material on a south Scandinavian Iron Age settlement site. Note that this model was designed for a specific site (Gedved Vest, HOM 2247) excavated by Horsens Museum (Grabowski in prep b).

Baking Consumption

8

Figure 5. Plan of House DG showing the concentrations (adjusted for sam-ple/subsample size) of carbonized plant material and the relations between cereals and non-cultivated taxa.

Figure 6. Plan of House DG showing the concentrations (adjusted for sam-ple/subsample size) of cereals and the relations between the various crop taxa.

9

Figure 7. Plan of House DG showing the concentration of remains from weed-ruderal taxa (adjusted for sample/subsample size).

Figure 8. Plan of House DG showing the location of occurrences of a se-lection of non-cultivated taxa referred to in the discussion chapter be-low.

10

Results and interpretation

The concentrations of charcoal and other types of identifiable botanical material are compara-

tively high in all samples from House DG. Taking into account the fact that fire is required for

carbonisation of botanical material this is a strong indication that the entire house was subject

to a fire. In unburnt houses the overall amount of plant remains tends to be lower than in House

DG while the spatial delineation of concentrations of carbonised plants tends to be more pro-

nounced. In unburnt contexts botanical concentrations tend to occur around hearths or places

where carbonised material was deposited, while few remains are recovered from spaces where

accidental carbonisation was unlikely to take place (Gustafsson 2000; Moltsen 2011; Viklund et

al 1998a).

The fact that the house is most probably burnt is significant for all further interpretation of the

material. In unburnt houses the material was presumably accumulated within the sampled sed-

iment over an unknown period of time. Therefore those cases represent an “average” drop-off

from activities performed over many months, years or even decades. In burnt houses on the oth-

er hand one must assume that the majority of the recovered material was carbonised during the

burning event. Burnt houses therefore act as reflections of the conditions in a house at the time

of the fire. Theoretically there is still an underlying archaeobotanical signal representing activi-

ties which preceded the fire embedded in the assemblage, but experience from numerous previ-

ous analyses shows that the concentrations of plant remains in unburnt houses are generally so

much lower that their effect on the composition of a burnt assemblage should be minimal

(Grabowski in prep; Viklund 1998a).

Figure 5 shows that the assemblage in every analysed sample from house DG is dominated by

cereals. In none of the investigated samples does the percentage of cereals make up less than c.

90% of the total, and in most samples the non-cereal component is just a few percent. The very

low amount of weeds and other non-cultivated inclusions in the samples indicates that the en-

tire house contains cereal produce in the very last stages of the operational sequence (compare

point 11 in figure 3), probably the storage stage immediately before consumption and/or sow-

ing.

In multifunctional longhouses from south Scandinavian Iron Age the variation in composition of

botanical assemblages can be used to define functional spaces. Cereal storage areas may, for

example, be represented by clean grain, threshing areas by cereal refuse (awns, straw and ra-

chi), and stables/byres by fodder plants (Grabowski in prep; Gustafsson 2000; Moltsen 2011;

Rowley-Conwy 2000; Viklund 1998b). The plant remains found in House DG do, however, indi-

cate a uniform functionality for the entire house. The large quantities of clean grain indicate that

the house was probably used as a cereal storage space and that the storage took place in all sec-

tions of the house. Note that this does not preclude the possibility that other activities were per-

formed in the house. The cereals may, for example, have been stored on a loft, or in baskets or

other containers suspended from the roof (cf discussion in Rowley-Conwy 2000). Such an ar-

rangement would have allowed for other activities to take place below the cereal storage. These

activities, if performed in the house, would however have been of a type which did not include

large quantities of plant resources.

11

Although the relations between cereals and other plant remains are comparatively homogenous

throughout the house the distribution of the identified cereal taxa is not (figure 6). Confirming

the results of the cursory analysis, the full analysis of House DG shows that all four of the main

cereal crops cultivated during the Iron Age in south Scandinavia – hulled barley, rye, oat and

wheat - were present in the house.

The occurrences of each of these crops are clearly delineated in space, strongly indicating that

each crop was stored separately from the others. The strict clustering of each crop may perhaps

also indicate very limited disturbance in the space of House DG after the fire. If the area had been

disturbed by clearing activities directly after the fire one would expect a higher level of mixing in

the material.

Although clearly delineated in space, each of the cereal concentrations contains minor inclusions

of other cereal taxa. Such inclusions, when found in clean and securely delineated cereal assem-

blages, have historically been used as evidence for crop succession in rotation systems. If a small

amount of barley is recovered in a clean find of rye, for example, this could be seen as evidence

that barley was the last crop cultivated on a field prior to the rye (eg Engelmark & Viklund 1990;

Jäger 1966; Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003). The question one has to ask in relation to House DG is

whether the cereal finds are clean enough to be used for reconstructions of crop rotation se-

quences. Figure 6 does perhaps illustrate some evidence for answering this question. A review of

the inclusions within each concentration of cereals shows that in all cases, the inclusion consists

of the spatially closest concentration of the other crop. The barley rich samples closest to the rye

concentration contain rye inclusions, the wheat rich samples closest to barley contain barley

inclusions, etc. This result should therefore be interpreted as more likely representing mixing of

nearby assemblages during or after the fire, rather than inclusions reflecting conditions on the

cultivated fields. If the cereal was stored above ground level, as discussed above, such mixing

could have taken place when the house collapsed during the fire.

The occurrence of hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var vulgare) in House DG is expected since

this crop has in all previous research about Scandinavian Iron Age agriculture been established

as one of the primary cultivars. The dominant role of hulled barley in cereal cultivation started

during the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, lasting well into modern

days (Engelmark & Viklund 2008; Grabowski 2011; Robinson et al 2009).

The introduction of rye (Secale cereale) in Scandinavia has been somewhat more problematic to

interpret due to the fact that rye, even when not actively cultivated by humans, may make its

way into the fields as a weed. In fact, one of the established hypotheses about the introduction of

rye proposes that it first came to Europe from Asia as a weed, growing as an unplanned inclusion

in purposely cultivated crops such as wheat and barley (Behre 1992).

Establishing details about the introduction of rye in northern Europe is important since its es-

tablishment carries important implications beyond the scope of cereal economy. Most im-

portantly rye presence is possibly the precondition for two agricultural developments, namely

crop-rotation and winter sowing (Engelmark 1992; Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003).

From historical and archaeological sources we know that medieval agriculture in northern Eu-

rope was broadly organised around cereal cultivation utilising crop rotation, within an infield-

outfield system. Since this agricultural tradition appears to be firmly in place already during the

beginning of the medieval period it must have been introduced sometime during the Iron Age.

12

An important, and still discussed, question is however when and how this development came

about (Behre 1992; Henriksen 2003; Nørbach & Mikkelsen 2003).

Crop rotation regimes have been developed in many agricultural economies around the world.

There is much variation, and even in Europe archaeological and historical evidence suggests

significant differences and local adaptations. In Scandinavia however, historical evidence mainly

ties crop rotation to two crop species; spring sown hulled barley and autumn sown rye. The

basic concept is that instead of cultivating only manure-demanding barley, a piece of land can be

divided into a number of sections with alternating barley and rye crops (and usually also periods

of fallow). Since rye is not as nutrient demanding as barley this system requires less manure

than cultivation of barley alone. In order to generate large harvest the rye within such system is

sown in the autumn, allowing it more time to mature. The alternating spring and autumn sowing

also has the positive effect of disturbing the life-cycles of spring and autumn annual weeds,

which would otherwise become an increasing problem. Leaving the fields in fallow has a similar

effect, since the predominantly annual arable weeds are forced to compete with other biennial

and perennial plants. These in turn are removed by soil tilling before the fallow is taken into new

cultivation. Crop-rotation allows larger areas to be taken into cultivation because less area is

needed for fodder production for the manure generating animals, a development which in turn

opens the possibility for sustaining higher population densities in a given area (Engelmark &

Viklund 2008; Engelmark 1992; Hillman 1981; Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003).

The material from House DG shows that the presence of rye is on par with the percentage of

barley. Compositions such as these have traditionally been interpreted as an indication for crop

rotation (eg Engelmark 1992; Regnell 2002). The basic assumption behind these interpretations

is that if a field is divided into barley and rye sections of similar size, then the yearly yield of

grain from each section will be more or less equal in volume (Engelmark 1992; Grabowski 2011;

Robinson et al 2009). In this respect the material from the house seems to fit into the basic theo-

retical model for crop rotation.

This picture in House DG is however made more complex due to the large presence of wheat.

Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) has been observed in Scandinavian archaeobotanical assem-

blages from all periods of the Iron Age in relatively constant but small quantities (Grabowski

2011; Robinson et al 2009). An on-going, small scale cultivation of bread wheat is also known

from early medieval documents in southern Scandinavia (Myrdal 1999). This appears to indicate

that wheat was cultivated as a complement to the main crops. Finds of preserved bread (Berg-

ström 2007), Icelandic sagas (von Hofsten 1957) and medieval sources (Myrdal 1999) indicate

that wheat may have been perceived as a luxury or special-event product, explaining why the

finds are numerous and constant but numerically small. Bread wheat is, just as barley, compara-

tively nutrient demanding, and was in parts of Europe incorporated into various types of rota-

tion regimes as both an autumn and spring sown crop (Hillman 1981). Thus, if all the crops pre-

sent in House DG were grown locally at Kristinebjerg Øst the number of manure demanding

crops would be twice that of rye, putting into question the model of crop rotation. It is difficult to

discuss this issue in greater detail due to the limitations of the material. The following alterna-

tives may however be formulated:

Barley and wheat could have been grown at Kristinebjerg Øst on permanently manured

fields in the manner which is believed to have been common prior to the establishment

13

of crop-rotation regimes. The rye in such a scenario could possibly have been grown in-

dependently on poorer quality soils unsuitable for barley or wheat.

The bread wheat, perhaps seen as a product for special consumption, may have been

produced elsewhere and transported to Kristinebjerg Øst. Rye and barley could thus

have been grown in a rotation system, explaining their comparable quantity.

Rye and barley may have been grown in a rotation system while wheat was utilised as

both an autumn and spring sown crop and slotted into spare space within the rotation

system in a flexible manner. This would have allowed for an adaptability of wheat pro-

duction to suit the needs and desires of the cultivators.

House DG may have had a special function. Since none of the other samples investigated

from Kristinebjerg Øst have shown significant concentrations of carbonized plant re-

mains (Moesgård Museum, sagsindeks: VKH 7087) there is a lack of material for compar-

ison with house DG. The assemblage in the house may be an anomaly which is not repre-

sentative for the rest of the settlement.

Whichever scenario stands is impossible to determine on basis of the herein presented material

but the large amount of wheat in House DG may imply a level of status for its inhabitants. This

indication could perhaps be explored further through correlation to other archaeological data

from the site.

The wheat assemblage in house DG is also deviating from earlier archaeobotanical observations

in another respect, relating to the issue of autumn sown crops.

Crops can, in parts of the world with moderate winter temperatures, be sown during late au-

tumn before the frost sets in. The plants grow to 1 or 2 dm in height and thereafter survive the

winter, giving them a head start during spring. This also stimulates the plant to grow more

straws, increasing the yield of grain. A drawback is that unfavourable winter conditions may

harm the crops resulting instead in a poor or failed harvest. It is generally believed that the rota-

tion of different crops allowed farmers to balance the advantages and risks inherent to the vari-

ous crops (Hillman 1981; Mikkelsen & Nørbach 2003).

In the south Scandinavian rotation tradition known from the medieval onwards the rye was au-

tumn sown. Thus, if one can prove the presence of winter sowing the evidence would also give a

strong indication that the “new” rotation type system had replaced the earlier permanent field

agriculture. One generally accepted proxy is the presence of weeds indicative of autumn sowing,

particularly corn-cockle (Agrostemma githago) and cornflower (Centaurea cyanus).

The amount of recovered weeds from house DG was comparatively small and most of the identi-

fied taxa were common summer annual weeds which grow on manured soils, such as Chenopo-

dium album, Persicaria lapathifolia and Galeopsis ladanum. The first two of these species appear

in connection to wheat and barley cultivation throughout the entire Iron Age and are recovered

at almost every investigated Iron Age site. All of these weeds may also occur on ruderal soils in

and around settlements.

Besides the abovementioned weed types there is however also a notable presence of Agrostem-

ma githago which makes up around 10% of the entire weed assemblage. Interestingly, the

posthole containing the most numerous rye find did not contain any corn-cockle seeds, in fact

only one of the smaller rye finds contained an occurrence of this species. The majority of Agro-

14

stemma-seeds were instead situated in the layers containing bread wheat (see figure 8 and 9).

This fact may be explained by a number of possible hypotheses.

The area containing the wheat was not always used in the same way. Even though the

house is burned there may be a signal of botanical material embedded in the assemblage

from accidental every-day carbonisation in the house preceding the fire. The Agrostem-

ma githago seeds may have ended up in the archaeological layers prior to the wheat

storage.

The wheat may have been (at least occasionally) autumn-sown. Winter sown bread

wheat is known from several parts of the world, and although not widely known in Scan-

dinavia, especially during the Iron Age or early Medieval periods, there are no immediate

reasons for why it could not have been grown in this manner. Hillman (1981) states ob-

served traditional winter cultivation of wheat north of 30°N latitude “whenever the soil is

free of winter water-logging and not subject to sub-zero temperatures for prolonged peri-

ods without snow cover. Taking into account that the climate was most likely slightly

milder during the Viking Age than today (eg. Odgaard 2009; Welinder 2005:24) there are

no practical reasons for why wheat could not have been autumn sown.

The corn-cockle is perhaps, in this case, not representing autumn sowing. Although, as

mentioned earlier, it is used as an autumn sowing proxy, a review of modern and older

botanical literature shows clearly that corn-cockle may also appear in spring sown crops

despite being winter annual (eg. Brøndegaard 1979; Jessen & Lind 1922; Korsmo et al

1981). Having discussed earlier that the grain in all of House DG most likely was in the

latest stages of cereal processing the relatively high portion of Agrostemma-seeds would

not necessarily be unexpected since it is a species with comparatively large seeds which

could be expected to avoid sorting to a higher degree than most other weeds (Viklund

1998:65). The seemingly large inclusion of Agrostemma githago in the wheat find of

House DG could thus originally have been a very limited occurrence out on the fields.

Common to all three hypotheses is that they are very difficult to elucidate further based on the

material and methodology applied in this study.

Besides the finds of Agrostemma githago there is however also one more indication which con-

nects to autumn sown rye, that of rye-brome (Bromus secalinus). Rye brome has been observed

in Scandinavian archaeobotanical assemblages from the Neolithic onwards. In some parts of

southern Scandinavia it even appears to have been cultivated (Viklund 2004). In more recent

times however rye brome is seen primarily as a weed in rye (hence the name) and winter-sown

rye specifically (Korsmo et al 1981). In House DG there is a correlation between all finds of

brome and samples with significant rye presence.

The fourth cereal recovered from House DG was oat (Avena sp). The interpretation of oat in ar-

chaeobotanical assemblages is problematic in a way similar to rye, namely that it can grow as a

weed (Grabowski 2011, Robinson et al 2009 and therein cited references). Contrary to rye there

is however a morphological difference between cultivated oat (Avena sativa) and wild oat (Av-

ena fatua/strigosa). The difference is in the shape of the floret base, which is the part of the cere-

al which connects the grain to the awn (Renfrew 1973). Unfortunately this part of the oat is rare-

ly found in carbonized assemblages, possibly because it is removed by cereal processing early on

in the operational sequence and because its durability is lesser than that of the grain. This gen-

erally makes it difficult to ascertain whether small finds of oat were cultivated or not, prompting

15

archaeobotanists to classify oat as cultivated only when found in larger, clean finds with quali-

ties indicating storage.

The oat in House DG was completely devoid of preserved floret bases, making secure determina-

tion of the grains to species level impossible. Because the find is so large, clean and spatially

sorted it does, however, strongly indicate a purposely cultivated find of Avena sativa.

The weed assemblage accompanying the oat is small. This makes it difficult to discuss what kind

of fields the oat was cultivated on. Historically oat is known to have been cultivated on poorer

humid soils independently of other cultivation or as a spring sown cereal in rotation agriculture.

(Grabowski 2011 and therein cited sources).

Figure 9. Graph showing the relation between the respective concentrations of cereals and their accompany-ing weeds (and other non-cultivated taxa). Note in particular the correlation between Bromus sp and Bromus secalinus to rye (Secale cereale), and the correlation between Agrostemma githago and bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). The occurrences are presented as finds/litre of sampled soil.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Secale cereale Avena sp Triticum aestivum Hordeum vulgare var vulgare

16

Figure 10. Pie chart showing the percentages of identified cereals in House DG. Note that unidentified cereal grains and fragments have been removed from this presentation.

Figure 11. Pie-chart showing the percentages of recovered weed taxa in House DG. Note that the less numerous taxa have been joined into the “others” category.

14%

29%

21%

36%

Cereals in House DG

Avena sp

Hordeum vulgare var vulgare

Secale cereale

Triticum aestivum

Agrostemma githago

10%Bromus sp

7%

Chenopodium sp7%

Galium spurium6%

Polygonaceae23%

Stellaria media9%

Vicia sp25%

Others13%

Weeds-ruderals in House DG

17

Conclusions

Summarizing the results of the analysis and interpretation of House DG at Kristinbjerg Øst in

relation to the aims of the study shows that all of them could be at least partially answered.

The analysis shows that House DG was most likely destroyed by a fire which resulted in

the preservation of a large quantity of cereal grains and some accompanying weeds. The

cereals were found in all investigated sections of the house, indicating that the typical

dual division of a long house into a kitchen/living space and a stable/byre was most like-

ly not present in this case. The house seems to have been subject to very little disturb-

ance after the fire since each of the investigated sections of the house shows a distinctly

unique composition of cereals, with little mixing between the various parts of the house.

One of the primary functions of House DG was likely as cereal storage space, although

the result of plant macrofossil analysis does not preclude other activities being per-

formed in the house.

Four cereal species were found in House DG in more or less comparable quantities;

hulled barley, rye, oat and bread wheat. These could all have been grown at Kristinebjerg

Øst or some of them could have been transported to the site from other areas. This is

particularly discussed in relation to the large find of wheat, which may indicate a par-

ticular level of status of the inhabitants at Kristinebjerg Øst. The cereal composition can

however be discussed and interpreted in several ways, a discussion which is impossible

to conclude on basis of the applied methodology. As such the material provides an inter-

esting case on the potential and limitations of plant macrofossil analysis.

The weed assemblage accompanying the cereal finds in House DG is small but informa-

tive. At least some of the fields were manured as shown by the presence of Chenopodium

sp and other nitrofilous weed taxa. There are also two indications for autumn sowing of

crops; Bromus secalinus and Agrostemma githago. The former of these finds was made

together with rye which is an expected result in relation to earlier archaeobotanical

studies and modern sources. The latter find was on the other hand made together with

wheat which is unexpected since Agrostemma githago is in current research perceived

primarily as an autumn-rye indicator.

The overall indication of the analysis is that winter sowing was most likely taking place

on the site. Rye and barley were most likely grown in a rotation system and the rye was

likely autumn sown. The agricultural system reflected in the Kristinebjerg material may

however be more complex than commonly observed in Jutland. This particularly applies

to cultivation of bread wheat, which may also have been autumn sown and included in

the rotation system.

18

References

Published sources

BEHRE, K. E. 1992: The history of rye cultivation in Europe. Vegetation history and archaeobota-

ny 1, 141-156.

BEIJERINCK, W. 1976: Zadenatlas der Nederlandsche Flora. Bakhuys & Meesters, Amsterdam.

BERGSTRÖM, L. 2007: Gräddat. Brödkultur under järnåldern i östra Mälardalen. Institutionen

för Arkeologi, Stockholms Universitet, Stockholm.

BRØNDEGAARD, V. J. 1979: Folk og Flora. Dansk etnobotanik. 2. Rosenkilde og Bagger, Tønder.

DENELL. R. W. 1976: The economic importance of plant resources represented on archeological

sites. Journal of archaeological science 3, 229-247.

ENGELMARK, R. 1985: Carbonized seeds in postholes – a reflection of human activity. ISKOS 5,

205-210.

ENGELMARK, R. 1992: A review of farming economy in south Scania based on botanical evi-

dence. In: Larsson, L. et al (eds.): The archaeology of the culture landscape. Field work and re-

search in a south Swedish rural region. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series 4, Number 19. Al-

mqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, 369-374.

ENGELMARK, K. & VIKLUND, K. 1990: Makrofossilanalys av växter. Kunskap om odlandets ka-

raktär och historia. Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 19, 33-41.

ENGELMARK, K. & VIKLUND, K. 2008: Jordbruket i Sverige. In: Widén, M. & Widén, B. (eds.). Bo-

tanik. Systematik, evolution, mångfald. Studentlitteratur, Denmark, 421-241.

GRABOWSKI, R. 2011: Changes in cereal cultivation during the Iron Age in southern Sweden: a

compilation and interpretation of the archaeobotanical material. Vegetation history and archae-

obotany 20, 479-494.

GUSTAFSSON, S. 2000: Carbonized cereal grains and weed seeds in prehistoric houses- an exper-

imental perspective. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 65-70.

HENRIKSEN, P. S. 2003: Rye cultivation in the Danish Iron Age – some new evidence from iron

smelting furnaces. Vegetation history and archaeobotany 12, 177-185.

HILLMAN, G. C. 1973: Crop husbandry and food production: modern models for the interpreta-

tion of plant remains. Anatolian studies 23, pp 241-244.

HILLMAN, G. 1981: Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. In:

Mercer, R. (ed.): Farming practice in British prehistory. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh,

123-162.

JESSEN, K. & LIND, J. 1922: Det Danske markukrudts historie. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes

selskabs skrifter, Naturvidenskabelig og mathematisk afdelning. København.

19

JÄGER, K. D. 1966: Die pflanzlichen Großreste aus Burgwaligrabung Tornow, Kr. Calau. In:

Herrmann, J. (ed.). Tornow und Vorberg - Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Lausitz. Deutsche

Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 21,

Berlin, 164-189.

JONES, G. 1987: A statistical approach to archaeological identification of crop processing. Journal

of archaeological science 14, 311-323.

KORSMO, E., VIDME, T. & FYKSE, H. 1981: Korsmos ogräsplanscher. LTs Förlag, Stockholm.

LANGE, E. 1979: Verkohlte Pflanzenreste aus den slawischen Siedlungsplatzen Brandenburg und

Zirzow (Kr. Neubrandenburg). In: Festschrift Maria Hopf zum 65. Geburtstag am 14.9.1979. Ar-

chaeo-Physika 8. Bonn. 191-207.

MIKKELSEN, P. H. & NØRBACH, L. C. 2003: Drengsted. Bebyggelse, jernproduktion og agerbrug i

yngre romersk og ældre germansk jernalder. Jysk arkæologisk selskabs skrifter 43. Aarhus Uni-

versitetsforlag, Århus.

MOLTSEN A. S. A. 2011: Analysis of plant macro-remains and other materials recovered from

Iron Age buildings and ovens on Zeeland. In: Boye L (ed.). The Iron Age Zeeland. Status and per-

spectives. Nordiske Fortidsminder, Serier C, vol 8, pp 125-138

MYRDAL, J. 1999: Det svenska jordbrukets historia. Jordbruket under feodalismen, 1000-1700.

Natur ock Kultur, Stockholm.

ODGAARD. B. 2009: Klimaets udvikling gennem de sidste 2 årtusinder. In: Odgaard, B. & Rydén -

Rømer, J.R. (eds.): Danske landbrugslandskaber gennem 2000 år. Fra digevoldinger til

støtteordninger. Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Århus, 19-21.

REGNELL, M. 2002: Skånska järnåldersskördar. Växtmakrofossilanalyser och odlingshistoriska

iakktagelser från tolv boplatser. In: Carlie, A. (ed.): Skånska regioner – Tusen år av kultur och

samhälle i förändring. Arkeologiska Undersökningar, Skrifter 40. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stock-

holm, 25-50.

RENFREW, J. 1973: Palaeoethnobotany. The prehistoric food plants of the Near East and Europe.

Butler & Tanner, London.

RENFREW, C. & BAHN, P. 2008: Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. Thames & Hudson,

London.

ROBINSON, D.E., MIKKELSEN, P.H. & MALMROS, C. 2009: Agerbrug, driftsformer og

planteressourcer i jernalder og vikingetid (500 f.Kr. – 1100 e. Kr.). In: Odgaard, B. & Rydén -

Rømer, J.R. (eds.): Danske landbrugslandskaber gennem 2000 år. Fra digevoldinger til

støtteordninger. Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Århus, 117-142.

ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 2000: Through a taphonomic glass, darkly: the importance of cereal culti-

vation in prehistoric Britain. In: Huntley, J. P. & Stallibrass, S. (eds.). Taphonomy and interpreta-

tion. Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology No. 14. Oxbow, pp 43-53.

SCHIFFER, M. B. 2011: Behavioural Archaeology. Principles and practice. Equinox, London.

20

WELINDER, S. 2004: Del 1. Neoliticum – Bronsålder, 3900-500 f. Kr. In: Welinder, S. et al (eds.).

Det svenska jordbrukets historia. Jordbrukets första femtusen år. 4000 f. Kr. - 1000 e.Kr. Natur och

Kultur, Uppsala, 13-236.

VIKLUND, K. 1998a: Tidiga fähus – de arkeobotaniska beläggen. In: Viklund et al (eds.). Fähus:

Från bronsålder till idag. Skrifter om skogs- och lantbrukshistoria 12, Nordiska Museet, Lund, pp

14-21

VIKLUND, K. 1998b: Cereals, weeds and crop processing in Iron Age Sweden. Methodological and

interpretative aspects of archaeobotanical evidence. Archaeology and Environment 14. Umeå

University, Umeå.

VIKLUND, K. 2004: Hallands tidiga odling. In: Carlie, L. (ed.). Hållplatser i det förgångna: artiklar

med avstamp i de arkeologiska undersökningarna för Västkustbanans dubbelspår förbi Falken-

berg i Halland. Arkeologiska rapporter från Halmstads Länsmuséer, vol 6, Kungsbacka-

Halmstad, 55- 67.

VON HOFSTEN, N. 1957: Eddadikternas djur och växter. Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala.

Unpublished sources

GRABOWSKI, R. in prep a: Functional interpretation of Iron Age longhouses at Gedved Vest, east

Jutland, Denmark. Multiproxy analysis of house functionality as a way of evaluating carbonized

botanical assemblages.

GRABOWSKI, R. in prep b: Archaeobotanical, geochemical and geophysical analyses of material

from an Iron Age settlement, HOM 2247, Gedved Vest, Horsens Kommune, East Jutland, Denmark.

Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Report no 2011-050, Dpt. of Historical, philosophical

and religious studies, Umeå University, Umeå.

Web-based resources

Digitale Zadenatlas van Nederland - http://seeds.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/ - accessed in September 2012.

Moesgård Museum, naturvidenskabelig sagsindeks - http://www.arkaeologi.dk/naturvidenskab/

- accessed in December 2012.

21

APPENDIX I: cursory analysis of material from Kristinebjerg Øst, Etape 4.

(http://www.arkaeologi.dk/naturvidenskab)

Moesgård d. 27/8-2009

Kursorisk genomgång av arkeobotaniskt material fra VKH 7087, Kristinebjerg Øst

etape 4 (FHM 4296/714)

Bakgrund

Proverna är flotterade av Vejle Museum i Moesgård Museums flotteringsapparat och är därefter

visuellt inspekterade av cand. phil. Radoslaw Grabowski.

Totalt 21 prover har flotterats och analyserats kursoriskt. Proverna härstammar från en hus-

konstruktion som är daterad till Vikingatid.

Undersökningen

Proverna är inspekterade med stereolupp med 5-40 gångers förstoring. Vid genomgången av

materialet noteras antalet sädeskornskärnor, frökärnor och mängden träkol. Träkolsmängden

anges som en approximation där X markerar lite träkol och XXXXX indikerar riktigt mycket trä-

kol.

X-nr Lämplig för analys? Korn Ogräs Träkol Anmärkningar

1442 Ja >800 Få XXXXX agnklädd byg

1443 Ja >100 Få XXXX vete, agnklädd byg, havre

1444 Evt ca 40 Få XXX havre, byg, råg

1445 Ja >150 Få XX brödvete

1446 Ja ca 100 Få XX brödvete

1447 Ja >500 Få XXX mest brödvete, lite havre

1448 Evt ca 30 Få XX mest havre, lite agnklädd byg

1449 Evt ca 30 Få XX havre

1450 Ja >500 Få XXX havre, brödvete

1451 Ja >300 Få XXX agnklädd byg

1452 Ja >300 Få XXX mest agnklädd byg, lite havre

1452 Ja >600 Få XXXX brödvete, agnklädd byg

1454 Nej ca 5 0 XXX brödvete, byg?

1455 Ja >50 Få XXX havre

1456 Evt ca 30 Få X mest agnklädd byg, lite havre

1457 Ja >600 Få XXXXX brödvete, agnklädd byg, råg

1458 Ja ca 100 Få XXXX brödvete, havre, agnklädd byg

1459 Ja >200 Få XXXX havre, brödvete, råg?

1460 Ja >700 Få XXXX mest brödvete, lite byg och havre

1461 Ja >600 Få XXXXX mest brödvete, lite havre och agnklädd byg

1462 Evt ca 30 Få XX brödvete

22

I kolumn två, Tabell 1, angiver ”lämplig för analys” en bedömning av den individuella anlägg-

ningens potential sedd i relation till ett statistiskt minimum. Viktigt att notera är att denna be-

dömning görs utifrån det individuella provet, det vill säga att ingen hänsyn har tagits till eventu-

ella speciella förhållanden kring fyndkontexten. Ett prov kan således värderas som ”Nej” men

kan mycket väl vara användbart till att belysa en specifik problemställning. Tillägas bör också att

även om en stor mängd prover individuellt värderas som ICKE ägnade till analys så kan den

samlade informationen från proverna som helhet belysa lokalitetens funktion.

Rekommendation

Det arkeobotaniska materialet i de flesta av de undersökta proverna är mycket rikt på förkol-

nade kornkärnor. Kärnorna tillhör arterna råg, brödvete, havre och agnklädd byg, det vill säga

alla de fyra kornsorter som utgjorde basen i vikingatidens jordbruk.

Materialet från huset fördelar sig relativt ojämnt mellan de olika proverna, både vad gäller kvan-

titet och sammansättning. Vissa prover innehåller mer förkolnade kärnor än andra samtidigt

som vissa prover består av nästan rent korn från en av de fyra arterna medan andra prover är

väldigt blandade.

Variationen i sammansättning och volym mellan de olika proverna kan representera förvaring

av de olika kornsorterna i olika delar av huset. En fullständig analys av materialet, samt dess

spatiala fördelning i konstruktionen, kan således bidra med både kunskap om de olika kornsor-

ternas betydelse för det provtagna hushållet såväl som besvara frågeställningar kring organisat-

ionen av kornförvaring i huset.

Detta material är unikt och kan sannolikt bidra med mycket ny kunskap om kornhantering i det

aktuella området. Därför rekommenderas en fullständig analys av alla undersökta prover.

Många av proverna innehöll också signifikanta mängder träkol som kan vara lämplig för en ve-

danatomisk analys. Angående kostnadsberäkning för en sådan analys hänvisas till Peter Hambro

Mikkelsen vid Moesgård Museums Konserverings och Naturvetenskapliga avdelning.

Radoslaw Grabowski, cand. Phil.

23

APPENDIX II: results of the archaeobotanical analysis of VKH 7087, Kristinebjerg Øst

X-number (sample number) 14

45

14

48

14

49

14

44

14

57

14

56

14

62

14

47

14

54

14

59

14

46

14

61

14

60

14

63

14

42

14

43

14

55

14

51

14

58

14

50

14

52

A-number (feature number) 11

51

5/

11

51

6

11

50

9

11

38

0

11

35

0

11

34

4

11

50

3

11

51

9

11

51

7

11

50

4

11

50

0

11

35

2

11

35

8

11

51

8

11

52

0

11

35

7

11

53

7/

11

35

1

11

50

6

11

34

6

11

35

4

11

36

9

11

50

2

Sample volume 6,2 2 0,5 3,8 7,8 2,2 3 5,6 2,8 6,5 2,7 11 6,2 6 14 6,8 3,3 4 6 6,2 6,6

Subsample 0,5 no no 0,5 0,1 no no 0,1 no 0,1 0,5 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,3 0,1 0,3 0,3

cf Avena sp 2 1

2 1

Avena sp

51 40

3 1

4

17 2 7 5 4 6 2 87 3 6 17

cf Hordeum sp 1

Hordeum vulgare

4

2

1

Hordeum vulgare var vulgare

18

9 13 32 7 4

50

12 3 16 98 8 6 64 24 4 121

Secale cerale

34 200

7

2

19

4 4

Triticum sp

1

Triticum aestivum 59

14 191 2 5 84 71 72 84 2 9 2 2 1 31

Cerealia indet 222 154 32 61 68 8 49 81 2 99 20 56 94 46 91 42 46 57 34 66 37

TOTAL CEREAL 284 225 76 104 284 41 70 282 7 178 107 148 174 150 197 80 141 130 69 118 158

cf Camelina sativa

1

Linum usitatissimum

1

TOTAL OLIFEROUS

1

1

24

cf Agrostemma githago 1

1

1

Agrostemma githago

1

1

2

1

1

Atriplex sp

1

cf Bromus sp

2

Bromus sp

4

Bromus secalinus

1

Carduus crispus

1

cf Chenopodium sp

1

Chenopodium sp

1

3

2

Fabaceae

1 1 2

Fallopia convolvulus 1

1

1

cf Galeopsis

1

Galeopsis ladanum

1

2

Galium sp

1

Galium spurium 1

3

1 1

Lapsana communis

1

Persicaria lapathifo-lia/maculosa

1

1 2

1 1

Persicaria minor

1

1

cf Poaceae

1

Poaceae

1 7

1 6

Polygonaceae

1

1

3

2

Polygonum aviculare

2

1

Sambucus racemosa

2

25

Stellaria media

1

1

2

1

3

cf Vicia sp

1

1

2

Vicia sp

4

1

1

1

Vicia cracca 1 2

1

2 3

2 1

INDET 1 2 1 3 1

2 1 3 1 1

2

4

5 2 3

TOTAL NON-CULTIVATED 5 9 2 8 14 1 1 2 2 8 3 3 5 6 12 21 0 15 17 4 5

TOTAL PLANTS 289 234 78 112 298 42 71 284 9 186 110 152 179 156 209 101 141 145 86 122 164

Charcoal (ml) 15 7 4 9,5 18 1 3,5 5 14 12 4 12 5 9 16 15 6 7 9 7 4

26

MAL Miljöarkeologiska laboratoriet

Umeå Universitet 901 87 UMEÅ

Telephone: 090-786 50 00 Telefax: 090- 786 76 63

www.idesam.umu.se/mal/